Redefining hypnosis: A narrative review of theories to move towards an integrative model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypnosis is an ancient mind-body intervention that has regained interest with the surge of research in the last decade documenting its clinical validity. Yet, theoretical controversies and misconceptions prevail among theorists, clinicians, and the general public, impeding the understanding, acceptance, replication, and use of hypnosis. Providing adequate information, which dispels misconceptions and promotes more balanced views, is warranted to facilitate the implementation and adoption of hypnosis in clinical and research settings. This review re-examines the conceptualisation of hypnosis throughout history and the theoretical controversies surrounding it while highlighting their meeting points and clinical implications. Despite dichotomies, a broad agreement appears across theoretical approaches regarding hypnotic analgesia effects, key components, and vocabulary. Further, theories highlight key factors of hypnotic responding. For instance, social theories highlight social and contextual variables, whereas state theories highlight biopsychosocial mechanisms and individual factors. Based on theories, the terms hypnotherapy or clinical hypnosis are recommended to refer to the therapeutic use of hypnosis in psychotherapeutic and medical contexts, respectively. This review concludes with a model that integrates various theories and evidence and presents hypnosis as a complex multifaceted intervention encompassing multiple procedures, phenomena, and influencing factors. This review intends to deepen our understanding of hypnosis, and promote its more rapid adoption and adequate implementation in research and clinical contexts, in addition to steering research towards evidence-based hypnotic practice. The review can have important research and clinical implications by contributing to advancing knowledge regarding hypnotic procedures, phenomena, and influencing factors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".