MORl DoclD , 18252

. , ..

i
TECHNICAL REPORT
I
)
HYPNOSIS IN INTELLIGENCE
October 1966
CONFIDENTIAL
. .. ­ - -.­ -... _-­-_. . ._--­ -_..: ' " ..• " ..
,.
.. } .
,
· ,
!
I
,
, !
,
· '
,1 .
, ..
,.
· ;
.
,
(
k
)
,
;
,.
-;..
,
, i
i '
MORl DoclD, 18252
HYPNOSIS IN INTELLlG£NCE
Hypnosis is one of the old••t •• for altering
and controlling human beh1vior. A method that has had its
share of mistrus t and professional neglect:. hypnosis in the
past cwenty years bas been the subject of serious inquiry"
and ,u:<t..2.1ned intuest:. During this time, and even before,
professIonal hypnotists have speculated on the posSibilitIes
of using hypnol5U in warfare and in intelligence wo'1'k. They
have that hypnosis could be used to sr:rengthen the
psyc:holoslcal defenses of captives and that It ,COUld be the
=eans ot compliance from otherwise uQcooperatlve
person. . This paper explores some of tbe operational impli ­
c4t1oo. of these proposals.
Hypnotism. w.as once called ' ___'1'1..., .. after Ant:ou
Mesmer. perhaps the most f.mous of alL hypnotists. It w••
also commonly knovft as "the slaapins • • " and until
recl!Iltly, professionals in the field continued to 'retard
hypoosis as a sleep- like condition, a state of coo.cious­
ness somewhere between wakefulness and slumbar. (Pavlov,
for example, maintained thar cortical inhibition, sleep
and hypoosis are essentially the same .) . But hypnosis as
a staCe rcseDbltng sleep is rapidly being discarded in tbe
face Dr overwhelming evidence to contrary.
Well. (29) and oche.rs that all hypnotic:
phenon.ena can be, produced in a state bearing no, -resemblance
CD .le.p. sussestLng that ebe sleep-like aspect. of hypnosis
cay be due sol.ly to Che hypnotist ' s suggeatloa: thac the
.ubjecc will go to sleep. Dass (2) bas sbown rbac the
pacellar reflex, Which disappears in sleep, is hoc
in hypnosis. E!G patterns of hypnotized subjects do not
resecble the patterna of sleepins persona, except when erue
aleep is induced,
There are many theories of hypnosis, but none satis ­
factorily account for the variaty of hypnotic behavior seen
in clinics, laboratories and in places of entertainment .
MORl DoclD: 18252
In 1IItO_1:. modern theori•• of ftIOt:lvae!on 1•• proml - .
nent f_cure. tMt is, • persau enters trance because be
to enter such a. suee. 'Ix_DCa t. cOIIIII:IOnly induced
in sltu.t.ioos where subject i. hJ.ably .ot:lvaced Co
eooparat:. with the hypnotist" either to obain raliel from
suffering, to contribute eo a scientific: study. or (as iP
• stage performance) to become the C:ItDUr of attention.
Almost .U information eurrently avaUable .bout: 'bypnosb
comes from thesR sources, and th!s mu.t ha kept: in .tnd
in any at.te:npt t o apply hypnosis in situ&tionl diff,erent
trOQl, these.
1nducing Trance
In tbe days of and James Braid, trance was
induced. by asking a penon to fix upon soce scall, bright
object__• candle flame or a small pendulum. before
l ong, Braid and other s concluded Chat vas not a
matcer of fixaUoD, rather it was produced by the COlleen­
eT.tion chat accompanied Scill che
explanatioD shifte d onee DK>re . n.a kay ro hypnotic ph.nOllle:n.a
was not eonc:entratl.,... aleer all, but SU!,Is••'C1.on. Toda,.. 1.0
what is ealled the Sta.ndard Met""od. fixation, c:onc...
and sugges tion are cO!:lhined ro ;indue. a traftce s e.te. There
are many variations of the Standard Method, but the
ents are always the the subject focus.s on • tar,et
object and the hypnotist, by word or ••• ture, communieates
a serieS! of "suggestions" to the .subject. The subject need
not even understand the language used by the hypnotist; in
an extreme case some of the mat.erial &y be totally mele­
vant to the induction process. per se. Estabrooks. for
e1l:lllple. once hypnoUzed a man using a phonograph recording
of a Swiu yodeler. He conducUng a. group·"demotlstration"
of hypnoSis by recording and aCCidentally selected the wrong
record. As be"explained it . the man expect.ed to be hyPnotized.
an a.cellent subject, and his imagination did the rest.
A more advanced technique, also bas its variations,
is called wning HyPnosiS. In this lDethod the bypnotht
begins waking suggestions and proceeds to
2
r __
-C:.-.. !U)jtiW

1
,
MORI DoclD, 18252
.1
i
I
,
inereuinaly c:cmplm: O'l\U untU the subjeet is in trance.
Usually the subject i. told to assume a relaxed
and to focus on SOD'!! object. Suggestions about heavy lid.a .
eye closure and the usual to s leep arl! avoided,
One fom of Waking Hypnosis about \.'bieb very little
bas been written is called che Sensorimotor Method. It
appears to be the least structured of any method of trance
induction, a free-form approach vtth the pattern or sugges­
tions depending on cues from the subject. Il. tor example.
che subject is • patient • pbysical complatnt, the
hypnotist mA, use the patient'S description of hll!i symptom$
.as t.he scart.ing point for hypnotic 5UgsUt1.on. The
Sensortmotor Method, attributed to the psychiatrist Harold
d_n.u _eept{onal sldll of the hypnotist, but ie
appears to be; a -.eehod chac could be adapted co aicu.t1ons
outside ehe clinic: or l.bor.tory.
Yhataver the technique, the hypnotise's
objective is alwa,.s t.he se=e: to place t.he subject. in t:he
deepest possible t.Tance, the atate that: i . commOnl y called
socnambulisc. In sQQnaDbulism the subj ect reapands posi­
t ively to a variety of complex auggestioDs. Cataleps,.
and r1&idities, positive. hallucinations (subject sees
person!! or obj ects that are · not there), negative hallucina­
tions (he fails to see persons or obj ects actually present) ..
analgeSia. anesthesia. and a general rule, complete
amnesia tor events in hypnosis--these are the common mani ­
festations of the state known as somnambulism. :
of ella propo·sed uses of hypnosis in IneelllSlmce
work, pereleularly Che defensive applicaelons
J
1uvolv!! post.­
hypnotlc sUlges t:ion. Formerly, posthypnot:lc suggest.ion was
considered a special of hypnosia, but bypno­
tists nov opera ta on the aa.umpt:ion that it ia a cont:inuaeion
of hypnotic behavior .fte r an interval of time between train­
in& and response. The person receives the suggestion in
l
. .. .-.. '

MORI DacID : 18252
CONFlDOOIAI.
t rance and the suggestion takes effect somet tme after the
tra:ru:e is tem1nated. It may be act ivated on a signal or
after a per10d of time. Usually. the hypnotise
induces -=nesla for [:he posthypnotic :su8gest1on by tCUing
the pU"son be ..,111 not: remmber the auggeiStloD wen he

.,
has been used
to help hreak habits or patterns of behavior:
excessive drinkins. Vl:C-8s.ive SlDQking. nail bieing, O'YeTw
eating, and so on . & ••e r _cary eakLnt
..,aa =-d. to change penetla at
(numbered) words by posthypnotic suggestion. Posthypnotic
sugaestion is also a common feature of hypnosis demonstra­
tions. Typically. the subject i. mad. to perform
comic and oildly e:abarrassin& act sOUle Cil2e after be ha.
been dehypnotized.
Exactly ...'hat. is involved in the exeeution of a pi)st­
hypnotic suuestioD 15 nor: well underscood. ProfeSSionally,
accepcable explanation Is thac the posthypnotic
signal tbe Original trance state for the dura­
of the pxescrlbed 1n tbe suggestion. Some
b1Pnocia t . believe chet tbe pexson is anI,
at the moment of the posthypnotic lignal , and though is
fully awake tbexeafter, be cannot prevent the called
for by th. susgestion,
BDw rapidly a posthypnotic IJUssest.i.on "deca,s" bas
been the .ubj ect of soee expe rimentatlon and any ra-ber
of by professionals in the f i .ld, The rans.
of estimates is one l:IOlltlt to five yeus, when the oriSf,nal
sugzestion is not reinfore;ed. Conservat.ivel,., a posth'ypnotic
sUlce5cion is believed to rezain elfective for sevwraL .antha,
and beyond r;hh. for years, if periodically reinforced.
Sen- hypnosis and Autosuggestion
Another Method· of hypnosiS potentially useful in intelli­
gence 1s self-hypnosis, also called autosuggestion. Host
4
n t" ."" H· •• ,. -, .• "' ·ill·
: , : . . , . .
.. .. l
U•
MORl DeclO, 18252
CONfIDENTIAl. ,
"
cfter., · self· hyp.-.od$ 15 brought about by pOAthypnotic sugges ­
cion obt.tined in che usual "hecet'o" hypnotie relationship.
The hypnotise implant s t he suuestloll t hat hereafter the
subject w111 be able to bypnot ize himself on a s ignal that
the hypnotist p"-'Ovides . The hypnotise 15 car eful not to
sUSgeS1: • signal Chat could occur a t random, thus t r iggering
an unwant ed state. He may tell th2 person:
you say ebe \,lOrd. 'yog&' chree times 1n rapid succeSSion, you
Yill enear a deep scate of hypnosis I even deeper t han tbe
one you a'C'e 1.n nov." this type of self- hypnoSis 1s usually
& part of psychocherapy in which hypnOSiS 1s
beina u.ed co .::orrect f'aulty bebavioJ;". The ausgestions are
"progr-=med" for the pectent: and incl...de vanlll:!.ljs about
axcasaive or careless u ae of self-hypnosi s and & 'ignal
or time lie1t for endins eh. When th. patient
improves sufficiently. the posthypnotio aUMestion for
is removed.
Because it requires the help of • hypftOti4t who naver
truly relinquiShes control of his patient. this fOr1:1 of
trlmee induction has been called pseudo or
mediated selt- hypnosb . TTue self- h:nmosis. OT autosuages..
tion, dispenses vith the need for even an absentee hypnotist.
'Ole individual oay Ieart! the techa1.que from a profenienai .
bue beyond tbe 1ntt.1al p'17ogr&:D ot instruction and. guidance,
he is £ree CO hts Own suggeStions and to modify
th.m a. th. need may No other person necessarily
involved in the or .specific use he makes of sel!­
hypnosis.
Autogenic Trainins.
By far. the best known lIIethod of autowgti.tion 1s
autogenic training, developed by the Carman
J .H. Schult:. a.lao coal.l.s 1.1:
"self- relaxation through COt'Icentration"--i. a graduated
series ot Seven mental exercises evolved from
hypnotic procedures. Schultz observed t hat in bypnosis by
standard techniques subject s first feel heaviness in their
limbs, followed by sensations of warmth. In autogenic
5
. .. ,
MORl DoclD : 18252
.. .;"; ..
CONFIDENTIAL
fLtst two exercises, consist of
s1.Oggestions to induce nJU&cle relaxation (heilv!ness) and
vaaorelax.ation the remaining deal
cont:%'ol of reapi:J:ati.on. body function_, and so on. On the
aVl!'ra&e. the ••ven exercise. can be _s terad in two or
three _tha by practicLn&: about five l1linutea at a c1JD.e.
thr1!e times • d.y.
Vb_ther autoluU&stion .!!. hypnoa:[.• i •• matter of .oed
disagreement. Schultz occasionally uses ayeony·
-I
mously with autosuggestion, but he doe. not dwell on the
training. if not actually hypnoais. has the follow·
log attributes of the hypnotic state: extrame relaxation,
ccmstricted awareness and h.eightened SUilestibility. Schulcz
and his followers results essentially the as those
attributed to hypnos1s: relaxation of tenSion, restor.tion
of energ, improved voluntary performance, analgesia. md so
on. Sportsmen, writers, opera Gingers, pianists and others
whose profe•• .ctivities reqUire a hIgh order of
specialized performance are said to have benefited from
aut:oSenie; training. Pert"ormance improves. apparently., ,mile
becoming 1••• s trenuous and exhauaCins.
Autolenic tr" ining emphaaizes "pa••ive concentration,"
that is , the immediate is co improve the functioning of
all bodily without for specific or
the of performance in .a area or : in a
specific way. Aftar reachil\& a seat. of -"relu:ed rec. ptiv-e _
ness" the subjec t suue.tions r elated to hu
own requirements. WIth :this preparation individuals
been knOW to cope ,ntb extreme and unexpected : p.ain in .•
matter of seconds, The first suggestions are at allay.
ing the arur.lety that acccmpanles the sens.tion of paln.
When the suggestion takes effect, the individual knows the
pain is still chere, but it no longer matters. Within ,a
minute, the sensation of pain is gone.
recent years , autosugges tion as a Means of indueins
bypno5is _s largely unknown in this councry. Though DaJch
has been written about it , particularly in Cerman, che pro­
fessional litereture in EIlglish even yet contain5 liCtle
more than passing refer ence to the technique. In
MORI DocID, 18252
"
.. "
CONflDfidlAI.
"0;.....
WOlfS.os Luche, one of d1$ciples, published an
English lansuage version of training (24).
SiDee then.. tbe a:ecbod haa been scudied ••;-10",. l y in chis
country by such audlorlties on hypnosis _ .J. G. Wa.tkJ,n..
V. I. Filw aod W. Wilcox . Their work thus far SU"Ub
that ex.tended trainil13 t:l.::ae o;:..n b. dXn;"cened by
eliminating of the exerei... by inten.ive
training. In one case an individual int ent on overeOlldng
fear of svimmtnt in deep water reached the .tate of relaxed
r eceptiveness after only four days of training.

Some people enter hypnosls --or a state of hypersug­
&esdbility--eu!ly, and othen do not. An eJCPerienced
subject can sometimes be put under by a mere word or gas­
CUre, while othan cannot be hypnothed even tbougli they
consciou.ly try to cooperate with t he hypnotist. Opera­
tionally, it would be useful to know, both for reasons of
detense and offcu3ive applications of bypno.is.
who hTPnoaia apd who 1, not. The
sioa.l licer' CUre aD the .ubjecc is eopiou., but not very
e:nlipt.enins. A. v&X'ie;ty of phy.ical and p.ycholosicel _e­
sure s have be en use d in the attempt to IdeneLfy, by one
approach or another. the . tlgood" hypnos is The
sway t es t, tbe buekat teat, ZAT, RDraehach, incelli&eoce
tests, personality ari·d so on- - all have bee
tried, with &enerally .indifferent r esults. Deckert and
West (1), in trying to make scientific sense. out of the
accumulated informacion on the 8ubject, found that :the
r esults of were often. contradict ory, extrmely
tentative and largely meaningless. .One for
example, showed no relationship between hypnotic suscepti­
bility and five per$onality tr... lt., but did I.'eveal a signi ­
ficant relatior.ship between 5UBceptlbl11cy and t he social
class rating of the occupation of the subject's father,
Atter r eviewing some 200 sources on or closely ret. cad
to the subject of Deckert and eon­
eoncluded tlat no one has demonstrated a sls.niticant or
.,.
MORI DocID: 18252
CONfJDEflTIAI.
: ..
predictable relatl.e.nshlp betveen susceptibility co hYFJlOSis
and age, psycbiatric dlasnos1s, personallcy factors or
any other: _aSUJ:'e ot human makeup. In the end they were
to agree with hypnot:lsl:$ Who .say that. only way
to dacQrRine .. person
l
• susceptibility 1. to cry to hypnotLze
him.
Eveft 110, there are "gooci
ll
and thar. are r ••i..eaat hyp­
noeic subjects. The f ••ling persists that: there ia ..
eluaive quality or combination of aualitiea that distinguishes
the susceptible perSon. The ",oed' hypnosis subject boco=es
progressively ClOre involved in the suggestion situation,
participates oore and more comple tely in it, and eventually
becomes in it. Stage hypnotists in particular.
are credited a certain pragmatic or intuitive under­
scand1ng helps select the susceptible person. The
sc1entist-hypnotiSt also seems to have ways ot sizing up his
SUbjects , Glasner (9) tells of Dr. Milton
subjeccs for II. demonstration of hypnOSiS , "He was watching
the people cnc.rIns the hall and comcenting on whether he
choushe they WDuld be good sQbjeccs for the
JUdg1ng by chrir stance, poseure, walk, and so forCh. And
uhen h. aceoally gave the demonstration, h. A point of
calling cert.in individuals· whOlila he had p1cked ah.ad ot: time,"
).moDS _thods det.enlli.ning sug,gest1b1.11.ty. SOIII;eI
Sllceess has been elaLaed fGr the .h .at illusion r:s. t . The
subject holds a heating element in his (or it ..y b.
attached to hiS foreha.d) and i. than asked to rotate a
calibrat.l!;d dial until he just barely exPerience. heat 6::0IIII
the eontact.. In a seeond h. rep.ats the procedUra". but
unlcno..-n to th6 subject, the device :I.s nov disconnected. : As
he approaches the critical settin&. the eXpertmenter catls
attention to the dial reading. If the subject aaain chims
to feel heat, he is said to be suggestible and possibly, a
good ca ndidate t.or hypnoSiS, .
There are many estimates concerning the percentage of
the &eneral population that c..n be hypnot1.z.d. Claims varJ
between c.onfident ••••rc1ons ch.ae anyone can be hypnotized,
to eon••rv.Civc on the order of 25 to 40 per CEnt.
·8·
MORl DoclD, 18252
CONfIDENIIAt
... -
Wolberg (32) believes that PQrhaps 80 per of the people
can be hypnot ized but not more than 10 to 20 per eent will
reach deep trance. This accord, estimate by Fisher
(12) J who in a report on the potential uses "f hypnosis in
intelligence. says that a hypnotist usini the technique
most suitable t,o the situation can expect a batting average
of one out ot five cases of somcambulismi With actively
suspicious subjects, he adds, the aver2ge may
well be
Hypno. is as an Operational Aid
The possibility chat hypnosis has been used and even
now is being used by opposition forces 1s quite real. There
are 4 DE that hypnosis could be extre=ely valu­
able, particularly in extracting information and cooperation
from an otherwise source. But what thec­
retic.ally possiblR by the ext ension of eli.nieal aad l a boratoq
experiences wi t h hypnosis be applied practically in
intelligence ectivities only if certain very technical
obs tacles are Hypnotizing t he source, with or
without his awareness , is the funda.'llenc.a1 and overriding
problem. In a hostile setting, trance woula have to be
in a suspicious, even fearful, subject who has no
to trust the motives of the hypnotist.
The Sub1ect Unaware
Hypr.osis r eportedly been the
subject ' s awareness in three situations-.- inl sleep. in .
pa t.ients undersolng; p'sychiatri c consu!tat1.0D, and spon­
taneously in persons observtng another subj.ct. beinS
hypnotized. .
!be older i. wi th • • to
somnambulis tic. hypnosis induc.ed by .giving '-ugi-estions 1:.0
sleeping subject·s in a low but insistent voice . No c a s e
records are cited to support these sta tements, however;
and they appear. like others in hypnosis literature ,
to have been carried from one textbook ' to
-9­
MORI DocID, 18252
.cotmJlLilJiAL
..­
wicbout eritieat evaluation. In a study by Barber (1)
con.idarabla similarity was found beeween com­
pliance vith aUIa_ctlon. ,iven during sleep and their
ructions to ordinary hypnotic teelmiques. Since Sarber
asked them for permis'ion to enter eheir rooms at nishc
and talk to them in their sleep, hovever, it is reasonable
CO 455trJ.e that IlOst if not all of thRlll pereeivc"d tba!: trance
1nd.uction was his purpose. Th.ey cannot, therefore,
rega4ded 4S truly naive sleeping subject.. C.. experi _
mentation by Orne failed to deo;mst'tate that it is pouible
..
,
to hypnoeiz.e naive ,leepers. The sample consisted of only
four SUbjects, three of whom aWakened to ask belllaereotly
what wa, going on. The fourth just continued to Sleep.
11: is freql.lently pos stble tor 8 therapist to perform
hnno.1. ..1th che pat-ient: unawiJ.'l'e. AdvtSint the patient
Co suggas cins chat he vould ba more comfortable
wit.h hi_ ayas clo.ad, .nd 50 00, the practitioner may
induce .. deep leve l of in ·. r e latively period
oE cime w:i.tbouc ever using the Even though
the s ubjeet has not axplicicly coosent.ed to be hypnociza4.
the relationship to the hypnotist. hera .. IIIOlO of r e pucatioCl
and prestige , is one of trust and confidance. and the aub_
ject cooperates with every expeebt.ion of being halpad.
Obsl!rVers of hypnotic demonstrarions may
trance. A psychotherapy patient vent into tranee
while watching her therapist demonstrate hypnosis on
v1sion. This spontaneous ;bypnosis occurred in spite of the
tact: th4t the was .in the cotapany of friends and the
occurrence vas it. source of embarrassClent to her . But her;e
aSa:i.n v& are dealing with a subject in sympathy with the
hypnotist 1oIbo feels quite ·safe in the situation. Clinica"lly,
it h•• been observed that perSOnS with ne&ative attitudes
about hypnosis are not suseeptible to spontaneous tranee.
-10­
MORl DoclD: 18252
,
t
The Resistant Sub1ect
I n experiment s by Yells (30) Brenman (6). and llatkins
(2:5) J subjects tried to pr event t rance induction but were
unabl e to fight ie off, In each ease. the subject was in.
structed to resist hypnosis, but always in the context of
participating in an exper1Jllenc. to test: this iSsue . In all
th:J:'ee the subject had had previous tl:ance
exper1ences W1th the hypnotist and it Is therefore reasonable
to assume chat a positive r elationship existed between sub­
ject and hypnotist, Although it see:ns that a person cannot
resist hypnosis--at lease experimentally a positive
relati o nship axi.5tS--q.,ere Is some question whether behavior
in these eXperiments was the result of hypnOSiS, per se, or
whether it was the result of what: Om.. has called "the de:zl.ilnd
cn.racteristies of the experimenta l sit=uat::l.on. ,. It is clear
that at so:e level any cooperative swbject wishes an experi­
-cent to "work out," that is, he wishes to help fulfill the
QXPectations. If he the purpose of
the experiment or the bias of the experimenter. he is dis.
posed to respond in a way that will confirm the experimenter's
hypothesis . As Orne (20) has demonstrated. this is particue
larly true in a hypnotic relationship. He found that he
c;ou1d virtually predict the behavior of his subje'cts by
in advance to communicate, conSCiously but subtly.
whether or not he expecced chem to comply l!I'ith hi:s instruc·
tions. '
The wany apparent cases of hypnosis wichout the person' s
awareness or consent all seen to have depended a positive ­
r el. tiooship beCWeen subject aud hypuotist . The most favor­
able situati.cn i. one in which the subject expect :' to bsnefit
from his' association with the hypnotist and trusts in the
hypnotist and his ability to help. This situation i s not
likely to eust in an unfriendly setting. The pOli sibU.ity
of u.sing hypnosis would therefore se_ to depend upon
success in t.he. slO1<1 process of nurturing a poaitive r.la­
tionship. or of resorting to specialized indirect techniques
of trance induction that are not. presently known to exist..
- 11­
MORI DocID, 18252
As 100& as an iDdividual can rema1.a suspicious ud on guard,
he probably could prc\'ent hypnosis by simply his
attention from the hypnotise's activiti.s.
Control of Behavior in Trmc:e
There are cases on r eeord, particularly amone the
German· speaklng people. claiming hypnotically induced
behavior, mostly sex offenaes . Frequently. the
c:harses were brought not by the vlr::t1lll. but by relatives
of the vict1m. Since 'IDOst of these cases occurred before
the cum of the century. there 1s no longer any possibility
of evaluattnlj them scientifically. W1thin recent years.
how.var, three cases in which hypnosis 1s said
to t..va pla,.. d .. role in. cr1m.1.nal beh&vlo'C have been
repo'ClI:ed. Theile tlu-ea cases have a callElQn al_ent; in
each a dis••citlfied paraon found grac:lflcar::ion throush
the individual who later becam. hi_ • • ducins hypnocis e.
It will be sufficient to exaadne one of chem.
In the ease reported by Kroener (18) , • YDUnS and
sen$itive male sehoolteacher came under the
hypnotic influence of a neighbor . aeginnina neighborly
hospitality, the neighbor built up the relationship to the
point where he was able, by hypnotic SUI&est1oD, to get the
schoolteacher to give _or lll!nd him SlIl411 sums of money, and
&oods. As a test or bis power he then implanted the ?ost­
hypnotic suggestion that the _schoolteacher would shoOt
himself in the lefe hand. nie schoo!:eacher did
shoot h1=5elf in ehe left elbow and vas convinced th« shoot­
ing waa an accident, Finally, Lbe hypnotist caused
victinl co confess to crimes that he himself bad comm11:ted.
Throughout the affair. l ••ting five years, the
had no r ecollection of the hypnotic: se5'sions. Ue wa.. c:on­
vic:ced on the basis of hi. posthypnotically induced c'onfes­
.ion, but through a chance remark basan to suspect tb:.
nacura of his relationship with his neighbor. After
appeala, he was recommended examination by Kroen. r, who
eventually uncovQrQd the tnJe cour s. of evants by rahyp_
nothing him. and causillg him to rl!lllelllber the hypnotic experi ­
ences with his nl!i&hbor .
- 12­
I
MORl DoclD, 18252
!
CONA.!),.

,
"
It 1:1 evident that a case like this offers little
encouragement. for the extraction of sensitive material
or gaining behavioral compliance under hostile conditions .
. Ion int:enn CIOt-ional relationship with the sour ce finding
STatUteanon in obeying wha t ever r.:quests are ude of him
ia at b••t a remote POS51bl11t7 operationally.
Hoa t of eke work on thi. problem has
foeused on tbe more spectfic of whe t her & person
in hypnosis can b. induced to some antisocial or
self- dastructive act; . Here. asain, the axpert.ental evidence
is highly eontradic:toTy. Young (35). for e-.a:rtple, reports
that subjects resist specific hypnotic 'uasestion' if they
have decided to do .0 in adv.nce, while Wella (30) reports
we none of his subjects were able eo r ed.st a prean-aJ'I&ed
unaccept able or indeed any other.
By posthypnotic suggestion, Wells eauaed a subjec.t to
seed a dollar bill fro:n the hypnotisc's coac. The subject
was unaware of his action and vigorously denied he had
.colen che money. Wells argues that fai lure to compel Sudh
aces does noc disprove the possibility of doing iC; whereas
@ven on. success <Jemonstrates thae it can be done. Schneck
and Watkins produced behavior through l'Iypnos1s ordi­
narily wou1d be regarded a. (23)
i nadverte ntly "caused II soldier co desert h1s dlJ;ty "In orde-r
to carry out: • sus,sea cion fO"l: posthypnotlc. actlon, Watkins
( 26) induced II s oldier to arr!ke II superlor officer by
suggestlna Chat : the office r was a Japanese sol"dier, and he
obtaine d from II hypnotized WAC Lnformatlon cla*.1fled
Sec-ret chat she bad previously told she would not
reveal_
, ,
two studies are frequently cited a. evidence chat
hypaosls can be used to provoke behavior that is haroful
t o otbers or to the person Rowland (22) asked
two deeply hypnotized subjects to pick up a large. active
diamondback n :tclesnake . He told them the snake was a
MORl DoclD, 18252
I
· •

coil of rope. One compUed immediately. but was
prevented trom handling the snake by a pane of invisible
Slass. The other subject eame out of bypnosis and refused
to' continue the the next two subjects
to srab the snake even they were told what it was,
two subject 3 who were told to throw sulfuric
aeid at a laboracory as,istant (protected by invisible
complied with hypaotlst" ay way ot contrOl,
a.o..,land asked 42 persons to ctmle to the laborato'tY and pick
up tbe snake . With only one exception, all were frisbeened
a.nd refused to come near the box.
Young (35) 1:eplicat.ed ltowlarui's srudy, _liking .ishc
deeply hypnotized subjects to out aLailaT t.ak•.
Seven out of eight subjects entered into that
unhypnot!zed subjects sbrank from, that 1s, they attempted
to h.endle snakes and huTled acid under conditiOIl. &0lIl wieh
tbey theoselves recoiled in the waking state.
Most of thl! claims that people under hypnosis can ' De
compl!lled to commit antisocial, repugnant or 4an&erous acts
are based on this evidence. !hese cases are commonly Cited
in the press a-nd "in mag.u.;ine articles, in books on hypoosis
and in psychology eexts, when they aTe concerned with hypootic
behavior .
While the results of these scud1e. appear convincing,
t.hey have been profeSSionally by such hypnotises

of note as the psychiatrist M. T. Orne. lbe first objection
1. that. che s ltuacLons .re experimental, and hanea
t ha t. is, the acta are not truly tmd.soctal or de.eruci::lve
in the real life meanine of these The subjeccs :know
that the experimenters .re responsibla profeasion.l peopl e,
that they will not be asked to out taak. t.hat have no
meaning, and that DO matter what the request be, they
will not suffer harg. either physical or social . Thi. :applie,
to the "real life" experiments of Schneck and Watkins as 1!IUch
as it does to the laboratory studies of lowland and Young.
MORl DoclD, 18252
Since Schneck and Watkins were Army officers. the
offenses committed could not possibly result 1n any serious
d3mage. AC some level, the Subjects must have been
of this, This SaJU reasoning applies in e:xper1ltents re­
qu1riag a person to s t eal, acid, or pick up a
POi5ODOUS snake . The Simple fact 1s, tbe experimental
& broad Tange of behavior that
otherwL,e b e considerod
(20) replicated the studies of Rowland and Young.
using hypnotized subjects, subjects who faked hypnosis,
and awake control subjects. To that both hypnotized
subjects and simulators received the salDe craabllent: ..,d tlte
same cues, these t;raups were :run "blind," that: 1.., the
hypnotist in charg_ did not know who ", •• hypnotized and
who was £akin& hypnosh. Both complied with the
commands of the hypnotist.
Orne carried his experiment a step further . Both
Rowland and Young put strong pressure on their hypnotized
subjects to with the requegted antisocial aets,
but did not exert similar pressure on either the control
or the hypnotized subjects when they were asked
to perform the same acts in the W'aklng state. When Orne
puc bis group of wakln& cont'l"Ol subjects under p:ressure
to couqoly, they, too, performed the antisocial acts .
,
A. an conc::ol group. faculty 'IIl_bers were
called in and treated as Rowland had treated hi& controls .
The faculty taembers invariably refused to carry Out: even
tha least objectio04ble of the i:a.k.. For the h"ypnotized
subj e cts, the simu1ator., and the awake control subjects,
the requests ·wera reasonable and legitimate within the
context of a scientific For the
who were not involved in th"e experilllent and who had a
different relationship with the experimenter, the requests
were un=eas0D3ble. "
"Weitzenhoffer (27), in an evaluation of experimental
evidence on this subject, cites s:Lx. hypnotists of repute
- 15­
MORI DocID, IB25?
who claim that antisocial behavior can be induced
hypnosis, and six others. equally ri!putabh. who sa, it.
cannot. He found that success or to induce harmful
behavior In the various studies see:::ed to depend upon whether
thl! subject. bad bee.n led to misperceive the situaciem. In
Short, a persoo who is told the rattlesnake is only a rop\!!;
is likely t.o try to pick it up; if be is told it it a
anake, be won't. Or, to take an operational example,
.. source might divulge against his own best
interests if he Is tricked into believing that the int erra­
saCor 1:5 hIs case officer . Weltzenhotter says that it: is
unlikely .. hypnotlzeC subject can be compelled to
ecmm.1t aces hal:'!'ltul to himself or others by any intrinSic
but it appears
hi. awareness
i n varL<nls _ya. ae th&c as O'no." work 0)
de:aroMcrate t ha t IIlisperceptlon ha. 00 sl5Diric:&nc:e as long
as the legr•• of control hypnosis C:&D b. shown to
exceed the socia l and behavioral &hat already exist.
in the The with or
deception, hac yet to be t e. tad under condition.
where genuine harm could result.
In experiments not concerned with or self­
destructive subjects have at times demonsrrated
considerable independence . S'eck (3) says that hypnotic
SUbjects part:icip.ate and discrtminate selectively to the
point of trickery that most subjects show a high degree
of volition in carrying out s uggestions. Pattie (21), whose
expe riments uniocular blindness induced through
hypnosis, was fooled for months by a Subjec:t who easily and
regularly achieved the deep trance known as
"1 had che D&1v a ida. that subjects under hypnosis carry
CUI: all insCnlctions &i.ven unless the 1.nstructions are con­
ersry to their pri.nclplea or veIl-established tenden­
cies. 1 tbou&ht that, since heightened suggestibility i s
characteristic of h.ypnosi.s, t:h. subject: would be
highly suggestible and t herefore perfectly obedient
In other words ...he (the subjact) lied and stuck to it."
- 16­
,.
-- . -- _I' --1.
- ..... '-' "l
...
MORT OecIO, 18252
!'JIlJf:lDOOIAl,
"'::".1 . . _ :. I
of Recall 1n HypooSiS
A Feat deal has been written, e$pec1ally in Che press.
about the p-.:fece and unfailing accuracy of recall
db91.,.ed in hypnOSis. Statements have f"requently been
made about 4 person ' s abilicy to anyt hing thae
Mppened to hi::! even as and according to scme J
even prior to birth. People who left: their country ot
birth at: an early aS8 and we!:'. x:_rad in enoch.'!: country
oft en can speak, read and write the naeive tongue under
hypnosis, although t hey have Ions .,0 "for&otten" it in
the normal waking state.
Much of the experimental work in chi& ar•• has con­
cerned the recall of r emote memories, and hYPnotic age­
regression is the nechanism most frequently u••d. The
subject 1s "taken back" to, say. the aee of sLx. He
baslns co act, talk, and Co some extent, think in the
ID4nner ot a 3ix-yeapold. He hallucinates the appropdat ,e
envi:ronment and sives details about people sitting next to
hila I n .c:hool, his teacher's n.aa::e, the color ot the
and so on. His ac tions are exceedingly convincing, and it
has frequently been assumed that an actual 1n
many psychologic and physioloSlc: ase to the
aUlle.ted year cake. plac:e.
Evan though chere have been =any studies of !:bis cype,
there is little evidence for the tenuineness of hypnotic:
aca-rearessLon. Youns (ll) demgnstraeed chae
on intelligence tests was not appropriate to che isuggested
age. Unhypnotized control subjects were more successful
than subjects under deep hypnosis in sLnulatlnc their *se.
USing the RorsCMCh test and drawings in a study of ace­
regreSSIon in t en subjects, Orne (16) demonstrated that
whIle some regressive chang.s appeared, non_reares.lve
elements were also and changes toward regreSsion
Showed no consistency from subject to subject:. The drawings
did not resemble the work ot Six-year-olds, and as a leadlng
autbority on the picture test stated. they a:ount ed
co ". oph.1.st1.cated oversimpl1.fic:ac.1on." Draw-ings actually
-17­
,
)
MORl DocID: 18252
. . i t'\


done at the ase oE by one subject were available
eo=parisQn and there not even a superficial resemblance .
ott.-o v1th great conviction the name of the
vrons teachln', one th." bad had at a later age ,
In tests concerning pbysiolosical componentS of ase­
regres3ioa. electroencepha1osrams have to indicaee
any change in the direction of childhood EEG. InCTeesed
heal,'t rate characteristic of infanta or other chanses. were
not evident in electrocardiosraph tracinga. This kind of
evidence has some hypnotists say that hypnotic
aae-rearession is no=.hing more than role-playing "ich a "ill.
in clinics has shown that hypnotic recall
1s by no means a st'rai2,htfo:"Ward proeen. What the patient
reports is frequently a selection of several happenings
rather than che intact recall or a event. The patient
will report phantasy as tact. He Will distort . He vill
forget what he previously r emembered and wtll avoid the
aspects ot a memory. Therapists have found that
there is ,. "telescopic" character to the memory ot a hyp­
noti&ed patienc . over a period of several
.es.ion., the char.piat pieces coS.ther the past in ,. serie.
of raconscructlons finally result in recall.
Young (34) ,&rid Gebhard (13) in 88\'aratl!! reviews of the
literature nearly a of a aparc, both con­
cluded that nochina in che data confirme eh&t specific
re=ote 1II.t!QOry patteTns can b. unfolded precision th7ou&h
hypnosis.
HypnoSis does appear to offer some advanea&e in the :
recovery of 't'ecent. IM!mOries. Gebhard. in sUlllflaridng ps;_
cholO&ieal work on the recovery of recent melnOri.s ••ays ·
it is clear thae meaningful and emotionally stressed uterial
is: 1:Iore readily available under hypnosis chan in the vaking
state, Indifferent material (dhe learning of nonsense
syllables, tor example) is not. However, in either case
recovery is not complete- -chere Is always some loss. just
a. chera t. in normal recall proces.es.
-18­
V.ORI DocID, 18252


• '': • ••: • ' • •
It uy be possible to increase the debriefing "take"
by bypnotizing a cooperative source, but there would aiways
be a risk of contamination by distortion and inaccuracies.
Ratber than open new vistas ot recall, hypnosis may well
provide the release that allows a cooperative source to
!abrlcate the cype ;;It 1nfonnation he knows his inc:enogator
vants to hear .
Hypnotic Vc't'"aelcy
Considerable less data available on the veracity
of infot"Clation furnished in t.l:'aacc. Only one autbor,
Beisal (4), (5), appears to havs dealt with prevarication
Beigel insiats that .. person may lie,
refuse to answer, or wake up when • • ked diract questiona
on sensitive matters. Orne (18) ia convinced long .
clinical experience that hypnotized subjtcts sr. capable
of lying they have reason to do so.
There are other hypnotists who agree that with present
t eChniques of hypnotie induction, it is doubtful that a
subject ",110 does not wish to reveal can be
lDIlde to do so in hypnosis . Fisher claims that a "sixCh
sense of reality" continually operates In Che hypnotIc
SUbject, and it is this speclal that would
very likely keep a hostile subject trom submittIng
pletely to his interroptors . Furthen:ore , he maint.lins,
there i s the possibility that the hypootic state llOuld
enhance the subjeet's deftness in fabrteating plausible
but facruelly material in response to the interroga­
tor ' . pressures . The hypnotic subject i s f!otoriously facile
if! "tDemDries" that lU,y be acceptable · to the
hypnot.ist (10). (11) .
All in all , it seems quite likely that: in!orm.t:iou
obtained through hypf!osis could be deitberat. prevarication
or an unintentional confusion of fantasy and r .... lity. The
accuracy of information so obtained would need to be estab·
1ished by icdependent means.
- 19·
..
MORI DocID: 18252
Defensive "ses of Hypnosis
Prohuional hypnotists have from. time to time
proposed that hypnosi:5 could. be used to
the defenses of per 3anDcl captured or detained by bostile
forces . They have proposed that hypnosis mlgb; be to
oake personnel hypnosis - proof in event ot capeure. to induce
amnesia for sensitive information, or to help 01_ resi st:
stress, particularly pain, in captivi ty. Succe.s oE tbe.e
proposals would rely m.lnly OD. the astute usa of posthypnotic
suggestion.
It 1s knowledge that . person can be trained in
hypnOSiS to reject any subsoquent attQmpt to induce trance,
and he can be taught to stQulate tranee or to in-
4?proprlately whenever he is being used by another hypnotist .
This cype of training might be justifiable operationally if
:here were gOOd evidence that a truly resistant person in a
hoatile setting can be hypnotized. Ibe taet remains , there
a'X"e no cases--at least in tne open literature-... ot resistant
hypnocized in circumstances . HypnotIc
r e in.forc-..nt: =ia;ht be an advanta&e in certain casea, as
for example, wh.. re tilere is rea.on to believe that hypnosis
viII be u.ed and the subject is not confident be can resist
it succes.fully. This type of condiclonins aight h e lp
offset the psychological effect. of drus., wbere druC' and
hypno.is are cowbined. One risk i s that the very proce••
of "proofing" a person agaUi.-t hypno.- i . _y accu..ll7 lower
hi s res i stAnce to trance induction. It 1s an accepted fact
that a pe'X"son once hypnotized is mora prone to trance induc­
tion thereafter.
Providing by hypnotic suggestion lor acnesia upon
capture is an intriguing idea, but bere again there are
tetMital problems. It is well knClo'n that the effective­
ne.s and permanence of hypnotic suggestion I S
related to the CODcrete .definition of a specific taSk .
eeneral suSS.st10ns such as blanket amnesia bave unpredict­
able effects even on very good subjects. Moreover, 'even
if it would work to suggest that the person only
MORI DocID, 18252
CIlNFiQL!ffIAL
" --. .
certaia uusens!eiva LenIS of information, there is serious
que.!ttion vhethal: this might: deprive ru.. of information
to him during detention. Ie yould artificially
induce a stat. of severe p.ychop-chology thaI; could be ·
extremely disturbing. The r • • rrictian on his .billey to
rl!'l!ll!mber and to ratain c.omplete control of hi. t'ac\llties
might lead to a relationship in
the per$QP t1J.J:t\S to the 1nten-ocator for "tre.&t:alent" to
relieve his distress.
This method has other serious drawbacka. Th. pers on',
ability to plan an escape, to tover himself, or to maneuver
1n general would be severely restricted. It would seem far
safer to allow the individual to decide for himself what
he should not reveal and how best to prevent disclosure.
Conditioning indiViduals not to feel stress, particu­
larly would .eem to bold promise at protecting then
deca1.ned by hoscile forces . Laboratory experiments
bave shown thac, althou&h subjects under hypnotic analgesia
continue eo phys1010Sically :uch .a they do in the
state , they do not experienelns pain. It
appears that hypnosiS works best 1n siouations of high
anxiety and probably has it...jor affect on chI!: -=dety
component. of pain.
Such a procedure lllisht 1a undftt'takan in particular
instances, but probably i. not fa••ible ... a general
practice. Only a relatively s_11 D'UIIIber of individuals
viII enter a sufficiently deep stat. to
produce profound analgesia. Thare are on record no' inst6Dcas
of major surgery undertaken durin& posthypnotically: induced
analgesia. Thus while analgesia for pain quite possibly
can be induced posthyJ)notlcally. there is nothing in the
history of hypnosiS to indicate how reliably this ean be done .
if it coul d be done, what type of SU"estton should
be given? The posthypnotic suppression of all pain might be
• This "analgesic" effect has been demonstrated in studies
wheee anxiety was removed by means other than hypnosis.
MORl DocID , 18252
dang,uou.s to die individual. sinc.Q pain seTVe5 as a physio­
lo&ical signal; .and it is doubtful that such a
bla.nket suagestion \o1OUld ba efbcc:ive It would
be better to suggut that no pain will be felt al: the
hands of captors. this suggestion, however. would
rapidly break down if the eaptured subject felt any pain
at. aU. as is likely in all but a vny fev instances. A
person caught to rely on hypnosis as an and who
finds it ineffectual 1n certain situations might be Con­
sidenbly worse off eh4n if he had not this device
in the first place .
Defense by Autosuggestion
the defeasive posSibilities of aueosuSS•• eiOft :..ra
fairly .ppa1:ent:. 1:t p:l:obabl,. c.culd be tried in any alhJaticm
chat lends its el f to defense by poathypnotie s ugg•• tion, vith
the added advantage the individual do•• not surrender
persorutl control of his bah.avior. \lith training in auto­
su&&es cion , personnel should be able Co postpoQe and tempo­
rarily alleviate the disabling effaet . of thirst
or fatigue, as well as the devastating effeets of long
bol ation. Some stress might. be avoided by indudnC long
periods of sleep, or by using the t.echIli t!'\e of time dis­
torrion, "tel ucopini" l oni periods of cetentian into. sub­
jectively experienced shorter periods. A kind of socIal
interaction could be sustained in solitary confinement by
creating a phantasy world of people and things chrough aueo­
suggestion. There is aD record the case ot a p1:isonar of.
war who effectively retained his hold on reality by
structing a phantasied bouse, board by board, nail by nail.
Neither posthypnotic suggestion nor the t.echnique of
autosuggestion has been cried under condi.tions of true
jeopardy. Th. proflUsiona.l hypnotise, in rare
when he discu••e5 the possible applications of hypnosis
in situations out side cha clinic or laboratory, favors
posthypnotic sugg.stion, quite poa.ibly because it is a
uechanism Irltb wich be h:ls had sOllIe experience. Be has
no vay of knowing his sua.stions would be nullified
. ..
, ;. ... . . .. ..:.
MORI DoclD: 18252
,
,
by tea-r and unres·;rained coercion, Autosuggestion, like
5u&gestlon. 1s untested, and not as well
underatood. It offers eh. advantage of allOWing the
person to adapt his defenses in response t o real ratber
ehan pradic;t:ad s:lcuations . It may DOC sl;rmstheu the
defense posture, but i.e 1. also less likely to weaken 1t:,
Hypnod.. and l>I:u&.
Drugs have been admioistered in the clinic to reduce
patient resistance to hypnosis, and to extent, they
havQ been tasted experimentally to their effect.
on suggestibility. invariably the dru,s used have
been mainly the barbiturates. drugs
induce relaxation and relaxation is generally believed to
enhance suggestibility. Weitzenhoffer (21) claims that sub­
ane5theclc doses of various anesthetic drugs make. subjects
more suggestible, provided the subject possess.s initially
a of suggestibility. In other words, these agents
do noe create sugges tibili t y where there is none to begin
wieh.
(32) good result. sodiUm anytal
lldmi.ni.scered .lowly. 1ncrav eneously 1n sub-aneach,et1c doses,
The drus. he says, brtnss on f ecl1ngs of helpl••5,n.ess in
the patient wh1le arousing "erchillc dependency fe.elings
toward the ope rator. II R. claim. thet a res iscant< patient,
placed unde r the influence of drug_ aad given .pecific and
detailed instructions ..bout every aspect of induc­
tion, theyeaftey he susceptible to But
in the context that Wolbers refers to, "res i s t ant" means
a pat.bnt. who wants to cooperate with the hypnotist: but
is I!!IIOtlonally unable to do SQ, He is careful to point
out: that the technique would not succeed if the pa tient
is in a stat:e of hostile resistance .
HypnosiS with the aid of drugs 1s said to create a
"more di't'ecte d Yelat1onship," which suggests that the
usual high rapport bet\o'een subject and hypnotist _y not
be a$ critically impo't'tant where hypnosis procedures a't'e
combined Yitb. dru!,s, Wh1.le druas might be an effective
-23­
MORl DoclD: 18252
i
I
,," "
j
!
means of dissolving resistance in • truly
no professional is on record .ayins that they
will. Significantly. who have proposed ChI!!
of hypnpsis In varfare and in intelligence. never
mention the poSSible use of drug • .
Dangers of Hy:pnosis
There are
two types of dangers eommonly . ssociated
with hypnosiS, The first Is the very legitimate concern
of the oedieal
profession that an unskillful hypnotist
_Y pl["oduce or .ssravate anxietieS or other emotional
dist:urbanc:.•••
The se<;ond eypa danse-r seems IDOre & lource ot
concern lay.en than to the professional. This Is tbe
notion that a hypnotist -7 not: " able t o br1ng bis
suhject out of tranc&_ Th. general prore••ianel beliet
is that the subject will .1"'7. awaken. Evetl 1n case.
wlI!re the subject refuses t o Db.,. the command to . w.ken,
a skillful hypnoti st can eaaily learn .my the ......bject is
refuSing and then work around the persoa's re.istanee.
a trance perSists for an loaz tiae,
say tor days, it is likeI7 that the hypnotist haa uaed
suggestions speci fical ly intended to prolong the trance.
In an to test how l ong subjects vould:
hypnotized, a group of persons in trance was :
delibe rately· abandoned by their hypnotist. Within three
or four hours, all subjects were out at tranc e , most of
them the firs t bour. Actually. though nO satis­
tactory daca a .ce available on 1:t, the general belief is
that hypnosis cannot be prolon8ed for great lengChs of
time without periodiC addi tional suggestions for pro- .
,"
longing the I:ranca.
, '
- 24­
MORI DocID: 18252
,.
,
,
(
CONCLUSIONS

