PLACE N RETURN BOX to roman this checkout from you ncord. TO AVOID FINES Mum on or baton dd. duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU Is An Affirmative WM Oppommlty Inflation Wm1 ABSTRACT MEDITATION AS PSYCHOTHERAPY By Jonathan C. Smith Over the last half-century at least l00 scholarly books and articles have argued that sitting quietly and limiting thought and attention in meditation should be psychotherapeutic. In recent years, one form of meditation, Transcendental Meditation (TM) has been widely promoted as a "natural and effective cure for mental illness," and has attracted considerable research attention. This research consistently shows that persons who learn TM generally do manifest reductions in psychopathology, particularly anxiety. The present study focuses on isolating what aspects of TM are responsible for its anxiety-reducing properties. One possibility, of course, is the daily practice of the TM meditation exercise. However, since meditation is generally practiced while sitting with eyes closed, perhaps this, and not the meditation exercise, is the critical thera- peutic agent. And TM instruction is preceded by extensive claims as to its effectiveness, suggesting that another potent aspect of TM may be expectation of relief--the same ingredient bottled and sold at old-time medicine shows. Two experiments investigated the effects of the TM meditation exercise on conscious trait anxiety and psychosomatic symptoms of Jonathan C. Smith anxiety. In Experiment I, 49 subjects were taught TM by the Students International Meditation Society; 51 were taught a control treatment, Periodic Somatic Inactivity, or PSI; and 39 received no treatment. The PSI control treatment was carefully devised to match the content and form of all aspects of TM indoctrination, including introductory lec- tures detailing research and theory, formal instruction, and follow-up meetings. Particular care was taken to match those aspects of TM that might foster expectation of relief. In addition, the PSI control treat- ment incorporated a daily exercise similar to the TM meditation exercise, except that it involved simply sitting with eyes closed rather than sitting with eyes closed and meditating. It is not easy to construct a treatment matching all the expectation-fostering aspects of TM, particularly professional-quality promotional literature and numerous accounts of TM in the popular press. For this reason, a different research strategy was utilized in Experiment II. Two treatments were compared, one incorporating a TM-like meditation exercise, the other incorporating an exercise designed to be the near antithesis of meditation. This anti-meditation involved sitting with eyes closed and actively generating as many positive thoughts as possible. In every other respect these two treatments were identical. Each was described as an effective anxiety- reducing treatment called "Cortically Mediated Stabilization," or "CMS." Neither treatment was described as involving meditation so that subjects 'who might read TM promotional literature would be less likely to general- ize the claims made to the treatments they were receiving. In addition, Jonathan C. Smith for both treatments indoctrination was minimal and consisted of an introductory lecture followed by three sessions of follow-up discussion and monthly "checking" sessions. In both experiments anxiety was measured by the STAI A-Trait inventory and the Epstein-Fenz Manifest Anxiety Scale. In addition, numerous supplementary tests were given, the most noteworthy being the lGPF, the Tennessee Self Concept Scale, the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, and a test measuring skin conductance reactivity while viewing an interpersonal stress film. Results to Experiments I and II show six months of TM to be no more effective in reducing anxiety than six months of PSI, and 2% months of CMS Meditation no more effective than 2% months of CMS Anti-Meditation. However, all treatments are significantly more effective in reducing anxiety than no treatment. These findings support the conclusion that the critical therapeutic agent in TM is something other than the TM meditation exercise. If the TM meditation exercise is not responsible for TM's therapeutic effects, what is? It is argued that one possibility is that sitting with eyes closed, regardless of whether or not one meditates, is therapeutic for some people. All four treatments studied in this project involved sitting with eyes closed on a regular basis, and all were found to be effective. In addition, a strong argument can be made that TM's therapeutic potential is largely due to expectation of relief. Both TM and PSI control treatments in Experiment I contained expectation- arousing factors previous studies have found to be highly potent in Jonathan C. Smith increasing or decreasing the effectiveness of a treatment. These factors are: (l) belief on the part of a treatment agent in his treat- ment's effectiveness, (2) credibility derived from the complexity and sophistication of treatment methods and materials, (3) accompanying claims and theoretical rationale, and (4) credible signs of improvement which the person receiving the treatment can observe for himself. The CMS treatments in Experiment II contained these factors to a much lesser extent. And the TM and PSI control treatments were found to be signif- icantly more effective than the CMS treatments. Finally, the type of person most likely to benefit from TM, PSI, and CMS is described. Evidence drawing into question the validity of skin conductance measures of anxiety is described. MEDITATION AS PSYCHOTHERAPY By “5'”. Jonathan C. Smith A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1975 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank Donald Grummon for his warm support and scholarly guidance as dissertation committee chairman; Bertram Karon, Dozier Thornton, and Lawrence O'Kelly for their valuable service as committee members; Norman Kagan for providing a polygraph and polygraph training; Maharhishi International University for encouraging and approving my study; TM Instructors Geoffry Tully and Margaret DeYoung and other members of the East Lansing, Michigan chapter of the Students International Meditation Society for teaching my subjects TM without charge; William Remis for his insightful criticisms and comments; Mitch Jacobs and James Penrod for teaching PSI; Scott Berg, Marsha Bennett, Michael Bennett, Amy Chapman, John Edwards, Deborah Frampton, James Frew, Richard Frisbie, Marcia Golden, Robert Goodhand, David Guthrie, Glen Jarvis, Robert "Spanky" Kocsis, David Mammen, John Matheson, Lance Renshaw, and Michael Spry for working on the Anxiety Reduction Project crew and helping in every phase of the Project's completion; Donald Gaudard for donating his efforts in typing 2,000 computer cards; And the l69 Anxiety Reduction Project participants, whose direct experience with TM, PSI, and CMS have hopefully shed valuable light on the nature of meditation. To the whole bunch of you, thanks again. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES .......................... v Chapter I. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................ l II. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW OF PRESENT STUDY .......... 14 III. METHOD .......................... 2l Experiment I ...................... 21 Subjects ...................... 2l Procedure ..................... 2l Pretreatment orientation ............ 2l Pretreatment assessment and screening ..... 22 Treatments ................... 23 Interim assessment ............... 32 Posttreatment assessment ............ 32 Experiment II ..................... 33 Subjects ...................... 34 Procedure ..................... 34 Pretreatment assessment ............ 34 Treatments ................... 35 Posttreatment assessment ............ 40 Description of Dependent Variables ........... 4l Primary Dependent Variables ............ 4l IPAT Anxiety Factors ................ 44 IPAT Neuroticism Factors .............. 46 IPAT Non-Pathology Factors ............. 46 Tennessee Self Concept Scale Variables ....... 48 Defensive Distortion Variables ........... 49 Technique Evaluation Variables ........... 50 Skin Conductance Variables ............ 52 Other Variables .................. 55 IV. RESULTS ......................... 57 Experiment I ...................... 57 Experiment II ..................... 60 Additional Results ........... ‘ ........ 68 Chapter V. Appendix A. B. REFERENC DISCUSSION ........................ Summary of Results ......... , .......... Skin Conductance Reactivity .............. Magnitude of Treatment Effects ............. Processes Underlying Treatment Effects ......... Characteristics of Subjects Who Improved ........ MATERIALS USED IN SUBJECT-SOLICITATION CAMPAIGN ..... SUMMARY OF INFORMATION PRESENTED AT ORIENTATION LECTURE FOR PERSONS INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN EXPERIMENTS I AND II ................. QUESTIONNAIRE INQUIRING INTO INTEREST IN AND DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS POTENTIALLY THERAPEUTIC TREATMENTS AND ACTIVITIES ................ PROCEDURE FOR TESTING SKIN CONDUCTANCE REACTIVITY, AND TRANSCRIPTS OF INTERPERSONAL STRESS FILMS USED . . . . OFFICIAL PERIODIC SOMATIC INACTIVITY INSTRUCTION MANUAL FREQUENCY OF PRACTICE QUESTIONNAIRE ........... OUTSIDE THERAPEUTIC ACTIVITIES QUESTIONNAIRE ....... TECHNIQUE EVALUATION TEST ................ LECTURE l GIVEN T0 BOTH gms MEDITATION AND gas ANTI-MEDITATION GROUPS .................. ANALYSES USED TO OBTAIN POTENTIAL COVARIATES FOR ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE .................. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR 1M, PSI MEDITATION, AND CMS ANTI-MEDITATION GROUP (no 0 FREQUENCY OF PRACTICE VARIABLES ............. EPSTEIN-FENZ MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE ITEMS FOR SYMPTOMS OF STRIATED MUSCLE TENSION AND SYMPTOMS OF AUTONOMIC AROUSAL ......................... ES ............................ iv Page 75 75 81 86 97 103 105 108 109 113 186 203 206 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Designs for Experiments I and II in Diagram Form ..... 42 2. Analyses of Covariance Comparing TM, PSI, and No Treatment GrDUps on all Questionnaire and Skin Conductance Variables ........... . ....... 61 3. Pretest and Posttest Means and Standard Deviations for TM PSI, and No Treatment Groups on All Questionnaire, Technique Evaluation, and Skin Conductance Variables . . . 62 4. Analyses of Covariance Comparing TM and PSI Groups on Technique Evaluation Variables and—on Variables for Which TM ,E§l. and No Treatment Groups Differed Significantly on an Overall Analysis of Covariance . . . . 63 5. Analyses of Covariance Comparing IM_and No Treatment Groups on Variables for which 1M, PSI, and No Treatment Groups Differed Significantly on an Overall Analysis of Covariance ........................ 64 6. Analyses of Covariance Comparing PSI and No Treatment Groups on Variables for Which TM, E§_, and No Treatment Groups Differed Significantly on an Overall Analysis of Covariance ........................ 65 7. March and May Posttest STAI A-Trait, Symptoms of Striated Muscle Tension, and Symptoms of Autonomic Arousal Means Compared for IM_and_E§l Groups .............. 66 8. Pretest and Posttest Means and Standard Deviations for CMS Meditation and CMS Anti-Meditation Groups on All Questionnaire and Technique Evaluation Variables ..... 70 9. Analyses of Covariance Comparing CMS Meditation and CMS Anti- Meditation Groups on All Questionnaire and Technique Evaluation Variables .............. 7l l0. Mean Difference Scores and Significance of Difference Scores for No Treatment (November-March),.QM§ Meditation (March-May). and §M§_Anti-Meditation (March-May) Groups . . 72 Table ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Page Pretest and Posttest Means and Standard Deviations for 1M and PSI Groups Pooled, and SMS Meditation and CMS_ Anti-Meditation Groups Pooled on All Questionnaire and Technique Evaluation Variables .............. 73 Analyses of Covariance Comparing IM_and PSI Groups Pooled with CMS Meditation and SMS Anti-Meditation Groups Pooled on all Questionnaire and Technique Evaluation Variables ................... 74 Correlations Among Pretest Scores for Conscious Trait Anxiety (STAI A-Trait), Symptoms of Autonomic Arousal, and Frustration Tension or Id Pressure (IPAT Factor Q4) for 1M, PSI, and CMS Subjects ............... 77 Correlations Among Pretest Skin Conductance Variables and Pretest Questionnaire Variables for [M, PSI, and No Treatment Subjects ................... 79 Pretest and Posttest Mean IPAT Anxiety Factor Scores (in Stens) for 1M, PSI, and SMS Meditation, and SMS Anti-Meditation GrDUps .................. 83 Means and Standard Deviations for November and March STAI A-Trait Scores for Those Who Did and Did Not Continue with This Project Through May .......... 98 Analysis of Covariance Comparing March Posttest STAI A-Trait Scores of Those Who Did and Did Not Continue with This Project Through May ............... 98 Subjects Who Reported for May Posttesting Compared on All Pretest Variables with Subjects Who Did Not Report for May Posttesting .................... lOl Correlations Among (l) Pretest-Posttest Difference Scores, and Posttest Scores Where Only Posttests Were Given, and (2) Potential Covariates for 1M, PSI, QMS Meditation, and EMS Anti-Meditation Subjects ....... 207 Summaries of Analyses of Variance Comparing TM, PS , and SMS Groups on Potential Covariates .......... 214 Correlations Among (l) Pretest-Posttest Difference Scores and Posttest Scores Where Only Posttests Were Given, and (2) Potential Pretest Covariates for QMS Subjects Obtained from Analyses of Variance Comparing SMS Groups on all Variables ..................... 2l6 vi Table 22. 23. Page Summaries of Analyses of Variance Comparing SMS_Groups on Potential Covariates ................... 218 Means and Standard Deviations for I!) PSI, QMS_Meditation, and QMS Anti-Meditation Groups on Frequency of Practice Variables ......................... 219 vii CHAPTER I A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The term meditation refers to a family of mental exercises that generally involve calmly limiting thought and attention. Such exercises vary widely and can involve sitting still and counting breaths, attend- ing to a repeated thought, or focusing on virtually any simple external or internal stimulus. To the casual observer it may seem implausible that a simple mental exercise could have any effect on widespread problems of neurosis andwanxiety. However, since 1936 at least 100 scholarly books and jour- nal articles have argued that meditation does have psychotherapeutic potential (most of these references appear in the bibliographies of Haimes, 1972; Kanellakos & Ferguson, 1973; Lesh, 1970a; Timmons & Kamiya, 1970; and Timmons & Kanellakos, 1974). Numerous_versions of this claim have appeared, including that mystical experiences associated with meditation are therapeutic, and that meditation can supplement or even take the place of psychotherapy. Virtually every school of psychological thought has been invoked to support these claims, in- cluding psychoanalytic, neo-Freudian, Jungian, client-centered, gestalt Maslovian, existential, logotherapy, bioenergetic, and learning theory. Perhaps the essence of what has been written is conveyed by Ggleman- (1971): "I conceptualize meditation as a meta-therapy: a procedure that accomplishes the major goals of conventional therapy and yet has as itsend-state a change far beyond the scope of therapies, therapists, and most personality theorists--an altered state of consciousness." In light of this exhilarating display of speculation, it is surprising that serious research on the therapeutic effects of medi- tation began only recently. This research has yielded three sets of findings: (1) Experienced meditators who are willing to participate without pay in meditation research typically praise meditation and indeed appear happier and healthier than the beginning meditator, the average college student, or the everyday man in the street; (2) begin- ning meditators who practice meditation for 4 to 10 weeks show more improvement on a variety of measurements than do non-meditators tested at the same times; and (3) persons who are randomly assigned to learn and practice meditation show more improvement over 4 to 10 weeks than do control subjects assigned to some form of alternate treatment. We shall examine each of these findings in detail and evaluate what they show about the therapeutic potential of meditation. Studies using mail-in questionnaires consistently yield results that appear to speak favorably for meditation. Wallace and Benson (Gattozzi & Luce, 1971) found that of 400 Transcendental Meditators INhO completed a questionnaire regarding changes in mental and physical health, Bipercent judged that their mental health had improved sig- rrificantly since learning meditation. Similarly, Otis (1973) sent questionnaires to 1,900 randomly selected Transcendental Meditators ancj 800 TM practitioners attending TM teacher training course. The questionnaire in part asked what problems the respondent had before learning TM, and which of these problems had changed since learning TM. The 1,095 who responded generally claimed some improvement after learn- ing TM (the actual number claiming improvement was not reported). In addition, Transcendental Meditators willing to be tested in the laboratory appear healthier than non-meditators on the Freiburger Personality Inventory (Fehr, Nerstheimer, & Torber, 1973), on the Personal Orientation Inventory (Hjelle, 1973), and on two presumed physiological indices of "good mental health": rate of GSR habituation to a series of loud tones, and number of spontaneous GSR fluctuations during a period of quiet inactivity (Orme-Johnson, 1973). The major weakness of these studies is that they rely on data resembling solicited testimonials. A meditator asked to participate in a study investigating the beneficial effects of meditation may view this as a calling or