Parallel Experiential Analysis Technique (PEAT)

Sheehan and his colleagues (Sheehan, McConkey and Cross, 1978; Sheehan and McConkey, 1982; Sheehan, 1982–83) developed the Experiential Analysis Technique (EAT)

for gathering data on hypnotic subjects' phenomenological experiences. The essence of this technique is that the report of a hypnotic subject on his/her subjective feelings and thoughts is stimulated by the video-playback of the original hypnosis session. In this situation an independent inquirer listens to the subjects’ reports (for details of the original procedure see Sheehan and McConkey, 1982).

Our interactional approach required to extend this procedure to the hypnotist. The new method, called Parallel Experiential Analysis Technique (PEAT) has been described in details in Varga, Bányai and Gősi-Greguss (1994), here we restrict ourselves to the most important methodological points, and some of the preliminary results that later proved to be relevant (see Table 1 and Figure 1).

Video Picture

In the interactional modification of EAT it is important to use a video recording of the hypnosis session where both of the participants can be seen. Althought we did not compare this kind of picture systematically to a recording where only the subject is seen, we have the feeling that the “dyadic” picture elicit more comments on the partner. Unfortunately, even the most comprehensive report on EAT (Sheehan and McConkey, 1982) misses to mention who is (or who are?) seen in the video picture used (subject alone or together with the hypnotist?).

Inquirers

It is better to use two inquirers interviewing the subject and the hypnotist simultaneously but separately, immediately after the session: in this case both S and H can give fresh and spontaneous remarks. It would be very tiring for one inquirer to listen to the reports of both S and H one after the other, and a single inquirer may mediate between the two reports, biasing the second by losing his/her independence.

The problem arises however, that the difference in the two separate inquirers' style and personality may result different influences on the reports. So we analysed the effect of different inquirers: our results showed that only one thematic category was influenced (the male inquirer elicited more negative statements than the female), but this effect was observed only in the case of subjects. Nevertheless, it is advisable to work with inquirers who share as many characteristics (age, gender, hypnotic susceptibility, and so on) as it is possible, in order to reduce the possibility of such differences seen above.

Parting the Participants of Hypnotic Interaction

After the hypnosis session the hypnotist briefly described the importance of the registration of subjective experiences, and reasoned that the subject would be interviewed by an independent person, whom s/he introduced by telling his/her name and affiliation, and leaved the subject alone in the chamber. The whole “parting ceremony” of hypnotist and subject was standardized. When the independent inquirer came in to interview the subject, the same instruction and procedure was applied as those used by the original EAT method (see Sheehan and McConkey, 1982).

We think that the most important methodological point researchers using PEAT have to consider is the parting of the hypnotist and the subject at the end of their hypnosis interaction.

This parting leads both of them to a situation where they are supposed to give honest and deep reports on their feelings. Apart from clinical evidence, experimental research (Bányai,

1991) also shows that very strong emotional bonds may develop between hypnotist and subject, sometimes reaching the deep archaic layers of their personality. Tearing them from this relationship and asking them to report on the hypnosis session is a problematic point, even in the original form of EAT (where only the subjects are involved). That is why it is crucial that before parting, the hypnotist should put trust in the inquirer, and should briefly explain the scientific importance of the independent way of discussing subjective feelings.

Furthermore this problem is connected to the hypnotizability of the subjects: the higher is the susceptibility of the S, the stronger is the observable bond to the hypnotist (Nash and Spinler, 1989): so parting with the hypnotist immediately before the (P)EAT session doesn't exert equal effect on subjects of different hypnotizability.

The Hypnotist's Report

It is equally—if not more—important to make every effort to help the hypnotist too, to give a detailed report about his/her experiences. In our experiments the PEAT session with the hypnotist took place in the same or in a very similar experimental chamber, as the hypnosis session or the PEAT session with the subjects. It is of vital importance to give an encouraging instruction to the hypnotist as well. It is important to train the inquirer to acquire the appropriate attitude: helping the hypnotist to change his/her role and creating an atmosphere where self-disclosure can take place. In our experiments the hypnotists during PEAT occasionally turned to very intimate, ego-involved topics, and sometimes the report was given in a high emotional tone. It may be difficult for the inquirers to handle these situations: to be empathic, but not deeply involved, and to remain within the strict experimental conditions determined for them in this method.

Data Analysis

The subjective experiences related by the subjects and by the hypnotist were content analysed separately. A category system (of about 90 categories) covering the topics and features of the reports was developed to analyse the experiences. The main groups of categories were as follows:

1. attitudes to and preconceptions and/or knowledge about hypnosis;

2. situational and contextual factors;

3. signs of alteration of consciousness;

4. remarks on relational and emotional experiences;

5. comparison with other states of awareness (waking, sleeping, etc.);

6. ego-involving experiences;

7. general evaluation of the state or of process.

One can follow several ways when comparing the independent reports of subject and hypnotist:

• actual thematic concordances can be looked for

• independent raters can judge the degree of harmony between the reports

• temporal changes of the dynamics of the concordances in the independent reports can be followed,

• by intercorrelating the frequency of the appearance of specific thematic categories the hypnotic interaction in general can be characterized

With the help of PEAT one can even utilize the opportunity that a video recording offers an objective time measure on the basis of which slight temporal changes can be followed: this way we can describe the dynamics of the interactional process, and discrepancies or concordances can be discovered in the timing of comparable features in the two participants' experiences.

1. Original hypnosis interaction, recorded.

2. Reports of hypnotist and subject separately, in the presence of independent inquirers (I1 and I2), stimulated by the video recordings taken in step 1.

3. Data analysis: comparing the independent reports by viewing it simultaneously on two monitors. The rater may look for thematic concordances, or judge the degree of harmony between the reports.

Figure 1. Steps of PEAT.

Below three points (A, B, C) will illustrate the interactional nature of PEAT by demonstrating some connections between the subjective reports of the subject and that of the hypnotist.

A. Thematic concordances:

In the course of analyzing our records, we realized that if we follow the video recordings of the two reports simultaneously—for instance, on two monitors—we can detect characteristic changes in the degree of harmony between them. In some parts the hypnotist's and the subject's reports conflicted with each other, but there were points where the independent reports were in very high concordance. In these latter cases the two people commented on the events in the same way, they sometimes used the same expressions or metaphors describing their feelings and experiences, the color tone of their imagery scenes was the same, and so on. The agreement between the reports is sometimes striking.

Some verbatim quotations exemplify these concordances:

a) Commenting the same part of the session, the subject said:

“...I felt that I was in a very deep hypnosis”

while the hypnotist said:

“I felt that he was in a deep trance”

b) Subject: “at the end it would have been good to stay and continue...”

Hypnotist: “I felt that he would like to go on enjoying this hypnosis.”

c) Subject: “At this point there was something like sunshine, with a beautiful calm feeling”

Hypnotist: “At the moment a nice warm feeling spread over my body.”

It is important to underline that these points of concordance cannot be attributed to the observation of obvious behavioral features (e.g., smiling). As in PEAT the participants of the hypnosis interaction relate their experiences and feelings, and comment on the events of the hypnotic session completely independent of each other, it is very interesting to find that these independent reports still match each other. We postulated that in most of the cases the points of concordance indicate a deep attunement between the hypnotist and subject, where they have common subjective feelings and associations, and their reports indicate a very fine harmony of their experiences. This phenomenon can be considered as another sign or example of interactional synchrony, apart from those that were described in other levels of the investigation, e.g. joint movements and posture mirroring in overt behavioral level, or the common breathing rhythm and parallel myographic activity at the physiological level (Bányai Mészáros and Csókay, 1982, 1985; Bányai, 1985;

Bányai, 1991).

B. According to our analysis of different levels of the hypnosis sessions, the nature of the hypnotists' relational and emotional involvement in hypnosis and their so called working styles were different:

One of the hypnotists (1st series) relied mainly on her physical feelings, while the hypnotist in the second series remained at a more analytic, cognitive level, using his cognition instead of his body. These styles were labelled as “physical-organic”

and “analytic-cognitive”, respectively.

This analysis was one of the first studies where the various working styles of hypnotists have been described. Later on a detailed description and operationalization of hypnosis styles has been published (for detailed description of these styles see Bányai, Gősi-Greguss, Vágó, Varga and Horváth, 1990; Bányai, 1991; Bányai, 1998; Bányai, 2002; Varga, Bányai, Józsa and Gősi-Greguss, 2008).

Analysis of the subjects’ verbal reports given by PEAT showed that the degree of the subjects' “positive relational experiences” is closely connected to these different styles: In the 1st series the “positive relational” category in the subjects' reports showed tendency to correlate positively with an interactionally synchronous physical phenomenon, with the amount of the so called “common breathing rhythm and pulsation” (r=.53, p<.10): that is, with the time ratio of the matching of breathing rhythm of the hypnotist and subject during the hypnosis session. This connection was even stronger with low hypnotizable subjects (r=.96, p<.05).

In the 2nd series, however, the same category in the subjects' reports - referring to their “positive relationship” with the hypnotist - was closely connected to those contents of the hypnotist's reports, which indicate his cognitive style: these were: (1)

the “amount of interpretation” (r=.75, p<.01), (2) the “comments on his strategy in hypnosis” (r=.65, p<.05), and (3) the “professional statements” category (r=.60, p<.05).

C. The intercorrelation of the categories of hypnotists' and the subjects' subjective experiences showed the following: In the 1st series the frequency of the subjects' reports on their “positive relationship with the hypnotist” correlated positively with the hypnotist “positive emotional-relational involvement” (r=.68, p< .02), with the

“total number of positive comments” of the hypnotist (r=.81, p< .01), and with the

“general good feelings” of the hypnotist (r=.63, p<.05). In sharp contrast with these correlations, none of these categories of the hypnotist of 2nd series correlated significantly with the subjects above mentioned category. So, the intercorrelation of the participants' subjective experiences shows a very different pattern in the two series.