THE MANIPULATION OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR

-i-
editors
ALBERT D. BIDERMAN
Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc.
HERBERT ZIMMER
Associate Professor of Psychology
University of Georgia
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Ne !or" # $on%on
-ii-
THE MANIPULATION OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR
-iii-
Copyright 1961 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
All rights reserve%. &his 'oo" or any (art thereof )ust not 'e re(ro%uce% in any for)
ithout the ritten (er)ission of the (u'lisher, e*ce(t for any (ur(ose of the Unite% States
Govern)ent.
Library of Congress Catalog Car !"#ber$ 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
-)-
-)i-
to
CHARLES E. HUTCHINSON
an%
HERMAN J. SANDER
for their lea%ershi( in this area
-)ii-
-)iii-
Acknowledgments
.he eiting 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 eiting the contrib"tors: #an"scripts 8as gi)en by !aine
&itts, ;ran7 /. 1a)is, 4erle /olberg, an 1oris ;. J"lian.
.he preparation of the chapters containe in this boo7 8as s"pporte in part by the
'nite States (ir ;orce "ner 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 "ner
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 eitors 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
Introdution !
! T"e P"#sio$o%i&$ St&te o' t"e Interro%&tion Su()et
&s it A''ets Br&in Funtion !*
$arence 1. -in"le, Jr.
+ T"e E''ets o' Redued En,iron-ent&$ Sti-u$&tion
on Hu-&n Be"&,ior. A Re,ie/ 0!
Phili( 1. 2u'3ans"y
1 T"e Use o' Dru%s in Interro%&tion *2
$ouis A. Gottschal"
3 P"#sio$o%i&$ Res4onses &s & Me&ns o' E,&$u&tin%
In'or-&tion !3+
R. +. ,avis
0 T"e Potenti&$ Uses o' H#4nosis in Interro%&tion !2*
.artin &. 4rne
2 T"e E54eri-ent&$ In,esti%&tion o' Inter4erson&$
In'$uene +!2
Ro'ert R. Bla"e an% Jane S. .outon
-Ci-
6 Counter-&ni4u$&tion t"rou%" M&$in%erin% +66
.alcol) $. .elt3er
Aut"or Inde5 170
Su()et Inde5 1!2
-Cii-
. . . ollte nur forschen, Raetsel loesen, ein Stuec"chen Wahrheit auf%ec"en. ,ies )ag vielen ehe,
)anchen ol getan ha'en, 'ei%es nicht )eine Schul% un% nicht )ein 5er%ienst. Sig#"n ;re" in a
letter to *o#ain *ollan, 4ay 1B 19D6
E
Introduction manipulations of human
behavior
In recent years, concern has been eCpresse, in both scholarly an pop"lar
literat"re, abo"t the angers of scientific e)elop#ents that co"l be "se to control
an #anip"late h"#an beha)ior. .he fear is freF"ently )oice that techniF"es ha)e
been e)elope to an eCtent 8hich threatens f"na#ental )al"es of Western
ci)iliGation.
(nCio"s alar#s an ra#atic spec"lations ha)e o)ershao8e reports of sober
efforts to eter#ine 8hich angers are real an 8hich i#agine.
.his boo7 represents a critical eCa#ination of so#e of the con9ect"res abo"t the
application of scientific 7no8lege to the #anip"lation of h"#an beha)ior. .he
proble# is eCplore 8ithin a partic"lar fra#e of reference$ the interrogation of an
"n8illing s"b9ect. ( n"#ber of scientific areas ha)e fig"re pro#inently in
spec"lations regaririg 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 7no8lege in their fiels, to consier
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 boy 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
#ae scientific #ethos 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
ieological con)ersion an the elicitation of false con-
E
-. L. ;re", Ausgeaehlte Briefe, ,erlin$ S. ;ischer, 19%9.
-1-
fessions ha)e recei)e relati)ely #ore p"blic an acae#ic isc"ssion than the
atte#pts to elicit fact"al infor#ation thro"gh interrogation. !onetheless, the eitors
belie)e that there are so#e #a9or a)antages to approaching the broaer 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 consierations leaing 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 raical 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 incients as less inicati)e of increasing perfection in the arts of
infl"ence an coercion. .hey ha)e attrib"te the s"ccesses of the captor to ini)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 #ae iffic"lt by
the intensity of the recent contro)ersy o)er national
-D-
prisoner-of-8ar policy. Concepts s"ch as eter#inis# )s. #oral responsibility are
a#ong the philosophical an )al"e consierations i#plicit in this ebate 8hich ha)e
ae consierably to the proble#s alreay pose by eCisting biases. .here has been
isp"te regaring the eCtent to 8hich ini)i"al repatriate prisoners of 8ar are legally
or #orally responsible for e)iations fro# ieal stanars of #ilitary con"ct,
especially in the #atter of yieling 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 ini)i"als, regarless of ho8
strongly #oti)ate to resist, co"l be #ae to co#ply 8ith e#ans for infor#ation,
Jconfessions,J or other collaboration by #ethos e#ploye by the Co##"nists,
pro)ie 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
regaring 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 ini)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 Coe of Con"ctJ H
arg"e that the fail"re of the policy #a7ers to consier i##inent e)elop#ents in
scientific #ethos of h"#an #anip"lation has been a #ore serio"s error than a lac7 of
"nerstaning 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 leaing 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
regaring 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"are infor#ation fro# capti)es, 8hich
is the for# of prisoner eCploitation ha)ing the #ost i##eiate an an irect #ilitary
significance.
It is aCio#atic that interrogation has beco#e a highly o)erra#atiGe s"b9ect. (sie
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 #ethos of beha)ioral control that ha)e been the s"b9ect of consierable
spec"lation in isc"ssions of interrogation. Scientists representing a )ariety of fiels
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 #ethos 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&$ Conern
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 ini)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"na#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 "ner consieration #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 epenency, 8hich, if pro9ecte,
fin a reay 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 regaring the threat of #an7in:s total estr"ction
by ther#on"clear or si#ilar 8eapons. *egaring 8eapons of physical estr"ction,
responsible scientific e)ience 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 (lo"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
regaring 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
hans 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 ientification 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 #eia
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 iea of
the Jbrain8asheJ oes not iffer greatly fro# that of the JpossesseJ =6?. J.he battle
for the #inJ =%D?, so#eti#es fo"ght against Jthe hien pers"aer,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 inoctrination 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
leaers 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 #eie)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#ans that the ry eCa#ination of eCperi#ental e)ience
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 anteating science that are at the root of the central F"estion$
JCan #an really be #ae to beha)e contrary to his profo"nest 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
traitional an prag#atic practices =D?. In ass"#ing the attit"e of the Jhar-heaeJ
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
inicate, per)ae pre)alent 9"g#ents regaring the significance of the beha)ioral
alterations that interrogators can effect. ,y s"bstit"ting i#passi)e scientific na#es for
orinary 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#-4toti9
1iffic"lties inhere in ealing scientifically 8ith a proble# that relates so
i##eiately to basic h"#an )al"es. (ss"#ptions in this 8or7 hol the person against
8ho# the interrogation efforts are
-6-
irecte 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 regars enying infor#ation to his interrogator as J#ore i#portant than life
itself.J It apparently has not been a rarity for ini)i"als "nergoing 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"are "ner 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 ini)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#eiable eficiencies in interrogation techniF"e.
!either this nor any other scientific )ol"#e, in the opinion of the eitors, 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 #ethos 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 ieas 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 inicate 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 inepenent of one another in
the organis#. ;"rther#ore, #"ch of the "se one person can #a7e of another resies 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 stans 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 riic"lo"s, is the ieological interrogation.
( syste# in 8hich #ental confor#ity is so"ght thro"gh coercion an #anip"lation
e#boies 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 ieological syste#s, s"ch
as #oern 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 inee Jtr"e
tho"ghts.J .he inF"isitorial process, being itself highly coerci)e, reinforces the
original s"spicion regaring 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"ne
an f"rther reinforces the )icio"s circle.
'ner these circ"#stances, the "lti#ate test of the loyalty an sincere e)otion of
the ini)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)ies an ill"stration of the #anner in 8hich
the )icti# is co#pelle to aopt 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 engeners 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 cone#ne 8hen they are b"rneL (n he or she
#"st ans8er. =Cf. 0ri)itG7y, D6, page 1A1.?
+ne final test of loyalty e#ans 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 eitors 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
stanpoint regaring 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
inicate that so#e are ill-fo"ne 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#eno"sly the
alreay al#ost ins"perable iffic"lties confronting the ini)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 rener 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 7ins of processes than
pop"larly s"ppose. (#ong the latter are JplaceboJ #eas"res, the s"ccess of 8hich
epens largely "pon the attrib"tion to the# of a noneCistent potency by the s"b9ect,
an at ti#es the #anip"lator. 0no8lege, it appears, is a Jt8o-ege s8orJ 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 7no8lege that #ight be #ae 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 7no8lege by efa"lt. 3is s"ccess, as the )ario"s chapters of this boo7
ill"strate, epens 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 "nerstaning of the techniF"es e#ploye
=pages BD>-BDD?. =See also S7inner, %9.?
Fous On O()eti,e Be"&,ior
.he F"estion of controlling f"na#ental attit"es an )al"es #ay hol greater
interest for #any than o"r attention to the eliciting of g"are facts by interrogators.
4"ch concern of recent years regar-
-9-
ing 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 ini)i"als can be JchangeJ in so#e f"na#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 ini)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 #oel, 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 inicators 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 ieological #eanings
s"ch ter#s ha)e for the practitioners of Jtho"ght-refor#.J (s for pro"cing JrealJ an
Jf"na#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 preicate
#ight lea one to eCpect that any f"na#ental changes they pro"ce #"st be
acciental 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"are fact"al infor#ation si#plifies the analytical
proble# consierably by posing a #oel 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 consier as their pri#ary #oel interrogations 8here the
interrogator:s ob9ecti)es consiste of obtaining si#ple, ob9ecti)e infor#ation regaring
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 epens on s"ch factors as the s"b9ecti)e state an
the personal an c"lt"ral fra#es of reference of the reporter. Consierable
si#plification is achie)e by a)oiing 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 "nerlie 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 consiere 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 broaene 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"na#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
consier 7no8lege 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 )aliity 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 #ae that
later beha)ior negates so#e )al"e strongly affir#e earlier in the eCperi#ent, or the
re)erse, the eCperi#ent accors s"fficiently 8ith the F"estions being pose here.
(ltho"gh the 7in of infl"ence atte#pt consiere here represents a consierably
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)ience regaring 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)ie ans8ers to the F"estions raise by this re)ie8.
-11-
Sienti'i Pur4ose
We ha)e atte#pte here to co##"nicate scientific infor#ation to scientists, an the
8or7 originally "nerta7en 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# "ner consieration. .he contrib"tors represent a
)ariety of scientific fiels, an their #aterial either separately or in the aggregate 8ill
"no"btely hol interest for specialists in still other fiels. .he 8riting style here is
a7in to the broaer 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 7no8lege 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 inicates that practices enco"ntere by
prisoners of 8ar are not eter#ine eCcl"si)ely by consierations of logic =%?. (
rational eCa#ination of the proble# cannot lea to preictions of a nonrational
opponent:s actions. 3istorically, there has been freF"ent resort to coerci)e practices for
eliciting infor#ation, espite ab"nant e)ience that s"ch #eas"res are relati)ely
ineffecti)e. So#e esti#ates of 8hat an opponent is li7ely to o, in aition to those
base on consierations 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
tenency to aopt the sensational stereotypes of interrogation on 8hich #any of the#
appear to ha)e #oele their practice in the past.
Soures
.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 "nerta7en 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 #ae. +"r contrib"tors ha)e inicate gaps
in specially rele)ant 7no8lege, #any of 8hich 8o"l not be p"rs"e intensi)ely in
the orinary 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 7no8lege.
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, "nerstaning, 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"are hanboo7s of interrogators e)ery8here probably 8o"l not lea to any
s"bstantial #oification in the general concl"sions of this re)ie8.
So4e
( 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 consieration in this boo7 is the ability of the so"rce to th8art his
interrogator by feigning psychological isorer. 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 consiere a clinical a9"nct to
#anip"lation. Its application reF"ires the #anip"lation to be Jtailor-#aeJ to the
specific ini)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 inepenent 9"ges or
obser)ers, "nless the beha)ior
-1B-
is categoriGe into #in"tiae that are iffic"lt to interpret #eaningf"llyI =c? 7no8lege
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 eitors 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 ini)i"al, #ight be controlle irectly
is an ancient one. -lectrical brain sti#"lation 8as one of the #ethos J,ig ,rotherJ
"se in +r8ell:s 6789 to control his s"b9ects. Scientists, incl"ing Lilly =1B, D9?, 4iller
=B9?, +ls =AD, AB? an Sargant =%D?, ha)e inicate 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)ie a basis for the a#inistration
of reinforce#ents of "npreceente strength. (lso, the possibility 8as raise that
organis#s #ight be #ae #ore JteachableJ by irect inter)entions of this 7in.
.he eitors as7e Siney 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 7no8lege 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 regaring the F"estions raise. .he eitors
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 electroes 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 consiere, =A? c"rrent
7no8lege an 8or7ing concepts of ne"roanato#y an other relate isciplines are ins"fficient. . . .
-1A-
'nless 7no8lege 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 consieration of the role of &a)lo)ian
conitione 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>? inicate the inaeF"acy of si#ple conitioning #oels to acco"nt for the 7ins 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 #oels an theories
appeare #ost aeF"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
ini)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 eitors 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 eiting the chapters. .he eitors 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'erenes
1. (i Ss"-ch:i. J+n proble#s of ieological 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 octoral
issertation, 4c/ill 'ni)er., 19%B.
A. ,ier#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.
%. ,ier#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. ,ier#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.
@. ,ier#an (. 1. J-ffects of Co##"nist inoctrination 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.
<. ,ier#an (. 1. Social-psychological nees an Jin)ol"ntaryJ beha)ior as ill"strate by
co#pliance in interrogation. Socio)etry, 196>, DB, 1D>-1A@.
9. ,ier#an (. 1., an 4onroe J. L. J*eactions to the 0orean &+W episoeJ. ( 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, conitioning, an 111 =ebility,
epenency an rea?J. Socio)etry, 19%@, D>, D@1-D<%.
11. ;eern -. 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% intervies. !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% intervies. !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 inoctrination of J-ne#ies of the
State. (nalysis of #ethos "se by the Co##"nist state police. =Special *eport?, A...A. Arch. Neurol.
Psychiat., 19%6, @6, 11%-1@A.
19. 3"nter -. BrainashingB &he story of )en ho %efie% it. !e8 6or7$ ;arrar, Stra"s an C"ahy,
19%6.
D>. 3"nter -. Brainashing in Re% +hina. !e8 6or7$ 2ang"ar &ress, 19%B.
D1. 3"Cley (. Brave ne orl% revisite%. !e8 6or7$ 3arper ,ros., 19%<.
DD. Institoris =3. 0rae#er? an Sprenger J. .alleus .aleficaru). .ranslate by 4ontag"e
S"##ers. Lonon$ J. *o7er, 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. Joran 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 orinary 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.
-16-
B>. 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. Nes an% Worl% Re(ort, ;ebr"ary
DA, 19%6, %6-6D.
BD. 4ayo C. W. J1estroying (#erican #ins H *"ssians #ae it a scienceJ. U. S. Nes an% Worl%
Re(ort, !o)e#ber 6, 19%B, 9@-1>1.
BB. 4eerloo J. (. 4. J.he cri#e of #enticieJ. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%1, 1>@, %9A-%9<
BA. 4eerloo J. (. 4. J4enticieJ. 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. Linner =-.?,
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 #enticieJ. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%A, 11>,
1@B-196.
B@. 4eerloo J. (. 4. J4eication 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 birsJ. &he Ar)y +o)'at 0orces J., 19%%, 6=1?, 1%-D1.
AD. +ls J. J( physiological st"y of re8arJ. In 1. C. 4cClellan =-.?, Stu%ies in )otivation.
!e8 6or7$ (ppleton-Cent"ry-Crofts, 19%%, &p. 1BA-1AB.
AB. +ls J. JSelf-sti#"lation of the brain$ Its "se to st"y local effects of h"nger, seC, an r"gsJ.
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%>.
A@. &eterson 1. ,. &risoners s8aye in:t fall$ Co##"nists JsolJ )ery fe8, says top (r#y
psychiatrist. U. S. Nes 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 coe of con"ct for the ar#e forcesJ. +olu)'ia la Rev., 19%6, %6, 6<6-
6<@.
%>. *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. ,enit. !e8 6or7$ &hilosophical Library, 19%6.
%D. Sargant W. Battle for the )in%. !e8 6or7$ 1o"bleay, 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 #oern societyJ. Worl% Politics, in press.
-1@-
%@. Sine)irs7ii !. S)ersh. -ite by 0. 3ill an 4. 3ill. .ranslate by C. W. ,olyreff. !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% intervies, !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 1
The physiological state of the
interrogation subject as it affects brain
function
L(W*-!C- -. 3I!0L-, J*.
Introdution
When an interrogation is carrie o"t for the p"rposes of intelligence, 8e #ay
ass"#e that it is intene 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 rapily, acc"rately,
co#pletely, an 8itho"t a#en#ents or aitions. In the 8ors 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 orer 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"ner
-19-
the best circ"#stances.J It is the p"rpose of this chapter to inF"ire into these
Jcirc"#stances,J to consier 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 ieal circ"#stances of interrogation #ay be. .he ter# Jcirc"#stancesJ is
ta7en to #ean Jthe conition of the #an being interrogate an the sit"ation in 8hich
he fins hi#self at the ti#e.J We shall not consier #ethos 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 conitions
that li#it the f"nctions of h"#an organs in generalI an it has, in aition, 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''ets o' Distur(ed Bodi$# Funtions U4on Br&in Funtion
So#e aspects of the physical an che#ical conitions 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 boy, eCists in an Jinternal #ilie"J 8hich is #aintaine in a re#ar7ably
steay state by a great n"#ber of feebac7 #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 boily processes as 8ell as the acti)ities of
the #an as a 8hole. When en)iron#ental conitions 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 conition 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 consiere briefly in orer 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 boy
te#perat"re to A1P C =1>6P ;? or abo)e H 8hich #ay occ"r "ring the fe)er
acco#panying
-D>-
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 boy
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,
regarless of the conitions 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
steay 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 inirectly
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 conitions #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, poison-
1 .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
inaeF"ate. Consier 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.
-D1-
ings 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 7iney 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 boy fl"is$ 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 oCiation 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 solier 8ho faints 8hile staning 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
aition 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 carbohyrates =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"nly 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 epenent on the i##eiate le)el in the bloo of any foost"ff
other than s"gar, b"t it oes "lti#ately s"ffer if it is epri)e of other foos 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 "ner
these circ"#stances =1, 1<, %A, 6@, <D?. 4ore i##eiate an reaily recogniGable
changes in brain f"nction occ"r 8hen the iet is relati)ely eficient in one of the
accessory foost"ffs, or )ita#ins, 8hich the boy 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##eiately rele)ant to the brain, probably beca"se they ta7e part in )ario"s
processes of carbohyrate #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 pyrioCine =)ita#in ,6? ca"ses
ner)o"sness, inso#nia, 8ea7ness, abo#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 ene#ic a#ong prisoners of 8ar fro# ti#e
i##e#orial =%A?.
.he nor#al f"nction of the brain is also epenent "pon the re#o)al of #etabolic
en-pro"cts fro# the fl"i that s"rro"ns it. -specially 8hen there is i#pair#ent of
the l"ngs, li)er, or 7ineys =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 7iney is the organ
#ost often i#plicate in this pheno#enon beca"se it is highly )"lnerable to #any
co##on ist"rbances. 1ehyration, s"rgical shoc7, he#orrhage =1A, B<, AB?, or the
circ"latory i#pair#ent pro"ce by )ery long staning =D>, DD, <9, 9>, 1>@?, all #ay
i#pair 7iney f"nction to s"ch an eCtent that the internal #ilie" #ay be serio"sly
ist"rbe.
In s"##ary, brain f"nction is reaily i#paire by ist"rbances in ho#eostasis. It is
easily isorere by physical abnor#alities that affect the boy as a 8hole, incl"ing
s"ch co##on conitions as
-DB-
fe)er, a profo"n lo8ering of boy te#perat"re, ehyration, o)erhyration,
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 inee 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 ehyration, for eCa#ple? #ay eChibit certain
iiosyncratic feat"res =s"ch as #"scle cra#ps or thirst?, there are f"na#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 Funtion Produed (# Distur(&nes o'
Ho-eost&sis
(ll se)ere an "nco#pensate ist"rbances of ho#eostasis pro"ce a synro#e of
ist"rbe brain f"nction 8hich, in ci)ilian life, is #ost co##only enco"ntere in
hospitals. .his synro#e =officially, the Jbrain synro#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 synro#e,J 8hether ac"te or chronic, is f"na#entally a single
synro#e, regarless of its ca"se =DA, D%, D9, @6, 9D, 9@, 1><, 1D<, 1B1?.
.he Jbrain synro#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 "nerta7es to assess the J#ental stat"sJ of the
patient. ( patient eChibiting this synro#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 synro#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 synro#e has #any other na#es$ .he Qorganic reaction synro#e,Q Rsy#pto#atic psychosis,Q
QtoCic-infectio"s eCha"sti)e state,R Qpsychosis 8ith so#atic isease,R Qysergastic state,R a#ong others.
-DA-
ably lost. .heir erange conition is easily recogniGe, an the infor#ation that they
gi)e can be e)al"ate 8ith this in #in. 3o8e)er, "ner less rastic conitions the
synro#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 synro#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, speeily, 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)oie "ner 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 "neCpectely 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 7inness, 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##eiate boily nees s"ch as foo, 8ater, sleep, rest, an the
alle)iation of pain.
In this early stage of the synro#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 #oerate
co#pleCity, #ay not be o"tsie 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 #oerate eficit #ay be "netecte. ;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#ine, 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 conition an capable of p"lling the#sel)es
together. 'ner 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 conition #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 "ner 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 synro#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 ehyration. 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 synro#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 aherence 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 borerline 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 "nergone 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"ne.
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"is, sleep, an rest an #eical care, an to
beat, tort"re, harry, o)er8or7 an threaten the#, as 8ell as to F"estion the#
inter#inably 8ith leaing F"estions. S"ch proce"res ha)e been "se partly beca"se
they #a7e prisoners #ore Jpliable,J #ore Jreay 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 Ciru-st&nes under :"i" Br&in Funtion M&# Be Distur(ed /it"out
De-onstr&($e Distur(&ne o' Ot"er Bodi$# Funtions
.he pheno#ena 9"st consiere 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 boy 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 aapti)e
capacities of the ani#al. .he eCceeingly co#pleC ner)o"s syste# of #an has this
f"na#ental f"nction. It ta7es in infor#ation fro# the organs of special sense, an
fro# the sensory ner)e enings 8ithin the boy 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 JfooJ 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 "nerta7en 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 ini)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 aition
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 inefinitely.
.hese points are consiere 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 boily nees 8ere ta7en care of-
foo, fl"is, 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 "no"btely so#e aspects of these
obser)ations on sensory epri)ation are applicable to o"r "nerstaning of the reaction
of the ini)i"al to prolonge isolation. It is 8ell 7no8n that prisoners, especially if
they ha)e not been isolate before, #ay e)elop a synro#e si#ilar in #ost of its
feat"res to the Jbrain synro#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"seI 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 reaily 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 ieal 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 ae 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 "nergo it, e)en 8hen it is not carrie o"t
"ner circ"#stances of "ncertainty an threat, as it "s"ally is. .here appears to be a
8ier range of )ariability in the capacity of #en to 8ithstan isolation, sleep
epri)ation, an fatig"e than in their ability to 8ithstan ehyration or fe)er, for
eCa#ple, e)en tho"gh "lti#ately brain f"nction #ay be erange by all these
conitions. We shall consier the basis for this.
Sleep Deprivation
;or reasons not yet 7no8n, a brain cannot contin"e to f"nction 8itho"t occasional
perios 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 perios 8ith relati)ely fe8 ho"rs of sleep obtaine at
irreg"lar inter)als =6A, 6<?. 'ner eCperi#ental conitions #en ha)e been 7no8n to
en"re for #ore than a h"nre ho"rs 8itho"t sleep at all =16, B%, A6, @D, 9<, 11<,
1DB?, an for #ore than t8o h"nre ho"rs 8ith only a fe8 brief naps =6A?. 6et #ost
people eteriorate #ar7ely 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 aeF"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 steay or repeate acti)ity. .he pheno#enon is reaily #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 boily
change is necessary to it or consistently associate 8ith it. .he Qfatig"e synro#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 rapily, 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 boily f"nctions, an his perfor#ance on any other tas7 #ay be
"ni#paireI inee, if he is s"itably #oti)ate, he #ay perfor# e)en the tas7 that
fatig"e hi# F"ite aeF"ately for a short perio of ti#e =A, BD?. In aition, the
rapiity 8ith 8hich the fatig"e synro#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 reaily 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%?. ,oily 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"nly
-B1-
fatig"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 "ner these
circ"#stances, as they also #ay after sleep loss =11A?. In aition, profo"n anCiety is
often eChibite by those 8ho ha)e been in prolonge co#bat an 8ho ha)e "nergone
terrifying eCperiences =11A?.
THE MANIFESTATIONS OF DISORDERED BRAIN FUNCTION PRODUCED B; ISOLATION<
SLEEP DEPRIVATION< AND FATI=UE
.he sy#pto#s of isorere brain f"nction that occ"r "ner these conitions iffer
little, eCcept in etail, fro# those of the Jbrain synro#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"nly sleepy or tire fro# one 8ho is s"ffering the effects of
pne"#onia, g"nshot 8o"ns, or star)ationI b"t this ifferentiation is #ae "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 "ner the Jbrain synro#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 epenent "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"ns pri#arily
in the rapiity 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 synro#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 #ae on people 8ho are
s"b9ect to these conitions in eCtre#e egree.
+n the other han, there is a ifference in the preictability 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
-BD-
le)els of boy 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 conitions are )ery 8ie. 'ner
eCperi#ental conitions, so#e people ha)e s"cc"#be to sensory epri)ation 8ithin
one-an-a-half ho"rs, 8hereas others ha)e #aintaine aeF"ate f"nction for thirty-siC
ho"rs or #ore =1D6?. 'ner 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 forty-
eight 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"nre 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)ience of fatig"e =A, BD?.
It #"st be concee 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)ience has yet been
bro"ght for8ar to s"bstantiate it. +n the other han, there is ab"nant e)ience to
inicate that the personality of a #an an his attit"e to8ar the eCperience that he is
"nergoing affect his ability to 8ithstan it. &eople 8ho enter prison 8ith attit"es of
foreboing, 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 reaily 8ithra8 into a life of #eaningf"l fantasy an
intellect"al acti)ity see# to o better than those 8ho are epenent "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 inefinitely, ha)e one so for 8ell o)er a h"nre ho"rs =6A?. ( great n"#ber of
reports fro# in"stry, an fro# eCperi#ental obser)ations, inicate 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 "nerta7e =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 #ae to their prie =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##eiate attit"es an the a8areness of the i##eiate sit"ation,
conitions 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##eiate 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 Funtion 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 regare as epri)ing the brain of the
s"bstrate of its operations, an the last t8o can be regare as leaing 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 inefinitely.
&ain of fairly high intensity #ay be borne by ini)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 conitions #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 chilbirth 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 orer, an ha)e been responsible for eCtraorinary #ilitary
feats. 4en ha)e "nergone 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, "ner the right circ"#stances,
any ini)i"al apparently can
-BA-
tolerate the# inefinitely. .he 8eight of e)ience is that it is not the sensory inp"t
itself, b"t the reaction of the ini)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 ini)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 ini)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 synro#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 Jprie,J an Jhonor,J 8hich are acti)e "ner 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)ient =1, %A, 6@?. ()ance inanition is associate 8ith #a9or
changes in the physical state of the ini)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)ience 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 fooI their sy#pto#s are less o"tstaning 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 "nergoing 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 grae 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 #oerately se)ere graes 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 heaache, peptic
"lcer, arthritis, or si#ilar conitionsI 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 #oerate se)erity is clinically fa#iliar. It is
characteriGe by 8ithra8al fro# the #ore co#pleC an responsible f"nctions of life,
a certain a#o"nt of irritability
-B6-
an e#otional lability, an concentration "pon personal co#fort an s"r)i)al at the
eCpense of the nees of others an of the society. 'ner eCperi#ental circ"#stances,
those 8ho try to Jcarry onJ 8hile eCperiencing #oerate 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 synro#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
ini)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 8ithra8al, incapacitation, self-
concern, 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 eno8#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 synro#e.R .hreat is not "s"ally tho"ght of
as a QphysicalR sti#"l"s an the synro#e of anCiety is F"ite istinct fro# Qbrain
synro#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
conitions 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##eiate #ental set, an the
characteristics of the sit"ation H are o"tsie 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
consiere to be part of the Jbrain synro#e,J b"t this is a sterile istinction.
.he sa#e consierations 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 synro#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 asie 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 conitions pose a threat, aapti)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 cario)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
inirect 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 consiere.
(s the #aster organ of h"#an aaptation, the brain f"nctions as a 8hole in enabling
#an to carry o"t the eCceeingly 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 accient. .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 aeF"ate eCpression of h"#an nees, appetites, an ri)es, those
8hich pro)ie 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 JigitalJ =or
Jco"ntingJ? an Janalog"eJ =or J#eas-
-B9-
"ringJ? characteristics, as 8ell as #any other characteristics not yet "plicate by #an-
#ae 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, "no"btely, 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)ie 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 orinary
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 orienteJ
beha)ior falls a8ay, an an increase concern abo"t sleep, rest, co#fort, foo, an
other boily nees beco#es apparent =DA, D%, %A, 6@?. .here is less aherence 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 procees. 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)ient, 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 Jeliri"#J
#ay occ"r. Large efects in #e#ory an profo"n i#pair#ent of iscri#ination an
9"g#ent are e)ient. (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#ineJ aspects of
h"#an beha)ior are #ost affecte by these proce"res. .he Jless ci)iliGeJ 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 ini)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)ie 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 "ner 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"tsie, b"t by infor#ation alreay 8ithin the brain, 8hat #ight be calle its
Jirections for action.J 4ost of the JirectionsJ 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
-A1-
to 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"ie for action, 8hereas infor#ation eri)e fro# the i##eiate 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 nees i#pel hi# to8ar reay 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 reay to accept a pla"sible s"ggestion.
.he so"rce is, inee, #ore prepare to tal7, b"t he is also #ore li7ely to be inacc"rate
an to gi)e false, #isleaing, 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 reo"n to his creit 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)ience 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 synro#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 epenent "pon the personality of the prisoner, 8hat has happene to
hi# before, an ho8 he )ie8s the circ"#stances in 8hich he fins hi#self at the ti#e
=DA, D%, 1B1?. .hese factors ha)e a great eal to o 8ith the for# of the Jbrain
synro#eJ pro"ce by ist"rbances in ho#eostasis. .hey eter#ine 8hether a #an
beco#es garr"lo"s or 8ithra8n, anCio"s or angry, paranoi or tr"sting. .hey li7e8ise
eter#ine the for# of the Jbrain synro#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
-AD-
approach 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#bee 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 ahering to the Jcoe of the "ner8orlJ =1D@? as
8ell as prisoners of 8ar ahering to the Jfinest #ilitary traitionsJ =119? H o not gi)e
infor#ation altho"gh they reach the point of isorganiGation or eath. .he e)ience
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 "ner 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 #oerately se)ere effects of illness, in9"ry, fatig"e, isco#fort, or
anCiety. ( boy of practical eCperience inicates 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 haGars "ner these circ"#stances.
;irst, the so"rce #ay ha)e a fairly serio"s egree of #ental ist"rbance that is not
i##eiately e)ient 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 haGars of
interrogation are enhance "ner a)erse circ"#stances. It #ay be ass"#e, in the
absence of e)ience to the contrary, that the si#pler, the briefer, an the #ore reaily
)erifiable the infor#ation that is so"ght, the #ore li7ely is the e)ience 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 #ae to re)eal infor#ation against his 8illL
-AB-
1isorere brain f"nction is inee 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. 'ner these
conitions 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)ience 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 intene 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'erenes
1. (ginger J., an 3e##ager -. 'n"s"al ne"ral conitions 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 /oin W. Russian (urge an% the e*traction of confessions. .ranslate by -.
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>>.
-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. ,ier#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. &hilaelphia$ Sa"ners, 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 ith har% (hysical
or". J. A)cr. ,iet. Ass., 19%%, B1, @>B-@>@.
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#brige, 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>. Lonon$ ,"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%. -8ars (. S. 1ffects of loss of 6;; hoursD slee(. A)er. J. Psychol., 19A1, %A, <>-91.
B6. -8ars 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. Lonon$ 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 4eical 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#brige$ 3ar)ar 'ni)er. &ress, 19%<.
AA. /olberger 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%. /olberger 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. /oono8, 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 4eical Center, 4arch
19%@, W*(I*-A>-%@.
A@. /ottschic7 J. Neuro(sychiatric %isease a)ong Ger)an (risoners of ar in the Unite% States.
Arch. Psychiat., 19%>, 1<%, A91-%1>.
A<. 3all 0. *. L., an Strie -. 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%>.
%>. 3ary J. 1., Wolff 3. /., an /ooell 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 ith -ar%y>Wolff>Goo%ell %olori)eter.
Anesthesiology, 19%B, 1A, 1>9-116.
%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 ist"rbances after prolonge percept"al
isolationJ. +ana%. J. Psychol., 19%6, 1>, 1B-1<.
%@. 3in7le L. -., Jr., an Wolff 3. /. Co##"nist interrogation an inoctrination of J-ne#ies of the
State. (nalysis of #ethos "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 #ethos of interrogation an inoctrination "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 aaptation 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 Lanis 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 iseaseJ. A)er. J. .e%.,
19%>, <, D>%-D1@.
66. 0ety S. S., an Sch#it C. ;. J.he eter#ination of cerebral circ"lation in #an by the "se of
nitro"s oCie 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 raiant
ther#al sti#"liJ J. co)(. (hysiol. Psychol., 19%A, A@, 1B>-1BD.
@>. 0ral 2. (. J&sychiatric obser)ations "ner 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 3ary-Wolff-/ooell 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 acciental hypother#iaJ. J. A)er. )e%. Ass., 19%1, 1A@, 1D>1-1D1D.
@A. Leier#an 3., 4enelson 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#age. !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 synro#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 orinary 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 Wio8son -. 4. J.he effect of "nern"trition "pon the co#position of the
boy 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 3ary J. 1. JC"taneo"s pain threshol in nati)e (las7an Inian
an -s7i#oJ. J. a((l. Physiol., 19%A, 6, B9@-A>>.
<6. 4enelson 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<.
<@. 4enelson J., Solo#on &., an Line#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#oyna#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 7iney 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.? &hilaelphia$ Sa"ners, 19%<.
9B. &en#an J. J&ain as an ol frienJ. $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 synro#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 inoctrination 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 finings 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. &hilaelphia$
Sa"ners, 19AA
1>9. Solo#on &., Leier#an &. 3., 4enelson 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. Stanbrige *. 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 synro#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. J4eical 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
esoCypyrioCine in h"#an beingsJ. J. la'. clin. .e%., 19%B AD, B%%-B%@.
-A9-
1D1. 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. J4eical 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 3ary 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., 4enelson J., Leier#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.? &hilaelphia$ Sa"ners, 19%% &p. 16@%-16@6
1D9. Wolff 3. /. JLife stress an boily iseaseJ. Proc. Ass. Res. Nerv. .ent. ,is., 19%>, D9, 1>%9-
1>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. /., 3ary J. 1., an /ooell 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 ater into*ication in surgical
(atients. Surgery, 19%D, B1, 6%A-669
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 #eical an #ental illnessJ. J. A)er. )e% Ass., 19%<, 16<, 1AD@-
1AB1.
-%>-
CHAPTER 2
The effects of reduced environmental
stimulation on human behavior: a review
&3ILI& -. 0',5(!S06
Introdution
.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 #ae to eCa#ine the si#ilarities an ifferences
fo"n in the gro8ing n"#ber of in)estigations in this proble# area. *egarless of the
ifferences in escripti)e ter#inology, these conitions 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 #oifications 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 orer to assess the c"rrent stat"s of 7no8lege
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.
-%1-
abo"t this proble#, an =c? to re)ie8 briefly its i#plications for o"r general
"nerstaning of beha)ior.
B&8%round
Interest in these proble#s by i)erse gro"ps long anteates 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 7no8lege of self an things is relati)e. &ersonal orientation epens 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##oation. .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, abiing an certain
in the ob9ecti)e fiel beco#es a blan7, the psychic conition passes rapily thro"gh a change 8hose
nearest analog"e is the blaer 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 conitions, the self fins 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 enless 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 conitions 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 anecotal literat"re, s"ggeste the 7ey
role of a )arie eCternal en)iron#ent against 8hich to )erify internally arising percepts
an ieas. .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
consierably. .his increase of interest can be at-
-%D-
trib"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)ie changing physiological #oels
for psychological e)ents =B@?. .here are no8 a)ailable increasingly sophisticate
electrophysiological #ethos 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)ie 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 "nerstaning ego
f"nctioning an its role in #eiating beha)ior. ;ro# this )ie8point, the F"estion #ay
be raise, JIf the ego is the eCec"ti)e aspect of personality, enabling the ini)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 raar 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
acae#ic interest. .he proble# of efficient personnel selection an "tiliGation, in a
8ie )ariety of these circ"#stances, has pro)ie #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"ght-
refor#J has ha si#ilar effects. .he re)elation that isolation #ay be one factor in the
s"sceptibility of h"#ans to raical 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 "nerstaning of the effects of physical an
-%B-
social isolation on beha)ior. Literat"re on #ethos of Jtho"ghtrefor#J or ieological
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"nings 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 acae#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 respons only to ri)e-
rele)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
conitions 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 inicate that the
organis# has an acti)e nee for eCperience, an initiates an str"ct"res acti)ity in
accorance 8ith that nee. St"ying h"#an response to restricte en)iron#ents #ay
inicate the #oe of operation of the Jnee for eCperience.J
(nother e)elop#ent 8ithin acae#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 consierations, has of
necessity been confine to ani#al in)estigations, clinical an anecotal e)ience 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
-%A-
ha)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 reaer 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 finings, it #ay be 8ell to
consier so#e of the #ethoological 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 consierable 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 ientifie 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"nproof, 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 hans are enclose in carboar 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 airconitioner
#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##eiate s"rro"nings.
-%%-
In a thir approach, sensory epri)ation consiste of )onotony or absence of
change in the eCternal en)iron#ent, e.g., pro)iing 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, 4enelson, Leier#an, an Solo#on =<>?
place se)enteen s"b9ects into polio tan7 respirators 8ith ar#s an legs in carboar
c"ffs. .he repetiti)e rone of the respirator #otor pro)ie 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 #ethoological 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 boy 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 #ethos to pro)ie an e#pirical basis
for their conceptions. Inee it is "nerstanable 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"tstaning 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 conitions e#ploye. (t this stage of
-%6-
o"r 7no8lege, 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 conitions 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 #ae. .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)ie a co#pleC feebac7 sit"ation. .he testing of
percept"al an cogniti)e f"nctions "ring the eCperi#ent constit"tes a efinite
#oification 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 aitional 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)oiing 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"nly 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 aitional i#plications of the stat"s of Jene#yJ
8hich
-%@-
"no"btely also infl"ences the ini)i"al:s response. .he Jescape at 8illJ cla"se
present in laboratory st"ies constit"tes a #a9or ifference fro# the #oti)ational
conitions 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 regaring 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 conitions "no"btely 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 conitions in
the laboratory #"st li#it o"r generaliGations fro# the eCperi#ental ata. In )ie8 of
these consierations 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
eCpane to foc"s on a 8ie )ariety of other )ariables.
+"r approach in re)ie8ing these st"ies has been infl"ence by the consieration
that in the early stages of acF"iring syste#atic 7no8lege abo"t a proble#, it #ay be
"sef"l to "nere#phasiGe consierations 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 8ie 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)ie 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 #ae 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 finings in the follo8ing categories$
percept"al an #otor abilitiesI cogniti)e an learning abilitiesI personality finingsI
feeling statesI i#ageryI an physiology. In aition, 8e shall consier finings bearing
on #ethoological choices, clinical applications, an a brief s"r)ey of theoretical
interpretations. 1espite so#e arbitrariness in these classifications an the necessity of
consiering the sa#e eCperi#ental 8or7 in se)eral categories, this approach 8ill
per#it a #ore coherent )ie8 of the e)ience 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 "ner conitions 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 fining 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 finings confir#e the earlier reports that 8ithin a gi)en
session, espite ini)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@?.
-%9-
3ochberg, .riebel, an Sea#an =AB?, 8or7ing 8ith a ifferent eCperi#ental interest,
perfor#e a series of st"ies on the percepts obtaine "ner conitions 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 "ner these
conitions. 'tiliGing eyecaps #ae fro# hal)e table-tennis balls, these in)estigators
fo"n that co#plete isappearance of color 8as obtaine in #ost cases, espite
consierable ini)i"al ifferences in the co"rse of the aaptation process an in the
pheno#enal content "ring aaptation.
Si#ilarly, restricting sti#"l"s inp"t to ho#ogeneo"s )is"al sti#"lation, W. Cohen
an Ca8allaer =D>? st"ie the effects of "nifor# )is"al sti#"lation "tiliGing a
ifferent apparat"s. S"b9ects: eCpos"re to these conitions laste fro# three to ten
#in"tes 8hile sitting alone in a roo#. .he finings sho8e that "ner both #onoc"lar
an binoc"lar conitions, s"b9ects reporte a te#porary cessation of orinary )is"al
eCperience after prolonge eCpos"re to a "nifor# )is"al fiel. With increase eCpos"re
to these conitions 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 secons 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 fining 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 secons.
,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"nproof c"bicle, a
'-shape foa# r"bber pillo8 for the s"b9ect:s hea, an the #as7ing h"# of fan an
air-conitioner #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"nsI 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 coorination as #eas"re by s"ch tas7s as the Wechsler 1igit
Sy#bol test, han8riting 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-/ottschalt
-#bee ;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 "ner ifferent eCperi#ental conitions of percept"al epri)ation. .hese
in)estigators faile to fin eterioration in the Wit7in -#bee ;ig"res test. 2ernon
an 3off#an =@6?, after conitions 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
finings for all three pheno#ena.
3eron, 1oane, an Scott =A1? eCtene 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 "neCpectely 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 aition, these in)estigators obser)e that
a"to7inetic effects 8ere harer 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 carboar 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
aitional 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
-61-
in 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 "niirectional effects. 2is"al-#otor coorination, as seen in
the copying of ,ener-/estalt fig"res, 8as significantly i#paire follo8ing eCpos"re
to the eCperi#ental conitions.
(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 conition for their effects on the perception of the phi pheno#enon 8ith thirty
s"b9ects ser)ing in each conition. .he epri)ation conition 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 conition 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 conition 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 Canlan =@<? 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"nproof 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 finings re)eale significant eterioration in )is"al-#otor coorination
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
-6D-
perception an elaye a"itory feebac7, 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 fining in this st"y contraicts that
reporte by Scott et al. =69?.
'tiliGing the shortest perios 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 conitions
of )is"al epri)ation "pon tachistoscopic recognition threshols 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 conition res"lte in a lo8ere threshol for both gro"ps. .he thirty-
#in"te conition pro"ce no change fro# the Gero le)el. Since none of the
eCperi#ents "sing longer perios of epri)ation #eas"re recognition threshols, 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 finings of these st"ies inicate 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 #oality. .hese effects incl"e the follo8ing$ brea7o8n in
)is"al-#otor coorination, 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 finings espite 8ie
ifferences in eCperi#ental conitions. .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
"nerstoo in these ter#s. .he brea7o8n 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
-6B-
the )"lnerability an recepti)ity to ne8 eCternal en)iron#ental infl"ences.
Cognitive and Learning Abilities
( 8ie )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 8ie 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 consieration 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 orer 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 conitions 8as
consistent. In a secon series they fo"n no change in igit span or analogies "ring
isolation, 8hereas associati)e learning tene 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 finings 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 a9ecti)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 a9ecti)es after t8enty-fo"r, forty-eight, an se)enty-
t8o 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
-6A-
the eCperi#ental gro"p #ae fe8er o)ert errors an sho8e less )ariability. .h"s,
espite fail"re to confir# their o8n pre)io"s finings, this st"y i not s"pport the
eterioration fining of the 4c/ill gro"p.
/olberger an 3olt =BD? st"ie fo"rteen pai )ol"nteer #ale college st"ents
"ner percept"al epri)ation conitions 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 "ner the eCperi#ental conitions$
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 #oification of the polio tan7-
respirator 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 consiere the possibility of proce"ral )ariables ca"sing fail"re to
confir# ,eCton et al. =<? in fining 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 "ner conitions of brief epri)ation. S"b9ects 8ere seate
ini)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, pae earphones, an the #as7ing so"n
of a fan #otor. .heir fingers 8ere 8rappe in elastic banages an they 8ore elbo8-
length 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 orinarily belo8 conscio"s
a8areness. .hese eCperi#enters report that there 8as no Jgross cogniti)e
eteriorationJ "ner these conitions 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 finings.
.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 "ner these
conitions 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. /olberger 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 ieas =cf., logical reasoning? 8o"l
be least interfere 8ith by #oerate 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-
-66-
berger 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 asie, 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 finings in the area of cogniti)e s7ills, to the
eCtent to 8hich a generaliGation is possible, it see#s that in aition to the ecline in
internal nor#s or stanars for percei)ing reality, "ner conitions 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 finings, 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 #oifying 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 recore propagana
#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 recors. .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, inciental
e)ience inicate 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 boy s8ay
s"ggestibility follo8ing )arying perios 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 boy s8ay s"ggestibility in a gro"p of nine
s"b9ects 8ho ha been eCpose to the conitions 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 boy 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)ie 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"spening s"b9ects n"e in a tan7 of 8ater by #eans of a harness.
3is o)er-all finings appear to contraict 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 fins that one of the ten
#eas"res in the battery 8as boy 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 inepenent 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 reainess to #oify 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 asie 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 finings 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
tenency to #oification 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 aitional 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 #oe in@ 8hich the Gan3fel% is
percei)e, an the co"rse of color aaptation, is yet to be in)estigate. 3o8e)er, the ineter#inacy of
the sit"ation, the ini)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 aition to fining
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, tene to be #ore threatene
by ist"rbances in boy 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 -8ars &ersonal &reference Sche"le. !one of the
44&I scales 8as relate to "ration of stay in isolation. ;or the -8ars 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 finings 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, "ner #ore
se)ere conitions of isolation, these
-69-
in)estigators faile to confir# the original finings, 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 integrateJ 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 ini)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 perios "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 finings 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 finings 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 #eiating the percei)e intensity of
sti#"lationI the higher the satiability the less intense are s"cceeing sensations.
Still another approach 8as ta7en by /olberger an 3olt =BB? in their eCperi#ent.
.hey e#phasiGe psychoanalytic concepts, s"ch as resistance to regression an #oes
of hanling pri#ary process #aterial. ;o"rteen s"b9ects 8ere rate for the #at"rity
8ith 8hich they hanle 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 #oes of ealing 8ith pri#ary process #aterial.
.8o relati)ely inepenent reaction patterns to isolation 8ere ientifie. 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 ayrea#s, fantasy, an playf"l
thin7ing 8itho"t being threatene by the sit"ation. In the secon reaction pattern, there
8as "npleasant affect, anCiety-laen intr"sions of the pri#ary process, preocc"pation
8ith ter#inating the eCperi#ent, an i#paire efficiency in rational or seconary
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 hanling pri#ary
process #aterials. .hose 8ho on the *orschach hanle pri#ary process in a #at"re
an effecti)e 8ay 8ere those 8ho reacte in an aapti)e 8ay to isolation. Con)ersely,
those 8ho on the *orschach hanle pri#ary process 8ith poor control or a)oie it
reacte negati)ely to isolation. .his fining is consistent 8ith se)eral others 8hich
point to the eCaggeration of "s"al personality efenses "ner the stress of isolation =1<,
%6, 6%?. ;ro# this point of )ie8 it sho"l be possible, at least theoretically, to preict
the i#ensions of an ini)i"al:s response to epri)ation an isolation.
(n o)er)ie8 of these ata e#phasiGes the tr"is# of #ar7e ini)i"ality of
response. Whether ifferences obser)e a#ong )ario"s st"ies is a syste#atic f"nction
of )arying eCperi#ental conitions is as yet "nclear. Whereas the finings of WeCler et
al. =<>? an /olberger an 3olt =BB? inicate a positi)e relationship bet8een
e#otional relateness an length of stay in isolation, se)eral others ha)e #ae a
ifferent obser)ation. .he finings on s"ggestibility as a personality attrib"te an those
on the relationship to satiation an pain threshols re#ain concept"ally "nrelate to
the other 8or7. .he /olberger 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 tene to8ar
"tiliGation of too si#plifie an ineC 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 aition 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 JschiGoiJ an J8ithra8nJ #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 conitions, fro# the "nifor# )is"al sti#"lation presente by W. Cohen
=19? in 8hich the pattern of inp"t to one #oality 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 #ae at a total re"ction of sensory inp"t. We ha)e alreay #entione the
brea7o8n 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 heaaches, 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
orer 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 tene 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
coorination 8hile in the eCperi#ental conitions. /olberger an 3olt =BD? note that
espite the ini)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 a9ecti)e chec7 list
escribing their feelings follo8ing isolation. .his 8as co#pare 8ith the sa#e chec7
list co#plete "ner control conitions. Significantly #ore so#atic co#plaints,
feelings of physical inacti)ity, an #ental clo"ing 8ere chec7e follo8ing isolation,
8hereas significantly less satisfaction, elation, frienliness, an i#p"lsi)ity 8ere
reporte.
Se)eral st"ies inicate a 8ie range of response ranging fro# co#fort an
satisfaction, thro"gh sleep, to "npleasant affect, anCiety, an paranoi fear =19, B>, 6%?.
/olberger 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 inicate 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. 'no"btely these s"b9ecti)e states also reflect the
earlier isc"sse ini)i"ality of personality response to these eCperi#ental settings.
.he general response to isolation see#s to incl"e boreo#, 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
-@B-
perception, 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)iing h"#an contact an irecte acti)ity, an th"s pro)iing 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 ,ier#an =9? an Lifton =A9?.N
Imagery
Lac7ing a #ore aeF"ate escripti)e ter#, 8e shall in this section "se the ter#
Ji#ageryJ in ealing 8ith a 8ie )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, ayrea#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
inee the pro#ise of st"ying their genesis has "no"btely 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, brea7o8ns in boy 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 "nerstaning 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 alreay referre to the obser)ation of 3ochberg et al. =AB? abo"t ini)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 aaptation, 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 boily
strangeness an pec"liar perceptions of boy 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)iness is the #ain
ifference. +ften there 8as consierable #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)iness, 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 incience an )i)iness of these )is"al pheno#ena.
'ner the conitions 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 conitions of
sensory epri)ation 8ere co#pare. In one, nine s"b9ects 8ere blinfole 8hen they
perioically 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, conitions 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 "ner these t8o sets of
circ"#stances, the a"thors fo"n that the less eCtre#e conition pro"ce #any #ore
:hall"cinatory: pheno#ena. In aition 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
tene 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 "ner a )ariety of
eCperi#ental conitions of isolation.
4enelson an ;oley =%A? obser)e that a n"#ber of polio patients treate in tan7-
type 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 conitions of
life in the respirator. In a follo8-"p report isc"ssing these pheno#ena, 4enelson,
Solo#on, an Line#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 reae possibilities. .he a"thors escribe the
:hall"cinations: as representing a restit"tional atte#pt on the part of the ego to preict
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
incience of a range of #ental eCperiences in their s"b9ects. .hese eCperiences
incl"e the occ"rrence of :analogies,: :ayrea#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. 'ner si#ilar, b"t #ore se)ere, conitions of confine#ent
these in)estigators reporte a co#parable total incience 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)iness, 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 a9ecti)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 boy
i#age, spontaneo"s a"itory an )is"al ill"sions or :hall"cinations.: .hese latter 8ere
not s"b9ect to conscio"s control
-@6-
an ha F"alities ifferent fro# rea#s or ayrea#s. .hey appeare to originate
o"tsie the self, an i not see# to be #eaningf"lly relate to anything.
/olberger 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 aition they fo"n
s"b9ects 8ith boy 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 aition 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 "ner #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. /olberger an 3olt
s"ggest consieration of these pheno#ena in ter#s of )i)iness, str"ct"re, persistence,
realis#, an pla"sibility. ;ro# this stanpoint they offer the generaliGation that
percept"al epri)ation "ring the perio of eCperi#ental confine#ent tens to increase
the )i)iness an str"ct"re of i#agery 8itho"t a brea7o8n 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 boy #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 feebac7. (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 incience
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 "ner
the r"bric of i#agery. .hese i#ensions sho"l #a7e possible a #ore precise
e)al"ation of ifferent eCperi#ental conitions 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 conitions to
-@@-
that seen in hypnagogic states, #escal intoCication, an eCperi#ental response to
flic7er.
(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)iness, 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 recorings of other )ariables s"ch as physiological responses
8ill #a7e possible inepenent assess#ent of these eCperiences.
Witho"t s"ch inepenent assess#ent it 8o"l be pre#at"re to consier the
i#agery eCperience in epri)ation eCperi#ents as necessarily inicati)e of pathology
as a n"#ber of reports ha)e i#plie. S"ch eCperiences #ay inee reflect creati)e
aaptations to a special en)iron#ent. .he e)ience that artists, #ystics, an religio"s
ini)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 preicti)e of aaptation 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 ini)i"als
confronte by real life sit"ations of isolation an epri)ation. +n the other han, the
anCiety engenere by the rise of pri#ary process #aterial #ay ser)e to increase an
ini)i"al:s s"sceptibility to eCternal press"res as in the interrogation sit"ation. In
general, a broaer concept"al fra#e8or7 than that pro)ie by the #oel of
psychopathology 8o"l see# to be neee.
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 ineC 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 aition it has
been "se to #a7e assess#ents of the sleep-8a7ef"lness cycle "ner these conitions.
3eron =B9? escribe the res"lts of perioic --/ 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 perioI
e)en after s"b9ects ha e#erge fro# isolation for so#e ho"rs, the recors ha not
ret"rne to their nor#al state. .his fining 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 recors 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 "ner conitions 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
consierable ini)i"al ifferences, he fo"n that in occipital recors, 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 "ner conitions 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"ns. 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 conitions for the confine gro"ps.
Instea they fo"n that 8hile control gro"p )al"es rose, a statistically significant rop
fro# preisolation conitions appeare in the eCperi#ental gro"p. .here 8as, ho8e)er,
no report of control for the h"#iity in the cha#ber.
'tiliGing a contin"o"s recoring 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 ineC 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)ie in a etaile case st"y of the psychological an
physiological responses of t8o s"b9ects eCpose to per-
-@9-
cept"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)ie 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 8ie )ariability of response, an ientifie a
n"#ber of ini)i"al patterns 8hich are #as7e by the gro"p ata. .heir finings 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"nproofe roo# for abo"t forty #in"tes, 8hereas the J"npatterne-
sti#"l"sJ gro"p 8as gi)en contin"o"s #oerate light an so"n after fi)e #in"tes. 3e
recore 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 fins 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 aeF"ate
controls an sa#ple siGes. !onetheless, a n"#ber of inices ha)e by no8 sho8n
pro#ise of pro)iing "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 boy 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 ineC 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. !eeless 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 "ner conitions of sensory epri)ation #ay pro)ie
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 consier 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. ;inings on this proble# ha)e )arie consierably,
epening on the eCperi#ental conitions. 4any in)estigators ha)e not atte#pte to
assess this aspect of the proble#. +thers ha)e iscare 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 ineC 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
inepenent of proble#-sol)ing efficiency, or incience 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"nproof c"bicle see#s to #a7e consierably longer perios 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 nees of the s"b9ect for foo an toileting.
.he re"ce patterning proce"re of the 4c/ill gro"p has been
-<1-
tolerate 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 tene to stay #"ch
shorter ti#es. Co#paring t8o sets of conitions of epri)ation "sing this proce"re, it
8as fo"n that "ner less se)ere epri)ation, s"b9ects staye an a)erage of 1<.< ho"rs.
With #ore eCtre#e conitions, 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 a9acent 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: 7no8lege of the length
of confine#ent. .his 7no8lege ae 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 conitionsI an obser)ation
also #ae 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 #ae 8hen there is an i#pening or partial brea7o8n 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 finings 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 8ie 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
"neresti#ation or o)eresti#ation of ti#e. Co#paring these res"lts to those obtaine
"ner #ore se)ere epri)ation, it 8as fo"n that in the latter conitions 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 "ner
the t8o conitions.
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 "neresti#ate
the passage of ti#e, 8hereas the t8o ist"rbe by the eCperi#ent o)eresti#ate ti#e
in isolation. *"ff
-<D-
et al. =6%? cite the i#portance of a8areness of ti#e as an orienting factor "ring
epri)ation 8hich as str"ct"re to the eCperience. .heir s"b9ects sho8e a general
tenency to "neresti#ate ti#e. .he loss of ti#e a8areness often see#e to #a7e the
eCperi#ent intolerable.
/olberger 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 "neresti#ation. .his fining s"ggeste to the a"thors the relati)e
inepenence of eCperiencing ti#e fro# the act of 9"ging ti#e. *"ff et al. =6%? ha)e
s"ggeste that the "neresti#ation of ti#e is a efensi)e #ane")er 8here the s"b9ect
a)ois a pre#at"re anticipation of his release fro# confine#ent. .h"s he a)ois 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 7no8lege of ates "ring eighteen
#onths of solitary confine#ent. (necotal 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 #ae a irect atte#pt at
its #eas"re#ent. .he boreo# an restlessness #entione in the section on feeling
states #ay refer to the pheno#enon. Lilly =%>? has eCplicitly escribe Jsti#"l"s-
h"ngerJ in the follo8ing ter#s.
. . . a tension e)elops 8hich can be calle a Jsti#"l"s-actionJ h"ngerI hien #ethos of self-
sti#"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 consier "ninteresting or teio"s. .hese s"b9ects, college st"ents,
ha an opport"nity to listen to recors of fi)e #in"tes: "ration. .hese recors
containe the follo8ing types of #aterial$ eight repetitions of the 16-bar chor"s of
J3o#e on the *angeJI t8o tal7s for chilren, ta7en fro# a religio"s pri#erI raio
co##ercials for soapI an part of a stoc7 #ar7et report. S"b9ects 8ere i)ie into
t8o gro"ps of fo"r each. +ne gro"p hear the recors 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 recors an only as7e
to hear the# a total of nine ti#es. .he other gro"p as7e for the recors fifty-three
ti#es, an reporte that they helpe to relie)e the boreo#. In aition, it 8as fo"n
that the rate of reF"ests for the recors 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 conitions 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 ini)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)ie a "sef"l ineC for co#paring the relati)e se)erity of
epri)ation conitions.
Inluence o !"perimental Setting
We ha)e alreay referre to the finings 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 conitions #ore
tolerable to s"b9ects. .he co#parison of t8o conitions of confine#ent in the tan7
respirator has also pointe to the increase
-<A-
in 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.
0anel, 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 "ner
these conitions, 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 cars 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 aition to the #oney, reasons s"ch as aiing 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 ini)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
0anel 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 nees to be clearly recogniGe.
-<%-
Clinical and Anecdotal #eports
.he application an rele)ance of these finings to i)erse areas of interest ha)e
proceee 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. ( reaing of these reports inicates that
percept"al epri)ation 8as a pro#inent feat"re of the eCperience of these chilren.
( #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 carboar cyliners. .hese perios 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. -)ience 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 #ae 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, 8ithra8n, hypnoi, an re)erieli7e state.
3ypochonriacal states of a transient type 8ere also seen.
(lreay #entione is the 8or7 of 4enelson 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 finings in "nerstaning a n"#ber of
pheno#ena seen in #eical
-<6-
practice =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 orthopeic isorers
8ho are s"spene 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 8ie )ariety of practical sit"ations. .he finings isc"sse in this chapter #ay
acco"nt for s"ch things as accients, 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 #ethoological sophistication. (t the sa#e ti#e, these
in)estigations no8 pro)ie a rich so"rce of ne8 obser)ations an hypotheses, 8hich
to"ch on a 8ie )ariety of iss"es. .he finings, 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)ie a re)ise conception of
h"#an #oti)ation. .his conception recogniGes an e#phasiGes the Ji##eiate 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. 4ethoologically 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 #eical 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 8iely. +"r p"rpose here 8ill be
si#ply to inicate 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#paireJ =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 ini)i"al
ifferences by "sing the concept of sharpness of ego bo"naries. +rientation in ti#e
an space str"ct"re the sit"ation an #ay th"s help the ini)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"naries #ay acco"nt for
the ini)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 boily
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 ieas b"t also beca"se of the absence of an eCternal reality
against 8hich to )aliate one:s inner eCperiences eCperientially or consens"ally.
(ltho"gh perioic 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 )aliation
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##eiate 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 epens on acF"iring an aeF"ate internal #oel of the eCternal
8orl. -arly sensory epri)ation interferes 8ith the learning of a stable #oel. .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 nees of the organis#. .h"s, it isr"pts the )ital e)al"ation process by
8hich one #onitors
-<<-
an corrects the #oels an strategies "se in ealing 8ith the en)iron#ent. ;ree#an
et al. =B>? "tiliGe a si#ilar notion of Jpercept"al egraationJ to acco"nt for their
finings. .hey attrib"te the obser)e pheno#ena to the organis#:s contin"o"s search
for orer an #eaning in the "nstr"ct"re percept"al en)iron#ent pro)ie in their
eCperi#ental set"p.
;ro# a ne"rophysiological point of )ie8, Linsley =%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 a9"sting inp"t-o"tp"t
relationships. Sensory epri)ation is one of a class of conitions 8hich "psets the
balance an th"s ist"rbs the reg"lating f"nction of the ascening retic"lar acti)ating
syste#. With #ar7ely re"ce inp"t, perception is isr"pteI attention gi)es 8ay to
istractibilityI interest gi)es 8ay to boreo#I an acti)ity is either hel in abeyance or
beco#es highly stereotype an nonaapti)e. 3eron =B9? points o"t ho8 sensory an
percept"al epri)ation #ay be eF"i)alent. 3e cites e)ience 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 finings 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 re8aring F"ality of cogniti)e
acti)ity.
.hese finings 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 "ner interrogation. !onetheless, the finings reporte s"ggest so#e
#a9or para#eters 8hich #ay facilitate or inhibit the isorganiGing effects of isolation.
,efore consiering 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
tenency to eF"ate the effects of sensory an percept"al epri)ation st"ies 8ith those
reporte "ner conitions 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 orinary sensory
-<9-
inp"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 orer 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 conitions. ,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. &ening clarification of these iss"es, so#e tentati)e i#plications #ay be
s"ggeste as rele)ant.
.he loss of internal stanars an the absence of opport"nity to )aliate one:s ieas
against an ob9ecti)e reality 8o"l see# to apply in real life as 8ell as in eCperi#ental
circ"#stances. .he boreo#, 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 ini)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 ini)i"al #ay beco#e
apprehensi)e an inee panic7e by his reactions. .he appearance of hall"cinatory-
li7e 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 ini)i"als in techniF"es of ealing 8ith the#
#ay 8ell increase resistance. 0no8lege 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 "ner conitions of
irrele)ant an istracti)e tho"ght than "ner conitions 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 "no"btely 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 consierations an ha)e not p"she s"b9ects to their "lti#ate
li#its. Inee, 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)ience, e)en if
selfselecte, i#plies that the long ter# effects are re)ersible an in so#e instances
lea)e the ini)i"al 8ith a sense of ha)ing achie)e a ne8 an better personality
synthesis. ;ro# this point of )ie8, the finings re)ie8e #"st be consiere as
s"ggesti)e, rather than spelling o"t in final ter#s the co#plete an precise para#eters
of response.
Re'erenes
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 &. -., Leier#an, &. 3. , et al. =-s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation.
Ca#brige$ 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.
Leier#an, et al. =-s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#brige$ 3ar)ar 'ni)er. &ress, in press.
@. ,eCton W. 3. So)e effects of (erce(tual isolation on hu)an su'<ects. 'np"blishe octoral
issertation. 4c/ill 'ni)er., 19%B.
<. ,eCton W. 3., 3eron W., an Scott .. 3. 1ffects of %ecrease% variation in the sensory
environ)ent. +ana%. J. Psychol., 19%A, <, @>-@6.
9. ,ier#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>. ,ier#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. Leier#an, et al. =-s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#brige$ 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<.
-91-
16. 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. Leier#an, et al. =-s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#brige$ 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 Ca8allaer .. C. Cessation of )is"al eCperience "ner 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., &hilaelphia, (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 at
Sy#posi"# on 3all"cinations, A)er. Ass. A%vance). Sci., Washington, 1. C., 1ece#ber 19%<.
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. Leier#an , et al. =-s.?, Sensory
,e(rivation. Ca#brige$ 3ar)ar 'ni)er. &ress, in press.
B1. ;re" S. &he inter(retation of %rea)s. Lonon$ (llen Sc$ 'n8in, 191%.
BD. /olberger 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. /olberger L., an 3olt *. *. 1*(eri)ental interference ith reality contactB In%ivi%ual
%ifferences. In &. Solo#on, &. -. 0"bGans7y, &. 3. Leier#an, et al. =-s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation.
Ca#brige$ 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. Lcier#an, et al. =-s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#brige$ 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%. 0anel -. 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 &. -., Leier#an &. 3., 4enelson J., et al. A co)(arison of to con%itions of
sensory %e(rivation. Pa(er rea% at A)er. &sychol. (ss., Washington, 1. C., Septe#ber 19%<.
A<. Leier#an &. 3., 4enelson 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 estern civilians in +hinese +o))unist (risons. Psychiat.,
19%6, 19, 1@B-19%.
%>. 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. Linsley 1. Are there co))on factors in sensory %e(rivation, sensory %istortion, an% sensory
overloa%C In &. Solo#on, &. -. 0"bGans7y, &. 3. Leier#an, et al. =;s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation.
Ca#brige$ 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<, Lonon$ 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. 4enelson J., an ;oley J. 4. An a'nor)ality of )ental function affecting (atients ith
(olio)yelitis in tan" ty(e res(irators. &rans. A)er. Neurol. Ass., 19%6, <1, 1BA-1B<.
%%. 4enelson J., 0"bGans7y &. -., Leier#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. 4enelson J., 0"bGans7y &. -., Leier#an &. 3., et al. Physiological an% (sychological as(ects
of sensory %e(rivationB A case analysis. In &. Solo#on, &. -. 0"bGans7y, &. 3. Leier#an, et al. =-s.?,
Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#brige$ 3ar)ar 'ni)er. &ress, in press.
%@. 4enelson J., Solo#on &., an Line#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 (athay
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, 1B-
B%.
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 folloing 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. Leier#an, et al. =-s.?, Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#brige$
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 arI A stu%y of atte)(te%
'rainashing. Psychiatry, 19%6, 19, 1A9-1@D.
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 &., Leier#an &. 3., 4enelson 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 Canlan 1. *. &he effect of hu)an isolation u(on
so)e (erce(tual an% )otor s"ills. In &. Solo#on, &. -. 0"bGans7y, &. 3. Leier#an, et al. =-s.?,
Sensory ,e(rivation. Ca#brige$ 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., 4enelson J., Leier#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.
-9%-
CHAPTER 3
The use of drugs
in interrogation
L+'IS (. /+..SC3(L0
Introdution
.he p"rpose of this chapter is to re)ie8 a)ailable scientific 7no8lege 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 7no8lege on ho8 to bring to a person:s a8areness, the feelings,
i#p"lses, an ieas 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
ini)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 9eopary an aggregate of
people to8ar 8ho# he feels strong allegiance, ientification, 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 consiere 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 coe of ethics, partic"larly of the psychiatrist, orinarily bins the physician to
7eep
-96-
confiential 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 coe of
respecting an 7eeping the confiences of a patient is consiere to be a tool that
facilitates the confession or eCpression of other8ise taboo #aterial fro# the patient.
.he psychiatrist:s office is, ieally, one place 8here the patient fins 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 stanars 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 ini)i"al patient an
that of the 8elfare of the gro"p$ fa#ily, city, state, nation. In s"ch a F"anary, e.g., the
F"estion of 8hat to o abo"t a person 8ho has confie his participation in a #a9or
cri#e, the physician:s obligation to the ini)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 confiant for the patient "ntil the patient has re#eie his
social obligation to the state.
4entioning these sit"ations an the c"sto#ary attit"e of the #eical 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 confiential 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 regaring 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 consierable
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 #eical 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 boy 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 #ethos of
assessing the psychophar#a-
-9@-
cologic effects of r"gs on relati)ely nor#al ini)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 7no8lege 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 #ethos of co##"nist inoctrination of (#ericans 8ho ha)e fallen
into the hans of co##"nists or co##"nist-controlle co"ntries, 3in7le =6D? has
state that the #ethos of *"ssian interrogation an inoctrination are eri)e fro#
age-ol police #ethos that ha)e been syste#atiGe, an are not epenent 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 Proedures. Nons4ei'i E''ets 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 #eication fro# another person. ( large )ariety of
nonphar#acologic factors can affect the responses of an ini)i"al after getting a ose
of #eication =see also 4asser#an an &echtel, 1>D?. In fact, one of the #a9or
proble#s plag"ing in)estigators of
1
&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 Carinal 4insGenty =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 eitor, 3enri (lleg,
of an allege "se of soi"# 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?.
-9<-
ps classWJcontin"eJychophar#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 #eication
an interacting 8ith the infor#ant.
A. 1r"g effects #oifie 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 =@, <? inicate
that B> to %> per cent of ini)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, regarless of 8hat it contains. .h"s they il"te the significant
ata eri)e fro# the half or t8o-thirs of the gro"p that react only to the acti)e
ingreient 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 iea 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 #ae "se of itself an
-99-
the in)estigator can eCpect that in B> to %> per cent of trials pain #ay be relie)e or
interrogation #ay be facilitate.So#e aitional 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 nieicati#is than can a coler, #ore re#ote #ale =@?.
D. Ini)i"als "ner increase stress are #ore li7ely to respon to placebos =9?.
B. /reater responsi)eness is associate 8ith certain personality characteristics
accoring to *orschach finings 8ith placebo reactors in a gro"p of 16D
postoperati)e patients$ =a? #ore than one JinsiesJ 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 finings in the sa#e st"y regaring placebo reactors fo"n
greater responsi)eness characteristic of ini)i"als 8ho are #ore anCio"s, #ore
self-centere, #ore epenent on o"tsie sti#"lation than on their o8n #ental
processesI persons 8ho eCpress their nees #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 #eica#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 #oification of that
sti#"l"s.
-1>>-
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.
o B. .he in)estigating staff is constant "ring any gi)en series of eCperi#ents.
o 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.
o %. When a ne8 agent is to be co#pare 8ith the agents of past eCperience, an this is nearly al8ays the case, a stanar of
reference is reF"ire =#orphine in stanariGe osage is "se as the stanar for analgesics, etc.?.
8ithWJ%YJX
o 6. *ano#iGation of ne8 agent, placebo, an a stanar of reference is essential.
o @. Significant co#parisons of sie actions of agents can be #ae only on the basis of eF"al strength in ter#s of their pri#ary
therape"tic effect.
o <. 4athe#atical )aliation of s"ppose ifference in effecti)eness of the t8o agents is necessary.
o 9. .he s"b9ecti)e =an beha)ioral? effects of r"gs can be F"antifie acc"rately an rapily 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 #eication "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 #ae 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 boy, s"ch as foos,
liF"is, s#o7e, or air. ;ro# this point of )ie8 the ieal r"g 8o"l be tasteless, oorless, 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 #oifie by the state of
the organis#, the general setting in 8hich the s"b9ect fins hi#self, an his typical an persistent
#oes 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>1-
stri)e to #aintain a steay state by eCercising eliberate control in the #anner of negati)e feebac7
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 responing to a r"g, since so #"ch epens on personality an sit"ational factors an on the
s"b9ect:s pre)io"s eCperience 8ith r"gs. In nai)e s"b9ects #oerate oses 8hich noticeably #oify 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 sie 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 Inormant
+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 hans 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 #ae 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 #ae, it is for he"ristic p"rposes, an the generaliGe ieas an concepts reF"ire
caref"l testing an )aliation.
What is so#e of the e)ience 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>D-
effect 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 aicts 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 aiction 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 "ner fo"r incenti)e conitions, efine in
ter#s of the sche"le of #orphine re8ars 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 #ae 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 re8ars again fiCe for all
s"b9ects regarless of perfor#ance, #orphine slo8e reaction ti#es an pentobarbitat ha no significant
effect. In other 8ors, epening on the incenti)e conitions 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 JepressantJ
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
JepressantJ 8hen conitions change fro# Jlo8J incenti)e =re8ars fiCe an eli)ere before testing?
to JhighJ incenti)e =re8ars contingent on perfor#ance an sche"le for eli)ery after testing?I 8hereas
the action of pentobarbital change fro# JepressantJ to Jsti#"lantJ 8hen ientical changes in incenti)e
8ere #ae. ;"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 epens not
only on the partic"lar agent "se, the ose an ro"te of a#inistration, b"t also on the circ"#stances
"ner 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>B-
barbital =>.1 to >.% g# intra)eno"sly? on @>> patients 8ith )ario"s co#plaints, incl"ing hypertension
an Jtension heaache.J .hey fo"n that after a#inistration of the r"g, the patients 8ere Jat easeJ if the
setting 8as Jsec"reJ an frienly, 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 heaache 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 #eications 8as obtaine by a sy#pathetic
8o#an in)estigator than by a coler, #ore re#ote #ale.
Drug !ects Modiied 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 orinarily isc"ss. (s is also 8ell 7no8n, ho8e)er,
people react ifferently "ner 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 preict 8hat type of reaction #ay be obtaine.
RELEVANCE OF NONPHARMACOLO=ICAL FACTORS
2ario"s factors s"ch as seC, intelligence, an #ental an physical conition can infl"ence the speech
patterns of an ini)i"al. In orer to assess the phar#acology of a r"g, the prer"g ifferences in )erbal
co##"nication #"st be ta7en into acco"nt. ;"rther#ore, there is strong e)ience 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 "ner
stanariGe conitions of eliciting the speech 8o"l see# to follo8, b"t this has not heretofore been
in)estigate syste#atically. It is also
-1>A-
a 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 gener an intelligence as #eas"re by the Wonerlic
test. .hey obtaine fi)e-#in"te speech sa#ples of a gro"p of ninety occ"pationally a9"ste, #eically
healthy ini)i"als. .hese speech sa#ples 8ere elicte by stanariGe instr"ctions gi)en by a #ale
in)estigator. .he 8ortypes 8ere analyGe an score accoring to t8o syste#s of categories$ a
gra##atical syste# an a JpsychologicJ syste#. .he JpsychologicJ syste# atte#pte to classify 8ors
accoring to the e#oti)e, cogniti)e, an percepti)e processes con)eye, an the ani#ate an inani#ate
ob9ects enote, regarless of gra##atical part of speech. 'ner these eCperi#ental conitions,
significant ifferences 8ere fo"n to occ"r in the proportion of certain types of 8ors "se by #en as
co#pare to 8o#en. .hese ifferences appeare principally a#ong the JpsychologicJ categories of
8ors. ;or eCa#ple, 8o#en tene 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 8ors
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 a9ecti)es an prepositions, b"t fe8er a)erbs, )erbs, an inter9ections. ( #"ltiple correlation of .
6% 8as obtaine bet8een these )ariables an Wonerlic I.S. scores. .he ifferences bet8een the seCes in
8or-type "sage tene 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 gener 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 gener separately affect speech reF"ires
consieration. 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 consierable e)ience to s"pport the concept that the #ental an physical state of an
ini)i"al can affect his reaction to phar#acologic agents.
-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 #eperiine hyrochlorie 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. 4eperiine hyrochlorie 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, hypochonriasis, 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 tene to respon in the sa#e #anner.
In a 8ell-controlle st"y, Lasagna et al. =<A? concl"e$ JIn aition 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
rano#iGe orer, a placebo =1 #l of physiological saline sol"tion s"bc"taneo"sly?, a#pheta#ine =D>
#g\ @> 7g boy 8eight s"bc"taneo"sly?, heroin hyrochlorie =D to A #g s"bc"taneo"sly?, #orphine
phosphate =< to 1% #g s"bc"taneo"sly?, an soi"# 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 aicts ser)ing prison sentences in an instit"tion e)ote to the treat#ent of narcotic aiction.
(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 aicts, ho8e)er, #orphine 8as reporte to pro"ce a #ore pleasant effect than heroin,
a#pheta#ine, or a placebo.
La)erty =<%? ga)e rano#iGe in9ections of soi"# a#ytal an a placebo to forty s"b9ects i)ie 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>6-
eCtro)ersion. .he seation 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 orer gi)en. In other 8ors, the gro"p
of intro)erte ne"rotics reF"ire the largest a#o"nt of intra)eno"s soi"# a#ytal =6.A #g\7g boy
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
soi"# a#ytal on s"b9ects 8ith preeCisting organic brain isease an nonbrain-a#age ini)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 #isientifie the eCa#iners an eCplicitly enie illness.
Weinstein clai#s that these changes 8ith soi"# a#ytal occ"rre only in the brain-a#age ini)i"alsI
8hereas, in nonbrain-a#age ini)i"als recei)ing soi"# 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. =Incientally, Weinstein reports that 8ith the types of
patients he st"ie, soi"# 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 soi"# a#ytal than a nonbrain-a#age ini)i"alI an instance, apparently, of the
effect of aing ins"lt to in9"ry.
3och, Cattell, an &ennes =6A, 6%? a#inistere soi"# 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 #oerate 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 ini)i"als re-
-1>@-
spone ifferently. ,enshei# =1%? tho"ght that the cyclothy#ic gro"p respone 8ith e"phoria an
epression to #escaline an the schiGothy#ic gro"p 8ith ecstasy. Line#ann an 4ala#" =9A?,
eCperi#enting 8ith soi"# 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 #ole 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)ie into t8o parts$ those responses that are characteristic of a r"g regarless of the patient in 8ho#
they occ"r, an those seen in a gi)en patient regarless of the nat"re of the r"g "se. .he first co"l be
calle a collecti)e reaction an the secon an ini)i"al reaction epenent on the ini)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 ini)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 isorers that the )erbal
beha)ior of an ini)i"al s"ffering fro# an e#otional isorer is relati)ely pec"liar, both in for# an in
content. .he epresse person is laconic. .he #anic person is iff"sely 8ory. .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 isorers.
=See, for eCa#ple, /ottschal7 et al., %6.?
(t present, there are #ore gaps than facts in o"r 7no8lege abo"t the reactions of ifferent personality
types to the sa#e an ifferent r"gs. 6ears of intensi)e research are neee to s"pply so#e of this
"na)ailable 7no8lege.
3o8e)er, it is alreay ac7no8lege that ini)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 ini)i"als b"rene 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 neee
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#ation-
getting =altho"gh acting as a catalyst? than is the potential reainess of ini)i"als 8ith s"ch per-
-1><-
sonality feat"res to beha)e in a typical 8ay "ner certain circ"#stances. .he consieration of r"gs as an
ai to interrogation pres"pposes a thoro"gh "nerstaning of the personality characteristics of the
infor#ant an of r"gs, to preict 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)ience that the physiologic conition of the ini)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 regaring 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 "ner )ario"s
physiologic conitions are #eiate by bioche#ical changes per se, an to 8hat eCtent they are
seconary psychophysiologic reactions to s"btle changes in boy che#istry. .he ans8er nee not occ"py
"s here, eCcept to note that a che#ical alteration 8ithin the boy is probably one i#portant feat"re of the
)arying responsi)ity of the ini)i"al. 'ner s"ch circ"#stances, the aition of other che#icals
co#plicates the proble# of preicting the beha)ioral o"tco#e. .his is partic"larly tr"e if the ne8
che#ical intro"ce into the boy 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"renso#e here.
Instea, a n"#ber of 7ey in)estigations are reporte to ill"strate the point.
Biologic Rhyth)s. ,enee7 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 inepenently by the t8o in)estigators, one a psychoanalyst
an the other an enocrinologist. (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 concorance bet8een the t8o types of
ata occ"rre. .his has been )aliate 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, inepenent )aliation 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 inicating stri)ings to be lo)e an i#pregnate an ha con-
-1>9-
flicts 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 boy 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, ini)i"al )ariations occ"rre in relation to the )arying
hor#onal phases of the seC"al cycle, epening on the 8o#an:s personality type an the 7ins of
conflicts she ha abo"t procreation, chilbirth, #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 #eical literat"re an inicate that ne"rological an psychiatric
isorers #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)eryay 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 inicates that so#e ini)i"als beco#e F"er"lo"s, e#aning, 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 ini)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 a9"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 "ner these eCperi#ental conitions. 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 brige 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 consiere to be "e to ini)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 preict 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# orinary 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,
paraoCical reactions to r"gs #ay occ"r. In this connection, Went =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 ini)i"als "ner 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 7no8lege, this pheno#enon has not been reporte else8here
an it is i#portant eno"gh to #erit. f"rther testing. S"ch paraoCical effects ha)e been note clinically
8ith other r"gs, notably a#pheta#ine 8hich #ay ha)e a seati)e an F"ieting effect on restless.
anCio"s, irritable s#all chilren 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''ets o' Dru%s on Ver(&$ Be"&,ior. In'$uene o'
Met"od o' S&-4$in% t"e Ver(&$ Be"&,ior on t"e E''et 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)ie, an that ifferent #ethos of sa#pling the )erbal beha)ior of a s"b9ect "ner
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)ie yes an no ans8ers
an so#e F"alifie ans8ers to str"ct"re concepts an hypothesis of the in)estigator. .hese #ethos ha)e
the a)antage of relati)e spee an ease of e)al"ation.
.he nonirecti)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#acoyna#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 #ethos #ay pro)ie consierable infor#ation abo"t the r"g:s effect on
sy#bolic processes, effects, an psychoyna#ic relationships. .o approach efiniti)e ans8ers regaring
the potential action of r"gs on h"#an beha)ior, e#otion, cognition, an conation, o"r 7no8lege nees
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 Inormation
Se)eral in)estigators ha)e e#ploye r"gs to facilitate the reco)ery of infor#ation not freely yiele
by the ini)i"al.
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 seation she #ight be tal7ati)e an re)eal
things she 8o"l not orinarily isc"ss. 3e note that after chilbirth, 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 aition 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"ae 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 seati)e r"g. 3o"se:s enth"sias# abo"t scopola#ine as an a9"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 "ner 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
-11D-
in)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 soliers 8ho 8ere
eCperiencing ac"te 8ar ne"roses in orer 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 "nerlie their isorer,
soi"# 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 seation 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 8ithholing a)ailable infor#ation. .he ieal 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 "ner 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 consiere )ali. S"ch ata is not accepte in a co"rt of 9"stice an
the infor#ation so obtaine is not consiere 8holly acc"rate by the #eical profession.
What eCperi#ental ata an critical re)ie8s are a)ailable 8hich ha)e eCa#ine the )aliity 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 #eico-legal p"rposes. 3is arg"#ent is in part #oral, b"t it is also base on the gro"ns
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 #eical stanpoint, confessions obtaine by r"gging are )al"eless an o not gi)e gro"ns for
eter#ining responsibility.J
-11B-
In the sa#e boo7, -. 2. Saher:s =11%? chapter on narcoanalysis pro)ies an eCtensi)e re)ie8 of the
literat"re. In s"##ariGing the )ie8point of the #eical 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 #ae is not
necessarily tr"eI an if no confession is #ae 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 fining the tr"th. ,"t it is also a angero"s #eans of in)estigation as the
right interpretation of state#ents #ae epens largely on the s7ill of the analyst.
D
.he p"blishe eCperi#ental st"ies on the )aliity of confessions obtaine 8ith r"gs are fe8. 4"ch
f"rther caref"l in)estigation is neee 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 borerline 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 soi"# a#ytal 8as fo"n to be helpf"l in etecting =an treating? ini)i"als
8ho 8ere s"specte of conscio"sly istorting an feigning isability. 3e fo"n s"ch ini)i"als to be
negati)istic, s"llen, an nonpro"cti)e at first "ner a#ytal b"t prone to re)eal the fact of an ca"ses for
their #alingering as the inter)ie8 proceee. 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.
*elich, *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 incient. .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 'nerhill, 1D%.
-11A-
the cases of those 8ho confesse the tr"th, the tr"e story co"l not be inferre fro# the story tol "ner
a#obarbital. (n aitional fining of interest 8as that the #ore nor#al, 8ell-integrate ini)i"ais co"l
lie better than the g"ilt-rien, 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
consiere a breach of #eical ethics an beca"se the #aterial, eri)e 8ith the f"ll 7no8lege 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 confience 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 "nerta7en. 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 "nerstaning of the patients: personality an #oti)ations. 'ner
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 #eian 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 )aliity 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? tenency of the patient to
perse)erate on "nrelate topics, =c? #"#ble, thic7, ina"ible speech an paralogia, =? fantasies, =e?
contraictory b"t apparently tr"thf"l e)ience, an =f? poor rapport bet8een octor an patient. .hese
eCperi#enters concl"e fro# their st"y that "ner soi"# 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 )aliity 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 ac7no8lege 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 "ner narcoanalysis 8as tr"e.
Clar7 an ,eecher =B>? teste the ability of t8enty, pai, )ol"nteer #ale college st"ents 8hile "ner
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,
soi"# a#obarbital, ethyl alcohol, scopola#ine hyrobro#ie, pentobarbital soi"#, #orphine, caffeine
soi"# 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
prie 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 #aien na#e, etc?, =b? an
JeCperi#ental secretJ e)ise to rese#ble #ilitary intelligence, an =c? a g"ilt-laen 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, #illy elirio"s, panic7y, #ar7ely
loF"acio"s, e"phoric or "ner8ent 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 ientify 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 finings 8ith the Jco)er storyJ techniF"e 8ere essentially those of *elich et al. 'ner 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 ini)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 fielity to the original )ersion.
In e)al"ating the consierable ego-integrity #aintaine by these s"b9ects, it is i#portant to consier
that they #ay ha)e felt relati)ely sec"re in a protecte eCperi#ental sit"ation, in the hans of a
responsible eCperi#enter an physician.
In s"##ary, then, clinical eCperience an eCperi#ental st"ies inicate 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 soi"# a#ytal, the interrogator can ha)e no easy ass"rance as to the acc"racy an )aliity 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 "ner 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)ience, etc. H to ecie ho8 to interpret the o"tco#e of an
inter)ie8 8ith a r"gge infor#ant.
S4ei'i E''ets o' Dru%s on Ver(&$ Be"&,ior< P&rtiu$&r$# Dru%s Potenti&$$# A44$i&($e to
Interro%&tion Proedures
(fter loo7ing at these efforts to elicit infor#ation 8ith a )ariety of r"gs, it #ay be 8ell to consier
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
hans of so#e psychiatrists =11@?, the e#otional reli)ing enhance by the r"g is not consiere
necessarily relate to a real eCperience. In orer to bring abo"t a high egree of eCcite#ent, Sargant =11@?
has reco##ene p"tting the patient bac7 into a past 8hich has been #oifie 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.
Soi"# 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 "ner 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 "ner
a#ytal. .hey also fo"n that patients "ner soi"# a#ytal in9ection ga)e a greater n"#ber of *orschach
responses an fe8er re9ections of cars. .his #ae iagnoses possible in cases pre)io"sly consiere
"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 recore #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 inicate 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 inirect 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 "ner eep a#ytal narcosis. .hese processes 8ere operati)e not only
at the le)el of 8ors an 8or ele#ents, prefiCes an s"ffiCes, b"t also at the le)el of phrases an
cla"ses, ieas an concepts. .he fractionation an reco#bination #anifeste itself in the 9"Ctaposition of
8or frag#ents, phrases, an concepts 8hich are not orinarily 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.
Soi"# a#ytal in9ections ha)e not been "sef"l in alle)iating aphasic speech efects, seconary 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 ecoing 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 "ner
barbit"rates an 8hich they fo"n to be one of the obstacles to assessing the )aliity of their infor#ants:
)erbal pro"ctions.
-11<-
In s"##ariGing the specific effects of barbit"rates as facilitants in inter)ie8ing, the references alreay
presente an the 8or7 of others =BD, 1>1? inicate 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 #ooI =c? ecrease anCietyI =? increase contact
an co##"nicationI =e? re"ction of psychotic #anifestation.
,onbarbiturate Sedatives and Calmatives
(n increasing )ariety of nonbarbit"rate seati)es ha)e been co#po"ne in recent years. (ltho"gh
they are in 8ie "se, no eCperi#ental st"ies ha)e co#pare these r"gs to the barbit"rates as a9"ncts to
inter)ie8ing ini)i"als, either to relie)e e#otional ist"rbances or to obtain conscio"sly 8ithhel
infor#ation.
( list of the che#ical an trae 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 =placiyl?, gl"tethi#ie =orien?, #ethyprylon
=nol"ar?, #ethylparafynol =or#ison?, captora#in =s")ren?, oCana#ie =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 =benGerine? an a si#ilar r"g, #etha#pheta#ine.
(#inistere intra)eno"sly to nonpsychotic ini)i"als, researchers ha)e fo"n a#pheta#ine to
pro"ce a Jp"shJ$ an o"tpo"ring of ieas, 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 8iely #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 hyrochlorie is "sef"l in the interrogation of the
psychopath 8ho feigns a#nesia or 8ithhols )ital infor#ation 8hich he co)ers 8ith lies or ca"tio"sly
alters as he shre8ly 8eighs his 8ors. .hese a"thors clai#, perhaps eCtra)agantly, that s"ch a
psychopath is po8erless "ner 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
-119-
speech gi)es the liar no ti#e to thin7. .hey also clai# that f"nctional aphasics can be eCpecte to reco)er
their speech "ner 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
&iprarol =#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 ieas, 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
preo#inant phar#acologic effects of this r"g epens to so#e eCtent on the typical personality of the
s"b9ect =%@?. Li7e a#pheta#ine, piprarol 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 "nesirable sie
effects, partic"larly on the cario)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
&heniylate =ritalin? is another one of the ne8er co#po"ns 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 sie 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 antiepressi)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 ini)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 seconary 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 7no8lege for cent"ries that #any r"gs #ay #oify 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 ini)i"als by central ner)o"s syste#
epressants =barbit"rates, bro#ies?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 al7alois?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 #ae 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 a9"nct 8ith psychiatric
patients. Cattell =D@? fo"n #escaline to be a "sef"l r"g in in)estigating personality str"ct"re,
-1D1-
b"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 psychoyna#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 conense 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 preo#inance
of e#otional rather than ieational 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
"nistorte infor#ation 8hile the so"rce is "ner 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 consier an
ini)i"al in a psychotic state a s"itable caniate for pro)iing 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#ie tartrate? has been st"ie recently as a r"g 8hich #ight
contrib"te aitional 7no8lege abo"t
-1DD-
the #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 a9")ant in psychotherapy.
1eshon et al. =AD? st"ie the effect of the ingestion of 1 ga##a per 7g boy 8eight of LS1 on fifteen
nor#al )ol"nteers. (lterations 8ere obser)e in thin7ing, speech, e#otions, #oo, sensation, ti#e
perception, ieation, 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 epenent 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 finings of the s"b9ects. .hey co"l not preict the type of psychotic reactions fro#
the pre-LS1 *orschach, b"t they co"l often say fro# the *orschach recors 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
-1DB-
interrogation. (s a tool in the a)ance#ent of 7no8lege 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"ns 8ith seati)e an anCiety-relie)ing properties ha)e been
intro"ce, s"fficiently ifferent fro# the classical seati)es, s"ch as paralehye, chloral hyrate,
barbit"rates an bro#ies, to 8arrant "sing ne8 ter#s to escribe the#. .hese co#po"ns are referre to
as JtranF"iliGersJ or JataraCics.J .hey ha)e been in)estigate clinically on an "npreceente scale in the
treat#ent of psychiatric isorers, 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 inicate 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 #eical "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 8iely "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 inifference, 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 isorer in these conitions is not
-1DA-
altere 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 inicate 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 coorination an efficiency
occ"rre "ner proclorperaGine =1A?.
+ther phenothiaGine eri)ati)es are being eCtensi)ely in)estigate at this ti#e in psychiatric practice
8ith the hope of fining one 8ith eF"al or better therape"tic effects an fe8er of the sie effects of
chlorpro#aGine, s"ch as &ar7insonis#, obstr"cti)e 9a"nice, er#atitis, tachycaria, etc.
.here are no reports of the "se of the phenothiaGine eri)ati)es in interrogation an no e)ience 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 7no8lege to hi#self
RAU:OLFIA ALBALOIDS
.he principal ra"8olfia al7alois being "se in psychiatric practice are reserpine =serpasil?,
eserpiine =har#onyl?, an rescinna#ine =#oeril?. +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 al7alois, 8as
ientifie by 4Uller et al. =1>%?, an its seati)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 coorination, 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, regarless of the clinical psychiatric iagnosis. *epeate oses of reserpine o)er
long perios of ti#e re"ce or
-1D%-
abolishe hyperacti)ity, co#bati)eness, estr"cti)eness, inso#nia, flight of ieas, etc., in the #a9ority of
ist"rbe psychiatric patients, regarless 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
eCtens to so#e of the sie effects, s"ch as #iosis, lo8ering of bloo press"re an boy te#perat"re,
increase in appetite, nasal congestion, an &ar7inson synro#e. (ltho"gh certain ifferences in sie
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 ais to ini)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 #ae regaring 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 responing 8ith feeling in
so#e pertinent 8ay.
(s 8ith the phenothiaGine eri)ati)es, the place of the ra"8olfia al7alois 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
seati)e. +n the other han, less e#otionally ist"rbe infor#ants #ight strengthen their resol)e to retain
infor#ation "ner a tranF"iliGer. .he only 8ay to ecie this proble# is by eCperi#ent. ;"rther#ore,
tranF"iliGers in #oerate 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 epenence of the r"g aict on the s"pplier of r"gs has fig"re in spec"lations regaring the
"se of r"gs to control beha)ior.
-1D6-
S"ch spec"lations ass"#e that the nee of an aict for a r"g is so strong as to o)errie #any other
)al"es, incl"ing strong social proscriptions 8hen these conflict 8ith the satisfaction of r"g-create
nees.
.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 carinal criteria of aiction is the occ"rrence of se)ere reactions 8hen the r"g is
8ithra8n. Withra8al synro#es occ"r 8ith opiates, barbit"rates, an, recently, an ani#al st"y has
#ae 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 aiction in al#ost e)eryone =@D?. !o e#onstrable i#pair#ent of cogniti)e or
psycho#otor f"nctions has been ientifie in s"b9ects operating "ner the #aintenance osage to 8hich
they are habit"ate.
'ner #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 rigiity
an co#part#entaliGation of thin7ing. (s 8ith other r"gs, the reaction )aries 8iely fro# ini)i"al to
ini)i"al %>, 1B1?.
Infor#ation contrib"te by an aicte so"rce is nat"rally s"spect, since #any aicts 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 aicte 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 aiction eliberately. (n interrogator 8ho 8o"l be 8illing to
pro"ce aiction 8o"l not hesitate to e#ploy #ore reliable an instantly effecti)e #eans for in"cing
res"lts as "npleasant as 8ithra8al sy#pto#s. Since the initial reactions of #ost s"b9ects to r"gs of
aiction 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''ets
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 conition, 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
fees 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 aeF"ate control is inee 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 #oerate oses, altho"gh affecting the s"b9ect, #ight not alar# hi#, since the r"g effects
#ay be 8ithin the range of his orinary 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 seati)es #ight be
co"nterbalance to so#e eCtent. 3ere, the F"estion of ho8 #assi)e a osage of a seati)e the s"b9ect
co"l co"nteract 8o"l nee to be consiere. .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 "no 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 #ae bet8een inter)ie8s carrie o"t for psychotherapy an those to obtain
fact"al infor#ation. (ltho"gh there has been consierable spec"lation regaring 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 #ae fro# p"blishe #aterial of this
sort, they are presente as hypotheses, an in e)ery instance reF"ire testing an )aliation.
-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
aiing their o8n personnel to resist interrogation, the p"rs"it of )ario"s c"rrent scientific an #eical
interests 8ill o"btless res"lt in e)eloping 7no8lege of r"g action applicable to interrogation. .he
interest of scientists in e#ploying r"gs in research transcens 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 7no8lege, s"ch as the st"y of ne"rophysiologic correlates of sy#bolic an psychoyna#ic
processes. Wor7 by scientists in s"ch areas is also li7ely to increase 7no8lege 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 neee to ill"strate ho8 the
#any )ariables in)ol)e co#plicate the proble# of #a7ing a 9"g#ent regaring 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 consieration 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 preiction is lessene 8hen the actions of r"gs on li)ing h"#an beings are consiere,
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 by phar#acologically inert
s"bstances 8hich si#"late #eication
-1D9-
=placebos?. 1epening on the personality of the s"b9ect an the circ"#stances "ner 8hich the placebo is
a#inistere, B> to %> per cent of ini)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 #eication 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 ini)i"als to
testing proce"res, 8ith or 8itho"t r"gs. .he #etho of sa#pling the )erbal beha)ior of an ini)i"al
"ner the infl"ence of a r"g, irecti)e, nonirecti)e, free-associati)e, etc., also eter#ines the 7ins of
reactions obser)e. ;or these reasons, it is reco##ene that a )ariety of sa#pling #ethos be "se in
eCperi#ental st"ies.
The !icacy o Drugs in *ncovering Inormation
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 fins relati)ely fe8 st"ies. *eports ealing 8ith the )aliity of
#aterial eCtracte fro# rel"ctant infor#ants, 8hether cri#inal s"spects or eCperi#ental s"b9ects, inicate
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)ience inicate that not only the in)eterate cri#inal psychopath #ay lie or
istort "ner the infl"ence of a r"g, b"t the relati)ely nor#al ini)i"al #ay, 8ith #any r"gs,
s"ccessf"lly isg"ise fact"al ata. Less 8ell-a9"ste ini)i"als, plag"e by g"ilt an epression, or
s"ggestible ini)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 rener the# relati)ely "nintelligible. It 8o"l be )ery iffic"lt "ner 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 "ner narcosis 8as tr"e, an 8hen a lac7 of cr"cial infor#ation
coining fro# a s"b9ect "ner 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 consier an 8eigh
#any i#portant factors$ the personality of the s"b9ect, the #ilie", other so"rces of e)ience, the rapport
obtaine, an the s7ill of the F"estioning. .hese an other factors affect the )aliity of infor#ation
obtaine fro# an infor#ant "ner seation. (nalogo"s consierations apply to sti#"lants.
Speciic !ects o Drugs in Interrogation Situations
()antages an li#itations of a n"#ber of ifferent types of phar#acologic agents as a9"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 ini)i"al is
feigning 7no8lege 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#eying 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 ini)i"als.
.he "se of )ario"s sti#"lant an antiepressi)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,
piprarol, #ethylpheniylacetate ha)e in co##on the capacity to pro"ce an o"tpo"ring of ieas,
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 aeF"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 8ithhols )ital infor#ation cannot control hi#self an th"s gi)es hi#self a8ay.
IproniaGi, an antiepressi)e r"g 8hich is relati)ely slo8 an so#eti#es ra#atic in its thera-
-1B1-
pe"tic effect, sho"l be consiere for eCperi#entation. .his r"g, an si#ilar, less toCic analogs 8hich
are being e)elope, #ight be consiere 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 #eication 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 conitions an, in a #inor 8ay, as an a9")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 #eically "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 "ner the
infl"ence of s"ch r"gs, )ital infor#ation #ight be eCtracte as a price for ceasing f"rther #eication. (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 ini)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 consier an ini)i"al in a psychotic
state a reliable so"rce.
.he intro"ction of ne8 r"gs li7e tranF"iliGers that seate b"t o not i#pair intellect"al f"nctioning
in #oerate osage =e.g., phenothiaGine eri)ati)es an ra"8olfia al7alois? has ca"se a #inor
re)ol"tion in the psychiatric therapies of agitate psychotic conitions regarless 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 seati)e. 'ner 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 ae )"lnerability to infl"ence. .he ability of the s"b9ect to gi)e infor#ation is not
notably affecte by a #ainte-
-1BD-
nance osage. .he #oti)ational effects of obtaining r"g s"pplies, 8hile eCtre#e, are not of a ifferent
orer for #ost s"b9ects than those 8hich the interrogator co"l pro"ce by other #ore rapi #eans. .he
eCploitation of aiction probably constit"tes a threat to persons pre)io"sly aicte, or to those 8ho
beco#e aicte 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 aiction 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 Jr"ggeJ or JopeJ i#plies that
an ini)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)oiance-a)oiance conflict
bet8een the so"rce:s g"ilt o)er yieling 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 ini)i"al #ay be
oblige to "nergo, 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 alreay "nergone. -)en "ner 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 seati)e r"gs are e#ploye.
(re there 8ays in 8hich the infor#ant can resist re)ealing )ital infor#ation "ner interrogation 8ith
r"gsL .he ans8er is yes.
-1BB-
4eans 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# ini)i"al to ini)i"al, an that those 8ho #ay "se r"gs against hi#
cannot preict 8ith certainty 8hat effects 8ill occ"r in his partic"lar case. .o a )icti# of s"ch atte#pts
the i#perfect preictability of #any of the irect effects an sie 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 "ner 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 contraictory 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 7ins 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 "npreictable, an
the "n7no8n.
Re'erenes
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>.
-1BA-
B. (nren 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 4eical *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 to hun%re% %istur'e% (sychotics ith reser(ine. J. A)er. )e%. Ass., 19%%,
1%<, 11>-11B.
@. ,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%<, B99-
A>1.
9. ,eecher 3. 0. 1vi%ence for increase% effectiveness of (lace'os ith increase% stress. A)er. J. Physiol., 19%6, 1<@, 16B-
169.
1>. ,ein 3. J. Lur Phar)a"ologie %es Reser(in, eines neuen Al"aloi%s aus Rauolfia 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. ,enee7 .herese. Stu%ies in (sychoso)atic )e%icine. Psychose*ual functions in o)en. !e8 6or7$ *onal, 19%D.
1B. ,enee7 .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 $S,>A? in nor)als. II.
Rorschach test fin%ings. A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%6, @%, 61D-61<.
1@. ,erg#an &. S., an /reen 4. A(hasiaB 1ffect of intravenous so%iu) a)ytal. Neurology, 19%1, 1, A@1-A@%.
1<. ,eringer 0. ,er .es"alinrausch. .onogr. aus %e) Gesa)tge'iete %er Neurologie un% Psychiatrie, ,erlin, 19D@.
19. ,eCion W. 3., 3eron W., an Scott .. 3. 1ffects of %ecrease% variations in sensory environ)ent. +ana%. J. Psychol.,
19%A, <, @>-@6.
D>. ,ir -. /., /oss J. 1., Jr., an 1enber 3. C. +hlor(ro)a3ine in the treat)ent of )ental illnessB A stu%y of E?; (atients.
A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%%, 111, p. 9B>.
D1. ,ischoff (. Mher eine thera(eutische 5eren%ung %er sogenanaten JWec7(#ineJ in er ,ehanl"ng schiGophrener
-rreg"ngsG"st]ne. .schr. Psychiat. Neurol., 19%1, 1D1, BD9-BAA.
DD. ,ric7ner *. 4. A neural fractionating an% co)'ining syste). A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%A, @D, 1-1>.
DB. ,ronner (. &he role of so%iu) a)ytal in (sychothera(y an% %iagnosis. A)er. J. Psychother., 19%%, 9, DBA-DAD.
DA. ,r"ssel J. (., Wilson 1. C., Jr., an Shan7el L. W. &he use of )ethe%rine in (sychiatric (ractice. Psychiat. Juart.,
19%A, D<, B<1-B9A.
-1B%-
D%. ,"rney C. Solitary confine)ent. !e8 6or7$ 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%, B16-
BD1.
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 intervies ith
6;; (atients. Psychiat. Juart., 19%@, B1, D<9-B>>.
BB. Co8en *. C., 5aC 4., an ;inney *. C. A (reli)inary note on the use of chlor(ro)a3ine ith neuro(sychiatric
%isor%ers. A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19%%, @B, @>>-@>1.
BA. Co8en *. 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 $S,. Psychiat. Juart.,
19%D, D6, BB-%B.
AB. -ssig C. ;. With%raal convulsions in %ogs folloing chronic )e(ro'a)ate into*ication. A. .. A. Arch. Neurol.
Psychiat., 19%<, <>?, A1A-A1@.
AA. ;abing 3. 1., 3a87ins J. *., an 4o"lton J. (. +linical stu%ies on al(ha FA>(i(eri%ylG 'en3hy%rol hy%rochlori%e, a
ne anti%e(ressant %rug. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%%, 111, <BD-<B6.
A%. ;erg"son J. .. &reat)ent of reser(ine>in%uce% %e(ression ith a ne anale(tic. Ann. N. !. Aca%. Sci., 19%%, 61, 1>1-
1>@.
A6. ;ischer 3. 0., an 1lin ,. 4. &he %yna)ics of (lace'o thera(yB A clinical stu%y. A)er. J. )e%. Sci., 19%6, DBD, %>A-
%1D.
-1B6-
A@. ;lach ;. ;. +linical effectiveness of reser(ine. Ann. N. !. Aca%. Sci., 19%%, 61, 161-166.
A<. ;orster ;. 4. &he e(ile(sies an% convulsive %isor%ers. In (. ,. ,a7er =-.?, +linical neurology. 2ol. D, !e8 6or7$ &a"l
,. 3oeber, 19%%. &p. 1>B6-1>@A.
A9. ;ran7l 2. -., an StrotG7a 3. !ar7oiagnose. 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 or%sB A
nor)ative stu%y of ver'al 'ehavior. J. %in. Psychol., 19%9, 1%, 1<D-191.
%%. /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"nation, 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%
intervies. !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 aiction to narcotic r"gs an barbit"rates. .e%. +lin. N. A)er., 19%>, BA,
AD%-AB<.
@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@A-
1<D.
@6. 0line !. S. Use of rauolfia 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>. Liell 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. Line#ann -. &sychological changes in nor#al an abnor#al ini)i"als "ner the infl"ence of soi"# a#ytal. A)er.
J. Psychiat., 19BD, 11, 1><B-1>91.
9B. Line#ann -., an Clar7 L 1. 4oifications in ego str"ct"re an personality reactions "ner the infl"ence of the
effects of r"gs. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%D, 1><, %61-%6@.
9A. Line#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"ners 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). $a, +ri)inol. (olice Sci., 19%%, A6, D%9-D6%.
1>>. 4ac1onal 4. 1. Narcoanalysis an% cri)inal la. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%A, 111, D<B-D<<.
1>1. 4ac0innon 3. L. Narcoanalysis an% allie% (roce%ures. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19A<, 1>%, DDA-DD%.
1>D. 4asser#an J., an &echtel C. An e*(eri)ental investigation of factors influencing %rug action. Psychiat. res. Re(.
A)er. Psychiat. Ass., 19%6, A, 9%-11B.
1>B. 4iller !. -. 1ffects of %rugs on )otivationB &he value of using a variety of )easures. Ann. N. !. Aca%. Sci., 19%6, 6%,
B1<-BBB.
1>A. 4orris 1. &. Intravenous 'ar'ituratesB An ai% in the %iagnoses an% treat)ent of conversion hysteria an% )alingering.
.il. Surg., 19A%, 96, %>9-%1B.
1>%. 4Uler J. 4., Schlitter -., an ,ein 3. J. Reser(in, %er se%ative Wir"stoff aus Rauolfia ser(entina Benth. 1*(erientia,
19%D, <, p. BB<.
1>6. !e8 J. S., an 0elly (. *. Narcosynthesis in civilian (ractice. Southern )e%. J., 19A@, A>, BA9-B%%.
1>@. &ayne *. ,., an 4oore -. W. &he effects of so)e anale(tic an% %e(ressant %rugs u(on trac"ing 'ehavior. J.
Phar)acol., 19%%, 11%, A<>-A<A.
1><. *aines /. !., an Cohn *. Intra)eno"s soi"# a#ytal an generaliGe lang"age ysf"nction. Neurology, 19%1, 1,
DD9-B><.
1>9. *elich ;. C., *a)itG L. J., an 1ession /. 3. Narcoanalysis an% truth. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%1, 1>@, %<6-%9B.
11>. *in7el 4., 1eShon J., 3ye *. W., an Solo#on 3. C. 1*(eri)ental schi3o(hrenia>li"e sy)(to)s. A)er. J. Psychiat.,
19%D, 1>>, %@D-%@<.
111. *in7el 4., 3ye *. W., Solo#on 3. C., an 3oaglan 3. 1*(eri)ental (sychiatry. II. +linical an% (hysioche)ical
(sychosis. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19%%, 111, <<1-<9%.
11D. *olin J. Police %rugs. .ranslate by L. J. ,enit. !e8 6or7$ &hilosophical Library, 19%6.
-1B9-
11B. *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
in 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"bleay, 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 tenty>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%. 'nerhill 3. C. +ri)inal evi%ence. *e)ise an eite by J. L. !ibloc7, Inianapolis$ ,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. Went /. *. S"ote by 3. ;ree in Sy#posi"#$ 1isc"ssion an critiF"e on #ethoology 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 rauolfia 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 4
Physiological responses
as a means of
evaluating information
*. C. 1(2IS
.o al#ost any sti#"l"s fro# o"tsie the boy respons 8ith 8iesprea 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 inications of the egree of creence 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
)aliity 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 aition of the gal)anic s7in response follo8ing the 8or7 of S"##ers =BB, BA? in the
19B>:s.
'ner a contract 8ith the +ffice of !a)al *esearch, 8hich 8as
-1AD-
also s"pporte by the other ser)ices, a gro"p at Iniana 'ni)ersity "nertoo7 a co#parison of )ariables
an co#binations of )ariables that 8as reporte in 19%D =1@?. 4ean8hile the "se of the JstanarJ
#ethos has sprea 8iely as an applie art 8ith a certain boy of traition. =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)ie 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.
E,&$u&tion o' Present Pr&ties
We #ay consier Jc"rrent practicesJ en #asse an as7 ho8 effecti)e these ha)e been. .his proble# is
consiere by Inba" =D>?, apparently by co#paring Jlie etectorJ res"lts 8ith 9"ry )ericts 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 iscare 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 inepenently, 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 inepenent 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 8iely for screening, as it is reporte to be, #any s"spects 8ith negati)e fining 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 recors =or possibly asie fro# the#? infl"ences the 9"g#ent as to 8hether the lie
etector test inicates g"ilt. ;or eter#ining 8hich #ethos an conitions 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 7no8lege 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 leas to the concl"sion that psychological #ethos of etection in the cri#inal
interrogation sit"ations o pro)ie 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
tening 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 conitions 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 a9"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 traitional 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.
Indies /it" Fie$d &nd L&(or&tor# Tests
BREATHIN=
(ltho"gh this )ariable 8as the first p"t to eCperi#ental test =D?, the partic"lar feat"re, the IP1 ratio, or
ti#e of inspiration i)ie
-1AA-
by ti#e of eCpiration, see#s to ha)e roppe o"t of sight in practice. ,en"ssi:s eCperi#ental report 8as
that "ring lying the IP1 ratio is increase beca"se of a change in the for# of the breathing c"r)e. It is
easy to see 8hy the ratio has been neglecte in practical 8or7, for it is laborio"s to co#p"te an the
eter#ining points in the breathing cycle are iffic"lt to isting"ish, especially in a recor ta7en at the
"s"al slo8 spee. In the JIniana st"y an atte#pt to e)al"ate it 8as abanone beca"se #eas"re#ents
8ere so "nreliable. Co##on practice see#s to be to regar any #ar7e ist"rbtnce of breathing as
inicati)e of eception =DA?.
.he techniF"e of recoring the breathing rhyth# is rather si#ple. .he co##on pne"#atic syste# is
open to criticis# beca"se of the nonproportionality intro"ce by the co#pressibility of air, the general
incon)enience of 7eeping the syste# free fro# lea7s, an the a878ar rea9"st#ent 8hen S thro8s the
recorer off scale by a #o)e#ent. ( si#ple electrical pic7"p an recoring syste# can be s"bstit"te
=1@?.
.he Iniana st"y consiere t8o aspects of respiration$ 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 inicates eception reF"ires an operator to #a7e a
sort of in)erte interpretation on this point. ,reathing cycle ti#e increase in both conitions, 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 conitions 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 #ae irreg"lar by a reaction to the general sit"ation. (fter
so#e aaptation it beco#es possible to co#pare the responses to F"estions in p"rer for#. (ccoring 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 inicator 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 "ner 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 "ner 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 #ethos to 8or7. *espiration, therefore, on balance in the present state of 7no8lege
see#s to be one of the better #eas"res.
BLOOD PRESSURE
.he systolic bloo press"re 8as first "se as a eception inicator by 4arston =D9? an the #etho in
co##on "se is the contrib"tion of Larson =DB?. It is e)iently 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"na#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)ience 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. *ecors 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 ecie 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 orinary practice.
.he instr"#ent c"rrently in "se consists of a press"re c"ff si#ilar to that "se in #eical practice, b"t
eF"ippe 8ith a sie 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 a9"ste fro# ti#e to ti#e to follo8 changes in S:s bloo press"re.
'ner 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 eCcees the
press"re in the )eins, an occl"es the#. .he sie branch fro# the c"ff 8ill con)ey press"re )ariations to
the
-1A6-
ta#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 #ae 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 "nesirable sie 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 sie 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 Iniana st"y "se a ifferent #etho, "nfort"nately also open to these ob9ections to occl"ing
the bloo s"pply. ,y #echanical #eans, a steaily 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 inicators 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 recoring of )ariations in
arterial press"re, altho"gh it 8ill not as no8 e)elope inicate 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 #ethos.
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 #ae 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 glans =an internal
conition, 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 aapting 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 reaily eter#ining base le)el an long persisting
trens. .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 #oern 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 recore.
S"ch a circ"it 8ith a e)ice for a"to#atically setting the recoring pen bac7 on scale is escribe in
the Iniana report. ;or satisfactory recoring nonpolariGing electroes are reF"ire, altho"gh so#e
co##ercial s"ppliers see# to o)erloo7 this necessity.
In the Iniana st"y the /S* 8as the best of the inicators in a short series tho"gh its po8er of
iscri#ination fell as aaptation 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 #ae iffic"lt by the
confo"ning aaptation tren, an an inter)ie8 nees 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 regare. In
fact, at the "s"al recoring
-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 Iniana 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 preo#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 consierable #"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 #oerately 8ell. (pparently
it s"ffers fro# the sa#e hanicap as /S* H 8ith aaptation, it loses po8er.
.o be interprete i##eiately the rate 8o"l nee to be recore 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 recoring pen. Since these instr"#ents are operate by the
electrocariogra#, they are a bit "ncertain if S is not in a shiele roo#. .hey are #ore co#pleC than the
/S* instr"#ent an #ight present proble#s in the hans of an ineCperience operator. !e)ertheless,
heart rate #ay t"rn o"t to be a )ery goo a9"nct in etection.
VOLUME PULSE
.he )ol"#e p"lse has been st"ie in a n"#ber of eCperi#ents in the Iniana laboratory in a )ariety
of sit"ations =<, 9 ,1>? an it 8as incl"e in the co#parison #ae in the Iniana 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. 'ner certain circ"#stances in a #oerately 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#peance plethys#ograph
has the consierable a)antage of con)enience in attach#ent. S"ch an instr"#ent is #oerately co#pleC
to b"il b"t fairly si#ple to operate.
.he constriction recore by the plethys#ograph is closely relate
-1A9-
to a rise in bloo press"re recorings. (s a f"na#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 recoringI a pic7"p e)ice
8ith a )ery high resistance to #o)e#ent is "se. .he effects recore are )ariations of the bloo press"re
rather than local conitions 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 Iniana st"y 8ith rather poor res"lts in etection of eception
an #ore recent st"ies of other conitions =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 "ner 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 recore by other #eans than electrical, the operating iffic"lties of the electrical #etho
are less 8ith s"itable eF"ip#ent an the recors #ore interpretable. .he -4/ can be co#pare in se)eral
places if one esires.
;or recoring -4/ an a#plifier is neee, 8ith sensiti)ity in abo"t the range of the "s"al
electroencephalograph. .he o"tp"t of this nees to be integrate in one 8ay or another to #a7e it easily
rea =1@?. .he electroes attache to S are si#ple #etal is7s.
.he Iniana st"y incl"e one eCperi#ent "sing -4/ in lie etection, b"t this 8as carrie o"t
inepenently 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 consiere eCploratory an
nees 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 shiele roo# =for eCa#ple, gro"ne fly screen?, 8hich co"l be easily pro)ie 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)iently
is not a co##on occ"rrence. .he "se of the #etho has so#e interesting possibilities since conflict
bet8een t8o responses can be recore =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)ie the eyes #ay "nconscio"sly t"rn to8ar one or
another in response to a F"estion. .he #etho lens itself 8ell to the #ap or pict"re eCploration #etho
=see the follo8ing?.
( s"bst"y of the Iniana lie etection research teste the po8er of the oc"lar #o)e#ents as a
etector 8ith goo res"lts. (t least "ner special eCperi#ental conitions goo iscri#ination can be
obtaine. .his #etho, ho8e)er, has the hanicap 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 inicator 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, accoring to the eF"ation, epens on the le)el of bloo press"re, an it 8o"l see# that
in the sa#e ini)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 inirect #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 reaings. .he sche#e is
also rather co#pleC an see#s to be an alternati)e to the si#pler #etho of recoring 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. (ccoring to one #etho, gastric or intestinal acti)ity is recore fro# s"rface
electroes attache to S, one on the abo#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 hanicap 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 "ner inter)ie8 conitions 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 8ors, the )ariable #ay be too sensiti)e to all sorts of sti#"li an reach its #aCi#"# response, as it
8ere, too reaily, b"t no one can be certain this 8o"l happen 8itho"t a trial. -F"ip#ent for recoring
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 Proedures
Certain general facts an a fe8 7no8n partic"lars inicate ho8 prior conitions #ay affect etection
res"lts.
Adaptation !ects
( general effect that nees to be ta7en into acco"nt is the r"le of aaptation. (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%D-
so#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 procees, 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 8ors, 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
"no"btely also pro"ce a eaening of response. ;or eCa#ple, there is consierable transfer of
aaptation fro# one sti#"l"s to another in the /S*. I##eiately 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 #ethos, since S is alreay 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 aaptation #echanis#, a conition 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 accors 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 inifference to all orinary 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 consierations there #ay act"ally be a contraiction bet8een trying to sec"re an
a#ission an etecting lying by instr"#ents. ;or instr"#ental etection one nees an S 8ith a li)ely
a"tono#ic =or so#eti#es central? ner)o"s syste#, 8hereas fatig"e #ight fa)or contraictions an
a#issions. It 8o"l see# that an eCa#iner #"st eter#ine 8hether he intens to "se instr"#ental
#ethos as a #eans of etection or #erely as a stage property for inti#iatin 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 Iniana 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%B-
instr"#ent by JetectingJ 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 Iniana 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 JetectableJ 8hen telling falsehoos 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
eciing at the o"tset that certain cases are JinoperableJ one:s percentage of s"ccessf"l etection an
confience in his res"lts for the re#aining cases can be enor#o"sly increase. =See isc"ssion in the
Iniana 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 epens on the consistency 8ith 8hich ini)i"als respon
ifferentially to critical an ne"tral F"estions.
.8o eCperi#ents in the Iniana 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 fining. .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 #ethos fro# those 8ho are not. +n the Js"sceptibleJ Ss, the certainty of the etection
iagnosis 8ill be greatly i#pro)e. +ne point nees f"rther in)estigation$ 8hether or not a pretest 8ith
one set of F"estions 8ill pic7 o"t ini)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#aning 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 Iniana 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: recore reactions an #a7e the# easier to
ifferentiate. 3o8e)er, JeCplanatoryJ ans8ers sho"l probably be a)oie for p"rposes of instr"#ental
etection. Inas#"ch as the o)ert response reF"ire oes see# to infl"ence the physiologic recors,
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 #ae 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 carsJ or in a J#e#ory r"#J e)ice #ay be
inicate.
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"pposely ne"tral F"estions 8ith certain critical ones i#bee in it at "nanno"nce places.
*esponses to the t8o sorts of F"estions are e)al"ate as
-1%%-
tho"gh they 8ere inepenent. ;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. ( raically 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 orer 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 inicate, on the later repetitions, 8hen
responses beco#e progressi)ely larger as the critical F"estions are approache an ie o"t rapily
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.
Conitione responses are sai to be for#e to the preceing 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 "nientifiable
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 reaings, 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 aaptati)e process
alreay 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)iently recogniGes the fact by a)oiing 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 aaptation tren can be isco"nte in the interpretation.
D&t& Inter4ret&tion &nd O4er&torCs Deisions
(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 ecie on the #eaning
-1%6-
of his res"lts by so#e r"les of th"#b 8hich he has iffic"lty p"tting into 8ors e)en to hi#self. .o
eCactly 8hat set of c"es he is responing it is iffic"lt to say, for apparently no one has #ae an analysis
of the eCact ifference bet8een recors 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 Iniana 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 iscaring 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 consiere. 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 Iniana st"y
inicate 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
accoring 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)ience.
.he logic of the etection tas7 i#poses certain reF"ire#ents. ,asically the assign#ent is one of
ifferentiating t8o conitions, tr"th telling an lying, on the basis of reaings 8hich are correlate 8ith
the# =JpreictionJ in the statistical sense of the 8or?. .he operator or eCperi#enter #"st procee by
fining, 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 consiere is *
c
H *
n
.
We #"st then ecie on the basis of ata 8hich sign of the res"lt is inicati)e of lying, if either. We
#ight, "ner 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)iing 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 "ner #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 8ors 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 #ae.
.he )al"e *
c
H *
n
for each S sho"l be co#pare 8ith that for a gro"p of Ss responing 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 nees to arri)e at an
approCi#ation of this f"nction to reach a proper ecision. 3a)ing this, the fiel operator sho"l ieally be
pro)ie 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 recore
response to a F"estion #ay be consiere as partly eter#ine by the F"estion an partly by JaccientsJ
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)ie 8here o"tsie 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 consiering the a)erage of the series.
When se)eral physiologic f"nctions are recore, 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
Jpreiction.J Se)eral )ariables, rather than one, 8o"l be eCpecte to pro)ie a #ore acc"rate basis for
ecision. (sie fro# the "s"al a)antages eri)e fro# #"ltiple #eas"res there is the fact of ini-
-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. Ini)i"als ten to react in one physiologic sector or another.
+ne ini)i"al #ay JspecialiGeJ in a heart reaction, for eCa#ple, an another in the /S*. *ecoring a
n"#ber of physiologic )ariables gi)es, therefore, a better chance of locating each person:s special 7in of
reaction.
.he Iniana st"ies ha)e i#parte so#e 7no8lege of the #ethos of co#bination. In one
in)estigation a large gro"p of physiologic )ariables 8ere recore, #ore, of co"rse, than 8o"l be
practical in a fiel sit"ation 8ith the iea 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 orer to gi)e #aCi#"# iscri#ination 8hen they are ae together in
stanar score for#. .he 8eights eri)e fro# one gro"p of Ss #"st then be teste on another before
they can. be consiere as fir#. .his elaborate #etho ga)e strange res"lts in the Iniana 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
inee, 8hereas by the operation of rano# 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 #oel 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 intene 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 Iniana 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 inication of lying for each F"estion for#e a highly s"ccessf"l lying score. In this #etho one is
a)oiing the ass"#ption of linear aition, 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 #eas"res together
b"t treats the# as alternati)es.
-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 respons 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 rano# 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 7ins of response
8o"l be less than a)erage an, if ae to the heart rate response as stanar scores, or #ore si#ply
co#bine, they 8o"l ten to offset the positi)e heart rate inication. It #ight co#e abo"t, therefore, that
co#bining #eas"res in the orinary 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 #ae, tho"gh rather
"nsyste#aticallyI a large response in one physiologic )ariable #ay be co"nte hea)ily, an the ne"tral
inications 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$o%i&$ Prini4$es o' Lie Detetion
.he effecti)eness of lie etection proce"res is li#ite by a lac7 of 7no8lege of 8hat psychological
principles are in)ol)e in s"ccessf"l lie etection. .here is little eCa#ination in the literat"re of the basic
psychological principles at 8or7. &artic"larly i#portant is the F"estion$ 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
7no8lege 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 "ner 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. -)ience of response "ner these conitions 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 iea 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 recore )ariables. -ssentially the sa#e pattern of response occ"rs 8hen S is telling the tr"th "ner
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 7no8lege 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 #oe of operation in the etection
sit"ation.
(ccoring to the con%itione% res(onse theory the critical F"estions play the role of conitione 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. Conitioning 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 8ors 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 orinary ini)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
-161-
eCpecte 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 conitioning principle it 8o"l f"rther be eCpecte that
the boily reaction 8o"l be so#e8hat ifferent, accoring 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 accoring to certain e)ience =6?.N Whether, in fact, the physiologic response in lying iffers
accoring to the e#otional reaction of S to a F"estion is a proble# eser)ing so#e in)estigation.
.he si#ple conitioning theory can, ho8e)er, harly be the 8hole eCplanation of the lying reaction,
for in laboratory eCperi#ents, s"ch as so#e of those in the Iniana st"y, lying abo"t rather tri)ial
#atters accoring 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 tenencies 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 tenencies
#ay be eCpecte. Long habit 8o"l ispose the person to ans8er a critical F"estion straightfor8arly. +n
the other han, 8hen he is lying there are circ"#stances 8hich aro"se in hi# the tenency to enial. In
the Iniana st"ies one eCperi#ent 8as base eCplicitly on this principle, b"t 8ith the plan of
isting"ishing the t8o response tenencies 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 tenencies. ( 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 tenencies #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 tenencies 8o"l probably nee to be strong for goo res"lts.
!ot #"ch can be one abo"t the tenency to re)eal infor#ation openly. +n the other han, the tenency
to eny it #ay be s"b9ect to so#e #anip"lation. .his s"ggestion again leas to a paraoCical
reco##enation$ the sit"ation #"st be so orere 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, alreay escribe, 8hich sho8e better etection 8hen S 8as
enco"rage to thin7 he #ight Jbeat the instr"#entJ lens 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 preceing? that 8ors to"ching on e#otionally sensitiGe areas 8ill pro"ce large reactions,
regarless 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.
(ccoring to this iea 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 conitione 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)oiance reaction 8ith consierably 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)oiance reaction 8hich has a lo8 probability of reinforce#ent, b"t not too lo8. If
the theory has any )aliity 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)ience alreay
#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 nees 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
-16B-
co"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 fining 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 7no8lege 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 contraictory, it is F"ite possible that all the
conitions 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 finings 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 broaer 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 regaring the applicability of
finings 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#
-16A-
to o so. If the so"rce regars 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 consierations also arise in the intelligence interrogation sit"ation beca"se of the 7ins of
people to be interrogate, their physiologic conition, their e#otional state, an their attit"es. .hey
iffer fro# both the s"specte cri#inals an the nor#al ini)i"als or college st"ents "se in #ost
eCperi#ents. .he effect of factors li7e these is scarcely 7no8n for the gro"ps alreay st"ie. It is terra
incognita for the so"rces of fact"al interrogations.
( special conition for the intelligence sit"ation is that the s"b9ect:s cooperation in s"b#itting to the
instr"#ental recoring #ight be iffic"lt to obtain. +ne nat"rally spec"lates abo"t the possibility of
e)ising a fe8 recoring instr"#ents that 8o"l nee no attach#ent to S an #ight be conceale fro#
hi#. Consiering the co#pleC proble#s attening o)ert electroes an recorers, the infor#ation gaine
fro# hien 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 orinary 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, "ner 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 #ethos can be applie to intelligence interrogations 8ith reasonable s"ccess. 4ost of the
consierations alreay isc"sse 8o"l see# to apply.
Su--&r#
In spite of the early scientific fo"nations 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 7no8lege. .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
#ethos. Laboratory eCperi#ents generally confir# the s"ccess of the techniF"e.
Laboratory science can #a7e so#e i##eiate contrib"tions to the i#pro)e#ent of etection #ethos.
1e)elop#ents ha)e #ae possible better instr"#entation for the recoring an analysis of )ariables
8hich c"rrently fig"re in cri#inal etection, an s"ggest the possibility of recoring )ario"s others 8hich
co"l increase the acc"racy of etection. ;or so#e of these aitional )ariables, eCperi#ental e)ience is
alreay a)ailable, others ha)e yet to be teste.
-Cperi#ents ha)e also yiele certain res"lts that co"l be applie to interrogation proce"res, of
8hich the follo8ing are ill"strati)e. .he factor of aaption, ifferential to partic"lar responses, co"l be
allo8e for syste#atically. .he attit"e of the eCa#inee infl"ences res"lts consierablyI 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 orer to rop a fe8 prospects fro# consieration
8o"l greatly i#pro)e the confience "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. ;eebac7 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)ience bears on a n"#ber of other practical #atters, s"ch as the orer 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 conitione a"tono#ic response, ona conflict of response tenencies, or on
the chance of s"ccessf"l a)oiance of p"nish#ent, or so#e co#bination of these. 0no8lege of
-166-
these effects #ight pro)ie a basis for the choice of conitions that 8o"l pro)o7e the #ost
iscri#inating 7in of response.
;"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'erenes
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 4eicine, 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 recoring of arterial press"re$ (n analysis of the proble#J. J. co)(. (hysiol. Psychol., 19%@,
%>, %DA-%D9.
<. 1a)is *. C. JSo#atic acti)ity "ner 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. JConitions 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 abo#inal potentialsJ, J. co)(. (hysiol. Psychol.,
19%@, %>, %19-%DB.
1B. 1a)is *. C., Sions /. ;., an Sto"t /. W. A car%iotacho)eter. 4ffice of Naval Research, &echnical Re(ort No. ?,
+ontract 7;8F;@G. 'np"blishe #an"script. Iniana '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 conitioning 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, Iniana 'ni)er.,
,loo#ington, Iniana.
-16@-
1<. ;errac"ti, ;. Il poligrafo. In +orso lnterna3ionale %i +ri)inologia. *o#a$ Instit"to i Cri#inologia. &resso
L:'ni)ersita i *o#a, 19%%.
19. /olia#on, I. Inication of perception. I. S"bli#inal perception, s"bception, "nconscio"s perceptions$ (n analysis in
ter#s of psycho-physical inicator #ethoology. 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 cario-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 boily 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, Iniana '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 recoring sto#ach
#otility. A)er. Psychologist, 19%%. !7, A%D. =(bstract?
-16<-
CHAPTER 5
The potential uses of
hypnosis in interrogation
4(*.I! .. +*!-
Introdution
.hro"gh the years so#e lay an professional people ha)e consiere hypnosis al#ost a #agical
#eans of infl"encing others, c"rati)e, #ystical, borering 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)ience 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 "nerstanably 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)ience 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.
-169-
In this 8ay a consierable n"#ber of inferences #ay be #ae regaring the "tility of hypnosis for
interrogation.
.his report 8ill first consier 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 "ner conitions 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 consier 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
inaeF"ate efinition of hypnosis. 3e is "s"ally escribe as passi)e, apparently asleep, an responsi)e
only to the hypnotist:s 8ors. 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 epenent "pon the hypnotist for
irection. 3o8e)er, an ini)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 ientify 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 ini)i"al eCperiences. .he
carinal characteristic of the state is that a potentiality eCists for the s"b9ect:s perception of reality to be
istorte in accorance 8ith the hypnotist:s c"es. .his istortion #ay affect any an all #oalities 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, consierable e)ience s"ggests that at so#e le)el the ini)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 consier so#e of the theoretical )ie8s #ost generally hel, since
their i#plications iffer #ar7ely regaring 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 presentay
in)estigator 8ho 8o"l efen this position, an in fact it is contraicte by recent e)ience.
Since the ti#e of ,rai =1A? in 1<AB, the )ie8 has been 8iely 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 ientical. .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)ience 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 contraict these
finings, clai#ing that the characteristic rhyth# of hypnosis rese#-
-1@1-
bles that of ro8siness an light sleep. .hese st"ies ha)e not been replicate.
.he )ie8 propose by Janet, &rince, Siis, 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 conitions, 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 toay.
.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)ie a brige 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
conitioning theory, "tiliGing the concept of abstract conitioning. 3e has pointe o"t that trance
in"ction procees 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. Schiler =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 nees 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
psychoyna#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@D-
8ish to be hypnotiGe, an this #oti)ation is consiere 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 "no"btely 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
)aliity of these )ario"s theoretical )ie8s, altho"gh there is so#e e)ience alreay #entione 8hich
tens 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
7no8lege 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 boy of e)ience ste##ing fro# the cri#inal cases in 8hich hypnosis has allegely
playe a role, 8hich are raically 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 boy of
7no8lege 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
hols that it #ay be in"ce 8itho"t any prior relationship bet8een s"b9ect an
-1@B-
hypnotist an regarless of the s"b9ect:s nees in the sit"ation, 8ith only the hypnotist s"enly gaGing at
his )icti# an co##aning hi# to fall asleep. ( #oti)ational )ie8 of hypnosis 8o"l hol that trance
in"ction epens "pon the s"b9ect:s nees 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 epenence "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 ini)i"als
8ho are obser)ing trance in"ction in another s"b9ect.
1. Slee(. .he oler literat"re is replete 8ith state#ents that hypnosis #ay reaily 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 .heoore `. ,arber =D? sleeping s"b9ects 8ere reF"este to perfor# stanar
hypnotic tas7s. 3e fo"n consierable 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 Schneier =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 a9"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:# responing 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 orer 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. Ieally, 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 creit for ha)ing in"ce the state of ro8siness that is an ine)itable
conseF"ence of eye fiCation. 4echanical ais 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 ini)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)ience 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 ais to trance in"ction is partic"larly
rele)ant insofar as being s"b9ecte to s"ch sti#"lation oes not reF"ire the ini)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 #ae. 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"na =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 epene "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 confience eCists in 8hich the s"b9ect has reason to eCpect help
fro# the hypnotist. ;"rther#ore, the hypnotist is an ini)i"al of high rep"tation an high prestige an
there is so#e legiti#acy in the s"b9ect:s eCpectations. Stanar #eical 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@6-
co#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 7no8lege 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 friens.
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 ini)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 ini)i"als 8ho ha)e negati)e attit"es abo"t hypnosis o not enter hypnosis "ner 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 preicti)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 "ner 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 Je#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 responing as if the eCperi#enter 8ere
i#plicitly as7ing the s"b9ect to collaborate 8ith hi# in orer 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"na#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 preceing ob9ections, these three st"ies offer no concl"si)e
e)ience regaring 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. 'ner 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 8ors, 8hether a s"b9ect 8ill or 8ill not enter trance epens "pon his relationship
8ith the hypnotist rather than "pon the technical proce"re of trance in"ction. (#ittely, these
preictions 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 orer 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
ientical to the one isc"sse abo)e eCcept, perhaps, that aitional resistances 8o"l be enco"ntere.
SUMMAR;
In s"##ariGing the e)ience 8e are le to the concl"sion that espite #any apparent inications that
hypnosis can be in"ce 8itho"t the s"b9ect:s 7no8lege 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
confience in the hypnotist:s ability to help. !o reliable e)ience eCists that hypnosis can be in"ce
irectly fro# sleep in an "na8are s"b9ect, nor is there goo e)ience that a s"b9ect is "nable to resist
trance in"ction if thoro"ghly #oti)ate
-1@9-
to 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 8ie isagree#ents pre)ail a#ong a"thorities an 8here
eCperi#ental e)ience is highly contraictory.
.hro"gho"t this isc"ssion no ifferentiation 8ill be #ae 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 ecie 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 preicte co##an or, inee, any other. .his contraiction 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 ini)i"al 8ill co##it antisocial or self-
estr"cti)e acts in response to irect s"ggestion. ,eha)ior consiere to be antisocial is that 8hich is so
efine by the c"lt"re in 8hich the ini)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, #"rer )s. the solier:s obligation to fight. +ne of the #a9or research iffic"lties is that so#e
beha)iors are consiere taboo "ner 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 ini)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#"rers,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, intening to en the eCperi#ents on a lighter note, s"ggeste to the s"b9ect that
she 8as alone an 8o"l "nress. .his pro#ptly ca"se her to a8a7en. It sho"l be note that the
J#"rersJ 8ere co##itte in s"ch a 8ay as to be play acte, 8hereas "nressing 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<1-
JrealJ sit"ation, can they be in"ce to )iolate internaliGe prohibitionsL Se)eral #oern in)estigators
clai# that this is inee 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 "seI 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)ience that beha)ior orinarily 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 solier 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 #eical officer in the
ar#y at the ti#e he 8as con"cting this eCperi#ent. (ltho"gh the solier #ay ha)e neglecte his "ty, it
8as i#plicitly at the orer of the #eical officer an Schnec7 later #ae certain that no har# ca#e to the
solier 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 solier to stri7e a s"perior officer by s"ggesting that the officer 8as a Japanese solier an,
accoring to the report, the solier 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 "ner 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 proceee to in"ct
-1<D-
trance. When the W(C 8as in hypnosis he represente hi#self as her ;irst Sergeant an proceee to
F"estion her abo"t classifie #atters, She ans8ere all of his F"eries, 8here"pon an officer stoppe the
proceeings 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 ini)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#eI 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##ans. !o atte#pt 8as #ae 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 conitions of the eCperi#ent by "sing a har#less sna7e 8hich loo7e
al#ost ientical 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##eiate "se of first ai. (gain the s"b9ects perfor#e both the ho#icial 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#icial 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 ini)i"al:s
hea 8ith a g"illotine 8hich has been
-1<B-
con)incingly e#onstrate. 'ner these conitions )ol"nteers fro# the a"ience 8ill reaily trip the
appropriate le)er. .his co"l be be constr"e to be a ho#icial 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
8oners 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 "nerta7en 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 "nerta7en in a setting o"tsie 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. 'ner these conitions 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 "ner 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 conitions, all, so#e, or none of
the eCperi#enters co"l
-1<A-
in"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 #ae 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 orer 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 "ner 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 #ae 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 ini)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 8oner
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 accorance 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 contraictory
e)ience 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 reefine 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 /ines =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. 'ner 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, "ner 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 aeF"ately controlle in)estigation of )iolations of internaliGe
prohibitions in hypnosis, a n"#ber of conitions 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<6-
s"b9ects 8ho are highly #oti)ate to si#"late hypnosis in orer 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 aitional possibility #"st be consiere. (b"nant e)ience eCists that "ner so#e circ"#stances
of social legiti#iGation, ini)i"als in"lge in beha)ior that is orinarily )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)ie the legiti#iGation for beha)ior 8hich the person
8ishes to perfor# b"t 8hich he feels he cannot o "ner 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 "nerstaning 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"nings 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 orer 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 ini)i"als 7no8n to
be rep"table in)estigators by the s"b9ect, can pro)ie efiniti)e ans8ers. .he only p"rpose for 8hich a
psychologist 8o"l as7 a s"b9ect to thro8 aci at another ini)i"al 8o"l be to contrib"te to science or
ne8 7no8lege. (n e)en these ai#s 8o"l be precl"e by a concern for the safety of the ini)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 conitions 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
"nerta7en 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"thoriGeJ 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 allegely in"ce by hypnotic #eans. Consierable interest has been
eCpresse by the legal profession in this proble#, an it has generally been hel that a cri#e co##itte
"ner 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 allegely 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
"ner the hypnotic infl"ence of a JfriealyJ neighbor. .he relationship began 8ith neighborly hospitality
an proceee 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 goos. In orer 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 accient. ,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##ene 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 3eielberg 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 s8inle #oney fro# her "ner 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
friens. (lso as a res"lt of his s"ggestions she #ae 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 7no8lege of
religion, #ysticis#, an occ"ltis#. .he t8o beca#e friens an eCperi#ente eCtensi)ely 8ith 2oga an
hypnotis#. .hey 8ere alone in the sa#e cell for nearly eighteen #onths, besies 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"arian spirit, an that the g"arian spirit 8as spea7ing to the )icti#
thro"gh the #ei"# of the hypnotist. ;ro# that ti#e on the )icti# felt that
-1<9-
he ha to carry o"t all the orers of the g"arian spirit. (fter they 8ere release fro# prison the #en
contin"e their relationship H an the g"arian spirit contin"e to #a7e e#ans. .he g"arian spirit
orere his )icti# to t"rn o)er his 8ages to the hypnotistI he fo"n a girl for the )icti# to #arry an
orere hi# to o so, 8hich he iI he orere hi# to proc"re #oney in orer to establish a political
organiGation thro"gh 8hich they co"l create a better society an "nite the Scanina)ian co"ntries, the
goal being the sal)ation of #an7in. It 8as to8ar the latter en that the g"arian spirit, thro"gh the
#ei"# of the hypnotist, pointe o"t the ban7 that the )icti# 8as to rob. .he robbery 8as acco#plishe,
an a year later orers ca#e for another ban7 robbery. 1"ring the eCec"tion of this tas7 the )icti#
co##itte #"rer an 8as apprehene.
In all three cases a co##on ele#ent 8as present. In so#e #anner the s"b9ect 8as issatisfie an the
ini)i"al 8ho later beca#e the hypnotist pro)ie 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)ie
frienship an initially perfor#e #any #inor ser)ices for hi#. In the 3eielberg 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)ie the
opport"nity for the gratification of so#e of the )icti#:s nees. 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 consierably #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 ini)i"als that ha)e no connection 8ith hypnosis b"t are
#ar7e by intense feelings an a strong tenency on the part of one ini)i"al to co#ply 8ith 8hate)er
reF"ests are #ae of hi# by the other. .he transference relationship seen in psychotherapy is a case in
point. If this type of relationship eCists bet8een t8o ini)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.
'no"btely, 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)ience 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)ience, 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 Aur&# 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 )eriicality 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 #ae abo"t ini)i"als
-191-
ha)ing perfect #e#ory in hypnosis, abo"t their ability to recall anything that has happene to the# e)en
8hile infants, an, accoring 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 Inormation More Accessible to #ecall *nder Hypnosis3
( #echanis# freF"ently "se to facilitate recall is that of hypnotic age regression. .he s"b9ect is
JregresseJ 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 "ner these circ"#stances are eCceeingly 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 "ner these
circ"#stances is acc"rate.
&latono) an &ri7hoi)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 /iro-;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 #eical 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)ience for the )aliity 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-
-19D-
cessf"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 ols. ;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 grae 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 chilhoo --/. 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)ience in any of these st"ies to inicate 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"nant e)ience that
e#otionally laen #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 *ile =@>? 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
-19B-
trance sho8 a #ar7e tenency 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 Inormation )btained in Hypnosis
Consierably less #aterial is a)ailable abo"t the )eracity of the #aterial f"rnishe by a s"b9ect in
hypnosis. (s the preceing isc"ssion inicates, 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 alreay inicate, 6o"ng =<A? has sho8n that s"b9ects can resist specific
s"ggestions if they ha)e ecie 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 aeF"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 inirect 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 alreay #ae 8ith regar to this techniF"e. (nother ob9ection eri)es fro# the fact that the
s"b9ect:s #oti)ations are not aeF"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 JneeJ to o so.
Confessions to a therapist satisfy #"ltiple nees 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 "ner
hypnosis =,eigel?. 3o8e)er, o"r o8n clinical 8or7 has a#ply con)ince "s that s"b9ects are
-19A-
f"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 consier also the F"estion of pre)arication "ner the
infl"e"ce of r"gs co##only "se in narcosynthesis. Its rele)ance is confir#e by the finings 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@?.
Ini)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. ;rielaner =DA?, Schiler =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 "ner the
infl"ence of these r"gs, 8hich as treate in #ore etail in Chapter B.
4"ehlberger =A9?, for eCa#ple, 8ho consiers narcosynthesis as a "sef"l techniF"e, a#its that
ne)ertheless, J'nless s"pporting e)ience 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 soliers L"8ig =AD? reports that they
re#aine negati)istic an "nco##"nicati)e 8hile "ner 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 regare 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 tenencies.
.h"s the bare res"lts of an inter)ie8 "ner the infl"ence of r"gs sho"l not, staning alone, be consiere a )ali an
reliable inicator 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 ini)i"al "ner 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 "ner 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)ience to inicate 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)ience that e#otionally laen #aterial that is not nor#ally accessible can be
reco)ere in hypnosis. It has been e#onstrate that s"b9ects can be "ner 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"tsie 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 #isleaing. .he classical )ie8 hols 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 #ae that in orer 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 inications 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 reaing 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 perios.
-196-
When isc"ssing this proble# 8ith a n"#ber of clinicians, one in)ariably fins that they report
anecotal e)ience 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 inices 8hich
ifferentiate si#"lators fro# eeply hypnotiGe s"b9ects. In aition 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. *egaring 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 8ie
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 7ins 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 ini)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 inicati)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.
Consierable research re#ains to be one on the recognition of si#"lating beha)ior. (t o"r present
state of 7no8lege it is )ital to bear in #in that the eep hypnosis is essentially a clinical iagnosis.
(ltho"gh "ner so#e circ"#stances this iagnosis can be #ae 8ith a high egree of reliability,
efiniti)e signs of eep trance ha)e not yet been ientifie. '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 #ae 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 #ae iffic"lt by the pa"city of rele)ant st"ies, an 8e are force to eCtrapolate fro#
the #eager e)ience 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 aition, training soliers 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##eiately
confronte 8ith the F"estion of 8hether trance can be in"ce against the ini)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)ience
to inicate that trance can be in"ce against a person:s 8ishes. .he proposal to train ini)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 preconition an
ini)i"al for s"bseF"ent trance in"ction, regarless of s"ggestions that they o"ght to resist hypnosis.
.here is no e)ience that training in hypnosis preisposes s"b9ects to8ar trance in"ction 8ith or
8itho"t their cooperation. 3o8e)er, there is consierable e)ience 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 friens 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 ini)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 consieration. It has been
note "ring psychotherapy that patients 8ho ha)e ha consierable hypnotic eCperience 8ill so#eti#es
"se the trance state as a efense #echanis# in orer 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)oiance 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 reaily an rapily "s"ally in less than half an ho"r. .hese finings 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 consierations, 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 8ege
to in"ce hypnosis. .h"s, if the s"ggestion has been gi)en that the s"b9ect 8ill not enter trance b"t
-199-
8ill 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 heaache 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 solier 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 "npreictable
effects e)en in )ery goo s"b9ects. It #ay be possible to s"ggest that a solier 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 solier 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 aapti)e in so#e respects b"t eCtre#ely ist"rbing in others.
.he ecision of 8hat to say "ring interrogation 8o"l be #ae for the solier beforehan. .he
ine)itable i#po)erish#ent of 7no8lege 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)ient an necessary infor#ation, an the interrogator 8o"l be a able to ass"#e the role of a
helpf"l ini)i"al reay 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 "ner 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 8ors, 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.
Soi"# pentothal #ay also be "se, an is generally s"ccessf"l in leaing to rapi recall. Since "ner
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 7no8lege as it co#es to hi#. +nly after re-
establish#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
solier 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
solier by presenting interrogation as treat#ent of a sic7 person. It #ay be far safer to rely on the solier:s
o8n ego control to ecie 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 solier 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 hanicappe.
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 ini)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 "ner 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 ini)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 epens on a n"#ber of consierations. (s state in preceing
sections, only a relati)ely s#all n"#ber of ini)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 "nerta7en "ring posthypnotically
in"ce analgesia. (ltho"gh 8e are certain that in so#e ini)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 ini)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
hans of captors. 3o8e)er, if the s"b9ect 8ere capt"re an felt any pain at all, the entire s"ggestion
8o"l rapily 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 "nerta7en 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 #oality 8here it faile. 3ere again, the solier 8ho is ta"ght to rely on
hypnosis as an analgesic an fins it ineffecti)e in certain sit"ations #ay be consierably 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 8ithstaning stress, an partic"larly pain, is i#practical.
;e8 ini)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>D-
hypnotic s"ppression of all pain #ay also be angero"s to the ini)i"al. ;inally, if s"ch posthypnotic
analgesia 8ere possible an it sho"l brea7 o8n, it 8o"l lea)e the ini)i"al #ore )"lnerable than if
he ha not relie "pon this #echanis# at all.
Motivating Instructions
+"r finings 8ith ini)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 finings inicate that appropiiate #oti)ating instr"ctions are as effecti)e
as hypnosis in enabling ini)i"als to tolerate laboratory sit"ations of pain. Whether this also hols 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 brea7o8n "ner 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 consierable egree of s"b9ecti)e hea)iness. 3e is then
-D>B-
ta"ght to in"ce a feeling of 8ar#th an e)ent"ally goes on to control of respiration, relaCation of the
boy, 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
anecotal e)ience that ini)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 "no"btely be
achie)e. -F"ally i#portant is the ill"sion of #astery that the ini)i"al #ay be able to create 8itho"t
reco"rse to eCternal ais. .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 epens strictly "pon concentration an 8hich cannot be ta7en fro# hi#.
When the ini)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.
,ier#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 ini)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. (necotal e)ience
obtaine in personal co##"nication fro# an ini)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 ecie 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>A-
training #ay be a techniF"e for pro)iing the potential capti)e 8ith an "nto"chable an effecti)e
techniF"e of #astery in a sit"ation 8here he is physically totally at the #ercy of his captors.
SUMMAR;
.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 eCceeingly 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 inee 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 ini)i"al:s responsibility for his o8n actions by placing reliance on #echanis#s o"tsie
his ego control. It is preferable an safer to "tiliGe techniF"es esigne to increase the solier:s ego
control an potential #astery of "npreictable circ"#stances than to place faith in a se#iconscio"s
#echanis#. Infor#ation abo"t 8hat the solier #ight eCpect "ner conitions 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, consierable e)ience inicates that it is
o"btf"l 8hether a s"b9ect co"l be #ae 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, soi"# 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
8iely fro# ini)i"al to ini)i"al. It is not o"r p"rpose here to re)ie8 the #eaning of capt"re an
interrogation fro# a psychoyna#ic )ie8point,
1
b"t only to consier briefly 8hy ini)i"als 8ill
"nergo 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 ientification 8ith co#raes, 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 consier the capti)e 8ho is in fe)er an elirio"s, an 8ho in this conition i)"lges )ital
infor#ation. !either he nor his co#raes 8o"l hol hi# responsible for the isclos"re. ,y the sa#e
to7en a solier 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 conitions 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 nees s"ch as
eli#ination, eating, an sleeping, an e)en boily post"res. 3e is also in a position to re8ar or p"nish any preeter#ine
acti)ity on the part of the capti)e. .his tens to create a sit"ation 8here the ini)i"al feels "nable to obser)e any control o)er
hi#self. .his eCtre#e loss of control is hanle in a )ariety of 8ays, one of 8hich is a regression to a chilli7e state of
epenence on an ientification 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.
,ier#an =11?, isc"ssing the co#pliance of prisoners of 8ar 8ith interrogators, belie)es that so#e prisoners aopt 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 regare 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>6-
that 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 solier 8ho fainte 8o"l be p"nishe. (t any rate, conte#porary 'nite States c"lt"re
clearly eCc"ses the ini)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 eCtene to #ental illness. (ltho"gh consierable 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 #oifies both )erict
an sentence.
.he capti)e in interrogation is apprehensi)e of a angero"s an painf"l oreal. If he is pro)ie 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 hypnoial states are (o(ularly )ie8e as
sit"ations 8here the ini)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 ini)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 inicate here. ( si#plification of it is
"nerta7en 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 ini)i"al has no control o)er
his actions, 8o"l enhance this inoctrination 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##eiate captors. In any case, a captor see7ing to eCploit the hypnotic sit"ation 8o"l pre)ent
consens"al )aliation 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 ini)i"al in
-D>@-
orer 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# responing. .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 responing 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 iea co"l be con)eye to the s"b9ect that he is responing 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 #ae 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 responing 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 "ner
these circ"#stances fins 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 ini)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 orinarily epens. 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 reaily 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)ience 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
traitional interrogation practices as escribe by ,ier#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. (ccoring 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
regari"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 orer 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, 7no8lege 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 ini)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>9-
strating that the ini)i"al is able to lie "ner 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 reae 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 7no8lege an confience 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 "nerstaning of the pheno#enon of hypnosis is to be
fo"n in a consieration 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)ience 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 consiere
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)eJ
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
ini)i"al to please another, be it cri#inal or not, 8hen an intense e#otional relationship eCists bet8een
the ini)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 reaily e)ol)e s"ch
a relationship.
.he F"estion of the acc"racy of infor#ation obtaine "ring a hypnotic trance has been consiere. It
see#s clear fro# the e)ience that s"ch infor#ation nee not be )eriicalI 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 alreay threatene by loss of
ego control, an 8e feel that proposals 8hich 8o"l f"rther i#po)erish the ego are eCtre#ely haGaro"s
an 8o"l #a7e the ini)i"al #ore )"lnerable than he alreay 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 ini)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'erenes
1. (ler 4. 3., an Sec"na L. J(n inirect 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-)ience 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 "ner 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$ Lonon ,oo7 Co.,
19A@.
1>. ,ier#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. ,ier#an (. 1. Social-psychological nees 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. Lonon$ /eorge *e8ay, 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@.
-D1D-
1<. 1ession /. 3., ;ree#an L. 5., 1onnelly *. C., an *elich ;. C. J1r"g in"ce re)elation an cri#inal
in)estigationJ. !ale la J., 19%B, 6D, B1%-BA@.
19. -ric7son 4. 3. J(n eCperi#ental in)estigation of the possible antisocial "ses of hypnosisJ. Psychiatry, 19B9, D, B91-
A1A.
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 ;erinan -n7e, 19>D.
DA. ;rielaner (. (. ,ie hy(nose un% %ie hy(no>nar"ose. St"ttgart, /er#any $ )on ;erinan -n7e, 19D>.
D%. /iro-;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@. /ines ,. C. Ne conce(ts of hy(nosis. !e8 6or7$ J"lian &ress, 19%1.
D<. /rin7er *. *., an Spiegel J. &. War neuroses. &hilaelphia, &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. Lonon$ /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 Schneier (. 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 conitione refleCJ. Psychiat. Juart., 19%D,
D6, 6%@-66D.
AD. L"8ig (. JClinical feat"res an iagnosis of #alingering in #ilitary personnelI "se of barbit"rates as an ai in
etectionJ. War .e%., 19AA, %, B@9.
AB. 4arc"se ;. L. J(nti-social beha)ior an hypnosisJ. J. clin. e*(. -y(nosis, 19%B, 1, 1<-D>.
-D1B-
AA. 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 "ner 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 ientity of inhibition 8ith sleep an hypnosisJ. Sci. .on., 19DB, 1@, 6>B-6><.
%@. &latono) 0. I., an &ri7hoi)ny -. (. J0 pbye7it)no#" o7aGatelst" e7speri#entalno)o iG#eneiya lichnostiJ.
Psi"hotera(ia, 19B>, 191-D>B.
%<. *eiter &. J. Antisocial or cri)inal acts an% hy(nosisB a case stu%y. Springfiel, Ill.$ Charles C. .ho#as, 19%<.
%9. *osen 3. J3ypnoiagnostic 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, 11A-
11@.
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. Schiler &. &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. J4oifie 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<B-
1<%.
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, ,raneis, 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 *ile -. -. 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 "ner 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 Lonon$ /r"ne & Stratton, Inc., 19%@.
@6. WeitGenhoffer (. 4. J.he pro"ction of antisocial acts "ner 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&reiction of hypnotic s"sceptibility fro# a 7no8lege 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.
-D1%-
CHAPTER 6
The experimental investigation of interpersonal
influence
*+,-*. *. ,L(0- (!1 J(!- S. 4+'.+!
Introdution
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
ini)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 conitions "ner 8hich
ini)i"als change or resist changing their beha)ior to accor 8ith that of others 8ith 8ho# they are
interacting.
Consieration 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 consiere. 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.
-D16-
rel"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
)aliity 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 consier the proble# of
eCtrapolation by briefly assessing the i#plications of the c"rrent 7no8lege 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# 7no8lege 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 "ner
face-to-face conitionsI 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&teristis 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
accoring to the follo8ing characteristics$ =a? types of sti#"l"s #aterials e#ployeI =b? conteCts or
bac7gro"n conitions in 8hich press"res are eCerteI =c? personal i#ensions "se to assess the
contrib"tion of ini)i"al ifferences to confor#ity an con)ersion beha)iorI an =? #ethos of
#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@-
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 finings 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 regaring typical cases or proble# iss"es
has also been "se =D@, <1, 9D, 11A, 1D>, 1BA?. .ypical isc"ssion topics incl"e feeral ai to e"cation
=A@?, labor-#anage#ent relations =A>, A<?, nationalis# )s. internationalis# =<D?, i)orce =%A?, an the
hanling 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 orer of esirability as &resient
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 efening 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 accient =1D9?, or re)ealing of iscrepancies in
eCa#ination graes =9B? constit"te other tas7s that ha)e been "se.
TASBS REEUIRIN= LO=ICAL ANAL;SIS
.as7s eliciting responses that are preo#inantly logical in character incl"e the sol"tion of p"GGles
an ga#es =BD, BB?, constr"cting ob9ects =6@?, sening #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 orering of patterns of th"#btac7s accoring 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 enorse#ent of a petition =19?I prohibitions, s"ch as a poster
forbiing entry to a b"iling =A%?I a stoplight reg"lating peestrian 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 "ner
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 stanar
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 slie =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
stanar 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 stanar 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 oor in a bottle of oorless 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 a9"st#ent that occ"rs. .he effect of conteCt or fra#e8or7 in #oifying the
response that esignate sti#"l"s #aterials pro"ce is 8ell 7no8n
-D19-
in sensory an percept"al research. .he analog"e of conteCt or fra#e8or7 is often pro)ie 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)ies an ineC of confor#ity, 8hereas a response consistent 8ith
the sti#"l"s #aterial pro)ies an ineC 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 ineC 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 #ethos 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
responing, 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 #oel for hi# =%, 19, A%, %B, @D, @<, <B, <6, 9A, 9%, 11D, 11B, 11@, 1B>?.
( #oification of the face-to-face sit"ation is the si#"lation of a gro"p thro"gh the "se of tape
recorings =1>, 1<, D>, B1, 61, 6B, 91, 1>B, 1>6, 1>9, 11>?. ( nai)e s"b9ect participates "ner 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 a9oining 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 recorings. .he si#"late sit"ation pro)ies 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 slies 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 recore 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 "nerstans that he #"st
co#plete his p"GGle or tas7 before the gro"p goal is achie)e. 4e#bers are gi)en a stanar portion of
the tas7 at the beginning. .hen they interact by reF"esting necessary pieces fro# one another in orer 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 inirect. .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 ini)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 ineC 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
-DD1-
to the gro"p tas7. .his type of press"re has been applie in st"ies of slo8o8n in pro"ction of c"tting
paper ob9ects =1>9?, in "tiliGing infor#ation on an artillery proble# =1B?, an in sening #essages on
telegraph 7eys =1D?.
E>PERIMENTERCS ANNOUNCEMENT OF =ROUP NORMS
Still another )ersion of in"cing infl"ence consists of ini)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,
accoring 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 ini)i"al #ay be as7e to inicate 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)ies 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 Jisc"ssionJ a#ong
#e#bers is "ncontrolle =D%, A1, A@?. 'ner other conitions 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)ies
an ineC 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 ientifie thro"gh reference to ini)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.
Ini)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-
inices 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 conitions to per#it
eter#ination of the eCtent to 8hich the eCperi#entally efine eCperiences contrib"te to the a9"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 re8are =@6, <@,
9>?, ini)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 regare as a physiologic ineC 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. Stanar #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<?, ;ieler (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?, Iea 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 inepenence training =<>?. +ther #eas"res "se
are chec7lists an ratings proce"res =6, 11, BB, BA, @>?, an clinical
-DDB-
iagnoses =B6, <A, 1D%?. 4eas"res of originality ha)e been constr"cte to eter#ine ini)i"al
ifferences in this i#ension =<?. !ees, s"ch as achie)e#ent =<>, 11%?, epenency =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 ini)i"als, 8hich 8ill
per#it preicting their beha)ior in confor#ity sit"ations. 1epenence on the percept"al fiel has been
#eas"re by the .ilte *oo#, .ilte Chair, an the -#bee ;ig"res .est =<6?. &ersonal epenence 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 a9"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 consiere in relation to the others if acc"rate preiction of
a9"st#ent is to be achie)e. ;or eCa#ple, "ner conitions 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 ini)i"al is characteristically confor#ing, the preiction is that his beha)ior
can be easily infl"ence in the irection of confor#ity. .o "nerstan 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 inices 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
( stanar proce"re is that originally e#ploye by Sherif =1D1?. !"#ero"s trials are a#inistere
"ner gro"p conitions, 8ith progressi)e shifts in responses e)al"ate as a f"nction of ifferences
-DDA-
bet8een 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 regare as confor#ing. !o change or changes in an opposite
irection are regare as inepenent or resistant.
CHAN=E SCORES BET:EEN PRE=ROUP AND POST=ROUP CONDITIONS
( 8iely "se proce"re is that of e)al"ating perfor#ance of a s"b9ect "ner pri)ate conitions an
then "ner press"re conitions =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 "ner pri)ate
conitions =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
conitions constit"ting the ineC. When changes "e to press"re persist in the post-press"re sit"ation, the
ineC is a #eas"re of con)ersion. When the ini)i"al gi)es a confor#ing response in the press"re
sit"ation an ret"rns to his inepenent position in a later testing sit"ation, the shift can be interprete as
te#porary confor#ity. (n interpretation of inepenence or resistance can be #ae 8hen an ini)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 ini)i"al #aintains inepenence 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 "ner pri)ate
conitions are "se to assess the effects of confor#ity piess"res. &erfor#ance of a co#parable gro"p of
s"b9ects teste "ner control conitions has pro)ie stanariGation ata as a basis for 9"ging the
egree of infl"ence eCerte by press"re conitions =B1?.
'ner confor#ity conitions, persons other than the s"b9ect gi)e responses iffering fro# the correct
or preferre one. .he n"#ber of ti#es an ini)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 #ae by the critical s"b9ect =1>, D>,
DB?. *esponses closer to the position represente by the bac7gro"n are interprete as inicating a greater
egree of confor#ity than #ore i)ergent responses. ( #oification of this #etho is establish#ent of a
range of confeerate responses so that if the critical s"b9ect reacts 8ithin that range, he is regare 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 orer of changes. 2ariability has been
si#ilarly #eas"re to eter#ine the eCtent of ecreases in the range of ini)i"al responses =11, DD, 6B,
@%, <1, 11<, 1D1, 1DA?.
ACTION CRITERIA
( stanar #etho consists of preesignating, as e)ience of confor#ity, a specific action that is
ientical 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 ineC of confor#ity =%, 9, 19, D<, B<, A%, %B, @<, <B, 9D, 9B, 11D,
116, 11@?. 'nreainess to yiel "ner other conitions constit"tes an ineC 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 inices of confor#ity or con)ersion.
Sti#"l"s #aterials 8ith certain characteristics ha)e been e#ploye #ost freF"ently. *elati)e
si#plicity an case of #eas"re#ent of
-DD6-
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 a9"st#ent being #ae by
others to the sit"ation. .o approCi#ate #ore closely the life conitions 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 ini)i"al in 9eopary 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 finings is possible.
(#ong siC types of confor#ity inices, the change of scores bet8een pregro"p an postgro"p
conitions has been the #ost 8iely "se #eas"re. .he e)iation fro# correct or #oal responses also
has been a freF"ently "se ineC of change.
F&tors Assoi&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
finings 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 a9"st#ent #ae "ner confor#ity-
pro"cing conitions. (lso incl"e is a s"##ary of st"ies of interaction effects a#ong factors that
increase or ecrease confor#ity beha)ior.
Dierences in Shiting 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 conitions of their presentation. -)al"ation in)ol)es fo"r consierations$ 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 conitions of
presentation, 8hether per#itting 9"g#ents to be #ae 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 #oal report to8ar the erroneo"s responses eCpresse by others 8as
obser)e for attit"e state#ents than for #aterials in)ol)ing 7no8lege 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 "ner social press"re
conitions. 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 )aliity 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
hols that the #ore iffic"lt the #aterials, the #ore easily the ini)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 "ner si#"late conitions. ;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 inicating 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 inicating that an
ini)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 stanar to three )ariable. lines. 1ifferences
bet8een the )ariable lines an the stanar 8ere s#all for one set of trials, an larger for another set.
;e8er errors !ere #ae 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.
,ereaa =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 "ner pri)ate conitions. /olberg 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 "ner pri)ate conitions.
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 inicating 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 inicate 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
ini)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 regaring the
sti#"l"s sit"ation consistently constit"te a fair egree of preicti)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.
-DD9-
Confor#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 conitions 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 conitions to present the sa#e #aterials. .he #aterials for one
8ere present for )is"al eCa#ination at the ti#e the s"b9ect #ae 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 conitions of presentation an s"sceptibility as a f"nction of the
clarity of the tas7 an fo"n that the s"b9ects 8ho "nerstoo the reF"ire#ents confor#e #ore to the
nees of others e)en tho"gh this place the# at a personal isa)antage.
L"chins =<@? in)estigate s"sceptibility "ner conitions 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 confeerate.
.hese st"ies generally agree in confir#ing the preiction 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 enorse#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 #oel, an a
ecrease 8hen the #oel resiste. .hese res"lts 8ere confir#e by *osenba"# =11D? "sing a si#ilar
reF"est to solicit )ol"nteers.
-DB>-
;ree, Chanler, 4o"ton, an ,la7e =A%? assesse the reactions of #ale college st"ents to three
egrees of strength for a sign forbiing entry to a classroo# b"iling. .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 conitions 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 ieology, 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 #oel as 8ell as the con)erse.
Conormity +ehavior and Social Conte"t
Confor#ity press"res #ay be create 8hen a person is confronte 8ith reactions iffering fro# his
o8n. Ini)i"al reactions "ner pri)ate conitions 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
#oifying an ini)i"al:s response.
OPINION AND ATTITUDE E>PRESSIONS
Wheeler an Joran =1D9? in)estigate the effect of 7no8lege of #a9ority )ie8points on changing
opinions. 0no8lege of gro"p opinion "ring the thir a#inistration of an attit"e F"estionnaire
-DB1-
pro"ce freF"ency of shifting in the irection of agree#ent 8ith the #a9ority three ti#es greater than
that in the control conition, 8ith isagree#ent re"ce to approCi#ately one-half of chance eCpectancy.
/oren =%D? e)al"ate shifts in responses fro# an initial ini)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 chilren, responing after one, t8o, or three other s"b9ects eCpresse their foo preferences,
ha a selection rate of <1 per cent for foos 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 inicate that irect 7no8lege 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 "ner the infl"ence of percei)ing )iolations by a #oel in the
eCperi#ental rather than in the control conitions. ;ree, Chanler, 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 enorse#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
-DBD-
see 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 conitions 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 ini)i"ally to ientify 8hich
of t8o cars containe the largest n"#ber of ots. Initially, 6> per cent reporte the correct ans8er. (fter
a preli#inary sho8 of hans, correct 9"g#ents on an ini)i"al basis increase fro# 6> to 6A per cent.
Significance of the ifferences obtaine 8as not e)al"ate, b"t finings are consistent 8ith those of later
in)estigations. Clar7 =D<? has reporte that D> per cent of st"ents percei)e the JoorJ of a bottle of
oorless 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 "ner
gro"p conitions of initially i)ergent responses sho8e the operation of social infl"ence. Schonbar =11<?
"plicate the essential eCperi#ental conitions of Sherif:s st"y an reports si#ilar res"lts.
4atching a stanar 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 tenency 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 recore 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 "ner si#"late conitions pro"ce confor#ity effects
apparently si#ilar in character to those create "ner face-to-face conitions. 4cConnell an ,la7e =91?
ha)e confir#e this fining, as ha)e +l#stea an ,la7e =1>@? for both face-to-face an si#"late gro"p
conitions.
-DBB-
SUMMAR;
.he st"ies 9"st s"##ariGe are in general agree#ent. 0no8lege 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 8ie )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)ience 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 confeerate 8as #ore effecti)e in t8o-
an fi)e-person gro"ps than in three- an fo"r-person gro"ps. Conitions 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 fining isagrees 8ith those 9"st reporte. !o acco#plices
participateI isc"ssion ti#e 8as constant,
-DBA-
th"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
responing to the a"to7inetic tas7 in the presence of one or of t8o other #e#bers. 1egree of "nani#ity
8as not prearrangeI the st"y th"s is not co#parable to those e#ploying controlle responses by others.
/olberg =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 "ner pri)ate conitions. !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 finings.
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 conition, 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 "ner
the conition of ro"tine "nani#ity.
4o"ton, ,la7e, an +l#stea =1>B? ha)e confir#e one aspect of (sch:s fining. 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 3ary: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 Beteen the +orrect Re(ort or the Su'<ectsD 4n 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 ini)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 ini)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 "nergra"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.
/olberg =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?.
'ner one conition of the a"to7inetic sit"ation "se by Whitta7er =1B>?, a confeerate esti#ate that
the istance that light #o)e 8as one inch #ore than the s"b9ect:s largest 9"g#ent. ;or other conitions
the confeerate: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 conitions "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 tening
to infl"ence hi# in an opposite irection.
3ar)ey, 0elley, an Shapiro =%@? in)estigate the relationship bet8een the reaction of an ini)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 reay than the sa#e siGe, Js"ccessf"lJ gro"p to shift
-DB6-
in response to consistently an "nifor#ly i)ergent press"res than to initially agreeing an increasingly
i)ergent press"res.
-)ience 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 preceing? 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)ience of greater infl"ence by a larger
n"#ber. .hree other st"ies fail to confir# this relationship. (ll st"ies agree in fining no f"rther
incre#ents in confor#ity associate 8ith increases in n"#ber of i)ergent reports. C"rrently a)ailable
e)ience 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.
;inings clearly inicate 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 conition, an yo"nger chilren 8ere #ore infl"ence by oler chilren than
the re)erse.
In a st"y by ,erena =11?, the teacher ser)ing as the acco#plice infl"ence yo"nger chilren =se)en
to ten? #ore than oler chilren
-DB@-
=ten to thirteen?, an other chilren as acco#plices significantly infl"ence both age gro"ps, 8ith yo"nger
chilren #ore infl"ence. &ostsession inter)ie8s e#onstrate that gi)ing a correct ans8er contraicte
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 contraictory res"lts for the a"to7inetic effect. In their eCperi#ent, the
orer 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 finings.
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 confeerates. Statistical
significance for ifferences 8as not reporteI 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-thirs of
the trials, one for each siCth, incl"ing a confeerate resse in high stat"s attire 8ho =a? obeye or =b?
)iolate the traffic signalI an a confeerate resse in lo8 stat"s attire 8ho =a? obeye or =b? )iolate the
signal. .he confeerate 8as absent for the re#aining one-thir of the trials. Significantly greater
freF"ency of )iolation occ"rre "ner the infl"ence of a )iolator. (n aitional significant increase in the
freF"ency of )iolations 8as fo"n 8hen the confeerate appeare in high stat"s attire.
4a"sner =96? arrange for the confeerate 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 confeerate 8as
intro"ce as an art irector than as a fello8 st"ent.
Cole =B>? )arie eCpertness of the confeerate 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 confeerate intro"ce as
highly intelligent, the #ean #o)e#ent score of s"b9ects tene to shift a8ay fro# that of the confeerate.
In another st"y, 4a"sner =9@? create s"ccess an fail"re for confeerates participating 8ith
"nergra"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 confeerate 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 "ner t8o conitions$ 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 "nergra"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 ini)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
conitions for high acF"aintance s"b9ects, 8ith lo8 acF"aintance s"b9ects apparently "naffecte by either
press"re conition.
3ar)ey, 0elley, an Shapiro =%@? ha)e reporte a significant shift to8ar lo8er self ratings "ner
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 confeerates 8ere presente as !egro, Je8, an
/entile. Since res"lts are contraictory, 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 i#ension,
heterogeneity is artificially create by eCperi#enters: re#ar7s.
;estinger an .hiba"t =A1? fo"n for isc"ssion of football b"t not 9")enile elinF"ency significantly
greater reainess 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 feeral 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
-DB9-
present 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 chilren by chilren than by a"lts,
an on yo"nger chilren by oler chilren than on oler by yo"nger chilren. 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 fining
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$ conitions
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 ientity than 8hen conitions 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 "ner conitions of anony#ity has been clearly e#onstrateI 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 recoring 8as not reF"ire,
8ith lo8est freF"encies res"lting 8hen the responses 8ere recore, personally signe, an gi)en to the
eCperi#enter.
;isher, *"binstein, an ;ree#an =AB? "se a tachistoscopic presentation for the tas7 of inicating the
n"#ber of ots eCpose on a trial-by-trial basis. .he conitions 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 conitions
-DA>-
eCcept for the last ten trials of the secon, 8hen the confeerate:s 9"g#ents 8ere fi)e stanar
e)iations abo)e the #ean of the stanariGing gro"p$ s"b9ects: responses 8ere significantly higher than
those "ner co##it#ent conitions. ;or the fo"rth conition, #ost infl"ence 8as fo"n on the intertrial
basis 8hen the confeerate:s report 8as one stanar 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 confeerate steaily
increase. .hese res"lts e#onstrate the stabiliGing infl"ence of personal co##it#ent on a 8ithin-
session 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 ini)iaal:s reaction. (n ini)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 leaer an other #e#bers or a#ong the #e#bers the#sel)es. 2ariations in leaership styles
are of t8o ifferent types$ leaer centere )s. gro"p-centere classroo# teaching #ethos 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 inepenence 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 JleaercentereJ classes, i.e., ro"tine lect"re an F"estion-ans8er type
interaction an the others in Jgro"p-centereJ classes 8ith freF"ent interaction a#ong #e#bers.
Ini)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 #ae 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 leaers instr"cte to enco"rage #e#ber participation, an the other half, obser)ers free
-DA1-
to 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 .raing &roble#, gro"ps 8ith leaers 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 &resient 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 leaersI an a final in%ivi%ual
ran"ing. ;inal ini)i"al ran7ings of participatory leaers an follo8ers correlate significantly higher
8ith the gro"p ran7ings. .here also 8as #ore shifting fro# initial to final ran7ings for those 8or7ing
"ner participatory leaers.
3are =%6? replicate the eCperi#ent by &reston an 3eintG =1><?, an reports si#ilar finings.
Inter%e(en%ence a)ong .e)'ers. ,er7o8itG =1D? ha partners sen an ecoe #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 epenency 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 "ner the fail"re conition.
Su))ary. /reater s"sceptibility occ"rs 8hen the leaer:s beha)ior is intene to increase interaction
a#ong #e#bers. .his #ay be beca"se ini)i"al ifferences beco#e #ore e)ient an greater
possibilities eCist for the eCertion of press"re. ;inings also inicate that greater press"re eCists 8hen one
#e#ber recogniGes that another #e#ber is epenent 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
-DAD-
e)ience 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 "ner the high rather than "ner the lo8 cohesion conitions.
;estinger, /erar, 3y#o)itch, 0elley, an *a)en =A>? report si#ilar finings, as oes ,er7o8itG =1B?.
Schchater, -llertson, 4c,rie, an /regory =116? create high an lo8 cohesion a#ong
"nergra"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
"ner each conition, an negati)e infl"ence for the other half. !o effect 8as attrib"table to cohesion
"ner the positi)e in"ction conition. 'ner 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 chilren by /rossner, &olans7y, an Lippitt =%B?, the collaborator 8as frienly 8ith half
the s"b9ects an enco"rage their 8or7ing togetherI 8ith the other half, he acte 8ithra8n an 8or7e
separately. .he critical s"b9ect #ore freF"ently chose the sa#e toy as the frienly collaborator.
/erar =A<? "se instr"ctions to )ary cohesion. 3igh cohesion s"b9ects shifte their opinions to8ar
the gro"p reco##enation significantly #ore than those "ner the lo8 cohesion conition.
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 ineC of pri)ate confor#ity, sho8e the highest egree of p"blic confor#ity.
.hose participating "ner a)erage attraction conitions eChibite the greatest egree of shifting to8ar
the gro"p )ie8, inicating a consistency in pri)ate con)iction an p"blic eCpression. .he fining i#plies
that the person of ineter#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 conitions 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
-DAB-
acceptance 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 "ner
t8o ifferent orientations to the tas7$ a nor)ative conition, co#peting 8ith other gro"ps, an )o%al
conitions, in 8hich they 8ere co#pare as ini)i"als. Confor#ity 8as greater in the nor#ati)e than in
the #oal sit"ation an in the high attraction than in the lo8 attraction sit"ation. 3o8e)er, confor#ity for
the lo8 attraction conition 8as "nifor#ly higher than ha been preicte. .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, #oerate, or lo8 confience eCpresse by
others in the s"b9ects 8or7ing "ner either the set to sol)e the proble# or the set to #aintain gro"p
#e#bership. 'ner gro"p #e#bership orientation, confor#ity increase as other #e#bers, by ballots,
sho8e increase confience 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 ini)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 *niormity
.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 feebac7 8as #ore significant in increasing
inepenence than incorrect feebac7 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 inicating that a secon isc"ssion of the sa#e
iss"e 8o"l follo8 8ith local politicians participating. ( significantly greater change fro# pre- to
postisc"ssion occ"rre for the high press"re conition, b"t only for s"b9ects participating also "ner
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 ini)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 reainess of
ini)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 re8ars 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 Dierential !"perience in Sub-ects
Ini)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.
/olberg =A9? pro)ie all s"b9ects 8ith three egrees of eCperience. .he hypothesis 8as not
confir#e =see abo)e?.
3ar)ey an *"therfor =%<? fo"n that s"b9ects 8ith fe8er pre-
-DA%-
trials sho8e significantly greater reainess 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 ini)i"al, pri)ate eCperiences of s"ccess or fail"re for "nergra"ate psychology
st"ents, 4a"sner =9<? arrange interaction for s"ccess-s"ccess pairs, fail"re-fail"re pairs, an s"ccess-
fail"re pairs. .hose 8ho ha eCperience fail"re sho8e a significantly greater tenency 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 tene 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 conitions, shifts to8ar the confeerate 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 postini)i"al session sho8e that the s"ccessf"l gro"p shifte
a8ay fro# the confeerate: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 #oel 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 #oel obtaining chance scores follo8e hi# significantly less often than J"ns"ccessf"lJ
s"b9ects 9"ging after a s"ccessf"l #oel.
In the st"y by Schroeer 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 yiele 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
-DA6-
pri)ateI t8o to se)en ays later, they 9"ge in pairs. Co#parisons 8ere #ae of ranges an #eians of
9"g#ents for pri)ate an pair sessioiis. .he greater the "ncertainty in"ce "ner pri)ate conitions, the
#ore ini)i"als fl"ct"ate in the ranges an #eians 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 finings
are interprete as inicating 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)ie 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 confeerate 8hose ientical response 8as labele JcorrectJ in
the preli#inary series an JincorrectJ in the secon series. When the confeerate: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 conition.
L"chins an L"chins =9>? )arie the responses of the confeerate 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 confeerate:s
responses to the preli#inary series 8ere congr"ent 8ith those of a control gro"p 9"ging pri)ately.
Rear% Pretraining. In so#e st"ies, inepenence has been re8are, 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 confeerate.
S"b9ects sho8e greater s"sceptibility on a s"bseF"ent test series. ;eebac7 has a stabiliGing effect e)en
8hen the infor#ation is incorrect. Co#parable conitions 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 "ner the t8o press"re conitions.
Scott =1D>? fo"n that college ebaters 8ho 8ere re8are 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 ini)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 rener an ini)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 confeerate 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 confeerate in a later, ifferent tas7. &retraining 8ith
re8ar for incorrect responses also has been sho8n to rener a person #ore s"sceptible.
Dierential Historical !"perience in Sub-ects
1ifferent chilhoo 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 tenencies 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 .(. cars on
an ini)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 inepenence training "ring chilhoo, the
greater the resistance to opinion change. 4ale college st"ents 8ere classifie as either early or late in
inepenence training, accoring to Winterbotto#:s F"estionnaire. /reatest confor#ity occ"rre for
ini)i"als classifie as late in inepenence 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 accoring to 4c/"ire:s IneC 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 tenency 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 finings cannot be easily
interprete as inicating that oler 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 ini)i"ally to
college st"ents, then to one #an an one 8o#an as a co##ittee, an again ini)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 fining by Cole#an, ,la7e, an 4o"ton =B1? =see foregoing?, inicating ifferential s"sceptibility
of #en an 8o#en as a f"nction of the #aterial being 9"ge, #a7es it #anatory that the nat"re of the
tas7 be consiere in f"t"re 8or7.
Age. 1ifferences in s"sceptibility ha)e been relate to age. 1"nc7er =B<? has reporte that chilren
"ner t8o an t8o-thirs 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-
,erena =11? fo"n that chilren 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 chilren ten to thirteen years ol =see
preceing?.
L"chins =<9? "se ten- to thirteen-year-ol chilren 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 chilren.
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
#oerate. S"b9ects then 8ere as7e to 8ait for the re#ainer of the eCperi#ent near a rin7ing fo"ntain
8ith a sign forbiing its "se. 'ner conitions of #oerate thirst, the nai)e s"b9ect 8as significantly
infl"ence by the confeerate 8ho )iolate the sign. !o ifferences 8ere fo"n for the strong thirst
conition.
;o"r- to siC-year-ol 7inergarten chilren 8ere place by 4arinho =9%? in t8o gro"ps, one sho8ing a
preference for one of t8o 7ins of fr"it paste, an the other, 8ith inefinite preferences. 3alf of each
gro"p ser)e as control an half as eCperi#ental s"b9ects. S"sceptibility to a confeerate:s selection 8as
fo"n in both gro"ps, altho"gh preo#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 "nergra"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 holing nationalistic opinions.
3off#an =6A? "se selecte ite#s fro# the ;-scale to ifferentiate st"ents 8ith high an lo8 inner
confor#ity nees. In the press"re sit"ation, /S* reaings 8ere ta7en as each s"b9ect respone orally to
social attit"e ite#s after hearing erroneo"s gro"p nor#s that alternately agree or isagree 8ith
responses s"b9ects ha gi)en siC
-D%>-
8ee7s earlier. 'neCpectely, 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 finings regaring seC are inconcl"si)e, 8ith #inor e)ience that #en #ay be #ore resistant. to
social press"res than 8o#en. ( consistent fining is that yo"nger people are #ore responsi)e to social
press"res than oler ini)i"als. Loss of sleep appears to rener a person #ore s"sceptible. 1efinite foo
preferences rener the ini)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 ascenancys"b#issionI lac7 of ner)o"s tension
an self-confienceI 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 epenence on the percept"al fielI pathologic tenencies 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 ini)i"al ifferences in ascenancy-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 ascenancys"b#ission. 'ner na#e isclos"re conitions 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 preceing?.
,eloff =1>? also "se the A>S Reaction Stu%y. ,oth #ale an fe#ale s"b9ects respone 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 rano# orer
an balance, to the anti-, pro-, an ne"tral attit"es to8ar 8ar state#ents. 3e fo"n a negati)e rela-
-D%1-
tionship for #en only bet8een ascenancy 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 ascenant. ,eloff pro)ies no
basis for interpreting the i)ergent res"lts.
0el#an =@%? classifie s"b9ects on the ascenancy scale fro# the /"ilfor-4artin In)entory of
;actors /(4I!. S"b9ects lo8 in ascenancy, 8ho ha participate "ner the fail"re, a#big"o"s, or
control conitions, 8ere fo"n to be #ore s"sceptible to infl"ences. 'ner the s"ccess conition,
increase s"sceptibility 8as fo"n for those higher in ascenancy.
.he ascenancy scale of the /"ilfor-4artin In)entory of ;actors /(4I! also 8as "se by ,ray =DB?
to classify s"b9ects 8ho later respone to the a"to7inetic tas7. ;or the anti-Se#itic s"bgro"p 9"ging
8ith a Je8ish confeerate, higher ascenancy s"b9ects 8ere #ore s"sceptibleI no relationship 8as fo"n
for the s"bgro"p classifie as not anti-Se#itic 9"ging "ner the sa#e conitions. ;or the s"bgro"p
classifie as not anti-Se#itic 9"ging 8ith a /entile confeerate, high ascenancy correlate significantly
8ith shifting, 8ith no ifference fo"n for the anti-Se#itic s"b9ects "ner the sa#e conitions. Lo8
ascenancy 8as correlate 8ith increase s"sceptibility for the s"bgro"p classifie as not anti-!egro that
9"ge after a !egro confeerate. .hese co#plicate relationships o not fit a syste#atic pattern.
(scenancy-s"b#ission has been #eas"re by teachers: ratings in st"ies by ,erena =11? an
Jenness =@>?. !either inepenences"b#ission nor ascenancy-s"b#ission 8as fo"n to be relate to
s"sceptibility =see abo)e?.
.he e)ience inicates 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 aitional scales
H I, self-confience 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-confience or sho8ing
lac7 of ner)o"s tension ha significantly higher s"ggestibility scores eCcept "ner conitions of prior
s"ccess. ,ray reports the sa#e finings for lac7 of ner)o"s tension. 3o8e)er, 8hen the total sa#ple 8as
s"bi)ie for pre9"ice on the Le)inson-Sanfor Scale of (ttit"e to8ar Je8s or the Li7ert Scale
-D%D-
of (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 preceing?.
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 "ner infl"ence ha significantly
higher #ean scores on the ;-scale, inicating a tenency 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 yieling to others on a t8enty-one ite# test. ;or the sa#e s"b9ects, the correlation bet8een yieling
an staff obser)er ratings of a"thoritarianis# in a psychora#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. 3ary =%A? fo"n no relationship bet8een ;-scale scores an p"blic an pri)ate
confor#ity.
.innesota .ulti(hasic Personality Inventory. /olberg, 3"nt, Cohen an 4eao8 =%>? "se the (sch
line 9"ging proble#s to obtain gro"ps of "nergra"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 hypochonriacal, 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 finings for #en an 8o#en 8ere not interprete.
Cr"tchfiel =BB? "se the /ro"p SF"ares .est to ientify three gro"ps of #ale s"b9ects iffering fro#
one another in egrees of reainess to yiel "ner 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 inepenence an yieling. 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 ientify 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%B-
Intelligence. !either ,erena =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 yieling =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#eiate range of responsi)eness score highest on intelligence
#eas"res, incl"ing the .er#an Concept 4astery .est an the Iea Classification .est in the first st"y
an an "nefine #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 tenency 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
consierably 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 yielers an
inepenents. 'sing the ,arron-Welsh (rt Scale to #eas"re co#pleCity-si#plicity, he fo"n that
inepenents #ae significantly higher co#pleCity scores. Cr"tchfiel =BD? fo"n that those 8ho yiele
in the inter#eiate 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 yieling less. Cr"tchfiel =BD?
fo"n that
-D%A-
st"ents responing to the /ro"p SF"ares .est in the inter#eiate range 8ere rate by instr"ctors as
highest on originality.
,e(en%ence on the Perce(tual 0iel%. Linton =<6? #eas"re epenence on the percept"al fiel by
s"btas7s an a co#posite score on the .ilting *oo#, .ilting Chair, an -#bee ;ig"res tas7s. +ther
#eas"res incl"e the egree of attit"e change after reaing an article contrary to o8n opinion an the
infl"ence of personal attit"es on a syllogis#s test. S"b9ects 8ere i)ie into t8o gro"ps accoring to
the eCtent of change to8ar the 9"g#ents of a #ale confeerate 8ho respone 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 epenence 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 -#bee ;ig"res .est also 8as a#inistere to high an lo8 yielers in a st"y by
*osner =11A?. 6ielers faile to locate the test pattern in the co#pleC fig"res significanitly #ore often
than nonyielers.
+o)(liance ith Re=uests. Wiener, Carpenter, an Carpenter =1BD, 1BB? classifie "nergra"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 reainess 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, birs or bats, in contrast to a preponerance 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
nees or ri)es, as #eas"re by
-D%%-
personality tests, incl"ing affiliation, epenency, appro)al, an achie)e#ent.
In the st"y by Jac"bcGa7 an Walters =69?, chil s"b9ects, half classifie as high-epenent an half
as lo8-epenent, 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 nees tene to confor# 8hen face 8ith
i)ergent nor#s, an sho8e less anCiety 8hen they i so =see abo)e?.
3ary =%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 conition, the high- an #ei"#-nee affiliation gro"ps
8ere #ore confor#ing than the lo8 gro"p. In the partner conition, the #ei"# 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 nees, as #eas"re by a sentence co#pletion for# of .he
Behavior Inter(retation Inventory. Consistent 8ith finings 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 nees an lo8 in
nee for self-appro)al significantly an consistently yiele to the erroneo"s reports by others. !o
ifferences 8ere fo"n for persons scoring high in self-appro)al nees an lo8 in social appro)al nees,
or for those scoring high on both #eas"res. S"alitati)e ata fro# posteCperi#ental inter)ie8s
s"bstantiate the finings.
0rebs =<>? )aliate 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)ie infor#ation that #ight allo8 the ini)i"al to acco"nt for the iscrepancy
bet8een physical an social reality. S"b9ects ientifie 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 "ner the
re"ce conflict sit"ation 8hen prior fail"re by the others pro)ie 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%6-
approach 8ere negati)ely b"t not significantly correlate 8ith confor#ity, 8hereas "ner the re"ce
conflict conition 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 nees, the concl"sions
ra8n can only be regare 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-#ineness, a high egree of personal in)ol)e#ent, e#otional
reacti)ity, an lac7 of social ease or absence of social )irt"esI yielers 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, inepenents
place significantly higher )al"es on creati)ity, close interpersonal relations, an the i#portance of the
ini)i"al as oppose to the gro"p. 6ielers sa8 the#sel)es as practical-#ine, 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 inepenent 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 rigily iealistic ter#sI as parenc., they sa8
the#sel)es as restricting chilren, 8hereas inepenent s"b9ects sa8 the#sel)es as per#issi)e parents.
In another st"y by Cr"tchfiel =BB?, staff ratings on an a9ecti)e chec7 list escribe those s"b9ects
#ost responsi)e to social infl"ence as fl"i, i#p"lsi)e, tense, an ist"rbeI those least responsi)e as
rigi, cal#, con)entional, an practicalI those inter#eiate in responsi)eness as #oerate, 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 tene to o)errate the#sel)esI 8hereas those 8ho 8ere
inter#eiately responsi)e "nerrate 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 inepenence of 9"g#e#t, as 8ell as ifferences bet8een gro"ps in self-perception
base on res"lts fro# a9ecti)e chec7 lists.
-D%@-
*esponses of st"ents to ;ieler:s in)entory of ass"#e si#ilarity =(S? ha)e been "se to characteriGe
s"b9ects: tenencies to8ar acceptance or re9ection of the poor perfor#ance of co-8or7ers, 8ith a high
score inicating tenencies 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 "ner opposition.
Le)ine, Laffal, ,er7o8itG, Line#ann, an 1re)ahl =<A? contraste the )ariability in ini)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. 1iato =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 tenency to #oify 9"g#ents in accorance 8ith gro"p nor#s, 8ith those patients rate as
#oerately regresse sho8ing #ore confor#ity in percept"al 9"g#ents than those rate as #ar7ely
regresse.
Personal +onsistency. ,la7e, 3elson, an 4o"ton =1<? in)estigate the generality iss"e for responses
to )ario"s tas7s "ner si#"late gro"p conitions. /enerality of s"sceptibility 8as e#onstrate by
ini)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 ini)i"als shifting their 9"g#ents on a larger n"#ber of
attit"e ite#s #o)e closer to the contraictory opinions of others than those 8ho shifte less freF"ently.
Cr"tchfiel =BA? fo"n the split-half reliability of ini)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 orer 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 preceing?.
(sch =B? in)estigate intraseries consistency in ini)i"al perfor#ance. ,oth s"b9ects 8ho confor#e
an those 8ho resiste initially tene 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 selfconfience, 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 epenence on the percept"al fiel, an co#ply 8ith reF"ests #ore freF"ently.
Se)eral in)estigations re)eal that confor#ity tenencies 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, Chanler, 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 forbiing entry an =b? confor# to a strongJ sign =see preceing?.
,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 re8are 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, egree of certainty of
9"g#ent, iscrepancy fro# the nor#, an confor#ity =see abo)e?.
-D%9-
Cole =B>? fo"n that s"b9ects shifte aay an toar% the confeerate:s 9"g#ents respecti)ely 8hen
he 8as alternately represente as highly intelligent an as an JeCpertJ =see abo)e?.
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 respone 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,rie, 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 "ner 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 ini)i"al acc"racy 8as stresse, correct feebac7 8as
#ore significant in increasing ine-
-D6>-
penence than incorrect feebac7 in increasing confor#ity =see abo)e?.
.he interaction bet8een egree of confience 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. 'ner gro"p #entbership set, confor#ity increase as confience 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 tene to eli#inate ifferences bet8een responing "ner anony#o"s
conitions an face-to-face conitions =see abo)e?.
;estinger an .hiba"t =A1? an /erar =A@? ha)e reporte si#ilar finings for the relation of
ho#ogeneity a#ong persons co#posing the gro"p an reainess to shift opinions =see abo)e?.
In 3are:s =%%? st"y of shifting relate to gro"p siGe, leaers 8ere classifie as goo, a)erage, or poor
on the basis of .(. responses. 3e fo"n that leaer 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 "ner personal ientity or anony#ity conitions
=see abo)e?.
3ary =%A? fo"n that high an #ei"# affiliation gro"ps 8ere #ore confor#ing in the no-s"pport
conition, an the #ei"# an lo8 gro"ps #ore so in the partner conition =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 confeerate
=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 "ner the re"ce
conflict conition, 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 "ner conitions of high press"res to8ar "nifor#ity =see abo)e?.
( factorial esign 8as "se by 4a"sner an ,loch =1>>? to st"y the aiti)ity of )ariables. (ll
)ariables-prior s"ccess or fail"re, prestige of partrier, an prior cooperati)e eCperience-separately affecte
to a
-D61-
significant 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 ini)i"al in this type of sit"ation is not
preictable. .he a"thors s"ggest that personality #eas"res are neee 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
reainess 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 ini)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-confience or sho8ing lac7 of ner)o"s
tension ha significantly higher s"ggestibility scores for all conitions 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 ascenance an confor#ity for #en,
8ith ascenant #en re#aining #ore inepenent, an a positi)e one for 8o#en, 8ith ascenant 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 Assoi&ted /it" Con,ersion Be"&,ior
Con)ersion #ay be ientifie 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 ini)i"al perfor#ance "ner pri)ate conitionsI neCt, the
-D6D-
shifting of responses "ner press"re conitionsI an at so#e later ti#e the s"b9ect:s beha)ior "ner
pri)ate, post-press"re conitions. Con)ersion is e)ient 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 "nerstaning 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"nre 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 ini)i"als 9"ging by the#sel)es. Initially, ifferent ini)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 ini)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 #ae ini)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 fining that the longer the ini)i"al resists #oifying 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 stanar e)iations a#ong pregro"p, gro"p, an postgro"p 9"g#ent series. *an7 orer coefficients
sho8e significant correlations for the siGes of the stanar e)iations a#ong the three sit"ations.
S"b9ects 8ere ran7e in orer 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 post-
press"re sit"ation-is represente by a ran7 orer correlation of.9D. S"b9ects 8ho sho8e larger shifts in
their #ean 9"g#ents also sho8e a greater tenency to retain the shift o)er the t8enty-eight-ay perio.
-D6B-
*ohrer, ,arron, 3off#an, an S8aner =111?, traine *+.C st"ents "ner alone conitions 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 "ner the interaction
conitions 8as siC inches. Significant consistency 8as obtaine bet8een esti#ates gi)en "ner
interaction conitions an those gi)en "ner pri)ate conitions one year later. Si#ilarities bet8een
perfor#ances after initial training an the pri)ate sit"ation 8ere s#all, inicating that 8hen the ran7
orer 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 inepenently =8itho"t 7no8lege 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-year-
ol chilren. In a pri)ate test sit"ation one year later, the aftereffect of the social infl"ence sit"ations
persiste in all those chilren originally ha)ing inefinite 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, inicating the aoption of ne8 preferences "ner 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 #ae ini)i"al 9"g#ents that 8ere recore
on a se)en-point scale, both before an after isc"ssion in a t8o-person sit"ation 8ith a confeerate. ;or
persons initially interacting "ner high cohesion conitions, ini)i"al 9"g#ents gi)en prior to
isc"ssion 8ith the confeerate 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
"ner the social infl"ence conition than i s"b9ects participating initially "ner lo8 cohesion
conitions. Si#ilar res"lts 8ere fo"n relating egree of initial agree#ent a#ong #e#bers to resistance$
the fining is that the greater the
-D6A-
initial 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.
3ary =%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 "ner isc"ssion conitions, one-thir
"ner lect"re conitions, 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 leaer-centere #ethos an the other three by gro"p-centere #ethos. (fter one #onth,
classes 8ere gi)en hypothetical proble#s concerning either !egroes, cri#inals or chilren, 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. Leaer-centere as contraste 8ith gro"p-centere
classes sho8e #ore con)ergence. .hese finings 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
ini)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
nees ha significantly higher con)ersion scores than those classifie as high in confor#ity nees =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 inefinite 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
fining that the longer one resists altering his position "ner press"re conitions, 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 nees of
s"b9ects, one eCperi#ent s"ggests that those lo8er in inner confor#ity nees #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 leaer-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 ini)i"al. If the goal is to
ai an ini)i"al to resist interrogation press"res, then opposite conitions #"st be create.
Con'or-it# &nd Resist&ne
Tas'
Ini)i"als appear to be #ore s"sceptible to confor#ity press"res 8hen eCpressing social opinions,
ieological 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.
*egarless of the #aterials, increases in s"sceptibility appear 8hen an ini)i"al is "ncertain of his
beliefs, "ninfor#e regaring 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)ience
e#onstrates the 7ey i#portance for confor#ity of inaeF"ate ini)i"al 7no8lege an "nerstaning.
(n i#portant inference is that resistance to confor#ity or to interrogation press"res can be heightene by
ins"ring that an ini)i"al is 8ell infor#e of necessary facts an their i#plications.
Social Situation
.enencies to8ar confor#ity an con)ersion are heightene 8hen an ini)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 ini)i"al to represent his o8n con)ictions. *esistance is #ini#iGe by leaing the ini)i"al
a8ay fro# his o8n position gra"ally by s#all steps.
If the other ini)i"als present are personally acF"ainte 8ith the s"b9ect, an are persons 8ho# he
respects, aitional confor#ity press"res are create. ;"rther#ore, if the ini)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 tens to foster
confor#ity, 8hen the gro"p is le accoring to a per#issi)e gro"pcentere approach, 8hen #e#bers are
epenent 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 conitions in life, it 8o"l be necessary to co#pose gro"ps by caref"l selection to
ins"re frienliness 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 antiote against confor#ity press"res is inti#ate acF"aintance an
thoro"gh "nerstaning of the iss"es in)ol)e. (ltho"gh yet to be e#onstrate eCperi#entally, it also is
probable that an ini)i"al 8o"l be aie in #aintaining inepenence thro"gh "nerstaning of
confor#ity press"res. If not "nerstoo, they can operate JsilentlyJ to rener an ini)i"al "ncertain of
hi#self, reay to follo8 others, an to capit"late to an interrogator.
The Person
( peisonality profile of the 7in of ini)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-confience, 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 ini)i"als 8hose initial response regaring fact"al
#atters or attit"es is inefinite,
-D6@-
)ag"e, an "ncertain. Con)ersion f"rther appears to be #ore co#plete for ini)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 "ner leaer-centere gro"p press"re conitions. 3ere again, it 8o"l see# that
one of the #ost po8erf"l factors eter#ining con)ersion is li#ite "nerstaning 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 ini)i"al re#ains 8ell infor#e an "nerstans his o8n opinions
an attit"es s"fficiently 8ell to eCpress the# clearly.
Future Rese&r" Diretions
( n"#ber of li#iting factors #a7e generaliGations fro# laboratory sit"ations to life iffic"lt.
Laboratory Settings vs& #eal Lie 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 ini)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)ies the eCperi#enter 8ith the opport"nity to control an
#anip"late )ariables "ner realistic operating circ"#stances. +nly then can generaliGations be #ae 8ith
higher probability of acc"racy. C"rrent 7no8lege 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 conitions an the "ration of the eCperi#ent is F"ite high.
Artiicial Tas's vs& Signiicant Issues
4any of the eCperi#ents re)ie8e in this st"y ha)e e#ploye tas7s reF"iring a9"st#ents of
ini)i"als "ner confor#ity or con)ersion conitions that are eCtre#ely artificial. (s a res"lt,
confor#ity or resistance #ay e)elop "ner conitions 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 accoring to e#pirical "nerstaning, int"ition, an Jh"nch.J -Cperi#ents
esigne to test syste#atic an theoretical iss"es are neee. Sherif:s general for#"lations concerning
fra#es of reference =1DB? an 3elson:s aaptation-le)el theory =%9?, applie in analyGing the conitions
of social a9"st#ent, constit"te eCa#ples of theories that ha)e alreay e#onstrate their "sef"lness in
eCperi#ental esigns. S"ch theoretical state#ents can ser)e to bring orer to an other8ise chaotic fiel of
enea)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 a9"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 ini)i"al on 8ho#
press"res are eCerte. -ach possible so"rce of infl"ence nees 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 "nerstaning, it can be state that the interaction of so"rces of infl"ence
is not aiti)e, b"t that tr"e interaction a#ong )ariables occ"rs.
#eplications vs& $)ne5Shot$ Studies
.he literat"re is rile 8ith Jone-shotJ st"ies that #a7e acceptance of concl"sions ten"o"s.
*eplication eCperi#ents are neee to ins"re that concl"sions fro# single st"ies 8ill stan.
Conormity vs& Conversion
+)er 9> per cent of 8or7 in this area has been concerne 8ith confor#ity, yet the conitions "ner
8hich changes in"ce by confor#ity
-D69-
press"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 conitions alreay "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 "nerstaning
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'erenes
1. (sch, S. -. J-ffects of gro"p press"re "pon the #oification an istortion of 9"g#entsJ. In 3. /"etG7o8 =-.?,
Grou(s, lea%ershi( an% )en. &ittsb"rgh$ Carnegie &ress, 19%1.
D. (sch S. -. Social (sychology. !e8 6or7$ &rentice 3all, 19%D.
B. (sch S. -. JSt"ies of inepenence 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 inepenence 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 percei)e "nani#ity as factors in the
effecti)eness of Jgro"p ecision. A)er. Psychologist, 19%D, @, B1%. =(bstract?
1>. ,eloff 3. J.8o for#s of social confor#ity$ (cF"iescence an con)entionalityJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%<, %6, 99-
1>A.
11. ,erena *"th W. J.he infl"ence of the gro"p on the 9"g#ents of chilrenJ. !e8 6or7$ 0ing:s Cro8n &ress, 19%>.
