Antisocial Behavior and Hypnosis

8/7/2019 Antisocial Behavior and Hypnosis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/antisocial-behavior-and-hypnosis 1/12



190 MARTIN T. ORNE A ND FREDERICK J. EVANS

will not be permitted to suffer any harm be-cause of obvious social sanctions.

In a series of informal experiments in ourlaboratory, it has been impossible to devise a

task which the subject perceives as completely"meaningless" within the context of an ex-periment. For example, subjects were con-fronted with a stack of paper, each pagecontaining rows of random digits . T he experi-menter instructed subjects to continue addingth e rows of numbers successively, and af teraccurately completing each page, to tear it

into a min imum of 32 pieces. Although sub-jects were given no reason to jus t i fy th e task,

they continued this apparently meaningless

endeavor beyond the tolerance limits of theexperimenters (Orne, 1 9 6 2 ) .

Frank (1944) has reported some informalexperiments in which subjects continuedmeaningless and impossible tasks, includingtrying to balance a marble on a small steelball and transferring spilled mercury to asmall bottle with a wooden paddle, even whenan assistant tried to prevent them f rom tryingto complete th e tasks. N o justification wasgiven for performing th e tasks other than

that it was an experiment.In the same study, Frank also reported

that subjects co ntinue d eating several un-savory, unsalted soda crackers for t imeperiods in excess of what would seem reason-able for such an unpleasant task, and longerthan subjects who were told they could stopeating them as soon as they wished. Shor( 1 9 6 2 ) has reported that subjects we re willingto accept extremely high levels of electric

shock when requested to select a level ofintensity which was as high as they couldtolerate for experimental purposes. Milgram(1963) has shown that subjects continue toadminister what they believe are extremelyhigh levels of electric shock, exceeding ap -parently dangerous levels, to another "sub-ject" in the context of a learning experiment.

T he limits of boredom, tolerance, pain, and

fatigue which are accepted as reasonable re-

quests within an experimental situation seemextremely broad. However, the actual range

of social an d behavioral control legitimized

by the special contract implicit in the sub-

ject 's agreement to participate in a psy-

chological experiment has received few ex-plicit tests.

ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR A N D HYPNOSIS

It is generally considered that a hypnotized

subject relinquishes considerable social and

behavioral control to the hypnotist. A subjectfrequently reports that he felt compelled tocarry out the commands of the hypnotist;that he could not resist the suggestions madeby the hypnotist. This apparent increase inthe amount of social control relinquished bythe hypnotized subject to the hypnotist has

raised the unresolved question whether a

subject can be compelled, under hypnosis, to

perform apparently antisocial acts or be-havior which is perceived as injurious an ddangerous to self or others. Estabrooks(1943), Rowland (1939) , Weitzenhoffer(1949) , Wells (1941) , Wolberg (1945) , andYoung (1952) have stated that, providedadequate techniques are used, hypnotizedsubjects may be compelled to carry out ap-

parently antisocial actions, while Erickson(1939), Meares (I960), and Schilder and

Kauders ( 1 9 2 7 ) have disagreed with this

viewpoint. The extensive literature present-ing the conflicting viewpoints has been re-viewed elsewhere (Barber, 1961; Orne,

1960; Weitzenhoffer, 1953). The presentinvestigation is concerned with two studies

frequently cited as evidence that hypnosiscan be used to induce antisocial behavior.

Rowland (1939). T wo deeply hypnotizedsubjects were asked to reach through the

window of a box and pick up a large, active,diamondback rattlesnake. This request was

rationalized to them by suggesting that the

snake was a coil of rope. One hypnotizedsubject immediately complied, but was pre-vented from handling the snake by a pane of

invisible glass. The other subject came out ofthe hypnotic state and refused to continuewith the experiment. Another two hypnotizedsubjects attempted to grasp the snake, evenwhen no attempt was made to delude themabout what it was. Similarly, two hyp-

notized subjects were requested to throw con-centrated sulphuric acid, which they hadbeen told was very dangerous, at the face ofan assistant. The two subjects complied withthis request.



S O C I A L C O N T R O L IN EXPERIMENTS 191

By way of control , for ty- two persons , of everyage and degree of sophistication, were asked tocome to the laboratory and pick up the snake. . . .With one exception all the persons were not onlybadly frightened at the appearance of the snake,

but would not come close to the box . . . [Row-land, 1939, p. 116].

Young (1952). In a replication of Row-land's study, Young asked eight deeply hyp-notized subjects to carry out similar tasks.

Young reported,

T he results show that seven of the eight subjectswould enter into a situation which unhypnot izedobservers shrank f rom, th e subjects carrying outsuggestions to handle snakes and throw nitric acid

under conditions from which they themselves re -coiled in the waking state [p . 4051.

O ne major aim of the present study wasto confirm these results by replicating in

'exact detail th e procedures outlined byYoung ( 1 9 5 2 ) . It is apparent from the ac-counts of both Rowland and Young that

strong pressure was placed upon the hyp-notized subjects to comply with the requestedantisocial acts. However, Rowland did not

exert similar pressure to comply when testingth e independent, informal waking controlgroup, nor did Young confront his hyp-notized subjects with the same type of pres-sure in the subsequent waking condition.Consequently, it is doubtful if the informalcontrols used by these investigators provideany answer to the fundamental question

being considered: does the degree of social

control which occurs under hypnosis actually

exceed the amount of social an d behavioralcontrol already existing in the experimentalsituation?

S O C I A L C O N T R O L , A N T I S O C I A L B E H A V I O R ,

A N D HYPNOSIS

The basic question may be formally stated:

does the degree of social and behavioral con-

trol under hypnosis exceed that which is

legitimized by the special social and be-havioral control implicit in the experimentalsituation?

In order to determine that subjects haveindeed been compelled to carry out anyactions w hich they wo uld not have carried

out without the intervention of hypnosis itmus t be shown that:

1. Subjects in hypnosis carry out actionswhich are not performed by nonhypnotized

control subjects.2. Control subjects must be treated in anidentical fashion to hypnotized subjects;both in regard to explicit instructions as wellas implicit cues.

If these actions are to be designated asantisocial or self-destructive it must be shownthat they are perceived as such by the sub-jects, i.e., truly dangerous or harmful tothemselves or others. T he implicit cues areof crucial importance. A subject is aware ofcertain realities imposed by the experimentalsituation. It is as clear to a subject as it is toany scientist that no reputable investigatorcan risk injuring a subject during th e courseof an experiment. A subject knows that anexperimenter will outline in advance anypossible specific and deliberate danger whichcould be associated with his actual par-ticipation in a study. Consequently, any re-quested behavior which appears to a subject

to be dangerous at face value may be re-interpreted in the context of a laboratorysituation. In spite of the apparent objectivedanger of a task it may nonetheless be per-ceived to be harmless because the subjectrealizes that necessary precautions will betaken to avoid possible injury to him. If anapparently dangerous task is requested of asubject during an experiment th e subject'scompliance, or refusal, m ay depend onwhether he perceives that he is expected, oris not expected, to carry out the task. It isparticularly vital in an experiment whichdepends on a contrived situation to determinewhat the subject, in different groups, per-ceives about th e experimental situation andwhat is implicitly communicated to the sub-ject within different groups.

Even though the experimenter is extremelycareful to treat all groups alike, subtle andunintentional cues may be differentially com-

municated by him to subjects in differentexperimental groups, particularly when theexperimenter knows to which experimentalgroup a specific subject belongs. These

experimenter influences on results have beendemonstrated in both animal (Rosenthai &



19 2 MARTIN T . ORNE A ND FREDERICK J. EVANS

Lawson, 1963) and human research (Rosen-thai & Fode, 1963 ) .

It is essential, therefore, that the non-hypnotized control groups and the hypnotized

subjects are treated in an identical manner.T he real-simulating hypnosis model de-scribed by O rne (1959 , 1960 , 19 62 ) p ro-vides one method of making reasonably surethat experimental and control subjects are

treated alike. With this procedure bothhypnotized and control group subjects areru n "blind" by an experimenter, because heis not in formed, and cannot readily detect ,which subjects are hypnotized, and whichsubjects are awake but simulating hypnosis.

The procedure has sim ilar aims to those ofth e "blind" designs used in the evaluationof new drugs in psychopharmacology.

T he real-simulator design has been adoptedas the main control procedure in the presentstudy. If both real and simulating subjectscarry out behavior which is apparently anti-

social or self-destructive, it would seem in-appropriate to conclude that th e hypnotizedgroup w as compelled to carry out these

actions because of the use of hypnosis :rather, th e behavior of both groups could beinterpreted more parsimoniously as an ap-propriate response to the existing cues in theexperimental situation.

In addition to the use of the crucial simu-lating control group, the content of social andbehavioral control existing within the experi-mental situation w as explored by includinga normal waking control group. This inde-pendent waking control group was treated,as far as possible, in the same way as thehypnotized and simulating groups. An a t -t empt was also made to demonstrate that it

is possible to communicate to a subject thathe should fail to carry out the apparentlydangerous acts. T he procedure adopted w asth e same as our understanding of the informalcontrols used by Rowland (1939) . In addi-

tion, each hypnotized subject was retested

in the waking condition, as his own control,

similar to the control procedure of Y ou n g( 1 9 5 2 ) . A parallel procedure using subjects

with no previous experience with hypnosis

was used as an additional waking controlgroup.

P R O C E D U R Es

Selection of Subjects4

Hypnosis group. Several volunteer undergraduatestudents were individually tested fo r susceptibility

to hypnosis. Af te r at least two hour-long screeningsessions, six subje cts were selected to participatein th e study as the real hypnosis group. Thesesubjects could readily achieve deep somnambulistichypnosis manifesting such typical phenomena ascatalepsy and rigidities, positive and negative hal-lucinations, posthypnotic suggestions, and completepos thypnot ic amnesia.

Simulating hypnosis group. Another six subjectswho showed no hypnotic responses during at least

two extensive, individual hypnotic induction sessionsparticipated in the study as sim ulators. Each simu-lating subject w as told that he was participating

in research investigating the nature of hypnosis , buthe was not told that th e study involved allegedlyantisocial behavior. He was told that his task was to

try to fool an experienced hypnotist , in an experi-mental setting, by pretending to be deeply hypno-tized. Even though he would probably no t experi-ence or produce any real hypnotic response, he wasto act as if things were happening just as thehypnotist said they would. Although th e hypnotistwas described as an authority on the subject, itwas stressed that it was possible, though verydifficult, for the subject to fool th e hypnotist .

No special training or instruction about how to

simulate was given to the su bjects in this group ,nor were they told what phenomena would beinvolved in the e xperim ental session. H owever, eachsimulator had individually watched a good hypnotic

3 Several procedural details have been depositedwith the American Documentat ion Ins t i tute . This

material contains additional detail about selection ofsubjects, choice of a venomous rept i le , th e effectsof th e nitric acid on the coin and safety proceduresprotecting th e subject, description of the procedurefor substituting th e colored solution for the acid,and a scale diagram of the apparatus. Order Docu-m e n t N o. 8203 f rom A D I Auxiliary PublicationsProject , Photoduplication Service, Library of C o n -gress, Washington, D . C . 20540. R e m i t in advance$1.25 for microfilm or $1.25 for photocopies an dmake checks payable to: Chief , Photodupl icat ionService, Library of Congress .

4One exper imenter (FJE), who selected sub-

jects, trained simulators, was assistant and observerduring th e s tudy, subsequent ly conf i rmed that

hypnotized subjects were amnesic for the session,that simulators experienced no real effects of thehyp notic induction and suggestions, and condu cted

postexperimental inquiries. T he second exper imenter(MTO ) induced hypnos is for the main session, con-ducted the five groups in the experimental procedure,and at the complet ion of each subject ' s exper imentalparticipation, conducted a f u r the r independent in-quiry af ter being i n fo r med which were real andsimulating subjects.



S O C I A L CONTROL IN EXPERIMENTS 193

subject being hypnotized, demonstrating motor an dchallenge suggestions, simple positive hallucinations,amnesia, and posthypnotic suggestion.

Additional control groups. Six subjects, who didno t meet the criteria for either good hypnotic sub-jects or simulators, formed one of the additionalcontrol groups. T he remaining tw o control groupscontained subjects recruited from th e student popu-lation who did not know the experiment alsoinvolved hypnosis.

Experimental Procedure

The experiment follow s the proc edu re describedby Young (1952) as closely as possible.5

Hypnosis was induced in a room adjacent to theexperimental room. After th e induction of hypnosisthe subject was led, with eyes closed, into the

experimental room an d seated in f ront of a largewooden box which stood on a table.The box was divided into two compartments by

a removable partition. T he subject could easilyreach into the front compartment through a window.A sheet of plate glass could be raised or loweredsilently across the window, sliding along feltedgrooves. T he compartment was i l luminated by twoconcealed lights, so that no light was reflecteddirectly onto the surface of the glass. The twolights were th e only source of i l lumination in theroom. From th e position of the subject it was notpossible to detect the presence of the glass.6

6 We are indebted to P. C. Y o u n g for his kindnessin providing an unpublished manuscript describingapparatus an d procedure in detail and for clarifyingfurther details in private communications (1959) .

9 T he invisibility of the glass was attested by thefol lowing: (a ) Inability of the experimenters todetect if the glass was in position unless they ha dprior knowledge of its position, (b ) T he witnessan d bruised knuckles of several members of theDepartment of Psychology whose curiosity got thebetter of them, (c) T he expressed concern of agraduate student when watching a subject reach

fo r th e snake. Although he knew about th e glassscreen, an d although he had been watching closely,he did not see the screen being lowered, (d ) Onlyon e subject in a subsequent inquiry reported detect-

ing the glass. This happened because of the forget-fulness of the experimenters who failed to cleanth e window before this part icular subject was tested.Most subjects expressed spontaneous surprise if ,and when, they discovered the glass in their attemptsto grab the snake, often making exploratory move-ments across th e surface of the window.

Elizabeth Erickson (1962) has argued that visualacuity may increase under hypnosis; hence, hyp-

notized subjects would detect th e presence of theglass. This hypothesis would be relevant if clear-cut differences were found between th e hypnotizedgroup an d other crucial groups in the willingness tocomply with requests to perform the antisocialactivities.

Behavior Requested of the Subject

Inanimate objects. T he hypnotist suggested thatth e subject would have an irresistible urge to dowhatever the hypnotist told him. T he subject w asthen asked to open his eyes, to reach into th e

compartment, to pick up and identify objects hesaw there, and to place them in a bag held by thehypnotist. A two-shilling coin, then a piece ofchalk, were placed in the com partm ent. A ll subjectsidentified an d removed these objects.

Harmless reptiles. T he subject w as then told thata harmless, live reptile would be placed into thecompartment. A thick-tailed gecko lizard (Gymno-dactylus milii) was placed in the compartment.When th e lizard ha d been removed, a thin, 14-inchlong, harmless, green tree snake (Ahaetulla punc-tulatus) was lowered into the compartment.

The remaining three activities described below

objectively appeared to be dangerous or harmful ,either to the subject himself, or to a third personpresent in the room.

Venomous snake. An assistant wearing long, thick,X-ray gloves placed a 14-inch long venomous snakeinto th e compar tment . T he reptile, popularly knownas the red-bellied black snake (Pseitdechis porphy-riacus), is generally considered to be one of thetwo most venomous snakes found in Australia,capable of inflicting a mortal wound if the victimis not treated immediately upon being bitten.

T he hypnotist asked th e subject to pick up the

snake carefully about its middle, an d place it in thebag. Unknown to the subject, the glass screen hadbeen lowered silently across the window. If anattempt w as made to grasp the reptile, the subjectstruck his hand firmly against the glass.

Coin in acid. T he screen, and the snake, wereremoved. The subject then watched the hypnotistpour fuming concentrated nitric acid (15 molar)in a small, shallow, Pyrex glass beaker. After watch-ing the acid actively dissolve a copper-alloy half-penny coin for approximately a minute, the subjectwas asked to remove th e coin from th e beaker asquickly as possible with his bare hand, an d then to

plunge both hand and coin into a nearby basinof soapy lukewarm water.Throwing acid. T he experimenter stood between

the subject and the box as he carefully washedthe subject's hand. While the subject was distracted,th e acid was replaced with an identical beakercontaining a harmless, colored solution which wasth e same color as the acid. T he subject was simi-larly distracted if he did not remove the coin, sothat changing th e solution was not observed.

The central partition in the box was removed,exposing the assistant who had been responsiblefor recruiting an d training th e subject, sitting at

th e opposite end of the open-ended box. T hehypnotist suggested assertively that the subject wasvery angry with th e assistant for placing him intothe unpleasant situation of the experiment. T hesubject was told he felt so angry that he would havean irresistible urge to throw th e acid firmly into



S O C I A L CONTROL IN EXPERIMENTS 195

TABLE 2

A N A L Y S I S O F A T T E M P T S T O C A R R Y O U T A P P A R E N T L Y A N T I SO C I A L A C T S F O R E A C H S U B J E C T

Group an d subject

1. Real hypnosis

JBY MGPCWEB°SM

la. Retest real hypnosis subjectsin waking state(Young control)

1

JBY MGP

C WEB "SM

2. Waking control :press forfailure (Rowland control)

RFJFDFPHHHEC

3. Simulating hypnosisK M

R WST

JJMFA T

4. Waking compliance control

FPTMRSPPA LFJ

5. Waking control: eliminationof "shaping" procedures

IRNGRMREM ACR

Sex

F

FMFFF

FFM

FFF

MFMMFF

F

FFMMM

FFMMMM

FMMMFF

Grasp harmlessreptiles"

YesY esY esYesNoY es

——————

YesYesY esYesYesYes

Y es

Y esY esYesY esY es

NoY esYesY esY esY es

——————

Grasp venomoussnakeb

Yes (H)Y esY esYes

Y es

NoNoNo

Yes (H)—Y es

YesYes (A)NoYes (H)NoNo

Yes (H)

Y esY esY esY es (H )Y es

NoNoNoYes (H)Y esY es

Yes (H)NoY esNoNoYes (?)«

Take coinfrom acldb'°

Yes (H)Yes (A)Y esY es

—Yes (U)

NoYes (H)Y es (H)

Yes (H)—No

Y esN oNoNoNoNo

Yes (A, U)

Y esY es (H, U)Y esY es (H,U)Yes (H, U)

NoYes (H)Yes (A)Y esY esYes (A)

Y esYes (H)Yes (H)N oNoNo

Throw acidat assistant6

<d

Yes (A, T)Y es (A T )Yes (T )Yes. .

Yes

NoY es (A, T)No

Yes (A, T)No

Yes (H, V)NoN oN oN oN o

Yes (V)

Y es (T)Y es (A , T)Yes (V)Y es (H )Yes (V)

NoYes (H)Yes (H)Y esYes (V)Yes (V)

Yes (H)NoY esNoN oNo

Note,—Yea °= a t tempt to carry out requested activity; N o •refused to carry out requested activity.» Gecko lizard and harmless snake. Procedures omitted for Groups la and 5 (see text).b H •> hesitant in attem pting task; A = agitation and emotional Involvement m arked ly apparent.* U = unsuccessful in rem oving coin, bu t attempted to extent of placing fingers in acid.d

T = • tentative throw, hardly splashing assistant; V — violent throw, for example, hurling solution and container.• S ubject almost hysterical at sight of lizard; remaining activities omitted. Counted failure (see Footnote 8).' Hy pnosis-group subjects retested.

« Subject reporte d detecting glass screen at end of experiment (see Footnote 6) .

Replication o f Results of Rowland (1939)and 0} Young (1952)

Real Hypnosis: Group 1

Treatment. The hypnotist told the subjectthat he had an irresistible urge to carry out

easily and readily all suggestions given to

him. Each activity was preceded by a firm

statement—"I want you to ... ." The appar-

ent dangers in the venomous reptile and acid

situations were stressed. The experimenter



S O C I A L C O N T R O L I N EXPERIMENTS 197

carry out the tasks. It appears that eitherthe experimenter could not refrain from beingmore insistent than Rowland, or the psycho-logical experiment is more institutionalized

for University of Sydney students in 1960than it was for University of Tulsa studentsin 1939.

Summary of Attempted Replication oj

Studies of Rowland (1939) andYoung (1952)

T he results obtained from th e three groupsreported in the present study are in substan-tial agreement with the findings reported byRowland and by Young. Their results, as faras comparisons are relevant, have beenconfirmed, and their procedure has beenreplicated successfully.

Limits oj Social an d Behavioral Control inthe Experimental Situation

Rowland and Young concluded from theirdata that hypnosis was inst rumental in pro-ducing antisocial and dangerous behaviorwhich could not be elicited otherwise. How-

ever, these results cannot answer the funda-mental question of whether th e apparentlyantisocial behavior elicited under hypnosisexceeds the limits of behavior which may belegitimized by the experimental si tuation perse. To answer this question, it is necessaryto test whether the request to carry out the

apparently antisocial and self-injurious acts

exceeds the limits of social and behavioralcontrol implicitly existing in the experimentalsituation.

Simulators: Group 3

Treatment. Because the experimenter didnot know whether he was testing a hypno-tized or a simulating subject at any t ime,both th e hypnotized and simulat ing groupsof subjects were treated alike, and wereexposed to the same demand characteristicsconcerning compliance with the experiment-er's requests. Consequently, compliance with

the requests of the experimenter by the simu-lators would indicate that th e requested be-

land and Young warranted. T he excessive persuasionwas not intended: we do not know if this ac -counted for the unpredicted successful at tempts inthese groups.

havior is within the limits of what they per-ceived as legitimate and reasonable withinthe experimental context. Such a result woulddemonstrate that th e present tasks do not

provide a test of whether hypnosis can beused to compel th e subject to carry outantisocial behavior.

Results. All six subjects who were simu-lating hypnosis attempted to comply with th eapparently antisocial and injurious activitiesrequested of them. They objectively at-tempted to carry out the various tasks atleast as readily as the subjects who wereactually hypnotized.

