"fl‘ij—
.I ,. ‘

 

THEMATIC PRODUCTIONS UNDER
HYPNOTICALLY AROUS‘ED CONFLICT
IN ACE REGRESSED ANO
WAKING STATES -USING THE
“REAL-SIMULATOR” DESIGN

Thesis for the Degree Of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN. STATE UNIVERSITY
LEON I. SCI-IOFIELD, IR,
1972

 

  
    

' LI BRA R Y
Michigan C
University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
Thematic Productions Under Hypnotically
Aroused Conflict in Age Regress ed and Waking
States - Using the "Real-Simulator" Design

presented by

Leon J. Schofield, Jr.

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph - 13- degree inEsycholngy_

 

 

Date June 9 1

0-7539

 

 

-o
.-

- IlNDlNG IY

HUAG & SUHS'

 

SPIIIGMIY. IICIIGII

ABSTRACT

THEMATIC PRODUCTIONS UNDER HYPNOTICALLY AROUSED
CONFLICT IN AGE REGRESSED AND WAKING STATES-
USING THE 'REAL-SIMULATOR' DESIGN

BY
Leon J. Schofield, Jr.

In recent years, there has been a growing controversy
surrounding the nature of hypnosis. Two recent and extensive
studies (Reiff and Scheerer, 1959; O'Connell, Shor, and Orne,
1970) attempted to determine the role of "demand character-
istics” in hypnotic age regression research. Both lacked
two very significant features; neither study used highly sus-
ceptible §§ to simulate hypnosis and neither study used a
task which was relatively difficult to simulate (i.e. non-
cognitive). In the present study, hypnotic and simulating
§g were highly susceptible to hypnosis. Also, in addition to
a structured cognitive task (vocabulary subtest of the WISC
or WPPSI), thematic stimuli were used to hypnotically acti-
vate conflict. The §§ were asked to regress to an age when
this conflict was most intense. The descriptions of the ex-
periences were compared between the hypnotic and simulating

.82.-

Leon J. Schofield, Jr.

It was hypothesized that simulating and hypnotic gs
would not differ in their performance on a highly cognitive,
structured task in the regressed or waking conditions. As
predicted, it was found that there were no significant dif-
ferences between the groups in the waking condition. However,
simulating §§ actually produced more age appropriate perform-
ance than hypnotic §§ in the regressed condition. Simulating
§§ achieved age appropriate vocabulary scale scores (WISC or
WPPSI) while hypnotic g3 achieved higher than expected scale
scores. This difference may be ascribed to the surrendering
of critical attitudes under hypnosis, while the simulators
continue to utilize critical attitudes for more accurate
performance.

It was also hypothesized that hypnotic §§ would give
more direct drive expression responses in the age regressed
condition than hypnotic fig in the age regressed condition.
The hypothesis was not confirmed, although the differences
were in the expected direction and approached significance.

It was further hypothesized that hypnotic §§ would more
readily change their waking thematic productions than the
simulating §§, A methodological difficulty prevented a con-
clusive test of this hypothesis. However, the available data
supported the hypothesis. It was also observed that four
hypnotized §§ produced intense emotional reactions, while none
of the simulating §§ produced such reactions. Additionally,
hypnotized g2 reported more vivid and emotional experiences

during the age regressed condition than the simulating gs.

Leon J. Schofield, Jr.

The findings taken together partially supported the altered
state of consciousness theory of hypnosis and certainly pre-
sented some contradictory evidence for the role-playing theory
of hypnosis.

Methodological issues were also discussed intensively.
The use of highly susceptible §§ was considered a very work-
able method of controlling for possible differences in person-
ality, in the real-simulator design. However, since some of
the procedures of the study may have weakened the effect of
the hypnosis, improvements in the design were suggested. The
possibility was also considered that instructional differences
(simulation vs. hypnosis) may contribute to the differences
or lack of them, in behavior during the experiment. A de-
sign was suggested which incorporated the methodological

changes and provided a more effective analysis of the treat-

ment effects.

THEMATIC PRODUCTIONS UNDER HYPNOTICALLY AROUSED
CONFLICT IN AGE REGRESSED AND WAKING STATES-

USING THE 'REAL-SIMULATOR' DESIGN

by

‘.
‘ar‘i
r‘v‘

‘ E

Schofield, Jr.

4
.

i .

.J

Leon J?

A THESIS

submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1972

To my wife, Pat,

for the years of patience, understanding and love.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I would like to thank my wife, Pat, for assist-
ance as co-experimenter, for typing the transcripts of the
sessions, for grammatical ratings of the thematic produc-
tions, and most importantly for patience and support during
the many long days and nights of my studies.

I would also like to extend my sincerest gratitude to
Dr. Joseph Reyher. In his capacity as chairman of my thesis
committee, he has provided prompt attention and helpful sug-
gestions at every stage of my research. Additionally, as
a friend, he has shown a concern for my development as a
clinician and as a person. I'd also like to thank the rest
of my thesis committee - Dr. Robert Zucker, Dr. Mary Leichty,
and Dr. Charles Hanley - for their helpful suggestions and
prompt readings of the thesis.

Additionally, I would like to thank my friends and col-
leagues - Bob Homant (Jackson Prison, Michigan), Ruben Gur and
Dave Schnarch (Michigan State University), Arnold Sperling
(Yeshiva University), and Tom Wilt (Indiana University) - for
their assistance as co-experimenters and for their assistance
in rating the thematic productions.

Finally, I would like to extend warm thanks to the
many interested and motivated students who gave up much of
their time to participate in this eXperiment.

iii

TABLE OF

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Early Findings . . . . . . . . .
Later Findings . . . . . . . .
Two Recent, Controlled Studies .
Behavioral Differences - Hypnosis
Design and Hypotheses . . . . . .

METHOD 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

SllbjeCtS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0
Materials and EXperimental Setting . . . . . .
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypnotic Training . . . . . . . . . . . .
Group Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age RegreSSj-on O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
RESULTS 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0
Rating Instruments and Reliability . . . . . .
Pine Scoring of Drive Content . . . . .'.
Scoring of Story Differences . . . . . . .

The HYPOtheseS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Hypotheses l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses 4 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Other findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overt behavior and subjective experience .
Grammatical Structure of the stories . . .

DISCUSSION 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0
SUMMARY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

APPENDIX A O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

iv

CONTENTS

vs Simulation

vi

vii

66
71

APPENDIX B .

APPENDIX C .

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1
Inter-Rater Agreement and Final Ratings for
Drive Level & Drive Integration . . . . . . . .

TABLE 2
Number of Hypnotic and Simulating Subjects
Producing Level (I) Responses In the Age
Regressed and Waking Condition . . . . . . . .

TABLE 3
Mean Vocabulary Scale Scores and Ages for
Hypnotic and Simulating B3 In the Age Regressed
and Waking Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 4
Mean Changes in Waking Productions Following
Age Regression Productions: TAT Card . . . . .

TABLE 5
Mean Changes in Waking Productions Following
Age Regression Productions: Symonds Card . . .

TABLE 6 '
Predictions of Group Assignments By The
Experimenter O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

TABLE 7
Self Reports:Subjects' Experience of Hypnosis .

TABLE 8
Length of Productions . . . . . . . . . . . ...

TABLE 9
Analysis of Variance Length of TAT Card
Productions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 10

Analysis of Variance Length of Symonds Card
ProduCtions O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

vi

32

35

37

40

41

42

43

45

46

46

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1
Cumulative percentage of ages of the first
regression for hypnotic and simulating g5 . . . 38

FIGURE 2
Cumulative percentage of ages of second
regression for hypnotic and simulating S3,. . . 38

FIGURE 3
The percentage of nouns, pronouns, verbs and
adjectives in the regressed and waking condi-
tions for the hypnotic and simulating fig. . . . 44

.vii

INTRODUCTION

For both experimenters and clinicians, hypnotic age re-
gression has been one of the most interesting of all the
phenomena associated with hypnosis (O'Connell, Shor and
Orne, 1970). This study examines thematic productions under
hypnotically aroused conflict in the age regressed and wak-
ing states using a recently developed eXperimental design,

the "real-simulator" design (Orne, 1959).

EarlygFindings:

According to Platonow (1933), Kraft-Bbing was the first
to demonstrate the phenomenon clinically in 1893. However,
hypnotic age regression was not experimentally studied until
forty years later, when Platonow (1933) observed that three
hypnotically regressed subjects performed at levels appropri-
ate for the suggested age level when given an intelligence
test at each age level; their general behavior and their
handwriting also were appropriate for the suggested age
levels.

Platonow's findings have been confirmed by subsequent
research using intelligence tests (e.g. Binet, Otis, Good-
enough Drawings) under hypnotic age regression (Keir, 1945;

Spiegel, Shor and Fishman, 1945; Bergmann, Graham and
1

. 2
Leavitt, 1947; Mercer and Gibson, 1950). Subjects have also

demonstrated age appropriate responses using the Rorschach
under hypnotic age regression (Bergmann, et. al., 1947;
Mercer and Gibson, 1950). Additionally, in a unique attempt
to validate age regression, Kline (1953) has reinstated sev-
eral of Jersild's (1935) fear provoking situations with an
adult subject hypnotically age regressed to early childhood.

Experimenters have also used projective testing (DAP,
Rorschach, TAT) under hypnotic age regression to study the
attitudinal and emotional states of individuals at various
points in their past (Bergmann, et. al., 1947; Mercer and
Gibson, 1950; Kline and Guze, 1951; Reyher and Shoemaker,
1961; Kline and Haggerty, 1963). The data obtained frequent-
ly confirmed or eXpanded impressions gained through more con-
ventional diagnostic and or interview procedures. Mercer and
Gibson (1950) for example, have noted that ”the test (Ror-
schach) data reflected changes at the various regressed age
levels which were consistent with productions characteristic
of the age level and followed the clinical data so clearly
that there seems to be no doubt that true regression was

established.”

Later Findings:

These early studies have not gone unchallenged, however.
It has been frequently noted that most of the hypnotic re-
gression studies have been inadequately designed (e.g. Crasil-
neck and Michael, 1957; Orne, 1959; Barber, 1962; Orne, 1962).

The most important omission in the early studies cited above,

3
was a lack of unhypnotized control subjects. Critics have

pointed out that such controls are necessary because ”un-
stated hypotheses may be conveyed implicitly by the eXperi-
mental procedure itself (demand characteristics)“ (Orne,
1959), affecting the results, apart from the effects of hyp-
nosis itself. The question has therefore been raised whether
hypnotic-like phenomena can be reproduced by unhypnotized but
highly motivated subjects. Stated differently, can hypno-
tized phenomena, particularly age regression phenomena, be
ascribed to role playing (attention to the demand character-
istics), rather than the psychOphysiological changes sup-
posedly peculiar to the hypnotic state?

Young (1940) carried out the first regression study
using subjects (unhypnotizable) role-playing1 behavior at
suggested age levels. It was found that the role-playing
subjects performed closer to the suggested age level than
the hypnotized subjects, using a standard intelligence test
as a criteria. However, both groups also performed some-
what above the suggested age level on the test. Sarbin
(1950) and Barber (1961) found similar results. The finding
that role-playing subjects actually performed better (closer
to suggested age levels) than hypnotized subjects, was ex-
plained by Young (1940) as due to the ”surrendering of

1As O'Connell, et. al., (1970) have pointed out, there
has been much confusion over the words “simulators,” “role-
players,” etc. In this paper role-playing will refer to sub-
jects asked to act like a child of a given age, while simu-
lating will refer to subjects asked to act as though they
were hypnotized, following all instructions, including age
regression.

4
critical attitudes under hypnosis," while the role-players

“continued to utilize them (critical attitudes) for more
accurate performance.”

Later research has also found that the behavior of hyp-
notically age regressed subjects was similar to the behavior
of role-playing subjects, using such diverse instruments and
techniques as the Draw-A-Person Test (DAP) (Taylor, 1950;
Orne, 1951; Webster, 1962), the Rorschach (Orne, 1951; Staples
and Wilensky, 1968), Michigan Picture Stories (MPS) (Webster,
1962), the Bender Gestalt Test (Crasilneck and Michael, 1957).
language structure (Kline and Haggerty, 1953) and writing
samples (Orne, 1951). Following these more recent findings,
in reviews of the literature, a more skeptical vieWpoint was
expressed concerning the evidence for the reality of hypnotic
age regression as a transcendence of the range of normal per-
formance and recall (Gebhard, 1961; Yates, 1961; Barber,

1962).‘

Two Recent, Controlled Studies:

In a more SOphisticated and very comprehensive study,
Reiff and Scheerer (1959) used hypnotized and role playing
subjects and compared their performance on eight different
deveIOpmental task (some borrowed from Piaget) associated
with Specific age levels. The tasks were: (1) the Hollow
Tube Test, in which the child must be able to reverse in
thought the order of objects which he sees disappearing in
a tube; (2) the Left-Right Test, in which an awareness of

the subject's and other's:left-right side is measured; (3)

‘ 5
Word Association Test, in which child vs. adult appropriate
responses are recorded; (4) Arithmetic Test, in which the
use of mathematical principles to achieve answers is noted;
(5) the Clock Test, in which the ability to tell time is
measured; (6) the Pledge of Allegiance Test, in which the
number of errors in writing it out is recorded; (7) Free
Play Situation, in which the subject's playing with toys is
noted; and (8) the Mud and LollipOp Situation, in which the
subject is measured on the reluctance to take a lollip0p fol-
lowing play with mud pies.

The experimental subjects were five somnambulistic stu-
dents and the control subjects were fifteen students, not
chosen for hypnotizability. The experimental subjects were
age regressed to three ages (10, 7, 4) and given various
tasks. After each regression they were brought back to their
chronological age and amnesia for their regressed experiences
was suggested. There were three groups of control subjects.
Each group was asked to role play one of the three ages to
which the experimental subjects has been regressed, and was
given the same tasks as the experimental subjects.

Reiff and Scheerer (1959) concluded that:

(l) The regressed Ss tended to function at a
level consistefiE'with the experimental age.

(2) On the various tasks at each eXperimental
age level, the regressed Ss functioned more
consistently than the simEIating fig.

(3) When the regressed BE deviated from the ex-
perimental age, they tended to function be-
low that age level.

(4) The sbmulating Ss tended to function above
the experimentaI—age level.

(5) The lower the eXperimental age, the more

the simulating BE tended to function above
that level.

6
However, these conclusions have been challenged by

Orne and O'Connell (1961). In their review of the Reiff and
Scheerer study, they observed several methodological inade-
quacies. In addition to the small sample size, it was noted
that.the treatment of the simulators was nOt equivalent to
the treatment of the regressed subjects, since each control
subject role-played only one of the three suggested age levels
used with the hypnotized subjects. One of the problems in .
treating the two groups differently, involves the introduc-
tion of amnesia for the hypnotically regressed subjects' ex-
periences. It can be argued that the information gained
under hypnosis is not forgotten (and may therefore uncon-
sciously affect future performance) even though the subject
may not be able to recall what went on, when asked directly.
This in fact is somewhat analogous to the often used post-
hypnotic suggestion, in which the subject carries out instruc-
tions given under hypnosis (followed by amnesia suggestion)
without being able to recall the hypnotic eXperiences.

Thus, it is possible that the demand characteristics of the
study were more apparent with hypnotic than role playing
subjects; regressed gs may have learned to act more child-
ishly, more readily perceiving the expectations (i.e. deteri-
oration in performance) of the experimenter.

Also, the control £2 did not have previous hypnotic ex-
perience, while the regressed subjects were hypnotized at
least once prior to the eXperiment in order to determine their
hypnotizability and their ability to carry out an age regres-

sion under suggestion. Practice with hypnosis and age re-

7

gression may facilitate the experimental subjects' later
performance.

Furthermore, there was no control group to test for the
effects of hypnosis alone. Orne and O'Connell (1961) note
that, “If an increase in autistic thinking is an intrinsic
quality of hypnosis, age regressed subjects may appear to be
functioning at an earlier deVelopmental level, for autistic
thinking is also a characteristic of the earliest stages of
cognitive deveIOpment.'

It was also observed that the experimenter in the free
play situation was aware of who was regressed and who was
role playing; the subjects themselves knew that the experi-
menter was aware of their state (regressed vs. role playing).
It is therefore quite possible that the experimenter may
have reacted differently to the regressed and to the stimu-
lating subjects, and also that the simulators may have felt
awkward and embarrassed knowing that the experimenter was
aware of the fact that the subject was playing a game.

Their final methodological objection was that no norma-
tive data was available for most of the tasks used in the
study. It would be difficult to assess the relative success
of the regressed vs. simulating subjects without such inform-
ation.

To the above criticisms, it might be added that the ex-
perimental and control subjects were not equivalent. The
regressed subjects were carefully selected for deepest levels
of hypnotic susceptibility. It is quite possible that cer-

tain (as yet unknown) personality characteristics correlate

8

c.

highly with hypnotizability. Thus, the Reiff and Scheerer
results may be confounded by such personality factors and
might reflect these factors, as much as the effect of hyp-
nosis, alone.

In a very recent study, O'Connell, ShOr and Orne (1970)
have replicated the Reiff and Scheerer study with more sub-
jects (10 per group) and with additional control groups: one
age role players, corresponding to the role player groups (3)
used in the original study; three-age role players, with sub-
jects asked to role play (in descending age) the three ages
in the original study; crypto-simulators, unhypnotizable sub-
jects told to fool the experimenter (who didn't know which
§§ were regressed or simulating) by pretending to be hypno-
tized, carrying out the suggestions of the experimenter;
quasi-participants, with subjects given all the instructions
and tasks of the regressed subjects and asked how they would
reapond if they were really in the experiment (no role sup-
port control); and finally, children (same ages as suggested
levels of regression) providing norms to assess the effec-
tiveness of the procedures. It should be noted that the one-
age role players, the three age role players and the quasi-
participants were not chosen for hypnotizability and were
not told that the experiment had anything to do with hypnosis.
They were chosen randomly from lists of volunteers.

O'Connell, et. a1. (1970) only partially replicated the
original findings of Reiff and Scheerer (1959). The behavior
of the age regressed BE generally replicated that reported

by Reiff and Scheerer. However, in a comparison between the

9

behavior of these age regressed S3 and the one-age role play-
ers, there were several important failures of replication
(Appendix A). These differences were largely in the behavior
of the role players, not in the behavior of the age regressed
subjects. It was noted that the eXperimenter's expectations
in the O'Connell, et. a1. study, were that all subjects, in-
cluding control subjects, would be able to produce behavior
appropriate for the suggested age level. Furthermore, tests
amenable to the influence of eXperimenter expectation and de-
mand characteristics showed the least replication, while
tests resistant to such influence replicated well. Thus, it
was concluded that:

E, by virtue of his expectations and his

conscious effort, gave more role support

to the one-age role players and it was in

those procedures which were open to the

influence of such factors that the failure

of replication occurred. (O'Connell, et. al.,

1970)

In other comparisons, O'Connell, et. a1. (1970) ob-
served that the three age role players produced a more ap-
propriately graduated series of performances than the three
groups of one-age role players. It was hypothesized that the
design used by Reiff and Scheerer may have produced greater
differences in the behavior of regressed and role playing
subjects by virtue of the simulators' more limited experi-
ence with age regression in the experiment; the demand char-
acteristics (i.e. deteriorating performance) were undoubtedly
more clear for the regressed subjects (hypnotically regressed

to ages 10, 7, and 4 - in that order) than for the simulator

subjects. More importantly, no differences in performance

10

were found between regressed subjects and simulating sub-
jects (cryptosimulators) when identical cues, demands and
supports were provided. Also, although the regressed sub-
jects behaved appropriately when their performance was com-
pared with the performance of real children, there were
several qualitative differences in behavior; for example,
children gave far more Mondegreenisms1 than regressed or
role playing subjects. Finally, few differences in perform-
ance occurred between the three age role players and the
cryptosimulators. From these inter-group comparisons, it
was concluded that:

Reiff and Scheerer were mistaken and hyp-

notically age repressed behavior does not

involve the total reinstitution of child-

like mental processes and associated

memories. Where activities were shown

through controls to be in some way amenable

to influence, such as E support, demand

characteristics, and héightened motivation,

age regressed subjects were able to perform

in a child-like way. Where the activities

were less amenable to such influence, age

regressed subjects performed no more suc-

cessfully than the other groups. (O'Connell,

et. al., 1970)

Another finding of the O'Connell, et. a1. (1970) study
should be mentioned. In an effort to separate the effects
of role support from role playing, the performance of the
quasi-participants was compared with the performance of the

three age role players. Although there were some differ-

1Mondegreenisms refers to the substitution of inappro-
priate words children can understand for similar sounding
phrases that they do not comprehend, such as ”Lady
Mondegreen' for "laid him on the green”

11

ences, generally, the ”quasi-participants were able to ap-

proximate the behavior of the role players to a considerable
degree. Either g was giving more role support than he rea-
lized or B2 brought more to the experimental situation than

E’anticipated.'

Behavioral Differences - Hypnosis vs Simulation:

The findings of recent studies, particularly that of
O'Connell, Shor and Orne (1970), clearly indicate that under
sufficiently motivating instructions, simulating subjects
(and to a large extent, role playing subjects) are able to
produce a wide variety of "regressed” behaviors similar to
the behavior of hypnotically regressed subjects and appro-
priate for the suggested age levels.

However, this should not be too surprising considering
that the behaviors which were typically observed in studies
of age regression (e.f. IQ tests, writing samples, arith-
metic, free play, etc.) are highly amenable to simulation.
Subjects' personal recollections and present observations
of children (e.g. direct-siblings, or indirect-textbooks,
research, popular magazines) make it possible to simulate
successfully these behaviors. In short, young adults simply
know a great deal about children and how they behave and it
reasonable that under apprOpriate motivation (i.e. E's in-
structions and eXpectation of childlike behavior) subjects
will be able to call upon this knowledge to produce appro-
priately ”regressed” behavior.

This does not necessarily mean that because the be-

12
havior of regressed and simulating subjects looks very simi-

lar (O'Connell, et. al., 1970) the underlying process which
preceded the behavior was similar, or that the subject's ex-
perience of the regression is identical.1 On the contrary,
what superfically appears to be identical, may in fact be
quite different.

To date, experimenters have largely chosen to concen-
trate on highly objective and scoreable behaviors in their
study of hypnotic age regression. Recent develOpments in
clinical research have produced a variety of techniques for
assessing more covert behavior - such as drive content (Fine,
1960) and primary process thinking (Holt, 1956). It was
therefore considered potentially quite productive to study
these more covert behaviors, for a better understanding of
hypnosis in general and age regression in particular.

A few studies (unfortunately with major methodological
weakness - a lack of control group(s), in particular) have
been carried out using projective techniques under hypnosis.
Some have facilitated the develOpment of the hypotheses of
the present study.

Bergmann, Graham and Leavitt (1947) regressed a 20

1In fact, studies of hypnotic age regression typically
observe such difference, often noting this as an incidental
fact. O'Connell, et. al., (1970) found that 'age regressed
88 reported subjective conviction of being at the suggested
age throughout the eXperiment. None of the role-playing
83 described experiences that were comparable in quality
and intensity to the eXperienced reality of the age-regressed
group." The E was unable to distinguish between the overt
behavior of regressed $8 from the overt behavior of crypto-
simulators, however, beyond chancelevels. It was hypothe-
sized that mechanisms which produced these behavioral patterns
aren't the same (O'Connell, et. al., 1970).

13

year old soldier suffering from conversion hysteria, from
his present age, going back alternate years to age three.

At each suggested age, they administered the Rorschach test.
The Rorschach findings reflected the actual historical
changes at the various regressed age levels, closely follow-
ing the clinical data.

Mercer and Gibson (1950) age regressed a 26 year old
male alcoholic to 6, 10 and 14 years of age. They also ad-
ministered the Rorschach at each suggested age and found
that the responses correlated highly with the subject's
clinical history.

In both of the previous studies, the subject was given
Draw-a-Person tests at each level to validate the regression;
these were scored using the Goodenough (1926) system and in-
dicated the subjects were functioning at the suggested age
levels. Bergmann, et. a1. (1947) concluded that obtaining
Rorschach records at various levels of age regression ”may
have diagnostic and therapeutic value. It also shows prom-
ise of throwing increased light on the growth and develop-
ment of personality.“

Also, in a few studies, subjects have been given pro-
jective tests under hypnosis but without age regression.
Using the Rorschach (Wilkins and Adams, 1947; West, Baugh
and Baugh, 1963; Fromm, Oberlander and Gruenwald, 1970;
Hodge and Wagner, 1969), and Word Association Test (Kline
and Schneck, 1951), it has been found that subjects are
more reSponsive under hypnosis than in the waking state.

Under hypnosis, psychological defenses were lowered and the

l4
protocols became richer, more pathological, more primitive

and more blatant in sexual and aggressive content.

More recently, Reyher and Shoemaker (1961) have given
TAT cards to five neurotic clients in a waking and age re-
gressed state. Conflict and neutral suggestions were given.
The conflict procedure was as follows:

The subject was told that he would be asked to
look at a picture that would activate distrub-
ing emotions. He then was asked to Open his
eyes and look at the card. After about ten
seconds he was instructed to close his eyes
and to go back in time to a period when these
emotions were very difficult to manage. He
was then asked to verbalize his eXperience.

The neutral procedure was identical to the conflict proce-
dure, except that:

The subject was told that the emotions to be
experienced would not be disturbing, but
nevertheless, would be meaningful.

Following the "free age regression,“ all subjects were
given these instructions:

Sometime later, when you are awake, Dr. A.
will give you the same pictures that I gave
you earlier, and he will ask you to tell
stories about them. Each picture will stir
up the same feelings, emotions, and ideas

that it did before, but you will either reveal
them directly or indirectly in stories that
you tell.

The last sentence was "intended to give the g control over
the nature of what would be consciously eXperienced in order
to reduce the possibility of traumatic reaction to the pre-

mature recognition of repressed material.”1 The subjects

1Unfortunately, this instruction could have also made
it clear, to the 83 that they were expected to reSpond in a
different manner Ifi'the waking state, differences in re-
aponses were expected on the two sets of protocols.

15

were given the standard TAT instructions in the waking state.

High difference scores (character, situation, affective-
motivational state) between the regressed and waking state
were noted for both the conflict cards and the neutral cards.
The high difference scores to the neutral Cards (positive
affect under hypnosis and anxiety in waking state) were in-
terpreted as evidence that hypnosis is an altered state of
awareness in which unconscious drives tend to be perceived
in terms of gratification, rather than threat." (Reyher and
Shoemaker, 1961)

Thus, the use of projective testing under hypnosis has
suggested that there are considerable changes in such covert
behaviors as drive content, primary process thinking, defen-
siveness, etc. Two studies have also observed apprOpriate
(clinically and developmentally) behavioral changes using

projective tests under hypnotic age regression.

Design and Hypotheses:

The objective of the present study was to compare
some of the more subtle and less cognitive changes on the
part of hypnotized and simulating subjects, using the “real-
simulator” design proposed by Orne (1959), O'Connell, Shor,
and Orne (1970), and Sheehan (1971) and the procedure de-
velOped by Reyher and Shoemaker (1961) for stimulating
hypnotic and posthypnotic conflict in SE, using thematic
cards.

Specifically, the hypotheses of the study were: (1)

the age regressed productions of hypnotized Bi contain

16

more direct expression of libidinal and aggressive drive
material than do the productions of simulating SE; (2) the
reSponses of age regressed hypnotized S3 and simulating S3.
are equivalent on a test of cognitive functions; (3) the
posthypnotic waking protocols of the hypnOtized age regressed
§§ show greater repression than do the protocols of simulating
E3} and (4) the posthypnotic reSponses of hypnotized age re-
gressed §§_and simulating S5 are equivalent on a test of

cognitive functions.

METHOD

Subjects:

Twenty female undergraduate psychOlogy students were
selected from 132 volunteers who were screened for hypnotic
susceptibility, in groups of 10 to 20 students, using the
Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (Shor and
Orne, 1962). The criteria for inclusion in either the hyp-
nosis or simulation group was the ability to carry out suc-
cessfully eight of the twelve suggestions of the group scale,
including posthypnotically induced amnesia of at least nine
of the twelve suggestions.

Thus, in contrast to the recent studies by Reiff and
Scheerer (1959) and O'Connell, et. al. (1970), control sub-
jects (simulating), as well as experimental subjects (hypno-
tized), were highly susceptible to hypnosis as recommended
by Reyher (1967) and Reyher and Smyth (1971).

In order to insure that simulating subjects didn't acci-
dentally fall into a hypnotic state, posthypnotic and waking
suggestions were given to the effect that they would BEE!
under any circumstances, fall into a trance during the test-
ing by the primary experimenter (El). A posthypnotic cue
for rapid reinduction and two direct suggestions were given
at the end of the experiment. Simulators were told to follow

all instructions except these; if they closed their eyes
17

18
and/or followed the two suggestions, they were dropped from

the study. Of course, hypnotized fig who failed this test,
i.e. kept their eyes Open, were also dropped from the study.
Self reports of fig' experiences were also recorded. Since
they were considered unreliable and too easily affected by
the fifs attitudes and expectations regarding hypnosis or
the experiment, they were not used in the decision to retain
or drop a subject.

Following group screening, 33.8% or 44 of the original
132 volunteers qualified for the present experiment. Twenty-
six percent (9) of the 35 subjects who wished to continue the
experiment failed to achieve complete amnesia during the in-
dividual sessions. Three other qualified fig were removed
from the experiment: one had recently completed psychotherapy
and felt very uneasy about being hypnotized; another was ex-
tremely difficult to awaken during the pretesting phase of
the individual session; and the third fi became very anxious
during the age regression procedures. Finally, four fig failed
to meet the behavior index developed to insure the fig in the
hypnotized group were actually hypnotized and that fig in the
simulating group were 22E hypnotized. Thus, only 15.2% of
the original 132 volunteers were used in the present study.

In order to safeguard the welfare of the fig, no fi was
included who demonstrated obvious psychOpathology, reported
feeling anxious about the experiment or reported being in
therapy at the time of the eXperiment (or previously). Also,
fig who became anxious or upset during any part of the experi-

ment were removed from further procedures and given as much

19

time and discussion as necessary to relax them and/or pro-
vide an Opportunity for integrating and understanding their
experiences. As noted above, only a few fig were excluded
from the experiment for any of these reasons.

All fig were volunteers. They received no money. How-
ever, most received credit towards required participation in

research, as part of their undergraduate course work.

Materials and Experimental Setting:

During the eXperimental session, each fi was placed in
a 12 x 12 foot sound proof cubicle and seated in a large re-
clining chair. The entire session of each subject was tape
recorded.

Card number 2 of the TAT (Murray, 1943) and card number
B8 of the Symonds Picture Story Test (Symonds, 1948) were
given to all fig, in both the waking and hypnotized condi-
tions. The administration of the cards was counterbalanced
to control for any effects related to order.

Both cards were independently selected by the author
and a colleague as the cards (of the two sets) most related
to female oedipal conflict. Card 2 of the TAT is described
by Murray (1943) as a ”country scene: in the foreground is
a young woman with books in her hand, in the background a
man is working in the fields and an older woman is looking
on.” Card B 8 of the Symonds Picture Story Test is an
older, probably greying man with a bow tie, arms folded,
Speaking with a much younger woman (around 20 years Old),

looking intently at the older man; they are standing very

20

czlose together. From psychoanalytic theory and clinical
observation, it was expected that these cards would arouse
considerable emotion related to the early oedipal conflicts

experienced by fig.

Procedure:

fig were assigned randomly to the hypnotized and simu-
lating groups by a co-experimenter (E2); he assigned these
fig to the experimental or control group by drawing a slip of
paper (without replacement) with the fi's group assignment
and order of card administration written on it - from an en-
velOpe containing all of the possible groups and card orders,
counterbalanced.

Hypnotic training: All fig were given a very brief and
ambiguous introduction by the primary eXperimenter (Efl)' who
was a clinical psychology graduate student experienced in
hypnotic induction procedures. fig were told:

As you know, this is a hypnosis experiment
with individuals (fig were screened in a group
hypnosis exercise). Unless you have any
questions, we'll get started . . . I'd like
you to begin to relax now . . and concen-
trate on the thumbtack you see on the
Opposite wall (about eight feet from the S

at a 300 angle upward from the fifs line Of
sight.)

The induction and deepening were carried out by using
five of the tasks Of the Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Sus-
ceptibility (Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard, 1959): eye closure;
hand lowering; arm immobilization; hands moving together;

and fly hallucination. Also, the amnesia instructions

suggested by Reyher (1971) were given. The induction and

21

deepening instructions are presented in Appendix B.
In order to test the fifs ability to: (1) Open her eyes
and to speak without disrupting the trance; (2) experience

a hypnotic age regression; (3) achieve a complete amnesia

for the hypnotic experience - fig were told:1

You are relaxed and comfortable, you

are drifting, relaxing. Your sense of
passing time is becoming vague...Time

is passing, but it is difficult to measure
this, the more you attempt to estimate this,
the more confusing it will become. You are
sinking into a deeper hypnotic-like-sleep...
drifting. It is also becoming difficult to
determine just where you are. You may have
some thoughts about where you are, but it
is difficult to keep them in mind. The
more you attempt to determine where you are,
the more confused it will become. It is
even difficult to remember things in the
past. The more you try to recall certain
events, the more difficult it will become.
Everything seems vague and confused...You
are unable to determine where you are in
time and space and you are unable to recall
significant events of your past...You would
like to regain these functions.

At the count of three, you will remember
events about a year ago. You will go back

in age to a year ago...back...back...Perhaps
some Of these events were not altogether
pleasant. In fact, you might find that some
of them were unpleasant, maybe even upsetting.
You are beginning to recall events around a
year ago, l...2...3... you're back, a year

ago - fully experiencing these events - more
vivid now, clearer. Raise your right hand a
few inches and keep it raised when it is about
a year ago... (hand raises)...GOOd. You'll be
able to Speak and you'll remain deeply hyp-
notized. Describe what is happening and when

1The procedures follow the suggestions of Erickson and
Kubie (1941). The instructions include a disorientation for
time and place, gradual loss in recall, intensification of
the desire to recall unspecified events Of previous years
and then specific suggestions for reliving a particular time
in the past.

Then

22

you have finished describing this lower
your right hand. (83 will be given three
minutes maximum timET. Alright, you're
moving forward in time - these events are
becoming more distant...forward...it is
now (date, place)...Good relax
completely.

all fig were told:

At the count Of three, you will Open your
eyes but remain in a deep hypnotic-like-
sleep. When you open your eyes, I will
give you a card with a picture on it

(card 5 of the TAT). After you've looked
at it for awhile (10 sec.), I'll ask you
to turn it over, close your eyes and tell
me a story about it. Tell what has led

up to the event shown in the picture,
describe what is happening at the moment,
what the characters are feeling and think-
ing; and then give the outcome. You'll be
able to Speak and you'll remain deeply
hypnotized. When you have finished the
story, you will hand the card back to me.
Nod your head if you understand. (nod) l,
2, 3 (E hands S the card as She Opens her
eyes).7. (10 SEC.)...Now turn the card
over please and close your eyes, and tell
me a story about it. Tell what has led

up to the event shown in the picture, des-
cribe what is happening at the moment, ,
what the characters are feeling and thinking;
and then give the outcome. Hand me the
card when you're done...(story)...Fine...
Relax...re1ax, completely. You're sinking
into a deeper hypnotic-like-sleep...com-
pletely relaxed. When I count to three
you will awaken, completely relaxed and
comfortable; however, you will have no
memory Of the things you've done while
hypnotized today. Whenever a thought
about what you've done while hypnotized
today begins to come to mind, it will be-
come fuzzy, unclear, like a forgotten
dream...The harder you attempt to recall
the things you've done while hypnotized
today, the more it will slip away...Nod
your head if you understand. (nod)...After
you're awakened all I will have to do is
have you lean back and by the time I count
to ten, your eyes will be closed and you
will be in an even deeper sleep-like state
than you are now in...NOd your head if you
understand. (nod) One, two, three...

23
To avoid testing for amnesia while fi is still in a

highly susceptible state (Hull, 1933) just after awakening,
a short two or three minute break was taken in which fi was
encouraged to stretch her legs, walk around, get a drink,
etc. Then fig were asked: ”Is there anything about the ses-
sion that comes to mind?” If fi didn't begin to recall any
Of the previous experiences within 30 seconds, she was asked
to lean back, relax and listen as E1 counted from one to ten.
After reinduction, El told all fig:

In a moment, a colleague of mine, Mr.

, will enter the room to con-

duct the next phase of this experiment...

You will remain in a deep hypnotic-like-

sleep and follow his instructions completely.

Nod your head please if you understand. (nod)

...I' 11 now leave the room to get Mr.

and he'll be right in. I' ll be back for the

remainder Of the eXperiment in a few minutes.
Just relax, relax...

 

Group assignment: fizl then entered the lab right after

E1 left and told all fig;

My name is Mr. . If you feel like
you want to see what I Iook like - you can
just Open your eyes, without waking up in
the slightest...(10 sec.)...(if Open) Good.
Now just close your eyes and relax. Relax
and sink into a deep, deeper hypnotic-like-
sleep.

E2 then deepened the hypnosis by asking the fi_to concentrate
on her breathing and on relaxing as he counted from one to

twenty. fig were told that they were sinking, into a deeper
and deeper sleep, with each breath, as the fi counted slowly

1The E2 was actually four different individuals - three
clinical psychology graduate students and the author's wife.
Many thanks to Bob Homant, Ruben Gur, Dave Schnarch, and Pat,
for their assistance.

24

(about four or five seconds between each count).

At this point 22 selected a group assignment and order
Of card administration for the fi.by drawing a slip with this
information on it from the envelope. £2 wrote the fifs name
on the paper (so as not to use it on a future draw), returned
it to the envelope, then proceded with the appropriate sug-
gestions (continued hypnosis vs. simulation of hypnosis).

Hypnotized fig were told by 22:

In a moment I will leave the room to get
Mr. Schofield...You will remain in a deep
hypnotic-like—sleep and follow his instruc-
tions completely when he returns...NOd your
head if you understand (nod). Good. Now
I'll just sit here quietly for a minute and
allow you to continue to relax, sink into a
deeper, relaxing sleep. Then I'll leave the
room and Mr. Schofield will be right in.
Just continue to relax...relax...(wait 60
sec. then leave quietly).

Simulating fig were told by E2:

In a moment, Mr. Schofield will enter the
room to conduct the second phase of this
experiment. At the count of three, you
will awaken and you will not, under any
circumstances, fall into 3—5rance during
the next phase of the experiment conducted
by Mr. Schofield. You'll pretend to be
hypnotized and you'll follow all of his
instructions, acting as thougfi'§Ou were
hypnotized. However, near the end of the
eXperiment, when Mr. Schofield taps three
times with his pencil (demonstrate, pencil
or penpoint hit on any hard Object, one
heat per second), you will not close your
eyes or pretend to be hypnoEIied. Nod your
head if you understand. (nod)...At the end
of the eXperiment, after Mr. Schofield says
“the research is over“ you will then be
able to be hypnotized by him at any future
time if you so desire...Nod your head if
you understand. (nod) Now you'll awaken
at the count of three... 1, 2, 3....

(Pause for a few seconds, while fi gets her

 

25

bearings). Mr. Schofield knows that

some subjects will be pretending to be
hypnotized, but he does not know which
subjects are going to be pretending.

DO your very best to fool him. The

object of this study is to see how well
students can pretend to be hypnotized...

In the past, we have found that they have
done very well and I'm sure that you will
also do a fine job. Remember, you'll just
pretend to be hypnotized, and you'll follow
all of his instructions, exce t you will
not close your eyes or pretens to be hyp-
fiOElzed when he taps his pencil three times,
near the end Of the experiment. Now, close
your eyes please and pretend to be hyp-
notized, while I get Mr. Schofield.

As E2 left the room, he only told E1 the order to ad-
minister the two thematic cards. El then entered the lab

and began the age regression suggestions.

1

Age regression: During the first several seconds after

El entered, relaxed and began to prepare for the next pro-
cedures - he Observed fi and made an assessment on the basis
of non verbal cues (e.g. posture, general composure, etc.)
Of whether She was actually hypnotized, or was simulating
hypnosis. Then E1 told all fig:

You are relaxed and comfortable...relaxed

and comfortable. You will sink into a deeper
hypnotic-like-sleep...Relax...deeper, deeper,
deeper. At some point the experiment will

end and all I will do is simply say ”awaken
and Open your eyes“ and you will be completely
awake, relaxed and comfortable. But for now,
you will continue to sink into a deeper and
deeper hypnotic-like-sleep. When I count to

1Here 83 were regressed to a time when certain feelings
were most dISComforting while in most studies, age regression
occurs to a Specific time for all Ss. It was anticipated that
the technique of the present study-fibuld maximize the experi-
ence of particular emotions, widening the differences in be-
havior between hypnotic and simulating fig.

26

three, you will Open your eyes but remain

in a deep hypnotic-like-sleep. I will give
you a picture (TAT card or Symonds card).
This picture will activate.disturbing emo-
tions...1, 2, 3...(Open) (10 seconds to look
at card)...Now, you'll close your eyes... you
will go back in time, back to an age when
these emotions activated by that picture were
very difficult to manage.

Subjects were then given the age regression instruc-
tions:

You are drifting, Your sense of passing

time is becoming vague... time is passing,
but it's difficult to measure this. The
more you attempt to estimate this the more
vague it becomes...drifting...sinking into

a deeper hypnotic-like-sleep...sinking into
a deeper hypnotic-like-sleep...It's also be-
coming difficult tO determine just where you
are...The more you attempt to determine where
you are...the vaguer it becomes...drifting...
drifting...

You are going backward in time to the age
when the disturbing emotions aroused by
the picture which you just saw were the
most difficult to manage. Backward...You
are beginning to recall that period...It's
becoming more vivid now...Raise your right
hand a few inches and keep it raised when
you are at that age when these disturbing
emotions were the most difficult to manage
(hand raised)...How Old are you? (If not
under 16, say ”You're going back, still
farther to an age when these disturbing
emotions were even more difficult to man-
age...Raise your hand when you're at that
age when these disturbing emotions were even
more difficult to manage...How Old are you?')
...Tell me about your experiences and when
you've finished describing these, you'll
lower your right hand...(production)...(lower
hand)...Good. Now you are going forward in
time...getting older...In a moment it will be
(e. 9. Monday, July 12,1971, in
OIds HaII). Forward...getting Older, Older...
Raise your right hand when you reach this
point. (hand raised).

At this point, El again made an assessment - on the

basis of verbal and non-verbal cues - Of whether the g was

27

actually hypnotized, or was simulating hypnosis.

Following this, the second thematic card was adminis-
izered by EJ' using the same procedure as above. However,
‘before suggestions Of moving forward in time (to the present
date), all fig were told that they were still _____ years of
age (age during second regression) and were given the vocabu-
lary subtest Of the WISC or WPPSI using the standard testing

procedures for the instrument. Eh then made another assess-

ment on the basis of verbal and non-verbal cues of whether
the fi was actually hypnotized or was simulating hypnosis.
After all fig were brought forward in time to the present date,

E1 told them:
In a moment, I will awaken you, I'll give
you the same pictures that I just gave you
and I'll ask you to tell stories about them.
Each picture will stir up the same intensity
Of feelings, emotions, and ideas that it did
before. Nod your head if you understand.
(nod) Sometime after this, I will tap three
times on the table with my pen like this
(demonstrate). You will then immediately
close your eyes and fall into a deep hypnotic-
like-sleep again. Nod your head if you under-
stand. (nod) Good. Now, I'm about ready to
wake you up. When I count to three you will
be wide awake; however, you will have no
memory of the things you've done while hyp—
notized today. Whenever a thought about what
you've done while hypnotized today begins to
come to mind, it will be fuzzy, like a for-
gotten dream...The harder you attempt to re-
call the things you've done while hypnotized
today, the more it will slip away. Nod your
head if you understand. (nod) Sometime after
that I'll mention, 'now you can remember
all of the things you've done while hypnotized
today." Nod your head if you understand. (nod)
l, 2, 3...you're awake.

As earlier, fig were given a short break, two or three

minutes, before testing for amnesia. Then fig were again

28

asked, “Is there anything about the session that comes to
mind? DO you remember anything at all about the last ses-
sion?” After thirty seconds, if fi had not begun to recall

any of the previous activities of the session, She was told

(pause)...In a moment I'm going to give

you a card (TAT or Symonds). Then I'll ask

you to turn it Over and tell me a story about

it. Tell what has led up to the event shown

in the picture, describe what is happening

at the moment, what the characters are feeling

and thinking; and then give the outcome. (10

sec.) Turn it over please and tell me a story

about it; give the card back to me when you

are finished.
After she had finished the story, the second thematic card
was presented, in the same manner.

All fig were then given the vocabulary subtest of the
WAIS (still in the waking state), using the standard testing
procedures for the instrument. Afterward E1 tapped clearly,
three times (cue for rapid re-induction). He noted whether
or not fi closed her eyes within 10 seconds. If fi closed her
eyes within 10 seconds, E; gave deepening suggestions, sugges-
tions of arm heaviness, and suggestions of arm immobilization.
The results of these suggestions were noted and g was awak-
ened. NO comments or suggestions were given to fig who did
not close their eyes and respond to the rapid re-induction
cue.
Finally, E1 gave all fig three questions to answer on

separate sheets Of paper, and told the fig:

I know that Mr. (Ea) has earlier in-

structed some of you to remain hypnotized,

while he has instructed others to pretend
to be hypnotized. At this time I'd like to

29

answer a few questions as honestly as
possible.

The first question was: “Is there anything about the last
session that comes to mind? DO you remember anything at all
about the last session?” fig were given three minutes to re-
spond. Next, all fig were told "now you can remember every-
thing" and asked to answer the second question: ”Is there
anything about the last session that comes to mind now? DO
you now remember anything about the last session?” fig were
given two minutes to reSpond. Finally, all fig were asked:
“DO you feel as though you weze hypnotized? Were you hyp-
notized during the second part Of the eXperiment when you
were asked to go back in age? How vivid was that eXperience?“
Then all fig were told “the research is over” and were thanked
for their participation.

The entire procedure took about two hours for each sub-
ject. All procedures were carried out in one seSsion. fig
were given more information on the nature and results of the
experiment three to six weeks later, after the study was

completed.

RESULTS

Rating Instruments and Reliability:

Pine Scoring Of Drive Content: Stories in the waking and
hypnotized conditions were compared in terms Of the direc-
ness Of drive expression and the degree of integration of the
drive expressions into the story. The scoring categories for
directness Of expression of drive content were: level 1- di-
rect, unsocialized; level 2- direct, socialized; level 3- in-
direct, disguised, weak. The scoring categories for integra-
tion of drive expression into the story were: thematic - part
Of the central theme of the story; incidental - integrated
with the central theme, but expendable; nonappropriate - pro-
ductions unrelated to the task, such as exclamations, drive
content as part Of card description, miSperceptions, verbal
slips. A drive unit was not scored twice in a protocol, un-
less there was a different level of drive eXpression, a differ-
ent aim Of the drive, or unless the drive was eXpressed in a
totally different sequence Of action.

Four stories elicited from each of 20 fig were rated by
two raters, E1 and a clinical psychology graduate student
who was unaware of the nature and hypotheses Of the study.

Ratings were carried out after an extensive period Of rating

30

31

practice by the two raters working together. Protocols from
the Reyher and Shoemaker (1961) research were used for train-
ing purposes. Protocols from the present study were rated
separately, without discussion.

Of the 80 stories rated, there were 185 rated units of
drive content. An agreement was counted when both raters
rated the same unit (i.e. word or phrase) with drive content
or when both raters agreed that an entire story should get
no ratings (which occurred in only 6 of the 80 stories). The
raters agreed in 156 instances or 82.2% of the time. This
compares very favorably to the level Of agreement (69%) re-
ported in Pine's (1960) manual.

Inter-rater agreement on drive level (1, 2 or 3) was
calculated for only those units where there initially was
agreement on drive presence. The percentage of agreement for
the various levels Of eXpression and degrees of integration
are presented in Table l. The percentages are all signifi-
cantly (p<(.001) higher than would be eXpected by chance
alone (33%); all but one was above those reported originally
by Pine (1960). Disagreements were resolved by retaining
the author's ratings. The final percent of rated units for
each of the categories was roughly equivalent to those of
Pine (1960).

Scoring_of Story_Differences: Stories in the wak-
ing and hypnotized conditions were compared in terms Of
characters, situations and affective-motivational states

(Reyher and Shoemaker, 1961). The degree Of similarity for

characters (C) and situations (8) was assessed by four-point

32

.wssmwuwcw mocmmmum O>Hup so ucOEOOHmm mp3

.mmcwums w.mq mcwcfimumu SQ OO>HOOOH mmfiosmawuomfla

.ms nouns Suez Ommumm 39.nmumn scans on mmumop may no pmmmm

 

o.oos oms «s.mm mes
o.~ m .o.oos m
e.m ms ss.sa ss
a.am ems Am.aa ems
o.oos oms «o.~m ems
s.om we .m.mm ma
m.am mm .N.mm mm
o.os ms «m.ms ss
pmumm pmumm .mmmmmmm gmmmmmm

ucwoumm Hmcfim

HOQEDZ Hmcwm

“GOOHOQ .HOQEDZ

soo.vO .
O

a

Cheap Ohmsk muss: mo muoofipz O

ems cowumummucH Hem Hmuoa

m O>Huo mo
OmD museumonmmmgoz

 

NH O>wua mo OmD HmucopflonH
mms O>suo mo OmD OflumEOBB
oms OHO>OA How Hence
we cofimmmumxm HHH Hm>ws
mm cowmmonmxm HH Hm>mq
vs coammmumxm H HO>OA

mmuflso

mo HOQESZ

coaumnmmucH m>sua w HO>OA O>HHQ How mmgflumm
Hoswm Odo ucmemmumm HmummluounH

H mqmdfi

«

33

rating scale with the following descriptive labels and num-
erical values: personalized (l), congruent (2), indeterminant
(3) and different (4). The affective-motivational state (AM)
was quantified by counting the expressions of intentions,
needs and affects by the subject in the hypnotic condition
(PH). The AM units in the latter condition were classified
as either the same (PHs) or as different (PHd) from the hyp-
notic condition. Each AM unit was counted only once in each
of the two conditions regardless of how Often it may have
appeared.

A difference score (D) for each card was devised:

D= C + S +AM
where AM=iH - PHs + ZiPHd. If no changes occur in the wak-
ing reactions to the cards, D equals zero. As changes occur
in the waking state, PHs decreases and PHd increases. The
term PHd was weighted by a factor of two because it repre-
sented a transformation of affect, which was considered to
be a more complicated process than simple repression.

Stories were rated independently by two raters, El and
another clinical psychology graduate student who was unaware
of the nature and the hypotheses of the study. Ratings were
carried out after an extensive period of rating practice by
the two raters working together. As above, protocols from
the Reyher and Shoemaker (1961) research were used for train-
ing purposes. Protocols from the present study were rated
separately, without discussion.

. An estimate Of the interrater reliability for the two

raters was obtained from rank order coefficients of correla-

34

tion between D scores (waking vs. hypnotic conditions) for

the two thematic productions. Coefficients of .94 (Symonds
card) and .96 (TAT card) were Obtained. These compared favor-
ably with Reyher and Shoemaker's (1961) rank order correla-
tions of .74 and .75 for two randomly selected protocols.
Disagreements were resolved by retaining the author's ratings.
Disagreements over the presence Of an affective-motivational
state were resolved by disregarding those units which were

not identified by both raters; the raters were in agreement

on the presence of AM units in 290 out of 368 ratings (78.8%)

in the 80 stories.

The Hypotheses:

 

Hypothesis 1: It was hypothesized that the age regressed

 

productions Of hypnotized fig would contain more direct eXpres-
sions of libidinal and aggressive drive material than the
productions Of simulating fig.

The most appropriate test of the hypothesis, involves a
comparison of the level I responses. Only using the level I
score is based on the rationale that the material subsequent
to the outbreak of blatant drive representation may be de-
fensive and therefore remote; accordingly, the remainder of
the protocol may be a defensive reaction to one outbreak.
The HOltI(1956) scoring system and sequence analysis on the
Rorschach is based upon this principle.

The presence or absence of level I reSponse(s) for each
stimulus card and for both cards combined, was noted. In

Table 2, the number of fig producing level I reSponse(s) is

35

pessmuumco .os. n a ...
smssmunmao .ms. n a ..
pmawoulwco .mo. n m «

ll .msoum some
now noncommmu H HO>OH mowOSOOHm mm mo hogan: Hmuou may mum Oneness one I Opoz

o o o seeo ««N «N II OHNZ
mm mcwumasfiwm
N o N seem «am to II oHNZ
mm Ofluocmhm
ads monomNm mpcomNm Ede monomNm monomxm
a use a one
coauflpcou coauwpcoo
mcwxmz pmmmmummm mmd
coauflpcou

mafixmz pom pmmmouomm mom on» SH
mmmcoammm AHV HO>OA mafiOSOOHm muomwQSm
mcHuOHSEHm can owuocmwm mo uOnEdz

N mflmfle

36

presented for the hypnotized and simulating fig in the age re-
gressed and waking condition. A Fisher Exact Probability
Test1 indicated that more hypnotic fig tended to produce level
I reSponses than simulating fig when the TAT card was consid-
ered alone (p= .10) and when the TAT and Symonds cards were
considered together (p= .08), but did not tend to produce
more level I reSponses than simulating fig when the Symonds
card was considered alone (p= .18).

Thus, hypothesis 1 was not supported, although the re—
sults were in the expected direction and generally approached
significance.

Hypptheis 2: It was hypothesized that the responses of

 

age regressed hypnotized fig and simulating fig would, on a test
of cognitive functions, be equivalent.

The protocols2

were mixed and scored by the primary {1
without the knowledge of the fi's group assignment. The scor-
ing standards presented in the WISC or WPSSI manual were
strictly followed.

In Table 3, the mean scale score and the mean ages
achieved during the waking and age regressed conditions are

presented for both the hypnotized and simulating groups. The

actual (waking) ages did not differ significantly between the

1The procedures outlined by Siegel (1956) were followed.
Non-parametric statistics were generally used in the analyses.
The distributions were unknown because of the small sample
size, and no normative data on the measures used in the study
are available.

2Obtained during the second age regression with either
the TAT or Symonds card as the stimulus.

37
hypruotic and simulating SS (2? 1.28, df=l7, pj>.10, two-tailed).

Alsc>, the ages chosen by g during the first and second regres-
siouis did not differ significantly (first: E? .316, df=18,
p)>.10, two-tailed; second: 3; .128, df=18, p:>.10, two-tailed).
(Rue distribution of the ages of regression were highly similar
flmr simulating and hypnotic fig during the first regression
(Ffi4gure 1) and during the second regression (Figure 2). The
Pearson product moment correlation coefficient between the

ages of the first and second age regression was - .14 for the

hypnotic 5—3 and .00 for the simulating fig.

TABLE 3

Mean Vocabulary Scale Scores and
Ages for Hypnotic and Simulating fig
In the Age Regressed and Waking

 

 

Condition
Age Regressed Waking b
Condition (WISC)a Condition (WAIS)
Mean Mean Mean » Mean
Scale Score Age Scale Score Age
Hanotic _S_s_ 17.2 10.1 14.7 21.2
(2.57) (3.64) (2.11) (3.22)
Simulating g 13.8 10.3 13.7 19.7
(2.53) (3.32) (1.64) (1.78)

NOte -- The numbers in the parentheses are the standard
deviations.

53econd age regression; WISC or WPPSI vocabulary subtest used.

VWAIS vocabulary subtest used.

Percentage

Percentage

 

   
 

 

 

 

   

 

100 P
)—
50 —
Simulating §§
--------- Hypnotic S3
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15
AGES
Fig. 1 Cumulative percentage of ages of the first regression
for hypnotic and simulating §§'
100 -
50 -
_ Simulating .S_s_
— ---------- Hypnotic §§_

 

 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15

AGES

Fig. 2 Cumulative percentage of ages of second regression
for hypnotic and simulating S5.

39

It was found, however, that the hypnotic and simulating
§§ differed significantly in the scale scores achieved under
the age regression conditions (Mann Whitney U=15, df=10/10,
p<:.02, two-tailed). Hypnotic S3 achieved higher scale scores
than simulating S3. Thus, the hypothesis was rejected.

In order to assess the age appropriateness of the §§f
responses, it was noted: (1) whether during the age regres-
sion procedures g achieved a scale score above or below her
waking scale score; and (2) the degree of deviation from her
waking scale score. A Wilcoxon Sign Test was calculated for
both the hypnotic and simulating g3. It was found that hyp-
notized §§_achieved scale scores significantly above their
waking scale scores (n=10, p<:.05, two-tailed) and simulating
gs did not achieve scale scores significantly above or below
their waking scale scores (n=8, pj>.10, two-tailed). A
difference score (waking scale score, minus regressed scale
score) was calculated for each S. The scores tended to differ
between the hypnotic and simulating §§.(Mann-Whitney U=26.5;
df=10/10, p<.10, two-tailed).

Hypothesis 3: It was hypothesized that the posthypnotic

 

waking protocols of the hypnotized age regressed §§ would
show greater repression than the posthypnotic waking proto-
cols of the simulating fig.

Contrary to Reyher and Shoemaker (1961), an amesia in-
struction was used in the present study following the age
regressed condition. When the amnesia instructions were in-
cluded in the procedure, its relationship to this hypothesis

was not recognized. The amnesia instruction required 83 to

40
change their waking productions and did not permit a true test

of hypothesis 3. Since S3 were told to forget the content of
their age regressed productions, all gs produced, as ex-
pected, quite different characters and situations in their
waking productions (Tables 4, S); the changes approached the
maximum amount of change permitted by the rating scale. How—
ever, S3 were ngE_given an amnesia for the affects associated
with the age regressed productions. It should be eXpected
that the AM units for the hypnotic §§ would be greater than
the AM units for the simulating gs, since the AM units were
not restricted arbitrarily; they could vary freely with no
ceiling on the score. As anticipated, hypnotic gs produced
greater changes in AM than simulating SE for the Symonds

card (U=27, df=10/10, p<<.05, two-tailed), but not for the
TAT card (U=48.5, df=10/10, p >.10). Hypothesis 3 was thus
at least partially supported, given the limitations of the

procedures.

TABLE 4

Mean Changes in Waking Productions
Following Age Regression Productions:

 

 

TAT Card
Mean
Mean Mean Affective-
Mean D Similarity Similarity Motivational
Score of Character of Situation State
Hypnotic 15.50 3.00 3.15 9.30
fig, (5.95) (1.33) (1.32) (4.37)
Simulating 15.20 3.10 3.05 9.10
fig} (6.61) (1.29) (1.41) (5.40)

Note - Numbers represent mean changes for each category.
The numbers in parentheses are the standard
deviations.

41
TABLE 5
Mean Changes in Waking Productions

Following Age Regression Productions:
Symonds Card

 

 

Mean
Mean Mean. Affective-
Mean D Similarity Similarity Motivational
Score of Character of Situation State
Hypnotic 14.8 3.10 3.20 8.5
‘ég (6.58) (1.10) (1.14) (5.30)
Simulating 10.4 2.95 2.85 4.7
fig (3.75) (1.14) (1.20) (2.45)

Hypothesis 4: It was hypothesized that the posthypnotic
(waking) responses of the hypnotic SE and simulating gs, on
a test of cognitive functions, would be quivalent.

As above (hypothesis 2), the protocols were mixed and
scored by the primary §_without the knowledge of the §fs
group assignment. The scoring standards presented in the
WAIS manual were strictly followed.

The mean scale scores for hypnotic and simulating £2 in
the waking condition are presented in Table 3. The hypnotic
and simulating S3 did not differ significantly in scale
scores (U838, df=10/10, p2>.10, two-tailed) and the hypothesis

was accepted.

Other findings:

Overt behavior and subjective experience: As noted a-
bove, all S3 were tested by E without any knowledge of her
group assignment. E did, however, attempt to determine
whether or not S was hypnotized, at three different points

during the experiment. The results of these attempt are pre-

42
sented in Table 6. At each stage of the experiment, E was

unable to guess accurately whether or not an S was hypnotized.
Nearly all §§ were seen as probably hypnotized initially.
Later attempts to improve the accuracy of these predictions
failed. Simulating as well as hypnotized SE generally ex-
hibited the classical features of hypnosis: slowness in re-
sponding (behaviorally or verbally), lack of voluntary move-
ment, etc. Thus, it was not possible to discriminate correct-
ly group assignment through §fs observations of SE] behavior.

The possibility of experimental bias was therefore minimized.

TABLE 6

Predictions of Group Assignments
By The Experimenter

Percentage of Correct Predictions

1a 2b 3°
Hypnotic §§_ 90 40 40
Simulating fig 20 60 60
Total Sg’ 55 50 50

Note - The expected percentage by chance alone is 50%
a Just prior to the initial regression instructions.
b Just prior to the second age regression instructions.

c Just prior to the awakening.

In Table 7, the degree to which SE thought they were
hypnotized, is presented. SE in the hypnotized group clearly
thought they were hypnotized, while E3 in the simulating
group generally thought they were not hypnotized
('z?£9; df=2; p<:.05). All of the four g3 (2 from the hyp-

43
notized group, 2 from the simulating group) who failed to

meet the behavioral index required for group assignment -
felt that they were hypnotized. The descriptions of the ex-
perience for those who thought they were hypnotized, centered
around "vivid memories and images“ and “strong, vivid feel-
ings," while the descriptions of the experience for those
who thought they were not hypnotized, centered around
"couldn't remember the past," ”not relaxed, felt foolish,”
and "the experience was not vivid, 3-D.’

TABLE 7

Self Reports
Subjects' Experience of Hypnosis

Number of 83
Number of 85 Number of S2_ who generaITy
who generaITy who were Didn't Feel
felt Hypnotized Undecided Hypnotized

Hypnotic BE
N=10 9 l 0

Simulating fig. .
N-lO 3 l 6
Grammatical Structure of the stories: The ratios of
certain parts of speech were analyzed using the procedures
outlined by Kline and Haggerty (1953). The proportion of
nouns, pronouns, verbs and adjectives were noted in stories
obtained in waking and regressed conditions for both the
hypnotic and simulating SE. The parts of speech were de-
termined by an upper elementary school teacher's ratings:
the stories were coded and mixed before rating. Stories
shorter than 50 words were arbitrarily discarded from this

analysis, since there were not enough words in each of the

 

44

categories to make the ratios accurate or meaningful: 16 of
the 80 stories did not exceed 50 words (13 of the simulator's
stories and 3 of the hypnotic Sg' stories), and were discarded.
The results of the ratings are represented in Figure 3. Since
the procedures of the present study involved a regression to
different ages (belowl6) for the S3, the data represents the
grouped (regardless of regressed age) prOportions of the vari-
ous parts of Speech in the regressed condition. No effort

was made to break this grouped data into the various ages, be-
cause the number of E2 involved was relatively small: there

were only one or two £5 for each regressed age.

23-
22t
21-
20-

Simulating gs

 

------- Hypnotic fig

19-
18- \
17L- \\

16“ '\

 

14‘
13'

 

127

 

 

R W R W R W R W
Nouns Prounouns Verbs Adjectives

Fig. 3 The percentage of nouns, pronouns, verbs and adjec-
tives in the regressed and waking conditions for the
hypnotic and simulating 83. "R” refers to the re-

gressed condition and 'W'-refers to the waking condition.

45

It can be noted by insPection, however, that there was
very little difference in the parts of speech of the simu-
lating and hypnotic S3 in either the regressed or waking
state. The shifts from the regressed to waking conditions
generally conform to normative data, whiCh indicates that
children's language contains more nouns and pronouns and
fewer verbs and adjectives than the language of older normal
subjects (Ellsworth, 1951).

The mean word length of ng productions are presented
in Table 8. The hypnotic and simulating S2 did not differ
in the length of their story in either the age regressed or
waking conditions, with either the TAT or Symonds card as

the stimuli (Tables 9, 10).

TABLE 8

Length of Productions

Age Regressed Condition Waking Condition

TAT Symonds TAT Symonds

Hypnotic BE. 97.1 95.9 110.8 106.3
(82.1) (45.2) (38.0) (41.6)

Simulating S3 69.9 73.8 103.2 88.5
(73.5) (56.0) (51.6) (47.9)

Note - The numbers are the mean word length of Ss' produc-
tions. The numbers in parenthesis are tHE'
standard deviations.

46

TABLE 9

Analysis of Variance
Length of TAT Card Productions

Source is g mg 1: E
Total 1504 39
Between Subjects 959 19
Conditions 44 l 44 .866 :>.10
Error-b 915 18 50.8
Within Subjects 545 20
Trials 37 l 37 1.72 2>.10
TrialsXCondition 28 l 28 1.30 :>.10
Error-w 480 18 21.6
TABLE 10

Analysis of Variance
Length of Symonds Card Productions

Source E3 52E IE E E
Total 874.8 39
Between Subjects 578 19
Conditions 35 1 35 1.16 I>.10
Error-b 543 18 30.2
Within Subjects 296.8 20
Trials 16.3 1 16.3 1.07 >310
TrialsXCondition 5.0 l 5 .33 >310

Error-w 275.5 18 15.3

47

Intense emotional reactions and problems with the hyp-
nosis: The ancedotal asPects of the study are important, al-
though they were not frequent enough to analyze statistically.

Only hypnotized BE (3) and one simulating S who acci-
dentally fell into a trance, demonstrated any intense emo-
tional reactions (IER) (crying, hyperventilating, screaming);
no simulating §_produced this type of reSponse. All such
reactions occurred during the hypnotic age regression pro-
cedures. For two BE! IERs occurred only in reSponse to the
Symonds card. For the other two gs, IERs occurred in response
to both cards, with more intense and/or revealing reSponses
occurring to the Symonds card than to the TAT card.

Each experience involved sexual material, generally with
rather blatant oedipal implications. For example, one g
stated (Symonds card):

(20 sec.) I don't know who I am, but it's not
me. (Heavy and rapid breathing)...(What's
happening?) I'm walking to the door and I'm
all alone and there's a man and he says he
knows my Dad. I can see myself, but it's not
me. He said to let him in and he'd wait. And
I did. And he sat down and he talked to me
and he's old...and he...and he sat down. He
hurt me. He took my arm and he hurt it. And
came in and I was crying. It's not me, it's
not me. It's not my mother. (Heavy and rapid
breathing) (20 sec.) (What's happening now?)
I don't know, I don't know. (Whispering)
(How do you feel?) It's not me, it's not me.
(When you're through describing these ex-
periences you can raise your right hand).
(hand raised).
The story involved the defense of denial, confusion in the
identity of the characters and the activation of symptoma-

tology similar to a dissociative reaction. Another S related

the following story (Symonds card):

48

(Crying, heavy breathing) I feel so guilty.
I, it's... Pappa is supposed to love Mamma,
but I want him to love me, and he doesn't.
(Screams and Opens eyes, very heavy
breathing).

The full transcripts of all productions with incidents of

intense emotional reactions are included in Appendix C.

DISCUSSION

The results of the present study are quite relevant to
the current controversy regarding the nature of hypnosis.

If hypnosis is nothing more than role-playing, hypnotic and
simulating §§ would be expected to produce similar behavior,
regardless of the nature of the task, assuming the demand
characteristics were identical for both groups of S3. Alter-
natively, if hypnotic and simulating §§ differed in behavior,
the results could be attributable to differences in SE] state
or condition. It was hypothesized that both groups of £3
would not differ in their reSponses to a highly cognitive
task, but would differ in their thematic productions under
conflict arousing suggestions in the age regression and
waking conditions.

Although, as predicted, hypnotic S5 generally tended to
give more blatant, level I, reSponses than simulating S5 in
the age regressed condition - the numbers of such responses
were rather infrequent for both groups.

Two differences in procedure between the Reyher and
Shoemaker (1961) study and the present study, may have con-
tributed to the relative infrequency of level I responses.

First, unlike the earlier Reyher and Shoemaker (1961) study

49

50
in which BE were intensively questioned about their regressed
experiences, §_in the present study maintained no interaction

1 This

with Si during the regressed (or waking) procedures.
was done deliberately, to minimize the possibility of experi-
menter bias by using a standard approach to all BE and to ex-
amine the effects of hypnosis alone, not the effects of in-
tensive questioning under hypnosis. Whatever the purpose,
however, this procedure may well have had the effect of re-
storing the hypnotized Sg' defenses by avoiding anxiety pro-
ducing inquiry by the E and by providing g with a means of
terminating the session (i.e. by raising her hand to indicate
"the end' of the story). Second, Reyher and Shoemaker used
clients as SE; the primary E was S's therapist. This cer-
tainly differs from the present situation in which S3 had not
established a relationship with the primary E and were not
motivated to produce drive related self disclosure.

In spite of limitations arising from the procedures, the
available data supported the hypothesis that hypnotic S3
would produce greater story changes in their waking produc-
tions than the simulating fig. This suggests greater repres-
sion on the part of hypnotized §§ than on the part of simulat-
ing S3. Changing the characters and situations did not re-

duce the anxiety sufficiently enough for the hypnotic S3;

1The only exceptions to this rule were in cases where
productions were very meager or completely lacking in detail.
In such instances E's inquiries were designed to simply pro-
mote a production Te.g. ”what's going on?'), not lead the g
or probe certain conflict areas. There were only 4 such
interactions among the 80 productions.

, 51
the affects and intentions had to be changed more than the

simulating S3 on the Symonds cards.

In terms of their general overt behavior, hypnotic and
simulating SE could not be distinguished. This has been ob-
served in previous studies (e.g. O'Connell, et. al., 1970).
The finding was particularly expected in view of the "train-
ing" sessions in hypnosis provided all S3 in the present
study.

Although it was not hypothesized, it was not too sur-
prising that simulating S3 performed on a cognitive task,
closer than hypnotic E3 to the reported age during the hyp-
notic age regression procedures. Some previous studies have
found that role-playing S5 performed closer to the suggested
level than hypnotized gs, using a standard intelligence test
(Young, 1940: Sarbin, 1950: Barber, 1961) and DAP protocols
(Taylor, 1950: Orne, 1951) as a criteria. The difference in
performance has been ascribed to the "surrendering of criti-
cal attitudes under hypnosis,“ while the role players 'con-
tinued to utilize them for more accurate performance“ (Young,
1940). The finding clearly supports the view of hypnosis as
an "altered state of consciousness” (Kline, 1963) and con-
tradicts the view of hypnosis as simply ”role-playing.”

The finding that hypnotic and simulating §g_did not
differ on a cognitive task in the waking state, was of course
expected. Since the S3 were assigned to the group by chance
drawing of a group assignment card from an envelOpe, no dif-
ferences in scores would be eXpected.

Thus, the data suggests that hypnotic and simulating BE

52
differ in their behavior, depending on the nature of the task.

Other observations tend to reinforce this conclusion.

The finding of little difference between the age re-
gressed productions of hypnotic and simulating S3 with re-
Spect to certain grammatical features, suggests that simulat-
ing §2 are as readily able to produce appropriate shifts in
the percentages of parts of speech as hypnotized g5. However,
Kline and Haggerty (1953) earlier have found that a male
college student was more able to produce age apprOpriate
ratios of parts of speech in the hypnotically induced age re-
gression condition than in the waking simulation condition.
If the suggestions of the present study are confirmed in
future, highly controlled research designed to measure more
effectively grammatical content, there would be additional
evidence for the ability of simulating BE to produce apprOpri-
ately regressed behavior when relatively simulable (cognitive)
behaviors are observed. 1

On the other hand, the fact that only hypnotized S5 in
the regressed condition produced behaviors readily charac-
terized as intense emotional reactions (crying, hyperventil-
ating, screaming), suggests that there may indeed be more
than ”demand characteristics" and role-playing involved in
hypnotic regression research. Since all §§_were treated
identically and since there was an obvious attempt (note re-
gression instructions) to intensify the eXperience of earlier
conflicts, the number of intense emotional responses would
be expected to be equal for hypnotized and simulating groups

of fig. In fact, the number of such experiences might have

53
been predicted to be greater for simulating §§ who presum-

ably have greater possession of their critical attitudes,
which could be used to produce the eXpected behaviors. Clear-
ly, simulating gs ignored the obvious eXpectancies of the ex—
perimental situation, presumably because of the anxiety pro-
ducing nature of the task. Since some hypnotized S5 did
produce intense emotional reactions, it is likely that at
least for those gs, the hypnotic state brought about a lower-
ing of defenses, enabling rather upsetting experiences to be
related.

The finding is consistent with the observations that
hypnotic E3 in the age regressed condition tended to give
more level I responses than simulating §§ and the observation
that hypnotic gs change their productions more readily than
simulating S3 in the waking condition. Under hypnosis, de-
fenses appear to have been lowered, resulting in the more
blatant eXpressions of drive (more level I responses). In
the posthypnotic waking condition, hypnotic B2 experienced
greater anxiety than simulating fig and they gathered their
defenses to lessen the anxiety (story changes).

As in previous research (o'Connell, et. al., 1970),
hypnotized and simulating §§ reported very different subjec-
tive experiences. Although this supports the notion of hyp-
nosis as an “altered state of consciousness," an alternative
explanation might be proposed. The differences in subjec-
tive report may have been a function of instructional effect.
As Sheehan (1970) has noted, simulation instructions may

promote conservative responding, distancing, among simulating

54

SE. In such a case, an emotional response might be viewed

by the g as ignoring the instructions, becoming too personally
involved. Of course, in the present study, the demand charac-
teristics clearly focused on intense, personal involvement.
Simulating gs did not appear willing or able to meet these
expectations.

Two methodological issues may have affected the results
of the present study. The subject selection process and the
hypnotic age regression procedure probably worked against the
hypotheses and minimized the observed differences between hyp-
notic and simulating fig.

The subject selection process and criteria for partici-
pation in the study apparently differed from that of Reiff
and Scheerer (1959) and O'Connell, et. al., (1970). In both
earlier studies, student volunteers were generally given a
few individual interviews in which their level of suscepti-
bility was assessed. Criteria for inclusion in both studies
was the ability to demonstrate consistently complete post-
hypnotic amnesia, positive and negative hallucinations, and
posthypnotic suggestions, as well as many other standard hyp-
notic tasks. The results of this highly conservative selec-
tion process was that only around 5% and 2 l/2% of the origi-
nal volunteers participated in the Reiff and Scheerer and
O'Connell, et. al. studies, respectively.

In the present study, §§ were screened in group induc-
tion sessions and selected for the experiment if they success-

fully followed nearly all of the suggested tasks, and if they

55
had an amnesia for most of the tasks. Later, in an individual

pre-testing session, §§ were given projective story tasks and
a practice age regression, as well as a few of the standard
tasks. Participation in the experiment required successful
completion of each of these suggestions and a complete amnesia
for the suggestions, as well as the following of a posthyp-
notic suggestion for rapid reinduction of the trance state.

If §E passed the criteria, the experiment was immediately con-
tinued until completed. The result of this somewhat more lib-
eral selection process, was that around 15% of the original
volunteers participated in the study. The S3' relatively
lower susceptibility to hypnosis may have resulted in a mini-
mizing of the differences between the hypnotic and simulating
§§. This would make the findings of the present study all

the more significant.

It was anticipated that a procedure using hypnotically
aroused conflict, heightened by age regression to earlier
periods of emotional conflict, would maximize the differences
between hypnotized and simulating BE! by lowering the de-
fenses of the hypnotized gs. Unfortunately, the procedure
might have had the effect of restoring or maintaining the
BE: defenses, since they were not directly confronted with
the threatening material by the E and since they could termi-
nate the anxiety producing situation by simply raising their
hand. In other reSpects, however, the age regression instruc-
tions in the study are similar to the clinical use of "Revivi-
fication,‘ alluded to by O'Connell, et. al. (1970), except

that normal college students were used and it was more highly

56
controlled (e.g. Specific stimulus-pull instructions, etc.)
than in the psychotherapeutic applications.

O'Connell, et. a1. (1970) have also stated that such
procedures are not identical to age regression and that their
findings do not challenge "either the therapeutic importance
nor the genuineness' of revivification. They seem to imply
that affect arousing procedures cannot be apprOpriately classi-
fied as 'age regression" procedures. Although the procedure
certainly is not identical to those used in laboratory re-
search to date (except for Reyher and Shoemaker, 1961), it
should definitely be a part of age regression research. In
contrast to the studies of Reiff and Scheerer and O'Connell,
et. al., age regression achieves a more complete meaning in
its use in this study. The affective quality of the age re-
gression has been largely ignored in these previous studies,
in favor of an emphasis on the cognitive aspects. It would
seem reasonable to assume that the inclusion of both the af-
fective and cognitive features in the age regression - would
produce a more vivid experience. Thus, it is felt that the
affective aspects are quite rélevant to the study of hyp-
nosis and can be effectively studied in the laboratory. In
the present study, it was found that hypnotic and simulating
S2 did indeed differ when such variables were considered.

Watkins (1971) has used a therapeutic technique very
similar to the technique used in the present study, called
the “affect bridge,” to break through intellectualization of
therapy. Patients' associations are encouraged to move along

chains of affects instead of chains of ideas. Clients are

57
hypnotized and age regressed to the period when the affect

was first eXperienced. Just as regression experiences are
made more vivid and real in hypnotherapy, they may also be
made more vivid and real in the laboratory situation through
the intensification of an affect and the regression to the
personally important period or incident.

Two more general methodological issues involve the se-
lection of projective cards to stimulate thematic productions
and the use of highly susceptible Sg as simulators.

The effectiveness of an exPerimental design in testing
differences between hypnotic and simulating §§ depends in part
upon the stimuli used as well as the procedures used. In the
present study, the Symonds card was clearly much more anxiety
producing for the SS, particularly the hypnotic SS. than the
TAT card. The most notable differences between the cards are
the lack of extraneous details and the closer proximity of
the male and female figures in the Symonds card, compared
with the TAT card. These features presumably more directly
stimulate conflicts of an oedipal nature.

To avoid confounding subject and treatment differences,
the control (simulating) S§.were as highly susceptible to
hypnosis as the experimental (hypnotized) SS. As in an earlier
study designed to test highly susceptible S3} ability to simu-
late hypnosis (Austin, 1963), it was found that highly sus-
ceptible S§_were able to simulate hypnosis without becoming
entranced. In the present study and an earlier study by
Austin (1963), S§_cou1d not be distinguished in their overt

behaviors from hypnotized SS. They did not experience a post-

58
hypnotic amnesia and they did not follow posthypnotic cues

(the main criteria for Austin). One of the Sg in both
studies also stated that the task of simulating was a diffi-
cult, somewhat unpleasant one.

It is thus possible to use highly susceptible S§_to
simulate hypnosis. With safeguards provided here and out-
lined earlier by Austin, it can be reliably determined wheth-
er or not a simulating S has accidentally fallen into a trance.
The use of such a control group is highly desirable, so that
confounding treatment and subject effects can be avoided.

Another final methodological issue which has been raised
recently, involves the adequacy of the real-simulator design
itself. Although the problem of using different pOpulations
in the experimental and control group can be overcome by using
highly susceptible SS as simulators - a potential problem re-
mains. The design requires that the two (or more) groups of
S5 receive different instructions.

As Reyher (1971) has pointed out, hypnotized and simu-
lating SS are given different instructions, with the result
that the experimental situation is different for both groups.
For example, simulating §§ are asked to pretend to be hyp-
notized, fool an authority figure, etc., while hypnotized SS
assume a passive-dependent regressive manner before an author-
ity figure. The finding of differences, or no differences,
between simulating and hypnotized groups of S3 cannot be con-
clusively attributed to hypnosis or role-playing, since S§_

respond to the different instructions (e.g. with guilt, hos-

59
tility, happiness, etc.) which might affect their performance

(e.g. resistance, aggression, passiveness, etc.). A recent
study by Sheehan demonstrates this point.

Sheehan (1970) has shown that simulation instructions
generate certain treatment effects. Sentence completion and
word association tests administered following simulation (or
hypnosis) instructions and prior to carrying the instructions
out - were compared with an earlier (2 weeks) administration
of the tests. Highly insusceptible S§_were used for the sim-
ulating group and highly susceptible §§ were used for the hyp-
notized group. Simulators “showed appreciably less conflict
(on the sentence completion tests only) after they received
role-playing instructions than they had shown previously be-
fore instructions to simulate." Hypnotized SS however, showed
no changes across the testings. According to Sheehan, it ap-
peared that the simulators changed their pattern of test be-
havior in some reSpects as a result of the instructions.1
It was assumed that this change in “set," etc. would affect
the outcome of the subsequent treatment conditions. Of course,
it is not known whether this treatment effect might be true
for susceptible simulators, since such S3 were not used.
Perhaps insusceptible S§_are far more affected by the simula-

tion instruction effect than susceptible SE, preferring to

1Unfortunately, subject and treatment effects were con-
founded. Do insusceptible Ss change their responses more
readily than susceptible Ss apart from hypnosis or simulating
instructions? Additional control groups of susceptible and
insusceptible 88 could have been given the tests twice - or
both groups co-Id have been susceptible or insusceptible.

60

present a less conflicted, more guarded facade.

Although this study was not designed to assess the effects
of simulation instruction, some observations can be made.

In the post-session inquiry, simulating SS reported a wide
range of reactions to the instructions and the act of simu-
lating. Some stated that they enjoyed fooling the experi-
menter. Others reported that they wanted to be hypnotized,
and found it difficult to remain awake. Some stated that

they tried very hard to be convincing. Still others reported
that they felt confused and tired. From these rather general
comments, it would appear that highly susceptible §§ have very
definite, but different reactions to the instructions and sub-
sequent procedures. These reactions might influence behavior
in a variety of unSpecified ways. It is not possible to
assess the effects of simulation instruction on actual be-
havior, because the study was simply not designed for that
purpose. The small sample size also prohibits a post-hoe
correlational analysis between various reported reactions and
behavior.

Thus, differing instructions given to hypnotized and
simulating SS, even with the rest of the treatment identical
for both groups, may affect the results in some Specified
way, although this has yet to be shown. Simulating is not
simply the absence of hypnosis, it iS_something, (i.e. role-
playing). The different instructions given simulating and
hypnotic S§_may result in quite different “sets,“ transfer-
ence reactions, etc. and quite different behavior. Inter-

pretations of the results must be cautious, Since the con-

61

tribution of the instructional phase to the simulating and
hypnotic SS} behavior is not known and cannot easily (if at
all) be separated from the treatment effects.

Another methodological issue Should be raised. The
tendency in much of the previous research has been to inter-
pret no difference between simulating and hypnotic SS as an
indication that hypnosis is not an influencing variable.

One obvious flaw to such an interpretation is that the studies
have been relatively similar in design, usually focusing on
cognitive and/or highly simulable tasks. The design of these
studies suggest that there has been some confusion of pheno-
type (behavior) and genotype (motive). As the present study
has shown, using other tasks and procedures may, however, re-
sult in different findings and interpretations. Thus, the
outcome depends on the stimuli, tasks and procedures used,

as well as the treatment condition (hypnosis vs. role-playing).

The present study should be replicated with a larger num-
ber of £3! with the Symonds (B 8) card only, and with modifi-
cation in the regression condition. During the age regression
phase of the experiment, inquiries (perhaps structured to
lessen the possibility of S bias) Should be carried out by
the S. in an effort to maximize the st conflict eXperience.
SS should also not be told that they can end the experiment
by raising their hand; the eXperience should be terminated
by the S after certain undisclosed lengths of Silence or
after another unannounced criteria has been met.

Two recent suggestions of possible ”instruction effect"

in the “real-simulator” design, make it advisable to include

62
an assessment of the effect of simulation vs. hypnosis instruc-

tions upon the SS' ”set” and/or upon the actual behavior dur-
ing the experimental activities. For example, SS in both the
hypnotic and simulating groups can be given three different
sessions under either the hypnotic or Simulating conditions,
with each session providing slightly different instructions
(emphasis) within the basic simulation or hypnosis instruc-
tion. A Simple Latin square design for the hypnotic group
and for the simulating group - would make it possible to
separate the treatment effects, from the order effects and
the effects of different instructions across the sessions.
The changes in methodology noted above should be incorporated
into the design for a more effective analysis of treatment

effects.

SUMMARY

The study was develOped in response to the growing con-
troversy surrounding the nature of hypnosis and particularly
in reSponse to the two recent studies by Reiff and Scheerer
(1959) and O'Connell, Shor and Orne (1970). Although these
studies were designed to determine the role of “demand char-
acteristics" in hypnotic age regression research, they lacked
two very Significant features. Neither study used highly
susceptible §§.t° Simulate hypnosis and neither study used
a task which was a relatively difficult task to simulate (ie.
non-cognitive). In the present study, all SS (hypnotic and
simulating) were highly susceptible to hypnosis. In addition
to a structured cognitive task (WISC, vocabulary), thematic
stimuli were used to hypnotically activate conflict. A
'free age regression" procedure (regression to a personally
upsetting period or incident), was used to intensify the ex-
perience of the conflict. The descriptions of the experiences
were compared between the hypnotic and simulating SS.

It was hypothesized that simulating and hypnotic SS
would not differ in their performance on a highly cognitive,
structured task in the regressed or waking conditions. As
predicted, it was found that there were no significant dif-

ferences between the groups in the waking condition. However,
63

64

Simulating SS actually produced more age appropriate perform-
ance than hypnotic SS in the regressed condition. Simu-
lating SS achieved age apprOpriate vocabulary scale scores
(WISC or WPPSI), while hypnotic SS achieved higher than ex-
pected scale scores. 4

On more subjective measures, however, hypnotic and sim-
ulating SS differed. Compared with simulating SS, hypnotic
SS: tended to give more direct drive expression reSponses
(level I): produced greater changes in affective-motivational
states (from the regressed to waking conditions) on one of
the two thematic cards: produced more intense emotional re-
actions in the age regressed condition; were unable to dem-
onstrate age appropriate COgnitive functioning in the age
regressed condition: and reported more vivid and emotional
experiences during the age regressed condition. The find-
ings taken together strongly support the altered state of
consciousness theory of hypnosis, and certainly present some
contradictory evidence for the role-playing theory of hyp-
nosis.

Methodological issues were also discussed intensively.
The use of highly susceptible SS_was considered a very work-
able method of controlling for possible differences in per-
sonality, in the real-simulator design. However, Since some
of the procedures of the study may have weakened the effect
of the hypnosis, improvements in the design were suggested.
The possibility was also considered that instructional dif-

ferences (simulation vs. hypnosis) may contribute to the

differences or lack of them, in behavior during the exPeri-

65
ment. A design was suggested which incorporated the meth-

odological changes and provided a more effective analysis of

the treatment effects.

REFERENCES

Austin, M., Perry, C. and Sutcliffe, J. Can somnabulists
successfully simulate hypnotic behavior without becoming
entranced? International Journal of Clinical and Ex-
perimental Hypnosis, 1963, 11, 175-186.

Barber, T. Experimental evidence for a theory of hypnotic
behavior: II experimental controls in hypnotic age
regression. International Journal of Clinical and Ex-
perimental Hypnosis,’l961, 9, 181-188.

Barber, T. Hypnotic age regression: a critical review.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 1962, 24, 286-299.

Bergmann, M., Graham, H. and Leavitt, H. Rorschach explora-
tion of consecutive hypnotic chronological age regres-
sions. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1947, 9, 20-28.

Crasilneck, H. and Michael, C. Performance on the Bender
under hypnotic age regression. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 319-322.

Ellsworth, R. The regression of schizophrenic language.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1951, 15, 387-391.

Erickson, M. and Kubie, L. The successful treatment of a
case of acute hysterical depression by a return under
hypnosis to a critical phase of childhood. Psycho-
analytic Quarterly, 1941, 10, 583-609.

Fromm, E., Oberlander, M. and Gruenewald, D. Perceptual and
cognitive processes in different states of consciousness:
the waking state and hypnosis. Journal of Projective
Techniques and Personaligy Assessment, 1970, 34,

Gebhard, J. Hypnotic age-regression: a review. American
Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1961, 3, 139-1 .

Goodenough, F. Measurement of Intelligence by Drawing.
Chicago: World Book, 1926.

 

66

67

Hodge, J. and Wagner, E. The effect of trance depth on
Rorschach responses. American Journal of Clinical

Hypnosis, 1969, 11, 234-238.
Holt, R. Gauging primary and secondary processes in

Rorachach reSponseS. Journal of Projective Techniques,
1956, 20, 14-25.

Hull, C. Hypnosis and Suggestibility.- New York: Appleton-
Century- ro ts, .

Jersild, A. Studies of children's fears. Child Develop-
ment Monographs, 1935, 360.

 

Keir, G. An experiment in mental testing during hypnosis.
Journal of Mental Science, 1945, 91, 346-352.

Kline, M. Hypnotic age regression and intelligence. Journal
of Genetic Psyphology, 1950, 77, 129-132.

 

Kline, M. Childhood fears in relation to hypnotic age re-
gression: a case report. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
1953, 82, 137-142.

Kline, M. Clinical Correlations of Experimental Hypnosis.
Springfield, lll.: Charles Thomas, 1963.

Kline, M. and Guze, H. The use of a projective drawing tech-
niques in the investigation of hypnotic age regression
and progression. British Journal of Medical Hypnosis,
1951, 3, 1-12.

Kline, M. and Haggerty, A. A hypnotic eXperimental approach
to the genesis of occupational interests and choice:
III hypnotic age regression and the TAT. In Kline, M.

Clinical Correlations of Ex erimental H nosis.
Springfield, Ill: Charles TEomas, I963, 535-451.
Kline, M. and Schneck, J. Hypnosis in relation to the word

association test. Journal of General Psychology, 1951,
44, 129-137.

 

Mercer, M. and Gibson, R. Rorschach content in hypnosis:
Chronological age level regression. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 1950, 6, 352-358.

Murray, H. Thematic A erception Test. Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard Univerley Fress, I943.

O'Connell, D., Shor, R. and Orne, M. Hypnotic age regression:
an empirical and methodological analysis. Journal of
Abnormal Psycholggy Monograph, 1970, 76, No. 3.

68

Orne, M. The mechanisms of hypnotic age regression: an ex-
perimental study. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1951, 46, 213-225.

Orne, M. The nature of hypnosis: artifact and essence.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58,
m

Orne, M. On the social psychology of the psychological ex-
periment with particular reference to demand charac-
teristics and their implications. American Psychologist,
1962, 17, 776-783.

Orne, M. and O'Connell, D. A review of R. Reiff and M.
Scheerer: memory and hypnotic age regression - de-
velopmental asPects of cognitive function eXplored
through hypnosis. Contepporagy Psyghology, 1961, 6,
70-72 0

Pine, F. A manual for rating drive content in the TAT.
Journal of Projective Technigues, 1960, 24, 32-45.

Platonow, K. On the objective proof of the experimental
personality age regression. Journal of General
Psychology, 1933, 9, 190-209.

Reiff, R. and Scheerer, M. Memory and H notic Age Regression:
Develo mental ASpectS of Co nitive unction Explored
ThrougE Hypnosis. New York: International Universities

ress, .

 

 

Reyher, J. Hypnosis in research on psychopathology. In
Gordon, J. E. (ed.) Handbook of Clinical and Ex eri-
mental Hypnosis. New York:’Max Millan, 1967.

Reyher, J. Methods of hypnotic induction. Unpublished manu-
script, Michigan State University, 1971. (a)

Reyher, J. The real-Simulation design and laboratory hyp-
nosis: two methodological cul-de-sacs. Presented at the
annual meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Washington, D.C., September, 1971. (b)

Reyher, J. and Shoemaker, D. A comparison between hypnotically
induced age regression and waking stories to TAT cards:
a preliminary report. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
1961, 25, 409-413.

Reyher, J. and Smyth, L. Suggestibility during the execu-
tion of a posthypnotic suggestion. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 1971, 78, 258-265.

Sarbin, T. Mental changes in experimental regression. Journal
of Personality, 1950, 19, 221-228.

69

Sheehan, P. Analysis of the treatment effects of simulation
instructions in the application of the real Simulating
model of hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal PSychology,
1970, 75, 98-103.

 

Shor, R. and Orne, E. The HarvargGroup Sgale of Hypnotic
of Hypnotic_SusceptibilityLForm A. Palo Alto, Calif.:
Consfilting Psychologists Press, 1962.

 

Siegel, S. Nopparametric Statistics for the Behavioral
Sciences. New York: McGraw Hill, 1956.

 

Spiegel, H., Shor, J. and Fishman, S. An hypnotic technique
for the study of personality develOpment: a preliminary
report. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1945, 7, 273-278.

Staples, E. and Wilensky, H. A controlled Rorschach investi-
gation of hypnotic age regression. Journal of Prgjective
Technigues and Personality Assessment}31968, 32,

Symonds, P. Symonds gicture Stogy Test. New York: Teachers'
College Press - Columbia University, 1948.

Taylor, M. The differentiation between Simulated and true
hypnotic regression by figure drawings. Unpublished
master's thesis, College of the City of New York, 1950.

Watkins, J. The affect bridge: a hypnoanalytic technique.
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental

Hypnosis, 197l, l9, 2l727.

Webster, R. The effects of hypnosis on performance on the
H-T-P and MP8. International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis,il962, 10, III-153.

Weitzenhoffer, A. and Hilgard, E. Stanford H notic
Susce tibilit Scale Form C. Falo Alto, Calif.: Con-
sulEing Fsycfiologists Press, 1962.

Wechsler, D. Wechsler Adult Intelli ence Scale. New York:
Psychological Corporation, 1 .

 

 

Wechsler, D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. New
York: Psychological dorporation, I939:

 

West, J. and Baugh, A. Rorschach and draw-a-person reSponses
of hypnotized and non-hypnotized subjects. Psychiatric
Quarterly, 1963, 37, 123-127.

 

Wilkins, W. and Adams, A. The use of the Rorschach test
under hypnosis and under sodium amytal in military
psychiatry. Journal of General PSychology, 1947, 36,
131-138.

70
Yates, A. Hypnotic age regression. Psycholggical Bulletin,
1961, 58, 4297440.

Young, P. Hypnotic regression - fact or artifact? Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1940, 35, 273-275.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

Compairson o§SignificancgtLevels Obtained With
PerfOrmance Test Measures Between Age-Regressed

(Ex erimentaliandiOne-AgeARole Players TControl) Grou s 1
In The Studies ofOTConnellypet.a1. add Reiff and Scheerer
O'Con-
Reiff & nel

 

 

 

 

Test figs Scheerer et.al. Statistics
P P
Hollow Tube Test
Performance level 10 .05 ns U
7 .005 .01 U
4 ns ns U
Left and Right Test
Performance level 10 ns ns U
4 ns ns U
Word Association Test
Abstract responses Adult ns ns Kruskal-Wallis
analysis of
variance
10 .05 ns U
7 .05 ns U
4 .05 ns U
Arithmetic Test
Performance level 10 nS nS U
7 .005 .001 U
Time 10 .01 .05 U
7 .01 .001 U
Pledge of Allegiance
Can write 7 ns ns Fisher's exact
probability
4 .01 ns Fisher's exact
probability
Clock Test
Performance level 7 .005 ns U
4 ns ns U
Mud and Lollipop Test
Accept Lollipop 4 .04 ns Fisher's exact

probability

 

Note: All p values are one-tailed except those for the Adult

comparisons which are two-tailed.

1

From O'Connell, et.al., 1970, p. 17.
71

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B
Induction and Deepenipg Instructions1

As you know, this is a hypnosis experiment with indi-
viduals (SS were recently screened in a group hypnosis exer-
cise). Unless you have any questions, we'll get started.

I'd like you to begin to relax now...and concentrate on the
thumbtack you see on the Opposite wall (about eight feet from
the S at a 300 angle upward from the st line of sight).

Keep your eyes on the thumbtack. Look at it as steadily
as you can. Should your eyes wander from it, that'll be all
right...just bring your eyes back to it. Relax. As you re-
lax more and more, a feeling of heaviness perhaps comes over
your body. A feeling of heaviness is coming into your legs
and your arms...into your whole body...your whole body feels
heavy, heavier and heavier. Your eyelids feel especially
heavy...Heavy and tired. You're beginning to feel drowsy,
drowsy and sleepy...Your breathing is becoming Slow and reg-
ular, slow and regular. You are getting drowsy and Sleepy,
more and more drowsy and Sleepy, while your eyelids become
heavier and heavier, more and more tired and heavy. Your
eyes are tired from staring. The heaviness in your eyelids
is increasing...Your eyes are becoming wet from straining.

l . . .
Verbation instructions given by S.to all SS.

72

73

You're becoming increasingly drowsy and sleepy...Your lids
are heavy, heavier, like 1ead...PuShing down, down, down...
Your eyes are blinking, blinking, blinking...closing...
closing...

Please extend your left arm straight out in front of
you, up in the air, with the palm of your hand down...Left
arm straight out in front of you...palm down...straight out
in front of you, palm down...I want you to pay close atten-
tion to this hand, the feelings in it, and what is happening
to it. As you pay attention to it you are more aware of it
than you have been...you notice whether its warm or cool,
whether there is a little tingling in it, whether there is
a tendency for your fingers to twitch ever so Slightly...
That's right, I want you to pay close attention to this hand
because something very interesting is about to happen to it...
It's beginning to get heavy...heavier and heavier... as though
a weight were pulling the hand and arm down...you can picture
a weight pulling on it...and as it feels heavier and heavier
it begins to move...as if something were forcing it down...

a little bit down...more and more down...down...and as I count
it gets heavier and goes down more and more...one, down...
two, down...three, down...four, down, more and more down...
five, down...six, down...seven, eight...heavier and heavier,
down and more and more...nine...down....ten...heavier and
heavier...down more and more.

You are very relaxed. The general heaviness you've felt
from time to time you now feel all over your body. Now I

want you to pay close attention to your right arm and hand...

74
Your right arm and hand Share in the feeling of heaviness...

how heavy your right hand feels...and note how as you think
about this heaviness in your hand and arm, the heaviness

seems to grow even more...Now your arm is getting heavy...
very heavy. Now your hand is getting heavy...so heavy...like
lead...perhaps a little later you would like to see how heavy
your hand is...it seems much too heavy to lift...but perhaps
in spite of being so heavy you could lift it a little, al-
though it may now be too heavy even for that...Why don't you
see how heavy it is...Just try to lift your hand up, just try.
Just try to lift your hand up, just try.

Please hold both hands up in the air, straight out in
front of you, palms facing inward - palms facing toward each
other...Hold your hands about a foot apart...about a foot a-
part...both arms straight out in front of you, hands about a
foot apart... Now, I want you to imagine a force attracting
your hands toward each other, pulling them together...AS you
think of this force pulling your hands together, they'll move
together...slowly at first, but they'll move closer together,
closer and closer together as though a force were acting on
them...moving...moving...closer and closer...Lower your hands.

I am sure that you've paid so close attention to what
we have been doing that you have not noticed the fly which
has been buzzing about you...But now that I call your atten-
tion to it you become increasingly aware of this fly which is
going round and round about your head...nearer and nearer to
you...buzzingly annoyingly...hear the buzz getting louder as

it keeps darting at you...You don't care much for this fly...

75

You would like to Shoo it away...get rid Of it...it annoys
you. Go ahead and get rid of it if you want to...(gesture)
There, it's going away, it's gone...and you are no longer
annoyed...no more f1y...Just relax, relax completely...relax...
just relax.

Nod your head if you ever have awakened with a start
from a dream that you can't recall (nods head). Shortly after
I count from one to three you will have a dream. Shortly
thereafter you will awaken from this dream with a start...
Open your eyes and you will not remember anything about it.
Also, you will not remember anything about this session. It
will be just like a dream that you can't recall. Afterward,
after you've awakened, all I will have to do is have you lean
back and by the time I count to ten your eyes will be closed
and you will be in an even deeper sleep-like state than you
are in now...nOd your head if you understand. Remember,
when I count to three, you'll have a dream, and shortly there-
after, you'll awaken with a start, open your eyes and not
remember anything about it....Or anything about this session
as well...1, 2, 3...

Well, how do you feel?...Would you like to get up,
stretch your legs or get a drink of water? (If no, S will
leave for a drink)...(2 min. break)...Is there anything about
the session that comes to mind? (10 sec.) DO you remember any-
thing at all about the last session? (30 sec.)... Well lean
back and relax, relax...1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 - deep-

ly relaxed, eyes closed...

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C
Transcripts Of Intense Emotional Reactions1
Subject #18: Symonds Card2

My mommy and daddy had been fighting and it scared me
because my daddy walked out of the house. And I didn't
know where he was (crying) and my mommy took us all in the
car and we went some place I didn't know. And I was crying.
And I was really scared. Any my brothers were trying to tell
me not to cry. But I didn't listen to them because I was
really scared (crying).
Subject #22: TAT Card3

Daddy (whispering) he said, he said he was going to wait
for me and mother left and I'm so alone. It's not me...It's
not me. It's not my daddy. (Heavy and rapid breathing)...
(What's happening?) I don't know where I am./ (Whispering,
crying) I don't know where I am. It's not me...(What's hap-
pening right now?) It's daddy...Horses...It'S not the same...
It's not me...(WhO is it?)...(heavy and rapid breathing)
(What's going on?) I don't understand why I look different.
I feel different. It's not me. (You'll be able to raise your
hand when you're through describing what's going on)...

1Subjects' behavior and st comments are in parentheses.
Each dot equals a 5 second pause.
2Hypnotized subject, retained for the final data analysis.

76

77

Subject #22: Symonds Card1

 

...I don't know who I am, but it's not me (heavy and
rapid breathing) (What's happening?) I'm walking to the door
and I'm all alone and there's a man and he says that he
knows my Dad. I can see myself but it's not me. He said to
let him in and he'd wait. And I did. And he sat down and
he talked to me and he's Old..and he..and he sat down. He
hurt me. He took my arm and he hurt it. And came in and I
was crying. It's not me, it's not me. It's not my mother
(heavy and rapid breathing...(What'S happening now?). I
don't know, I don't know (whiSpering) (how do you feel?)
It's not me, it's not me. (When you're through describing

these experiences, raise your right hand)..

Subject #26: TAT Card2

(Crying, breathing heavily) I should be going to school
and having more friends in my own life but I_can't. I'm old
enough now to take care of my brothers and sisters, while
mommy works. I don't want to. I'm tired Of it. I wish

they'd gO away. (crying).

Subject #26: Symonds Card2

(Crying, heavy breathing) I feel so guilty. I, it's..
Pappa is supposed to love Mamma but I want him to love me
and he doesn't: (screams, Opens her eyes) (hyperventilating,

crying). (1 minute) (you have a lot on your mind about

1Simulator who became hypnotized against instructions.
Hypnotized subject, removed from further procedures.

78
something that happened a year ago)1 ...I was supposed to get

married last June. I was on Upward Bound out here: we couldn't
see each other often. And he started seeing a girl at work.
Next thing I know he was married - they got pregnant - she

lost the baby, etc.2

Subjgct #31: Symonds Card3

 

My father put, he sneaked up on my mother to give her
a peck on the neck and tried to hold her, embrace here.
And my mother would say ”Stop it, not in front of the chil-
dren!" Wow! Don't you love her? 222:2 you love him? Ma,

don't you love him (crying)?

1The S had reported this during the ”sample" regression
procedure Igo back one year), with some emotion (little cry-
ing). My purpose was to divert her attention to this Obvi-
ously less threatening, though uncomfortable incident, re-
storing defenses.

She became much more calm. The discussion continued at
length (about an hour altogether.)She added later that she was
currently in therapy and was feeling bad about being cut back
to only one group session per week (from 1 group, 1 individ-
ual/week). We discussed her current needs and She decided to
seek the additional session - a rather assertive step for
this passive girl.

Hypnotized subject, retained for the final data analysis.

...—1...»...uw-..“ ~ —'- -1

   

L

"7:117:00Mllmwgm"S