contribution of non deprivation factors in the production of sensory deprivation effects

8/7/2019 Contribution of Non Deprivation Factors in the Production of Sensory Deprivation Effects

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/contribution-of-non-deprivation-factors-in-the-production-of-sensory-deprivation 1/10

J o u r n a l o j A b n o r m a l an d Social Psychology1964, Vol. 68, No. 1, 3-12

THE CONTRIBUTION OF N ON DEPRIVATION FACTORSIN THE PRODUCTION OF SENSORY

DEPRIVATION EFFECTS:

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE "PANIC BUTTON"1

MARTIN T. O R N E 2

Harvard Medical School

KA R L E. SCHEIBE

University of California, Berkeley

From the premise that both social cu e factors, or demand characteristics, an dsensory deprivation operations combine in producing commonly observedeffects of sensory deprivation, an experiment is reported which tests the hy-pothesis that sensory deprivation effects can be produced by manipulatingdemand characteristics while holding the effect of the physical environmentconstant. Experimental Ss were exposed to pre-experimental conditions whichwere designed to imply to them that sensory deprivation effects were expectedto em erge. The same physical conditions were structure d for con trol Ss insuch a way as to lead them to expect nothing to happen. Results show that

th e groups were significantly different on a number of before an d after tests,as well as in general clinical appearance, and these results were interpretedas supporting the hypothesis. An interpretation is offered of the operationof demand characteristics as a factor interacting with treatment conditions.Ways of taking demand characteristics into account in sensory deprivationresearch are suggested.

It seems reasonable to view the subject in

a psychological experiment as a social as wellas an experimental animal. To do so, however,makes necessary a distinction between that

part of the subject's behavior which is a

function of the experimental variable underanalysis and that part which is tied to his

perception of the experiment as a socialsituation.

To support this view, Orne ( 1 9 S 9 b ) has

shown that subjects in hypnosis experiments

behave in a way that is largely congruent

with their preconceptions of hypnosis. Orne

( 19S9a ; 1 9 6 2 ) , in developing th e concept

of "demand characteristics," has also sug-

gested that the results of many psychological

experiments are liable to be biased by those

cues, both implicit and explicit, that com-

1This study was supported in part by ContractAF49(638 ) -728 from the Air Force Office of ScientificResearch and in part by Public Health ResearchGrant M-3369, National Institute of Mental Health,United States Public Health Service.

2 W e would like to thank Ronald Shor for hishelp in the analysis of the data and in the exposi-

tion of our findings. We are grateful also to DonaldN. O'Connell , Emily C. Orne, and M. BrewsterSmith for their many valuable suggestions an dcomments.

municate to the subject what is expected ofhim in the experimental situation.

The results of any experiment involvinghuman subjects are seen to include at least

two distinct components. The first, whichmay be called the true experimental effect,

is entirely contingent upon the antecedenceof the independent variable. The second isinduced by the social cues that attend the

experimental situation and is unrelated to the

independent variable. An analogy may aptlybe drawn to the distinction between "real"

and "placebo" effects in pharmacological re -

search, where it is first necessary to discernthe extent and direction of the placebocomponent before a meaningful conclusioncan be drawn about the real effect.

Research findings on sensory deprivationare likely to be subject to the kind of biashere described. Little attempt has been madeto separate those aspects of the reactions tosensory deprivation actually due to the dimi-nution of sensory input from those due to

th e matrix of social cues surrounding theexperimental situation,3

3 One notable exception is the work of Jackson(1960; Jackson & Kelly, 1962) wh o explored therole of "indirect suggestion" in the product ion ofsensory deprivation effects.



MARTIN T. ORNE AN D K A R L E. SCHEIBE

Since the first studies at McGill Universityin 1951 , there have been many attempts todelineate and account for the effects of pro-longed sensory deprivation. Experimental

techniques have been devised to reduceinsofar as possible all forms of externalstimulation. The McGill research employed asound-damped cubicle: the subject rests ona soft bed, wearing translucent goggles overhis eyes and cardboard gauntlets over hisforearms and hands (Bexton, Heron, & Scott,19 5 4 ) . Another technique involves placingnormal subjects in tank-type respirators, sothat movement is restricted and externalsources of stimulation are rendered fairly

homogeneous (Leiderman, Mendelson, Wexler,& Solomon, 195 8 ) . A third technique consistsof prolonged total immersion in a tank ofwater at body temperature, with th e subjectusing a face mask fo r breathing (Lilly, 1 9 5 6 ) .With a very few exceptions (Vernon & Mc-Gill, 1957; Zubek, Sansom, & Prysiazniuk,1960) these procedures have produced sig-nificant changes in behavior, usually in theform of a decrement in psychological ef-

ficiency.Bexton et al. (19 54 ) report a general cogni-

tive deterioration under the McGill condi-tions. Deprivation subjects showed decre-ments on a number of pre- and postisolationcognitive tasks. Subjects reported an intense-ness of visual imagery, an inability to con-centrate, and spatial an d temporal disorienta-tion. Scott, Bexton, Heron, and Doane ( 1 9 5 9 )and Doane, Mahatoo, Heron, and Scott

