5. Hypnosis, volition, and mind control

5.2. Voluntary vs. Involuntary

Who or what is in control when a hypnotist gives a suggestion, and theirsubject apparently responds, but reports that they had no awareness ofresponding? Is it the same mechanism in some ways as that in control duringbiofeedback experiments when the subject has no direct awareness of alteringmarkers of their physiological functions? Or is it closer to the mechanismthat permits the well known 'automatisms' or behaviors performed by habitoutside our awareness? Or are these all aspects of the the same mechanism insome way?

These behaviors have all long been called 'involuntary' responses, and this iswhat provides the impression that the hypnotist is directly controlling thesubject. Weitzenhoffer in 1974 called this the "Classical Suggestion Effect,"the "transformation of the essential, manifest, ideational content of acommunication" into behavior that appears involuntary.

What exactly does it mean for a behavior to appear to be involuntary?In their 1991 Theories of Hypnosis, Lynn and Rhue identify threedistinct views of involuntariness in hypnnosis:

1. The experience of diminished or absent control over a behavior
2. The inability to resist a suggestion
3. An automatic response, experienced as effortless and uncaused by thesubject, but with a capacity in reserve to resist if desired.

#1 above, apparently a blocking of awareness of feedback about a behavior, isa common experience in hypnosis. Some theorists contend that this kind ofexperience is actually the defining characteristic of hypnosis.

#2 above has very few supporters today. Most modern hypnosis experts agreethat their subject can and does resist undesireable suggestions. Even theneo-dissociation viewpoint, which holds that cognitive function can split intodiffering factions, never admits to a complete relinquishing of control of the'will,' more a removal from a usual high level executive planning function.

#3 above is the most controversial of the three views. The subjectiveperception of non-volition in hypnosis is widely agreed upon, and the idea ofat least a latent capacity to resist suggestions in some way is also prettymuch agreed upon by experts. But the notion of effortless reponse with noactive involvement by the individual is controversial. Thesocial-psychological view holds that the individual is actively carrying outthe suggestion, the neo-dissociative view holds that the individual's volitionis 'split' and that they are actively carrying out the suggestion with onepart, and accurately reporting a lack of volition with another part. Theolder ideomotor theory held that the response was a direct result of thesuggestion, presumably some automated language-behavior response mechanism('the unconscious') that they believed a hypnotist could tap in to.

The final details of what aspects of the social psychological view, whataspects of the neo-dissociative cognitive view, and what aspects of variousothers are actually the best description for various hypnotic phenomena arelargely up to future research to determine.