The u.:se of bypDO$1s in tntelUletice would present
certain technical problems Dot encountered 1n the
or l aboratory. To obtain from a reststant:
source, for example, it would be necessary co
the source UDder e.sentially hoatile There
is no good evidence, elin!c.l or expe1i:'1menul. thAt: ehi.
can be done . Clinically, the resis tant subject 1.
Who i. to be hypnotl&ed but for psycbclogical reasons
1s ·mabl. to enter tranee; in the laborato!7. he is a.
subj ect who i s to resist trance and Who suffers
neither guilt nor penalty if he fails to do so. In DO
case i s he guarded, suspicious or fearful . Hypnotists
vho have proposed that hypnoSis could be used in int elll­
gance agree that indirect methods of trance induc t ion would
be needed. They fail to say what methods could be used
operationally. 'The usual indlrl!:c.t ml!:thods would nrlke
a . suspicious subjec.t as t ransparent subtertuge. Tbey in­
clude suggescions abouc relaxacion and easing or censlon,
or the Subject is asked to vitness trance lnelucc1.on 1.n
someone else, or he 1$ asked to role play or precend hypooais
unc11 he can actually enter crance. The.e method. seCD
have little appl1.cation operationally . Hypnott. ts who h.ve
evaluated. proposals for the use of hYPROSis in intelItSCDce
have been frank to say there are no known methods for
.inctucinS trance in the hoatUe una.... r. suhj itc t and that
i t se_5 \."T"Ili.ltely thac an anca&onisclc subject be hyp­
notized agains t his viII.
Dhrea:.rdins the diffic ulti" of inducing banee.
there is s till little assurance that a source can be made
t o act against his own best interests. A hypnotized
s ubj ect , eV"ml when motivated to be cooperative•. often d.1s­
torts, inventa fabricate' aDd otherwise contiDi­
.nates his output . 'n\e IIIOre anxious he 1s about. the infor­
mation, the more likely be is to distort. as a ineans of
defending. He 15 apt to tell the hypnotist what he wants
to hear, wbether or not it is related to facc.
- 25­
!l.O!1I DeelD, 182.')2
CQl!flDPrlTIAl
.'
Hypnosis as a defensive measure presents no insqr­
lDOuot .able technical problem, buc neither 15 there assurance
posthypnotic suggestion or self- indueed suggestion
would be effective. In posthypnottc suggeStion. whether
or not it breaks down under coercion, there 1s a definite
rislt of the Individual and increasing his Vul ­
With self-induced suggestions, because the
individwal recains conttol of h1s behAvior J there
see. to be less chance of jeopardlzin& the defense pos ture.
if the s uggestions should prove ineffective.
Apart from such technical problems as producing rrance
under hostile dhe p o tential application of
hypnosiS to i . by the ab.ence of
hard fact.. It be difficult to find an area of
scientif i c more beset by di vided profe. s ional
opinion and contradictory experimental evidence. Profe. ­
s i onal views are divided on every fundamental
issue pertainini to hypnosis. No one com. .ay wether
hypnoSiS is a qualitatively unique s t a t e with soce physio­
,
logical and condlcioned response cooponants or only a form
,,
of sugges t ion induced by high motivation and a positive
,
relat:ioMhlp between hypnotis t and With hi&h
lDOt:iv&c1on and a poslt:ive r elationship, T. X. Barber bu
produced "hypnotic deafness," "hypnotlc blindness." anal­
gesla and other responses seen ln hypnosls - -all withoUt::
bypootiziq a nyone . He asked well motivated subjects:
,
simply to disregard certain types of stimuli . Orne (19)
!
has shown chat unhypnotized persons can be mot:ivat:ed to
equal and surpass the supposed superhuman physical feats
seen in hypnos is. and he h.. caused unhypnotlzed Ixpert ­
control subjects to persist in an action
tha.n subjacts peJ:foradng the same act. under poSthypnotic
sugaes tl.on.
Hypnotic trance , an increaSingly e lusive tarlll . 1s no
longer considered requis1te for 1nduc1na hypnotic behavior.
Subjects can pass from the waking state in:o hypnoSis
without feeling any different and without signs of chang_
discernible to an observer . Weitz.enboffer (27). trying Co
MORI DoclD: 18252
explain bOIl one knoWS he. has ba.n hypnotized. says that.
there 1s no C:0IIIp1etely satisfac:tory or unique answer.
since ditfere-nt: people experie:nc.e hypnosiS in different
".ys. Ev.m the expert cannot Aluay. ull that wat be 1s
ta aebual 1y hypnosis. Experienced hypnot1s
tS
have b.en fooled by silJllllators. even so- called "naive"
simulators uho never been hypnotir.ed nor had trai.P.1ng
in faking hypnosis .
As £or obedieoee in trance, hypno31S seems not to be
the of absolute control tbat 1s so often depicted
by the press, in popular periodicals in f1ction. Apart
from instances of apparent "sixth sens." volit1.on alr.ady
ment ioned, one can cull from professlona1 wrlt:1.
n
S on hypnosiS
such statements as: hypnotized persons are anyt:h
1n
6 but blind
automatons; they are capable of consld.rable cf
and they arc neither defen.el
ess
nor pe.sive. On
the basis of the kinds of evide'O.ce chat aarHr. kck. Orne,
Patti. and others ..... that a determined and
informed peYson could rest.c lfillful .anipulatiOl'l. by an
adversaTY. and bypoo.t..
loa die absenc. of te.t. under operational conditions.
it is d1.fficult to evaluate the potential of hypnosis in
inteillg work. Propos.ls for the use of this ; technique
ence
are app .. but they are untried and: therefore
highly .peculative . The bridge becveen
hypnosis and possible operational uses is yet to be butlt.
It is probably siznifieant tbat in the long history of
hypno. is. where the poteatial application to intelligence
has alvays been knoWn. chere are DO yeliable account. ot
it. effective use by an intell igence service.


1
MORI DecID: 18252
,
!
1. Barber, r . x. Hypnosis as restruc­
wd.ng: tIL Fram soamambu1.1.hl tQ autohypflOals.
J. Psychol., 1957 • .!:i. 299-304 .
2 . a.•• , M.J. Differentiation of hypnotic trance
normal sl••p. Exp!r . Psycho!.. 1931, li. 382-399.
3. Beck, L.F. Hypnotic identification of an amnestic
victim. Brit. J . med, Psychol . • 1936, 16, 36- 42 .
4. BeIgel, H.C. !he problem of prevarication in marriage
counseling. MarriagE. and Family Living. 1953, 12.
332- )37.
5. Beigel, H. C. Prevar1cation under hypnos1s. J, 0:11n.
expo Hypnosis, 1933, ! . 32- 40.
6. !renr:r.an, M. 1n the hypnotic produc tion of
antisocial and self- l:Djurious behavior. Payc.hiacry.
1942, 1. 49- 61 .
7 . Decke rt, C. and Y•• c, L. The problem ot hypnocll1.ability:
a r.v!..... Int: . .J. el1.n . &. !3(J>. Hypnosis. !I. 4,
Oct . 1963. 205-235.
8. Estabrooks, C.H. Hypnoci.m. New York: E.' .
,
Duccon
& Co., Inc., 1943.
9. Es t abrooks . C • H. (Ed . ) ,H. ' •• Y9, ••
New York: Harper &Raw, 1962 .
10. Fish@r, S. The r ole of expectancy i n t he
of posthy?notic behavior . J . abnorm. Soc, Psychol.,
49. '03- 507 .
11. risher, S. An investiga tion of alleged conditioning
under hypnosis. J . c l in. e xpe r. HYpnOSiS,
1955, 1, 71-103 .
- 28­
MORl DoclD : 18252
12. Fisher. S, the use ot hypnosis 1n intelligence and
related military situations. Tech. Rep. ·4, ARDC
St udy SR 177-D. Sur. Soc. Sci. 1les .• Wasbington,
D. C., Dec. 19'3.
Gebharl1. J .w, Dating human lIlemories by hyp,noais .
Defense Center public.tiod AD 627 440,
D. C., 1965.
14. Kline, }i .V. A scientific reporc on "the search for
Bri dey Murphy." Naw York: Julian Pre•• , 195(,.
15 . Kroener. J. Rypnocism and crime. 1:'1:an • • .J.
Wiltshire, Hollf"'OOd. 19:>7.
16. Orne, M. T. The of hypnotic ase regr•••ion:
an experhDental study. J, ahnor!!! . soc . Psychol .•
1951, 46. 213-225.
Orne, M.T. The nature of hypnosis! artifac t and
essence. J. abnDt'm, ,oc, Psychol.. 1959,
277 - 299.
18. Orne, X.T. The potenCial uses of hypnosis in interro­
gation. In A. Blderman and H. Zlu:mer (Eds .) !!!!.
manipulation of human behavior . New York: Wiley,
1961.
1'1. Orne. K. T. Ps)'chological faccors maxlmi1lin;& resis tance
to strass: with s pecial reference to hypnosis .
Paper rea d at on "S. lE4Concrol unde r
Stressful Situationa, " Bu:reau of 8oc:1.1 'Science
1leaearch, W••binlton, D.C., 1962.
20. Orne , H. T. and Evans, P.J. Social control in the
p syeholol ical experi=ent : antisocial- behavior and
hypnosis. J. Peu. sos . Psychol.. 1965. 1. 189· 200,
4
21. Pattie , F.A. Uniocular blindness and hypnocic sugges
4
tion. Brit. J. Ked . PsychOl.. 1935, ll. 236 241.
-'9­
---
MORl DoclD: 18252
COllFiDOOIAl
.....
22. Rowlaod, L.W. Will hypnotized persons try to hArm
thtllDSl!;lv.a or others? J. abnol:Ul. soc. Psyc.ho1.,.
1939, 114-117.
23. Schneck, .1.M. A offense induced by hypnosis:
• c. ••• aeudy. Sprinafield, Ill.: Charles C. ••
1958.
24. Schultz. J .8. .and Lutha, \1. Autosani.:: Training_
Na", York: Crune and 19S9.
25. Watkins, J ,G. A case of hypnotic trance induced i.n a
rQsistant subjQct in spitQ of active opposition.
Brit, J. "ed. Hypnotism, 1951, 1. 26- 31.
26. Watkins, J,G. Antisocial induced under
hypnotic trance. J . abnorm. soc. psychol., 1947,
)
42. 2'6- 259.
27. Weltl.enhoffer. A.M. Hypnotism: an oblective study in
sUljsesClbilitr . New York: John Wl1.ey 60 Sons, Inc. ••
19$3,
28. WeltzenhoEEe r, A.H . . General Technigues of
New Crune and 1957.
29. Wells, \oI.R. EXperiments in "waking hypnosisll for
i!lstructional purpose.. J. abnor::a. Soc. Psychol ••
1923 , 18, 239-404.
30. Walls, W.R. Ability t o r esist artificially induced
dissociation. J. abnanD. soc. Psychol., 1940.
261-272.
31. Wells, 101.2. ExperiIlmts in the hypnotic production of
crime. J. Psychol., 19U, 11, 63-102.
32. wolberg, L.R. The Principles ot HypnoCherapv' Vol . 1.
New York: Crune and S t ratton, 1948 ,
-30­
MORl DoclD: 18252
.'. p:-. ,..
COh'Fmm1lAl. .,
33. Young, P, C. Hypnotic regression-- faet or artifact?
J. abnorm. soc. l"sychol" 35, 273- 276 .
34. P.C. l;xperl.mental hypnos1S:
a review.
1941, .• 92-104.
35. Young, P.C, Antisocial U8e3 of hypnosis, In
L.M. (Ed . ) Experimental HypnOSiS.
New York: Xilemil l an, 19'2 .
- 31­
. . .

\ ...... .......
..J • ••••.••.• • ••_.,

MORl DoclD , 18252

.

CONFIDENTIA~

, ..
~

, i

,

i '

TECHNICAL REPORT

(~~,)

I
)
!
I ,

i

HYPNOSIS IN INTELLIGENCE

.. , . }

·,

·'
,

,! ,

.. ,
·

,1 .

.

;

. ,

(

October 1966
CONFIDENTIAL
.

k ) ,

.. ­

- -.­ - ...

_ -_ ... _--­ -_: '" ..• -­ ,...

"

..

-;..

,
;

.

MORl DoclD, 1825 2

HYPNOSIS IN INTELLlG£NCE

Hypnosis is one of the old•• t
and controlling human beh1vior.

teehnl~u ••

for altering

A method that has had its share of mistrus t and professional neglect:. hypnosis in the

and ,u:<t..2.1ned intuest:.
have

past cwenty years bas been the subject of serious inquiry" During this time, and even before, professIonal hypno tists have speculated on the posSibilitIes
of using hypnol5U in warfare and in intelligence wo'1'k. They p~oposed that hypnosis could be used to sr:rengthen the
15.1n~ng

psyc:holoslcal defenses of captives and that It ,COUld be the

=eans ot
person. .

compliance from otherwise uQcooperatlve

This paper explores some of tbe operational impli ­ c4t1oo. of these proposals.

Hypnotism. w.as once called ' ___'1'1..., .. after Ant:ou Mesmer. perhaps the most f.mous of alL hypnotists. It w•• also commonly knovft as "the slaapins ~anc • • " and until recl!Iltly, professionals in the field continued to 'retard

hypoosis as a sleep- like condition, a state of coo.cious­ ness somewhere between wakefulness and slumbar. (Pavlov, for example, maintained thar cortical inhibition, sleep and hypoosis are essentially the same .) . But hypnosis as a staCe rcseDbltng sleep is rapidly being discarded in tbe face Dr overwhelming e~er~tal evidence to t~e contrary. Well. (29) and oche.r s have ~de:.,:)Q.ltrated that all hypnotic: phenon.ena can be , produced in a state bearing no , -resemblance CD .le.p. sussestLng that ebe sleep-like aspect. of hypnosis cay be due sol.ly to Che hypnotist ' s suggeatloa : thac the .ubjecc will go to sleep. Dass (2) bas sbown rbac the pacellar reflex, Which disappears in sleep, is hoc d~nlsbed in hypnosis. E!G patterns of hypnotized subjects do not resecble the patterna of sleepins persona, except when aleep is hypnotica~ly induced,

erue

There are many theories of hypnosis, but none sa tis ­ factorily account for the variaty of hypnotic behavior seen in clinics, laboratories and in places of entertainment.

the man expect. rather it was produced by the COlleen­ eT. communieates a serieS! of "suggestions" to the . and th!s mu. c:onc. suee. and his imagination did the rest.. cOIIIII:IOnly induced in sltu. to contribute eo a scientific: study. nent f_cure.ably .. once hypnoUzed a man using a phonograph recording of a Swiu yodeler. ~ is. !U)jtiW __ r:""'''~C:7:. w~a an a. a traftce s e. ~at1.. -C:. or (as iP • stage performance) to become the C:ItDUr of attention. fixation. by asking a penon to fix upon soce scall. modern theori•• of tMt hypno.nOllle:n. in an extreme case some of the mat.et object and the hypnotist.. che e xplanatioD shifte d onee DK>re . but the ~edi­ ents are always the ~a2e: the subject focus. Braid and other s concluded Chat hyp~oslS vas not a matcer of fixaUoD.cellent subject. hJ.s on • tar.tion chat accompanied fl~tian. wh1. The subject need not even understand the language used by the hypnotist.erial &y be totally mele­ vant to the induction process. for e1l:lllple.a was not eonc:entratl... ftIOt:lvae!on 1• • proml .te. In this lDethod the bypnotht begins wi~h s~ple waking suggestions and proceeds to 2 1 . • persau enters trance because be to enter such a. group·"demotlstration" of hypnoSis by recording and aCCidentally selected wrong record. is called wning HyPnosiS.a kay ro hypnotic ph. There are many variations of the Standard Method. 'Ix_DCa t.ioos where ~e subject i .on. but SU!. trance was induced.indue. 1..te:npt t o apply hypnosis in situ&tionl diff.Is•• 'C1.ndard Met""od. 1nducing Trance In tbe days of Hesme~ and James Braid.ot:lvaced Co eooparat:.. Scill lac~r . per se.subject.. the A more advanced technique.ed to be hyPnotized. aleer all. ~ut before l ong.e rent trOQl.. Almost .bout: 'bypnosb comes from thesR sources. with the hypnotist" either to obain raliel from suffering. these.on and s ugges tion are cO!:lhined ro .c~ also bas its variations.. Estabrooks.MORl DoclD : 18252 In 1IItO_1:. As be "explained it .~.. bright object__• candle flame or a small pendulum.t ha kept: in . He wa~ conducUng a. n. Toda. by word or ••• ture.0 what is ealled the Sta.-.tnd in any at. J .t. r ~"1' l~_.U information eurrently avaUable .

. positive. It appears to be the least structured of any method of trance induction.these a re the common mani ­ festations of the state known as somnambulism. negative hallucina­ tions (he fails to see persons or obj ects actually present) . posthypnot:lc suggest. and to focus on SOD'!! object.. the atate that: i .~ . The mA. in t:he deepest possible t. 18252 Usually the subject i..he scart.f.. the hypnotise's ~di.rll!mces to s leep arl! avoided.a .bor.". The person receives the suggestion in a cont:inuaeion i l cn~fmlliTIAl . : ~.umpt:ion that it ia ..eehod chac could be adapted co aicu.tory. ~ith • pbysical complatnt.te objective is alwa.MORI D oclD. told to assume a relaxed po~itio~ inereuinaly c:cmplm: O'l\U untU the subjeet is in trance.t: of ella propo·sed uses of hypnosis in IneelllSlmce work . tor example. Yhataver the technique. One fom of Waking Hypnosis about \.'bieb very little bas been written is called che Sensorimotor Method..fte r an interva l of time between train­ in& and response.1 I . In sQQnaDbulism the subj ect reapands posi­ t ively to a variety of complex auggestioDs. eye closure and the usual r~.u _eept{onal sldll of the hypnotist. anesthesia. . che subject is • patient Il. a free-form approach vtth the pattern or sugges­ tions depending on cues from the subject. Suggestions about heavy lid.on. the Sensortmotor Method.he subject. and r1&idities. hallucinations (subject sees person!! or obj e cts that are ·not there).ing point for hypnotic 5UgsU t1.Tance. but ie appears to be. complete amnesia tor events in hypnosis-.as hypnotist use the patient'S description of hll!i symptom$ t.ion was considered a special c~r. a -.ceer1seic of hypnosia. attributed to the psychiatrist Harold d_n. Formerly.he se=e: to place t.s t. of hypnotic behavior . but bypno­ tists nov opera ta on the aa. and ~s a general rule.~ .-.' .t1ons ~s. pereleularly Che defensive applicaelons J 1uvolv!! post.­ hypnotlc sUlges t:ion. ~ . Cataleps. analgeSia. outside ehe clinic: or l. commOnl y called socnambulisc.

nal sugzestion is not reinfore. is involved in the exeeution of a pi)st­ hypnotic suuestioD 15 nor: well underscood. t rance and the suggestion takes effect somet tme after the tra:ru:e is tem1nated. -.hav~ox pxescrlbed 1n tbe suggestion . of estimates is one l:IOlltlt to five yeus. Sen. when the oriSf.. : . nail bieing.~ I' . for years..lr~ble has been used therapeut~c.:.antha .ive SlDQking. and though ~e is fully awake tbexeafter. and beyond r. .• "'·ill· ... also called autosuggestion.MORI DacID : 18252 CONFlDOOIAI.'hat. Host 4 n t" . and so on .. been dehypnotized.ed.lly.i. the hypnotise induces -=nesla for [:he posthypnotic :su8gest1on by tCUing the pU"son be .. ..111 habits or patterns of behavior: O'YeTw .. believe chet tbe pexson is re .. Cn!lrmml~ l U•.. The rans. . ProfeSSionally. Exactly . comic and oildly e:abarrassin& act sOUle Cil2e after be ha.. h7Pnotis~ls susgestion. It may be ac t ivated on a signal or after a sp~cified per10d of time. at the moment of the posthypnotic lignal . if periodically reinforc ed..hh. ~be mos~ accepcable explanation Is thac the posthypnotic signal ~eactivates tbe Original trance state for the dura­ C~on of the b.s" bas been the . be cannot prevent the behavlo~ called for by th. Some b1Pnocia t . Posthypnotic sugaestion is also a common feature of hypnosis demonstra ­ tions. a posth'ypnotic sUlce5cion is believed to rezain elfective for sevwraL . Vl:C-8s.:.n~..hypnoti~ed anI. the subject i .. BDw rapidly a posthypnotic IJUssest. : . excessive drinkins.. . & •• e r _cary eakLnt ~hortband ..~:J"'.rtm..r.hypnosis and Autosuggestion Another Method· of hypnosiS potentially useful in intelli­ gence 1s self-hypnosis.ivel. Conservat.~estlon to help hreak unde.aa =-d. Typically. .ubj ect of soee expe rimentatlon and any ra-ber of .st~te. to perform e~. ."" H· •• . to change penetla at pr.ld.111 not: remmber the auggeiStloD wen he awak~.on "deca. Usually. PasthypnOCl~ .:.. by professionals in the f i . Exp.. mad. eating.dece~ed (numbered) words by posthypnotic suggestion.

tion.de vanlll:!. Schultz observed t hat in bypnosis by standard techniques subject s first feel heaviness in their limbs. The hypnotise implan t s the suuestloll t hat hereafter the subject w111 be able to bypno t ize himself on a s ignal that the hypnotist p"-'Ovides .ill&.tar.. 'Ole individual oay Ieart! the techa1. . the best known lIIethod of autowgti. A\:I~genJ. When th.lao coal.hypnosb ..yehia~rist.h:nmosis.d~rd hypnotic procedures.ljs about axcasaive or careless u a e of self-hypnosi s and & 'ignal or time lie1t for endins eh. . The a usgestions are "progr-=med" for the pectent: and incl.. the posthypnotio aUMestion for self ~bypno$i$ is removed . you Yill enear a deep scate of hypnosis I even deeper t han tbe one you a'C'e 1. He may tell th2 person: '~eoever you say ebe \..specific use he makes of sel!­ hypnosis. bue beyond tbe 1ntt.. thus t r iggering an unwant ed ~anc e state. guidance. No other person i~ necessarily involved in the con~erit or . TTue self. Autogenic Trainins.relaxation through COt'Icentration"--i.n nov.H.. s~slon.l.u.ed co . By far. OT autosuages . th.~t in which hypnOSiS 1s beina u.MORl DeclO .hypnoSis 1s usually part of psychocherapy tre.o ~a.Schulb: a.-. · self· hyp. he is £ree CO d~~e hts Own suggeStions and to modify th. J .od$ 15 brought about by pOAthypnotic sugges ­ cion obt.". " cfter.que from a profenienai ." & this type of self. 'yog&' chree times 1n rapid succeSSion. In autogenic 5 . a graduated series ot Seven mental exercises evolved from . Because it requires the help of • hypftOti4t who naver truly relinquiShes control of his patient. .lOrd. dispenses vith the need for even an absentee hypnotist..::orrect f'aulty bebavioJ. 18252 CONfIDENTIAl.1: "self.. Schult:. developed by the Carman p.m a. patient improves sufficiently.s 1. need may ~rise. followed by sensations of warmth. this fOr1:1 of trlmee induction has been called pseudo 5elf ~ hypnosi5 or mediated selt.tion 1s autogenic training. The hypnotise 15 car eful no t to sUSgeS1: • signal Chat could occur a t random.tined in che usua l "he cet'o" hypnotie relationship.1al p'17ogr&:D ot instruction and.

a particul~r area or :in a specific way. pianists and others whose profe•• ~onal .tions r elated to hu WIth :this preparation individuals ~e been knOW to cope . Auto~enlc training. consist of s1. the ••ven exercise. In 19~9 . Pert"ormance improves. writers. hypnoa:[.eightened SUilestibility. . thr1!e times • d. the individual knows the pain is still chere . of -"relu:ed rec. body function_. but it no longer matters. c cmstricted awareness and h.tion of energ. On the aVl!'ra&e. Schultz occasionally uses a~tohypnosis ayeony· mously with autosuggestion.tion of paln.ation (w. opera Gingers. and so on. Schulcz -I and his followers cla~ results essentially the S~ as those relaxation of tenSion. ing the arur. the remaining . Autolenic tr" ining emphaaizes "pa•• ive concentration." that is .fore. Though DaJch has been written about it . Aftar reachil\& a seat. . but he doe. autosugges tion as a Means of indueins bypno5is _s largely unknown in this councry. own requirements.MORl DoclD : 18252 .lety that acccmpanles the sens.mile becoming 1••• s trenuous and exhauaCins.rci5es deal ~th cont:%'ol of reapi:J:ati.Oggestions to induce nJU&cle relaxation (heilv!ness) and vaaorelax. or the ~rovemant of performance in . if not actually hypnoais. has the follow · log attributes of the hypnotic state: extrame relaxation. apparently. ~nci l recent years . Sportsmen.e. When the suggestion takes effect..~. .. che pro­ fessional litereture in EIlglish even yet contain5 liCtle more than passing refe r ence to the technique. improved voluntary performance. ~h er. ptiv-e _ ness" the subjec t th~ introduc ~s attributed to hypnos1s: suue. particularly in Cerman.a minute.on.• i • • matter of .y. The first suggestions are a~ed at allay.!!. ~he fLtst two exercises. Vb_ther autoluU&stion .oed disagreement. Within .ntb extreme and unexpected : p.". restor. not dwell on the te~...~th).• matter of seconds. . the immediate a~ is co improve the functioning of all bodily £y£t~ without r~~ard for specific c~plaint . md so on. training. CONFIDENTIAL ~atniQS. analgesia.ctivities reqUire a hIgh order of specialized performance are said to have benefited from aut:oSenie.ain in . can be _s terad in two or three _tha by practicLn&: about five l1linutea at a c1JD. the sensation of pain is gone .

W a.tkJ.. I. The p~ofes­ sioa. inten..~ible offcu3ive applications of bypno. not.. who ~. in trying to make scientific sense.c training (24). Rypnoti~abi11ty Some people enter hypnosls --or a state of hypersug­ &esdbility --eu!ly..tlgood" hypnos is s~jeo. lt. A. cad hypnoti~ability. . V.~d by ~r. and othen do not.n.1ve training .::ae o.One CJq:~r1. incelli&eoce tests. out of the accumulated informacion on the 8ubject.ly try to cooperate with t he hypnotist."cened by eliminating training.all have bee tried.. contradic t ory.n b.l licer' CUre aD the .ycholosicel _e­ sure s have b e en us e d in the attempt to IdeneLfy. published an English lansuage version of au~Sen1.u .. ari·d so on. ~. with &enerally .:. both for reasons of detense and fo~ po.is.. dXn. Atter r eviewing some 200 sources on or closely ret. but not very e:nlipt. " . Deckert and W es~ eon­ eoncluded tlat no one has demonstrated a sls. 18252 . .tended trainil13 t:l. extrmely tentative and largely meaningless..ptib1~ ~ hTPnoaia apd who 1.os Luche.niticant or to the subject of .tate of relaxed r eceptiveness after only four days of int~. Wilcox . Deckert and West (1). c.. Their work thus far SU"Ub that th~ ex. CONflDfidlAI. An eJCPerienced subject can sometimes be put under by a mere word or gas­ CUre.. by one approach or another. WOlfS. it would be useful to know.ship between 5UBceptlbl11cy and t he social class rating of the occupation of the subject's father.. e. "0. ZAT. SiDee then.ubjecc is eopiou..ical and p. one of Schulc~' " d1$ciples. showed no relationship between hypnotic suscepti­ bility and five per$onality tr..J. G. .indifferent r esults. found that :the r esults of exper~ts were often . Opera ­ tionally. tbe buekat teat.!ll:ent. Filw aod W.ive In one case an individual int ent on overeOlldng fear o f svimmtnt in deep water reached the . ~ome of the exerei.. while othan canno t be hypnothed even tbougli they consciou. l y in chis country by such audlorlties on hypnosis _ . but did I.enins. RDraehach.-10". the . for example.. personality ~ventories. v&X'ie...ty of phy.'eveal a signi ­ ficant relatior.. tbe a:ecbod haa been scudied ••.M ORI DocID.. . The sway t es t.

. Glasner (9) tells of Dr.e..t~c. person l • susceptibility 1.a t illusion r:s. The f •• ling persists that: there ia . ~. to eon••rv. . In a seeond ~.z.. The subject holds a heating element in his ~nd (or it . participates oore and more comple tely in it.l!. Milton ~rikson sel~tlng subjeccs for II. heat 6::0IIII the eon tact. personallcy factors or any other: _aSUJ:'e ot human makeup.eI Sllceess has been elaLaed fGr the . are credited w1t~ a certain pragmatic or intuitive under­ scand1ng t~~t helps th~ select the susceptible person ..d.nshlp betveen susceptibility co hYFJlOSis and age. poseure. rep. a g ood c a ndidate t.ty.y b.::':. there are "goocill and thar. ~d. and eventually 5u~erged in it.s nov disconnected. the &eneral population that c. h. There are many estimates concerning the percentage of Claims varJ between c.n be hypnot1.oed' hypnosis subject boco=es progressively ClOre involved in the suggestion situation..ning sug. are r •• i. JUdg1ng by chrir stance.ats the procedUra". S~. aceoally gave the demonstration. Eveft 110.Civc e. demonstration of hypnOSiS .11. ~e only way to dacQrRine . SOIII.s on the order of 25 to 40 per CEnt.ad ot: time. .rIns the hall and comcenting on whether he choushe they WDuld be good sQbjeccs for the d~~nstratIon." becomes ). the device :I.MORI DocID: 18252 : ~ '). psycbiatric dlasnos1s. Stage hypnotists in particular.in individuals · whOlila he had p1cked ah. The sc1entist-hypnotiSt also seems to have ways ot sizing up his SUbjects .onfident ••••rc1ons ch.. he is said to be suggestible and possibly.. attached to hiS foreha. : As he approaches the critical settin&. In the end they were fo~ced to agree with hypnot:lsl:$ Who .'~ CONfJDEflTIAI. h. than asked to rotate a calibrat.moDS _thods fo~ det. If the subject aaain chims to feel heat.h .d) and i. And uhen h. ·8· . to cry to hypnotLze him.say that. c.-n to th6 subject. walk. but unlcno. A point of calling cert. "He was watching the people cnc.or hypnoSiS.ae anyone can b e hypnotized.gest1b1. and so forCh. the eXpertmenter catls attention to the dial reading. t .. predictable relatl.eaat hyp­ noeic subjects.d dial until he just barely exPerience.r~ eluaive quality or combination of aualitiea that distinguishes the susceptible perSon. The ".enlli.

In a hostile setting.o the situation can expect a batting average of one out ot five cases of somcambulismi With actively r:sista~t. !be older Itte ra~re i.ct. the aver2ge may well be ~e:::-o. even fearful.a1 and overriding problem.a~ • • to somnambulis tic. in . a .in l sleep. and they appear. trance woula have to be ~nduced in a suspicious.M ORl DoclD.. ~ith ~ estimate by Fisher (12) J who in a report on the potential uses "f hypnosis in intelligence. suspicious subjects.ients undersolng..$on to trust the motives of the hypnotist. hypnosis induc. and spon ­ taneously in persons observtng another subj.. No c a s e records are cited to support these sta tements.osis h~s r eportedly been ef. This accord.0D.thout the hypnotized. beinS .ed by .nieal aad l a boratoq experiences wi th hypnosis ca~ be applied practically in intelligence ectivities only if certain very r~al technical obs tacles are overc~e .o . like ~Any others in hypnosis literature . pa t. to have been carried ov~r from one textbook ' to -9­ anoth~r . says that a hypnotist usini the technique most suitable t. Hypnotizing t he source.giving '-ugi-estions 1:. p'sychiatri c consu!tat1. - Wolberg (32) believes that PQrhaps 80 per ce~t of the people can be hypnot ized bu t not more than 10 to 20 per eent will reach deep trance. with or without his awareness . The Sub 1ect Unaware Hypr. r~l . f cr. particularly in extracting information and cooperation from an otherwise ~efr&eto~ source. 18252 CONfIDENIIAt ~\. subject ' s awareness in three situations -. te wi th r . There are 4 r. he adds.ally possiblR by the ext ension of eli.f~cted ~:i. is as an Operational Aid The possibility chat hypnosis has been used and even now is being used by opposition forces 1s quite real. is the funda. subject who has no ~.'llenc.r DE ~ays that hypnosis could be extre=ely valu­ able. Hypno. But what se~ thec ­ retic. however.~b.0 sleeping subject·s in a low but insistent voice .

idarabla similarity was found beeween subjcct~' com­ pliance vith aUIa_ctlon. But her. ~ rega4ded 4S truly naive sleeping subject. .. Clinica"lly.bypnosis occurred in spite of the tact: th4t the pati~t was . and the aub_ ject cooperates with every expeebt.1.1th che pat-ient: unawiJ.nd 50 00.ad .uction was his purpose. going on . 18252 ..M ORI DocID.. Even though the s ubjeet has not axplicicly coos ent.lently pos stble tor 8 therapist to perform AdvtSint the patient Co ~el ax.e aSa:i. ­ wicbout eritieat evaluation. hovever.ion of being halpad .mst'tate that it is pouible to hypnoeiz.n v & are dealing with a subject in sympathy with the hypnotist 1oIbo feels quite ·safe in the situation..in the cotapany of friends and the occurrence vas it. IIIOlO of r e pucatioCl and prestige . The fourth just continued to Sleep. Since Sarber asked them for permis'ion to enter eheir rooms at nishc and talk to them in their sleep.e naive .. hera . it h•• been observed that perSOnS with ne&ative attitudes about hypnosis are not suseeptible to spontaneous tranee.'l'e.iven during sleep and their ructions to ordinary hypnotic teelmiques.. ~ter -10­ . This spontaneous .cotmJlLilJiAL . ~l experi _ mentation by Orne failed to deo. Th. .h hi_ ayas clo.y trance. C.e that IlOst if not all of thRlll pereeivc" tba!: trance O d 1nd.tbouc ever using the te~ hypno~i~ . A psychotherapy patient vent into tranee while watching her therapist demonstrate hypnosis on tel~ ­ v1sion. the relationship to the hypnotist. it is reasonable C 455trJ. The sample consisted of only . . three of whom aWakened to ask belllaereotly what wa. four SUbjects. hnno. suggas cins chat he vould ba more comfortable wit. . the practitioner may induce . in ·. therefore. source of embarrassClent to her .leepers. In a study by Barber (1) con.ed to b e hypnociza4. Obsl!rVers of hypnotic demonstrarions may spontane~sl. deep leve l of c~ane.ey cannot.. is one o f trust and confidance. 11: is freql. r e latively ~rlct period oE cime w:i.

or of resorting to specia lized indirect techniques of trance induction that are not. the subject was in.cn i . and llatkins (2:5) J subjects tried to pr event t rance induction but were unab l e to fight ie off. or whether i t wa s th e result of what: Om..id~g in advance to communicate.ou1d virtually predict the behavior of his subje'cts by dec. As Orne (20) has demonstrated. tiooship beCWeen subject aud hypuotist . . he wishes to help fulfill the eXpe~imenter's QXPectations. he is dis. per se.ere Is some question whether behavior in these eXperiments was the result of hypnOSiS. this is particue larly true in a hypnotic relationship. presently known to exist. The most favor­ able situati.he. posed to respond in a way that will confirm the experimenter's hypothesis .on. one in which the subject expec t :' to bsnefit from his ' association with the hypnotist and trusts in the hypnotist and his ability to help.5tS--q. It is clear that at so:e level any cooperative swbject wishes an experi­ -cent to "work out. He found that he c. to test: this iSsue .racteristies of the experimenta l sit=uat::l. slO1<1 process of nurturing a poa itive r.11­ .. In all th:J:'ee cxperilacnt~..ilnd cn.ity of u. Although it see:ns that a person cannot resist hypnosis--at lease experimentally ~here a positive rel at i o nship axi.sing hypnosis would therefore se_ to depend upon success in t. but always in the context of participating in an exper1Jllenc. . has called "the de:zl. structed to resist hypnosis. whether or not he expecced chem to comply l!I'ith hi:s instruc · tions. This situation i s not likely to eust in an unfriendly setting ..MORl DoclD : 18252 t The Resistan t Sub1ect I n experimen t s by Yells (30) ~ Brenman (6). conSCiously but subtly. ' the The wany apparent cases of hypnosis wichout person' s awareness or consent all seen to have depended ~n a positive ­ r el. the subject had had previous tl:ance exper1ences W1th the hypnotist and it Is therefore reasonable to assume chat a positive r elationship existed between sub­ ject and hypnotist." that is. If he gr~sps the purpose of the experiment or the bias of the experimenter. . In each ease. The pOli sibU.la­ tionship.

claiming hypnotically induced cr~nal behavior.. • YDUnS and sen$itive ~rried male sehoolteacher came under the hypnotic influence of a neighbor . how. d .1.nal beh&vlo'C have been repo'ClI:ed. It will b e sufficient to exaadne one of chem.MORI DocID. he was recommended fo~ examination by Kroen.ion. . 18252 As 100& as an iDdividual can rema1. role in. aeginnina ~ith neighborly hospitality. tb: . As a test or bis power he then implanted the ?ost­ hypnotic suggestion that the _ schoolteacher would shoOt nie schoo!:eacher .var. he probably could prc\'ent hypnosis by simply diyerti~ his attention from the hypnotise's activiti. c:on­ vic:ced on the basis of hi.va pla. l •• ting five years. and o &oods.cher had no r e collection of the hypnotic: se5'sions. In the ease reported by Kroener (18) .. there 1s no longer any possibility of evaluattnlj them scientifically.s. doc~en r::ed the cum of the century.a suspicious ud on guard. After ~Y a ppeala. in each a dis••citlfied paraon found grac:lflcar::ion throush the individual who later becam.12­ . Theile tlu-ea cases have a callElQn al_ent. Throughout the affair.. ences with his nl!i&hbor . to get the schoolteacher to give _ r lll!nd him SlIl411 sums of money. r. mostly sex offenaes . particularly amone the German· speaklng people. posthypnotically induced c'onfes­ . Since 'IDOst of these cases occurred before W1thin recent years. victinl co confes s to crimes that he himself bad comm11:ted. who eventually uncovQrQd the tnJe cour s. the c:harses were brought not by the vlr::t1lll. but by relatives of the vict1m.c~ll~ did shoot h1=5elf in ehe left elbow and vas convinced th« shoot­ ing waa an accident. hi_ • • ducins hypnocis e. by hypnotic SUI&est1oD. but through a chance remark basan to suspect nacura of his relationship with his neighbor. cr1m. of evants by rahyp_ nothing him.. Control of Behavior in Trmc:e There are cases on r eeord.. Frequently. three cases in which hypnosis 1s said to t. the neighbor built up the relationship to the point where he was able. Ue wa. the schoo~e. Lbe hypnotist caused ~. and causillg him to rl!lllelllber the hypnotic experi ­ himself in the lefe hand. Finally.

s uccess <Jemonstrates thae it can be done.t to seed a dollar bill fro:n the hypnotisc's coac. The subject was unaware of his action and vigorously denied he had . Wells argues that fai lure to compel Sudh aces does noc disprove the possibility of doing iC .sea cion fO"l: posthypnotlc. active diamondback n :tclesnake . Young (35).colen che money. reports that subjects resist specific hypnotic 'uasestion' if they have decided to do .st a prean-aJ'I&ed unaccep t able c~d or indeed any other. 18252 ! CONA. He told them the snake was a two studies are frequently cited a .~~nt&l work on thi. the axpert.dastructive act.nce. asain. Here. Hoa t of eke e¥p. ~-- I . Scbne~ (23) i nadverte ntly "caused II soldier co desert h1s dlJ. . W ells eauaed a subjec.0 in adv. whereas @ en on. cr~nal. By posthypnotic suggestion.!). actlon. evidence chat hypaosls can be used to provoke behavior that is haroful t o otbers or to the person h~elf .ental evidence is highly eontradic:toTy. and he obtaine d from II hypnotized WAC Lnformatlon cla*. Ion int:enn CIOt-ional relationship with the sour ce finding STatUteanon in obeying wha t ever r.:quests are ude of him ia at b •• t a remote POS51bl11t7 operationally . " I t 1:1 evident that a case like this offers little encouragement.a:rtple. .. . Watkins ( 26) induce d II s o ldier to a rr!ke II superlor officer by suggestlna Chat : the office r was a Japanese sol" dier.1fled Sec-ret chat she bad previously told h~ she would not reveal_ . induced to e~t some antisocial or self. for e-.M ORl DoclD. for the extraction of sensitive material or gaining behavioral compliance under hostile conditions . Rowland (22) asked two deeply hypnotized subjects to pick up a large . Schneck v and Watkins produced behavior through l'Iypnos1s t~t ordi­ narily wou1 d b e regarded a.ty "In orde-r to carry out: • sus. . while Wella (30) reports we none of his subjects were able eo r ed. problem ha s que a t~on foeused on tbe more spectfic of whe t her & person in hypnosis can b.

!hese cases are commonly Cited in the press a-nd "in mag. The subjeccs :know that the experimenters .~ out aLailaT t. Orne. While the results of these scud1e. With only one exception.ishc deeply hypnotized subjects to c.ed ltowlarui's srudy.'s) complied with ~~e hypaotlst" comman~" ay way ot contrOl. the next two subjec ts att~ted to srab the snake even ~~ en they were told what it was. they will not suffer harg. t. t. t ha t..~ly. che s ltuacLons . Seven out of eigh t subjects entered into .. the acta are not truly tmd.land asked 42 persons to ctmle to the laborato'tY and pick up tbe snake . One subj~t: • · compUed immediately. repugnant or 4an&erous acts are based on this evidence . to the "real life" experiments of Schneck and Watkins as 1!IUch as it does to the laboratory studies of lowland and Young.nd refused to come near the box. that they will not be asked to ~arry out taak. 18252 I • coil of rope. Simil.u . Most of thl! claims that people under hypnosis can ' De compl!lled to commit antisocial. all were frisbeened a. :applie. that. Thi.re experimental. appear convincing.l peopl e. but was prevented trom handling the snake by a pane of invisible Slass. and hanea eon~tved . in books on hypoosis and in psychology eexts.ine articles. Young (35) 1:eplicat. • .ak•. &0lIl wieh tbey theoselves recoiled in the waking state.istant (protected by invisible ~l.re responsibla profeasion.ieu.eruci::lve in the real life meanine of these te~s.MORl DoclD. The other subject eame out of bypnosis and refused to' continue the exp~r1men: . is.o. they attempted to h. a. two subjec t 3 who were told to throw sulfuric aeid at a laboracory as. and that DO matter what the request ~y be. when they aTe concerned with hypootic behavior . _liking . that 1s. either physical or social .. lbe first objection 1.hey have been challeng~d profeSSionally by such hypnotises of note as the psychiatrist M.soctal or d e. T.ti~ that unhypnot!zed subjects sbrank from.hat have no meaning.endle snakes and huTled acid under conditiOIl.

d tlte same cues.15 ­ .. cites s:Lx..•• hypnotized and who was £akin& hypnosh.. the requests ·wera reasonable and legitimate within the context of a scientific axper~ent. AC some level. the simu1ator. For the h"ypnotized subj e cts. 18252 Since bo~h Schneck and Watkins were Army officers. ~i~tiQn leg1tim1~es & broad Tange of behavior that ant1~oc1al.. tbe experimental of this. To ~ure that both hypnotized subjects and simula tors received the salDe craabllent: . these t.MORl DoclD. " "Weitzenhoffer (27). When Orne pu c bis group of wakln& cont'l"Ol subjects under p:ressure to couqoly. who were not involved in th" experilllent and who had a e different relationship with the experimenter. ~oups complied with the Orne carried his experiment a step further .raups were :run "blind. an 1nfo ~ 1 conc::ol group. For the fa~lt:y ~ers. Both commands of the hypnotist. or pick up a POi5ODOUS snake . th ~~ acid. but did not exert similar pressure on either the control 5ubject~ or the hypnotized subjects when they were asked to perform the same acts in the W'aklng state . using hypnotized subjects. faculty 'IIl_bers were . A. Both Rowland and Young put strong pressure on their hypnotized subjects to c~ly with the requegted antisocial aets. ca lled in and treated as Rowland had treated hi& controls ..k. the Subjects must have been a~~re This SaJU reasoning applies in e:xper1ltents re­ qu1riag a person to s t eal.e b e considerod O~e (20) replicated the studies of Rowland and Young. and the awake control subjects. performed the antisocial acts . The faculty taembers invariably refused to carry Out: even tha least objectio04ble of the i:a. subjects who faked hypnosis.. in an evaluation of experimental evidence on this subject. the requests were un=eas0D3ble. too. and awake control subjec ts. ~~ t otherwL. the hypnotist in charg_ did not know who ". they. the offenses committed could not possibly result 1n any serious d3mage. hypnotists of repute ." that: 1. The Simple fact 1s.

whose expe riments cunc~rned uniocular blindness induced through hypnosis. source might divulge who claim that antisocial behavior can be induced i~ hypnosis. "1 had che D&1v a ida..nclplea or veIl-established tenden­ cies. bad bee. in the exper~ent&l si~tio~. who sa.. subject: would n~eura lly be h ighly suggestible and t herefore perfectly obedient In other words . where genuine harm could result.ypnosi.-- . 00 sl5Diric:&nc:e as long as the legr•• of control i~ hypnosis C:&D b. ae th&c as O'no.MORI DocID. t:h..._I' --1. Or.ven unless the 1. hypnotlzeC subject can be compelled to ecmm. was fooled for months by a Subjec:t who easily and regularly achieved the deep trance known as s~llsm. equally ri!putabh. He found that success or fail~e to induce harmful behavior In the various studies see:::ed to depend upon whether thl! subject. hac yet to be t e.i"1 ." .nstructions are con­ ersry to their ~ra l pri.. Weltzenhotter says that it: is unlikely ~. '-' "l -.. be won't. In Short.1t aces hal:'!'ltul to himself or others by any intrinSic but it appears hi. with or ~ithout deception. awareness i n varL<nls _ya. IB25? .s.t .i~: ~ . S'eck (3) says that hypnotic SUbjects part:icip." work se~ 0 ) de:aroMcrate t h a t IIlisperceptlon ha.ate and discrtminate selectively to the point of trickery &~d that most subjects show a high degree of volition in carrying out s uggestions... and six others. tad under condition. cannot.n led to misperceive the situaciem. is likely t. In experiments not concerned with anti-~ocial or self­ destructive be~&vior.. a persoo who is told the rattlesnake is only a rop\!!. shown no~ to exceed the socia l and behavioral con~rol &hat already exist. . 1 tbou&ht that.. Info~tl0n against his own best interests if he Is tricked into believing that the in t erra­ saCor 1:5 hIs case officer .16 ­ L.. subjects have at times demonsrrated considerab le independence .. that subjects under hypnosis carry CUI: all insCnlctions &i. ~. since heightened suggestibility i s characteristic of h.. to take an operational example. if be is told it it a anake. Pattie (21). The prQPosi~1on..o try to pick it up. it. . he (the subjact) lied and stuck to it.'.

e$pec1ally in Che press. He baslns co act.nf~t:.1. x:_rad in enoch.c." Draw-ings actually -17 ­ .l1 any t hing thae ~s Mppened to hi::! even as ~ i. ) .:fece ~ry and unfailing accuracy of recall db91.ed in hypnOSis.lve elements were also p~esent. He hallucinates the appropdat . oph. the aee of sLx. .cated oversimpl1. about the p-. and it has frequently been assumed that an actual regr~S$1on 1n many psychologic and physioloSlc: ase c:o=poneo~. and changes toward regreSsion Showe d no consistency from subject to subject:. Unhypnotized control subjects were more successful than subjects under deep hypnosis in sLnula tlnc their *se. non_reares. JIlJf:lDOOIAl I A~~UTacy of Recall 1n HypooSiS A Feat deal has been written. and hYPnotic age­ regression is the nechanism most frequently u••d. his teacher's n. plac:e.fic:ac.ted year cake.'!: country oft en can speak. the color ot the wall$~ and so on . there is little evidence for the tenuineness of hypnotic: aca-rearessLon. say. USing the RorsCMCh test and drawings in a study of ace­ regreSSIon in t en subjects. and as a leadlng autbority on the picture dra~ng test stated. they a:oun t ed co " . Youns (ll) demgnstraeed chae perlo ~e on intelligence tests was not appropriate to che isuggested age. His ac tions are exceedingly convincing. think in the ID4nner ot a 3ix-yeapold. People who left: their country ot birth at: an early aS8 and we!:'...1.MORT OecIO. The drawings did not resemble the work ot Six-year-olds.aa::e. Evan though chere have been =any studies of !:bis cype.s appeared. talk. although t hey have Ions the normal waking state. .0 "for&otten" it in Much of the experimental work in chi& ar•• has con­ cerned the recall of r emote memories. and according to scme J even prior to birth.c:hool. 18252 !'"'::".. .st1. read and write the naeive tongue under hypnosis. to the aUlle. _ :. Statements have f"requently been made about 4 person ' s abilicy to ~. and Co some extent.e envi:ronment and sives details about people sitting next to hila I n .1on. Orne (16) demonstrated that whIle s ome regressive chang. The subject 1s "taken back" to.

.hing more than role-playing "ich a "ill. "telescopic" character to the memory ot a hyp­ noti&ed patienc .ther the past in . He Will distort . electroencepha1osrams have E~led to indicaee any change in the direction of childhood EEG. Gebhard. '. the char.. .&rid Gebhard (13) in 88\'aratl!! reviews of the literature nearly a qU4r~er of a centur~ aparc. Indifferent material (dhe learning of nonsense syllables. Subj~tS ott.'J . just a. serie. He vill forget what he previously r emembered and wtll avoid the e~tional aspects ot a memory. in either case recovery is not complete.. EX?eri~"ce in clinics has shown that hypnotic recall 1s by no means a st'rai2." bad had at a later age .s ••ays · it is clear thae meaningful and emotionally stressed uterial is: 1:Iore readily available under hypnosis chan in the vaking state. tor example) is not. in normal recall proces. The patient will report phantasy as tact. This kind of evidence has pr~ted some hypnotists ~ say that hypnotic aae-rearession is no=.-o &~ve v1th great conviction the name of the vrons teachln'. unfolded ~tith precision th7ou&h hypnosis. ~encually.ion.es. What the patient reports is frequently a selection of several happenings rather than che intact recall or a Sin~le event. were not evident in electrocardiosraph tracinga. IM!mOries.-chere Is always some loss.t!QOry patteTns can b. both con­ cluded that nochina in che data confirme eh&t specific re=ote 1II. over a period of several . i t'\ Young (34) .MORl DocID: 18252 • CONF!n~'lTIAL done at the ase oE ~ix by one subject were available to~ eo=parisQn and there w~ not even a superficial resemblance . InCTeesed heal.'t rate characteristic of infanta or other chanses. in sUlllflaridng ps.'~\::._ cholO&ieal work on the recovery of recent melnOri. HypnoSis does appear to offer some advanea&e in the : recovery of 't'ecent. In tests concerning pbysiolosical componentS of ase­ regres3ioa. However. one th. -18­ .es..htfo:"Ward proeen .piat pieces coS. chera t. Therapists have found that there is .. of raconscructlons ~hat finally result in recall.

Fisher claims that a "sixCh sense of reality" continually operates In Che hypnotIc SUbject. clinical experience that hypnotized subjtcts sr.t:iou obtained through hypf!osis could be deitberat. it is doubtful that a subject ".ORI Doc ID. Beisal (4).. The accuracy of informa tion so obtained would need to be estab· 1ished by icdependent means.n~ "tDemDries" that lU. person may lie.110 does not wish to reveal into~t1on can be lDIlde to do so in hypnosis . Furthen:ore . capable of lying .It 1nfonnation he knows his inc:enogator vants to hear . pressures .l:'aacc. lity. appears to havs dealt with prevarication ~d. Orne (18) ia convinced £r~ long . it seems quite likely that: in!orm.. (5). 1 82 52 CO~FlDEm<\!. The hypnotic subject i s f!otoriously facile if! inventi.~: ~ ~ " ':7J ~ .y be acceptable · to the hypnot. he maint. refuse to answer..19· .'I ~ J It uy be possible to increase the debriefing "take" by bypnotizing a cooperative source. there i s the possibility that the hypootic state llOuld enhance the s ubjeet's deftness in fabrteating plausible but facruelly un~e material in response to the interroga­ tor ' . ~.ist (10).~en they have reason to do so. All in all . . and it is this speclal fr~nge contac~ that would very likely keep a hostile subject trom submittIng c~~ pletely to his interroptors . • '': • •• : • '• • \. There are other hypnotists who agree that with present t eChniques of hypnotie induction.lins .V.. . Ratber than open new vistas ot recall. hypnosis may well provide the release that allows a cooperative source to !abrlcate the cype . (11) . Only one autbor. or wake up when • • ked dira ct questiona on sensitive matters. prevarication or an unintentional confusion of fantasy and r . Hypnotic Vc't'"aelcy Considerable less data al'~ available on the veracity of infot"Clation furnished in t.r hyp~sis ... Beigel insiats that . but there would aiways be a risk of contamination by distortion and inaccuracies.

in captivi ty.st10ns such as blanket amnesia bave unpredict­ able effec ts even on very good subjects. there a'X"e no cases--at least in tne open literature.. Moreover.proof in event proposals would rely m. OD.s and permanence of hypnotic suggestion I S dir.ed and the subject is not confident be can resist it succes. This type of condiclonins aight h e lp offset the psychological effect..c~ly related to the CODcrete ..e forces . be used to s~engthen the defenses of per 3anDcl captured or detained by bostile oake personnel hypnosis .s oE tbe.on to believe that hypnosis viII be u. HypnotIc r e in. Providing by hypnotic suggestion lor acnesia upon capture is an intriguing idea. It 1s an accepted fact that a pe'X"son once hypnotized is mora prone to trance induc­ tion thereafter.forc-. re tilere is rea..ht be an advanta&e in certain casea.is are cowbined.. but bere again there are tetMital problems. It is well knClo'n that the effective­ ne.-t hypno. eeneral suSS. wbere druC' and hypno. particularly pain. to induce amnesia for sensitive information. Succe.fully . This cype of training might be justifiable operationally if :here were gOOd evidence that a truly resistant person in a hoatile setting can be hypnotized. or to help 01_ resi st: stress. ot resistant ~bjecc s hypnocize d in un~riendly circumstances . and he can be taught to stQulate tranee or to ~elPond in- 4?proprlately whenever he is being used by another hypnotist .MORI DocID: 18252 Defensive "ses of Hypnosis Prohuional hypnotists have from. 'even r~e=ber if it would work to suggest that the person only .. the astute usa of posthypnotic suggestion. One risk i s that the very proce •• of "proofing" a person agaUi.nt: =ia.. _y accu.i ..definition of a specific taSk .lnly They have proposed that hypnosis mlgb. It 1s c~n knowledge that . wh . as for example. time to time proposed that hypnosi:5 could. person can be trained in hypnOSiS to reject any subsoquent attQmpt to induce trance.ll7 lower hi s res i stAnce to trance induction. of drus. Ibe taet remains . be u~ed to ot capeure.

larly Such a procedure lllisht 1a undftt'takan in particular instances. could be · extremely disturbing. pers on'. althou&h subjects under hypnotic analgesia continue eo ~e s pond phys1010Sically :uch .jor affect on chI!: -=dety component..eem to bold promise at protecting then wh~ deca1.. but probably i . to produce profound analgesia . Conditioning indiViduals not to feel stress. to tover himself.&t:alent" to relieve his distress.J:t\S to the 1nten-ocator for "tre. certaia uusens!eiva LenIS of information. t'ac\llties might lead to a ~uasi-ther. of pain..bi lley to rl!'l!ll!mber and to ratain c. of severe p. they do not ~eport experienelns pain. -- ~. ability to plan an escape.. 18252 C IlNFiQL!ffIAL " . Thare are on record no' inst6Dcas of major surgery undertaken durin& posthypnotically: induced analgesia . of information vi~l to him during detention. not fa•• ible .a they do in the ~. It would seem far safer to allow the individual to decide for himself what he should not reveal and how best to prevent disclosure. Laboratory experiments bave shown thac. a general practice .king state .!ttion vhethal: this might: deprive ru. Thus while analgesia for pain quite possibly can be induced posthyJ)notlcally. . Ie yould artificially induce a stat. It appears that hypnosiS works best 1n siouations of high anxiety and probably has it. The r • • rrictian on his .MORI DocID.ned b y hoscile forces . . .omplete control of hi. particu­ pa~n. or to maneuver 1n general would be severely restricted.. what type of SU"estton should be given? The posthypnotic suppression of all pain might be • This "analgesic" effect has been demonstrated in studies wheee anxiety was removed by means other than hypnosis. Only a relatively s_11 D'UIIIber of individuals viII enter a sufficiently deep somn~listlc stat.ychop-chology thaI. there is serious que. there is nothing in the history of hypnosiS to indicate how reliably this ean be done . Th.peutlc relationship in ~ich the per$QP t1J. Ev~ if i t coul d be done. . would . This method has other serious drawbacka.

. board by board. There is aD record the case ot a p1:isonar of. .echIli t!'\e of time dis ­ torrion. war who effectively retained his hold on reality by c~n­ structing a phantasied bouse.. however. personnel should be able C postpoQe and tempo­ o rarily alleviate the disabling effae t .nket suagestion \o1OUld ba efbcc:ive ~ay. . Some stress might. c. A kind of socIal interaction could be sustained in solitary confinement by creating a phantasy world of people and things chrough aueo­ suggestion. would rapidly break down if the eaptured subject felt any pain at.stion. thirst or fatigue.stions would be nullified . Ev~ this sugges tion. ..s when he discu••e5 the possible applications of hypnosis in situations ou t side cha clinic or laboratory. Neither posthypnotic suggestion nor the t.. .Q pain seTVe5 as a physio­ lo&ical ~. . .ra fairly . "tel ucopini" l oni periods of cetentian into.tions of true jeopardy. nail by nail.echnique of autosuggestion has been cried under condi. .nsta~e.culd be tried in any alhJa ticm chat lends its el f to defense by poathypnotie s ugg•• tion.. vith the added advantage ~t the individual do•• not surrender persorutl control of his bah.ppa1:ent:. as well as the devastating effeets of long bol ation. A person caught to rely on hypnosis as an anal~e51c and who finds it ineffectual 1n certain situations might be Con­ sidenbly worse off eh4n if he had not ~sted this device in the first place . sinc.arning signal.s to die individual. quite poa.l hypnotise... proflUsiona. It would be better to suggut that no pain will be felt al: the hands of captors. favors posthypnotic sugg. Defense by Autosuggestion the defeasive posSibilities of aueosuSS•• eiOft :. as is likely in all but a vny fev instances. of hun~er.ibly because it is a uechanism Irltb wich be h:ls had sOllIe experience. aU.. . be avoided by indudnC long periods of sleep. . Be has no vay of knowing whethe~ his sua. ~-. Th. 1:t p:l:obabl.and it is doubtful that such a bla. \lith training in auto­ su&&es cion . . . sub­ jectively experienced shorter periods.uou.. or by using the t.:.avior.MORl DocID . in rare i. 18 252 dang.

