No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 March 2005
Although we are sympathetic to his central thesis about the illusion of will, having previously advanced a similar proposal, Wegner's account of hypnosis is flawed. Hypnotic behavior derives from specific suggestions that are given, rather than from the induction, of trance, and it can be observed in 90% of the population. Thus, it is very pertinent to the illusion of will. However, Wegner exaggerates the loss of subjective will in hypnosis.
1. The mistaken idea that social cognitive theories of hypnosis are based on faking may be related to Sarbin's (1950) use of social psychological role theory to explain hypnotic behavior. It is important to note, however, that Sarbin referred to “role-taking” rather than “role-playing” to describe the determinants of hypnotic behavior and experience. People engage in multiple social roles (e.g., researcher, writer, teacher, parent, and spouse), and their behavior is altered as a function of which role they are in. These role-induced alterations in behavior occur automatically (i.e., without volitional planning) and are accompanied by corresponding alterations in experience. Thus, the effect of taking on a social role is not an indication that the person is faking. Wegner has taken on the role of a writer and we are in the role of reviewers, but we are not faking and we presume that Wegner is not faking either.