[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/
