This article was downloaded by: [New York University] On: 12 May 2015, At: 12:21 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20

Experimentally Produced SelfRepugnant Behavior as a Function of Hypnosis and Waking Suggestion: A Pilot Study a

Richard M. O'brien Ph.D. & Shirley J. Rabuck A.B.

a

a

Lycoming College , USA Published online: 20 Sep 2011.

To cite this article: Richard M. O'brien Ph.D. & Shirley J. Rabuck A.B. (1976) Experimentally Produced Self-Repugnant Behavior as a Function of Hypnosis and Waking Suggestion: A Pilot Study, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 18:4, 272-276, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1976.10403810 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1976.10403810

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:21 12 May 2015

Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS

Volume 18, Number 4, April 1976 Printed in U.S.A.

Experimentally Produced Self-Repugnant Behavior as A Function of Hypnosis and Waking Suggestion: A Pilot Study 1

Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:21 12 May 2015

RICHARD M. O'BRIEN, PhD. and SHIRLEY J. RABUCK, A.B. 2 Lycoming College

Seven female volunteers who had scored above nine on the SHSS, Form C (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962), were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups (hypnosis, posthypnotic suggestion, and waking suggestion). Subjects in all three groups were asked to make a verbal homosexual approach to a female they had not previously met. Only the two waking-suggestion subjects carried out the instructions. The results suggest that hypnosis may be less effective than waking-suggestion in eliciting a self-repugnant response when attitudinal and motivational variables are maximized.

The possible use of hypnosis to produce behavior that violates the everyday morality of the subject has long been a topic of debate (Barber, 1961). Failures to produce subjectively immoral behavior, (e.g., Erickson, 1939), have been dismissed by proponents of the phenomenon as reflecting insufficient "trance depth " (Wells, 1941) or inadequate deception (Young, 1952). As Orne (1962, 1972) has argued, the numerous demonstrations of hypnotically induced self-repugnant behavior (Estabrooks, 1943, Kline, 1972, Marcuse, 1959, Watkins, 1947, 1951) all have their limitations. Yet, the data would appear to support the contentions of Barber (1961) and Watkins (1972), that under certain specific circumstances it is possible to hypnotically 1 This study was supported in part by a research grant from Lycoming College. 2 The authors are indebted to Dr. Harold Hutson, President of Lycoming College, and Dr. James R. Jose, Dean of the College, for their cooperation with this project, and to the following students for assistance in carrying out the study: Alyce M. Dickinson, Mardi L. Goldmann, Susan D. Helm, Cathy E. Kramer, Nancy A. O'Bryan, Carol L. Snook, Rebecca J. Waldron, and Susan J. Welteroth.

produce behavior which violates the subject's morality. Barber (1961) has pointed to a number of variables which may be crucial in accounting for previously reported demonstrations of this phenomenon. First, the subjects are usually selected on the basis of hypnotizability which usually means willingness to go along with the wishes of the hypnotist. Secondly, in all the positive findings, the subjects were rehearsed in hypnosis over many sessions allowing a considerable relationship to develop with the hypnotist. It is not unheard of for one person in a meaningful relationship to produce negative behavior in the other (Watkins, 1972). Coe, Kobayashi, and Howard (1972) have reported a two by two study of the effect of relationship and hypnosis on whether a subject would make a $100 heroin buy. The study showed that only the relationship variable contributed to the variance in task performance. The third variable which Barber discussed was that hypnotists are almost always trusted authority figures, military officers, college professors, or therapists, who are seen as unlikely to allow anything anti-social to happen or at the very least, to

272

273

Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:21 12 May 2015

SELF-REPUGNANT BEHAVIOR

accept responsibility if it does. The subject's belief that the situation is contrived and the demand characteristics of psychological experimentation may be more important than hypnosis in eliciting the anti-social acts. The work of Milgram (1965) and Orne and Evans (1965) on the acquiescence of non-hypnotized experimental subjects offers considerable support for this position. Barber's analysis of hypnosis focuses on the subjects' attitudes, motivation, and expectancies, that is, his ability to think with and imagine those things that are suggested (Barber, 1972, p. 162). It has much in common with Sarbin's (1950) view ofhypnosis as a social role, in that both disavow the position that hypnosis is some form of special state outside the normal psychological boundaries of interpersonal interaction. The subjects' attitudes, motivations, and expectations, rather than the depth of the "trance" are seen as the important variables in hypnosis (Barber, 1972). The present study attempted to compare the role of hypnosis with the role of attitudinal and imagination factors (Barber, 1972) in producing self-repugnant behavior. This was done by requesting that both hypnotized and waking suggestion-imagination subjects make a homosexual approach to someone with whom they were unacquainted. This task was chosen because it appeared to be aversive in and of itself rather than being aversive because of future consequences. It was hoped that this would alleviate both the effects of subject suspicions and the subjects' feelings of not being responsible for the act. In order to control for relationship variables, the senior author met with the subjects only at one experimental session. None of the subjects were known to the author prior to that meeting.

announcements. They were between the ages of 19 and 40, and all had scored above nine on the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (Form C) (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962).

Procedure

After an initial screening of 29 female volunteers by student hypnotists, the seven women who scored above nine on the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962), were asked to return for a second experiment. At this time, the subjects were informed that they might be asked to respond to a homosexual suggestion during the experience. All of the seven subjects agreed to participate. Individual appointments were arranged with the senior author, and the subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three following conditions: hypnotic, post-hypnotic suggestion and waking suggestion. Treatment Group I - Hypnosis (Two Subjects). These subjects experienced a standard hypnotic induction (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959). They were then taken through five of the simpler tasks from Form A of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959) in order to acclimate them to the situation and convince them that they were indeed hypnotized. The subjects were then instructed to leave the building and return to either the parking lot or dormitory, depending upon their point of origin. The subjects were also told that the experimenter was interested in their activities, and would contact them later in the day by telephone. The subjects were told to remain deeply hypnotized until they had carried out the following instructions: "You will find yourself strongly attracted to the third female you see after you leave the building. The attraction will be a METHOD Subjects distinctively sexual one, and will be so The subjects were seven female volun- strong that you will be unable to resist the teers, who were procured through college desire to stop and speak to her. After some

Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:21 12 May 2015

274

preliminary small talk, you will tell her how attracted you are to her, and suggest that the two of you go somewhere to be alone." As the subject left the experimental room, she was surreptitiously followed by a male research assistant. It was his responsibility to record the subject's behavior and make sure that the subjects encountered the confederates listed below. Unknown to the subject, the first five females that she saw when leaving the building were members of a May term class in hypnosis, who were confederates of the experimenter. Since the position of the girl who was to be approached was varied between second and fourth, the confederates were unaware of exactly which one ofthem was the subject's target. The ccnfederates were also unaware of the treatment group status of the subject. The last (fifth) confederate was responsible for returning the subject to the experimenter. Regardless of their approach behavior, all subjects were returned to the experimental setting to be awakened from the "hypnotic state." They were then given a debriefing which emphasized their lack of responsibility for any behavior exhibited while hypnotized. Debriefing continued until the experimenter felt that the subject was not experiencing any discomfort about the experiment. The subjects were also asked whether they had recognized any of the confederates as being stooges and given the opportunity to describe the experience. Inquiry was made as to their subjective reaction to the task and to homosexuality in general. The subjects were thanked for their cooperation and asked not to discuss the experiment with anyone. Treatment Group II - Posthypnotic Suggestion - (Two Subjects). This group was treated identically to the Treatment I subjects with the exception that the instructions were given as part of a posthypnotic suggestion. Thus, the approach was to be

O'BRIEN AND RABUCK

made in the "waking state." The subjects were instructed that they would not remember being told to make the homosexual approach, but that they would feel compelled to do so. Debriefing was similar to that used for the first group, but it was, of course, not necessary to bring this group out of hypnosis at this time.

Treatment Group III - Waking Suggestion - (Three Subjects). This treatment was based on the techniques suggested by Barber to enhance suggestibility through a waking imagination paradigm (Barber, 1972, p. 164). The subjects were given a positive expectancy by being told that it was very likely that they would be able to do this. They were also told that it was very important they try their best (positive motivation), since the experiment was trying to measure the subjects' maximum ability to imagine (positive attitude). The subjects were then instructed to imagine themselves strongly attracted to the third female they saw as they left the building. This attraction was to be so strong that the subjects would feel compelled to make an identical approach to that described for Treatment Group I. This group was treated similarly to the first and second groups except that they experienced no induction or trance. Hypnosis was mentioned to these subjects only in the opening sentence of the meeting when they were told that they would not be doing hypnosis today. Debriefing was similar to that used for Group II. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

One subject from Group III had to be eliminated because she recognized the females she encountered as being confederates. Of the six remaining subjects, only the two subjects in Group III actually made the homosexual approach. These two subjects carried out the instructions completely. After they had suggested a rendezvous, the

275

Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:21 12 May 2015

SELF-REPUGNANT BEHAVIOR

confederate brought them back to the experimenter for debriefing. In the interview which followed, the subjects reported no suspicion that the girl they approached was a confederate of the experimenter. Their reports of surprise at their own behavior were accompanied by blushing, and other signs of anxiety. Both subjects denied prior homosexual experience or desire. None of the hypnotized subjects made any attempt to initiate contact with the confederate. Only one of the subjects even stopped near the confederate. Although none of these subjects followed the hypnotic prescription, one of the Group II subjects did avoid an open violation of the homosexual approach instructions by not leaving the building. The interview reports for these subjects were similar to those of the Group III subjects. They reported feeling attracted to the confederate, and felt that they should say something to her, but they either could not remember what to say, or would not allow themselves to say it. These subjects also reported no awareness of the status of the confederate. They also denied any previous homosexual experience, and expressed some discomfort concerning the subject. Although it could be argued that the only homosexuals in the sample were the two subjects who completed the response in Group III, it is quite unlikely that random assignment would produce this kind of grouping. Further, the similar responses of all the subjects when interviewed about homosexuality argues against this conclusion. While one must be cautious in drawing conclusions from a six-subject study, the present pilot data appear to offer support for Barber's (1972) position. Hypnosis was less effective than imagination-suggestion in producing the homosexual approach. The data cast considerable doubt on the importance of relationship factors (Barber, 1961) since the experimenter had not met with

any of the subjects before the experimental session. It is also somewhat difficult to defend Wells' (1941) hypothesis that previous failures to hypnotically induce selfrepugnant responses are based on insufficient trance depth, since the only subjects to engage in the act were those who experienced no trance at all. The role of knowledge of the status of the confederate is also called into question by the fact that the only waking suggestion subject who did not make the response was the one who knew of the confederates. As in Coe, et al. (1972), suspicion about the protection employed in the experimental procedure did not produce more positive results , It would seem appropriate to devote future research efforts to uncovering those variables which would maximize the likelihood that suggestion would be adopted. The present pilot work suggests that hypnosis may be less effective than waking suggestion in eliciting a self-repugnant response when attitudinal and motivational variables are maximized. Before any firm conclusions can be drawn, it would be necessary to replicate the current findings with a larger sample of subjects. REFERENCES BARBER, T. X. Antisocial and criminal acts induced by "hypnosis": A review of experimental and clinical findings. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1961,5,301-312. BARBER, T. X. Suggested ("hypnotic") behavior: The trance paradigm versus an alternative paradigm. In E. Fromm and R. E. Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Research Developments and Perspectives. Aldine Publishing Company, 1972. Pp. 115-182. COE, W. C., KOBAYSHI, K., & HOWARD, M. L. More on experimental design in evaluating the influence of hypnosis in antisocial conduct. Proceedings, 80th Annual Convention, APA, 1972, 861-862. ERICKSON, M. H. An experimental investigation of the possible anti-social use of hypnosis. Psychiatry, 1939,2,391-414.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:21 12 May 2015

276 ESTABROOKS, G. H. Hypnotism. New York: Dutton, 1943. KLINE, M. V. The production of anti-social behavior through hypnosis: New clinical data. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1972,20,80-94. MARCUSE, F. L. Anti-social behavior and hypnosis. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1953, I, 18-20. MILGRAM, S. Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 1965, 18, 57-76. ORNE, M. T. Anti-social behavior and hypnosis: problems of control and validation in empirical studies. In G. H. Estabrooks (Ed.), Hypnosis: Current Problems. New York: Harper and Row, 1962, Pp. 137-192. ORNE, M. T. Can a hypnotized subject be compelled psychological experiment: Antisocial behavior and hypnosis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, I, 189-200. ORNE,M. T. Can a hypnotized subject be compelled to carry out otherwise unacceptable behavior: A discussion. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1972, 20, 101-117.

O'BRIEN AND RABUCK SARBIN, T. R. Contributions to role taking theory: I. Hypnotic behavior. Psychological Review, 1950, 57, 255-270. WATKINS, J. G. Anti-social compulsions induced under hypnotic trance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1947,42,256-259. WATKINS, J. G. A case of hypnotic trance induced in a resistant subject in spite of active opposition. British Journal of Medical Hypnotism, 1951, 2, 26-31. WATKINS, J. G. Antisocial behavior under hypnosis: Possible or impossible? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1972, 20, 95-100. WEITZENHOFFER, A., & HILGARD, E. Stanford hypnotic susceptibility scale, Form A. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959. WEITZENHOFFER, A., & HILGARD, E. Stanford hypnotic susceptibility scale, Form C. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962. WELLS, W. F. Experiments in the hypnotic production of crime. Journal of Psychology, 1941, II, 63-102. YOUNG, P. C. Antisocial uses of hypnosis. In L.M. LeCron (Ed.), Experimental Hypnosis. New York: Macmillan, 1952, Pp. 376-409.

Experimentally produced self-repugnant behavior as a function of hypnosis and waking suggestion: a pilot study.

This article was downloaded by: [New York University] On: 12 May 2015, At: 12:21 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Regi...
369KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views