opportunity to "step forth for meditation" somewhat analogous to the evangelist's call to "step forth for Jesus." In both cases we are left wondering about those who remain seated. Put techni- cally, the sample of those who volunteer to participate in meditation research is perhaps not representative of the population of those who learn to meditate. We can not conclude from such studies that the practice of meditation is therapeutic. One way around the ambiguities present in testimonial data is tc> test a sample of meditators before learning meditation and then after in“acticing meditation for a period of weeks or months. Using such a dessign Benson and Wallace (1972) found that 22 hypertension patients showed a significant reduction in blood pressure after 4 to 63 weeks of meditation. Of course, one might ask if such a decrease could be the result of a simple passage of time rather than meditation. In order to answer this question one needs a control group of non-meditators tested during the same time period. Six studies, all using TM, have incorpo- rated such a control, and have found that over 4 to 10 weeks meditators show a significantly greater decrease in spontaneous GSRs (Orme-Johnson, Kiehlbauch, Moore, & Bristol, 1973) as well as significantly greater improvement on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Ballou, 1973; and Ferguson & Gowan, 1973), the Personal Orientation Inventory (Nidich, Seeman, & Dreskin, 1973; and Seeman, Nidich, & Banta, 1972) the IPAT Anxiety Scale Questionnaire and Northridge Depression, Neuroticism, and Self-Actualization Scales (Ferguson & Gowan, 1973), and the hypochondria, psychasthenia, social introversion, schi20phrenia, and Tayler Anxiety Scales of the MMPI (Orme-Johnson et al., l973; and Orme-Johnson, Authur, Franklin, O'Connell, & 201d, 1973). Unfortunately, studies that compare changes eXperienced by meditators and non-meditators are faulted in that the two populations may not be comparable. At the very least, meditators, by their decision to learn meditation, demonstrate some motivation for self-improvement not demonstrated by non-meditator controls. Such motivated subjects might be ripe for growth, and might display reductions in pathology regardless of what they chose to do. One study clearly illustrates this problem. Lesh (1970) seelected l6 counseling graduate students interested in learning 1 meditation and 23 other graduate students, half of whom were interested in and half "definitely against" learning meditation. The first group was taught a form of zazen meditation while the second served as a non- meditation control. All subjects were given the Affective Sensitivity Scale (a measure of empathy) and the Fitzgerald Experience Inquiry (a measure of tolerance to and openness to regressive, irrational, and non-ordinary experiences). After four weeks the meditators improved significantly more than the controls on the Affective Sensitivity Scale but not on the Experience Inquiry. Lesh himself points to the problem of initial group differences: The criticism might be raised that the experimental group was indeed an exceptional group of people in that they volunteered for such an unusual experiment in the first place. This is a cogent argument since the pretest scores for the experimental groups on tests measuring Openness to experience and self-actualization are significantly higher than for either of the control groups. The same is true for the scales on the ASS s [the empathy measure] at pre- test. That is, the experimental group was significantly higher in empathy before the eXperiment had begun. The most rigorous studies on the therapeutic effects of meditation have controlled for the problem of initial group differences by randomly assigning subjects to meditation and alternative treatment conditions, and testing before and after several weeks of treatment. Otis (1973, 1974) randomly assigned 62 employees of the Stanford Research Institute to a TM group (in which the initiation fee was paid for by the Institute), or one of three control treatment conditions: a no treatment condition in which subjects simply took pretests and posttests; a non-meditation treatment condition that involved sitting quietly for 15 to 20 minutes twice daily; and a meditative treatment (not TM) condition that involved sitting quietly and restfully while repeating the phrase "I am a witness only" 15 to 20 minutes twice daily. All subjects were given a self-image pretreatment questionnaire. After a three-month treatment period subjects were again given the self-image questionnaire, plus a problem checklist which requested estimates of degree of improvement on a variety of physical and behavioral problems over the treatment period. In addition, subjects were interviewed and control subjects were offered TM or financial remuneration equivalent to the TM initiation fee. Numerous lapses in methodological rigor seriously weaken what is otherwise an ambitious and creative design. First, Otis himself admits that the treatment conditions were not matched for expectation of relief. The TM treatment, more than the control treatments, promoted the belief on the part of subjects that they would benefit. This was clearly evidenced in the posttreatment interview, and by the fact that after the three-month treatment period all but five of the control sub- jects chose to learn TM. Considerable research, as we shall show later, indicates that expectation of relief can render potent even the lowliest of sugar pills, and its absence can render impotent treatments that are ordinarily respected and accepted (Borkovec, 1972; Goldstein, 1962; Lazarus, 1968; Leitenberg, Agras, Barlow, & Oliveau, 1969; Marcia, Rubin, & Efran, 1969; and Shapiro, 1971). Second, the questionnaires Otis used were new homemade tests of questionable validity and relia- bility. Otis reports that the variability of the data from the ques- ticnnnaires was high, a problem one would expect of weak measures of low reliability. Finally, and most seriously, Otis chose to pool the three control groups-—the no treatment group, the group that sat and rested twice daily, and the group that meditated upon the pharse "I am a wit- ness only" twice daily. The reasons he gave were the high variability of his questionnaire data and the small size of his samples. All major reported comparisons were between the TM group and the pooled control group. Obviously, this unusual pooling procedure defeats the purpose for having control groups in the first place. One would expect from these deficiencies a confused set of results. And this is exactly what Otis obtained. After three months the TM and pooled control group did not differ significantly in degree of improvement in self image. Yet, the TM group displayed a greater degree of estimated improvement on several items of the problem check- list, Specifically "enjoyment of life, restfulness of sleep, energy level, sexual adjustment, and creativity." And in posttreatment interviews the TM group claimed more benefits than the pooled control group, although when no treatment subjects were not included in the pooled group the pooled and TM groups did not differ significantly. Other studies have fared considerably better. Brautigam (1973) in a Swedish study, sent letters to 19 drug abusers inviting them and their friends to attend an information lecture on TM. Twenty people signed up for TM and agreed to participate in the project. Subjects were given a questionnaire and interview on drug habits, and a ques- tionnaire testing self-confidence, stability, adjustment, anxiety, and extroversion. In addition, each subject was observed and rated by a psychologist and psychiatrist on a checklist of pathological behaviors. Subjects were then divided into two groups of 10 each, equated for frequency of drug use. For three months one grDUp practiced TM twice daily while the other was offered group counseling four hours every two weeks. At the end of the project all subjects were tested again. Brautigam found that the meditators displayed a significant reduction in drug abuse, pathological behaviors, and anxiety as well as a significant increase in adjustment. The group counseling subjects improved on none of these measures. For several reasons these results are not clear evidence for the therapeutic effects of meditation. First, all 20 subjects signed up for the experiment wanting and expecting to get TM. Some got group counseling every other week instead. The disappointment among these subjects must have been considerable. Indeed, 30 percent did not attend any of the counseling sessions, and most, according to Brautigam, exerted "strong pressure" on the experimenter to teach them TM. The impact of attitude on the effectiveness of therapy is well documented (Luborsky, Chandler, Auerbach, Cohen, & Bachrach, 1971). The attitude of these control subjects toward their treatment probably interfered, if anything, with its effectiveness. Also, the TM subjects received much more than meditation. In addition to four two-hour training sessions they received weekly individual checking to evaluate how well they were practicing, and participated in an eight-day trip to Denmark for group meditation. Appropriately, in interpreting her findings, Brautigam does not claim that the TM meditation exercise was the only, or even the most important therapeutic agent; she suggests "meditation opened up new opportunities for social contact without drugs" and "meditation offered an opportunity to break with previous role expectations and find a new role--that of a meditator." In the first study involving teaching meditation to children, Linden (1973) randomly selected 90 students from the upper half of the third grade in a disadvantaged school. These children were randomly assigned to three groups of 30 each. One met with a guidance counselor 45 minutes a day for 18 weeks. Counseling focused on study skills. A second group was taught two forms of meditation, one involving attending to the process of breathing, the other involving attending to a vase. These students practiced 25 minutes a day, twice weekly for 18 weeks. A third group received no treatment. As compared with the guidance and no treatment controls, the meditators became more field independent, as measured by the Children's Embedded Figures Test, and less test anxious, as measured by the Test Anxiety Scale for Children. Unfortunately, the results of this well-designed study are limited to test anxiety and field dependence among children and should not be generalized to adult psychopathology. One study stands out for its methodological elegance. Vahia, Doongaji, Jeste, Kapoor, Ardhapurkar, & Ravindranath (1973) wished to isolate the essential components of psychophysiological therapy, a yoga-meditation therapy used at King Edward VI Memorial Hospital in 10 Bombay, India. This therapy is based on ancient Hindu yoga teachings and incorporates physical yoga stretching exercises as well as meditation. Ninety-five psychoneurotic patients who displayed no improvement in response to previous therapy were randomly divided into two groups matched for age, sex, diagnosis, and duration of illness. One group was given "total Psychophysiological Therapy," that is, yoga exercises plus meditation, while the other was given "partial Psychophysiological Therapy," a control treatment consisting of exercises resembling yoga exercises and no meditation. Both groups practiced an hour each weekday for four to six weeks and were given support, reassurance, and placebo tablets. Measurements included: (1) blind clinical assessment before, after, and every week of the project based on target symptom relief and work efficiency on the job as reported by the patients themselves, their relatives, friends, and colleagues; (2) daily notebooks written by all subjects on thoughts that came to mind while practicing; (3) MMPI and Rorschach tests given before and after the project; and (4) the Tayler Anxiety Scale given before, after, and every week of the project. These results were obtained: (1) 73 percent of the subjects in the total therapy treatment showed significant improvement (an improvement of "50%" or more) on the basis of clinical assessment, while 42 percent in the partial therapy treatment showed significant improvement; (2) the total therapy group showed significantly greater reduction in anxiety measured by the Tayler Scale than the group 11 receiving partial therapy (p <.05); (3) those receiving total therapy showed a consistent reduction in anxiety, as measured by the Tayler Scale, in each of the six weeks of the project, while those receiving partial therapy showed no consistent reduction; (4) MMPI results show a greater overall improvement for subjects receiving total therapy than for those receiving partial therapy; and (5) those who displayed great- est ability to meditate in the total therapy group displayed more clinically assessed improvement than those who did not. One simple flaw mars this otherwise impressive study. Both the control and experimental treatments were taught by the same person, a physiotherapist with 11 years experience in yoga. Probably this therapist knew, or at least suspected, that the partial treatment was in fact a control treatment. And since the partial treatment did not involve true yoga exercises, but "exercises resembling yoga exercises" one wonders about the therapist's belief in their effectiveness, and about what theoretical rationale, if any, he gave for practicing them. Recent research on classical desensitization points to the importance of credibility and perceived authenticity of control treatments and of therapists who administer them. For example, McReynolds, Barnes, Brooks, & Rehagen (1973) found that a placebo treatment taught by a therapist blind to its placebo-nature and accompanied by a highly credible, yet contrived, theoretical rationale, is just as effective in reducing minor phobias as systematic desensitization. Moreover, such a placebo is significantly more effective than an attention-placebo treatment not accompanied by a theoretical rationale and taught by a therapist aware of its placebo-nature. 12 Conclusions Without exception the studies reviewed show the regular practice of meditation to be associated with decrements in psychopathology, particularly anxiety, over a period of time usually ranging from 4 to 10 weeks. The effects of meditation persist when controls are included for initial group differences, passage of time, therapist support and reassurance, individual contact with therapist, and interpersonal contact with practicing peers. However, this general finding is not clear evidence that meditation is in and of itself therapeutic. The critical therapeutic variables underlying meditation could be something other than the meditation exercise. Two main possibilities not controlled for in the studies reviewed are (l) expectation of relief, and (2) the regular practice of sitting. As mentioned earlier, McReynolds et a1. (1973) found that the therapeutic effectiveness of a placebo treatment can be increased when it is presented in such a way as to nurture expectation of relief. Two crucial variables contributing to expectation of relief appear to be the therapist's belief (or lack of disbelief) in the treatment, and the theoretical rationale presented for the treatment. In all the studies reviewed here, either the meditation instructors, or the subjects, demonstrated some initial belief (or absence of disbelief) in medita- tion's therapeutic potential. And the most frequently cited form of meditation, TM, is not only taught by believing, practicing meditators, but is introduced by two mandatory lectures that present a plausible 13 psychophysiological theory of the technique's effectiveness as well as summaries of numerous "verifying" scientific studies. Second, all forms of meditation reviewed here are practiced while sitting quietly. Perhaps the practice of regular sitting, and not the meditation exercise, is the crucial therapeutic variable. This possibility was hinted at (and rejected) in 1936 by Bagchi in one of the earliest published psychologically-based arguments for meditation's therapeutic potential: If some critic . . . contends that it is not so much the intention to relax [as is present in meditation] as the physical quietness and lying still that have the recuperative effect, at present we can only point to clinical cases as a practical counter-argument, waiting for further neurological evidence to support our belief. Thirty-seven years later this criticism is still valid, and meditation's therapeutic potential remains to be demonstrated. CHAPTER II PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW OF PRESENT STUDY I chose to investigate Transcendental Meditation for three reasons. First, as we have seen, considerable research has already been devoted to TM's therapeutic potential. Second, TM is practiced widely in the United States, with at least 300,000 initiates to date. Third, the person most responsible for TM's current form and popularity, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, clearly claims that the technique is therapeutic: "We find that this practice of transcendental deep meditation is a boon to mental health. It is a means of preservation of mental health; it serves as a mental tonic and, at the same time, is a natural and effec- tive cure for mental illness" (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1963). A researcher interested in TM must reckon with this problem: reductions in psychopathology exhibited by persons who learn TM may be due to factors other than practice of the TM meditation exercise. As mentioned in Chapter I, perhaps persons who chose to learn TM are "ripe for growth," and would experience reductions in pathology regardless of what they chose to do. In addition, the critical therapeutic agent in TM may be expectation of relief. TM initiates are exposed to a formida- ble armada of literature and lectures claiming that scientific research verifies TM's potential for alleviating many forms of human distress. These claims are so persuasive that even the Illinois House of 14 15 Representatives has issued a resolution (House Resolution No. 677) encouraging that "all educational institutions, especially those under State of Illinois jurisdiction" consider offering courses in TM. Finally, perhaps TM works, not through the practice of a specific medi- tation exercise, but through the concomitant daily regime of sitting comfortably with eyes closed. The present study consists of two experiments intended to iso- late the therapeutic effects of TM meditation from the factors described above. In Experiment I our strategy was to compare the effects of 1M} (taught by the Students International Meditation Society, but with the $45 initiation fee waived) with no treatment and with a control treat- ment. Subjects consisted of highly anxious volunteers who responded to an advertising campaign soliciting participants interested in receiving safe but unspecified treatments for reducing anxiety. Our subjects, in other words, did not know they might be taught meditation. The control treatment, called "Periodic Somatic Inactivity" or "PSI,"2 incorporated a daily exercise patterned after the IM_meditation 1I wish to thank Maharishi International University and the Student's International Meditation Society for generously providing TM instruction without charge. In exchange they requested that every time TM as taught in this study is mentioned, some sign or reminder be given that it differs from traditional TM in that no initiation fee was requested. Henceforth, HIM? underlined shall indicate that in this project Transcendental Meditation was taught with no initiation fee. In addition, Maharishi International University requested that I test changes manifested by ordinary, paying TM initiates in East LanSTng, Michigan. This study has been completed by Lance Renshaw. 2PSI, of course, was taught with no initiation fee. To reduce the possibility of confusion, the title "PSI" shall be underlined, as shall the titles of SMS treatments described later. 16 exercise with one critical exception: in place of sitting with eyes closed and meditating, the control treatment exercise involved simply sitting with eyes closed. In every other respect the control treatment was designed to match the form and complexity of IM.instruction, par— ticularly those aSpects that might foster expectation of relief. Like 1M, PSI was taught by a person who believed the technique was effective and did not believe it to be a control treatment. Both IM_and PSI indoctrination incorporated two introductory lectures separated by a 15 day drug fast. Both IM_and.PSI lectures detailed theory and research supporting extensive claims for the treatments' effectiveness. (Theory and research described during the PSI lectures was contrived, yet highly credifile.) The techniques for [M and PSI were taught individually to each participant using highly formalized and standardized instructions. Initiation for both treatments was followed by three group follow-up discussion sessions, and monthly individual follow-up sessions for "technique checking." The rationale for this design is simple. If the effects of [M- are not due to the growth-proneness of persons selectingifiéplearn 1M, then IM_should be more effective than no treatment, since both treatment ‘ groups consist of subjects selected from the same pool of volunteers. If the effects of Im_are due to the regular practice of the IM_medita- tion exercise, and not to eXpectation of relief or sitting daily with eyes closed, then IM_should be more effective than the PSI control treatment. 17 It is difficult to construct a treatment matching all the expectation-fostering aspects of 1M, particularly the ubiquitous promotional literature and numerous accounts of IM_in the popular press. Recognizing this problem we chose a different strategy in EXperiment II. Here, two treatments were compared, one incorporating a Imrlike medita- tion exercise, the other incorporating an exercise designed to be the near antithesis of meditation. This anti-meditation involved sitting with eyes closed and actively generating as many positive thoughts as possible. In every other respect these two treatments were identical. Each was described as an effective anxiety reducing treatment called "Cortically Mediated Stabilization" or ISMS,“ Neither treatment was described as involving meditation in an attempt to reduce the possi- bility that subjects acquainted with 1M promotional literature might generalize the claims made to the treatments considered in this experiment. In addition, for both treatments, indoctrination was minimal and consisted of an introductory lecture followed by three sessions of follow-up discussion, and monthly "checking" sessions. It was reasoned that if the effects of IM_are due to the specific IM_meditation exercise, and not due to expectation of relief or simply sitting with eyes closed, then the SMS treatment incorporating meditation instructions highly similar to IM_instructions should be more effective than a parallel PMS treatment involving sitting with eyes closed and engaging in a presumably innocuous exercise nearly anti- thetical to meditation. 18 In both experiments the primary dependent variable was anxiety. Anxiety was chosen because it has received the largest amount of attention in TM research, and because, as Cattell & Scheier (1963) summarize: "It is what comes closest to being the common element in all forms of mental disorder, and the lack of anxiety thus becomes an excellent operational definition of mental health." We chose to investigate two aspects of anxiety: (1) conscious trait anxiety, that is, complaints of psychological distress, tension, and nervousness; and (2) psychosomatic symptoms of anxiety, specifically symptoms of striated muscle tension such as backache and neckache, and symptoms of autonomic arousal such as sweatiness and digestive problems. These two aspects were chosen because they cover most of the domain of manifest anxiety symptomatology. In addition, they can be viewed as reflecting different levels of repression or impulse-inhibition, with conscious trait anxiety reflecting relatively little repression, and psychosomatic symptoms reflecting a greater degree of repression (Fenichel, 1945). These two aspects were tapped respectively by the STAI A-Trait Scale (Spielberger, Gorsusch, & Lushene, 1970) and the Epstein Fenz Manifest Anxiety Scale (Fenz & Epstein, 1965). In addition to the primary measures described above, we gave a considerable number of exploratory or "secondary" tests. Although these tests are not directly referred to in the hypotheses of this study, we included them in order to look into numerous other questions such as the characteristics of those who benefit most from meditation and factors that distract from or add to meditation's effectiveness. 19 In selecting these tests, we first wanted an omnibus questionnaire that covers the broad spectrum of personality. For this reason we selected the 16PF Forms A and B (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsouka, 1970) and the IPAT Neuroticism Scale Questionnaire (Scheier & Cattell, 1961). Six dimensions taped by these tests load heavily on anxiety, and three on "bound anxiety" or "neuroticism." These dimensions are of particular interest because of their relation to the primary dependent variables. In addition we wanted to tap relatively severe forms of psychopathology such as psychosis and personality disorder. For this we selected the Tennessee Self Concept Scale (Fitts, 1963). We wanted a measure that could shed light on whether any differential rates of improvement might be due to differences in social desirability reSponse set, the tendency to distort questionnaire responses in a socially desirable way. We chose the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1965). We were interested in subjects' own evaluations of their 1M, P_I, and SMS treatments. For this purpose we devised a questionnaire requesting that the treatments' effects be described and evaluated. We obtained supplementary information such as sex, age, whether or not a subject considered learning meditation before participating in this project, whether or not a subject considered receiving psycho- therapy before this project, the frequency IM,_PSI, and SMS_were practiced, and the degree of participation in outside therapeutic activities such as psychotherapy. 20 Finally we had available a polygraph and a set of interpersonal stress films which tap a wide variety of common conflicts relating to sex, hostility, dependency, etc. As mentioned in Chapter I, several studies have related the practice of TM to a leveling off of skin conductance reactivity in a testing situation involving sitting with eyes open. We were interested in seeing if we would find a similar leveling off of skin conductance reactivity in a somewhat more life-like testing situation involving watching an interpersonal stress film. All variables incorporated in this study will be described in full later on. CHAPTER III METHOD Experiment I It was hypothesized that IMLis more effective in reducing anxiety than a parallel control treatment involving sitting without meditation; and that both 1M and a sitting control treatment are more effective in reducing anxiety than no treatment. Subjects Subjects consisted of 139 (70 male and 69 female) Michigan State University students who attended an orientation lecture and four days of pretesting, were not receiving psychotherapy, and had at no time practiced meditation or yoga. Mean age was 22. Procedure Pretreatment orientation. Four hundred five persons responded to a campus-wide advertising campaign (Appendix A) soliciting volunteers interested in receiving free treatments for reducing anxiety. Specific treatments involved were not named. These potential subjects attended a 30-minute orientation lecture and were told that the treatments were being offered as part of an extensive research effort directed toward isolating how and why the treatments work (Appendix B). In addition, it was explained that the treatments would be taught individually by a 21 22 trained instructor, were safe and effective, and did not involve medication, hospitalization, psychotherapy, external equipment, or hypnosis. No indication was given that the treatments might involve meditation, or that several treatments would be compared. An effort was made to discourage participation by those who were not highly motivated. Potential participants were warned not to consider taking part unless they were sure they were willing and able to practice the technique they were to learn about 30 minutes a day for about three months. In addition, they were told that only persons who completed four one-hour sessions of pretesting (with no make-up sessions offered) would be considered, and that of these only 70 to 80 percent could eventually be accepted into the project because of resource limitations. Pretreatment assessment and screening. Of those who attended the orientation lecture, 221 wished to be considered for the project. Over the next four days, November 6-9, 1973, subjects were given the STAI A-Trait Inventory, the Epstein~Fenz Manifest Anxiety Scale, and the following secondary measures: the 16PF Forms A and B, the IPAT Neuroticism Scale Questionnaire, the Tennessee Self Concept Scale, the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, and a therapeutic activities questionnaire inquiring into interest in and degree of participation in numerous therapeutic treatments and activities including meditation and yoga (Appendix C). One hundred sixty-two persons (half males, half females) who completed all four days of pretreatment assessment, were not currently 23 receiving psychotherapy, had at no time practiced meditation, and wished to take part were accepted into the project. Male and female subjects were separately ranked on the basis of STAI A-Trait scores. Then, proceeding from the highest scoring subject to the lowest, each subject was randomly assigned using a random numbers table to three treatment conditions: Transcendental Meditation (1M), Periodic Somatic Inactivity (PSI), and No Treatment. Nineteen (12 male, 7 female) Ifl_subjects, 21 (12 male, 9 female) [PSI subjects, and 18 (10 male, 8 female) No Treatment subjects were randomly selected to participate in a test measuring skin conductance reactivity while viewing a series of interpersonal stress film shorts (Appendix D). Treatments. Forty-nine subjects (27 males, 22 females) were assigned to IM; 51 (24 males, 27 females) to PSI; and 39 (19 males and 20 females) to No Treatment.‘ Subjects were informed by phone when and where their unspecified treatments would begin. No Treatment subjects were told that they had been assigned to a "wait group" which would receive treatment in about three months. They were given no information as to the nature of the treatment they would receive. At no time during ‘the experiment were subjects informed that several treatments were being (nampared. Treatments were given concurrently at the same days and times. Fkilf of the IM_and PSI subjects received training during the first two ‘Initially 54 subjects, half males and half females, were chosen for“ each treatment group. However, some subjects, when informed by phc>ne that they had been accepted into the project, decided not to corntinue. Hence the unequal number of subjects in each treatment group. 24 weeks of the project, while the other half received training the second and third weeks. IM_was taught by two official TM instructors from the Students International Meditation Society, and was identical to ordinary TM in every respect except that it was offered free. The TM technique involves sitting twice daily 15 to 20 minutes and meditating on a special thought called a mantra. Complete TM instruction includes two introductory lectures, a 15 day drug fast, individual initiation, three days of follow-up discussion, and monthly follow-up checking. Periodic Somatic Inactivity was a control treatment specially contrived to match IM_in every respect with one exception: instead of sitting and meditating, the PSI technique involved merely sitting with eyes closed. This technique was taught by two carefully selected and trained Michigan State University seniors. Both were chosen from a pool of 30 volunteers on the basis of how well they resembled the IM_ instructors. Both are unusually warm, articulate, mature, and credible- appearing people. One was chosen to be the senior instructor responsible for most of the training and was deliberately misinformed that the treat- ment he would teach was highly effective and well-researched, and that the main purpose of this project was to determine if PSI is effective for different people for different reasons. He enthusiastically accepted this rationale and only months later began to suspect that other treatments were being compared. He never suspected that PSI Twas actually a control treatment. The second volunteer was selected 25 to be the assistant instructor. He knew the nature of the project, but carefully kept it secret from his partner.2 Both instructors were informed that one critical variable in this project was the perceived enthusiasm and credibility of the instructors and the perceived authenticity of treatment they were to teach. They agreed to appear as enthusiastic and credible as possible, even if at some future date they decided that the treatment was worthless. In addition, they agreed to misinform subjects that they had practiced the technique for about five years and had taught it for about two years. The instructors were given their official PSI Training Manual (Appendix E), which outlines in detail the theory behind PSI_as well as every aspect of PSI instruction. The senior instructor was put through a rigorous two-week training program in which he mastered PSI theory, two 60-minute lectures, and individual instruction and follow-up pro- cedure. In addition, he practiced the lectures to proficiency in front of preselected hostile audiences. Like IM instruction,_PSI_instruction consisted of two intro- ductory lectures separated by a fifteen day fast from illegal drugs, 2Ideally, the assistant too would have been naive as to the nature of the project. Unfortunately this was not possible. Two weeks before the start of_PSI training the eXperimenter realized that two instructors would be needed to individually initiate the large number of subjects who chose to participate. He also discovered that Ifl_was going to be taught by two instructors and decided that it would be desirable to match PSI,with_IM_for number of instructors. He selected to be the PSI assistant the person who appeared to be best qualified for~the job. Unfortunately this person had previously been told the nature of the project. 26 one day of personal initiation followed by three consecutive days of follow-up discussion, and monthly individual follow-up "checking" sessions. The two introductory lectures outlined a highly credible, yet contrived, theory explaining PSIfs effectiveness and supporting empiri- cal research. Care was taken to base the theory on actual psychological concepts and research in case subjects decided to do some homework and check out the theory's credibility (since two subjects were completing their doctorates, this was not an unreasonable possibility). Key points of the theory were illustrated by professional looking transparencies displayed by means of an overhead projector. The essential points covered in these lectures can be summarized: Built into life are factors that disrupt inner calm and generate and maintain anxiety. Research has shown that one of these factors is the desynchronization of circadian rhythms, daily rhythmic changes in physiological functioning. PSI_works to bring circadian rhythms into synchrony. The way PSI_works is complex. All physical activity, no matter how small, generates a fatigue-like and stress- like physiological by-product called reactive inhibition. Simple physical inactivity tends to trigger the automatic dissipation of reactive inhibition. Such dissipation appears physiologically as a decrease in physiological activity, and as a small dip or signature in the constellation of circadian rhythms. PSI_involves remaining physically inactive for 15 to 20 minutes at the same time each day. The result is that regular inactivity-induced signatures appear at and become classically conditioned to the same point in one's circadian rhythms each day. As one continues practicing PSI, condi- tioning continues, overlearning occurs, "dips become condi- tioned onto dips" and gradually, and automatically, the associated physiological changes become deeper and deeper. The regular appearance of inactivity-induced signatures in circadian rhythms serve as zeitgeber, stimuli that pull and keep circadian rhythms in synchrony. .PSI thereby functions to pull and keep circadian rhythms in synchrony, and as a result reduces anxiety and increases psychological well-being. 27 Periodic inactivity is the single commonality among a variety of highly effective growth and therapy techniques, including Jacobsonian relaxation, biofeedback training, autogenic therapy, self-hypnosis, meditation, and yoga. However, since PSI incorporates only the essentials of these techniques, and does away with all the unnecessary and cumbersome extras associated with them, it is in fact more effective and more efficient. After attending the two introductory lectures and participating in fifteen day fast from illegal drugs, each subject was scheduled for private initiation, and his name entered in a professional-looking schedule book filled with signatures of what appeared to be hundreds of previous PSI initiates. The scheduling book, as well as all other P_I literature, was liberally Sprinkled with the official PSI_logo. Half the subjects were initiated by the senior instructor and half by his assistant. Each subject was ushered into a small quiet room and his name crossed off the scheduling book. Both the subject and his instructor sat facing each other. The instructor then proceeded to give initiation as is summarized below: Today I'll teach you PSI. The technique itself is deceptively simple. Most mistakes are made without the practitioner even knowing he is making them. For this reason we are putting you through a very carefully planned training session. Training will take place in four segments. First, I will teach you the technique. Then in one of the adjoining rooms you will practice the technique alone for 15 minutes. This is essential. Most errors in technique come to light only during the first few sessions of practice. Then I will knock on your door and give you a questionnaire which asks certain questions about the experiences you had during the PSI session. Finally, we will go over your questionnaire and answer any questions you may have. You will then know the technique, and should practice twice daily, once before breakfast, once before dinner, for 15 to 20 minutes a session. First, the technique. The best way to learn PSI is to do it. First, I'll read the instructions so you may become 28 familiar with them. Then I'll read them again, and as I read them I would like you to follow them here and now. Here are the instructions: Sit up straight in your chair. Place your feet flat on the floor. Place your arms in a position that is comfortable for you. If you are carrying a handbag or package, put it aside. Now, simply close your eyes and sit for the next 15 to 20 minutes. Remain physically inactive for this period of time: that is, sit still and avoid unnecessary movements. Let your mind do whatever it wants. Whatever you do men- tally will have little or no impact on the effectiveness of the technique. The important thing is to remain physically inactive. Do not talk, walk around, or change chairs. You may engage in an occasional action such as shifting your position, or making yourself more comfortable. And you may scratch. At the end of the session, open your eyes, breathe deeply a few times, and continue with your everyday activities. OK, do you have any questions? Now I will read the instructions step by step, and I would like to follow them here and now as I read. I may correct certain aspects of your technique if it appears necessary. First, sit up straight, place your feet flat on the floor, and place your arms in a comfortable position. Close your eyes. Second, remain physically inactive. Sit still and avoid unnecessary movements. Let your mind do whatever it wants. I'll let you practice this for the next two minutes (two-minute pause). Third, take several deep breaths and you are finished. Now I would like you to practice this technique for the next 15 minutes. I'll knock on the door when it is time for you to take your questionnaire. Fifteen minutes later the instructor entered the room and gave each subject his questionnaire. He read each item aloud, asked the subject if it corresponded to his experience, and then checked the item off. The instructor consistently responded with support and approval, indicating that the subject was practicing correctly. Subjects were urged to attend during the next three days three orua—hour follow-up discussions devoted to answering questions and giving 29 further instruction. Most questions were anticipated in the PSI Instructional Manual. Answers emphasized the following key points: PSI works automatically and gradually. One should not look for dramatic effects. In fact, the effects of PSI can be so gradual that the practitioner may not notice them. However, these effects are soon apparent to others and can be detected by physiological equipment. Also, PSI practi- tioners may experience periods of anxiety and doubt and may from time to time be completely convinced that PSI does not work. At these times it is important to remember that PSI works in cycles, sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly. In addition to answering questions, the first follow-up discus- sion was devoted to summarizing PSI theory and elaborating on the long term physiological benefits associated with the state of "conditioned stabilized hypoarousal" experienced during PSI. During the second follow-up discussion each subject was given an official PSI Programmed Self-Instruction Booklet to fill out during the session. This booklet was essentially a multiple-choice exam on crucial aspects 0f.E§l theory and technique. Subjects were told that the reasons for filling out the manual were: (1) to give the instruc- tors an idea of how well the technique was being practiced, (2) to anticipate and answer questions that might come up in the future, and (3) to minimize the possibility that the technique of sitting with eyes closed might be practiced incorrectly in the future. The third follow-up discussion outlined the long-term psycho- logical benefits in self-concept, anxiety reduction, and range of experiencing that one would obtain by practicing PSI. Nonexistent but plausible research "verifying" these benefits was cited and ‘illustrated by professional looking transparencies. Bogus testimonials 30 were read illustrating how PSI worked in different ways for different people. Finally, each subject was given a questionnaire and asked to describe his experiences and offer suggestions for improving_PSI instruction. Each month throughout the project each subject was phoned and scheduled for a follow-up "checking" session. If a subject missed a session he was phoned again and the session rescheduled. If he missed the rescheduled session he was not contacted again until the next month. During each checking session each subject met alone with an instructor in a small quiet room with a door conspicuously labeled "PSI FOLLOWUP," in letters incorporating the official PSI_logo. The follow- ing format was used during the follow-up sessions: The instructor ushers the practitioner into the follow-up room. Both sit. They may engage in a few minutes of informal chit-chat providing the instructor does not ask questions concerning the practitioner's well being. The instructor then casually asks the following ques- tions in order to get some idea of where the practitioner is at in terms of PSI experience. (He does not ask these questions in an attempt to persuade or pressure the prac- titioner to practice more regularly): "Let's see, you learned PSI in (instructor fills in pr0per month). Have you been practicing regularly? (Pause for answer.) 00 you do it about 15 to 20 minutes a session, sitting still, let— ting your mind do whatever it wants? (Pause for answer.)" The instructor responds with a warm and accepting "fine" or "OK" to most of the subject's responses. The instructor then says "OK, let's sit with our feet flat on the floor with our arms put in a comfortable position, letting the mind do whatever it wants, while remaining physically inactive. (Both the instructor and subject practice for 10 seconds.)" "00 any thoughts or feelings come to mind?" (Pause for answer.) “Fine, let the mind do whatever it wants. For the next three minutes let's close our eyes and practice PSI." Both the practitioner and instructor practice PSI for three minutes, after which the instructor says, "Did you begin to feel a bit rested?" (Pause) "Fine, the effects of PSI are gradual and automatic. 31 Your body will gradually reach deeper and deeper states of relaxation, although you may not be aware of this." "OK, I'd like you to continue practicing PSI for the next 10 minutes. I'll go into another room and will let you know when the time is Up." At the end of the practice session the instructor enters the room and asks, "Are there any questions? Any problems concerning the technique? Did you feel relaxed or rested?" (Pause) "Fine, PSI is working even when mentally you may not feel relaxed." After several checking sessions this procedure was streamlined to include only a preliminary question and answer session, a 15 minute practice period during which the subject practiced alone, and a final question and answer session. This was done because the instructors observed that the original follow-up procedure was beginning to be monotonous for the subjects.3 3Through an oversight on the part of the experimenter, PSI was not as closely matched with Ifl_as might be desired. Four differences should be noted: (1) all Ifl_subjects were required to obtain and donate two or three sweet fresh fruits to the Student's International Medita- tion Society as part of the initiation ceremony. PSI_subjects were required to make no comparable contribution. (2) Each of the three IM_ post-initiation follow-up discussion sessions started with a 15 minute meditation; the.PSI post-initiation follow-up discussion sessions started with a question and answer period. (3) The first IM_checking session was scheduled for two weeks after initiation; the first PSI checking session was scheduled for four weeks after initiation. And (4) IM_subjects were instructed to practice once in the morning and once in the late afternoon or evening, preferably before breakfast or dinner, and that it was not absolutely essential to practice the same time each day. .PSI subjects were urged to practice before breakfast and before dinner and were told that it was important that they practice the same time each day, give or take two hours. The importance of this last difference became apparent after about six weeks. Several PSI_ subjects complained that they were not practicing regularly because they had difficulty scheduling their PSI sessions the same time each day. When this difficulty was discoveFEH, all_PSI.subjects were informed when contacted for their next checking session that it was unnecessary to practice exactly the same time each day, and that recent research has found PSI to be fully effective when simply practiced twice daily, once in the morning and once in the late afternoon or evening, not within one hour after eating. 32 Interim assessment. March 1, after 3% months, subjects were contacted for testing. Subjects in the No Treatment condition were given all tests given during the pretest assessment plus a therapeutic activities questionnaire. No Treatment subjects who were given the skin conductance test during pretreatment assessment were given the same test with a different film. The film used was closely parallel to the one used in pretesting. These subjects were then assigned to the treatment conditions described in Experiment II. Nineteen IM.and 22 PSI subjects agreed to be tested. They were given the STAI A-Trait questionnaire and the Epstein Fenz Manifest Anxiety Scale, and were informed that the experiment was not over and that they should continue practicing.” Posttreatment assessment. May 20, six months after the onset of this project, IM_and_PSI subjects were contacted for their final assessment. An heroic effort was made to test all subjects, even those who had discontinued with the project. All subjects were informed that it was extremely important that they participate in the assessment, especially if they were not practicing regularly or had dropped out of the experiment. Subjects were given all of the tests given during the pre- treatment assessment period. In addition, the following tests were given: a frequency of practice questionnaire inquiring into how many l'We initially planned to terminate EXperiment I if the 1M,group ciisplayed greater reductions in anxiety than the PSI group, and teach ;Z£1 to both the PSI_and No Treatment subjects. Differences between Ifl_ and PSI_ were not significant, so both treatments were continued. 33 times PSI or IM_was practiced each month throughout the project (Appendix F); a questionnaire inquiring into what therapeutic activities subjects participated in each month throughout the project (Appendix G); and an extensive essay test asking subjects to evaluate the enjoyability, value, and overall impact of IM_and PSI, and to describe in detail the types of experiences they had while practicing (Appendix H). Subjects who were given the skin conductance tests during pretreatment assessment were given the second version of the test, the version given to the No Treatment subjects in March. At the end of posttreatment assessment each subject was invited to attend a "debriefing" session in which all aspects of the project, including the hypotheses, methodology, and treatment conditions would be revealed and all questions answered. The experimenter offered to send the final results of the project to any subject interested, and to teach meditation, PSI, or any other related technique he knew to any subject wanting such instruction. If a subject was unable to attend the scheduled debriefing session, he was debriefed at a time convenient for him. Five IM.and four PSI subjects chose to be debriefed. Experiment II It was hypothesized that a treatment based on IM;like meditation instructions is more effective in reducing anxiety than a parallel con- trol treatment based on instructions nearly antithetical to meditation. 34 Subjects Subjects consisted of 54 (27 male, 27 female) Michigan State University students with a mean age of 21.5 years. Of these 9 males and 15 females had completed the No Treatment condition of Experiment I. The remaining were newly recruited volunteers who were not receiving psychotherapy and had at no time practiced meditation or yoga. The new recruits were given the same pretreatment orientation given to No Treatment subjects at the onset of Experiment 1.5 Procedure Pretreatment assessment. Over three days all subjects were given the following tests: the STAI A-Trait Inventory, the Epstein-Fenz Manifest Anxiety Scale, the 16PF Forms A and B, the IPAT Neuroticism Scale Questionnaire, the Tennessee Self Concept Scale, the Marlowe- Crowne Social Desirability Scale, and a checklist of numerous thera- peutic procedures and treatments including meditation and yoga. Subjects who completed all three days of assessment and had not previously practiced meditation or yoga were accepted into the project. For subjects obtained from the No Treatment group in Experiment I, posttreatment assessment in Experiment I served as pretreatment assessment in Experiment 11. sInitially in Experiment 11 we planned to teach No Treatment subjects in Experiment I meditation and then, using each subject as his own control, compare improvement under N0 Treatment with improvement under meditation. As mentioned above, only 24 No Treatments wished to participate in Experiment II, a number we considered to be insufficient. The alternative design described above was then utilized. 35 Treatments. Subjects signed up for one of two treatment conditions, PMS Meditation and SMS_Anti-Meditation. Treatments were described as being absolutely identical, except that one was being taught at 7, 9, 7, and 9 PM four consecutive evenings (March 4-7), and the other at 9, 7, 9, and 7 PM the same evenings. Subjects chose the treatment that best fit their schedules. Subjects who had no preference were assigned to groups in such a way that the groups would be matched as closely as possible for sex and for ratio of No Treatment subjects and new recruits. Twenty-seven subjects (14 males, 13 females) signed up for what was in fact the meditation treatment, and 27 subjects (13 males, 14 females) signed up for what was in fact the anti-meditation control treatment. Both treatments were called "Cortically Mediated Stabil- ization,’ or PSMSP and were identical except that one incorporated a TM-like meditation exercise devised by the experimenter,6 and the other 6In preparation, the experimenter gave the SMS meditation instructions individually to 19 persons who had been practicing TM regularly for at least six months and to one TM instructor. Each person was asked to answer two multiple-choice questions concerning the instructions: 1. In comparison with TM, I would predict that the meditation described here should be A. more easy and effective 8. equally easy and effective C. less easy and effective 2. From what I know about TM, the meditation described here appears to be A. identical B. essentially the same, that is, different in ways that are superficial C. different in at least one crucial aspect, that is, the two techniques are QQI essentially the same. The TM instructor and 18 of the 19 practitioners stated that the techniques should be ”equally easy and effective," were "essentially the 36 an anti-meditation exercise carefully devised to be the near antithesis of meditation. Subjects were not informed as to the relationship between the various techniques and meditation. Both treatments were taught in four sessions by the experimenter. He carefully mastered and practiced each aspect of instruction procedure, and made an attempt to appear credible and enthusiastic. In addition, he misinformed subjects that he himself had practiced PMS five years and had taught it for two. The first training session of both PMS Meditation and SMS Anti-Meditation incorporated the same introductory lecture. This lecture covered the following points (full lecture in Appendix I): The technique you will learn is called "PMS? which stands for "Cortically Mediated Stabilization." PMS should be practiced 15 to 20 minutes a session, once in the morning, and once in the late afternoon or evening. SMS_should not be practiced before 60 minutes after eating. An impressive body of scientific research and theory shows that SMS is effective for reducing anxiety, tension, nervousness, and worry, and for increasing mental health. This research will not be described here. To do so could set up expectations which might distort the workings of the technique. However, it can be said that two processes involved in SMS_are the accumulation and dissipation of reactive inhibition, and the cortically mediated amplifi- cation of these effects (these processes are then briefly defined). At the end of the first session SMS_was taught to each group, practiced for 15 minutes by both the instructor and the subjects, and same," and differed in "ways that are superficial." One TM practitioner claimed that the SMS_meditation should be less easy and effective and that it was not essentially the same as TM and differed in at least one crucial aspect. Most important differences cited as distinguishing the techniques were that TM, unlike CMS, is taught individually during a special initiation ceremony, and involves secret mantras individually selected for each meditator. 37 then discussed. The EMS Meditation group received the following instructions: SMS involves mental activity centered around a mean- ingless word, called a "focus." The focus we will use is the word "shanti."7 I will first read the instructions to acquaint you with them, and then I will reread them slowly and would like you to begin practicing as I read. We will then practice as a group for 15 minutes. Here are the instructions: Sit up straight in a comfortable position. Close your eyes. Give yourself a few minutes, about two, to settle down. Let the focal word repeat itself in your mind as effortlessly as possible; let it come to you and start on its own. If it won't repeat itself on its own, you may gently being it, providing you do so with a minimum of effort. Whenever you notice you have been distracted or that your mind has wandered, let your mind return to the focal word as gently and effortlessly as possible. Let this happen easily, without making a big thing of it. Distractions, especially inner distractions, are an impor- tant part of the processes involved in PMS. They are normal and healthy. You are practicing PMS when they occur. The Anti-Meditation group received the following instructions: Here are the instructions for_SMS. I will first read them to acquaint you with them, and then I will reread them slowly and would like you to begin practicing as I read. We will then practice as a group for 15 minutes. Here are the instructions: Sit up straight in a com- fortable position. Close your eyes. Remain physically inactive. Shift your eyes back and forth, at a slow regular pace, about 15 times.8 Then deliberately pursue a sequency of cognitive activity that has a positive direction and is comprehensive. That is, simply engage in thought activity that you intend to be positive, that is, good, desirable, interesting, or anything the word "positive“ means to you. There are three types of cog- nitive activity you may pursue: fantasy-daydream, 7The word "focus" was used in place of the more appropriate word "mantra" in order to avoid arousing suspicions that meditation was being taught. "Shanti" was selected because it is a well-tested and widely used Indian mantra. aThe esoteric eye-shifting exercise was incorporated to match the esoteric qualities of the focal word "shanti" used in the CMS Meditation exercise. 38 story-telling, and listing. If you engage in fantasy-daydream, make it good. Make it have a good outcome. Put components in it that for you are positive--people you like, activities you like, your favorite possessions, places you like, colors you like, etc. If you engage in story telling, tell yourself a story that has a positive ending. Put in details that are good and desirable for you. If you engage in listing, simply list the positive attributes of something. List all the good, desirable, and beneficial qualities of something. Whatever thoughts and feelings you have in addition to your deliverate sequence of cognitive activity are normal and healthy. They are part of the processes involved in CMS. As you may have gathered, the specific content of your positive cognitive activity is irrelevant. What is really important is that you engage in deliberate cognitive effort that is directed in a positive direction. Days two through four of instruction for both meditation and anti-meditation groups started out with a question and answer session. .PMS instructions were briefly summarized and the technique practiced by everyone for 15 minutes. This was followed by another question and answer session. In addition, during the second day of instruction PMS Meditation subjects were given the following talk: Today I would like to spend some time on elaborating upon the instructions given earlier. First, don't try to prevent distractions from coming to mind, whether they be internal or external. Don't try to do anything with them. Don't try to figure them out, analyze them, make them go away, or cure them. Simply let them arise when they want to, and then easily favor the focus. Second, don't strain to attend to your focus. Do not exert an effort to attend. When you notice that your mind has been distracted, let it return to the focus. If you have to do this often, again and again, this is fine. This is a part of_PMS. Third, if you go on for several minutes without noticing that your mind has wandered, this too is fine. Simply let your mind return to the focus. And fourth, do not strive to achieve a particular state of mind. Accept the session wherever it eads. 39 During the second day of instruction, anti-meditation subjects were given this talk: Today I would like to spend some time on some important elaboration. First, when you practice PMS engage in deliberate thought. Don't get lazy or loaf around. If you feel yourself getting into a lazy trance state or daze, snap out of it. Blink your eyes a few times and continue your thought. Second, the product of your thought activity is irrelevant. It is irrelevant how positive your thinking becomes. It is irrelevant even if you can't think of much of anything positive. The effects of PMS come from delib- erate cognitive effort directed in a positive direction. Positive intent is essential. Third, make your cognitive activity cover as much ground as possible. Make it compre- hensive. That is, try to think of as many things as possible, with as much variety as possible, and with as much detail and elaboration as possible. During the third day of instruction, both meditation and anti- meditation subjects were told: Here are four important characteristices of the effects of PMS: the effects are gradual, accumulative, cyclical, and automatic. First, the effects are gradual. So gradual that you probably won't detect them. The effects are like the effects of growth--one never experiences the day by day process of growth. Second, the effects are accumulative. Each day you add a little to your body's capacity to gener- ate the physiological changes involved. Third, the effects are cyclical. Because of the specific processes involved, you will experience ups and downs and plateaus. You may experience these within a single session, or over a period of days or weeks. The important thing to remember is: .PMS is working during the down phases as well as the up. In fact, both phases are essential for PMS_to work fully. Fourth, the effects are automatic. As long as you follow the simple instructions and practice regularly, the phy- siological processes will be automatically set into motion. During the fourth day of instruction both meditation and anti- meditation subjects were told that CMS is essentially very simple and easy, and that if it seems difficult, it is probably not being practiced correctly. The instructions were then reviewed. 40 Once a month for the duration of the experiment each subject was phoned and scheduled for a grDUp follow-up checking session. During these sessions the instructor first asked if there were any questions and then briefly reviewed the instructions. Both the instructor and the subjects practiced for 15 minutes. Then the instructor answered further questions. For both groups the instructor used the following formula (closely patterned after TM) for answering questions: If the question revealed that some aSpect of PMS instruction was not being followed correctly, the relevant piece of instruction was reviewed. If it was clear that PMS was being practiced correctly, but the subject was asking about some experience he had while practicing, the instructor responded by saying that such experiences were not only normal and healthy, but at times can be signs of the working of certain PMS processes. Posttreatment assessment. Eleven weeks after the onset of the project all subjects were called in for posttesting. Once again an heroic effort was made to test all subjects, even those who had dis- continued with the project. Subjects were informed that it was extremely important that they participate in the assessment, especially if they were not practicing regularly or had dropped out of the exper- iment. Subjects were given all measures given during the posttreatment assessment for Experiment I. At the end of the project each subject was invited to attend a "debriefing session" in which all aspects of the project, including the hypotheses, methodology, and treatment conditions would be revealed and 41 all questions answered. The experimenter offered to teach meditation, PSI, or the anti-meditation technique to any subject wanting such --—._....-_.4, instruction. One meditation subject was interested in learning the anti-meditation technique. If a subject was unable to attend the scheduled session, he was debriefed at a time convenient for him. Six subjects chose to be debriefed. Table 1 outlines the designs used in Experiments I and II. Description of Dependent Variables Before reading the results of Experiments I and II, the reader may profit from a full description of the dependent variables investi- gated. Readers who feel no need for such a discussion are hereby given permission to skip to the next chapter. Primary dependent variables, those relating directly to the hypotheses of Experiments I and II are described first. Secondary or supplementary dependent variables then follow. Primary Dependent Variables STAI A-Trait. The STAI A-Trait Scale (alpha reliability==.86) taps conscious or manifest trait anxiety. Conscious trait anxiety refers to a relatively stable propensity to experience anxiety states, states characterized by such descriptors as "tense, regretful, upset, anxious, nervous, jittery, high-strung, worried, over-excited, and rattled" (Spielberger, Gorsuch & Lushene, 1970). 42 .onpmoupmoo cow ooucoooe oz; mooohoom mo gonzoz u z o .opoom zoowxc< pmomwooz Ncouic?opmom oz» oco opoom pwogki< Hoz Eton Eocmowo cw HH oco H mocoewgooxm yo mcmwmoo .F oFoop 43 Symptoms of Striated Muscle Tension (SSMT). The Epstein Fenz Manifest Anxiety Scale (Fenz & Epstein, 1965) consists largely of items selected from the Tayler Manifest Anxiety Scale. It yields three anxiety scores: Symptoms of Striated Muscle Tension (odd-even reliability==.83), Symptoms of Autonomic Arousal (odd-even reliabil- ity==.84), and Feelings of Insecurity. Conceptually, Feelings of Insecurity is synonymous with conscious trait anxiety and was not scored in this study. Fenz and Epstein (1965) describe the Symptoms of Striated Muscle Tension Scale as including "Items . . . descriptive of the effects of sustained contraction of striated or voluntary muscle . . . items referring to tremor, motor incoordination, backache, neckache, rapid breathing, pressure headaches, and skin sensitivity (Appendix L). Generally these authors relate symptoms of striated muscle tension to relatively shallow inhibition of outwardly-directed hostile impulses. symptoms of'Autonomic Arousal (3AA). This scale consists of items referring to "visceral symptoms associated with activation of autonomic nervous system." Items refer to "tachycardia, vasomotor reactions, emotionally-induced sweating, failure of body temperature control, and digestive disorders." Fenz and Epstein conceptualize such symptoms as representing a deeper level of inhibition of impulse expression than represented by symptoms of striated muscle tension or feelings of insecurity. The primary dependent variables taken together represent fre- quently experienced symptoms of anxiety reflecting differing levels of 44 impulse inhibition or repression. Psychodynamic theories of personality (Fenichel, 1945) frequently argue that the extent to which threatening impulses are not repressed or denied access to consciousness, determines the extent to which anxiety is manifest or conscious. From this view- point high scores on the STAI A-Trait Scale can be thought of as representing relatively little repression, and high scores on the Symptoms of Autonomic Arousal Scale a greater degree of repression. IPAT Anxiety Factors The Institute of Personality and Ability Testing (IPAT) offers a series of questionnaires designed to tap dimensions of personality as obtained from factor analysis. The 16PF taps the majority of dimensions that characterize normals and neurotics, and the Neuroticism Scale Questionnaire the majority of dimensions that distinguish clinically diagnosed neurotics from normals. Taken together these tests yield 16 primary factor scores. In this project the 16PF Forms A and B and the Neuroticism Scale Questionnaire (the N50) were given both at pre- testing and at posttesting. Their separate raw factor scores were pooled to increase factor reliability. Clinically diagnosed neurotics differ from normals on two general dimensions: anxiety, and "neuroticism," a dimension Cattel and Scheier suggest is related to "bound anxiety" (Cattel & Scheier, 1961). Anxiety is indicated primarily by high scores on Factors 0 and Q4 and low scores on Factor C, and to a lesser extent by high scores on Factor L and low scores on Factors H and 03' These factors are obtained from the 16PF Forms A and B and are described below. A plus sign by the 45 factor label indicates that high scores represent a high degree of the trait described; a minus sign indicates that low scores represent a high degree of the trait described. Factor 0 (+), Guilt Proneness. Low scorers tend to be self- assured, placid, secure, and complacent; high scorers, apprehensive, self-reproaching, insecure, worrying, and troubled. Test-retest reliability is .89.9 Factor Q4 (+), Frustration Tension or Id Pressure. Low scorers tend to be relaxed, tranquil, torpid, unfrustrated and composed; high scorers, tense, frustrated, driven, overwrought, and fretful. Test- retest reliability is .91. Factor 0 (-), Emotional Instability or Ego weakness. Low scorers tend to be affected by feelings, emotionally less stable, easily upset, and changeable; high scorers, emotionally stable, mature, reality-facing, and calm. Test-retest reliability is .87. Factor L (+), Suspiciousness or Paranoid-Type Insecurity. Low scorers tend to be trusting and accepting of conditions; high scorers, suspecting, jealous, and hard to fool. Test-retest reliability is .87. Factor H (-), Shy, Timid, Threat-Sensitivity. Low scorers tend to be emotionally cautious, retiring in the face of the opposite sex, shy, timid, restrained, careful, and rule-bound; high scorers, adven- turous, thick-skinned, and socially bold. Test-retest reliability is .93. ’All factor descriptions are taken from or adapted from the 16PF Handbook (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsouka, 1970) and the Handbook for the IPAT Anxiety Scale Questionnaire (Cattell & Scheier, 1963). 46 Factor Q3 (-), Low SelfLSentiment Integration. Low scorers tend to be uncontrolled and lax and tend not to be motivated to integrate their behavior around a clear self-ideal; high scorers tend to be con- trolled, precise, compulsive, and tend to have "exacting will-power." Test-retest reliability is .78. IPAT Neuroticism Factors In addition to the anxiety factors just described, clinically diagnosed neurotics score higher than normals on Factor I, and lower on Factors F and E, factors Cattell claims are related to "bound anxiety" or "neuroticism." These factors are obtained from the 16PF Forms A and B and the Neuroticism Scale Questionnaire. Factor I (+), Over-Protected Tender-Minded Sensitivity. Low scorers, tend to be tough minded and tend to reject illusions; high scorers tend to be weak minded, sensitive, dependent, and over-protected. Test-retest reliability is .89. Factor F (-), Depressive Overseriousness. Low scorers tend to be sober, taciturn and serious; high scorers, enthusiastic, heedless, happy-go-lucky, and extroverted. Test-retest reliability is .90. Factor E (-), Submissiveness and Dependence. Low Scorers tend to be obedient, mild, easily led, docile, and accommodating; high scorers, assertive, aggressive, competitive, and stubborn. Test-retest reliability is .88. IPAT Non-Pathology Factors The 16PF yields seven factor scores that reflect neither anxiety nor neuroticism. These factors are listed below accompanied by both high score and low score descriptors. 47 Factor A, Schizothymia vs. Affectothymia. Low scorers tend to be reserved, detached, critical, aloof, and stiff; high scorers warm-hearted, outgoing, easygoing, and participating. Test-retest reliability is .89. Factor B, Low Intelligence vs. High Intelligence. This is a miniature intelligence test. Test-retest reliability is .65. Factor G, Low Superego Strength vs. Superego Strength. Low scorers tend to lack acceptance of group moral standards, disregard rules, and be expedient; high scorers, conscientious, persistent, moralistic, and staid. Test-retest reliability is .88. Factor M, Practical vs. Imaginative. Low scorers tend to be practical and have down to earth concerns; high scorers tend to be imaginative, Bohemian, and absent-minded. Test-retest reliability is .82. Factor N, Naivete vs. Shrewdness and Discipline. Low scorers tend to be sentimental, forthright and unpretentious; high scorers, shrewd, astute, disciplined, and worldly. Test-retest reliability is .76. Factor Q1, Conservatism of Temperament vs. Radicalism. Low scorers tend to be conservative, respecting of established ideals and tolerant of "traditional difficulties"; high scorers, experimenting, liberal, analytical, and free-thinking. Test-retest reliability is .83. Factor Q2, Group Dependency vs. Self>Sufficiency. Low scorers tend to be joiners and sound followers; high scorers, self-sufficient, resourceful and preferring to make their own decisions. Test-retest reliability is .85. 48 Tennessee Self Concept Scale Variables The Tennessee Self Concept Scale (TSCS), unlike the 16PF, consists of items that focus exclusively on one narrow band of per- sonality: self-concept. Its items were selected not through factor analysis, but on the basis of the judgments of clinical psychologists. Finally, unlike the 16PF, the TSCS has scales for more extreme forms of personality disturbance such as psychosis. I chose to use the following TSCS Scales: Total Positive, Psychosis, Personality Disorder, Personality Integration, Defensive Positive, and Self Criticism. I chose these scales because they tap dimensions of psychopathology and normal personality not tapped in the 16PF or NSQ. Total Positive, or Self Esteem (TSCS-TP -). The authors claim this scale to be the most important one in the TSCS. "It reflects the overall level of self esteem. Persons with high scores tend to like themselves, feel that they are persons of value and worth, have confi- dence in themselves, and act accordingly. People with low scores are doubtful about their own worth; see themselves as undesirable; often feel anxious, depressed, and unhappy; and have little faith or confidence in themselves" (Fitts, 1965). Test-retest reliability is .92. Psychosis (TSCS-PS! +). This scale consists of those items that best distinguish psychotic patients from non-psychotic patients and normals. Psychotics tend to score high on this scale. Test-retest reliability is .92. 49 Personality Disorder (TSCS-PD -). This scale consists of items that best distinguish personality disorder from other forms of pathology and normality. A low score indicates a high degree of personality disorder. Test-retest reliability is .89. Personality Integration (TSCS-PI). This scale consists of items that best distinguish persons who are above average in level of adjustement and personality integration from normals and patients. One can view this scale as measuring “self-actualization." Test-retest reliability is .90. Defensive Distortion Variables Self>Criticism (TSCS-SC). Low scores on this scale, taken from the TSCS, are claimed to represent "defensive distortion" (Fitts, 1963). This scale is based on the MMPI LScale and consists of mildly derogatory statements that most people admit as being true for them. The authors claim that "individuals who deny most of these statements most often are being defensive and making a deliberate effort to present a favorable picture of themselves." Test-retest reliability is .75. Defensive Positive (TSCS-DP). High Defensive Positive scores are claimed to represent a high degree of defensive distortion. The scale stems from the assumption that individuals with established psychiatric difficulties have negative self-concepts, regardless of how positively they describe themselves. The scale consists of those items which best discriminate psychiatric patients with uncharacter- istically positive self concepts, that is, TSCS-TP scores, from normals and other patients. Test-retest reliability is .90. 50 Marlowe-Crowne social Desirability Scale (MCSD). This is yet another test of defensive distortion. It consists of items reflecting socially desirable attitudes and behaviors which in fact characterize few people, and items reflecting socially undesirable attitudes and behaviors which, alas, characterize most of us. High scores indicate defensiveness. Unlike the TSCS-SC and TSCS-DP Scales, items for the MCSD were chosen because they do not have pathological content. Why did we include three measures of defensive distortion? First, since the Self Criticism and Defensive Positive Scales are obtained from the TSCS, they were available gratus. However, both scales incorporate items having pathological content, and as a result both scales correlate highly with anxiety which, as Cattell, Eber, and Tatsouka (1970) argue, is partly manifested by a tendency for self- denigration or the tendency to claim that pathological statements apply to oneself. However the MCSD was specifically designed to be less subject to this criticism. For this reason I have selected the MCSD as the primary measure of defensive distortion, and the TSCS Scales as supplementary measures. Technique Evaluation Variables The following variables are obtained from a test requesting short, written answers and essays evaluating the effects of IM, PSI, and PMS. Ranked value. This score comes from a question asking the respondent to rank the ten activities he values most in life and are most important to him. If practicing IM, PSI, or PMS_does not appear 51 on the list he makes, he is asked to estimate where it would rank among the 100 activities he values most. Best Session Rank. Another question asks the respondent to rank the 10 most enjoyable and worthwhile experiences he has had during the last six months. If practicing the technique he learned in this project appears nowhere on the list, he is asked to estimate where his most enjoyable and worthwhile session would fit on a list of the 100 most enjoyable and worthwhile experiences he had over the last six months. Average Session Rank. The respondent is also asked to rank his average or typical session on a list of his 100 most enjoyable and worthwhile experiences over the last six months. Impact. Finally, the respondent is asked to describe how, if at all, 1M, PMS, or PSI has changed his life. That is, he is asked to describe what impact these treatments have had on him. Impact essays were scored in the following manner: First, for each essay all references to IM, PSI, and PMS_were blackened out. Then three Michigan State University seniors were asked to separately score each essay. They were given these instructions: Please score these statements on the basis of how the person perceives the impact the technique he practiced actually had on him. Make your rating on the basis of how the person rates the technique for while he was practicing. That is, if someone writes, "The technique worked well while I was practicing, but I stopped one month ago and all my problems have returned," simply score the perceived effect of the technique for the time he was still practicing. Ignore subject's estimations or predictions of how well the technique would have worked had he practiced more dil- igently. We are interested only in what he actually experienced. 52 Score perceived correlations as if they imply actual impact. That is, if a subject says, "while I practiced my problems seemed to get better, but I have no idea if it was the effect of the technique or something else," assume the technique was the causal agent. Give each subject a number from O to 6 on the basis of the following key: 0 =no impact, not at all effective; 1 =in between; 2==in between; 3 =moderately effective; 4 = in between; 5 = in between; 6 =highly impactful, very much effective. When the essays were finally rated, the correlations among the three judges' ratings were .78, .80, and .82. Skin Conductance Variable As mentioned in Chapter I, Orme-Johnson et a1. (1973, l973a) found the practice of TM to be associated with decrements in skin conductance lability tested while a subject sits in a laboratory with his eyes open. This, he suggested, indicated a decrease in anxiety or stress-proneness. Although sitting in a laboratory with electrodes attached to various parts of the body may be stressful to many people, it is not representative of the sorts of stresses one meets in everyday life. I was interested in determining if the practice of TM is related to decreases in skin conductance lability in a testing situation in which an attempt is made to introduce stress stimuli akin to those that occur in everyday life. Specifically I chose to investigate fluctuations in skin conductance before, during, and after observing one of two interpersonal stressor films. Each film was constructed by Dr. Norman Kagan of Michigan State University and consists of 12 and 10 randomly spaced color and sound film shorts. In each short an actor faces the film 53 viewer and addresses him. Six different actors realistically express seduction (both heterosexual and homosexual), affection, rejection, anger, fear, and maternal control. In other words, the film shorts represent real-life situations many pepple find stressful. A skin conductance reaction was defined as any sustained increase in skin conductance occurring within 10 seconds followed by a visible decrease in conductance occurring within five seconds. The following reactivity scores were obtained: Prefilm, 0-1 Micromho (run. This refers to the number of reactions of one micromho or less occurring in the three-minute base rate period occurring before the onset of the films. Film, 0-1 Micromho. This refers to the number of reactions of one micromho or less occurring while the film is being presented. Postfilm, 0—1 Micromho. This refers to the number of reactions of one micromho or less occurring in the three-minute base rate period occurring after the films. Prefilm, 1-2 Micromho. This refers to the number of one-two micromho reactions before the film presentation. The following scores are parallel to the above. Film, 1-2 Micromho. Postfilm, 1-2 Micromho. Prefilm, film, and postfilm measures were also obtained for deflections of 2-3 micromhos and 3-4 micromhos. Since only four subjects displayed reactions of this magnitude, deflections from 2-4 micromhos were not separately studied. 54 Total Reactivity. This refers to the total number of reactions of any magnitude exhibited during all base rate and film periods. Initial SC. This refers to the level of skin conductance in micromhos at the start of the testing session. Final SC. This refers to the level of skin conductance in micromhos at the end of the testing session. What does skin conductance reactivity mean? I propose that reactivity among persons suffering from psychopathology may be related to anxiety and repression. Specifically, I propose that persons who are severely disturbed and exhibit considerable conscious anxiety and few symptoms of repression display more reactive or labile skin con- ductance than do either normals or phobics, obsessive compulsives, hysterics or psychotics--that is, patients who are severely disturbed and display symptoms of considerable repression. Research tends to support this limited hypothesis. Malmo, Shagass, Davis, Cleghorn, Graham, and Goodman (1948) found that patients carefully selected for exhibiting conscious anxiety, and not phobic, obsessive-compulsive, hysterical, or psychotic symptoms, display more skin conductance fluctuations than do normals in a stress situation involving antic- ipating a painful stimulus. In addition, Howe (1958) found that during extinction trials following conditioning trials in which GSR-inducing shocks are paired with a tone, skin conductance responses take longer to extinguish for acutely anxious patients than for normals or schizo- phrenics. And Lader (1967) found that neurotics displaying manifest anxiety show more spontaneous skin conductance fluctuations and a slower rate of GSR habituation than do phobics or normals. 55 It should be noted that some research has generally found little relationship between anxiety and skin conductance reactivity (Katkin & McCubbin, 1969; Kelly, Brown, & Shaffer, 1970; Johnson, 1963; and Koepke A Pribram, 1966). Each of these studies have utilized the Tayler Manifest Anxiety Scale, a test Fenz and Epstein (1965) claim measures both manifest anxiety and symptoms of repression and inhibition. It is easy to see why scores on this scale would not correlate with skin conductance reactivity. If manifest anxiety is correlated with skin conductance reactivity, and symptoms of repression correlated with less reactivity, a test that confounds both anxiety and repression would tend to be uncorrelated with reactivity. Other Variables Outside therapeutic contact. This scale is simply the total number of hours the participant has been in contact with a helping person or agency throughout the time of the project. One-to-one interpersonal help was emphasized, such as seeing a counselor, clergy- man, advisor, physician, psychologist, or crisis center. Outside anxiety reduction activities. This scale consists of the total number of hours the participant participated in some form of impersonal or group anxiety reducing activity during the time of the project. Such activities include: yoga, Jacobsonian relaxation, empathy training, and encounter groups. Last month's frequency. This score is the total number of times the participant estimated he practiced :f_M_2 PSI, or PMS during the last full month of the project. 56 Total frequency. This score is the total number of times the participant estimated he practiced during the entire project. Discontinue. This score indicates whether or not the participant practiced at least once during the last full month of the project. A score of "2" indicates he did; "1" indicates he did not. Considered meditation. A score of "2" indicates that the participant, before the start of this project, indicated that he had considered trying meditation. A score of "1" indicates that he did not. Considered therapy. A score of "2" indicates that the participant considered seeking psychotherapy before taking part in this study. A score of "1" indicates that he did not. Sex. "1" = male; "2" = female. Age. CHAPTER IV RESULTS Twenty out of 49 IM, 24 out of 51 PSI, and 34 out of 39 No Treatment subjects reported for posttesting. This represents an attrition rate of 59 percent for IM, 53 percent for PSI, and 13 percent for No Treatment. Posttest scores were compared using analysis of covariance. Posttest scores were adjusted for their corresponding pretest scores, if any, as well as for any variable that met all of the following criteria: (1) correlated significantly (p <.Ol) with pretest-posttest difference scores, or with posttest scores where no pretests were given (Table 19), (2) differed significantly among groups (Table 20), (3) contributed significantly to the total variance for posttest scores when used with other covariates, and (4) made rational sense as a confounding variable. Analyses of covariance comparing IM, PSI, and No Treatment for each dependent variable are summarized in IgbleIP. Groups differed significantly (p <.033) on all primary dependent variables: conscious trait anxiety (STAI A-Trait), symptoms of striated muscle tension (SSMT), and svmptoms of autonomic arousal (SAA). Inspection of pretest and posttest means for these variables (Table 3) reveals a pattern: both IM_and PSI_subjects displayed a considerable reduction in anxiety, while No Treatment subjects displayed little change. Apparently both IM_and 57 58 PSI treatments are more effective than No Treatment, but equally effective when compared with each other. Three additional analyses of covariance were conducted comparing IM_with_PSI, IM_with No Treatment, and PSI with No Treatment.1 Of course, the reader should recognize that conducting three pairwise analyses of covariance can result in inflated significance levels. However, we did so to illustrate what appears to be a pattern. Table 4 shows that on none of the primary dependent variables is IM_more effec- tive in reducing anxiety than PSI. The differences obtained do not even approach significance (p>.715).2 And, as expected, Tables 5 and 6 show that IM_and_PSI subjects exhibited a significantly greater reduction in anxiety than did No Treatment subjects. Finally, primary anxiety variable posttest means and standard deviations for IM and PSI subjects tested both March and May are shown in Table 7. On none of the variables observed do May posttest means differ significantly (p'>.2) from March Posttest means. That is, reductions in anxiety manifested by IM_and PSI subjects occurred within the first three months of the project. 1In order to reduce possible difficulties in meeting assumptions for the analysis of covariance, only data from each of the two groups being compared were used in these tests. 2That this finding might be attributed to a loss of power resulting from the precaution of disregarding data from the third group for each pairwise comparison does not appear to be the case. A second test based on the error mean square from the overall analysis was also not significant for any of the primary dependent variables. F's for STAI A-Trait, SSMT, and SAA were .135, .117, and .068 (df==l/7l), respectively, none significant beyond the .7 level. 59 Changes on the secondary variables also reflect the patterns just described. Overall analyses of covariance (Table 2) show signif- icant differences (p <.Ol7) among IM, PSI, and No Treatment groups in Self Esteem (TSCS-TP), Personality Disorder (TSCS-PD), and on five of the six anxiety factors obtained from the 16PF: Emotional Instability or Ego Weakness (Factor C-), Suspiciousness or Paranoid-Type Insecurity (Factor L+), Guilt Proneness (Factor C+), Frustration Tension or Id Pressure (Factor 04-), and Shy Timid Threat-Sensitivity (Factor H-). Once again inspection of pretest and posttest means (Table 3) and pairwise analyses of covariance (Tables 4, 5, and 6) for 1M, PSI, and No Treatment reveals that on all these variables IM.and_PSI_are more effective than No Treatment in reducing psychopathology. And on none of these variables is IM_more effective than_PSI. Indeed, if anything,_PSI_appears to be more effective (p <.Ol7) than IM_in reducing Personality Disorder (TSCS-PD). Turning to subjects' own evaluations of IM_and_PSI, we find the above pattern once again. Table 4 reveals that IM_and PSI subjects found their techniques equally valuable (Ranked Value), equally enjoy- able and worthwhile on the average (Average Session Rank) and equally effective and impactful (Impact). The best practice session experienced was ranked significantly more enjoyable and worthwhile (p <.O37) by PSI subjects than IM_subjects. IM, PSI, and No Treatment groups differed significantly (p <.OOl) on the tendency to exhibit defensive distortion as measured by the TSCS-DP. IM_subjects and No Treatment subjects became slightly 60 less defensive, while PSI subjects became significantly more defensive. If.£§l subjects in fact displayed significant increments in defensive distortion tendencies on the TSCS-DP scale, we would expect a similar pattern for the two other measures of defensive distortion, Self Criticism (TSCS-SC), and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSD). This is clearly not the case. Differences between the three groups on these variables are not significant, either for the TSCS-SC Scale (p <.lO6). This leads to the interpretation that differences among the groups on the TSCS-DP Scale are spurious, and are probably due to vagaries of chance. This is a danger one Openly courts by applying three analyses of covariance to a list of 35 dependent variables. Finally, 1M, PSI, and No Treatment subjects differed on none (p >.133) of the skin conductance measures. _P§periment II Fourteen out of 27 PMS Meditation subjects and 19 out of 27 PMS Anti—Meditation subjects reported for posttesting. This represents an attrition rate of 48 percent for PMS Meditation and 30 percent for PMS_Anti-Meditation. Table 8 presents the unadjusted pretest and posttest means and standard deviations on all dependent variables for PMS Meditation and CMS Anti-Meditation. Table 2. Analyses of Covariance Comparing 1M, P_I, and No Treatment Groups on All Questionnaire and Skin Conductance Variables Variables MSt df MSe df F p'< Covariates Primary Anxiety Variables b STAI A-Traita 878.38 2 84.68 71 10.37 .0002 PS SSMT 172.59 2 32.91 71 5.24 .007 PS SAA 174.37 2 48.47 71 3.60 .033 PS IPAT Anxiety Factors Factor 0 205.97 2 42.26 71 4.87 .010 PS Factor 04 240.16 2 50.37 71 4.77 .011 PS Factor C 404.03 2 43.13 71 9.37 .0003 PS Factor L 134.65 2 24.15 71 5.58 .0057 PS Factor H 561.58 2 61.74 71 9.10 .0004 PS Factor 03 44.76 2 17.39 71 2.57 .083 PS IPAT Neuroticism Factors Factor I 1.23 2 31.33 71 0.039 .962 PS Factor F 1.71 2 37.82 71 0.045 .956 PS Factor E 18.07 2 35.15 71 0.51 .600 PS Other IPAT Factors Factor A 43.30 2 46.72 71 0.93 .400 PS Factor B 3.18 2 3.18 71 0.82 .441 PS Factor G 0.28 2 15.00 71 0.019 .981 PS Factor H 37.09 2 16.01 71 2.32 .106 PS Factor N 16.27 2 13.03 71 1.25 .293 PS Factor 01 11.21 2 14.45 71 0.78 .464 PS Factor 02 2.73 2 21.04 71 0.13 .880 PS TSCS Variables TSCS-TP 25,926.28 2 5,953.06 71 4.36 .017 PS TSCS-PSY 51.85 2 167.62 71 0.31 .735 PS TSCS—P0 1,555.61 2 288.88 71 5.39 .006 PS TSCS-PI 33.11 2 17.65 71 1.88 .161 PS Defensive Distortion Variables TSCS-SC 3.98 2 89.37 71 0.045 .957 PS TSCS-0P 1,511.61 2 195.21 71 7.74 .001 PS MCSD 45.01 2 19.40 70 2.32 .106 PS, IPAT Skin Conductance Reactivityc Factor L Prefilm 0-1 mm 153.17 2 108.80 23 1.41 .265 PS Film 0-1 mm 971.11 2 694.72 23 1.40 .267 PS Postfilm 0-1 mm 47.77 2 95.16 23 0.50 .610 PS Prefilm 1-2 mm 0.31 2 0.21 23 1.47 .249 PS Film 1-2 mm 1.50 2 5.54 23 0.27 .765 PS Postfilm 1-2 mm 0.025 2 0.35 23 0.07 .930 PS Initial SC 9.50 2 4.33 23 2.20 .134 PS Final SC 0.18 2 9.54 23 0.019 .981 PS Total Reactivity 962.26 2 1,865.76 23 0.516 .603 PS a0n this and all immediately following variables complete data was available for l9jMI subjects, 22 PSI subjects, and 34 No Treatment subjects. bPS - Pretest Scores are covaried. c0n this and all iumediately following variables complete data was available for 7 1M, 8 PSI, and 12 No Treatment subjects. 62 Table 3. Pretest and Posttest Means and Standard Deviations for IM, PSI, and No Treatment Groups on All Questionnaire, Technique Evaluation, and Skin Conductance Variables [M __I No Treatment Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Variables M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Primary Anxiety Variables STAI A-Trait 47.00 14.88 36.05 14.28 47.86 9.26 38.05 12.46 50.00 11.13 48.88 12.76 SSMT 28.84 9.11 24.05 9.41 32.23 8.25 27.18 9.16 32.65 7.90 31.74 8.65 SAA 37.16 15.58 31.89 11.98 35.41 6.43 31.77 6.79 39.29 10.26 38.12 10.33 IPAT Anxiety Factors Factor 0 26.16 9.71 20.94 11.22 26.14 9.04 22.73 9.53 28.62 9.15 28.53 9.79 Factor 04 28.95 12.09 25.16 12.46 30.64 8.20 25.41 10.57 34.47 7.79 34.15 8.33 Factor C 24.63 10.30 31.63 10.32 27.36 7.14 31.86 9.59 24.59 7.84 24.14 7.96 Factor L 15.21 5.32 14.63 4.82 16.36 5.32 13.36 5.53 19.62 4.95 20.09 6.62 Factor H 15.58 11.16 24.89 14.51 17.91 12.08 21.36 10.86 20.00 11.35 18.85 11.80 Factor 03 18.63 7.70 20.37 7.50 18.72 6.66 20.91 7.07 17.94 5.13 17.88 5.71 IPAT Neuroticism Factors Factor I 37.68 11.62 37.53 11.46 37.41 9.22 36.91 9.55 37.79 7.88 37.65 8.87 Factor F 33.84 17.34 36.74 15.58 42.09 12.43 43.55 11.14 41.15 12.18 42.32 12.11 Factor E 32.95 12.10 35.32 12.82 34.77 9.82 35.14 8.10 36.79 8.77 38.06 11.44 Other IPAT Factors Factor A 13.95 5.53 18.89 9.83 15.09 6.53 16.41 6.59 18.32 7.67 18.65 7.07 Factor B 17.58 5.16 19.00 2.60 19.41 2.13 19.05 2.36 17.53 2.96 18.88 2.37 Factor G 20.11 8.48 20.89 7.59 21.68 5.23 22.09 5.59 20.94 5.97 21.71 5.32 Factor M 30.42 8.71 31.42 8.80 30.36 5.04 32.32 4.08 30.18 5.60 29.85 6.58 Factor N 18.37 5.97 18.89 6.57 17.68 4.06 16.68 3.73 17.09 3.41 17.41 4.13 Factor 01 21.21 6.65 20.95 6.75 20.09 4.16 21.32 5.46 23.47 5.45 23.09 5.94 Factor 02 22.11 8.52 21.47 7.98 21.68 6.73 21.50 6.67 22.00 7.07 22.06 6.53 TSCS Variables TSCS-TP 305.95 81.85 315.26 94.11 316.27 79.36 351.41 43.15 302.09 65.93 282.38 97.87 TSCS-PSY 48.42 14.13 46.11 14.17 48.14 16,84 48.50 5.18 49.18 11.40 46.12 16.13 TSCS-PD 66.16 18.80 69.16 21.60 67.23 18.66 75.95 11.75 66.12 16.36 60.38 21.80 TSCS-PI 9.68 4.53 10.58 4.96 9.50 4.81 10.64 3.29 9.18 4.62 8.53 5.32 Defensive Distortion Variables TSCS-SC 32.84 9.16 33.11 9.18 34.73 9.32 34.45 5.50 35.44 8.29 34.50 11.83 TSCS-DP 49.47 16.52 47.95 18.68 48.27 15.22 59.82 14.85 44.68 13.60 43.00 16.62 MCSD 13.11 6.42 14.74 6.73 13.45 5.44 16.00 7.33 11.06 4.79 10.44 6.11 Technique Evaluation Variables Ranked Value 20.44 30.64 19.95 9.28 Best Session Rank 22.72 33.02 11.90 8.94 Ave. Session Rank 29.17 32.59 33.45 18.34 Judged Impact 31.44 18.14 30.40 12.16 Skin Conductance Reactivity Prefilm 0-1 mm 7.29 10.84 5.43 6.21 8.88 11.26 9.25 11.97 14.50 11.97 12.92 11.01 Film 0-1 mm 57.86 44.11 44.29 28.25 35.88 44.91 19.75 22.58 78.33 57.96 37.58 26.97 Postfilm 0-1inn 9.71 8.48 11.29 11.69 5.63 7.30 5.88 6.01 13.75 12.56 12.08 10.73 Prefilm 1-2 mm 0.14 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.75 1.75 0.38 0.77 0.91 2.02 0.08 0.29 Film 1-2 up: 6.86 10.51 0.86 1.86 4.00 7.48 1.25 2.38 4.92 7.45 1.25 3.14 Postfilm 1-2 mm 0.43 0.79 0.14 0.38 0.63 1.19 0.25 0.71 1.00 1.86 0.17 0.58 Initial SC 1.43 2.44 3.57 1.99 2.25 2.49 3.00 1.93 6.00 5.52 5.00 2.13 Final SC 3.57 4.76 3.86 2.91 2.00 3.51 3.88 3.00 9.08 7.53 4.17 3.10 Total Reactivity 74.25 70.43 54.75 43.49 70.89 80.03 41.22 40.16 108.92 80.22 64.00 45.22 EC 12m. UQrCCrLE) CCwQEmevng 323.....IQCLI :C ELICLC hMQ 32p. 25 ~CC‘.;€.::CU QUI?.~L~.)QU 1.x: Vaur>-22< .5. .u~.\.4\ 63 .ww.mwm.om vcm aw mF Low manmFLm> uchoFFOF >FmmevaEF use chu so memFFm>m «pan wmeanuu .mschcoomFo u mFo vcm Focmzomcd quoF n uFo .mmcoom ammumcan .ww mum mm ncm.nH mF cow manchm> mchoFFOF FqumFumEEF use szp co anmFFm>m upon mumFgEoum mmm. eo.o mm mm.mmm F mm.oF pumaEF umousn Foamscmth/x mFm. m~.o mm mm.mFm F Fm.MFF acme :omeam mmmam>< m.;pcoe awn; Fmo. 0F.e mm mm.mm¢ F Fm.~om.m xcmm comemm pmmm 0mm. moo.o mm mo.mmv F mm.m nmaFm> umxcmm manchm> coFumaFm>m mchccomF ma moo. mF.NF mm mN.FmF F oo.¢om.F ao-momF anchm> . conLOFmFo m>chmFmo dF mg «Fe. mm.m Fm oF.FFF F oo.qu oa-mumF ma FFo. m¢.m mm F¢.Nmm.m F Fm.mF¢.m aF-mumF manchm> mumF ma mFo. FN.m mm mm.mm F mm.¢mm I Lepomu ma mam. FF.F mm NN.¢N F m¢.mm 4 Lopumu mF ma omF. mF.o Fm Fm.F¢ F mm.F cu condom ma on. mF.o mm mm.mo F ~m.mF 0 League ma Few. mm.o mm NF.mm F Fm.Nm o copomd mcopumu FumFxc< F<¢F mFo ma mom. mo.o Fm om.mm F mm.m < FumFxc< chcha mmuchm>ou v a l mu mm: Ft Fm: manchm> mocchm>ou Fo mFm>ch< Fchm>o co co FchmoFFchFm cocoFFFo masocw acmEummcF oz ucm .mwm «2H zquz to» manchm> co ucm manchm> :oFumaFm>m mchcsumF :o mazogu mwm ucm.mH mchmaeou mocchm>ou mo mmm>ch< .v anmF 64 .mocoom “mopocoo .mpooooom “cospooLF oz om oco.flH oF LoF moFooFgo> FFo co oFooFFo>o open omeoEooo mo mom. Fo.o om om.FNN F mm.FoN oo-momF oFooFLo> :oFoLoumFo o>choFoo mo ooo. oo.o om om.mmm F oo.oFm.F oo-momF mo oFo. NN.m om oo.ooF.F F oo.o~o.mw oF-momF moFooZo> momF mo mooo. oo.mF om oo.oo F No.NNF z Lopooo mo mmF. mm.m om Fo.FF F mo.Fo o Lopooo mo Nooo. oo.oF om oo.~m F mo.mmm oo copooo mo omo. oo.o om oo.oo F oF.FFN o LBoom mo ooo. oo.o om oo.oo F mm.mom o Louoom mgopooo zooFxc< F zpoFxc< zcoEFLo mopoFco>oo v o u Fo om: mo um: oFooFco> oocoFco>oo Fo mszFoc< FFoco>o co co szcooFFFcoFm ooLoFFFo monoco “cospoocF oz oco .wwm «2H zonz com moFooFLo> co moooco ucosooocF oz oco.nH ocFLoosoo oocoFLo>oo mo moszoc< .m oFooF 65 .mogoom poopogoo .mpooooom FooEFooLF oz om oco mwm.mm co» moFooFco> FFo co oFooFFo>o ouoo opoFoEooo ma oooo. Fm.oF mm oF.Fom F mo.FNo.N ao-momF oFooFco> conLoomFo o>choFoo ma moo. oF.oF mm mF.Nom F om.omo.m oa-momF ma ooo. oo.o mm om.FoN.o F mF.moo.mm aF-momF moFancm> momF ma ooo. No.o mm oo.FN F No.oom I Loooao ma Foo. oF.o mm oo.- F oo.oo~ o coooao ma Noo. Fo.oF mm oo.om F FF.oom oo toooao ma ooo. mo.o mm mo.mo F om.oom o Loooao ma Foo. oF.m mm Fo.om F mo.oFF o coooao meoooao zooFxcq anF ma omo. No.o mm Fo.mm F oo.ooF «(m ma NFo. mF.o mm oo.om F mm.om~ Fzmm oma oooo. mF.NF mm oo.oo F NF.Noo.F aoFaLF-< Fsz moFooFLo> zpoFxcq zcoEFco moanca>oo v a o to am: co omz moFomFea> oocoFLo>oo Fo mszFoc< FFoLo>o co co szcooFFFcoFm ooLoFFFo monoco FcoEpoocF oz oco .F o «5H zonz com moFooFLo> co moooco ucoEuoocF oz oco F mo ochooeoo oocoFco>oo Fo moszoc< .o oFooF 66 Table 7. March and May Posttest STAI A-Trait, Symptoms of Striated Musc1e Tension, and Symptoms of Autonomic Arousal Means Compared for IM_and ES; Groups [M March May Variables M SD 14 SD df t p > Primary Anxiety Variables STAI A-Trait 37.31 8.70 37.19 10.78 15 0.08 .8 SSMT 25.59 6.60 24.47 7.10 16 1.17 .2 SAA 30.82 7.35 31.18 8.02 16 0.39 .5 Pi March May Variables M SD M SD df 't p > Primary Anxiety Variables STAI A-Trait 41.65 9.28 39.80 12.45 19 1.36 .2 SSMT 28.55 8.24 27.45 9.49 19 1.21 .2 SAA 32.15 7.21 31.50 7.13 19 0.45 .5 67 Posttest scores were compared using ana1ysis of covariance. As before, posttest scores were adjusted for their corresponding pre- test scores, if any, as well as for any variab1e that met all of the following criteria: (1) correlated significantly (p <.01) with pretest- posttest difference scores, or with posttest scores where no pretests were given (Table 21), (2) differed significantly between groups (Table 22), (3) contributed significantly to the total variance for posttest scores when used with other covariates, and (4) made rational sense as a confounding variable. These analyses of covariance are summarized in Table 9. .QM§ Meditation and CMS Anti-Meditation grOUps did not differ significantly on any of the primary anxiety variables (p:>.6). Nor did they differ on any of the secondary variables for anxiety or neuroticism, or on any of the technique-eva1uation variables. Inspection of pretest and posttest means (Table 8) suggests that both CMS Meditation and §M§_Anti-Meditation groups displayed improvements on several indices of anxiety. A comparison of pretest and posttest means (Table 10) shows that both groups displayed signif- icant improvement (p <.03) on conscious trait anxiety (STAI A-Trait), symptoms of autonomic arousal (SAA), and Frustration Tension or Id - Pressure (Factor 04). The fact that No Treatment subjects in Exper- iment I did not display significant change (p:>.27) on any of these variables from November to March supports the interpretation that changes manifested by the CMS subjects were due to the QM§_treatments and not to the passage of time or the repeated test administration. 68 It should be noted that Table 9 reveals four significant differences between QMS Meditation and §M§_Anti-Meditation: (1) CMS Meditators became more Group Dependent and CMS Anti-Meditators more Self-Sufficient as measured on Factor 02 (p <.019); (2) §M§_Meditators exhibited significantly greater (p <.004) reductions in Personality Disorder (TSCS-PD) than CMS Anti-Meditators; (3) CMS Meditators dis- played a greater increase (p <.01) in defensive distortion (TSCS-DP); and (4) CMS Meditators scored higher (p <.006) in Persona1ity Integra- tion (TSCS-PI). These four differences did not appear in Experiment I. This lack of consistency suggests that they may be artifacts of the large number of analyses made. Additional Resu1ts Treatments in Experiment I were compared collectively with the treatments in EXperiment II. Pretest and posttest means and standard deviations for the [M_and ES; groups pooled and the CMS groups pooled are shown in Table 11. These groups were compared using analysis of covariance, using those covariates in Experiments I and II that con- tributed significantly to the total variance of posttest scores when used with other covariates. Table 12 summarizes these analyses. IM_ and PSI_subjects scored significantly lower than CMS Meditation and CMS Anti-Meditation subjects on one primary variable: conscious trait anxiety (STAT A-Trait) (p <.012). In addition, subjects in Experiment I became significantly less (p <.04) Shy, Timid, and Threat-Sensitive (Factor H-). Finally, subjects in Experiment I increased in Superego 69 Strength (Factor 0+), where subjects in Experiment II decreased (p <.01). Otherwise, no significant differences in changes over treatments were found between the subjects in Experiment I and EXperiment II. There was a non-significant trend for the pooled IM_and ES; subjects in Experiment I to improve more than the CMS subjects in Experiment II on most pathology-related variables. 70 Table 8. Pretest and Posttest Means and Standard Deviations for §M§ Meditation and CMS Anti- Meditation Groups on All Questionnaire and Technique Evaluation Variables §M§ Meditation CMS Anti-Meditation Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Variables M SD M SD M SD M 50 Primary Anxiety Variables . STAI A-Trait 46.21 12.51 41.14 12.57 52.78 6.84 46.72 8.37 SSMT 28.50 9.09 26.42 7.86 36.44 8.39 30.17 8.89 SAA 38.14 10.13 34.07 9.07 41.00 8.06 36.06 7.26 IPAT Anxiety Factors Factor 0 27.21 10.24 24.36 8.77 31.39 7.16 27.89 8.12 Factor 04 33.71 7.77 28.21 9.55 37.50 7.14 33.33 8.13 Factor C 21.14 8.04 30.14 8.28 22.83 6.50 25.67 6.34 Factor L 19.64 6.69 18.14 4.62 20.56 5.83 18.28 5.68 Factor H 22.14 13.46 23.07 10.44 13.56 10.47 16.33 9.82 Factor 03 18.57 7.08 19.14 6.26 19.00 5.35 19.89 5.38 IPAT Neuroticism Factors Factor I 41.36 8.72 39.86 8.53 33.72 9.77 31.89 8.82 Factor F 45.64 12.85 45.64 13.47 35.28 9.47 35.44 10.01 Factor E 36.57 11.29 39.14 9 34 35.06 9.40 35.94 8.99 Other IPAT Factors Factor A 16.79 7.01 16.43 5 29 13.78 7.38 13.50 7.37 Factor 8 19.21 2.89 18.07 3 10 19.61 1.97 19.78 2.56 Factor 6 22.07 6.57 19.79 4.89 22.17 5.71 19.83 4.78 Factor M 31.14 4.80 31.00 5.32 29.94 5.63 30.50 5.66 Factor N 16.14 3.99 16.14 4.11 18.72 3.21 19.50 4.82 Factor 01 23.00 6.31 22.29 6 43 23.67 3.03 23.17 3.91 Factor 02 22.36 6.01 20.93 5 50 25.22 5.59 26:50 5.04 TSCS Variables TSCS-TP 281.00 125.08 345.86 42.47 299.28 27.19 314.78 32.43 TSCS-PSY 41.86 19.22 46.79 6.30 50.39 6.72 51.06 6.55 TSCS-PD 61.07 27.75 75.07 9.81 65.06 6.77 66.44 7.59 TSCS-PI 7.86 4.88 11.50 4.99 8.39 4.34 8.83 3.68 Defensive Distortion Variables TSCS-SC 33.36 15.07 37.93 6.39 38.61 4.07 38.72 4.57 TSCS-DP 42.93 19.82 56.50 10.72 42.39 8.47 46.50 10.41 MCSD 11.71 6.84 13.43 5.47 12.17 3.40 12.06 4.72 Technique Evaluation Variables Ranked Value 18.17 20.73 29.15 33.71 Best Session Rank 12.50 12.69 29.31 33.63 Average Session Rank 43.25 30.84 . 38.38 35.37 Judged Impact 30.50 11.17 26.15 11.40 71 Table 9. Analyses of Covariance Comparing §M§_Meditation and CMS Anti-Meditation Groups on All Questionnaire and Technique Evaluation Variables Variables MSt df MSe df F P < Covariates Primary Anxiety Variables b STAI A-Traita 1.39 1 52.13 29 0.02 .871 PS SSMT 10.85 1 42.54 29 0.25 .617 PS SAA 0.118 1 21.95 29 0.005 .942 PS IPAT Anxiety Factors . Factor 0 3.21 1 36.53 29 0.08 .769 PS Factor Q4 34.90 1 45.18 29 0.77 .387 PS Factor C 14.88 1 27.62 29 0.54 .469 PS Factor L 1.37 1 13.81 29 0.09 .756 PS Factor H 8.62 1 43.00 29 0.201 .658 PS Factor Q3 0.019 1 12.22 28 0.002 .969 PS,Tota1 Frequency IPAT Neuroticism Factors Factor I 30.16 1 25.40 29 1.19 .285 PS Factor F 9.25 1 44.64 29 0.21 .652 PS Factor E 55.11 1 37.03 28 1.49 .233 PS,TSCS-TP Other IPAT Factors Factor A 1.96 1 9.55 29 0.21 .654 PS Factor 8 15.41 1 4.63 29 3.32 .079 PS Factor G 0.0003 1 11.88 29 0.0 1.0 PS Factor M 2.01 1 11.00 29 0.18 .673 PS Factor N 5.86 1 9.38 29 0.62 .436 PS Factor Q1 0.905 1 12.19 29 0.07 .787 PS Factor Q2 58.25 1 9.32 29 6.25 .019 PS TSCS Variables TSCS-TP 4,336.20 1 1,175.48 28 3.69 .065 PS IPAT-H TSCS-PSY 4.78 1 29.40 27 0.16 .69 PS,1PAT-F.H TSCS-PD 678.73 1 65.05 29 10.43 .004 PS TSCS-PI 88.35 1 9.72 27 9.09 .006 PS,IPAT-H,TSCS-DP Defensive Distortion Variables TSCS-SC 5.78 1 18.13 27 0.31 .577 PS,IPAT-F,TSCS-DP TSCS-DP 766.68 1 102.05 29 7.51 .010 PS MCSD 21.33 1 17.97 29 1.19 .285 PS Technique Evaluation Variab1es Ranked VaiueC 753.28 1 798.06 23 0.94 .341 Best Session Rank 1,762.79 1 666.95 23 2.64 .118 Average Session Rank 147.71 1 1,107.54 23 0.13 .718 Judged Impact 117.87 1 127.51 23 0.92 .346 a0n this and all immediate following variables complete data was available for 14 CMS Meditation and 18 CMS Anti-Meditation subjects. bPretest Scores. c0n this and all immediate1y following variabIes complete data was avai1ab1e for 12 §M§_Meditation and 13 CMS Anti-Meditation subjects. CH 1. £0.» 