these agents do noe create sugges tibili t y where there is none to begin wieh. A~. who wants to cooperate with the hypnotist: but is I!!IIOtlonally unable to do SQ. . provided the subject possess.s used have been dep~eS5ants.bout every aspect of t~anc~. subjects more suggestible. drugs induce relaxation and relaxation is generally believed to enhance suggestibility. brtnss on f ec l1ngs of helpl••5. Autosuggestion. rained coercion.. Hypnod. and l>I:u&. and to havQ been tasted experimentally to . It may DOC sl. Drugs have been admioistered in the clinic to reduce patient resistance to hypnosis. good result.s initially a ~dicum of suggestibility . by tea-r and unres ·.ssant det~ne on suggestibility. 1ncrav eneously 1n sub-aneach. It offers eh.et1c doses. Weitzenhoffer (21) claims that sub­ ane5theclc doses of various anesthetic drugs make. they their effect. also less likely to weaken 1t:." which suggests that the usual high rapport bet\o'een subject and hypnotist _y not be a$ critically impo't'tant where hypnosis procedures a't'e combined Yitb.e 1.~ extent. HypnosiS with the aid of drugs 1s said to create a "more di't'ecte d Yelat1onship. thet a res is cant< patient.lowly. but i. Wolb .rmstheu the defense posture. In other words. dru!. and not as well underatood. placed unde r the influence of drug_ aad given . ~uld theyeaftey he susceptible to hypnosi~.n. claim. he says.s. He is careful to point out: that the technique would not succeed if the pa tient is in a stat:e of hostile resistance .bnt. ~g (32) ~epo~t. ~pr. induc­ tion..t invariably the dru. "res i s t a nt" means a pat.ess in the patient wh1le arousing "erchillc dependency fe.elings toward the ope rator. 1s untested.t:ad s:lcuations . ~1th sodiUm any tal lldmi. But in the context that Wolbers refers to.pecific and detailed instructions . advantage of allOWing the person to adapt his defenses in response t o real ratber ehan pradic. Wh1. like posthypnQtl~ 5u&gestlon. mainly the barbiturates.M ORI DoclD: 18252 . The drus. II R.scered .ni.le druas might be an effective -23­ .

ayins ! .bject is refuSing and then work around the persoa's re.1"'7. most them ~~n the firs t bour. Within three or four hours. Actually. it is likeI7 that the hypnotist haa uaed suggestions speci fical ly intended to prolong the trance.. a skillful hypnoti st can eaaily learn . never mention the poSSible use of drug • . Evetl 1n case... r~in of .ssravate anxietieS or other emotional o~ danse-r The first Is the very legitimate concern profession that an unskillful hypnotist types of dangers eommonly .ken.en than to the professional..24 ­ .. though nO satis ­ tactory daca a ..~'IilAL . say tor days.ond eypa seems IDOre & lource ot concern ~ lay.••• means of dissolving tru~ resistanc e in • truly si~tlon ~ no professional is on record . awaken. hypao~ists who have proposed ChI!! us~ of hypnpsis In varfare and in intelligence. a group of persons in trance was : delibe rately· abandoned by their hypnotist..my the . general prore•• ianel beliet is that the subject will .t~le that they I i will..istanee. w. In an experi~ent to test how l ong subjects vould : hypnotized.7 not: " able t o br1ng bis suhject out of tranc&_ Th. the command to . ssoc iated The se<. ' ." " j ho. Wher~ a trance perSists for an extraord~rily loaz tiae. wlI!re the subject refuses t o Db. . of the oedieal _Y pl["oduce or d is t:urbanc:.c e available on 1:t. all subjects were out at tranc e .. This Is tbe notion that a hypnotist .MORl DoclD: 18252 CO!'IlC." longing the I:ranca. the general belief is that hypno sis cannot be prolon8ed for great lengChs of time without periodiC addi tional suggestions for pro. Dangers of Hy:pnosis There are two with hypnosiS. Significantly.

inventa ~emories .~te .inctucinS trance in the hoatUe bu~ una. suspicious subjec..n someone else. for example. ( CONCLUSIONS The u.rdins the diffic ulti" of inducing banee..tructed to resist trance and Who suffers In DO neither guilt nor penalty if he fails to do so . .on 1.:se of bypDO$1s in tntelUletice would present ~. suhj itc t and that i t se_5 \.nates his output . The. They fail to say what methods could be used operationally. There is no good evidence. the resis tant subject 1. can be done .ltely thac an anca&onisclc subject notized agains t his viII. as a ineans of defending. ts who h. often d.cation operationally .t as t ransparent subtertuge.25 ­ .1s­ torts.e method.."T"Ili. case i s he guarded. suspicious or fearful . To obtain comp l ~e from a reststant: s ource.sentially hoatile circum. ~llinc to be hypnotl&ed but for psycbclogical reasons 1s ·mabl. it would be necessary co hyPnot~e the source UDder e. subj ect who i s i~. ~an be hyp­ Dhrea:. Hypnotists vho have propo sed that hypnoSis could be used in int elll­ gance agree that indirect methods of trance induc t ion would be needed.. Hypnott. in the laborato!7. elin!c. Tbey in ­ clude suggescions abouc relaxacion and easing or censlon. seCD ~o have little appl1. certain technical problems Dot encountered 1n the cl~lc or l aboratory. or the Subject is asked to vitness trance lnelucc1. .MORI DocID: 18252 . or he 1$ asked to role play or precend hypooais unc11 he can actually enter crance.t ml!:thods would nrlke a . Clinically. fabricate' aDd otherwise contiDi­ . thAt: ehi. he is a. the infor ­ mation. there is s till little assurance that a source can be made t o act against his own best interests. s~eone Who i .. r. . 'The usual indlrl!:c.ve evaluated. to enter tranee. A hypnotized s ubj ec t . 'n\e IIIOre anxious he 1s about. He 15 apt to tell the hypnotist what he wants to hear. the more likely be is to distort.l or expe1i:'1menul. wbether or not it is related to facc. proposals for the use of hYPROSis in intelItSCDce have been frank to say there are no known methods for . eV"ml when motivated to be cooperative •.

T. caused unhypnotlzed Ixpert ­ ~ental contro l subjects to persist in an action lon&e~ tha. No one com. 1s no . Subjects can pass from the waking state in:o hypnoSis without feeling any different and without signs of chang_ discernible to an observer . It ~ould be difficult to find an area of scientif i c int~rest more beset by d i vided profe. lli~ence i ." "hypnotlc blindness.able technical problem. Apart from such technical problems as producing rrance dhe p o tential application of ~ered by the ab. Orne (19) has shown chat unhypnotized persons can be mo t:ivat:ed to equal and surpass the supposed superhuman physical feats seen in hypno s is.sabli~ n. With hi&h lDOt:iv&c1on and a poslt:ive r elationship .on.. ! longer considered requis1te for 1nduc1na hypnotic behavior. ­ s i onal views are divided on virtu~lly every fundamental issue pertainini to hypnosis. under poSthypnotic sugaes tl. if the s uggestions should prove ineffective .rab~llCY. With se lf-induced suggestions. Profe. 182.O!1I DeelD. an increaSingly e lusive tarlll . X. hypnosiS to int . . trying Co . s ional opinion and contradictory experimental evidence. He asked well motivated subjects: simply to disregard certain types of stimuli .' Hypnosis as a defensive measure presents no insqr­ lDOuot .indueed suggestion the Individual and increasing his Vul­ would be effective.ence of hard fact. Weitz. In posthypnottc suggeStion.enboffer (27). . there 1s a definite rislt of 41.." anal­ gesla and other responses seen ln hypnosls . .n subjacts p eJ:foradng the same act. and he h .ay wether under hostile condi c~cDS. whether or no t i t breaks down under coercion. because the WO'~ld individwal recains conttol of h1s behAvior J there see.!l. . buc neither 15 there assurance ~at posthypnotic suggestion or self.-all withoUt:: bypootiziq a nyone . Hypnotic trance . Barber bu produced "hypnotic deafness. hypnoS iS is a qualitatively unique s t a t e with soce physio­ logical and condlcioned response cooponants or only a form of sugges t ion induced by high motivation and a positive relat:ioMhlp between hypnotis t and subj~t. . to be less chance of jeopardlzin& the defense pos ture .')2 CQl!flDPrlTIAl .

is.t.e hypnosiS in different ". where the poteatial application to intelligence has alvays been knoWn. lin&~ but they are untried and: therefore highly . and they arc neither defen. Patti.m the expert cannot Aluay. i~ . .e l ess nor pe.P. technique are ~nsely app . in popular periodicals ~d in f1ction.s ive.peculative .MORI DoclD: 18252 explain bOIl one knoWS he.anipulatiOl'l. It is probably siznifieant tbat in the long history of hypno. hypno31S seems not to be the in. .nS on hypnosiS from instances of apparent "sixth sens. they are capable of consld. Apart men t ioned. and others pre~ent.c lfillful . chere are DO yeliable account.on alr. .n hypnotized. Experienced hypnot1s tS have b. kck. ot it. . by an adversaTY. that a determined and informed peYson could rest. under operational conditions. since ditfere-nt: people experie:nc.ady such statements as: hypnotized persons are anyt:h1n6 but blind automatons.s. of te.t.ed nor had trai. there 1s no C:0IIIp1etely satisfac:tory or unique answer. ull that wat be 1s simulators uho ~ve never been hypnotir.ls for the use of this ." volit1. says that.called "naive" Ev.fficult to evaluate the potential of hypnosis in inteillgence work.c~nt of absolute control tbat 1s so often depicted by the press. The bridge becveen clinical-~xpertmental hypnosis and pos sible operational uses is yet to be butlt.ys. in faking hypnosis . even so. ~efore and d~in5 bypoo.1ng As £or obedieoee in trance. loa die absenc. On the basis of the kinds of evide'O. Orne.. Propos. has ba.en fooled by silJllllators.rable 1ndepend~ce cf judzm~t. effective use by an intell igence service . ~~. it is d1.ce chat aarHr. .lng ta aebual 1y hypnosis. one can cull from professlona1 wrlt:1..

16. J .MORI DecID: 18252 1 . C • H. Beigel. Beck. S.!!o~b"'.•n"t. 4. e xpe r. 205-235. Hypnoci. 1957 • . L. 7. !I. c l in ... L. 5..._. Hypnotic identification of an amnestic victim. Es t abrooks . x. M.m. phen~ under hypnosis. C . uccon D 9. 49. 1942.ability: a r. Oct . Decke rt. ExperimCDt~ 1n the hypnotic produc tion of antis ocia l and self . med. a. 1.28­ J . 2. 12. • •• New York: Harper & Raw. ! • • 1. 49. Brit. BeIgel. Inc.. !renr:r. Psycho!. 332. 10. 0:11n. ! .•• .-""':..1. abnorm. • 1936. !3(J>. and Family Living . M.hiacry. The r o le of expectancy i n t he pe~:fonnance of posthy?notic behavior . !he problem of prevarication in marriage MarriagE. HYpnOSiS.l:Djurious behavior. . el1.40. S. '03. expo Hypnosis.. 4. Y9. li.J. Hypnosis.F .!:i. Exp!r . E. 382-399. risher. ' ~~~'~!~'"'_. 32. 1963.)37.p~1 . 1 9~4 . 1931. 1 962 .ng: Hypnosis as pero:. H. Payc.42 . J.61 . .rr". 71-103 . C. Soc. &.v!. J . ) . 1933. .507 . 6. C. counseling. Psychol. Prevar1cation under hypnos1s. r . and Y•• c. New York: & Co.H..H ..' . Int: . . 1943. 36 . wd.hl tQ autohypflOals.C. An investiga tion of alleged conditioning 11. Estabrooks.an.. 29 9-304 . The problem ot hypnocll1. 1. J. 3.o:op1t lv e restruc ­ tIL Fram soamambu1. Psychol .J. 1953. Fish@r. H.n . Psychol. Barber. (Ed . Differentiation of hypnotic trance fr~ normal sl•• p. Cu".. 8. 1955.

19'3. 20. Paper re a d at Co~aranc. C. }i .. ~a. gation.. P.A.C.• Wasbington. 195(. Orne . 1935. T . ll. D.. 46.T. 1les . Kline.behavior and hypnosis. Coh~. M. 236 241. 19 :>7. abnDt'm. ARDC St udy SR 177-D.299. Kroener.J. S. sos ." Naw York: Julian Pre•• . 1965. 18. T. Ps)'chological faccors maxlmi1lin. 1 . Dating human lIlemories by hyp. Wiltshire. soc . Soc.) !!!!. D. 1:'1:an • • . Psychol . Hollf"'OOd. W ••binlton .1 'Science 1leaearch. W4sh~con. F.• 1951 . Fisher. Dec. 1959. J. Psychol. 4 4 -'9­ . Septt!!lllb~. Brit.V. Peu . of hypnotic ase regr••• ion: an experhDental study. Gebharl1. 14. C..& resis tance to strass: with s pecial reference to hypnosis . The nature of hypnosis! artifac t and J. J. Social control in the p syeholol ical experi=ent : antisocial.J. 17 ~ Orne. Sur. A scientific reporc on "the search for Bri dey Murphy. 189· 200. 21. 1961.MORl DoclD : 18252 12. manipulation of human behavior . ·4. J.noais . lE4Concrol unde r Stressful Situationa. " Bu:reau of 8oc:1. K. Blderman and H. Tech. PsychOl. X. M. Orne. ahnor!!! . . Orne. Defense Documen~tion Center public. 1965.w. Zlu:mer (Eds .. In A. and Evans. The potenCial uses of hypnosis in interro­ 1'1.tiod AD 627 440. 277 . J. Rypnocism and crime. Psychol.T. H . 15 . essence. the use ot hypnosis 1n intelligence and related military situations.. J .oc. Orne. 16. T. D. The me c~nis3. Pattie . Rep. Ked . Sci. on "S. Uniocular blindness and hypnocic sugges tion . 213-225 . New York: Wiley.. 1962.

Psychol. Antisocial eo~ls1on$ induced under hypnotic trance. J. ~. Weltze nhoEEe r. L.R. A. . ~ •• 1958. abnol:Ul. 32. 19U. •• 28. 1940.ho1.. General Technigues of New Yo~k: Crune and St~.R.. Crune and S t ratton.G. 26. Psychol.31. Watkins. psychol. EXperiments in "waking hypnosisll for i!lstructional purpose.:: Training_ Na".ey 60 Sons. 1939. 1947. Weltl. thtllDSl!. Soc.lv. 19S9. 31. "ed. -30 ­ . 30. J . \oI. Crune and Str~ttoc. 26 .M. 2'6. W. Autosani. York: 25. \1. sUljsesClbilitr . soc. Wells. .2. Hypnotism. ) Hypnotism: New York: an oblective study in John Wl1. A. A case of hypnotic trance induced i. 1957. Brit. soc.. 18..1. 24. 261 -272.259. Hypnoti~. Schultz .W . Psyc. J. 11.: Charles C. 1951. 27.••• aeudy. 19$3.a or others? 114-117.enhoffer.. A milit~ry Schneck. Ability t o r esist artificially induced J.and Lutha..8 . crime. Will hypnotized persons try to hArm J.H . • c.eeon. dissociation . Rowlaod.MORl DoclD: 18252 COllFiDOOIAl . ~ --22. Walls.M. wolberg. ~.n a rQsistant subjQct in spitQ of active opposition. 1. J . 42. L. . Watkins. 1948 . Wells. Ill. abnanD. abnorm. soc. ExperiIlmts in the hypnotic production of J. J . abnor::a.G. 1. Psychol •• 1923 . offense induced by hypnosis: Sprinafield. Inc.. 239-404. 63-102.R. . 23. New York: The Principles ot HypnoCherapv' Vol . 29. J. 101..

L~Cron (Ed . New York: Xilemil l an.276 ..MORl DoclD : 18252 ..J • ••• •.faet or artifact? J. ~. L.31­ [ . . P..--"~ o~ u~l"l . 19'2 .• • . l"sycho l" 1940~ 35.xperl.. . 1941. Antisocial U8e3 of hypnosis. 92-104. Youn~J p:-.mental hypnos1S: a review.­ \~ . In Young.: .C.C.'. 33.~ : . P..C...~y"o~h~l ~..~ P .. ••. .M. .. . ) Experimental HypnOSiS.. 35. COh'Fmm1lAl. Hypno tic regression -. soc. 273. 34... . P.. ..." '. Young. abnorm. .• l.:"' :' ~' . ~ ••_ . . ...