richard churches_slides pgr conference_23rd april 2015
Post on 24-Jan-2017
134 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The
Followership
Effect
Charismatic Oratory,
Hypnoidal and
Altered States of
Consciousness
Richard Churches
1
Fifth Annual Postgraduate Research Conference
25th April 2015
Introduction
• Charismatic leadership and hypnosis are frequently associated in the
literature [1-10]
• Hypnosis suffered from over attribution of cause to the hypnotist [11]
before recognition of the ‘necessary cause’ [12], the normal distribution
of hypnotisability [13] – a stable [14], apparently heritable [15-16] , trait that
possibly evolved in response to selection pressures [17] perhaps related
to social cohesion [18-20]
• Leadership theory has begun to recognise attribution biases which
result in overemphasis on leaders [21-22]; and the need to study
followers [10]/follower susceptibility [23-24]
• Drawing on Weber’s ideas about charisma [25], fMRI research suggests
parallel handing over of executive control in high hypnotic susceptibility
individuals and ‘believers’ in charismatic ‘powers’ [26]
2
Phenomenology of consciousness inventory (PCI)
• Previous uses: hypnosis, meditation, firewalking, near death experience, deep breathing, repetitive drumming, shamanic states, drug intoxification, erotic literature, epilepsy and many more
• Operationalises two altered state theories: intensity [29]
and pattern effects [30-31]
• 9 hypnotic types identified using the PCI [32]
• 12 major and 14 minor
dimensions
• Regression equation
generates a ‘general
measure of trance’, or
hypnoidal state
(predicted Harvard
Group Score) [33]
• PCI-Hypnotic
Assessment Protocol:
self-reported hypnotic
depth, imagoic
suggestibility,
expectancy [34]
Altered state of awareness Altered experience - body image - time sense - perception - unusual meaning Attention - direction - absorption Arousal Internal dialogue Visual Imagery - amount - vividness Negative affect - anger - sadness - fear Memory Positive affect - joy - sexual excitement - love Rationality Self-awareness Volitional control
53 item self-report questionnaire – quantifies subjective
experience of consciousness [27-28, 53]
3
Participant group
(randomly sampled and
randomly allocated)
IV Level 1
Eyes open sitting quietly
(Baseline control)
Motor suggestibility tests
Adapted PCI-HAP
Post-
questionnaire
items
Adapted PCI-HAP
Pre-questionnaire
items
IV Level 2
Archive film
(Pseudo attention
placebo)
IV Level 3
Charismatic speech
(Experimental condition)
PCI questionnaire
PCI questionnaire PCI questionnaire
Method
4
Repeated-measures
(counterbalanced)
design (n = 121)
Results
Charismatic leadership oratory
deepens trance
• Trance depth increases during oratory (p < .0005 (two-tailed))
• Hypnoidal state amplifies (pHGS = 5.09) with 75% increased dispersal of range compared to quietness. Similar to hypnosis [34]
• Average depth not as great as hypnosis (Oratory = 5.09, PCI-HAP = 5.42 [35], Harvard induction = 5.84-5.97 [36-37]), but equal to some shamanic states [38-39, 52]
• 8.26% reached pHGS > 7.0 (high hypnoidal state [27] – comparable to high hypnotic susceptibility individuals during hypnosis)
dz = 0.51
dz = 0.80
dz = 0.50
5
Hypnoidal state and imagoic suggestibility predict
depth of influence (as in hypnosis)
Depth as a function of hypnoidal state
and imagoic suggestibility during
hypnosis (R2 = .515, p < .0005) [40]
Present study
(R2 = .410, p < .0005)
Source: Pekala et al. (2006: 326). Reproduced in thesis with permission of
the Taylor & Francis Group and Dr Ronald J. Pekala. 6
The structure of consciousness during oratory:
a) Intensity effects similar to hypnosis
Rank order of intensity levels
similar to that found in hypnosis
[27/36] (rs = .88, p < .0005)
Increased levels of:
• arousal (p < .0005)
• altered experience (p <
.0005)
• altered state (p < .0005)
• inward absorbed attention
(p = .01)
• negative affect (p < .0005)
• vivid imagery (p = .012)
Decreased levels of:
• volitional control (p = .006)
Mean differences: speech and archive film
compared to baseline (eyes open sitting quietly)
7
b) ‘Psygram’ [27] for pattern effects associated with oratory
= remaining relationships (variance in common with p < .05) after
controlling for pseudo attention placebo
• Oratory generates an
altered state of
consciousness (2(66)
= 149, p < .0005) but
a different one to
hypnosis (2(66) =
396, p < .0001) [54]
• Vivid imagery and
emotional demands
on consciousness
predicted in the
literature [41-42]
• Interaction with
altered state not
demonstrated before,
although
hypothesised [9, 43]
8 *
Follower types identified using K-Means Cluster Analysis
with similarities to hypnotisability/hypnotic types [32]
Relationship between type and hypnoidal state, depth of influence, imagoic
suggestibility, motor suggestibility, altered state, inward absorbed attention
and volitional control (a measure of ‘involuntariness’)
9
Follower type as a function of trance depth and the three
conditions in the present study
• May indicate
underlying
relationship to
hypnotisability
• Similar changes
(amplification and
dispersal of
hypnoidal range)
noted in hypnosis
studies, where
participants have
been divided into
groups based on
hypnotisability [27]
10
Type V followers react to oratory in a similar way to
hypnotic ‘virtuosos’ during deep hypnosis
• Type V followers
during charismatic
speech share
profile rank order
similarities with
hypnotic ‘virtuosos’
experiencing deep
hypnosis [44] (rs =
.89, p < .0005 (two-
tailed))
11
Conclusions
• Paralleling recent theorising about nature of hypnosis [45], charismatic
effects may represent a similar altered state of consciousness
generating sub-domain within the wider domain of suggestion
Hypnosis as a sub-domain of the wider domain of suggestion (Kirsch et al., 2011)
• A form of trait susceptibility related to hypnotic susceptibility is
mediating the effects of charisma on consciousness, in a parallel way
to hypnotisability
12
Implications
• World-class charismatic oratory (or similar media) may be acting,
within the process of charismatic leadership, in a parallel way to the
hypnotic susceptibility test during stage hypnosis (prior to the call for
volunteers)
13
The reader will, in general, be familiar with two types of hypnotism, that
used by the psychologist in his laboratory and that used by the stage
performer. . . a third type . . . The orator, in general, be he on the radio or
directly addressing an audience, uses all the psychological tricks of the
hypnotist and gets most of the results achieved by the latter [3]
George Estabrooks
(in Hypnosis [1943/1957])
. . .transformational leaders, who we would expect to be charismatic,
would have been very effective at keeping ancestral groups together . . .
because transformational leaders are not obliged to their followers in quite
the same mercenary way as are transactional leaders. . . . Evolutionary
theory predicts that our Stone Age psyches find transformational leaders
more attractive than transactional leaders; there is no such thing as
payment on the savannah, and tribesmen earned the right to lead through
their powers of persuasion [46]
Mark van Vugt and Anjana Ahuja
(The Evolutionary Science of Leadership)
14
• Hypnotic and charismatic effects may have arisen together through
selection pressures in early human evolution, driven by the potential
benefits of mammalian hierarchy, social ritual and shamanic-like
practices involving imaginative suggestion
Limitations
• Not all authorities accept an altered state hypothesis in relation to
hypnosis [47], or accept the basis of the PCI-Hypnotic Assessment
Protocol’s approach [48-49]
• Hypnosis was not a formal condition in the study, therefore comparisons
are limited
• It is unclear which of the effects in the archive film were the result of
‘watching film’ generally, or the crowd/crisis related contents of the film
• Mixed method design looking for neurophysiological correlates during
charismatic oratory and comparing these to hypnosis
• Could offer ways to understand radicalisation in cultic and extreme
charismatic contexts (e.g. recruitment to the self-named Islamic State,
and similar apparently leaderless ‘follower’ contexts [50-51])
Recommendations for future research
15
r.churches@surrey.ac.uk
rchurches@cfbt.com
16
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4760.5285
These slides are available at www.researchgate.net
References
1. Le Bon, G. (1895/1947) The crowd: a study of the popular mind, London: Ernest Benn.
2. Freud, S. (1921/2001) Group psychology and the analysis of the ego, London: Vintage.
3. Estabrooks, G.H. (1943/1957) Hypnotism, New York: Dutton.
4. Fishman, S. (1964) ‘The rise of Hitler as a beer hall orator’, The Review of Politics, 26(2): 244-256.
5. Willner, A.R. (1984) The spellbinders: charismatic political leadership, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6. Bryman, A. (1992) Charisma and leadership in organizations, London: Sage.
7. Gardner, W.L. and Avolio, B.J. (1998) ‘The charismatic relationship: a dramaturgical perspective’, The Academy of Management
Review, 23(1): 32-58.
8. Reed, H. (1999) ‘Martin Luther King Jr.: History and memory, reflections on dreams and silences’, The Journal of Negro History, 84:
150-166.
9. Popper, M. (2002a) Hypnotic leadership: leaders, followers and the loss of self, New York: Blackwell.
10. Kellerman, B. (2008) Followership, Boston: Harvard Business Press.
11. Gauld, A. (1992) A history of hypnotism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Barnier, A.J. and Nash, M.R. (2008) ‘Introduction: a road map for explanation, a working definition’, in M.R. Nash and A.J. Barnier
(eds.), pp.1-20, The Oxford handbook of hypnosis: theory, research and practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Hilgard, E.R. (1965) Hypnotic susceptibility, New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
14. Piccione, C., Hilgard, E. and Zimbardo, P. (1989) ‘On the degree of stability of measured hypnotizability over a 25-year period’,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56: 289-295.
15. Morgan, A. (1973) ‘Heritability of hypnotic susceptibility in twins’, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 82: 55-61.
16. Lichtenberg, P., Bachner-Melman, R., Gritsenko, I., Ebstein, R.P. (2000) ‘Exploratory association study between catechol-O-
methyltransferase (COMT) high/low enzyme activity polymorphism and hypnotizability’, American Journal of Medical Genetics,
96(6): 771-774.
17. Oakley, D.A. (1999) ‘Hypnosis and consciousness: a structural model’, Contemporary Hypnosis, 16: 215-223.
18. Woody, E.Z. and Szechtman, H. (2007) ‘To see feelingly: emotion, motivation and hypnosis’, in G.A. Jamieson (ed.), pp.241-255,
Hypnosis and conscious states: the cognitive neuroscience perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Dienes, Z. and Perner, J. (2007) ‘The cold control theory of hypnosis’, in G. Jamieson (eds.), pp.293-314, Hypnosis and conscious
states: the cognitive neuroscience perspective, Oxford University Press.
20. Ray, W.J. (2007) ‘The experience of agency and hypnosis from an evolutionary perspective’, in G.A. Jamieson (ed.), pp.241-
256, Hypnosis and conscious states: the cognitive neuroscience perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17
21. Popper, M. (2002b) ‘Salient biases in discussion and research on leadership’, in K.W. Parry and J.R. Meindl (2002), pp.1-19, Grounding
leadership theory and research: issues, perspective and methods, Connecticut: Information Age.
22. Popper, M. (2012) Fact and fantasy about leadership, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar.
23. Klein, K.J. and House, R.J. (1995) ‘On fire: charismatic leadership and levels of analysis’, Leadership Quarterly, 6(2): 183-198.
24. Padilla, A., Hogan, R. and Kaiser, R. (2007) ‘The toxic triangle: destructive leaders, susceptible followers and conducive environments’,
The Leadership Quarterly, 18: 176-194.
25. Weber, M. (1922/1968) ‘The nature of charismatic authority and its routinization’, in S.N. Eisenstadt (ed.), pp.64-85, Max Weber: on
charisma and institution building, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
26. Schjoedt, U., Stødkilde-Jørgensen, H., Geertz, A.W., Lund, T.E.and Roepstorff, A. (2010) ‘The power of charisma-perceived charisma
inhibits the frontal executive network of believers in intercessory prayer’, Social, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(1): 119-127.
27. Pekala, R.J. (1991) Quantifying consciousness: an empirical approach. New York: Plenum Press.
28. Pekala, R.J. and Kumar, V.K. (2007) ‘An empirical-phenomenological approach to quantifying consciousness and states of
consciousness: with particular reference to understanding the nature of hypnosis’, in G.A. Jamieson (ed.), pp.167-194, Hypnosis and
conscious states: the cognitive neuroscience perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Singer, J.L. (1977) ‘Ongoing thought: the normative baseline for altered states of consciousness’, in N.E. Zinberg (ed.), pp.86-120,
Altered states of consciousness, New York: Free Press.
30. Izard, C.E. (1977) Human emotions, New York: Plenum Press.
31. Tart, C.T. (1975) States of consciousness, New York: Dutton.
32. Pekala, R.J. and Forbes, E.J. (1997) ‘Types of hypnotically (un)susceptible individuals as a function of phenomenological experience:
towards a typology of hypnotic types’, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 39: 212-224.
33. Pekala, R.J. and Kumar, V.K. (1987) ‘Predicting hypnotic susceptibility via a self-report instrument: a replication’, American Journal of
Clinical Hypnosis, 30: 57-65.
34. Pekala, R.J. (2009) Therapist’s manual: interpretation of the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory: Hypnotic Assessment
Procedure (PCI–HAP). Available from Dr Ronald J. Pekala at www.quantifyingconsciousness.com.
35. Pekala, R.J., Kumar, V.K., Maurer, R., Elliott-Carter, N., Moon, E. and Mullen, K. (2010b) ‘Suggestibility, expectancy, trance state effects
and hypnotic depth: II. assessment via the PCI-HAP’, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 52(4): 291-318.
36. Pekala, R.J. and Forbes, E.J. (1988) ‘Hypnoidal effects associated with several stress management strategies’, Australian Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 16: 121-132.
37. Pekala, R.J., Steinberg, J. and Kumar, V.K. (1986) ‘Measurement of phenomenological experience: Phenomenology of Consciousness
Inventory’, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63: 983-989.
38. Rock, A.J., Abbott, G.R., Childargushi, H. and Kienhe, M.L. (2008a) ‘The effect of shamanic-like stimulus conditions and the cognitive-
perceptual factor of schizotypy on phenomenology’, North American Journal of Psychology, 10(1): 79-98.
18
39. Rock, A.J., Wilson, J.W., Johnston, L.J. and Levesque, J.V. (2008b) ‘Ego boundaries, shamanic-like techniques and subjective
experience: an experimental study’, Anthropology of Consciousness, 19(1): 60-83.
40. Pekala R.J., Kumar, V.K., Maurer, R., Elliott-Carter, N. and Moon, E. (2006) ‘“How deeply hypnotized did I get?” Predicting self-reported
hypnotic depth for a phenomenological assessment instrument’, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 54: 316-
339.
41. Conger, J.A. (1991) ‘Inspiring others: the language of leadership’, Academy of Management Executives, 5(1): 31-45.
42. Shamir, B., Arthur, M.B. and House, R.J. (1994) ‘The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: a theoretical extension, a case study and
implications for future research’, Leadership Quarterly, 5: 25-42.
43. Lindholm, C. (1992) ‘Charisma, crowd psychology and altered states of consciousness’, Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 16: 287-310.
44. Cardeña, E. (2005) ‘The phenomenology of deep hypnosis: quiescent and physically active’, International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis, 53(1): 37-59.
45. Kirsch, I., Cardeña, E., Derbyshire, S., Dienes, Z., Heap, M., Kallio, S., Mazzoni, G., Naish, P., Oakley, D., Potter, C., Walters, V. and
Whalley, M. (2011) ‘Definitions of hypnosis and hypnotizability and their relation to suggestion and suggestibility: a consensus statement’,
Contemporary Hypnosis and Integrative Therapy, 28(9): 107-115.
46. van Vugt, M. and Ahuja, A. (2011) Naturally selected: the evolutionary science of leadership, New York: Harper Business, HarperCollins.
[Quotation on slide 14, p.37]
47. Lynn, S.J., Kirsch, I., Knox, J., Fassler O. and Lilienfeld, S.O. (2007) ‘Hypnosis and neuroscience: implications for the altered state
debate’, in G.A. Jamieson (ed.), pp.145-165, Hypnosis and conscious states: the cognitive neuroscience, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
48. Wagstaff, G.F. (2010) ‘Hypnosis and the relationship between trance, suggestion, expectancy and depth: some semantic and conceptual
issues’, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 53: 47-59.
49. Pekala, R.J. (2010) ‘Reply to “Methodological and interpretative issues regarding the Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory –
Hypnotic Assessment Procedure: A comment on Pekala et al. (2010a, 2010b)”’, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 53(2):115-128.
50. Sageman, M. (2008) Leaderless jihad: terror networks in the twenty-first century, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
51. Bousquet, A. (2012) ‘Complexity theory and the war on terror: understanding the self-organising dynamics of leaderless jihad’, Journal of
International Relations and Development, 15: 345-369.
52. Appendix A of the thesis (Churches, 2015) contains Trance Tables generated from prior PCI results (142 conditions and sub-groups, n =
7,257) to which oratory was able to be compared. Churches, R. (2015) The followership effect: charismatic oratory, hypnoidal and
altered states of consciousness, Doctoral Thesis, University of Surrey.
53. Pekala, R.J. (2015) Hypnosis as a “State of Consciousness”: how quantifying the mind can help us better understand hypnosis, American
Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57(4): 402-424.
54. Jennrich test on data supplied by Pekala and Forbes, from [36]
19
top related