University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Enhancement Of Eeg - Alpha Production And Its Effects On Hypnotic Susceptibility

(USC Thesis Other)

The Enhancement Of Eeg - Alpha Production And Its Effects On Hypnotic Susceptibility

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE ENHANCEM ENT O F EEG - ALPHA PRODUCTION A N D ITS EFFECTS O N HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY by David Ralph Engstrom A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Psychology) June 1970 I ENGSTROM, David Ralph, 1942- | THE ENHANCEMENT OF EEG - ALPHA PRODUCTION AND I ITS EFFECTS ON HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1970 Psychology, clinical | University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan Copyright by DAVID RALPH ENGSTROM I mu THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE 8CHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by J3a.Y.idL..R.....Eugs.tc.Qro......................................... under the direction of h..L&. Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Gradu ate School, in partial fulfillment of require ments of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y ^ Dean D ate .June...lS7Q. d is s e r t a : COMMITTEE Chairman TO M Y M OTHER AND FATHER ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS j ! j Dr. L. Douglas DeNike of the University of Southern | California gave me guidance, through his many helpful suggestions, in the design and execution of the present experiment, and 1 am equally indebted to him for his continued supervision of and interest | S ! in much of m y academic work. j I | Dr. Murray Wexler of the University of Southern California has assisted me by following and c r i ti c a ll y evaluating the research j reported here and has also been instrumental in the development of i many of my professional interests and clin ic a l a b ilitie s . Dr. Joseph T. Hart of the University of California at Irvine ! has, in addition to generously providing laboratory space, time and equipment for this study, given me great assistance and support in ! beginning to f u lf i l l both personal and research objectives. j Mr. David B. Gould of the University of California at Irvine has spent many hours helping me solve the operational and s ta tis tic a l i problems that occurred in this experiment, and his active involvement j in my work is deeply appreciated. Dr. James P. Robinson of the University of Southern California gave freely of his time to help find solutions to several d iff ic u lt s t a t i s t i c a l problems in th is study. I am especially indebted to Dr. Perry London of the University of Southern California, the Chairman of my D issertation Committee. His influence on my life transcends any individual deed. Through his unfailing generosity as both a friend and a teacher he has shown me a i whole new way to see and understand things. 1 am, above a l l , thankful for my wife, Bonnie, who has so many times shown her unyielding faith in my a b ilitie s . iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A CKNOW LEDGEM ENTS i i i Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................... 1 The S ta b ility of Hypnotic Responsiveness Personality Variables The Modification of Hypnotic S u sc ep tib ility Physiological Studies EEG-Alpha Feedback Research The Present Study II. METHOD....................................................................................................... 10 Subjects Instrumentation Pi lot Study Screening Procedures Experimental Procedures III. RESULTS................................................. 23 IV. DISCUSSION.............................................................................................. 29 V. SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 3*t FOOTNOTES 37 TABLE OF CONTENTS— C o n tin u e d Page APPENDIX A 38 APPENDIX B U1 APPENDIX C 53 LIST OF REFERENCES 71 vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A N D REVIEW OF LITERATURE The S ta b ility of Hypnotic Responsiveness Within the area of hypnosis, one of the most basic and fundamental problems of practical as well as theoretical in te re st is hypnotic s u sc e p tib ility . Defined as the degree to which an individual is able to enter into hypnosis and become involved in its character is tic behaviors and experiences under standardized conditions, hypnoti s u sc e p tib ility is generally considered to be a very sta b le personality t r a i t or subject variable in psychological research. Hypnotic sus c e p tib ility scores of individual subjects obtained at two d ifferen t times under standard conditions yield re te st correlations that are ty p ically in the .80's and ,90's (Hilgard, 1965). Repeated confirma tion of th is finding led London (1967, p. 72) to conclude " . . . scale re su lts are so consistent from session to session as to suggest that s u s c e p tib ility is a very stable personality c h a ra c te ristic i extremely resista n t to change." 2 Personality Variables i I Presently, there is l i t t l e understanding of individual j differences in responsiveness to hypnosis. According to Hilgard's I j review (1967), the search for personality correlates of hypnoti- j I z a b ility has produced rather sparse results in view of the considerable! amount of e ffo rt expended. Studies relatin g several variables to hypnotic su scep tib ility have generally yielded few resu lts, and some times contradictory ones: age (London, 1962, 1965; Stukat, 1958), sex (Cooper & London, 1966; Hilgard, W eitzenhoffer& Gough, 1958; i i ; Weitzenhoffer& Weitzenhoffer, 1958), intelligence (Hilgard, 1967; j Weitzenhoffer, 1953), projective te s ts of personality (Sarbin & Madow, j 1942; Schafer, 1947), personality inventories (Faw& Wilcox, 1958; | i SchulmanS London, 1963), a ttitu d in a l components (Meleifi Hilgard, j | 1964; Rosenhan & Tomkins, 1964), and neuropsychiatric diagnosis (Gill ' i & Brenman, 1959; Kramer & Brennan, 1964; London, Coopers Johnson, ! 1962). The relationship between most measured personality variables | and hypnotizabi1ity is, at best, a very subtle one. | The Modification of Hypnotic S u sceptibility As an altern ativ e method of evaluating the c ritic a l variables in responsiveness to hypnosis, some investigators have attempted to i l modify su scep tib ility , typically through practice by repeated j j hypnotic inductions. The majority of these attempts have met with | l i t t l e or no success (As, Hilgard & Wei tzenhoffer, 1963; B arbers j Calverley, 1966; Cooper, Banford, Schubot & Tart, 1967; Gill & j Brenman, 1959; Sachs & Anderson, 1967; Shor, Orne & O'Connell, 1962). | • J In one such experiment (As, Hilgard & Weitzenhoffer, 1963), a wide j i i variety of manipulations were used, including a number of practice j I induction techniques and psychotherapeutic a ttitu d e discussions, j S resulting in "only very s lig h t gains" on before-and-after hypnotic j i su scep tib ility measures. The lite ra tu re also contains three cases of j qualified success (Blum, 1963; Sanders & Reyher, 1969; Wiseman & ! Reyher, 1962)., Blum (1963) reports radical modification of suscepti- j b ility following intensive practice, but experimental design limi- | tations r e s t r i c t the g enerality of his findings. In an early study, j Wiseman and Reyher (1962) u tiliz e d dreams to deepen the hypnotic trance. Some increase in s u sc e p tib ility was reflected in the increased frequency of postshypnotic amnesia observed following treatment, but the investigators point out that this increase was only noted in those subjects who had previously experienced partial amnesia and not ! in those who were previously non-amnesic. A recent investigation by j Sanders and Reyher (1969) clearly indicates that sensory deprivation experience enhances hypnotic su sc e p tib ility , but the results failed j i to indicate any strong relationship between changes in su scep tib ility and specific behavioral indicators or symptoms of sensory deprivation, j A review of the lite ra tu r e yields two conclusions in this connection: 1) There has been no d efin itiv e experiment showing that j the modification of any sp ecific behavior systematically a lte rs hypnotic su sc e p tib ility ; and 2) With only one exception, the attempts reported have dealt exclusively with the manipulation of practice j effe c ts of hypnotic induction procedures and hypnotic-like experi- I ences as independent variables. The apparent reason for the rela- | tiv ely few studies in this area is that there are few e asily measurable and modifiable behaviors that bear a strong relation to hypnotic s u sc e p tib ility . | ; | Physiological Studies I i Another se t of variables whose relationship to hypnosis has j been su p e rfic ia lly investigated consists of the physiological ones, j i p a rtic u la rly events in the central nervous system. Typically, these j studies have sought to chart the a lte ra tio n s in patterns of e le c tric a l j I a c tiv itie s of the cortex as measured by the electroencephalogram (EEG) j before, during, and a fte r the tra n sitio n from waking to hypnotic states! j of consciousness. Most EEG studies undertaken thus fa r have been of a ! ; I purely correlational nature and have failed to demonstrate EEG j differences between waking and hypnotic states (True & Stephenson, 1963; Weitzenhoffer, 1953). Early studies in this area strongly suggest that waking EEG patterns p e rsist during passage into and j : j throughout the hypnotic state (Chertok & Kramarz, 1959; Dynes, 1947; j Loomis, Harvey & Hobart, 1936). Sim ilarly, Edmonston (1967) reports I fa ilu re to reliably demonstrate changes in autonomic nervous system functioning as a resu lt of hypnosis alone. Contradictory evidence is | manifest here too, however. Barker and Burgwin (1948, 1949) report ! the induction of EEG patterns resembling those of sleep by u tiliz a tio n j 5 of hypnotic suggestion. Through hypnotic suggestion to relax, Ford and Yeager (19^8) found that p ersiste n t EEG-alpha rhythms could be established in subjects who had previously exhibited l i t t l e or no alpha. The alpha rhythm is a fixed range of frequencies (usually 8-13 cycles per second) within the limits of observed frequencies of e lectrical a c tiv ity of the cerebral cortex. The vast majority of these physiological studies tried to identify hypnotic s ta te differences, and l i t t l e or no attention was paid to more basic individual differences between subjects, of which the most important is hypnotic su sc e p tib i1ity. Although reliable instruments for assessment o f this t r a i t have existed for many years (Davis & Husband, 1931; Friedlander SSarbin, 1938), most experi menters have failed to score subjects on su scep tib ility , thereby allowing no adequate means o f evaluating results in terms of indi vidual differences in responsiveness to hypnosis. In a recent study, London, Hart and Leibovitz (1968) recognized this lack and included the administration of a standardized hypnotic su scep tib ility scale in an experiment relating EEG-alpha rhythms to hypnosis and imagery. Results of the study demonstrated sig n ific a n t differences in operant EEG-alpha production between high- and low-susceptible subjects, both when the subjects were engaged in active visual imagery and when they were not. Highly susceptible subjects reliably produced more alpha than did very unsusceptible subjects. This finding, later replicated by Nowlis and Rhead (1968), strongly implies that previous negative 6 results may have occurred because most experimenters had only used highly susceptible subjects. Since high-susceptible subjects have been shown to produce high alpha levels