EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION AND PERSONALITY
CORRELATES 0F CONJUGATE LATERAL EYE
MOVEMENTS AS AN lNDEX OF CONTRALATERAL -
HEM§SPHERIC ACTIVATiON '

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
2M30H€GAN STATE UNWERSETY
Z RAQUEL GUR ’
1973

U
§

13%. e

I)ate

0-7639

 

    
  

II III IIII II IIIIII II IIII III III I I 1:18? A K Y

1293 100 3909 Michigan State
‘ ' [Indvcnfity

I I III III III III

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION AND PERSONALITY \

CORRELATES OFHCONJUQATE LATERAL EYE I
MOVEMENTS AS AN INDEX OF CONTRALATERAL
HEMISPHERIC ACTIVATION

presented by

RAQUEL GUR

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

PH.D. degree in PSYCHOLOGY

 

 

9-18-73

 

ABSTRACT

EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION AND PERSONALITY CORRELATES
OF CONJUGATE LATERAL EYE MOVEMENTS AS AN INDEX
OF CONTRALATERAL HEMISPHERIC ACTIVATION

BY
Raquel Gur

The direction of §fs conjugate lateral eye movements, when g is
asked to solve a problem “in his head", is consistent, according to
some studies, within individuals and correlates with a variety of
personality and physiological measures. Other studies show that eye
directionality, for spatial and verbal problems, depends on problem
type. The paradigms used in the two kinds of studies differ. In the
first, the experimenter was seated in front of the subject when testing
eye directionality. In the second, the experimenter was behind the
subject, and the eye movements were monitored by a hidden video-recorder.

The present investigation used a within-subject design to compare
the two procedures. 32 right handed males served as §s.

In the gyfacingg§ situation.§s eye movements consistently were to
one direction. When the experimenter was behind the subject eye
directionality was related to problem type: gs tended to move their
eyes to the left in reSponse to "Spatial" questions and to the right in
response to "verbal" questions. No consistency in eye directionality
was found in response to "numerical" questions.

Subjects who moved their eyes consistently (70 percent or more of
the times) to the left in the Erfacingfig situation (left-movers) differed

on a variety of personality tests from those who moved their eyes

Raquel Gur

consistently to the right in that situation (right-movers) and from
those who did not show any consistency (bidirectionals). The three
groups of subjects did not differ in the Drive Presence and Drive Level
measures derived from the TAT stories. Nor did the three groups differ
in their psychopathology scores, as derived from the Draqu-Person Test.
Although the three groups did not differ in the number of symptoms
reported on a Symptom Questionnaire, left-movers reported a significantly
higher proportion of psychosomatic symptoms as compared to both right-
movers and bidirectionals. On the Defense Mechanism Inventory left-
movers showed a significantly higher use of "Reversal" as a defense than
did right-movers. Right-movers, on the other hand, used the defenses of
"Turning Against Object" and "Projection" significantly more often than
left-movers. Bidirectionals fell between the two groups in the use of
these defenses. The three groups did not differ in their vocational
interests as measured by the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. On the
Minnesota Spatial Relations Test right-movers performed significantly
better than left-movers.

These results are consistent with the hypothesis that the direction
of conjugate lateral eye movements represents the activation of the
contralateral cerebral hemisphere. The results suggest that at least
two factors seem to determine eye directionality: 1. problem type,
and 2. characteristic use of a certain hemisphere by’a given individual.
The second factor seems to be related to personality variables in ways

that are theoretically meaningful and clinically significant.

EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION AND PERSONALITY CORRELATES

0F CONJUGATE LATERAL EYE MOVEMENTS AS AN INDEX

OF CONTRALATERAL HEMISPHERIC ACTIVATION

By

Raquel Cut

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1973

RUBEN, RUBEN, RUBEN . . .

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My years at MSU were very productive in terms of scholarship, inter-
personal relationships and self exploration. I wish to thank the following
people for helping me with this dissertation and for making these years
what they were.

Dr. Joseph Reyher -- who was an invaluable source of growth as a
person, researcher, and psychotherapist.

Dr. Lauren J. Harris -- who broadened my understanding and interest
in brain research.

Dr. A. I. Rabin -- who let me glimpse at his storage of knowledge.

Dr. Norman Abeles - who introduced me to some of the dilemmas involved
in being a psychotherapist.

Dr. Ruben Gur -- who followed my work from the beginning, contributing
endlessly to its development.

Sue A. Balog, Elena Hanzakos, Juliet R. Marti, and Steven J. Gabil -—
who ran the §s and helped in analyzing the data with so much devotion.

Sue D. Weesner -- who did an excellent job in typing this dissertation.

And, finally to my teachers and fellow students -- who were beautiful.

iii

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION

METHOD . .
Subjects .
Materials

Procedure

RESULTS .
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX E:
APPENDIX F:

APPENDIX C:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Test Questions Forms A, and B . . .

Questionnaire on Hand Preferences
Draw-A-Person . . . . . . . . . .
Defense Mechanism Inventory . . .
Minnesota Spatial Relations Test

Symptom Questionnaire . . . . .

The Strong Vocational Interest Blank

iv

Page

III
III
16
18

32

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Percent of Eye Movements to the Left in the Three
Types of Questions under the Two Experimental
conditions I O O O O O O O O . C O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O 1 9

Table 2: Numbers and Percentages (in Parentheses) of Uni-
directionals (Left-Movers and Right-Movers) and
Bidirectionals (Discriminators and Non-Discriminators)
in the Two Experimental Conditions (N = 32) . . . . . . . 21

Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations (in Parentheses), and
F values Comparing Left-Movers (LM), Right-Movers
(RM), and Bidirectionals (BD) on Drive Presence
and Drive Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations (in Parentheses), and
the F Values Comparing Left-Movers (LM), Right-Movers
(RM), and Bidirectionals (BD) on PsychOpathology
in the DAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations (in Parentheses), and
F Values Comparing Left-Movers (LM), Right-Movers
(RM), and Bidirectionals (BD) on the Five Defense
Mechanisms Identified by the DMI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 6: Means, Standard Deviations (in Parentheses), and
the F values Comparing Left-Movers (LM), Right-Movers
(RM), and Bidirectionals (BD) on MSR . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 7: Means, Standard Deviations (in Parentheses), and
the F values Comparing Left-Movers (LM), Right-Movers
(RM), and Bidirectionals (BD) on the Symptom
Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table 8: Means, Standard Deviations (in Parentheses), and
the F value Comparing LeftaMovers (LM), Right-Movers
(RM), and Bidirectionals (BD) on the Preportion of
PsychosomaticSymptoms ................. 31

Table 9: Means of the Three Groups of‘Sg on Each of the Strong
Vocational Interest Blank Basic Interest Scales . . . . . 79

Table 10: Analysis of variance of Three Groups of‘Sg
(Left-Movers, Right-Movers, and Bidirectionals)
on the Twenty Two SVIB Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

INTRODUCTION

A. Historical Backggound for_the Functional Differentiation

Between the_Two Cerebral Hemispheres.

The human brain is divided into two hemispheres which are nearly
mirror images of each other and.which are interconnected.by a body of
nerve fibers known as the "corpus callosum." Each hemiSphere is respon-
sible for the functioning of the part of the body contralateral to the
side of that hemiSphere. Thus, the left hemisphere controls the right
side of the body and the right hemisphere controls the left side of
the body.

These features of the human brain are shared by other primates and
have been known to investigators for many years. It was the consensus
at the beginning of the nineteenth century that the two hemispheres are
complete mirror images of each other both in structure and in function.
The first investigator (Dax, 1830: cited by Von Bonin, 1962) who found
functional differences between the two hemiSpheres was generally ignored
by the scientific community. Dax noted that aphasia was generally
associated with a lesion of the left hemiSphere in right handed peOple.
He concluded that the two cerebral hemiSpheres are not equipotential so
far as language is concerned. It was not until 1861, when Broca pub-
lished his observations of the consistant relation between motor aphasia
and lesions of the left frontal lobe, that intense investigation on the
funtional and structural differences between the two hemispheres

was begun.

1. Mogphological differences between the cerebral hemisphere .

One line of research that followed Broca's discovery (e.g. Boyd, 1861;
Ogle, 1871: 'I'I'agner, 1864, all cited by Von Bonin, 1962) has attempted to
find differences in weight between the two hemispheres of the human brain.
Measurements of the internal length of the skull, on the left and right
side of the brain, led Hoadley and Pearson (1929) to conclude that the
right hemisphere was slightly larger than the left one. Aresu (1914)
found the volume of the left hemiSphere to be larger than the right one.
Eberstaller (1884) measured different fissures of both hemispheres. He
found them (sylvian fissure, insula, sulcus cingoli and calarine fissure)
to be longer on the left side of the brain. Such findings led to the
concluSion that the left hemisphere has slightly higher specific gravity
than the right hemisphere. Von Bonin (1962) concluded that these morpho-
logical differences are small and, in any event, hardly explain the dramatic
functional differences in hemispheric functioning to be discussed below.

A more recent line of evidence, however, has pointed to gross anatomical
differences between the hemiSpheres. Geschwind and Levitsky (1968) reported
that the planum temporale, a portion of the temporal lobe, was 9mm longer,
or about a third longer, in the left hemisphere. McRae, Branch, and Milner
(1968), who studied the relation between handedness and the length of the
occipital horn, found that a longer left occipital horn correlated moderately
well with right handedness. The frequency of a longer right occipital horn
in left-handers was also above chance. The results might suggest that the
parieto-occipital lobe is larger (since the corresponding occipital horn
is smaller) in the right hemisphere of right handed people. Since Speech
is usually located mainly in the left temporal lobe, and spatial perception

in the right parieto-occipital region, these results are congruent with

neuropsychological findings, to be discussed presently, which suggest
verbal specialization in the left hemisphere and Spatial Specialization
in the right.

A series of studies by Carmon (1970; Carmon and Combos, 1970: Carmon,
Harishanu, Lowinger, and Lavy, 1972) has demonstrated that in normal,
right-handed subjects the right hemisphere receives a larger blood supply
than the left hemisphere. Left-handedness and left ear preference were
correlated, though less strongly, with larger blood volume in the left
hemisphere. This finding seems to suggest that the left hemiSphere is
not "dominant", at least in respect to blood supplies, and that the term
"hemispheric specialization" may be more meaningful and less misleading
than the term "hemiSpheric dominance". The left hemisphere's higher
status, implied by the latter, seems to have been shaken by Carmon's
findings, and Carmon (1970) seems justified in calling for a re—examination

of the concept of left-hemisphere dominance.

2. Functional differences between EEE.22£22£§$.E§EE§EEEEE§-

Mapping of the brain is typically done by an integration of clinical
findings regarding brain-injured patients with more rigorous investi-
gations of animals. Clinical data are frequently difficult to interpret
because there is usually little or no pretesting, the extent of the injury
is extremely hard to determine, and conclusions are generally post-hoe.
Since the hemiSpheres seems to be functionally different only in man,
investigation of these differences was considerably hampered until the
recent develOpments of various indirect methods for "communicating" with
one, rather than another, hemiSphere.

Clinical studies following Broca's discovery have clearly corroborated
his observations. It has been repeatedly shown that lesions to the left

hemisphere result in aphasia, deterioration of intellectual abilities,

impairment in language comprehension, disturbances in naming, loss of
reading ability, and loss of verbal recall. (e.g. Milner, 1958; Costa

and vaughn, 1962; Zangwill, 1964: Smith, 1966; Bogen, 1969; Gazzaniga,
1970: Kimura, 1973). The right hemisphere was largely neglected in

early studies and was generally considered to be merely a "weaker' version
of the "dominant" left hemiSphere (Benton, 1972).

More recently, it has been suggested that this bias toward the left
hemiSphere might have been a result of a cultural bias favoring the verbal
aspect of human nature (Harris, 1973). It has become increasingly evident
that the right hemisphere does play a crucial role in many non-verbal
cognitive functions. In fact, as early as 1874, Jackson had argued that
the posterial lobes of the right hemisphere may subserve "visual ideation."
His observations, however, were largely ignored at the time. Mere clinical
data reported during and after world war II indicated that patients with
well lateralized brain lesions tended to show more severe spatial and
other perceptual disorders after right hemisphere lesions than after left
(Paterson and Zangwill, 1944: Hecaen, de Ajuriaguerra, and Massonnet, 1951:
Hecaen, Denfield, Bertrand, and Malmo, 1956; Milner,,1958, 1962, 1968;
McFie and Zangwill, 1960; Piercy and Symth, 1962: DeRenzi, 1966; DeRenzi
and Spinnler, 1966; Newcombe, 1969).

The develOpment of the dychotic listening techniques has yielded
much new information on the differential functioning of the two hemiSpheres.
These studies have revealed a consistent right ear (left hemiSphere)
advantage for verbal material such as words, digits, and consonants
(Kimura, 1967; Shankweiler and Studdert4Kennedy, 1967; Darwin, 1971) as
‘well as for recognition of the speaker's voice (Doehring and Bartholomeus,
1971). On the other hand, the left ear (right hemisphere) has shown an

advantage in the recognition of non-verbal environmental sounds

(Curry, 1967; Knox and Kimura, 1970), melodies (Kimura, 1967), and
simple pitch patterns (Darwin, 1971).

The develOpment of techniques for tachistoscopic presentation of
stimuli to the left and right visual fields has yielded still more in-
formation about hemispheric differentiation. These findings are, by
and large, consistent with clinical data as well as with the results
of dychotic listening experiments. Thus, Kimura (1966) and McKeever
and Ruling (1971) have demonstrated a right field (left hemisPhere)
superiority for the perception of alphabetical material. A right field
superiority was also demonstrated for the perception of familiar objects
(wyke and Ettlinger, 1961). A left field (right hemiSphere) superiority
was found for face recognition (Rizzolatti, Umilta, and Berlucchi, 1971),
for perceiving the location and number of dots (Kimura, 1966, 1969;
McGlone and Davidson, 1973) for discriminating the slope of lines and
for binocular depth perception (Durnford and.Kimura, 1971).

Another method for investigating hemispheric specialization has
been introduced by wade (1949). This method consists of injecting
sodium amytal into the internal carotid or the common carotid, in order
to produce a contralateral hemiparesis. Using this technique, wada and
Rasmussen (1960) found aphasic disturbances with left hemisphere,
but not right hemisphere paralysis.

Studies of patients who have undergone a cerebral commissurotomy
to control major epileptic seizures have lent direct support for these
inferences from normal subjects. Gazzaniga and Sperry (1967) have intro-
duced an important qualification, suggesting that, even for right-handers,
the left hemisphere dominance for language is not absolute. Although the
right hemiSphere commissurotomized patients emit few, if any, words and

appear incapable of prOpositional speech or writing, they do show some

rudimentary understanding of verbal input. The commissurotomized
patients can only give verbal accounts of sensory input that reaches
their left hemisphere. They can only name and describe objects flashed
into their right visual fields. 0n verbal dychotic listening tasks

these patients fail to report stimuli presented to their left ear in

the presence of competing stimuli to the right (Milner, Taylor, and
Sperry, 1968). On the other hand, Bogen (1969) found that these patients
copy geometric designs better with the left hand than with the right,
although the reverse is true for cursive writing. Gazzaniga, Bogen, and
Sperry (1965), as well as Milner and Taylor (1971), have also demonstrated
with commissurotomized patients that the right hemisphere is superior for
tasks involving visualization of Spatial relations and in the perception
of Spatial patterns.

These and other studies have led several investigators (e.g., Bogen,
1969; Benton, 1972: Harris, 1973) to conclude that, at least in right-
handed persons, the left hemisphere subserves propositional, verbal
functions, whereas the right hemiSphere can be best characterized as sub-
serving spatial functions and appositional modes of thinking.

The picture seems to be somewhat more complicated for females as
well as for left-handers, who seem to be less lateralized than male
right-handers. Both in left-handers and in females language functions
seem to be more nearly ambilaterally represented with more language

capacity in the right hemisphere. Both groups seem to have more problems

~.-< _—~.—-—._—-
.“fi-._—.—- ‘4‘.
w‘

in performing Spatial tasks, as compared to male right-handers (Lansdell,
1961, 1962; Knox and.Kimura, 1970; Miller, 1971: Nebes, 1971). A good
theoretical model for explaining these differences is yet to be develOped.
However, Levy (1969) has postulated that in a hemisphere which is not

strongly lateralized for one particular mode of information processing

one would expect to find a conflict between the two modes. The poorer
performance of females and left-handers in Spatial tasks is caused, accord-
ing to this "competition" model, by the presence, in the right hemiSphere,
of two modes of information processing ("Analytic" and "synthetic," to

use Levy's terms, or "propositional” and "appositional," to use Bogen's).
Recent evidence seem to indicate, however, that the generalization regard-1
ing poorer spatial abilities in left-handers may not be true for all of I
them. Gilbert (in press) has found that strongly lateralized left-handers
perform as well as right-handers on a test of memory for faces. Both
groups performed better than weakly lateralized left-handers. Furthermore,
the adequacy of the "competition" model seems questionable even for those
females and left-handers for whom one hemiSphere, either the left or the
right, subserves both verbal and spatial functions. McGlone and Davidson
(1973) found that although there were significant differences favoring
male, right-handers to both females and left-handers on spatial tasks.

§s who had one hemiSphere subserving both verbal and Spatial functions

(as determined by a dichotic words test and by'a dot enumeration test
presented to each visual field) were not significantly superior to SS
whose hemispheres were more specialized. They concluded that the left
hemisphere may be a less efficient non-verbal mediator than the right
hemisphere, regardless of Speech laterality. (For a more thorough I
review of sex differences in brain lateralization see Bakan, 1973 and
Harris, 1973: for a similar review on left-handers see Hecaen and

Ajuriaguerra, 1964. and Harris, 1973)-

B. Conjggate lateral eye movements as an index of contralateral

hemisgheric activation - research leading to the present investigation.

The survey of the literature thus reveals a body of evidence, through
a variety of techniques, indicating that the two cerebral hemispheres of !
the human brain serve different functions. The left hemisphere.is involved I
in verbal functions and in the analysis of Speech sounds, and the right I
hemisphere serves visuo-spatial and temporal functions.

Recently Kinsbourne (1972) has described still another and seemingly
even simpler technique for studying cerebral lateralization. The technique
presupposes that the direction of orientation of the eyes and head indicates
innervation or activation of the cerebral hemisphere contralateral to the
direction of movement. The reasoning is as follows: The frontal areas
of the brain control the turning of the head and eyes. 'When both centers
are equally activated, attention is directed straight ahead. Because the
cerebrum is a highly-linked system, an activation of the cognitive function-
ing of one hemisphere will "overflow" to the orientation center of that
hemisphere and cause eye movement contralateral to that hemiSphere, or,
as Kinsbourne expresses it, "driving attentional balance off center..."
(Kinsbourne, 1972. p. 539).

In support of this formulation, Kinsbourne recorded eye and head
movements of undergraduate subjects as they rSSponded to questions asked
by anIE seated behind them. The recordings were made by a hidden video-
tape camera. It was found that direction of movement was related to
problem type: Subjects showed a significant tendency to move their eyes
to the right for verbal problems, and either upwards or to the left for
spatial problems. The differences in lateralization appeared strongest
between verbal and spatial problems, but negligible for numerical problems.-

These differences were found in right-handed subjects. In left-handers,

eye movement lateralization was fairly evenly distributed regardless of
problem type, a finding possibly consistent with evidence that left-handers
are less well lateralized for hemispheric functioning than are right-handers.
(Benton, 1962; Hecaen and Ajuriaguerra, 1964; Subirana, 1969).

These findings, however, seem inconsistent with results obtained
from an independent line of research in which E faces §.during testing
for eye directionality. In this situation, when S reflects upon a
question asked by E,Ԥ usually breaks eye contact and moves his eyes
either to the right or to the left. This observation was first reported
by'Teitelbaum (1954) and later was investigated more thoroughly by Day
(1964), who found that the direction in which the eyes move is fairly
consistent for a given individual. Duke (1968) offered further experi-
mental support for these observations and suggested a new typology,
"left-movers" and "right-movers." A series of investigations by Day (1964,
1967a, 1967b, 1968) revealed various differences between "right-movers"
and "left-movers" which were "most clearly related to differences in the
experience of anxiety, language styles, cognitive styles and thus to
personality variables" (Day, 1967b).

The attentional processes of left-movers were found to be more
passive-internal with auditory distribution of attention, while those
of right-movers were found to be active-external with visual haptic
distribution of attention (Day, 1967b). Left-movers tended to describe
anxiety as a state with a "definite internal locus" (Day, 1968), and to
describe these experiences more emotionally and subjectively. Conversely,
the right-movers tended to describe anxiety as having an "external locus"
and to emphasize the objective and logical aSpects of their experiences.

Bakan and Shotland (1969) found that right-movers perform better thand

left-movers on specific tasks which require visual attention. Left-movers“.

10

on the other hand, reported clearer visual images (Bakan, 1969) and

were verbally more fluent. In addition, left-movers were more likely

to display waking alpha EEG, more frequently majored in the humanities

and social sciences in college, and performed better on the Verbal than
the Mathematical section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Right-movers
were less likely to diSplay waking alpha EEG, preferred majors in sciences,
and had higher scores on the Mathematical section of the SAT (Bakan, 1969,
1971; Bakan and Svorad, 1969) however, Barnat (1972) failed to replicate
the findings relating eye directionality to preferences in choosing majors.

Left-movers also were found to be more highly susceptible to hypnosis
than right-movers (Bakan, 1969). Gur and Reyher, (in press) found that
left-movers were more responsive to a passive style of hypnotic induction.
Another finding of that study was that a significantly higher proportion
of male left-movers than right-movers preferred to have a female E.

This finding agrees with Fischer's (1966) finding that male college
students who tend to pay more attention to the left side of their body
also tend to be more spontaneous and uninhibited and more successful in
dating, compared with males who tend to pay more attention to the right
side of their body. Bakan (1969) found that left-movers pay closer attention
to the left side of their body, and that right-movers pay closer attention
to the right side of their body.

Thus, the empirical studies suggest that left-movers are more Sponta-
neous and emotional and localize anxiety and conflicts internally. Right-
movers, on the other hand, seem to be more verbal and intellectual and to
see the source of their anxiety and conflicts outside themselves.

Bakan (1971) tried to explain the differences between left-movers
and right-movers by viewing eye directionality as an indication of the

reLative dominance of one cerebral hemisphere over the other. According

11

to Bakan (1971), lateral eye movement is "symptomatic of easier trigger-
ing of activity in the hemiSphere contralateral to the direction of eye
movement" regardless of the content of the problem put to the subject.
Differences in procedure may account for the apparent inconsistency
‘between these results and those obtained by Kinsbourne (1972). The
most obvious difference between the procedures is that in Kinsbourne's i
(1972) study'§ was seated behind.§ and the eye movements were recorded by f
a hidden video-recorder camera. Kinsbourne (1971) suggests that the g
face-to-face findings may be attributable to errors caused by the experi- 1
menter's own subconscious lateral gaze behavior, as well as from lack of
control of the appearance of the background. However in at least some
of the Erfacingfig studies (Bakan and Shotland, 1969; Gur and Reyher,
(in press), both such factors have been rigorously controlled. Furthermore,
it is hard to reconcile the notion that these results are artifacts with
the various personality and behavioral differences found to be associated
with each movement type. It appears that an experimenter's presence
before the subject affect the lateralization of underlying cerebral activi-
ties in lawful and meaningful ways, and that some factor in the relationship
between.§_and.§pmay'be responsible. Thus the difference between the two
lines of results may indeed be tied to aSpects of the experimental
situation, but, contrary to the implication in Kinsbourne's criticism,
in a lawful and theoretically significant way. Perhaps the gpfacinggi
situation, being obviously interpersonal, is more threatening and anxiety
provoking, so that an anxious subject then falls back on characteristic
modes of response. Thus, when questioned, the subject tends to rely on
that hemisphere which is the more characteristically used, even though
it might be the "wrong" hemiSphere for a particular kind of problem.

When the testing situation is “impersonal" (Egbehindgg), this anxiety

(I) (.1 ll 1 In 1,

12

would tend to be elicited in a smaller degree permitting a hemispheric
differentiation of reSponse related to problem type.

In one phase of the current investigation, this hypothesis was
tested by directly comparing the two procedures and determining whether,
within individual subjects, directionality of eye movements is influenced
by experimenter location. Specifically, two hypotheses were tested in
this phase:

Hxnaih2§i§.I= The direction of an individual's conjugate lateral
eye movements is a function of the type of question asked of him when
the questioner is behind him (i.e. left to Spatial, right to verbal).

Hypothesis II: The direction of an individual's conjugate lateral

O O O 0 0 \j/'
eye movements is conSistently in one direction, irrespective of type

of question, when the questioner is facing him.

The purpose of the second phase of this investigation is to explore
further the personality differences between subjects who tend to move
their eyes to the left in the grfacinggg situation and those who turn
their eyes to the right, if indeed such a consistency is found in the
first phase of the experiment. The three Specific hypotheses tested in
this phase of the experiment were based on previous reported clinical
impressions that left-movers tend to be more spontaneous and more in tune
with internal emotional and sensory processes as compared with right-movers
Bakan, 1969, Bakan, 1971; Day, 1964, 1967a, 1967b, 1968: Fischer, 1966;

Our and Reyher, in press):

Hypgthesis III: Leftamovers express drives more readily than do
rightamovers.

Hypgthesis IV: Left-movers reveal a higher degree of direct expression
of unsocialized drives than do rightdmovers.

Hypgthesis V: Left—movers show less evidence of psychOpathology

than do right-movers.

13

In addition to testing these hypotheses, explorations were made
in this phase of the investigation in order to find other personality
correlates of eye directionality, using psychological tests. The tests
measured the use of defense mechanisms, vocational interests, and spatial
abilities. A physical health questionnaire was also administered in
order to explore the relationship between eye directionality and

symptomatology.

i

Bi

~ THOD

)-

Subjects

Thirty-two right-handed male undergraduates from an introductory
psychology class served as is in this experiment. Their ages ranged

from 17 to 25 (i = 19.3).

Materials

Following Kinsbourne (1972), three types of questions were used:
"verbal" (explanation of proverbs), "numerical" (solution of arithmetical
problems), and "spatial" (visualization and identification of Spatial
relationships of familiar places and visual arrangements). There were
twenty pairs of parallel questions for each type, constituting a pool
of 120 questions, and from this pool of questions four test forms of
thirty questions each were constructed. Each test form contained ten
"verbal," ten "numerical," and ten "spatial" questions. To assure a
randomized, counterbalanced order of presentation, each pair of equiva-
lent questions, within a given type, was assigned randomly to one of two
subsets. This produced six subsets of twenty questions each: two verbal,
two numerical, and two spatial. Each subset was then divided randomly
into two sections of ten questions each. These sections were combined
into the four test forms in a random order with the restriction that each
form contained one verbal, one numerical, and one spatial section. Finally,
the three types of questions within each form were arranged in triads -
verbal, numerical, and spatial - and the order of presentation within
each triad was randomized. Each é received 60 questions in each session

(two different forms). The forms were administered in a counterbalanced

1k

15

design. (The actual forms are presented in Appendix.A).

A video-recorder was hidden behind a dark cloth which had a small
hole in it to enable recording of'§fs eye movements.

Humphrey's (1951) 20-item questionnaire, which assesses hand usage
for a variety of tasks, was used to determine handness. (The questionnaire
was slightly modified from the version used in England.in order to adjust
it to the American culture). (See Appendix B).

Card 13MF of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) (Murray, 1943)
was used to elicit fantasies that were analyzed for Drive Presence and
Drive Level, following Pine's (1960) scoring system, in order to produce
data pertinent to the testing of the third and fourth hypotheses.

The Draw-A-Person test (DAP) was used to test the fifth hypothesis.
The DAP drawings were scored for psychopathology using a scale recently
developed by'Reyher (1972; see Appendix C).

Four additional measures were used to explore other possible correlates
of eye directionality: 1. The Defense Mechanism Inventory (DMI) (Gleser
and.Ihilevich, 1969, see Appendix D) measured the subject's preference
of defensive modes. 2. The Strong Vocational Interest Blank (SVIB)
(Strong, 1943) measured the subject's vocational interest. 3. The
Minnesota Spatial Relations Test (MSR) (Trabue and Paterson, 1930)
measured the subject's ability for spatial manipulation. This test requires
g to place cut-outs of various shapes into apprOpriate slots on a form
board. (See Appendix E). 4. A physical health questionnaire (Symptom
Questionnaire, see Appendix F) was used in order to obtain data on the
number of reported symptoms, particularly the proportion of psychosomatic
complaints, which was found to be reliably correlated with degree of

repression (Burns, 1972; Perkins and Reyher, 1971; Reyher, 1958

16

1961, 1962, 1967, 1968; Reyher and Basch, 1970; Sommerschield and Reyher,

in press).

ngcedure

Each § first answered the Humphrey (1951) handedness questionnaire,
and only subjects who reported.using their right hand for at least 15
of 20 tasks were retained. Four of 36 §§_initially tested did not meet
this criterion, leaving a final N of 32.

§§ were tested individually in a 2.5 x 2 meters portable experimental
room placed inside the laboratory. The walls of the room were two meters
high and were completely covered with brown cloth to provide a perfectly
homogeneous surrounding.

Two experimental sessions, separated by one week, were presented in
a counterbalanced order:

Egbehind~§_(Kinsbourne): g was seated at a small table 1.2 meters
from the wall, and_§.sat approximately 0.8 meters behind him. g was
told to concentrate on answering a series of questions within 30 seconds
(following Kinsbourne, 1972), to remain seated and to not look behind
him. Two test forms were read to him by'§,who also recorded his answers.
Each trial was concluded either when §,answered or after 30 seconds.
Eye directionality was recorded by the video-recorder hidden behind the
wall and scored from a monitor by two independent judges seated in a
separate room.

g-racihg-g (Bakan): s sat in the same position as in the fi-behind-g‘;
situation, but now the E’sat directly across from him at a distance of
0.8 meters. The instructions were the same as in the §gbehindfi§ situation.
E presented the two alternate test forms and recorded both the answers

and eye directionality.

17

The gs in both testing situations were twenty year old.women.
Testing time in each session was approximately 45 minutes.

A third session, coming approximately one week after the second,
was conducted by a different female g in a different room. In this
session the MDI, TAT, DAP, NSRT, SVIB, and the Symptom Questionnaire
were administered. The testing time in this session was approximately

two hours.

RESULTS

1?

Comparisons between n-Behind-S and the E-Facing:S Situations.

The two independent judges who scored the eye directionality in the
E’behind.§_situation agreed in 89 percent of the movements. In eight
percent of the cases one judge saw a movement when the other did not.

In the remaining three percent the judges opposed each other in scoring
the direction of movements. A third judge decided in both cases of
disagreement.

Since each subject went through both situations with the order of
the situation counterbalanced across subjects, the data were first
examined for a possible order effect on eye directionality. No such
effect was found: 54.8 percent of the movements in the first session
were to the left compared with 52.1 percent movements to the left in the
second session (t g. 1).

Both Hypothesis I and Hypothesis II were supported. The results of
the g-behindgg situation verified Kinsbourne's findings, and the results
of the grfacingfig situation verified Bakan's findings. That is, direction-
ality of eye movements depended on question type in the g-behindgg
situation and was consistently in one direction in the g-facingg§
situation. In the ghehindgg situation, for the 20 verbal questions,

65.16 percent of eye movements were to the right - a significant prOportion
of the total (z = 1.72, p.c:.05, one tailed). For the 20 spatial questions,
67.81 percent of the eye movements were to the left (2 = 2.04, p.‘;.025,

one tailed). For the 20 numerical questions, as had been the case in

Kinsbourne's (1972) study, there was no significant trend to either

18

19

direction. In the Efacingqg situation, direction of eye movement was 1

not significantly related to type of problem (see Table 1).

Table 1. Percent of Eye Movements to the Left in the Three Types
of Questions under the Two Experimental Conditions.

 

 

Type
of
Experimental Question Verbal Spatial Numerical
Condition
g-behindfii 34.84* 67.81** 54.25
E-facingfii 55.72 58.91 53.53

 

* P a1-05
** p <5. .025

The results are more clearly brought out in the analysis of the per-
formance of individual subjects in the verbal and spatial problems. The
numerical problems were not included in this analysis, since there were no
bases, from Kinsbourne's study (1972) for predicting whether the solution
of numerical problems would be subserved more by one hemisphere than by
another. In other words, given a subject who consistently moved his eyes in
one direction to each of the twenty numerical questions, there are no
theoretical grounds for deciding whether the subject's movements reflected
characteristic usage of one hemiSphere, in Bakan's sense, or were problem
based, in Kinsbourne's sense. The pp were thus classified into two
categories in the following way:

1. Unidirectional. A significant majority (70 percent) of a subject's

eye movements were to one direction. The 70 percent level, also used by

20

Bakan (1969, 1971, Bakan and Shotland, 1969, Bakan and Svorad, 1969),
would be expected by chance at the pAL.O1, Where 3.: 40 (20 verbal
questions and 20 spatial questions). The unidirectional §§_were sub-
classified into a. Left-movers, when the majority of eye movements was to
the left, and b. Right-movers, when the majority (i.e., 70 percent) of
movements was to the right.

2. gidireppippals 88: Less than 70 percent of the eye movements
were to one direction. The bidirectional §§_were further classified in
the following manner: For the 20 verbal questions and the 20 Spatial
questions, if the larger proportion of movements to one direction in the
verbal was the smaller prOportion of movements to that direction in the
spatial, the differences in the two sets of prOportions were added.

If the sum was at least 70, the subject was judged to be a "discriminator,"
with a confidence level of pzi.01. Sp who summed differences in proportions
were less than 70 were called "non-discriminators." The bidirectional Sp
were thus subclassified into: a. Discriminators: _§ who moved their

eye differentially according to the problem type: i.e., left to Spatial

and right to verbal, or the reverse (against the theoretically expected
direction), right to spatial and left to verbal problems. b. Non-dis-
criminators: Sp'whose eye movements were inconsistently related to problem

type and appeared haphazard.

The results of these classifications are summarized in Table 2.

 

III. I'll {f1 .

21

Table 2. Numbers and Percentages (in Parentheses) of Unidirectionals
(Left-Movers and Right-Movers) and Bidirectionals (Discrim-
inators and Non-Discriminators) in the Two Experimental
Conditions (N = 32).

 

 

Eybehindqg grfacingfiS
Left- Right- Discrim- Non-discrim-
N % movers movers inators inators

Left-movers 2 ( 6.3%) 2
Right-
movers 2 ( 6.3%) 1 1
Discrim- .
inators 18* (56. 3%) 8 6 2 2
Non—dis-
criminators _1_C_)_ g 31 , 3‘53) __l_+_ _g__ __ _4_

N 32 14 9 2 7

9% 100% (43.896) (28.1%) (6. 3%) (21.9%)

 

*one reversed discriminator.

22

The difference between the two experimental conditions was significant
by the Sign-test (z = 4.37. P .001). Note that with the grbehindgg
procedure, in line with Kinsbourne's (1972) findings, the great majority
of7§§ (88 percent) were bidirectional, most of them discriminators.

With the grfacinga§,procedure, in contrast, the majority of’Sp (72 percent)
were now classified as unidirectional, either left-movers or right-movers.
These results are consistent with other findings using this procedure
(Bakan, 1969, 1971; Bakan and Shotland, 1969; Bakan and Svorad, 1969;

Cur and Reyher, in press).

Table 2 also shows that a small number of Sp remained either uni-
directional or bidirectional in both conditions. The consistently
unidirectional §§.did not change direction (i.e. left-movers remained
left-movers; right-movers remained right-movers). They therefore appear
to have shown an extremely strong preference for use of one hemisphere,
whether the left or the right, across experimental conditions. The Con-
sistently bidirectionalpfip, most of whom were non-discriminators, appear
to Show little evidence of lateralization. Both groups of Sp represent
potentially interesting populations for further study.

When these same analyses were repeated with the numerical questions
included, the same distributions of unidirectional and bidirectional
subjects emerged. In other words, in both experimental Situations §§
who were either left or right-movers on the verbal and spatial questions
showed the same preference, and in approximately the same proportion, in
the numerical questions. 0f the‘gp classified as bidirectionals. whether
discriminators or nondiscriminators, eye movement direction in the numerical

questions was haphazard. The results, like Kinsbourne's (1972), therefore

23

suggest that neither cerebral hemisphere can be said to predominantly
subserve the solution of numerical problems.

In light of these findings and data pertaining to the functional
asymmetry of the brain, does direction of eye movements in response to
a certain question type affect the correctness or quality of response?
Since a movement of the eyes to the left presumably indicates activation
of the right cerebral hemisphere, does a movement to the left in response
to a spatial question result in a more accurate answer than a movement to the
right for that question? Conversely, in view of left hemisphere Special-
ization for verbal material, does a movement to the right, in response to
a verbal question, result in a better answer than a movement to the left?

A comparison was made, within individual.§§, between accuracy of
response for those verbal and spatial questions to which the direction
of eye movements was appropriate and accuracy of response to those
questions tO‘WhiCh the direction was inappropriate. Only those §3.were
included.who made at least two movements in each direction within a set of
20 questions. The results indicate a tendency for movements to the right
to be associated with better verbal responses, and for movements to the
left to be associated with better spatial responses. This tendency, however,
was significant only for the left movements in response to spatial questions
in the‘fi-facing-S Situation (t = 2.67, df = 18, p‘2.01, one tailed). The
questions thus proved to be not well enough designed to permit a sufficient
degree of differentiation of reSponse quality. This was particularly so

for the verbal questions (explanation of proverbs).

24

Comparisons among Left-MoversI Right-Movers and Bidirectionals.

Left-movers were compared with right-movers and with bidirectional
‘gg on a variety of tests. Discriminators and non-discriminators were
combined into one group of bidirectionals because of the small number of
§§_in each sub-category. The classification of Sp into these categories
was made on the basis of their eye movements in the grfacingfig situation,
since this was the situation used by Bakan (1969, 1971) in his attempts
to correlate eye directionality with various personality variables.
The results of these comparisons are presented first as they relate to
each of the hypotheses tested and then in relation to each of the explor-

atory tests.1

1. The hypothgpgg:

Hyppthesis III and Hypothesis IV were not supported by the analysis
of the TAT stories. The Pine (1960) system of analyzing the TAT story
yields two measures: Drive Presence and Drive Level. There are three
levels of drives: Level I (directaunsocialized) includes "those expressions
of drive content where libidinal or aggressive impulses are directly
. expressed in a way contrary to conventional social values." Level II
(direct-socialized) includes "those expressions of drive content where
libidinal or aggressive impulses are expressed directly but in Socialized
ways." Level III (indirect-disguised; weak) includes "those instances
that are associated with (often relatively strong) drives, but where
the underlying impulse is neither explicitly thought not acted upon in
the story." This level also includes "drives expressions which are weak
and highly derived" (Pine, 1960, pp. 34-35). Two psychology students

who were unfamiliar with Sfls group identity scored the protocols.

25

The percent agreement for Drive Presence was 85, for level I-82 percent,

for level II-79 percent and for level III 87 percent.

The results of the analyses of variance for the three groups of gs

for drive presence and drive level are negative and are summarized in

Table 3.

Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations (in Parentheses), and F values
Comparing Left-Movers (LM), Right-Movers (RM), and Bi-

directionals (BD) on Drive Presence and Drive Level.

 

Eye Directionality LM

 

 

 

 

 

RM BD F
Drives N = 13 N = 8 N = 9
Drive Presence 3.85 4.13 4.56 0.19
,_ (1.96) (2.21) (3.13)
I 1.39 2.63 2.67 3.00
(1.33) (1.22) (1.41)
Drive II 0.85 1.13 1.11 0.18
Level (0.86) (1.69) (0.99)
III 1.62 0.38 0.78 2.02
(1.73) (0.49) (1.31)

 

Note: df = 2, 27.

As seen from the table none of the F ratios was significant.

Hypothesis V was not supported by the DAP drawings. The drawings
were scored for psychopathology by two independent judges using the scale
developed by Reyher (1972). The inter-judge reliability was .95. The

results are summarized in Table 4.

26

Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations (in Parentheses), and the F
value Comparing Left-Movers (LM), Right-Movers (RM)
and Bidirectionals (BD) on Psychopathology in the DAP.

 

 

LM RM BD F
N=13 N=8 N=9

20.5u 17.63 23.78 .65
(9.75) (12.82) (9.50)

 

Note: df = 2, 27.

 

As seen from this table psychopathology, as measured by this scale,
does not differentiate the three groups.
2. Other Findings:

 

The 23; classified people according to the kinds of defenses they
tend to use more frequently. Five major defenses are identified by this
test: 1. Turning Against Object (TAO), characterized by Gleser and
Ihilevich (1969) as dealing with conflict: "through attacking a real or
presumed external frustrating object." 2. Projection (PRO) characterized
by "expression of aggression toward an external object through first
attributing to it, without unequivocal evidence, negative intent, or
characteristics." 3. Principalization (PRN), characterized by dealing
with conflicts "through invoking a general principle that '5plits off'
affect from content and represses the former." 4. Turning Against Self
(TAS), characterized by "directing aggressive behavior towardwg himself."
5. Reversal (REV), characterized by defenses such as repression, denial,
negation and reaction formation which "deal with conflict by responding
in,a positive or neutral fashion to a frustrating object" (Gleser and

Ihilevich, 1969, p. 52).

§§ on each of these defenses.

Analyses of variance were made to compare the three groups of

27

The results are summarized in Table 5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations (in Parentheses), and F values
Comparing Left-Movers (LM), Right-Movers (RM), and
Bidirectionals (BD) on the Five Defense Mechanisms
Identified by the DMI.

Eye
Directionality
Defense LM RM BD F
Mechanism N = 12 N = 8 N = 8
TAO 35.67 £16.25 £12.50 4.82“
(7.69) (6.40) (7.53)
PRO 33.67 41.00 39.50 5.54**
(6.15) (£1.12) (3.50)
PRN 49.92 46.00 46.13 1.68
(4.48) (5.87) (5.42)
TAS 38.08 34.50 36.88 1.00
(5.37) (6.10) (4.06) w
REV 41.0 32.25 35.00 3.84*
(5.67) (8.37) (6.78)

 

Note:

 

:1:

df = 2:25 for all comparisons

p4-05

p£.025

28

The results indicate that the three groups differ on three of the
five defense mechanisms. Scheffes (1959) method for multiple comparisons
was used to determine which differences among the group means contributed
significantly to the between-group variance. On the TAO, right-movers
scored significantly higher than left-movers, but not significantly
higher than bidirectionals whose mean score fell between the two. On the
PRO, both right-movers and bidirectionals scored significantly higher
than left-movers and were not significantly different from each other.

On REV, left-movers scores significantly higher than right-movers, but
non significantly higher than bidirectionals.

It is interesting to note that the bidirectional's scores were
between the right-movers' and the left-movers' on all five comparisons,
being somewhat closer to those of right-movers.

'és' scores on the twenty-two vocational interest scales derived
from the SVIB were subjected to a twoaway analysis of variance in a
repeated measurements design. The analysis revealed significant
differences among the various vocational interests across §§_(F = 7.61,
df = 21, 546, p¢:.O1). No group effects existed, however (F221) nor
was there an interaction between groups and SVIB variables (F = 1.19,
df = 42, 546, p;>.O5) (see Appendix G for the group means and the details
of the ANOVA). It therefore seems that left-movers, right-movers, and
bidirectional §§ did not differ in their vocational interests as measured
by the SVIB.

An inSpection of the profiles of the three groups on the basic
interest scales indeed suggested that the similarities were more striking
than the differences. When the basic interests of each group of gs

were rank ordered, a Spearman rank order correlation of .49 (p21.05)

29

was obtained between left-movers and right-movers, a correlation of .71
(p2:.001) between right-movers and bidirectionals and a correlation

of .78 (p<:.001) between the left-movers and the bidirectionals. It can
be concluded that the three groups are similar in their vocational
interests with both right-movers and left-movers being somewhat more
similar to bidirectionals than to each other.

_S__s_' score on the 1453 was the total number of seconds to place blocks
in various shapes into the appropriate slots. The means of the three
groups are given in Table 6.

Table 6: Means, Standard Deviations (in Parentheses), and the F

value Comparing Left-Movers (LM), RighteMovers«(RM), and
Bidirectionals (BD) on MSR.

 

 

LM RM BD F
N = 13 N = 8 N = 9
513.00 439.63 506.11 2.27
(81.40) (62.115) (80.12)

 

Note: df = 2:27.

 

As seen from this table, the differences among the three groups on
the MSR were not statistically significant. There does seem to be a
considerable difference favoring the right-movers as compared with the
left-movers, with the bidirectionals falling in between. ‘When the scores
of the three groups were plotted on a frequency distribution, it became
evident that the distributions of left-movers and right-movers had very
little overlap. The bidirectionals produced most of the overlap and
were probably responsible for blurring the over-all differences by increas-

ing the error factor. Since it could be theoretically eXpected that

30

bidirectionals would be less consistent in their approach to a
spatial task than either left-movers or right-movers, a separate grtest
was performed on the scores for left-movers and right-movers alone.
The result of this t-test was significant (t = 2.20, df = 19. P4:.05,
two tailed). This result, because it is post hoc, should be interpreted
‘with caution in view of the undesirability of performing t-tests to
compare particular groups, when the over-all F fails to reveal significance.
Two scores were derived for each §.from his responses to the Symptom
Questionnaire: 1. Total number of symptoms reported. 2. Pr0portion of
psychosomatic symptoms of the total.
The results for the three groups on the total number of reported

symptoms are summarized in Table 7.

 

 

 

Table 7: Means, Standard Deviations (in Parentheses), and the F
Value Comparing Left-Movers (M), Right-Movers (RM), and
Bidirectionals (BD) on the Symptom Questionnaire.

LM RM BD F

N = 13 N = 8 N = 8
31.31 27.75 25.63 .52
(14.03) (11.77) (8.92)

 

Note: df = 2: 26.

 

As seen in this table, the three groups did not differ on the

total number of symptoms.

31

The prOportion of psychosomatic symptom of the total number of
symptoms reported are summarized for the three groups in Table 8.
Table 8: Means, Standard Deviations (in Parentheses), and the F

value Comparing Left-Movers (LM), Right-Movers (RM), and
Bidirectionals (BD) on the PrOportion of Psychosomatic

 

 

 

SymptomS.
LM RM BD F
N = 13 N = 8 N = 8
~312 .192 .200 4.711:
(.127) (.055) (.063)

 

* 132.025, df = 2; 26.

The results suggest that the three groups differ in their preportion
of reported psychosomatic symptoms. An application of Scheffes (1959)
method for multiple comparisons revealed that only the differences between
leftamovers and right-movers and between leftamovers and bidirectionals

were significant (p21.05).

DISCUSSION

The first phase of this investigation corroborated, using a within-
subject design, both Kinsbourne's (1972) and Bakan's (1969, 1971) findings.
The direction of eye movements in response to questions thus appears to be
determined by at least two factors: 1. Problem type and 2. Characteristic
use of a certain hemisphere by a given individual. The influence of the
first factor seems to be maximized when §.is seated behind S, whereas
the influence of the second factor is maximized when‘E faces S.

At present one can only speculate as to the mechanisms involved in
producing the rather drastic change, from one situation to another, in
the influence of each of these factors on S's response. Perhaps in the
Egbehindeg situation.§_is faced only with the problems presented to him.
The task of answering the problems is therefore more salient than in the
E-facingeg situation and the different problem types may have a stronger
"pull" on §'s response. The Erfacingg§ situation confronts §,with a new
complex of stimuli to respond to and thereby decreases the saliency of
the problem type. By being more interpersonal it also may make §|more
anxious in terms of physiological level of arousal. Anxiety, according
to Sullivan (1953), is closely tied-up with interpersonal relationships,
and tends to stand in the way of an appropriate problem or need-related
behavior (Sullivan, 1953. p. 44). It threatens the "need for security,"
thus mobilizing the so called "security Operations" in an attempt to
maintain self esteem.

This anxiety, along with the decrease in problem-type saliency, may

cause S to use his preferred hemisphere, either left or right, possibly

33

depending on personality variables, even when this is not the most
"efficient" hemisphere for dealing with a particular problem.

There are several ways to test this explanation. The problem in the
E-facinggg situation could be made more salient by rewarding correct
answers or punishing mistakes. Such a manipulation should increase the
number of eye movements according to problem type in the g-facingeS situation.
Conversely, making S feel less anxious and more at ease, by using §_of the
same sex and by establishing some rapport prior to testing, should also
result in more eye movements according to problem type in the E-facinse§
situation.

Another way of testing this explanation would be by manipulating the
difficulty of the questions. Harder questions ought to produce dispro-
portionately more mistakes in the EyfacingeS situation as compared to the
E-behindfiS situation, in view of the curvilinear relationship typically
found to exist between anxiety and performance. §fs descriptions of
their perceptions of or feeling about the two situations could give further
clues as to the effect of the manipulation. Such data may be corroborated
with physiological measures of ANS activity related to anxiety, as well
as by other objective tests (e.g. anxiety inventories).

One missing link in the chain of evidence seems to be the relation-
ship between eye directionality, in reSponse to a certain question type,
and the correctness or quality of response. As mentioned earlier, the
design of the questions used in the present investigation did not permit
a conclusive answer to this question. The finding of a relation between
correctness of reSponse and eye movements to the left in the spatial
questions in the E-facingeS situation is encouraging, however. Further

refinement of the questions and scoring of answers in a way that will enable

34

a reliable and valid differentiation of response quality if clearly indicated.
The hypotheses regarding differences between left-movers and right-

movers on amount of drive, drive representation, and psychOpathology were

not confirmed. Furthermore, the left-movers were found to be characterized

more by repression and denial. Finally, the left-movers tended to have

more psychosomatic complaints than the right-movers. These results indicate

1
1

that these hypotheses were not sufficiently well fOunded. From the
description of left-movers as being more Spontaneous (Day, 1964, 1967a,
1967b, 1968), and more attentive to internal processes (Bakan, 1971; Day,
1968; Our and Reyher, in press), and from the finding that male left-movers
prefer a female to a male E (Gur and Reyher, in press) it was concluded
that left-movers should also be less inhibited in expressing their needs
and therefore show less evidence of psychopathology as well. But terms
like "spontaneous" and "internally oriented" are vague and do not imply
any underlying psychodynamic processes that would lead to the emergence
of different clinical manifestations for left-movers and right-movers.
"Internal orientation" may mean a tendency toward repression rather than
projection, as much as it may mean awareness of feelings. The present
investigation, by revealing a connection between eye directionality,
repression, and symptomatology, permits a more differentiated statement
of the relation between brain asymmetry and psychopathology.

Both in laboratory (Burns, 1972; Perkins and Reyher, 1971; Reyher,
1958, 1961, 1967; Sommerschield and Reyher, in press) and field (Reyher
and Basch, 1970) studies, degree of repression has been found to be
inversely related to the prOportion of psychosomatic symptoms. The lifting
of repression seems to be associated with a decrease in the prOportion of

psychosomatic complaints and an increase in symptomatology which is more

35

depictive of the repressed conflict. The finding that left-movers report
a higher proportion of psychosomatic symptoms, as compared to right-
movers, may, therefore, be a result of their heavy use of repression as

a defense. This finding also agrees with Gambaro and Rabin's (1969)
finding that psychosomatic symptoms (high blood pressure) are more likely
to occur when S is forced to internalize his frustrations then when he can
express his emotional reactions to the external source of conflict.

The lack of differences among the groups on their "drive presence" and
"drive level" scores, derived from their TAT stories, suggests that these
scores may not be directly related to level of repression. Theoretically,
one would expect a high presence of drive expressed in a direct-unsocialized
way (Level I in the Pine scoring system) to indicate a low level of
repression. As Sommerschield and Reyher (in press) have pointed out,
however, the Pine (1960) system of scoring does not allow for a differen-
tiation between those drives that are objectionable to the §_who projected
them into his story (ego-dystonic drives) and those that are not (ego-
syntonic drives). A subject may obtain a high "drive presence" score by
expressing many ego-syntonic drives, while completely repressing any
ego-dystonic drives. Sommerschield and Reyher also found no relation
between the measures derived from the Pine system and an independent
measure of repression of ego-dystonic drives, which was found to correlate
with the amount of psychosomatic symptomatology. }

The defense mechanism employed predominantely by left-movers (”Reversal"),(
is characterized by an immediate reaction of denial of reality, repression .
of the emotions provoked by external stress, and reaction formation. The
defense mechanisms employed predominantly by right-movers ("Turning Against

Object," "Projection") are characterized by externalizing the conflict

36

and acting against the environment. They also require an additional
cognitive elaboration. These results agree with Day's (1964, 1967a,

1967b, 1968) findings that left-movers tend to view anxiety as emanating
from internal sources, whereas right-movers tend to externalize the locus
of anxiety. They also agree with a recent finding by Proctor and Kinsbourne
(1973). who investigated the relation between eye directionality and
reported perception of anxiety in a stressful situation (patients awaiting
oral surgery). All left-movers underestimated and all right-movers over- ;
estimated their degree of anxiety as defined by an objective measure of
physiological arousal (pulse rate).

These results are also congruent with Our and Reyher's (in press)
findings that left-movers reSponded better than right-movers to a passive
style of hypnotic induction which emphasizes internal processes, but did
worse when an active, externally oriented, induction style was used.
Another finding of Gur and Reyher (in press) is harder to reconcile with
the present results. The tendency of male left-movers to prefer a female
to a male E, significantly more often than right-movers, was interpreted
in that study to mean that left-movers were more in tune with the arousal
caused by the female E, One way of explaining the discrepancy, in view of
the tendency found in the present study for left-movers to use the defense
of "Reversal," to conclude that the left-movers chose a female E as a
reaction formation without being aware of their arousal. An alternative
explanation would be that the DMI, which does not use any stories relating
to sexual conflicts, measures defenses against anger rather than against
libidinal strivings. Thus, it is still possible that left-movers tend

to repress angry feelings, whereas right-movers repress conflicts related

37

to libidinal strivings. These are only Speculations, however, and
further research is needed.

The present investigation indicates that left-movers do not differ
from right-movers in the amount of drives, their level, and general psycho-
pathology, but rather in their characteristic way of handling these sources
of conflict. If, indeed, Bakan is correct that eye directionality is
indicative of the characteristic use of the contralateral hemisphere
left-movers and right-movers should differ in accordance with differences
in the modes of functioning between the two hemiSpheres.

Bogen (1969) has suggested that the "distinguishing feature of the
left hemisphere is not its possession of words but its age of words in
propositions (sequences of words in which the meanings of the words are
interdependent)" (Bogen, 1969, p. 147). The right hemiSphere, on the
other hand, is characterized by "thought based on simultaneous grasp of
related but differing phenomena" (Bogen, 1969), p. 148). The left hemiSphere
was therefore assumed by Bogen to subserve propositional thought, whereas
the right hemisphere was assumed to subserve appositional thought. Bogen's
(1969) distinction between appositional and propositional modes of thinking
is similar to Freud's (1946) distinction between primary process (apposi-
tional) and secondary process (propositional)thinking. Primary process
thinking is concrete and largely pictorial and illogical. Secondary process
thinking is abstract, verbal, and logical. Sullivan (1953) similarly
distinguishes parataxic (appositional) from syntaxic (prOpositional) modes
of experience. Parataxic modes are undifferentiated, "momentary, un-
connected states of being" (Sullivan, 1953. p. 28). Syntaxic modes are

characterized by consensually validated symbol activity involving an appeal

38

to principles and their logical derivatives (Sullivan, 1953, pp. 28-29).
Freud and Sullivan maintain that the first mode of thinking is more
prevalent during infancy and diminishes from overt expression through the
socialization process. Recent evidence (Crowell et al., 1973), indicating
that the right hemiSphere is more responsive to visual stimuli in the
newborn infant, seems to bridge these psychodynamic theories with BOgen's
(1969) theory which is based on brain research.

A more complicated theoretical issue evolves aroung the nature of the
relation between the drive, or emotion, and its mode of expression. If
they are related, would hemiSpheric specialization relate to both? Bogen
seems to view the drive and its form of expression as independent:
"Appositional thought is not synonymous with emotional thought. Emotion
may or may not be involved in either propositional or appositional thought."
(Bogen, 1969, p. 21). Freud, on the other hand, views primary process
thinking as being more directly determined by drives than secondary process
thinking. Sullivan would probably side more with Bogen on this issue,
since Sullivan discusses the various formal modes of experience quite
independently from his analysis of the system of needs. The results of
the present investigation suggest that left movers do not differ from
right movers in strength of drives, emotions, and conflicts, but rather in
the preferred mode of approaching them or defending against them. It
could therefore be concluded that the drives, emanating from physiological
states, are integrated within a neural system which is probably lower than
the cerebral cortex and which probably has little to do with hemispheric
differentiation. It is only when the drives reach a more cognitive expression

that hemispheric specialization can impose one or the other mode of structurin"

F.)

39

the experience. The evidence from the present investigation supports
this formulation only indirectly, however, and further, more refined
research is needed.

The finding that right-movers perform better than left-movers on the
MSR seems incongruent with the general belief (e.g. Kimura, 1973) that the
right hemisphere subserves Spatial functions. This finding, however, may
mean that a verbal approach to this test may be more efficient than a
spatial approach. This may also be the case in the Embedded Figures task
(Witkin, 1950) on which male right-movers were found to perform better
than male left-movers (Barnat, 1972). These findings may serve as a
warning for designers of tests purported to measure spatial abilities.

At least some of these tests can be successfully approached with a verbal
mode of thinking. Perhaps there are no tests that are purely spatial,
particularly for a college student population, trained throughout life

to approach most tasks in a verbal fashion (Harris, 1973). The performance
of left-movers vs. right-movers on such tests may serve as an additional
indicator of the amount of contamination of spatial tests by verbal

factors.

Since the developers of the MSR do emphasize its relative independence
from verbal intelligence, however, an alternative explanation for these
results may be suggested. The specialization of the two hemispheres into
verbal and Spatial functions seems to be special case of the more basic
differentiation between analytic vs. synthetic (Levy, 1969) or propositional
vs. appositional (Bogen, 1969) modes of thinking. Semmes (1968) suggests
that the right hemiSphere is more diffusely organized, and concludes that

its organization best characterizes the Spatial problem. It could be added,

40

however, that such an organization would also be best suited for an apposi-
tional or synthetic mode of thinking. The convergence between spatial-
verbal and appositional-prOpositional or analytic-synthetic is not complete.
There are Spatial problems that would be best solved by an analytic approach,
and the right hemiSphere would be less likely to engage in their successful
solution. It can be suggested, therefore, that the spatial relations

test (MSR) measures the ability to solve spatial problems by an analytic
approach. This approach to problem solving seems to be typically subserved
by the left hemisphere.

The lack of differences among the groups in their vocational interests,
as measured by the SVIB, disagrees with Bakan's (1971) finding that left-
movers differ from right-movers in their choice of a major in college.

The finding, however, is consistent with Barnat's (1972) failure to find
differences among the groups using another vocational interest inventory
(Kuder preference record--vocational, Kuder (1934-1956). The subjects

in both Barnat's and the present investigation, however, were college
students enrolled in an Introductory Psychology course. The relative
homogeneity of this pepulation in terms of vocational interests would
considerably reduce the expected variance, thereby reducing the chance of
finding reliable differences among subgroups of this population. Moreover,
all human work and prdblem solving contain elements of both propositional
and appositional modes of thinking, though the "mix" will differ from job
to job and from person to person. Although some professions may be more
successfully approached with one mode of thinking rather than another, and
some correlation should be expected between eye directionality and vocational

preference in the population at large, the correlation will probably be low

I ‘|“

in

or moderate and will account for a relatively small percentage of the
variance. Further research is needed to establish the nature and magnitude
of this relation. The lack of agreement between Bakan's (1971) findings,
based on university students' statements of their major field of study, and
Barnat's (1972) and the present findings, which used standardized vocational
inventories, may also be traceable to the different procedures. A choice '
of major, particularly by the undergraduate student, can be determined by if
factors other than vocational interest, e.g., status, economic reasons, {
family pressures, and intellectual aptitudes in particular fields.

The present investigation seems to have uncovered the Operation of two
factors: stimulus characteristics of the question and characteristics
within the individual-which influence the activation of the cerebral
hemiSpheres. It has also revealed differences among §§ who characteris-
tically reSpond with one hemisphere as compared to those who characteristically
respond with the other. 'Whenever a physiological correlate of behavior
is fbund, and hemispheric lateralization can be viewed as such, questions
regarding the old nature vs. nurture controversy and physiological vs.
psychological causality come to the fore. It should be noted, however,
that the contribution of constitutional vs. environmental factors in the
development of brain lateralization is yet to be determined. Reliance on
a particular mode of problem solving may be acquired through learning,
through hereditary links, or through an interaction of both.

The present findings cannot be generalized beyond male, right-handed
college students. Further research Should include females, left-handers,

and §§ from different age levels and different socioeconomic backgrounds.

II I. I I'll!

1.

FOOTNOTES

Two left movers, one right-mover and one bidirectional failed

to complete the DMI and were dropped from the analysis of the
results for this test. One left-mover and one right-mover
failed to complete the TAT the DAP and the MSR and were dropped
from the analyses of the results of these tests. One left-mover,
one right-mover and one bidirectional failed to complete the

MSR and were dropped from the analysis of the results of this
test. The number of S; in each group is presented in the

apprOpriate tables.

.I'} II II. III Ill... '2] .llllllil ll

REFEREI.‘CES

REFERENCES

Aresu, M. La superficie cerebrale nelliuomo. ‘Arch, Itgl, Anat, Emb;iol.,
1914,.12, 380-433. (Cited in Von Bonin, 1962.

Bakan, P. Hypnotizability, laterality of eye movement and functional brain
asymmetry. Pegcgptual and Motor Skill§, 1969,‘g§, 927-932.

Bakan, P. The eyes have it. P cholo Toda , 1971, 4 64-69.

Bakan, P. Sex differences in brain lateralization. Unpublished manuscript,
1973.

Bakan, P., and Shotland, J. Lateral eye movement, reading speed, and visual
attention. ngphonomic Sciencg, 1969, 6, 93-94.

Bakan, P., and Svorad, D. Resting EEG alpha and asymmetry of reflective
lateral eye movements. Natng, 1969,'223, 975-976.

Barnat, M. R. Some personality correlates of the conjugate lateral eye
movement phenomenon. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1972.

Benton, A. L. Clinical symptomatology in right and left hemisphere lesions.
In Mountcastle, V. B., Ed. Interhemisphgzic relationg and cegebral
,Qgggnangg. ‘Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 19 2, 253-2 1.

Benton, A. L, The "minor" hemisphere. J 9323;; 9f the Higtogx of Medicyg' e
W. 1972. 2.7.. 5-14.

Bogen, J. E. The other side of the brain II: An appositional mind.
Bu ' 0 Lo .An eles Neurolo 'cal Soci i , 1969,,34, 135-162.

Bogen, J. E., Marsh, J. F., and Tenhauten, W. D. A neurosociological theory
of cerebral lateralization and social dominance. Unpublished manuscript,
1971.

Boyd, R. Tables of the weights of the human body and internal organs in
athe sane and insane of both sexes at various ages arranged from 2,114

post-mortum.examinations. PhilOSOthca; Transactiogg, 1861, 151,
241-2620

Broca, D. Remarques sur le siege de la faculte du langage articule, suives
d'une observation d'aphemie. Bull. Soc. .Anat. Paris, 1861,,6,
330-357. (Cited in Benton, 1972).

Carmon, A. Hemispheric asymmetries of blood flow and cerebral dominance.
Paper presented to the Academy of.Aphasia, 1970, New Orleans.

43

44

Carmon, A., and Gombos, G. M. A physiological vascular correlate of hand
preference: Possible implications with respect to hemispheric
cerebral dominance. Neurgpsychologia, 1970, 8, 119-128.

Carmon, A., Hrishanu, Y., Lowinger, B., and Lavy, S. Asymmetries in
hemispheric blood volume and cerebral dominance. ngviora; Biology,
1972. 2. 853-859.

Costa, L. D., and Vaughn, Performance of patients with lateralized cerebral

lesions: I. Verbal and perceptual tasks. J 93mg]. of. Negzo, and
W. 1962. 1.39,. 162-168.

Crowell, D. H., Jones, R. B., Kapuniai, L. E. and Nakagawa, J. K. Uni-
lateral cortical activity in newborn humans: An early index of
cerebral dominance? m, 1973. 180. 205-207.

Curry, F. K. W. A comparison of left-handed and right-handed subjects on
verbal and nonverbal dichotic listening tasks. Lam, 1967, 3,
318-352-

Darwin, C. J. Ear differences in the recall of fricatives and vowels.
Thg Quartggly J ournal of Emergengl Psychglogy, 1971, .23: 46-62.

Day, M. E. An eye-movement phenomenon relating to attention, thought and

anxiety. Peaceptgl and Motor Skillg, 1964, 12, 443-446.
Day, M. E. An eye movement indicator of type and level of anxiety. Some
clinical observations. Jggm; 0; Clinical Psychglogx. 1967. 23.

433.1141 . (a).

Day, M. E. An eye movement indicator of individual differences in the
physiological organization of attentional processes and anxiety.

Day, M. E. Attention, anxiety and psychotherapy. Psychothezapy Ihggu,
DeRenzi, E. Nonverbal memory and hemispheric side of lesion. Ne ho-

lazia. 1968. _6_, 181-189.

DeRenzi, E., and Spinnler, H. Facial recognition in brain-damaged patients.
Neggloggg 1966’ Lé. 145-1520

Doehring, D. G., and Bartholomeus, B. N. Laterality effects in voice
recognition. W. 1971. 2. 425-430.

Duke, J. Lateral eye-movement behavior. J 011mg; of Gengral P§1chology,
1968, 18,, 189-195.

Durnford, M., and Kimura, D. Right hemisphere specialization reflected in
visual field differences. Naturg, 1971, 211, 394-395.

45

Eberstaller, O. Zur oberfflache nantomie der Grosshirnhemispharen. Wien.
Med.)Blaetter, 1884, 2, 479-482, 542-582, 644-646. (Cited in Von Bonin,
1962 .

Fisher, 3. Body attention patterns and personality defenses. Psmhglggi cal
M O h o 1966. .69.. 9-

Freud, S. Collected Egan. Vol. IV. London: Hogarth Press, 1946.

Gambaro, S., and Rabin, A. I. Diastolic blood pressure responses follow-
ing direct and displaced aggression after anger arousal in high and

low guilt subjects. Jou of Perso ' and Soc P ho ,
19699 1.2! 87‘9“.
Gazzaniga, M. S. W. New York: Appleton-Century, 1970.

Gazzaniga, M. 8,, Bogen, J. E. and Sperry, R. W. Observations on visual
perception after disconnexion of the cerebral hemispheres in man.
Exam. 1965. 8. 221-236.

Gazzaniga, M. S. and Sperry, R. W. Language after section of the cerebral
commissures. m, 1967, 29, 131-148.

Geschwind, N., and Levitsky, W. Human brain: Left-right asymmetries in
temporal speech region. m, 1968, 161, 186-187.

Gilbert, C. Strength of left-handedness and facial recognition ability.
9.2m. 1973. 2. in press-

Glaser, G. C., and Ihilevich, D. An objective instrument for measuring

defense mechanisms. J C ‘ a d C ' ' P ho ,
1969. 3.3. 51-60.

Gur, R., and Reyher, J. The relationship between style of hypnotic induction

and direction of lateral eye movement. J 0mg; of Abpoml Psycgglogy,
1973, in press.

Harris, L. J. Neurophysiological substrates of spatial develOpment.
Paper presented to the Biennial meetings of the Society for Research
in Child Development, 1973. Philadelphia.

Hecaen, H., Ajuriaguerra, J. de., and Massonnet, J. Les troubles visuo
constructifs par lesion parieto-occipital droite. Role des per tur-
bations vestibu laires. W, 1959, 42, 122-179. (cited in
Hecaen, H., and Ajuriaguerra, J. de., 1964).

Hecaen, H., Denfield, N., Bertrand, C., and Malmo, R. The syndrome of
apractognosia due to lesions of the minor cerebral hemisphere. Agchimg

W. 1956. 7.5. “00-434-

Hecaen, H. and Ajuriaguerra, J. de. Lem-handmgss. New York: Grune
and Stratton, 1964.

46

Hoadley, M. D. and Pearson, K. Measurement of internal diameter of Skull
in relation to "pre-eminence" of left hemisphere. W, 1929,
21, 94-123. (Cited in Von Bonin, 1962).

Humphrey, M. E, Consistency of hand usage: A preliminary inquiry.
thtigg Journal of Educattona; Psyghglogy, 1951, 21, 214-225.

Kimura, M. Dual functional asymmetry of the brain in visual perception.
Ngtggpsxchologga, 1966, 4, 275-285.

Kimura, D. Functional asymmetry of the brain in dichotic listening.
9.2m: 19670 30 163-478.

Kimura, D. The asymmetry of the human brain. Scient'fic America , 1973,
228, 70-80.

Kinsbourne, M. The control of attention by interaction between the cerebral
' hemispheres. Presented to the Fourth International Symposium on
Attention and Performance, 1971, Boulder.

Kinsbourne, M. Eye and head turning indicates cerebral lateralization.

m. 1972. 6. 539-541-

Knox, C., and Kimura, D. Cerebral processing of nonverbal sounds in boys

and girls. Nflopgychologta' , 1970, 8 227-238.

Kuder, C. F. K d refe nce o -- oca o . Chicago: Science
Research Associates, 1934-195 .

Lansdell, M. The effect of neurosurgery on a test of proverbs.
Ameticgp szghologist, 1961, 6, 448.

Lansdell, M. A sex difference in effect of temporal lobe neurosurgery on
design preference. m, 1962, 1%, 852-854.

Levy, J. Possible basis for the evolution of lateral specialization of the
human brain. Natuzg, 1969, 2&1, 614-615.

McFie, J. and Zangwill, O. L. Visual-constructive disabilities associated
with lesions of the left cerebral hemisphere. Bram , 1960, 83, 243-260.

McGlone, J., Davidson, W. The relation between cerebral speech laterality
and spatial ability with special reference to sex and hand preference.
W. 1973. 1.1. 105-113.

McKeever, W. F., and Huling, M. D. Bilateral tachistoscopic word recogni-
tion as a function of hemisphere stimulated and interhemispheric

transfer time. W, 1971, 3, 281-288.

McRae, D. L., Branch, C. L., and Milner, B. The occipital horns and
cerebral dominance. Neurolog, 1968, 18, 95-98.

47

Miller, E. Handedness and the pattern of human ability. B i h J
g: P§yghology, 1971, _6_z, 111-112.

Milner, B. Psychological defects produced by temporal lobe excision.
Rgsgazgh Ppbligations Aggogtatiog o; Ngrvops apg Mental Dt§g§§g,
1958.,3_, 244-257.

Milner, B. Laterality effects in audition. In V. B. Mountcastle (Ed.)

Igterhemtgphgrtc rglation§ and gergbral domtngnce. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Press, 1962.

Milner, B. Visual recognition and recall after right temporal lobe
excision in man. Neugotsychologig, 1968, 6, 191-209.

Milner, B., Taylor, L., and Sperry, R. W. Lateralized suppression of
dichotically presented digits after commissural section in man.

Milner, B., and Taylor, L. Right-hemisphere superiority in tactile
pattern-recognition after cerebral commissurotomy: Evidence for

nonverbal memory. Ngtrgp§ychologia, 1972,,19, 1-15.
Murray, H. A Thgmatic Appgrception Tgst Maptgl. Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard University Press, 1943.

Nebes, R. Handedness and the perception of part-whole relationship.
29m: 19719 Z! 350’3560

Newcombe, F. Ii§§ile woundg of the brainia study 0; p§ythological
dgttgit§. Oxford University Press, London.

Ogle, S. W} On dextral pre-eminence. M - Ch' Tran ., 1871, 35,
279-301. (Cited in Von Bonin, 1962;.
Paterson, A., and Zangwill, O. L. Disorders of visual space perception

associated with lesions of the right cerebral hemisphere. Bragg,

1944.,é2. 331-358-

Perkins, K. A., and Reyher, J. Repression, psychopathology and drive
representation: .An experimental hypnotic investigation of impulse

inhibition. Th§.Americap Jgpgpg; of Clinical Hypnosi§, 1971, 18,
249-258.

Perria, L., Rosandini, C., and Rossi, G. F. Determination of side of
cerebral dominance with amobarbitual. Anchtves of Neugology,
Chicago, 1961,,4, 173-181.

Piercy, N., and Smyth, V. O. G. Right hemisphere dominance for certain
non-verbal intellectual skills, Brain, 1962, 8 , 775-790.

Pine, F. A manual for rating drive content in the thematic apperception

test. Jggnal o: Projgctive Techniqueg, 1960, 33, 32-45.

48

Proctor, E., and Kinsbourne, M. Lateral eye-movements and state anxiety.
Unpublished manuscript, 1973.

Reyher, J. Hypnotically induced conflict in relation to subseption,
repression, antisocial behavior and psychosomatic reactions.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1958.

Reyher, J. Posthypnotic stimulation of hypnotically induced conflict in
relation to psychosomatic reactions and psychOpathology.

Psychosomatic Medicige, 1961, 23, 384-391.

Reyher, J. A paradigm for determining the clinical relevance of
hypnotically induced psychopathology. P chological Bulletin,

1962. 52. 344-352.

Reyher,J . Hypnosis in research in psychopathology. In J. E. Gordon

(Ed. )h Hagdbook of clinical and gypgrimentalh ypn0§i§. New York:
Macmillan, 1967.

Reyher, J. Hypnosis. In Introduction to general psychology: Self-
§§l§ction text book. Dubuque, Ia.: Wm. C. Brown, 1908.

Reyher, J. An objective scale for assessing degree of psychopathology
from the Draw-A-Person. Unpublished manuscript, 1972.

Reyher, J., and Basch, J. A. Degree of repression and frequency of

psychosomatic symptoms. ngceptua; and Motoy Sgil;§, 1970, 39,
559-562-

Rizzolatti, G., Umilta, D., and Berlucchi, G. Opposite superiorities
of the right and left cerebral hemispheres in discriminative
reaction time to physiognomical and alphabetical material.

B ai , 1971, 4, 431-442.

Scheffe, H. Thg analy§i§ of variancg. New York: ‘Wiley, 1959.

Shankweiler, D., and Studdert-Kennedy, M. Identification of consonants and

vowels presented to left and right ears. Thg Quartezly Jouypal g;
Eypgrimgptgl Pfiyghology, 1967,‘12, 59-63.

Smith, A. J. Speech and other functions after left (dominant) hemispherectomy.
Jggypal g: Nguyg;ggy,lNeu;O§2rgeyy.1and P§ychiatyy, 1966,,22, 407-417.

Sommerscheild, H., and Reyher, J. Posthypnotic conflict, repression and

psychOpathology. Joprnal of.Abnorma; P§ychologyI in press.

Strong, E. K. Jr. Vocational interegtg of men and wgmgn. Stanford
University, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1943.

Subirana, A. Handedness and cerebral dominance. In Vinken, P, J., and

Bruyn, G. W. (Eds. )H Handbook of clipical nggyglo gy. North-Holland
Publishing 00., Amsterdam, 1969, Vol.4: Di orders of e h,

pgyggpt; 0g, agd sympglic pehaygoy, 248-272.

49

Sullivan, H. S. The iptgypeysogal theom of pgychga' try. W. W. Norton
and Company Inc., New York, 1953.

Teitelbaum, H. A. Spontaneous rhythmic ocular movement. Their possible
relationship to mental activity. NflCOlOS', 1954, 350-354.

Trabue, M. R. and Paterson, D. G. Minnesota Spatial Regtiogg Te§t,
Minneapolis, Minn.: Educational Test Bureau, 1930.

Von Bonin, G. Anatomical asymmetries of the cerebral hemispheres. In
Mountcastle, V. B. (Ed.) Ipterhemisphetic zelgttogg and cgygbml
We. Baltimore: Johns Hapkins Press, 1962, 1- .

Wada, J. A new method for the determination of the side of cerebral
speech dominance. A preliminary report on the intercarotid injection

of Sodium Anytal in man. M 'cine and Biolo , 1949, 4, 221-222.
(Cited by Wada and Rasmussen, 1962).

Wada, J. A. and Rasmussen, T. Intracarotid injection of sodium amytal
for the lateralization of cerebral speech dominance. Experimental

and clinical observations. W, 1960, .11,
266—282.

Wagner, H. Massbestinmmngen der oberflache des grossen Gehirns.
Wigand, Cassel und Gottingen, 1864. (Cited in Von Bonin, 1962).

Witkin, H. Individual differences in the ease of perception of embedded
figures. W. 1950. .12. 1-15.

Wyke, M., and Ettlinger, G. Efficiency of recognition in left and right
visual fields. Archivgg o: Nguyolggy, 1961, 5, 659-665.

Zangwill, 0. L. Intelligence in aphasia. In De Reuck and O'Connor
(Eds.) pisgggg;s_gz_lgggggg§, Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1969.

 

APPENDIX A

 

 

Ea

7.
8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

15.

16.
17.

APPENDIX.A

TEST FORM "A" - SECTION "a"

Explain:

A watched pot never boils.

Solve: 3/5 of 400 is:

Visualize your driver's license. ‘Where is the date of expiration
on it relative to your picture?

Explain: Rome was not built in a day.

Imagine the map of the United States. ‘Where is Chicago relative
to Minneapolis?

Solve: 69 times 14 is:

Solve: square 75-62.

Explain: One may ride a free horse to death.

Visualize sitting in front of a type-writer. 'Where is the letter
'R' relative to 'B'.

Solve: 4/5 of 600 is:

Visualize you are on the corner of Abbott and Grand River and you
start walking toward M.A.C. Name one store that you will pass on
your‘way.

Explain: .All that glitters is not gold.

Solve: 1935 minus 829 is:

Explain: HOpe is the poor man's bread.

Imagine driving a car and approaching a "YIELD" Sign which is in the
shape of a triangle. To which direction does the triangle point?
Solve: 25 times 12 is:

Imagine a square rotating 360 degrees around it's axis. 'What shape

would you get?

50

18.
19.
20,

21.

22.
23.
24.

25.
26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

51

Explain: A drowning man will clutch at a straw.

Solve: The Square of 29 is:

Explain: .A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Imagine that you are traveling from Las Vegas to Dallas. 'Which
states do you pass through:

Solve: Subtract 12 from the product of 13 times 7.

Explain: They that are mute want to talk the most.

Imagine the Great Lakes area. What are the states that border
the Great Lakes?

Explain: 'What saddens a wise man gladdens a fool.

Visualize the map of the United States. What are the states that
border Nebraska?

Solve: 4/7 of 182 is:

Solve: The cube of 1/7 is:

Visualize your library card. ‘Where is your student number on it
relative to your name?

Explain: Don't judge a book by it's cover.

2.
3.

9.
10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

15.
16.

17.

52
TEST FORM "A" - SECTION "b"

Explain: A poor worker blames his tools.

Solve: 3/8 of 720 minus 13 is:

Imagine the Liberty Statue in the Columbia movies. Is it facing
to it's right or to it's left?

Explain: 'Words cut more than swords.

Solve: The square of 43 is:

Imagine George Washington on a nickel. Which direction does he
face, to your right or to your left?

Solve: 24 plus 98, minus 17 is:

Imagine yourself standing in front of an ice-cream vending machine.
IS the money slot to your right or to your left?

Explain: Don't throw good money after bad.

Explain: ,A stitch in time saves nine.

Visualize the map of the United States. Which city is closer to
New York, Boston or Cleveland?

Solve: 3/8 of 104 is:

Solve: 424 + 727 is:

Imagine "The Doctor's Bag" column of the State News. IS Dr. Warner's
picture to your right or to your left?

Explain: He that lies on the ground can not fall.

Imagine the campus as a clock where the Men's IM is the center and
the Administration Building is 12 o'clock. In what hour approxi-
mately will the Union Building be?

Explain: ‘Where there is a will, there is a way.

18.

19.
20.

21.
22.
23.
24.

25.

26.

27.
28.

29.
30.

53

Solve: 82 times 14 is:

Explain: A rolling stone gathers no moss.

Visualize sitting in front of a type-writer. Where is the letter
"J" in relation to "C"?

Solve: 2/7 of 630 is:

Solve: The cube of 11 is:

Explain: Riches serve a wise man, but command a fool.

Imagine the campus as a clock where the stadium is the center and
the Administration building is the hour 12, on what hour
approximately is the Auditorium?

Imagine you are up at bat with a man on second. You line out deep
to the third base man, who tries to double the man off second. Does
the third baseman throw to his left or to his right?

Explain: He who pleased everybody died before he was born.

Solve: 934 minus 561 is:

Visualize a telephone dial. ‘Where does the area code appear
relative to the number?

Explain: If you can not bite don't Show your teeth.

Solve: 45 times 18 divided by 9 is:

O\ U: F kn)
o

7.

11.
12.

13.
14.

15.

16.

54
TEST FORM "B" - SECTION "c"

Solve: 1626 minus 789 is:

Visualize you are at Jacobson's Department store on Grand River,
you are walking toward the Student Book store. Name one store
that you will pass on your way.

Explain: ,All'S‘well that ends well.

Explain: As you make your bed so you must lie in it.

Solve: 768 minus 383 is:

Imagine the lion's head in the MGM movies. IS it tilted to it's
right or to it's left?

Explain: It is better to have a good enemy than a bad friend.
Visualize sitting in front of a type-writer. ‘Where is the letter
"L" in relation to "K"?

Solve: 268 plus 869 is:

Visualize the front page of the State News. Is the date to your
right or to your left.

Solve: The square of 26 is:

Explain: It never rains, but it pours.

Solve: 72 times 12 is:

Explain: The hardest work is to go idle.

Imagine the Great Lakes area. Above what state is the western
part of the upper penninsula in Michigan?

Imagine the campus as a clock where the library building is the
center and Beaumont tower is 12 o'clock. In what hour approximately

will the Administration building be?

17. Solve: 2/3 of 114 is:

18. Explain: When the cat's away the mice will play.

19. Explain: Too many cooks spoil the broth.

20. Imagine you are at bat with a man on first base. You line out to
the second base man who then tries to double the runner off first.
Does the second base man throw to his left or to his right?

21. Solve: 3/5 of 400 is:

22. Solve: 'The cube of 1/9 is:

23. Imagine yourself standing in front of a coffee vending machine.
Is the money slot to your right or to you left?

24. Explain: The more cost, the more honor.

25. Explain: Better happy than wise.

26. Solve: The cube of 13 is:

27. Imagine that you are traveling from Denver to Minneapolis, which
states do you pass through?

28. Solve: 8/9 of 720 minus 12 is:

29. Explain: Call no man happy until he is dead.

30. Visualize your social security card. Where is your number on it

relative to your name?

10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

15.

16.
17o

18.
19.

56
TEST FORM "B" - SECTION "d"

Imagine Lincoln on a penny. ‘Which direction does he face, to your
right or to your left?

Solve: The square of 86-13 is:

Explain: Strike while the iron is hot.

Explain: Great bodies move slowly.

Solve: 3/7 of 196 is:

Imagine the map of the United States, where is Detroit relative
to Chicago?

Explain: He who laughs last laughs best.

Solve: The square of 39 is:

Imagine the campus as a clock where the Administration building
is the center and the Union building is the hour 12. On what
hour approximately is the campus police?

Explain: Lend your money and loose your friend.

Visualize sitting in front of a type-writer. Where is the letter
"D" in relation to "O"?

Solve: 35 times 14 divided by 7 is:

Explain: Don't count your chickens before they are hatched.
Solve: The cube of 1/14 is:

Visualize a telephone. Where is the metal part which stops the
finger relative to the number?

Solve: 35 times 14 is:

Imagine driving a car and approaching an intersection with a
traffic light. 'Where is the red light relative to the green light?
Explain: The worst spoke of the wheel breaks first.

Solve: Subtract 13 from the product of 14 times 8.

20.

21.
22.
23.
24.

29.

30.

Visualize the map of the United States. What are the states that
border Illinois?

Explain: It is better to have a bad peace than a good war.
Explain: A watched pot never boils.

Solve: 34 plus 78 minus 19 is:

Imagine a circle rotating around it's diameter. What shape do you
get?

Solve: 2/9 of 540 is:

Visualize your I.D. card. 'Where is your signature on it, relative
to the picture.

Explain: He is rich who has few desires.

Visualize the map of the United States. Which city is closer to
San Francisco, Los Angeles or Salt Lake City.

Solve: 79 times 16 is:

Explain: Easy come, easy go.

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire on hand preferences

First, state whether you regard yourself as right-handed (R), left4handed

certain acts requiring the use of both hands.

(L), or ambidextrous

(A)
GENEPAL INSTRUCTIONS:

 

The main body of the questionnaire
falls into two parts:

PART A is designed to find out which hand you habitually use, or
would prefer to use, for certain acts requiring the use of one hand only.
It is expected that habitual tendency and preference will, for the most
part, coincide, but if there is any case where they differ, you are
asked to add a note to that effect.

PART B is designed to find out which hand plays the leading role in

Indicate in the column

provided, R, if you use your right hand, L, if you use your left hand,
or E, if you are aware of no Special preference in either direction,

i.e. if you are just as likely to use one hand as the other.

When in

doubt, you should try to settle the issue by experimenter, for example,

'by going through the motions or by trying to visualize yourself per-
forming the action.

A.
1.

2.

9.

10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘With which hand do you throw?

'With which hand do you write?

‘With which hand do you draw?

‘With which hand do you play games such as tennis, squash, and badmin-
ton, and paddle ball?

‘With which hand do you use a pair of scissors (e.g., for cutting paper)?
'With which hand do you use a razor? (state type of razor)

‘With which hand do you use a comb? (state side on which you part

your hair)

 

'With which hand do you
‘With which hand do you
(e.g., cutting string,

‘With which hand do you

use a toothbrush?

 

use a knife for purposes other than eating?

sharpening a pencil)

 

use a spoon for eating?

 

58

11.
12.
B.

13.
11+.
15.
16.
17.
18.

19.
20.

59

With which hand do you use a hammer?

 

With which hand do you use a screw-driver?

 

With which hand do you use a knife for cutting, in conjunction with

a fork?

 

On which side of your body do you swing a baseball bat?

 

On which hand do you hold the tap of a broom when sweeping?

With which hand do you unscrew the lid of a jar?

 

With which hand do you hold the top of a rake when raking?

With which hand do you strike a match?

 

With which band do you deal cards?

 

With which band do you guide the thread through the eye of a needle,

or the needle onto the thread, as the case may be?

 

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C
Masculinity - femininity

1 2 3 4 5

Size of male drawing.

1. larger

2. same size

3. smaller

Male sexual anatomy

1. no waist

2. no buttocks (if side view)
3. no fly

Female sexual anatomy, with clothes on
1. no waist

2. no buttocks (if side view)
3. no breasts

Body parts missing

1. no ears 2. no eyes
1. no pupil in eyes 2. no hands or feet
2. no nose 3. no arms or legs

2. no mouth

Body vs. head detail

3. adequate head detail and no body detail
Body detail, nude

1. no pant line or dress line

2. pant line but no other clothing detail
2. no clothes but no breasts on female

3. no neckline, but other clothing detail
#. no clothes but no genitals

Transparency

3. body through arm
4. body through clothing

Car vs. human figure

3. adequate car detail vs. little human detail

60

61

Kinesthetic enlivenment
O. definite motion

1. weak motion

2. no motion

Effective use of Space

1. less than half vertical dimension
2. less than 1/3 of vertical dimension

Graphic indicators of ego involvement
1. no erasure

1. no reinforcement

1 . no shading

1. no emphasis lines

Distortion, including illogical placement and poorly delineated parts
1. minor

2. moderate

3. bizarre

Car

0. Phallic-aggressive

1 . sedan, ordinary

3. feminized

Position on paper

2. on either side, nearer margin than center

Orientation

3. back view

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D M
D M I

DO NOT MAKE ANY MARKS ON THIS BOOKLET

INSTRUCTIONS: Read carefully.

On each of the following pages is a short story. Following each
story are four questions with a choice of five answers for each. The four
questions relate to the following four kinds of behavior: actual behavior,
impulsive behavior in fantasy, thoughts, and feeling. Of the four, it is
only actual behavior which is outwardly expressed; the other three take
place only in the privacy of one's mind and, therefore, have no external
repercussions.

‘What we want you to do is to select the gag answer of the five
which you think is the most representative of how you would react, and mark
the number corresponding to that answer on the attached answer sheet, with
a plus (+) sign. Then select the gag answer which you think is least
representative of how you would react and mark it with a minus (-) sign.
For example, let us assume that out of the five possible answers to a
question (e.g., numbers 236, 237, 238, 239, 240). response number 237
is the one you consider most representative of the way you would react,
and response number 2&0 is the least representative. In this case, the
corresponding part of the answer sheet would look like this:

236
237.___;:___.
238
239,_________
240 -

Read all the five answers following the question befoge you make
your selections. In marking your answers on the answer sheet, be sure
that the number of the statement agrees with the number on the answer sheet.

There are no right or wrong answers here; the only thing that
should guide your selections is your own knowledge of yourself. .Allow your
mind to imagine for a moment that the event described in the story is really
happening to you, even though you may never have experienced such an event.
'When you select your responses remember we are,pg§ asking which answer you
like most and like least, but rather the answers which would best and least
represent the waygygg would act and feel in these situations.

If you have no questions, please turn to the next page and begin.

c David Ihilevich and Goldine Gleser, 1968
#2569

62

63

You are waiting for the bus at the edge of the road. The
streets are wet and muddy after the previous night's rain. A car sweeps
through a puddle in front of you, splashing your clothing with mud.

What would your ACTUAL reactigp be?

1. I would note the car's license number so that I could track down that
careless driver.

I'd wipe myself off with a smile.

I'd yell curses after the driver.

I would scold myself for not having worn at least a raincoat.

I'd shrug it off, after all things like that are unavoidable.

\n-F’KDN
.00

‘What would yog IMPULSIVELY gin fantasy) want to do?

6. 'Wipe that driver's face in the mud.

7. Report that incompetent driver to the police.

8. Kick myself for standing too close to the edge of the road.
9. Let the driver know that I don't really mind.

10. Let that driver know that bystanders also have rights.

What THOUGHT might ocgur to ygfl?

11. ‘Why do I always get myself into things like this?

12. To hell with that driver!

13. I'm sure that basically that driver is a nice fellow.

14. One can expect something like this to happen on wet days.
15. I wonder if that fellow splashed me on purpose?

How would you FEEL and why?

16. Satisfied, after all it could have been worse.

17. Depressed, because of my bad luck.

18. Resigned, for you've got to take things as they come.

19. Resentment, because the driver was so thoughtless and inconsiderate.
20. Furious that he got me dirty.

64 a.

In the army you hold a post of responsibility for the smooth
Operation of an important department which is constantly under great
pressure to meet deadlines. Because things haven't been running as
smoothly as they should lately, despite your initiative and resource-
fulness, you have planned some changes in personnel for the near future.

Before you do so, however, your superior officer arrives un-
expectedly, asks some brusque questions about the work of the department
and then tells you that he is relieving you of your post and assigning
your assistant to your place.

What would your.ACTUAL rggction be?

21. I'd accept my dismissal gracefully, since the superior is only
doing his job.

22. I'd blame my superior for having made up his mind against me even
before the visit.

23. I'd be thankful for being relieved of such a tough job.

24. I'd look for an Opportunity to undercut my assistant.

25. I'd blame myself for not being competent enough.

What would you IEv‘PULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

 

26. Congratulate my assistant on his promotion.
27. Expose the probable plot between my superior and my assistant to
get rid of me.

28. Tell my superior to go to hell.

29. I'd like to kill myself for not having made the necessary changes
sooner.

30. I'd like to quit, but one can't do that in the army.

What THOUGHT might occur to you?

31. I wish I could come face to face with my superior in a dark alley.
32. In the army it is essential to have the right man in the right job.
33. There is no doubt that this was just an excuse to get rid of me.
34. I'm really lucky that I only lost my job and not my rank as well.
35. How could I be so dumb!

HOW‘WOUld you FEEL and why?

36. Resentful, because he had it in for me.

37. Angry, at my assistant for getting my job.

38. Pleased that nothing words had happened.

39. Upset that I am a failure.

40. Resigned, after all, one must be satisfied with having done the best
one can.

65 u.

You are living with your aunt and uncle, who are helping to put
you through college. They have taken care of you since your parents
were killed in an automObile accident when you were in your early teens.
On a night that you have a late date with your "steady," there is a
heavy storm outside. Your aunt and uncle insist that you call and
cancel your date because of the weather and the late hour. You are
about to disregard their wishes and go out the door when your uncle says
in a commanding tone of voice, "Your aunt and I have said that you can't
go, and that is that."

What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

41. I would do as my uncle said because he has always wanted what was
best for me.

42. I'd tell them, "I always knew you didn't want me to grow up."

43. I would cancel my date, since one must keep peace in the family.

44% I'd tell them it was none of their business and go out anyway.

45. I'd agree to remain at home and apologize for having upset them.

What would you IEPULSIVELY Sth fantasy) want to do?

46. Knock my head against the wall.

47. Tell them to stop ruining my life.

48. Thank them for being so concerned with my welfare.
49. Leave, slamming the door in their faces.

50. Keep my engagement, rain or shine.

What THOUGHT might occur to you?

51. Why don't they shut up and let me alone?

52. They never have really cared about me.

53. They are so good to me, I should follow their advice without question.
54. You can't take without giving something in return.

55. It's all my own fault for planning such a late date.

 

How would youtFEEL and why?

56. .Annoyed, that they think I am a baby.

57. Miserable, because there is nothing much I can do.

58. Grateful for their concern.

59. Resigned, after all you can't get your own way every time.
60. Furious, because they interfere with my business.

66

You are extremely eager to do well in sports, but of all those
at which you have tried your hand, only in basketball have you been able
to achieve a measure of success. However, until now, whenever you have
applied for membership in a team or sports club, although the judges have
appeared impressed with your initial performance, their final decision has
always been the same -- they tell you that you've just missed making the
grade.

One afternoon your car breaks down and you are forced to take a
bus home during the rush hour. .As you stand in the crowded bus, you hear
your wife's voice. She is seated together with the manager of the team
to which you have just applied. You overhear the manager tell her, "Your
husband has a nice style of play, we're thinking of asking him to join
our club." Then you hear your wife laugh and reply, "Take it from me, he
hasn't got what it takes in the long run."

