{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027303754266211604, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01657727937591419, 'mean_word_length': 5.862876254180602, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Integrative, Multi-Factor Conceptualization of Hypnosis

The APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis (Green, Barabasz, Barrett, & Montgomery, 2005) represents a compromise that seeks to please professionals with very divergent theoretical views concerning what occurs in hypnosis. It is necessarily descriptive and its authors sought to remain theoretically neutral. I will address the theoretical diversity behind such a compromised definition. One of the problems with existing theories of hypnosis is that they have commonly been unitary conceptualizations of a phenomenon that seems to be multidimensional in nature—a concept considered in the past by several authorities (Banyai, 1991; Barber, 1981; Hilgard, 1977; Nadon, Laurence, & Perry, 1991; Weitzenhoffer, 1989). Research evidence and factor analytic studies suggest there are several dimensions or factors involved in hypnotic response. Therefore, rather than talking of high and low hypnotizability in general, we should consider whether we are talking about high or low ability to experience amnesia and cognitive-perceptual distortions, to respond to posthypnotic suggestions, to experience ideomotor phenomena, to recall past events, and to experience anesthesia. Various unidimensional theorists have too often emphasized such factors as biological determinants, expectations, role enactment, adaptive regression and transference, suggestibility, dissociation, absorption in imagination, and compliance as being the sole or primary determinant of hypnotic responsiveness. This seems reminiscent of the blind men and the elephant metaphor with each theorist describing a limited terrain and perspective. In reality, all of these factors may be involved to varying degrees in the response of different subjects, as well as in production of different hypnotic phenomena. It is possible that moderate hypnotic capacities may not lie on a continuum with high hypnotic talent, but may involve different mechanisms of action or combinations of factors (Hilgard, 1986; Weitzenhoffer, 1989).