72 com. FF FF.o- FF.o- .mnn. mF oF.o- «F.F- moo. mm oo.o- ~o.o- omux moo. FF oo.F- FF.o- moo. mF Fm.m- Fm.mF- .wrm. mm FF.o- oo.F- oo-mumF Now. FF oo.o- FF.o- woo. mF oo.o- Fm.¢- coo. mm FF.~- oo.o- um-momF moFooFco> :oFucoumFo o>chomoo «mo. FF oo.o- oo.o- oo. mF o~.m- oo.o- moo. mm oo.o oo.o FoimumF Noe. FF oo.o- on.F- NFo. mF No.m- oo.oF- «NF. mm om.F oF.o oo-oomF .mpm. FF m~.o- Fo.o- .mmr. mF oo.F- oo.o- oo.F mm oo.o oo.o >mo-mumF ~Fo. FF oF.~- om.mF- moo. mF ~m.m- oo.oo- own. no oo.o FF.oF oF-mumF manoFco> momF coo. FF oo.F- o~.F- moF. mF w¢.F m¢.F com. on oo.o- oo.o- ma couueu oFe. FF moo.o oo.o Fem. mF oo.o FF.o Fom. mm Fo.o oo.o o gouuom FoN. FF FF.F- oF.o- oo. mF oo.o oo.o «No. no oo.o- ~m.o- z couuom .mhn. FF oo.o- oo.o- Foo. mF oF.o oF.o Foo. mm oo.o oo.o z couuom omo. FF ~o.~ «m.~ moo. mF mo.~ o~.~ .mmm. mm mo.F- FF.o- o couuom omm. FF Fo.o- FF.o- oFF. mF oo.F oF.F woo. mm Fm.m- mm.F- o gouge; New. FF ~m.o m~.o omF. mF oo.o oo.o com. on oo.o- oo.o- < coauou mcouuom F zumFxc< acocho vo mo u oucocommFo v o on a oucocoumFo v o mu a mucoLoFmFo moFooFco> zoo: zoo: zoo: coFoaoFoaz-Foe< “no eoFoaoFooz_wmq. oeosoaocF oz maaoco anz-zoe.xo eoFoaoFoox-Fo=< mum oz. .anx-zoc.:o :oFuoquoz wmw .qugezucooso>ozv acosuouch oz so» mocoom monocowFFo mo mucouFchoFm new museum mucosoquo can: .oF oFaoF 73 Table 11. Pretest and Posttest Means and Standard Deviations for IM_and PSI Groups Pooled, and CMS Meditation and CMS Anti-Meditation Groups Pooled on All Questionnaire and Technique-Eva1uation Variab1es Qfl§ Meditation + £55 [11 + £1 Anti-Meditation Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Variab1es M SD M SD M SD M SD Primary Anxiety Variab1es STAI A-Trait 47.46 12.03 37.12 13.20 49.91 10.11 44.28 10.61 SSMT 30.66 8.71 25.73 9.30 32.97 9.45 28.53 8.53 SAA 36.22 11.48 31.83 9.42 39.75 8.98 35.19 8.02 IPAT Anxiety Factors Factor 0 26.15 9.24 21.90 10.25 29.56 8.75 26.34 8.46 Factor 04 29.85 10.09 25.29 11.34 35.84 7.54 31.09 9.01 Factor C 26.10 8.74 31.76 9.81 24.72 7.42 27.63 7.48 Factor L 15.83 5.29 13.95 5.19 20.16 6.13 18.22 5.16 Factor H 16.83 11.58 23.00 12.65 17.32 12.44 19.28 10.49 Factor Q3 18.68 7.07 20.66 7.19 18.81 6.06 19.56 5.70 IPAT Neuroticism Factors Factor I 37.54 10.27 37.19 10.35 37.06 9.95 35.38 9.45 Factor F 38.27 15.29 40.39 13.65 39.81 12.07 39.91 12.55 Factor E 33.93 10.83 35.22 10.41 35.72 10.13 37.34 9.14 Other IPAT Factors Factor A 14.56 6.04 17.56 8.24 15.09 7.26 14.78 6.61 Factor B 18.56 3.90 19.02 2.44 19.44 2.38 19.03 2.89 Factor 6 20.95 6.88 21.54 6.53 22.13 5.99 19.81 4.75 Factor M 30.29 6.89 31.90 6.61. 30.47 5.24 30.72 5.43 Factor N 18.00 4.98 17.71 5.29 17.59 3.75 18.03 4.76 Factor 0] 20.61 5.42 21.15 6.02 23.38 4.67 22.78 5.09 Factor 02 21.88 7.52 21.49 7.21 23.97 5.86 24.06 5.87 TSCS Variab1es ‘ TSCS-TP 311.95 79.64 344.66 72.77 291.28 83.97 328.38 39.73 TSCS-PSY 48.27 15.45 47.39 10.29 46.66 14.08 49.19 6.69 TSCS-PD 66.73 18.50 72.80 17.15 63.31 18.76 70.22 9.53 TSCS-PI 9.59 4.63 10.61 4.09 8.16 4.52 10.00 4.44 Defensive Distortion Variab1es TSCS-SC 33.85 9.18 33.83 7.37 36.31 10.55 38.38 5.36 TSCS-DP 48.83 15.65 54.32 17.57 42.63 14.29 50.88 11.53 MCSD 13.29 5.84 15.41 6.99 11.97 4.66 .12.66 5.03 Technique Evaluation Variab1es Ranked Value 20.18 21.81 23.88 28.22 Best Session Rank 17.03 23.92 21.24 26.69 Average Session Rank 31.42 25.67 40.72 32.67 Judged Impact 30.89 15.08 28.24 11.27 74- Table 12. Analyses of Covariance Comparing IM_and ESL Groups Pooled with CMS Meditation and CMS Anti—Meditation Groups Pooled on All Questionnaire and Technique-Evaluation Variab1es Variables MSt df MSe df F p < Covariates Primary Anxiety Variab1es STAI A-Traita 462.04 1 69.38 68 6.66 .012 PS Total Frequency Discontinue SSMT 53.94 1 37.15 69 1.45 .232 PS Discontinue SAA 48.52 1 40.28 69 1.21 .276 PS Discontinue IPAT Anxiety Factors Factor 0 62.62 1 46.02 70 1.36 .248 PS Factor Q4 16.00 1 55.69 70 0.28 .594 PS Factor C 61.23 1 41.87 69 1.46 .231 PS Total Frequency Factor L 76.97 1 19.86 70 3.88 .053 PS Factor M 295.42 1 69.78 70 4.23 .043 PS Factor 03 9.30 1 14.67 69 0.63 .429 PS Total Frequency IPAT Neuroticism Factors Factor I 36.31 1 27.26 70 1.33 .252 PS Factor F 55.83 1 39.73 70 1.41 .240 PS Factor E 22.78 1 34.29 69 0.66 .418 PS TSCS-TP Other IPAT Factors Factor A 157.17 1 43.15 69 3.64 .061 PS IPAT Factor F Factor B 2.69 1 4.82 70 0.55 .458 PS Factor G 90.41 1 13.64 69 6.62 .012 PS IPAT Factor Q1 Factor M 28.06 1 10.51 70 2.67 .107 PS Factor N 7.89 1 11.78 70 0.67 .416 PS Factor 0 6.14 1 14.82 70 0.41 .522 PS Factor 02 15.38 1 15.84 70 0.97 .328 PS TSCS Variab1es TSCS-TP 1.91 1 2,551.70 69 0.0007 .978 PS IPAT Factor H TSCS-PSY 88.99 1 64.33 70 1.38 .244 PS TSCS-P0 11.78 1 125.79 69 0.09 .761 PS TSCS-TP TSCS-PI 0.17 1 15.58 70 0.01 .916 PS Defensive Distortion Variab1es TSCS-SC 92.77 1 28.43 68 3.26 .075 PS IPAT Factor F TSCS-DP TSCS-DP 0.005 1 165.14 70 0.0 .00 PS MCSD 44.15 1 14.46 68 2.95 .090 PS IPAT Factor L Discontinue Technique Evaluation Variab1es Ranked Valuec 555.44 1 505.72 60 1.10 .300 Last Month's Frequency Best Session Rank 267.74 1 627.37 61 0.42 .520 Average Session Rank 2,094.52 1 717.48 60 2.92 .092 Last Month's Frequency Judged Impact 106.27 1 187.90 61 0.56 .455 a0n this and all immediately following variables complete data was available for 41 1M and ESL subjects, and 32 CMS subjects. bPretest Scores. c0n this and all innediately following variables complete data was available for 38 IM_ and ESL subjects and 25 §M§_subjects. 11 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION Summary of Results The results of these eXperiments are clear: (1) TM is no more effective in reducing anxiety than a parallel control treatment involving sitting without meditation; (2) a treatment utilizing a TM; like meditation exercise is no more effective than a parallel control treatment uti1izing an exercise designed to be the near antithesis of meditation; and (3) all meditation and control treatments investigated here are effective in reducing anxiety when compared with no treatment. I believe these results imply that the critical therapeutic agent in the treatments studied is something other than the exercise of meditation. First, it may be appropriate to elaborate upon these results. Both Ifl_subjects and PSI_sitting control treatment subjects, when compared with No Treatment subjects, displayed significant reductions in the f011owing forms of psychopatho1ogy: conscious trait anxiety (STAI A-Trait), symptoms of striated muscle tension (SSMT), symptoms of autonomic arousal (SAA), Guilt Proneness1 (Factor 0+), Frustration lA11 elaborations of IPAT factors are taken from manuals for the IPAT Anxiety Scale Questionnaire (Cattel & Scheier, 1963) and the 16PF (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsouka, 1970). 75 76 Tension or Id Pressure (Factor 04+), Ego Weakness (Factor C-), Threat-Sensitive Shyness (Factor H-), and Personality Disorder (TSCS-PD). Both CMS Meditation and CMS Anti-Meditation control subjects displayed significant reductions in conscious trait anxiety, symptoms of autonomic arousal, and Frustration Tension or Id Pressure. Of particular interest is that of the four treatment groups considered in this study, each displayed significant improvements in conscious trait anxiety, symptoms of autonomic arousal, and Frustration Tension 0r Id Pressure. The consistency of improvement for these var- iables implies that they are particularly amenable to change from the types of treatments considered here. And taken together, these varia- bles suggest an intriguing pattern of improvement. Table 13 shows that for our subjects these three variables correlate highly with each other, suggesting that they are related. (Of these three variables, conscious trait anxiety and symptoms of autonomic arousal refer to symptoms of discomfort. In contrast, Frustration Tension or Id Pressure refers to what Cattell calls an underlying "source trait." Cattell and Scheier (1963) summarize research on this factor: Actual correlations and factor analysis show this to be one of the largest and most central components in anxiety. It appears to represent the degree to which anxiety is generated by id pressure--by excited drives and unsatisfied (frustrated) needs of all kinds. Sex drive excitation, need for recognition, and situational fear are among the drives found positively related to this component. It shows itself descriptively in proneness to emotionality, tension, irritability, and "jitteriness." 77 Cattell, Eber, and Tatsouka (1970) further observe that undischarged drive can be a function of "level of situational, envi- ronmental frustration and difficulty," as well as "incapacity of the ego to handle discharge well even in an environment of ordinary difficulty." Such interpretations invite the Speculation that 1M, _PSI, and CMS treatments reduce symptoms of anxiety by allaying or rendering more manageable underlying frustrations and tension. Table 13. Correlations Among Pretest Scores for Conscious Trait Anxiety (STAI A-Trait), Symptoms of Autonomic Arousal, and Frustration Tension or Id Pressure (IPAT Factor 04) for TM, PSI, and CMS Subjects STAI A-Trait SAA IPAT Factor 04 STAI A-Traita 1.0 SAA .38*** 1.0 IPAT Factor 04 .64**** .49**** 1.0 aN = 75 in all cases. ***p < .005. ****p < .001. (3 e: a» l 41 78 Skin Conductance Reactivity Our findings concerning skin conductance reactivity merit special attention. To review, we found that neither IM_nor ES; subjects displayed significantly greater decrements in number of skin conductance reactions to an interpersonal stress film than did subjects receiving no treatment. Yet, as mentioned in Chapter I, Orme Johnson et al (1973a) found that meditators manifested a significantly greater decrease in spontaneous reactivity over eight weeks than did non-meditators. In Chapter III we pr0posed that our reactivity measure taps anxiety. However, 1M, PSI, and No Treatment grOUps displayed different rates of anxiety reduction, but not different rates of leveling off of skin conductance reactivity. We must reconsider what our skin conductance measures mean. Table 14 shows correlations among all pretest reactivity scores and pretest scores on personality measures. First, it is clear that high reactivity is not correlated with conscious trait anxiety (STAI A-Trait), symptoms of striated muscle tension, or symptoms of autonomic arousal. In fact there is a slight and insignificant negative correla- tion between these measures: 10w reactivity tends to be slightly associated with high anxiety. Looking at the remaining correlations we find that a number are significant. Reactivity generally correlates with Assertiveness (Factor E+), Self-Sentiment Integration (Factor Q3+) and Personality Integration (TSCS-PI); and negatively with Guilt Proneness (Factor 0+), Frustration Tension or Id Pressure (Factor 04+), and Personality Disorder (TSCS-PD). 4111141111.? I: 1111 uh: I... 1.“ Isqrnoflv'aan3 '1-v::r-C~sV‘-.C diatomiahnh ‘U-s‘ Inn—5.5.1L—w) no.;.r.umv:?y:CU 5.41/1 .eriGeoLpu ~.:.=:< HEC‘LLsQIMXMWWv. .V~ V~AQCF 79 .Foo.v.o5««« .moo.v.o«.a .Fo.v.o«; .FquFou oxuv mo.v_o« .mconoFoccou FFo Low mo" zo eaceosv. «kc—No. mum. «me. aeatvmm. eatovmm. emom. eaavFv. «tovme. omoz mmF. me. mmo. Nmo. comm. mm~. FNo. omF. omF. qo1momh «anum.1 «Foam.1 FNF.1 oo~.1 aeeemFm.1 tmmm.1 ooF.1 «emvm.1 oom.1 om1momh moFooFco> coFucoumFo o>chmFoo «Fm. «mom. vow. ono. . mow. cmmm. Foo.1 NoF. men Fqumumh amen. «mom. ooF. mom. «eavoe. Now. mom. mom. Nmm oaumomh woo. ooo. ooF. noo.1 moo. omF. ooo. mmo. oFo.1 >mo1momh FoF. oFF. woo. mmF. FAN. onF. woo. ooF. FeF. ahumomh manaFLo> womb moo. Foo.1 omo.1 FFo. uno.1 «no. moo. moo. moo.1 mo souuou mcF.1 NNF. omo. NNF.1 moo.1 oNo.1 mmF.1 omF.1 noo.u o Louumm «no. . «NF. ooo.1 mno. ooF. NoF. mmF. NFo. FoF.1 2 gouumu Foo. Fmo.. omo. noF.1 Nnm. FoF. mFo.1 moo. FmF. z scuumu moF. mNF. moo.1 mmF. FoF. emom. FNN. moF. ono. o Lagoon ovo.1 FFF.1 oFo.1 o¢N.1 NNN.1 Foo.1 mvo.1 mmo.1 nmo.1 m scuuom oFF.1 omo. FoN. oFN.1 ooF.1 moo. FFF.1 NoF.1 mFo. < Louuau mgouuau h zquxc< zeocha omo.1 oo~.1 oNF.1 FFF.1 .omo.1 «no.1 neo. FmF.1 NmF.1 oo< NFF.1 vno.1 ch. FNo.1 Foo.1 oeo.1 onF.1 FmF.1 NFo.1 oxmm auF>Fuumm¢ um um N1— N1— «up Fuo Fuo Fuo mannFLo> FoHOP FocFm FoFchF Emeumoa EFF; EFmeLn EFqumoo EFFm EFFuagm moFooFco> muuonosm acosueocF oz can .mwm «aw no; manoFco> oLFeccoFumooo umopogo use moFooFco> oocouuoocou chm amouogo ocoe< moo—quoccou .eF oFooF 80 In other words, the presence of reactivity correlates with an absence of psychopathology and anxiety. However, one set of correlations stand out. Reactivity is most consistently and most highly correlated with all three of our measures of defensive distortion (TSCS-DP, TSCS-SC, and MCSD). Those who are most defensive, most prone to distort their behavior in such a way as to appear socially desirable, display the greatest reactivity. These correlations are moderately high, and range from .342 (p <.01) to .524 (p <.001), with the average correlation being .431 (p <.005). The implications of these results are hard to avoid: in our study high skin conductance reactivity is not, contrary to what we proposed, an indicator of anxiety and psychOpathology. Instead, it appears to be an indicator of the absence of some forms of psycho- pathology, and completely unrelated to other forms. The fact that reactivity correlates highly with defensive distortion implies that it is a poor measure of health. Persons who are highly reactive may be undisturbed, or highly defensive, or some combination of the two. That 1M, ESL, and No Treatment subjects all displayed reductions of reactivity from the first testing session to the second is probably due to simple adaptation to the testing situation. And that these groups displayed comparable reductions in reactivity is a finding most likely unrelated to changes in anxiety or psychopathology. Furthermore, Orme-Johnson's finding that meditators display reductions in spontaneous reactivity when compared with no treatment subjects may not, contrary to what he proposes, indicate improved mental 81 health. To date no researcher has carefully studied the relationship between defensive distortion and spontaneous reactivity. It is tempting to speculate Orme-Johnson's meditators displayed reductions in reactiv- ity because of their desire to appear healthy, and demonstrate that meditation was working for them. In fact, in our study, initial level of defensive distortion propensity (TSCS-SC, TSCS-DP, and MCSD) corre- lates frequently and highly (correlation range from .187 to .822, mean correlation being .479) with the degree of reduction in reactivity from pretest to posttest. Subjects who, at the onset of this project, were most defensive, who wished to appear healthy, diSplayed the greatest reductions in skin conductance reactivity. Perhaps Orme-Johnson was testing little more than the desire among meditators to appear healthy after several weeks of meditation. Magnitude of Treatment Effects Are the improvements found in this study clinically significant? Are they comparable to improvements displayed by those who have chosen on their own to learn, and pay for, TM? Are they comparable to improve- ments obtained from psychotherapy? And can subjects who finished this project be characterized as "normal"? The evidence suggests that each of these questions can be answered in the affirmative. Persons who chose to learn TM on their own display improvements comparable to improvements displayed by our Ifl_and‘E§I_subjects. Ferguson and Gowan (1973) gave the STAI A-Trait and IPAT Anxiety Scale Questionnaire (a questionnaire which yields a single score reflecting a composite of IPAT Factors 03, C, L, 0, and 04) to 31 TM initiates before 82 and six weeks after learning TM. Mean pretest and posttest scores on the STAI A-Trait Scale were 42.90 and 32.87, yielding an improvement of 10.03 points. In our study IM_subjects displayed a mean improvement of 10.95 points; £§l_subjects, 9.81 points; CMS Meditation subjects, 5.07 points; and QMSTAnti-Meditation subjects, 6.06 points. Ferguson further reports that the mean pretest and posttest scores on the IPAT Anxiety Scale Questionnaire were 36.24 and 30.30. This improvement corresponds to a change from a sten score of seven to six (Cattell & Scheier, 1963), an improvement of one sten score point. Table 15 shows pretest and posttest IPAT anxiety factor means converted to sten scores (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsouka, 1970) for 1M, PSI, CMS Meditation, and CMS Anti- Meditation subjects. IM_and_P§I subjects generally improved more than one sten while CMS subjects generally improved about one sten. Second, persons who receive psychotherapy generally improve on self-report questionnaires as much as subjects in this study. Three studies were found that utilized some of the measures utilized in this study. Cattell, Rickels, Weise, Gray, and Yee (1966) gave 46 patients the IPAT Anxiety Scale Questionnaire before and after six weeks of indi- vidual psychotherapy. Pre test and post test means were 46.09 and 43.02, which translates to nine and eight stens, an improvement of one sten score point. As mentioned earlier, our IM_and.E§L subjects generally improved more than one sten, while CMS subjects generally improved about one sten. 83 m e o F m F m e mo o m m m m a m o I o F o o e m m m o e m m m o o o m o F o o F m o m o oo F o o F m F m F o coo: com: com: com: com: coo: com: com: mcopoom pmoupmoo “mouoco pmoopmoo «mopogo “moopmoo poopoco pooppmoo “monogo F