SPONTANEOUS REPRESSION 0F iMPULSES AND
PSYCNOPATHGLDGY

Yhesls for the Degree of 9M. A.
MiCHEGAN STATE 51mm
GREY Ra MRISON
392’3

ABSTRACT

SPONTANEOUS REPRESSION OF IMPULSES
AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY

BY

Grey R. Larison

Reyher's (1967) procedure for posthypnotic
activation of hypnotically induced conflicts has been used
over recent years to study the relationships between the
repression of aggressive and/or sexual impulses and the
frequency of resulting symptomatology, autonomic arousal
and drive representation. This hypnotic paradigm and its
potential for the objectification of psychodynamic pro-
cesses promises to become a salient method in clinical
psychology's search for an understanding of human behavior.
The present study represents an ongoing effort to make
this paradigm as unambiguous and meaningful as possible to
use.

Sixteen normal, female gs were deeply hypnotized
and a conflict which arouses anger toward an older,
authority figure was implanted by hypnotic suggestion.
Conditions were varied across four groups of £3 in a 2x2

completely randomized design involving the variables

Grey R. Larison

amnesia and "pump-priming" (i.e., a posthypnotic suggestion
to report everything the g feels after recognizing a con-
flict word). All groups of gs experienced significantly
more psychopathology and GSR activation during the experi-
mental session than they had during a pre-test. Subjects
also experienced many more symptoms and 2,000 ohm GSR
deflections in response to conflict words than was true
for neutral words which they were presented with for free-
association. However, the only significant between-group
differences that were observed was for amnesia gs to score
much higher on the Repression Index (i.e., to be more
highly repressed) and to exhibit much less GSR activation.
There was a statistically non-significant trend for
amnesia gs to experience more objective symptoms than
those gs who did not receive the amnesia suggestion.

The present study focused on an examination of
those variables in the procedure that might be both
necessary and sufficient for the activation of repression
and the production of pathological disturbance. As indi-
cated above, the role of hypnotic amnesia and pump-priming
was examined and it was learned that neither variable is
a necessary one for activating posthypnotic, intrapsychic
conflict under controlled experimental conditions.
However, while all sixteen §s experienced psychopathology
and GSR activation, the strong trend for amnesia gs to

experience more physiological symptoms and less GSR

Grey R. Larison

activation suggests that posthypnotic amnesia in some
way helps activate and/or intensifies the g's repression
of the activated anger-aggression.

Considering the findings of this study in con-
junction with those that have preceeded it, it is sug-
gested that the following variables are the necessary
and sufficient ones to make Reyher's procedure function:
During hypnosis (l. hypnosis) E tells g a made-up story
(2. paramnesia) that arouses strong feelings within g
(3. arousal of affect) which are directed toward an
inappropriate person (4. affect directed at an inappropriate
object). This affect's subsequential arousal is asso-
ciated with a specific posthypnotic cue (5. affect
associated with a posthypnotic cue) and is combined with
a suggested impulse to act in an ego-alien way (6. ego-
alien impulse). The affect and impulse are aroused
suddenly (7. sudden activation of drive) in the post-
hypnotic session (8. posthypnotic arousal).

In our discussion, the central role that is
played by the paramnesia used in such a study was dis-
cussed further. Any paramnesia that has been used or
could be created for future use represents a complex
interaction of aroused affects, impulses and super-ego
reactions all of which combine in unknown ways to determine
the limits of aroused drive strength and the force of

repression that might inhibit that drive. The data from

Grey R. Larison

this study and those of Veenstra, Karnilow and Wolfe
suggest that the anger-aggression paramnesia used in
these studies is only minimally pathogenic because it
fails to incorporate reprehensible actions on g's part
which could consistently be expected to arouse a super-
ego reaction to the arousal of its associated drive.

Reyher's original Repression Index was modified
slightly in order to clarify two conceptual difficulties
and is thus defined as:

NA - (3ZFA + ZZPA + ZCC)

R = Tc

 

This definition is based on the assumption that a g's
level of awareness of the induced anger-aggression conflict
bears an inverse relationship to the strength of her
inferred defense mechanism of repression. We discussed
the concept of repression and how it relates to drive,
psychopathology, GSR activation, and hypnotic amnesia.
While amnesia clouds the conceptual picture somewhat, it
appears that the strength of repression varies in a
curvilinear fashion with frequency of symptoms, varies
directly with the modal type of symptom experienced, and
varies inversely with GSR activation. A post-hoc analysis
of this study's data did not reveal any statistically
significant correlations between R and frequency of
symptoms, type of symptom or GSR frequency, but all com-

parisons were in the predicted direction. This lack of

Grey R. Larison

significant correlations may be due to the overall lower
pathogenicity of the paramnesia used in this study com-
pared to those used by Reyher, Perkins, Sommerschield,

and Burns and the truncated range of drive arou l.

   
 

Approved:

Date: 2¢Qéézg

SPONTANEOUS REPRESSION OF IMPULSES

AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY

BY

Grey Rf Larison

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1973

(.17 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am very grateful for this opportunity to
formally thank Dr. Joseph Reyher, Chairman of my thesis
committee. His guidance and infinite patience have been
deeply appreciated by me over these last several years.
For his willingness to let me be what I needed to be, at
different times along the way, I give my special thanks.

To the rest of my committee: Dr. Norman Abeles,
Dr. Joel Aronoff, and, more recently, Glenn Veenstra, I
want to express my appreciation for their guidance and
inspiration. To Dave Schnarch, who spent many of his
weekend hours reading and scoring the transcripts from
this study, I also wish to express my sincere appreciation.

Finally, I want to express a deeply felt sense of
gratitude to my wife, Jan, whose patience, understanding
and support have not only made the completion of this

project possible, but emotionally enriching as well.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . v
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . Vii

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
First Experimental Session . . . . . . 23‘
Second Experimental Session . . . . . . 24
Paramnesia Introduction . . . . . . . 24
Paramnesia . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Instructions for Conflict Words . . . . 26
Destructive Impulse Suggestions . . . . 27
Pump-priming Instructions . . . . . . 27
Amnesia Instructions . . . . . . . . 28
Measures and Scoring Procedures . . . . . 30

GSR Activation . . . . . . . . . . 30
Symptomatic Reactions . . . . . . . 3O
Hostility . . . . . . . . . . . 3l
Repression Index . . . . . . . . . 31

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Inter-rater Reliability . . . . . . . . 34
Pre-test Measures . . . . . . . . . . 34
Session IIa . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Psychopathology . . . . . . . . . . 35

GSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Hostility . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Repression Index . . . . . . . . . . 37
Session IIb . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

iii

Between Sessions . . . . . .
Summary and Conclusions . . . .

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . .

The Paradigm O O O O O O 0 O

Improvements for Experimental Design .
Relationship Between Drive and Repression

Repression and Symptoms . . . .
Repression and GSR . . . . . .
Repression and Amnesia . . . .
Responses to C-words vs. N-words .

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . .

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O 0

iv

Page

38
40

42

42
48
51
56
61
64
65

68

74
78

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Assignment of subjects to groups . . . . 22
Inter-rater correlations on Subjective

Symptomatology and Hostility . . . . . 34
Comparisons between those S5 with amnesia

and those without amnesia; those that

received pump-priming instructions and

those who did not; and between conflict

words and neutral words . . . . . . . 36
Comparisons between S's scores to c- and

n-words in session I vs. those scores in

session IIa; and for those seven amnesia

gs, a comparison between session 11a

and IIb O O O O O O O O O O O O 39
Raw data from session I for both conflict

words and neutral words . . . . . . . 94
Raw data from session 11a for both conflict

words and neutral words . . . . . . . 95
Raw data for session 11b for both conflict

words and neutral words . . . . . . . 96

10.

LIST OF FIGURES

Flow diagram for the high drive-low

repression situation

Flow diagram for the high repression-low

drive situation . .

Flow diagram for a high drive, high

repression situation

Flow diagram for low drive-low repression

situation . . . .

The relationship between
strength of repression
symptoms . . . .

The relationship between
strength of repression
symptoms expressed .

The relationship between

strength of repression, the frequency of
symptoms and the type of symptoms as

related to the present

Generalization gradients for E's instruc-
I . q
tions and the paramne51a's prior-arousal
effect on c-words and a range of many

n-words . . . . .

Ss punitive responsiveness to c-words and

n-words in the case of
generalization . .

Expected reSponsiveness over time in the
case where response habituation is the

the relative

and frequency of

the relative

and the type of

the relative

study . .

stimulus

major factor in operation . . .

Vi

Page

56

56

57

57

59

59

60

67

67

67

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A. Hypnotic Steps . . . . . . . . . 79
B. Classification of Symptoms . . . . . . 85
C. Classification of Associations . . . . 89
D. Raw Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
E. Documentation of Psychopathology . . . . 97

vii

INTRODUCTION

One of the primary reasons that Freud's psycho-
analytic theory of personality has not been more widely
accepted by American psychologists has been their inability
to investigate his theoretical constructs under laboratory
conditions. Great effort was expended in the first two
decades of this century by the empirically-oriented
psychologists of America in an attempt to demonstrate such
salient Freudian concepts as repression, pre-conscious
processes and unconscious processes. In the main, these
laboratory efforts have failed to convince experimental
psychology and clinicians have regarded the whole endeavor
as being artificial and contrived. As a result, pro-
fessional interest in the study of basic Freudian concepts
waned while practising psychoanalytically-oriented
clinicians continued to use an unverified theory as the
basis of their psycho-diagnostic and treatment procedures.

For many investigators, clinical experience clearly
demonstrated the relevance and efficacy of Freud's insights
and theoretical concepts and his teachings became the sub-
stratum from which both modern psychotherapy and many
- alternative theoretical approaches would grow. However,
with the majority of today's practising clinicians

l

recognizing the existence of such phenomena as unconscious
processes, defense mechanisms and the motivating force of
internal impulses; the value of demonstrating these Freudian
concepts in a controlled, laboratory setting is obvious.

It was in this spirit that the "New Look" movement in the
study of perception was launched in the 1950's. However,
once again, these efforts to demonstrate repression in
perceptual responses were convincing neither to the
clinical practitioner nor to most experimentalists. At

the end of this decade of investigation, Reyher (1958)
designed an investigation to test a number of hypotheses
concerning perceptual defense and perceptual vigilance
phenomena. Under hypnosis, Reyher implanted a paramnesia
(a false memory) designed to arouse anger and motivate his
subjects to destroy important prOperty belonging to an
authority figure. After being given an hypnotic amnesia
for the paramnesia, the subjects were awakened and pre-
sented tachistoscopically with cue words designed to arouse
this intense anger and the destructive impulse. Much to
Reyher's surprise, none of his initial subjects carried out
the posthypnotic impulse to destroy the property; instead,
they spontaneously reported a wide variety of psycho-
pathological symptoms. This appeared to be a laboratory
demonstration of the spontaneous repression of an aggressive

impulse.

Reyher had apparently stumbled upon the following
chain of phenomena: he had induced aggressive impulses and
anger by using a paramnesia under hypnosis, which was then
made unconscious through the use of hypnotic amnesia. This
unconscious impulse and its associated affect was then
aroused by tachistoscopically presented words which were
posthypnotic cues for S to be overwhelmed by anger and a
destructive impulse. As these impulses neared the threshold
of consciousness, they activated the defense mechanism of
repression and the coincidental production of psychosomatic
and other psychological symptoms. Reyher's method seemed
to provide an avenue for investigating this inferred chain
in the spontaneous production of repression and psycho-
pathology under empirically controllable conditions.

According to Freud's psychoanalytic theory,
repression as a psychodynamic process is divided into two
different phases. Primal repression consists of a censor-
ing mechanism which denies admission into the person's
consciousness to those impulses and affects that would be
painful to the ego. Thus, primal repression acts to
prevent psychological conflict or pain from ever becoming
conscious. This is the fate of many sexual and aggressive
impulses which are denied conscious expression because
they are directed toward improper objects, and which would
otherwise produce strong conflict between the individual's

id-impulses and his super-ego. The strength of this

repression, or the amount of psychological energy that a
particular person will expend to keep a given impulse out
of his conscious awareness, is a function of the strength
of that impulse and its associated affect, and the
inapprOpriateness of its object. Although repressed,
these impulses continue to be endowed with considerable
psychological energy which strives for some form of
expression. One possible route for expression is through
the use of previously neutral mental material, i.e., to
let some of the built up psychic energy be released via
alternative channels. This is where the second phase of
repression comes into play. Repression proper, as Freud
called it, involves the pushing from consciousness of
mental material that has been acceptable to the ego in the
past, but which has been subsequently endowed with so
much energy from a primally repressed impulse that it too
has become pain—producing. To summarize, Freud postulated
two phases of repression that were closely related and had
the same goal of keeping painful impulses and affects out
of conscious awareness. These phases were the primal
repression of developing impulses and affects, and the
repression propercfifmental derivatives onto which primally
repressed impulses cathect their energy.

In the immediate context of Reyher's investigation,
E has brought to an overwhelming intensity an emotion

(hate toward an authority figure) which is unacceptable

to, or painful for, the subject's conscious ego. When this
unconscous affect is suddenly activated by posthypnotic
cue-word recognition, it acts as any other natural impulse.
The activation of this aggressive impulse reactivates
infantile experiences of anxiety and distress that were
experienced under similar conditions of impulse expression.
It also reactivates, by a negative feedback mechanism
for handling such unacceptable impulses; i.e. intensified
primal repression and the subsequent repression from con-
sciousness of heavily cathected mental material. It is
during this short interval between the sudden activation
of the aggressive impulse and the intensification of
repression that ansiety and the other symptoms of mental
conflict are observed (such as muscular ticks, tremors,
dizzyness).

Reyher (1958, 1962, 1964, 1969a, and 1970) is
very specific concerning his negative feedback model for
understanding the phenomenon of repression. In the light
of this theory, repression is not seen as an all-or-none
mechanism, but as a physiological function which can take
on a wide spectrum of values in strength. This leads to
Reyher's postulation that the symptoms observed in this
type of experiment, and in therapy as well, are a function
of the strength of the repression that is acting, and not
specific to the particular impulse that has been repressed.
Thus we see the pathological symptom as lying on a continuum

of repression strength. With strong repression (absolutely

no awareness of an underlying conflict) there are no
symptoms. As repression weakens, symptoms innervated by
the autonomic nervous system (feelings of nausea, headache,
sweating, skin rashes, etc.), followed by somatic nervous
system symptoms (pains, tremors, tics, etc.), and finally,
as repression weakens considerably, conscious correlates
of the unconscious impulse are experienced (feelings of
frustration, annoyance, etc.). At some point, the impulses
become strong enough that repression breaks down completely
and the S acts upon his pain-producing impulses, thereby
replacing his intra-psychic conflict between his impulses
and his inhibition of them with the inter—personal conflict
and the fear of loss of self-esteem. In the context of
this line of research, the S tears up the authority
figure's property.

Following the vivid and unexpected results of
this first investigation, Reyher ran a separate investiga-
tion (1961) with five good hypnotic subjects simulating
the hypnotic trance state. They subsequently failed to
produce psychopathological symptoms when presented with
the conflict words later in the experimental session.
These results led to Reyher's paradigm for determining
the clinical relevance of hypnotically produced psycho-

pathology (Reyher, 1962):

First, the induced processes must in no way include

cues of how S expects S to respond in terms of the

dependent variables. Second, the induced process

must produce other processes and behavior: that

is, it must be reSponse producing. Third, some of

these responses must satisfy criteria for the

identification of manifestations of psychopathology.

Fourth, some of the Ss must be asked by a co-

experimenter to simulate hypnosis, unknown to S,

in order to determine the demand characteristics

of the research. Fifth, S should phrase his sug-

gestions in the passive voice to reduce the

possibility that S will act out a role.
Reyher replicated his original investigation (1967) with
essentially the same results being obtained. These
included: significant correlations between his index of
awareness and the frequency and type of symptoms observed;
experimental Ss reported a wide range of pathology while
simulators reported virtually none; and the greater GSR
activation of experimental Ss (as compared to simulators)
led to the conclusion that hypnotized Ss respond to the
posthypnotic activation of implanted conflict as if it
were a natural conflict.

Starting her work at about the same time as Reyher,

Bobbit (1958) also found that hypnotically implanted param-
nesias followed by an hypnotic amnesia can lead to verbal
and motor disturbances to word association stimuli. She
found that the degree of such disturbance was curvilinearly

related to the degree of repression, where repression was

defined as the inverse of S's awareness of the paramnesia.

 

However, Bobbit's study did not conform to the paradigm

that Reyher was to later propose, and her equation of

amnesia with the natural phenomenon of repression may not
be justified.

Perkins (1965) and Sommershield (1969) conducted
investigations following Reyher's paradigm and their
results confirmed his basic findings. Perkins used TAT
scores for hostility as a dependent variable and divided
his Ss into "good" versus "poor" repressors. He found
that the good repressors (those who experienced no con-
scious awareness of their underlying posthypnotic conflict)
rely on the autOplastic defense mechanism of increased
repression under increased impulse activation in contrast
to poor repressors who tend to switch to alloplastic
conflict under the tension of high impulse activation.
Continued investigation of such findings as these could
lead us to a better understanding of repression in particu-
lar, and the use of defense mechanisms in general, by
people under the stress of painful impulses pushing for
conscious expression.

As already mentioned, Sommershield (1969) confirmed
Reyher and Perkin's previous findings. He also introduced
a second paramnesia condition designed to arouse sexual
impulses upon recognition of conflict words. These sexual
impulses were aimed at an older woman and were therefore
assumed to touch upon previously repressed Oedipal material.
Since his Ss could not be given a posthypnotic suggestion

to act upon the sexual impulses, they were told (in both the

anger-aggressive and sexual conditions) that they would be
compelled to talk about their uncontrollable feelings
whenever they recognized a conflict word. Sommerschield
found that merely expressing one's hostile or sexual
impulses to S was as pathogenic for his Ss as had been the
destructive impulse in Reyher and Perkin's investigations.
Again, simulators reported no symptoms under the experi-
mental conditions.

Sheehan (1969) claimed that the psychopathology
observed by Reyher was not due to repression but to the
demand characteristics of the experiment. Reyher in
direct rebuttal (Reyher, 1969c) questioned Sheehan's con-
clusions because the latter did not follow faithfully the
design which had been associated with the production of
psychOpathology in previous research: he used a weak
posthypnotic conflict, he gave specific posthypnotic sug-
gestions to his S5 to feel "anxious," "terrible," "bad,"
etc.; and he discounted the pathological symptoms which he
did find. A careful analysis of the paramnesias used by
Reyher, Perkins and Sommerschield reveals no posthypnotic
suggestions that would bias their Ss toward experiencing
such distressing psychopathological symptoms, especially
of the psychosomatic type. And yet all three of these
investigators found pathological reactions among their
hypnotic S5 with no concurrent reports of such symptoms

from their simulating Ss. Therefore, as Sommerschield

10

says, "the psychopathology produced by this hypnotic
method cannot be attributed to mere compliance with the
demand characteristics of the research" (Sommerschield,
1969).

At this point, the work of Reyher (1958, 1961,
1962, 1964, 1967), Perkins (1965), and Sommerschield (1969)
had clearly demonstrated the pathogenic properties of this
type of posthypnotic conflict. For the first time,
experimental psychology had a potentially fruitful technique
for demonstrating and studying such clinical phenomena as
repression, psychosomatic symptoms, and unconscious processes
under controlled, laboratory conditions. In an effort to
make this technique as unambiguous and simple as possible
to use, Veenstra (1969) turned to the task of determining
exactly which experimental variables were the necessary and
sufficient ones for producing spontaneous psychopathology.
Based on previous research, the following 12 variables
seemed to be likely ones for consideration:

1. Subject experiences under hypnosis . . .

2. A paramnesia about his own past . . .

 

3. Strong affect is aroused in this paramnesia
and . . .

 

4. Is associated with a series of conflict words.

 

 

5. This affect is directed toward an authority
figure in the experimental’situation.

 

6. The S is told that whenever he is presented
these words after awakening, he will experience
and overwhelming (loss of control) . . .

 

11

7. Rage (posthypnotic arousal of affect) . . .

 

8. And an intense urge to tear up some valuable
papers belonging to the authority figure
(destructive impulse).

 

9. The S is given an amnesia for the hypnotic
session.

10. While awake, a series of words are presented
tachistoscopically (sudden activation of
drive) . . .

 

11. Which he is told to pronounce upon recognition
(verbalization of conflict words).

 

12. Throughout the experiment, the experimenter
maintains a warm, trusting relationship with
the S and accepts his responses in an accepting
manner.

 

 

 

At that time, Reyher (1969a) was of the opinion that
the major necessary and theoretically significant variables
of the procedure were:

(a) a sudden surge of overwhelming rage toward
an authority figure
(b) coupled with an overwhelming impulse to destroy
property belonging to said authority figure, and
(c) activated suddenly by a posthypnotic cue.
Included within that statement are the above variables 5,
6, 7, 8, and 10. With variable 10 being modified to the
more general form of "sudden activation," the procedure
is freed from the confined of tachistoscopic experimentation
and conflict word presentation. Reyher (1969a) also
recognizes the probable importance of variables 1, 3, 9,
10 and 11.
As was mentioned above, Veenstra (1969) was the

first investigator to formally examine Reyher's procedure

for its critical variables. He recognized that a reduced

12

design would be more manageable in terms of experimenter
effort and time in future investigations, and made the
assertion that if a reduced design still produced spon-
taneous psychopathology, then all of the necessary
variables must be present. Specifically, Veenstra
hypothesized that the arousal of anger (#3) alone, without
directing it toward an authority figure (#5) nor combining
it with a destructive impulse (#8), would be sufficiently
anxiety-producing to instigate the defense mechanism of
repression and the production of psychopathology. Veenstra
also eliminated variable 11 (verbalization of conflict
words) as a necessary condition without any discussion
about that action. To Reyher's list, Veenstra added the
variable of associating a series of conflict words with the
anger aroused by his paramnesias, as being a necessary
one. Therefore, Veenstra's reduced design included the
following variables: 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12. The
two formal hypotheses presented were (a) the reduced
design would produce spontaneous pathology, and (b) the
use of a paramnesia (#2) would be more effective than a
direct suggestion technique for producing posthypnotic
anger and conflict.

The primary result of Veenstra's research was that
his reduced design did not produce psychopathology. He
found no significant difference in the frequency of physical

complaints expressed by his experimental group relative to his

13

control group. Therefore, anger aroused in the absence
of a destructive impulse does not seem to be pathogenic.
Galvanic skin response (GSR) readings were made as a
measure of anxiety and physiological arousal, but showed
no significant difference among Veenstra's groups. How-
ever, measures derived from the free-association material
did demonstrate that his hypnotic Ss were experiencing
genuine anger and hostility upon the presentation of con-
flict words. The measures of response latency, hostile
associations, and hostile feelings all showed significant
increases for conflict vs. neutral words in the post—
hypnotic association task. Concerning Veenstra's second
hypothesis given that he obtained only affect expression
and no psychopathology, he found no significant differences
between the anger-producing effectiveness of the param—
nesia when compared to his direct suggestion technique.
Furthermore, when all posthypnotic amnesias (but not his
suggestions) were lifted and the person could achieve some
insight into the reason for his anger, that anger was not
dissipated. On the contrary, a statistically non-
significant increase was observed under these conditions
in the response latency and hostility measures.

While this investigation is pregnant with ideas for
further exciting research, the conclusions which may be
drawn are really quite limited. Veenstra eliminated too
many, possibly pertinent, variables from his design to

enable any solid conclusion to be drawn from his results.

14

Clearly, the reduced design was not pathogenic, but the
question as to "why?" remains very much in doubt. Was it
because Veenstra eliminated variable #5 (the directing of
anger at an authority figure), #8 (the destructive impulse),
#ll (verbalization of the conflict words), or was it
because some heretofore unidentified variable was left out
of his design? We simply do not know. Therefore, using
Veenstra's research as a source of hypotheses it became
imperative to test each of the recognized variables for
its relevance to the paradigm in a very systematic way.

Wolfe and Karnilow were conducting the first of a
series of investigations designed to do just this when the
present investigator began his work in 1970. Their
experiment was designed to investigate systematically the
effect of amnesia and the destructive impulse on the
observed incidence of spontaneous repression and psycho-
pathology. Using a completely randomized 2x2 factorial
design, these investigators expected to observe pathological
symptoms in at least that quarter of their Ss who were
given both the destructive impulse and a posthypnotic
amnesia. It was believed that these Ss would be receiving
the same experimental treatment that Reyher, Perkins and
Sommershield imposed upon their Ss; and would, therefore,
replicate the latter Ss' findings. At the other extreme,
if neither the destructive impulse nor an amnesia are

necessary variables, then Wolfe and Karnilow were expecting

15

that all of their Ss would exhibit psychopathology. Their
data have now been collected and it reveals no significant
psychopathology under any of the experiment's four con-
ditions (Karnilow, 1971; Wolfe, 1971).

That finding strongly suggests that our present
list of twelve variables fails to include still another,
heretofore unrecognized but necessary variable for
spontaneous repression to occur in the laboratory along
with concommitant psychOpathology. If such a new vari-
able is to be found, one would expect to find that it was
incorporated in the experimental designs of Reyher (1958,
1967), Perkins (1965) and Sommershield (1969); but not in
those of Wolfe (1971) or Karnilow (1971). It may or may
not be incorporated in Veenstra's study depending upon the
true significance of those other variables which he
intentionally left out of his design, i.e., the destructive
impulse and the directing of posthypnotic affect toward an
authority figure.

Reyher (personal communication) opined that a
hypnotic "pump-priming" procedure which he, Perkins and
Sommershield had used in their investigations may prove to
be this necessary, missing variable. If this should prove
to be the case, then the absense of "pump-priming" could
be invoked to explain the lack of psychopathology reported
in both Wolfe and Karnilow's study and provide a further

clue as to what may have happened in Veenstra's earlier

l6

investigation. This "pump-priming" consists of giving

the Ss a posthypnotic suggestion to report everything that
they feel after recognizing (or reading) a stimulus word
and to give an accurate and complete description of how
they feel. Such a suggestion would focus S's attention
onto those subjective feelings, sensations and thoughts
which are not normally verbalized in daily social inter-
action and intensify the unconscious affect and impulse.
On the other hand, we know from the earlier work of Reyher
(1967), Perkins (1965) and Sommershield (1969) that
instructions such as these do not bias experimental Ss
toward the spurious reporting of symptoms. Their studies,
which included hypnotically-susceptible simulating control
Ss, demonstrated clearly that the observed psychopathology
was not a result of any experimental demand character-
istics.

The present study, then, represented a logical
step in the effort to specify those variables that are
both necessary and sufficient conditions for the spontaneous
production of psychopathology in the laboratory. To this
end, all of the originally recognized variables were put
back into the technique. Variable #9 (amnesia) is to be
varied in a counter-balanced design with the newly recog-
nized "candidate variable" of "pump-priming." The rationale
for including the "pump-priming" variable has already been

discussed, and leads one to hypothesize that those Ss who

17

receive "pump-priming" will exhibit spontaneous psycho-
pathology. On the other hand, those Ss who do not receive
the "pump-priming" treatment should not exhibit those
kinds of symptoms.

A consideration of amnesia's role in Reyher's
paradigm is urgently needed in order to help explain some
of the theoretical issues that are created by its inclusion.
Bobbit (1958) equates hypnotically induced amnesia with the
natural phenomenon of repression; i.e., amnesia is seen as
the experimental analog of repression per se. She also
suggests that a high correlation might exist between the
degree of amnesia and the amount of observed verbal and
motor disturbance on a free-association task that is per-
formed posthypnotically.

Reyher, however, made it clear in his reply to
Levitt (1963) that he does not equate hypnotically induced
amnesia with repression. It is S's failure to become con-
sciously angry and/or to destroy the authority figure's
property that he sees as the operational definition of a
repressive process having taken place. In a recent paper
Sommershield and Reyher (1972) point this out again:

The inhibition of the posthypnotic execution of
the posthypnotically activated drive and impulse
appears to be the same process that Freud (1948)

called "repression"; it is an inhibitory response
produced by the posthypnotic drive and impulse (p. 24).

18

Elsewhere Reyher (1964, 1971) has lucidly detailed the
negative feedback mechanism by which repression acts upon
ascending impulses in such a way as to block conscious
apprehension of those drives and impulses that stimulate
anxiety. The sudden activation of intense anger-
aggression or oedipal-sex produces anxiety which in turn
signals the unconscious process of repression.

In the amnesia situation we have an artifically
aroused impulse to destroy property belonging to an
authority figure, which springs from an unknown or
unconscious source due to the amnesia suggestion. In the
test situation, this unconscious impulse is suddenly
activated and clamors for expression. However, as the S
becomes preconsciously aware of an intense, and yet
unexplainable, impulse to destroy an authority figure's
property and to express intense rage in a structured social
situation, he is thrown into intense conflict between
acting upon that impulse and his fear of social reprissal.
This conflict stimulates anxiety which in turn results in
a negative feedback activation or intensification of
primal repression in order to reduce the "pain" of this
conflict situation. Since there is a short reSponse
latency between the activation of the objectionable drive
and the response of intensified primal repression, some
anxiety and symptomatic disturbance may be observed until
a resolution is achieved (either a greater inhibitory

force is applied, or S acts on his impulses).

19

A no-amnesia condition would define a conflict
situation which does not include repression at all. Instead,
we'd see a conscious impulse activated by a conflict word
which, in turn, activates the same desire to destroy an
authority figure's property and/or to express an over-
whelming rage. In order to prevent an open conflict in the
social situation in which he is immersed, S would have to
suppress this conscious impulse and affect. Such suppres-
sion might be expected to produce hostility, anger and
conscious correlates of the conflict, but it would not pro-
duce the more physiological symptoms such as aches, organ
dysfunctioning, nausea, etc. that were so vivid in Reyher's
original work. An alternative course of events might also
be predicted for the no-amnesia condition. The sudden
activation of the anxiety producing impulses could produce
a completely spontaneous repression. This "repression
proper" would inhibit conscious impulse expression just as
primal repression would do in the case where hypnotic
amnesia is included in the procedure. To distinguish
between these two alternatives, one would look closely
at GSR data, the degree of apparent repression, and the
types of psychopathology exhibited by Ss. If suppression
is the most significant psychological process occurring
during the posthypnotic period, GSR activity would be
expected to increase in direct relationship with a greater

awareness of the induced anger and destructive impulses.

20

The types of disturbances experienced would also be more
psychological and subjective in nature rather than
physiological and objective. Further clarification of
this matter might be obtained if we looked at what happens
to those Ss who have received a posthypnotic suggestion
for amnesia when that amnesia is subsequently lifted and
the impulses suddenly activated. If primal repression
remains sufficiently effective, or the process of repres-
sion prOper is activated, then we would expect little
change in such S's GSR records, psychopathology or

verbalized awareness.

Hypotheses

 

1. A posthypnotic suggestion (pump-priming) to
report all feelings and thoughts accurately
and completely while experiencing the sudden
posthypnotic activation of anger-aggression
is necessary for the spontaneous production
of psychopathology.

2. An amnesia for the hypnotic session is a
necessary condition for the spontaneous pro-
duction of psychopathology.

3. Subjects that receive an amnesia will exhibit
less GSR activity than Ss who receive no
amnesia.

4. Subjects that have no-amnesia will produce
more hostile associations during free-
association than will Ss who have amnesia.

5. There will be more psychopathology, more
hostile associations and greater GSR activity
observed in response to conflict words than
to neutral words.

METHOD

Subjects

Sixteen subjects (Ss) were selected from a
volunteer female population on the basis of their ability
to experience complete posthypnotic amnesia, to success-
fully execute posthypnotic suggestions, and the absence
of any obvious emotional disturbance or psychopathology.l
The experimenter (S) first conducted a group hypnosis
session with between six and twelve potential Ss using a
procedure similar with that of Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard
(1959). Selection of the final 16 Ss resulted from sub-
sequent individual sessions utilizing an eye fixation
induction procedure and progressing through the hypnotic
tasks detailed in Appendix A.

Subjects were randomly assigned to four treatment
groups with amnesia and pump—priming varied across groups.
Because of a clerical error, an unequal number of Ss were

assigned to the various groups (see Table l).

 

lPrecaution: "There is reason to believe that the
hypnotic induction of conflict is potentially dangerous in
the hands of imprOperly trained individuals. It may be
possible to produce incapacitating symptoms if the conflict
is made too severe for the individual's repressive defenses
to handle. Moreover, it is not unlikely that this technique
can be tailored to produce severe neuroses and even psychoses
if the induced conflicts are constructed to dovetail with
the emotional conflicts of an emotionally unstable indi-
vidual" (Reyher, 1958).

21

22

TABLE l.--Assignment of subjects to groups.

 

 

 

. . Amnesia
Pump-priming
Yes No
Yes 4 4
No 3 5

 

Materials

 

A Grass #5 polygraph was used with electrodes
manufactured by the Yellow Springs Equipment Company.
These electrodes were attached to the palmar surface of
the first and third fingers of the right hand. A Uher
2000 audio-recorder was used to tape record each free-
association period and a random sample of complete
hypnotic sessions. Each stimulus word was typed in capital
letters in the center of a 3x5 index card for presentation
to Ss.

Subjects were seated in a reclining chair beside
the polygraph where S could both observe S and make nota-
tions as necessary on the polygraph write-out. On a
table next to S, there was a manuscript with an attached

note which read "Very Important, Do Not Touch!"

23

Procedures

 

First Experimental Session

 

A brief interview was held during each S's initial
individual session in order to detect any obvious emotional
disturbances or psychOpathology that would disqualify them
from participating in this study. S was hypnotized as
deeply as possible to insure that she was capable of
experiencing complete posthypnotic amnesia and of per-
forming posthypnotic suggestions. After insuring that S
could meet the above criteria, S gave the following
instructions:

Now as you sit comfortably in the chair, I am
going to show you some words, one at a time.

I want you to read that word out loud and from
then until I tell you to stop, I want you to tell
me everything that comes to your mind; everything
that comes to your attention, no matter what it
is. I know that it is hard to report everything
but do your best. I want you to report how you
feel as you are associating and a complete
description of how you are doing. Do you have
any questions?

Twenty-two stimulus words, all of AA frequency on
the Thorndike-Lorge word count (taken from Veenstra, 1969)
were presented, one at a time, for free-association by S.
"Chair" and "game" were used in the first session as
practice words only and not in any subsequent examination
of the data. Word order was determined by random selection
with the one constraint being that no series of three con—

secutive conflict words (c-words) or neutral words

(n-words) be allowed.

24

 

Word List:
1. laugh (c) 11. stand (c)
2. wish (n) 12. broken (n)
3. walk (n) 13. heavy (c)
4. store (c) 14. food (n)
5. narrow (n) 15. book (c)
6. fellow (c) 16. flower (n)
7. drop (0) l7. crowd (c)
8. travel (n) 18. tired (c)
9. music (n) 19. valley (n)
10. line (c) . 20. glass (n)

Second Experimental Session

 

In this session, Ss were again hypnotized to a
deep trance using the eye fixation method of induction.
Using an adaptation of Erickson's method (1944), the
following paramnesia was related as convincingly as
possible to each S, with frequent checks being made to
insure that S was accepting the paramnesia as real and
experiencing appropriate affect. The paramnesia was
designed as a credible experience for the S and to allow
a gradual development of intense anger. The experimenter
recounted the experience for S as he would if it were true
and he varied the tempo of his presentation so as to

heighten realism and intensify the S's anger.

Paramnesia Introduction

Now as you continue to rest in a deep, sleep-like
state, I'm going to recall to your mind an event
which occurred not too long ago. As I recount this
event to you, you will recall fully and completely
everything that happened. As I recall this experi-
ence you will remember each and every detail fully.

25

Now bear in mind that while I repeat what I know of
this event, you will recall fully and completely
everything just as it happened, and more than that,
you will remember the emotions which you had at
this time, and you will feel as you did while this
occurrance was taking place. Nod your head if you
understand (After Erickson, 1944).

Paramnesia

 

Now the particular event of which I am going to
tell you happened at the bookstore.

The bookstore was very busy, crowded with people.
As soon as you see the bookstore crowded with people,
let me know by nodding your head. Nod your head to
let me know when you see the large number of peOple
that were milling around. You had picked up a full
armload of books and had your money (bills and coins)
in your hand. On top you had a bag lunch and a
hardbound book that you had really been looking
forward to buying. Nod your head when you see that
bag lunch and the special book. Having picked up
all the books you needed, you walked to the end of
the checkout line. Nod your head when you reach
the end of the checkout line.

The line was long. It inched forward so slowly;
so slowly that you wondered if it was moving at all.
You grew tired of waiting; you were tired and
impatient. Nod your head when you feel the impati-
ence you felt then. The line moved so slowly that
you grew tired of holding your books. The books
became heavier and heavier. Your arms ached from
holding them. Nod your head when you feel the
aching in your arms. Other people had fallen in
line behind you as you waited. You waited and
waited and grew more and more impatient and tired;
your arms ached more and more. The person behind
you shoved into you; and boy, that irritated you.
Nod your head when you recall the shove. It irri-
tated you that people were so inconsiderate and rude.
Out of the corner of your eye you saw two men walking
towards you. One of them pushed his way through the
line right in front of you, bumping you and almost
making you drOp that special book you had been
looking forward to reading. Nod your head when you
see that man cutting through the line and bumping
you. That really made you angry. You were thinking
that you'd had just about enough. It would take
just one more thing like that to make you feel like
boiling over with anger.

26'

Just then someone tapped you on the shoulder.

As you turned your head to see who it was you noticed
that it was the instructor from one of the courses
you had enrolled in. He asked you to step back.

Nod your head when you recall hearing him ask you to
step back. Assuming that he wanted to go through
too, you stepped back, bumping into the person
behind you, who snapped at you crossly, "Watch it!"
To your astonishment, your instructor stepped into
the line, taking your place. That did it! Anger
surged up within you. You thought to yourself,

"Who the hell does he think he is?"

Just then a friend of his started to step into
line and you moved forward to close the gap, but
"bang!" he bumped into you, spilling all your books,
the money, and the contents of your lunch bag all
over the floor. There were books, money, and the
contents of your lunch bag all over the place. What
a mess! Nod your head if you see it. As you had
stooped to pick up the books, money and lunch, your
instructor's friend stepped into your place. That
made you furious! You picked up a book and saw
that the binding was broken; the pages were crumpled
and smudged with dirt. It was your favorite book,
the Special one you had been looking forward to
reading. NOd your head if you see the broken book.
You were just boiling with anger inside; you were
fuming and seething with rage. As you knelt down
to pick up your money, books and lunch bag, your
instructor commented sarcastically, "You dropped
something." Those words really burned you; you were
infuriated!

As though that was not enough, he turned to his
friend and snickered, "You want to see something
funny, look." Then you heard them both laughing;
laughing and laughing; really enjoying your predica-
ment. With every laugh your anger surged up more
uncontrollably. You were swept up in overwhelming
feelings of anger and rage. You hated these men;
and once again you find yourself feeling those
powerful emotions. You feel them right now with
your whole body.

Instructions for Conflict Words

Now as I mention the following words you are
reminded of that incident, and your anger will
become even more intense. With each word an
intense rage will boil up inside you.

laugh, store, fellow, drop, line, stand,
heavy, book, crowd, tired.

27

Destructive Impulse Suggestions

Now listen carefully. After you are awakened,
whenever these words come into your mind you will
experience these same overwhelming feelings of rage.
When these feelings of hate and anger boil up, you
will realize that it is that instructor from the
bookstore who wrote the manuscript on the table
next to you, and you will have an overwhelming
urge to tear them up (repeat). Nod your head if
you understand!

Pump-priming Instructions

Just one more thing, whenever you read or hear
these words--laugh, store, fellow, drop, line, stand,
heavy, book, crowd, or tired--you will give me an
accurate and complete description of how you feel.
You will also give me a complete and accurate
description of how you feel whenever I ask you
either "How are you doing?" or "How do you feel?"

Nod your head if you understand.

To bring the S back to a relaxed hypnotic state:

Now you can feel your anger slowly fading away
with each breath. Your feelings of anger are
draining away as you gradually feel more and more
calm and relaxed. The bookstore and your angry
feelings are fading away. Nod your head when ’
your anger is gone.

After the S was again relaxed and resting in a deep trance,
the following instructions were given to insure that no

posthypnotic resistance would interfere with subsequent
hypnosis:

Before I awaken you, there are a couple more
things that I must tell you. After I awaken you
and you free-associate to some words, I will have
to hypnotize you once again. When I inform you
that we have come to that point in the experiment
at which I must hypnotize you again, you will want
to be hypnotized. Do you understand? When that
time comes, I will have you lean back in the chair
as you are now and ask you to concentrate on an
empty ring box. As you concentrate on the box it

28

will slowly close, and as it closes, your eyes
will slowly close too and you will fall back into
a deep hypnotic trance just like you are in right
now. Nod your head if you understand.

Amnesia Instructions

 

OK, continue to listen carefully. After I
awaken you everything that has happened during
this session will fade out of your memory and into
your unconscious mind. After you are awakened you
will not be able to remember anything about your
experience in the bookstore. It and everything
that happened in this session will be just like
a dream that you had while you were asleep and
which you cannot remember after awakening, or
just like a word on the tip of your tongue that
you just cannot remember even if you should try.
Nod your head if you understand.

You will not be able to remember anything at
all about this session until I say "Ok, now you
can remember everything." Then you will be able
to remember everything that has happened in this
session. Nod your head if you understand.

The S was then awakened slowly and allowed to
adjust to the laboratory surroundings and lights. Follow-
ing this readjustment period, each S was given the twenty-
word free-association task just as it was administered in
the first experimental session. Ss who received the
amnesia treatment were given the posthypnotic cue for the
return of memory, and were asked to free-associate once
again to the first ten stimulus words on the above list.
Finally, all Ss were re-hypnotized and all induced post-
hypnotic suggestions were canceled. They were told that
the paramnesia was a false story invented by S and that
they would be able to remember as much of it as they liked

upon awakening. Finally, the experiment was explained in

29

both the hypnotic and waking states, and a thorough check
was made to insure against any lingering disturbance in S.
To summarize the procedure:

Group Session:

 

a. 15 minute discussion about hypnosis

b. Eye-closure induction procedure

c. Hypnotic tasks following Weitzenhoffer
and Hilgard's Stanford Hypnotic
Susceptibility Scale.

Experimental Session I:

a. Discussion about previous group session
and some history taking of Ss

b. Hypnosis induced and the progression of
tasks outlined under "Hypnotic Steps"
(Appendix A) performed.

c. Free-association (gathering of base-rate
data).

Experimental Session IIa:
a. Brief discussion to establish rapport

b. Experimental procedure carried through
as described above

0. 15 minute rest period
d. Free-association to 20 c- and n-words.
Experimental Session IIb:

a. Posthypnotic cue ("Ok, now you can
remember everything") given

b. Free-association to first 10 c- and
n—words.

30

Sessions IIa and 11b Continued:

 

a. Ss rehypnotised

b. Ss asked to recall paramnesia, and told
that it was a false story

c. Removal of all posthypnotic suggestions
d. Ss thanked for participation
e. Ss awakened, thanked for their participa-

tion and checked for any residual arousal
to c-words.

Measures and Scoring Procedures

 

GSR Activation

A galvanic skin response (GSR) greater than a
2,000 ohm deflection was considered as being significant.
The frequency of GSR responses were counted for all stimulus
words for the 30 seconds following their presentation to S.
This measure was used to compare differences in autonomic
arousal between treatment groups, and between 0- and n-

words.

Symptomatic Reactions

The symptomatic reactions of S were classified
according to the categories described by Reyher (1969b) and
as detailed in Appendix B. Two different symptomatic
scores were obtained for each S in each session. The
first was obtained by two graduate students in Clinical
Psychology independently scoring the typed protocols of
S's sessions. Subjective, verbally reported symptomatology

was detected by this means.

31

Objective, or overtly behavioral, symptoms were
noted by S during each experimental session. This
observational method was used to record symptoms that
might lie entirely outside the awareness of S and there-
fore not be indicated by S while she was ego-involved in
the free-association task. Again, the scoring period
was for thirty seconds following word presentation with
the exception that if S's question "How are you doing?“
or "How do you feel?" was asked at the end of the 30
seconds, then Ss first verbal response to the question

was scored.

Hostility

A measure of S's hostility was obtained by scoring
her typed protocol for hostile associations. These asso-
ciations were assigned to one of three levels of socializa-
tion and directness (after Pine, 1960) and to one of two
levels of psychological distance. This scoring measure
was included to measure whether anger was being expressed,
and if so, how directly. (See Appendix C for the classi-

fications of these associations.)

Repression Index

Reyher (1967) developed an index of repression
based upon the assumption that repression is the opposite
of the S's awareness of his impulses and affect. When

known impulses and their attendant affect are aroused

32

posthypnotically one might assume that the S who
verbalizes less awareness of these impulses and affect
has, in fact, repressed them more completely from con-
sciousness than has the S who verbalizes his anger and/or
his desire to destroy the authority figure's property.
Revising Reyher's original index somewhat, we arrive at

the following operational definition of repression:2

 

2Reyher' 5 original index was revised in order to
make the meaning of R clearer and its use somewhat more
convenient. With the original index,

_ 3ZFA + ZZPA + cc - CR
R-

Tc
the stronger the S's repressive forces, the lower was his
R index (e. g., a S with an R index of .2 is much more
severely repressed than the S with an R index of 1.8).
This has been somewhat confusing in the past because R
was interpreted as representing "repression" and therefore
one could easily assume that the greater a S's R index, the
more repression he has exhibited. The revised index
reported here reverses the distribution and meaning of
the original R index scores so that they are now a direct
reflection of S' 5 use of repression, i. e., a large R
score (e. g., .8) implies greater repression than does a
low R score (e. g., -l. 2).

A second problem with the original index concerned
the term "CR." The absense of symptoms was part of CR's
definition and therefore the index could not be justi-
fiably correlated against frequency of symptoms because
the two variables were not independent. There is also a
problem when one uses the same concept or word that one is
trying to define, on the one hand, within his subsequent
definition, on the other. That is, "repression" (R) on
one side of an equation cannot be defined if that same
term is also included on the other side of the equation.

 

33

_ NA - (3ZFA + ZZPA + CC)
Tc

 

where:

NA represents a complete lack of verbalized
awareness of either the destructive impulse
or anger at c-word presentation.

FA represents S's full awareness of both the
destructive impulse and anger at c-word
presentation

PA represents an awareness of only one aspect
of the anger-aggression conflict upon
c-word presentation

CC represents conscious correlates of the
unconscious anger-aggression that S becomes
aware of upon c-word presentation (e.g.,
irritation, frustration).

Tc is the number of c-words presented to S
during the session.

Because of the ever-present possibility that Ss
would suppress reporting impulses (i.e., the destructive
urge) and feelings (i.e., anger) that are generally felt
to be improper or undesireable, the above formula gives a
compensating weighting factor of 3 for any instance of

reported full awareness of anger-aggression and 2 for a

report of either one of these elements.

RESULTS

Inter-rater Reliability

 

The verbatim protocols of the 16 Ss' free-
association sessions were independently rated by two
judges and the inter-rater correlations are shown in
Table 2. These reliabilities were sufficient (p < .001)
and compare favorably with those previous investigations

of Veenstra (1969), Sommershield (1969), and Perkins (1965).

TABLE 2.--Inter-rater correlations on Subjective
Symptomatology and Hostility.

 

 

Measure Larison Veenstra Sommershield Perkins
Symptoms .89* -- .95** .96*
Hostility .60* .65* -- --

 

*
Pearson r correlation
**
Spearman rho correlat1on.

Pre-test Measures

 

There were thirty-two (32) verbalized or sub-
jective symptoms scored for our 16 Ss on Session I for a
mean of two symptoms per subject. While there were no
significant differences in the distribution of these

symptoms acrOss groups, significantly more symptoms were

34

35

reported in response to c-words than to n-words (p < ,05).
Similarly, for the thirty-seven (37) hostile associations
scored, there were no significant differences found between
treatment groups, but significantly more hostile associa-
tions were made to c—words than to n—words (p < .05).
Because of this pre-test bias in favor of c-words drawing
more hostile associations and subjective reports of symptoms,
all further comparisons between c- and n-words in Session
II have been corrected for the individual S's pre-test
scores.

Eight instances of objective behavior were scored
as being indicative of intense anxiety or psychopathology
during Session I. There were no significant differences in
the distribution of these symptoms either between groups
or between c- and n-words. Similarly there was no signifi-
cant distribution of GSR activity between groups or betWeen

c- and n-words.

Session IIa

 

In Table 3 the comparisons between the various
treatment groups and between c- and n-words on the major

dependent variables are presented.

Psychopathology

 

Amnesia Ss experienced an average (mean) of 4.65
subjective symptoms in reSponse to c-word presentations

which was not significantly different from the 5.65

36

TABLE 3.--Comparisons between those Ss with amnesia (Amn)
and those without amnesia (Amn); those that
received pump-primigg_instructions (P-P) and
those who did not (P-P); and between conflict
words (c-words) and neutral words (n-words).

 

 

 

 

Comparisons
Variables
Amn>Amn Amn<Amn P-P>P-P c->n-words
Subjective Symptoms NO -- NO YES**
Objective Symptoms Trend -- NO YES***
GSR —- YES*** —— YES***
Hostility -- NO -- NO
Repression Index YES* -- -- --
*
p < .02
**
p < .01
***
p < .005
symptoms experience by the no-amnesia Ss (t = 0.47).

Likewise the comparison between those Ss who received
pump-priming instructions and those that did not reveals
no significant differences in the incidense of subjective
psychopathology (t = .39).

Looking at the less reliable indicator of psycho-
pathology, that of objectively displayed symptoms, we
find the same statistical results across these two
comparisons. However, there was a strong trend in the
predicted direction for the comparison Amn > AER (means

of 14.7 vs. 8.3 symptom scores).

37

Wilcoxian sign-tests for subjective symptoms and
objective symptoms reveal highly significant differences
between c-words and n-words, and those differences are in

the predicted direction.

9E3

This indicator of autonomic arousal clearly dif~
ferentiated between those Ss who received amnesia and
those who did not. The amnesia group had an average of
6.84 reactions of 2,000 ohm deflection compared with 18.45
reactions for the no-amnesia group (t = 3.83). GSR was

equally significant in the c-word vs. n-word comparison

(t = 3.17).

Hostility

 

The hostility measure used in this study proved
to be a very inadequate indicator of the underlying psycho-
dynamic activity inferred to be activated within our Ss.
None of the comparisons performed in this study using
the hostile associations score proved significant; i.e.,
there were no significant differences between amnesia vs.
no-amnesia, c-word vs. n-word, session IIa vs. session I,

or session IIb vs. session IIa.

Repression Index

 

The repression index showed a very significant

differentiation between amnesia and no-amnesia subjects

38

(t = 2.68, p < .02). Based on the assumption that
repression varies inversely with verbalized awareness of
anger-aggression, amnesia Ss evidenced consistantly
greater repression than did no-amnesia Ss. There was no

such difference between pump-priming groups.

Session IIb

 

For those seven subjects who received amnesia,
posthypnotic removal of the amnesia did not lead to any
significant variation in their scores on the dependent
variables. However, in view of this study's small n, the
trend that was observed for objective symptoms to decrease
in frequency with the removal of amnesia is suggestive,

and in the direction that one might predict.

Between Sessions

 

In Table 4 the comparisons between sessions are
summarized for each dependent variable.

There were large increases in the reported fre--
quencies of subjective symptoms, objective symptoms and
GSRs in response to c-word presentation in Session IIa as
compared to pretest conditions. This suggests that all
four of our treatment procedures were effective in
illiciting spontaneous psychopathology and autonomic
arousal. An examination of what happened upon n-word
presentation in Session IIa as compared with base-rate

levels, reveals no significant differences in those

39

TABLE 4.--Comparisons between S's scores to c- and n-words
in session I (pre-tegt) vs. those scores in
session IIa; and for those seven amnesia Ss, a
comparison between session IIa and IIb.

 

 

 

Variable Session I vs. Session IIa vs.
Session IIa Session IIb
Subjective Symptoms
c-words increased** n.s.d.
n-words increased**
Objective Symptoms
c—words increased** n.s.d.
n-words n.s.d.
GSR
c-words increased* n.s.d.
n-words n.s.d.
Hostility
c-words n.s.d n.s.d
n-words n.s.d.
Repression Index -- n.s.d.
*
p < .05
'k
p < .005

measures that reflect involuntary responses (objective
symptoms and GSR activation). However, there appears to
have been significant generalization of subjectively
experienced disturbance from c-words onto n-words. This
is evidenced by the significantly increased frequency of
subjective symptomatology from Session I to Session IIa
for both c- and n—words, with the magnitude of this

increase being much greater for c-words than for n-words.

40

There were no statistically significant changes in
amnesic Ss' responses on any of our dependent variables

when amnesia was lifted posthypnotically.

Summary and Conclusions

 

The results of this study clearly do not support
the inclusion of posthypnotic amnesia nor pump-priming in
a list of necessary variables for the spontaneous produc-
tion of psychOpathology and repression using Reyher's
paradigm. Subjects who received neither the amnesia
instructions nor pump-priming reported substantially the
same frequency of psychopathology in response to c-word
presentation as did those Ss who were given amnesia and/or
pump-priming. The trend that was observed for Amnesia S5
to experience more objective symptoms suggests that while
amnesia may not be a necessary variable, it may potentiate
the effects of those, as yet unidentified, variables that
are necessary and sufficient for the production of psycho-
pathology. Amnesia also seems to intensify Ss' repressive
mechanism (as measured by the R index) in response to
sudden activation of ego-alien impulses. Hypotheses l and
2 are rejected, therefore, by the results of this study,
although the inclusion of amnesia in future investigations
may be worthwhile.

Hypothesis 3 was supported by our results: Ss who

receive amnesia reSpond with less GSR activation than do Ss

41

for whom posthypnotic amnesia is not suggested. While no
hypothesis was made concerning differences between treat-

‘ ment groups for their Repression Index scores, this may be.
an appropriate place to point out that amnesia Ss obtained
significantly higher scores on that index than did no-
amnesia S5.

The data on Ss hostile associations were not very
informative, but the absense of between-group differences
seems to indicate that memory for the paramnesia does not
substantially encourage the expression of the hostility
that is presumably aroused by the paramnesia. Therefore,
hypothesis 4 which predicted more hostile associations for
the no-amnesia groups is rejected.

The increased pathogenicity of c-words in Session
II compared to the same words in SeSsion I, and the dif-
ference in pathogenicity between c- and n-words in Session
II partially confirms hypothesis 5. The prediction for
more symptomatology and GSR activity in response to c-words
than to n-words was confirmed, but the expected increase

in hostile associations to c-words was not found.

DISCUSSION

The Paradigm

 

The initial focus of this research was an attempt
to clarify the paradigm that Reyher first enunciated in
1958 and to specify one or two variables that are necessary
to that paradigm in order to produce spontaneous repression
and psychopatholoqy under controlled laboratory conditions.
Previous descriptions of this procedure (Reyher, 1969a;
Veenstra, 1969; Karnilow, 1971; Wolfe, 1971) identified at
least twelve variables that might be of significance in
reliably producing repression and the symptomatic reactions:

1. Subjects are told while under hypnosis . . .

2. a false story about themselves (paramnesia) . . .

 

3. which arouses a strong affect, such as rage,. ..

 

4. that is hypnotically associated with post-
hypnotic cue-words (conflict words).

 

5. Further, this affect is directed toward an
authority figure and . . .

 

6. combined with an overwhelming (loss of
control) . . .

7. impulse to destroy that authority's property
(destructive impulse).

 

8. An amnesia is given for the paramnesia but
not for the associated rage and destructive
impulse.

9. The affect is posthypnotically aroused . . .

 

42

43

10. and the drive suddenly activated . . .

 

11. by the S verbalizing the c-word.

 

12. It is also thought to be important that S
respond to S and his behavior in an accepting,
non-directive manner (E's relationship with S).

 

This study looked at variable 8 (amnesia) and a

new proposed variable, called "pump-priming,‘ to see if
the elimination of either one or both of them would result
in a lack of psychopathology, GSR activation and expres-

sions of hostility. We found that neither variable is a

necessary one for the production of those dependent

 

reSponses, although a slight potentiating effect was
observed for amnesia.

Bruce Burns in a recently completed doctoral
dissertation (1972) used this paradigm for implanting
conflict experimentally in his subjects, and observed
significant psychopathology without explicitly suggesting
a posthypnotic amnesia for his paramnesia. He also modified
variables 4, 7, and 11. Instead of associating the
hypnotically aroused affect with posthypnotic cue-words,
he associated it with the S closing his eyes for free
imagery (Reyher, 1969b) during the posthypnotic portion
of the experimental sessions. Therefore, it appears that
variable 4 could be generalized to "the hypnotically
aroused affect is associated with specific posthypnotic
cues." Burns modified variable 7 from hypnotically sug-

gesting a destructive impulse, to S having an impulse to

44

talk about their destructive impulses and sexual feelings
rather than acting on them in any objective way, with the
resultant psycholOgical disturbance being vividly demon-
strated. These two studies clearly justify a modification
of variable 7: "aroused affect is combined with an ego-
alien impulse." Finally, Burns did not incorporate a list
of conflict—words into his experimental design, and there-
fore, variable 11 appears to be unnecessary to the paradigm.
Rather than verbalizing c-words, or even presenting c-words
per se, any suitable posthypnotic cue that can be pre—
sented suddenly by S to S will serve the necessary

purpose of stimulating S's hypnotically suggested affect
and impulses.

The S's posthypnotically aroused affect does not
have to be overwhelming in order to be effective in this
procedure. Perkins and Reyher (1971), Reyher (1967) and
Sommerschield (1969) varied the strength of Ss' affect
from "mild" to "overwhelming" through three stages of
drive intensity, and obtained significant psychOpathology
at every level. As a matter of fact, Sommerschield found
a curvilinear relationship between drive intensity and
resulting disturbance, suggesting that, at least for an
anger paramnesia, a less—than—overwhelming level of

arousal may be optimal for symptom formation.

45

Psychotherapeutic experience using uncovering pro-
cedures suggest that if S maintains an accepting, non-
directive attitude toward S, the latter will be less
likely to suppress his feelings and impulses, thereby
sharpening the distinction in our data between repressed
and suppressed material. While the maintenance of this
attitude is probably not a necessary variable for this
paradigm (beyond the implications of that relationship
for the hypnotic process itself), future investigators
may desire to maintain it so as to increase the effective-
ness of the basic (necessary and sufficient) paradigm.

In summary, we are now of the Opinion that the
following variables are necessary and sufficient for the
production of spontaneous repression and psychopathology:

1. During hypnosis, S tells S . . .

2. a paramnesia . . .

 

3. that arouses strong affect in S . . .

 

4. which is directed toward an inappropriate
object (e.g., authority figure, oedipal
f1gure, etc.).

 

5. This affect's subsequent arousal is associated
with a specific posthypnotic cue(s) . . .

 

6. and is combined with an impulse to act in an
ego-alien manner.

 

 

7. The affect and impulse are aroused suddenly
(sudden activation of drive) . . .

 

8. in the posthypnotic session (posthypnotic
arousal).

 

46

Perhaps the most critical, and as yet least under-
stood, variable in this revised list is that of the par-
amnesia. In an attempt to explain their lack of results,
Karnilow (1971) and Wolfe (1971) drew attention to the
importance of the specific paramnesia used in this kind
of research. These paramnesias represent a complex inter-
action of many different feelings and impulses in addition
to the one or two that S is explicitly concerned with.

For example, the Oedipal-sex paramnesia used by Burns
(1972) and Sommerschield (1969) not only arouses sexual
feelings but also feelings of guilt, inadequacy and fear.
Looking at the content of the anger-aggression paramnesia
used in their study and that of Veenstra's, Karnilow and
Wolfe suggest that it is not pathogenic because it fails

to arouse guilt within S for past behavior that is no
longer under his control. That is, the paramnesia may not
be pathogenic because no reprehensible act on S's part is
included within the story, and S can avert arousing a super-
ego reaction (which would stimulate anxiety, repression and
pathology in that order) by merely choosing not to act

upon the aroused impulse. Without the paramnesia arousing
a superego component within S's psyche, Wolfe and Karnilow
reason that the memory of the paramnesia and even the
expression of anger are not repugnant to S and, therefore,

are not pathogenic.

47

While Wolfe and Karnilow's argument sounds reason-
able and probably has some validity, it appears too
simplistic when the results of the present research are
considered. The paramnesia used here is precisely the same
one that was used by Karnilow, Wolfe, and Veenstra, but in
contrast to their investigations, this study did produce
significant psychopathology, GSR activation, and spontaneous
repression. In comparison with Sommershield's data, the
subjects in this investigation reported subjective symptoms
at about the same frequency as his Ss did at his lowest
level of drive activation. GSR activation was also
greater in this study than in Sommerschield's, which
suggests that an overall lower level of repression (R
index) was activated in the former. Together, these two
subjective comparisons suggest that perhaps the paramnesia
used both here, and by Veenstra, Karnilow, and Wolfe, is
in fact not as pathogenic as those used by Reyher,

Perkins, Sommerschield, and Burns.

If one concludes that the anger-aggression
paramnesia used in this study is only marginally effective
in producing spontaneous repression and its resultant
symptomatic reactions, then one still needs to account for
the fact that in this study pathology was observed, while
it was not in Veenstra, Karnilow and Wolfe's studies. In
the above discussion concerning the probably necessary

variables for this paradigm, it was suggested that

48

directing the ego-alien impulse at an authority figure is
very important. Veenstra eliminated this variable from
his design and it's absence may account for his Ss' lack
of pathology in response to posthypnotic stimulation of
the impulse. It is considerably less clear as to why
Wolfe and Karnilow did not observe symptomatology in
their Ss. However, in reporting their findings, Wolfe
and Karnilow did bring attention to possibly significant
experimenter-subject interactions, such as sex differences.
At this point there is no definitive explanation for the
paradoxical results of this study and that of Wolfe and
Karnilow. One possible explanation is that experimenter
differences in their study were sufficient to mask any
‘group differences between those Ss who received instruC-

tions for a destructive impulse and those who did not.

Improvements for Experimental Design

 

As noted above, the paramnesia used in this study
has been inconsistant in its pathogenicity across several
independent studies. It was suggested that this particular
paradigm is only minimally effective because it includes no
reprehensible act on S's part that would arouse a super-
ego reaction in that S. While the paramnesia does arouse
genuine anger in S, anger is more easily expressed in the
academic sub-culture from which our Ss were drawn (and

therefore less anxiety producing) than acting on an

49

impulse that would arouse intense anxiety. Therefore,
it might be more useful to discard the paramnesia used
in this study in favor of those more potent paramnesias
used by Reyher (1958, 1967), Perkins and Reyher (1971),
Sommerschield (1969), and Burns (1972).

We are of the opinion that another reason for
this study's somewhat less vivid psychOpathology, especially
of the psychosomatic type, in comparison to that observed
by Reyher, Perkins, Sommerschield, and Burns, is that our
Ss were given a specific cognitive task to perform follow-
ing the presentation of cue-words. This free association
task, which was also incorporated in Veenstra, Wolfe and
Karnilow's studies, may enable the S to bind much of the
anxiety that is created by the conflict's posthypnotic
stimulation. By giving the S a specific task to perform,
we give him a way of filling that period of time between
c-word presentation and the re-establishment of equilibrium
between S's drive strength and his repressive forces (see
below). The free-association task, then, helps S defend
against becoming aware of the conflict going on within him,
by mobilizing his conscious faculties in response to a
specific external task. Therefore, it may be more produc-
tive to leave Ss without a specific task to complete
following c-word presentation in future studies.

A third improvement for this type of research

would be the perfection of an unobtrusive observational

50

method of detecting non-verbalized, objective symptoms
that may in fact lie outside the S's awareness. This S
used Reyher's symptom classification list as a way of
categorizing observations that he made during each
hypnotic session with Ss. As can be seen above under
"Results," this measure seems to have great promise for
helping to discover exactly what is happening to S when
intrapsychic conflict is suddenly stimulated. It is our
opinion that the use of Burns (1972) symptom list and
independent observer-raters who are unaware of the
study's purpose and its experimental hypotheses, would
result in an unbiased and reliable instrument for this
line of research.

The final improvement that we can suggest for
future studies in this line of research involves the
wording of the amnesia instructions and their temporal
placement within the experimental procedure. As Perkins
and Reyher (1971) have pointed out, it is important that
the instructions for posthypnotic amnesia apply only to
the paramnesia and not to those suggestions for post-
hypnotic arousal of anger and a destructive impulse. The
amnesia instructions used in this study are somewhat con-
fusing because they include the phrase: "It [the book-
store incident] and everything that happened in this
session will be just like a dream that you had while you
were asleep and which you cannot remember after awakening

. . . even if you should try." This instruction could

51

conceivably be interpreted by S to mean that he is to
forget about the suggestions for anger-aggression arousal
as well as the paramnesia. By rewording the amnesia
instructions to make them less ambiguous and placing them
directly after the paramnesia (instead of following all
other instructions) this confusion might be averted in
future studies.

In summary, it is believed that the use of
paramnesias that include instances of S acting in ways
repugnant to his super-ego, the elimination of any
artificial cognitive tasks during the posthypnotic period,
the development of an unbiased and reliable observational
method for detecting behavioral reactions to the stimula-
tion of intrapsychic conflict, and the clarification of
.our amnesia instructions, will help make this research
paradigm more productive and sensitive to underlying
dynamic processes.

Relationship Between Drive
and RepressIBn

 

 

What is the relationship between the procedural
steps of the paradigm discussed above and the inferred
processes of drive and repression? The paramnesias used
to date in this line of research have been designed to
arouse intense affect within the hypnotic S which is
associated with the suggestion of a reprehensible post-

hypnotic behavior which is to be performed upon

52

posthypnotic arousal of the affect. Specifically in this
study the paramnesia was designed to arouse anger in the
S and to channel that anger, and a suggestion to destroy
personal property, toward an authority figure. Upon
awakening the S, these posthypnotic suggestions act as
natural impulses upon the S's adult ego and clamor for
expression. It is the stimulation of this affect and its
associated impulse that produces the S's drive to satisfy
those impulses.

Repression is an inhibitory feedback mechanism
(Reyher, 1963, 1969a, b) which tends to block the expres-
sion of such aroused impulses. Freud pointed out that
intrapsychic conflict was produced by aroused impulses
because, in the person's past, acting on those impulses
led to traumatic external conflict with significant others
in that person's environment. The impulses become asso-
ciated with painful trauma and therefore, are subsequently
defended against--repression is the most basic, or

'"primitive,' of these defenses. This repression may be
activated against the expression of these repugnant
impulses at any one of several places in the paradigm.
If the particular paramnesia used in a study of this
type ties into a particularly potent conflict already
existing within a particular S, primal repression may

inhibit the experiencing of the "induced affect" even

within the hypnotic session. In such cases one would

53

observe little behavioral or autonomic arousal during the
hypnosis session itself, and no awareness of anger or an
objectionable impulse during the posthypnotic period. As
far as S could discern, no S in this study failed to
experience genuine anger during the hypnotic presentation
of our paramnesia. Therefore, this theoretical source of
repression, in its extreme form, can probably be eliminated
from consideration as far as the present study is concerned.
Assuming that the S has had no past experience that
was so traumatic as to activate complete primal repression,
he will be able to experience the affect upon S's sug-
gestion of it in the hypnotic session. A posthypnotic
amnesia then serves only to make the suggested impulse
and affect function as an unconscious drive upon posthyp-
notic activation. It also serves as an unconscious model
to S for handling this particular impulse and its result-
ing conflict. Therefore, when the drive (suggested
affect, impulse and S's need to complete the posthypnotic
suggestion) is posthypnotically activated it leads to a
momentary disequilibrium between the anxiety-producing
impulses and any primal repressive forces which may be
keeping them in check. During this brief time, several
transitory outcomes may be observed (e.g., anxiety and
symptoms) until a final resolution of the conflict is
achieved; be that an autoplastic strengthening of primal

repression and/or activation of repression proper, or an

54

alloplastic resolution such as acting on the socially
unacceptable impulses. If the aroused drive is relatively
weak, increased repression is the most economical response
for S in terms of psychological energy. On the other hand,
if the aroused drive is very intense for S, the repressive
force may give way to impulse expression and the conflict
becomes an external one between S and his society.

It was concluded above and in several earlier
reports (Reyher, 1967, 1969b, and Burns, 1972) that sudden
activation of a repressed drive causes a temporary dis-
equilibrium between that drive's anxiety-producing
impulses and the repression which inhibits their expres-
sion. During this short period of time, a variety of
transitory outcomes may be observed such as psychosomatic
symptoms, autonomic arousal and anxiety. If the drive is
relatively weak, the forces of repression soon dominate
the interplay again and the S fails to achieve awareness
into the nature of the anxiety-producing impulses. On the
other hand, if the aroused drive complex is relatively
intense, it will break through the repressive, or
inhibitory, mechanism and enter into the S's consciousness.
In either case, we are referring to the relative strengths
of the drive complex which strives for S's attention and
action, and the inhibitory feedback mechanism (repression)
that tends to keep that drive unconscious. Repression and

drive, then, can both take on a continuum of values in

55

terms of their strengths, and these two processes always
oppose one another. The Repression Index used in this
study is useful in objectifying this relative strength of
repression only when that strength takes on a low relative
value, and an awareness of the underlying drive complex
starts breaking into consciousness. The free-imagery
technique used by Burns clearly shows that the continuum
of awareness (and, therefore, the range of our R index) is
not equivalent to the continuum of repression. By focusing
on the relative strength of the S's drive, as Burns did,
one can see that this drive can increase (and therefore
the relative strength of repression decrease) for a long
time before it ever begins to be verbalized in awareness.
Awareness of the drive only occurs near the weak end of
the repression continuum. One difficulty with this type
of research is that there is no independent method for
measuring both repression and drive at the same time; we
use a measure of the relative strength of repression, and
Burns used a relative measure of drive. This current
"state of the art," as it were, makes direct comparisons
between studies that used different paramnesias or pro-
cedures somewhat tenuous.

The following energy flow diagrams (Figures l-4)
are presented to illustrate and summarize the foregoing
discussion. Figures 1 and 2 depict two extreme relation-

ships between drive and repression; i.e., where drive is

56

 

 

 

 

inferred observable
DRIVE ;>Unconscious > ACTION AND AWARENESS
CNS Activity (e.g., R = -2.8)
REPRESSION (unconscious memories,

fantasies, etc.)

 

 

ANXIETY > SYMPTOMS (very few)

Figure l.--Flow diagram for the high drive-low
repression situation.

 

 

 

inferred observable
DRIVEL §Unconscious~ >ACTION AND AWARENESS
CNS Activity = NONE (e.g., R=1.0)
REPRESSION (unconscious memories,

fantasies, etc.)

 

ANXIETY >SYMPTOMS (very few)

 

 

Figure 2.--Flow diagram for the high repression-
1ow drive situation. '

very much stronger than the repressive inhibitory forces,

and vice versa. The width of the arrows in these diagrams

 

indicates the relative amount of energy involved in each
process.
Figures 3 and 4 both represent an intermediate

situation such as we observed in this study.

Repression and Symptoms

 

Reyher (1967, 1969a) and Perkins (1965) found an
inverse relationship between level of repression and both
frequency of verbalized symptomatic reactions and the

number of types of symptoms reported. Those Ss who

57

inferred observable

 

DRIVE ,> Unconscious: PARTIAL AWARENESS
CNS Activity (e.g., R = .4)

(unconscious memories,

fantasies, etc.)

ANXIETY /> SYMPTOMS (many)

 
 
  

REPRESS ION

 

Figure 3.--Flow diagram for a high drive, high
repression situation

 

 

inferred observable
DRIVE j) Unconscious: PARTIAL AWARENESS
CNS Activity (r = .4)
REPRESSION (unconscious memories,

fantasies, etc.)

 

 

ANXIETY4. A;> SYMPTOMS (a few)

 

 

Figure 4.--Flow diagram for low drive-low
repression situation.

verbalized little or no awareness of the induced conflict
(high repression) reported few symptoms and those were
concentrated within the psychosomatic categories of Reyher's
symptom classification. S with lower repression index
scores, however, tended to exhibit many more symptoms and
they were much more varied in type. Sommerschield (1969)
supported these earlier findings and also discovered that
increasing the drive level in S increased their reports of

symptomatic reactions. Burn's (1972) findings altered the

58

above picture somewhat. His Ss showed a greater range in
their relative drive strength (and, presumably, their
relative repression values) and their reports suggest

that a curvilinear relationship between repression and
symptom frequency may be a more valid picture. That is,
when repression is very much greater than the S's activated
drive, or the drive is very much stronger than the
repression which trys tO inhibit it, little intrapsychic
conflict occurs and very few symptoms result. The more
pathogenic situation is when the S's aroused drive intensity
more nearly balances the strength of his repressive forces
striving to keep the drive in check. Burns also found that
the type of symptom experienced relates directly to drive
strength.

Figures 5 and 6 summarize our current understanding
of the relationship between repression and the frequency
and type of symptoms reported by Ss in conflict.

‘A post-hoc correlational analysis of this study's
data revealed no significant relationship between R and
frequency of symptoms, although there was a trend in the
direction of an inverse relationship. This trend and the
fact that subjective symptoms were not significantly
different between groups while objective symptoms were
significantly more frequent in the amnesia group suggests
that our SS were experiencing an intermediate value of

relative R. Because our Ss tended to experience fewer

59

   
 

/\
‘//’/,,,—————-—-high drive
Frequency 5
of low drive
SymptomQ

 

\
7

none REPRESSION complete

Figure 5.--The relationship between the relative
strength of repression and frequency Of symptoms.

 

 

ANSr None
)7
UD //

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DA ./J///
Type [/J//J
of ANX
Symptom* L/’
DR ,/’
//
SC V/
DC
NONE \
none completg
REPRESSION

Figure 6.--The relationship between the relative strength
Of repression and the type Of symptoms expressed.

*This sequence of symptom categories is based upon the empirical
findings Of Reyher (1958, 1967), Sommerschield (1969), and
Burns (1972).

60

symptoms than did these in Sommershield and Burns studies,
we would suggest that the paramnesia used in this study
activated less drive in our SS than was the case with

those of Sommershield and Burns. Figure 7 combines
elements of Figures 5 and 6 and presents how we think the
present study fits into that conceptual diagram. It should
be remembered that the absolute value of drive intensity
would alter the "frequency of symptom" scale, toward a
greater frequency of symptoms for any given R value, and
may shift the "type of symptom" scale as well, although

we have no evidence to support that conjecture.

ANS
Amn MS

'V\ um

Frequency DA
of A;
Symptoms n ANX

1 DR
b SC

DC
None

 

 

 

 

 

none complete
REPRESSION

Figure 7.--The relationship between the relative
strength of repression, the frequency of symptoms and the type
of symptoms as related to the present study.

61

Repression and GSR

 

GSR activation seems to be caused by a S's drive
becoming more intense and starting to break through the
inhibitory forces of repression. It becomes more intense
as that drive breaks through into consciousness and assumes
the status of a consciously suppressed impulse. GSR
activation, then, indicates a preconscious conflict that
is pushing into awareness, or a conscious conflict that is
being suppressed. The fact that our no-amnesia subjects
responded with higher GSR frequencies indicated that the
aroused posthypnotic conflict was closer to conscious
representation than was the case for the amnesia Ss. The
fact that these no-amnesia SS also scored lower on the R
index sUpports this interpretation.

If the Ss in this study had been merely suppressing
their expression of anger-aggression, the professional'
literature on lie detection would have predicted a positive
correlation between our R index and GSR. In the case of
suppression, we would start with the assumption that Ss'
are fully aware of the anger-aggression and that our R
index measures the degree to which they are willing to
risk interpersonal rejection by verbalizing their awareness.
A S who received a high R score would be viewed as more
actively suppressing his impulses than would a S with a
low R score. We would expect this active suppression to

be combined with greater GSR activity than would be the

62

case for the S who verbalizes his awareness of the anger-
aggression or actually acts upon that drive, i.e., a
positive Correlation between R and GSR. While our BESS-
Sgg correlation analysis did not prove statistically
significant, it was in the negative direction (rS = -.l97).
Furthermore, amnesia SS scored significantly higher on the
R index and lower on GSR activation than did no-amnesia
SS. Both of these observations tend to discredit the use
of a suppression model for conceptualizing the processes
involved in this study.

Using a repression model to explain the processes
occurring in the present study, one starts from a different
assumption concerning the interpretation of R and derives
the prediction that R and GSR should be negatively cor-
related. With this model, R measures the degree in which
the inhibitory feedback mechanism of repression has
weakened upon drive activation and subsequently allowed S
to become partially aware of her anger-aggression. As
repression weakens, and S becomes more definitely aware
of her anger and destructive impulses, her GSR activity
should increase, i.e., GSR increases as R decreases.

The source of anxiety which stimulates repression
is the arousal of Objectionable drives and impulses intra-
psychically. The Source of anxiety for suppression,
however, is the interpersonal need to ward-off rejection

by S and the loss of self-esteem (Reyher, 1969b). We

63

infer that intrapsychic anxiety was explicitly prOgrammed
into S via the hypnotic procedure, and therefore assume
that it was stimulating each S's defenses to one degree or
another. Strong repression was indicated by a lack of
verbalized awareness of anger or the destructive impulse;
weaker repression was evidenced by those SS who were aware
of at least the anger component of the anger-aggression
conflict. Interpersonal anxiety can also be assumed to
have been activated implicitly within Ss because of the
age, sex and status differences between S and these SS.
There is no theoretical prediction for objective, behavioral
symptoms to be observed in a S if that S is merely suppres-
sing information. Conscious suppression may be anxiety
producing because of a perceived interpersonal conflict,
but it is not pathogenic in terms of physiological dis-
turbances. While both repression and suppression were
probably occurring simultaneously, the fact that our SS
experienced significant physiological and psychological
disturbance further supports the point of view that the
process of primary importance occurring in this study was
that of repression rather than suppression.

In summary, the data of this study indicates that
the amnesia SS were less aware of the anger-aggression
conflict consciously, less aroused autonomically and less

involved psychologically in the experiment. We surmise

64

Ithat these findings are all due to the amnesia procedure
having potentiated the S's use of repression as a defense
'against aroused anger-aggression. This enhanced strength
of S's inhibitory response to anger-aggression arousal
keeps that conflict more completely unconscious (i.e.,
higher R index scores) and requires a larger psychological

commitment to that process than is true for no-amnesia SS.

Repression and Amnesia

 

As pointed out above, there has been some contro-
versy as to how the phenomenon of posthypnotic amnesia
relates to the theoretical concept of repression.

Bobbit (1958) seems to equate the two and Reyher explicitly
states that posthypnotic amnesia is not the same thing as
the inferred process of repression. The present study

did not explicitly address itself to this issue, but the
data we obtained do suggest that repression and amnesia

are genotypically different dynamic processes. The lack

of any significant change in amnesia SS responses on our
dependent variables when posthypnotic amnesia was lifted,
suggests that an underlying force of repression had already
been activated and that it remained effective even without
amnesia being present any longer. However, while amnesia
should not be equated with repression, the fact that
amnesia SS scored significantly higher on the R index
suggests that it does in some way potentiate the use of,

or effectiveness of, repressive forces.

65

We speculate that S suggesting an amnesia for an
aroused conflict, when S is in a very passive-dependent
role vis-a-vis S, serves as a recent and meaningful model
for handling that conflict. One might use the analogy of
a father telling his daughter that whenever these angry
feelings and the urge to destroy come up, that she should
just "put them out of your (conscious) mind" and everything
will remain quiet and safe. This cannot, of course, be
demonstrated empirically from our data, but one way or
another amnesia seems to either potentiate the utilization
of the defense mechanism of repression or to enhance its
effectiveness once repression is activated. In either
case, one would predict that as the pathogenicity of the
implanted conflict increases, this differential effect in
R between amnesia SS and no-amnesia SS will disappear,
i.e., Spontaneous primary repression should occur more
frequently and more strongly upon c-word presentation
whether or not S has previously experienced hypnotic

amnesia.

Responses to C-words vs. N—words

 

In this study we looked at the response-producing
properties of both c- and n-words during session II. As
expected, c-words stimulated much more pathology and
GSR activation in session II than during the base-rate.
session. Interestingly enough, however, n—words also
stimulated significatnly more subjectively experienced
symptoms than their base-rate, although this was not

the case for objectively Observed symptoms nor for GSR.

nnn nnn1fl 1nnk +n +wn 1narninn +honrv nnnnnn+q

66

in an attempt to explain these findings: habituation of a
response over time, or generalization of the response to
different stimuli. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the case

for generalization having taken place during the hypnotic
session from identified c-words to some or all of the
n-words. Figure 10 illustrates the case for the habituation
of S's response over time during session II. Whatever the
reality of the situation may be, it seems that unconscious,
autonomically controlled responses such as GSR activation
and observable physiological symptomatology either have
sharper gradients of generalization or habituate more
rapidly than do subjectively experienced reSponses which
can be cognitively mediated over a longer period of time
or greater range of stimuli. Because of the great
specificity with which repression seems to function in
keeping painful affects and their cathected derivatives
unconscious (Freud, 1948), we hypothesize that our data

is due to an habituation effect.

67

   
  

autonomic responses

 

éfz—cognitively-mediated
responses

 

'f

c-word remote

remote
n-words n-words
Figure 8.-—Generalization gradients for E's instructions

and the paramnesia's prior—arousal effect on c—words and a range

of many n—words.

é"autonomic responses

cognitively—mediated
responses

  
 
 

a

Reaction er.
\

. /
time

I l
n-word

 

base-rate c-word

presentation presentation

Figure 9.-—SS punitive responsiveness to c—words and
n—words in the case of stimulus generalization.

/\

  
  

‘\\ ef’cognitively-mediated
“~‘\ responses
I “““ >
n-word time
presentation

Response

7

 

 

 

 

base-rate c—word
presentation

Figure lO.--Expected responsiveness over time in the
case where response habituation is the major factor in oper-

ation.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUS I ONS

Several studies (Veenstra, 1969; Karnilow, 1971;
and Wolfe, 1971) have recently failed to produce spontaneous
repression or psychopathology following Reyher's (1967)
procedure for hypnotically implanting and posthypnotically
activating implanted conflicts involving anger-aggression.
The present study focused on an examination of those
variables in the procedure that might be both necessary
and sufficient for the activation of repression and the
production of pathological disturbance. Specifically, the
role of hypnotic amnesia and pump-priming was examined
and it was learned that neither variable is a necessary
one for activating posthypnotic, intrapsychic conflict.
under controlled experimental conditions. However, while'
all 16 normal, female Ss experienced psychopathology and
GSR activation, there was a strong trend for amnesia SS
to experience more physiological symptoms (e.g., stuttering;
muscle tics; feeling fatigued, depressed, upset) and less
GSR activation than SS not receiving amnesia. This
suggests that posthypnotic amnesia in some way helps
activate and/or intensifies the S's repression of the

activated anger-aggression.

68

69

Considering the findings of this study in conjunc-
tion with those that have preceeded it, it is suggested
that the following variables are the necessary and suf-
ficient ones to make Reyher's procedure function: During
hypnosis (1. hypnosis), S tells S a made-up story
(2. paramnesia) that arouses strong feelings within S
(3. arousal of affect) which are directed toward an
inappropriate person (4. affect directed at an inappro-
priate object). This affect's subsequent arousal is
associated with a specific posthypnotic cue (5. affect
associated with posthypnotic cue) and is combined with a
suggested impulse to act in an ego-alien way (6. ego-
alien impulse). The affect and impulse are aroused
suddently (7. sudden activation of drive) in a post-
hypnotic session (8. posthypnotic arousal).

One of the most important of these independent
variables is that of the paramnesia used. Any paramnesia
that has been used or could be created for future use
represents a complex interaction of aroused affects,
impulses and super-ego reactions all of which combine in
unknown ways to determine the limits of aroused drive
strength and the force of repression that might inhibit
that drive. These absolute values of drive and repression
strengths (which cannot be measured directly) can be said
to determine the potential pathogenicity of the paramnesia

' in use. The data from this study and those of Veenstra,

7O

Karnilow and Wolfe suggest that the anger-aggression
paramnesia used in these studies is only minimally patho—
genic because it fails to incorporate reprehensible
actions on S's part which could consistently be expected
to arouse a super-ego reaction to the arousal of its
associated drive. That is, while our relative measures
of repression (as used in this study) and drive (as used
by Burns) may assume a wide range of values, the degree
of pathogenicity depends upon the absolute values of the
drive and repression forces, and the psychological
importance of their resulting conflict.

Comparing the findings of this study with those of
Sommerschield and Burns, we are of the opinion that the
three paramnesias used in these studies can be ordered in
terms of their potential pathogenicity (from low to high)
in this way: the anger-aggression paramnesia used in this
study involving an incident at the bookstore where S is
unjustly taken advantage of, the anger-aggression paramnesia
involving an incident between S and an Older woman who
severely castigates S for his behavior at a party (in
Sommerschield) and an oedipal-sex paramnesia involving an
apartment incident where S becomes sexually aroused by an
older woman (in Sommerschield and Burns). This sequence
also makes good theoretical sense for normal or mildly

neurotic persons whose naturally occurring psychological

71

disturbances typically center around the issue of COping
with one's sexual impulses and sexual development. One
might surmise that if these paramnesias were tested with
psychotic Ss that the most pathogenic one would be that
which involves anger-aggression toward a parental figure.
Modification of Reyher's original (1967a) R index
Seems to have cleared up two conceptual difficulties but
was not explicitly investigated empirically in this study.
One problem was that the R in the original index was con-
structed in such a way that low R values (e.g., R = .2)
represented strong repression and high R values represented
a greater break-down of repression (e.g., R = 3.0). By
changing the algebraic Sign of each term in the index, the
modified index becomes a direct reflection of repression;

i.e., if R is greater than R then the inhibitory force

1 2’
of repression in case 1 is stronger than in case 2. The
second issue concerning the original R index had to deal
with its lack of independence from one dependent variable
(namely, frequency of symptoms) with which it was fre-
quently correlated. This problem was caused by the old
"CR" term which was partially defined by the lack of
verbalized symptoms in reSponse to any given c-word. With
that definition it was inadviseable to correlate R with
frequency of symptomatology because they were not inde-

pendent. Therefore, the modified index reported here

replaces "CR" with "NA" which simply means "no verbalized

72

awareness of either anger or aggression in response to any

 

given c~word." The modified R index is thus defined as:
R = NA - (3ZFA + ZZPA + ZCC)
Tc .

We have discussed the concept of repression and how
it relates to drive, psychOpathology, GSR activation, and
hypnotic amnesia. While amnesia clouds the conceptual
picture somewhat, it appears that the inferred process of
repression (and its objectively measured index, R) varies
in a curvilinear fashion with frequency of symptoms,
varies directly with the modal type of symptom experienced,
and varies inversely with GSR activation. A post—hoc
analysis of this study's data did not reveal any statisti-
cally significant correlations between R and frequency of
symptoms, type of symptom or GSR frequency, but all
comparisons were in the predicted direction. This lack
of significant correlations may be due to the overall
lower pathogenicity of the paramnesia used in this study
compared to those used by Reyher, Perkins, Sommerschield,
and Burns and the truncated range of drive arousal. Also
the fact that our R index only begins to differentiate
between S's response to c-words once repression has begun
to weaken (i.e., our R index depends upon differential
awareness of anger-aggression, and, therefore, is useful

only in specifying the lower end of a full continuum

73

of repression values) artifically lumps all cases of
complete repression into a single scale value and thereby
truncates the range of R further. This lack of sufficient
range in our SS repression forces may have made the attain-
ment of significant correlations prohibitively difficult
given the between-subject variations one can expect with

this type of research.

REFERENCES

74

REFERENCES

‘Basch, Judith A. Degree of repression and frequency of
psychosomatic symptoms. Unpublished Masters
thesis, Michigan State University, 1968.

Bobbit, Ruth. The repression hypothesis studied in a
situation of hypnotically induced conflict.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psyphology, 1958,
SS, 204-212.

 

Burns, Bruce. The activation of posthypnotic conflict via
free imagery: A study of repression and psycho-
pathology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1972.

Erickson, M. H. The method employed to formulate a complex
story for the induction of an experimental neurosis
in a hypnotic subject. Journal of General
Psychology, 1944, SS, 67-84.

 

 

Freud, Sigmund. Repression (1915). In Joan Riviere (trans.
Sigmund Freud: Collected Papers. Basic Books,
Inc., 1959, pp. 84-97.

 

Gordon, J. E. Hypnosis in research on psychotherapy. In
J. E. Gordon (Ed.) Handbook of Clinical and Experi-
mental Hypnosis. New York: Macmillan, 1967,
pp. 148-200.

 

 

 

Hayes, William. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1963. -

Karnilow, Aaron. An attempt to produce psychopathology;
the posthypnotic stimulation of hypnotically
induced conflict. Unpublished Masters thesis,
Michigan State University, 1971.

Kirk, Roger. Experimental Design: Procedures for the
Behavioral Sciences. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/
Cole Publishing Company, 1968.

 

 

75

76

Levitt, E. E. A comment on "a paradigm for determining the
clinical relevance of hypnotically induced psycho-
pathology." Psychological Bulletin, 1963, SS,
326-329.

 

Perkins, K. A. Repression, psychopathology, and drive
representation: An experimental hypnotic investiga-
tion of the management of impulse inhibition.
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1965.

Perkins, Kenneth and Joseph Reyher. Repression, psycho-
pathology and drive representation: An experimental
hypnotic investigation of impulse inhibition.
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1971, S,
559-562.

 

Pine, R. A. A manual for rating drive content in the
thematic apperception test. Journal of Projective
Techniques, 1960, SS, 32-45.

 

 

Runyon, R. P. and A. Haber. Fundamentals of Behavioral
Statistics. Reading, MaSS.: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co., 1967.

 

 

Reyher, Joseph. Hypnotically induced conflict in relation
to subception, repression, antisocial behavior and
psychosomatic reactions. Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, University of Illinois, 1958.

. Posthypnotic stimulation of hypnotically induced
conflict in relation to psychosomatic reactions and
psychOpathology. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1961, SS,
384-391.

 

. A paradigm for determining the clinical relevance
of hypnotically induced psychopathology. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 1962, SS, 344-352.

 

. A reply to Levitt's comments. Psychological
Bulletin, SS, 330-332.

 

 

. Brain mechanisms, intrapsychic processes and
behavior: A theory of hypnosis and psychOpathology.
American Journal of Clinical Sypgosis, 1964, 1,
107-119.

 

. Hypnosis in research on psychopathology. In J. E.
Gordon (Ed.), Handbook of Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis. New York: Macmillan, 1967.

h

77

Hypnosis. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. Brown Co., 1968.

. Posthypnotic conflict and psychopathology. A
paper presented at the meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.,
1969a.

. Emergent uncovering, psychopathology and the
objectification of pathogenic psychodynamic
processes. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Washington,
D.C., 1969b.

A comment on "artificial induction of post-
hypnotic conflict." Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 1969c, 13, 420-422.

 

 

, and Judith Basch. Degree of repression and fre-
quency of psychosomatic symptoms. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 1970, SS, 559-562.

 

 

Sheehan, P. W. Artificial induction of posthypnotic
conflict. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969,
.13! 16-25.

 

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the
Behavioraleciences. New York: McGraw Hill Book
Co., Inc., 1956.

 

 

Sommerschield, Harold. Posthypnotic conflict, repression
and psychOpathology. Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969.

, and Joseph Reyher. Posthypnotic conflict,
repression and psychopathology. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology (in press), 1973.

 

 

Veenstra, Glenn J. The effectiveness of posthypnotically-
aroused anger in producing psychopathology.
Unpublished Masters thesis, Michigan State
University, 1969.

Weitzenhoffer, A. M. and E. R. Hilgard. Stanford Hypnotic
Suscgptibility Scale. Palo Alto, Calif}:
Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 1959.

 

 

Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design.
New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1962.

Wolfe, Alice. Critical factors in the artificial induction
of conflicts: a hypnotic paradigm for repression.
Unpublished Masters thesis, Michigan State Univer-
sity, 1971.

APPENDICES

78

 

APPENDIX A

HYPNOTIC STEPS

79

APPENDIX A

HYPNOTIC STEPS

The following hypnotic steps or tasks were per-
formed by each S during her first individual, or pre-test,
session. All tasks had to be performed satisfactorily
before the S was selected to participate further in this
study. Steps 1, 3, 4 and 6 were used during the second
session to deepen the S's hypnosis prior to proceeding to
the paramnesia, posthypnotic suggestions and amnesia

instructions described above in the "Procedure."

 

1. Arm Heaviness: I would like you to hold your
right arm out in front of you. Good. Now I am going to
count from one to ten and, as I count, it will become
heavier and heavier until by the time I reach ten it will
be as heavy as a chunk of lead. (As the numbers were
counted, the above instructions were re-emphasized, e.g.,'
"...7...8...your arm is getting heavier and heavier.")

2. Arm Catalepsy: I would like you to hold your

 

left arm out in front of you. I am going to count to ten,
and as I count the muscles in your arm will tighten. By
the count of ten, they will be so rigid that your arm
will be like an iron bar. (Again, as the numbers were
counted, the above instructions were reinforced.)

80

81

3. Hand Lock: Now I want you to hold both of

 

your arms out in front of you so that your fingers inter-
lock and your palms are facing each other. I am going to
count from one to ten, and as I count your hands will be
drawn together tighter and tighter as though they were

the jaws of a vise. As I count it will be as though the
screw of the vise is tightening, forcing your hands closer
and closer together. (As in the first two steps, and all
other steps that involve counting, the initial instruc-

tions were emphasized as S counted.) Even if you should

 

want to pull your hands apart, the harder you try to pull
them apart, the more tightly they are pulled together.

4. Automatic Movement: Now I am going to take

 

your wrists and rotate your hands one around the other.

I will now let go and you will find that you will be able
to continue rotating them yourself. Now I am going to
count to five and as I count your hands will rotate arOund
one another, faster and faster, so that by the count of
five it will seem as if your arms are independent of your
body and have a life all of their own, rotating all by
themselves, around and around.

5. Visualization: I want you to visualize what

 

you last had to eat and when you have done so, signal me

by raising your left hand.

82

6. REESE: Now when I count to three you will
have and enjoy a dream or dream-like thoughts. When it
begins, I want you to raise your left hand about six
inches; you can lower your hand when the dream stops or
reaches some kind of conclusion. I won't ask you anything
about this dream or dream-like thoughts.

7. Hyperasthesia: I now want you to visualize

 

yourself at one end of an empty corridor looking toward
the other end. Raise your left hand when you see this.
At the other end of the corridor you will see a pail on i
the floor; raise your left hand when you see this. I

want you to walk down the corridor toward the pail. Tell

me when you get there by raising your left hand. In the

pail you will see some water. Nod your head when you see

the water. You now are being overcome by an urge to

plunge your right hand into the water--and you do, you

plunge your hand into the water. You pull your hand back

out and find that it is sore and tender, so that if I

should touch it it will hurt (touch hand with a finger).

(Important: see note below.)

8. Anesthesia: Nod your head if you have ever

 

experienced your arm getting numb and tingly as it goes
to sleep. I am now going to hold your right arm in such
a way so that I partially close off the circulation in
your arm, which is just what happens when your arm goes

to sleep. When your arm and hand begin to feel tingly or

83

numb, let me know by nodding your head. (Continue talking
quietly, asking the S to nod: when the arm becomes
definitely numb; as numb as it has ever been before;
number than it has been before.) It is now lifeless,

like a piece of wood. I am going to take my hand away and
the numbness will remain. Now I am going to press a

' pointed instrument on the back of your hand. The only
thing you will feel, if anything at all, will be pressure.
I will do the same to your other hand. Nod your head if
you feel any difference.

Posthypnotic suggestion--Anytime, whether or not
you are hypnotized, that I stroke your hand three times
you will experience this same numb, lifeless feeling that
you have in your hand right now. When I again stroke your
hand three more times, the numbness will disappear and all
normal feelings will return. Nod your head if you under-
stand.

9. Amnesia: Nod your head if you ever have
awakened with a start from a dream that you can't recall.
After you awaken from this session, it will seem like a
dream that you can't recall. You know you have dreamed,
but you can't remember anything about it. Furthermore,
the harder you try the more confused you become. Everyone
has had something like this happen to them. Whenever'I.

say, "O.K., now you can remember,‘ you will be able to

remember everything about it that you want to remember.

84

10. Posthypnotic Suggestion: If, after you

 

awaken, I want to hypnotize you and you want to be
hypnotized all I will have to do is have you lean back
and by the time I count to ten you will be in an even
deeper sleep-like state than you are now. Nod your head

if you understand.

NOTE: After all steps which suggest an alteration
in a particular sensory experience, a suggestion should be

given for the return of all normal feelings and deeper

 

hypnosis, e.g., after steps 1, 2, 7 and 8.

APPENDIX B

CLASSIFICATION OF SYMPTOMS

85

APPENDIX B

CLASSIFICATION OF SYMPTOMS

This symptom classification is adapted from Reyher's
(1969a) original work and is the basis on which both sub-
jectively experienced and objectively demonstrated sympto-
matology was scored. All eight categories are useful in
identifying and differentiating subjectively experienced
symptoms that are verbally reported by Ss. Objectively
demonstrated Symptoms fall into only four of these cate-

gories: l, 2, 4 and 7c.

1. Symptoms characterized by the dominance of
autonomic system innervation such as feelings of nausea,
gastric distress, headache, tiredness, Sleepiness,
tachycardia, pressure in head, sweating, skin disturbances,
flushing, organ dysfunctions, heaviness, temperature
alterations, and such feelings as "queasy" and "ansy."

2. Symptoms dominated by innervation of the
somatic or muscular nervous system such as stiffness,
aches, pains, tension, tics, tremors, specific physical

discomfort, and so on.

86

87

3. Disturbance of affect.

a. Flattening: lack of feeling, apathy, and
the like upon pronunciation of a c-word
(only after the S has previously responded
to a c-word symptomatically).

b. Superego reactions: feelings of being
alone, abandoned, ashamed, depressed,
disgusted, guilty, worried, and so on.

c. Inversion: definite feelings of well-being
upon confronting a c—word (only after the
S has previously responded to a c-word
symptomatically).

d. Alienation: feelings that seem weird,
strange, Odd, unreal, unnatural, foreign,
and so on.

 

71

4. Unspecified and nonspecific distress that
cannot be clearly categorized as either physical or
emotional in nature, in S's frame of reference, and are
expressed in such conventional terms as being upset,
fidgety, jittery, nervous, on edge, and bothered. I

5. States of emotional agitation and generalized
anxiety that reflect the reaction of the ego to the threat
of complete breakdown of repression, such feelings of
anxiety, fear, apprehension and terror.

6. States of confusion, doubt, and disorientation
that include statements that one's thoughts are being
pushed or pulled and that the content of thought cannot
be Specified.

7. Dissociative reactions.

a. Somatic and ideational delusions such as

limbs feeling detached, "crazy" thoughts
and intruding paranoid ideas.

8.

88

Strong compulsive urges not carried out in
behavior, such as wanting to move hands
around, scratch at something, and so on.

Compulsive destructive urge acted out in
behavior without awareness of the relevant
hostile or destructive impulse, such as
hitting or picking at the papers without
knowing why, including destructive acts
not directed at the papers (such as,
pounding the arm rest of the chair).

Derivatives of the induced conflict. These

are symbols of the induced anger-aggression and/or the

repressive forces themselves. (Memories of personal

experiences that are congruent with, or Similar to, the

induced experience frequently are activated in some SS.)

APPENDIX C

VEENSTRA'S CLASSIFICATION OF ASSOCIATIONS

89

APPENDIX C

VEENSTRA'S CLASSIFICATION OF

ASSOCIATIONS

"Associations expressing hostility are assigned to

one of three levels of socialization and directness (after

Pine, 1960)

distance,

and to one of two levels of psychological

included to measure whether anger is being

expressed and if so how directly" (Veenstra, 1969).

1.

Levels of directness and socialization are:

a.

Level 1. Direct-unsocialized.--Directly
expressed hostility in a way contrary to
social values, such as murder, robbery,

rape and anger only it involves physical
expression of violence. E.g., pushing and
bumping peOple, committing crimes, fighting,
killing, and other anti-social acts.

 

Level 2. Direct-socialized.--Anger
expressed Without physicaI’violence, such
as arguments, swearing, and derogatory
statements.

 

Level 3. Indirect-disguised and weak.--
Associations connected with anger but where
the underlying hostile impulse is neither
explicitly thought nor acted upon, such as
mentioning police, soldiers, illness,
accidents, natural or accidental deaths.
Also weak references to conflicts within
society such as mentioning strikes, protest
marches, war, and militant groups of any
kind.

 

90

91

Levels of psychological distance are:

a.

Personalized.--Hosti1e associations in
which S explicitly mentions herself or
reports her own feelings and opinions.

 

Nonpersonalized.--Associations which S
reports in a detached objective manner
with no indication of personal involvement.

 

 

APPENDIX D

RAW DATA

92

-— m-a

 

 

 

TABLE l.--Sixteen SS were assigned to four experimental
groups.
Amnesia No Amnesia
Pump-priming I 1—4 III 8-11
No Pump—priming II 5-7 IV 12-16

 

93

 

 

94

 

 

 

 

 

 

o m.m vH NH 0 o o o OH
o.H o.N o v o o o m.H mH
o.H o.H NH NH o o o.H o.N vH
m.H m.H NH oH N o m. o.v NH .II
m.N o.H NH NH o N o o NH >H
o o m A o o o.H 0 HH
0 m. m h o o o o.N OH
0 o.N MH m N o o m.H m
o.H o.N w h o H o m.H w HHH
m. m.H VH NN H o o o b
m. o.H oH HH 0 o o o O .1!
m.m o.m m m o o o.v m.N m HH
0 m. m m o o o.H o.N v
o m.H v v o o o o m
o o.N n h o o o.H m.N N .I
m. m.N m 0H 0 o o.H m.m H H
mpAOSIC mCHOSIO mpnoslc monosuo mpuozlc mpnoslo mpnoslc mpnosno
mcoHumHoomm¢ Mmo O>Huomnbo o>Huommn5m msouo cam mm
OHHumom mEoumESm

 

.AmpHOBIQV mpMOB Hwnnsm: Cam AmCHOBIOV
mpnos DOHHMQOO nuon MOM Aummuuoumv H sonmom Eonw mnmw Samul.m mqmde

.COHmmmm OED usosmsounp Eonmemm coEEoo m pmmmHmmHo
««

.mpnozlo HHm on EonmEmm COEEOO m OONMHmmHQ
k.

 

95

 

 

 

 

 

h.l o o.v HH OH H m m.H m.H 0H

v.l m. o.N MH mH H HH o.N m.NH mH

b. m. o.H ON mN o o m.v m.w OH

NH mim m; e 3 o .3 o m. 2 .l
H. m.N m.N MN mN m «NH o.H o.m NH >H
w. o o.H MH NH O N o.H m.H HH

v.l m. o.N mH ON 0 m o.H o.v OH

v.l m.H m.v HH OH o o o.m m.h m

h.l o.m m.N NH pH 0 RmH o o.MH m HHH
o.H o.H m.N m OH o o o o.H b

m.l m.H m.H o n m mH m.H 0.5 0 .II
V. o o m m m «N 0.5 0.0 m HH
5. o m. HH NH o «RMH m.N o.m v

m. m.H o.H H v o «VH m. m.H m

v. o.H m.¢ m m N «RvH o.H m.H N .l
o.H o.H o.H o H o «RMN o.v m.h H H

mpuo3uc mpnosno mpnozlc mpuosuo mpno3nc mpuosno mpnozlc mpHOSuO

xmch mcoHumH00mm4 O>Huomflno O>Hpomnn5m msouw Cam mm

m mHAumom Mme

. mEOumENm

 

.Ampnosucv mpnoz
Hmuusmc paw Ampnosnov mpuos DOHHHEOO anon How mHH COHmmmm Eonm Dump Smm||.m mqmda

96

.conmwm OLD usoswsongu EODQENM COEEOO m CONOHQMHQ
«A

mpH03uo HHm ou EODQENM coEEoo m CONDHmmHQ

.4.

 

 

 

 

 

N. - m. o.N N m o o o.H m.H \.
o o.N m.m H m o m o o.N 0
NH- m. 0.1.. e e a m o.N m.H m .Hum
0H 0 0H m a H :HH o.N o.N a
a. o o H o o S o o m
a. o o.H o H H ...m 0H 0H m
o.H o m.H H o o to o.N m.m H H
mpuozuc mCHOBIO mpuoslc mpHOBIO mpHOBIc mpHOBIO mpnozuc mpnoslo
xwmcH mcoHumH00mm< m>Hpomnno o>Huooflbdm muonw pcm Wm

OHHumom mmO

 

mEoumENm

 

I .Hmpnozlcv MUHOS Hmuusmc UGO
Ampnozlov DOHHHCOO Epon MOM ANHQO mm OHmeEmV mHH COHmmom How Dump 3mmll.> MHm<B

APPENDIX E

DOCUMENTATION OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY

97

APPENDIX E

DOCUMENTATION OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY

The four transcripts which follow are included in
order to illustrate the types of verbal reSponses that we
obtained during Session IIa. Scores for subjective
symptomatology, hostile associations and the repression
index were obtained by scoring transcripts such as these.
The transcripts included in this appendix were selected
so as to include one case from each of our four experi-
mental groups, i.e., Set #1 comes from experimental group
I, Set #2 comes from experimental group II, etc. Each
Slash (/) marks the end of a 30 sec. free association

period.

98

ICD

lbflmnn Im Imnn

IUD

IWHD

IU‘)

IUJIL'II

IU)

IWHU

IU)

lmlmlmlm

[CD

IWHD

SET #1

LAUGH (Whispered)...(sigh) Inconsiderate, rude,/ugly.
How do you feel?

Ahm, there ain't no words, depressed.
WISH...(sigh)/Sorry, I don't have a word.
Can you tell me what's in your mind?

Just feel different. (long pause)

OK.

WALK...Silence, roam,/

How do you feel, Yvonne?

Depressed.

STORE...(clears throat) Bookstore, books./
How are you doing?

Not very good. I think I feel a little worse.
NARROW...Corridor, apartment space,/bed.
What was the last one?

Bed.

FELLOW.../

How do you feel?

Angry.

Can you tell me why?

(long sigh) I don't want to talk about it.
DROP...(sigh) Bulb(?) (long sigh)./

How are you doing?
Not very good.

99

[CD

IL'IZI

[CD

Hmvumnmuum

IU)

ImHD

ICDID'J

Imnmvum

IUJ

lmflfi

100

TRAVEL...Vacation, Bob, Niagara Falls, escape./

OK.

MUSIC...(snifle) Mood, feelings, poetry, goodness.

How do you feel, Yvonne?/

I don't feel very well.

Can you tell me about it?

No (long sigh)

In what way don't you feel well?

IDK, I feel, I feel cornered, like the ultimate
of unpleasant things ...

LINE...(long sigh)/

How do you feel now?

Like falling in a well! You know how you dream about
you're falling in a well and there's no bottom,
and that sensation you feel while falling.

STAND...

What's going through your mind?/

I can remember some things. And some things I can't
remember, and I'm not even sure if I want to
remember.

What about?

About an experience that I had one time.

Can you tell me about your experience?

No. I can't remember, it's probably not as bad as I
think it was, although I, I, you know, I feel bad
about it, but I'm not sure what it was. But
(snifle), my mother used to say I over-reacted to
things and maybe I'm over-reacting to whatever it
was. IDK, but, but if I can try not to think about
it but my mind is trying to remember.

BROKEN.../
How are you doing?

I, not well, I...(sigh) I keep trying to forget and
remember at the same time.

HI)

I IN lm IFNWHU Im IN IUJ IWHD

IWHD

IU)

It'd

lmHmUHm

IU)

ICD

101

HEAVY.../

How do you feel Yvonne?
Ahm (sigh) I guess the best way to describe it now
would be "hurt." And I don't know why.

FOOD...Celery, olives, strawberries, clams./

OK.

BOOK. 0 0/

How are you doing?

It still hurts.

What's going on in your mind, as you feel this
emotion as you sit here?

(long sigh) It's like my mind trying to remember and
I don't want to remember...because I'm afraid if I
remember it will hurt.

OK.

FLOWER (Whispered)...Daisies (snifle), roses, violets,
daffadils, soft (snifle), gentle, pretty./

What's your favorite kind of flower?

Carnations.
CROWD.../
OK.
TIRED.../

How do you feel, Yvonne?
It still hurts.

Can you describe what kind of hurt you're feeling?
It's not sickness, it's not physically painful--IDK,
if something can be emotionally painful or not,
but that would be the way I would describe it...

like being disappointed in people.

VALLEY (whispered)...Green grass, flowers, trees,
(snifling), meandering stream, quiet, restful./

GLASS...Crystal, window, slippery,/ I don't know why
I say that.

ImHD Imumvnm lm

IUD

IMILGILTJICDILTJ

[CD

IN IUNN

IU)

Imnmunm

SET #2

LAUGH...

How do you feel?

Confused./

What are you thinking?

IDK, something's going through my mind and I can't
quite seem to grasp ahold of it.

Try.

OK.

 

Nbrzrms- 11- ~ . ~.. .
|

WISH...Wishful thinking. Wish I knew what was going
to be on the test tomorrow so I wouldn't have to
study./

How do you feel?

Disoriented.

Can you put your finger on why?
NO.

OK.

WALK...Distance, shOpping, night times.

How do you feel?

Like things are clearing up, or pulling together a
little bit more./

OK.

STORE...

How do you feel?

Confused again./

What are you thinking?

Like trying to remember something that's just kind
of there but just can't quite get ahold of it.

102

ImHmUflm lm

IU)

ImHWUHW

[(1')

lm

IU)

IWHWUHW

[U]

lumUNm

Imnn

103

NARROW...HallwayS, like things are closing in on you.
C1austrophobis./

How are you doing?

Still feel kind of lost.

Can you tell me in what way you feel lost?

Well, like, like my thoughts are all kind of
scrambled around.

FELLOW.../

How are you feeling?

Confused, frustrated.

Just nothing there?

Like something's there, can't quite...figure out
what it is.

 

DROP.../

in

Cheryl will you cough for me (etc.--about GSR)

TRAVEL...Vacation, airplanes,/

How are you doing?

Still trying to pull things together. (Sigh)

I don't quite know what you mean.

Well, I mean like there's something on my mind and
I can't quite figure it out, it's just going on
in the back of my mind.

MUSIC...Concerts, pop groups./

How do you feel, now?

Like things are starting to make a little more sense.

What kind of sense can you make out of it?

Oh well, like, I think of things and I'm...they stop,
you know.

Before you can see what it is, or?

Yah, kind of flashes in my mind, and then before I
can really figure out what it is it's gone (snicker--
large rise in GSR). Like it's in the back of my
mind but I can't quite grasp hold of it and bring
it out.

IU)

nmvum

IU'J

lm Imnq

ID'JICDIL'I'J [m

I lm

ImHU

IWHWUHW

104

LINE.../

How are you doing?

Confused.

How does your hand feel? (Etc. about GSR)
STAND.../

How do you feel?

Frustrated. Under narrow normal circumstances I'd
be biting my nails, but I'm trying not to. “i

BROKEN...When you drop something, you break it.
Or it falls.../

HEAVY.../

 

How do you feel?

Tired, confused.

You keep closing your eyes and squinting, is that
for some specific reason?

Try, trying to remember something. When you're
taking a test or something and can't think of the
answer, I try to get back into my mind.

OK.

FOOD...I've cooked the early (???) (snicker)./

How do you feel?

Confused, bewildered. It's like my thoughts, like
there's a door and, somebody opens a small door,
and an answer comes scurrying out, then close the
door again. But sometimes it doesn't work that way.

BOOK.../

How are you feeling?

Very very confused. Impatient.

Impatient for what?

IDK, like it's kind of frustrating to sit there and
think of something and then it's gone. Just
doesn't make sense.

IU'l

ImHD

lmHD lm

[U3

IWHD

IU)

Im lmHmU) Hmunm

IWHWUNW

105

FLOWER...Flower-child./

Now what's there?

Well, it's kind of like, you're outside this room
and the sun, you know, shines through for one
second and then the cloud goes back in or some—
thing. You see it very clear and then it gets
all cloudy again. Confused.

CROWD.../

How do you feel?
Very, very confused.

TIRED.../

Tired of what?
That's the way I feel.

VALLEY...Trees, green grass, flowers, stuff like that.;

What's going on?

IDK.

Well, how do you feel about the fact that you don't
know?

Frustrated.

Any thoughts?

Trying to figure out...why.

GLASS...Broken glass on sidewalks./

How do you feel?
Tired, confused.
What's going on?
IDK.

 

IUJ

Imnmuum

IU'JILTJ

IU)

lmnn

SET #3

LAUGH...Ah, something about that story in the book-
store. And, ah, and I don't like to be laughed
at. It makes me very embarrassed. And, ah, I
can feel my stomach tightening up./

How are you doing?

I'm mad (sigh, laugh)

Mad?

Yes (laugh)...and a little embarrassed because
I'm mad.

WISH...Wishing wells and pennies, and hum, my father
always used to call the Sears catalogue "the wish
book." And a (laugh) re-, I'm remembering a dirty
joke about a guy who got three wishes (laugh) ah,
there I go falling Off the paper again.

How are you feeling?/
OK.

WALK...Hum, When its nice like today, I don't mind it.
It's sort of nice to walk with the wind blowing
through your hair and the sun shining and...and
you can almost pretend that the trees are almost
ready to bud, but you know they're not, you just
pretend you think they are (laugh). And I like
walking to someplace/ rather than just ambling.

I sometimes concentrate on slowing down, I tend to
hurry too much in order to get where I'm headed.
That's all.

How do you feel?
OK.

106

IUJ

lmlm

IU)

IUJIL'D

If!)

[m

IWHD

107

STORE...I'm mad again (laugh) ahm, that bookstore
where the (laugh) I don't like to stand in line,
it makes me nervous, especially, because most of
the time when I'm waiting in line I have someplace/
I've got to be in ten minutes, and I know that I'm
not going to get out in time and I don't like
being late.

How are you doing?
OK.

NARROW...I still don't have anything to say about
narrow. I don't recollect anything about it at
all. Except maybe walking the straight and
narrow. (laugh) I hOpe I got that right.

How are you feeling?/
OK.

FELLOW...I know it's silly, you told me that bit,
you know, while I was under and I didn't think
I'd react this way its just that when I get mad,
my stomach starts knotting up and I Clutch my
hands. And, I used to grit my teeth when I was
mad 'til I started chipping teeth/ so I have been
trying to break that habit. I feel all the muscles
going...you know, tensing up and, and, jerking.
Sometimes it would be handy if we'd like guys,
would have it kosher to swing. (Laugh) ETC.

DROP...That doesn't help any (laugh). You know the
story, I don't have to tell you what happened.
It...(angry voice).

Just tell me how you feel?

Angry. Strange thing is that, is, a, when you were
telling me the story I pictured one of my
instructors, you know, when you said it was one
of the instructors from one of my classes. And
it isn't at all like this guy that I thought of,/
and now I don't know how I'm going to see him
tomorrow feeling like hitting him (laugh). But,
ah, I all the way through I kept on thinking
"he wouldn't do that!" (laugh)

 

'i.-. ..

IU)

IWHU

[CD

ImHU

IU'J

lmqu

IU)

IUJILTJ

108

TRAVEL...My Finnish sister is coming back for a visit
next month. Ah, I still like to travel. I feel
like you've heard all this before and I can't
think of anything new (laugh). Ahm, sometimes I'd
like to go overseas by boat, but I'm a chicken.

All the time I'd be thinking, "Oh, it's going to
sink, it's going to sink" (laugh)./ I don't know
why I say that.

Have you ever taken a boat trip?
ETC.

MUSIC...Went to see the 5th Dimension concert last
night. Ahhh, the music! Makes your whole body
want to jump up and down and (laughs). Ah, that's
all.

How are you doing?
OK (laugh)./

LINE...I feel like gritting my teeth (laugh). Ahm,
I used to work at, in places where lines sometimes
formed and I realized that sometimes they're
unavoidable and they are irritating but it's not
the fault of the person, necessarily, that's doing
the job. But.../ MSU seems to be all you do is
hurry up and wait, hurry up and wait. You go to
registration and, and wait in line and when you
get soething you you dash on to the next checkpoint
and wait in line there, so you can go on and wait
in another line. You wait in line for your card--
class cards, and wait in line for this card and
that card, and... '

You sound like you just pre-registered.
(Laugh) Last Friday. Not preregister but pre-enrolled.
That wasn't anything, that was an easy line. Only

about two or three peOple in that easy line (laugh).

STAND...Standing in line (laugh). Ahm, (Sigh) I
still don't like doing it (laugh) (Hitting arm
rest).

How do you feel?

I'm feeling upset. I'm angry./ It isn't very often
that I can say anything about, I usually just grit
my teeth. When I occasionally do say something, I
usually feel pretty proud of myself (laugh), but
unfortunately it doesn't happen very often. Etc.

IUJ

lmHfl

IU'J

ImHD

[CD

lmflfi

109

BROKEN...Scot hasn't broken anything lately. Broken.
All those windows in the riots, ah, darn fools!
I don't go for that: demonstrations, and petitions,
and marches, and Sit-ins and, but not broken
windows/ or not clubbing over the head or anything.

How are you doing?
OK.

HEAVY...Those darn books again. I wish you hadn't
told me that story, because, I, I feel myself
starting to burn up inside again.

How are you feeling?

Like I'm nervous. Like I'm, I wish I had time to
come back and buy my books later, but I know I'll
get them today, as long as I've picked them out and
am standing in line, might as well wait, but I'm
sure getting tired of it./

FOOD...Ah (excited), last night this, this guy I
went to the 5th Dimension concert with--there it
goes! (needle) (Laugh). We a, we went out to eat
and a we sat right behind the 5th Dimension! They
were right there in the restaurant with us! And
we didn't know who they were, and after they left
the waitress said, "Hey, that was the 5th
Dimension." We said, "Oh, no'' (laugh). Talk
about kicking yourself,/ that was terrible. We
just sat there saying "How did we do it?" "We're
going to see them in a half hour, and they were
Sitting right there."

BOOK...(long sigh) I don't have anything more to say
about that, you know, how I'm supposed to be
reacting. And I am, I'm getting all upset inside,
but I dOn't have anything to say because, a, I
don't think in...in sentences, I just, you know,

I just...

How do you feel?/
Like I wish I could hit somebody (sigh).

ImHU

IUJ

|m|tr1

110

FLOWER...Sorta hOping that I'd get some for Valen-
tine's Day, but I didn't. You know...I like the
trees when they blossom. You, you must have been
on this campus in the spring before, haven't you?
No? Ah, all the bushes in the islands going down
Shaw Lane,/ past, you know, Shaw on down towards
Fee. Every single one of those bushes is a
flowering bush. Pink and white and red and, this
campus is unreal in the spring, it really is.
Just blossoming trees and bushes, ah, all over
the place, lilacs and the lilacs are the latest
ones in bloom.

Really nice, huh?
It's great!

CROWD...I'm just getting those same reactions that

I get everytime you mention one of those words that

has to do with that bookstore. It's just...ahm,
one of those things that once you.../ after
you're done being angry you way "Well, it wasn't
so bad." But when you're living through it.

How do you feel?

I don't know. A little embarrassed from reacting
to it. Because I don't, I don't usually carry
anger, you know, once something has happened and
its over. When something's brought up, I remember
it, but I don't start boiling up inside again.

I guess I'm not reacting as hard to this one as I
did to the first one you you mentioned, but, ah,
so I guess my I've started to rationalize about
the incident and say "well, it's over." But it
still...people can be so nasty and inconsiderate.
Well...if everyone in this world was as nice, as
nice as me it would be perfect (laugh).

TIRED...(?? too soft, can't make it out). It always
seems as though something like that happens when
you've just had it up to here to begin with! I
mean, you don't go in and have, and be having a
great day and have something like this happen.
That never happens. It is always when the milk
gets spilled at breakfast, and you just missed the
bus and got to wait 15 minutes for the next one,
and then your instructor pops a quiz on you. And
then you just fall down/ or get splashed by a car
going through a mud-puddle or something. But,
it's always up to here in--that's when things
like that happen it's never on good days.

| ImHU

lmfifi

lmltfl

111

How are you doing?
I wish you'd quit mentioning those words so I
could relax (laugh).

VALLEY...Well, it's been awhile since I read
Christy so my reactions to valley aren't too
strong (laugh). Have you read it yet?

NO.

It's not...a tremendous book but its OK. Ah, valley,
I don't know why, I'm thinking about a waipiti,
it's a North American animal that looks like an
antlerless reindeer/ I mean, I didn't realize it
was from North America. I saw a picture of one
this weekend. They just run around wild. I don't
know where in North America they live, but...I
don't know what that has to do with "valley"
(laughs).

GLASS...I still don't have any reaction about glass.
You skipped "chair" this time through. Those were
those two test ones you used before, and I remember
I was sitting here before thinking, "I don't have
anything to say about chairs." (laugh) "If he
asks me that one I'm going to be stuck, because I
can't..." I still don't have anything to say
about glass either. (laugh).

How do you feel?

Those broken glasses/ at the, at the, you know, at
the riots ah, and all that damage they did over
there at Erickson. Have you been over there?
There's tons of glass over there. ETC.

 

IU)

lmnfi

IU)

IU‘JIL'IZI

IU)

|m|txj|m|m

lmltr:

SET #4

LAUGH...That's fun, that's what I like to do a lot.
Playing games, ahm, psych experiments, ahm, dorm
life, all kinds of laughter all the time in the
dorm.

How do you feel?
HappY-/

WISH...Wishing well, throwing pennies, dreams,
hopes for the future. Hum, wishing I knew what I
was going to do...for a major. Ahm...frustration/
because I don't know, ahm...

How are you doing?
OK.

WALK...Walking down by the river, taking a walk
across, ahm, across campus. Walking upstairs,
running up Six flights of stairs to my room.

Ahm, getting really tired, almost missing class./

How do you feel?

OK, I can't get a lot on my mind, I mean, I mean...

Can you tell me what you mean by that?

I mean, I'm not, I'm not getting all kinds of images
or thinking of all kinds of things like I did last
time.

STORE...Anger, ahm, somebody, ahm, standing in line
going, bookstore. Somebody pushing me, pushing me
out of line. Making me mad./ Professor, Dr. Wade,
I couldn't believe it.

How do you feel?
Upset!

112

Imnmunm Im

IU)

Imnmuum

ImHD

[CD

113

NARROW...Narrow hallways, corridors, narrow street,
ahm, Spanish town, where the streets and sidewalks
are real narrow. I can't think of anything./

How do you feel?

Weird.

Weird?

Yah because, because I can't, IDK, I'm just not
getting...images or remembering things. Maybe I'm
just can't focus on the word.

FELLOW...Guys, ahm, standing in, some guy in the line
pushing me, making me drop a lot of stuff...making
me drop a lot of stuff, making me drop my books,
everything went all over./ Made me so mad.

How are you doing?

Upset again! (Voice sounds very upset and angry.)

Upset?

Yah, at this guy. At guys in general. It seems
like it was all guys.

DROP...Dropping my books. Drop, ahh, enrolling for
classes and, and going to get my books, and I had
a whole mess of books. And (sigh) and then I
picked up this one book and then I went to check
out and they they went all over the place./ And
it, and this one book was a really neat book, and
I wanted to read it and I couldn't read it because'
I dropped it and everything went all to pieces.

How do you feel?
Strange. I, I, I don't usually get that upset. I,
but I really was.

TRAVEL...One of my ambitions is going, going to see
the world, visiting, visiting different countries.
Ahm...moving somewhere. Going to a new location.
Traveling across campus on the buses is so slow
(sigh)./ Ahm, good times traveling; going with
the family and having a lot of fun. Fighting in
the car (laugh). Ah, going swimming.

|m

|Ul|t11

ICD

lmflfi

114

MUSIC...Singing, weddings, ahm, standing around the
piano singing, especially at holiday time. Singing
a lot of old favorite songs, hum, happy times,
going Christmas caroling. I think I'm getting in
the Christmas mood (laugh)./

LINE...Standing in line...all the time. Grocery
lines, and, and standing in a line at the book-
store and getting, getting pushed out of line (sigh)
(hitting the chair)./ Getting really upset I
couldn't believe it, it...one of my favorite
professors that I I really liked him, and he just,
and he, and he just pushed me out of line and got
the biggest laugh out of it. Made me so mad, I
couldn't believe it. I could have understood if
it had been somebody else, somebody that I didn't
know, or some prof that I didn't like in the first
place. (sigh)

 

How do you feel?
Really ticked (sigh) I just, I really couldn't
believe it.

STAND...Getting tired of standing in line, waiting
so long. The lines in the bookstore are always
so long and you stand and you wait, and you wait.
And you get so tired of it. Then people get
pushy./ So frustrated. .

How are you doing?

IDK, I, I, I can't believe, I can't believe I felt
that way. I mean I can't I can't believe I felt
that strongly about it. That I've got so upset.
It still makes me mad, but...

BROKEN...The book that I got, it was, I got a, I
found a, a new translation of the Bible that I
wanted to read. And I was really excited about it,
and, and then I dropped it./ And I was so upset
because, because I looked for it for a long time
and I was so mad that I couldn't find it and then
I, I found it and, and I was all upset because I
dropped it and it went all over the place.

ICD

|m1m|m|m

Itrj 1m

[CD

[CD

IUDIF'J

ImltTJ

IU)

115

HEAVY...The books got so heavy, and I stood in line
for so long. And...it wouldn't have been so bad if,
if I had had somebody there with me, or somebody,
if one of my girl-friends had been there/ or
something. I may not have gotten so upset.

How do you feel?

IDK, I feel kind of confused.

Confused?

I, I can't understand all of this...because I...IDK,
I, I'm usually a very patient person and I can't
understand all, why I got this way and, I can't
understand why I still feel upset about it.

FOOD...IDK, I just don't feel any reaction, I...its
getting near dinnertime, that's about the only
thing I can think of./ I just...nothing.

Nothing comes to your mind even about, you know,
something other than food or just a blank?

I just feel very upset and I don't understand it.
Because usually if I get upset about something it
doesn't last that long and I, and it, you know,
after it happens it goes away.

BOOK...This, this book that I wanted to read...well,
well picking out all my books for school was, I
mean, it was fun, you know, finding out what I
was going to get and everything and buying new
books and being scared of the prices. But then
this one book that I found,/ I really wanted and
it just meant so much, and it, and it broke and
went all to pieces.

How are you doing?

IDK, I (Sigh) I can't, I just can't understand being
upset about it this long, I just, IDK.

Kind of perplexed, huh?

Yah.

FLOWER...Flowers in the spring.' Ahm, beauty in
nature. Getting flowers for...like the prom.
Carrying bouquets in the wedding./

 

IUD

ImHD Im

IUD

IUDIL'IZ!

IUD

IWHU

116

CROWD...I, I, I don't, I don't even want to think
about it. It's just, its back to the same thing
again, the, the bookstore and dropping my books
and getting so mad at this professor./ I just
feel really sick about the whole thing.

TIRED...I, I just, I feel really tired of it, I...
at this point you just feel ready to sit down and
cry, you know.

Hum hum.

You get, you just get so upset about something and...

(sigh). Just, I'm just really tired of it.‘ And,
want to forget it.

VALLEY...First thing that comes to my mind is "Yea
though I walk through the valley of the shadow of
death, I will fear no evil." But I feel better./
I, I have this really close relationship with this
guy and this helps an awfully lot especially when
I'm upset.

So how do you feel now?
Calmer.

GLASS...Ahm, wearing glasses, especially when it
gets so hot and sticky in the summer (chuckle).
Ahm, washing glasses, window panes, bay windows,
the big picture window in our living room.
Changing windows/ in the spring and in the winter.
Glad I'm not going to be home this winter so I
won't have to do it (laugh), it just hit me that
there aren't any windows in here (both laugh).

How do you feel?
OK.

 

“flu - .- .

M'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIES