H_:__3.:_:_E:__:_::_:

 

.7 l-
a
”If:
'5
\‘u
Vt.
Putt-bit
V.u,
rm.
I! v.
‘I

.51

1‘
x
g o

Ira
.1
‘.
Ir.

3
2

r'.
U

F
I

9

f T

“'2
lflllw
m
M6
"I.“
W0
'0
[[11
'fl%
fl
“2
1

um

19¢th 0! ”MY

mcum "A?! UN

IAITMMNG. MICHIGAN

 

 

 

 

h-n'. fl.)

 

 

 

 

 

' ‘1
F ‘l
:1
'- 1
"‘1
fl
E ”I
Q
*3
O
:1

L IE-EP»...-ER"

:3
3
h
C.)
t. l
H
O
2
<2
4-4
L1
(2‘.
3)

A‘

I121 AJSTRACT OF A THESIb
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
FASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1967

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECT OF
REPRESSIOJ ON VISUAL IRAGE?Y

by Bruce Burns

One hundred male volunteer subjects of introductory
psychology courses were given the Byrne S-R Scale. The
twelve lowest scorers (Repressors) anfl the ten highest
scorers (Sensitizers) were selected as the eXperimental
groups.

These subjects participated in one-half hour of visual
imagery and a variable period of story telling to projective
type cares. The can was used to monitor each subject's
reaction.

The experimental groups of twenty-two were evaluated
again for degree of repression in terms 0f the projective
stories. This was called the Projective method.

It was hypothesized that the Repressors would show
less primary process, less anxiety and greater defense
during the period of visual imagery.

None of the hypotheses were supported using the Byrne
Scale but the hypothesis concerning primary process was
supported by the Projective Method of determining degree
of repression.

The primary process variable, which is really another

index of degree of repression, correlated significantly

Bruce Burns

with the Byrne Scale (.38), the Projective Method (.44),
the GSR fiurinq projective stories (.48), and nearly
reached significance with the 65R during visual imagery
(.33), and was in the preper direction for the measure of
defense («.13). This finfiing was unexyected and suggests
that the psychoPhysiological processes associated with

primary process regulated visual imagery are quite

powerful.

Approved:

 

THE EFFECT OF

REPRESSION ON VISUAL IMAGERY

BY

Bruce Burns

A THESIS

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

MASEER OF ARES

Department of PsycholOgy

1967

ACIQECIELEDCEE 1131*?! TS

I am greatly indebted to the chairman of my committee,
Dr. Joseph Reyher for conveying to me his stimulating
interest in the thesis problem and related area. His
attituae and direction made this project a true learning
exyerience for me.

As members of my committee, Dr. Norman Abeles and
Dr. Paul Bakan provided helpful assistance in clarifying
a number of issues.

Fellow students who were most generous with their
time in scoring responses and monitoring tapes were:
Tasmas Castor, Robert Greene, Diane Johnson and Howard
Morishige.

To all of the above I wish hereby to exeress my

appreciation and gratitufle.

To Mother

Whose strength and faith have been a source of inepiration.

ACKNOWLEDGEMEKTS .
LIST OF TelLES . .
INTRODUCTION . . .

Problem . . .
Hypotheses .

r'ibl‘EI-UD O O O O O 0
Subjects . .
Equipment anfl
Procedure . .
Measures and s
Scorer reliabi

RES L'LTS O I O O O
Other findings

DISC‘SSICN . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . .
APPENDICES . . . .
Appenéix A .

Appenéix B .
Appendix C .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

0 O O I O O O O G O 9
experimental setting
I O O O O O O O O O O

coring . . . . . . .
lity O O O O O I O I

C O C O O O O O C 0

iv

Page
ii

ah MN H 4

H es +4
m H oqmne

18
20
20

21
22

L ST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Spearman Rho Correlation matrix
of Banks (corrected for ties) . . . . . . . . . 14

IZ‘E‘l‘ROD UCTI 015i

Many investigators (Assagioli, 1965; Freufi, 1950;
Goldberger, 1957; Jellinek, 1949; Rubia, 1943; Warren, 1961)
have noted that visual imagery may serve as a vehicle for
the symbolic representation of unconscious processes.

Reyher (1963) recently has describea a method of utilizing
visual imagery that has powerful uncovering properties.
With this procedure, which is callefi free imagery, the
patient is asked to close his eyes and to describe only
visual images, feelings and bodily sensations that come to
his attention. Eye closure prevents the patient from scan-
ning the therapist's countenance for signs of approval or
disapproval which support security Operations and defenses
against reductions in self-esteem. The patient becomes less
engaged in an interpersonal relationship and is forced to
become more involved in intra-psychic processes such as
verbal associations or imagery, both of which produce
derivatives of unconscious conflict.

Verbal or free associations involves the organization
and communication of ideas (secondary process) whereas
visual imagery is a more passive experience outsifie of
voluntary organization and control and reflects the Operation
of unconscious process (primary process). Smeltzer (1966)
compared verbal associations and visual imagery such as a
response to stimulus words pertaining to sex, hostility and
family relationships, and he reported that the imagery was

characterized by significantly more primary process, more

2

blatant drive representation and less successful defenses
against the drives. The significantly greater frequency
of €333 which was reported for the imagery condition was
ascribed to these characteristics, all of WAiCh imply a

potential for the arousal of anxiety.

Problefl

One obvious variable influencing visual imagery which
needs to be investigated is the degree of repression. The
role of repression in regard to behavior is so well
established in psychoanalytic literature and clinical lore
that its significance does not need to be documented. This
paper was designed to study the effect of repression upon
visual imagery. The relationship between repression and
visual imagery can be investigated in terms of the number
of symbolic representations of unconscious drives, indica-
tions of successful or unsuccessful defenses against these
drives and the consequent signs of anxiety aroused when
good repressors are compared with poor repressors while

participating in the visual imagery procedure.

HZPQEE‘EE'Qfi
The hypotheses to be tested were:
1) Good repressors show fewer signs of primary

process than poor repressors;

2)

3)

Good repressors report images representing
defense more frequently than poor repressors;
Good repressors esperience less anxiety than

poor repressors.

I‘EETHOD -
utPARTMENT O! “(2301.061
MICHIGAN "A?! UNIVERSt'W
. EAST LANsmrt mrumfi M
Subjects

One hundred male students taking an introductory
course in psychology were selected by means of the Bvrne
(1963) version of the Altrocchi (1960) questionnaire, for
measuring degree of repression. Ten subjects from each
extreme of the continuum were selected with scores ranging
from 72 to 88 for sensitizers (poor regressors) and from
9 to 22 for good repressors. The final selection resulted
in one group of good repressors (N n 12) and one group of
poor repressors (sensitizers R - 10). These 22 subjects
were later independently checked for their repressing ten-
dencies by using a projective method (Reyher, 1962) which
resulted in a redistribution of the subjects into 11 good

repressors and 11 poor repressors (sensitizers).

 

17313.81?“ and sever breasteLF-efatieg.

A model #5 Grass polygraph was used with electrodes
manufactured by the Yellow Springs Equipment Company. The
subject and eXperimonter were seated in a small sound—
proofed, windowless room. as subject was facing away from
the exyerimenter and he polygraph equipment, and was seated
in a reclining chair.

The Reyher (Rayner end Varble, 1962) system for index-
ing each subjects resPOnse to or denial of the pull of the
various projective cards was the instrument used for scoring
a person's degree of repression (R9).

4

The projective cards used were deveIOped by Reyher and
Varble (1962) and Reyher, Burns, and Castor (1966) and
consisted of the following:

Sexual—Oedipal: a small boy holds his genital area

as he stands in the entrance of a bedroom observing
two adults in suggestive e brace (see Aprons ix A);

hostility: two adults are shown at the bottom of a

staircase with the woman apparently res “st 1mg the

man's hostile attack (see Agpendix 3).

Procedure

mm

 

The Byrne repres sorusensitiz scale (1963) was given
by psychology graduate assistants to their students with the
following instructions (Weinstein, 1966):

You are participating in a survey that is being

conducted by some members of the psychology

department. We would like your cooyeration in

helping us to develon this questionnaire so that

it may be of some usefulness in the years to

COI‘CIG o o o o

The subjects that qualified (see above, Subjects) were
later contacted by teleyhone and asked to come in and
participate in another phase of the research, in which they
were seen separately in a session that lasted for about one
hour.

While the electrodes were being attached to t.e subject
(palmar surface of t1.e lef t index and middle fingers) he was
told to lie back in the reclini.g chair and to Close his

eyes. At this time he was asked to report what he saw in

his mind's eye.

The eXperimenter maintained his silence except in the
case of a silence of 2 minutes or more in which case he
would say, "What is happening now?“.

After 30 minutes of imagery the subject was presented
with the projective cards for the.purpose of developing a
more clinically derived index of the degree of repression.
These were presented as follows:

You will notice a pile of cards on the table in

front of you, these cards are face down. Please

turn over the top card and tell a story about the

picture ~ What is going on, what led no to this

scene, how it turns out (standard T.A.T. instruc-
tions). As soon as you have finished please

proceed to tne next card in a like manner and so

on until you have gone through the cards.

After the subject completed the set of cards the
experimenter took the same cards, returned them to the
table in front of the subject (in the same order of presen-
tation) again face down and asked the subject to repeat
the previous performance, making up different stories.
This procedure was followed three times.

If at the completion of these stories a theme appro-

priate to each card (sexual—oodipal, hostility) had not

H:
0
H
O
t.)
9.
5-)
O
a!
l":
f s
Q

H
(D

emerged in at least no of the stories
subject was told the following: (prodded fantasy)

Some peoyle tell stories about sex to this card,
could you make up a story like that now?

Some peeple tell stories about the boy resenting
the presence of his father, and wanting to get
into bed with his mother hi self. Could you make
up a story like that now?

Some peOple tell stories about anger or Lei ,
angry to this card, could vo; .ure u; a story like
that now?

u
i ' [1"

7

If the stories were in line with the ”pull“ of the cards,
the subject was given the following instructions at the end
of his story telling. Reyher and Varble, 1962 (ego syntonic
versus ego alien fantasies):

When peoPle make up stories about these cards
they often are talking about themselves, could
this be true for you for any or all of the
stories?

The order in which the cards were presented were

counterbalanced for each suuject.

Feasures and scoring

m Huh—A ~m

 

The 65R was the measure of anxiety used. To arrive at
a criterion measure for scorahle GSRs the following method
was used. During the last 20 minutes of the 30 minute
visual imagery period the three highest CSRs were recorded
and their sum divided by three to get an average which in
turn was divided by four. The resulting number was used
to determine a scorable GSR: All CSRs of that magnitude
or greater were counted during visual imagery and during
the administration of the sexual-oedipal, and hostility
projective cards.

To determine the number of symbolic representations
(derivatives) of unconscious drives (primary process) and
the blatancy of those derivatives, the Pine manual (1960)
for scoring verbally regcrted content of visual imagery was
used. Cnly agreesive ans sexual themes were scored and

these were not kept senarate. Two points were scored for

A

each level I primary process derivative (direct unsocialized
firive eXpression) and one point score for each level II
primary process derivative (direct socialized arive
expression). These were totalled to arrive at each sub—
ject's primary process score. Two graduate stuocnts in
clinical psychology acted as the jueges.

The Reyher (Reyher an& arblo, 1962) method of indexing
(Hp) a person's degree of repression by their reSponse to
the ”pull" of the projective cards with the hostility
theme and the sexualwoefiipal theses (scored separately) was
used by two graeuate students in clinical psychology. These
we “judges“ independently scored each of the stories for
the r-re seice of sexual ans/or Oedipal and/or hostile
fantasies. Each subject' 3 stories were gix'o on a plus 1 if

the relevant content (RF) was ranife stly pre s. nt, a zero if

I

not. This part of the P3: score contributed from 0 to 3
points toward the total rep essien inScx of the subject. If
no relevant fantasies were produced in an area but a prodded
fantasy (PF) (see Proceriure sectior ) was elicited hen a
score of .5 was awarfled for the area(s) (sexual-oeaipal,
hostile) in teed of a 0 score. vhe final contribution toward
he repression index score was se ured tniox~x the ego
syntouic~ego alien questioning (refer to Proeeeure section).
If the subject accepted any of the stories wholeheartedly
(AF) as his ozn (apt-lying to Himself) he received a score

of 4 for each such ego syntenic story. For each story he

accepted as ego syzitonic in a dubious or aLbivalent manner

(AF') he was awarded 3 points, thus a maximum contribution
to the score from this part woulé be 36 points (for each
story he denied as applying to himself he was given a 0
score). In symbolic form the Repression Index is:

up a :1}? + .Smxi’) + ISL-XI") + 3(413')

The range of scores for the inoex could theoretically
have poem 0 to 45, in actuality they ranged from 2 through
13. high scores represented little rerression, i.e., poor
repressors (sensitizors) of the impulses investigated. Low
scores indicated more refression (good repressors). The
subject's Hp for the sexual theme, the oedipal theme, and
the hostility theme were all combined to obtain a total
repression index score (fly).

For example a typical record could be rated as follows:

Subject gave 2 Spontaneous stories of
hostility to the hostility card a 2 x l a ZLF
he gave 3 syontaneous stories of sex
to sexual-oeflipal card - 3 x l u 3RF

No syontaneous stories anrOpriate to

the pull of the oedioal theme but one

was elicited by prodding a l x .5 u .SPF
During the determination of ego alien

or ego syntonic he gave unequivocal

agreement to 1 hostility story only I l x 4 a 43F
He gruéqinqu accepted one sexual

story as ego syntonic a l x 3 a SAF'
He denied any acceotance of the

preoded oedipal taewe as pertaining

in any way to himself a l x 0 = 0

Thus his Pp score would be:
Pp = 2 + 3 + .5 + 4 + 3 = 12.5

See aypendices for all Ry scores of the exyerimental
group. hypendix C — Breakfiown of Hp scores and comparison

with S»R scores.

10

Scorer reliability

 

Using the Pine system for scoring primary process, the
two judges agreed 86% of the time which is more than
adequate for research purposes. The mean score was used in
cases of cisagreement between the-judges.

Two judges rated the index of repression for each
subject by the projective method (see Procedure section).
The Kendall tau (with ties) method was used to calculate
interjudge reliability which was .896, .371, 1.0 and .836
for sexuality repression scores, hostility repression scores,
oedipal repression scores, conbined (sex, hostility and
oedipal repression score) reapectively.

Ifientifying information was deleted from the protocols

which were randomly presented to the juéges for scoring.

F133 U‘LTS
Hypothesis I:

The subjects were rank ordered on the basis of the
number of primary process derivatives weighted for drive
level (see fieasures and Scoring section) each subject
reported during visual imagery. The Mann—Whitney U test
(corrected for ties) did not show a significant difference
between repressors and sensitizers for the Byrne S—R scale.

The subjects were reevaluated and designated as good
repressors (repressors) or poor repressors (sensitizors) in
accordance with the projective method of repression. This
resulted in a significant difference (.01 level) in primary
process derivatives in the predicted direction between the
two groups. That is, good repressors (repressors) showed
fewer signs of primary process than did poor repressors

(sensitizers). Hypothesis I was supported.

Hypothesis II:

The number of geometric patterns reported by each
subject was used to rank order the subjects. The Kann—
Whitney U test (corrected for ties) comparing the two groups
(as designated by the Byrne SmR scale) during visual imagery,
was not significant.

A comparable analysis was done with the projective
scale and again, no statistically significant differences
were found in the number of geometric patterns reported by

the two groups. Hypothesis II was not susported.

ll

12

Hypothesis III:

Anxiety was quantified by totaling the number of
scorable 5323 obtained by each subject (as described under
Measures and Scoring section). The subjects were then rank
ordered and each was then identified as a Repressor (good
repressor) or as a Sensitizer (poor repressor) depending
how he had been designated by the Byrne S—R scale. Using
the Hann~¥hitney U test (corrected for ties) no significant
diffierences were found between the two groups during the
visual imagery period or during the period of story telling
to the projective cards.

The subjects were reevaluated in accordance with the
projective index of repression and no significant differences
between the two groups was found for either experimental
conditions when analyzed by means of the Hann~whitney U test

(corrected for ties). typothesis III was not supported.

Other findings

 

A more exhaustive analysis of the data was undertaken
because the relationships among all of the variables were
of intrinsic interest. Therefore, all possible combinations
of variables were analyzed by means of a correlation matrix
obtained by the Spearman Rho method (Table 1). It is of
interest to note that EEEE the Byrne and the Reyher grOUps
of good repressors (repressors) and poor repressors

(sensitizers) showed significant differences in terms of

13

primary process in the correlation matrix. Thus 2333
supported Hypothesis I.

As would be expected, primary process phenomena was
significantly correlated with CSR, during projective
stories (.01 level).

The GSR curing projective stories was of interest not
only as it made sense with the primary process variable as
already noted but because there was a significant negative
relationship to geometric patterns. This was to be expected
since we have often these forms in psychotherapy with free
imagery as a defense against intrusion of primary process.

The significant correlation between 633 during projec-

tive stories and during visual imagery periods is in a

sense a reliability measure between two stressful situations.

14

TABLE 1

Spearman Rho Correlation matrix of Ranks
(corrected for ties)

 

 

Byrne Projective Primary Geometric

31633

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S—R Inflex Process Patterns Imagery Story
Byrne V* .

S~R .17 .3d .Cl .24 .08
Projective 45, 12 _ 06 29
Index ° ° ' '
Primary ’ *
Geometric _ _ Qt
Patterns ‘24 ‘3"
GER .61‘"
Imagery
GSR
Story

*Significant beyond .05 level.
*‘Significant beyond .01 level.

DISCr

SSION

A redistribution of the Byrne sensitizers and repres-

sors into poor repressors

the Reyher index of repression resulted in the

one of the hypotheses, fies; i

pepulation was not éichotonizoa

instrument.
possible
actual

incicate either an oW erloamii

involvenont of only the repress

The reaningful relations,

CSR our

the

to

Although the infiex

spread of tJlO to t11irtcen.

ing the projective

and good repressors by means of

support of
the fact that the original

acooréing to the Reyher

CL

of reero. ion is a

spread of zero to fifty four there was only an

This V'OUld to

cos
c of the ril~range or the
ion end of the continuum.
that were found between

0
”1‘ ns

stories and all the other

variables in the correlation re tri x should provide an

p.

when used in conjunction with the projective

It may prove to be a needed refinement that would

possible the so

nteresting and possibly fruitful basis for further study

instrument.

1'
maixe

paration of suppressors from repres sors,

that is, a "lie" detector test for regression.

The most important find
primary process entered into
and significant correlations
seems that repression is not
regulates pri1nary process

producing process.

ing in the matrix was that

meaningful relationships

3

O

man3
with the other variables.

response—producing itself, but

whicii is a powe wrfll reSponse-

when the GS \ for the projective card was bro}:en down

into its component parts of sex and egression, it was found

15

16

that the projective repression index d.idh ave a
statistically significant (.05 level) correlation with sex
but not with aggression. This would seem to indicate that
the repression is area Specific. That is, one wLo is a good
repres sor in the sexual area mn.y not ale 0 be a good repres-
sor in the aggressive area. This possibility should be
investigated in a more detailed Htu y \mere the areas of
repression are investigated separateIV.

Appendix C reveals that a crossover or change in
classification on the repressing-sensitizing dimension
occurred for nine of the twenty-two sub -jects when the
method of estimating this attribute was changed from the
8— R self rep ort Byrne scale to the Rp projective wethod.

That is, five subjects from the extreme repressing
(reo1*"sors) end of the S— R scale were re evaluated as being
at the sensitizing (poor repressors) end when measured b.
the Rp method. From the extreme sensitizing (sensitizers)
end of the S»R scale four subjects were reclassified as
repressors (good repressors) by the Rp method.

It would appear that sorething different is being
measured by the two methods and further research sears
warranted.

The most important find -ing of this study has been the
re mfiization that primary process is directly representative
of the blatancy of drive expression and as such is a
quantifiable correlate of repression. This was not our

original View of primary prococ 3 (via a sym JLolic

l7

representation of unconscious drives) and this was initially
viewed as a dependent variable but has as a result of this
exPeriment given evidence of being an independent variable.
When viewed in this light more of our hypotheses are supported,
i.e., the degree of repression as represented by primary
process is significantly correlated with hgth_measures
(Hypothesis I) of the repression dimension (S-R scale and

Rp method). Furthermore it is significantly correlated

with 633 activity (Hypothesis III) during the projective
stories and barely misses significance with GSR during visual
imagery. It is in the correct direction for Hypothesis II

concerning defenses.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altrocchi, J., Parsons, O. A., and Dickoff, H., "Changes in
Self—Ideal Discrepancy in Repressors and Sensitizers,"
Journal 9: fignormal and Social Psychology, 1960,
pp. 67:72. "'“°""‘" "M '

 

Assagioli, R. Psychosynthesis: A Manual of Princi

9‘— “-‘D..

- I
Technicues. new York: Hobbs, orman & Co., 9

I”. 1'“..-

 

coat-“

les and
ES.

Byrne, Donn, ”The Repression-Sensitization Scale: Rationale,
Reliability, and Validity,“ Journal 9; Personality,
1961, 29, pp. 333-349.

 

Byrne, Donn; Barry, James: and Nelson, Don., ”Relation of
The Revised Repression-Sensitization Scale to Measures
of Self-Description," Psychological Eeyorts, 1963,
13 (2)! PP- 323*334.

 

Freud, S. The Interpretation of Dreams. (Trans. by A. A.
Brilley,” New York: u‘eern “LiLrary, 1950.

 

Goldberger, :., "Simple Method of Producing Dreamlike Irages
in the Waking State," Psychosomatic gedicine, 1957, 19,
pp. 127-133.

 

” Peerican Jetzrnal of

0-- - * -‘rw- -~m

Jellinek, A., “Spontaneous Imagsr ry,
gsychotherapy: 1949, 3, pp. 372- 391.

 

Kuhie, L., "The Use of Induced Hypnotic Reveries in the
Recovery of Repressed Amnesic Data,” Bulletin_?enniqge£
Eliflig' 1943, 7, pp. 172-182.

 

Pine, Fred, ”A Manual for Rating Drive Content in the
Thematic Apperception Test," EQFE§3£.S: grglggtrvo
Techniques, 1960, p. 24.

 

Reyher, J., "Free Imagery: Ln Uncovering Procedure,"
Journal of Cligigil Psyc‘cloov, 1963,19 (4),
Eli). M154“ 459.

 

Reyher, J., 8 varble, Duane. A Pilot Study of Repression
and Somatization. Unpuh lished paner. .1cliJan State
University, 1962.

Smeltzer, William E. A Comparative Study of Visual Imagery
and Verbal Association. Unpublished thesis for Haster's
degree, Michigan State University, 1966.

Warren, M., ”The Significance of Visual Ixuages During the
Analytic Ses sion," Journal of Kloricig 37791931"1"..%
Association, 1961,19, 504 518.

g..-“-

 

18

l9

Weinstein, Ira P. The Recall of Memories as a Function of
Repressing and Sensitizing Defenses and Body
Position. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1966.

20

my». ,.,.. ..

“W .vrv

an}

.‘I

«,1.
Cu. 4\.

1’

v.11...
_ , a... ..
C

anemone .

.P.

.‘I
i
T

.II
.

 

21

 

22

Appendix C

Breakdown of hp Scores and Comparison With S-R Score

Byrne Proj . Changes
S-R Rp 1(RF) + .S(PF) + 4(AF) + 3(AF') in Subj. #
Score Score Class
5 5 u 5 + 0 + 0 + O 9
9 6 = 6 + 0 + 0 + 0 R- PR 16
13 11 a 5 + 0 + 0 + 6 R- PR 8
14 3 e 3 + 0 + 0 + 0 12
14 4.5 a 4 + .S + 0 + 0 7
16 4 a 4 + 0 + 0 + 0 2
l6 4 a 4 + 0 + 0 + 0 17
16 8 =3 5 + 0 + 0 + 3 R-- PR 19
17 4 = 4 + 0 + 0 + 0 10
17 10 u 6 + O + 4 + 0 R- PR 15
24 5 - 5 + 0 + 0 + 0 2O
24 6 = 6 + 0 + 0 + 0 R- PR 21

Of the 12 above Repressors (R) per Byrne scale, 5 became
poor repressors (PR) per projective method.

88 5.5 - 5 + .S + 0 + 0 5
82 7 a 3 + O + 4 + 0 4
79 5 - 5 + 0 + o + 0 so CR 1
78 5 a 5 + o + 0 + 0. s~ GR 18
75 6 n 6 + 0 + 0 + 0 3
73 13 u 5 + 0 + 8 + 0 11
72 7 - 3 + 0 + 4 + 0 14
72 11 . 5 + o + 0 + 6 22
70 2 - 2 + 0 + 0 + o s— GR 6
70 3 - 3 + o + o + 0 3- GR 13

Of the 10 above Sensitizers (3) per Byrne scale, 4 became
good repressors (CR) per projective method.

"IIIIIIIIIIIIII