Los preparados biodinámicos y los animales

The two previously unpublished papers of this section on literainess reveal another facet of the hypnotic state. The first paper, "Literalness:

An experimental inquiry," was a part of Erickson's early systematic investigations which sought to distinguish between the waking and the hypnotic states with particular focus on the nature of hypnotic realities.

This experimental study typifies Erickson's characteristic approach by stimulating or disguising the important variables in a problem situation, thus making the actual primary variables appear as a minor and incidental part of another major, attention-getting activity.

The second paper emphasizes the subtlety of the phenomenon of literalness and its significance as a means of evaluating a patient's mental state and receptivity to therapeutic suggestion in dealing with the neurosis. A patient experiencing Itteralness is presumably responding to sact meaning of the stimuli directed to him. The literal response thus takes place without the mediating influence of reflective thinking; the :go's function of critical evaluation tends to be omitted. From this point of

•iew literalness becomes an excellent indirect indicator of the existence of e and the presence of a receptive, suggestible state within the patient.

10. Literalness: An Experimental Study

Milton H. Erickson

A form of experimental inquiry, simple in character and effective f eliciting remarkably different results from waking and from hypnotiz subjects, has been carried on over a period of more than 25 years on manjr hundreds of subjects. The experiment was based originally upon the observed literalness of hypnotic subjects when responding to instructions, questions, or suggestions. Such literalness of response is decidedly infrequent in everyday living—when it does occur then is suspect of being a deliberate play, as it often is. Innumerable persons were asked in the ordinary waking state such questions as: "Do you mind telling me your name?" " D o you mind standing up?" " D o you mind reading this?"

(handing them a card bearing a typed sentence such as, 'This is a nice day.')" "Do you mind taking a step forward?" "Do you mind sitting in this other chair?" The usual response received from subjects in the ordinary waking state—whether friend, acquaintance, or even a total stranger—was almost always an acquiescence to the implication of the question, not a simple reply to the actual question. Thus, the awake subject would actually say his name, stand up, read the card, or whatever.

In exceptional cases the response might be a challenging, "Why should I ? " or an obvious rejection such as "I don't want to," or an ignoring of the request, usually with a questioning or doubting facial expression.

Comparable questions with dozens of hypnotic subjects led almost invariably to a simple verbal affirmative reply without any movement to acquiesce to the behavioral implications of the inquiry. This was par-ticularly true with somnambulistic subjects, somewhat less so with medium subjects, and slightly less so with subjects in the light trance. On rare occasions the reply would be complete inaction, explained upon request by the statement that they were comfortable as they were or that there was no need to do so. On the other hand, the waking subject would explain a negative response with the challenging, "Why should I ? " or "I don't want t o , " or "It doesn't make sense to do that."

These repeated findings suggested the possibility of establishing the fact of a recognizable difference between waking and hypnotic behavior without corrupting the experimental investigation by disclosing to the subjects that an experiment was being performed by a testing of specific behavioral responses or by asking for deliberate simulation of behavioral Unpublished manuscript, circa 1940s.

Uteralness/Experimental Study "•- •• - 93

responses or any other intentional or planned distortion of experimentally elicited responses.

With the formulation of this experimental inquiry, the project was carried out with many hundreds of subjects in the ordinary waking state.

These subjects fell into one of the following categories:

(1) Those who had never been hypnotized and never were subse-quently by the experimenter.

(2) Those who had never been hypnotized, were used as subjects, and subsequently were hypnotized and used as subjects.

(3) Those who had been hypnotized previously and were used as subjects, sometimes first in the waking state, and next in the trance state, and equally often by a reversal of this order of procedure.

(4) Those who had been tested on the same occasion for both types of behavior, sometimes first in the trance, sometimes first in the waking state.

(5) Those who had been tested in one or the other states first on a separate occasion with a following completion of the inquiry at a later date.

(6) Those who were tested singly or in group situations, under both private and public circumstances, and in group situations where ail present were hypnotic subjects but not necessarily all in a trance at the time.

The age distribution ranged from four to 80 years, and age was not found to be a factor. The sex distribution was essentially equal, and no sex differences were found. The subjects employed included Japanese, Chinese, Filippino, Hindu, Hawaiian, Indian, Negro, Caucasian, and such ethnic groupings as native Americans, Mexicans, Venezuelans, Scandina-vians, Germans, English, French, etc. The one thing in common was that they understood English, some less well than others, but all subjects gave comparable results.

The educational levels ranged from grade school to doctoral degrees.

Psychiatric patients, some of whom were psychotic but most of whom were neurotic, were employed. The results from this group were compara-ble to those from subjects not receiving psychiatric care. There were also inmates of penal institutions, but none of these varied from the ordinary population except for a greater number showing challenging non-compliance. Of these, more males than females were tested, but there were no recognizable differences except that there was less open ag-gressiveness on the part of the women.

As would be expected, total strangers were the most uncooperative. For example, a total stranger approached in an airport and asked, "Would

94 . i • : Hypnotic Investigation of Psychodynamic Processes you mind standing up?" could readily reply, "And what business is it of yours if I sit down or stand up?" The social ice thus engendered could easily be broken by the plausible statement, "I'm a physician, and my hobby is visually comparing sitting and standing heights, and if you ask people informatively, they invariably sit higher and stand higher instead of more naturally." Such an explanation usually led to ready compliance with the implications of the original request, but since the response was actually to the explanatory statements, it would not be included in the experimental results except as a rejection.

In the early years of the experimental study exact records were kept of age, sex, education, occupation, hypnotic history or sophistication, and experimental setting, but as the data accumulated it became progressively apparent that the important factors in the experiment were (1) the state of ordinary waking awareness and (2) the existence of a hypnotic state. The results were enhanced by increasing depths of the trance state.

In all about 4,000 subjects were employed, of whom approximately 1,800 were in a hypnotic state. The greater number of nonhypnotic subjects arises from the fact that many subjects were employed who never became hypnotic subjects. However, it must be borne in mind that these two groups, nonhypnotic and hypnotic, are not mutually exclusive, since many subjects were used for both hypnotic and nonhypnotic experimenta-tion. The reason for this was that behavioral differences between waking subjects and hypnotic subjects were found to be directly in accord with the existing state of awareness at the actual time of the experiment, whether hypnotic or waking. Previous experience with hypnosis had no bearing on the results. Subjects showing the typical waking response would subse-quently manifest the typical hypnotic response, then again the waking response, and then again the hypnotic. The exceptions were those who were sophisticated in hypnotic behavior. Thus, a physician used first as a hypnotic subject gave the characteristic response and later the usual waking response. Shortly after the waking test he exclaimed in a startled fashion, "Doesn't that beat all? I was caught by the very test I use myself to see if my patient is in a trance." (Comment will be made on this later.) Undoubtedly a major factor in the success of the experimental study was the fact that the test was always used as an extremely minor part of some other attention-commanding task. Thus there was no opportunity or occasion for direct critical thinking or analysis. For both hypnotic and nonhypnotic subjects, with the exception of total strangers, there was the implication that the experimental request was preliminary to some other more important task that was expected to follow.

The method of procedure was essentially the same for both waking and hypnotic states in a great variety of situations and under many different sets of circumstances. Also, the actual experiment was not always carried out by the experimenter but would be done at his secret request by a

Literalness/Experimental Study 95 colleague who did not know the purpose. Perhaps the best example to illustrate the procedure is the following: At a lecture gathering, topic unannounced, the request would be made quietly of various people,

"Would you mind telling me your name?" or "Would you mind standing up for a moment?" or "Would you mind sitting in that other seat?"

A lecture on therapy for the neuroses might then be presented with carefully calculated remarks leading to the introduction of the subject of hypnosis. This would lead to an offer to demonstrate hypnosis with several volunteers. Upon the induction of a trance, precisely the same questions would be put to ihe subjects as had been put to the members of the audience in the waking state. This would be done in a manner inaudible to the audience, and then the same questions would be directed to members of the audience not previously so questioned. Then the questions would be repeated to the subjects, this time so as to be audible to the audience.

Immediately the audience would become aware that the affirmative verbal response of the hypnotic subjects without responsive action was markedly different from the possibly wondering but silent responsive behavior of the waking subjects, who had promptly acted upon the implications of the questions rather than verbally offering a simple yes or no, as had the hypnotic subjects.

It was soon learned that even after this had been demonstrated, unexpected repetitions with the audience would elicit either complete or partial execution of the implied response before there would be realiza-tion of what was happening and consequent self-conscious inhibirealiza-tion of the acquiescent behavior.

It was also learned that somnambulistic subjects in full visual and auditory rapport with the audience could describe what waking persons did when so spoken to but did not apply that understanding to their own conduct when so addressed.

Nor did it invalidate findings to let the audience observe the behavior of both waking and hypnotic subjects without discussing it and then call upon observers who had been employed as waking subjects to act as hypnotic subjects. While they had observed behavior of others in both waking and trance states, and had so responded themselves in the waking pattern before trance induction, they had drawn no understandings or inferences of a governing character from what they had observed. In the trance state, they gave hypnotic responses, but in subsequent waking states, they continued to give waking responses. Nor did intellectual sophistication of hypnotic subjects serve to alter their characteristic behavior, but repeti-tions and instrucrepeti-tions in the trance state would institute' the waking pattern of behavior.

As the experiments continued over the years, it was progressively confirmed that by making the experimental inquiry an incidental, minor,

96 Hypnotic Investigation of Psychodynamic Processes and hence unnoticed part of a larger activity, there could be a siudy of behavior in either the waking or the hypnotic states without the response in the one state of awareness influencing the behavior in the other state of awareness. Situations reasonably expected to lead the subjects to become sophisticated and thus to inhibit the natural response failed to do so completely. For example, the physician cited above, as well as other subjects subsequently employed repeatedly, invariably made a partial response before self-consciously inhibiting the waking responsive be-havior. Yet, the physician continued to use this measure as a means of determining the presence of a trance successfully and knowingly.