under waking conditions, a ceiling e f fe c t due to subject selection procedures may account for the lack o f observed alpha changes under hypnosis. EEG-Alpha Feedback Research In a d iffe re n t investigation not related to hypnosis, Hart (1967) has reconfirmed e a r lie r findings by Kamiya (1962) th at EEG- alpha can be brought under voluntary control by placing the subject in an electro n ic feedback loop in which cortical a c tiv ity emitted within the alpha frequency range produces an audible tone. Most subjects were able to sig n ifican tly increase th e ir alpha levels. H art's design included a non-feedback control group which showed s lig h t but markedly less increase in alpha during training sessions that did the feedback (experimental) group, indicating that increase in alpha production of subjects in the la tte r group was a t least p a rtia lly due to feedback. Subjective reports of participants in the experiments of both Hart (1967) and Kamiya ( 1968) indicate that subjects who produced high alpha output levels found the experience both pleasant and re stfu l, and all wished to repeat i t . Generally, subjects described a s ta te of "passive a lertn ess" as necessary to sustain alpha and "selec tiv e or focused atten tio n " as su fficien t to terminate it. These reported "mental s e ts " bear a strik in g sim ilarity to reports about the hypnotic experience by highly susceptible subjects (London & Rochman, 1967; ! Schneck, 1952). The s im ila ritie s between the two phenomena seem strong enough to warrant further investigation. j The Present Study From the evidence presented, there is reason to believe that hypnotic su scep tib ility is reflected by base rate alpha output and th a t the experience of high alpha production and the hypnotic ' s ta te are subjectively sim ilar, and i t is known that alpha output ! can be increased by feedback methods. If alpha production and hyp notic su scep tib ility are indeed as closely related as they appear to be, then i t follows that manipulation of alpha production includes manipulation of hypnotic s u sc e p tib ility . It was the aim of the present study to demonstrate experimentally that hypnotic suscepti b i l i t y is a function of alpha output. An attempt was made to enhance i n i t i a l l y low alpha production, via feedback training, and measure its effects on responsiveness to hypnosis by before-and-after admini s tr a tio n of a standardized te st of hypnotic su sc e p tib ility . The feedback training procedure used in the present experiment ; p a r tia lly replicates that of the Hart (1967) study, both in terms of apparatus and in that an experimental (feedback) training group was used, since Hart's study provided a precedent for procedural detail th a t lends i ts e lf to accurate replication. A non-feedback control group was not included in the present experiment since the magnitudes of time-correlated response increase not due to feedback training were | 8 shown by Hart to be relativ e ly small. A lternatively, increased alpha production may be a ttrib u ta b le not to feedback i t s e l f , but instead simply to situ a tio n a l demand c h aracteristics or to the f a c i l it a t i v e e ffects induced by driving or arousal properties of the feedback stimulus. The subtle demands put upon a;j>ubject by an experimental situ a tio n have been shown by Orne (1959> 1962) to exert a strong influence on subject performance and subsequent experimental outcome. As is the case with photic stim ulation, i t has been shown that in te r m ittent auditory stim ulation can also a l t e r or "drive" cortical rhythms, but to a lesser extent (Goldman, 1952). Control for these a r tif a c ts was achieved in the present experiment by presentation of "pseudofeedback,1 1 feedback in no way contingent on alpha production or any other response, to subjects in a control group. In summary, the intent of the present investigation was to study the efficacy of EEG alpha feedback train in g for increasing su sc e p tib ility to hypnosis. The sp ecific hypotheses to be tested were: 1. Base rate alpha level is positively related to hypnotic s u sc e p tib i1i ty. 2. Change in base rate alpha level is positively related to change in hypnotic su sc e p tib ility . 3. Real feedback induces more change in base rate alpha level that does non-contingent feedback. k. Subjective reports of experience during high alpha product related on resemble reports obtained from hypnotized subjects. 5. Alpha production during hypnotic induction is positively to hypnotic su sc e p tib ility . CHAPTER II M ETH O D Sub iects Thirty volunteer subjects of low to moderate hypnotic s u sc e p tib ility and low alpha production were screened to be subjected to six sessions of e ith e r genuine or a r t i f i c i a l feedback training. The experiment proper was performed on 10 males and 20 females ranging from 17 to 62 years of age. Subjects were in itia lly selected from approximately 180 volunteers on the basis of th e ir low su sc e p tib ility to hypnosis. The th irty screened subjects were extremely heterogeneous with regard to age, sex and occupation, due primarily to the means used for th e ir s o lic ita tio n . Bulletins and applications were printed and posted both on the campus of the University of California at Irvine and in surrounding communities in Orange County. Additionally, sim ilar announcements were published in two local newspapers. The 10 bu lletin s stipulated that a series of experiments involving brain wave I | autocontrol would be conducted at the University during the summer of 1969, to be directed by Dr. Joseph Hart and Dr. Perry London.^ The only other information made available to any prospective subjects was th at they would be given a series of te sts before the experiment i began. Instrumentation * 1 ■ ■ , 1 1 ■ - 1 1 . The feedback training device^ was composed of a series of instruments, diagrammed with regard to function and location in Appendix A, Figure 1. The subject was f it t e d with (a) Grass silv e r disc electrodes, which were connected to (b) a Grass 2k electrode j board. The unamplified signals from the board were fed into (c) a j Grass Model 7 four-channel polygraph with P I preamplifiers, and a lead i | from Jy of channel 1 connected the polygraph to (d) a Krohn-Hite j Model 330-A bandpass f i l t e r se t at 10 Hz. The amplified output of the f i l t e r was connected to (e) a trig g e r, which was amplitude- sen sitiv e via a control on its f i r s t pream plifier so that i t would close for unattenuated alpha signals and not close for f i l t e r - attenuated signals outside the alpha frequency. From the trigger, outputs were available to activ ate (f) a Berkey Model 55k Eput Meter j for timing of alpha duration from a 100 Hz precision o s c illa to r in the | counter mode within the trig g e r, (g) a signal marker on the polygraph for visual check of trigger accuracy, (h) a Mighty-Light photoelectric > strobe in the subject room activated by the unadjusted-amplitude EEG signals, and (i) a Heath EUW 27 audio o sc illa to r activated by adjusted- j amplitude sig n a ls. The output from the o s c illa to r led to (j) a loud- j speaker in the subject room. Outputs from the trig g er and three channels of the polygraph were connected to (k) an Ampex SP300 tape recorder, and output from (l) a Roberts 1670 internally modified tape recorder connected to a trig g er input. All apparatus except where indicated was located in a polygraph room, separate from the subject room. A two-way intercom and a two-way tone signal device connected the subject room and polygraph room. This system provided tracking feedback via the strobe lig h t and on-off ta rg e t feedback via the 1000 Hz o sc illa to r tone when the trigger was operated in the feedback mode. A c irc u it diagram of the trig g e r,^ the only non-commercial instrumentation used, is shown in Appendix A, Figure 2. Pi lot Study A p ilo t study was conducted before the main experiment began in order to determine: 1. The most effectiv e means of feedback presentation for training procedures. The question involved the selection of a mode of feedback that would give the most rapid alpha production tra in in g effe c ts, due to time re stric tio n s on the experiment proper. Results o f; preliminary work by Hart (1969) that grew out of photic driving research suggested th at a combination of auditory feedback (tone) of adjusted-amplitude signals and visual feedback (lig h t flic k e r) of unadjusted-amplitude signals might produce a more rapid training f e ffe c t than auditory feedback alone. It was found that auditory feedback (1000 Hz tone), adjusted j to encompass f if ty percent of the amplitude range o f a given su b ject's ■ alpha production, combined with visual feedback ( low-intens?ty light flic k e r) activated by unadjusted-amplitude signals or all a c tiv ity : in the alpha range produced much stronger training effects than auditory feedback alone. Pilot subjects reported ease in using the visual feedback, which some equated with the outer edges of a target, ! to "zero in" on the feedback tone, equated to the bullseye of the ! ta rg e t. j 2. Optimum electrode placement s i t e s . In choosing recording s ite s on the scalp from which to measure alpha production, two j important considerations were involved. F irs t, a selected s ite had to i be one from which alpha production codild be measured with the least j i 1 d ire c t interference from feedback sources. Of equal importance was ' the choice of a s ite that provided a rigorous c rite rio n of strong j alpha production. Occipitally located recording s ite s have often been used in conjunction with auditory feedback in previous studies, due primarily to the relatively high strength and frequency of occurrence of alpha rhythms in th is area of the brain. It was observed in the p ilo t study, in which both occipital and frontal electrode placements were u tiliz e d , th a t with the use of both visual and auditory feedback the photic feedback stimulus produced a -s lig h t blocking or interference effect on the EEG pattern _Ji - when alpha used for feedback was obtained from an o c c ip ita lly - positioned electrode but had minimal effects on feedback recordings taken from frontal locations. Although alpha rhythms were found to be stronger and more frequent in occipital areas, a finding supported by Morgan (1965)^ it was decided to u tiliz e the signal from a frontally-positioned electrode for input into the feedback-triggering c irc u it. Since alpha was found to be more sparse in frontal areas i than in o ccip ital ones, and p ilo t subjects reported more d iff ic u lty j i in producing and maintaining frontal alpha, it was c le a r that use of j j a frontal recording s i t e would f u lf i l l both the c r i te r i a of sufficient! I task d iffic u lty and immunity to sensory interference e ffe c ts . In spite of added d if f ic u lty of the task, the auditory-visual feedback combination induced rapid training effe c ts of frontal alpha in p ilo t subjects. i 3. Number of train in g sessions necessary to su b sta n tia lly increase alpha production. It was found that 3 to 6 half-hour training sessions were necessary to estab lish a substantial increase in alpha production in a ll p ilo t subjects. To a lle v ia te some of the boredom expressed by these subjects during the sessions a segmented training procedure was devised to replace the continuous one pre viously used. Five-minute free tr i a l s in which subjects were instructed to do anything they wanted to get control of the tone, eith er keeping i t o ff or turning it on, were interposed between five-minute te st t r i a l s in which subjects were told to keep the tone on; as much of the time as possible. Similar train in g effects were ob tained with this method. Screening Procedures Group Screening Subjects were in itia lly divided into two groups for screening, and each group was tested in two sessions on two consecutive days. Each volunteer was screened in itia lly on the Harvard Group Scale of j I Hypnotic Susceptibility (Shor & Orne, 1963)^ as well as on other tests | not relevant to the present experiment.^ A standardized tape recording ;of the Scale was administered to all subjects for uniform presentation, and an experimenter involved only in th is portion of the experiment j was responsible for scoring the Scales and sele ctin g subjects for | further screening on the basis of that score. Subjects whose Scale scores were seven or below were scheduled for further screening and j | given individual appointments. i ; ! Individual Screening j At the f i r s t individual session base rate EEG alpha pro duction was measured and hypnotic su sc e p tib ility retested for each subject. Two separate screening sessions were u tiliz e d in order to obtain a very homogeneous sample of subjects. Most previous hypnosis research that divided subjects according to s u sc e p tib ility has not made use of this practice, which estimates hypnotic su sc e p tib ility more reliably than any single measure (Evans & Orne, 1965). All individual screening sessions were conducted in the polygraph laboratory. The subject was comfortably seated inside a large Faraday cage (S'xlO 'xS1) to minimize e le c tric a l interference from external sources. The cage was in a quiet, dimly l i t room adjacent to the polygraph room that housed the feedback and measure ment equipment. All communications between the polygraph operator and subject were by intercom. Electrode placement s ite s from which all EEG measurements were made were standardized for a ll subjects and corresponded to the International 10-20 System. Locations of the four recorded channels were: channel 1, Fp2-LEar; channel 2, Fpl-LEar; channel 3, Fp2-LEar; and channel k, 02-LEar. Frontal electrodes were placed at the Frontal Pole, determined horizontally by 10% of the nasion-inion distance, measured from the nasi on, and la te ra lly by 10% of the ! i distance from the Frontal Pole midline point through the T position of the Central Line to the mid-occipital point, locations FpI and Fp2. The occipital electrode location, 02, was determined by 10% of ; this distance from the inion, but measured from the midline in back. j Subjects were f i r s t f itte d with disconnected electrodes in an I I adjoining waiting room and then were taken to the subject room and i seated. At this point, the experimenter administered the Body Sway section of the Stanford Hypnotic S uscep tib ility Scale. Form A (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959). Next, the subject was seated, electrodes were plugged into the electrode board, and a four-minute measure of base rate alpha production was taken. During th is period, j subjects were told to relax and not to move any more than necessary. j The experimenter remained in the subject room during this period, however, further instruction was from the polygraph operator via ; I intercom. F irs t, subjects were instructed to keep th e ir eyes closed while the apparatus was calibrated. After calib ratio n , the subjects were told to open th e ir eyes, to look stra ig h t ahead and to remain relaxed. During this time, base rate alpha was recorded for two minutes. Next, subjects were told to close th eir eyes again and |remain relaxed. Again, base rate alpha was recorded for two minutes. A fter base rate measures were finished, the operator signaled | j ithe experimenter with a tone, and the experimenter administered the i ; i ! i remainder of the Stanford Scale to each subject with electrodes s t i l l in place and operational. During the Scale adm inistration, the !experimenter signaled the polygraph operator at the beginning of the j ■ . i 1 [ Eye Closure, Verbal Inhibition and Amnesia sections, and two-minute ! samples of EEG recording were taken a t the beginning of each section, j Other than these samples, no EEG recording was done during the Scale ! i adm inistration. EEG data for each subject were recorded by the poly graph operator on an EEG Session Tally Sheet shown in Appendix B, Table 1. A fter the Scale was administered, the experimenter unplugged ithe electrodes from the board and led the subject to the waiting room. ;While electrodes were being unhooked, the subject fille d out a Sub je c tiv e Report Form^ like that shown in Appendix B, Table 2, in which subjects were asked to describe th e ir hypnotic experiences during the Scale administration. The Scale was administered and scored by one of three experi menters, none of whom had previous knowledge of any su b ject's per formance in the group screening session. If a su b je c t's base rate alpha production was f if ty percent of the to ta l measurement duration ■or less, and his average score on the Harvard Group Scale and Stanford IScale, Form A was seven or less, he was given an appointment for a series of six training sessions over a period o f 1-2 weeks. If his base rate alpha production was above f i f t y percent of the total duration or if his Scale scores averaged more than seven, he was eliminated from the study. A cutoff point of f if ty percent base rate alpha production precluded the possible interaction of a c e ilin g e ffect like that observed by London, Hart and Leibovitz (1968), in which no room is le ft for improvement from subsequent tra in in g e ffe c ts . A suscepti b i l i t y scale score of greater than seven is consistent with Hilgard and Weitzenhoffer's d efin itio n of "high s u s c e p tib ility " (1959). Experimental Procedures When selected subjects were scheduled for subsequent ap pointments, they were told that the study involved training in brain wave autocontrol as a method of inducing hypnotic s u sc e p tib ility and would take 10 to 20 hours to complete. For them, a rate of $2.00 per hour would be paid for th e ir p a rtic ip a tio n , but nothing was paid 19 for participation in the screening session only. All other questions at this time were answered in as much detail as possible. After the completion of in itia l screening sessions the 30 selected subjects who had met the c r ite r ia for hypnotic su sc e p tib ility and base rate alpha production were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups such th at there were 20 subjects in the experi mental group and 10 subjects in the control group. Scheduling was arranged so that the experimental subjects were run before the control subjects. All subjects underwent six training sessions, with the f i r s t five scheduled fo r 1 1/2 hours and the sixth scheduled for 2 hours. Experimental subjects were run f i r s t and received the follow ing treatment during each of the f i r s t five sessions, which were divided into a 4-minute base rate measurement and six blocks of 5-minute feedback t r i a l s . Subjects were f itte d with electrodes in a manner identical with th a t used in the individual screening session. They were then taken to the subject room and seated by the polygraph operator who attached th e ir electrodes to the electrode board. At th is point, the polygraph operator le ft the subject and returned to the polygraph room. The polygraph was calibrated and 4 minutes of base rate alpha production was recorded (2i minutes eyes open; 2 minutes eyes closed) ex actly as in the previous session. The operator then told the subject the following over the intercom: In a few moments, you will begin to see the light in front of you flash occasionally and will sometimes hear a tone over the speaker. Certain sta te s of | mind tend to keep the tone on while others seem to i shut it off. What I want you to do during the next five minutes is to try to see what controls this tone — practice shutting it off and turning it on. The light may give you information about j the tone. Do anything you want do do, then, but j don't move around any more than is absolutely j necessary. I 'l l te ll you when your time is up. j I Following th is, the operator switched on the feedback devices and timed the 5-minute interval. After th is free t r i a l , during which j to tal alpha production was measured and recorded on tape, the opera- j j tor told the subject the following: j O.K., that was good. Now, for the next five ! minutes you'll experience the same lig h t flashes | and tone, but now I want you to try to keep the j tone on as much as you possibly can. I '11 let you know when the time is up. Just stay relaxed, don't move around, and try to keep the tone on. The feedback apparatus was then made operative, and alpha production was measured and recorded on tape, as i t was for all t r i a l s of all tra in in g sessions. Following this te st t r i a l , four more 5-minute ! i t r i a l s were run in the order f r e e - te s t- f r e e - te s t, so that total tra in in g time per session was th irty minutes. Instructions for I these t r i a l s were the same as above with limited modificatioji to j avoid redundancy. During each of these sessions, EEG data were j j recorded for each subject by the polygraph operator on an EEG Session I Tally Sheet as shown in Appendix B, Table 3. After each training session subjects were led to the waiting room and electrodes were unhooked by the polygraph operator. During th is time, subjects f il l e d out a Subjective Report Form identical to the one administered ; 21 a t the end of the individual screening session, but this time subjects were asked to describe how it f e lt to keep the feedback tone on (Appendix B, Table 4). For experimental subjects, the terminal or sixth training session was scheduled for two hours. Procedures for preparing subjects were identical with those of previous training sessions, and sim ilarly, 4 minutes of base rate alpha production were recorded Following th is, subjects were given a short training session, identi cal with the previous five but consisting of twenty minutes of training (5 minutes free; 5 minutes te s t; 5 free; 5 te s t) . This was followed by 4 minutes of base rate alpha recording as done in previous sessions. A fter the training and base rate measures, the Stanford Hypnotic S u scep tib i1itv Scale. Form B (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959) was administered in a manner exactly like that used in the previous adm inistration of Form A of the Scale. Form B was always administered by a d iffe re n t experimenter than the one who gave Form A to the same subject, and a ll experimenters were blind to subject performance on Form A. For this session, polygraph operators recorded EEG data on a Tally Sheet, as shown in Appendix B Table 5. At the end of the session, while the electrodes were unhooked by the operator, each subject fille d out a Subjective Report Form describing his hypnotic experience during the Scaie administration. After a ll experimental subjects were run, two independent 22 judges not d ire c tly involved with the experiment evaluated the alpha training performance of subjects in that group. Their task was to select the subject that appeared to have shown "the most 'average' or 6 'ty p ic a l' training e ffe c t during the sessions." After that subject was selected, the tapes recorded during her training sessions were played back on the Ampex tape recorder, and the feedback channel only was recorded onto the Roberts machine. These tapes for each of the six training sessions were used as feed back for the control group and referred to as control tapes. The 10 control subjects were run next. They received t r e a t ment identical in every way with that given experimental subjects, with the singular exception that they never received any of th eir own feedback from alpha production. Instead, they were exposed to the pseudofeedback from the control tapes. After each control subject finished with a ll training sessions, he was informed that he was in a control group, and the nature of the feedback he had received was explained. Control subjects were offered the opportunity to receive "re a l" feedback for two post-experimental sess ions. CHAPTER III RESULTS i i In the present study the Independent measures under in v e sti gation were the experimental treatment (contingent feedback) versus the control treatment (noncontingent feedback), and amount of feedback training (no training versus six sessions of tra in in g ). The dependent measures were hypnotic su sc e p tib ility scores, EEG alpha production, and scores on the subjective report (Appendix C, Tables 1 and 2). All Tables and Figures referred to in this chapter are in Appendix C. For purposes of analysis it was decided to use before-and-after base rate alpha production as the dependent measure of the e ffects of training rather than session-to-session training scores since the hypotheses involved were directed toward differences between sessions and between groups, not within sessions. Also, measures of pre- and post-training base rate alpha production were believed to provide a more accurate and relia b le index of cumulative increases in alpha than would session-to-session training scores. 23 Hypotheses 1 and 2: Base Rate Alpha Production and Hypnotic Susceptibi1i tv The f i r s t hypothesis predicted that a positive relationship would be found between base rate alpha output and hypnotic suscepti b i l i t y both before and a fte r alpha train in g . The resu lts clearly supported this hypothesis. Coefficients of correlation (Hayes, 1963) were computed between base rate alpha and su sc e p tib ility scores of all subjects as shown in Appendix C, Table 3. Pre-training base rate alpha was found to be sig n ifican tly correlated with pre-train in g hypnotic suscepti b i l i t y (r = .79, p < .0 0 1 , two-tailed t e s t ) . Post-training base rate alpha and post-training hypnotic su sc e p tib ility scores were sim ilarly found to be sig n ifican tly related (jr = .65, £ < . 0 0 1 , tw o-tailed). The second hypothesis, related to the f i r s t , predicted a positive relationship between changes in base rate alpha and changes in hypnotic su sc e p tib ility , shown in Table 3. Results support this hypothes i s . The coefficient of correlation was computed between the change scores of all subjects on both dependent measures, and a s ig n ifican t Icorrelatlhon was observed (r_ « = .73, JL < .001, tw o-tailed). The average base rate production of alpha increased from 33-7 seconds per 240" to 96.4 seconds per 240" among a ll subjects, and the average s u sc e p tib ility scores changed from 3.7 to 7.0. Table 4 gives means and standard deviations for a ll groups and conditions for alpha and Table 5 gives the same for hypnotic su sc e p tib ility . 25 i i Hypothesis 3: Training Effects | I The third hypothesis predicted that training in autocontrol of alpha production would be more effectiv e in increasing alpha | i I among trainees given contingent feedback than among those given non- | I contingent feedback. The results support the third hypothesis. • i A two-way analysis of variance (Hayes, 1963) for unequal cell frequencies (Winer, 1962) was computed to te s t the over-all e ffect j of training on alpha production. The mean base rate alpha production ! for both the experimental and control conditions is presented in Table 4. A summary of the over-all analysis of variance is presented j in Table 6. | Main effects indicate that subjects increased significantly j in alpha production as a result of feedback train in g , whether they were in the contingent or pseudo feedback groups (£ = 72.33, p < .001).; Subjects in the contingent feedback group had lower mean base rates j of alpha before training and higher rates of alpha a fte r training j than did subjects in the false feedback group (Table 4), but pre- ; training differences between the subject groups are not significant (£ a 3.05, £■< .10). The interaction between training and mode of feedback is significant (Table 6; Figure l), however, which demon s tra te s that subjects in the contingent feedback group gained far more from the training sessions than did subjects in the pseudofeed back group. The relatively greater gain of subjects given accurate feed- back eventuates in sig n ific a n tly higher post-training alpha production among subjects in the contingent feedback group over that of pseudo feedback subjects. This is c learly demonstrated when covariance adjustments are made for the pre-train in g differences between the groups. Table 7 presents the results of an analysis of covariance, with pre-training alpha rate as the covariate. The adjusted post training means of the contingent and pseudo-feedback groups are re spectively 105.01 and 79. 29, which d iffe r significantly from each othe r (£ = 4.85, p < • 05). Similarly, subjects in the experimental group had lower mean hypnotic su sce p tib ility scores before training and higher scores a fte r training than control subjects (Table 5). A two-way analysis of v a ri ance to te st the over-all e ffe c t of training on hypnotic suscepti b ility (Table 8) indicates th a t the su sc e p tib ility scores of both groups rose sig n ific a n tly (F = 37.86, p < .0 1 ) . However, a covariance analysis with pre-training s u s c e p tib ility as the covariate (Table 9) shows that experimental subjects gained sig n ifican tly more than did controls (F = 4.97> £ < . 0 5 ) . Hypothesis k: Subjective Experience Subjective report data from training sessions in which a high ratio of alpha was produced were compared with those from sessions in which high hypnotic s u s c e p tib ility was measured. C riteria set for those sessions to be compared were a total alpha production of fifty percent or more during the tra in in g session or a su scep tib ility scale score o f 8 or more. There were 32 alpha training sessions and 16 scale adm inistrations that met these c r ite r ia . For purposes of analysis, the 48 Subjective Report Forms were scored as follows: Each descriptor word on each form was assigned a positive or negative weight, according to whether it tended to keep the s ta te in question on or off; the numerical weight being determined by the amount of e ffe c t indicated by the subject ( i . e . , "on" and "3" were scored +3, "off" and "I" were scored - l ) . Descriptors that were marked "dt" (d idn't try) and "ne" (no effect) were not scored. The mean and standard deviation for the weighted to tals of a ll descriptor words were calculated, and Z-scores for each descriptor were determined These data are presented in Table 2. The sp atial relationship of a ll descriptors is plotted in Figure 2. The distance of a score from the in tersect of the two coordinates indicates the total strength of a descriptor for both alpha and hypnosis. The proximity of a score to the diagonal line through the center of the plot indicates degree of relationship between a descriptor for the alpha sta te and the same descriptor for the hypnotic s ta te . A score on the diagonal line would indicate a one-to-one relationship between the alpha s ta te and the hypnotic s ta te as represented by the relevant descriptor. The over-all coefficien t of correlation for a ll 48 descriptors between alpha and hypnotic states was found to be .89, with a high level of s t a t i s t i c a l significance (p < .001, two-tailed te s t) . This degree of co rrelatio n suggests the existence of a strong relationship between the s ta te s of high alpha production and hypnosis and strongly i i i confirms the hypothesis. j Several subjective s ta te s , such as those described by j ! "relaxed," "calm," "peaceful" and "serene" appear to be p a rtic u la rly j powerful d escriptors of both the alpha and hypnotic s ta te s , while j I sta te s described by "tense," "v ig ilan t" and "fearful" seem a n tith e tic [ to them. ! Hypothesis 5 '• Alpha Production During Hypnotic Induction i t This hypothesis predicted a positive relationship between j i alpha production during hypnotic induction and hypnotic su sc e p tib ility j t as measured during that induction. Results lend support to the ! hypothesis. j The co efficien t of correlation was computed between alpha | i scores measured during pre- and post-training hypnotic s u sc e p tib ility | scales and hypnotic su sc e p tib ility as shown in Table 1. Pre-training alpha during hypnotic induction was found to be sig n ifican tly cor- j i related with p re-training hypnotic su sce p tib ility (£ = .56, £ < . 0 1 , tw o-tailed), and post-training alpha during induction and suscepti- I bi 1 i ty were also signi ficantly related (r » .61, j j _ < .001, two-tai le d ). j CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION This study yielded four main resu lts, two of which are original and two replications of previous findings by other in v e sti gators. The most important original finding is that successfully training subjects to increase th eir alpha production also succeeds in raising th eir hypnotic su sc e p tib ility . The second original finding is that pseudofeedback, although not as effectiv e as contin gent feedback, also has a positive training value, almost doubling the mean rate of alpha production from beginning to end of training. Neither of the original findings would have appeared, however, had the experiment been unable to replicate the e a r lie r findings of Kamiya (1962) and Hart (1967) on the one hand, and of London, Hart & Leibovitz (1968) on the other. Kamiya and Hart demonstrated that autocontrol of alpha output could be trained by means of auditory feedback, and London, Hart and Leibovitz found that base rate alpha production was highly correlated with hypnotic s u sc e p tib ility . Both findings underlay the design of the present experiment. 