( 1 95 9 ) provide further evidence on severalmore testing instruments, including some ofthe perceptual-motor variety. The findingso f Vernon, McGill, Gulick, and Candland( 1 9 6 1 ) have been less striking, but thegeneral tenor of their conclusions is thesame. Likewise, studies by Zubek et al. ( 1 9 6 0 )and Zubek, Pushkar, Sansom, and Cowing( 1 9 6 1 ) show an impairment of mental func-tioning along the lines noted above. A remarkby Hebb (1958) perhaps best epitomizes thefindings of these studies: "Without physicalpain, without drugs, the personality can bebadly deformed simply by modifying th eperceptual environment [p . 110]."

An alternative view of these data would be

that at least in part the dramatic effectscould be a function of the demand character-istics of the experimental situation. Thus, thecues in the experimental procedure itselfwould communicate to the subject the be-havior expected of him.

There is evidence in an experiment byKandel, Myers, and Murphy (1958) thatpreparing a subject fo r probable hallucina-tions significantly affects the frequency ofhallucinations. This preparation was accom-plished by verbal instructions. However, suchdevices as "panic buttons" in experiments(Vernon et al., 1961; Zubek et al., 1 9 6 1 )are in a sense eloquent "instructions." The

use of such a device increases the subject'sexpectation that something intolerable mayoccur, and, with it, the likelihood of a badexperience.

Indeed, it is possible to refer to manypotential role cues of greater or lessersubtlety. In an experiment by Freedman,Grunebaum, and Greenblatt (1961), subjectswere required to sign a forbidding releaseform prior to participation. Psychiatric

screenings have been commonly used to singleout individuals who might be harmed byan experiment, and physical examinationshave been given to make sure of the subject'sability to withstand experimental stress. Eventhe existence of such experimental accouter-ments as observation windows and micro-phones have a potential cue value. As oneof our own subjects remarked, "If you didn'texpect to see or hear something unusual, why

were you looking and listening?"It should be made clear that the experi-ment to be described was not designed to testany hypothesis about the nature of sensorydeprivation. Rather it was aimed at calling

attention to a set of variables which must

be considered in evaluating that phenomenon.

The postulate that certain cues increase thelikelihood of occurrence of a predicted effect

is easily conve rted into an empirical question:

If the cues attending the typical sensorydeprivation experiment are retained while no

sensory deprivation takes place, is it still

possible to produce effects similar to those

produced in such an experiment?



M E T H O D O L O G Y IN DEPRIVATION STUDIES

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were recruited for "a psychological experi-ment in Meaning Deprivation" through th e place-

ment services of colleges and universities in theBoston area. Each subject was paid $2 an hour plustransportation costs. In order to correspond moreclosely with the practice in most previous sensorydeprivation expe rimen ts, only male college stude ntsranging in age from 18 to 2 5 were used. Subjectswere excluded who had previously participated insensory deprivation experiments or who were toofamiliar with sensory deprivation experiment results.4

Twenty subjects in all took part; each was assignedalternately to the experimental an d control groups,with 10 subjects comprising each group.

Procedure for Experimental Group

All subjects who called to volunteer were toldthat the experimental session would last an indefiniteperiod of time, and that in order for the subjectto participate, it would be necessary for him toreserve an entire day or entire evening. He wasalso told that th e experiment was to be performedat a psychiatric hospital.

When the subject arrived there he was greeted bythe experimenter, dressed in a white medical coat.Prior to giving instructions, the experimenter askedthe subject briefly about his medical history, asked

him whether he had a history of dizziness, orfainting spells, and so on. An aura of greatseriousness and importance was maintained through-out this introductory period. As a prop to reinforceth e subject's notion that great caution was necessaryin the experiment, a tray of drugs and medicalinstruments, labeled "Emergency Tray" was in fullview. No direct reference was ever made to this trayunless the subject asked, and then he was told thatthis was one of the precautionary measures takenfor the experiment, and that he had nothing toworry about.

At the conclusion of the introductory remarks,

the following set of instructions, a composite of theinstructions used in other sensory deprivation ex-periments, was read to the subject:

The experiment for which yo u have volunteeredhas as its object the determination of the psy-chological consequences of a special kind ofdeprivation procedure.

There ar e three parts to the experiment: TestingPeriod I, the Experimental Deprivation Con-dition, and Testing Period II. You will receivespecial instructions in the testing periods.

During the deprivation period, which will last

4Four subjects were thus eliminated. One further

subject was dropped because he was not only unableto perform two of the pretests—one involving areversible figure and the other a mirror tracing task

—bu t ha d great difficulty even in understandingthe instructions.

an undisclosed length of time, you will have anoptional task involving adding numbers, the fullinstructions for which will be explained once weenter the chamber.

While you are in the chamber, you will be

under constant observation. Also, there will be amicrophone through which anything you might saywill be recorded. It is important that you reportyour experiences freely and completely. You areno t expected to talk a great deal, but you shouldreport any visual imagery, fantasies, special orunusual feelings, difficulties in concentration, hal-lucinations, feelings of disorientation, or the like.Such experiences are not unusual under the con-ditions to which you are to be subjected.

If at any time you feel very discomforted, youmay obtain release immediately by pressing thebutton which I will show you once we enter

the chamber ["by knocking on the window," fo rcontrol subjects]. Do not hesitate to use thisbutton if the situation becomes difficult [thissentence deleted for control subjects]. However,try to stick it out if you can.

Should you feel upset, or should anythinguntoward develop, a physician is immediately athand [this sentence deleted for control subjects].

Remember, I should like you to pay special at-tention to any special visual or other sensations,or feelings of disorientation, and to report theseexperiences as they happen.

Do you have any questions?

At the conclusion of the instructions, questionswere answered if at all possible by referring toportions of the written instructions. The subject wasthen asked to sign a release form that was almostidentical in detail with the one used by Freedmanet al. (1961). It was worded so as to relieve the

Massachusetts Mental Health Center and all affiliatedorganizations and personnel from legal responsibilityfor consequences of the experiment. All experimentalsubjects signed the form, although some were a littlereluctant to do so.

Next, the subjects' blood pressure and pulse countwere recorded. These measures were also taken forcontrol subjects, who were told, however, that itwas being done only because it was part of theprocedure for experimental subjects. After this, sub-jects were given the pretest battery to be describedbelow. At the conclusion of the battery they wereallowed to go to the bathroom, after which theywere accompanied by the experimenter to the"isolation chamber."

The isolation chamber was a quiet room 6 X 7 X 8feet in dimension. It was furnished simply with alarge oak desk and two comfortable chairs. Beigedrapes covered a small, shaded window above the

desk, but the room was amply lighted by acircular fluorescent fixture. One wall was fitted witha 2 X 4 foot observation window, the function ofwhich was explained to the subject upon entering.

On the desk were a number of objects: a thermosof ice water, a glass, and a sandwich; a microphone;a stack of approximately 2,000 sheets of paper con-



MARTIN T. ORNE AN D KARL E. SCHEIBE

taining numbers; a red pushbut ton mounted on aboard an d labeled "Emergency Alarm."

In the instruction period th e subject was informedthat the food and w ater w ere for his convenience,and that he could partake of them at any time. H e

was told fur ther that th e microphone was sensitiveenough to pick up anything said in the room, andthat he should comment upon the experience w h e n -ever he felt so inclined.

Each sheet of paper containing numbers was madeup of eight columns of single random digits. Thesubject was told that, as an optional task, he couldadd the adjacent digits in the columns, and recordth e sum in the space between them. It was madeclear to him that he might do as much or as little

of this task as he pleased, an d that he did nothave to do it at all if he did not want to. He

was instructed, however, to confine his use of paper

an d pencil to the prescribed optional activity. Inaddition, he was requested to remain awake through-ou t th e period, but was assured that if he reallybecame sleepy, it was permissible to go to sleep.

The subject was finally informed that by pressingth e pushbutton, which was shown to activate a

loud alarm, he would obtain release f rom th eexperiment.

Upon completing the instructions, the experimenterasked the subject if everything was clear to h i m ; ifit was, th e experimenter left, audibly locking th edoor behind him.

The room, it should be pointed out, could hardlybe construed as a sensory deprivation environment.Voices an d footsteps could be heard from otherparts of the building, and at various times th esounds of automobiles, airplanes, and the chirpingof birds outside were clearly audible. The room waswell lighted an d large enough for the subject tomove about freely; movements were not prohibitedby the instructions.

After the subject had been in the room for exactly4 hours , th e experimenter returned to carry out aninterview of the type to be described below, and toru n th e subject again through th e testing procedure:

his blood pressure and pulse were rechecked; hewas asked fo r fur ther comments or questions at theconclusion, paid for his services, and releasedafter he had promised not to relate details of theexperiment to others. The entire procedure fromthe time the subject arrived to the time he leftgenerally took 6 hours .

Procedure fo r Control Group

Control subjects were treated in exactly th e samemanner as experimental subjects except for thefollowing particulars. First, when greeting th e sub-

ject th e experimenter wore business clothes andacted in a less officious manner . The testing room,or office, was not equipped with an emergency tray,nor was the medical history interview conducted.In lieu of this, the subject was told that he waspart of a control group for a sensory deprivationexperiment, The usual conditions of such an experi-

ment—translucent goggles, white noise , arm gaunt-lets, soft bed, an d restriction of activity—weredescribed to the subject. He was informed that hewould be given exactly th e same tests an d receiveth e same instructions, with minor modifications, that

experimental sensory deprivation subjects received.He was told that i t was necessary to place himin the same chamber for the same period of time,so that th e effects of the more restrictive sensorydeprivation conditions could be differentiated fromth e effects of simply being left alone in a roomfor a period of time. He was urged to report hisexperiences freely and completely, and was told that

recordings were being made of all his comments.After these introductory remarks, th e same set ofinstructions was read to the control subject as wasread to the experimental meaning deprivation sub-ject (with the modifications noted in the section on

procedure for the experimental grou p ) .The cubicle was outfitted in exactly th e same way,

except that there was no "Emergency Alarm."Control subjects were told that if they wanted togain release they could do so by kn ock ing on thewindow.

The po stexperimental treatment was the same forboth groups, except that the experimenter wore a

white coat for the experimental subjects.

Tests and Criteria

Several criteria were used in the selection oftests. First, the choice was made from among theapproximately 75 tests that have been used byprevious investigators of sensory deprivation. Second,only those tests were considered which were reportedas positive indicators of sensory deprivation; that is ,th e results of which were significantly different fo rcontrol and experimental groups. From the 25 teststhat met these criteria, 10 were selected on the basisof ease and speed of administration, ease andobjectivity of scoring, an d availability of testingmaterials. Tests of both cognitive and perceptualabilities were included. Whenever possible, exactly

th e same tests were used as were used by previousinvestigators. In some cases approximations werenecessary because of a lack of adequate descriptionsin th e reports or the uniqueness of a test. Thebattery which emerged was as follows. Tests ar elisted in order of administration. Unless otherwisenoted, tests were given in exactly th e same waybefore an d after isolation.

Mirror Tracing. Subjects were instructed to trace

a line around the .25-inch border of a six pointedstar on a conventional mirror drawing apparatus.The score was the number of times the traced linewent out of the border. Vernon et al . ( 1 9 6 1 ) found

a significant decrement in the performance of thistask after deprivation.

Spatial Orientation. Subjects were asked to draw afigure in response to specific commands , withoutseeing th e paper on which they drew. For thispurpose, a mirror drawing shield without th e mir ro rwas used. Instructions were as follows;



M E T H O D O L O G Y IN DEPRIVATION STUDIES

Draw a line three inches to your left an d stop.Now 90 degrees to the right o f the direction youwere moving, draw a line tw o inches and stop.N ow 9 0 degrees to the right again, draw a linethree inches and stop. Now 90 degrees to the

left, draw a line three inches and stop. Now 90degrees to the right, draw a line tw o inches andstop. Now 90 degrees to the right again, draw aline one inch and stop. Finally, draw a line backto your original starting position.

Figures were scored for both linear and angulardeviation from the figure thus described. Doane et al.

(1959) found experimental subjects exhibited sig-nificantly more angular deviation on this task, whilelinear deviation was apparently not scored. Lineardeviation scores were included in the present experi-ment with the expectation that experimental subjects

would also do worse on this aspect of spatialorientation.

Word Recognition. Subjects were given 90 secondsto study a list of 20 words that had been takenfrom words classified as AA (highest) frequency inthe Thorndike-Lorge (1944) tabulation. Immediatelyat the conclusion of this period, subjects were in-structed to circle, on a list of 70 words of similarfrequency, as many of the original 20 as they recog-nized. After isolation, the recognition test was ad-ministered without additional opportunity fo r study.Th e score was the number of correct recognitions.This procedure was adapted from that of Zubek

et al. (1960), who found significantly poorerrecognition scores fo r experimental subjects.

Reversible Figure. Subjects were instructed topress a counter key every time there was a shift ina reversible figure. A 4 X 6 inch reproduction ofthe reversible staircase figure was used for this test.Th e score was the number of alterations in 1minute. Significantly faster alternation cycles werefound fo r experimental subjects by Freedman et al.(1961) and by Freedman and Greenblatt (1961).

The Digit-Symbol subtest of the Wechsler AdultIntelligence Scale. Standard administration and scor-ing procedures were used. Scott et al. (1959) and

Davis, McCourt, and Solomon (1960) found asignificant superiority in accuracy of control subjectsin this task.

MacQuarrie-Morris Test of Mechanical Ability.Standard administration and scoring procedures wereused. Zubek et al. (1960) and Vernon et al. (1961)found decrements fo r sensory deprivation subjectson motor coordination tasks very closely related tothis test.

Simple Form perception. Six simple geometricalforms, completely regular, were cu t from black con-struction paper and pasted on 10 X 10 inch neutral

gray cards. Theseforms

were:a

plus sign,tw o

parallel lines, a circle, a single straight line, anequilateral triangle, and a square. The cards wereheld one at a time in front of the viewer, at adistance of 12 feet. In the pretesting, subjects wereasked to describe what they saw on the cards, andto note an y irregularities. In the posttesting, th e

following instructions, identical to those used byFreedman and Greenblatt (1961), were given:

I am going to show you some simple charts[cards], and I would like to have you tell me

what each on e looks like to you—not what youthink it really is, but what it looks like sub-jectively.

Scores were obtained by subtracting the numberof distortions reported in pretesting from the numberreported in posttesting. N o more than a single dis-tortion was counted for each card. This test wasgiven immediately after the subjects emerged fromisolation, in congruence with the Freedman andGreenblatt procedure. These investigators found sig-nificantly more simple form distortions in experi-mental than in control subjects.

Sh e Constancy. Fifteen light gray circular disksof graduated diameter were pasted on a large sheetof dark gray cardboard and shown, from a distance

of 12 feet, to the subjects who were asked toestimate which disk most approximated in size thestandard disk, mounted on a similar background,and held 2 feet from the eyes. Scores were assignedin terms of the number and direction of step devia-tions from the standard. Doane et al. (1959) reportthat th e subjects tend to see figures larger afterdeprivation. This test was pulled out of orderand given right after the simple form perceptiontest when the subject came out of the isolation

chamb er. This is in accord with the procedures ofDoane et al. and also of Freedman and Greenblatt( 1 9 6 1 ) .

Spiral Aftereffect. An 8-inch Archimedes spiralrotating at about 40 rpm was viewed at a distance

o f 3 feet for 90 seconds. At a signal from theexperimenter, the subject shifted his vision to anidentical spiral which was stationary. Subjects wereinstructed to say "stop" upon cessation of the move-ment aftereffect thus induced. The score was thenumber of seconds that the e f f e c t persisted. Doaneet al. (1959) report a greater duration of this effectafter isolation.

Logical Deductions. Subtest 3 of the Watson-Glazer Appraisal of Critical Thinking was adminis-tered after isolation only. Standard administrationand scoring procedures were used. Goldberger andHolt (1958) found that the performance of sensorydeprivation subjects on this test was significantlypoorer than was that of controls.

The postisolation interview was conducted inexactly the same manner for all subjects. The experi-menter first called upon the subject to express, atwhatever length was agreeable to him, the generalnature of his experience, his feelings, thoughts, andso forth. After these comments, the experimenter

asked him to estimate the time he had spent inisolation and to make an affective evaluation of theexperience; the experimenter questioned th e subjecton the presence of anxiety, of temporal or spatialdisorientation, of distortions perception, or of per-ceptions of doubtful origin; finally the experimenterasked the subject to elaborate upon some of the



M A R T I N T. O R N E AN D K A R L E. S C H E I B E

subject's opening remarks. The information gainedin this interview, together with th e notes made onvisual observations of the subject and recording ofhi s spontaneous remarks, was used in forming generalclinical evaluations of his behavior in the experi-

mental situation.

RESULTS

In Table 1 is presented summary informa-tion on the battery of 10 tests. The table

includes determinations of statistical signifi-

cance. Note the multiple methods of scoringfor a few of the measures.

Although th e pre-experimental perform-ances of the experimental and control groups

did not test significantly different, th e analy-sis of covariance technique was used to takeinto account an y systematic influence ofinit ial values on the postexperimental com-parisons. For comparisons without pre-experimental components, simple t tests were

TABLE 1

S U M M A R Y A N D A N A L Y S I S O P 1 0 TESTS F O R C O N T R O L A N D E X P E R I M E N T A L G R O U P S

Test and group

Mirror Tracing (errors)ExperimentalControl

Spatial OrientationAngular deviation

ExperimentalControl

Linear deviationExperimentalControl

Word Recognition (N correct)ExperimentalControl

Reversible Figure (rate per m inu te)

ExperimentalControlDigit Symbol (N correct)

ExperimentalControl

Mechanical Ab ilityTapping speed (N completed)

ExperimentalControl

Tracing speed (N completed)ExperimentalControl

Visual pursuit (N completed)ExperimentalControl

Simple Forms (N increment distortions)ExperimentalControl

Size Constancy (change in steps)ExperimentalControl

Spiral AftereffectDuration, seconds

ExperimentalControl

Absolute changeExperimentalControl

Logical Deduction (N correct)ExperimentalControl

Pretest M

28.135.8

4 5 . 752.5

5.36 .4

1 7 . 31 5 . 2

29.02 0 . 1

98.29 9 . 2

33.932.9

55.653.1

5.75.7

——

• — •— .

24.41 5 . 6

——

—

~

Posttest M

19.715.2

53.959.1

5.45.7

15.61 2 . 3

35.02 5 . 0

109.9111.9

32.235.0

5 2 . 358.4

8.99 .2

3.10.8

0.60.0

2 7 . 116.1

7.02.7

20.3

22.1

Difference statistic

J f _ 1 /;7ai — I .U /

F = .25"

/,' _ a 74.*1 — O.OT:

/ — s nt — .OU

F = l.S4»

F = .05"

F = 2.26

F = 4.57*

/i'=t22«

77 — 1Q**u — ly

( = 1.03*

F = .99"

f — 3,3g***

/ = 1.64

Note.— F = adjusted poatexperimental scores, analysis of covariance; / — t tes ts ; U = Mann-Whitney U test , where ploto f data appeared grossly abnormal,

B Indicates differences between gr oup s were in predicted direction.*p < .05, one-tailed.

** P = .01, one-tailed.*** p < .001, nondir ectiona l mea sure.



METHODOLOGY IN DEPRIVATION STUDIES

TABLE 2

OCCURRENCE or SENSORY DEPRIVATION SYMPTOMS IN CONTROL AN D EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS

Subject and group

Experimental

EiE 2E 3E <E 6

E6E,E8

EeEIO

Controlc,C2C3c <C6C8C7c»c.C i o

Summary and significance

Frequency ExperimentalFrequency Control

Fisher exact p

Perceptualaberrations

XXX0XXo0XX

oXo0XoXo0X

14

.1 1

Intellectualdullness

X0XXXXXoXX

oooooooo0X

81

<.01

Affectivelyunpleasant

0XXXXXooXo

ooo0X00ooX

62

.06

Anxietyfears

0X0XXXooXX

oXo0XoXooX

64

.33

Spatialdisorien-

tation

XXoXXoooXX

0

oooXooooX

62

.06

Restless-ness

0

XXXXX0oXX

o00oX000oX

72

<.os

Irritability

OX0oXX0XXX

0

0ooooXXoX

63

.35

Totalnumber ofsymptoms

364S761176

0

200S03107

Note.—See text for discussion of categories.Mean positive entries: Experimental group, 4.5; Control group, 1.8.U = 16.5, f < .01, one-tailed.

used. In one instance the plotting of thedata appeared so grossly abnormal that the

distribution-free Mann-Whitney U test was

used on difference scores. One-tailed statistical

probabilities are reported (except for theone statistically insignificant instance of amean difference in the direction opposite pre-diction, that is, Word Recognition). Since

this report is concerned with a critical ap-

praisal of factors involved in prior findingsrather than an initial setting-forth of evi-dence, the 10% confidence level was selected

as an appropriate alpha.

It can be observed that 6 of the 14 criteriaachieve statistical significance. Note again

that the mean differences of 13 of the 14criteria are in the direction predicted.

A Mann-Whitney U test was performed on

the summation ranks of all the 14 measuresas a convenient method fo r summarizing th eoverall differences. The one-tailed proba-

bility which emerges is p — .001, a clear

demonstration of expected effects.

Subjects' Reports and the Experimenter'sClinical Impressions

That expected differences exist between the

groups is further demonstrated in Table 2,which shows for each subject the number and

kind of sensory deprivation "symptom" ob-

served or reported. Following is a brief

elaboration of the criteria in the columnheadings. An analysis of the data reportedin Table 2 indicates that experimental sub-jects exhibited a significantly greater numberof sensory deprivation "symptoms" than didcontrol subjects (p = .01, one-tailed, Mann-Whitney U test).

Perceptual aberrations. Various reports ofunusual perceptions or imaginal activity wereobtained, both in subjects' spontaneous re -marks and in the interview. Some examples

are: "the walls of the room are starting to

waver"; "the objects on the desk are be-

coming animated and moving about"; "the

lighting in the room is growing gradually



10 MARTIN T. ORNE AN D K A R L E. SCHEIBE

dimmer and yellower"; "the buzzing of thefluorescent light is growing alternately louderand softer, so that at times it sounds like ajackhammer"; "there are multicolored spots

on the wall"; and "the numbers on the num-ber sheets are blurring and assuming variousinkblot forms." None of these experienceswas especially upsetting to the subjects, nordid they appear in most cases to be morethan mildly compelling. An exception is theone experimental subject who terminated bypressing the panic button, and who gave"disorganization of senses" as one of hisreasons for ending the experiment.

Intellectual dullness. Generally, this refers

to a report by the subject that he experi-enced marked difficulty in concentration.Typically, those who complained of this saidthat there was little difficulty at first, butthat after about half the period they becameunable, even with considerable effort, to thinkfor more than a few seconds on any serioustopic. Also included in this category arereports of "blank periods" when the subjectcould not remember thinking of anything,and which he characterized as being ex-tremely vague and abstract.

Affectively unpleasant. In the interview,subjects were asked to make an overallevaluation of the pleasantness or unpleasant-ness of the experience. Reports ranged fromextremely unpleasant to extremely pleasant.Positive entries in this column indicate a

report of mildly unpleasant or worse.Anxiety or fears. Positive entries in this

column denote a report of thoughts of being

forgotten, or of being inadvertently left inthe room for a long time, or of being trappedwhile the building burned down. Severalsubjects reported claustrophobic anxiety.

Spatial disorientation. Included here arereports of the relative dimensions of the roomseeming to change, or of the size of thesubject in relation to the room seeming tochange, or more general comments of con-fusion or amnesia regarding the location ofthe room in the building or of the building

in the city.

Restlessness. Ratings of restlessness werebased on reports by some subjects that theybegan wondering whether the experiment was

worth the money, entertaining semihostile

thoughts regarding the experimenter, orhaving serious impulses to end the experi-ment. Usually, th e reports indicated that

such irritability was rather short-lived andnot serious, and none of the subjects wasovertly hostile to the experimenter uponcompletion of the experiment.

It will be noted in Table 2 that there

are two apparent reversals in each group.An example of these is the final subject inthe control group who was in fact quite upsetby the experience, and terminated it byknocking on the window 3 minutes beforethe end of the 4-hour period. Excepting these

two reversals, however, the resulting clinicalimpressions for the two groups were distinct

and consistent.The control group subject typically started

his isolation period by inspecting the room,looking through the drawers in the desk, thensettling in one of the chairs, and beginningto add the numbers. After this, th e patternof activity would generally consist of longperiods of repose interspersed with moderateamounts of activity on the serial additions.These subjects gave the impression, while inthe chamber, of being in every way relaxedand in a pleasant frame of mind. The rateof verbalization was lower for control thanfor experim ental subjects; typically therewas but a single rather long comment at the

beginning telling the experimenter how thesubject intended to occupy his time whilein the chamber.

In marked contrast to the repose of the

controls was the general behavior of theexperimental subjects. They usually began theexperiment in much the same way as controls:inspection followed by some adding of num-bers. But, after the first hour there wouldensue a marked restlessness, a decrease inthe performance of serial additions, frequentcomments of displeasure at some aspect ofthe experience, or remarks indicating concernover lack of time sense. Occasionally experi-mental subjects would try to sleep, but withlittle success. Some exercised, while others

undertook an intense and minute inspectionof the room. Viewed in relation to the con-trols, these subjects gave an impression of



M E T H O D O L O G Y I N D E P R I V A T I O N S T U D I E S 11

almost being tortured. While the controlgroup seemed to alternate between quietcontemplation an d work with numbers, ex-perimental subjects seemed to fluctuate be-

tween periods of unpleasant restlessness andabstract, vague periods of total inactivity.

D I S C U S S I O N

These findings demonstrate that subjects'behavior can be differentially manipulated byaltering the implicit and explicit cues in theexperimental situation, and further that sub-jects may react to social cues, or demandcharacteristics, in such a way as to confound

experimental results.In the light of our findings, it would seem

plausible to suggest that an important con-founding variable may be present in muchof the reported sensory deprivation research.( O u r data yield no evidence, of course,regarding the effect of actual restriction ofsensory input. It is possible that many aspects

of the reported phenomena in sensory depriva-tion studies are due to the restriction ofsensory input.) Our data emphasize the needfor further research to determine th e actualextent to which the reported "sensory depriva-tion phenomena" are related to the decremento f sensory input.

In any experiment, the subject's reactionmay be viewed as resulting from both theactual treatment (restriction of sensory inputby means of gauntlets, goggles, specialchambers, etc.) and the social situationcreated by the setting in which the experiment

is conducted, the instructions used, and thecue characteristics of the treatment operationsthemselves. For example, in our particular

experiment the treatment was not that ofsensory deprivation, but, rather, of 4-hourisolation. At the same time, the situation(demand characteristics) was deliberatelyvaried for the control and the experimentalgroups. We interpret ou r data to mean thatfour hours of isolation coupled with differing

sets of demand characteristics yield differentexperimental results.The demonstrated effectiveness of demand

characteristics in this or any ex perime nt isnot taken to indicate that subjects openlyand willfully cooperate with the experimenter.

Rather, it is likely that social cues can deter-

mine the subject's actual experience in thesituation. There is reason to believe that thesubjects in the Meaning Deprivation experi-

mental condition actually did experience con-siderable discomfort. The demand character-istics communicated to the subjects that theywould feel discomfort despite any efforts toforestall discomfort. It must be rememberedthat in order for this communication to beeffective, the treatment conditions must besuch that they might reasonably be expectedto produce just those effects suggested bythe pre-experimental cues. This is to say that

treatment conditions in themselves com-municate crucial social cues and that theseare assimilated with the other social cues inthe experimental setting to form the demandcharacteristics of the particular experiment.If both these components of demand charac-teristics consistently provide an expectationof discomfort and a decrement in perform-ance, then it is likely that the subject's ex-perience as well as his behavior will be con-strained by these demands. A distinction is

to be made between behavior constrained inthis fashion an d conscious cooperation(Sarbin, 19 S O ) .

The main difficulty in designing definitivesensory deprivation experiments is the in-evitable close relationship between the altera-tions in the physical environment that arenecessary to decrease sensory input and thedemand characteristics communicated bytheir use. In order to create th e treatment

of sensory deprivation, goggles, gauntlets, andvarious other devices have to be employed.Their use provides obvious cues as to how

the subject is expected to behave in thesituation.

These considerations suggest that a feasibleapproach would be to utilize conditions ofmaximal deprivation while varying the de-mand characteristics. It is possible to struc-ture the situation so that different groups

perceive the restriction as a means to avariety of experimental purposes. It is notpossible to eliminate demand characteristics,bu t they can be varied with relative ease.Cues provided by the deprivation manipula-tions themselves must remain fairly constant,



12 MARTIN T. ORNE AND KARL E. SCHEIBE

but the other cues can be systematicallyvaried, thereby creating a variety of totallydistinct sets of demand characteristics for dif-ferent groups. Such studies would go far

toward clarifying the actual effects of reducedsensory input.

R EF ER EN C ES

BEXTON, W. H., HERON, W., & SCOTT, T. H. Effects

of decreased variation in the sensory environment.Canad. J. PsychoL, 1954, 8, 70-77.

DAVIS, J. M., McCouRT, W. F., & SOLOMON, P.Effect of visual stimulation on hallucinations andother mental experience during sensory deprivation.Amer. J. Psychiat., 1960, 116, 889-892.

DOANE, B. K., MAHATOO, W., HERON, W., & SCOTT,

T. H. Changes in perceptual function after isola-tion. Ca na d . J. Psychol, 1959, 13, 210-219.

FREEDMAN, S. J., & GREENBLATT, M. Studies in humanisolation: I. Perceptual findings. U . S. Armed

Forces med. J., 1961, 11, 1330-1348.

FREEDMAN, S. J., GRUNEBAUM, H. U., & GREENBLATT,M. Perceptual and cognitive changes in sensorydeprivation. In P. Solomon et al. (Eds.), Sensorydeprivat ion: A symposium held at HarvardMedical School. Cambridge: Harvard Univer.Press, 1961. Pp. 58-71.

G O L D B E R G E R , L., & HOLT, R. R. Experimental inter-ference with reality contact (perceptual isolation):

Method and group results. /. nerv. ment. Dis. ,1958, 127, 99-112.

HEBB, D. O. The motivating effects of exteroceptivestimulation. Amer. Psychologist , 1958, 13, 109-113.

JACKSON, C. W. An exploratory study of the roleof suggestion in research on sensory deprivation.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofMichigan, 1960.

J A C K S O N , C. W ., & KELLY, E. L. Influence of sugges-tion and subjects' prior knowledge in research on

sensory deprivation. Science, 19 62, 135, 211-212.KANDEL, E. J., MYERS, T. I., & MURPHY, D. B.

Influence of prior verbalization an d instructions

on visual sensations reported under conditions ofreduced sensory input. Amer. Psychologist , 1958,13, 334. (Abstract)

LEIDERMAN, P. H., MENDELSON, J. N., WEXLER, D.,

& SOLOMON, P. Sensory deprivation: Clinicalaspects. A. M. A. Arch, intern. Med. , 1958, 101,389-396.

LILLY, J. C. Mental effects of reduction of ordinary

levels of physical stimuli on intact, healthy persons.Psychiat . Res. Rep., 1956, 5, 1-9.

ORNE, M. T. The demand characteristics of anexperimental design and their implications. Paperread at American Psychological Association,Cincinnati, September 1959. (a)

ORNE, M. T. The nature of hypnosis: Artifact an dessence. J. abnorm. sac. PsychoL, 1959 , 58, 277-299. (b)

O R N E , M. T. On the social psychology of thepsychological experiment: With particular referenceto demand characteristcs and their implications.Amer. Psychologist , 1962, 1 7 , 776-783.

S A R B I N , T. R. Contributions to role-taking theory:

I. Hypnotic behavior. Psychol. Rev., 1950, 57,

255-270.SCOTT, T. H., BEXTON, W. H., HERON, W., & DOANE,

B. K. Cognitive effects of perceptual isolation.Canad. J. Psychol., 1959, 13, 200-209.

THORNDIKE, E. L., & LORGE, I. Th e teacher's wordbook of 30,000 words. N ew York: Teachers Col-lege, Columbia University, Bureau of Publications,1944.

VERNON, J. A., & McGiLL, T. E. The effect ofsensory deprivation upon rote learning. Amer. J.

Psychol., 1957, 70, 637-639.V E R N O N , J. A., MC&LL, T. E., GULICK, W. L., &

C A N D L A N D , D. K. The effect of human isolationupon some perceptual and motor skills. In P.Solomon et al. (Eds.), Sensory deprivat ion: A sym-posium held at Harvard Medical School. Cam-bridge: Harvard Univer. Press, 1961. Pp. 41-57.

ZUBEK, J. P., PUSHKAR, DOLORES, SANSOM, WlLMA,

& COWING, J. Perceptual changes after prolongedsensory isolation (da rkn ess and silence). Ca na d . J.

Psychol. , 1961, 15, 83-100.

ZUBEK, J. P., SANSOM, WILMA, & PRYSIAZNIUK, A.Intellectual changes during prolonged perceptual

isolation (darkness and silence). Ca na d . J. Psychol. ,1960, 14, 233-243.

(Received October 1 , 1 9 6 2 )

contribution of non deprivation factors in the production of sensory deprivation effects

Documents