Page "learned" Paragraph 482

Many subjects attributed differences in Kohnstamm reactivity to differences in degrees of subjective control -- voluntary as the Kohnstamm-positive subjects perceived it and involuntary as the Kohnstamm-negative subjects perceived it.

These suggested interpretations were given by the subjects spontaneously when they were told that there were people who reacted differently than they had.

The Kohnstamm-positive subjects described the vivid experience of having their arms rise as one in which they exercised no control.

They explained its absence in others on the basis of an intervention of control factors.

They felt that they too could counteract the upward arm movement by a voluntary effort after they had once experienced the reaction.

Some of those who did not initially react with an arm-elevation also associated their behavior in the situation with control factors -- an inability to relinquish control voluntarily.

One subject spontaneously asked ( after her arm had finally risen ), `` Do you suppose I was unconsciously keeping it down before ''??

Another said that her arm did not go up at first `` because I wouldn't let it ; ;

I thought it wasn't supposed to ''.

This subject was one who gave an arm-elevation on the second trial in the naive state but not in the first.

She had felt that her arm wanted to go up in the first trial, but had consciously prevented it from so doing.

She explained nonreactivity of others by saying that they were `` not letting themselves relax ''.

When informed that there were some persons who did not have their arm go up, she commented, `` I don't see how they can prevent it ''.

In contrast to this voluntary-control explanation for nonreactivity given by the Kohnstamm-positive subjects, the Kohnstamm-negative subjects offered an involuntary-control hypothesis to explain nonreactivity.

They felt that they were relaxing as much as they could and that any control factors which might be present to prevent response must be on an unconscious level.