HYPNOTIC TIME DISTORTION AND LEARNING Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Gerald A. Casey 19:66 IHESiS LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the _ thesis entitled HYPNOTIC TIME DISTORTION AND LEARNING presented by Gerald A. Casey has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Eszghology Date May 11; 1966 0469 ABSTRACT HYPNOTIC TIME DISTORTION AND LEARNING by Gerald A. Casey The present study was designed to investigate some of the phenomena subsumed under the concept of hypnotic time distortion, as advanced by L. F. Cooper, and to test empirically hypotheses bearing on the validity of the COOper-Rodgin study in which learning done under conditions of hypnotic time distortion was concluded to be over 400% more effective than waking learning. A major assumption of the research was that "hypnosis" is not required to account for time distortion or the effects of time distortion on learning when the relevant variables are controlled: subject or personality variables, instructional-situational variables, the interpersonal relationship, and motivation to perform well on the criterion tasks. The general prediction was that the subjective time estimates of hypnotized subjects would not be significantly different from those of similarly treated normal, waking subjects, and that neither group would show enhanced learning in the experimental time distortion condition. A co-experimenter obtained twenty "deep trance" subjects from a pOpulation of volunteer college students through individual hypnotic susceptibility screening. Ten Gerald A. Casey were given post-hypnotic suggestions for rapid induction and continued deep hypnosis (HYPNOSIS GROUP). Instructions designed to maintain interest and motivation to perform well in the "imagination" segment of the research were given to the other ten subjects (WAKING GROUP). The subjects, randomly assigned to groups, were seen by the same experimenter in five individual sessions of approximately one hour each. The first two days were devoted to TIME DISTORTION TRAINING patterned after the procedures outlined by Cooper and Erickson. One group was trained while "hypnotized," the other under normal waking conditions. FAMILIARIZATION DAY, the third day, was designed to acquaint the subjects with the learning materials, instructions and procedures. On the last two consecutive days, EXPERIMENTAL LEARNING days, each subject received a waking warm-up list, time distortion list, and waking con- trol list. "Deep hypnosis" was induced prior to the time distortion list for the hypnosis group; the groups received identical time distortion instructions immediately before list administration. The independent variable was "deep hypnosis"; the dependent variables were time distortion measures, obtained on the second day, and learning measures obtained on the last two days. The conditions under which the time distor- tion measures were obtained were virtually identical to the experimental list learning conditions. Gerald A. Casey Both of the general predictions were borne out by the results. None of the six specific hypotheses tested reached statistical significance. While every subject in the study gave distorted time estimates (over-estimation) the responses of "hypnotized" subjects were statistically indistinguishable from those of waking subjects; further, there were no significant differences between learning done under conditions of hypnotic time distortion, waking time distortion, and normal waking control conditions. No significant relationships were found between magnitude of time distortion and time distortion learning. It was concluded that "time distortion" misrepresents the procedures involved and has little relevance to the general psychological literature pertaining to temporal experience. The "hallucinatory experiences" of subjects were concluded to have little in common with hallucinations and seem to best fit the psychological rubric of imagination or imagery. Several research suggestions were given. The interpretive clarity given to the concept of "hypnotic time distortion," the predicted failure to vali- date the earlier learning-enhancement findings, and the support given to the behavioral approach to "hypnosis," were the most important outcomes of the research. HYPNOTIC TIME DISTORTION AND LEARNING By Gerald A.Casey A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1966 DEDICATION to the memory of my father ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude to Dr. Joseph.Reyherfor serving as chairman of the dissertation committee. His stimulating questions, criticisms, and help- ful suggestions, which began long ago with his hypnosis seminar, are appreciated. Thanks also are extended to the other committee members, Drs. Bill Kell, Bertram Karon, and Abram Barch for their comments and encouragement. A special word of appreciation is given to Dr. Barch for his assist— ance with the preparation of the learning materials, and the analysis of the data. The co-experimenters in the study gave of their valuable time and special skills in hypnosis to make a rigorous experimental design possible. Thanks to John Goodman, Leonard Handler, and Robert Laywell. Gratitude is expressed to the students who served as subjects for this research. The demands placed upon them were generously met in all phases of the research. The author is indebted to his wife, Sandy, for caring, understanding, and waiting. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . V LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . vi INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Materials 0 o e o o o o o o o c o o 9 Time Distortion Training . . . . . . . . 10 Time Distortion Measures . . . . . . . . 12 Learning Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 13 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Findings Related to Hypothesis I. . . . . . l6 Findings Related to Hypotheses II and III. . . l6 Findings Related to Hypothesis IV . . . . . l6 Findings Related to Hypotheses V and VI . . . 17 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 The Concept of Time Distortion . . . . . . 18 Time Distortion and Learning . . . . . . . 20 Implications for Future Research. . . . . . 25 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3O APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 iv LIST OF TABLES Table l. Midrange SD estimates (in minutes) and TD ratios (SD/OD) for hypnosis group and waking group subjects on the final time distortion training task (OD constant at 5 seconds) . . . . 2. Within-groups comparisons of mean number of trials to learning criterion under experimental and control conditions. 3. Between-groups comparisons of mean number of trials to learning criterion under experimental and control conditions. Page 32 33 314 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Learning curves for hypnosis and waking groups on Day I for experimental and control conditions . . . . . . 2. Learning curves for hypnosis and waking groups on Day II for experimental and control conditions . . vi Page 35 36 Appendix A. LIST OF APPENDICES Review and Critique of Time Distortion Research . . . . . . . . . Discussion of Methodological and Conceptual Issues. . . . . . . . Learning Lists and Their Scaled Meaningfulness Values (m') . . . . . Schema for Counterbalancing Lists. Time Distortion Training Instructions-- Day I . . . . . . . . . . . . Typescripts of Two Tape—Recorded Inquiries. Selected Inquiry Excerpts Illustrating "Coincidental Happenings" . Supplementary Bibliography for Appendices vii Page 38 47 50 52 55 59 63 INTRODUCTION Experimental support for the hypothesis that hypnosis facilitates the learning of new material is scarce and equivocal. Although both Weitzenhoffer (1953) and Uhr (1958) concluded in their reviews that suggestions given under hypnosis can improve acquisition and recall they reported only one investigation in which trance learning was found to be markedly superior to waking learning. In that study, by Cooper and Rodgin (1952), paired—associate learning was concluded to be over 400% more effective in the trance con- dition than in the waking condition and the difference was attributed not to hypnosis, per se, but to the special time distortion technique used by the subject during trance learning. (See Appendix A for a review of time distortion research.) In that experiment (Cooper—Rodgin, 1952) the perform— ance of one subject was studied over a series of twenty daily learning sessions, receiving two lists of paired- associate nonsense syllables on each day. One list was learned in the waking condition and one in the trance con- dition, with conditions assigned in alternate order on successive days. The distinguishing feature of the modified spelling anticipation method used was the introduction of a five-second "study period” after each presentation of a pair of items. The notion was that during this brief interval the hypnotized subject, utilizing time distortion in his ”imaginary world" would subjectively experience a much longer period during which to rehearse and learn, and would consequently require fewer trials to reach criteria, compared to his waking performance. This is essentially what they found. Uhr (1958, p. 126), in his review of the study, commented that "the experimental design appears to have done a fine job of eliminating any extraneous bias the results are . . . striking and overwhelming." Weitzenhoffer (1953) likewise accepted Cooper's results and interpretations as valid, i.e., that the observed increase was due to hypnotically altered cognitive func- tioning. Two investigators (Casey and Moore, 1962; Barber and Calverly, 1964a) have further investigated the time dis- tortion phenomenon. The writer (Casey and Moore, 1962) extended the time distortion method to the learning of prose materials. Short passages, equated for length and reading ease, were administered to "good" hypnotic subjects, previously trained in time distortion, under experimental and waking control conditions. The experimental task was to read the passage and then "study" in distorted time for 30 seconds. The number of correct responses to standardized comprehension questions provided the dependent measure of learning performance, and showed a small positive difference favoring the hypnotic time distortion condition, but the difference was not satistically significant. Another aspect of this pilot study was an extensive, relatively unstructured post—experimental inquiry which focused on the subjective features of "study" and subjects' confidence estimates regarding their answers to the comprehensive questions. All subjects felt that they did better in the time distortion condition and they readily gave qualitative descriptions of superior thought processes to justify their claims. The null objective findings and contradictory subjective reports led to the present experimental study, the purpose of which was to replicate the Cooper—Rodgin study with more adequate controls. (See Appendix B for a dicussion of methodological and conceptual issues.) Prior to the preparation of this report Barber and Calverly (1964a) reported a well controlled study of hypnotic time distortion and learning which merits close attention. Three independent treatment groups were con- stituted: carefully selected "deep hypnotic subjects," and two groups of subjects who had volunteered for a "learning experiment." A pretest list of 12 nonsense syllables was administered individually to all subjects, with 5 minutes allowed for learning and 2 minutes for recall. Retests on an equivalent form of the learning task were given under the following treatment conditions: Group A——hypnotic induction plus time distortion suggestions; Group B-—waking time distortion suggestions; Group C--no suggestions. The dependent variables were (1) the subject's report with respect to the seeming duration of the 5 minute retest period; (2) pretest and retest learning scores. They found that hypnosis is not necessary to produce time distortion; Group A and Group B did not differ signifi- cantly from each other in subjective reports of time distor— tion, and both groups differed significantly from Group C, whose estimates were quite close to the objective duration of 5 minutes. With respect to learning Barber and Calverly found the mean retest score of Group A to be significantly smaller than both of the other groups, and Group B and Group C did not differ significantly from each other. They attributed the Group A decrement to the induction procedure used (focus on relaxation and drowsiness) and cited other studies which showed that this decrement can be removed if subjects are given explicit suggestions for improved performance. A further test of the relationship between time dis— tortion and learning was made by computing Pearsonian cor- relations separately for Groups A and B between (1) subjects' estimates of the duration of the retest period and (2) retest learning scores minus pretest learning scores. Neither correlation differed significantly from zero. These results, together with the comparisons of means, clearly showed no learning advantage for subjects given direct suggestions that time would slow down, either while hypnotized or awake. Two critical points need to be made about the Barber— Calverly study. First, the investigation was not a replica— tion; in fact, the study tested only a small part of the Cooper-Rodgin hypothesis. It will be recalled that Cooper and Rodgin based their interpretation of the learning enhancement findings not just on expanded time, but also on what occurs in that time° They hypothesized an altera- tion of cognitive functioning in which subjects were enabled to think in concrete symbols, much like those occurring in dreams, but not bizarre or unrealistic. They assumed that these imagery experiences, reported to be very real and vivid and to cover long periods of subjective time, would produce enhanced learning effects commensurate with the expanded subjective experience of study and not the objec— tive duration. Thus, Cooper and Rodgin's superior thought processes hypothesis involved suggestions for an increase in the ratio SD/OD = TD, ang_suggestions for vivid imaginary study. The second concern with the Barber-Calverly study is a methodological one. Recent research by Hilgard (1965, pp. 36—A4) was designed to test the effect on suggestibility of the following treatments: waking instructions, imagina- tion instructions, and hypnotic induction. The issue was whether the independent groups design was preferable to using the subject as his own control. In the first session no significant differences in suggestibility were found between the treatment groups in response to standardized 6 suggestions. In the second session all three groups received hypnotic induction. Again, there were no sig- nificant differences between group means. There were, however, significant gains between the two days for both waking and imagination groups, and no gain for the group experiencing hypnosis on both days. Further studies by Hilgard (1965) established that the effects attributed to hypnotic induction occurred irrespective of treatment order. It was concluded that "the effects are indeed small, and this fact is important; that they exist at all means that for some subjects at l§§§£_the induction procedures may be very important (p. 43)." Fortunately for the present investigator he chose a design which included the best features of both designs and thus maximized the sensitivity to small differences. The purpose of this study was to test the superior thought processes hypothesis using a rigorous experimental design which replicated the essential procedural features of the Cooper-Rodgin study. It was hypothesized that the subjective time estimates of both hypnotized and waking subjects would be distorted (overestimation) and that they would not differ significantly from each other. The following specific hypotheses were tested. 1. The time distortion measures (TD) of HYPNOSIS GROUP subjects Will not differ significantly in magnitude from those of WAKING GROUPS subjects. Learning (as indexed by the number of trials required to reach the ninth or last successive criterion) will not be significantly different for HYPNOSIS GROUP subjects under hypnotic time distortion conditions and normal waking—control. conditions. Learning will not be significantly different for WAKING GROUP subjects under waking time distortion conditions and normal waking-control conditions. Learning rate will not be significantly different for hypnotic time distortion and waking time distortion conditions. The magnitude of TD for HYPNOSIS GROUP subjects will not be significantly related to learning under hypnotic time distortion conditions. The magnitude of TD for WAKING GROUP subjects will not be significantly related to learning under waking time distortion conditions. METHOD Subjects A co-experimenter obtained 20 "deep trance" subjects from a population of volunteer college students through individual screening using standard trance tasks and criteria of susceptibility (closely paralleling the Weit— zenhoffer-Hilgard Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, 1959). Ten Ss, randomly selected from among the screened subjects, were given post-hypnotic suggestions for rapid induction and continued deep hypnosis (HYPNOSIS GROUP). Instructions designed to maintain interest and motivation to perform well in the "imagination" segment of the research were given to the other ten subjects (WAKING GROUP). Hypnosis group instructions. (S still deeply hypnotized) I'd like you to listen carefully now. You've demonstrated that you're a very good hypnotic subject. After today you will be working with Mr. Casey and you will receive some additional hypnotic training. You will find (firmly spoken) that whenever he counts from one to ten you will enter a deep hypnotic trance——as deep or deeper than you are RIGHT NOW. Do you understand? Fine. (S awakened.) Waking group instructions. (S has been awakened) Well, this completes the hypnosis part of the research. After today you will see Mr. Casey for an experiment that deals with imagination. If you've enjoyed the time you've spent here, I'm sure you'll also find his study interesting. Although I can't discuss my research with you now or the experiences you've had, if you'd like to get in touch with me when you're through, I'd be happy to talk to you. Materials The learning materials were taken from Noble (1961). Nine lists of nine CVC (consonant—vowel-consonant) pairs were constructed: three comparable warm-up lists of high scaled meaningfulness, and six comparable experimental lists of moderately low scaled meaningfulness (see Appendix C). Examples of the experimental list items are DAQ-YEM, JEX—WUG, and FIY—VEJ. All items were printed in large capital letters on 3" x 5" cards. A circular series of three different orders was used for all lists, with an intertrial interval of 30 seconds and a five minute rest between lists. The waking group replicated exactly the con— ditions of the hypnosis group: treatment order was counter- balanced within groups and across days; lists were counter— balanced for treatments and partially for days (see Appendix E). 10 Time Distortion Training A complete description of this phase of the research, the problem of time distortion elicitation, and the results obtained, is reported elsewhere (Casey, 1965). Briefly, on the first of two TRAINING DAYS the goal was to elicit from the subjects reports of rich, vivid imagery by suggesting familiar, minimally structured fantasy activities; for example, "be at a beach" or "visit friends." (These in- structions are given in Appendix E. Two tape recorded inquiry examples are provided in Appendix F.) Procedures on the second training day emphasized the importance of maintaining the life—like quality of the imagery as estab- lished on the preceding day and subjects were given detailed instructions and practice in the use of three different time distortion learning techniques: Printing (Condition Cl). Shortly, I am going to ask you to Open your eyes by saying OPEN, and you will see a card which I will be holding. On it will be printed two syllables separated by a dash. After you have looked at them I will say CLOSE. This will be the signal for you to close your eyes and FIND YOURSELF seated at a desk in a quiet room. In your special time you will print the pair of syllables over and over on a sheet of blank paper. You won't have to hurry, you'll have ll plenty of time. I will signal you to stop printing by saying NOW BLANK. Do you understand? Fine. Visualizing syllables on a blackboard (Condition C2). This time we are going to do something a little different. You will look at the card I hold, close your eyes when I signal, and then you will FIND YOURSELF in the front row of a quiet classroom. You will find that the two syllables which were on the card will be printed on the blackboard and you will be able to see them clearly. In this imaginery setting, in your special time, you will be able to study the syllables, concentrating on them and thinking of nothing else. Just watch the blackboard and you'll find that the syllables become clearly impressed upon your memory. You won't have to hurry. I'll let you know when the time is up. Choice of methods (Condition C3). This time you will look at the card and close your eyes when I signal. Then, in your special imaginery world and special time you will FIND YOURSELF using SOME method to learn the pair of syllables perfectly. It may be a method that you have already practiced, or it may be some entirely new method. You will find yourself doing whatever works best for you. There will be plenty of time between signals to learn the pair easily. 12 Subjects had three trials with each set of instruc- tions; in each case S looked at a pair of syllables presented on a printed card, closed his eyes, and "studied" the items in "distorted time" in the prescribed manner for an objective duration (CD) of five seconds. After each of these trials S was asked to describe in detail what had happened and to estimate the subjective or seeming duration (SD) of his imagined experience of studying. Time Distortion Measures For each of the three sets of instructions adminis— tered on the second training day subjects gave three estimates of subjective duration (SD). In all nine instances the time allowed by S for the imaginary, time distorted study was five seconds (OD), the same duration as that used by Cooper and Rodgin (1952). The three estimates given to the third set of instructions represent the best basis for extrapolating to the time distortion present during list learning since (a) the measures repre— sent the final product of time distortion training, (b) no further training intervenes between time distortion train— ing and list learning, and (c) the instructions are nearly identical to those used for list learning on subsequent days. SD will be understood, then, to be the time estimation given by the subject when asked to estimate how long he ”seemed to have" to "study" a single pair of syllables in 13 distorted time, using whatever method he wished. TD, which Cooper defined as the ratio SD/OD, will also be reported, where OD is constant at five seconds, is measured by a silent stop watch, and refers to the interval between verbal signals from S to start and terminate their time distorted imaginary experiences. Learning Procedures At the beginning of each of two consecutive experi- mental learning days subjects were told they would learn three lists, two under normal (waking conditions), and one under conditions of time distortion (hypnotic time distortion for the hypnosis group). The warm-up list was always administered first. Immediately preceding the time distortion lists, and following hypnotic induction for the hypnosis group, subjects were given the following instructions. Time distortion instructions. The procedure for this list will be identical to that used for learning the last list except that this time when the study period begins you will be able to take full advantage of your special time in your imaginary world using what— ever method works best for you. You won't have to hurry. You'll have plenty of time. You will look at the card, close your eyes when I signal, and just FIND YOURSELF somewhere using SOME to learn the pair of syllables. Keep studying until I signal that the time is up. A spelling anticipation procedure was used for all lists with attempted anticipations beginning on the second trial. Beginning with the second trial, subjects sat in a state of preparedness with their eyes closed. The experi- menter read the stimulus member of a pair and the subject attempted to give the associated response member. At the end of two seconds the experimenter said OPEN and placed in full view the card which he had been holding face down on the table. Two seconds after the subject opened his eyes and looked at the card the experimenter said NOW CLOSE which was the signal for the subject in the waking condi- tion to close his eyes and attempt to memorize the pair for a five second period (OD). In the time distortion condition (hypnotic time distortion for the hypnosis group) the NOW CLOSE signal indicated to the subject that he was to study in distorted time. For the waking control lists the NOW CLOSE signal was understood to be the signal to "study as you normally would without time distortion and imaginary experiences." RESULTS A Friedman two—way analysis of variance (Seigel, 1956) was performed between the three SD trial-scores for both hypnosis and waking groups. Since neither test reached statistical significance the midrange SS score was computed for each subject as the best estimate of mean performance over three trials (Dixon and Massey, 1957). Likewise, since TD = SD/OD, and CD is a constant of five seconds, the same null relationship between trial scores obtains and midrange TS scores are used in testing the relevant hypotheses. Table 1 shows the midrange SD and TD scores for each of the twenty subjects. Without a single exception SD estimates exceeded OD, yielding TD ratios uniformly greater than one° Although Cooper nowhere defines the magnitude of time distortion required to be considered con— ceptually significant, the ratios obtained here are quanti- tatively comparable to those tabled by COOper (1959, p. 45), many of them exceeding the ratios he presents. 15 l6 Findings Related to Hypothesis 1 This hypothesis states that the time distortion measures (TD) of HYPNOSIS GROUP subjects will not differ significantly in magnitude from those of WAKING GROUP subjects. As predicted, the Mann-Whitney U test was non- A6.5). significant (U Findings Related to Hypotheses II and III These hypotheses state that subjects within their respective groups will fail to show differential learning for the waking control condition versus the experimental condition. Table 2 shows a small non—significant learning advantage for HYPNOSIS GROUP subjects in the time distor- tion condition on Day I, but no difference at all on Day II (Walker and Lev, 1953). WAKING GROUP subjects learned somewhat faster under the control conditions than under the waking time distortion condition, but these differences were non-significant for both days. Findings Related to Hypothesis IV Hypothesis IV, which states that there is no signifi- cant difference between learning done under conditions of hypnotic time distortion and waking time distortion, was supported as shown by non-significant independent t—tests (Walker and Lev, 1953) on both Day I and Day III. Table 3 17 shows these results and comparisons between the groups under waking—control conditions. Figure l and 2, which pertain to hypotheses II, III, and IV, present the learning curves for both groups under experimental and control conditions. Inspection shows no marked differences between the various curves, with waking group time distortion learning on Day I being the most deviant. Findings Related to Hypotheses V and VI These hypotheses state that time distortion (TD) scores for subjects within their respective groups will show no significant relationship to learning scores obtained in the time distortion condition. Kendall rank correlation coef- ficients (Siegel, 1956) were computed between the midrange TD scores and the mean number of trials to criterion on the two time distortion lists administered to each subject. A correlation of tau = - .Al was obtained for the HYPNOSIS GROUP and a tau = .13 for the waking group. Neither of the correlations was significant. DISCUSSION The results of the present study demonstrate that "hypnosis" need not be invoked to explain the phenomenon of time distortion. When the relevant variables are con- trolled the time distortion responses of "hypnotized" subjects are statistically indistinguishable from those of normal, waking subjects. Further, the results showed no significant differences, as predicted, between learning done under conditions of hypnotic time distortion, waking time distortion, and normal waking control conditions; no significant relationships were found to obtain between magnitude of time distortion (hypnotic or waking) and learning. The Concept of "Time Distortion" With regard to the first hypothesis the time distor- tion responses of hypnosis group subjects and waking group subjects were strikingly similar to those reported by Cooper (1959, p. A5) for "well trained," deeply hypnotized subjects and they were not statistically different from each other. Although the time distortion training instruc- tions used in this study were patterned after Cooper's and the explicit intention was to elicit similar time distortion reports, the amount of training involved was considerably less than that deemed necessary by Cooper (1959, p. 32). He 18 l9 felt that "by and large, training in time distortion re— quires from three to twenty hours." Casey (1965) gives a detailed account of the responses of subjects to the suggestions administered during the training phase of this study and provides additional data which, taken together, show that time distortion responses can be elicited in a matter of minutes providing only that subjects are given instructions containing the following sufficient demands: (1) imagine vividly a real, life-like experience (S specifies specific type of experience) com- plete with sensations and feelings, as if it is actually happening; and (2) describe, shortly thereafter, in as much detail as possible the proceedings, feelings, and content of the experience. When these conditions were met, and subjects were asked how long the experience "seemed to last" (SD), their replies, without a single exception, exceeded OD. The significant element here, obvious once pointed out, is that consistent overestimations are elicited because subjects are 222 asked to estimate the actual or objective duration of the interval during which they imagined but to report "seeming duration." The ostensible profundity of "time distortion," when viewed in this light, reduces to a commonplace observation: most people can, and frequently do, imagine themselves engaged in activities which extend over minutes or hours (SD) but which occur in a brief 2O interval (OD); e.g., in daydreams, fantasies, nocturnal dreams, hypnagogic states, and hypnopompic states. This is not to depreciate the importance of studying Egggg conditions; the point being made is that "time dis- tortion" is not even a relevant concept in this context because the deviation of a perceptual judgment or estimate of duration (SD) from the objective duration (CD) of the judged interval is not involved. "Time distortion," as the ratio SD/OD TD, when operationally translated, is not a statement of relationship and SD is not a distorted estimate of CD; it is not any kind of estimate of OD. Time Distortion and Learning Although, as we have just shown, "time distortion" misrepresents the procedures or operations involved, it could be argued that "time" is important to the extent that SD is consistent with the imaginary event described; this interpretation would raise questions about the role of life-like imagery, with SD being but one index of reality-tone or vividness. Three related issues seem to be involved here. The first problem concerns the criteria used to assess the relative presence or absence of vivid imagery. Secondly, what are the antecedent conditions whichproduce imagery? Thirdly, does imagery have objec- tive effects as measured on a learning task? In terms of the first question, providing an Opera- tional definition of vividness, the procedure used by 21 COOper was to give suggestions for time distorted, vivid imaginary experiences in an intuitive, uncontrolled fashion until more or less elaborate, concrete, detailed reports were provided by the subject, as judged by the experimenter. When S was thus satisfied by the subject's productions and when S answered affirmatively to the question "did it seem real?" then the subject was said to be "well trained in time distortion." This investigation differed from the earlier studies in that standardized suggestions were employed which ex— plicitly specified the desirability of "real, life—like experiences." On the first training day when subjects were asked after each imaginary experience (six per subject) whether their experience seemed real 89% of SSS replies were affirmative (see Appendix E), and 100% of the responses on the second day affirmed the vividness of their imagery. Comparable figures are not available in Cooper's monograph (1959) because the emphasis there was on the affirmative response aS'a prOduct signalling the completion of "training"; little attention was given to the widely varying procedures and suggestions antecedent to that product. The other criterion used by Cooper to assess the reality tone or vividness of the imaginary experiences was the presence of "coincidental happenings"(l959, pp. 65-67)- While these occurrences strengthened SS confidence regarding the "realness" of the imagery, in the same manner as an 22 "appropriate" SD estimate, they were not felt to be a necessary concomitant. An example of a "coincidental happening" in the present study (in reSponse to "printing" instructions) was the report that "I couldn't pick up the pencil. I couldn't reach it. I was in my room at the dorm and didn't feel like getting up to get it." (Further illustrations are given in Appendix G.) This study would have been strengthened had a rating scale been used to obtain more differentiated subjective judgments concerning the vividness of the imagery. Another alternative would have been to use objective scoring criteria to evaluate typescripts or tape recordings of the imagery reports. As it now stands the writer submits that the high percentages of reports attesting to vivid imagery and the imagination report excerpts provided (Appendices F and G) support the assumption that the subjects in this study had imagery experiences as life-like as those reported by Cooper and his colleagues. If SD reports are used as a criterion there is no question of the comparability of the two studies. With regard to the second question, this study, unlike the COOper investigations, carefully controlled the ante- cedent conditions of time distorted imaginary experiences through standardized suggestions and careful selection of subjects, homogeneous with respect to hypnotizability. Further, the use of an independent control group which received instructions for imagery in distorted time, but 23 did not receive hypnotic induction suggestions permits the conclusion that hypnosis is not necessary for the elicita- tion of imagery since the reported frequency of real, life- like imagery was nearly identical for the two groups. This finding is consistent with recent well-controlled studies which incorporated rating scales of imagery vividness (Barber, 1964b; Goldiamond and Malpass, 1961) and which also found that hypnotic induction does not facilitate imagery. Fisher (1962) has suggested an explanation of imagery production which resembles that already suggested by the writer in the context of "time distortion": "sub- jects learn the intended thoroughness of imagery just as they learn other behavioral consistencies—-from reinforce- ments, approvals, and disappointments in the context of the situation." Cooper and Erickson seemed to have some appreciation of the significance of these factors, but they failed to make explicit in standardized form their implementing procedures and suggestions, and consequently were unable to separate out the relative contribution of the various antecedent components involved. They felt, for example, that 3 to 20 hours were required to train a "deeply hypno- tized" subject to have vivid imaginary experiences in distorted time. Further, they felt that "methods that succeed with one subject may fail with another, and a keen appreciation of, and sensitivity to, the delicate inter- personal relationship involved in hypnosis is of paramount 2A importance, along with resourcefulness and the willingness to try original and varying approaches" (Cooper and Erickson, 1959, p. 32). The present results indicate that hypnotic induction procedures are not required for the production of vivid imaginary experiences, that these experiences can be elicited easily and quickly, and that explicit response specification of the vivid imaginary experience desired by S is likely the most significant antecedent condition. (The elicitation problem is considered in more detail in an earlier report--Casey, 1965.) The final question deals with the alleged objective effects of imagery on learning. This study failed to find any support for this assumption. The results showed that learning done under conditions of imaginary study in dis- torted time, with or without hypnosis, was not significantly different from learning done under waking control conditions. It cannot be objected that the subjects were not given instructions and practice in the use of imagery in manners most advantageous to learning. "Imaginary printing" instruc- tions nearly identical to those used in the COOper-Rodgin investigation, and supposedly effective, were employed in this study BABE additional suggestions and practice—-visua1— izing syllables on a blackboard and doing "whatever works best for you." It is possible, but unlikely, that the vivid imagery noted on the learning tasks of the second training day was 25 not also present during the experimental learning days; the design of this study, its procedures and suggestions were specifically created to facilitate maximum transfer from the training stage to the testing phase. To have obtained additional imagery or time distortion measures on the experi- mental learning days would have entailed interfering with EEEEE standardized procedures and made interpretation of the results less clear. Implications for Future Research The remarks on "time distortion" were devoted mainly to delimiting the range of relevance of the concept. It was pointed out that "time distortion" has nothing whatever to do with a relationship, distorted or otherwise, between two temporal measures. If time distortion is to be studied in the context of hypnosis, methods and procedures should incorporate psychophysical methods of estimation or judg- ment and be coordinated with the general psychological literature of temporal experience (e.g., Wallace and Rabin, 1960). One of the more promising approaches would involve the comparison of time-estimates given under standard con- ditions and under conditions of hypnotically induced psy- chopathology (Reyher, in press) or emotional arousal. The second implication of this study is that the "hallucinatory experiences" involved should be thought of as imagery or imaginary experiences and not as perception in the absence of stimulation. Though subjects said that 26 their imagery was very real and vivid they showed no other evidence, apart from these statements, that they believed in the "reality" of the images, which is the usual criterion for defining "hallucinations." Controlled, directed, or modulated imagery may have faciliatory effects on certain kinds of problem solving or learning tasks. It is unlikely, though, that this rela- tionship obtains for rote learning or prose comprehension and it would seem more profitable to look for such a rela— tionship using tasks which require reorganization of information or memory images, viz., in the context of creativity. Lack of effort, suspension of attention, incubation, and the twilight states (hypnagogic and hypno— pompic) are frequently mentioned by writers and artists as crucial to the creative process. The final implication is that imagery is probably more significant as a clinical phonemonon where its impor- tance attaches to other idiographic data and where objective effects are not the concern. Reyher (1963) and others have addressed themselves to this issue. SUMMARY The present study was designed to investigate some of the phenomena subsumed under the concept of hypnotic time distortion, as advanced by L. F. Cooper, and to test empirically hypotheses bearing on the validity of the Cooper-Rodgin study in which learning done under conditions of hypnotic time distortion was concluded to be over AOOZ more effective than waking learning. A major assumption of the present research was that "hypnosis" is not required to account for time distortion or the effects of time dis- tortion on learning when the relevant variables are con— trolled: subject or personality variables, instructional- situational variables, the interpersonal relationship, and motivation to perform well on the criterion tasks. The general prediction was that the time distortion responses of hypnotized subjects would not be significantly different from those of similarly treated normal, waking subjects, and that neither group would show enhanced learning in the experimental time distortion condition. A co-experimenter obtained twenty "deep trance” sub- jects from a population of volunteer college students through individual hypnotic susceptibility screening. Ten were given post-hypnotic suggestions for rapid induction and continued deep hypnosis (HYPNOSIS GROUP). Instructions 27 28 designed to maintain interest and motivation to perform well in the "imagination" segment of the research were given to the other ten subjects (WAKING GROUP). The subjects, randomly assigned to groups, were seen by the same experimenter in five individual sessions of approximately one hour each. The first two days were devoted to TIME DISTORTION TRAINING patterned after the procedures outlined by Cooper and Erickson. One group was trained while "hypnotized," the other under normal waking conditions. FAMILIARIZATION DAY, the third day, was designed to acquaint the subjects with the learning materials, instructions, and procedures. On the last two consecutive days, EXPERIMENTAL LEARNING days, each subject received a waking warm-up list, time distortion list, and waking control list. "Deep hypnosis" was induced prior to the time distortion list for the hypnosis group; the groups received identical time distortion instructions immediately prior to list presentation. The independent variable was "deep hypnosis"; the dependent variables were time distortion measures, obtained on the second day, and learning measures obtained on the last two days. The conditions under which the time distor- tion measures were obtained were virtually identical to the experimental list-learning conditions. Both of the general predictions were borne out by the results. None of the six specific hypotheses tested reached statistical significance. The results showed that 29 the "time distortion" responses of "hypnotized" subjects are statistically indistinguishable from those of waking subjects; further, there were no significant differences between learning done under conditions of hypnotic time distortion, waking time distortion, and normal waking con- trol conditions. No significant relationships were found between magnitude of time distortion and time distortion learning. It was concluded that "time distortion" misrepresents the procedures involved and has little relevance to the general psychological literature pertaining to temporal experience. The "imaginary experiences" of subjects were concluded to have little in common with hallucinations and seem best to fit the psychological rubricof imagination or imagery. "Time distorted imaginary experiences," in general, can probably be most meaningfully studied in the clinical-psychotherapy setting. The interpretive clarity given to the concept of "hypnotic time distortion," the predicted failure to validate the earlier leaning-enhancement findings, and the support given to the behavioral approach to "hypnosis," were the most important outcomes of the research. BIBLIOGRAPHY Barber, T. X. and Calverley, D. S. Toward a theory of "hypnotic" behavior: An experimental study of "hypnotic time distortion." Arch. Gen. Psychiat., 1964a, 10, 204—216. Barber, T. X. Toward a theory of "hypnotic" behavior: Positive visual and auditory hallucinations. Psychol. Record, 1964b, 197-210. Casey, G. A. and Moore, W. Hypnotic time distortion and the comprehension of prose. Unpublished research, 1962. Casey, G. A. Hypnotic time distortion: An empirical study of eliciting conditions. Unpublished M.A. thesis- equiv., 1965. Cooper, L. F. and Rodgin, D. W. Time distortion in hypnosis and nonmotor learning. Science, 1952, 115, 500-502. Cooper, L. F. and Erickson, M. H. Time Distortion in Hypnosis. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co., 1959. Dixon, W. J. and Massey, F. J. Introduction to Statistical Inference. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957- Fisher, S. Problems of interpretation and controls in hypnotic research. In G. H. Estabrooks (ed.), Hypnosis: Current Problems. New York: Harper and Row, 1962, pp. 109—126. Goldiamond, I. and Malpass, L. F. Locus of hypnotically induced changes in color vision responses. J. opt. Soc. Amer., 1961, 51, 1117-1121. Hilgard, E. R. HypnotigSuggestibility. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1965. Noble, C. E. Measurements of association value (a) rated associations (a'), and scaled meaningfulness (m') for the 2100 CVC combinations of the English alphabet. Psychol. Rep., 1961, 8, ”87—521. 30 31 Reyher, J. Free imagery: An uncovering procedure. J. Clin. Psychol., 1963, S2, ASA—459. Reyher, J. "Hypnosis in research on psychopathology," Chapter in Handbook of Hypnosis. Jesse Gordon (ed). In press. Siegel, S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956. Uhr, L. Learning under hypnosis: What do we know? What should we know? J. Clin. Exper. Hypnosis, 1958, 5 (No. 3). 121-135. Walker, H. M. and Lev, J. Statistical Inference. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1953. Wallace, M. and Rabin, A. I. Temporal experience. Psychol. Bull., 1960, S1, 213-236. Weitzenhoffer, A. M. Hypnotism: An Objective Stgdy in Suggestability. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1953- Weitzenhoffer, A. M. and Hilgard, E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959. 32 N m w m m: m: om ow om am QB defies: m. m. m. m. m.m : m m m N Qm 3 e x a > w m m a N m e m NH ma em em or omfi omH as memocomm m. m. :. o.H m.a m m m OH OH mm m a H m m e o < m o osomooz mosooo wpoownzm pcoEpmopB .Amocooom m an pompmcoo Gov xmm» wcfisfimnp soapAOpmHo mafia Hmefiu on» so mpoonQSm osopw mcfixmz one osoaw maroon»: you QQ\omv moapML me can “mopseae CHV wopmefipmo am omcmhoazlu.a mqmom moo . mom mom 3mm zmz moo >Hz mos m mm.H om.H ze.a AA.H mo.a ma.a :A.H mm.a me.a AA.H mm.a ma.H on mo: > moo mHe m oo.a mo.a om.H mm.a mo.H mo.a mo.H mo.a mm.H mm.a Ho.H Ho.a mm> SHE ooe n ooN wa . zoo zHN mmm mHa eoz moo u xmm a om.H om.a om.H mo.a mm.a mm.a om.a om.a mm.a mm.a om.a mm.H so: u omm moo . 2am Neo . moz boo mm: >oa m u SHE oHo . Ema one xme omo mHm so» I o xoo I >Hz oHN hem 3H» mom 3H2 moo : mH.H AH.H mH.H mH.H mo.H HH.H AH.H SH.H mH.H AH.H mm.H mo.H woo omx oH» u see oo» u mm> me u >om ooz m m mo.H am. mo.H om. eo.a mo.H em. oo.H oo.H oo.a mm. oo.H mHo oox moo u boo >¢N n zHo oao mo> moo omz moo emo m me. om. mm. em. mm. o». om. am. 05. om. me. me. Neg. >H» me- moo 5H3 u wox who I one eo> me mom I on H m : ooooo mooao some .2 .A.EV mosHm> mmocHSMMCHcmoz coaxem pfionp cam mpmfiq Hmpcoefihooxm 49 Warm-Up Lists and their Scaled Meaningfulness Values (m'). Lists m' Rank Order 1 2 3 1 RON - SID HUB - JON DAL - MES 3.32 3.32 3.25 3.25 3.24 3.23 2 DOR - GUM LAM - BUR JAR - BUC 3.42 3.48 3.34 3.32 3.34 3.33 3 MED - LAT RIV - TUM HEM - KIN 3.50 3.52 3.45 3.44 3.43 3.46 4 LOW - GET LIP - MOR CIV - ROW 3-57 3-58 3.50 3.51 3-51 3-51 5 HUG - WAY PAR - SOB RUN - WEB 3081 3'79 307” 3075 3071'I 3'76 6 PAW - BIT DOL - JIM BIL — HOT 3.90 3.92 3.82 3.79 3.79 3.80 7 JET - FOR BUM - FAT DAM - RAT 4.01 4.08 3.98 4.00 4.00 3.99 8 PIG - REO PEN - CAL TEL - JOY 4.14 4.16 4.12 4.15 4.12 4.15 9 GAL - SUN GOD - TAX PET - BAG 4.20 4.22 4.20 4.19 4.17 4.19 E' 3.76 3.78 3.79 3.71 3.79 3.71 APPENDIX D SCHEMA FOR COUNTERBALANCING LISTS 50 51 mcwa3 u 3 AQSOHw Hmucoerooxo pom :oHpo:UCH oHpocozn mSHQv coHpDOpmHo oEHB n QB Q5 Epm3 u Q3 * H m m m m m m a H N h m H m o m H o m m w H m w H m a m H m m x m o m m o m m m H H 3 o m o H H m m m o m > m 3 QB :3 QB 3 Q3 3 QB Q3 3 m m m H H o m m o m H m m m o m m o H .H. o m H m w m H z m m m o m m H m a m H m m Q Q o m m o m m m H H o a QB 3 Q3 3 QB Q3 3 QB D3 QSOHU osopw HH H Hogpcoo HopcoEHgooxm mHmQ HoQ mpoomozm HoucoEHHOme COHpoNHHmHHHEmQ *mBmHH UZHOZ