29 30 | ! The finding that increasing alpha production causes an 1 increase in measured hypnotic s u sc e p tib ility is especially important ! ' ! ; j in light of the d iffic u lty c h a ra c te ris tic a lly experienced by investi- j ! ! I gators in manipulating scores on standard hypnotic su sc e p tib ility j scales, whether by c lin ical or experimental means and whether by I ; i techniques individually adapted to the idiosyncracies of subjects or standardized for everyone. Sometahat greater success has been 1 reported in raising the su sc e p tib i1ity scores of individuals in the ; • j lower score range than in the middle or upper parts of s u sc e p tib ility j ! scales (Cooper, Banford, Schubot & Tart, 1967)> but l i t t l e success j is generally reported even there. The well known r e lia b i1ity of hypnotic su sc e p tib ility scales re fle c ts the tenacity of scores on ! them. | It is further clear, in th is connection, that it is primarily | feedback training in alpha which accounts for the increase in sus- j c e p tib ility rather than, for example, mere exposure over many sessions j to conditions that are conducive to deep hypnotic induction. Subjects! I who received contingent feedback not only improved a great deal more i ! than the control subjects in alpha production per se, but also in th e ir increased scores on the hypnotic su sc e p tib ility scale, which rose by more than twice as much as did the s u sc e p tib ility scores of the pseudofeedback group. Since both groups started in the lower two-thirds of the s u sc e p tib ility scale, the relativ e difference in improvement can hardly be a ttrib u te d to any ceiling effect, although i some improvement in both groups is almost certain ly due to : I regression toward the mean, which is a s ta t i s t i c a l consequence of | any repeated measurement. Since experimenters in the alpha training j i ! : phase and p o st-tra in in g Scale administration were blind as to ! su b je c ts' su sc e p tib ility , it is improbable that post-train in g sus- : c e p tib ility differences between groups are a result of a r t i f i c i a l | i . [ : factors inherent in the design or execution of the experiment, j Changes in e ith e r alpha production or s u sc e p tib ility scores are not e n tire ly a ttrib u ta b le to contingent feedback, on the other : . ■ I ! hand, beeause the pseudofeedback group did improve sig n ific a n tly in both respects. The reasons for its improvement are not clear. One p o s sib ility is that some portion of increased alpha production in th is group was a re su lt of accurate contingent feedback! The so- j called "pseudofeedback" presented was actually the alpha record of a subject from the contingent feedback group, and it is d if f ic u lt ; i to determine to what extent the sounding feedback tone or flashing j | light actually did correspond to the alpha production of individual j i subjects in the control group. To assure that they were actually I getting false feedback a t a ll times, it would be necessary to f i l t e r alpha in such a way that the tone only sounded when alpha was not | | being produced and never when i t was. This was not done in the present i i study. Another p o s s ib ility is that some part of the improvement in alpha production in the pseudofeedback group was a result of the relaxation training which undoubtedly did occur from one session to | the next. To the extent that this was the case, there is the sug- i j gestion that true training base rates can only be determined by j having a control group rehearse relaxation with no feedback training i I of any kind for as many sessions as another group receives contingent i i i feedback training. This would be sim ilar to but not identical with the non-feedback control group used by Hart ( I967)> but i f relaxation tra in in g were used alone, some improvement in alpha production might I be expected. This too was not done in the present study. I . ' i The record of subjective reports makes it c le a r, a t all i | events, that from the point of view of the individual 's expressed | experience, the mental states which are characterized by high alpha ; and those in which the subject demonstrates high hypnotic suscepti- i b i l i t y are v irtu a lly identical. From the data at hand i t would appear safe to conclude that the hypnotic s ta te is at least p a rtia lly a high alpha condition, and the evidence surrounding th is argument I seems to converge on it. Although this basic relation between alpha and hypnotic ; su sc e p tib i1ity has by now been repeatedly observed, the research has but begun to explore the p o s sib ilitie s of EEG feedback training in the production of altered mental s ta te s . Perhaps subjects could 'achieve complete amplitude control of brain waves through feedback. The p o ssib ility might even e x ist that D.C. potentials and phase relationships are systematically alterab le through feedback training. 33 Perhaps the slower delta and theta waves that are common in sleep also bear a meaningful rela tio n to the hypnotic s ta te . The next steps in hypnosis research seem clearly to point in these d irections. CHAPTER V SU M M A RY More than a decade of research on hypnotic su sc e p tib ility and its correlates has demonstrated repeatedly that the phenomenon, as measured by standard psychological te s ts , is very stable, on the one hand, and tends to be unrelated to standard te sts of personality, on the other. In addition, v irtu a lly a ll e ffo rts to manipulate hypnotic s u sc e p tib ility , i .e . , to increase i t , have been patent failures. Recent research has shown, however, that hypnotic su sc e p tib ility is sig n ific a n tly related to brain wave a c tiv ity as measured by the elec tro encephalograph (EEG). In p a rtic u la r, su sc e p tib ility is positively related to the duration of alpha rhythms on the EEG. In addition, independent research has also demonstrated that subjects can be taught to increase their production of alpha rhythms by means of auditory feedback signals that indicate to them when they are manifesting this rhythm. 35 j i 1 The present study sought to combine the results of these i researches for the purpose of further demonstrating the rela tio n of j hypnotic s u s c e p tib ility to EEG alpha a c tiv ity by attempting to man?pu-j ! late s u s c e p tib ility experimentally by manipulation of alpha. In I I addition, it attempted to determine whether alpha training depended i . ■ | upon accuracy of the feedback signal and whether su sc e p tib ility would j i be influenced in this connection. | ) I From among 180 volunteers, th irty adults (20 female, 10 male) j I ranging in age from 17 to 62 were selected to be subjects in the j i experiment. The th irty subjects were uniformly low in both base rate j alpha output ( f i f t y percent or lower total duration) and hypnotic I s u sc e p tib ility (lower 2/3 of the combined range of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic S u sc ep tib ility and the Stanford Hypnotic Suscepti- , b ilitv Scale. Form A). j Twenty of the subjects (experimental group) were selected a t random for alpha training with contingent or accurate feedback, and the other ten were randomly assigned to a pseudofeedback control j group where they were misled to believe that the feedback was accurate : and contingent. Actually, the feedback pattern for control subjects was the prerecorded pattern of a subject from the contingent group. Subjects in both groups then had six training sessions. In each session, the s u b je c t's operant alpha rate was measured over a four minute period, and he was then given visual and auditory feedback training for s ix periods of five minutes each. In the la st session, there were four 5-minute training periods. At the end of the sixth session, a final operant alpha measure was taken and each subject then tested individually with the Stanford Hypnotic S usceptibility Scale, Form B. During the experiment, subjects compared the sta te s of high alpha production and hypnosis on a standardized questionnaire j i of subjective experience. j I Results were assessed by correlatio n al and analysis of ! I variance techniques. They demonstrated, f i r s t , that hypnotic suscep- j i t i b i l i t y and operant alpha production are positively related. Alpha j training is sig n ifican tly effectiv e in increasing alpha production j i and in raising hypnotic su sc e p tib ility as well. Although contingent feedback, as expected, is more e ffe c tiv e in increasing both alpha j j output and hypnotic su sc e p tib ility than is pseudofeedback, the i ! la tte r is also sig n ifican tly effectiv e in its own right, since ; | control subjects showed increases in alpha and su sc e p tib ility . j i These findings were discussed with regard to the observed j | relationship between the sta te s accompanying high alpha production j i and hypnosis, altern ativ e explanations for the training effects of pseudofeedback, and p o s sib ilitie s for further research. FOOTNOTES ^The research reported here was sponsored and supported by National In s titu te of Mental Health Grants No. 1-K01-MH-12853 and Research S c ie n tist Development Award No. 1-K3-MH-31209 to Dr. Perry London, University of Southern California, and by U.S. Office of Education Grant No. 9-i^6701-23452 to Dr. Joseph T. Hart, University of C alifornia, Irvine. 2The w rite r is indebted to Dr. Joseph T. Hart for use of his laboratory f a c i l i t i e s and instruments, and for his advice, as well as that of his students, David Gould and Rich Yensen, concerning the proper use of the instruments involved. 3The trig g er used for feedback training was designed by Mr. James Humphries of the University of C alifornia, Irvine. **The other te s ts , consisting of personality, memory and ESP measures, were administered a f te r the Harvard Scale by students of Dr. Joseph Hart for research purposes unrelated to the present study. 5The Subjective Report Form was adapted from an unpublished questionnaire composed and used for research purposes on subjective components of alpha production by Dr. David Nowlis, Department of Psychology, Stanford University. ^Subject No. E 18 was selected by the judges. 37 Figure 1 Figure 2 APPENDIX A Feedback Apparatus Diagram C ircuit Diagram of Trigger 38 39 Fig. 1.—Diagram of Feedback Apparatus Ampex Tape Recorder Roberts Tape Recorder Timer Aud io Osc i 1lato r Trigger Bandpass Fi 1 te r Polygraph Signal Marker Intercom 1 Electrode Board (b) 1 Tone S i gnal Intercom Speaker Electrodes S t robe Light SUBJECT Circuit Diagram of Trigger 15 M F 50 vdc 50 vdc 200 vac 200 vac 100 Ohms 2W 20 Ohms 2W AA/V— <VSA 10 M F 350 vdc '350 vdc' 2.5K coi 1 plate \ f re 1 ay 6CL6 15 M F 50 vdc B + 1 Meg 1 Meg © 0-50 vdc ; meter] B+ 5 O K Power Supply • p- o APPENDIX B Table 1. EEG Session Tally Sheet I Table 2. Subjective Report Form (Hypnosis) Table 3. EEG Session Tally Sheet II Table 4. Subjective Report Form (Alpha) Table 5- EEG Session Tally Sheet III TABLE 1 EEG SESSION TALLY SHEET I DATE TAPE N U M BER EXPERIMENT SUBJECT NUM BER, SUBJECT N A M E CHANNEL 1 2 3 k SIGNAL TRIAL TAPE SETTING ELECTRODE PLACEM ENT N U M BER POSITION SENSITIVITY M EASUREM ENT ALPHA COUNT TIME SENSITIVITY CHANGES 2 3 k 5 6 TO TO TO TO TO TO EYES OPEN EYES CLOSED HYPNOTIC EYE CLOSURE VERBAL INHIBITION HYPNOTIC AM NESIA TABLE 2 SUBJECTIVE REPORT FO R M (HYPNOSIS) On the next page, you will find a l i s t of words or phrases that seemed effective in entering the hypnotic s ta te or in keeping from entering it in the reports of e a r lie r subjects who have gone through the same procedure. As best you can, indicate whether or not the word or phrase is relevant to producing or supressing hypnosis and to what degree, by using the following scales: Ci rcie dt if you d id n 't feel it or try it during the session. Circle ne if you f e lt it wi th no e ffect or neutral effect. It tended to keep the s ta te on or off (ci rcle one) Amount of effect, l=a l i t t l e , 2=some, 3= cons i derable (ci rcle) M f TABLE 2 — C o n tin u e d I. re 1 axed dt ne on-off 1 2 2. s t i l l dt ne on-off 1 2 3. tense dt ne on-off 1 2 4. up-tight dt ne on-off 1 2 5. peaceful ......-— dt-. ne— .... . . on-off 1 2 6. calm dt ne on-off 1 2 7. fearful dt ne on-off 1 2 8. placid dt ne on-off 1 2 9. intense dt ne on-off 1 2 10. concent rati ng dt ne on-off 1 2 11. forgiving dt ne on-off 1 2 12. leisurely dt ne on-off 1 2 13. agitated dt ne on-off 1 2 l*f. engaged in thought dt ne on-off 1 2 15. sluggish dt ne on-off 1 2 16. drowsy dt ne on-off 1 2 17. v ig ilan t dt ne on-off 1 2 18. prayerful dt ne on-off 1 2 19. clear-headed dt ne on-off 1 2 20. s t i rred-up dt ne on-off 1 2 21. expectant dt ne on-off 1 2 22. secure dt ne on-off 1 2 23. serene dt ne on-off 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 TABLE 2- -Conti nued h5 24. sexy dt ne on-off 1 2 3 25. sensual dt ne on-off 1 2 3 26. refreshed dt ne on-off 1 2 3 Was the feeling characterized by: ! 27. le ttin g go dt ne on-off 1 2 3 28. not trying dt ne on-off 1 2 3 29. fio a ti ng dt ne on-off 1 2 3| 30. day-dreami ng dt ne on-off 1 2 3 31. mi nd-wandering dt ne on-off 1 2 3 32. imagining that one is looking at something dt ne on-off I 2 3 33. holding-on dt ne on-off 1 2 3 i 34. momentary lapses of attention dt ne on-off 1 2 3 1 35. giving up dt ne on-off 1 2 3 S i 36. awareness of colors or spots under eyelids dt ne on-off 1 2 l 1 f 3 1 37. awareness of breathing dt ne on-off 1 2 3 38. awareness focused dt ne on-off 1 2 3 39. awareness unfocused dt ne on-off 1 2 3 40. awareness in past dt ne on-off 1 2 3! 41. awareness in future dt ne on-off 1 2 3 42. awareness in present dt ne on-off 1 2 3 46 TABLE 2 - - C o n ti nued 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. awareness of immediate env i ronment dt unawareness of immediate environment dt awareness darker dt awareness brighter dt spontaneity dt control dt ne ne ne ne ne ne on-off on-off on-off on-off on-off on-off 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 47 TABLE 3 EEG SESSION TALLY SHEET II TAPE N U M B ER________________ __ SUBJECT N U M BER_____________ SUBJECT N A M E________ ■ !CHANNEL ELECTRODE PLACEM ENT SENSITIVITY N U M BER POSITION 1 2 i ! 3 4 SIGNAL TAPE SETTING M EASUREM ENT ALPHA COUNT SENSITIVITY TRIAL______________________________________________TIME___________CHANGES 1 TO EYES OPEN 2 TO EYES CLOSED 3 TO FREE TRIAL 4 TO TEST TRIAL 5 TO FREE TRIAL 6 TO TEST TRIAL 7 TO FREE TRIAL 8 TO TEST TRIAL 9 TO 0 TO |DATE______ I EXPERIMENT I 48 TABLE 4 SUBJECTIVE REPORT FO R M (ALPHA) On the next page, you will find a l i s t of words or phrases that seemed e ffe c tiv e in producing the mental state that kept the tone on or suppressing the mental s ta te that kept it on in the reports of e a rlie r subjects who have gone through the same procedure. As best as you can, indicate whether or not the word or phrase is relevant to producing or supressing the tone, and to what degree, by using the following s c a le s : Ci rcle dt if you d idn't feel it or try it duri ng the session. Ci rcle ne if you fe 11 i t wi th no e ffe c t or neutral e f f e c t . It tended to keep the tone on or off (Ci rcle one) Amount of e ffe c t, l=a l i t t l e , 2=some, 3= considerable (Ci rcle) \ \ i i TABLE 4- i 1. re 1 axed dt 2 - s ti 11 dt 3. tense dt 4. up-ti ght dt 5. peaceful dt 6. calm dt 7. fearful dt 8- placid dt 9- i ntense dt 10. concentrati ng dt 11. forgiving dt 12. leisurely dt 13. agi tated dt '74. engaged in thought dt 75. sluggish dt 16. d rowsy dt 17. v ig ilan t dt 18. prayerful dt 19. clear-headed dt 2°. s ti rred-up dt 21. expectant dt 22. secure dt 23. serene dt 49 Conti nued ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off • 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 ne on-off 1 2 50 TABLE 4 — C o n ti nued 24. sexy dt ne on-off 1 2 25. sensual dt ne on-off 1 2 26. refreshed dt ne on-off 1 2 Was the feeling characterized by: 21. lettin g go dt ne on-off 1 2 28. not trying dt ne on-off 1 2 29. floating dt ne on-off 1 2 30. day-dreami ng dt ne on-off 1 2 31. mind-wanderi ng dt ne on-off 1 2 32. imagining that one is looking at somethi ng dt ne on-off 1 2 33. holdi ng-on dt ne on-off 1 2 3k. momentary lapses of attention dt ne on-off 1 2 35. giving up dt ne on-off 1 2 36. awareness of colors or spots under eyelids dt ne on-off 1 2 37. awareness breathi ng of dt ne on-off 1 2 38. awareness focused dt ne on-off 1 2 39. awareness unfocused dt ne on-off 1 2 40. awareness in past dt ne on-off 1 2 41. awareness in future dt ne on-off 1 2 42. awareness in present dt ne on-off 1 2 51 TABLE 4—Conti nued 43. awareness of Immediate environment dt ne on-off 1 2 3 44. unawareness of immediate environment dt ne on-off 1 2 3 45. awareness darker dt ne on-off 1 2 3 46. awareness brighter dt ne on-off 1 2 3 47. spontaneity dt ne on-off 1 2 3 48. control dt ne on-off 1 2 3 52 TABLE 5 EEG SESSION TALLY SHEET 11 D ATE TAPE N U M BER EXPERIMENT CHANNEL 1 2 3 4 SUBJECT NUM BER. SUBJECTSNAME__ ELECTRODE PLACEM ENT N U M BER POSITION SENSITIVITY SIGNAL TRIAL TAPE SETTING M EASUREM ENT 1 TO FREE TRIAL 2 TO TEST TRIAL 3 TO FREE TRIAL k TO TEST TRIAL 5 TO EYES OPEN 6 TO EYES CLOSED 7 TO HYPNOTIC EYE CLOSURE 8 TO VERBAL INHIBITION 9 TO HYPNOTIC AMNESIA 10 TO ALPHA COUNT SENSITIVITY TIME_________ APPENDIX C Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table k. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Figure 1 Figure 2 Basic Data Subjective Report Scores Pre- and Post-Training Scores Mean Base Rate Alpha Production Mean Hypnotic S usceptibi1ity Scores Analysis of Variance, Base Rate Alpha Analysis of Covariance, Post-Training Alpha Analysis of Variance, Base Rate Hypnotic Susceptibi1i ty Analysis of Covariance, Post-Training Hypnotic S uscep tib ility Profiles of Alpha Production Spatial Representation of Subjective Descriptors 53 54 TABLE 1 BA S IC D A TA Code 1 Group: Experimental (E) and Control (C); Subject Number 2 Subject Age 3 Subject Sex 4 Harvard Group Scale Susceptibility Score 5 Stanford Scale, Form A S u sc ep tib ility Score 6 Stanford Scale, Form B S u scep tib ility Score 7 Pre-Training Base Rate Alpha Production (Seconds per 240") 8 Total Measured Alpha During Administration Of Stanford Scale, Form A (Seconds Per 360") 9 Session 1: Base Rate Alpha (Seconds Per 240") / Total Of Training Session Alpha Production (Seconds Per 900") 10 Session 2: Base Rate Alpha (Seconds Per 240") / Total Of Training Session Alpha Production (Seconds Per 900") 11 Session 3: Base Rate Alpha (Seconds Per 240") / Total Of Training Session Alpha Production (Seconds Per 900") 12 Session 4: Base Rate Alpha (Seconds Per 240") / Total Of Training Session Alpha Production (Seconds Per 900") 13 Session 5: Base Rate Alpha (Seconds Per 240") / Total Of Training Session Alpha Production (Seconds Per 900") 14 Session 6: Base Rate Alpha (Seconds Per 240") / T o t a l Of Training Session Alpha Production (Seconds Per 600") 15 Total Measured Alpha During Administration Of Stanford Scale, Form B (Seconds Per 360") TABLE 1 BASIC D A TA 1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BR BR/TOT BR/TOT BR/TOT BR/TOT BR/TOT BR/TOT E 1 35 F 6 6 9 25 73 00/287 29/320 18/515 8/230 55/387 HO/298 67 E 2 19 F 3 0 11 10 17 68/173 2/ 39 20/134 55/249 116/274 100/149 128 E 3 44 F 3 2 4 10 0 21/143 25/159 85/241 61/128 52/175 61/155 117 E 4 19 M 5 5 1 1 62 136 113/345 71/419 130/462 28/ 87 71/311 136/351 245 E 5 43 F 3 3 5 27 116 60/262 157/592 134/519 85/555 76/240 148/419 245 E 6 45 F 3 2 6 2 2 18/100 22/138 41/159 91/300 82/478 120/300 100 E 7 33 F 7 6 8 47 51 56/261 61/420 112/335 138/584 93/555 78/342 154 E 8 19 M 5 6 8 49 46 159/336 147/468 50/402 164/410 32/298 81/286 159 E 9 46 F 4 4 4 33 73 19/260 20/250 53/366 41/415 42/315 38/160 111 E 10 21 M 3 2 9 19 54 113/463 122/362 116/398 59/188 93/203 132/329 213 TABLE 1— Cont i nued 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BR 8 9 BR/TOT 10 BR/TOT 11 BR/TOT 12 BR/TOT 13 BR/TOT 14 BR/TOT 15 E 11 44 F 1 1 11 17 11 40/341 104/580 69/619 132/599 125/604 177/474 252 E 12 36 M 6 5 8 37 14 3/ 88 3/ 99 14/150 27/179 58/113 83/149 148 E 13 62 M 0 0 2 5 36 47/181 18/178 83/473 46/271 65/302 39/213 77 E 14 22 F 2 1 4 22 26 103/449 108/343 115/452 122/466 138/624 118/356 142 E 15 54 F 5 7 10 53 25 17/ 84 68/224 21/113 14/ 70 27/114 73/272 197 E 16 43 F 5 4 8 47 20 47/341 73/307 5/409 42/360 64/372 130/389 113 E 17 51 F 4 2 7 25 33 22/324 104/353 111/496 157/624 152/534 104/211 170 E 18 21 F 5 6 9 38 48 38/331 60/365 61/406 84/431 108/460 122/327 197 E 19 24 M 1 0 6 12 0 81/300 116/434 135/517 71/348 128/436 116/368 239 E 20 26 F 3 4 9 27 97 17/196 20/280 86/368 103/347 114/496 106/429 220 TAB LE 1 — C o n tin u e d ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BR BR/TOT BR/TOT BR/TOT BR/TOT BR/TOT BR/TOT C 21 23 M 6 5 8 39 156 49/362 81/460. 20/237 71/358 73/493 105/393 201 C 22 52 F 1 5 6 28 23 29/ 66 41/676 30/145 36/593 43/422 47/278 67 c 23 39 F 2 3 3 14 0 24/314 21/246 37/601 35/364 40/321 35/229 57 C 24 36 F 5 3 6 23 58 81/125 43/424 54/305 68/428 89/471 111/201 188 c 25 37 F 3 2 2 2 7 23/664 31/439 55/275 30/310 12/431 29/ I 69 51 C 26 21 M 6 7 9 107 98 82/436 81/543 47/356 78/388 101/460 152/249 116 c 27 27 M 2 2 3 11 14 26/211 21/331 36/275 19/193 48/382 47/169 82 C 28 23 M 5 6 6 83 113 62/316 102/533 40/401 48/ 76 71/214 81/236 143 c 29 J7 F 6 7 9 91 137 49/466 100/302 93/278 74/463 113/279 117/218 182 C 30 46 F 5 6 10 46 89 51/266 50/703 98/619 71/626 67/543 97/401 272 TABLE 2 SUBJECTIVE REPORT SCORES ALPHA HYPNOSIS NU M BER SCORE SCORE DESCRIPTOR (Z-SCORE) (Z-SCORE)________ 1. Relaxed 46 (2.31) 30 (1.68) 2. S till 31 (1.32) 24 (1.23) 3. Tense -J2(-1.82) -32(-2.95) 4. Up-tight 10(-0.05) -_4(-0.86) 5. Peaceful 46 (2-31) 2Z (1-46) 6. Calm 44 (2.17) 31 (1.76) 7. Fearful -_Z(-1-17) -21(-2.28) 8. Placid ±2. (0.93) 1Z (0.71) 9. 1ntense 11 (0.01) _ 6 ( -0 .11) 10. Concentrati ng 13 (0.15) 21 (1.01) FOR ALL SUBJECTS N U M BER DESCRIPTOR ALPHA SCORE (Z-SCORE) HYPNOSIS SCORE (Z-SCORE) 11. Forgiving 10(-0.05) — _l(-0.64) 12. Leisurely 18 (0.47) 10 (0.19) 13. Agitated -_Z(-1.I7) -_ 3 (-0 .79) 14. Engaged in thought 10(-0.05) _2(90.4l) 15. Sluggish - _ 6 (- l.10) -_4(-0.86) 16. Drowsy -_L(-0.77) 10 ( 0. 19) 17. Vigilant -14(-1.62) -_L Z.( -1.83) 18. Prayerful Jj0(-0.05) _8 (0.04) 19. Clear-headed 13. (0.15) 16 (0.64) TABLE 2 — C o n ti nued N U M BER DESCRIPTOR ALPHA SCORE (Z-SCORE) HYPN0S1S SCORE (Z-SCORE) N U M BER DESCRIPTOR ALPHA SCORE (Z-SCORE) HYPNOSIS SCORE (Z-SCORE) 20. Sti rred-up -12 (-1.50) -_4(-0.86) 30. Day-dreami ng 16 (0.34) _1 (0.11) 21. Expectant 2(-0.58) _0(-0.56) 31. M i nd- 22 (0.74) 26 (1.38) wanderi ng 22. Secure 12 (0.40) 11 (0.26) 32. Looking at 23. Serene 11 (1.45) 28 (1.53) somethi ng _Z.(-0.25) 14 (0.49) 24. Sexy _Z(-0.25) _0(-0.56) 33. Holding-on _4(-0.44) -_2(-0.7l) 25. Sensual _Z(-0.25) 2(-0.4l) 34. Lapses of -12(-1.50) ' attention -_3(-0.78) 26. Refreshed _ l ( - 0 . 12) J ii-O .O k) - _ 2 (- l.03) -_2(-0.7l) 35. Giving up 27. Letting go 28 (1.13) 21 (1.61) 36. Colors or 28. Not trying _6 (— 0.31) _3(-0.34) spots under eyelids _6(-0.3l) _8 (0.04) 29. Floati ng 23 (0.80) 11 (0.86) TABLE 2 — C o n tin u e d N U M B E R D E S C R I P T O R A L P H A SCORE (Z-SCORE) H Y P N O S I S SCORE (Z-SCORE) N U M BER DESCRIPTOR ALPHA SCORE (Z-SCORE) HYPN0S1S SCORE (Z-SCORE) 23. (0.80) J6. (0.64) 44. Unawareness of immediate envi ronment 21 (0.28) 13 (0.41) 21 (0.28) 21 (0.86) 45. Awareness darker _l(-0.38) _0(-0.56) _2(-0.58) _1(-0.19) 46. Awareness brighter -_2(-0.84) -_2(-0.7l) -_4(-0.97) _0(-0.56) 47. Spontaneity _!(-0.12) _4(-0.26) _0(-0.7l) -_L(-0.64) 48. Control 31 U.32) 24 (1.23) 11 (1.^5) 28 (0.78) M EA N ALPHA SCORE = S.D. = 10.79 15.27 -_2(-0.84) _L(-0.49) M EA N HYPNOSIS S.D. = 7.50 13.38 37. Awareness of breathi ng 38. Awareness focused 39. Awareness unfocused 40. Awareness in past 41. Awareness in future 42. Awareness in present 43. Awareness immediate envi ronment TABLE 3 PRE- A N D POST-TRAININGi BASE RATE ALPHA A N D HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS ALPHA SCORE HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCORE Pre- Post Pre-Training Post-Training Subject Training Tra i n i ng Change Hypnotic Hypnotic Change Number Base Rate Base Rate Score S u sceptibility S uscep tib ility Score E 1 25 110 +85 6 9 +3 E 2 10 100 +90 0 11 +11 E 3 10 61 +51 2 4 +2 E 4 62 136 +74 5 11 +6 E 5 27 148 +121 3 5 +2 E 6 2 120 +118 2 6 +4 E 7 47 78 +31 6 8 +2 E 8 49 81 +32 6 8 +2 E 9 33 38 +5 4 4 0 E10 19 132 +113 2 9 +7 Ell 17 177 +160 1 11 +10 E12 37 83 +46 5 8 +3 El 3 5 39 +34 0 2 +2 El4 22 118 +96 1 4 +3 E15 53 73 +20 7 10 +3 E16 47 130 +83 4 8 +4 E17 25 104 +79 2 7 +5 E18 38 122 +84 6 9 +3 TABLE 3— C o n tin u e d ALPHA SCORE HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCORE Pre- Post Pre-Training Post-Training ubject Training Trai ning Change Hypnotic Hypnotic Change umber Base Rate Base Rate Score S uscep tib ility S uscep tib ility Score E19 12 116 +104 0 6 +6 E20 27 106 +79 4 9 +5 C21 39 105 +66 5 8 +3 C22 28 47 +19 5 6 +1 C23 14 35 +21 3 3 0 C24 23 111 +88 3 6 +3 C25 2 29 +27 2 2 0 C26 107 152 +45 7 9 +2 C27 11 47 +36 2 3 + 1 C28 83 81 -2 6 6 0 C29 91 117 +26 7 9 +2 C30 46 97 +51 6 10 +4 TOTAL 1011 2893 +1882 112 211 +99 M EA N 33.70 96.43 62.73 3.73 7.03 3.30 S.D. 25.44 37.44 38.58 2.23 2.67 2.62 63 TABLE 4 M EA N BASE RATE ALPHA PRODUCTION (IN SECONDS) PER FOUR M INUTE PERIOD FOR ALL SUBJECTS A N D CONDITIONS Group SessIon Chanqe Pre-Traininq X S.D. Post-T raini nq X S.D. X S.D. Conti ngent Feedback (N = 20) 28.35 16.61 103.60 34.47 75.25 38.23 Pseudo Feedback (N = 10) 44.40 34.89 82.10 38.97 37.70 24.54 All Subjects (N = 30) 33.70 25.44 96.43 37.43 62.73 38.58 64 TABLE 5 M EA N HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS AND CONDITIONS i Group Sess_ion____________ Pre-Trai ning Post-T rai ninq ______________X ______ S.D.