MEMORY FOR ANXEETY=PRQVOK§NG
WORBS AS MEASEJREQ £35 A FORCED
“RECALL SETUAfiCN:

A COMPARATWE STUDY 3-? A
NORMAL AND A NEUROTIC GROUP

Thais far the Degree cf P31. D.
MICHEGAN STATE COLLEGE
Durand F. Jacobs
1953

 

This is to certifg that the
thesis entitled
l‘TII‘OKY FOR I‘SHIE’I‘Y—T‘ROVOKING WORDS AS l-‘YIKSURFID *

III A FORCED R‘v‘YCAII. SITUATION!
A Cf‘I-T.‘.RP.TIV73 SWIDY OF A Tlf‘l’iA. MT) A l‘FIUROTIC GROUP.

presented bl]

Durand F. Jacobs

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree mm ‘
i
\

Major professor
Date 10 26 1‘3

0169

MEMORY FOR ANXIETY-PROVOKING WORDS AS MEASURED

IN A FORCED RECALL SITUATION:

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF A NORMAL AND A NEUROTIC GROUP.

By
J.

Fifi”
Durand F. Jacobs

Submitted to The School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the
‘requirements for

the degree
of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology
1953

{YUM

N, 7 1';

ii

A C K N O‘.‘J I. :3 . GLEN TS

The author wishes to express his sincere apprecia-
tion to the members of his Guidance Committee for their
unfailing interest and valuable assistance in every phase
of this undertaking. To Professors Albert I. Rabin, M.
Raymond Denny and Howard S. Bartley for their many con-
tributions, and for the pleasure of their instruction,
guidance and friendship throughout his training, the
author offers his humble thanks.

Grateful acknowledgment is due to the Veterans
Administration for the joint Sponsorship and material
support provided this investigation.

The author is also indebted to those employees of
the Maintenance Department at Michigan State College
who graciously volunteered as subjects, and to Mr. Edward
E. Kinney, Superintendent of Buildings and Utilities,
whose kind permission made their services available.

A final debt of appreciation is acknowledged to my
wife and colleagues for their helpful suggestions and

editorial assistance in the writing of this manuscript.

{$63570

MEMORY FOR ANXIETY-PROVOKING WORDS AS MEASURED
IN A FORCED RECALL SITUATION:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF A NORMAL AND A NEUROTIC GROUP

BY.

Durand F. Jacobs

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Mdchigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

Year 1953

 

 

Approved /WM£\

A critical survey of experimental studies of repression
showed that the technique of spontaneous recall leaves much
ldoubt regarding the difference between what a subject is cap-
able of reporting, and what he does report in a testing situ-
ation. This has resulted in speculation that the process of
suppression, rather than repression, may explain the rela-
tive absence of report for anxiety-provoking material. The
availability of theoretical justification for either conclu-
sion, and the dearth of additional facts of observation, has
led to an impasse regarding the interpretation of experimental
findings. f f

One major objective of this study was to test the effects
of forcing recall in a laboratory situation. If it were
possible to demonstrate that more previously-learned, anxiety-
provoking material could be secured in a forced situation
than could be gained in a traditional spontaneous recall situ-
ation, the repression hypothesis would become untenable.

This would not clarify all the issues of repression vs. sup-
pression. However, it would provide an experimental criterion
for suppression, and a means for reducing the margin of error
in conclusions favoring the repression hypothesis.

In this investigation groups of twenty-six normal and
twenty-sin neurotic adult males were each divided into two

subgroups. Several factors which might influence the learning

and retention of verbal material were equated among the
four groups. All subjects were administered a word Asso-
ciation Test composed of two lists of anxiety-provoking,
and two lists of neutral stimulus items which they were later
asked to recall. One normal and one neurotic group were
tested under Spontaneous Recall Conditions, while the re-
maining groups were examined under Forced Conditions. A
comparison was made of the number and type of word recalled
by groups tested under the two conditions. A further anal-
ysis was made of the performance of the normal and neurotic
groups tested under each condition.

It was hypothesized that groups tested under Forced
Conditions would: (a) recall more list words and produce
more total reaponses; (b) recall more anxiety-provoking
words from the lists; and, (c) produce more extra-list words,
than comparable groups tested under Spontaneous Conditions.
The results tended to support these hypotheses.

A comparison of normal and neurotic performance supported
the hypothesis that normal groups would show greater recall
for list words than neurotic groups under both experimental
conditions. The final hypotheses were that neurotic groups
‘would recall proportionately more anxietyeprovoking words;
and produce proportionately more extra-list words than normal

groups under the Spontaneous and Forced Conditions. Although

3

in the predicted direction, the results of these compari-
sons were not statistically significant.

Implications regarding the use of forcing procedures
in therapy, the experimentalcriterion for repression, the
effects of extreme anxiety on learning, and the limitations
of the method for measuring learning were discussed. It
was suggested that the forced technique used in this exper-
iment may be fruitful in further empirical investigations

of the effects of motivation on recall.

 

 

 

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
LIST or TABLES. V
EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 1

Introduction ‘ A 1

Critical Survey of Experimental Attempts to ‘ 2

Test the Repression Hypothesis

The Question of Repression vs. Suppression lO

Implications of Freud's First and Second 14

Theory of Anxiety

'Limitations of the Experimental Criterion 16

for Repression .

Revisions of the Criterion for Repression 18
PRESENT PROBLEM ‘ s - 22

Effects of "Forcing" Techniques on Performance 22

The Experimental Study of Recall Under Forced 2h
Conditions

Control Cd‘the Content of Recalled Material 26
Control of the Subject's Motivation to Recall 26

The Comparative Study of Normal and Neurotic

Subjects 28

Summary Statement of the Problem ' ' 29
HYPOTHESES 32
METHOD , 33‘

Subjects 33

Test Raterials

Procedure

RESULTS

The Effects of Forced Conditions on Recall

Similarities and Differences in Performance
Between the Normal and Neurotic Groups

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

Implications Regarding the Greater Recall of
Anxiety-Provoking Material

Motivational Factors in the Forced Recall
Situation

Implications Regarding the Experimental
Criterion for Repression

Implications Regarding the Use of Forcing
Techniques in Therapy'

Theoretical Implications Regarding the Proc-
esses of Repression and Suppression

Comparison of the Normal and Neurotic Sample

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A ~

Word Association Test Stimuli with Thorndike-
Lorge Frequency Values

APPENDIX B

.

Analysis of Reaction Times to Anxiety-
provoking and Neutral Words

iv

34
37
40
1+0
46

52
52

55

56

58

61

66
69
72
78
79

81
82

LIST OF TABLES

Table ” Page
No. No.

1. Age, Weighted Nechsler-Bellevue Vocabulary 35
Scores and Pro-rated Verbal Intelligence “
Quotients for the Normal and Neurotic Sub-
groups Under Forced and Spontaneous Recall
Conditions.

2. Comparison Between the Total Number of Words Al
Recalled Under the Forced and Spontaneous
Conditions by the Normal and Neurotic Groups.

3. Comparison Between the Number of List Words h2
Recalled Under the Forced and Spontaneous
Conditions by the Normal and Neurotic Groups.

A. Comparison Between the Number of Anxiety- 44
provoking Words Recalled Under the Forced
and Spontaneous Conditions by the Normal and
Neurotic Groups.

5. Comparison Between the Number of Anxiety- L5
' provoking (A-P) and Neutral (N) Words Re-
called Under the Forced and Spontaneous Con-
ditions by the Nonnal ani Neurotic Groups.

6. Comparison Between the Number of Extra-list 47
Words Recalled Under the Forced and Spon-
taneous Conditions by the Normal and Neurotic
Groups.

7. Comparison Between the Number of Neutral Words #8
Recalled Under the Forced and Spontaneous
Conditions by the Normal and Neurotic Groups.

8. Comparison Between Normal and Neurotic Groups 50
on the Basis of the Proportion of Anxiety-
provoking (A—P), Neutral (N), and Extra-list
(E-L) Words Produced Under Spontaneous and
Forced Conditions.

9. Thorndike-Lorge (T-L) Frequency Values for 79
the Two Lists of Neutral (N) words Used as
Stimuli in the Word Association Test.

vi

lO. Thorndike-Lorge (T-L) Frequency Values for 80
the Two Lists of Anxiety-provoking (A-P)
Words Used as Stimuli in the word Association
Test.

11. Comparison Between Median Reaction Times 82
(R.T.) for Anxiety-provoking (A-P) and
Neutral (N) Stimuli Made by Normal and
Neurotic Groups During a Wbrd Association
Test.

EXPERINENTAL AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Introduction. Workers in psychology first considered

 

forgetting to be a function of the amount of time that
had passed, the assumption being that the memory traces
of the brain wear away with the passage of time. The
need for amplifying and amending this concept soon be-
came evident. How, for instance, did it happen that of
two events perceived at the same moment, one would be
remembered and the other forgotten? The apparent answer
was that one of the events made a stronger impression.
Investigations of the effects of primacy, intensity,
novelty and frequency of stimulation threw further light
on factors influencing strength of impression. However,
the recognition of these variables did not entirely
answer the objections raised against the forgetting-
through-time theory. The work of Bartlett (A) showed
that there was no one curve of forgetting. There were
instead as many curves as there were conditions which
determined rate and content of forgetting. The search
for additional determining conditions for forgetting led
workers to turn their attention to factors such as the
needs of the individual, his interests, past experiences
and motivation at the time of learning and of recall.

Increasingly, it was felt that forgetting was anything

but simple, that the "passage of time" was secondary,
and that the primary factors were the needs of the
individual and his attempts to satisfy them.

The next contribution made by laboratory and clinical
workers concerned the fact that forgetting was never
complete. "Forgotten" material often was either spon-
taneously recalled, or could be made available to the
individual by the application of certain techniques.

Most psychologists agreed that "forgotten" material was
located somewhere in the nervous system, and devised
hypothetical constructs such as neural schemata, engrams,
neurograms, and traces to fill the gaps in immediate
observation. Consideration of motivational factors in
recall and the potential reversibility of forgetting led
to hypotheses about processes which kept the "forgotten"
unavailable. Principal among these was the "repression
hypothesis" which stressed certain motivational aspects
of forgetting, and postulated a complicated theoretical
system of forces acting to initiate, maintain and dis-
rupt the process of repression.

Critical Survey of Experimental Attempts to Test

 

the Repression Hypothesis. The first experimental
attempt related to repression was Colgrave's question-

naire in 1898 (8). He asked school children if it was

3

easier to remember pleasant or unpleasant experiences.
His results showed that pleasant items were more easily
remembered than those less pleasant. However, question-
naire methods are notoriously invalid for tapping re-
pression (52), and Colgrave's work has more historical
than practical value.

In 1905 Gordon's (20) study of recall for colored
figures judged as "pleasant" or "unpleasant" marked the
beginning of experimental attempts to test the repress-
ion hypothesis proper. Other studies on the relation-
ship of "hedonic tone" to memory had subjects associate
pleasant or unpleasant visual (48, 59), olfactory (3,

15, 21, 30) and auditory stimuli (#8) with numbers or
nonsense syllables. Superior recall of conceptual
material associated with pleasant senSory experiences

was often assumed to demonstrate repression of unpleasant
associations. Results sometimes tended toasupport the
hypothesis, but were too often conflicting or incon-
clusive. Today most psychologists agree that these
studies made the erroneous assumption that sensory and
:ideational judgment can be equated, and that in retro-
Spect they contributed little, if anything, toknowledge
about repression (1.7, 52). ‘

Still other studies of repression dealt with the

r'et2all of personal experience (11., 21, 1.2, 1.5, 61, 66).

A,

Subjects were asked to list recent pleasant and unpleasant
happenings. In general, a greater number of pleasant
memories tended to be recalled. However, many of these
studies made no allowance for the fact that people actually
tended to have mare pleasant than unpleasant experiences.
When this variable was considered, no difference in re-
call for'the two types of experience was found (6, 71).,
Later types of research dealt with the induction of
situational threats in ego-involved individuals. The
general pattern of these studies was to induce failure
on tasks ostensibly reflecting upon some socially-valued
trait, such as intelligence or character (23, 65). Later
recall often revealed results contrary to the Zeigarnik
Effect (72) in that there was differential forgetting of
incomplete or "failed” tasks (A9, 50). This was taken
to support the repression hypothesis. Variations in
this technique were designed by Koch (31) and Korner (32)
who tested recall for'"good" and "poor" examination scores,
and for "desirable" and"undesirable" personality traits.
However, the general result of this type of experiment-
ation was inconclusive, and the operation of variables
other than repression which may have influenced "for-
getting" was inadequately controlled. Koch's self-
criticism regarding the inhibiting effect of the examiner

(who was often the teacher in these classroom-situated

experiments) may be applied to many of these studies.

She raises the question.of hOW'a subject's endeavor to
maintain the good graces of the examiner might lead him

to consciously withhold recall of "failures" or "deficien-
cies". This question will be discussed in greater de-
tail later in this section.

Another majOr technique has been the use of word
lists which included items designed to tap areas of re-
pression. The content of experimental items was usually
sexual, aggressive, or profane, and results tended to
show'that such words were less frequently recalled than
neutral words for which there was equal practice (7, 13,
21., 31., 36, 51., 56, 68). This method cones closest to
the theoretical prerequisites of the repression hypothesis
(52). However, results secured by this method may re-
flect the poorer learning of infrequently used "taboo"
words (53, 68), or the embarrassment of subjects to
verbalize them.in a recall period (#3, 52, 73).

In terms of design and relevance to the present dis-
cussion, Sharp's study (5h) offers one of the best illus-
trations of an experimental attempt to test the repression
hypothesis.

Sharp, utilizing neurotic subjects, compared the
amount of recall and time necessary for relearning two-

word statements which were known from therapeutic in-

6

vestigations to be unpleasant, pleasant, or neutral in
all her subjects' experience. Her results showed that
unpleasant statements tended to be forgotten more fre-
quently than those which had pleasant er neutral con-
notations, and that more time was necessary to relearn
the former. Sharp's work is far superior to much of the
early literature on "hedonic tone" and repression in that
she designed her study around materials related to known
sources of anxiety and maladjustment for her neurotic
subjects. She also secured similar results using the
same lists with a group of normal adults. Heathers
and Sears (27) assumed that Sharp's list of words was
tapping some sources of repression that are fairly com-
mon in peeple with an American background. However,
they were unable to duplicate her findings with compara-
ble groups of subjects. Even when a number of variations
in procedure were introduced, Sharp's results could not
be supported. Sears concluded:

"Whatever may have been the difference

between the two sets of data, it seems

probable that this method is too un-

certain and unreliable fer extensive

investigation" (52, p. 110).

Partly as the result of the criticisms noted above,

but more likely due to the increased influence of ex-

perimental psychology, recent studies have attempted to

control learning factors and to recognize that the ab-

7

sence of recall does not necessarily represent repress-
ion. This approach attempts to separate the effects of
apparently unmotivated forgetting from the motivation-
ally-determined resistance to recall theoretically assoc-
iated with repression.

In his review of Sharp's work, McGeoch makes a com-
ment which may be applied to any study of the repression
hypothesis.

"It remains a question whether these
differences should be interpreted in
terms of Freudian repression, if that
is taken to mean anything more than the
interference effects in terms of which
most forgetting is to be understood.
Until such differential rates of forget-
ting are shown to be produced by con-
ditions other than those pnaducing most
experimentally measured forgetting, it
is reasonable to hypothesize that un-
acceptable items are more susceptible
to being interfered with by the inter-
vening activities of the subject and
that these items also suffer at recall
from a less vigorous and direct set to
recall them";(39, p. 373Eunderscoring
mine).

In support of McGeoch's view is the work of Stalnaker
and Riddle (58) and of White et. a1. (69), showing the
influence of hypnosis on the recovery of childhood mem-
ories. Their results showed that increased motivation
to recall (hypnotically-induced by the examiner) is an
important determiner of the amount and accuracy of re-

call from real life experiences. Representative of this

8

more cautious trend in evaluating differential forget-
ting is the workzof Zeller (73). He holds that a three-
fold criterion must'be met-before repression can be in-
ferred. One must first show that the subject learned
the material in question. One must next indicate some
experimentally-induced inhibiting factor (e.g. ego
threat). Finally, and nest important, when this threat
is removed recall of previously unavailable material can
be secured.

It is the recovery of material previously unrecalled
which Zeller feels to be the crucial proof against ord-
inary forgetting, and in support of the repression hy-
pothesis. This technique guards against the possibility
of poorer initial learning by utilizing equivalent and
innocuous stimulus materials (i.e. nonsense syllables).
The independent variable is the introduction of ego-
threat. Aborn (l) and Zeller (7h, 75) have found results
consistent with this rationale, and conclude that they
have demonstrated repression in the laboratory. No ex-
plicit criticism of Zeller or Aborn has, as yet, appear-
ed in the literature. However, it would appear to the
author that Zeller's criticism of Sharp's findings (53)
is equally applicable to his own design. He states:

"The experimental situation was such

that embarrassment over the nature of
the material to be reproduced undoubt—

edly contributed a reat deal to the
results" (73, p. 11 .

Situational factors other than embarrassment may
also act to inhibit recall. As Koch has indicated (31),
the subject's attempt to hide fancied inadequacies from
the examiner may play an important role in recall. When
he is shown that these inadequacies are non-existent,
(which constituted the removal of ego-threat in Zeller's
design) he may produce what previously had been inhibit-
ed -- particularly if it now serves to increase his pres-
tige.

In his summary of the literattre on experimental
studies of repression Sears states:

"There is little to be concluded from
the experimental study of repression.
In general it is possible to demon-
strate that with the required condi-
tions crudeiy established recall of
real-life or experimentally induced
experiences follows the expectations
suggested by repression theory. But
the non-analytic data offer no refine-
ment of the theory, no addition of rel-
evant new variables, no streamlined
techniques that promise eventual solu-
tion of tie problens posed by Freud.
Studies of recall of real-life experi-
ences and efforts to tap existing re-
pressions have been almost uniformly
uninformative. Some hOpe may be held
out for the artificial creations of re-
pression in the laboratory, but even
these must by necessity be mild and im-
permanent. Indeed, the triviality of

. obtained differences in.this field makes
a most discouragirg picture; and the

lO

coarseness of the experimental methods
so far available for trapping the sen-
sitive dynamic of repression does not
augur well for the future" (52, p. 120).

In the light of Sears' summary statement and consider-
ing the history of experimentation in this area, one
wonders if much of the work on repression has not aimed
to pgggthhe hypothesis rather than test it. Certainly,
existing facts suggest the need for further consideration
of the effects of the condition under which.recall is
solicited, and a more cautious utilization of the con-
cept of repression in the laboratory.

The Question of Repression vs. Suppression. Labora-
tory experinents have largely ignored the possibility
that factors other than repression may explain why a sub-
ject withheld certain material from recall. The most.
obvious alternative explanation of results is that the
indiviiual had suppressed, rather than repressed, certain
unrecalled material.

It is generally assumed that in a laboratory situation
the subject will respond in a motivated and appropriate
manner to test instructions. This expectation is based
on the individual's cultural conditioning which leads
him to obey authority figures (i.e. the examiner), and

"to put his best foot forward" in the presence of his

superiors (again represented by the examiner). The latter

ll

factor generally serves to enhance an individual's per-
formance in the ordinary test situation. However, it
may also play an inhibiting role if compliance with the
examiner's instruction leads the subject to violate the
social pretense he wishes to maintain (28, 38). In a
repression eXperiment the subject is often called upon
to verbalize "taboo" material, or recall experiences in
which he had appeared in an uncomplimentary light. In
this situation the subject may compromise his inclination
to recall all he can by suppressing those items which he
feels might incur the displeasure or-ridicule of the ex-
aminer (31, 1.3). The degree to which this is done would
ultimately depend on the subject's assessment of the
relative benefits to 'be gained by recalling or suppress-
ing recall fcr certain material at the time of testirg.
The amount of material suppressed by a subject may in
turn be altered by the kird of situational threat to re-
call present in a situation, and the amount of pressure
t° I“knell broight to bear by the examiner.

This interplay of factors fostering and inhibiting
I‘ecall is readily recognized and substantiated by those
with therapeutic experience. Alexander (2) notes that
there are two important processes available to the in-
dividual for withholding objectionable material from the

theralfiist. One is repression; the other is a "conscious

12
and voluntary process called suppression". Alexander
explains how the patie nt's need for help and the ther-
apist's accepting attitude reduce emotional resistance
to verbalize suppressed material, and also how the tech-
nique of free association tends to thwart suppression of

recall. As a function of the therapeutic procedure, "the

patient gradually learns to overcome his natural reluct-

ance to abandon his conventional facade and become entire-

ly frank" (2, p. 29).
Haigh's (25),study of "Defensive Behavior in Client-

Centered Therapy" demonstrated that individuals will con-
sciouslywithhold certain material 11‘ it tends to be

1m3<>ngruous with a particular concept or experience

highly valued by them. This was termed "defensive be-

haVior" which included his clients' attempts to distort,
deny, evade, or rationalize their awareness of a given

state of affairs. It was shown that the accepting atti-
tUde of the therapist, and the clients' need to work out

inc=Ol'lsistent feelings, tended to reduce the effectiveness

and increase the admission of defensive behavior. Haigh

c on C luded that:

"...it is necessary to recognize the
difference between material of which
the individual is aware but which he
does not communicate, and material of
which he is not aware but which never-
theless influences his behavior. It

13

would seem that this factor (the former;
Ed. note) must be separated out before

any defensiveness encountered need be
attributed to the operation of unconscious
factors" (25, p. 188).

Even the recognition of factors such as suppression
has done little to clarify the experimental question of
what is repressed and what is not. This is true in spite
of the clear theoretical dichotomy existing between re-
pression and suppression. Theoretically, the basis for
differentiation is that repression is an unconscious,
and suppression is a conscious process. Unconscious pro-
cesses, including repression, follow three propositions
(1+3 ) :

(a) they are removed from consciousness;

(b) they can only be made available to conscious-
ness by special techniques such as psycho-
analysis or hypnosis; and

(c) tley are not under voluntary control.

SUppression, on the other hand, is a conscious pro-
cess’ easily reversible (i.e. suppressed material is
read11y available for verbalization), and under voluntary
°°nbrol (11).

To the observer, however, the processes of repression
and suppression are the same: both prevent the verbal-
izat"ii-on of certain material. The laboratory worker, un-
like the therapist, seldom goes beyond the recall data
given at the time of inquiry. When experimental results

reveal that certain material is not verbalized, it has

1h

been largely a matter of conjecture whether repression
or suppression best explain the findings.

Implications of Freud's First and Second Theony of
Anxiety. Among the influences predisposing workers to
conclude in favor of the repression hypothesis is Freud's
first theory of neurotic anxiety (16). According to
this theory, the individual experiences libidinal im-
pulses which he interprets as dangerous. These are re-
pressed, and the affect connected with them is converted
into "free-floating anxiety" or symptoms which are anxiety
equivalents. Following repression, certain cues associ-
ated with a rejected libidinal impulse may also arouse
anxiety. This is said to occur because these cues tend
to reinstate the formerly repressed content in conscious-
ness. The ideational representations of these cues are
in turn repressed by a process termed "after-expulsion"
(16). In studies of memory this theoretical formulation
has led to the possibly erroneous conclusion that any
material assumed to arouse anxiety would in turn be re-
pressed. An example of this point of view is Sear's
statement (52) that Sharp's wcrd list (5h) touched upon
(common areas of repression in persons with an American
background.

FreudFs second theory ofmanxiety posited that anxiety

does not result from repressed impulses, but arises out

15

of the individual's endeavors to avoid danger situations
in his social relationships (17, 18).

Freud's second theory of anxiety grew out of his
emphasis on the concept of castration. In his later
writings Freud states: "It is not the repression that
creates the anxiety, but the anxiety is there first and
creates repression" (17, p. 120). According to this
theory, the individual's childhood fear of castration
by the parent later becomes "impersonalized" into dread
of conscience which is patterned after social modes of
behavior.

"One might say,then, that symptoms are
created in order to avoid the deve10p-
ment of anxiety, but such a formulation
does not go below the surface. It is
more accurate to say that symptoms are
created in order to avoid the danger
situation of which anxiety sounds the
alarm" (18, p. 86).

Interpreted in this manner, impulses arouse anxiety
because their expression would incur external danger:
namely, punishment by authority figtres. This emphasis
on the external danger situation implies that in certain
cases anxiety does not result until the indivhiual is
aware of both his impulse and the repercussions it might
involve. However, Freud notes that the individual does

not necessarily repress all impulses resulting in anxiety

in a given situation. An alternative mechanism may be

16

the suppression (or inhibition) of his inclination.
"An impulse which is inhibited is
rejected by repudiation and condem-
nation . . . but can continue to
exist as a memory. The whole process
of decision takes place with the full
cognizance of the ego" (19, p. 259).

Therefore, one may argue that experimertal findings
interpreted tclsupport the repression hypothesis might
have reflected a situation in which the individual was
consciously aware of certain content, but suppressed
recall because he feared verbalizing this content to
the examiner (31, 52, 73).

(Freud's theories of anxiety provide theoretical re-
ference for conjectures regarding the role of repression
or suppression in experimental findings. However, theo-
retical arguments alone cannotciecide which of the two
processes are operative in a given.experimental situation.
This is a problem for empirical investigation.

Limitations of the Experimental Criterion for Re-
pression. In traditional psychophysical experiments the
difference between consciousness ani unconsciousness was
determined by asking the subject whether or not he was
aware of a certain stimulus. If he responded in the
affirmative, he was conscious of it; if not, he was un-

conscious of it. With only minor modifications this same

criterion has become standard in studies of recall. One

l7

simply asks the subject to recall previously learned
material. Response is the criterion for consciousness;
absence of response is the criterion for unconsciousness
(#3, p. #0). However, this criterion may attribute much
to unconsciousness which is, in fact, wholly conscious.
Sears recognized this limitation, but did not suggest

a remedy. He stated:

"There are of course, many factors
which may interfere with the express-
ion of conscious images, attitudes, or
wishes in words. A man may wish that
he had a different profession, but
under a few conditions only will he
translate this wish into verbal terms
that an observer could measure. Such
factors as alcoholic intoxication,
extreme anxiety, sympathetic intimacy
with the recipient of the information
or some other strong social polarization
ufight be the only influence which would
lead to this translation. It is clear
that in order for the above description
to be truly reflective of the Freudian
position there must be a one-to-one re-
lationship between the unexpressed con—
tent (verbal or preverbal) and the ex-
pressed (measurable) content of the ver-
bal activity itself" (51, p. 2A6).

In the last sentence Sears implies that what is not
verbalized must be incapable of verbalization before re-
pression can.be concluded. Most studies utilizing this
criterion do not consider Sears' caution that one cannot
regard all non-verbalized material as repressed. The
confusion arising from the omission of this consideration

was discussed in detail previously.

18

More important than reviewing past inadequacies in
experimental studies, is the problem of improving the-
criterion for repression. In the last analysis repress-
ion cannot be observed; it can only be inferred from the
absence of recall for material assumed to be anxiety-pro-
voking and experienced. Therefore, the direction for
improving the experimental criterion would seem to be to-
wards obtaining all the material capable of verbalization.
Even if this were possible by techniques available in the
laboratory, it would not solve all the problems. But it
would lessen the margin of error.

Revisions of the Criterion for Repression. Zeller
(73) attempted to devise a better experimertal measure
of repression by having subjects associate ego-threat
with innocuous material. He then tested recall for the
stimulus material in the presence and absence of the in-
duced threat. He demonstrated that improved recall
followed the removal of ego threat. This upheld his
assumption that experimentally-induced threats may in-
hibit recall. However, this does not necessarily prove
that previously unavailable material was repressed. It
might be said with equal justification that the removal
of ego threat led to the release of suppressedmaterial.
The fact that these results are open to an alternate in-

terpretation in no way establishes the efficacy of either

l9
explanation. It merely places Zeller's criterion in
question. .However, Zeller's contribution is noteworthy
in that he raised the interesting question of how the
recovery of previously unavailable material might be in-
cluded in a criterion for repression.

Personality theorists hold that the threatened re-
turn of repressed material results in an anxiety attack.
Freud stated that it is the "charge of affect" associated
with the content of repressed material which accounts
for the release of energy represented by the anxiety at-
tack (16). In somewhat different terms Miller and
Dollard say the same thing:‘ "...the immediate result
of removing repression (like the interruption of any
other reinforced symptom) is an increase in drive" (11,
p. 203). Increased drive in this context refers to
anxiety. Thus, whenever repressed material is recalled,
one would expect a marked increase of manifest anxiety.
In the writer's opinion this criterion might be useful
when attempting to conclude whether repression or sup-
pression is operating in a given experimental situation.
For instance, when recall of previously unavailable
material is achieved without a significant increase in
manifest anxiety, it would seem justifiable to conclude

that the material had been suppressed.

20

This criterion cannot be applied to Zeller's work
(7h, 75) because he tested recall before and after the
‘removal of an ego threat. However, it could be useful
in a situation where assumed threats to recall remained
constant, while the method of soliciting recall varied.

Although of some practical value, observations of
the presence or absence of "a marked increase in anxiety"
would be highly subjective. Some measurable index of
behavioral disorganization assumed to correspond to var-
ious levels of anxiety mnght be devised.1 However, the
usefulness of any index as a criterion for the release
of repressed material would ultimately depend on the
validity of the assumption that the material was, in
fact, repressed. This brings one'back to the question
of what would constitute an experimental criterion to
differentiate repression from suppression.

One alternative solution occurred to the author.

If one cannot differentiate between repression or sup-
pression of recall in the laboratory, can one devise a

rnethod that would_supnort the assumption that repression

_1

1Although certain physiological techniques for dis-
1xinguishing conscious from unconscious processes have
IDeen advanced, they are not directly pertinent to this
firtudy. Reference to representative work in this area by
Idzria (35), Diven (10), ani McGranahan (#0) may be made.

21

is 223 a tenable explanation for obtained results? As
suggested earlier, this would not solve all the problems,
but it would lessen the margin of error.

According to psychoanalytical theory, repressed mem-
ories are not consciously available to the individual;
only special techniques (i.e. therapy or hypnosis) which
serve to reduce ego threats to recall can release repress-
ed content (h3, 73). Therefore, no amount of direct en-
couragement or forcing could be expected to secure re-
pressed material (11, 19).

One method for testing whether previously unrecalled
”anxiety-provoking" material was, or was not, repressed
Ivould be to place the subject under additional pressure

to recall. If, as a result, more memories for "anxiety-
provoking" material are produced, a previous assumption

<31? repression would become untenable.

22

PRESENT PROBLEM

This investigation will attempt to demonstrate how
the quantity and quality of a subject's recall perform-
ance may be affected by placing him under pressure to
recall. The results secured in Such an experimental
situation, hereafter termed "Forced Conditions," will
be compared to those secured from subjects tested in a
traditional recall situation, hereafter termed "Spon-
taneous Conditions."

The experimental task will require subjects to re-
call "anxiety-provoking" and "neutral" items from lists
which comprise a Word Association Test.

It is hoped that this study may contribute to a
lessening of the limitations of the present experimental
criterion for repression, and provide some objective
basis for evaluating the effects of forcing recall in
therapy. , ‘

Effects of "Forcing" Techniques on Performance.
ReStilts of experimentation in the laboratory and in
t'hex‘apy suggest that the principal effect of forcing
procedures is an increase in the subject's level of mo-
tiWation to perform. I

Perhaps the most pertinent stuiy in the literature

reSen-fling the effects of "fa‘ced conditions" on perform-

23

ance is that of Dembo (9). Human subjects were given
the task of reaching for a flower which was four feet
away from a marked square on the floor in which the sub-
ject stood, and from which he was not allowed to move.
Although there were only two possible ways of achieving
the goal, the experimenter insisted there was an addition-
a1 solution —- thereby inducing extreme tensions in her
subjects. It is interesting to note that most subjects
responded to the examiner's insistence by continuing to
produce more responses in spite of the useless and bizarre
nature of these responses. These findings lead one to
expect that with increased motivation a subject‘will
produce more than he will under oonditi one of lesser
motivation.
The importance of motivation in a recall situation
is noted by McGeoch:
"What is recalled both immediately and
after an interval is a function of the
motivation of the subject, whether at
the time of original learning or at
the time of recall or at both, ani of
the influence of his existent organiza-
tion of learned material. It is, thus,
not the immediate material alone which
determines recall, but its interaction
with motivation and the retained residue
of prior learning" (39, p. 339).
Therefore, after equal practice on given word lists,
sub.jects tested under Forced Conditions will be expected

to recall more words from the lists than those tested

2h

under Spontaneous Conditions. However, Dembo's results
(9) show that placing a subject under pressure to per-
form leads him to produce responses inapplicable to the
task at hand. Therefore, in a recall situation one
would also expect more unrelated (i.e. extra-list) words
to be produced under Forced than under Spontaneous Con-
ditions.

Much previous experimentation has shown that anxiety-
provoking material is not recalled spontaneously. A
question often raised is that this content may be sup-
pressed because of the subject's embarrassment to report
socially-unacceptable material to the examiner (31, 52,
73). Investigations by Alexander (2) and Haigh (25)
have demonstrated that patients in therapy do suppress
what they feel to be objectionable statements. These
workers found that with additional encouragement or
.insistence by the therapist, patients often revealed
11reviously withheld material. Therefore, it is antici-
Ilated that subjects tested under Forced Conditions will

recall more anxiety-provoking words than‘those tested
under Spontaneous Conditions.

The Experimental Study of Recall Under Forced Con-
QEfilgiggg. It would seem that the problem under consider-
ation might best be studied in therapy where the questions

or repression and suppression and means of securing re-

25

call for previous experiences are most pressing.

Alexander states that:

"...psychoanalytical theory and practice
are in a process of develOpment. To
further this development a continuous
revision of theoretical assumptions and
eneralizations, as well as experiments

with therapeutic rocedures, is imper-
ative" (2, p. 300 .

However, the responsibility of the therapist to the
immediate needs of his patient precludes such experimen-

tation in light of ethical, if not practical, consider-

ations. Therefore, it is felt that the next best thing

‘would be an experimental situation in which one could
approximate the type of material to be recalled, the
.factors influencing recall, and the type of individual
generally dealt with in a therapeutic setting. Although
the limited scOpe and artificiality characteristic of
a: laboratory experiment leaves much to be desired when
rwelating experimental findings to the therapeutic sit-
uation, certain advantages are also gained.

An experimental study is able to control the content
Of' recalled material, and the motivation of the subject

Either of these factors are virtually im-
Also,

to recall.
Possible to control in a therapeutic setting.

311!) jecting a group of normals and anxiety-neurotics to
the same experimental conditions permits an assessment

or the effects of different levels of anxiety on learning

26

and recall. This, too, could hardly be undertaken in

a therapeutic setting. Each of these features which

become possible in an experimental study of recall will
be discussed in more detail in the following sections.
Control of the Content of Recalled Material. There
is general acceptance of the fact that the method of
psychoanalysis does produce memories of anxiety-provoking
cues or events. However, no control on the validity of

recalled material is available:

"In psychoanalysis continuous harping

on recall, the demand to go further
back, to bring up more recollections,
can be so harassing as to leave an ob-
jective observer in considerable doubt
over the validity of the recalled items"

(52, p. 110).

In this investigation previously-learned word lists
lfiill provide a basis for assessing the amount and accu-
Iracy of recall, while the presence of both neutral and
anxiety-provoking items in the lists will permit an
aJmalysis of what content is best recalled under Forced
chnditions. The amount of erroneous recall (i.e. extra-
list words) made by subjects may provide some further
answer to Sears' question regarding the validity of re-
colfilections secured by forcing procedures.

signtrol of the Subject's Motivation to Recall. One
Of the major advantages of a laboratory approach is the

releatxive absence of what are traditionally felt to be

27

therapeutic necessities for motivating recall (i.e. the)
establishment of a "positive transference," a studied
interest in and acceptance of the patient's problems,
assurance of the confidential nature of all that is said,
as well as the conviction on the part of the patient that
the therapist can help him). All these factors are said
'to lessen the patient's emotional resistance to reveal
painful or derogatory material to the therapist, and
produce an atmosphere conducive to a continuing positive
attitude towards recall (2, 25, 38).

However, in psychoanalytically-oreinted therapy one
finds superimposed and intermingled with the general tone
.for fostering reduced emotional resistance to recall,
‘various direct and indirect methods for forcing recall
(26). When viewing these opposing methods for achieving
arecall, the objective observer is again in considerable
doubt regardirg their relative effectiveness.

By maintaining a continuous test-oreinted atmosphere,
a11 experimental procedure precludes the variables char-
acteristic of the therapeutic setting. Also, in the
lab oratory one can better control extraneous factors
(iqe. instruction, type ani amount of material to be

learned, time for learning and recall), and thereby
PeITniJ: a clearer evaluation of the effects peculiar

‘50 Forced Conditions on the recall of anxiety-provoking

28

material.
The Comparative Study of Normal and Neurotic Sub-

jects.

The final consideration of this study is with
the similarities ard differences to be found in the per-

formance of normal and neurotic subjects under Forced

and Spontaneous Recall Conditions. Studies by Montague

(1+4), Taylor and Spence (60), Farber ard Spence (12),
and Malmo and Amsel (37) regarding the effects of anxiety

on the learning of verbal material indicated that ex-

tremely anxious individuals showed marked learning defi-

ciencies. Farber and Spence concluded: "These results

indicate that these particular anxious and non-anxious

groups differed with respect to some factor rather than

learning ability alone" (12, p. 123). These workers

attributed the discrepanices in performance to the dis-

I‘Uptive effects of extreme anxiety. The 'reduced func-

t1 onal efficiency of the extremely anxious individual
is also reflected in the clinically familiar "short-
Circuiting" of the neurotic's attempts at problem-solving

due to the urgent demands of first dealing with his own

anXiety. Telesc0ping this observation to the conditions

of“ 1:his investigation, and supported by the experimental

‘ e"idence noted above, it is presumed that the neurotic
group will be less able to learn the stimulus material

than will normal individuals of comparable age and

29

intelligence. The lower level of learning for the
patient group should be demonstrated in terms of lesser
recall scores.

Sears notes (51, p. 2&6) that extreme anxiety is one
of the conditions leading an individual to verbalize‘
suppressed material. Therefore, an analysis of recall
scores should reveal that neurotics give proportionately
more suppressed material (i.e., anxiety-provoking words)
than do normals under Spontaneous and Forced Conditions.

Rapaport (46) has shown that neurotics tend to
produce more unrelated responses to stimuli on a Word
Association Test than do normals. This is often inter-
preted as the subject's attempt to avoid reporting more
painful associations. This finding, in addition to the
poorer learning ability and greater proneness to dis-
organization characteristic of extremely anxious individ-
uals, suggests that neurotics would produce proportion-
ately more errors in recall than normals. As noted above,
this is measurable in terms of extra-list words which may
be produced either as a defense agairst nore painful re-
call, or in response to the examiner's continued demands
to recall more when the subject has exhausted his re-
collection.of list material.

Summary Statement of the Problem. Criticisms of

experiments dealing with memory for anxiety-provoking

30

material have held that the experimental criterion for
repression may be inadequate because subjects do not re-
port all they are capable of renenbering in a recall sit-
uation. Studies in therapy have tended to support the
contention that socially-unacceptable material is often
consciously withheld from report. Certain methods for
encouraging the release of suppressed material have been
used in therapy. However, there is disagreement regard-
ing the validity of recollections secured by forcing
procedures, particularly in psychoanalysis.

This investigation will attempt to demonstrate that
by inducing greater motivation to recall one can secure
more recollections of previously-learned material. It
is assumed that subjects will be led to report more anx-
iety-provoking material under Forced than under the tra-
ditional Spontaneous Recall Conditions. It is also antic-
ipated that placing individuals under pressure to recall
will result in their making more errors in recall than
will persons not subjected to such conditions.

The literature on the effects of extreme anxiety
on learning suggests that neurotic subjects will be less
able to retain previously-learned material than will
normals of comparable age and intelligence. Other workers
have noted the lesser ability to suppress anxiety-pro-

voking material and the greater proneness to disorgan-

31

ization characteristic of neurotic individuals. This
suggests, then, that neurotics will produce proportion-
ately more anxiety-provoking and unrelated material than
will normals in a recall situation.

The problem of testing these assumptions will be
approached by the use of word lists consisting of "anx-
iety-provoking" and "neutral" items which the subjects
will learn during a Word Assocation Test. In this manner
a control of the content of recalled material is estab-
lished, since the analysis will be based on the number
of words recalled from the lists under Forced and Spon-
taneous Conditions. A further'neasure of the validity
of recalled material is provided by the number of unre-
lated (i.e. extra-list) words produced under the two re-

call conditions.

32

HYPOTHESES

I.
All individuals will recall more words under Forced
than under Spontaneous Conditions.

(a) All individuals will recall more list-words
under Forced than under Spontaneous Conditions.

(b) All individuals will recall more anxiety-pro-
voking words under Forced than under Spontaneous
Conditions.

(c) All individuals will recall more unrelated (i.e.
extra-list)words under Forced than under Spon-
taneous Conditions.

II
More list-words will be recalled by the normal than
by the neurotic group under Forced and Spontaneous Con-
ditions.
‘ III
Neurotics will recall proportionately more anxiety-
provoking words than will normals under Forced and Spon-
taneous Conditions.
IV
Neurotics will recall proportionately more unrelated

(i.e. extra-list) words than will normals under Forced

and Spontaneous Conditions.

33

METHOD
‘Subjects. The sample consisted of twenty-six white
male neurotics, and twenty-six white male normals. All
subjects were veterans of World War II.

All members of the neurotic sample had been diagnosed
as anxiety reaction1_noderate or severe. The following
describes this type of reaction:

"In this type of reaction the anxiety is
diffuse and not restricted to definite
situations or objects, as in the case of
phobias. Furthermore, it is neither
'bound' nor controlled by any psychologi-
cal mechanism, as in the other psycho-
.neurotic disorders" (64, p. 3)

Behaviorally, the condition was manifested by a con-
stellation of psychological ani physical complaints in-
cluding tenseness, tremor, shakiness, excessive sweating,
heart consciousness, breathing difficulties, headaches,
.insomnia, irritability, vomiting, diarrhea, and inability
to concentrate. Associated with this was a social his-
tory of poor job adjustment and lost time due to symptoms,
and general interpersonal difficulties.

The "normals" used in this experiment had never been
hospitalized or treated for mental or emotional diffi-
culties.

The design for the comparative study of the normal

and neurotic sample was achieved in the following manner.

3h

The normal and neurotic groups were each divided into
two subgroups. This provided one normal and one neurotic
*experimental group, and one normal and one neurotic con-
trol group. All four groups were equated for age and
intelligence. Fisher's "t" test (41) was used to deter-
mine the significance of the difference in age and in-
telligence within and between the normal and neurotic
groups. No significant differences in mean values or
sigmas of these variables were found to exist between
any of the four subgroups used in this experiment

(Table l).

The neurotic sample consisted of patients at the
Veterans Administration's Medical Unit in Detroit,
Ffichigan. The normal sample were employees of the
Maintenance Department at Michigan State College, East
Lansing, Michigan. The normal group volunteered their
services, while the neurotic group was tested as part
of their routine pension examination.

Test Materials. The test materials consisted of:

(a) ,two word association lists composed of
16 anxiety-provoking items each;

(b) two word association lists composed of
16 neutral items each;

(c) the Wechsler-Bellevue Vocabulary sub-
test, Form I (67);

(d) the Bender-Gestalt Test (5); and,

(e) a stop watch, graduated in tenths

of a second.

The "anxiety-provoking material" utilized in this

35

 

 

--- NHH --- oHH --- «Ha -u- HHH .o.H flanges
mm.m N.HH mo.a m.oa om.m ¢.HH sm.m N.HH whoom .nmoo>
NH.m 0.0m oo.m 4.0m m¢.m 0.0m o~.o m.mm mw<
_.o.m cmmz .o.m 2mm: .o.m :mmz .a.m 2mm:
nmopom msomcmucOQm vmouom msomcmpcoam
mommomsmz mHmsuoz

 

Aasoumpsm comm aw ma 2V

mcowpwvcoo Hamomm msomcmpcoam cam Umopom pops:

mmsopmpsm owpopzmz ppm amenoz on» non muzmfipOSG mocowfiaaosz

Hmnpw> pmumhnoum paw mopoom humasnmoo> ms>maammupoamnom3 umpnwfioz .mm<

H wanes

36

study was drawn from Rapaport's revised Word Association
Test (#6). The assumption underlying this test is that
the items represent a wide range of possible conflict
areas, and that one or more of these items will act as
an anxiety-provoking cue for any given subject. Rapaport
(1.6) has empirically tested and substantiated this as-
sumption with normal and neurotic subjects.1 For this
reason, and for the following, this particular compilas-
tion of items was selected for use in this study; (a)
it lends itself to quantification techniques, and (b)
because of the wide acceptance of the Word Association
TeSt as a useful clinical tool, the findings of this in-
vestigation may be available for ready application, re-
testing ani extension.

The Vocabulary and.Bender-Gestalt tests were not an
integral part of the experiment, but were used to control
other pertinent variables. The Vocabulary Test was used
for equating the intellectual capacity of the two groups.
The Bender-Gestalt Test was used to fill a ten minute
delay between administration of the word association

lists and recall. This instrument was selected because

‘\

us 1Analysis of responses to the word association test
n11??? in this experiment revealed that subjects had sig-
cantly slower reaction times for the anxiety-provok-

ing t116111 neutral items (Appendix B)-

37

it wouid act to maintain.the "testing set", prevent re-
liearsing of the lists, and because it was sufficiently
ciifferent from the experimental tasks to assure minimal
liabit interference.

Procedure. The following procedure was identical
ffior the normal and neurotic groups. The word association
test was the ostensible experimental task. Two lists of
'Hanxiety-provoking" (APl and AP2) and two lists of "neu-
tral" words (N1 and N2) comprised the test materials
(lippendix A). Before testing began, all participants
were given the usual instructions for the word association
test, and their understanding of the instructions was
asucertained by two practice items. The subject's reac-
ticni time and response to each word was noted. Each sub-
Ject was tested individually.

‘Phe sequence of the administration of the test battery
was as follows:

(1) Administration of the WordAssociation Test.
One of four orders of presentation of the,

anxiety-provoking (A-P) and neutral (N) lists

was given to each subject. The order of pre-

sentation was systematically varied from subject
to subject in the following manner:

Order: '. I A II III Iv
A-P- N A-P N
N1 1 Alpl N22 _A-§2

A-P N A-P - N
N2 2 AEPZ N11 A-il

38

After each sequence of eight stimulus
words, the examiner stopped testing and stated,
"Now let me check. When I said: (stimulus word),
you said: (response word (s))." Each of the
eight stimuli and reaponses were reviewed in
this manner, after which the examiner proceed-
ed with the test saying, "Fine. Now let's go
on. Remember, give me the first word that comes
to mind. Ready . . . ."

 

(2) Ten minutes delay (administration of the
Bender-Gestalt Test).

(3) Five minute recall for the stimulus words
of the Word Association Test. Even-numbered
subjects were tested under Spontaneous Recall '
Conditions; odd-numbered subjects were tested
under Forced Recall Conditions.

8 ontaneous Conditions approximated the usual
metho o asking the subject to write down as
much of a given past event as he could remember.
The instructions for this condition were as fol-
lows: "Write down as many of the words, that I
gave you, which you can remember." No addition-
a comments were made by the examiner. The sub-
ject was free to work on his own during a five
minute period, and was allowed to stop any time
he indicated that he was finished. Note was
made of the time each subject Spent in recall.

Forced Conditions involved a constant pres-
sure on the subject to produce as much recall
as he possibly could. Under these conditions
the examiner took an active encouraging-coercing
role. Initial instructions for this condition
were:

"You have 5 minutes to write down as many
of the words, that I gavegyou, which you can
remember. Try to remember as many words as you
possibly can."

At the end of the third minute of recall the
subject was told:

"Keep taxing." You still have two minutes
to go. you are not sure, guess. But try to
remember as many words as you possibly can."

39

At the end of the fourth minute of recall
the subject was again told:

"Keep trying. You still have another minute
to go. Try to remember as many words as you
possibly can."

(A) Administration of the Vocabulary Test.

Total time required for testing was approx-
imately 50-60 minutes.

1+0

RESULTS

The recall performance of the groups tested under
Forced Conditions was compared with that of the groups
tested under Spontaneous Conditions. Comparisons were
made on the basis of: (a) number of anxiety-provoking
(A-P) words recalled; (b) number of neutral (N) words
recalled; (c) number of extra-list (E-L) words produced;
((1) total number of list words (A-P plus N) recalled;
and, (e) total number of responses made (list plus E-L
words). An analysis was also made of the similarities
and differences in performance between the normal and
neurotic groups tested under each of the recall condi-
tions. Fisher's "t" test (1.1) was used to determine the
Significance of the differences between the number and
15}'Pe of word recalled.

Lhe Effects of Forced Conditions on Recall. It can
be Seen in Table 2 that significantly more total responses
were produced by groups tested under Forced than under
Spontaneous Conditions. This tends to support the hy—
”thesis that a forced technique can secure more recall
than can be gained (in a spontaneous situation.

Table 3 indicates that normal subjects tested under
Forced Conditions recalled significantly more list words

than normals tested under Spontaneous Conditions. A

#1

Table 2

Comparison Between the Total Number of Words
Recalled Under the Forced and Spontaneous
Conditions by the Normal and Neurotic Groups

(N 13 in each subgroup)

 

Forcidf . Spontaneous
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. diff. t

Ntxrmals 27.00 4.21 20.08 h.h8 6.92 3.88**
Neurotics 22.38 5.61 17.51. 1+.h3 4.81. 235*

 

*indicates a P of less than .05 (one-tailed test)

**indicates a P of less than .01 (one-tailed test)

Table 3

A2

(30mparison Between the Number of List Words Recalled

{finder the Forced and Spontaneous Conditions by the

Normal and Neurotic

Groups

(N 13 in each subgroup)

 

 

TForced Spontaneous
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. diff. t
Thermals 22.69 4.16 18.00 b.22 b.69 2.7h**
Neurotics 17.38 1+.S9 14.92 #57 2&6 1.32
diff 5.31 3.08
t 2.97** 1.72*

 

*indicates a P of less than .05 (one-tailed test)

**indicates a P of less than .01 (one-tailed test)

1+3

similar trend is seen in the results of the neurotic
sample. However, differences between neurotic groups
tested under the two recall conditions fell short of
statistical significance. Although not conclusive, the
findings summarized in Table 3 offer some support to the
hypothesis that individuals will recall more list words

under Forced than under Spontaneous Conditions.

A major concern of this investigation was to deter-
mine whether more reporting of anxiety-provoking material
could be secured when subjects were put under pressure
to recall. The findings in Table A show that both normal
and neurotic groups recalled significantly more A-P
words under Forced Conditions than comparable groups re-
called under Spontaneous Conditions. This tends to sup-
port the hypothesis that individuals will report more
anxiety-provoking content in a forced than in a Spontane-
0113 recall situation.

An important finding, not anticipated by the author,
13 nOted in Table 5. Here it is seen that normal and
neurotic groups recalled significantly more A-P than N
“’st under Forced Conditions. There is no statistically
Significant difference between the numbers of A-P and
N WOP(is recalled by comparable groups tested under Spon-
taneous Conditions. The implications which these findings

may have for assumptions regarding the learning of

Ah

Table A
Comparison Between the Number of Anxiety-provoking
Words Recalled Under the Forced and Spontaneous
Conditions by the Normal ani Neurotic Groups

(N 13 in each subgroup)

 

 

wF‘Erced Spontaneous
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. diff. t
Normals 12.1.6 2.33 9.31 3.48 3.15 2.60**

Neurotics 9.85 2.70 7.69 1.93 2.16 2.26*

*indicates a P of less than .05 (one-tailed test)

**indicates a P of less than .01 (one-tailed test)

45

Anne» poafimpuoaov mo. some mama mo m m nonwofiocws

 

 

--- ss.o mm.e os.e *eoxm Hm.~ sm.a mm.a noauoteoz
--- No.0 oo.m Hm.m *mm.~ mm.m mm.oa es.ma ”awesoz
p .mmfiv z mu< u .mmfie . z mu<
nsoocmpcoom weapon

 

AosoanSm some cw ma 2v
nonopo owuounoz pom Hmepoz
one up mcofipwecoo nsoocmpcoom vcm ooonom one hoes: ooaamoom noses

sz Hmppsoz pom Amn<v wcwxo>opou>pofixc< mo nonssz one cockpom oomwudeoo

m canoe

3'" J1.

J. ~L..Iv|l.llw"l.i .. ..n ’nn-zthK.
.« . .

v

Q

A6

anxiety-provoking material will be discussed in a later
section.

Table 6 shows that individuals tested under Forced
Conditions recalled significantly more extra-list words
than those tested under Spontaneous Conditions. This
tends to support the hypothesis that more unrelated
material will be produced when a forcing procedure is
used to solicit recall.

As indicated in Table 7, there are insignificant
differences between the number of N words recalled under
Forced and Spontaneous Conditions. This suggests that
the highly significant increase in list words (i.e.

A-P plus N words) recalled by normals under Forced than
under Spontaneous Conditions (Table 3) was primarily due
to the greater number of A-P words produced in reSponse
to the forcing procedure. The same may be said for the
neurotics, although the increase in list words recalled
by these subjects under Forced Conditions fell short of
statistical significance (Table 3). These results, like
those noted in Table 5, have interesting implications
with regard to the learning of anxiety-provoking and
neutral material. They will also be discussed in a later
section.

Similarities and Differences in Performance Between

‘the Normal;and Neurotic Groups. As was seen in Table 3,

A7

Table 6

Comparison Between the Number of Extra-list Words
Recalled Under the Forced and Spontaneous Conditions
by the Normal and Neurotic Groups

(N 13 in each subgroup)

 

 

“Forced“ Spontaneous 7‘
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. diff. t.
Normals h.31 3.29 2.08 1.38 2.23 2.17*

Neurotics 5.00 3.03 2.62 l.hh 2.38 2.27*

 

*indicates a P of over .05 (one-tailed test)

Table 7

Comparison Between the Number of Neutral Words

#8

Recalled Under the Forced and Spontaneous Conditions

by the Normal and Neurotic Groups

(N 13 in each subgroup)

 

 

Forced Spontaneous
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. diff. t
Normals 10.23 2.53 8.69 2.54 1.5h 1.50
Neurotics 7.54 2.79 7.23 3.06 0.31 0.26

 

1+9

the normal groups recalled significantly more list words
than the neurotic groups. Under Spontaneous Conditions
differences favoring normals in the number of list words
recalled were significant beyond the .05 level of con-
fidence; under Forced Conditions differences favoring
normals were significant beyond the .01 level of con-
fidence. This tends to support the hypothesis that nor-
mals would recall more previously-learned material than
would neurotics of comparable age and intelligence.

Table 8 shows the proportion of anxiety-provoking
and neutral words recalled from the lists by the normal
and the neurotic groups. It is seen that the number of
list words (i.e. A-P plus N) recalled by the neurotics
consists of prOportionately more A-P words than that of
the normals. However, differences between the normal
and neurotic groups with reference to the prOportions of
A-P words recalled were not statistically significant
under either of the recall conditions. Table 8 also
shows that in terms of total responses made (i.e. list
plus E-L words) neurotics produced proportionately more
extra-list words than did normals under both conditions
of recall. However, differences between the groups again
latflced statistical significance. Therefore, the hypotheses
that neurotics would recall proportionately more anxiety-

provoking material, and produce proportionately more

50
Table 8

Comparison Between Normal and Neurotic Groups on the
Basis of the Proportion of Anxiety-provoking (A-P),
Neutral (N), and Extra-list (E-L) Words Produced
Under Spontaneous and Forced Conditions

(N 13 in each group)

 

 

Spontaneous ‘Forced
Normal Neurotic Normal Neurotic
AP .51 .52 .5h .57
N .h9 .L8 .46 .AB
E-L* (.10) (.15) (.16) (.22)

*E-L proportions were computed on the basis of
total responses made.

i 4. .s .(slpnbnopqwlt T, S .. “IDS... in; _

51

unrelated material (i.e. E-L words) than would normals
were not conclusively supported by the results. However,

obtained differences were in the predicted direction.

52

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
AND THEORETICAL INPLICATIONS

Implications Regarding the Greater Recall of Anxiety-
Provokigg Material. The traditional expectation in
studies of memory is that "unpleasant" events will be
less freouently remembered than "neutral" or "pleasant"
events. Consistent, although not unanimous, experimental
findings have tended‘to support this expectation (A7,

52). Workers in this area of investigation have generally
concluded from their results that unpleasant material was
either more poorly learned or, if equal learning was
assumed, more poorly retained than neutral or pleasant
material. In explaining their results, workers have

stated that unpleasant material was "anxiety-provoking"
(53), "ego-alien" (70), "socially taboo" (13), embarrass-
ing or disparaging for the subject (31), or simple un-
familiar (29) and, therefore, was less frequently recall-
ed than neutral or pleasant material in a testing situation.

The Word Association Test was used in this experiment
so that subjects would have an opportunity to learn the
stimulus items which comprised the test's content.
Itapaport (#6) has shown that the "anxiety-provoking"
stimuli in the test cause considerable associative dis-

‘turbance in normal and neurotic subjects. An analysis

53

made by the author (Appendix B) showed that the normal
and neurotic sample used in this experiment had signi-
ficantly longer reaction times for the "anxiety-provok-
ing" (A-P) than the "neutral" (N) items on the Word
Association Test. A further analysis (Appendix A),
based.on the Thorndike-Lorge index of word usage (62),
indicated that the A-P words in the test were much less
familiar than the N words. Therefore, from the tradi-
tional point of view one would expect the subjects in
this experiment to recall less A-P than N words from
the lists.

The results of the Spontaneous Conditions showed no
difference in the number of A-P and N words recalled by
either the normal or neurotic group. A statistically
insignificant superiority of A-P over N words was present,
but on the whole these results add little to existing
literature which has placed the traditional eXpectation
in question (See Chapter I, p. 5-7). The results of
the Forced Recall Conditions, however, were directly
contrary to the usual expectation in experiments of this
'type. Groups tested under Forced Conditions not only
produced more A-P words than comparable groups tested
'under Spontaneous Conditions, but both normal and neurotic
groups recalled significantly more A-P than N words under

'the Forced Conditions. Comparable groups within the

54

normal and neurotic samples tested under the two recall
conditions had equal practice on the lists, and were
equated on variables which might have influenced the
degree of retention for the material (e.g. age, intelli-
gence, order of presentation, set to learn and elapsed
time before recall). Therefore, the greater absolute
recall of A-P than N words suggests that anxiety-provok-
ing words were actually better learned than neutral words
by these subjects.

The significantly greater recall of A-P than
N words found under the Forced Conditions was not
anticipated. It was hypothesized that more A-P
words would be recalled under the Forced Condi-
tions by both normals and neurotics. It was
also hypothesized that, because of the high level
of manifest anxiety characterizing the neurotic
group, they would recall prOportionally more
A-P words than a comparable normal grOUp, But,
the greater absolute recall of A-P than N words
shown by both groups was a purely empirical
finding. No precedent is to be found in ex-
perimental studies of memory for "anxiety-
provoking" and "neutral" stimuli. Some reasons
why workers have previously overlooked the pos-
sibility that anxiety-provoking material may be
better learned than.neutral material will be
discussed in a later section. For the present,
the writer offers an after-the-fact rationale
for the better learning of A-P than N words
in this experiment.

In retrospect, one may infer that in the incidental
learning situation provided by the Word Association Test,
the A-P words had greater novelty and stimulus intensity
(i.e. shock effect) for the subjects than the N words.

This would tend to facilitate better learning of the

55

A-P words. This is consistent with the recent finding

of Turner (63) that the recollection of pleasant and un-
pleasant experiences depends nore on the intensity, rather
than quality, of the affect associated with them. A
further explanation of obtained results is that subjects
may have found it more difficult associating to the A-P
items. This might be attributed to the subjects' in-
frequent usage and subsequent unfamiliarity with such
words, or to the conflicting responses which A-P words
are said to arouse (A6, 60). Thus, more attention would
have to be focused on A-P words than on N words for which
associations came easily and more directly. This would
also facilitate the better learning of A-P words. These
suppositions gain support from:

(a) The related finding that both normal and neurotic
groups showed significantly longer reaction times for the
A-P than N words during the Word Association Test (Appen-
dix B); and

(b) the Thorndike-Lorge frequency values for the
stimulus items in the Word Association Test showed less
common usage for A-P than N words (Appendix A). These
suppositions may provide hypotheses for further research.

Motivational Factors in the Forced Recall Situation.
The groups tested under the two recall conditions were

matched on variables which might effect the retention

56

of previously-learned material. Therefore, it would
appear that some additional variable is needed to ex—
plain the fact that groups tested under Forced Condi-
tions recalled more than those tested under Spontaneous
Conditions. Bartlett (A), McGeoch (39), and Sears (51)
have explicitly noted that any measurement of retention
for previously-learned material is largely dependent
upon the subject's motivation to recall such material
in a given situation. In this regard it is felt that
the greater amount of A-P words produced by the groups
under Forced Conditions in this experiment reflected
the more "vigorous and direct set to recall" (39) in-
duced by the examiner. This has implications with re-
gard to the experimental criterion for repression, and
the use of forcing techniques in therapy.

Implications Regarding the Experimental Criterion
far Repression. The principal criticism of the experi-
:mental criterion for repression concerns the method by
which recall is secured. Sears (51) has noted that the
usua1.nmthod of "Spontaneous" recall may not provide a
sufficient measure of what the individual is capable of
verbalizing. Absence of verbal report for anxiety-pro-
voking material can be a valid experimental criterion for
:repression only if unverbalized material is incapable of

verbalization, 1.8. is unconscious .

57

The results of this experiment demonstrate that in-
dividuals do not report all they are capable of remember-
ing in a spontaneous recall situation, ani that more re-
call for certain material may be secured by a forcing
procedure. This would seem to have implications for any,
experimental procedure inwhich recall is assumed to
measure previous learning. However, the particular con-
cern of this study was with securing recall for anxiety-
provoking material, the relative-absence of which con-
stitutes the experimental criterion for repression.

Under the Forced Conditions both normal and neurotic
groups recalled significantly more A-P wcrds than com-
parable groups tested under the traditional Spontaneous
Conditions. Also, under Forced Conditions both groups
recalled significantly more A-P than N words; a finding
not observed in comparable groups tested under Spontaneous
Conditions. These results suggest that the "Spontaneous"
method for securing recall is inefficient, and may even
be misleading when results are utilized to support the
repression hypothesis. Furthermore, it would appear that
the "Spontaneous" method of recall used for measuring
previous learning has heretofore obscured the possibil-
ity that anxiety-provoking material may actually be
better learned than neutral material

The conclusions drawn from a single experiment are,

58

naturally, limited by the nature of the material and the
sample utilized. None-the-less, the results of this
experiment suggest the need for a re-evaluation of pres-
ent methods for securing recall in the laboratory, as
well as a reconsideration of assumptions regarding the
poorer learning (or retention) of anxiety-provoking
material.

Implications Reggrding the Use of Forcing Technigues

in Therapy. Both normal and neurotic groups recalled

 

significantly more words under Forced than under Spon-
taneous Conditions. However, the examiner's encourag-
ing-coercing role in forcing recall from the subjects
had both positive and negative results. The former was
reflected in the greater amount of correct recall, the
latter in the greater amount of erroneous recall (i.e.
E-L words). Although the neurotic group showed a trend
in the same direction, only the normal group showed a
significant increase in the recall of previously learned
material under Forced Conditions. Both normal and neu-
rotic groups showed a significant increase of extra-list
(E-L) words under Forced Conditions. Thus, it would
seem that all subjects were somewhat disorganized by
being placed under pressure to recall. However, the
normal group also produced significantly more correct

lrecall under Forced Conditions, while the neurotic group

59

did not. This suggests that an important variable may
be the difference existing in the level of manifest anx-
iety between the two types of subjects. It may be spec-
ulated that forcing techniques facilitate, as well as
disrupt, performance when an individual's level of anx-
iety is relatively low. On the other hand, when an in-
dividual is extremely anxious, subjecting him to addi-
tional stress may only disrupt his performance.

Sears (52) states that in psychoanalysis the con-
stant "harping" on recall leaves the objective observer
in considerable doubt regarding the validity of recalled
material. The findings that neurotic subjects produced
significantly more erroneous material under Forced Con-
ditions and did not produce significantly more correct
recall tend to substantiate Sears' criticism. This
would suggest that in therapy, where the content of pre-
viously-learned material is not controlled, one must
exercise particular caution in evaluating the validity
of recollections gained by forcing procedures.

In suppert of forcing procedures in therapy is the
finding that both normal and neurotic groups under the
Forced Conditions recalled significantly more A-P words
'than comparable groups under the Spontaneous Conditions.

In the final analysis any technique used in therapy

for securing recall might be expected to have both negative

60

and positive aspects. Although a patient's memories
should always be treated with reservations, their validity
is not the test of their usefulness. The ultimate cri—
terion for the value of a patient's recollections in
therapy is whether or not they eventually contribute to
some clarification of his problems. This may often be

accomplished whether his memories are factual or fabri-

 

cated (19).
It would seem that the real question about forcing pm
recall in therapy is not with the validity of memories
produced by this technique, but whether or not the tech-
' nique, itself, is warranted. In a limited sense the aim
of psydioanalysis is to secure the release of repressed
material. If one accepts the proposition that the in-
dividual is not conscious of such material, then no amount
of direct forcing could secure it (11, 18). In this sense
forcing recall in psychoanalysis would be unwarranted.
However, Alexander (2) and Haigh (25) have indicated that
suppressed material must often be dealt with before further
progress may be made in therapy. In this light, the find-
ing that significantly more A-P material was secured under
IForced than Spontaneous Conditions from both normal and
neurotic groups, and the fact that significantly more

.A-P than N material was recalled by both groups under

61
Forced Conditions, lends favorable support to the use of
forcing techniques in therapy.

Theoretical Implications Regarding the Processes of
Repression and Suppression. It was shown that the great-
er motivation to recall induced by the examiner under
Forced Conditions resulted in more recall for previously
1earned material. The hypothesis that the additional
A-P and N words recalled under Forced Conditions were
less well-learned and required greater effort to be re-
produced is untenable because:

(a) while significantly more A-P words
were recalled by grOUps tested under
the Forced than under the Spontaneous
Conditions, no such increase in the
number of N words recalled was ob-
served.

(b) iore A—P than N words were recalled
under both recall conditions. But,
groups tested under Forced Condi-
tions recalled significantly more
A-P than N words, a finding not
paralleled by groups tested under
Spontaneous Conditions.

Since it would not be reasonable to expect one type
of allegedly less well-learned material (i.e. A-P words)
‘to be better recalled than another (i.e. N words), it
*was concluded that A-P words were better learned than N
words during the Word Association Test.

If, on the other hand, one accepts the premise that

‘A-P words were better learned than N words, one must con-

62

clude that groups tested under Spontaneous Conditions
withheld recall of A-P words, while groups tested under
Forced Conditions released recall for these words. The
increased motivation to recall induced by the examiner
under Forced Conditions may be assumed to have resulted
in more recall for A-P words. However, one is left to
explain why more A-P words were not reported under Snon-
taneous Conditions. The traditional explanation for the
relative absence from report of A-P words is that they
were repressed (A3, 52).

If repression (as defined by psychoanalytical theory)
is held to be the explanatory principle, one must assume:

(a) that the subject has no conscious
awareness of the "missing" A-P words;

(b) that he has no voluntary control
over their recall;

(c) that only the utilization of some
special technique such as psycho-
analysis or hypnosis could recover
the allegedly repressed material

(AB); and

(d) that the anxiety associated with
this material is lessened as a
function of its being repressed
(16, 19).
On the basis of the information available in the Spon—
taneous Recall Situation, the repression hypothesis and
the assumptions underlying it are supported. This is as

:far as most experiments in this area have gone. One may,

63

of course, conclude from the same results that the su -

pression hypothesis has been supported. It might be

 

argued that the subject was aware of the unreported A-P
words, but that he consciously withheld verbalizing them
because of certain threats to his prestige in the test- F‘
ing situation. By inhibiting this recall the subject

would also avoid the anxiety which verbalizing A-P words

might produce in the presence of the examiner. In the

. 7'13""! ”‘1'. Lin 5 2" ’ M1e“mfl :1.

absence of further data, it is (and has been) a matter

T

of Opinion whether one uses repression or suppression to
explain the lesser recall of A-P words under Spontaneous
Conditions.

Now let us turn to the findings of the Forced Recall
Conditions, and test the expectations that would follow
from concluding that repression of A-P words was Operat-
ing in the Spontaneous Recall Situation. This would lead
one to surmise that the significantly greater recall of
A-P words found under Forced Conditions represented a
release of repressed material.1

According to the experimental criterion<of Zeller (73),

 

1The following discussion treats the results of the
Forced and Spontaneous groups as if a single sample had
been examined under the two conditions of recall. It
must be borne in mind that differences in performance of
comparable, not identical, groups are being discussed.

on

release of repressed material can only be achieved in the
laboratory by the removal of ego-threat. Zeller and
others (31, 52) state that a pertinent ego-threat to re-
call is verbalizing anxiety-provoking material in the
presence of the examiner. In this experiment, the author
tested the subjects under both conditions of recall, and
made no attempt to manipulate ego-threat as such. There-
fore, the author cannot agree that the greater recall of
A-P wcrds under Forced Conditions represented a release
of repressed material. The greater recall of A-P words
under Forced Conditions seems to result from the examiner's
encouraging-coercing role in soliciting recall. This
interpretation gains support from the work of Alexander
(2) and Haigh (25) who used similar techniques in therapy,
and found that individuals could be induced to give up
previously withheld (conscious) material. Therefore, it
would appear that the results of the Forced Conditions
might better be explained in terms of the release of sup-
pressed, rather than repressed, material.

Any criterion for the release of repressed material
necessarily depends on the validity of’the assumption that
the material in question was previously repressed. Psycho-
analytical theory implies that no amount of direct forcing
to recall can alone secure the release of repressed material

(11). Significantly more recall for A-P words was secured

 

65

by direct forcing (i.e. under Forced Conditions). This
suggests that the relative absence of recall for A-P
words under Spontaneous Conditions was due to some process
other than repression. Again, the alternate explanation
holding that recall of A-P words was suppressed seems to
better suit the facts.

A final assumption made by personality theorists
(ll, 16) is that the return of repressed material is
always accompanied by a marked increase in manifest anx-
iety. Therefore, if subjects tested under Forced Condi-
tions were actually recalling repressed material they
should have exhibited more manifest signs of anxiety than
subjects tested under Spontaneous Conditions. No such
differences in behavior were observed.

It might be said that the increased production of
E-L words under the Forced Conditions reflected increased
anxiety. However, it would be difficult to differentiate
between the disorganizing effects of demanding increased
performance, and the repercussions of recalling allegedly
repressed material. Dembo (9) has shown that merely
placing a subject under continuous pressure to produce
more responses resultsin erroneous and even bizarre be-
havior. In Chapter I (p. 19-20) it was noted that any

judgment of the presence or absence of a "marked increase

 

66

in manifest anxiety" is highly subjective. Unless ob-
servable anxiety is extreme, this adjunctive criterion
for the return of repressed material loses much of its
practical value. In the present investigation the author
can do no more than state that no marked differences in
anxious behavior were noted under the two recall condi-
tions. As indicated earlier, there is a need for an ade-
quate experimental criterion fer anxiety. The develop-
ment of such a criterion may provide answers for what
must presently go unanswered in experiments of the type
set forth in this investigation.

The author feels that this experiment cannot settle
the question of whether repression or suppression is
operating in a given situation. But, it is hoped that
the results of this study may contribute to lessen the
margin of error involved in present measures of repres-
sion in the laboratory.

Compariéon of the Normal and Neurotic Sample. The
examiner's encouraging-coercing role in the Forced Recall
Conditions had a similar effect on the normal and neurotic
samples. Both groups tended to recall more previously-
learned material than comparable groups tested under
Spontaneous Conditions. This suggests that the method of
forcing recall may offer a more comprehensive measure of

learning than traditional methods have provided.

 

67

The finding that normals and neurotics tended to
inhibit spontaneous report of A-P words is consistent with
the results found by Sharp (53, 54) with similar groups.
Heather and Sears (27) assumed that Sharp's list of words
was tapping some sources of repression that are fairly
common in people with an American background. The author
agrees with the formulation that common cultural factors
are operating, but he favors a suppression hypothesis.
The results of this experiment support Alexander's view
that an individual suppresses socially-unacceptable materi-
al because of his "natural reluctance to abandon his con-

entional facade" (2, p. 29).

The normal groups showed evidence of better learning
under both conditions of recall than neurotic groups com-
parable in age and intelligence. This supported the hy-
pothesis that the more anxious individuals (i.e. subjects
diagnosed "anxiety-reaction") would be less able to learn
the stimulus material. This is consistent with the find-
ings of Montague (1.1.) and others (12, 60). The results
<xf'these studies were secured from normal subjects who
scored high and low on a manifest anxiety questionnaire
(60). The finding that clinically selected subjects show
similar learning deficiencies tends to substantiate the

assumption that extreme anxiety disrupts conceptual per-

formance.

 

( I’l..rll ,lrm

68

Although the neurotics tended to recall proportion-
ately more A-P words and produce more erroneous responses
than normals, the results were inconclusive. The effects
of extreme anxiety on these factors, and further elabo-
ration of the learning and recall performance of normal

and neurotic groups must await future research.

69

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A critical survey of experimental studies of repres-
sion showed that the technique of spontaneous recall leaves
much doubt regarding the difference between what a sub-
ject is capable of reporting, and what he does report in
a testing situation. This has resulted in speculation
that the process of suppression, rather than repression,
may explain the relative absence of report for anxiety-
provoking material. The availability of theoretical
justification for either'conclusion, and the dearth of
additional facts of observation, has led to an impasse
regarding the interpretation of experimental findings.

One major objective of this study was to test the
effects of forcing recall in a laboratory situation. If
it were possible to demonstrate that more previously-learned,
anxiety-provoking material could be secured in a forced
situation than could be gained in a traditional spontane-
ous recall situation, the repression hypothesis would be-
come untenable. This would not clarify all the issues
of repression vs. suppression. However, it would provflie
an experimental criterion fer suppression, and a means
for reducing the margin of error in conclusions favoring

the repression hypothesis.

“H.234 .llsl

t A! .l .Vlltv .\

"no”

,70

In this investigation groups of twenty-six normal
and twenty-six neurotic adult males were each divided
into two subgroups. Several factors which might influence
the learning and retention of verbal material were equated
among the four groups. All subjects were administered
a Word Association Test composed of two lists of anxiety-
provoking (A-P), ani two lists of neutral (N) stimulus
items which they were later asked to recall. One normal
and one neurotic group were tested under Spontaneous Re-
call Conditions, while the remaining groups were examined
under Forced Conditions. A comparison was made of the
number and type of word recalled by groups tested under
the two conditions. A further analysis was made of the
performance of the normal and neurotic groups tested
under each condition.

It was hypothesized that groups tested under Forced
Conditions would: (a) recall more list words and produce
more total reSponses; (b) recall more anxiety-provoking
words from the lists; and (c) produce more extra-list
words, than comparable groups tested under Spontaneous
Conditions. The results tended to support these hypotheses.

A comparison of normal and neurotic performance sup-
ported the hypothesis that normal groups would show great-
er recall for list words than neurotic groups under both

experimental conditions. The final hypotheses were that

In

.t r O..N.I\'.

 

71

neurotic groups would recall proportionately more anxiety-
provoking words, and produce proportionately more extra-
list words than normal groups under the Spontaneous and
Forced Conditions. Although in the predicted direction,
the results of these comparisons were not statistically
significant.

Implications regarding the use of forcing procedures
in therapy, the experimental criterion for repression,
the effects of extreme anxiety on learning, and the limita—
tions of the method for measuring learning were discussed.
It was suggested that the forced technique used in this»
experiment may be fruitful in further empirical investi-

gations of the effects of motivation on recall.

10.

ll.

12.

72

REFERENCES

Aborn, &. The influence of experimentally induced
failure on the retention of material acquired through
set and incidental learning. J. 253. Psvch01., 1953,
A5, 225-2310

Alexander, F. Fundamentals gf psycho-analysis.
New York: Norton 00., 19:3. ‘

Anderson, A. C., & Bolton, F. J. The inhibition of
the unpleasant. i. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1925, 20,
300-3020

Bartlett, D. C. Remembering. New York: Macmillan,
1932.

Bender Laurette. A visual motor gestalt test and
its clinical use. Amer. Ortho. Assoc., 1938, Re-
search Mono., No. 3.

Cason, H. The learning and retention of pleasant
and unpleasant activities. Arch. Psychol., 1932,
No. 13h.

Chaney, Ruth,&.Lauer, A. R. The influence of affective
tone on learning and retention. '1. educ. Psychol.
1929, 20, 287-291. " '

Col rave F. W. Individual memories. Amer. J. Psychol.
189 -99,’1o, 228-255. — “ ’

Dembo, Tamara. 'Anger as a dynamic problem. ngchol.
Forsch., 1931, 15, l-lhh, in Kretch D. 3., & rutc field,
H. 3., Theo ggd roblems of socia psychology.

New Yor : cGraw- , AB?

Diven, K. Certain determinents in conditioning of
anxiety reactions, g. Psychol., 1937, 3, 291-308.

Dollard J. & Miller N. E. Personalit and psycho-
therapy: New York: McCraw-HiII, I935.

Farber, J. E., & Spence, K. W. Complex learning and
conditioning as a function of anxiety. '1. 2. Psychol.,
1953, #5, 120-1250

13.

1h.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

2h.

25.

26.
27.

73

Flanagan, D. The influence of emotional inhibition
on learning and recall. Unpubl. master's thesis,
Univ. of Chicago, 1930.

Flugel, J. C. A quantitative study of feeling and
emotion in everyday life. Brit. J. Psychol., 1925,
15’ 318-3550 .

Frank, J. P., & Ludvigh, E. J. The retroactive effect
of pleasant and unpleasant odors on learning. Amer.
g. Psvchol., 1931, A3, 102-108.

Freud S. Collected papers. Vol. IV. London:
Hogarth Press, 1925.

Freud, S. New introducto lectures pp psychoanalysis.
New York: Norton Co.,'193 .

 

 

Freudi S6 The problem pf anxiety. New York: Norton
Co., 93 .

Freud, S. A general introduction pg psychoanalysis.
New York: 'Uar en ity, l9£3.

 

Gordon, Kate. Ueber das Gedaechtnis fur affective
bestimmte Eindrucke. Arch. ges. Psychol. .1905 A
h37-458, in Rapaport E., Emotions an memogz. ’ ,
New York: Internat'l Univ. Pres, l .

Gordon, Kate. Recollection df pleasant and unpleasant
odors. ,9. exp. Psychol., 1925, 8, 225-239.

Gordon Kate. A study of early memories. J. Delingu.
1928, 12, 127-132.

Gould, Rosalind. Repression experimentally analyzed.
Char. and Pers., l9h2, 10, 259-288.

 

Griffitts, C. H. Results of some experiments on affec-
tion, distributions of associations and recall. 1.

ggp. Psvchol., 1920, 3, AA7-h6h.

Haigh, G. Defensive behavior in client-centered therapy.
J. consult. psychol., 19h9, 13, 181-189.

Hart, B. Psychgpathology. New York: Macmillan, 1927.

 

Heathers, L. B. & Sears, R. R. Experiments on repress-
ion. 11. The Sharp technique. in Sears, R. E.,

 

:7.-|

 

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

. 33.

3h.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

7h

Survey of objective studies of psychoanalytical con-
ce ts. _New York: Soc. Sci.-Research Council,

u . 51, 19h3.

Horney, Karen. New ways ip psychoanalysis. New York:

 

Norton Co., 1939.

Howes, D. H., & Solomon R.

emotional and perceptua

L.

A note on McGinnies'

1 defense. Psychol. Rev.,

Kenneth, J. H. An experimental study of affects and
associations due to certain odors. Psvchol. Monogr.,

1927, No. 37, 6h.

Koch, Helen L. The influence of some affective factors
upon recall. ‘1. gen. Psydhol., 1930, A, 171-190.

Korner I. N. Some aspects of the problem pf repres-
’ New York: Teac ers

 

sion: repressive—for ettin .
college, C61umbia Univ., 1950.

 

Kowalewski A. Schopenhauer und seine Neltanschauung.
Berlin, 1908. in Zeller, A. ‘w

analogue of repression: I.

Psychol. Bull., 1950, 47,.39451.

Lanier, L. H. Memory

Hi

F , An experimental

storical summary,

for words differing in affective

value. Psychol. Bull., 19h0, 37, h92-493. (Abstract)

Luria, A. R. The nature of human conflicts. Trans.rby

W. H. Gantt, New York:

LiVeright, 1932.

Lynch, C. A. The memory value of certain alleged

emotionally toned words.

298-315 0

Malmo, R. B., & Amsel, A.

g. _§p. Psychol., 1932, 15,

Anxiety-produced inter-

ference in serial rote learning with observations on
rote learning after partial frontal lobectomy. J. exp.

Psychol., 1948, 38,

LAO-455.

May, R. The meaning 9; anxiety. New York: Ronald

Press, 1955.

McGeoch, J. A. The
New York: Longmans

s choloc
g Green, 1959

of.asaaailsa£2ias-

.4"-

#0.

Al.

#2.

L3.

44.

as.

A6.

A7.

#8.

A9.

50.

51.

52.

75

McGranahan, D. V. A critical and experimental study ’7
of repre351on. i. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 19A0, 35,
212-225.

McNemar

Q. Peichological statistics. New York:
John Wiley, 19m . p. 431;.

Meltzer, H. Sex differences in forgetting pleasant
and unpleasant experiences. J. soc. P§ych01., 1931,
25, ASO-héhe

Miller, J. G. Unconsciousness. New York: John
Wiley, 19A2.

 

Montague, E. K. The role of anxiety in serial rote
learning. J. _§p. Psychol., 19A3, 45, 91-96.

O'Kelly, 'L. I., & Steckle, L. c. The forgetting of ’C
pleasant and unpleasant experiences. Amer. J, Psychol.,

l9hO, 53, #32-h3h.

Rapaport, D. Diagnostic psycholo ical testi . Vol.
II. The word associatiOn test. icago: Year Book
Publication, 19A5.

Rapaport D. Emotions and memogy. New York: Internat'l.
Univ. Press, 1950.

 

Ratliff Margaret M. The varying function of effectively
toned olfactory visua1.and auditory cues in recall.
Amer. J. Psychol., 1938, 51, 695-699.

Rosenzweig, S. Need-persistive and ego-defensive
reactions to frustration as demonstrated by an exper-
iment on repression. Psychol. Rev., 19Al, A8, 3A7-3h9.

Rosenzweig, 8., & Mason, C. An experimental study of *7
memory in relation to the theory of repression. Brit. i

g. P§ych01., 1931., 21., 247-265.

Sears, R. R. Functional abnormalities of memory wéth
Special reference to amnesia. Psychol. Bull., 193 ,
33’ 229”27ho

Sears R. R. Survey of obaective studies of 3 ch -
analytical conc ts. _New or : Soc. Sci.—Research
II. 51,

Council, Bu l9h3.

53.

51+.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

630

6A.

65.

76

Sharp, Agnes A. The influence of certain emotional
inhibitions on learning and recall. Unpubl. masters
thesis, Univ. of Chicago, 1930.

Sharp, Agnes A. An experimental test of Freud's ,a
doctrine of the relation.of hedonic tone to memory 1

revival. ,g. ggp. Psychol., 1938, 22, 395-Al8.

Silverman, A. & Cason, H. Incidental memory for
pleasant, unpleasant and indifferent words. Amer.

.i- Psychol., 193A, A6, 315-320.

Smith, N. W. Experiments on memory and affective
tone. Brit. 1. Psychol., 1921, 11, 236-250.

Stagner, R. The redintegration of pleasant and un--,
péeasggt experiences. Amer. J. Psychol., 1931, A, 1
1+ 3-1+ o I ‘ -

Stalnaker, J. M., & Riddle, E. E. The effects of
hypnosis on long-delayed recall. g. gen. Psychol.,
1932, 6, A29-AAO.

Tait, W. D. Effects of psychophysical attitudes on
memory. ,1. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1913-191A, 8, 10-38.

 

Taylor, Janet A., & Spence, K. W. The relationship
of anxiety level to performance in serial learning.
g. _§p. Psychol., 1952, AA, 61-6A.

Thompson, Ruth H. An experimental study of memory
as influenced by feeling tone. 4. exp. Psychol.
1930’ 13, 462-1567. ,

Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. The teachers' word
book of 30,000 words. New York: TeaéherTE’CoII.,
Columbia ress,‘I9KKL

 

Turner, R. H., & Barlow, J. A. Memory for pleasant
and unpleasant experiences: some methodological
considerations. ,1. exp. Ppychol., 1951, A2, 189-196.

Veterans Administration Technical Bulletin. TB 10A-
78, Washington,D.'C., 19A7.

 

Wallen, R. Ego-involvement as a determinent of se-
lective forgetting. g. abnorm. soc. Psychol., l9h2,

37, 20-29.

66.

67.

. 68.

70.

71.

73.

75?.

75.

77

Waters, R. H., & Leeper, R. The relation of affec— ,
tive tone to the retention of experiences of daily

life. g. Egg. Psychol. 1936, 19, 203-215.

Wechsler, D. ieasurement of adult intelligence.
Baltimore: Williams &Wilkins, 19AAT

 

 

White, M. M., & Ratliff, Margaret M. The relation-
ship of affective tone to learning and.recalling
words. Amer. J. Psychol., 193A, A6, 92-98.

White, R. W., Fox, G. F., & Harris, W. W. Hypnotic
hypermnesia fer recently learned material. J. abnorm.

Egg. Psychol., 1940, 35, 88-103. '

Williams, M. Rate of learning as a function of ego-
alien material. ‘J. Pers., 1951, 19, 32A-331.

Wohlgemuth, A. The influence of feeling on memory.
Brit. J. Psychol., 1923, 13, A05-Al6.

Zeigarnik, B. Das Behalten erledigter und unerledigter
Handlungen. Psychol. Forsch. 1927, 9, 1-85. in Miller,
J. 0., Uno3n5010usness. New York: Holt, 19A2.

Zeller, A. F. An experimental analogue of repression:
1. Historical summary. Psychol. Bull., 1950, A7,
39.5]- o

Zeller A. F. An experimental analogue of repression:
II. The effect of individual failure and success on

memory measured by relearning. J, _§p. ngchol. 1950
40, 411-422. ’ ’

Zeller, A. F. an experimental analogue of repression:
III. The effect of induced failure and success on
memory mgasured by recall. ‘J. egp. Psychol., 1951,

[F2 9 32-3 0

APPEP'DIX

A

78

79

Table 9
Thorndike-Lorge (T-L) Frequency Values* for
the Two Lists of Neutral (N) Words Used as Stimuli in the
Word Association Test

(N 16 in each list)

 

 

List I List II
ITEM T-L VALUE ITEM . T-L VALUE
moon AA barrel 32
river AA cover AA
box .,AA eagle 38
tray 17 valley AA
second AA wave AA
forest AA leaves AA
chalk 13 feather AA
morning AA echo A2
flower AA green AA
stone AA day AA
mountain AA hill AA
car AA paint AA
grass AA string A
frog 25 mixture 39
white AA sheep A
COpy A sand A

(Median T-L Value-AA)

 

*1-A9 indicates the number of times the item appears
per million running words.

A indicates an occurrence of 50-100 times per million
running words.

AA indicates an occurrence of over 100 times per
million running words.

80
Table 10
Thorndike-Lorge (T-L) Frequency Values* for
the Two Lists of Anxiety-provoking (A-P)

Nerds Used as Stimuli in the word Association Test

(N 16 in each list)

 

 

List I List II

ITEM T-L VALUE ITEM 1'31: VALUE
bite 33 stomach 30
mud A7 daughter AA
girlfriend cut AA
(girleA, friendzAA) intercourse 8
masturbate -- husband AA
cockroach l hunger 37
penis -- spider 2A
father AA orgasm --
love AA woman AA
breast A suicide ll
bowel movement - snake 28
(bowelz8; movementzAA) suck 15
wife AA mother AA
homosexual -- dirt 21
gun A fight AA
pain AA . vagina --
brother AA

mouth AA

(Median T-L Value: 35 per million)

 

*--indicates an occurrence of less than 1 per million
running words.

1-A9 indicates the number of times the item appears
per million running words.

A indicates an occurrence of 50-100 times per million
running words.

AA indicates an occurrence of over 100 times per
million running words.

APPENDIX B

81

82
Table 11

Comparison Between Median Reaction Times (R.T.)
for Anxiety-provoking (A-P) and Neutral (N) Stimuli
Made by Normal and Neurotic Groups During a
Word Association Test

(N 26 in each group)

 

Median R.T. Median R.T.

 

A-P N diff t
SEC. 59C. sec.
Normal ' 83.5 x 57.3 26.2 3.AOO*
Neurotic 97.5 ' 71.5 26.0 3.82A**
diff. 1A.O 1A.2
t 0.915 _1.279

 

*indicates a P of less than .005 (one-tailed test)

**indicates a P of less than .001 (one-tailed test)

11.41.-