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