The experiment as finally formulated centered simply around the task of relating an item of reality to the surrounding reality of the experimental situation. No explicit instructions regarding the exact performance were offered. Instead, all subjects, hypnotic and nonhypnotic, were confronted with a simple lask in which there was an implicit need to meet the reality of (he experimental situation as it was apprehended by them at the time of execution of the task. The actual performance of ihe hypnotic subjects was not expectable to the experimenter nor even comprehensible for any of the experimenter's assistants. The perform- ance of the subjects not in a stale of hypnosis was fully expectable, and an entirely similar performance was at first fully expected of the hypnotic subjects. In no instance did the experimenter's expectations influence the hypnotic sub- jects, nor were the expectations of the experimenters influential for the nonhyp- notic sybjects. The nature and simplicity of the task performance itself excluded the experimenters as factors having an influence upon the results.
All of the hypnotic training for the subjects employed for this study was entirely in connection with projects completely unrelated to this study. The other projects served only to disclose incidentally what subjects could spontaneously develop somnambulism or who could learn to develop the somnambulistic state. In this study there was no difference in Ihe results obtained from subjects who developed a somnambulistic state during the first experience of being hypno- tized, those who developed the somnambulistic state spontaneously while ob-
Further Experiments 45 serving hypnosis in other subjects without expectation of becoming hypnotized by their own intense interest in observing hypnosis, and those subjects who were repeatedly hypnotized with the purpose of being trained to learn to develop the hypnotic state.
Nor did results differ for this study obtained from somnambulistic subjects who were employed to perform the experiment central to this report by this author's assistants, who in turn were selected sometimes because of their in- experience with hypnosis, and did not know that some subjects with whom they were dealing were in a somnambulistic state.
As a further control of the experimental study the same subjects were tested by differently oriented assistants of the author to make certain that the various types of procedure were not influenced by the experimenters' knowledge or lack of knowledge of the experimental study or the psychological state of the subjects. These control study findings were not included as additional results in this experiment. Their purpose was to validate the similarity and common identity if the experimental results obtained from the same experiment despite changes nd variations of procedure, personnel, and psychological states and orientations presumed not to be relevant to the experimental, and actually discovered not to be pertinent. The only significant or meaningful negative results are included in this report, and they were very few in number
In all, the control studies were made on more than 260 subjects, many ot whom were used repeatedly not only as a control measure of the experinient itself, but also as a control measure of the differently oriented experimenters employed by the author to assist him in conducting the experiment
To perform the experiment successfully it was decided that not only should the author act as experimenter, but also that other persons should conduct similar experimentation as assistants of the author. Some of these assistants had know- ledge of hypnosis and some were without knowledge of hypnosis, some with and some without knowledge that an experiment as such was being conducted. Additionally the actual task was to be varied in certain specific details, althouvh its meaningful significances would remain the same. The experiment was to be done on nonhypnotic subjects, on waking subjects with a history of previous hypnotic experience, on subjects in the somnambulistic trance, and on waking subjects who had never previously been hypnotized but who, it was hoped, could be trained, months or even a year or two later, to be hypnotic subjects for further exploration of the same problem. These subjects were all to be used at varying intervals and by various experimenters including the author, his col- leagues, and even by friends of colleagues who did not know the author nor the purposes to be served.
n r u n p e m n *t h c penrr en had to be accepted unquestioningly, without hesitation, without manifestation of as on shment or lack of understanding. In brief all experimenters were thor ou h n ru ed R a pe t n n m 1 t m nn an
44 Nature of Hypnosis & Suggestion In general as time passed it was recognized that any satisfactory experimental procedure formulated would have to involve the presentation of an item of reality to as many subjects as possible in both waking and somnambulistic trance states as well as to a large number of subjects in the waking stale who might or mighi not become hypnotic subjects; and that this item of reality would have to be perceptible to both somnambulistic and waking subjects, and the experimental results entirely dependent upon the understandings belonging to the subject in special state of awareness, whether waking or somnambulistic
This item of reality was to be dealt with in relation to the surrounding reality environment a\ experienced by each subject in his own manner, but this fact was not to be so specified. It was to be only inherent in the task proposed. The experimental procedure derived from understandings achieved from repeated hypnotic experiences observed over a period of 10 years, and which weie ap prchensible only as signifying a satisfactory somnambulistic trance stale. A chance realization led to Ihe recognition of the experimental potentialitie.s which those observed manifestations offered for the differentiation of the realities of the hypnotic state and of those of the state of ordinary aw ireness
FORMULATION OF EXPERIMENT
The experiment as finally formulated centered simply around the task of relating an item of reality to the surrounding reality of the experimental situation. No explicit instructions regarding the exact performance were offered, instead, all subjects, hypnotic and nonhypnotic, were confronted with a simple task in which there was an implicit need to meet the reality of the experimental situation as it was apprehended by them at the time of execution of the task. The actual performance of the hypnotic subjects was not expectable to the experimenter nor even comprehensible for any of the experimenter's assistants. The perform- ance of the subjects nol in a state of hypnosis was fully expectable, and an entirely similar performance was at first fully expected of the hypnotic subjects. In no instance did the experimenter's expectations influence the hypnotic sub- jects, nor were the expectations of the experimenters influential for the nonhyp- notic sybjects. The nature and simplicity of the task performance itself excluded the experimenters as factors having an influence upon the results.
All of the hypnotic training for the subjects employed for this study wa s
entirely in connection with projects completely unrelated to this study. The other projects served only to disclose incidentally what subjects could spontaneously develop somnambulism or who could learn io develop the somnambulistic State. In this study there was no difference in the results obtained from subjects who developed a somnambulistic state during the first experience of being hypno- tized, those who developed the somnambulistic stale spontaneously while ob-
Further Experiments 4S serving hypnosis in other subjects without expectation of becoming hypnotized by their own intense interest in observing hypnosis, and those subjects who were repeatedly hypnotized with the purpose of being trained lo leam to develop the hypnotic stale.
Nor did results differ for this study obtained from somnambulistic subjects who were employed to perform the experiment central to this report by this author's assistants, who in turn were selected sometimes because of their in- experience with hypnosis, and did not know that some subjects with whom they were dealing were in a somnambulistic state.
As a further control of the experimental study the same subjects were tested by differently oriented assistants of the author to make certain that the various types of procedure were not influenced by the experimenters' knowledge or lack of knowledge of the experimental study or the psychological state of the subjects. These control study findings were not included as additional results in this experiment. Their purpose was to validate the similarity and common identity of the experimental results obtained from the same experiment despite changes and variations of procedure, personnel, and psychological states and orientations presumed not to be relevant to the experimental, and actually discovered not to be pertinent. The only significant or meaningful negative results are included in this report, and they were very few in number.
In all, the control studies were made on more than 260 subjects, many of whom were used repeatedly not only as a control measure of the experiment itself, but also as a control measure of the differently oriented experimenters employed by the author to assist him in conducting the experiment.
To perform the experiment successfully it was decided thai not only should the author act as experimenter, but also that other persons should conduct similar experimentation as assistants of the author. Some of these assistants had know- ledge of hypnosis and some were without knowledge of hypnosis, some with and some without knowledge that an experiment as such was being conducted. Additionally the actual task was lo be varied in certain specific details, althouvh its meaningful significances would remain the same. The experiment was to be done on nonhypnotic subjects, on waking subjects with a history of previous hypnotic experience, on subjects in the somnambulistic trance, and on waking subjects who had never previously been hypnotized but who, it was hoped, could be trained, months or even a year or two later, to be hypnotic subjects for further exploration of the same problem. These subjects were all to be used at varying intervals and by various experimenters including (he author, his col- leagues, and even by friends of colleagues who did not know the author nor the purposes to be served.
A crucial instruction for all experimenters was that experimental results had to be accepted unquestioningly, without hesitation, without manifestation of astonishment or lack of understanding- In brief all experimenters were thor- oughly instructed to ask a specific question in a matter-of-fact manner and to
46 Nature of Hypnosis & Suggestion The acfual experiment was in itself of a rather simple, ordinary, and casual character, and the procedure was executed in accord with a rigidly simple for muld but under a great variety of situational circumstances. The subjects varied greatly in their backgrounds. There were undergraduate and graduate university pludenls, hospital attendants, secretaries, nurses, social service workers, under- graduate and graduate psychology students, medical students, interns, resident medical staff members, nonprofessional people, and even psychotic patents However, the results on psychotic patients were not included in the total result! of this experiment. The author was simply interested to see if the experiment could also be done with hypnotizable psychotic patients
Assistants who were employed to conduct the experiment were sometimes aware that the experiment was related to hypnosis, but some thought it was only a psychological experiment under way for some unknown psychology student. Some regarded it not as an experiment but only as a simple earnest inquiry, meaningless, possibly having some obscure significance, or possibly testing their judgment and critical abilities. Others regarded the task requested i a somewhat nonsensical and purposesless but harmless casual activity of the mo ment. Some actually were fully informed that it was a test of hypnotic and nonhypnotic realities but without being given precise information beyond that general statement. Even this degree of sophistication did not alter experimental results, even though it was employed on many clinical psychologists with Ph.D. degrees.
Some of the experimenters were fully aware that the subjects were in a pro- found hypnotic state; some, because of the extensive somnambulistic training of the subjects, did not realize they were dealing with hypnotic subjects (Erick- son, 1944); a large number of the subjects had been trained to be somnambulistic in trance states before this experiment was formulated. Care was consistently taken to see that the experimenters did not intrude their understandings into the experimental situation, often by the simple measure of a posthypnotic suggestion to the subjects that when the assigned task was performed, they would develop a profound amnesia for their performance immediately upon the experimenter's saying "Thank you now," as the experimenters were rigidly instructed to do as a part of their task, and the peculiar wording of "Thank you now" made it highly specific.
However, experimental results were found to be dependent not upon the
experimenters' understanding of the task nor upon the subjects' attitude toward or understanding of the test. The results derived solely from the subjects' task performance itself
In other words the subjects were asked to perform a task calling for the exercise solely of their own abilities without there being any need for guidance, advice, or instruction from the experimenters. Only the task was the controlling force, and when it was completed, the individual performance was the result- Then it became an established and an unalterable fact because it consisted of a demonstrated expression of a personal evaluation and judgment.
Further Experiments *® task variously, ranging in altitude from serious interest to indifference, curiosity, puzzlement, boredom, scorn, questioning, etc. Even so the nature and character of responses were consistent unless resentment developed from having their "time wasted." On the other hand the hypnotic subjects invariably showed a consistent attitude of willing, earnest cooperative ness regardless of previous use as nonhypnotic subjects, or as first-time subjects with any of the task attitudes mentioned above. There appeared to be no spontaneous emotionally-tinged judg- ment of the task itself such as was shown by the waking subjects.
The experimental results found by the various experimenters, even though some of these assistants were not personally acquainted with the author, were consistently comparable. The simplicity of the experimenters' task and the ease with which they could avoid any share in the subjects' performance was probably the most important factor.
Whenever possible, there were from two to a dozen repetitions at different times of the experiment with many subjects, many times possible in both the waking and trance states. These repetitions were not counted as additional ex- periments. However, it was not always possible to secure repetitions of the experiment particularly with the waking subjects, and thus there was a larger number of one-time-only waking subjects, as well as fewer repetitions with the waking subjects. The purpose of the reptitkms was to discover possible errors in !he procedure.
There was available a much larger supply of waking subjects than of hypnotic subjects. Every effort was made to secure as many waking and trance subjects as possible, but the number of subjects who used it in the trance state was the lesser. Practically all of those who served as trance subjects served also a waking subjects, sometimes first in the waking state, sometimes first in the trance state. Careful effort was made to effect an equal and random distribution of these alternations
Usually the experiments were done in a university or a hospital setting ic cdsionally in such a situation as a private group or in a medical or psychologic 1 or other lecture setting. The format of the experiment was exceedingly simple and consisted of no more than the simple question of:
'While we are waiting (thus indicating vaguely some delayed or delaying
circumstance appropriate to the situation and definitely implying that the real purposes to be accomplished were something else) where in this room if you
had a three-by-four fool picture of (specifying one at a time each of
these four items: person actually present, a small snapshot of someone known to the subject, an actual bowl of fruit, and an actual snapshot of a picture of a bowl of fruit), where in this room would you hang it? Consider carefully, and
when you have made up vour mind, specify exactly
The question was read from a typed card. This card censtituted a hint that an experiment was in progress, but the question did not seem to warrant fully that conclusion. Instead it seemed to indicate that the question was seriously in- tended.
48 Nature of Hypnosis 8. Suggestion always positioned carefully. For example Ihe person present in reality might be sitting in a chair beside a window or might be leaning against the window in some casual position; this person might be squatting in front of a bookta e apparently searching for a book on the bottom shelf, or sitting or standing at a desk in the middle of the room or in front of a blackboard placed diagonally across a comer of the room, or in any other casual position. As for the snapshots, these were held in a slotted wooden base and were simply positioned in a similar casual fashion, such as on top of a bookcase, on the chalk tray at the bottom of the blackboard, on the arm of a chair next to a window, on the top of a desk in the middle of Ihe room, or on a small stand in a comer of the room. The bowl of fruit was similarly placed in various positions. The subject and the experimenter always walked to a position about three feet to the side of the reality object, which would be indicated by a hand gesture
With both nonhypnotic and hypnotic subjects it became apparent within 10 experiments with each type of subject that a multiple placement of the reality objects with repetitious putting of the question for each object could be done with no alteration of the mcaningfulness of the results. For example the question could be asked in relation to the person standing casually at the window and then, when the person sauntered over to the bookcase, to the desk, or to the blackboard, the question could be asked for each new position. Similarly the snapshots and the bowl of fruit could be openly repositioned and the question asked for each new placement. Or all four reality objects could first be positioned and then the question could be put in succession for each item, and then a repositioning openly effected, and the questioning repeated. This multiple testing on a single occasion in no way altered the responsive behavior, except that if