A STUDY N THE RELIAB'TLTTY 0F
HYPNOTSC AGE-REGRESSION AS A TOOL
IN THE ASSESSMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL

MOTOR SKiLLS

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHTGAN STATE UNIVERSTTY
LOIS, CHARLOTTE RAPPOLT
1969

- paw-1m“

 

 

     
  

r alumna IY
"ME & SNNS'
BLUUK BINDERY INC.

| RA? ‘ BINDERS

 
 
   

' "‘ " "TCII‘I'
:

Il;\\ Ag:- JD. .2

ABSTRACT

A STUDY IN THE RELIABILITY OF‘KZTHOTIC
AGE-REGRISSSIOIT AS A TOOL IN TIT?)
ASSESSI-IIJITT OF MITTDAIIEITTAL IIOTOR SKILLS

By

Lois Charlotte Rappolt

The purpose of this study was to determine if
the technique of hypnotic age-regression can be used to
facilitate the study of motor development. If adults
under hypnosis could reproduce motor patterns of
younger years, disadvantages of longitudinal motor
performance studies could be avoided and there would be
many new opportunities for research in motor development.

The specific objects of the experiment were:

1) to determine if, through hypnotic age-regression,
adults can perform at the motor ability level of an
earlier age (for this study, ive years), and 2) to
investigate the degree of accuracy to which an adult in
a hypnotized state can reproduce motor patterns elicited
under hypnosis during a previous interval of time.

The investigator utilized ten subjects in each
of three groups as follows: 1) a control group consisting

of five-year-old girls, 2) an experimental group

Lois Charlotte Rappolt

consisting of hypnotized adult females, regressed to
five years of age, and 3) a simulator group consisting
of adult females who pretended to be hypnotically
regressed to the age of five years.

Basic motor developmental tests (one-hand ball
catch, high jumping, and tracing skills) and motion
pictures were used to determine the validity of performance.
The tests were administered on two occasions by an
instructor unfamiliar with the experimental design
and the identity and role of the subjects. Chi square
tests for k independent samples were used to determine if
observed disparities among groups occurred by chance or
if changes in performance might be attributed to factors
other than chance.

No significant differences among the three groups
were revealed in the pass-fail results or reasons for
missing for the high jumps, the circle trace and the maze
trace. It is concluded that the hypnotized subjects,
age—regressed to five years, can perform at the level of a
five-year-old child for these skills. However, essentially.
the same level of performance can be produced by simulators

who pretend to be five years old.

Lois Charlotte Rappolt

There was a significant difference between the
performance of the children and the adults for the
one-hand catch. This condition is attributed to adult
p ysica1.maturation, specifically the hand size.

Skill performance of hypnotized, age-regressed
subjects and of adults simulating the hypnotized,
age-regressed state was consistent from trial to trial.
The children, however, displayed a variety of
inconsistencies in motor skills from.one testing session
to the next.

Subjective film analysis of the gross motor skills
revealed that the performance of the experimental group
contained.more characteristics of five-year-old children

than the performance of the simulator group.

A STUDY IN THE RELIABILITY OF

HYFNOTIC AGEeREGRESSION AS A TOOL

IN THE ASSESSI-IENT OF F'UT‘TDAI-TENTAL MOTOR SKILLS

BY

Lois Charlotte Rappolt

A THESIS

Submitted to

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

I-TASTER OF ARTS

Department oleealth, Physical Education and Recreation

1969

ACKNOULEDGEHERTS

Grateful acknowledgement is made to the
author's adviser, Dr. Vernal Seefeldt, for his
invaluable help and guidance.

The writer wishes to thank Dr. Arthur H.
Steinhaus and Dr. Joseph Reyher for their inspiration
and encouragement in the area of hypnosis.

The writer also wishes to express her
gratitude and sincere appreciation to her subjects
for their dedication, and to Willoughby George

Sheena, Jr. for his oriticism.of the manuscript.

.ii

I. INTRODUCTION . . e e e 0
II. REVISE}! OF' TIL-'3 LITLLATURE
III. PROCEDURES . . e . . . 0
IV. RESULTS. . . . . . . . .

v. sugary, CONCLUSIONS AITD

BIBLIOGRAPI‘FJO o e e e e e e e e 0

75'0"" 7“
Ai¢jimIC~JJO e e e e e e e e e e 0

Appendix

7

A. Hypnotic Induction fiethod.

B. Stanford Scale of Hypnotic

Susceptibili

C. Post-hypnotic Suggestions for Bleep.

Do IIIEh Jump. 0 o o e o e e
E. One-hand Catch . . . . .
F. Circle Trace . . . . . .

G. Maze Trace . . . . . . .

iii

10
15
33

38

Table

2.

3.

LIST OF TABLES
Page

Chi Square Values for Pass-Fail
Differences Among Groups for Gross
and Fine Motor Skills. . . . . . . . . . 16

Group Comparisons in the High Jump
With the Reasons for Failing Presented
inPerOentaEOSeeeeeeeeeeeee 19

Group Comparisons in the OneéHand
Catch With the Reasons for Failing
Presented in Percentages . . . . . . . . 20

Group Comparisons in the Circle
Trace Test with the Reasons for Failing
Presented in Percentages . . . . . . . . 22

Chi Square Values for all Groups
Indicating the Pass-Fail Changes from
Trial One to Trial Two . . . . . . . . , 23

Chi Square Values for all Groups
Indicating the Reasons for Failure
Between Trials for Each Skill. . . . . . 2h

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Physical maturation of the child is accompanied
by increased efficiency in such fundamental motor patterns'
as crawling, walking, and jumping. Although the sequential
development of some of these skills has been determined,
little is known about effects of training, genetic
development and learning situations on motor activity.

To attain knowledge in these areas, researchers
have made longitudinal studies of groups of children.
However, this approach has several disadvantages:

1) Such studies require a long period of time to reach
fruition, normally a minimum of m. years, 2) they
usually involve large numbers of subjects (to offset
absenteeism and attrition) and 3) the results can be
affected by external factors to which subjects may be
exposed during the course of a project.

Also, little is known about hypnotic
age-regression, a.method of recall through reliving an
earlier time (19, p. 121). Hypnosis itself has had a
renaissance in scientific study and many investigators
are using it to study the psychological, physical and
physiological implications of performance (13,21,22,26,
27,31,38ah5). However, there is little evidence pertaining
to the use of hypnotic age-regression as a tool in the

study of motor performance.

The purpose of this study was to determine
if the technique of hypnotic age-regression can be used
to facilitate the study of motor development. Can
age-regression, if used with a small group of subjects
who execute basic skills over a short period of time,
secure reliable and valid results and thus avoid the
disadvantages of a longitudinal study?

If adults under hypnosis can reproduce motor
patterns of younger years, there would be many new
opportunities for research in motor development. These
Opportunities might include observation of changes in
motor skills, study of the sequence of skills, evaluation
of teaching techniques, and possible improvement of
present skills through re-learning under simulated
conditions of childhood.

It is relatively easy to persuade a hypnotized
adult to assume the verbal role of a child. However,
hypnotists have noted that motor behavior is not entirely
consistent with the chronological age assumed by a
subject (9, p. 121). The validity and reliability of

such an assumed role is the focus of this study.

PROBLEM

The purpose of this experiment was to assess
the technique of age-regression as a research tool in
the performance of gross and fine motor patterns commonly
learned in childhood. By examining hypnotized subjects,
the researcher attempted to determine: 1) if an adult
can perform Specific motor patterns at the motor
ability level of the age in question (five years),
and 2) if a hypnotized subject can repeat such skills at
the same level of performance in successive sessions.
Performance of gross motor skills (high jump, ball bounce
and one~hand catch) was recorded on film, while
performance of fine motor skills (circle and maze traces)
was evaluated on the basis of the paper and pencil
record produced by the subject.

Thirty-five female students from.Michigan State
University physical education activity classes volunteered
for the experiment. After several group induction
sessions, twelve subjects qualified as somnambulists as
defined by the Stanford.Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale,

Fbrm A (which measures achieved depth characteristics
portrayed by one who is in hypnotic sleep). Ten additional
students from physical education activity classes volunteered
to serve as simulators. Both groups were informed that the
eXperiment would include the performance of gross and fine

motor skills while in a state of chronological age-regression,

but neither group knew'what age nor which skills would
be examined. A third (control) group consisted of

ten five-year-old females who performed the same skills
as those who were hypnotized and those who simulated a
hypnotic condition.

In two identical sessions, all subjects in
each group performed two gross and two fine motor skills.
Individually, each five-year-old, each subject in the
experimental group (regressed to her fifth birthday),
and each subject in the simulator group (simulating
five years of age) executed a jump, bounce and one-hand
catch and two maze tracing skills. Through analysis
of test results, films and test sheets, data were
examined for: l) reliability, by comparing two
performances of each subject, and 2) production of the
regressed skill, through comparison of the performance
of the skill to the established levels of performance
of five-year-old children.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF 'IHE LITERATURE

Motor developmental sequence. As early as
the 1930's, researchers explored.many aspects of motor
skill development of children. Maturation appears to
be one of the predominant factors influencing the
development of proficiency in gross and fine motor
skills. Shirley (35, p.95) defined.maturation as
"the sum total of the growth process." She concluded
that progress in motor control comes from.this process.
In an analysis of walking, fer example, it can be seen
that the developmental control of the head and neck
region, shoulders, trunk, and legs must have occurred
before the final stage of walking is reached.

In a study of throwing patterns, Wild (uh)
described a developmental sequence in which the immature
throw of the early years is integrated into a more
complex pattern as one grows older. 'With the greater
range of movement at the advanced age, the throw becomes
more efficient.

Similarly, in the hurdle jump diagnostic test,
Cowan (h, p. 121) verified that "maturation is a determining
factor in the height of the jump." He found that children

with advanced chronological age performed better than

children of younger ages irrespective of their heights or

weights.

In reviewing Deach's study (5) of the genetic
development of motor skills of throwing, striking,
kicking and bouncing, Rarick (32. p. 25) concluded that:

a. Motor control passes from gross movements
to fine coordinations and from total body
action to individuation of parts.

b. Patterns of performance increase in
complexity with increased maturity, with
elements of each pattern precise enough to
be clearly defined.

0. There is a gradual fusion of new elements
with those of old established patterns, so

that there is an increased ability to
perform according to adult standards.

Children normally pass through the developmental
sequences in the same order, with the behavioral pattern
usually following the structural change. Although
practice, training, and other environmental influences
affect the development or acquisition of a skill,

Hicks (19) noted that structural maturation was the most
significant factor.

Commenting on neurological research, which
has revealed that some individuals may have more neurons
than others, Harrison (17) suggested the possibility of
more developed motor patterns at different stages of
maturation. She also posed the possibility that some
dendrities have the potential for optimum development

at specific periods in the life span of an organism,

Tests such as the Lincoln-Oseretsky I-Iotor
Development Scale (37), The Denver Developmental
Screening Test (11), and The Stott Tests of Motor
Impairment (2h) provide standards for assessment of
motor development in the early school years. In his
analysis of the Stott Tests, Keogh (2h) provided current,
specific standards which indicate that skill level
improves as the total growth process continues.

Hypnotic age-regression. After a period of
quiesence, scientific interest in hypnosis was revived
in the 1930's. Both the British Medical Association and
the American Medical Association later supported the
teaching of hypnosis (1950's) and it became recognized
as a useful tool in both the experimental and clinical
fields(2o),

Little experimental research has been attempted-
in the area of'hypnotic age-regression and motor skill.
Hypnosis has been used in studies of strength (21,26,38)
and other physiological phenomena (2,22,26,27,30,h5) but
use of hypnotic age-regression has been limited to studies
of intelligence. (lh,25,29,31,3h,h0),

There are two general attitudes toward
age-regression: 1) "it is a product of an altered level
of ego-functioning, made possible by the subject's

surrender of his control over his ego processes to the

(Hf. NW)" ‘ I. - ' I— ‘M “-
rm :.~.-'.A."L‘ up. ..
.‘.~ I I ,’\ . "“¥[qv\3!"r
m5! LANDING (‘fiff‘hllf‘ . . -. ‘Y
' W mm! 4.23.323

hypnotist, and 2) regression is not a true return to
an earlier level of functioning but rather the product
of the subject playing the role appropriate to the ‘
suggested age" (1h, p.112). These opposing views
resulted from several studies: The writers report that
a full role-enactment of earlier experience does not
occur (1h,20,25,29). It appears that there is regression
as tested by various psychometric measures, "but outcomes
tend to correspond to those of an age somewhat more mature
than that to which the subject is presumably regressed"
(20, p.172).

Many physiological phenomena can be produced
by an unhypnctized subject who is asked to imagine or
simulate a particular task (2). Barber (2) contends
that hypnotic age-regression is not "real" and that
characteristics portrayed by the subject are often not
characteristic of most children, However, in two seperate
investigations, a psycho-phsysiological reorganization
in the Babinski sign (dorsiflexion or upward extension of
the large toe) was produced through age-regression (13,h0).
Known only to be present in infants, this phenomenon would
seem.to represent authentic age-regression (33).

Other tests reported that subjects who were
regressed to the second-grade level changed their

handwriting to print (20). In cases where the subject was

judged to be in a good regressed state (hypnotist
judged on the basis of answers to various questions)
the correlation of handwriting with depth of regression
was .78 for the fifth-grade regression and .83 for the
second-grade level. ‘

Summary. Research indicates that motor patterns
in children:move in sequence from.birth to maturity.
Proficiency in motor skills improves with advancing age
until the mature pattern is attained. At each stage of
development, former patterns are performed more
efficiently and new’skills emerge.

The accuracy to which a.hypnotica11y age-regressed
adult can reproduce the motor patterns of an earlier age
has not been determined. To the knowledge of this writer
no research.has been reported in this area. It is the
purpose of this study, therefore, to answer two questions:
1) can the motor characteristics of a five-year-old
dhild be produced in a hypnotically age-regressed adult?
and 2) to what degree of accuracy can an adult in a
hypnotized state reproduce the motor patterns elicited

under hypnosis at an earlier point in time?

CHARTER III
PROCEDURES

Thirty-five female students, ranging in age
from eighteen to twenty years and enrolled in Michigan
State University physical education activity classes,
volunteered for the experiment. After one group
induction session during which the students were hypnotized
by the visual-fixation and verbal suggestion of sleep
method (see Appendix A), twenty subjects were asked to
return (on the basis of observed hypnotic susceptibility)
for two additional sessions. .During the latter sessions,
the items from the Stanford.Hypnotic Susceptibility
Scale, Form A (20, p.83)‘were utilized to determine
the depth of hypnotic sleep (see Appendix B).

During these sessions, twelve subjects passed
the depth tests, which classified them as somnambulists,
and were given a post-hypnotic suggestion for rapid
induction. (see Appendix C). A private meeting with each
of the twelve subjects and a group session with all
subjects were held to introduce the subjects to
age-regression and to maintain rapport between the operator
and the subjects. The volunteers were informed that the
experiment would include age-regression and physical

activity, but knowledge concerning the ages and types of

10

(11

activity was withheld. In the first session, involving
regression to five years of age, each subject wrote her
name and age, drew a picture with a crayon, experienced
a smell hallucination, balanced on one foot, walked
backwards, and caught a bounced ball with two hands.
In the second practice session, the hypnotized subjects
were regressed to three years of age and attempted to
jump in place, balance on one foot, recognize three colors,
and draw with crayons.

At this point, two of the twelve subjects
withdrew frem the experhment for personal reasons.
The remaining ten subjects will hereafter be referred
to as the "expertmental" group.

.The experimental group was compared to a
."simulator” group and to a "control" group in terms
of quantitative and qualitative characteristics of
motor skills. Ten female physical education students
(eighteen to twenty years of age) frem.Hichigan State
University, who were not volunteers for the hypnosis
experiment agreed to act as simulators. The simulators
were informed that they would imitate young children and
perform certain physical skills. However, as with the
experimental group, the exact age and skills were not
mentioned. In order to become familiar with some

characteristics of hypnotic behavior (but not with the

12

experimental tasks), subjects in the simulator group
were permitted to observe one session during which the
subjects in the experimental group were hypnotized.

The reasons for formation of the simulator group were:
1) to determine if age-appropriate behavior could be
imitated by adults who had not been hypnotized and
age-regressed, and 2) to eliminate possible bias on the
part of the photographer and the person administering
the test.

The control group was composed of ten female
children ranging in age from.5.0 to 6.0 years. These
subjects were randomly selected from a list of participants
in a longitudinal motor performance study in progress at
Michigan State University. The skills of one-hand catch,
jumping over various heights, and maze traces had not
been introduced in the longitudinal study and there is
no reason to believe that the ability level of the group
differed from.that of other children within the age
described above.

All individuals in the experimental group
(regressed to the morning of their fifth birthday), in the
simulator group (imitating five years of age), and in the
control group were filmed while performing two gross motor
skills. The gross motor skills were modifications of the
Stott high jump and the Stott one-hand catch of a bounced
tennis ball (see Appendices D and E). In addition, each

subject executed two fine motor skills,

13

the Stott circle and the Stott maze trace (see Appendices
F and G).

These tests were chosen because: 1) they permitted
reliable scoring, 2) hey involved no danger to the
participants, 3) they did not require elaborate test
material, and b) they had significant positive
correlation with age (h,2h). The age of five was chosen
because it was the earliest age for which standard
tests with a range of resulting data were available (2h).

At the first testing session, the adult subjects
were introduced to an instructor who was unaware of the
purpose or the exact nature of the experiment. The
instructor was under the impression that all the adults in
the group were hypnotized and age-regressed. (In
actuality, simulators were placed randomly among the
age-regressed subjects)..

The instructor proceeded to explain and/or
demonstrate (as required) the tests to each subject
individually, before the subject executed a skill (in
front of the camera). Directions were identical for each
subject. The tracing tests were also administered
by the instructor.

All skills were retested fourteen days later,
under the same environmental conditions (instructor,
cameramen, rooms, equipment, time of day). All tests were

scored as directed and recorded at the time of performance.

1h

he same testing procedures were used for the
five-year-old children, except that they were tested
on different days. In this manner, the adults were
not tempted to imitate the children.

Analysis of the test results included
performance comparisons of the five-year-old children,
age-regressed adults, and subjects simulating the
performance of children at five years of age. Filmed
characteristics such as preparation for take-offs, landings,
and manner of catching and bouncing were noted.
(Criteria for judging are in test descriptions, Appendices
D,E,F5G). The researcher also compared the filmed and
written results of the successive testing sessions.

The chi square test was the statistical tool
used to evaluate the results of this experiment. Using
this method, results obtained were compared to results
expected on the basis of the hypothesis that the
hypnotized (experimental) group would not differ from the
five-year-old children (control group). Also, a comparison
was made between the expected and observed frequencies

for each trial of each group.

CHAPTER _IV
RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to determine:
1) if the motor characteristics of a five—year-old
child can be produced in a hypnotically age-regressed
adult, and 2) to what degree of accuracy an adult
in a hypnotized state can reproduce the motor patterns
elicited under hypnosis at an earlier period in time.

Basic motor development tests were used as
instruments to determine the validity of performance.
Iovement characteristics were noted from a subjective
film.analysis of skills. Chi square techniques for k
independent samples (36) were employed to determine if
group differences existed between test items and between
the two trials. With similar methods, the possible
difference between each group performance for each trial
was investigated.

The data from each of two trials consisted
of pass-fail scores and categorized reasons for failure
of the test items during the performance. Table 1 shows
the chi square values for the pass-fail differences
among groups for gross and fine motor skills. It should
be noted that in ten of twelve trials there was no

significant difference in the performance level of the

15

16

three groups. Only the one-hand catch with chi square
values of 21.818 and 15.833 indicate a significant

difference among groups for both trials.

Chi Square Values for Pass-Pail Differences Among Groups
For Gross and Fine Hotor Skills

A‘ ww— , ----~

 

 

Skill Test df Chi Square Values Chi Square Values
for Trial One for Trial Two
Knee High Jump h .375 3.286
12" High Jump h 2.hh0 1.292
16" high Jump h 5.369 5.695
One-Hand Catch 2 21.818 15.833
Circle Trace 2 5.700 2.857
Haze Trace 2 2.222 1.920

 

When df'l 2, Chi square value at .05 must equal or exceed
5.99 for significance.

when df‘B h, hi square value at .05 must equal or exceed
9.h9 for significance.

The table of critical values of chi square (36)
indicates that a value of 5.99 or greater is required to
be significant at the .05 level dfll2, or 9.h9 or greater

to be significant at the .05 level with df=h. Similar t:

17

Keogh's earlier study (2h), results of the one—hand
catch recorded for the five-year-old children (control
group) show that 80% failed trial one while 90% failed
trial two. Results of the experimental and simulator
groups reveal that no one failed trial one while in
trial two, 10:3 of the simulator and 2073 of the
hypnotized (experimental) groups failed.

There were no significant differences in the
pass-fail scores among all groups for each of the
three jumps or the tracing skills tests. Less than
one-half of the five-year-olds passed the circle trace
(in both trials) and although more than 80;: of the
simulator and 70% of the hypnotized groups passed
both trials, this level of achievement was not
sufficiently high to obtain significant differences
for this test. Chi square values of 2.222 and 1.92
indicate no significance at the .05 level for differences
among groups in the maze tracing test. More than 70%
of all three groups failed both trials.

Reasons for misses on all of the tests were
examined to determine if true motor patterns were
produced. Fbr the high jump, misses were recorded for:
l) a one-foot take-off, 2) a one-foot landing, 3) knocking
the bar off the standard on the way up, h) knocking the

bar off the standard on the way down, and 5) miscellaneous

Instructional Resources Center
133 ERICKSON HALL
MlCHKSAN STATE UNIVERSITY
m LANSING. MICHIGAN 48823

18

reasons. Ball catch misses were noted for: l) catching
the ball with two hands, 2) dropping the ball, and

3) using the body to assist in securing the ball.
Uistahes on the tracing skills included: 1) pencil
lift-off, 2) drawing the line beyond the bounds of the
maze, 3) not following the maze correctly. A category
of "no misses" was included for each test.

Fbr six degrees of freedom, the table of
critical values of chi square (36) shows that a value of
12.59 or greater is significant at the 5% level. For
both trials of the three high jump tests, the chi square
value for differences between groups did not reach
significance. Table 2 indicates categories of misses and
percentages of failure patterns for each group, as
well as chi square values.

More than 50% of the simulator and hypnotized
groups had no failures on any of the three jumps. The
16 inch jumps indicate that the categories of "up, down,
and miscellaneous" accounted for the greatest percentage
of failures for all groups.

There was a significant difference among the
groups in reasons for not catching the ball in the one-hand
catch test. Chi square values of lh.090 and 11.892
were reported for trials one and two respectively. Then
dfhh a value of 9.h9 or greater is significant at the

.05 level (36). Table 3 shows that the reason for the

l9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

torn new 0m.mH woooxe so Manse nmfix He>mH no we msawb meadow who
e.ma c.0m m.eH m.:H eeaeflmro
0.0m m.em 0.0 m.ma seenrecahn
H.pm e.wm m.:H 0.0 aepeHsaam sea 0mm.m w
9.0m H.sm m.sa 0.0 nonsense
0.mw m.ma m.ma 0.0 emaauoeaau .
H.eu e.mm m.aH 0.0 aeaasasam sea mem.m H
m.mm m.ma 0.mm 0.0 eeaeaaho
0.0. 0.0m 0.0m 0.0m eeaapoaarm
e.mm m.mm H.HH 0.0 aepaassam zma mea.m m
0.00H 0.0 0.0 0.0 ceaeaaao
m.~0 0.0 m.wH 0.0 eeaaaocaam
:.Hs 0.0 e.0m 0.0 acreassam ama 0a:.m H
0.0a 0.0 0.0m 0.0m ceasefire
0.0m 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a eeearoeoam
0.0a 0.0 0.0 0.0m aepaasram tees eme.r m
0.0m 0.0 0.0a 0.0: reseaare
0.0a 0.0 0.0m 0.0H seeareaarm - r
0.0m 0.0 0.0: 0.0a aeeaasaam ewes use.; H
momma: .eaaa

02 a czomuab msfiocwq “Honoxwa

m m a m areas .am eaesem are Hausa

 

 

 

 

 

 

memwpcooaom CH popcomosm wcwawem pom

meomeem esp aaa:.0ape seam or» an

moonwawdfioo asoaw

 

20

significant difference appears to be that more than
70% of the children failed to catch the ball because
of dropping it or pulling it to their chests. It is
also noted that more than 70% of the simulators had

only one or no misses, signifying no reasons for failure.

TABLE 3

Group Comparisons in the One-Hand Catch with the Reasons
for Failing Presented in Percentages

 

V wmfi"

 

 

Trial Chi Group Drops ball Two hands One or
Square or pulls it to catch or No
to chest several Misses
reasons
l 1h.090 Simulator 30.0% 0.05 70.05
Hypnotized 30.0% 50.0% 20.0p
Children 70.0% 20.05 10.0fi
2 11.892 Simulator 10.0% 10.0; 80.03
Hypnotized I0.053 0.0% 60.0%
Children 30.0% 10.0% 10.05

 

When de I, Chi square value at .05 must equal or exceed
9.h9 for significance.

 

Results for the first circle trace trial reported
a significant difference in reasons for missing among the
groups. The chi square table of critical values (36)

indicates that when dfll6 a value of 12.59 or greater is

21

required for significant differences between groups
at the 5% level. Fbr trial one, the chi square value was
18.700, but for trial two, a non-significant value of
6.986 was noted.

Percentages indicating the differences among
groups in circle trace difficulties are noted in
Table h. The children failed 60% of the time because
of a pencil lift-off in trial one, but the record of
trial two indicates that they missed for this reason
only hog of the time. The simulator and hypnotized
groups scored their higher percentage of misses because
of going out of bounds. However, it should be noted that
more than 705 of these two groups passed the test in

general and thus would not have a high percentage in

reasons for missing.

22

TABLE h

Group Comparisons in the Circle Trace Test with the
Reasons for Failing Presented in Percentages

 

 

 

 

 

===========_ ====____...—_ __...___._.._===='==== _____
Trial Chi Group Pencil Out of Pass Pass
Square Lift-Off Bounds Trial Trial
One Two
1 18.700 Simulator 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0
Hypnotized 0.0 30.0 60.0 10.0
Children 60.0 0.0 20.0 20.0
2 6.986 Simulator 10.0 10.0 50.0 30.0
Hypnotized 0.0 20.0 50.0 30.0
Children no.0 10.0 h0.0 10.0

 

when df= 6, Chi Square value must equal or exceed
12.59 for significance.

 

Neither trial of the maze trace test obtained
significant differences among groups and their reasons
for failure. The non-significant chi square values (36)
were 10.562 for trial one and 7.800 for trial two when
dfl- 6. In order for the obtained chi square value to be
significantly different from.chance at the .05 level the
value must reach 12.59.

There was no significant difference noted
between the two pass-fail performances of each skill test

for either the simulator or hypnotized groups. Table 5

indicates the chi square values for all groups.

23

It

should be noted that only three of the fifteen values

reached the pro-determined level of significance.

TABLE

Chi Square Values for all Groups Indicating the Pass-Fail

Changes from Trial One to Trial Two

 

 

 

 

= .— “—===========_—_=:====
. Chi Square Chi Square Chi Square
Skill df Simulator Hypnotized Children
{nee High Jump h 3.500 1.270 10.000
12: High Jump h 2.625 3.u29 0.000
16 High Jmmp b 5.556 2.u00 8.000
One-Hand Catch 1 0.000 0.000 h.hh0
Circle Trace 1 0,278 o, 76 0.000
Maze Trace 1 0.000 2,?93 h,hu0

 

When deh, Chi square value at .05 must equal or exceed

9.h9 for significance.

When df=l, Chi square value at .05 must equal or exceed

3.8h for significance.

 

There was a significant difference at the .05

level in the results for three of the control group

performances. A significant chi square value of h.hh was

noted for the one-hand catch and the maze trace.

Also,

a significant chi square value of 10.00 was noted for the

knee high Jump. Neither the twelve nor the sixteen inch

high Jumps nor the circle trace test showed significant

2h

difference in pass-fail performance from.trial one to
trial two.

A comparison of reasons for missing between the
two trials for each of the tests was made for each group.
There was no significant difference between trials for any
group except in the one-hand catch. As in the maze
trace and catch performances noted previously, only
the children differed sufficiently between trials. They
missed because of dropping the ball 70% of the time
in trial one and 80% of the time in trial two. Table 6
designates the chi square values for each group, with the

results categorized according to the reasons for failure.

TABLE 6

Chi Square Values for all Groups Indicating the Reasons
for Failure Between Trials for Each Skill

 

”WWW”:
Chi Square Chi Square Chi Square
Skill df Simulators Hypnotized Children
Knee High Jump 9 0.312 3.810 10.000
12" High Jump 9 0.375 8.000 0.000
16" High Junp 9 2.222 2.h00 2.167
One-Hand Catch t 2.859 2.222 10.357
Circle;Trace 9 12.381 1.500 6.667
Haze Trace 9 6.111 16.667 6.607

 

When df = h, Chi square value at .05 level must equal or
exceed 9.h9 for significance

When df‘a 9, Chi square value at .05 level must equal or
exceed 16.92 for significance

 

25

DISCUSSION OF .FTLI-I AND TEST FJJ‘SIETS

ggglygis of the one-hand qatch. A child
is normally proficient in reaching and grasping at an
early age (two to five years), but orientation of his
hands and arms to a moving object involves more complex
time-space relationships (32, p.60). The five-year-old
child uses his arms and hands as one unit. Consequently,
he attempts to use both hands when catching a ball which
he has bounced, and he tries to secure the ball against
his body if the placement of the ball on the rebound is
not in a position to which he is accustomed. This
inclination to use other body parts to aid in the catch
‘was evident throughout the performance of the control
group. In addition, due to the uncontrolled force exerted
on the ball, the direction of the bounce was often
unpredictable. In such instances the ball was often
contacted but not secured, or the attempt at contact
failed entirely. Insufficient eye focus, control of
direction, and/or understanding of the time-space
relationship appeared to be common characteristics of the
five-year-old children.

Ball size, relative to the size of the child's
hand.may also have contributed to the difficulty in catching.
If the catch was not perfect (in the palm.of the hand),

26

finger control was not exhibited and further attanpts
to hold the ball were abandoned. This lack of finger
control appeared to be the reason for more than SQ?
of the failures to catch the ball in each trial.
A.mature catching pattern proceeds in the
following sequence: 1) a concentrated effort to watch
the ball, 2) a catch on the upward portion of the
bounce, and 3) a follow-through in which the hand
follows in the direction of the bounce. Host of the
children bent their knees and attempted to come up
under the ball, but few followed the ball in its upward
path. When the ball hit the hand, they either pulled
it to the body or stopped the arm movement as the
fingers grasped the ball in an attempt to maintain
control.
'When the ball was missed completely, the children
executed a chasing motion with the palm.of the hand in a
prone position, following the ball on its downward path.
However, this motion was not always spontaneous. Typical
of childhood indecision, it appeared to be an after-thought.
Observation of the one-hand catch in the
hypnotized adults (experimental group) disclosed marked
similarities to the pattern of the five-year-old children.
The subjects did a deep knee bend to come up under the ball

and tended to catch with two hands. The arm pull to the

body, lack of follow-through, and lack of controlled
force on the ball were also evident. However, some of
the adults (both in the experimental and simulator groups)
demonstrated mature characteristics which few of the
children displayed. For example, they caught the ball
"palm.down" on the first bounce, used only a waist bend
to reach for the rebound, and reacted quickly to a

miss. Whenever a child attempted to catch the ball with
the palm down she missed the ball completely. The
adults? larger hand size appeared to be a definite
advantage in securing the ball. In the opinion of the
researcher, it is for this reason that the experimental
and simulator groups performed significantly better than
the children.

The simulator group displayed additional
characteristics which are indicative of a mature catching
pattern. They waited for the bounce, made the catch
at the last moment and turned the hand over after the
follow-through. These actions are typical of a well-executed
bounce and catch. In addition, 70% of this group had only
one or no:misses for the total of twenty attempts at
catching the ball.

It is concluded therefore, that although the

members of the experimental group exhibited.many movements

28

indicative of a five-year-old.motor pattern, their physical
maturation (specifically, hand size) prevented exact
duplication of the motor patterns characteristic of
younger performers.

There was significant inconsistency between
the two trials in pass-fail performance of the one-hand
catch for the children. It is the writer's opinion that
the performance of motor skills in children is less
consistent than in adults, regardless of the skills
involved. During several years of experience in teaching
swimming and other sports, the researcher has observed
hat instances are common when a child can execute a
skill on one day and fail to execute the same pattern
on a successive day.

A significant difference between trials one
and two was also noted in the reasons which caused the
children to fail in the one-hand catch. Again, this
inconsistency appears to be characteristic of young
performers.

Analysis of the high jumps. The most typical
element of the control group pattern in the high jump
was the one-foot take-off and landing. The children had
obvious difficulty in jumping over the bar with two feet,
and this difficulty increased as the bar was raised. The
height of the bar affected the children in several other
*ways. Some hesitated to jump, took a small preparation

jump in place, or took no jump at all.

29

while jumping, the arm.movement of the
children was erratic. Although.most of the five-year-olds
realized that use of the arms was necessary, few knew
exactly what motion to use. Consequently, balance upon
landing was poor and several children fell forward. It
was noted, however, that each child who had difficulty
tended to be consistent in her error pattern.

Some of the same instances of low-level
performance were noted in the simulator group, but
unlike the members of the other groups, many of these
participants looked back immediately to check the results
of their efforts. Unlike the children, the simulators
were inconsistent in the reasons for failing to clear the
bar. For example, on the first jump a simulator erred
because of a one—foot take-off, and on the second attempt
she knocked the bar off the standard on the way down.
Although there was not a significant difference between
groups, a review of the films revealed that their
performance characteristics were varied.

Arm movement for most of the simulators was well
coordinated or not used at all. In each case observed to
be atypical of five-year-old performance, the result was a
successful, balanced jump, even when the bar was at its
greatest height (16 inches).

Hembers of the experimental group (hypnotized

adults) exhibited the unskilled characteristics with

30

greater consistency than the simulator yroup. Their
hesitations, one-foot take-offs and landings, inaccurate
use of arms, and unbalanced jumps approximated the
unskilled patterns of the five-year-old children.
However, like the simulators, more than SOS of the

group passed the highest jump. Although this level

of achievement was not significantly different from that
of the control group, it appears that physical maturation
(specifically, the mature growth in height) had an
influence on performance. Due to the difference in
height between the children and adults, the levels chosen
for the high jump may be open to question. Changing this
factor, however, would entail regulating all test variables
according to the relative physical size of each person.

The significant difference noted in the pass-fail
results from trial one to trial two in the knee high jump
for the children again points out the variation in a
child's actions and performance. The scores for the
twelve and sixteen inch high jumps, as well as their
reasons for missing in all jumps, were consistent from
trial to trial. Results differed from previous findings (h),
however, in that some of the children performed the
sixteen inch jump.

Analysis of the Tracing Skills. The single
difference noted between groups in a visual comparison of

the tracing skills was that, for the children, the

31

non-dominant hand produced a lighter pencil mark on the
paper. Although the number of line crossings and

pencil lift-offs increased with the non-dominant hand

in all groups, a heavy line was noted for both hands

on the experimental and simulator group tests. Thus,

one might suppose that these two groups exerted more
control and greater force when executing the tracing skills
with the non-dominant hand.

A significant difference between trial
performances of the circle trace for the children was
noted. It is the researcher's opinion that this
phenomenon could have been caused by the children's
short attention span when listening to directions or to
lack of concentration during the tracing test itself.
Likewise, the significantly greater number of circle
trace lift-offs in the control group might have been
caused by the inability to concentrate.

Similar findings have been reported for both
tracing tests (2h). Since the maze test was intended
for seven-year-old children (and designed to be difficult
for five-year—olds) better performance by the simulators
had been expected, but more than 70¢ of all groups failed

the teat.

32

Scoring of the tracing tests might have
revealed greater differences between groups if the
test had been administered to each participant on an
individual basis. It is possible that one investigator
was unable to note all pencil lift-offs, when testing

groups of ten or twenty individuals.

CHAPTER V.

SUITIIARY, COITCLUSIOIIS AND RECOIIILIDATIOIE

SUHNARY'

The purpose of the current study was twofold:
l) to determine if, through hypnotic age-regression,
adults can perform at the motor ability level of an
age in question (for this study, five years), and 2)
to investigate the reliability of producing gross
and fine motor skills over an interval of time.
The investigation utilized ten subjects in
each of three groups as follows: 1) a control
group consisting of five-year-old girls, 2) an
experimental group consisting of hypnotized adult females
age-regressed to five years of age, and 3) a
simulator group consisting of adult females who
pretended to be hypnotically regressed to age of five years.
Basic motor developmental tests and motion
pictures were used to determine the validity of
performance. The tests were administered on two
occasions by an instructor unfamiliar with the experimental
design and the identity and role of the subjects. Chi
square tests for k independent samples were used to

determine if observed disparities among groups differed by

33

314

chance or if changes in performance might be attributed
to factors other than chance.

The research findings were:
1) There was no significant difference in pass-fail
performances among the three groups for the high jump
tests, circle trace test and the maze trace test.
2) The children differed significantly from the experimental
and simulator groups in their pass-fail performances on the
one-hand catch test. In both trials, 80% failed the
test, while 20% or less of the simulator and hypnotized
groups failed either of the trials. The children also
differed significantly in their reasons for missing the
ball in this test. In both trials, over 70% of their
failures were caused by dropping the ball and/or pulling
it to the chest.
3) There were no significant differences in reasons for
failure among the groups for the high jump tests and the
maze trace test.
h) Trial one of the circle trace test showed a significant
difference among the groups in reasons for failing the test.
Pencil lift-offs appeared to be the primary problem for the
children while the eXperimental and simulator groups failed
because of going out of bounds. In trial two, there was
no significant difference among the groups.
5) When examining each group for pass-fail performance
changes from trial one to trial two, no difference was

noted in any of the tests for either the experimental or

35

simulator groups. The children had significant

between trial differences in results for the knee height
jump, the one—hand catch, and the maze trace tests.

6) An investigation of reasons for failing the tests
indicated significant differences between trials for the
children in the one-hand catch. No differences between
trials were obtained for either the simulator or the
hypnotized groups.

7) An investigation of test performance through a
subjective film analysis indicated that the hypnotized
subjects eXhibited many of the characteristics noted

in the five-year-old children. These characteristics
were not as evident in the group which simulated the

motor performance of five-year-old children.

CONCLUSIONS

1) Because no significant differences were reported

in pass-fail results or reasons for missing for the high
jumps, the circle trace and the maze trace, it is concluded
that the hypnotized subjects, age-regressed to five years,
can execute skills at the level of a five-year-old child.
However, this same level of performance can be produced

by simulators who pretend to be five years of age.

2) The difference in performance between the children
and the adult groups in the one-hand catch is attributei
to adult physical maturation, specifically the hand size.
3) Skill performance of hypnotized subjects and of those
simulating the role of hypnotized persons is consistent
from trial to trial. Children at five years of age diaplay
a variety of inconsistencies in motor skills from.one
testing situation to the next.

h) The subjective film analysis of the gross motor skills
revealed that the performance of the experimental group
contained.more characteristics of five—year-old children

than the performance of the simulator group.

REC 013 IFEIIDATIO MB

Additional investigation of hypnotic
age-regression in the study of’motor development should
be undertaken to answer some of the questions which
resulted from this experiment. Also, due to the lack
of experimentation in this field, further exploration
is warranted.

Some of the following specific recommendations

might be considered:

37

l) The criterion tests of motor skill should contain
definable sequences of development rather than rely

on the qualitative "pass-fail" scoring of the current
tests.

2) Examination of specific movement characteristics
peculiar to each age group and skill should be pursued.
These characteristics could be quantified in on-going
longitudinal studies.

3) The age range of the control group should be reduced
to plus or minus three months of the chronological age

of five years.

h) Two different ages should be examined in the course

of one experiment. This procedure would mean that the
hypnotized and simulator groups would portray, for instance,
five and ten years of age. The control groups would
consist of five-and-ten-year old children. Additional
group differences might be noted if the simulator group
were asked to differentiate between two age patterns when
performing the same skill.

S) A cinematographic study of additional motor skills such
as the standing long jump or a throw is suggested. This
analysis would permit the quantification of angles, velocities
and forces. It would also provide for the possibility of
defining differences in movement which may not be evident

as the result of a qualitative approach.

BI BLI OGRA PHY

Instructional Resources Center

133 ERICKSON HALL
UCHIGAN STATE umvaasm

m wsma. MICHIGAN 48823

10.

11.

12.

BI BL IOGRA PHY

Ames, L.B. "The Sequential Patterning of Prone
Progression In the Human Infant, Genetic
Psychological Honogram, l9:hO9-h60, 1937,

Barber, T.X. "Hypnotic Age Regression: A
Critical Review," Psychosomatic Ledicine,
2h: 286-299, 1962.

Barber, T.X. and Calverley, D.S. "Toward a
Theory of HVpnotic Behavior: Effects of
Suggestibility of Task‘motivating Instructions
and Attitudes Toward Hypnosis," J. Abnormal
Soc. Psychol., 67:557-565. 1963.

Cowan, E. and Pratt, B.H. "The Hurdle Jump as a
Developmental and Diagnostic Test of meter
Coordination for Children Three to Twelve'Years
of Age," Child Development, 5:107-121, JUne, 193h.

Deach, D.F. "Genetic Development of Hotor Skills in
Children Two Through Six'Years of Age," Micro-film
Abstracts, 11: 287, 1951.

Dusenberry, Lois "A Study of the Effects of Training
in Ball Throwing by Children.Ages Three to Seven,"
Research Quarterly 23:9-1h, 1952.

Espenschade, A.S. "Development of Motor Coordination
inlBoys and Girls," Research Quarterly 18:30-h3,
1947.

Sspenschade, A.S. and Ekert, Helen M. Hotor Develogment.
Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Kerrill,fifnc.,‘l967.

 

Estabrooks, G.H. Hypnotism. (rev. ed.) flew York:
Dutton, 1957.

 

Fisher, Seymour. "Problems of Interpretation and
Controls in Hypnotic Research," In G.H. Estabrooks
(ed.) Hypnosis: Current Problems. Hew'York:
Harper and Row, 1962.

Frankenburg, um. C. and Dodds, J.B. "The Denver
Developmental Screeninr Test," The J. of Pediatrics,
71: no. 2, 181-191, 19 7. A

Gesell, A. and Ames, L.B. "The Development of Handedness,"
J. of Genet. Psychol., 70:155-175, 19h7.

39

13.

1h.

15.

l6.

19.

20.

21.

22.

25.

26.

no

Gidro-Frank, L. and Bowerbuch,‘N.C. "A Study of the
Plantar Response in Hypnotic Age Regression " h
J. Nervous and Mental Disorders, 107:1;173-156, 191w.

Gordon, J.E. and FTeston,H. "Role Playing and Age
Regression in Hypnotized and Hon Hypnotized
Subjects," . Personal, 32: hll—h19, 196M,

Guttridge, H.V} "A Study of Motor Achievements of
Children," Arch. Psychol., 2hh: l-178, 1939,

Halverson, Lolas E. "Development of'Hotor Patterns
in Young Children " Quest VI A Symposium on

Hotor Learning, hfi-53, flay, 1966.

Harrison, Virginia F. "Review of Heuromuscular Bases
F g Motor Learning," Research Quarterly, 33: 59-69,
19 2.

Hartman, Doris H. "The Hurdle Jump as a Heasure of
Motor Proficiency of Young Children," Child
Develoflaent, 11;: 206-215, 19143. """""'

Hicks, J. Allan. "The Acquisition of’Hotor Skill
in Young Children," Univ. of Iowa Studies in Child
Welfare, 1; No. F, U. “61‘ Iowa Press, 1929.

Hilgard, Ernest R. The Experience of’Hypnosis.
New'York: Harcourt, Brace and Horld,Inc., 1965.

Ikai, Hichio and Steinhaus, A.H. "Some ictors
Modifying the EXpression of Human Strength,"
J. of Applied Physiology, 16: 157-163, 1961.

Johnson, U.R. "Body Hovement.Awareness in the Hon
Hypnotic and.Hypnotic States," Research Quarterly,
32: 263-26h, 1961.

Kane, R.J. and Meredith, H.V. "Ability in the Standing
Broad Jump of School Children 7, 9, and 11 Years of
Age," Research Quarterly, 23: 198-208, 1952.

 

Keogh, Jack F. .Analysis of Individual Tasks in the
Stott Test offfibtor Tm airment. Technical Report
2-68 {USERS Grant HD UEUS9) Department of Physical
Education, U.C.L.A., October, 1968.

Kline, L. "Hypnotic Age Regression and Intelligence,"
J. Genet. Psych., 77: 129-132, 1950.

London, P. and Furhrer, H. "Hypnosis, motivation and
Performance," J. Personal, 29: 321-333, 1961.

hl

Head, S. and Roush, C. "A Study of the Effect of
Hypnotic Suggestion on Physiologic Performance,"
Arch. Phys. Hed‘i, 302 700-705, l9h9.

 

ITcCaskill, C.L., and T'Iellman, B.L. "A Study in Common
Hotor Achievements at the Preschool Ages,"
Child Development, 9: 1hl-150, 1933.

Orne, Iartin T. "Explorations in Hypnosis,” Research
Project Summaries of the National Institute of
fichtal Health, Supt. cf;DocumentsfiU}S. Govermnent
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 52—59, 1963.

 

Pattie, 33A. "A Report of Attempts to Produce
Uniocular Blindness by Hypnotic Suggestion," In
T.U. Hitchell (ed.) The British Journal of Eedical
Psychology, Cambridge: The University Press,‘1936.

 

Platonov, H. The Uord as a Physiological and Therapeutic
Factor. hoscow: Foreign‘Languages’Publishingghouse,

7 a.

Rarick, G. Lawrence. Hotor Development During_Infanoy
and Childhood. hadison,’7isconsih: College
Printing and”Typing Co., 1961.

Reyher, Joseph. H* nosis. Dubuque, Iowa: Hm. C.
Brown Company éuBIishers, 1968.

Sarbin, T. "Mental Age Changes in Experimental
Regression," J. Personal, 19:221—228, 1950.

 

Shirley, TarV'K. "A Longitudinal Study of the Notor
Sequence," Reprinted from pages b-C, 3h-h6 of
Volume 2 of The First Two Years. Pinnecpolis:

U. oflfiinnesota Press,_1933.

Siegel, Sidney. Honparametric Statistics, Hew'Iork:
NcGrawwEill Book Cbmpany,71956.

 

Sloan, U. "Lincoln-Osaretsky Hotor Development Scale,"
Genetic Psychology'tonographs, 51: 183-252, 1955.

Slotnick, R.S. "Enhancement ofifiuscular Performance
in Hypnosis through Exhortation and Involving
Instructions," J. Personal, 33: 37—h5, 1965.

Stott. ".3 .77., Itoyes, RA. and Headridge, Sheila :1.

 

Test of Hotor Impairment Revision II (derived
fromfthe‘Gollnitz revision of the Oseretsky Test

of Voter Ability). University of Guelph, Guelph,
O ntario, 19650

'43-

e2

True, R.I. ”Experimental Control n T"pnoth A e
Regression States," Science, 110: - 1911.9.

Uaterland, Joan C. "The Effect of Force Cradation
on Rotor Patterning: Standing Broad Jump,"
Quest Collage, 15-25, Hay, 1967.

 

Heitzenhoffer, A.Y. General Techniques of Hypnotism.

New York: Grune and"Stratton, Inc.,71937.

Hellman, B.L. "Hotor Achievements in Preschool
Children," Child.Bducation, 13: 311-316, 1937.

'Tild, Honica R. ”The Behavior Pattern of Throwing
and Some Observations Concerning its Course
evelopment in Ch ildren," Research Quarterly,

98 (3). 20- 2b. 1938

Young, P.C. "An Experimental Study of Rental and
Physical Functions in the Hormel and'Hypnotic
States," Amer. J. Psychol., 36: 2lh—232, 1925.

Young, P.C. "Hypnotic Age Regression - Fact or
Artifact?" J..Abnorma1 Soc. Psychol., 35: 273- N7},
1940.

Ziegenfuss, U. B. "Hypnosis - A Tool for 1Sducation, ”
Education, 82: 505-507, 1962.

 

A PPSITDI CBS

API’im'DI I: A
Hypnotic Induction 'fiethod

The method of induction used was a variation of
Ueizenhoffer's general technique (h2, p.206-207) and
Kline's visual imagery (h2, p. 2M6). The operator
learned this technique from Dr. Arthur H. Steinhaus
in a seminar on Mind and Body, Autumn, 1968 at Kichigan
State University.

The subjects were seated around a table and the

operator spoke in a conventional manner:

I want you to look upward at a spot on the
ceiling or wall and fix your eyes on it. Any
spot will do, just as long as it is not in a
corner or between the ceiling and wall. Do not
worry if your eyes begin to blink or water. That
is all right. Don't be tense. Just relax and
listen closely to my voice, to what I say. (pause)
Keep watching the Spot. It is beginning to move
farther away, but it is still clear. You are very
relaxed and the Spot is moving farther and
f-a-r-t-h-e-r away. (pause) In fact, it is
beginning to become blurry.

The Spot is v-e-r-y far away but you can
still see it. Your eyelids are starting to
feel heavy and you're beginning to feel sleepy.
(pause) Your eyelids are very heavy, v-e-r-y
h-e-a-vy. They want to close. Ybu are drowsyo
Your eyes are getting heavier and h-e-a-v-i-e-r
and you are so sleepy, s-o s-l-e-e-p-y. Your
eyes are closing and the spot is gone.

11h

Appendix A (continued)

It is so restful and peaceful to close and
relax your eyes. Ybu are s—o t-i-r—e-d,

and it feels s-o good to be sleeping. Ybu
are in a deep sleep, going d-e-e-p-e-r, and
d-e-e-p-e-r. It is so relaxing and peaceful.
Ybu will pay attention to nothing but the
sould of my voice. Ybu will not awaken until
I tell you to. Ybu are in a d-e-e-p, d-e~e—p
sleep.

AFPJITDI I!

B

Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (20)

Stanford Scale Fbrm A.

1.

9.

10.
ll.

12.

Postural sway

Eye closure

Hand lowering

Arm inmobili zatio (1

Finger lock

Arm rigidity

Hoving hands together

Verbal inhibition (nmne)

Fly hallucination

Eye catalepsy

Post-hypnotic suggestion
(change chairs)

Amnesia

h6

Scoring Criterion

subject sways forward
or backward upon
suggestion

eyelids closed before
told to close them
deliberately

lowered at least six
inches before told to
let hand down deliberately

hand not lifted more than
one inch when told to
stop trying

fingers incompletely
separated when told to
stop trying

arm bent less than two
inches before told to
stop trying

hands not more than six
inches apart when told
to return them to
resting position

did not shake head
before told to stop trying

outward acknowledgement
of effect

eyes remain closed

makes at least observable
partial movement to change

three or fewer items
listed in three minutes,
before amnesia lifted

l.
2.
3.

APPENDIX

Pest-hypnotic Suggestions

Kathy:
Diane:

Peg:

Barb:
Janice:

Rickie:

Eartha:

Pam:

Lee:

Sally:

"green grass"
"green goblin"

(operator's hand
"It's time to go

"green grass“
"funny clown"

(operator's hand
"It's time to go

(operator's hand
"It's time to go

"yellow banana"

"green bean"

"yellow banana"

on
to

on
to

on
to

C

for Sleep

right shoulder)
sleep, Peg."

right shoulder)
sleep, Nickie."

right shoulder)

sleep, hartha"

In the case of the two-word suggestions, the

post-hypnotic instructions included the facts that sleep

would occur only if the operator said the words and only

if the words were spoken separately, and not in a

sentence.

Fbr the sentence suggestions, the operator

directed that only she could put the subject to sleep in

this manner.

1:7

. PPJEIITDIIC D

High Jump (2i, p. 75)

Hodified Stott: Subject jumps over a bar with feet
together, the bar is at knee height. Failure is recorded
if the bar is touched or knocked down, or if, in jumping
or landing, the feet are not together. Three attempts.

a. Knee-height is taken as the height from the floor to
the lower edge of tie knee-cap.

b. A timid subject may be helped over the bar a few times
to overcome fear of jumping.

c. The jumping stands are three feet apart.

d. Fbr he experimental and simulator groups, initial
height of the bar is approximated at 102 inches,
based on measurements of twenty five-year-old children.

e. Fbr special experimental purposes, if the subjects in
any group passes the initial test, the bar is raised
to twelve inches for three attempts. If success is
achieved at this height, the bar is raised to sixteen
inches and three additional attempts are allowed.

Instructions:

1. E demonstrates: "Jump over the bar the way I do."
Give instructions about use of feet only if child has
diffiCUltL-o

2. The feet must be together for take-off and landing, but
landing position does not need to be held at the end
or the Jmpe

3. The subject jumps with shoes on.

l. Pass ~ Fail: three trials
2

. Note error as: a. Bar: touches or displaces bar on
way up.
touches or displaces bar on
way down.

b. Feet: not a two - foot take-off
not a two — foot landing

MB

PPZIUDIIC E

One - hand Catch (2h, p. 79)

Modified Stott: Subject bounces a standard tennis ball
on the floor and catches the rebound, using the same
hand. When bouncing and catching, the subject makes
five attempts with each hand. A successful trial is a

total of five successful catches out of ten.

a. The floor surface must be hard and even so that
rebounds are predictable.

b. The ball must be caught cleanly in the hand, not
against the chest.

Instructions:

1. The subject is tested while standing.

2. 2 demonstrates three catches stressing use of one
hand to bounce and the same hand to catch.

3. The catch must be clean and not trapped against bocy
part or clothing.

Scoring:

1. Score the number of successful catches for each hand.
2. Five attempts with each hand.
3. Hots reason for miss as: two hands

trapped against body

drops it

119

 

APPENDIX F

Circle Trace (2h, p.76)

Stott: A piece of paper with a circular track is
placed on the table in front of the subject. Using

the preferred hand, the subject draws a continuous line
inside the track. Failure is recorded if the line is
broken or the subject makes more than two crossings of
the boundary. Two attempts.

a. A careful eXplanation and demonstration is useful.
b. A no. 2 pencil should be used.

Instructions:

1. The subject must keep the pencil in contact with the
paper until finished (continuous, unbroken line).

2. E demonstrates: "Draw a line between these two
lines until you have gone all the way around the race
track. Keep you pencil on the paper until you finish."

3. The subject may pause or stop but'the pencil must stay
in contact with the paper.

b. Circular track is two concentric circles of 1 2/8" and
2 1/8" diameter which provides a 1/h" drawing track.

Scoring:

1. Two trials: preferred hand only. Second trial administered
only if subject breaks the line (lifts-off) or crosses
a boundary.

2. Score number of boundary crossings and note if line is
not continuous.

50

APPENDIX G

haze Trace (2h, p. 81)

Stott: A piece of paper with the mazes is placed on the
table in front of the subject. The upper maze is followed
with a pencil as far as possible, keeping an unbroken line;
the subject then goes on to the lower maze without a pause.
Failure is recorded if the dominant hand makes more than
two crossings of the boundary, or the other hand more than

three. Two attempts for each hand.

a. Before starting, subject should be shown the entrance
to the lower maze. He should go on to the second.maze
as soon as he has finished the first.

b. If necessary, the route through the maze may be
demonstrated by the tester.

c. The line must be clearly over the boundary to count as
a failure. Pauses may occur but the line through each
maze must be continuous.

d. For the right hand the mazes should be inverted so that
the START is at the bottom right hand corner. This
minimizes visual difficulty.

Instructions:

1. The subject uses a no. 2 pencil. hazes approximate
Oseretsky mazes as used by Sloan (1955).

2. Demonstrate, indicating entrance and exits and the need
to keep pencil on the paper. The pencil may be lifted
when.moving from.maze one to maze two.

3. For the left hand begin at the top of the upper maze
(no wiggly lanes) and exit to enter the'top-left of
the lower maze. For the right hand, invert the mazes,
enter the lower-right of the bottom maze and exit to the
lower-right of the upper maze.

Scoring:

1. Two trials for each hand. The second trial administered
only if child breaks the line (lifts off) or crosses
boundaries. »

2. Score the number of boundary crossings and note if line is
not continuous.

51

Degree 0 f M.A.
1969

Rappolt, Lois Charlotte

 

 

lT/j’Uxuctional RBSOUHJBS tame:
‘ ' CKSON HA‘-L

mfiA‘fli UNweasnv_

EAST LANSING. Icwgfigzs

7

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

3 ”93 03175 8091