Journal of Abnormal Psychology1981, Vol. 90, No. 4, 334-344

Copyright 1981 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0021 -843X781 /9004-0334J00.75

The "Hidden Observer" Phenomenon in Hypnosis:Some Additional Findings

Jean-Roch Laurence and Campbell PerryConcordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Twenty-three highly hypnotizable subjects underwent two specially constructed7-item hypnotic inductions. Over the 14 items, the main finding was of a rela-tionship between Hilgard's "hidden observer" effect and two aspects of hypnoticage regression. Subjects reporting a hidden observer experienced duality duringregression to age 5, in which they were aware of being both adult and child.When asked to write a complex sentence, most did so, usually without spellingerrors. The subjects not reporting this effect experienced quasi-literal age regres-sion in which they had the exclusive feeling of being 5 years old, with no senseof an adult identity. Most of these subjects were unable to write the same complexsentence when requested to during age regression. The study replicated Hilgard'sfinding of the hidden observer phenomenon in terms of its incidence and obtainedsimilar verbal reports from subjects experiencing it. At the same time, the resultssuggest that a neodissociation account of hypnosis may need some modificationsto accommodate these additional empirical findings.

In a number of recent articles, Hilgard(1973a, 1973b, 1977a, 1977b, 1979) hasproposed a neodissociation theory that seeksto account at once for the phenomena ofhypnosis and for a variety of cognitive pro-cessings beyond the hypnotic context. Thetheory has close affiliations with the disso-ciation literature of the 19th century (Hil-gard, 1973a), which was obtained primarilybut not exclusively from clinically diagnosedhysterical patients (Binet, 1896, 1889-90/1905; Janet, 1889/1973). In his theorizing,Hilgard (1977a) seeks to avoid some of theexcesses of classical dissociation theory whileat the same time moving beyond the maindifficulties associated with "state" theoriz-ing in hypnosis (see Hilgard, Note 1, Note2, for the critiques of the limitations of statetheorizing). To do this, he has deliberatelychosen to align himself with the metaphorof neodissociation.

The support of the Natural Sciences and EngineeringResearch Council of Canada, Grant A6361 ("CognitivePatterns in Hypnosis"), to the second author is acknowl-edged gratefully. We also wish to thank Elizabeth Chaufor her careful typing of the manuscript during thephases of its preparation.

Requests for reprints should be sent to CampbellPerry, Department of Psychology, Sir George WilliamsCampus, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec H3GIMS, Canada.

The main tenet of the theory is that men-tal functioning may be regulated by multiplecognitive control systems rather than by asingle mental apparatus such as conscious-ness. While Hilgard (1977a) proposes nu-merous applications of the theory to mentalfunctioning outside of the hypnotic context,the scope of the present article is confinedto neodissociation theory as it pertains tohypnosis.

Hilgard has sought to demonstrate mul-tiple cognitive controls in hypnosis by use ofwhat he calls a reference experiment (Hil-gard, 1973b), using highly susceptible sub-jects who receive analgesia instructions whilebeing exposed either to cold pressor(Hilgard, Hilgard, MacDonald, Morgan,& Johnson, 1978; Hilgard, Morgan, &MacDonald, 1975) or to ischemic pain(Knox, Morgan, & Hilgard, 1974).

From both the theoretical writing and theempirical studies, the metaphor of the hid-den observer has emerged as signifying thepart of the person that experiences pain dur-ing hypnotic analgesia while the part of theperson who is hypnotized denies the samepain. The phenomenon itself consists of fourcomponents: (a) The experimenter first es-tablishes a baseline for pain experience foreither ischemic or cold pressor pain; (b) ata subsequent time, he or she administers in-

334

THE "HIDDEN OBSERVER" 335

structions for hypnotic analgesia, and thesubject is again requested to rate the levelof pain intensity on an open-ended pain rat-ing scale from 1 to 10 (where 1 = painless,and 10 = severe pain), which the subject hasalready learned to use during the initialbaseline recording period; (c) hidden ob-server instructions are administered and athird set of pain ratings is obtained on thesame scale of subjective intensity; and (d)following the removal of amnesia after hyp-nosis, subjects are questioned to determinewhether the hidden observer instructions ledto qualitative changes in their subjective ex-perience.

The hidden observer instructions havebeen presented elsewhere (Hilgard, 1977a,Note 3). They state, in essence, that just asthere are bodily processes such as heart rate,blood pressure, and temperature control thatare not fully represented in awareness, theremay also be a "hidden part" of the personof which the hypnotized person is unaware.It is suggested further that this part may beregistering the pain of ischemia or cold pres-sor that is not accessible to the hypnotizedpart in analgesia. Instructions are then ad-ministered to establish contact with this hid-den part. The instructions are always wordedin such a manner as to convey to the subjectthat the experimenter expects that such ahidden part will emerge.

Typically, when this procedure is used, thepain reports furnished during the hiddenobserver item are more similar to the base-line reports than to the pain reports givenduring the hypnotic analgesia item. Thus thephenomenon can be characterized first interms of a discrepancy in pain reports be-tween the hidden observer and the analgesiacondition, and the implication is that painthat is not felt to any marked intensity dur-ing hypnotic analgesia is nevertheless reg-istering at another level and can be tappedby hidden observer instructions. In addition,subjects who report experiencing a hiddenobserver effect describe it as being an ob-jective, matter-of-fact observation of whatwas actually occuring during hypnotic an-algesia.

