|This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2013)|
The ideomotor effect is a psychological phenomenon wherein a subject makes motions unconsciously; for example, the body produces tears in response to powerful emotions, without the person consciously deciding to cry.
As in reflexive responses to pain, the body sometimes reacts reflexively to ideas alone without the person consciously deciding to take action. For instance, tears are produced by the body unconsciously in reaction to powerful emotions. The effects of automatic writing, dowsing, facilitated communication, and Ouija boards have been attributed to the phenomenon. Mystics have often attributed these effects to paranormal or supernatural force. Many subjects are unconvinced that their actions are originating solely from within themselves.
The term was first used in a scientific paper discussing the means through which the Ouija board produced its results, by William Benjamin Carpenter in 1852, hence the alternative term Carpenter effect. (Carpenter derived the word ideomotor from the components ideo, meaning "idea" or "mental representation", and motor, meaning "muscular action"). The terms "ideomotor effect" and "ideomotor response" were both introduced by William Benjamin Carpenter. In the paper, Carpenter explained his theory that muscular movement can be independent of conscious desires or emotions.
Scientific tests by the English scientist Michael Faraday, Manchester surgeon James Braid, the French chemist Michel Eugène Chevreul, and the American psychologists William James and Ray Hyman have demonstrated that many phenomena attributed to spiritual or paranormal forces, or to mysterious "energies," are actually due to ideomotor action. Furthermore, these tests demonstrate that "honest, intelligent people can unconsciously engage in muscular activity that is consistent with their expectations". They also show that suggestions that can guide behavior can be given by subtle clues (Hyman 1977).
Some operators use ideomotor responses to communicate with a subject's "unconscious mind" using a system of physical signals (such as finger movements) for the unconscious mind to indicate "yes", "no","I don't know", or "I'm not ready to know that consciously".
A simple experiment to demonstrate the ideomotor effect is to allow a hand-held pendulum to hover over a sheet of paper. The paper has keywords such as YES, NO and MAYBE printed on it. Small movements in the hand, in response to questions, can cause the pendulum to move towards key words on the paper. This technique has been used for experiments in ESP, lie detection and ouija boards. The validity of these experiments has not been proven. This type of experiment was used by Kreskin and has also been used by illusionists such as Derren Brown to test the hypnotic suggestibility of audience volunteers that are called onto the stage.
The ideomotor response (or "ideomotor reflex"), often abbreviated to IMR, is a concept in hypnosis and psychological research. It is derived from the terms "ideo" (idea, or mental representation) and "motor" (muscular action). The phrase is most commonly used in reference to the process whereby a thought or mental image brings about a seemingly "reflexive" or automatic muscular reaction, often of minuscule degree, and potentially outside of the awareness of the subject.
The associated term "ideo-dynamic response" (or "reflex") applies to a wider domain, an extends to the description of all bodily reactions (including, but not limited to ideo-motor and ideo-sensory responses) caused in a similar manner by certain ideas, e.g., the salivation often caused by imagining sucking a lemon, which is a secretory response. The notion of an ideo-dynamic response contributed to James Braid's first neuro-psychological explanation of the principle through which suggestion operated in hypnotism.
The term "ideo-motor" was introduced in 1852, in a paper presented to the Royal Institution by the Victorian physiologist and psychologist William Benjamin Carpenter. Carpenter was a friend and collaborator of James Braid, the founder of modern hypnotism.
Braid soon adopted Carpenter's ideo-motor terminology, to facilitate the transmission of his most fundamental views, based upon those of his teacher, the philosopher Thomas Brown, that the efficacy of hypnotic suggestion was contingent upon the subject's concentration upon a single (thus, "dominant") idea.
In 1855, Braid explained his decision to abandon his earlier term "mono-ideo-motor", based on Carpenter's (1852) "ideo-motor principle", and adopt the more appropriate and more descriptive term "mono-ideo-dynamic". His decision was based upon suggestions made to Carpenter (in 1854), by their friend in common, Daniel Noble, that the activity that Carpenter was describing would be more accurately understood in its wider applications (viz., wider than pendulums and ouija boards) if it were to denominated the "ideo-dynamic principle":
“In order that I may do full justice to two esteemed friends, I beg to state, in connection with this term monoideo-dynamics, that, several years ago, Dr. W. B. Carpenter introduced the term ideo-motor to characterise the reflex or automatic muscular motions which arise merely from ideas associated with motion existing in the mind, without any conscious effort of volition. In 1853, in referring to this term, Dr. Noble said, “Ideo-dynamic would probably constitute a phraseology more appropriate, as applicable to a wider range of phenomena.” In this opinion I quite concurred, because I was well aware that an idea could arrest as well as excite motion automatically, not only in the muscles of voluntary motion, but also as regards the condition of every other function of the body. I have, therefore, adopted the term monoideo-dynamics, as still more comprehensive and characteristic as regards the true mental relations which subsist during all dynamic changes which take place, in every other function of the body, as well as in the muscles of voluntary motion."
Responding to questions
It is strongly associated with the practice of analytical hypnotherapy based on "uncovering techniques" such as Watkins' "Affect Bridge", whereby a subject's "yes", "no", "I don't know", or "I don't want to answer" responses to an operator's questions are indicated by physical movements rather than verbal signals; and are produced per medium of a pre-determined (between operator and subject) and pre-calibrated set of responses.
If you were to be asked to imagine doing up your shoelaces as vividly as possible, your brain would consciously fixate on the task and work through it as vividly and as logically as possible. The theory of IMR would imply that your muscular memory associated with your hands would then attempt the task physically. However, it would abort the process unless it was truly necessary, and curtail the events that would unfold if you were actually willing to send the complete information along your nervous system to your hands. This may therefore involve an involuntary "twitch" or movement, as the associated digits are placed into preparation of function, processed against reality, and then given the signal not to actually act.
In hypnosis, this may be circumvented by dissociating the particular thought-process-response-abort of a digit or entire limb, and therefore give control to the unconscious mind to enable (by suggestion) the route of conscious thought-unconscious process-conscious process (of the fact)-conscious response (do not act)- unconscious response (dissociate from conscious)- ignore abortive conscious attempt- unconscious unabort, which would then display a reaction or response in a physical manner or behavioral context.
Body language may be considered the most commonly visible aspect of IMR, but may also include such unconscious activities as doodling or art – as the conscious thought is sublimated into a different type of activity in unconscious expression.
- Unconscious mind
- adaptive unconscious
- Illusions of self-motion
- Unconscious communication
- Body language
- William Benjamin Carpenter (March 12, 1852). "On the influence of Suggestion in Modifying and directing Muscular Movement, independently of Volition". Retrieved 2010-02-27.
- See, for example, Braid's letter to Michael Faraday (22 August 1853).
- Ray Hyman (1999). "The Mischief-Making of Ideomotor Action" (reproduced on web as How People Are Fooled by Ideomotor Action). The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (Fall-Winter). Retrieved 2006-09-07.
- Cheek (1962).
- http://www.1stingames.com/rules/kreskinsesp/index.pdf see how kreskin used this pendulum
- Noble (1854), Lecture III, p.642.
- Braid, (1855), footnote at p.10.
- Watkins, (January 1971).
- LeCron, (1954).
- Anderson, J.W., "Defensive Maneuvers In Two Incidents Involving The Chevreul Pendulum: A Clinical Note", International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Vol.XXV, No.1, (1977), pp. 4–6.
- Braid, J., "Mysterious Table Moving", The Manchester Examiner and Times, Vol.5, No.469, (Saturday, 30 April 1853), p.5, col.B.
- Braid, J., Hypnotic Therapeutics, Illustrated by Cases: With an Appendix on Table-Moving and Spirit-Rapping. Reprinted from the Monthly Journal of Medical Science for July 1853, Murray and Gibbs, (Edinburgh), 1853.
- Braid, J., "Letter to Michael Faraday on the phenomenon of "Table Turning" [written on 22 August 1853]", reprinted at pp.560-561 of James, F.A.J.L., The Correspondence of Michael Faraday, Volume 4: January 1849 - October 1855, Institution of Electrical Engineers, (London), 1999.
- Braid, J., The Physiology of Fascination, and the Critics Criticised, John Murray, (Manchester), 1855.
- Carpenter, W.B., "On the Influence of Suggestion in Modifying and directing Muscular Movement, independently of Volition", Royal Institution of Great Britain, (Proceedings), 1852, (12 March 1852), pp. 147–153.
- Carroll, R.T., "Ideomotor effect". The Skeptic's Dictionary. 2003. ISBN 0-471-27242-6
- Cheek, D.B., "Some Applications of Hypnosis and Ideomotor Questioning Methods for Analysis and Therapy in Medicine", American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, Vol.5, No.2, (October 1962), pp. 92–104.
- Cheuvrel. Michel E., De la Baguette Divinatoire et du Pendule Dit Explorateur (On the Divining Rod and the So-called Exploratory Pendulum), Maillet-Bachelier, Paris, 1854.
- Easton, Randolph D.; Shor, Ronald E. (1976). "An Experimental Analysis of the Chevreul Pendulum Illusion". The Journal of General Psychology 95 (1st Half): 111–25. doi:10.1080/00221309.1976.9710871. PMID 956790.
- Easton, Randolph D.; Shor, Ronald E. (1977). "Augmented and Delayed Feedback in the Chevreul Pendulum Illusion". The Journal of General Psychology 97 (2): 167. doi:10.1080/00221309.1977.9920835.
- Easton, Randolph D.; Shor, Ronald E. (1975). "Information processing analysis of the Chevreul pendulum illusion". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1 (3): 231. doi:10.1037/0096-15126.96.36.199.
- Erickson, Milton H. (1961). "Historical Note on the Hand Levitation and other Ideomotor Techniques". American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 3 (3): 196. doi:10.1080/00029157.1961.10701715.
- Faraday, M., "Experimental Investigation of Table-Moving", Athenaeum, No.1340, (July 1853), pp. 801–803.
- Faraday, M., "Table-Turning", The Times, No.21468, (30 June 1853), p. 8.
- Le Baron, George I. (1962). "Ideomotor Signalling in Brief Psychotherapy". American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 5 (2): 81. doi:10.1080/00029157.1962.10402270.
- LeCron, L., "A Hypnotic Technique for Uncovering Unconscious Material", Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Vol.II, No.1, (January 1954), pp.76-79. doi=10.10.1080/00207145408409936
- Montgomery, Guy; Kirsch, Irving (1996). "The Effects of Subject Arm Position and Initial Experience on Chevreul Pendulum Responses". American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 38 (3): 185–90. doi:10.1080/00029157.1996.10403336. PMID 8712161.
- Noble, D., "Three Lectures on the Correlation of Psychology and Physiology: I. General Remarks on the Physiology of the Brain and Nervous System, etc.", Association Medical Journal, Vol.3, No.79, (7 July 1854), p.586-588; "II. Of Emotional Sensibility, and its Reactions", No.80, (14 July 1854), p.615-616; "III. On Ideas, and Their Dynamic Influence ", No.81, (21 July 1854), p.642-646.
- Randi, J., "Ideomotor effect". An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural. 1995. ISBN 0-312-15119-5
- Reed, H. B. (1914). "Ideo-Motor Action". The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 11 (18): 477–91. doi:10.2307/2013141. JSTOR 2013141.
- Spitz, H.H. & Marcuard, Y., "Chevreul's Report on the Mysterious Oscillations of the Hand-Held Pendulum: A French Chemist's 1833 Open Letter to Ampère", The Skeptical Inquirer, (July/August 2001) Vol.25, No.4, pp. 35–39.
- Stock, Armin; Stock, Claudia (2004). "A short history of ideo-motor action". Psychological Research 68 (2–3): 176–88. doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0154-5. PMID 14685855.
- Sudduth, W.X., "Suggestion as an Ideo-Dynamic Force", pp. 255–262 in Anon, Bulletin of the Medico-Legal Congress: Held at the Federal Building in the City of New York, September 4, 5th, and 6th, 1895, Medico-Legal Journal for Medico-Legal Society, (New York), 1895.
- Watkins, J.G., "The Affect Bridge: A Hypnoanalytic Technique", The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Vol.19, No.1, (January 1971), pp.21-27. doi=10.1080/00207147108407148