ANXIETY, DRUG CONSUMPTION, AND PERSONALITY CORRELATES OF YOGA AND PROGRESSIVE MUSCLE RELAXATION.
AuthorJohnson, Eric Mitchell
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
RightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
AbstractWithin the last 15 years a large number of empirical investigations have explored the psychotherapeutic applications of meditative techniques. This research expands upon previous efforts in this area by comparing Kundalini Yoga with Progressive Muscle Relaxation, an attention-placebo control, and a no-treatment control on measures of anxiety (STAI Trait Form), personality development (Locus of Control Scale), and drug consumption. A total of 47 undergraduate student volunteers were randomly assigned to the four treatment conditions. Following a 2-week baseline phase to determine pretreatment drug consumption, subjects began a 6-week treatment phase during which time they attended two classes each week. Throughout the treatment phase subjects maintained detailed drug consumption diaries. Following this treatment phase, all subjects were readministered the aforementioned tests and questionnaires. Without exception, the research failed to find any significant treatment effects attributable to the practice of Kundalini Yoga. Moreover, none of the experimental treatment groups studied here displayed treatment gains over and above a no-treatment control group. There are at least two ways to account for this lack of significant differences. On the one hand, one could assert that the treatment groups were somehow impotent and incapable of effecting change any better than the nonspecific treatment factors working for the no-treatment group; or on the other hand, one could assert that the treatment groups were indeed therapeutic, but not significantly due to too brief of an intervention phase, and/or due to the highly variable treatment response of a nonpredisposed subject pool.