When in 1964 stress induced by Restricted Environmental Stimulation (REST) was publicized, Orne and Scheibe showed “sensory deprivation” effects could be produced merely by manipulating contextual cues. Since REST is now widely regarded as beneficial, it seemed appropriate to reexamine these early findings. Stringently replicating Orne and Scheibe's procedures, 10 subjects were exposed to conditions designed to generate expected REST effects. Conditions for 10 controls suggested that nothing was expected to happen. Analyses did not confirm earlier findings as no significant difference was found between experimental and control groups on any measure. A postexperimental inquiry identified positive attitudes toward REST. The specific experimental context, demand characteristics, and situational cues did not elicit responses inconsistent with the general sociopsychological context. Researchers are cautioned about attributing causality to contextual cues because context exists merely at a correlative level with data collection.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarabaszA. F. (1982) Restricted environmental stimulation and the enhancement of hypnotizability: Pain, EEG alpha, skin conductance and temperature responses. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 30, 147–166
2.
BarabaszA. (in press) Flotation REST elicits spontaneous hypnosis: Neo-dissociation accounts for cold pressor pain relief and hypnotic susceptibility findings. In BarabaszA.BarabaszM. (Eds.), Clinical and experimental restricted environmental stimulation: New developments and perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag.
3.
BarabaszA.BarabaszM. (in press) Research design considerations. In FrommE.NashM. (Eds.), Hypnosis research: The cutting edge. New York: Guilford.
4.
BarabaszA. F.KaplanG. (1989) Effects of restricted environmental stimulation (REST) on hypnotizability: A test of alternative techniques. In WaxmanD.PedersenD.WilkeI.MellotP. (Eds.), Hypnosis: The fourth European Congress at Oxford. London: Whurr. Pp. 134–145.
5.
BarabaszM.BarabaszA. F. (1985) Controlling experimental and situational demand variables in restricted environmental stimulation research. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on REST. Toledo, OH: IRIS press. Pp. 110–121.
6.
BextonW. H.HeronW.ScottT. H. (1954) Effects of decreased variation in the sensory environment. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 8, 70–77
7.
CorenS.SuedfeldP. (1990) Data vs drama: Introductory psychology textbooks' view of REST research. In TurnerJ. W.FineT. H. (Eds.), Restricted environmental stimulation: Research and commentary. Toledo, OH: MCO Press. Pp. 62–69.
8.
FreedmanS. J.GreenblattM. (1961) Studies in human isolation: I. Perceptual findings. U.S. Armed Forces Medical Journal, 11, 1330–1348
9.
HeronW.BextonW. H.HebbD. O. (1953) Cognitive effects of a decreased variation to the sensory environment. American Psychologist, 8, 366.
10.
KaplanG.BarabaszA. (1988) Enhancing hypnotizability: Differential effects of flotation restricted environmental stimulation technique and progressive muscle relaxation. Australian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 16, 39–51
11.
MullinC. S. (1960) Some psychological aspects of isolated Antarctic living. American Journal of Psychiatry, 117, 323–325
12.
OrneM. T. (1959) The nature of hypnosis: Artifact and essence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 277–299
13.
OrneM. T.ScheibeK. E. (1964) The contribution of nondeprivation factors in the production of sensory deprivation effects: The psychology of the panic button. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 3–12
14.
PerryL.PerryG.LabnoJ.HughesL.TenerowiczD. (1987) Viewpoints on commercial aspects of REST. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on REST. Toledo, OH: IRIS Press. Pp. 184–193.
15.
PollardJ. C.UhrL.JacksonC. W. (1963) Some unexpected findings in experiments in sensory deprivation: The psychopharmacologic interaction of a placebo-potentiated suggestion. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, St. Louis, MO.
16.
RossiM. A. (1969) General methodological considerations. In ZubekJ. P. (Ed.), Sensory deprivation: Fifteen years of research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Pp. 443–448.
17.
ScottT. H.BextonW. H.HeronW.DoaneB. K. (1959) Cognitive effects of perceptual isolation. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 200–209
18.
SuedfeldP. (1969) Theoretical formulations II. In ZubekJ. P. (Ed.), Sensory deprivation: Fifteen years of research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Pp. 433–448.
19.
SuedfeldP. (1980) Restricted environmental stimulation. New York: Wiley.
20.
SuedfeldP. (1985) Presidential address. Presented at the Second International Conference on REST, New Orleans, LA.
21.
SuedfeldP. (1990) Distress, no stress, anti-stress, unstress: Where does REST fit in? In TurnerJ. W.FineT. H. (Eds.), Restricted environmental stimulation: Research and commentary. Toledo, OH: MCO Press. Pp. 2–10.
22.
SuedfeldP.LandonP. B.EpsteinY. M.PargamentR. (1971) The role of experimenter and subject expectations in sensory deprivation. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 2, 21–27
23.
VernonJ. A.McGillT. E.GulickW. L.CandlandD. K. (1961) The effect of human isolation upon some perceptual and motor skills. In SolomonP.KubzanskyP.LeidermanP.MendelsonJ.WexlerD. (Eds.), Sensory deprivation: A symposium held at Harvard Medical School. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer. Press. Pp. 41–57.
24.
ZubekJ. P. (1969) Sensory deprivation: Fifteen years of research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
25.
ZuckermanM. (1969) Variables affecting deprivation results. In ZubekJ. P. (Ed.), Sensory deprivation: Fifteen years of research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Pp. 47–84.