A third point which needs to be empha-sized about the phenomenon is that not allhighly susceptible subjects experience itwhen the hidden observer instructions are

administered, even though the initial studyof the effect (Knox et al., 1974) may havegiven the impression that all highly suscep-tible subjects experience the hidden observereffect if appropriately selected. Of the eighthighly hypnotizable subjects in that study,one subject did not appear to manifest thehidden observer effect; indeed Knox et al.(1974) were puzzled by this and attemptedto interpret this subject's behavior in termsof a different sort of hidden observer expe-rience.

Two subsequent studies (Hilgard et al.,1975, 1978) reported a much lower inci-dence of the phenomenon's occurrence. Theformer study found that 40% of 20 highlyhypnotizable subjects had a hidden observer,and the latter found comparable results for50% of 12 highly hypnotically susceptiblesubjects.

In a recent study, Perry and Laurence(1980) tested 10 highly susceptible subjectson seven hypnotic items of high item diffi-culty. On only two of the seven hypnoticitems was any consistency of response found.Five subjects who manifested Hilgard's hid-den observer phenomenon reported duringa postexperimental inquiry that during ageregression to 5 years old, they had experi-enced duality (Perry & Walsh, 1978), inwhich they felt that they were both adultand child, either simultaneously or in alter-nation. All five of the subjects who reportedthat they did not experience the hidden ob-server effect denied all awareness of theiradult identity and, despite being pressed, in-sisted that they really felt that they were 5years old.

This finding suggested that among highlyhypnotizable individuals, there might be twodistinct reactions to a hypnotic item thatseeks to tap dissociation. Accordingly, thepresent study sought to pursue this initialfinding further.

Method1

SubjectsFifty-three undergraduate students who had under-

gone the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Suscepti-

1 The investigation was carried out over 2 separateyears of testing. In the first year, 10 highly susceptiblesubjects were tested on the seven-item hypnotic indue-

336 JEAN-ROCH LAURENCE AND CAMPBELL PERRY

bility, Form A (HOSHS:A) of Shor and Orne (1962) aspart of a requirement for a laboratory course volun-teered for a second session using the Stanford HypnoticSusceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSSIC) of Weitzenhofferand Hilgard (1962). They were asked to volunteer onlyif they had passed most of the HGSHSIA items and hadpassed the amnesia and/or the posthypnotic suggestionitem of that scale, or thought that they might be highlyresponsive to hypnosis for other reasons. Of these, 23subjects proved to be highly susceptible to hypnosis onSHSS:C. The final sample of 23 subjects consisted of9 men and 14 women. They ranged in age from 18 to47 years (M = 26.47). For this sample, HGSHS:A scoresranged from 7 to 12 (M = 10.57), and SHSS:C scoresranged from 9 to 12 (M = 10.74). For screening pur-poses, SHSS:C was modified by omitting the anosmia-to-ammonia item and replacing it with the posthypnoticsuggestion item of the Stanford Hypnotic SusceptibilityScale, Form B (SHSS:B) of Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard(1959). All 23 subjects in the sample passed the post-hypnotic amnesia item of the modified SHSS:C, and 17of them also passed the posthypnotic suggestion item.The 30 subjects who did not score sufficiently highly onSHSS:C were reassured that they had considerable hyp-notic ability, but that for the purposes of the presentstudy, the experimenter was looking for individuals whowere slightly more hypnotically responsive. All 53 sub-jects were paid $5 for the SHSS:C screening session, andthe 23 subjects who underwent Experimental TestingSession 1 were paid $10 for their participation. The 22subjects who underwent Experimental Testing Session2 were paid an additional $10 for their participation.

Experimental Testing Sessions

The two experimental sessions each lasted approxi-mately 1 hour and were videotaped with the subject'sprior consent. This videotaped record constituted thebasis for a postexperimental inquiry performed by thesecond experimenter (C.P.) immediately following thehypnotic induction. At Experimental Testing Session 1,after a relaxation and eye closure procedure, the follow-ing items were administered: arm rigidity (Weitzen-hoffer & Hilgard, 1962), delusion of a missing number(Evans, 1965), regression to age 5 (Perry & Walsh,1978), glove analgesia (Perry, 1977), the hidden ob-server (adapted from Hilgard, Note 3) uncanceled sug-gestion (Perry, 1977), and posthypnotic amnesia(Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962).

tion described in the text as Experimental Testing Ses-sion 1. The data for these subjects have been reportedelsewhere (Perry & Laurence, 1980; Laurence, Note 4).In the second year, 13 additional highly susceptible sub-jects were recruited and tested on Experimental TestingSession 1 and on a second seven-item hypnotic induction,referred to in the text as experimental Testing Session2. In addition, all but one subject (who had left theprovince) from the first year of testing underwent thissecond experimental testing. For this report, the datafor the two samples have been pooled, since they do notdiffer significantly on any variable.

At Experimental Testing Session 2, subjects wereadministered the further seven following items, againafter an initial induction utilizing relaxation and eyeclosure: hypnotic dream (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard,1962), compulsive response (Sheehan, 1971), dichoticlistening (constructed especially for the experiment),source amnesia (Evans & Thorn, 1966), rapid reinduc-tion of hypnosis (Weitzenhoffer, 1957), posthypnoticamnesia (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962), and post-hypnotic suggestion (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959).

