FECHA VISITA ANTERIOR 25-11-2010

Reluming now to the experimental study, ihe results obtained from both the waking and the hypnotic groups were consistently comparable within each of the two groups and consistently different in character for the different groups. The waking subjects viewed each of the four reality objects with no interest in their position at the moment. It made no difference to them whether, for ex- ample, the snapshot was on a windowsill, a desk, or a bookcase. They merely surveyed all four walls, visually measuring wall space. They then indicated where they would hang such a picture if there were such a picture. Additionally many added to their wall-space-appraisal consideration of the vantage point for a person entering the room as possibly different from that of a person seated in the room. Consideration was given also to the lighting effects of the windows and the possible light reflections from the lighting fixtures. All of them ruled out as not meriting consideration certain wall areas either by direct statement or by their disregard after one appraising look. Some debated the suitability of one wall space as compared with another, and second and even third choices were given. But all choices were in terms of the external realities of wall space, lighting, the point of vantage for the viewer, and other esthetic considerations. For the hypnotic subjects the problem was solved in a totally different way. The reality object of which a picture was to be hung was viewed with intensity. There was then a slow, careful visual searching of all the walls, apparently with emphasis equal (o that of waking-state subjects, and then despite physical real- ities, the subject's gaze would return to the object and a slow, thoughtful po- sitioning of the suppositional picture in direct relationship to the reality object and at varying heights above and behind the object itself would be carried out. This happened regardless of whether the selected areas were an empiy space, a window, steampipes, a comer of the room, a ceiling-high bookcase, a black- board, another picture, or an impossibly small space. Occasionally a subject

Further Experiments 61 would offer as a second choice a slightly higher or a slightly lower positioning of the picture. None gave any consideration lo the external realities of actual wall space, lighting effects, vantage point, or any other external reality consid- eration.

Subjects who were first tested in the waking state gave the characteristic responses for that state. External realities governed their responses entirely. Yet, when they were subsequently tested in that same room in the somnambulistic hypnotic state, they gave the characteristic response of the somnambulistic hyp- notic state. They were uninfluenced by their previous test behavior, and external realities were without effect. Subjects tested first in the somnambulistic hypnotic state gave the characteristic response of that state of awareness. Then, when tested in the waking state, they were uninfluenced by this previous hypnotic test behavior and gave the characteristic external-reality-determined responses of the waking state.

Only one of the test-reality-objects remained constant—the snapshot of the picture of the bowl of fruit. The bowl of fruit necessarily changed repeatedly, and retests done on both waking and hypnotic subjects with different bowls of fruit in no way affected the responses elicited. The person known to the subject and the snapshot of a person known to the subject necessarily varied with dif- ferent subjects. The use of the same person and the same snapshot of a person for tests in bolh states yielded no variation in characteristic results. The use of different persons and different snapshots for each state and for separate retests had no effect upon the findings. In essence test-reality-objects were merely te t objects for both types of subjects. The task requested constituted the governing factor in their responses, and the responses were in consistent accord with their state of awarene

The subject behavior may be illustratively summarized as follows: The snap shot of a person known to the subject, whether placed on a desk, on top of the bookcase, on a windowsill, or in some other casual position, was viewed by the person in the waking state and then the walls of the room were speculatively scrutinized and different areas compared. A final judgment would then be of- fered matter-of-factly for the hanging of the three-by-four-foot picture of the snapshot. In the trance state the same general survey was made of the room but always with hesitant behavior as the wall or the space above the position of the snapshot was viewed. Then with increasing decisiveness the hypnotized subject would indicate an area above the snapshot regardless of its unsuitability for picture hanging—it might be a window, it might be occupied by steamptpes, it might be in a corner where it would be impossible to hang such a picture, or it might be empty space.

Another item of significant interest to this experimenter concerned the use of light- and medium-trance subjects. With both of these types of subjects it was found that there persists a definite subjective contact with reality which is suf- ficient to be verifiable by objective tests such as involuntary reactions, avoidance responses, startle reactions, etc. When the experiment was first outlined, the

62 Nature of Hypnosis & Suggestion

decision was made lhal only somnambulistic subjects would be used for the reason that these subjects presented the clearest evidence of the hypnotic state as differing from the waking state. Since that was the experimental question, and not an investigation of the degrees of difference or kinds and variations of difference, but only the question of an existence of an identifiable difference, the author and his advisors and assistants felt that the use of only somnambulistic subjects would be appropriate for the proposed study. However, as the study progressed, a separate study was made employing variously light and medium- deep hypnotic subjects.

ing state. This difference was primarily one of degree, ranging from slight to that approaching the reality apprehension of the somnambulistic trance ub ILK In the lighter stages of hypnosis external reality seemed to remain constant, but "less important," "not so real." The task of hanging a picture had to be aLcomplished by envisioning the task with the eyes closed, since opening of the eyes tended to disrupt or terminate the trance. This in itself was a situation Also the actual task seemed to be disturbing to the subjects' sense of mental and physical peace, and there was a tendency to consider the task unwillingly nd then to forget it. As the trance depth progressed from the very light tage to the deeper and deeper levels, external realities became increasingly '"unreal," "not there," or "I forgot them." Some of the medium-deep subjects could keep their eyes open, even see the specific snapshot, but their peripheral vision was subjectively unclear and reality objects were obscured. This latter phenomenon was tested by introducing alien objects into the range of peripheral vision, which could be done without the subjects seeming to perceive them. However, when the good medium-deep subjects attempted to appraise the walls of the room for picture hanging, their peripheral vision would return, the trance state would lessen or vanish, and alien objects introduced into the setting would be seen immediately. Hence it was reluctantly concluded after several hundred test that adequate experimental measures had not yet been devised for light- and medium- trance subjects.

After a vast amount of data had been collected on somnambulistic hypnotic subjects, a variation was tried after experimental testing of other subjects dis- closed no significant alteration of their behavior under comparable circumstan- ces. This new procedure was to express a doubt as to the suitability of the trance-selected spot for hanging the picture. Responsively the subjects willingly selected a spot on the wall faced by the snapshot, regardless of any reality suitability. The same thing occurred with snapshots of a bowl of fruit, with one difference. While subjects tended to place the suppositional picture of the bowl of fruit on the wall nearest to it, if this were not accepted, they placed the picture on that wall immediately opposite. If the bowl of fruit were employed and they were standing in front of the bowl, or they were standing to one side of it, they would place the picture of it on the wall forming the general back- ground of the bowl of fruit. The suitability of the wall position did not enter

Further Experiments B3 into the question of picture-positioning, either for the experimental subjects or these trial subjects, although moms were sought where the walls, such as those of the library, would render the hanging of pictures a difficult problem. The physical dimensions of (he bowl of fruil seemed to have no significance in positioning a suppositional picture of if

As this experiment was being continued, several minor experiments were conducted. With the aid of colleagues a number of volunteer subjects unknown to the author were secured. Among these were subjects with whom the col leagues secretly arranged that they simulate in the true sense of the word the state of being in a trance. They were not apprised of what tests the author might make, since this had not been revealed.

They were hypnotized in a large group arranged in a circle, facing outward so that they could not watch each other, and they were under poor lighting conditions to preclude the author from scrutinizing them closely. When all of them seemed to be in a deep somnambulistic trance, they were told that con tinuing in their deep trance state, they would be led separately into another room by an assistant to whom they would indicate, if they had a three-by-four-foot picture of a snapshot which they would see in the next room, the place when, they would hang it. This place they were to specify to the assistant, who had been selected because she knew nothing about the purposes of the entire pro cedure.

The assistant reported that three of the subjects had positioned the suppon tional picture •'sensibly" and that seven had been "ridiculous" in their choices. of position, but that she had accepted their statements uncritically as instructed and had duly recorded them. (The colleagues had intentionally actually chosen seven somnambulistic subjects and three subjects who had never previously been in a trance.)

The three "sensible" subjects were promptly apprised by the author that they were subjects who obviously had not been hypnotized and they were told that (hey had been asked to deceive the author. To their curious inquiries of how they had betrayed themselves, since they knew nothing of their performance of the real subjects, it was explained they would be given an opportunity to learn. They were ail taken to the test room, the picture-position ing question put to them, to which they responded by wall-reality-evaluation responses, and they were then told that their responses were waking responses, that actual hypnotic responses were otherwise. They were then asked, without discussion among themselves, to attempt to perform the task as if they were in a trance state, and to study the problem silently until they were certain they could do this. When ready to do the task the "right hypnotic way," they were each to take a pencil from their jacket pocket and to hold it quietly as a signal to the author. Thus, in achieving "proper hypnotic placement" by them, there was precluded any awareness of what the others were doing. After 15 minutes one subject signaled the author. Another 15 minutes were allowed to pass. Then, since the other two subjects seemed to be at a loss, the one who had signaled was asked the ex-

64 Nature of Hypnosis & Suggestion :

perimenlal question, and he selected a position in accord with the trance-state reiponse. The other two subjects offered adverse critical commenis until they suddenly realized that their colleague was obviously in a deep, somnambulistic trance and out of rapport with them, although in rapport with the author. They began studying his behavior and appearance with much interest. One was a medical student, the other was a graduate psychology student. Quite suddenly the latter lapsed into silent thought, studied the snapshot, the subject, the im- possible place on the wall, and he was observed to narrow his eyes as if to form a new vi ual focus on the wall. Visibly he developed a trance state out of rapport with the others and out of rapport with the author. When this had been estab- lished, the author slowly moved the snapshot at which this subject had been seen to look closer and close to the subject's face; then he stood behind the snapshot and repeatedly moved it up and down to indicate the author's face. Shortly the puzzled look on the subject's face was replaced by an expression of recognition of the author, and rapport was thus established.

The second subject was instructed to awaken from the trance state with full memories and understandings of his behavior. These proved to be only partially satisfactory. In essence he explained:

"When I realized the absurdity of his choice of a place to put the picture, I began thinking that it was probably a different way of seeing things in a trance. So 1 half-closed my eyes and tried to get them out of focus so I could see things differently. It reminded my of my child- hood "pretend" games. And the next thing 1 knew I was all alone looking at that snapshot, which began moving queerly. The more I watched it, the more it seemed to move in a meaningful way, and all of a sudden I saw you and knew you wanted the picture hung, so I picked out a spot just back of you and above you, and there I saw the i. picture hanging in what I know now was midair. But everything was completely natural to me and nothing seemed different or unreal. I just don't understand.

Nor have other introspective accounts been any more informative, The other subject immediately attempted to develop a trance but failed. The first of these three subjects who had developed a trance was awakened, and it was found that he had a complete posthypnotic amnesia. The three subjects were allowed to discuss what had happened. The first subject did not believe that he had been in a trance or that his fellow subject would position a picture in the manner that was described by the subject who had not gone into a trance. Neither would he believe the statements of his fellow subject who had been given a waking memory of his trance behavior. Such picture-positioning would be, this subject declared, "totally unreasonable." When informed that he had been in a deep trance and had similarly positioned a picture in a "totally unreasonable" manner, he disbelievingly denied such a possibility.

Further Experiments 05