Q ualitatively, it appeared that th e simu-lators were more hesitant than th e hypnotizedsubjects about grasping th e snake, less suc-cessful in their attempts to remove the coinfrom th e acid, but more violent and less hesi-tant about throwing th e acid solution at theassistant1 0 (see Table 2 ) .

Waking Compliance Control: Group 4

Treatment. There are special motivationalaspects involved when a subject simulates

hypnosis which are not present when a sub-ject is actually hypnotized. A simulator ismotivated by two special features: he mustat tempt to please one experimenter bystriving to deceive a second experimenter. Itis possible that these special motivations m ayincrease the range of social and behavioral

control implicit within th e unique type ofexperimental situation which exists for thesimulating subject.

In an at tempt to evaluate this possibility,

an additional set of six subjects served asthe usual type of control group. They weretold that they were a normal waking control

group in a study employing hypnotized sub-jects. As far as possible, • they were treatedidentically to the hypnosis and the simulatinggroups; th e experimenter's manner conveyedan expectation that subjects would complywith his requests. This group differs from the

10 For example, some simulators (and some mem-

bers of Group 4 below) hurled both solution andcontainer at the assistant. In comparison the hyp-nosis group, though throwing th e solution, some-times failed to splash the assistant with it. Thesesubjective differences were observed by the as-sistant who was aware of the group membershipo f the subjects.



198 MARTIN T . OENE A ND F R E D E R I C K J. E V A N S

informal controls employed by Rowland (seeGroup 2 above) in that these subjects weretreated as formal experimental subjects an dcompliance with th e requests was taken for

granted, whereas such pressure was not ap-plied in Group 2, described above, or byRowland.

Results. Five subjects attempted to carryout the two tasks involving th e acid, but twoof these subjects refused to handle the ven-omous snake. T he performance of this groupwas only slightly inferior to that of the hyp-notized and simulating groups. It would ap-pear that consideration of the special motiva-tions which existed for subjects simulatinghypnosis is not necessarily essential toaccount for the present results.

Elimination of "Shaping" Procedures:Group 5

Treatment. It is possible that the pre-liminary tasks, taking inanimate objects fromth e compartment and handling harmless rep-tiles, could operate as a type of "shaping"or "conditioning" procedure, gradually lead-

ing the subject to tasks which in themselveslook frightening, but in the context of the"shaping" procedure lose much of theirfearsome potency.

A separate waking control group was con-ducted without the preliminary harmless

tasks. These subjects were asked to partici-pate in a psychological experiment, but theywere not told that they were controls in astudy involving hypnosis. Apart from th eelimination of the innocuous tasks, the pro-

cedure was essentially the same as for Group2. Unfortunately, th e pressure exerted to gaincompliance w as generally greater than it wasfor Group 2."

11There w as some confusion between the twoexperimenters when subjects in this group werebeing tested. W hile the exp erim enter was testingsome subjects in this group, the relevant questionwas seen as to whether expectation of failure couldbe as readily communicated with an d without th epreliminary "shaping" procedures, in which it was

predicted the results would be similar to Group 2.For other subjects the question was implicitly seenas whether subjects would comply as readily withthe tasks when the innoc uous tasks were elim inatedcompared to the ease of gaining compliance whenthey were included. It was predicted f rom this view-point that results would be similar to Group 4, and

Results. Two subjects attempted to handle

th e snake and to throw th e acid, and a thirdsubject attempted to take th e coin from th eacid. T he results are somewhat equivocal, but

it appears that the "shaping" procedure em-ployed is not an essential determinant ofsubsequent behavior.

Informal Controls

A n u mb er of colleagues were informallyshown th e experimental tasks. These facultymembers were treated in a fashion similarto the treatment of the control group usedby Rowland (1939).

They invariably refused to carry out eventhe least objectionable of these three tasks,the removal of the penny from the nitric acid.T he fellow faculty members who were asked

to perform these tasks could not be pressuredor persuaded in any way to undertake them.It is significant that their behavior w asidentical to that of Rowland's informalcontrol group.

T wo aspects appear relevant in interpretingthese informal observations:

1. T he faculty members were not in aformal experimental situation.2. A different role relationship existed

between faculty members and the experi-menters compared to that existing betweensubjects and experimenters. These differencesemphasize the importance of the special con-texts provided by the combined subject-experimenter relationship and the n atu re ofthe experimental situation in terms of thewillingness of the subjects to carry out the

experimental tasks.

Postexperimental Inquiry

With few exceptions, subjects who at-tempted to carry out the requested activitiesreported in the postexperimental inquiry thatthey felt quite safe in the experimental situa-

even th e simulating subjects, Group 3. Clearly tw oseparate groups should have been tested. It is certainthat some subjects within this group were treated

quite differently from others. T he confusion wasnot recognized until after th e completion of thestudy, and it is not known to what extent th eequivocal results are concordant with th e differingexpectations that were undoubtedly induced. Theresults for the group ar e reported only for thesake of completeness.



S O C I A L CONTROL I N EXPERIMENTS 199

tion. Though they reported feeling ratheruncertain about th e tasks, and reportedstrong emotional reactions to the repugnantactivities, th e subjects reported that theywere quite convinced that they would not

be harmed because the context was an experi-mental one, presumably being conducted byresponsible experimenters. A ll subjects ap-peared to assume that some form of safetyprecautions had been taken during the experi-ment. Although no subject reported suspect-ing the presence of a glass screen, subjectsfelt that the snake had either been milkedof its venom or defanged. Some felt that th esolution was not really acid, even when they

plunged their hand into it; others suspectedthe assistant could duck in time to avoidthe acid; or the glass screen would be inplace again (having previously discovered itspresence during th e procedure with th esnake) ; or perhaps th e assistant would evenplunge himself into a nearby tub of water;or in one case, that the assistant was notactually there— it was an illusion produce dby a complex arrangement of mirrors .

DISCUSSION1. No conclusions can be drawn from the

present investigation about the potential useof hypnosis to induce antisocial behavior.However, the study clarifies conclusionswhich may be drawn from tw o previousstudies. After replicating th e studies byRowland (1939) and Young ( 1 9 5 2 ) and con-firming their results, it has been shown thatsimilar apparently antisocial behavior can

be elicited in control groups treated in anidentical fashion to a group of hypnotizedsubjects. T he apparently antisocial actionswere also carried out successfully by sub-jects who were not hypnotized, indicatingthat th e tasks are within th e broad rangeof activities which are perceived as legiti-mized by the natu re of the situation: theywere requests made by experimenters, viewedby subjects as responsible scientists, in thecontext of a psychological experiment.

2. T he present study is essentially method-ological, demonstrating experimental condi-tions which are necessary to investigate theantisocial hypothesis. T he burden of demon-strating th e production of antisocial behavior

by hypnotic techniques lies with th e investi-gator, who must demonstrate that the so-called antisocial behavior does exceed that

which is legitimized by the experimentalsituation, and that the behavior is perceived

by the subject as truly dangerous or anti-social. It is our belief that it may not bepossible to test the antisocial question in anexperimental setting because of the prob-lems of finding tasks which are not seen aslegitimized by the experimental context.

3. I t may seem surprising that th e wakingcontrol group subjects who were pressed tocomply with th e apparently dangerous be-havior were quite willing to follow the

experimenter's commands. This confirms th eanecdotal evidence reported above from ourown laboratory: we still have not found anaspect of behavior which is sufficiently safeto request of a subject, and which a subjectwill refuse to carry out if the expectationof compliance is communicated to him. In thepresent study the experimenter could virtu-ally predetermine th e nature of the resultingbehavior by deciding in advance whether hewould consciously, but subtly, communicate

to a subject an expectation either of failureor of compliance. Such a result is concordantwith other findings (for example, Rosenthal,1964) showing the relative ease with whichan experimenter may nonconsciously bias the

results of a s tudy by subtly communicatinghis ow n expec tations and hypotheses.

Failure to gain compliance with hypnotizedsubjects would indicate inadequate replica-tion of the exact details of Young's investiga-

tion. Because the experimenter is unaware ofthe group membership of real an d simulatingsubjects outcome-bias should not differen-tially affect performance of subjects in thesetw o crucial groups. It is partly because of theproblem of outcome-bias that simulatingsubjects are included as the crucial controlgroup.

4. The purpose of the simulating groupwas to examine whether the chosen behaviorexceeded the l imits of behavior legitimized

by the special nature of the experimentalcontext. T he waking control subjects (Group4) also complied with the requested activities,and in this sense the simulating subjects werenot essential to demonstrate that th e alleged



200 M A R T I N T. O R N E A ND F R E D E R I C K J. E V A N S

antisocial actions were within the realm ofwhat subjects accept as reasonable requestsin th e experimental situation. However, thesimulating group of subjects cannot be elimi-nated from future investigations of this type.