1D. ,er7o8itG L. J-ffects of percei)e epenency relationships "pon confor#ity to gro"p eCpectations.J J. a'nor). soc.
Psychol., 19%@, %%, B%>-B%A.
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)oiance actJ. J. a'nor). soc.
Psychol, 19%6, %B, 1%A-1%6.
16. ,la7e *. *., an ,reh# J. W. J.he "se of tape recoring 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. *anolph (lr ;orce ,ase, .eCas$ '. S. (ir ;orce School of ()iation 4eicine, 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. Southestern 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. *anolph (ir ;orce ,ase, .eCas$ '. S. (ir ;orcc School of ()iation 4eicine, Septe#ber 19%6. &p. A9-
%%.
D1. ,o)ar -. W. Jr., JSocial nor#s an the ini)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 preiction 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 "ner oppositionJ. +ana%. J.
Psychol., 19%%, 9, 1>@-116.
D<. Clar7 3elen. &he cro%. Psychol., .onogr., 1916, D1, D6-B6.
D9. Cohen ,. &. J( probability #oel for confor#ityJ. Socio)etry, 19%<, D1, 69-<1.
B>. Cole 1. L. J.he infl"ence of tas7 perception an leaer )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 ini)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 ini)i"al 9"g#entJ. J.
a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%%, %1, 6D9-6B6.
B6. 1iato 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 conitions 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 #oifications of chilren: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@1-
A1. ;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 #oerate 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##eiate 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 preictors of s"sceptibility to social infl"enceJ. A)er. Psychologist,
19%@, 1D, B6>. =(bstract?
A%. ;ree (., Chanler &. 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. /olberg 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?
%>. /olberg S., 3"nt *. /., Cohen W., an 4eao8 (. 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. /olberg 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. /oren *. 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. 3ary 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 leaershipJ. 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 #ae 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, 61-
6<.
%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 a9"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@D-
6B. as a9"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 psychoyna#ic factors in co#p"lsi)e confor#ityJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%B, A<, B<B-B9B.
66. 3ollaner -. &. JConfor#ity, stat"s an iiosyncrasy creitJ. Psychol. Rev., 19%<, 6%, 11@-1D@.
6@. 3or8itG 4., &iana /abriel 4., /ol#an 1ella 4., an Lee ;. J. J2eriicality 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 epenency beha)iorJ.
A)er. Psychologist, 19%<, 1B, BD<. =(bstract?
@>. Jenness (. J.he role of isc"ssion in changing opinions regaring 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 feebac7 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 #oification of social attit"esJ. A)er. J. Sociol., 19B6, A1, 6A9-6%6.
<>. 0rebs (. 4. J.8o eter#inants of confor#ity, age of inepenence 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 isc"ssion of others on eCpresse attit"esJ. +ana%. J.
Psychol., 19%@, 11, 1%1-1%6.
<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 peestrian )iolation of traffic signalsJ. J. a'nor).
soc. Psychol., 19%%, %1, @>A-@>6.
<A. Le)ine J., Laffal J., ,erho8itG 4., Line#ann J., an 1re)ahl J. JConfor#ing beha)ior of psychiatric an #eical
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 ,. J1epenence on eCternal infl"ence$ Correlates in perception, attit"es, an a9"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
"ner )ario"s social infl"encesJ. J. soc. Psychol., 19%%, AD, DA9-D@>.
91. 4cConnell J. 2., an ,la7e *. *. J( #ethoological st"y of tape-recore synthetic gro"p at#ospheresJ. A)er.
Psychologist, 19%B, <, B9%. =(bstract?
9D. 4c0eachie W. J. JIni)i"al confor#ity to attit"es of classroo# gro"psJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%A, A9, D<D-
D<9.
9B. 4cS"een *. J-Ca#ination eception as a f"nction of resi"al, bac7gro"n, an i##eiate sti#"l"s factorsJ. J. Pers.,
19%@, D%, 6AB-6%>.
9A. 4aier !. *. ;., an Sole# (. *. J.he contrib"tion of a isc"ssion leaer 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 aiti)ity of )ariables affecting social interactionJ. J. a'nor). soc.
Psychol., 19%@, %A, D%>-D%6.
1>1. 4illon .., an Si#7ins L. C. JS"ggestibility of a"thoritarians an eF"alitarians to prestige infl"enceJ. A)er.
Psychologist, 19%@, 1D, A>A. =(bstract?
1>D. 4oeller /., an (ppleG8eig 4. 3. J( #oti)ational factor in confor#ityJ. J. a'nor). soc. Psychol., 19%@, %%, 11A-
1D>.
1>B. 4o"ton Jane S., ,la7e *. *., an +l#stea J. (. J.he relationship bet8een freF"ency of yieling an the isclos"re
of personal ientityJ. J. Pers., 19%6, DA, BB9-BA@.
1>A. 4"nsterberg 3. J,eitr]geG"r eCperi#entellen &sychologieJ. In *"th W. ,erena , &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@A-
1>@. +l#stea J. (., an ,la7e *. *. J.he "se of si#"late gro"ps to pro"ce #oifications in 9"g#entJ. J. Pers., 19%%,
DB, BB%-BA%.
1><. &reston 4. /., an 3eintG *. 0. J-ffects of participatory )s. s"per)isory leaership 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 ini)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 S8aner 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 "ner t8o conitions of conflict in the cogniti)e fielJ. J. a'nor). soc. Pvychol.,
19%@, %%, 1<1-1<@.
116. Schachter S., -llertson !., 4c,rie 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. Schroer 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 ini)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 (-,-` #oelJ. 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 Joran 3. JChange of ini)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 )aliation 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 "ner conitions of inc"bation an )arying gro"p siGeJ. A)er.
Psychologist, 19%<, 1B, B%B. =(bstract?
-D@6-
CHAPTER 7
Countermanipulation
through malingering
4(LC+L4 L. 4-L.5-*
Introdution
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##eiately e)ient. 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 ini)i"al 8ho #asF"eraes 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)aing interrogation. In al#ost all c"lt"res, the #entally ill person cannot be hel
acco"ntable for his actions, is consiere 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 friens, #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 attenant to the 4:!aghten *"les an the 1"rha# ecision #ay lea to a
f"rther confo"ning 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 "nerstaning 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 rener the person #entally inco#petent. (ltho"gh a person #ay #alinger a
paralysis of the ar#s or legs, blinness, 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)aing 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 synro#eI 8hether or not the /anser synro#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)ison =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 orer an clarity to this area by re)ie8ing an
e)al"ating the literat"re, an by atte#pting to fit these finings to constr"cts ta7en fro# the broaer 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)ie 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 consiere, the si#"lation of 8hich #ight lea the interrogator to concl"e
that the so"rce is "nreliable or inco#petent$ psychosis, the /anser synro#e, #ental eficiency, an
a#nesia.
Ado4tion o' & Dee4ti,e Ro$e
.he si#"lation of psychosis or of any #ental aberration #ay be consiere as a conscio"s an
eliberate atte#pt to ta7e a specific social role. (ccoring 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
consiere 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 inirect 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#,
consier hi# not responsible for his actions, pre)ent hi# fro# oing har#, #a7e fe8 if any e#ans on
hi# to be rational, an instit"te therape"tic an rehabilitati)e #eas"res. .he organiGe beha)ior of the
ini)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
epenent on three factors. .he first relates to the aeF"acy an )aliity of his role perception, i.e., ho8
8ell he has percei)e an "nerstoo the organiGe set of actions co#prising that role. .he secon
appears to be relate to a generaliGe s7ill at ta7ing an
-D@9-
enacting 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 aeF"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 "nerstaning #alingering in general, there is as
yet little e#pirical 8or7 8hich 8o"l ai in the preiction 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 ini)i"als play ifferent
roles, an the role playe is partly epenent "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 ini)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 "nerstaning of
others. .he co#pleCity of this "nerstaning i not appear to be a f"nction of self an ieal-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 3aryc7 =@9?, an Sarbin an Jones =<>? ha)e tene to confir# that aeF"ate role perception
an )aliity of role enact#ent are positi)ely relate to a9"st#ent. 3o8e)er, in a st"y by 3elfan =A>?,
schiGophrenics in re#ission 8ere fo"n to be #ore aept at ta7ing the role of a stanar sti#"l"s person
than 8ere either nor#als or chronic schiGophrenics. In aition, 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 contraictory finings concerning the F"estion of
a9"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 consiere #alingering #ay sho8 "p as a gra)e
isorer 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 "ner 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 isorer =DD, %<?. .h"s, regarless of the
proble# of 8ho is best at ta7ing roles, the ist"rbe or the integrate ini)i"al, there are #any 8ho
8o"l hol that the choice of a specific role, that of the psychotic, "s"ally inicates 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 "ner eCtre#e circ"#stances =DD, DB, D9, B>, A1, %<, <<, 91?. (s
4ac1onal =%<? an +ssipo) =69? inicate, 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 #"rer an feigning psychosis than for ha)ing co##itte a #"rer
8itho"t feigning psychosis, if thro"gh si#"lation there #ay be a chance of a)oiing 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 solier 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#ans 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 8iesprea eCc"se, special personality characteristics #ay not
be necessary for selecting this role "ner eCtre#e circ"#stances.
."rner =<%? has sho8n that nonconfor#ing beha)ior is eCc"se by friens 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<1-
gering as antisocial beha)ior =SGasG, <B?, then there is #"ch e)ience to inicate that #any people are
ishonest at one ti#e or another =1%, 1@, B9, %1, %9?. 3artshorne an 4ay =B9?, "sing school chilren 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 fining 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 inication that circ"#stances are infl"ential in eter#ining antisocial beha)ior is the
fining 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)errie en"ring personality traits, at
least as regars an atte#pt at #alingering. .his also see#s to be congr"ent 8ith the fining 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 epenent on the )aliity an aeF"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 "nerstans 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 friens 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 #ae 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 "nerstans little of 8hat is going on aro"n hi#. Li7e #e#bers of other oppresse #inorities, so#e
!egroes ha)e aopte a #as7 of "llness an "na8areness 8hen interacting 8ith the Ca"casian #a9ority
=%?. .he c"lt"ral eter#ination of the ingreients Which are percei)e as co#prising the psychotic
-D<D-
role is also e)ient in the 8or7 of ,eneict =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 ini)i"al hols 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 "nerstans 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 epens to a great eCtent on the si#"lator:s fail"re to "nerstan
aeF"ately the characteristics of the illness he is feigning. .his principle appears central to the inices of
#alingering 8hich are reporte in the literat"re. (ltho"gh the si#"lator #ay ha)e so#e "nerstaning of
psychosis, his "nerstaning is "s"ally spotty. 3e fails to appreciate the "nerlying 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 eCceeingly rare, eCisting #ainly in the fancy of the layan =<?. +ne s"ch sy#pto# is the el"sion of
#isientification, 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 tens to be gra"al, el"sions o not spring "p f"ll-blo8n o)ernightI in si#"late isorers, the
onset is "s"ally fast an el"sions #ay be reaily a)ailable =A@, 69?. .he feigne psychosis often contains
#any contraictory an inconsistent sy#pto#s, rarely eCisting together =<, A@, 69, <@?. .he #alingerer
tens to go to eCtre#es in his portrayal of his sy#pto#s$ he eCaggerates, o)erra#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 chilish, aaistic, 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 contens 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<B-
Jones 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 8ie 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 noneteriorate 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 conitions 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 consiere 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<A-
sleep 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)ience to inicate 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)ience. 3o8e)er, the
cr"e #alingerer 8ill probably not sho8 these changes nor 8ill he #anifest the selfreproachf"l an self-
cone#natory ieas 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.
Conusion
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 heaache, agitation, restlessness, poor concentration,
inso#nia, night#ares, ieas of physical isease s"ch as heart tro"ble, the effort synro#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 repeately presse for the correct ans8er, he #ay gi)e it. 4ost i#portant
8o"l be close obser)ation "ring perios 8hen the patient oes not 7no8 that he is being obser)e.
When alone or 8ith friens, 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)ient. If it
is of a psychotic nat"re, the
-D<%-
patient 8ill probably be 8ithra8n 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"are #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
(sie fro# the li7elihoo that the si#"lator 8ill not realistically an consistently portray the
sy#pto#s of the isorer 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 leas 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)ience of #alingering. 3o8e)er, as Sarbin =@@? inicates, 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 contraictory 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 tene 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 recoring. ,efore the eCa#ination, they felt it necessary to eCplain 8hy their
-D<6-
responses #ight #islea the eCa#iner into thin7ing they 8ere lying. .h"s the proce"re of s"b9ecting a
s"specte #alingerer to a lieetector 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 "nerreact 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)ae the
eCa#ination beca"se he 8as hiing a sy#pto# 8hich 8o"l 7eep hi# o"t of the ar#y if isco)ere. .his
little bit of play acting #ae 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 synro#e originally presente. If the #alingerer oes not
i##eiately 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"tlanish an "n"s"al s"ggestions
#ae 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 inicating that an infallible c"re for the patient:s conition 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 confience in the
physician an his con)iction that the r"g 8ill pro"ce the preicte effect =@A, 9D?. In the #alingerer the
s"ggeste potency of a therepe"tic #ane")er #ay sha7e his confience an lea to his ropping the
sy#pto#. .his 8o"l see# to occ"r beca"se of the si#"lator:s i#perfect "nerstaning 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 inicate 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"ieposts on 8hich to rely.
'ner 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 1iato =D>? inicate that schiGophrenics #ay be less
s"sceptible to social press"res to confor#. .hey #ay therefore be less s"sceptible to s"ggestions #ae by
an inter)ie8er regaring 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 inicate 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
inaeF"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 "neter#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 orering 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 #ae 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 8illy biGarre Wechsler an then a constricte, e)asi)e b"t JgooJ *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 #ae by eCperience .(. interpreters, an 4eltGoff =6B?
reports essentially the sa#e fining 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,
inicating that it is easier to appear ist"rbe than to appear 8ell a9"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 synro#e. In this conition, 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 reaily 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 conition 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 chilish, theatrical, l"icro"s, an 8illy biGarre =<, %<?. 4ac1onal =%<? reports that s"ch a
patient #ay enter a roo# an stan on his hea, 8ear his clothes insie 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 isorer 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)orbeireen,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<9-
gering is a eliberate pose, 8hereas the patient is "na8are of the ri)ing forces 8hich lea hi# into the
/anser synro#e =%B, %<, 6<, <9?. 3istorically it has been consiere a hysterical t8ilight state,
characteriGe by )orbeireen, clo"ing of conscio"sness, eCcite#ent or st"por, an biGarre beha)ior =D6,
A9?. 4ore recently it has been consiere a last itch atte#pt to 8ar off a real psychosis =%A?, a
proro#al sign of psychosis =%B?, or an ac"te epiose s"peri#pose on an act"al psychotic conition =D,
<, 61, <D?. /olen an 4ac1onal =BD? as 8ell as .ynel =<6? see it as occ"pying a position inter#eiate
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 ientity 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#. Inee, the
eCa#ples gi)en of the /anser state are so#eti#es inisting"ishable fro# those gi)en for si#"lation, an
the sa#e inconsistencies 8hich establish a iagnosis of /anser synro#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 aapt 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 inicate =%B?. /olen an 4ac1onal =BD? an .ynel =<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 Deiciency
( cri#inal a8aiting trial or a prisoner abo"t to be interrogate #ight feign feeble#ineness 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 solier s"ggests that he has so#e capacity for training an learning,
an if he is a co##issione or nonco##issione officer, the os 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 iiot.
(l#ost all the st"ies relating to the si#"lation of #ental eficiency ha)e e#ploye stanar
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 +ler 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. /olstein:s fining =BB? 8as essentially
si#ilar. 3o8e)er, #ore recently, &ollacGe7 =@>? as7e college #ales an na)al recr"its to si#"late
feeble#ineness 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#ine gro"p. 3o8e)er, all
-D91-
these a"thors 8o"l agree that si#"late #ental eficiency cannot be ientifie on the basis of total score
alone "nless that total score is eCtre#ely lo8 an there is contraictory infor#ation a)ailable.
3"nt an +ler =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 "nerta7e an ans8er correctly so#e of the iffic"lt proble#s after failing
easier ite#s. .his tenency to pass iffic"lt ite#s after failing easy ones has been reporte by Cro8ley
=1<?, /olstein =BB?, an 3"nt an +ler =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 tene to gi)e foolish, nonsensical ans8ers 8hich often 8ere 8illy
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 tene 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#ineness as a conition 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? inicates 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 inicates 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)ae
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 aapti)eness an reso"rcef"lness sho8n in aily
beha)ior. If the #alingerer chooses to be as lo8 as the iiot 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 "neresti#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.
(ccoring 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 soliers 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##eiately
precee the hea tra"#a an for those 8hich i##eiately follo8e. In #ore eCtre#e cases, other
sy#pto#s 8ill be present, s"ch as st"por, eliri"#, an biGarreness =%D?. I##eiately 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 conition #ay last for
ho"rs or ays, an the patient 8ill re#e#ber only )ery isolate e)ents of that perio. *etrograe
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 retrograe a#nesia in D>>
-D9B-
cases of hea in9"ry an fo"n that in 1<> cases the retrograe a#nesia laste only a fe8 secons 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?. (ccoring to !ielsen =6@? the #alingerer
rarely i#itates aphasia 8hen he co#plains of a#nesia. !or oes he often feign loss of personal ientity,
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.
'ner 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"ning the ti#e of the in9"ry, an if the laboratory an physical finings 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
eCceeingly 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 fins
hi#self fearf"l an anCio"s 8hen he tries to thin7 of the e)ents leaing "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 ientity 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 8ithra8n, he #ay be ra#atic,
arg"#entati)e, an e#aning =%%?. (#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
-D9A-
ne"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 "ner soi"# a#ytal an 8ill
cooperate 8illingly in atte#pts to regain the tra"#atic episoe. .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 soi"# 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 "ner a#ytal co"l not be consiere )ali. (atto =1? note this sa#e tenency to fab"liGe
"ner thiopental narcosis. *elich, *a)itG, an 1ession =@1? as7e their nor#al s"b9ects to 8ithhol an
e#barrassing incient fro# an inter)ie8er "ring a soi"# 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
#ae 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 "ner 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"ning the perio of a#nesia they 8o"l freF"ently
beco#e restless, perspire prof"sely, beco#e tense an rigi, breathe rapily, #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 "ner soi"#
a#ytal. 3o8e)er, accoring 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. (ccoring to 4ac1onal =%@? narcoanalysis #ay 8or7 in e)en another fashion. It
-D9%-
so#eti#es pro)ies 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. Soi"# a#ytal 8ill not lift a#nesia "e
to brain isf"nction, an there is so#e e)ience that it 8ill not restore #e#ories to ac"tely psychotic
ini)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#ane by
his co"ntry or that e#ane 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)iing 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 aopting
#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#ans 8ill be #ae on hi#,
that he 8ill not be hel responsible for his con"ct, an that he 8ill be treate 8ith 7inness 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 consiere 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 epens 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
-D96-
pro"ce the esire effect, an inee, 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 boars, #ental health
co##issions, etc. .he prisoner of 8ar, ho8e)er, #ay be place in the c"stoy of a single interrogator, or
he #ay be #ae to belie)e that it is the interrogator alone 8ho #a7es all the ecisions abo"t his 8ell-
being, 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##eiate
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 aeF"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.
'ner 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 #isleaing 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 eicate to h"#anitarian )al"es. 3e can easily #a7e the prisoner
feel that his life is "ner 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 ineter#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 "nergo a loboto#y. .he
interrogator is especially free to "se these e)ices as threats, 8hereas the ci)ilian psychiatrist #"st
consier #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 "nergoing 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 iea 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 enangere, 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. (lreay #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#aning 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
stanpoint, these inirect approaches 8o"l appear to be preferable to irect confrontation, eCcept "ner
so#e circ"#stances 8here the e)ience 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 isorer, especially in those persons
8ho are borerline psychotics to begin 8ith an 8hose sy#pto#s are eCaggerations of their o8n latent
tenences. (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 isorer #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 isorer 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 8ie range of )ariability a#ong psychotics reF"ires
e)al"ations of a 8ie )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
synro#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
-D99-
that the patient is feigning his conition. 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 )aliity of confessions, since psychotics or borerline psychotics #ay feign #alingering. .he fact that
borerline schiGophrenics #ay try to #alinger co#plicates the #atter an #a7es iagnosis #ore iffic"lt.
(nother co#plicating b"t "neter#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 eicate 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 "nerstoo. +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 ini)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 abanon #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 isorer confers an aitional a)antage on the #alingerer.
#is's o Malingering
In consiering reco##enations 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 isorer 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 #oes 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 isorer res"lting fro# his
si#"lation.
Re'erenes
1. (atto C. &. J+bser)ations on cri#inal patients "ring narcoanalysisJ. A. .. A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 19A9, 6D, <B-9D.
D. (nerson -. W., an 4allinson W. &. J&sychogenic episoes in the co"rse of #a9or psychosesJ. J. )ent. Sci., 19A1, <@,
B<B-B96.
B. (rnol 4aga ,. 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. $ancet, 19%1, D61, B<%-B<6.
%. ,al8in J. Notes of a native son. ,oston$ ,eacon, 19%%.
6. ,eneict *"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%1-
669.
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 graingJ. 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)ison 3. (. J4alingere psychosisJ. Bull. .enninger +lin., 19%>, 1A, 1%@-16B.
-B>1-
D>. 1iato 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@, 1DB-
1BB.
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 "ner )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 psychoiagnostic techniF"eJ. Rorschach Res.
1*ch., 19A1, %, @D-<A.
D6. /anser S. J. 4. J'ber einen eigenartigen hypterischen 1a##erG"stanJ. Arch. f. Psychiat. Nervenh., 1<9@, B>, p. 6BB.
D@. /erson 4. J., an 2ictoroff 2. J-Cperi#ental in)estigation into the )aliity of confessions obtaine "ner soi"#
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. Lonon$ 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. /olen S., an 4ac1onal J. -. J.he /anser stateJ. J. )ent. Sci., 19%%, 1>1, D6@-D<>.
BB. /olstein 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. &hilaelphia$ ,la7iston, 19A%.
B@. /rin7er *. *., an Spiegel J. &. War neurosis. &hilaelphia$ ,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 #eicine 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 +ler 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>D-
A@. Jones (. ,., an Lle8ellyn *. L. J. .alingeringB 4r the si)ulation of %isease. Lonon$ 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. Lonon$ 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 graing errorsJ. J. a((l. Psychol., 19A@, B1, %BB-%B%.
%D. LennoC W. /. J(#nesia, real an feigneJ. A)er. J. Psychiat., 19AB, 99, @BD-@AB.
%B. Le8is (. J&sychological #eicineJ. In ;. W. &rice =-.?, &e*t'oo" of the (ractice of )e%icine. Lonon$ +Cfor 'ni)er.
&ress, 19%>. &p. 1<@9-19@6.
%A. Lieber#an (. (. J.he /anser synro#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##eiate 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. Lonon$ 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 conitions of psychological neeJ. '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.? &hilaelphia$ Sa"ners, 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 ini)i"al intelligence scaleJ. J. clin. Psychol.,
19%D, <, @%-<1.
@1. *elich ;. 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 ;elberg .. 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 /. LinGey =-.?, -an%'oo" of social (sychology. 2ol. I. &heory an% )etho%.
Ca#brige, 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 3aryc7 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 cone#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. .ynel 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 synro#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"bleay, 19A9.
9D. Wolf S. J-ffects of s"ggestion an conitioning 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
(nerson, -. W., D9>, B>1
(nren, 3. -., 1D>, 1B%
(ppleG8eig, 4. 3., D19-DD>, D%6, D@A
(rnol, (. L., 1D6, 1B@
(rnol, 4aga ,., 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%
,al8in, 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@>
,enee7, .heresa, 1>9, 1B%
,eneict, *"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
,erena, *"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@
,ier#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

Ca8allaer, .. 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
Canlan, 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%
Chanler, &. 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>6-
Chappell, 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%
Co8en, &. 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)ison, 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%
1iato, 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@

-8ars, (. S., D<, B>, BB, A6
-8ars, 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
;eern, -., D, 16
;elberg, .. 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
;rielaner, (. (., 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
/iro-;ran7, L., 19D, D1B
/ill, 4. 4., 19%, D>6, D1D-D1B, D<6, B>D
/illespie, *. I., D<1, B>D
/ines, ,. C., 1<6, B1D
/laGer, 3. S., DB, A9
/leser, /. C., 1>%, 1><, 11>, 1B@
/l"ec7, ,., D<1, B>D
/oin, W., D9, AA
/off#an, -., D<6, B>D
/olberg, S. C., D1<-DD>, DDD-DDB, DD% DD6, DD9, DB%-DB6, DA%, D%B, D@D
/olberger, L., D<, A6, 6%-66, @>-@1, @B, @@, <B, <9, 9D
/olen, S., D<9-D9>, B>D
/olia#on, I., 161, 16<
/ol#an, 1ella 4., DD%, DBD, D@B
/olstein, 3., D91-D9D, B>D
/oo, *., D<1, B>D
/ooell, 3elen, B1, BA, B6-B@, A6, %>
/oo#an, *. J., D<, B>, A<
/oono8, JacF"eline, B>, A6
/oren, *. 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
3ary, J. 1., B1, BA, B6-B@, A6, A<-%>
3ary, 0. *., D1<, DDD-DD%, DB%, D%B, D%6, D61, D6%, D@D
3aryc7, 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
3ollaner, -. &., 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
3ye, *. 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>9-
Jaynes, 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
Joran, 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>
0anel, -. 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<
Lanis, 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<
Leier#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<
Liell, 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
Line#ann, -., D<, A<, @6, 9A, 1>< 119, 1B9
Line#ann, J., D19-DD>, DDA-DD%, D%<, D@B
Linsley, 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,rie, 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@
4eao8, (., 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
4enelson, 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@
-B11-
4iller, !. -., 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

+ler, 3. J., D91-D9D, B>D
+ls, 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<
&ri7hoi)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
*elich, ;. 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
*ile, -. -., 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"ners, 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%
Schiler, &., 1@D, 19%, D1A
Schlitter, -., 1D%, 1B9
Sch#it, 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@%
Schroer, 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"na, 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%
Sions, /. ;., 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
-B1B-
Solo#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
Stanbrige, *. 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@%
Strie, -., 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%
S8aner, 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
.ynel, 4., D<9-D9>, B>A
.yler, 1. ,., D<, B>, BB, A<-A9, 111, 1A>

'nerhill, 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
-B1A-
Wells, W. 1., DD>, DDB, DD%, D%B, D@%
Wells, W. *., 1@1, 1@@, 1<>, 1<D, 1<%, 19A, D1%
Went,/. *., 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@%
Wio8son, -. 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
retrograe, 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 JCoe 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<
()oiance, 16B
-B16-
()oiance H ()oiance 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
,linness, D@<
,loo, D1-DA, D9%, see also Circ"latory f"nctions
,oy fl"is, D1-DD
,oy i#age, @A
,oy sche#a, 69
,oy s8ay, 6@-6<
Bogar%us Scale, 6@
,oreo#, @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 synro#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#ies, 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 hyrate, 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
Conitioning, 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>
1ayrea#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
1egraation, D>A
1ehyration, 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, <
1epenence on the percept"al fiel, DDA
1epenency, A, D>6
1epersonaliGation, @A
1epression, 16<, 11>, 1D>-1D1, 1D%, 1B>, 1BD, D<A
psychotic, D<A
1eserpeine, 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<
aintiepressi)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 synro#e, D<%
-go, %B, @6, <@-<<, 116-11@, D>1, D>A
bo"naries, <<
controls, 11B, D>>-D>%, D11
strength, D99
-lectrical brain sti#"lation, 1A
-lectrocariogra#, 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@
;eebac7, 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 Synro#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><
3eaache, 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
3ypochonriasis, <6
3ypoglyce#ia, 11>
3ysteria, 1><, 11A, 1@1, D<%-D<6, D9>, D9B-D9A

I, <@-<<
I%ea +lassification &est, DDB, D%A
Ieation, 1DB
Ientification 8ith the aggressor, D>6
Ieological 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, <@
Iniana 'ni)ersity St"y, 1AB, 1A@-1%9, 16D
Ini)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%
ieological, <, 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>
-B19-
Isolation, 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 )ericts, 1AB

2ent 1G!, D91
0iney, 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>%
4eperiine hyrochlorie, 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
4insGenty, Carinal, 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-<>
coorination, 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
&aralehye, 1DA
&aralysis, D@<
&aranoi beha)ior, A, D6, BD, 11>, D<6
&ar7insonis#, 1D%
&assi)ity, 1@>
&entobarbital, soi"#, 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, epenence 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
&heniylate, 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<
&ipraol, 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 nees, 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
&ropagana, 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@
Seati)es, 11@-119, 1DA-1D6
Self, A
Self-confience, 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
Sie 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, @>
Soi"# a#ytal, 1>6-1><, 11B-11%, 11@ 11<, D>6, D9%
Soi"# benGoate, 116
Soi"# 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, boy, 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%

2aliity, 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 coorination, 61-6B
2ita#ins, DB, 11>
2ol"nteering, effect of on eCperi#ents, 6<, <%
2o#iting, DD, DA
2orbeireen, 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, <
Withra8al synro#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-