Immediately following each of the two hypnosis ses-sions, a short postexperimental inquiry was conducted(and recorded on cassette tape) to test for and removeposthypnotic amnesia on both sessions, to test for andremove if necessary the uncanceled analgesia of Exper-imental Testing Session 1, and to test the posthypnoticsuggestion item of Experimental Testing Session 2. Sub-jects were then introduced to the second experimenter,who interviewed them using a modification of the Ex-periential Analysis Technique (EAT) described bySheehan, McConkey, and Cross (1978).

The Hidden Observer Item

There were a number of differences in the mannerin which the hidden observer item was administered inthe present study, as compared to how it is describedby Hilgard (1977a, Note 3). These were as follows: (a)Hilgard typically used either cold pressor or ischemicpain to test for this phenomenon. The pain stimulus inthe present study was a Take-Me-Along electrical stim-ulator, powered by three 1.5-V batteries, and manufac-tured by the Farrall Company. It was designed origi-nally for patients undergoing behavior modification whoare required to shock themselves in the absence of theirtherapist, (b) Hilgard typically placed his hand on thesubject's shoulder throughout the whole duration of thishidden observer item. By contrast, in the present studythe experimenter's hand was placed briefly on the sub-ject's shoulder at the beginning of the hidden observeritem and again, briefly, at the end of this item to ter-minate it. (c) Hilgard suggests that subjects will be am-nesic for the hidden observer experience until posthyp-notic amnesia is removed; this was not done in thepresent study, (d) Hilgard told the subjects that thereis another part of them that knows what is really goingon; in the present instructions subjects were given anopportunity to deny the hidden observer instruction,since they were told that there could be another partof them, and if there were one, it could report what itfelt upon receiving an electric shock. The rationale forthese variations from Hilgard's procedure is presentedelsewhere (Laurence, Note 5).

Experiential Analysis Technique (EAT)The EAT is an adaptation of Kagan's (1975) Inter-

personal Process Recall method and has been describedelsewhere (Sheehan et al., 1978). The present study fol-lowed the EAT procedure in that the videotape of thehypnotic induction sessions was played back to the sub-jects immediately following their termination, and anindependent experimenter questioned the subjects abouttheir hypnotic experience at various points in the inter-

THE "HIDDEN OBSERVER" 337

view. The present study diverged from the proceduresdescribed by Sheehan et al. (1978) in having the ex-perimenter, rather than the subject, control the videorecorder. The video recorder was stopped and the subjectquestioned at certain predetermined points throughoutthe two hypnotic inductions.

In this way it was possible to obtain standardizedinterview data at each of a number of designated pointsduring the inductions. The relevant sections of each in-terview were then transcribed and used to evaluate thesubjective components of subjects' responses to the dif-ferent hypnotic items. Further details are presented else-where (Laurence, Note 4, Note 5).

Results

Incidence of the Hidden Observer Effect

For the total sample of 23 subjects, 9 ofthem (39.13%) reported a hidden observereffect. As compared to the first year of test-ing, when 50% of 10 subjects manifested theeffect, the second group of 13 subjectsshowed a reduced incidence (30.77%). Theoverall rates for the 2 years of testing, how-ever, did not differ significantly, x2U) = -75,p > .05. It can be seen that the incidencefound in the present study is comparable tothose reported by Hilgard et al. (1975,1978). Further, the two groups did not differsignificantly on either HGSHS:A or SHSS:C.On HGSHS:A, the mean for the hidden ob-server group was 10.60, as compared to10.56 for the no hidden observer group; onSHSS:C, the respective means were 10.56 and10.86. These data on incidence of the phe-nomenon add support to the impression thatthe hidden observer effect is a differentialone for highly susceptible subjects.

Duality in Age Regression and the HiddenObserver Effect

During the EAT inquiry following Exper-imental Testing Session 1, all subjects wereasked the question, "Did you really feel thatyou were 5 years old?" All nine subjectsmanifesting the hidden observer effect gavea duality report (Perry & Walsh, 1978). Alldescribed the experience of age regressionas being that of feeling that they were bothadult and child, either simultaneously or inalternation. A few of them described it asa division between feelings of being 5 yearsold and of being adult observers vividly reex-periencing their childhood. The remaining14 subjects stated that they really felt that

they were 5 years old, and even when pressedthey maintained that they had no awarenessof their adult identity during this phase ofthe induction. The result was statisticallysignificant, x2(l) = 18.99, p < .001.2

Other Data From the Hypnotic AgeRegression Item

During hypnotic age regression, the sub-jects were asked to perform three tasks: (a)to write their name, the date of their birth-day, and "what year it is;" (b) to write thesentence, "I am participating in a psycho-logical experiement;" and (c) to verbally re-spond to the question, "Who is the PrimeMinister of Canada?" This latter questiondid not discriminate between the two groups.The majority of subjects reported not know-ing; of the six who replied, three had thehidden observer effect, and three did not.

By contrast, for the first two items, resultswere identical: 7 of the 9 subjects who re-ported a hidden observer effect attemptedto write on both occasions; 10 of the 14 re-maining subjects did not write. The rela-tionship was statistically significant, x2U) =5.32, p < .02.

