1956_lennard_4031_3.pdf

(878 KB) Pobierz
_--._
i
SO0
/
I!l
56
L,_D
i/1,S
•
C'
Published as a separate and in
The Journal o/ Psychology,
i!
'
d
;
_,
LYSERGIC ACID
A PRELIMINARY
UPON
,_
1956, tA., 185-198.
DIETHYLAMIDE
(LSD-25) : XII.
STATEMENT
OF ITS EFFECTS
COMMUNICATION
INTERPERSONAL
Departments o[ )$led_cine, Neurology, and Psychiatry of Mount Sinai Hospital, New
York City; and the Bureau of
ttpplied
Social Research, Columbia Uniqversity
H. LENNARD, M. E. JaRVlK,
A_D H. A. ABRA/VISON
2
Published
as
a separate
and in
The Journal o[ Psychology,
1956, 41.,185-198.
LYSERGIC
ACID
DIETHYLAMIDE
(LSD-25)
:
XII.
•
A
PRELIMINARY
STATEMENT
OF ITS
EFFECTS
UPON INTERPERSONAL
COMMUNICATION
.1
Departments o] Medicine, Neurology, and Psychiatry o[ Mount Sinai Hospital, Ne_w
York City; and the Bureau o[ Applied Social Research, Columbia University
H. LENNAKD,
1"_[.E.
JARVIK, AND H. A.
ABRAMSON
2
A.
INTRODUCTION
Lysergic acid diethylamide is a drug which has been shown to produce a
variety of changes in the intellectual (10, 13) and emotional functioning
of non-psychotic adults (4, 11, 12, 14). Previous work in this laboratory
has demonstrated that performance on objective tests measuring memory (8),
concentration
(5, 7) and motor abilities (1, 9) is impaired when subjects
receive LSD-25.
Some effects of this drug on social perception have been
described by Hyde
et al.
(6).
The present paper attempts to describe the patterns of interpersonal com-
munication of a small group of individuals under the influence of LSD-25.
Our objective was to specify the dimensions along which interpersonal com-
munication is modified and the dimensions along which it is unchanged when
this agent is administered to several individuals in a group situation. The
substance of this paper will consist of a discussion of a series of specific hy-
potheses which
were
formulated to explore the problem and is intended to
serve as a preliminary report to be followed by a more intensive examination
of this problem.
B. METHOD
1.
Subjects
There were four paid, adult volunteers, three female and one male con-
sidered non-psychotic on the basis of a psychiatric interview and a battery
of clinical psychological tests (2). Intelligence, as measured by the Wechsler-
Bellevue
Intelligence Scale, ranged from superior to very superior.
Body
weight
ranged from 130 to 160 pounds.
Age
ranged from 22 to 26 years.
*Received in
the
Editorial
Office on October 15, 1955, and published
immediately
at Provincetown, Massachusetts. Copyright by The Journal Press.
1This investigation
was
aided by a grant from the Geschickter Fund for Medical
Research.
ZWe are
indebted
to Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for supplies of LSD-25 andl
other compounds.
185
186
JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
All subjects were college graduates, three in the field of education
in business administration.
2.
Procedure
and one
a. Experimental
conditions.
At 9:30 A.M. two subjects received 50
micrograms of LSD-25 and two received 100 micrograms.
The drug was
given orally in 75 cc of tap water. Five months later a second experiment
was conducted where the subjects were given a placebo consisting of 75 cc
of tap water only. Since LSD-25 has no taste, odor, or color, subjects were
unaware of the dosage they received.
At each session the subiects had eaten no food since the previous evening.
One-half hour after the ingestion of the drug or placebo they ate a light
breakfast.
Neither smoking nor stimulants, such as coffee or tea, were allowed
during the entire testing period. Prior to the drug experiment all subjects
had participated in placebo experiments and two had received LSD-25.
Be-
tween the drug and placebo experiments in this study there were several
other LSD-25 sessions.
b. Data obtained.
preliminary
analysis :
The following
types of data were available
for this
(1). Condition 1. A typed script from a tape recording of the above
group, under the influence of LSD-25, discussing the topic,
The Place of
14Zomen in Society.
(2).
Condition 2. A typed script
from
a tape recording of this group
discussing the same topic after they had received placebos.
(3). Condition 3. Typed scripts
from
tape recordings of group dis-
cussions
in
which
members of our experimental group participated
individ-
ually. The data used came
from
earlier sessions where the experimental
member
from
the present group was under a placebo or "normal" condition
while the others
in
his group were under the
influence
of LSD-25.
3.
Analysis
of Data
a. Frame of reference
for
analysis of group communication.
A full ex-
position of our orientation with regard to group behavior must be postponed
to a later date. At this time we shall briefly state our position. We agree
with Bales that in studying group behavior, process, or functioning, what we
are actually talking about is, "a sequence of qualitatively different activities
of human beings, which is distributed in time
and
between individuals in
a
way that seems to be organized or patterned in a great number of ways"
(3). Further, we believe that all interaction has "a problem solving direction
H.
LENNARD,
M.
E.
JARVIK,
AND
H.
A.
ABRAMSON
187
whether
the people are trying to solve what we might call a substantive
involved are problems of interacting
to-
problem or not . . . the 'problems'
gether and communicating"
(3).
The study of the effect of LSD-25 on group behavior was made through
the utilization of the most basic and easily quantifiable variables present.
In order to arrive at generalizations of human behavior or the situation in
which it takes place, we think it necessary to reduce stimulation and action
into component parts which lend themselves to objective measurement.
b.
Variables used.
Two types of variables were used:
(1). Formal characteristics of communication:
quantity
of
speech
(num-
ber of words, number of lines, number of thought units) ;
direction of com-
munication
(who initiates; amount of communication;
to whom addressed);
other characteristics of communication
(interruptions,
unfinished thought
units, etc.).
(2). A system of categories devised by Bales (3) for the analysis of
group interaction.
Among the various methods of analysing interaction now
available, the Bales system has been most widely used, thus providing us with
a body of comparative data. The system of categories employed is described
in Figure 1.
The set of categories used is "completely inclusive in the sense that every
act which can be observed can be classified into one positively defined
category" (3). The method is continuous in that every act is classified. The
system further permits the scoring of "who to whom, in that for every act
the author of the act (the actor) and
'target
object' can be identified" (3).
The target object is defined as "that area of focus of the situation (i.e., self,
other, in-group or outer situation) which the actors aim to affect or change,
or which is affecting or changing him, and to which he is, therefore, giving
primary attention in the present momentary act" (3). We note that the
unit of observation is the single act which is defined as "the single item of
thought or the single item of behavior. Often the unit will be a single
sentence expressing or conveying a simple thought" (3).
We should point out that our scoring deviated from Bales' method in that
we classified responses from verbatim transcripts rather than from observation.
The reliability of the scoring, computed
ment, was better than 80 per cent.
for 100 acts, by inter-coding
agree-
In presenting our findings we shall first state the specific hypothesis ex-
plored, and the rationale for its formulation.
188
JOURNAL
OF PSYCHOLOGY
status,
Social-
Emotional
Area:
Positive
A
2.
gives
help,
reward:
Shows tension
laughs, shows
release, Jokes,
satisfaction:
I
3.
1.
Agrees, shows passive acceptance,
Understands,
concurs,
complies:
Shows solidarity, raises other's
ing autonomy
for others:
Gives suggestion,dlrection,
Gives opinion, evaluation,
expresses
feeling,
wish:
I
4.
5.
6.
imply-
analysis,
Area:
Neutral
Task
Gives orientation, information,
repeats, clarifies, confirms:
I
<
7.
• 8.
repetition,
confirmation:
Asks for orientation, information,
Asks
for opinion,
evaluation,
9.
Asks for suggestion,
direction,
posslble ways of action:
analysis, expression
of
feeling
formality, withholds help:
Social-
E_motional
Area:
Negative
ll.
D
12.
10.
Shows tension, asks for help,
withdraws out of field:
Shows antagonism,
deflates
other's
status, defends
or assertsrejection,
self:-
DisaGrees,
shows passive
FIGURE
1
MAJOR RELATIONS
Reactions
Answers
Reactions
I
THE
SYSTEM OF
CATEGORIES
USED IN OBSERVATION AND THEIR
Key
:
of
Communication
(6,
7)
of
Evaluation
(5,
8)
of
Control
(% 9)
of Decision
(3,
10)
of
Tension
Reduction
(2,
of Reintegration
(1,
12)
C.
RESULTS
AND
a--Problems
b--Problems
c--Problems
d--Problems
e--Problems
f--Problems
,4--Positive
B--Attempted
C--Questions
D--Negative
11)
DISCUSSION"
1.
Hypothesis
No. 1
The duration of proaction will be less under LSD-25 than under "'normal'"
conditions; that
is,
the quantity
of
continuous speech for the
group
andor the
individual will be less under LSD-25
than under placebo or non-drug
conditions.
Quantity of
speech,
one of the most basic variables of
group
communica-
tion, is easily quantified and
throws
light upon a basic
group
process. The
above hypothesis
represents
our
feeling that
the impairment
of intellectual

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika:

Zgłoś jeśli naruszono regulamin