THE RECALL OF MEMORIES AS A FUNCTION OF REPRESSING AND SENSITIZING DEFENSES AND BODY POSITION Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Ira P. Weinsfein 196.6 This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE RECALL OF MEMORIES AS A FUNCTION OF BEPBESSING AND SENSITIZING DEFENSES AND BODY PO” TION 5%., presente Ira P. Weinstein has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _E.b_._D_._ degree in m 0 3y * L -- .5 got/9% Major professor ‘ 1 Date Jilly 28, 1966 0-169 ABSTRACT THE RECALL OF MEMORIES AS A FUNCTION OF REPRESSING AND SENSITIZING DEFENSES AND BODY POSITION by Ira P. Weinstein The present study was designed to investigate the relationships between the represser-sensitizer defense mode, body position, and the recall of memories. Subjects representing three levels on the represser-sensitizer di- mension were selected. The groups corresponding to these levels are referred to as the represser defense group, the middle defense group, and the sensitizer defense group. The subjects recalled memories in either a sitting up (SU) position or a lying down (LD) position. A total of 108 male undergraduate subjects partici- pated in the experiment; there were 36 repressers, 36 "middles," and 36 sensitizers. Selection was based on scores received on the Byrne Repression-Sensitization Scale. Each defense type group was divided in half; 18 subjects were assigned to the SU position, and 18 subjects were assigned to the LD position. Therefore, there were 5“ sub- jects in the LD group and 54 subjects in the SU group. Subjects were asked to either sit up or lie down, depending upon the group to which they had been assigned. Ira r. Weinstein They were then instructed to recall situations in their lives in which they had felt ". . . nervous, frightened, or scared." After the recall period subjects were asked to estimate their age at the time that each recalled event had occurred. The number of memories reported and the ap- proximate age at the time of the remembered events consti- tuted the basic data. Repressers have been described as people who tend to use avoidance, denial, repression and forgetting as primary modes of adaptation when faced with threat and anxiety. Sensitizers on the other hand have a tendency to approach rather than avoid anxiety. Their primary defense mechanisms are intellectualization and obsessional type defenses. Several investigators have demonstrated that the recall of memories seems to be affected by the position of the subject's body when he is involved in the recall task. For example, previous research indicates that subjects in a LD position tend to recall somewhat earlier memories than subjects in the SU position. It was, therefore, hypothesized that: I. Sensitizers would recall a greater number of anxiety memories than would repressers. II. Sensitizers would recall chronologically earlier memories of anxiety than would repressers. III. Subjects in a supine position would recall a greater number of anxiety memories than those in an upright position. Ira P. Weinstein IV. Subjects in a supine position would recall chronolog— ically earlier memories of anxiety than those in an upright position. Contrary to hypotheses I and II repressers reported a greater number and generally earlier memories than sensitizers. These differences were not significant; how- ever, an analysis of the age of the earliest two memories showed that the age of earliest memories was lower for repressers than for sensitizers. The results bearing on hypotheses I and II were explained in terms of the task subjects had to perform and the sampling procedures employed in the study. Hypothesis III was not supported by the data. All of the data regarding body position and age of memories was in support of hypothesis IV, although these results were not statistically significant. The suggestion was made that a LD position might sometimes be used during non-analytic psychotherapy to facilitate the access to primary process material. The data regarding hypotheses III and IV were interpreted to mean that body position has a greater effect on the age of memories re- called rather than the number of memories recalled. Sug- gestions were made for further research utilizing different procedures and samples. THE RECALL OF MEMORIES AS A FUNCTION OF REPRESSING AND SENSITIZING DEFENSES AND BODY POSITION By Ira P. Neinstein A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1966 DEDICATION to the memory of my father ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. Paul Bakan for serving as chairman of the disserta- tion committee. His encouragement, suggestions, criticisms, and sense of humor helped to make this not only a learning experience but also a most enjoyable endeavor. Thanks are extended to the other committee members Drs. Bill Kell, Mary Leichty, and Norm Abeles not only for their help with this project but also for the unique contribution each has made to my career and me as a person. To Dr. Art Seagull who has given me the gift of his friendship and personal interest goes a very special thank you. Appreciation is expressed to the Psychology Depart- ment for generously providing equipment and facilities for this research. Gratitude is felt toward the students who served as subjects for this experiment. The author is most of all indebted to his wife Fran, who served as an assistant on this study. Her understanding, patience, and unyielding faith in him are also acknowledged as a major force behind this research and what will follow. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES INTRODUCTION Repression . Repression- -Sensitization. Body Position Hypotheses METHOD . Experimental Conditions and Design Subjects . . . . . . . . Administration Procedure. . Rating of Memories. RESULTS. Number of Memories. Age of All Memories . Age of Earliest Memory Age of Earliest Two Memories . . Distribution of Memories Over Time Summary Of the Data Qualitative Impressions DISCUSSION. Repression- Sensitization. Body Position . Distribution of Memories Over Time SUMMARY. . BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES. iv Page iii Table 10 LIST OF TABLES Analysis of variance of number of memories reported . . . . . . . . . . . Means and standard deviations for number of memories reported . . . Analysis of variance of age of all memories Means and standard deviations for age of all memories reported . . . . . . . . Age of earliest memory recalled Cumulative age of earliest two memories recalled . . . . . . . Number of memories reported in five minute segments . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of number of memories per five minute segment . . . . Page 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 33 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Frequency distribution of number and age of memories for sensitizers 2. Frequency distribution of number and age of memories for repressers 3. Frequency distribution of number and age of memories for middle group. . . vi Page 35 36 37 Appendix A. LIST OF APPENDICES Norms for R-S Scale Administered to 286 Introductory Psychology Students Health and Opinion Survey (R-S Scale) Subject Data--Mean Age of All Memories; Age of Earliest Memory; Age and Order of All Memories by Individual Subject Number and Age of All Memories Recalled. vii Page 62 6A 72 81 INTRODUCTION It has been shown that people differing in primary modes of psychological defense show differences in the way in which they deal with anxiety arousing stimuli or situa- tions. The defense types studied in this experiment are called repressers, whose major defenses are repression and denial, sensitizers, whose major defenses are intellectual- ization, ruminative worrying and obsessive behaviors, and middles, whose defenses are somewhere between the other two groups (Byrne, 196“). Subjects were asked to recall these memories while either sitting up or lying down. The types of memories subjects were asked to recall had to do with situations in their lives in which they had felt, ". . . nervous, frightened, or scared." This is the kind of material that is so often said to be heavily defended against psychologically (Freud, 1959). Repressers therefore, were expected to perform differently than sensi— tizers and middles on this type of recall task which it was thought would elicit psychological defense. The number of memories produced per subject and the chronological age of these memories were the key performance variables which were expected to differentiate repressors and sensitizers. The recall of memories seems to be influenced by at least one factor other than psychological defense. Some writers (Freud, 1938; Berdach, 1965) feel that the body position of a person, i.e., whether he is lying down or sittingiq)influences the ease of recall for memories. The effects of these two body positions on the recall of memories were also studied. It is possible that body position may interact with the type of defense a person characteristically uses. The interaction of psychological defense and body position in relationship to the recall of anxiety memories was also investigated. Utilizing the above variables and Operations an attempt was made to empirically demonstrate that: l. . . . there is a relationship between represser, sensitizer, and middle type defenses and the recalling of anxiety- laden memories and that. 2. . . . the recall of anxiety memories of repressors, sensitizers, and middles can be influenced by body position. Repression Freud first began thinking of the concept of repres- sion when he noticed a resistance in his patients to recall painful memories (Freud, 192A; Breuer and Freud, 1936). As for the foundations of repression he said, ". . . the essence of repression lies simply in the function of rejecting and keeping something out of consciousness" (Freud, 1959, p. 80); its motive and purpose was seen as ". . . simply the avoidance of 'pain'" (121$; p. 92). It was Ernest Jones who stated in his formulation of Freud's concept of repression, that there were in fact individual differences among the ways people used this defense. He said, ". . . the capacity to forget painful experiences is only of a certain strength, which differs greatly in dif- ferent people, and is not always successful in achieving its aim . . ." (Mackinnon and Dukes, 1962, p. 66“). As for the dynamics of repression Freud was very clear in his final formulation; it is anxiety that activates repression (Freud, 1935). In a paper on repression Freud (1959) divided the process into three phases: primal repression, repression proper, and return of the repressed. This division has served as a model for the scientific exploration of the repression concept. Primal (archaic) repression has as its purpose the denial of entrance into consciousness of " . . . some ideas attached to instinctual strivings which are unacceptable to the ego. This type of repression is commonly attributed to childhood . . ."(Stewart, 1962, p. 93). This is really the repression of the primary process material spanning the period from the birth trauma to about age five or six and including the childhood traumas. All later repression is based on the events of childhood repression. Later events that are associated with these instances are treated similarly by the ego. Repression proper concerns mental derivatives of the repressed instinct-presentation, or such trains of thought as, originating elsewhere, have come into associative connection with it. On account of this association, these ideas experi— ence the same fate as that which underwent primal repression (Freud, 1959, pp. 86-87). The return of the repressed is actually a failure or mis- carriage of repression. Fenichel (1945) describes it as follows: The repressed pushes toward consciousness and motility; it consists of impulses seeking outlets. In this seeking activity it tends to produce "derivatives," that is, to displace its cathexes onto associatively connected ideas that are less objectionable to the conscious ego (p. 17). Freud's initial trichotomy of repression has been reformulated in the context of present day psychology. Mackinnon and Dukes (1962) discuss the notion that in the case of primal repression, where one finds a denial of entry of material into consciousness, one would also expect to find an inhibition of perception, i.e., ". . . a failure to perceive anxiety arousing stimuli presented to the sub- ject. . ." (ibid., p. 685). The research in this area has come to be known as the study of perceptual defense. In repression proper or after-expulsion from consciousness one would expect to find an inhibition of memory, i.e., ". a failure to remember ego—wounding or anxiety provoking experiences of which the subject was once fully aware" (ibid., p. 685). Inhibition of response would be expected to be the result Of the failure or miscarriage of repres- sion; ". . . symptoms or compromise formations in thought and action resulting from the unresolved conflict between repressed and repressing forces" (ibid, p. 685), is the expected finding. In light of the above, one could look for repression experimentally by investigating disturbances in perception, memory, and thought and action. It is, therefore, suggested that possibly when subjects are asked to recall instances of extreme anxiety in their lives the degree to which repression is operative might be evidenced by the amount of blocking on this task. Repression-Sensitization The repression-sensitization dimension Of defense categorization had its origin in the late 19A0's with the research then being undertaken in the area Of perceptual adaptation; now known as vigilance and perceptual defense. Bruner and Postman (1947) were the first to notice individ— ual differences in subjects when they were shown threatening or anxiety-provoking words tachistoscopically. For some subjects the greater the anxiety, the greater the "perceptual defense" or slower the recognition time. There seemed to be a repression Operative for this type of material. In contrast, there were other subjects who had a faster recog— nition time for the anxiety-provoking words. A sensitizing process is suggested for this group. Consequently, an approach-avoidance dimension in relation to the perception of threat emerged from these types of studies. Donn Byrne (1961; 196A) presents a rather extensive review of the research that was conducted on perceptual defense. In these studies subjects were differentiated as to their primary defense modes and then tested for perceptual threshold differences for threatening versus non-threatening stimuli. In general the results reported are that those subjects who have the most difficulty perceiving the threatening material also give evidence of blocking, repre- sion, and avoiding when responding to conflictful stimuli in other situations. It is also shown that those who per- ceive threatening stimuli as accurately or more accurately than neutral stimuli respond to other anxiety provoking situations with intellectualization, sensitization, and general approach behavior. Byrne (1964) points out that other reponse measures besides perceptual threshold also yield the same kind of data concerning the response to threatening stimuli. He states, "An examination of the perceptual studies and the subsequent work suggests rather strongly the presence of an approach-avoidance sort of dimension with respect to threatening stimuli"(p. 173). In an effort to develop an easy to administer and objective method of measuring the repression-sensitization (R-S) dimension investigators turned to the MMPI as early as 1955 (Byrne, 1964). The first major effort in this direction was made by Altrocchi, et_a1. (1960). Byrne (1961) refined the Altrocchi R-S scale, and it is the Bryne scale, which has undergone sub- sequent revision and refinement as late as 1963 (see Byrne, 1963), that was used in the present study. This scale has proven to be both reliable (Byrne, 1963) and valid (Tempone, 1963; Byrne, 1961, 1963, 196Aa, 1964b, 1965; Byrne and Sheffield, 1965; O'Connell and Peterson, 196“). Since the R-S scale originated from the discovery of differential recognition thresholds for threatening versus non-threatening stimuli, it should follow that this scale is capable of differentiating subjects as to their perceptual defense behavior. Tempone (1962) did just such a study and found the above hypothesized relationship to exist. The establishment of the existence of this relationship serves to point um)the importance and relevance for the present study of Byrne's (1961) review of recall studies carried out with people who were classified as repressors on perceptual tasks. His findings can be summarized as follows; people classified as repressers on perceptual tasks tend to: remember success better than failure in a scrambled sentence task; forget an anxiety arousing Blacky picture; prefer avoidance and forgetting defenses on a defense inquiry; and respond to a sentence completion test with blocking, avoidance, denial and cliches. Sensitizers, on the other hand, tend to: recall failures and material associated with painful shock; recall incompleted tasks; and respond to a sentence-completion task with admission of inadequacy and failure, rationalization, intellectual- ization and humor. As for the recall of anxiety-laden situations for subjects measured by the R—S scale itself, Gossett (196“), found that those people with low R-S scores (repressers) could not recall nonsense syllables associated with threat and failure as easily as high scorers (sensitizers). Byrne and Sheffield (1965) found that repressers report a far lesser awareness of anxiety in a threatening situation than do sensitizers. Byrne (1963) concludes that both the per— ceptual and the R—S scale studies lead one to believe that repressers have a poorer memory for anxiety provoking situ— ations than do sensitizers. There has been on research attempt to relate the R-S scale to the recall of memories from one's own life. As can be seen above the only recall investigated has been for events that were part of a planned experimental pro- cedure. However, there has been some research carried out with the recalling of dreams that has employed several of the MMPI scales that also comprise the R-S scale. Dream recall has also been related to the general dimension of repression-sensitization as measured by means other than the MMPI. Freud (1938) reports that the failure to recall dreams is just another example of the operation of repression. There is implied the notion that the greater the general forgetting of dreams the greater is the repres- sion in the patient. R. A. Schonbar (1959) reports that research indicates that everyone dreams even though some people report that they do not. She hypothesizes that the phenomenon of dreaming takes place because the anxiety that these thoughts would evoke in a conscious state would be too much to bear. Her major finding in support of this hypothesis was a positive relationship between manifest anxiety and the frequency of content and contentless dream recall. These findings are interpreted in terms of an approach toward anxiety provoking or conflictful situations for the high anxiety subjects and a strong repressive or avoidance factor being operative for the low anxiety non- recallers of dreams or dreaming itself. Lachmann, et al. (1962) found similar results. Byrne and Sheffield (1965) report that repressers tend to respond to anxiety situations with significantly less verbalized anxiety than do sensi- tizers. It seems possible to conclude that low—anxiety non-recallers of dreams or dreaming and repressers as defined by Byrne might be drawn from the same population. Singer and Schonbar (1961) using a repression scale derived from the MMPI found that those people who report a high frequency of daydreaming also report a high frequency of night dreaming and that these frequencies correlate neg- atively with repression. C. T. Tart (1962), after dividing 10 his subjects into two groups, repressers and sensitizers, on the basis of their MMPI scores, found that repressers recall far fewer of their dreams than do sensitizers. Further evidence for the relationship between repression and dream recall comes from Goldin (1964). In describing Witkin's work on cognitive style, Goldin states that, The field dependent individual does not articulate the field in an analytic manner but is dominated by a global approach to experience. It was hypo- thesized (by Witkin) that such individuals would use predominantly primitive defenses such as repression and denial . . . (Witkin) reports that field dependent individuals are significantly poorer in dream recall than field analytic individ- uals. To the extent that dream recall is an adequate index of repressive trends, the authors conclude that field dependency and repression are associated (p. 370). In summarizing, it appears that repressers are people who tend to use avoidance, denial, repression, and forgetting as primary modes of adaptation when faced with threat and anxiety. In fact, when asked to recall situa- tions where they have experienced threat or anxiety it seems as if they have a great deal of difficulty doing this. Sensitizers, on the other hand, seem very much alerted to threat and respond with manifest anxiety. Their primary defense modes are intellectualization and Obses- sional type defenses. Their tendency is to approach rather than avoid anxiety. Evidence indicates that their recall for anxiety provoking or threatening laboratory situations is fairly good. 11 From the above emerges the first major hypothesis of this study: "Repressers will recall fewer memories dealing with situations in their lives where they have felt 'nervous, frightened, or scared,‘ than will sensitizers." The number of memories dealing with anxiety that a subject can recall has been hypothesized above to be related to the absence of repression as a major defense mode. Another characteristic of these memories that was under investigation in this study is their age, i.e., how old the subject was (approximately) when the event related in the memory actually occurred. Freud maintained that the etiology of neurosis was in repressed childhood memories. ‘He saw the major task of psychoanalysis to be the alleviation of neurotic symptoms by bringing these memories into consciousness with their accompanying affect. As was noted earlier the basic element of what is repressed is primary process material (see p. 3). It is through the primary process mode that the pre—language infant experiences the world according to Freud. Since primary process material can be conceived of as the foundation of all repression, one would expect a paucity of recall of anxiety laden events of childhood among those who use repression as a major defense. It is not surprising, therefore, when Freud reports (1958) that, "It is only from the sixth or seventh year onwards--in many cases only after the tenth year—-that our lives can 12 be reproduced in memory as a connected chain of events." This statement can be interpreted to mean that primary process material and those events occurring closer in time to this material tend generally to be repressed. However, Freud reports data collected by others (V. and C. Henri), as well as Observations made by himself, indi- cating that some people find it easy to recall and relate childhood memories while others find it almost impossible to recall such memories. Implied is the notion that most people fall into a middle category on this dimension. The study by the Henris also demonstrated that there is a positive correlation between recalling earliest memories and recalling memories in general. They report that the content of first memories of childhood center around occasions of fear, shame, physical pain, illnesses, death, fires, and birth of siblings-—a11 anxiety provoking situa- tions. Taking the Freudian Viewpoint one can say in summary that early memories are closely related to primary process material, and it is this material that is the basic content of repression. This leads us to the next hypothesis Of the present investigation which is an attempt to explain the individual differences in childhood memory recall that Freud and others have noted. It is believed that perhaps these individual differences can be explained in terms of primary defense modes. Those people who use represser 13 type defenses were expected to delete memories from their awareness that were most closely associated with primary process material, i.e., childhood anxiety memories. On the other hand, those who use sensitizing defenses were expected to approach the primary process/anxiety-laden material of childhood much more readily than the repressers. Therefore, it was hypothesized that, "Sensitizers will recall chronologically earlier memories of anxiety than repressers." Body Position Freud felt that there was much effort involved in the process of repression. He said that, "A constant expenditure of energy, . . . , is entailed in maintaining a repression . . ."(Freud, 1959, p. 90). According to Freudian theory this energy expenditure, in the form of anti-cathexes, leads to a good deal of tension both muscular and psychological. In order to facilitate the uncovering of what was repressed Freud chose to have his patients lie down on a couch while he sat behind them. He adopted this position so as to relieve, ". . . muscular tension and every distracting sense impression which might disturb the concentration of the attention upon his (the patient's) own mental affairs" (Hitschman, 1917, p. 195). Several current writings have also taken the position that the lying down posture has as one of its major attributes the relaxation of the patient (Munroe, 1955; Rosner, 1962). This l4 relaxation is seen as important for the progress of the analysis of what has been repressed. These writers feel that the physically relaxed patient has greater access to I'epressed material (ibid). The differential effects of the lying down position and the sitting up position on the free recall of memories was recently explored by Elsie Berdach (1965). She found that generally there were no significant differences in the number of memories her subjects recalled as a function of body position. Some very specific relationships between age category, number of memories recalled, and body posi- tion were found. There has been much concern with the whole issue of muscular relaxation and its effects on psychic processes. The prevailing opinion seems to be that, "Psychic tension and relief cannot be without a somatic representation (Reich, 1949, p. 313). Reich reports that, One finds very often that the state of muscular tension is different before the solution of an acute repression and afterwards. When patients are in acute resistance, that is, when they try to keep an idea or an impulse from consciousness, they often feel a tension, say, in the head, the thighs or buttocks. After having overcome the resistance, they suddenly feel relaxed (Reich, 1949, p. 343). He feels there is a clear cut relationship between "relaxed musculature" and "free-flowing psychic activity" or the relative absence of repression. Sandor Ferenczi noted that, "As analysis progresses release of mental tensions may be 15 accompanied by relief of muscular tensions . . ." (Ferenczi, 1950, p. 281). He goes on to say that as a result of these observations he has sometimes found it, ". . . useful to advise relaxation exercises, and that with this kind of relaxation one can overcome the physical inhibitions and resistances to assocations" (in Lowen, 1958). In a sense then Freud and his colleagues and followers have been considering the body in the therapeutic situation since the beginning of the psychoanalytic movement. This has led to the more purposeful use of relaxation techniques as part of the therapeutic process today. Lowen, a follower of Reich, feels as Reich does that a muscular reorganiza- tion is necessary if a psychic reorganization is to take place. Trygve Braatey, a contemporary analyst, claims that relaxation leads to emotional spontaneity and the lifting of repression. He advocates the use of the couch in psycho- therapy for the purpose of creating a relaxed atmosphere that will enable the patient to, ". . . release memories of and reactions to mental danger . . ." (Braatey, 1954, p. 193). Braatey, discusses, as supporting evidence for the idea of greater accessibility to repressed material in the lying down position, the fact that the EEG of a lying down patient is more relaxed (less alert) than that of a sitting up patient whose EEG is much more confused because of irrelevant potential fluctuations from peripheral muscle contractions. 16 The first experiments using relaxation as a psycho- therapy were reported in 1938 by Edmund Jacobson (1938). He trained his subjects (clinical patients) in a technique of progressive relaxation which involved the training of the body musculature to relax so as to be able to overcome both physical and psychic tensions. There is implied in his writings a relationship between body tensions and imagery and recall. Building upon Jacobson's work Joseph Wolpe develOped the conditioning therapy technique known as reciprocal inhibition which.ir1many of its facets uses muscle relaxation. Wolpe feels that, ". . . deep muscle relaxation has autonomic effects antagonistic to those of anxiety" (Wolpe, 1958, p. 35). If we can assume from the above that muscle tension is a physical representation of the psychic process of repression, and that this body tension, and concomitantly the repression also, can be relieved somewhat by lying down and relaxing, then, the following hypothesis of the present study should be verified: "Subjects who try to recall anxiety memories in a lying down position should be able to recall more of them than those subjects who attempt this task in a sitting up position." In her recent study Berdach (1965) reports differ— ences in the age of memories recalled in a free recall situation as a functon of body position. She found that lying down subjects reported significantly more childhood 1? memories (from birth to age 3) than sitting up subjects; significantly more of the former subjects recalled such memories; and that the mean age for memories recalled was earlier for the supine group than for the upright group, although this trend was not statistically significant. In her discussion of these results Berdach refers to Freud's notion that the relaxation of sleep allows the unconscious to become active in the dream-work which is always permeated with at least disguised primary process material. She further states that, It can readily be seen that some similarity exists between the lying down position when awake and the lying down position when asleep in terms Of similar muscle tensions of the body when in the reclining position. These body tensions and motor discharges into the interior of the body in turn seem related to phenomena of primary process ideation occurring. It seems that in the awake condition when lying down a change in the muscle tensions allows for the unconscious elements of the psyche to become conscious in the form of recalling the earliest experiences of childhood, originally experienced on the primary process level . . . . It seems that in both instances of lying-down, when either awake or asleep, the relaxation of the muscles and the change in muscle tension facilitates occurrence of primary process material (Berdach, pp. 21-22). Morgan and Bakan (1965) found that subjects lying down in a horizontal position reported significantly more sensory deprivation hallucinations (SDH) than those sub- jects in a sitting up position. All subjects were sensorily deprived. These data were interpreted in light of the fact that the horizontal position closely approximates sleep. Therefore, dreams and SDH's are somewhat equated by the 18 authors. Whether dreams and SDH's are similar in terms Of possessing primary process characteristics remains to be demonstrated. The final hypothesis of the present study concerns itself with body position and the age of memories; it is stated as follows: "Subjects in a supine position will recall chronologically earlier memories of anxiety than those in an upright position." Hypotheses I. Sensitizers will recall a greater number of anxiety memories than will repressors. II. Sensitizers will recall chronologically earlier memories of anxiety than repressers. III. Subjects in a supine position will recall a greater number of anxiety memories than those in an upright position. IV. Subjects in a supine position will recall chronologically earlier memories of anxiety than those in an upright position. METHOD Experimental Conditions and Design Essentially two experimental conditions were utilized in this investigation. One consisted of having S recall anxiety memories while in an upright position seated in a chair (SU). A second condition consisted of having S recall anxiety memories while in a supine, reclining position on a bed (LD). Before being assigned to one of the above two condi- tions a subject was classified as to his primary defense mode as indicated by his score on the R-S scale. He could be classified in one of the following three ways: Represser, Sensitizer, or Middle (someone who scored between the extreme points of the scale). Subjects There were a total of 108 male Ss who participated in the experiment. Thirty-six of these were classified as Repressers, 36 as Sensitizers, and 36 as Middles. This division of Ss was made on the basis of scores received on the revised Byrne R—S scale (Byrne, 1963). The scale was administered to 439 introductory psy— chology students (Norms appear in Appendix A). This group consisted of 286 males and 153 females. One hundred and sight males were selected from this pool to serve as subjects. 19 20 The bottom 14% Of the male distribution yielded the 36 Represser Ss (M = 19.56, range = 4-27). The 36 Sensitizers were selected from the top 14% of the distribution (M = 81.42, range = 66—110). Eighteen subjects above and below the median comprised the Middle group (M = 49.14, range = 46—52). The age range for Ss was 18—27. The mean ages for the three groups was as follows: Repressers = 19.33, Sensitizers = 18.72, and Middles = 19.06. There were no significant differences in age between these groups [t (R vs S) = 1.85; t(R vs M = .82; t(M vs S) = 1.26]. Each of the three groups of 36 Se classified by defense type was divided in half. Eighteen subjects in each group were assigned to the LD position and 18 Ss were assigned to the SU condition. Therefore, of the 108 Ss participating in the experiment 54 were in the LD group and 54 were in the SU group. Administration The revised R-S scale (see Appendix B) consists of 182 items drawn from the following MMPI sub-scales: D, Pt, Welsh Anxiety, L, K, and Hy denial. Of these 182 items 127 are scored and 55 are buffer items. Scores can, therefore, range from 0-127. Those Ss scoring high are classified as sensitizers while those scoring low are classified as repressers. 21 The R-S scale was titled the Health and Opinion Survey for this investigation. It was administered to a large group of introductory psychology students by their instructor with the following instruction: You are being handed a survey that is being conducted by some members of the psychology department. We would like your cooperation in helping us to develop this questionnaire so that it may be of some usefulness in the years to come. You will notice that there are two answer sheets in your survey booklet—-this is because there are 182 survey items and only 172 items per answer sheet. Therefore you will have to answer items 1-172 on one answer sheet and use the second answer sheet for the last 10 items (items 173-182) of the survey. Please fill out the top line of both answer sheets--this includes your name, the date, your student number and your sex. Also fill in the IBM student number box at the right on both answer sheets. It is not necessary to fill out the rest of the information requested on the answer sheet. We need your names and student number at this time because in deveIOping a questionnaire it is often helpful to retest people at a later time to be sure that the items are reliable. After we are satisfied that the questionnaire is reliable all identifying information will be removed from the answer sheets. All of you participating today will be given one hour of research credit. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions please ask the proctors who will be walking around the room. Procedure Ss were first tested (see above) and then called at a later time to participate in the experiment. They had never seen or heard from S previous to the time that the experiment was run and had no reason to associate S with 22 the previously administered R-S scale. S examined the distribution Of test scores (respondents not identified) and established the previously mentioned cutoff points for the defense groups (see p. 20). An assistant then identified who the Ss were but told S only which body position to administer to which S. In other words S did not know to which defense type group the S he was working with belonged. S was contacted by S on the telephone and asked to participate in an ". . . interesting experiment that has to do with the recalling of memories." S was instructed to appear at a room in the Psychology Research Building. S would introduce himself to S at this time and acquaint S with the room and discuss the Research Building itself in an effort to relax S. I The dimensions of the experimental room were 8' 9" x 12' 3". The room was temperature controlled (set at 72°), soundproof and windowless. If the S was to be treated in an LD condition a bed with a pillow on it was set up in the room and S was instructed to lie down. S sat behind the head of the bed so that S could not Observe him. In the case of 80 Ssthe bed was folded up and stored in a corner of the room. Ss treated under this condition sat with their backs to S. In this way S could not see S without turning himself or his chair completely around. 23 In the LD condition the microphone from the tape recorder was placed on a small stand near the head of the bed. The tape recorder itself was placed out of sight. In the SD condition also only the microphone was visible to S. After S was situated either on the bed or in the chair one of two sets of instructions were read to him de- pending on which treatment group he belonged to. Below are the instructions: This is an experiment in memory recall. What I would like for you to do is to sit in the chair (lie on the bed), relax, and tell me any memories that come into your mind that have to do with specific situations in your life in which you have felt nervous, frightened, or scared. Do not be general but relate specific incidents. I'll give you some examples--to say that as a very small child you were afraid of the dark would be a very general statement and not what I am looking for-— but to describe a particular time when you can recall being afraid of the dark, like a particular night you slept at your grandmother's house, is the type of thing I had in mind. (Another example) To say that you get nervous before exams would be a very general statement and not appropriate. However, to describe being anxious or nervous before a particular exam--let's say the college boards or last week's natural science quiz would be more specific and what I am looking for. Your memories may deal with any and all periods of your life ranging from infancy to the present. Try to be somewhat brief in your descriptions, there is no need to go into great detail, there does not have to be any particular order to the way in which you tell me your memories, there is no right or wrong way of doing this, just say what comes to your mind. Why don't you try one now to see if you have the idea ------------ . That's fine! You will have plenty of time, 25 minutes, to do this. I might add here that there is no magic number of memories you are expected to recall, this varies quite a bit with individuals, so do not 24 be concerned about silences or for that matter the lack of silences. I am going to be sitting over here and listening, what you say is being recorded so that we can go over the tape afterwards together. After the experiment is over the tape will be erased. Try not to pay any attention to me. I will tell you when the time is up. Now to summarize, you are to sit in the chair (lie on the bed), relax, and tell me briefly any memories that you can recall that have to do with specific situations (do not be general) in which you have felt nervous, frightened or scared. DO you have any questions? The next time that I speak it will be to let you know that the time is up. O.K. begin. After the instructions were read S turned on the tape recorder. No other comments were made by S until the end of the recall session. The session lasted (from instructions to the closing of the recall period) approxi- mately 30 minutes, S would signify its conclusions by saying, ”O.K., that's fine." At this time S turned Off the tape recorder. He then told S that they would now go over the memories together. While seated behind S, S was writing down brief notes on each memory that S was reporting. At the conclu- sion Of the recall period, with S facing S, S presented the cues noted above and asked S to approximate as accurately as he could how old he was at the time the event reported had occurred. If S's notes were not descriptive enough so as to enable S to recall the memory S then played the tape. At the conclusion of the tape review period S asked S for any reactions he might have had to the experiment or for any questions he might have. 25 Before he left, S was given a slip indicating that he had participated in an experiment and was thanked for his cooperation. Rating of Memories S and an assistant listened to the tape recordings made Of all memories and judged whether or not the memories were acceptable for the experiment. The Operational defini- tion that the judges used in their decisions of what was an anxiety memory follows: "An anxiety memory is the recall Of any past experience(s) that is reported by the subject during which he felt nervous, frightened or scared." Excluded from this definition are any accounts Of: (l) feelings that S was experiencing at the moment; (2) anxiety that might be experienced in the future; (3) experi- ences that did not have to do with anxiety; (4) situations that the subject related more than once (these were tabu— lated as only one memory). There was a total of 1836 memories reported, 90 of these memories were discarded leaving a usable total of 1746 memories. In order for a memory to be discarded one of two conditions had to exist, either both judged had to agree that it was a discardable memory or both judges had to disagree. The judges agreed on the fact that 68 of the 90 memories discarded were not appropriate for this investi— gation. The judges disagreed on only 22 memories. When the total of 1836 memories is considered there was '26 interjudge agreement of 98.76%. Since only those memories that the judges agreed upon were used as data for the study there was 100% agreement on all memories reported as results. Some memories that Ss reported were rather general, and therefore, could not be identified as to age, these memories were still included as data. Where Ss gave a span of years for a particular memory the mean age of these years was used as the age of the memory. If the age span exceeded five years no age was recorded in the data for this memory. RESULTS Number Of Memories The total number of memories recalled was not affected by either the body position or by characteristic mode Of psychological defense. Table 1 presents the results of the analysis of variance performed on these data. None of the F values are statistically significant. These data lead one to conclude that the number Of memories a subject reported was not affected by either the fact that he was sitting up or lying down or whether he was a represser, sensitizer or a member of the moddle group. Therefore, Hypothesis I: "Sensitizers will recall a greater number of anxiety memories than will repressers"; and Hypothesis III: "Subjects in a supine position will recall a greater number of anxiety memories than those in an upright position," were not verified. TABLE 1.-—Ana1ysis of variance of number of memories reported, Source of Variance SS d.f. MS F Body Position (BP) 42.81 1 42.81 .62 Defense Type (DT) 125.71 2 62.86 .91 BP x DT 240.34 2 120.17 1.89 Within : Error 7072.14 102 69.33 Total 7481.00 107 27 28 In Table 2 the means and standard deviations of all sub-groups are presented. The average number of memories per subject gave 16.17 with a standard devia— tion of 8.38 memories. Table 2 also indicates that there were small differences in the directions opposite to both Hypotheses I and III, i.e., repressers tended to give slightly more memories than sensitizers and SU Ss tended to give slightly more memories than LD Ss. TABLE 2.-—Means and standard deviations for number of memories reported. Defense Typea Body Positionb R s M Total LD M 17.22 14.33 15.06 15.44 SD 9.10 11.90 5.69 9.15 SU M 17.83 17.83 14.72 16.80 SD 7.88 8.48 6.08 7.55 M 17.53 16.08 14.89 16.17 TOtal SD 8.39 10.34 5.81 8.38 aThroughout the Results R = repressor, S = sensitizer, M = middle group. bThroughout the Results 80 = sitting up, LD = lying down. Age of All Memories Hypotheses II and IV dealt with the possible differ- ential effects of body position and defense type on the age of memories recalled. Hypothesis II states, "Sensitizers will recall chronologically earlier memories of anxiety than 29 will repressers." Hypothesis IV states, "Subjects in a supine position will recall chronologically earlier memories of anxiety than those in an upright position." An analysis Of variance Of these data is summarized in Table 3. No significant differential effects of body position or defense type on age of memories recalled was found. TABLE 3.--Analysis of variance of age of all memories. Source of Variance SS d.f. MS Fa Body Position (BP) 1.81 1 1.81 .38 Defense Type (DT) 2.40 2 1.20 .25 BP X DT 11.35 2 5.68 1.20 Within : Error 481.36 102 4.72 aNo F values significant. Table 4 clearly presents the means and standard deviations for all groups. It can be seen in Table 4 that the average S recalled memories from a period in his life when he was 13.97 years Old with a standard deivation of 2.12 years. It will also be noticed that repressers gave somewhat earlier memories than sensitizers which is opposite from what Hypothesis II predicts. There was also a tendency for LD Ss to give slightly earlier memories than SU Ss, a finding consistent with Hypothesis IV. 30 TABLE 4 --Means and standard deviations for age of all memories reported. Defense Type Body Position R S M Total LD M . 13.91 13.60 14.03 13.84 SD 1.78 2.63 1.73 2.05 50 M 13.78 14.77 13.76 14.10 so 2.41 1.97 2.16 2.20 . _ M 13.85 14.18 13.89 13.97 TOtai SD 2.09 2.47 1.93 2.12 Age of Earliest Memory The mean ages of the earliest memories recalled are presented in Table 5. As can be seen by the individual t-tests, also presented in Table 5, the earliest memory was not differentially affected by any of the treatment conditions. The mean age of the earliest memory that all Ss recalled was 5.89 years with a standard deviation of 2.90 years. Although no prediction was made concerning the age of the earliest memory the finding that LD Ss have an earlier earliest memory than do 80 Ss, is somewhat consistent with Hypothesis IV of the present study. Repressers seem to report an earliest memory that is a bit earlier than that reported by sensitizers. This latter result can be seen as contrary to what was predicted in Hypothesis II. 31 TABLE 5.--Age of earliest memory recalled. LD SU ta Mean 5.46 6.31 1.55 Standard Deviation 2.06 3.51 S R t Mean 6.25 5.22 1.51 Standard Deviation 3.42 2.24 S M t Mean 6.25 6.19 .08 Standard Deviation 3.42 2.88 R M t Mean 5.22 6.19 1.59 Standard Deviation 2.24 2.88 aNO t value is significant Age of Earliest Two Memories The mean ages of the earliest two memories recalled by Ss was also compared so as to give a more reliable measure of recall Of early memories than what was presented in Table 5. Of the subjects' seen that repressers gave significantly earlier than sensitizers when together. memories than SU Ss. port. One should Repressers and first two memories cumulated. the earliest two memories also note that LD Ss give Table 6 presents the comparisons of the means It can be memories are added earlier Again, Hypothesis IV gains some sup- sensitizers continue to behave in a fashion opposite to what was predicted in Hypothesis II. 32 TABLE 6.--Cumu1ative age of earliest two memories recalled. LD SU t Mean 13.15 15.00 1.65 Standard Deviation 4.18 7.05 R S t Mean 12.56 15.22 2.44" Standard Deviation 4.67 6.52 R M t Mean 12.56 14.44 1.48 Standard Deviation 4.67 6.03 S M t Mean 15.22 14.44 Standard Deviation 6.52 6.03 .53 *p < .02. Distribution of Memories Over Time It was of interest to investigate when, during the 25 minute recall period Ss reported their memories. Table 7 presents a summary of this analysis. One can see that in the first five minute period Of recall all Ss gave approxi- mately a minimum of 80% more memories than in any other time period. There was a decrease in the number Of memories reported over time with each succeeding time period having fewer memories than the time period preceeding it. The first five minute period has more than twice as many memories as the last five minute period for all groups. 33 TABLE 7.--Number of memories reported in five minute segments. Time Period First Second Third Fourth Fifth Subject Group R 208 121 109 98 95 S 188 122 94 95 80 M 193 121 92 73 57 LD 289 175 142 119 114 SU 300 189 153 147 118 Mean number Of memories per period 5.45 3.37 2.73 2.46 2.15 Statistical tests of the differences between time periods also proved to be significant (see table 8). TABLE 8.--Analysis of variance of number of memories per five minute segment. Source of Variation SS d.f. MS F Time Periods 752.95 4 188.24 141.53* Subjects 1582.20 107 14.79 SS x Time Periods 567.45 428 1.33 Total 2902.60 539 *p < .01. 34 Summary Of the Data None of the four hypotheses of the study were veri- fied statistically. Trends both supporting and Opposite to these hypotheses were found. As an example of this it was discovered that repressers and SU Ss tended to give a slightly greater number of memories than did sensitizers and LD Ss. These findings are opposite to what was pre- dicted in Hypotheses I and 111. When the age of all memories; earliest memory; and earliest two memories were considered, repressers report earlier memories than do sensitizers. This difference was statistically significant in the case of the earliest two memories. These results are Opposite of what one would expect on the basis of Hypothesis II. LD Ss report generally earlier memories, as well as an earlier earliest memory and earlier earliest two memories than do SU Ss. These results lend some sup— port to Hypothesis IV. Figure I, II, and III indicate the frequency of all memories recalled by all Ss and thereby summarize the data of the study. Upon close scrutiny some of the trends indi— cated above are visible on these figures. The lack of significant differences is clearly demonstrated by the striking similarity of all the curves. 6O 55 .. 50 I\) LA) U‘l I\) Number Of Memories O i—‘ U1 H O LA) U'l O 35 II I\ H c.— §~ L v . . : 12 14 16 18 Age Of Memories l.--Frequency distribution of number and age Figure Of memories for sensitizers. 60 I'\_) \TI Number of R.) O I--’ U7 I—" O 36 R 80 [‘ __.__._ R LD I II I I I / / / I / I / I / A #3 ”l V] 4 / \ /