Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • C.I.A. - Effects of LSD On Personality PDF

    Uploaded by

    Diletta Anselmi
    20 views15 pages

    Original Title

    C.I.A._Effects Of LSD On Personality.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    20 views15 pages

    C.I.A. - Effects of LSD On Personality PDF

    Uploaded by

    Diletta Anselmi

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 15
    Obtained, seanned, and posted by The Memory Hole www.thememoryhole.org EDGEWOOD ARSENAL TECHNICAL REPORT STUDIES OF THE EFFECT OF PERSONALITY | | EATR A538 ! ON REACTIVITY TO LSD | AD 728449 = Ma by : t | J.A.Klepper, MAJ, MC i * 3.8. Ketchum, LTC, MC i M.A. McColioch, ILT, MSC é K.2. Kyser V.M. Sim, M.D. July 1971 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EDGEWOOD ARSENAL | Research Labo atories { Madical Research Laboratory Edgewood hetero ‘2010 NATIONAL TECHNIK INFORMATION stnvict ©, Edgevood Arsenal ATTN | SHUEARNC(2) Ydnevood Arsenal, Haryland 2 ‘STUDIES OF THE EFFECT OF PERSONALITY ON REACTIVETY 70 LSD Si aear ae gna ae ‘started in 1902 and completed in 1966. Des HAT, HE; Janae 8, Ketchum, MsD,, COly HG] Michael Av Mecel lech, Xeugg'P. kysor; and Van M. Sim, Mode July 1978 EET — Saar T Rare RET A smevter ne. BATR A536 * Task No. 1862706402503 « Approved for public release; distribution ulimit CTT E Prophylaxin and Therapy for Incapacitating Agents NA Pigan (rcorde of SZ Army volumcears given from 1.1 to 2.0 mg/kg of LSD orally betveen nities sane uate studied. Since 1966 00 further studies have been pontoc. Sipe Mule ianeare ae iooahiye ware found vetveen personality (as mecautee ty the Minnesota Teemaate Personality Inventory and Aray General Intelligence Teme) cen performance more tee pminist tation of Ls. Mestscant nafecte at lover donee penn freee oe Comet eteeeg, Manes s0ervetics and outgoing. Senaicivy subjecta were lene intelligent, oe ay egicuss overscont rolled, and denendent. At the higher deve, Plerure was NOE an clear, but personality factors were still Bid Sone ine ee (eae ermmets) scale hed a Mghar cerrelation Stet, orf, than 4. XEYworDs isn mer Personal ity Drug: reset tesey Varul 73 tect EDGEWOOD ARSENAL TECHNICAL KEPORT EATR 4536 STUDIES OF THE EFFECT OF PERSONALITY ON REACTIVITY TO LSD is by 3. A. Klapper, M.D., MAJ, MC 5.8. Ketchum, M.D., COL, MC M, A. McColioch ILT, MSC K.P. Kysor V.M. Sim, M.D. Clinical Medical Sciences Department July 1971 § Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. ‘Task 1B662706AD2503 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EDGEWOOD ARSENAL Research Laboratories Medical Research Laboratory Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland 21010 FOREWORD The work described in. this report was authorized under Task 1B662706AD2503, Prophylaxis and Therapy for Incapacitating Agents. The experimental work was started in 1962 and completed in 196, ‘The volunteers in these tests are enlisted US Army petonnel. These tests are governed by the principles, policies, and rules for medical volunteers as established in AR 70-25. Reproduction of this document in whole or in part is prohibited except with permission of the Commanding Officer, Edgewood Arsenal, ATIN; SMUEA-TSTET, Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland 21010; however, DDC and the National Technical Information Service are authorized to. Teproduce this document for United States Government purposes. DIGEST ‘Case records of 52 Army volunteers given from 1.1 to 2.0 4g/kg of LSD orally between 1962 and 1966 were studied, Since 1966 no further studies have been performed. Significant felationships were found between personality (as measured by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and Army General Intelligence Test) and performance following administra- tion of LSD. Resistant subjects at lower doses were found to be more intelligent, energetic, and ‘outgoing. Sensitive subjects were less intelligent, constricted, more anxious, over-controlled, and dependent, At the higher doses the picture was not as clear, but personality factors were still highly correlated with performance. The Ps (paranoia) scale had z higher correlation with performance than did dose. The K (positive test-taking attitude), Hs Chypochondriasis), and Si (social introversion) scales were positively correlated with performance at lower doses and negatively correlated with performance at higher doses i | { i CONTENTS . Page 1 INTRODUCTION... wang 3) 59 RNS sie c. Uae ae ey Fe pee Oa le ten ve vices HORE Peta le eB etay Mie Me RESULTS hie shee ae ee sy care 8 TV. DISCUSSION... mest wot atta DIE ET PERF 2 SEO oy be peghe ear ee ie ee 3 en ; Be Sivan ands heuer pe ‘STUDIES OF THE EFFECT OF PERSONALITY ON REACTIVITY TO LSD I, INTRODUCTION. The general clinical impression has been that people who have severe reactions to LSD are likely to be borderline or prepsychotic individuals.! This notion is based on the study of the predrug personalities of patients who are examined after = “bad trip.” Experimental support for this clinical impression has been sparse, von Felsinger, Lasagna, ‘and Beecher? found a relationship between the degree of drug reaction and ratings of maladjustment using the Rorschach test and psychologists’ impressions, DiMasr 9 and Rinkel? ‘examined two types of subjects (n = 18). Type “A” were selected because of lov cores on the Si (Gocial introversion), D (depression), and Mas (manifest anxiety) scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI); high scores on the Ma (manic) and Es {ego strength) scales of the ‘MMPI: and athletic interest, Type “B" subjects were selected because of high Si, D, and Mas scores; low Ma and Es scores: aid little athletic interest. The type “A” subjects reported more anxiety than type “B" during the LSD experience at the one dose level studied, whereas the type ““B” subjects reported more thought clarity. Although tests of psychomotor and mental functioning were performed, no results were mentioned. Kometsky and Humphries compared subjective and objective measures of drug sensitivity to four of the MMPI scales when 10 normal ‘subjects were given 50 and 100 ug of LSD. The scores on the Pt (psychasthenia) and D scales were significantiy or almost significantly correlated with subjective and objective measures of drug sensitivity at the SO-yg level. Only the Hs (hypochondriasis) scale correlated significantly with objective measures of drug sensitivity at the 100-ug level, Paul, Langs, and Barr! studied the effects of 100 ug af LSD on story recall in 24 subjects. ‘Three groups were defined prior to drug administration by a tendency to recall correctly, to subtract [rom, or to add to the material, Subjects who recalled the material correctly were judged to be the most resistant to the effects of the drag. These subjects were characterized by the use of repression as 2 defense, and they exhibited obsessive-compulsive personality features. The subjects Who subtracted from the material were judged to have experienced more drug effects than the fecallers. They were characterized by significantly higher intelligence scores and paranoid tendencies. Those subjects who added to the material were judged to be the most sensitive tc the effects of the drug and were described as having schizoid tendencies. ‘The present study is based an case records cf $2 subjects who received low fo. moderate doses of LSD in the US Army Medical Volunteer Program at Edgewood Arsenal ftom 1962 to 1966, Since that time there has been no further testing of LSD in the Program. In contrast to Taandel,. A. Comprehensive Textbook of Paychistry. ed. Freedman and Kaplan. p 249. Wilms & Wilkens, Pattimore, Marytand. 1967. yon Felsinger, J.M, Laagnt, L.,and Beecher, H, K. The Response of Normal Men to Lysergic Acid Derivatives (Dt. ‘and Mono Ethyl Amides) J. Clin, Exp. Prychopath, 17, 414(1956), ‘ADyMascio, A., and Rinkel, M. Specific and Non-Spec'fic Factors in Paychopharmacology, ed, M. Rinkel. FP 130-139. Philosophical Library. New York, New York, 1 263. 4xomewky, C., and Humphries, D. Relationship Between Eifects of a Number e* Centrally Acting Drogs and Personality, Arch, Neurol. rychiat. (78), 325-327 (1987) SPaul, I He Langs, R. J», Bart, H, L. Individual Difference in the Recall of « Drug Experience. J. Nerv. Ment Dis 138(5),409-423 (1968). ‘previously mentioned studies, which report relationships between at most three MMPI scales and Thug cesponse, significant dats are reported on 21 of the 24 MMPI scales investigated. Two objective cognitive measures of performance, in addition to judements of symptoms by the subjects, were trad to measure drug reactivity. Several cases were available at each of four oral dose levels (1.1), TS. 18. and 20 uplkg and 1.5 agikg following 24 hours of sleep deprivation). Significant relationships were found at each level. ‘An examination of the relationship between performance on cognitive tasks and personality as measured by MMPI scales and the GT (Army General Intelligence Test) score shows epevantial agreement with the previous work and adds additional dimensions to personality fectors pearing on drug reactivity. In addition, it was founci that some personality facto that are signif Cantly related to resistance to LSD at lower dose levels are significantly related to semsitiety at higher doses of LSD. Possible explanations for this previously unreported finding are offersd. it, METHOD. “The sabjects were adult male servicemen between she ais of 18 and 29 who were screened to exclude psychiatric and physical abnormality. The stendard cognitive performance (est teed vat the Number Facility Test (NF)S which consists of 18 different sets of 90 addition problems with 2ach set being of approximately equal difficulty. The subject's scare is the number of Problems solved correctly in 3 minutes. All subjects were given 20 practice trials to establish Peeling ‘The baseline was defined 4s the mean of the five highest scores on the practice trials. For Gate analysis the mean of the subject's three lowest scores following drug administration is reported ns apercentage of the baseline score. ‘AM subjects received LSD as free base in a hospital ward setting. Vital sigrs and NF scores were obtained at half-hour intervals for approximately § to 12 hours after drug administration, Sagjects who received 1.5 uglke completed a Symptom Check List (Sx), which vonsist=d of $7 tems that could be rated as 0 (symp.om not experienced). | (mildly experienced), or 2 (modsratciy experienced). Subjects who received 1.1 or 1.8 um/kg were given a Speed of Closure Test (St).* which ent-iled identify ing words embedded among random letters. ‘The MMPI's were administered prior to acceptance into the Proyram. Computerized scoring of this test provided results for the 3 validity scales, the 10 standard scales, and i Experimental scales. Individuals with abnormal profiles generally were excluded. All MMP! scores re reported ag T scores with K (correction). GT scores were obtained from the subjects’ personnel files when available, MM. RESULTS. Figure 1 shows the relationship of performance on the NF test to dose of LSD from |! to 20 ualkg, The correlation coefficient is -0.3 (P= 0.05), It is apparent that there i wide individual variation at each dose (Le,, the NF's range from 7% to 83% at the 1.1 ws/kg dose), The iwtutionship of performance on the NF to the Pa (paranoia) scale of the MMPI (figure 2) for all doses studied has a higher correlation, 0.56 (P = 0.01). Further examination of figure | reveals that the mean NF for the 11 subjects receiving the 1.1 wg/kg dose is nearly the same as that for subjects receiving the |.$ sp/kg dose (44% verus fox), Steilarly, the mean for the subjects at 1.8 ugikg is almost the same as that for the 2.0 wake group (31% versus 34%), ‘Therefore, it was considered justifiable to treat these four dose levels as Fer a{T and 15 ug/kg being defined as low dose and 1.8 and 2.0 ua/kg as high dose), This was done in order to make T test comparisons betweer resis ant and sensitive subjects. Tecan, Land Melfocd, R. Repetitive Prychometric Measures, Paychol, Rept 5, 269-275 (1959). oe n . . {G51 0g sms199 3 Wo aourunOpay “| andy (61760) 57 49 a50q ST 1 521025 JN % € Jo veow = E yy (Sod C's = 2 Sheu ©: or oz of 09 on 08 n= 45 r= .5 (P cerned = ‘ottawa yon =} ‘s00> sree mp aedogied = A Somme: 8 (ep dom) aivo- an |e st 0- p550- | 9i90- z ot piso | qtvo- eo as | 6 you ero | par0- an [ic rl 2L0- 2900 2£00 go | seo an | oF sl vo- ps0 as | 6 conte 200 pso seco | t90-| qavo | qs90 | an | wt rt Sy/mt to | ma) w]e 7 ARH 1098 19 PUNETIOS LAWN fmsI2A soUMWIO}Iag “THONNT|AHIOD GST 1 ae 0.746 Do dominunee sale 0.08, Re = renponsibiiry psa. Pr © prejudice 4p Similar findings sere reported of high Hy (conversion hysteria) scorers by the same authors. Gough! found them to be “clever, enterprising, enthusiastic, imaginative, impatient, thankless, infantile, inhibited, both irresponsible and responsible, and spunky, and were impressed by the high degree of intellective ability.” Low Hy subjects were seen as “constricted, conventional, and controlled.” In our study the K. Hs, and Hy seales are positively related to LSD re.istance at the lower two doses, whereas they appear to be negatively related to drug resistance at the higher doses. (Hy was negatively related, but not at a statistically significant level.) The findings of significant correlation between St (social status), Do (dominance), and Re (responsibility) and drug resistance: at lower doses are consistent with the above. In addition, the negative correlatiow with Cn (control) agrees with the description of low Hy subjects. Of particular interest is the finding of a negative correlation between drug resistance and the Ca (caudality) scale, which was derived to distinguish subjects with organic brain disease. Holden and Itil!? have reported recently that subjects who have undergone frontal lobotomies are extremely sensitive to the perceptual distortions caused by LSD. Other scales that are significantly correlated with drug sensitivity at low doses can be seen as polar opposites of the personalities described as belonging to the drug resistant group; Ke, Dy (dependency), Si (social introversion), A (anxiety), and F (see below). High A scorers have (BeP"feccrbed as lacking in confidence in their abilities, inhibited, and overcontrolied. As expected, high Si scale scorers are more withdrawn and inhibited. (This seale shows the stme Feversal of significance as do K, Hs, and Hy.) The F scale measures unusual or bizarre responses and Tan be seen as a measure of psychopathology. In addition, A, Ca, and Pr scale scores are Significantly correlated with the symptom check list score, A picture emerges of the subject who is resistant to LSD at low doses. He is more intelligent, energetic, and extroverted than the sensitive subject, who it less intelligent, constricted, svercontrolled, more anxious, and dependent. At higher doses, the attributes defined by s high Pa scale score remain related to drug resistance, but those defined by high K, Hs, Hy, and low Si are ‘ither negatively related or not related to drug resistance. If one tooks at K, Hs, and Hy as scales showing a tendency toward the use of repression, an attractive hypothesis is that this defense mechanism is overcome at higher doses, leaving these Miojects more sensitive than those who do not characteristically rely on this defense mechanism. The hy. Inhibited person (as measured by high Si) who admits to some unusual thoughts (as measured by F) and anxiety (as measured by A) is more sensitive at the lower doses, but his Customary styles of defense may give him some relative resistance at the higher doses. The fact that the Pa wale remains related to resistance at higher doses indicates that perhaps other ep mechanisms are still operating toward drug resistance. 13Dahlstrom and Welsh. (Op. cit.),9 168. ‘odd, po 182. 1S Holden. J. .,and It, T. M. Roche Report-Frontiers of Psychiatry. Wol 1, No. 3. 1971. 14 LITERATURE CITED 1. Mandel, A. Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry. ed. Freeman and Kaplan. p 249. Williams & Wilkens, Baltimore, Maryland. 1967. 2. von Felsinger, J. Mu, Lasagna, L., and Beecher, H. K. The Respanse of Normal Men He Lysis ‘acid Derivatives (Di'and Mono Ethyl Amides). J, Clin. Exp. Psychopath. 17, 414 6). 3, DiMascio, A., and Rinkel, M. Specific and Non-Specific Factors in Psychopharma- cology. ed, M. Rinkel. pp. 130-139. Philosophical Library, New York, New York, 1963. 4. Kornetsky, C., and Humphrie., D. Relationship Between Effects of u Number of Centrally Acting Drugs and Personality, Arch. Neurol. Psychist. (78), 325-327(1957). Langs, R.J., and Barr, H. L. Individual Difference in the Recall of & Drug | Dis. 178(5), 409-423 (1964). 6. Monn, Ly and Mefford, R. Repebtive Psychometric Measures. Psychol. Rept. J. 269-275 (1959). 4. Dahlstrom, W. G., and Welsh, G, 8. An MMPI Handbook, p 196. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1960, 8. Anderson, W. The MMPI: Low Pa Scores. 1. Counsel, Psychol. 3, 226-226 (1956). 9, Gough, H. G. Tests of Personality: Questionnaires. A. MMPI. Contributions toward Medical Psychology. ed A. Weider. Ronald Press Company, New York, New York, 1953. 10. Gough, H. G. Basic Readings on the MMPI in Psychology and Medicine. ed Welsh and Dahlstrom, p 205, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1956- 11. Berger, E, M- Relationships Among Acceptance of Self, Acceptance of Others and ‘MMPI Scores. J. Counsel. Psychol. 2, 279-283 (1955). 12, Gough, H. G., McKee, M. G., and Yandell, R. J. Adjective Check List Analyss of Number OF Sceced Paychometric and "Assessment Variables. Officer Education Research * Laboratory Technical Memorandum OERL-TM-55-10. May 1955. 13, Dahlstrom, and Welsh.

    You might also like