Milton Erickson - Complete Works.pdf - Milton Erickson - enigma72

Initial Experiments Investigating the Nature of Hypnosis

Milton H. Erickson

Reprinted with permission from The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis , October,

1964, 7, 152-162.

INTRODUCTION

During the 1923-24 formal Seminar on Hypnosis at the University of Wisconsin under

the supervision of Clark L. Hull, the author, then an undergraduate student, reported for

the discussion by the postgraduate students of the psychology department upon his own

many and varied experimental investigative findings during the previous six months of

intensive work and on his current studies. There was much debate, argument and

discussion about the nature of hypnosis, the psychological state it constituted, the

respective roles of the operator and the subject, the values and significances of the

processes employed in induction, the nature of the subjects' responses in developing

trances, the possibility of transcendence of normal capabilities, the nature of regression,

the evocation of previously learned patterns of response whether remote or recent, the

processes involved in individual hypnotic phenomenon and in the maintenance of the

trance state, and above all the identification of the primary figure in the development of

the trance state, be it the operator or the subject. The weekly seminars were scheduled for

two hours each, but usually lasted much longer, and frequently extra meetings were

conducted informally in evenings and on weekends and holidays, with most of the group

in attendance.

No consensus concerning the problems could be reached, as opinions and individual

interpretations varied widely, and this finally led the author to undertake a special

investigative project in October 1923. This special study has remained unpublished,

although it was recorded in full at the time, as were many other studies. One of the

reasons for the decision not to publish at that time was the author's dubiousness

concerning Hull's strong conviction that the operator, through what he said and did to the

subject, was much more important than any inner behavioral processes of the subject.

This was a view Hull carried over into his work at Yale, one instance of which was his

endeavor to establish a “standardized technique” for induction. By this term he meant the

use of the same words, the same length of time, the same tone of voice, etc., which finally

eventuated in an attempt to elicit comparable trance states by playing "induction

phonograph records" without regard for individual differences among subjects, and for

their varying degrees of interest, different motivations, and variations in the capacity to

learn. Hull seemed thus to disregard subjects as persons, putting them on a par with

inanimate laboratory apparatus, despite his awareness of such differences among subjects

that could be demonstrated by tachistoscopic experiments. Even so, Hull did demonstrate

that rigid laboratory procedures could be applied in the study of some hypnotic

phenomena.

Recently published papers concerning the realities of hypnosis have led to a rereading

and analysis of the author's notebooks in which numerous unpublished studies were fully

recorded. (Credit for this practice should be given to Dr. Hull, and the author often

wonders what happened to the bookshelves of notebooks which Dr. Hull himself

maintained, full of his own unpublished studies.) The rereading of this material produced

the data upon which this paper is based, permitting this report on experimental

investigations into some of the apparent misunderstandings of hypnosis which are still

variously accepted without careful critical thinking.

EXPERIMENTAL PLAN

As originally planned and executed, this early experiment to secure some of the answers

to the intriguing questions confronting the seminar group was so organized that it did not

involve the use of hypnosis. Rather, it was based upon a consideration of the concepts of

introspection developed by E. B. Titchener, Wilhelm Wundt, W. B. Pillsbury, and others,

and was organized as a direct inquiry into these concepts as a possible initial approach to

a later identification of hypnosis or of some of its phenomena. A central consideration in

the proposed experimental project was suggested by the well-known Biblical saying, “As

a man thinketh in his heart, so is he,” a point made in the seminar discussions by several

of the discussants. Professor Joseph Jastrow, who was then head of the psychology

department, aided and advised the author in his plan of experimentation. Jastrow himself

was only slightly interested in hypnosis, but he was interested in the author as a student.

Hull was not consulted, nor did he know of the experiment until it was completed.

SUBJECT SELECTION

The securing of subjects was relatively easy, since any college population offers a wealth

of volunteers. Two elements of selectivity were employed. All students taking

psychology were excluded. All students who were acquainted with the author were

excluded for the reason that they might know that he was interested in hypnosis. Both

male and female undergraduates were employed, most of them by mere chance being

sophomores. Among them there was a predominance of agricultural, home economics,

engineering, commerce, and liberal art students, with an approximately even distribution

of sex, and of comparable ages.

To these students individually, using prepared typewritten material, a plausible,

somewhat interesting, but definitely superficial explanation was given of the concept of

“introspection.” A comparably carefully worded invitation was extended to each of them

to participate in an experiment; this embraced the idea that the experimenter proposed to

do research consisting of “discovering the processes of thought in thinking through from

beginning to end any specified task.” As an illustrative example, it was pointed out that

people know the alphabet and can recite it fluently. However, the majority of those same

people cannot recite the alphabet backward correctly from Z to A except by a slow

“back-and-forth process of thinking.” To those who promptly demonstrated that they

could recite the alphabet backward easily, a second example was offered, namely, the

extreme difficulty that would be encountered in reciting backward the entire nursery

rhyme of, “Mary had a little lamb —.”

It was then explained that a much simpler task was in mind for them to do, and they were

earnestly asked not to do any reading of Titchener's "work on thought processes"

(Titchener's name was repeatedly mentioned to discover any previous awareness of his

work, to emphasize "thought processes," and to distract their attention from the word

"introspection ").

They were individually apprised of the possibility that the task might take from one half

to two hours, and a clock was indicated in full view, running silently, located directly in

front of them on a shelf on the laboratory wall. The experimenter, it was explained,

would sit quietly behind a screen some 12 feet to the rear and would not be visible; he

could be spoken to or questioned if the desire or need arose, but it was preferred that the

task once begun be done in complete silence, so that there would be no distractions or

interferences.

What the subjects did not know or observe was that a mirror was so arranged carelessly

among odds and ends in a jumble of laboratory apparatus so that the author had a full

view of the subjects' faces by means of an obscure peephole concealed by the patterned

design on the screen.

From a typewritten copy each subject was separately given the following instructions:

“You are to seat yourself in this chair comfortably, just looking straight ahead.

With your eyes open you are to imagine that there is a small table standing beside

the right (left in the case of those left-handed) arm of the chair. Your arms are to

be resting comfortably in your lap. On that imaginary small table you will

imagine that there is a large fruit bowl filled with apples, pears, bananas, plums,

oranges, or any other kind of fruit you like, but do not turn your head to look in

that direction. All of this imaginary fruit you can imagine as being in easy reach

of your hand resting in your lap.

Next you are to imagine a table of normal height on the bare floor just in front of

you, just far enough away so that you would have to lean a little forward to place

anything on it.

Now the task to be done is for you to sit in the chair looking straight ahead and

mentally go through the processes step by step and in correct order of thinking at

a mental level only of the task of lifting your hand up from your lap, of reaching

up over the arm of the chair, of feeling elbow and shoulder movements, the lateral

extension of your arm, the slight lowering of your hand, the touching of the fruit,

the feel of the fruit, the selection of any one piece, of closing your fingers on it,

lifting it, sensing its weight, moving your hand with the fruit up, back over the

arm of the chair and then placing it on that imaginary table in front of you. That is

all you have to do, just imagine the whole thing. If your eyes get tired or if you

can think your thought processes out more clearly with them shut, just close them.

You should expect to make errors in getting each step in the right order, and you

will have to pause and think back just as you would in trying to think the alphabet

(or the nursery rhyme) backward, and it is only reasonable that you will make

mistakes and have to go back and start over again. Just take your time, and do it

carefully, silently, really noting each of your thought processes. If you wish, I will

reread these instructions, and you may realize that perhaps you might have such a

thought as first picking up an apple and then changing your mind and deciding to

pick up an orange. [All subjects wanted a second reading, some a third.]

Now that the instructions are clear, let's look at the bulletin board on the wall over

there, and when the minute hand of the clock is directly on one of the numerals of

the clock face, we will both take our positions and the experiment will begin.”

THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

There were three general types of results obtained from a total of 63 subjects. These may

be classified for the purpose of discussion into three general categories: none; fright

reactions; and full participation.

Concerning the first category, which included 18 subjects, they became restless,

demanded further repetitions of instructions, and finally declared their total disinterest in

the entire project, declaring that they could not do it, that it did not seem to make any

sense, or simply that they were no longer interested in participating. Engineering and

agriculture students predominated in this group. The author's tentative conclusion was

that such students preferred concrete realities to abstract imagining.

The second category, including 13 students, was much more interesting. They became

frightened even to a state of panic, interrupted the experiment to demand reassurance, and

finally refused to continue. (Unfortunately no personality studies had been done on them,

nor did the author then have enough clinical experience to appraise them as

personalities.)

Their reactions were described variously by them, but usually concerned uncontrollable

and involuntary upward movements of the dominant hand; peculiar numb sensations of

the legs, a feeling of rigidity of the body, and a blurring or closing of the eyes that they

felt they could not control. To all of this they reacted with a frightened feeling, which

alarmed them, this alarm then allowing a freedom of action, which led to an emphatic

demand to be excused. The experimenter accompanied his dismissal of them by

elaborately expressed gratitude for the clarity of their demonstrations of "one of the

aspects of intense mental concentration. " This proved to be a most reassuring

manoeuvre, so much so that three subjects then volunteered to repeat the experiment. The

offers were not accepted, assurance being given that the experimenter was already

satisfied with their contribution.

The third group, numbering 32, manifested to varying degrees some remarkably similar

forms of behavior. These may be listed as (1) slow loss of the blink reflex; (2) altered

respiratory rhythm; (3) loss of swallowing reflex; (4) development of ideomotor activity

in the dominant hand; (5) exceedingly slow movement of the hand and arm up and over

the arm of the chair; (6) slow closing of the eyes, usually at some point preceding or

during the ideomotor movement of the hand and arm; (7) groping movements of the

fingers, as if selecting an object at the site of the imaginary fruit bowl; (8) a lifting

movement involved in picking up an object, and a slow leaning forward, seemingly

placing the object upon the imaginary table; and (9) then leaning back in the chair and

continuing to rest quietly .

The experimenter was at a loss as to how to proceed the first time that this succession of

events occurred, which was with the third subject. The first two subjects had rejected the

task. Intense study of the quietly resting subject's face indicated that a deep trance had

been induced. Yet there had been no mention of hypnosis; the author's then naiveté and

inexperience with human behavior in a rigid, circumscribed, experimental situation did

not permit him to grasp the significance of the situation immediately. The entire purpose

had been to study behavior in two presumably different circumscribed situations; in one

of these, designated as a hypnotic situation, the author felt that it was distinctly possible

that the operator was the dominant and effective active figure; and the second,

presumably different form of behavior was characterized by the non-participation of the

operation with the subject as the active person.

The subject passively waited, while the experimenter considered that there had been a

foundation for genuine hypnotic rapport because the original joint participatory activity

concerned in the giving and receiving of instructions, the looking at the bulletin board

while awaiting the minute hand of the clock to reach a numeral, and the separate but joint

taking of respective positions. Acting upon this tentative assumption, and still remaining

behind the screen, he remarked, “I think you have certainly worked on this concentrating

long enough now, so it will be all right if you leave, because I have to stay and write this

up.”

Slowly the subject awakened in the manner characteristic of the hypnotic arousal pattern

of behavior, commented, as he looked at the clock, that the time had seemingly passed

remarkably rapidly, and then departed.

The previous two subjects who had failed were engineering students; this one was an

English major. It was reasoned again that the engineers were more interested in concrete

realities, and that the student of literature was interested in abstractions of thought.

Despite this early significant experimental occurrence with the third subject, and thence

the expectation of similar possibilities in the experimenter's mind thereafter, a total of 31

subjects failed in random order, three of them being among the final five, and the very

last subject was a failure in a fashion similar to the first two subjects.

The 32 subjects who manifested hypnoticlike behavior showed various degrees of what

could be regarded as trance states, and some spontaneously made comments aloud about

Milton Erickson - Complete Works.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: