THE MANIPULATION OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR -ieditors ALBERT D. BIDERMAN Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc.

HERBERT ZIMMER Associate Professor of Psychology University of Georgia John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Ne !or" # $on%on -iiTHE MANIPULATION OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR -iiiCopyright 1961 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserve%. &his 'oo" or any (art thereof )ust not 'e re(ro%uce% in any for) ithout the ritten (er)ission of the (u'lisher, e*ce(t for any (ur(ose of the Unite% States Govern)ent. Library of Congress Catalog Car !"#ber$ 61-%669 &rinte in the 'nite States of (#erica -i)-

Contributors
*+,-*. *+/-*S ,L(0-, &h.1. Professor of Psychology, University of &e*as *. C. 1(2IS, &h.1. Professor of Psychology, In%iana University L+'IS (. /+..SC3(L0, 4.1. Associate Professor of Psychiatry an% Research +oor%inator, ,e(art)ent of Psychiatry, +incinnati General -os(ital L(W*-!C- -. 3I!0L-, Jr., 4.1. Associate Professor of +linical .e%icine in Psychiatry, Ne !or" -os(ital / +ornell .e%ical +enter

&3ILI& -. 0',5(!S06, &h.1. +hief Psychologist, Boston +ity -os(ital 4(LC+L4 L. 4-L.5-*, &h.1. Staff Psychologist, ,istrict of +olu)'ia General -os(ital J(!- S. 4+'.+!, &h.1. Social Science Research Associate, University of &e*as 4(*.I! .. +*!-, 4.1., &h.1. &eaching 0ello , ,e(art)ent of Psychiatry, -arvar% University .e%ical School -)-)ito CHARLES E. HUTCHINSON an% HERMAN J. SANDER for their lea%ershi( in this area -)ii-)iii-

Acknowledgments
.he e iting of this boo7 8as carrie o"t as a pro9ect of the ,"rea" of Social Science *esearch, Inc. 1r. *obert .. ,o8er, irector of the ,"rea", genero"sly ga)e his ti#e an talents to this pro9ect. 2al"able assistance in e iting the contrib"tors: #an"scripts 8as gi)en by !a ine &itts, ;ran7 /. 1a)is, 4erle /ol berg, an 1oris ;. J"lian. .he preparation of the chapters containe in this boo7 8as s"pporte in part by the 'nite States (ir ;orce "n er Contract 1<=6>>? 1@9@ #onitore by the *o#e (ir 1e)elop#ent Center of the (ir *esearch an 1e)elop#ent Co##an an "n er Contract (; A9 =6B<?-1<@ #onitore by the (ir ;orce +ffice of Scientific *esearch of the (ir *esearch an 1e)elop#ent Co##an . .he 8or7 of the e itors 8as greatly facilitate by representati)es of the (ir ;orce, partic"larly 4a9or Leo !. ,r"ba7er an Lie"tenant Colonel *obert -. Wor7. .he chapters by 1r. 4artin .. +rne an by 1r. La8rence -. 3in7le, Jr., ra8 "pon 8or7 s"pporte by the Society for the In)estigation of 3"#an -cology, Inc.

-iC-C-

Contents
Introdu tion !

T"e P"#sio$o%i &$ St&te o' t"e Interro%&tion Su()e t &s it A''e ts Br&in Fun tion $a rence 1. -in"le, Jr.

!*

T"e E''e ts o' Redu ed En,iron-ent&$ Sti-u$&tion on Hu-&n Be"&,ior. A Re,ie/ Phili( 1. 2u'3ans"y

0!

T"e Use o' Dru%s in Interro%&tion $ouis A. Gottschal"

*2

P"#sio$o%i &$ Res4onses &s & Me&ns o' E,&$u&tin% In'or-&tion R. +. ,avis

!3+

T"e Potenti&$ Uses o' H#4nosis in Interro%&tion .artin &. 4rne

!2*

T"e E54eri-ent&$ In,esti%&tion o' Inter4erson&$ In'$uen e Ro'ert R. Bla"e an% Jane S. .outon

+!2

-CiCounter-&ni4u$&tion t"rou%" M&$in%erin% .alcol) $. .elt3er

+66

Aut"or Inde5

170

Su()e t Inde5 -Cii-

1!2

. . . ollte nur forschen, Raetsel loesen, ein Stuec"chen Wahrheit auf%ec"en. ,ies )ag vielen ehe, )anchen ol getan ha'en, 'ei%es nicht )eine Schul% un% nicht )ein 5er%ienst. Sig#"n ;re" in a letter to *o#ain *ollan , 4ay 1B 19D6 E

Introduction manipulations of human behavior

In recent years, concern has been eCpresse , in both scholarly an pop"lar literat"re, abo"t the angers of scientific e)elop#ents that co"l be "se to control an #anip"late h"#an beha)ior. .he fear is freF"ently )oice that techniF"es ha)e been e)elope to an eCtent 8hich threatens f"n a#ental )al"es of Western ci)iliGation. (nCio"s alar#s an ra#atic spec"lations ha)e o)ersha o8e reports of sober efforts to eter#ine 8hich angers are real an 8hich i#agine . .his boo7 represents a critical eCa#ination of so#e of the con9ect"res abo"t the application of scientific 7no8le ge to the #anip"lation of h"#an beha)ior. .he proble# is eCplore 8ithin a partic"lar fra#e of reference$ the interrogation of an "n8illing s"b9ect. ( n"#ber of scientific areas ha)e fig"re pro#inently in spec"lations regar irig the application of science to the #anip"lation of beha)ior in interrogation =69?. ;or this 8or7, scientists 8ho ha one research in each of these areas 8ere as7e to re)ie8 the state of rele)ant 7no8le ge in their fiel s, to consi er 8hether an ho8 it #ight be applie by interrogators, an to e)al"ate the reco"rse a)ailable to highly #oti)ate persons for resisting the atte#pte infl"ence. .heir reports constit"te the bo y of this boo7.

(ttention has been foc"se on interrogation beca"se of the central position this topic has ha in recent p"blic isc"ssions of prisoner-of-8ar beha)ior H iss"es that #a e scientific #etho s of #anip"lating beha)ior a #a9or p"blic concern. 4"ch of the 8or7 in this boo7 8as sponsore by the '. S. (ir ;orce beca"se of their interest in the proble#s 8hich face the prisoner of 8ar. S"ch aspects of prisoner eCploitation as i eological con)ersion an the elicitation of false conE

-. L. ;re" , Ausge aehlte Briefe, ,erlin$ S. ;ischer, 19%9.

-1fessions ha)e recei)e relati)ely #ore p"blic an aca e#ic isc"ssion than the atte#pts to elicit fact"al infor#ation thro"gh interrogation. !onetheless, the e itors belie)e that there are so#e #a9or a )antages to approaching the broa er topic of the #anip"lation of h"#an beha)ior by li#iting attention initially to the latter type of sit"ation. .he bac7gro"n of recent concern 8ith these proble#s #ay ill"#inate so#e of the consi erations lea ing to the partic"lar e#phasis of this 8or7.

B& 8%round .he notoriety that Co##"nist eCploitation of 'nite !ations prisoners of 8ar has recei)e in the 'nite States ga)e i#pet"s to professional an lay concern 8ith proble#s of the #anip"lation of beha)ior. 2ario"s 8riters ha)e associate the co#pliance effecte by Co##"nist captors 8ith pheno#ena obser)e in the laboratoryI e.g., effects reporte follo8ing eCperi#ental 8or7 in phar#acology, hypnosis, sleep epri)ation, sensory epri)ation, se#i-star)ation, electrical sti#"lation of the brain, as 8ell as in social-psychological in)estigations of pers"asion an gro"p confor#ity press"res =B, 1>, 1B, 1A, 16, D>, DB, DA, D<, BD, B9, 6@?. .he #ost ra ical eCpressions of concern ha)e allege that techniF"es for #anip"lating beha)ior are no8 capable, or are at least on the threshol of being capable, of eli#inating the eter#ination of the s"b9ect as a barrier to s"ccessf"l infl"ence =D1, BD, BB, BA, B%, B6, B@, B<, B9, AA, %D, 6>?. .hese clai#s ha)e been challenge $ other in)estigators ha)e been i#presse by the strength, stability, an resilience of long-establishe )al"es an social controls, an by rational regar for self-interest, either as li#iting the co#pliance of those s"b9ecte to coerci)e an pers"asi)e infl"ence atte#pts, or as enabling the s"b9ect to resist co#pletely =D, A, @, 11, 1%, 1<, %>, %B, %A, %%, 6%, 66, 6<?. Certain other co##entators ha)e )ie8e the s"ccessf"l eCploitation of capti)es in 0orea an si#ilar inci ents as less in icati)e of increasing perfection in the arts of infl"ence an coercion. .hey ha)e attrib"te the s"ccesses of the captor to in i)i "al efects of bac7gro"n an sta#ina in the prisoners 8ho collaborate , or to a general eterioration of the )itality of social )al"es an controls in conte#porary society =16, D%, B1, 61, 6D, 6B?.

Scientific eCa#ination of the #anip"lation of beha)ior has been #a e iffic"lt by the intensity of the recent contro)ersy o)er national -Dprisoner-of-8ar policy. Concepts s"ch as eter#inis# )s. #oral responsibility are a#ong the philosophical an )al"e consi erations i#plicit in this ebate 8hich ha)e a e consi erably to the proble#s alrea y pose by eCisting biases. .here has been isp"te regar ing the eCtent to 8hich in i)i "al repatriate prisoners of 8ar are legally or #orally responsible for e)iations fro# i eal stan ar s of #ilitary con "ct, especially in the #atter of yiel ing infor#ation or #a7ing JconfessionsJ to the captor =9, D%, B1, B9, A1, A@, A9, %A, 6A?. ( central F"estion of fact has stoo o"t in this contro)ersy, F"ite apart fro# the #oral an philosophical iss"es raise $ 8hether all in i)i "als, regar less of ho8 strongly #oti)ate to resist, co"l be #a e to co#ply 8ith e#an s for infor#ation, Jconfessions,J or other collaboration by #etho s e#ploye by the Co##"nists, pro)i e that the intensity, "ration, an F"ality of the press"res 8ere s"fficiently great. &op"larly, this proposition 8as phrase $ J-)ery #an has his brea7ing point.J It gaine acceptance as a pre#ise in policy for#"lation, altho"gh the F"estion re#aine regar ing 8hich, if any, of the sit"ations enco"ntere by 'nite States prisoners of 8ar in 0orea approache those eCtre#es of JstressJ that no in i)i "al co"l be eCpecte to lesist =A>, A<, 6A, 6<?. Critics of the policy e)ol)e after the 0orean War H J.he Co e of Con "ctJ H arg"e that the fail"re of the policy #a7ers to consi er i##inent e)elop#ents in scientific #etho s of h"#an #anip"lation has been a #ore serio"s error than a lac7 of "n erstan ing of the practices act"ally enco"ntere by prisoners in 0orea. +ne scientist =B9, page %A? has 8ritten$ J. . . one thing is certain H o"r national policy concerning the con "ct of o"r prisoners of 8ar has not yet f"lly face "p to psychological e)elop#ents 8hich are appearing o)er the horiGon of the f"t"re.J 3is o8n concl"sion 8as that ar#e forces co"l protect infor#ation fro# an ene#y only by enying it to persons s"b9ect to capt"re or, 8here this 8as not feasible, by gi)ing s"ch persons #eans for estroying either the#sel)es or their #e#ories. In the st" y lea ing to the present boo7, the '. S. (ir ;orce thro"gh their sponsorship has so"ght an a"thoritati)e eCa#ination of p"bliciGe spec"lations regar ing the possible "se of scientific e)elop#ents in the #anip"lation of beha)ior against f"t"re prisoners of 8ar. ( specific ob9ecti)e has been to eCa#ine an ene#y:s possible "se of scientific techniF"es to elicit g"ar e infor#ation fro# capti)es, 8hich is the for# of prisoner eCploitation ha)ing the #ost i##e iate an an irect #ilitary significance. It is aCio#atic that interrogation has beco#e a highly o)er ra#atiGe s"b9ect. (si e fro# treat#ents of its #ore sensational aspects, -B-

)ery little infor#ation on the topic appears in open-so"rce literat"re. .he earth of sober infor#ation on interrogation has ha the "nfort"nate conseF"ence of facilitating the eCploitation of 'nite States prisoners of 8ar by Co##"nist captors =6A?. +"r p"rpose here has been to bring together in one boo7 a"thoritati)e infor#ation on #etho s of beha)ioral control that ha)e been the s"b9ect of consi erable spec"lation in isc"ssions of interrogation. Scientists representing a )ariety of fiel s ha)e eCa#ine a n"#ber of hypothetical #eans that #ight occ"r to an interrogator for eliciting infor#ation against the 8ill of his s"b9ect. .heir attention has been #ore on 8hat co"l be one than on 8hat act"ally #ay ha)e been one. (ll the F"estions that are freF"ently raise abo"t these #etho s cannot be ans8ere by s"ch an approach, ho8e)er, since #any of the# are not translatable into scientific ter#s.

Ori%in o' Nonr&tion&$ Con ern 4any scholars ha)e obser)e that science replaces #agic an 8itchcraft as societies sec"lariGe. .he proble#s of li)ing in the present age re#ain #"ch as they ha)e al8ays been, ho8e)er. .hey generate #any of the sa#e 8ishes an terrors. .he aspirations an anCieties that not so long ago 8ere pro9ecte onto conceptions of the 8iGar an 8itch are no8 irecte to the scientist. .8o of the #ost basic of life:s proble#s are lin7e to the in i)i "al:s po8er position )is-K-)is his fello8 #en$ the inability to #a7e others f"lfill one:s 8ishesI an the re)erse, the fear of being controlle by others, 8ith the conseF"ent loss of the a"tono#y that is belie)e to be f"n a#ental to the conception of the self. .hese opposites are incongr"o"sly eCaggerate in paranoi thin7ing, one of the #ost pre)alent #ental sy#pto#s of Western #an. .hey o"btless eCist in the fantasy of #ost persons, to eCtents that iffer fro# paranoia in intensity an per)asi)eness. .he profo"n fascination of the topic "n er consi eration #ay ste# fro# the pri#iti)e, "nconscio"s, an eCtre#e responses to these proble#s, 8hich gain eCpression in #yth, rea#s, ra#a, an literat"re. +n the one han , there is the rea#8ish for o#nipotenceI on the other, the 8ish an fear of the loss of self thro"gh its capt"re by another. .he c"rrent interest in proble#s of #anip"lation of beha)ior in)ol)es basic a#bi)alences o)er o#nipotence an epen ency, 8hich, if pro9ecte , fin a rea y target in the Jo#niscientJ scientist =B>?. -A-

M#t" &nd Re&$it#

.he J#a scientistJ of the horror #o)ie an no)el has been 8ith "s for #any years. 4ore recent fiction has enliste hi# in the ser)ice of the great nation-state. With the perfection of #ass- estr"ction 8eapons an the elaboration of totalitarian efforts to control h"#an beha)ior, the #yth has beg"n to con)erge 8ith aspects of reality. Con9ect"res concerning the prospects of Jtotal annihilation of the h"#an 8illJ appear al#ost as freF"ently as those regar ing the threat of #an7in :s total estr"ction by ther#on"clear or si#ilar 8eapons. *egar ing 8eapons of physical estr"ction, responsible scientific e)i ence is offere along 8ith "ninfor#e an ill-infor#e s"r#ises, both in s"pport of forecasts of oo# an in reb"ttal. In the case of the threats science poses to h"#an a"tono#y, ho8e)er, sensationally spec"lati)e eCpressions, li7e those of the Brave Ne Worl% that (l o"s 3"Cley =D1? recently re)isite , ha)e en9oye a near #onopoly. In professional 9o"rnals an p"blications, as 8ell as in state#ents for pop"lar cons"#ption, scientists ha)e so#eti#es contrib"te to "ncritical thin7ing regar ing the potential application of scientific e)elop#ents to the control of h"#an beha)ior. So#e scientists ha)e one so in their Geal to #a7e the p"blic a8are of the angero"s tool 8hich the techniF"es for #anip"lating beha)ior co"l beco#e in the han s of totalitarian an other irresponsible practitioners. ( co##on error has been to ass"#e that so#e scientific e)elop#ent, or so#e eCplicit scientific theory, 8as being applie by Co##anist Jbrain8ashersJ an other #anip"lators =D, A, %, 1<?. +ther scientists, an interpreters of science, ha)e also contrib"te to the i entification of the beha)ioral scientist as a po8erf"l an "nscr"p"lo"s practitioner of the arts of infl"ence, as in 2ance &ac7ar :s -i%%en Persua%ers =A%?. It has been pointe o"t that the 8ays in 8hich the pop"lar co##"nication #e ia efine the proble# are a7in to those of prescientific ti#es =%6?. *ay#on ,a"er =D? has note the rese#blance of the concept Jbrain8ashingJ to e#onology$ the i ea of the Jbrain8ashe J oes not iffer greatly fro# that of the Jpossesse J =6?. J.he battle for the #in J =%D?, so#eti#es fo"ght against Jthe hi en pers"a er,J has #any ele#ents of the occ"lt. 2ie8ing the proble# in #agical or iabolical ter#s is not an altogetlier irrational analogy, gi)en the eCistence of those 8ho si#"ltaneo"sly practice an see7 perfection of the #eans for controlling beha)ior an concei)e of their efforts as irecte to8ar Jpossessing the 8illJ of their )icti#s. (s one of "s has pointe o"t in isc"ssing -%Co##"nist interrogation an in octrination practices =6?, the Western conception of Jbrain8ashing,J in ter#s a7in to Jpossession,J is #atche by the Co##"nists: )ie8 of 8hat they see7 an ho8 to achie)e it as eCorcis#. .h"s, the Chinese Co##"nist lea ers not only fin nothing to resent in charges that they Jbrain8ashJ their opponents =cf. 1?, b"t regar the ter# as a F"ite apt an honorable escription of 8hat they 8ish to achie)e. .o ta7e another eCa#ple, the sy#bolic i#agery of the #e ie)al -e*enha))er =DD? is reflecte in the esignation of the So)iet Worl War II inF"isitorial apparat"s as S4-*S3 =J1eath to SpiesJ? =%@?.

Scientific sobriety e#an s that the ry eCa#ination of eCperi#ental e)i ence replace the li)ely boo7s on eCorcis# of ancient ti#es. (s in #any conte#porary 8or7s 8hich are closer to the li)elier lore of ancient ti#es, ho8e)er, the present re)ie8 eals 8ith h"#an concerns ante ating science that are at the root of the central F"estion$ JCan #an really be #a e to beha)e contrary to his profo"n est beliefs an his conscio"s self-interestLJ Sy#bols of science can be "se in a #agical 8ay, as #"ch of the Jbrain8ashingJ literat"re ill"strates. 2ario"s 8riters ha)e in)este the techniF"es of interrogators 8ith the #agic of science by attaching technical labels to 8hat act"ally ha)e been tra itional an prag#atic practices =D?. In ass"#ing the attit" e of the Jhar -hea e J scientist to8ar the proble#, there is a anger in falling into an eF"i)alent #is"se of science. .his 8o"l be the case 8ere one, in effect, to atte#pt to co"nter those 8ho present a iabolical i#age of the Jbrain8asherJ by in)o7ing s"perior scientific eities to frighten this specter a8ay. .h"s, #agical thin7ing an pro9ections, as has been in icate , per)a e pre)alent 9" g#ents regar ing the significance of the beha)ioral alterations that interrogators can effect. ,y s"bstit"ting i#passi)e scientific na#es for or inary lang"age 8ith its intense connotations for h"#an )al"es, the i#pression #ay be gi)en of eli#inating not only these eCtra)agant 9" g#ents b"t also al#ost all the h"#an significance of these effects. In this 8ay, for eCa#ple, JtreacheryJ can beco#e #ere Jattit" e changeJ or Ja shift in the s"b9ect:s fra#e of reference.J

Is Contro$ o' Be"&,ior As#-4toti 9 1iffic"lties inhere in ealing scientifically 8ith a proble# that relates so i##e iately to basic h"#an )al"es. (ss"#ptions in this 8or7 hol the person against 8ho# the interrogation efforts are -6irecte H 8ho is esignate follo8ing co##on intelligence "sage as Jthe so"rceJ H to be highly #oti)ate to safeg"ar the infor#ationI an that, at least initially, the so"rce regar s enying infor#ation to his interrogator as J#ore i#portant than life itself.J It apparently has not been a rarity for in i)i "als "n ergoing interrogation to say Jgo ahea an shootJ in the face of a con)incing threat of eath, an yet to re)eal the infor#ation th"s g"ar e "n er see#ingly #il press"re later =<?. Si#ilarly, Western 9"rispr" ence recogniGes that lengthy interrogation, e)en 8itho"t physical coercion, can pro "ce J"n8illingJ confessions, tr"e or false, of capital cri#es. 1i)ergent interpretations ha)e been place on reporte cases of in i)i "als 8ho ha)e resiste )ery intensi)e interrogations 8itho"t i)"lging infor#ation. So#e "se it to e#onstrate the eCistence of an "nconF"erable, ineCting"ishable h"#an 8ill. +thers regar the instances of s"ccessf"l resistance to interrogation as #ere ill"strations of re#e iable eficiencies in interrogation techniF"e.

!either this nor any other scientific )ol"#e, in the opinion of the e itors, can resol)e the ifferences i#plicit in these t8o orientations, or yet other interpretations. +n the basis of scientific tests alone, they are iffic"lt to resol)e e)en 8ith a co#pletely eter#inistic set of ass"#ptions. (s the approach of this re)ie8 ill"strates, for any gi)en set of #oti)ations of the so"rce, ho8e)er po8erf"l, one can at least spec"late abo"t possible #anip"lations to o)erco#e the#. +n the other han , it is possible to spec"late abo"t #etho s of heightening #oti)ations an efenses against any concei)able #anip"lati)e assa"lt. -Ccl"si)ely scientific tests probably cannot foreclose either possibility at this ti#e. (nother i#portant F"alification to con)entional i eas abo"t the "lti#ate li#its of the control of h"#an beha)ior 8ill beco#e apparent in so#e of the isc"ssions that follo8. .he p"rposes that #en ha)e in see7ing to control, or to infl"ence, the beha)ior of others in)ol)e the istincti)ely h"#an capabilities of #en an their significance for one another. .he #a9or fallacy of the totalitarian interrogator gro8s o"t of a poor appreciation of this fact. So#e of the chapters here in icate that there are li#its to 8hich the ability of a so"rce to re)eal infor#ation can be separate fro# his 8illingness to o so. .he analytic i)isions 8e #a7e bet8een s"ch aspects of #ental acti)ity as the recall an trans#ittal of infor#ation on the one han an #oti)ations on the other o not correspon to beha)iors that are totally in epen ent of one another in the organis#. ;"rther#ore, #"ch of the "se one person can #a7e of another resi es in the latter:s ability to f"nction in a )ol"ntary fashion$ in his ha)ing -@initiati)e, #a7ing choices, preferring, an re9ecting. .he fallacy of belief in the possibility of total control for any p"rpose stan s o"t as biGarre in the eCtre#e 8hen acte on by those 8hose p"rposes in)ol)e the control of self-initiate beha)ior. (n eCa#ple, si#"ltaneo"sly tragic an ri ic"lo"s, is the i eological interrogation. ( syste# in 8hich #ental confor#ity is so"ght thro"gh coercion an #anip"lation e#bo ies an e)er-present fear on the part of the controllers that confor#ity 8ill be base on opport"nis# rather than con)iction. In oppressi)e i eological syste#s, s"ch as #o ern Co##"nis#, 8hich e#an Jtr"e sincerityJ fro# their s"b9ects rather than #ere o"t8ar confor#ity, the inF"isitorial process appears to be a nat"ral e)elop#ent. It is a iffic"lt #atter to eter#ine 8hether tho"ghts are in ee Jtr"e tho"ghts.J .he inF"isitorial process, being itself highly coerci)e, reinforces the original s"spicion regar ing opport"nistic confor#ity. In a )icio"s circle, coercion is "se to pro "ce confor#ity, generating fears that the confor#ity pro "ce is insincere, generating in t"rn f"rther coercion to #a7e it Jsincere.J .he abhorrence of these practices by those s"b9ecte to the# #a7es the fears of the controllers 8ell fo"n e an f"rther reinforces the )icio"s circle. 'n er these circ"#stances, the "lti#ate test of the loyalty an sincere e)otion of the in i)i "al to the syste# is his acceptance of the inF"isitorial process itself$ the p"rge, coercion, confession, an the entire paraphernalia of enforce con)ersion.

.alleus .aleficaru) =DD, page D1D? pro)i es an ill"stration of the #anner in 8hich the )icti# is co#pelle to a opt the fra#e of reference of the inF"isitor$
3e Mthe s"specte 8itchN #"st be as7e if he belie)es that there are s"ch things as 8itches, an that s"ch things as 8ere #entione co"l be one, as that te#pests co"l be raise or #en an ani#als be8itche . !ote that for the #ost part 8itches eny this at firstI an therefore this engen ers a greater s"spicion than if they 8ere to ans8er that they left it to s"perior 9" g#ent to say. . . . So if they eny it, they #"st be F"estione as follo8s$ .hen are they innocently con e#ne 8hen they are b"rne L (n he or she #"st ans8er. =Cf. 0ri)itG7y, D6, page 1A1.?

+ne final test of loyalty e#an s that the prisoner act as tho"gh he hate hi#self 8ith the intensity of the cri#inal efinition 8hich the syste# has place "pon hi#. (t the o"tset of the st" y the i#pression of the e itors fro# their prior in)estigation of interrogation proble#s 8as that the effecti)eness of scientific inno)ations for controlling h"#an beha)ior #ay ha)e been eCaggerate in #ost p"blic isc"ssions. ,efore final e)al"ations, alar#ing or other8ise, 8ere )ent"re fro# a h"#an stan point regar ing the significance of the control o)er beha)ior -<8hich scientific e)elop#ents 8ill #a7e possible, it 8as felt that a #ore sober, syste#atic, an acc"rate eCa#ination 8as reF"ire fro# a p"rely ob9ecti)e perspecti)e. .his e)al"ation relates to the applicability of s"ch e)elop#ents to a specifie type of ob9ecti)e an to the nat"re an li#its of the alterations of ob9ecti)e beha)ior that these e)elop#ents 8ill per#it a 8o"l -be #anip"lator to in "ce in a resistant person. (ltho"gh s"ch an effort cannot settle the philosophical an e#otional F"estions raise abo"t the significance of the control 8hich can be eCerte , it can in icate that so#e are ill-fo"n e an others pre#at"re. 6et others relate to )ery real #atters. .his 8or7 oes not represent an atte#pt to #ini#iGe the proble#. .he concl"sions reache o in fact sho8 that #any e)elop#ents can co#po"n tre#en o"sly the alrea y al#ost ins"perable iffic"lties confronting the in i)i "al 8ho see7s to resist an interrogator "nrestraine by #oral or legal scr"ples. +n the other han , it can be sho8n that #any of the #eas"res pop"larly s"ppose to ren er an interrogator o#nipotent act"ally ha)e no e#onstrable applicability to his p"rposes. +ther #eas"res that appear to ha)e high potential "tility for the control or infl"ence of beha)ior see# to o8e their effecti)eness to F"ite ifferent 7in s of processes than pop"larly s"ppose . (#ong the latter are JplaceboJ #eas"res, the s"ccess of 8hich epen s largely "pon the attrib"tion to the# of a noneCistent potency by the s"b9ect, an at ti#es the #anip"lator. 0no8le ge, it appears, is a Jt8o-e ge s8or J in interrogation. .he latter fact is a so"rce of so#e co#fort. Se)eral scientists ha)e reporte on the possible applications of scientific 7no8le ge that #ight be #a e by the #ost callo"s

interrogator or po8er. .he res"lts of their thin7ing are a)ailable here for anyone to "se, incl" ing the "nscr"p"lo"s. .he alternati)e is to confer on the 8o"l -be #anip"lator a #onopoly of 7no8le ge by efa"lt. 3is s"ccess, as the )ario"s chapters of this boo7 ill"strate, epen s hea)ily on the ignorance of his )icti#s. S7inner =%<? has arg"e that those 8ho are #ost concerne 8ith restricting the )"lnerability of #en to control by others ha)e the #ost to gain fro# a clear "n erstan ing of the techniF"es e#ploye =pages BD>-BDD?. =See also S7inner, %9.?

Fo us On O()e ti,e Be"&,ior .he F"estion of controlling f"n a#ental attit" es an )al"es #ay hol greater interest for #any than o"r attention to the eliciting of g"ar e facts by interrogators. 4"ch concern of recent years regar -9ing beha)ior control, as has been isc"sse , has centere on connotations that ha)e co#e to be con)eye by the ter# Jbrain8ashing.J .he so"rce of this concern is the belief that in i)i "als can be Jchange J in so#e f"n a#ental 8ay by e)io"s an #ysterio"s acts of infl"ence. Certainly, Co##"nist practitioners of Jtho"ght-refor#J )is"aliGe the creation of a Jne8 #anJ as their ob9ecti)e. &eople of Western nations, frightene an p"GGle by these Co##"nist practices, ha)e also felt that the beha)ior isplaye by #any )icti#s of s"ch efforts co"l be eCplaine only in ter#s of so#e )ery basic changes 8ithin the in i)i "al. .he iffic"lties confronting atte#pts to eCa#ine s"ch co#pleC iss"es scientifically arg"e in fa)or of ealing first 8ith si#pler an #ore ob9ecti)e for#s of beha)ioral infl"ence. In the Jbrain8ashingJ #o el, 8e ha)e a basically nonrational atte#pt to effect nonrational changes of s"b9ecti)e states. &ractitioners of Jtho"ght-refor#J see7 JrealJ changes in beliefs an )al"es. .hey e#an that the )icti# be Jhonest, sincere, an f"llJ in his Jself-eCa#ination, repentance, an changeJ =D@?. It is iffic"lt to fin ob9ecti)e in icators of the eCtent to 8hich a Jtho"ght-refor#erJ has achie)e Jhonesty an sincerity,J an partic"larly iffic"lt 8hen gi)en the special i eological #eanings s"ch ter#s ha)e for the practitioners of Jtho"ght-refor#.J (s for pro "cing JrealJ an Jf"n a#entalJ changes in the person, the s"perficial an stereotypical concepts abo"t h"#an personality on 8hich Co##"nist J tho"ght-refor#J efforts are pre icate #ight lea one to eCpect that any f"n a#ental changes they pro "ce #"st be acci ental rather than a realiGation of a eliberate ob9ecti)e. .here is no F"estion that it is possible for #en to alter, i#pair, or e)en to estroy the effecti)e psychological f"nctioning of others o)er 8ho# they eCercise po8er. .he concepts infl"ence, control, an #anip"lation enote a certain 7in of alteration$ the cons"##ation of a p"rpose of the infl"encer in the beha)ior of the infl"ence . If 8e 8ish to eCa#ine scientifically F"estions enote by the ter#s infl"ence, control, or

#anip"lation, 8e #"st be able to obser)e ob9ecti)ely an to efine in precise ter#s both the effects so"ght an those obtaine . ( foc"s on the elicitation of g"ar e fact"al infor#ation si#plifies the analytical proble# consi erably by posing a #o el that in)ol)es s"ch ob9ecti)ely specifiable p"rposes an effects. .o achie)e f"rther si#plicity for p"rposes of this re)ie8, the contrib"tors 8ere as7e to consi er as their pri#ary #o el interrogations 8here the interrogator:s ob9ecti)es consiste of obtaining si#ple, ob9ecti)e infor#ation regar ing the physical 8orl . -1>Interrogators in this age of Jpsychological 8arfareJ increasingly see7 Jsocial an psychological intelligenceJ fro# their so"rces. (s in #ost social science inter)ie8ing, the content of this type of reporting epen s on s"ch factors as the s"b9ecti)e state an the personal an c"lt"ral fra#es of reference of the reporter. Consi erable si#plification is achie)e by a)oi ing the co#pleC proble#s of inter)ie8ing, 8hich in)ol)e infl"encing persons to report psychological an social infor#ation acc"rately, an the infinitely #ore co#pleC F"estion of 8hat constit"tes acc"rate infor#ation on s"ch topics. .here are )ario"s #oti)ations or )al"es 8hich #ay "n erlie the resistance of a so"rce to an interrogation atte#pt. .he interest here is in any #etho thro"gh 8hich these bases of resistance #ay be change , o"t8eighe , ne"traliGe , or circ"#)ente so that the person co#es to beha)e in a #anner he 8as originally strongly #oti)ate to a)oi . .he partic"lar for# of beha)ior to8ar 8hich attention is irecte , the i#parting of fact"al infor#ation, has )ario"s pec"liarities. So#e of these istincti)e feat"res are consi ere in the re)ie8s. ;e8 eCperi#ents, ho8e)er, ha)e ealt irectly 8ith atte#pts to elicit precisely this for# of beha)ior. .he attention of the contrib"tors 8as broa ene of necessity to eCploit the rele)ance of eCperi#ents st" ying interpersonal infl"ence on other for#s of beha)ior. .his boo7 oes not preten to eCa#ine the processes by 8hich f"n a#ental an lasting alterations of the )al"e syste# of a s"b9ect co#e abo"t. !onetheless, in the re)ie8 of eCperi#entation on interpersonal infl"ence =Chapter 6?, it 8as i#perati)e to consi er 7no8le ge e)elope thro"gh eCperi#ents that in)ol)e theoretical concepts s"ch as Jchanges in attit" e or belief.J ;ro# the present perspecti)e, the )ali ity of s"ch obser)ations oes not epen "pon the egree to 8hich obser)e changes tr"ly reflect stable an lasting changes in the s"b9ect. When a eter#ination is #a e that later beha)ior negates so#e )al"e strongly affir#e earlier in the eCperi#ent, or the re)erse, the eCperi#ent accor s s"fficiently 8ith the F"estions being pose here. (ltho"gh the 7in of infl"ence atte#pt consi ere here represents a consi erably si#pler proble# than the attit" e changes or e)en attit" e reporting "se here for so#e inferences, it nonetheless in)ol)es the pro "ction an obser)ation of co#pleC, sy#bolic, learne h"#an beha)ior. .h"s, e)i ence regar ing the #anip"lations that

are possible of the sali)ary response or other si#ple responses of either ani#als or h"#ans 8o"l not pro)i e ans8ers to the F"estions raise by this re)ie8. -11-

S ienti'i Pur4ose We ha)e atte#pte here to co##"nicate scientific infor#ation to scientists, an the 8or7 originally "n erta7en for the '. S. (ir ;orce has been re)ise an s"pple#ente to this en . -#phasis has been place on etailing the scientific i#plications of both the general an the specific s"b9ect #atters, an their )al"e for theory an research. .he n"#ber of rele)ant F"estions left "nans8ere by the st" y points to the nee for f"rther in)estigation of the proble# "n er consi eration. .he contrib"tors represent a )ariety of scientific fiel s, an their #aterial either separately or in the aggregate 8ill "n o"bte ly hol interest for specialists in still other fiel s. .he 8riting style here is a7in to the broa er style of papers esigne for presentation at #eetings of representati)es fro# se)eral ifferent scientific isciplines. .his 8or7 #ight help the ar#e forces to offset the lac7 of 7no8le ge that 8as in part hel responsible for #"ch of the s"ccess Co##"nist captors achie)e in interrogation of 'nite States prisoners of 8ar in 0orea =6A?. Its )al"e for this p"rpose is li#ite in that it ass"#es an interrogator 8ho p"rs"es his ob9ecti)e of e)eloping infor#ation rationally. &ast eCperience in icates that practices enco"ntere by prisoners of 8ar are not eter#ine eCcl"si)ely by consi erations of logic =%?. ( rational eCa#ination of the proble# cannot lea to pre ictions of a nonrational opponent:s actions. 3istorically, there has been freF"ent resort to coerci)e practices for eliciting infor#ation, espite ab"n ant e)i ence that s"ch #eas"res are relati)ely ineffecti)e. So#e esti#ates of 8hat an opponent is li7ely to o, in a ition to those base on consi erations of 8hat it 8ill be feasible an a )antageo"s for hi# to o, are reF"ire in e)ising #eas"res for th8arting ene#y eCploitation atte#pts against prisoners of 8ar. If the present st" y also recei)es the attention of interrogators, it #ay offset their ten ency to a opt the sensational stereotypes of interrogation on 8hich #any of the# appear to ha)e #o ele their practice in the past.

Sour es .his boo7 is base eCcl"si)ely on p"blicly a)ailable scientific #aterial. &arallel, b"t secret, in)estigations can be pres"#e to ha)e been "n erta7en by a n"#ber of police an intelligence syste#s. -1D-

(ltho"gh the generally a)ailable literat"re 8o"l probably reflect in an o)er-all 8ay the achie)e#ents of secret research, it is concei)able that so#e "n7no8n isco)eries or applications #ay ha)e been #a e. +"r contrib"tors ha)e in icate gaps in specially rele)ant 7no8le ge, #any of 8hich 8o"l not be p"rs"e intensi)ely in the or inary co"rse of scientific e)elop#ent. Largely, ho8e)er, the "nans8ere F"estions that are central to the topic of this boo7 also point to critical gaps in present scientific 7no8le ge. It sho"l be note that interrogations al#ost in)ariably procee in pri)ate. .he t8o #a9or so"rces of infor#ation abo"t the# are$ practitioners of the JartJ an their )icti#s. .he for#er are generally reF"ire to g"ar the etails of their craft as secretsI the latter #ay ha)e a li#ite perception, "n erstan ing, an #e#ory of 8hat they ha)e eCperience . It is possible that practice in so#e respects has a )ance beyon the le)el of the inferences an con9ect"res presente here. In other respects, eCperience has pro)en that so#e potentialities of interrogation ha)e been o)eresti#ate . ;ree access to the g"ar e han boo7s of interrogators e)ery8here probably 8o"l not lea to any s"bstantial #o ification in the general concl"sions of this re)ie8.

S o4e ( thoro"gh re)ie8 has been atte#pte of the scientific areas that ha)e fig"re #ost pro#inently in spec"lations concerning Jscientific interrogation.J ,eca"se of its efensi)e application "ring interrogation, one aspect of the proble# recei)ing special consi eration in this boo7 is the ability of the so"rce to th8art his interrogator by feigning psychological isor er. 4alingering is a ti#e-honore tactic. Its isc"ssion here ill"strates so#e of the i#plications of personality e)al"ation for #anip"lati)e sit"ations. &ersonality e)al"ation historically has been consi ere a clinical a 9"nct to #anip"lation. Its application reF"ires the #anip"lation to be Jtailor-#a eJ to the specific in i)i "al ifferences enco"ntere in the intelligence so"rce. !o co#prehensi)e isc"ssion of this topic has been atte#pte here for se)eral reasons$ =a? #ost #eans of personality e)al"ation reF"ire the 8illing cooperation of the s"b9ect, 8hich is not li7ely to be obtainable fro# rel"ctant so"rcesI =b? assess#ents not reF"iring the cooperation of the so"rce =e.g., obser)ation, graphology, analysis of speech or gest"res? yiel notorio"sly poor agree#ent a#ong in epen ent 9" ges or obser)ers, "nless the beha)ior -1Bis categoriGe into #in"tiae that are iffic"lt to interpret #eaningf"llyI =c? 7no8le ge is lac7ing on ho8 to effect #aCi#al eCploitation by ifferential treat#ent of so"rces on the basis of personality infor#ation, if it 8ere a)ailable in reliable for#I an finally = ?

consens"s on a theory of personality, 8hich is critical to the integration an application of personality ata, oes not eCist. &"blishe spec"lations that electrical sti#"lation of the brain #ight be e#ploye for p"rposes of nefario"s infl"ence le the e itors to belie)e initially that an eCa#ination of this area sho"l also be incl" e in this boo7. .he notion that the action of the brain, an thereby the action of an in i)i "al, #ight be controlle irectly is an ancient one. -lectrical brain sti#"lation 8as one of the #etho s J,ig ,rotherJ "se in +r8ell:s 6789 to control his s"b9ects. Scientists, incl" ing Lilly =1B, D9?, 4iller =B9?, +l s =AD, AB? an Sargant =%D?, ha)e in icate that recent eCperi#ental e)elop#ents gi)e so#e basis to the fiction-8riters: con9ect"res. +bser)ations, pri#arily fro# ani#al eCperi#entation, le to the follo8ing s"r#ises. ;irst, an earliest, 8ere possibilities s"ggeste by obser)ations of &enfiel =A6? that cortical sti#"lation #ight elicit J#e#oryJ an so#e spontaneo"s )erbaliGation of infor#ation. Secon , ani#al eCperi#ents raise the possibility that s"b9ecti)e eCperiences fro# s"bcortical sti#"lation #ight be so intense as to pro)i e a basis for the a #inistration of reinforce#ents of "nprece ente strength. (lso, the possibility 8as raise that organis#s #ight be #a e #ore JteachableJ by irect inter)entions of this 7in . .he e itors as7e Si ney 4ar)in, 4.1., Walter *ee (r#y Instit"te of *esearch, 8ho has been 8or7ing on s"bcortical sti#"lation for pain relief in h"#an s"b9ects, to re)ie8 c"rrent 7no8le ge an techniF"es in this area fro# the perspecti)e of this boo7. Colonel 4ar)in fo"n that eCperi#entation ha not progresse s"fficiently to allo8 for other than con9ect"ral state#ents regar ing the F"estions raise . .he e itors belie)e it s"fficient for the p"rposes of this )ol"#e to F"ote briefly the general concl"sions of Colonel 4ar)in:s report$
. . . In concl"sion it sho"l be sai that in its c"rrent stat"s$ =1? s"bcortical electrosti#"lation is strictly in the research stage of e)elop#ent an that infor#ation is s7etchy an )ariable, =D? precise i#plantation of electro es into a gi)en brain location is possible only 8ithin O>.% c#, a reasonable esti#ate of the present acc"racy, =B? altho"gh a#age to the central ner)o"s syste# by s"ch techniF"es is relati)ely #ini#al an "s"ally re)ersible, still it is a #a9or factor to be consi ere , =A? c"rrent 7no8le ge an 8or7ing concepts of ne"roanato#y an other relate isciplines are ins"fficient. . . .

-1A'nless 7no8le ge an techniF"es eCist far #ore a )ance than those 7no8n to the Western scientific co##"nity, intracranial sti#"lation as presently 7no8n 8o"l not be e#ploye in any rational atte#pt to elicit intelligence.

(lso eCcl" e fro# these pages is a consi eration of the role of &a)lo)ian con itione refleC theory in interrogation. .he notoriety attaine by this theory, as eCplaining the inspiration an effecti)eness of Co##"nist techniF"es of coerci)e interrogation =D>, BD, B6, %D?, has pro#pte st" ies by other in)estigators. ( n"#ber of st" ents of the s"b9ect =D, A, 1@, 1<, %%, %6? ha)e ref"te the contention that &a)lo)ian theory infl"ence these practices, 8hereas Schein =%6? an ;arber, 3arlo8, an West =1>? in icate the ina eF"acy of si#ple con itioning #o els to acco"nt for the 7in s of co#pleC beha)ior patterns pro "ce in the co"rse of interrogation.

Contrib"tors ha)e been free to choose eclectically 8hate)er #o els an theories appeare #ost a eF"ate to their respecti)e topics. +n the 8hole, #atters of length, le)el of generality, an organiGation si#ilarly ha)e been left to the 9" g#ent of the in i)i "al contrib"tors. In those cases 8here the contrib"tors to this boo7 8ere not the#sel)es highly con)ersant 8ith interrogation practices, the e itors ha)e ra8n on their o8n eCperience an on research that they ha)e con "cte on interrogation in a )ising the contrib"tors an in e iting the chapters. .he e itors th"s acti)ely so"ght to increase the rele)ance of the re)ie8s to the realities of interrogation. (L,-*. 1. ,I1-*4(! 3-*,-*. 5I44-* Washington, ,. +. .arch 67:;

Re'eren es
1. (i Ss"-ch:i. J+n proble#s of i eological refor#J. -sueh -si, 19%1, B. D. ,a"er *. (. J,rain8ashing$ &sychology or e#onologyLJ J. soc. Issues, 19%@, 1B=B?, A1-A@. B. ,eCton W. 3. So)e effects of (erce(tual isolation on hu)an su'<ects. 'np"blishe issertation, 4c/ill 'ni)er., 19%B. octoral

A. ,i er#an (. 1. +o))unist techni=ues of coercive interrogation. Lac7lan (ir ;orce ,ase, .eCas$ (ir ;orce &ersonnel an .raining *esearch Center, 1ece#ber 19%6. A0P&R+ ,evelo()ent Re(ort &N> ?:>6@A. %. ,i er#an (. 1. JCo##"nist atte#pts to elicit false confessions fro# (ir ;orce prisoners of 8arJ. Bull. N. !. Aca%. .e%., 19%@, BB, 616-6D%. 6. ,i er#an. (. 1. 1ffects of +o))unist in%octrination atte)(tsB So)e co))ents 'ase% on an Air 0orce (risoner>of> ar stu%y. Washington, 1. C.$ +ffice of

-1%6. Intelligence *esearch, '. S. 1ept. of State, +ctober @, 19%@. 1*ternal Research Pa(er !o. 1BD. @. ,i er#an (. 1. J-ffects of Co##"nist in octrination atte#pts$ So#e co##ents base on an (ir ;orce prisoner-of-8ar st" yJ. Soc. Pro'l., 19%9, 6, B>A-B1B. <. ,i er#an (. 1. Social-psychological nee s an Jin)ol"ntaryJ beha)ior as ill"strate co#pliance in interrogation. Socio)etry, 196>, DB, 1D>-1A@. by

9. ,i er#an (. 1., an 4onroe J. L. J*eactions to the 0orean &+W episo eJ. ( paper rea at the (nn"al Con)ention of the (#er. &sychol. (ss., Washington, 1. C., Septe#ber 19%<. 1>. ;arber I. -., 3arlo8 3. ;., an West L. J. J,rain8ashing, con itioning, an 111 = ebility, epen ency an rea ?J. Socio)etry, 19%@, D>, D@1-D<%. 11. ;e ern -. J.he en "rance of tort"reJ. +o)(le*, 19%1, A, BA-A1. 1D. /ala#bos *., an 4organ C. .. J.he ne"ral basis of learningJ. -an%'oo" of Physiology. Washington, 1. C.$ (#er. &hysiol. Soc., in press. 1B. J/ro"p for the ( )ance#ent of &sychiatryJ. 0actors use% to increase the susce(ti'ility of in%ivi%uals to forceful in%octrinationB 4'servations an% e*(eri)ents. !e8 6or7$ /(& &"blications +ffice, 1ece#ber 19%6. GAP Sy)(osiu) !o. B. 1A. J/ro"p for the ( )ance#ent of &sychiatryJ. .etho%s of forceful in%octrinationB 4'servations an% intervie s. !e8 6or7$ /(& &"blications +ffice, J"ly 19%@. GAP Sy)(osiu) !o. A. 1%. 3ac7er (. J1ostoe)s7y:s isciples$ 4an an sheep in political theoryJ. J. Politics, 19%%, 1<, %9>-61B. 16. 3aring J. J&refaceJ =to special iss"e on J,rain8ashingJ?. J. soc. Issues, 19%@, 1B=B?, 1-D. 1@. 3in7le L. -., Jr. JIn /ro"p for the ( )ance#ent of &sychiatryJ, .etho%s of forceful in%octrinationB 4'servations an% intervie s. !e8 6or7$ /(& &"blications +ffice, J"ly 19%@. GAP Sy)(osiu) No. 9. &p. D<%-D9D. 1<. 3in7le L. -., Jr., an Wolff 3. /. Co##"nist interrogation an in octrination of J-ne#ies of the State. (nalysis of #etho s "se by the Co##"nist state police. =Special *eport?, A...A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%6, @6, 11%-1@A. 19. 3"nter -. Brain ashingB &he story of )en ho %efie% it. !e8 6or7$ ;arrar, Stra"s an C" ahy, 19%6. D>. 3"nter -. Brain ashing in Re% +hina. !e8 6or7$ 2ang"ar &ress, 19%B. D1. 3"Cley (. Brave ne orl% revisite%. !e8 6or7$ 3arper ,ros., 19%<. Sprenger J. .alleus .aleficaru). .ranslate by 4ontag"e

DD. Institoris =3. 0rae#er? an S"##ers. Lon on$ J. *o 7er, 19D<.

DB. Janis I. L. Are the +o)infor) countries using hy(notic techni=ues to elicit confessions in (u'lic trialsC Santa 4onica, Calif.$ *(!1 Corp., (pril D%, 19A9, R. 161. DA. Jor an 3. J6o" too 8o"l confessJ. Argosy, ;ebr"ary 19%@, 1%-1@, %@-6B. D%. 0in7ea -. In every ar 'ut one. !e8 6or7$ !orton, 19%9. D6. 0ri)itG7y W. /. In StalinDs secret service. !e8 6or7$ 3arper ,ros., 19B9. D@. Lifton J. J.ho"ght refor# of Western ci)ilians in Chinese Co##"nist prisonsJ. Psychiatry, 19%6, 19, 1@B-19%.

D<. Lilly J. C. J4ental effects of re "ction of or inary le)els of physical sti#"li on intact, healthy personsJ. Psychiat. res. Re(. A)er. Psychiat. Ass., 19%6, %, 1-D<. D9. Lilly J. C., 3"ghes J. *., (l)or -. C., Jr., an /al7in .. W. J,rief, nonin9"rio"s electric 8a)efor# for sti#"lation of the brainJ. Science, 19%%, 1D1, A6<-A69.

-16B>. 4a"sner ,., an 4a"sner J" ith. J.he anti-scientific attit" eJ. Scient. A)er., 19%%, 19D, B%-B9. B1. 4ayer W. -. JWhy i so #any /I capti)es ca)e inLJ U. S. Ne s an% Worl% Re(ort, ;ebr"ary DA, 19%6, %6-6D. BD. 4ayo C. W. J1estroying (#erican #in s H *"ssians #a e it a scienceJ. U. S. Ne s an% Worl% Re(ort, !o)e#ber 6, 19%B, 9@-1>1. BB. 4eerloo J. (. 4. J.he cri#e of #entici eJ. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%1, 1>@, %9A-%9< BA. 4eerloo J. (. 4. J4entici eJ. In +onversation an% +o))unication, !e8 6or7$ Internat. 'ni)er. &ress, 19%D. &p. 1A9-1%@. B%. 4eerloo. J. (. 4. J.ho"ght control an confession co#p"lsionJ. In *. 4. Lin ner =- .?, 1*(lorations in Psychoanalysis, !e8 6or7$ J"lian &ress, 19%B. &p. D<-B@. B6. 4eerloo J. (. 4. J&a)lo)ian strategy as a 8eapon of #entici eJ. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%A, 11>, 1@B-196. B@. 4eerloo J. (. 4. J4e ication into s"b#issionI the anger of therape"tic coercionJ. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19%%, 1DD, B%B-B6>. B<. 4eerloo J. (. 4. &he ra(e of the )in%. Cle)elan $ Worl &"bl. Co., 19%6. B9. 4iller J. /. J,rain8ashing$ &resent an f"t"reJ. J. soc. Issues, 19%@, 1B=B?, A<-%%. A>. J4iscon "ct in the prison ca#p$ ( s"r)ey of the la8 an an analysis of the 0orean casesJ. ( st" ent note. +olu)'ia la Rev., 19%6, %6, @>9-@9A. A1. 4"rray J. C. JSinging is for the bir sJ. &he Ar)y +o)'at 0orces J., 19%%, 6=1?, 1%-D1. AD. +l s J. J( physiological st" y of re8ar J. In 1. C. 4cClellan =- .?, Stu%ies in )otivation. !e8 6or7$ (ppleton-Cent"ry-Crofts, 19%%, &p. 1BA-1AB. AB. +l s J. JSelf-sti#"lation of the brain$ Its "se to st" y local effects of h"nger, seC, an Science, 19%<, 1D@, B1%-BDA. AA. +r8ell /. Nineteen eighty four. !e8 6or7$ 3arco"rt ,race, 19A9. A%. &ac7ar 2. &he hi%%en (ersua%ers. !e8 6or7$ 4c0ay, 19%@. A6. &enfiel W., an *as#"ssen .. &he cere'ral corte* of )anB A clinical stu%y of locali3ation of function. !e8 6or7$ 4ac#illan, 19%>. r"gsJ.

A@. &eterson 1. ,. &risoners s8aye i n:t fall$ Co##"nists Jsol J )ery fe8, says top (r#y psychiatrist. U. S. Ne s an% Worl% Re(ort, ("g"st D<, 19%B, B%, D<. A<. &r"gh /. S., Jr. JJ"stice for all *-C(&-0:sJ. &he Ar)y +o)'at 0orces J., 19%%, 6=A?, 1%-D6. A9. &iagh /. S., Jr. J.he co e of con "ct for the ar#e forcesJ. +olu)'ia la Rev., 19%6, %6, 6<66<@. %>. *ies#an 1. JSo#e obser)ations on the li#its of totalitarian po8erJ. Antioch Rev., 19%D, 1D, 1%%16<. %1. *olin J. Police %rugs. .ranslate by L. J. ,en it. !e8 6or7$ &hilosophical Library, 19%6. %D. Sargant W. Battle for the )in%. !e8 6or7$ 1o"ble ay, 19%@. %B. Schein -. 3. J*eaction &atterns to se)ere, chronic stress in (#erican (r#y prisoners of 8ar of the ChineseJ. J. soc. Issues, 19%@, 1B=B?, D1-B>. %A. Schein -. 3. J-pilog"e$ So#ething ne8 in historyLJ J. soc. Issues, 19%@, 1B=B?, %6-6>. %%. Schein -. 3. J,rain8ashingJ. 1ncyclo(e%ia Brittanica, in press. %6. Schein -. 3. J,rain8ashing an totalitarianis# in #o ern societyJ. Worl% Politics, in press.

-1@%@. Sine)irs7ii !. S)ersh. - ite by 0. 3ill an 4. 3ill. .ranslate by C. W. ,ol yreff. !e8 6or7$ 3olt, 19%>. %<. S7inner ,. ;. Science an% hu)an 'ehavior. !e8 6or7$ 4ac#illan, 19%6. %9. S7inner ,. ;. Wal%en II. !e8 6or7$ 4ac#illan, 19%9. 6>. .ennien 4. No secret is safe 'ehin% the Ba)'oo +urtain. !e8 6or7$ ;arrar, Stra"s an 6o"ng, 19%D. 61. J'. S. Congress, SenateJ. Co##ittee on /o)ern#ent +perations, &er#anent S"bco##ittee on In)estigations. +o))unist interrogation, in%octrination an% e*(loitation of A)erican )ilitary an% civilian (risoners. 89th +ongress, An% Session, Senate Re(ort No. A8@A , 1ece#ber B1, 19%6. Washington, 1. C.$ '. S. /o)t. &rint. +ff., 19%@. 6D. J'. S. Congress, SenateJ. JCo##ittee on /o)ern#ent +perations, &er#anent S"bco##ittee on In)estigationsJ. -earings, June A:, 67?:. Washington, 1. C.$ '. S. /o)t. &rint. +ff., 19%6. 6B. J'. S. 1ept. of the (r#yJ. +o))unist interrogation, in%octrination an% e*(loitation of (risoners of ar. Ar)y (a)(hlet No. @;>6;6, 4ay 19%6. Washington, 1. C.$ '. S. /o)t. &rint. +ff., 19%6. 6A. J'. S. 1ept. of 1efenseJ. P4WB &he fight continues after the 'attle. &he re(ort of the Secretary of ,efenseDs A%visory +o))ittee on Prisoners of War, August 67??. Washington, 1. C.$ '. S. /o)t. &rint. +ff., 19%%.

6%. West L. J. J'nite States (ir ;orce prisoners of the Chinese Co##"nistsJ. In /ro"p for the ( )ance#ent of &sychiatry, .etho%s of forceful in%octrinationB 4'servations an% intervie s, !e8 6or7$ /(& &"blications +ffice, J"ly 19%@. GAP Sy)(osiu) !o. A, pp. D@>-D<A. 66. West L. J. J&sychiatric aspects of training for honorable s"r)i)al as a prisoner of 8arJ. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%<, 11%, BD9-BB6. 6@. Wino7"r /. J.he ger# 8arfare state#ents$ ( synthesis of a #etho for the eCtortion of false confessionsJ. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19%%, 1DD, 6%-@D. 6<. Wolff 3. /. +o))it)ent an% resistance. Washington, 1. C.$ ,"rea" of Soc. Sci. *es., Inc., Jan"ary 19%9. Stu%y SR 6EE>,, S(ecial Re(ort !o. B. 69. 5i##er 3., an 4eltGer 4. L. An annotate% 'i'liogra(hy of literature relevant to the interrogation (rocess. Washington, 1. C.$ /eorgeto8n 'ni)er 4e . Center, 19%@.

-1<-

CHAPTER

The physiological state of the interrogation subject as it affects brain function

L(W*-!C- -. 3I!0L-, J*.

Introdu tion When an interrogation is carrie o"t for the p"rposes of intelligence, 8e #ay ass"#e that it is inten e to obtain infor#ation an not si#ply to pro "ce co#pliant beha)ior on the part of the #an being interrogate . +ne #ight escribe an interrogator as a #an 8ho tries to obtain infor#ation fro# another #an 8ho #ay or #ay not possess it an 8ho is not necessarily #oti)ate to gi)e the infor#ation if he oes. .he interrogator 8o"l li7e to ha)e this #an pro "ce his infor#ation rapi ly, acc"rately, co#pletely, an 8itho"t a#en #ents or a itions. In the 8or s of the la8, he 8ants Jthe tr"th, the 8hole tr"th, an nothing b"t the tr"thJ H an often he 8ants this as soon as possible beca"se the infor#ation that he see7s has perishable F"alities. In the "rgency of his nee , he #ay interrogate a #an 8ho is in9"re , fatig"e , or in pain. 3e #ay "se )ario"s #ane")ers s"ch as prolonge or repetiti)e interrogation in or er to o)erco#e his infor#ant:s "n8illingness to gi)e infor#ation. In oing so he inc"rs the

ris7 that his efforts #ay pro "ce co#pliant beha)ior 8itho"t eliciting acc"rate infor#ation. .he infor#ation that the interrogator see7s represents 8hat his so"rce still 7no8s abo"t )ario"s e)ents, sit"ations, organiGations, e)ices, etc., to 8hich he has been eCpose in the past. .he #ost co#plete an acc"rate infor#ation that he can hope to obtain can be only an approCi#ation of the Jtr"e facts of the caseJ e)en J"n er -19the best circ"#stances.J It is the p"rpose of this chapter to inF"ire into these Jcirc"#stances,J to consi er so#e of the sit"ations 8here interrogation #ay be carrie o"t, ho8 these affect an infor#ant:s ability an 8illingness to gi)e infor#ation, an 8hat the i eal circ"#stances of interrogation #ay be. .he ter# Jcirc"#stancesJ is ta7en to #ean Jthe con ition of the #an being interrogate an the sit"ation in 8hich he fin s hi#self at the ti#e.J We shall not consi er #etho s of interrogation or the nat"re of the interrogation process, b"t rather the li#itations place "pon these by the state of the #an 8ho is being interrogate . .he h"#an brain, the repository of the infor#ation that the interrogator see7s, f"nctions opti#ally 8ithin the sa#e narro8 range of physical an che#ical con itions that li#it the f"nctions of h"#an organs in generalI an it has, in a ition, certain special li#itations of its o8n. (ny circ"#stance that i#pairs the f"nction of the brain potentially affects the ability to gi)e infor#ation as 8ell as the ability to 8ithhol it.

E''e ts o' Distur(ed Bodi$# Fun tions U4on Br&in Fun tion So#e aspects of the physical an che#ical con itions necessary for the nor#al f"nction of the h"#an brain are rather precisely 7no8n. .he brain, li7e other organs of the h"#an bo y, eCists in an Jinternal #ilie"J 8hich is #aintaine in a re#ar7ably stea y state by a great n"#ber of fee bac7 #echanis#s, so#e F"ite co#pleC. (ny ist"rbance in the constancy of this #ilie" brings into play ho#eostatic responses 8hich #ay in)ol)e the great #a9ority of bo ily processes as 8ell as the acti)ities of the #an as a 8hole. When en)iron#ental con itions pose a threat, these #echanis#s are capable of creating #a9or alterations in the internal econo#y an in #any facets of beha)ior =%9, 1D9, 1B>?. It is largely in this #anner that changes in the con ition of the #an being interrogate #ay affect his ability to gi)e acc"rate infor#ation. So#e feat"res of the internal #ilie" #ay be consi ere briefly in or er to ill"strate so#e of the )"lnerabilities of the brain to eCternal infl"ences. .he te#perat"re of the h"#an internal en)iron#ent is #aintaine )ery near B@.%P C. ( rise in te#perat"re abo)e AAP C =11DP ;? =1>, BB, 1D1?, or a fall belo8 DAP C =@%P ;? =@B, 116? #ay a#age the brain per#anently or be fatal. (n ele)ation of bo y

te#perat"re to A1P C =1>6P ;? or abo)e H 8hich #ay occ"r acco#panying -D>-

"ring the fe)er

isease or "ring heat stro7e H nearly al8ays i#pairs brain f"nction. So#eti#es s"ch i#pair#ent appears at #"ch lo8er te#perat"res. Si#ilarly, a epression of bo y te#perat"re to approCi#ately B1P C =<<P ;? H a le)el 8hich is so#eti#es pro "ce artificially "ring anesthesia or 8hich #ay occ"r nat"rally in #en after eCtre#e eCpos"re to col H also i#pairs brain f"nction =D, 9, B@, 6D, 1DB?. .he nat"re of the i#pair#ents of brain f"nction that occ"r "ring these an si#ilar ist"rbances of ho#eostasis are isc"sse shortly. .hese i#pair#ents sho8 #any points of si#ilarity, regar less of the con itions ca"sing the#. .he concentration of the fl"i in the internal #ilie" is #aintaine re#ar7ably close to B1> #ilios#ols per liter. (n increase in its concentration =as #ay occ"r after he#orrhage or after in9"ries that create shoc7? #ay i#pair the f"nction of the brain. ( ecrease in its concentration =8hich can ta7e place if a #an is force to rin7 eCcessi)e a#o"nts of 8ater o)er a short perio of ti#e? also #ay i#pair brain f"ntion =B<, 1BA?. 1 .he internal #ilie" contains a n"#ber of organic an inorganic s"bstances in sol"tion, an the concentration of each of these is also #aintaine at a re#ar7ably stea y le)el. 1ist"rbances in the concentration of any of these s"bstances, "p8ar , o8n8ar , or in their relati)e proportions, #ay i#pair brain f"nction. .his i#pair#ent #ay be pro "ce irectly by the effect of these changes on the brain, or in irectly thro"gh the i#pair#ent of the f"nction of other )ital organs, 8hich in t"rn pro "ce a ist"rbance of the internal #ilie". It 8o"l not be profitable to atte#pt to list the li#its of the )ario"s ele)ations, epressions, or relati)e isproportions of these s"bstances beyon 8hich an i#pair#ent of brain f"nction #ay occ"r. In practice no single change occ"rs, b"t rather a ist"rbance of the concentration of se)eral. ( )ariety of rather co##on con itions #ay pro "ce s"ch ist"rbances. (#ong these are eCcessi)e s8eating, epri)ation of 8ater, iets eficient in salt, ingestion of eCcessi)e a#o"nts of 8ater or other nonsalty be)erages o)er a short perio of ti#e, ingestion of eCcessi)e a#o"nts of salt in foo 8hen 8ater is restricte , ingestion of sea 8ater in the absence of other 8ater, poison1 .he a878ar ter# Qbrain f"nctionR is "se here beca"se there is no other that enotes all of the co#pleC acti)ities that the higher centers of the brain #a7e possible. =We shall isregar its less co#pleC an )egetati)e acti)ities.? .er#s s"ch as Q#entation,R Q#ental acti)ity,R an Qthin7ingR are ina eF"ate. Consi er all the h"#an f"nctions that are absent 8hen the higher centers of a #an:s brain are inacti)e, an he is in Qco#a.R .he ter# Qbrain f"nction,R as here "se , refers to all of these.

-D1ings of )ario"s sorts, )o#iting or iarrhea fro# any ca"se, b"rns, shoc7 ca"se by in9"ries, he#orrhage, an i#pair#ent of 7i ney f"nction =1A, B>, AD, AB, 1>>, 1BA?.

-)en )ery rapi breathing, 8hich so#eti#es occ"rs in people 8ho are anCio"s or afrai , #ay lea to che#ical changes in the bloo that ca"se ist"rbances of brain f"nction =1@, B6, @@, 96?. 4any of the cr" e proce "res that interrogators ha)e "tiliGe fro# ti#e to ti#e to #a7e infor#ants JtractableJ an to J#a7e the# tal7J ha)e an a )erse effect "pon the co#position of bo y fl"i s$ the Jhot boCJ or Js8eat boCJI the epri)ation of 8aterI the salty ietI the J8ater treat#entJI the "se of e#etics to pro "ce )o#itingI an the "se of cathartics s"ch as castor oil to pro "ce iarrhea. .hese proce "res ha)e been "se by both -"ropean an +riental interrogators in the historical past. .hey 8ere also in "se F"ite recently in Co##"nist co"ntries, an perhaps still are. (#erican prisoners of 8ar enco"ntere so#e of the# "ring Worl War II an the 0orean War, an it is li7ely they 8ill enco"nter so#e of the# again in the f"t"re. .he brain, li7e other organs, #aintains its f"nctions by constant #etabolic acti)ity. .he basis for this acti)ity is energy obtaine by the oCi ation of the organic che#icals a)ailable fro# foo . .h"s, a constant s"pply of oCygen #"st be bro"ght to the brain by the bloo in the a#o"nt of approCi#ately %> cc per #in"te =A>, 66, 1>D?. .he #ost co##on 8ay by 8hich the brain beco#es epri)e of oCygen is by fail"re of the circ"lation =6%?, 8hich #ay be bro"ght abo"t by loss of bloo fro# he#orrhage, by shoc7 res"lting fro# in9"ry =8hich has an effect on the circ"lation F"ite si#ilar to that of he#orrhage?, or by illness. S"ch fail"re of the circ"lation #ay occ"r also 8hen a #an is force to stan still in a fiCe position for a long ti#e. It is responsible for the co##on pheno#enon of the sol ier 8ho faints 8hile stan ing at attention =D>, DD, <9, 9>, 1>@?. .ransient circ"latory fail"re is also in)ol)e in Je#otional fainting,J 8hich occ"rs as a res"lt of an ac"te fall in bloo press"re pro "ce by an Je#otionalJ sti#"l"s. ;ail"re of the circ"lation has other a )erse effects on cerebral #etabolis# in a ition to the effects pro "ce by relati)e anoCia. 'nli7e other organs, the brain cannot "se proteins an fats as so"rces of energy, an th"s #"st rely on carbohy rates =6%?. It is, therefore, pec"liarly sensiti)e to eficiencies in its s"pply of s"gar, a s"bstance nor#ally present in bloo . S#all increases in s"gar concentration, 8hich "s"ally occ"r after #eals, ha)e no iscernible effect on brain f"nction, b"t relati)ely s#all ecreases in concentration -DD#ay ha)e a istinct effect on #oo an beha)ior. S#all ecreases set in #otion ho#eostatic processes that lea to feelings of ner)o"sness, restlessness, s8eating, an inability to concentrate =D@, B6, 9D?. ( fall in bloo s"gar occasionally occ"rs in people 8ho are anCio"s or fearf"l, an see#s to contrib"te to their sy#pto#s. ( serio"s eficiency of bloo s"gar profo"n ly i#pairs brain f"nction =6%?. .his is one of the ter#inal e)ents of star)ation, an it contrib"tes to the final st"por of the star)e #an =%A, 6@?. .he brain is not epen ent on the i##e iate le)el in the bloo of any foo st"ff other than s"gar, b"t it oes "lti#ately s"ffer if it is epri)e of other foo s o)er a long

perio of ti#e. .he prolonge eficiency of protein an fat, 8hich is "s"al in general star)ation, )ery probably contrib"tes to changes in brain f"nction occ"rring "n er these circ"#stances =1, 1<, %A, 6@, <D?. 4ore i##e iate an rea ily recogniGable changes in brain f"nction occ"r 8hen the iet is relati)ely eficient in one of the accessory foo st"ffs, or )ita#ins, 8hich the bo y cannot pro "ce itself, b"t 8hich it reF"ires in #in"te b"t efinite a#o"nts. (#ong these the J,J gro"p of )ita#ins are the #ost i##e iately rele)ant to the brain, probably beca"se they ta7e part in )ario"s processes of carbohy rate #etabolis#. ( relati)e eficiency of thia#in =)ita#in ,1? ca"ses beriberiI a eficiency of niacin ca"ses pellagraI a eficiency of )ita#in ,1D ca"ses pernicio"s ane#iaI an a eficiency of pyri oCine =)ita#in ,6? ca"ses ner)o"sness, inso#nia, 8ea7ness, ab o#inal pain, an iffic"lty in 8al7ing. (ll these iseases #ay be associate 8ith prono"nce changes in brain f"nction =9%, 99, 1D>?. ,eriberi an pellagra ha)e been en e#ic a#ong prisoners of 8ar fro# ti#e i##e#orial =%A?. .he nor#al f"nction of the brain is also epen ent "pon the re#o)al of #etabolic en -pro "cts fro# the fl"i that s"rro"n s it. -specially 8hen there is i#pair#ent of the l"ngs, li)er, or 7i neys =the organs pri#arily in)ol)e in #aintaining the nor#al co#position of the bloo an in clearing it of toCic s"bstances?, the internal #ilie" beco#es erange an i#pair#ent of brain f"nction follo8s. .he 7i ney is the organ #ost often i#plicate in this pheno#enon beca"se it is highly )"lnerable to #any co##on ist"rbances. 1ehy ration, s"rgical shoc7, he#orrhage =1A, B<, AB?, or the circ"latory i#pair#ent pro "ce by )ery long stan ing =D>, DD, <9, 9>, 1>@?, all #ay i#pair 7i ney f"nction to s"ch an eCtent that the internal #ilie" #ay be serio"sly ist"rbe . In s"##ary, brain f"nction is rea ily i#paire by ist"rbances in ho#eostasis. It is easily isor ere by physical abnor#alities that affect the bo y as a 8hole, incl" ing s"ch co##on con itions as -DBfe)er, a profo"n lo8ering of bo y te#perat"re, ehy ration, o)erhy ration, ist"rbances in the co#position of the bloo , ist"rbances of respiration, shoc7, he#orrhage, iarrhea, )o#iting, poisonings, star)ation =partial or co#plete?, an e)en static post"res that are too long #aintaine . .he ist"rbance of brain f"nction pro "ce by each of these-an in ee that pro "ce by any ho#eostatic ist"rbance, or by any physical or che#ical assa"lt "pon the brain H is re#ar7ably "nifor# in #any of its feat"res. -)en tho"gh the sy#pto#s pro "ce by any gi)en ho#eostatic ist"rbance =s"ch as o)erbreathing or ehy ration, for eCa#ple? #ay eChibit certain i iosyncratic feat"res =s"ch as #"scle cra#ps or thirst?, there are f"n a#ental co##on ele#ents in the ist"rbances of brain f"nction 8hich follo8 fro# all these types of assa"lt.

M&ni'est&tions o' Disordered Br&in Fun tion Produ ed (# Distur(&n es o' Ho-eost&sis (ll se)ere an "nco#pensate ist"rbances of ho#eostasis pro "ce a syn ro#e of ist"rbe brain f"nction 8hich, in ci)ilian life, is #ost co##only enco"ntere in hospitals. .his syn ro#e =officially, the Jbrain syn ro#eJ? D occ"rs in ac"te an chronic for#s =1D<?, an incl" es eliria of )ario"s sorts, so#e of 8hich ha)e been gi)en the na#es of r"gs or iseases tho"ght to ca"se the#. .he present consens"s is that the Jbrain syn ro#e,J 8hether ac"te or chronic, is f"n a#entally a single syn ro#e, regar less of its ca"se =DA, D%, D9, @6, 9D, 9@, 1><, 1D<, 1B1?. .he Jbrain syn ro#eJ in its f"lly e)elope state is an across-theboar i#pair#ent of brain f"nction$ an i#pair#ent of all those aspects of #ental acti)ity that are co##only teste 8hen the physician "n erta7es to assess the J#ental stat"sJ of the patient. ( patient eChibiting this syn ro#e can no longer carry on his "s"al co#pleC acti)ities, ass"#e his aily responsibilities, or cope 8ith interpersonal relations. (s its sy#pto#s e)elop, he #ay beco#e restless, tal7ati)e, an elirio"sI "lti#ately, he beco#es totally conf"se an lapses into "nconscio"sness. .he f"ll-blo8n Jbrain syn ro#eJ "s"ally occ"rs in people 8ho are istinctly ill, in9"re , or eplete . /enerally, s"ch people are interrogate only 8hen it is feare that their infor#ation #ay be irretrie)D .he syn ro#e has #any other na#es$ .he Qorganic reaction syn ro#e,Q Rsy#pto#atic psychosis,Q QtoCic-infectio"s eCha"sti)e state,R Qpsychosis 8ith so#atic isease,R Q ysergastic state,R a#ong others.

-DAably lost. .heir erange con ition is easily recogniGe , an the infor#ation that they gi)e can be e)al"ate 8ith this in #in . 3o8e)er, "n er less rastic con itions the syn ro#e #ay e)elop slo8ly an be iffic"lt to recogniGe, an its eCistence #ay el" e an interrogator. In the earliest stages of the Jbrain syn ro#e,J the s"b9ect eCperiences the )ario"s "nco#fortable sy#pto#s associate 8ith his physical state$ pain, fatig"e, thirst, h"nger, ro8siness, or the li7e. 3e loses so#e of his capacity to carry o"t co#pleC responsibilities acc"rately, spee ily, effecti)ely, an to plan an elay his acti)ities. .his is especially noticeable in his i#paire ability to #eet ne8 sit"ations an his occasional lapses in ealing 8ith fa#iliar sit"ations =DA, D%?. 3is interpersonal relations #ay eteriorateI conflicts arise 8hich he #ight ha)e a)oi e "n er other circ"#stances. 3e is li7ely to beco#e e#otionally labile, irritable, epresse , 9"#py, an tense, an at other ti#es to be "neCpecte ly bl"nte or apathetic in his reaction. 3is concern for the finer aspects of h"#an beha)ior-for neatness, acc"racy, honesty, )eracity, an 7in ness, as 8ell as patriotis# an honor H #ay fall off to )arying egrees, 8hereas at the sa#e ti#e he sho8s an increase an at ti#es frantic concern for his #ore i##e iate bo ily nee s s"ch as foo , 8ater, sleep, rest, an the alle)iation of pain.

In this early stage of the syn ro#e, the only o"t8ar #anifestations of ist"rbe beha)ior, other than those irectly associate 8ith illness, in9"ry, or epletion, are li7ely to be a slight eterioration of ress, speech, an personal appearance. .he s"b9ect:s perfor#ance on short-ter# tas7s, incl" ing psychological tests of #o erate co#pleCity, #ay not be o"tsi e the nor#al range =DA, D%?, especially if he is highly #oti)ate at the ti#e. 6et, espite his ability to rise to a short-ter# challenge, his perfor#ance on tas7s generally 8ill be slo8e , less acc"rate, an less effecti)e. If his pre#orbi le)el is "n7no8n, a #o erate eficit #ay be "n etecte . ;ran7 isorientation #ay be absent. 3e is #ore li7ely to be )ag"e an forgetf"l abo"t ti#e, place, an person, to ha)e to be re#in e , or to #a7e a conscio"s effort to re#e#ber. &eople 8ho are in9"re , ill, or eplete by co#bat or eCpos"re are often interrogate if they see# to be in goo con ition an capable of p"lling the#sel)es together. 'n er these circ"#stances they #ay be s"b9ect to ist"rbe brain f"nction in this earlier an s"btler for#. .he presence of this con ition #ay not be recogniGe by either the interrogator or the #an being interrogate , e)en tho"gh the so"rce #ay 8ish to cooperate 8ith his interrogator an #ay appear -D%to be #entally Jnor#al.J 3o8e)er, the s"b9ect:s #e#ory #ay be especially ecepti)e. .here #ay be a istinct hiat"s in his #e#ory, 8itho"t its being notice either by the so"rce or by one 8ho eCa#ines hi#. 4ore often he is )ag"e, "ncertain abo"t etails, an has te#porary bloc7s of #e#ory, especially for the n"ances, or the finer =an so#eti#es the #ost i#portant? etails. In this state, the s"b9ect #ay ha)e no fran7 ill"sions, hall"cinations, or el"sions, b"t he o)er)al"es s#all e)ents, #isinterprets, bla#es others, an accepts eCplanations an for#"lations 8hich he #ight re9ect as patently abs"r "n er ifferent circ"#stances. 3e oes not confab"late, b"t he #ay be 8illing to state that a report is Jclearly tr"e,J or that an e)ent Jact"ally occ"rre ,J 8hen in fact the report #erely co"l be tr"e, or the e)ent #ight ha)e occ"rre . 3is intellect"al f"nctions, his 9" g#ent, an his insight ecline to a si#ilar egree. (s the Jbrain syn ro#eJ e)elops, the s"b9ect:s ress, beha)ior, an speech eteriorate f"rther. 3is orientation for ti#e, place, an person beco#es increasingly eficient. Initially he #ay ha)e been F"ite a8are of the i#pair#ent of his #ental fac"lties, an his a8areness potentiates the apprehension that he #ay eCperience. .he s"b9ect is especially prone to beco#e fearf"l if his illness is precipitate rather s" enly by ac"te infection, in9"ry, poisoning, or ehy ration. When it co#es on #ore slo8ly or is "e to star)ation, his #oo #ay be one of apathy or epression. .he s"b9ect is F"ite li7ely to ha)e thin7ing iffic"lties an sensory eCperiences, ill"sions, el"sions, hall"cinations, an pro9ecti)e or paranoi thin7ing. ;reF"ently these contain nai)ely transparent ele#ents of 8ishf"l thin7ing. If star)e , he #ay belie)e that he is abo"t to recei)e a large #eal or he #ay see it before hi#. S"ch eCperiences #ay be frightening. If the syn ro#e e)elops gra "ally, he #ay

perse)erate, or pointlessly repeat a frag#ent of thin7ing, speech, or beha)iorI or he #ay confab"late an create fig#entary J#e#oriesJ to co)er "p act"al efects in his #e#ory. S"ch confab"lation #ay occ"r e)en if the s"b9ect has a rep"tation for the "t#ost a herence to )eracity. Since he #ay be #ore than "s"ally s"ggestible =1B1?, the co#bination of confab"lation an s"ggestibility #ay #a7e it possible to elicit fro# hi# a pla"sible story that is largely fig#entary. +ther #ental acti)ities eteriorate also. 3is intellect"al f"nctions fall off. 3is capacity to calc"late, to abstract, to esti#ate ti#e, to recall ite#s, igits, or stories is i#paire . /eneral infor#ation that one #ight eCpect hi# to 7no8 is not a)ailable to hi#. 3is 9" g-D6#ent is fa"lty. (ltho"gh he #ay at first ha)e ha so#e insight into the fact that he has lost his fac"lties, later he #ay ha)e none at all. 3is #e#ory beco#es efecti)e, at first for recent or special e)ents, an later for all sorts of e)ents an topics. .he s"b9ect:s a8areness is increasingly clo" e , an he beco#es #ore an #ore ro8sy as the process a )ances to the bor erline of the pathological. .he state 9"st escribe is not "nco##on a#ong #en 8ho ha)e been thro"gh prolonge co#bat =11A? or thro"gh prolonge an epleting acti)ities of any sort =A, B9, <B, 1DA, 1B%?, in #en 8ho are in9"re , 8ho are ill, 8ho ha)e "n ergone serio"s eCpos"re to the ele#ents, an 8ho are #alno"rishe or epri)e of 8ater. It can be ass"#e that the '. S. (r#e ;orces 8o"l not eliberately create s"ch a state in prisoners of 8ar, b"t it is F"ite li7ely to occ"r a#ong the# nat"rally, si#ply beca"se #en often beco#e prisoners of 8ar after stren"o"s co#bat, an #ay be ill or 8o"n e . It can be ass"#e that f"t"re ene#ies probably 8ill create s"ch a state in (#erican prisoners of 8ar, altho"gh they #ay not o so 8ith any sophisticate intent. 3istorically, it has been the co##on practice of captors, police, an inF"isitors to isolate their prisoners in places that are col , a#p, hot, "n)entilate , "nsanitary, an "nco#fortable, to epri)e the# of foo , fl"i s, sleep, an rest an #e ical care, an to beat, tort"re, harry, o)er8or7 an threaten the#, as 8ell as to F"estion the# inter#inably 8ith lea ing F"estions. S"ch proce "res ha)e been "se partly beca"se they #a7e prisoners #ore Jpliable,J #ore Jrea y to tal7,J an #ore Jcooperati)e.J .hey are )ery li7ely also to #a7e the infor#ation obtaine fro# the prisoner increasingly "nreliable.

So-e Cir u-st&n es under :"i " Br&in Fun tion M&# Be Distur(ed /it"out De-onstr&($e Distur(&n e o' Ot"er Bodi$# Fun tions .he pheno#ena 9"st consi ere relate to #en 8ho ha)e s"ffere so#e ist"rbance of their ho#eostasis H so#e #eas"rable change in the internal en)iron#ent affecting the bo y as a 8hole, other organs as 8ell as the brain. &eople 8ho eCperience the effects of isolation, fatig"e, or sleep loss #ay sho8 no #eas"rable ist"rbance of their

general ho#eostasis. .hey #ay nonetheless eChibit i#paire brain f"nction, for the brain has special )"lnerabilities o)er an abo)e those that it shares 8ith other organs. It is possible to ha)e ist"rbe brain f"nction in the absence of any other significant alteration in ho#eostasis. -D@.he brain of #an is an organ that eals 8ith Jinfor#ation,J "sing this ter# in the technical sense as it is "se in co##"nications theory =1B%?. .he acc"#"lation an trans#ission of infor#ation in this sense is a characteristic of all li)ing organis#s. .he ner)o"s syste# of the higher ani#als is a specialiGe apparat"s capable of ealing 8ith infor#ation in co#pleC 8ays an thereby greatly increasing the general a apti)e capacities of the ani#al. .he eCcee ingly co#pleC ner)o"s syste# of #an has this f"n a#ental f"nction. It ta7es in infor#ation fro# the organs of special sense, an fro# the sensory ner)e en ings 8ithin the bo y an its s"rfaces, an trans#its this infor#ation to the brain. .here it is analyGe , organiGe , e)al"ate , store , an "se as a basis for organiGing the acti)ities of the #an as a 8hole. We #ight say that Jinfor#ationJ arising fro# the config"rations of #in"te a#o"nts of energy is the s"bstrate for the acti)ities of the brain, in so#e8hat the sa#e sense that Jfoo J is the s"bstrate for the acti)ities of the gastrointestinal tract. 1epri)e of infor#ation, the brain oes not f"nction Jnor#ally.J It #"st ha)e a certain F"antity of patterne , #eaningf"l, sensory inp"t fro# the eCternal en)iron#ent, an so#e opport"nity to organiGe its o"tp"t as beha)ior =B1, 6>, @A, <6, <@, 91, 1B6?. !or can the brain perfor# one sort of acti)ity contin"o"sly an #aintain its efficiency. -)en tho"gh the tas7 "n erta7en is entirely J#entalJ =or, as one #ight say, in)ol)es only the carrying o"t of acti)ity 8ithin the brain?, an no significant changes in the general physical state of the in i)i "al occ"r as a res"lt of it, the pheno#enon of Jfatig"eJ e)ent"ally s"per)enes, an brain f"nction eteriorates =A, BD, A1?. In a ition to this, the brain reF"ires JsleepJ fro# ti#e to ti#e H a cessation of its Jconscio"sJ pattern of acti)itiesI other8ise its f"nctions s"ffer =B%, 6A, <A, 9<, 11<?. .h"s the brain has special )"lnerabilities of its o8nI it cannot f"nction Jnor#allyJ "nless it recei)es a certain a#o"nt of infor#ation "pon 8hich to operate, an it cannot carry o"t a single pattern of acti)ities "nre#ittingly an in efinitely. .hese points are consi ere briefly.

Isolation .he eCperi#ents of 3ebb an others =11, AA, A%, %B, %%, %6, <>, 1>9, 1D6?, 8ho ha)e concerne the#sel)es 8ith Jsensory epri)ation,J ha)e consiste of p"tting #en into sit"ations 8here they recei)e no patterne inp"t fro# their eyes an ears, an as little patterne inp"t as possible fro# their s7in receptors. In so#e cases there 8as a -D<-

i#in"tion in sensory inp"t itselfI b"t it appears to ha)e been the lac7 of patterning, the pa"city of infor#ation, that 8as i#portant. .he s"b9ects 8ere epri)e of opport"nity for p"rposef"l acti)ity. (ll of their other bo ily nee s 8ere ta7en care offoo , fl"i s, rest, etc. 6et after a fe8 ho"rs the #ental acti)ities of the participants began to go a8ry. .heir capacity to carry o"t co#pleC tas7s an to perfor# 8ell on psychological tests fell a8ay. .hey e)elope ill"sions, el"sions, an hall"cinations, a #oo of fearf"lness, an #any of the# iscontin"e the eCperi#ent. S"ch eCperi#entally contri)e sit"ations are by no #eans the sa#e as those of persons in prolonge prison isolation, yet "n o"bte ly so#e aspects of these obser)ations on sensory epri)ation are applicable to o"r "n erstan ing of the reaction of the in i)i "al to prolonge isolation. It is 8ell 7no8n that prisoners, especially if they ha)e not been isolate before, #ay e)elop a syn ro#e si#ilar in #ost of its feat"res to the Jbrain syn ro#eJ =%@, %<, 91?. .hey cease to care abo"t their "tterances, ress, an cleanliness. .hey beco#e "lle , apathetic, an epresse . In "e ti#e they beco#e isoriente an conf"se I their #e#ories beco#e efecti)e an they eCperience hall"cinations an el"sions. In these circ"#stances their capacity for 9" g#ent an iscri#ination is #"ch i#paire , an they rea ily s"cc"#b to their nee for tal7 an co#panionshipI b"t their ability to i#part acc"rate infor#ation #ay be as #"ch i#paire as their capacity to resist an interrogator. Classically, isolation has been "se as a #eans of J#a7ing a #an tal7,J si#ply beca"se it is so often associate 8ith a eterioration of thin7ing an beha)ior an is acco#panie by an intense nee for co#panionship an for tal7. ;ro# the interrogator:s )ie8point it has see#e to be the i eal 8ay of Jbrea7ing o8nJ a prisoner, beca"se, to the "nsophisticate , it see#s to create precisely the state that the interrogator esires$ #alleability an the esire to tal7, 8ith the a e a )antage that one can el" e hi#self that he is "sing no force or coercion. .he prisoner hi#self #ay be ta7en in by this an later sto"tly #aintain that the interrogator Jne)er lai a han on #e.J 3o8e)er, the effect of isolation "pon the brain f"nction of the prisoner is #"ch li7e that 8hich occ"rs if he is beaten, star)e , or epri)e of sleep. .he fact that so#e people, 8ho ha)e been thro"gh prison isolation before, or 8ho can create for the#sel)es an acti)e an p"rposef"l inner life of fantasy, can en "re isolation for a long ti#e =%, 1%, @%? oes not )itiate the fact that total isolation effecti)ely isorganiGes -D9#any people 8ho are initially oblige to "n ergo it, e)en 8hen it is not carrie o"t "n er circ"#stances of "ncertainty an threat, as it "s"ally is. .here appears to be a 8i er range of )ariability in the capacity of #en to 8ithstan isolation, sleep epri)ation, an fatig"e than in their ability to 8ithstan ehy ration or fe)er, for eCa#ple, e)en tho"gh "lti#ately brain f"nction #ay be erange by all these con itions. We shall consi er the basis for this.

Sleep Deprivation ;or reasons not yet 7no8n, a brain cannot contin"e to f"nction 8itho"t occasional perio s of sleep. .he a#o"nt of sleep #en reF"ire is F"ite )ariable. So#e can f"nction effecti)ely for fairly long perio s 8ith relati)ely fe8 ho"rs of sleep obtaine at irreg"lar inter)als =6A, 6<?. 'n er eCperi#ental con itions #en ha)e been 7no8n to en "re for #ore than a h"n re ho"rs 8itho"t sleep at all =16, B%, A6, @D, 9<, 11<, 1DB?, an for #ore than t8o h"n re ho"rs 8ith only a fe8 brief naps =6A?. 6et #ost people eteriorate #ar7e ly after abo"t se)enty-t8o ho"rs 8itho"t sleep, an all eteriorate sooner or later =B%, A6, 6A, 11<, 1DD?. .he highest f"nctions s"ffer firstI the capacity to cope 8ith co#pleC an changing sit"ations 8itho"t #a7ing #ista7es or errors in 9" g#ent is often the first to go. .his is follo8e by a eterioration of ress, speech, an beha)iorI "llnessI e#otional labilityI efects of recent #e#oryI isorientationI hall"cinations, el"sions, thin7ing ist"rbancesI an i#paire 9" g#ent an intellect"al f"nctions, all increasing in se)erity 8ith the passage of ti#e =B%, A6, 6A, @D, 9<, 11<, 1DD?. -)en at a fairly late stage of this eterioration, people face 8ith an ac"te challenge an highly #oti)ate to #eet it #ay briefly perfor# co#pleC tas7s F"ite a eF"atelyI b"t "lti#ately e)en this capacity is lost =A?. Sleep epri)ation affects brain f"nction irectly, 8hile pro "cing little or no change in the general internal #ilie". -fforts to e#onstrate a ist"rbance of the general ho#eostasis consistently associate 8ith lac7 of sleep ha)e been largely f"tile =<A, 11<?. .he constit"ents of the bloo an the f"nction of organs other than the brain #ay sho8 little or no abnor#ality in those 8ho ha)e been 8itho"t sleep for #any ho"rs. &eople 8hose thin7ing an beha)ior are serio"sly erange #ay sho8 Jnothing 8rong 8ith the#J on physical eCa#ination or )ario"s che#ical tests. .heir e#onstrable efect is a ist"rbance of brain f"nction. -B>-

Fatigue Q;atig"eR is a ter# 8hich has #ore than one scientific #eaning, as 8ell as #ore than one pop"lar #eaning. We shall "se it to enote a gro"p of so#e8hat si#ilar pheno#ena 8hich occ"r in #"scles, in refleC arcs, an in the brain. Q4"scle fatig"eR is precisely efine an enotes the eterioration in the f"nction of a #"scle pro "ce by its stea y or repeate acti)ity. .he pheno#enon is rea ily #eas"re an repro "ce . It is associate 8ith #eas"rable changes 8ithin the #"sc"lar syste#, an it has its co"nterpart in the Q#"scle fatig"eR that occ"rs in the intact #an after #"sc"lar acti)ity. .he fatig"e of ne"ral arcs is si#ilarly efinable an repro "cible. +n the other han , Qfatig"eR of the #an as a 8hole has been gi)en )ario"s efinitions =A, BD, <<?. It is often seen in people 8ho are eplete or ill, b"t no #eas"rable bo ily change is necessary to it or consistently associate 8ith it. .he Qfatig"e syn ro#eR #ay be pro "ce in a #an if he is p"t to perfor#ing a gi)en tas7 o)er an o)er, 8itho"t rest an 8itho"t change. (fter a 8hile he perfor#s this tas7 less rapi ly, less

efficiently, less effecti)ely, an 8ith #ore #ista7es. .his falling off in his perfor#ance on the specific tas7 is "s"ally acco#panie by a feeling of Q8eariness,R or Qfatig"e.R 3is i#paire perfor#ance on this tas7 is not necessarily associate 8ith any other changes in his bo ily f"nctions, an his perfor#ance on any other tas7 #ay be "ni#paire I in ee , if he is s"itably #oti)ate , he #ay perfor# e)en the tas7 that fatig"e hi# F"ite a eF"ately for a short perio of ti#e =A, BD?. In a ition, the rapi ity 8ith 8hich the fatig"e syn ro#e e)elops is infl"ence by the attit" e of the #an to the tas7 that he #"st perfor# =A, BD, <1?. Q;atig"eR an i#paire perfor#ance of the egree 9"st escribe , or of e)en greater egree, is rea ily pro "ce by p"rely Q#entalR tas7sI an if s"ch tas7s are contin"e long eno"gh, perfor#ance eteriorates to the eCtent that the tas7 can scarcely be carrie on =A?. 3o8e)er, the #ost eCtre#e egrees of fatig"e that ha)e been st" ie ha)e been associate 8ith co#bat or 8ith other eCtre#ely trying #ilitary operations 8here #"sc"lar acti)ity, lac7 of sleep, an so#eti#es in9"ry playe a part in their pro "ction =A, <, 1B, BD, A1, A9, %>, <1, <B, <<, 111, 11A, 11%, 1B%?. ,o ily changes 8ere therefore present. .he fatig"e that occ"rs in co#bat or other #ilitary operations is li7e that occ"rring "ring the prolonge an "nre#itting interrogation carrie o"t by state police in )ario"s co"ntries =%@?. .he obser)e #ental pheno#ena are F"ite si#ilar in both cases. .he profo"n ly -B1fatig"e #an, after co#bat or #ilitary operations, or after prolonge interrogation, sho8s a eterioration of his speech, ress, an general beha)ior, e#otional lability an bl"nting, conf"sion, isorientation, efects of #e#ory, hall"cinations, el"sions, ill"sions, paranoi thin7ing, i#pair#ent of intellect"al f"nctions, loss of 9" g#ent, an )ery little insight =A, %@, 11A?. &erse)eration an confab"lation #ay occ"r "n er these circ"#stances, as they also #ay after sleep loss =11A?. In a ition, profo"n anCiety is often eChibite by those 8ho ha)e been in prolonge co#bat an 8ho ha)e "n ergone terrifying eCperiences =11A?.
THE MANIFESTATIONS OF DISORDERED BRAIN FUNCTION PRODUCED B; ISOLATION< SLEEP DEPRIVATION< AND FATI=UE

.he sy#pto#s of isor ere brain f"nction that occ"r "n er these con itions iffer little, eCcept in etail, fro# those of the Jbrain syn ro#e,J as this is pro "ce by ist"rbances of ho#eostasis. It is easy to ifferentiate a #an 8ho has been long isolate or 8ho is profo"n ly sleepy or tire fro# one 8ho is s"ffering the effects of pne"#onia, g"nshot 8o"n s, or star)ationI b"t this ifferentiation is #a e "pon the basis of sy#pto#s an signs other than #anifestations of ist"rbe brain f"nction. It is not profitable to arg"e 8hether or not the sy#pto#s pro "ce by isolation, fatig"e, an sleep epri)ation sho"l properly be classifie "n er the Jbrain syn ro#e.J 3o8e)er, if one ass"#es that the effecti)e perfor#ance of co#pleC tas7s, alertness, orientation, #e#ory, iscri#ination, an 9" g#ent are epen ent "pon the f"nction of the brain, then there can be no o"bt that isolation, fatig"e, an sleep epri)ation pro "ce ist"rbances of brain f"nction. If one accepts that the f"nction of the brain is al8ays

associate 8ith electroche#ical e)ents occ"rring 8ithin it, then these changes in brain f"nction are, in fact, Jorganic,J as are all brain f"nctions. So far as JorganicityJ is concerne , the effects of isolation, fatig"e, an sleep epri)ation "pon the brain are ifferent fro# those pro "ce by pne"#onia, star)ation, or g"nshot 8o"n s pri#arily in the rapi ity of their occ"rrence an the eCtent to 8hich they can be re)erse . !ot all of the pheno#ena that #ay occ"r as a part of the Jbrain syn ro#eJ ha)e yet been escribe as occ"rring "ring isolation, fatig"e, or sleep loss, b"t this see#s to be a f"nction of the li#ite n"#ber of obser)ations that ha)e been #a e on people 8ho are s"b9ect to these con itions in eCtre#e egree. +n the other han , there is a ifference in the pre ictability of the point at 8hich ist"rbe brain f"nction 8ill be pro "ce by these )ario"s circ"#stances. +ne can state 8ithin rather narro8 li#its the -BDle)els of bo y te#perat"re, bloo gl"cose, or oCygen sat"ration, beyon 8hich a se)ere ist"rbance of brain f"nction can be eCpecte . Isolation, sleep loss, an fatig"e, ho8e)er, present no s"ch narro8 li#its. It is probably correct to say that if any of these are carrie on long eno"gh they 8ill isorganiGe the brain f"nction of anyoneI b"t the ifferences in the ability of #an to 8ithstan these con itions are )ery 8i e. 'n er eCperi#ental con itions, so#e people ha)e s"cc"#be to sensory epri)ation 8ithin one-an -a-half ho"rs, 8hereas others ha)e #aintaine a eF"ate f"nction for thirty-siC ho"rs or #ore =1D6?. 'n er prison isolation, as this has been carrie o"t by *"ssian an -astern -"ropean state police, #ost prisoners e)elope sy#pto#s of isorganiGation 8ithin three to siC 8ee7s =%@?I b"t so#e ha)e been 7no8n to en "re this for #any #onths =1%, @%?, an so#e ha)e s"cc"#be 8ithin ays. (fter fortyeight ho"rs 8itho"t sleep, so#e people beco#e isorganiGe an ineffecti)e, 8hereas others ha)e been 7no8n to go as long as a h"n re ho"rs 8ith their f"nctions largely intact =B%, 6A?. ( tas7 that 8ill fatig"e so#e #en 8ithin a short 8hile can be carrie on by others for #any ho"rs 8ith no e)i ence of fatig"e =A, BD?. It #"st be conce e that these ifferences in the ability of #en to 8ithstan isolation, fatig"e, an sleep epri)ation #ay be base on s"btle ifferences in their genetically inherite characteristicsI b"t if this be tr"e, no e)i ence has yet been bro"ght for8ar to s"bstantiate it. +n the other han , there is ab"n ant e)i ence to in icate that the personality of a #an an his attit" e to8ar the eCperience that he is "n ergoing affect his ability to 8ithstan it. &eople 8ho enter prison 8ith attit" es of forebo ing, apprehension, an helplessness generally o less 8ell than those 8ho enter 8ith ass"rance an a con)iction that they can eal 8ith anything that they #ay enco"nter. .hose 8ho rea ily 8ith ra8 into a life of #eaningf"l fantasy an intellect"al acti)ity see# to o better than those 8ho are epen ent "pon acti)ity an interaction 8ith other people. So#e people 8ho are afrai of losing sleep, or 8ho o not 8ish to lose sleep, soon s"cc"#b to sleep lossI others, con)ince that they can stay a8a7e in efinitely, ha)e one so for 8ell o)er a h"n re ho"rs =6A?. ( great n"#ber of reports fro# in "stry, an fro# eCperi#ental obser)ations, in icate that the attit" e of 8or7ers an eCperi#ental s"b9ects is as i#portant in eter#ining the rate at 8hich

they fatig"e as are the tas7s they "n erta7e =A, <1?. .roops, carrie 8itho"t sleep or rest to the li#it of en "rance, ha)e been able to straighten "p an present a s#art appearance for a short ti#e 8hen an appeal 8as #a e to their pri e =11<?. In short, the brain, the organ that eals 8ith infor-BB#ation, also organiGes its responses on the basis of infor#ation pre)io"sly fe into it. .his infor#ation, in the for# of a personality e)elope thro"gh the eCperiences of a lifeti#e, as 8ell as i##e iate attit" es an the a8areness of the i##e iate sit"ation, con itions the 8ay that the brain 8ill react to a gi)en sit"ation. .here can be no o"bt that personality, attit" es, an the perception of the i##e iate sit"ation serio"sly infl"ence the ability of a brain to en "re the effects of isolation, fatig"ing tas7s, an loss of sleep.

So-e Conditions under :"i " t"e Fun tion o' t"e Br&in M&# Be Distur(ed (# F& tors Not Intrinsi &$$# H&r-'u$ In a certain sense one #ight regar isolation, sleep loss, an fatig"e as irect assa"lts "pon the brainI for the first can be regar e as epri)ing the brain of the s"bstrate of its operations, an the last t8o can be regar e as lea ing to the epletion of processes in the ner)o"s syste# 8hich can only be repaire 8ith a perio of rest. 3o8e)er, hypotheses s"ch as these cannot easily be applie to the eCplanation of the h"#an reactions to pain, h"nger, an sit"ations interprete as angero"s or threatening. 3ere one is ealing 8ith a for# of sensory inp"t that #ay be of great intensity, b"t 8hich is not in itself isorganiGing to brain f"nction e)en if contin"e in efinitely. &ain of fairly high intensity #ay be borne by in i)i "als o)er a long perio of ti#e 8itho"t necessarily pro "cing i#pair#ent of their highest integrati)e f"nctions =<, %>?. In the heat of co#bat or of physical contests intensely painf"l con itions #ay pass F"ite "nnotice an #ay not i#pair perfor#ance. When the attention is foc"se else8here by )ario"s #eans, s"ch as hypnosis, the pain of chil birth or of s"rgical operations #ay be 8ithstoo an not be re#ar7e "pon =1>B, 1D%?. .he reaction to pain is therefore F"ite )ariable =B, 6, @, D<, A<, %>, 6B, 69, @<, 9B, 9A, 11D, 1BD, 1BB?. So li7e8ise is the reaction to h"nger =D1, BA?. 3"ngry #en ha)e pro "ce intellect"al an artistic o"tp"t of a high or er, an ha)e been responsible for eCtraor inary #ilitary feats. 4en ha)e "n ergone prolonge fasts 8itho"t significant i#pair#ent of their highest fac"lties. (n , so far as angero"s sit"ations are concerne , there are so#e 8ho are sti#"late or e)en eChilarate by the#, an #any others 8ho act as if they o not regar the# as angero"s at all. .h"s, h"nger, pain, signals of anger, an si#ilar for#s of sensory inp"t cannot be sho8n to be necessarily toCic to the h"#an brain, for, "n er the right circ"#stances, any in i)i "al apparently can -BA-

tolerate the# in efinitely. .he 8eight of e)i ence is that it is not the sensory inp"t itself, b"t the reaction of the in i)i "al to this inp"t 8hich #ay a )ersely affect his brain f"nction. .his is not so 8ith isolation, sleep epri)ation, an fatig"e, 8here the effects are intrinsically a )erse, an the reaction of the in i)i "al is a factor only in eter#ining ho8 long these effects can be 8ithstoo . With h"nger, pain, an signals of anger, the a )erse effects on brain f"nction #ay be entirely the res"lt of the reaction of the in i)i "al. (cti)ities of the brain, initiate in response to inco#ing infor#ation, lea to an i#pair#ent of brain f"nction. .his special )"lnerability of the brain to its o8n acti)ities, long s"ggeste by clinical obser)ation, has recently recei)e eCperi#ental s"pport =DA, D%?.

Hunger .he syn ro#e co##only associate 8ith the reaction to h"nger is slo8 in e)eloping, b"t it can be eCpecte to occ"r in the #a9ority of those 8ho are eCpose to prolonge h"nger fro# any ca"se =1<, 6@?. It has been seen a#ong star)e pop"lations =1?, a#ong in#ates of concentration ca#ps =%A, @>?, an a#ong prisoners of 8ar =A@, 61, 6@, 1>A?, an has been repro "ce eCperi#entally =1<, 6@, <D?. .his an other rigors of the prison ca#p eCperience 8ere probably responsible for a goo eal of the sy#pto#atology that occ"rre a#ong (#erican prisoners in 0orea =@9, 1>%, 11B?. &eople epri)e of foo )ery soon e)elop a persistent h"nger, 8hich oes not lea)e the# "ntil eath approaches or n"trition is restore =1<, D1, %A, 6@?. (cco#panying this h"nger there is a constant preocc"pation 8ith foo , 8hich #ay enco#pass the greater part of 8a7ing tho"ghts an acti)ity =1<, %A, 6@?. (s star)ation progresses, the niceties of ress an beha)ior are neglecte , an if the lac7 of foo carries 8ith it a threat of eath, beha)ior #ay cease to be go)erne by the restraints of Jhonesty,J J"nselfishness,J Jpri e,J an Jhonor,J 8hich are acti)e "n er nor#al circ"#stancesI in short, the )ery highest integrati)e f"nctions rop a8ay =1<, %A, 6@?. 1"ring the earlier stages of h"nger, irritability an e#otional lability are the r"le, b"t later profo"n an contin"ing apathy occ"rs =1<, 19, %A, 61, 6@, 1>A?. In the #ost a )ance stages of inanition, efects of #e#ory, conf"sion, hall"cinations, el"sions, an intellect"al eficits beco#e e)i ent =1, %A, 6@?. ( )ance inanition is associate 8ith #a9or changes in the physical state of the in i)i "al. (ltho"gh it is F"ite possible that this state is irectly responsible for the erange#ent in brain f"nction 8hich ta7es place, the ist"rbances of beha)ior an of #oo 8hich occ"r "ring the -B%early part of star)ation are present long before any significant erange#ent of the internal #ilie" can be e#onstrate =1<, 19, 6@?. It is not to be ta7en that the reaction to h"nger is al8ays the sa#e. In star)e co##"nities, in concentration ca#ps, an in eCperi#ental sit"ations, so#e people en "re h"nger for a long ti#e, an #aintain their highest le)el f"nctions 8ith )ery little e)i ence of isorganiGation "ntil the effects of illness or lac7 of foo s"per)ene

=1, 1<, 19, %A, 6@, @>?. S"ch people, altho"gh they o feel h"nger an are a8are of it, are able to engage in tho"ght an beha)ior other than that centering aro"n a preocc"pation 8ith foo I their sy#pto#s are less o"tstan ing an their beha)ior is #ore Jnor#al.J So far as is 7no8n, this greater ability to 8ithstan h"nger has no constit"tional or genetic basisI on the other han , the attit" e of the #an to the eCperience that he is "n ergoing appears to be of great i#portance in eter#ining his capacity to en "re h"nger.

Pain .he in)estigation of pain has been especially enlightening in this regar , beca"se #any caref"l laboratory st" ies ha)e efine the ifference bet8een the Jsensation of painJ an the Jreaction to painJ =B, %>, %D, 11>, 1BD, 1BB?. .he sensation of pain see#s to be ro"ghly eF"al in all #en, that is to say, all people ha)e approCi#ately the sa#e threshol at 8hich they begin to feel pain, an 8hen caref"lly gra e sti#"li are applie to the#, their esti#ates of se)erity are approCi#ately the sa#e =6, D<, A<, %>, %1, @1, <%?. In general, the reaction to pain is in proportion to its se)erity, an the #ost intense pains incapacitate #en for any sort of co#pleC f"nction "ring the perio of their "ration. 6et eCception #"st be ta7en e)en to this state#ent, for 8hen #en are )ery highly #oti)ate , as they #ay be 8hen their o8n li)es or the li)es of others are at sta7e, they ha)e been 7no8n to carry o"t rather co#pleC tas7s 8hile en "ring the #ost intense pain. .he )ariability of h"#an reactions to the #o erately se)ere gra es of pain, s"ch as those fo"n in )ario"s iseases, is notorio"s. So#e people perfor# F"ite effecti)ely o)er #any years 8hile eCperiencing the pains of chronic hea ache, peptic "lcer, arthritis, or si#ilar con itionsI others 8ith li7e a#o"nts of pain are se)erely incapacitate =B, 6, @, <, D<, A<, %>, 6B, 69, @<, 9B, 9A, 1>B, 11D, 1D%, 1BD, 1BB?. .he a )erse reaction to chronic pain of #o erate se)erity is clinically fa#iliar. It is characteriGe by 8ith ra8al fro# the #ore co#pleC an responsible f"nctions of life, a certain a#o"nt of irritability -B6an e#otional lability, an concentration "pon personal co#fort an s"r)i)al at the eCpense of the nee s of others an of the society. 'n er eCperi#ental circ"#stances, those 8ho try to Jcarry onJ 8hile eCperiencing #o erate pain sho8 i#pair#ent of their perfor#ance on co#pleC tas7s, i#pair#ent of ecision #a7ing, loss of efficiency, an iffic"lty in esti#ating ti#e =<? H sy#pto#s 8hich 8o"l be eCpecte to occ"r in the early stages of the Qbrain syn ro#eR an #"ch li7e those of people 8ho ha)e s"ffere the estr"ction of a s#all seg#ent of their cerebral he#ispheres =DA, D%?. It is possible that the ifferences in the 8ay that )ario"s people react to pain #ay be partly eter#ine by their constit"tions, for it so#eti#es appears to the clinical obser)er that people of Q#eso#orphicR b"il , the hea)ily #"scle an big-bone in i)i "als, are those 8ho react to pain 8ith stoicis# or 8ith anger an a #obiliGation

for action that te#porarily enhances their perfor#anceI 8hereas the lighter an asthenic Qecto#orphR often reacts to pain 8ith 8ith ra8al, incapacitation, selfconcern, an anCiety. 6et the eCceptions to this are #any, an the )ariations in the reaction of the sa#e person fro# ti#e to ti#e are great. In general, it appears that 8hate)er #ay be the role of the constit"tional en o8#ent in eter#ining the reaction to pain, it is a #"ch less i#portant eter#inant than is the attit" e of the #an 8ho eCperiences the pain =B, 6, @, A<, %>, %D, 69, 9A, 11>, 11D, 1D%, 1BD, 1BB?.

Threat .hreats of any sort, irect, i#plie , or sy#bolic, are not necessarily eri)e fro# sensory inp"t 8hich is intrinsically Q"npleasant.R .he F"estion of the intrinsically noCio"s nat"re of a threat oes not e)en arise. Co#pleC sit"ations, sy#bols, an s#all c"es aro"se potent reactions entirely beca"se of the interpretation p"t "pon the#. In ifferent #en si#ilar sit"ations pro "ce ifferent reactions. So#e #en react to ostensibly angero"s sit"ations 8ith contin"e effecti)e perfor#ance. When #en react to s"ch sit"ations as threatening, an 8hen their reactions are characteriGe by anCiety or other intense e#otions, these reactions #ay isorganiGe their brain f"nction. Intense anCiety, for eCa#ple, is so#eti#es associate 8ith efects in e)ery area of perfor#ance that is i#paire in the Qbrain syn ro#e.R .hreat is not "s"ally tho"ght of as a QphysicalR sti#"l"s an the syn ro#e of anCiety is F"ite istinct fro# Qbrain syn ro#e.R 3o8e)er, the efect in f"nction that occ"rs in the anCio"s #an is F"ite real. -B@DISTURBANCES OF BRAIN FUNCTION PRODUCED B; PAIN< HUN=ER< AND THREATS

&ain, h"nger, an threats are "s"ally tho"ght of as psychological sti#"li beca"se the con itions that pro "ce the# #ay not be noCio"s "nless percei)e to be so. .he feat"res that eter#ine 8hether or not a #an 8ill percei)e a gi)en sit"ation as noCio"s H his personality, his past eCperiences, his i##e iate #ental set, an the characteristics of the sit"ation H are o"tsi e of the scope of this chapter, b"t 8e #"st ta7e "e note of their i#portance. +n the other han , the psychological reactions to pain, h"nger, an threats 8ill be isc"sse . .hese reactions are not calle Jorganic reactions,J an they are not consi ere to be part of the Jbrain syn ro#e,J b"t this is a sterile istinction. .he sa#e consi erations that 8ere applie to the reactions to isolation, fatig"e, an sleep loss apply also to those of pain, h"nger, an threats. Insofar as #oo , tho"ght, an beha)ior are f"nctions of the brain, the ist"rbances of #oo , tho"ght, an beha)ior that occ"r in reaction to pain, h"nger, or threat are ist"rbances of brain f"nction. Insofar as all brain f"nctions are conco#itants of electroche#ical e)ents in the brain, these ist"rbances are Jorganic.J 6et the i#paire f"nction associate 8ith

anCiety is isting"ishe fro# the Jbrain syn ro#eJ beca"se of its re)ersibility, an beca"se of the relati)ely greater ist"rbance of #oo an beha)ior than of intellect"al f"nctions, #e#ory, or orientation that "s"ally occ"r 8ith anCiety. 6et i#paire brain f"nction, not entirely isting"ishable fro# the organic reaction pattern, an in effect Jper#anent,J #ay in so#e cases be pro "ce by anCiety alone =DA, D%?. S"ite asi e fro# the F"estion of 8hether or not the reaction to threats, h"nger, an pain #ay be irectly associate 8ith changes in brain f"nction, there is no o"bt that it #ay be associate 8ith notable changes in the f"nction of other organs. When en)iron#ental con itions pose a threat, a apti)e #echanis#s are capable of creating i#portant changes in the internal econo#y =%9, 1D9, 1B>?. 4anifestations of ist"rbe f"nction of the gastrointestinal an car io)asc"lar syste#s are #ost freF"ently reporte by prisoners =%@?, b"t ist"rbance of any organ syste# #ay occ"r. In the absence of other ca"ses of isease, ysf"nctions pro "ce in this #anner are not "s"ally fatal, altho"gh they #ay be. When co#bine 8ith the effects of isolation, loss of sleep, or star)ation, they lea to rapi eterioration an so#eti#es to eath. -)en if one 8ere to o)erloo7 entirely the -B<irect effect "pon the brain of reactions associate 8ith anCiety, fear, or epression, the in irect effect of the ho#eostatic erange#ents that often occ"r at the sa#e ti#e 8o"l "lti#ately be eleterio"s to brain f"nction.

So-e I-4$i &tions o' T"is In'or-&tion We ha)e ra8n a istinction bet8een the J8illingnessJ of a #an to gi)e infor#ation an his JabilityJ to o so. .he i#plications of this #ay no8 be consi ere . (s the #aster organ of h"#an a aptation, the brain f"nctions as a 8hole in enabling #an to carry o"t the eCcee ingly co#pleC acti)ities of life in the societies that he has erecte . -)en i#pair#ent of the lo8er le)el f"nctions of the ner)o"s syste#, for eCa#ple, of sight, hearing, or #otor f"nction, to so#e eCtent i#pairs his perfor#ance of these acti)ities. 6et #any of the highest le)el acti)ities of #an re#ain possible espite s"ch i#pair#ent. 4ilton 8as blin , ,eetho)en 8as eaf, an Winston Ch"rchill 8as not the last states#an to carry on after he ha s"ffere a cerebro)asc"lar acci ent. .he part of the brain essential to these highest le)el acti)ities, 8itho"t 8hich they cannot be carrie on, is the #ost recent e)ol"tionary e)elop#ent an the part partic"larly 8ell- e)elope in #an$ the cerebral he#ispheres, the neopalli"#. It is this that #"st be intact for the perfor#ance of the creati)e an responsible tas7s that confront a #at"re #an an , in fact, for all those Jconscio"sJ acti)ities that are part of being an alert, sentient, an ci)iliGe h"#an being. Within the cerebral he#ispheres are #any iscrete path8ays 8hich ha)e to o 8ith lo8er le)el f"nctions, incl" ing those of sight, hearing, an the #otor f"nctions that

ha)e been #entione . .hese lo8er le)el f"nctions are relati)ely localiGe . 1a#age to their path8ays can i#pair the# te#porarily. ,"t the highest le)el f"nctions, those necessary for the a eF"ate eCpression of h"#an nee s, appetites, an ri)es, those 8hich pro)i e the #echanis#s for sy#bolic acti)ity =J#e#ory,J Jabstraction,J Jcognition,J Jintegration,J Jreason,J an so on?, an those 8hich enable #en to tolerate fr"stration, to eal effecti)ely 8ith threats, an to #aintain effecti)e an 8ell#o "late efense reactions, o not appear to be localiGe 8ithin the he#ispheres =DA, D%?. In carrying o"t these highest integrati)e f"nctions, the cerebral he#ispheres beha)e so#e8hat in the #anner of a ata-processing #achine that has J igitalJ =or Jco"ntingJ? an Janalog"eJ =or J#eas-B9"ringJ? characteristics, as 8ell as #any other characteristics not yet "plicate by #an#a e apparat"s =D6?. .he cerebral he#ispheres ha)e no specific path8ays associate 8ith Jabstraction,J Jcognition,J Jintegration,J Jreason,J or si#ilar #ental acti)ities. *ather, they incl" e a #aGe of potential path8ays, o)er any of 8hich the co#pleC patterns of acti)ity associate 8ith the highest integrati)e f"nctions #ay be set "p. .h"s, 8hen any part of the he#ispheres is a#age , none of the highest integrati)e acti)ities are entirely lost, b"t the capacity to perfor# all is i#paire to so#e eCtent. It is for this reason, "n o"bte ly, that anything that i#pairs the f"nction of the cerebral he#ispheres- irect in9"ry, r"gs, toCins, iseases, ho#eostatic ist"rbance of all sorts, isolation, sleep loss, fatig"e, an so#e reactions to pain, h"nger, an threats H "lti#ately pro "ces a global i#pair#ent of the highest integrati)e acti)ities. 6et it is also tr"e that so#e high le)el f"nctions of the brain are #ore )"lnerable than others. It see#s to be a characteristic of the central ner)o"s syste# that those f"nctions that are Jne8estJ an #ost co#pleC, those 8hich ha)e appeare #ost recently in e)ol"tionary e)elop#ent, are #ost )"lnerable an rop o"t first 8hen the f"nction of the brain is i#paire . .he cerebral he#ispheres pro)i e no eCception to this general r"le. When they are i#paire , the first f"nctions lost are those that are tho"ght to be the #ost co#pleC an to ha)e been acF"ire #ost recently by ci)iliGe #an$ the capacity to carry o"t the highest creati)e acti)ities, to #eet ne8, challenging, an co#pleC sit"ations, to eal 8ith trying interpersonal relations, an to cope 8ith repeate fr"stration =DA, D%?. *elati)ely s#all egrees of ho#eostatic erange#ent, fatig"e, pain, sleep loss, or anCiety #ay i#pair these f"nctions. (s i#pair#ent of brain f"nction contin"es, so#e8hat less co#pleC acti)ities eteriorate. .here is a lessening of the spee an efficiency 8ith 8hich the or inary tas7s of aily life are carrie o"t. Concern abo"t Jacc"racy,J Jpropriety,J J#oral rectit" e,J Jhonor,J an Jfeelings of other people,J an si#ilar Jsocially oriente J beha)ior falls a8ay, an an increase concern abo"t sleep, rest, co#fort, foo , an other bo ily nee s beco#es apparent =DA, D%, %A, 6@?. .here is less a herence to niceties in speech, beha)ior, an ress. -#otional isplays lose so#e of their social orientation. J" g#ent an insight are less ac"te. .hese co#pleC aspects of brain

f"nction #ay be istinctly i#paire , 8hereas orientation, #e#ory, recall, an the capacity to perfor# 8ell on psycho#otor tests are still intact. Sy#pto#s of i#paire orientation appear as i#pair#ent procee s. 4e#ory beco#es fa"lty, the capacity to recall re#ote e)ents being re-A>taine after #e#ory for recent e)ents is lost. 1iffic"lty in si#ple co#p"tations beco#es e)i ent, an i#pair#ent of perfor#ance on tests beco#es F"ite noticeable. With still f"rther i#pair#ent a8areness beco#es clo" e . It is at this point that #isinterpretations, ill"sions, el"sions, an hall"cinations #ay appear, an J eliri"#J #ay occ"r. Large efects in #e#ory an profo"n i#pair#ent of iscri#ination an 9" g#ent are e)i ent. (s they e)elop, confab"lation #ay ta7e place an perse)eration is li7ely. With f"rther eterioration of brain f"nction, loss of contact 8ith reality an finally loss of conscio"sness occ"r. It is notorio"s that threats, press"res, an epri)ations, s7illf"lly #anip"late by police an interrogators 8ith long practice in their "se, 8ill Jbrea7J al#ost any #an, Jsoften hi# "p,J J#a7e hi# cooperate,J an J#a7e hi# tal7.J .hey s"ccee beca"se the #ost co#pleC, the #ost Jci)iliGe ,J an the #ost Jsocially eter#ine J aspects of h"#an beha)ior are #ost affecte by these proce "res. .he Jless ci)iliGe J beha)ior patterns, irecte at co#fort an s"r)i)al, are bro"ght to the fore in a #an 8hose capacity for 9" g#ent an iscri#ination is i#inishe . J3onor,J Jbra)ery,J Jsec"rity,J Jloyalty,J an Jpatriotis#J then ha)e less 8eight in eter#ining his beha)iorI pain, fear, an conf"sion ha)e #ore. *ationaliGations co#e easier to hi#, an points that once see#e i#portant are no8 "ni#portant. 3e beco#es #ore J8illing to gi)e infor#ation.J JWillingness to gi)e infor#ationJ is an Jattit" e,J a J#ental set,J an Jincrease propensity of the in i)i "al to react in a gi)en #anner.J It is not, in itself, a iscrete f"nction of the brainI it is a state#ent abo"t the li7elihoo that a gi)en pattern of reaction 8ill occ"r, pro)i e this reaction pattern can occ"r. 2ario"s egrees of J8illingnessJ eCist so long as the brain has any JabilityJ 8hatsoe)er to gi)e infor#ation. .he Jability to gi)e infor#ationJ is a state#ent abo"t the capacity of the brain to f"rnish infor#ation$ the possibility that it can o so "n er any circ"#stances. JWillingnessJ an JabilityJ are not necessarily parallel. It is easy to see 8hy )ario"s police proce "res often increase the 8illingness of #en to gi)e infor#ation. So far as one can tell, the 8illingness to gi)e infor#ation is not eter#ine by any constit"tional factor or by the irect action of any agent fro# the o"tsi e, b"t by infor#ation alrea y 8ithin the brain, 8hat #ight be calle its J irections for action.J 4ost of the J irectionsJ 8hich call for a prisoner to 8ithhol

infor#ation 8ere i#plante there by his society. .hey are the s"# total of those learne reactions that ha)e -A1to o 8ith Jloyalty,J Jhonor,J Jpropriety,J Jsec"rity,J an so on. (s brain f"nction is i#paire , infor#ation eri)e fro# past eCperience generally beco#es less potent as a g"i e for action, 8hereas infor#ation eri)e fro# the i##e iate eCperience, pain, thirst, isco#fort, an threats to life, beco#es #ore potent. .he Jattit" eJ is li7ely to change, an the #an beco#es #ore J8illingJ to o 8hate)er is necessary to sec"re his co#fort an s"r)i)al. .he ne8 Jattit" e,J the ne8ly increase propensity, is irecte to8ar oing 8hate)er is necessary to sec"re co#fort an s"r)i)al. It is irecte to8ar Jco#pliance,J to8ar oing 8hat the sit"ation see#s to e#an . .his ne8 state of the infor#ant #ay be a trap to an interrogator, especially if he is a )igoro"s an persistent #an 8ith a goo hypothesis as to 8hat he #ight "nco)er. 3e is no8 ealing 8ith a #an 8ho is li7ely to ha)e lost so#e of his finer capacity for iscri#ination an 9" g#ent, 8hose insistent physiologic nee s i#pel hi# to8ar rea y sol"tions that #ay ser)e to relie)e hi# of his isco#fort, 8hose #e#ory for etails #ay be f"GGy an conf"se , an 8ho is #ore than "s"ally rea y to accept a pla"sible s"ggestion. .he so"rce is, in ee , #ore prepare to tal7, b"t he is also #ore li7ely to be inacc"rate an to gi)e false, #islea ing, inco#plete, or ineCact infor#ation, of a type li7e that 8hich his interrogator happens to be see7ing. .he fact that the gi)ing of this infor#ation oes not re o"n to his cre it or to his long-ter# self-interest an the fact that he is prepare to state that it is tr"e, an later to efen his state#ents, sho"l not be ta7en as e)i ence of its acc"racy. !ote that these are state#ents of probabilityI they are not absol"te. JWillingnessJ is not necessarily enhance as JabilityJ eteriorates. +"r si#ple hierarchical o"tline of the 8ay that brain f"nction falls off is generally tr"e. (ll the ist"rbing infl"ences that 8e ha)e #entione can be acco#panie by the Jbrain syn ro#e,J an can "lti#ately ca"se isorganiGation an "nconscio"sness. 3o8e)er, one cannot #a7e a #ore eCact state#ent, beca"se the precise nat"re of the sy#pto#s an the facility 8ith 8hich they are pro "ce are epen ent "pon the personality of the prisoner, 8hat has happene to hi# before, an ho8 he )ie8s the circ"#stances in 8hich he fin s hi#self at the ti#e =DA, D%, 1B1?. .hese factors ha)e a great eal to o 8ith the for# of the Jbrain syn ro#eJ pro "ce by ist"rbances in ho#eostasis. .hey eter#ine 8hether a #an beco#es garr"lo"s or 8ith ra8n, anCio"s or angry, paranoi or tr"sting. .hey li7e8ise eter#ine the for# of the Jbrain syn ro#eJ pro "ce by isolation, sleep loss, an fatig"e, an they f"rther ha)e an i#portant infl"ence "pon his ability to 8ithstan pain an h"nger, an they -ADapproach being an absol"te eter#inant of 8hether or not a JthreatJ 8ill pro "ce a isorganiGing reaction.

'n8illingness to gi)e infor#ation is a #ental set. If it is strongly i#be e in a #an before his capt"re, it #ay contin"e to go)ern one aspect of his beha)ior right "p to the point of eliri"# or "nconscio"sness, no #atter 8hat sy#pto#s he #ay e)elop. So#e people -cri#inals a hering to the Jco e of the "n er8orl J =1D@? as 8ell as prisoners of 8ar a hering to the Jfinest #ilitary tra itionsJ =119? H o not gi)e infor#ation altho"gh they reach the point of isorganiGation or eath. .he e)i ence s"ggests that a learne reaction pattern, if s"fficiently reinforce , can so#eti#es go)ern a specific aspect of beha)ior as long as a #an retains the capacity to carry o"t that beha)ior. ;ro# the theoretical point of )ie8 it is har to escape the concl"sion that a #an is best able to gi)e acc"rate infor#ation 8hen he is in an opti#al state of health, rest, co#fort, an alertness, an 8hen he is "n er no threat. .his 8o"l see# to be the opti#al sit"ation for interrogation. (ny atte#pt to pro "ce co#pliant beha)ior by proce "res 8hich pro "ce tiss"e a#age, ist"rbances of ho#eostasis, fatig"e, sleep epri)ation, isolation, isco#fort, or ist"rbing e#otional states carries 8ith it the haGar of pro "cing inacc"racy an "nreliability. 3o8e)er, it is often necessary for the interrogator to F"estion people 8ho are eCperiencing #o erately se)ere effects of illness, in9"ry, fatig"e, isco#fort, or anCiety. ( bo y of practical eCperience in icates that relati)ely reliable infor#ation can be obtaine fro# #ost s"ch people, if the infor#ation so"ght is neither co#pleC nor eCtensi)e. .he interrogator faces t8o special haGar s "n er these circ"#stances. ;irst, the so"rce #ay ha)e a fairly serio"s egree of #ental ist"rbance that is not i##e iately e)i ent an it #ay escape the interrogator:s attention. Secon , any infor#ant in a threatening sit"ation is liable to say 8hate)er 8ill please his captors, e)en tho"gh he #ay not o so intentionally. .hese e)er-present haGar s of interrogation are enhance "n er a )erse circ"#stances. It #ay be ass"#e , in the absence of e)i ence to the contrary, that the si#pler, the briefer, an the #ore rea ily )erifiable the infor#ation that is so"ght, the #ore li7ely is the e)i ence of the so"rce to be of )al"e. +n the other han , granting that )ario"s proce "res esigne to #a7e #en #ore co#pliant 8ill i#pair their ability to gi)e acc"rate infor#ation, o these proce "res not ca"se #en to gi)e #ore infor#ation than they #ight other8ise ha)e gi)enL Cannot a #an be #a e to re)eal infor#ation against his 8illL -AB1isor ere brain f"nction is in ee easily pro "ce in any #an. !o a#o"nt of J8ill po8erJ can pre)ent its occ"rrence. It can be pro "ce 8itho"t "sing physical #eans, that is, by fatig"e or sleep epri)ation. Since it #ay be associate 8ith #ental clo" ing, conf"sion, lac7 of iscri#ination, i#paire 9" g#ent, an increase s"ggestibility, it is probably tr"e that #ost #en can be bro"ght to a state 8here they 8ill agree to state#ents that are "bio"s, inco#plete, or F"ite inacc"rate. 'n er these con itions so#e #en 8ill #a7e "p entirely fictitio"s stories incri#inating the#sel)es. .herefore, it is "s"ally not iffic"lt to obtain signe JconfessionsJ that are biase ,

inco#plete, inacc"rate, or e)en totally "ntr"e. .his is the #eans by 8hich Co##"nist state police ha)e pro "ce false confessions 8ith great reg"larity =%@?, altho"gh not 8ith "ni)ersal s"ccess =1D, 1>1, 1>6, 11@, 119?. 4ost people 8ho are eCpose to coerci)e proce "res 8ill tal7 an "s"ally re)eal so#e infor#ation that they #ight not ha)e re)eale other8ise. 3o8e)er, there is no e)i ence that a #an #"st al8ays re)eal a specific ite# of infor#ation that he possesses. 1ist"rbe brain f"nction of the s"b9ect oes not allo8 the interrogator to abstract infor#ation at 8ill. (n interrogator #ay occasionally tric7 a ist"rbe #an into re)ealing bits of infor#ation that he ha inten e to conceal, b"t infor#ation so re)eale is li7ely to be li#ite an intersperse 8ith "nreliable state#ents. If he elects to o so, a prisoner #ay en "re to eath or isorganiGation 8itho"t re)ealing 8hat he 7no8s. 2ery fe8 #en, ho8e)er, can hol the#sel)es to s"ch rigoro"s beha)ior thro"gh all the )icissit" es of capti)ity.

Re'eren es
1. (ginger J., an 3e##ager -. 'n"s"al ne"ral con itions follo8ing h"nger perio of 19A%-A6. Arch. Psychiat., 19%1, 1<6, A<B-A9%. D. (lbert S. !., Spencer W. (., ,oling J. S., an .histleth8aite J. *. -y(other)ia in the )anage)ent of the (oor>ris" (atient un%ergoing )a<or surgery. J. A)er. )e%. Ass., 19%@, 16B, 1AB%1AB<. B. Association for Research in Nervous an% .ental ,isease. Sy)(osiu) on Pain. ,alti#ore$ Willia#s & Wil7ins, 19AB. A. ,artley S. !., an Ch"te -. 0atigue an% i)(air)ent in )an. !e8 6or7$ 4c/ra8-3ill, 19A@. %. ,ec7 ;., an /o in W. Russian (urge an% the e*traction of confessions. .ranslate 4osbacher an 1. &orter. !e8 6or7$ 2i7ing &ress 19%1. 6. ,eecher 3. 0. &he )easure)ent of (ain. Phar). Rev., 19%1, 9, %9-D>9. @. ,eecher 3. 0., 0eats (. S., 4osteller ;., an Lasagna L. 1ffectiveness of oral analgesics F)or(hine, co%eine, acetylsalicylic aci%G an% (ro'le) of (lace'o HreactorsH an% Hnon>reactors.H J. Phar). e*(. &hera(eutics, 19%B, 1>9, B9B-A>>. by -.

-AA<. ,en9a#in ;. ,. &he effect of (ain on (erfor)ance. U. S. Ar)e% 0orces )e%. J., 19%@, <, BBD-BA%. 9. ,er#an -. ;., &att 3. 3., an (7#an L. Artificial hi'ernation. J. Internat. +oll. Surgeons, 19%%, DA, D<D-D91. 1>. ,est C. 3., an .aylor !. ,. &he (hysiological 'asis of )e%ical (ractice. =6th e .? ,alti#ore$ Willia#s & Wil7ins, 19%%.

11. ,eCton W. 3., 3eron W., an Scott .. 3. 1ffects of %ecrease% variations in sensory environ)ent. +ana%. J. Psychol., 19%A, <, @>-@6. 1D. ,i er#an (. 1. +o))unist atte)(ts to elicit false confessions fro) Air 0orce (risoners of ar. Bull. N. !. Aca%. .e%., 19%@, BB, 616-6D%. 1B. ,iliings *. 4., Chal7e ;. C. *., an Shortt L. ,attle eCha"stion. +ana%. )e%. Ass. J., 19A@, %@, 1%D-1%%. 1A. ,lan J. 3. &he clinical use of flui% an% electrolyte. &hila elphia$ Sa"n ers, 19%D. 1%. ,one -. Seven yearsD solitaiy. !e8 6or7$ 3arco"rt ,race, 19%@. 16. ,ra"chi J. .., an West L. J. Slee( %e(rivation. J.A...A., 19%9, 1@1, p. 11. 1@. ,ro8n -. ,., Jr. Physiological effects of hy(erventilation. Physiol. Rev., 19%B, BB, AA%-A@1. 1<. ,roGe7 J. Psychology of hu)an starvation an% nutritional reha'ilitation. Scient. .on., 19%>, @>, D@>-D@A. 19. ,roGe7 J. Nutrition an% 'ehaviorI (sychologic changes in acute starvation or". J. A)cr. ,iet. Ass., 19%%, B1, @>B-@>@. ith har% (hysical

D>. ,r"n C., 0n" sen -. +. -., an *aascho" ;. &he influence of (osture on the "i%ney function. Acta. .e%. Scan%., 19A%, 1DD, B1%-BB1. D1. +arlson, A. J., an -oel3e$ 0. Allege% %isa((earance of hunger %uring starving. Science, 19%D, 11%, %D6-%D. DD. Chal#ers .. 4., an SF"ires *. 1. 4'servations on the renal res(onse to )otionless stan%ing. J. Physiol., 19%B, 1DD, %<-%9. DB. Chap#an W. &., ;inesinger J. C., an Chesley /. 1ffect of %irect suggestion on (ain sensitivity in nor)al control su'<ects an% (sychoneurotic (atients. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19%B, 11<, 19-D6. DA. Chap#an L. ;., .hetfor W. !., ,erlin L., et al. -ighest integrative functions in )an %uring stress. Proc. Ass. Res. Nerv. .ent. ,is., 19%<, B6, A91-%BA. D%. Chap#an L. ;., an Wolff 3. /. ,isease of the neo(alliu) an% i)(air)ent of the highest integrative functions. .e%. +linics N. A)er., 19%<, AD, 6@@-6<9. D6. Cherry C. 4n hu)an co))unication. Ca#bri ge, 4ass.$ .echnology &ress, 19%@. D@. Conn J. W., an SeltGer 3. S. S(ontaneous hy(oglyce)ia. A)er. J. .e%., 19%%, 19, A6>-A@<. D<. Co"ston .. (. In%ifferenct to (ain in lo gra%e )ental %efectives. Brit. )e%. J., 19%A, 1, 11D<11D9. D9. C"rran 1. PsychosesI to*ic infective (sychoses. In British encyclo(e%ia of )e%ical (ractice. =Dn e .? 2ol. 1>. Lon on$ ,"tter8orth, 19%D. &p. A>B-A16.

B>. 1ano8s7i .. S., ;erg"s -. ,., an 4ateer ;. 4. &he lo salt syn%ro)es. Ann. int, .e%., 19%%, AB, 6AB-6%@. B1. 1a)is 0. 0inal note on case of e*tre)e isolation. A)er. J. Sociol., 19A@, %D, ABD-AB@. BD. 1ill 1. ,. Nature of fatigue. Geriatrics, 19%%, 1>, A@A-A@<. BB. 1",ois -. ;. 0ever an% the regulation of 'o%y te)(erature. Springfiel , Illinois$ C. C. .ho#as, 19A<.

-A%BA. - itorial. (ppetite an h"nger. $ancet, 19%%, D69, @>@-@><. B%. - 8ar s (. S. 1ffects of loss of 6;; hoursD slee(. A)er. J. Psychol., 19A1, %A, <>-91. B6. - 8ar s W. L. J., an L"##"s W. ;. 0unctional hy(oglyce)ia an% the hy(erventilation syn%ro)e. Ann. int. .e%., 19%%, AD, 1>B1-1>A>. B@. -hr#antra"t W. *., .ic7tin 3. -., an ;aGe7as J. ;. +ere'ral he)o%yna)ics an% )eta'olis) in acci%ental hy(other)ia. A...A. Arch. int. .e%., 19%@, 99, %@-%9. B<. -l7inton J. *., an 1ano8s7i .. S. &he 'o%y flui%s. ,alti#ore$ Willia#s & Wil7ins, 19%%. B9. -llis ;. &. -ot cli)ate fatigue in the Royal Navy. $ancet, 19%D, D6B, %D@-%%B. A>. ;aGe7as J., 0leh J., an ;innerty ;. (. Influence of age an% vascular %isease on cere'ral he)o%yna)ics an% )eta'olis). A)er. J. .e%., 19%%, 1<, A@@-A<%. A1. ;loy W. ;., an Welfor (. .. Sy)(osiu) on fatigue. Lon on$ 3. 0. Le8is, 19%B. AD. /a#ble J. L. +o)(anionshi( of ater an% electrolytes in the organi3ation of 'o%y flui%s. Stanfor , California$ Lane 4e ical Lect"res, Stanfor 'ni)er. &"blications, 19%1. AB. /a#ble J. L. +he)ical anato)y. Physiology an% (athology of e*tracellular flui%. =6th e .? Ca#bri ge$ 3ar)ar 'ni)er. &ress, 19%<. AA. /ol berger L., an 3olt *. *. 1*(eri)ental interference ith reality contactB In%ivi%ual %ifferences. Pa(er rea% at -arvar% Sy)(osiu) on Sensory ,e(rivation, ,oston, J"ne 19%<. A%. /ol berger L., an 3olt *. *. 1*(eri)ental interference ith reality contact F(erce(tual isolationGB .etho% an% grou( results. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19%<, 1D@, 99-11D. A6. /oo no8, JacF"eline, an *"binstein I. 1ffect of slee( loss on (ro'le) solving 'ehavior. Washington, 1. C.$ Walter *ee (r#y Inst. of *esearch, Walter *ee (r#y 4e ical Center, 4arch 19%@, W*(I*-A>-%@. A@. /ottschic7 J. Neuro(sychiatric %isease a)ong Ger)an (risoners of Arch. Psychiat., 19%>, 1<%, A91-%1>. ar in the Unite% States.

A<. 3all 0. *. L., an Stri e -. 5arying res(onses to (ain in (sychiatric %isor%ersI stu%y in a'nor)al (sychology. Brit. J. )e%. Psychol., 19%A, D@, A<-6>.

A9. 3anson ;. *. &he factor of fatigue in the neuroses of co)'at. Bull. U. S. Ar)y .e%. ,e(t . =s"ppl.?, !o)e#ber 19A9, 9, 1A@-1%>. %>. 3ar y J. 1., Wolff 3. /., an /oo ell 3elen. Pain sensations an% reacactions. ,alti#ore$ Willia#s & Wil7ins, 19%D. %1. 3a"gen ;. &. Recent a%vances in neuro(hysiology of (ain. Anesthesiology, 19%%, 16, A9>-A9A. %D. 3a"gen ;. &., an Li)ingston W. 0. 1*(eriences Anesthesiology, 19%B, 1A, 1>9-116. ith -ar%y>Wolff>Goo%ell %olori)eter.

%B. 3ebb 1. +., 3eath -. S., an St"art -. (. 1*(eri)ental %eafness. +ana%. J. Psychol., 19%A, <, 1%D-1%6. %A. 3el8eg-Larsen &., 3off#eyer 3., 0iefer J., et al. 0a)ine %isease in Ger)an concentration ca)(sI co)(lications an% se=uels. Acta. Psych. et Neurol. Scan%., 19%D, <B, S"ppl. %%. 3eron W., ,eCton W. 3., an 3ebb 1. +. +ognitive effects of %ecrease% variation to sensory environ)ent. A)er. Psychologist, 19%B, <, B66. =(bstract?

-A6%6. 3eron W., 1oane ,. 0., an Scott .. 3. J2is"al isolationJ. +ana%. J. Psychol., 19%6, 1>, 1B-1<. ist"rbances after prolonge percept"al

%@. 3in7le L. -., Jr., an Wolff 3. /. Co##"nist interrogation an in octrination of J-ne#ies of the State. (nalysis of #etho s "se by the Co##"nist state police. =Special *eport?, A...A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%6, @6, 11%-1@A. %<. 3in7le L. -., Jr., an Wolff 3. /. J.he #etho s of interrogation an in octrination "se by Co##"nist state policeJ. Bull. N. !. Aca%. .e%., 19%@, BB, 6>>-61%. %9. 3in7le L. -., Jr., an Wolff 3. /. J.he nat"re of #an:s a aptation to his total en)iron#ent an the relation of this to illnessJ. A...A. Arch. int. .e%., 19%@, 99, AAD-A6>. 6>. 3o"ston ;., an *oyse (. ,. J*elationship bet8een eafness an psychotic illnessJ. J. )ent. Sci., 19%A, 1>>, 99>-99B. 61. 3"ltgren 3. &. J&risoners of 8arI clinical an laboratory obser)ations in se)ere star)ationJ. Stanfor% .e%. Bull., 19%1, 9, 1@%-191. 6D. J"lian +. C., 1ye W. S., /ro)e W. I., et al. J3ypother#ia in open heart s"rgeryJ. A...A. Arch. Surg., 19%6, @B, A9B-%>D. 6B. 0arp 1., an ,"rns ,. 1. J*esponses to painf"l sti#"l"s in schiGophrenic patients before an after loboto#yJ. &reat. Serv. Bull., 19%A, 9, 1%-B9. 6A. 0atG S. -., an Lan is C. J&sychologic an physiologic pheno#ena "ring prolonge )igilJ. A...A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19B%, BA, B>@-B1@. 6%. 0ety S. S. JCirc"lation an #etabolis# of the h"#an brain in health an 19%>, <, D>%-D1@. iseaseJ. A)er. J. .e%.,

66. 0ety S. S., an Sch#i t C. ;. J.he eter#ination of cerebral circ"lation in #an by the "se of nitro"s oCi e in lo8 concentrationsJ. A)er. J. Physiol., 19A%, 1AB, %B-%6. 6@. 0eys (., et al. &he 'iology of hu)an starvation. 4inneapolis$ 'ni)er. of 4inn. &ress, 19%>. D )ols. 6<. 0leit#an !. Slee( an% a"efulness. Chicago$ 'ni)er. of Chicago &ress, 19B9. 69. 0ornets7y C. J-ffects of anCiety an #orphine on anticipation an perception of painf"l ra iant ther#al sti#"liJ J. co)(. (hysiol. Psychol., 19%A, A@, 1B>-1BD. @>. 0ral 2. (. J&sychiatric obser)ations "n er se)ere chronic stressJ. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%1, 1><, 1<%-19D. @1. 0"tscher (. 3., an 0"tscher 3. W. J-)al"ation of the 3ar y-Wolff-/oo ell pain threshol apparat"s an techniF"eI re)ie8 of the literat"reJ. Internat. Rec. .e%., 19%@, 1@>=A?, D>D-D1D. @D. Laslett 3. *. J(n eCperi#ent on the effects of loss of sleepJ. J. e*(. Psychol., 19DA, @, A%-%<. @B. La"f#an 3. J&rofo"n acci ental hypother#iaJ. J. A)er. )e%. Ass., 19%1, 1A@, 1D>1-1D1D. @A. Lei er#an 3., 4en elson J. 3., WeCler 1., an Solo#on &. JSensory epri)ationI clinical aspectsJ. A...A. Arch. int. .e%., 19%<, 1>1, B<9-B96. @%. Ler#olo -liGabeth. 0ace of a victi). .ranslate fro# the *"ssian by I. 1. W. .al#a ge. !e8 6or7$ 3arper ,ros., 19%%. @6. Le)in 4. JChronic eliri"# in organic e#entiaJ. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19A%, 1>D, D%6-D%9. @@. Le8is ,. I. J.he hyper)entilation syn ro#eJ. Ann. int. .e%., 19%B, B<, 91<-9D@.

-A@@<. Le8is .. Pain. !e8 6or7$ 4ac#illan, 19AD. @9. Lifton *. J. J3o#e by shipI reaction patterns of (#erican prisoners of 8ar repatriate fro# !orth 0oreaJ. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%A, 11>, @BD-@B9. <>. Lilly J. C. J4ental effects of re "ction of or inary le)els of physical sti#"li on intact, healthy personsJ. Psychiat., Res. Re(. A)er. Psychiat. Ass., 19%6, %, 1-D<. <1. L"ongo -. &. J+cc"pational an non-occ"pational stress in relation to e#ployee healthJ. In%ust. .e%., 19%%, DA, DAD-DA6. <D. 4cCance *. (., an Wi o8son -. 4. J.he effect of "n ern"trition "pon the co#position of the bo y an its tiss"esJ. Acta. .e%. Scan%., 19%B, 1A6, A%-A6. <B. 4c/rath S. 1., an Witt7o8er -. 1. JSo#e obser)ations on aircre8 fatig"e in the *C(;-.o7yo airliftJ. J. aviat. .e%., 19%A, D%, DB-B@. <A. 4angol *., So7oloff C., Conner -., et al. I. J.he effects of sleep an lac7 of sleep on the cerebral circ"lation an #etabolis# of nor#al yo"ng #enJ. J. clin. Invest., 19%%, BA, 1>9D-11>>.

<%. 4eehan J. &., Stoll (. 4., an 3ar y J. 1. JC"taneo"s pain threshol in nati)e (las7an In ian an -s7i#oJ. J. a((l. Physiol., 19%A, 6, B9@-A>>. <6. 4en elson J., an ;oley J. 4. J(bnor#ality of #ental f"nction affecting patients 8ith polio#yelitis in tan7 type respiratorJ. &rans. A)er. Neurol. Ass., 19%6, <1, 1BA-1B<. <@. 4en elson J., Solo#on &., an Lin e#ann -. J3all"cinations of polio#yelitis patients "ring treat#ent in a respiratorJ. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19%<, 1D6, AD1-AD<. <<. 4iller (. .., Jr. J&resent stat"s of the st" y of h"#an fatig"eJ. N. +ar. )e%. J., 19A<, 9, %<>-%<D. <9. 4oyer J. 3., 4ills L. C., ;or *. 2., an Sp"rr C. J.he effect of hea -"p tilte position an a#b"lation on renal he#o yna#ic an 8ater an electrolyte eCcretion in patients 8ith hypertension, 8ith an 8itho"t renal a#ageJ. J. la'. clin. .e%., 19%%, A%, 1@9-19>. 9>. !i .. /., an *ehberg &. ,. J+n the infl"ence of post"re on 7i ney f"nctionJ. J. Physiol., 19B1, @1, BB1-BB9. 91. !itsche &., an Wil#anns 0. -istory of (rison (sychoses. !e8 6or7$ !er). an 4ent. 1is. &"blishing Co., 191D. Nerv. & .ent. ,is. .onog. Series !o. 1B. 9D. !oyes (. &., an 0olb L. C. .o%ern clinical (sychiatry. =%th e .? &hila elphia$ Sa"n ers, 19%<. 9B. &en#an J. J&ain as an ol frien J. $ancet, 19%A, D66, 6BB-6B6. 9A. &iercy 4., -lithorn (., &ratt *. .. C., an Cross7ey 4. J(nCiety an a"tono#ic reaction to painJ. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiat., 19%%, 1<, 1%%-16D. 9%. &re" &. W., an /eiger (. J. JSy#pto#atic psychoses in pernicio"s ane#iaJ. Ann. int. .e%., 19B%, 9, @66-@@<. 96. *ice *. L. JSy#pto# patterns of the hyper)entilation syn ro#eJ. A)er. J. .e%., 19%>, <, 691@>>. 9@. *o#ano J., an -ngel /. L. J1eliri"#J. A...A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19AA, %1, B%6-B%@. 9<. *oth#an .., /oo #an *. J., an .yler 1. ,. J-Cperi#ental inso#niaI --/ changes "ring 11D ho"rs of 8a7ef"lnessJ. &rans. A)er. Neurol. Ass., 19A@, @1, 1@B-1@A. 99. Sa#son 1. C., S8isher S. !., Christian *. 4., an -ngel /. L. Cerebral

-A<99. #etabolic ist"rbance an eliri"# in pernicio"s ane#ia. A...A. Arch. int. .e%., 19%D, 9>, A-1A.

1>>. Saphir W. JChronic hypochlore#ia si#"lating psychone"rosisJ. J. A)er )e%. Ass, 19A%, 1D9, %1>-%1D 1>1. Schein -. 3. .he Chinese in octrination progra# for prisoners of 8arI a st" y of atte#pte Jbrain8ashing. Psychiatry, 19%6, 19, 1A9-1@D

1>D. Scheinberg &., ,lac7b"rn I., *ich 4., an Saslo8 4. J-ffects of )igoro"s physical eCercise on cerebral circ"lation an #etabolis#J. A)er. J. .e%., 19%A, 16, A 1>B. Schnec7 J. 4. JSt" ies in scientific hypnosisJ. Nerv. an% )ent. ,is. .onogra(hs, !e8 6or7, 19%A, !o. <A 1>A. Schnit7er 4. (., 4att#an *. -., an ,liss .. L. JClinical st" y of #aln"trition in Japanese prisoners of 8arJ. Ann. int. .e%., 19%1, B%, 69-96 1>%. Segal 3. (. JInitial psychiatric fin ings of recently repatriate prisoners of 8arJ. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%A, 111, B%<-B6B 1>6. Segal J. 0actors relate% to the colla'oration an% resistance 'ehavior of U. S. Ar)y PWDs in 2orea. Washington, 1. C.$ 3"#an *eso"rces *esearch +ffice, /eorge Washington 'ni)er., 1ece#ber 19%6. 3"#**+ .echnical *eport BB 1>@. Soffer (. J1angers of inacti)ity "ring a"to#obile tra)elJ. A)er. J. )e% Sci., 19%%, DD9, A@%A@6 1><. Solo#on 3. C., an 6a7o)le) &. I. =- s.? .anual of )ilitary neuro(sychiatry. &hila elphia$ Sa"n ers, 19AA 1>9. Solo#on &., Lei er#an &. 3., 4en elson J., an WeCler 1. JSensory epri)ation$ ( re)ie8J. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%@, 11A, B%@-B6B 11>. Spiegal -. (., 0letG7in 4., SGe7ely -. /., an Wycis 3. .. J*ole of hypothala#ic #echanis#s in thala#ic painJ. Neurology, 19%A, A, @B9-@%1 111. Stanbri ge *. 3. J;atig"e in air cre8I obser)ations in ,erlin airliftJ $ancet, 19%1, D61, 1-B 11D. Stans7y -. J&sychology an psychotherapy of painJ. Arch. Psychiat., 19%B, 19>, A9-@9 11B. Strass#an 3. 1., .haler 4argaret ,., an Schein -. 3. J( prisoner of 8ar syn ro#e$ (pathy as a reaction to se)ere stressJ. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%6, 11D, 99<-1>>B 11A. S8an7 *. L. JCo#bat eCha"stionI escripti)e an statistical analysis of ca"ses, sy#pto#s an signsJ. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19A9, 1>9, A@%-%>< 11%. S8an7 *. L., an 4archan W. -. JCo#bat ne"rosesI the e)elop#ent of co#bat eCha"stionJ. A...A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19A6, %%, DB6-DA@ 116. .albott J. 3. J4e ical progressI the physiological an therape"tic effect of hypother#iaJ. N. 1ng. J. .e%., 19A1, DDA, D<1-D<< 11@. .horin 1. &he ri%e to Pan)un<on. Chicago$ *egnery, 19%6 11<. .yler 1. ,. J&sychological changes "ring eCperi#ental sleep epri)ationJ ,is. nerv Syst., 19%%, 16, D9B-D99 119. '. S. Congress, Senate. Co##ittee on /o)ern#ent +perations, J&er#anent S"bco##ittee on In)estigationsJ. -earing, J"ne D6, 19%6. Washington, 1. C.$ /o)t. &rint. +ff., 19%6

1D>. 2ilter *. W., 4"eller J. ;., /laGer 3. S., et al. J.he effect of 2ita#in , eficiency in "ce by esoCypyri oCine in h"#an beingsJ. J. la'. clin. .e%., 19%B AD, B%%-B%@.

-A91D1. Wa7i# 0. /. J.he physiologic effects of heatJ. J. A)er. )e%. Ass., 19A<, 1B<, 1>91-1>9@ 1DD. Warren !., an Clar7 ,. J,loc7ing in #ental an #otor tas7s "ring 6% ho"r )igilJ. J. e*(. Psychol., 19B@, D1, 9@-1>% 1DB. Wayb"rn -. JI##ersion hypother#iaJ. A...A. Arch. int. .e%., 19A@, @9, @@-91 1DA. Wea)er -. 4. ;., 2an J. 1. 2al7enb"rg, Ste8art J. ,., et al. J4e ical proble#s of long range fighter #issionsI st" y in fatig"eJ. J. aviat. .e%., 19A@, 1<, BA1-B%1 1D%. West L. J., !iell 0. C., an 3ar y J. 1. J-ffects of hypnotic s"ggestion on pain perception an gal)anic s7in responseJ. A...A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%D, 6<, %A@-%6> 1D6. WeCler 1., 4en elson J., Lei er#an &. 3., an Solo#on &. JSensory epri)ationI a techniF"e for st" ying psychiatric aspects of stressJ. A...A. Arch Neurol. Psychiat., 19%<, @9, DD%-DBB 1D@. JWhat Sch"lG sai in eliri"# as he lay yingJ. In &he Ne !or" Worl% &elegra), +ctober D%, 19B%, 6<=99?. &p. 1 an A 1D<. Whitehorn J. C. JStatistical iagnostic classificationJ. In *. L. ;. Cecil an *. ;. Loeb =- s.?, A te*t'oo" of )e%icine. =9th e .? &hila elphia$ Sa"n ers, 19%% &p. 16@%-16@6 1D9. Wolff 3. /. JLife stress an bo ily iseaseJ. Proc. Ass. Res. Nerv. .ent. ,is., 19%>, D9, 1>%91>9A 1B>. Wolff 3. /. Stress an% %isease. Springfiel , Ill.$ C. C. .ho#as, 19%B 1B1. Wolff 3. /., an C"rran 1. J!at"re of eliri"# an allie statesJ. A...A Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19B%, BB, 11@%-1D1% 1BD. Wolff 3. /., 3ar y J. 1., an /oo ell 3. J!at"re of pain. 4inn. 4e .J, 19%D, B%, %BA-%A> 1BB. Wolff 3. /., an Wolf S. &ain. Springfiel , Ill.$ C. C. .ho#as, 19A< 1BA. 5i##er#an ,., an Wangensteen +. 3. 4'servations on (atients. Surgery, 19%D, B1, 6%A-669 ater into*ication in surgical

1B%. 5i##er#an 3. (. J;atig"e in ,-D9 cre8#enJ. Bull. U. S. Ar)y .e%. ,e(t., 19A@, @, B>A-B>@ 1B6. 5is7in -. JIsolation stress in #e ical an #ental illnessJ. J. A)er. )e% Ass., 19%<, 16<, 1AD@1AB1.

-%>-

CHAPTER

The effects of reduced environmental stimulation on human behavior: a review

&3ILI& -. 0',5(!S06

Introdu tion .his chapter is concerne 8ith eCperi#ental in)estigations of the effects "pon h"#an beha)ior of a re "ction in either absol"te or relati)e a#o"nts of sensory or percept"al sti#"lation. -Cperi#ental efforts to achie)e s"ch a re "ction in en)iron#ental inp"t to the organis# ha)e been referre to in the literat"re by )ario"s ter#s, of 8hich the #ost co##on appear to be Jsensory epri)ation,J Jsensory isolation,J an Jpercept"al isolation.J (ltho"gh it is iffic"lt to isting"ish bet8een the "se of these ter#s, an effort 8ill be #a e to eCa#ine the si#ilarities an ifferences fo"n in the gro8ing n"#ber of in)estigations in this proble# area. *egar less of the ifferences in escripti)e ter#inology, these con itions ha)e been obser)e to pro "ce #ar7e changes in the beha)ior of s"b9ects eCpose to the#. .hese changes ha)e incl" e #o ifications in thin7ing, perception, an feeling states, as 8ell as an increase in i#agery, often biGarre in content. It is the p"rpose of this chapter =a? to eCa#ine briefly the so"rces of interest in this proble#, =b? to re)ie8 the eCtant eCperi#ental literat"re in or er to assess the c"rrent stat"s of 7no8le ge TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Partial assistance for the preparation of this report was provided by the Office of Naval Research, Contract Nonr. 1866(2 !. "he a#thor wo#ld also li$e to than$ R. R. %olt and P. %. &eider'an for their critical readin( of the 'an#script and their 'any helpf#l s#((estions.

-%1abo"t this proble#, an =c? to re)ie8 briefly its i#plications for o"r general "n erstan ing of beha)ior.

B& 8%round

Interest in these proble#s by i)erse gro"ps long ante ates the c"rrent concern. S#all =@1?, in 19>>, s"##ariGe a great eal of ata rele)ant to the relationship bet8een social life an solit" e. 3e offere the generaliGation that
(ll 7no8le ge of self an things is relati)e. &ersonal orientation epen s largely on ob9ects in the )is"al fiel . In the presence of a esert, a prairie, a sea, or the s7yI in an absol"tely ar7 ca)ern, or on the s"##it of a #o"ntain, a feeling of isproportionateness bet8een the #an an 8hat he sees o)er8hel#s conscio"sness. &aralysis of association res"lts. *etrogression to a half-)egetati)e state li7e that of infancy follo8s. If the eyes be open, they o not see. .hey ha)e neither fiCation point nor acco##o ation. .heir gaGe is as )acant as in the early ays after birth, as stoli as the froGen stare that follo8s eath. (ll the life that there is, lies 8ithin. When that 8hich has see#e real, abi ing an certain in the ob9ecti)e fiel beco#es a blan7, the psychic con ition passes rapi ly thro"gh a change 8hose nearest analog"e is the bla er of air in a recei)er fro# 8hich the air is being eCha"ste . In the effort to eCpan itself to the range of its ne8 con itions, the self fin s itself only a loosely relate #ass of refleCes fro# eCperience, istr"sts their coherence an their affinities, sees the flitting nat"re of conscio"sness, loses tself in the 'n7no8n. =1@, page B9.?

'ntil recently o"r pri#ary so"rces of ata on this proble# ha)e been the a"tobiographical acco"nts of prisoners, eCplorers, an ship8rec7e sailors. .hey ha)e reporte rather ra#atic, often gripping acco"nts of the response to isolation in narro8 an cra#pe prison F"arters, in en less ays at sea, or in star7 an esolate polar regions. *eports by ,o#bar =11?, ,yr =1%?, *itter =6B?, an ,"rney =1B?, to #ention only a fe8, escribe the ineCorable #onotony of these con itions an report "n"s"al changes in thin7ing, feeling, an perception. 3all"cinationli7e eCperiences see#e F"ite co##on an a #ar7e h"nger for contact 8ith people an things 8ere #anifest. .hese acco"nts, as 8ell as a )ariety of other anec otal literat"re, s"ggeste the 7ey role of a )arie eCternal en)iron#ent against 8hich to )erify internally arising percepts an i eas. .8o recent re)ie8s ha)e s"##ariGe these so#e8hat scattere , largely a"tobiographical reports =%>, @D?. In recent years, interest in a syste#atic st" y of these proble#s has heightene consi erably. .his increase of interest can be at-%Dtrib"te to con)erging infl"ences co#ing fro# three #a9or so"rces. .he first of these so"rces has been the rapi pace of e)elop#ent in se)eral scientific isciplines. ( )ances in ne"rophysiology ha)e le to a gra "al re)ision in o"r conception of the ner)o"s syste# an ha)e pro "ce ata that pro)i e changing physiological #o els for psychological e)ents =B@?. .here are no8 a)ailable increasingly sophisticate electrophysiological #etho s of #eas"ring ne"ral f"nction at )ario"s le)els of the ner)o"s syste#. *ecent reports =D9, 61? ha)e e#onstrate electrical changes in the central ner)o"s syste# follo8fag re "ce sensory inp"t. .hese changes are belie)e to ha)e che#ical conseF"ences. !e"roche#istry has beg"n to pro)i e techniF"es for e)al"ating the nat"re of these conseF"ences. &sychoanalysis is another iscipline in 8hich interest in these iss"es is gro8ing. 3ere, increasing e#phasis is place on the i#portance of "n erstan ing ego

f"nctioning an its role in #e iating beha)ior. ;ro# this )ie8point, the F"estion #ay be raise , JIf the ego is the eCec"ti)e aspect of personality, enabling the in i)i "al to cope 8ith reality, 8hat beco#es of ego f"nctions in the absence of an eCternal en)iron#ent 8ith 8hich to copeLJ (ltho"gh ;re" =B1? ealt 8ith these iss"es early in his 8or7, interest in an eCperi#ental approach to this proble# is relati)ely recent. .he 8or7 of 3art#ann =B6? in elaborating the theoretical basis of Jego psychologyJ is i#portant in this e)elop#ent. ( secon #a9or so"rce of interest in h"#an response to restricte en)iron#ents has co#e fro# the #ilitary establish#ent. .echnological e)elop#ents, as seen in a )ariety of #ilitary applications, ha)e gi)en the p"rs"it of these F"estions a ne8 "rgency. With the a )ent of space craft, isolate ra ar stations, an a generally increase reliance on a"to#ate eF"ip#ent, the proble# of efficient f"nctioning in se)erely restricte , #onotono"s en)iron#ents is no longer #erely of theoretical or aca e#ic interest. .he proble# of efficient personnel selection an "tiliGation, in a 8i e )ariety of these circ"#stances, has pro)i e #ar7e i#pet"s to the initiation an e)elop#ent of research progra#s ealing 8ith reactions to li#ite sensory an social en)iron#ents. In this connection, the eCperience of prisoners of 8ar 8ith Co##"nist Jtho"ghtrefor#J has ha si#ilar effects. .he re)elation that isolation #ay be one factor in the s"sceptibility of h"#ans to ra ical changes in c"sto#ary beha)ior an beliefs has heightene interest in the st" y of isolation. .he shoc7e fascination of the general p"blic, not eCcepting the scientific co##"nity, has ser)e to highlight the nee for a syste#atic "n erstan ing of the effects of physical an -%Bsocial isolation on beha)ior. Literat"re on #etho s of Jtho"ghtrefor#J or i eological refor# has atte#pte to place these proce "res in a conteCt 8hich e#phasiGes the fact that they are 8ell 7no8n an not the res"lt of ne8 isco)eries or #agical inno)ations on the part of the Co##"nists =9, 1>, AD, A9, 6@?. In these proce "res, solitary confine#ent an #onotono"s, barren s"rro"n ings play an i#portant role in #a7ing the prisoner #ore recepti)e an s"sceptible to the infl"ence of the interrogator. .he "se of this techniF"e rests not on laboratory science b"t is part of the e#pirical 7no8-ho8 of police an #ilitary interrogation. ( thir #a9or so"rce of interest in these pheno#ena, altho"gh perhaps less ra#atic than the foregoing, has co#e fro# e)elop#ents 8ithin aca e#ic psychology. +ne s"ch e)elop#ent has ta7en place in the area of #oti)ation, in 8hich a n"#ber of eCperi#enters =1A, BA, %<? ha)e atte#pte to establish the eCistence an operation of 8hat has been calle c"riosity or eCploratory ri)e as a pri#ary #oti)e. (ttrib"ting a significant role in the eter#ination of beha)ior to s"ch a ri)e, 8e fin that this research has arisen in a conteCt 8hich see7s to ref"te the strongly pre)alent )ie8 of the organis# as a passi)e receptacle of eCperienceI one 8hich respon s only to ri)erele)ant sti#"lation. (s for#"late by 3ebb, JCharacteristically, sti#"l"s response theory has treate the ani#al as #ore or less inacti)e "nless s"b9ect to special

con itions of aro"sal.J =B@, page DAA.? In contrast to this approach, st" ies ealing 8ith the rele)ance for beha)ior of a c"riosity or eCploratory ri)e in icate that the organis# has an acti)e nee for eCperience, an initiates an str"ct"res acti)ity in accor ance 8ith that nee . St" ying h"#an response to restricte en)iron#ents #ay in icate the #o e of operation of the Jnee for eCperience.J (nother e)elop#ent 8ithin aca e#ic psychology has contrib"te to the c"rrent concern 8ith the effects of restricte en)iron#ents on h"#an s"b9ects. St" ies of sensory epri)ation early in the life of ani#als, an the effects "pon s"bseF"ent e)elop#ent an learning, ha)e a relati)ely long history 8ithin psychology. +riginally esigne to e)al"ate the relati)e infl"ence of innate organiGational processes =as oppose to learning? on perception, these researches ha)e since been #ore irectly foc"se on the general effects of early epri)ation "pon a )ariety of s"bseF"ent beha)iors. (ltho"gh eCperi#ental 8or7, beca"se of ethical consi erations, has of necessity been confine to ani#al in)estigations, clinical an anec otal e)i ence s"ch as the reports of SpitG =@B, @A, @%? an others =DD, DB, D6, D@?, an those on Jferal #anJ =@>, @1? ha)e s"pple#ente these st" ies. .hese reports -%Aha)e highlighte the i#portance of a f"ll range of early en)iron#ental eCperience to the e)elop#ent of nor#al a "lt f"nctioning. .he occ"rrence of serio"s an irre)ersible isr"ptions of nor#al e)elop#ent an beha)ior has been reporte . ,eca"se this 8or7 is beyon the scope of the present chapter, the rea er is referre to ,each an Jayne:s =%? re)ie8 of this literat"re.

Met"odo$o%i &$ Consider&tions ,efore t"rning to an eCa#ination of the eCperi#ental fin ings, it #ay be 8ell to consi er so#e of the #etho ological an concept"al proble#s raise by research in this area. .he i)ersity of )ariables in)ol)e in a syste#atic st" y of response to re "ce en)iron#ental sti#"lation #a7es for consi erable co#pleCity. It 8ill be "sef"l to ta7e a brief o)er)ie8 of proce "res e#ploye by )ario"s in)estigators. .hree eCperi#ental approaches ha)e been i entifie in the literat"re =@D?. In the first of these, efforts 8ere irecte to8ar an a'solute re%uction of inp"t to the organis# fro# the eCternal 8orl . Lilly =%>? i##erse t8o s"b9ects "p to three ho"rs in a tan7 of slo8ly circ"lating tepi 8ater, 8earing nothing b"t a hea #as7 that co)ere eyes an ears. .here 8as #ini#al )is"al, a" itory, or tactile sti#"lation. S"b9ects recei)e an initial set of training eCpos"res to o)erco#e fear of the sit"ation. +n the ay of the eCperi#ent, they 8ere place in the tan7 an 8ere instr"cte to inhibit all #o)e#ent so far as possible. .he "se of a so"n proof, ar7ene roo# =6%, @9? as a #etho for achie)ing sensory epri)ation is si#ilar in intent :o the foregoing proce "re. .he s"b9ect:s ar#s an han s are enclose in car boar c"ffs an glo)es. &l"gs are place in the ears to re "ce f"rther le)els of sti#"lation. (ltho"gh absol"te

re "ction in sensory inp"t is the goal here, this latter #etho places less of a restriction on #otor acti)ity. ( secon approach to re "cing sensory sti#"lation 8as "se by ,eCton, 3eron an Scott =<?. .hey re%uce% (atterning of sensory inp"t8hile retaining le)els of inp"t at near nor#al. In this proce "re "sing t8enty-t8o #ale college st" ents, the s"b9ect 8ore a pair of transl"cent goggles that per#itte the perception of light b"t not of ob9ects. (" itory inp"t consiste of the #as7ing so"n of fan an aircon itioner #otors, an tactile eCperience 8as re "ce thro"gh the "se of c"ffs an glo)es that per#itte no irect eCploration of the i##e iate s"rro"n ings. -%%In a thir approach, sensory epri)ation consiste of )onotony or absence of change in the eCternal en)iron#ent, e.g., pro)i ing a repetiti)e a" itory eCperience 8hile presenting the s"b9ect 8ith an i#po)erishe )is"al fiel . In this proce "re goggles are not "se an the s"b9ect is eCpose to nor#ally patterne )ision of a highly restricte en)iron#ent. WeCler, 4en elson, Lei er#an, an Solo#on =<>? place se)enteen s"b9ects into polio tan7 respirators 8ith ar#s an legs in car boar c"ffs. .he repetiti)e rone of the respirator #otor pro)i e an a" itory #as7ing so"n , 8hereas the )is"al en)iron#ent consiste of the front of the respirator an the blan7 8alls of a screen. Since the ports of the respirator 8ere left open, s"b9ects breathe for the#sel)es. .his proce "re relies on #onotony to achie)e its effects an is th"s si#ilar to sit"ations in 8hich highly repetiti)e si#ple tas7s are perfor#e . It is also #ost si#ilar to the en)iron#ent of the prisoner in solitary confine#ent as 8ell as other isolation sit"ations as enco"ntere in real life. Witho"t atte#pting a co#prehensi)e s"r)ey of #etho ological proble#s an iss"es, so#e eCa#ination of the choices confronting researchers in this proble# area #ay be helpf"l. What are the li#itations an proble#s of these proce "resL -fforts at the absol"te re "ction of sensory inp"t are li#ite by the i#possibility co#pletely of oing a8ay 8ith sensory eCperience in a li)ing conscio"s organis#. -)en the #ost sophisticate instr"#entation cannot eli#inate sensations an perceptions arising fro# internal bo y f"nctions. .his en point of the sti#"lation contin""# th"s #"st re#ain theoretical. .o the eCtent to 8hich this goal is rele)ant to testing a )ariety of hypotheses, it can only be approCi#ate . ;e8 if any in)estigators ha)e atte#pte a rigoro"s efinition of the ter#s they ha)e e#ploye . 4ost ha)e "se their eCperi#ental #etho s to pro)i e an e#pirical basis for their conceptions. In ee it is "n erstan able that the n"#ber of escripti)e ter#s an phrases in the literat"re is al#ost as large as the n"#ber of in)estigators. Witho"t beco#ing too eeply e#broile in the sensation-perception iss"e, it #ay be "sef"l to thin7 of atte#pts at the absol"te re "ction of intensity of inp"t to the organis# as sensory epri)ation, 8hereas re "ce patterning an #onotony #ay be #ore #eaningf"lly seen as (erce(tual epri)ation. .he o"tstan ing characteristic of the latter t8o approaches appears to be the ecrease in the str"ct"re an )ariety of inp"t. .his ine)itably res"lts in a re "ction of infor#ation. .he ter# JisolationJ is one 8hich

see#s to be rele)ant to the social i#ension rather than to the sensory an percept"al aspects of the )ario"s eCperi#ental con itions e#ploye . (t this stage of -%6o"r 7no8le ge, it is "nclear as to 8hether there are ifferent beha)ioral conseF"ences of sensory as oppose to percept"al epri)ation, in the sense "se abo)e. It is possible to concei)e of this range of sti#"l"s con itions as a co#pleC contin""#. In )ie8 of the "niF"e co#pleCities presente by research in this area, it is clear that so#e8hat arbitrary choices of proce "re ha)e been #a e. .hese choices #"st be e)al"ate in ter#s of the li#itations they i#pose on the res"lts obtaine . .h"s the obser)ation of cogniti)e an percept"al f"nctioning an the escriptions of e#otional an affecti)e changes #a7es si#"ltaneo"s )erbal reports of eCperience in the eCperi#ental sit"ation #ost esirable. *etrospecti)e reports raise iffic"lt F"estions abo"t their acc"racy an #a7e it i#possible to st" y the conc"rrence of physiological e)ents an )erbal beha)ior. +n the other han , )erbal reports of eCperiences by the s"b9ect "ring the eCperi#ent pro)i e a co#pleC fee bac7 sit"ation. .he testing of percept"al an cogniti)e f"nctions "ring the eCperi#ent constit"tes a efinite #o ification of proce "re. +ne for# of control o)er the s"b9ect:s sensory eCperience has been achie)e in #any eCperi#ents by restricting his #obility. .his is acco#plishe by restraining the s"b9ect, li#iting the space a)ailable to hi# or by instr"ctions to re#ain still. .his li#itation of #obility re "ces 7inesthetic an propriocepti)e inp"t. It is iffic"lt to 7no8 8hether the res"lts obtaine are a f"nction of the a itional sense of confine#ent or restriction 8hich goes beyon re "ction in sensory sti#"lation. 4ost st" ies in this fiel ha)e stri)en for absol"te isolation of the s"b9ect fro# other h"#an contact by a)oi ing all co##"nication bet8een s"b9ect an eCperi#enter. (ltho"gh social isolation contrib"tes to re "ce sensory inp"t, 8hether this re "ction is pri#arily effecti)e in ter#s of loss of social contact per se, loss of patterne sti#"lation fro# speech, absol"te re "ction of sensory sti#"lation, or so#e co#bination of these is still to be eter#ine . ;"rther#ore, the social isolation in these eCperi#ental settings is artificial an li#ite in that the s"b9ect 7no8s there is an obser)er 8ho is intereste in his perfor#ance. 3e "s"ally has goo reason to s"spect that this obser)er has strong #oti)ation to pre)ent the occ"rrence of any long lasting or profo"n ly ebilitating effects. .hese i#plicit aspects of the s"b9ect-eCperi#enter contract #ay be #a9or factors in the pres"#e social isolation seen in eCperi#ental st" ies. .hese li#itations to isolation o not apply to sit"ations s"ch as those of the prisoner or ship8rec7e sailor. In the for#er case there are the a itional i#plications of the stat"s of Jene#yJ 8hich -%@-

"n o"bte ly also infl"ences the in i)i "al:s response. .he Jescape at 8illJ cla"se present in laboratory st" ies constit"tes a #a9or ifference fro# the #oti)ational con itions of real life isolation sit"ations. .hese factors, along 8ith the "se of )ol"nteers in eCperi#ental st" ies, constit"te serio"s li#itations to the laboratory testing of hypotheses regar ing responses to real life isolation an sensory epri)ation. We are "nable to assess the effects of coercion or the "lti#ate conseF"ences of prolonge confine#ent in a epri)e en)iron#ent. .hese con itions "n o"bte ly ha)e a profo"n effect on the #oti)ational aspects of the sit"ation an th"s infl"ence response. .he inability to replicate these con itions in the laboratory #"st li#it o"r generaliGations fro# the eCperi#ental ata. In )ie8 of these consi erations these ata #"st be interprete ca"tio"sly.

E-4iri &$ Findin%s. .he first eCperi#ental 8or7 8hich foc"se on the response of #an eCpose to re "ce en)iron#ental sti#"lation per se 8as beg"n in 19%1 in the laboratory of 1. +. 3ebb at 4c/ill 'ni)ersity =@, <, D<, B<, B9, A>, A1, 69?. (ltho"gh earlier st" ies ha ealt 8ith #ore li#ite aspects of this proble#, they gre8 o"t of an essentially ifferent eCperi#ental interest. .he 4c/ill st" ies initially arose o"t of a concern 8ith the contrib"tion of percept"al isolation to the #echanis# of brain8ashing an the effects of #onotony "pon a person 8ith a long s"staine 8atch7eeping tas7. &re)io"sly 4ac78orth =%D? ha sho8n that in a )igilance tas7 reF"iring prolonge obser)ation, s"b9ects increasingly an stri7ingly faile to respon to an appropriate sti#"l"s. ;ro# this point of epart"re, the fra#e8or7 of these an other st" ies 8as eCpan e to foc"s on a 8i e )ariety of other )ariables. +"r approach in re)ie8ing these st" ies has been infl"ence by the consi eration that in the early stages of acF"iring syste#atic 7no8le ge abo"t a proble#, it #ay be "sef"l to "n ere#phasiGe consi erations of eCperi#ental rigor an elegance in fa)or of e)eloping a richer bac7gro"n of hypotheses an concept"al for#"lations, e)en if only at a s"ggesti)e le)el. ,eca"se of their eCploratory nat"re, these in)estigations ha)e often been esigne to loo7 for a 8i e range of possible relationships, rather than to test specific, foc"se hypotheses. ;or these reasons this re)ie8 8ill not 8ell "pon li#itations of eCperi#ental #etho an proce "re. In general, the st" ies are "ne)en in F"ality, an range fro# caref"lly esigne an -%<eCec"te proce "res to )ag"ely for#"late , poorly controlle obser)ations 8ith s#all sa#ples. Si#ilarly, #eas"re#ent in these st" ies has )arie fro# precise psychophysical calibration to loosely efine clinical 9" g#ents "nchec7e for reliability. .he effort has been to pro)i e a co#prehensi)e re)ie8 of all pertinent st" ies for 8hate)er light they she on the proble# or s"pport they len other st" ies. In re)ie8ing this 8or7 8e ha)e largely restricte o"r concern to the

psychophysiological aspects of eCperi#ental 8or7 8ith isolation an re "ce sensory inp"t. !o atte#pt has been #a e to incl" e the social-psychological aspects of isolation 8hich, 8hile rele)ant, represent a special s"bproble#. ;or p"rposes of clarity 8e shall report the fin ings in the follo8ing categories$ percept"al an #otor abilitiesI cogniti)e an learning abilitiesI personality fin ingsI feeling statesI i#ageryI an physiology. In a ition, 8e shall consi er fin ings bearing on #etho ological choices, clinical applications, an a brief s"r)ey of theoretical interpretations. 1espite so#e arbitrariness in these classifications an the necessity of consi ering the sa#e eCperi#ental 8or7 in se)eral categories, this approach 8ill per#it a #ore coherent )ie8 of the e)i ence 8ithin a gi)en eCperi#ental o#ain. In referring to these st" ies, re "ce patterning, i#pose str"ct"ring, an ho#ogeno"s sti#"lation are referre to as (erce(tual %e(rivationI absol"te re "ction in )ariety an intensity of sensory inp"t 8ill be calle sensory %e(rivation. In a n"#ber of eCperi#ental proce "res ele#ents of both are present.

Perceptual and Motor Abilities .he proble#s of )igilance "n er con itions of percept"al epri)ation ha)e been st" ie by 4ac78orth =%D?. ( itional literat"re in this area 8as re)ie8e by 3ollan =AA?, 8ho s"##ariGe these st" ies as sho8ing a greater o)er-all percentage of etection 8hen the n"#ber of signals per eCperi#ental session increases, an a #ore eF"i)ocal fin ing of an increase probability of etection for longer intersignal ti#es. 3e interprete )igilance beha)ior as a proble# of reinforce#ent sche "ling an probability of response. In this conteCt, signal etections ser)e as reinforce#ents for obser)ing responses. 3is o8n fin ings confir#e the earlier reports that 8ithin a gi)en session, espite in i)i "al ifferences, the "se of a larger n"#ber of signals increase response rate. 3e calls attention to the Jrather precise control eCerte by the en)iron#ent o)er the h"#an operator:s obser)ing beha)iorJ =page 6@?. -%93ochberg, .riebel, an Sea#an =AB?, 8or7ing 8ith a ifferent eCperi#ental interest, perfor#e a series of st" ies on the percepts obtaine "n er con itions of spatially ho#ogeneo"s colore ill"#ination o)er the entire )is"al fiel . .hese st" ies 8ere esigne to test the hypothesis that a colore Gan3fel% 8o"l lose its color "n er these con itions. 'tiliGing eyecaps #a e fro# hal)e table-tennis balls, these in)estigators fo"n that co#plete isappearance of color 8as obtaine in #ost cases, espite consi erable in i)i "al ifferences in the co"rse of the a aptation process an in the pheno#enal content "ring a aptation. Si#ilarly, restricting sti#"l"s inp"t to ho#ogeneo"s )is"al sti#"lation, W. Cohen an Ca 8alla er =D>? st" ie the effects of "nifor# )is"al sti#"lation "tiliGing a ifferent apparat"s. S"b9ects: eCpos"re to these con itions laste fro# three to ten #in"tes 8hile sitting alone in a roo#. .he fin ings sho8e that "n er both #onoc"lar

an binoc"lar con itions, s"b9ects reporte a te#porary cessation of or inary )is"al eCperience after prolonge eCpos"re to a "nifor# )is"al fiel . With increase eCpos"re to these con itions the initial reports of the fiel as being Jfogli7eJ change to an eCperience of Jblan7ing o"t.J .he Jblan7ing o"tJ or J8hite-o"tJ pheno#enon often persiste for thirty secon s or #ore an the reappearance of the fiel occ"rre only after eCtensi)e eye #o)e#ents an blin7ing, or 8ith the intro "ction of an ob9ect to the fiel . ;actors that facilitate J8hite-o"tJ 8ere fo"n to incl" e both eCtensi)e prior sti#"lation an scotopic =rather than photopic? sti#"lation. ( si#ilar fin ing is reporte by 1itchb"rn, cite by ,r"ner =1D?, 8ho sho8e that if a )is"al pattern is stabiliGe on the retina so that it is not e)en isplace by the nat"ral tre#or of the eye, it isappears fro# )ie8 8ithin abo"t siC secon s. ,eCton et al. =<?, "tiliGing the proce "re of re "ce patterning of sti#"l"s inp"t, ha t8enty-t8o pai #ale )ol"nteer college st" ents ser)e as s"b9ects an co#pare their perfor#ance 8ith an eF"i)alent control gro"p. .hey 8ere tol to lie on a co#fortable be in a lighte c"bicle, an they 8ore transl"cent goggles, c"ffs, an glo)es. (" itory inp"t 8as re "ce thro"gh the "se of a partially so"n proof c"bicle, a '-shape foa# r"bber pillo8 for the s"b9ect:s hea , an the #as7ing h"# of fan an air-con itioner #otors, 8hich 8as fe into earphones in the pillo8. 'pon lea)ing, after t8o or three ays in the eCperi#ental sit"ation, s"b9ects ha iffic"lty in foc"singI ob9ects appeare f"GGy an i not stan o"t fro# their bac7gro"n sI the en)iron#ent see#e t8o- i#ensionalI an colors appeare to be #ore sat"rate than "s"al. .he eCperi#enters also fo"n eteriora-6>tion in )is"al #otor coor ination as #eas"re by s"ch tas7s as the Wechsler 1igit Sy#bol test, han 8riting speci#ens, an the copying of prose paragraphs. (nother st" y by the sa#e gro"p =69? sho8e that perfor#ance on the .h"rstone-/ottschal t -#be e ;ig"res test ecline , 8hereas no change 8as #anifest in a #irror tracing tas7. .he eterioration of perfor#ance on the igit sy#bol test has since been confir#e by 1a)is, 4cCo"rt, an Solo#on =D1?, 8ho st" ie ten pai )ol"nteer s"b9ects "n er ifferent eCperi#ental con itions of percept"al epri)ation. .hese in)estigators faile to fin eterioration in the Wit7in -#be e ;ig"res test. 2ernon an 3off#an =@6?, after con itions of sensory epri)ation lasting t8enty-fo"r an forty-eight ho"rs, F"estione fo"r s"b9ects abo"t iffic"lty in foc"sing, increase sat"ration of h"es, an lac7 of three- i#ensional perception, an reporte negati)e fin ings for all three pheno#ena. 3eron, 1oane, an Scott =A1? eCten e the "ration of their eCperi#ental proce "re to siC ays an ser)e as their o8n s"b9ects. .hey escribe the ist"rbances in )is"al perception as "neCpecte ly profo"n an prolonge , 8ith si#ilar #anifestations for all three participants. .hese effects incl" e apparent #o)e#ent pheno#ena =8ith an 8itho"t hea an eye #o)e#ents by the obser)ers?, istortions of shape, accent"ation of afteri#ages, percept"al lag, an increases in color sat"ration an contrast. ;"rther 8or7 fro# the sa#e laboratory =D<? escribe the fl"ct"ating c"r)at"re of s"rfaces an lines, an ist"rbances in siGe constancy. In a ition, these in)estigators obser)e that

a"to7inetic effects 8ere har er to abolish, larger fig"ral aftereffects 8ere obtaine , an spiral aftereffects 8ere #ore persistent. ( loss of acc"racy in tact"al perception an spatial orientation 8as note . ;ree #an, /r"neba"#, an /reenblatt =B>? st" ie the effects of isolation an re "ce patterning of )is"al an a" itory inp"t "pon )is"al perception. (s controls they e#ploye pai #ale )ol"nteers, 8ho recei)e only social isolation. .o in "ce percept"al epri)ation, these in)estigators "se transl"cent goggles, 8hite noise fe into earphones, cotton glo)es, an car boar c"ffs for the s"b9ects: ar#s. -ach of the eight eCperi#ental s"b9ects 8as place on a be in a lighte roo# an 8as instr"cte not to #o)e abo"t. .he control gro"p of siC s"b9ects 8as si#ilarly treate 8itho"t the a itional restrictions to )is"al, a" itory, an tactile inp"t. ,oth gro"ps re#aine in the sit"ation for eight ho"rs an ha no contact 8ith the eCperi#enters "ring this ti#e. .hey fo"n changes in perception si#ilar to those cite by the 4c/ill gro"p. .heir report escribes #eas"rable percept"al JaberrationsJ fo"n -61in e)ery eCperi#ental s"b9ect, b"t none in the control s"b9ects. In so#e s"b9ects these aberrations persiste for o)er one ho"r, an consiste of t8o- i#ensional for#s changing shape an siGe an of straight lines #o)ing an c"r)ing. Co#paring pre- an postisolation perfor#ance, they obser)e a ecre#ent in siGe constancy an changes in the 4Uller-Lyer ill"sion. In both instances, changes consiste of increase )ariability of 9" g#ent rather than "ni irectional effects. 2is"al-#otor coor ination, as seen in the copying of ,en er-/estalt fig"res, 8as significantly i#paire follo8ing eCpos"re to the eCperi#ental con itions. (n increase in apparent #o)e#ent pheno#ena thro"gh percept"al epri)ation has been e#onstrate in a st" y esigne specifically to test this relationship. +r#iston =%9? co#pare thirty #in"tes of percept"al epri)ation, sensory bo#bar #ent, an a ne"tral con ition for their effects on the perception of the phi pheno#enon 8ith thirty s"b9ects ser)ing in each con ition. .he epri)ation con ition 8as realiGe thro"gh ha)ing s"b9ects sit in a bare roo# 8earing transl"cent goggles, ear pl"gs, an ear #"ffs. .he sensory bo#bar #ent con ition eCpose s"b9ects to #otor tas7s, a tape 8ith )arie so"n effects, taste an s#ell sti#"li, an a )ariety of colore goggles. .he ne"tral con ition consiste of ha)ing s"b9ects sit on a co"ch in a 8aiting roo#. ( co#parison of pre- an posttests sho8e a statistically significant increase in the perception of phi for the epri)e gro"p, 8hereas the bo#bar #ent gro"p sho8e a tren to8ar ecrease in phi perception. .he ne"tral gro"p sho8e no change. 2ernon, 4c/ill, /"lic7, an Can lan =@<? st" ie the effects of sensory epri)ation "pon a )ariety of percept"al an #otor s7ills. -ighteen pai )ol"nteer s"b9ects 8ere place in a s#all, ar7, lightproof, so"n proof cha#ber containing a be , an iceboC 8ith foo , an toilet facilities. S"b9ects 8ore ga"ntlet-type glo)es to re "ce tactile sti#"lation an inhibit #o)e#ent as 8ell as the noise of #o)e#ent. .hey 8ere instr"cte to lie F"ietly an #a7e as little noise as possible. ( control gro"p

8hich i not recei)e sensory epri)ation consiste of a si#ilarly #oti)ate gro"p of gra "ate st" ents. .he eCperi#ental s"b9ects re#aine in confine#ent for one, t8o, or three ays, at the en of 8hich they 8ere reF"ire to perfor# a )ariety of tas7s. .he effects of sensory epri)ation 8ere assesse by a co#parison of ifferences in pre- an postconfine#ent scores 8ith those of the control gro"p 8ho 8ere teste at si#ilar inter)als. .he fin ings re)eale significant eterioration in )is"al-#otor coor ination as seen in a rotary p"rs"it tas7, a rail-8al7ing tas7, a #irror tracing proble#, an #aGes. In percept"al tas7s, s"ch as color -6Dperception an elaye a" itory fee bac7, a si#ilarly significant ecline in perfor#ance 8as obser)e . .he only tas7 of this series 8hich i not sho8 a ecline 8as a test of epth perception, in 8hich a tren 8as obsc"re by the large )ariability of scores. It sho"l be note that the #irror-tracing fin ing in this st" y contra icts that reporte by Scott et al. =69?. 'tiliGing the shortest perio s of eCpos"re to re "ce sensory inp"t, *osenba"#, 1obie, an Cohen =6A? st" ie the effects of >, %, 1%, an B> #in"tes of t8o con itions of )is"al epri)ation "pon tachistoscopic recognition threshol s for n"#bers. ;or one gro"p of siCteen s"b9ects, )is"al epri)ation 8as achie)e by blac7e -o"t r"bber goggles, 8hile a si#ilar secon gro"p recei)e percept"al epri)ation thro"gh the "se of goggles per#itting the perception of iff"se light. .hese in)estigators fo"n no ifferences bet8een their t8o gro"psI both i#pro)e 8ith s"ccessi)e ays of practice. .he fi)e-#in"te con ition res"lte in a lo8ere threshol for both gro"ps. .he thirty#in"te con ition pro "ce no change fro# the Gero le)el. Since none of the eCperi#ents "sing longer perio s of epri)ation #eas"re recognition threshol s, it is iffic"lt to say 8hether fail"re to obser)e changes in this tas7 8as a f"nction of an ins"fficient perio of epri)ation or 8hether no relation is to be eCpecte . In s"##ary, the fin ings of these st" ies in icate a generally isorganiGing effect of epri)ation "pon perception. .he effects th"s far e#onstrate ha)e been confine largely to the )is"al #o ality. .hese effects incl" e the follo8ing$ brea7 o8n in )is"al-#otor coor ination, an increase in apparent #o)e#ent pheno#ena, increase in color sat"ration, ecline in siGe an shape constancies, loss of acc"racy in tact"al perception an spatial orientation, increase in persistence of a"to7inetic effect, larger fig"ral aftereffects, iffic"lty in foc"sing, fl"ct"ating c"r)at"re of lines an s"rfaces, an a general ecrease in the efficiency of percei)ing rele)ant sti#"li. (ltho"gh se)eral st" ies are in isagree#ent abo"t so#e of the abo)e etails Me.g., 2ernon an 3off#an =@6?N, #ost reports are re#ar7ably con)ergent in their fin ings espite 8i e ifferences in eCperi#ental con itions. .hese effects #ay be best characteriGe as a general loosening of s"b9ects: ability to percei)e reality an the 8ea7ening of stable internal nor#s against 8hich to e)al"ate percept"al =)is"al? eCperie"ce. .he increase in )ariability of a n"#ber of )is"al f"nctions an loss of acc"racy #ay be best "n erstoo in these ter#s. .he brea7 o8n of internal nor#s is e#onstrate in a )ariety of other f"nctions an begins to s"ggest one general para#eter 8hich #ay #a7e isolation an sensory epri)ation effecti)e in increasing

-6Bthe )"lnerability an recepti)ity to ne8 eCternal en)iron#ental infl"ences.

Cognitive and Learning Abilities ( 8i e )ariety of st" ies ha)e referre to s"b9ecti)e reports of iffic"lty in concentration, attention, an proble# sol)ing follo8ing isolation an confine#ent =<, 16, 1@, B>, 6%, <>?. .hese an other st" ies ha)e also eCa#ine the effects of isolation an epri)ation "pon a 8i e range of cogniti)e f"nctions. Incl" e ha)e been s"ch abilities as those in)ol)e in a )ariety of intelligence test perfor#ances, learning an association tas7s, logical reasoning, etc. We t"rn here to a consi eration of these aspects of the eCperi#ental literat"re. .he report of ,eCton et al. =<? is elaborate in a s"bseF"ent st" y =69?. .hese researchers in)estigate cogniti)e perfor#ance "ring isolation an percept"al epri)ation. In or er to e)al"ate the "ration of the effects, they eCa#ine se)eral other f"nctions follo8ing fo"r ays of isolation. +n se)eral occasions "ring isolation, they ha s"b9ects perfor# tas7s s"ch as #ental #"ltiplication, arith#etic catch proble#s, co#pleting n"#ber series, anagra#s, an 8or #a7ing. 1espite the fact that the ecline in the t8enty-t8o s"b9ects of the eCperi#ental gro"p 8as not statistically significant for all these tas7s, the eterioration "e to the eCperi#ental con itions 8as consistent. In a secon series they fo"n no change in igit span or analogies "ring isolation, 8hereas associati)e learning ten e to ecline, b"t not significantly. In a postisolation series they fo"n significant eterioration in 9" g#ent of ano#alies an in t8o bloc7 esign tas7s. .heir general fin ings s"ggest that perfor#ance on intelligence test ite#s gre8 progressi)ely 8orse as length of stay in the c"bicle increase . Starting 8ith this obser)ation, 2ernon an 3off#an =@6? "se a proce "re of sensory epri)ation si#ilar to that escribe abo)e. .hey st" ie the ability of fo"r pai )ol"nteer #ale college st" ents to learn lists of a 9ecti)es after t8enty-fo"r an forty-eight ho"rs of confine#ent. Co#paring their eCperi#ental s"b9ects to an eF"i)alent control gro"p, they fo"n that the ability at rate-learning i#pro)e 8ith contin"e sensory epri)ation. In a follo8-"p st" y, nine eCperi#ental an nine control s"b9ects, 8ho 8ere all pai )ol"nteer #ale college st" ents, 8ere co#pare for ability to learn a longer list of a 9ecti)es after t8enty-fo"r, forty-eight, an se)entyt8o ho"rs of sensory epri)ation =@@?. In this instance there 8ere no significant ifferences bet8een gro"ps in errors or trials to criterion, altho"gh -6Athe eCperi#ental gro"p #a e fe8er o)ert errors an sho8e less )ariability. .h"s, espite fail"re to confir# their o8n pre)io"s fin ings, this st" y i not s"pport the eterioration fin ing of the 4c/ill gro"p.

/ol berger an 3olt =BD? st" ie fo"rteen pai )ol"nteer #ale college st" ents "n er percept"al epri)ation con itions si#ilar to those of the 4c/ill eCperi#ents. .hey "tiliGe the hal)e tabletennis ball proce "re of 3ochberg et al. =AB? to occl" e )ision an 8hite noise to #as7 other a" itory inp"t. S"b9ects lay on a be in a c"bicie for eight ho"rs an 8ere enco"rage to tal7 "ring their ti#e in isolation. .he follo8ing tests 8ere a #inistere at the en "n er the eCperi#ental con itions$ arith#etic reasoning, igit span, an story recall. S"b9ects 8ere then ta7en o"t of the isolation an a test of logical e "ctions 8as gi)en. Co#parison of the perfor#ance of the eCperi#ental s"b9ects pre- an postconfine#ent =8itho"t a control gro"p? sho8e that only the last of these, logical e "ctions, reflect significant i#pair#ent. 1a)is, 4cCo"rt, an Solo#on =D1? "tiliGing a #o ification of the polio tan7respirator proce "re initially escribe by WeCler et al. =<>? 7ept fi)e pairs of pai )ol"nteer #ale college st" ent s"b9ects in relati)e percept"al epri)ation for o)er ten ho"rs. .hese s"b9ects i not 7no8 one another. (ltho"gh they co"l tal7 to each other, they 8ere confine separately an co"l not see each other. In co#paring scores before an after isolation they fo"n no change in perfor#ance on a bloc7 esign tas7. .hese a"thors consi ere the possibility of proce "ral )ariables ca"sing fail"re to confir# ,eCton et al. =<? in fin ing i#pair#ent in bloc7 esign perfor#ance. ,. Cohen, *osenba"#, et al. =1@? st" ie fo"r nor#al s"b9ects an siC patients fro# )ario"s clinical gro"ps "n er con itions of brief epri)ation. S"b9ects 8ere seate in i)i "ally for one ho"r in an isolation cha#ber in a co#fortable chair. .hey 8ore goggles 8hich 8ere either blac7e o"t or else per#itte iff"se light perception. (" ition 8as #ini#iGe thro"gh car pl"gs, pa e earphones, an the #as7ing so"n of a fan #otor. .heir fingers 8ere 8rappe in elastic ban ages an they 8ore elbo8length glo)es. .he instr"ctions 8ere to relaC an #o)e as little as possible. S"b9ects 8ere also tol that they 8o"l percei)e sensations or inarily belo8 conscio"s a8areness. .hese eCperi#enters report that there 8as no Jgross cogniti)e eteriorationJ "n er these con itions as #eas"re by the n"#ber of 8or associations pro "ce in t8o #in"tes. .he s#all sa#ple siGe, the brief perio of isolation, an the li#ite #eas"re e#ploye in this st" y s"ggests ca"tion in interpreting this res"lt. -6%S. Cohen, Sil)er#an, ,ressler, an Sh#a)onian =1<? reporte an eCploratory in)estigation on fo"r s"b9ects eCpose singly to fo"r ho"rs of confine#ent an epri)ation 8hile seate in an anechoic cha#ber, 8ith instr"ctions to 7eep a8a7e an to esti#ate the passage of s"ccessi)e thirty-#in"te inter)als. (ll fo"r s"b9ects sho8e an increase in perfor#ance on igit span, an ecrease in arith#etic reasoning, abstraction, an general reasoning. (ll s"b9ects reporte iffic"lty in proble# sol)ing an logical thin7ing. .he s#all sa#ple siGe an absence of a control gro"p li#it the rele)ance of these fin ings. .he fe8 reports a)ailable, their c"rrently s7etchy etail, an their li#ite controls #a7e it iffic"lt to arri)e at a fir# generaliGation concerning the effects of epri)ation an isolation on cogniti)e s7ills. So#e tentati)e agree#ents a#ong the st" ies #ay be

8orth highlighting. It appears that the s7ill #ost se)erely i#paire "n er these con itions is that of general reasoning an proble# sol)ing, 8hether the sit"ation in)ol)es )erbal-concept"al #aterials or n"#bers. +n the other han , in se)eral st" ies perfor#ance on si#ple recall tas7s or rote learning see#s either to i#pro)e or else oes not ecline. .as7s that in)ol)e analysis an synthesis of )is"al #aterials s"ch as bloc7 esign sho8 eF"i)ocal res"ltsI in so#e st" ies there is eterioration, in others no change is seen. So#e of these eF"i)ocal res"lts #ay be a f"nction of ifferences in proce "re or "ration of epri)ation an confine#ent. .he seF"ence in 8hich postisolation tests are a #inistere #ay be a rele)ant )ariable here since the "ration of the effects, if any, is as yet "n7no8n. .he concept"al analysis of cogniti)e s7ills into categories s"ch as reasoning, #e#ory, arith#etic, an #anip"lation 8o"l ser)e a )ery "sef"l p"rpose in these st" ies. /ol berger an 3olt =BD? offer a tentati)e generaliGation 8hich begins to specify so#e of the ifferent factors in)ol)e in )ario"s tas7s. .hey point o"t that, J&robably any tas7 that can be one satisfactorily in a single brief effort by the "se of highly o)erlearne sets of operations =as in si#ple arith#etic proble#s?, an any learning or #e#ory perfor#ance reF"iring passi)e recepti)ity =cf., igit span, rote learning? rather than reflection an #anip"lation of i eas =cf., logical reasoning? 8o"l be least interfere 8ith by #o erate a#o"nts of isolation.J =BD, page 1>9.? .his for#"lation appears to acco"nt for so#e of the reporte res"lts, b"t the criteria e#ploye to classify cogniti)e tas7s nee f"rther specification an eCpansion. ;or eCa#ple, are there ifferences in the types of #e#ory or recall in)ol)e in igit span as oppose to re#ote #e#oryL (ltho"gh the a)ailable res"lts are certainly inconcl"si)e, the /ol -66berger an 3olt generaliGation s"ggests that re#ote recall 8o"l be relati)ely "ni#paire by isolation. .his 8o"l ha)e i#plications for one intereste in the interrogation proble# 8here, lea)ing #oti)ational iss"es asi e, it 8o"l see# that the infor#ation a person #ight recall 8hen cooperating 8o"l be reliable. ;"rther#ore the ata s"ggest a ecrease interest in an ability to reason thro"gh the co#pleCities of the interrogator-prisoner relationship an th"s a ecrease ability to cope rationally an effecti)ely 8ith the sit"ation at han . 1espite the #ore ten"o"s nat"re of the fin ings in the area of cogniti)e s7ills, to the eCtent to 8hich a generaliGation is possible, it see#s that in a ition to the ecline in internal nor#s or stan ar s for percei)ing reality, "n er con itions of epri)ation an isolation there is a lessene ability to reason closely an sol)e co#pleC proble#s. Sho"l s"ch a generaliGation be s"pporte by s"bseF"ent fin ings, a rele)ant F"estion re#ains abo"t the eCtent of s"ch i#pair#ent in F"antitati)e ter#s.

Suggestibility

(n iss"e relate to that of cogniti)e f"nctioning in isolation an epri)ation is that of s"ggestibility. .he reporte s"ccess of isolate confine#ent in #o ifying beliefs an con)ictions initially irecte interest to the F"estion of s"ggestibility. 1espite this concern, syste#atic ata on this proble# re#ain s"rprisingly sparse. 3eron =B9? cite the 8or7 of ,eCton =@? pertinent to this iss"e. (fter t8enty ho"rs of percept"al epri)ation, t8enty-fo"r s"b9ects 8ere eCpose to a recor e propagan a #essage consisting of a ninety#in"te tal7 rea in a boring #onotone an arg"ing for belief in )ario"s psychical pheno#ena. .o #eas"re attit" e change, a series of attit" e scales of the ,ogar "s type 8ere a #inistere before an after confine#ent. ( control gro"p of t8enty-se)en s"b9ects recei)e both scales before an after a si#ilar inter)al. ,oth gro"ps, eCperi#ental an control, sho8e a significant change in attit" e after listening to the recor s. .he change, ho8e)er, 8as significantly greater for the eCperi#ental s"b9ects. Si#ilarly, #eas"res of interest in the topic an assess#ents of its i#portance sho8e a greater increase for the s"b9ects eCpose to percept"al epri)ation. (ltho"gh follo8-"p ata 8ere not syste#atically obtaine , inci ental e)i ence in icate that for so#e s"b9ects at least, these effects persiste for as long as three to fo"r ays. 2ernon an 3off#an =@6? teste s"b9ects for egree of bo y s8ay s"ggestibility follo8ing )arying perio s of -6@sensory epri)ation. .hese a"thors re#ar7 cryptically that atte#pts to #eas"re this pheno#enon Jpro)e "ns"ccessf"l.J .he F"estion of s"ggestibility has also been approache fro# a ifferent )antage point. *ather than esti#ate the effects of isolation "pon s"ggestibility, others ha)e so"ght to establish a relationship bet8een s"ggestibility as a personality attrib"te an response to epri)ation. &etrie 1 #eas"re bo y s8ay s"ggestibility in a gro"p of nine s"b9ects 8ho ha been eCpose to the con itions of confine#ent an percept"al epri)ation escribe by WeCler et al. =<>?. 3er obser)ations re)eale a tren to8ar a negati)e relationship bet8een a#o"nt of bo y s8ay an length of ti#e )ol"ntarily spent in epri)ation. Ca#berari =16? st" ie the response to sensory epri)ation of t8enty #ale "npai )ol"nteer psychology gra "ate st" ents e)enly i)i e into s"ggestible an nons"ggestible gro"ps. .his i)ision 8as base on the co#posite scores of these s"b9ects on se)eral tests of s"ggestibility. Isolation an sensory epri)ation 8ere bro"ght abo"t by s"spen ing s"b9ects n" e in a tan7 of 8ater by #eans of a harness. 3is o)er-all fin ings appear to contra ict that of &etrie in that the s"ggestible gro"p re#aine in the sit"ation significantly longer =1<B #in"tes? than the nons"ggestible gro"p =111 #in"tes?. 'pon closer eCa#ination, ho8e)er, one fin s that one of the ten #eas"res in the battery 8as bo y s8ay s"ggestibility an that for this partic"lar #eas"re there 8as a negati)e relationship 8ith length of stay si#ilar to &etrie:s. .he Ca#berari ata pose the iffic"lty of interpreting the notion of s"ggestibility. .he #eaning of the ter# is iffic"lt to assess in epen ent of the operations efining it

an the eCperi#ental conseF"ences. (s s"ch it has li#ite "tility for assessing the effects of epri)ation an isolation "pon the rea iness to #o ify one:s o8n con)iction or belief in fa)or of those co#ing fro# an eCternal a"thority fig"re. +nce again, lea)ing asi e the co#pleC #oti)ational iss"es 8hich li#it generaliGation of laboratory st" ies to real life sit"ations, 8e are left 8ith the 3eron fin ings that follo8ing isolation an confine#ent, beliefs aro"n a topic s"ch as psychical pheno#ena change significantly. .his obser)ation is also consistent 8ith the hypothesis of a ecline in internal percept"al nor#s an in ability to reason efficiently. It 8o"l see# li7ely that changing the e#otional relationship bet8een the a"thority an the s"b9ect 8o"l intro "ce another co#pleC )ariable 8hich cannot be assesse 8itho"t ata. .he ten ency to #o ification of belief in eCperi#ental circ"#stances is
1

&ersonal co##"nication, 19%<.

-6<F"ite consistent 8ith the reports of the response of prisoners. It sho"l be 7ept in #in that in the latter sit"ation a itional ele#ents of "ncertainty, stress, an coercion 8ere bro"ght to bear in in "cing these changes =1>, AD?.

Personality Findings .he relationship of personality attrib"tes to tolerance for isolation is one 8hich has significant i#plications for iss"es as i)erse as personnel selection an personality theory. .hat the st" y of response to this sit"ation #ight be rele)ant to the st" y of personality 8as pointe o"t$ by 3ochberg et al. =AB?.
Whether any relationships eCist bet8een personality factors, the #o e in@ 8hich the Gan3fel% is percei)e , an the co"rse of color a aptation, is yet to be in)estigate . 3o8e)er, the in eter#inacy of the sit"ation, the in i)i "al ifferences in hall"cinatory ob9ects an the intense fear an feelings of :going blin : eCpresse by so#e of the s"b9ects s"ggest a possible #etho for in)estigation of personality str"ct"re. =page 1%%.?

We referre pre)io"sly to the 8or7 of Ca#berari =16?. In a ition to fin ing ifferences bet8een s"ggestible an nons"ggestible s"b9ects in tolerance for sensory epri)ation, he obser)e a n"#ber of relate personality attrib"tes that see#e to ifferentiate the t8o gro"ps. .he s"ggestible s"b9ects appeare to be #ore pro "cti)e an #ore tolerant of regressi)e beha)ior, incl" ing el"sions, hall"cinations, an fantasies. .he nons"ggesiible s"b9ects, on the other han , ten e to be #ore threatene by ist"rbances in bo y sche#a, efensi)e abo"t their intellect"al control, an #ore a8are of eCternal factors 8hich reinforce reality. WeCler et al. =<>? st" ie se)enteen pai #ale )ol"nteer s"b9ects eCpose to confine#ent an percept"al epri)ation in a polio respirator "p to thirty-siC ho"rs. .hey "se a series of personality #eas"res incl" ing the 4innesota 4"ltiphasic &ersonality In)entory an the - 8ar s &ersonal &reference Sche "le. !one of the

44&I scales 8as relate to "ration of stay in isolation. ;or the - 8ar s test these a"thors reporte a significant negati)e relationship bet8een nee -Chibitionis# an length of stay in isolation, as 8ell as near significant positi)e relationships bet8een the latter )ariable an nee (ffiliation, nee S"ccorance, an nee !"rt"rance. .hey interprete these fin ings to #ean that s"b9ects 8ith greater tolerance for epri)ation relate the#sel)es #ore gen"inely to people an see7 #ore contact an e#otional eCchange 8ith others. In a secon eCperi#ent =A@?, 8ith ele)en s"b9ects, "n er #ore se)ere con itions of isolation, these -69in)estigators faile to confir# the original fin ings, obser)ing instea a near significant positi)e relationship bet8een nee ("tono#y an length of stay in epri)ation. 'nli7e WeCler an his associates, S. Cohen et al. =1<?, 8ho st" ie fo"r )ol"nteer s"b9ects seate in an anechoic cha#ber for fo"r ho"rs, fo"n that the t8o s"b9ects escribe as JschiGoi personalitiesJ on the basis of clinical inter)ie8s an psychological tests 8ere co#fortable in isolation an 8ere 8illing to prolong it, 8hereas the t8o Jfairly 8ell integrate J s"b9ects, 8ho escribe the eCperience as "npleasant, 8ere anCio"s, an felt that they co"l not tolerate the isolation #"ch longer. In st" ying ten s"b9ects consisting of nor#al, ne"rotic, schiGophrenic, an sociopathic in i)i "als for response to one ho"r of isolation, ,. Cohen et al. =1@? reporte that nor#al an ne"rotic s"b9ects eChibite an increase sensiti)ity to the resi "al sti#"li in the cha#ber. .he schiGophrenic s"b9ects sho8e no appreciable increase or ecrease in their hall"cinatory beha)ior an ha a generally positi)e reaction to the sit"ation, e)oi of the anCiety typically eChibite by nor#al s"b9ects. ( #ore recent st" y of the response of schiGophrenics to sensory epri)ation 8as perfor#e by 3arris =B%?. 'tiliGing a proce "re si#ilar to that of the 4c/ill gro"p, he place t8el)e s"b9ects in isolation for perio s "p to t8o ho"rs. 3e reports that the patients generally tolerate the proce "re 8ell. ;or the #ost part, hall"cinations beca#e less intense an less )i)i . +)er-all sy#pto#atology either i#pro)e or sho8e no change. .hese fin ings appear to be consistent 8ith those of the t8o earlier st" ies cite pre)io"sly. Wor7ing in a ifferent theoretical conteCt, &etrie, Collins, an Solo#on =6>? atte#pte to relate pain tolerance, cortical satiation, an percept"al epri)ation. 'sing 7inesthetic fig"ral aftereffects, #eas"res of pain threshol , an tolerance for isolation in the polio respirator, their fin ings ten to s"pport the hypothesis that s"sceptibility to satiation is associate 8ith tolerance for pain an intolerance for percept"al epri)ation. 3ere satiation is seen as a 7ey factor #e iating the percei)e intensity of sti#"lationI the higher the satiability the less intense are s"ccee ing sensations.

Still another approach 8as ta7en by /ol berger an 3olt =BB? in their eCperi#ent. .hey e#phasiGe psychoanalytic concepts, s"ch as resistance to regression an #o es of han ling pri#ary process #aterial. ;o"rteen s"b9ects 8ere rate for the #at"rity 8ith 8hich they han le pri#ary process as #anifeste in *orschach test responses. .heir )erbal beha)ior "ring eight ho"rs of isolation an -@>postisolation inter)ie8 8as then assesse by a sche#e of content analysis 8hich stresse #o es of ealing 8ith pri#ary process #aterial. .8o relati)ely in epen ent reaction patterns to isolation 8ere i entifie . In the first of these, s"b9ects engage in a )ariety of beha)iors 8ithin the li#its set by the sit"ation an instr"ctions. .hey tal7e freely, eCperience pleas"rable affect, little "npleasant affect, tho"ght rationally, an engage in ay rea#s, fantasy, an playf"l thin7ing 8itho"t being threatene by the sit"ation. In the secon reaction pattern, there 8as "npleasant affect, anCiety-la en intr"sions of the pri#ary process, preocc"pation 8ith ter#inating the eCperi#ent, an i#paire efficiency in rational or secon ary process thin7ing. .hey fo"n these t8o reaction patterns to be significantly correlate in the eCpecte irection 8ith the *orschach #eas"re of #at"rity of han ling pri#ary process #aterials. .hose 8ho on the *orschach han le pri#ary process in a #at"re an effecti)e 8ay 8ere those 8ho reacte in an a apti)e 8ay to isolation. Con)ersely, those 8ho on the *orschach han le pri#ary process 8ith poor control or a)oi e it reacte negati)ely to isolation. .his fin ing is consistent 8ith se)eral others 8hich point to the eCaggeration of "s"al personality efenses "n er the stress of isolation =1<, %6, 6%?. ;ro# this point of )ie8 it sho"l be possible, at least theoretically, to pre ict the i#ensions of an in i)i "al:s response to epri)ation an isolation. (n o)er)ie8 of these ata e#phasiGes the tr"is# of #ar7e in i)i "ality of response. Whether ifferences obser)e a#ong )ario"s st" ies is a syste#atic f"nction of )arying eCperi#ental con itions is as yet "nclear. Whereas the fin ings of WeCler et al. =<>? an /ol berger an 3olt =BB? in icate a positi)e relationship bet8een e#otional relate ness an length of stay in isolation, se)eral others ha)e #a e a ifferent obser)ation. .he fin ings on s"ggestibility as a personality attrib"te an those on the relationship to satiation an pain threshol s re#ain concept"ally "nrelate to the other 8or7. .he /ol berger an 3olt e#onstration of relationships bet8een preisolation personality attrib"tes an the content of response to isolation is a caref"lly eCec"te st" y 8hich has a clear theoretical orientation an #a7es co#pleC b"t reliable assess#ents of )erbal an other beha)ior. +ther st" ies ha)e ten e to8ar "tiliGation of too si#plifie an in eC of response s"ch as length of stay 8hich fails to ta7e into acco"nt co#pleC beha)ior "ring the isolation sit"ation. It #ay 8ell be that personality )ariables an their interrelationships are ins"fficiently reflecte in s"ch a si#ple #eas"re of tolerance for isolation. -@1-

In a ition it 8o"l see# esirable that 8or7ers in this area offer a concept"al fra#e8or7 8ithin 8hich to )ie8 personality response. .h"s specification of ter#s s"ch as JschiGoi J an J8ith ra8nJ #ay ha)e #ore #eaning, per#it replication of proce "res, an e)al"ation of res"lts. (ltho"gh so#e of this iffic"lty in the present st" ies ste#s fro# their preli#inary nat"re, there appears to be so#e insensiti)ity to the nee for both concept"al an operational specification of #eas"re#ent an assess#ent techniF"es. &rogress 8ith the proble# of personnel selection an "tiliGation for a )ariety of tas7s, as 8ell as theoretical clarification, a8aits s"ch refine#ent in research progra#s.

Feeling States Changes in s"b9ecti)e feeling in response to re "ce en)iron#ental inp"t has been a co##on obser)ation in these st" ies. .hese obser)ations range o)er #any ifferent eCperi#ental con itions, fro# the "nifor# )is"al sti#"lation presente by W. Cohen =19? in 8hich the pattern of inp"t to one #o ality is re "ce , to sensory epri)ation in the 8ater tan7 s"spension proce "re "se by Lilly =%>? an Ca#bareri =16?, 8here the effort is #a e at a total re "ction of sensory inp"t. We ha)e alrea y #entione the brea7 o8n in the s"b9ects: ability to concentrate, thin7 clearly, an sol)e #ental proble#s. ,eCton et al. =<? e#phasiGe the progressi)e increase in irritability "ring confine#ent, follo8e on release by a sense of being aGe an conf"se . .hey also note the presence of hea aches, fatig"e, an #il na"sea, persisting in so#e cases for t8enty-fo"r ho"rs after confine#ent. Lilly =%>? 8hose s"b9ects both ha a n"#ber of trial eCpos"res to the sit"ation in or er to get "se to it fo"n in the act"al sit"ation early feelings of relaCation an en9oy#ent, follo8e by tension, restlessness, an an eCtre#ely heightene a8areness of resi "al sti#"lation. .his co"rse contin"e into fantasy an re)erie, an finally into the pro9ection of )is"al i#agery. ;ollo8ing the isolation eCperience, s"b9ects reporte a sense of refresh#ent as tho"gh ha)ing 9"st a8a7ene fro# sleep. Ca#berari =16?, on the other han , "tiliGing a si#ilar proce "re 8itho"t preli#inary eCpos"res, fo"n no s"ch progressi)e stages, an s"b9ects ca#e o"t of the i##ersion feeling fatig"e rather than reste . S"ggestible s"b9ects felt sec"re "ring #ost of their stay in the tan7, altho"gh there 8ere so#e reports of apprehension, fear, an panic. .he nons"ggestible s"b9ects generally ten e to eny any affecti)e or e#otional in)ol)e#ent. -@D(fter prolonge )is"al sti#"lation, W. Cohen =19? fo"n that his s"b9ects ha feelings of ro8siness, eCcessi)e ya8ning, an their )oices too7 on a hesitant, ra8ling F"ality. In a st" y of percept"al epri)ation, 3ebb, 3eath, an St"art =B<? reporte that s"b9ects 8ho 8ore earpl"gs for three consec"ti)e ays 8hile going abo"t their nor#al acti)ities sho8e slight to #ar7e irritability, secl"si)eness, an personality ist"rbances not "e to isco#fort. +ne s"b9ect #anifeste poor speech coor ination 8hile in the eCperi#ental con itions. /ol berger an 3olt =BD? note that

espite the in i)i "al ifferences in response, all of their s"b9ects fo"n the eCperi#ental sit"ation fr"strating beca"se of lac7 of things to o, see, an hear, an the physical isco#fort attrib"te to #otor restriction. Co#paring sensory an percept"al epri)ation 8ith sensory bo#bar #ent, +r#iston =%9? fo"n that the for#er gro"p reacte 8ith "npleasant affect, 8hereas the latter gro"p eCperience #iCe affect of a#"se#ent an anCiety. 1a)is et al. =D1? reF"ire their ten s"b9ects to co#plete an a 9ecti)e chec7 list escribing their feelings follo8ing isolation. .his 8as co#pare 8ith the sa#e chec7 list co#plete "n er control con itions. Significantly #ore so#atic co#plaints, feelings of physical inacti)ity, an #ental clo" ing 8ere chec7e follo8ing isolation, 8hereas significantly less satisfaction, elation, frien liness, an i#p"lsi)ity 8ere reporte . Se)eral st" ies in icate a 8i e range of response ranging fro# co#fort an satisfaction, thro"gh sleep, to "npleasant affect, anCiety, an paranoi fear =19, B>, 6%?. /ol berger an 3olt =BD? also reporte #ar7e )ariations in postisolation feeling states. Se)en s"b9ects escribe s"ch reactions as feeling aGe , isorganiGe , groggy, iGGy, an "nstableI eight s"b9ects in icate a state of fatig"eI fo"r s"b9ects escribe #oti)ational changes s"ch as losing interest in thingsI t8o s"b9ects sho8e )irt"ally no isttirbance. In part these responses #ay be interprete as a reaction to the no)elty an threat of a strange an "nfa#iliar sit"ation. 'n o"bte ly these s"b9ecti)e states also reflect the earlier isc"sse in i)i "ality of personality response to these eCperi#ental settings. .he general response to isolation see#s to incl" e bore o#, a general state of restlessness relate to inacti)ity, an often anCiety or fear of eCtre#e proportions. &ostisolation responses #ost often see# to reflect fatig"e, ro8siness, conf"sion, loss of ti#e orientation, an a nee to reorient one:s self to the fa#iliar aspects of reality. .hese s"b9ecti)e states appear to be consistent correlates of the changes in -@Bperception, cogniti)e f"nction, an personality f"nction pre)io"sly escribe . .hese feeling states 8o"l see# to #a7e one F"ite )"lnerable to ne8 inp"t fro# a controlle so"rce s"ch as #ight appear in the prisoner-interrogator relationship. .o the eCtent to 8hich an interrogator beco#es associate 8ith the re8ar of anCiety re "ction, pro)i ing h"#an contact an irecte acti)ity, an th"s pro)i ing relief for the c"#"lati)e isco#fort of isolation, he ass"#es a bene)olent role 8hich #ay be one so"rce of his infl"ence. MSee ,i er#an =9? an Lifton =A9?.N

Imagery

Lac7ing a #ore a eF"ate escripti)e ter#, 8e shall in this section "se the ter# Ji#ageryJ in ealing 8ith a 8i e )ariety of pheno#ena seen in st" ies of isolation an epri)ation, incl" ing 8hat ha)e been calle hall"cinations, el"sions, ill"sions, fantasies, ay rea#s, rea#s, hypnagogic states, an the li7e. (s pointe o"t earlier, these pheno#ena constit"te perhaps the #ost ra#atic aspect of this research, an in ee the pro#ise of st" ying their genesis has "n o"bte ly been #ost responsible for eCciting the interest of clinically oriente gro"ps. (part fro# the a"tobiographical acco"nts of isolation, nor#al persons ha)e rarely reporte feelings of epersonaliGation, brea7 o8ns in bo y i#age, an hall"cinatory pheno#ena. ;"rther#ore, the ability to pro "ce s"ch states eCperi#entally brings these concepts #"ch closer to "n erstan ing by per#itting close obser)ation an perhaps control. With this intro "ctory re#ar7, let "s t"rn to an eCa#ination of the pertinent ata. We ha)e alrea y referre to the obser)ation of 3ochberg et al. =AB? abo"t in i)i "al ifferences in hall"cinatory ob9ects. .hree s"b9ects in one of his st" ies reporte the appearance of s"ch hall"cinatory ob9ects "ring a aptation, an it 8as later iffic"lt to con)ince the# that s"ch shapes ha not been incl" e as part of the eCperi#ental proce "re. ,eCton et al. =<? reporte that these pheno#ena 8ere largely )is"al an range fro# si#ple geo#etrical for#s an patterns, to si#ple colors, to co#pleCly integrate scenes 8hich 8ere so#eti#es in color an three- i#ensional. .he latter often containe rea#li7e i#ages. S"b9ects 8ere able to eCercise only #ini#al conscio"s control o)er the content. .he i#ages often in)ol)e other senses incl" ing a" itory, 7inesthetic, an so#esthetic ele#ents. .here 8ere also reports of bo ily strangeness an pec"liar perceptions of bo y i#age. 's"ally these eCperiences isappeare 8hen the s"b9ect began a co#pleC tas7, s"ch as #ental arith#etic. -@A.i#e of onset for these pheno#ena )arie fro# t8enty #in"tes to se)enty ho"rs. In the s"pple#entary report =B9? it is note that s"b9ects i not belie)e in the reality of these eCperiences an that co#pare to nor#al i#agery greater )i)i ness is the #ain ifference. +ften there 8as consi erable #o)e#ent of the )is"al patterns, at ti#es s"fficiently ist"rbing to ca"se s"b9ects to eCperience na"sea. .o test the notion that resi "al sti#"lation 8as necessary for the pro "ction of these pheno#ena, these sa#e in)estigators place opaF"e goggles on three s"b9ects after se)eral ays in isolation 8ith transl"cent goggles. .hese s"b9ects ha been :hall"cinating: persistently. With this change, they obser)e an initial increase in )i)i ness, b"t in one s"b9ect this 8as soon follo8e by a )ery #ar7e i#in"tion, an by the total isappearance of these eCperiences in the other t8o. With restoration of transl"cent goggles, the :hall"cinations: reappeare . .8o other s"b9ects, r"n fro# the beginning 8ith opaF"e goggles an then shifte to transl"cent ones, sho8e an increase in the inci ence an )i)i ness of these )is"al pheno#ena. 'n er the con itions of isolation "tiliGe in 2ernon:s series of eCperi#ents, espite so#e ifferences in res"lts, a si#ilar i#plication e#erges =@9?. .8o con itions of sensory epri)ation 8ere co#pare . In one, nine s"b9ects 8ere blin fol e 8hen they

perio ically ha to lea)e the c"bicle. (s a res"lt of this proce "re they 8ere eCpose to a )ariety of )is"al sti#"lation fro# light lea7s, etc. In a secon phase, con itions of epri)ation 8ere #ore eCtre#eI the ele)en s"b9ects i not lea)e the lightproof c"bicle "ring their stay. Contrasting the )is"al i#agery reporte "n er these t8o sets of circ"#stances, the a"thors fo"n that the less eCtre#e con ition pro "ce #any #ore :hall"cinatory: pheno#ena. In a ition there see#e to be a positi)e relationship bet8een length of confine#ent an n"#ber of i#ages. .he content of the i#agery ten e to8ar si#ple flashes of lights or geo#etric shapes, rather than #eaningf"l, sy#bolic, integrate scenes. .hese a"thors concl" e that confine#ent per#itting the greatest a#o"nt of nonpatterne )is"al sti#"lation pro "ces the greatest., a#o"nt an )ariety of i#ages. ( si#ilarly li#ite a#o"nt of i#agery is reporte by *"ff et al. =6%? 8ho, "sing both )ol"nteers an non)ol"nteer #ilitary personnel as s"b9ects obser)e :hall"cinations: in only t8o s"b9ects o"t of #ore than siCty, r"n "n er a )ariety of eCperi#ental con itions of isolation. 4en elson an ;oley =%A? obser)e that a n"#ber of polio patients treate in tan7type respirators e)elope psychoticli7e sy#pto#s of isorientation, conf"sion, :hall"cinations,: an el"sions. &hysiologi-@%cal, psychiatric, an beha)ioral st" ies of these patients s"ggeste that these sy#pto#s 8ere not a f"nction of toCic or #etabolic factors, b"t 8ere the res"lt of con itions of life in the respirator. In a follo8-"p report isc"ssing these pheno#ena, 4en elson, Solo#on, an Lin e#ann =%@? s"##ariGe the ele#ents present in these ter#s$ enial of istressing realityI 8ish-f"lfill#ent in ter#s of reass"ring, pleas"rable life sit"ationsI rehearsalli7e anticipation of rea e possibilities. .he a"thors escribe the :hall"cinations: as representing a restit"tional atte#pt on the part of the ego to pre ict an cope 8ith anticipate stress. Starting 8ith these obser)ations, WeCler et al. =<>? place se)enteen nor#al a "lt #ale )ol"nteers in the tan7-type respirator "p to thirty-siC ho"rs in the percept"al epri)ation proce "re pre)io"sly escribe . .hese in)estigators escribe the inci ence of a range of #ental eCperiences in their s"b9ects. .hese eCperiences incl" e the occ"rrence of :analogies,: : ay rea#s,: :fantasies,: :pse" oso#atic el"sions,: :ill"sions,: an :hall"cinations.: .hese pheno#ena 8ere not relate to length of stay in confine#ent. 'n er si#ilar, b"t #ore se)ere, con itions of confine#ent these in)estigators reporte a co#parable total inci ence of these pheno#ena, 8ith a higher freF"ency of occ"rrence in the categories reflecting #ore #ar7e e)iations fro# nor#al i#agery =A@?. .his obser)ation hel tr"e espite the fact that s"b9ects re#aine in the eCperi#ental sit"ation for a #"ch shorter perio . S. Cohen et al. =1<? obser)e #ale an fe#ale )ol"nteer s"b9ects seate in isolation for t8o ho"rs in a ar7 aco"stical cha#ber 8ith no orienting instr"ctions, the only so"n being a lo8 h"# fro# a )entilator #otor. In this eCploratory st" y the perio of epri)ation an isolation laste t8o ho"rs. Se)en of the ten s"b9ects reporte "n"s"al )is"al pheno#ena ranging fro# flashing lights to #o)ing ob9ects. .he a"thors s"ggest

classification of the eCperience on the basis of criteria s"ch as )i)i ness, recognition of s"b9ecti)ity of eCperience, conscio"s control, an e#otional acco#pani#ents. (nother interesting aspect of this report is the escription of changes in the teCt"re an consistency of the cha#ber 8alls an floor. 1escriptions of an act"al #etal 8all incl" e s"ch a 9ecti)es as, Jsoft,J Jr"gli7e,J an Jspongy, )el)etli7e.J .he lac7 of orienting instr"ctions in this eCperi#ent intro "ces an ele#ent of anCiety 8hich #ay be a factor in the i#ages reporte . ;ree #an et al. =B>? fo"n that se)eral s"b9ects eCperience changes in bo y i#age, spontaneo"s a" itory an )is"al ill"sions or :hall"cinations.: .hese latter 8ere not s"b9ect to conscio"s control -@6an ha F"alities ifferent fro# rea#s or ay rea#s. .hey appeare to originate o"tsi e the self, an i not see# to be #eaningf"lly relate to anything. /ol berger an 3olt =BD? also fo"n that s"b9ects in eight ho"rs of isolation reporte the spontaneo"s occ"rrence of )is"al an a" itory i#agery ifferent fro# that percei)e in the nor#al 8a7ing state. .hese 8ere "s"ally recogniGe as internal in origin, altho"gh se)eral s"b9ects percei)e the# as being eCternal. .hese a"thors feel that these pheno#ena are #ost li7e hypnagogic i#agery. In a ition they fo"n s"b9ects 8ith bo y i#age ist"rbance, epersonaliGation, an rea#s ealing 8ith the eCperi#ental sit"ation. In isc"ssing these ata, they arg"e against the "se of the ter# Jhall"cinationJ in that it reF"ires, in a ition to an ill"sory i#age, a fail"re to recogniGe its "nreality. +n the other han , it is 7no8n that alcoholic patients in eliri"# tre#ens, or patients "n er #escaline intoCication #ay often recogniGe the "nreality of their percepts an hall"cinations. .he efinition of ter#s here is co#plicate by conf"sion an inconsistency in lang"age "sage. /ol berger an 3olt s"ggest consi eration of these pheno#ena in ter#s of )i)i ness, str"ct"re, persistence, realis#, an pla"sibility. ;ro# this stan point they offer the generaliGation that percept"al epri)ation "ring the perio of eCperi#ental confine#ent ten s to increase the )i)i ness an str"ct"re of i#agery 8itho"t a brea7 o8n in reality testing. In s"##ary, there are no8 se)eral st" ies 8hich point to the i#portance of so#e eCtraneo"s sti#"lation for the occ"rrence of )is"al an a" itory i#ages an hall"cinations =B9, 6%, @9?. .he role of bo y #o)e#ent as a factor in the ca"sation of these pheno#ena has been cite =B>, BD, 6%?. ;ree #an et al. =B>? attrib"te the occ"rrence or nonocc"rrence of i#agery, at least in part, to ifferences in #otility an 7inesthetic fee bac7. (ltho"gh this factor is partially confo"" e 8ith )ariations in )is"al inp"t, they point o"t that in only t8o proce "res, those of *"ff et al. =6%? an 2ernon et al. =@9?, 8as there free #o)e#ent an these t8o report the lo8est inci ence of i#agery. ;ree #an et al. =B>? e#phasiGe the role of #otor acti)ity in the general #aintenance of spatial an cogniti)e orientation. 1irect F"antitati)e co#parisons of )ario"s st" ies in this area 8ill reF"ire agree#ent abo"t the escripti)e para#eters of the eCperiences here s"bs"#e "n er

the r"bric of i#agery. .hese i#ensions sho"l #a7e possible a #ore precise e)al"ation of ifferent eCperi#ental con itions for their relationship to the pro "ction of these eCperiences. Si#ilarly it 8o"l #a7e possible the etaile co#parison of i#agery in sensory an percept"al epri)ation con itions to -@@that seen in hypnagogic states, #escal intoCication, an flic7er. eCperi#ental response to

(nother proble# in the F"antitati)e assess#ent of the i#agery pheno#ena lies in the fact that #ost of the ata has been obtaine by retrospecti)e report. .his proce "re raises iffic"lties in the reliable assess#ent of )i)i ness, freF"ency, or other s"ggeste i#ensions of analysis. It #ay be that enco"raging )erbal report "ring the proce "re an #a7ing si#"ltaneo"s recor ings of other )ariables s"ch as physiological responses 8ill #a7e possible in epen ent assess#ent of these eCperiences. Witho"t s"ch in epen ent assess#ent it 8o"l be pre#at"re to consi er the i#agery eCperience in epri)ation eCperi#ents as necessarily in icati)e of pathology as a n"#ber of reports ha)e i#plie . S"ch eCperiences #ay in ee reflect creati)e a aptations to a special en)iron#ent. .he e)i ence that artists, #ystics, an religio"s in i)i "als #ay "tiliGe isolation for constr"cti)e syntheses of eCperience cannot be ignore . It 8o"l see# that the response to the increase a8areness of pri#ary process #aterial #ay be #ore pre icti)e of a aptation than 8o"l the fact of the increase itself or its content. .he i#agery pheno#ena #ay t"rn o"t to s"stain so#e in i)i "als confronte by real life sit"ations of isolation an epri)ation. +n the other han , the anCiety engen ere by the rise of pri#ary process #aterial #ay ser)e to increase an in i)i "al:s s"sceptibility to eCternal press"res as in the interrogation sit"ation. In general, a broa er concept"al fra#e8or7 than that pro)i e by the #o el of psychopathology 8o"l see# to be nee e .

Physiological Findings (part fro# an intrinsic interest in the conseF"ences of re "ce sti#"lation for physiological f"nctioning, s"ch ata can also be co#pare to conc"rrent )erbal reports of the eCperience. +ne s"ch in eC of response th"s far st" ie has been the electroencephalogra#. (ttention has foc"se on this instr"#ent in hopes of clarifying the nat"re of cortical acti)ity in sensory an percept"al epri)ation. In a ition it has been "se to #a7e assess#ents of the sleep-8a7ef"lness cycle "n er these con itions. 3eron =B9? escribe the res"lts of perio ic --/ tracings on siC eCperi#ental s"b9ects. .he res"lts sho8e that slo8er freF"encies appear in the parieto-occipital tracings ta7en at siCteen ho"rs than those ta7en at the beginning of the isolation perio I e)en after s"b9ects ha e#erge fro# isolation for so#e ho"rs, the recor s ha not ret"rne to their nor#al state. .his fin ing 8as confir#e in a

-@<F"antitati)e analysis of 8a)e freF"encies 8ithin a gi)en ti#e inter)al. ;"rther#ore, they fo"n that recor s obtaine 8hile a s"b9ect 8as :hall"cinating: sho8e greatly re "ce a#plit" e an appeare si#ilar to those 8hich #ight be obtaine fro# a s"b9ect in an alerte state. .ho"gh these in)estigators 8ere "nable to #a7e acc"rate eter#inations of sleep-8a7ef"lness patterns, it 8as their general i#pression that s"b9ects slept #ore "ring the early part of their stay in isolation an progressi)ely less later in the perio of confine#ent. St" ying the --/ correlates of the J8hite-o"tJ pheno#enon, W. Cohen =19? hypothesiGe that "n er con itions of "nifor# )is"al sti#"lation, the Jter#inationJ of )is"al eCperience sho"l be acco#panie by a ret"rn of alpha acti)ity. 1espite consi erable in i)i "al ifferences, he fo"n that in occipital recor s, strong alpha acti)ity "s"ally follo8e the onset of J8hite-o"tJ 8ith a latency of one secon . In general, the onset of alpha occ"rre 8hen )is"al eCperience spontaneo"sly beca#e less ifferentiate . .he occ"rrence of J8hite-o"tJ see#e to be relate to the a#o"nt of alpha sho8n. .h"s abo"t half the s"b9ects sho8e little alpha e)en 8hen 7ept in the ar7 8itho"t sti#"lation. 2ernon et al. =@<? in their st" y of percept"al an #otor s7ills "n er con itions of t8enty-fo"r, forty-eight, an se)enty-t8o ho"rs of sensory epri)ation, fo"n that espite the fact that s"b9ects ate 8ell, there 8as a consistent loss of 8eight, a)eraging t8o an one-half po"n s. 4eas"ring strength of grip 8ith a han yna#o#eter, they obser)e gains for control an confine gro"ps eCcept for the se)entyt8o-ho"r confine gro"p 8hich sho8e a slight loss. ( thir #eas"re 8as gal)anic s7in resistance ta7en before an after isolation. .he a"thors hypothesiGe a gain in s7in resistance beca"se of the F"iet an sleepli7e con itions for the confine gro"ps. Instea they fo"n that 8hile control gro"p )al"es rose, a statistically significant rop fro# preisolation con itions appeare in the eCperi#ental gro"p. .here 8as, ho8e)er, no report of control for the h"#i ity in the cha#ber. 'tiliGing a contin"o"s recor ing of s7in resistance thro"gho"t isolation on their fo"r s"b9ects, S. Cohen et al. =1<? fo"n that resistance rose an re#aine high for the t8o s"b9ects co#fortable in isolation. ;or the re#aining t8o s"b9ects, less co#fortable 8ith the eCperience, this a"tono#ic in eC re#aine lo8. *"ff et al. =6%? cite obser)ations that confir# the foregoing, an point to s7in resistance #eas"res as a "sef"l reflection of aro"sal, 8hich parallels o)ert beha)ioral #anifestations "ring isolation. ( si#ilar analysis is pro)i e in a etaile case st" y of the psychological an physiological responses of t8o s"b9ects eCpose to per-@9cept"al epri)ation in the tan7 respirator proce "re =%6?. /eneral relationships 8ere obser)e bet8een patterns of --/, heart rate, an epinephrine-norepinephrine

eCcretions on the one han , an beha)ioral #eas"res of acti)ity, )erbaliGation, an e#otional responses on the other. ( #ore etaile analysis of the catechol a#ine response of ten s"b9ects isolate in the tan7 respirator is pro)i e in another report by this gro"p of in)estigators =%%?. Co#paring preisolation, isolation, an postisolation eCcretion le)els, these a"thors fo"n a generaliGe increase in both #eas"res follo8e by a ecline after re#o)al fro# the respirator. .hey e#phasiGe the 8i e )ariability of response, an i entifie a n"#ber of in i)i "al patterns 8hich are #as7e by the gro"p ata. .heir fin ings also sho8e that of the t8o #eas"res, epinephrine see#e to change #ore than norepinephrine in response to this stress. *. C. 1a)is =DA? co#pare the physiological responses of t8enty-t8o s"b9ects eCpose to #ini#al sti#"lation 8ith that of t8enty-eight s"b9ects 8ho recei)e "npatterne sti#"lation at near nor#al le)els. .he Jre "ce -sti#"l"sJ gro"p lay on a cot in a ar7 so"n proofe roo# for abo"t forty #in"tes, 8hereas the J"npatterne sti#"l"sJ gro"p 8as gi)en contin"o"s #o erate light an so"n after fi)e #in"tes. 3e recor e circ"latory an respiratory )ariables an #"scle potentials fro# three locations. Co#paring the changes in the t8o gro"ps "ring isolation, the Jre "ce sti#"l"sJ gro"p sho8e a significantly greater increase in #"sc"lar an circ"latory acti)ity an a ecrease in respiratory acti)ity. .he a"thor fin s the responses of the Jre "ce -sti#"l"sJ gro"p si#ilar to those seen in s"b9ects anticipating a sti#"l"s. In general, the ata on physiological response is sparse, 8ith #"ch of it resting on case obser)ations. ;e8 of the st" ies "tiliGe precise #eas"re#ent as 8ell as a eF"ate controls an sa#ple siGes. !onetheless, a n"#ber of in ices ha)e by no8 sho8n pro#ise of pro)i ing "sef"l infor#ation abo"t response to sensory epri)ation. .hese incl" e --/, s7in resistance, epinephrine-norepinephrine eCcretion le)els, an #"sc"lar, respiratory, an circ"latory acti)ity. .here has been freF"ent #ention of #o)e#ent of gross #"sc"lat"re as relate partic"larly to the pheno#ena isc"sse in the section on i#agery. M.he 1a)is st" y =DA? cite pre)io"sly #eas"re #"sc"lar acti)ity b"t not i#agery.N S"ch eter#inations #ight pro)e helpf"l in relating the role of 7inesthetic sti#"lation to beha)ior generally an to bo y i#age in partic"lar. .his latter relationship has been a s"b9ect of #"ch spec"lation. -<>.he physiological #eas"res th"s far obser)e ha)e recei)e attention largely "e to their pres"#e relationship to the concept of aro"sal. .he 8or7 of the 4c/ill gro"p has been concerne 8ith the "se of --/ tracings as an in eC to the state of aro"sal =B9?. +thers ha)e "se s7in resistance #eas"res in this 8ay. .he 8or7 8ith catechol a#ines has foc"se on the epri)ation sit"ation as a stressor agent. !ee less to say a )ariety of other approaches are possible. .h"s the #eas"re#ent of eye #o)e#ents "ring the occ"rrence of i#agery an the co#parison 8ith eye #o)e#ents as they appear in rea#s Msee 1e#ent an 0leit#an =D%?N #ay yiel i#portant infor#ation abo"t the possible si#ilarities of the t8o processes. ;"rther#ore, the specification of a

)ariety of physiological changes "n er con itions of sensory epri)ation #ay pro)i e other i#portant cl"es in the clarification of the entire range of obser)e effects.

Length o Stay in !"perimental Isolation and Time Perception In this section 8e shall consi er se)eral aspects of the literat"re being re)ie8e . +ne iss"e concerns tolerance for isolation an epri)ation as #eas"re by )ol"ntary length of stay in the sit"ation. ;in ings on this proble# ha)e )arie consi erably, epen ing on the eCperi#ental con itions. 4any in)estigators ha)e not atte#pte to assess this aspect of the proble#. +thers ha)e iscar e ata fro# s"b9ects 8ho faile to co#plete a prescribe length of stay. .h"s it is iffic"lt to co#pare the )ario"s eCperi#ental proce "res for egree of stress as it #ight be reflecte in s"ch a #eas"re. It 8as s"ggeste earlier that length of stay is perhaps too si#plifie an in eC of tolerance for isolation. .here is little infor#ation a)ailable on the relationship bet8een this an other responses in the epri)ation sit"ation. (ltho"gh it is perhaps not in epen ent of proble#-sol)ing efficiency, or inci ence of i#agery, for certain p"rposes an esti#ate of tolerance #eas"re in length of stay is i#portant. .he sensory epri)ation proce "res in)ol)ing s"spension in 8ater =16, %>? appear to be s"fficiently eCtre#e as to #a7e a stay of #ore than three ho"rs F"ite iffic"lt. 'se of a ar7ene , so"n proof c"bicle see#s to #a7e consi erably longer perio s of isolation tolerable. *"ff et al. =6%? reporte that s"b9ects staye as long as se)en ays. ,oth 8ater tan7 an c"bicle proce "res pres"#ably atte#pt an absol"te re "ction of le)els of sensory inp"t. In the latter there is #"ch #ore #obility an less restriction necessitate by the physical nee s of the s"b9ect for foo an toileting. .he re "ce patterning proce "re of the 4c/ill gro"p has been -<1tolerate for as long as siC ays. In the tan7 respirator proce "re, espite the eCperi#enters ha)ing set a li#it of thirty-siC ho"rs, s"b9ects ha)e ten e to stay #"ch shorter ti#es. Co#paring t8o sets of con itions of epri)ation "sing this proce "re, it 8as fo"n that "n er less se)ere epri)ation, s"b9ects staye an a)erage of 1<.< ho"rs. With #ore eCtre#e con itions, another gro"p a)erage a significantly shorter <.< ho"rs =A@?. *e "cing social isolation by allo8ing s"b9ects to tal7 to a secon s"b9ect in an a 9acent respirator has been sho8n to increase the length of stay significantly =D1?. *"ff et al. =6%? reporte on the i#portance of the s"b9ects: 7no8le ge of the length of confine#ent. .his 7no8le ge a e str"ct"re to the eCperience an th"s increase the capacity to 8ithstan the sit"ation. .hey also reporte that repeate eCpos"res ha)e a si#ilar effect in re "cing the stress of the eCperi#ental con itionsI an obser)ation also #a e by Lilly =%>?. 'pon repetition, the sit"ation loses so#e of its no)elty an the s"b9ect beco#es better able to ass"#e an attit" e of passi)e acceptance. .hey #a7e

the general obser)ation that 8hen s"b9ects are r"n to #aCi#"# tolerance, the ecision to lea)e is #a e 8hen there is an i#pen ing or partial brea7 o8n of personality efenses. .he option of lea)ing at 8ill, a)ailable to all s"b9ects in laboratory research on this proble#, co#plicates eCtrapolation of these fin ings to real life sit"ations. !e)ertheless, the ata on length of stay are "sef"l, insofar as they per#it so#e assess#ent of the total i#pact of isolation an epri)ation. (nother iss"e 8hich so#e in)estigators ha)e eCa#ine is that of orientation in ti#e. In general, these st" ies ha)e sho8n a 8i e range of response, fro# #ini#al to gross isorientation in ti#e 9" g#ent. Lilly =%>? reporte a s"b9ecti)e postisolation i#pression of being o"t of step 8ith ti#e, as tho"gh the ay ha starte all o)er again follo8ing isolation. .his 8as not confir#e by Ca#berari =16?. WeCler et al. =<>? reporte ata for se)enteen s"b9ects 8hich sho8e no consistent pattern of either "n eresti#ation or o)eresti#ation of ti#e. Co#paring these res"lts to those obtaine "n er #ore se)ere epri)ation, it 8as fo"n that in the latter con itions a)erage ti#e error 8as greater =A@?. .his ifference i not achie)e statistical significance an appears to ha)e been, in part, an artifact of the relati)e a)ailability of ti#e c"es "n er the t8o con itions. In a sit"ation reF"iring the esti#ation of s"ccessi)e thirty-#in"te inter)als, S. Cohen et al. =1<? fo"n that the t8o s"b9ects co#fortable in isolation "n eresti#ate the passage of ti#e, 8hereas the t8o ist"rbe by the eCperi#ent o)eresti#ate ti#e in isolation. *"ff -<Det al. =6%? cite the i#portance of a8areness of ti#e as an orienting factor "ring epri)ation 8hich a s str"ct"re to the eCperience. .heir s"b9ects sho8e a general ten ency to "n eresti#ate ti#e. .he loss of ti#e a8areness often see#e to #a7e the eCperi#ent intolerable. /ol berger an 3olt =BD? also referre to this lac7 of ti#e orientation as an i#portant so"rce of fr"stration in isolation. .i#e see#e to pass )ery slo8ly for their s"b9ects. 1espite this, their 9" g#ents 8ere s"rprisingly acc"rate, 8ith a relati)ely s#all b"t consistent "n eresti#ation. .his fin ing s"ggeste to the a"thors the relati)e in epen ence of eCperiencing ti#e fro# the act of 9" ging ti#e. *"ff et al. =6%? ha)e s"ggeste that the "n eresti#ation of ti#e is a efensi)e #ane")er 8here the s"b9ect a)oi s a pre#at"re anticipation of his release fro# confine#ent. .h"s he a)oi s the fr"stration of ha)ing to re#ain in the sit"ation at a ti#e 8hen he #ight other8ise eCpect release. .he i#portance of ti#e orientation in infl"encing response to isolation an confine#ent is 8ell oc"#ente . ,"rney =1B? escribes the elaborate proce "res he e)elope for telling ti#e an of his precise 7no8le ge of ates "ring eighteen #onths of solitary confine#ent. (nec otal reports ha)e cite )ery co#pleC sche#es

8or7e o"t by s"b9ects to #aintain their orientation in ti#e. J"st as epri)ation an isolation appear to isr"pt general cogniti)e orientations, so too this sit"ation appears to ha)e si#ilar isr"pti)e effects on ti#e perception. (s s"ch, resistance to the isintegrati)e effects of epri)ation an isolation #ight 8ell e#phasiGe the i#portance of e)eloping orienting anchors in the eCternal en)iron#ent for both ti#e an space.

Stimulus Hunger (ltho"gh the i#plication of #ost st" ies th"s far isc"sse has been that epri)ation pro "ces Jsti#"l"s-h"nger,J only one st" y has #a e a irect atte#pt at its #eas"re#ent. .he bore o# an restlessness #entione in the section on feeling states #ay refer to the pheno#enon. Lilly =%>? has eCplicitly escribe Jsti#"l"sh"ngerJ in the follo8ing ter#s.
. . . a tension e)elops 8hich can be calle a Jsti#"l"s-actionJ h"ngerI hi en #etho s of selfsti#"lation e)elop$ t8itching #"scles, slo8 s8i##ing #o)e#ents =8hich ca"se sensations as the 8ater flo8s by the s7in?, stro7ing one finger 8ith another, etc. If one can inhibit s"ch #ane")ers long eno"gh, intense satisfaction is eri)e fro# later self-sti#"lations. =%>, page 6.?

-<B,eCton =@?, "sing the apparat"s pre)io"sly escribe , atte#pte to eter#ine 8hether percept"al epri)ation 8o"l lea s"b9ects to elect to listen to #aterials they #ight other8ise consi er "ninteresting or te io"s. .hese s"b9ects, college st" ents, ha an opport"nity to listen to recor s of fi)e #in"tes: "ration. .hese recor s containe the follo8ing types of #aterial$ eight repetitions of the 16-bar chor"s of J3o#e on the *angeJI t8o tal7s for chil ren, ta7en fro# a religio"s pri#erI ra io co##ercials for soapI an part of a stoc7 #ar7et report. S"b9ects 8ere i)i e into t8o gro"ps of fo"r each. +ne gro"p hear the recor s before isolation, 8hereas the secon gro"p 8as tol nothing abo"t it "ntil se)eral ho"rs after entering isolation. +nce in the eCperi#ental sit"ation, s"b9ects 8ere tol they co"l hear any of these #aterials, 8hene)er an as often as they li7e . .hey fo"n that the fo"r s"b9ects eCpose to the #aterial before isolation "ni)ersally isli7e the recor s an only as7e to hear the# a total of nine ti#es. .he other gro"p as7e for the recor s fifty-three ti#es, an reporte that they helpe to relie)e the bore o#. In a ition, it 8as fo"n that the rate of reF"ests for the recor s 8as ra#atically higher "ring the secon half of the confine#ent perio . &re)io"s eCpos"re to the #aterial see#e to be the principal factor infl"encing the e#an for sti#"lation. +ne #a9or proble# that s"b9ects report in the epri)ation sit"ation is the lac7 of things to see, hear, o, or thin7 abo"t. .his s"b9ecti)e co#plaint see#s to ha)e clear rele)ance to the notion of c"riosityeCploratory ri)e st" ie in eCperi#ental 8or7 8ith ani#als. .he isolation con itions th"s see# to increase recepti)ity to other8ise "ll, "ninteresting #aterial. Whether the sa#e is tr"e for Jego-alienJ #aterial is not yet 7no8n. In the conteCt of other isr"ptions of the in i)i "al:s f"nctioning, this effect appears to #agnify the affecti)e )al"e of sti#"lation. S"antification of these

pheno#ena #ight pro)i e a "sef"l in eC for co#paring the relati)e se)erity of epri)ation con itions.

In luence o !"perimental Setting We ha)e alrea y referre to the fin ings of *"ff et al. =6%? in highlighting the effects of ti#e str"ct"re in increasing the tolerance of s"b9ects for epri)ation. S"ch factors as pro)ision of tas7s "ring isolation, specification of the length of epri)ation, an pre)io"s eCpos"re to isolation res"lt in #a7ing the eCperi#ental con itions #ore tolerable to s"b9ects. .he co#parison of t8o con itions of confine#ent in the tan7 respirator has also pointe to the increase -<Ain stress an ecrease length of stay that acco#panies an increase in isolation an re "ce contact 8ith eCperi#enters an en)iron#ent =A@?. ( itional papers isc"ss other )ariables operating to infl"ence response to isolation an epri)ation =1<, A6?. .hese incl" e s"ch factors as eCperi#enter:s eCpectations, s"b9ect-eCperi#enter relationship, an the physical setting of the eCperi#ent. 0an el, 4yers, an 4"rphy =A%? co#pare the effects of t8o sets of instr"ctions on the reporting of )is"al sensations in ten #in"tes of ar7ness. .hey fo"n that one gro"p, 8ho 8ere tol the eCperiencing of s"ch sensations 8as to be eCpecte "n er these con itions, reporte significantly #ore )is"al sensations than i another gro"p, tol that these sensations appeare in psychiatric patients. &rior )erbaliGation of Jfantasy #aterialJ thro"gh eCpos"re to *orschach car s i not increase the n"#ber of sensations reporte 8hen co#pare 8ith a gro"p not gi)en this test. ( n"#ber of other proce "ral iss"es reF"ire f"rther clarification. We ha)e #entione earlier that all of these st" ies ha)e e#ploye )ol"nteer s"b9ects, generally pai )ol"nteers, 8ith the eCception of that of *"ff et al. =6%?. When, in one st" y =<>?, these )ol"nteers 8ere F"estione abo"t their #oti)ation for participating, they offere , in a ition to the #oney, reasons s"ch as ai ing science an testing the#sel)es. .here is no s"ch ata a)ailable on possible ifferential reactions of )ol"nteers an non)ol"nteers. Si#ilarly, one #"st lea)e open the possibility that solit" e an percept"al epri)ation so"ght at the in i)i "al:s o8n nee or 8hi# #ay ha)e ifferent effects than 8hen i#pose by an eCperi#enter 8ho creates a highly artificial sit"ation so that he #ay syste#atically obser)e the s"b9ect. (nother iss"e relate to the 8or7 of 0an el et al. =A%? cite abo)e, is that of the eCperi#enter:s p"rpose in the research. Instr"ctions that stress en "rance, or content of thin7ing, #ay pro "ce ifferent responses than o those that state the eCperi#enter:s interest to be in the proble# of rest an relaCation. .hese st" ies highlight the i#portance of proce "ral )ariables an li#it the irect co#parison of st" ies "tiliGing ifferent proce "res. .hey e#phasiGe again the nee

for specification of eCperi#ental p"rposes an for proce "ral choices consistent 8ith those p"rposes. In this connection the i#portance of e)al"ating the total conteCt an its i#plicit #oti)ational an e#otional conseF"ences nee s to be clearly recogniGe . -<%-

Clinical and Anecdotal #eports .he application an rele)ance of these fin ings to i)erse areas of interest ha)e procee e along 8ith the basic eCploration of these pheno#ena. +ne of the earliest interests in this area 8as reporte by SpitG in a series of articles =@B, @A, @%? 8hich ealt 8ith the eleterio"s e)elop#ental an beha)ioral effects of instit"tionaliGation an separation fro# the #other "pon infants. ( rea ing of these reports in icates that percept"al epri)ation 8as a pro#inent feat"re of the eCperience of these chil ren. ( #ore irect application of isolation an epri)ation to clinical proce "res has been atte#pte recently =1, D, B, A?. In these proce "res, patients 8ith a )ariety of clinical iagnoses 8ere 7ept in a ar7ene hospital roo#, 8ore transl"cent goggles, an ha their ar#s in car boar cylin ers. .hese perio s of isolation range fro# t8o to siC ays. (ltho"gh fe8 of the cogniti)e changes escribe earlier 8ere obser)e , these in)estigators concl" e that epri)ation le to a state of isorganiGation, an in so#e cases precipitate psychotic reactions. +n the other han , so#e gro"ps, partic"larly epressi)es, see#e to sho8 i#pro)e#ent in the for# of increase #oti)ation, socialiGation, an asserti)eness. &heno#ena a7in to those reporte in isolation an epri)ation ha)e also been reporte in a)iators, especially in high spee , high altit" e flying. Citing clinical #aterial on these flyers, ,ennett =6? co#pare their reactions to those seen in isolation st" ies. +perating in a se)erely restricte en)iron#ent 8ith eCtre#ely #onotono"s sti#"lation, a)iators ha)e reporte feelings of isolation, "nreality, an rea#li7e states. -)i ence s"ggests that these feelings, calle by so#e the Jbrea7off pheno#enon,J occ"r at ti#es in approCi#ately one-thir of 9et pilots. -arlier reference 8as #a e to the response of prisoners 8ho in solitary confine#ent apparently eCperience si#ilar reactions. 4eltGer =%B? reporte the occ"rrence of a range of effects in s"ch prisoners. .hese incl" e , on the one han , occasional tense pacing, restlessness, tension, an assa"lti)eness. +n the other han , so#e prisoners eChibit a regresse , issociate , 8ith ra8n, hypnoi , an re)erieli7e state. 3ypochon riacal states of a transient type 8ere also seen. (lrea y #entione is the 8or7 of 4en elson an ;oley =%A? 8hich sho8e the i#portance of isolation an epri)ation in polio patients. .8o recent papers ha)e appeare that stress the i#portance of these fin ings in "n erstan ing a n"#ber of pheno#ena seen in #e ical

-<6practice =A<, <1?. .hese reports stress the rele)ance of this 8or7 to the hall"cinations of cataract patients, an to the ist"rbances seen in patients 8ith orthope ic isor ers 8ho are s"spen e in traction. &ercept"al epri)ation also has rele)ance to prolonge an repetiti)e tas7s in #an#achine syste#s, s"ch as long istance ri)ing, flying, asse#bly line pro "ction, contin"o"s #onitoring "ty at isolate stations, etc. .he factor of the eCternal en)iron#ent an its infl"ence "pon beha)ior is increasingly being recogniGe for its role in a 8i e )ariety of practical sit"ations. .he fin ings isc"sse in this chapter #ay acco"nt for s"ch things as acci ents, loss of efficiency, an e#otional alienation often obser)e in these sit"ations.

Inter4ret&tions &nd I-4$i &tions ;oc"se research on the responses of h"#an s"b9ects eCpose to re "ce en)iron#ental sti#"lation has only recently beg"n. .he pheno#enal gro8th of interest in this proble# an so#e reasons for this ha)e been isc"sse . 4any of the in)estigations referre to in this paper are pilot st" iesI others lea)e #"ch to be esire in rigor, elegance, an #etho ological sophistication. (t the sa#e ti#e, these in)estigations no8 pro)i e a rich so"rce of ne8 obser)ations an hypotheses, 8hich to"ch on a 8i e )ariety of iss"es. .he fin ings, tentati)e tho"gh they are, ha)e i#portant i#plications. .he res"lts of this 8or7, of the research on c"riosity or eCploratory ri)e, an of st" ies on early sensory epri)ation con)erge to pro)i e a re)ise conception of h"#an #oti)ation. .his conception recogniGes an e#phasiGes the Ji##e iate ri)e )al"e of cogniti)e eCperienceJ as a necessary factor in a theory of #oti)ation =B@?. ;ro# the )ie8point of theory this 8or7 has i#portant i#plications for se)eral scientific isciplines. 4etho ologically it #a7es a)ailable a techniF"e for the relati)ely controlle st" y of i#agery an hall"cinations, a proble# th"s far inaccessible to eCperi#ental obser)ation 8itho"t the "se of r"gs. &ractically, it s"ggests a 8hole range of applications fro# #anage#ent of #e ical patients to high8ay esign. .heoretical acco"ntings of ho8 re "ce en)iron#ental inp"t pro "ces the )ario"s responses escribe in pre)io"s sections ha)e )arie 8i ely. +"r p"rpose here 8ill be si#ply to in icate the range of eCplanations "se an so#e of the ter#s of their analyses. *apaport =6D? isc"sses these ata fro# the )ie8point of psychoanalytic theory, in the conteCt of the relationship bet8een i an ego f"nctioning. In a etaile isc"ssion of these iss"es, he states that

-<@in the absence of eCternal sti#"lation, the ego beco#es "nable to #aintain its a"tono#y fro# the i an the Jeffecti)eness of these =ego? str"ct"res in controlling i i#p"lses #ay be i#paire J =page 19?. .he re "ce control of these i#p"lses #ay be #anifeste in the iffic"lty of thin7ing, in the "npleasant affect, e#otionality, an content of i#agery pre)io"sly isc"sse . In this for#"lation, ego f"nctioning is closely tie to eCternal sti#"lation. *"ff et al. =6%? eCten this notion to acco"nt for in i)i "al ifferences by "sing the concept of sharpness of ego bo"n aries. +rientation in ti#e an space str"ct"re the sit"ation an #ay th"s help the in i)i "al retain ego a"tono#y by 7eeping so#e ego f"nctions in operation. Since isolation estr"ct"res the i -ego relationship, initial )ariations in the ifferentiation of ego bo"n aries #ay acco"nt for the in i)i "al ifferences seen. .he increase a8areness of pri#ary process #aterial states in psychoanalytic ter#inology 8hat others ha)e escribe as the heightene a8areness of internal bo ily states. .he ecline in percept"al stability an reasoning an the increase in anCiety an i#agery see# to arise not only as a f"nction of the increase sensiti)ity to one:s o8n tho"ghts, feelings, an i eas b"t also beca"se of the absence of an eCternal reality against 8hich to )ali ate one:s inner eCperiences eCperientially or consens"ally. (ltho"gh perio ic Jregression in the ser)ice of the ego,J to "se 0ris:s phrase, can be F"ite pro "cti)e an creati)e, the s"staine inability to go thro"gh the )ali ation process see#s both to increase anCiety an the istance fro# the social co##"nity. ,"rney:s =1B? rel"ctance to lea)e his solitary confine#ent after eighteen #onths, 8hich has been obser)e in other a"tobiographical reports as 8ell, #ay be one #anifestation of this process. (t the sa#e ti#e, if one accepts 3ebb:s notion of the Ji##e iate ri)e )al"e of cogniti)e eCperienceJ =B@?, the increase recepti)ity to any cogniti)e eCperience as seen in the brain8ashing reports beco#es #ore co#prehensible. ( recent paper by ,r"ner =1D? places the 8or7 on epri)ation in a f"nctional conteCt. &erception is seen as instr"#ental beha)ior that per#its the organis# to #anage its necessary transactions 8ith the en)iron#ent. S"ccessf"l #anage#ent of these transactions epen s on acF"iring an a eF"ate internal #o el of the eCternal 8orl . -arly sensory epri)ation interferes 8ith the learning of a stable #o el. .h"s the organis# beco#es li#ite in acF"iring a f"ll range of efficient proble#-sol)ing strategies. 1epri)ation in a "lt life interferes 8ith the percept"al-cogniti)e #aintenance nee s of the organis#. .h"s, it isr"pts the )ital e)al"ation process by 8hich one #onitors -<<an corrects the #o els an strategies "se in ealing 8ith the en)iron#ent. ;ree #an et al. =B>? "tiliGe a si#ilar notion of Jpercept"al egra ationJ to acco"nt for their fin ings. .hey attrib"te the obser)e pheno#ena to the organis#:s contin"o"s search for or er an #eaning in the "nstr"ct"re percept"al en)iron#ent pro)i e in their eCperi#ental set"p.

;ro# a ne"rophysiological point of )ie8, Lin sley =%1? e#phasiGes the f"nction of the retic"lar acti)ating syste# beca"se of its role in attention, perception, an #oti)ation. .his syste# ser)es the ho#eostatic f"nction of a 9"sting inp"t-o"tp"t relationships. Sensory epri)ation is one of a class of con itions 8hich "psets the balance an th"s ist"rbs the reg"lating f"nction of the ascen ing retic"lar acti)ating syste#. With #ar7e ly re "ce inp"t, perception is isr"pte I attention gi)es 8ay to istractibilityI interest gi)es 8ay to bore o#I an acti)ity is either hel in abeyance or beco#es highly stereotype an nona apti)e. 3eron =B9? points o"t ho8 sensory an percept"al epri)ation #ay be eF"i)alent. 3e cites e)i ence to sho8 that the capacity of a sti#"l"s to e)o7e an #aintain aro"sal is lost "pon repeate eCpos"re of the sti#"l"s. 3ebb =B@? presents an eCcellent theoretical isc"ssion of the i#plications of the concept of aro"sal an the #anner in 8hich these fin ings bear "pon a )ariety of iss"es in #oti)ation theory, s"ch as the generality or specificity of ri)e states, the nee for )arie sti#"lation, an the intrinsically re8ar ing F"ality of cogniti)e acti)ity. .hese fin ings are rele)ant to the proble# of interrogation. .here are no eCperi#ental ata a)ailable in the st" ies re)ie8e bearing irectly on the relationship of isolation an epri)ation to the a#o"nt an acc"racy of infor#ation 8hich can be obtaine 8hen "n er interrogation. !onetheless, the fin ings reporte s"ggest so#e #a9or para#eters 8hich #ay facilitate or inhibit the isorganiGing effects of isolation. ,efore consi ering f"rther the i#plications of these st" ies for the interrogation proble#, it #ay be i#portant to point o"t so#e li#itations. .here has been so#e ten ency to eF"ate the effects of sensory an percept"al epri)ation st" ies 8ith those reporte "n er con itions of solitary confine#ent. +ne possibly grat"ito"s ass"#ption in eF"ating the t8o is that. the nonpatterne sti#"lation in these st" ies si#ply accelerates the ebilitating effects obser)e 8ith social isolation alone. Se)eral st" ies =D1, B>, BD? eCplicitly control or acco"nt for the social isolation )ariable as contrib"ting little to the effects obser)e . Schachter =66? st" ie the reactions of fi)e st" ents to social isolation 8itho"t interference 8ith or inary sensory -<9inp"t. 3e concl" es that for isolation t8o to eight ays see#s to pro "ce relati)ely little of the painf"l effects seen in the a"tobiographical reports of sailors an eCplorers. 3o8e)er, specific in)estigations of the social factors in the sensory epri)ation st" ies 8ill be necessary in or er to #a7e a #ore precise generaliGation. We ha)e earlier elaborate so#e aspects of the ifferences in #oti)ation bet8een the eCperi#ental sit"ations an the real life con itions. ,eca"se of these ifferences, an of li#ite ata, ca"tion in generaliGing the rele)ance of these eCperi#ental st" ies is necessary. &en ing clarification of these iss"es, so#e tentati)e i#plications #ay be s"ggeste as rele)ant. .he loss of internal stan ar s an the absence of opport"nity to )ali ate one:s i eas against an ob9ecti)e reality 8o"l see# to apply in real life as 8ell as in eCperi#ental

circ"#stances. .he bore o#, restlessness, irritability, an other #oo changes obser)e also #ay 8ell apply. .he sti#"l"s-h"nger an increase s"ggestibility 8hich ha)e been obser)e #ay #a7e an in i)i "al #ore )"lnerable to re)ealing infor#ation he #ight other8ise 8ithhol , partic"larly 8hen acco#panie by the social "ncertainty in "ce in the interrogation sit"ation. 'nprepare for these conseF"ences of isolation an epri)ation, li7e #any eCperi#ental s"b9ects, an in i)i "al #ay beco#e apprehensi)e an in ee panic7e by his reactions. .he appearance of hall"cinatoryli7e pheno#ena an their e#otional acco#pani#ents ha)e often been F"ite anCiety pro)o7ing. +n the other han , pre)io"s eCpos"re to these circ"#stances, fa#iliarity 8ith their conseF"ences, an training in i)i "als in techniF"es of ealing 8ith the# #ay 8ell increase resistance. 0no8le ge of the i#portance of retaining spatial an ti#e orientation, an self-sti#"lation in concrete tas7s, are t8o eCa#ples of techniF"es for re "cing stress by increasing psychological str"ct"re. Schachter =66? points o"t that isolates 8ho are able to 7eep occ"pie 8ith istracting acti)ities appear to s"ffer less an be #ore prone to the state of apathy. Schonbach =6<?, in an eCperi#ental st" y, has e#onstrate that a state of epri)ation is far #ore bearable "n er con itions of irrele)ant an istracti)e tho"ght than "n er con itions 8here tho"ght is concerne al#ost 8holly 8ith the so"rce of epri)ation. Since irect research on the proble# of resistance to interrogation in a realistic setting is iffic"lt, so#e reliance on the type of st" y re)ie8e here is necessary. ;"rther in)estigation of these proble#s 8ill "n o"bte ly contin"e to she ne8 light on resistance to the isorganiGing conseF"ences of epri)ation. 3o8e)er, espite their often ra#atic res"lts, these st" ies ha)e re#aine 8ithin the li#i-9>tations pose by ethical consi erations an ha)e not p"she s"b9ects to their "lti#ate li#its. In ee , polio patients s"r)i)e years in respirators 8itho"t psychosis, 8hereas prisoners, sailors, an eCplorers often s"ccessf"lly en "re long #onths of se)ere epri)ation an #onotony. ;"rther#ore, the a"tobiographical e)i ence, e)en if selfselecte , i#plies that the long ter# effects are re)ersible an in so#e instances lea)e the in i)i "al 8ith a sense of ha)ing achie)e a ne8 an better personality synthesis. ;ro# this point of )ie8, the fin ings re)ie8e #"st be consi ere as s"ggesti)e, rather than spelling o"t in final ter#s the co#plete an precise para#eters of response.

Re'eren es
1. (Gi#a 3., an Cra#er ;ern J. 1ffects of the %ecrease in sensory varia'ility on 'o%y sche)e. +ana%. J. Psychiat., 19%6, 1, %9-@D. D. (Gi#a 3., an Cra#er ;ern J. 1ffects of (artial (erce(tual isolation in )entally %istur'e% in%ivi%uals. ,is. nerv. Sys., 19%6, 1@, 11@-1DB.

B. (Gi#a 3., an Cra#er-(Gi#a ;ern J. Stu%ies on (erce(tual isolation. ,is. nerv. Sys., F.onogr. Su((l.G 19%@, 1<, !o. <, <>-<%. A. (Gi#a 3., 2ispos *. 3., an (Gi#a ;ern J. 4'servations on anaclitic thera(y %uring sensory %e(rivation, In Solo#on &., 0"bGans7y &. -., Lei er#an, &. 3. , et al. =- s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#bri ge$ 3ar)ar 'ni)er. &ress, in press. %. ,each ;. (., an Jaynes J. 1ffects of early e*(erience u(on the 'ehavior of ani)als. Psychol. Bull., 19%A, %1, DB9-D6B. 6. ,ennett (. 4. 3. Sensory %e(rivation in aviation. In &. Solo#on, &. -. 0"bGans7y , &. 3. Lei er#an, et al. =- s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#bri ge$ 3ar)ar 'ni)er. &ress, in press. @. ,eCton W. 3. So)e effects of (erce(tual isolation on hu)an su'<ects. 'np"blishe issertation. 4c/ill 'ni)er., 19%B. octoral

<. ,eCton W. 3., 3eron W., an Scott .. 3. 1ffects of %ecrease% variation in the sensory environ)ent. +ana%. J. Psychol., 19%A, <, @>-@6. 9. ,i er#an (. 1. +o))unist techni=ues of coercive interrogation. Lac7lan (ir ;orce ,ase, .eCasI (ir ;orce &ersonnel an .raining *esearch Center, 1ece#ber 19%6. A0P&R+ ,evelo()ent Re(ort .!%6-1BD. 1>. ,i er#an (. 1. +o))unist atte)(ts to elicit false confessions fro) Air 0orce (risoners of ar. Bull. N. !. Aca%. .e%., 19%@, BB, 616-6D%. 11. ,o#bar (. &he voyage of the -ereti=ue. !e8 6or7$ Si#on & Sch"ster, 19%B. 1D. ,r"ner J. S. &he cognitive conse=uences of early sensory %e(rivation. In &. Solo#on, &. -. 0"bGans7y, &. 3. Lei er#an, et al. =- s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#bri ge$ 3ar)ar 'ni)er. &ress, in press. 1B. ,"rney C. Solitary +onfine)ent. !e8 6or7$ Co8ar -4cCann, 19%D. 1A. ,"tler ,. (. ,iscri)ination learning 'y rhesus )on"eys to visual e*(loration )otivation. J. co)(. (hysiol. Psychol., 19%B, A6, 9%-9<. 1%. ,yr *. -. Alone. !e8 6or7$ &"tna#s, 19B<.

-9116. Ca#berari J. 1. &he effects of sensory isolation on suggesti'le an% nonsuggesti'le (sychology gra%uate stu%ents. 'np"blishe octoral issertation, 'ni)er. of 'tah, 19%<. 1@. Cohen ,. 1., *osenba"# /., 1obie S. I., an /ottlieb J. S. Sensory isolationB -allucinagenic effects of a 'rief (roce%ure. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19%9, 1D9, A<6-A91. 1<. Cohen S. I., Sil)er#an (. J., ,ressler /., an Sh#a)onian ,. Pro'le)s in isolation stu%ies. In &. Solotrion, &. -. 0"bGans7y, &. 3. Lei er#an, et al. =- s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#bri ge$ 3ar)ar 'ni)er. &ress, in press.

19. Cohen W. So)e (erce(tual an% (hysiological as(ects of unifor) visual sti)ulation. Washington, 1. C.$ *esearch an 1e)elop#ent 1i)ision, +ffice of the S"rgeon /eneral, 1epart#ent of the (r#y. 19%<, Progress Re(ort No. 6. D>. Cohen W., an Ca 8alla er .. C. Cessation of )is"al eCperience "n er prolonge "nifor# )is"al sti#"lation . (#er. &sychologist, 19%<, 1B, A1>. =(bstract? D1. 1a)is J. 4., 4cCo"rt W. ;., an Solo#on &. Sensory %e(rivationB F6G 1ffects of social contact, FAG 1ffects of ran%o) visual sti)ulation. &aper rea at (#er. Psychiatric Ass., &hila elphia, (pril 19%<. DD. 1a)is 0. 1*tre)e social isolation of a chil%. A)er. J. Sociol., 19A>, A%, %%A-%6%. DB. 1a)is 0. 0inal note on a case of e*tre)e isolation. A)er. J. Sociol., 19A@, %>, ABD-AB@. DA. 1a)is *. C. So)atic activity un%er re%uce% sti)ulation. J. co)(. (hysiol. Psychol., 19%9, %D, B>9-B1A. D%. 1e#erit W., an 0leit#an !. &he relation of eye )ove)ents %uring slee( to %rea) activityB An o'<ective )etho% for the stu%y of %rea)ing. J. e*(. Psychol., 19%@, %B, BB9-BA6. D6. 1ennis W. Infant reaction to restraintB an evaluation of WatsonDs theory. &rans. N. !. Aca%. Sci., 19A>, Ser. II, D, D>D-D1<. D@. 1ennis W. Infant %evelo()ent un%er con%itions of restricte% (ractice an% of )ini)u) social sti)ulation. Genet. Psychol. .onogr., 19A1, DB, 1AB-191. D<. 1oane ,. 0., 4ahatoo W., 3eron W., an Scott .. 3. +hanges in (erce(tual function after isolation. +ana%. J. Psychol., 19%9, 1B, D1>-D19. D9. -)arts -. 2. Neuro(hysiological )echanis)s un%erlying hallucinations. &aper rea Sy#posi"# on 3all"cinations, A)er. Ass. A%vance). Sci., Washington, 1. C., 1ece#ber 19%<. at

B>. ;ree #an S. J., /r"neba"# 3. '., an /reenblatt 4. Perce(tual an% cognitive changes in sensory %e(rivation. In &. Solo#on, &. -. 0"bGans7y, &. 3. Lei er#an , et al. =- s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#bri ge$ 3ar)ar 'ni)er. &ress, in press. B1. ;re" S. &he inter(retation of %rea)s. Lon on$ (llen Sc$ 'n8in, 191%. BD. /ol berger L., an 3olt *. *. 1*(eri)ental interference ith reality coiltact F(erce(tual isolationGB .etho% an% grou( results. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19%<, 1D@, 99-11D. BB. /ol berger L., an 3olt *. *. 1*(eri)ental interference ith reality contactB In%ivi%ual %ifferences. In &. Solo#on, &. -. 0"bGans7y, &. 3. Lei er#an, et al. =- s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#bri ge$ 3ar)ar 'ni)er. &ress, in press. BA. 3arlo8 3. ;. .ice, )on"eys, )en, an% )otives. Psychol. Rev., 19%B, 6>, DB-BD. B%. 3arris (. Sensory %e(rivation in schi3o(hrenia. J. )ent. Sci., 19%9, 1>%, DB%-DB@.

-9D-

B6. 3art#ann 3. 1go (sychology an% the (ro'le) of a%a(tation. !e8 6or7$ Internat, 'ni)er. &ress, 19%<. =+riginally p"blishe in 19B9.? B@. 3ebb 1. +. ,rives an% the +NS Fconce(tual nervous syste)G. Psychol. Rev., 19%%, 6D, DAB-D%A. B<. 3ebb 1. +., 3eath -. S., an St"art -. (. 1*(eri)ental %eafness. +ana%. J. Psychol., 19%A, <, 1%D-1%6. B9. 3eron W. +ognitive an% (hysiological effects of (erce(tual isolation. In &. Solo#on, &. -. 0"bGans7y, &. 3. Lci er#an, et al. =- s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#bri ge$ 3ar)ar 'ni)er. &ress, in press. A>. 3eron W., ,eCton W. 3., an 3ebb, ,. 4. +ognitive effects of a %ecrease% variatiou in the sensory environ)ent. A)er. Psychologist, 19%B, <, B66. =(bstract? A1. 3eron. W., 1oane ,. 0., an Scott .. 3. 5isual %istur'ances after (rolonge% (erce(tual isolation. +ana%. J. Psychol., 19%6, 1>, 1B-1<. AD. 3in7le L. -., Jr., an Wolff 3. /. +o))unist interrogation an% in%octrination of J-ne#ies of the StateJ. Analysis of )etho%s use% 'y the +o))unist State Police. =Special *eport?, A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%6, @6, 11%-1@A. AB. 3ochberg J., .riebel W., an Sea#an /. +olor a%a(tation un%er con%itions of hornogenous visual sti)ulation FGan3fel%G. J. e*(. Psychol., 19%1, A1, 1%B-1%9. AA. 3ollan J. /. -u)an vigilance. Science. 19%<, 1D<, 61-6@. A%. 0an el -. J., 4yers .. I., an 4"rphy 1. ,. Influence of (rior ver'ali3ation an% instructions on visual sensations re(orte% un%er con%itions of re%uce% sensory in(ut. A)er. Psychologist. 19%<, 1B, BBA. =(bstract? A6. 0"bGaris7y &. -. .etho%ological an% conce(tual (ro'le)s in the stu%y of sensory %e(rivation. A)er. Psychologist, 19%<, 1B, BBA. =(bstract? A@. 0"bGans7y &. -., Lei er#an &. 3., 4en elson J., et al. A co)(arison of t o con%itions of sensory %e(rivation. Pa(er rea% at A)er. &sychol. (ss., Washington, 1. C., Septe#ber 19%<. A<. Lei er#an &. 3., 4en elson J., WeCler 1., an Solo#on &. Sensory %e(rivationB +linical as(ects. A. .. A. Arch. int. .e%., 19%<, 1>1, B<9-B96. A9. Litton *. J. J.ho"ght refor#J of 19%6, 19, 1@B-19%. estern civilians in +hinese +o))unist (risons. Psychiat.,

%>. Lilly J. C. .ental effects ofD re%uction of or%inary levels of (hysical sti)uli on intact, healthy (ersons. Psychiat. res. Re(. A)er. Psychiat. Ass., 19%6, %, 1-D<. %1. Lin sley 1. Are there co))on factors in sensory %e(rivation, sensory %istortion, an% sensory overloa%C In &. Solo#on, &. -. 0"bGans7y, &. 3. Lei er#an, et al. =; s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#bri ge$ 3ar)ar 'ni)er. &ress, in press. %D. 4ac78orth !. 3. Researches on the )easure)ent of hu)an (erfor)ance. .e%. res. +ouncil. s(ec. Re(. Ser., !o. D6<, Lon on$ 3. 4. S. +., 19%>.

%B. 4eltGer 4. Solitary confine)ent. In Grou( for the A%vance)ent of Psychiatry. 0actors use% to increase the susce(ti'ility of in%ivi%uals to forceful in%octrinations 4'servations an% e*(eri)ents. !e8 6or7$ /(& &"blications +ffice, 19%6, /(& Sy#posi"# !o. B, 96-1>B. %A. 4en elson J., an ;oley J. 4. An a'nor)ality of )ental function affecting (atients (olio)yelitis in tan" ty(e res(irators. &rans. A)er. Neurol. Ass., 19%6, <1, 1BA-1B<. ith

%%. 4en elson J., 0"bGans7y &. -., Lei er#an &. 3., et al. +atechol a)ine e*cretion an% 'ehavior %uring sensory %e(rivation. A. .. A. Arch. genet. Psychiat., 196>, D, 1A@-1%%.

-9B%6. 4en elson J., 0"bGans7y &. -., Lei er#an &. 3., et al. Physiological an% (sychological as(ects of sensory %e(rivationB A case analysis. In &. Solo#on, &. -. 0"bGans7y, &. 3. Lei er#an, et al. =- s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#bri ge$ 3ar)ar 'ni)er. &ress, in press. %@. 4en elson J., Solo#on &., an Lin e#ann -. -allucinations of (olio)yelitis (atients %uring treat)ent in a res(irator. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19%<, 1D6, AD1-AD<. %<. 4ontgo#ery 0. C. &he role of the e*(loratory %rive in learning. J. co)(. (hysiol. Psychol., 19%A, A@, 6>-6A. %9. +r#iston 1. W. &he effects of sensory %e(rivation an% sensory 'o)'ar%)ent on a((arent )ove)ent threshol%s. A)er. Psychologist, 19%<, 1B, B<9. =(bstract? 6>. &etrie (., Collins W., an Solo#on &. Pain sensitivity, sensory %e(rivation an% susce(ti'ility to satiation. Science, 19%<, 1D<, 1AB1- 1ABB. 61. &osterna7 Jean 4., ;le#ing .. C., an -)arts -. 2. 1ffects of interru(tion of the visual (ath ay on the res(onse to geniculate sti)ulation. Science, 19%9, 1D9, B9-A>. 6D. *apaport 1. &he theory of ego autono)yB A generali3ation . Bull. .enninger +lin., 19%<, DD, 1BB%. 6B. *itter Christiane -. A o)an in the (olar night. !e8 6or7$ 1"tton, 19%A. 6A. *osenba"# /., 1obie S. I., an Cohen ,. 1. 5isual recognition threshol%s follo ing sensory %e(rivation. A)er. J. Psychol., 19%9, @D, AD9-ABB. 6%. *"ff /. -., Le)y -. 5., an .haler 2. 3. 0actors influencing reaction to re%uce% sensory in(ut. In &. Solo#on, &. -. 0"bGans7y, &. 3. Lei er#an, et al. =- s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#bri ge$ 3ar)ar 'ni)er. &ress, in press. 66. Schachter S. &he (sychology of affiliation. Stanfor , Calif.$ Stanfor 'ni)er. &ress, 19%9. 6@. Schein -. 3. &he +hinese in%octrination (rogra) for (risoners of 'rain ashing. Psychiatry, 19%6, 19, 1A9-1@D. arI A stu%y of atte)(te%

6<. SchVnbach &. Cognition, )otivation an% ti)e (erce(tion. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%9, %<, 19%-D>D.

69. Scott .. 3., ,eCton W. 3., 3eron W., an 1oane ,. 0. +ognitive effects of (erce(tual isolation. +ana%. J. Psychol., 19%9, 1B, D>>-D>9. @>. Singh J. (. L., an 5ingg *. 4. Wolf>chil%ren an% feral )an. !e8 6or7$ 3arper, 19AD. @1. S#all 4. 3. 4n so)e (sychical relations of society an% solitu%e. Pe%agogical Se)inary, 19>>, @, 1B-69. @D. Solo#on &., Lei er#an &. 3., 4en elson J., an WeCler 1. Sensory %e(rivation$ A revie . A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%@, 11A, B%@-B6B. @B. SpitG *. (. -os(italis). An in=uiry into the genesis of (sychiatric con%itions in early chil%hoo%. Psychoanal. Stu%. +hil%., 1, %B-@A. !e8 6or7$ Internat. 'ni)er. &ress, 19A%. @A. SpitG *. (. -os(italis)B A follo >u( re(ort. &sychoanal. St" . Chil ., D, 11B-11@. !e8 6or7$ Internat. 'ni)er. &ress, 19A6. @%. SpitG *. (. Anaclitic %e(ression. Psychoanal. Stu%. +hil%., D, B1B-BAD. !e8 6or7$ Internat. 'ni)er. &ress, 19A6. @6. 2ernon J. (., an 3off#an J. 1ffects of sensory %e(rivation on learning rate in hu)an 'eings. Science, 19%6, 1DB, 1>@A-1>@%. @@. 2ernon J. (., an 4c/ill .. -. &he effect of sensory %e(rivation u(on tote learning. A)er. J. Psychol., 19%@, @>, 6B@-6B9,

-9A@<. 2ernon J. (., 4c/ill .. -., /"lic7 W. L., an Can lan 1. *. &he effect of hu)an isolation u(on so)e (erce(tual an% )otor s"ills. In &. Solo#on, &. -. 0"bGans7y, &. 3. Lei er#an, et al. =- s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#bri ge$ 3ar)ar 'ni)er. &ress, in press. @9. 2ernon J. (., 4c/ill .. -., an Schiff#an 3. 5isual hallucinations %uring (erce(tual isolation. +ana%. J. Psychol., 19%<, 1D, B1-BA. <>. WeCler 1., 4en elson J., Lei er#an &. 3., an Solo#on &. Sensory %e(rivationB A techni=ue for stu%ying (sychiatric as(ects of stress. A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%<, @9, DD%-DBB. <1. 5is7in -. Isolation stress in )e%ical an% )ental illness. J. A)er. ree%. Ass., 19%<, 16<, 1AD@1AB1.

CHAPTER

-9%-

The use of drugs in interrogation

L+'IS (. /+..SC3(L0

Introdu tion .he p"rpose of this chapter is to re)ie8 a)ailable scientific 7no8le ge on the "se of phar#acologic agents to infl"ence the co##"nication of infor#ation 8hich, for one reason or another, an infor#ant oes not 8ish to re)eal. .his proble# in co##"nication is not an "nfa#iliar one to the psychiatrist, 8ho often ai#s to reco)er "nconscio"s conflicts or #e#ories fro# the ne"rotic or psychotic patient in the hope of pro "cing therape"tic benefit. .he p"rpose of this chapter, ho8e)er, is not so #"ch to re)ie8 o"r 7no8le ge on ho8 to bring to a person:s a8areness, the feelings, i#p"lses, an i eas of 8hich he is not conscio"sly a8areI rather, the ob9ect is to foc"s partic"larly on the proble# of getting ata fro# a so"rce of infor#ation 8hen the in i)i "al is a8are of the infor#ation b"t oes not 8ant to co##"nicate it, either beca"se the gi)ing #ight incri#inate hi# or p"t into possible 9eopar y an aggregate of people to8ar 8ho# he feels strong allegiance, i entification, an belonging. In the physician:s c"sto#ary role as a helping person an as a healer, it is generally contrary to his #etho of operation to e#ploy any coercion, o)ert or s"btle, to in "ce a patient to beha)e in a 8ay that #ay be etri#ental to hi#self or to his social or national gro"p of origin. Coercion #ay be "se , ho8e)er, if the patient is consi ere to be beha)ing in a #anner that is estr"cti)e to hi#self =e.g., a iabetic ref"sing to ta7e ins"lin or an alcoholic ref"sing to stop rin7ing? or to his social gro"p. ;"rther#ore, the co e of ethics, partic"larly of the psychiatrist, or inarily bin s the physician to 7eep -96confi ential the secrets that his patients i#part to hi#, 8hether or not the patient has been a8are or "na8are of their nat"re. In the practice of psychiatry, the co e of respecting an 7eeping the confi ences of a patient is consi ere to be a tool that facilitates the confession or eCpression of other8ise taboo #aterial fro# the patient. .he psychiatrist:s office is, i eally, one place 8here the patient fin s that he has i##"nity fro# p"niti)e or isappro)ing action by the society in 8hich he li)es, eCcept for the a )erse criticis# forthco#ing fro# the patient:s o8n internaliGe stan ar s of beha)ior. +ccasionally the psychiatrist:s occ"pation brings hi# into contact 8ith patients 8ith 8ho# the psychiatrist hi#self is le into a conflict bet8een his interest in

cha#pioning the 8elfare an pri)ilege co##"nications of his in i)i "al patient an that of the 8elfare of the gro"p$ fa#ily, city, state, nation. In s"ch a F"an ary, e.g., the F"estion of 8hat to o abo"t a person 8ho has confi e his participation in a #a9or cri#e, the physician:s obligation to the in i)i "al an to the co##"nity #ay be in opposition to one another. In this position the physician #ay be force to isF"alify hi#self as a contin"ing confi ant for the patient "ntil the patient has re#e ie his social obligation to the state. 4entioning these sit"ations an the c"sto#ary attit" e of the #e ical profession has a bearing on the s"bstance of this report. .he "se of r"gs in obtaining a confession fro# a cri#inal, or in obtaining infor#ation that a so"rce #ay conscio"sly 8ish to 7eep confi ential for fear of reperc"ssion to hi#self or his gro"p, is fra"ght 8ith ethical conflicts for the physician. .his eCplains in part 8hy there is a relati)e pa"city of syste#atiGe p"blishe scientific in)estigation by physiciaits on this #atter. .he general feeling in 8estern co"ntries regar ing the e#ploy#ent of che#ical agents to J#a7e people o things against their 8illJ has precl" e serio"s syste#atic st" y of the potentialities of r"gs for interrogation. It has not, ho8e)er, precl" e consi erable spec"lation on the s"b9ect, so#e of it rather "nrealistic. 4"ch rele)ant scientific infor#ation has been p"blishe on the therape"tic e#ploy#ent of r"gs. .he b"l7 of the #e ical articles of the last fe8 years on the effects of r"gs on beha)ior eals 8ith the "se an effects of these r"gs on the #entally ill pop"lation. In fact, a gro8ing a)alanche of articles of this type sprang "p 8ith the a )ent of tranF"iliGing r"gs. ;ro# this large bo y of p"blications, the re)ie8er ai#s to eCtrapolate to the proble#s of interrogation. .hen, there is a notably s#aller gro"p of st" ies that eals principally 8iih eCplorations in #etho s of assessing the psychophar#a-9@cologic effects of r"gs on relati)ely nor#al in i)i "als. ;ro# these st" ies, too, the re)ie8er ai#s to transfer 8hat has been learne to the proble#s of interrogation. ;inally, there are the relati)ely rare p"blishe in)estigations on the "se of r"gs for p"rposes of interrogation in police or sec"rity proce "resI these are re)ie8e caref"lly beca"se of their irect rele)ance. !o p"blishe reports ha)e co#e to the attention of this a"thor etailing the scientific application of r"gs by intelligence agencies of any nation as a #eans of obtaining infor#ation. (pparently, 8hat 7no8le ge is a)ailable, 8hether eri)e fro# haphaGar eCperience or syste#atic st" y, is not accessible in open so"rces. .his re)ie8er fo"n only t8o references to"ching on this topic. *olin =11D? cas"ally clai#s that the !aGis "se #escaline to get infor#ation fro# prisoners at 1acha". In isc"ssing the #etho s of co##"nist in octrination of (#ericans 8ho ha)e fallen into the han s of co##"nists or co##"nist-controlle co"ntries, 3in7le =6D? has state that the #etho s of *"ssian interrogation an in octrination are eri)e fro# age-ol police #etho s that ha)e been syste#atiGe , an are not epen ent on r"gs, hypnotis#, or any other special proce "re esigne by scientists. 1

Met"odo$o%i &$ Pro($e-s in Deter-inin% t"e A44$i &(i$it# o' Dru%s to Interro%&tion Pro edures. Nons4e i'i E''e ts o' Dru%s on Ver(&$ Be"&,ior +ne of the cr"cial F"estions arising in e)al"ating the "se of a r"g for interrogation techniF"es is 8hat responses are relate to the phar#acologic acti)ity of the r"g a #inistere an 8hat responses are relate to so#e other aspects of the transactions ta7ing place 8hen a person recei)es #e ication fro# another person. ( large )ariety of nonphar#acologic factors can affect the responses of an in i)i "al after getting a ose of #e ication =see also 4asser#an an &echtel, 1>D?. In fact, one of the #a9or proble#s plag"ing in)estigators of
&op"lar literat"re contains a n"#ber of acco"nts alleging the "se of r"gs in interrogations. *ecent 8ell-p"bliciGe eCa#ples incl" e the allege "se of #escaline against Car inal 4in sGenty =S. 0. S8ift, &he +ar%inalDs Story, !e8 6or7$ 4ac#illan, 19A9?I the prison #e#oir of an (#erican ci)ilian hel by the Chinese Co##"nists =*. .. *yan, I ca)e 'ac" fro) a Re% %eath cell, Satur%ay 1vening Post, Jan"ary 1@, DA, B1, an ;ebr"ary @, 19%B?I an the acco"nt by the Co##"nist e itor, 3enri (lleg, of an allege "se of so i"# pentothal in interrogations he recei)e 8hile hel by ;rench forces in (lgeria =3. (lleg, &he Juestion, !e8 6or7$ /eorge ,raGiller, 19%<, pp. 91-1>D?.
1

-9<ps classWJcontin"e Jychophar#acologic relationships is ho8 to iscri#inate the factors that are responsible for obser)e effects, ho8 to single o"t factors so their sole effects can be obser)e , an ho8 to st" y s"##ation an co#bine effects of ifferent factors.( series of nonphar#acologic factors 8ithin the total transaction of a person gi)ing another person a r"g has been fo"n to be #ore or less capable of contrib"ting to the responses occ"rring 8ith a #inistration of the r"g. .hese factors #ay be liste an 8hat is 7no8n abo"t each 8ill be ta7en "p separately. 1. *eactions "e pri#arily to the Jplacebo pheno#enon.J D. Silent a #inistration. B. *eactions to attit" es or #oti)ations of the person a #inistering the #e ication an interacting 8ith the infor#ant. A. 1r"g effects #o ifie by the c"rrent state of the recipient organis#.

#eactions Due Primarily to the $Placebo Phenomenon%$ i&e&% #eactions to Ta'ing a Medicineli'e Substance% !ven Though It Is Pharmacologically Inert .here has been an increasing interest in the i#portance an #echanis# of action of the placebo =A6, 6@, <B, 1B%, 1B6?. .he st" ies of ,eecher an his gro"p =@, <? in icate that B> to %> per cent of in i)i "als are placebo reactors, that is, respon 8ith sy#pto#atic relief to ta7ing an inert s"bstance. If one is intereste in the phar#acology of a ne8 r"g an tries it o"t on a gro"p of patients, a thir to a half of this gro"p 8ill be relie)e of their sy#pto#s by a placeboI they react fa)orably to the syringe, pills or caps"le, regar less of 8hat it contains. .h"s they il"te the significant ata eri)e fro# the half or t8o-thir s of the gro"p that react only to the acti)e ingre ient in the syringe or caps"le. In st" ying a ne8 r"g-8hether one is intereste

in applying its pharniacologic effect to8ar the alle)iation of pain, a#elioration of e#otional istress, or the facilitation of co##"nication of co)ert infor#ation-the scientist is not pri#arily intereste in the s"b9ecti)e an beha)ioral effects of syringes an pills. .h"s the scientist is oblige to ta7e into acco"nt the placebo reactors, 8ho #"st be screene o"t if one is to get an acc"rate i ea of 8hat the r"g itself oes. +f co"rse, to relie)e pain or facilitate co##"nication in a patient or prisoner, the Jplacebo pheno#enonJ can be #a e "se of itself an -99the in)estigator can eCpect that in B> to %> per cent of trials pain #ay be relie)e or interrogation #ay be facilitate .So#e a itional factors are 7no8n 8hich increase the li7elihoo of a placebo effect$ 1. ( sy#pathetic 8o#an in)estigator can obtain a higher percentage of pain relief fro# )ario"s nie icati#is than can a col er, #ore re#ote #ale =@?. D. In i)i "als "n er increase stress are #ore li7ely to respon to placebos =9?. B. /reater responsi)eness is associate 8ith certain personality characteristics accor ing to *orschach fin ings 8ith placebo reactors in a gro"p of 16D postoperati)e patients$ =a? #ore than one Jinsi esJ responseI =b? S"# C X 4I =c? (Y Z %>YI = ? C; X ;CI =e? #ore than t8o QanCietyR responsesI =f? less than t8o QhostilityR responsesI =g? a)erage ; [ Y %1I =<B?. A. Clinical psychiatric fin ings in the sa#e st" y regar ing placebo reactors fo"n greater responsi)eness characteristic of in i)i "als 8ho are #ore anCio"s, #ore self-centere , #ore epen ent on o"tsi e sti#"lation than on their o8n #ental processesI persons 8ho eCpress their nee s #ore freely socially, 8ho are tal7ers, an 8ho rain off anCiety by tal7ing an relating to others. In contrast to the placebo reactors, the nonreactors are clinically #ore rigi an #ore e#otionally controlle than a)erage for their age an bac7gro"n . !o seC an I.S. ifferences bet8een placebo reactors an nonreactors 8ere fo"n =<B?. If one is intereste in ascertaining 8hether a r"g pro "ces a gi)en effect to a egree greater than a placebo, it beco#es ob)io"s that the effect pro "ce by the r"g #"st eCcee the chance )ariations of the placebo effect to a reliable eCtent. In eCperi#ental in)estigations eCploring the "sef"lness of r"gs for )ario"s p"rposes, the placebo an other nonspecific reactions to #e ica#ents #"st be separate fro# the effects specific to the acti)e r"g. 1e)ising an eCperi#ental st" y "sing infrah"#an ani#als to assess the phar#acologic effect of a r"g only postpones the assess#ent of the co#plicate responses li7ely to occ"r 8hen the r"g is gi)en to a h"#an being. ;or the researcher intereste in iscri#inating specific fro# nonspecific effects of r"gs, ,eecher =@? has o"tline a series of principles an practices on the basis of se)enteen r"g st" ies in 8hich he has participate , as follo8s$
1. S"b9ecti)e responses are the res"ltant of the action of the original sti#"l"s an the psychic #o ification of that sti#"l"s.

-1>>o o o o D. 4an is the essential eCperi#ental s"b9ect for a efiniti)e ans8er to F"estions in this fiel , an #en are easier to 8or7 8ith than 8o#en, for 8ith #en the controls are si#pler. B. .he in)estigating staff is constant "ring any gi)en series of eCperi#ents. A. .he J"n7no8nsJ techniF"e is e#ploye thro"gho"t. .he agents teste an the ti#e they are teste are "n7no8n not only to the s"b9ects b"t to the obser)ers as 8ell. .his reF"ires the "se of placebos, also as "n7no8ns. %. When a ne8 agent is to be co#pare 8ith the agents of past eCperience, an this is nearly al8ays the case, a stan ar of reference is reF"ire =#orphine in stan ar iGe osage is "se as the stan ar for analgesics, etc.?. 8i thWJ%YJX o o o o 6. *an o#iGation of ne8 agent, placebo, an a stan ar of reference is essential. @. Significant co#parisons of si e actions of agents can be #a e only on the basis of eF"al strength in ter#s of their pri#ary therape"tic effect. <. 4athe#atical )ali ation of s"ppose ifference in effecti)eness of the t8o agents is necessary. 9. .he s"b9ecti)e =an beha)ioral? effects of r"gs can be F"antifie acc"rately an rapi ly only 8hen placebo reactors are screene o"t.

Silent Administration .he ob)erse of placebo a #inistration, the eliberate a #inistration of an inert #aterial, is silent a #inistration, the "n7no8n a #inistratio" of a phar#acologically potent s"bstance. .he act of a #inistering a #e ication "s"ally potentiates its effect since it in)o7es the stat"s of a professional person an the prestige of social instit"tions an organiGations that are a part of the setting. ( general recognition of this fact has #a e the control of the placebo effect a ro"tine feat"re of all caref"lly esigne r"g st" ies. Con)ersely, silent a #inistration has recei)e little or no attention. !ot all psychoacti)e r"gs are eF"ally s"ite to silent a #inistration. ( #ini#al reF"ire#ent is the s"ccessf"l #as7ing of the r"g by s"bstances other8ise intro "ce into the bo y, s"ch as foo s, liF"i s, s#o7e, or air. ;ro# this point of )ie8 the i eal r"g 8o"l be tasteless, o orless, an co#pletely sol"ble. .heoretically, the net effect of a silently a #inistere r"g sho"l be eF"al to its effect follo8ing ro"tine proce "res #in"s its placebo effect. In practice this effect 8o"l be #o ifie by the state of the organis#, the general setting in 8hich the s"b9ect fin s hi#self, an his typical an persistent #o es of reacting, i.e., personality-constit"tional factors. +ne #ay eCpect a )ery ifferent reaction fro# a s"b9ect 8ho is sensiti)e to his internal, s"b9ecti)e processes than fro# one 8ho has learne to isregar an re9ect the# in fa)or of Job9ecti)eJ eCternal c"es. Li7e8ise, reactions 8ill )ary bet8een s"b9ects 8ho yiel to an eCpan "pon their internal eCperiences an those 8ho -1>1stri)e to #aintain a stea y state by eCercising eliberate control in the #anner of negati)e fee bac7 co#pensation.

;or these reasons it is iffic"lt to specify osage le)els at 8hich a s"b9ect is li7ely to beco#e a8are that he is respon ing to a r"g, since so #"ch epen s on personality an sit"ational factors an on the s"b9ect:s pre)io"s eCperience 8ith r"gs. In nai)e s"b9ects #o erate oses 8hich noticeably #o ify their beha)ior #ay escape their attention, or be ascribe to other so"rces, s"ch as fatig"e, thirst, apprehension, yspepsia, etc. .he 9" icio"s choice of a r"g 8ith #ini#al si e effects, its #atching to the s"b9ect:s personality, caref"l ga"ging of osage, an a sense of ti#ing, #a7es silent a #inistration a har -to-eF"al ally for the hypnotist intent on pro "cing self-f"lfilling an inescapable s"ggestions. S"rpassing J#agic roo#J proce "res in their efficacy, the r"g effects sho"l pro)e e)en #ore co#pelling to the s"b9ect since the percei)e sensations originate entirely 8ithin hi#self.

#eactions to Attitudes or Motivations o the Person Administering the Medication and Interacting (ith the In ormant +ne of the #a9or proble#s in)ol)e in the assess#ent of r"g effects is isting"ishing the psychophar#acologic effect of a r"g fro# that conscio"sly or "nconscio"sly esire by the person a #inistering the r"g. (nother relate proble# of conseF"ence is the eCtent to 8hich a r"g effect, note by one person "sing the r"gs to achie)e his special ai#s, #ay be eCpecte to occ"r in the han s of another person "sing the sa#e r"g for an essentially ifferent ai#. (ltho"gh one ass"#ption of this present report is that r"g effects are to so#e eCtent generaliGable fro# one sit"ation to another, the li#itations of s"ch generaliGing nee to be clarifie . .he inference eCists that the reaction to a specific r"g 8hen "se by a physician to relie)e the sy#pto#s of a patient 8ill pro "ce a si#ilar response 8hen "se to eCtract co)ert infor#ation fro# a recalcitrant so"rce. In e)ery instance, 8here s"ch eCtrapolations are #a e fro# one s"ch sit"ation to another, the re)ie8er oes so #erely beca"se little or no ger#ane scientific reports are a)ailable in connection 8ith the interrogation sit"ation. In e)ery instance 8here s"ch an eCtrapolation is #a e, it is for he"ristic p"rposes, an the generaliGe i eas an concepts reF"ire caref"l testing an )ali ation. What is so#e of the e)i ence that attit" es an #oti)ation of the gi)er of the r"g #ay affect the obser)e responsesL ( classical st" y by 3ill et al. =61? ill"strates ho8 the beha)ioral -1>Deffect of a r"g #ay be infl"ence by the incenti)es gi)en for participating in a r"g st" y. .he s"b9ects 8ere for#er narcotic a icts 8ho )ol"nteere for research. .hey 8ere accepte after thoro"gh screening by a boar of hospital psychiatrists an other professional personnel, 8ith a )ie8 to selecting only s"b9ects 8ith histories of repeate relapses to narcotic a iction an )ery "nfa)orable prognoses for f"t"re abstention fro# narcotic$ r"gs. Si#ple )is"al-#an"al reaction ti#es 8ere #eas"re $ 8itho"t a #inistration of r"gsI %> #in after s"bc"taneo"s in9ection of #orphineI an %> #in after s"bc"taneo"s in9ection of D%> #g of pentobarbitalI each 8as #eas"re "n er fo"r incenti)e con itions, efine in ter#s of the sche "le of #orphine re8ar s offere for participation in the eCperi#ents. When a fiCe re8ar 8as gi)en a 8ee7 in a )ance of the tests, #orphine accelerate an pentobarbital slo8e reaction

ti#es. When a fiCe re8ar 8as sche "le for eli)ery after co#pletion of the tests, neither r"g affecte reaction ti#es significantly. When the a#o"nt of the posttest re8ar 8as #a e contingent "pon spee of perfor#ance, #orphine eCerte no significant effect, b"t pentobarbital accelerate reaction ti#es. When the sa#e gro"p of s"b9ects 8ere reteste one to three ays later, 8ith posttest re8ar s again fiCe for all s"b9ects regar less of perfor#ance, #orphine slo8e reaction ti#es an pentobarbitat ha no significant effect. In other 8or s, epen ing on the incenti)e con itions arrange by the in)estigators, the sa#e ose of either #orphine or pentobarbital eCerte . either no effect or acte as a Jsti#"lantJ or as a J epressantJ on si#ple )is"al-#an"al reaction ti#es. !e)ertheless, the action of either of these r"gs 8as JspecificJ 8ith respect to the actions of the otherI th"s, the action of #orphine change fro# Jsti#"lantJ to J epressantJ 8hen con itions change fro# Jlo8J incenti)e =re8ar s fiCe an eli)ere before testing? to JhighJ incenti)e =re8ar s contingent on perfor#ance an sche "le for eli)ery after testing?I 8hereas the action of pentobarbital change fro# J epressantJ to Jsti#"lantJ 8hen i entical changes in incenti)e 8ere #a e. ;"rther analysis of the ata of 3ill et al. re)eale that, in co#parison 8ith the range of changes in #ean reaction ti#es pro "ce by )arying the incenti)e le)el 8hen no r"g 8as a #inistere , #orphine re "ce b"t pentobarbital increase the sensiti)ity of the s"b9ect:s perfor#ance to changes in incenti)e le)el. ( st" y by Wolf an *ipley =1B@? ill"strates f"rther that the effect pro "ce by a r"g epen s not only on the partic"lar agent "se , the ose an ro"te of a #inistration, b"t also on the circ"#stances "n er 8hich it is gi)en or ho8 its effect is #eas"re . =See also$ *in7el, 11>, 111I Sargant, 116.? .hey obser)e the effects of a#o-1>Bbarbital =>.1 to >.% g# intra)eno"sly? on @>> patients 8ith )ario"s co#plaints, incl" ing hypertension an Jtension hea ache.J .hey fo"n that after a #inistration of the r"g, the patients 8ere Jat easeJ if the setting 8as Jsec"reJ an frien ly, b"t the patients 8ere tense an anCio"s 8ith eF"al facility if ist"rbing topics 8ere intro "ce "ring inter)ie8s. .he effects of the a#obarbital on hea ache an bloo press"re )arie si#ilarly 8ith the nat"re of the interpersonal #ilie". (nother ill"stration is the report of ,eecher =@? that a higher percentage of pain relief fro# )ario"s #e ications 8as obtaine by a sy#pathetic 8o#an in)estigator than by a col er, #ore re#ote #ale.

Drug ! ects Modi ied by the Current State o the #ecipient )rganism It is no8 8ell 7no8n that #any r"gs 8hen ta7en internally #ay pro "ce a transient eCcitant effect 8here the "ser beco#es e"phoric, tal7ati)e, an so#eti#es e#otionally responsi)e. ;or eCa#ple, it has been 7no8n thro"gh the ages that alcohol loosens the tong"e "ring an eCcitant phase an that a person 8ith eno"gh alcohol #ay re)eal things he 8o"l not or inarily isc"ss. (s is also 8ell 7no8n, ho8e)er, people react ifferently "n er the infl"ence of alcohol. So#e beco#e epresse an #orose. So#e beco#e eCcite an )olatile. So#e tal7 freely an others sh"t "p li7e a cla#. (s has been pre)io"sly pointe o"t, ifferent people #ay ha)e ifferent reactions to the sa#e r"g an si#ilar reactions #ay occ"r to ifferent r"gs. +ne cannot al8ays pre ict 8hat type of reaction #ay be obtaine .
RELEVANCE OF NONPHARMACOLO=ICAL FACTORS

2ario"s factors s"ch as seC, intelligence, an #ental an physical con ition can infl"ence the speech patterns of an in i)i "al. In or er to assess the phar#acology of a r"g, the pre r"g ifferences in )erbal co##"nication #"st be ta7en into acco"nt. ;"rther#ore, there is strong e)i ence that the phar#acologic effect of a r"g interacts 8ith the stat"s of the h"#an organis# recei)ing the r"g.
EFFECT OF SE>< INTELLI=ENCE AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL ON SPEECH PATTERNS

It is ob)io"s an reF"ires no oc"#entation that people 8ith iffering intelligence an e "cational le)el sho8 large F"alitati)e ifferences on tests of intelligence. .hat they spea7 ifferently "n er stan ar iGe con itions of eliciting the speech 8o"l see# to follo8, b"t this has not heretofore been in)estigate syste#atically. It is also -1>Aa co##on obser)ation that the seCes "se lang"age ifferently, if not in a for#al, str"ct"ral 8ay, then in the ite#s of infor#ation that they choose to con)ey in their speech. /leser, /ottschal7, an John =%A? ha)e st" ie the relationship of 8or -type "sage to gen er an intelligence as #eas"re by the Won erlic test. .hey obtaine fi)e-#in"te speech sa#ples of a gro"p of ninety occ"pationally a 9"ste , #e ically healthy in i)i "als. .hese speech sa#ples 8ere elicte by stan ar iGe instr"ctions gi)en by a #ale in)estigator. .he 8or types 8ere analyGe an score accor ing to t8o syste#s of categories$ a gra##atical syste# an a JpsychologicJ syste#. .he JpsychologicJ syste# atte#pte to classify 8or s accor ing to the e#oti)e, cogniti)e, an percepti)e processes con)eye , an the ani#ate an inani#ate ob9ects enote , regar less of gra##atical part of speech. 'n er these eCperi#ental con itions, significant ifferences 8ere fo"n to occ"r in the proportion of certain types of 8or s "se by #en as co#pare to 8o#en. .hese ifferences appeare principally a#ong the JpsychologicJ categories of 8or s. ;or eCa#ple, 8o#en ten e to refer to the#sel)es #ore freF"ently than i #en. Wo#en eCpresse #ore feeling an e#otion, an "se #ore negations. .hey "se relati)ely fe8er 8or s referring to place or spatial relations an to enoting estr"cti)e action. Significant ifferences 8ere also fo"n to be associate , step-8ise, 8ith le)el of intelligence. .hese ifferences occ"rre principally a#ong the gra##atical categories. ;or eCa#ple, the #ore intelligent a "lt 8as fo"n to "se significantly #ore a 9ecti)es an prepositions, b"t fe8er a )erbs, )erbs, an inter9ections. ( #"ltiple correlation of . 6% 8as obtaine bet8een these )ariables an Won erlic I.S. scores. .he ifferences bet8een the seCes in 8or -type "sage ten e to ecrease at the highest le)el of intelligence. .hese in)estigators ha)e p"blishe tables of separate 8or -freF"ency nor#s for #ales an fe#ales an for 8or categories that )ary 8ith intelligence. In s"##ary, this st" y ill"strates that gen er an intelligence infl"ence speech patterns at the #icroscopic le)el of 8or -types. In eCperi#ental st" ies for eter#ining 8hether or not a r"g 8ill facilitate interrogation, the fact that intelligence an gen er separately affect speech reF"ires consi eration. S"itable controls nee to be incl" e in the research esign.
EFFECT OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALIT; AND CEREBRAL FUNCITIONS ON REACTIONS TO DRU=S

.here is consi erable e)i ence to s"pport the concept that the #ental an in i)i "al can affect his reaction to phar#acologic agents.

physical state of an

-1>%0ornets7y an 3"#phries =@@, @<? ha)e sho8n that there are reactors an nonreactors to r"gs an that the reactors are li7ely to be those 8ho are #ore epresse =on the 1 scale of the 44&I?, to ha)e #ore "nreasonable fears, an o)erreact to en)iron#ental sti#"li =the &t. scale of the 4(I&I?. .hese in)estigators eCplore the effects of a placebo, pro#aGine, secobarbital, an #eperi ine hy rochlori e on a series of ob9ecti)e #otor, intellect"al, an percept"al acti)ities, as 8ell as on s"b9ecti)e responses. .he s"b9ecti)e responses 8ere e)al"ate B>, 9>, 1%>, an D1> #in after the r"g 8as ta7en. &ro#aGine an secobarbital ha an a )erse effect on the perfor#ance of #otor tas7s b"t not on si#ple intellect"al an percept"al tas7s. 4eperi ine hy rochlori e in %> to 1>>-#g oses i not i#pair perfor#ance in any of these sa#e psychologic f"nctions. .he #ore e)iant a s"b9ect 8as on fo"r 44&I scales =psychasthenia, epression, hypochon riasis, an hysteria? the greater the effect of the r"gs. (lso, those 8ho 8ere #ost affecte by one r"g 8ere #ost affecte by another. ;inally, if large eno"gh oses of a r"g 8ere gi)en, all s"b9ects ten e to respon in the sa#e #anner. In a 8ell-controlle st" y, Lasagna et al. =<A? concl" e $ JIn a ition to ose an ro"te of a #inistration, the nat"re of the s"b9ect an the sit"ation in 8hich a r"g is a #inistere are i#portant eter#inants of r"g effects.J 'sing a o"ble-blin techniF"e, these in)estigators a #inistere , in ran o#iGe or er, a placebo =1 #l of physiological saline sol"tion s"bc"taneo"sly?, a#pheta#ine =D> #g\ @> 7g bo y 8eight s"bc"taneo"sly?, heroin hy rochlori e =D to A #g s"bc"taneo"sly?, #orphine phosphate =< to 1% #g s"bc"taneo"sly?, an so i"# pentobarbital =%> an 1>> #g intra)eno"sly? to t8enty healthy Jnor#alJ )ol"nteers,: thirty patients in a hospital for chronic iseases, an thirty for#er narcotic a icts ser)ing prison sentences in an instit"tion e)ote to the treat#ent of narcotic a iction. (t inter)als, before an after a #inistration of the r"gs, the s"b9ects co#plete a F"estionnaire esigne to #eas"re the Js"b9ecti)eJ #oo changes in "ce , an this 8as s"pple#ente by isc"ssing 8ith the s"b9ects their responses to the r"gs. In Jnor#alJ an , to a lesser egree, in chronically ill patients, a#pheta#ine s"rpasse #orphine, heroin, pentobarbital, an a placebo in pro "cing e"phoria. In the narcotic a icts, ho8e)er, #orphine 8as reporte to pro "ce a #ore pleasant effect than heroin, a#pheta#ine, or a placebo. La)erty =<%? ga)e ran o#iGe in9ections of so i"# a#ytal an a placebo to forty s"b9ects i)i e into fo"r gro"ps of ten each$ intro)erte ne"rotics, intro)erte nor#als, eCtro)erte nor#als, an eCtro)erte ne"rotics, as assesse by scores on /"ilfor :s R scale for -1>6eCtro)ersion. .he se ation threshol , as #eas"re by the onset of sl"rre speech, 8as highest for ne"rotic intro)erts an it ecrease step-8ise for each of the gro"ps in the or er gi)en. In other 8or s, the gro"p of intro)erte ne"rotics reF"ire the largest a#o"nt of intra)eno"s so i"# a#ytal =6.A #g\7g bo y 8eight? before e)eloping sl"rre speech. Weinstein et al. in a series of st" ies =1D@, 1D<? ha)e eCplore the ifferential effects of intra)eno"s so i"# a#ytal on s"b9ects 8ith preeCisting organic brain isease an nonbrain- a#age in i)i "als 8ith illness not in)ol)ing the ner)o"s syste#. So#e of the brain- a#age patients, 8ho before recei)ing the r"g ha eCpresse a8areness of illness an 8ho ha goo orientation for place an person, 8ith the r"g beca#e isoriente for place an grossly #isi entifie the eCa#iners an eCplicitly enie illness. Weinstein clai#s that these changes 8ith so i"# a#ytal occ"rre only in the brain- a#age in i)i "alsI

8hereas, in nonbrain- a#age in i)i "als recei)ing so i"# a#ytal, the s"b9ects tal7e of illness in ter#s of a thir person, "se #ore JconcreteJ sy#bols, selecti)ely #isinterprete F"estions abo"t illness, an #isna#e the eCa#iners in JparaphasicJ fashion. =Inci entally, Weinstein reports that 8ith the types of patients he st" ie , so i"# a#ytal i not #a7e the# #ore co##"nicati)e.? .he significance of Weinstein:s in)estigations appears to be that the person 8ith brain- a#age gets his sensori"# #ore isorganiGe 8ith so i"# a#ytal than a nonbrain- a#age in i)i "alI an instance, apparently, of the effect of a ing ins"lt to in9"ry. 3och, Cattell, an &ennes =6A, 6%? a #inistere so i"# a#ytal, per)itin, an #escaline to each of siCteen patients s"ffering fro# the pse" o ne"rotic for# of schiGophrenia, t8enty-fo"r patients 8ith an o)ert for# of schiGophrenia 8ith slight. to #o erate eterioration, an nine schiGophrenic patients 8ith se)ere eterioration. With these r"gs, especially 8ith #escaline, they fo"n typical physiologic changes occ"rring, #ainly in)ol)ing the )egetati)e ner)o"s syste#. 3o8e)er, 8ith #ost patients, so#e aspects of the r"g eCperience see#e to be a irect contin"ation of pre)io"s personality factors. ;or instance, a patient 8ho sho8e obsessi)e co#p"lsi)e feat"res before the r"g eCperi#ent 8o"l ten to sho8 the sa#e obsessi)e str"ct"re 8hile intoCicate . .he sa#e 8as tr"e abo"t anCiety attit" es, intellect"aliGations of conflicts, preocc"pations 8ith artistic, philosophical, or other #atters. (ltho"gh ,eringer =? in his r"g st" ies, "sing #escaline, i not fin any correlation bet8een personality an r"g reaction, Stoc7ings =1DD? fo"n that cyclothy#ic an schiGothy#ic in i)i "als re-1>@spon e ifferently. ,enshei# =1%? tho"ght that the cyclothy#ic gro"p respon e 8ith e"phoria an epression to #escaline an the schiGothy#ic gro"p 8ith ecstasy. Lin e#ann an 4ala#" =9A?, eCperi#enting 8ith so i"# a#ytal, cocaine, hashish, an #escaline on the sa#e patients, fo"n that each r"g has its specific characteristics, b"t that the changes pro "ce by a gi)en r"g 8ere #ol e by the patient:s personality =see also, 9D, 9B?. /"tt#an an 4acClay =%9? an Sar8er-;oner =11<? also fo"n correlations bet8een personality an r"g reactions. *"bin et al. =11A? s"ggeste that the r"g reaction be i)i e into t8o parts$ those responses that are characteristic of a r"g regar less of the patient in 8ho# they occ"r, an those seen in a gi)en patient regar less of the nat"re of the r"g "se . .he first co"l be calle a collecti)e reaction an the secon an in i)i "al reaction epen ent on the in i)i "al:s personality. It is perhaps of interest here that *"ssian scientists ha)e also e#phasiGe the ifferential response of ifferent types of in i)i "als to r"gs, specifically chlorpro#aGine =<6?. It has been ob)io"s to those 8ho listen to an st" y people 8ith personality isor ers that the )erbal beha)ior of an in i)i "al s"ffering fro# an e#otional isor er is relati)ely pec"liar, both in for# an in content. .he epresse person is laconic. .he #anic person is iff"sely 8or y. .he hysteric an schiGophrenic are F"ite )ariable in the "ration an length of their re#ar7s. .here are typical the#atic an str"ct"ral characteristics of the speech habits of patients 8ith these types of psychiatric isor ers. =See, for eCa#ple, /ottschal7 et al., %6.? (t present, there are #ore gaps than facts in o"r 7no8le ge abo"t the reactions of ifferent personality types to the sa#e an ifferent r"gs. 6ears of intensi)e research are nee e to s"pply so#e of this "na)ailable 7no8le ge.

3o8e)er, it is alrea y ac7no8le ge that in i)i "als 8ith feat"res of hysterical, con)ersion, or issociati)e reactions are li7ely to be s"ggestible an to react strongly to all psychophar#acologic agents, incl" ing placebos =<B, <%?. 1r"gs #ay ten to reinforce the nee to gi)e for in i)i "als b"r ene 8ith feelings of ne"rotic sha#e an g"ilt, especially if s"ch feelings are enhance by the interrogator. 1r"gs #ay also f"rnish the nee e eCc"se an relief fro# personal responsibility for so"rces 8ho )iolate internaliGe )al"es an loyalties in re)ealing infor#ation. .he phar#acologic effect of the r"g is probably of less ecisi)e infl"ence in facilitating infor#ationgetting =altho"gh acting as a catalyst? than is the potential rea iness of in i)i "als 8ith s"ch per-1><sonality feat"res to beha)e in a typical 8ay "n er certain circ"#stances. .he consi eration of r"gs as an ai to interrogation pres"pposes a thoro"gh "n erstan ing of the personality characteristics of the infor#ant an of r"gs, to pre ict 8hat #ight be eCpecte by their "se.
EFFECT OF PH;SIOLO=IC CONDITIONS ON DRU= RESPONSES. BIOLO=IC RH;THMS< NUTRITIONAL STATES< ISOLATION< AND FATI=UE

.here is e)i ence that the physiologic con ition of the in i)i "al affects his beha)ior an responsi)ity to f"rther inco#ing sti#"li. If so, this propensity is pertinent to o"r specific interest regar ing the "se of r"gs in affecting the )erbal beha)ior of infor#ants. It is iffic"lt to ascertain to 8hat eCtent the beha)ioral alterations that ha)e been note "n er )ario"s physiologic con itions are #e iate by bioche#ical changes per se, an to 8hat eCtent they are secon ary psychophysiologic reactions to s"btle changes in bo y che#istry. .he ans8er nee not occ"py "s here, eCcept to note that a che#ical alteration 8ithin the bo y is probably one i#portant feat"re of the )arying responsi)ity of the in i)i "al. 'n er s"ch circ"#stances, the a ition of other che#icals co#plicates the proble# of pre icting the beha)ioral o"tco#e. .his is partic"larly tr"e if the ne8 che#ical intro "ce into the bo y is #il in its effects, or if it is gi)en in a s#all osage. Citation of e)ery technical article bearing on this point 8o"l be "nnecessarily b"r enso#e here. Instea , a n"#ber of 7ey in)estigations are reporte to ill"strate the point. Biologic Rhyth)s. ,ene e7 an *"benstein =1D, 1B? ha)e st" ie the relationship of associati)e #aterial presente by 8o#en "ring psychoanalysis at )ario"s phases of their #enstr"al cycle, as #eas"re by )aginal s#ears. .hese t8o types of ata, )erbal #aterial an physiologic changes in the )aginal #"cosa, 8ere collecte an analyGe in epen ently by the t8o in)estigators, one a psychoanalyst an the other an en ocrinologist. (fter a long perio of collecting s"ch ata, the in)estigators relate )erbal pro "ctions to the phases of the #enstr"al cycle. ( high concor ance bet8een the t8o types of ata occ"rre . .his has been )ali ate in clinical st" ies to so#e eCtent. 3o8e)er, beca"se of the i#portance of the psychophysiologic i#plications of this classical st" y, in epen ent )ali ation by other in)estigators 8o"l be esirable. In brief, the in)estigators fo"n that "ring the estrogen phase of the #enstr"al cycle, the 8o#en 8ere #ore eCtro)erte , ha #ore fantasies, rea#s, an s"b9ecti)e eCperiences in icating stri)ings to be lo)e an i#pregnate an ha con-

-1>9flicts abo"t s"ch stri)ings. 1"ring the progesterone phase, the 8o#en 8ere #ore intro)erte , 8ere #ore preocc"pie 8ith interests in their o8n bo y an self. 1"ring the pre#enstr"al phase of the cycle, there 8ere increase references to cleaning o"t, 8ashing o"t, e)ac"ating, losing so#ething, an the 8o#en 8ere #ore epresse . (gain in these st" ies, in i)i "al )ariations occ"rre in relation to the )arying hor#onal phases of the seC"al cycle, epen ing on the 8o#an:s personality type an the 7in s of conflicts she ha abo"t procreation, chil birth, #othering, etc. Nutritional States. St" ies of the effects of the state of n"trition, especially )ita#in eficiency, on h"#an beha)ior are replete in the #e ical literat"re an in icate that ne"rological an psychiatric isor ers #ay ens"e 8ith )ario"s )ita#in eficiencies, partic"larly of the , co#pleC. .he effects of star)ation, )ol"ntary an enforce , in pro)o7ing increasing lassit" e, apathy, epression, preocc"pation 8ith foo , flattening of affect, an #oo are s"fficiently 8ell 7no8n an are isc"sse in another chapter of this st" y. .he #ore s"btle effects of satiation 8ith foo an the brief epri)ation of foo typical of e)ery ay rhyth#ical eating habits on response patterns to psychologic tests an inter)ie8ing proce "res ha)e recei)e little caref"l st" y, e)en apart fro# proble#s of r"g effects. Clinical psychiatric eCperience in icates that so#e in i)i "als beco#e F"er"lo"s, e#an ing, restless, e)en paranoi , an eCperience h"nger contractions if they ha)e not eaten for one to t8o ho"rs, altho"gh they sho8 no e#onstrable pathologic, #etabolic processes. +ther in i)i "als #ay #iss se)eral #eals, yet eCperience no s"b9ecti)e reactions an sho8 no signs of istinctly ifferent beha)ior. /ottschal7 an /leser =%%? i a controlle st" y of the effect of fasting for t8el)e ho"rs on the speech patterns of siC pai physically healthy an occ"pationally a 9"ste )ol"nteers, three #ales an three fe#ales. 44&I:s 8ere obtaine on all s"b9ects. !o ho#ogeneo"s effect of fasting states on the#atic speech )ariables or on the proportion of )ario"s categories of 8or -types 8as fo"n "n er these eCperi#ental con itions. In one s"b9ect, ho8e)er, characteristic an repetiti)e reactions occ"rre to the stress of the #il fasting, reactions 8hich 8ere principally in the for# of significantly increase references to foo , ho#e, #ainlan , #other, an in)ol)ing atte#pts to bri ge the istances bet8een s"ch ob9ects. 3ypoglyce#ic states 8ere in "ce by the in9ection of intra)eno"s ins"lin in this sa#e s"b9ect an the effects of these states 8ere note . ( repetiti)e, b"t ifferent, the#atic reaction occ"rre to this eCperi#entally in "ce hypoglyce#ia as -11>co#pare to )ol"ntary fasting for t8el)e ho"rs. .he in)estigators concl" e that fasting for t8el)e ho"rs 8as not eno"gh of a stress to pro "ce consistent effects in the speech patterns of fi)e, o"t of siC, pai )ol"nteers. S"sceptibility of reacting to t8el)e ho"rs of fasting 8as consi ere to be "e to in i)i "al personality feat"res. .hese in)estigators i not feel that this initial st" y ga)e the# eno"gh ata to be able to pre ict acc"rately 8hich s"b9ects #ight react an 8hich #ight not react to this stress. Isolation an% 0atigue. In "nnat"ral biologic states, s"ch as in eCperi#ental or enforce isolation fro# other h"#ans or fro# or inary le)els of physical sti#"li =19, D%, 6>, 91? or in loss of sleep =1DA? e#otional ist"rbances an transient psychotic states ha)e been reporte . In states of sleep loss, para oCical reactions to r"gs #ay occ"r. In this connection, Wen t =1D9? is F"ote as obser)ing$ J.here are so#e interesting things abo"t secobarbital or any of these r"gs 8hen ase in in i)i "als "n er stress,

e.g., after A> ho"rs of enforce 8a7ef"lness people beco#e irritable, anCio"s, apprehensi)e, an iffic"lt to 7eep a8a7e. ( s#all ose of secobarbital of 1>> #g 8ill 8a7e the# "p an #a7e the# )ol"nteer to go thro"gh another night.J .o this re)ie8er:s 7no8le ge, this pheno#enon has not been reporte else8here an it is i#portant eno"gh to #erit. f"rther testing. S"ch para oCical effects ha)e been note clinically 8ith other r"gs, notably a#pheta#ine 8hich #ay ha)e a se ati)e an F"ieting effect on restless. anCio"s, irritable s#all chil ren 8ith beha)ior proble#s pres"#ably associate 8ith psycho#otor or petit #al epilepsy =see ;orster, A<? an 8hich #ay re "ce the agitation of eCcite schiGophrenics =D1?.

Met"odo$o%i Pro($e-s in Deter-inin% t"e E''e ts o' Dru%s on Ver(&$ Be"&,ior. In'$uen e o' Met"od o' S&-4$in% t"e Ver(&$ Be"&,ior on t"e E''e t o' & Dru% In this brief section, the re)ie8er, for the sa7e of co#pleteness, 8ants to e#phasiGe that the scientist st" ying this proble# #"st realiGe that he 8ill isco)er no #ore infor#ation than his #etho of e)al"ation 8ill pro)i e, an that ifferent #etho s of sa#pling the )erbal beha)ior of a s"b9ect "n er r"gs #ay gi)e so#e8hat ifferent infor#ation abo"t the psychophar#acologic effect of the r"g. -ach scientist 8ill ten to "se the #eas"ring instr"#ent #ost fa#iliar to hi#, an each instr"#ent or techniF"e 8ill ha)e ifferent #erits. -111.he F"estionnaire of s"b9ecti)e reactions an the irecti)e inter)ie8 8ill pro)i e yes an no ans8ers an so#e F"alifie ans8ers to str"ct"re concepts an hypothesis of the in)estigator. .hese #etho s ha)e the a )antage of relati)e spee an ease of e)al"ation. .he non irecti)e inter)ie8 an the free-associati)e techniF"e can be applie in a syste#atic an F"antitati)e 8ay an constit"te a )al"able #eans of st" ying the phar#aco yna#ics of r"gs =see also 0"bie, @9 an Wi7ler, 1BD?, b"t e)al"ation of the ata is generally slo8er an #ore co#plicate . (ltho"gh so#e specific F"estions in the #in of the in)estigator #ay re#ain "nans8ere =e.g., is the #aterial fantasy or factL?, these #etho s #ay pro)i e consi erable infor#ation abo"t the r"g:s effect on sy#bolic processes, effects, an psycho yna#ic relationships. .o approach efiniti)e ans8ers regar ing the potential action of r"gs on h"#an beha)ior, e#otion, cognition, an conation, o"r 7no8le ge nee s to be #"ch #ore co#plete at the physiologic, bioche#ical, an psychologic le)els of organiGation. .he scientist 8o"l best loo7 at his ata in as #any 8ays as possible an "se a )ariety of approaches in st" ying these pheno#ena =see also Wi7ler, 1B1 I 4iller, 1>B?.

The ! icacy o Drugs in *ncovering In ormation Se)eral in)estigators ha)e e#ploye by the in i)i "al. r"gs to facilitate the reco)ery of infor#ation not freely yiel e

In 19D1, *. -. 3o"se, an obstetrician in .eCas, obser)e in eli)eries in 8hich the #other ha been gi)en scopola#ine that in a certain stage of anesthesia or se ation she #ight be tal7ati)e an re)eal things she 8o"l not or inarily isc"ss. 3e note that after chil birth, the #other freF"ently forgot that

she ha s"ffere pain, that she ha co#plaine of it, an that she ha spo7en of personal #atters. (fter the "se of scopola#ine, often 8ith the a ition of chlorofor#, ha pro)e to ha)e certain a )antages in the obstetrical #anage#ent of a 8o#an eli)ering a baby, 3o"se pers"a e hi#self to eCten the "se of scopola#ine beyon its original p"rpose to the interrogation of cri#inal s"spects. 3e ga)e #any enth"siastic e#onstrations thro"gho"t the 'nite States. (s a res"lt, ne8spapers F"ic7ly applie the ter# Jtr"th ser"#J to this se ati)e r"g. 3o"se:s enth"sias# abo"t scopola#ine as an a 9"nct in obstetrics le hi# to o)erenth"siastic state#ents abo"t the )al"e of the r"g in interrogation. In 19B1, on the basis of t8o cases, he state =69? that a person "n er scopola#ine co"l not lie an that the r"g co"l isting"ish the innocent fro# the g"ilty. .his state#ent is an eCa#ple of an -11Din)estigator obser)ing the r"g action he 8ante to see, b"t 8hich 8as not obser)e in s"bseF"ent st" ies =<D?. Since 3o"se:s early eCperi#ents 8ith scopola#ine =69?, 8hich le to the #isno#er Jtr"th sero#,J a great eal #ore has been learne abo"t r"g action. 1"ring Worl War II an inter)ie8ing #etho e#ploying the a #inistration of an intra)eno"s barbit"rate 8as "se 8ith ist"rbe sol iers 8ho 8ere eCperiencing ac"te 8ar ne"roses in or er to allo8 the#, transiently, to reli)e certain of their battle eCperiences 8hich 8ere belie)e to ha)e aro"se persistent e#otional conflicts =%<, 11@?. In psychotic patients, partic"larly catatonic schiGophrenics, 8ho 8ill not tal7 an therefore o not participate in psychiatric therapy or re)eal any cl"es to the #ental eCperiences 8hich #ay "n erlie their isor er, so i"# a#ytal has been "se to facilitate co##"nication 8ith the patient =11@?. If it 8or7s, there is a transient phase that can so#eti#es be prolonge by in9ecting the r"g slo8ly, "ring 8hich the patient 8ill ans8er so#e F"estions an co##"nicate so#e of his life proble#s. If the patient passes thro"gh this stage into a eeper stage of narcosis there #ay be a transient perio of tal7ati)eness as he reco)ers fro# the se ation or anesthesia. ;or certain personality types, so#e r"gs lo8er conscio"s ego control, thereby facilitating recall of represse #aterial an increasing the iffic"lty of 8ithhol ing a)ailable infor#ation. .he i eal r"g for an interrogator 8o"l be one 8hich not only acco#plishes this feat, b"t oes so 8itho"t interfering 8ith integrati)e capacities an intellect"al f"nctioning. ,eca"se of the "ncertainty of the tr"th or falsity of state#ents obtaine "n er circ"#stances of re "ce ego control, an beca"se certain r"gs #ay gi)e rise to psychotic #anifestations s"ch as hall"cinations, ill"sions, el"sions, or isorientation, the )erbal #aterial obtaine cannot al8ays be consi ere )ali . S"ch ata is not accepte in a co"rt of 9"stice an the infor#ation so obtaine is not consi ere 8holly acc"rate by the #e ical profession. What eCperi#ental ata an critical re)ie8s are a)ailable 8hich ha)e eCa#ine the )ali ity of s"ch #aterial fro# the )ie8point of the interrogator:s interest in fact"al InforniationL Jean *olin =11D? has 8ritten a boo7 entitle Police ,rugs in 8hich he in)eighs strongly against the "se of r"gs for #e ico-legal p"rposes. 3is arg"#ent is in part #oral, b"t it is also base on the gro"n s that there is "ncertainty as to the tr"th of re)elations obtaine by s"ch #eans. 3e concl" es that J. . . fro# a p"rely #e ical stan point, confessions obtaine by r"gging are )al"eless an o not gi)e gro"n s for eter#ining responsibility.J -11B-

In the sa#e boo7, -. 2. Saher:s =11%? chapter on narcoanalysis pro)i es an eCtensi)e re)ie8 of the literat"re. In s"##ariGing the )ie8point of the #e ical profession on narcoanalysis, he says$
!arcoanalysis is not a s"re #etho of bringing o"t the tr"th an nothing b"t the tr"th. (ny confession #a e is not necessarily tr"eI an if no confession is #a e this oes not necessarily pro)e that the patient has not co##itte the cri#e 8ith 8hich he #ay be charge . 1oes this #ean that narcoanalysis has no i#portance at all fro# the angle of the a #inistration of 9"sticeL .he ans8er to this F"estion is again in the negati)e, beca"se in #any cases the confession is tr"e an often facts are bro"ght o"t 8hich are )ery helpf"l to the p"blic prosec"tor in pro)ing his case. It see#s fair to say that in the present stage of e)elop#ent narcoanalysis can be of great help in fin ing the tr"th. ,"t it is also a angero"s #eans of in)estigation as the right interpretation of state#ents #a e epen s largely on the s7ill of the analyst. D

.he p"blishe eCperi#ental st" ies on the )ali ity of confessions obtaine 8ith r"gs are fe8. 4"ch f"rther caref"l in)estigation is nee e to clarify the proble#s in)ol)e . .his re)ie8er 8as able to locate only fo"r st" ies 8orth reporting here. .he first st" y is only of bor erline rele)ance an in)ol)es the "se of intra)eno"s barbit"rates as an ai in the ifferential iagnosis bet8een con)ersion hysteria an #alingering. .he a"thor =1>A? clai#e that the "se of intra)eno"s so i"# a#ytal 8as fo"n to be helpf"l in etecting =an treating? in i)i "als 8ho 8ere s"specte of conscio"sly istorting an feigning isability. 3e fo"n s"ch in i)i "als to be negati)istic, s"llen, an nonpro "cti)e at first "n er a#ytal b"t prone to re)eal the fact of an ca"ses for their #alingering as the inter)ie8 procee e . It 8as co##on in his eCperience to t"rn "p a ne"rotic or psychotic basis for the #alingering. =See Chapter @.? .he other three st" ies eser)e #ore etaile re)ie8 beca"se of their relati)e s"periority, an th"s rarity, as research st" ies in this highly specialiGe an "nto"che area. *e lich, *a)itG, an 1ession =1>9? as7e a total of nine "ni)ersity st" ents an professional persons to relate so#e tr"e sha#e- or g"iltpro "cing life inci ent. .hen the s"b9ects 8ere as7e to in)ent a Jco)er storyJ to be tol to another eCa#iner 8ho interrogate the# after the intra)eno"s in9ection of a#obarbital, >.D% to 1.> g#. In siC of the s"b9ects, the Jco)er storyJ 8as gi)en "ring the a#ytal interrogation, in one it 8as #iCe 8ith the tr"e story, an in t8o the tr"e story 8as gi)en. In nearly all s"b9ects, the Jco)er storyJ containe ele#ents of the g"ilt in)ol)e in the tr"e story. 3o8e)er, eCcept in
D

See also 4ac1onal , 99, 1>>I 'n erhill, 1D%.

-11Athe cases of those 8ho confesse the tr"th, the tr"e story co"l not be inferre fro# the story tol "n er a#obarbital. (n a itional fin ing of interest 8as that the #ore nor#al, 8ell-integrate in i)i "ais co"l lie better than the g"ilt-ri en, ne"rotic s"b9ects. /erson an 2ictoroff =%B? "se a#ytal inter)ie8s on ne"ropsychiatric patients 8ho ha charges against the# at .ilton /eneral 3ospital, ;ort 1iC, !e8 Jersey. .he patients 8ere tol that none of the #aterial fro# the inter)ie8s 8o"l be "se in the prosec"tion of charges against the#, since it 8as consi ere a breach of #e ical ethics an beca"se the #aterial, eri)e 8ith the f"ll 7no8le ge an consert of the patient, co"l not ha)e been presente in co"rt 8itho"t )iolating the .8enty-fo"rth (rticle of War an the ,ill of *ights of the Constit"tion of the 'nite States.

.he researchers first gaine the confi ence of the patients by isc"ssing their life history. .hey 8ere not infor#e that a#ytal 8o"l be "se "ntil a fe8 #in"tes before narcoanalysis 8as "n erta7en. It 8as eCplaine that the r"g 8o"l #a7e the# sleepy an enco"rage the# to isc"ss things 8ith the octor that #ight enable hi# to gain f"ller "n erstan ing of the patients: personality an #oti)ations. 'n er these circ"#stances, the patients: attit" e )arie fro# "nF"estioning co#pliance 8ith the proce "re to o8nright ref"sal to s"b#it to the in9ection. =+ne gra# of r"g in 1> cc of istille 8ater 8as in9ecte slo8ly in the #e ian c"bital )ein.? S"estions rele)ant to the charges against the patient 8ere not bro"ght "p "ntil later, the initial isc"ssion in)ol)ing relati)ely innoc"o"s #aterial abo"t the patient:s personality an life history 8hich ha been isc"sse pre)io"sly. ( follo8-"p, 8a7ing inter)ie8 8as carrie o"t on the ay follo8ing narcoanalysis, "ring 8hich the co)ert #aterial "nearthe "ring the a#ytal inter)ie8 8as bro"ght "p, an possible psychologic factors in the patient:s cri#inal beha)ior 8ere isc"sse . 1"ring the follo8-"p inter)ie8, nine patients a #itte the )ali ity of their confessions an eight rep" iate their confessions. /erson an 2ictoroff eCa#ine the follo8ing factors interfering 8ith the co#pleteness an a"thenticity of the confessions$ =a? inept F"estioning, =b? ten ency of the patient to perse)erate on "nrelate topics, =c? #"#ble , thic7, ina" ible speech an paralogia, = ? fantasies, =e? contra ictory b"t apparently tr"thf"l e)i ence, an =f? poor rapport bet8een octor an patient. .hese eCperi#enters concl" e fro# their st" y that "n er so i"# a#ytal s"b9ects co"l so#eti#es lie an that their reasoning po8ers 8ere so#eti#es present, altho"gh #"ch istorte . (ltho"gh they fo"n a#ytal narcoanalysis s"ccessf"l for the re)elation of eception, they felt that the )ali ity of the infor#ation -11%garnere by this #etho 8as not so ecisi)e that it co"l be a #issible in co"rt 8itho"t f"rther in)estigation an s"bstantiation. .hey ac7no8le ge that the octor co"l not tell 8hen the patient:s recollections t"rne into fantasy, co"l not positi)ely state 8hether he 8as si#"lating eep narcosis an act"ally #aintaining his lies, an co"l not, 8itho"t social in)estigation, eter#ine 8hich of contrary stories tol "n er narcoanalysis 8as tr"e. Clar7 an ,eecher =B>? teste the ability of t8enty, pai , )ol"nteer #ale college st" ents 8hile "n er r"gs to 8ithhol eliberately infor#ation "ring fo"r to eight ho"rs: sessions fro# a #ale inter)ie8er, 8ho also a #inistere the r"gs intra)eno"sly. .hiopental, atropine, a#pheta#ine, #etha#pheta#ine, so i"# a#obarbital, ethyl alcohol, scopola#ine hy robro#i e, pentobarbital so i"#, #orphine, caffeine so i"# benGoate, an #escaline s"lfate 8ere gi)en singly an in co#bination. .he s"b9ects 8ere #oti)ate by their esire for #onetary co#pensation, their percei)e i#portance of the eCperi#ent, an pri e in their integrity an J8ill po8er.J .he infor#ation 8hich the s"b9ects 8ere as7e to 8ithhol consiste of =a? t8o ite#s of personal infor#ation =e.g., birthplace, #other:s #ai en na#e, etc?, =b? an JeCperi#ental secretJ e)ise to rese#ble #ilitary intelligence, an =c? a g"ilt-la en personal eCperience for 8hich the s"b9ect e)ise a Jco)er story.J (ll of this infor#ation 8as re "ce to 8riting an eposite 8ith a technician. .o chec7 possible forgetting, the s"b9ect 8as as7e to pro "ce the 8ithhel infor#ation at the en of the eCperi#ent, an this 8as )erifie against the 8ritten )ersion.
.he r"gs an co#binations of r"gs "se in these eCperi#ents 8ere gi)en in s"ch large a#o"nts that they pro "ce grossly abnor#al states of #in . (t )ario"s ti#es, s"b9ects beca#e se#ico#atose, #il ly elirio"s, panic7y, #ar7e ly loF"acio"s, e"phoric or "n er8ent transient issociati)e reactionsI yet, c"rio"sly, at no ti#e 8as there s"fficient ego i#pair#ent that they 8ere "nable to i entify the significance of F"estions abo"t the s"ppresse infor#ation an a)oi ans8ering the# in response to irect F"estioning. (s long as they re#aine in a" itory contact 8ith the interrogator, they consistently ref"se to re)eal the s"ppresse ite#s.

.he QeCperi#ental secretR 8as not gi)en "p by any of the s"b9ects. Si#ilarly, none of the# re)eale the s"ppresse ite#s of a#nestic ata in response to specific F"estioning. 3o8e)er, on t8o occasions the na#es of close relati)es being "se as s"ppresse infor#ation 8ere re)eale , apparently as slips of the tong"e, in the co"rse of spontaneo"s, issociati)e ra#bling 8hile se)erely intoCicate 8ith scopola#ine an thiopental in co#bination. .he fin ings 8ith the Jco)er storyJ techniF"e 8ere essentially those of *e lich et al. 'n er thiopental narcosis, t8o s"b9ects pro "ce significant )ariations in the co)er story 8hich betraye the content of the tr"e story.

-116.hese in i)i "als 8ere of a #ore ne"rotic character pattern than the other s"b9ects, an their tr"e stories centere on proble#s of "nresol)e g"ilt. 3o8e)er, the re#aining s"b9ects, if they 8ere able to tal7 at all coherently, repro "ce the co)er stories 8ith re#ar7able fi elity to the original )ersion.

In e)al"ating the consi erable ego-integrity #aintaine by these s"b9ects, it is i#portant to consi er that they #ay ha)e felt relati)ely sec"re in a protecte eCperi#ental sit"ation, in the han s of a responsible eCperi#enter an physician. In s"##ary, then, clinical eCperience an eCperi#ental st" ies in icate that, altho"gh a person:s resistance to co##"nicating conscio"sly 8ithhel infor#ation can be bro7en o8n 8ith r"gs, an partic"larly so i"# a#ytal, the interrogator can ha)e no easy ass"rance as to the acc"racy an )ali ity of the infor#ation he obtains =see also 4ac1onal :s isc"ssion, 1>>, an that of Inba" an *ei , @1?. ;"rther#ore, a lac7 of cr"cial infor#ation fro# a s"b9ect "n er a r"g oes not #ean that the s"b9ect has no infor#ation. (n interrogator 8o"l ha)e to e)al"ate #any other factors H the personality of the s"b9ect, the #ilie", other so"rces of e)i ence, etc. H to eci e ho8 to interpret the o"tco#e of an inter)ie8 8ith a r"gge infor#ant.

S4e i'i E''e ts o' Dru%s on Ver(&$ Be"&,ior< P&rti u$&r$# Dru%s Potenti&$$# A44$i &($e to Interro%&tion Pro edures (fter loo7ing at these efforts to elicit infor#ation 8ith a )ariety of r"gs, it #ay be 8ell to consi er each psychophar#acologic agent in t"rn, for its possible applicability to the interrogation sit"ation.

+arbiturate Sedatives and Calmatives .he #a9or share of st" ies on the "se of r"gs in inter)ie8ing proce "res in)ol)es the barbit"rates$ a#obarbital, secobarbital, an pentothal. .hese r"gs ha)e been fo"n "sef"l in treating the ac"te 8ar ne"roses =%<, 116, 11@?, an in ci)ilian practice =DB, BD, 1>6?. In psychiatric practice, the p"rpose of these r"gs is to effect a )iolent e#otional response 8hich #ay ha)e cathartic )al"e for the patient. In the han s of so#e psychiatrists =11@?, the e#otional reli)ing enhance by the r"g is not consi ere necessarily relate to a real eCperience. In or er to bring abo"t a high egree of eCcite#ent, Sargant =11@? has reco##en e p"tting the patient bac7 into a past 8hich has been #o ifie by the therapist:s in)ention. In his r"gge -11@-

state the patient accepts a false )ersion of the facts as if it 8ere the tr"th, an eCperiences the appropriate e#otional response. So i"# a#ytal has been fo"n helpf"l in eter#ining 8hether or not a s"b9ect is feigning ignorance of the -nglish lang"age =96?. It is reporte that fa#iliarity 8ith a lang"age 8ill sho8 "p "n er the infl"ence of intra)eno"s barbit"rates. 0elley et al. =@A? reporte that #ore reliable esti#ations of intelligence are freF"ently possible "n er a#ytal. .hey also fo"n that patients "n er so i"# a#ytal in9ection ga)e a greater n"#ber of *orschach responses an fe8er re9ections of car s. .his #a e iagnoses possible in cases pre)io"sly consi ere "nreachable. .he responses 8ere fo"n to be F"alitati)ely less biGarre an stereotype , per#itting #ore n"ances in personality escriptions. ,ric7ner =DD? has recor e #any inter)ie8s of patients recei)ing eep narcosis therapy 8ith barbit"rates. .he etaile analyses of the )erbal pro "ctions of these patients ha)e in icate certain typical pec"liarities 8orthy of #ention in this re)ie8. If they are present, obtaine infor#ation sho"l be isco"nte as fact"al ata, altho"gh they certainly #ay re)eal in an in irect 8ay so#e of the ga#"t of life eCperiences of the inter)ie8ee. ,ric7ner note the processes of JfractionationJ an Jreco#binationJ in the )erbal pro "ctions of patients "n er eep a#ytal narcosis. .hese processes 8ere operati)e not only at the le)el of 8or s an 8or ele#ents, prefiCes an s"ffiCes, b"t also at the le)el of phrases an cla"ses, i eas an concepts. .he fractionation an reco#bination #anifeste itself in the 9"Ctaposition of 8or frag#ents, phrases, an concepts 8hich are not or inarily bro"ght together an in 8hich the connection 8as often illogical. ,ric7ner belie)e that this r"g process is a caricat"re of the 8a7ing process of co#paring ne8 sti#"li, percepts, an concepts 8ith others, ne8 an ol . 3e belie)es that this process of co#parison has s"r)i)al )al"e an is b"ilt into h"#an ne"ral str"ct"re. So i"# a#ytal in9ections ha)e not been "sef"l in alle)iating aphasic speech efects, secon ary to cerebral ins"lt =1@, 1><?. (ltho"gh the etection an st" y of s"ch pheno#ena are of basic research interest to the in)estigator st" ying the ne"ro physiologic correlates of psychologic processes, the eco ing of s"ch )erbal #aterial by any interrogator see7ing fact"al infor#ation is li7ely to present a )ery iffic"lt proble#. It is probably s"ch pheno#ena 8hich /erson an 2ictoroff =%B? obser)e in their inter)ie8s of cri#inal s"spects "n er barbit"rates an 8hich they fo"n to be one of the obstacles to assessing the )ali ity of their infor#ants: )erbal pro "ctions. -11<In s"##ariGing the specific effects of barbit"rates as facilitants in inter)ie8ing, the references alrea y presente an the 8or7 of others =BD, 1>1? in icate that, 8ith so#e eCceptions, the follo8ing effects on beha)ior #ay be eCpecte fro# the a #inistration of barbit"rates to h"#an s"b9ects$ =a? ecrease attention to sti#"liI =b? 8ar#er an #ore appropriate #oo I =c? ecrease anCietyI = ? increase contact an co##"nicationI =e? re "ction of psychotic #anifestation.

,onbarbiturate Sedatives and Calmatives

(n increasing )ariety of nonbarbit"rate se ati)es ha)e been co#po"n e in recent years. (ltho"gh they are in 8i e "se, no eCperi#ental st" ies ha)e co#pare these r"gs to the barbit"rates as a 9"ncts to inter)ie8ing in i)i "als, either to relie)e e#otional ist"rbances or to obtain conscio"sly 8ithhel infor#ation. ( list of the che#ical an tra e na#e of so#e of these r"gs #ay be 8orth incl" ing as an ill"stration of their )ariety an for he"ristic p"rposes$ ethchlor)ynol =placi yl?, gl"tethi#i e = ori en?, #ethyprylon =nol" ar?, #ethylparafynol = or#ison?, capto ra#in =s")ren?, oCana#i e =F"iactin?.

Stimulants and Antidepressives

AMPHETAMINE AND ITS DERIVATIVES

( r"g that has been "se to a fair eCtent in phar#acologic therapy, b"t not, as far as is 7no8n, in interrogation 8or7 is a#pheta#ine =benGe rine? an a si#ilar r"g, #etha#pheta#ine. ( #inistere intra)eno"sly to nonpsychotic in i)i "als, researchers ha)e fo"n a#pheta#ine to pro "ce a Jp"shJ$ an o"tpo"ring of i eas, e#otions, #e#ories, etc. =DA, B1, B@, B9, @B, 9>?. It is of iagnostic help 8ith psychiatric cases by itself =DA, A9, 9>, 9%, 1D1?, or follo8ing an intra)eno"s barbit"rate =B@, B9, @>, 11B?. It is 8i ely #ar7ete an "se in co#bination 8ith a barbit"rate as a #il sti#"lant r"g for patients ha)ing ne"roses an ne"rotic character proble#s. ,r"ssel et al. =DA? clai# that #etha#pheta#ine hy rochlori e is "sef"l in the interrogation of the psychopath 8ho feigns a#nesia or 8ithhol s )ital infor#ation 8hich he co)ers 8ith lies or ca"tio"sly alters as he shre8 ly 8eighs his 8or s. .hese a"thors clai#, perhaps eCtra)agantly, that s"ch a psychopath is po8erless "n er the infl"ence of #etha#pheta#ine. +nce the r"g ta7es effect, they hol , the te#po of pro "cti)ity an the ins"r#o"ntable "rge to po"r o"t -119speech gi)es the liar no ti#e to thin7. .hey also clai# that f"nctional aphasics can be eCpecte to reco)er their speech "n er the infl"ence of intra)eno"s #etha#pheta#ine. It sho"l be note again that a#pheta#ine an its eri)ati)es are a#ong the #ain r"gs that ha)e been e#ploye in 8ell- esigne an controlle st" ies, sho8ing that the effects of r"gs are )ariable an infl"ence by personality ifferences =<B, <A, 1D6?.
PIPRADROL

&ipra rol =#eratran? is another r"g of the sti#"lant type 8hich increases not only psychological acti)ity b"t #otor acti)ity as 8ell. In reaction to the Jinner p"shJ of i eas, e#otions, an speech, so#e nor#al s"b9ects report #il e"phoria, b"t others report tension an ispleas"re. .he occ"rrence of the pre o#inant phar#acologic effects of this r"g epen s to so#e eCtent on the typical personality of the s"b9ect =%@?. Li7e a#pheta#ine, pipra rol in single, s#all oses i#pro)es the perfor#ance of nor#al

s"b9ects in trac7ing tests =1>@?. It has an a )antage o)er a#pheta#ine in ha)ing fe8er "n esirable si e effects, partic"larly on the car io)asc"lar syste#. .his r"g has been "se in the treat#ent of patients 8ith Jsi#ple epressionsJ =B, AA, 1D>?. &har#acologic effects are noticeable in #entally ill patients, b"t #ore than a transient therape"tic effect has not been establishe . !o st" ies are reporte on the "se of this phar#acologic agent for psychotherape"tic or inter)ie8 p"rposes.
METH;L?PHENID;LACETATE @RITALINA

&heni ylate =ritalin? is another one of the ne8er co#po"n s ha)ing analeptic effects, s"ch as pro "cing aro"sal an ele)ation of #oo an increasing the rate of co##"nication. In psychiatric practice this r"g has been reporte to eCert beneficial effects on psychotic patients recei)ing reserpine =a ra"8olfia tranF"iliGer?, 8hich so#eti#es in "ces #anifest epressi)e reactions in patients as a si e effect =A%?. ,"t a o"ble-blin , placebo-controlle st" y has not fo"n ritalin to be of any benefit in chronic schiGophrenia =D9?. .he analeptic effects of this r"g are 8ell establishe . .he "tility for interrogation p"rposes of the analeptic properties of this r"g, as co#pare to those of other sti#"lants, s"ch as a#pheta#ine, cannot be e)al"ate fro# eCisting infor#ation.
IPRONIAZID @MARSILIDA

IproniaGi is another anti epressi)e r"g. Its analeptic feat"res 8ere first note in chronic ebilitate t"berc"lo"s patients 8ho 8ere -1D>recei)ing the r"g as part of an eCperi#ental che#otherape"tic regi#en =B%?. It has been sai to i#pro)e the perfor#ance of nor#al in i)i "als, enabling the# to 8or7 #ore energetically an #ore effecti)ely, an to nee less sleep. IproniaGi has been "se in the treat#ent of #ental epression =9@? 8ith enco"raging res"lts. 1efiniti)e 8ell-controlle st" ies, ho8e)er, ha)e been reporte for neither nor#al s"b9ects nor #entally ill patients. Se)eral instances of fatal toCic hepatitis ha)e occ"rre 8hen oses o)er 1%> #g a ay 8ere gi)en. !e)ertheless, the a )ent of r"gs of s"ch a pres"#ably po8erf"l therape"tic effect in epression, o8ing either to psychologic conflicts or secon ary to chronic so#atic illness, opens "p f"rther areas of eCploration of rele)ance to the present topic.

Hallucinogenic or Psychotomimetic Drugs It has been co##on 7no8le ge for cent"ries that #any r"gs #ay #o ify the beha)ior of #an to the eCtent of pro "cing psychotic beha)ior. 3och et al. =66? ha)e pointe o"t that ac"te an chronic psychosis of the toCic type can be pro "ce in s"sceptible in i)i "als by central ner)o"s syste# epressants =barbit"rates, bro#i es?I central ner)o"s syste# sti#"lants =a#pheta#ine, caffeine?I analgesics =acetylsalicylic aci , acetanili ?I a"tono#ic acti)ators an bloc7ers =atropine, scopolaniine?I local anesthetics =cocaine, no)acaine?I anti#alarials =F"inine, atabrine?I oCytocics =ergot al7aloi s?I hea)y #etals =lea , #erc"ry, arsenic?I hor#ones =thyroi , cortisone, (C.3?I gases, incl" ing lo8 an high oCygen concentration in the inhale air, an e)en 8ater in toCic a#o"nts. .he interests of

psychiatrists in these pheno#ena ha)e ste##e largely fro# the s"ppose rese#blance of these psychoses to schiGophrenia, beca"se of the ti#e-honore , tho"gh as yet "npro)en, hypotheses =11? that schiGophrenia is "e to a JtoCin.J Since Wi7ler =1B1? has recently re)ie8e the literat"re on this s"b9ect critically it 8ill not be one here. .8o psychoto#i#etic r"gs are isc"sse briefly here as eCa#ples, fro# the )ie8point of their psychophar#acologic effects an their possible pertinence to interrogation proce "res.
MESCALINE

4ention 8as #a e earlier of an allege "se of #escaline against concentration ca#p in#ates by /er#an interrogators =11D, page 1%?. 4escaline has also been st" ie as a potential iagnostic an therape"tic a 9"nct 8ith psychiatric patients. Cattell =D@? fo"n #escaline to be a "sef"l r"g in in)estigating personality str"ct"re, -1D1b"t of no )al"e in the therapy of psychiatric patients. 3e st" ie fiftynine patients, se)enteen 8ith pse" o-ne"rotic schiGophrenia =/ro"p I?, t8enty-siC 8ith o)ert schiGophrenia b"t 8itho"t eterioration =/ro"p II?, an siCteen eteriorate schiGophrenics =/ro"p III?. !e8 psycho yna#ic #aterial 8as gaine fro# the first t8o gro"ps, b"t relati)ely little fro# the last gro"p. Cattell reasone that the ne8 #aterial obtaine in the #escaline state ha been con ense an represse in the r"g-free state. 4escaline in general =6B, 6%, 66, 11>? has been fo"n to pro "ce percept"al istortions an hall"cinations, accent"ation of affecti)e eCperiences, an increase psychotic #anifestations. In so#e patients contact an co##"nication 8ere increase an in others ecrease . 1enber an 4erlis =A>, A1? "sing >.% g# of #escaline in 8ater intra)eno"sly on both psychone"rotic an psychotic patients clai#e that #escaline in "ce the pro "ction of s"ppresse an represse seC"al an aggressi)e conflicts, 8ith a pre o#inance of e#otional rather than i eational reactions. 3och =6B? note that #escaline in Jnor#alsJ pro "ce #ore of an Jorganic reactionJ 8ith so#e schiGophrenic feat"res, as co#pare to its effect in schiGophrenics an latent schiGophrenics 8here #escaline pro "ce #ore co#plete schiGophrenic isorganiGation. 3och also e#phasiGe that #escaline pro "ce a falling off in intellect"al f"nctioning. .hese articles are typical of the reports on the psychophar#acologic effects of #escaline. When interrogators eCtrapolate clinical psychiatric obser)ations of this 7in to the proble#s of interrogation, #escaline #ight ser)e their p"rposes in atte#pting to create an at#osphere of fear or terror in the infor#ant an the ill"sion of #agical o)erpo8ering o#nipotence abo"t hi#self. (fter s"ch a transient state has been create , the s"sceptible infor#ant #ight be in "ce s"bseF"ently to re)eal infor#ation. .he percept"al an cogniti)e ist"rbances pro "ce by the r"g #a7e it "ns"itable for obtaining "n istorte infor#ation 8hile the so"rce is "n er its infl"ence. ;ro# the )ie8point of the infor#ant, the creation of a transient psychotic state by the ingestion of #escaline or lysergic aci #ight offer hi# so#e te#porary protection against being s"ccessf"lly interrogate . (n interrogator is not li7ely to consi er an in i)i "al in a psychotic state a s"itable can i ate for pro)i ing reliable an "sef"l infor#ation, at least "ntil the r"g effect 8ears off.
L;SER=IC ACID @LSDA

Lysergic aci = -lysergic aci iethyla#i e tartrate? has been st" ie recently as a r"g 8hich #ight contrib"te a itional 7no8le ge abo"t -1DDthe #echanis#s an treat#ent of #ental isease in general an schiGophrenia in partic"lar. ,"sch an Johnson =D6? ga)e B> to A> ga##a of LS1-D% to t8entyone chronic psychotic patients =#ostly schiGophrenics? an later to so#e psyclione"rotic patients. .hey note that the r"g transiently increase the #ental acti)ity of their patients B> to 6> rain after ingestion. .he effect 8as a transitory toCic state in 8hich represse #aterial ca#e forth Jso#eti#es 8ith )i)i realis#J an e#otional eCpression. ,"sch an Johnson tho"ght that LS1 #ight be "sef"l as an a 9")ant in psychotherapy. 1eshon et al. =AD? st" ie the effect of the ingestion of 1 ga##a per 7g bo y 8eight of LS1 on fifteen nor#al )ol"nteers. (lterations 8ere obser)e in thin7ing, speech, e#otions, #oo , sensation, ti#e perception, i eation, an ne"rologic signs. .he reaction laste 1D to 16 hr in #ost cases, b"t se)eral ays in one case. .he reaction 8as typical of an eCogeno"s toCic state, si#"lating a schiGophrenic reaction. .he reaction 8as not specific an the eCtent to 8hich it 8as epen ent on the basic personality 8as not eter#ine . ,ercel et al. =16? st" ie the relation bet8een the type of LS1 psychosis pro "ce in nor#als an of the *orschach .est fin ings of the s"b9ects. .hey co"l not pre ict the type of psychotic reactions fro# the pre-LS1 *orschach, b"t they co"l often say fro# the *orschach recor s 8hich nor#al s"b9ects 8o"l sho8 psychotic sy#pto#s. (bra#son et al. =1, D? fo"n , after a #inistering large oses of LS1-D%, that intellect"al f"nctioning, as #eas"re by a battery of tests, 8as ist"rbe in #any spheres. In another st" y, Le)ine et al. =<9? sho8e that *orschach .est scores 8ere altere in the irection of a #ore psychotic pict"re. 1a)ies an 1a)ies =B6? treate siCteen #ental efecti)es 8ith LS1-D% in osages of D> to A>> ga##a in 8ater for as #any as t8enty-siC treat#ents in three #onths. Se)en patients beca#e #ore tal7ati)e an cooperati)e. .heir J#e#ories 8ere sti#"late ,J b"t e#otional reactions 8ere li#ite . !o lasting benefits 8ere obser)e . (n interesting, "neCplaine pheno#enon 8as that only t8o o"t of the siCteen cases ha the eCpecte biGarre hall"cinatory eCperiences. .here are #any other reports of eCperi#ental an clinical st" ies e#ploying LS1-D%, b"t those reporte here are fairly representati)e. .here is eno"gh gi)en here to s"ggest the possible applications of LS1 to interrogation techniF"es. It is apparent that this r"g i#pairs percept"al an intellect"al f"nctioning. .he concl"sions reache on #escaline hol eF"ally for the possible applications of this r"g to -1DBinterrogation. (s a tool in the a )ance#ent of 7no8le ge of psychophar#acology, LS1-D% is a r"g on 8hich clinical an eCperi#ental research is li7ely to contin"e.

Ma-or Tran.uili/ers *ecently a large n"#ber of ne8 co#po"n s 8ith se ati)e an anCiety-relie)ing properties ha)e been intro "ce , s"fficiently ifferent fro# the classical se ati)es, s"ch as paral ehy e, chloral hy rate, barbit"rates an bro#i es, to 8arrant "sing ne8 ter#s to escribe the#. .hese co#po"n s are referre to as JtranF"iliGersJ or JataraCics.J .hey ha)e been in)estigate clinically on an "nprece ente scale in the treat#ent of psychiatric isor ers, partic"larly the psychoses, an to a lesser eCtent in the psychone"roses. .he "se of these r"gs has re)ol"tioniGe psychiatric therape"tic proce "res, especially 8ithin the #ental hospitals. ( thoro"gh re)ie8 of their effects an #echanis# of action in #ental illness 8o"l be o"t of place here. 'nfort"nately, the "sef"lness of these tranF"iliGers in eCploring psychologic processes an in facilitating co##"nication has not been )ery eCtensi)ely teste . .heir applicability to interrogation proce "res is still spec"lati)e. 6et, for the sa7e of co#pleteness, an to in icate the irections f"rther research #ight ta7e, the psychologic actions of these r"gs eser)e #ention.
PHENOTHIAZINE DERIVATIVES

(#ong the phenothiaGine eri)ati)es no8 in #e ical "se are$ chlorpro#aGine =thoraGine?, #epaGine =pacatal?, perhenaGine =trilafon?, proclorperaGine =co#paGine?, pro#aGine =sparine?, thiopropaGate = artal?, an trifl"pro#aGine =)esprin?. +f these, chlorpro#aGine has been #ost 8i ely "se an in)estigate at this ti#e. .herefore, the psychophar#acologic actions of only this co#po"n are isc"sse here. +hlor(ro)a3ine Fthora3ineG . 1elay an his associates =B<? appear to ha)e been the first to eCplore chlorpro#aGine in the treat#ent of #ental illness. .hey fo"n that the effects of chlorpro#aGine in patients 8ith #anic psychoses 8ere so#nolence, ecrease responses to eCternal an internal sti#"li, pleasant in ifference, an ecrease spontaneity of speech. S"bseF"ent reports =%, D>, D<, BD, @%, <1, <@, <<, 1BA? ha)e been in agree#ent that chlorpro#aGine is effecti)e in F"ieting or abolishing se)ere agitation an psycho#otor eCcite#ent, 8hether of #anic- epressi)e, schiGophrenic, or toCic origin. 4ost of these reports agree that the basic isor er in these con itions is not -1DAaltere by the r"g. In the psychone"roses, chlorpro#aGine 8as reporte =%D, <>? to ecrease anCiety an tension te#porarily, b"t to ha)e no specific a#eliorati)e effects on con)ersion sy#pto#s, obsession, piaobia, epression, or physical pain. ( recent, controlle in)estigation =1DB? on the effect of chlorpro#aGine on the co##"nication processes of psychiatric patients has in icate no specific facilitating effect. In nor#al s"b9ects, the effect of 1> #g of proclorperaGine =a phenothiaGine eri)ati)e? 8as co#pare 8ith that of 1> #g of phenobarbital. !o specific ifferences 8ere fo"n on tests of #ental perfor#ance, hearing, an pain perception, altho"gh a ecre#ent in #"sc"lar coor ination an efficiency occ"rre "n er proclorperaGine =1A?. +ther phenothiaGine eri)ati)es are being eCtensi)ely in)estigate at this ti#e in psychiatric practice 8ith the hope of fin ing one 8ith eF"al or better therape"tic effects an fe8er of the si e effects of chlorpro#aGine, s"ch as &ar7insonis#, obstr"cti)e 9a"n ice, er#atitis, tachycar ia, etc.

.here are no reports of the "se of the phenothiaGine eri)ati)es in interrogation an no e)i ence to s"pport the thesis that these r"gs #ight be of a)ail to an interrogator:s 8or7, eCcept perhaps 8ith eCcite an agitate infor#ants 8ho #ight be enco"rage to report #aterial in eCchange for peace of #in . +n the other han , s"ch r"gs #ight help a harrie infor#ant to 7eep his 7no8le ge to hi#self
RAU:OLFIA ALBALOIDS

.he principal ra"8olfia al7aloi s being "se in psychiatric practice are reserpine =serpasil?, eserpi ine =har#onyl?, an rescinna#ine =#o eril?. +f these, reserpine has been #ost thoro"ghly st" ie . Its actions are isc"sse here as representati)e of the gro"p. Reser(ine Fser(asilG. *eserpine, belie)e to be the #ost acti)e of the ra"8olfia al7aloi s, 8as i entifie by 4Uller et al. =1>%?, an its se ati)e an antihypertensi)e effects 8ere note in ani#als by ,ein =1>?. Initially the r"g 8as "se in the 'nite States for treating high bloo press"re =1BB?. ;ro# s"ch eCperiences it 8as note that reserpine pro "ce a state of cal#ness 8itho"t significant i#pair#ent of sensory ac"ity, #"sc"lar coor ination, an alertness. .he effects of single oses of reserpine =D.% to 1>.> #g intra#"sc"larly? 8ere fo"n =9<? to be #ore #ar7e in patients eChibiting high le)els of psycho#otor acti)ity, regar less of the clinical psychiatric iagnosis. *epeate oses of reserpine o)er long perio s of ti#e re "ce or -1D%abolishe hyperacti)ity, co#bati)eness, estr"cti)eness, inso#nia, flight of i eas, etc., in the #a9ority of ist"rbe psychiatric patients, regar less of clinical iagnosis =A, 6, A@, %1, 6<, @6?. .he tranF"iliGing action of reserpine an chlorpro#aGine appears to be F"ite si#ilar. .his si#ilarity eCten s to so#e of the si e effects, s"ch as #iosis, lo8ering of bloo press"re an bo y te#perat"re, increase in appetite, nasal congestion, an &ar7inson syn ro#e. (ltho"gh certain ifferences in si e effects o occ"r, they o not reF"ire o"r attention here. .he literat"re on the effecti)eness of reserpine an chlorpro#aGine as ai s to in i)i "al =119? an gro"p =BA? psychotherapy is eCtensi)e. Whereas there is agree#ent that the r"gs lo8er anCiety an tension, there are s"ch notable ifferences of opinion abo"t the ai#s of psychotherapy an abo"t 8hat constit"tes psychotherapy that no efinite state#ent can be #a e regar ing this point. If the re)ie8er 8ere to a his )oice to the ishar#onio"s chor"s of )ie8points on this s"b9ect, he 8o"l , on the basis of i#pressionistic e)al"ations only, say that the tranF"iliGers are of so#e ai in the psychotherapy of those patients 8ho are so agitate , anCio"s, an hyperacti)e that they cannot sit still )ery long for psychotherapy. 3o8e)er, 8or7ing o"t the finer n"ances of e#otional conflicts of a patient in psychotherapy is precl" e 8hen the patient is reg"larly ta7ing a tranF"iliGer, beca"se the patient appears to beco#e too ins"late against e#otional reactions to realiGe or care that he is respon ing 8ith feeling in so#e pertinent 8ay. (s 8ith the phenothiaGine eri)ati)es, the place of the ra"8olfia al7aloi s in the potential ar#a#entari"# of the interrogation has not been establishe . .here are no rele)ant articles on this #atter. Spec"lati)ely, the tranF"iliGers #ight be of a)ail in selecte infor#ants 8ho are highly agitate an ist"rbe , an 8ho #ight yiel infor#ation in ret"rn for the relaCation they eCperience 8ith s"ch a

se ati)e. +n the other han , less e#otionally ist"rbe infor#ants #ight strengthen their resol)e to retain infor#ation "n er a tranF"iliGer. .he only 8ay to eci e this proble# is by eCperi#ent. ;"rther#ore, tranF"iliGers in #o erate osage o not notably i#pair intellect"al an sensory f"nctioning. .herefore, their "se probably oes not contrib"te to the istortion of fact"al infor#ation pro "ce .

Addiction .he epen ence of the r"g a "se of r"gs to control beha)ior. ict on the s"pplier of r"gs has fig"re in spec"lations regar ing the -1D6S"ch spec"lations ass"#e that the nee of an a ict for a r"g is so strong as to o)erri e #any other )al"es, incl" ing strong social proscriptions 8hen these conflict 8ith the satisfaction of r"g-create nee s. .he 8riter is "na8are of any act"al or allege "tiliGations of r"gs in this #anner for the p"rposes of interrogation. +ne of the car inal criteria of a iction is the occ"rrence of se)ere reactions 8hen the r"g is 8ith ra8n. With ra8al syn ro#es occ"r 8ith opiates, barbit"rates, an , recently, an ani#al st" y has #a e this clai# for #eproba#ates =AB?. ,eyon a #ini#al osage an ti#e perio , the contin"o"s "sage of these r"gs pro "ces a iction in al#ost e)eryone =@D?. !o e#onstrable i#pair#ent of cogniti)e or psycho#otor f"nctions has been i entifie in s"b9ects operating "n er the #aintenance osage to 8hich they are habit"ate . 'n er #ost of the opiates, the s"b9ect is li7ely to sho8 a 7een a8areness of a li#ite seg#ent of reality, a ecrease in spontaneity an creati)ity, a ecrease in s"ggestibility, an an increase in rigi ity an co#part#entaliGation of thin7ing. (s 8ith other r"gs, the reaction )aries 8i ely fro# in i)i "al to in i)i "al %>, 1B1?. Infor#ation contrib"te by an a icte so"rce is nat"rally s"spect, since #any a icts ha)e gone to great length, fabrication of infor#ation being the least of the#, to #aintain their r"g s"pplies. If a so"rce beca#e a icte as a seF"el to the treat#ent of in9"ries, the ability of the interrogator to gi)e or 8ithhol the r"g 8o"l gi)e hi# a po8erf"l hol on the so"rce. It appears "nli7ely that this 8eapon is so "niF"e as to lea an interrogator to create a iction eliberately. (n interrogator 8ho 8o"l be 8illing to pro "ce a iction 8o"l not hesitate to e#ploy #ore reliable an instantly effecti)e #eans for in "cing res"lts as "npleasant as 8ith ra8al sy#pto#s. Since the initial reactions of #ost s"b9ects to r"gs of a iction are "npleasant, these r"gs 8o"l not appear to ha)e a role as positi)e #oti)ators, eCcept for s"b9ects eCperiencing pain.

Counter& tin% Dru% E''e ts

When the effects of a r"g are not consonant 8ith the s"b9ect:s 8ishes, the eCtent to 8hich the s"b9ect can s"ccessf"lly co"nteract these effects 8itho"t the ai of other r"gs beco#es an i#portant proble#. Inas#"ch as this is an "n"s"al con ition, little or no e#pirical infor#ation is a)ailable. 6et, it #ay be 8orth8hile to in "lge in so#e spec"lation. -1D@If the s"b9ect #arshals his efforts to fight a r"g, one #ay s"r#ise that he has beco#e alar#e abo"t its effects on hi#, an that this alar# #ost li7ely is in the for# of anCiety o)er losing control. +ther instances of this type of anCiety in ne"roses, psychoses, an cerebral ins"lt ha)e e#onstrate that it fee s on itself. Specifically, the anCiety increases in so#ething li7e a geo#etric progression 8hene)er the so"rce of concern is p"t to the test an a eF"ate control is in ee fo"n to be 8anting, 8ith the #o"nting anCiety itself contrib"ting to f"rther loss of control. So#e persons #ore than others habit"ally "se the #echanis# of control an #ight pres"#ably atte#pt to o so in this sit"ation. S#all to #o erate oses, altho"gh affecting the s"b9ect, #ight not alar# hi#, since the r"g effects #ay be 8ithin the range of his or inary eCperiences, an since none of the f"nctions 8hich for# the basis for his sense of control #ay ha)e been serio"sly i#paire . ,eca"se it is iffic"lt for #ost persons to s"ccee in their efforts to relaC, the #ain res"ltant of any effort pres"#ably is anCiety an aro"sal. If this is so, the effect of sti#"lants 8o"l be intensifie , 8hereas the effect of se ati)es #ight be co"nterbalance to so#e eCtent. 3ere, the F"estion of ho8 #assi)e a osage of a se ati)e the s"b9ect co"l co"nteract 8o"l nee to be consi ere . .he phenothiaGine tranF"iliGers #ight be eCpecte to pro "ce a s"fficient lac7 of concern in the s"b9ect to pre)ent his atte#pting to "n o their effect, or, #ore irectly, precl" e a state of aro"sal. (ll these spec"lations eser)e caref"l eCperi#ental st" y.

Su--&r# &nd Con $usions

,ature o #evie(ed Studies ( istinction has been #a e bet8een inter)ie8s carrie o"t for psychotherapy an those to obtain fact"al infor#ation. (ltho"gh there has been consi erable spec"lation regar ing the possible "se of r"gs for the latter p"rposes, open p"blications of serio"s research ealing irectly 8ith s"ch cases are scant. .he pa"city of reporte st" ies on the #atter has oblige the re)ie8er to incl" e relate p"blishe #aterial of psychophar#acologic st" ies. When eCtrapolations are #a e fro# p"blishe #aterial of this sort, they are presente as hypotheses, an in e)ery instance reF"ire testing an )ali ation. -1D<-

Drug #esearch that May Produce 0no(ledge Applicable to Interrogation

(part fro# any applie research that go)ern#ents #ay sponsor for i#pro)ing interrogation or for ai ing their o8n personnel to resist interrogation, the p"rs"it of )ario"s c"rrent scientific an #e ical interests 8ill o"btless res"lt in e)eloping 7no8le ge of r"g action applicable to interrogation. .he interest of scientists in e#ploying r"gs in research transcen s an interest in r"g effects, per se. 1r"gs constit"te )al"able tools for eCperi#entation irecte to8ar e)eloping basic physiologic an psychologic 7no8le ge, s"ch as the st" y of ne"rophysiologic correlates of sy#bolic an psycho yna#ic processes. Wor7 by scientists in s"ch areas is also li7ely to increase 7no8le ge of r"gs 8hich #ay be applicable to interrogation.

Methodologic Problems in Determining the Applicability o Drugs to Interrogation Procedures ( large initial section of this report is e)ote to a s"r)ey an isc"ssion of the nonspecific effects of r"gs an to the iffic"lties in)ol)e in iscri#inating these effects fro# the phar#acologic effects of the r"gs "se . .he ti#e spent in escribing so#e of these nonspecific factors is nee e to ill"strate ho8 the #any )ariables in)ol)e co#plicate the proble# of #a7ing a 9" g#ent regar ing the present or potential "sef"lness of a r"g for either therape"tic or intelligence p"rposes. .his section has been incl" e to point o"t so#e of the proble#s 8hich reF"ire consi eration in esigning 8ell-controlle st" ies in this area. .he co#pleCity inherent in psychophar#acologic research reF"ires the integration of all le)els of research on r"g action$ bioche#ical, ne"rophysiological an psychological. .hese proble#s are #"ltiplie an pre iction is lessene 8hen the actions of r"gs on li)ing h"#an beings are consi ere , rather than on isolate ner)es, tiss"es, or ani#als of si#pler ne"ral str"ct"re. .his re)ie8er has incl" e only )ery fe8 bibliographical references to 8or7 8ith ani#als, an yet a significant portion of eCcellent eCperi#ental, psychologic st" ies in)ol)e ani#als. .his relati)e o#ission can be eCplaine by the proble# being one "niF"e to h"#an beings$ the "se of lang"age sy#bols to co##"nicate an interact 8ith other h"#an beings. ( re)ie8 of the literat"re ill"strates a )ariety of effects pro "ce s"bstances 8hich si#"late #e ication -1D9=placebos?. 1epen ing on the personality of the s"b9ect an the circ"#stances "n er 8hich the placebo is a #inistere , B> to %> per cent of in i)i "als sho8 or eCperience a reaction. Well- esigne st" ies can isting"ish the phar#acologic effect of a r"g fro# the placebo effect. .he possibility is raise that an interrogator #ight eCploit the Jplacebo pheno#enonJ 8ith a s"sceptible s"b9ect, instea of e#ploying a phar#acologically acti)e r"g. (n eCa#ination of the literat"re e#onstrates that the effects of r"gs )ary 8ith the attit" e an #oti)ation of the person a #inistering the #e ication an the person inter)ie8ing the infor#ant. .he seC an intelligence of the s"b9ect, the presence of #ental or physical illness, the occ"rrence of biologic rhyth#s =e.g., #ensis?, state of n"trition =e.g., fasting or nonfasting?, egree of fatig"e, an eCperi#ental or enforce isolation ha)e been fo"n to affect the capacity to react an the reaction of in i)i "als to testing proce "res, 8ith or 8itho"t r"gs. .he #etho of sa#pling the )erbal beha)ior of an in i)i "al "n er the infl"ence of a r"g, irecti)e, non irecti)e, free-associati)e, etc., also eter#ines the 7in s of by phar#acologically inert

reactions obser)e . ;or these reasons, it is reco##en e that a )ariety of sa#pling #etho s be "se in eCperi#ental st" ies.

The ! icacy o Drugs in *ncovering In ormation When one eCa#ines the literat"re for eCperi#ental an clinical st" ies that bear irectly on the "se of r"gs in interrogation proce "res, one fin s relati)ely fe8 st" ies. *eports ealing 8ith the )ali ity of #aterial eCtracte fro# rel"ctant infor#ants, 8hether cri#inal s"spects or eCperi#ental s"b9ects, in icate that there is no Jtr"th ser"#J 8hich can force e)ery infor#ant to report all the infor#ation he has. -Cperi#ental an clinical e)i ence in icate that not only the in)eterate cri#inal psychopath #ay lie or istort "n er the infl"ence of a r"g, b"t the relati)ely nor#al in i)i "al #ay, 8ith #any r"gs, s"ccessf"lly isg"ise fact"al ata. Less 8ell-a 9"ste in i)i "als, plag"e by g"ilt an epression, or s"ggestible in i)i "als, 8ho are co#pliant an easily s8aye , are #ore li7ely to #a7e slips re)ealing 8ithhel infor#ation. -)en they #ay, at ti#es, "nconscio"sly istort infor#ation an present fantasies as facts. .he anesthetic action of the r"g, as in narcosis 8ith barbit"rates, can interfere 8ith cerebral f"nctioning an pro#ote the presentation of fantasy #aterial as fact, or other8ise alter the for# of )erbaliGations to ren er the# relati)ely "nintelligible. It 8o"l be )ery iffic"lt "n er these circ"#stances for an interrogator to tell 8hen the )erbal -1B>content 8as t"rning fro# fact to fantasy, 8hen the infor#ant 8as si#"lating eep narcosis b"t act"ally falsifying, 8hich of contrary stories tol "n er narcosis 8as tr"e, an 8hen a lac7 of cr"cial infor#ation coining fro# a s"b9ect "n er a r"g #eant the infor#ant ha none to offer. .o eri)e "sef"l infor#ation fro# an interrogation in 8hich r"gs are e#ploye , an interrogator 8o"l ha)e to consi er an 8eigh #any i#portant factors$ the personality of the s"b9ect, the #ilie", other so"rces of e)i ence, the rapport obtaine , an the s7ill of the F"estioning. .hese an other factors affect the )ali ity of infor#ation obtaine fro# an infor#ant "n er se ation. (nalogo"s consi erations apply to sti#"lants.

Speci ic ! ects o Drugs in Interrogation Situations ( )antages an li#itations of a n"#ber of ifferent types of phar#acologic agents as a 9"ncts to interrogation can be eCa#ine by re)ie8ing clinical an eCperi#ental ata fro# the 8or7s of psychiatrists, ne"rologists, psychologists, physiologists, an phar#acologists. ,arbit"rates ten to increase contact an co##"nication, ecrease attention, ecrease anCiety, ecrease psychotic #anifestations, an #a7e the #oo #ore appropriate an 8ar#er. When co#bine 8ith inter)ie8 techniF"es that ai# at aro"sing e#otions, strong e#otional reactions #ay be catalyGe for psychotherape"tic p"rposes. ,arbit"rates ha)e been fo"n helpf"l in etecting 8hether an in i)i "al is feigning 7no8le ge of the -nglish lang"age an in getting #"te catatonic schiGophrenics an hysterical aphasics to tal7. .hey are of no a)ail, ho8e)er, in re#e ying the speech efects of tr"e aphasics, e)en transiently. .he "se of barbit"rates has helpe to get #ore reliable esti#ates of intelligence an personality thro"gh psychological tests, partic"larly in e#otionally "pset in i)i "als.

.he "se of )ario"s sti#"lant an anti epressi)e r"gs has been eCplore , for iagnostic an therape"tic p"rposes in psychiatric practice, b"t not to any eCtent for interrogation. (#pheta#ine, pipra rol, #ethylpheni ylacetate ha)e in co##on the capacity to pro "ce an o"tpo"ring of i eas, e#otions, an #e#ories. (n in9ection of a#pheta#ine follo8ing an intra)eno"s barbit"rate is sai to pro)o7e a stri7ing onr"sh of tal7ing an acti)ity fro# psychiatric patients. Witho"t a eF"ately controlling his st" y, one a"thor clai#s that #etha#pheta#ine pro "ces s"ch a strong "rge to tal7 that the cri#inal 8ho feigns a#nesia or 8ithhol s )ital infor#ation cannot control hi#self an th"s gi)es hi#self a8ay. IproniaGi , an anti epressi)e r"g 8hich is relati)ely slo8 an so#eti#es ra#atic in its thera-1B1pe"tic effect, sho"l be consi ere for eCperi#entation. .his r"g, an si#ilar, less toCic analogs 8hich are being e)elope , #ight be consi ere for "se in special instances. ;or eCa#ple, infor#ants s"ffering fro# chronic epression, 8hether "e pri#arily to e#otional factors, sit"ational stress, or physical ebilitation, #ight beco#e )ery responsi)e after "sing a #e ication of this type. (s a class, the sti#"lants probably present the #ost ob)io"s eCploitati)e potential for an interrogator. .he psychoto#i#etic an hall"cinogenic r"gs, #escaline an LS1-D%, ha)e been "se largely to st" y the nat"re of psychotic con itions an , in a #inor 8ay, as an a 9")ant in psychotherapy. .he "se of s"ch r"gs by an interrogator 8o"l ten to pro "ce a state of anCiety or terror in #ost s"b9ects, an pro#ote percept"al istortions an psychotic isorientation. .heir "se co"l constit"te a efinite threat to #ost #e ically "nsophisticate s"b9ects, i.e., the threat of #a7ing the s"b9ect JcraGy.J .h"s, they e#phasiGe the "nrestricte control of the so"rce by the interrogator. When the s"b9ect is not "n er the infl"ence of s"ch r"gs, )ital infor#ation #ight be eCtracte as a price for ceasing f"rther #e ication. (n enlightene infor#ant 8o"l not ha)e to feel threatene , for the effect of these hall"cinogenic agents is transient in nor#al in i)i "als. .he infor#ation gi)en "ring the psychotic r"g state 8o"l be iffic"lt to assess, for it #ay be "nrealistic an biGarre. +n the other han , fro# the infor#ant:s )ie8point, ta7ing LS1-D%, secrete on his person =it is effecti)e in #in"te osage?, #ight offer hi# te#porary protection against interrogation, for it is not li7ely that an interrogator 8o"l consi er an in i)i "al in a psychotic state a reliable so"rce. .he intro "ction of ne8 r"gs li7e tranF"iliGers that se ate b"t o not i#pair intellect"al f"nctioning in #o erate osage =e.g., phenothiaGine eri)ati)es an ra"8olfia al7aloi s? has ca"se a #inor re)ol"tion in the psychiatric therapies of agitate psychotic con itions regar less of type or etiology. .here is a possibility that these tranF"iliGers #ight be of "se 8ith selecte infor#ants 8ho are highly agitate an ist"rbe , an 8ho #ight gi)e infor#ation they prefer to 8ithhol in ret"rn for the tranF"ility they eCperience 8ith s"ch a se ati)e. 'n er the infl"ence of this r"g, the less e#otionally "pset infor#ant #ight fin that he can better #aster his anCieties an 7eep his resol)e to re#ain silent. .hese are all spec"lations 8hich reF"ire testing an eCperi#entation. ( iction is an a e )"lnerability to infl"ence. .he ability of the s"b9ect to gi)e infor#ation is not notably affecte by a #ainte-1BDnance osage. .he #oti)ational effects of obtaining r"g s"pplies, 8hile eCtre#e, are not of a ifferent or er for #ost s"b9ects than those 8hich the interrogator co"l pro "ce by other #ore rapi #eans. .he

eCploitation of a iction probably constit"tes a threat to persons pre)io"sly a icte , or to those 8ho beco#e a icte in the capti)ity sit"ation as a seF"el to other aspects of their treat#ent, rather than thro"gh the eliberate creation of a iction for eCploitati)e p"rposes. (nother "se to 8hich interrogators #ight p"t r"gs an placebos 8o"l in)ol)e their ability to absol)e the s"b9ect of responsibility for his acts. .he pop"lar #eaning of being J r"gge J or J ope J i#plies that an in i)i "al in this state has lost control o)er his actions an that society 8ill not hol hi# responsible for the#. When the trans#ittal of infor#ation is li7ely to in "ce g"ilt in the so"rce, the inter)ie8er can forestall so#e of this reaction by the a #inistration of a placebo or r"g. In so#e cases, this 8ill be all that is reF"ireAl to re#o)e the barrier to infor#ation trans#ittal. In the a)oi ance-a)oi ance conflict bet8een the so"rce:s g"ilt o)er yiel ing infor#ation an his anCieties o)er the possible conseF"ences of noncooperation, the JinescapableJ po8er of the r"g or placebo ser)es to 9"stify the so"rce:s actions to hi#self. What are the o)er-all concl"sions that can be ra8n fro# this re)ie8 an critical analysis of the "se of phar#acologic agents in obtaining infor#ationL (re phar#acologic agents of any )al"e to the interrogator in eliciting )ital infor#ationL .he ans8er is that r"gs can operate as positi)e catalysts to pro "cti)e interrogation. Co#bine 8ith the #any other stresses in capti)ity that an in i)i "al #ay be oblige to "n ergo, r"gs can a to the factors ai#e at 8ea7ening the resistance of the potential infor#ant. 3o8e)er, for #any reasons, the "se of r"gs by an interrogator is not certain to pro "ce )ali res"lts. .he effects of r"gs epen to a large eCtent on the personality #a7e-"p an physical stat"s of the infor#ant an the 7in of rapport that the interrogator is able to establish 8ith hi#. 0no8ing the phar#acologic actions of a n"#ber of r"gs, an interrogating tea# #ight choose that che#ical agent 8hich is #ost li7ely to be effecti)e in )ie8 of the infor#ant:s personality, physical stat"s, an the )ario"s stressf"l eCperiences he has alrea y "n ergone. -)en "n er the #ost fa)orable circ"#stances, the infor#ation obtaine co"l be conta#inate by fantasy, istortion, an "ntr"th, especially 8hen hall"cinogenic or se ati)e r"gs are e#ploye . (re there 8ays in 8hich the infor#ant can resist re)ealing )ital infor#ation "n er interrogation 8ith r"gsL .he ans8er is yes. -1BB4eans are a)ailable to the infor#ant face 8ith the prospect of being gi)en a r"g to loosen his tong"e. .he infor#ant sho"l 7no8 that a r"g of itself cannot force hi# to tell the tr"th, altho"gh it #ay #a7e hi# tal7ati)e, o)ere#otional, #entally conf"se , or sleepy. 3e sho"l also 7no8 that the effects of r"gs are F"ite )ariable fro# in i)i "al to in i)i "al, an that those 8ho #ay "se r"gs against hi# cannot pre ict 8ith certainty 8hat effects 8ill occ"r in his partic"lar case. .o a )icti# of s"ch atte#pts the i#perfect pre ictability of #any of the irect effects an si e effects of any r"g offers #any opport"nities for si#"lation. It is li7ely that #ost nonfatal r"gs 8ill ha)e a transient, ti#e-li#ite action rather than a per#anent one. .here is no nee for the infor#ant to beco#e panic7y at any biGarre or "nco#fortable reactions he #ay eCperience, for these reactions 8ill probably isappear. Instea of passi)ely accepting the a #inistration of a r"g, 8itho"t challenging the interrogator:s right to apply s"ch press"re, the infor#ant sho"l effecti)ely elay it, an th"s stall a possibly stressf"l interrogation "n er a r"g. ;inally, since the interrogator 8ants acc"rate an fact"al infor#ation, the infor#ant can confo"n the interrogator as to 8hat is fact an fiction by a n"#ber of #eans. 3e can si#"late ro8siness, conf"sion, an isorientation early "ring the a #inistration of the r"g. 3e can re)el in fantasiesI the

#ore l"ri the better. 3e can tell contra ictory stories. 3e can si#"late a psychosisI or, if he cares to go so far, he can e)en in "ce a transient psychotic state by ingesting a s#all a#o"nt of LS1 secrete on his person. ,y these e)ices, he can raise serio"s o"bts in the interrogator:s #in as to the reliability of the infor#ation gi)en by hi#. (s a final s"ggestion, this re)ie8er is incline to agree 8ith West =1B>? that the basic training of #ilitary personnel can be helpf"l in e)eloping techniF"es of resistance to interrogation. ( brief co"rse on the li#itations of the "se of r"gs in interrogation an on the 7in s of phar#acologic effects to be eCpecte fro# the ifferent types of r"gs 8o"l be helpf"l. S"ch training co"l ecrease the fear, hypers"ggestibility, an other eleterio"s reactions that e)ol)e fro# the "ncertain, the "npre ictable, an the "n7no8n.

Re'eren es
1. (bra#son 3. (. $ysergic aci% %iethla)i%e F$S,>A?GB KKII. 1ffect on transference. J. Psychol., 19%6, AD, %1-9<. D. (bra#son 3. (., 0ornets7y C., Jar)i7 4. -., et al. $ysergic aci% %iethla)i%e F$S,>A?GB KI. +ontent analysis of clinical reactions. J. Psychol., 19%%, A>, %B-6>.

-1BAB. (n ren 3. -. &reat)ent of %e(ression ith )eratran an% electroshoc". ,is. nerv. Syst., 19%%, 16, D@%-D@6. A. (Gi#a 3., Cra#er-(Gi#a, ;ern J., an 1e2erte"il *. A co)(arative 'ehavior an% (sycho%yna)ic stu%y of reser(ine an% e=ually (otent %oses of rau%i*in in schi3o(hrenics. 4orristo8n, !. J.$ .he SF"ibb Instit"te for 4e ical *esearch. .onogr. &her., 19%6 I=D?, 1%-D%. %. ,a7er (. (. 4'servations on the effect of largactil in (sychiatric illness. J. )ent. Sci., 19%%, 1>1, 1@%-1<D. 6. ,arsa J. (., an 0line !. S. &reat)ent of t o hun%re% %istur'e% (sychotics 1%<, 11>-11B. ith reser(ine. J. A)er. )e%. Ass., 19%%,

@. ,eecher 3. 0. 1*(eri)ental (har)acology an% )easure)ent of the su'<ective res(onse. Science, 19%D, 116, 1%@-16D. <. ,eecher 3. 0. A((raisal of %rugs inten%e% to alter su'<ective res(onses, sy)(to)s . J. A)er. )e%. Ass., 19%%, 1%<, B99A>1. 9. ,eecher 3. 0. 1vi%ence for increase% effectiveness of (lace'os ith increase% stress. A)er. J. Physiol., 19%6, 1<@, 16B169. 1>. ,ein 3. J. Lur Phar)a"ologie %es Reser(in, eines neuen Al"aloi%s aus Rau olfia ser(entina Benth. 1*(erientia, 19%B, 9, 1>@-11>. 11. ,elia7 L. ,e)entia (raeco*B &he (ast %eca%eDs or" an% (resent statusI a revie an% evaluation . !e8 6or7$ /r"ne & Stratton, 19A<. 1D. ,ene e7 .herese. Stu%ies in (sychoso)atic )e%icine. Psychose*ual functions in o)en. !e8 6or7$ *onal , 19%D.

1B. ,ene e7 .herese, an *"benstein ,. ,. &he se*ual cycle in o)en. Psychoso). .e%. .onogr., Washington, 19AD. 1A. ,en9a#in ;. ,., I7ai 0., an Clare 3. -. 1ffect of (roclor(era3ine on (sychologic, (sycho)otor an% )uscular (erfor)ance. U. S. Ar)e% 0orces )e%. J., 19%@, <, 1ABB-1AA>. 1%. ,enshei# 3. &y(enunterschie%e 'ei .es"alinversuchen. L. Neur., 19D9, 1D1, %B1-%AB. 16. ,ercel !. (., .ra)is L. -., +linger L. ,., an 1rei7"rs -. .o%el (sychoses in%uce% 'y $S,>A? in nor)als. II. Rorschach test fin%ings. A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%6, @%, 61D-61<. 1@. ,erg#an &. S., an /reen 4. A(hasiaB 1ffect of intravenous so%iu) a)ytal. Neurology, 19%1, 1, A@1-A@%. 1<. ,eringer 0. ,er .es"alinrausch. .onogr. aus %e) Gesa)tge'iete %er Neurologie un% Psychiatrie, ,erlin, 19D@. 19. ,eCion W. 3., 3eron W., an Scott .. 3. 1ffects of %ecrease% variations in sensory environ)ent. +ana%. J. Psychol., 19%A, <, @>-@6. D>. ,ir -. /., /oss J. 1., Jr., an 1enber 3. C. +hlor(ro)a3ine in the treat)ent of )ental illnessB A stu%y of E?; (atients . A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%%, 111, p. 9B>. D1. ,ischoff (. Mher eine thera(eutische 5er en%ung %er sogenanaten JWec7(#ineJ in er ,ehan l"ng schiGophrener -rreg"ngsG"st]n e. .schr. Psychiat. Neurol., 19%1, 1D1, BD9-BAA. DD. ,ric7ner *. 4. A neural fractionating an% co)'ining syste). A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%A, @D, 1-1>. DB. ,ronner (. &he role of so%iu) a)ytal in (sychothera(y an% %iagnosis. A)er. J. Psychother., 19%%, 9, DBA-DAD. DA. ,r"ssel J. (., Wilson 1. C., Jr., an Shan7el L. W. &he use of )ethe%rine in (sychiatric (ractice. Psychiat. Juart., 19%A, D<, B<1-B9A.

-1B%D%. ,"rney C. Solitary confine)ent. !e8 6or7$ Co8ar -4cCann, 19%D. D6. ,"sch (. 0., an Johnson W. C. $S, as an ai% in (sychothera(y. ,is. nerv. Syst., 19%>, 11, DA1-DAB. D@. Cattell J. &. &he influence of )escaline on (sycho%yna)ic )aterial. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19%A, 119, DBB-DAA. D<. Charatan ;. ,. -. An evaluation of chlor(ro)a3ine FHlargactilHG in (sychiatry. J. )ent. Sci., 19%A, 1>>, <<D-<9B. D9. Clar7 L. (., -lls8orth *. ,., ,arnett W. W., et al. Stu%ies of the 'ehavioral effects of ritalin. ,is. nerv. Syst., 19%6, 1@, B1@-BD@. B>. Clar7 L. 1., an ,eecher 3. 0. Psycho(har)acological stu%ies on su((ression. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19%@, 1D%, B16BD1. B1. Cleghorn *. (. ,rugs that (ro%uce %eviations in )oo%, inclu%ing an*iety (resu)a'ly ithout i)(airing ca(acities for orientation or at least secon%arily to changes in )oo%. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%D, 1><, %6<-%@1. BD. Cohn W. 4., Spec7 *. 2., an 3o8ar W. J. So%iu) a)ytal as an ai% in state hos(ital (racticeB Single intervie s ith 6;; (atients. Psychiat. Juart., 19%@, B1, D<9-B>>.

BB. Co8 en *. C., 5aC 4., an ;inney *. C. A (reli)inary note on the use of chlor(ro)a3ine %isor%ers. A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%%, @B, @>>-@>1.

ith neuro(sychiatric

BA. Co8 en *. C., 5aC 4., an Sproles J. (. Reser(ine alone as an a%<unct to (sychothera(y in the treat)ent of schi3o(hrenia. A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%%, @A, %1<-%DD. B%. Crane /. -. &he (sychiatric si%e>effects of i(ronia3i%. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%6, 11D, A9A-%>1. B6. 1a)ies 4. -. ,., an 1a)ies .. S. $ysergic aci% in )ental %eficiency. $ancet, 19%%, D69, p. 1>9>. B@. 1elay J. Phar)acologic e*(lorations of the (ersonalityB Narcoanalysis an% H)ethe%rineH shoc" . Proc. Roy. Soc. .e%., 19A9, AD, A9D-A96. B<. 1elay J., 1eni7er &., an 3arl, J. .. &raite)ent %es Ntats %De*citation et %Dagitation (ar une )Ntho%e )N%ica)enteuse %NrivNe %e lDhi'ernothNra(ie. Ann. )N%.>Psychol., 19%D, 11>, D6@-D@1. B9. 1elay J., &ichot &., an *o#anet ,. $e choc a)(hNta)ini=ue. 1tu%e clini=ue %e lDaction %u chlorhy%rate %e O> )ethylan(hNla)ine. Bull. et )e) Soc. )e%. ho(. %e Paris, 19A<, 6A, B><-BDB. A>. 1enbar 3. C. ,., an 4erlis S. A note on so)e thera(eutic i)(lications of the )escaline>in%uce% state. Psychiat. Juart., 19%A, D<, 6B%-6A>. A1. 1enbar 3. C. ,., an 4erlis S. Stu%ies on )escaline. I. Action in schi3o(hrenic (atients. Psychiat. Juart., 19%%, D9, AD1-AD9. AD. 1eshon 3. J., *in7el 4., an Solo#on, -. +. .ental changes e*(eri)entally (ro%uce% 'y $S,. Psychiat. Juart., 19%D, D6, BB-%B. AB. -ssig C. ;. With%ra al convulsions in %ogs follo ing chronic )e(ro'a)ate into*ication. A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%<, <>?, A1A-A1@. AA. ;abing 3. 1., 3a87ins J. *., an 4o"lton J. (. +linical stu%ies on al(ha FA>(i(eri%ylG 'en3hy%rol hy%rochlori%e, a ne anti%e(ressant %rug. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%%, 111, <BD-<B6. A%. ;erg"son J. .. &reat)ent of reser(ine>in%uce% %e(ression ith a ne anale(tic. Ann. N. !. Aca%. Sci., 19%%, 61, 1>11>@. A6. ;ischer 3. 0., an 1lin ,. 4. &he %yna)ics of (lace'o thera(yB A clinical stu%y. A)er. J. )e%. Sci., 19%6, DBD, %>A%1D.

-1B6A@. ;lach ;. ;. +linical effectiveness of reser(ine. Ann. N. !. Aca%. Sci., 19%%, 61, 161-166. A<. ;orster ;. 4. &he e(ile(sies an% convulsive %isor%ers. In (. ,. ,a7er =- .?, +linical neurology. 2ol. D, !e8 6or7$ &a"l ,. 3oeber, 19%%. &p. 1>B6-1>@A. A9. ;ran7l 2. -., an StrotG7a 3. !ar7o iagnose. Wien. "iln. Wchnschr., 19A9, 61, %69-%@B. %>. ;raser 3. ;., Isbell 3., -isen#an, A. J., et al. +hronic 'ar'iturate into*ication. ;"rther st" ies. A. .. A. Arch. int. .e%., 19%A, 9A, BA-A1.

%1. ;ree#an 3., (rnol (. L., an Cline 3 S. -ffects of chlorpro#aGine an reserpine in chronic schiGophrenic patients. ,is. nerv. Syst., 19%6, 1@, D1B-D19. %D. /ar#any /., 4ay (. ,., an ;ol7son (. &he use an% action of chlor(ro)a3ine in (sychoneurosis. Brit. )e%. J., 19%A, D, AB9-AA1. %B. /erson 4. J., an 2ictoroff 2. 1*(eri)ental investigation into the vali%ity of confessions o'taine% un%er so%iu) a)ytal narcosis. J. clin. Psycho(ath., 19A<, 9, B%9-B@%. %A. /leser /. C., /ottschal7 L. (., an John W. &he relationshi( of gen%er an% intelligence to choice of nor)ative stu%y of ver'al 'ehavior. J. %in. Psychol., 19%9, 1%, 1<D-191. or%sB A

%%. /ottschal7 L. (., an /leser /. C. 1ffect of fasting an% non>fasting on ver'al 'ehavior. 'np"blishe #an"script. %6. /ottschal7 L. (., /leser /. C., 1aniels *. S., an ,loc7 S. &he s(eech (atterns of schi3o(hrenic (atientsB A )etho% of assessing relative %egree of (ersonal %isorgani3ation an% social alienation. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19%<, 1D@, 1%B-166. %@. /ottschal7 L. (., 0app ;. .., *oss W. 1., et al. 1*(lorations in testing %rugs affecting (hysical an% )ental activity . J. A)er. )e%. Ass., 19%6, 161, 1>%A1>%<. %<. /rin7er *. *., an Spiegel J. &. War neuroses in North Africa. &he &unisian +a)(aign Jan.>.ay 679@. !e8 6or7$ Josiah 4acy, Jr., ;o"n ation, 19AB. %9. /"tt#an -., an 4acClay W. S. .escaline an% %e(ersonali3ation. &hera(eutic e*(eri)ents. J. Neurol. Psycho(ath., 19B6, 16, 19B-D1D. 6>. 3eron W., ,eCton W. 3., an 3ebb 1. +. +ognitive effects of %ecrease% variation to sensory environ)ent. A)er Psychologist, 19%B, <, p. B66. =(bstract? 61. 3ill 3. -., ,elle)ille *. -., an Wi7ler (. .otivational %eter)inants in the )o%ification of 'ehavior 'y )or(hine an% (ento'ar'ital. A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%@, @@, D<-B%. 6D. 3inl7le L. -., Jr. In /ro"p for the ( )ance#ent of &sychiatry, .etho%s of forceful in%octrinationB 4'servations an% intervie s. !e8 6or7$ /(& &"blications +ffice, J"ly, 19%@, p. D<@ f. /(& Sy)(osiu) !o. A. 6B. 3och &. 3. 1*(eri)ental in%uction of (sychosis. In 4ilban7 4e#orial ;"n =- .?, &he 'iology of )ental health an% %isease. !e8 6or7$ &a"l ,. 3oeber, 19%D, pp. %B9-%A6. 6A. 3och &. 3., Cattell J. &., an &ennes 3. 3. 1ffects of )escaline an% lysergic aci% = -LS1-D%?. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%D, 1><, %@9-%<A. 6%. 3och &. 3., Cattell J. &., an &ennes 3. 3 1ffect of %rugsB &heoretical consi%erations fro) a (sychological vie (oint. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%D, 1><, %<%-%<9. 66. 3och &. 3., &ennes 3. 3., an Cattell J. &. Psychoses (ro%uce% 'y a%)inistration of %rugs. Res. Pu'l. Ass. Nerv. .ent. ,is., Proc., 19%B, BD, D<@-D96. 6@. 3offing C. 0. &he (lace of (lace'os in )e%ical (ractice. A)er. Aca%. Gen. Pract., 19%%, 11, 1>B-1>@.

-1B@-

6<. 3ollister L. -., 0rieger /. -., 0ringel (., an *oberts *. 3. .reat#ent of chronic schiGophrenic reactions 8ith reserpine. Ann. N. !. Aca%. Sci., 19%%, 61, 9D-1>>. 69. 3o"se *. -. &he use of sco(ola)ine in cri)inology. A)er. J. of (olice Sci., 19B1, D, BD<-BB6. @>. 3o"ston ;. A (reli)inary investigation into a'reaction co)(aring )ethe%rine an% so%iu) a)ytal ith other )etho%s. J. )ent. Sci., 19%D, 9<, @>@-@1>. @1. Inba" ;. -., an *ei J. -. $ie %etection an% cri)inal interrogation. =Br e .? ,alti#ore$ Willia#s & Wil7ins, 19%B. @D. Isbell 3. 4anifestation an treat#ent of a AD%-AB<. iction to narcotic r"gs an barbit"rates. .e%. +lin. N. A)er., 19%>, BA,

@B. Jonas (. 1. &he a%<unctive use of an intravenous a)(heta)ine %erivative in (sychothera(y. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19%A, 119, 1B%-1A@. @A. 0elley 1. 4., Le)ine 0., &e#berton W., et al. Intravenous so%iu) a)ytal )e%ication as an ai% to the Rorschach )etho%. Psychiat. Juart., 19A1, 1%, 6<-@B. @%. 0inross-Wright 2. ^ +hlor(ro)a3ine an% reser(ine in the treat)ent of (sychoses. Ann. N. !. Aca%. Sci., 19%%, 61, 1@A1<D. @6. 0line !. S. Use of rau olfia ser(entina 'enth in neuro(sychiatric con%itions. Ann. N. !. Aca%. Sci., 19%A, %9, 1>@-1BD. @@. 0ornets7y C., an 3"#phries +. *elationship bet8een effects of a n"#ber of centrally acting r"gs an personality. A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%@, @@, BD%-BD@. @<. 0ornets7y C., 3"#phries +., an -)arts -. 2. Co#parison of psychological effects of certain centrally acting r"gs in #an. A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%@, @@, B1<-BDA. @9. 0"bie L. (. Psychoanalysis an% (sycho(har)acology. Psychiat. res. Re(. A)er. Psychiat. Ass., 19%<, 9, 61-6@. <>. La#bert C. A controlle% investigation into the value of chlor(ro)a3ine in the )anage)ent of an*iety states . J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19%%, 1D1, p. 1<D. <1. Lancaster !. &., an Jones 1. 3. +hlor(ro)a3ine an% insulin in (sychiatry. Brit. )e%. J., 19%A, D, %6%-%6@. <D. Larson J. (. $ying an% its %etection. Chicago$ 'ni)er. of Chicago &ress, 19BD. <B. Lasagna L., 4osteller ;., )on J. 4. ;elsinger, an ,eecher 3. 0. A stu%y of the (lace'o res(onse. A)er. J. .e%., 19%A, 16, @@>-@@9. <A. Lasagna L., )on J. 4. ;elsinger, an ,eecher 3. 0. ,rug in%uce% )oo% changes in )an. I. 4'servations on healthy su'<ects, chronically ill (atients an% H(ost a%%icts.H J. A)er. )e%. Ass., 19%%, 1%@, 1>>6-1>D>. <%. La)erty S. /. So%iu) a)ytal an% e*traversion. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiat., 19%<, D1, %>-%A. <6. Le/"illant L., an *oelens *.&ravau* soviNti=ues sur les neurole(ti=ues. $a Presse )N%icale, 19%6, 6A, 1DD%-1DD@. <@. Leh#ann 3. -. Selecti)e inhibition of affecti)e ri)e by phar#acologic #eans. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%A, 11>, <%6-<%@.

<<. Leh#ann 3. -., an 3anrahan /. -. Chlorpro#aGine. !e8 inhibiting agent for psycho#otor eCcite#ent an #anic states. A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%A, @1, DD@-DB@. <9. Le)ine (., (bra#son 3. (., 0a"f#an 4. *., et al. $ysergic aci% %iethyla)i%e F$S,>A?G. KI5. 1ffect on (ersonality as o'serve% in (sychological tests. J. Psychol., 19%%, A>, B%1-B66.

-1B<9>. Li ell S. W., an Weil-4alherbe 3. &he effects of )ethe%rine an% of lysergic aci% %iethyla)i%e on )ental (rocesses an% on the 'loo% a%renaline level. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiat., 19%B, 16, @-1B. 91. Lilly J. C. .ental effects of re%uction of or%inary levels of (hysical sti)uli on intact healthy (ersons. Psychiat. res. Re(. A)er. Psychiat. Ass., 19%6, %, 1-D<. 9D. Lin e#ann -. &sychological changes in nor#al an abnor#al in i)i "als "n er the infl"ence of so i"# a#ytal. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19BD, 11, 1><B-1>91. 9B. Lin e#ann -., an Clar7 L 1. 4o ifications in ego str"ct"re an personality reactions "n er the infl"ence of the effects of r"gs. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%D, 1><, %61-%6@. 9A. Lin e#ann -., an 4ala#" W. -Cperi#ental analysis of the psychopathological effects of intoCicating r"gs. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19BA, 1B, <%B-<<1. 9%. Ling .. 4., an 1a)ies L. (. &he use of )ethe%rine in %iagnosis an% treat)ent of the (sychoneuroses . A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%D, 1>9, B<-B9. 96. Lipton -. L. &he a)ytal intervie . ( re)ie8. A)er. Practit. ,igest &reat., 19%>, I, 1A<-16B. 9@. Loo#er 3. &., Sa"n ers J. C., an 0line !. S. A clinical an% (har)aco%yna)ic evaluation of i(ronia3i% as a (sychic energi3er. Psychiat. res. Re(. A)er. Psychiat. Ass., 19%@, <, 1D9-1A1. 9<. L"ttrell *. *., an 4orrison (. 2. A (reli)inary re(ort on the tran=uili3ing effect of reser(ine. Ann. N.!. Aca%. Sci., 19%%, 61, 1<B-1<@. 99. 4ac1onal J. 4. .r"th ser"#. J. cri). $a , +ri)inol. (olice Sci., 19%%, A6, D%9-D6%. 1>>. 4ac1onal 4. 1. Narcoanalysis an% cri)inal la . A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%A, 111, D<B-D<<. 1>1. 4ac0innon 3. L. Narcoanalysis an% allie% (roce%ures. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19A<, 1>%, DDA-DD%. 1>D. 4asser#an J., an &echtel C. An e*(eri)ental investigation of factors influencing %rug action . Psychiat. res. Re(. A)er. Psychiat. Ass., 19%6, A, 9%-11B. 1>B. 4iller !. -. 1ffects of %rugs on )otivationB &he value of using a variety of )easures . Ann. N. !. Aca%. Sci., 19%6, 6%, B1<-BBB. 1>A. 4orris 1. &. Intravenous 'ar'ituratesB An ai% in the %iagnoses an% treat)ent of conversion hysteria an% )alingering. .il. Surg., 19A%, 96, %>9-%1B. 1>%. 4Uler J. 4., Schlitter -., an ,ein 3. J. Reser(in, %er se%ative Wir"stoff aus Rau olfia ser(entina Benth. 1*(erientia, 19%D, <, p. BB<.

1>6. !e8 J. S., an 0elly (. *. Narcosynthesis in civilian (ractice. Southern )e%. J., 19A@, A>, BA9-B%%. 1>@. &ayne *. ,., an 4oore -. W. &he effects of so)e anale(tic an% %e(ressant %rugs u(on trac"ing 'ehavior. J. Phar)acol., 19%%, 11%, A<>-A<A. 1><. *aines /. !., an Cohn *. Intra)eno"s so i"# a#ytal an generaliGe lang"age ysf"nction. Neurology, 19%1, 1, DD9-B><. 1>9. *e lich ;. C., *a)itG L. J., an 1ession /. 3. Narcoanalysis an% truth. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%1, 1>@, %<6-%9B. 11>. *in7el 4., 1eShon J., 3y e *. W., an Solo#on 3. C. 1*(eri)ental schi3o(hrenia>li"e sy)(to)s. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%D, 1>>, %@D-%@<. 111. *in7el 4., 3y e *. W., Solo#on 3. C., an 3oaglan 3. 1*(eri)ental (sychiatry. II. +linical an% (hysioche)ical (sychosis. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%%, 111, <<1-<9%. 11D. *olin J. Police %rugs. .ranslate by L. J. ,en it. !e8 6or7$ &hilosophical Library, 19%6.

-1B911B. *oth#an .., an S8ar 0. Stu%ies in (sycho(har)acologic (sychothera(yB 1ffective (sychothera(y %uring %rug> in%uce% states. A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%@, @<, 6D<-6AD.

*"bin 4. (., 4ala#" W., an 3ope J. 4. 1lectroence(halogra) an% (sycho(athological )anifestations n schi3o(hrenia as influence% 'y %rugs. Psychoso). .e%., 19AD, A, B%%-B61.
11%. Saber -. 2. Narcoanalysis in (olice %rugs. A((en%i* in J. Rolin, Police %rugs. !e8 6or7$ &hilosophical Library, 19%6. 116. Sargant W. Battle for the )in%. !e8 6or7$ 1o"ble ay, 19%@. 11@. Sargant W., an Slater -. Physical )etho%s of treat)ent in (sychiatry. =Br e .? ,alti#ore$ Willia#s & Wil7ins, 19%A. 11<. Sar8er-;oner /. J. &he transference an% non>s(ecific %rug effects in the use of the tran=uili3er %rugs, an% their influence on affect. Psychiat. res. Re(. A)er. Psychiat. Ass., 19%@, <, 1%B-16@. 119. Sa)age C., an 1ay J. 1ffects of a tran=uili3er Freser(ineG on (sycho%yna)ic an% social (rocesses . A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%<, @9, %9> %96. 1D>. Sch"t J. W., an 3i#8ich 3. -. &he effect of )eratran on t enty>five institutionali3e% )ental (atients. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%%, 111, <B@-<A>. 1D1. Si#on J. L., an .a"be 3. A (reli)inary stu%y on the use of )ethc%rine in (sychiatric %iagnosis. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19A6, 1>A, %9B-%96. 1DD. Stoc7ings /. .. +linical stu%y of the )escaline (sychosis ith s(ecial reference to the )echanis) of the genesis of schi3o(hrenia an% other (sychotic states. J. )ent. Sci., 19A>, <6, D9-A@. 1DB. .o"rlentes .. .., 3"nsic7er (. L., an 3"r 1. -. +hlor(ro)a3ine an% co))unication (rocesses. A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%<, @9, A6<-A@B. 1DA. .yler 1. ,. Psychological changes %uring e*(eri)ental slee( %e(rivation. ,is. nerv. Syst., 19%%, 16, D9B-D99.

1D%. 'n erhill 3. C. +ri)inal evi%ence. *e)ise an e ite by J. L. !ibloc7, In ianapolis$ ,obbs-4errill, 19B%. 1D6. 2on J. 4. ;elsinger, Lasagna L., an ,eecher 3. 0. ,rug>in%uce% changes in )an. A. Personality an% reaction to %rugs. J. A)er. )e%. Ass., 19%%, 1%@, 111B-1119. 1D@. Weinstein -. (., 0ahn *. L., S"gar#an L. (., an Linn L. &he %iagnostic use of a)o'ar'ital so%iu) in 'rain %isease. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%B, 1>9, <<9-<9A. 1D<. Weinstein -. (., 0ahn *. L., S"gar#an L. (., an 4alitG S. &he serial a%)inistration of the Ha)ytal testH for 'rain %iseaseI its %iagnostic an% (rognostic value. A...A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%A, @1, D1@-DD6. 1D9. Wen t /. *. S"ote by 3. ;ree in Sy#posi"#$ 1isc"ssion an critiF"e on #etho ology of research in psychiatry. &sychiat. res. Re(. A)er. Psychiat. Ass., 19%<, 9, p. @>. 1B>. West L. J. Psychiatric as(ects of training for honora'le survival as a (risoner of ar . A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%<, 11%, BD9-BB6. 1B1. Wi7ler (. &he relations of (sychiatry to (har)acology. ,alti#ore$ Willia#s & Wil7ins, 19%@. 1BD. Wi7ler (. So)e (ro'le)s in e*(eri)ental (sychiatry. Psychiat. res. Re(. A)er. Psychiat. Ass., 19%<, 9, <9-111. 1BB. Wil7ins *. W. +linical usage of rau olfia al"aloi%s, inclu%ing reser(ine =serpasil?. Ann, N. !. Aca%. Sci., 19%A, %9, B6-AA,

-1A>1BA. Win7el#an !. W., Jr. +hlor(ro)a3ine in the treat)ent of neuro(sychiatric %isor%ers. J. A)er. )e%. Ass., 19%A, 1%%, 1<-D1. 1B%. Wolf S. 1ffects of suggestion an% con%itioning on the action of che)ical agents in hu)an o'<ects / the (har)acology of (lace'os. J. clin. Invest., 19%>, D9, 1>>-1>9. 1B6. Wolf S., an &ins7y *. 3. 1ffects of (lace'o a%)inistration an% occurrence of to*ic reactions. J. A)er. )e%. Ass., 19%A, 1%%, BB9-BA1. 1B@. Wolf S., an *ipley 3. S. Stu%ies on the action of intravenously a%)inistere% so%iu) a)ytal. A)er. J. )e%. Sci., 19A<, D1%, %6-6D.

-1A1-

CHAPTER

Physiological responses as a means of evaluating information

.o al#ost any sti#"l"s fro# o"tsi e the bo y respon s 8ith 8i esprea changes in its physiologic f"nctioning. 4any of the changes are in)isible an "n7no8n to the person hi#self. In so#e sit"ations, these changes ha)e been fo"n to be )al"able for in ications of the egree of cre ence 8hich sho"l be gi)en to a person:s state#ents. .his chapter re)ie8s the responses a)ailable for s"ch interpretations, the )ali ity of the #etho , an possible i#pro)e#ents an eCtensions of its "se 8hich #ay occ"r in the f"t"re. .he "se of physiologic responses in police interrogation has beco#e co##onplace. S"ch practices, long base on s"pernat"ral principles, ha)e in fact been "se since ancient ti#es =B%?. (s long ago as the eighteenth cent"ry 1aniel 1efoe propose a test of this sort 8ith a scientific rationale =B1?. (ct"al eCperi#ent on physiologic tests of eception see#s to ha)e beg"n 8ith psychologists in /er#any early in the cent"ry, 8ith ,en"ssi =D?, an Italian 8ith /er#an training, offering the #ost eCtensi)e an pro#ising res"lts. ,en"ssi "se breathing changes as his principal criterion. ( fe8 years later 4arston =D9? an Larson =DB?, on the basis of certain eCperi#ental 8or7, reporte s"ccess 8ith systolic bloo press"re changes. .hese t8o physiologic )ariables ha)e been the core of co##ercial Jlie etectorsJ e)er since, 8ith the a ition of the gal)anic s7in response follo8ing the 8or7 of S"##ers =BB, BA? in the 19B>:s. 'n er a contract 8ith the +ffice of !a)al *esearch, 8hich 8as -1ADalso s"pporte by the other ser)ices, a gro"p at In iana 'ni)ersity "n ertoo7 a co#parison of )ariables an co#binations of )ariables that 8as reporte in 19%D =1@?. 4ean8hile the "se of the Jstan ar J #etho s has sprea 8i ely as an applie art 8ith a certain bo y of tra ition. =Lee =D6? gi)es an acco"nt of c"rrent practices.? Controlle eCperi#ents, ho8e)er, on 8hich to base act"al practice ha)e too often been lac7ing. (n eCcellent s"r)ey of the c"rrent stat"s of the fiel has recently been pro)i e by ;errac"ti =1<? in Italian. .he present s"r)ey 8ill be organiGe into the follo8ing topics$ =a? -)al"ation of present practices. =b? *esponse )ariables an instr"#entation. =c? Interrogation proce "res. = ? 1ata interpretation an operator:s ecisions. =e? &sychological principles of lie etection.

*. C. 1(2IS

E,&$u&tion o' Present Pr& ti es

We #ay consi er Jc"rrent practicesJ en #asse an as7 ho8 effecti)e these ha)e been. .his proble# is consi ere by Inba" =D>?, apparently by co#paring Jlie etectorJ res"lts 8ith 9"ry )er icts an confessions. .he agree#ent bet8een etection an the criterion for )ario"s sets of ata is abo"t @> per cent, 8ith D> per cent of the cases iscar e as a#big"o"s. .his fig"re #"st be co#pare , of co"rse, 8ith so#e percentage of s"ccess to be eCpecte by chance. If e)ery case 8ere treate in epen ently, the percentage of s"ccess 8o"l be %> per cent. It is, ho8e)er, co##on practice to eCa#ine a gro"p of s"specte persons, of 8ho# it is 7no8n that only one is g"ilty. If the operator then selects one fro# the gro"p as g"ilty, his chances of being correct by sheer l"c7 are less than %> per cent. If, on the other han , an operator 7no8s, in a partic"lar sit"ation, that #ost of the eCa#inees sent hi# are later 9" ge g"ilty, his Jpercentage of s"ccess by chanceJ co"l be #"ch higher. It 8o"l be iffic"lt to analyGe fiel res"lts in greater etail than in Inba":s re)ie8 =D>?. .he 9"ry ecision is an i#perfect criterion, of co"rse, an #ay not be in epen ent of the lie etector res"lts since a prosec"tor #ight be incline to bring to trial #ore cases in 8hich the lie etector res"lts 8ere clear. If the test has been "se 8i ely for screening, as it is reporte to be, #any s"spects 8ith negati)e fin ing on the instr"#ent 8o"l not be bro"ght to co"rt. 4ost of these 8o"l be tr"e negati)es, an the percentage of s"ccess #ight act"ally be higher if they 8ere incl" e . .he percentage obtaine 8ill epen clearly on the gro"p fro# 8hich it is eri)e . ;"rther-1AB#ore, there is no telling eCactly 8hat proce "res are "se by )ario"s eCa#ining officers nor 9"st 8hat in the instr"#ent recor s =or possibly asi e fro# the#? infl"ences the 9" g#ent as to 8hether the lie etector test in icates g"ilt. ;or eter#ining 8hich #etho s an con itions gi)e the #ost )ali res"lts, an 8hether i#pro)e#ent is act"ally possible, 8e #"st t"rn to eCperi#ental co#parisons. .his eCperi#ental 7no8le ge of factors 8hich are li7ely to infl"ence the o"tco#e co"l then be "se in f"t"re atte#pts to e)al"ate "ses in the practical sit"ation. .he en #asse res"lt lea s to the concl"sion that psychological #etho s of etection in the cri#inal interrogation sit"ations o pro)i e infor#ation altho"gh the a#o"nt is "ncertain, an the present proble# confronting "sers is to #aCi#iGe the infor#ation. Laboratory eCperi#ents =1@, DB, BB? ha)e generally reporte greater percentages of s"ccessf"l etection than the fig"re gi)en by Inba" for fiel res"lts. 3e is, ho8e)er, s7eptical of res"lts obtaine fro# these laboratory eCperi#ents. .he sit"ations are ifferent in #any 8aysso#e of the ifferences ten ing to fa)or the laboratory, so#e the fiel sit"ation. (ltho"gh the se)erity of conseF"ences in the laboratory is #"ch less, the lying is also li7ely to be of a si#pler sort an con itions better controlle . With so#e of the )ery high percentages reporte for the laboratory st" ies, there is so#e F"estion that the criterion #ay be a 9"ste to #aCi#iGe s"ccess on one partic"lar set of ata an th"s cannot be eCpecte to ha)e general application.

Res4onse V&ri&($es &nd Instru-ent&tion

(t present instr"#ents #ay be classe into three gro"ps$ =a? the tra itional ones 8hich ha)e both laboratory an fiel "seI =b? those 8hich ha)e been trie in the laboratory, in so#e cases inco#pletelyI an =c? those 8hich ha)e possible )al"e b"t ha)e not been teste for lie etection. In the first gro"p the )ariables are breathing, bloo press"re, an gal)anic s7in response.

Indi es /it" Fie$d &nd L&(or&tor# Tests

BREATHIN=

(ltho"gh this )ariable 8as the first p"t to eCperi#ental test =D?, the partic"lar feat"re, the IP1 ratio, or ti#e of inspiration i)i e -1AAby ti#e of eCpiration, see#s to ha)e roppe o"t of sight in practice. ,en"ssi:s eCperi#ental report 8as that "ring lying the IP1 ratio is increase beca"se of a change in the for# of the breathing c"r)e. It is easy to see 8hy the ratio has been neglecte in practical 8or7, for it is laborio"s to co#p"te an the eter#ining points in the breathing cycle are iffic"lt to isting"ish, especially in a recor ta7en at the "s"al slo8 spee . In the JIn iana st" y an atte#pt to e)al"ate it 8as aban one beca"se #eas"re#ents 8ere so "nreliable. Co##on practice see#s to be to regar any #ar7e ist"rbtnce of breathing as in icati)e of eception =DA?. .he techniF"e of recor ing the breathing rhyth# is rather si#ple. .he co##on pne"#atic syste# is open to criticis# beca"se of the nonproportionality intro "ce by the co#pressibility of air, the general incon)enience of 7eeping the syste# free fro# lea7s, an the a878ar rea 9"st#ent 8hen S thro8s the recor er off scale by a #o)e#ent. ( si#ple electrical pic7"p an recor ing syste# can be s"bstit"te =1@?. .he In iana st" y consi ere t8o aspects of respiration$ a#plit" e an breathing cycle ti#e =the in)erse of rate?. In a#plit" e the response in tr"th telling 8as an increase, 8ith the #aCi#"# % to 1> sec after he eli)ery of a F"estion. In lying the #ean response 8as also an increase, b"t in a lesser a#o"nt. .he fact that a s#aller increase in a#plit" e typically in icates eception reF"ires an operator to #a7e a sort of in)erte interpretation on this point. ,reathing cycle ti#e increase in both con itions, b"t #ore in lying. .h"s breathing "ring eception is shallo8er an slo8er than in tr"th telling. .hese facts are confir#e by the agree#ent of the t8o gro"ps. .here see#s to be #"ch better iscri#ination bet8een the t8o con itions 8hen these #eas"res are "se in a long series of F"estionsI i.e., they iscri#inate poorly at first as co#pare to other #eas"res, b"t in the long r"n are a#ong the best iscri#inators. It #ay be that breathing in the early part of a series is #a e irreg"lar by a reaction to the general sit"ation. (fter so#e a aptation it beco#es possible to co#pare the responses to F"estions in p"rer for#. (ccor ing to so#e later 8or7 =<? the inhibition of breathing see#s rather characteristic of anticipation of a sti#"l"s. +ne ra8bac7 in the "se of respiration as an in icator is its s"sceptibility to )ol"ntary control. If an S 8ishe to pro "ce a conf"se recor he co"l probably o so by alternating o)er an "n er breathing, if

he co"l 7eep "p this or another progra# in the face of F"estions. ,"t this ra8bac7 is not present in breathing alone. If an eCa#inee 7no8s that changes in breathing 8ill ist"rb all -1A%physiologic )ariables "n er control of the a"tono#ic i)ision of the ner)o"s syste#, an possibly e)en so#e others, a certain a#o"nt of cooperation or a certain egree of ignorance is reF"ire for lie etection by physiologic #etho s to 8or7. *espiration, therefore, on balance in the present state of 7no8le ge see#s to be one of the better #eas"res.
BLOOD PRESSURE

.he systolic bloo press"re 8as first "se as a eception in icator by 4arston =D9? an the #etho in co##on "se is the contrib"tion of Larson =DB?. It is e)i ently the chief reliance of present fiel practitioners of etection. Inba" =D>? an others 8rite that bloo press"re is the #ain channel for the eception reaction in a real sit"ation, altho"gh gal)anic s7in response #ay ha)e greater po8er in the laboratory. =It see#s "nli7ely that this is a f"n a#ental ifference bet8een the t8o #eas"res. .he #anner in 8hich they are "se an the length of sitting #ay be in)ol)e . .he point 8o"l see# to reF"ire eCperi#ental chec7ing.? .he systolic press"re 8ill typically rise by a fe8 #illi#eters of #erc"ry in response to a F"estion, 8hether it is ans8ere tr"thf"lly or not. .he e)i ence is that the rise 8ill generally be greater 8hen S is lying than 8hen telling the tr"th. In "sing this #eas"re, the operator, conscio"sly or "nconscio"sly, "ses so#e sort of c"t-off to separate the t8o categories. *ecor s are often presente Me.g., =D6?N in 8hich a large ifference in response to ne"tral an critical F"estions #a7es the ecision ob)io"s. 3o8e)er, as #ight be eCpecte , there are instances 8hich are not so clear. .he content of ne"tral F"estions 8ill pro "ce )ariations in the response, an one #"st then eci e 8hether a response to a critical F"estion is Jpositi)eJ if it is larger than any other, or if it is larger than a)erage by so#e a#o"nt. It is li7ely that the criterion is a so#e8hat )ariable one in or inary practice. .he instr"#ent c"rrently in "se consists of a press"re c"ff si#ilar to that "se in #e ical practice, b"t eF"ippe 8ith a si e branch t"be 8hich connects to a ta#bo"r thro"gh a press"re re "cer. .he #etho is to inflate the c"ff =on the "pper ar#? to a point bet8een systolic an iastolic press"reI that is, to abo"t 1>> ## of #erc"ry. .his #ay be a 9"ste fro# ti#e to ti#e to follo8 changes in S:s bloo press"re. 'n er these circ"#stances there is a flo8 of bloo to the lo8er ar# only "ring the "pper half of the p"lse 8a)e, an there is practically no )eno"s ret"rn fro# the ar# since the c"ff press"re far eCcee s the press"re in the )eins, an occl" es the#. .he si e branch fro# the c"ff 8ill con)ey press"re )ariations to the -1A6ta#bo"r an its styl"s. 2ariations pro "ce both by the p"lse an by those slo8er changes are referre to as systolic bloo press"re )ariations. .he #etho has long been criticiGe =A? for its technical incorrectness. It oes not gi)e a tr"e #eas"re of systolic =or iastolic? press"re. .his criticis# has #a e little i#pression on those 8ho "se the #etho , since they can eCclai#, 8ith so#e 9"stification, J,"t it 8or7s_J It is a #ore telling ob9ection that the c"ff

ist"rbs the bloo s"pply to the ar# a great eal an that it pro "ces #any "n esirable si e effects =@?. .he practical stoppage of circ"lation can beco#e, in the co"rse of a sitting, F"ite painf"l, an in a long sitting, angero"s. +perators, 8ho are a8are of these conseF"ences, release the press"re fro# ti#e to ti#e to restore circ"lation. .he si e effects are s"ch as to pro "ce reactions in the other a"tono#ically controlle )ariables 8hich one #ay be #eas"ring, an e)en in the bloo press"re itself. .he In iana st" y "se a ifferent #etho , "nfort"nately also open to these ob9ections to occl" ing the bloo s"pply. ,y #echanical #eans, a stea ily increasing press"re 8as applie to a c"ff an the point of co#plete occl"sion eter#ine by #eans of a p"lse etector on the lo8er ar#. .he eCperi#ental res"lts confir# the opinion that it is one of the better in icators of eception. (gain iscri#ination is poor =al#ost nil? in the early part of a sitting an i#pro)es to a high point later. *ecently the 8riter =@? in)estigate the reF"ire#ents of contin"o"s arterial oress"re #eas"re#ent, an propose a Jclose circ"itJ #etho 8hich "ses a strain ga"ge applie to an artery 8ith )ery little press"re. .his e)ice is si#ple to constr"ct an "se an see#s 8ell s"ite to the recor ing of )ariations in arterial press"re, altho"gh it 8ill not as no8 e)elope in icate the base le)el of press"re. It has been "se in a n"#ber of tests an eCperi#ents to recor reaction to sti#"li of )ario"s sorts =F"estions, flashes of light, an 8arning an reaction signals in ecision sit"ations?. (ltho"gh it has not been teste in a etection sit"ation, there is goo reason to thin7 that it 8ill o at least as 8ell as the occl"sion or near occl"sion #etho s.
THE =ALVANIC SBIN RESPONSE

In the 19B>:s S"##ers =BB, BA? reporte so#e rather spectac"lar laboratory res"lts in the etection of eception 8ith the gal)anic s7in response =/S*?. With a certain type of sit"ation he 8as able to etect lying better than 9> per cent of the ti#e. Since this 8or7, the "se of the /S* has increase an apparat"s for registering it for etection p"rposes is #a e co##ercially. -1A@.he /S* see#s to be one of the #ost easily triggere responsese)en slight sti#"li 8ill pro "ce the ecrease in the electrical resistance of the s7in, reflecting acti)ation of the s8eat glan s =an internal con ition, rather than the secretion of s8eat?. *eco)ery, ho8e)er, is typically slo8 in this )ariable, an in a ro"tine eCa#ination the neCt F"estion is li7ely to be intro "ce before reco)ery is co#plete. &artly beca"se of this fact there is an a apting tren in the /S*I 8ith sti#"li repeate e)ery fe8 #in"tes the response gets s#aller, other things being eF"al. +n the other han , long ter# changes in s7in resistance #ay ha)e a certain significance. ( ecrease in resistance 8hich persists for a long perio #ight be #ore significant of eception than one 8hich has a F"ic7 reco)ery. In any case there is reason to belie)e that the significance of a change is relate to the base le)el obtaining before it begins =1@?. !ot all a)ailable instr"#ents ha)e a pro)ision for rea ily eter#ining base le)el an long persisting tren s. .he str"ct"re of a proper instr"#ent is #ore co#pleC for the /S* than for the first t8o physiologic )ariables, altho"gh for #o ern electronics it is si#ple. .he resistance #eas"ring principle see#s #ost satisfactoryI a constant c"rrent is passe thro"gh S, the I\* rop across hi# is #eas"re , an its fl"ct"ations recor e .

S"ch a circ"it 8ith a e)ice for a"to#atically setting the recor ing pen bac7 on scale is escribe in the In iana report. ;or satisfactory recor ing nonpolariGing electro es are reF"ire , altho"gh so#e co##ercial s"ppliers see# to o)erloo7 this necessity. In the In iana st" y the /S* 8as the best of the in icators in a short series tho"gh its po8er of iscri#ination fell as a aptation progresse . .he in)estigation 8as concerne , ho8e)er, only 8ith the short ter# ecreases that follo8 F"estions 8ith abo"t a D-sec latency. .here #ay be still f"rther po8er in the /S* 8hen it is "se ifferently. .he interpretation of the response is certainly #a e iffic"lt by the confo"n ing a aptation tren , an an inter)ie8 nee s to be planne to allo8 for s"ch a tren , res"lts being e)al"ate 8ith regar to it.

1ariables Tested )nly in the Laboratory

PULSE RATE

(ltho"gh p"lse rate is so#eti#es referre to in reports of fiel st" ies, it is probably little regar e . In fact, at the "s"al recor ing -1A<spee p"lse rate changes =represente in the bloo press"re recor ? 8o"l be )ery har to isco)er. .he rate, in the for# of cycle ti#e, 8as incl" e in the co#parison of the In iana st" y. .he techniF"e 8as to "se a so#e8hat faster paper spee an #a7e act"al #eas"re#ents of the ti#e occ"pie by a certain n"#ber of beats. Contrary to the "s"al eCpectation the pre o#inant response to F"estions is a slo8ing of the rate, reaching a #aCi#"# after abo"t % sec. In lying the heart rate slo8s o8n #ore than in tr"th telling. .his response is in part also the one pro "ce by lo" noises =1>?, threats of shoc7 =1@?, an #any other types of sti#"li not reF"iring consi erable #"sc"lar #o)e#ent. In co#parison 8ith the other )ariables of the co#parati)e st" y the p"lse rate )ariable iscri#inates #o erately 8ell. (pparently it s"ffers fro# the sa#e han icap as /S* H 8ith a aptation, it loses po8er. .o be interprete i##e iately the rate 8o"l nee to be recor e by a tacho#eter s"ch as the one escribe in =1B? or that #an"fact"re by the 6ello8 Springs Instr"#ent Co#pany. .hese tacho#eters translate ti#e into a lateral eflection of a recor ing pen. Since these instr"#ents are operate by the electrocar iogra#, they are a bit "ncertain if S is not in a shiel e roo#. .hey are #ore co#pleC than the /S* instr"#ent an #ight present proble#s in the han s of an ineCperience operator. !e)ertheless, heart rate #ay t"rn o"t to be a )ery goo a 9"nct in etection.
VOLUME PULSE

.he )ol"#e p"lse has been st" ie in a n"#ber of eCperi#ents in the In iana laboratory in a )ariety of sit"ations =<, 9 ,1>? an it 8as incl" e in the co#parison #a e in the In iana lie etection st" y. .he physiologic f"nction is the p"lsatile change in the )ol"#e of so#e part s"ch as the finger. .he reaction to sti#"li is typically a ecrease in the a#plit" e of the p"lse 8a)e, 8hich is a #anifestation of constriction of the arterioles in the region. .his reaction is pro "ce by F"estions in an interrogation an is greater

8hen S is lying than 8hen telling the tr"th. 'n er certain circ"#stances in a #o erately long series of F"estions the response ifferentiates 8ell bet8een tr"th an lying. .he f"nction is #eas"re by so#e type of plethys#ograph. .he electrical i#pe ance plethys#ograph has the consi erable a )antage of con)enience in attach#ent. S"ch an instr"#ent is #o erately co#pleC to b"il b"t fairly si#ple to operate. .he constriction recor e by the plethys#ograph is closely relate -1A9to a rise in bloo press"re recor ings. (s a f"n a#ental pheno#enon, it #ay ha)e an a )antage in lie etection.
PRESSURE PULSE

.he press"re p"lse is isting"ishe fro# the )ol"#e p"lse in #etho of recor ingI a pic7"p e)ice 8ith a )ery high resistance to #o)e#ent is "se . .he effects recor e are )ariations of the bloo press"re rather than local con itions at the site of pic7"p. .he p"lsatile )ariations are the ifference bet8een systolic an iastolic press"re. ( #eas"re of this sort 8as teste in the In iana st" y 8ith rather poor res"lts in etection of eception an #ore recent st" ies of other con itions =9? also s"ggest it is a rather "nsatisfactory )ariable. &robably systolic an iastolic are correlate positi)ely to a s"bstantial egree, b"t as one or the other has a greater increase, the press"re p"lse goes one 8ay or the other.
ELECTROM;O=RAM @MUSCULAR TENSIONA

.his )ariable is in a ifferent class fro# the pre)io"s ones in that it is "n er the infl"ence of the central ner)o"s syste# rather than the a"tono#ic i)ision =respiration is affecte by both?. (ltho"gh #"sc"lar tension can be recor e by other #eans than electrical, the operating iffic"lties of the electrical #etho are less 8ith s"itable eF"ip#ent an the recor s #ore interpretable. .he -4/ can be co#pare in se)eral places if one esires. ;or recor ing -4/ an a#plifier is nee e , 8ith sensiti)ity in abo"t the range of the "s"al electroencephalograph. .he o"tp"t of this nee s to be integrate in one 8ay or another to #a7e it easily rea =1@?. .he electro es attache to S are si#ple #etal is7s. .he In iana st" y incl" e one eCperi#ent "sing -4/ in lie etection, b"t this 8as carrie o"t in epen ently rather than as part of the battery in 8hich )ario"s #eas"res 8ere co#pare . *es"lts 8ere eCtre#ely satisfactory so far as they 8ent. 3o8e)er, the test #"st as yet be consi ere eCploratory an nee s repetition for statistical reasons. Con)enient, portable -4/ apparat"s is no8 a)ailable, tho"gh it is so#e8hat eCpensi)e, an 8ith a little eCperience an operator co"l learn to r"n it. (n i#portant technical li#itation is the necessity for ha)ing S in a shiel e roo# =for eCa#ple, gro"n e fly screen?, 8hich co"l be easily pro)i e only in so#e central laboratory.

+f co"rse, the s7eletal #"scle can be acti)ate intentionally by S. If S 8ishe he co"l contract the #eas"re #"scle "pon each F"es-1%>tion an th"s conf"se the recor , altho"gh the strategy 8o"l probably not occ"r to hi#. S"ch a #o)e#ent 8o"l also ha)e the effect of ist"rbing all the "s"al #eas"res of lie etection, an e)i ently is not a co##on occ"rrence. .he "se of the #etho has so#e interesting possibilities since conflict bet8een t8o responses can be recor e =1@?.
OCULAR MOVEMENTS

So#e8hat si#ilar in operation to the -4/ the oc"lar #o)e#ents per#it the st" y of a choice of responses. If t8o or #ore )is"al targets are pro)i e the eyes #ay "nconscio"sly t"rn to8ar one or another in response to a F"estion. .he #etho len s itself 8ell to the #ap or pict"re eCploration #etho =see the follo8ing?. ( s"bst" y of the In iana lie etection research teste the po8er of the oc"lar #o)e#ents as a etector 8ith goo res"lts. (t least "n er special eCperi#ental con itions goo iscri#ination can be obtaine . .his #etho , ho8e)er, has the han icap of being rather c"#berso#e an slo8. It in)ol)es photographing the eye #o)e#ents 8ith art ophthal#ograph an e)al"ating the recor after it has been e)elope .

Proposed 1ariables ,ot 2et Tested

VELOCIT; OF PULSE :AVE

Spee of trans#ission of the p"lse 8a)e along an artery has been propose by the gro"p at Washington State 'ni)ersity =%? as a possible in icator of eception. .he )ariable #eas"re is pri#arily the press"re increase in the artery that follo8s a heart systole an is propagate thro"gh the fl"i in the artery in a #anner fairly 8ell escribe by a 7no8n eF"ation. =.his propagation of press"re 8a)e is F"ite a ifferent #atter fro# the flo8 of bloo .? If the press"re 8a)e is pic7e "p at t8o points a 7no8n istance apart, its )elocity can be calc"late . .he Washington State gro"p has 8or7e on a e)ice that 8o"l o this a"to#atically. .he )elocity, accor ing to the eF"ation, epen s on the le)el of bloo press"re, an it 8o"l see# that in the sa#e in i)i "al, )ariations in press"re 8o"l be the principal so"rce of )ariation in )elocity. ConseF"ently, the sche#e 8o"l be an in irect #eas"re of bloo press"re. Since the pic7"ps 8o"l be acti)ate by p"lse press"re, an since p"lse press"re is F"ite )ariable itself, it see#s probable that s"ch -1%1-

a e)ice 8o"l reF"ire a goo eal of #onitoring of sensiti)ity to gi)e s"itable rea ings. .he sche#e is also rather co#pleC an see#s to be an alternati)e to the si#pler #etho of recor ing press"re escribe pre)io"sly.
=ASTROINTESTINAL REACTIONS

*ecent instr"#ental e)elop#ents =11, 1D, B6? #a7e possible the "se of the gastrointestinal reactions as a #eans of etection. (ccor ing to one #etho , gastric or intestinal acti)ity is recor e fro# s"rface electro es attache to S, one on the ab o#en an one on the ar#. Sti#"l"s effects "pon /I acti)ity ha)e been e#onstrate =11?, tho"gh #"ch re#ains to be isco)ere abo"t the#. ( probable han icap of the #etho is the eCtre#e slo8ness of response an reco)ery in this sectorI it #ight be necessary to space F"estions se)eral #in"tes apart. !e)ertheless, the )ariable #ight t"rn o"t to be highly iscri#inati)e.
THE ELECTROENCEPHALO=RAM

.he --/ is a possible response )ariable for "se in etection altho"gh it has ne)er been teste . .he proble# eCpecte is that "n er inter)ie8 con itions the alpha rhyth# 8o"l probably be bloc7e #ost of the ti#e, an there 8o"l be )ery little opport"nity for it to eChibit the Jaro"salJ or JalertingJ reaction. In other 8or s, the )ariable #ay be too sensiti)e to all sorts of sti#"li an reach its #aCi#"# response, as it 8ere, too rea ily, b"t no one can be certain this 8o"l happen 8itho"t a trial. -F"ip#ent for recor ing the --/ is basically the sa#e as that escribe for the -4/. (n integrator is not generally "se in connection 8ith it, tho"gh s"ch a transfor#ation #ight in fact be "sef"l.

Interro%&tion Pro edures Certain general facts an a fe8 7no8n partic"lars in icate ho8 prior con itions #ay affect etection res"lts.

Adaptation ! ects ( general effect that nee s to be ta7en into acco"nt is the r"le of a aptation. (l#ost all the response )ariables isc"sse are 7no8n to beco#e less responsi)e 8ith repeate sti#"lation, so#e at a greater, -1%Dso#e at a lesser rate =1>?. ,eyon infl"encing the choice of )ariable this fact sho"l also reg"late proce "re. Interrogation 8o"l be eCpecte to beco#e progressi)ely less effecti)e as it procee s, an the i#inishing ret"rns 8o"l li#it length of session$ one cannot etect a ifference bet8een responses that are practically noneCistent. In other 8or s, instr"#ental etection 8o"l not be eCpecte to co#bine 8ell 8ith a J8ear-the#- o8nJ proce "re. &rofitable sessions 8o"l then probably be an ho"r or less. ;"rther#ore, F"estioning or sti#"lation of other sorts before the instr"#ental session 8o"l "n o"bte ly also pro "ce a ea ening of response. ;or eCa#ple, there is consi erable transfer of a aptation fro# one sti#"l"s to another in the /S*. I##e iately follo8ing a perio of highly ist"rbing

e)ents it is possible that an S #ight be in "ce to tell the tr"th, b"t the sit"ation 8o"l be a poor one for instr"#ental #etho s, since S is alrea y in s"ch a high state of eCcite#ent that incre#ents in the response )ariables 8o"l be s#all. .his can be inferre fro# eCperi#ental res"lts, b"t it 8o"l be 8ell to ha)e irect confir#ation. ;or si#ilar reasons, possibly beca"se of the sa#e a aptation #echanis#, a con ition of fatig"e or prolonge sleeplessness 8o"l be "nfa)orable in iscri#inating tr"th fro# falsehoo . &hysiologic reactions are li7ely to be re "ce in s"ch circ"#stances. .his s"ggestion accor s 8ith the co##on eCperience of being Jtoo tire to care one 8ay or the other.J .he sti#"l"s threshol is raise an the person e)ent"ally falls asleep H a state of relati)e in ifference to all or inary sti#"li. ,y the sa#e to7en one 8o"l eCpect alcohol an barbit"rates, an perhaps tranF"iliGers, to be "nfa)orable to etection. ,eca"se of these consi erations there #ay act"ally be a contra iction bet8een trying to sec"re an a #ission an etecting lying by instr"#ents. ;or instr"#ental etection one nee s an S 8ith a li)ely a"tono#ic =or so#eti#es central? ner)o"s syste#, 8hereas fatig"e #ight fa)or contra ictions an a #issions. It 8o"l see# that an eCa#iner #"st eter#ine 8hether he inten s to "se instr"#ental #etho s as a #eans of etection or #erely as a stage property for inti#i atin the s"b9ect.

Indoctrination o the Sub-ect .he i#portance of a state of alertness in S is e#onstrate by one of the In iana st" ies. ( )isit to the Chicago &olice Laboratories ha bro"ght to light the practice of con)incing S of the po8er of the -1%Binstr"#ent by J etectingJ 8hich car ha been selecte fro# a stac7e ec7. In a sit"ation 8hich also reF"ire a certain eception by the eCperi#enter, the In iana eCperi#ents co#pare the instr"#ental etections 8ith an 8itho"t prior e#onstration of the effecti)eness of the techniF"e. .here 8as a large #argin in fa)or of the Jno e#onstrationJ proce "re. (pparently 8hen S is con)ince that the instr"#ent is infallible, he is resigne an ceases to be eCcite abo"t the critical F"estions. ( certain a#o"nt of contest in the sit"ation see#s fa)orable to etection. .he eCperi#ent #ay be ta7en to sho8 that e)en for the police officer, honesty is the best policy.

Pretesting o Ss .here is a )ery attracti)e possibility of 8eighing in a )ance the testi#ony of the instr"#ents. If certain Ss are characteristically J etectableJ 8hen telling falsehoo s an certain others are not, it sho"l be possible to assign people in a )ance to the one class or the other. .he practical a )antage is clearI by eci ing at the o"tset that certain cases are JinoperableJ one:s percentage of s"ccessf"l etection an confi ence in his res"lts for the re#aining cases can be enor#o"sly increase . =See isc"ssion in the In iana report =1@?.? -Ccl"sion of the inoperable cases 8o"l be especially a )antageo"s if their n"#ber is s#all. .he possibility of this classification epen s on the consistency 8ith 8hich in i)i "als respon ifferentially to critical an ne"tral F"estions.

.8o eCperi#ents in the In iana series 8ere carrie o"t to test that proposition, one being incl" e in the report, the other being co#plete too late for incl"sion. ,oth st" ies, base on the gal)anic s7in response, fo"n a high egree of consistency a#ong Ss, especially for those on 8ho# etection faile on the first series of F"estions. .he secon set of F"estions also faile to etect eception. .he res"lts of the secon st" y, on a larger gro"p, confir# this fin ing. .he i#plication is that "sing one or t8o pretests in 8hich S is lying by instr"ction on 7no8n occasions 8o"l ser)e to isting"ish persons s"sceptible to instr"#ental #etho s fro# those 8ho are not. +n the Js"sceptibleJ Ss, the certainty of the etection iagnosis 8ill be greatly i#pro)e . +ne point nee s f"rther in)estigation$ 8hether or not a pretest 8ith one set of F"estions 8ill pic7 o"t in i)i "als 8ho are s"sceptible to etection 8ith a ifferent set of F"estions. In the eCperi#ents #entione the sa#e F"estions 8ere "se for both pretest an test. -1%A-

#e.uired #esponse o the Sub-ect It is possible to F"ery S 8itho"t e#an ing replies fro# hi# at all, to reF"ire yes-no ans8ers to appropriately fra#e F"estions, or to as7 F"estions 8hich reF"ire eCplanatory state#ents fro# S. So#e eCperi#ental res"lts =1A? lea to the general proposition that if so#e o)ert response is reF"ire there are greater a"tono#ic an #"sc"lar reactions to a sti#"l"s. With larger responses one 8o"l eCpect ifferentiation bet8een tr"th an falsehoo to be easier. +ne eCperi#ent in the In iana st" y confir#e this eCpectation for lie etection. S"b9ects 8ho 8ere reF"ire to reply J6esJ or J!oJ to F"estions ga)e #ore ifferential responses on the instr"#ent =/S*?. It also see#s probable that reF"iring a strong )erbal or #otor response to F"estions 8o"l f"rther increase Ss: recor e reactions an #a7e the# easier to ifferentiate. 3o8e)er, JeCplanatoryJ ans8ers sho"l probably be a)oi e for p"rposes of instr"#ental etection. Inas#"ch as the o)ert response reF"ire oes see# to infl"ence the physiologic recor s, responses of "ncontrolle length 8o"l ten to conf"se the interpretation.

#elationship o )perator and Sub-ect .he possibility of an inter)ie8er an s"b9ect ha)ing effects "pon one another has been bro"ght o"t in se)eral st" ies in a psychiatric sit"ation =1%, D@?. &hysiologic reactions apparently occ"r in each in response to the other. (ltho"gh no st" y has been #a e of s"ch interaction in a police-type interrogation, the occ"rrence see#s F"ite li7ely. In any s"ch inter)ie8 the #anner of the operator 8hile as7ing a F"estion is probably s"b9ect to "nconscio"s )ariation. If, in t"rn, the interrogator:s #anner is infl"ence by the S-if he gets angry or feels sy#pathetic, for eCa#ple-the res"lts co"l be eCtre#ely conf"se . (ct"ally presentation of a set of F"estions on Jflash car sJ or in a J#e#ory r"#J e)ice #ay be in icate .

P$&ns 'or Interro%&tion

Lie etection eCperi#ents ha)e generally ealt 8ith 9"st one plan of F"estioning$ the presentation of a series of s"ppose ly ne"tral F"estions 8ith certain critical ones i#be e in it at "nanno"nce places. *esponses to the t8o sorts of F"estions are e)al"ate as -1%%tho"gh they 8ere in epen ent. ;iel 8or7ers, on the other han , ha)e e)elope a )ariety of ingenio"s plans =D>, D6? 8hich see# so#eti#es to be #ore effecti)e. ( ra ically ifferent plan is to let S 7no8 8hen a critical F"estion or gro"p of F"estions is co#ing. .his proce "re is acco#plishe by going thro"gh a F"estion series in the sa#e or er often eno"gh so that S 7no8s 8hat to eCpect. ( series of responses is then e)al"ate as a 8hole$ eception being ta7en as in icate , on the later repetitions, 8hen responses beco#e progressi)ely larger as the critical F"estions are approache an ie o"t rapi ly thereafter. In so#e )ariables there is, f"rther, the possibility of obser)ing a #o"nting base le)el as F"estions near the cli#aC. ;or a sit"ation other than lie etection, eCperi#ents =16, BD? ha)e e#onstrate the progressi)e increase in reaction to sti#"li as a noCio"s F"estion is approache . Con itione responses are sai to be for#e to the prece ing sti#"li on the earlier r"ns thro"gh the series. (s a #etho of etecting eception there is #"ch to be sai for this organiGe sche "le of F"estions. Whereas the "neCpecte F"estion 8ill pro "ce a brief response, 8ith "ni entifiable anticipation probably enlarging responses to ne"tral sti#"li an conf"sing the iss"e, the organiGe sche "le per#its a etection base on a n"#ber of rea ings, in fact, on the pattern of responses in a 8hole series. So far, ho8e)er, an eCact #etho of e)al"ating the ata is not at han . It 8o"l be F"ite esirable to ha)e an eCperi#ental e)al"ation of this #etho . Whate)er general sche#e of F"estioning is "se , there #"st be so#e regar to the a aptati)e process alrea y escribe . SiGe of response to a F"estion in nearly all )ariables is going to be affecte by its position in a series. C"rrent practice e)i ently recogniGes the fact by a)oi ing the first position for critical F"estions. ( position at the en of a series 8o"l be al#ost as "nfa)orable, since, other things being eF"al, the response to a sti#"l"s in that position 8ill be the s#allest. S"estion series of one for# or another nee to be so planne that the a aptation tren can be isco"nte in the interpretation.

D&t& Inter4ret&tion &nd O4er&torCs De isions (n operator in fiel 8or7 "s"ally has neither the ti#e nor the #eans to #a7e a statistical analysis of his res"lts or perhaps e)en to co#p"te the a)erages of the se)eral responses to all F"estions. (pparently the s"ccessf"l operator 8ill learn to eci e on the #eaning -1%6of his res"lts by so#e r"les of th"#b 8hich he has iffic"lty p"tting into 8or s e)en to hi#self. .o eCactly 8hat set of c"es he is respon ing it is iffic"lt to say, for apparently no one has #a e an analysis of the eCact ifference bet8een recor s 8hich are 9" ge positi)e an those 8hich are 9" ge negati)e or inconcl"si)e. ;or the eCperi#enter the proble# is ifferent, since he is oblige to say eCactly ho8 he has arri)e at an ans8er. 3is proce "re, therefore, 8ill "s"ally be, as in the In iana st" ies, to settle "pon so#e rather

ob)io"s aspect of response that can be efinitely #eas"re , an then fin o"t ho8 8ell he can o at etection 8ith this infor#ation abo"t each response. !at"rally, he is iscar ing a goo eal of infor#ation 8hile he oes this, infor#ation abo"t other feat"res of the response 8hich #ight be s"pple#entary or s"perior to that 8hich he is "sing. ;or eCa#ple, in #ost /S* 8or7 only the #aCi#"# a#plit" e of the response is consi ere . It #ay 8ell be that the "ration of the response also has a #eaning =beyon its correlation 8ith a#plit" e?. In fact, an "nreporte portion of the In iana st" y in icate that this 8as tr"e. .he fiel operator #ight allo8 for this feat"re int"iti)ely along 8ith other characteristics s"ch as latency, o"bleness or singleness of response, rate of rise, etc. !ot that the eCperi#enter co"l not st" y these things, b"t he #"st ta7e the# one by one, test the# singly an accor ing to )ario"s r"les of co#bination an 8eighting, a laborio"s an lengthy process. 3is hope, of co"rse, is that in the long r"n he 8ill be able to tell the fiel operator 9"st 8hat he sho"l ta7e into acco"nt to sec"re #aCi#"# reliability of ecision. Certain s"ggestions can be offere a (riori an so#e fro# eCperi#ental e)i ence. .he logic of the etection tas7 i#poses certain reF"ire#ents. ,asically the assign#ent is one of ifferentiating t8o con itions, tr"th telling an lying, on the basis of rea ings 8hich are correlate 8ith the# =Jpre ictionJ in the statistical sense of the 8or ?. .he operator or eCperi#enter #"st procee by fin ing, for a gi)en S, the #ean response to the critical an to the ne"tral F"estions. .he alternati)e, of si#ply co#paring critical responses of an S to those of other persons, 8ill not be satisfactory beca"se Ss iffer in their le)el of responsi)eness to any sti#"l"s. ,y representing the responses to critical F"estions by * o an those to ne"tral F"estions by * n, 8e #ay say the first F"antity to be consi ere is * c H * n. We #"st then eci e on the basis of ata 8hich sign of the res"lt is in icati)e of lying, if either. We #ight, "n er so#e circ"#stances, then eter#ine fro# ata ho8 #any persons 8ill be correctly classifie 8hen the ifference is of a certain egree. .he n"#ber of etections 8o"l -1%@be #aCi#iGe by "sing a lo8 n"#ber as the i)i ing point, b"t the n"#ber of errors of calling tr"e ans8ers false 8o"l be re "ce by "sing a higher n"#ber. -)al"ation of this sort 8o"l be pre#at"re "n er #any circ"#stances. It #ay 8ell be that the F"estions as7e are not of eF"al sti#"lating po8er e)en to those gi)ing tr"e ans8ers. ( critical F"estion ealing 8ith a cri#e or other Jsensiti)eJ infor#ation 8o"l o"btless elicit a larger response than, say, a F"estion abo"t an inconseF"ential #atter. =It is a ro"tine /S* e#onstration that 8or s s"ch as J#other,J JseC,J Jhate,J etc., pro "ce #ore response than, for eCa#ple, the na#es of co##on articles of f"rnit"re.? 3ence it is necessary to co#plicate the co#parison before the ecision of tr"th or falsity can be #a e. .he )al"e *c H *n for each S sho"l be co#pare 8ith that for a gro"p of Ss respon ing to the sa#e F"estions. .he f"nction to be "se is therefore =*c H *n?S"b9ect1 H =*c H *n?()erage S"b9ect. .his f"nction the eCperi#enter 8o"l then nee to e)al"ate for its etecting po8erI the fiel operator nee s to arri)e at an approCi#ation of this f"nction to reach a proper ecision. 3a)ing this, the fiel operator sho"l i eally be pro)i e 8ith a table sho8ing the probability of correct etection an the probability of error for each )al"e of the f"nction. S"ch tables o not eCist at present. ;or goo iscri#ination it is essential that #eas"res to be co#pare be F"ite reliable. -ach recor e response to a F"estion #ay be consi ere as partly eter#ine by the F"estion an partly by Jacci entsJ of the en)iron#ent an in S hi#self. ;or eCa#ple, there #ay be so#e infl"ence of a pre)io"s F"estion, of the F"estioner:s tone of )oice, of e)en tri)ial e)ents, noises, etc., in the eCa#ining roo#. !at"rally, the

first step in sec"ring reliability 8o"l be the control of these eCtraneo"s factors. ( goo eCa#ining roo# sho"l be pro)i e 8here o"tsi e e)ents are neither seen nor hear an 8here S cannot see the eCa#iner nor the operation of the instr"#ents. 1espite these preca"tions there 8ill still be JerrorJ fl"ct"ations beyon the operator:s capacity to #anip"late. .hese ist"rbing effects can be set against one another by the "s"al techniF"e of repeating the obser)ations an consi ering the a)erage of the series. When se)eral physiologic f"nctions are recor e , or se)eral feat"res of one 7in of response are #eas"re , there is the f"rther proble# of ho8 they sho"l be 8eighte an co#bine in #a7ing a Jpre iction.J Se)eral )ariables, rather than one, 8o"l be eCpecte to pro)i e a #ore acc"rate basis for ecision. (si e fro# the "s"al a )antages eri)e fro# #"ltiple #eas"res there is the fact of in i-1%<)i "al specificity of response, e#onstrate in a n"#ber of eCperi#ents =DD, D<?, 8hich 8o"l #a7e #"ltiple #eas"res partic"larly )al"able. In i)i "als ten to react in one physiologic sector or another. +ne in i)i "al #ay JspecialiGeJ in a heart reaction, for eCa#ple, an another in the /S*. *ecor ing a n"#ber of physiologic )ariables gi)es, therefore, a better chance of locating each person:s special 7in of reaction. .he In iana st" ies ha)e i#parte so#e 7no8le ge of the #etho s of co#bination. In one in)estigation a large gro"p of physiologic )ariables 8ere recor e , #ore, of co"rse, than 8o"l be practical in a fiel sit"ation 8ith the i ea of co#paring their effecti)eness. J1iscri#inant analysisJ 8as "se in the #ain analysis of the res"lts. .his techniF"e is base "pon a co#p"tation of opti#"# 8eights to be assigne to the #eas"res in or er to gi)e #aCi#"# iscri#ination 8hen they are a e together in stan ar score for#. .he 8eights eri)e fro# one gro"p of Ss #"st then be teste on another before they can. be consi ere as fir#. .his elaborate #etho ga)e strange res"lts in the In iana st" y. ;irst, by "se of it on the original gro"p, tr"th an lying 8ere ifferentiate no better than they 8ere by the best single #eas"re. .his res"lt is rare 8ith )ariables that correlate 8ith a criterion an only poorly 8ith each other. Secon , the sa#e 8eights applie to a secon gro"p i gi)e a )ery s"bstantial i#pro)e#ent in ee , 8hereas by the operation of ran o# fl"ct"ation one 8o"l eCpect the secon gro"p al8ays to gi)e 8orse res"lts than the first. It #ay be that the secon set of ata 8as #ore reliable than the first, or fit the ass"#ptions of the #o el better. It is still possible that a set of 8eights s"itable for transfer to fiel "se co"l be eri)e in this 8ay. ( partic"lar set of 8eights, of co"rse, 8o"l ha)e to be calc"late for the partic"lar gro"ping of response )ariables inten e for fiel "se. +n the other han , it see#s li7ely that a ifferent #etho of co#bination #ight ha)e greater iscri#inating po8er. In the In iana gro"p for 8hich iscri#inant analysis i#pro)e etection b"t little, a si#pler #etho ga)e )ery goo res"lts. It 8as fo"n , for eCa#ple, that #erely co"nting the n"#ber of )ariables sho8ing an in ication of lying for each F"estion for#e a highly s"ccessf"l lying score. In this #etho one is a)oi ing the ass"#ption of linear a ition, an the goo res"lt of this sort of treat#ent s"ggests that it is 8ell to a)oi that ass"#ption. .here is also a great eal gaine in si#plicity. .here is still another possibilityHa co#bination techniF"e that oes not si#ply a b"t treats the# as alternati)es. #eas"res together

-1%9.his techniF"e re#ains to be e)elope , b"t it is, in fact, the logical approach in )ie8 of response specificity. S"ppose, for eCa#ple, there is an S 8ho respon s in a highly fa)ore sector, s"ch as heart rate, an )ery little in another-/S*, )asoconstriction, an other )ariables. We #ay pres"#e that each of the response )ariables is a #iCe 8ith a certain a#o"nt of ran o# fl"ct"ation =JerrorJ?. ;or s"ch a case the heart rate response co"l be highly ifferential of tr"th an lying, b"t the other 7in s of response 8o"l be less than a)erage an , if a e to the heart rate response as stan ar scores, or #ore si#ply co#bine , they 8o"l ten to offset the positi)e heart rate in ication. It #ight co#e abo"t, therefore, that co#bining #eas"res in the or inary fashion 8o"l in)ol)e greater error proportionate to Jtr"eJ score than a single #eas"re, properly chosen for each person. (n effecti)e plan for this sit"ation 8o"l be to eter#ine by eCperi#ent 8hat alternati)e patterns of response are iscri#inati)e of tr"th an falsehoo . ( recor co"l be eCa#ine for s"ch patterns, or, possibly, the pattern to be eCpecte co"l be isco)ere by preli#inary trials an a recor 8atche for an eCaggeration of this partic"lar S:s special pattern. In fiel "se, it is F"ite possible that interpretations of this sort are act"ally #a e, tho"gh rather "nsyste#aticallyI a large response in one physiologic )ariable #ay be co"nte hea)ily, an the ne"tral in ications of other )ariables not allo8e to offset it. .he #"ltiple recor 8o"l be "se in s"ch cases si#ply for selecting the #ost re)ealing )ariable for a partic"lar S 8hen he has one.

Ps# "o$o%i &$ Prin i4$es o' Lie Dete tion .he effecti)eness of lie etection proce "res is li#ite by a lac7 of 7no8le ge of 8hat psychological principles are in)ol)e in s"ccessf"l lie etection. .here is little eCa#ination in the literat"re of the basic psychological principles at 8or7. &artic"larly i#portant is the F"estion$ JJ"st 8hat general properties of a sit"ation pro)o7e the physiologic reactions 8hich #a7e lie etection possibleLJ Pri)a facie it see#s i#probable that there is a special 7in of response pec"liar to lying. In the early ays 4arston =D9? recogniGe that tr"th an falsity are not psychological categories. +b)io"sly a person can gi)e a false ans8er #erely beca"se he is #isinfor#e . If the ans8er is tr"e to the best of his 7no8le ge an belief, one 8o"l certainly eCpect no physiologic signs of its falsity. 4arston:s contention 8as, therefore, that the physiologic reactions 8ere present -16>only 8hen there is conscio"sness of eception. If this is ta7en to #ean that S #"st 7no8 that his state#ent is "ntr"e, it is probably correct in #ost casesI that is to say that "n er so#e circ"#stances he 8o"l tell the tr"th. .he possibility is not to be is#isse , ho8e)er, that etection co"l be acco#plishe 8hen S ha co#pletely s"ppresse #e#ory of an e)ent or istorte the essential feat"res of it in his o8n thin7ing. -)i ence of response "n er these con itions appears in the Js"bceptionJ eCperi#ents =1, 19, D1, D%, B>?.

+n the other han , it see#s that tri)ial eception, e)en 8hen f"lly 7no8n to S, 8o"l not pro)o7e #"ch physiologic reaction. ( person probably can say he is feeling fine 8hen he is not 8itho"t the eception co#ing to light on the instr"#ents. It is F"estionable, therefore, 8hether the i ea of Jconscio"sness of eceptionJ #a7es for an appreciable refine#ent. If it is tr"e that eception is best 8ith heightene a8areness of it, the characteristics of a sit"ation 8hich 8ill heighten that a8areness reF"ire eCa#ination. .he physiologic response in lying, as fo"n in eCperi#ents an fiel trials, is a pattern of changes in the recor e )ariables. -ssentially the sa#e pattern of response occ"rs 8hen S is telling the tr"th "n er interrogation, an etection is possible only beca"se the changes are greater, as a r"le, "ring lying. If the responses are not specific to lying per se, or to the conscio"sness of lying, then 7no8le ge of 9"st 8hat characteristics of a sit"ation pro "ce the# is of first i#portance. .hree possibilities can be s"ggeste $ the con%itione% res(onse theory, the conflict theory, an the p"nish#ent theory. -ach of these i#plies a so#e8hat ifferent #o e of operation in the etection sit"ation. (ccor ing to the con%itione% res(onse theory the critical F"estions play the role of con itione sti#"li an e)o7e so#e Je#otionalJ response 8ith 8hich they ha)e been associate in the past. .his principle is 7no8n to operate in sit"ations other than lie etection. Con itioning of the /S* 8as e#onstrate , for eCa#ple, in the eCperi#ent of 1i)en =16?, an it is a fa#iliar fact that 8or s s"ch as those 8ith seC"al or other personal association e)o7e large responses. It 8o"l therefore be eCpecte that F"estions relating to so#e fairly tra"#atic eCperience 8o"l pro "ce especially large reactions. If this is the basis of etection, lies abo"t tri)ial #atters 8o"l be nearly i#possible to etect. (sserting that a barn is a ho"se, for eCa#ple, 8o"l pro "ce little response fro# the or inary in i)i "al beca"se neither 8or is connecte 8ith any large reaction on his past life. 1enying that he too7 part in a cri#e #ight be -161eCpecte to pro "ce a large reaction on this theory, beca"se the cri#e probably pro "ce a large Je#otionalJ ist"rbance 8hen it occ"rre . +n the con itioning principle it 8o"l f"rther be eCpecte that the bo ily reaction 8o"l be so#e8hat ifferent, accor ing to the 7in of past eCperience the F"estion 8as connecte 8ith. M1ifferent sti#"l"s sit"ations o ha)e a egree of specificity in the 7in of reaction they pro "ce accor ing to certain e)i ence =6?.N Whether, in fact, the physiologic response in lying iffers accor ing to the e#otional reaction of S to a F"estion is a proble# eser)ing so#e in)estigation. .he si#ple con itioning theory can, ho8e)er, har ly be the 8hole eCplanation of the lying reaction, for in laboratory eCperi#ents, s"ch as so#e of those in the In iana st" y, lying abo"t rather tri)ial #atters accor ing to instr"ction i lea to eno"gh ifferential reaction to yiel a fairly goo etection percentage. In fact, percentages of etection 8ere so high as to s"ggest that lac7 of too great general stress is fa)orable to etection. .he theory of conflict, follo8ing the psychoanalytic lea , 8o"l pres"#e that a specially large physiologic ist"rbance 8o"l occ"r 8hen t8o inco#patible reaction ten encies are aro"se at the sa#e ti#e. Whether there is a greater ist"rbance than the s"# of the t8o separate eCcitations is F"estionable =B?, b"t at any rate the t8o 8o"l be greater than one. In the process of eception t8o reaction ten encies

#ay be eCpecte . Long habit 8o"l ispose the person to ans8er a critical F"estion straightfor8ar ly. +n the other han , 8hen he is lying there are circ"#stances 8hich aro"se in hi# the ten ency to enial. In the In iana st" ies one eCperi#ent 8as base eCplicitly on this principle, b"t 8ith the plan of isting"ishing the t8o response ten encies by ifferent sorts of #"sc"lar acti)ity. .he eCperi#ent ga)e goo res"lts, b"t not beca"se it 8as possible to isting"ish the t8o reaction ten encies. ( better plan #ight ha)e been to associate a JyesJ ans8er 8ith one han an a JnoJ ans8er 8ith the other. .he p"rpose #ay be ser)e , ho8e)er, if the t8o response ten encies #erely s"##ate in the sa#e place, an this co"l 8ell be the #echanis# by 8hich the "s"al etection test 8or7s. +n the conflict hypothesis, both reaction ten encies 8o"l probably nee to be strong for goo res"lts. !ot #"ch can be one abo"t the ten ency to re)eal infor#ation openly. +n the other han , the ten ency to eny it #ay be s"b9ect to so#e #anip"lation. .his s"ggestion again lea s to a para oCical reco##en ation$ the sit"ation #"st be so or ere that S #a7es a strong effort to conceal the infor-16D#ation. .his strategy, opposite to that 8hich #ight enco"rage a #issions, #ay in fact be fa)orable to instr"#ental etection. .he eCperi#ent, alrea y escribe , 8hich sho8e better etection 8hen S 8as enco"rage to thin7 he #ight Jbeat the instr"#entJ len s itself to this interpretation. If conflict is the basis of the large reactions that signify eception, then there is so#e anger of conf"sion 8ith large reactions pro "ce by strictly personal e#otional proble#s. It is an establishe fact =see the prece ing? that 8or s to"ching on e#otionally sensitiGe areas 8ill pro "ce large reactions, regar less of eception. ( F"estion to"ching on s"ch an area #ight pro)o7e a reaction greater than that pro "ce by a #il conflict. -rrors fro# this so"rce 8o"l be chec7e by co#paring the reactions of se)eral persons to the sa#e F"estions an , 8here possible, by co#paring a person:s reactions to sensiti)e F"estions 8hen he #ay be lying 8ith those he gi)es to the sa#e s"b9ect #atter 8hen there is no occasion to lie. ( thir possible basis of etection is the (unish)ent, or better, threat>of>(unish)ent principle. (ccor ing to this i ea a person 8ill gi)e a large physiologic response "ring lying beca"se he anticipates serio"s conseF"ences if he fails to ecei)e. In co##on lang"age it #ight be that he fails to ecei)e the #achine operator for the )ery reason that he fears he 8ill fail. .he JfearJ 8o"l be the )ery reaction etecte . 4ore analytically p"t, S is gi)ing a con itione physiologic response to the operator:s F"estion beca"se the content of the F"estion has been associate 8ith the possibility of "nfa)orable conseF"ences. Lying is technically, then, an a)oi ance reaction 8ith consi erably less than 1>> per cent chance of s"ccess, b"t it is the onl:y one 8ith any chance of s"ccess at all. .he physiologic reaction 8o"l be the conseF"ence of an a)oi ance reaction 8hich has a lo8 probability of reinforce#ent, b"t not too lo8. If the theory has any )ali ity at all it #"st be s"ppose that the physiologic reaction is associate 8ith a state of "ncertainty. It oes see# that a lie tol 8ith a co#plete certainty of its acceptance 8o"l be "nli7ely to pro "ce #"ch reactionI an on the other han 8e ha)e the eCperi#ental e)i ence alrea y #entione that a lie tol 8ith no prospect of s"ccess 8hate)er is also poorly etecte . ;or goo etection a sit"ation #ay be necessary 8here S is 8illing to ga#ble on a rather long chance 8ith so#e hope of s"ccess.

.o #a7e this p"nish#ent theory co)er the eCperi#ental res"lts one nee s to ta7e Jp"nish#entJ in a broa sense, since in eCperi#ents S F"ite often s"ffers no serio"s loss if he is etecte . 3e oes, ne)ertheless, lose the ga#e 8hich he is playing an possibly this is -16Bco"ntable as a p"nish#ent. .here see# to be no eCperi#ental obser)ations on the general sit"ation. +n this last type of theory s"ccessf"l etection 8o"l epen a goo eal on S:s attit" e both to8ar the instr"#ent an the sit"ation as a 8hole, for goo res"lts 8o"l epen on S trying to Jbeat the ga#e.J If the hypothesis is correct, there 8o"l be so#e a )antage to fin ing o"t 8hat his attit" e is an possibly enco"raging hi# to engage in ris7-ta7ing beha)ior. +nce again there see#s to be all opposition bet8een proce "res esigne to sec"re infor#ation an those that 8o"l lea to the best instr"#ental etection. &resent 7no8le ge is not s"fficient to lea to a ecision on 8hich, if any, of these three theories is correct. Since the theories here isc"sse are not #"t"ally contra ictory, it is F"ite possible that all the con itions referre to are act"ally operati)e in so#e egree in the etection sit"ation. In that e)ent etection 8o"l be best 8hen critical F"estions are associate 8ith so#e8hat tra"#atic past e)ents, 8hen S is threatene 8ith possible b"t not certain p"nish#ent as a res"lt of lying, an 8hen critical F"estions, perhaps by reason of the "ncertain conseF"ences, aro"se conflicting reactions in S. (ltho"gh irect, practical eCperience is lac7ing, so#e general fin ings of laboratory eCperi#ents are applicable. .he rele)ance of #any of the eCperi#ents for the cri#inal etection proble# s"ffers fro# the fact that they in)ol)e no Jcri#e.J .his #a7es the# #ore pertinent for broa er interpretations, ho8e)er. -Cperi#ents concerne , for eCa#ple, 8ith isco)ering a person:s birth #onth, 8hen he has been tol to say no to e)ery F"estion, are closer to the intelligence interrogation sit"ation than to cri#inal etection. .he concern in these eCperi#ents is 8ith lying rather than 8ith cri#e. ;ro# their s"ccess, 8e #ay concl" e that cri#e is not essential for lie etection. .he intelligence interrogation, ho8e)er, has certain pec"liarities. St" ies irecte specifically to these istincti)e proble#s 8o"l be reF"ire for #ore reliable concl"sions regar ing the applicability of fin ings fro# pre)io"s eCperi#entation to practical e#ploy#ents in intelligence interrogations. +ne #ay s"ppose that the person F"estione , typically, 8ill ha)e little personal in)ol)e#ent in infor#ation so"ght. .he F"estions freF"ently 8ill not be abo"t so#ething he has one or for 8hich he feels responsible or g"ilty. 3e #ay or #ay not 7no8 8hat infor#ation is i#portant to his interrogator. &erhaps he is not )ery eeply #oti)ate to conceal the specific ite#s or infor#ation, b"t loyalties an threatene penalties #ay ispose hi# -16Ato o so. If the so"rce regar s the #atter as "ni#portant, the #oti)ational aspects of the sit"ation 8o"l be rather li7e those in the co##on e#onstration of etecting 8hich car has been pic7e fro# a ec7, a tric7 not iffic"lt to o as a parlor ga#e 8hen a Jlie etectorJ is a)ailable. 3o8e)er, if the so"rce is highly #oti)ate to8ar conceal#ent an anticipates reprisals if he Jbrea7s,J the sit"ation is rather li7e cri#e etection.

Special consi erations also arise in the intelligence interrogation sit"ation beca"se of the 7in s of people to be interrogate , their physiologic con ition, their e#otional state, an their attit" es. .hey iffer fro# both the s"specte cri#inals an the nor#al in i)i "als or college st" ents "se in #ost eCperi#ents. .he effect of factors li7e these is scarcely 7no8n for the gro"ps alrea y st" ie . It is terra incognita for the so"rces of fact"al interrogations. ( special con ition for the intelligence sit"ation is that the s"b9ect:s cooperation in s"b#itting to the instr"#ental recor ing #ight be iffic"lt to obtain. +ne nat"rally spec"lates abo"t the possibility of e)ising a fe8 recor ing instr"#ents that 8o"l nee no attach#ent to S an #ight be conceale fro# hi#. Consi ering the co#pleC proble#s atten ing o)ert electro es an recor ers, the infor#ation gaine fro# hi en instr"#ents is li7ely to be F"ite #eager an "nreliable. ;"rther#ore, it is not certain that an S 8ho is not a8are of the process 8o"l act"ally respon in the sa#e 8ay as one 8ho is. It 8o"l see# necessary that interrogators "se the or inary type of instr"#ent an rely on pers"asion or coercion to get s"b9ects into it. .here is still the possibility that sophisticate s"b9ects 8o"l , "n er coercion, intro "ce conf"sion by #o)ing abo"t an controlling breathing. 3o8 often this 8o"l happen can only be eter#ine thro"gh eCperience. !e)ertheless, on the basis of the facts 7no8n fro# laboratory an fiel 8or7 one #ight eCpect that the physiologic #etho s can be applie to intelligence interrogations 8ith reasonable s"ccess. 4ost of the consi erations alrea y isc"sse 8o"l see# to apply.

Su--&r# In spite of the early scientific fo"n ations of lie etection in the 8or7 of ,en"ssi, 4arston, Larson, an S"##ers =D, DD, DB, D9, BB, BA? there is at present a rather broa gap bet8een c"rrent practice an -16%scientific 7no8le ge. .here is, on the one han , so#e infor#ation fro# the laboratory, 8hich co"l be applie , an there are proce "res of F"estioning, e)elope in fiel 8or7, 8hich a8ait eCperi#ental testing. (ltho"gh )ariation in proce "re an in selection of cases #a7es present fiel ata F"ite iffic"lt to e)al"ate, it oes see# probable that a significant a#o"nt of etection is being sec"re by physiologic #etho s. Laboratory eCperi#ents generally confir# the s"ccess of the techniF"e. Laboratory science can #a7e so#e i##e iate contrib"tions to the i#pro)e#ent of etection #etho s. 1e)elop#ents ha)e #a e possible better instr"#entation for the recor ing an analysis of )ariables 8hich c"rrently fig"re in cri#inal etection, an s"ggest the possibility of recor ing )ario"s others 8hich co"l increase the acc"racy of etection. ;or so#e of these a itional )ariables, eCperi#ental e)i ence is alrea y a)ailable, others ha)e yet to be teste . -Cperi#ents ha)e also yiel e certain res"lts that co"l be applie to interrogation proce "res, of 8hich the follo8ing are ill"strati)e. .he factor of a aption, ifferential to partic"lar responses, co"l be allo8e for syste#atically. .he attit" e of the eCa#inee infl"ences res"lts consi erablyI they are better 8hen he oes not belie)e the instr"#ent is infallible. *ather, clearer res"lts are obtaine 8hen he belie)es he has a chance of 8inning the ga#e. &retesting of Ss in or er to rop a fe8 prospects fro# consi eration

8o"l greatly i#pro)e the confi ence "sers co"l ha)e in res"lts on those re#aining. 4a7ing S ta7e an acti)e part by gi)ing so#e sort of ans8er also fa)ors etection. ;ee bac7 of the operator:s )isible reactions has an effect on the so"rce:s s"bseF"ent physiologic responses. ,eyon these facts, eCperi#ental e)i ence bears on a n"#ber of other practical #atters, s"ch as the or er an nat"re of F"estions. 1etaile instr"ction in these #atters to personnel 8ho #ight beco#e eCpose to s"ch #anip"lations 8ill go far in fr"strating any interrogator 8ho see7s to #a7e "se of the#. With respect to the e)al"ation of res"lts, eCperi#ents ha)e one #ore to set the proble# than to ans8er it. 2ario"s possibilities of statistical co#binations an e)al"ations o responses ha)e been trie , b"t the opti#"# #etho is not yet 7no8n. 4"ch co"l be learne fro# planne eCperi#ental st" ies of the psychological basis of etection.. &recisely 8hat is it that #a7es the so"rce:s responses ifferent in lying an telling the tr"thL .he ifference #ight epen on a con itione a"tono#ic response, ona conflict of response ten encies, or on the chance of s"ccessf"l a)oi ance of p"nish#ent, or so#e co#bination of these. 0no8le ge of -166these effects #ight pro)i e a basis for the choice of con itions that 8o"l iscri#inating 7in of response. pro)o7e the #ost

;"rther e)elop#ent of the #etho an . the s"ccessf"l eCtension of it to other areas, s"ch as #ilitary interrogation, appears in prospect.

Re'eren es
1. ( a#s J. 0. JLaboratory st" ies of beha)ior 8itho"t a8arenessJ. Psychol. Bull., 19%@, %A, B<B-A>%. D. ,en"ssi 2. 1ie (t#"ngsy#pto#e in er LUge. Arch. f. %. ges. Psychol., 191A, B1, DAA-D@B. B. ,o8les J. W. J-lectro#yographic factors in aircraft control$ ( #"sc"lar action potential st" y of conflictJ. Ran%ol(h Air 0orce Base, .eCas$ '. S. (ir ;orce School of ()iation 4e icine, 19%6. *ep. no. %%-1D%. A. Chappell 4. W. J,loo press"re changes in eceptionJ. Arch. Psychol., 19D9, 1@, !o. 1>%, 1-B9. %. 1ana 3. ;., ,arnett C. C., an 1ennison 1. *. I)(rove% electronic a((aratus for )easuring %ece(tion in%uce% (hysiological changes. .i)eogra(he% re(ort fro) the author, Washington State College. 6. 1a)is J. ;. J4an"al of s"rface electrornyographyJ. 'np"blishe #an"script. Allan .e)orial Institute of Psychiatry, 4ontreal, 19%D. @. 1a)is *. C. JContin"o"s recor ing of arterial press"re$ (n analysis of the proble#J. J. co)(. (hysiol. Psychol., 19%@, %>, %DA-%D9. <. 1a)is *. C. JSo#atic acti)ity "n er re "ce sti#"lationJ. J. co)(. (hysiol. Psychol., 19%9, %D, B>9-B1A.

9. 1a)is *. C., an ,"ch8al (. 4. J(n eCploration of so#atic response patterns$ Sti#"l"s an seC ifferencesJ. J. co)(. (hysiol. Psychol., 19%@,%>, AA-6>. 1>. 1a)is *. C., ,"ch8al (. 4., an ;ran7#ann *. W. J("tono#ic an #"sc"lar responses an their relation to si#ple sti#"liJ. Psychol. .onogr., 19%%, 69, 1-@1. 11. 1a)is *. C., /arafolo, LoraGe, an 0)erin 0. JCon itions associate 8ith gastro-intestinal acti)ityJ. J. co)(. (hysiol. Psychol., 19%9, %D, A66-A@%. 1D. 1a)is *. C., /arafolo, LoraGe, an /a"lt ;. &. J(n eCploration of ab o#inal potentialsJ, J. co)(. (hysiol. Psychol., 19%@, %>, %19-%DB. 1B. 1a)is *. C., Si ons /. ;., an Sto"t /. W. A car%iotacho)eter. 4ffice of Naval Research, &echnical Re(ort No. ?, +ontract 7;8F;@G. 'np"blishe #an"script. In iana 'ni)., 19%%. 1A. 1a8son 3. -., an 1a)is *. C. J.he effects of an instr"cte #otor response "pon so#atic response to a brief toneJ. J. co)(. (hysiol. Psychol., 19%@, %>, B6<-B@A. 1%. 1i4ascio (., ,oy *. W., an /reenblatt 4. Physiological correlates of tension an% antagonis) %uring (sychothera(y. ( st" y of Jinterpersonal psychology.J Psychoso). .e%., 19%@, 1999-1>A. 16. 1i)en 0. JCertain eter#inants in the con itioning of anCiety reactionsJ. J. Psychol., 19B@, B, D91-B><. 1@. -llson 1. /., 1a)is *. C., SaltG#an I. J., an ,"r7e C. J. A re(ort of research on %etection of %ece(tion. 19%D. =Contract !6onr-1<>11 8ith +ffice of !a)al *esearch.? 1istrib"te by 1epart#ent of &sychology, In iana 'ni)er., ,loo#ington, In iana.

-16@1<. ;errac"ti, ;. Il poligrafo. In +orso lnterna3ionale %i +ri)inologia. *o#a$ Instit"to L:'ni)ersita i *o#a, 19%%. i Cri#inologia. &resso

19. /ol ia#on , I. In ication of perception. I. S"bli#inal perception, s"bception, "nconscio"s perceptions$ (n analysis in ter#s of psycho-physical in icator #etho ology. Psychol. Bull., 19%<, 00, B@B-A11. D>. Inba", ;. -. $ie %etection an% cri)inal interrogation. ,alti#ore$ Willia#s & Wil7ins, 19AD. D1. Jen7in, 2. (ffecti)e processes in perception. Psychol. Bull., 19%@, 03, 1>>-1>@. DD. Lacey, J. I., an Lacey, ,eatrice. 2erification an eCtension of the principle of response stereotypy. A)er. <. Psychol., 19%<, 6!, %>-@B. DB. Larson, J. (. .he car io-pne"#o-psychogra#. J. e*(. Psychol., 19DD, 0, BDB-BD<. DA. Larson, J. (. $ying an% its %etection. Chicago$ 'ni)er. of Chicago &ress, 19BD. D%. LaGar"s, *. S., an 4cCleary, *. ("tono#ic iscri#ination 8itho"t a8areness$ ( st" y of s"bception. Psychol. Rev., 19%1, 0D, 11B-1DD. D6. Lee, C. 1. &he instru)ental %etection of %ece(tion. Springfiel , III.$ C. C. .ho#as, 19%B.

D@. 4al#o, *. ,., ,oaG, .. J., an S#ith, (. (. &hysiological st" y of personal interaction. Psychoso). .e%., 19%@, !*, 1>%-119. D<. 4al#o, *. ,., Shagass, C., an 1a)is, ;. 3. Sy#pto# specificity an bo ily reactions "ring psychiatric inter)ie8. Psychoso). .e%., 19%>, !+, B6D-B@6. D9. 4arston, W. 4. Systolic bloo press"re changes in eception. J. e*(. Psychol., 191@, +, 11@-16B. B>. 4cConnell, J. 2., C"ller, *. L., an 4c!eil, -. ,. S"bli#inal sti#"lation$ (n o)er)ie8. A)er. Psychologist, 19%<, !1, DD9-DAD. B1. 4oore, J. *. 1efoe:s pro9ect for lie etection. A)er. J. Psychol., 19%%, 2D, p. 6@D. BD. *osenberg, S. .he eCtinction of the /S* to )erbal CS by )ario"s types of eCperi#ental therapy. 'np"blishe #aster:s issertation, In iana 'ni)er., 19%1. BB. S"##ers, W. /. ( ne8 psychogal)ano#etric techniF"e in cri#inal in)esti. gation. Psycho. Bull., 19B@, 13, %%1-%%D. BA. S"##ers, W. /. Science can get confession. 0or%ha) la Rev., 19B9, 0, BBAf. B%. .ro)illo, &. ( history of lie etection. A)er. J. (olice Sci., 19B9, !os. 6 an 1, D9-B>. B6. Wenger, 4. (., -ngel, ,. .., an Cle#ents, .. L. Initial res"lts 8ith the #agneto#eter #etho of recor ing sto#ach #otility. A)er. Psychologist, 19%%. !7, A%D. =(bstract?

-16<-

CHAPTER

The potential uses of hypnosis in interrogation

4(*.I! .. +*!-

Introdu tion .hro"gh the years so#e lay an professional people ha)e consi ere hypnosis al#ost a #agical #eans of infl"encing others, c"rati)e, #ystical, bor ering on the s"pernat"ral. .his has been so largely beca"se the pheno#enon of hypnosis see#s to allo8 for a high egree of control of the s"b9ect:s beha)ior. 3o8e)er, o)er the years, too, e)i ence has been accr"ing to s"ggest that hypnosis is neither fra" "lent as so#e ha)e #aintaine nor is it so #ysterio"s as to efy eCperi#ental analysis.

,eca"se of the apparent control of beha)ior "ring hypnosis it has "n erstan ably been propose as a tool for interrogation. .his chapter ai#s to e)al"ate these proposals. .here is an "tter earth of literat"re concerning the act"al "se of hypnosis in interrogation. -ither this techniF"e has ne)er been "se , or if it has, no one has chosen to isc"ss it in print. 1espite fairly eCtensi)e con)ersations 8ith eCperts fro# a )ariety of co"ntries, the a"thor has fo"n no one 8ho a #its to fa#iliarity 8ith its "se in interrogation. (n approCi#ation to? s"ch "sage, ho8e)er, oes eCist in isolate instances 8ith cri#inal s"spects. Since there is no irect e)i ence on this proble#, it beco#es necessary to analyGe the iss"es an separately e)al"ate each F"estion. TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
"his paper is based in part #pon wor$ #nder a (rant fro' the )ociety for the *nvesti(ation of %#'an +colo(y, *nc.

-169In this 8ay a consi erable n"#ber of inferences #ay be #a e regar ing the "tility of hypnosis for interrogation. .his report 8ill first consi er the (otential use of hy(nosis in the interrogation of ca(ture% (ersonnel. .hree separate iss"es are in)ol)e here$ =a? Can hypnosis be in "ce "n er con itions of interrogationL =b? If this is possible, then can a s"b9ect be co#pelle to re)eal infor#ationL =c? If infor#ation is so obtaine , ho8 acc"rate 8ill it beL .he secon section 8ill consi er proposals a )ance for the %efensive uses of hy(nosis, the proble# being the feasibility of protecting personnel fro# ene#y interrogation. .hree s"ggestions 8ill be e)al"ate $ =a? the "se of posthypnotic s"ggestions to pre)ent s"bseF"ent trance-in "ctionI =b? the "se of posthypnotic s"ggestions to in "ce a#nesia on capt"re for sensiti)e infor#ationI an =c? the "se of posthypnotic s"ggestions to #a7e capt"re personnel #ore resistant to stress. In the final section a istinction 8ill be ra8n bet8een 8hat the hypnotic trance per se can acco#plish an 8hat the hypnotic sit"ation as a social e)ent #ay #a7e possible.

So-e T"eoreti &$ Vie/s ,efore isc"ssing the possible "se of hypnosis for interrogation, 8e sho"l li7e to re)ie8 briefly 8hat is 7no8n abo"t the nat"re of the state itself. 4ere escription of the s"b9ect:s o)ert beha)ior is an ina eF"ate efinition of hypnosis. 3e is "s"ally escribe as passi)e, apparently asleep, an responsi)e only to the hypnotist:s 8or s. It is tr"e that in the absence of specific s"ggestions to the contrary the s"b9ect see#s to be eCtre#ely passi)e an to beco#e "n"s"ally epen ent "pon the hypnotist for irection. 3o8e)er, an in i)i "al in hypnosis #ay also appear to be f"lly a8a7e. !o reliable ob9ecti)e criteria ha)e yet been e)elope 8hich 8ill "neF"i)ocally i entify the hypnotic state. .his is partic"larly tr"e in regar to physiological criteria. In the absence of reliable ob9ecti)e criteria, it beco#es necessary to escribe hypnosis in ter#s of the s"b9ecti)e e)ents 8hich the hypnotiGe in i)i "al eCperiences. .he

car inal characteristic of the state is that a potentiality eCists for the s"b9ect:s perception of reality to be istorte in accor ance 8ith the hypnotist:s c"es. .his istortion #ay affect any an all #o alities of perception in regar to both eCternal an internal e)ents. (ltho"gh this istortion of reality #ay be eCtre#ely real to the s"b9ect an his -1@>beha)ior appropriate to it, consi erable e)i ence s"ggests that at so#e le)el the in i)i "al contin"es to re#ain a8are of the 8orl as it really eCists. (nother attrib"te of the hypnotic state is that the s"b9ect eCperiences it as iscontin"o"s fro# his nor#al 8a7ing eCperience. In association 8ith this, a#nesia for the eCperience #ay spontaneo"sly occ"r. ;inally, the s"b9ect generally eCperiences so#e co#p"lsion to co#ply 8ith the hypnotist:s reF"ests, along 8ith a stri7ing isinclination e)en to 8ish resisting the#. It is inappropriate in this conteCt to re)ie8 in etail the #any theories propose to acco"nt for the clinical obser)ations. We shall briefly consi er so#e of the theoretical )ie8s #ost generally hel , since their i#plications iffer #ar7e ly regar ing the egree to 8hich the state increases the s"sceptibility of a person to p"rposef"l infl"ence. &ri#arily of historical interest are the )ie8s of 4es#er =1B? an his lateC follo8ers, 8ho hel that hypnosis, or the 4es#eric trance, res"lts fro# a flo8 fro# the hypnotist to the s"b9ect of a force calle ani#al #agnetis#. .his )ie8 is i#portant beca"se it is the basis of the lingering lay opinion that hypnosis is in so#e 8ay an o)erpo8ering of a 8ea7 #in by a s"perior intellect. .here is no present ay in)estigator 8ho 8o"l efen this position, an in fact it is contra icte by recent e)i ence. Since the ti#e of ,rai =1A? in 1<AB, the )ie8 has been 8i ely hel that hypnosis is a state of artificially in "ce sleep. 4ore recently, &a)lo) =%6? propose a si#ilar )ie8 8hen he #aintaine that cortical inhibition, sleep, an hypnosis are essentially i entical. .his )ie8 is c"rrently hel thro"gho"t those parts of the 8orl 8here &a)lo)ian theory is accepte as a cree . .his position i#plies that hypnosis is a state characteriGe by a profo"n ne"rophysiological alteration an that the s"b9ect in trance is so#eho8 passi)ely co#pelle to respon 8hen appropriate s"ggestions are gi)en. .o the (#erican in)estigator there appears to be o)er8hel#ing eCperi#ental e)i ence against this )ie8. ;or eCa#ple, ,ass =A? has sho8n that the patellar refleC, 8hich isappears in sleep, is not i#inishe in hypnosis. Wells =@<? et al. ha)e e#onstrate that all hypnotic pheno#ena can be elicite in a state that in no 8ay rese#bles sleep, 8hich 8o"l lea one to hypothesiGe that the sleepli7e aspect of hypnosis is not intrinsic to the state itself b"t is rather a res"lt of the s"ggestion that the s"b9ect go to sleep. ,ar7er an ,"rg8in =B? ha)e sho8n that the --/ changes characteristic of sleep o not occ"r in hypnosis, altho"gh a tr"e sleep #ay be in "ce hypnotically. 3o8e)er, there are t8o *"ssian papers =%>? 8hich contra ict these fin ings, clai#ing that the characteristic rhyth# of hypnosis rese#-1@1bles that of ro8siness an light sleep. .hese st" ies ha)e not been replicate . .he )ie8 propose by Janet, &rince, Si is, Corot, etc., 8hich 8as c"rrent at the t"rn of the cent"ry, #aintains that hypnosis is a state of te#porary issociation analogo"s to that 8hich occ"rs in hysteria. (ltho"gh this position see#s reasonable in )ie8 of the si#ilarity of the t8o con itions, it tells "s little

abo"t the act"al nat"re of hypnosis. .he i#plicit ass"#ption of this theory-that hypnosis is a sign of pathology H is not generally accepte to ay. .he !ancy school, especially ,ernhei# =9?, re)ol"tioniGe thin7ing abo"t the hypnotic state by intro "cing the concept of s"ggestion an s"ggestibility. .his orientation has been s"pporte #ost notably by 3"ll =BD?, 8ho, in a #a9or #onograph on hypnosis, concl" e that hypnosis is pri#arily a state of heightene s"ggestibility. .hese )ie8s foc"s "pon a trait in the s"b9ect, s"ggestibility, 8hich is heightene by hypnotic in "ction techniF"es. 3"ll also relates the pheno#enon to a habit, insofar as it beco#es increasingly easy for a s"b9ect to achie)e a state of hypnosis once he has been able to o so. (ltho"gh the concepts of s"ggestion an s"ggestibility pro)i e a bri ge bet8een hypnosis an the nor#al 8a7ing state, they o not offer eCplanations of the ca"ses of the state or of the ongoing processes of hypnosis. Welch =@@? has atte#pte to eCplain hypnosis an its in "ction by an ingenio"s application of con itioning theory, "tiliGing the concept of abstract con itioning. 3e has pointe o"t that trance in "ction procee s fro# s"ggestions 8hich are al#ost certain to ta7e effect to those that are #ore li7ely to be resiste . Se)eral s"ggestions for eCperi#ental testing of this theory ha)e ne)er been follo8e "p. In contrast to the foregoing )ie8s, 8hich foc"s either on the hypnotist or on so#e trait of the s"b9ect, se)eral #ore recent approaches ha)e been concerne 8ith the interaction bet8een the s"b9ect an the hypnotist. Schil er =6B?, White =<B?, an Sarbin =61? ha)e all in one 8ay or another e#phasiGe the social relationship 8hich eCists in the hypnotic sit"ation an especially the nee s of the s"b9ect in this conteCt. (lso, 0"bie an 4argolin =A>? an 4ilton -ric7son =D>? ha)e concentrate on the s"b9ect:s psycho yna#ics as being #ost rele)ant to the in "ction of hypnosis. White:s )ie8 =<B? is perhaps the first #a9or for#"lation of this 7in , an it represents a #a9or epart"re in thin7ing abo"t the trance state. 3e e#phasiGes that hypnosis ta7es place beca"se the s"b9ect 8ishes to play the role of the hypnotiGe s"b9ect as c"rrently efine by the s"b9ect an the hypnotist. It sho"l be note that the concern is 8ith the s"b9ect:s -1@D8ish to be hypnotiGe , an this #oti)ation is consi ere of pri#ary i#portrace to the in "ction of hypnosis. (ll the theories of this gro"p, 8hich #ight be calle the J#oti)ational theoriesJ of hypnosis, e#phasiGe the s"b9ect:s 8ish to be in a hypnotic trance. (ltho"gh other concepts are of necessity e)o7e to eCplain )ario"s pheno#ena in hypnosis, the act"al occ"rrence of the trance state is relate to the 8ish of the s"b9ect to enter hypnosis. .his 8riter is a proponent of this approach, an the critical co##ents in this report are "n o"bte ly colore by this )ie8point. It is i#portant to recogniGe that al#ost no eCperi#ental 8or7 has been one that 8o"l s"pport the )ali ity of these )ario"s theoretical )ie8s, altho"gh there is so#e e)i ence alrea y #entione 8hich ten s to ref"te so#e of the#. .he general acceptance of the #oti)ational )ie8 is base on the clinical i#pression of both eCperi#entalists an clinicians that it acco"nts best for the #a9or portion of the clinical ata. .rance is co##only in "ce in sit"ations 8here the s"b9ect is #oti)ate a (riori to cooperate 8ith the hypnotist, for eCa#ple, to obtain relief fro# s"ffering, to contrib"te to a scientific st" y, or =as in a stage perfor#ance? to beco#e, te#porarily at least, the center of attraction. (l#ost all the c"rrently a)ailable

7no8le ge abo"t hypnosis has been eri)e fro# these sit"ations, an it is 8ell to 7eep in #in the so"rce of these ata 8hen one atte#pts to e)al"ate the possible "tility of hypnosis in sit"ations iffering fro# these. .here is a s#all bo y of e)i ence ste##ing fro# the cri#inal cases in 8hich hypnosis has allege ly playe a role, 8hich are ra ically ifferent fro# those 8here hypnosis is nor#ally obser)e . ,eca"se these sit"ations #ay be #ore rele)ant to the F"estions of hypnosis in interrogation, this bo y of 7no8le ge eser)es partic"lar attention an is isc"sse s"bseF"ently.

H#4nosis in t"e Interro%&tion Situ&tion

The Induction o Hypnosis .he initial proble# in "tiliGing hypnosis for interrogation is to in "ce trance. It is to be eCpecte that if the s"b9ect 8ishes to 8ithhol infor#ation he 8ill not :8ish to enter hypnosis. .herefore, hypnosis #"st either be in "ce against the s"b9ect:s 8ill or 8itho"t his a8areness. ( co##on conception of hypnosis hol s that it #ay be in "ce 8itho"t any prior relationship bet8een s"b9ect an -1@Bhypnotist an regar less of the s"b9ect:s nee s in the sit"ation, 8ith only the hypnotist s" enly gaGing at his )icti# an co##an ing hi# to fall asleep. ( #oti)ational )ie8 of hypnosis 8o"l hol that trance in "ction epen s "pon the s"b9ect:s nee s of the #o#ent an his eCpectation that the hypnotic relationship is to f"lfill the#. In this section 8e 8ill e)al"ate trance in "ction proce "res fro# the )ie8point of their epen ence "pon a positi)e relationship bet8een s"b9ect an hypnotist an the s"b9ect:s 8ish to cooperate.
THE UNA:ARE SUBJECT

.here are three sit"ations in 8hich hypnosis has been reporte to ha)e been in "ce 8itho"t the s"b9ect:s a8areness. In the first, hypnosis is in "ce 8hile the s"b9ect is asleep. (nother arises 8hen the s"b9ect is see7ing psychiatric help an hypnosis is in "ce in the co"rse of a clinical inter)ie8 8ith no eCplicit #ention of the process. .he thir sit"ation in)ol)es a trance spontaneo"sly entere by in i)i "als 8ho are obser)ing trance in "ction in another s"b9ect. 1. Slee(. .he ol er literat"re is replete 8ith state#ents that hypnosis #ay rea ily be in "ce by gi)ing s"ggestions to sleeping s"b9ects in a lo8 b"t insistent )oiceI the s"b9ect beco#es gra "ally #ore responsi)e to the s"ggestions "ntil e)ent"ally he enters a so#na#b"listic state of hypnosis M ,ernhei# =9?, ,rai =1A?, ,inet an ;ere =1D?, etc.N. 'nfort"nately, there are no cases gi)en to s"pport these state#ents. (s so often the case in hypnosis literat"re, the state#ents appear to ha)e been carrie o)er fro# one teCtboo7 to another 8itho"t any critical e)al"ation.

In a recent st" y by .heo ore `. ,arber =D? sleeping s"b9ects 8ere reF"este to perfor# stan ar hypnotic tas7s. 3e fo"n consi erable si#ilarity bet8een co#pliance to s"ggestions gi)en "ring sleep an reactions to c"sto#ary hypnotic techniF"es. It sho"l be pointe o"t that, in his st" y, ,arber reF"este per#ission fro# the s"b9ects to enter their roo#s at night an tal7 to the# in their sleep. Se)eral of the# re#ar7e that this 8as hypnosis, an one #ay reasonably ass"#e that #ost, if not all, of the s"b9ects percei)e that trance in "ction 8as the p"rpose of the st" y. .his st" y, therefore, tells "s little abo"t 8hat 8o"l happen if a tr"ly nai)e sleeping s"b9ect 8ere eCpose to s"ch a sit"ation. !o in)estigation is a)ailable on this point. Cas"al eCperi#entation by the a"thor faile to e#onstrate the feasibility of this techniF"e. .he sa#ple consiste of only fo"r s"b9ects, three of 8ho# a8a7ene to as7 belligerently 8hat 8as ta7ing place, 8hereas the fo"rth contin"e to sleep. -1@A&erhaps as in sleep learning =8hich see#s to be effecti)e only in a t8ilight state?, response to s"ggestion #ay be obtaine only in a recepti)e s"b9ect 8ho has agree to participate in the st" y an 8ho is neither eeply asleep nor f"lly a8a7e. Whether any increase in s"ggestibility o)er the nor#al 8a7ing state occ"rs has ne)er been establishe . D. Rhyth)ic, Re(etitive Sti)ulation. 4any trance in "ction techniF"es "tiliGe the fiCation of the s"b9ect:s attention on a rhyth#ic, repetiti)e sti#"l"s. .h"s, #etrono#es, rotating spirals, #irrors, an s8inging pen "l"#s =@%? Me)en the s"b9ect:s o8n breathing =B9?N ha)e been "se to in "ce hypnosis. In another conteCt, the trance pheno#ena seen a#ong pri#iti)e people freF"ently occ"r in cere#onies in)ol)ing prolonge sti#"lation by rhyth#ic r"#s. 4any a"thors ha)e e#phasiGe the i#portance of #onotono"s rhyth#ic )erbal s"ggestions, especially "ring the in "ction stage of hypnosis. *ecently, 0roger an Schnei er =B<? ha)e propose the "se of an electronic ai 8hich gi)es a repetiti)e signal approCi#ating the alpha range of ten cycles per secon as an a 9"nct. It is not clear 8hether these techniF"es irectly facilitate hypnosis or 8hether they ten to pro "ce a state of ro8siness that is interprete by the s"b9ect as JI:# respon ing to hypnosisJ 8hich, in t"rn, facilitates f"rther responses to s"ggestions. Certainly, the "se of s"ch techniF"es or e)en of #onotono"s rhyth#ic speech is by no #eans necessary in or er to in "ce hypnosis. (ll sophisticate isc"ssions of hypnotic trance in "ction recogniGe that a s"ccessf"l response to a s"ggestion 8ill facilitate f"rther s"ccessf"l responses to s"ggestions. -)en early escriptions of eye fiCation a )ise the hypnotist to 8ait "ntil the s"b9ect begins to sho8 signs of fatig"e an only then begin to gi)e s"ggestions to the effect that the s"b9ect:s eyes are gro8ing hea)y. I eally, the hypnotist ti#es these s"ggestions to occ"r i))e%iately (rece%ing the ti#e 8hen the s"b9ect begins to eCperience hea)iness. .h"s he ta7es the cre it for ha)ing in "ce the state of ro8siness that is an ine)itable conseF"ence of eye fiCation. 4echanical ai s of this type #ay facilitate in "ction only to the eCtent that they bring abo"t an e)ent that is attrib"te to the s"ggesti)e effect of the hypnotist. 3o8e)er, it is also possible, as so#e of the proponents of these techniF"es s"ggest, that a ne"rophysiological basis eCists for the facilitation of hypnosis. In this conteCt it is rele)ant that roa hypnosis an the brea7-off pheno#enon enco"ntere by pilots occ"rs in in i)i "als s"b9ecte to pec"liar types of repetiti)e, rhyth#ic sti#"lation %es(ite a high -1@%-

)otivation to retain alertness. (n intrig"ing F"estion on 8hich no e)i ence eCists is the relationship of hypnotiGability an s"sceptibility to roa hypnosis or the brea7-off pheno#enon. ;"rther#ore, in the conteCt of this isc"ssion, the "tiliGation of rhyth#ic sti#"li as ai s to trance in "ction is partic"larly rele)ant insofar as being s"b9ecte to s"ch sti#"lation oes not reF"ire the in i)i "al:s cooperation. Whether an act"al relationship eCists bet8een the ro8siness 8hich can th"s be in "ce an hypnosis is highly F"estionable an re#ains to be in)estigate . What is a so#e8hat #ore li7ely possibility is that ro8siness #ay be in "ce e)en in the "ncooperati)e s"b9ect 8hich #ay be attrib"te to so#e hypnotic infl"ences. .his 8o"l then ten to #a7e the s"b9ect #ore liable to respon to other s"ggestions. Clearly, it is an area that #ight fr"itf"lly be eCplore . !o in)estigation "tiliGing s"ch proce "res in recalcitrant s"b9ects has been #a e. In a later section on J#agic roo#J techniF"es, the i#plications of "sing this an relate tools are eCplore . B. In a &hera(eutic Relationshi(. St" ies by ( ler an Sec"n a =1?, Sargant an ;raser =6D?, Schnec7 =6%?, an *osen =%9? ha)e "se techniF"es of trance in "ction 8hich 8ere ai#e at pre)enting the s"b9ect fro# 7no8ing that he 8as being hypnotiGe . .hese techniF"es all epen e "pon the s"b9ect:s esire to obtain help 8ith his proble#s fro# a therapist. It is freF"ently possible to "tiliGe the therape"tic sit"ation in s"ch a #anner as to achie)e a hypnotic state e)ent"ally. ;or eCa#ple, the therapist #ay tal7 to the patient abo"t relaCing, an the )irt"es of relaCing, or the )irt"es of concentrating, th"s obtaining his fiCation on one partic"lar ob9ect. 3e #ay s"ggest that the patient 8ill be #ore co#fortable if he closes his eyes, that in this 8ay the patient can relaC #ore or concentrate better. .h"s, in a s"itable s"b9ect a eep le)el of hypnotic trance can be achie)e in a relati)ely brief perio of ti#e 8itho"t e)er "sing the ter# hypnosis an 8itho"t the s"b9ect e)er being a8are that hypnosis is ta7ing place. 4eares =A6? "ses the ne"rological eCa#ination in this fashion as a test for hypnotiGability. In all the instances cite it #"st be e#phasiGe that altho"gh the s"b9ect oes not eCplicitly consent to enter hypnosis, a relationship of tr"st an confi ence eCists in 8hich the s"b9ect has reason to eCpect help fro# the hypnotist. ;"rther#ore, the hypnotist is an in i)i "al of high rep"tation an high prestige an there is so#e legiti#acy in the s"b9ect:s eCpectations. Stan ar #e ical practice incl" es #any #ane")ers by the physician 8hich are essentially #eaningless rit"als to the a)erage patient, an to 8hich the patient -1@6co#plies 8itho"t hesitation beca"se it is ass"#e by hi# that this 8ill e)ent"ally benefit hi#. .hese sit"ations, espite their o"t8ar si#ilarity, iffer greatly fro# those 8here trance in "ction is atte#pte by a stranger, 8itho"t the s"b9ect:s 7no8le ge or consent. A. S(ontaneous &rance. S"b9ects 8ho obser)e hypnosis in a e#onstration #ay spontaneo"sly enter trance. (n eCperience of the a"thor:s concerning a psychotherapy patient 8ith 8ho# hypnosis ha been "se #ay be cite as an eCa#ple. .he a"thor appeare on an e "cational tele)ision progra# 8here he e#onstrate )ario"s hypnotic pheno#ena 8ith se)eral s"b9ects. .he patient 8atche the progra# in a frien :s ho#e. She reporte that 8hen the a"thor in "ce trance in the s"b9ects, she 8ent into a trance, co#ing o"t of it 8hen the a"thor ter#inate trance in the tele)ision s"b9ects. Spontaneo"s hypnosis occ"rre espite the fact that its appearance 8as a so"rce of e#barrass#ent to the patient since she 8as in the co#pany of frien s.

It is fairly easy to #aCi#iGe the probability of this occ"rrence by #entioning the possibility of this pheno#enon an con)eying one:s eCpectation that this #ay happen. 3ere again 8e are ealing 8ith s"b9ects 8ho are essentially in sy#pathy 8ith the p"rposes of trance in "ction in a sit"ation 8hich is )ie8e as safe by the in i)i "al entering trance. (gain, no concl"sions can be ra8n as to the feasibility of in "cing trance e#pathically in a s"b9ect 8ho oes not 8ish to enter trance. It has been riote clinically that in i)i "als 8ho ha)e negati)e attit" es abo"t hypnosis o not enter hypnosis "n er these circ"#stances. White:s =<6? st" y, in 8hich he has e#onstrate that s"b9ect:s attit" es abo"t hypnosis, as sho8n on the .(., are pre icti)e of their hypnotiGability, is rele)ant here.
THE ANTA=ONISTIC SUBJECT

We ha)e been able to "nco)er only three st" ies that eCperi#entally test 8hether a s"b9ect can resist the in "ction of hypnosis. Wells =<>? instr"cte his s"b9ect to fight acti)ely against trance in "ction H the s"b9ect 8as "nable to resist. It sho"l be #entione that this s"b9ect ha been pre)io"sly hypnotiGe by Wells. .his st" y 8as replicate by ,ren#an =16? 8ho arri)e at the sa#e concl"sions. (n e)en #ore ra#atic eCperi#ent is reporte by Wat7ins =@A?, again ealing 8ith a s"b9ect 8ho ha pre)io"sly been hypnotiGe by the eCperi#enter. ( n"rse, 8ho 8as 7no8n as a goo s"b9ect, )oice the opinion to Wat7ins that "n er no circ"#stances co"l she be hypnotiGe against her 8ill. 3e too7 the challenge an they set "p -1@@an eCperi#ent. (nother n"rse an a fe#ale psychiatrist 8ere as7e to 8itness the eCperi#ent. ( ollar bill 8as place in front of the s"b9ect an she 8as tol that she co"l 7eep it if she i not enter trance. 3o8e)er, Wat7ins is caref"l to point o"t that this 8as a #atter of prestige, not of #onetary re#"neration. Since no restrictions 8ere place on the s"b9ect, she close her eyes, pl"gge her ears, tal7e an sho"te . Wat7ins, spea7ing close to her ear, s"ggeste that she 8o"l feel a pain in her hea 8hich 8o"l gro8 stronger an stronger, an that the only relief she 8o"l fin 8o"l be to enter a eep sleep. .he s"b9ect pa"se at ti#es, re#o)e her fingers fro# her ears to hol her hea , an sai that her hea h"rt. (fter siC #in"tes she stoppe sho"ting, tosse the ollar bill at the eCperi#enter, an sai , J3ere, ta7e it,J an 8ent into trance. In eter#ining the significance of these eCperi#ents, 8e feel that the J e#an characteristicsJ of the sit"ation are rele)ant. 1e#an characteristics are efine as those aspects of the eCperi#ental sit"ation 8hich i#plicitly con)ey the hypothesis of the eCperi#enter to the s"b9ect. .he a"thor, in another p"blication =%D?, has sho8n that the e#an characteristics of an eCperi#ental sit"ation #ay greatly infl"ence a s"b9ect:s hypnotic beha)ior. It is clear that at so#e le)el a cooperati)e s"b9ect 8ishes an eCperi#ent to J8or7 o"t,J i.e., to help f"lfill the eCperi#enter:s eCpectations. If a s"b9ect grasps the p"rpose of the eCperi#ent an \or the bias of the eCperi#enter, he is ispose to8ar pro "cing beha)ior 8hich 8ill confir# the eCperi#enter:s hypothesis. .his is partic"larly tr"e in a hypnotic relationship. In all three st" ies, the s"b9ect ha pre)io"s trance eCperiences 8ith the hypnotist, 8hich, 8e #ay ass"#e, initiate a positi)e relationship bet8een the s"b9ect an hypnotist. (ltho"gh the s"b9ect 8as instr"cte to resist entering hypnosis, it 8as in the conteCt of participating in an eCperi#ent to test this iss"e. It see#s possible that in all three cases the s"b9ect 8as respon ing as if the eCperi#enter 8ere i#plicitly as7ing the s"b9ect to collaborate 8ith hi# in or er to e#onstrate that trance co"l be in "ce

espite the s"b9ect:s resistance. .he s"b9ect:s #oti)ation in this sit"ation #ay be concept"aliGe as$ =a? the o)ert attit" e of resistance reF"este "ring the eCperi#ent an =b? the #ore f"n a#ental attit" e of cooperation to sho8 that trance can be in "ce against a s"b9ect:s 8ill. In o"r )ie8, the latter attit" e 8as #ore rele)ant in eter#ining the s"b9ect:s beha)ior. .he a"thor feels that, beca"se of the prece ing ob9ections, these three st" ies offer no concl"si)e e)i ence regar ing the F"estion of -1@<the possibility of in "cing trance in a resistant s"b9ect 8ho has been pre)io"sly hypnotiGe . (n eCperi#ental sit"ation esigne to test this F"estion 8o"l ha)e to ta7e t8o )ariables into acco"nt$ =a? the "s"ally positi)e relationship bet8een s"b9ect an hypnotist an =b? the e#an characteristics of the sit"ation. .hese t8o factors are necessary since in the setting of interrogation the ai#s of s"b9ect an hypnotist are apt to be at )ariance. +ne possible eCperi#ental esign #ight in)ol)e t8o eCperi#enters$ one 8ith 8ho# the s"b9ect has a positi)e relationship, an the hypnotist 8ith 8ho# he oes not. It sho"l so#eho8 be con)eye to the s"b9ect that the eCperi#enter 8ith 8ho# he has the positi)e relationship belie)es =or hypothesiGes? that the s"b9ect 8ill be able to refrain fro# entering trance. 'n er these circ"#stances, 8e hypothesiGe that the hypnotist 8ill be "nable to in "ce trance in the resisting s"b9ect. We f"rther ass"#e that if the hypnotist is able to create a positi)e relationship, he 8o"l then be s"ccessf"l. In other 8or s, 8hether a s"b9ect 8ill or 8ill not enter trance epen s "pon his relationship 8ith the hypnotist rather than "pon the technical proce "re of trance in "ction. ( #itte ly, these pre ictions are base on eCtre#ely s"btle pheno#ena. ( test of these hypotheses 8o"l necessitate obser)ers traine in e)al"ating n"ances of feelings in or er to be able to 9" ge the nat"re of the relationship bet8een s"b9ect an hypnotist. It is i#perati)e that this factor be controlle if 8e are to ra8 any )ali concl"sions abo"t an interrogation sit"ation, since a positi)e relationship #ay co#e into eCistence only after it has been caref"lly n"rt"re . .he sa#e 7in of sit"ation co"l be "tiliGe in st" ying the in "ction of trance in resistant s"b9ects 8ho ha)e ne)er before been hypnotiGe . !o ata are a)ailable on this F"estion. 3o8e)er, the proble# is i entical to the one isc"sse abo)e eCcept, perhaps, that a itional resistances 8o"l be enco"ntere .
SUMMAR;

In s"##ariGing the e)i ence 8e are le to the concl"sion that espite #any apparent in ications that hypnosis can be in "ce 8itho"t the s"b9ect:s 7no8le ge or consent, all these sit"ations see# to epen "pon a positi)e relationship bet8een s"b9ect an hypnotist. .he #ost fa)orable of these sit"ations occ"r 8hen the s"b9ect =a? eCpects to eri)e benefit fro# his association 8ith the hypnotist an =b? has tr"st an confi ence in the hypnotist:s ability to help. !o reliable e)i ence eCists that hypnosis can be in "ce irectly fro# sleep in an "na8are s"b9ect, nor is there goo e)i ence that a s"b9ect is "nable to resist trance in "ction if thoro"ghly #oti)ate -1@9to o so. (n "neCplore area rele)ant to this proble# is the relationship of rhyth#ic sti#"lation an en)iron#entally in "ce states of fatig"e to s"ggestibility. It is also s"ggeste that the F"estion of 8hether hypnosis can be in "ce against the s"b9ect:s 8ill can be teste only by eCperi#ents that control

the relationship bet8een s"b9ect an hypnotist. In a st" y that "tiliGe a hypnotist "n7no8n to the s"b9ect an 8here the str"ct"re of the total sit"ation 8as clear to the s"b9ect that it 8as esire an eCpecte that he be able to resist hypnosis, c"rrent theory an clinical ata lea "s to eCpect negati)e res"lts. !o st" ies of this 7in ha)e been one, ho8e)er.

T"e De%ree o' Be"&,ior&$ Contro$ :"i " H#4nosis M&8es Possi($e (ss"#ing an interrogator 8ere able to circ"#)ent the technical obstacles an in "ce hypnosis in a s"b9ect 8ho 8ants to 8ithhol infor#ation, to 8hat eCtent 8o"l the s"b9ect re#ain #aster of his fate, e)en in eep tranceL .his is an area 8here 8i e isagree#ents pre)ail a#ong a"thorities an 8here eCperi#ental e)i ence is highly contra ictory. .hro"gho"t this isc"ssion no ifferentiation 8ill be #a e bet8een beha)ior that res"lts fro# irect s"ggestion an that in "ce posthypnotically. -ric7son an -ric7son =D1? #aintain that posthypnotic beha)ior is perfor#e in a self-li#ite hypnotic state. (ll pheno#ena elicite by #eans of posthypnotic s"ggestions #ay also be seen in trance, altho"gh the re)erse is not al8ays tr"e. In line 8ith -ric7son an -ric7son, 8e feel that the s"b9ect carrying o"t posthypnotic s"ggestions is in an hypnotic trance state, altho"gh at ti#es a less intense one. .he ifference bet8een the t8o states, if any, see#s to be a ifference in egree rather than 7in . 6o"ng =<A? reports that s"b9ects resist specific hypnotic s"ggestions if they ha)e eci e in a )ance to o so. Wells =@9?, on the other han , reports contrary ata. 3e fo"n that none of his s"b9ects 8as able to resist the pre icte co##an or, in ee , any other. .his contra iction eCe#plifies the contro)ersial nat"re of the F"estion of beha)ioral control in hypnosis. .he proble# has generally foc"se on the #ore specific F"estion of 8hether a person can be in "ce thro"gh hypnosis to )iolate #a9or social prohibitions 8hich he has internaliGe or to co##it so#e self- estr"cti)e act. It is the "s"al practice to "se the ter# Jantisocial actsJ to refer to s"ch beha)ior, b"t in this chapter ter#s #ore escripti)e of the s"b9ecti)e significance of the act for the person are preferre . -1<>-

+ehavior 1iolating Internali/ed Prohibitions .he F"estion is "s"ally phrase in ter#s of 8hether an in i)i "al 8ill co##it antisocial or selfestr"cti)e acts in response to irect s"ggestion. ,eha)ior consi ere to be antisocial is that 8hich is so efine by the c"lt"re in 8hich the in i)i "al has been raise . 3o8e)er, the F"estion is co#plicate by the fact that so#e beha)ior is efine as antisocial in one conteCt an as socially reF"ire in another, for eCa#ple, #"r er )s. the sol ier:s obligation to fight. +ne of the #a9or research iffic"lties is that so#e beha)iors are consi ere taboo "n er nor#al circ"#stances, 8hereas they are felt to be legiti#iGe in an eCperi#ental setting. .he eCtent to 8hich beha)ior is legiti#iGe in this #anner 8ill epen largely on the s"b9ects orientation both to the beha)ior in F"estion an to8ar eCperi#entation. (ll the #aterial in the follo8ing isc"ssion #"st be )ie8e in ter#s of the #a9or iffic"lty of creating a sit"ation 8hich is contrary to the in i)i "al:s internaliGe controls an 8hich cannot be legiti#iGe by the sit"ation in

8hich it is teste . 3eron =B1?, 0line =B%?, 4arc"se =AB?, WeitGenhoffer =@6?, etc., ha)e isc"sse the proble# of efinition in e)al"ating the literat"re on hypnotically in "ce antisocial beha)ior. .he early )ie8 in this contro)ersy o)er the elicitation of JantisocialJ beha)ior, 8hich ans8ere the F"estion in the negati)e, ha been generally accepte "ntil recently. Still, s"ch classic a"thors as ;orel =DB? an 4oll =A<? belie)e that hypnosis is potentially capable of allo8ing seC"al assa"lt.
LABORATOR; E>PERIMENTS

S"pporting the negati)e )ie8 is the classic eCperi#ent reporte by Janet =BA?. 3e as7e a eeply hypnotiGe fe#ale before a isting"ishe gro"p of 9" ges an #agistrates to stab people 8ith r"bber aggers, to poison the# 8ith s"gar tablets, an in this fashion to co##it se)eral J#"r ers,J all of 8hich she i 8itho"t hesitation. (s the co#pany isperse , the s"b9ect 8as left in charge of so#e of the yo"nger assistants 8ho, inten ing to en the eCperi#ents on a lighter note, s"ggeste to the s"b9ect that she 8as alone an 8o"l "n ress. .his pro#ptly ca"se her to a8a7en. It sho"l be note that the J#"r ersJ 8ere co##itte in s"ch a 8ay as to be play acte , 8hereas "n ressing 8o"l ha)e certainly been real to the s"b9ect. In this classic instance, at least, she ha no iffic"lty in iscerning the ifference. If, then, hypnotic s"b9ects o not lose contact 8ith the -1<1JrealJ sit"ation, can they be in "ce to )iolate internaliGe prohibitionsL Se)eral #o ern in)estigators clai# that this is in ee possible. Wells =<>?, in an eCperi#ental e#onstration, in "ce a s"b9ect by #eans of a posthypnotic s"ggestion to ta7e a ollar bill fro# the hypnotist:s coat 8hich 8as hanging on the 8all an to accept it as his o8n #oney. .h"s, in effect, the s"b9ect stole a ollar bill. .he s"b9ect 8as "na8are of this Jcri#eJ an enie )ehe#ently that he ha co##itte it. Wells #aintains that fail"res to in "ce a s"b9ect to co##it certain acts o not negate this possibility since the s"b9ect #ay not ha)e been hypnotiGe eeply eno"gh or i#proper techniF"es #ay ha)e been "se I 8hereas e)en one s"ccess e#onstrates the possibility of achie)ing this res"lt. ,ren#an =16? con "cte a series of eCperi#ents in)ol)ing #inor aberrant an self-in9"rio"s acts. .h"s, in repeating the Wells st" y, she ha a s"b9ect re#e#ber falsely that she ha ta7en aD instea of a1. .he s"b9ect ret"rne the aD to the eCperi#enter. She also 8as able to in "ce one s"b9ect to go thro"gh other people:s poc7etboo7s, an to ha)e another s"b9ect ins"lt an acF"aintance. Schnec7 an Wat7ins in t8o separate reports cite e)i ence that beha)ior or inarily constit"ting a cri#e can be pro "ce by hypnosis. ,oth these reports eal 8ith #ilitary sit"ations. Schnec7 =6A? ina )ertently ca"se a sol ier to co##it a #ilitary offense by carrying o"t a posthypnotic s"ggestion an th"s eserting his "ty. It #"st be re#ar7e , ho8e)er, that Schnec7 hi#self 8as a #e ical officer in the ar#y at the ti#e he 8as con "cting this eCperi#ent. (ltho"gh the sol ier #ay ha)e neglecte his "ty, it 8as i#plicitly at the or er of the #e ical officer an Schnec7 later #a e certain that no har# ca#e to the sol ier beca"se of his #ilitary offense. Wat7ins: =@B? eCperi#ents, also con "cte in this setting, are of partic"lar rele)ance to "s. Wat7ins in "ce a sol ier to stri7e a s"perior officer by s"ggesting that the officer 8as a Japanese sol ier an ,

accor ing to the report, the sol ier ha to be restraine fro# inflicting serio"s in9"ry to his officer. In another #ore rele)ant instance, Wat7ins 8as able to obtain infor#ation fro# a W(C "n er hypnosis 8hich she ha pre)io"sly sai she 8o"l not re)eal an 8hich 8as classifie S-C*-.. .he eCperi#ental e#onstration too7 place before a professional gro"p. ,efore the in "ction of hypnosis the W(C 8as as7e ho8 she 8o"l respon to interrogation by the ene#yI she replie that she 8o"l re)eal only her na#e an serial n"#ber. .he hypnotist as7e the s"b9ect to preten that he 8as a /er#an #ilitary intelligence officer an then procee e to in "ct -1<Dtrance. When the W(C 8as in hypnosis he represente hi#self as her ;irst Sergeant an procee e to F"estion her abo"t classifie #atters, She ans8ere all of his F"eries, 8here"pon an officer stoppe the procee ings Jin the interest of #ilitary sec"rity.J (ltho"gh these e#onstrations appear con)incing, they are open to the criticis# that Wat7ins 8as an (r#y officer an altho"gh offenses 8ere apparently co##itte , no serio"s a#age co"l possibly res"lt in this setting. (t so#e le)el, at least, the in i)i "als in F"estion #"st ha)e been a8are of this fact. ( ifferent type of eCperi#ental sit"ation 8as constr"cte by *o8lan =6>? an also by 6o"ng =<6?. .8o eCperi#ents 8ere perfor#e I one reF"ire that the s"b9ect thro8 aci at a research assistant, the other that he pic7 "p a rattlesna7e. *o8lan :s original eCperi#ents e#ploye an in)isible glass 8hich protecte the research assistant fro# the aci , an an in)isible 8ire screen 8hich pre)ente the s"b9ects fro# pic7ing "p the rattlesna7e. (ltho"gh there 8ere only t8o s"b9ects in each eCperi#ent, all fo"r carrie o"t the hypnotist:s co##an s. !o atte#pt 8as #a e to conceal the fact that, in one case, this 8as a highly corrosi)e aci , an in the other, that this 8as a poisono"s sna7e. 6o"ng =<6? slightly change the con itions of the eCperi#ent by "sing a har#less sna7e 8hich loo7e al#ost i entical 8ith a 8ater #occasin an replacing the aci 8ith tinte 8ater 8hile the s"b9ect 8as not loo7ing, th"s ob)iating the nee for screens or in)isible glass 8hich #ight be percei)e by the s"b9ect. .he si#ilarity of the colore 8ater to the aci 8as ra#atically sho8n by the fact that in one instance the eCperi#enters the#sel)es beca#e conf"se an aci 8as thro8n at the research assistant, necessitating the i##e iate "se of first ai . (gain the s"b9ects perfor#e both the ho#ici al an the self- estr"cti)e acts in the laboratory. ,oth eCperi#enters report that nor#al control s"b9ects in the 8a7ing state ref"se to pic7 "p the rattlesna7e or thro8 the aci 8hen reF"este to o so. (ltho"gh these eCperi#ents see# to be eCtre#ely con)incing, 8e #"st ta7e into acco"nt the setting in 8hich they 8ere con "cte . (ll the sit"ations 8ere clearly eCperi#ental ones, an 8ere percei)e as s"ch by the s"b9ects. .he hypnotists 8ho reF"est the ho#ici al or self- estr"cti)e beha)ior are 7no8n to the s"b9ects as rep"table #en. It is highly probable that the s"b9ects, at so#e le)el, 8ere con)ince that in the eCperi#ental sit"ation no serio"s har# 8o"l be per#itte to co#e to anyone. .his 7in of sit"ation is si#ilar to that of a stage #agician 8ho as7s a )ol"nteer fro# the a" ience to c"t off so#e in i)i "al:s hea 8ith a g"illotine 8hich has been -1<Bcon)incingly e#onstrate . 'n er these con itions )ol"nteers fro# the a" ience 8ill rea ily trip the appropriate le)er. .his co"l be be constr"e to be a ho#ici al act 8ere it not for the fact that the

)ol"nteer fro# the a" ience 7no8s f"ll 8ell that so#e 7in of tric7 is operating that 8ill pre)ent any har# fro# occ"rring, e)en tho"gh he cannot see the #echanis# of the tric7 or 7no8 ho8 it 8or7s. .he F"estion #ay be raise 8hy control s"b9ects in the 8a7ing state ref"se to perfor# these acts. +ne 8on ers 8hether the eCpectation that they o"ght not to o this 8as so#eho8 co##"nicate to the#. Ways in 8hich these ob9ections #ight be #et eCperi#entally are isc"sse later. ,y far the #ost sophisticate atte#pt to eal 8ith this proble# of the possible recognition of the sit"ation as "nreal has been "n erta7en by 0line =B%?. 'nfort"nately, only one s"b9ect 8as in)ol)e . 3e perfor#e an antisocial act, ho8e)er, 8hich 8as Jnot only antisocial b"t p"nishable by la8.J ;"rther#ore, 8hile the s"b9ect ha agree to participate in a st" y to test the legal i#plications of hypnosis, the act 8as "n erta7en in a setting o"tsi e of the laboratory 8hich 8as, to all intents an p"rposes, JrealJ =personal co##"nication?. .he act, 8hich is not etaile in the paper Jfor reasons of legality an recogniGability,J 8as clearly oppose to the internaliGe inhibitions of the s"b9ect. ,y #ost reasonable nor#ati)e criteria, it 8o"l be )ie8e as highly ob9ectionable. ;o"r eCperi#enters, co#petent hypnotists, faile in their atte#pts to in "ce the s"b9ect to perfor# the act. When the s"b9ect:s perception of the reality sit"ation 8as altere , ho8e)er, he 8as 8illing to perfor# the action for three of the fo"r eCperi#enters. .he eCperi#enter for 8ho# he ref"se re)eale later that she herself 8as "pset by the nat"re of the reF"este act an by the eception. In a f"rther eCperi#ent the s"b9ect 8as reass"re that the action 8as all right b"t no percept"al alteration 8as "se . 'n er these con itions he 8as 8illing to perfor# the action for only one of the eCperi#enters. It 8as also possible to in "ce the s"b9ect to perfor# the act by first reF"esting hi# to )is"aliGe its perfor#ance before irectly reF"esting the action. .his st" y is partic"larly interesting in that the s"b9ect 8as 8illing "n er so#e sit"ations to perfor# an action for the eCperi#enter 8ith 8ho# he ha the best rapport b"t not for the others. 3e ref"se to perfor# this action in the 8a7ing state espite the eCperi#enters: atte#pts at pers"asion. &robably the #ost con)incing aspect of this st" y is that 8ith )arying con itions, all, so#e, or none of the eCperi#enters co"l -1<Ain "ce the s"b9ect to perfor# the act. .he li#itations of the st" y are that only one s"b9ect 8as e#ploye an that the s"b9ect 8as hi#self intereste in in)estigating the legal i#plications of hypnosis. In this conteCt, it is interesting both that the s"b9ect ha a#nesia for his action an that after he 8as finally infor#e of his beha)ior he felt that the nee to e#onstrate the point #a e the eCperi#ent legiti#ate. ;"rther in)estigation along this line, especially "tiliGing s"b9ects less ego-in)ol)e in the p"rpose of the st" y, 8o"l see# necessary in or er to ra8 a #ore efiniti)e concl"sion. Spea7ing for the negati)e in this contro)ersy is an eCperi#ent reporte by 3a"pt =B>?. .he s"b9ect 8as a st" ent 8ho 8as in hypnotherapy 8ith 3a"pt. .he posthypnotic s"ggestion 8as gi)en that the st" ent 8o"l , "pon a8a7ening, pic7 "p 3a"pt:s noteboo7, leaf thro"gh it, an rea it. .his is an action 8hich the a"thor feels the st" ent 8o"l ne)er ha)e are "n er nor#al circ"#stances. (fter 8a7ing, the st" ent rose, 8ent to the table, loo7e at the open noteboo7 an as7e $ J3ere yo" 8rite yo"r notes, on:t yo"LJ 3e #a e no atte#pt to pic7 it "p or rea it. When #e#ory for the posthypnotic s"ggestion 8as restore , the st" ent reporte that he ha felt a ri)e to rea the noteboo7 b"t restraine hi#self. 3a"pt obser)es that the s"b9ect:s beha)ior 8as a co#pro#ise bet8een the s"ggestion an 8hat 8as socially acceptable

an that since this #inor infraction 8as not perfor#e , it is not possible to in "ce #ore e)iant beha)ior by #eans of hypnosis. ( fairly elaborate st" y by -ric7son =19?, reporting so#e thirty-siC in i)i "al eCperi#ents, s"pports the )ie8 that )iolations of social prohibitions cannot be achie)e in hypnosis. .his st" y is open to F"estion in )ie8 of the reporte res"lts in laboratory settings by others. -ric7son is 7no8n to his s"b9ects as a responsible in)estigator. .he fact that he i not ha)e any positi)e res"lts 8o"l lea one to 8on er if he i not i#plicitly con)ey his eCpectations of ref"sal. In )ie8 of the relationship bet8een s"b9ect an hypnotist in both the 3a"pt an -ric7son st" ies, it #ay be that the s"b9ect 8o"l act in accor ance 8ith the hypnotist:s i#plicit eCpectations. In a re)ie8 of the literat"re on this s"b9ect WeitGenhoffer =@%? atte#pts to reconcile the contra ictory e)i ence on in "cing socially prohibite beha)ior. 3e points o"t that atte#pts 8hich ha)e been s"ccessf"l are those in 8hich the s"b9ect 8as gi)en a hall"cinate pse" o-sit"ation 8hich re efine the beha)ior as socially acceptable. (n instance of this 8o"l be the Wells: =<>? e#onstration. 3e in "ce the s"b9ect to JstealJ a ollar bill by being tol it 8as his o8n #oney. .h"s, fro# the s"b9ect:s )ie8point he 8as no longer -1<%co##itting a transgression. WeitGenhoffer attrib"tes fail"re to in "ce s"b9ects to perfor# JantisocialJ acts to those sit"ations in 8hich the s"b9ect percei)es the transgressi)e nat"re of his beha)ior. .his eCplanation, altho"gh se "cti)e at first glance, oes not appear to o 9"stice to the literat"re. -ric7son atte#pte in so#e instances to create this type of sit"ation an obtaine negati)e res"lts. +n the other han , Schnec7 8as "na8are of the nor#ati)e i#plications of his posthypnotic s"ggestion at the ti#e it 8as gi)en. !or 8as there any atte#pt to isg"ise the angero"s nat"re of the sit"ations in the *o8lan or 6o"ng eCperi#ents. It see#s appropriate, in this conteCt, to note that freF"ently s"b9ects in hypnosis appear to sho8 an increase of s"per-ego-type inhibitions. .his has been pointe o"t by /in es =D@? an has been obser)e by the a"thor. ,ra#8ell =1%? reports a case that clearly ill"strates this point. ( patient s"ffering fro# p"l#onary isease 8as treate by hypnotic s"ggestion by her physician in the presence of a n"rse. ,efore trance 8as ter#inate , the physician re#e#bere that he ha not eCa#ine the patient that 8ee7, an as7e her to bare her chest so that he co"l eCa#ine her. 4"ch to his a#aGe#ent, the patient ref"se to o so espite the fact that this 8as a ro"tine proce "re to 8hich she ha ne)er ob9ecte in the past. (fter the patient 8as a8a7e, the physician again as7e her an she per#itte hi# to procee 8ith the eCa#ination 8itho"t any ob9ection. .he n"rse as7e the patient so#eti#e later 8hy she ha ref"se in hypnosis, an the patient eCpresse isbelief that she ha one so. 'n er so#e circ"#stances, at least, beha)ior nor#ally prohibite b"t appropriate to the sit"ation 8ill not be carrie o"t in hypnosis. (pparently, "n er hypnosis the s"b9ect #ay interpret interpersonal #oti)es an intentions ifferently fro# 8hen they occ"r in the 8a7ing state.
E>PERIMENTAL REEUIREMENTS

.o satisfy the reF"ire#ents of an a eF"ately controlle in)estigation of )iolations of internaliGe prohibitions in hypnosis, a n"#ber of con itions 8o"l ha)e to be #et. .hese ha)e not been ealt 8ith in any eCperi#ental st" y to ate.

(s has been pointe o"t pre)io"sly, the eCperi#ental sit"ation legiti#iGes #"ch beha)ior 8hich the s"b9ect, in other conteCts, )ie8s as contrary to his internaliGe prohibitions. It is esirable to eter#ine 8hether the beha)ior is also legiti#iGe in the eCperi#ental setting by s"b9ects 8ho are not hypnotiGe . +ne 8ay in 8hich this can be eter#ine econo#ically :is to "tiliGe a control gro"p of -1<6s"b9ects 8ho are highly #oti)ate to si#"late hypnosis in or er to ecei)e the eCperi#enter. If the eCperi#enter is not a8are that the s"b9ects are si#"lating, he 8ill treat the# as he oes real s"b9ects. If these controls perfor# the antisocial act, 8e #ay ass"#e that the eCperi#ental sit"ation itself has legiti#iGe beha)ior that appears to be antisocial. ( ref"sal of the control s"b9ects to perfor# the gi)en action 8o"l len s"pport to the hypothesis that the beha)ior cannot be legiti#iGe solely by the eCperi#ental sit"ation. (n a itional possibility #"st be consi ere . (b"n ant e)i ence eCists that "n er so#e circ"#stances of social legiti#iGation, in i)i "als in "lge in beha)ior that is or inarily )ie8e as antisocialI for eCa#ple, lynching beha)ior, or eCtre#e eChibitionis# an seC"al license in association 8ith rin7ing or #ari9"ana. In so#e instances, hypnosis #ay pro)i e the legiti#iGation for beha)ior 8hich the person 8ishes to perfor# b"t 8hich he feels he cannot o "n er nor#al circ"#stances. It is not clear 8hether it is hypnosis per se or the hypnotic sit"ation 8hich is instr"#ental in the pro "ction of these acts. Clinical e)al"ation of each eCperi#ental s"b9ect th"s beco#es necessary for an "n erstan ing of the #oti)ations in)ol)e . If 8e ass"#e that the s"b9ect, e)en in eep hypnosis, retains an a8areness of his s"rro"n ings an at so#e le)el a grasp of the act"al realities of the sit"ation no #atter ho8 s"b9ecti)ely real his hall"cinate en)iron#ent is, it beco#es necessary to ta7e into acco"nt the total sit"ation in or er to e)al"ate the tr"e #eaning of the s"b9ect:s beha)ior. .h"s, no set of eCperi#ents 8hich as7s the s"b9ect to )iolate a social prohibition in a psychological laboratory of a "ni)ersity, an 8hich is con "cte by in i)i "als 7no8n to be rep"table in)estigators by the s"b9ect, can pro)i e efiniti)e ans8ers. .he only p"rpose for 8hich a psychologist 8o"l as7 a s"b9ect to thro8 aci at another in i)i "al 8o"l be to contrib"te to science or ne8 7no8le ge. (n e)en these ai#s 8o"l be precl" e by a concern for the safety of the in i)i "als in)ol)e . .h"s the beha)ior, ho8e)er antisocial on the s"rface, is not contrary to the s"b9ect:s )al"es in its total conteCt. ( better test of the F"estion 8o"l be an eCperi#ent perfor#e by so#eone 8ho is not 7no8n to be a "ni)ersity professor. ;or eCa#ple, a carni)al hypnotist #ight s"ggest to a s"b9ect obtaine as a )ol"nteer "ring a e#onstration that he ret"rn after the perfor#ance. (t that ti#e "ring a rein "ce trance he 8o"l s"ggest that he sho"l rob the local 9e8elry store an bring hi#, the hypnotist, the stolea 9e8elry. .his 7in of an eCperi#ent 8o"l be psychologically totally ifferent fro# anything 8hich has e)er been atte#pte in -1<@a laboratory. .he follo8ing con itions 8o"l ha)e been #et$ =a? the beha)ior 8o"l be in fact cri#inal, =b? the #oti)e of the hypnotist 8o"l be clearly for personal or financial gain, =c? the hypnotist 8o"l not ha)e a rep"tation as a serio"s responsible in)estigator, an = ? the relationship bet8een the s"b9ect an

the hypnotist is of brief "ration an 8o"l not in itself in any 8ay 9"stify the type of action being "n erta7en by the s"b9ect for the hypnotist. It is possible to approCi#ate closely this type of sit"ation in a college en)iron#ent. .h"s, a gra "ate st" ent assistant #ight "tiliGe a s"b9ect in an J"na"thoriGe J trance-in "ction, an reF"est that the s"b9ect enter one of the senior-professors: roo#s an appropriate a &h.1. eCa#ination paper, 8hich the s"b9ect 7no8s to be confronting the gra "ate st" ent. .he arrange#ents reF"ire to #a7e this 7in of a st" y feasible 8o"l be #ore practical an the test of the hypothesis al#ost as se)ere. JSi#"latingJ hypnotic controls 8o"l be necessary to eter#ine 8hether the sit"ation is still percei)e as eCperi#ental by the s"b9ect.
NONLABORATOR; INSTANCES OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

What appears to be #ore rele)ant for the s"b9ect of interrogation are those reporte instances of cri#inal beha)ior that 8ere allege ly in "ce by hypnotic #eans. Consi erable interest has been eCpresse by the legal profession in this proble#, an it has generally been hel that a cri#e co##itte "n er hypnosis 8o"l be the responsibility of the hypnotist rather than that of the s"b9ect. ;or this reason the plea of hypnotic infl"ence has at )ario"s ti#es playe a role in legal efense. .here are a fair n"#ber of cases on recor prior to 19>>, partic"larly a#ong the /er#an-spea7ing peoples =D9?. 'nfort"nately, it is har to e)al"ate these cases ob9ecti)ely at this late ate. ;or the #ost part, they eal 8ith seC"al offenses an 8e #"st point o"t that hypnotic infl"ence is often clai#e to 9"stify beha)ior 8hich #ight ha)e been F"ite esirable to the s"b9ect at the ti#e of its occ"rrence. It has ne)er been clearly e#onstrate that hypnosis has playe a significant role in these cases, an it see#s in se)eral instances that the relati)es, rather than the s"b9ect, clai#e hypnotic infl"ence. We 8ill isc"ss briefly the three oc"#ente cases 8hich ha)e been reporte 8ithin recent years in 8hich hypnosis has allege ly playe a role in cri#inal beha)ior. -ach of these three cases 8as st" ie eCtensi)ely by psychiatrists. +ne 8as st" ie by Walther 0roener =%<?, another by L" 8ig 4ayer =AA?, an the #ost recent case by &a"l *eiter =%<?. -1<<In the case he st" ie , 0roener reports that a sensiti)e, yo"ng, "n#arre , #ale schoolteacher ca#e "n er the hypnotic infl"ence of a Jfriea lyJ neighbor. .he relationship began 8ith neighborly hospitality an procee e to the point 8here, by #eans of hypnotic s"ggestion, the neighbor in "ce the schoolteacher to gi)e or len hi# s#all s"#s of #oney an goo s. In or er to test his po8er o)er the schoolteacher the hypnotist ga)e hi# a posthypnotic s"ggestion that he =the )icti#? 8o"l shoot hi#self in the left han . .he schoolteacher act"ally i shoot hi#self in his left elbo8 9oint, s"b9ecti)ely percei)ing the e)ent as an acci ent. ,y #eans of a posthypnotic s"ggestion the hypnotist in "ce his )icti# to confess to cri#es that the hypnotist ha co##itte . .hro"gho"t the entire affair, 8hich laste for fi)e years, the schoolteacher ha no recollection of the hypnotic sessions. .he schoolteacher 8as con)icte , b"t began to s"spect the nat"re of his relationship 8ith his neighbor on the basis of a chance re#ar7. (fter #any appeals he 8as reco##en e for eCa#ination to 0roener, 8ho e)ent"ally "nco)ere the tr"e state of affairs by re-hypnotiGing the schoolteacher an thereby ca"sing hi# to re#e#ber all the hypnotic eCperiences 8ith his neighbor.

.he st" y by 4ayer =AA?, "s"ally calle the 3ei elberg case, in)ol)es a t8enty-fo"r-year-ol ho"se8ife 8ho 8as )icti#iGe by a #an 8ho pose as a octor treating her. +stensibly he syste#atically traine her in hypnosis for se)en years. (t first he s8in le #oney fro# her "n er the pretense of c"ring her of )ario"s co#plaints 8hich he hi#self ha in "ce by hypnotic s"ggestion. Later, pres"#ably by #eans of his hypnotic infl"ence, he co#pelle her to ha)e seC"al relations 8ith hi#self an 8ith his frien s. (lso as a res"lt of his s"ggestions she #a e siC atte#pts on her h"sban :s life an se)eral atte#pts "pon her o8n. .he hypnotist 8as arreste an con)icte espite his consistent plea of not g"ilty. .he thir case, in)estigate by *eiter =%<?, eals 8ith a #an 8ho 8as sentence to prison for helping the /er#ans "ring the last 8ar. (t this ti#e he 8as in an eCtre#ely epresse an isill"sione fra#e of #ire . While in prison he #et a #an 8ho especially fascinate hi# beca"se of his apparent 7no8le ge of religion, #ysticis#, an occ"ltis#. .he t8o beca#e frien s an eCperi#ente eCtensi)ely 8ith 2oga an hypnotis#. .hey 8ere alone in the sa#e cell for nearly eighteen #onths, besi es being together in the 8or7shop e)ery ay. (fter a8hile, the hypnotist infor#e his )icti# that he =the hypnotist? 8as an instr"#ent e#ploye by the g"ar ian spirit, an that the g"ar ian spirit 8as spea7ing to the )icti# thro"gh the #e i"# of the hypnotist. ;ro# that ti#e on the )icti# felt that -1<9he ha to carry o"t all the or ers of the g"ar ian spirit. (fter they 8ere release fro# prison the #en contin"e their relationship H an the g"ar ian spirit contin"e to #a7e e#an s. .he g"ar ian spirit or ere his )icti# to t"rn o)er his 8ages to the hypnotistI he fo"n a girl for the )icti# to #arry an or ere hi# to o so, 8hich he i I he or ere hi# to proc"re #oney in or er to establish a political organiGation thro"gh 8hich they co"l create a better society an "nite the Scan ina)ian co"ntries, the goal being the sal)ation of #an7in . It 8as to8ar the latter en that the g"ar ian spirit, thro"gh the #e i"# of the hypnotist, pointe o"t the ban7 that the )icti# 8as to rob. .he robbery 8as acco#plishe , an a year later or ers ca#e for another ban7 robbery. 1"ring the eCec"tion of this tas7 the )icti# co##itte #"r er an 8as apprehen e . In all three cases a co##on ele#ent 8as present. In so#e #anner the s"b9ect 8as issatisfie an the in i)i "al 8ho later beca#e the hypnotist pro)i e gratification. In the first case, the schoolteacher li)e alone, an appeare so#e8hat isolate beca"se of ins"fficient social contacts. .he neighbor pro)i e frien ship an initially perfor#e #any #inor ser)ices for hi#. In the 3ei elberg case the s"b9ect initially #et the hypnotist in a sit"ation 8here he presente hi#self as a physician 8ho co"l relie)e a sy#pto# that 8as ca"sing her ac"te istress. .he s"b9ect appeare to ha)e ha psychoso#atic sy#pto#s before contact 8ith the hypnotist, 8hich #ight ha)e reflecte tension in her #arriage. ;"rther#ore, the hypnotist appeare to be a seC"ally attracti)e psychopath an hypnosis #ay ha)e pro)i e the opport"nity for the gratification of so#e of the )icti#:s nee s. In the last case the s"b9ect 8as e9ecte 8ith intense feelings of 8orthlessness, as an after#ath of collaboration "ring the 8ar. .he hypnotist beca#e a frien prior to the beginning of the hypnotic eCperi#ents. .he intensity of this relationship can be inferre fro# the fact that the s"b9ect at the ti#e began to feel consi erably #ore co#fortable. .h"s, in each case the relationship bet8een s"b9ect an hypnotist 8as s"ch that the for#er eri)e nee gratification fro# the association. ;reF"ently relationships eCist bet8een t8o in i)i "als that ha)e no connection 8ith hypnosis b"t are #ar7e by intense feelings an a strong ten ency on the part of one in i)i "al to co#ply 8ith 8hate)er reF"ests are #a e of hi# by the other. .he transference relationship seen in psychotherapy is a case in

point. If this type of relationship eCists bet8een t8o in i)i "als, it 8o"l see# "nnecessary to e#ploy hypnosis to eCplain beha)ior on the part of one person 8hich benefits the other. +nly in the absence of this 7in of pre-19>eCisting relationship is it #eaningf"l to spea7 of hypnosis as being a necessary prereF"isite for the beha)ior. 'n o"bte ly, hypnosis playe so#e role in the cases 8e ha)e isc"sse . 3o8e)er, if 8e are to #a7e inferences fro# these ata to the sit"ation of hypnosis in interrogation it is necessary to 7eep in #in that the relationship bet8een the interrogator an the s"b9ect is not often co#parable to the long-ter# relationships 8hich eCiste in the cases cite .
SUMMAR;

In s"##ing "p the e)i ence on beha)ior )iolating internaliGe prohibitions as it is applicable to an interrogation sit"ation, 8e fin o"rsel)es in the "nfort"nate position of ha)ing no st" y a)ailable that is not )"lnerable to serio"s criticis#. .he eCperi#ental laboratory st" ies s"ffer fro# the efects of a pse" o-reality sit"ation 8here the Jnansgressi)e actsJ cannot be efine as s"ch in the conteCt of the total sit"ation, an fro# the efect of the #"t"ally share 8ishes an #oti)es of eCperi#enter an s"b9ect. .he only three cases of cri#inal acts apparently in)ol)ing hypnosis 8hich are reliably reporte in the recent literat"re all in)ol)e an intense e#otional relationship bet8een hypnotist an s"b9ect. S"ch a relationship #ay be iffic"lt to establish in the interrogation sit"ation. In the absence of #eaningf"l e)i ence, any concl"sions reache #"st be of a con9ect"ral nat"re. -Cperi#ental tests of the F"estion are feasible, b"t 8o"l reF"ire ca#o"flage of the instit"tional responsibilities of the in)estigators. .he a"thor 8o"l post"late that only in rare interrogation s"b9ects 8o"l a s"fficiently eep trance be obtainable to e)en atte#pt to in "ce the s"b9ect to isc"ss #aterial 8hich he is "n8illing to isc"ss in the 8a7ing state. .he 7in of infor#ation 8hich can be obtaine in those rare instances is still an "nans8ere F"estion.

Re &$$ &nd A ur& # o' In'or-&tion O(t&ined in H#4nosis 1espite the pre)io"sly isc"sse technical proble#s, it #ay be possible for an interrogator to obtain infor#ation fro# a hypnotiGe s"b9ect. (lso, a s"b9ect #ay 8illingly enter hypnosis. In either case the interrogator #"st e)al"ate the )eri icality of the elicite #aterial. ( great eal has been 8ritten, especially in the press, abo"t the "nfailing acc"racy 8ith 8hich s"b9ects in hypnosis 8ill recall past e)ents. State#ents ha)e freF"ently been #a e abo"t in i)i "als -191ha)ing perfect #e#ory in hypnosis, abo"t their ability to recall anything that has happene to the# e)en 8hile infants, an , accor ing to so#e, e)en prior to birth =B@?.

.8o separate iss"es ha)e to be eCa#ine $ =a? is the s"b9ect in hypnosis able to recall historically acc"rate infor#ation 8hich he cannot re#e#ber in the 8a7ing state an =b? is infor#ation obtaine fro# a s"b9ect in hypnosis necessarily acc"rate 8hen it has been s"ggeste to hi# that he cannot lieL

Is In ormation More Accessible to #ecall *nder Hypnosis3 ( #echanis# freF"ently "se to facilitate recall is that of hypnotic age regression. .he s"b9ect is Jregresse J or ta7en bac7 in ti#e to the sit"ations to8ar 8hich recall is irecte . ;or eCa#ple, if a s"b9ect in eep hypnosis is gi)en the s"ggestion that he is, let "s say, siC years ol , he 8ill begin to act, tal7, an to so#e eCtent thin7 in the #anner of a siC year ol . 3e 8ill hall"cinate the appropriate en)iron#ent an 8ill gi)e s"ch etails as the people sitting neCt to hi# in school, teachers: na#es, color of 8alls, etc. .he s"b9ect:s actions "n er these circ"#stances are eCcee ingly con)incing, an it has freF"ently been ass"#e that an act"al regression to the s"ggeste age ta7es place, 8ith #any of its psychologic an physiologic co#ponents. It is often ass"#e that the infor#ation obtaine "n er these circ"#stances is acc"rate. &latono) an &ri7ho i)ny =%@? p"blishe t8o st" ies 8hich clai# to pro)e the reality of age regression by #eans of intelligence tests. +ne of the #ost stri7ing st" ies is by /i ro-;ran7 an ,o8ers,"ch =D%?, 8ho e#onstrate that the infantile type of plantar response appeare in s"b9ects 8ho 8ere regresse in age to approCi#ately fi)e #onths. 'nfort"nately they i not in)estigate 8hether the s"b9ects 8ere a8are of the type of plantar response to be eCpecte in infancy. .he s"b9ect pop"lation incl" e #e ical st" ents an n"rses, an it is reasonable to ass"#e that they 8ere not entirely nai)e. Single case st" ies 8hich clai# to e#onstrate JrealJ age regression ha)e been reporte by a )ariety of in)estigators$ Spiegel, Shor an ;ish#an =69?, Schnec7 =66?, 4ercer an /ibson =A@?, LeCron =A1?, ,erg#an, /raha#, an Lea)itt =<?, an 0line =B6?. 1espite these st" ies, 8hich are base #ostly on single cases, there is little e)i ence for the )ali ity of hypnotic age regression. 6o"ng =<%? in a st" y "sing a n"#ber of s"b9ects has e#onstrate that their perfor#ance on intelligence tests 8as not appropriate to their s"ggeste age. 'nhypnotiGe control s"b9ects 8ere #ore s"c-19Dcessf"l in si#"lating their age than 8ere s"b9ects in eep hypnosis. .here 8as no correlation bet8een the apparent epth of hypnosis an the eCtent of regression. +rne =%1? con "cte a st" y of hypnotic age regression in ten s"b9ects e#ploying the *orschach test an ra8ing sa#ples, an 8as able to e#onstrate that, 8hile so#e regressi)e ele#ents appeare , it 8as clear that nonregressi)e ele#ents 8ere also present. ;"rther#ore, the changes to8ar regression i not sho8 any consistency fro# s"b9ect to s"b9ect. .he ra8ing sa#ples in age regression 8ere e)al"ate by 0aren 4acho)er 8ho characteriGe the# as Jsophisticate o)ersi#plification.J .hey i not rese#ble the ra8ings of siC year ol s. ;or one s"b9ect his ra8ings at age siC 8ere a)ailable, b"t there 8as not e)en a s"perficial rese#blance. In this conteCt it is partic"larly significant that s"b9ects often ga)e their teacher:s na#e 8ith great con)iction. Later inF"iry isclose that the na#es 8ere inacc"rate an i not refer to first gra e teachers at all, b"t to the s"b9ects: teachers at a #"ch later ti#e.

;inally, there are st" ies by .r"e an Stephenson =@D? an 4cCraitie, Crasilnec7, an .eter =A%? 8ho in)estigate --/:s ta7en "ring hypnotic age regression. !either st" y e#onstrate any change in the irection of a chil hoo --/. It is also of interest that these st" ies o not report an increase heart rate =present in infants? nor changes in -0/ tracings. .o s"##ariGe, the literat"re on hypnotic age regression fails to e#onstrate that the pheno#enon is anything #ore than an eCtre#ely con)incing for# of role-playing, as s"ggeste by Sarbin =61?, 6o"ng =<%?, an +rne =%1?. .here is little e)i ence in any of these st" ies to in icate that recall for nonernotional #aterial is significantly i#pro)e . It is i#portant for o"r p"rposes to isting"ish bet8een e#otionally ne"tral #aterial an e#otionally charge e)ents, 8hich are s"b9ect to acti)e forgetting or repression. .here is ab"n ant e)i ence that e#otionally la en #aterial that is not nor#ally accessible can be reco)ere by hypnosis. &robably it is this pheno#enon 8hich has le to the erroneo"s ass"#ption that all types of #aterial #ay be recalle in this fashion. .8o specific st" ies eal 8ith #e#ory in hypnosis$ Stalna7er an *i le =@>? as7e s"b9ects in hypnosis to recall the poe# J.he 2illage ,lac7s#ith.J (t first glance, hypnosis appeare to increase their recall of the poe#. 4"ch of the apparent i#pro)e#ent 8as "e to appropriate confab"lation of poetic #aterial in the #anner of Longfello8. .he significant point is that s"b9ects in hypnotic -19Btrance sho8 a #ar7e ten ency to confab"late 8ith apparent )erisi#ilit" e. White, ;oC, an 3arris =<D? e#onstrate that hypnosis oes not i#pro)e #e#ory for recently learne #aterial, b"t appears to i#pro)e #e#ory for #eaningf"l #aterial, s"ch as poetry, slightly. .hey o not #a7e any state#ents abo"t the acc"racy of repro "ction.

The Accuracy o In ormation )btained in Hypnosis Consi erably less #aterial is a)ailable abo"t the )eracity of the #aterial f"rnishe by a s"b9ect in hypnosis. (s the prece ing isc"ssion in icates, s"b9ects in eep hypnosis ten to confab"late in the irection of 8hat they percei)e to be eCpecte of the#. We sho"l li7e to eCa#ine the eCtent to 8hich s"b9ects in hypnosis can p"rposely #isrepresent #aterial, altho"gh it has been s"ggeste to the# that they cannot o this. (s 8e ha)e alrea y in icate , 6o"ng =<A? has sho8n that s"b9ects can resist specific s"ggestions if they ha)e eci e in a )ance that they 8ill o so. Wells =@9? ha e#onstrate the opposite. -arlier F"ote co##ents on e#an characteristics apply to both these st" ies. .he iss"e re#ains to be resol)e by an a eF"ate e#pirical test. ,eigel =6, @? reports three cases of hypnosis "se in an effort to ascertain the facts in #arriage co"nseling sit"ations. In a personal co##"nication, he #aintains that people in hypnosis #ay lie, ref"se to ans8er, or 8a7e "p 8hen as7e irect F"estions on sensiti)e #atters. 3o8e)er, he clai#s to ha)e s"ccessf"lly elicite infor#ation 8hich s"b9ects 8ere rel"ctant to re)eal in the 8a7ing state by #eans of a hypnotic reli)ing of the sit"ation. .he cr"cial factor, in ,eigel:s opinion, is the in irect nat"re of this #etho , i.e., the s"b9ect is "na8are of re)ealing infor#ation since his #a9or concern is the reli)ing of an

eCperience. 3o8e)er, this approach "tiliGes a for# of age regression, an is, as s"ch, s"b9ect to the criticis#s alrea y #a e 8ith regar to this techniF"e. (nother ob9ection eri)es fro# the fact that the s"b9ect:s #oti)ations are not a eF"ately ta7en into acco"nt. ,eigel:s s"b9ects 8ere, for the #ost part, therapy patients. It is, perhaps, not too far fetche to ass"#e that psychotherapy patients J8ant,J at so#e le)el, to re)eal infor#ation to their therapist. !or is it "nreasonable to belie)e that they Jnee J to o so. Confessions to a therapist satisfy #"ltiple nee s of patients in psychotherapy. In re)ie8ing the eCisting literat"re 8e ha)e fo"n only one a"thor 8ho eals 8ith pre)arication "n er hypnosis =,eigel?. 3o8e)er, o"r o8n clinical 8or7 has a#ply con)ince "s that s"b9ects are -19Af"lly capable of eliberately lying 8hen #oti)ate to o so. (ltho"gh this report eals specifically 8ith hypnosis, it #ay, at this 9"nct"re, be "sef"l to consi er also the F"estion of pre)arication "n er the infl"e"ce of r"gs co##only "se in narcosynthesis. Its rele)ance is confir#e by the fin ings of /rin7er an Spiegel =D<? an others 8ho, in the treat#ent of tra"#atic ne"rosis by narcosynthesis, obtaino res"lts 8hich closely parallele those obser)e by hypnotic treat#ent of these ne"roses =1@?. In i)i "al ifferences in response to treat#ent are fo"n both in narcosynthesis an hypnosis, 8hereas treat#ent techniF"es sho8 #ar7e si#ilarities. ;rie lan er =DA?, Schil er =6B?, an others ha)e escribe trance-in "ction techniF"es "tiliGing sleep-in "cing r"gs. With these si#ilarities in #anner 8e feel that it is appropriate to #ention here so#e of the 8or7 one on the F"estion of pre)arication "n er the infl"ence of these r"gs, 8hich as treate in #ore etail in Chapter B. 4"ehlberger =A9?, for eCa#ple, 8ho consi ers narcosynthesis as a "sef"l techniF"e, a #its that ne)ertheless, J'nless s"pporting e)i ence is obtainable, the reliability of res"lts of :tr"th ser"#: tests are open to serio"s F"estionJ =page %DA?. In a st" y of #alingering sol iers L" 8ig =AD? reports that they re#aine negati)istic an "nco##"nicati)e 8hile "n er r"gs. In a thoro"gh isc"ssion of r"g-in "ce re)elation, 1ession et al. =1<? concl" e that$
In so#e cases correct infor#ation #ay be 8ithhel or istorte an , in others, erroneo"s ata elicite thro"gh s"ggestion. !e)ertheless, narcoanalysis, 8hen correctly "se , #ay enable the psychiatrist to probe #ore eeply an F"ic7ly into the psychological characteristics of the s"b9ect. ;or these reasons, the res"lts sho"l not be regar e by the psychiatrist as Jtr"thJ b"t si#ply as clinical ata to be integrate 8ith an interprete in the light of 8hat is 7no8n concerning the yna#ics of the s"b9ect:s conflict"al anCieties, #oti)ations, an beha)ioral ten encies. .h"s the bare res"lts of an inter)ie8 "n er the infl"ence of r"gs sho"l not, stan ing alone, be consi ere a )ali an reliable in icator of the facts. (s a sole proce "re, narcoanalysis is not s"fficiently reliable.

We feel that these concl"sions apply not only to narcoanalysis b"t to hypnosis as 8ell. If, as 8e ha)e propose , an in i)i "al "n er the infl"ence of these rags is in a state a7in to hypnosis, then the res"lts of these r"g st" ies s"pport o"r theory that so#e s"b9ects #ay lie, confab"late, or 8ithhol infor#ation 8hile in trance. .his poses a special proble# for the #ilitary interrogator. -)en those infor#ants 8ho belie)e they are telling the tr"th #ay in fact be offering a co#posite of el"sion, fantasy, an reality. .h"s, the con)incing eli)ery of -19%-

infor#ation obtaine "n er hypnosis #ay easily lea an interrogator astray.

SUMMAR;

( #echanis# freF"ently "se to facilitate recall is that of hypnotic age regression. .here is no e)i ence to in icate that this techniF"e is anything #ore than a con)incing for# of role-playing, real only on an e#otional le)el. .h"s it probably oes not greatly facilitate the recall of past e)ents. 3ypnosis oes not i#pro)e recall for non#eaningf"l #aterial, an oes so only slightly for #eaningf"l #aterial. 3o8e)er, there is e)i ence that e#otionally la en #aterial that is not nor#ally accessible can be reco)ere in hypnosis. It has been e#onstrate that s"b9ects can be "n er both hypnosis an r"gs. It is possible that infor#ation #ay be obtaine by hypnosis. S"ch infor#ation #ay be either acc"rate or inacc"rate. Inacc"racies #ay be the res"lt of eliberate pre)arication, or of an "n8itting conf"sion of fantasy an reality. .he eter#ination of the tr"th or falsity of infor#ation obtaine in hypnosis 8o"l ha)e to be base on o"tsi e criteria.

De'ensi,e Uses o' H#4nosis

Simulation o Hypnosis (n interrogator 8ho e#ploys hypnosis #ay fin that his s"b9ect apparently enters trance an gi)es the esire infor#ation. It is possible that the s"b9ect #ay not be in trance b"t #ay be si#"lating. .he literat"re on the proble# of si#"lation is eCtre#ely #islea ing. .he classical )ie8 hol s that s"b9ects are "nable to ecei)e eCperience hypnotists beca"se hypnotic beha)ior Jloo7s ifferentJ in a n"#ber of 8ays. ;"rther#ore, clai#s ha)e been #a e that in or er to etect fra" the hypnotist nee only s"ggest anesthesia to the s"b9ect an test for it 8ith a painf"l sti#"l"s. 3o8e)er, there are so#e in ications in the literat"re that the etection of si#"lation is not a si#ple tas7. ;or eCa#ple, &attie =%%?, a thoro"ghly eCperience in)estigator, felt that it 8as necessary to reF"est his s"b9ects sign for#s rea ing as follo8s$
I, realiGing that the eCperi#ent perfor#e on #e 8ill probably be p"blishe in a scientific 9o"rnal, sole#nly eclare that I 8as not fa7ing or i#itating the hypnotic trance b"t that I 8as gen"inely hypnotiGe an o not re#e#ber the e)ents of the eCperi#ental perio s.

-196When isc"ssing this proble# 8ith a n"#ber of clinicians, one in)ariably fin s that they report anec otal e)i ence of ha)ing been ecei)e at one ti#e or another. +rne =%D? has con "cte a series of st" ies in)estigating si#"lation. 3e has been "nable to isco)er any physiological in ices 8hich ifferentiate si#"lators fro# eeply hypnotiGe s"b9ects. In a ition he also fo"n that the o)er8hel#ing #a9ority of apparently nai)e s"b9ects are capable of si#"lating 8ell eno"gh to ecei)e e)en eCperience hypnotists. *egar ing pain, +rne =D? fo"n an Shor =6<? has confir#e that the si#"lating s"b9ects generally tolerate higher le)els of electric shoc7 than i s"b9ects in eep hypnosis. 'sing a fairly 8i e

spectr"# of beha)ioral tas7s, they fo"n it 8as not possible to ifferentiate "neF"i)ocally bet8een real an si#"lating s"b9ects. 3o8e)er, certain 7in s of beha)ior 8ere obser)e only in the tr"e hypnotic s"b9ects, altho"gh not in all of the#. +rne =%B? has ter#e this beha)ior Jtrance logic.J It is characteriGe by a #iCt"re of hall"cinations an perceptions fro# the real 8orl . .ypically, this #iCt"re contro)erts the r"les of logic nor#ally operating in the 8a7ing state. ;or eCa#ple, a s"b9ect #ight escribe an hall"cination of an in i)i "al sitting in a chair as JI can see 4r. ` b"t I can see the chair thro"gh hi#.J .he appearance of trance logic in nai)e s"b9ects is al8ays in icati)e of hypnosis. 3o8e)er, trance logic helps iscri#inate neither those real s"b9ects 8ho o not #anifest this beha)ior nor those si#"lators 8ho ha)e been ta"ght to e#onstrate it. Consi erable research re#ains to be one on the recognition of si#"lating beha)ior. (t o"r present state of 7no8le ge it is )ital to bear in #in that the eep hypnosis is essentially a clinical iagnosis. (ltho"gh "n er so#e circ"#stances this iagnosis can be #a e 8ith a high egree of reliability, efiniti)e signs of eep trance ha)e not yet been i entifie . 'ntil s"ch pathogno#ic signs are e)elope , a s"b9ect traine to e#ploy trance logic #ay not fin it too iffic"lt to ecei)e an interrogator.

Training in Hypnosis in Anticipation o Future Interrogation .hree relate s"ggestions ha)e been #a e for 8hat #ay be calle the efensi)e "se of hypnosis. .h"s, -stabroo7s =DD? propose that hypnosis #ight be "sef"l in =a? pre)enting s"bseF"ent trance in "ction in capt"re personnel, =b? ca"sing personnel possessing sensiti)e infor#ation to e)elop a#nesia for this #aterial in case of capt"re, an =c? enabling capt"re personnel to resist stressf"l an painf"l -19@interrogations by training the# to e)elop anesthesia an analgesia 8hen reF"ire . .hese s"ggestions are ingenio"s an appealing as efensi)e #eas"res. (ny ob9ecti)e e)al"ation of these proposals is #a e iffic"lt by the pa"city of rele)ant st" ies, an 8e are force to eCtrapolate fro# the #eager e)i ence a)ailable. In 9" ging the practicality of these s"ggestions it is necessary first of all to ta7e into acco"nt that only approCi#ately D>Y, of the #ilitary pop"lation can be eCpecte to go into a s"fficiently eep so#na#b"listic state con "ci)e to s"ch training. ;"rther#ore, both the f"ll cooperation of the #ilitary personnel in)ol)e an the a)ailability of co#petent hypnotists 8o"l ha)e to be ta7en for grante . In a ition, training sol iers in this #anner 8o"l be a ti#e-cons"#ing process.
PREVENTIN= TRANCE INDUCTION

&raining Sol%iers to Resist Su'se=uent &rance In%uction u(on +a(ture. 3ere 8e are i##e iately confronte 8ith the F"estion of 8hether trance can be in "ce against the in i)i "al:s 8ishes an 8hether posthypnotic s"ggestions are effecti)e in pre)enting trance in "ction. .he first F"estion has been isc"sse pre)io"sly. (ltho"gh the cr"cial eCperi#ent has not yet been one, there is little or no e)i ence to in icate that trance can be in "ce against a person:s 8ishes. .he proposal to train in i)i "als not to o so#ething they are able to a)oi any8ay appears to be of o"btf"l "tility. It #ay be s"fficient to 8arn the# of possible techniF"es of trance in "ction an infor# the# that they are able to resist, if they so esire. In fact, the F"estion o"ght to be raise 8hether training in hypnosis #ay not precon ition an

in i)i "al for s"bseF"ent trance in "ction, regar less of s"ggestions that they o"ght to resist hypnosis. .here is no e)i ence that training in hypnosis pre isposes s"b9ects to8ar trance in "ction 8ith or 8itho"t their cooperation. 3o8e)er, there is consi erable e)i ence that training in hypnosis #a7es s"bseF"ent trance in "ction easier 8ith only to7en cooperation by the s"b9ect. 1ffectiveness of Posthy(notic Suggestions ,esigne% to Prevent Su'se=uent &rance In%uction . (s a #atter of ro"tine, s"b9ects are gi)en the s"ggestion that they 8ill enter hypnosis only 8ith a co#petent psychologist or physician, an only if they esire to o so. It is the 8riter:s practice to s"ggest f"rther that they 8ill begin to la"gh if one of their frien s or a stage hypnotist atte#pts to in "ce hypnosis. !e)ertheless, in se)eral instances these eCperi#ental s"b9ects ha)e per#itte the#sel)es to enter hypnosis 8ith in i)i "als 8ho# they -19<7ne8 to be ineCperience . (t ti#es they ha)e reporte co#p"lsi)e la"ghing 9ags 9"st before falling asleep, in line 8ith the posthypnotic s"ggestion, 8hich i not, ho8e)er, pre)ent their entering hypnosis. .8o s"b9ects traine in this #anner entere hypnosis 8hile 8atching a stage e#onstration fro# the a" ience, again espite s"ggestions to the contrary. .his obser)ation has been confir#e by S"tcliffe =@1?, 8ho has ha si#ilar eCperiences. ;"rther#ore, the 8riter has hi#self hypnotiGe three s"b9ects 8ho ha recei)e specific s"ggestions fro# other hypnotists that they 8o"l be "nable to enter trance 8ith anyone else. S(ontaneous &rance. .he spontaneo"s appearance of trance 8arrants so#e consi eration. It has been note "ring psychotherapy that patients 8ho ha)e ha consi erable hypnotic eCperience 8ill so#eti#es "se the trance state as a efense #echanis# in or er to a)oi a8areness of painf"l #aterial. S"ch #aterial 8ill e#erge "ring spontaneo"s trance an 8ill s"bseF"ently be represse 8hen the patient e#erges fro# the hypnotic state. .he 8riter has obser)e this se)eral ti#es in clinical sit"ations an it has been reporte in personal co##"nications by se)eral other therapists. Since hypnosis #ay occ"r spontaneo"sly in therape"tic sit"ations as a #eans for a)oi ance of stressf"l sit"ations, it #ay 8ell occ"r eF"ally spontaneo"sly in other stress sit"ations, an co"l be "tiliGe by an alert interrogator. We ha)e been able to ter#inate hypnosis in se)eral instances 8hen trance ha been in "ce by ineCperience hypnotists 8ho 8ere "nable to ter#inate it. In these instances it 8as necessary to establish a hypnotic relationship 8ith an "nco##"nicati)e s"b9ect in eep hypnosis. Contrary to pop"lar belief, this can be acco#plishe rea ily an rapi ly "s"ally in less than half an ho"r. .hese fin ings are rele)ant to the angers of spontaneo"sly occ"rring trance "ring interrogation. .h"s, altho"gh the interrogator #ay not ha)e in "ce the trance, he co"l ass"#e the role of hypnotist an co##"nicate 8ith the s"b9ect.
CONCLUSION

In )ie8 of the foregoing consi erations, it appears not only fr"itless b"t potentially angero"s to train s"b9ects to resist s"bseF"ent trance in "ction. If the hypnotist has s"fficient s7ill an eCperience, he #ight 8ell be able to "tiliGe the )ery s"ggestions gi)en against entering hypnosis as the necessary 8e ge to in "ce hypnosis. .h"s, if the s"ggestion has been gi)en that the s"b9ect 8ill not enter trance b"t

-1998ill la"gh, an the hypnotist obser)es the s"b9ect beginning to la"gh, he #ight s"ggest that the s"b9ect 8ill begin to la"gh #ore an #ore an 8ill la"gh so har that he 8ill beco#e eCha"ste an go to sleep. In the sa#e #anner a posthypnotic s"ggestion of a hea ache or any other s"b9ecti)e eCperience 8hich a"ght to pre)ent hypnosis can be "tiliGe as a #eans of in "cing it. (nother anger of the hypnotically traine sol ier is the greater li7elihoo of spontaneo"s appearance of trance in a stressf"l sit"ation s"ch as interrogation. 3ence, the "se of trance as a #eans of pre)enting s"bseF"ent trance in "ction by a potential captor has inherent angers.
INDUCTION OF AMNESIA

4ore appealing perhaps than the pre)io"s s"ggestion is the possibility of ca"sing capti)e s"b9ects to forget 8hate)er sensiti)e infor#ation they #ay ha)e learne . 3ere again 8e enco"nter se)eral technical proble#s. ( blan7et s"ggestion to forget all sensiti)e #aterial 8ill freF"ently fail to ta7e effect. It is 8ell 7no8n that the effecti)eness an per#anency of a hypnotic s"ggestion are irectly relate to the concrete efinition of a specific tas7. (s a r"le, general s"ggestions s"ch as blan7et a#nesia ha)e "npre ictable effects e)en in )ery goo s"b9ects. It #ay be possible to s"ggest that a sol ier only re#e#ber his na#e, ran7, an serial n"#ber in the e)ent of capt"re. 3o8e)er, this raises not only the serio"s F"estion of 8hether this co"l be acco#plishe b"t also of 8hether it #ight epri)e the sol ier of infor#ation 8hich #ay be )ital to hi# "ring capti)ity. ( state of se)ere psychopathology 8o"l be artificially in "ce , 8hich #ay be a apti)e in so#e respects b"t eCtre#ely ist"rbing in others. .he ecision of 8hat to say "ring interrogation 8o"l be #a e for the sol ier beforehan . .he ine)itable i#po)erish#ent of 7no8le ge an loss of ego control 8o"l f"rnish the interrogator a )ery effecti)e 8ay of controlling his capti)e. .he capti)e 8o"l be serio"sly istresse by the feeling of loss of self-e)i ent an necessary infor#ation, an the interrogator 8o"l be a able to ass"#e the role of a helpf"l in i)i "al rea y to assist the recall of #e#ory. S"ch a F"asi-therape"tic relationship 8o"l ine)itably pro "ce an alliance bet8een capti)e an interrogator 8ith conco#itant for#ation of a strong positi)e relationship. *ecall 8o"l e)ent"ally ta7e place, as in the treat#ent of a#nesia "n er nor#al circ"#stances. .he capti)e:s efense 8o"l be lo8ere so that, as recall ta7es place, infor#ation 8o"l ten to be share 8ith the helpf"l interrogator. In other 8or s, the in "ce psychopathology #ay be s"fficiently -D>>ist"rbing to the capti)e to #a7e hi# the easy )icti# of any techniF"e ai#e at relie)ing his isco#fort. 3e #ay beco#e a 8illing an cooperati)e s"b9ect for hypnosis, legiti#iGe no8 as a treat#ent techniF"e. So i"# pentothal #ay also be "se , an is generally s"ccessf"l in lea ing to rapi recall. Since "n er these circ"#stances, control o)er the infor#ation is no longer an ego f"nction of the capti)e nor his responsibility, he 8o"l feel little constraint in sharing his 7no8le ge as it co#es to hi#. +nly after reestablish#ent of co#plete recall 8o"l he beca#e a8are of betraying )ital infor#ation. In s"##ary, then, it oes not appear feasible to ca"se a potential capti)e to forget sensiti)e infor#ation selecti)ely. S"ch iscri#ination 8o"l reF"ire that, in gi)ing the posthypnotic s"ggestion, the hypnotist 8o"l ha)e to be a8are of all types of present an potential f"t"re infor#ation that the

s"b9ect has or 8ill ha)e, an that he #a7e allo8ance for all e)ent"alities. .he alternati)e, to ca"se the sol ier to forget e)erything abo"t hi#self other than his na#e, ran7, an serial n"#ber, 8o"l 8or7 only in a s#all #inority of people. 3o8e)er, e)en for the# a potentially )"lnerable sit"ation 8o"l e)elop, #ore )"lnerable in fact than if no s"ggestion ha ta7en place. .he artificially in "ce pathology co"l easily be bro7en o8n, if recogniGe as s"ch by the interrogator, 8ho co"l sec"re the cooperation of the sol ier by presenting interrogation as treat#ent of a sic7 person. It #ay be far safer to rely on the sol ier:s o8n ego control to eci e 8hat infor#ation o"ght not to be re)eale to an ene#y than to #a7e this ecision for hi# by posthypnotic #eans. (rtificially in "ce a#nesia 8o"l epri)e the sol ier of his ego f"nctions an p"t hi# at the #ercy of his captors. .his #etho also has other serio"s efectsI offensi)e action, s"ch as escape or cooperation 8ith fello8 prisoners to obstr"ct interrogation, 8o"l be se)erely han icappe .
H;PNOSIS AS A MEANS OF RESISTANCE TO STRESS

.he final s"ggestion that 8e sho"l li7e to isc"ss in this section concerns the "se of posthypnotic s"ggestion in training in i)i "als to resist stress, partic"larly pain. -Ctensi)e infor#ation is a)ailable abo"t the "se of hypnosis as a #eans of s"ppressing pain. 4a9or s"rgical operations ha)e been perfor#e 8ith hypnosis as the sole anesthesic. Laboratory eCperi#ents ha)e e#onstrate that 8ith hypnotic analgesia s"b9ects o not report eCperiencing pain b"t contin"e to respon physiologically #"ch as they o in the 8a7ing state =Shor, 6<?. ,eecher =%? has sho8n that patients: reactions to placebos -D>1=a s"ggesti)e pheno#enon analogo"s to hypnosis? is far greater "n er sit"ations of great stress an high anCiety than in the laboratory. It appears that hypnosis an placebos are #ost effecti)e in sit"ations of high anCiety an it is probable that their #a9or effect is on the anCiety co#ponent of pain. 1"ring interrogation this co#ponent is #ost threatening to the in i)i "al, an th"s hypnosis see#s to be a partic"larly appropriate #etho of protection. Whether s"ch a proce "re is feasible epen s on a n"#ber of consi erations. (s state in prece ing sections, only a relati)ely s#all n"#ber of in i)i "als 8ill enter a s"fficiently eep so#na#b"listic state per#itting the e)elop#ent of the profo"n analgesia necessary for this p"rpose. ;"rther#ore, the a"thor is not a8are of any instance 8here a #a9or s"rgical proce "re 8as "n erta7en "ring posthypnotically in "ce analgesia. (ltho"gh 8e are certain that in so#e in i)i "als this is potentially possible, clinicians 8or7ing 8ith hypnosis generally belie)e that the hypnotic state itself is #ore efficacio"s in in "cing analgesia than posthypnotic s"ggestions. (nother F"estion that arises concerns the type of s"ggestion 8hich o"ght to be gi)en to the s"b9ect. It 8o"l see# #anifestly inappropriate to atte#pt to s"ppress any an all pain sensations that the in i)i "al #ay eCperience s"bseF"ent to hypnosis. ;irst, 8e serio"sly o"bt the effecti)eness of s"ch a s"ggestion. Secon , if it sho"l ta7e effect, it #ay be angero"s since pain ser)es a "sef"l f"nction as a physiologic 8arning signal. It 8o"l be #ore appropriate to foc"s the s"ggestion on the inability to feel pain at the han s of captors. 3o8e)er, if the s"b9ect 8ere capt"re an felt any pain at all, the entire s"ggestion 8o"l rapi ly brea7 o8n. .his is li7ely to occ"r in all b"t )ery fe8 instances. =It is "e to this nee for repetiti)e reinforce#ent of s"ggestions of analgesia that #a9or s"rgery is "n erta7en in hypnosis rather

than posthypnotically.? It is generally 7no8n that any one fail"re of a hypnotic s"ggestion 8ill i#inish the effecti)eness of s"bseF"ent s"ggestions. S"ch fail"re 8ill ten to eli#inate al#ost co#pletely the s"ggestion concerning the #o ality 8here it faile . 3ere again, the sol ier 8ho is ta"ght to rely on hypnosis as an analgesic an fin s it ineffecti)e in certain sit"ations #ay be consi erably 8orse off than if he ha not tr"ste this #echanis# in the first place. It see#s, then, that the "se of hypnosis in 8ithstan ing stress, an partic"larly pain, is i#practical. ;e8 in i)i "als are able to enter a trance s"fficiently eep to per#it profo"n analgesia. ;"rther#ore, the analgesia 8o"l ha)e to be pro "ce posthypnotically, a less effecti)e #etho than that pro "ce "ring trance. .he post-D>Dhypnotic s"ppression of all pain #ay also be angero"s to the in i)i "al. ;inally, if s"ch posthypnotic analgesia 8ere possible an it sho"l brea7 o8n, it 8o"l lea)e the in i)i "al #ore )"lnerable than if he ha not relie "pon this #echanis# at all.

Motivating Instructions +"r fin ings 8ith in i)i "als 8ho ha)e ha instr"ctions to si#"late hypnosis are partic"larly rele)ant. 4"ch of o"r c"rrent research e#ploys si#"lating s"b9ects as controls an , as 8e ha)e pointe o"t pre)io"sly, these s"b9ects are 8illing an able to tolerate eCtre#ely painf"l sti#"li. In fact, in a recent st" y Shor =6<? fo"n that si#"lators "nifor#ly tolerate a higher le)el of painf"l electric shoc7 than o s"b9ects in eep hypnosis. .hese fin ings in icate that appropiiate #oti)ating instr"ctions are as effecti)e as hypnosis in enabling in i)i "als to tolerate laboratory sit"ations of pain. Whether this also hol s tr"e in sit"ations 8hich represent real anger to the organis#, s"ch as #a9or s"rgery or the threats enco"ntere "ring interrogation, re#ains to be e#onstrate . .his s"ggests that #oti)ational sets #ight be e)ise 8hich 8o"l effecti)ely protect personnel against brea7 o8n "n er stress. 3o8 en "ring s"ch #oti)ating instr"ctions are re#ains to be st" ie .

Autogenous Training +ne of the #ain efects of the three proposals isc"sse is that each in)ol)es a lessening of ego control. .here is an application of hypnosis 8hich #ight be eCplore fr"itf"lly since it relies largely "pon the responsibility of the s"b9ect for his actions. .his is the techniF"e of a"togeno"s training e)elope by Sch"ltG =6@?. Instea of the "s"al proce "re in 8hich the hypnotist s"ggests the occ"rrence of )ario"s e)ents, the s"b9ect is ta"ght that he is capable of in "cing the# in hi#self by proper concentration. 3e is ta"ght the techniF"e by a series of gra "ate steps. .hese are so esigne that each is #astere before the s"b9ect is per#itte to go on to the neCt one. ;or eCa#ple, in the initial eCercise the s"b9ect is ta"ght to concentrate on his right han beco#ing hea)y an he is sho8n the #ost a )antageo"s post"re. (fter being sho8n the eCercise by the teacher, he is instr"cte to repeat the proce "re by hi#self bet8een three an fi)e ti#es a ay for a t8o-#in"te perio each. Within a perio of t8o 8ee7s or so a large proportion of the s"b9ect pop"lation is able to achie)e a consi erable egree of s"b9ecti)e hea)iness. 3e is then

-D>Bta"ght to in "ce a feeling of 8ar#th an e)ent"ally goes on to control of respiration, relaCation of the bo y, an if esire selecti)e anesthesia. .he interesting feat"re of this techniF"e is that the s"b9ect e)ent"ally beco#es f"lly capable of pro "cing these pheno#ena thro"gh his o8n efforts rather than by the s"ggestions gi)en hi# by the teacher =hypnotist?. &robably, the hypnotist is internaliGe by the s"b9ect in this process, an th"s beco#es an ego reso"rce. S"ch a techniF"e 8o"l also be "sef"l in solitary confine#ent for controlling anCieties that other8ise #ight be o)er8hel#ing. .he #a9or istinction bet8een this "se of hypnosis an those co##only a )ocate is that the proce "re 8o"l be one #ore techniF"e of #astery a)ailable to the capti)e 8itho"t sacrificing any egree of ego control. .here is so#e anec otal e)i ence that in i)i "als traine in this #anner fo"n it "sef"l "ring confine#ent in concentration ca#ps. It is iffic"lt to eter#ine 8hether the techniF"e of a"togeno"s training is in itself the effecti)e #echanis# or 8hether it #erely represents a for# of pse" o-#astery 8hich can beco#e an ego s"pport. ,oth factors probably play a role. .h"s, an increase egree of control o)er pain can "n o"bte ly be achie)e . -F"ally i#portant is the ill"sion of #astery that the in i)i "al #ay be able to create 8itho"t reco"rse to eCternal ai s. .h"s, if he is epri)e of his clothing an his ignity he 8o"l still ha)e at his isposal a techniF"e 8hich epen s strictly "pon concentration an 8hich cannot be ta7en fro# hi#. When the in i)i "al feels at the #ercy of an apparently all po8erf"l captor, it #ay 8ell be as i#portant to hi# to be able to e#onstrate to hi#self that he can control his respiration or can #a7e a li#b hea)y as the act"al ability to ecrease physical pain. ,i er#an =11? has isc"sse the i#portance to the interrogation s"b9ect of #aintaining the feeling of control thro"gh either real or ill"sory e)ices. (s long as the in i)i "al is able to in "ce s"b9ecti)e changes at 8ill he #ay #aintain a feeling of control 8hich cannot be ta7en a8ay. (nec otal e)i ence obtaine in personal co##"nication fro# an in i)i "al s"b9ect to eCtensi)e interrogation by the /estapo #ay ill"strate the point. .his s"b9ect fo"n that he 8as able to control the point of passing o"t "ring interrogation. 3e 8o"l eci e not to pass o"t 9"st yet b"t perhaps so#e 6> sec later. Whether in fact he ha control of this 7in or 8hether he ha the ill"sion of control is "ni#portant beca"se the s"b9ecti)e feeling helpe to #aintain his #astery of the sit"ation thro"gho"t se)eral #onths of intensi)e interrogation. It is possible that a"togeno"s -D>Atraining #ay be a techniF"e for pro)i ing the potential capti)e 8ith an "nto"chable an techniF"e of #astery in a sit"ation 8here he is physically totally at the #ercy of his captors.
SUMMAR;

effecti)e

.he s"ggestion that hypnosis be "tiliGe as a #eans of enabling potential capti)es to 8ithstan ene#y interrogation appears i#practical. (t best, it co"l be "tiliGe 8ith an eCcee ingly s#all percentage of s"b9ects. &re)ention of s"bseF"ent trance in "ction, by a posthypnotic s"ggestion to that effect, see#s "nli7ely. .he posthypnotic in "ction of a#nesia an anesthesia for the e)ent of capt"re 8o"l lea)e the capti)e in a #ore )"lnerable position than he 8o"l ha)e been other8ise, if in ee it is feasible at all. .he training in hypnosis necessary to achie)e these pheno#ena #ight 8ell #a7e the s"b9ect #ore accessible to atte#pts at trance in "ction by an ene#y interrogator.

+"r pri#ary ob9ection to all three of the propose s"ggestions is base on the ine)itable res"lt of i#inishing the in i)i "al:s responsibility for his o8n actions by placing reliance on #echanis#s o"tsi e his ego control. It is preferable an safer to "tiliGe techniF"es esigne to increase the sol ier:s ego control an potential #astery of "npre ictable circ"#stances than to place faith in a se#iconscio"s #echanis#. Infor#ation abo"t 8hat the sol ier #ight eCpect "n er con itions of capti)ity, abo"t the techniF"es of ene#y interrogation, abo"t the 7in of reactions he #ight eCperience in hi#self 8o"l all be esirable in ter#s of increasing his ego control an therefore his #astery of a potentially iffic"lt sit"ation. .8o specific techniF"es esigne to enhance ego control 8ere s"ggeste $ the "se of #oti)ating instr"ctions an the techniF"e of a"togeno"s training.

De'ense A%&inst t"e Use o' t"e H#4noti Situ&tion in Interro%&tion .he technical reasons for the li#ite "tility of hypnosis as an instr"#ent of interrogation ha)e been isc"sse here at so#e length. It is highly F"estionable 8hether it is possible to in "ce a trance in a resistant s"b9ect. ;"rther#ore, e)en if trance co"l be in "ce , consi erable e)i ence in icates that it is o"btf"l 8hether a s"b9ect co"l be #a e to re)eal infor#ation 8hich he 8ishe to safeg"ar . (n finally, it has been sho8n that the acc"racy of s"ch infor#ation, 8ere any to be obtaine , 8o"l not be g"arantee since s"b9ects in hypnosis are f"lly capable of lying. 3o8e)er, it is possible that both -D>%hypnosis an r"gs, s"ch as pentothal, scopola#ine, so i"# a#ytal, etc., #ay nonetheless be applicable to interrogation proce "res. It 8o"l be 8ell to ifferentiate bet8een the effecti)eness of hypnosis as s"ch an the hypnotic sit"ation. .he latter see#s to offer greater potential applicability for interrogation p"rposes. .he psychological #eaning of the sit"ation to the capti)e "ring interrogation is one 8hich )aries 8i ely fro# in i)i "al to in i)i "al. It is not o"r p"rpose here to re)ie8 the #eaning of capt"re an interrogation fro# a psycho yna#ic )ie8point, 1 b"t only to consi er briefly 8hy in i)i "als 8ill "n ergo eCtre#es of physical an #ental s"ffering to pre)ent the interrogator fro# obtaining the esire infor#ation. .he ans8er see#s to lie in the eCtre#e g"ilt s"ch a person 8o"l eCperience 8ere he to collaborate 8ith the ene#y 8hile he is in control of his fac"lties. 3is self-i#age 8o"l s"ffer especially in ter#s of his )al"es an his i entification 8ith co#ra es, co"ntry, etc. ;or interrogation p"rposes it 8o"l be eCtre#ely "sef"l if it 8ere possible to alle)iate the g"ilt of an infor#ant. Let "s consi er the capti)e 8ho is in fe)er an elirio"s, an 8ho in this con ition i)"lges )ital infor#ation. !either he nor his co#ra es 8o"l hol hi# responsible for the isclos"re. ,y the sa#e to7en a sol ier 8ho lea)es his post as a g"ar is s"b9ect to co"rt #artial, b"t if he collapses beca"se of illness he 8o"l not be co##itting a p"nishable offense. &arenthetically, it #ay be note
1 &arenthetically, it #ay be note that con itions of interrogation are so#eti#es con "ci)e to a regression on the part of the so"rce. .he interrogator can eCercise co#plete control of the so"rce:s physical being H his pri#iti)e nee s s"ch as eli#ination, eating, an sleeping, an e)en bo ily post"res. 3e is also in a position to re8ar or p"nish any pre eter#ine acti)ity on the part of the capti)e. .his ten s to create a sit"ation 8here the in i)i "al feels "nable to obser)e any control o)er hi#self. .his eCtre#e loss of control is han le in a )ariety of 8ays, one of 8hich is a regression to a chil li7e state of epen ence on an i entification 8ith the aggressor. ( isc"ssion of the si#ilarities an ifferences bet8een this type of

sit"ation an hypnosis is gi)en by /ill an ,ren#an in their recent boo7 =D6?. It is o"btf"l that this type of sit"ation is con "ci)e to the in "ction of hypnosis as 8e 7no8 it. .his F"estion co"l only be teste in s"ch coerci)e sit"ations, ho8e)er. +b)io"sly the creation of an eCperi#ental sit"ation e)en )ag"ely approCi#ating that of p"niti)e interrogation is 8ell nigh i#possible 8ithin the legiti#ate ethical li#itations i#pose on eCperi#ental 8or7. ,i er#an =11?, isc"ssing the co#pliance of prisoners of 8ar 8ith interrogators, belie)es that so#e prisoners a opt a cooperati)e role beca"se of the nee to reass"re the#sel)es that they retain so#e control o)er their beha)ior in the coerci)e sit"ation. Co#plying J)ol"ntarilyJ for s"ch cases is less threatening, an #ay be regar e by the# as less sha#ef"l, than losing control co#pletely o)er their actions. .his Jself- efeatingJ efense #ay also play a role in the responses of an antagonistic s"b9ect to a hypnotist he fears.

-D>6that in #any c"lt"res physical illness 8o"l not be accepte as an eCc"se. ;or eCa#ple, in the ol /er#an ar#y a sol ier 8ho fainte 8o"l be p"nishe . (t any rate, conte#porary 'nite States c"lt"re clearly eCc"ses the in i)i "al 8hen he is incapacitate . ( sophisticate isc"ssion of the relationship of illness to social responsibility is gi)en by &arson =%A?. .his principal has been eCten e to #ental illness. (ltho"gh consi erable contro)ersy eCists abo"t #ental illness as a efense in cri#inal cases, the fact re#ains that o"r co"rts ha)e beco#e progressi)ely #ore liberal in this respect. Insanity is accepte in o"r co"rts as a )ali plea 8hich #o ifies both )er ict an sentence. .he capti)e in interrogation is apprehensi)e of a angero"s an painf"l or eal. If he is pro)i e 8ith a sit"ation 8here he is no longer hel responsible for his actions, he #ay 8ell be J8illingJ to collaborate 8ith an ene#y. ,oth hypnosis an so#e of the r"gs in "cing hypnoi al states are (o(ularly )ie8e as sit"ations 8here the in i)i "al is no longer #aster of his o8n fate an therefore not responsible for his actions. It see#s possible then that the hypnotic sit"ation, as isting"ishe fro# hypnosis itself, #ight be "se to relie)e the in i)i "al of a feeling of responsibility for his o8n actions an th"s lea hi# to re)eal infor#ation. .he hypnotic sit"ation is #ore co#pleC than in icate here. ( si#plification of it is "n erta7en since a #ore co#plete isc"ssion 8o"l be inappropriate in this conteCt.

Social Measures ( n"#ber of social #eas"res 8o"l increase the prisoner:s feelings of helplessness if s"ch an approach 8ere e#ploye . ;or eCa#ple, the pre)alence of r"#ors that se#i#agical techniF"es of eCtracting infor#ation are being "se o)er 8hich the infor#ant has absol"tely no control #ight operate in this 8ay. ( gro"p of capti)es 8ho ha collaborate , an 8ho co"l )erify that the in i)i "al has no control o)er his actions, 8o"l enhance this in octrination of the ne8 prisoner. .he prisoners 8ho i not re)eal infor#ation #ight be transferre rather than p"nishe , 8ith )ag"e r"#ors filtering bac7 as to 8hat ha happene . .his 8o"l ha)e the a )antage of #aCi#iGing anCiety 8hile not irecting hostility at the i##e iate captors. In any case, a captor see7ing to eCploit the hypnotic sit"ation 8o"l pre)ent consens"al )ali ation of the prisoner:s feeling that he co"l control hi#self "ring interrogation. .he captor #ight treat the capti)e 8ho gi)es infor#ation so#e8hat li7e a sic7 in i)i "al in -D>@-

or er to a)oi any notion that there is an ele#ent of choice in)ol)e in his beha)ior.

The Magic #oom Techni.ue .he trance in "ction itself #ight be initiate thro"gh the "se of r"gs since this 8o"l clearly con)ey to the prisoner that he is "nable to pre)ent hi#self fro# respon ing. .he secon stage of Jtrance in "ctionJ #ight "tiliGe a sit"ation 8hich the a"thor has escribe else8here =%B? as the J#agic roo#.J .his proce "re in)ol)es con)incing the s"b9ect that he is respon ing to s"ggestions. (n eCa#ple of this 8o"l be the case of the prisoner 8ho is gi)en a hypnotic s"ggestion that his han is gro8ing 8ar#. 3o8e)er, in this instance, the prisoner:s han act"ally oes beco#e 8ar#, a proble# easily resol)e by the "se of a conceale iather#y #achine. +r it #ight be s"ggeste to the prisoner that 8hen he 8a7es "p a cigarette 8ill taste bitter. 3ere again, he co"l be gi)en a cigarette prepare to ha)e a slight, b"t noticeably bitter, taste. .he prisoner:s o8n cigarettes, as 8ell as any lying abo"t the roo#, 8o"l ha)e been especially prepare , an the hypnotist 8o"l also s#o7e these as tho"gh nothing 8ere "n"s"al. In this #anner, the i ea co"l be con)eye to the s"b9ect that he is respon ing to the gi)en s"ggestions. It can easily be seen ho8, 8ith s"fficient ingen"ity, a large n"#ber of Js"ggestionsJ can be #a e to 8or7 by #eans "n7no8n to the s"b9ect. .he )ital iss"e here 8o"l be that the s"b9ect beca#e con)ince that he 8as respon ing to s"ggestions an , for eCa#ple, that the cigarettes really o not taste bitter, b"t that he eCperiences the# as s"ch beca"se he cannot resist the s"ggesion. (n "nresol)e F"estion is the classification of the state in 8hich a prisoner 8ho collaborates "n er these circ"#stances fin s hi#self. We feel it helpf"l to recogniGe that it #ay or #ay not be hypnosis. .he cr"cial )ariable is the creation of a sit"ation 8here the in i)i "al is legiti#ately able to gi)e tip responsibility for his actions an therefore is per#itte to a)oi a threatening sit"ation. It is probable that these #anip"lations occasionally 8o"l elicit so#e for# of trance pheno#enon, b"t the cr"cial aspect 8o"l be the sit"ation, not the presence of a hypnotic state. (ltho"gh the hypnotic sit"ation as a tool of interrogation #ight yiel infor#ation, the interrogator 8o"l ha)e no #ore ass"rance of its acc"racy than 8ith the elicitation of infor#ation by hypnosis proper. .he sa#e ca"tions 8hich ha)e been state 8ith regar to hypnosis re#ain applicable here. ;"rther#ore, for the s"ccess of the -D><techniF"e the interrogator 8o"l ha)e to act, in his relationship 8ith the capti)e, as tho"gh the infor#ation #"st be correct. 'nless the interrogator is certain that the infor#ation is false, any o"bt he betraye 8o"l increase the s"b9ect:s feeling of control an ecrease the effecti)eness of the hypnotic sit"ation. ConseF"ently, the interrogator 8o"l be enie the "se of techniF"es of cross eCa#ination "pon 8hich #"ch of his s"ccess in eri)ing acc"rate infor#ation or inarily epen s. In constr"cting a pretense that the prisoner has lost responsibility for his beha)ior, he is also relie)e of any responsibility for gi)ing acc"rate an pertinent infor#ation. +n the other han , the interrogator co"l "tiliGe to a )antage any infor#ation he has that the s"b9ect oes not 7no8 he has. ;or eCa#ple, the infor#ant co"l be gi)en a hypnotic r"g 8ith appropriate )erbal s"ggestions to tal7 abo"t a gi)en topic. -)ent"ally eno"gh of the r"g 8o"l be gi)en to ca"se a short perio of "nconscio"sness. When the s"b9ect 8a7ens, the interrogator co"l then rea fro# his JnotesJ of the hypnotic inter)ie8 the infor#ation pres"#ably tol

hi#. It can rea ily be seen ho8 this technical #ane")er fits into the general concept of the J#agic roo#,J an ho8 it 8o"l facilitate the elicitation of infor#ation in s"bseF"ent inter)ie8s. (ltho"gh there is no irect e)i ence that s"ch techniF"es ha)e been or 8ill be e#ploye by interrogators nor any e)al"ation of their effecti)eness, they represent si#ple eCtensions of hypnosis to tra itional interrogation practices as escribe by ,i er#an =1>?. .he effecti)eness of the polygraph as a lie etection e)ice is so#eti#es e#ploye , apart fro# the "se of the #achine, to create a sit"ation 8here the s"b9ect feels incapable of pre)enting hi#self fro# re)ealing the tr"th. (ccor ing to Inba" an *ei =BB?, #any of the confessions obtaine 8ith the lie etector are obtaine before the act"al "se of the polygraph. .his is clearly analogo"s to o"r esti#ate regar i"g the possible "se of: hypnosis, i.e., separating the hypnotic sit"ation fro# the effecti)eness of hypnosis per se. .he hypnotic sit"ation has been isc"sse in etail in or er to point oat the efensi)e proce "res 8hich can be ta7en to protect personnel fro# this type of interrogation. With lie etection, to "se this parallel once #ore, the #ost effecti)e efense has been a high le)el of sophistication of: the s"b9ect. Si#ilarly in the hypnotic sit"ation, 7no8le ge see#s to be the #ost effecti)e efense. -)en one or t8o lect"res on hypnosis #ight be highly effecti)e in con)eying the infor#ation that an in i)i "al cannot be hypnotiGe against his 8ill, b"t that a sit"ation can be e)ise 8here he co"l be tric7e into belie)ing that he has been hypnotiGe . ;"rther#ore, e#on-D>9strating that the in i)i "al is able to lie "n er hypnosis an cannot be co#pelle to spea7 the tr"th, or to follo8 s"ggestions really contrary to his beliefs, 8o"l probably be eCtre#ely effecti)e.
SUMMAR;

If it 8ere to be "se on interrogation s"b9ects, hypnosis itself #ay be F"ite innoc"o"s, b"t it is entirely possible that the "tiliGation of the hypnotic situation for this p"rpose co"l be a serio"s threat. S"ch a sit"ation 8o"l alle)iate the infor#ant:s g"ilt by relie)ing hi# of the responsibility for his beha)ior, an 8o"l s"pply hi# 8ith an alternati)e to a rea e an potentially stressf"l sit"ation. ( #etho of Jtrance in "ction,J si#ilar to 8hat 8e ha)e calle the J#agic roo#,J co"l be e#ploye to pro "ce a hypnotic sit"ation. .he "se of the hypnotic sit"ation, as oppose to hypnosis, 8o"l #a7e this interrogation techniF"e applicable to a greater percentage of potential infor#ants. 1efensi)e #eas"res to protect personnel fro# those techniF"es epen "pon the 7no8le ge an confi ence of the s"b9ect.

Su--&r# &nd Con $usions .his report has atte#pte to e)al"ate the "tility of hypnosis in interrogation proce "res. 2ario"s theoretical )ie8s as to the nat"re of hypnosis 8ere briefly re)ie8e . .he a"thor aligns hi#self 8ith the J#oti)ational theoristsJ 8ho #aintain that an "n erstan ing of the pheno#enon of hypnosis is to be fo"n in a consi eration of both the s"b9ect:s #oti)ation in the sit"ation an his relationship to the hypnotist.

,eca"se of the earth of e)i ence bearing irectly on the F"estion of the "se of hypnosis in interrogation, the proble# 8as bro7en o8n into a series of co#ponent F"estions, 8ith each consi ere separately. ( re)ie8 of the a)ailable literat"re bearing on the F"estion of 8hether trance can be in "ce in resistant s"b9ects le "s to concl" e that s"ch a possibility is eCtre#ely o"btf"l. It see#s that 8hile trance #ay be in "ce 8itho"t the s"b9ect:s a8areness, this generally reF"ires the eCistence of a positi)e relationship bet8een hypnotist an s"b9ect, a reF"ire#ent not al8ays #et in the interrogation sit"ation. (ss"#ing that a trance #ay be in "ce in a potential infor#ant, 8hat egree of beha)ioral control oes hypnosis allo8L .his F"estion generally foc"ses on the possibility of in "cing a s"b9ect to )iolate social prohibitions. (ltho"gh #any laboratory eCperi#ents ha)e -D1>been irecte at this F"estion, they s"ffer fro# the criticis# that they are only, after all, Jcontri)e J sit"ations an the s"b9ect, in all probability, percei)es the# as s"ch at so#e le)el. (ltho"gh the a"thor o"bts that proscribe beha)ior can be in "ce against the s"b9ect:s 8ishes, he #"st a #it that the cr"cial eCperi#ents ha)e not been perfor#e , an the resol"tion of this F"estion #"st a8ait this e)ent. .here are three oc"#ente cases of Jreal, nonlaboratoryJ sit"ations in)ol)ing the "se of hypnosis for co#pelling cri#inal beha)ior. 3o8e)er, close scr"tiny of these instances re)eals that in each case an intense e#otional relationship eCiste bet8een hypnotist an s"b9ect. .he bearing of these cases on the F"estion at han is conseF"ently in o"bt. +ne nee not in)o7e hypnosis to eCplain beha)ior on the part of one in i)i "al to please another, be it cri#inal or not, 8hen an intense e#otional relationship eCists bet8een the in i)i "als in)ol)e . +ne ele#ent 8hich hypnosis intro "ces is the s"b9ect:s lac7 of a8areness of his o8n #oti)ationI a #oti)ation 8hich see#s to eri)e not fro# hypnosis b"t fro# the e#otional relationship bet8een hypnotist an s"b9ect. (gain, the interrogation sit"ation oes not rea ily e)ol)e s"ch a relationship. .he F"estion of the acc"racy of infor#ation obtaine "ring a hypnotic trance has been consi ere . It see#s clear fro# the e)i ence that s"ch infor#ation nee not be )eri icalI the s"b9ect re#ains f"lly capable of istortions, espite hypnotic s"ggestions to the contrary. .hese )ario"s proposals lo "tiliGe hypnosis as a efense against interrogation ha)e been isc"sse $ =a? to gi)e hypnotic s"ggestions esigne to pre)ent f"rther trance in "ction, =b? to increase resistance to pain an psychic stress by appropriate posthypnotic s"ggestion, an =c? to in "ce a#nesia posthypnotically for sensiti)e infor#ation in the e)ent of capt"re. (ll these proposals in)ol)e i#inishing the s"b9ect:s #astery of the sit"ation. .hey f"nction as artificially in "ce repressi)e #echanis#s an s"ffer fro# the sa#e ra8bac7s co##only seen in repression$ a loss of ego control an a conseF"ent lessene egree of fleCibility in ealing 8ith reality. Capt"re personnel are alrea y threatene by loss of ego control, an 8e feel that proposals 8hich 8o"l f"rther i#po)erish the ego are eCtre#ely haGar o"s an 8o"l #a7e the in i)i "al #ore )"lnerable than he alrea y is. We ha)e s"ggeste alternati)e efensi)e #eas"res 8hich 8o"l not sacrifice ego control, na#ely, appropriate instr"ctions an the techniF"e of a"togeno"s training. .he istinction has been ra8n bet8een the "se of hypnosis per se an the hypnotic sit"ation. .he hypnotic sit"ation co"l be "se F"ite effecti)ely for interrogation p"rposes. .he co##on belief that -D11-

an in i)i "al in hypnosis is not responsible for his actions, altho"gh probably incorrect, co"l be eCploite . .he hypnotic sit"ation, by relie)ing the s"b9ect of responsibility for his actions, alle)iates g"ilt an th"s allo8s the capti)e to i)"lge infor#ation 8hich he #ight not other8ise yiel . Ways in 8hich an interrogator #ight see7 to #aCi#iGe the effecti)eness of s"ch a sit"ation incl" e the "se of r"gs, the "se of a techniF"e 8e ha)e calle the J#agic roo#,J )ario"s social #eas"res, etc. 1efensi)e #eas"res necessary against s"ch a techniF"e 8o"l in)ol)e the isse#ination of appropriate infor#ation.

Re'eren es
1. ( ler 4. 3., an Sec"n a L. J(n in irect techniF"e to in "ce hypnosisJ. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19A@, 1>6, 19>-19B. D. ,arber .. `. J3ypnosis as percept"al-cogniti)e restr"ct"ring$ III. ;ro# so#na#b"lis# to a"tohypnosisJ J. Psychol., 19%@, AA, D99-B>A. B. ,ar7er W., an ,"rg8in S. J,rain 8a)e patterns acco#panying changes in sleep an 8a7ef"lness "ring hypnosisJ. Psychoso). .e%., 19A<, 1>, B1@-BD6. A. ,ass 4. J. J1ifferentiation of hypnotic trance fro# nor#al sleepJ. 1*(er. Psychol., 19B1, 1A, B<D-B99. %. ,eecher 3. 0. J-)i ence for increase effecti)eness of placebos 8ith increase stressJ. A)er. J. Physiol., 19%6, 1<@, 16B-169. 6. ,eigel 3. C. J&re)arication "n er hypnosisJ. J. clin. e*(. -y(nosis, 19BB, 1, BD-A>. @. ,eigel 3. C. J.he proble# of pre)arication in #arriage co"nselingJ. .arriage an% 0a)ily $iving, 19%B, 1%, BBD-BB@. <. ,erg#an 4. S., /raha# 3., an Lea)itt 3. C. J*orschach eCploration of consec"ti)e hypnotic chronological age le)el regressionsJ. Psychoso). .e%., 19A@, 9, D>-D<. 9. ,ernhei# 3. Suggestive thera(euticsB a treatise on the nature an% uses of hy(notis). !e8 6or7$ Lon on ,oo7 Co., 19A@. 1>. ,i er#an (. 1. +o))unist techni=ues of coercive interrogation. Lac7lan (ir ;orce ,ase, .eCas$ (ir ;orce &ersonnel an .raining *esearch Center, 1ec., 19%6. A0P&R+ ,evelo()ent Re(ort .!-%6-1BD. 11. ,i er#an (. 1. Social-psychological nee s an Jin)ol"ntaryJ beha)ior as ill"strate by co#pliance in interrogition. Socio)etry, 196>, DB, 1D>-1A@. 1D. ,inet (., an ;brb C. Ani)al )agnetis). !e8 6or7$ 1. (ppleton & Co., 1<<<. 1B. ,oring -. /. A history of e*(eri)ental (sychology. !e8 6or7$ (ppletonCent"ry-Crofts, Inc., 19%>. 1A. ,rai J. Neurohy(nology. Lon on$ /eorge *e 8ay, 1<99. 1%. ,ra#8ell J. 4. -y(notis)I its history, (ractice an% theory. !e8 6or7$ J"lian &ress, 19>B. 16. ,ren#an 4. J-Cperi#ents in the hypnotic pro "ction of antisocial an self-in9"rio"s beha)iorJ. Psychiatry, 19AD, %, A9-61.

1@. ,ren#an 4., an /ill 4. 4. -y(nothera(yB a survey of the literature. !e8 6or7$ International 'ni)ersities &ress, 19A@.

-D1D1<. 1ession /. 3., ;ree #an L. 5., 1onnelly *. C., an in)estigationJ. !ale la J., 19%B, 6D, B1%-BA@. *e lich ;. C. J1r"g in "ce re)elation an cri#inal

19. -ric7son 4. 3. J(n eCperi#ental in)estigation of the possible antisocial "ses of hypnosisJ. Psychiatry, 19B9, D, B91A1A. D>. -ric7son 4. 3. J1eep hypnosis an its in "ctionJ. In L. 4. LeCe# =- .?, 1*(. -y(nosis. !e8 6or7$ 4ac#illan, 19%D. &p. @>-11D. D1. -ric7son 4. 3., an -ric7son -. 4. JConcerning the nat"re an character of post-hypnotic beha)iorJ. J. gen. Psychol., 19A1, DA, 9%-1BB. DD. -stabroo7s /. 3. -y(notis). !e8 6or7$ -. &. 1"tton & Co., Inc., 19AB. DB. ;orel (. ,er hy(notis)us. St"ttgart, /er#any$ )on ;er inan -n7e, 19>D. DA. ;rie lan er (. (. ,ie hy(nose un% %ie hy(no>nar"ose. St"ttgart, /er#any $ )on ;er inan -n7e, 19D>. D%. /i ro-;ran7 L., an ,o8ers-,"ch 4. 0. J( st" y of the plantar response in hypnotic age regressionJ. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19A<, 1>@, AAB-A%<. D6. /ill 4. 4., an ,ren#an 4argaret. -y(nosis an% relate% states. !e8 6or7$ International 'ni)ersities &ress, 19%9. D@. /in es ,. C. Ne conce(ts of hy(nosis. !e8 6or7$ J"lian &ress, 19%1. D<. /rin7er *. *., an Spiegel J. &. War neuroses. &hila elphia, &ennsyl)ania$ ,la7iston Co., 19A%. D9. 3a##erschlag 3. -. -y(notis) an% cri)e. .ranslate by John Cohen. Wiltshire, 3olly8oo , 19%@. B>. 3a"pt J. J-ine eCperi#entelle "nters"ch"ng G"r frage er 7ri#inellen hypnotisch-s"ggesti)en beeinfl"ssbar7eitJ. Ltschr. f. %. ges. Neurol. u. Psychiat., 19B@, 1%9, @6@-@6<. B1. 3eron W. .. J3ypnosis as a factor in the pro "ction an etection of cri#eJ. Brit. J. )e%. -y(notis), 19%D, B, 1%-D9.

BD. 3"ll C. -y(nosis an% suggesti'ility. !e8 6or7$ (ppleton-Cent"ry-Crofts, 19BB. BB. Inba" ;. -., an *ei J. -. $ie %etection an% cri)inal interrogation. ,alti#ore, 4arylan $ Willia#s & Wil7ins Co., 19%B. BA. Janet &. Psychological healingI a historical an% clinical stu%y. Lon on$ /eorge (llen & 'n8in, 19D%. B%. 0line 4. 2. J.he yna#ics of hypnotically in "ce anti-social beha)iorJ. J. Psychol., 19%<, A%, DB9-DA%. B6. 0line 4. 2. J3ypnotic age regression an intelligenceJ. J. genet. Psychol., 19%>, @@, 1D9-1BD. B@. 0line 4. 2. A scientific re(ort on H&he search for Bri%ey .ur(hy.H !e8 6or7$ J"lian &ress, 19%6.

B<. 0roger W. S., an Schnei er (. J(n electronic ai for hypnotic in "ction$ ( preli#inary reportJ. Int. J. clin. an% e*(. -y(nosis, 19%9, @, 9B-9<. B9. 0"bie L. S., an 4argolin S. An a((aratus for the use of 'reath soun%s as a hy(nogogic sti)ulus . A)er. J. Psychiat., 19AA, 1>>, 61>. A>. 0"bie L. S., an 4argolin S. J.he process of hypnotis# an the nat"re of the hypnotic stateJ. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19AA, 1>>, 611-6DD. A1. LeCron L. 4. J.he loss "ring hypnotic age regression of an establishe con itione refleCJ. Psychiat. Juart., 19%D, D6, 6%@-66D. AD. L" 8ig (. JClinical feat"res an etectionJ. War .e%., 19AA, %, B@9. iagnosis of #alingering in #ilitary personnelI "se of barbit"rates as an ai in

AB. 4arc"se ;. L. J(nti-social beha)ior an hypnosisJ. J. clin. e*(. -y(nosis, 19%B, 1, 1<-D>.

-D1BAA. 4ayer L. ,as ver'rechen in hy(nose. 4"nchen$ J. ;. Leh#an, 19B@. A%. 4cCranie -. J., Crasilnec7 3. ,., an .eter 3. *. J.he --/ in hypnotic age regressionJ. Psychiat. Juart., 19%%, D9, <%-<<. A6. 4eares (. -y(nogra(hyB a stu%y in the thera(eutic use of hy(notic (ainting . Springfiel , Ill.$ Charles C. .ho#as, 19%@. A@. 4ercer 4., an /ibson *. W. J*orschach content in hypnosis$ chronological age le)el regressionJ. J. clin. Psychol., 19%>, 6, B%D-B%<. A<. 4oll (. -y(notis). !e8 6or7$ Walter Scott, 19>A. A9. 4"ehlberger C. W. JInterrogation "n er r"g infl"enceJ. J. cri). $. an% +ri)inol., 19%1, AD, %1B-%D<. %>. !e)s7y 4. &. J,ioelectrical acti)ity of the brain in hypnotic sleepJ. Neuro(atologiaB Psi"hiatriia, 19%A, %A, D6-BD. %1. +rne 4. .. J.he #echanis#s of hypnotic age regression$ an eCperi#ental st" yJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%1, A6, D1B-DD%. %D. +rne 4. .. J.he nat"re of hypnosis$ artifact an essenceJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%9, %<, D@@-D99. %B. +rne 4. .. J3ypnotically in "ce hall"cinations, (((S sy#posi"# on hall"cinations, 1ece#ber 19%<J. In L. J. West =- .? -allucinations, in press. %A. &arsons .. &he social syste). /lencoe, Ill.$ ;ree &ress, 19%1. %%. &attie ;. (., Jr. J.he gen"ineness of hypnotically pro "ce anesthesia of the s7inJ. A)er. J. Psychol, 19B@, A9, AB%AAB. %6. &a)lo) I. &. J.he i entity of inhibition 8ith sleep an hypnosisJ. Sci. .on., 19DB, 1@, 6>B-6><.

%@. &latono) 0. I., an &ri7ho i)ny -. (. J0 pbye7it)no#" Psi"hotera(ia, 19B>, 191-D>B.

o7aGatelst" e7speri#entalno)o iG#eneiya lichnostiJ.

%<. *eiter &. J. Antisocial or cri)inal acts an% hy(nosisB a case stu%y. Springfiel , Ill.$ Charles C. .ho#as, 19%<. %9. *osen 3. J3ypno iagnostic an hypnotherape"tic fantasy-e)ocation an acting o"t techniF"esJ. J. clin. e*(. -y(nosis, 19%B, 1, %A-66. 6>. *o8lan L. W. JWill hypnotiGe persons try to har# the#sel)es or othersLJ J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19B9, BA, 11A11@. 61. Sarbin .. *. JContrib"tions to role-ta7ing theory$ I. hypnotic beha)iorJ. Psychol. Rev., 19%>, %@, D%%-D@>. 6D. Sargant W., an ;raser *. JIn "cing hypnosis by hyper)entilationJ. Brit. J. .e%., 19B%, 1, B@<. 6B. Schil er &. &he nature of hy(nosis. !e8 6or7$ International 'ni)ersities &ress, 19%6. 6A. Schnec7 J. 4. J( #ilitary offense in "ce by hypnosisJ. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19A@, 1>6, 1<6-1<9. 6%. Schnec7 J. 4. J4o ifie techniF"e for the in "ction of hypnosisJ. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19A@, 1>6, @@-@9. 66. Schnec7 J. 4. JSpontaneo"s regression to an infant age le)el "ring selfhypnosisJ. J. genet. Psychol., 19%%, <6, 1<B1<%. 6@. Sch"ltG J. 3. ,as autogene training. St"ttgart$ /eorg .hie#e, 19BD. 6<. Shor *. J-Cplorations in hypnosis$ a theoretical an eCperi#ental st" yJ. 1octoral issertation, ,ran eis, 19%9. 69. Spiegel 3., Shor J., an ;ish#an S. J( hypnotic ablation techniF"e for the st" y of personality e)elop#entJ. Psychoso). .e%., 19A%, @, D@B-D@<. @>. Stalna7er J. 4., an *i le -. -. J.he effect of hypnosis on long elaye recallJ. J. gen. Psychol., 19BD, 6, AD9-AA>.

-D1A@1. S"tcliffe &. J&ersonal co##"nicationJ. @D. .r"e *. 4., an Stephenson C. W. JControlle eCperi#ents correlating electroencephalogra#, p"lse, an plantar refleCes 8ith hypnotic age regression an in "ce e#otional statesJ. Personality, 19%1, 1, D%D-D6B. @B. Wat7ins J. /. J(ntisocial co#p"lsions in "ce "n er hypnotic tranceJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19A@, AD, D%6-D%9. @A. Wat7ins J. /. J( case of hypnotic trance in "ce in a resistant s"b9ect in spite of acti)e oppositionJ. Brit. J. )e%. -y(notis), 19A1, D, D6-B1. @%. WeitGenhoffer (. 4. General techni=ues of hy(notis). !e8 6or7 an Lon on$ /r"ne & Stratton, Inc., 19%@. @6. WeitGenhoffer (. 4. J.he pro "ction of antisocial acts "n er hypnosisJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19A9, AA, AD>-ADD. @@. Welch L. J( beha)ioristic eCplanation of the #echanis# of s"ggestion an hypnosisJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19A@, AD, B%9-B6A.

@<. Wells W. *. -Cperi#ents in J8a7ing hypnosisJ for instr"ctional p"rposes. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19DB, 1<, DB9-A>A. @9. Wells W. *. J(bility to resist artificially in "ce issociationJ. J. a'nor). Psychol, 19A>, B%, D61-D@D.

<>. Wells W. *. J-Cperi#ents in the hypnotic pro "ction of cri#eJ. J. Psychol., 19A1, 11, 6B-1>D. <1. White *. W. J&re iction of hypnotic s"sceptibility fro# a 7no8le ge of s"b9ect:s attit" esJ. J. Psychol., 19B@, B, D6%D@@. <D. White *. W., ;oC /. ;., an 3arris W. W. J3ypnotic hypera#nesia for recently learne #aterialJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19A>, B%, <<-1>B. <B. White *. W. J( preface to the theory of hypnotis#J. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19A1, B6, A@@-%>%. <A. 6o"ng &. C. JIs rapport an essential characteristic of hypnosisJL J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19D@, DD, 1B>-1B9. <%. 6+"ng &. C. J3ypnotic regression H fact or artifactJL J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19A>, B%, D@B-D@<. <6. 6o"ng &. C. J(ntisocial "ses of hypnosisJ. In L. 4. LeCron =- .?, 1*(. -y(nosis, !e8 6or7$ 4ac#illan, 19%D. &p. A>B-A>6.

CHAPTER

-D1%-

The experimental investigation of interpersonal influence

*+,-*. *. ,L(0- (!1 J(!- S. 4+'.+!

Introdu tion Interrogation is basically a sit"ation of atte#pte interpersonal infl"ence. ( n"#ber of isciplines ha)e long been concerne 8ith the iscrepancies bet8een the actions, opinions, an 9" g#ents an in i)i "al isplays 8hen he is alone an those he isplays 8hen he is interacting 8ith others 8ho beha)e ifferently. .his chapter 8ill re)ie8 eCperi#ental in)estigations of the con itions "n er 8hich in i)i "als change or resist changing their beha)ior to accor 8ith that of others 8ith 8ho# they are interacting. Consi eration 8ill be gi)en here to shifts of beha)ior in the irection of the fra#e of reference of others =Jconfor#ityJ?, absence of #o)e#ent or shifts in a ifferent irection =JresistanceJ?, an to the obser)ance of so#e eCplicit reF"est or prohibition =Jco#plianceJ?. (ltho"gh eCperi#ental 8or7 has

largely been confine to obser)ations of ifferences bet8een beha)ior in an interpersonal infl"ence sit"ation an that in a prior pri)ate sit"ation, those fe8 st" ies 8hich ha)e #eas"re the persistence an stability of the change 8ill also be consi ere . Contin"e isplay of confor#ity beha)ior 8hen the person is no longer interacting 8ith the so"rce of infl"ence #ay be ter#e Jcon)ersion.J In the interrogation sit"ation the so"rce #ay re)eal infor#ation "n8ittingly an "nintentionally, he #ay f"rnish it TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
,ppreciation is e-pressed to .r. /#0afer )herif who offered val#able s#((estions re(ardin( certain aspects of this report.

-D16rel"ctantly in co#pliance to irect F"estions, he #ay confor# an yiel to press"res for infor#ation as long as they eCist, or he #ay search for 8ays of being helpf"l once so#e egree of con)ersion has ta7en place. .he change fro# the person:s prior position 8hich is reF"ire for confor#ity 8ith the gro"p in these eCperi#ents rarely if e)er in)ol)es the intensity of conflict 8hich is ass"#e to characteriGe the interrogation of a resistant so"rce. .he rele)ance of this re)ie8 for the proble# of the )ol"#e rests on the )ali ity of the ass"#ption that the yna#ics of infl"ence operate beyon the range of intensity of conflic. 8hich has been st" ie eCperi#entally. (t the concl"sion of this re)ie8 8e 8ill consi er the proble# of eCtrapolation by briefly assessing the i#plications of the c"rrent 7no8le ge of the yna#ics of interpersonal infl"ence. Se)eral types of in)estigations ha)e been eCcl" e fro# this re)ie8$ =a? anthropological reports in 8hich confor#ity beha)ior has been note b"t has not been s"b9ecte to eCperi#ental analysisI =b? in)estigations of a" iences or #eetings of larger asse#blages 8here acceptance of or resistance to infl"ence oes not res"lt fro# irect interaction a#ong those co#posing the sit"ationI =c? in)estigations ealing 8ith shifts in reaction fro# 7no8le ge or a8areness of nor#s attri'ute% by the eCperi#enter to gro"ps 8hose #e#bers are not psychologically presentI = ? infl"ence aspects of reference gro"p beha)ior 8hich contain )ariables that iffer in 7in an co#pleCity fro# those inherent in infl"ence eCerte "n er face-to-face con itionsI an =e? progra##atic research reports an theoretical isc"ssions of )ario"s aspects of the proble# that are a)ailable in a n"#ber of other so"rces =D, 1@, D9, B9, A6, 6%, 9>, 91, 99, 1D1, 1D6?.

C"&r& teristi s o' t"e E54eri-ent&$ Situ&tions

Material and Instructions -Cperi#ental sit"ations "se to st" y confor#ity, co#pliance, an con)ersion are escribe here accor ing to the follo8ing characteristics$ =a? types of sti#"l"s #aterials e#ploye I =b? conteCts or bac7gro"n con itions in 8hich press"res are eCerte I =c? personal i#ensions "se to assess the

contrib"tion of in i)i "al ifferences to confor#ity an con)ersion beha)iorI an #eas"ring the i#pact of confor#ity press"res on a critical s"b9ect. ( )ariety of tas7s an perfor#ances fig"re in the st" ies 8hich -D1@-

= ? #etho s of

ha)e been re)ie8e . Instr"ctions an sti#"l"s #aterials ha)e been "se to pro "ce the follo8ing types of responses$ =a? eCpressions of opinions, attit" es, preferences, an interpretations, =b? percept"al an fact"al 9" g#ents, =c? atte#pts at logical analyses, an = ? beha)ior in relation to a irect reF"est or an eCplicit prohibition.
E>PRESSION OF OPINIONS< ATTITUDES< PREFERENCES< AND INTERPRETATIONS

.he sti#"l"s #aterials "se to e)o7e eCpressions of attit" e, opinion, or preference ha)e incl" e attit" e scales s"ch as the .h"rstone Scale of 4ilitaris# =1>, 1<, D>, 6>, 61?, attit" es to8ar *"ssia =%D?, to8ar fe#inis# =@9?, an to8ar a )ariety of ca#p"s, political, an econo#ic ite#s =1D9?. +thers ha)e reporte fin ings for a n"#ber of attit" e state#ents 8itho"t gi)ing co#plete escriptions of their co#position =<, BA, 6A?. .he eCpression of opinions or attit" es regar ing typical cases or proble# iss"es has also been "se =D@, <1, 9D, 11A, 1D>, 1BA?. .ypical isc"ssion topics incl" e fe eral ai to e "cation =A@?, labor-#anage#ent relations =A>, A<?, nationalis# )s. internationalis# =<D?, i)orce =%A?, an the han ling of a 9")enile elinF"ency proble# =B@, A1?. *atings of personality an social characteristics of both self an others also ha)e been "se as sti#"l"s tas7s =DA, %@?. .he eCpression of personal preferences has incl" e s"ch ite#s as line ra8ings =<, BA?, foo preferences =B<, @B, 9%?, ran7ing of ca#ping eF"ip#ent for a hypothetical trip =%%, %6?, an ran7ing #en in or er of esirability as &resi ent of the 'nite States =1><?. &ict"res that are s"b9ect to personal interpretation as the basis for co#posing a story =A?, or "nclear ra8ings that are na#e by the s"b9ect =<<, 9>, 1B1, 1BD, 1BB? co#prise another type of proble#. 4a7ing s"ch 9" g#ents as the tr"thf"lness of a person efen ing hi#self against charges of re)ealing a fictitio"s cri#e =D%?, the intelligence of people fro# photographs =A9?, the better one of t8o paintings =9@?, the ri)er at fa"lt fro# a pict"re of an a"to acci ent =1D9?, or re)ealing of iscrepancies in eCa#ination gra es =9B? constit"te other tas7s that ha)e been "se .
TASBS REEUIRIN= LO=ICAL ANAL;SIS

.as7s eliciting responses that are pre o#inantly logical in character incl" e the sol"tion of p"GGles an ga#es =BD, BB?, constr"cting ob9ects =6@?, sen ing #essages o)er telegraph 7eys =1D?, #ental arith#etic proble#s =1<, 9A?, the sol"tion of a proble# of football strategy =A1?, artillery range proble#s =1B?, an the or ering of patterns of th"#btac7s accor ing to percept"al criteria =1D@?. -D1<DIRECT REEUESTS AND PROBIBITIONS

Infl"ence #ay be eCercise irectly thro"gh reF"ests an prohibitions. -Ca#ples are reF"ests for )ol"nteers =9, 11D, 11B, 11@? an for the en orse#ent of a petition =19?I prohibitions, s"ch as a poster forbi ing entry to a b"il ing =A%?I a stoplight reg"lating pe estrian traffic =<B?I a sign prohibiting rin7ing fro# a fo"ntain =@<?I a traffic light 8here t"rning signals are legal =%?, or a co##an to stop a

esignate acti)ity =%B?. .he tas7 in)ol)ing the c"tting of sF"ares or other geo#etric for#s "n er press"re fro# others to change the rate of pro "ction contains so#e ele#ents of the irect reF"est or prohibition sti#"l"s =1>9, 11>, 1D>?.
JUD=MENTS OF PERCEPTUAL AND FACTUAL MATERIALS

&ercept"al #aterials ha)e incl" e esti#ations, proce "res reF"iring the s"b9ect to #atch a stan ar sti#"l"s to )ariable sti#"li, an iscri#ination proble#s. .he first gro"p incl" es the a"to7inetic proble# =16, D1, DB, B>, B6, AD, %<, 69, @%, @9, <A, <%, 91, 1>1, 111, 1D1, 1DD, 1DA, 1D%, 1B>?, esti#ation of the n"#ber of ots on a car or sli e =B@, AB, @A, 1>>?, the n"#ber of beans in a 9ar =@>?, the length of rectangles =DD, 6%?, the istance bet8een rectangles =6%?, the length of lines =9<, 1>D, 1<?, the length of a slot of light =11, 9@?, the istance tra)erse by a #o)ing light =11<?, the n"#ber of flashes of light in a stan ar ti#e inter)al =@6, @@?, the n"#ber of clic7s of a #etrono#e =1<, 1>B, 1>%, 1DB?, the 8eight of a series of stan ar ob9ects =6>?, siGe esti#ation of "nspecifie ob9ects =@D?, an recognition of si#ple )is"al ob9ects =11%?. #atching proce "res ha)e been li#ite to the co#parison of a straight line to lines of )ariable lengths =1, B, 6. @, 1%, B%, %>, 1>%, 11A?, #atching of sti#"li iffering in brightness =B?, an #atching of rectangle siGes an other geo#etric for#s =<, BA, @1?. 1iscri#ination tas7s incl" e 9" ging 8hich is the shorter of t8o lines =<@, <9?, 8hether there is an o or in a bottle of o orless 8ater =D<?, an 8hich sF"are has the largest n"#ber of ots =@A?. Co##on infor#ation types of ite#s =B1, 1D6?, an #e#ory tas7s =<>, 11B?, ha)e also been "se .

Frame(or' or Social +ac'ground &roperties of the sit"ation other than sti#"l"s #aterials an instr"ctions for reacting to the# contrib"te to the partic"lar a 9"st#ent that occ"rs. .he effect of conteCt or fra#e8or7 in #o ifying the response that esignate sti#"l"s #aterials pro "ce is 8ell 7no8n -D19in sensory an percept"al research. .he analog"e of conteCt or fra#e8or7 is often pro)i e by the reactions of others to the sa#e or co#parable sti#"l"s #aterials. Social bac7gro"n #ay )ary fro# si#ple a8areness of the reactions by others to irect efforts by others to eCert infl"ence on the critical s"b9ect. (n eCa#ple of the latter is the 9" ging sit"ation 8here others present gi)e "nifor#ly incorrect reports before the response of the critical s"b9ect. ( response confor#ing to the social bac7gro"n pro)i es an in eC of confor#ity, 8hereas a response consistent 8ith the sti#"l"s #aterial pro)i es an in eC of resistance to the infl"ence eCerte by others. 1irect infl"ence also is eCerte in the sit"ation reF"iring gro"p #e#bers to agree on a single option fro# a#ong a set of alternati)es, 8ith the infl"ence "s"ally eCerte in the irection of con)erting the e)iant #e#ber. &rohibition sit"ations also contain conteCt factors. +bser)ing a transgression #ay free the s"b9ect to resist the prohibition.
DISCREPANCIES BET:EEN THE REACTIONS OF THE CRITICAL SUBJECT AND THE RESPONSE OF ANOTHER PERSON OR PERSONS< :ITHOUT DIRECT INTERACTION BET:EEN THEM

( freF"ently "se #etho of eCerting infl"ence is that of presenting sti#"l"s #aterials an letting the critical s"b9ect hear reports of others before gi)ing his o8n response. ;or so#e of the st" ies the iscrepancy is Jspontaneo"sJ or Jnat"ralJ =D<, B6, %D, <A, 111, 11<, 1D1, 1DA, 1D%?, e.g., t8o nai)e s"b9ects react to the a"to7inetic tas7 =1D1?, esti#ate line lengths =11<?, or 9" ge attit" e state#ents =%D?. .he egree of con)ergence to8ar the responses of another person constit"tes an in eC of confor#ity. In other eCperi#ents the reports of instr"cte s"b9ects are controlle by the eCperi#enter. ;ace-to-face an other #etho s of co##"nicating the reports of others to the critical s"b9ect ha)e been e#ploye . In the face-to-face sit"ation the s"b9ect 9oins a gro"p. 3e is gi)en a fiCe position in the seF"ence of respon ing, 8ith responses of others prearrange by the eCperi#enter =1, B, A, 6, @, 11, D1, DB, DA, B>, B%, B<, AB, A<, %>, %1, %@, %<, 6A, 69, @1, @%, <>, <@, <<, <9, 9>, 91, 96, 9@, 9<, 1>>, 1>1, 1>D, 1>%, 1>@, 11A, 11%, 1DD, 1D6, 1D<?. *esponses #ay be "nifor#ly correct or incorrect. Incorrect ones #ay i)erge fro# the correct or appropriate ans8er in )arying a#o"nts. *eports by others also #ay be at )ariance 8ith one another, 8ith so#e correct an others incorrect by )arying egrees. In other sit"ations, one instr"cte assistant engages in the esignate action prior to the -DD>s"b9ect an ser)es as a #o el for hi# =%, 19, A%, %B, @D, @<, <B, <6, 9A, 9%, 11D, 11B, 11@, 1B>?. ( #o ification of the face-to-face sit"ation is the si#"lation of a gro"p thro"gh the "se of tape recor ings =1>, 1<, D>, B1, 61, 6B, 91, 1>B, 1>6, 1>9, 11>?. ( nai)e s"b9ect participates "n er the i#pression that he is a #e#ber of a gro"p co#pose of se)eral persons, each of 8ho#, li7e hi#self, is alone in a 9oining roo#s. (ll are interconnecte by a co##"nication syste#. .he s"b9ect hears the instr"ctions of the eCperi#enter, eCperiences the sti#"l"s #aterials to be 9" ge , an hears the responses by the others. 3e reacts at the proper ti#e by 8riting his responses in the blan7 spaces left for his reports. With the eCception of the nai)e s"b9ect:s responses, the entire eCperi#ental protocol "s"ally consists of tape recor ings. .he si#"late sit"ation pro)i es a stan%ar% social conteCt for all s"b9ects. (nother )ariation of the basic face-to-face sit"ation is one 8here se)eral people are teste together, 8ith partitions or booths separating the# fro# one another. -ach has a panel 8ith a ro8 of signal lights that recor the responses of others =<, BA, B%, @1?. .he tas7 is constant for all #e#bers, an "s"ally consists of #aterials presente by sli es pro9ecte on a 8all so that all s"b9ects can see the# si#"ltaneo"sly. .he eCperi#enter controls the pres"#e responses of the other s"b9ects thro"gh a #aster s8itchboar . .he effect is that each s"b9ect acts as a critical s"b9ect. (ll respon at the sa#e ti#e, 8ith their responses recor e at the central control panel. (lso "se is the reF"ire#ent for reF"esting or relinF"ishing pieces of a p"GGle or ga#e by one #e#ber 8hen #e#bers eCchange parts to co#plete the p"GGle. .he participant "n erstan s that he #"st co#plete his p"GGle or tas7 before the gro"p goal is achie)e . 4e#bers are gi)en a stan ar portion of the tas7 at the beginning. .hen they interact by reF"esting necessary pieces fro# one another in or er to finish. ,oth the /ro"p SF"ares &"GGle =BB? an a ,ingo ga#e =BD? ha)e been "se in this #anner. Social interaction is in irect. .he eCperi#enter is able to arrange the responses of JotherJ #e#bers to reF"ests for pieces or parts. (fter a s"b9ect has correctly co#plete his in i)i "al tas7, he is s"b9ecte to press"res fro# so#e other #e#ber to yiel a part so that so#eone else #ay co#plete a p"GGle. .he in eC of resistance to social press"re is the n"#ber of trials in 8hich the s"b9ect ref"ses to yiel .

Infl"ence 8itho"t irect interaction is e#ploye by the eCperi#enter 8ho co##"nicates instr"ctions to the s"b9ect on 8ays to change his perfor#ance so that he can contrib"te #ore appropriately -DD1to the gro"p tas7. .his type of press"re has been applie in st" ies of slo8 o8n in pro "ction of c"tting paper ob9ects =1>9?, in "tiliGing infor#ation on an artillery proble# =1B?, an in sen ing #essages on telegraph 7eys =1D?.
E>PERIMENTERCS ANNOUNCEMENT OF =ROUP NORMS

Still another )ersion of in "cing infl"ence consists of in i)i "al responses gi)en in pri)ate an collecte by the eCperi#enter. .he eCperi#enter either co#p"tes a nor# act"ally representing the responses of #e#bers an reports it =DD?, or appears to co#p"te a nor#, b"t act"ally anno"nces, accor ing to a prearrange esign, an incorrect nor# for the reactions of the gro"p =D6, A9, 6A, 66, @%, @@, 1D9, 1B1, 1BD, 1BB?.
=ROUP DISCUSSION

(ct"al isc"ssion, 8here #e#bers ha)e the opport"nity to eCert infl"ence on one another, has been e#ploye in n"#ero"s st" ies =A, 9, D@, A<, %A, %%, %6, @>, @9, <1, <D, 9D, 9A, 1><, 1BA?. Interaction is irect, 8itho"t control by the eCperi#enter. .he in i)i "al #ay be as7e to in icate his position on a partic"lar iss"e in pri)ate prior to the gro"p isc"ssion, at )ario"s points "ring its co"rse or at the en of the isc"ssion. Co#parison of initial position 8ith later positions pro)i es a #eas"re of s"sceptibility or resistance. Interaction in a gro"p has been controlle thro"gh notes, ballots, or )otes passe a#ong #e#bers. -ach participant 8rites notes to others in the gro"p, 8hich #ay be eli)ere so that J isc"ssionJ a#ong #e#bers is "ncontrolle =D%, A1, A@?. 'n er other con itions prearrange notes, ballots, or )otes are s"bstit"te =A>, @A, 116, 1D>, 1D@?. Co#parison of positions before an after eCchange of notes pro)i es an in eC of change.

Properties o the Person (nother set of factors associate 8ith confor#ity inheres in the Jstate of the personJ at a partic"lar ti#e. S"ch factors can be i entifie thro"gh reference to in i)i "al ifferences in pre)io"s eCperience, personality characteristics, or physiologic states. Contraste 8ith a no)ice, a specialist in ealing 8ith a certain type of #aterials is #ore resistant to shifting. In i)i "al ifferences in acceptance of confor#ity press"res relate to properties of the person that ha)e been in)estigate incl" e eCperi#entally create prior eCperiences, #eas"res of physiologic states, an -DDD-

in ices of psychological eCperiences s"bseF"ent to beha)ior in the press"re sit"ation.

E>PERIMENTALL; INDUCED PRIOR E>PERIENCES

-Cperiences ha)e been create prior to the s"b9ect:s eCpos"re to confor#ity con itions to per#it eter#ination of the eCtent to 8hich the eCperi#entally efine eCperiences contrib"te to the a 9"st#ent elicite . .hese eCperiences incl" e ifferences in the egree of fa#iliarity 8ith the sti#"l"s #aterials prior to the infl"ence sit"ation =A9?, ifferences in the characteristics of a prior tas7 in 8hich social infl"ence has also been eCerte =<<, 9>?, eCperiences 8ith other #e#bers, incl" ing cooperati)e efforts in 8hich a response consistent 8ith the false one reporte by another in the sit"ation is re8ar e =@6, <@, 9>?, in i)i "al eCperiences of s"ccess or fail"re =D>, %<, @D, @%, 9<, 1>>, 11%?, an eCperiences esigne to increase insec"rity =1DA? or ecrease self-e)al"ation =119?.
PH;SIOLO=IC MEASURES

.8o physiologic characteristics ha)e been relate to s"sceptibility. +ne series of st" ies contraste s"b9ects of ifferent ages =11, B<, <9?I another co#pare #en an 8o#en =D%, BA, @9?. 1ifferences in physiologic states that ha)e been e)al"ate incl" e$ egree of thirst =@<?I strength of foo preferences =9%?I egree of sleep epri)ation =AD?I an anCiety states as #eas"re by egree of pal#ar s8eat =6A, <D?. In se)eral st" ies, it is i#possible to eter#ine 8hether the #eas"re is regar e as a physiologic in eC or 8hether a physiologic ifference represents a scale of psychological ifferences.
PERSONALIT; MEASURES

( )ariety of #eas"res ha)e been "se to assess personality characteristics of s"b9ects prior to the press"re sit"ation. Stan ar #eas"res "se are the (-S *eaction St" y =1>, 6B, @D?, /"ilfor -4artin In)entory of: ;actors, /(4I! =DB, @%?, California ;-Scale =1>, BA, %A, 1>1, 1D<?, ;ie ler (S In)entory =1D%?, Li7ert Scale of (ttit" e to8ar the !egro =DB?, Le)inson-Sanfor Scale of (ttit" e to8ar Je8s =DB?, 4innesota 4"ltiphasic &ersonality In)entory =A, BB, %>?, Cattell 16 &; =11%?, ,arron-Welsh (rt Scale =@A?, Welsh ;ig"re &reference .est =BD?, .er#an Concept 4astery .est =BD, BA?, I ea Classification .est =BD?, *orschach .est =<%?, .he#atic (pperception .est =6%, 1>%?, an other #eas"res of e#otional instability =1>, D@?, proble#-sol)ing =1>6?, an age of in epen ence training =<>?. +ther #eas"res "se are chec7lists an ratings proce "res =6, 11, BB, BA, @>?, an clinical -DDBiagnoses =B6, <A, 1D%?. 4eas"res of originality ha)e been constr"cte to eter#ine in i)i "al ifferences in this i#ension =<?. !ee s, s"ch as achie)e#ent =<>, 11%?, epen ency =69?, anCiety =<D?, confor#ity =6A, 1B1?, self-appro)al =1>A?, con)entionality =1>?, an affiliation =%A, 11%?, ha)e been "se as #eas"res of personality in #ore recent confor#ity research. Se)eral ifferent types of #eas"res ha)e been "se to eter#ine if egree of s"sceptibility to so#e type of o"ter anchoring, 8hether social or percept"al, is a general characteristic of in i)i "als, 8hich 8ill per#it pre icting their beha)ior in confor#ity sit"ations. 1epen ence on the percept"al fiel has been #eas"re by the .ilte *oo#, .ilte Chair, an the -#be e ;ig"res .est =<6?. &ersonal epen ence on the social fiel =1<, BA, 9>? an s"sceptibility to irect infl"ence atte#pts =6D, 1BB? ha)e been #eas"re thro"gh eCperi#entally create sit"ations.

Interaction among Factors Specific a 9"st#ents to8ar or a8ay fro# confor#ity are eter#ine by interactions a#ong the three classes of factors. .he i#pact of each #"st be consi ere in relation to the others if acc"rate pre iction of a 9"st#ent is to be achie)e . ;or eCa#ple, "n er con itions 8here =a? the sti#"l"s #aterials are iffic"lt to 9" ge, =b? the reactions of others constit"ting the social bac7gro"n are only slightly i)ergent fro# the correct response, an =c? the in i)i "al is characteristically confor#ing, the pre iction is that his beha)ior can be easily infl"ence in the irection of confor#ity. .o "n erstan confor#ity, it is necessary to specify the interrelations a#ong the concrete nat"re of the sti#"l"s #aterials, the properties of the social conteCt or fra#e8or7, an the state of the person at the ti#e of his reaction.
INDICES USED TO EVALUATE CONFORMIT;< RESISTANCE< AND CONVERSION

!"#ero"s in ices ha)e been e#ploye to e)al"ate the eCtent to 8hich infl"ence has been eCerte in confor#ity sit"ations. .he phrase Jshifting of responsesJ refers to any of the se)eral 8ays "se to #eas"re the effects of social infl"ence.
PRO=RESSIVE CHAN=ES :ITH TRIALS

( stan ar proce "re is that originally e#ploye by Sherif =1D1?. !"#ero"s trials are a #inistere "n er gro"p con itions, 8ith progressi)e shifts in responses e)al"ate as a f"nction of ifferences -DDAbet8een trials =B6, %1, %<?. .he proce "re has been "se 8ith the a"to7inetic tas7 =1D1?, in 9" ging the length of slots of light =9@?, an in esti#ating the n"#ber of ots =B@?. ( change in responses to accor 8ith those gi)en by other #e#bers is regar e as confor#ing. !o change or changes in an opposite irection are regar e as in epen ent or resistant.
CHAN=E SCORES BET:EEN PRE=ROUP AND POST=ROUP CONDITIONS

( 8i ely "se proce "re is that of e)al"ating perfor#ance of a s"b9ect "n er pri)ate con itions an then "n er press"re con itions =1D, DA, D@, B>, A<, A9, %D, %A, 6>, 6@, 69, @D, @B, @6, <A, 9D, 9A, 9<, 1>>, 1>1, 11%, 116, 1D9, 1B>, 1BD, 1BB?, allo8ing interpretations either in ter#s of confor#ity or resistance. +ccasionally, the s"b9ect:s perfor#ance on the sa#e tas7 has been #eas"re once again "n er pri)ate con itions =A, D1, D%, B@, A>, A1, AD, AB, A@, A<, %%, %6, @>, @9, <D, 9A, 1><, 111, 1D>, 1B1, 1BA?, 8ith the #agnit" e of shift in beha)ior fro# co#binations of scores fro# the pre-press"re to the post-press"re con itions constit"ting the in eC. When changes "e to press"re persist in the post-press"re sit"ation, the in eC is a #eas"re of con)ersion. When the in i)i "al gi)es a confor#ing response in the press"re sit"ation an ret"rns to his in epen ent position in a later testing sit"ation, the shift can be interprete as te#porary confor#ity. (n interpretation of in epen ence or resistance can be #a e 8hen an in i)i "al acts in a consistent #anner fro# the pre-press"re to the post-press"re sit"ation. ( Jsleeper effectJ is sai to occ"r 8hen an in i)i "al #aintains in epen ence in the press"re sit"ation, b"t sho8s the effects of the press"re sit"ation in the post-press"re pri)ate sit"ation.
DEVIATION FROM CORRECT OR MODAL RESPONSES

-rror scores for fact"al or logical #aterials that are ans8ere correctly by the s"b9ect "n er pri)ate con itions are "se to assess the effects of confor#ity piess"res. &erfor#ance of a co#parable gro"p of s"b9ects teste "n er control con itions has pro)i e stan ar iGation ata as a basis for 9" ging the egree of infl"ence eCerte by press"re con itions =B1?. 'n er confor#ity con itions, persons other than the s"b9ect gi)e responses iffering fro# the correct or preferre one. .he n"#ber of ti#es an in i)i "al gi)es a response either in the irection of the correct score or of the erroneo"s 9" g#ents constit"tes his confor#ity score =1, B, <, 11, 1<, B1, BA, B%, A<, 61, @1, @A, @@, <>, <@, <<, <9, 9>, 96, 1>D, 1>B, 1>%, 1>6, 11A, 119, 1D%, 1D6, 1D@, 1D<?. .he confor#ity -DD%score istrib"tion has been "se to co#pare the personality characteristics of confor#ers an resisters =6, @, %>, 6%, <%, <6?.
DISCREPANC; BET:EEN OTHERSC AND SUBJECTCS RESPONSES

(nother techniF"e consists of ta7ing the state opinion of others participating in the eCperi#ent as the baseline to e)al"ate the #agnit" e of the iscrepancy in the response #a e by the critical s"b9ect =1>, D>, DB?. *esponses closer to the position represente by the bac7gro"n are interprete as in icating a greater egree of confor#ity than #ore i)ergent responses. ( #o ification of this #etho is establish#ent of a range of confe erate responses so that if the critical s"b9ect reacts 8ithin that range, he is regar e as ha)ing confor#e to the establishe pattern =16, 91, 1DD?.
DIFFERENCES IN AVERA=E SCORES AND MA=NITUDE OF VARIABILIT; BET:EEN =ROUPS

(nother #eas"re consists of co#parison of perfor#ances of gro"ps of s"b9ects confronte 8ith press"res in )arying egrees. .he criterion of change is the a)erage perfor#ance of the gro"p on a single trial, or scores #asse across trials, 8itho"t regar for the serial or er of changes. 2ariability has been si#ilarly #eas"re to eter#ine the eCtent of ecreases in the range of in i)i "al responses =11, DD, 6B, @%, <1, 11<, 1D1, 1DA?.
ACTION CRITERIA

( stan ar #etho consists of pre esignating, as e)i ence of confor#ity, a specific action that is i entical to responses by other persons present in the eCperi#ental sit"ation. .he freF"ency 8ith 8hich s"ch a response occ"rs constit"tes an in eC of confor#ity =%, 9, 19, D<, B<, A%, %B, @<, <B, 9D, 9B, 11D, 116, 11@?. 'nrea iness to yiel "n er other con itions constit"tes an in eC of resistance =1B, BD, BB, 1>9?.

Su--&r# ( )ariety of eCperi#ental sit"ations ha)e been e#ploye in the st" y of confor#ity, resistance, an con)ersion. .hese ha)e been re)ie8e , together 8ith )ario"s 8ays of #eas"ring the i#pact of the social conteCt on the critical s"b9ect, incl" ing those 8hich constit"te in ices of confor#ity or con)ersion.

Sti#"l"s #aterials 8ith certain characteristics ha)e been e#ploye si#plicity an case of #eas"re#ent of -DD6-

#ost freF"ently. *elati)e

elicite responses is one factor acco"nting for the choice of #aterials. .hey rarely ha)e in)ol)e the type of acti)ities that are s"b9ecte to confor#ity or con)ersion press"res in o"r aily li)es. /enerally, the #aterials "se pro)o7e little intrinsic interest. .he sit"ations often ha)e a F"ality of artificiality that #a7es it iffic"lt to ra8 general concl"sions for "se in interpreting reactions in #ore )ital an real lifeli7e sit"ations. .he types of infl"ences eCerte ha)e not been of an eCtre#e e#ergency, or life an eath character. .he interaction often consists only of the s"b9ect:s hearing a report on the a 9"st#ent being #a e by others to the sit"ation. .o approCi#ate #ore closely the life con itions of confor#ity, it 8ill be necessary to esign eCperi#ental sit"ations in 8hich the #aintenance of resistance to confor#ity press"res places an in i)i "al in 9eopar y of relinF"ishing )al"e stat"s, prestige or #e#bership, or 8here con)ersion is a #eans to attain i#portant "tilitarian ob9ecti)es. &ersonality tests ha)e been the #ost pop"lar #eans of assessing the role personal characteristics play in confor#ity beha)ior. 4ost tests ha)e been "se in only one or t8o st" ies, 8ith the res"lt that relati)ely little irect co#parison of fin ings is possible. (#ong siC types of confor#ity in ices, the change of scores bet8een pregro"p an postgro"p con itions has been the #ost 8i ely "se #eas"re. .he e)iation fro# correct or #o al responses also has been a freF"ently "se in eC of change.

F& tors Asso i&ted /it" Con'or-it# Be"&,ior ( )ariety of factors ha)e been sho8n to aro"se confor#ity an resistance beha)ior. .his Ie)ie8 of fin ings incl" es sections on res"lts of ifferences in the shifting of responses attrib"table to$ =a? the nat"re of the sti#"l"s #aterials e#ploye to e)o7e confor#ityI =b? characteristics of the social sit"ationI an =c? the contrib"tion of personal factors in eter#ining the a 9"st#ent #a e "n er confor#itypro "cing con itions. (lso incl" e is a s"##ary of st" ies of interaction effects a#ong factors that increase or ecrease confor#ity beha)ior.

Di erences in Shi ting o #esponses Attributable to Stimulus Materials !mployed Se)eral st" ies ha)e e)al"ate those ifferences in confor#ity beha)ior that are associate 8ith the nat"re of the sti#"l"s #aterials -DD@-

an the con itions of their presentation. -)al"ation in)ol)es fo"r consi erations$ the nat"re of the #aterial 9" ge , 8hether fact"al, attit" inal, or eCpressi)e of personal preferencesI ifferences in selections fro# the sa#e #aterials, 8hether easy or iffic"lt, clear or a#big"o"sI con itions of presentation, 8hether per#itting 9" g#ents to be #a e by the s"b9ect 8ith ease or 8ith iffic"ltyI an the eCperi#enter:s instr"ctions to the s"b9ect, 8hether strong an efinite or 8ea7 an )ag"e.
EUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN THE MATERIALS JUD=ED

*eactions to #aterials that can be ans8ere on the basis of logic or JfactJ appear to be #ore resistant to confor#ity press"res than those for 8hich responses epen on social eCperience. 3elson, ,la7e, an 4o"ton =61? st" ie the freF"ency of shifting as a f"nction of the content of the tas7. /reater shifting of responses fro# the correct or #o al report to8ar the erroneo"s responses eCpresse by others 8as obser)e for attit" e state#ents than for #aterials in)ol)ing 7no8le ge or ability. ;estinger an .hiba"t =A1? e#ploye t8o ifferent isc"ssion proble#s as sti#"l"s #aterials, an reporte res"lts consistent 8ith those by 3elson, ,la7e, an 4o"ton =61?. Cr"tchfiel =BA? presente a )ariety of sti#"l"s #aterials to a test sa#ple "n er social press"re con itions. Since he escribes res"lts obtaine for so#e b"t not all the #aterials, it is i#possible to eter#ine if response shifts are a f"nction of the character of the sti#"l"s #aterials. .he #aterials #ost s"b9ect to confor#ity effects appear to eri)e #eaning or )ali ity fro# a social fra#e of reference, s"ch as attit" es to8ar 8ar or general social proble#s.
DIFFICULT;

1egrees of shifting )ary 8ith ifferences in properties of the sa#e #aterials. +ne so"rce of )ariation is the iffic"lty eCperience by the s"b9ect in reacting to the #aterials presente . .he hypothesis teste hol s that the #ore iffic"lt the #aterials, the #ore easily the in i)i "al is infl"ence . ,la7e, 3elson, an 4o"ton =1<? ha #ale college st" ents respon to arith#etic ite#s an the #etrono#e clic7 co"nting proble#s "n er si#"late con itions. ;or the arith#etic ite#s, shifting increase to8ar the erroneo"s response of the si#"late gro"p as the iffic"lty of the proble#s increase . *es"lts for the #etrono#e are interprete as in icating that )ariations in rate 8ere not s"fficiently great -DD<for shifts fro# social press"re relate to iffic"lty to appear in a statistically clear #anner. Cole#an, ,la7e, an 4o"ton =B1? ha)e e#onstrate a significant relatior7ship bet8een tas7 iffic"lty an s"sceptibility to confor#ity press"res. .he res"lts are interprete as in icating that an in i)i "al certain of the correct ans8er is #ore able to resist press"res beca"se he is #ore able to respon in ter#s of internal c"es. (sch =B? "se the eCperi#ental tas7 of #atching a stan ar to three )ariable. lines. 1ifferences bet8een the )ariable lines an the stan ar 8ere s#all for one set of trials, an larger for another set.

;e8er errors !ere #a e by s"b9ects 8hen the iscrepancy bet8een lines 8as greater. .hese res"lts s"pport the hypothesis that iffic"lt sti#"l"s #ilterials lea to a greater egree of confor#ity. ,erea a =11? "se chil s"b9ects for t8o ifferent tas7s, an in)estigate freF"ency of shifting as a f"nction of the iffic"lty of ite#s. .he gretatest shifting for both tas7s occ"rre in those trials that pro "ce the highest freF"ency of errors "n er pri)ate con itions. /ol berg an L"bin =%1? teste an confir#e the hypothesis that social itifl"ence on a s"b9ect:s 9" g#ents is a positi)e linear f"nction of his errors for si#ilar 9" g#ents "n er pri)ate con itions. In a st" y by Wiener =1BD?, the tas7 consiste of selecting one of t8o na"les for each of ten a#big"o"s esigns, an in icating the egree of certainty of each 9" g#ent on a fo"r-point scale ranging fro# Jabsol"tely certainJ to Jabsol"tely "ncertain.J *es"lts in icate a greater percentage of change for esigns rate on the "ncertain en of the 9" g#ent scale, an for higher a#big"ity esigns 8ithin each category of certainty. 0elley an La#b =@B? in an eCperi#ent on taste "se phenylthio"rea =&.'?, 8hich is tasteless to so#e in i)i "als b"t eCtre#ely bitter to others. .he res"lts s"ggest that the tasters: greater resistance to #a9ority infl"ence springs fro# the greater intensity of their opinions abo"t &.'. ;isher, Willia#s, an L"bin =AA? confir#e that a #eas"re of the s"b9ect:s self-certainty regar ing the sti#"l"s sit"ation consistently constit"te a fair egree of pre icti)e po8er for confor#ity scores$ the #ore certain a person is of his 9" g#ent, the #ore resistant he is to infl"ences to8ar confor#ity. &ress"res ha)e been #aintaine at a constant le)el in so#e st" ies of the relationship bet8een a#big"ity of the #aterials an confor#ity. Caylor =D6? efine the a#big"ity of the sti#"l"s #aterials as the n"#ber of eF"ally probable reactions percei)e as appropriate in response to the Sto"ffer F"estionnaire approach to conflict in nor#s. -DD9Confor#ity 8as #eas"re as the ifference bet8een pri)ate an p"blic responses in the irection of percei)e gro"p nor#s. Confor#ity 8as fo"n to be positi)ely associate 8ith the #ore a#big"o"s sti#"l"s #aterials. Wiener, Carpenter, an Carpenter =1B1? faile to confir# the relationship reporte by Caylor =D6?. -Cplanation of the fail"re is not apparent in the p"blishe report.
CONDITIONS OF PRESENTATION

Se)eral st" ies ha)e e#ploye )arie con itions of presentation of the tas7 in ter#s of iffic"lty of iscri#ination. .he general hypothesis teste is that s"sceptibility is greater the farther re#o)e sti#"l"s #aterials are fro# irect eCa#ination. 1e"tsch an /erar =B%? e#ploye t8o con itions to present the sa#e #aterials. .he #aterials for one 8ere present for )is"al eCa#ination at the ti#e the s"b9ect #a e his 9" g#ents. 4aterials for the other 8ere re#o)e B sec prior to the s"b9ect:s report. Significantly less infl"ence 8as eCerte by other persons 8hen sti#"l"s #aterials 8ere present.

*a)en an *ietse#a =11>? st" ie con itions of presentation an s"sceptibility as a f"nction of the clarity of the tas7 an fo"n that the s"b9ects 8ho "n erstoo the reF"ire#ents confor#e #ore to the nee s of others e)en tho"gh this place the# at a personal isa )antage. L"chins =<@? in)estigate s"sceptibility "n er con itions per#itting so#e s"b9ects to test ob9ecti)ely their eCperience 8ith the sti#"l"s #aterials. Chil s"b9ects per#itte to test the acc"racy of their 9" g#ents 8ere less infl"ence by the confe erate. .hese st" ies generally agree in confir#ing the pre iction that s"sceptibility is less 8hen s"b9ects ha)e the opport"nity to e#ploy an ob9ecti)e fra#e of reference.
ORIENTATION TO THE TASB

Instr"ctions "se to orient s"b9ects to sti#"l"s #aterials ha)e been sho8n to be correlate 8ith s"sceptibility. Shifting in the irection of en orse#ent of a petition as a f"nction of the strength of the reF"est has been in)estigate by ,la7e, 4o"ton, an 3ain =19?. (n increase in co#pliance attrib"table to increases in strength of the reF"est 8as fo"n for infl"ence create by the co#pliant #o el, an a ecrease 8hen the #o el resiste . .hese res"lts 8ere confir#e by *osenba"# =11D? "sing a si#ilar reF"est to solicit )ol"nteers. -DB>;ree , Chan ler, 4o"ton, an ,la7e =A%? assesse the reactions of #ale college st" ents to three egrees of strength for a sign forbi ing entry to a classroo# b"il ing. .he freF"ency of co#pliance 8as fo"n to be positi)ely or negati)ely relate to the strength of the prohibition sti#"l"s in the sa#e #anner as in the st" ies 9"st s"##ariGe .
SUMMAR;

.he effects of confor#ity press"res ha)e been e#onstrate to )ary 8ith =a? the nat"re of the sti#"l"s #aterials to 8hich s"b9ects react aa =b? the con itions of their presentation. *eactions are e)o7e #ore easily 8hen press"res are eCerte on attit" es to8ar social iss"esI fact"al #atters an personal preferences see# to be #ost resistan to change. .his generaliGation is i#portant for its i#plication that s"sceptibility is highest in areas ealing 8ith political i eology, social attit" es, an eCpressions of opinions. 'na#big"o"s #aterials e)o7e #ore resistance to change than a#big"o"s ones. ( sit"ation 8here it is iffic"lt for the s"b9ect to chec7 on the acc"racy of his response res"lts in a ecrease of resistance. /reater s"sceptibility has been sho8n to occ"r 8ith increases in reF"est strength 8hen press"res are create by a co#pliant #o el as 8ell as the con)erse.

Con ormity +ehavior and Social Conte"t Confor#ity press"res #ay be create 8hen a person is confronte 8ith reactions iffering fro# his o8n. In i)i "al reactions "n er pri)ate con itions ha)e been co#pare 8ith reactions to the sa#e

proble# in a social conteCt. &roperties of social conteCts singly or in co#bination ha)e been st" ie to eter#ine their effects on increases or ecreases in s"sceptibility.
EFFECT OF REACTIONS OF ANOTHER PERSON OR PERSONS

.he st" ies s"##ariGe in this section are those esigne to sho8 the infl"ence of a social sit"ation in #o ifying an in i)i "al:s response.
OPINION AND ATTITUDE E>PRESSIONS

Wheeler an Jor an =1D9? in)estigate the effect of 7no8le ge of #a9ority )ie8points on changing opinions. 0no8le ge of gro"p opinion "ring the thir a #inistration of an attit" e F"estionnaire -DB1pro "ce freF"ency of shifting in the irection of agree#ent 8ith the #a9ority three ti#es greater than that in the control con ition, 8ith isagree#ent re "ce to approCi#ately one-half of chance eCpectancy. /or en =%D? e)al"ate shifts in responses fro# an initial in i)i "al a #inistration of a t8el)e-ite# scale of attit" es to8ar *"ssia to responses gi)en in the presence of other #e#bers. +)er half of the s"b9ects shifte to8ar gro"p opinion, an approCi#ately a thir shifte a8ay fro# it, 8ith no change in the total shift score for approCi#ately an eighth. 3elson, ,la7e, 4o"ton, an +l#stea =6B? reporte that nai)e s"b9ects eCpresse significantly ifferent egrees of agree#ent or isagree#ent 8ith state#ents #atche for egree of #ilitaris# as a f"nction an in the irection of prearrange responses by other s"b9ects. 3or8itG, &iana, /ol #an, an Lee =6@? fo"n significant ifferences in eCpressions of attit" es to8ar their teacher by *+.C st" ents follo8ing reporte "nani#ity of gro"p attit" e. 1"nc7er =B<? reports that chil ren, respon ing after one, t8o, or three other s"b9ects eCpresse their foo preferences, ha a selection rate of <1 per cent for foo s chosen only D6 per cent of the ti#e earlier in pri)ate.
ACTION STUDIES

( series of eCperi#ents e#ploying sit"ations that either restrict or prohibit an action, or else are esigne to pro "ce co#pliance 8ith a reF"est, ha)e consistently in icate that irect 7no8le ge of the reactions of others can pro "ce shifts in beha)ior. /rosser, &olans7y, an Lippitt =%B? fo"n that a significantly larger n"#ber of nai)e chil s"b9ects engage in "na"thoriGe acti)ities "n er the infl"ence of percei)ing )iolations by a #o el in the eCperi#ental rather than in the control con itions. ;ree , Chan ler, 4o"ton, an ,la7e =A%? ha)e reporte si#ilar res"lts in a prohibition sit"ation =see foregoing?, as ha)e ,arch, .r"#bo, an !agle =%? 8ho obser)e the beha)ior of #otorists in t"rning lanes to eter#ine confor#ance 8ith or )iolation of a state la8 reF"iring t"rn signals. .he beha)ior of a person follo8ing a lea car 8as significantly relate to that of the lea car ri)er. ,la7e, 4o"ton, an 3ain =19? obtaine si#ilar res"lts for en orse#ent of a petition =see the foregoing?.

;reF"ency of acceptance of a reF"est for )ol"nteers as a f"nction of the perception of acceptance by another person has been in)estigate by *osenba"# an ,la7e =11B? an by *osenba"# =11D?. ,oth st" ies e#onstrate a ecrease in acceptance freF"ency 8hen s"b9ects -DBDsee an eCperi#enter:s assistant ref"se the reF"est as 8ell as the con)erse. Schachter an 3all =11@? fo"n that gro"p infl"ences pro "ce greater freF"ency of )ol"nteering 8hen half the class ha been preinstr"cte to )ol"nteer. Confir#ation of these res"lts for p"blic )ers"s pri)ate con itions has been reporte by ,la7e, ,er7o8itG, ,ella#y, an 4o"ton =1%?.
JUD=MENTAL TASBS

.he effect of the gro"p sit"ation in infl"encing 9" g#ents 8as e#onstrate by 4"nsterberg =1>A? in an early perio of psychological eCperi#entation. St" ents first 8ere as7e in i)i "ally to i entify 8hich of t8o car s containe the largest n"#ber of ots. Initially, 6> per cent reporte the correct ans8er. (fter a preli#inary sho8 of han s, correct 9" g#ents on an in i)i "al basis increase fro# 6> to 6A per cent. Significance of the ifferences obtaine 8as not e)al"ate , b"t fin ings are consistent 8ith those of later in)estigations. Clar7 =D<? has reporte that D> per cent of st" ents percei)e the Jo orJ of a bottle of o orless 8ater in the presence of other persons, co#pare 8ith only 11 per cent in pri)ate. .he classical eCperi#ent in this area is by Sherif =1D1?. 3e e#ploye the a"to7inetic sit"ation to e#onstrate the infl"ence of another:s response on 9" g#ents by nai)e s"b9ects. .he con)ergence "n er gro"p con itions of initially i)ergent responses sho8e the operation of social infl"ence. Schonbar =11<? "plicate the essential eCperi#ental con itions of Sherif:s st" y an reports si#ilar res"lts. 4atching a stan ar line 8ith three )ariable lines 8as the tas7 e#ploye by (sch =1? to in)estigate the infl"ence of erroneo"s reports on nai)e s"b9ects. Less than 1 per cent of the responses for the sa#e trials in pri)ate 8as incorrect. ,y prearranging for reports by se)en acco#plices to be "nifor#ly incorrect on certain trials, (sch 8as able to sho8 a significant ten ency for nai)e s"b9ects to shift to8ar the incorrect position ta7en by others. ,la7e an ,reh# =16? in)estigate the effect on nai)e s"b9ects of hearing the recor e responses of fi)e acco#plices. (#o"nt of #o)e#ent reporte for the a"to7inetic tas7 8as )arie in #agnit" e, i)ergence, an con)ergence. &ress"res create "n er si#"late con itions pro "ce confor#ity effects apparently si#ilar in character to those create "n er face-to-face con itions. 4cConnell an ,la7e =91? ha)e confir#e this fin ing, as ha)e +l#stea an ,la7e =1>@? for both face-to-face an si#"late gro"p con itions. -DBBSUMMAR;

.he st" ies 9"st s"##ariGe are in general agree#ent. 0no8le ge of the reactions of another person in the sa#e sit"ation can infl"ence the s"b9ect:s response in the irection of the other person:s beha)ior, 8ith s"sceptibility fo"n for a 8i e )ariety of tas7s.

Composition o the Social Conte"t 1ifferences in s"sceptibility ha)e been relate to )ario"s feat"res of the social conteCt, incl" ing the n"#ber of others present, egree of "nani#ity in their reactions, an the #agnit" e of the iscrepancy bet8een the s"b9ect:s o8n position an that of others. Nu)'er of 4thers Present. .here is e)i ence that the presence of several other persons gi)ing "nifor# responses #ay pro "ce increases in confor#ity beha)ior beyon those attrib"table to the effect of a single other person. .he general proposition is that confor#ity press"res increase 8ith n"#ber of other persons present as a negati)ely accelerate f"nction. (sch =1? )arie the n"#ber of acco#plices gi)ing erroneo"s reports fro# one, t8o, three, fo"r, eight, to siCteen. 3e reporte irect b"t "neF"al incre#ents in shifting for increases fro# one to t8o to three acco#plices b"t no significant increases for a larger n"#ber. 3elson =6>? arrange for one, t8o, or three other persons to report their 9" g#ents prior to the critical s"b9ect. .he effect 8as fo"n to be irectly proportional to the n"#ber of acco#plices gi)ing prior reports. L"chins an L"chins =<9? report that, of the gro"p 9" ging after three acco#plices reporte , <> per cent sho8e confor#ity effects, 8hereas only 1> per cent shifte their responses after one other acco#plice reporte . /ro"p siGe has been in)estigate Jin re)erseJ by 5iller an ,ehringer =1BA?. .hey )arie the n"#ber of nai)e s"b9ects present relati)e to one instr"cte s"b9ect. .he confe erate 8as #ore effecti)e in t8oan fi)e-person gro"ps than in three- an fo"r-person gro"ps. Con itions of this eCperi#ent ha)e not been escribe in etail. 3are =%%? in)estigate the infl"ence of gro"p siGe on the attain#ent of consens"s, an fo"n that participants in gro"ps of fi)e change their opinions #ore to8ar the gro"p consens"s after isc"ssion than those in gro"ps of t8el)e. .his fin ing isagrees 8ith those 9"st reporte . !o acco#plices participate I isc"ssion ti#e 8as constant, -DBAth"s gi)ing each #e#ber less o((ortunity to eCert infl"ence on others in the larger gro"ps. .hree in)estigators reporte no ifferences in shifting as a f"nction of the n"#ber of others participating. Sherif =1D1? reporte no significant ifferences in the egree of con)ergence for s"b9ects respon ing to the a"to7inetic tas7 in the presence of one or of t8o other #e#bers. 1egree of "nani#ity 8as not prearrange I the st" y th"s is not co#parable to those e#ploying controlle responses by others. /ol berg =A9? )arie the n"#ber of s"b9ects 8or7ing together in 9" ging the intelligence of persons in nine photographs. J" ging in the presence of others pro "ce responses iffering significantly fro# those gi)en "n er pri)ate con itions. !o ifferences in shifting 8ere fo"n for s"b9ects 8ho 9" ge initially in the presence of t8o or of fo"r other persons. 1ata. 8ere not gi)en for res"lts fro# three-#an gro"ps. 'se of i#p"te , falsifie nor#s #ay in part acco"nt for his fin ings.

0i =@6? )arie gro"p siGe fro# one to t8o to fo"r to siC, an s"pplie fictitio"s, i#p"te nor#s for each gro"p. !o significant ifferences in shifting 8ere fo"n for ifferences in gro"p siGe. Unani)ity. (sch =1?, in one con ition, arrange for the instr"cte Jnai)eJ s"b9ect to respon correctly an the instr"cte #a9ority of siC other persons to respon incorrectly. .he egree of shifting to8ar the #a9ority )ie8 8as co#parati)ely slight. When the person 8ho ha been gi)ing the correct report began to agree 8ith the incorrect #a9ority, the freF"ency of shifting 8as fo"n to be co#parable to that "n er the con ition of ro"tine "nani#ity. 4o"ton, ,la7e, an +l#stea =1>B? ha)e confir#e one aspect of (sch:s fin ing. Little shifting fro# correct reports occ"rre 8hen, of fo"r other persons reporting prior to the critical s"b9ect, t8o ga)e correct an t8o incorrect responses. ( significant increase in shifting occ"rre 8hen all fo"r "nifor#ly ga)e an incorrect ans8er. In 3ar y:s st" y =%A? of "nani#o"s contraste 8ith near-"nani#o"s gro"ps in a isc"ssion of i)orce, "nani#ity of opposition 8as not relate to s"sceptibility b"t 8as significantly relate to changes in attit" es eCpresse after eCpos"re to the gro"p press"re sit"ation, in the irection of confor#ity press"res. 3e s"ggests that the ifferences bet8een his res"lts an those reporte by others #ay be attrib"table to the istincti)e feat"res of the tas7s e#ploye . .agnitu%e of the ,iscre(ancy Bet een the +orrect Re(ort or the Su'<ectsD 4 n Position an% Re(orts 'y 4thers. .he effect of the percei)e iscrepancy on shifting a critical s"b9ect a8ay fro# his -DB%pri)ate position, an the eCtent to 8hich the s"b9ect shifts to8ar f"ll agree#ent 8ith reports by others ha)e been e)al"ate . Jenness =@>? "se initial in i)i "al 9" g#ents of the n"#ber of beans in a 9ar to assign st" ents 8ith initially i)ergent esti#ates an those 8ith initially si#ilar esti#ates to gro"ps of three #e#bers an fo"r #e#bers respecti)ely. (fter isc"ssion to arri)e at a gro"p esti#ate, the )ariation a#ong in i)i "al 9" g#ents 8as re "ce #ore in the three-#e#ber than in the fo"r-#e#ber gro"ps. ;estinger, /erar , 3y#o)itch, 0elley, an *a)en =A>?, "sing a labor isp"te proble#, prior to an "ring interaction #eas"re the opinions of "n ergra "ate st" ents of the sa#e seC in gro"ps )arying fro# siC to nine #e#bersI the interaction 8as controlle by fictitio"s notes istrib"te after ten #in"tes of apparent interchange. .hose 8ho percei)e the#sel)es as initially isagreeing change #ore than those 8ho percei)e the#sel)es as initially agreeing 8ith others present. /ol berg =A9? has reporte significant ifferences in confor#ity relate to egree of iscrepancy, b"t not for ratio of act"al confor#ity to iscrepancy =see foregoing?. Wiener =1BD? reports a relationship bet8een a#o"nt of iscrepancy fro# nor#s an s"sceptibility, 8hereas 3elson, ,la7e, an 4o"ton =61? confir# a positi)e relationship bet8een the #agnit" e of iscrepancy an the a#o"nt of s"sceptibility =see pre)io"s isc"ssion?.

'n er one con ition of the a"to7inetic sit"ation "se by Whitta7er =1B>?, a confe erate esti#ate that the istance that light #o)e 8as one inch #ore than the s"b9ect:s largest 9" g#ent. ;or other con itions the confe erate:s prior reports 8ere t8o, eight, or t8el)e ti#es as large as the s"b9ect:s largest, earlier 9" g#ent. /reater shifts occ"rre for the t8o con itions "sing the s#allest iscrepancies bet8een responses. .he a"thor s"ggests that larger iscrepancies ha)e a negati)e effect on the s"b9ect by ten ing to infl"ence hi# in an opposite irection. 3ar)ey, 0elley, an Shapiro =%@? in)estigate the relationship bet8een the reaction of an in i)i "al to egree of iscrepancies bet8een his opinion of hi#self an others: opinions of hi#, an fo"n a significant shift to8ar lo8er self ratings, 8ith change in an "nfa)orable irection greatest for the #ost "nfa)orable, fictitio"s e)al"ations by acF"aintances than by strangers. 3ar)ey an *"therfor =%<? fo"n that J"ns"ccessf"l,J nai)e college s"b9ects 8ith one-half as #any pretrials on the a"to7inetic tas7 8ere #ore rea y than the sa#e siGe, Js"ccessf"lJ gro"p to shift -DB6in response to consistently an "nifor#ly i)ergent press"res than to initially agreeing an increasingly i)ergent press"res. -)i ence for the greater i#pact of s#all iscrepancies on 9" ging easily iscri#inate #aterials has been presente by ,la7e, 3elson, an 4o"ton =1<? an by (sch =B? =see abo)e?. Since res"lts obtaine by +l#stea an ,la7e =1>@? an by 4o"ton, ,la7e, an +l#stea =1>B? =see the prece ing? are not in co#plete agree#ent 8ith those 9"st s"##ariGe , f"rther clarification is reF"ire . Wiener, Carpenter, an Carpenter =1B1? report fail"re to confir# the 8or7 of (sch =B?, b"t o not eCplain their fail"re. .he per cents of college st" ents 8ho isagree 8ith s"b9ects: choices of na#es for ten a#big"o"s esigns 8ere entere neCt to the esign for half the trials. !o relationship 8as fo"n bet8een n"#ber of changes an per cent of isagree#ent. Su))ary. In fo"r st" ies of the co#position of the social sit"ation an its relation to confor#ity, siGe of the gro"p has been e#onstrate to be a critical factor, 8ith progressi)e increases in shifting for increases fro# one to t8o to three persons, an little or no e)i ence of greater infl"ence by a larger n"#ber. .hree other st" ies fail to confir# this relationship. (ll st" ies agree in fin ing no f"rther incre#ents in confor#ity associate 8ith increases in n"#ber of i)ergent reports. C"rrently a)ailable e)i ence s"ggests that incre#ents beyon those attrib"table to three other persons #ay be associate 8ith a ecre#ent in a#o"nt of infl"ence eCerte to8ar confor#ity. ;in ings clearly in icate that confor#ity infl"ences are significantly ecrease 8hen other #e#bers are not in "nani#o"s agree#ent. With ob9ecti)e, iscri#inable sti#"li, s"b9ects ten #ore to agree 8hen the iscrepancy is s#all. ;or socially anchore #aterials, #ore s"b9ects shift 8hen the iscrepancies are large.
CHARACTERISTICS OF OTHER MEMBERS

St" ies of press"res as a f"nction of personal characteristics ha)e e)al"ate s"ch factors as age, seC, prestige, egree of acF"aintance, an egree of co#parability in ability an interests. Age. 1"nc7er =B<? fo"n that the presence of another chil , b"t not an a "lt, significantly shifte foo preferences abo)e a control con ition, an yo"nger chil ren 8ere #ore infl"ence by ol er chil ren than the re)erse. In a st" y by ,eren a =11?, the teacher ser)ing as the acco#plice infl"ence yo"nger chil ren =se)en to ten? #ore than ol er chil ren -DB@=ten to thirteen?, an other chil ren as acco#plices significantly infl"ence both age gro"ps, 8ith yo"nger chil ren #ore infl"ence . &ostsession inter)ie8s e#onstrate that gi)ing a correct ans8er contra icte by eight peers 8as seen as a )iolation of the gro"p for 8hich J#a9orityJ correctness 8as ass"#e . Jac"bcGa7 an Walters =69? report contra ictory res"lts for the a"to7inetic effect. In their eCperi#ent, the or er of eCpos"re to a "lt an chil peer pro)e highly i#portant. .he a)ailability of an abstract only #a7es it i#possible to e)al"ate co#pletely the fin ings. Se*. L"chins an L"chins =<9? report that greater infl"ence 8as eCerte 8hen the prior report on a iscri#ination tas7 8as gi)en by 8o#en than by #en college st" ent confe erates. Statistical significance for ifferences 8as not reporte I the n"#ber of eCperi#ental s"b9ects 8as s#all. Prestige. ( n"#ber of in)estigations ha)e teste the hypothesis that the higher the stat"s of the other person, the greater his infl"ence. Lef7o8itG, ,la7e, an 4o"ton =<B? intro "ce fo"r )ariations in a traffic sit"ation for t8o-thir s of the trials, one for each siCth, incl" ing a confe erate resse in high stat"s attire 8ho =a? obeye or =b? )iolate the traffic signalI an a confe erate resse in lo8 stat"s attire 8ho =a? obeye or =b? )iolate the signal. .he confe erate 8as absent for the re#aining one-thir of the trials. Significantly greater freF"ency of )iolation occ"rre "n er the infl"ence of a )iolator. (n a itional significant increase in the freF"ency of )iolations 8as fo"n 8hen the confe erate appeare in high stat"s attire. 4a"sner =96? arrange for the confe erate to gi)e the 8rong ans8er in all trials on the 4aier (rt J" g#ent .est. .he #ean increase in 8rong ans8ers 8as significantly higher 8hen the confe erate 8as intro "ce as an art irector than as a fello8 st" ent. Cole =B>? )arie eCpertness of the confe erate in a fo"r-#an gro"p #a7ing 9" g#ents in the a"to7inetic sit"ation. S"b9ects 8ere #ore infl"ence by his prearrange , eCtre#e 9" g#ents 8hen he 8as gi)en eCpert stat"s. When the tas7 8as escribe as an intelligence test an the confe erate intro "ce as highly intelligent, the #ean #o)e#ent score of s"b9ects ten e to shift a8ay fro# that of the confe erate. In another st" y, 4a"sner =9@? create s"ccess an fail"re for confe erates participating 8ith "n ergra "ate st" ents in t8enty trials of "sing a styl"s to repro "ce the length of a slot of light. ( greater egree of shift occ"rre 8hen the critical s"b9ect 9" ge 8ith

-DB<a confe erate percei)e as s"ccessf"l on the prior tas7. ( si#ilar esign 8as "se by 4a"sner an ,loch =1>>?, 8ith res"lts corroborating those by 4a"sner =99?. *a)en an ;rench =1>9? )arie the stat"s or prestige of a person "n er t8o con itions$ the person initiating the infl"ence 8as seen either =it? as electe by the gro"p an ha)ing its s"pport or =b? as not electe or s"pporte by the gro"p. .he electe s"per)isor 8as able to eCert #ore infl"ence. Ac=uaintances vs. Strangers. .he effect of acF"aintances or strangers on the eCpression of attit" es has been in)estigate by La#bert an Lo8ry =<1?. 4ale "n ergra "ates fille o"t co#parable for#s of the ; scale alone, in gro"ps of fi)e 8itho"t isc"ssion an in gro"ps of fi)e after isc"ssion. So#e of the gro"ps 8ere co#pose of Jhigh acF"aintances,J an others incl" e in i)i "als 8ho 8ere relati)ely "nacF"ainte . *es"lts sho8 a re "ction in )ariability of scores in the case of together an isc"ssion con itions for high acF"aintance s"b9ects, 8ith lo8 acF"aintance s"b9ects apparently "naffecte by either press"re con ition. 3ar)ey, 0elley, an Shapiro =%@? ha)e reporte a significant shift to8ar lo8er self ratings "n er infl"ence create by acF"aintances an by strangers =see abo)e?. 0i =@6? create an controlle the egree of acF"aintance by restricting the "ration of prior participation to 1, D, or B hr. S"bseF"ent 9" g#ents 8ere not significantly infl"ence . .inority Grou( .e)'ershi(. .o e)al"ate the effect of #inority gro"p #e#bership on s"sceptibility, ,ray =DB? "se /entiles as critical s"b9ects, 8hereas the confe erates 8ere presente as !egro, Je8, an /entile. Since res"lts are contra ictory, only replication an refine#ent 8ill #a7e it possible to co#prehen the relationships. -o)ogeneity>heterogeneity. In all b"t one st" y of the ho#ogerteity-heterogeneity heterogeneity is artificially create by eCperi#enters: re#ar7s. i#ension,

;estinger an .hiba"t =A1? fo"n for isc"ssion of football b"t not 9")enile elinF"ency significantly greater rea iness of ho#ogeneo"s gro"ps to shift opinion as a f"nction of recei)ing notes fro# others. /erar =A<? create ho#ogeneity an heterogeneity si#ilarly for isc"ssion of fe eral ai to e "cation, an fo"n changes in opinion to be "nrelate to the ho#ogeneity-heterogeneity i#ension. ;estinger, /erar , 3y#o)itch, 0elley, an *a)en =A>? report no ifferences in opinion change a#ong gro"ps tol that JeCpertsJ 8ere -DB9present co#pare 8ith control gro"ps. Since there 8ere no infl"ence atte#pts irectly traceable to JeCperts,J this )ariation appears to ha)e been a #anip"lation of ho#ogeneity-heterogeneity in the proper sense rather than a )ariation in the prestige i#ension =see abo)e?.

Su))ary. 1ifferences in s"sceptibility are relate to characteristics of the persons creating the infl"ence. (ge ifferences fo"n incl" e greater infl"ence eCerte on chil ren by chil ren than by a "lts, an on yo"nger chil ren by ol er chil ren than on ol er by yo"nger chil ren. Se)eral st" ies ha)e reporte greater s"sceptibility to press"res create by acF"aintances than by strangers. +ther ifferences reporte o not re)eal a clear pattern. /reater infl"ences are eCerte 8hen the other person has a higher stat"s than the s"b9ect. .his fin ing is obtaine consistently. 'nifor# res"lts ha)e not been obtaine fro# eCperi#ents esigne to e)al"ate the infl"ence of ho#ogeneity-heterogeneity a#ong #e#bers.
PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILIT; AND COMMITMENT

.8o relate i#ensions of infl"ence eCertion are e)al"ate in tests of these hypotheses$ con itions per#itting anony#ity sho"l ecrease the eCtent of infl"enceI an personal co##it#ent in a prior, pri)ate perfor#ance sho"l increase resistance. Anony)ity. 4o"ton, ,la7e, an +l#stea =1>B? fo"n that infl"ence 8as significantly greater 8hen college s"b9ects isclose their personal i entity than 8hen con itions per#itte anony#ity =see abo)e?. 1e"tsch an /erar =B%? an (sch =B? obtaine si#ilar res"lts =see abo)e?. *e "ce s"sceptibility to press"res "n er con itions of anony#ity has been clearly e#onstrate I this eCplains "se of the secret ballot as a basic instr"#ent of personal eCpression. +o))it)ent. +f t8o st" ies )arying the personal co##it#ent factor, one by 1e"tsch an /erar =B%? intro "ce three )ariations. .he highest freF"ency of shifting occ"rre 8hen recor ing 8as not reF"ire , 8ith lo8est freF"encies res"lting 8hen the responses 8ere recor e , personally signe , an gi)en to the eCperi#enter. ;isher, *"binstein, an ;ree#an =AB? "se a tachistoscopic presentation for the tas7 of in icating the n"#ber of ots eCpose on a trial-by-trial basis. .he con itions 8ere$ first, 9" ging 8itho"t partnersI secon , 9" ging only after the partnerI thir an fo"rth, 9" ging both prior to an follo8ing the partner. !o ifferences in the freF"ency of shifting 8ere fo"n for the eCperi#ental con itions -DA>eCcept for the last ten trials of the secon , 8hen the confe erate:s 9" g#ents 8ere fi)e stan ar e)iations abo)e the #ean of the stan ar iGing gro"p$ s"b9ects: responses 8ere significantly higher than those "n er co##it#ent con itions. ;or the fo"rth con ition, #ost infl"ence 8as fo"n on the intertrial basis 8hen the confe erate:s report 8as one stan ar e)iation abo)e that of the critical s"b9ect. (ltho"gh s"b9ects i not shift significantly for any one trial, 9" g#ents gi)en prior to the confe erate stea ily increase . .hese res"lts e#onstrate the stabiliGing infl"ence of personal co##it#ent on a 8ithinsession basis, 8ith the partner:s infl"ence eCerte in an anticipatory fashion. Su))ary. (nony#ity an co##it#ent ha)e opposite effects on an in i)i aal:s reaction. (n in i)i "al 8ho #a7es a efinite co##it#ent prior to being s"b9ecte to press"res resists an #aintains his position

#ore strongly. .he egree of p"blic co##it#ent is positi)ely relate to the egree of resistance to infl"ence.
INTERACTION :ITH OTHER PARTICIPANTS PRIOR TO THE E>PERIMENTAL SERIES

Se)eral st" ies ha)e e)al"ate s"sceptibility as a f"nction of the 7in of relationships eCisting bet8een the lea er an other #e#bers or a#ong the #e#bers the#sel)es. 2ariations in lea ership styles are of t8o ifferent types$ lea er centere )s. gro"p-centere classroo# teaching #etho s an a participatory style )s. the s"per)isory style. 2ariations in relations a#ong #e#bers that ha)e been st" ie are percei)e in epen ence on a partner to attain a goal, an percei)e s"ccess 9ointly 8ith the partner in 8or7ing to8ar a goal. $ea%er>+entere% vs. Grou(>+entere% Interaction. (pproCi#ately half the s"b9ects in the st" y by ,o)ar =DD? participate in Jlea ercentere J classes, i.e., ro"tine lect"re an F"estion-ans8er type interaction an the others in Jgro"p-centere J classes 8ith freF"ent interaction a#ong #e#bers. In i)i "al 9" g#ents sho8e significant con)ergence to8ar the anno"nce gro"p nor# in all gro"ps. !o ifferences 8ere obser)e for 9" g#ents #a e on the first ay. ,oth the ispersion of initial 9" g#ents an egree of con)ergence after the anno"nce gro"p nor# an "ring the last 8ee7 of the co"rse 8ere significantly greater for gro"p-centere classes. Partici(atory vs. Su(ervisor $ea%ershi( Behavior. 4aier an Sole# =9A? arrange for half the gro"ps to ha)e lea ers instr"cte to enco"rage #e#ber participation, an the other half, obser)ers free -DA1to participate only in #e#ber roles. !o ifferences in initial 9" g#ents 8ere fo"n . (fter an eight-#in"te isc"ssion of the 4aier 3orse .ra ing &roble#, gro"ps 8ith lea ers significantly increase their per cent of correct ans8ers. &reston an 3eintG =1><? ha st" ents first gi)e in%ivi%ual ran"ings of the na#es of t8el)e pro#inent #en for their esirability as &resi ent of the 'nite StatesI neCt, a grou( ran"ing of the t8el)e na#es in fo"r- to fi)e-person gro"ps ha)ing either participatory or s"per)isory lea ersI an a final in%ivi%ual ran"ing. ;inal in i)i "al ran7ings of participatory lea ers an follo8ers correlate significantly higher 8ith the gro"p ran7ings. .here also 8as #ore shifting fro# initial to final ran7ings for those 8or7ing "n er participatory lea ers. 3are =%6? replicate the eCperi#ent by &reston an 3eintG =1><?, an reports si#ilar fin ings. Inter%e(en%ence a)ong .e)'ers. ,er7o8itG =1D? ha partners sen an eco e #essages trans#itte by telegraph 7eys to each other. S"b9ects 8ho belie)e they 8o"l gain a priGe 8or7e fastest on i#pro)e#ent trialsI those 8ho belie)e only their partners 8o"l gain a priGe 8or7e faster than s"b9ects 8ho 7ne8 nothing of the priGe. ;acilitation fro# percei)e epen ency on another for attaining a goal constit"tes a significant infl"ence factor. Success>0ailure. 0i an Ca#pbell =@@? )arie reporte s"ccess of the gro"p on a preli#inary anagra# tas7. 4e#bers 8ho ha ha prior eCperience of s"ccess 8ith one another confor#e to a

significantly greater egree to the attrib"te gro"p nor# for a later tas7. Confor#ity for control s"b9ects 8as si#ilar to that "n er the fail"re con ition. Su))ary. /reater s"sceptibility occ"rs 8hen the lea er:s beha)ior is inten e to increase interaction a#ong #e#bers. .his #ay be beca"se in i)i "al ifferences beco#e #ore e)i ent an greater possibilities eCist for the eCertion of press"re. ;in ings also in icate that greater press"re eCists 8hen one #e#ber recogniGes that another #e#ber is epen ent on his perfor#ance for s"ccess, an that greater s"sceptibility occ"rs a#ong #e#bers 8ho ha)e share s"ccess.

Cohesion and 1aluation o 4roup Membership Cohesion is a )ariable in the gro"p sit"ation. +ne hypothesis teste is that a s"b9ect:s beha)ior is #ore infl"ence 8hen he has -DADe)i ence that he is li7e by others or feels that the gro"p is attracti)e. ,ac7 =A? )arie cohesion by the eCperi#enter:s re#ar7s a#ong li7e seC pairs. ,oth s"b9ects 8rote a story abo"t three sets of pict"res, iffering pri#arily in etails, an then isc"sse the# 8ith each other. /reater change occ"rre to8ar feat"res in the partner:s story "n er the high rather than "n er the lo8 cohesion con itions. ;estinger, /erar , 3y#o)itch, 0elley, an *a)en =A>? report si#ilar fin ings, as oes ,er7o8itG =1B?. Schchater, -llertson, 4c,ri e, an /regory =116? create high an lo8 cohesion a#ong "n ergra "ate 8o#en s"b9ects in three person gro"ps. 1"ring interaction each s"b9ect 8or7e alone, b"t co##"nicate 8ith fictitio"s other persons thro"gh a series of notes controlle by an eCperi#enter. &ositi)e infl"ence in "ction consiste of notes enco"raging increase pro "ction for half of the s"b9ects "n er each con ition, an negati)e infl"ence for the other half. !o effect 8as attrib"table to cohesion "n er the positi)e in "ction con ition. 'n er negati)e infl"ence, high cohesion s"b9ects significantly ecrease their pro "cti)ityI the lo8 cohesion gro"p sho8e no changes. In a st" y of chil ren by /rossner, &olans7y, an Lippitt =%B?, the collaborator 8as frien ly 8ith half the s"b9ects an enco"rage their 8or7ing togetherI 8ith the other half, he acte 8ith ra8n an 8or7e separately. .he critical s"b9ect #ore freF"ently chose the sa#e toy as the frien ly collaborator. /erar =A<? "se instr"ctions to )ary cohesion. 3igh cohesion s"b9ects shifte their opinions to8ar the gro"p reco##en ation significantly #ore than those "n er the lo8 cohesion con ition. In the st" y by 1ittes an 0elley =B@?, gro"p #e#bers 8ere gi)en false ratings of the egree to 8hich others present li7e the# an 8ishe the# to re#ain in the isc"ssion. .hose in the )ery lo8 acceptance gro"p, 8ho ha the lo8est in eC of pri)ate confor#ity, sho8e the highest egree of p"blic confor#ity. .hose participating "n er a)erage attraction con itions eChibite the greatest egree of shifting to8ar the gro"p )ie8, in icating a consistency in pri)ate con)iction an p"blic eCpression. .he fin ing i#plies that the person of in eter#inate or a)erage acceptance is probably least sec"re an #ost s"sceptible.

Jac7son an SaltGstein =6<? )arie both the congeniality i#ension an eCperi#entally in "ce acceptance an re9ection. .he fo"r con itions 8ere$ =a? psychological #e#bership, in 8hich the #e#ber felt highly accepte an the gro"p hel high attraction for hi#I =b? psychological non#e#bership, in 8hich the person ha lo8 -DABacceptance an the gro"p 8as not attracti)e to hi#I =c? preference gro"p #e#bership, in 8hich the person ha lo8 acceptance by the gro"p b"t high attraction to itI an = ? a #arginal gro"p relationship characteriGe by high acceptance an lo8 attraction. S"b9ects 8or7e in fo"r- or fi)e-#an gro"ps "n er t8o ifferent orientations to the tas7$ a nor)ative con ition, co#peting 8ith other gro"ps, an )o%al con itions, in 8hich they 8ere co#pare as in i)i "als. Confor#ity 8as greater in the nor#ati)e than in the #o al sit"ation an in the high attraction than in the lo8 attraction sit"ation. 3o8e)er, confor#ity for the lo8 attraction con ition 8as "nifor#ly higher than ha been pre icte . .he co#bination of telling s"b9ects that their perfor#ance 8as inferior an that they 8ere least accepte apparently le to feelings of re9ection an% anCiety an to higher confor#ity. In the st" y by 0elley an Shapiro =@A?, the hypothesis that #ore highly accepte #e#bers 8o"l confor# less beca"se the 8rong ans8er 8o"l be etri#ental to attaining the gro"p goal 8as not confir#e . .he res"lts are consistent 8ith other st" ies )arying the acceptance i#ension. .hiba"t an Stric7lan =1D@? )arie press"re by high, #o erate, or lo8 confi ence eCpresse by others in the s"b9ects 8or7ing "n er either the set to sol)e the proble# or the set to #aintain gro"p #e#bership. 'n er gro"p #e#bership orientation, confor#ity increase as other #e#bers, by ballots, sho8e increase confi ence in the 9" g#ents of s"b9ects. ;or s"b9ects gi)en a tas7 set, confor#ity ecrease as press"res increase . .he st" y e#onstrates the greater s"sceptibility of in i)i "als #oti)ate to #aintain gro"p #e#bership. -ach of the st" ies agrees in sho8ing that s"b9ects in high cohesion gro"ps are #ore s"sceptible to confor#ity press"res.

Pressures to(ard *ni ormity .he effect of increasing press"res to8ar "nifor#ity has been in)estigate in se)eral st" ies. ;estinger an .hiba"t =A1? fo"n a significant increase in shifting as press"re to8ar "nifor#ity increase =see abo)e?. Jones, Wells, an .orrey =@1? fo"n that correct fee bac7 8as #ore significant in increasing in epen ence than incorrect fee bac7 in increasing confor#ity. 1ifferences bet8een partial an total reinforce#ent 8ere not significant. ( secon st" y, in 8hich s"b9ects 8ere tol they 8o"l participate in later sessions 8ith the sa#e gro"p #e#bers an be e)al"ate by the#, re)eale an increase a#o"nt of confor#ity. -DAA-

/erar =A@? create press"res to8ar "nifor#ity by in icating that a secon isc"ssion of the sa#e iss"e 8o"l follo8 8ith local politicians participating. ( significantly greater change fro# pre- to post isc"ssion occ"rre for the high press"re con ition, b"t only for s"b9ects participating also "n er attrib"te ho#ogeneity. ;estinger, /erar , 3y#o)itch, 0elley, an *a)en =A>? fo"n that significantly #ore shifting occ"rre a#ong gro"ps tol there 8as a JcorrectJ ans8er =see abo)e?. ,reh# an ;estinger =DA? teste an confir#e the hypothesis that greater press"res to8ar "nifor#ity occ"r 8hen the tas7 is escribe as i#portant. ,la7e, 4o"ton, an +l#stea =D>? e#phasiGe the i#portance of acc"racy, an i#plie tea# penalties for #ista7es by in i)i "als on a #etiono#e-co"nting tas7. S"bseF"ent shifting 8as greater for the gro"p s"b9ecte to high press"re. (cc"racy reF"ire#ents reinforce by fear of penalty increase the rea iness of in i)i "als to shift their opinions. 1e"tsch an /erar =B%? "se a si#ilar esign, an obtaine parallel res"lts. Su))ary. Increases in press"res to8ar "nifor#ity ha)e been sho8n to be relate positi)ely to increases in freF"ency of confor#ity beha)ior. -#phasis on re8ar s for s"ccessf"l perfor#ance an the i#portance of acc"racy or penalties for #ista7es also ha)e been fo"n to be relate to s"sceptibility.

Ps# "o$o%i &nd P"#sio$o%i Pro4erties o' t"e Person &ersonal characteristics of the s"b9ect #ay be psychologic, physiologic, or iffering a#o"nts or types of prior eCperience.

!"perimentally Created Di erential !"perience in Sub-ects In i)i "al ifferences ha)e been create eCperi#entally by ifferent a#o"nts of fa#iliarity 8ith the tas7, prior eCperiences of s"ccess or fail"re, ifferences in anCiety an insec"rity, )ariations in properties of the prior tas7, an pretraining 8ith re8ar . ,egree of 0a)iliarity. .he ass"#ption teste is that s"b9ects 8ith greater a#o"nts of eCperience sho"l be #ore able to resist press"re eCerte by others. /ol berg =A9? pro)i e confir#e =see abo)e?. all s"b9ects 8ith three egrees of eCperience. .he hypothesis 8as not

3ar)ey an *"therfor =%<? fo"n that s"b9ects 8ith fe8er pre-DA%trials sho8e significantly greater rea iness to shift in response to press"res =see abo)e?.

Prior Success or 0ailure. Se)eral st" ies ha)e teste the hypothesis that fail"re res"lts in ecrease reliance on one:s o8n 9" g#ents. (fter creating in i)i "al, pri)ate eCperiences of s"ccess or fail"re for "n ergra "ate psychology st" ents, 4a"sner =9<? arrange interaction for s"ccess-s"ccess pairs, fail"re-fail"re pairs, an s"ccessfail"re pairs. .hose 8ho ha eCperience fail"re sho8e a significantly greater ten ency to shift to8ar the ans8er gi)en by the partner. In the s"ccess-fail"re pairings, the "ns"ccessf"l #e#ber shifte to8ar the s"ccessf"l one, b"t the s"ccessf"l ones i not shift fro# their prior esti#ates. In the fail"re-fail"re pairings, #e#bers: responses ten e to con)erge. Si#ilar res"lts ha)e been reporte by 4a"sner an ,loch =1>>? an by ,la7e, 4o"ton, an +l#stea =D>? =see abo)e?. 0el#an =@%? "se the a"to7inetic tas7 to in)estigate the effects of s"ccess an fail"re. ,y co#parison 8ith the control an the a#big"o"s con itions, shifts to8ar the confe erate 8ere significantly higher for the fail"re gro"p an significantly lo8er for the s"ccess gro"p. Si#ilarly, ifferences in responses bet8een the interaction sit"ation an the postin i)i "al session sho8e that the s"ccessf"l gro"p shifte a8ay fro# the confe erate:s report, an the fail"re gro"p shifte to8ar it. .he ata s"ggest not only that fail"re eCperience increases s"sceptibility b"t that s"ccess ecreases it. 0eisler =@D? fo"n no ifferences bet8een the s"ccess an fail"re gro"ps in i#itation of a #o el in the press"re sit"ation 8hen his beha)ior 8as not labele correct or incorrect. JS"ccessf"lJ s"b9ects 8ho percei)e a #o el obtaining chance scores follo8e hi# significantly less often than J"ns"ccessf"lJ s"b9ects 9" ging after a s"ccessf"l #o el. In the st" y by Schroe er an 3"nt =119?, s"b9ects 8rote selfe)al"ations after isappro)al by a ne"tral so"rce. .hose 8ho ga)e #ore self- e)al"ating responses yiel e to a significantly greater egree in the press"re sit"ation. When an in%ivi%ual has a prior alone eCperience of fail"re, he is #ore s"sceptible to press"res on a secon tas7. 3o8e)er, s"b9ects are less s"sceptible follo8ing a gro"p eCperience of fail"re than of s"ccess. ,egree of An*iety or Insecurity. Sherif an 3ar)ey =1DA? )arie fa#iliarity 8ith the eCperi#ental setting an 8ith the #anner of the eCperi#enter. S"b9ects 9" ge the a"to7inetic tas7 initially in -DA6pri)ateI t8o to se)en ays later, they 9" ge in pairs. Co#parisons 8ere #a e of ranges an #e ians of 9" g#ents for pri)ate an pair sessioiis. .he greater the "ncertainty in "ce "n er pri)ate con itions, the #ore in i)i "als fl"ct"ate in the ranges an #e ians of their 9" g#ents, 8ith ispersion significantly re "ce in the pair sessions for those eCperiencing #aCi#"# "ncertainty. !o ifferences occ"rre bet8een pri)ate an . gro"p 9" g#ents for those eCperiencing lesser egrees of "ncertainty. .he fin ings are interprete as in icating that s"b9ects ser)e as JanchorsJ for one another 8hen fiel anchorages 8ere re "ce .

Pro(erties of the Prior &as". &retraining has been pro)i e on tas7s 8ith properties iffering fro# those of the tas7s "se to eCert press"res. L"chins =<<? "se the tas7 of na#ing the percept in a series of t8el)e ra8ings. ,y co#parison 8ith a control gro"p, the erroneo"s response 8as gi)en #ore freF"ently by those 8ho ha ha pretraining 8ith a confe erate 8hose i entical response 8as labele JcorrectJ in the preli#inary series an JincorrectJ in the secon series. When the confe erate:s preli#inary response 8as not s"pporte by feat"res of the ra8ing, no ifferences 8ere fo"n bet8een the eCperi#ental an the control gro"ps for another con ition. L"chins an L"chins =9>? )arie the responses of the confe erate to the preli#inary series of pict"res. 3alf the s"b9ects 9" ge pict"res of clearly elineate ob9ects, an the other half an a#big"o"s set of lines. Confor#ity 8as higher 8hen the preli#inary series 8as a#bigao"s an 8hen the confe erate:s responses to the preli#inary series 8ere congr"ent 8ith those of a control gro"p 9" ging pri)ately. Re ar% Pretraining. In so#e st" ies, in epen ence has been re8ar e , 8hereas in others confor#ity to a false gro"p position has been reinforce . In the st" y by L"chins an L"chins =9>? 9"st re)ie8e , the eCperi#enter calle the nai)e s"b9ect:s responses JrightJ 8hen they agree 8ith those of the confe erate. S"b9ects sho8e greater s"sceptibility on a s"bseF"ent test series. ;ee bac7 has a stabiliGing effect e)en 8hen the infor#ation is incorrect. Co#parable con itions in another st" y by L"chins =<@? pro "ce si#ilar res"lts =see abo)e?. Cr"tchfiel =BA? reports that confor#ity increase on a tas7 in)ol)ing percept"al 9" g#ents 8hen the eCperi#enter calle the erroneo"s reports of others Jright,J b"t that s"bseF"ent responses to attit" e state#ents by the sa#e s"b9ects 8ere not infl"ence . Confor#ity effects follo8ing pretraining 8ith re8ar for erroneo"s responses appear to be relate to the content of the tas7s. -DA@4cS"een:s =9B? st" y in)ol)ing the ret"rn of eCa#ination papers 8ith correct an incorrect scores re)eale that eceptions ecrease significantly "n er the t8o press"re con itions. Scott =1D>? fo"n that college ebaters 8ho 8ere re8ar e sho8e a significantly greater a)erage change in the irection of their positions. 1ifferences bet8een losers an control s"b9ects 8ere not significant.
SUMMAR;

( prior in i)i "al eCperience of fail"re on the tas7 that later is s"b9ecte to confor#ity press"res consistently has been fo"n to ren er an in i)i "al less resistant. ( irect correlation has been reporte bet8een the egree of eCperi#entally pro "ce anCiety eCperience prior to the press"re sit"ation an s"sceptibility, 8ith those eCperiencing the greatest egree of anCiety being least resistant. &roperties of a prior tas7 on 8hich a confe erate ga)e a false response ha)e been fo"n to be relate to the egree of s"sceptibility to press"res eCerte by the sa#e confe erate in a later, ifferent tas7. &retraining 8ith re8ar for incorrect responses also has been sho8n to ren er a person #ore s"sceptible.

Di erential Historical !"perience in Sub-ects 1ifferent chil hoo eCperiences, as re)eale biographically or thro"gh F"estionnaires an pro9ecti)e #eas"res, an their effects ha)e been in)estigate . +hil%hoo% 1*(erience. Confor#ity ten encies ha)e been relate by 4"ssen an 0agan =1>%? to perceptions of parents as sho8n in fantasy. 4ale college st" ents 8rote responses to eight .(. car s on an in i)i "al basis. .hen they participate in 9" ging lengths of lines as the fo"rth person in a gro"p of fi)e. .(. stories 8ere score for presence or absence of parental p"nish#ent the#es. ( significantly greater per cent of eCtre#e confor#ists percei)e parents as harsh, p"niti)e, restricti)e, an re9ecting. 0rebs =<>? teste the hypothesis that the later the age of in epen ence training "ring chil hoo , the greater the resistance to opinion change. 4ale college st" ents 8ere classifie as either early or late in in epen ence training, accor ing to Winterbotto#:s F"estionnaire. /reatest confor#ity occ"rre for in i)i "als classifie as late in in epen ence training. 4cS"een:s =9B? in)estigation of eception in an eCa#ination sit"-DA<ation fo"n that st" ents classifie in the o#inant life style accor ing to 4c/"ire:s In eC of 2al"e +rientation reporte significantly #ore errors =see abo)e?.

Physiologic Characteristics and States o the Person (ge an seC of the s"b9ects, ifferences in a#o"nt of sleep epri)ation, strength of foo preferences, an egree of anCiety ha)e been relate to s"sceptibility. Se*. ,"rtt =D%? as7e college 8o#en an #en in gro"ps of fo"r to t8enty-siC persons to 9" ge the tr"thf"lness of a person reco"nting an intaginary cri#e, once prior to an once after the isc"ssion. (nalysis of the ata re)eale only s#all an insignificant ifferences bet8een #en an 8o#en in egree of shifting as a f"nction of isc"ssion, 8ith a ten ency for 8o#en to shift #ore than #en. Jenneis =@>? reporte si#ilar res"lts =see abo)e?. Cr"tchfiel =BA? has s"##ariGe "np"blishe res"lts by other in)estigators 8ho ha)e teste 8o#en on the sa#e battery of ite#s that he has e#ploye 8ith #en. ,y contrast 8ith college #en, responses by college 8o#en sho8e a significantly higher egree of confor#ity, an that, by co#parison 8ith a "lt #en, a sa#ple of college 8o#en al"#nae in their early forties sho8e significantly lo8er confor#ity scores. .he highly selecte co#position of the al"#nae gro"p #eans that the fin ings cannot be easily interprete as in icating that ol er 8o#en are less co#pelle to confor#ity than #en. 0ir7patric7 =@9? has co#pare freF"ency of shifting by #en an by 8o#en to8ar responses gi)en by the opposite seC. .he ,elief&attern Scale of attit" es to8ar fe#inis# 8as a #inistere in i)i "ally to college st" ents, then to one #an an one 8o#an as a co##ittee, an again in i)i "ally. (ltho"gh

8o#en change their positions less than #en in the gro"p sit"ation, they 8ere less incline to re)ert to their original position. .he fin ing by Cole#an, ,la7e, an 4o"ton =B1? =see foregoing?, in icating ifferential s"sceptibility of #en an 8o#en as a f"nction of the #aterial being 9" ge , #a7es it #an atory that the nat"re of the tas7 be consi ere in f"t"re 8or7. Age. 1ifferences in s"sceptibility ha)e been relate to age. 1"nc7er =B<? has reporte that chil ren "n er t8o an t8o-thir s years of age i not respon to foo preferences eCpresse by others, th"s e#onstrating a lac7 of s"sceptibility for the tas7 e#ploye . -DA9,eren a =11? fo"n that chil ren age se)en to ten ga)e erroneo"s responses as a f"nction of the incorrect reports by others 8ith significantly greater freF"ency than chil ren ten to thirteen years ol =see prece ing?. L"chins =<9? "se ten- to thirteen-year-ol chil ren as s"b9ects in one series an #ale college st" ents in another series. (tte#pts to increase confor#ity as a f"nction of the assistant:s erroneo"s reports 8ere #ore s"ccessf"l 8ith chil ren. Physiologic States of the Person. ;isher an *"binstein =AD? fo"n that s"b9ects 8ho ha been a8a7e contin"o"sly for A< to %D hr sho8e significantly greater changes in a"to7inetic 9" g#ents, both bet8een trials an 8ithin trials, than control s"b9ects. 0i#brell an ,la7e =@<? eCperi#entally create t8o egrees of in "ce#ent to thirst$ strong an #o erate. S"b9ects then 8ere as7e to 8ait for the re#ain er of the eCperi#ent near a rin7ing fo"ntain 8ith a sign forbi ing its "se. 'n er con itions of #o erate thirst, the nai)e s"b9ect 8as significantly infl"ence by the confe erate 8ho )iolate the sign. !o ifferences 8ere fo"n for the strong thirst con ition. ;o"r- to siC-year-ol 7in ergarten chil ren 8ere place by 4arinho =9%? in t8o gro"ps, one sho8ing a preference for one of t8o 7in s of fr"it paste, an the other, 8ith in efinite preferences. 3alf of each gro"p ser)e as control an half as eCperi#ental s"b9ects. S"sceptibility to a confe erate:s selection 8as fo"n in both gro"ps, altho"gh pre o#inant preferences 8ere #ore iffic"lt to shift. La8son an Stagner =<D? teste the hypothesis that attit" e change "ring gro"p isc"ssion is acco#panie by increases in anCiety, an that a#o"nt of change is proportional to the a#o"nt of anCiety. 4ale "n ergra "ate college st" ents 8ere preselecte by attit" e scales to represent eCtre#e positions to8ar nationalis# or internationalis#. (nCiety 8as #eas"re by pal#ar s8eat both before an after each s"b9ect participate in the press"re sit"ation. .8o nai)e s"b9ects interacte 8ith an instr"cte #a9ority 8ho too7 the opposite point of )ie8. (ttit" e shifts 8ere fo"n to be acco#panie by %ecreases in pal#ar s8eat, partic"larly for those initially hol ing nationalistic opinions. 3off#an =6A? "se selecte ite#s fro# the ;-scale to ifferentiate st" ents 8ith high an lo8 inner confor#ity nee s. In the press"re sit"ation, /S* rea ings 8ere ta7en as each s"b9ect respon e orally to

social attit" e ite#s after hearing erroneo"s gro"p nor#s that alternately agree responses s"b9ects ha gi)en siC -D%>-

or

isagree 8ith

8ee7s earlier. 'neCpecte ly, both gro"ps shifte significantly to8ar the false nor#s, 8ith confor#ity pro "cing less anCiety than resistance, altho"gh the ifferences 8ere significant for high confor#ity s"b9ects only.
SUMMAR;

.he fin ings regar ing seC are inconcl"si)e, 8ith #inor e)i ence that #en #ay be #ore resistant. to social press"res than 8o#en. ( consistent fin ing is that yo"nger people are #ore responsi)e to social press"res than ol er in i)i "als. Loss of sleep appears to ren er a person #ore s"sceptible. 1efinite foo preferences ren er the in i)i "al #ore resistant to change. .8o st" ies report that shifting is acco#panie by a ecrease a#o"nt of anCiety.

Psychologic Properties o the Person &sychologic i#ensions in)estigate ha)e incl" e ascen ancys"b#issionI lac7 of ner)o"s tension an self-confi enceI a"thoritarianis#I i#ensions escribe by the 4innesota 4"ltiphasic &ersonality In)entoryI the *orschach .estI the .he#atic (pperception .estI intelligenceI co#pleCity-si#plicityI originalityI epen ence on the percept"al fiel I pathologic ten encies of the personI an characteristics assesse by self-ratings an self- escripti)e chec7 lists. Ascen%ancy>Su')ission. Se)eral ifferent personality #eas"res ha)e been e#ploye to assess the effects of in i)i "al ifferences in ascen ancy-s"b#ission. 3elson, ,la7e, 4o"ton, an +l#stea =6B? "se the (llport-(llport A>S Reaction Stu%y to classify s"b9ects an then ha the# 9" ge eighteen state#ents fro# the .h"rstone 4ilitaris# Scale. S"b#issi)e people 8ere #ore infl"ence to shift their responses =see foregoing?. 4o"ton, ,la7e, an +l#stea =1>B? also e#ploye the A>S Reaction Stu%y as a #eas"re of ascen ancys"b#ission. 'n er na#e isclos"re con itions only, s"b#issi)e s"b9ects 8ere fo"n to confor# #ore often as a f"nction of the erroneo"s reportsI of others =see prece ing?. ,eloff =1>? also "se the A>S Reaction Stu%y. ,oth #ale an fe#ale s"b9ects respon e to the .h"rstone-Cha)e War Scale initially in pri)ate an later as the fifth person in the si#"late gro"p sit"ation. +thers, ga)e strongly agreeing, ne"tral, an strongly isagreeing responses, in ran o# or er an balance , to the anti-, pro-, an ne"tral attit" es to8ar 8ar state#ents. 3e fo"n a negati)e rela-D%1tionship for #en only bet8een ascen ancy an confor#ity. ;or 8o#en, a positi)e relationship 8as obser)e , 8ith #ore s"b#issi)e 8o#en confor#ing less than those in the ascen ant. ,eloff pro)i es no basis for interpreting the i)ergent res"lts.

0el#an =@%? classifie s"b9ects on the ascen ancy scale fro# the /"ilfor -4artin In)entory of ;actors /(4I!. S"b9ects lo8 in ascen ancy, 8ho ha participate "n er the fail"re, a#big"o"s, or control con itions, 8ere fo"n to be #ore s"sceptible to infl"ences. 'n er the s"ccess con ition, increase s"sceptibility 8as fo"n for those higher in ascen ancy. .he ascen ancy scale of the /"ilfor -4artin In)entory of ;actors /(4I! also 8as "se by ,ray =DB? to classify s"b9ects 8ho later respon e to the a"to7inetic tas7. ;or the anti-Se#itic s"bgro"p 9" ging 8ith a Je8ish confe erate, higher ascen ancy s"b9ects 8ere #ore s"sceptibleI no relationship 8as fo"n for the s"bgro"p classifie as not anti-Se#itic 9" ging "n er the sa#e con itions. ;or the s"bgro"p classifie as not anti-Se#itic 9" ging 8ith a /entile confe erate, high ascen ancy correlate significantly 8ith shifting, 8ith no ifference fo"n for the anti-Se#itic s"b9ects "n er the sa#e con itions. Lo8 ascen ancy 8as correlate 8ith increase s"sceptibility for the s"bgro"p classifie as not anti-!egro that 9" ge after a !egro confe erate. .hese co#plicate relationships o not fit a syste#atic pattern. (scen ancy-s"b#ission has been #eas"re by teachers: ratings in st" ies by ,eren a =11? an Jenness =@>?. !either in epen ences"b#ission nor ascen ancy-s"b#ission 8as fo"n to be relate to s"sceptibility =see abo)e?. .he e)i ence in icates that a basic association eCists bet8een these t8o sets of )ariables in the irection of greater s"sceptibility as a f"nction of greater s"b#issi)eness. .he relationship has been confir#e for #ale s"b9ects only, 8ith an in)ersion of relationship reporte for 8o#en in one st" y. $ac" of Nervous &ension an% Self>confi%ence. 0el#an =@%? an ,ray =DB? relate t8o a itional scales H I, self-confi ence an !, lac7 of ner)o"s tension H fro# the /"ilfor -4artin In)entory of ;actors /(4I! to s"sceptibility. 0el#an fo"n that s"b9ects scoring either lo8 in self-confi ence or sho8ing lac7 of ner)o"s tension ha significantly higher s"ggestibility scores eCcept "n er con itions of prior s"ccess. ,ray reports the sa#e fin ings for lac7 of ner)o"s tension. 3o8e)er, 8hen the total sa#ple 8as s"b i)i e for pre9" ice on the Le)inson-Sanfor Scale of (ttit" e to8ar Je8s or the Li7ert Scale -D%Dof (ttit" e to8ar the !egro, #ost of the correlation 8as contrib"te by the pre9" ice s"bgro"ps only. (s #eas"re by the 4a" sley &ersonality In)entory, ,eloff =1>? fo"n confor#ity to be positi)ely relate to ne"roticis# for #en negati)ely relate for 8o#en =see prece ing?. Autlioritarianis). S"sceptibility 8as relate by Wells, Weinert, an *"bel =1D<? to scores on the /o"gh )ersion of the ;-scale. .he st" ents 8ho ga)e incorrect ans8ers "n er infl"ence ha significantly higher #ean scores on the ;-scale, in icating a ten ency to #ore s"sceptibility by higher a"thoritarian scores. Cr"tchfiel =BA? reports a significant correlation of [.B9 bet8een higher scores on the ;-scale an #ore yiel ing to others on a t8enty-one ite# test. ;or the sa#e s"b9ects, the correlation bet8een yiel ing an staff obser)er ratings of a"thoritarianis# in a psycho ra#atic sit"ation 8as fo"n to be [.B%. ,eloff =1>? reports a positi)e relationship bet8een a"thoritarianis# on the ;-scale an s"sceptibility for both #en an 8o#en. 3ar y =%A? fo"n no relationship bet8een ;-scale scores an p"blic an pri)ate confor#ity.

.innesota .ulti(hasic Personality Inventory. /ol berg, 3"nt, Cohen an 4ea o8 =%>? "se the (sch line 9" ging proble#s to obtain gro"ps of "n ergra "ate st" ents sho8ing ifferences in s"sceptibility. .he #ale high confor#ing gro"p 8as fo"n to #a7e lo8er scores on the #asc"linity-fe#ininity =#ore fe#inine?, the hypochon riacal, an psychasthenic scales of the 4innesota 4"ltiphasic &ersonality In)entory, an to #a7e lo8er anCiety scores on the .aylor 4anifest (nCiety Scale. .he fe#ale$ high confor#ity gro"p rate significantly higher on the psychasthenic scale of the 44&I an the .aylor Scale. .he i)ergent fin ings for #en an 8o#en 8ere not interprete . Cr"tchfiel =BB? "se the /ro"p SF"ares .est to i entify three gro"ps of #ale s"b9ects iffering fro# one another in egrees of rea iness to yiel "n er infl"ence. .hose least responsi)e to press"res 8ere fo"n to be lo8 in introspecti)eness an #ore #asc"line, as #eas"re by the 44&I. 'sing the (sch line 9" ging proble#s, ,arron =6? selecte eCtre#e gro"ps in in epen ence an yiel ing. 3e fo"n no significant ifferences bet8een gro"ps on the 44&I scales nor i Cr"tchfiel =BA? "sing a ifferent tas7. It is iffic"lt to i entify basic relationships bet8een 44&I #eas"res an s"sceptibility. ( probable relationship is that #en lo8 on 44&I #asc"linity are #ore s"sceptible. -D%BIntelligence. !either ,eren a =11? nor Jenness =@>? fo"n significant correlations bet8een intelligence #eas"res an s"sceptibility =see abo)e?. ;isher, Willia#s, an L"bin =AA? report no relationship, b"t the #eas"res "se 8ere not eCplaine . +ther in)estigators ha)e sho8n a significant in)erse relationship bet8een intelligence an confor#ity. Cr"tchfiel =BA? fo"n correlations of -.%1 8ith the .er#an Concept 4astery .est an -.6B 8ith staff ratings bet8een intelligence an freF"ency of yiel ing =see abo)e?. .he relationship bet8een intelligence an responsi)eness to press"res has been fo"n in t8o st" ies by Cr"tchfiel to be c"r)ilinear. +ne =BD? e#ploye the /ro"p SF"ares .est, an the other =BB?, the J,ingoJ tas7. .hose scoring in the inter#e iate range of responsi)eness score highest on intelligence #eas"res, incl" ing the .er#an Concept 4astery .est an the I ea Classification .est in the first st" y an an "n efine #eas"re in the secon st" y. !a7a#"ra =1>6? in)estigate the possibility that confor#ity as a nonintellect"al )ariable contrib"tes to )ariability in proble#-sol)ing ability. Intelligence as #eas"re by &art II, (nalogies, of ;or# , of the Concept 4astery .est 8as hel constant by statistical #eans. ;or #en, there 8as a significant negati)e correlation bet8een ten ency to confor# an perfor#ance on all proble#s co#bine , b"t especially on the restr"ct"ring proble#s. .he negati)e correlation for #en abo)e t8enty-one years only 8as consi erably higher. ;or yo"nger #en, res"lts 8ere consistent 8ith those for 8o#en. ( significant seC ifference 8as fo"n , 8ith #en s"perior in proble#-sol)ing an intelligence, b"t lo8er on confor#ity. St" ies of the relationship bet8een intelligence an s"sceptibility are not entirely clearI if a relationship oes eCist, it probably is in)erse an c"r)ilinear. +o)(le*ity>Si)(licity. ,arron =@? categoriGe t8o eCtre#e gro"ps of s"b9ects as yiel ers an in epen ents. 'sing the ,arron-Welsh (rt Scale to #eas"re co#pleCity-si#plicity, he fo"n that

in epen ents #a e significantly higher co#pleCity scores. Cr"tchfiel =BD? fo"n that those 8ho yiel e in the inter#e iate range sho8e less preference for sy##etry on the Welsh ;ig"re &reference .est. 4riginality. ;ro# a sa#ple of 'S(; captains, ,arron =<? selecte the eCtre#e gro"ps on eight #eas"res of originality, incl" ing scores fro# the *orschach .est, the .he#atic (pperception .est, anagra#s, an plot titles. S"sceptibility scores 8ere obtaine on a t8enty-one ite# test. Significant ifferences bet8een gro"ps 8ere fo"n , 8ith those classifie as original yiel ing less. Cr"tchfiel =BD? fo"n that -D%Ast" ents respon ing to the /ro"p SF"ares .est in the inter#e iate range 8ere rate by instr"ctors as highest on originality. ,e(en%ence on the Perce(tual 0iel%. Linton =<6? #eas"re epen ence on the percept"al fiel by s"btas7s an a co#posite score on the .ilting *oo#, .ilting Chair, an -#be e ;ig"res tas7s. +ther #eas"res incl" e the egree of attit" e change after rea ing an article contrary to o8n opinion an the infl"ence of personal attit" es on a syllogis#s test. S"b9ects 8ere i)i e into t8o gro"ps accor ing to the eCtent of change to8ar the 9" g#ents of a #ale confe erate 8ho respon e fi)e inches abo)e the s"b9ect:s pregro"p nor# on the a"to7inetic tas7. .he confor#ity #eas"re for the a"to7inetic sit"ation correlate significantly 8ith the co#posite score for the egree of epen ence on the percept"al fiel . !o significant correlations 8ere fo"n bet8een social infl"ence an perfor#ance on the syllogis#s an attit" e tas7. .he -#be e ;ig"res .est also 8as a #inistere to high an lo8 yiel ers in a st" y by *osner =11A?. 6iel ers faile to locate the test pattern in the co#pleC fig"res significanitly #ore often than nonyiel ers. +o)(liance ith Re=uests. Wiener, Carpenter, an Carpenter =1BD, 1BB? classifie "n ergra "ate psychology st" ents by three egrees of their co#pliance 8ith a reF"est to ret"rn so#e eCperi#ental #aterials. .he #ean confor#ity score 8as significantly higher for the gro"p that co#plete an ret"rne the #aterial. 3elson, ,la7e, an 4o"ton =6D? report co#parable res"lts. Pro<ective .aterials. 3off#an =6%? co#pose eCtre#e gro"ps of those 8ho shifte #ost an least to8ar false gro"p nor#s reporte for t8o? tas7s. 3igh confor#ers 8ere fo"n to score significantly lo8er on all .he#atic (pperception .est #eas"res of ego strength, an higher on #eas"res of parental o#inance, aggression irecte to8ar self, s"ccess stri)ing, o)erconcern for parents, an rea iness to s"b#it to a"thority. Linton =<%? "sing the *orschach .est fo"n significant correlations bet8een high confor#ity an lo8 W, high &, fleCor 4, high 3 , high ;Y, high 4I S"# C, high S"# C, an ani#al responses consisting #ostly of insects, sea life, bir s or bats, in contrast to a prepon erance of ogs, rabbits, elephants, or bears. .he pict"re of the high confor#ity person is one of high constriction. Nee%s. ( cl"ster of st" ies ha)e in)estigate relationships bet8een confor#ity an strength of )ario"s nee s or ri)es, as #eas"re by

-D%%personality tests, incl" ing affiliation, epen ency, appro)al, an achie)e#ent. In the st" y by Jac"bcGa7 an Walters =69?, chil s"b9ects, half classifie as high- epen ent an half as lo8- epen ent, 8ere s"b9ecte to press"res, once fro# a peer an once fro# an a "lt. 1ifferences 8ere s#all an not statistically significant. 3off#an =6A? fo"n that s"b9ects 8ith high confor#ity nee s ten e to confor# 8hen face 8ith i)ergent nor#s, an sho8e less anCiety 8hen they i so =see abo)e?. 3ar y =%A? eter#ine the egree of affiliation #oti)ation by s"b9ect:s responses to .(. type pict"res prior to the isc"ssion tas7. In the no-s"pport con ition, the high- an #e i"#-nee affiliation gro"ps 8ere #ore confor#ing than the lo8 gro"p. In the partner con ition, the #e i"# an lo8 gro"ps confor#e #ore than the high gro"p =see abo)e?. Sa#elson =11%? reports in an abstract that he faile to fin a relationship bet8een nee affiliation an confor#ity on a iscri#ination tas7. 4oeller an (ppleG8eig =1>D? place 8o#en college st" ents into gro"ps representing co#binations of high an lo8 social an selfappro)al nee s, as #eas"re by a sentence co#pletion for# of .he Behavior Inter(retation Inventory. Consistent 8ith fin ings fro# 3off#an:s =6A? st" y of nee affiliation an fro# the achie)e#ent st" ies, s"##ariGe neCt, s"b9ects high in social appro)al nee s an lo8 in nee for self-appro)al significantly an consistently yiel e to the erroneo"s reports by others. !o ifferences 8ere fo"n for persons scoring high in self-appro)al nee s an lo8 in social appro)al nee s, or for those scoring high on both #eas"res. S"alitati)e ata fro# posteCperi#ental inter)ie8s s"bstantiate the fin ings. 0rebs =<>? )ali ate the hypothesis that the greater the achie)e#ent nee of a person, the #ore resistant he is to opinion change. Sa#elson =11%? pro)i e infor#ation that #ight allo8 the in i)i "al to acco"nt for the iscrepancy bet8een physical an social reality. S"b9ects i entifie si#ple )is"al sti#"li presente tachistoscopically. &ersonality ata a)ailable incl" e #eas"res of nee achie)e#ent an affiliation base on 4cClellan :s scoring of .(. responses, a #eas"re of sensiti)ity to social sti#"li an approach, an a #eas"re of anCiety, both ra8n fro# ite#s on the Cattell 16 &;. Significantly less confor#ity 8as fo"n "n er the re "ce conflict sit"ation 8hen prior fail"re by the others pro)i e the nai)e s"b9ect 8ith an JeCplanationJ for the social iscrepancy. !o relationships bet8een confor#ity an nee affiliation or anCiety 8ere fo"n . In the "s"al f"ll conflict sit"ation, both nee achie)e#ent an social -D%6approach 8ere negati)ely b"t not significantly correlate 8ith confor#ity, 8hereas "n er the re "ce conflict con ition the correlation 8as positi)e an significant. Since only one or t8o st" ies ha)e e#ploye the sa#e #eas"res of strength of nee s, the concl"sions ra8n can only be regar e as tentati)e ones.

Rating an% +hec" $ist Proce%ures. ,arron =6? selecte eCtre#e gro"ps in s"sceptibility. In self-ratings on the /o"gh ( 9ecti)e Chec7 List, s"b9ects lo8 in confor#ity percei)e the#sel)es as possessing intellect"al an cogniti)e originality, open-#in e ness, a high egree of personal in)ol)e#ent, e#otional reacti)ity, an lac7 of social ease or absence of social )irt"esI yiel ers percei)e the#sel)es as possessing ease an facility in interpersonal relations, personal effecti)eness, playf"lness in achie)ing goals, an personal stability an health. +n the eighty-fo"r escripti)e ite# chec7 list, in epen ents place significantly higher )al"es on creati)ity, close interpersonal relations, an the i#portance of the in i)i "al as oppose to the gro"p. 6iel ers sa8 the#sel)es as practical-#in e , physicalistic in thin7ing, an gro"p-oriente . Self- escripti)e F"estionnaire an personality in)entories, "se by Cr"tchfiel =BA? to contrast eCtre#e gro"ps, characteriGe the in epen ent person as one 8ho is a )ent"ro"s, self-asserti)e, possesse of self-respect, an free fro# co#p"lsion abo"t r"les. Confor#ing persons 8ere seen as rigi , eCternally sanctione , inconsistent, anCio"s, an possessing #oralistic attit" es an con)entionality of )al"es. 3igh confor#ers escribe their parents in rigi ly i ealistic ter#sI as parenc., they sa8 the#sel)es as restricting chil ren, 8hereas in epen ent s"b9ects sa8 the#sel)es as per#issi)e parents. In another st" y by Cr"tchfiel =BB?, staff ratings on an a 9ecti)e chec7 list escribe those s"b9ects #ost responsi)e to social infl"ence as fl"i , i#p"lsi)e, tense, an ist"rbe I those least responsi)e as rigi , cal#, con)entional, an practicalI those inter#e iate in responsi)eness as #o erate, con)entional, caref"l, stable, F"iet, intelligent, an serio"s. +n self-ratings, those 8ho 8ere #ost responsi)e agree 8ith the staff assess#entI those least responsi)e ten e to o)errate the#sel)esI 8hereas those 8ho 8ere inter#e iately responsi)e "n errate the#sel)es. Cr"tchfiel =BD? also reports significant relationships bet8een responsi)eness an s"ch )ariables as i#p"lsi)eness, o#inance, fleCibility, spontaneity, fe#ininity, an in epen ence of 9" g#e#t, as 8ell as ifferences bet8een gro"ps in self-perception base on res"lts fro# a 9ecti)e chec7 lists. -D%@*esponses of st" ents to ;ie ler:s in)entory of ass"#e si#ilarity =(S? ha)e been "se to characteriGe s"b9ects: ten encies to8ar acceptance or re9ection of the poor perfor#ance of co-8or7ers, 8ith a high score in icating ten encies to8ar re9ection. !onconfor#ers ha larger (S scores than confor#ers. Pathological &ren%s in Personality. In a st" y "tiliGing Jnor#alJ s"b9ects, Cer)in =D@? selecte as s"b9ects high an lo8 scorers on se)eral pencil an paper tests of e#otional stability. 3ighly "nstable s"b9ects 8ere fo"n to be significantly #ore li7ely to change their opinions "n er opposition. Le)ine, Laffal, ,er7o8itG, Lin e#ann, an 1re) ahl =<A? contraste the )ariability in in i)i "al scores on the a"to7inetic tas7 for patients in a 2eterans ( #inistration hospital. .he psychiatric gro"p 8as fo"n to be #ore )ariable in percept"al 9" g#ents an to sho8 less con)ergence to8ar gro"p nor#s than the JcontrolJ gro"p. 1i ato =B6? obtaine si#ilar res"lts for schiGophrenic co#pare 8ith nor#al s"b9ects. 1egree of regression in chronic schiGophrenia has been reporte by Spohn =1D%? to be relate to the ten ency to #o ify 9" g#ents in accor ance 8ith gro"p nor#s, 8ith those patients rate as #o erately regresse sho8ing #ore confor#ity in percept"al 9" g#ents than those rate as #ar7e ly regresse .

Personal +onsistency. ,la7e, 3elson, an 4o"ton =1<? in)estigate the generality iss"e for responses to )ario"s tas7s "n er si#"late gro"p con itions. /enerality of s"sceptibility 8as e#onstrate by in i)i "al consistency for all tas7s. .he split-half reliability for a co#posite confor#ity score of [.9B also is interprete as s"pporting the concl"sion that the confor#ity response is general. 3elson, ,la7e, 4o"ton, an +l#stea =6B? e#onstrate that in i)i "als shifting their 9" g#ents on a larger n"#ber of attit" e ite#s #o)e closer to the contra ictory opinions of others than those 8ho shifte less freF"ently. Cr"tchfiel =BA? fo"n the split-half reliability of in i)i "al confor#ity scores for a t8enty-one ite# test to be [.9>. *osner:s =11A? st" y re)eale a high egree of consistency in confor#ity for all tas7s an for t8o ifferent a #inistrations of one tas7. L"chins =9>? has reporte a significant ran7 or er correlation bet8een egree of agree#ent 8ith responses gi)en by an assistant both in the preli#inary an in the eCperi#ental series =see prece ing?. (sch =B? in)estigate intraseries consistency in in i)i "al perfor#ance. ,oth s"b9ects 8ho confor#e an those 8ho resiste initially ten e to #aintain their beha)ior thro"gho"t a series of trials. .ripling the length of the series i not alter res"lts. -D%<Su))ary. *es"lts s"ggest that those 8ho are #ore s"sceptible to confor#ity press"res are #ore li7ely to be s"b#issi)e, lo8 in selfconfi ence, less intelligent, less original, sho8 less ner)o"s tension, score higher on a"thoritarian scales, score on the si#plicity en of the i#ension of the co#pleCity-si#plicity scale, sho8 greater epen ence on the percept"al fiel , an co#ply 8ith reF"ests #ore freF"ently. Se)eral in)estigations re)eal that confor#ity ten encies are geiteral across se)eral tas7s.

Co-(in&tions o' V&ri&($es Significant interactions bet8een factors 8ere fo"n in so#e st" ies, an pooling effects 8ere obtaine by si#"ltaneo"s )ariations in others.

1ariations in Stimulus and +ac'ground Dimensions ( strong reF"est co#plie 8ith by another person has been fo"n by ,la7e, 4o"ton, an 3ain =19? to pro "ce the highest freF"ency for signing a petition =see abo)e?. 3ighest freF"ency of )ol"nteering has been obtaine by *osenba"# =11D? =see abo)e?. ;ree , Chan ler, 4o"ton, an ,la7e =A%? fo"n that the largest an s#allest n"#ber of )iolations respecti)ely occ"rre 8hen s"b9ects sa8 an assistant =a? )iolate a J8ea7J sign forbi ing entry an =b? confor# to a strongJ sign =see prece ing?. ,la7e, 3elson, an 4o"ton =1<? ha)e )arie iffic"lty of arith#etic ite#s in co#bination 8ith egree of iscrepancy bet8een correct ans8ers an erroneo"s reports by bac7gro"n s"b9ects. .hey report

greatest shifting for #ore iffic"lt ite#s 8hen the erroneo"s reports 8ere only slightly i)ergent fro# the correct ans8ers an the con)erse =see abo)e?. 'ncertainty of 9" g#ent =or iffic"lty? also has been )arie by 1e"tsch an /erar =B%?. S"b9ects 8ere fo"n to be #ost s"sceptible 8hen responses 8ere gi)en fro# #e#ory, an 8hen gro"p #e#bers 8ere tol that the gro"p 8o"l be re8ar e for acc"racy 8ith a priGe. 1ifferences bet8een #anners of presentation 8ere not fo"n 8hen s"b9ects 8rote their responses prior to hearing the reports of others =see abo)e?. Weiner =1BD? reporte positi)e relationships a#ong sti#"l"s a#big"ity, 9" g#ent, iscrepancy fro# the nor#, an confor#ity =see abo)e?. -D%9Cole =B>? fo"n that s"b9ects shifte a ay an to ar% the confe erate:s 9" g#ents respecti)ely 8hen he 8as alternately represente as highly intelligent an as an JeCpertJ =see abo)e?. egree of certainty of

1ariations in Stimulus Dimensions and Se" Cole#an, ,la7e, an 4o"ton =B1? ha)e e#onstrate a significant relationship bet8een tas7 iffic"lty, s"sceptibility, an seC of s"b9ect. 4en an 8o#en college st" ents respon e to infor#ation ite#s after hearing the reports of t8o other #en or 8o#en in the si#"late gro"p sit"ation. 1iffic"lty le)el 8as )arie by precalibration on a co#parable sa#ple. *esponses 8ere analyGe separately, since iffic"lty le)el 8as )arie by seC. Confor#ity 8as fo"n to be positi)ely an significantly relate to iffic"lty of ite# for both #en an 8o#en.

1ariations in +ac'ground Dimensions Schachter, -llertson, 4c,ri e, an /regory =116? fo"n that press"res fro# other gro"p #e#bers to increase pro "ction 8ere eF"ally effecti)e for both high an lo8 cohesion gro"ps, an infl"ences to ecrease pro "ction s"ccessf"l only for the high cohesion gro"ps =see abo)e?. /erar =A@? fo"n that the higher the attracti)eness of the reference gro"p an the greater the initial agree#ent, the s#aller the a#o"nt of shifting "n er eCpos"re to infl"ences =see abo)e?. 1ittes an 0elley =B@? ha)e in)estigate changes in p"blic an pri)ate opinion by gro"p #e#bers )arying in feelings of acceptance. .hose tol that they 8ere abo"t a)erage in acceptance sho8e higher confor#ity in both p"blic an pri)ate eCpressions. Jac7son an SaltGstein:s =6<? res"lts s"pport the hypothesis concerning the beha)ior of highly accepte persons$ confor#ity 8as greater in the nor#ati)e than in the )o%al sit"ation, an greater for the high attraction than for the lo8 attraction gro"p sit"ation =see abo)e?.

Interaction bet8een egree of iscrepancy, characteristics of others in the sit"ation, an eCtent of attit" e change has been fo"n 8hen the tas7 in)ol)es ratings of the s"b9ect by hi#self an by both hi#self an others. 3ar)ey, 0elley, an Shapiro =%@? fo"n that changes in an "nfa)orable irection on self ratings 8ere greatest for acF"aintances 8ho e)al"ate the s"b9ect #ost "nfa)orably =see abo)e?. Jones, Wells, an .orrey =@1? fo"n that 8here in i)i "al acc"racy 8as stresse , correct fee bac7 8as #ore significant in increasing in e-D6>pen ence than incorrect fee bac7 in increasing confor#ity =see abo)e?. .he interaction bet8een egree of confi ence eCpresse by others in the sit"ation an gro"p #e#bership or tas7-sol)ing orientation has been sho8n by .hiba"t an Stric7lan =1D@? to infl"ence confor#ity beha)ior. 'n er gro"p #entbership set, confor#ity increase as confi ence sho8n by other #e#bers increase . ;or a tas7 set, confor#ity ecrease as press"res increaie =see abo)e?. 1e"tsch an /erar =B%? fo"n that co##it#ent to a 9" g#ent prior to hearing the responses of others re "ce the egree of shifting an ten e to eli#inate ifferences bet8een respon ing "n er anony#o"s con itions an face-to-face con itions =see abo)e?. ;estinger an .hiba"t =A1? an /erar =A@? ha)e reporte si#ilar fin ings for the relation of ho#ogeneity a#ong persons co#posing the gro"p an rea iness to shift opinions =see abo)e?. In 3are:s =%%? st" y of shifting relate to gro"p siGe, lea ers 8ere classifie as goo , a)erage, or poor on the basis of .(. responses. 3e fo"n that lea er s7ill 8as correlate positi)ely 8ith a#o"nt of change for large gro"ps only.

1ariations in +ac'ground Dimensions and Personal Characteristics 4o"ton, ,la7e, an +l#stea =1>B? report that s"b#issi)e s"b9ects only 8ere fo"n to iffer in s"sceptibility as a f"nction of 8hether they participate "n er personal i entity or anony#ity con itions =see abo)e?. 3ar y =%A? fo"n that high an #e i"# affiliation gro"ps 8ere #ore confor#ing in the no-s"pport con ition, an the #e i"# an lo8 gro"ps #ore so in the partner con ition =see abo)e?. ,ray =DB? has reporte that the egree an irection of the relationship bet8een confor#ity an personality characteristics )arie for attit" e s"bgro"p an the ethnic characteristic of the confe erate =see abo)e?. Sa#elson =11%? fo"n that, in the "s"al f"ll conflict sit"ation, both nee achie)e#ent an social approach 8ere negati)ely b"t not significantly correlate 8ith confor#ity, 8hereas "n er the re "ce conflict con ition, the correlation 8as positi)e an significant =see abo)e?.

,la7e, 4o"ton, an +l#stea =D>? fo"n greatest shifting for s"b9ects 8ho ha an initial eCperience of: fail"re an 8ho participate "n er con itions of high press"res to8ar "nifor#ity =see abo)e?. ( factorial esign 8as "se by 4a"sner an ,loch =1>>? to st" y the a iti)ity of )ariables. (ll )ariables-prior s"ccess or fail"re, prestige of partrier, an prior cooperati)e eCperience-separately affecte to a -D61significant egree the eCtent of con)ergence of the st" ents to a partner:s prearrange 9" g#ents. With the eCception of the gro"p in 8hich both of the other factors oppose social infl"ence, one effect of prior cooperati)e eCperience 8as to ecrease the )ariability of response a#ong s"b9ects. Where all forces 8or7e in the sa#e irection, greatest consistency of response 8as fo"n . Significantly higher )ariance 8as fo"n for the conflict gro"ps, so that the reaction of the in i)i "al in this type of sit"ation is not pre ictable. .he a"thors s"ggest that personality #eas"res are nee e to tap this so"rce of )ariance. 3ar)ey an *"therfor =%<? fo"n that s"b9ects 8ith a fe8er n"#ber of pretrials sho8e #ore rea iness to shift in response to press"res applie in an absol"te approach than to gra "ally increasing i)ergence press"re =see abo)e?. 4illon an Si#7ins =1>1? s"b9ecte high an lo8 scorers on the California ;-scale to infl"ence fro# either a prestige or a nonprestige partner. 4ore s"sceptibility to the prestige partner 8as e#onstrate by s"b9ects high on the a"thoritarian scale. 0i#brell an ,la7e =@<? ha)e sho8n that beha)ior in a prohibition sit"ation is eter#ine partly by properties of in i)i "al ri)e strength an partly by social properties in the sit"ation =see abo)e?.

1ariations in Personal Characteristics 0el#an =@%? fo"n that s"b9ects scoring either lo8 in self-confi ence or sho8ing lac7 of ner)o"s tension ha significantly higher s"ggestibility scores for all con itions eCcept those of prior s"ccess =see abo)e?. La8son an Stagner =<D? fo"n that attit" e shifts "ring isc"ssion 8ere acco#panie by %ecreasing pal#ar s8eat =see abo)e?. ,eloff =1>? fo"n that there 8as a negati)e relationship bet8een ascen ance an confor#ity for #en, 8ith ascen ant #en re#aining #ore in epen ent, an a positi)e one for 8o#en, 8ith ascen ant 8o#en confor#ing #ore. Confor#ity 8as positi)ely relate to ne"roticis# for #en, b"t opposite res"lts 8ere reporte for 8o#en =see abo)e?.

F& tors Asso i&ted /it" Con,ersion Be"&,ior

Con)ersion #ay be i entifie by the effects re#aining after the confor#ity press"res ha)e been re#o)e . ( research esign per#itting assess#ent of the egree of con)ersion incl" es #eas"re#ent first of in i)i "al perfor#ance "n er pri)ate con itionsI neCt, the -D6Dshifting of responses "n er press"re con itionsI an at so#e later ti#e the s"b9ect:s beha)ior "n er pri)ate, post-press"re con itions. Con)ersion is e)i ent 8hen perfor#ance in the post-press"re sit"ation iffers fro# that in the pre-press"re sit"ation in the irection of the i)ergent reports others ga)e in the confor#ity sit"ation. .he pheno#enon of con)ersion has recei)e far less attention in researcll st" ies than s"sceptibility. .he res"lt is that at best only an i#perfect pict"re can be ra8n of psychological factors associate 8ith con)ersion. ( itional li#itations in assessing the yna#ics of con)ersion res"lt fro# the fail"re of #any eCperi#ental st" ies to e#ploy so"n esigns. !e)ertheless, beca"se of its i#portance, it see#s "sef"l to e)al"ate the present state of "n erstan ing of con)ersion beha)ior. Se)erl in)estigators ha)e reporte effects of prior gro"p infl"ence on later alone 9" g#ents of percept"al tas7s. In Sherif:s st" y =1D1?, #ale college st" ents 9" ge one h"n re trials in fo"r sessions, each hel one ay apart. .he first three sessions 8ere co#pose of gro"ps of t8o or three #e#bers each, an the fo"rth of in i)i "als 9" ging by the#sel)es. Initially, ifferent in i)i "al 9" g#ents con)erge to8ar a co##on nor# in the gro"p sit"ations, an the gro"p nor# persiste into in i)i "al sessions. Sherif =1DD? has reporte si#ilar res"lts for prearrange responses gi)en by an assistant. ;or the #a9ority of the s"b9ects in the alone postgro"p session, greater con)ergence 8as fo"n to8ar the responses reporte by others. Schonbar =11<? obtaine co#parable res"lts. J" g#ents of length of lines an of a #o)ing slot of light 8ere #a e in i)i "ally after a series of 9" g#ents ha been gi)en in the presence of another person. .he infl"ence of the s"b9ects: reactions persiste into the postgro"p, pri)ate sit"ation. She has also reporte the i#portant fin ing that the longer the in i)i "al resists #o ifying his 9" g#ents, the longer the persistence of the infl"ence in the later pri)ate sit"ation. .he a"to7inetic sit"ation 8as "se by ,o)ar =D1?, 8ith the egree of confor#ity eter#ine by shifts in stan ar e)iations a#ong pregro"p, gro"p, an postgro"p 9" g#ent series. *an7 or er coefficients sho8e significant correlations for the siGes of the stan ar e)iations a#ong the three sit"ations. S"b9ects 8ere ran7e in or er for egree of s"sceptibility to change in the gro"p sit"ation. .he s"sceptibility to con)ersion H the eCtent to 8hich changes persiste for t8erity-eight ays into the postpress"re sit"ation-is represente by a ran7 or er correlation of.9D. S"b9ects 8ho sho8e larger shifts in their #ean 9" g#ents also sho8e a greater ten ency to retain the shift o)er the t8enty-eight- ay perio . -D6B*ohrer, ,arron, 3off#an, an S8an er =111?, traine *+.C st" ents "n er alone con itions to #a7e 9" g#ents for points of light tra)ersing istances of t8o inches for one-half an eight inches for the other half of the s"b9ects. .hey then ha s"b9ects 9" ge in pairs. .he #ean istance 9" ge "n er the interaction con itions 8as siC inches. Significant consistency 8as obtaine bet8een esti#ates gi)en "n er interaction con itions an those gi)en "n er pri)ate con itions one year later. Si#ilarities bet8een perfor#ances after initial training an the pri)ate sit"ation 8ere s#all, in icating that 8hen the ran7

or er in the postgro"p ser)es as the criterion, pretraining infl"ences are negligible by co#parison 8ith effects pro "ce 8ithin the interaction sit"ation. Schachter an 3all =11@? "se the freF"ency 8ith 8hich s"b9ects Jfollo8e thro"ghJ on a )ol"nteering co##it#ent. S"b9ects 8ho )ol"nteere in epen ently =8itho"t 7no8le ge of the responses of others? sho8e the highest relati)e freF"ency of carrying o"t the pro#ise action. 4arinho =9%? st" ie the persistence of eCperi#entally shifte foo preferences in fo"r- to siC-yearol chil ren. In a pri)ate test sit"ation one year later, the aftereffect of the social infl"ence sit"ations persiste in all those chil ren originally ha)ing in efinite taste. I#portance attaches to this st" y since it s"ggests that those #ost s"sceptible to con)ersion effects are the ones least co##itte 'efore gro"p press"res are eCerte =see pre)io"s sections?. 1"nc7er =B<? in)estigate carryo)er effects on foo preferences, an fo"n that 8hen the eCperi#ental sit"ation 8as repeate t8o or three ti#es a 8ee7 for an "nstate perio , significant effects 8ere sho8n to persist, in icating the a option of ne8 preferences "n er repetiti)e social reinforce#ent. /erar =A<? st" ie con)ersion effects in gro"ps of three #e#bers, 8hich iffere both in egree of cohesion an in the eCtent of initial isagree#ent on the sol"tion of a labor-#anage#ent case. +ne 8ee7 after participating in a fifteen-#in"te isc"ssion, s"b9ects #a e in i)i "al 9" g#ents that 8ere recor e on a se)en-point scale, both before an after isc"ssion in a t8o-person sit"ation 8ith a confe erate. ;or persons initially interacting "n er high cohesion con itions, in i)i "al 9" g#ents gi)en prior to isc"ssion 8ith the confe erate sho8e significaritty greater con)ergence to8ar the original gro"p position. 3igh cohesion #e#bers also sho8e #ore resistance to shifting to8ar a ifferent position "n er the social infl"ence con ition than i s"b9ects participating initially "n er lo8 cohesion con itions. Si#ilar res"lts 8ere fo"n relating egree of initial agree#ent a#ong #e#bers to resistance$ the fin ing is that the greater the -D6Ainitial agree#ent a#ong #e#bers, the lesser the s"sceptibility in a secon press"re sit"ation. Se)eral st" ies ha)e reporte res"lts that relate egree of con)ersion beha)ior to )ariations in bac7gro"n factors or to personality characteristics of the s"b9ects. 3ar y =%A? st" ie ifferences in the a#o"nt of confor#ity press"re eCerte by "nani#o"s as contraste 8ith near-"nani#o"s opposition in a isc"ssion sit"ation. Con)ersion 8as increase by "nani#ity of opposition in the press"re sit"ation =see pre)io"s sections?. Willingness to )ol"nteer bas been st" ie by ,ennett =9? to eter#ine the effect of percei)e "nani#ity. +ne-thir of the gro"ps of college s"b9ects participate "n er isc"ssion con itions, one-thir "n er lect"re con itions, an one-thir as control gro"ps. .he #eas"re for the egree of infl"ence eCerte 8as the n"#ber of positi)e responses by s"b9ects to s"bseF"ent #ail reF"ests for )ol"nteers. .he factor of percei)e gro"p "nani#ity in the ecision to )ol"nteer 8as fo"n to be significantly relate to the carrying o"t of the specifie action.

4c0cachie =9D? #eas"re shifting of opinions a#ong st" ents in siC sections, three of 8hich 8ere ta"ght by lea er-centere #etho s an the other three by gro"p-centere #etho s. (fter one #onth, classes 8ere gi)en hypothetical proble#s concerning either !egroes, cri#inals or chil ren, 8ith class #e#bers as7e to arri)e at a "nani#o"s ecision. +ne 8ee7 later, the attit" e scales "se at the beginning of the eCperi#ent 8ere rea #inistere . Lea er-centere as contraste 8ith gro"p-centere classes sho8e #ore con)ergence. .hese fin ings are opposite those reporte by ,o)ar =DD? =see abo)e?. 3off#an =6A? #eas"re Con)ersion effects by rea #inistering a scale of social attit" e ite#s in i)i "ally t8o 8ee7s after the press"re sit"ation. .he con)ersion score consiste of the proportion of all confor#ing responses that persiste for the t8o-8ee7 perio . &ersons classifie as lo8 in confor#ity nee s ha significantly higher con)ersion scores than those classifie as high in confor#ity nee s =see abo)e?. *es"lts are generally consistent in sho8ing that responses altere by social press"re persist into the f"t"re as con)ersion pheno#ena. .he egree of con)ersion is li#ite , ho8e)er, by the intensity of one:s initial preference, 8ith the general r"le being that the #ore in efinite one:s position, the greater the i#pact of a later social sit"ation an the greater the carryo)er effect into the f"t"re. S"ggesti)e is the fin ing that the longer one resists altering his position "n er press"re con itions, the longer he retains the altere position in the postpress"re sit"ation. -D6%(ltho"gh increase s"sceptibility has been sho8n to be relate to higher inner confor#ity nee s of s"b9ects, one eCperi#ent s"ggests that those lo8er in inner confor#ity nee s #ay be #ore li7ely to sho8 increase con)ersion effects at a later ti#e. &ersons eCpose to "nani#o"s i)ergent responses of others are #ore li7ely to e#onstrate con)ersion beha)ior. If the interaction is lea er-centere rather than gro"p-centere , then greater con)ersion #ay be eCpecte at a f"t"re ti#e.

I-4$i &tions 'or Interro%&tion .he i#plications for interrogation of research on confor#ity can be e)al"ate by escribing 7no8n 7ey factors that are li7ely to pro "ce #aCi#"# s"ggestibility for any gi)en in i)i "al. If the goal is to ai an in i)i "al to resist interrogation press"res, then opposite con itions #"st be create .

Con'or-it# &nd Resist&n e

Tas' In i)i "als appear to be #ore s"sceptible to confor#ity press"res 8hen eCpressing social opinions, i eological attit" es, an abstractions that are not roote in concrete eCperience than 8hen they are ealing 8ith fact"al #aterials, 8ith 8hich they are 8ell acF"ainte , or 8ith personal preferences.

*egar less of the #aterials, increases in s"sceptibility appear 8hen an in i)i "al is "ncertain of his beliefs, "ninfor#e regar ing the facts of the sit"ation, or 8hen ob9ecti)e c"es that co"l ai hi# in #aintaining his orientation to the sit"ation are re "ce or eli#inate . ()ailable eCperi#ental e)i ence e#onstrates the 7ey i#portance for confor#ity of ina eF"ate in i)i "al 7no8le ge an "n erstan ing. (n i#portant inference is that resistance to confor#ity or to interrogation press"res can be heightene by ins"ring that an in i)i "al is 8ell infor#e of necessary facts an their i#plications.

Social Situation .en encies to8ar confor#ity an con)ersion are heightene 8hen an in i)i "al is 8ith at least three other persons, 8hen others are in -D66"nani#o"s agree#ent an 8hen their reactions represent only s#all epart"res fro# the position belie)e by the in i)i "al to represent his o8n con)ictions. *esistance is #ini#iGe by lea ing the in i)i "al a8ay fro# his o8n position gra "ally by s#all steps. If the other in i)i "als present are personally acF"ainte 8ith the s"b9ect, an are persons 8ho# he respects, a itional confor#ity press"res are create . ;"rther#ore, if the in i)i "al is reF"ire to act in his o8n na#e an is not reF"ire to co##it hi#self to a position prior to the application of press"re, greater infl"ence in the confor#ity irection can be eCercise . ( gro"p sit"ation ten s to foster confor#ity, 8hen the gro"p is le accor ing to a per#issi)e gro"pcentere approach, 8hen #e#bers are epen ent on one another to obtain significant goals, 8hen the sit"ation calls for "nani#o"s agree#ent a#ong #e#bers, an 8hen the gro"p is cohesi)e. .o create these con itions in life, it 8o"l be necessary to co#pose gro"ps by caref"l selection to ins"re frien liness an responsibility a#ong #e#bers, 8ith all b"t one H the person on 8ho# press"res are to be applie H agreeing "nani#o"sly in s"pport of a position not greatly i)ergent fro# the position hel by the critical person. It 8o"l appear that the best single anti ote against confor#ity press"res is inti#ate acF"aintance an thoro"gh "n erstan ing of the iss"es in)ol)e . (ltho"gh yet to be e#onstrate eCperi#entally, it also is probable that an in i)i "al 8o"l be ai e in #aintaining in epen ence thro"gh "n erstan ing of confor#ity press"res. If not "n erstoo , they can operate JsilentlyJ to ren er an in i)i "al "ncertain of hi#self, rea y to follo8 others, an to capit"late to an interrogator.

The Person ( peisonality profile of the 7in of in i)i "al 8ho is least able to resist confor#ity press"res, an probably interrogation press"res as 8ell, 8o"l incl" e s"ch characteristics as s"b#issi)eness, lac7 of self-confi ence, lac7 of originality, lac7 of achie)e#ent #oti)ation, esire for social appro)al, an being "ncritical, con)entional, an a"thoritarian.

Con,ersion (s 8ith confor#ity, con)ersion is highest for in i)i "als 8hose initial response regar ing fact"al #atters or attit" es is in efinite, -D6@)ag"e, an "ncertain. Con)ersion f"rther appears to be #ore co#plete for in i)i "als 8ho resist confor#ity press"res for a longer ti#e. 'nli7e confor#ity, ho8e)er, con)ersion effects are heightene 8hen capit"lation occ"rs "n er lea er-centere gro"p press"re con itions. 3ere again, it 8o"l see# that one of the #ost po8erf"l factors eter#ining con)ersion is li#ite "n erstan ing of the proble# or #ini#"# insight into one:s o8n attit" es or con)ictions. *esistance to con)ersion probably can be increase thro"gh ins"ring that the in i)i "al re#ains 8ell infor#e an "n erstan s his o8n opinions an attit" es s"fficiently 8ell to eCpress the# clearly.

Future Rese&r " Dire tions ( n"#ber of li#iting factors #a7e generaliGations fro# laboratory sit"ations to life iffic"lt.

Laboratory Settings vs& #eal Li e Situations Laboratory sit"ations are relati)ely blan as far as in)ol)e#ent is concerne , at least in co#parision 8ith lifeli7e settings 8here the personal sta7es connecte 8ith confor#ity, co#pliance, an con)ersion are higher. ,eca"se of the li#ite in)est#ent a laboratory sit"ation "s"ally e)o7es in an in i)i "al, irect or absol"te co#parisons bet8een res"lts obtaine in it an act"al life settings are li7ely to be treachero"s. .here is a nee for the type of research that pro)i es the eCperi#enter 8ith the opport"nity to control an #anip"late )ariables "n er realistic operating circ"#stances. +nly then can generaliGations be #a e 8ith higher probability of acc"racy. C"rrent 7no8le ge of rele)ant )ariables sho"l #a7e it possible to esign eCperi#ents for lifeli7e settings 8ith a #ini#"# of trial an error. S"ch st" ies co"l be co#bine 8ith eCperi#ents on sleep epri)ation or si#"late space flights, in 8hich the eCperi#enter:s control o)er li)ing con itions an the "ration of the eCperi#ent is F"ite high.

Arti icial Tas's vs& Signi icant Issues 4any of the eCperi#ents re)ie8e in this st" y ha)e e#ploye tas7s reF"iring a 9"st#ents of in i)i "als "n er confor#ity or con)ersion con itions that are eCtre#ely artificial. (s a res"lt, confor#ity or resistance #ay e)elop "n er con itions that bear little rese#blance -D6<to act"al sit"ations. ;"t"re laboratory in)estigations can benefit fro# e#ploying tas7s that aro"se eeper personal co##it#ent an stronger gro"p loyalties.

Theory vs& !mpiricism and Intuition -)en a c"rsory eCa#ination of the principal reports s"##ariGe here sho8s that #"ch of the 8or7 in this area has been esigne accor ing to e#pirical "n erstan ing, int"ition, an Jh"nch.J -Cperi#ents esigne to test syste#atic an theoretical iss"es are nee e . Sherif:s general for#"lations concerning fra#es of reference =1DB? an 3elson:s a aptation-le)el theory =%9?, applie in analyGing the con itions of social a 9"st#ent, constit"te eCa#ples of theories that ha)e alrea y e#onstrate their "sef"lness in eCperi#ental esigns. S"ch theoretical state#ents can ser)e to bring or er to an other8ise chaotic fiel of en ea)or.

Simultaneous 1ariation o Factors vs& Single 1ariable Designs *es"lts fro# #ore recent eCperi#ents gi)e s"bstantial s"pport to the )ie8 that confor#ity, co#pliance, an con)ersion are co#pleC #atters of a 9"st#ent that occ"r 8hen a host of circ"#stances, rather than a single factor, are fa)orable. Critical factors incl" e the nat"re of the tas7, the circ"#stances of the sit"ation 8ithin 8hich the beha)ior occ"rs, an the characteristics of the in i)i "al on 8ho# press"res are eCerte . -ach possible so"rce of infl"ence nee s to be )arie si#"ltaneo"sly 8ithin the esign of a single eCperi#ent, if 8e are to obtain a #ore nearly acc"rate pict"re of the yna#ics of confor#ity. In ter#s of present "n erstan ing, it can be state that the interaction of so"rces of infl"ence is not a iti)e, b"t that tr"e interaction a#ong )ariables occ"rs.

#eplications vs& $)ne5Shot$ Studies .he literat"re is ri le 8ith Jone-shotJ st" ies that #a7e acceptance of concl"sions ten"o"s. *eplication eCperi#ents are nee e to ins"re that concl"sions fro# single st" ies 8ill stan .

Con ormity vs& Conversion +)er 9> per cent of 8or7 in this area has been concerne 8ith confor#ity, yet the con itions "n er 8hich changes in "ce by confor#ity -D69press"res eCten into f"t"re beha)ior are of critical concern. S"ch eCperi#ents are not iffic"lt to esign. ;or the #ost part, they represent an eCtension of the con itions alrea y "se in st" ying confor#ity to sec"re #eas"re#ents of the resi "al effects of confor#ity press"res. /reat progress in the "n erstan ing of both confor#ity an con)ersion pheno#ena #ay be eCpecte fro# in)estigations esigne to #eas"re the persistence of con)ersion o)er ti#e.

Re'eren es

1. (sch, S. -. J-ffects of gro"p press"re "pon the #o ification an Grou(s, lea%ershi( an% )en. &ittsb"rgh$ Carnegie &ress, 19%1. D. (sch S. -. Social (sychology. !e8 6or7$ &rentice 3all, 19%D.

istortion of 9" g#entsJ. In 3. /"etG7o8 =- .?,

B. (sch S. -. JSt" ies of in epen ence an confor#ity. ( #inority of one against a "nani#o"s #a9orityJ. Psychol. .onogr., 19%6, @>, !o. 9 =Whole !o. A16?X. A. ,ac7 0. W. JInfl"ence thro"gh social co##"nicationJ. J. abnor#. soc. Psychol, 19%1, A6, 9-DB. %. ,arch (. 4., .r"#bo 1., an !angle, JJ. Social setting an confor#ity to a legal reF"ire#entJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%@, %%, B96-B9<. 6. ,arron ;. JSo#e personality correlates of in epen ence of 9" g#entJ. J. Pers., 19%D, D1, D<@-D9@. @. ,arron ;. JCo#pleCity-si#plicity as a personality i#ensionJ. J. abnor#. soc. Psychol., 19%B, A<, 16B-1@D. <. ,arron ;. J.he isposition to8ar originalityJ. J. abnor#. soc. Psychol., 19%%, %1, A@<-A<%. 9. ,ennett - ith ,. /ro"p isc"ssion, ecision, p"blic co##it#ent, an effecti)eness of Jgro"p ecision. A)er. Psychologist, 19%D, @, B1%. =(bstract? percei)e "nani#ity as factors in the

1>. ,eloff 3. J.8o for#s of social confor#ity$ (cF"iescence an con)entionalityJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%<, %6, 991>A. 11. ,eren a *"th W. J.he infl"ence of the gro"p on the 9" g#ents of chil renJ. !e8 6or7$ 0ing:s Cro8n &ress, 19%>. 1D. ,er7o8itG L. J-ffects of percei)e Psychol., 19%@, %%, B%>-B%A. epen ency relationships "pon confor#ity to gro"p eCpectations.J J. a'nor). soc.

1B. ,er7o8itG L. JLi7ing for the gro"p an the percei)e #erit of the gro"p:s beha)iorJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%@, %A, B%B-B%@. 1A. ,la7e *. *. J.he other person in the sit"ationJ. In *. .agi"ri an L. &etr"llo =- s.?, Person Perce(tion an% inter(ersonal 'ehavior. Stanfor , California$ Stanfor 'ni)er. &ress, 19%<. &p. DD9-DAD. 1%. ,la7e *. *., ,er7o8itG (., ,ella#y *. S., an 4o"ton Jane S. J2ol"nteering as an a)oi ance actJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol, 19%6, %B, 1%A-1%6. 16. ,la7e *. *., an ,reh# J. W. J.he "se of tape recor ing to si#"late a gro"p at#osphereJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%A, A9, B11-B1B. 1@. ,la7e *. *., an 3elson 3. =- s.?, A%a(ta'ility screening of flying (ersonnel. Situational an% (ersonal factors in confor)ing 'ehavior. *an olph (lr ;orce ,ase, .eCas$ '. S. (ir ;orce School of ()iation 4e icine, Septe#ber 19%6.

-D@>1<. ,la7e *. *., 3elson 3., an 4o"ton Jane S. J.he generality of confor#ity beha)ior as a f"nction of fact"al anchorage, iffic"lty of tas7, an a#o"nt of social press"reJ. J. Pers., 19%6, D%, D9A-B>%. 19. ,la7e *. *., 4o"ton Jane S., an 3ain J. 1. JSocial forces in petition signingJ. South estern soc. sci. Juart., 19%6, B6, B<%-B9>.

D>. ,la7e *. *., 4o"ton Jane S., an +l#stea J. (. JS"sceptibility to co"nter-nor# attit" e eCpressions in a s#all gro"p sit"ationJ. In *. *. ,la7e an 3. 3elson =- s.?, A%a(ta'ility screening of flying (ersonnel. Situational an% (ersonal factors in confor)ing 'ehavior. *an olph (ir ;orce ,ase, .eCas$ '. S. (ir ;orcc School of ()iation 4e icine, Septe#ber 19%6. &p. A9%%. D1. ,o)ar -. W. Jr., JSocial nor#s an the in i)i "alJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19A<, AB, 6D-69. DD. ,o)ar -. W. Jr., J/ro"p str"ct"re an perceptionJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%1, A6, B9<-A>%. DB. ,ray 1. W. J.he pre iction of beha)ior fro# t8o attit" e scalesJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%>, A%, 6A-<A. DA. ,reh# J., an ;estinger L. J&ress"res to8ar "nifor#ity of perfor#ance in gro"psJ. -u). Relat., 19%@, 1>, <%-91. D%. ,"rtt 3. -. JSeC ifferences in the effect of isc"ssionJ. J. e*(. Psychol., 19D>, B, B9>-B9%. D6. Caylor J. S. JSti#"l"s factors in confor#ityJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%@, 1D, B<<. =(bstract? D@. Cel)in 2. J-Cperi#ental in)estigation of beha)ior in social sit"ations. I. ,eha)io"r "n er oppositionJ. +ana%. J. Psychol., 19%%, 9, 1>@-116. D<. Clar7 3elen. &he cro %. Psychol., .onogr., 1916, D1, D6-B6. D9. Cohen ,. &. J( probability #o el for confor#ityJ. Socio)etry, 19%<, D1, 69-<1. B>. Cole 1. L. J.he infl"ence of tas7 perception an lea er )ariation on a"to7inetic responsesJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%%, 1>, BAB. =(bstract? B1. Cole#an Janet ;., ,la7e *. *., an 4o"ton Jane S. J.as7 iffic"lty an confor#ity press"resJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%<, %@, 1D>-1DD. BD. Cr"tchfiel *. S. J(ssess#ent of persons thro"gh a F"asi gro"p-interaction techniF"eJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%1, A6, %@@-%<<. BB. Cr"tchfiel *. S. JCorrelates of in i)i "al beha)ior in a controlle gro"p sit"ationJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%B, <, BB<. =(bstract? BA. Cr"tchfiel *. S. JConfor#ity an characterJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%%, 1>, 191-19<. B%. 1e"tsch 4., an /erar 3. ,. J( st" y of nor#ati)e an infor#ational social infl"ences "pon in i)i "al 9" g#entJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%%, %1, 6D9-6B6. B6. 1i ato S. 2. J.he infl"ence of social factors on gro"p confor#ity in nor#al an abnor#al personalities$ ( st" y of perception of "nstable sti#"li an nor# for#ationJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%%, 1>, B6<-B69. =(bstract? B@. 1ittes J. -.,. an 0elley 3. 3. J-ffect of ifferent con itions of acceptance "pon co"for#ity to gro"p nor#sJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%6, %B, 1>>-1>@. B<. 1"nc7er 0. J-Cperi#ental #o ifications of chil ren:s foo preferences thro"gh social s"ggestionJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19B<, BB, A<9-%>@. B9. ;estinger L. J(n analysis of co#pliant beha)iorJ. In 4. Sherif an 4. +. Wilson =- s.?, Grou( relations at the crossroa%s. !e8 6or7$ 3arper ,ros., 19%B.

A>. ;estinger L., /erar 3. ,., 3y#o)itch ,., et al. J.he infl"ence process in the piesence of eCtre#e e)iatesJ. -u). Relat., 19%D, %, BD@-BA6.

-D@1A1. ;estinger L., an .hiba"t J. JInterpersonal co##"nication in s#all gro"psJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%1, A6, 9D-99. AD. ;isher S., an *"binstein I., J.he effects of #o erate sleep epri)ation on social infl"ence in the a"to7inetic sit"ationJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%6, 11, A11. =(bstract? AB. ;isher S., *"binstein I., an ;ree#an *. W. JIntertrial effects of i##e iate self-co##ittal in a contin"o"s social infl"ence sit"ationJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%6, %D, D>>-D>@. AA. ;isher S., Willia#s 3. L., an L"bin (. J&ersonal pre ictors of s"sceptibility to social infl"enceJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%@, 1D, B6>. =(bstract? A%. ;ree (., Chan ler &. J., 4o"ton Jane S., an ,la7e *. *. JSti#"l"s an bac7gro"n factors in sign )iolationJ, J. Pers., 19%%, DB, A99. A6. ;rench J. *. &., Jr. J( for#al theory of social po8erJ. Psychol. Rev., 19%6, 6B, 1<1-19A. A@. /erar 3. ,. J.he effect of ifferent i#ensions of isagree#ent on the co##"nication process in s#all gro"psJ. -u). Relat., 19%B, 6, DA9-D@D. A<. /erar 3. ,. J.he anchorage of opinions in face-to-face gro"psJ. -u). Relat., 19%A, @, B1B-BD6. A9. /ol berg S. C. J.hree sit"ational eter#inants of confor#ity to social nor#sJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%A, A9, BD%-BD9. =(bstract? %>. /ol berg S., 3"nt *. /., Cohen W., an 4ea o8 (. JSo#e personality correlates of percept"al istortion in the irection of gro"p confor#ityJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%A, 9, B@<. =(bstract? %1. /ol berg S. C., an L"bin (. JInfl"ence as a f"nction of prior 9" g#ent errorJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%@, 1D, B6>. =(bstract? %D. /or en *. L. JInteraction bet8een attit" e an the efinition of the sit"ation in the eCpression of opinionJ. A)er. sociol. Rev., 19%D, 1@, %>-%<. %B. /rosser 1., &olans7y !., an Lippitt *. J( laboratory st" y of beha)ioral contagionJ. -u). Relat., 19%1, A, 11%-1AD. %A. 3ar y 0. *. J1eter#inants of confor#ity an attit" e changeJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%@, %A, D<9-D9A. %%. 3are (. &. JInteraction an consens"s in ifferent siGe gro"psJ. A)er. sociol. Rev., 19%D, 1@, D61-D6@. %6. 3are (. &. JS#all gro"p isc"ssion 8ith participation an s"per)isory lea ershipJ. J. a'nor). soc. Physiol., 19%B, A<, D@B-D@%. %@. 3ar)ey +. J., 0elley 3. 3., an Shapiro 4. 4. J*eactions to "nfa)orable e)al"ations of self #a e by other personsJ. J. Pers., 19%@, D%, B9B-A11. %<. 3ar)ey +. J., an *"therfor Jeanne. J/ra "al an absol"te approaches to attit" e changeJ. Socio)etry, 19%<, D1, 616<.

%9. 3elson 3. J(n eCperi#ental approach to personalityJ. Psychiat. Res. re(. A)er. Psychiat. Ass., 19%%, D, <9-99. 6>. 3elson 3. J( aptation-le)el as a basis for a F"antitati)e theory of fra#es of referenceJ. Psychol. Rev., 19A<, %%, D9@B1B. 61. 3elson 3., ,la7e *. *., an 4o"ton Jane S. (n eCperi#ental in)estigation of the effecti)eness of the Jbig lieJ in shifting attit" es. J. soc. Psychol., 19%<, A<, %1-6>. 6D. 3elsort 3., ,la7e *. *., an 4o"ton Jane S. J&etition-signing as a 9"st#ent to sit"ational an personal factorsJ. J. soc. Psychol., 19%<, A<, B-1>. 6B. 3elson 3., ,la7e *. *., 4o"ton Jane S., an +l#stea J. (. (ttit" es

-D@D6B. as a 9"st#ents to sti#"l"s bac7gro"n an resi "al factors. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%6, %D, B1A-BDD. 6A. 3off#an 4. L. JConfor#ity as a efense #echanis# an a for# of resistance to gen"ine gro"p infl"enceJ. J. Pers., 19%@, D%, A1D-ADA. 6%. 3off#an 4. L. JSo#e psycho yna#ic factors in co#p"lsi)e confor#ityJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%B, A<, B<B-B9B. 66. 3ollan er -. &. JConfor#ity, stat"s an i iosyncrasy cre itJ. Psychol. Rev., 19%<, 6%, 11@-1D@. 6@. 3or8itG 4., &iana /abriel 4., /ol #an 1ella 4., an Lee ;. J. J2eri icality of: attit" es to8ar a"thority an effects on learningJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%%, 1>, BB6. =(bstract? 6<. Jac7son J. 4., an SaltGstein 3. 1. J.he effect of person-gro"p relationships on confor#ity processesJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%<, %@, 1@-DA. 69. Jac"bcGa7 L., an Walters *. 3. J(n eCperi#ental in)estigation of s"ggestibility in ter#s of epen ency beha)iorJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%<, 1B, BD<. =(bstract? @>. Jenness (. J.he role of isc"ssion in changing opinions regar ing a #atter of factJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19BD, D@, D@9-D96. @1. Jones -. -., Wells 3. 3., an .orrey *. JSo#e effects of fee bac7 fro# the eCperi#enter on confor#ity beha)iorJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%<, %@, D>@-D1B. @D. 0eisler -. *. J.he ifferential effect of s"ccess an fail"re "pon i#itati)e beha)iorJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%6, 11, B69. =(bstract? @B. 0elley 3. 3., an La#b .. W. JCertainty of 9" g#ent an resistance to social infl"enceJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%@, %%, 1B@-1B9. @A. 0elley 3. 3., an Shapiro 4. 4. J(n eCperi#ent on confor#ity to gro"p nor#s 8here confor#ity is etri#ental to gro"p achie)e#entJ. A)er. sociol. Rev., 19%A, 19, 66@-6@@. @%. 0el#an 3. C. -ffects of s"ccess an fail"re on Js"ggestibilityJ in the a"to7inetic sit"ation. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%>, A%, D6@-D<%. @6. 0i J. S. JSocial infl"ence pheno#ena in a tas7-oriente gro"p sit"ationJ. J. a'nor), soc. Psychol., 19%<, %6, 1B-1@.

@@. 0i J. S., an Ca#pbell 1. .. JConfor#ity to gro"ps as a f"nction of gro"p s"ccessJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psvchol., 19%%, %1, B9>-B9B. @<. 0i#brell 1. L., an ,la7e *. *. J4oti)ational factors in the )iolation of a prohibitionJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%<, %6, 1BD-1BB. @9. 0ir7patric7 C. J(n eCperi#ental st" y of the #o ification of social attit" esJ. A)er. J. Sociol., 19B6, A1, 6A9-6%6. <>. 0rebs (. 4. J.8o eter#inants of confor#ity, age of in epen ence training an achie)e#entJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%<, %6, 1B>-1B1. <1. La#bert W. -., an Lo8y ;. 3. J-ffects of the presence an Psychol., 19%@, 11, 1%1-1%6. isc"ssion of others on eCpresse attit" esJ. +ana%. J.

<D. La8son -. 1., an Stagner *. J/ro"p press"re, attit" e change, an a"tono#ic in)ol)e#entJ. J. soc. Psychol., 19%@, A%, D99-B1D. <B. Lef7o8itG 4., ,la7e *. *., an 4o"ton Jane S. JStat"s factors in pe estrian )iolation of traffic signalsJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%%, %1, @>A-@>6. <A. Le)ine J., Laffal J., ,erho8itG 4., Lin e#ann J., an 1re) ahl J. JConfor#ing beha)ior of psychiatric an #e ical patientsJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%A, A9, D%1-D%%.

-D@B<%. Linton 3arriet ,. J*orschach correlates of response to s"ggestionJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%A, A9, @%-<B. <6. Linton 3arriet ,. J1epen ence on eCternal infl"ence$ Correlates in perception, attit" es, an a 9"st#entJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%%, %1, %>D-%>@. <@. L"chins (. S. J+n agree#ent 8ith another:s 9" g#entsJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19AA, B9, 9@-111. <<. L"chins (. S. JSocial infl"ences on perception of co#pleC ra8ingsJ. J. soc. Psychol., 19A%, D1, D%@-D@A. <9. L"chins (. S., an L"chins - ith 3. J+n confor#ity 8ith tr"e an false co##"nicationsJ. J. soc. Psychol., 19%%, AD, D<B-B>A. 9>. L"chins (. S., an L"chins - ith 3. J&re)io"s eCperience 8ith a#big"o"s an non-a#big"o"s percept"al sti#"li "n er )ario"s social infl"encesJ. J. soc. Psychol., 19%%, AD, DA9-D@>. 91. 4cConnell J. 2., an ,la7e *. *. J( #etho ological st" y of tape-recor e synthetic gro"p at#ospheresJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%B, <, B9%. =(bstract? 9D. 4c0eachie W. J. JIn i)i "al confor#ity to attit" es of classroo# gro"psJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%A, A9, D<DD<9. 9B. 4cS"een *. J-Ca#ination eception as a f"nction of resi "al, bac7gro"n , an i##e iate sti#"l"s factorsJ. J. Pers., 19%@, D%, 6AB-6%>. 9A. 4aier !. *. ;., an Sole# (. *. J.he contrib"tion of a isc"ssion lea er to the F"ality of gro"p thin7ing$ .he effecti)e "se of #inority opinionsJ. -u). Relat., 19%D, %, D@@-D<<.

9%. 4arinho 3eloisa. JSocial infl"ence in the for#ation of en "ring preferencesJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19AD, B@, AA<A6<. 96. 4a"sner ,. JSt" ies in social interaction$ III. -ffect of )ariation in one partner:s prestige on the interaction of obser)er pairsJ. J. a((l. Psychol., 19%B, B@, B91-B9B. 9@. 4a"sner ,. J.he effect of one partner:s s"ccess in a rele)ant tas7 on the interaction of obser)er pairsJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%A, A9, %%@-%6>. 9<. 4a"sner ,. J.he effect of prior reinforce#ent on the interaction of obser)er pairsJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%A, A9, 6%-6<. 99. 4a"sner ,. JSt" ies in social interaction$ I. ( concept"al sche#eJ. J. soc. Psychol., 19%%, A1, D%9-D@>. 1>>. 4a"sner ,., an ,loch ,arbara L. J( st" y of the a Psychol., 19%@, %A, D%>-D%6. iti)ity of )ariables affecting social interactionJ. J. a'nor). soc.

1>1. 4illon .., an Si#7ins L. C. JS"ggestibility of a"thoritarians an Psychologist, 19%@, 1D, A>A. =(bstract?

eF"alitarians to prestige infl"enceJ. A)er.

1>D. 4oeller /., an (ppleG8eig 4. 3. J( #oti)ational factor in confor#ityJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%@, %%, 11A1D>. 1>B. 4o"ton Jane S., ,la7e *. *., an +l#stea J. (. J.he relationship bet8een freF"ency of yiel ing an the isclos"re of personal i entityJ. J. Pers., 19%6, DA, BB9-BA@. 1>A. 4"nsterberg 3. J,eitr]geG"r eCperi#entellen &sychologieJ. In *"th W. ,eren a , &he influence of the grou( on the <u%g)ents of chil%ren. !e8 6or7$ 0ing:s Cro8n &ress, 19%>. 1>%. 4"ssen &. 3., an 0agan J. J/ro"p confor#ity an perceptions of parentsJ. +hil% ,evel()., 19%<, D9, %@-6>. 1>6. !a7a#"ra C. 6. JConfor#ity an proble#-sol)ingJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%<, %6, B1%-BD>.

-D@A1>@. +l#stea J. (., an ,la7e *. *. J.he "se of si#"late gro"ps to pro "ce #o ifications in 9" g#entJ. J. Pers., 19%%, DB, BB%-BA%. 1><. &reston 4. /., an 3eintG *. 0. J-ffects of participatory )s. s"per)isory lea ership on gro"p 9" g#entJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19A9, AA, BA%-B%%. 1>9. *a)en ,. 3., an ;rench J. *. &., Jr. J/ro"p s"pport, legiti#ate po8er, an social infl"enceJ. J. Pers., 19%<, D6, A>>A>9. 11>. *a)en ,. 3., an *ietse#a J. J.he effects of )arie clarity of gro"p goal an gro"p path "pon the in i)i "al an his relation to his gro"pJ. -u). Relat., 19%@, 1>, D9-A%. 111. *ohrer J. 3., ,aron S. 3., 3off#an -. L., an S8an er 1. 2. J.he stability of a"to7inetic 9" g#entsJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%A, A9, %9%-%9@. 11D. *osenba"# 4. -. J.he effect of sti#"l"s an bac7gro"n factors on the )ol"nteering responseJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%6, %B, 11<-1D1.

11B. *osenba"# 4. -., an ,la7e *. *. J2ol"nteering as a f"nction of fiel str"ct"reJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%%, %>, 19B-196. 11A. *osner S. JConsistency in response to gro"p press"resJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%@, %%, 1A%-1A6. 11%. Sa#elson ;. JConfor#ing beha)ior "n er t8o con itions of conflict in the cogniti)e fiel J. J. a'nor). soc. Pvychol., 19%@, %%, 1<1-1<@. 116. Schachter S., -llertson !., 4c,ri e 1orothy, an /regory 1oris. J(n eCperi#ental st" y of cohesi)eness an pro "cti)ityJ. -u). Relat., 19%1, A, DD9-DB<. 11@. Schachter S., an 3all *. J/ro"p- eri)e restraints an a" ience pers"asionJ. -u). Relat., 19%D, %, B9@-A>6. 11<. Schonbar *osealea (. J.he interaction of obser)er-pairs in 9" ging )is"al eCtent an #o)e#entJ. Arch. Psychol., 19A%, A1, !o. D99. 119. Schro er 3. 4., an 3"nt 1. -. J1ispositional effects "pon confor#ity at ifferent le)els of iscrepancyJ. J. Pers., 19%<, D6, DA<-D%<. 1D>. Scott W. (. J(ttit" e change thro"gh re8ar of )erbal beha)iorJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%@, %%, @D-@%. 1D1. Sherif 4. J( st" y of so#e social factors in perceptionJ. Arch. Psychol., 19B%, D@, !o. 1<@. 1DD. Sherif 4. J(n eCperi#ental approach to the st" y of attit" esJ. Socio)etry, 19B@, 1, 9>-9<. 1DB. Sherif 4. &he (sychology of social nor)s. !e8 6or7$ 3arper ,ros., 19B6. 1DA. Sherif 1. 4., an 3ar)ey +. J. J( st" y in ego f"nctioning$ -li#ination of stable anchorages in in i)i "al an gro"p sit"ationsJ. Socio)etry, 19%D, 1%, D@D-B>%. 1D%. Spohn 3. -. J.he effect of gro"p nor#s "pon perception in chronic schiGophrenic patientsJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%6, 11, B66. =(bstract? 1D6. Steiner I. 1., an &eters S. C. JConfor#ity an the (-,-` #o elJ. J. Pers., 19%<, D6, DD9-DAD. 1D@. .hiba"t J. W., an Stric7lan L. J&sychological set an social confor#ityJ. J. Pers., 19%6, D%, 11%-1D9. 1D<. Wells W. 1., Weinert /., an *"bel 4arilyn. JConfor#ity press"re an a"thoritarian personalityJ. J. Psychol., 19%6, AD, 1BB-1B6. 1D9. Wheeler 1., an Jor an 3. JChange of in i)i "al opinion to accor 8ith gro"p opinionJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19D9, DA, D>B-D>6. 1B>. Whitta7er J. +. J.he effects of eCperi#entally intro "ce anchorages "pon 9" g#ents in the a"to7inetic sit"ationJ. 'np"blishe octoral issertation, 'ni)er. of +7laho#a, 19%<.

-D@%1B1. Wiener 4., Carpenter Janeth .., an Carpenter ,. JSo#e eter#inants of confor#ity beha)iorJ. J. soc. Psychol., 19%@, A%, D<9-D9@.

1BD. Wiener 4. J'ncertainty of 9" g#ent as a eter#inant of confor#ity beha)iorJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%6, 11, A>@. =(bstract? 1BB. Wiener 4., Carpenter Janeth .., an Carpenter ,. J-Cternal )ali ation of a #eas"re of confor#ity beha)iorJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%6, %D, AD1-ADD. 1BA. 5iller *. C., an ,ehringer *. J/ro"p pers"asion "n er con itions of inc"bation an )arying gro"p siGeJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%<, 1B, B%B. =(bstract?

CHAPTER

-D@6-

Countermanipulation through malingering

4(LC+L4 L. 4-L.5-*

Introdu tion 3istorically, the proble# of psychopathology has been the e)elop#ent of techniF"es 8hich 8o"l isco)er an #a7e apparent e#otional pathology that is not i##e iately e)i ent. Screening tests, lie scales, obser)ational an inter)ie8 proce "res ha)e all been e)ise 8ith the pri#ary intent of "n#as7ing the potentially or act"ally ist"rbe in i)i "al 8ho #asF"era es behin a front of efensi)eness an s"perficial social confor#ity. .he opposite type of "n#as7ing, i.e., of the feigning or si#"lation of e#otional illness 8hich is not in reality present or is eCaggerate to an eCtre#e egree, has recei)e co#parati)ely less attention. 4"rphy =6%? has 8ritten an eCcellent history of #alingering an has sho8n that the proble# of si#"lation has been present since -arly /ree7 an ,iblical ti#es. (ltho"gh the si#"lation of psychosis or of epilepsy has a long history, #ore attention has been gi)en in the past to the feigning of iseases of single organs, an the e)elop#ent of laboratory techniF"es 8hich 8o"l ifferentiate the sic7 fro# the 8ell. .he #alingerer, on his part, has sho8n a#aGing reso"rcef"lness in 7eeping abreast of the literat"re an in e)ising co"nter co"nter-#eas"res. .he si#"lation of #ental illness by capt"re prisoners of 8ar is a potential, an perhaps effecti)e, techniF"e for e)a ing interrogation. In al#ost all c"lt"res, the #entally ill person cannot be hel acco"ntable for his actions, is consi ere inco#petent, an is not -D@@eCpecte to gi)e a rational acco"nt of hi#self, his past, or his en)iron#ent. .he prisoner of 8ar, face 8ith coerci)e interrogation, an rel"ctant to betray his co"ntry an frien s, #ight choose this as an

honorable alternati)e 8hich fa)ors self-preser)ation. Certainly this has beco#e #ore freF"ent a#ong persons charge 8ith serio"s cri#es in co"rts of la8. .he increasing pop"lariGation of the #ental health #o)e#ent an the p"blicity atten ant to the 4:!aghten *"les an the 1"rha# ecision #ay lea to a f"rther confo"n ing of cri#inal acts an #ental illness. .his chapter is not concerne 8ith the #oral or ethical aspects of this proble#, b"t rather is irecte to8ar "n erstan ing ho8 #alingering #ay beco#e a factor in sit"ations in)ol)ing the interrogation of a resistant so"rce by a captor. ,eca"se of the foc"s of interest, it see#s feasible to li#it the scope of this chapter to the feigning of those illnesses 8hich 8o"l ren er the person #entally inco#petent. (ltho"gh a person #ay #alinger a paralysis of the ar#s or legs, blin ness, or a lo8 bac7 pain, none of these sy#pto#s 8o"l #a7e it i#possible for hi# to testify or re)eal infor#ation. 3o8e)er, psychosis, #ental eficiency, or a#nesia 8o"l #ore than li7ely lea an interrogator or eCa#iner to the concl"sion that the person is not a reliable so"rce of infor#ation 8ho can be eCpecte to report e)ents acc"rately an realistically. .h"s, the pri#ary ai# of this beha)ior is e)asion rather than the financial gain 8hich is often the #oti)ation for si#"lating physical isease. 4ore specifically, it is an e)asion of responsibility, the responsibility for past acts or for f"t"re acts, as relate to the gi)ing of infor#ation. In this chapter, then, #alingering refers to the planne an eliberate si#"lation of #ental sy#pto#s for the p"rpose of e)a ing responsibility. .8o things beco#e apparent in re)ie8ing the literat"re on #alingering. .he b"l7 of it is i#pressionistic an s"b9ecti)e, an at ti#es there is #ore isagree#ent than agree#ent a#ong the 8riters. 4"ch of the pole#ics re)ol)e aro"n iss"es s"ch as the #oral reprehensibility of #alingeringI 8hether or not the #alingerer is, by efinition, an e#otionally ist"rbe personI the ifferentiation of #alingering fro# the /anser syn ro#eI 8hether or not the /anser syn ro#e is an hysterical or psychotic reactionI an the iffic"lties of etecting #alingering. ;or the #ost part, it appears that those 8ho are opti#istic abo"t etecting #alingering #ight o 8ell to share so#e of the pessi#is# of their colleag"es. (s 1a)i son =19? points o"t, e)en the best clinicians #a7e errors in this area, an 4ac1onal =%<? stresses the nee for professional s7ill an long eCperience in eter#ining 8hether #alingering is an ele#ent of the clinical pict"re. -D@<&ri#arily, this chapter 8ill atte#pt to bring so#e or er an clarity to this area by re)ie8ing an e)al"ating the literat"re, an by atte#pting to fit these fin ings to constr"cts ta7en fro# the broa er area of social psychology. 3opef"lly, this #ay present certain reference points for thin7ing abo"t #alingering an e)al"ating it, an #ay pro)i e an orientation for organiGing techniF"es to etect #alingering. St" ies fro# the eCperi#ental literat"re 8hich eal 8ith relate concepts 8ill be incl" e . .he follo8ing fo"r pathological states 8ill be consi ere , the si#"lation of 8hich #ight lea the interrogator to concl" e that the so"rce is "nreliable or inco#petent$ psychosis, the /anser syn ro#e, #ental eficiency, an a#nesia.

Ado4tion o' & De e4ti,e Ro$e .he si#"lation of psychosis or of any #ental aberration #ay be consi ere as a conscio"s an eliberate atte#pt to ta7e a specific social role. (ccor ing to Sarbin =@@?, the concept of role eals 8ith the organiGe actions of a person in har#ony 8ith a gi)en stat"s or position. ( position #ay be

consi ere a syste# of rights an "ties eCercise by the person 8ho occ"pies the position. It is eF"i)alent to a cogniti)e syste# of role eCpectations. .he role eCpectations, 8hich are learne thro"gh irect or in irect eCperiences, eal 8ith 8ith the beha)ior eCpecte of the occ"pant of a partic"lar position, an 8ith the beha)ior anticipate of the person occ"pying the reciprocal position in the social interaction sit"ation. .h"s the position or stat"s of the #entally ill person is c"lt"rally trans#itte 9"st as any other role, an consists of a syste# of eCpectations abo"t the beha)ior of the #entally ill person. It also incl" es the reciprocal eCpectation that the person ealing 8ith the erange patient 8ill protect hi#, consi er hi# not responsible for his actions, pre)ent hi# fro# oing har#, #a7e fe8 if any e#an s on hi# to be rational, an instit"te therape"tic an rehabilitati)e #eas"res. .he organiGe beha)ior of the in i)i "al, irecte to8ar f"lfilling these eCpectations of the self an other, is calle the role. .h"s, the person 8ho plays the role of the psychotic is trying to eter#ine the role of the eCa#iner or interrogator, an he eCpects a certain response fro# hi#. 3o8 s"ccessf"l he 8ill be in enacting that role see#s to be epen ent on three factors. .he first relates to the a eF"acy an )ali ity of his role perception, i.e., ho8 8ell he has percei)e an "n erstoo the organiGe set of actions co#prising that role. .he secon appears to be relate to a generaliGe s7ill at ta7ing an -D@9enacting roles. ;inally, certain en "ring or te#porary #oti)ational an F"alitati)e characteristics of the self str"ct"re are probably infl"ential in eter#ining the choice an a eF"acy of the role. .his possible consonance of basic personality to enacte role is one of the #ost co#plicating factors in recogniGing #alingering, an is one 8ith 8hich al#ost all 8or7ers in this fiel ha)e 8restle . (ltho"gh these notions on role beha)ior #ay help in "n erstan ing #alingering in general, there is as yet little e#pirical 8or7 8hich 8o"l ai in the pre iction of the persons an the circ"#stances 8hich #ight co#bine to pro "ce si#"lation of psychosis. It is apparent that al#ost all in i)i "als play ifferent roles, an the role playe is partly epen ent "pon 8ho the partner is in the social sit"ation. ,loc7 =9? an ,loc7 an ,ennett =11? ha)e e#onstrate that a single s"b9ect )aries his beha)ior as the interpersonal sit"ation changes. 4eltGer =6D? has sho8n that there are in i)i "al ifferences in the ability to shift roles, an this ability see#s partly relate to the sophistication an co#pleCity of the person:s "n erstan ing of others. .he co#pleCity of this "n erstan ing i not appear to be a f"nction of self an i eal-self iscrepancy in a ho#ogeneo"s sa#ple of college st" ents. 3o8e)er, /o"gh =B%? an Ca#eron =1A? ha)e arg"e that role-ta7ing ability is relate to e#otional 8ell-being. St" ies by Sarbin an ;arbero8 =@<?, Sarbin an 3ar yc7 =@9?, an Sarbin an Jones =<>? ha)e ten e to confir# that a eF"ate role perception an )ali ity of role enact#ent are positi)ely relate to a 9"st#ent. 3o8e)er, in a st" y by 3elfan =A>?, schiGophrenics in re#ission 8ere fo"n to be #ore a ept at ta7ing the role of a stan ar sti#"l"s person than 8ere either nor#als or chronic schiGophrenics. In a ition, 1ra7e =D1? fo"n that the better actors in a college ra#a epart#ent score higher than i poorer actors an nonactors on t8o of the three ne"rotic scales of the 44&I. .h"s, there are so#e8hat contra ictory fin ings concerning the F"estion of a 9"st#ent in relation to s7ill for enacting a )ariety of roles. .he #ore specific F"estion of the type of person 8ho 8ill atte#pt to si#"late the role of the psychotic has not been in)estigate eCperi#entally. ;ro# role theory co#es the s"ggestion that the role chosen an playe 8ell is the one 8hich is congr"ent 8ith the nat"re an organiGation of the self =@@?. .his 8o"l ten to s"pport those 8riters 8ho feel that #alingering of psychosis is a sy#pto# of a serio"s personality efect, if not a psychosis in itself. .his position is #ost clearly ta7en by +ssipo) =69? 8ho feels that the

person 8ho si#"lates a psychosis is accent"ating his o8n latent characteristics. 4oreo)er, se)eral a"thors ha)e pointe o"t that #alingering #ay be "se to -D<>conceal an act"al psychosis, an that 8hich 8as at first consi ere #alingering #ay sho8 "p as a gra)e isor er later =1B, DD, BA, A@, %<?. -issler =DD? eCplains this as an atte#pt to hol a psychosis in abeyance by acting as if the beha)ior is "n er control an not so#ething one is s"b#itting to. ;"rther#ore, on reco)ery fro# psychosis, a person #ay clai# he 8as #alingering beca"se it #ay be too h"#iliating to ha)e others 7no8 that that he 8as s"ffering fro# a psychiatric isor er =DD, %<?. .h"s, regar less of the proble# of 8ho is best at ta7ing roles, the ist"rbe or the integrate in i)i "al, there are #any 8ho 8o"l hol that the choice of a specific role, that of the psychotic, "s"ally in icates serio"s psychopathology. 3o8e)er, others arg"e that 8hile the #alingerer #ay be e#otionally "pset, there are also #any nor#als an near nor#als 8ho #alinger "n er eCtre#e circ"#stances =DD, DB, D9, B>, A1, %<, <<, 91?. (s 4ac1onal =%<? an +ssipo) =69? in icate, the si#"lation of #ental inco#petence is #ore freF"ent 8hen there is anger of loss of life. Certainly the #alingerer oes not eCpect to be p"nishe #ore se)erely for ha)ing co##itte a #"r er an feigning psychosis than for ha)ing co##itte a #"r er 8itho"t feigning psychosis, if thro"gh si#"lation there #ay be a chance of a)oi ing p"nish#ent. .he interrogation sit"ation appears si#ilarly eCtre#e. .he person #ay see hi#self in a role conflict, an fail"re to resol)e the conflict #ay cost hi# his life. 3e is occ"pying t8o positions si#"ltaneo"sly, an the role eCpectations of the one are not co#patible 8ith the other. (s a loyal sol ier he is eCpecte by his co"ntry to 8ithhol infor#ation 8hich 8o"l ai the ene#y. (s a prisoner of 8ar, the ene#y eCpects hi# to re)eal 8hat he 7no8s. (s sho8n by /"llahorn =B<?, a person 8ho is place in a sit"ation 8here inco#patible e#an s are place "pon hi# beca"se of his role relationships in t8o gro"ps 8ill try to retain both positions an fin a 8ay of satisfying the# both. .oby =<A? in his analysis of role conflict sit"ations s"ggests that illness is an eCc"se by 8hich a person in role conflict #ay a)oi perfor#ing an obligation or "ty of a role, 8itho"t relinF"ishing the position an 8itho"t s"ffering sanctions for failing to perfor# the "ty. .h"s illness, an partic"larly #ental illness, 8o"l allo8 the prisoner to escape the role ile##a, an since illness is s"ch a 8i esprea eCc"se, special personality characteristics #ay not be necessary for selecting this role "n er eCtre#e circ"#stances. ."rner =<%? has sho8n that nonconfor#ing beha)ior is eCc"se by frien s if they belie)e that the beha)ior is inconsistent 8ith the person:s "s"al role an 8as ca"se by "n"s"al stress. ( person #ay forgi)e hi#self in a si#ilar fashion. ;"rther#ore, if one concei)es of #alin-D<1gering as antisocial beha)ior =SGasG, <B?, then there is #"ch e)i ence to in icate that #any people are ishonest at one ti#e or another =1%, 1@, B9, %1, %9?. 3artshorne an 4ay =B9?, "sing school chil ren as s"b9ects, concl" e that eceit or honesty is not a "nifie character trait b"t rather a specific f"nction of the person:s life sit"ation. +ne of the sit"ations 8hich see#s to enhance the possibility of eceit or cheating is a threat to the person:s role. .his is one 8ay of interpreting the rather consistent fin ing that poor st" ents 8ho are ha)ing iffic"lty #aintaining their roles as st" ents are #ore li7ely to cheat =1%, 1@, B9?. (nother in ication that circ"#stances are infl"ential in eter#ining antisocial beha)ior is the

fin ing that eCa#ination eception is a f"nction of the partic"lar peer gro"p:s attit" e to8ar ishonesty =%9?. .h"s, it is possible to concl" e that in conflict sit"ations an eCtre#e circ"#stances, especially 8hen one:s life #ay see# to be at sta7e, #oti)ational factors co"l o)erri e en "ring personality traits, at least as regar s an atte#pt at #alingering. .his also see#s to be congr"ent 8ith the fin ing that a person 8ill ta7e a partic"lar role if it is seen as satisfying an i#portant nee =66?.

T"e I-it&tion o' S#-4to-s .he s"ccess of si#"lation appears to be greatly epen ent on the )ali ity an a eF"acy of the #alingerer:s perception of 8hat co#prises the role 8hich he is trying to si#"late. (s pointe o"t by se)eral 8riters, the person 8ho si#"lates is an actor 8ho portrays an illness as he "n erstan s it =<, %<, 69?. It 8o"l appear that the characteristics an beha)iors 8hich are percei)e as cr"cial to the role are acF"ire thro"gh eCperience an obser)ation. &ersonal eCperiences #ay ha)e occ"rre 8ith frien s or relati)es 8ho 8ere psychotic. In the t8o cases escribe by (t7in =A?, the role perceptions necessary for the #alingering 8ere b"ilt "p by confine#ent in #ental hospitals at eariler ti#es. .he c"lt"ral stereotype of the erange person also see#s to be "se as a basis for role enact#ent. +bser)ations #a e of cri#inal cases being psychiatrically e)al"ate prior to trial ten to s"pport this. 4any !egro patients 8ho are tho"ght to be #alingering ten to play the part of a slo8, so#e8hat conf"se an efecti)e person 8ho "n erstan s little of 8hat is going on aro"n hi#. Li7e #e#bers of other oppresse #inorities, so#e !egroes ha)e a opte a #as7 of "llness an "na8areness 8hen interacting 8ith the Ca"casian #a9ority =%?. .he c"lt"ral eter#ination of the ingre ients Which are percei)e as co#prising the psychotic -D<Drole is also e)i ent in the 8or7 of ,ene ict =6?. 3er in)estigation of tranceli7e states in pri#iti)e c"lt"res le her to concl" e that the content of the hall"cinations eCperience is relati)ely constant 8ithin gro"ps b"t highly )ariable bet8een gro"ps. .his s"ggests that the role of the person in trance is learne fro# interaction 8ith his o8n gro"p. (s she states, J-)en in trance the in i)i "al hol s strictly to the r"les an eCpectations of his c"lt"re, an his eCperience is as locally patterne as a #arriage rite or an econo#ic eCchangeJ =6, p. @@?. Sarbin =@6? gi)es a si#ilar interpretation to the beha)ior of the hypnotiGe s"b9ect 8hich can also be approCi#ate thro"gh si#"lation. Sarbin "n erstan s this beha)ior as an "nconscio"s atte#pt on the s"b9ect:s part to ta7e the role of the hypnotic s"b9ect as percei)e by hi# thro"gh pre)io"s eCperience =see Chapter %?. .he etection of #alingering epen s to a great eCtent on the si#"lator:s fail"re to "n erstan a eF"ately the characteristics of the illness he is feigning. .his principle appears central to the in ices of #alingering 8hich are reporte in the literat"re. (ltho"gh the si#"lator #ay ha)e so#e "n erstan ing of psychosis, his "n erstan ing is "s"ally spotty. 3e fails to appreciate the "n erlying ist"rbance an portrays isolate sy#pto#s instea =19, <@?. .h"s, he #ay co#plain of hall"cinations or el"sions b"t not sho8 any of the for#al characteristics of schiGophrenic tho"ght. +ften he presents sy#pto#s 8hich are eCcee ingly rare, eCisting #ainly in the fancy of the layan =<?. +ne s"ch sy#pto# is the el"sion of #isi entification, characteriGe by the patient:s belief that he is so#e po8erf"l or historic personage. .his sy#pto# is )ery "n"s"al in tr"e psychosis, b"t is "se by a n"#ber of si#"lators =19?. In schiGophrenia, the onset ten s to be gra "al, el"sions o not spring "p f"ll-blo8n o)ernightI in si#"late isor ers, the onset is "s"ally fast an el"sions #ay be rea ily a)ailable =A@, 69?. .he feigne psychosis often contains

#any contra ictory an inconsistent sy#pto#s, rarely eCisting together =<, A@, 69, <@?. .he #alingerer ten s to go to eCtre#es in his portrayal of his sy#pto#s$ he eCaggerates, o)er ra#atiGes, gri#aces, sho"ts, is o)erly biGarre, an calls attention to hi#self in other 8ays =<, 19, A@, %%, 69, <@?. In oing this, the #alingerer presents a chil ish, a aistic, nonsensical pict"re rather than a psychotic one. +n the other han , (t7in =A? feels that the #alingerer fails by not #aintaining the si#"lation long eno"gh rather than by failing to portray a psychotic pict"re acc"rately. -issler =DD? is #ore pessi#istic an conten s that a s#art #alingerer probably 8ill #aintain an acc"rate pict"re o)er a long perio of ti#e an #ay get a8ay 8ith it. -D<BJones an Lle8ellyn =A@? feel that psychosis an #ental eficiency are #ore freF"ently feigne than epression an e"phoria, b"t others ha)e reporte a 8i e range of si#"late illnesses. Se)eral of the #ore freF"ently feigne sy#pto#s are el"sions, hall"cinations, epression, conf"sion, eCcite#ent, an #"tis#. So#e of the inconsistencies an fallacies apparent in the #alingerer:s enact#ent of these sy#pto#s #ay be specifie .

De$usions .he non eteriorate schiGophrenic is often rel"ctant to isc"ss his el"sions beca"se he has isco)ere that people are li7ely to scoff at hi#. If he is 8illing to tal7 abo"t the#, he 8ill probably tal7 at great length an ans8er F"estions if the inter)ie8er appears sy#pathetic an enco"raging. .he #alingerer, on the other han , feels that he #"st contin"ally re#in the eCa#iner abo"t his el"sions an brings the# "p on each occasion. 3o8e)er, 8hen presse for partic"lars he #ay beco#e e)asi)e, especially if he sees a o"bting attit" e in the inter)ie8er. (ltho"gh so#e tr"ly biGarre an co#plicate el"sions #ay be fabricate on the sp"r of the #o#ent, it is #ore li7ely that the el"sions 8ill be )ery )ag"e an )ery li#ite . It is rare to fin el"sions as the only sy#pto# of #ental illness, b"t so#e #alingerers present no other #a9or sy#pto#s.

Hallucinations 4alingerers often report )is"al an a" itory hall"cinations. 2is"al hall"cinations are rather rare an are #ore characteristic of ac"te eliri"# an hall"cinosis "e to toCicity than of schiGophrenia. (gain, in toCic con itions this sho"l not be an isolate sy#pto#, an one 8o"l also eCpect conf"sion, tre#or, sl"rre speech, an isorientation along 8ith the )is"al hall"cinations. (" itory hall"cinations, 8hich are #ore characteristic of the schiGophrenic, sho"l also be acco#panie by the types of tho"ght ist"rbance characteristic of the schiGophrenic.

Depression

1epression, especially psychotic epression, is consi ere iffic"lt to si#"late, pri#arily beca"se the conco#itant so#atic an physiological changes are absent =19, A@, %<?. .he tr"ly epresse patient 8ill sho8 a poor appetite, loss of 8eight, constipation, an a ist"rbance of his -D<Asleep cycle. -)en #ore iffic"lt to feign are the alterations of the physiological processes 8hich appear in prolonge epressions. .hese #ay incl" e lo8ere #etabolis#, lo8ere te#perat"re, ry s7in an hair, an lo8ere re cell co"nt. 3o8e)er, there is e)i ence to in icate that #oti)ation, attit" e, an intent 8ill ha)e an effect on physiologic processesI therefore the s"ccess of the #alingerer in act"ating so#e of these changes sho"l not be isco"nte . (rnol =B? has re)ie8e so#e of that e)i ence. 3o8e)er, the cr" e #alingerer 8ill probably not sho8 these changes nor 8ill he #anifest the selfreproachf"l an selfcon e#natory i eas 8hich are characteristic of the epresse patient. (lso, the si#"lator #ay be too F"ic7, alert, an responsi)e 8hen he is eCa#ine .

Con usion Conf"sion, st"por, an a#nesia #ay res"lt fro# the stress an strain of co#bat, capt"re, or arrest. If it is a te#porary anCiety state, it sho"l respon to r"gs an a sy#pathetic attit" e. (lso it sho"l at the o"tset be associate 8ith other sy#pto#s, s"ch as hea ache, agitation, restlessness, poor concentration, inso#nia, night#ares, i eas of physical isease s"ch as heart tro"ble, the effort syn ro#e, yspepsia, tre#or, poor appetite, an an eCaggerate startle reaction. .he #alingerer 8ho feigns a conf"se state is "s"ally slo8, p"GGle , "na8are, an "nable to ans8er e)en si#ple F"estions. 3is responses to F"estions #ay be biGarre, b"t if he is repeate ly presse for the correct ans8er, he #ay gi)e it. 4ost i#portant 8o"l be close obser)ation "ring perio s 8hen the patient oes not 7no8 that he is being obser)e . When alone or 8ith frien s, or e)en 8hen tal7ing abo"t certain topics 8ith the eCa#iner, the #alingerer #ay sho8 a s"rprising a#o"nt of responsi)eness an alertness. 3o8e)er, -issler =DD? 8arns that the goo #alingerer is on g"ar to #aintain his sy#pto#s at all ti#es, an that the beha)ior of both the nor#al an the abnor#al changes 8hen in solit" e or 8hen not being F"estione by an a"thority fig"re.

Mutism .his appears to be a #ost iffic"lt r"se to eCpose, b"t also a iffic"lt one for the #alingerer to #aintain. 4"tis# #ay res"lt fro# psychosis, organic brain isease, hysteria, or #ay 9"st be #alingere . If it is a #anifestation of cerebral in)ol)e#ent, the other sy#pto#s #entione abo)e #ay be e)i ent. If it is of a psychotic nat"re, the -D<%patient 8ill probably be 8ith ra8n an not responsi)e to his en)iron#ent. +f co"rse, physical a#age to the spea7ing apparat"s #"st be r"le o"t. .he ifferentiation of hysterical an #alingere #"tis# is especially iffic"lt. Since it is a iffic"lt sy#pto# to #aintain o)er a long perio of ti#e, the #alingerer #ay gi)e hi#self a8ay in an "ng"ar e #o#ent. !arcoanalysis #ay help in #a7ing the correct

iagnosis. .he hysterical patient 8ill probably be able to spea7 "ring narcosis, 8hereas the #alingerer 8ill probably contin"e to be #"te.

Te$$t&$es o' I-4osture (si e fro# the li7elihoo that the si#"lator 8ill not realistically an consistently portray the sy#pto#s of the isor er he is feigning, he #ay also sho8 e)asi)e an "ncooperati)e beha)ior 8hile he is being eCa#ine =D<, A@, %<, @D?. Since he is a8are of the "nreality or eCaggeration of his sy#pto#s, he is apprehensi)e lest others recogniGe his r"se, an this lea s hi# to be especially s"spicio"s, #istr"stf"l, an ca"tio"s. +f co"rse, this beha)ior is also typical of the tr"e paranoi patient an therefore cannot in itself be ta7en as e)i ence of #alingering. 3o8e)er, as Sarbin =@@? in icates, a person #"st #o)e ca"tio"sly an "ncertainly 8hen he is not s"re 8hat is eCpecte of hi# an ho8 his partner in the social sit"ation #ay react. .h"s the hysteric, 8ho is con)ince of the reality of his sy#pto#s, #ay re)el in being eCa#ine , b"t the si#"lator atte#pts to a)oi eCa#ination. 'sing /off#an:s ter# =B1?, he is afrai of being fo"n o"t of face or in the 8rong face, an he sees the eCa#iner as a person 8ho #ay re)eal his false face or pro)o7e hi# into contra ictory beha)ior. In his atte#pts to forestall eCa#ination, he #ay co#plain of physical illness, or he #ay beha)e in a s"l7y, aggressi)e #anner. 3e #ay be ill at ease, la"gh in a self-conscio"s #anner, be alert, 8atchf"l, an F"ic7 to ta7e iss"e. *ei an (rth"r =D<?, in their isc"ssion of the beha)ior sy#pto#s of lie- etector s"b9ects, obser)e that those 8ho 8ere later pro)en g"ilty ten e to sho8 certain si#ilarities in beha)ior. .he g"ilty persons 8ere rel"ctant to ta7e the test, an they trie in )ario"s 8ays to postpone or elay it. .hey often appeare highly anCio"s an so#eti#es too7 a hostile attit" e to8ar the test an the eCa#iner. -)asi)e tactics so#eti#es appeare , s"ch as sighing, ya8ning, #o)ing abo"t, all of 8hich foil the eCa#iner by obsc"ring the recor ing. ,efore the eCa#ination, they felt it necessary to eCplain 8hy their -D<6responses #ight #islea the eCa#iner into thin7ing they 8ere lying. .h"s the proce "re of s"b9ecting a s"specte #alingerer to a lie etector test #ight e)o7e beha)ior 8hich 8o"l reinforce the s"spicion of fra" . 3o8e)er, it sho"l be note that certain persons s"ch as psychopaths sho8 fe8 #anifest signs of anCiety =Ly77en, %6?, an others are cool, reser)e , an "n erreact to the lie- etector sit"ation =1>, A6?. ,"t, generally, the "ns7ille #alingerer is apt to to be rel"ctant to be eCa#ine an to eCert too #"ch ob)io"s effort in circ"#)enting the "s"al iagnostic techniF"es. ;ort"nately, fe8 of the# isplay the cle)erness of .ho#as 4ann:s hero =6>? 8ho ga)e the i#pression that he 8as anCio"s to e)a e the eCa#ination beca"se he 8as hi ing a sy#pto# 8hich 8o"l 7eep hi# o"t of the ar#y if isco)ere . .his little bit of play acting #a e the eCa#iners only too anCio"s to strip a8ay his #as7 of health an to isco)er tri"#phantly the epilepsy 8hich he 8as so cle)erly si#"lating.

So-e Un-&s8in% Te "niFues (#ong the Jstrategic r"sesJ offere by Jones an Lle8ellyn =A@? is the #etho of s"ggestion. In this proce "re, the inter)ie8er s"ggests other sy#pto#s by inF"iring abo"t their presence, an "s"ally abo"t

sy#pto#s 8hich #ight be inconsistent 8ith the syn ro#e originally presente . If the #alingerer oes not i##e iately agree that he s"ffers 8ith that sy#pto#, he #ay sho8 "p 8ith it at the neCt inter)ie8. Cases are reporte in the literat"re 8here the #alingerer pic7e "p the #ost o"tlan ish an "n"s"al s"ggestions #a e by the eCa#iner an isplaye that biGarre beha)ior shortly after the inter)ie8. .he #etho of s"ggestion can be s"pple#ente by in icating that an infallible c"re for the patient:s con ition is a)ailable. .his #ay consist of any n"#ber of e)ices, incl" ing r"gs, electroshoc7, or hypnosis. .he s"ccess of placebos in effecting sy#pto#atic changes eri)es fro# the patient:s confi ence in the physician an his con)iction that the r"g 8ill pro "ce the pre icte effect =@A, 9D?. In the #alingerer the s"ggeste potency of a therepe"tic #ane")er #ay sha7e his confi ence an lea to his ropping the sy#pto#. .his 8o"l see# to occ"r beca"se of the si#"lator:s i#perfect "n erstan ing of the role he is playing, an of the f"GGy eCpectations he #ay ha)e of the effects of certain proce "res on the sy#pto#s he is portraying. .here is #"ch in the literat"re to in icate that s"ggestibility is increase 8hen the sit"ation is a#big"o"s, "nstr"ct"re , or iffic"lt, an the person has fe8 g"i eposts on 8hich to rely. 'n er s"ch -D<@circ"#stances, he see#s to be greatly infl"ence by the attit" es an perceptions of peers an a"thorities. +n the other han , st" ies by Spohn =<1? an 1i ato =D>? in icate that schiGophrenics #ay be less s"sceptible to social press"res to confor#. .hey #ay therefore be less s"sceptible to s"ggestions #a e by an inter)ie8er regar ing their i#pro)e#ent or sy#pto#s. .he s"ccess reporte for the *orschach in etecting #alingering see#s to follo8 fro# the sa#e principles. .he #alingerer is confronte 8ith an "nstr"ct"re sti#"l"s, an there is )ery little in his bac7gro"n or eCperience 8hich 8o"l in icate to hi# the responses to the *orschach 8hich 8o"l be consistent 8ith the illness he is si#"lating. .h"s, once again, the #alingerer 8o"l be ha#pere by ina eF"ate role eCpectations an an "nsatisfactory fra#e of reference. Whether or not a *orschach can be change eno"gh to fool an eCperience psychologist is still "n eter#ine . ;osberg =DA, D%? as7e his s"b9ects to gi)e t8o *orschachs, a goo i#pression one an a ba i#pression one, an 8hen he fo"n high correlations bet8een the scoring categories on the t8o *orschachs, he concl" e that the *orschach cannot be #anip"late , at least 8ith regar to its for#al scoring categories. Carp an Sha)Gin =16? also as7e their s"b9ects to fa7e the *orschach, an "sing a so#e8hat ifferent #etho of or ering the ata, fo"n correlations bet8een the goo i#pression an ba i#pression *orschachs ranging fro# .16 to .9@. 3o8e)er, the correlations bet8een the ;, ;[, an ;- scores 8ere all )ery high. .he a"thors state that no atte#pt 8as #a e to eter#ine 8hether the s"b9ects 8ere s"ccessf"l in altering their responses in the esire irection. St" ies carrie o"t 8ith persons act"ally s"specte of #alingering, rather than being as7e to #alinger, all report a si#ilar pict"re as being typical of the #alingerer:s beha)ior on the *orschach =@, @B, <@?. In each of these st" ies, the #alingerer is escribe as constricte , e)asi)e, s"spicio"s, rel"ctant to respon , an eter#ine not to gi)e hi#self a8ay. 3e #ay appeal for cl"es on ho8 to respon , sho8 increase reaction ti#es, an #ay )ery often atte#pt to re9ect a partic"lar car or the entire proce "re. &ro "cti)ity is not high, an #ost of the responses are cheap, pop"lar, or )ag"e. .here #ay be #"ch car t"rning, escription, color na#ing, or perse)eration. .he #alingerer #"st eal 8ith the "neCpecte 8hen he is presente 8ith the *orschach, an )ery often he see#s to err by gi)ing an eCtre#ely poor or 8il ly biGarre Wechsler an then a constricte , e)asi)e b"t Jgoo J *orschach. .h"s, there #ay be inconsistencies not only on the *orschach b"t thro"gho"t the battery of tests. -D<<-

Less a#big"o"s an #ore content-oriente pro9ecti)e techniF"es appear to be #ore s"sceptible to feigning. Weiss7opf an 1ieppa =9>? fo"n that s"b9ects 8hen trying to #a7e a goo or ba i#pression on the .(. co"l infl"ence the iagnoses #a e by eCperience .(. interpreters, an 4eltGoff =6B? reports essentially the sa#e fin ing for the sentence co#pletion proce "re. It is interesting that in the .(. st" y, the s"b9ects: 8orst stories e)iate #ore fro# their ne"tral stories than i their best stories, in icating that it is easier to appear ist"rbe than to appear 8ell a 9"ste .

=&nser S#ndro-e ,efore t"rning to the si#"lation of #ental eficiency an a#nesia, it is necessary to #ention a pathological state 8hich rese#bles #alingering an rese#bles psychosis, b"t 8hich #ay be neither. .hat is the /anser syn ro#e. In this con ition, the person appears to be psychotic, b"t his beha)ior is stri7ingly si#ilar to that of the person 8ho is si#"lating psychosis. .he sy#pto#s "s"ally arise in a stressf"l sit"ation, an it is rea ily apparent that it 8o"l be to the patient:s benefit to si#"late psychosis. .he sy#pto#s are an i#perfect representation of the con ition they rese#ble an correspon to the #ental pict"re that the patient #ight be eCpecte to ha)e of psychosis =BD, %B, <6?. .he patient:s beha)ior #ay be chil ish, theatrical, l" icro"s, an 8il ly biGarre =<, %<?. 4ac1onal =%<? reports that s"ch a patient #ay enter a roo# an stan on his hea , 8ear his clothes insi e o"t, eat the s7in instea of the banana, an try to light his cigarette 8ith the 8rong en of the #atch. 4ost stri7ing an characteristic of this isor er is the patient:s inability to ans8er the si#plest F"estions precisely. Instea he gi)es an approCi#ate ans8er, one 8hich is not too far 8rong an is ob)io"sly relate to the F"estion, b"t is 8rong ne)ertheless. .his has been calle J)orbeire en,J or tal7ing past the point, an it 8as first escribe by /anser =D6?. (n eCa#ple of this 8o"l be the patient 8ho says that D [ D eF"als %, % ti#es % eF"als DA, a cat has three ears, an that there are ele)en #onths in the year. .hese responses are "s"ally gi)en after great eliberation an concentration, an the patient oes not appear to be "pset or irritate 8hen he is tol he is 8rong. (l#ost all a"thors agree that this pec"liar #ental state arises 8hen the patient is face 8ith a crisis an 8hen irresponsibility 8o"l help #itigate the crisis. It is ifferentiate fro# #alingering in that #alin-D<9gering is a eliberate pose, 8hereas the patient is "na8are of the ri)ing forces 8hich lea hi# into the /anser syn ro#e =%B, %<, 6<, <9?. 3istorically it has been consi ere a hysterical t8ilight state, characteriGe by )orbeire en, clo" ing of conscio"sness, eCcite#ent or st"por, an biGarre beha)ior =D6, A9?. 4ore recently it has been consi ere a last itch atte#pt to 8ar off a real psychosis =%A?, a pro ro#al sign of psychosis =%B?, or an ac"te epi ose s"peri#pose on an act"al psychotic con ition =D, <, 61, <D?. /ol en an 4ac1onal =BD? as 8ell as .yn el =<6? see it as occ"pying a position inter#e iate bet8een #alingering an hysterical f"g"e states. Weiner an ,rai#an =<9? feel that it occ"rs in a setting of hysteria or psychosis, an interpret it as a reaction to intolerable stress in a person 8ho fells "tterly helpless an 8ho 8ishes to thro8 off his i entity an responsibility. .hey arg"e that it is not #alingering beca"se of the "nifor#ity seen a#ong patients 8ith regar to clo" ing of conscio"sness, a#nesia, an approCi#ate ans8ers.

