Contrast divided consciousness theory and the social influence theory of hypnosis

This is all about the classic state/non-state debate in hypnosis.

Hilgard's dissociated control (divided consciousness) theory (a state theory) posits that hypnosis splits a person's consciousness into multiple streams that aren't aware of each other. It explains findings like a hypnotised person being able to block out a painful experience and feel no pain, but still be able to rate how strong the pain stimulus is.

Social-cognitive theories (social influence theory - a non-state theory) argue that hypnosis is more like a role that people play (although importantly, they might not be doing it consciously/deliberately). These social theories are useful in explaining how how people are exquisitely sensitive to the suggestions, and the contexts of different situations - hypnosis isn't the same thing every time for every person. Crudely put, these theories pay more attention to people's beliefs & expectations than the 'state' theories.

Both state and non-state theories are useful when explaining aspects of the hypnotic experience. On its own neither seems adequate to explain everything about hypnosis.

Explanation:

The key difference between the two explanations of hypnosis is this: Social influence theory says that hypnosis is a result of external social variables; divided consciousness theory says that hypnosis is the result of an exaggerated division of internal consciousness.