________X S.D. i I Contingent I Feedback 3.30 2.24 7.43 2.56 4.15 2.69 j (N = 20) i Pseudo Feedback 4.60 1.86 6.20 2.68 1.60 1.36 (N = 10) Change X S.D. All Subjects (N = 30) 3.73 2.21 7.03 2.67 3.30 2.62 65 TABLE 6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF BASE RATE ALPHA PRODUCTION FOR ALL SUBJECTS A N D CONDITIONS Source SS d_f M S . F Between Subjects 29 Mode of Feedback (A) 98.99 1 98.99 .07 Error (Between) 39,015.75 28 1,393.42 Within Subjects 30 Training Effect (B) 45,524.60 1 45,524.60 ***72.33 A x B 4,699.90 1 4,699.90 *7.47 Error (Within) 17,622.90 28 629.39 * P < . 05 *** p < .001 i TABLE 7 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF POST-TRAINING ALPHA PRODUCTION FOR ALL SUBJECTS A N D CONDITIONS Source SS df M S F 38,319.07 28 5,838.69 1 5,838.69 *4.85 32,480.38 27 1,202.98 Total Treatments Error 67 TABLE 8 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS AND CONDITIONS Source SS df M S F Between Subjects 29 Mode o f Feedback (A) .01 1 .01 0 Error (Between) 255.68 28 9.13 Within Subjects 30 Training Effect (B) 110.19 1 110.19 **37.86 A x B 21.67 1 21.67 *7.44 Error (Within) 81.48 28 2.91 * p < . 05 ** £ < • 68 TABLE 9 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF POST-TRAINING HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS A N D CONDITIONS Source SS df M S. F Total 173.09 28 Treatments 26.90 1 26.90 *4.97 E rror 146.19 27 5.41 * p < .05 69 Fig. 1.—Profiles of Alpha Production Before and After Training 50% 120 Cont i ngent Feedback Pseudo Feedback 100 (82) 80 Mean Base Rate '25% A1 pha Production (Percent) Mean Base Rate Alpha 80 Production (Seconds) (2 8 ) 20 Pre- Post- Training Training Fig. 2 . —Spatial Representation of Relative Strength of Des crip to rs for Subjective Experiences of Hypnosis and Alpha Production 2 - . Alpha (Z-Score) Z67 *?5l { , ZU Hypnosis (Z-score) LIST OF REFERENCES • As, A., Hilgard, E. R. and Weitzenhoffer, A. M . An attempt at experimental modification of hypnotizabi1ity through repeated individualized hypnotic experience. Scandi navian Journal of Psychology. 1963, 4, 81-89. Barber, T. X. and Calverley, D. S. Toward a theory of hypnotic behavior: experimental evaluation of H ull's postulate that hypnotic s u sc e p tib ility is a habit phenomenon. Journal of Personal itv. 1966, j|4, 416-433. Barker, W . and Burgwin, Susan. Brain wave patterns accompanying changes in sleep and wakefulness during hypnosis. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1948, H), 317— 326. Barker, W . and Burgwin, Susan. Brain wave patterns during hypnosis, hypnotic sleep, and normal sleep. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry. 1949* (&, 412-420. Blum, G. S. Programming people to simulate machines. In Tomkins, S. S. and Messick, S. (Eds.) Computer simulation of p erso n alitv . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963. Chertok, L. and Kramarz, P. Hypnosis, sleep and electroencepha lography. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1959* 128. 227-238. Cooper, L. M., Banford, Suzanne A., Schubot, E. and Tart, C. T. A fu rth er attempt to modify hypnotic su sc e p tib ility through repeated individualized experience. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 1967* Jib 118-124. Davis, L. W . and Husband, R. W . A study of hypnotic s u s c e p tib ility in relatio n to personality t r a i t s . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1931, 26, 175-182. 71 I Dynes, J. B. Objective method for distinguishing sleep from the head | hypnotic trance. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry. 1947* | 84-93. | Edmonston, W . E. Stimulus-response theory of hypnosis. In J. E. ! Gordon (Ed.), Handbook of c iin ic a i and experimental hypnosis. | New York: Macmillan, 1967* Evans, F. J. and Orne, M . T. Motivation, performance and hypnosis^ International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 1965, 12, 103-116. i ; Faw, V. and Wilcox, W . W . Personality characteristics of susceptible and unsusceptible hypnotic subjects. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 1958. 6, 83-94. I Ford, W . L. and Yeager, C. L. Changes in the electroencephalogram in subjects under hypnosis. Diseases of the Nervous System. ; 1948, 2, 190-192. Friedlander, J. W . and Sarbin, T. R. The depth of hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1938, 2sb 453-475. G ill, M . M . and Brenman, Margaret. Hypnosis and related sta te s: Psychoanalytic §tudies in regression. New York: In te r national U niversities Press, 1959. Goldman, D. The e ffe c t of rhythmic auditory stimulation on the human electroencephalogram. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophvsioloqy, 1952, 4, 370. (Abstract). Hart, J. T. Autocontrol of EEG alpha. Paper presented a t Meeting of j the Society for Psychophysiological Research, San Diego, I October, 1967. ! ; Hart, J. T. Personal communication. May, 1969- j Hayes, W . L. S ta tis tic s for psychologists. New York: Holt, ! Rinehart and Winston, 1963. j ; | t Hilgard, E. R. Hypnotic s u s c e p tib ility . New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965. ; - I Hilgard, E. R. Individual differences in hypnotizabi1ity. In J. E. Gordon (Ed.), Handbook of c lin ic a l and experimental hypnosis, j New York: Macmillan, 1967- 73 j Hilgard, E. R., Wei tzenhoffer, A. M . and Gough, P. Individual ! differences in su sc e p tib ility to hypnosis. Proceedings of the I National Academy of Science. 1958, 44, 1255-1259. ; Kamiya, J. Conditioned discrimination of the EEG alpha rhythm in humans. Abstract of paper presented at Meetings of Western Psychological Association, San Francisco, May, 1962. I ' Kamiya, J. Conscious control of brain waves. Psychology Today. | 1968, 1, 57-60. ; Kramer, E. and Brennen, E. P. Hypnotic su sc e p tib ility of schizo phrenic patients. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. | 1964, 6% 657-659. ; London, P. Hypnosis in children: an experimental approach. Inter- national Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 1962, I UL, 79-91* ! j i London, P. Developmental experiments in hypnosis. Journal of Pro- j iective Technigues and Personality Assessment. 1965, 2£b 189-199. j London, P. The induction of hypnosis. In J . E. Gordon (Ed.), J Handbook of c lin ic a l and experimental hypnosis. New York: Macmillan, 1967. I London, P., Cooper, L. M . and Johnson, H. Subject c h a ra c te ristic s in hypnosis research. II. Attitudes toward hypnosis, volunteer status and personality measures. III. Some co rrelates of ' hypnotic su sc e p tib ility . International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 1962, 13-21. j i London, P., Hart, J. and Leibovitz, M . EEG alpha rhythms and hypnoticj s u sc e p tib ility . Nature. 1968, 219. 71-72. j London, P. and Rochman, G. Untitled mimeographed paper, Department j of Psychology, University of Southern C alifornia, Los Angeles,; 1967. | Loomis, A. L., Harvey, E. N., and Hobart, G. Brain potentials during j hypnosis. Science. 1936, 8 ^ 239-241. j Melei, Janet and Hilgard, E. R. A ttitude toward hypnosis, s e l f predictions, and hypnotic s u sc e p tib i1ity. International j Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 1964, 12. 99-108. Morgan, C. T. Physiological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Nowlis, D. P. and Rhead, J C. Relation of eyes-closed resting EEG alpha a c tiv ity to hypnotic s u sc e p tib ility . Perceptual and Motor S k ills. 1968, 22, 1047-1050. Orne, M . T. The demand c h a ra c te ris tic s of an experimental design and th eir implications. Paper presented at Meetings of American Psychological Association, Cincinnati, September, 1959. Orne, M . T. On the social psychology of the psychological experi ment: with p a rtic u la r reference to demand characteristics and th eir implications. American Psychologist. 1962, 17. 776-783. Rosenhan, D. and Tomkins, S. S. On preference for hypnosis and hypnotizabi1ity. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 1964, ]2_, 109-114. Sachs, L. B. and Anderson, W . L. The modification of hypnotic j su sc e p tib ility . International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 1967, JJL, 172-180. j i Sanders, R. S. and Reyher, J. Sensory deprivation and the enhance ment of hypnotic s u s c e p tib ility . Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1969, Zib 375-381. Sarbin, T. R. and Madow, L. W . Predicting the depth of hypnosis by means of the Rorschach te s t. American Journal of Ortho- | psychiatry. 1942. 12, 268-271. j I Schafer, R. A study of personality c h aracteristics related to hypno- j tiz a b ility . Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, 1947. ! Schneck, J. M . Psychosomatic reactions to the induction of hypnosis. Diseases of the Nervous System. 1952, JJb 118-121. Schulman, R. E. and London, P. Hypnotic su sc e p tib ility and M M PI pro- j file s . Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1963, 2]_, 157— 160. i 1 Shor, R. E. and Orne, Emily C. Harvard group scale of hypnotic | su sc e p tib ility . Form A: An adaptation for group adm inistra tion with s e lf report scoring of the Stanford hypnotic sus- ! c e p tib iiitv scale. Form A. Palo Alto, California: Con sulting Psychologists Press, 1963. Shor, R. E., Orne, M . T. and O'Connell, D. N. Validation and cross validation of a scale*of self-rep o rted personal experi ences which predicts hypnotizabi1?ty. Journal of Psychology. 1962, £2, 55-75. Stukat, K. G. Suggestibility: A fa c to ria l and experimental an aly sis. Stockholm: Almqvist andW iksall, 1958. True, R. M . and Stephenson, C. W . Controlled experiments correlating electroencephalogram, pulse and planter reflexes with hypnotic age regression and induced emotional s ta te s . In Kline, M . V. (Ed.) Clinical co rrelations of experimental hypnosis. Springfield, Illin o is : Charles C. Thomas, 1963. Weitzenhoffer, A. M . Hypnotism: an objective study in suggesti b i l i t y . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1953. Weitzenhoffer, A. M . and Hilgard, E. R. Stanford Hypnotic Suscepti b i l i t y Scale. Forms A and B. Palo Alto. C a lif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959. Weitzenhoffer, A. M . and Weitzenhoffer, Geneva B. Sex, transference, and su sc e p tib ility to hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hvpnosis. 1958, 15-24. Winer, B. J. S ta tis tic a l principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Wiseman, R. J. and Reyher, J. A. A procedure utilizing dreams for deepening the hypnotic trance. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis. 1962, £, 105-110.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Effect Of Dissonance In Self-Esteem On Susceptibility To Social Influence

