Individual and sex differences in suggestibility / by Warner Brown.

  • Brown, Warner, 1882-1956
Date:
1916
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Individual and sex differences in suggestibility / by Warner Brown. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    5/144 (page 293)
    was anything misleading about the ‘‘directions’’ in which the suggestions were concealed. The persons who conducted the experiments exercised little or no personal influence over those who took part in them. They merely handed the written directions to the subject and pro- ceeded with the mechanical operations required by the experi- ment. Thus the suggestions were received by the subject while in a perfectly natural, active frame of mind, in complete ignor- ance of the fact that any suggestions were being made, and in the absence of the personal influence which is so conspicuous in hypnotic suggestion. The experiments themselves were numerous, and not all of the subjects participated in all of them. Fifty-four women and twenty-nine men took part in all of the fifteen experiments of the first two groups; others took part in several of these experi- ments, but did not complete all. The experiments of these groups purported to discover the ability of the person, partic- ularly the delicacy of his senses, his powers of sensory per- ception and discrimination, and his memory and imagination. The third group contained experiments which purported to measure two illusions of sense perception, to test the accuracy of estimate of distance and weight, and to obtain an expression of choice in matters involving a very simple esthetic preference. In this third group there were forty-one women and forty-three men. Each separate experiment involves its own peculiar diffi- culties and has its own points of special interest. In the follow- ing pages the experiments will be taken up one by one and the results given in turn. Special attention will be paid to sex differences wherever they appear. At the same time an effort will be made to show, whenever possible, to what extent ‘‘sug- gestibility’’ in the particular experiment is correlated with ‘‘suggestibility’’ in other experiments. This will inevitably in- volve a certain amount of forward reference. Those readers who have not sufficient interest to peruse the matter in the ac- counts of the separate experiments will find a summary of the more general results at the close of each chapter and in the final »?)