[this was forward to me today and I thought it might be of interest]

Over the past 20 years there has been widespread interest in the use 
of meditation, with the most publicized and popular technique being 
TM (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi 1963). It appears that many persons use 
meditation to reduce physiological arousal, and because of its 
purported effects on arousal, meditation is used to treat numerous 
disorders which stem from or involve hyperarousal. For example, 
meditation has been used to treat hypertension (Benson and Wallace 
1972a; Benson et al. 1973; Blackwell et al. 1975; Michaels et al. 
1976; Simon et al. 1977), asthma (Wilson et al. 1975), inflammation 
of the gums (Klemons 1977); drug abuse (Benson and Wallace 1972b; 
Shafii et al. 1974), alcohol abuse (Shafii et al. 1975), insomnia 
(Miskiman 1977a, b), stuttering (McIntyre et al. 1974), and a variety 
of psychiatric disorders (Bloomfield et al. 1975; Glucck and Stroebel 
1975). Furthermore, meditation has been suggested as an alternative 
to progressive muscle relaxation training (Boudreau 1972).

Because of the potential importance of meditation as a technique for 
reducing physiological arousal, in 1983 three of my students and I 
conducted a simple experiment in which we compared the arousal-
reducing effects of meditation and rest (Holmes et al. 1983). In that 
experiment, 10 experienced meditators and 10 other persons who had no 
experience with meditation came to my laboratory for individual 
appointments on each of 4 days. Each subject was first asked simply 
to sit quietly for 5 minutes. Meditators were then asked to meditate 
for 20 minutes, whereas non-meditators were asked to rest for 20 
minutes. Following the meditation/relaxation period, all of the 
subjects were again asked to simply sit quietly for another 5-minute 
period. The results of that experiment were very striking: meditation 
and rest resulted in decreases in arousal, but, contrary to what is 
generally expected, meditation did not result in greater reductions 
in arousal than did the rest. In considering these results it is 
important to recognize that the meditators were highly trained 
(certified teachers of TM and/or trained in the Sidhi type), and thus 
the findings could not be attributed to lack of skill on the part of 
the meditators. These findings raised serious questions about the 
effects and value of meditation.

As it turned out, we were not the first investigators to compare 
directly the effectiveness of meditation and rest for reducing 
physiological arousal. In fact, an initial examination of the 
literature revealed a variety  of similar experiments, and those 
experiments failed to provide any reliable evidence that meditation 
was more effective than simply resting for reducing physiological 
arousal! I was intrigued by the sharp contrast between the widely 
held view of the effects of meditation and the fact that there was a 
substantial body of evidence that meditation was not more effective 
than rest for reducing physiological arousal. An examination of the 
research that was cited by the advocates of meditation quickly 
revealed the basis for the widely held but apparently erroneous 
conclusion concerning the effects of meditation on arousal. The 
findings cited by the proponents of meditation were based on 
uncontrolled investigations in which the investigators simply 
compared the arousal levels of subjects before they meditated with 
their arousal levels during meditation. They found (as did I and my 
colleagues) that arousal decreased when the subjects began 
meditating. The problem with those investigations is that they did 
not include a condition in which nonmeditators simply rested, and 
therefore the investigators could not determine whether meditation 
was more effective than rest. It is of interest to know that 
meditation reduces arousal, but it is of more interest and importance 
to know whether meditation is more effective than simple rest for 
reducing arousal. Indeed, it is meditation's alleged incremental 
value that is its raison d'être.

Comments and Conclusions

A number of comments should be made concerning the results of the 
experiments in which the levels of arousal of meditating subjects 
were compared with the levels of arousal of resting subjects. 
Firstly, from Table 5.1 and the accompanying discussion, it is clear 
that across experiments there is not a measure of arousal on which 
the meditating subjects were consistently found to have reliably 
lower arousal than resting subjects. Indeed, the most consistent 
finding was that there were not reliable differences between 
meditating and resting subjects. Furthermore, there appear to be 
about as many instances in which the meditating subjects showed 
reliably higher arousal as there are instances in which they showed 
reliably lower arousal than their resting counterparts.

Secondly, it is clear that within any one experiment there is no 
consistent evidence across measures that meditating subjects have 
reliably lower arousal than resting subjects. In fact, of the 23 
experiments that involved more than one measure of arousal, only two 
experiments revealed reliably lower arousal of meditating subjects on 
more than one of the measures which were considered (Dhanaraj and 
Singh 1977; Elson et al. 1977), and in the latter of those two 
experiments the meditating subjects evidenced reliably higher arousal 
on one of the other measures obtained.

Thirdly, it is very important to recognize that the results of one 
well-done experiment can outweigh the results of numerous less well-
done experiments, and thus, in addition to simply counting findings, 
the quality of the research must be considered. With the present set 
of experiments, considering those with more or fewer problems does 
not change the patterning of results. Furthermore, as noted in the 
preceding paragraph, there is not one experiment that provided 
consistent evidence that meditating subjects were less aroused than 
resting subjects, and thus the possibility that there is one good 
experiment confirming the utility of meditation for reducing arousal 
is precluded. Indeed, there does not even appear to be one bad 
experiment which offers consistent evidence that meditating reduces 
arousal more than resting.

Fourthly, in this review we are able to draw conclusions only from 
published research, and, given the differential difficulty associated 
with publishing confirming results vs. null results, the incidence of 
null results summarized here is probably an underestimate of those 
which have actually been found.

Fifthly, it should be mentioned that, although in the majority of 
experiments the meditating subjects use the TM technique, there are 
experiments in which other techniques were used but they did not 
yield appreciably different results (Elson et al. 1977; Bahrke and 
Morgan 1978). Although it is possible that other meditation 
techniques might be more effective for reducing somatic arousal than 
those which were reviewed here, at the present time there are no data 
to support that speculation.

Sixth and finally, it is worth noting that, although the 
investigations in which the experimental-control procedure was used 
did not provide evidence for the arousal-reducing function of 
meditation, the investigations in which the own-control procedure was 
used did provide such evidence (see earlier citations). As noted 
earlier, however, the own-control procedure does not permit the 
appropriate comparison. With regard to the difference in conclusions 
drawn from investigations which employed the own-control comparison 
versus the experimental-control comparison, it might be noted that in 
one investigation the data were analyzed both ways and thus a direct 
comparison of the two approaches was provided (Holmes et al. 1983). 
The own-control comparison indicated that meditation reduced arousal 
from the premeditation level, but the experimental-control comparison 
indicated that meditation did not reduce arousal more than did 
resting. The sharp difference in findings illustrates the importance 
of the methodological issue and the distinction between the types of 
research should be kept in mind when evaluating the research findings 
and the conclusions of authors.

Overall then, it appears that there is no measure which across 
experiments reflects lower arousal in meditating than resting 
subjects, and that there is no experiment which across measures 
reflects lower arousal in meditating than resting subjects. In view 
of those results we must conclude that at the present time there is 
no evidence that meditation is more effective for reducing somatic 
arousal than is simple rest.

Meditation and Control of Somatic Arousal in Threatening Situations

In this section, attention will be focused on the question of whether 
subjects who practise meditation are better able to control their 
arousal in threatening situations than are subjects who do not 
practise meditation. There are three reasons why it is important to 
answer that question. Firstly, it is practically important. Indeed, 
one of the reasons why meditation is often used as a 
psychotherapeutic technique is that it is widely believed that 
meditation will facilitate the control of arousal in threatening 
situations.

Summary and Conclusions

The results of the seven experiments in which meditators were 
compared with non-meditators during stress consistently indicated 
that the meditators did not show lessened physiological responses to 
stress than did non-meditators. In so far as differences were found, 
they suggested that meditators might be more responsive to stress 
than nonmeditators, and there was no evidence that the hyper-
sensitivity on the part of the meditators was in any way adaptive. 
Overall then, these results provide no evidence whatsoever that 
training in meditation facilitates the physiological response to 
stress.