It is not always possible to determ ine whetherwaking control subjects have been treateddifferently from th e nonhypnotized subjects,even though an experimenter is not awareo f such differential treatment.

5. The present investigation demonstratesthe m isleading conclusions that m ay be drawnwhen casual, informal "control" groups, ofthe type employed by Rowland (1939) andYo ung ( 1 9 5 2 ) , form th e basis for evalu-

ating experimental performance. I t cautionsagainst making untested assumptions about

the way in which subjects will behave inan experimental situation, or making as-sumptions about what aspects of behaviorare within th e repertoire of the subjects,however reasonable these assumptions m ajappear, when subjects are participating ii.

the social phenomenon known as "thepsychological experiment."

REFERENCESB A R B E R , T. X. Antisocial and criminal acts induced

by "hypnosis": A review of experimental an dclinical findings. Archives of General Psychiatry,1 9 6 1 , S, 301-312.

ERICKSON, ELIZABETH M. Observations concerningalterations in hypnosis of visual functions. Amer-

ican Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1962 , S, 131-134.

E R I C K S O N , M. H. An experimental investigation ofth e possible anti-social use of hypnosis. Psychiatry,1 9 3 9 , 2, 391-414.

E S T A B R O O K S , G. H. Hypnotism. New Y o r k : Button,

1943.F R A N K , J. D. Experimental studies of personal pres-

sure and resistance: I . Experimenta l productionof resistance. Journal of General Psychology, 1944,30 , 23-41.

M E A R E S , A . A system of medical hypnosis, Phila-

delphia: Saunders, 1960.M I L G R A M , S . Behavioral study of obedience. Jour-

na l of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963,67, 371-378.

O R N E , M. T. The nature of hypnosis: Art i fac t an dessence. Journal of Abnormal an d Social Psychol-ogy, 1959, 58, 277-299.

O R N E , M. T . Antisocial behavior and hypnosis:Problems of control and validation in empiricalstudies. Paper presented at Colgate Symposium

on Hypnosis, Colgate University, April 1960. (InG. H . Estabrooks [Ed.], Hypnosis: Current prob-

lems. New York : Harpe r & Row, 1962. P p. 137-1 9 2 )

O R N E , M. T. On the social psychology of the psycho-logical experiment: With particular reference todemand characteristics and their implications.American Psychologist, 1962, 17, 776-783.

O R N E , M . T., & S C H E I B E , K. E. The contribution ofnondeprivation factors in the production of sen-sory deprivation effects: T he psychology of the"panic but ton." Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, 1964, 68, 3-12.

R O S E N T H A L , R. Experimenter outcome-orientationand the results of the psychological experiment.Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 61, 405-412.

R O S E N T H A L , R., & F O D E , K. L. Psychology of thescientist: V. Three experiments in experimenterbias. Psychological Reports, 1963, 12, 491-511.

R O S E N T H A L , R., & L A W S O N , R. A longitudinal studyof th e e f f e c t s of experimenter bias on the operantlearning of laboratory rats. Journal of PsychiatricResearch, 1963, 2, 61-72.

R O W L A N D , L. W. Will hypnotized persons try toharm themselves or othe rs? Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, 1939, 34, 114-117.

S C H I L D E R , P., & K A U D E R S , 0. Hypnosis. (T rans , byS. Rothenberg) Nervous and Mental DiseaseMonograph Series, 1927 , No. 46.

S H O R , R. E. Physiological e f f e c t s of painful stimula-tion during hypnotic analgesia under conditionsdesigned to minimize anxiety. International Jour-

nal of Clinical an d Experimental Hypnosis, 1962 ,10 , 183-202.

W E I T Z E N H O E F E R , A. M. The production of antisocialacts under hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal an dSocial Psychology, 1949, 44 , 420-422.

WEITZENHOFFER, A. M. Hypnotism: An objectivestudy in suggestibility. New Y o r k : Wiley, 1953.

WELLS, W. R. Experiments in the hypnotic produc-tion of crime. Journal of Psychology, 1941, 11 ,63-102.

W O L B E R G , L. R. Hypnoanalysis. N ew York : Grune& Stratton, 1945.

Y O U N G , P. C. Antisocial uses of hypnosis. In L. M.LeCron ( E d . ) , Experimental hypnosis. N ew Y o r k :Macmillan, 1952. P p. 376-409.

(Early publication received Ju ne 9 , 1964)

Antisocial Behavior and Hypnosis

Documents

Transcript of Antisocial Behavior and Hypnosis