Department of Psychology, University of Muenster, Germany; Department of Psychology, Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany; Neuroscience Research Center, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
Psychology Department, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, USA.
Conscious Cogn. 2024 Aug;123:103730. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2024.103730. Epub 2024 Jul 20.
In recent decades, hypnosis has increasingly moved into the mainstream of scientific inquiry. Hypnotic suggestions are frequently implemented in behavioral, neurocognitive, and clinical investigations and interventions. Despite abundant reports about the effectiveness of suggestions in altering behavior, perception, cognition, and agency, no consensus exists regarding the mechanisms driving these changes. This article reviews competing theoretical accounts that address the genesis of subjective, behavioral, and neurophysiological responses to hypnotic suggestions. We systematically analyze the broad landscape of hypnosis theories that best represent our estimation of the current status and future avenues of scientific thinking. We start with procedural descriptions of hypnosis, suggestions, and hypnotizability, followed by a comparative analysis of systematically selected theories. Considering that prominent theoretical perspectives emphasize different aspects of hypnosis, our review reveals that each perspective possesses salient strengths, limitations, and heuristic values. We highlight the necessity of revisiting extant theories and formulating novel evidence-based accounts of hypnosis.
在最近几十年,催眠已经越来越多地成为科学探究的主流。催眠暗示经常被应用于行为、神经认知和临床研究和干预中。尽管有大量关于暗示在改变行为、知觉、认知和能动性方面有效性的报告,但对于驱动这些变化的机制仍没有共识。本文综述了竞争性的理论解释,这些解释涉及对催眠暗示的主观、行为和神经生理反应的起源。我们系统地分析了最能代表我们对当前科学思维现状和未来方向的广泛的催眠理论景观。我们从催眠、暗示和催眠易感性的程序描述开始,然后对系统选择的理论进行比较分析。鉴于突出的理论观点强调催眠的不同方面,我们的综述表明,每个观点都有明显的优势、局限性和启发价值。我们强调有必要重新审视现有的理论,并制定新的基于证据的催眠理论。