Concerns, Comments, and Replies

Having reviewed the evidence concerning the differential 
effectiveness of meditation and rest for reducing physiological 
arousal, and having concluded that meditation is not more effective 
than rest for reducing physiological arousal, we can now consider the 
concerns that have been raised regarding the review and the 
conclusion. These concerns were originally raised in response to my 
earlier review and conclusion (Holmes 1984), but because there is 
little difference between the two reviews and conclusions the 
concerns are relevant here.

1. Meditation Does Reduce Arousal

A number of critics expressed concern about my original conclusions 
and asserted that meditation does reduce physiological arousal. Yes 
meditation does reduce arousal, and I never meant to suggest that it 
did not. Indeed, even my own data demonstrate that meditation reduces 
arousal (Holmes et al. 1983)! The important point to recognize, 
however, is that the question is not whether meditation reduces 
arousal, but whether meditation reduces arousal more than does rest. 
Meditation reduces arousal, but there is no evidence that meditation 
reduces arousal more than does rest.

2. Meditation Reduces Arousal More than Rest, But the Effects of 
Meditation Have Been Obscured in the Research

One commentator suggested that `we should also consider other 
important psychophysiological phenomena that may complicate or 
obscure the effect of meditation such as autonomic response 
specificity and directional fractionation'. The argument the 
commentator made was that although the data do not show any 
differences between the effects of meditation and rest, the effects 
of meditation may be obscured or reduced by processes that are not 
influencing the effects of rest. Unfortunately, the commentator: (a) 
did not offer any suggestions as to how such processes might obscure 
the effects of meditation, (b) did not indicate why those processes 
would not also influence the effects of rest, (c) and did not offer 
any data to support his speculation. There is always the possibility 
that some time in the future some additional effects will be found 
that will lead us to conclude that meditation is more effective than 
rest for reducing arousal, but at the present time it does not seem 
appropriate to imply that the effects are there but are hidden by 
some unspecified process that only affects the responses of 
meditators.

3. Meditation is Not Adequately Defined

When the results of an investigation fail to confirm a hypothesis, 
one strategy for saving the hypothesis is to assert that the variable 
in question (in this case, meditation) was not properly defined. If 
that is the case, the variable of interest may not actually have been 
studied and thus the results may be irrelevant. This has been 
suggested as one explanation for why `meditation' was not found to be 
more effective than rest for reducing arousal.

In my original empirical research (Holmes et al. 1983), I did not 
attempt to define meditation conceptually. Instead, I defined 
meditation operationally: meditation was what meditators did, and 
meditators were persons who were adequately trained in TM. No one had 
seriously questioned whether TM was meditation (the authorities 
always referred to the practice as meditation), and therefore it 
seemed appropriate to define the practice of TM as meditation.

In my review of the research (Holmes 1984), I did not limit myself to 
investigations that were based on TM, but instead considered any 
practice that was labeled as `meditation'. It was necessary to 
include all forms of `meditation' so as not to limit the findings 
artificially. It is always possible that a predetermined conceptual 
definition will preclude the consideration of a very effective 
technique. Most of the research I reviewed was based on the practice 
of TM, but the findings based on TM were not noticeably different 
from those based on other techniques, and none of the other 
techniques that were defined as `meditation' proved to be more 
effective than rest for reducing physiological arousal. It appears 
then that the definition of meditation has not limited or biased the 
investigation of the process.

Finally, if what I and others studied was not meditation, then it is 
the critics' responsibility to tell us what meditation is and to 
demonstrate that `it' (whatever they define meditation to be) is more 
effective than rest for reducing arousal. In this case, the burden of 
proof is clearly on the critics, and their argument collapses under 
that burden.

4. We Must Not Ignore The Fact That Meditation Has Been Practised For 
Centuries

A question I have encountered many times since publishing my review 
is that meditation has been practised for centuries, and who am I to 
question it? For example, one author wrote:
Meditation is an ancient therapeutic technique that has been studied 
and practised by many individuals of far-reaching intellect and 
insight. It has endured the rise and fall of civilizations, and 
predates both science and psychology by many centuries. As scientists 
who sometimes do not bother climbing onto the shoulders of our 
predecessors, let us carefully examine any conclusions about its 
ineffectiveness: (Suler 1985).

In response to this criticism I must point out three things. Firstly, 
the history of therapeutics is riddled with treatments that were used 
for many years before adequate research proved them to be useless 
(blood letting, for example), and the fact that a treatment was used 
for many years is not evidence that it was effective. Secondly, I am 
not arguing that meditation is `ineffective', only that it is not 
more effective than rest. Thirdly, I must suggest that if `the 
individuals of far-reaching intellect and insight' had had the 
experimental evidence that we now have, they might have given up the 
practice of meditation more readily than some of its current 
proponents.

5. We Should Not Throw the Psychological Effects Out With The 
Physiological Effects

Numerous persons have cautioned that even if we conclude 
(reluctantly) that meditation is not more effective than rest for 
reducing physiological arousal, we should not then conclude that 
meditation does not have other benefits. For example, one author 
wrote: `If it is indeed true that meditation does not affect somatic 
activity [more than rest], let us be careful to avoid conclusions 
that its effectiveness in other realms must therefore be restricted' 
[Suler 1985).

My review of the evidence concerning the effects of meditation was 
limited to its effects on physiological arousal, but the findings 
revealed by my review do have important implications for other 
realms. That is the case because many of the other effects that are 
attributed to meditation by its advocates are predicated upon or 
mediated by the reduction of physiological arousal. It is also 
important to note that, although those other effects are beyond the 
scope of this review, a variety of research has indicated, for 
example, that the psychotherapeutic effects of meditation can be 
attributed to the placebo effect (Smith 1975, 1976). Indeed, it has 
been found that when an `antimeditation' technique (pacing and 
focusing on problems) was presented to subjects as `meditation' it 
was effective in reducing the subjects' self-reports of anxiety. From 
those results it was concluded that `the crucial therapeutic 
component of TM is not the TM exercise' (Smith 1976, p. 630). 
Unfortunately, a thorough examination of these effects is beyond the 
scope of this chapter.

6. There May Be Differences Between Persons Who Elect To Learn 
Meditation And Those Who Do Not, And Those Differences May Have 
Influenced The Results Of The Investigations Of Meditation

Many of the investigations in which the responses of meditators were 
compared with the responses of non-meditators are in fact only quasi-
experiments because subjects were not randomly assigned to the 
meditation and rest conditions. Instead, years before the various 
investigations were conducted the subjects self-determined whether or 
not they would learn to meditate, and that decision determined the 
group in which they would serve later.

Therefore, it is possible that the subjects in the meditation and 
rest conditions differed on some factor other than meditation and 
that factor may have influenced the results (West 1985). Consistent 
with that possibility, there are reports indicating that persons who 
elect to learn to meditate are more `neurotic' and `anxious' than the 
general population (Williams et al. 1976; Fehr 1977; Rogers and 
Livingston 1977). If such differences are pervasive, they could pose 
a problem. However, their potential effects have not been 
demonstrated, and the true experiments that were reported (those in 
which random assignment was used) did not generate results that were 
different from the quasi-experiments.

7. Resting Is Actually A `Self-Regulation Strategy', And Therefore 
It Does Not Provide An Appropriate Control Against Which To Compare 
The Effects Of Meditation

It has been asserted that a condition in which subjects simply rest 
is not an appropriate control condition with which to compare the 
responses of subjects in a meditation condition (Shapiro 19851. 
Instead of being a control procedure, simply resting may be a `self-
regulation strategy' through which one can `access a relaxation 
response, similar to what occurs during meditation' (Shapiro 1985, p. 
7). That being the case, it is the critic's position that in 
comparing meditating subjects to resting subjects we are not 
comparing meditation with a control and finding no difference, but 
rather we are comparing two treatments to one another and finding 
that they are both effective for reducing arousal. Voila! The sow's 
ear has just been turned into a silk purse!

I disagree with that analysis of the situation, and I think that the 
problem can be approached and solved on two levels. On one level, in 
the true experimental sense resting does serve as an excellent 
control in experiments on meditation because resting involves 
everything that meditation does except the act of meditating (the use 
of a mantra, etc.). The fact that resting and meditating have the 
same physiological effects indicates that `meditation' adds nothing.

On another level, I agree that resting does reduce physiological 
arousal, and that as such it can be an effective means of temporarily 
reducing physiological arousal. I think that calling resting a `self-
regulatory strategy' is stretching the usual use of the term a bit, 
but, as Humpty Dumpty has pointed out, our words can mean what we 
want them to mean (Carroll 1960). Therefore, for now I will accede to 
the critic's position and call resting a `self-regulatory strategy'. 
The question then arises, are resting and meditation both effective 
self-regulatory strategies? I have acknowledged that resting is, and 
the answer concerning meditation is both yes and no. Yes, meditation 
is an effective strategy if by meditation you mean the whole 
treatment package which includes resting. However, the answer is no, 
meditation is not an effective strategy if by meditation you mean the 
meditation component (mantra, etc.) of the treatment package because 
it has been consistently demonstrated that the meditation component 
adds nothing to the effects achieved by the other components of the 
package (i.e. resting). Indeed, meditation does not even appear to 
have a placebo effect for physiological responses. One might argue 
that the meditation component cannot be meaningfully removed from the 
treatment package and that it is the total package that must be 
evaluated, but that argument misses the point. The point is that the 
effects of the package do not change regardless of whether the 
meditation component is included or not, and therefore the meditation 
component is superfluous. I may be convinced to call resting a self-
regulatory strategy (it does reduce arousal), but then I can not be 
convinced to call meditation a self-regulatory strategy because the 
meditation component of the package clearly does not contribute to 
the reduction of arousal.

Overall Conclusions And Implications

This revised review of the published experimental research on the 
influence of meditation on physiological arousal did not reveal any 
consistent evidence that meditating subjects attained lower levels of 
physiological arousal than did resting subjects. Furthermore, the 
review did not reveal any consistent evidence that subjects who had 
meditated had a lessened physiological response to stressful 
situations than did subjects who had not meditated. These conclusions 
are in sharp contrast to the widely held beliefs about the effects of 
meditation.

The conclusions generated by this review of the experimental research 
have implications for the personal and professional use of meditation 
as an antidote for high physiological arousal. Clearly, such use is 
not justified by the existing research. This is not to say that the 
practice of meditation might not have other effects, but any such 
potential effects could not be due to the usually assumed effect of 
meditation on physiological arousal. Obviously, that limitation 
greatly limits the range of potential effects of meditation.

The review also illustrated the need for careful attention to 
methodological issues and problems when considering research in this 
area. Indeed, the original conclusion that meditation resulted in a 
unique reduction of physiological arousal was undoubtedly based on 
the uncritical acceptance of conclusions from `own-control' 
comparisons rather than from experimental tests involving appropriate 
control conditions.
by David S. Holmes

If professionals interested in controlling physiological arousal are 
to be effective and maintain professional and public credibility, it 
is essential that they do not promise more than the data permit. 
There can be no doubt that the claims made for meditation have far 
exceeded the existing data, and it is time to bring our promises and 
practices into line with the evidence. It is also time for the 
proponents of meditation to develop the methodological sophistication 
that is required for the production, evaluation, and presentation of 
research so that readers will not be misled by their reports. For my 
part, since completing my research programme on meditation I have 
turned my attention to studying the effects of physical (aerobic) 
fitness on physiological arousal in stressful and non-stressful 
situations. That line of research has produced some exceptionally 
strong findings (heart rate response to stress can be reduced by as 
much as 29 b.p.m.!). In view of that, I can strongly recommend that 
persons who are interested in reducing arousal spend their time 
exercising rather than meditating or resting.
Manoj Dash, BHMS,Ph.D





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to