(ltho"gh the /anser state #ay not res"lt fro# p"rposi)e eception, the o)ert beha)ior is si#ilar eno"gh to #alingering to #a7e ifferential iagnosis an eCtre#ely iffic"lt proble#. In ee , the eCa#ples gi)en of the /anser state are so#eti#es in isting"ishable fro# those gi)en for si#"lation, an the sa#e inconsistencies 8hich establish a iagnosis of /anser syn ro#e are on other pages proof positi)e of #alingering. 3o8e)er, Weiner an ,rai#an =<9? point o"t that the /anser patient rarely if e)er offers a pec"liar or approCi#ate ans8er "nless it is solicite , 8hereas the #alingerer is anCio"s to isplay his pec"liarities. .8o ifferences bet8een schiGophrenia an the /anser state ha)e been note $ =a? the schiGophrenic iffers in that his responses are gi)en eCplosi)ely an i#p"lsi)ely rather than 8ith great concentration an tho"ght, an =b? the ans8ers are often irrele)ant rather than approCi#ate =%B, %<, <9?. .he /anser patient also iffers fro# the schiGophrenic by being able to a apt hi#self to the 8ar sit"ation an to carry o"t the tas7s of the ay in a #anner 8hich 8o"l be inconcei)able if he ha as a )ance a e#entia as eCa#ination see#s to in icate =%B?. /ol en an 4ac1onal =BD? an .yn el =<6? report s"ccess in "sing electroshoc7 therapy 8ith /anser patients, 8ith only a fe8 co"rses being necessary. 3o8e)er, the sa#e treat#ent #ight be effecti)e 8ith the #alingerer for other reasons, an therefore this is not a cr"cial iagnostic test. .he /anser state #ay clear fairly F"ic7ly 8ith alle)iation of press"res, sy#pathy, an psychotherapy, 8hich can also be the case in #alingering. -D9>-

Ot"er Si-u$&tions

Mental De iciency ( cri#inal a8aiting trial or a prisoner abo"t to be interrogate #ight feign feeble#in e ness in hopes that the eCa#iner 8o"l concl" e that he is not responsible for his acts an is "nable to gi)e a #eaningf"l acco"nt of hi#self. 4ental eficiency "s"ally entails a re "ce scope of a8areness of the en)iron#ent, fail"re to iscri#inate bet8een the conseF"ential an the inconseF"ential, iffic"lty in for#ing concepts an "sing sy#bols, an so#eti#es poor #e#ory. (ltho"gh lo8 intelligence 8o"l not precl" e a so"rce fro# being able to s"pply so#e "sef"l infor#ation, it #ight lea an interrogator to re9ect s"ch a person in fa)or of a #ore intelligent so"rce. (ltho"gh a so"rce #ay play "#b 8ith regar to certain areas of isc"ssion, it probably is not too li7ely that he 8ill play "#b in general, or to the egree that he 8ill be classifie as efecti)e. 3is role as a sol ier s"ggests that he has so#e capacity for training an learning, an if he is a co##issione or nonco##issione officer, the o s are )ery #"ch against an eCtre#ely lo8 le)el of intelligence. .h"s, it is apparent that the person:s history, incl" ing his past e "cational an )ocational le)el, is i#portant in e)al"ating his tr"e intelligenceI th"s it 8o"l be iffic"lt for a person 8ith certain #ini#"# acco#plish#ents to ecei)e others into belie)ing that he is an i#becile or i iot. (l#ost all the st" ies relating to the si#"lation of #ental eficiency ha)e e#ploye stan ar psycho#etric tests of intelligence. In one of the earliest of these =AB?, na)al recr"its 8ere as7e to beha)e as if they 8ere efecti)es, an then their perfor#ances 8ere co#pare 8ith those of tr"e #ental efecti)es. 3"nt an +l er fo"n that the si#"lators i not act "#b eno"gh, an as a gro"p, their scores 8ere higher than those attaine by tr"e #ental efecti)es. /ol stein:s fin ing =BB? 8as essentially si#ilar. 3o8e)er, #ore recently, &ollacGe7 =@>? as7e college #ales an na)al recr"its to si#"late

feeble#in e ness on the co#prehension, )ocab"lary, an si#ilarities s"btests of the Wechsler-,elle)"e Intelligence Scale =;or# I?, an fo"n that their #ean scores i not iffer significantly fro# the #ean scores of the #entally efecti)e control gro"p. Cro8ley =1<?, "sing college fe#ales an co#paring the# 8ith efecti)e 8o#en on the 0ent -/6, fo"n that the #ean score of her #alingering gro"p 8as significantly lo8er than that of her feeble#in e gro"p. 3o8e)er, all -D91these a"thors 8o"l agree that si#"late #ental eficiency cannot be i entifie on the basis of total score alone "nless that total score is eCtre#ely lo8 an there is contra ictory infor#ation a)ailable. 3"nt an +l er =AB? report that the #alingerer tries #ore ite#s than the efecti)e an gets the# incorrectI 8hereas the efecti)e oes not e)en atte#pt #any ite#s. 3o8e)er, so#e #alingerers atte#pt only a fe8 ite#s, b"t they "n erta7e an ans8er correctly so#e of the iffic"lt proble#s after failing easier ite#s. .his ten ency to pass iffic"lt ite#s after failing easy ones has been reporte by Cro8ley =1<?, /ol stein =BB?, an 3"nt an +l er =AB?, an reflects the inability of the #alingerer to esti#ate properly the iffic"lty of a F"estion. .his beha)ior is o"t of 7eeping 8ith the typical test perfor#ance of the tr"e efecti)e 8ho sho8s little scatter on #ost intelligence tests. (lso, Cro8ley=1<? note that the fe#ale #alingerers "se in her st" y ten e to gi)e foolish, nonsensical ans8ers 8hich often 8ere 8il ly eCaggerate or biGarre. .he #alingerers isplaye a better spea7ing )ocab"lary than the efecti)es, an ans8ere #ore F"ic7ly on har F"estions, b"t #ore slo8ly on easy ones. &ollacGe7 =@>? constr"cte a 7ey for #alingering eri)e fro# three s"btests of the Wechsler,elle)"e Intelligence Scale. -Ca#ination of the 7ey s"ggests that #alingerers ten e to o too 8ell on )ocab"lary an si#ilarities, b"t i F"ite poorly on co#prehension. .h"s the #alingerer #ay #isconstr"e feeble#in e ness as a con ition in 8hich the person is "nable to sho8 9" g#ent in e)en the si#plest social sit"ations, b"t is able to for# concepts, thin7 abstractly, an attain a rather literate le)el. 0ro"t =%>? s"ggests that the test be a #inistere t8ice to note inconsistent beha)ior. .he si#"lator #ay co#e o"t 8ith the sa#e score, b"t he #ay change so#e 8rong ans8ers to other 8rong ans8ers, or he #ay e)en spoil so#e ans8ers 8hich 8ere correct on the first a #inistration. 0ro"t also s"ggests that the eCa#ination of the s"specte #alingerer sho"l begin 8ith the #ost iffic"lt F"estions an ta7e the person bac7 to a point near i#becility. If he cannot ans8er e)en the si#plest F"estions, he is probably trying to be consistently efecti)e an is #alingering. 3"nt =AD? in icates that the #alingerer an the efecti)e #ay both gi)e 8rong ans8ers, b"t that there are F"alitati)e ifferences either in the ans8ers or in the #anner of reaching the ans8ers. +n arith#etic, for eCa#ple, the efecti)e #ay co#bine the ele#ents of the proble# incorrectly an thereby arri)e at the 8rong ans8er. .he #alingerer, ho8e)er, #ay perfor# the correct operations, arri)e at the correct ans8er, an then spoil it. 4oreo)er, his response is "s"ally closer to being correct an in icates that he 8as a8are of the correct proce "re for sol)ing the proble#. -D9D.h"s the si#"lation of #ental eficiency is "nco)ere by proce "res si#ilar to those "se in etecting pse" o-psychosis. Inconsistencies are #ost i#portant, 8hether they be inconsistencies 8ithin a test or 8ith the past history. .he person 8ho si#"lates efecti)eness #"st be eCtre#ely cle)er if he is to e)a e co#pletely the reporting of e)ents an eCperiences. 4ore than li7ely s"ch eCtre#ely efecti)e beha)ior in the eCa#ining sit"ation 8ill be o"t of line 8ith the a apti)eness an reso"rcef"lness sho8n in aily beha)ior. If the #alingerer chooses to be as lo8 as the i iot or i#becile, then he #"st select the ite#s to

8hich he 8ill respon , an it is li7ely that he 8ill o)eresti#ate or "n eresti#ate their iffic"lty, or e#onstrate the F"alitati)e ifferences bet8een the si#"lator an the tr"e efecti)e in other 8ays.

Amnesia (#nesia #ay be a sy#pto# of organic brain isf"nction, hysteria, psychosis, or #alingering. (ccor ing to 4ac1onal =%<?, it is a pop"lar an freF"ent sy#pto# a#ong #alingerers. ,y saying that he cannot re#e#ber, the #alingerer i#plies that he 8as not responsible for any cri#inal acts 8hich #ight ha)e occ"rre 8hen he 8as not hi#self. ( prisoner of 8ar #ight plea an inability to respon to the interrogator:s F"estions beca"se the stress an strain of co#bat an capt"re ha)e ca"se hi# to lose his #e#ory. Since a sy#pto# s"ch as this is not too "nco##on a#ong sol iers 8ho ha)e li)e thro"gh rather harro8ing eCperiences, a thoro"gh in)estigation an e)al"ation of the a#nesia are 8arrante . /en"ine a#nesia associate 8ith pathology of the brain #ay res"lt fro# hea in9"ry, ac"te infection, toCe#ia, narcotics, alcohol, or epilepsy. .here #ay be loss of #e#ory for e)ents 8hich i##e iately prece e the hea tra"#a an for those 8hich i##e iately follo8e . In #ore eCtre#e cases, other sy#pto#s 8ill be present, s"ch as st"por, eliri"#, an biGarreness =%D?. I##e iately follo8ing cerebral tra"#a, there #ay be a c"rio"s in an o"t state of a8areness, 8here the patient loses an regains conscio"sness =6@?. .he patient #ay ha)e a spotty #e#ory for this perio of ti#e, 8hich see#s to be a f"nction of a fail"re to acF"ire infor#ation rather than an inability to recall it. .his con ition #ay last for ho"rs or ays, an the patient 8ill re#e#ber only )ery isolate e)ents of that perio . *etrogra e a#nesia, or the forgetting of e)ents prior to the in9"ry, "s"ally spans only a short perio of ti#e prior to the tra"#a, an is of short "ration. *"ssell =@%? st" ie retrogra e a#nesia in D>> -D9Bcases of hea in9"ry an fo"n that in 1<> cases the retrogra e a#nesia laste only a fe8 secon s or #in"tes, an that in only fo"r cases 8as it #ore than DA ho"rs. 3o8e)er, in se)ere cases, the #e#ory loss #ay eCten to the person:s entire life. !ot only can there be a loss of personal #e#ories, b"t there can also be a loss of acF"ire facts an perfor#ances =aphasia?. (ccor ing to !ielsen =6@? the #alingerer rarely i#itates aphasia 8hen he co#plains of a#nesia. !or oes he often feign loss of personal i entity, 8hich so#eti#es occ"rs in gen"ine a#nesia. .he perio of a#nesia in epileptics "s"ally has efinite li#its. .he epileptic #ay be able to state 8hat he 8as oing "p to a certain point, then e)erything goes blan7, an after a bl"rre perio , he can again re#e#ber s"bseF"ent e)ents =%D, 6@?. -)ents "ring the seiG"re are not recalle , ho8e)er. 'n er circ"#stances of 8ar, hea in9"ry an a#nesia are possible, an a caref"l physical eCa#ination appears necessary. If the prisoner co#plains of hea tra"#a, if the scope of the a#nesia is li#ite to the perio s"rro"n ing the ti#e of the in9"ry, an if the laboratory an physical fin ings are positi)e, the a#nesia probably has a gen"ine basis in cerebral pathology. (#nesia, ho8e)er, #ay res"lt fro# psychic tra"#a, an al#ost all a"thorities are agree that it is eCcee ingly iffic"lt to separate #alingering fro# hysterical sy#pto#s. -Ctre#e co#bat anCiety #ay res"lt in an a#nesia, especially for the tra"#atic e)ents 8hich 8ere #ost anCiety pro)o7ing. .he patient:s #e#ory for this perio is "s"ally a co#plete blan7, an altho"gh he 8ishes to fill in the gap, he fin s

hi#self fearf"l an anCio"s 8hen he tries to thin7 of the e)ents lea ing "p to the tra"#a =B6, B@?. (ltho"gh in #ost 8ar ne"roses, the a#nesia is for a circ"#scribe perio , there are cases in 8hich a person:s entire past eCperiences an i entity are forgotten =AA, %D?. 2ery often the person 8ho is a#nesic on a ne"rotic basis eChibits other typical anCiety reactions, s"ch as tre#"lo"sness, tenseness, restlessness, o)erresponsi)ity, sleep iffic"lties, an poor appetite. .he #alingerer, on the other han , #ay not eChibit these correlate sy#pto#s, an instea of being so#e8hat anCio"s an 8ith ra8n, he #ay be ra#atic, arg"#entati)e, an e#an ing =%%?. (#nesia res"lting fro# psychic tra"#a iffers fro# that base on physical tra"#a in that there is no cerebral pathology, an the #e#ory loss is re)ersible once the conflict is lifte . .he #ost effecti)e techniF"e for ifferentiating ne"rotic an #alingere a#nesia appears to be narcoanalysis =see also Chapter B?. .he reason for this r"ns co"nter to pop"lar conceptions. It is effecti)e beca"se it oes not #a7e the #alingerer tell the tr"th. .he -D9Ane"rotic is "s"ally able to recall the tra"#atic eCperiences 8hen gi)en barbit"rates, an th"s iffers fro# the #alingerer 8ho contin"es to resist efforts to lift his a#nesia. .his ifference see#s 8ell oc"#ente in the literat"re. L" 8ig =%%? felt that ne"rotic patients 8ill tal7 freely "n er so i"# a#ytal an 8ill cooperate 8illingly in atte#pts to regain the tra"#atic episo e. .he #alingerer 8hen narcotiGe fails to sho8 the pro "cti)ity of the ne"rotic patient an co#bats e)ery effort to reco)er the lost #e#ory 8ith negati)is# =B@, %%?. 3"rst =AA? an !ielsen =6@? "sing hypnosis report the sa#e ifferential reaction. /erson an 2ictoroff =D@? fo"n only siC o"t of 1@ #alingerers co#pliant to so i"# a#ytal inter)ie8s. In #ost of their cases fears an fantasies beca#e so intert8ine 8ith the tr"th that the #alingerers: pro "ctions "n er a#ytal co"l not be consi ere )ali . ( atto =1? note this sa#e ten ency to fab"liGe "n er thiopental narcosis. *e lich, *a)itG, an 1ession =@1? as7e their nor#al s"b9ects to 8ithhol an e#barrassing inci ent fro# an inter)ie8er "ring a so i"# a#ytal inter)ie8. ;or the #ost part the s"b9ects 8ere able to o so, an the a"thors post"late a nee for p"nish#ent in the t8o s"b9ects 8ho #a e f"ll confessions. .hese a"thors concl" e, as oes Inba" =A%?, that Jtr"th ser"#sJ are s"ccessf"l on persons 8ho 8o"l ha)e isclose their infor#ation any8ay, an that the person 8ho is lying 8ill contin"e his eception "n er r"gs. See =Chapter B.? !ot only oes the person s"ffering fro# a 8ar ne"rosis "s"ally recall the tra"#atic e)ents 8hile narcotiGe b"t he also beha)es ifferently "ring the inter)ie8s fro# the #alingerer =1, B@?. !e"rotic patients 8ere fo"n to be eager to reco)er the e)ents, they grope for an ans8er, an 8ere "pset at not being able to recall. In isc"ssing the e)ents s"rro"n ing the perio of a#nesia they 8o"l freF"ently beco#e restless, perspire prof"sely, beco#e tense an rigi , breathe rapi ly, #o)e con)"lsi)ely, an so#eti#es cry o"t. .he intensity of the e#otion #ay beco#e "nbearable 8hen the patient reaches the cli#aC of the story. .he #alingerer rarely sho8s these e#otional an physiologic reactions "n er so i"# a#ytal. 3o8e)er, accor ing to /rin7er an Spiegel =B@?, there are so#e ne"rotic patients 8ho sho8 little o)ert anCiety an 8ho bloc7 in the acco"nt of their eCperience as they approach the #o#ent of tra"#a. In s"ch cases, /rin7er an Spiegel report that #ore than one session of narcosynthesis #ay be necessary to reco)er the tra"#a. .his, then, appears to be the #ost effecti)e proce "re for ifferentiating hysterical a#nesia fro# #alingere a#nesia. (ccor ing to 4ac1onal =%@? narcoanalysis #ay 8or7 in e)en another fashion. It

-D9%so#eti#es pro)i es the #alingering cri#inal 8ith an apparently honorable 8ay of i)"lging 8hat he clai#s to ha)e forgotten. (ltho"gh narcoanalysis see#s to help in ifferentiating ne"rotic an #alingere a#nesia, it cannot r"le o"t the possibility of organic pathology. So i"# a#ytal 8ill not lift a#nesia "e to brain isf"nction, an there is so#e e)i ence that it 8ill not restore #e#ories to ac"tely psychotic in i)i "als =1D?.

A44$i &tions to Interro%&tion (t first glance, interrogation 8o"l appear to be a sit"ation 8here #alingering is F"ite li7ely to be e#ploye . .he capti)e so"rce is face 8ith the ile##a of 8hich of t8o roles to play-that e#an e by his co"ntry or that e#an e by the ene#y-an his selection of either role #ight res"lt in serio"s sanctions, incl" ing loss of life. .he si#"lation of inco#petence offers a sol"tion to this role conflict by enabling the prisoner to re#ain loyal to his co"ntry an by pro)i ing hi# 8ith an alibi for not s"b#itting to the ene#y. 3o8e)er, a n"#ber of circ"#stances pec"liar to the interrogation sit"ation see# to operate in an opposite irection an #ay be infl"ential in re "cing the li7elihoo of #alingering. .hese factors appear to ha)e a restraining infl"ence on the prisoner an a liberating one on the interrogator. (s co#pare 8ith the citiGen, the prisoner #"st sho8 greater restraint an care in a opting #alingering as a sol"tion beca"se of his "ncertainty of the effect of s"ch a role. In ci)ilian life, si#"lation is atte#pte partly beca"se of the h"#anitarian )al"es hel by the society. .he person hopes that he 8ill be labele #entally ill, an 8hen this happens, he eCpects that no f"rther e#an s 8ill be #a e on hi#, that he 8ill not be hel responsible for his con "ct, an that he 8ill be treate 8ith 7in ness an care. .he prisoner 8ho si#"lates in the interrogation sit"ation has no s"ch ass"rance abo"t the ene#y:s h"#anitarian an bene)olent o"tloo7. 4ental illness #ay be consi ere e)iationis# or negati)is#, either in the c"lt"re in general or in the interrogation sit"ation in partic"lar. 4oreo)er, the prisoner #ay ha)e beco#e con)ince , an perhaps realistically, that his life epen s on his 8orth to the ene#y, an that if he cannot gi)e infor#ation, he has no 8orth. .his #ay #a7e the prisoner rel"ctant to appear inco#petent, or at least co#pletely inco#petent, an therefore 8o"l act to re "ce the a#o"nt an egree of #alingering. .h"s, the prisoner is "ncertain that si#"lation 8o"l -D96pro "ce the esire effect, an in ee , there is the anger that if his r"se is accepte , the irectly opposite effect #ight res"lt. .he prisoner #ay be restraine fro# or rel"ctant to initiate or contin"e #alingering beca"se of the nat"re of the prisoner-interrogator relatioaship. .he relationship offers the potential for rather great inti#acy, an therefore for the e)elop#ent of fear an g"ilt in the prisoner. ;ear #ay not be as great a co#ponent in ci)il life since the #alingerer is ass"re a great eal of protection. 4any people are in)ol)e in his case, an appeals are al8ays possible to co"rts, ci)il rights boar s, #ental health co##issions, etc. .he prisoner of 8ar, ho8e)er, #ay be place in the c"sto y of a single interrogator, or he #ay be #a e to belie)e that it is the interrogator alone 8ho #a7es all the ecisions abo"t his 8ellbeing, his )al"e to the ene#y, an his fate. With one a"thority fig"re 8ho has see#ingly "nli#ite po8er,

the ga#e beco#es #ore angero"s, since the sanctions for being ca"ght in a eception #ay be i##e iate an great, an there is no reco"rse or appeal to other po8er fig"res. .h"s, the fear of being fo"n o"t sho"l be greater in the interrogation sit"ationI this sho"l ser)e to re "ce the a#o"nt of #alingering atte#pte an possibly re "ce the a eF"acy of the si#"lation that is atte#pte . /"ilt #ay beco#e in)ol)e beca"se of the closeness 8hich so#eti#es gro8s "p bet8een the interrogator an the prisoner. In so#e lengthy interrogations, the interrogator #ay, by )irt"e of his role as the sole s"pplier of satisfaction an p"nish#ent, ass"#e the stat"re an i#portance of a parental fig"re in the prisoner:s feeling an thin7ing. (ltho"gh there #ay be intense hatre for the interrogator, it is not "n"s"al for 8ar# feelings also to e)elop. .his a#bi)alence is the basis for g"ilt reactions, an if the interrogator no"rishes these feelings, the g"ilt #ay be strong eno"gh to infl"ence the prisoner:s beha)ior. 'n er s"ch circ"#stances, the person 8ho atte#pts #alingering #ay begin to feel that he is ta7ing a )antage of the interrogator an #ay feel so#e g"ilt for #islea ing the one person 8ho see#s to be intereste in hi# an 8ho is loo7ing after his 8elfare. /"ilt #a7es co#pliance #ore li7ely, or at least it increases the li7elihoo that the prisoner #ay rop his si#"late role. ;or his part, the interrogator has fe8er of the restraints an control than a psychiatric inter)ie8er 8o"l ha)e in a e#ocratic society e icate to h"#anitarian )al"es. 3e can easily #a7e the prisoner feel that his life is "n er his control, an that psychosis or the si#"lation of psychosis 8o"l be p"nishe 9"st as se)erely as any other type of resistance. (ltho"gh persons charge 8ith #a9or cri#es are #alingering in increasing n"#bers to a)oi i#prison#ent, -D9@it see#s that si#"lation by persons charge 8ith less serio"s offenses is on the ecline since these people ha)e realiGe that being co##itte to a #ental hospital for an in eter#inate perio can rag o"t longer than a elineate 9ail ter#. (lso, the physical techniF"es for treating #ental illness can be F"ite frightening to a patientI th"s it is li7ely that a #alingerer 8ill thin7 t8ice before allo8ing hi#self to be s"b9ecte to a co"rse of electroshoc7 treat#ent an be e)en #ore rel"ctant to "n ergo a loboto#y. .he interrogator is especially free to "se these e)ices as threats, 8hereas the ci)ilian psychiatrist #"st consi er #any other factors. .he interrogator has another a )antage o)er his clinical co"nterpart in ci)ilian life 8hen it co#es to re "cing the a#o"nt of #alingering in an entire gro"p of #en. When persons charge 8ith cri#es are place together on the sa#e 8ar 8hile "n ergoing psychiatric obser)ation prior to trial, there is a great eal of coaching an training occ"rring a#ong the# as they teach one another ho8 to Jb"g o"t.J 4oreo)er, 8hen a patient lea)es the 8ar to go to trial, the other patients ha)e no i ea 8hether or not his r"se has been s"ccessf"l. .he interrogator, ho8e)er, can 7eep his pri#e so"rces separate so that there is no cross-fertiliGation, an also he can atte#pt to eCting"ish #alingering in the gro"p by eCposing an p"nishing an "ns"ccessf"l #alingerer. .h"s he can gi)e hi#self or the "nit the rep"tation for being a shre8 etector of eception an a harsh p"nisher of s"ch "plicity. +nce the prisoner gets the feeling that his pretense is en angere , the interrogator #ay s"pply hi# 8ith #any face-sa)ing e)ices 8hich 8o"l allo8 hi# to relinF"ish the sy#pto#s that pre)ent hi# fro# cooperating, b"t 8itho"t forcing hi# to a #it his g"ilt. (lrea y #entione 8as the techniF"e of gi)ing the prisoner Jtreat#entJ for his illness, one that is g"arantee to bring abo"t a c"re. .h"s the prisoner #ay beha)e as if the pills or the electroshoc7 i pro "ce a c"re or that the hypnosis or narcosis i allo8

hi# to reco)er his #e#ory, an there 8ill be no nee to a #it the #alingering or s"ffer p"nish#ent for it. .he prisoner #ay "se this 8ay o"t if he gets the i#pression that the interrogator is beco#ing 8ise or is e#an ing reco)ery. (nother honorable 8ay o"t for the prisoner co"l be to re#ain JillJ b"t not to allo8 the illness to interfere 8ith the co##"nication of rele)ant infor#ation. .he interrogator #ight allo8 the prisoner to 7eep his si#"late epression, el"sions, or post"ring an gest"ring, b"t he 8o"l insist that these sy#pto#s in no 8ay interfere 8ith his ability to recall an co##"nicate i#portant facts. .o a"g#ent -D9<this approach, the interrogator #ight JtreatJ only those sy#pto#s 8hich ca"se #e#ory or co##"nication iffic"lty, reass"ring the prisoner that the other sy#pto#s 8ill re#ain for a 8hile an that he 8ill be hospitaliGe an be gi)en #ore care an pri)ileges than he #ight other8ise recei)e. .his approach #a7es it possible for the prisoner to cooperate 8itho"t re)ealing his eception, an it offers a s"bstit"te goal for the #alingering H that of better treat#ent an pri)ileges. ;ro# the interrogator:s stan point, these in irect approaches 8o"l appear to be preferable to irect confrontation, eCcept "n er so#e circ"#stances 8here the e)i ence of #alingering 8as o)er8hel#ing an he 8as certain that the prisoner ha great ego strength. 1irect confrontation co"l concei)ably pro "ce a real psychic isor er, especially in those persons 8ho are bor erline psychotics to begin 8ith an 8hose sy#pto#s are eCaggerations of their o8n latent ten ences. (s 3"rst =AA? an -issler =DD? point o"t, that 8hich 8as feigne at one ti#e #ay sho8 "p as a real illness at a later ti#e. If the anCiety o)er sanctions for #alingering is too great, the prisoner #ay eny to hi#self that he is 8illf"lly fa7ing, an the sy#pto#s #ay then beco#e eter#ine 8itho"t a8areness an thereby beco#e less a#enable to the interrogator:s proce "res. .his see#s to be the type of stress sit"ation 8hich pro "ces a /anser state. If force co#pliance to the interrogator 8o"l pro "ce #ore anCiety an g"ilt than 8o"l #alingering, a serio"s isor er #ay be the alternati)e 8hich the prisoner 8ill ta7e. .h"s, it 8o"l see# that the rational interrogator is constraine to "se his eCtensi)e po8er o)er the prisoner caref"lly, lest a real isor er be precipitate an the prisoner:s potential )al"e be lost co#pletely.

Con $usions

Detection o Malingering -Cact proce "res for the eter#ination of #alingering are not a)ailable. ;e8 tr"e psychotics isplay the eCact sy#pto#s of the teCtboo7 cases, an this 8i e range of )ariability a#ong psychotics reF"ires e)al"ations of a 8i e )ariety of sy#pto# patterns for the etection of #alingering. .he #alingerer #ay e#onstrate a set of sy#pto#s 8hich #"st be entertaine as a possible e)iation fro# the #ore "s"al syn ro#es. It is only thro"gh rather s7illf"l an lengthy obser)ations that an eCa#iner #ay be able to co#e to the concl"sion

-D99that the patient is feigning his con ition. 3"rst =AA? feels that #alingering can be iagnose 8ith certainty only 8hen the si#"lator is ca"ght flagrante elicto or gi)es an "nforce confession. -issler =DD? o"bts the )ali ity of confessions, since psychotics or bor erline psychotics #ay feign #alingering. .he fact that bor erline schiGophrenics #ay try to #alinger co#plicates the #atter an #a7es iagnosis #ore iffic"lt. (nother co#plicating b"t "n eter#ine factor is the effect the role #ay ha)e "pon the #alingerer. 3"rst =AA? s"ggests that 8hat 8as si#"late #ay beco#e a tr"ly hysterical sy#pto# after a ti#e. .here are therape"tic techniF"es 8hich are e icate to the proposition that a person #ay "nconscio"sly ta7e o)er portions of roles 8hich he has conscio"sly enacte =A<, 6A?. -Cperi#ental s"pport for this #ay be fo"n in a st" y by Sarbin an Jones =<>? 8hich sho8e that the s"b9ect:s self concept #ay shift follo8ing role enact#ent, an the change is in part a f"nction of the specific role enacte . .h"s, the eter#inants an effects of #alingering are only so#e8hat "n erstoo . +orrect %iagnosis )ust still %e(en% on the s"ill an% e*(erience of the e*a)iner.

! ectiveness o Malingering as Countermanipulation .he a )antages of #alingering to an in i)i "al resisting coerci)e atte#pts to infl"ence his beha)ior lie pri#arily in the c"lt"ral efinitions of the psychotic as inco#petent an not responsible for his acts. .he isco"rage#ent of #alingering in)ol)es principally the creation of the i#pression that psychosis is no eCc"se or that the person 8ho is etecte in #alingering 8ill be treate e)en #ore harshly than he #ight other8ise ha)e been. When the )al"e conflict is s"fficiently great, ho8e)er, neither threat nor act"al p"nish#ent #ay be capable of forcing the person to aban on #alingering as efense. .he pr" ence in the "se of threat an p"nish#ent force on a rational interrogator by the possibility of creating a gen"ine isor er confers an a itional a )antage on the #alingerer.

#is's o Malingering In consi ering reco##en ations of #alingering as a resistance tactic in training #ilitary personnel for the e)ent of capt"re, certain angers follo8 fro# these sa#e three factors$ the c"lt"ral efinitions of the insane person, the rationality of the interrogator, an the possibility of a gen"ine isor er being create . Captors #ay not operate 8ith h"#ane c"lt"ral efinitions to8ar the psychotic, an -B>>they #ay not be constraine by rationality in their "se of threats an p"nish#ents. .he ris7 the #alingerer ta7es #"st be e)al"ate in ter#s of the i#portance of the goal of resistance an the possible effecti)eness of alternati)e #o es of resistance an e)asion open to hi#. .he ris7s in)ol)e both the a#age the captor #ay inflict "pon hi# an the possibilities of a real an lasting personality isor er res"lting fro# his si#"lation.

Re'eren es

1. ( atto C. &. J+bser)ations on cri#inal patients "ring narcoanalysisJ. A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19A9, 6D, <B-9D. D. (n erson -. W., an 4allinson W. &. J&sychogenic episo es in the co"rse of #a9or psychosesJ. J. )ent. Sci., 19A1, <@, B<B-B96. B. (rnol 4ag a ,. J+n the #echanis# of s"ggestion an hypnosisJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19A6, A1, 1>@-1D<. A. (t7in I. JSi#"lation of insanityJ. $ancet, 19%1, D61, B<%-B<6. %. ,al 8in J. Notes of a native son. ,oston$ ,eacon, 19%%. 6. ,ene ict *"th. J(nthropology an the abnor#alJ. J. gen. Psychol., 19BA, 1>, %9-<D. @. ,enton (. L. J*orschach perfor#ance of s"specte #alingerersJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19A%, A>, 9A-96. <. ,le"ler -. $ehr'uch %er Psychiatrie. ,erlin$ J"li"s Springer, 19B@. 9. ,loc7 J. J.he assess#ent of co##"nication$ *ole )ariations as a f"nction of interactional conteCtJ. J. Pers., 19%D, D1, D@D-D<6. 1>. ,loc7 J. J(ffecti)e responsi)eness in lie etectionJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%@, %%, 11-1%. 11. ,loc7 J., an ,ennett Lillian. J.he assess#ent of co##"nication$ &erception an trans#ission as a f"nction of the social sit"ationJ. -u). Relat., 19%%, <. B1@-BD%. 1D. ,ogoch S. J( preli#inary st" y of postshoc7 a#nesia by a#ytal inter)ie8J. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%A, 111, 1><-111. 1B. ,o8#an 0. 4. J.he relation of efecti)e #ental an ner)o"s states to #ilitary efficiencyJ. .il. Surg., 19D>, A6, 6%1669. 1A. Ca#eron !. Psychology of 'ehavior %isor%ers. !e8 6or7$ 3o"ghton 4ifflin, 19A@. 1%. Ca#pbell W. /. JSt" ent honesty as re)eale by reporting teacher:s errors in gra ingJ. Sch. an% Soc., 19B1, BB, 9@-1>>. 16. Carp (. L., an Sha)Gin (. *. J.he s"sceptibility to falsification of the *orschach iagnostic techniF"eJ. J. consult. Psychol., 19%>, 1A, DB>-DBB. 1@. Christensen 3. J. J(n eCperi#ent in honestyJ. Soc. 0orces, 19A@- 19A<, D<, D9<-B>D. 1<. Cro8ley 4iria# -. J.he "se of the 0ent -/6 for the etection of #alingeringJ. J. clin. Psychol., 19%D, <, BBD-BB@. 19. 1a)i son 3. (. J4alingere psychosisJ. Bull. .enninger +lin., 19%>, 1A, 1%@-16B.

-B>1D>. 1i ato S. 2. J.he infl"ence of social factors on gro"p confor#ity in nor#al an abnor#al personalities$ ( st" y of perception of "nstable sti#"li an nor# for#ationJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%%, 1>, B6<-B69. =(bstract? D1. 1ra7e ;rances -. J( st" y of the personality traits of st" ents intereste in actingJ. S(eech .onogr., 19%>, 1@, 1DB1BB.

DD. -issler 0. *. 4alingering. In /. ,. Wilb"r an W. 4"ensterberger =- s.?, Psychoanalysis an% culture. !e8 6or7$ Internat. 'ni)er. &ress, 19%1. &p. D1<-D%B. DB. ;lic7er 1. J4alingering H a sy#pto#J. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19%6, 1DB, DB-B1. DA. ;osberg I. (. J*orschach reactions "n er )arie instr"ctionsJ. Rorschach Res. 1*ch., 19B<, B, 1D-B1. D%. ;osberg I. (. J(n eCperi#ent st" y of the reliability of the *orschach psycho iagnostic techniF"eJ. Rorschach Res. 1*ch., 19A1, %, @D-<A. D6. /anser S. J. 4. J'ber einen eigenartigen hypterischen 1a##erG"stan J. Arch. f. Psychiat. Nervenh., 1<9@, B>, p. 6BB. D@. /erson 4. J., an 2ictoroff 2. J-Cperi#ental in)estigation into the )ali ity of confessions obtaine "n er so i"# a#ytal narcosisJ. J. clin. Psycho(ath., 19A<, <, B%9-B@%. D<. /ill 4. J4alingeringJ. Bull. .enninger +lin., 19A1, %, 1%@-16>. D9. /illespie *. I. Psychological effects of ar on citi3en an% sol%ier. !e8 6or7$ !orton, 19AD. B>. /l"ec7 ,. Stu%ies in forensic (sychiatry. Lon on$ 3eine#ann, 1916. B1. /off#an -. J+n face-8or7, an analysis of rit"al ele#ents in social interactionJ. Psychiatry, 19%%, 1<, D1B-DB1. BD. /ol en S., an 4ac1onal J. -. J.he /anser stateJ. J. )ent. Sci., 19%%, 1>1, D6@-D<>. BB. /ol stein 3. J( #alingering 7ey for #ental testsJ. Psychol. Bull., 19A%, AD, 1>A-1><. BA. /oo *. J4alingeringJ. Brit. J. )e%. Psychol., 19AD, D, B%9-B6D. B%. /o"gh 3. /. J( sociological theory of psychopathyJ. A)er. J. Sociol., 19A<, %B, B%9-B66. B6. /rin7er *. *., an Spiegel J. &. .en un%er stress. &hila elphia$ ,la7iston, 19A%. B@. /rin7er *. *., an Spiegel J. &. War neurosis. &hila elphia$ ,la7iston, 19A%. B<. /"llahorn J. J. J4eas"ring role conflictJ. A)er. J. Sociol., 19%6, 61, D99-B>B. B9. 3artshorne 3., an 4ay 4. (. Stu%ies in %eceit. !e8 6or7$ 4ac#illan, 19D<. D )ols. A>. 3elfan J. J*ole ta7ing in schiGophreniaJ. J. consult. Psychol., 19%6, D>, B@-A1. A1. 3elgesson '. 3. J.he scope of psychiatry in #ilitary #e icine 8ith special reference to the na)yJ. U. S. Nav. .e%. Bull., 19AD, A>, <>-91. AD. 3"nt W. (. J.he "ses an ab"ses of psycho#etric testsJ. 2y. la J., 19A6, B%, B<-@D. AB. 3"nt W. (., an +l er 3. J. J1etection of #alingering thro"gh psycho#etric testsJ. U. S. Nav. .e%. Bull., 19AB, A1, 1B1<- 1BDB. AA. 3"rst Sir (. .e%ical %iseases of ar. =Br e .? ,alti#ore$ Willia#s$ & Wil7ins, 19AB.

A%. Inba" ;. -. Self>incri)ination. S(ringfiel%, Illinois$ C. C. .ho#as, 19%>. A6. Inba" ;. -., an *ei J. -. $ie %etection an% cri)inal interrogation. =Br e .? ,alti#ore$ Willia#s & Wil7ins, 19%B.

-B>DA@. Jones (. ,., an Lle8ellyn *. L. J. .alingeringB 4r the si)ulation of %isease. Lon on$ 3eine#ann, 191@. A<. 0elly /. (. J.he psychology of personal constr"ctsJ. 2ol. 1. &heory of (ersonality. !e8 6or7$ !orton, 19%%. A9. 0raepelin -. +linical (sychiatry. Lon on$ 4ac#illan, 191%. %>. 0ro"t 4. 3. J4alingering on psychological tests at ar#e forces in "ction centersJ. Psychol. Serv. +ent. J., 19%>, D, %%-66. %1. 0r"eger W. C. ;. JSt" ent honesty in correcting gra ing errorsJ. J. a((l. Psychol., 19A@, B1, %BB-%B%. %D. LennoC W. /. J(#nesia, real an feigne J. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19AB, 99, @BD-@AB. %B. Le8is (. J&sychological #e icineJ. In ;. W. &rice =- .?, &e*t'oo" of the (ractice of )e%icine. Lon on$ +Cfor 'ni)er. &ress, 19%>. &p. 1<@9-19@6. %A. Lieber#an (. (. J.he /anser syn ro#e in psychosesJ. J. nerv. )ent. ,is., 19%A, 1D>, 1>-16. %%. L" 8ig (. +. JClinical feat"res an iagnosis of #alingering in #ilitary personnelJ. War .e%., 19AA, %, B@<-B<D.

%6. Ly77en 1. .. J( st" y of anCiety in the sociopathic personalityJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%@, %%, 6-1>. %@. 4ac1onal J. 4. J!arcoanalysis an cri#inal la8J. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%A, 111, D<B-D<<. %<. 4ac1onal J. 4. J&sychiatry an the cri#inalJ. Springfiel , Illinois$ C. C. .ho#as, 19%<. %9. 4cS"een *. J-Ca#ination eception as a f"nction of resi "al bac7gro"n . an i##e iate sti#"l"s factorsJ. J. Pers., 19%@, D%, 6AB-6%>. 6>. 4ann .. +onfession of 0eli* 2rull, confi%ence )anB &he early years. !e8 6or7$ 0nopf, 19%%. 61. 4ayer-/ross W., Slater -., an *oth 4. +linical Psychiatry. Lon on$ Cassel, 19%A. 6D. 4eltGer 4. L. Role varia'ility as a function of the un%erstan%ing of others. Washington, 1. C.$ Catholic 'ni)er. &ress, 19%@. 6B. 4eltGoff J. J.he effect of #ental set an ite# str"ct"re "pon responses to a pro9ecti)e testJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%>, %, BD6. =(bstract? 6A. 4oreno J. L. Psycho%ra)a. !e8 6or7$ ,eacon, 19A6. 6%. 4"rphy -. L. 4alingering. In W. *. ,ett =- .?, &he history of con=uest of co))on %iseases. !or#an, +7laho#a$ 'ni)er. +7laho#a &ress, 19%A.

66. !e8#an S. J.he relationship bet8een i#aginati)e role-ta7ing an con itions of psychological nee J. 'np"blishe octoral issertation, +hio State 'ni)er., 19%%. 6@. !ielson J. 4. .e)ory an% a)nesia. Los (ngeles$ San L"cas &ress, 19%<. 6<. !oyes (. &. .o%ern clinical (sychiatry. =Ath e .? &hila elphia$ Sa"n ers, 19%B. 69. +ssipo) 2. &. J4alingering$ .he si#"lation of psychosisJ. Bull. .enninger +lin., 19AA, <, B9-AD. @>. &ollacGe7 &enelope &. J( st" y of #alingering on the C2S abbre)iate in i)i "al intelligence scaleJ. J. clin. Psychol., 19%D, <, @%-<1. @1. *e lich ;. C., *a)itG L. J., an 1ession /. 3. J!arcoanalysis an tr"thJ. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%1, 1>@, %<6-%9B. @D. *ei J. -. an (rth"r *. +. J,eha)ior sy#pto#s of lie- etector s"b9ectsJ. J. cri). $a +ri)inol. an% (olice Sci., 19%B, AA, 1>A-1><.

-B>B@B. *osenberg S. J., an ;el berg .. 4. J*orschach characteristics of a gro"p of #alingerersJ. Rorsch. Res. 1*ch., 19AA, <, 1A1-1%<. @A. *osenthal 1., an ;ran7 J. 1. J&sychotherapy an the placebo effectJ. Psychol. Bull., 19%6, %B, D9A-B>D. @%. *"ssell W. *. J(#nesia follo8ing hea in9"riesJ. $ancet, 19B%, DD9, @6D-@6%. @6. Sarbin .. *. JContrib"tions to role-ta7ing theory$ I. 3ypnotic beha)iorJ. Psychol. Rev., 19%>, %@, D%%-D@>. @@. Sarbin .. *. J*ole theoryJ. In /. Lin Gey =- .?, -an%'oo" of social (sychology. 2ol. I. &heory an% )etho%. Ca#bri ge, 4ass.$ ( ison-Wesley, 19%A. &p. DDB-D%<. @<. Sarbin .. *., an ;arbero8 !. I. JContrib"tions to role-ta7ing theory$ ( clinical st" y of self an roleJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%D, A@, 11@-1D%. @9. Sarbin .. *., an 3ar yc7 C. JConfor#ance in role perceptionJ. J. consult. Psychol., 19%%, 19, 1>9-111. <>. Sarbin .. *., an Jones 1. S. J(n eCperi#ental analysis of role beha)iorJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%%, %1, DB6-DA1. <1. Spohn 3. -. J.he effect of gro"p nor#s "pon perception in chronic schiGophrenic patientsJ. A)er. Psychologist, 19%6, 11, B66. =(bstract? <D. Stern -. S., an Whiles W. 3. J.hree /anser states an 3a#letJ. J. )ent. Sci., 19AD, <<, 1BA-1A1. <B. SGasG .. S. J4alingering$ 1iagnosis or social con e#nationJL A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%6, @6, ABD-AAB. <A. .oby J. JSo#e )ariables in role conflict analysisJ. Soc. 0orces, 19%D, B>, BDB-BD@. <%. ."rner *. 3. J4oral 9" g#ent$ ( st" y in rolesJ. A)er. sociol. Rev., 19%A, 1@, @D-@A. <6. .yn el 4. JSo#e aspects of the /anser stateJ. J. )ent. Sci., 19%6, 1>D, BDA-BD9.

<@. Wachpress 4., ,erenberg (. !., an Jacobson (. JSi#"lation of psychosisJ. Psychiat. Juart., 19%B, D@, A6B-A@B. <<. Wa" S. &. .alingering. .il. Surg., 19AD, 91, %B%-%B<. <9. Weiner 3., an ,rai#an (. J.he /anser syn ro#eJ. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%%, 111, @6@-@@B. 9>. Weiss7opf - ith (., an 1ieppa J. J. J-Cperi#entally in "ce fa7ing of .(. responsesJ. J. consult. Psychol., 19%1, 1%, A69-A@A. 91. Wertha# ;. &he sho of violence. !e8 6or7$ 1o"ble ay, 19A9. 9D. Wolf S. J-ffects of s"ggestion an con itioning on the action of che#ical agents in h"#an s"b9ects H the phar#acology of placebosJ. J. clin. Invest., 19%>, D9, 1>>-1>9.

-B>A-

Author Index
(bra#son, 3. (., 1DB, 1BA, 1B< ( a#s, J. 0., 161, 16@ ( atto, C. &., D9%, B>1 ( ler, 4. 3., 1@6, D1D (ginger, J., DB, B%-B6, AA (i Ss"-ch:i 6, 1% (7#an, L. D1, A% (lbert, S. !., D1, AA (l)or , -. C., Jr., 1A, 16 (n erson, -. W., D9>, B>1 (n ren, 3. -., 1D>, 1B% (ppleG8eig, 4. 3., D19-DD>, D%6, D@A (rnol , (. L., 1D6, 1B@ (rnol , 4ag a ,., D<%, B>1 (rth"r, *. +., D<6, B>B (sch, S. -. D1@, D19-DD>, DD%, DD9, DBB, DB%, DB@, DA>, D%<, D@> (t7in, I., DBD-D<B, B>1 (Gi#a, ;ern J., <6, 91, 1D6, 1B% (Gi#a, 3., <6, 91, 1D6, 1B% ,ac7, 0. W., D1<, DD>, DDD-DDB, DD%, DAB ,a7er, (. (., 1DA, 1B% ,al 8in, J., D<D, B>1 ,arber, .. `., 1@A, D1D ,arch, (. 4., D19, DD1, DD6, DBD, D@> ,ar7er, W., 1@1, D1D ,arnett, C. C., 1%1, 16@ ,arnett, W. W., 1D>, 1B6 ,aron, S. 3., D19-DD>, DD%, D6A, D@% ,arron, ;., D1<-DD1, DDB-DD6, D%B, D%A, D%@, D@>

,arsa, J. (., 1D6, 1B% ,artley, S. !., D@-D<, B>-BB, AA ,ass, 4. J., 1@1, D1D ,a"er, *. (., D, %-6, 1% ,each, ;. (., %%. 91 ,ec7, ;., D9, AA ,eecher, 3. 0., BA, B6-B@, AA, 99-1>>, 1>A, 1>6, 1><, 116, 1D>, 1B%-1B6, 1B<, 1A>, D>1, D1D ,ehringer, *., DDD, DD%, DBA, D@6 ,eigel, 3. C., 19A, D1D ,ein, 3. J., 1D%, 1B%, 1B9 ,ella7, 1D1, 1B% ,ella#y, *. S., D19, DBB, D@> ,elle)ille, *. -., 1>D, 1B@ ,eloff, 3., D1<, DD1, DDB-DDA, DD6, D%1, D%B, D6D, D@> ,ene e7, .heresa, 1>9, 1B% ,ene ict, *"th, D<B, B>1 ,en9a#in, ;. ,., B1, BA, B6-B@, A%, 1D%, 1B% ,ennett, (. 4. 3., <6, 91 ,ennett, - ith ,., D1<, DDD, DD6, D6%, D@> ,ennett, Lillian, D<>, B>1

-B>%,enshei#, 3., 1><, 1B% ,enton, (. L., D<<, B>1 ,en"ssi, 2., 1AD, 1AA, 16%, 16@ ,ercel, !. (., 1DB, 1B% ,erenb"rg, (. !., D<B, D<<, B>A ,eren a, *"th W., D19-DD>, DDB, DD% DD6, DD9, DB@, D%>, D%D, D%A, D@> ,erg#an, 4. S., 19D, D1D ,erg#an, &. S., 11<, 1B% ,eringer, 0., 1>@, 1B@ ,er7o8itG, (., D19, DBB, D@> ,er7o8itG, L., D1<, DDD, DD%-DD6, DAD DAB, D@> ,er7o8itG, 4., D19-DD>, DDA-DD%, D%<, D@B ,erlin, L., DA-D%, B%, B@-A>, AD, A% ,er#an, -. ;., D1, A% ,ernhei#, 3., 1@D, 1@A, D1D ,est, C. 3., D>, A% ,eCton, W. 3., D, 1%, D<, A%-A6, %%, %<, 6>-61, 6B-6A, 6@, @D, @A, <A, 91, 9B 9A, 111, 1B%, 1B@ ,i er#an, (. 1., D-B, %-@, 1D, 1%-16, AA-A%, %A, 69, @A, 91, D>A, D>6, D>9, D1D ,illings, *. 4., B1, A% ,inet, (., 1@A, D1D ,ir , -. /., 1DA, 1B% ,ischoff, (., 111, 1B% ,lac7b"rn, I., DD, A9 ,la7e, *. *., D1@-DD1, DDB-DD6, DD<-DBB, DB%-DB<, DA%-DA6, DA9-D%1, D%%, D%< D6D, D@>-D@% ,lan , J. 3., DD, DB, A% ,le"ler, -., D<D-D<B, D<9-D9>, B>1 ,liss, .. L., B%, A9

,loch, ,arbara L., D19-DD>, DDB, DD%, DB9, DA6, D61, D@A ,loc7, J., D<>, D<@, B>1 ,loc7, S., 1><, 1B@ ,oaG, .. J., 1%%, 16< ,ogoch, S., D96, B>1 ,oling, J. S., D1, AA ,o#bar , (., %D, 91 ,one, -., D9, BB, A% ,oring, -. /., 1@1, D1D ,o)ar , -. W., Jr., D19-DD>, DDD, DD% DD6, DA1, D6B, D6%, D@1 ,o8ers-,"ch, 4. 0., 19D, D1B ,o8les, J. W., 16D, 16@ ,o8#an, 0. 4., D<1, B>1 ,oy , *. W., 1%%, 16@ ,rai , J., 1@1, 1@A, D1D ,rai#an, (., D>9, B>A ,ra#8ell, J. 4., 1<6, D1D ,ra"chi, J. .., B>, A% ,ray, 1. W., D19-DD>, DDB, DD6, DB9, D%D, D61, D@1 ,reh#, J. W., D1<-DD>, DD%-DD6, DBB, D1%, D@>-D@1 ,ren#an, 4argaret, 1@@, 1<D, 19%, D>6, D1D-D1B ,ressler, /., 66, @>-@1, @6, @9, <D, <%, 9D ,ric7ner, *. 4., 11<, 1B% ,ronner, (., 11@, 1B% ,ro8n, -. ,., Jr., DD, A% ,roGe7, J., DB, A%, B%-B6 ,r"n, C., DD-DB, A% ,r"ner, J. S., 6>, <<, 91 ,r"ssel, J. (., 119, 1B% ,"ch8al , (. 4., 1A9, 1%>, 1%B, 16@ ,"rg8in, S., 1@1, D1D ,"r7e, C. J., 1AB-1AA, 1A<-1%1, 1%A, 16@ ,"rney, C., %D, <B, <<, 91, 111, 1B6 ,"rns, ,. 1., BA, B6, A@ ,"rtt, 3. -., D1<, DDD-DDB, DD%, DA9, D@1 ,"sch, (. 0., 1DB, 1B6 ,"tler, ,. (., %A, 91 ,yr , *. -., %D, 91 Ca 8alla er, .. C., 6>, 9D Ca#berari, J. 1., 6A, 6<-69, @D, <1, <D, 9D Ca#eron, !., D<>, B>1 Ca#pbell, 1. .., D19, DDD, D@B Ca#pbell, W. /., D<D, B>1 Can lan , 1. *., 6D, @9, 9% Carlson, (. J., BA-B%, A% Carp, (. L., D<9, B>1 Carpenter, ,., D1<, DDD, DDA-DD%, DB>, DB@, D%%, D@% Carpenter, Janeth .., D1<, DDD, DDA-DD%, DB>, DB@, D%%, D@%

Cattell, J. &., 1>@, 1D1-1DD, 1B6-1B@ Caylor, J. S., DDD, DD9, DB>, D@1 Cecil, *. L. ;., %> Cer)in, 2., D1<, DDD-DDB, DD%, D%<, D@1 Chal7e, ;. C. *., B1, A% Chal#ers, .. 4., DD-DB, A% Chan ler, &. J., D19, DD1, DD6, DB1-DBD, D%9, D@D Chap#an, L. ;., DA-D%, B%, B@-A>, AD, A% Chap#an, W. &., A%

-B>6Chappell, 4. W., 1A@, 16@ Charatan, ;. ,. -., 1DA, 1B6 Cherry, C., A>, A% Chesley, /., A% Christensen, 3. J., D<D, B>1 Christian, *. 4., DA, A< Ch"te, -., D@-D<, B>-BB, AA Clare, 3. -., 1D%, 1B% Clar7, ,., B>, %> Clar7, 3elen, D19-DD>, DD6, DBB, D@1 Clar7, L. (., 1D>, 1B6 Clar7, L. 1., 1><, 116, 1B6, 1B9 Cleghorn, *. (., 119, 1B6 Cle#ents, 3. S., 1%D, 16< Cline, 3. S., 1D6, 1B@ Cohen, ,. 1., 6B-6%, @>, 9D, 9A Cohen, ,. &., D1@, D@1 Cohen, S. I., 66, @>-@1, @6, @9, <D, <%, 9D Cohen, W, 6>, @D-@B, @9, 9D, D19-DD>, DDB, DD6, D%B, D@D Cohn, *., 11<, 1B9 Cohn, W. 4., 11@, 119, 1DA, 1B6 Cole, 1. L., D19-DD>, DD%, DB<, D6>, D@1 Cole#an, fanct ;., D19, DD1, DD%, DA9, D6>, D@1 Collins, W, @>, 9A Conn, J. W., DB, A% Conner, -., D<, B>, A< Co"ston, .. (., BA, B6, A% Co8 en, &. C., 1D6, 1B6 Cra#er, ;ern J., <6, 91, 1D6, 1B% Crane, /. -., 1D1, 1B6 Crasilnec7, 3. ,., 19B, D1A Cross7ey, 4., BA, B6, B@, A< Cro8ley, 4iria# -., D91-D9D, B>1 Cr"tchfiel , *. S., D1<-D19, DD1, DDB-DD6, DD<, DA@, DA9, D%B-D%A, D%@-D%<, D@@ C"ller, *. L., 161, 16< C"rran, 1., DA, D6, AD, A%, %> 1ana, 3. ;., 1%1, 16@

1aniels, * S., 1><, 1B@ 1ano8s7i, .. S., D1-DB, A%-A6 1a)i son, 3. (., D@<, D<B-D<A, B>1 1a)ies, L. (., 119, 1B9 1a)ies, 4. -. ,., 1DB, 1B6 1a)ies, .. S., 1DB, 1B6 1a)is, ;. 3., 1%9, 16< 1a)is, J. ;, 16D, 16@ 1a)is, J. 4., 61, 6%, @B, <D, <9, 9D 1a)is, 0., D<, A%, %A, 9D 1a)is, *. C., <>, 9D, 1AB-1A6, 1A<-1%%, 16@ 1a8son, 3. -., 1%%, 16@ 1ay, J., 1D6, 1A> 1elay, J., 119, 1DA, 1B6 1e#ent, W., <1, 9D 1enbar, 3. C. ,., 1DD, 1B6 1enber, 3. C., 1DA, 1B% 1eni7er, &., 1DA, 1B6 1ennis, W., %A, 9D 1ennison, 1. *., 1%1, 16@ 1eshon, 3. J., 1>B, 1DD-1DB, 1B6, 1B9 1ession, /. 3., 11A, 1B9, 19%, D1B, D9%, B>B 1e"tsch, 4., D19-DD1, DD%, DB>, DA>, DA%, D%9, D61, D@1 1e 2erte"il, *., 1D6, 1B% 1i ato, S. 2., D19-DD>, DDA-DD%, D%<, D@1, D<<, B>D 1ieppa, J. J., D<9, B>A 1ill, 1. ,., D<, B1, BB, A% 1i4ascio, (., 1%%, 16@ 1ittes, J. -., D1<-D19, DD%, DAB, D6>, D@1 1i)en, 0., 161, 16@ 1lin, ,. 4., 99, 1B6 1oane, ,. 0., D<, A@, %<, 61, 6A, 9D-9A 1obie, S. I., 6B-6%, @>, 9D, 9A 1onnelly, *. C., 19%, D1B 1ra7e, ;rances -., D<>, B>D 1rei7"rs, -., 1DB, 1B% 1re) ahl, J., D19-DD>, DDA-DD%, D%<, D@B 1",ois, -. ;., D>, A% 1"nc7er, 0., D1<, DD>, DDB, DD6, DBD, DB@, DA9, D6A, D@1 1ye, W. S., D1, A@ - 8ar s, (. S., D<, B>, BB, A6 - 8ar s, W. L. J., DD-DB, A6 -hr#antra"t, W. *., D1, A6 -isen#an, (. J., 1D@, 1B@ -issler, 0. *., D<1, D<B, D<%, D99, B>>, B>D -lithorn, (., BA, B6-B@, A< -l7inton, J. *., D1, DB, A6 -llertson, !., DDD, DD%-DD6, DAB, D6>, D@%

-llis, ;. &., D@, A6 -llson, 1, /., 1AB-1A%, 1A<-1%1, 1%A, 16@ -lls8orth, *. ,., 1D>, 1B6 -ngel, ,. .., 1%D, 16< -ngel, /. L., DA, A<

-B>@-ric7son, -. 4., 1<>, D1B -ric7son, 4. 3., 1@D, 1<>, 1<%, D1B -ssig, C. ;., 1D@, 1B6 -stabroo7s, /. 3., 19@, D1B -)arts, -. 2., %1, %B, 9D, 9A, 1>6, 1B< ;abing, 3. 1., 1D>, 1B6 ;arber, I. -., D, 1%-16 ;arbero8, !. I., D<>, B>A ;aGe7as, J. ;., D1-DD, A6 ;e ern, -., D, 16 ;el berg, .. 4., D<<, B>A ;brb, C., 1@A, D1D ;erg"s, -. ,., DD, A% ;erg"son, J. .., 1D>, 1B6 ;errac"ti, ;., 1AB, 16< ;estinger, L., D1@-D1<, DD>, DDD, DD%, DD<, DB6, DB9, DAB-DA%, D61, D@1-D@D ;inesinger, J. C., A% ;innerty, ;. (., DD, A6 ;inney, *. C., 1D6, 1B6 ;ischer, 3. 0., 99, 1B6 ;isher, S., D19-DD>, DDB, DD%, DD9, DA>, D%>, D%A, D@D ;ish#an, S., 19D, D1A ;lach, ;. ;., 1D6, 1B@ ;le#ing, .. C., %B, 9A ;lic7er, 1., D<1, B>D ;loy , W. ;., D<, B1, A6 ;oley, J. 4., D<, A<, @%, <6, 9B ;ol7son, (., 1D%, 1B@ ;or , *. 2., DD-DB, A< ;orel, (., 1<1, D1B ;orster, ;. 4., 111, 1B@ ;osberg, I. (., D<<, B>D ;oC, /. ;., 19A, D1% ;ran7, J. 1., D<@, B>A ;ran7l, 2. -., 119, 1B@ ;ran7#ann, *. W., 1A9, 1%B, 16@ ;raser, 3. ;., 1D@, 1B@ ;raser, *., 1@6, D1A ;ree , (., D19, DD1, DD6, DB1-DBD, D%9, D@D ;ree #an, L. 5., 19%, D1B ;ree #an, S. J., 61, 6A, @B, @6-@@, <9, 9D

;ree#an, 3., 1D6, 1B@ ;ree#an, *. W., DD>, DD%, DA>, D@D ;rench, J. *. &., Jr., D1@, D19, DD1-DDD, DD6, DB9, D@D, D@% ;re" , S., %B, 9D ;rie lan er, (. (., 19%, D1B /ala#bos, *., 16 /al7in, .. W., 1A, 16 /a#ble, J. L., DD, A6 /anser, S. J. 4., D<9-D9>, B>D /arafolo, LoraGe, 1%D, 16@ /ar#any, /., 1D%, 1B@ /a"lt, ;. &., 1%D, 16@ /eiger, (. J., DB, A< /erar , 3. ,., D1<-DD>, DDD, DD%, DB>, DB6, DB9-DA>, DAB, DA%, D%9, D6>-D61, D6A, D@1-D@D /erson, 4. J., 11%, 11<, 1B@, D9%, B>D /ibson, *. W., 19D, D1A /i ro-;ran7, L., 19D, D1B /ill, 4. 4., 19%, D>6, D1D-D1B, D<6, B>D /illespie, *. I., D<1, B>D /in es, ,. C., 1<6, B1D /laGer, 3. S., DB, A9 /leser, /. C., 1>%, 1><, 11>, 1B@ /l"ec7, ,., D<1, B>D /o in, W., D9, AA /off#an, -., D<6, B>D /ol berg, S. C., D1<-DD>, DDD-DDB, DD% DD6, DD9, DB%-DB6, DA%, D%B, D@D /ol berger, L., D<, A6, 6%-66, @>-@1, @B, @@, <B, <9, 9D /ol en, S., D<9-D9>, B>D /ol ia#on , I., 161, 16< /ol #an, 1ella 4., DD%, DBD, D@B /ol stein, 3., D91-D9D, B>D /oo , *., D<1, B>D /oo ell, 3elen, B1, BA, B6-B@, A6, %> /oo #an, *. J., D<, B>, A< /oo no8, JacF"eline, B>, A6 /or en, *. L., D1<, DD>, DD%, DBD, D@D /oss, J. 1., Jr., 1DA, 1B% /ottlieb, J. S., 6A-6%, @>, 9D /ottschal7, L. (., 1>%, 1><, 11>, 1D>, 1B@ /ottschic7, J., B%, A6 /o"gh, 3. /., D<>, B>D /raha#, 3., 19D, D1D /reen, 4., 11<, 1B% /reenblatt, 4., 61, 6A, @B, @6-@@, <9, 9D, 1%%, 16@ /regory, 1oris, DDD, DD%-DD6, DAB, D6>, D@% /rin7er, *. *., 11B, 11@, 1B@, 19%, D1B, D9A-D9%, B>D

-B><-

/rosser, 1., D19, DD1, DD6, DBD, DAB, D@D /ro)e, W. I., D1, A@ /r"neba"#, 3. '., 61, 6A, @B, @6-@@, <9, 9D /"lic7, W. L., 6D, @9, 9% /"llahorn, J. J., D<1, B>D /"tt#an, -., 1><, 1B@ 3ac7er, (., D, 16 3ain, J. 1., D1<-D19, DD1, DD6, DB>, DBD, D%9, D@1 3all, 0. *. L., BA, B6-B@, A6 3all, *., D19, DD1-DDD, DD6, DBB, D61, D@% 3a##erichlag, 3. -., 1<<, D1B 3anrahan, /. -., 1DA, 1B< 3anson, ;. *., B1, A6 3ar y, J. 1., B1, BA, B6-B@, A6, A<-%> 3ar y, 0. *., D1<, DDD-DD%, DB%, D%B, D%6, D61, D6%, D@D 3ar yc7, C., D<>, B>A 3are, (. &., D1<, DDD, DD%, DBA, DAD, D61, D@D 3aring, J., D, 16 3arl, J. 4., 1DA, 1B6 3arlo8, 3. ;., D, 1%-16, %A, 9D 3arris, (., @>, 9D 3arris, W. W., 19A, D1% 3art#ann, 3., %B, 9B 3artshorne, 3., D<D, B>D 3ar)ey, +. J., D1<-DD>, DDB, DD%-DD6, DB6, DB9, DA%-DA6, D6>, D6D, D@D, D@% 3a"gen, ;. &., B6-B@, A6 3a"pt, J, 1<%, D1B 3a87ins, J. *., 1D>, 1B6 3eath, -. S., D<, A6, %<, @B, 9B 3ebb, 1. +., D<, A6, %B-%A, %<, 61, @B, <@-<9, 9B, 111, 1B@ 3eintG, *. 0., D1<, DDD, DD%, DAD, D@% 3elfan , J., D<>, B>D 3elgesson, '. 3., D<1, B>D 3elson, 3., D1@-D19, DD1, DDB-DD6, DD<, DBD, DBA, DB6-DB@, D%1, D%%, D66, D@> D@D 3el8eg-Larsen, &., DB, B%-B6, A>, A6 3e##ager, -., DB, B%-B6, AA 3eron, W., D<, A%-A@, %%, %<, 6>-61, 6B 6A, 6@, @D, @A, @%, @@-@<, <1, <9, 91, 111, 1B%, 1B@, 1<1, D1B 3ill, 3. -., 1>D, 1B@ 3i#8ich, 3. -., 1D>, 1A> 3in7le, L. -., Jr., D, %, 1%-16, D>, D9, B1-BB, B<, AA, A@, %A, 69, 9B, 9<, 1B@ 3oaglan , 3., 1>B, 1B9 3och, &. 3., 1>@, 1D1-1DD, 1B@ 3ochberg, J., 6>, 6%, 69, @A, 9B 3oelGel, ;., BA-B%, A% 3off#an, -. L., D19-DD>, DD%, D6A, D@% 3off#an, J., 61, 6A-6%, 6@, 9A 3off#an, 4. L., D1@-DD>, DDD-DDA, DD6, D%>, D%%-D%6, D6%, D@B 3off#eyer, 3., DB, B%-B6, A>, A6

3ofling, C. 0., 99, 1B@ 3ollan , J. /., %9, 9B 3ollan er, -. &., DDD, D@B 3ollister, L. -., 1D6, 1B< 3olt, *. *., D<, A6, 6%-66, @>-@1, @B, @@, <B, <9, 9D 3ope, J. 4., 1><, 1A> 3or8itG, 4., DD%, DBD, D@B 3o"se, *. -., 11D-11B, 1B< 3o"ston, ;., D<, A@, 119, 1B< 3o8ar , W. J., 11@, 119, 1DA, 1B6 3"ghes, J. *., 1A, 16 3"ll, C., 1@D, D1B 3"ltgren, 3. &., B%, A@ 3"#phries, +., 1>6, 1B< 3"nsic7er, (. L., 1D%, 1A> 3"nt, 1. -., DDB, DD%, DA6, D@% 3"nt, *. /., D19-DD>, DDB, DD6, D%B, D@D 3"nt, W. (., D91-D9D, B>D 3"nter, -., D, 1%-16 3"r , 1. -., 1D%, 1A> 3"rst, Sir (., D9A-D9%, D99, B>>, B>D 3"Cley, (., D, %, 16 3y e, *. W., 1>B, 1DD, 1B9 3y#o)itch, ,., D1<, DDD, DD%, DB6, DB9, DAB, DA%, D@1 I7ai, 0., 1D%, 1B% Inba", ;. -., 1AB, 1A6, 1%6, 16<, D>9, D1B, D<@, D9%, B>D Isbell, 3., 1D@, 1B@-1B< Jac7son, J. 4., DAB, D6>, D@B Jacobson, (., D<B, D<<, B>A Jac"bGa7, L., D19-DD>, DDA-DD%, DB<, D%6, D@B Janet, &., 1<1, D1B Janis, I. L., D, 16 Jar)i7, 4. -., 1DB, 1BA

-B>9Jaynes, J., %%, 91 Jen7in, 2., 161, 16< Jenness, (., D19, DDD-DDB, DD%, DB6, DA9, D%D, D%A, D@B John, W., 1>%, 1B@ Johnson, W. C., 1DB, 1B6 Jonas, (. 1., 119, 1B< Jones, (. ,., D<1, D<B-D<A, D<6-D<@, B>B Jones, 1. 3., 1DA, 1B< Jones, 1. S., D<>, B>>, B>A Jones, -. -., D19-DD1, DD%, DAA, D6>, D@B Jor an, 3., D, 16, D1<, DDD, DD%, DB1, D@% J"lian, +. C., D1, A@

0agan, J., D19-DD>, DDB, DD%, DA<, D@A 0ahn, *. L., 1>@, 1A> 0an el, -. J., <%, 9B 0app, ;. .., 1D>, 1B@ 0arp, 1., BA, B6, A@ 0atG, S. -., D<, B>, BB, A@ 0a"f#an, 4. *., 1DB, 1B< 0eats, (. S., BA, B6-B@, AA 0eisler, -. *., D19, DD1, DDB, DD%, DA6, D@B 0elley, 3. 3., D1<-DD>, DDD, DD%, DD9, DB6, DB9, DAB-DAA, D6>, D@1-D@B 0elly, (. *., 11@, 1B9 0elly, 1. 4., 11<, 1B< 0elly, /. (., B>>, B>B 0el#an, 3. C., D19, DD>, DDD-DDB, DD6, DA6, D%D, D6D, D@B 0ety, S. S., DD, DB, A@ 0eys, (., DB, B%-B6, A>, A@ 0i , J. S., D19, DDD-DDB, DD%, DB%, DB9, DAD, D@B 0ieler, J., DB, B%-B6, A>, A6 0i#brell, 1. L., D19, DD1, DDB, DD6, D%>, D6D, D@B 0in7ea , -., D-B, 16 0inross-Wright, 2., 1DA, DB< 0ir7patric7, C., D1<-D19, DDD-DDB, DA9, D@B 0leh, J., DD, A6 0leit#an, !., B>, A@, <1, 9D 0letG7in, 4., B6-B@, A9 0line, 4. 2., 1<1, 1<A, 19D, D1B 0line, !. S., 1D1, 1D6, 1B%, 1B<, 1B9 0n" sen, -. +. -., DD-DB, A% 0olb, L. C., DB-DA, A< 0ornets7y, C., BA, B6-B@, A@, 1>6, 1DB, 1BA, 1B< 0rae#er, 3., 6, <, 16 0raepelin, -., D9>, B>B 0ral, 2. (., B%-B6, A@ 0rebs, (. 4., D19-DD>, DDB-DD%, DA<, D%6, D@B 0rieger, /. -., 1D6, 1B< 0ringel, (., 1D6, 1B< 0ri)itG7y, W. /., <, 16 0roger, W. S., 1@%, D1B 0ro"t, 4. 3., D9D, B>B 0r"eger, W. C. ;., D<D, B>B 0"bie, L. (., 11D, 1B<, 1@D, 1@%, D1B 0"bGans7y, &. -., 69, @1, @6, <>, <D, <%, 9B-9A 0"tscher, (. 3., B6, A@ 0"tscher, 3. W., B6, A@ 0)erin, 0., 1%D, 16@ Lacey, ,eatrice, 1%9, 16%, 16< Lacey, J. I., 1%9, 16%, 16<

Laffal, J., D19-DD>, DDA-DD%, D%<, D@B La#b, .. W., D1<, DD%, DD9, D@B La#bert, C., 1D%, 1B< La#bert, W. -., D1<, DDD, DD6, DB9, D@B Lancaster, !. &., 1DA, 1B< Lan is, C., D<, B>, BB, A@ Larson, J. (., 11B, 1B<, 1AD, 1AA-1A6, 16%, 16< Lasagna, L., BA, B6, B@, AA, 99-1>>, 1>6, 1><, 1D>, 1B<, 1A> Laslett, 3. *., B>, A@ La"f#an, 3., D>, A@ La)erty, S. /., 1>6, 1><, 1B< La8son, -. 1., D1<, DDD-DD%, D%>, D6D, D@B LaGar"s, *. S., 161, 16< Lea)itt, 3. C., 19D, D1D LeCron, L. 4., 19D, D1B Lee, C. 1., 1AB, 1A6, 1%6, 16< Lee, ;. J., DD%, DBD, D@B Lef7o8itG, 4., D19, DD1, DD6, DB<, D@B Le/"illant, L., 1><, 1B< Leh#ann, 3. -., 1DA, 1B< Lei er#an, &. 3., D<, BB, A@, A9-%>, %D, %%-%6, 6A, 6<-69, @1, @6, <>, <D, <%, <@, 9B-9% LennoC, W. /., D9B-D9A, B>B Ler#olo, -liGabeth, D9, BB, A@ Le)in, 4., DA, A@ Le)ine, (., 1DB, 1B<

-B1>Le)ine, J., D19-DD>, DDA-DD%, D%<, D@B Le)ine, 0., 11<, 1B< Le)y, -. 5., %%, 6A, @1, @B, @%, @@, @9, <1 <%, <<, 9A Le8is, (., D<9-9>, B>B Le8is, ,. I., DD, A@ Le8is, .., BA, B6, A< Li ell, S. W., 119, 1B9 Lieber#an, (. (., D9>, B>B Lifton, *. J., 1>, 16, B%, A<, %A, @A, 9B Lilly, J. C., D, 1A, 16, A<, %D, %%, @D, <1 <B, 9B, 111, 1B9 Lin e#ann, -., D<, A<, @6, 9A, 1>< 119, 1B9 Lin e#ann, J., D19-DD>, DDA-DD%, D%<, D@B Lin sley, 1., <9, 9B Ling, .. 4., 119, 1B9 Linn, L., 1>@, 1A> Linton, 3arriet ,., D19, DD1, DDB-DDA, DD6, D%%, D@A Lippett, *., D19, DD1, DD6, DBD, DAB, D@D Lipton, ;. L., 11<, 1B9 Li)ingston, W. 0., B6-B@, A6 Lle8ellyn, *. L. J., D<1, D<B-D<A, D<6 D<@, B>B Loo#er, 3. &., 1D1, 1B9 Lo8y, ;. 3., D1<, DDD, DD6, DB9, D@B

L"bin, (., DD>, DD%, DD9, D%A, D@D L"chins, (. S., D1@-DD>, DDB-DD%, DB>, DBA, DB<, DA@, D%>, D%<, D@A L"chins, - ith 3., D1@-DD>, DDB, DD%, DBA, DB<, DA@, D%>, D%<, D@A L" 8ig, (. +., 19%, D1B, D<B, D9A-D9%, B>B L"##"s, W. ;., DD-DB, A6 L"ongo, -. &., B1, BB, A< L"ttrell, *. *., 1D%, 1B9 Ly77en, 1. .., D<@, B>B 4c,ri e, 1orothy, DDD, DD%-DD6, DAB, D6>, D@% 4cCance, *. (., DB, B%, A< 4cCleary, *., 161, 16< 4cConnell, J. 2., 161, 16<, D1@, D19-DD1, DD6, DBB, D@A 4cCo"rt, W. ;., 61, 6%, @B, <D, <9, 9D 4cCranie, -. J., 19B, D1A 4c/ill, .. -., %%, 6D, 6A, @%, @@, @9, 9A-9% 4c/rath, S. 1., D@, B1, A< 4c0eachie, W. J., D1<, DDD, DD%-DD6, D6%, D@A 4c!eil, -. ,., 161, 16< 4cS"een, *., D1<, DD6, DA<, D@A, D<D, B>B 4acClay, W. S., 1><, 1B9 4ac1onal , J. -., D<9-D9>, B>D 4ac1onal , J. 4., D@<, D<1-D<D, D<A, D<6, D<9-D9>, D9B, D9%, B>B 4ac1onal , 4. 1., 11A, 1B9 4ac0innon, 3. L., 119, 1B9 4ac78orth, !. 3., %<-%9, 9B 4ahatoo, W., %<, 61, 9D 4aier, !. *. ;., D1<, DD1-DDD, DD%, DA1, D@A 4ala#" , W., 1><, 119, 1B9-1A> 4alitG, S., 1>@, 1A> 4allinson, W. &., D9>, B>1 4al#o, *. ,., 1%%, 1%9, 16< 4angol , *., D<, B>, A< 4ann, .., D<@, B>B 4archan , W. -., B1, A9 4arc"se, ;. L., 1<1, D1B 4argolin, S., 1@D, 1@%, D1B 4arinho, 3eloisa, D1<, DD1, DDB, D%>, D6A, D@A 4arston, W. 4., 1AD, 1A6, 16>, 16%, 16< 4asser#an, J., 9<, 1B9 4ateer, ;. 4., DD, A% 4att#an, *. -., B%, A9 4a"sner, ,., A, 1@, D1@-DD>, DDB, DD%, DB< DB9, DA6, D61, D@A 4a"sner, J" ith, A, 1@ 4ay, (. ,., 1D%, 1B@ 4ay, 4. (., D<D, B>D 4ayer, L., 1<<-1<9, D1A 4ayer, W. -., D-B, 1@ 4ayer-/ross, W., D9>, B>B

4ayo, C. W., D, 1%, 1@ 4ea o8, (., D19-DD>, DDB, DD6, D%B, D@D 4eares, (., 1@6, D1A 4eehan, J. &., B6, A< 4eerloo, J. (. 4., D-B, 1%, 1@ 4eltGer, 4. L., 1, 1<, <6, 9B, D@@, D<>, B>B 4eltGoff, J., D<9, B>B 4en elson, J., D<, BB, A@-%>, %D, %%-%6, 6A, 6<-69, @1, @%-@6, <>, <D, <%-<@, 9B-9% 4ercer, 4., 19D, D1A 4erlis, S., 1DD, 1B6 4iller, (. .., Jr., B1, A< 4iller, J. /., D-B, 1A, 1@

-B114iller, !. -., 11D, 1B9 4illon, .., D19-DD>, DDB, DD%, D6D, D@A 4ills, L. C., DD-DB, A< 4oeller, /., D19-DD>, DD%, D%6, D@A 4oll, (., 1<1, D1A 4onroe, J. L., B, 16 4ontgo#ery, 0. C., %A, 9A 4oore, -. W., 1D>, 1B9 4oore, J. *., 1AD, 16< 4oreno, J. L., B>>, B>B 4organ, C. .., 16 4orris, 1. &., 11A, 1B9 4orrison, (. 2., 1D%, 1B9 4osteller, ;., BA, B6-B@, AA, 99-1>>, 1><, 1D>, 1B< 4o"lton, J. (., 1D>, 1B6 4o"ton, Jane S., D1<-D19, DD1, DDB-DD6, DD<-DBB, DB%-DB<, DA>, DA%-DA6, DA9, D%1, D%%, D%<-D61, D@>-D@B 4oyer, J. 3., DD-DB, A< 4"ehlberger, C. W., 19%, D1A 4"eller, J. ;., DB, A9 4Uller, J. 4., 1D%, 1B9 4"nsterberg, 3., DDA, DBB, D@A 4"rphy, 1. ,., <%, 9B 4"rphy, -. L., D@@, B>B 4"rray, J. C., B, 1@ 4"ssen, &. 3., D19-DD>, DDB, DD%, DA<, D@A 4yers, .. I., <%, 9B !a7a#"ra, C. 6., DD1, DD%, D%A, D@A !angle, J., D19, DD1, DD6, DBD, D@> !e)s7y, 4. &., 1@1, D1A !e8, J. S., 11@, 1B9 !e8#an, S., D<D, B>B !i, .. /., DD-DB, A< !iell, 0. C., BA, B6-B@, A9-%> !ielson, J. 4., D9D-D9%, B>B

!itsche, &., D<-D9, A< !oyes, (. &., DB-DA, A<, D9>, B>B +l er, 3. J., D91-D9D, B>D +l s, J., 1A, 1@ +linger, L. ,., 1DB, 1B% +l#stea , J. (., D19-DD1, DDB, DD%-DD6, DBD-DBB, DB%, DB@, DA>, DA%-DA6, D%1, D%<, D61, D@1, D@A-D@% +r#iston, 1. W., 6D, @B, 9A +rne, 4. .., 1@<, 19B, 19@, D><, D1A +r8ell, /., D, 1@ +ssipo), 2. &., D<1-D<B, B>B &ac7ar , 2., %, 1@ &arsons, .., D>@, D1A &att, 3. 3., D1, A% &attie, ;. (., Jr., 196, D1A &a)lo), I. &., 1@1, D1A &ayne, *. ,., 1D>, 1B9 &echtel, C., 9<, 1B9 &e#berton, W., 1B<, 1<< &enfiel , W., 1A, 1@ &en#an, J., BA, B6, A< &ennes, 3. 3., 1>@, 1D1-1DD, 1B@ &eters, S. C., D1@, D19-DD>, DD%, D@% &eterson, 1. ,., B, 1@ &etrie, (., @>, 9A &iana, /abriel 4., DD%, DBD, D@B &ichot, &., 119, 1B6 &iercy, 4., BA, B6-B@, A< &ins7y, *. 3., 99, 1A1 &latono), 0. I., 19D, D1A &olans7y, !., D19, DD1, DD6, DBD, DAB, D@D &ollacGe7, &enelope &., D91-D9D, B>B &osterna7, Jean 4., %B, 9A &ratt, *. .. C., BA, B6-B@, A< &reston, 4. /., D1<, DDD, DD%, DAD, D@% &re", &. W., DB, A< &ri7ho i)ny, -. (., 19D, D1A &r"gh, /. S., Jr., B, 1@ *aascho", ;., DD-DB, A% *aines, /. !., 11<, 1B9 *apaport, 1., <@, 9A *as#"ssen, .., 1A, 1@ *a)en, ,. 3., D19, DD1-DDD, DD6, DB>, DB9, D@% *a)itG, L. J., 11A, 1B9, D9%, B>B *e lich, ;. C., 11A, 1B9, 19%, D1B, D9%, B>B *ehberg, &. ,., DD-DB, A< *ei , J. -., D>9, D1B, D<6-D<@, B>D-B>B

*eiter, &. J., 1<<-1<9, D1A *ice, *. L., DD, A< *ich, 4., DD, A9 *i le, -. -., 19B, D1A *ies#an, 1., D, 1@ *ietse#a, J., D19, DD1, DB>, D@% *in7el, 4., 1>B, 1DD-1DB, 1B6, 1B9 *ipley, 3. S., 1>B, 1A1 *itter, Christiane -., %D, 9A

-B1D*oberts, *. 3., 1D6, 1B< *oelens, *., 1><, 1B< *ohrer, J. 3., D19-DD>, DD%, D6A, D@% *olin, J., 9<, 11B, 1D1, 1B9 *o#anet, ,., 119, 1B6 *o#ano, J., DA, A< *osen, 3., 1@6, D1A *osenba"#, /., 6B-6%, @>, 9D, 9A *osenba"#, 4. -., D19, DD1, DD6, DB>, DBD, D%9, D@% *osenberg, S., 1%6, 16< *osenb"rg, S. J., D<<, B>A *osenthal, 1., D<@, B>A *osner, S., D1<-DD>, DD%, D%%, D%<, D@% *oss, W. 1., 1D>, 1B@ *oth, 4., D9>, B>B *oth#an, .., D<, B>, A<, 119, 1A> *o8lan L. W., 1<B, D1A *oyse, (, ,., D<, A@ *"bel, 4arilyn, DD>, DDB, DD%, D%B, D@% *"benst)in, ,. ,., 1>9, 1B% *"bin, 4. (., 1><, 1A> *"binstein, I., B>, A6, D19-DD>, DDB, DD%, DA>, D%>, D@D *"ff, /. -., %%, 6A, @1, @B, @%, @@, @9, <1 <%, <<, 9A *"ssell, W. *., D9B, B>A *"therfor , Jeanne, D19-DD>, DDB, DD%, DB6, DA%, D6D, D@D Saher, -. 2., 11A, 1A> SaltG#an. I. J., 1AB-1A%, 1A<-1%1, 1%A, 16@ SaltGstein 3. 1., DAB, D6>, D@B Sa#elson, ;., D19-DD>, DDB-DD%, D%6, D61, D@% Sa#son, 1. C., DA, A< Saphir, W., DD, A9 Sarbin, .. *., 1@D, D1A, D@9-D<>, D<B, D<6, B>>, B>A Sargant, W., D, %, 1A-1%, 1@, 1>B, 11B, 11@, 1A>, 1@6, D1A Sar8er-;oner, /. J., 1><, 1A> Saslo8, 4., DD, A9 Sa"n ers, J. C., 1D1, 1B9 Sa)age, C., 1D6, 1A>

Schachter. S., <9-9>, 9A, D19, DD1-DDD, DD%-DD6, DBB, DAB, D6>, D6A, D@% Schein, -. 3., D-B, %, 1%, 1@, B%, AA, A9, %A, 9A Scheinberg, &., DD, A9 Schiff#an, 3., %%, @%, @@, 9% Schil er, &., 1@D, 19%, D1A Schlitter, -., 1D%, 1B9 Sch#i t, C. ;., DD, A@ Schnec7, J. 4., BA, B6, A9, 1@6, 1<D, 19D, D1A Schnit7er, 4. (., B%, A9 Schonbach, &., 9>, 9A Schonbar, *osealea (., D19-DD>, DD6, DBB, D6B, D@% Schro er, 3. 4., DDB, DD%, DA6, D@% Sch"ltG, J. 3., D>B, D1A Sch"t, J. W., 1D>, 1A> Scott, .. 3., D<, A%, A@, %%, %<, 6>-61, 6B-6A, @D, @A, 91-9A, 111, 1B@ Scott, W. (., D1<-D19, DDD, DD%, DA<, D@% Sea#an, /., 6>, 6%, 69, @A, 9B Sec"n a, L., 1@6, D1D Segal, 3. (., B%, A9 Segal, J., AA, A9 SeltGer, 3. S., DB, A% Shagass, C., 1%9, 16< Shan7el, L. W., 119, 1B% Shapiro, 4. 4., D1<-DD>, DDD, DD%, DB6, DB9, DAA, D6>, D@D-D@B Sha)Gin, (. *., D<9, B>1 Sherif, 1. 4., D@% Sherif, 4., D1@, D19-DD>, DDB, DD%-DD6, DBB, DB%, DA6, D6B, D69 Sh#a)onian, ,., 66, @>-@1, @6, @9, <D, <%, 9D Shor, J., 19D, D1A Shor, *., 19@, D>1, D>B, D1A Shortt, L., B1, A% Si ons, /. ;., 1A9, 16@ Sil)er#an, (. J., 66, @>-@1, @6, @9, <D, <%, 9D Si#7ins, L. C., D19-DD>, DDB, DD%, D6D, D@A Si#on, J. L., 119, 1A> Sine)irs7ii, !., 6, 1< Singh, J. (. L., %A, 9A S7inner, ,. ;., 9, 1< Slater, -., 11B, 11@, 1A>, D9>, B>B S#all, 4. 3., %D, %B, 9A S#ith, (. (., 1%%, 16< Soffer, (., DD-DB, A9 So7oloff, C., D<, B>, A< Sole#, (. *., D1<, DD1-DDD, DD%, DA1, D@A

-B1BSolo#on, 3. C., DA, A9, 1>B, 1DD-1DB, 1B6, 1B9 Solo#on, &., D<, BB, A@-%>, %D, %%, %6, 61, 6A-6%, 6<-69, @>-@1, @B, @6, <D, <%, <@, <9, 9D, 9A-9% Spec7, *. 2., 11@, 119, 1DA, 1B6

Spencer, W. (., D1, AA Spiegal, -. (., B6-B@, A9 Spiegel, 3., 19D, D1A Spiegel, J. &., 11B, 11@, 1B@, 19%, D1B, D9A-D9%, B>D SpitG, *. (., %A, <6, 9A Spohn, 3. -., D19-DD>, DDB-DD%, D%<, D@%, D<<, B>A Sprenger, J., 6, <, 16 Sproles, J. (., 1D6, 1B6 Sp"rr, C., DD-DB, A< SF"ires, *. 1., DD-DB, A% Stagner, *., D1<, DDD-DD%, D%>, D6D, D@B Stalna7er, J. 4., 19B, D1A Stanbri ge, *. 3., B1, A9 Steiner, I. 1., D1@, D19-DD>, DD%, D@% Stephenson, C. W., 19B, D1% Stern, -. S., D9>, B>A Ste8art, J. ,., D@, %> Stoc7ings, /. .., 1>@, 1A> Stoll, (. 4., B6, A< Sto"t, /. W., 1A9, 16@ Strans7y, -., BA, B6-B@, A9 Strass#an, 3. 1., B%, A9 Stric7lan , L., DDD, DD%, DAA, D61, D@% Stri e, -., BA, B6-B@, A6 StrotG7a, 3., 119, 1B@ St"art, -. (., D<, A6, %<, @B, 9B S"gar#an, L. (., 1>@, 1A> S"##ers, W. /., 1AD, 1AA, 1A@, 16%, 16< S"tcliffe, &., 199, D1% S8an er, 1. 2., D19-DD>, DD%, D6A, D@% S8an7, *. L., D@, B1-BD, A9 S8ar , 0., 119, 1A> S8isher, S. !., DA, A< SGasG, .. S., D<D, B>A SGe7ely, -. /., B6-B@, A9 .albott, J. 3., D>, A9 .a"be, 3., 119, 1A> .aylor, !. ,., D>, A% .ennien, 4., D, 1< .eter, 3. *., 19B, D1A .haler, 4argaret ,., B%, A9 .haler, 2. 3., %%, 6A, @1, @B, @%, @@, @9, <1-<%, <<, 9A .hetfor , W. !., DA-D%, B%, B@-A>, AD, A% .hiba"t, J., D1<, DDD, DD%, DD<, DB9, DAA, D61, D@D, D@% .histleth8aite, J. *., D1, AA .horin, 1., AA, A9 .ic7tin, 3. -., D1, A6 .oby, J., D<1, B>A

.orrey, *., D19-DD1, DD%, DAA, D6>, D@B .o"rlentes, .. .., 1D%, 1A> .ra)is, L. -., 1DB, 1B% .riebel, W., 6>, 6%, 69, @A, 9B .ro)illo, &., 1AD, 16< .r"e, *. 4., 19B, D1% .r"#bo, 1., D19, DD1, DD6, DBD, D@> ."rner, *. 3., D<1, B>A .yn el, 4., D<9-D9>, B>A .yler, 1. ,., D<, B>, BB, A<-A9, 111, 1A> 'n erhill, 3. C., 11A, 1A> 2an 2al7enb"rg, J. 1., D@, %> 2ernon, J. (., %%, 61-6A, 6@, @%, @@, @9, 9A-9% 2ictoroff, 2., 11%, 11<, 1B@, D9%, B>D 2ilter, *. W., DB, A9 2ispos, *. 3., 91 2on ;elsinger, J. 4., 99-1>>, 1>6, 1><, 1D>, 1B<, 1A> Wachpress, 4., D<B, D<<, B>A Wa7i#, 0. /., D>, %> Walters, *. 3., D19-DD>, DDA-DD%, DB<, D%6, D@B Wangensteen, +. 3., D1-DD, %> Warren, !., B>, %> Wat7ins, J. /., 1@@, 1<D, D1% Wa" , S. &., D<1, B>A Wayb"rn, -., D1, B>, %> Wea)er, -. 4. ;., D@, %> Weil-4alherbe, 3., 119, 1B9 Weiner, ff., D9>, B>A Weinert, /., DD>, DDB, DD%, D%B, D@% Weinstein, -. (., 1>@, 1A> Weiss7opf, - ith (., D<9, B>A WeitGenhoffer, (. 4., 1@%, 1<1, 19%, D1% Welch, L., 1@D, D1% Welfor , (. .., D<, B1, A6 Wells, 3. 3., D19-DD1, DD%, DAA, D6>, D@B

-B1AWells, W. 1., DD>, DDB, DD%, D%B, D@% Wells, W. *., 1@1, 1@@, 1<>, 1<D, 1<%, 19A, D1% Wen t,/. *., 111, 1A> Wenger, 4. (., 1%D, 16< Wertha#, ;., D<1, B>A West, L. J., D, 1%-16, 1<, B>, BA, B6-B@, A%, A9-%> WeCler, 1., D<, BB, A@, A9-%>, %D, %%-%6, 6A, 6<-69, @1, @6, <D, <%, <@, 9A-9% Wheeler, 1., D1<, DDD, DD%, DB1, D@% Whiles, W. 3., D9>, B>A

White, ;. W., 1@D, 19A, D1% Whitehorn, J. C., DA, %> Whitta7er, J. +., D19, DD1, DB6, D@% Wi o8son, -. 4., DB, B%, A< Wiener, 4., D1<, DDD, DDA-DD%, DD9-DB>, DB6-DB@, D%%, D%9, D@% Wi7ler, (., 1>D, 11D, 1D1, 1D@, 1B@, 1A> Wil7ins, *. W., 1D%, 1A> Willia#s, 3. L., DD9, D%A, D@D Wil#ar#s, 0., D<-D9, A< Wilson, 1. C., Jr., 119, 1B% Win7el#an, !. W., Jr., 1DA, 1A1 Wino7"r, /., D, 1< Witt7o8er, -. 1., D@, B1, A< Wolf, S., BA, B6-B@, %>, 99, 1>B, 1A1, D<@, B>A Wolff, 3. /., D-B, %, 1%-16, 1<, D>, DA-D6, D9, B1-A>, AD, AA-A@, %>, %A, 69, 9B Wycis, 3. .., B6-B@, A9 6a7o)le), &. I., DA, A9 5aC, 4., 1D6, 1B6 5iller, *. C., D1<, DDD, DD%, DBA, D@6 5i##er, 3., 1, 1< 5i##er#an, ,., D1, DD, %> 5i##er#an, 3. (., D@-D<, B1, %> 5ingg, *. 4., %A, 9A 5is7in , -., D<, %>, <@, 9%

-B1%-

Subject Index
(bstraction, B9, D66 (cc"racy, AB, 11@, 1@>, 191-196 (cetanili , 1D1 ( aptation, Le)el .heory, D69 ( aptation of responses, 1A<-1A9, 1%D ( apti)e #echanis#s, B< ( iction, 1>B, 1>6, 1D6-1D@, 1BD (fteri#ages, 61 (ge, DB@, DA9-D%> (ge regression, 19D (lcohol, @@, 1>A, 116, 1%B, D9D (lgeria, 9< All(ort>All(ort A>S Reaction Stu%y, DDB, D%1-D%D (lpha acti)ity, @9, 1%D, 1@%, see also -lectroencephalogra# (#nesia, 119, 1@1, 19@, D>>-D>1, D>%, D11, D@<-D@9, D<%, D<9, D9B-D96 retrogra e, D9B-D9A 1@1 (#obarbital, 1>B-1>A, 11A-11%, 11@

(#pheta#ine, 1>6, 111, 116, 119-1D1, 1B1 (naleptic, 1D>-1D1 (nesthesia, 196, D>1-D>% (nesthetics, 1D1, 1B>, D>1 (nony#ity, DA>, D61 (noCia, DD J(ntisocial acts,J 1<>-191, D<D (nCiety, BD, B@, B9-A>, @>-@1, @B, @<, 1>@, 119, 1DA-1D6, 1D<, 1B1-1BD, D>D, D>A, D>@, DA6-DA@, D%>-D%1, D<%, D9A-D9%, D99 (pathy, 11> (phasia, 11<, 1D>, D9A (pparent #o)e#ent, 61-6B (ppetite, D<A (r#e ;orces JCo e of Con "ct,J B (ro"sal, %A, <1, <9, 1D<, 1%D (rticles of War, 11% (spirin, 1D1 (tropine, 116, 1D1 (ttention, BD, 6A, 119, 1B1 (ttit" es, 9, 11, BA, A1-AB, 1B>, D16-D@6, D<D, D<% of eCperi#ental s"b9ect, 16B-16A, 166, 1@6 of interrogation so"rce, 16% ("thoritarianis#, 6<, D%1, D%B, see also +alifornia 0>Scale ("togeno"s training, D>B-D>% ("to7inetic effect, 61, 6B, D19-DD>, DBB, DA6, D%>, D6B ("tono#ic responses, 1AD-16< ()oi ance, 16B

-B16()oi ance H ()oi ance conflict, 1BB ,arbit"rates, 11A, 11@, 119, 1DA, 1D@, 1B>-1B1, 1%B, D9% Barron>Welsh Art Scale, DDB, D%A Behavior Inter(retation Inventory, D%6 ,elief change, %B, 6@-6< Ben%er>Gestalt &est, 6D ,lin ness, D@< ,loo , D1-DA, D9%, see also Circ"latory f"nctions ,o y fl"i s, D1-DD ,o y i#age, @A ,o y sche#a, 69 ,o y s8ay, 6@-6< Bogar%us Scale, 6@ ,ore o#, @B, <B-<A, 9> ,rain, D>-DA, BA, B9-A1, <9, 1>@ a#age, 1>@ f"nction, D@-B>, BD-B@, B9, AD organic, isease of, D<% ,rain syn ro#e, DA-D6, D9, BD, B@-B<, AD ,rain8ashing, %-6, %<, <<

,rea7, A1 ,rea7off pheno#enon, <6 ,reathing, 1AD, 1AA-1A6 cycle of, 1A%, see also *espiration ,ro#i es, 1DA ,"rns, DD Caffeine, 116, 1D1 +alifornia 0>Scale, DDB, D%>, D%B, D6D Cal#ati)es, 11@-119 Capti)ity, 1BB, D>A, D>6, D@<, D<1, D<% Cataract patients, <@ Catechol a#ine, <>-<1 Catharsis 11@ +attell 16 P0, DDB Cerebral f"nctioning, B9, 1B> Cheating, D<D Chicago &olice Laboratories, 1%B Chinese Co##"nists, 6, 9< Chloral hy rate, 1DA Chlorofor#, 11D Chlorpro#aGine, 1><, 1DA-1D6 Circ"latory f"nctions, DD, BB, B<, <> bloo press"re, 1>A, 1AD, 1A6-1A@ p"lse, 1A<-1%D Clinical obser)ation, B% Cocaine, 1><, 1D1 Coercion, D, D9, %<, 69, 96, 16%, B>> Collecti)e reaction, 1>< Cogniti)e f"nctions, B9, %@, 6A-6@, @A, 11D ist"rbances of, 6A-6@ Color sat"ration, 6B Co#bat, D@, B1-BD, BA, D<%, D9B-D9A Co#bati)eness, 1D6 Co#fort, A1-AB Co##it#ent, DA>-DA1, D6A Co##"nication, 99, 1>A, 1D>, 1D%, 1B1 theory, D< Co##"nist practices, D, 6, <, 1>, 1D, 1%, AA, :%B- %A, 9< Co#pleC f"nctions, DA, D9-B>, BD, BA, B6-B@, B9-AB, 61, @1, D%A Co#pliance, 19, AD-AB, D>6, D16-D1@, D%%, D9%, D99 Conation, 11D Concentration ca#ps, B%-B6, 9<, D>A Con itioning, 1%, 161-16D, 1@D Confab"lation, D6, BD, B%, A1, 19A Confessions, 1, B, @, AA, 9@, 11B-11%, B>> Confine#ent, %@-%<, 6<, D>A, D<D Conflict, 161-16A, D16, B>> Confor#ity, D16-D@6

Conf"sion, AA, D<A-D<% Conscio"sness, A1, 96, 1DD, 1D@, 161, 1@B 1@A, D1>-D1D Constipation, D<A Constit"tional characteristics, BB, B6, %A, 1>1 Con)ersion, <, 1D%, D16-D1@, D6D-D66 Cortical inhibition, 1@1 satiation, @> Co)er story, 11A, 116-11@ Cri#e, 9@, 1%<, 16A, 16%, D>6, D@<, D9B, D9@-D9< Cri#inal beha)ior, 11%, 1B>, 1<1-191, D11 Cri#inals, AB, 16%-166, 1@B, D91 interrogation of, 1AA 1acha", 9< 1ata processing, B9 1ata interpretation, 1%6-16> 1ay rea#s, @1, @A 1eath, B<, AA 1ebilitation, %@, 1BD, 1%B

-B1@1eception, 11A-11@, 1B>-1B1, 1AD-16<, D>9, D<D, D9< etection of, 1AD-16<, D<B-B>> 1ecor"#, D6, B>, BD, B%, A> 1efenses, against interrogation, 1BB-1BA, 1@>, D1>-D11 1efenses, personality, @1, D>6 1egra ation, D>A 1ehy ration, DA, D6, B> 1eliria, DA, D>6, D<A, D9B 1el"sions, D6, D9-B>, BD, B%, 69, @A-@6, 11B, 19%, D<A 1e#an characteristics, <%, 99, 1>1-1>D, 1@<, see also S"ggestion 1e#onology, A-6, < 1epen ence on the percept"al fiel , DDA 1epen ency, A, D>6 1epersonaliGation, @A 1epression, 16<, 11>, 1D>-1D1, 1D%, 1B>, 1BD, D<A psychotic, D<A 1eserpe ine, 1D% 1eter#inis#, B, @ 1iarrhea, DD, DA 1igit span, 6A, 66 1iscri#ination analysis, 1%9 1isease, D%, 1B>, D>6, D@@-B>A 1isorientation, @%, 11B, 1BD 1issociati)e reactions, 116 1istortion, efense in interrogation, 1D6, 1BB, 1@> percept"al, 1B>, 1BD 1rea#s, @A 1r"gs, A>, 96-1A1, 19%, D>6-D>9, D<%, D<@, D9%-D96, D9<

ainti epressi)e, 119-1D1 hall"cinogenic, 1D1-1DA, 1BD psychoto#i#etic, 1D1-1DA, 1BD reactions to person a #inistering, 1>D-1>A silent a #inistration of, 99, 1>1 therape"tic "se of, 9@ tranF"iliGing, 9@, 1DA-1D6, see also specific r"gs 1"rha# ecision, D@< 1yspepsia, D<% - "cational le)el, 1>A-1>% 1% ar%s Personal Preference Sche%ule, 69 -ffort syn ro#e, D<% -go, %B, @6, <@-<<, 116-11@, D>1, D>A bo"n aries, << controls, 11B, D>>-D>%, D11 strength, D99 -lectrical brain sti#"lation, 1A -lectrocar iogra#, 1A9, 19B -lectroencephalograph, @<-<1, 1%>, 1%D, 1@1, 1@%, 19B -lectro#yogra#, 1%> -lectroshoc7, D<@, D9>, D9< -#otion, D%, B%, A>, 11D, 1DB, 1B1, 16% -#otional reli)ing, 11@ -pilepsy, 111, D<@, D9B-D9A -pinephrine-norepinephrine, <> -thics, 96-9<, 11B, D@< -"phoria, 1>A, 1>6, 1><, D<A -Cperi#ental controls, %@, 1>>-1>1, 1>6, 1B>, 16A, 1<6-1<<, D1@-DD@, D6<-D@> -Cperi#ental effect, <A -Cploratory ri)e, %A, <A, <@ -Cplorers, 9>-91 -Cpos"re, in9"rio"s, D%, D@ -Ctro)ert, 1>6 -ye #o)e#ent, 1%1 ;ail"re, D61 an confor#ity beha)ior, DA6 ;ainting, DD ;antasy, D9, 69, @1-@D, @A, @6, <%, 11% 116, 1B>, 1BB, 19% ;at, DB ;atig"e, D%, D@-AA, 111, 1B>, 1%B, 1<> ;ear, B9, A1, 69, @B, 1DD, 1BA, 16B, D9@ ;ee bac7, 1>D a" itory, 6B ;eeling state, @D-@A ;eral #an, %A ;e)er, DA, B> 0ie%ler A>S Inventory, DDB

;ig"ral aftereffects, 6B, @> ;oo , see 3"nger, !"trition, Star)ation ;r"stration, <B /al)anic s7in response =/S*?, @9, 1AD, 1A6-1A<, 1%A-161, D%>-D%1, D6D /anser Syn ro#e, D@<-D@9, D<9-D9>, D99 /anGfel , 6>, 69 /astrointestinal syste#, B<, 1%D

-B1</estapo, D>A Gough A%<ective +hec" $ist, D%@ /ro"p, ho#ogeneity of, DB9 nor#s of, DDD siGe of, DBA social, D16-D@> Grou( S=uares &est, D%B Guilfor%>.artin Inventory of 0actors, DDB, D%D Guilfor%Ds R Scale, 1>6 /"ilt, 1><, 11D, 11A-11%, 11@, 1B>, 1BB, 16A, D>6, D1>, D1D, D@@-D<<, D9%, D9@, D99 3all"cinations, D6, D9-B>, BD, B%, %D, 69-@>, @A-@@, @9, <@, 9>, 11B, 1D1 1DB, 1<%, 1<@, D<A 3ashish, 1>< 3ea ache, B6, 1>A, D<% 3earing, 1D% 3eroin, 1>6 3o#eostasis, D>-DA, D@, B>, BD, B<-A>, AB 3"nger, D%, BA-B<, AD 3ypnagogic states, @@-@< 3ypnosis, BA, 9<, 1>D, 16<-D1%, D<@, D9%, D9< so#na#b"listic, 1@A, D>D 3ypochon riasis, <6 3ypoglyce#ia, 11> 3ysteria, 1><, 11A, 1@1, D<%-D<6, D9>, D9B-D9A I , <@-<< I%ea +lassification &est, DDB, D%A I eation, 1DB I entification 8ith the aggressor, D>6 I eological change, 1, 1>, %B-%A I\- *atio, 1A% Ill"sions, D6, D9, BD, @A, @6-@@, 11B I#agery, @A-@< I##obility, B%, %@, 6>-6D, 6%, @B, <@ In iana 'ni)ersity St" y, 1AB, 1A@-1%9, 16D In i)i "al ifferences, 1><, D<> In "ction of hypnosis, 169-D1% Infection, D6, D9B

Infor#ation, elicitation of, 19, DA, D@-D<, B%, A1-AA, 6@, <9, 96, 99, 11D-11B, 116-11@, 1D6, 1D<, 1B1-1BD, 1@>, 1<>, 191, 196, D>1, D>9, D66, D@< In9"ry, D6, B1, A>, D9B-D9A InF"isition, <, D@ Insec"rity, DA6 Insight, BD, A>, D6< Inso#nia, 1D6, 1%B, D<% Ins"lin, 11> Integrati)e capacities, 11B Intellect"al f"nctioning, BD, 1>6, 11B, 1DD-1DB, 1D6, 1BD Intelligence, @, 11, 1%, 1>A-1>%, 1B>-1B1, D%A agencies, 9< h"#an, 1>A-1>%, 11<, 1B>-1B1, D%A, see Intellect"al f"nctioning #ilitary an political, @, 11, 1% tests of, 6A, 19D, D91-D9B, see specific test na#es Interaction, 1@D, D16, D@6, see also Social relationships an Interpersonal infl"ence InternaliGe nor#s an controls, 6B, 6@-6<, 9>, 1<>-1<1 Interpersonal infl"ence, D%, A>, D16-D@6 Interrogation, 1-D%, D9-B>, BB, A1, AA, %A, 6@, @A, <9-9>, 9<, 1><, 11D-1D6, 1D9 1BA, 1AD, 1%D-1%6, 16A-16%, 16@, 169-1@>, 1<>, 191-196, 199, D>A-D1>, D16, D66, D@@-D@9, D9B, D96-B>> Co##"nist, 1, A-6, <, 1>, DD, AA, %A, 9< -"ropean, DD eCperi#ental, 6@, 11D-11<, 1D9-1BA, 1%%, 1<>, 191-19% i eological, <, 1D, 1% #ilitary, 16@, D96-D9@ !aGi, 9<, 1D1, D>A +riental, DD police, 9<, 11B, 1AD, 1%B-1%6, 16%-166, D96-D9@ So)iet, 6, BB, 9<, 1>< 'nite States, 1D Inter)ie8ing, 11, 11B free-associati)e, 11D non- irecti)e, 11D, see also Interrogation Intro)ert, 1>6-1>@ IproniaGi , 1D>-1D1, 1B1 I.S., 1>> Irritability, @D-@B Isolation, D@, D9-B>, BD, BA-B%, B<, AD-AB, %1-9%, 111, 1B>

-B19Isolation, effects of "ration, <1-<B social, %D, %6, 61, <D, <9 tolerance of, 69-@>, <1 J" g#ent, B>, BD, A>-A1, AA, 6D, D19, DBB J"ry )er icts, 1AB 2ent 1G!, D91 0i ney, DD-DB 0inesthetic inp"t, %@

0orea, 1D, B% 8ar in, D, B, DD La8, B, @, 9, 19, 11B-11%, 1<A, D>@, D@<, D9@-D9< Learning abilities, 6A-6@ Legiti#acy, 1<1, 1<%, 1<@ $evinson>Sanfor% Scale, DDB, D%D Lie etection, 1AD-16<, D>9, D<6-D<@ $i"ert Scale, DDB Loboto#y, D9< Logic, 6A, 66, D1< Lo8er le)el f"nctions, B9 Loyalty, A1-AD, 1><, D@<, D<1, D96 Lying, 1AD-16<, 19% Lysergic aci =LS1?, 1DD-1DA, 1BD 4c/ill 'ni)ersity, %<, 61, 6%, <1-<D .DNaghten Rules, D@< 4agic, A-6, <, %A, 169, D>@ 4agic-*oo# proce "res, 1>D, D><, D1>, D1D 4alingering, 1B, 11A, D@@-B>A 4anic psychoses, 1DA 4as7ing, 1>1 4astery, D>A-D>%, D><-D>9, D11 .au%sley Personality Inventory, D%B 4e#ory, D%-D6, B>, BD, B%, B9-A1, 1DB, 191-196, D9B-D96, D9<-D99 4enstr"al cycle, 1>9-11> 4ental eficiency, D@<-D@9, D<A, D<9, D91 4ental perfor#ance, 1D% 4ental state, 1>% 4eperi ine hy rochlori e, 1>6 4eproba#ates, 1D@ 4escaline, @@-@<, 1>@-1><, 116, 1DD, 1BD 4etabolis#, DD, D<% 4eta#pheta#ine, 116, 1B1 4ilitary sec"rity, 9<, 1<D-1<B 4in sGenty, Car inal, 9< .innesota .ulti(hasic Personality Inventory, 69, 1>6, 11>, DDB, D%1, D%B, D<> 4onotony, %B-%A, %6, %< 4oo , B<, 1>6, 11>-119, 1DB, 1B1 changes of, 9> 4orality, B, D@<, see -thics 4orphine, 1>B, 1>6, 116 4oti)ation, @, 19, B1, B6, A1-AA, @B, <%, <@-<<, 1><, 1D@, 1B>, 1@D-1@A, 1@<, 1<B-1<A, 1<@, D>B, D>%, D1>-D1D, D<%, D96 4"sc"lar acti)ity, B1, %9-6A, @9-<> coor ination, 1D% fatig"e, B1 tension, 1%> 4"tis#, D<A-D<6

!arcoanalysis, 11A-116, 19%, D<6, D9% !arcosis, 116-11<, D9%, D9< !arcotics, 1>B, D9B !aGis, 9< !egati)is#, D9% !eopalli"#, B9 !er)o"s syste#, D<, A>, %B !e"roche#istry, %B !e"rophysiology, %B !e"roses, @>, 96, 1>6-1>@, 11A, 119, 1DD 1DA, 1D<, D%B, D<>, D9% !onspecific effects, 9<, 1D9 !o)acaine, 1D1 !"trition, DD, D%, D<, B%, 11>, 1B>, D%> D%1, see 3"nger +bsession, 1D% +ffice of !a)al *esearch, %1, 1AD +piates, 1D@ +Cygen, DD, BB, see also *espiration &ain, D%, BA, B6, B<, A>-AD, 99, 1>A, 1D%, 1D@, D>1-D>%, D11, D@< &anic, 116 &aral ehy e, 1DA &aralysis, D@< &aranoi beha)ior, A, D6, BD, 11>, D<6 &ar7insonis#, 1D% &assi)ity, 1@> &entobarbital, so i"#, 1>B, 116 &ercei)e iscrepancy, DB6-DB@ &erception, %@, %9-6A, 1>6, 1DB, 1@>

-BD>&erception, ist"rbances of, 61-6B, 1DD of epth, 6B of ti#e, 1DB &ercept"al fiel , epen ence on, D%% &ercept"al sti#"lation, %1-9% &erse)eration, D6, BD, A1, 11% &ersonal characteristics an confor#ity beha)ior, DB@-DA> &ersonality, BA, AD, 69-@D, @A, 1>>-1>1, 1>6-1><, 11@, 1B1, D6D, D6@, D<> an confor#ity, D%1-D%9 constit"tional factors, 1>1 e)al"ation of, 1B &ersonnel selection, %B, @D &ers"asion, 16% &er)itin, 1>@ &har#acology, 96-1A1 &heni ylate, 1D> &henobarbital, 1D% &henothiaGine eri)ati)es, 1DA-1D%, 1D<, 1BD

&hi pheno#enon, 6D &hobia, 1D% &hysician, role of, 96-9@ &hysiologic f"nctioning, @< &hysiologic response #eas"res, %B, 1AD 16< &ipra ol, 1D>, 1B1 &lacebo, 9, 99-1>1, 1>6, 1><, 1B>, D>1 D>D, D<@ &lantar response, 19D &lethys#ograph, 1A9 &ne"#onia, BD &oisoning, DA, D6 &olice, D@, BB, A1, AA, %A, 9<, 11B, 1AD, 1%A-1%% &olygraph, 1AD-16<, D>9 &osthypnotic s"ggestion, 1@>, 1<>, 1<%, 1<9, 19<, D>1-D>D, D11 &restige, 1>1, DB< &ri#ary process #aterial, @>-@1, @<, << &ri#iti)e nee s, D>6 &rison, BB, %D &risoner, D9, BB, B%, B<, AD, AA, %6, %@, 6@, 69, @A, <6, 91, 1@>, D91, D9A, D96-D9@ &risoners-of-8ar, 1-A, 1D, DD-DB, D@, B%, AB, D>6, D@@-D@<, D<1, D9B, D9@ &roble# sol)ing, 6A, 66, << &ro9ection, D6 &ro#aGine, 1>6 &ropagan a, 6@ &ropriocepti)e inp"t, %@ &rotein, DB &sychic tra"#a, D9A &sychoanalysis, %B, @>, <@-<<, 16D &sycho#otor f"nctions, 1D@ &sychopathic states, 119, 1B>, D<1, D<@ &sychophar#acology, 96-1A1 &sychosis, DA-D%, 91, 1DA, 1D<, 1BA, D@< D@9, D<B-D<A, D9>, D9B, D9@, B>> &sychosis, si#"lation of, D<> &sychotic states, <6, 96, 111, 11A, 119, 1D1-1DB, 1B1-1BD, D<>, D<%, D99-B>> &"nish#ent, 161, 16B-16A, D<1, D9@-D9<, B>> *ationaliGation, A1 *a"8olfia, 1D%, 1BD *eality, perception of, 6B, 69, <6, 1@>, 1<1-1<D, 1<A *easoning, 6A, 66, @1 *ecall, 66-6@, 191-196 of represse #aterial, 11B *egression, D>6 *elationship, social, 1@D, 1@6, 1@9, D16 D@6 octor-patient, 96-9@ interrogator-so"rce, @A, D1>-D1D s"b9ect-eCperi#enter, <%, 1@<-191 *epetiti)e tas7s, <@ *escinna#ine, 1D%

*eserpine, 1D>, 1D%-1D6 *esi "al sti#"lation, @% *esistance, effecti)eness of hypnosis for, 1@>, D>%, D1>-D11 to hypnosis, 1@@-1<>, 196-D>> to interrogation, 9>, 119, 1BB-1BA, 1A%, 1@>, D@@-B>A to #anip"lation, D-B, D9, 9>, 96, 11D 11B, 116-11@, 119, 1D6-1D@, 1BB-1BA, 1A%, 1@>-1@1, 1<>, 196-D>>, D1>-D11, D16-D@6, D@<, B>1 to stress, 9>, D>1-D>% *espiration, DA, <>, D>A *esponsibility, 1BB, D>@, D>9-D1>, D@@ D<<, D96 *esponsi)eness, 1DA, D9A *est, D% *etic"lar syste#, <9 *etrospecti)e reporting, @<

-BD1*e8ar pretraining, DA< *hyth#ic sti#"lation, 1<> *hyth#s, biologic, 1>9-11> Rorschach test, @>-@1, <%, 1>>, 11<, 1DB, 19B, DDB, D%1, D%A-D%%, D<< *ole, 1@D, D@9, D96 conflict, D<1 playing, 19B, 196 s7ill, D@9-D<> *ote learning, 66 *"ssian interrogation, BB, 9< Sailors, %@, 9>-91 Salt, D1-DD Sanitation, D@ SchiGophrenia, @>, @D, 1>@-1><, 111, 1D>, 1DD, D%<, D<>, D<B-D<A, D<<, B>> catatonic, 11B Scopola#ine, 11D-11B, 116, 1D1, D>6 Secobarbital, 1>6, 111, 11@ Se ati)es, 11@-119, 1DA-1D6 Self, A Self-confi ence, D%D Self-control, 1D<, D>A, D>< Self- efeating efense, D>6 Self- escripti)e proce "res, D%@ Self- estr"cti)e acts, 96, 1<1-1<B, 1<9 Sensory ac"ity, 1DB-1D6 Sensory bo#bar #ent, 6D, @B Sensory epri)ation, D<-D9, BA-B%, %1-9% SeC ifferences, 1>A-1>%, 1B>, DB<, DA9 Sha#e, 1><, 11A Shoc7, D1, DA Si e effects, 1D1, 1D%-1D6, 1BA, 1A@ Si#"lation of sy#pto#s, 11<-119, 1BA, 196, D@@-B>A

Si#"lation, etection of, 196-19@ Sleep, D%, D<, B1, BB-B%, B<, A>, @9, 111, 1@1-1@D, 1@A, 1@6, 1@<, D%>-D%1, D<%, D9A epri)ation of, D@, D9-B>, BD, B%, AD-AA, 1%B learning "ring, 1@% S#ersh, 6 Social conteCt, DD<, DBA-DAA, D<> Social nor#s an )al"es, D, 9, 11, D%, 1><, 1D@, 1<>-191, D>@, D1>, D96-D9@ conflict of, B>> prohibitions, DD>, D%9, see also InternaliGe nor#s an controls Society for the In)estigation of 3"#an -cology, iC, 169 Sociopathic personality, @> So i"# a#ytal, 1>6-1><, 11B-11%, 11@ 11<, D>6, D9% So i"# benGoate, 116 So i"# pentothal, 9<, 1>6, 116-11@, D>6 Solitary confine#ent, %A, %6, <B, <6, << <9, D>A Solit" e, %D Space, o"ter, %B Spatial orientation, 6B Speech patterns, BD, 1>A, 11>-111, 1DB Startle reaction, D<% Star)ation, DB-DA, D6-D@, D9, BD, B%-B6, 11> Stat"s, D@9 Sti#"lants, 119-1D1, 1B1-1BD Sti#"l"s, a#big"ity an confor#ity, DB1 Sti#"l"s-h"nger, <B-<A, 9> Sti#"l"s-response theory, %A Stress, 69, 1>>, 1BD, 1BA, D11, D<1, D<%, D9B resistance to, D>1-D>% S"bception, 161 S"bcortical sti#"lation, 1A S"gar, DB, BB S"ggestibility, AA, 6@-69, @D, 9>, 1><, 1B>, 1BA, 169-D1% S"ggestion, D6, 1>D, 169-D1%, see also 1e#an characteristics, 3ypnosis, &lacebo S"per-ego, 1<6 S"r)i)al, B@, A1-AD S8eating, D1-DD, 1A< Sy#bolic processes, 11D Sy#pathy, 1>> .acho#eter, 1A9 &aylor .anifest An*iety Scale, D%B .e#perat"re, bo y, D>-D1, DA, D@, D<% &er)an +once(t .astery &est, DDB, D%A &he)atic A((erce(tion &est, DDB, DA<, D%1, D%A-D%6, D61, D<9 .hin7ing, D9-B>, B<, 1DB .hiopental, 116, D9% .hirst, DA-D%, AD, D%> .ho"ght-refor#, 1>, %B-%A .hreat, B@-B9, A1-AB, @B, 1BD-1BB, 1A9, 16B, D<D, B>>

-BDD&hurstone>+have War Scale, D%1 &hurstone>Gottschal%t 1)'e%%e% 0igures &est, 61 &hurstone Scale of .ilitaris), D1<, D%1 .i#e orientation, 66, <D-<B, 9> .ort"re, D@ .otalitarianis# % .oCe#ia, D9B .oCicity, D<A .rance, 169-D1%, D<B, D9% logic, 19@ spontaneo"s, 1@@, D>>, see also 3ypnosis .ranF"iliGers, 1DA-1D6, 1D<, 1BD, 1%B .ra"#a, D9B-D9A .r"th, <, 19, 11A, 116, 1B>-1BB, 1AD-16<, 191-196, D1>, D@<, D9A .r"th ser"#, 11D-11B, 1B>, 19%, D9% .8ilight state, 1@% 'nani#ity, DB% 'nconscio"sness, DA, AD, D<B 'nite State (ir ;orce, iC, 1, B, 1D, D%A 'nite States (r#e ;orces, B, D@ 'nite States Constit"tion, 11% 2ali ity, 11@-11< 2erbal beha)ior, 1A, 1>%, 1><, 111-11B, 1B>, see also Speech patterns 2igilance beha)ior, %9 2ision, 6>, 6B, @% 2is"al-#otor coor ination, 61-6B 2ita#ins, DB, 11> 2ol"nteering, effect of on eCperi#ents, 6<, <% 2o#iting, DD, DA 2orbeire en, D<9-D9> Walter *ee (r#y Instit"te of *esearch, 1A War ne"roses, 11B, 11@, D9A-D9% Washington State 'ni)ersity, 1%1 Water, D1, D%, D@ Wechsler>Bellevue Intelligence Scale, D91-D9D Wechsler ,igit Sy)'ol &est, 61 Weight loss, @9, D<A Welsh 0igure Preference &est, DDB, D%A White-o"t, 6>, @9 Will, @, AA, 9@ Witchcraft, A-6, < With ra8al syn ro#es, 1D@ Wit"in 1)'e%%e% 0igures &est, 61 Won%erlic &est, 1>% Worl War II, 6, DD, 11B

6ello8 Springs Instr"#ent Co#pany, 1A9 6oga, 1<9

-BDB-