Reply to conn and conn's “discussion of barber's 'hypnosis as a causal variable…'”

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The paper makes 3 points: (1) Investigators have not as yet succeeded either in denoting the hypnotic state without circularity or in demonstrating that it plays a role in eliciting the phenomena that are to be explained. (2) Recent experiments have shown that S's testimony that he is “in” or “out” of hypnosis is dependent upon many denotable antecedent variables including, for example, what S believes hypnosis is supposed to involve and whether E implies to S that he judges him to be “in” or “out.” It remains to be demonstrated, it cannot be assumed without evidence, that S's testimony is also functionally related to the presence or absence of the hypnotic state. (3) A series of statements proffered as factual by Conn and Conn, e.g., that the important variables include “need-gratifications” and “exclusion of extraneous stimuli,” are actually hypotheses that should be tested empirically.

This publication has 5 references indexed in Scilit: