CHAPTER III

THE EVIDENCE OF SUGGESTIBILITY

        IN our last chapter we ventured to generalize that every man in his full normal waking state is more or less suggestible. I should not wonder if such a seemingly sweeping generalization should startle many a cautious reader, and should call forth strenuous opposition. We must therefore rigorously demonstrate the fact of the universality of normal suggestibility. Such a proof is of the more importance, as the generalization which it establishes supplies a new principle to sociology, furnishes a key to the comprehension of many a great historical event, gives a deeper insight into the phenomena of political and economical life, and might possibly be of use in education. Is there such a thing as suggestibility in the normal waking condition? The Nancy school, with Bernheim and Liebault at its head, gives an affirmative answer. "Jemanden hypnotisiren," says Bernheim, "heisst nur: seine Suggestibilität künstlich erhöhen." In fact, the hypnotic state itself is induced by suggestion. "Es giebt keinen Hypnotismus: es giebt nur Phänomene der Suggestion," exclaims the Nancy professor. "Als etwas pathologisches, als eine künstliche Neurose betrachtet existirt ein Hypnotismus nicht. Wir schaffen im eigentlichen Sinne mit ihm keinen besonderen Zustand des Gehirns oder des Nervensystems; wir machen uns ganz einfach nur eine physiologische Eigenthümlichkeit des Gehirns―die Suggestibilität―zu Nutze und schaffen die zur Entfaltung dieser Suggestibilität günstigen Vorbedingungen." On closer inspection, however, we find that the great authority of the Nancy school stretches too wide and far the conception of suggestion, for, according to him, "Jede Vorstellung ist eine Suggestion." This, I say, is too far-fetched; for it is to identify the whole field of mental activity with but a part of it, namely, suggestibility. This is, in fact, the obliteration of all traces of the problem itself. If now we turn and ask for facts that go to support his view, we find that Bernheim does not sustain his cause. He limits his instances to but a small class of persons who are easily suggestible in their waking state, but he offers no proof that suggestibility is present in all men. "Es giebt Menschen bei denen.  .  . die einfache Affirmation, ohne Schlaf und ohne vorhergehende ihn begunstigende Manipulationen bei ihnen alle sogenannten hypnotischen Phänomena hervorruft. Durch das einfache Wort schafft man bei ihnen Anästhesia, Contractur, Hallucillationen, Impuls, die verschiedensten Handlungen."¹

        Although the instances Prof. Bernheim adduces do not certainly establish the fact of the universality of normal suggestibility, they are still interesting for us as they show the presence of normal suggestibility in some particular cases at least. "Many subjects," writes Bernheim in his Suggestive Therapeutics, "who have previously been hypnotized may manifest susceptibility to the same suggestive phenomena in the waking state, without being again hypnotized, however slightly might have been the influence of a small number of previous séances. Here, for example, is the case of K., one of my patients who is accustomed to being hypnotized, and is subject to light somnambulism. Without putting him to sleep, I say directly: 'Close your hand. You can not open it again.' He keeps his hand closed and contracted, and makes fruitless efforts to open it. I make him hold out his other arm, with his hand open, and say, 'You can not shut it.' He tries in vain to do so; brings the phalanges into semiflexion, but can do no more in spite of every effort. There is in my service a young hysterical girl afflicted with sensitivo-sensorial hemiamæsthesia of the left side, and capable of being hypnotized into deep sleep. In the waking condition she is susceptible to catalepsy or suggestive contraction. I can effect transfer of the hemianæsthesia from the left to the right side without hypnotizing and without touching her. In one of my somnambulistic cases I can obtain all possible modifications of sensibility in the waking condition. It suffices to say, 'Your left side is insensible'; then if I prick his left arm with a pin, stick the pin into his nostril, touch the mucous membrane of his eye, or tickle his throat, he does not move. The other side of his body reacts, I transfer the anaesthesia from the left to the right side. I produce total anæsthesia, which was on one occasion so profound that my chef de clinique pulled out the roots of five teeth which were deeply embedded in the gums, twisting them round in their sockets for more than ten minutes. I simply said to the patient, 'You will have no feeling whatever.' He laughed as he spat out the blood, and did not show the least symptom of pain."

        Here, as we see, the experiments were carried on with somnambulic and hysterical subjects; the result, therefore, can not prove the facts of suggestibility in normal and perfectly healthy people. Some of my own experiments might possibly prove more conclusive. Mr. W., an acquaintance of mine, who was never hypnotized by anyone, readily took suggestions in his waking state. I told him he could not write his name. He tried, and he did write it. I stretched out my arm, opened my hand and stiffened the fingers, and said, "Try now." He could not write―his hand became cataleptic. I made a whole series of experiments of this kind, but as they interested me from quite a different point of view I shall giye a detailed account of them later on. Mean while this one instance will suffice for our present purpose to show the power of suggestion in the waking state. The fact, however, of its rarity and singularity makes it unfit to prove the universality of normal suggestibility.

        In the Zeitschrift für Hypnotismus² Prof. J. Delboeuf brings cases of suggestibility in normal condition. Thus he made a patient anæsthetic who was not and could not be hypnotized. He told the patient: "Reichen Sie mir Ihren Arm, sehen Sie mich fest an und zeigen Sie mir durch Ihren Blick, dass Sie entschlossen sind, nichts zu fühlen, und Sie werden thatsächlich nichts fühlen." The patient did it. Prof. Delboeuf severely pricked the subject's arm, and the latter felt no pain.

        To take another case. An old man of seventy suffered great pain from facial neuralgia for more than fifteen years. "lch komme zu ihm," says Prof. Deluoeuf, "ziehe ihn heftig am Bart und erkläre ihm, dass er keine Schmerzen mehr hat, dass er auch ferner keine Schmerzen haben wird, und meine Prophezeilmng erfüllt sich." These cases, like the preceding one, are subject to the same objections; they do not prove the universality of normal suggestibility on account of their rarity and singularity. Not everyone can so easily be made cataleptic or anæsthetic in his waking condition. With most people such suggestions are failures even in hypnosis. The only way, then, to test the verity of normal suggestibility is to lay aside all experimentation on hysterical, somnambulic, hypnotic, and extraordinarily suggestible subjects, and start a series of experiments on perfectly healthy and normal individuals. Thanks to Prof. H. Münsterberg and to the admirable facilities afforded by the Psychological Laboratory of Harvard University and the Pathological Institute of the New York State Hospitals, I was enabled to carry out more than eight thousand experiments relating to the subject of suggestion.

        The order of experiments taken up first was suggestion of letters and figures. The mechanism of this class of experiments was as follows: A successive series of letters or of figures was introduced through a slit on a white screen, each letter or figure being pasted on a separate slip of cardboard which in colour and position coincided with the background of the screen. Each experiment consisted of a series of nine slips. Each slip was kept on the background for two or three seconds. The interval between the slip and its successor was also two or three seconds. Time was measured by a metronome inclosed within a felt box, with a rubber tube passing close to the ear of the experimenter, so that the subjects should not be disturbed by the ticking of the metronome. For the same reason the experimenter and his movements of inserting the slips into the white screen were all carefully hidden by screens. The ring of a bell indicated that the series came to an end, and it also served as a signal for the subjects to write down immediately on paper which they kept ready in their hands anything that came into their mind at that particular moment―letters, numerals, words, phrases, etc.

        While looking for evidence for normal suggestibility, an opportunity was also taken to arrange the experiments according to different factors, so that should it be proved that suggestion in the normal state is an indubitable fact, we should be enabled to know what kind of factors are the more impressive and suggestive.

        The series of letters and figures were arranged according to the following factors and their combinations:

        1. Repetition.

        2. Frequency.

        3. Coexistence.

        4. Last impression.

        Great care, of course, was taken not to repeat the same series of letters or figures. As I had many slips at my disposal the series could be easily changed both by permutation and insertion of new slips. The subjects did not and could not possibly suspect the suggested letter or figure, first, because there were so many of them in each series; second, because the factors studied were constantly varied; and, third, because sham series, such as inverted or coloured letters, etc., were introduced so as to baffle the subjects.

        I had twelve subjects at my disposal, and experimented with three or four at a time. Recently I made experiments of this kind with thirteen subjects more, so that the total number of subjects is twenty-five.

        The results are as follows:

        1. REPETITION.―In the middle of the series a letter or numeral was shown three times in succession―e.g.:

        Of 300 experiments made, 53 succeeded―that is, the subject wrote the letter or numeral suggested by the factor of repetition.

        The factor of repetition gives a suggestibility of 17.6 per cent.

        2. FREQUENCY.―A letter or numeral was shown three times in the series, and each time with an interruption―e.g.:

        Of 300 experiments made, 128 succeeded.

        The factor of frequency gives a suggestibility of 42.6 per cent.

        3. COEXISTENCE.―A letter or numeral was shown repeatedly; not, however, in succession, as it was in the case of the factor of repetition, also not with interruptions as it was in the case of frequency, but at the same time―e.g.:

         Of 300 experiments made, only 20 succeeded.

        The factor of coexistence gives as its power of suggestion 6.6 per cent.

        4. LAST IMPRESSION.―Here was studied the suggestibility effected by the last impression, by the last letter or figure. In all our experiments unnecessary repetition was carefully avoided. It is plain that the nature of these experiments of last impression required that not one letter or figure should be repeated twice in the series―e.g.:

        Of 300 experiments made, 190 succeeded.

        The factor of last impression gives a suggestibility of 63.3 per cent.

        5. COEXISTENCE AND LAST IMPRESSION.―In these experiments a slip with three identical characters pasted on it appeared at the end of the series, thus combining in one the factor of coexistence with that of last impression―e.g.:

        Of 300 experiments made, 55 succeeded.

        The combined effect of coexistence and last impression gives a suggestibility of 18.3 per cent.

        6. FREQUENCY AND LAST IMPRESSION.―The letter or numeral repeated with interruptions was also shown at the end of the series―e.g. :

        Of 150 experiments made, 113 succeeded.

        The combined effect of the two factors gives a suggestibility of 75.2 per cent.

        Arranging now the factors in the order of their rate of effected suggestibility, we have the following table: