Trance logic revisited: a reply to Hilgard's critique.

The analysis presented in 1972 by R. F. Q. Johnson, B. A. Maher, and T. X. Barber indicated that nonhypnotic 5s manifest trance logic as often as "real" hypnotic 5s. E. R. Hilgard's 1972 critique contended that the analysis was misleading because only those 5s should have been included in the analysis who met the stringent criterion for hallucination. This paper shows that when one includes in the analysis only those 5s who met the stringent criterion for hallucination, again, nonhypnotic 5s manifest trance logic as often as real hypnotic 5s. Hilgard failed to reach this correct conclusion for several reasons, the main one being that he failed to include in his analysis all of the 5s who met his own criterion for inclusion. In the discussion, the disagreements are shown to derive from general problems in modern research on hypnotism.