I 523% AWEWT T0 PRQD‘JCE PSYCHQPMHGLGGY; HYPEGTIQALL‘! ENDUCED CONFUCT Thesis for, the Degree of M. A. MICHlGAN STATE UNWERSJTY AARON KAR‘NlLOW, , ‘ 1911 u . . o - l . , I r . . ‘ r I I .- r u. ,, . ’ y ' l ' . I . , ‘r . u r - ’1' I a ‘ O . u . o , ' .‘ ' , . .> ‘ . u a r ." f . I ' O l .; i ' ,_ ' 0-4 . n ’0' . q . o " —’ .. o '0 . f U ’ V ' o.- . ’ ‘ C Q ' ’1 ., I It) - ' ‘ _ , I I ’ , I 0 _ ‘ ’ o r _ ’. o . 1' , I a , , ., r - ' ' ', . n a ’ ‘ ,, ’ . OI ' ' r . ' .I ‘ o v- .. r. . . O . _’ . . ' - v . I " v . . ' ' . ya: I ‘ ' . ’ , ... I ‘ , I ‘ ' — .Ao. c ' . ' ’ I ' t- I I ' . a .. . , .r . v ’ -_ '4 . . . , , ’0 J . , I l . ’ . ’ .' , ..... c .. o. 'ul . ’.I ' I 'I' ' ‘ . ' ‘ a VI '- ' ' ‘ . ' -.. .CO 4 .10. I. I ’ f . . ' .... . a ‘E’HE FOSTRE’FNOTW STEMULATECN 0F .ar. 00" , r . '0 a , : . - . ‘o ' o d‘ a 4" ’ a .' 'A a v " ' . " ' . r. ' r. ' ': ., . _' ' ,,.. . 0‘ . ..- o u r: '1 ,.o' u ' “-0-; ' . _ l. a. I" . r I . ’ .. r4 . v . . r . . ’ p r! ' ' o ’4 n ' .r .. .— ..y .. , p. ¢I .- f . -4- 7"r "_ _ ‘ ' ’,, ,' .‘ . a-l _ . ’ r v .f' 'r. 'l v .., ' :0 ’gr' -, 9 . . o 4 ’ .- . l a 0‘ ‘ Ill. " .,.. v. . . c‘f’. . 4.... . ‘ _" v' .o'..' .o 1'"..:,/ a d!"’ -..- - p . l 1' 1‘ '5 I 1 n . ‘. .‘.': 4, o . :0 u, ‘ .. t ‘ . 0' ‘ -I' 'r a .. . I I u .4: a .- .. l ‘ c. ' ‘I I: r ' O . o ot"‘r' l u I ‘ u>. v-' v 1‘HE’"3 ‘ ., Y I’ f’ a ‘3}- " " t . ‘ ‘ .3. {L )2. J": ‘4.“ ‘ i 3 h’iiuhigan E..::;.t'c ; L} .. Univcz'sit): I amomc av ~ " ‘. HMS 8: SDNS‘ a 800K mum mc. ‘” i LIBRARY BINDERS AK Th ducing psy SuEJEIested suSWESted Pathology, following, gested par ”9313 £011 Clinical R 093’" (1962 theoretiea and Valid DOS is de fi fines the ABSTRACT AN ATTEMPT TO PRODUCE PSYCHOPATHOLOGY: THE POSTHYPNOTIC STIMULATION OF HYPNOTICALLY INDUCED CONFLICT BY Aaron Karnilow The objective of this research in hypnotically in- ducing psychopathology was to determine the effects of a suggested amnesia and destructive impulse in arousing non- suggested pathogenic psychodynamics and observable psycho— pathology. when these variables were hypnotically implanted following. and in conjunction with. a hypnotically sug- gested paramnesia. designed to arouse anger. This param- nesia followed Reyher's ”Paradigm for Determining the Clinical Relevance of Hypnotically Induced Psychopathol- ogy" (1962). and was used to initiate a process that is theoretically able to produce pathogenic psychodynamics and valid psychopathology; the process induced via hyp- nosis defines the genotype and the resultant behavior de— fines the phenotype. Thi whose objec of anger al structive 1 determine v. more effect He did not Veenstra. i Reyher (195 {1969), in anger, repc Preduced, a “0 differep “"9 impuls pathology. ized a Pare degrees Of correlatiOr distUrbanee Thj analySis 01 the pa thOge Aaron Karnilow This research followed a study by Veenstra (1969). whose objective was to ascertain if the posthypnotic arousal of anger alone. in contrast to anger associated with a de- structive impulse. would result in psychopathology and to determine whether the anger arousing paramnesia would be a more effective method of arousal than direct suggestion. He did not include the destructive impulse in his design. Veenstra. in sharp contrast to the previous experiments. Reyher (1958. 1967). Perkins (1965). and Sommerschield (1969). in which a deStructive impulse was associated with anger. reported that no significant symptomatology was produced. and that the presence or absence of amnesia made no difference. From this it was reasoned that the destruc- tive impulse was the critical variable in arousing psycho- pathology. An earlier study by Bobbitt (1958). which util— ized a paramnesia involving guilt and anxiety under varying degrees of awareness. pointed to the possibility of a high correlation between the degree of amnesia and the amount of disturbance. This study was directed toward the systematic analysis of (1) amnesia and (2) a destructive impulse. to the pathogenic properties of posthypnotic conflict. 2 in the Stu their sele and 2) the §particig to two of ables. Ir associated on index < line data. Suggestiox anger whel free aSSO< of the foi A: Either of iCantly 9 Effect We the'EXP'er 'I". this S tUd- Aaron Karnilow A group of 16 female gs were chosen to participate in the study using the following criteria as a basis for their selection: 1) Development of a complete amnesia. and 2) the absence of outstanding psychopathology. Each §_participated in 3 experimental sessions. and was assigned to two of the four possible combinations of the two vari— ables. In the initial experimental session each § free associated for 35 seconds to each of 15 words presented on index cards in order to provide GSR and verbal base line data.) During the 2 following experimental sessions. suggestions were given to arouse overwhelming feelings of anger when particular cue words were presented during the free association period. followed by instruétions for one of the four combinations of variables. An analysis of the data failed to establish that either of the experimental variables had an effect signif— icantly greater than chance. A significant experimenter effect wasfound to exist prior to the administration of the experimental variables. iiThe absence of significant psychopathology in both this study and in Veenstra's (1969) study can be contrasted with t e e produc d a Aaron Karnilow with the earlier studies in this line of research which produced an abundance of significant symptomatology. AN ATTEMPT TO PRODUCE PSYCHOPATHOLOGY: THE POSTHYPNOTIC STIMULATION OF HYPNOTICALLY INDUCED CONFLICT BY Aaron Karnilow A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1971 But there are those sublimely cursed by dis- content. and to them happiness comes only when they push their brains and hearts to the farthest reaches of which they are capable. Nothing is more rewarding than the effort a man makes to matter. to count. to stand for something. to have it make some difference that he lived at all. L. Roston. Cpt. Newman M.D. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to thank his subjects. without whom this project would not have been possible. Dr. Stan- ley Ratner. for his patience and contribution to my grad- uate education. Dr. Robert Zucker. for his helpful crit- icisms and worthwhile suggestions. Mr. Robert GUrney. our statistical consultant. Alice Wolfe. my co-worker in this study. for her statistical expertise and ideas which are in evidence throughout this thesis. and‘Dr. Joseph Reyher. the chairman of my committee.who is responsible for this line of research. and whose assistance and suggestions during all phases of this study made it a true learning experience. The author wishes to especially thank Dr. Joseph Reyher whose instruction. encouragement. and friendship have been a constant source of inspiration. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . HYPOTHESES. . . . . . . . . . . . . METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subjects. . . . ... . . . . . . Apparatus and Experimental Setting. Procedure 0 O O O O O O O O O O Paramnesia Instructions . . Conflict Inducing Posthypnotic Suggestions. Destructive Impulse Instructions. Amnesia Instructions. . . Hand Paralysis Instructions . . . Word List . . . . . . . . . . . . Free Association Instructions Words . . . . . . . . . . . . Session 2 . . . . . . . . . . Experimental Conditions . . . . . iv Page vi 12 l3 l3 14 14 15 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 22 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Page SYNOPSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . 24 Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Statistical Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Data Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Summary of Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 APPENDICES A. CLASSIFICATION OF REACTIONS . . . . . . . . 48 B. DIAGRAM OF 2 NESTED IN 2 x 2 x 3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 C. TABLE OF MEANS USED TO COMPUTE "F". . . . . 52 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. GSR Data—-2 Nested in 2 x 2 x 3 Analysis of Variance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2. Verbal Data-—2 Nested in 2 x 2 x 3 Analysis of Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3O 3. Verbal Data--Baserate vs. Condition I. 2 x 2 x 3 Analysis of Variance. . . . . . . 33 4. Verbal Data-—Baserate 2 x 3 Analysis of Variance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 5. Awareness as Computed Using Reyher's Formula. 36 vi INTRODUCTION Luria (1932) pioneered the first important re- search use of hypnotically implanted paramnesias (a fic— tional experience). demonstrating that an induced conflict was responsible for posthypnotic disturbances in breath- ing. verbal associations. and hand pressure responses. Erickson. Huston and Shakow (1934) replicated some of Luria's results. and included a theory of alternative discharge systems. such that. if affect is not discharged verbally then the motor system would be involved. Eisenbud (1937) and Wolberg (1947) both reported observations which indicate that hypnotic suggestions can set in motion non-suggested pathogenic psychodynamics and observable psychopathology. Eisenbud. from his clinical experience with hypnosis. described a case study involving hypnotherapy in treating a patient suffering‘from severe headaches and spontaneous amnesias; and Wolberg. elaborat- ing upon Luria's (1932) method. induced an impulse that Spontaneously produced symptoms such as nausea. dizziness. l and tachycardia which his subjects had not been instructed to develop. Wolberg reported this apparent psychosomatic symptomology as an incidental observation to a posthypnotic suggestion that placed g in conflict. Bobbitt (1958) utilized a paramnesia. involving guilt and anxiety to study the dynamics of induced conflict under conditions of posthypnotic amnesia. partial aware— ness. full awareness. prehypnotic control and after re— moval of the paramnesia. Bobbitt's findings suggest that the hypnotically induced amnesia for a paramnesia is basic- ally the same as the natural phenomenon of repression and points out the possibility of a high correlation between the degree of amnesia and the amount of disturbance. Bobbitt reported maximum disturbance occurring under the condition of partial awareness and less disturbance under conditions of complete amnesia and complete recall. Bob- bitt hypothesized a direct relationship between the amount of disturbance and the effectiveness of repression; this did not account for the minimal disturbance under her con— dition of complete recall. which she later explained via various alternatives among which were that the conflict is resolved immediately upon becoming fully conscious and that maximum disturbance is associated with incomplete repression. rather than with a complete failure of repres— sion which permits the development of other defenses. Gordon (1967) points out that Bobbitt did not consider the possibility that the ”disturbance may be a function of the extent of conflict between antithetical tendencies (to remember versus to forget) rather than a direct manifes- tation of anxiety stimulated by the thought of the trauma” (Gordon. 1967). White (1956) suggested that particular attention should be paid to the status of a conflictual impulse in searching for the specific determinant of a psychosomatic reaction rather than stopping at describing the impulses and defenses that are involved. This particular course of research on posthypnotic conflict was begun in 1956. when it was discovered that a given set of hypnotic and posthypnotic procedures were capable of eliciting pathogenic responses.” Reyher in his doctoral dissertation. "Hypnotically Induced Conflict in Relation to Subception. Repression. Antisocial Behavior and Psychosomatic Reactions" (1958). found that his gs spontaneously reported a variety of psychosomatic symptoms and other pathological reactions. Since the experiment was designed to test specific hypotheses pertaining to perceptual defense and perceptual vigilance during an ascending tachistoscopic word presentation. the sympto- matic behavior exhibited by the gs was unforeseen and met with ever increasing curiosity. Reyher (1958) utilized an ascending tachistoscopic presentation of words; in the present study we did not. Our §s were given the job of reporting their associations to words on index cards which were presented by hand and not categorized as right or wrong; however in Reyher's study responses were either right or wrong. Reyher's gs spontaneously reported their subjective reactions. while ours were instructed to report everything that came into their minds while the stimulus words were being presented. I would opine that Reyher's procedure was more anxiety producing than that used in this study because. in a sense. S was put into a test situation (SS either cor- rectly or incorrectly identified the word). whereas in ours they were not. Prior to the formulation of Reyher's "Paradigm for Determining the Clinical Relevance of Hypnotically Induced Psychopathology" (1962. 1963). the validity of psychopathology produced by posthypnotic conflict could not be determined because the experimental designs used did not allow for a method of sorting out the execution of direct suggestions from spontaneous effects of the paramnesia. Therefore. according to the paradigm. hyp— notic suggestions should only be used to initiate a pro- cess which. under specific conditions. is theoretically able to produce pathogenic psychodynamics and valid psy- chopathology; the process induced via hypnosis defines the genotype and the resultant behavior defines the phen- otype. Reyher's (1967) study indicates that the frequency and variety of symptoms tends to increase as the repres— sion weakens following the posthypnotic stimulation of an implanted conflict. Reyher points out that poor repressors tend to act out the destructive impulse while good repres- Sors tend to report psychosomatic symptoms. Reyher devel- OFfiHi and utilized the following index of repression which is laased upon the assumption that repression is the oppo- Sit: of verbalized awareness: 1 _ 3 (FA) + 2 (PAL + (cc) - (cg) A TC "Where A is the average degree of awareness of the induced anger and destructive impulse over the experimental ses- sions; FA. full awareness upon conflict work recognition; PA. partial awareness upon C-word recognition (awareness of either the hostility or the destructive impulse); CC. conscious correlates of the unconscious hostility upon C—word recognition. such as feelings of annoyance with the task of recognizing words; CR complete repression upon C-word recognition (no instances of symptoms or awareness); and TC. the total number of conflict words recognized" (Reyher. 1967; Rev. Reyher and Perkins. 1971). Perkins (1965). continuing Reyher's line of inves- tigation. in his dissertation. "Repression. Psychopathology. and Drive Representation: An Experimental Hypnotic Inves- tigation of the Management of Impulse Inhibition." admin- istered selected TAT cards to both an experimental and control group. Perkins. using an anger—aggression param- nesia. found that while his experimental group reported a Ovariety of symptoms the simulating group reported virtually none. Perkins also found that his experimental group had significantly greater GSR activation. upon the recognition of C—words. than his control group. Perkins' findings supported the hypothesis that the frequency of symptomatic reactions is a function of the degree of repression. and that the conceptualization of repression is an inhibitory neurophysiological process. Perkins' study differed from the present one in several ways. His gs were given modified TAT's following their experimental sessions. he presented his words tachis— toscopically. he divided his SS into good and bad repres- sors. and he varied the intensity of conflict. Sommerschield (1969). in his doctoral dissertation. "Posthypnotic Conflict. Repression and Psychopathology." confirmed the findings of Reyher (1958. 1967) and Perkins (1965). Sommerschield used both an anger-aggression param— nesia designed to stimulate sexual feelings that were Oedipal in nature. Sommerschield's study differed from the present one in that his gs were given the TAT prior to their first experimental session. and the Cornell Medical Index was administered following the last session; he also used a different (sex or anger) paramnesia in each of his two experimental sessions. His study was similar to the present one in that he presented his stimulus words on index cards and used a control group. Sommerschield found that the sexual and anger paramnesias were both effective in the production of symp- toms. with a significantly larger proportion of psychoso— matic symptoms being obtained with the sexual paramnesia than with the anger paramnesia. This tends to imply that the sex paramnesia is more pathogenic than the anger param— nesia. Continuing this line of research Veenstra (1969) in his master's thesis. "The Effectiveness of Posthypnot- ically Aroused Anger in Producing Psychopathology." sought to identify those variables that caused a posthypnotically activated drive to be anxiety producing or pathogenic in nature. His analysis of Reyher's procedure identified thirteen influencing variables: 1) hypnosis. 2) age re- gression. 3) paramnesia. 4) hypnotic arousal of anger. 5) hypnotic arousal of conflicting emotion. 6) anger asso- ciated under hypnosis with C—words. 7) anger directed towards an authority figure in the experimental situation. 8) suggested loss of control on presentation of conflict words. 9) posthypnotic arousal of anger. 10) posthypnotic suggestion of a destructive impulse. ll) induced amnesia. 12) tachistoscopic presentation of words. and l3) accepting nondirective experimenter attitude. Unlike Perkins and Reyher. Veenstra did not include variables #2. 5. 7. and 10 in his study. Veenstra found that all but one of his gs verbalized anger. that the presence or ab- sence of amnesia made no difference. that no symptomatology was produced. and that the GSR did not discriminate between associations to C- and N—words. It is. therefore. not un- reasonable to suspect that the critical variable or vari- ables in combination. were among those excluded by Veenstra namely: the hypnotic arousal of anger (4). amnesia (11). hypnotic arousal of conflicting emotions (5). anger di- rected towards an authority figure in the experimental situation (7). and the posthypnotic suggestion of a de- structive impulse (10). Larison. in his M.A. thesis (which is presently in the stage of final completion). utilized an experimental design which was different from the present one mainly in that he included pump priming instructions to facilitate the flow of symptomatology similar to those which were present in Sommerschiled's dissertation (1969). but omitted from the present study. Larison concluded that neither the amnesia nor the destructive impulse were effective in producing measurable psychopathology. 10 The latest study in this line of research is pres- ently being conducted by Bruce Burns. He has employed Sommerschield's sexual paramnesia with a new twist. In- stead of posthypnotically activating the induced conflict via the use of tachistoscopically presented stimulus words as Reyher (1958. 1967) and Perkins (1965) did. or present- ing his stimulus words on index cards as Sommerschield (1969). Veenstra (1969). Larison (presently being com- pleted). and the present study did. Burns instructed his ‘Ss to close their eyes and describe any visual images or emotions which entered their minds. This approach which for the first time combines the use of free imagery with a technique which follows Reyher's (1962) "Paradigm for Determining the Clinical Relevance of Hypnotically Induced Psychopathology." has proved to be highly successful. This study is directed towards a systematic anal- ysis of the contribution of amnesia (1). and a destructive impulse (2). to the pathogenic properties of posthypnotic conflict. The possible combinations of these variables are: 1) amnesia plus destructive impulse. 2) no amnesia and no destructive impulse. 3) no amnesia but destructive impulse. and 4) amnesia with no destructive impulse. with 11 the hypnotic arousal of anger via a paramnesia being kept as a constant over the four conditions. l) 2) HYPOTHESES More symptoms are produced by the conditions which include the destructive impulse than by the condi- tions which do not include the destructive impulse. Greater anxiety is produced by conditions which include the destructive impulse than by conditions which do not include the destructive impulse. 12 METHOD Subjects Sixteen female undergraduate volunteers partici— pated as gs using the following criteria as basis for their selection: 1) Complete amnesia. which was determined by asking §_ what she remembered about being hypnotized approximately 10 minutes after she came out of a hypnotic trance. During the 10 minutes E engaged §_in general conversation taking care not to men- tion anything directly related to hypnosis. If'g spontaneously began talking about the trance or was able to recall anything about it when asked. S was disqualified. 2) Absence of outstanding psychopathology. l3 14 Apparatus and Experimental Setting Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) was recorded on a GRASS model #5 polygraph using finger electrodes manufac- tured by the Yellow Springs Equipment Company. The ses— sions were conducted in a sound insulated lab. with a Uhr tape recorder being used to record the sessions. A manu- script reading "Very Important. Do Not Touch!" lay on a table next to the reclining chair in which the subject sat during the experimental sessions. Procedure The same method of choosing gs was utilized by both E's; S's were not randomized across E's in order to control for selection differences. Although this method of control would have been advisable. it would have greatly lengthened the time needed to complete the exper- iment extending it beyond reasonable limits. The same paramnesia was utilized in all four ex- perimental conditions. Each §_served in one experimental condition and then returned one week later for an addi- tional session which included the destructive impulse lS suggestion. if it had been excluded in the experimental condition. or excluded the destructive impulse suggestion. if it had been previously included. Suggestions were given for the amnesia and/or de— structive impulse following the implantation of the param- nesia and while the § remained in a deep state of hyp- nosis. Paramnesia Instructions Erickson's (1944) preliminary instructions were used: "Now as you continue to rest in a deep. sleep-like state. I am going to recall to your mind an event which occurred not too long ago. As I recount this event to you. you will recall fully and completely everything that happened. As I recall this experience. you will remember each and every detail fully. Now bear in mind that while I repeat what I know of this event. you will recall fully and completely everything just as it happened. and more than that. you will remember the emotions which you had at this time. and you will feel as you did while this l6 occurrence was taking place. Nod your head if you under- stan ." Implantation of paramnesia: "Now the particular event of which I am going to tell you happened at the bookstore. "The bookstore was very busy. crowded with people. As soon as you see the bookstore crowded with people. let me know by nodding your head. Nod your head to let me know when you see the large number of people that were milling around. You were carrying a full armload of books and had your money (say 'bills and coins') in your hand. On top of the armload of books you had a bag lunch and a hard-bound book that you had really been looking forward to buying. Nod your head When you see that bag lunch and that special book. Having picked up all the books you needed. you walked to the end of the checkout line. "The line was long. It inched forward so slowly: so slowly that you wondered if it was moving at all. You grew tired of waiting; you were tired and impatient. Nod your head when you feel the impatience you felt then. The line moved so slowly that you grew tired of holding your books. The books became heavier and heavier. Your arms 17 ached from holding them. Nod your head when you feel the aching in your arms. Other people had fallen in line be- hind you as you waited. You waited and waited and grew more and more impatient and tired; your arms ached more and more. The person behind you shoved into you; this irritated you. Nod your head when you recall the shove. It irritated you that people were so inconsiderate and rude. Out of the corner of your eye you saw a man walk- ing toward you. He pushed his way through the line right in front of you. bumping you and almost making you drop that special book you had been looking forward to reading. Nod your head when you see that man cutting through the line and bumping you. That really made you angry. You were thinking that you had had just about enough. It would take just one more thing like that to make you boil over with anger. You turned your head to see how many people were lined up behind you when someone tapped your shoulder. You turned your head back. you saw that it was the in— structor in one of the courses you had enrolled in. He (asked you to step back. Assuming that he wanted to go through. you stepped back. bumping into the person behind you. who snapped at you crossly. 'Watch it:' To your 18 astonishment. your instructor stepped into the line. taking your place. That did it! Anger surged up within you. You thought to yourself. 'Who does he think he is?’ "Just then a man who was with him started to step into line. and you stepped forward to close the gap. but he bumped into you. spilling all your books. your money and your bag lunch to the floor. There were books. money and the contents of your lunch bag all over the place. What a mess! Nod your head if you see it. As you stopped to pick up the books. money and lunch. your instructor's friend stepped into your place. That made you furious! You picked up a book and saw that the'binding was'broken; the pages were crumpled and smudged with dirt. It was your favorite book. the special one you had been looking‘ forward to reading. Nod your head if you see the broken book. You were just boiling with anger inside; you were fuming and seething with anger. As you knelt down to pick up your money. books. and lunch. your instructor commented sarcastically. 'You dropped something.‘ Those words really burned you; you were infuriated. "As though that was not enough. he turned to his friend and snickered. 'You want to see something funny. l9 look.' Then you heard them both laughing; laughing and laughing; really enjoying your predicament. With every laugh your anger surged up more uncontrollably. YOu were swept up in overwhelming feelings of anger and rage. You hated these men. Once again you find yourself feeling those powerful emotions. You feel them right now with your whole body. "Now. you can feel your anger fading away with each breath. Your feelings of anger draining away as you gradually feel more and more calm and relaxed. The memory of the bookstore and your anger are fading away. Nod your head when your anger is gone." Conflict Inducing Posthypnotic Suggestions "Now listen carefully. After you have awakened. anything that comes into your mind that is associated with food (or money) will stir up overwhelming feelings of rage." Note either the word food or money was used. not both. as per instructions for critical word order. When food was used "money" was the neutral concept and vice versa. 20 Destructive Impulse Instructions The following instructions were added to the treatments which included the destructive impulse: "When these overwhelming feelings of rage boil up within you. you will realize that it is the person who wrote the manuscript on the table next to you that you hate. and you will have an overwhelming urge to tear them up. Nod your head if you understand." Amnesia Instructions The following instructions were added to the treatments which included the amnesia: "After you awaken. you will not remember anything about your experience in the bookstore. It will be just like a dream that you had while you were asleep that you do not remember after awakening. Just like a word on the tip of your tongue that you just cannot remember. even 'if you should try. Nod your head if you understand." 21 Hand Paralysis Instructions Paralysis of the left arm and hand was induced to eliminate movement artifact from the GSR as part of the second hypnotic treatment via the following instructions: "After awakening you will find that you cannot move your left arm and hand. You will not be able to move your left arm and hand until I say. 'You will be able to move your left arm and hand now.I Nod your head if you understand." Word List Fifteen words were selected from a larger list of words used by Reyher (1958) and Perkins (1965). At the beginning of the first experimental session. §_repeated the word and free associated for 35 seconds to each one which was presented individually on a white 4 x 6 index card. The set of 15 index cards were arranged in random order. After this S was dismissed and asked to return one week later. 22 Free Association Instructions "I am going to show you some index cards upon each of them appears a word. After I present each card. I want you to read the word and tell me everything that comes into your mind; everything that crosses you mind. no matter what it is." Words Conflict Words Neutral Words Food Money Geometric Shapes sandwich dime sphere cookie penny square milk dollar triangle pickle quarter rectangle bread nickle oblong Session 2 During experimental session 2. §_was hypnotized and given experimental condition 1. 2. 3. or 4; assign— ment to each of these four conditions was made on a mod- ified random basis in that four gs were accumulated in each cell. 23 Experimental Conditions 1. Amnesia for the paramnesia plus suggestion for destructive impulse. 2!. No amnesia for the paramnesia and no suggestion for destructive impulse. 3. Amnesia for the paramnesia and no suggestion for destructive impulse. 4. No amnesia for the paramnesia plus suggestion for destructive impulse. I) 2) 3) 2) SYNOPSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Individual hypnosis session-- word associations to provide baseline data Session (2) varied depending upon the experimental condition to which §_was assigned. The four pat- terns were: Condition--Amnesia plus destructive impulse Hypnosis Paramnesia—-posthypnotic anger Amnesia and destructive impulse suggested post- hypnotically §.awakened Word association & GSR Hypnosis treatment removed Hypnosis Paramnesia-—posthypnotic anger Amnesia suggested posthypnotically. no destructive impulse §_awakened Word association & GSR Hypnosis treatment removed Discussion of experiment Condition—-Amnesia and no destructive impulse Hypnosis Paramnesia--posthypnotic anger Amnesia suggested posthypnotically no destructive impulse §_awakened Word association & GSR Hypnosis treatment removed 24 3) 2) 3) 2) 3) 25 Hypnosis Paramnesia--posthypnotic anger Amnesia plus destructive impulse suggested post- hypnotically Suawakened Word association & GSR Hypnosis treatment removed Discussion of experiment Condition--Destructive impulse and no amnesia Hypnosis Paramnesia--posthypnotic anger Destructive impulse suggested posthypnotically; no amnesia 'S awakened Word association & GSR Hypnosis treatment removed Hypnosis Paramnesia-—posthypnotic anger No amnesia. no destructive impulse §_awakened Word association & GSR Hypnosis treatment removed Discussion of experiment Condition—-No amnesia and no destructive impulse Hypnosis Paramnesia--posthypnotic anger No amnesia. no destructive impulse §_awakened Word association & GSR Hypnosis treatment removed Hypnosis Paramnesia—-posthypnotic anger Destructive impulse suggested posthypnotically. no amnesia §_awakened Word association & GSR Hypnosis treatment removed Discussion of experiment 26 Measures The data of this experiment fall into two cate- gories. one type of data is gathered from _S_s verbal re- sponses to the word list. The other form of data consists of GSR measurements. Only GSR's of 1.000 ohms or greater were counted during the 35-second free association period. gs verbal responses and observations by E were classified in terxns of Reyher's categories of psychopathology (Reyher. 1967) . Reyher's category #8. "Disturbance or distortion in perception of the tachistoscopic stimulus." was eliminated here because the words were not presented on a tachistoscope. gs score was the total number of reactions over categories 1 thru 11 (excluding 8). For each treatment the mean measurements were subtracted from the mean conflict word symptom and GSR scores. An alter- nate baseline was provided by the mean number of reactions to words during the initial presentation of the word list. S£§.3L&’L‘.ical Analys is Two 2 nested in 2 x 2 x 3 analysis of variances were carried out. one for the GSR measurements and one 27 for"the symptoms. The independent variables which were tes ted are : Amnesia for the paramnesia—-or no amnesia for the paramnesia IDestructive impulse --or no destructive impulse VJord type --C—words. non-conflict words and N—words Experimenter -—A1ice Wolfe or Aaron Karnilow The linear model for this analysis is: Figure 1 Y + klrn/. = “L Yéwklm/. + QBYéijkl 1] 13 + . + . + + O‘Y‘Siki fiYéjkl Yékl Yka/. 13 + ,, + , + , + + " QBYle ank Bij Yk OFIm/lj + + + + + " asoijl aail sajl 61 flm/lj + QB,_ + ai + Bj + e 1] klm/ij RES ULTS Table 1 shows the results of the analysis of var- iance for the GSR data. Utilizing a two-tailed F test with a minimum acceptable Alpha level of .05. it was found that there were only two contributions to the total variance which were significantly greater than chance. The interaction between experimenter and amnesia. and the differences in word type (C—words. C' words. and N—words) . 0f the two experimental variables amnesia and destructive impulse . it was found that neither had a greater than chance effect. Table 2 shows the results of an identical analysis of variance performed on the verbal data. Here it was found tliat there were three contributors to the total variance which had a significant effect: 1) Differences in word type. 2) Experimenter differences. and 3) The in— ' teraction between experimenter and word type. Comparing the GSR data to the verbal data revealed one consistently Significant effect. word type differences. This finding 28 29 TABLE 1 GSR Data--2 Nested in 2 x 2 x 3 Analysis of Variance*+ Component F D:::::O:f .05 Eta2 A .4664 1/12 no .0062 B 3.8495 1/12 no .0516 C 12.9733 2/24 .01 .1277 D 1.0879 1/12 no .0115 AB 14.9368 1/12 .01 .2002 AC .3576 2/24 no .0035 AD .1930 1/12 no .0020 BC 2.9540 2/24 no .0290 BD .6742 1/12 no .0071 CD 1.7237 2/24 no .0140 ABC .6401 2/24 no .0063 ABD .0123 1/12 no .0001 BCD .9506 2/24 no .0077 ACD 1.0460 2/24 no .0084 ABCD 2.4961 2/24 no .0202 A = Amnesia B = Experimenter C =‘Word Type D = Destructive Impulse :2 Tailed Test of Significance See Appendix C for Table of Means. 30 TABLE 2 Verbal Data--2 Nested in 2 x 2 x 3 Analysis of Variance*+ Degree of 2 Eta Component F Freedom .05 A .2017 1/12 no .0045 B 6.7476 1/12 .05 .1517 C 5.6619 2/24 .01 .0827 D 1.9074 1/12 no .0137 AB .2197 1/12 no .0049 AC .6875 2/24 no .0100 AD .8690 1/12 no .0062 BC 4.3844 2/24 .05 .0640 BD 2.0039 1/12 no .0144 CD 1.2580 2/24 no .0070 ABC 1.2449 2/24 no .0181 ABD .8058 1/12 no .0058 BCD 1.5461 2/24 no .0087 ACD .5097 2/24 no .0028 ABCD 1.0111 2/24 no .0056 A = Amnesia B = Experimenter C = Word Type D = Destructive Impulse :2 Tailed Test of Significance See Appendix C for Table of Means. 31 tends to point toward either the three categories of words being initially different in their response eliciting qualities. or the words in each category being affected in a different fashion by the experiment. Eta2 was computed for all sources of variance gen- erated by both the verbal and GSR data (see Tables 1 & 2). Subject differences accounted for 16% of the variance of the GSR data. and 27% of the variance of the verbal data. Adding the interactions of subject differences and other experimental variables. 60% of the verbal data variance. and 50% of the GSR data variance was accounted for. Be— cause of characterological differences in personality structure and degree of pathology. the large contribution of subject differences to the total variance is to be ex- pected in this line of research. Separate 2 x 2 analysis of variance were performed on both the GSR and the verbal data in order to determine if the significant word type and experimenter effects were hiding small. but significant main effects. Only the two critical variables (amnesia and destructive impulse) were taken into consideration for the analysis. One signifi- cant F ratio was obtained from these 12 analyses of 32 variance. the effect of amnesia on C'words with Miss WOlfe as experimenter. Altogether there were 36 F ratios. and the probability that one would be significant was approxi- mately .97. Since the two critical variables tested (amnesia and destructive impulse) were found to have no significant effect in the 2 nested in 2 x 2 x 3 analysis of variance for either the GSR or verbal data. a 2 x 2 x 3 analysis of variance was computed for the verbal data. comparing the baserate data to that produced by the first experimental session. Here again a two tailed test of significance with Eilhinimum Alpha level of .05 was used. Table 3 shows the Ifiasults of this analysis of variance. Every independent Vitriable and all their interactions had significant F Ititios. There was a significant (.05) difference betWeen tflne baserate and condition I data. and a significant (.01) Eunount of variation in word type and experimenter. That 'Mnbrd type and experimenter differences were significant had already been established by our larger analysis of 'Vtiriance. but the condition difference between baserate 31nd condition I adds something new for us to consider—- nalmely. that there is something in the experimental 33 procedure which is associated with a change over baserate levels of rated symptomatology. TABLE 3 Verbal Data--Baserate vs. Condition I. 2 x 2 x 3 Analysis of Variance* Component F Degree of Freedom P .05 B 14.0815 1/14 .01 C 8.1415 2/28 .01 E 7.2123 1/14 .05 BC 8.7648 2/28 .01 BE 5.0085 1/14 .05 CE 7.4774 2/28 .01 BCE 5.7466 2/28 .01 B = Experimenter C = Word Type E = Condition (Baserate vs. Condition I) 'k 2 Tailed Test of Significance. Table 4 shows the results of an additional 2 x 3 analysis of variance that was performed on the‘baserate data. A significant experimenter effect existed prior to the administration of the experimental conditions. but there were no experimentally meaningful differences 34 between the three word types prior to the experimental treatment being administered. TABLE 4 Verbal Data--Baserate 2 x 3 Analysis of Variance* Component F Degree of Freedom P .05 B 7.0422 1/15 .05 C .0279 2/28 no BC 3.6328 2/28 .05 B = Experimenter C = WOrd Type *2 Tailed Test of Significance A synopsis of the findings up to this point indi- cates: 1) That the three categories of words were approx- imately equal in their symptom eliciting effect prior to beginning the experiment. and 2) That there was a signifi- cant difference either in the way the experiment affected subjects or in the subjects chosen by the two experimenters. Several possible explanations for the latter finding will be explored in the discussion section. Information derived from the analysis of the verbal data shows that there was a significant difference 35 in rated symptomatology between the pre— and post- experimental conditions. and that the addition of the experimental procedure elicited a significant difference in the rated symptomatology produced by the different word types (C. C3 and N—words). The experimental variables of amnesia and destruc— tive impulse were shown to have no significant effect when they were analyzed in a 2 nested in a 2 x 2 x 3 analysis of variance for the verbal data. and even when this data was further broken down by experimenter and word type no effect greater than that attributable to chance was found for the experimental variables. A similar analysis of variance was performed on the GSR data which similarly indicated that neither of the experimental variables (am- nesia nor destructive impulse). had any significant effect on the GSR. Table 5 lists the results of computing repression (R). using Reyher's formula. for each S. in each of the baserate and experimental conditions. The results of a t-test run on the baserate re- pression data. in order to compare the gs run by the two experimenters. showed that there was considerable 36 TABLE 5 Awareness as Computed Using Reyher's Formula Baserate Condition 1 Condition 2 S1 —.1334 .4002 3.0000 82 -.9338 -.8004 0.0000 S3 —.8671 1.0000 1.0000 S -.6003 .8004 —.2001 E 4 l 55 -.3335 .4002 1.0000 S6 —.7337 3.2001 3.6003 S7 -.2668 .2001 0.0000 S8 - 9338 4002 8004 89 -.8671 -.8004 —.8004 S10 - 9338 -l.0000 - 6003 S11 -.9338 -1.0000 -l.0000 S —.8004 -l.0000 -.8004 E 12 2 313 -1.0000 -.8004 -1.0000 814 -.8004 -.4002 -1.0000 815 -.8004 —1.0000 0.0000 —.9 3 . 2 —. $16 3 8 400 8004 *Degree of posthypnotic repression is defined as the re- ciprocal of awareness (R =j%) when = 3 (FA) 4. 2 (pA) + (CC) 1- (C31 A TC 37 difference in the amount of variation between the two groups. Variance within this author's group was 1.19. while variance within the group run by the other experi- menter was 20.00. The difference between the means was significant (F = .025). It was then thought that perhaps some error in experimental procedure had put all gs of one type in this author's group. but mixed then with other types of Se in Miss Wolfe's group. If this were so. the experimental variables might still have a significant ef- fect when only one group of Se was considered. In order to test this hypothesis. all gs with baserate repression .scores ranging between -.86 and —l.0 were arbitrarily placed in one group and a'2 x 2 analysis of variance was computed for this group using C—word verbal data only. The cell frequencies were. by coincidence. equal. but neither of the experimental variables produced significant F's. The F ratios for both the destructive impulse and the amnesia were approximately zero. and aIthough the F ratio for their interaction was larger. 3.85. it was not significant at the .05 level of probability. A similar 2 x 2 analysis of variance was computed on the seven gs with the highest R scores; in this case 38 the cell frequencies were unequal. and again it was found that none of the F ratios were significant. Upon finishing this effort to meaningfully deal with the results of the experimental conditions. it was con- cluded that regardless of how the data is arranged or re- :5 arranged the experimental variables have no significant effect. Data Description The §§ showed considerable variance in their verbal responses. Some gs responded by giving a series of word associations which were grammatically unconnected. while others responded giving their associations in sentence form. What follows are associations given to the stimulus word dime by four different gs: Protocol 9. Round. greed. Silas Marner. gold. pirate. miser. saved. painted. pic- ture. Mafia. kill. 6. Ten cents. money. candy. bank. pair. rum. 1. I do not understand why people are just so concerned nowadays with money. money. money. It makes me so mad cause really you do not have to have it. Well. I guess you do to live in 39 our kind of society. but let's see. wouldn't it be better if we did not have to have money? 12. It seems like every dime. nickel and penny has to be accounted for. I just got the bill for the rest of the term. and after income tax is out. It is such a big back and forth thing and people are so dumb. It makes me so mad when they raise the rates on this and that and the rates on everything. and I wonder where it all goes to. Each individual S responded in an essentially consistent form. giving grammatically unconnected words or complete sentences. to all of the stimulus words presented during the experiment. A majority of those gs who responded with complete sentences were found in the subject group run by Miss Wolfe. None of the gs acted upon the destructive impulse by tearing up the papers. but three of the gs verbalized thoughts about the papers' owner. e.g.. "Who wrote this?" Most of the symptoms found in this study fell into the category of "Conscious correlates." with none of the gs reporting the striking symptomatology found in the studies run by Reyher (1958. 1967). Perkins (1965). and Sommer- schield (1969). 4O Summarypof Results The hypotheses tested in this study were rejected. All of the analysis of variance performed on both the GSR and verbal data show that neither the destructive impulse nor any of its interactions had any significant effect. The other experimental variable. suggested amnesia. was found to exert a significant effect in only one of the 12 separate 2 x 2 analysis of variance performed. but as this was the only significant F ratio out of a group of 36 F rations. this may be a chance effect. A two-tailed F test performed on the GSR data revealed that the contribu— tion of differences in word type (C-words. C'words. and N-words) to the total variance was significant at the .01 level. and that the interaction between suggested amnesia and experimenter was significant at the .01 level. This latter effect may stem from the more global effect of ex- perimenter differences. while the significant effect of the differences in word type tends to suggest that the experimental procedure affected the words in each category differently. There was a significant difference between the §fi5 of each §_prior to beginning the experiment as shown 41 by the mean awareness scores. Variance around those means was found to be 1.19 for this §_and 20.00 for Miss Wolfe. In terms of the verbal data. a significant experimenter effect existed throughout the experiment and was found in every analysis of variance performed. Although the 2 nested in a 2 x 2 x 3 analysis of variance performed on the GSR data revealed no major effects there was however a sig- nificant interaction between experimenter and suggested amnesia at the .01 level of significance. DISCUSSION The outstanding question at this point is why did the procedure used by Reyher (1958. 1967). Perkins (1965). and Sommerschield (1969) result in the successful elicit- ing of symptomatology whereas the procedure used by Veen- stra (1969). Larison (MWA. thesis being completed). and in this study. resulted in no statistically significant or . for that matter. no obvious symtomatology of the nature of that reported by the earlier investigators following this line of research. When planning this study it was our intent. as it was Veenstra's (1969). and Larison's (M.A. thesis) to analyze and to identify experimentally those factors which rendered a drive. which was activated posthypnotically. anxiety producing or pathogenic in nature. Since Veen- stra's procedure had failed to elicit pathology similar to that of the earlier investigators. we very carefully compared his procedure to that used in the earlier inves- tigations. What we eventually hypothesized was that the 42 43 reason Veenstra had failed to elicit pathological symptoms was that he had not used the destructive impulse as part of his procedure. Apparently we were wrong because the results of our study were not significantly changed by its inclusion in our procedure. Order effects and a week in between sessions were shown by previous researchers. namely Reyher (1969) and Sommarschield (1969). not to be influencing variables. This pointed to the paramnesia as the place to look for the causes of the symptomatology. Both the paramnesia used by Reyher (1958) and Perkins (1965). and the param- nesias used by Sommerschield (1969) served to activate a guilt reaction in Se. In the paramnesia used by Reyher and Perkins the §'is blackmailed by a fellow student for stealing money. the fellow student later serving as an authority figure in the induced conflict. Sommerschield used both anger and sexual paramnesias which involve the arousal of guilt. In his sexual paramnesia § imagines making love to an older woman whom he soon realizes he cannot satisfy. thus stirring up Oedipal feelings and guilt. In his anger paramnesia. Sommerschield's gs break an art object and then are made to feel guilty about it by an authority figure who insults them. 44 In the present study our paramnesia does not "pre- program" guilt as the above mentioned earlier ones did. In our study §_had no reason to feel guilty as he had not already committed a reprehensible act when he was awakened from the trance. and could avoid committing one by not acting upon the destructive impulse (suggestion of over- whelming urge to tear up papers upon C—word recognition). § thereby deals with the posthypnotic cue for the anxiety arousing drive in a way which is acceptable to her super- ego. avoiding guilt and I would opine symptoms. In our paramnesia. §_had not already committed a reprehensible act--tearing up the manuscript--and couki avoid anxiety by not acting upon the impulse. For our gs specific re- pression of having committed a reprehensible act did not occur because no reprehensible act had been implanted via the paramnesia. Therefore. even when the events which occurred in the bookstore became fully conscious. the §s past actions were acceptable to her superego; the angry feelings connected with having been wronged were apparently as acceptable to her 3. E. as the rest of the memory. and as shown by Veenstra's (1969) Se who verbalized their anger and manifested no symptoms. the anger had not 45 acquired sufficient anxiety producing properties to stim- ulate pathology. It is tempting to hypothesize that had our paramnesia included our gs acting upon their anger in the bookstore in a way that was not acceptable to their S. E.'s. symptomatology similar to that obtained by the earlier investigators would have been elicited by the ex- perimental procedure. Another difference between this study and Veen- stra's. and that of the earlier investigations of Reyher (1958). Perkins (1965). and Sommerschield (1969). was that the earlier investigators manipulated the intensity of the induced drives. whereas in both Veenstra's study and in this one.no attempt was made to alter posthypnotically the intensity of the drive. A change in drive intensity neces— sarily upsets the existing balance between the drive and the defenses which act to keep it in check. I would opine that when the drive is activated a reorganization of de- fenses begins and continues until a balance is reached; while this is occurring there is an excess and release of energy. which is non-specific (anxiety) and/or specific (symptoms). which ceases when a state of equilibrium is reached between the drive and the defense(s) which keeps it in check. 46 Perkins (1965) utilized a paramnesia which furnished S with a memory of an event which took place many years earlier during his childhood. Reyher (1969. p. 21) theo— rizes that. "The post-hypnotic drive is anxiety-producing because of gs past experience with an intense surge of the same drive in an important child—parent relationship that was jeopardized by acting upon the drive in the same way." Perhaps Perkins by using a childhood memory. rather than one of an event which occurred in the immediate past. as we did in our study. was able to reactivate some of the components of an earlier anxiety laden experience. which once activated proved to be considerably more effective in arousing psy- chopathology than our paramnesia which utilized an event from the recent past. One of the most interesting findings of this study was that of experimenter differences. Significant differ- ences in both repression scores and rated symptomatology were evidenced prior to the administration of the experi- mental conditions. These differences seem to have resulted from the demand characteristics entering into the experié ment as a result of at least two factors: 1) Differences in sex of Es and 2) differences in personality structure of the Es. 47 The sexual overtones of the hypnotic induction are obvious. I would opine that the male §_stirred up sexual feelings which. as a result of our culture. were more tolerable to the female gs than the homosexual feelings being aroused by the female E, The female gs. aware of a the heterosexual implications. were actively defending against any expression of their emotions while with the male E, but as their homosexual feelings were more deeply *j repressed and unconscious. they were quite willing to ex- press their emotions to the female E, since this expression would not consciously be interpreted by them as sexual in nature. would not trigger anxiety and therefore would not have to be defended against. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CLASSIFICATION OF REACTIONS (Reyher. 1967) Symptoms characterized by the dominance of autonomic system enervation such as feelings of nausea. gastric distress. headache. tiredness. sleepiness. tachycardia. pressure in the head. sweating. skin disturbances. flushing. organ dysfunctions. heaviness. temperature alterations. and such feelings as "queasy" and "antsy." Symptoms dominated by enervation of the somatic or muscular nervous system such as stiffness. aches. pains. tension. tics. tremors. physical discomfort. and so on. Disturbances of affect a. Flattening: lack of feeling. apathy. and the like upon recognition of a C-word. when symptoms usually attend C-word reCOgnition. b. Superego reactions: feelings of being alone. aban- doned. ashamed. depressed. disgusted. guilty. wor- ried. and so on. c. Inversion: definite feelings of well—being upon the reCOgnition of a C-word. 48 49 d. Alienation: feelings that seem weird. strange. odd. unreal. unnatural. foreign. and so on. Unspecified distress that cannot be clearly categor— ized as either physical or emotional in nature. in Se frame of reference. and are expressed in such conventional terms as being upset. fidgety. jittery. nervous. on edge. restless. and bothered. States of emotional agitation that reflect the reac- tion of the ego to the threat of complete breakdown of repression. such as feelings of anxiety. fear. apprehension. and terror. States of confusion. doubt. and disorientation that in— clude statements that one's thoughts are being pushed or pulled and that the content of thought cannot be specified. Disassociative reactions a. Somatic and ideational delusions such as limbs feeling detached. "crazy" thoughts and intruding paranoid ideas. b. Strong compulsive urges not carried out in behavior. such as wanting to move hands around. scratch at something and so on. 10. ll. 12. 13. 50 c. Compulsive destructive urge acted out in behavior without awareness of the relevant hostile or de- structive impulse. such as hitting or picking at the papers without knowing why. including destruc- tive acts not directed at the papers. Disturbance or distortion in perception of the tachisto- scopic stimulus. Derivatives of the induced conflict. These are symbols of the induced experience and/or the repressive forces themselves. Memories of personal experiences that are congruent with. or similar to. the induced experience frequently are activated in some Se. Conscious correlates of the unconscious hostility. such as feelings of irritation. annoyance. and frustration. Delayed awareness of one or both aspects of the con- flict. Immediate awareness of one aspect of the conflict. Immediate and complete awareness of both aspects of the conflict. APPENDIX B DIAGRAM OF 2 NESTED IN 2 X 2 X 3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE C 1 C2 D1 D2 D3 D1 D2 D S 1 Bl : S4 Al SS B2 : S8 S 9 Bl : S12 A 2 S 13 132 I S 16 A = Amnesia B = Experimenter C = Destructive Impulse D = Classification of Words (C. E & N-words) Note: S's are nested within E. every S is in both C1 and C2 and in D1: D2: and D3. 51 APPENDIX C TABLE OF MEANS USED TO COMPUTE "F" Verbal A 4.695 B 27.149 C 14.171 D 8.165 AB 4.899 AC 4.938 AD 5.511 BC 12.470 BD 8.369 CD 4.147 ABC 6.645 ABD 5.307 BCD 4.597 ACD 2.640 ABCD 3.718 A = Amnesia B = Experimenter C = Word Type D = Destructive Impulse 52 ggg 17.657 50.725 56.444 23.925 99.919 9.371 10.104 26.934 18.882 18.580 12.538 2.552 13.877 14.557 22.496 REFERENCES REFERENCES Bobbitt. Ruth A. "The Repression Hypothesis Studied in a Situation of Hypnotically Induced Conflict." .g; Abn. Soc. Psych.. 1958. 56. 204-212. Eisenbud. Julie. "The Psychology of Headache: A Case Studied Experimentally." Psychiatric49uart.. 1937. 11. 592-619. Erickson. Milton. "The Method Employed to Formulate a Complex Story for the Induction of an Experimental Neurosis in a Hypnotic Subject." J. Gen. Psych.. 1944. 31. 67-84. Gordon. Jesse. "Hypnosis in Research on Psychotherapy."’ in Handbook of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. J. Gordon (Ed.) N.Y.: MacMillan. 1967. Huston. Paul; Shakow. David; and Erickson. Milton. "A Study of Hypnotically Induced Complexes by Means of the Luria Technique." J. of Gen. Psych.. 1934. 11. 65-97. Luria. A. R. The Nature of Human Conflicts. W. Horsley Gantt (trans.) N.Y.: Liveright. Inc.. 1932. Perkins. Kenneth A. Repression. Psychopathology and Drive Representation. An Experimental Hypnotic Investi- gation of the Management of Impulse Inhibition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. 1965. Reyher. Joseph. Hypnotically InducedConflict in Relation to Subscription. Repression. Antisocial Behavior. and Ppychosomatic Reactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois. 1958. 53 54 Reyher. Joseph. ”A Paradigm for Determining the Clinical Relevance of Hypnotically Induced Psychopathology." Psych. Bull.. 1962. 59. 344-352. Reyher. Joseph. "Hypnosis in Research on Psychopathology." in Handbook of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. J. Gordon (Ed.) New York: MacMillan. 1967. Reyher. Joseph. "Posthypnotic Stimulation of Hypnotically Induced Conflict in Relation to Psychosomatic Reactions and Psychopathology." Psychosomatic Med. 1969. 23. 384-391. Reyher. Joseph. Posthypnotic Conflict and Psychopathology. Unpublished paper presented at the meeting of the American PsycholOgical Association. Washington. D.C.. 1969. Reyher. Joseph and Perkins. Kenneth. Repression. Psycho- pathology and Drive Representation: An Experi- mental Hypnotic Investigation of Impulse Inhibi- tion. In Press. American J. of Clinical and Exper— imentla Hypnosis. Sommerschield. Harold. Posthypnotic Conflict. Repression and Psychopathology. Unpublished doctoral disser- tation. Michigan State University. 1969. Veenstra. Glen J. The Effectiveness of Posthypnotically Aroused Anger in Producing Psychppathology. Unpub- lished Masters thesis. Michigan State University. 1969. ("Tl xiii-XX 2]- 13*: ’ M'11111111111131“iiijitflifluiflifltfiiES