The data for both Items a and b were bro-ken down in terms of whether the subjectsdid or did not write with correct spelling.The result in each case was identical. It wasfound that of the 7 subjects (out of 9) man-ifesting a hidden observer effect, 4 had nospelling errors. By contrast, of the 4 subjects

2 The second experimenter who conducted the EATwas unaware of the subject's response to the hiddenobserver item during hypnosis. The age regression itemwas administered prior to the hidden observer item, sohis initial task was to determine whether the did or didnot report duality during age regression. This was doneby asking a number of questions; standardly subjectswere asked, "Did you really feel that you were five yearsold?" followed by the question, "Did you have any senseof an adult identity?" For all 23 subjects, responses wereunequivocal, and the judgment of duality and nondualitywas made primarily on this basis; although as illustratedby the questioning of Subject 14, reported later in thetext, the interviewer asked these questions more thanonce. For the hidden observer item, subjects were askedif they had experienced another "part." With the ex-ception of two subjects, who preferred the metaphor ofa different "process" rather than of a "part," resultswere as equally unequivocal.

338 JEAN-ROCH LAURENCE AND CAMPBELL PERRY

(out of 14) who did not report a hidden ob-server effect and attempted to write, only 1of them spelled correctly on the two occa-sions.

These differences between the two groupsare highly consistent with their verbal re-ports of hypnotic age regression. Those sub-jects who had a hidden observer effectexpressed a strong feeling of dualisticfunctioning during the age regression item.Their behavior during the two items wherethey were required to write is consistent withtheir verbal reports; they wrote, at times withcorrect spelling, the things they were askedto. Those who spelled correctly saw no con-tradiction between doing so and the fact thatmost of the words they spelled are beyondthe capacity of most 5- and even most 7-year-old children (Obstoj & Sheehan, 1977).

By contrast, nearly all of the subjects whohad no experience of a hidden observer effectrefused to even attempt to write when askedto. Most of them said that they did not un-derstand the sentence or that it was too dif-ficult for them. Their behavior is highly con-sistent with their verbal reports of aquasiliteral age regression in which the senseof adult identity appears to have becometemporarily unavailable.

Verbal Reports of Duality in HypnoticAge Regression3

The verbal reports obtained during theEAT inquiry convey the flavor of the differ-ences between those subjects reporting a hid-den observer effect and duality in age regres-sion and the remaining subjects who had nohidden observer effect and whose regressionexperience was quasi-literal. The experienceof age regression is variable across subjects,and their reports reflect several themes.

Some of the reports were not unlike hid-den observer reports; the subjects describedage regression as an experience of detachedself-observation. At the same time, for someof them the feeling of self-observation tookthe form of alternation between adult andchildlike functioning, as the following tworeports indicate:

Subject 3. The thing is ... I was there, you know. Itwas as if I was there . . . but I wasn't very long; it came

and went and it didn't stay. . . . I felt like I was . . .it sort of felt like "what am I doing there?" and thenthe next thing I'm back there, and then "what am Idoing here?" It felt like that. It felt like that I waslooking at myself in a sense . . . something like youwould do in a dream.

Subject 22. As soon as I began to write, I was there,and I was not there. . . . It was like a merry-go-round;I was in and out of it so fast. . . . I had something likea kind of observer who was watching the class.

For other subjects, the duality was moreof a simultaneous nature; the feeling of beingadult and child coexisted, as the next tworeports indicate.

Subject 21. I became small again; small, small. Phys-ically . . . I saw myself again with my curls at school.. . . I felt 5, and I felt 23 also. . . . I knew I was 5years old at school, but I knew I was 23 years old, also,that I was an a d u l t . . . . I really felt 5 years old. I wouldnot be able to say that I was solely 23 years old.

Subject 17. (Did you really feel you were 5 years old?)It was the same . . . it was . . . especially when it cameto writing my name again. I felt . . . you know, I wastwo people, one standing off looking at the other, andthe other that was standing was saying, you idiot, youcan write your name, why are you taking so long? Yetthe one that's writing it is struggling away, to form theseletters . . . can't. I'm trying the best I can.

These responses are qualitatively very dif-ferent from those given by subjects who ex-perienced no duality during hypnotic ageregression and who subsequently did notmanifest a hidden observer effect. The re-ports of Subjects 14 and 19 were typical ofthis group.

Subject 14. (Did you really feel you were 5 years old?)I had the feeling I was going with my mother. This isstrange. I wasn't going to school yet so I felt 5'/a on theverge of going for enrollment to school. (Did you haveany sense of being adult at all?) I didn't have any senseof being an adult, no. (None at all?) None at all. (Notthe slightest?) Not a fraction. No, nothing. (So youreally felt you were 5 years old?) Yes.

Subject 19. Yes, I was there, and I saw myself withthe body of a little girl. When he asked me who thePrime Minister was, I thought you are really stupid toask that of a 5-year-old child, as if I know that. (So youwere still sufficiently adult to find that question dumb.)No. I was 5 years old, and I found it dumb to ask thatof a 5-year-old child.

As can be seen, there is no overlap be-tween the duality reports of age regression

3 For reasons of space, only a sampling of subjects'verbal responses is reported. They are documented moreextensively in Laurence (Note 5).

THE "HIDDEN OBSERVER" 339

to 5 years old in subjects reporting a hiddenobserver effect and the sense of literallybeing 5 years old to the exclusion of anyawareness of an adult identity for the du-ration of the age regression item.

Verbal Reports of the Hidden ObserverItem

Subjective differences found on the ageregression item were found in the verbal re-ports of subjects who did and did not reporta hidden observer effect. Those subjectsmanifesting the effect shared two qualitiesfound in Hilgard's studies. First, the phe-nomenon was reported by them as occurringinvoluntarily. Further, the hidden observermanifestations were reported as objective,matter-of-fact, accurate, and reality-boundobservations of what was going on duringthe analgesia: All of the subjects equated thehidden observer with reality testing and afew of them equated it with an ob-serving ego.

The verbal reports of the subjects conveythe nature of the experience. First, on theinvoluntariness of the experience: (Subject2) "I didn't have to work on it. This secondpart is like when I'm talking to you rightnow. This is what is happening." (Subject3) "It was a sudden type of thing that justmelted away and then I felt like I was twotypes of thing." Further, on reality testing:(Subject 7) "It is just an observing part. Iwas watching J.R. [the hypnotist] andwatching myself." (Subject 17) "All I feelis this dual thing that I have mentioned be-fore." (Subject 21) "I felt i t . . . that I washypnotized but that there really was a clearside of me." (Subject 22) "I was feelingstrange, but I didn't know why . . . it feltlike a division, a division in myself."

These reports are strikingly similar tothose reported by Hilgard (1977a), althoughthe verbal instructions for the hidden ob-server item are different in several respects.They are in contrast with those who did notexperience a hidden observer effect. Forthese subjects, the prominent sentiment wasone of confusion created by the hidden ob-server instructions and, occasionally, regretthat the subjects might be disappointing theexperimenter for being unable to experience

the item suggested. Some subjects also con-veyed a sense of annoyance at the instructionthat there might be another part that wasregistering the pain of electric shock. Thefollowing examples sample the range of re-actions to this item.

Subject I . (Did you feel there was some other part ofyou?) No, I don't think I felt that. I don't know. In thatsense I opened my eyes and looked at him. I didn't feelthe same as I felt when my eyes were closed. . . . Butin terms of who was doing all this, it was always me.He was asking me to say things, I did not like that.Didn't enjoy it too much. (You think he was asking youto do something that you didn't like doing?) I thoughthe was asking me to do something that had to comefrom me. (And it wasn't in there?) No, I guess not.

Subject 5. (Did you feel in any way different when hesaid there was going to be another part?) Well, I waswaiting for that other, but nothing, nothing, nothingcame up, no. (How did you feel about that?) It didn'tbother me, I don't know. I felt maybe that I had todisappoint J.R. [the hypnotist], but there was nothingelse coming out of it.

Subject 8. (Did you feel any different when he touchedyour shoulder?) No, not really. (Did you And that youwere confused?) Actually, it was kind of confusing. LikeI didn't know exactly what he wanted, I didn't under-stand him very well. Looking at it now, my shoulder wassupposed to know what was going on in my hand, andso when he gave me the second shock, I was probablysupposed to feel it and report it; but I didn't.

Subject 20. When he started to say there is somethingin you which will happen, perhaps another part of me,I found that extremely complicated. If he expectedsomething of me; well, he could expect. There isn't any-body there. It just was not like that.

Subject 23. I didn't understand a thing. Was he askingme if a part of my body could experience somethingdifferent? I can't remember anything. During that pe-riod I did not feel any different from the time when I'mprofoundly in hypnosis.

Overall, most of these subjects found thehidden observer instructions mystifying and/or confusing, and they were quite definite instating that they did not experience the ef-fect, even though they waited for it to hap-pen. Such data suggest that the hidden ob-server item taps differential reactions whendissociation is suggested in hypnosis throughthe hidden observer item.

Reports of Hypnotic Analgesia

The subjects in this study received threeelectric shocks, twice to the right hand (dur-

340 JEAN-ROCH LAURENCE AND CAMPBELL PERRY

Table 1Raw Scores, Means, and Standard Deviationsfor Three Pain Reports for Subjects WhoReported and Did Not Report the "HiddenObserver" Effect

Condition

Subject

Righthand

analgesia

Righthand

hiddenobserver

Lefthand

control

Hidden observer

2367

111718"2122

MSD

225322731

2.501.19

710104341091

6.003.46

7109898

1010

8.881.12

No hidden observer

145891012131415161920'23

MSD

58312372252112

3.312.25

434122522211

2

2.381.26

91010101081099877510

9.001.15

* Subjects 18 and 20 each refused one of the shocks forreasons cited in Footnote 4.

ing the analgesia and the hidden observeritems) and once to the left hand during theanalgesia item (which served as a control).On all three occasions, the subjects wereasked to rate their pain on a 1-10 scale,where 1 was described as painless, 10 as ex-tremely painful, and intermediate numbersrepresented moderate levels of pain.

The three pain reports of the 23 subjects,subdivided in terms of whether or not theyexperienced a hidden observer effect, are set

out in Table I.4 A 2 X 3 split-plot analysisof variance (ANOVA) with one between-sub-jects variable (hidden observer/no hiddenobserver) and one within-subjects variable(three conditions of analgesia reports) wasperformed on these data. A significant maineffect of treatment was found, F(2, 38) =97.48, p < .01, as well as a significant inter-action between treatments and groups, F(2,38) = 12.35, p < .01. Tests of simple maineffects were performed. A simple main effectfor the groups was found between their ret-rospective reports of analgesia during thehidden observer item, F(l, 57) =18.98,p<.0l. There were no significant differ-ences in the other two analgesia reports.Scheff6's posthoc comparisons were thenperformed for treatments within groups andwere found also to be significant.

In the hidden observer groups, all threecomparisons were found to differ signifi-cantly. The right hand during analgesia wasfound to be significantly more analgesic thanboth the right hand during the hidden ob-server item and the left (control) hand. Fur-thermore, the right hand during the hiddenobserver item was also significantly differentfrom the left (control) hand. In the groupnot reporting a hidden observer effect, theright hand during analgesia was more an-algesic than the left (control) hand but didnot differ from the right hand during thehidden observer item. These differences sug-gest that the two groups used different meth-ods of minimizing pain during hypnotic an-algesia. The hidden observer group, thoughmanifesting little pain during analgesia, in-dicated during the hidden observer item thatthe pain nevertheless registered to some ex-tent at some other level. By contrast, thegroup that did not have the hidden observer

4 It should be noted that one subject in each groupdid not furnish complete pain data. Subject 18 in thehidden observer group rated the pain on the right handduring analgesia as 7 but refused to permit the exper-imenter to apply the two subsequent shocks, on thegrounds that the first shock "fucking hurt." He ratedpain retrospectively during the hidden observer item as10. Another subject (Subject 20) had no hidden observereffect. She became so anxious following the adminis-tration of the first two shocks that the experimenter wasunable to administer the third. The data for these twosubjects are not included in the calculations of meansin Table 1.

THE "HIDDEN OBSERVER" 341

effect actually showed a slight increase inanalgesia during the hidden observer itemand denied the existence of another part, orlevel, registering the pain.

Convergence of Analgesia and HiddenObserver Reports

The data from Hilgard's studies imply astrong convergence of analgesia and hiddenobserver reports (Hilgard et al, 1975; Knoxet al., 1974). In both of these studies, sub-jects who reported a hidden observer effectgave analgesia reports during the hiddenobserver item that were very similar to thosefurnished in a nonanalgesic control condi-tion. Those subjects not reporting a hiddenobserver effect reported analgesia as beingsimilar in both analgesia conditions—withand without hidden observer instructions.

Table 1 indicates that a small number ofsubjects did not show this one-to-one con-gruence of verbal reports of pain as opposedto altered experience. Specifically, four sub-jects reporting a hidden observer effect, andone who did not, showed some degree of dis-crepancy. For one of them (Subject 7), thepain reported during the hidden observeritem was only slightly greater than in theanalgesia condition. No reason could befound for this departure from the generaltrend of findings, and the subject was clas-sified as having experienced the hidden ob-server effect solely on the basis of her un-equivocal verbal report of the experience.

Two other subjects (Subjects 11 and 17)rejected the notion of the hidden observeras constituting another part of themselvesbut reported that the instructions made themfeel subjectively different. As can be seenfrom Table 1, their hidden observer reportsof pain indicated that the shock was slightlymore painful during this item than duringanalgesia without hidden observer instruc-tions. Their comments during the EAT in-quiry indicated that they equated the hiddenobserver effect more with altered experiencethan with a separate part of themselves thatregistered the pain. The report of a fourthsubject (Subject 22) suggests that she usedher hypnotic abilities to prevent her fromexperiencing the pain as strongly as it hadbeen felt on the left (control) hand.

A final subject (Subject 5) had no hiddenobserver effect and was the only subject inthis group to rate the pain during this phaseof the induction as more painful than in theanalgesic condition. Her report indicated analtered perception of the electrical stimulus;she described the shock as "not a real shock,just a certain feeling" and said she thoughtshe had overrated it on both occasions.

It is possible that these divergences fromHilgard's data are the result of differencesin the pain stimulus employed in the presentstudy, as compared to Hilgard's studies.Electric shock is a momentary stimulus, andis qualitatively different from the graduallymounting pain of cold pressor and ischemia.Alternatively, the divergences may reflectdifferences in the instructions for elicitingthe phenomenon. Nevertheless, a subsequentstepwise discriminant analysis correctly clas-sified 90.48% of the subjects into either thehidden observer or the no hidden observergroup, solely on the basis of the three painreports obtained during the administrationof the hidden observer item.

The stepwise solution used involved max-imizing Rao's V in order to identify the bestlinear set of discriminating variables. All 13subjects in the no hidden observer groupwere correctly classified by this procedure,as were all but 2 (Subjects 6 and 7) of thesubjects who had a hidden observer effect.5

Discussion

Despite differences in administration ofthe hidden observer item and in the painstimulus used, the findings of the presentstudy replicated Hilgard's findings in twomajor respects. As has been found in earlierstudies (Hilgard et al., 1975, 1978; Perry& Laurence, 1980), the hidden observer ef-fect is differential. The finding of approxi-mately 40% of subjects manifesting the hid-den observer in the present study is consistentwith the percentages reported in the twomost recent studies by Hilgard and his as-sociates. In addition, the verbal reports ofthe subjects having the hidden observer ef-

5 The two subjects furnishing incomplete pain datain Table 1 were automatically eliminated by the stepwisediscriminant analysis.

342 JEAN-ROCH LAURENCE AND CAMPBELL PERRY

feet in the present study showed strong sim-ilarities to those furnished by Hilgard's sub-jects. Further, since the findings for the first10 subjects in the present study were re-ported earlier by Perry and Laurence (1980),it can be said that the effect has been rep-licated both within and between laborato-ries.

The differences between subjects who doand do not have a hidden observer effectserve to extend Hilgard's earlier findings andsuggest that some adjustments to neodisso-ciation theory (Hilgard, 1977a) may needto be made in order to accommodate theadditional empirical data that have accrued.Specifically, there appear to be two distinctreactions to the hidden observer item amonghighly hypnotizable subjects. One group ofsubjects reported that the pain that was notexperienced during analgesia neverthelessregistered at another level when hidden ob-server instructions were administered. Thesesame subjects reported duality in age regres-sion, and most of them wrote and correctlyspelled a complex sentence when requested.Overall then, this group appears to have ex-perienced the pain at one level but not atanother, and in age regression they main-tained their adult identities, while vividlyreexperiencing childhood either simulta-neously or in alternation.

By contrast, the second group of subjectsdenied that the pain was registering at an-other level during the hidden observer itemand, indeed, denied that there was anotherpart of them. In age regression, they ap-peared oblivious to their adult identities; andmost of them did not write the sentence,"I am participating in a psychological ex-periment."

Overall, these findings suggest differentmethods of cognitive processing and differ-ent analgesia mechanisms among highlyhypnotizable subjects. The subjects whomanifested the hidden observer effect ap-peared more reality bound in that their dual-istic experience of age regression reflectedthe fact that they were adults vividly reex-periencing childhood. By contrast, the real-ity constraints of the group that did not havea hidden observer effect appeared to be sig-nificantly less operative, to the extent thatthey denied an adult identity. In this respect,

their imaginings appeared to be more "be-lieved-in" (Sarbin & Coe, 1972) and theyseemed more "deluded" (Sutcliffe, 1961) inthe sense that their awareness of reality wasconsiderably diminished.

In hypnotic analgesia, the no hidden ob-server group appeared to be more immersedin the analgesia suggestion and denied thatthe pain was registering at any other level.By contrast, the hidden observer group couldagain be considered as more reality boundduring analgesia, since they had a sense thatthe pain must be registering at some level,even if it was not represented in consciousawareness. It is possible that the groups mayhave differed in terms of selective attentionas opposed to imagery/absorption; the hid-den observer group may have been better onthe first skill, and the no hidden observergroup may have been better on the second.Subsequent research will need to examinethis issue in finer detail.

It should be emphasized that some of thefindings reported in the present study wereanticipated by Binet (1896). The issue ofdifferential response in age regression wasa major one in the late 19th century. At thattime, however, the debate was in terms ofwhat happened when the hypnotist sug-gested a personality alteration. In discussingtwo rival viewpoints of differential responsesto suggestions of personality alteration, Bi-net wrote:

Some authors . . . hold that in experiments of trans-formation of personality the subject is really playing apart, a sort of comedy, and that he may be comparedto an actor who expressed sentiments which he himselfdoes not feel. Authors who adopt this interpretation, andamong them I may cite M. Delboeuf, are by no meansof the opinion that the subject tries to simulate anddeceive the experimenter—the old idea of simulation isno longer held. But they think that the subject obeysfrom a different motive. When he receives an order, likethat of representing a soldier or a peasant, he performsit to the best of his ability, with no other desire thanthat of pleasing the person from whom he has receivedthe suggestion. He plays a comedy part, but with goodintentions. The condition is then certainly a very com-plex psychological state, but yet it is easy to explain onthis theory.

This position has been violently combated by other au-thors, notably by M. Bernheim, who hold that in everycase the subject is sincere and really accepts the sug-gestion which he receives. A new personality is com-municated to him and he accepts it, because the sug-

THE "HIDDEN OBSERVER" 343

gestion is for him reality itself, and because for the timebeing he entirely forgets his former personality.

It does not seem necessary to pass judgment upon thesetwo diametrically opposed opinions, because they appearto me to be equally correct, only they apply to differentcases. There are persons who are by no means the dupesof the suggestions given to them, but who still carrythem out because they are unable to resist the influenceof the operator. This class of patients never forget whothey are—their identity. If they are told to represent apriest, a general, or a nun, they will be capable of doingit as any of us might do it when requested, but theyknow that they are playing a part. They try to assumethe characters desired, but they always retain the mem-ory of their proper personality. Others, on the contrary,are completely the victims of the suggested illusion, be-cause the memory of their former ego is for the momententirely obliterated.

The differences of effect result from the psychic natureof the subjects respectively, and also, perhaps, from themethod employed by the suggester. It is useless, there-fore, to enter into the discussion concerning the facts.Two facts, we should remember, may be different with-out contradicting each other, (pp. 2S8-260)

Binet's observations in 1896 of personalityalterations in hypnosis show a striking sim-ilarity to the differential verbal reports ofage regression made by college students ina laboratory setting more than 80 yearslater.

Finally, the differential responses madeby subjects to age regression and to the hid-den observer item do not appear to be readilydismissed in terms of an alternative hypoth-esis of "demand characteristics" (Orne,1959). The implicit cues in the hidden ob-server item are to report a hidden observereffect; by contrast, for age regression, theyare to report reexperiencing being 5 yearsold with no sense of an adult identity. It isdifficult to see why the hidden observergroup responds to the demand characteris-tics of the hidden observer item but not tothe demand characteristics of age regression.By contrast, the no hidden observer groupdoes completely the opposite. Clearly, if re-sponses to these items are influenced by sit-uational demands in whole or in part, it isnot in terms of any simple demand charac-teristics hypothesis.

Reference Notes

1. Hilgard, E. R. Neodissociation theory in relation tothe concept of state. Paper presented at the 26thannual meeting of the Society for Clinical and Ex-

perimental Hypnosis, Montreal, Canada, October1974.

2. Hilgard, E. R. Hypnotic modification of sensitivityand control. Paper presented at the 32nd annualmeeting of the Society for Clinical and ExperimentalHypnosis, Chicago, October 1980.

3. Hilgard, E. R. The "hidden observer" technique inhypnosis research. Hypnosis Research Memoran-dum 142, Stanford University, 1976.

4. Laurence, J.-R. Cognitive patterns in hypnosis. Un-published BSc honors thesis, Concordia University,Montreal, Canada, 1979.

5. Laurence, J.-R. Duality and dissociation in hypno-sis. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Concordia Uni-versity, Montreal, Canada, 1980.

References

Binet, A. Alterations of personality (H. G. Galdwintrans.). London: Chapman & Hall, 1896.

Binet, A. On double consciousness. Chicago: OpenCourt, 1905. (Originally published, 1889-90.)

Evans, F. J, The structure ofhypnosis: A factor analyticinvestigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-versity of Sydney, 1965.

Evans, F. J., & Thorn, W. F. Two types of posthypnoticamnesia: Recall amnesia and source amnesia. Inter-national Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hyp-nosis, 1966, 14, 333-343.

Hilgard, E. R. A neodissociation interpretation of painreduction in hypnosis. Psychological Review, 1973,80, 396-411. (a)

Hilgard, E. R. Dissociation revisited. In M. Henle, J.Jaynes, & J. Sullivan (Eds.), Historical conceptionsof psychology. New York: Springer, 1973. (b)

Hilgard, E. R. Divided consciousness. Multiple controlsin human thought and action. New York: Wiley,1977. (a)

Hilgard, E. R. The problem of divided consciousness:A neodissociation interpretation. Annals of the NewYork Academy of Sciences, 1977, 296, 48-59. (b)

Hilgard, E. R. Divided consciousness in hypnosis: Theimplications of the hidden observer. In E. Fromm& R. E. Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Developments in re-search and new perspectives (2nd ed.). New York:Aldine, 1979.

Hilgard, E. R., Hilgard, J. R., Macdonald, H., Morgan,A. H., & Johnson, L. S. Covert pain in hypnotic an-algesia: Its reality as tested by the real-simulatordesign. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87,655-663.

Hilgard, E. R., Morgan, A. H., & Macdonald, H. Painand dissociation in the cold pressor test: A study ofhypnotic analgesia with "hidden reports" throughautomatic key pressing and automatic talking. Jour-nal of Abnormal Psychology, 1975, 84, 280-289.

Janet, P. L'automatisms psychologique. Paris: CentreNational de la Recherche Scientiflque, 1973. (Orig-inally published, 1889.)

Kagan, N. I. Interpersonal process recall: A method ofinfluencing human interaction. East Lansing: Mich-igan State University, 1975.

Knox, V. J., Morgan, A. H., & Hilgard, E. R. Pain andsuffering in ischemia: The paradox of hypnotically

344 JEAN-ROCH LAURENCE AND CAMPBELL PERRY

suggested anesthesia as contradicted by reports fromthe "hidden observer." Archives of General Psychia-try, 1974, 30, 301-316.

Obstoj, I., & Sheehan, P. Aptitude for trance, task gen-eralizability, and incongruity response in hypnosis.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1977,86,543-552.

Orne, M. T. The nature of hypnosis: Artifact and es-sence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,1959, 58, 277-299.

Perry, C. Variables influencing the posthypnotic persis-tence of an uncancelled hypnotic suggestion. Annalsof the New York Academy of Sciences, 1977, 296,264-273.

Perry, C., & Laurence, J.-R. Hilgard's "hidden ob-server" phenomenon: Some confirming data. In M.Pajntar, E. Roskar, & M. Lavric (Eds.), Hypnosisin psychotherapy and psychosomatic medicine. Lju-bljana, Yugoslavia: University Press, 1980.

Perry, C., & Walsh, B. Inconsistencies and anomaliesof response as a defining characteristic of hypnosis.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978,87,547-577.

Sarbin, T. R., & Coe, W. C. Hypnosis: A social psy-chological analysis of influence communication. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972.

Sheehan, P. W. Countering preconceptions about hyp-nosis: An objective index of involvement with the hyp^

notist. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 78,299-322. (Monograph)

Sheehan, P. W., McConkey, K. M., & Cross, D. Ex-periential analysis of hypnosis: Some new observationson hypnotic phenomena. Journal of Abnormal Psy-chology, 1978, 87, 570-573.

Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. The Harvard Group Scaleof Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto, Calif.:Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962.

Sutcliffe, J. P. "Credulous" and "skeptical" views ofhypnotic phenomena: Experiments on esthesia, hal-lucination, and delusion. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 1961, 62, 189-200.

Weitzenhoffer, A. M. General techniques of hypnotism.New York: Grune & Stratton, 1957.

Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. Stanford Hyp-notic Susceptibility Scale, Forms A and B. Palo Alto,Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959.

Weitzenhoffer, A- M., & Hilgard, E. R. Stanford Hyp-notic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. Palo Alto, Calif.:Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962.

Received December 3, 1980Revision received March 30, 1981