has contributed a useful theory of hypnosis (Barrios, 2001), as well as a more recent commentary ) that compares and contrasts the 'sociocognitive, dissociation/neo-dissociation, and response expectancy perspectives' with his theory of hypnosis based on principles of conditioning and inhibition. All too rarely do theorists provide an analysis of their approach vis-à-vis competing accounts, so we applaud Barrios's efforts in this regard. Our commentary will focus on his recent discussion of the sociocognitive theory of hypnosis, rather than on his observations regarding biofeedback, placebos, faith healing and other phenomena presented in a second commentary on his theory (Barrios, 2007b).Sociocognitive theories reject the traditional view that hypnotic experiences require the presence of an altered state of consciousness. Rather, the same social and cognitive variables that determine mundane complex social behaviours are said to determine hypnotic responses and experiences. Still, sociocognitive theories of hypnosis are not monolithic, as Barrios's commentary might be taken to imply: they are differently nuanced and variously emphasize participants': (a) enactment of the social role of a hypnotized person (William Coe, Theodore Sarbin); (b) attitudes and beliefs about hypnosis, fantasy involvements and motivated engagement with imaginative suggestions (T.X. Barber); (c) cognitive strategies, goal-directed activities and interpretation of suggestions (John Chaves, Nicholas Spanos, Graham Wagstaff); and (d) expectancies, response sets and automatic responses in everyday actions (Irving Kirsch, Steven Jay Lynn).Barrios distinguishes sociocognitive theory from the response set theory and the response expectancy theory of hypnosis. However, the latter perspectives sit fi rmly in the camp of sociocognitive theory (Lynn, Kirsch and Hallquist, 2008). Moreover, response set theory -which emphasizes the automaticity of responses -and response expectancy theory, are related yet distinct perspectives. Kirsch and Lynn, 1997, 1999;Lynn, 1997) developed response set theory collaboratively as an extension of Kirsch's (1991) response expectancy theory and Lynn's (Lynn and Rhue, 1991) integrative model. Given that Barrios explicitly acknowledges the important role of expectancies and beliefs about hypnosis, as well as motivation and imagination, his theory falls under the broad umbrella of sociocognitive approaches, despite the fact that Barrios argues that in some circumstances, it is possible to speak of an hypnotic state.Barrios notes that both his perspective and sociocognitive theory 'discuss the importance of the part played by individual differences' in responding to suggestions. However, a primary task of any theory of hypnosis is to account for individual differences in suggestibility. Barrios contends that the age of the subject and the prestige of the hypnotist in the eyes of the subject contribute to individual differences, yet are variables neglected in sociocognitive theories. It is true that participants' age has n...
