{h
Ill

1

 
 

i

All},

It

 

—'._l—\
IO‘IN
moon-

 

 

THESIS

 

.§:v‘* w i A A
”’1; 4‘
Mum

Piifichlgsan mate i

Univemity

h___/

\

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled
EARLY MEMORIES AND PERSONALITY

presented by

Wendy June Sabbath

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in Psychology

 

 

 

 

/ /~7
4 ‘ . ?% 4' /
t W
o/// ”7/ 4
Major profigor
Bertram Karon
Date 1 113/83
MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

/

 

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
”-

 

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Piece in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped beiow.

EARLY MEMORIES AND PERSONALITY

By

Wendy June Sabbath

A THESIS

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

MASTERS OF ARTS

Department of Psychoiogy

1983

ABSTRACT
EARLY MEMORIES AND PERSONALITY
By
Wendy June Sabbath

Individuals' memories of childhood have been theorized to be the
construction of ego processes, revealing both character formation and
level of object representation. Two hypotheses were investigated:
first, that a relationship exists between early memories and
personality functioning, and second, that oral and written reports were
equally effective in reflecting such factors. Twenty-four students had
Rorschachs administered, completed the Jackson Personality Inventory,
and presented both oral and written early memories in a counterbalanced
design. Eight of twenty-one exploratory predictions of correlations
between memories and personality variables were found to be significant
(P < .05). The oral method of obtaining early memories was found to be
more sensitive as it elicited memories which were psychologically

richer than those obtained in the written format.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project could never have been completed without the invaluable
assistance of several people. Foremost among them is my chairperson,

Dr. Bertram Karon, whose wisdom, warmth, and generosity made it a rare
privilege to work with him. From the first mention of his interest in
early memories in the clinical proseminar to more recent guidance on
negotiating the perils of graduate school, he has been an inspiring
mentor. I also want to express my appreciation for his perfectly
clinical interpretations, offered at the most unexpected moments.

I also want to thank Dr. Norman Abeles, who provided penetrating
insights into the meaning of this study, and whose willingness to help
was always greatly appreciated.

Dr. John Hurley helped me to focus on issues relating to this
project which might otherwise have gone unexplained, and was most helpful
in aiding me with issues of both writing and data analysis.

Special thanks goes to Carol Schwartz, who was present when this
project was just a glimmer of an idea and through its inception, and
who sat through endless discussions on ideas, long hours of computer
work and research, and occasionally hilarious evening of data analysis,
and who provided essential emotional support in the final stages. Thanks
also goes to my gifted and committed research assistants, Barry and

Maura Marie, for their excellent work.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ......................... iv
INTRODUCTION .......................... 1
METHOD . . .......................... 24
Subjects ......................... 26
Apparatus ......................... 26
Specific Procedures .................... 26
Scoring .......................... 27
RESULTS ............................ 3l
Early Memories and Personality Variables ......... 31
Differences between Oral and Written Early Memories. . . . 38
DISCUSSION ........................... 46
APPENDICES
A. Early Memory Warm-Up Exercise ............. 53
B. Exploratory Predictions ................ 54
C. Early Memories Questionnaire ............. 56
D. Manaster-Perryman Early Recollection Manifest
Scoring ........................ 57
E. Early Memories Object Relations Scoring ........ 59
F. Rorschach Object Relations Scoring .......... 52
G. Cluster Analysis of JPI Subscale
Intercorrelations ................... 63
H. Cluster Analysis of Rorschach Score
Intercorrelations ................... 64
REFERENCES ........................... 65

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
l. Distribution of Total Number of Early Memories
Reported .......................... 28
2. Means of JPI Subscale Scores ................ 32
3. JPI Intercorrelations ................... 33
4. Rorschach Intercorrelations ................ 34

5. Intercorrelations between the Rorschach and the JPI . . . . 35

6. Correlations Obtained for the 2l Exploratory
Predictions ........................ 39

7. Correlations between Oral and Winter EMs and
Personality Variables in Which a Significant Difference
Existed between Correlations in the Two Methods ...... 44

8. Correlations between Object Relations in EMs and
on the Rorschach ...................... 49

iv

 

INTRODUCTION

"So history might be fantasy of memory, rather than memory of fantasy"
Neu, 1973, p.392.

The concept that there exists an interaction between memory and
personality factors has a long and rich history in psychology. McAdams
(1982) considered this concept to be "common psychological lore"

(p. 292). Kihlstrom and Harackiewicz (l982) united this general concept
of memory/personality interaction to the specific case of adults' memories
of early childhood, urging renewed investigation into thematic con-
tinuities between current personality and memories of the past.

Interest in early memories (EMs) as an object of study predates the
establishment of the major theoretical schools which were later to offer
hypothetical explanations for them. In 1900, Titchener's note in the
American Journal of Psychology (Dudycha & Dudycha, l94l) encouraged
psychologists to carefully consider the applicability of early memories
to genetic formulations of psychology, as based on the previous work
by Hall (1899). Contributions to the understanding of EMs also came
from the area of experimental psychology. McAdams (l982) cited
Bartlett's (l932) statement that attitude, including motives, emotions
and interest patterns, was an important factor guiding reconstructions
of past experiences. Dudycha and Dudycha's review of the literature
to date on EMs concluded that further research was sorely needed on

the relationship between EMs and personality, and particularly in

l

 

2

experimental work from a psychoanalytic perspective. Purcell (1952)
suggested work along the lines of Murray (l938) in order to explicitly
delineate the relationships between qualitative and quantitative memory
features and personality. Weiland and Steisal (1958) discussed the
fact that the EMs elicited in the course of their study uniformly dated
back to a time roughly corresponding to the Oedipal period. They
suggested that, by stressing the importance of this time, these results
supported psychoanalytic theories of the importance of these years for
personality development, and also confirmed the appropriateness of
assigning psychodynamic meaning to individuals' EMS. In another
experimental study, Langs (l965b) simply stated that research to date
had conclusively demonstrated that EMs were predictive of both
personality and reaction to stress, and were consonant with psychological
assessment and clinical psychiatric evaluation.

Although a number of studies have speculated as to the theoretical
intraphysic or interpersonal factors involved in the EMs produced by
a given individual, the majority provided no quantifiable basis for
these considerations. In a frequently cited l956 paper, Saul, Snyder,
and Sheppard asserted that EMs were absolutely distinctive for each
individual, clearly revealing the individual's most salient motivations,
form of neurosis, dyanmic processes, and emotional problems, but gave
no empirical support for these statements. Waldfogel (l948) concluded
that there seemed to be factors beyond repression which determined both
extent and content of EMs, but failed to specify these factors.

Bruhn and Last (1982) summarized the literature on the etiology
and function of EMs, classifying these studies as generally falling into
one of four general categories: (a) Freudian; (b) Adlerian; (c) ego

psychology; and (d) memory theory perspective.

3

Historically, the Freudian orientation to EMs predates the other
interpretations and is generally considered to have its roots in his
1899 paper on screen memories. Screen memories were hypothesized to
be the result of compromises between unconscious wishes and defenses
against these wishes, resulting in a memory which reflects both wish
and defenses. Through the process of repression, as well as condensation
and displacement, conflictual thoughts and feelings were hypothesized
to be shifted conscious representation into the form of screen memories.
Bruhn and Last cite Anna Freud (1951), Kennedy (1971), and Kris (1956)
as maintaining that the early memories might be largely the product of
the process of condensation, with perhaps an entire developmental period
expressed in a single memory. On the whole, the Freudian approach tended
toward considering the EM to be an example of manifest content that
concealed the latent content of the memory's actual significance.
Although the EM was seen as psychodynamically important and useful,
its real role was as a t0pic for analytic interpretation.

Alfred Adler (1937) considered the discovery of the significance
of early recollections, his term for early memories, to be one of
individual psychology's most important contributions. Early recollections
were believed to illuminate the origins of the individual's life style,
those basic attitudes which have continued to guide his or her life up
to the present day. The first article on early recollections from this
perspective was written by Schrecker (1913/1973) in which he likened
the recollection to a psychological construction, quoting Ernest Renan,
"What one says about oneself is always poetry". The meaning of this
construction was to indicate that the individual attributes to the

memory a particular importance in his development.

4

Eisenstein and Ryerson (1951) hypothesized that early recollections
reveal much of what the individual was unaware, as a condensed
statement or highly determined construction of the individual's inner
orientation. They also suggested that these recollections might contain
the earliest and clearest derivations of infantile conflicts. Brodsky
(1952) added that the individual reveals in early recollections his
or her true concept of the environment and particularly of human
relationships. Brodsky's view that "the fact that he has selected
a particular recollection as real proves that, for some reason it must
have impressed itself upon his mind" (p. 484) is a statement about EMs
which remains equally valid of the interpreter's preferred conceptual
framework.

Purcell (1952) described Adler's approach as stressing memory's
adaptive and selective functions, wherein those memories are recalled
which are in accord with current attitudes, tendencies, or frames of
reference. Ansbacher's (1953) rejoinder to Purcell illuminated one
reason why the Freudian and Adlerian approaches to early memories have
differed. Ansbacher explained that Adler failed to recognize an essential
theoretical discrepancy between either dream or walking thoughts,
forgotten or remembered incidents, or even the very earliest - as
opposed to later - recollections. Ansbacher maintained that Adler felt
the primary advantage of earliest recollections to be that they were
both much clearer and more descriptive than later recollections, but
were otherwise similar.

The discrepancy between Freudian and Adlerian views is generally
summarized by stating that whereas the Freudian approach regards early

memories as concealing relevant material about the personality and as

5
a springboard for free association, Adlerians consider such memories
to reveal the salient characteristics of the individual. While the
Freudian paradigm considers EMS to be another interesting piece of
clinical data, the Adlerian approach considers EMS to be of particular
importance. Verger and Camp (1970) described the progression of early
memory theory between these schools, with Freud having laid the
foundation by emphasizing the selective nature of memory. Adler was
seen as having elaborated the means in which this selective process
both reinforced and reflected the individual's present attitudes.
Perhaps due to the special relevance of EMS to individual

psychology. a high proportion of the older literature reflects that
perspective. More recently, there appears to have been a shift toward
a growing interest in conceptualizing EMS from what Bruhn and Last
(1982) termed an "ego psychology" view. This format has served to
synthesize many of the Freudian and Adlerian concepts. The ego
psychology approach has considered EMS to be vehicles for the expression
of drives, impulses, fantasies, and conflicts. In this system, the
EM has been thought to be indicative of the individual's ability and
characteristic style of handling the conflicts which give rise to the
manifest content of the memory. As Langs (1965a) explained:

The earliest memory is a compromise similar to a

symptom. It therefore, speaking structurally,

reflects contributions from id, ego, and superego;

speaking dynamically, it is a compromise between

drive and defense...the manifest content is a

derivative of the latent content, not an unrelated

mask...there remains for exploration a highly

condensed precipitate which extensively reflects

personality at all levels of organization. (p. 390)

One early representative of this perspective was Kahana, Weiland,

Snyder, and Rosenbaum's (1953) article in which they attributed EMS

6

with the capacity to reflect patients' principle unconscious conflicts,
traumatic childhood experiences, predominant ego defenses, and
transference trends in psychotherapy. Kris (1956a) described the
autobiographical self-image as being heir to, and preserving, significant
early fantasies. Kris explained the relationship between present
memory and past experience as both dynamic and telescopic, "Not only
does the present experience rest on the past, but the present
supplies the initiative for the viewing of the past; the present selects,
colors, and modifies" (Kris, 1956b, p. 56). McAdams (1982) came to a
Similar conclusion from a different perspective, surmising that "most
probably, there exists a dialectic between the two in which the motive
shapes and is shaped by behavior, experience, and the reconstruction of
past behavior and experience" (p. 300). Murray (1938) had detailed the
means by which the interaction between present experience and
reconstruction of the past takes place.

Repetitions and consistencies are due in part to the

fact that impression of situations leave enduring

'traces' on the organism, which may be reactivated

by the appearance of situations that resemble them;

and because of the connections of these evoked

traces with particular reaction systems, the

organism is apt to respond to new situations as it

did to former ones. Some of the past is always alive

in the present...The experiences of early life not

only constitute in themselves a significant temporal

segmentof the creature's history, but they may

exercise a marked effect upon the course of development.

In some measure they explain succeedin events ('the

child is father to the man').(p. 43-44?

In a footnote, Kris (1956a) attributed the origin of these ideas
to Freud (1899, 1901), and traced their development through Feninchel
(1927), Glover (1929), Katan (1939), Reider (1953), and Greenacre (1949).
More recent empirical studies (Langs, Rothenberg, Fishman, and Reiser,

1960) have described EMS as "highly selected, precisely constructed,

7

overdetermined dynamic mental productions" (p. 525) reflecting ego
adaptive and defensive operations. Levy and Grigg (1962) considered
EMS to be the "product of preconscious ego processes, manifesting the
synthetic function of the ego in its attempts to weave underlying~
emotional states pushing for an expression into an early recollection"
(p. 58). Langs (1965b) further specified EMS to be highly condensed
precipitates of the total personality, including facets of character
formation and function, nuclear conflicts, and the individual's
attempts to deal with these conflicts. In speaking of the relationship
between early memories and character structure, Mayman (1968) described
EMS as potentially providing information on defenses and adaptations
made by the ego in attempts to cape with internal and external demands.

A contribution of the two psychology perspective has been to
underscore the importance of fantasy in the construction of mental
life, and particularly in the case of EMS. The specific ways in
which fantasy and reality aspects intertwine in the creation of mental
productions such as EMS creates an interesting theoretical problem,
often resulting in confusion as to the precise relationship between
actual events, individual perception, and memories. Discussing this
relationship, Neu (1973) speculated that actual childhood events may
be of special importance because although reconstruction through
fantasy alone occurs, it was unlikely that these particular fantasies
would have been constructed without any such experiences. Sachs
(1967) has also been concerned with what he considered an overconcern
with fantasy in determing etiological significance of memories presented
in psychoanalysis, warning that in actual therapeutic work it is often

necessary to distinguish between traumatic events and similar

8
unconscious fantasies. Arlow (1969) amended Freud's 1899 statement

on screen memories to read that "the recognition of how the ego

 

operates in the service of defense tends to diminish the distinction
between memory and fantasy" (p. 38), quoting Freud's statement:

It may indeed be questioned whether we have any
memories at all from our childhood: memories
relating to our childhood may be all that we
possess. Our childhood memories show us our
earliest years not only as they were but as they
appeared at the later periods when the memories
were aroused. In those periods of arousal...
memories did not...emerge; they were formed at
that time. And a number if motives, with no
concern for historical accuracy, had a part in
forming them, as well as in the selection of the
memories themselves. (Arlow, 1969, p. 39)

Arlow concluded:

What we think was real, or what we think really
happened, is a combination or intermingling of
fantasy with perception of reality. When memory
and perception offer material which is in consonance
with fantasy thinking, the data are selectively
recalled and used as material to serve as a vehicle
for the unconscious fantasy...the fantasy contains
the kernel of what really happened at the very
moment of experience a complex intermingling of
perception and fantasy. This complex intermingling
is what 'really' happened as far as the individual
is concerned. (p. 39)

A recent study offers some quantitative support for the relative
contribution of current fantasy to actual events in the construction
of EMS. Finlay-Jones, Scott, Duncan-Jones, Byrne, and Henderson
(1981) included questions about separations experienced early in life
in their survey of 244 Australian subjects, attempting to assess the
reliability of such reports. Reliability was measured by the subject
reporting the separation similarly both on initial testing and on a
follow-up survey eight months later. Only the death of a parent or

breakup of the parents' marriage were actual childhood events reported

9
with high reliability. This leads to the conclusion that EMS concerned
with other childhood events are at least partly the construction of
fantasy around an actual occurrence.

The experimental contributions to early memory theory have also
stressed the constructive, rather than reproductive or eidetic, aspects
of memory. Referring to Bartlett's (1932) concept of schemata, Bruhn
and Last (1982) restated his view that memory consists of schemata
and attitudes about the world rather than simple images of it.
Kihlstrom and Harackiewicz (1982) reported another attempt to integrate
Bartlett's work with early memory theory. Describing Schachtel's (1947)
study as an "eclectic combination of Freud and Bartlett" (p. 135), they
restated his conclusion that EMS were encoded in terms of pre-Oedipal
schemata, incompatible with that used by adults.

Whitten and Leonard (1981) mentioned that the bulk of non-clinical
studies of autobiographical memory date from 1970 or later. They
reported five studies using an associative technique in which subjects
were asked to respond with the first memory that came to mind. Findings
included the expected recency effects (a greater number of reports from
more recent time periods), checkmark-shaped functions of recencies of
recalled events for persons aged 53-102, and that affect stimulus words
elicited a greater number of recent memories, but these were reported
more slowly than object or activity stimulus words.

As adherents of Freudian, Adlerian, and ego psychology approaches
all maintain that EMS have significant links to personality, albeit
in different ways, many studies have attempted to delineate these
linkages. From the standpoint of both Adlerians and ego psychology

theorists, current life style, defenses, and character structure is

10
expected to be illustrated in the early memories produced by a
given individual. Causality is a tricky issue: i.e., whether
because a particular personality feature is correlated with an
early memory feature, one may therefore conclude that the events of
the memory caused the personality to develop in a particular way. As
the preceding discussion of theory suggests, all perspectives concur
that current personality processes may Significantly distort
recollections of the past and no causal determinations of that sort
may be made. Correlational analysis, however, seems to be valid, and
may allow for predictions of personality features based on EM content
(Langs, 1965a).

One of the first studies to investigate relationships between
personality and EMS was carried out by Crook and Hardin (1931). To
test the hypothesis that repression of childhood memories was
associated with neuroticism, Pressey X-O scores were correlated with
the total number of EMS reported. Results were contrary to their
hypothesis, with neuroticism being significantly (p_< .01) correlated
with total number of memories prior to age six. Dudycha and Dudycha
(1933) found sex differences in the affective content of EMS reported
by college students. Women remembered joyful and angering experiences
far more often than men, who in turn remembered fearful experiences
far more frequently than women. In addition, shame and guilt appeared
three times as frequently in women's reports as in those of men.

Pattie and Cornett (1951) examined environmental variables in
boys' EMS, again finding that current influences on the subjects'
lives were reflected in the EMS reported. Subjects in the two

poverty, neglect, and violence environments reported twice as many

ll
memories falling into the unpleasant category as those in the more
favorable environment. Purcell's (1952) study, one of the first to
begin detailing relationships between personality and memory functions,
demonstrated a relationship between security feelings as measured by
the Maslow Security-Insecurity Test and affective characteristics of
memories. He also indicated that childhood memories were formed by
the same kinds of omissions and distortions as adult memories. Karon
(1952) investigated the relationship between early memories and two
personality measures: psychological masculinity and femininity on
the Gough scale, and values as indicated on the Allport-Vernon-Lindzay

Study of Values. Eight significant relationships were found between

 

EMS and the personality measures. Idiographic predictions based on
EMS were found to be more valid than nomothetic predictions based on
the memories.

Chance (1957) studied the relationship between EMS and Welsh A
and R MMPI scores. She found subjects reporting EMS including pleasant
affect to have R (denial and repression) scores higher than their A
(maladjustment, anxiety, and dysphoria) scores (E.< .01), with the
converse true of unpleasant EM reporters. Grigg (1960) analyzed the
autobiographies and adjective checklists of two males, finding that
EMS were significantly (p_= .025) better predictors of current
self-impressions than the subjects' narratives of their present lives.

An exhaustive study by Langs (1965a) compared 60 EM variables to
76 personality variables drawn from a clinical interview, Rorschach,
TAT, and Weschler-Bellevue, concluding that a significant (p_< .05)
relationship between personality and EMS had been clearly established.

Levy (1965) compared "modes", characteristic means of coping with

 

12

emotional situations described in EMS, with Rorschach, TAT, and DAP
data on 40 psychiatric patients. He found characteristic coping
mechanisms to be depicted similarly throughout both EMS and projective
tests, and concluded that these modes might be viewed as secondary
and tertiary sets of defenses. Tolor and Fazzone (1966), following
Levy's concept of modes of ego adaptation, attempted to determine
the relationship between each of these types of memories and college
academic achievement, which they termed as assessment of ego
functioning. Not surprisingly, neither the ego nor the affect
factors of memory mode were correlated with grade-point average.
Warren (1976) correlated EMS and scores on his Self-Activity Inventory,
which measured neurotic tendencies on dimensions of obsessive-
compulsiveness, hysteria, paranoia, and impulsiveness. All four
personality profiles correlated with EMS at the p_< .001 level.

A doctoral dissertation by Alexander (1976) found differences in
EM correlations with the Mini-Mult, a short form of the MMPI, between
a nontherapy and a psychotherapy-receiving population. The groups
failed to differ on EM variables, but the therapy group yielded only
one (p_< .05) correlation, while the nontherapy group yielded 17
Significant correlations (14 at p_< .05 and three at p.< .01).
Altman and Rule (1980) found five scores of social interest derived
from EMS to correlate at the p_< .05 level with their measure of
empathy. Barrett (1980) found EM ratings of anxiety and locus of
control to correlate at the p_< .01 level with the Manifest Anxiety
Scale and Adult Norwiki-Strickland Internal-External Scales respectively

for all subjects, and that an EM-based need for approval correlated

13
Significantly (p_< .05) with Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
ratings for males along.

Most recently, Bruhn and Schiffman (1982) found a strong connection
(p_< .0005) between EM prediction and Rotter internal v. external locus
of control stance. Rule and Traver (1982) found subjects with
positive-active EMS to both rate higher on a social interest scale
(p_< .001) and select more activities related to ego recognition
(p_< .05). Kihlstrom and Harackiewicz (1982) found four significant
(p_< .05) correlations between EM content categories and scores on
Jackson's PRF. Finally, Bruhn's (1981) study established that even in
children, EMS seem to be a statement of major intra- and inter-personal
dynamics which become more clinically useful as the child gains in
cognitive complexity and is better able to communicate ideas.

Further evidence that EMS relate to qualitative aspects of
personality is afforded by studies investigating the relationship
between intelligence and EMS. The correlations are not significant,
except in the case where thematic material from EMS is used to predict
those persons who, regardless of native intelligence, experience more
difficulties in learning. Dudycha and Dudycha (1933) had suggested
that intellectual ability may limit the range of experience an
individual is capable of having, which would then be reflected in
their early memories. In fact, however, their study obtained a
correlation coefficient of -.02 between ability to recall EMS and
intelligence. As mentioned above, Tolor and Fazzone (1966) also
found no relationship between types of EMS and SAT scores or grade
point average. Wagenheim (1960), however, found significant

(p_< .01) differences in the frequency of accidents and aggression

14

reported in EMS between better and poorer readers in fifth and Sixth
grade boys. While for girls these memories were distributed equally
among all quartiles in both intelligence and reading achievement, EMS
of those boys in the lowest quartile for either accounted for 66% of
all accident or aggression memories. 0f the 17 accident memories
among the lowest quartile boys on reading, 12 represented accidents
occurring to the self without an identified aggressor, possibly
reflecting the boys' feelings about themselves and their difficulties.

As EMS have been theorized to be formed through intrapsychic
processes such as repression, condensation, and displacement, and have
been found to relate to underlying levels of personality, they have
often been compared to dreams in both process and function. Both
Kahana et a1. (1953) and Saul et a1. (1956), referring to Rapaport's
(1942) statements that the mechanisms of forgetting were identical
to that encountered in dream work, suggested that EMS could
theoretically be interpreted like dreams. Pointing out that ego control
is stronger in EMS than dreams due to their production in a conscious
state, Kahana et a1. concluded that perhaps EMS revealed slightly
different material than did dreams. Saul et al. expanded on this
statement to say that the very significance of EMS was that, like
dreams, they are formed, selected, and distorted, by the "major
motivational forces of the personality" (pp. 229-230) to express the
individual's "nuclear emotional constellation" (p. 230). EMS were
hypothesized to be less influenced by daily effects than dreams, and
so to express more purely the characteristic qualities of the
individual's personality. Binder and Smokler (1980) concurred that

EMS were like dreams in that they were also derivatives of unconscious

 

15

conflicts. Barrett (1980) mentioned that Adler, too, found EMS to
be less affected by present events, and hence more useful, than dreams.

Following the evidence for EMS to be expressions of personality
and psychodynamics, there have been several published accounts of
their use in psychotherapy. Kahana et a1. (1953) found EMS useful
during the diagnostic phase in beginning a psychodynamic formulation
of the individual, particularly in terms of unconscious conflicts,
childhood traumas, defenses against anxiety, and transference reactions.
Pfeffer (1980) found memories of early positive experiences to have
significance for the effectiveness of interpretations in resolving
conflicts. He suggested that patients' acceptance of transference
interpretations was facilitated by such memories, which both resonated
with and were re-experienced in the transference. Pfeffer also related
an example of the use of a hostile memory to serve the purpose of
separation, again in regard to a Situation acted out in the
transference. In an approach to Adlerian therapy, Papanek (1972)
described how she used EMS in psychotherapy to focus on the patient's
issues, misconceptions, and world view, and considered them to
indicate the patient's past movements toward self-assessed goals as
well as what obstacles had been encountered in the process. Mosak
(1965) wrote that use of EMS in psychotherapy was particularly
relevant for Adlerians, since he felt that what were frequently
termed transference attitudes were no more than expressions of the
patient's life style, well established as being revealed in EMS. In
another investigation from an Adlerian perspective, Grant (1976)
concluded that therapists' conceptualizations of psychotherapy patients'

views of self, others and life convereged with EM content.

16

In a psychodynamically oriented brief psychotherapy model, Binder
and Smokler (1980) found EMS particularly useful in illustrating the
ways in which affective themes could distort present interpersonal
relationships and the transference on predictable ways. EMS were
elicited during history-taking and utilized to define a disgnostic
picture of capacity for and psychosexual level of object relationships
likely to be encountered in psychotherapy. Levy (1965; Levy & Grigg,
1962) used EMS similarly, primarily as an avenue for understanding of
the patient and his or her presenting complaints. Crandall (1971)
used EMS in conjoint marital therapy to illustrate regressive elements
and patterns of conflicts in marriages, as well as to demonstrate
continuity between past and present experiences. Barrett (1980) also
reviewed three additional studies which suggested that EMS could be of
further usefulness in vocational and school guidance counseling
Situations.

In the same article, Barrett cited six studies demonstrating the
efficacy of EMS as a diagnostic tool. AS diagnosis and assessment have
commonly been considered vital to therapy, demonstrating the usefulness
of EMS in these stages has been considered a persuasive argument for
their further study and usage. The studies Barrett described had
attempted to find EM differences between patients falling into the
following diagnostic categories: (a) neurosis and psychosis;

(b) psychosomatic disorders, anxiety hysteria, conversion hysteria,
depression, homosexuality, schizoid disorder, and schizophrenia;

(c) anxiety reaction, depression, obsessive-compulsive, and
psychosomatic disorders; (d) schizophrenia and psychotic depression;

(e) psychoneurosis and adjustment reaction in children; and

17
(f) male homosexuality. Clifford and Brantley (1977) investigated
normal adolescents and those with physical anomalies, finding four
factors in impaired adolescents' recollections of parental reactions
to their birth. These factors both correlated positively with
self-concept and were significantly lower (g_< .05) in adolescents
with congenital anomalies than in those with acquired or no impairment.
AS it is generally accepted that actual memories of one's birth are
impossible, these recollections may be understood as fantasies about,
and descriptions of, these adolescents' relationships with their
parents. Frank and Paris (1981) found differences between groups of
controls, neurotics, personality disorders, and borderlines on early
recollections of parental approval, disinterest and criticism. Most
strikingly, fathers of borderline patients were recalled as having been
Significantly less approving and more disinterested than fathers of
patients in either of the other groups. Langs et a1. (1960) offered
characteristics of the EMS of hospitalized persons with severe
hysterical character disorder and women with paranoid schizophrenic
reactions.

Hafner, Fakouri, Ollendick, and Corotto (1979) reported results
consistent with those of LangS et a1. (1960), finding that normals
reported significantly (p_< .05) more illness, injury and attention-
getting themes in EMS than paranoid schizophrenics. Among
subclassifications of schizophrenics, Hafner, Corotto, and Fakouri
(1980) found significant (p_< .05) differences between EM themes, but
not characters, details or affect. Monahan (1983) described significant
differences in EMS between hospitalized children who had threatened

suicide, those who had actually made suicide attempts, and controls.

18
Attempters more often offered EMS of interactions with others, and
threateners reported more memories of care from fathers. Martin
(1959) reported three cases of patients fear psychotic loss of
self-control and whose earliest memories concerned being frightened
while being held over water by the father while the mother was
rebuking him. Lieberman (1957) discovered more memories of sex and
punishment in female psychotics, but more memories of food, play, and
illness in nonpsychotic female patients. Barrett (1981) described EMS
of three anorexics (two females and one male) which all included
depiction of a malevolent mother, feelings of inferiority, frustration
of autonomy, and negative attitudes toward food or weight.

Another application of EMs has been in their use as a projective
technique. Adler's solicitation of EMS was one of the first applications
of projective techniques, using Murray's (1938) definition. Rabin (1981)
established three essential criteria for a projective technique, each
of which is a function of EMS: the nature of the stimulus is
characterized by ambiguity and not overly limited to conventional form;
the response itself involves quantity, variety, and richness with
little awareness of the purpose to which the material may be put; and
the examiner attributes to the responses a multi-dimensionality
necessary for analysis. Verger and Camp (1970) pointed out that EMS
were unique among projective techniques in being completely unstructured,
concurring with Mosak (1958) who likened EMS to free drawings and
fingerpainting in regards to stimulus value. Reviewing the literature,
Taylor (1975) concluded that EMS might serve as a "quick and dirty"
method of obtaining the kind of information usually available only

through a comprehensive projective test battery.

19

Both Lieberman (1957) and Mayman and Faris (1960) found EMS to
be clinically related to information revealed on a standard battery
of projective tests. Lieberman found content similarities between
EMS and information gleaned from the Weschler-Bellevue, Rorschach,
Bender-Gestalt, and House-Tree-Person drawings. Mayman and Faris found
confirmation for hypotheses raised by EM analysis in the patient's
Sentence Completion Test, Rorschach, and Thematic Apperception Test
(TAT) results. Correlating EMS with the Picture Arrangement Test (PAT)
McCarter, Tomkins, and Schiffman (1961) found EMS to significantly
predict seven PAT scales having two factors in common: degree of
activity and social interest. An investigation by McAdams (1982)
revealed highly significant correlations between TAT motive scores
for intimacy and power and levels of intimacy and power content in
autobiographical memories in two studies. Harder (1979) constructed
scales to measure ambitious-narcissistic characteristic character
style on the Rorschach, the TAT, and in EMS. While the tests
intercorrelated well and significantly differentiated (p_< .005)
target from nontarget subjects, each test was seen to tap a particular
configuration of the elements of this character style.

Several studies have suggested similarities between material
elicited in EMS and on the Rorschach. Bolgar (1954) compared the
Rorschach to a dream, concluding that there was demonstrable
consistency between the two in the distribution and symbolic expression
of affect. She stressed, however, that the variability and range of
affect in well-integrated individuals made prediction difficult. The
Similarities between EMS and dreams have been discussed. If Rorschach

material is then seen as also being similar to dream material, it

20

suggests that there are parallels between Rorschachs and EMS. A study
that partially addressed this point was carried out by Langs (1965b),
who found similarities between the Rorschach and EMS when both were
administered as part of a projective test battery, as these measures
discriminated between women in four diagnostic categories of neuroses.

In 1974, Krohn and Mayman wrote that the previous ten years had
witnessed the beginnings of integration of traditional projective
test psychology with the psychoanalytic study of object relations.
Mayman had earlier proposed (1968) that "A person's adult character
structure is organized around object-relational themes which intrude
projectively into the structure and content of his early memories,
just as they occur repetitively in his relations with significant
persons in his life" (p. 304). He felt that EMS should optimally
be treated "not as historical truths (or half truths) but as thematic
representations of prototypical dilemmas, life strategies, and role
paradigms around which he defines his relationship to himself and to
his personal world" (p. 316). Following this line of thought, Krohn
and Mayman suggested that level of object representation was "a valid,
internally consistent, enduring dimension of the ego and should,
therefore, emerge across a diverse set of the ego's productions"
(p. 448). They consequently correlated object representation scores
for dreams, Rorschachs, and EMS, and found high intercorrelations
which were interpreted as providing validation support for this
operationalization of the concept of object representations and also
as supporting the theory that EMS can be considered a projective
technique, revealing layers of personality structure. These scores

also correlated significantly (p_< .05) with therapist-supervisor

21
judgment of psychotherapy patients' level of object representation. A
key finding of this study was that EMS could be interpreted to reflect
more about fundamental levels of object representations than general
level of psychopathology.

Levy and Grigg (1962) had also concluded that thematic-configurational
analysis of EMS yielded indications of the individual's level of object
relations and that these indications corresponded with therapists'
formulations. The potency of these internal object representations
has also been indicated by demonstrating their effect on present-day
relationships. Rosen (1963) examined the relationships of child-care
workers to children in a residential treatment center for emotionally
disturbed children. She found that strong positive or negative feelings
toward a particular child were clearly associated with that worker's
perception of the child as being similar or dissimilar to him or
herself in childhood. Wolman (1970) demonstrated that current
representations of significant others were linked to EMS in delinquent
adolescents. He found less developmentally advanced EMS concerning
succorrance, need-fulfillingness, self-abasement, and abnegation were
related to impaired perception of Significant others, particularly
parents. More advanced EMS, containing independent activity and
confrontation, were correlated with more objective and "mature"
perception of others. A recent study by Monahan (1983) found
substantial differences in object relationships between suicide
attempters, threateners, and nonsuicidal inpatients. In this study,
threateners were found to depict their object relationships as less

damaged than either of the other groups.

22

Blatt, Brenneis, Schimek, and Glick (1976) compared their work
on object representation on the Rorschach to that of Mayman and his
colleagues (Krohn & Mayman, 1974; Mayman, 1967; Urist, 1977),
considering this group the source of the idea that object representations
in projective techniques such as dreams, EMS, TATS, and the Rorschach
revealed much about the quality of interpersonal relationships the
individual experiences. Pointing out that the Rorschach system focused
on structural aspects of representation, while Mayman's (Krohn & Mayman,
1974) emphasized content dimensions, Blatt et a1. urged further work
toward integrating both content and structural aspects. Such an
integration would be comprehensive analysis of object representations
which might yield a fuller understanding of the development of object
representation and such impairments in psychopathology. The Blatt et a1.
system is derived from concepts of developmental psychology and measures
differentiation, articulation, and integration of the concept of the
object.

Following Blatt et al.'s (1976) suggestion, Spear and Lapidus
(1981) used the Krohn and Mayman Object representation scale for
dreams (1974) and the Blatt et al. Rorschach object relations scale
with three severely disturbed subject groups. Their results strongly
supported the validity of these techniques as a means of assessing
object relations, and the effectiveness of using both thematic and
structural object representation scales to gain a comprehensive view
of the individual's personality organization. Such findings
strongly support the potential of both the Rorschach and EMS to

identify the individual's level of object relationships. Urist (1977)

23
demonstrated that a consistency exists across the Rorschach, patients'
memories as revealed in an autobiography, and staff ratings, reflecting
an enduring and measurable aspect of the patient's capacity for
relationships.

A recurring problem in studies of EMS has been the lack of
uniformly in methods of obtaining the memories, as well as in systems
of scoring and interpretation. Past studies have involved the use
of mailed questionnaires, written accounts, and oral interviews in
both individual and group contexts. Only two studies (Bruhn &
Schiffman, 1982a; Winthrop, 1958) have dealt explicitly with the
question of methodology in early memory research. Furthermore, the
necessity of studying EMS in nonpsychiatric populations (Levy, 1965)
and for a Systematic method of obtaining and scoring EMS has been

documented (Levy & Grigg, 1962).

METHOD

A modified version of Mayman's (1968) procedure was used to elicit
the early memories. This format was chosen because it encompassed not
only the earliest memories but specifically elicited representations
of others while maintaining a degree of ambiguity and freedom for the
respondent. To aid in the recall of memories, this procedure was
preceded by a short exercise designed to facilitate recall similar to
that used by Wilson (1976) (see Appendix.A).The existence of significant
correlations between standard personality measures and early memories
was considered to support the first hypothesis, namely, that a
relationship exists between early memories and present personality
functioning. Both thematic (Jackson Personality Inventory) and
structural (Rorschach) measures of personality were employed. The
Jackson Personality Inventory) and structural (Rorschach) measures of
personality were employed. The Jackson Personality Inventory (JPI),

a written questionnaire of 320 items comprising 16 subscales and 20
true/false statements, was chosen. Jackson (1976) claimed that this
measure was superior to the classic MMPI due to its concern with a
broader range of personality functions, decreased redundancy, stronger
external support for the validity of self-ratings, and shorter format.
The JPI was designed to provide "a set of measures of personality
reflecting a variety of interpersonal, cognitive and value orientations

likely to have important implications for a person's functioning"

24

25
(Jackson, 1976, p. 9). Another advantage to the JPI was that it is
designed for populations of average or better ability, and was
originally standardized on a college population. In this study,
personality variables from the Rorschach and JPI subscale scores were
correlated with EM content scores.

Based on previous literature, 21 specific exploratory predictions
were made. Exploratory predictions 1-9 were derived from the JPI
manual (Jackson, 1976) in which correlations of the JPI subscales with
standard personality measures were listed. The predictions were also
made on the basis of those personality characteristics which Jackson
claimed the subscales were actually measuring. Exploratory predictions
13-17 were based on a previous study by Langs (1965a) and were intended
to both confirm and expand on those findings. Prediction 18 was based
along the lines of Kihlstrom and Harackiewicz (1982). The remaining
exploratory predictions (10-12, 19-21) were based on consideration of
what Exner (1974) had defined Rorschach scores as measuring, along with
what EM scores might be hypothesized to be produced by the same process.

Measures (Levy & Grigg, 1962) of object representations in early
memories were correlated with those on the Rorschach (Blatt et a1.,
1976). The existence of similar levels of object representations on
both measures was hypothesized to document the usefulness of EMS for
describing such representations.

The second hypothesis was that the written format for obtaining
EMS was as useful in eliciting psychologically rich material as the
more time-consuming and difficult oral method. To establish whether
EMS reported orally included more complete and psychologically rich

material than written EMS, this study compared the two methods in a

26

nonpsychiatric population. All the significant (p_< .05) correlations
found between either oral or written EM scores and JPI or Rorschach
variables were examined to see to what extent the written format was
as revealing as the orally administered form of the test and hence, the
degree to which the written form may be useful in future research.
Subjects

Twenty-four subjects enrolled in an introductory psychology class
(12 men and 12 women) served as subjects. Each subject volunteered
through a sign-up Sheet in the class, and the first twelve students of
each sex who indicated willingness to participate during a follow-up
phone call were chosen. A counterbalanced design was used in regard
to the order in which the experimental conditions, that is, oral and
written administrations of the Early Memory Questionnaire (EMQ) were
received. All subjects received both experimental conditions but
were randomly assigned to the order in which these were given.
Apparatus

A standard cassette tape recorder and cassette tapes were used
to record the memories in the oral condition. The ten Rorschach
inkblot test cards and complete JPI forms were administered.

Specific Procedures

 

Each subject was individually contacted by a same-sex experimenter
and an initial appointment was made for the first of two testing
sessions. In the first session, the subject met with the experimenter
in a small therapy room. He or she was told that this was a test of
memories, that participation would involve two meetings, and asked
to sign a consent form. For the Oral condition, the experimenter then

gave the instructions, proceeded through the warm-up exercise, turned

 

27
on the tape recorder, and administered the END. When this had been
completed, the tape recorder was turned off and the JPI was given.

The Written condition proceeded similarly, with the warm-up
exercises being read to the subject and the EMQ presented in the form
of a packet, with each question appearing at the top of a separate
sheet of paper. The instructions for the END reminded the subject
not to spend too much time pondering the best response, but to respond
as completely as possible with the first memory from ages two to
eight that came to mind. Upon completion of the written EMQ these
subjects were then asked to complete the JPI. In both experimental
conditions, once the JPI had been finished a second appointment was
made with the subject and the session concluded.

In the second session, the subject met in the same room with the
same experimenter. Following the procedures outlined above, early
memories were elicited under the other experimental condition. At
this point, the experimenter was brought in and administered a
Rorschach to the subject. When the Rorschach was finished, subjects
completed a brief feedback form in which they were asked how they had
felt about the study and what they thought the study had been designed
to investigate.

Scoring

The taped early memories were transcribed by undergraduate
research assistants, and all EMs were scored by the experimenter using
the Hafner et a1. (1979) modification of the Manaster-Perryman Manifest
Content Scale (1979). The score for each EM content category was
totaled separately for Oral and Written administrations. To account

for differences among subjects in productivity (see Table 1), each

Distribution of Total Number of Early Memories Reported

28
Table l

 

Number of
Memories

Oral

Males
(N=12)

Written

Oral

Females
(N=12)

Written

Total

 

Missing

Data

7

8

9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

 

OOOOOOOOOU‘IOJNO

OOOO-‘OON—‘ONNOO

 

—l

dOOOONowdwOO-d

0

COO-J-J—‘O—‘OOS-J—‘O

 

N
omw

HOD—‘NwOOWN

 

Mean

10.36

29
total content category score was then converted into a percentage
score reflecting how frequently that item had occurred in the Oral EMS
and in Written EMS. Each Em also received a score for the highest level
of sexuality, aggression, and dependence illustrated in terms of the
Levy and Grigg (1962) object relations scale. The author scored each
Rorschach according to Exner's (1974) guidelines. All responses with
human content were typed separately and scored in conjunction with a
research assistant according to Blatt et all.'s (1976) system for
object representation. The experimenter also scored Rorschach
responses for hostile content according to the Elizur system (Aronow
& Reznikoff, 1976; Elizur, 1949). Mean scores were obtained for both
Rorschach and early memory object relations.

Several methodological problems were encountered at this phase of
the study. The first was that the tapes of the Oral EMS were of
sufficiently poor quality that there were three subjects for whom no
Oral EMS could be transcribed at all. In the remaining cases, at
least part of each subject's memories were lost because the tape was too
difficult to understand, i.e., the subject spoke too softly, mumbled,
or background noises obscured what was being said. Furthermore,
trained transcriptionists proved unobtainable and undergraduate
research assistants did the transcriptions. Periodoc checking suggested
that an adequate job of recording the memories was done, but a good deal
of data was lost.

The second major difficulty was that, despite training in the use
of the scoring systems, the research assistants were unable to score
the memories with acceptable accuracy. Examination of the.memory
scoring indicated that those scoring systems, particularly EM object

relations scoring, were far more ambiguous than had previously been

30

believed. The author disposed of the research assistants' efforts and
rescored each EM for both content and object relations. As all
memories were therefore scored by a single individual, no index of

reliability was obtained.

RESULTS

Two major hypotheses were tested. The first hypothesis was that
EMS would correlate with personality variables according to twenty-one
exploratory predictions based on a review of the literature. Eight of
these predictions were found to be supported at levels at p_< .05 or
below. A comparison between mean JPI subscale scores obtained in this
study and Jackson's normative (1976) study is given in Table 2.
Table 3 gives the intercorrelations between JPI subscale scores for the
present study. Table 4 indicates the intercorrelations found between
Rorschach scores in this study. Table 5 illustrates the intercorrelations
between these JPI subscale scores and Rorschach scores. The second
hypothesis was that the written and oral forms of the END were equally
sensitive, correlating equally well with personality variables. This
hypothesis was not supported by the data.

Early Memories and Personality Variables

 

No support (p.> .05) was found for the following predictions of
correlations:

l. JPI Energy Level and EM Active activity percentage
JPI Interpersonal Affect and EM object relations scores

JPI Interpersonal Affect and EM Givingness or Mutuality

bum

JPI Innovation and EM themes of new or unfamiliar situation
causing excitement. The results of this prediction approached
significance (r_= .37, p.= .08) for the written format and the
JPI.

31

32

 

 

 

mm.e ma.“ am.m mm.m mo.m _m.op _o.m mo.m xxoaogpto a=Fa>
mp.m mm.~F .m.m aN.NP _m.m mm.FF NN.e mN.PF . aucathoe
mo.e om.o~ mm.e mp.m Np.m mm.ep oo.e Pe.FF coaaaapoaataa Paauom
m~.m mm.m m~.m aa.o. ec.e mm.._ o~.m om.m mmacpaoae< Famaom
op.m oa.o, Ne.e am.PP o¢.e Fm.N_ ap.m om.mp saaamm-tpam
wN.e No.5 mfi.e am.o, oe.m _a.a mp.m ma.o_ mcaxme xmaa
eN.m mm.- mm.m mm._P wa.~ wo.m. ew.e m~.o_ haa_wawm=oamam
o~.¢ Pa.o_ FN.a Na.o_ m_.e 0P.N_ OP.m mm.op coaaa~acamto
No.4 Fa.mp mm.e am.o_ ma.~ Pm.e_ mP.e _a.FF auaaa< Facomtaataa=_
F~.m mm._F ma.e ao.m, mm.m Fe.FP Na.m mm._F eoaaa>o==H
om.m mo.P~ mm.” eo.~_ ee.m me.mp am.m ma.op _a>aa Antacm
om.e mo.m mm.e om.m we.m om.NP e_.e om.op zawetoacoo
me.m om.,P mm.m mP.PP Ne.m mm.m m~.m Pm.w Apaxapasou
_~.e oa._F mN.e Pe.FP mm.m 00.0? mm.e om.op ammtaaca to :aeaaam
a~.e Ne.~P me.e mm.op mm.~ oe.mp mm.m om.PP Aaaax=<
cowpmw>mo cum: cowumw>mo :mmz cowumw>mo cam: cowumw>mo :mmz
ataucaam acmeemam ataecaam etaacmam
flooomuzv AOOONHZV ANPHZV A~_uzv
mmFmEmd mmpmz mmFmEmd mmpmz

 

maumrv camgmmq

 

hespm pcmmwsn

mucoum m_mumo:m find mo mcmmz

N mpnm»

33

 

 

Foo..w germ
Po..w at.
mo..W a;
- o_>
mm.- Foe
the. mo. Sam
mp.- mp.- .N.- mam
.Imm.- KN. eo.- mm. mam
mN.- F~.- tme.- Pm. Ime. xxx
AN. am. mN. mo.- eo.- .ma.- sum
oo. ~o.- mo.- mo. Po.- PC. as. ago
tom. oo. o“. co. ow. Pm.- am. mo.- aaH
NP.- 40.- mm.- om. mm. _0. ¢_. .~.- oc. >2”
i re rim
mm. om. mo. mm.. as. ea. mm. _P. o_. mm. Pam
«om. .Pe.- mN. o_. twe.- P_.- om. No. mN. _N.- mo. ecu
me.- Fe. Ne.- Fm. Ne. m_. RN. m..- mo.- _o. m_. me.- xau
* a « tr «
N~.- em. mm.- no. mm. om. m_. mp.- NP.- am. ea. mm.- Na. Pam
«a or a mar
OF. ao.- .Fe. ep.- “0.- m_.- NN. MN. m_. o~.- am. am. m~.- mN.- - x=<
op> FOP paw mam mam xxx mam ago tam >cH Fem xcu xau mum x=<

 

mcowuwprLOUmecH Had

m m—amp

34

 

 

.8. ma...
5. w a:
8. . a.
x
2.- .5
8. 2.- .5
O.
.m..- 2.- 8.- 2..
$- 8. 2.- $.- 5
CO 0
8. 2. 8.- 8.- 8. 3
2.- 8. 8. 8.. .8: .8: 2
z: 8. 8.- 8. :.-...$. 8.- 23 . 3:2 . 5
8. 2. 8.- 8.. 8. .32. .2.-..5.. .3.
8. 2.- 8. 8.. 2.- :- 2: 8. z. 2:: . t.
C. I. 0‘
2. :. :.- 2.- .8. 2.. 8.. 2.- 2.- 2.- .-
8.- 2: 2. :2. 2.- 2.- 8. 2.. 2.. 2.- 2.- 5
8 2 - 8.- 8. .18. .:.-...$. ...$. ...2. 2.- 8.- 8 . 8::
8. 2. 8.. 2.- 8. 8. 2.... 8. 2.. 2. 2.- 2.. a... 8
. . . . . . . CC. 0: CO.
8 2 - : 8 8 - 2 2 - 2.- 2. 2. :. 2. 2. 2. n.
8.- 8. 8.- 2. 2.- 8. :.- 8. 2. :. 2.- 2. 2. 8. 8. 3.. - 3
u a O 0 O i 0 . v ' ... z. .z :. u
2 2 8 2 - 8 2 - 8 2.- 2.. .8.- 2. 2.- 2.- 2.. 2. 2 - x
.8. .- 8. 2.- 8. 2. 8.- 8. :. 8. 2. :.- 2. 2. 8.- 8.- 2.. 2...
2. 2.. 8.- 8. 2. 2.- 8. 8.- 8.- 2.- 8. 2. 2.- 2.. :. 2.- 8. 2. E
8. 8.. 2.. 2.. :8. 8.. 2. 2.. 8.- 8.- 2. 2.. 8; 8. 2.- 8.- 8.- 2. 2. a
8. .- 2. 2. 2.- 8.. 2. 8.- 2; 2.- 8.- 2. 8.- 8 - 8. 8. 8. 2.- 2. 2.- a
2.- 8.- 2. 8. 2.. 8.- 8. 38.- 2.. 2.- 2. 8. 2.- 2.- 2. 8.- 3.. .2; 2.- 8.- 2. a8
8. 8.- 2. 2.- 2.- 2.- a. 2.- 2.. :.- :. 8. 2.- 2.- 8.- 2.- 2. 2.- 2.- 2.- 2. 8.- 8
8.. .- 2.- 2. :. 3. 9.- 2. 8. 2. 2.. 2.- ... z. 2.- 2. 3.. :. 2. z. 2.. 2.- 8.- n.
C I. C CO 0 o C O:
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 : 2 2 z 2 2 : 2 8 2 m . n 2 .

 

 

85:29:62.3..— 52.32...

v :0:

 

I35

.8. . ...

mo. v at
NN.- mo. 8.. m..- N.. .N. «..- «N. «8.- mo. .««. mo.- No.- 8... .««. z
m..- m..- o«.- .N. 88. ... No.- 8.. no.- on. NN.- 88.- mN. N.. .N.- u.
.N.- N.. 88.- m..- 88.- No.- .N«.- mm. m..- .N«.- on. 8... mm. 8N.- .N. ..
8N. N.. .o. ...- .o.- m..- 8.. No. 88.- 8..- «..- «8.- NN.- N..- ...- z.:
88.- ...- «8.- m..- .o. N.. «N. .o. 8.. ..8.. mm. N8.- «m. .N. ... a.
8.. NN.- .N. c.- 88. .N.- 88. .c.- N.. No.- ...- N.. .o.- .m.. N..- a.
mo. 88. ... «N.- 8N.- .N.- «..- m..- 8.. .m«.- NN.- «.. 8..- N..- 88. u<
N8.- .N.- m..- ..«. 8.. no. «8.- 88. No. 8.. .o.- 8.. N.. No.- m..- .8<.u:...<.:.
88. NN. .N. .N. mo. 8... No. 88.- .N. No. 8... ... .o. «m.. «8.- «.1
88.- co. .m. ... .N. .N.- 88.- «o. .N. a..- .N.- 88.- «o. o«.- m.. ...N...
m8.- .N. No. no. .N. 88. .om. 88. NN. .N. .N. 88. an. NN. 88. >
«8.- «o. .N. 8N.- mo.- 8N.- ”8.- «8.- 88. .N.- .N.- N..- o«.- m..- «.. ..<
8.. .N.- .N. 8.. «8. .N.- .8. 88.- .m. No.- N..- N.. N8.- .N.. «8.- .8+.88.8.
N.. .N.- .m. 8.. mo. ...- 88. mo.- «N. No.- 8... 8.. No.- m..- .8. an
88.- .N. NN. ... NN.- .m«.- N.. no. «8.- .N.- .N.- mo.- 8... ..m.- .8. u.
88. .8. .m. 88. 88. m..- «.. N..- .N. .o.- 8... ma.- 88.- m..- «..- ...-...
«o. 88. ...- no. a... 8.. No.- no. a..- .N. .N. 8N.- .N. mo. N..- z
.8.- 8.. «N. ...- cm. «.. No.- .N. 8.. No.- N.. N8.- N.. No. NN. 8.x
... 88.- .N. mo. .8. mo. 8... mo.- 88. «.. ...- «N.- m..- n..- 88.- a.
o..- .N. No. 8N.- No. 88. m..- «o. ...- a..- .N. 88. 88.. .o.- no. .
NN. 88.. nm. .N.- .N.- a..- o«. o«.- N.. ... ... «N. N.. 8.. NN. .
an. «.. on. m..- 88.- 88.- N..- «.. .N. .N.- 88. N.. ..«.- ...- .8. .m
8.. .8. 88.- NN.- N..- .o.- 8.. o..- «N.- «8.- 8.. .o.- .o.- no. 8.. .88
m... .n. .o.- a..- «o. 88.. oo.- «o. No. a..- 88. N..- 8.. «8. 88.- .8
.N. NN.- no. .N. 8.. no. No. No.- co. 8.. ...- N.. N8. N8. no.- a:

 

0.. .8. .am .am mam ... ... 8.8 ... >=. .=. 2:8 xau .«m x=<

 

.aw on. ecu cuozumcoa ozu :mwxumn mco.uo.m..ou.mu:_

m 292.

10.

11.
12.
13.

36

JPI Anxiety and EM themes of Fear, anxiety-provoking or
threatening situations.

JPI Risk-taking and EM themes of Mastery, Misdeeds and Punishment.
The correlation with Risk-taking and Oral EMs approached
significance (r_= .34, p_= .10).

JPI Social Participation with EM Positive affective percentage,
EM themes of Mastery or Mutuality and EM Dependence in object
relations. Although falling short of significance, there was

a tendency for JPI scores to correlate negatively with Mastery
(r_= -.l37 Oral, r_= -.3l Written) and Dependence (§_= -.l0
Oral, [_= -.l0 Written).

JPI Tolerance and EM Positive affective percentage.

Rorschach active and passive movement percentages and EM Active
and Passive activity percentages.

Rorschach Y scores and EM themes of illness/injury; death/
separation/loss; Fear, anxiety-provoking or threatening
situations or Misdeeds committed by subject. Rorschach Y was
negatively correlated with Illness/injury (§_= -.l6 Oral,

r_= -.08 Written) but it showed a trend with anxiety

situations (Oral r_= .34, p_= .10, Written g_= .37, p_= .06).
Rorschach M and EM settings of Nature.

JPI Social Adroitness and EM Active activity percentage.

JPI Anxiety and EM object relations. Anxiety is negatively
correlated with aggression (§_= -.Zl Oral, [_= -.l4 Written)

and with dependence (r_= -.08 Oral, r_= -.10 Written).

37

The following exploratory predictions were supported:

1.

JPI Self-Esteem and EM themes of Attention-getting by subject
and Mastery. Attempts at mastery correlated with the Oral

form (r_= .52, p_= .0l).

Rorschach T and EM themes of Givingness toward others or
Mutuality. Mutuality correlated at r_= .45 (p_= .03) for the
Oral form and r_= .48 (p_= .02) for Written.

Rorschach hostility content with EM themes of Illness/injury;
Anxiety provoking situations; Overt hostility; Neutral
affective percentage; Negative affective percentage; and

object relations Aggression. Rorschach hostility correlated
with Aggression at r_= .40 (p_= .05) in the Oral form. The
correlation of Rorschach hostility with anxiety situations was
[_= .43 (p_= .04) for Oral memories. Negative affective
percentage also correlated in the Oral condition with Rorschach
hostility (r_= .50, p_= .0l).

EM settings of traveling with Rorschach V and F0 and JPI Social
Participation. EM traveling correlated with Rorschach V

(r_= .40, p_= .05) in the Written condition.

EM themes of Death/separation/loss with Rorschach hostility
content, Y, T, m, V, r, and FD. Correlations of the separation
theme and Rorschach hostility showed a trend (r_= .36, p_= .08)
toward significance in the Oral format. The correlation with
Rorschach measured by (3r + 2)/R was significant (r_= .45,

p_= .03) in the Oral condition.

38

6. EM themes of Punishment, Misdeeds, Anxiety situation,
Hostility and Negative affective percentage with Rorschach
measures of affective control {M/C, FC/(CF + C), R(VIII - X)/
R(I - VII), EB}. Punishment correlated (r_= .46, p_= .02) in
the Oral form with M/C. Misdeeds correlated (r_= .48, p_= .02)
with FC/(CF + C) and EB (r_= .47, p_= .02) in the Oral form.
There was a suggestive trend for EM Anxiety situations to
correlated with FC/(CF + C) (r_= .37, p_= .07) and EB
(r_= .38, p_= .07) in Oral memories. Overt hostility themes
correlated (r_= .53, p_= .01) with Rorschach PVC in the Oral
form. Finally, Negative percentage in Oral memories correlated
([_= .45, p_= .03; r_= .51, p.= .01; r = .53, p.= .01) with
Rorschach M/C, FC/(CF + C) and EB, respectively.
7. EM object relations and JPI Self-Esteem. The correlation with
Sexuality in the Oral format was r_= .43 (p.= .03) and the
Written format yielded results also approaching significance
(r_= .38, p_= .06). Dependence in the Oral method was also
correlated (:_= .44, p_= .03) with the JPI score.
8. EM Sexuality object relations score with Rorschach hostility
content. Sexuality in the Written format correlated negatively
(r = -.51, p_= .01) with the Rorschach score.
A listing of correlations obtained for each exploratory prediction
is provided in Table 6.
Differences between Oral and Written Early Memories
The second hypothesis was that there was no appreciable difference
between the ability of the Oral and Written formats to reveal underlying

personality trends. In order to ascertain whether such a difference

39

rum-‘1...

 

.8. 88.- 88. 88. 88 888888888 8..; 88..8< =8 .88.
82. 82. 88. 8.. 8888.8.8. .88 88.8 88.8.888 88 .8
88. 8..- 88. 8..- 88.888.8.8888 .8.888 .88 88.8 8888888888 88 .8

88. ...- 88. 22. 88..88.8.8888 .8.888 .88 8..: 88.8.888 :8 .8

88. 8.. 88. 8.. 88..88.8.8888 .8.888 .88 88.8 8...88882 :8 .8

8.. .8.- N8. 8..- 88.888.8.8888 .8.888 .88 8..: 8.88882 :8 .88
8.. .8. 88.8. 28. 888888-..88 .88 88.8 8.8888: 88 .8

N8. .2. 8.. .8. E88888-..88 .88 8..: 88.8.88-88.88888< 28 .8.
N8. ... 88. 28. 88.88. 88.8 .88 8..: .88888.888 :8 .8

28. ... 28. .2. 88.88. 88.8 .88 8..: 888888.: 88 .8

.8. 22. 8.. 88. 88.88. 88.8 .88 88.8 888.88: :8 .88
.N. .N. 88. .8. 88.888888. .88 8..: 88.8888.8 888888.8x8 :8 .8
N8. 88.- .8. 8.. 888.888 .88 88.8 88..888.8 8.8.x88 88 .8
.8. 8..- .8. 8.. .88..< .88888888888. .88 88.8 8...88.8z 88 .8

88. 88. 88. 22. 8888.8 .88888888888. .88 88.8 888888.8.8 :8 .88
88. N..- 88. .8. .88..8 .88888888888. .88 88.8 8888888888 :8 .8

8.. 88. N8. 28.- 888.88 .88888888888. .88 88.8 88.888.888 88 .8

88. 88. .8. 88. 88..88888 =8 .82
82. 82.- .8. N.. .8888 888888 .88 88.8 88.888 88 ..
m. .H .m .u 80.88.8888 88°888088xm

88.8.83

 

88.0

 

888.88.8888 8.8.8.8.8xm .2 88. .8. 88:88.80 8:0..8nggoo

o w—nmh

40

cm.
mm.
Ne.
mm.
mm.
em.
mo.
«mo.
MN.
mm.
mp.
mm.
no.
.N.
«No.
mm.
so.
mm.
on.
um.
om.
mm.
mm.

om.-
mo.-
m..
m..-
o..-
No.
mo.
ow.
mm.
om.-
om.
m..-
mo.
mo.
we.
N..-
mm.
no.-
mo.-
m..-
mm.
.0.-
mm.-

om.
M8.
cu.
.m.
mo.
8..
mm.
as.

m..
.0.
mm.
*vo.
mm.
*mo.
mm.
0..
mm.
me.
.w.
mm.
mm.
mm.

mo.-
8..-
mm.
mo.
mm.
mo.-
8o.-
mm.
08.
wN.
om.
mm.
m8.
NN.
m8.
m..-
cm.
mm.
a...
mo.
0..
a0.-
mo.-

8 888888.88 88.3 88.88.8amm z.

s 888888.88 88.: 88.88.8888 :8

. 888888.88 88.2 88.88.888m 28

> 888888.88 88.: 88.88.888m 28
8....8881 888888.88 88.: 88.88.888m zm
88.888.8.8.88 .8.888 .88 88.8 88..888.. 88
88 888888.88 88.8 88..888.. 88

> 888888.88 88.3 8:..8>8.. :8
8.....mo: 888888.08 8..; co.8mm.mm< :8
88...8mo: 888888.88 88.3 .8.8=82 :8
8....8888 888888.88 88.3 88.88882 :8
88...88oz 888888.88 88.3 88...88o: :8
88...88o: 888888.88 88.: 888.x8< z.
>8...88oz 888888.88 88.3 8888... z.

. 888888.88 88.3 88..8:882 :8

. 888888.88 88.3 888888.>.w z.

> 888888.88 88.: 8.8.x8< z.

8 888888.88 88.3 888888.: 2.

8 888888.88 88.3 8888... :8

> 888888.88 88.: 88.88.8888 :8

88 888888.88 88.: 88.8888 :8

88 888888.88 88.: 88.8888 :8

88 888888.88 88.8 88.888 88

.8.8888. 8 8.88.

.0
.8
.u
.8
.88.
.U
.8
.88.
..
.m
.8
.U
.8
.88.
.8
.82.
.8
.U
.8
.8..
.8
.U
.8

41

we.
Fm.
mp.
on.
me.
mm.
mm.
mm.
mm.
mm.
mm.
NN.
me.
um.
om.
mN.
PP.
mm.
ep.
mm.
mm.
Np.
ma.

mp.u
Pp.
Fm.
NN.-
up.
pm.u
po.u
em.
No.
NN.
mo.
mm.
0—.u
mm.
mm.
mm.

cw.
Pm.
—N.
mo.
mm.
mp.

om.
*¥Po.
«mo.
m¢.
emp
Fm.
#«P0.
50.
mm.
mo.
ow.
«No.
mm.
No.
ow.
m—.
ON.
mp.
«No.
mv.
Fm.
mm.
«mo.

mo.
Pm.
me.
up.
mp.
up.
mm.
mm.
mo.
mm.
mp.
wq.
mp.
we.
om.
om.
NN.
mm.
ow.
op.
NN.
mp.
mv.

Lm< consumgom cpwz o>wpmmmz 2m m

Ag + gov\ou gumcumgom gpwz m>wummmz
U\z consumgom guvz m>wpmmoz
mu succumgom spy: apwpwumoz

L$< gumgumgom guy: xpvpvpmoz
.u + nov\uu gumgumgom cpvz mappppmoz
U\z cumgumgom Luv: »p*_wumo:

2m
2m
2m
2m
2m
2m

mm gumzumgom 59*; xpwwx=< 2m

Lw< gumgumgom ;“_z »»m_xc< 2“

A0 + luv\om gumgomgom gap; apmpxc< 2m
Q\z gumsumgom saw: xgmwxc< 2m

mu gumSUWLom saw; mummumwz
Lw< cumgumgom 59*; mummumwz

Au + muv\UL gumcumgom gpwz mumoomwz
U\z succumgom sup; mummumpz

mm cumcumgom gar: acmscmwcza

Lw< succumgom saw: newssmwcsm

Au + uuv\om gumgumgom guwz pcmssmvcam
U\z gumcomgom Luv; p=m55mm==¢

2m
2m
2m
ZM
2m
2m
2m
2m

mmmcawogu< meuom Haw saw: m>wuo< 2m

2 :umgumgom new: mgauoz
on :umcuwgom guwz :owumgmamm
m\A~ + gmv :umzumgom gar: cowpmgmamm

Au.g=ouv o mpamp

2m
Sm
2m

N
F.m
e

42

 

Po. v
mo. v

Q¥¥

n*

 

we.
Pm.
NN.
*¥Po.
we.
mm.
mo.
om.

o~.u
<—.u
om.
Fm.u
op.
NP.
mm.
mp.

om.
pm.
on.
cm.
«mo.
op.
*vo.
#«Fo.

wo.n
PN.-
mo.u
mm.
we.
om.
me.
qm.

Au.ucouv o mPDMF

xuwwxc< Haw zywz mucmccmqmo 2m
xumwx=< Haw saw: cowmmmgmm< 2m
xumwx=< Haw 5““: xuw_m=xmm 2m
xpw_wumoz cumgumgom saw; Auwpmzxmm 2m
Emmpmm-$me Han spwz mucmucmamo z“
Emmumm-w_wm Haw gywz cowmmmgmu< 2m
smmpmm-$me Haw ;u_: xuw_m=xmm 2m
mm gumsomgom saw: m>wpmmmz z“ e

.U
.n
.mpm
.om
.U
.n
.mmp

43
existed, a t-test (Walker & Lev, l953, pp. 256-257) was carried out
between the Oral and Written correlations with each personality
variable which had correlated significantly (p_< .05) with one or both
scores. There were 41 significant correlations between Oral scores and
Rorschach variables, and 43 such correlations between Oral scores and
JPI variables. Written EMS correlated significantly with 25 Rorschach
and l3 JPI variables. In six cases, Rorschach scores correlated
significantly with both Oral and Written scores. A total of l28 tytests
were performed.

Four t:tests made in cases where the Oral scores had correlated
with Rorschach scores yielded in which the difference between Oral and
Written formats were significant at the p_< .05 level. In one case
where the Written score had correlated with a Rorschach score, the
difference between formats was significant. Five t;tests performed
between Oral and Written scores where Oral scores had correlated with
JPI variables found significant differences between the two methods.
Three t:tests performed where the Written scores had correlated with
JPI scores obtained significant differences between Oral and Written
scores. In one case, a t;test found a‘g < .Ol difference between format
scores where the Oral score had originally correlated with a JPI
variable. The differences between Oral and Written scores were
significant at the p_< .OOl level for one JPI and one Rorschach
correlation with Oral EM scores (see Table 7).

A second attempt was made to measure the difference between Oral
and Written scores. In this case, the differences between corresponding
Oral and Written scores in correlations with criterion Rorschach or JPI

variables were obtained and one-tailed t:test was carried out between

44

 

No. v a me.- ca. uuwcc< pacemcoacmucm Haa
mo. v a we.. “o. ~m>ms segue“ _aa
mo. v a ~m.- —_.- xuwsgowcou mew

oucmcouw_o macucougog
mo. v a mm. No. xu+>.uu< :uogumcom

 

m:o_ucpmccou pogo :mgu camcocum mcowucpmcgou :muu*g:

Logan;
«comcma uo manage
mcwaEmE xpvsmu Aumucouxmv gmsuo

mmcpuumm pucovmmo»oca\ccuuoo

 

Foo. v a so.- No. smouma-cp~m ~aq .ocucou .accouxw
poo. v a ep.- me. «\P guogumcoa mmcwuumm po:o_mmmwoga\gouuoo
Po. v a o~.- om. covua>occ_ ~aa wmuucoucma auv>vuuu m>Pmmoa
mo. v a «0.- cm. uumuw< pccomcmacouc_ ~aa adamgu mummvmvz
mo. v a mo.- mm. covuu>occ~ .gw mcoaswe x_.som:oz
mo. v a mo.- Ne. _a>os amcacm _aq ..=e_um _o=m.>
mo. v a mm. oe.- »u_seoc=ou Maw Focucou .occuuxu
mo. v a ”N.- Po. xuwxo—asou Haw amoucmucma o>.uuomuo o>vmmom
mo. v a o..- No. x coagumcoa __=svum Pozmw>

mucmcocw_a

omcucmucoa
mo. v a mo.- om. xuw>vuu< succumcom mwemgu mmo_\co.umcoaom
mo. v a .o.- mm. U\z suogumcom ”mews” xuvp.umog “case
mo. v a so. me.. an suagumcoa mmoucoucoa m>.uuow»o o>wuomoz

pm>o4 mucmuwpvcmvm cmuupcx .oco m_nuvco> xuw_ocomcma apnorca> zm
mcowuopoccou

 

mco.ua—mccou cmuu.cz cmgu Louaoco mcoF»a_mLLou .mco

 

muogumz orb wzu :. mco_uopmccou comzumn umumpxm mucmcmcwvo acouvbwcm_m a
go's: :* mmpncwco> say—ocomgoa can mzu cogcvz uca .aco cowzuma mcoruopmgcou

m m—noh

45

these correlations. There were twenty cases in which the Oral method
was more strongly correlated with personality variables, and thirteen
cases in which the Written method correlated more highly. The result
of this test was that the mean difference between Oral and Written

methods was found to be significant at the p.< .025 level.

 

DISCUSSION

Over a third (eight of 2l) of the original exploratory predictions
made between EM and personality variables were supported, strongly
confirming the first hypothesis, that there indeed exists a link
between the EMs an individual rememebers and his or her present
personality characteristics. The 2l predictions were based on an
examination of both manifest and latent content. Unsupported predictions
l-8 all originated from considerations of manifest content analysis of
EMs. Lack of support for these hypotheses undermines the Adlerian
concept that the manifest content of EMs reveals much about the
individual's personality. When the predictions which were supported
were examined, differences were found between the proportion of Rorschach -
EM predictions confirmed and the proportion of JPI - EM predictions
supported. Only two of twelve, or 16%, of the JPI - EM exploratory
predictions were confirmed, while six of nine, or 66%, of the predicted
Rorschach - EM correlations were found to be significant.

The JPI is a written, self-report questionnaire and appears to
measure a kind of secondary process in personality. The Rorschach, on
the other hand, is a projective test designed to reveal primary process
functions of personality, and to tap deeper levels of functioning than
the JPI. The differences in the proportions of significant correlations
with EMS between the two personality measures may be considered as
further confirmation that EMs, like Rorschach responses, are the primary
process functions as well as constructions of preconscious ego mechanisms.

46

47

A scrutinization of the supported exploratory predictions yielded
some speculations, influenced by the ego psychology approach, as to what
the personality elements pinpointed by these predictions might be. For
example, self-esteem was found to correlate with the level of Oedipal
resolution and independence attained. Depending on how well the
Oedipal stage has been negotiated, the individual may have more
confidence in his or her capabilities for mastery, with this
attribution expressed in the EMs produced.

Memories describing mutual positive interaction were correlated with
affective need. Like dreams, the EM may be serving as a medium for
wish-fulfillment, in which the individual may be able to attain at least
in fantasy what he or she feels in lacking in reality. Another
interpretation might be that the memory illustrates the person's current
behavior of reaching out to others motivated by this sense of affective
need. Alternatively, it may depict a defense against this sense of need,
in which the individual offers to others what he or she wishes for him
or herself.

Hostility, anxiety, and/or negative experience in EM content was
correlated with hostile content on the Rorschach, confirming that what
was revealed in the EMs were underlying feelings of anger and anxiety.
Such expression of negative affect in EMs correlated highly, however,
with measures of control of affect on the Rorschach. The conclusion
seems to be that persons with more negative EMs seem to have more
controlled handling of their feelings. One way of conceptualizing this
linkage is to view the aggression in EMs as that which is still under
ego control, and can therefore be maintained fairly close to

consciousness. This might suggest that persons who tended to produce

48

pleasant EMs might be massively defending against their underlying
negative affects. Another way to look at the relationship might be
to conceptualize persons with high aggression and high control as
individuals who are unconsciously aware of a superfluity of aggression
and other negative affects. These persons might then maintain a high
degree of control over their affect in order to continue to function
adequately and protect others from these underlying feelings. The
negative correlation between hostility on the Rorschach and Oedipal
resolution in EMs suggests that the difficulties and frustrations
implicit in struggles over Oedipal issues engenders much internal anger
and distress, which is carefully controlled by the ego, but depicted
in the person's EMs.

EMs with themes of travel correlated with a quality of introspection.
One hypothesis might be that these persons feel less connected to others
and to places, being habitually turned inward, and describe themselves
as being continually in a state of transition. Another way traveling may
symbolize such persons' inner experience is by depicting their
characteristic sense of distance from others.

Similarly, EMs of death, separation, or loss correlated with
possible anger and self-focus. The individual may be portraying his
or her sense of being isolated, thrown on his or her own resources,
and the anger engendered by this deprivation illustrated by the object
in the memories being dead or lost.

Other factors may account for the lack of support of some
predictions. The concurrence between measures of object relations
on the Rorschach and in EMs was proposed to document the existence of

object representations in EMs. Instead, minimal (see Table 8)

 

49

Table 8

Correlations between Object Relations in

EMs and on the Rorschach

 

Rorschach Object Relations
(Blatt et al.)

 

 

E21233: Sexuality r = .l6 p = .44
(Levy & Grigg) Oral: Aggression .03 .88
Dependence .l5 .49

Sexuality .l2 .56

Written: Aggression -.l6 .47

Dependence -.l9 .38

 

 

50
correlations were found between the two object relations measures.
Upon close examination, the two scoring systems for object relations
reveal profound theoretical differences. The Blatt et al. (l976)
Rorschach system is built upon a concept of differentiation, a
developmental concept of object relationship. While Levy and Grigg
(l962) neglected to state the theoretical underpinnings for their EM
system, one seems to emerge nevertheless. The Sexuality subscale
(see Appendix E) measured memories as being most regressive when they
depicted avoidance or withdrawal of sexuality, through Oedipal victory
(less progressive) to Oedipal failure (more progressive) to an active
struggle to win a (nonparental) heterosexual love-object. It appeared
that this scale measured level of Oedipal resolution, itself a useful
concept, but not identical with differentiation.

Similar problems existed with the Levy and Grigg (1962) Aggression
and Dependence subscales. The Aggression scale considered helplessness
and being attacked to be the most destructive and compliance to be the
most constructive of behaviors. Two levels were mentioned beyond
compliance, but were assumed to be theoretical, and neither Levy and
Grigg nor the present study found any such memories. It is questionable
both whether compliance is the highest form of dealing with aggression,
and in what way this directly relates to underlying object relations.
The Dependence scale considered deep frustration of dependency needs to
be most regressive, and attempts at mastery, initiative, and
independence to be most progressive. One weakness of this system was
that it left open the potential for denial or rejection of dependency
needs to be considered more progressive than the recognition and

fulfillment of them. Another problem was that, although it was intended

5]

to measure object relations, the scale considered moving away from

the object (independence) to be the most progressive and subsequently
raised issues in assessing the relationship with the object at that level.
Given the considerable theoretical gap between these purported measures
of object relations, the lack of unanimity between Rorschach and EM
object relations is understandable in terms of differences in theoretical
conceptualizations of object relations.

The Oral method of collecting EMs has serious drawbacks - it is
vulnerable to technological or stenographic shortcomings, and the
memories then need to be transcribed after they are recorded, adding
another potential opportunity for distortion. Even so, they seem to be
somewhat more effective than written methods. The advantage of the
Written format is that it is a more versatile and error-proof means of
gathering EMs. Although this study found evidence for the validity
of EMS gathered by either method, the Oral method appeared consistently
more sensitive to underlying personality factors. Of the eight
exploratory predictions supported, fourteen of the correlations were
between criterion variables and Oral scores. Only one variable
correlated with both formats, and a single personality variable
correlated only with the Written form.

A review of the literature showed that, of the studies cited in
the introduction to this study, seventeen specified having used the
Written format. Ten studies utilized an alternative to written and
oral methods such as a checklist, or were unclear about what method
they used to gather the EMs. Of the twelve oral method studies, only
one elicited the memories in an experimental, as opposed to therapeutic

or diagnostic, setting. This leads to the conclusion that the common

52

methdological flaw of not gathering material orally might underlie past
difficulties of studies to more conclusively link EMs with other
psychological productions.

A clear direction for future early memory research is implied. EMs
seem to be formed by primary process function of the personality, in
much the same way that dreams, or projective test responses, are
constructed. Early memories seem to be best obtained through the
time-honored means of gathering such productions, that is, by oral
report in a relatively unstructured situation. Interpretation may be
made from manifest content but seems most effective when it includes
consideration of defenses and object representations illustrated in the
memories. As constructions of unconscious processes, early memories hold
an intrinsic fascination for the individual interested in further
unveiling the workings of the unconscious. Review of the literature
also suggests that early memories may be of practical use as tools for

psychological assessment, diagnosis, and in psychotherapy.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
EARLY MEMORY WARM-UP EXERCISE

53
APPENDIX A

EARLY MEMORY WARM-UP EXERCISE

In this study we are concerned with your personal memories, what
you can remember of your life until you were about eight years old. We
will be asking you to remember back to when you were a child. To help
you do this, I would like you first to begin thinking about things that
happened last year. Take a minute and think about last year. (WAIT
l5 SECONDS). Next, think about high school, giving yourself a minute
to think about all the things that happened during those years. (WAIT
20 SECONDS). As you begin to think back, you may find that it becomes
easier to remember. Now, think back to junior high or middle school.
(WAIT l5 SECONDS). As you begin thinking about your early experiences,
you may find that each memory leads to another one, and you find
yourself thinking about things you haven't thought of in a long time.
Now think back to elementary school. You may even have some memories
earlier than that. (WAIT 20 SECONDS).

Written condition: "Please open the booklet to the first page
and begin answering the questions. Do not spend too much time on any
one question, but respond with the first memory that comes to mind."

Oral condition: "I am now going to ask you a series of questions.

Please answer with the first memory that comes to mind."

APPENDIX B
EXPLORATORY PREDICTIONS

54
APPENDIX B

EXPLORATDRY PREDICTIONS

The following are the 2l exploratory predictions made of
correlations between early memories and personality variables.
1. EM Active activity percentage and JPI Energy Level.

2. EM object relations with JPI Interpersonal Affect.

3. EM themes of Givingness and Mutuality with JPI Interpersonal
Affect.

4. EM theme of Fear, anxiety-provoking or threatened situation and
JPI Anxiety.

5. EM theme of New or unfamiliar situation causing excitement and
JPI Innovation.

6. EM themes of Attempts at mastery, Misdeeds committed by subject,
and Punishment with JPI Risk-taking.

7. EM themes of Attention-getting by subject and Attempts at
mastery with JPI Self-esteem.

8. EM themes of Attempts at mastery and Mutuality, Positive
affective percentage, and Dependence in object relations with
JPI Social Participation.

9. EM Positive affective percentage with JPI Tolerance.

10. EM Active and Passive activity percentages with Rorschach a%
and p%.

ll. EM themes of Death/separation-loss, Illness/injury, Misdeeds
and Anxiety situations with Rorschach Y.

l2. EM themes of Givingness toward others and Mutuality with

Rorschach T.

l3.

I4.

15.

l6.
I7.
18.

I9.
20.
Zl.

55
EM themes of Illness/injury, Anxiety-provoking situations,
Overt hostility, Negative and Neutral affective percentages
and Aggression in object relations with Rorschach hostile
content.
EM setting of traveling with Rorschach V and FD and JPI Social
Participation.
EM theme of Death/separation-loss with Rorschach hostile
content, Rorschach Y, T, m, V, r, and FD.
EM setting of Nature with Rorschach M.
EM Active activity percentage with JPI Social Participation.
EM themes of Punishment, Misdeeds committed by subject,
Anxiety-provoking situation, Overt hostility and Negative
affective percentage with Rorschach measures of affective control:
M/C, FC/ (CF + C), R (VIII - X)/ R (I - VII) and EB.
EM object relations and JPI Self-esteem.
EM Sexuality object relations with Rorschach hostile content.

EM object relations and JPI Anxiety.

APPENDIX C
EARLY MEMORIES QUESTIONNAIRE

bOJN

What
What
What
What
What
What
What
What

is
is
is
is
is
is
is

is

56

APPENDIX C
EARLY MEMORIES QUESTIONNAIRE

your earliest memory?

your next earliest memory?

your earliest memory of your mother?
your next earliest memory of your mother?
your earliest memory of your father?
your next earliest memory of your father?
a happy early memory of yours?

an unhappy early memory of yours?

What are some other memories that come to mind?

What is your most striking early memory, the one in which you

felt most fully yourself?

APPENDIX D
MANASTER-PERRYMAN EARLY RECOLLECTION MANIFEST SCORING

57

APPENDIX D

MANASTER-PERRYMAN EARLY RECOLLECTION MANIFEST SCORING

For each category:

Characters:

 

Themes:

Stimu1i:

1 =
l.
2.
3.

U"

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

23.
24.
25.

present, 0 = absent
Mother

Father

Siblings

Other family members
Nonfamily members
Group experiences
Animal

Absence of others

Sibling birth

Death/separation-loss

Illness/injury

Punishment

Misdeeds committed by subject

Givingness toward others

Attempts at mastery

Mutuality

Attention-getting by subject

New or unfamiliar situation causing excitement
Fear, anxiety-provoking or threatening situation

Overt hostility

Visual (description of visual qualities of stimulus)
Auditory (description of something heard)

Motor (describing vigorous physical movement)

 

Setting:

Activity:

Control:

Affect:

26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.

36.
37.

38.

39.

40.
41.
42.

58

School

Doctor's office/hospital

Inside family/relative's home
Outside in subject's neighborhood
Traveling

Inside nonfamily home

Outside, away from neighborhood

Nature

Active (subject initiates action)
Passive (subject initiates no action or is
acted upon)

Internal

Subject accepts responsibility for events of
memory

External

Subject dissociates self from consequences of
events of memory

Positive

Negative

Neutral

APPENDIX E
EARLY MEMORIES OBJECT RELATIONS SCORING

59

APPENDIX E
EARLY MEMORIES OBJECT RELATIONS SCORING

Dependence

 

Proceeding from most regressive to most progressive:

1.

Feelings of deep-seated frustration of dependency needs,
complete abandonment, sense of being lost, feelings of
complete worthlessness, being overwhelmed by undue tension.
Feelings of temporary abandonment, transient frustration of
dependency needs, separation from parents, insufficient
affection and love, birth of sibling, grief reaction.
Aggressive reactions to feelings of being deprived, demanding
and taking needed supplies, greedy hunger for what one does
not have, suffused with impotent rage, sense of being deprived
by siblings or treating them badly.

Giver rather than receiver of nurturant care.

Gratification of dependency needs, feelings of being given to,
acceptance of dependency needs, comforting care, being cared
for by others.

Watching independent activities of others, envying others,
yearning to do as well as one's role-model.
Pseudoindependence, pseudomasculinity, showing off, activity
more suitable to adults.

Acting on one's own attempts at mastery, exploration, initiative,
displaying one's strength, peer activity.

Acting independently with some appropriate help, being taught

or helped to look after oneself.

60

Sexuality

Proceeding from most regressive to most progressive:

1.

thN

10.

11.

Avoidance and/or withdrawal from sexuality, feelings of
helplessness in coping with it and running away in fright.
Display of one's genitalia, using sexuality to scare others off.
Observance of sexuality.

Homosexual pleasure, narcissistic pleasure in one's appearance.
Playful sexual activities, curiosity about sexual organs, self-
display in performing before admirers.

Making a sexual approach by being seductive or sexually
provocative, trying to make oneself attractive or endearing,
pleasure in being looked at, drawing attention to appearance,
grooming.

Castration, anxiety about possible, or real injury to genitalia.
Denial of Oedipal conflict by insistence on positive relationship
with both or only same-sexed parent.

Sense of Oedipal victory, pleasurable, exciting activities

with opposite-sex parent excluding same-sexed parent.

Sense of Oedipal failure, failure to win love opposite-sexed
parent, often with self-blame for inadequacy, fears due to
hostile competition with rival.

Struggle to win heterosexual love-object, jealousy with

same-sexed parent, seeking out the loved object.

61

Aggression

 

Proceeding from most destructive to most constructive:

1.

10.

11.

Being the object of severe attack with feelings of helplessness,
being beaten by adult or dangerous others.

Self-aggression, hurting oneself.

Observance of aggression, observing fires, observing others
fighting.

Physical or verbal aggression directed outward, unrestrained
aggression, throwing temper tantrums, throwing things, soiling,
sadistic behavior toward animals, stealing.

Feelings of being ridiculed, humiliated, scolded, mildly
attached.

Ridiculing, humiliating, scolding, mildly attacking others,
bragging about one's successes.

Stubbornness, passive aggressiveness, refusal to comply with
requests, sulking.

Being attacked but escaping or retaliating, not helpless.
Compliant behavior, doing what one is supposed to do, avoiding
conflicts, attention to cleanliness, preoccupation with
possessions.

Obstinancy in order to attempt one's own different and better

solution.

Attacking and analyzing a problem and arriving at a solution.

APPENDIX F
RORSCHACH OBJECT RELATIONS SCORING

RORSCHACH OBJECT RELATIONS SCORING

62

APPENDIX F

Quasihuman detail (Hd)

Human detail

Hd

Full quasihuman (H)

Full human

1 = present,

Differentiation
Articulation:

Perceptual = size, physical structure
clothing, hairstyle
posture

Functional = sex
age
role
specific identity

Integration:

nature of action

object-action integration

nature of interaction

content of interaction

no action
unmotivated action
reactive action
intentional action
fused

incongruent
nonspecific
congruent
active-passive
active-reactive
active-active
malevolent

benevolent

H

O = absent

wN—‘th

—l

DOOM

APPENDIX G
CLUSTER ANALYSIS OF JPI
SUBSCALE INTERCORRELATIONS

63

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00
{V
F .A 9 €
9, II -II II .1 l. I V ‘ T11 T .Ix|.131
a 0:: «,d A) 3 >CH P hm . m
\1 \fi \ ¢
.& \ db.
S (K
noonU AI hi XLU
\ \ V N
x \
H x . , .¢
. . \ ,
UP I .FPI Next \ .1
C
m \ ..r
\
_ \ \.
. \ \
_
\ x \ \
. . .
(TV 0 x \ \
nN 154 ..u karu r..- .
. x \ \
\\ \
\
or \
5.
\ \\
\.. w \ \
rm. nix/fl 0m v WMSH. \ 3...
. \

 

monF<4mmmoummsz m4<umm2m Had no m~m>4<z< mmhmsgo
w x~ozmaa<

APPENDIX H
CLUSTER ANALYSIS OF RORSCHACH SCORE INTERCORRELATIONS

 

64

APPENDIX H
CLUSTER ANALYSIS OF RORSCHACH SCORE INTERCORRELATIONS

 

 

 

 

 

a ‘7‘, 311.13.]; d.Fch‘cno.c S 7‘.
4‘1 /
/
QO / ‘57
(H *A) '/
eq FC/(CF~C) 9“ (“6*“) -:<’- _Dd‘7<~
C5r___*_____(1)3 'TJL::_::
“Tick
I
HA/ A7. V
1 \
\
\
I \ :‘07 ‘31
\ \
5 ‘\a
“9- ’ 44 37 T7" 5_.,’ Ms q fi‘EA f S?- P
4“ ‘M I
’ ' \ I
I l -‘.'>’,) 49 '\ '
| \ I
I Y2 M/C \-‘15 ‘4q
1 /"’ I
I \ ‘
1 /
1 / \ I
1 v32 m , W/M «23—, AQr
l I /
. /
M “ED

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Adler, A. (1937). Significance of early recollections. International
Journal of Individual Psychology, 3, 283-287.

 

 

Alexander, R. Some relationships between childhood memories and
personality patterns in therapy and nontherapy populations.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 3Z_4972A. (University
Microfilms No. 77-1811).

Altman, K., & Rule, W. (1980). The relationship between social interest
dimensions of early recollections and selected counselor variables.
Journal of Individual Psychology, 33, 227-234.

Ansbacher, H.L. (1953). Purcell's "Memory and psychological security"
and Adlerian theory. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
48, 596-597.

Arlow, J.A. (1969). Fantasy, memory and reality testing. Psychoanalytic
Quarterly, 3, 28-51.

Aronow, E., & Reznikoff, M. (1976). Rorschach content interpretation.
New York: Grune & Stratton.

 

 

Barrett, D. (1980). The first memory as a predictor of personality
traits. Journal of Individual Psychology, 33, 136-149.

 

Barrett, D. (1981). Early recollections of anorexia patients: Reflections
of lifestyle. Journal of Individual Psychology, 31, 5-14.

 

Binder, J.L., & Smokler, I. (1980). Early memories: A technical aid
to focusing in time-limited dynamic psychotherapy. Psychotherapy:
Theory, Research and Practice, 12, 52-62.

 

 

Blatt, S.J., Brennais, C.B., Schimek, J.G., & Glick, M. (1976). Normal
develOpment and psychopathological impairment of the concept of the
object on the Rorschach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 33, 364-373.

 

Bolgar, H. (1954). Consistency of affect and symbolic expression: A
comparison between dreams and Rorschach responses. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 35, 538-545.

 

 

Brodsky, P. (1952). The diagnostic importance of early recollections.
American Journal of Psychotherapy, 6, 484-493.

 

65

66

Bruhn, A.R. (1981). Children's earliest memories: Their use in
clinical practice. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 258-262.

 

Bruhn, A.R., & Last, J. (1982). Earliest childhood memories: Four
theoretical perspectives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 33,
119-127.

 

Bruhn, A.R., Schiffman, H. (1982a). Invalid assumptions and
methodological difficulties in early memory research. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 33, 265-267.

 

 

Bruhn, A.R., & Schiffman, H. (l982b). Prediction of locus of control
stance from the earliest childhood memory. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 33, 380—390.

 

 

Chance, J. (1957). Some correlates of affective tone of early memories.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 203-205.

 

Clifford, E., & Brantley, H.T. (1977). When I was born: Perceived
parental reactions of adolescents. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 31, 604-609.

 

 

Crandall, J.W. (1971). The early spouse memory as a diagnostic aid
in marriage counseling. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy,
3, 82-88.

 

Crook, M., & Harden, L. (1931). A quantitative investigation of early
memories. Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 252-255.

 

Dudycha, 6., & Dudycha, M. (1933). Some factors and characteristics
of childhood memories. Child Development, 3, 265-278.

 

Dudycha, G., & Dudycha, M. (1941). Childhood memories: A review of the
literature. Psychological Bulletin, 33, 668-682.

 

Eisenstein, V.W., & Ryerson, R. (1951). Psychodynamic significance of
the first conscious memory. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 13,
213-220.

 

Eilzur, A. (1949). Content analysis of the Rorschach with regard to
anxiety and hostility. Journal of Projective Techniques, 13, 247-284.

 

Exner, J.E. (1974). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system (Vol. 1).
New York: Wiley.

Finlay-Jones, R., Scott, R., Duncan-Jones, P., Byrne, D., & Henderson, S.
(1981). The reliability of reports of early separations.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 13, 27-31.

Frank, H., & Paris, J. (1981). Recollections of family experience in
borderline patients. Archives of General'Psychiatry, 33, 1031-1034.

 

67

Grant, L.P. (1976). Image of self, others, and life: The reliability
and validity of an early recollection interpretive manual.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 3], 4680A. (University
Microfilms No. 77-6300).

 

Grigg, A.. (1960). Superiority of childhood account over current account
gar judging self impressions. Journal of Individual Psychology, 13,
4-66.

Hafner, J., Corotto, L., & Fakouri, M. (1980). Early recollections of
schizophrenics. Psychological Reports, 33, 408-410.

 

Hafner, J.L., Fakouri, M.E., Ollendick, T.H., & Corotto, L.V. (1979).
First memories of "normal" and of schizophrenic, paranoid-type
individuals. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 731-733.

 

Harder, D.W. (l979). The assessment of ambitious-narcissistic character
style with three projective tests: The Early Memories, TAT, and
Rorschach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 33, 23-32.

 

Jackson, D.N. (1976). Jackson Personality Inventory Manual. Goshen,
NY: Research Psychologists Press.

 

Kahana, R.J., Weiland, L.H., Snyder, B., & Rosenbaum, M. (1953). The
value of early memories in psychotherapy. Psychiatric Quarterly,
27, 73-82.

Karon, B.P. (1952). The significance of earliest childhood memories.
Unpublished manuscript.

Kihlstrom, J., & Harackiewicz, J. (1982). The earliest recollection:
A new survey. Journal of Personality, 33, 134-148.

 

Kris, E. (1956a). The personal myth. Journal of the American
Psychoanalytic Association, 3, 653-681.

 

Kris, E. (1956b). The recovery of childhood memories in psychoanalysis.
The Psychoana1ytic Study of the Child, 11, 54-88.

Krohn, A., & Mayman, M. (1974). Object representations in dreams and
projective tests. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 33, 445-465.

Langs, R.J. (1965a). Earliest memories and personality. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 13, 379-390.

 

Langs, R.J. (1965b). First memories and characterologic diagnosis.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 141, 318-320.

Langs, R.J., Rothenberg, M.B., Fishman, J.R., & Reiser, M.F. (1960). A
method for clinical and theoretical study of the earliest memory.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 3, 523-534.

Levy, J. (1965). Early memories: Theoretical aspects and applications.
Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 33,
281-291.

68

Levy, J., & Grigg. K.A. (1962). Early memories. Archives of General
Psyghiatry, 3, 83-95.

 

Lieberman, M.G. (1957). Childhood memories as a projective technique.
Journal of Projective Techniques, 31, 32-36.

 

Manaster, G., & Perryman, T. (1979). Manaster-Perryman manifest content
early recollection scoring manual. In H. Olson (Ed.), Early
recollections (pp. 347-350). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

 

Martin, P. (1959). One type of earliest memory. Psychoanalytic Quarterly,
28, 73-77.

 

Mayman, M. (1968). Early memories and character structure. Journal of
Projective Techniques, 33, 303-316.

 

 

Mayman, M. (1967). Object-representations and object-relationships in
Rorschach responses. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality
Assessment, 31, 17-24.

 

Mayman, M., & Faris, M. (1960). Early memories as expressions of
relationship paradigms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 33,
507-520.

McAdams, D.P. (1982). Experiences of intimacy and power: Relationships
between social motives and autobiograpgical memory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 292-302.

 

 

McCarter, R., Tomkins, S., & Schiffman, H. (1961). Early recollections
as predictors of Tomkins-Horm Picture Arrangement Test performance.
Journal of Individual Esychology, 13, 177-180.

 

Monahan, R.T. (1983). Suicidal children's and adolescents' responses
to early memories test. Journal of Personality Assessment, 33,
258-264.

 

Mosak, H.M. (1958). Early recollections as a projective technique.
Journal of Projective Technigues, 33, 302-311.

 

Murray, H.A. (l938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford
University Press.

 

Neu, J. (1973). Fantasy and memory: The aetiological role of thoughts
according to Freud. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 33,
383-398.

Papanek, H. (1972). The use of early recollections in psychotherapy.
Journal of Individual Psychology, 33, 169-176.

 

Pattie, F.A., & Cornett, S. (1951). Unpleasantness of early memories
and maladjustment of children. Journal of Personality, 33, 315-321.

 

69

Pfeffer, A.Z. (1980). Memories of positive experiences in the
resolution of conflicts: Illustrated in a case of hysteria.
American PsychoanaLytic Association Journal, 3, 309-329.

 

Purcell, K. (1952). Memory and psychological security. 'Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 31, 433-440.

 

Rabin, A.I. (1981). Assessment with projective technigues. New York:
Springer.

Rosen, J.L. (1963). Personality factors in the reactions of child-care
workers to emotionally disturbed children. Psychiatry, 33, 257-265.

 

Rule, W., & Traver, M. (1982). Early recollections and expected leisure
activities. Psychological Reports, 31, 295-301.

 

Sachs, O. (1967). Distinctions between fantasy and reality elements
in memory and reconstruction. International Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 33, 416-423.

 

 

Saul, L.J., Snyder, T.R., & Sheppard, E. (1956). On earliest memories.
Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 33, 228-237.

 

Schrecker, P. (1973). Individual psychological significance of first
childhood recollections. Journal of Individual Psychology, 33,
l46-156.

 

Spear, W.E., & Lapidus, L.B. (1981). Qualitative differences in manifest
object representations. Journal of Abnormal PsychOlogy, 33, 157-167.

Taylor, J. (1975). Early recollections as a projective technique.
Journal of Individual Psychology, 31, 213-218.

 

Tolor, A., & Fazzone, R. (1966). Early memories as indicators of ego
functioning. Psychological Reports, 13, 979-983.

 

Urist, J. (1977). The Rorschach test and the assessment of object
relations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 31, 3-9.

 

Verger, D.M., & Camp, W.L. (1970). Early recollections: Reflections
of the present. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 13, 510-515.

Wagenheim, L. (1960). First memories of "accidents" and reading
difficulties. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 33, 191-195.

Waldfogel, S. (1948). The frequency and affective character of
childhood memories. Psychological Monographs, 33(4, Whole No. 291).

Walker, H., & Lev, (1953). Statistical inference. New York: Holt,
Reinhart & Winston.

70

Warren, C.C. (1976). An empirical investigation of earliest
recollections: A study of interpersonal communication.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 13, 6384B. (University
Microfilms No. 77-11, 340).

 

Weiland, 1., & Steisel, I. (1958). An analysis of manifest content of
the earliest memories of children. Journal of Genetic PsyChology,
92, 41-52.

Whitten, W.B., & Leonard, J.M. (1981). Directed search through
autobiographical memory. Memory and Cognition, 3, 566-579.

 

Wilson, F.R. (l976). Micromomentary facial expressions and
psychological defenses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University.

 

 

Winthrop, H. (1958). Written descriptions of earliest memories:
Repeat reliability and other findings. Psychological Reports, 3, 320.

Wolman, R.N. (1970). Early recollections and the perception of others:
A study of delinquent adolescents. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
116, 157-163.