I had hoped to write about this before today, but such is life that following my wife requiring surgery, flying to Manchester for a self-hypnosis seminar and competing in the Great South Run all contributed to me being unable to properly sit down and get a good blog entry written…
Following the series opener entitled ‘The Assassin’ for Derren Brown’s new TV series The Experiments, many of my students and peers have asked about what I thought and would I comment.
The Assassin attempted to show that an individual could be hypnotized to commit murder on another, famous individual.
I thought it was very entertaining – good TV is supposed to be so. Yet I also thought it misleading and ill-informing, and that is in no way meant to be derogatory to the viewers of such TV shows.
Regardless of what I thought and rather than offering up pure opinion and cursory judgment, I thought I’d write about the evidence base in relation to that ever-so-hot debate that rears it’s head in the hypnosis world on a regular basis, and which was opened once again with the Derren Brown TV show… Whether someone who is hypnotised can be made to commit criminal or immoral deeds that they would not usually do… Can those innocents end up behind bars?
This debate has been central to the field for many, many years before I came along. Theodore Barber discussed it back in the late 1960s in his work Hypnosis: A scientific approach (1969), for example.
Throughout the years, most of the claims that hypnosis made by people to suggest hypnosis can make people engage in immoral or criminal acts tend to have been refuted by authors and academics. One early rebuttal of this notion can be found in the 1972 work by Wolberg entitled Hypnosis: Is it for you? in which he states:
“… read widely through one hundred and fifty years of medical literature and case histories and found no proof of a single violent crime committed under hypnosis… each subject could have committed the crime of which he was accused without the formality of hypnosis.” (p. 279)
There have actually been a couple of cases here and there which are exceptions to the thoughts of those sympathising with the above notion.
In the 1989 Old Bailey court case of R. v. Mohammed, Sarah Mohammed had been accused of involvement in a murder attempt. Expert evidence given by Dr Mottahedin and Professor Hayward at the trial suggested that Sarah mohammed had become a slave to her husband as a result of being hypnotised and subsequently brainwashed by him.
Dr Mottahedin subsequently wrote about this in the journal Contemporary Hypnosis in 1992 in his work entitled “Was hypnosis involved in the Nelson case?” and suggests that it was because of the evidence he gave that Sarah Mohammed received a suspended sentence while her husband got 8 years in prison.
There have been other attempts made in a court of law to suggest hypnosis was used to aid the crime. For those interested in further investigation, please take a look at the Australian court cases of R. v. Palmer (New South Wales Supreme Court) in 1979 whereby the judge believed the accused hypnotized the victim of an alleged rape to make the crime easier, and the case of R. v. Davies (County Court of Melbourne) in 1986 where again, the accused was supposed to have used hypnosis to disable the alleged victims ability to resist the rape.
Despite hypnosis being used in these cases, there was no discernable or indisputable evidence to demonstrate that hypnosis actually was used to make these things happen; just that it was involved. Isolating hypnosis as the cause has been incredibly difficult and troublesome to prove.
Those academics defending the previous, skeptical position about hypnosis being able to make people commit criminal acts argue that in these cases, the same crime could have occurred without hypnosis and evidence did often demonstrate the criminals propensity for related behaviours and indicators of people who perpetrate such crimes.
In the case where Dr Mottahedin was the expert witness, the accused had actually been charged with various other sexual offences before this case, for example. The case files and subsequent papers do present some fascinating reading, albeit all rather inconclusive.
As a result of the difficulty in real-life scenarios to isolate the so-called hypnotic effects of a crime from the other contributory factors, researchers have taken the issues to the laboratories to examine whether hypnosis can be used to make people commit crimes or immoral acts.
Soooo… If you look back at the research from the 1930s, 1940s and even the 1950s, some of the results would suggest that people can be made to do criminal and crazy acts as a result of being hypnotized:
Rowland’s 1939 paper Will hypnotized persons try to harm themselves or others? In the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology concluded that;
“persons in deep hypnosis will allow themselves to be exposed to unreasonably dangerous situations. They also will perform acts unreasonably dangerous to others. A possible explanation, hinted at in two places in the account, is that confidence in the hypnotist causes the subject to forego his better judgment. If this be true, it follows that only professional psychologists should be permitted to make use of deep hypnosis. The author feels that the common belief that hypnotized persons will not perform acts that violate their ideals is badly in need of re-examination.” I highlighted that bit at the end as I thought it made the authors point.
Brenman’s 1942 study Experiments in the hypnotic production of antisocial and self-injurous behavior in the Psychiatry journal states:
“Emphasizing that the subjects were not deceived but had a full understanding that the situation was purely experimental, the author found that hypnotized subjects could be induced to perform acts which under non-experimental personal and social conditions would be asocial in character.”
Young’s 1952 paper Antisocial uses of hypnosis in Experimental hypnosis states the following (I find this hilarious):
“Rowland and Young found that hypnotized Ss were willing to carry out such apparently antisocial actions as grasping a dangerous reptile, plunging their hand into concentrated acid, and throwing the acid at an assistant.”
How much fun they must have had conducting this study!
Following these studies though, subsequent researchers and academics have scrutinized them and explain the findings in terms of the research subjects wanting to please and aid the researcher and hypnotist, believing that what they were doing was actually perfectly safe, and assuming that someone else was ultimately responsible for any wrong-doing.
I think these arguments could be given to everything done within the Derren Brown TV show last week too, don’t you?
Theodore Barber refuted much of the above research findings with those arguments in his 1961 paper Antisocial and criminal acts induced by ‘hypnosis’: A review of clinical and experimental findings in the Archives of General Psychiatry (1961). There are many similar arguments made by many other respected authors and academics in this field.
Graham Wagstaff (in Hypnosis, compliance and belief, 1981 and elsewhere) has written in much depth suggesting that whether they have been hypnotised or not, subjects are very motivated to fit in with the context of the research, including pleasing the person instructing the research. You only need to look at Milgrams infamous 1974 study whereby a set of people (all of whom were not hypnotised formally) knowingly administered what they believed to be lethal electric shocks to others because they were told to do so by the research leader.
Many further studies since have gone on to show that non-hypnotised subjects will just as easily perform criminal, anti-social or immoral acts than anyone who does so as a result of hypnosis being used. A large number of studies in the 1970s support this. Here are a couple of examples for you to start from:
Coe, Kobayashi and Howard (1972) An approach toward isolating factors that influence antisocial conduct in hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.
O’Brien and Rabuck (1976) Experimentally produced self-repugnant behavior as a function of hypnosis and waking suggestion. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis.
Therefore, with the addition to the large body of evidence and studies to support it, most professionals in the field of hypnosis (well, this is spurious, I should qualify this and state “most that I encounter” and recognise that this is not well evidenced) believe that hypnosis does not render individuals out of control of themselves so as they can be told to partake in criminal acts and they are no more likely than non-hypnotised individuals to do any such things.
To further add to this, in 1995 a study by Vingoe entitled Beliefs of British law and medical students compared to an expert criterion group on forensic hypnosis featured in Contemporary Hypnosis surveyed 10 prominent forensic hypnosis experts all of whom rejected the idea that the hypnotist has control over the individual when the individual is hypnotised. Thus not being able to make them commit crimes in the way depicted in the Derren Brown show.
It is a debate that won’t stop with me, or with Derren Brown’s beautifully delivered, elegant and dramatic depictions on TV… But I hope I have shed some light on what an evidence based hypnosis professional thinks of all the hullabaloo created by such a TV show.
Thanks Adam, some great points of available evidence there. I also believe that the feel safe to act/react under hypnosis is apparent here ,namely the confidence which you feel whilst in hypnosis and the strength of rapport with hypnotist. “would someone commit harm to themselves or someone else” I believe you would do this anyway but it’s all circumstantial therefore this subject could never be conclusive .
I enjoyed the show but felt it was a bit too staged for me , entertaining though! His “gameshow” episode was more believable and “pack behaviour behind an anonymous mask” is so true! Time and time again this behaviour is in the court rooms! Shame maybe the latest showing will make people think more! But then again?
Ian Lewis .
Some very valid points made there Ian, I appreciate your input here.
As researchers have found as well as legal cases and TV shows… How do you isolate the hypnotic factors and prove them?
Agreed. Derren’s shows are marvellous entertainment and more exposure of our subject matter is usually a good thing… It is just the perpetuating of myths for the sake of entertainment that can lead to ill-informed perceptions of hypnosis that frustrates me at times.
Great post Adam.
I have two questions.
1. It seems that if (A) all hypnosis is self-hypnosis; (B) a subject truly believed he was in a safe environment; (C) and/or the subject’s actions grew out of his willingness to comply with the hypnotist, this might set the stage for something potentially dangerous. If the above points are true, couldn’t a subject allow himself to be ‘tranced out,’ while actively ignore real indictors of danger, and do something harmful?
2. An important part of the show was the spontaneous amnesia. Do you think a visual anchor could trigger an amnestic state as it did on the show? If so, an amnestic state combined with the scenario I described above could have some interesting results.
Thanks!
Hi Frank, thanks for the comments, good to hear from you.
With regards to your questions:
1. I am not sure exactly what you mean by the term ‘tranced out’ but I am pretty sure anyone could be that way (and often are) any time of any day with or without hypnosis. I know lots of people who have haphazard lives as a result of being ‘tranced out’ from time to time!
N.B. I am not sure how you have made the causal relationship between your A, B and C and connected them to the notion of being ‘dangerous’ and/or ‘tranced out’ either.
2. With enough practice, I am sure certain anchors could be utilised to elicit amnesia, and in fact often are. Again, I don;t think this is necessarily anything to do with the process of hypnosis. Amnesia can be created with confusion, distraction, expectation and many other things, especially when combined with the brilliant skill set of an entertainer and magician. Amnesia does sometimes occur when people have been hypnotised, especially if they truly expect it to happen or have been ill-educated about the effects of hypnosis, however, it can easily occur without hypnosis too, especially with the use factors I mentioned in previous sentences.
Really good to hear from you Frank, have a fabulous day. Best wishes, A.
Thanks for the answers, Adam.
With regard to my first question, by “tranced out” I meant that the individual could allow the hypnotist to induce a trance in the same way that any subject might allow the hypnotist to lead.
I was imagining a scenario in which he subject trusted the hypnotist, wanted to comply, did not believe there was any danger, and thus yielded to the hypnotist’s suggestions. So when instructed to fire a gun at someone, he may do so without believing he will do harm.
Your comments about amnesia are especially interesting. Do you think one could induce amnestic states similar to the one Derren brown induced with the visual (poke-a-dot) cue?
Frank
Hi Frank,
I think whether hypnosis is present or not, there is a chance people will do what other people suggest if they trust that person, no? What’s more, anyone holding a gun, no matter how much they have been hypnotised, know that the gun is a gun and what it is capable of. Drugs, religion, manipulation and severe negative emotion (and various other things too) would all probably help this (‘this’ being to criminally act in a way that they would not usually do i.e. Shoot another person) to happen a lot more effectively than by using hypnosis. I understand and see where your train of thought is going with this, but there is no evidence to support what you suggest and I would answer this by simply repeating what I have already mentioned in the blog entry.
Best wishes, A.
I never saw the show and I love Derrens work but reading about it I feel slightly irritated. It feels like it undermines what we say to people when we tell them that they cannot be made to do anything that they don’t want to do. Surely this kind of thing just creates anxiety in people seeking hypnotherapy.
I agree with the idea that its more compliance and context that generate the behaviours. As well as the power dynamics between hypnotist and subject.
I recommend anyone who was never seen it to search for the video footage of the Milgrim experiment, it is incredibly fascinating. Adam, If i remember rightly was it not influenced by the idea that in Nazi Germany thousands of German soldiers were carrying out atrocities that were outside of the realms of their ‘usual’ behaviours? The study effectively shows that people almost become ‘brainwashed’ when the power dynamic shifts enough in one direction. ‘Increase to 2000V’ is almost the same thing as saying ‘you will now find that you cannot bend your arm’. The reaction from the participant almost shows some kind disengagement of responsibility for themselves and their actions.Weirdly that sounds similar to what Neo-dissociation theories argue. I believe however that it is entirely social behaviour.
Thanks for another fascinating article Mr E.
Matt
Thanks for that contribution Matt, you make some very valid points as usual. Best wishes, A.
Adam,
There was no need to delete my post. I truly wanted to express my view on the subject. If it contradicts with your opinion, please disable comments.
Best 1
Hello nameless one,
I never ever delete any valid comments or contributions to discussions and certainly would not get rid of anything because they contradict my own opinions. I welcome and thoroughly enjoy the debate and stimulus and certainly do not think my thoughts are the only correct ones. I always advise everyone to be able to understand all angles of any philosophy and debate and actively encourage it.
Your comment may well have got deleted with the hundreds of spam comments our filters disallow each day and though I try to wade through them each day to pick out any errors or mistakes, I may well miss the odd valid, genuine comment from time to time. The only other times we’ll delete comments are if they cause offence or are insulting – we want all discussion and debate here to be done in a courteous and respectful manner.
Please do resubmit your comment and as long as it is not spam, and contributes to the discussion without causing offence, it’ll get accepted readily. I’d love to discuss it and look forward to reading any differing opinion.
Best wishes, Adam.
Adam,
What I was trying to express in my previous post is, that Derren Brown, using his unorthodox style, ridicules the statement of most hypnotist, namely, that one cannot be hypnotised against one’s will or perform “unethical” actions. Actually this is his second demonstration, the first one was in “Casino” episode.
Best, 1
Ok, I hear what you say… What you omit to say is how.
What I have done within my blog posting here is to give empirical evidence and research findings that have been scrutinsed and peer reviewed to show that what Derren’s show was attempting to prove, was in fact a fallacy and that the idea of using hypnosis this way is massively flawed and incorrect.
This was a TV show.
Do you watch Ghost Hunters and start believing in Ghosts because you saw it on television? “Ha! Ghost Hunters really ridicules the common thoughts of ghost sceptics and non-believers.”
Do you watch sci-fi TV shows and believe in aliens?
Do you watch Eastenders and believe that every residential square in London is a hotbed of infedelity, murder and crime? I agree that some may suggest this a true depiction 😉
I hear what you are saying, but how did a TV show truly prove that what was being depicted was a true reflection of hypnosis being able to do this? I think I have provided evidence to disprove such and that was the point of my blog.
Best wishes, Adam.
ps. Do you have to call yourself “the one”? If you want anonymity, couldn’t you just call yourself a fake name? Having a serious conversation with someone going under the guise of ‘the one’ is a bit odd.
Strangley enough my reply disappeard again.
Coincidence?
Firstly, nothing has disappeared.
Secondly, it is a non-sequitur way to establish an argument about one thing by trying to attack and divert the argument elsewhere to something irrelevant… What have any of my written up self-hypnosis processes got to do with Derren Browns TV show? Or with coercion?
Thirdly, the other means of illustrating your point are contentious at best. Do the KGB and CIA now employ the mind control techniques for their own benefit as a result of these projects? Where is the fruit of these so-called projects (they are popular notions amongst conspiracy theorists only) being used as a result of having 20 departments working on them?
There is none.