Hidden Observer Research Articles

The hidden observer and multiple personality.

Abstract The “hidden observer” phenomenon as observed in the laboratory is too limited to conclude that its presence indicates an incipient multiple personality: The laboratory studies suggest directions of research that may eventually bring experimental studies of dissociation and clinical studies of multiple personalities together.

Co-consciousness: a common denominator in hypnosis, multiple personality, and normalcy.

Abstract This paper develops the thesis that co-consciousness is not only a feature of severe dissociative syndromes like multiple personality, or of “altered states” of consciousness like hypnosis, but is a universal feature of healthy living. The “hidden observer” in normal hypnosis is the primary objective datum, from which it is argued that consciousness must exist simultaneously at many levels. This makes sense of many aspects of hypnosis which would otherwise remain paradoxical. The concept of hypnosis can be meaningfully defined, even though it cannot be entirely separated from non-hypnosis without logical absurdity; what is discovered in its study must then be relevant in some way far beyond the confines of the research laboratory. Co-consciousness as a definitive aspect of healthy living is the most significant conclusion from this study. Simultaneous multilevel functioning also introduces a fundamental limitation against the possibility of totally precise understanding, which I refer to as psychic uncertainty. With co-consciousness now the norm, the multiple personality syndrome can no longer be seen as a freak of nature, but rather as a paradigm of how a process common to each and all of us can go wrong. Furthest from scientific understanding is the nature of the executive function or organizing force which gives us our sense of cohesive selfhood, and it is just this function which is most impaired in the multiple personality. The overriding therapeutic implication is that dissociation can no longer be viewed only like a pathological “entity” to be gotten “rid of,” but as a basic given which we should learn to use more effectively. The treatment paradigm becomes that of taking dissociative phenomena from the realm of the dysfunctional to that of healthy co-consciousness, so that what was once a symptom becomes a skill.

"Hidden observer" phenomena in hypnosis: an experimental creation?

Spanos and Hewitt (1980) have recently argued, on the basis of an experiment they report, that Hilgard's "hidden observer" phenomenon is pure laboratory artifact. This report reviews their claim and concludes on the following grounds that their experiment does not warrant so sweeping a conclusion: (a) Spanos and Hewitt have posed the issue as fact versus fiction and do not appear to be aware of a third alternative, namely, that the hidden observer effect is a phenomenon encountered in hypnosis that may be influenced both by demand characteristics and by the social-psychological context. (b) They appear to obtain the effect 100% of the time, unlike Hilgard, who has emphasized the phenomenon's differential incidence. (c) In contrast to Hilgard, who furnishes abundant verbal reports of his subjects' phenomenal experience as buttressing evidence for the "genuineness" of the effect in subjects who report having it, Spanos and Hewitt do not. (d) Two major procedural aspects of their experiment are discussed. Either or both may have inadvertently influenced the outcome of their experiment in the direction of their hypothesis that the responses of subjects are entirely the product of experimenter-induced expectations.

"Hidden observer" phenomenon in hypnosis: An experimental creation?

"Hidden observer" phenomenon in hypnosis: An experimental creation?

The hidden observer as an experimental creation.

Laurence, Perry, and Kihlstrom appear to have misunderstood the theoretical positions advanced both by Hilgard and by Spanos and Hewitt. All of their criticisms of Spanos and Hewitt's "hidden observer" experiment are shown to be either misleading or invalid. The available data provide no support for a dissociation hypothesis of the hidden observer phenomenon. On the other hand, these data indicate strongly that this phenomenon is an experimental creation.

The hidden observer as an experimental creation.

The hidden observer as an experimental creation.

The "hidden observer" phenomenon in hypnosis: Some additional findings.

The "hidden observer" phenomenon in hypnosis: Some additional findings.

The "hidden observer" phenomenon in hypnosis: some additional findings.

The "hidden observer" phenomenon in hypnosis: some additional findings.

Evaluation of hypnotically-suggested selective deafness by heart-rate conditioning and reaction time.

This study was designed to evaluate the effects of suggested selective deafness on heart-rate conditioning and reaction time. 20 highly hypnotizable subjects were randomly assigned to four groups (hypnotic, post-hypnotic, motivational, and control). After the establishment of the heart-rate conditioned response, a suggestion of selective deafness for the CS was given, followed by 15 trials of extinction; subsequently, the suggestion was lifted and 15 additional trials were given. The results show that the suggestion did not influence the heart-rate conditioned response, nor did it influence reaction time. The discussion centers around subjective aspects and methodological factors; also, the data are interpreted in relation to the “hidden observer” model.

Hypnotic Deafness: A Psychophysical Study of Responses to Tone Intensity as Modified by Hypnosis

Hypnotic deafness was suggested for 1000 Hz tones presented in random orders at seven intensities between 17 and 70 db. Subjects were 70 college students stratified into four levels of hypnotic susceptibility, ranging from low to high. Four conditions were presented within a single session. Two conditions tested normal hearing, one in waking and one in hypnosis; two tested reported loudness of the tones as reduced by hypnotic suggestion. The method of magnitude estimation was employed. Hearing reduction was found to correlate .59 with hypnotic susceptibility in the total sample. Few high hypnotizables reduced their hearing to zero; their mean residual hearing during the deafness conditions was 55% of normal. Power functions for the relationship between tone intensity and magnitude estimates for conditions of normal hearing and deafness were found to be relatively parallel and orderly, differing primarily in intercept value. Order effect anomalies are discussed. The "hidden observer" method showed that for 4 of the 70 subjects the covert hearing was found to be at least 20% greater than that reported overtly within hypnotic deafness and approached normal hearing. As in our previous hypnotic analgesia research, not all subjects who reduced their hearing significantly gave subsequent covert reports which differed from reported overt hearing. Discussion is given for evidence of two levels of information processing during hypnotically suggested perceptual distortions.

Self-management in children labeled learning disabled

Access to recess was used as a reinforcer to study the development of elementary self-management skills (being quiet and staying in one’s seat) during a quiet period, without direct teacher supervision. A verbal report system confirmed by hidden observation was used to record the behavior of the children. Group, individual, and individual plus group contingencies of reinforcement were utilized. Individual and individual plus group reinforcement contingencies were found to be the most effective procedures. Data are presented that clearly show children will submit reports of their own behavior that deny them access to reinforcement as well as report accurately on the behaviors of other children (even under threat). The children that were found to be responsible for the class losing privileges under group reinforcement contingencies were successfully managed by a peer and when they served as class monitor (sat at teacher’s desk), they behaved appropriately.

Pain and suffering in ischemia. The paradox of hypnotically suggested anesthesia as contradicted by reports from the “hidden observer” : V. J. Knox, A. H. Morgan and E. R. Hlgard, Arch. gen. Psychiat. 30 (1974) 840–847

Pain and suffering in ischemia. The paradox of hypnotically suggested anesthesia as contradicted by reports from the “hidden observer” : V. J. Knox, A. H. Morgan and E. R. Hlgard, Arch. gen. Psychiat. 30 (1974) 840–847

AN INEXPENSIVE AND PORTABLE MEANS FOR ONE-WAY OBSERVATION

One-way mirrors have traditionally been a part of fixed laboratory settings and more recently have been part of the trailers designed as portable laboratories (Bergman 1964; Bijou 1958). Although these facilities provide convenient features, some considerations of an investigator whose research requires unobtrusive or hidden observation of research subjects may be better met by an alternative proposed here. First, an inexpensive apparatus, fitting into small budgets, is desirable since permanent facilities may be unavailable or too costly. For example, Bergman's (1964) estimate of a laboratory trailer is over $7,000 (although some trailers have reportedly been completely outfitted for half that price). To that must be added licensing and hauling charges, and general physical maintenance costs. Second, there is the question of what to do with an observation room when not employed for experimental purposes. Easy and convenient storage has advantages. Third, keeping subjects in their normal environment would benefit many studies. Especially for the fixed facility, access to subjects can be seriously limited by the necessity of transporting a child from his home, day-care center, school, etc., to the laboratory. This is a particular problem with institutionalized populations. Time of investigators and children is not wasted in transporting subjects, and the costs of such transportation (which may be considerable) are obviated when the research can be accomplished where the children regularly are. More important for the research itself, testing children in a familiar environment

Observations on hypnotic dreams.

Barber (1962), Tart (1965), and Moss (1967) have commented on hypnotic dreams in a way that might seem to negate my findings regarding their apparent structural similarity to nocturnal dreams (1965). I now offer these additional opinions. Barber indicated the possibility had not been excluded that similar productions can be elicited from patients by instructions to imagine or visualize certain events or situations. I believe the ability to produce such imagery without hypnosis casts no adverse reflection on the structural similarity of hypnotic and sponraneous nocturnal dreams. is simply an additional point of interest that some people can evoke imagery of this type without hypnosis and furnishes data on imagery that can be produced under a variety of circumstances. A serious flaw has been recognized in Barber's use of controls. The suggestions he gives his non-hypnotized Ss often evoke the very hypnotic situation he allegedly avoids because the suggestions themselves are hypnotic in nature. is not surprising with the duplication of hypnotic procedure that some of his controls give responses consistent with those of his hypnotic Ss. In fact, it would be surprising under these circumstances if his waking conuols did not show such responses. Tarr states, It has long been known that, if an hypnotized subject is instructed to dream, many subjects will subsequently report an experience in response to this suggestion. This reported experience is usually called the hypnotic dream. I believe this vlew confuses the issue and is found more among experimentalists than clinicians. Obviously all responses are not dreams. Tart says later, dream will refer to an experience of the hypnotic subject in response to the suggestion to dream, a definition based primarily on what the experimenter does. I should say that in clinical settings, at least, the definition should be based not on what the therapist does but on what the patient produces. Moss commented rhat, if hypnotic dreams are essentially comparable to nocturnal dreams, it might be expected that they could counteract compensatory effects associated with dream deprivation. While this remains to be evaluated, I believe there is no necessary connection. Hypnotic dreams may be indistinguishable in structure from spontaneous nocturnal dreams, yet their functional differences may include a variety of neurophysiological and psychophysiological correlates. While Moss includes much in his book rhar is skeptical of hypnotic dreams, he offers Ernest Hilgard's favorable opinion (1965) on evidence pointing to the fruitfulness of investigating hypnotic dreams, with his recognition that the two dream categories overlap and undoubtedly have much in common.

Science and Human Affairs: Morrison Lectures.

The Lucile P. Morrison Lectures given during 1961 to 1964 under the sponsorship of the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute in La Jolla, Calif, were edited for this volume by Richard E. Farson, the institute's director. These lectures were given by some of our most brilliant scholars. Gardner Murphy, Carl Rogers, Aldous Huxley, Abraham Maslow, Sigmund Koch, Theodore Newcomb, S. I. Hayakawa, Ernest Hilgard, Ralph Gerard, Gordon Allport, Charles Osgood, Herbert Kelman, Harold Taylor, and Jack Gibb make up the list. The content ranges from prologue to epilogue, from art to science, and from inner experience to management of human affairs. Usually the trouble with books of this sort is that the subject matter is held together only by the fact that the essays had a common sponsor and were presented at the same place. This volume, however, has one rather exceptional feature: It has a message. Intended as

Effect of the presence of an observer and a hidden observer on the defensive patterns of an ongoing group.

Effect of the presence of an observer and a hidden observer on the defensive patterns of an ongoing group.

Martyrs May Not Feel Pain

) BURNING ALIVE must be one of the greatest physical tortures known to man. Yet the Buddhist monks and nuns who have sacrificed themselves in Viet Nam have shown nothing but serenity in the face of it. How is this possible? Do they not feel the pain, or is their control so extraordinary that they can freeze their facial muscles into a mask of nonexpression? To find an answer, SCIENCE SERVICE interviewed three research psychologists well known for their work on the reduction of pain sensation. All agreed that there is indeed a biological mechanism somewhere in the brain for blocking pain as well as other stimulation. And people can learn to use it. But scientific approaches to the phenomenon have as many angles as a problem in geometry. Some psychologists view it as auto-hypnosis, others as a of attention, and still others as a nervous system defense mechanism. Quite probably, future understanding of the higher brain centers will reveal links between all these explanations. For now, we know that the integration of pain is a high level matter in the brain, said Dr. Ernest Hilgard of Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif. It is not just the cry of an injured nerve. He said the body may show it is reacting to pain even when a person reports he is not feeling it. In other words, there is no direct relationship between the physiological and the psychological experience of pain. A good hypnotic subject can put himself in a state where he is not susceptible to pain, said Dr. Hilgard, who has been experimenting with hypnotic insensitivity to electric shock and ice water. Dr. Harold B. Crasilneck of the University of Texas' Southwestern Medical School has been using hypnosis for years as an anesthetic for severely burned patients. He said the technique is successful in allaying pain both during skin graft operations and afterward, in the form of post-hypnotic suggestion. Dr. Crasilneck believes the deep contemplation practiced by people in Eastern religions is very much akin to auto-hypnosis. But who can say that the Buddhist martyrs hypnotized themselves, in any simple sense, into feeling no pain? Viewing the problem from another angle, Dr. Asenath Petrie of Harvard University Medical School, Boston, proposed a focus of attention theory. s ,,. A tt,. , i ,,,,l,.,,