-r~. n... . .H” ,. .. . , .. ,_‘_ _ ,~ . . . .v -_ .
‘1 u x-sul-I-J‘J‘g." m‘ . 1'5“ r magma ”In \ .U I 4‘53"“: '1"'" I I .M _:_ . u ‘. J . ‘ 3‘" . . . _ . ‘H‘ “I ,, ‘ ‘ , .. . I, .X
5“!“1'93"? 3f." I-Efi-Vfl-‘I‘. .' J , I, . r-‘ ‘v _, ,v 1-.“ 'x 3’~ r. , I v .¥ - ‘v M .- . I, A _ , ., w. ' ‘ _ ~ .7. - A .1 I ‘
‘ “mu—J . I _. .. . H V

THE mono RELATIONSHIP: FACILITATION Ann '
INHIBITION THROUGH INDIRECT PROCEDURES

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
JOHN G. WILSON
' 1974 '

  
 
   
 

LIBR/I" ' .
Michigafl?“ I

1' Q! I,
U”? 1731337) 5"“
%

This is to certify that the

~- .~ thesis entitled
THE HYPIIO‘I‘IC RELATIONSHIP:
rACILITATION AND INHIBITION THROUGH INDIRECT
PROCEDURES

presented by

John G. Wilson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

We .D . degree in Jaycholmgy

 

 

Date Z/fif/v7f/ +

0-7639 ‘

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE HYPNOTIC RELATIONSHIP:
FACILITATION AND INHIBITION THROUGH INDIRECT

PROCEDURES

By
John G. Wilson

The purpose of this investigation was to show that any method
which allows one person to direct the attention and behavior of another
is hypnotic and results in an increase in susceptibility to suggestions.
It was assumed that a multiplicity of situations are potentially
hypnotic but not recognized as such. It was further attempted to
demonstrate that hypnosis does not occur when the subject retains
executive ego functions.

Eighty gs were randomly assigned to five groups with sixteen in
each group. The five conditions were constituted to make the needed
comparisons. One condition utilized a formal hypnotic induction pro-
cedure as a baseline to test the efficacy of three different indirect
methods. These were free imagery, directed imagery, and passive waiting
with no instructions. The fifth condition tested the proposition that
hypnosis does not occur when the subject retains executive ego functions.
This condition is free imagery plus verbalization in which the verbal
communication of the imagery was assumed to be secondary process

regulated, adaptive behavior.

John G. Wilson

The results indicated strong support for the contention that free
imagery with verbalization of that imagery inhibits the hypnotic
process. There was weaker support for the superiority of indirect
methods of inducing hypnosis. Although the three indirect procedures
were statistically equivalent to each other and to the baseline measure,
the no instruction group was the only indirect procedure significantly
stronger than the verbalized imagery condition.

There were discrepancies in the results of the first and second
halves of the study, with respect to the susceptibility scores of the
indirect methods. These were tentatively interpreted as a breakdown
in subject naivete because of the time involved in running all subjects.
Further research needs to be done to test this interpretation as well

as any other uncontrolled variables which may have been involved.

THE HYPNOTIC RELATIONSHIP:
FACILITATION AND INHIBITION THROUGH INDIRECT

PROCEDURES

By

John GI Wilson

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1974

to
Dawn, Holly, and Scott
who helped their Dad more than they realize

I love you

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to give special thanks to my committee chairman,

Dr. Joseph Reyher. He has been with me from beginning to end of my
graduate career, and has helped make it the most exciting and rewarding
period of my life. Dr. Bill Mueller and Dr. Norm Abeles have also
given me much more, over these four years, than just research guidance.
Dr. Grumman was invaluable for his frank criticism and willing help.

I would also like to thank the four people who worked with such
enthusiasm and flexibility as my experimenters. Roy Grabow, Chris
Hewlett, Al McConnell, and Carman Ventoulla gave so much of themselves
and always seemed willing to give more. There are many others who
gave to me during this time but they are too many to list here.

Finally there is Bill Kell who helped me, more than anyone, to
find myself. I didn't have to be like him but when he was with me,

I couldn't help but be myself.

iii

TABLE

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . .
METHOD 0 O O 0 O O O O

SUbjects I O O O O 0
Procedure . . . . . .

RESULTS . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES . . . .

A. THEORETICAL REVIEW .

B. GROUP INSTRUCTIONS .

C. POST TEST INTERVIEW

OF CONTENTS

D. SUMMARY OF SUBJECT PROTOCOLS . . .

REFERENCES . . .

iv

Page

\IN

14
21
24
24
34
57
58

60

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Summary table of the 4 X 5 ANOVA for the treatment
conditions and experimenter differences on sus-
ceptibility Scores 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I

Summary of the means and standard deviations of
susceptibility scores for the five group
conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percentage of items passed by condition . . . . .

Summary of the means and standard deviations of
susceptibility scores for the five group
conditions in the first and second halves of
the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary table of the 2 X 5 ANOVA for the
treatment conditions and time differential
on susceptibility scores . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

10

11

12

13

INTRODUCTION

Countless theories of hypnosis have been put forward to eXplain
what happens when the hypnotist, with the consent of the subject, attempts
to induce hypnosis through conventional procedures. These usually
include eye fixation or other immobilization procedures, suggestions of
relaxation and sleep, and a fairly monotonous flow of talk from the
hypnotist. When the subject responds, or appears to respond, the hypno-
tist gives suggestions for particular kinds of actions or experiences.
What the successful subject does or experiences illustrates the kind of
behavior familiar in hypnotic lore for more than a century.

The explanation of these phenomena, however, have proven to be
much more difficult than their demonstration. This is not to say that
the multiplicity of contrasting theoretical explanations have not been
valuable in the continuing search to penetrate the core of this unique
human behavior. To the contrary, it has been the participation of
divergent theoretical interests that have made it possible to broaden
the search. A summary (Appendix A) of the more prominent theories,
however, make it clear that there is, as yet, little agreement on the
nature of hypnosis.

The theoretical frame of reference for the present investigation
is that of Reyher (1963). In terms of this theory, hypnosis occurs
because the operator assumes the executive ego functions of attention,
analysis of sensory input, and motility which the subject has abrogated
by virtue of passive reacting and, consequently, a lower level of

neuronal integration mediates the subject's behavior.

However, there are many individuals in our culture who would
see an overtly hypnotic situation as anxiety-provoking, and in this case,
hypnosis cannot occur. Anxiety motivates adaptive behavior, including
critical judgement. When g is led to expect hypnosis, he might become
anxious as the result of pressure to assume a passive-dependent role
and an abrogation of executive ego functions does not occur.

There is a wide variety of interpersonal relationships which become
hypnotic but are not recognized as such, and direct suggestions are
not made because they would seem inappropriate to both parties. Jacobson's
Method of Progressive Relaxation (1938) and Stampfl's Implosive Psycho-
therapy (1971) should both be excellent indirect induction techniques
because the operator focuses §fs attention on a variety of sensory stimuli
which he passively notices. Experimenter-directed imagery has been
employed with success as an induction procedure (Palmer and Field, 1971).
Interestingly, Reyher (1969) has found that free or spontaneous imagery
does not produce hypnotic effects. Free imagery may not allow the
subject to suspend executive ego functions in that the procedure forces
him to be spontaneous and adaptive, whereas directed imagery enhances
the acceptance, by the subject, of a passive-dependent relationship.

Reyher (1970) contends that the relationship between physician and
patient during the office examination is particularly hypnotic when the
patient is anxious about the significance of his symptoms. This set
of circumstances causes the patient to relate to the physician in a
passive-dependent, regressive manner which causes an abrogation of
executive ego functions, unless he is conflicted by the expression of

dependent strivings. The authoritative demeanor of the physician

and the routine manipulations of the physical examination rapidly and
unwittingly produce a hypnotic relationship that is undetected. The
hypnosis is undetected because it occurs insensibly and because S38
expectations, based upon cultural stereotypes of the hypnotized person,
are not brought into play. Faith healing occurs for the same reasons.
There is a growing body of research and clinical practice which
supports the efficacy of an indirect induction. Evidence that aware—
ness of being hypnotized is not a prerequisite for its taking place
comes from the work of Sargent and Fraser (1938), Erickson (1941),
Adler and Secunda (1947), and Rosen (1951), all of whom.have used tech-
niques aimed at preventing the subject from knowing that he was being
hypnotized. They reported having obtained trances comparable to those
induced by the usual methods. Research in our laboratory has also
demonstrated that responsiveness to test suggestions was the same whether
the situation was described as "hypnosis" or as "exercises in relaxation"
(Reyher and Wilson, 1973). Barber and Glass (1962) reported that waking
suggestions are just as effective as a formal induction. Weitzenhoffer
and Hilgard (1965) verified this when using independent groups.
Weitzenhoffer, Cough, and Landes (1959) showed that eye fixation
and expectancy of hypnosis was sufficient to produce hypnosis, but
eye fixation alone was not. Expectancy was necessary and those gs
who were hypnotized were able to adopt a passive-dependent expectant
attitude. Weitzenhoffer, et a1. likened the ten minute eye fixation
period to sensory deprivation because of the spontaneous hallucinations
that were occasionally produced. If suggestions had been given during

this period rather than afterwards, successful hypnotic inductions might

also have been obtained. Sensory deprivation heightens suggestibility
and an induction procedure is often successful for insusceptible §s
during, rather than after, the sensory deprivation period (Sanders

and Reyher, 1967). Wells (1924) has documented that most hypnotic
phenomena can be produced without a formal induction as long as‘g is
led to expect that certain phenomena will occur as an outcome of Efs
operations. §fs are informed merely of the principles of suggestion
and dissociation before direct suggestions are given.

The above investigations buttress our contention that hypnosis'
can be induced almost immediately in §9 who are able to suspend critical
judgement (executive ego functions) while §_conducts a given procedure
which could be eye fixation, imagination instructions, direct sugges-
tions, indirect suggestions or whatever. The rapidity of induction
upon posthypnotic cue suggests that the initial induction also proceeds
very rapidly, if §_welcomes the opportunity to be hypnotized. We
suspect that almost instantaneous initial inductions occur often,
but these are undetected when conventional induction procedures are
used because the schedule of suggestions, graded in difficulty and
administered after the induction procedure, masks the true state of
affairs.

The purpose of the present investigation is to show that any method
which allows one person (the operator) to direct the attention and behavior
of another is hypnotic by definition; that is, there is an increase
in susceptibility to suggestions. Five conditions were constituted
to make the needed comparisons. One condition utilized a formal hypnotic

induction procedure (HI) as a baseline to test the efficacy of three

different indirect methods. These were free imagery (FI), directed
imagery (DI), and passive waiting with no instructions (NI). The
results of an earlier investigation (Reyher and Wilson, 1973) lead us
to expect that the indirect methods, providing the subject does not
suspect the procedure is hypnosis, should be at least as effective as
the formal method because the acknowledged intent to commence hypno-
sis is prohibitively anxiety-producing for some subjects. The fifth
condition is a crucial test of the proposition that hypnosis does not
occur when the subject retains executive ego functions. In view of the
lack of spontaneous hypnosis in our clinical experience with free imagery
in emergent uncovering psychotherapy, wherein the client verbalizes
what he sees in his mind's eye, the fifth condition was free imagery
plus verbalization (VI). It appears that the process of communicating
to another person in a verbal, linguistic modality is intrinsically
secondary process regulated, adaptive behavior. The subject retains his
executive ego functions which means that he is functioning at the
highest level of neuronal integration; and therefore, he should be
relatively insusceptible to suggestions from the Operator. The suscep-
tibility scores for the FI, DI, and NI conditions should be equal to or
higher than the HI condition and lowest for the VI condition. The
three indirect conditions should be equivalent.

The present study attempts to demonstrate that a multiplicity of
situations are potentially hypnotic in nature but not recognized as
such. The verbalized free imagery condition was designed Specifically
to mobilize adaptive, executive ego functions to prevent hypnosis. The

no treatment condition is also an indirect induction technique because

it places the subject in a passive-dependent relationship with the
experimenter. The inclusion of non-verbalized free imagery, directed
imagery, and the "no-induction" conditions as indirect methods of hypno-
sis is intended to demonstrate the generality of our conceptual frame

of reference. These three indirect techniques should be as potent or
superior to the direct method of relaxation in the induction of hypnosis.
The verbalized free imagery condition should be less successful than

the other four groups as an induction technique.

METHOD

Subjects

Eighty female college students in an introductory psychology
course volunteered to participate in an experiment in "vigilance and
attention." They were divided randomly into five groups with sixteen
‘gs in each group. The groups were: 1. Formal Hypnotic Induction (HI);
2. Directed Imagery Induction (DI); 3. Free Imagery Induction (Fl);

4. No Induction (NI); 5. Verbalized Free Imagery Induction (VI).

Procedure
_S_s were seated in an easy chair and tested individually by _E_
in a sound-proof room. Those §s assigned to the HI, DI, VI, and F1
groups were given the following verbal instructions:
Seat yourself in the chair in a comfortable position and close
your eyes. I will be giving you a number of simple tasks to
perform while your eyes are closed. You will find these tasks
quite easy to comply with. While you are performing these tasks
I will, from time to time, be interrupting you to draw your
attention to one thing or another here in the room. I will ask
you to raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the chair
when you first become aware of experiencing certain sensory
perceptions that I will be calling to your attention. Keep your
eyes closed until I tell you to Open them. You will not be asked
to do anything difficult so just sit back and enjoy the experiment.
The induction procedure for the hypnosis group (HI) consisted of
a brief version of Jacobson's Progressive Relaxation Method. The HI
Group was also given the additional information that this is an
experiment in hypnosis and the option of participating further or not.
The induction for the DI Group consisted of §fs imagery, suggested and
directed by E, For the FI Group the induction procedure was based

on spontaneous imagery created by S, The induction procedure for the

7

VI Group was also based on §fs spontaneous imagery with the difference
that §.was instructed to verbalize that imagery as it occurred.
Those §s assigned to the NI Group were given the following verbal
instructions:
Seat yourself in the chair in a comfortable position and close
your eyes. From time to time I will be drawing your attention
to one thing or another here in the room. I will ask you to
raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the chair
when you first become aware of experiencing certain sensory percep-
tions that I will be calling to your attention. Keep your eyes
closed until I tell you to open them. You will not be asked to
do anything difficult so just sit back and enjoy the experiment.
Four undergraduate experimenters were employed in the testing of
subjects. Each experimenter tested twenty gs, divided among the
five treatment groups. One experimenter is a white female, one is a
black male, and the two remaining Es are white males. All instructions
were recorded by tape and an analysis was made of the results across
experimenters as well as among groups and items.
Hypnotic susceptibility was determined by the ability of Sp to
carry out ten task suggestions created for this purpose. Each task
was scored pass or fail after a ten second period had elapsed and the
total number of passes was considered §fs susceptibility score.
Comparison among groups was made by an analysis of mean frequency
count of suggestions passed. A comparison was also made across
suggestions for frequency of passage and relating this to their sequence
order. All §s reporting numbness on task suggestion number 9 were
tested for true anesthesia rather than merely subjective report.
Task suggestions for the three induction groups were interspersed
within the various induction procedures rather than waiting until after

the induction had been administered. A questionnaire was developed to

serve as a debriefing guide at the end of the research.

RESULTS

A two~way analysis of variance (Table l) of the Ss' susceptibility
scores produced a significant F for conditions only. Experimenter
differences, either alone or in interaction with treatment conditions,

had no effect on susceptibility scores.

Table 1. Summary table of the 4 X 5 ANOVA for the treatment conditions
and eXperimenter differences on susceptibility scores.

 

 

 

Source SS DF MS ' F Significance
Conditions 73 4 18.25 2.85 .05
Experimenters 26 3 8.67 1.35 N.S.
Interaction , 93 12 7.75 1.21 N.S.
Error 384 ' 60 6.40

Total 576 79

 

Duncan's Multiple-Range Test (Winer, 1962, pp. 86-89) revealed
that only NI-VI and HI-VI group comparisons contributed significantly
(.05 level) to the overall F. Table 2 presents the means and standard
deviations of the susceptibility scores for all five groups. The F-
Maximum Test for Homogeneity of Variances yielded an F of 1.53 which
was not significant, thereby satisfying the requirement of equality of

variance.

10

Table 2. Summary of the means and standard deviations of susceptibility
scores for the five group conditions.

 

 

 

Group * VI NI HI FI DI
Mean 2.13 5.06 4.19 3.81 3.63
S.D. 1.29 2.79 2.32 2.53 3.03

 

* VI - Verbalized free imagery; NI - No instructions; HI - Hypnotic
induction; FI - Free imagery; DI - Directed imagery.

To test for experimenter bias, two judges made independent ratings
of experimenter instructions to the groups with the highest (N1) and
lowest (VI) mean scores. Each judge made sixteen comparisons of in-
structions and suggestions given to each NI and VI §_over all experi-
menters. The judges were instructed to make the comparisons with respect
to experimenter enthusiasm (positive tone and quality of gfs voice) from
tape recorded instructions. The Sign Test for Matched Pairs (Hays,
1963, pp. 625-628) was used to determine judges ratings of group
differences. The obtained 2 values of .71 and 1.41 were not signifi-
cant indicating no apparent experimenter bias in the instructions.

Susceptibility scores were based on Ss' subjective experience of
perceiving the ten test suggestions. Since some of these items have
not previously been used to determine hypnotic susceptibility, it is of
interest to note the percentage of passage each item attained. Table 3
lists each item in its order of presentation, and the percentage of
possible passes by condition and total. The 59% pass rate of item
nine was based on §s' subjective feeling of numbness. Of those §s

passing item nine, 40% demonstrated a complete anesthesia (no reflex

11

reaction) and another 21% a partial anesthesia (palm reflex only) when

subjected to multiple, progressively increasing pin pricks.

Table 3. Percentage of items passed by condition.

 

 

 

Items VI NI HI FI DI Total
1. Room Temperature 31 63 44 44 44 45
2. Brightness 56 50 44 , 44 44 48
3. White Christmas 19 38 6 31 13 21
4. Feather 6 38 38 25 38 29
5. Chair Tilt 25 56 50 44 38 43
6. Chair Vibrate 6 50 25 31 31 29
7. Ammonia 6 50 38 31 31 30
8. Amnesia 6 50 81 44 50 46
9. Numbness 44 75 56 69 44 59
10. Post-Hypnotic Suggestion 13 38 38 19 31 28

 

This study was preceded by a twelve subject pilot study utilizing

only four groups (NI, HI, DI, F1) to establish the basic phenomena.

The overall mean was 5.08 which appeared to be consistent with the

results of the first part of the main investigation, but discrepant from

an unusual number of low scores in the latter days of the investigation.

Seventeen days were required to test all eighty subjects, who were

drawn from two undergraduate classes which met regularly during the

testing period. It became clear during the testing that subject naivete

was breaking down because several subjects (who passed none of the items)

12

admitted having been given information by their classmates that the
research really concerned hypnosis and that none of the stimuli actually
were presented. To determine whether this trend was significant, the
present study was divided in half (32 Se in each half with the exclusion
of VI Se) and the overall means were compared with the mean of the pilot
data. There was no significant difference in the mean (5.08) of the
pilot study and the mean (4.88) of the first half of the present study.
There was, however, a significant difference (.05 level) in the mean of
the pilot study and the mean (3.47) of the second half of the present
study. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the

scores by group for the first and second halves of the research.

Table 4. Summary of the means and standard deviations of susceptibility

scores for the five group conditions in the first and second
halves of the study.

 

 

 

Group * VI NI HI FI DI

First Half Mean 2.25 5.75 4.38 4.75 4.50
S.D. 1.71 3.15 -3.02 3.09 3.02
Second Half Mean 2.00 4.38 4.00 2.88 2.75
S.D. 1.69 2.62 1.77 1.73 3.18

 

* VI - verbalized free imagery; NI - no instructions; HI - hypnotic
induction; FI - free imagery; DI - directed imagery.
A two way analysis of variance (Table 5) of the Ss' susceptibility
scores produced a significant F for time (first and second halves of
study) as well as conditions. The interaction of time and conditions

had no effect on susceptibility scores.

13

Table 5. Summary table of the 2 X 5 ANOVA for the treatment conditions
and time differential on susceptibility scores.

 

 

 

 

Source SS DF MS F Significance
Conditions 73 4 18.25 2.72 .05

Time 25 1 25.00 3.73 .05
Interaction 9 4 2.50 .37 N.S.
Error 469 70 6.70

Total 576 79

 

Duncan's Multiple-Range Test (Winer, 1962) taken on the scores of
the first half of the study revealed that NI-VI, HI-VI, FI-VI, and
DI-VI group comparisons contributed significantly (.05 level) to the over-
all F. None of the other group differences were significant. For the
second half of the study, the only group comparisons which contributed
significantly (.05 level) were NI-VI and HI-VI. Of those §s passing
item nine in the first half of the main study, 44% demonstrated complete
anesthesia and 30% a partial anesthesia. The gs passing item nine
by conditions in this sample, break down as follows: N1 (88%); HI

(632); D1 (50%); PI (88%); VI (25%).

DISCUSSION

The results of the first half of this study show all three indirect
procedures (free imagery, directed imagery, and no instructions groups)
to be significantly greater than the verbalized imagery condition.

The results of the second half show only one (no instructions group)

of the indirect procedures to be significantly stronger than the verbalized
imagery condition. The means of the formal hypnotic induction and
verbalized imagery groups showed virtually no change from the first half

of the study to the second half.

The reporting of the differences between the first and second
halves of the study was deemed necessary to call attention to what was
felt to be an important trend in the subject population. The inter-
pretation of a breakdown of subject naivete was based on information
gathered from only a few of the subjects involved in the study. It was
put forward as a possible means of better understanding the results
of the entire study, and was not offered as a substitute for these
results. It cannot be determined whether the differences between the
first and second halves of the study was due to a breakdown of subject
naivete or to some other combination of uncontrolled variables.

The results of the total sample indicated strong support for the
contention that free imagery with verbalization of that imagery inhibits
the hypnotic process. There was weaker support for the superiority of
indirect methods of inducing hypnosis. Although the three indirect
procedures were statistically equivalent to each other and to the base-

line (formal hypnosis) measure, the no instruction group was the only

14

15

indirect procedure significantly stronger than the verbalized imagery
condition.

The results also demonstrated the objective value of item nine
(numbness and anesthesia) as an indicator of hypnosis. This item was
the only suggestion in which an objective evaluation could be made;
namely, reflex reactions to pin pricks oftrogressively increasing
intensity. All of the other suggestions relied heavily on subjective
responses. Surprisingly, item nine was the most frequently passed
suggestion and also was the only item in which the experimenters physically
touched and manipulated the subjects. The physical manipulation is
viewed, in our frame of reference, as enhancing the passive-dependent
relationship which the subject has entered into with the hypnotist.

The value of item nine to clinical practice is indicated by the large
percentage of subjects who not only reported subjective feelings of
numbness, but also had an anesthetic reaction to the pin pricks.

Although the investigation of indirect methods of hypnosis necessi-
tates deception, the results might be interpreted as gullibility or
general suggestibility of the subjects. Hilgard (1973) has attempted
to define and delimit a domain of hypnosis and some overlapping pheno-
mena. It has been demonstrated that social suggestibility, such as
conformity and gullibility, are not correlated with hypnotic-like
behaviors (Burns and Hammer, 1970; Mbore, 1964). Also there is evidence
that response to placebo is distinguishable from hypnotic-like respon-
siveness (McGlashin, Evans, & Orne, 1969).

Hull (1933) made the distinction between personal and impersonal

heterosuggestion which was later classified by Eysenck and Furneaux

16

(1945) as primary and secondary suggestibility. Primary suggestibility
is defined by responses to waking suggestion, such as postural sway,
that predict the usual phenomena of hypnosis. Secondary suggestibility
is defined as responses to waking suggestions, such as Binet's progres-
sive weights test, in which interest is focused upon the effect of
suggestion caused by the particular arrangement of the stimuli rather
than the effect of the verbal suggestion. Correlational and factor-
analytic studies have confirmed this distinction (Stukat, 1958). Primary
suggestibility is defined (Hilgard, 1973) as lying within the hypnotic
domain. The present study clearly tests the effect of primary suggesti-
bility. Some of the procedures were indirect in that §s were misled by
being told that they were to be presented with real stimuli. But the
suggestions were not indirect; they were the same as in formal hypnosis.
Also, the effectiveness of the posthypnotic suggestion within these
procedures is further support for including them in the domain of hypnosis.

A similar classification was the notion of prestige and nonprestige
suggestions. A number of investigators (Otis, 1924; Aveling and Har-
greaves, 1922; Estabrook, 1929; Messerschmidt, 1933; Hull, 1933) have
employed these expressions to designate a category very similar to
primary and secondary suggestibility. Nonprestige suggestions focus on
stimuli arrangement rather than the more personal element found in primary
suggestibility (Weitzenhoffer, 1953). Prestige and primary suggestions
belong within the domain of hypnosis, whereas nonprestige and secondary
suggestions do not.

Most induction procedures use some form of waking suggestion to

induce hypnosis, such as suggested postural sway or eye closure. If

17

there were no correlation between these kinds of suggestions and hypnotic
suggestion, most induction procedures would be ineffective. There is a
substantial correlation of .70 between scores on hypnotic scales when the
scores are obtained with and without a prior formal induction procedure
(Barber, 1969). What this means, according to Hilgard, is that waking
suggestions of this kind belongs within the domain of hypnosis, irrespective
of the arguments over a state of hypnosis or over the consequences of
induction.

In this investigation, the condition without a formal induction
procedure had consistently higher scores than all other conditions.
This is not difficult to understand, in our frame of reference, when it
is considered that the primary element in hypnotic induction is the
relationship between hypnotist and subject. If the subject is able to
abrogate executive ego functions and relate passively to the experimenter,
then the absence of instructions, which in some cases might actually
be distracting, and the anxiety-provoking knowledge of hypnotic intent,
can be seen as facilitating.

Because indirect procedures, as we have used them, involve no
formal contract of hypnosis between subject and experimenter, many
investigators will not recognize them as hypnosis. Because of the
deception involved, indirect procedures also limit the kinds of sugges-
tions that can be used. However, the manipulation and alteration of
primary suggestibility has been demonstrated and for the present we
shall refer to these procedures as indirect hypnosis. This Opens up
the investigation of a number of other likely vehicles of hypnotic

induction which have not consistently been considered to be linked to hypnosis.

18

Transcendental meditation (TM) is simple to perform, requires
little training, and qualifies as an indirect method of hypnosis. It
basically consists of quiet sitting, relaxation, and the passive
repeating of the mantra given to the meditator by his instructor.

There are also strong but subtle pressures to conform to the model of

a successful meditator (Schwartz, 1973). One of the keys to the mantra
is that it has value as a signal. The teacher chooses the mantra for
each student, who must never disclose it. It becomes special to the
meditator and signals to him that he is about to become deeply relaxed.
This is strikingly similar to the process involved in posthypnotic
suggestion.

The rite of exorcism involves a myriad of suggestive elements such
as holy water, sacred objects, prayers and incantations, which are often
in Latin, and most powerful of all, the priest or faith healer who is
seen as an emissary of the Almighty. The exorcist often utilizes physical
contact by touching and manipulating the body of the "possessed" person
in a practiced and assured manner which promotes dependence and passivity
in that person. This is not difficult because the "possessed" individual
is typically quite desperate for a solution to his predicament. I

The placebo effect also fits into the paradigm of indirect hypnosis
to the extent that its suggestive qualities are enhanced by the relation-
ship of those involved. The placebo's effectiveness is directly proportional
to the apparent effectiveness of the active analgesic agent that doctor
and patient think they are using. When the physician assumes he is
using a powerful painkiller, such as morphine, the result is a strong

placebo effect (Evans, 1973). If, however, the physician assumes that

19

analgesic is mild, the result is a much smaller placebo effect, though it
is still prOportionately about half as effective as the actual drug.

The procedure of acupuncture also fits this paradigm of indirect
hypnosis. In preparing for acupuncture, the patient is often lying
down and the physician fosters the development of trust, which allows
the patient to enter into a passive-dependent relationship. The fact
that the patient feels no pain (Palos, 1970) upon the insertion of the
first needle is evidence that an anesthesia has already been establi-
shed (Reyher, 1973).

The psychotherapist-client relationship and psychologist-subject
relationship can often become hypnotic relationships. The psychotherapist
who uses relaxation procedures, particularly Jacobson's method of
progressive relaxation in desensitization therapy, is probably dealing
with a hypnotized subject much of the time (Reyher and Wilson, 1973).

The psychotherapist directs the client to turn his attention to any
pains, symptoms, or tensions he might be having, and after a period of
time directs him to imagine imagery described by the therapist. The
situation is similar to Stampfl's (1967) implosive psychotherapy which
also fits the paradigm of indirect hypnosis. Hypnosis occurs in subjects
used as controls in hypnosis research because they are asked to simulate
hypnosis or do the same tasks. In both cases the subjects accept a
passive relationship with the experimenter and allow their behavior to be
directed.

Granted that hypnosis occurs in a structured interpersonal relation-
ship wherein one person directs the attention and behavior of another,

this does not explain the phenomena of hypnosis. It is, however, an

operational definition which can be used to differentiate hypnosis from
other means of interpersonal influence, and to delimit it for the purpose
of theory construction. Even with this delimitation, the task is
formidable because the constructs from widely disparate disciplines must

be integrated.

REFERENCES

Aaronson, B. Behavior and the place names of time. American JOurnal
of Hypnosis, 1966, 2, 1-18.

Aveling, F., and Hargreaves, H. L. Suggestibility with and without
prestige in children. British Journal of Psychology, 1921-1922,
E, 53.75.

vBarber, T. X. Hypnosis: A scientific approach. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold, 1969.

Beecher, H. K. Measurement of subjective responses: Quantitative effects
of frogs. Oxford University, 1959.

Benson, H. and Wallace, R. K. Decreased drug abuse with transcendental
meditation: A study of 1862 subjects. In Narcotics Research Rehabi-
1itation and Treatment. Hearings before and select committee on
crime, House of Representatives, 92nd Congress, first session, 1971.

 

Burns, A. and Hammer, G. Hypnotizability and amenability to social
influence. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Clinical
and Experimental Hypnosis, Philadelphia, October-November, 1970.

EstabroOk, G. H. Experimental studies in suggestion. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 1929, 39, 120-139.

Evans, F. J. The placebo-response in pain reduction. In Pain, J. J.
Bonica, Ed., Raven, 1973.

Hays, W. L. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963.

 

Hilgard, E. R. The domain of hypnosis: With some comments on alterna-
tive paradigms. American Psychologist, 1973, 11, 972-982.

Hull, C. L. Hypnosis and suggestibility: An experimental approach.
New York: D. Appleton-Century, 1933.

Kanellakos, D. and Ferguson, P. The psychobiology of transcendental
meditation: An annotated biblifigfaphy. Maharishi International
UnIVersity, Spring, 1973.

 

 

Lasagna, L., Mosteller, F., 6 von Felsinger, J. M. A study of the
placebo response. American Journal of Medicine, 1954, gg, 770-779.

Masters, R. E. L. and Houston, J. Mind Games. New York: The Viking
Press, 1972.

 

21

22

McGlashin, T. H., Evans, F. J., & Orne, M. T. The nature of hypnotic

analgesia and placebo response to experimental pain. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 1969, 31, 227-246.

Messerschmidt, R. The suggestibility of boys and girls between the
ages of six and sixteen years. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1933,
43, 422-437.

Mbore, R. K. Susceptibility to hypnosis and susceptibility to social
influence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964,.98,
282-294.

Orne, M. T. The nature of hypnosis: Artifact and essence. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 277-299.

Otis, M.A. Study of suggestibility in children. Archives of Psychology,
1924, 70.

Otis, L. S. The psychobiology of meditation: Some psychological changes.
Paper presented to the American Paychological Association. Montreal,
1973.

Palos, S. The Chinese Art of Healing. New York: Herder and Herder,
1970.

Pattie, F. A. A brief history of hypnotism: In J. E. Gordon (Ed.),
Handbook of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1967, 10-43.

' Reyher, F. Hypnosis. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co. 1969.

Reyher, J. and Wilson, J. G. The induction of hypnosis: Indirect vs.
direct methods and the role of anxiety. The American Journal of
Clinical Hypnosis, 1973, 4, 229-233.

Shapiro, A. K. A contribution to a history of the placebo effect.
Behavioral Science, 1960, 2, 109-135.

,Smith, J. C. Meditation: Definition, process, and ideology. Unpublished
_manuscript. 1974.

Stampfl, T. G. and Levis, D. J. Essentials of implosive therapy: A
learning theory-based psychodynamic behavioral therapy. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 1967, 22, 496-503.

Stukat, K. G. Suggestibility: A factorial and expgrimental analysis.
Stockholm: Almqvist and Wicksell, 1958.

Tart, C. T. Transpersonal potentialities of deep hypnosis. The Journal
of Transpersonal Psychology, 1970, 3, 27-40.

23

Wallace, R. K. Physiological effects of transcendental meditation.
Science, 1970, 167, 1751-1754.

Wallace, R. K. and Benson, H. The physiology of meditation. Scientific
American, 1972, 226, 84-90.

Wallace, R. K. Benson, H., and Wilson, A. F. A wakeful hypometabolic
physiologic state. American Journal of Physiology, 1971, 221,
795-799.

 

Winer, B. J. Statisticalgprinciples in experimental desigp, New York:
MoGraw Hill, 1962.

 

APPENDIX A

HEORETICAL REVIEW

Based on his principles of classical conditioning, Pavlov (1923)
viewed hypnosis as being akin to a kind of conditioned sleep. Sleep
was defined in terms of inhibition, and hypnosis as a state of partial
inhibition. The inhibition is only partial in hypnosis since the
continuous suggestions of the hypnotist create cortical "rapport zones"
which function as a selective response system. These "rapport zones"
were seen as existing in natural sleep also, as evidenced by the
ability to respond to certain cues while asleep.

Hull (1933) saw hypnosis as being basically similar to suggesti-
bility and considered both to be a habit learned through repeated
stimulus-response pairings. He was the first to offer a line of evidence
to show that the acquisition of hypnosis followed a program of learning
principles.

Das (1959) made the first attempt to integrate the Pavlovian and
Hullian theOries. He defined hypnosis both in terms of inhibition
and in terms of habit formation. His ultimate definition of hypnosis
was the ability to learn to develop a state of partial cortical inhi-
bition. Edmonston (1967) elaborated on this approach by integrating
both frameworks within one set of theoretical propositions, thereby
reducing hypnosis to a special case of verbal conditioning.

The views of Orne (1959, 1972) and Shor (1959, 1962) were both
influenced by an earlier formulation of White (1941). Shor charac-
terizes the hypnotic state as having three dimensions: hypnotic
role-taking involvement, trance depth, and archaic involvement. The
first dimension overlaps to some extent with role theory, and the

third overlaps with the psychoanalytic theory. The trance, though

24

25

admittedly not well understood, represents a psychological reality
because behavior is seen as changing when it is present or absent.
Orne's experimental program is committed to show that the hypnotic state
adds something to the suggestions, either overt or implied, of the
hypnotist. If it does, then role enactment according to social
communication is an insufficient explanation of hypnotic behavior.

Sarbin and Andersen's (1967) analysis of hypnotic behavior in
terms of role theory emphasizes that "role enactment" or "role playing"
should connote commitment or involvement and is different from sham
behavior. In Sarbin and Coe (1972), the theory is elaborated and a
person in social communication is seen as adopting a role suited to
the relationship, and tends to behave according to that role. He may
become so deeply involved in the role that it becomes irreversible as
in the extreme cases of sorcery and witchcraft. The role involvement
is intermediate between engrossed acting and histrionic neuroses.

Once this role involvement is accepted, there is nothing mysterious
about the counter-expectational nature of hypnotic behavior.

'According to role theoretical formulation of hypnosis, the'
variation in hypnotic susceptibility is accounted for by a number of
variables which enhance the subject's expectations and perceptions
regarding the role he should assume vis-a—vis the hypnotist. Barber
and De Mbor (1972) have recently delineated an adjunctive set of
variables aimed at maximizing the influence of Sarbin and Andersen's
(1967) variables in producing an optimal level of hypnotic performance.
Primary among these is the clear definition of the situation, by the
experimenter, as hypnosis. This is in agreement with Barber and

Calverley's (1964, 1965) findings of higher responsiveness to test

26

suggestions when the situation was defined as hypnosis than(when gs
were told that they are in a control group. These mediating variables
are responsible for the "consequent variables“ which include responses
to test suggestions, a trance-like appearance, changes in body feelings,
and reports of having been hypnotized. Trance-like appearance, changes
in body feelings, and reports of having been hypnotized are not
necessary variables, according to this theory, in order for responses

to test suggestions to occur. When they are present, their effect is
ascribed to increasing expectancies.

Shor's (1959, 1962) variable, termed archaic involvement, argues
that an essential characteristic of hypnosis is the presence of an
involvement with the hypnotist whereby the subject in trance instills
the hypnotist with a particular importance. The implication of this
argument is that the truly susceptible person who is archaically in-
volved with the hypnotist has a special wish to please. The personal
relationship between the hypnotist and subject in this case is directly
analogous to the transference relationship Operating at times between
the therapist and patient in the clinical setting.

Sheehan's (1971) work.with "real and simulating" subjects found
that only the real subjects complied with the subtle wishes of the
hypnotist in the trance setting. He interprets this as the first
objective index of real subjects' involvement with their hypnotist -
an index of hypnotic transference.

The most consistent evidence to deny the concept of trance is
that the phenomena of hypnosis can be produced without a prior induction.

It is said that if no induction is needed, no change of state is

27

necessary, and a state concept becomes superfluous. Hilgard (1973)
sees this objection as having merit only if induction fails to add
anything to noninduction. There is a good deal of evidence that
induction does indeed bring gains over noninduction (Barber and Calverley,
1968; Barber and Glass, 1962; Hilgard and Tart, 1966; Weitzenhoffer
and Sjoberg, 1961).

Barber has claimed that task-motivation instructions are fully
equivalent to induction in producing the effects usually attributed
to induction (Barber and Calverley, 1962, 1964, 1968). Bowers (1967)
found that task-motivation instructions exerted such extreme pressure
on subjects to comply that they often reported experiences to the
experimenter that they had not had. This was discovered through the
institution of an honesty report following the experiment. Spanos
and Barber (1968) repeated and extended the experiment with concordant
results. In their experiment, task-motivation instructions, when
corrected by honesty reports, produced no significant enhancement over
base conditions for either visual or auditory hallucinations. Following
hypnotic induction, even after correction for honesty, the mean visual
hallucination scores were significantly above base level.

The process of hypnotic induction is described by Kubie and
Margolin (1944) as a production in which all communications of the
subject are terminated with the outside world, except for the con-
tinuous responding to the hypnotist's voice. This is achieved through
immobilization of the subject and the monotonous tones of the
hypnotist's voice. A subsequent blurring of ego boundaries is seen

as occurring and the hypnotist's words become confused with the

28

subject's thoughts. This results in an apparent increase in suggestibility.
Hypnosis is described by this theory as an experimental repro-
duction of a natural developmental process. The final phase in the
hypnotic process parallels that phase in the development of the infant's
ego in which its boundaries gradually expand while retaining parental
images as incorporated unconscious components. In this sense, hypnosis
is seen as a regressive state that approaches the sensorimotor state
of the infant.
Gill and Brennan (1959, 1967) provide a more detailed analysis of
the regressive nature of hypnosis. They bring hypnosis into the orbit
of psychoanalytic ego theory as proposed by Hartmann (1958) and
developed by Rapaport (1967). They propose that the hypnotic state is
a partially regressed one, according to the concept of regression in
the service of the ego.
Regression is defined by these authors as "loss of autonomy."
The induction procedure creates a temporary chaos and the usual function-
ing of the autonomous apparatuses of the ego is disrupted. The induction
procedure is therefore characterized by evidence of a fragmentation
of ego synthesis. After an appropriate motivational pattern is found,
however, a subsystem is set up within the ego. This is a regressed
system which is in the service of the overall ego, and it is this
subsystem alone which is under the control of the hypnotist. In this
sense, regression in the service of the ego differs from regresstion
proper. Hypnosis is therefore characterized by a regressed state and
by engagement in regressive interpersonal relationships. It is seen

as both an altered state and a transference relationship. Hypnotic

susceptibility is viewed by Gill and Brenman as a sign of strength
rather than weakness because it entails the capacity to regress in
part while the depth and duration of regression are controlled by the
ego as a whole.

Reyher (1963, 1968, 1970) developed a theory that integrates
psychodynamic concepts with neurophysiological and interpersonal
processes, accounting for an altered state of awareness within hypnotic
effects. When an individual submits to an induction procedure he
assumes a passive-dependent relationship with the hypnotist. The
induction succeeds only if the subject is ready to give up to the
hypnotist his usual role of analyzing and integrating sensory input.

If adoption of such a passive-dependent attitude is anxiety producing
and Se defenses, which are adaptive in nature, are activated, hypnosis
fails to occur. If, however, the subject is not made anxious by adopting
such an attitude, the highest level of brain functioning, which supports
adaptive behavior, cannot be maintained. The hypnotist literally
becomes his eyes and ears, and suggestions act in the same way as
spontaneous impulses in S. Phylogenetically older and more primitive
structures of the brain gain control of overall brain functioning and
are able to mediate behavior which is difficult or impossible to

produce in the waking state. Sleep occurs in this fashion as does
highway hypnosis and sensory deprivation phenomena. These older
structures are known to have connections with many parts of the brain
and to have inhibitory and excitatory influences over these areas,

which might account for the increase in control over ANS functioning

obtained with hypnosis.

30

Since phylogenetically older structures have diffuse connections with
cortical and subcortical areas, regulatory psychophysiological mechan-
isms are more easily influenced. This then is considered to be an
altered organization of brain mechanisms. In this altered state, the .
voice of the hypnotist becomes a substitute for that of.§ and provides
his contact with reality. The complete absence of spontaneous overt
behavior by.§ reflects the incorporation of the hypnotist.

According to this theory, hypnosis is induced whenever.§ accepts
a passive-dependent, regressive relationship with the hypnotist, and
the depth of hypnosis is related to the degree to which S enters into
such a relationship. There are many individuals in our culture who
would see such situations as anxiety provoking, and in this case,
hypnosis cannot occur. Often, however, §_enters into a passive-
dependent, regressive relationship with §_much like that of a physician-
patient, guru-student, or psychotherapist-client.

Hilgard (1965) feels that as long as the setting promotes con-
fidence, hypnosis does not depend upon the personal characteristics of
the hypnotist. There is some evidence, however, that certain personal
characteristics may have a small but significant effect.

Barber and Calverley (1964) found that Efs tone of voice affected
the manner in which §s responded to hypnotic suggestions. Test
suggestions presented in a "forceful tone" resulted in a relatively
high level of subject suggestibility, whereas the presentation of
identical test suggestions to another group of Se in a "lackadaisical
tone" elicited a significantly lower level of subject suggestibility.

Greenberg and Land (1971) also concluded that personal

31

characteristics of the hypnotist play a role in hypnotic induction. By
structuring "warmth” and ”experience" they were able to affect Ss'
subjective impressions of whether they thought they had been hypnotized.
It was reported that §s hypnotized by an objectively warmer, more
competent appearing §_obtained significantly higher snaceptibility
scores. Small and Kramer (1969) concluded that the effectiveness of
hypnosis is also determined in part by the prestige of the hypnotist.

Levitt and Overly (1965) examined the question of whether an
experienced hypnotist would be more successful in inducing hypnosis
than an inexperienced hypnotist. Their results, however, showed that
the experience of the hypnotist was not a factor in evoking hypnotic
Ibehavior. There was no significant difference between experienced and
inexperienced hypnotists.
I There have also been numerous studies seeking to uncover subject
personality characteristics which correlate with hypnotic suscepti-
bility. Bowers and Van Der Meulen (1970) hypothesized a relationship
between measures of creativity and measures of hypnotic susceptibility
and found a moderate correlation between the two.. In attempting to
replicate this finding, Bowers (1969, 1971) found it to hold for females
but not for males. He also demonstrated that only women show a dramatic
increase in these correlations as a function of susceptibility level.
Perry, Wilder, and Appignanesi (1973) corroborated Bowers' findings
that the relationship between creativity and hypnotic susceptibility
was stronger among females.

Sutcliffe, Perry, and Sheehar (1970) found a positive relationship

between hypnotic susceptibility and vividness of imagery. Fantasy

32

did not correlate significantly with hypnotic susceptibility. Their
results suggested, however, that vividness of imagery and fantasy
considered conjointly led to a more accurate prediction of deep sus-
ceptibility than the imagery variable alone.

A significant tendency of highly susceptible Ss to seek "profound
experiential changes" is reported by Gibbons and De Jarnette (1972).
High susceptibility was associated with being either a Roman Catholic
or a "saved" Protestant. All of the high susceptibles reported that
the experience of being saved was characterized by profound experien-
tial changes, while none of the low susceptible group reported such
phenomena.' Van Nuys (1972) found that §s who reported having taken
marijuana and/or psychedelic drugs, at some times, averaged significantly
higher on their susceptibility scores. The strongest relationship was
found with the psychedelic group.

Palmer and Field (1971) found highly susceptible gs to be less
able than insusceptible §s to resist distraction. They also found
their figure drawings to be less detailed and more amorphous. In a
.similar finding, Mitchell (1970) reports that highly susceptible gs
Iare able to perform better than low susceptibles under nondistracting
conditions. I

An incidental finding (Blum, 1971) seems to indicate differential
use of defense mechanisms by low vs. high susceptible Se. Low suscep-
tible Se tend to use projection and, to some extent, regression on the
Defense Preference Inventory of the Blacky Pictures Test more frequently
than highly susceptible Se.

The findings of research attempting to uncover subject and hypnotist

33

personality variables, that are conducive to enhanced hypnotic effect, are
most difficult to interpret at present, and replications would be needed

to justify more elaborate speculations based on them. They do tend,
however, to bring into focus the complexities inherent in the interpersonal

relationship between subject and hypnotist.

APPENDIX B

GROUP INSTRUCTIONS

34

INSTRUCTIONS TO VI GROUP

(Seat §_in chair). This is an experiment in vigilance and attention
to a number of different kinds of perceptual cues. Seat yourself in
the chair in a comfortable position and close your eyes. I will be '
giving you a number of simple tasks to perform while your eyes are
closed. You will find these tasks quite easy to comply with. While
you are performing these tasks I will, from time to time, be inter-
rupting you to draw your attention to one thing or another here in
the room. I will ask you to raise your right hand a few inches from
the arm of the chair when you first become aware of experiencing
certain sensory perceptions that I will be calling to your attention.
Keep your eyes closed until I tell you to open them. You will notl
be asked to do anything difficult so just sit back and enjoy the

experiment.

Most peOple are able to see pictures of one sort or another when
they relax with their eyes closed as you are doing now. I would like
you to describe to me whatever pictures come into your mind. It
doesn't matter what kind of picture it is. Concentrate on what you
see in your mind and describe to me any changes which may evolve in
the pictures you are seeing . . . . (1) While you are visualizing
and describing what you see to me, I would like to call your attention
to the room temperature. Raise your right hand a few inches from the

arm of the chair when you first notice that the room is getting warmer.

(Pause 10 seconds)

35

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to describe to
me whatever pictures come into your mind. It doesn't matter what kind
of picture it is. Concentrate on what you see in your mind and
describe to me any changes which may evolve in the pictures you are
seeing . . . . (2) While you are visualizing and describing what you
see, I would like to call your attention to your perception of light
and dark. Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the
chair when you first perceive a perceptiOn of brightness through your

closed eyelids.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to describe to
me whatever pictures come into your mind. It doesn't matter what kind
of picture it is. Concentrate on what you see in your mind and
describe to me any changes which may evolve in the pictures you are
seeing . . . . (3) While you are visualizing and describing what you
see, I would like to call your attention to the sounds you are hearing
in the room. Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the

chair when you first hear the tune White Christmas.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to describe
to me whatever picture comes into your mind. It doesn't matter what
kind of picture it is. Concentrate on what you see in your mind and
describe to me any changes which may evolve in the pictures you are
seeing . . . . (4) While you are visualizing and describing what you
see, I would like to call your attention to the feelings in your left

hand. Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the chair

36

when you first notice me touching your left hand with a feather.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to describe to me
whatever picture comes into your mind. It doesn't matter what kind of
picture it is. Concentrate on what you see in your mind and describe to
me any changes which may evolve in the pictures you are seeing . . . .
(5) While you are visualizing and describing what you see, I would like
to call your attention to the position of the chair in which you are
sitting. Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the chair
when you first perceive a slight tilting backward of the chair in which

you are sitting.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to describe to me
whatever picture comes into your mind. It doesn't matter what kind of
picture it is. Concentrate on what you see in your mind and describe to
me any changes which may evolve in the pictures you are seeing . . . .
(6) While you are visualizing and describing what you see, I would like
to call your attention to the feel of the chair in which you are sitting.
Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the chair when you

first notice the chair vibrating.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to describe to me
whatever pictures come into your mind. It doesn't matter what kind of
picture it is. Concentrate on what you see in your mind and describe to me

any changes which may evolve in the pictures you are seeing . . . .

37

(7) While you are visualizing and describing what you see, I would
like to call your attention to your sense of smell. Raise your right
hand a few inches from the arm of the chair when you first perceive

the odor of ammonia fumes.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to describe to
me whatever pictures come into your mind. Concentrate on what you
see in your mind and describe to me any changes which may evolve in the
pictures you are seeing . . . . (8) Because your attention has been
divided, you will be unable to recall any of the stimuli which I
called to your attention earlier. Try to recall them anyway, even

though none of them will come to mind.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to describe to
me whatever pictures come into your mind. Concentrate on what you see
in your mind and describe to me any changes which may evolve in the
pictures you are seeing . . . . (9) While you are visualizing and
describing what you see, I am going to press a nerve on your left
shoulder. Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the
chair when you first eXperience a feeling of numbness in your left

hand.

(Touch shoulder and pause 10 seconds . . . . . . . If subject does
not respond, skip anesthesia test below)
I am going to take my hand away and the numbness will remain for

approximately two minutes. Now I am going to press a pointed instrument

38

on the back of your hand (left hand). The only thing you will feel,
if anything at all, will be pressure. How I will do the same to your
other hand. Raise your left hand if you feel any difference. (Continue
to do this applying more pressure until you get a reflex reaction
from the left hand. Use palms of hands if no reflex to backs).

OK that's fine. In a moment I will tell you to open your eyes.
After you open them I would like you to raise your right hand again when
you first perceive the room lights beginning to grow dim. Open your

eyes.

39

INSTRUCTIONS TO NI GROUP

(Seat §_in chair). This is an experiment in vigilance and
attention to a number of different kinds of perceptual cues. Seat
yourself in the chair in a comfortable position and close your eyes.
From time to time I will be drawing your attention to one thing or
another here in the room. I will ask you to raise your right hand a
few inches from the arm of the chair when you first become aware of
experiencing certain sensory perceptions that I will be calling to
your attention. Keep your eyes closed until I tell you to open them.
You will not be asked to do anything difficult so just sit back and
enjoy the experiment.

(1) Now I would like to call your attention to the room temperature.
Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the chair when you

first notice that the room is getting warmer.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. (2) Now I would like to call your attention to
your perception of light and dark. Raise your right hand a few
inches from the arm of the chair when you first perceive a perception

of brightness through your closed eyelids.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. (3) Now I would like to call your attention to
the sounds you are hearing in the room. Raise your right hand a few
inches from the arm of the chair when you first hear the tune White

Christmas.

4O

(Pause 10 seconds)

- OK that's fine. (4) Now I would like to call your attention to
the feelings in your left hand. Raise your right hand a few inches
from the arm of the chair when you first notice me touching your left

hand with a feather.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. (5) Now I would like to call your attention to
the chair in which you are sitting. Raise your right hand a few inches
from the arm of the chair when you first perceive a slight tilting back-

ward of the chair in which you are sitting.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. (6) Now I would like to call your attention to
the feel of the chair in which you are sitting. Raise your right hand
a few inches from the arm of the chair when you first notice the

chair vibrating.

(Pause 10 seconds)
OK that's fine. (7) Now I would like to call your attention to
your sense of smell. Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm

a

of the chair when you first perceive the odor of ammonia fumes.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now because your attention has been divided
(8) You will be unable to recall any of the stimuli which I called
to your attention earlier. Try to recall them anyway, even though

none of them will come to mind.

41

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. (9) How I would like to call your attention to
feelings of numbness in your left arm. Raise your right hand a few
inches from the arm of the chair when you first experience a numbness

in your left hand after I touch a nerve on your left shoulder.

(Touch shoulder and pause 10 seconds . . . . . . . If subject does
332 respond, skip anesthesia test below)

I am going to take my hand away and the numbness will remain for
approximately two minutes. Now I am going to press a pointed
instrument on the back of your hand (left hand). The only thing
you will feel, if anything at all, will be pressure. Now I will do
the same to your other hand. Raise your left hand if you feel any
' difference. (Continue to do this applying more pressure until you
get a reflex reaction from the left hand. Use palms of hands if no
reflex to backs).

OK that's fine. In a moment I will tell you to Open your eyes.
After you open them I would like you to raise your right hand again
when you first perceive the room lights beginning to grow dim. Open

your eyes.

INSTRUCTIONS TO HI GROUP

(Seat §_in chair). This is an experiment in hypnosis. If for
any reason, you wish to exempt yourself from further participation,
feel free to stop at this point. Seat yourself in the chair in a
comfortable position and close your eyes. I will be giving you a
number of simple tasks to perform while your eyes are closed. You will
find these tasks quite easy to comply with. While you are performing
these tasks I will, from time to time, be interrupting you to draw
your attention to one thing or another here in the room. I will ask
you to raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the chair when
you first become aware of experiencing certain sensory perceptions
that I will be calling to your attention. Keep your eyes closed until
I tell you to open them. You will not be asked to do anything difficult

so just sit back and enjoy the experiment.

I will now instruct you in a simple and well known procedure
which will enable you to relax more completely. First I would like
to help you to breathe more deeply and fully. Inhale a little more
deeply than you usually do and exhale when it feels comfortable to do
so. Now inhale a little more deeply than before and hold your breath
a little bit longer before you exhale. Now inhale a little more deeply
still and hold it until you feel the need to exhale. Relax and
breathe normally. Now inhale as deeply as you can and exhale when
you can no longer hold it . . . Relax and breathe normally. (1)
While you are relaxing, I would like to call your attention to the

room temperature. Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm

43

of the chair when you first notice that the room is getting warmer.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to breathe in as
deeply as you can and hold it as long as you can before exhaling.....
Relax and breathe normally. Now while you are relaxing, I would like
to call your attention to your perception of light and dark. Raise
your right hand a few inches from the arm of the chair when (2) you

first perceive a perception of brightness through your closed eyelids.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to breathe in
as deeply as you can and hold it as long as you can before exhaling
. . . . Relax and breathe normally. Now while you are relaxing, I
would like to call your attention to the sounds you are hearing in
the room. Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the

chair when (3) you first hear the tune White Christmas.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now I would like you to concentrate on the
muscles of your feet. Tighten and tense them as much as you can by-
curling your toes downward. Feel your feet muscles tighten and
tighten. Keep them as tight and as tense as you can . . . . Relax
your feet now and relax your body. Let your whole body relax. Now
while you are relaxing I would like to call your attention to the
feelings in your left hand. Raise your right hand a few inches from
the arm of the chair when (4) you first notice me touching your left

. hand with a feather.

44

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now I would like you to concentrate on your calf
muscles. Tighten and tense them as much as you can by bending your
feet downward. Feel your calf muscles tighten and tighten. Keep
them as tight and as tense as you can . . . . Relax your calves now
and relax your body. Let your whole body relax. While you are
relaxing I would like to call your attention to the position of the
chair in which you are sitting. Raise your right hand a few inches
from the arm of the chair when (5) you first perceive a slight

tilting backward of the chair in which you are sitting.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now I would like you to concentrate on your
.thigh muscles. Tighten and tense them as much as you can. Feel your
thigh muscles tighten and tighten. Keep them as tight and as tense
as you can . . . . Relax your legs now and relax your body. Let your
whole body relax. While you are relaxing, I would like to call your
attention to the feel of the chair in which you are sitting. Raise
your right hand a few inches from the arm of the chair when (6) you

first notice the chair vibrating.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now I would like you to concentrate on your
stomach and chest muscles. Tighten and tense them as much as you can.
Feel your muscles tighten and tighten. Keep them as tight and as
tense as you can . . . . Relax your muscles now and relax your body.

Let your whole body relax. While you are relaxing, I would like to call

45

your attention to your sense of smell. Raise your right hand a few
inches from the arm of the chair when (7) you first perceive the odor

of ammonia fumes.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now I would like you to concentrate on your hand,
arm and shoulder muscles. Tighten and tense your hands, arms and
shoulders as much as you can. Feel your muscles tighten and tighten.
Keep them as tight and as tense as you can . . . . Relax your muscles
now and relax your body. Let your whole body relax. (8) Because your
attention has been divided, you will be unable to recall any of the
stimuli which I called to your attention earlier. Try to recall them

anyway even though none of them will come to mind.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now I would like you to concentrate on your neck
and face muscles. Tighten and tense your neck and face as much as
you can. Feel your muscles tighten and tighten. Keep them as tight
and as tense as you can . . . . Relax your muscles now and relax
your body. Let your whole body relax completely and deeply. While
you are relaxing, I would like to call your attention to feelings of
numbness in your left arm. Raise your right hand a few inches from
the arm of the chair when (9) you first experience a numbness in

your left hand after I touch a nerve on your shoulder.

(Touch shoulder and pause 10 seconds . . . . . . . If subject does
not respond, skip anesthesia test below)

I am going to take my hand away and the numbness will remain for

46

approximately two minutes. Now I am going to press a pointed instrument
on the back of your hand (left hand). The only thing you will feel,
if anything at all, will be pressure. Now I will do the same to your
other hand. Raise your left hand if you feel any difference.
(Continue to do this applying more pressure until you get a reflex
reaction from the left hand. Use palms of hands if no reflex to
backs).

OK that's fine. In a moment I will tell you to open your eyes.
After you open them I would like you to raise your right hand again
when you first perceive the room lights beginning to grow dim. Open

your eyes.

47

INSTRUCTIONS TO DI GROUP

(Seat §_in chair). This is an experiment in vigilance and
attention to a number of different kinds of perceptual cues. Seat
yourself in the chair in a comfortable position and close your eyes.
I will be giving you a number of simple tasks to perform while your
eyes are closed. You will find these tasks quite easy to comply with.
While you are performing these tasks I will, from time to time, be
interrupting you to draw your attention to one thing or another here
in the room. I will ask you to raise your right hand a few inches
from the arm of the chair when you first become aware of experiencing
certain sensory perceptions that I will be calling to your attention.
Keep your eyes closed until I tell you to open them. You will not
be asked to do anything difficult so just sit back and enjoy.the

experiment.

Most people are able to see pictures of one sort or another when
they relax with their eyes closed as you are doing now. I would now
like you to visualize in your mind a picture of a circle or any round
object. Concentrate on the circular shape and try to see it as clearly
as you can . . . . (1) While you are visualizing the circle, I would
like to call your attention to the room temperature. Raise your
right hand a few inches from the arm of the chair when you first

notice that the room is getting warmer.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now I would like you to continue visualizing the

48

circle. Only now I would like you to visualize numbers on the face of
the circle as though on the face of a clock. Concentrate on the
picture of the face of a clock and try to see it as clearly as you

can . . . . (2) While you continue to visualize the clock, I would
like to call your attention to your perception of light and dark.
Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the chair when you

first perceive a perception of brightness through your closed eyelids.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now I would like you to continue visualizing the
clock, only now I would like you to see both hands pointing straight
up as thought it is twelve noon. Concentrate on the picture of the
face of the clock and try to see it as clearly as you can . . . .

(3) While you continue to visualize the clock, I would like to call
your attention to the sounds you are hearing in the room. Raise your
right hand a few inches from the arm of the chair when you first hear

the tune White Christmas.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. I would like you to continue visualizing the
clock, only now I would like you to pay attention to the sweeping
second hand that movessflowly around the clock from number to number.
Concentrate on the picture of the clock and the second hand and try
to see it as clearly as you can . . . . (4) While you continue to
visualize the clock, I would like to call your attention to the feelings
in your left hand. Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of
the chair when you first notice me touching your left hand with a

feather.

49

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. I would like you to continue visualizing the
clock, only now I would like you to see it as a tall grandfather clock
with a glass door and pendulum. Concentrate on the picture of the
grandfather clock and try to see it as clearly as you can . . . .

(5) While you continue to visualize the grandfather clock, I would
like to call your attention to the position of the chair in which you
are sitting. Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the
chair when you first perceive a slight tilting baskward of the chair

in which you are sitting.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. I would like you to continue visualizing the
grandfather clock, only now I would like you to pay attention to the
pendulum swinging back and forth. Concentrate on the picture of the
swinging pendulum and try to see it as clearly as you can . . . .

(6) While you continue to visualize the pendulum, I would like to call
your attention to the feel of the chair in which you are sitting.
Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the chair when

you first notice the chair vibrating.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. I would like you to continue visualizing the
pendulum swinging back and forth, only now I would like you to see the
pendulum swinging by itself without the clock. Concentrate on the
picture of the swinging pendulum and try to see it as clearly as you

can . . . . (7) While you continue to visualize the pendulum, I would

50

like to call your attention to your sense of smell. Raise your right
hand a few inches from the arm of the chair when you first perceive

the odor of ammonia fumes.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. I would like you to continue visualizing the
pendulum swinging back and forth, only now it is swinging in an ever
widening are so that it makes a half or semi-circle. Concentrate on
the picture of the swinging pendulum and try to see it as clearly as
you can . . . . (8) Because your attention has been divided, you will
be unable to recall any of the stimuli which I called to your attention
earlier. Try to recall them anyway, even though none of them will

come to mind.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. I would like you to continue visualizing the
pendulum swinging back and forth, only now it is swinging in an even
wider arc until it goes completely around, once again forming the
shape of a circle. Concentrate on the picture and try to see it as
clearly as you can . . . . (9) While you continue to visualize the
pendulum, I would like to call your attention to feelings of numbness
in your left arm. Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of
the chair when you first experience a numbness in your left hand after

I press a nerve on your shoulder.

(Touch shoulder and pause 10 seconds . . . . . . . If subject does
not respond, skip anesthesia test below)

I am going to take my hand away and the numbness will remain for

51

approximately two minutes. Now I am going to press a pointed instrument
on the back of your hand (left hand). The only thing you will feel,
if anything at all, will be pressure. Now I will do the same to
your other hand. Raise your left hand if you feel any difference.
(Continue to do this applying more pressure until you get a reflex
reaction from the left hand. Use palms of hands if no reflex to
backs).

OK that's fine. In a moment I will tell you to Open your eyes.
After you Open them I would like you to raise your right hand again
when you first perceive the room lights beginning to grow dim.

Open your eyes.

52

INSTRUCTIONS TO FI GROUP

(Seat §.in chair). This is an experiment in vigilance and attention
to a number of different kinds of perceptual cues. Seat yourself
in the chair in a comfortable position and close your eyes. I will be
giving you, a number of simple tasks to perform while your eyes
are closed. You will find these tasks quite easy to comply with.
While you are performing these tasks, I will, from time to time,
be interrupting you to draw your attention to one thing or another
here in the room. I will ask you to raise your right hand a few
inches from the arm of the chair when you first become aware of
experiencing certain sensory perceptions that I will be calling to
your attention. Keep your eyes closed until I tell you to Open
them. You will not be asked to do anything difficult so just sit

back and enjoy the eXperiment.

Most people are able to see pictures of one sort or another when
they relax with their eyes closed as you are doing now. I would like
you to pay attention to whatever pictures now come into your mind.

It doesn't matter what kind of picture it is. Concentrate on what
you see in your mind and pay attention to any changes which may
evolve in the pictures you are seeing . . . . (1) While you are
visualizing, I would like to call your attention to the room
temperature. Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the

chair when you first notice that the room is getting warmer.

(Pause 10 seconds)

53

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to pay attention
to whatever pictures come into your mind. It doesn't matter what kind
of picture it is. Concentrate on what you see in your mind and pay
attention to any changes which may evolve in the pictures you are
seeing . . . . (2) While you are visualizing, I would like to call
your attention to your perception of light and dark. Raise your right
hand a few inches from the arm of the chair when you first perceive

a perception of brightness through your closed eyelids.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to pay attention
to whatever pictures come into your mind. It doesn't matter what
kind of picture it is. Concentrate on what you see in your mind and
pay attention to any changes which may evolve in the pictures
you are seeing . . . . (3) While you are visualizing, I would like
to call your attention to the sounds you are hearing in the room.
Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the chair when

you first hear the tune White Christmas.

(Pause 10 seconds)’

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to pay attention
to whatever pictures come into your mind. It doesn't matter what
kind of picture it is. Concentrate on what you see in your mind and
pay attention to any changes which may evolve in the pictures you
are seeing . . . . (4) While you are visualizing, I would like to
call your attention to the feelings in your left hand. Raise your
right hand a few inches from the arm of the chair when you first

notice me touching your left hand with a feather.

54

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to pay attention
to whatever pictures come into your mind. It doesn't matter what
kind of picture it is. Concentrate on what you see in your mind
and pay attention to any changes which may evolve in the pictures you
are seeing . . . . (5) While you are visualizing, I would like to
call your attention to the position of the chair in which you are
sitting. Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the
chair when you first perceive a slight tilting backward of the

chair in which you are sitting.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to pay attention
to whatever pictures come into your mind. It doesn't matter what
kind of picture it is. Concentrate on what you see in your mind and
pay attention to any changes which may evolve in the pictures you
are seeing . . . . (6) While you are visualizing, I would like to
call your attention to the feel of the chair in which you are sitting.
Raise your right hand a few inches from the arm of the chair when

you first notice the chair vibrating.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to pay attention
to whatever pictures come into your mind. It doesn't matter what kind
of picture it is. Concentrate on what you see in your mind and pay
attention to any changes which may evolve in the pictures you are
seeing . . . . (7) While you are visualizing, I would like to call

your attention to your sense of smell. Raise your right hand a few

55

inches from the arm of the chair when you first perceive the odor

of ammonia fumes.

(Pause 10 seconds)

OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to pay attention
to whatever pictures come into your mind. It doesn't matter what kind
of picture it is. Concentrate on what you see in your mind and pay
attention to any changes which may evolve in the pictures you are
seeing . . . . (8) Because your attention has been divided, you will
be unable to recall any of the stimuli which I called to your
attention earlier. Try to recall them anyway, even though none of

them will come to mind.

(Pause 10 seconds)

, OK that's fine. Now once again I would like you to pay attention
to whatever pictures come into your mind. It doesn't matter what
kind of picture it is. Concentrate on what you see in your mind and
pay attention to any changes which may evolve in the pictures you are
seeing . . . . (9) While you are visualizing, I am going to press
a nerve on your left shoulder. Raise your right hand a few inches
from the arm of the chair when you first experience a feeling of

numbness in your left hand.

(Touch shoulder and pause 10 seconds . . . . . . . If subject does
.235 respond, skip anesthesia test below)

I am going to take my hand away and the numbness will remain
for approximately two minutes. Now I am going to press a pointed

instrument on the back of your hand (left hand). The only thing you

56

will feel, if anything at all, will be pressure. Now I will do the
same to your other hand. Raise your left hand if you feel any
difference. (Continue to do this applying more pressure until you
get a reflex reaction from the left hand. Use palms of hand if
no reflex to backs).

OK that's fine. In a moment I will tell you to open your eyes.
After you open them I would like you to raise your right hand again
when you first perceive the room lights beginning to gfow dim.

Open your eyes.

APPENDIX C

POST TEST INTERVIEW

57

POST TEST QUESTIONNAIRE

How do you feel?

Can you tell me something about your experience of this eXperiment?
What can you recall?

How did you feel toward me during the experiment?

Did you have any vivid reactions toward anything I said or did
during the eXperiment?

Do you remember seeing any pictures or images when you had your
eyes closed?

Can you describe them?
Do you have any questions or thoughts about this experiment?

Did you notice any physical or bodily sensations other than the
ones mentioned in the experiment?

APPENDIX I)

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT PROTOCOLS

CD
I’D

Exp.

‘DQNO‘U‘J-‘wNI-i

N
H
##kbbJ-‘bb54§wwwwwwwwwuNNNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHI—‘HH

Subtotal

Cond.

VI
VI
NI
NI
HI
HI
FI
FI
DI
DI
VI
VI
NI
NI
HI
HI
F1
F1
DI
DI
VI
VI
NI
NI
HI
HI
F1
F1
DI
DI
VI
VI
NI
NI
HI
HI
PI
PI
DI
DI

58

Items Passed

l 2 3 4
x
x x
x x x
x
x
x

xxxxx
X

XV.
x NKNNB‘flNN

RM
94

N
”33%“
N

N

X X

5

xxxxx

N

xxxx

N

6

”94%“

7

xx

wxwxx

xxxxx

#4

xxxxxxxx xxxx

NR

17 22 12 13 19 16 13 20 26

10

xxx:

15

Total

O‘C‘NNO‘U’O@NNNOW-FUNUO‘O‘WJ-‘Vm‘DOl-‘NNOl-‘ONMONUOO‘NN

173

59

Items Passed

Ss Exp. Cond. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
41 1 VI x x x x x 5
42 1 VI x x 2
43 l NI x x 2
44 1 NI x x x 3
45 1 HI x x x x x x 6
46 1 HI x x x x 4
47 1 Fl x x x x x x 6
48 1 Fl x x 2
49 1 DI x x x 3
50 1 DI x x 2
51 2 VI x x 2
52 2 VI x x x 3
53 2 NI x x x x x x x x 8
54 2 NI x x x 3
55 2 HI x x x x x 5
56 2 HI x x x x x 5
57 2 Fl x x 2
58 2 Fl x x x x x 5
59 2 DI x l
60 2 DI x x x x x x x x x 9
61 3 VI x x x 3
62 3 VI 0
63 3 NI x x x x 4
64 3 NI x x x x x x x 7
65 3 HI x x 2
66 3 HI x x 2
67 3 Fl x x x 3
68 3 Fl x x 2
69 3 DI x l
70 3 DI O
71 4 VI x 1
72 4 VI 0
73 4 NI x x x x x x x 7
74 4 NI x 1
75 4 HI x x x x x x 6
76 4 HI x x 2
77 4 Fl x 1
78 4 Fl x x 2
79 4 DI x x x x x x 6
80 4 DI 0
Subtotal l9 l6 5 10 15 7 ll 17 21 7 128

Total 36 38 17 23 34 23 24 37 47 22 301

REFERENCES

Adler, M. H., & Secunda, L. An indirect technique to induce hypnosis.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 1947, 106, 190-193.

Barber, T. X., & Calverley, D. S. "Hypnotic Behavior" as a function
of task motivation. Journal of Psychology, 1962, 54, 363-389.

Barber, T. X., & Calverley, D. S. An experimental study of "hypnotic"
(auditory and visual) hallucinations. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
1964, 68, 13-20.

Barber, T. X., & Calverley, D. S. Empirical evidence for a theory of
"hypnotic" behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965,29,

Barber, T. X., & Calverley, D. S. Toward a theory of "hypnotic"
behavior: Replication and extension of experiments by Barber
and co-workers (1962-65) and Hilgard and Tart (1966) International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1968, 16, 179-195.

Barber, T. x., & De Moor, W. A theory of hypnotic induction procedures.
The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1972, 15, 112-135.

Barber, T. x., &.Glass, L. B. Significant factors in hypnotic behavior.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 64, 222-228.

Blum, G. S. A model of the mind: Explored by hypnotically controlled
experiments and examined for its psychodynamic implications.
New York: Wiley, 1961.

Blum, G. S. Programming people to simulate machines. In Tomkins, S.,
and Messick, S. (Eds.), Computer simulation of personality. New York:
Wiley, 1963, 127-157.

Blum, G. 8., & Graef, J. R. The detection over time of subjects
simulating hypnosis. International Journal of.Clinical and
4§xperimental Hypnosis, 1971, 19, 211-224.

Bowers, K. S. The effect of demands for honesty on reports of visual
and auditory hallucinations. International Journal of Clinical
and Experimental Hypnosis, 1967, 15, 31-36.

Bowers, K. 8. Creativity and hypnotic susceptibility. Paper presented
at the meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Washington, D. C., September, 1969.

Bowers, K. S. Sex and susceptibility as moderator variables in the

relationship of creativity and hypnotic susceptibility. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 78, 93-100.

60

61

Bowers, K. S., & Van Der Meulen, S. J. Effect of hypnotic susceptibility
on creative test performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1970, 14, 247-256.

 

Das, J. P. A theory of hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis, 1959, 7, 69-77.

Edmonston, W. E. Stimulus-response theory of hypnosis. In J. E. Gordon
(Ed.), Handbook of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Chapter 12,
New York: Macmillan, 1967.

Erickson, M. H-. & Knbie, L. S. The successful treatment of a case of
acute hysterical depression by a return under hypnosis to a critical
phase of childhood. Psychological Quarterl , 1941, 10, 592-609.

Gibbons, D., 8 De Jarnette, J. Hypnotic susceptibility and religious
experience. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American
Psycholggical Association, 1972, 7, 863-864.

Gill, M. M., & Brenman, M. Hypnosis and Related States: Psychoanalytic
Studies in Regression. New York: International Universities Press,
1959.

 

Gill, M. M., & Brenman, M. The metapsychology of hypnosis and regression.
In J. E. Gordon (Ed.), Handbook of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,
Chapter 10. New York: Macmillan, 1967.

Greenberg, J. C., 5 Land, E. Personality correlates of hypnotizability.
The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1971, 10, 99-106.

Hartmann, H. Ego psychology and the problem of adaptation. New York:
International Universities Press, 1958.

Hilgard, E. R. ,Hypnotic susceptibility. New York: Harcourt Brace
Javanovich, 1965.

Hilgard, E. R. The Domain of hypnosis: .With some comments on alternative
paradigms. American Psychologist, 1973, 11, 972-982.

Hilgard, E. R., & Tart, C. T. Responsiveness to suggestions following
waking and imagination instructions and following induction of
hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966, 71, 196-208.

Hull, C. L. ‘Hypnosis and suggestibility. New York: Appleton-Century_
Crofts, 1933. ,

Jacobson, E. Progressive relaxation. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1938.

Kramer, E. Hypnotic susceptibility and previous relationship with the
hypnotist. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1969, 11, 175-177.

62

Kubie, L. S., & Margolin, S. The process of hypnotism and the nature of
the hypnotic state. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1944, 100,
611-622.

Levitt, E. E., & Overley, T. M. Experience of the hypnotist as a factor
in hypnotic behavior. International Journal of Clinical and Experi-
mental Hypnosis, 1965, 13, 34-38.

 

_ Mitchell, M. B. Hypnotizability and distractability. The American Journal
of Clinical Hypnosis, 1970, 13, 35-45.

Orne, M. T. The nature of hypnosis: Artifact and essence. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 277-299.

Orne, M. T. On the simulating subject as a quasi-control group in
hypnosis research: What, why, and how. In E. Fromm & R. E. Shor
(Eds.),_Hypnosis: Research development and pgrspectives. Chicago:
Aldine-Atherton, 1972.

Palmer, R. D., & Field, P. B. Cognitive factors in hypnotic suscepti-
bility. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971,
37, 165-171.

Pavlov, I. P. The identity of inhibition with sleep and hypnosis.
Science Monogpaph, 1923, 17, 603-609.

Perry, C., Wilder, 8., & Appignanesi, A. Hypnotic susceptibility and
performance on a battery of creativity measures. The American
Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1973, 15, 170-180.

Rapaport, D. A historical survey of psychoanalytic ego psychology. In
M. M. Gill (Ed.), The collected papers of David Rapaport. New York:
Basic Books, 1967.

Reyher, J. Brain mechanisms, intrapsychic processes and behavior: A
theory of hypnosis and psychopathology. The American Journal of
Clinical Hypnosis, 1963, 7, 107-119.

Reyher, J. Hypnosis. Dubuque, Iowa: Brown, 1968.

Reyher, J. Comment on "artificial induction of posthypnotic conflict."
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 74, 420-422.

Reyher, J. The real-simulation design and laboratory hypnosis: Two
methodological culs-de-sac. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., 1970.

Reyher, J., & Wilson, J. G. The induction of hypnosis: Indirect vs.
direct methods and the role of anxiety. The American Journal of
Clinical Hypnosis, 1973, 4, 229-233.

 

63

Rosen, H. Radical hypnotherapy of apparent medical and surgical emergen-
cies. Journal of Personality, 1951, 1, 326-339.

Sanders, R. 8., Jr., & Reyher, J. Sensory deprivation and the enhance-
ment of hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Ppychology,
1969, 74, 375-381.

Sarbin, T. R., & Andersen, M. L. Role-theoretical analysis of hypnotic
behavior. In J. E. Gordon (Ed.), Handbook of Clinical and Experi-
mental Hypnosis, Chapter II. New York: Macmillan, 1967.

Sarbin, T. R., & Coe, W. T. Hypnosis: A social psychological analysis
influence communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1972.

 

Sargent, W., & Fraser, R. Inducing light hypnosis by hyperventilation.
Lancet, 1938, 275, 778.

Sheehan, P. W. Countering preconceptions about hypnosis: An objective
index of involvement with the hypnotist. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 1971, 78, 299-322.

 

Sher, R. E. Hypnosis and the concept of generalized reality-orientation.
American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1959, 13, 582-602.

Shor, R. E. Three dimensions of hypnotic depth. International Journal
of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1962, 10, 23-28.

Spanos, N. P., & Barber, T. X. "Hypnotic" experiences as inferred from
subjective reports: Auditory and visual hallucinations. Journal
of Experimental Research in Personality, 1968, 3, 136-150.

Stampfl, T. J. Implosive Therapy. Demonstration at Michigan State
University, 1971.

Sutcliffe, J. F., Perry, C. W., & Sheehan, P. W. Relation of some
aspects of imagery and fantasy to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal
of Abnormal Payphology, 1970, 76, 279-287.

 

Van Nuys, D. Drug use and hypnotic susceptibility, The International
Journal Of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1971, 20, 31-37.

 

Weitzenhoffer, A. M., Gough, P. B., & Landes, J. A study of the Braid

effect: Hypnosis by visual fixation. Journal of Psychology, 1969,
47, 67-80. .

Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Sjoberg, B. M. Susceptibility with and without
"induction of hypnosis." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1961,
132, 204-220. ,

Wells, W. R. 'Experiments in waking hypnosis for instructional purposes.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1924, 18, 389-404.

White, R. W. A preface to the theory of hypnotism. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1941, 36, 477-505.