PDF

The Effects Of Nonreward Dissonance And Secondary Reward On Extinction And Attractiveness

PDF

Imagery And Response Styles In Desensitization

PDF

Experimenter Expectancy Effect Examined As A Function Of Task Ambiguity And Internal Versus External Control Of Reinforcement

PDF

Effects Of Group Behavior Therapy Imagery On Basketball Performance

PDF

The Effects Of Anxiety And Threat On Self-Disclosure

PDF

The Effects Of A Self Shock Procedure On Hallucinatory Activity In Hospitalized Schizophrenics

PDF

The Effects Of Justice, Balance, And Hostility On Mirth

PDF

The Effects Of Sex, Assigned Therapist Or Peer Role, Topic Intimacy, And Expectations Of Partner Compatibility On Dyadic Communication Patterns

PDF

Effects Of Video Tape Feedback Versus Discussion Session Feedback On Group Interaction, Self Awareness And Behavioral Change Among Group Psychotherapy Participants

PDF

Transfer Of The Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect Across Tasks In Normal And Retarded Boys

PDF

Wechsler Scores Vs. Piaget Levels: A Study Of The Cognitive Efficiency Ofinstitutionalized Retardates

PDF

Hypnotic Susceptibility, Achievement Motivation, And The Treatment Of Obesity

PDF

An Application Of A Two-Stage 'Attention' Model To Concept Formation In The Mentally Retarded

PDF

Non-Specific Treatment Factors And Deconditioning In Fear Reduction

PDF

Prognostic Expectancy Effects In The Desensitization Of Anxiety Over Invasion Of Body Buffer Zones

PDF

Human Operant Eye Blink Conditioning, Awareness, And The Extraversion-Introversion Dimension Of Personality

PDF

The Effect Of Conditions Of Risk, Internal Versus External Control Of Reinforcement, And Sex On Binary Choice Probability Learning

PDF

Verbal Reports Of Emotional States And Onsets And Offsets Of Conditioned Stimuli

PDF

Relationship Between Perceptual Style, Achievement, And Childrearing Practices In Elementary-School Boys And Girls

Asset Metadata

Creator Engstrom, David Ralph (author)

Core Title The Enhancement Of Eeg - Alpha Production And Its Effects On Hypnotic Susceptibility

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, clinical

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor London, Perry (committee chair), De Nike, L. Douglas (committee member), Wexler, Murray (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-435345

Unique identifier UC11363035

Identifier 7026521.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-435345 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7026521

Dmrecord 435345

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Engstrom, David Ralph

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA