Conscious and Unconscious Process in Hypnosis

  • Ernest R. Hilgard


The distinction between what is conscious and what is unconscious in human mentation is by no means clear and obvious. The problem arises because unconscious processes which are of interest are those which closely resemble conscious ones. Completely “unconscious” processes such as homeostatic mechanisms and habits that have become automatized are not relevant in this connection. The frequent assertion that one can “talk directly to the unconscious” in hypnosis is not a precise statement. The “hidden observer” approach provides a method for examining the basis for such claims.


Altered State Unconscious Process Hypnotic Condition Hypnotic Induction Regressive Transference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Banyai, E. I., and Hilgard, E. R., 1976, A comparison of active-alert hypnotic induction with traditional relaxation, J.abnorm.Psychol., 85:218–224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barber, T. X., 1969, Hypnosis: A scientific approach, Van Nostrand, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Barber, T. X., 1979, Suggested (“hypnotic”) behavior: The trance paradigm versus an alternative paradigm, in: “Hypnosis: Developments in research and new perspectives, E. Fromm and R. E. Shor (eds.), Aldine-Atherton, Chicago.Google Scholar
  4. Barber, T. X., and Wilson, S. C., 1979, The Barber suggestibility scale and the creative imagination scale: Experimental and clinical application, Am.J.clin.Hypnosis, 21:84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheek, D. B., and LeCron, L. M., 1968, Clinical hypnotherapy, Grune and Stratton, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Edmonston, W. E., Jr., 1981, Hypnosis and relaxation: Verification of an old equation, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Eysenck, H. J., and Furneaux, W. D., 1945 Primary and secondary suggestibility: An experimental and statistical study, J.exp. Psychol., 35:485–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freud, A., 1946, The ego and the mechanisms of defense, International Universities Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Fromm, E., Oberlander, M. I., and Gruenewald, D., 1970, Perceptual and cognitive processes in different states of consciousness: The waking state and hypnosis, J.Proj.Tech.Pers.Assess., 34:375–387.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gill, M., (ed.) 1967, The collected papers of David Rapaport, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Gill, M., and Brenman, M., 1959, Hypnosis and related states: Psychoanalytic studies in regression, International Universities Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Hartmann, H., 1958, Ego psychology and the problem of adaptation, International Universities Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hilgard, E. R., 1962, Impulsive vs. realistic thinking: An examination of the distinction between primary and secondary processes in thought, Psychol.Bull., 59:447–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hilgard, E. R., 1977, Divided consciousness: Multiple controls in human thought and action, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Hilgard, J. R., 1965, Personality and hypnotizability: Inferences from case studies, in: “E. R. Hilgard, Hypnotic Susceptibility,” Harcourt, Brace and World, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Hilgard, J. R. 1979 Personality and hypnosis: A study of imaginative involvement (2nd ed.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.Google Scholar
  17. Hold, R. R., 1963 Manual for the scoring of primary process manifestations in Rorschach responses (9th ed.). Research Center for Mental Health, New York University (Mimeographed), New York.Google Scholar
  18. Hull, C. L., 1933, Hypnosis and suggestibility: An experimental approach, Appleton-Century, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Kris, E., 1952, Psychoanalytic explorations in art, International Universities Press, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Moore, R. K., 1964, Susceptibility to hypnosis and susceptibility to social influence, J.abnorm.Soc.Psychol., 68:282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Neisser, U., 1967, Cognitive psychology, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Sarbin, T. R., and Coe, W. C., 1972, Hypnosis: A social-psychological analysis of influence communication, Hold, Rhinehart, and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Shor, R. E., 1962, Three dimensions of hypnotic depth, Int.J.clin. exp.Hypnosis, 10:183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stukát, K.-G., 1958, Suggestibility: A factorial and experimental analysis, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  25. Weitzenhoffer, A. M., 1953, Hypnotism: An objective study in suggestibility, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  26. White, R. W., and Shevach, B. J., 1942, Hypnosis and the concept of dissociation, J.abnorm.Psychol., 37:309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ernest R. Hilgard
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations