111'11' 111' i ”’1” 11. "111’ ’ ’1’1‘1’11W’." 1111' '1P’1’1”’,’1‘1”qI’1’1’1’ ' ”””"””.1"’"’"’-’j'-1 T311111 111111111111111311.1119'11" 1’ 1’” "1"1’ ””1“ ””1 "’1”.’.’” .'1 11".11”1’1” 1111111111 111.111 1 11“ 11”” 11111 1; ' 11111311 ’11.1 11 1 ' 1111.1111 .1111 ’I111 ’1” III.I,"1" ’11." ”1111111: '1”.1 ’1’1 1 11111’1111’HII11S1111111111111’1’ 11'1141’111’11 ’t’ ”11111 ;11- III 'I 111111111111 I I I .- ’1”I’1 1 111’ .111111 111111 11 1' ” '1 I .’I111 ’111111’1’1’1’1’ ’1’11’1. 1'11111"11‘ 1'11 11’11 1 11111 1”” ’1. 11mm 0 I 211-111 TI.“- . . III; I. .1 I '.01‘:;'. :O'H- 111 .1.' .11 1111- yaw-1.1.". """'"”""""".".' "'1 1.115131 I.‘ :711’1.1?'""""’ “ 1.11 “11111, .14.!” . '. I.” "'. 11711} 11'1 1 1’" 1 117:? 1:11. .{11'y- 1.41.11 1:11 .1!1’:"" 1,111; I1» ”111;r’\' 1111111 ’ [lin”I11.1 O O ' 0‘ . ‘V ‘ . . Q 4 ’ ‘ o -. I. I ‘k ‘ . 1' 91—0 M 2 [11:91”? 19’1’11‘1' 1 11' .111. 11-1 50 11111 I :1 ’.1 v! f ’12:}. I 21:15. 3. 1: :: Q ':' )fltl". :5: '0' -'o ' . 2'. ?i;fli :‘ o t ' .p i1 11$ ' . . .; '3 :’£i’ ”I 0” ’I’ ’ -’3".:1’Q1 ”1’ 1131111131” 3:151:48 -54.”??? 11' ’5”: J .: - '95’6”: ’fi’a :2 111‘ - £3111? $315131; J . '2‘ 33;:3131'.’11:‘.1‘~i~".’1'£" ' ' I 1’5’1’ " '; ". ' " . ° 7-";3;11‘.".."’J’5"‘ 111:. o " . ’9? ‘5‘:‘: “:11:Q1§':. . 0". .‘o ’:'1‘-’1E’:S:;1’}; §:"Ij';\v. ' f .. z; ””’1”,, 1 - 1”" 1...:121’ ..." . ., , ‘ "fghQJj:§.‘f:-f:_:ffi . '..~ ,. . -; .. - . 11:1?1E1‘4 '.~ +11? . . ¢|O . ;' '.‘ p . ’ :r t. 34.: ‘,§: tut" r" igég :;;l;‘ . t 3:;qif.1ls::wg‘:‘flg:ir ’ ' »' 1 " 131’ ’2111’}. ”1"}: 51.11. 1 qu’ja:1"1’"-’?' 1 “33:3311319": 2-1131: 1 13f 1 ' . Jar-“.132 .1 - o'. '11: '1” -11:1:1’1’1331’1’1’1331”,1’“11",”3‘3’111’11’31._ . ' 2, .m;:1.112 113‘s- . .1 :‘ .::' 0‘? :1 :31; 1": ’1,:‘t;::1 .;1‘ .‘ti’ilr~; 1 '_ . v ‘::l:-o]‘:;Lv-' . I : : "$131.- $1.11." 11;" 1' 1.11.5 "'*""3;‘¥'-1=i:. .53 15.21.15: '1' :-..I:+:.e23'=:.‘=.1-' " ’ ’ ”’ ”' "”""'1 1'11'~- '-:-:'-:1. .2 . .. firs: ::. . . . 1. _ II . .1 411“; 1; .1, J1”. .1 17-. {1111111515 .1.~111:.~1g!1:33131;521:4113135 "13311351211141. 0 v ’v’ "1' ’ Q " ‘ . ' ' '6’. ‘ v'w c .- 1 v ’11 ‘ ’ " 25311111}..-:1:“'f’"11’v”:"’11.1.’§:§1_1I11":"1’"""7’111’1’1‘1.."1’1‘111’§5?szL’j’:1:11£?""'2’r"1.21'3' ' . ' ,11‘15111'.’:§"‘. . “1:11" 9411314311 “1" 1.153"S35311:15.»...11131‘213‘114:35:115:12.'1 "1 ” 1' — . . ’.":':’i.-‘- 1111111155555: ”-5111; 3113‘: ' ’13”"‘".'.’.'.T’11’ “L111 515 I’132;,;IE.I1"1‘§;;EI:3:1._-.';j‘.i.—:->-'-2 1 - . . 11153.111.1'13.:2k1t1‘1711“w.i.'13.31£1.411;;"1 n11 .1.1. .111 I-q'fifig‘ 1.17". .I I . 1 ’11:“ "0.x[F‘ .:‘:.-o h: 1: .:1' .1,.,: :. 1: 5:3... F91~‘..‘1 .J: :1fi‘;:. ; . - ..', . .' ..° . - 1 1. 1111-9111111 1le 111 1.111.111.3111: {11! 1 .1'1t1'53i111. . -;; 113.1131» 1’ 1151 115ifi1‘13zf%3;-’~223.—T3:' ' .:- .' 1. ’ 31""-"’~'-¢" '1 ..z “’1’ . i'~1' 9.,” 1 1. . .- .11...."11'? "1‘34" 53:15: “1. "' 1' 1 -‘-"1.' i?111"§'§1=-'11=+1;1"' 1"1’11'11‘1“ ‘ '1’): 1.31351111116151- 131.11 =. ' .H ’ . " ' I”5 t." -' " "a ‘ ’11." . 2'.."!:1 ’0‘ . .L” -:1"":' 3'1 . ‘. . '. ‘7 "'- ‘ ; :"-"'11" 1.1;. "’"H'"'11'1‘1'15311’13111'1":1'?’15311"111’!" ..’..".«’.’13:-"11:1:.'>-': 11M: ' 1:11:51 ‘ . ~ :- :'1 1.1 ’ 1'. '~ 17'1' ’ ‘1"1'3'-:»‘1':1':1‘.1‘1:§}'14‘1‘11f5.3'1"1’t4'-5:-"‘-9f'fl.§"-".:‘ -.":’ .11 1"“w7ré. - .1. 1a11.1;3o.11;..1. 11,1, .- .,-.,. .1? 1"‘7171’1 1- U1:.::.~:.'1:1;--.1.~:11-.11:11=~.11.~.5.11’3"?"“1.121133. N1. 1111‘." 1. 111.:11:.-~::1::.: .-1.1.'~11!'1~.11=.. -‘1 i' 1.1111 .1...1.._....u.:e'=.-.11.,:1..1.111.111.1111 '11. '111117'1'1151' '5»? 1"11‘?‘ 1 7 .' ' .. 411111;?‘11-3. " '11 """"" 1-; " 2 ' -1.',-;.:1'1' ;:1f _.;.. 1 1-11;~.3'-':1;;1 'fz'f- = 111-: a5...f'.-1='-..,~.' 41:3:- - -. :1'; '''' 7 1”"11'1’1‘115’1 ’11’1I111””’” 1'1'113'1414511'411 '1'1;13”."f,“1'111121'4:1 1‘132311411."JE§51:'1"“i‘1'::';:.’.’1111;}.11111:3:?:§“‘:’3;1:1 .- 15”fo ‘11 ". I . 1 1 a". .11 .' . . v s . " ._. 11' "1‘0'0:...~:¢. '1.‘ ; :1:1' , ,1. : 111’111’111 41111,: 1.1.1.1.. 1113:111’11’1 11’3" .' 11111111” “-11:11 31:1' 1"" ”71-51% 1L ’.:"13’11’1"{:1113121’:”:11w “:1 J’E’ d’1111.3:1-1'f1:3‘ 2-114 111 12'. 1- 11.1 1;. 1' '-1.: 1'412‘1'3‘ “:1 1 11.1 "31‘ ' "1.‘-'""11‘ 1113's. 1:3": : 1'1; :13»? 1111111: 13‘1’11111111‘H 1’ ’1’!” 1" 11’ ' 1. ." .1 1,. ' '77.:1”: 11’1" ” "41”" ’r"” ’F' “111:;- '1"" ’ ".‘1 1”‘ _. .._. '.o‘o: . . _1_' ‘r 1 1‘, 1 1 ::.f' -‘r91Oo 0“ :8; id :1.. .- ” ’ ’ ” ”’ "1131” ’ ”i: 0".” ”1"?" ”””:. " 1’ EH}? 1”!“ 1”" 1:11". ”7" 1'13".” -—\. g%:r.811”'fl '9‘”? ’1”’:’ 1.1 ‘ '1‘: Vlngi‘L 1 1 “piggy;- ' J: . ,. .1; '11:" 1 4'1"} 1 1:11 ’5111'1111"”-"".'1'11 “'JII'. 1:1 J'1’11"’ 11.11" ”1111.111 1:11 11; ‘11:, '3’1". .11 1 013,1. 1 11:31 1111131: 1 1. '1 ' ~ 1 1": 11. 11.1 .1123 -' 'r:' o g}’{:1"11’ 1’1f1"’ 'i'11-‘1:1" "’1’1’.1’|.’; 1‘11‘..”’.V-"1"”’.":’113 "1-2.1;51111 111-1 1’11’. .1311'13' 1‘" ""””"'"’”""". O " '1 I 0 I .|::._ O 1: ’ ‘..'. .' 11111'11'11'1;1I111:"1"'1"...~111."'3'3-_:1'111 . 1.1- 1"'.1 ' '.. , .I II 1.”:1 I: .1'1' .“fa' ‘1 £1;- '1‘ 1""'1”"1"'1'1111 -11 1 I111 ’11 IJIIE:;11'1I:;II’:II { I] 111 “’EMI 1' .11 1’1'11 1112' m:1’ '."’,';3;;;J:’;11'1?i': .'.": ’I: 1 ...... v _ — “'1 .1 ‘ ‘ . 2'3" . ' ‘ U Q o .. ‘.¢r.:.. 1." 1.1-. . '1: .’1 11” 1’111"'1”1”1"‘1’"“1".1.- f“ 1:"~--111. 111 " 1'11 '1'” 1" = . 1.1111 11111111111 1.1. 1 ”1’11”! 11IIII1I11I11II11'11I ’1’1111111’111111’1111'.I1 I ".1 .I.1-11' 11131'1' 111' 1 1"11’.’ 1’11 1.11111111111. 1’1'11'1111""""' I. :. 11.11.11.111 11 .. . 1.». 113.....‘1'1 1111115111111111'111'" .11 1:111:1- .2111; ' 1 1'. 1”” 1” .”.”’ S’g’k.’ _ " "II 1"“ 1‘ 1’, “"I.--1.\ 1 . .,:". ‘.’:" ’ ’. n ‘ ““3”" ”1% ’111 1"111.-—...-7‘15””“1'!:’1.':':!'-3:'.".='1... ""1 o . 6 {'.fi _ ’ ’ ’y" ’ o , . ‘ ;." 7111111 ’41 2;"; O . .: ! . ”::%.. : 1-. 11111 ’"””1.. U. . Q {F1111} 11.1 11;- --. 11,?35‘: 1”: .1111 11111. .1 111:). "-1’ 1‘11 11".; THESIS lllllilllllillliHIHNIWllliHHIHIHlLIIIlllllHHIUl 3 1293 104072 {will}? 11" 1 I E :1; a i i k "'x i i. {12?}. “ Iain c.‘;:‘}'?. 2'; ‘ U? 1" {pa-awn- {net-1'1. 3 ran-l M "'”‘w' . '6'”- “ This is to certify that the dissertation entitled L,0 Negative Feedback on a Viglxance Task Embedded in a Hypnotic Induction and Its Effect on Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Processes presented by David L. Hayes has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Psychology jor profess r Date W MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU . LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. - \ .0. -. I". t I ' § . 'r. r411...» 3. ' . . e F’- "‘ r) . 4 . ' "I In '-.' ~ ' a i‘P .. f" . mum“ D£26~n NEGATIVE FEEDBACK ON A VILIGANCE TASK EMBEDDED IN A HYPNOTIC INDUCTION AND ITS EFFECT ON INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES BY David L. Hayes A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1981 ABSTRACT NEGATIVE FEEDBACK ON A VILIGANCE TASK EMBEDDED IN A HYPNOTIC INDUCTION AND ITS EFFECT ON INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES BY David L. Hayes A variety of researchers have attempted to increase responsiveness to hypnotic procedures. Most have had limited success and those more successful procedures have proved inefficient and time consuming. Gur (1973) has reported a quick and simple technique for increasing hyp- notic susceptibility of previously unresponsive subjects. The present study is a replication and extension of the finding that Gur's procedure is only effective when a hyp— notic Operator is present with the subject. Differences have been noted between clinical and experimental applica- tions of hypnosis. The thesis of this study is that the procedure developed by Gur is an experimental analog of clinical hypnosis, and that increased susceptibility is mediated by a transference to the experimenter. Thirty- seven subjects were selected from a larger group of under- graduate volunteers on the basis of low scores on two separate scales of hypnotizability. They were randomly assigned to one of three experimenters and to one of four conditions in which the Gur procedure or a standard hypnotic induction and the presence or absence of the hypnotic David L. Hayes operator were varied in a 3x2x2 factorial design. Subjects' anxiety was measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Following the experimental procedure, they constructed a story about TAT card 12M, and were inter- viewed about their perception of their hypnotic experience. This material was rated for manifestations of transference. Surprisingly, this study did not increase the susceptibility of subjects, even when their scores were adjusted (ANCOVA) for differences in initial susceptibility. Gur's explana- tion of his results in terms of focusing of attention on the words of the hypnotist was not supported. An unexpected finding was a significant 3-way interaction between treat- ments and experimenters on anxiety scores, suggesting the importance of experimenter characteristics in the hypnotic situation. The transference-suggestibility link could not be directly tested, but is not inconsistent with these results. The appropriate conceptual explanation of these results may rely more on strategies of self-esteem manage- ment than on transference. for Peggy and me ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to thank the many people who were directly involved in or directly or indirectly supported this work. Burt, Scott, Terry, Noel, Art, and Hayes, my fellow experi- menters, were reliable, competent, and enthusiastic. My brother Chris and friend Dr. Mary Corcoran provided impor- tant help with the data analysis, often under considerable time constraints and on the spur of the moment. My wife, Peggy, helped me with the ratings, and did a good job. The members of my committee, Drs. Albert Aniskiewicz, A. I. Rabin, Joseph Reyher, and Charles Hanley, merit individual mention. I am indebted to Dr. Hanley for his willingness to be flexible in his approach to this work. Al Aniskiewicz provided the quiet support, understanding, and interest which characterizes so much of what he does. It is difficult to single out one among the many things to acknowledge about Al Rabin; suffice it to say that Al has given me much in our friendly and collegial relationship, and has taught me much about being a clinician through his consistent exemplification of understanding, tact, and diplomacy. Joe has given freely of himself and his con— tagious enthusiasm for research in a way that has been encouraging, supportive, and enabling. His particular iii blend of the skills of the clinician and the researcher has been a significant personal and professional influ~ ence on me. Finally, Peggy knows well that without her, things would have been much different. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . 1 METHOD 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 13 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . 13 Conditions . . . . . . l4 Experimenter Present Feedback Group . . l4 Experimenter Absent Feedback Group . . 14 Experimenter Present No-Feedback Group . l4 Experimenter Absent No-Feeback Group. . l4 Experimenters. . . . . . . . 14 Apparatus and Materials . . . . . . 15 Procedure. . . . . . . . . . 16 Ratings of Transference, TAT Outcome and TAT Rapport. . . . . . . . 19 RESULTS AND PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION. . . . . 21 Interrater Reliability . . . 21 Self— -reported and Observed Susceptibility Scores . . . . . . . . . ' 21 Manipulation Check . . . . . . . 21 Susceptibility Scores. . . . . . . 23 Revised Manipulation Check . . . 26 Anxiety, Transference, and Susceptibility. . 27 TAT Scores, Transference, and Susceptibility . . . . . 30 Number of Shocks and Susceptibility . . . 30 Transference, Anxiety, and TAT Rapport . . 31 Moderator Variable Analysis . . . . . 32 FURTHER DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . 33 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . 39 APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . 45 A: A review of Correlates of Hypnotic Susceptibility. . . . . 45 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . 83 APPENDICES. . . . . Modified SHSS:B (SHSS:B'). Semi-structured Interview Format Degree of Regressive Transference Scale . . . TAT Rating Scales. vi Page 95 95 103 104 106 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. 2x2x3 ANOVA of STAI State . . . . . 23 2. Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations of STAI State by Experimenter and Conditions . . . . . . . . . 24 3. 2x2x3 ANOVA of Transference Scores . . . 25 4. Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Transference Scores by Experimental Conditions . . . . . . . . . 25 5. Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations on SHSS:B' by Experimental Conditions . . 26 6. ANOVA of STAI State Scores Excluding Experimenter 1 Data . . . . . . . 27 7. Intercorrelations of SHSS:B', Anxiety (STAI), Transference, TAT Outcome, TAT Rapport, and Number of Shocks . . . 28 vii I NTRODUCT I ON A variety of researchers have attempted to increase responsiveness to hypnotic procedures, and most have had little success. As, Hilgard, and Weitzenhoffer (1963) tried to increase susceptibility by giving training in hypnosis and by using psychotherapeutic techniques. Their approach produced reliable changes which were disappoint- ingly small, and trivial when considered in terms of the time and effort required. Similarly, Blum (1963) reported that he increased the responsiveness of two subjects only after a long, laborious period of intensive, individual work with them. An attempt by Cooper, Banford, Shubot, and Tart (1967) to replicate the As et a1. study resulted in equally disappointing results, despite long training periods with subjects. Such findings have led to a concep- tualization of susceptibility as a relatively stable and enduring personality characteristic which is not easily or quickly modified (Diamond, 1974; Hilgard, 1965; London, 1967; Morgan, Johnson & Hilgard, 1974; Sachs, 1971). Although other researchers have reported success in modifying subjects' hypnotizability, even these results require such approaches as periods of sensory deprivation (Sanders & Reyher, 1969), psychotherapy, psychotherapy-like 1 2 experiences, or marathon group work (Shapiro & Diamond, 1972; Shor & Cobb, 1968; Tart, 1970), biofeedback (London, Cooper, & Engstrom, 1974; Wickramesekera, 1973), attempts to change attitudes and maximize conditions to enhance re- sponsiveness (Kidder, 1972; Shor & Cobb, 1968), modeling by confederates (Diamond, 1972; Klinger, 1970), training on specific items (Kinney & Sachs, 1974; Sachs & Anderson, 1967), and drug placebos (Shor & Cobb, 1968). These pro- cedures are relatively cumbersome, expensive, and time con- suming, and Gur (1973) has correctly stated that they are consequently of little practical value for clinical appli- cation in medicine or psychology. In 1973, Gur develOped and reported a relatively quick and simple technique for enhancing hypnotic respon- siveness. This procedure consisted of asking hypnotic sub- jects to press a button each time they heard the word "relax" in a hypnotic induction in order to avoid receiving a shock. When he applied this procedure to a group of college students who had been selected on the basis of low to moderate susceptibility scores on an earlier test of hypnotizability, he found that their susceptibility scores increased a substantial and statistically significant amount when compared to several other control groups. Gur's explanation of his results was that the subjects' wish to avoid receiving shocks caused them to focus their attention on the words of the hypnotic operator, and that 3 this attention paid to the hypnotic induction facilitated increased susceptibility by encouraging them to ignore external and internal cues except the voice of the hypno- tist, thereby producing "deeper" hypnosis. A surprising and anomalous additional finding of Gur's (1973) study was that his technique produced higher susceptibility scores only if there was an experimenter physically present during the procedure; when the study was arranged so that the induction and shock avoidance procedure were automated and no hypnotist was physically present, the expected increases in scores did not occur. This finding is not explained by the notion that shock causes subjects to focus their attention more closely on the words of the hypnotist. If focused attention is the mechanism underlying the increased scores, it should not matter if the hypnotic operator is present or not, only that the subjects need to listen closely to his words to avoid being shocked. Smyth (1978) elaborated on Gur's procedure in order to monitor the attention of hypnotic subjects and to see if their attention could be manipulated. He was unsuccessful in manipulating his subjects' attention using either shock or verbal instructions. He found further that high suscep- tibility scores were associated with decreased attention to the words of the experimenter, rather than increased atten- tion. He concluded that concentration of attention was not 4 the critical feature in enhancing responsiveness. An addi- tional finding in Smyth's two studies was that he did not replicate the expected increase in susceptibility scores of low susceptible subjects. His procedure differed from that of Gur, however, in that in one study he did not use any shock, in the second study he used a less intense shock with the selection of the intensity under the control of the subject, and on each study there was an additional com- peting attention task. In 1974, Gur performed a carefully designed, well controlled study aimed at replicating his earlier research. He found once again that his shock avoidance procedure (which he now called "an attention-controlled operant pro- cedure for enhancing hypnotic susceptibility") effectively increased the susceptibility scores of students who had previously scored in the low susceptible range, although the lowest susceptible subjects did not increase. This second study did not include any conditions in which the experimenter was not actually present in the room with the subjects. Consideration of the results of the two Gur studies (1973, 1974) and of the two Smyth studies (1978) suggests several statements, which can be made with varying degrees of certainty. First, it seems quite likely that Gur's pro- cedure reliably increases susceptibility scores of people who under ordinary laboratory conditions are not particularly 5 responsive to hypnotic suggestion. Second, it is also likely, but less clearly demonstrated, that this procedure depends, in part, for its effectiveness on an unpleasant shock which is not under the control of the subject. Finally, it may be surmised, although this also has not been reliably shown, that the procedure is only effective when someone identified as an experimenter or hypnotist is physically present with the subject. The fact that the presence or absence of an experi- menter appears to be a critical variable in this procedure emphasizes the importance of the interpersonal relationship in a hypnotic setting. Further, the specific nature of the findings regarding this variable, effective with an experi- menter, ineffective without, is in keeping with the results of a growing number of studies in which the presence of an experimenter or therapist has been systematically varied (e.g., Beiman, I., Israel, E., & Johnson, S.A.,'l978; Borkovec, T.D., Grayson, J.B., & Cooper, K.M., 1978; Cassel, Johnson, & Burns, 1958; Johnson, L.S., & Wiese, K.S., 1979; Roach, 1981; Sacco, W.R., & Hokanson, J.B., 1978). It is also consistent with theories of hypnosis which utilize the psychyoanalytic concept of transference. This is most apparent if the results of the Gur and Smyth studies are considered from a slightly different perspective. In order to do so it is necessary to briefly consider the literature differentiating clinical and experimental hypnosis. 6 Clinical and experimental hypnosis are often con- ceived of as qualitatively different procedures, enough so that in 1967 a special issue of the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis was published as a forum for consideration of the differences. In that issue Erickson (1967) noted that clinical and experimental hypnosis had what he called "different personal significance" for people, and were experienced in different ways. He also reported that some subjects respond differentially to the two situations, re- sponding well to experimental hypnosis but not to clinical hypnosis, or vice versa. August (1967), in the same journal issue, contrasted "therapeutically" viewed and "academically" viewed hypnosis, a comparison which accords rather closely to the clinical vs. experimental comparison. He noted dif- ferences related to the hypnotic operator and his creden- tials, background, and purpose; differences in subjects or patients, particularly motivation, emotional involvement, and potential gain; differences in the setting in which hyp- nosis is to be performed; differences in the goals to be achieved by the researcher or by the therapist; and differ- ences in selection of subjects or patients, time parameters, and attitudes of hypnotic operator and subject toward hyp- nosis. He concluded with his belief that differences do clearly exist between experimental and clinical hypnosis, but his analysis was primarily pragmatic and atheoretical. Pearson (1970) reported a case in which hypnosis was 7 experienced differently when it was used for purposes of a demonstration, as opposed to its being used clinically. Thompson (1970) speculated about differences, stating her belief that they exist, but suggested that we are unlikely to learn much about them without more sensitive experi- mental procedures. Reyher (1977) suggested a theoretical framework to account for the differences. He contrasted the experimental and clinical hypnotic situations as follows: Suggestibility [increases] . . . under circumstances when people face a threat to their physical well-being or life, and they lack the skills to diagnose and treat their affliction. This insuf- ficiency of the requisiste skills pro- duces anxiety which in turn pressures the helpless individual into a passive- dependent relationship with the attending physician. . . . This dependency striving is the critical psychodynamic factor that is instrumental in producing the impres- sive results of suggestion in the clinical, particularly the medical, setting. He summarized his argument this way: Medical patients are anxious about their physical plight and cannot help themselves. They are objectively dependent. For some of them, their objective dependency will develop into dependent strivings which are encouraged by the demeanor of the physician and his significance as a helping authority. These strivings are reinforced by the treat- ment connotations of the medical building er s3 and in a variety of other ways, 1nc1uding difficulty in getting an appoint- ment, sitting in the waiting room with other patients, relating to the physician through intermediaries (nurses), being given pre- scriptive advice, and the patient's own ideas being dismissed or discounted. 8 The volunteer subject for experimental investigations is likely to be motivated by curiosity, money or credit points, and is not objectively dependent. Anxiety if present at all, is associated with personal threat posed by the hypnotic induction pro- cedure. Should dependency strivings be present, they are not encouraged by the demeanor of the hypnotist who generally uses a standard scale of hypnotic susceptibility. Neither are dependency strivings reinforced by the connotative significance of the hyp- notist (who often is a graduate student) nor the setting (often an unimpressive laboratory room). Clinicians take special note of the quality of the relationship which exists between hypnotic operator and sub- ject in trying to explain hypnosis. The modal explanation, the most typical formulation of hypnotic phenomena in the clinical situation, employs the notion of transference as the central construct. For example, Gill (1972), and Gill and Brenman (1961) argue that hypnotic subjects surrender their autonomy to the hypnotic operator under the pressure of needs and demands to regress to a developmentally earlier mode of relating to an authority. Wolberg (1948) talks about the hypnotist becoming cloaked in a mantle of author- ity which instills faith in the hypnotist and induces feel- ings of closeness. There is also a substantial clinical anecdotal literature which focuses on transference (e.g., Fromm, 1965, 1968; Gruenwald, 1971; Watkins, 1971). Theo- reticians who regard transference as of central importance include Ferenczi (1910), Gill (1972), Gill and Brenman (1961), J. Hilgard (1970, 1974), Kubie and Margolin (1944), 9 Reyher (1977), Schilder (1927), Shor (1962), and Wolberg (1948), to name a few. In regard to these theoretical form- ulations, Sheehan and Perry (1976) raise the important point that such theorists "nearly always highlight the clinical aspects of hypnotic response which are much less readily observed in the laboratory than in the therapeutic context" (p. 257). They go on to state that laboratory conditions routinely minimize such personal involvement of subject with experimenter. They seem to argue that the processes which occur in the laboratory and the consulting room are usually qualitatively different. As an explanatory construct, the idea of transference is not without difficulty. Prominent among potential prob- lems which its use presents is the fact that the term trans- ference has come to be used rather loosely and is used in a variety of different contexts to mean different things. In speaking of the hypnotic setting, I will be using the term to mean specifically what Reyher (1979) termed a re- gressive transference, which he defined as "a state depend- ent reactivation of parental images (an imago)." In the same vein, he goes on to state, "Feeling helpless or anxious about one's personal, social, physical, or spirit- ual well—being constitute stimuli for the reactivation of percepts of parents or caretakers in early childhood who at the time appeared to be all powerful." This usage seems consistent with what most theorists in hypnosis mean 10 when they use this construct. It has proved difficult in the past to produce the phenomena of clinical hypnosis in the laboratory because of the essential differences in the two settings. To convince subjects in experiments that they are in real danger seems to require either deception of a substantial and unaccept- able magnitude or the even less desirable approach of actually placing them in danger or in pain. However, recently there have been several ingenious studies which have successfully avoided these problems while still address- ing theoretically significant questions about the role of the quality of the hypnotist-subject relationship in facil- itating hypnotic responsiveness. Sheehan and Dolby have reported a series of studies in which competing demands are set for hypnotic subjects. They have found repeatedly that a subset of good hypnotic subjects who score high on dependency are acutely sensitive to even implicit wishes of the hypnotic operator, and that they are motivated to accede to those wishes in a way that unhypnotized peOple, subjects stimulating hypnosis, and poor hypnotic subjects are not (Dolby & Sheehan, 1977; Sheehan & Dolby, 1974). Their most recent study looked at dreams experienced during hypnosis and found evidence of what they called "transferencelike involvement of some hyp- notic subjects" (Sheehan & Dolby, 1979). LeBaron (1979) took the approach of carefully ll deveIOping a methodology which could be used in a clinical medical setting. He found that medical patients were most responsive to suggestion if they had objective reasons to be anxious, and if their physician related to them in a pater- nal and benignly authoritarin manner. This finding accords well with theory about the centrality of relationship vari- ables. In fact, responsive subjects in his study also tend- ed to describe the physician in ways which emphasized or exaggerated his skill, knowledge, and power, or their de- pendence on him. This is not a surprising finding, but it is noteworthy because it demonstrates that important parameters of the relationship between a hypnotic operator and a sub- ject or patient can be Operationalized and measured. The central thesis of this research is that Gur, in seeking to increase susceptibility scores, inadvertently developed a procedure which is functionally an analog of the clinical hypnotic setting. This leads to the hypothe- sis that subjects undergoing Gur's so-called operant pro- cedure respond to the experimenter as patients respond to a hypnotic operator in a clinical setting. If this is the case, it should be possible, using LeBaron's (1979) pro- cedure for scoring spontaneous comments, to demonstrate that subjects have different feelings and attitudes toward a present or an absent experimenter, and when in a threat or no-threat situation. 12 The present study proceeded in the following manner; (1) Used Gur's original so-called attention controlled operant procedure. (2) Varied the presence of the experimenter. (3) Assessed the anxiety of the subjects during the procedure. (4) Used ratings of interview material, spontaneous comments, and responses to a projective stimulus to assess the nature of the hypnotist-subject relationship. Further, the study was designed with regard to the principles for experimental design in hypnosis research stressed by Sheehan and Perry (1976). These included: (1) A statistical correction in order to avoid the effects of regression to the mean. (2) Appropriate control groups for evaluation of treatment effects. (3) Experimenters unaware of specific hypotheses being tested. This study was an attempt to replicate and extend Gur's (1973) findings; it focused on the interpersonal rela- tionship in the hypnotic setting and tested the following hypotheses: Hypothesis One: It is possible to increase the susceptibility scores of low susceptible subjects using Gur's procedure, but only when an experi- menter is present. Hypothesis Two: The increase in susceptibility scores is mediated by increased dependency striv- ing and transference on the part of the subjects. Hypothesis Three: Hypnotic susceptibility is negatively related to anxiety. Hypothesis Four: Hypnotic susceptibility is nega- tively related to focused attention on the words of the hypnotist. METHOD Subjects Subjects for this research were students at Michigan State University and Lansing Community College. Subjects were selected from a group of students who volunteered to participate in a study including "group hypnosis." Those students enrolled in introductory psychology classes at MSU received additional credits in their psychology course in return for their participation. Subjects were chosen from this group of volunteers on the basis of low scores on a standardized measure of hypnotic susceptibility. The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (HGSHS; Shor & Orne, 1962) was administered to all volunteers in order to identify a group of relatively poor hypnotic responders. Those students who scored 4 or less on the HGSHS were re- contacted, and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C; Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962) was individ- ually administered to each of them. Those subjects scoring 4 or less on the HGSHS and who were willing to come for a third experimental session (following the SHSS:C) were in— cluded in the present study. A total of 37 students participated. 13 14 Conditions Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the four following conditions: 1. Experimenter Present Feedback Group: This group was exposed to the experimental manipu- lation involving shock with the experimenter present in the room (a replication of Gur's operant controlled group). Nine subjects were assigned to this condition. 2. Experimenter Absent Feedback Group: This condition was the same as the first group except that the experimenter left the room before the experimental procedure began. (This parallels the initial group in Gur's dissertation which failed to produce the anticipated enhancement of susceptibility.) Seven subjects were assigned to this condition. 3. Experimenter Present No-Feedback Group: This group received a standard hypnotic suscepti- bility scale presented in the same format (tape recorded) as for the experimenter groups, but without the instructions about shock. The experimenter was present in the room. Eleven subjects were assigned to this condition. 4. Experimenter Absent No-Feedback Group: This group was the same as the previous control group, except that the experimenter gave the instructions, turned on the tape recorder, and left the room. Ten subjects were assigned to this condition. Experimenters. Four advanced undergraduate students, three men and one woman, were trained by the principal investigator to administer the SHSS:C. Three different advanced undergrad- uate psychology students, all men, were trained to admin- ister the experimental procedure. Subject-experimenter pairings for the experimental procedure were random, and an 15 effort was made to have each experimenter run equal numbers of subjects from each condition. Apparatus and Materials To administer shock, a solid state electrical stimu- lator was used, which produced 150 millisecond pulses of approximately 160 volts. The electrical stimulator was designed specifically for this research paradigm and was the same one used by Gur (1974) and by Smyth (1978). The shocks were administered via silver electrodes connected to the stimulator and held in place on the back of the subject's left hand by an adjustable elastic band. The subjects' responses were indicated by pressing a footpedal. Pressing the footpedal activated a small light which could be seen by the experimenter but not by the subject. The anxiety level of subjects during the experiment (state anxiety) and their level of anxiety in general (trait anxiety) were measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inven- tory (STAI) (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene; 1968). The hypnotic induction and susceptibility scale used during the experimental procedure was a modification of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form B (SHSS:B: Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959). The modifications were made to allow it to be administered by tape, without a hypnotic operator actually present in the room. The modifications were similar to those used by Shor and Orne in producing the l6 HGSHS from the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form A. This modified susceptibility scale is included in Appendix B. The modified SHSS:B (SHSS:B') was recorded on a cas- sette tape. The SHSS:B' contained the words "relax," "re— laxing," "relaxed," and "relaxation" a total of 56 times. The "relax words" were relatively evenly distributed through- out the tape, and no relax words occurred during the giving of the suggestions or during the time allotted for their execution. The tape was played on a cassette tape recorder with the volume set so that the subjects heard the induction at a normal conversational level. A transcript of the tape highlighting the occurrence of the relax words allowed the experimenter to anticipate the signals, making it easier to monitor the subjects' responses to them (activation of the light). Procedure Each subject received a hypnotic induction on three different occasions: during the group administration of the HGSHS, during the individual administration of the SHSS:C, and during the experimental procedure with the SHSS:B'. Followingeach susceptibility scale, each subject was asked to complete the state form of the STAI. Following the group hypnosis, each subject was given an opportunity to write any l7 spontaneous comments which might have occurred to him or her on the back of the response booklet. After the two individual procedures, each subject was debriefed using an open ended sentence, semistructured interview format (see Appendix C). Also, an attempt was made to record all spon- taneous comments made during the study. The experimental procedure used is similar to that used by Gur (1973, 1974). All subjects had been exposed to the HGSHS and the SHSS:C before receiving the experimental procedure. This procedure began with the subjects entering a small room. They were seated in a large comfortable chair and received the following general instructions: This experiment is interested in the rela- tionship between hypnosis and motor perform- ance. In a few minutes you will be given some instructions which I think will be clear. [Also, this study involves the use of a strong electric shock, which is somewaht painful but not dangerous. This will be further explained to you when you are given your instructions about what to do.] A meeting will be held to explain the results and purposes of this research after all subjects have been run. If you are interested, you may attend this meeting which will be announced on the same bulletin board where you signed up for this research. One other thing, please do not discuss this session with other subjects until the completion of this study. At this point would you please read this description of your rights and responsibilities as a subject and sign at the bottom indicating that the research has been explained to you and that you under- stand in a general way what your participation will involve. (The bracketed portion was not included in the instructions given to those subjects assigned to the two control conditions.) 18 After the departmental consent form had been signed, the electrodes were attached to the left hands of those subjects in the two experimental conditions. Next the sub- jects listened to one of the following sets of instructions being read to them, depending on whether they had been as- signed to an experimental or control, and experimenter present or experimenter absent condition: Experimenter Present Feedback Gropp: I am now going to administer to you a procedure for measuring hypnotic susceptibility. While listening to this tape recording you will be expected to perform a task. This task is to listen carefully, and when you hear the word "relax" mentioned, or any words containing "relax" such as "relaxed," "relaxing," or "relaxation," to quickly press the footpedal. Whenever you fail to do so, you may get a strong electric shock through the electrodes on the back of your hand. You are to quickly press the pedal whenever you hear the word "relax" or words containing "relax." Remember, if you fail to press the pedal after hearing "relax," you may receive a strong electric shock. I am going to turn on the tape recorder now. Listen carefully and follow the instructions which you have been given. Experimenter Absent Feedback Gropp: (same instructions as previous group with the following instructions in place of the last two sentences): I am going to turn on the tape recorder now and leave the room. I will return when the tape recording is over. Listen carefully and follow the instructions which you have been given. Experimenter Present No-Feedback Group: I am going to administer to you a procedure for measuring hypnotic susceptibility. Your task is let yourself be hypnotized by listen- ing carefully to what the hypnotist says and doing those things he requests of you. I am going to turn on the tape recorder now. Listen carefully and follow the instructions which you have been given. 19 Experimenter Absent No-Feedback Group: (same instructions as previous group with the follow- ing instructions in place of the last two sentences): I am going to turn on the tape recorder now and leave the room. I will return when the tape recording is over. Listen care— fully and follow the instructions which you have been given. The experimenter monitored the signals (pedal presses) made by each subject, and activated the electrical stimulator each time an experimental subject failed to signal the occurrence of a relax word. In addition, in the two conditions in which the experimenter was present in the room, he recorded the subjects' own self determined scores. After the tape recording was finished the experimenter re- turned to the room in those conditions in which he was not already present. Each subject was asked to describe spe- cific responses to the hypnotic procedure. Subjects were then given card 12M of the TAT and asked to make up a story about what was pictured after looking at the card for 15 secOnds. Finally, each subject was asked to complete the state portion of the STAI. Ratings of Transference, TAT Outcome and TAT Rapport Two independent raters produced three sets of ratings. Each subject's spontaneous comments and responses to the semi- structured debriefing interview were given a global rating ranging from -4 to +4 of the amount of regressive transfer- ence which they showed. The scale was a modification of 20 that used by LeBaron (1979), and, for example, would result in positive ratings for statements describing the authority, prestige, and competence of the experimenter and negative ratings for open criticism of the experiment or hostility directed toward the experimenter.(see Appendix D). Sub- jects' TAT stories were rated as having positive, neutral, or negative outcomes ("the kid gets well," "can't tell what happens," "the guy dies") and as reflecting positive, neutral, or negative rapport between the two figures pictured in the card ("one person is looking after the other," "these people aren't really related, don't know one another," "the one guy is controlling the other guy's mind"). These scales were developed using the procedure which Sheehan and Dolby (1979) used for scoring hypnotic dreams (see Appendix E). Disagree- ment on initial independent ratings were resolved by dis- cussion leading to a consensus rating. RESULTS AND PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION Interrater Reliability Ratings of TAT story rapport correlated .97 and ratings of TAT story outcome correlated .94 using the Goodman-Kruskal gamma rank order correlation coefficient (1954, 1959, 1963, 1972). Ratings of transference corre- lated .95 using gamma. Self-reported and Observed Susceptibility Scores The experimenter-observed SHSS:B' scores correlated .84 (n=l9, p < .0001) with the subject-reported SHSS:B' scores (i observed = 3.37, s.d. = 2.56; E reported = 3.26, s.d. = 2.00). Manipulation Check The first analyses of the data were to determine whether subjects' anxiety was increased by shock, and whether there was an accompanying increase in their trans— ference scores. A 2 (shock-no shock) x2 (experimenter pre- sent-experimenter absent) x3 (3 experimenters) factorial de- sign was used to evaluate separately the dependent variables. The ANOVA model was a mixed design with treatment conditions being fixed effects and subjects being a random effect. STAI state during the experimental procedure did not show a 21 22 reliable main effect. However, a 3-way interaction was sig- nificant (§'= 3.86; df = 2.23; p <.04), and an inspection of the means shows that the pattern of anxiety scores in the four conditions is different for Experimenter 1 than for Experimenters 2 and 3. (For shock conditions, mean anxiety is higher for Experimenter l in the present than the absent condition; for Experimenters 2 and 3 mean anxiety is higher in absent than present conditions. Similarly, in no shock conditions, mean anxiety for present conditions is lower than for absent conditions for Experimenter l but for Experi— menters 2 and 3 it is higher.)1 Thus, although the shock did not produce the expected increase in anxiety, subjects' reaction to the experimental situation was a complex reac— tion which depended in part on which experimenter they had. The heterogeneity of variances with unequal numbers of sub- jects in the cells warrants a certain amount of caution in interpreting the results. (See Tables 1 and 2 for a summary of ANOVA and means.) Transference scores showed a significant main effect for shock (§.= 5.83; df = 1.23; p_<.03), although the mean score for shock was lower than for no shock, contrary lExperimenter l was an experimenter in a previous piece of research in which the data collected by him dif- fered systematically from that collected by the other experimenters in that study. This suggests that subjects are responding to some feature of him which is relatively stable over time. 23 Table l. 2x2x3 ANOVA of STAI State Source DF SS F f Experimenter Present 1 196.93 1.13 n.s. Shock 1 21.63 0.13 n.s. Experimenter 2 128.89 0.37 n.s. Present x Shock 1 99.35 0.57 n.s. Experimenter x Present 2 24.55 0.07 n.s. Present x Shock x Experimenter 2 1347.13 3.86 .035 to prediction (§ shock = -l.07, s.d. = 1.75, range -4 to +2, i‘no shock = 0.00, s.d. 97, range -2 to +2). This means that shock in this study did not result in the con- ditions of increased anxiety leading to transference which were hypothesized as necessary to increase suggestibility. The negative score in the shock condition indicates that those subjects in shock conditions were significantly more critical of the experimenter and experiment than those who were not shocked and who were on the average neutral about them. This analysis and the means are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Susceptibility Scores SHSS:B' means were adjusted (ANCOVA) by using scores on the HGSHS and SHSS:C as covariates. No significant main effects or interactions were found. These findings are con- sistent with both of Smyth's studies, neither of which 24 mm.mau.o.m om.m neo.m mm.eau.o.m Ammuevea.mm mm.ov mm.mm m u: h n: va.man.o.m mm.~au.o.m mm.vmu.o.m mm.Hv we.avim um.m¢nm oedema Han: m u: Hm.n n.s.m ma.n n.s.m oo.m n.s.m Hm.mm mv.mmim oo.mmnm bemmmum Moonm oz xborm mbubnnsm wmm AH.o~ueo.m mm.m n.s.m mo.~mn.o.m Acaucvoe.mv ~H.mm oo.mv m u: m n: ev.mmu.o.m ma.m n.s.m em.meu.o.m oo.mv cm.~mnm cm.moim bemoan v u: N no em.» n.s.m mm.n n.s.m NH.~ n.s.m ha.am om.mvnm om.~mnm unwound rooem oz goonm m HmpcmEHmemm ’ i (ii (Fr bl]? mm.oau.o.m om.HHn.U.m mm.oan.o.m Amaucvma.me «H.0v oo.ve w u: N no mm.maueo.m vm.mau.o.m Hm.HHu.U.m oo.wv oo.ovhm oo.mmnm m no m u: mn.m u.p.m om.m n.o.m om.oau.o.m mm.ow mm.oemm . mm.ovhm xuocm oz xoocm m Housmaflummxm mn.m u.o.m Ho.oau.©.m om.m u.o.m Amaucvmv.mm hm.H¢ vm.vm m u: m no om.mau.p.m NH.oau.o.m mm.m u.o.m oo.ov mm.mvmm hm.ommm e no m us om.n n.o.m mH.m u.o.m mm.aau.o.m va.hm mn.mmnm oo.mmmm xoonm oz xoonm H HmucMEHHmmxm humane ucmmwnm ”1582 pcwmmum macebfincoo new umpemsauwaxm an mbmum Haam mo meoeumfl>mo oumocmum new mcmmz_nmbmsflea .N OHQNB 25 Table 3. 2x2x3 ANOVA of Transference Scores Source DF SS F Experimenter Present 1 .18 .10 Shock 1 10.62 5.83 Experimenter 2 6.20 1.70 Present x Shock 1 .62 .34 Experimenter x Shock 2 3.65 1.00 Experimenter x Present 1 2 .56 .15 Present x Shock x Experimenter 2 8.94 2.45 Table 4. Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Transference Scores by Experimental Conditions Shock No Shock ;13,12 is 4.00 3.61 Present s.d.=l.46 s.d.= 0.94 s.d.=1.24 n=8 n=10 ;12,71 is 4.00 3.47 Absent s.d.=2.l3 s.d.= 1.20 s.d.=l.70 n=7 n=10 2.93* 4.00* 3.54 s.d.=l.75 s.d.= 1.05 s.d.=l.46 (n=35) *Difference significant p <:.03 26 increased susceptibility, but are in contrast to Gur's results. Hypothesis One is not supported. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 5. Table 5. Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations on SHSS:B' by Experimental Conditions Shock No Shock present §e2.67 £53.91 3.35 s.d.=l.80 s.d.=l.87is.d.=l.96 n=9 n=ll Absent §e3.71 £15.40 4.70 s.d.=2.98 s.d.=2.88 s.d.=2.95 n=7 n=10 3.12 4.62 3.97 s.d.=2.41 s.d.=2.46 s.d.=2.55 (n=37) Revised Manipulation Check The significant 3-way interaction reported above (STAI) may have obscured other significant results. There- fore, despite the potential loss of generalizability which comes about by excluding some data in ppgt Egg analyses, the data from the discrepant experimenter (Experimenter 1) were removed and the remaining data were reanalyzed. For the resulting 2x2x2 ANOVA on STAI there were no significant main effects or interactions. This indicates that the manipulation of shock failed to significantly increase anxiety, and that the interaction was not suppressing sig- nificant results. This analysis is summarized in Table 6. 27 Table 6. ANOVA of STAI State Scores Excluding Experimenter 1 Data Source DF SS F p Experimenter Present 1 200.09 0.81 n.s. Shock 1 235.26 0.96 n.s. Experimenter l 1.55 0.01 n.s. Present x Shock 1 796.64 3.23 n.s. Experimenter x Shock 1 4.98 0.02 n.s. Experimenter x Present 1 11.38 0.05 n.s. Present x Shock x Experimenter 1 265.58 1.08 n.s. Anxiety, Transference, and Susceptibility Because the manipulation did not consistently in- crease subjects' anxiety, correlations were computed com- bining data from all four conditions. Because the anxiety scores of Experimenter 1's subjects varied systematically from those of the other subjects, correlations involving anxiety were also computed excluding those data. Correla- tions with one or both variables having 10 or fewer possible values were adjusted for the effects of restricted range (Walker & Lev, 1953). These correlations are summarized in Table 7. Anxiety scores (STAI state) did not correlate sig— nificantly with susceptibility (SHSS:B') (5 = -.25, n = 34, p <.08, one-tailed test). The correlation was £_= -.32 (n = 21, n.s.) excluding Experimenter 1's data, also not significant. The overall correlation (E = -.25), although 28 Table 7. Intercorrelations of SHSS:B', Anxiety (STAI), Transference, TAT Outcome, TAT Rapport, and Number of Shocks Anxietya Transference Chnxxxme Rapport Shocksb SHSS:B' -.25(-.32) .48** .12 —.05 .76* Anxietya —.57**(-.67)*** .03(-.O6) .40*(.43) -.20(-.03) Trans- -.01 -.05 .41 fename Outcome .03 .48 Exxort .12 akbrnflatflmm:inlxuenUmmesvmme