What wouldgyour ACTUAL reaction be?

61. I'd tell her off when we got home.

62. I would greet her affectionately, as usual, when I arrived home because
I know she really appreciates me.

63. I'd be quiet and withdrawn for the rest of the evening, not mentioning
what I had overheard.

64. I'd take it in my stride, for women's talk is never taken seriously.

65. I'd tell her that I wasn't surprised by what I'd overheard because I
had always thought she was two-faced.

What would you IMPUL§IVELY {in fantasy) want to do?

66. Tell my wife that I overheard her, and was proud of her frankness.
67. Break her neck.

68. Tell her that men expect loyalty from their wives.

69. Let her know that I'd always suspected her of talking behind my back.
70. StOp off somewhere so I wouldn't have to face her.

 

What THOUGHT might occur to you?

71. I bet she talks about me that way to everybody.

72. ‘What could I have done that makes her feel this way about me?
73. I'm sure she's only kidding.

74. One shouldn't be bothered by such talk.

75. She needs to be taught a lesson.

How would you FEEL and why?

76. 'Worthless, because I'd realize what a failure I was as a husband.

77. Furious at her for speaking about me that way.

78. Unconcerned, because women are like that.

79. Outraged, because her gossip has probably contributed to most of my
past failures.

80. Serene, because I know the manager will realize that she doesn't know
what she is saying.

67 m.

At your job you want to impress upon your foreman the fact that
you are more skilled than your fellow workers. You are eagerly awaiting
an Opportunity to prove yourself.

One day a new machine is brought into the factory. The foreman
calls all the workers together and asks whether anyone knows how to Operate
it. You sense the chance you have been waiting for, so you tell the foreman
that you have worked with a similar machine and would like a chance to try
your hand at this one. But he refuses, saying, "Sorry, we can't take a
chance," and calls a veteran worker to come over and try to get the machine
started.

No sooner has the veteran worker pulled the starter, than Sparks
begin to fly and the machine grinds to a halt. At this point the foreman
calls and asks you if you still want a chance to try and start the machine.

What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

81. I'd say that I doubt if’I could do it either.

82. I'd tell my fellow workers that the foreman wants to hold me
responsible for the machine's crack-up.

83. I'd tell the foreman that I appreciated his giving me the chance.

84. I'd decline, cursing the foreman under my breath.

85. I'd tell the foreman that I would try because one must never
back down from a challenge.

What would you IMPULSIVELY gin fantasy) want to g9?

86. Tell that foreman that he'll not make me the scapegoat for a
broken machine.
87. Thank the foreman for not letting me try it first.
88. Tell the foreman that he Should try to start a broken
machine himself.
89. Point out to the foreman that experience doesn't guarantee success.
90. Kick myself for talking myself into an unbearable situation.

What THOUGHT might occhy to you?

91. That foreman is really a pretty decent guy.

92. Damn him and his blasted machine.

93. This foreman is out to get me.

94. Machines are not always reliable.

95. How could I be so stupid as to even think of Operating that machine.

How d FEEL an ?

96. Indifferent, because when one's abilities are not appreciated one's
enthusiasm is lost.

97. Angry that I was asked to do an impossible job.

98. Glad that I didn't wreck the machine.

99. Annoyed that I was purposely put on the spot.

100. Disgusted with myself because I risked making a fool of myself.

 

68

On your way to catch a train, you are hurrying through a

narrow street lined with tall buildings. Suddenly a piece of masonry
comes crashing down from a roof where repairmen are working. A piece
of brick bounces off the Sidewalk, bruising you in the leg.

What would your ACTUAL reaction bg?

101.
102.
103.

104.
105.

I'd tell them I ought to sue them.

I'd curse myself for having such bad luck.

I'd hurry on, for one should not permit oneself to be diverted
from one's plans.

I'd continue on my way, grateful that nothing worse had happened.
I'd try to discover who the negligent persons are.

'What would you IMPULSIVELY {in fanta§y2 want to do?

106.
107.
108.
109.
110.

Remind the men of their Obligation to public safety.
Assure those men that nothing serious had happened.
Give them a piece of my mind.

Kick myself for not having watched where I was going.
See to it that those careless workers lose their job.

‘What THOUGHT might occuy to yot?

111.
112.
113.
114.
115.

Those men don't know how to do their job right.
I'm lucky that I wasn't seriously hurt.
Damn those men!

'Why do these things always happen to me?

One can't be too careful these days.

Hg! wghld you FEEL and yhy?

116.
117.
118.
119.
120.

Angry, because I was hurt.

Furious, because I could have been killed by their negligence.
Calm, fOr one must practice self control.

Upset by my bad luck.

Thankful that I'd gotten away with no more than a scratch.

69 p.

Driving through town in the late afternoon, you arrive at one
of the busiest intersections. Although the light has changed in your
favor, you see that pedestrians are not obeying the "wait" Sign and are
blocking your path. You attempt to complete your turn with due caution
before the light turns against you. AS you complete the turn, a traffic
policeman orders you over to the Side and charges you with violating the
pedestrian's right-ofaway. You explain that you had taken the only
possible course of action, but the policeman proceeds to give you a
ticket nevertheless.

What wohld ygh;.ACTUAL reaction hg?

121. I'd blame myself for having been careless.

122. I'd go to court and bring counter charges against the policeman.

123. I'd ask the policeman why he has such a grudge against drivers.

124. I'd try to cOOperate with the policeman, who, after all, is a
good guy-

125. I'd take the ticket without question, since the policeman was
just doing his duty.

‘What would yhh IMPULSIVELY {in tantggyz want t9 do?

126. Tell the policeman he can't use his position to push me around.
127. Kick myself for not having waited for the next green light.
128. Thank the policeman for saving me from a possible accident.
129. Stand up for my rights as a matter of principle.

130. Slam the door in his face and drive off.

Whgt THOUGHT might goth; t2 ygh?

131. He's doing the right thing, actually I ought to thank him for
teaching me an important lesson.

132. Each man must carry out his job as he sees it.

133. This guy ought to go back to pounding a beat.

134. How could I be so stupid!

135. I bet he gets a kick out of giving tickets to peOple.

Hg Eghld yg; FEEL and why?

136. Boiling anger, because he's making trouble for me.

137. Resentment, because he's picking on me.

138. Ashamed, because I was negligent.

139. Indifferent, after all, this sort of thing happens all the time.

140. Relieved, because I'd been prevented from getting into worse
trouble.

70 f.

You return home after spending two years in the army; At the
time you joined you had had a choice between enlistment and a position in
your father's business. You preferred the army despite parental advice.
Now that you are home again, you find that your range of Opportunity
hasn't widened appreciably. You can either join your father's business
or get a job as an untrained worker. You would like to Open a coffee
shOp, but you lack the capital necessary to carry out such an enterprise.
After a great deal of hesitation, you decide to ask your father to put up
the money. tAfter listening to your prOposal, he reminds you that he had
wanted you to take a job with his firm instead of joining the army. Then
he tells you, "I'm not prepared to throw away my hard-earned money on
your crazy schemes. It's time you started helping me in my business."

What would your.ACTUAL reaction bg?

141. I'd accept his offer, Since everyone depends on everyone else
in this world.

142. I would admit to him that I guess I am a bad risk.

143. I'd tell him off in no uncertain terms.

144. I'd tell him that I'd always suspected that he had a grudge
against me.

145. I'd thank him for holding a job Open for me all these years.

H ould ou IMPULSIVELY an we ?

146. Go to work for him and make him happy.

147. Give up trying and end it all.

148. Take my father's offer since Offers like that don't grow on trees.
149. Let him know what a miser everyone thinks he is.

150. Tell him that I wouldn't work for him if he were the last man on earth.

'What THOUGHT htght ocghy t9 ygh?

151. He'll get what's coming to him one day.

152. Family considerations can't enter into business decisions.

153. 'Why was I so stupid as to bring the subject up.

154. I must admit that my father is acting for my own good.

155. This proves what I've suspected all along, that my father has
never believed in me.

H wo 1d ou FEEL ?

156. Angry, because he doesn't want me to succeed on my own.

157. Grateful for his offer of a job with a future.

158. Resentful that he is sabotaging my future.

159. Resigned, since you can't have everything you own way all the time.
160. Hopeless, because I couldn't get my father's support.

71 g.

One afternoon while you and a close friend are cramming for
exams, your girlfriend drops by unexpectedly. .Although you and she have
been going steady for over a year, you have not been able to see much of
each other lately; therefore you are very happy she has come. You invite
her in and introduce her to your friend and the three of you spend a
pleasant hour together.

A few days later you ring her up and invite her to go out on
the town to celebrate the end of exam week, but she tells you that she
has come down with a bad cold and thinks that it is best fbr her not to
leave the house. After dinner you feel sort of let down and decide to
go to the movies by yourself.

Coming out of the movie theater, you come upon your pal arm-
in-arm with your girlfriend.

What wghld yogr.ACTUAL yaactton ha?

161. I'd tell.my girl she could have told me it was over instead of
cheating behind my back.

162. I'd greet them politely as a civilized person should.

163. I'd make sure they both knew I wanted nothing more to do with them.

164. I'd tell them that I am delighted that they have become friends.

165. I'd duck out of sight to avoid facing them.

What would you IMPULSIVELY gth fantasy) want to do?

166. Go home and have a good cry.

167. Knock him out and grab the girl away.

168. Show them that I really don't mind their being together.

169. Tell them if that's the way they want it they can have each other.
170. Indicate that it takes more than one battle to win a war.

What THOUGHT might occh: t9 ygh?

171. This wouldn't have happened if'I had been more attentive to her.
172. ,All's fair in love and war.

173. They certainly are a pair of double-crossers.

174. I hOpe they get what they deserve.

175. I was getting tired of’her, anyhow.

How ygald ygh FEEL and.yhy?

176. Relieved that I was free again.

17?. ‘Upset, because I shouldn't have been so trusting.

178. Resigned, because you've got to take life as it comes.
179. Disgusted, because of their dishonesty.

180. Furious, because they behaved as they did.

72 c.

You and an old school friend are competing for a newly vacated
executive position in the firm where you work. Although both your chances
seem about equal, your friend has had more Opportunity to Show resource-
fulness in critical situations. Recently, however, you have successfully
pushed through some excellent deals. In Spite of this, the board of
directors decides to promote your friend rather than you.

What 31le my ACTUAL yggtton ha?

181. I'd try to find out which director "blackballed" me.

182. I'd continue to do my duty as a responsible person must.

183. I'd accept the outcome as proof that I'm not executive material.
184. I'd protest the decision of the board most vehemently.

185. I'd congratulate my friend on the promotion.

Wha ld IMPULSIVELY an wan to do?

186. Ask the board to reconsider, since a mistake would be detrimental

to the company.
187. Kick myself for having aspired to a job for which I wasn't qualified.
188. Show the board how biased they've been in their unjust treatment of me.
189. Help my friend make a success at the new jOb.
190. Break the neck of each and every member of the board of directors.

‘hhat THOUGHT might ocgay to yhu?

191. I guess I just don't have what it takes.

192. I probably wouldn't enjoy an executive position as much as the one
I have now.

193. There certainly is something fishy about the board's decision.

194. One must take a blow such as this in one's stride.

195. Damn that board of directors.

 

How'youtd you FEEL and.yhy?

196. Happy that I still have the job I am used to.

197. Upset because my inadequacy was made public.

198. Furious at the directors because of their treatment of me.
199. Resigned, for that's the way it goes in the business world.
200. .Angry, because I have been the victim of an unjust decision.

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

MINNESOTA SPATIAL RELATIONS TEST

NATURE OF THE TEST: The Minnesota Spatial Relations Test,
consisting of four form boards containing 58 cut-outs each, is
designed to measure speed and accuracy in discriminating odd sizes and
shapes. This test is relatively independent of verbal intelligence
and is a reasonable valid test of mechanical ability. There is evidence
that performance in the Spatial Relations Test is relatively free from
the influence of previous mechanical experience.

DIRECTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING: This test can be used only as
an individual test. The four form boards are given in the following
order: Board A, Board B, Board C, and Board D. The test is so
constructed that one set of blocks is used for Boards A and B, and
another set for Boards C and D.

Board.A is placed on the table, directly in front of the subject
and flush with the edge of the table. The board is arranged so that
the edge labeled A is the one farthest from the subject. The blocks
are placed just beyond the empty board in the positions they have in
Board B. This arrangement is most easily secured by placing Board B
directly beyond A (i.e., from the standpoint of the subject), arranging
the blocks in Board B and picking up Board B, leaving the blocks on
the table.

The following directions are read to the subject: "Put these
blocks in their prOper places on this board. They fit easily; do not
force any of them. Use one hand. You may have to turn some of the
blocks around, but do not turn any of them over. Keep the green side
of the blocks up. Go as fast as you can and get all of the blocks in

the board. Ready! Go!"

73

74

When the subject has placed the blocks in Board A, this board
is pulled back from the subject and the board removed in the manner
described above. Board B is then presented. Boards C and D are
presented in the same manner as Boards A and B. In every case, the
edge of the board which bears the distinguishing letter must be away
from the subject and toward the examiner.

Trials. One trial is given for each board. A rest period of
30 seconds between trials is recommended.

DIRECTIONS FOR SCORING: The score is the sum of the time in
seconds taken to put the blocks in the holes in each of the four
boards.

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F

SYMPTOM QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire consists of some numbered statements. Read each
statement carefully. If it is true as applied to you, mark T on the
answer sheet and if false mark F. Please answer all statements as
accurately as you can.

1.

2.

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

17.
18.
19.
20.

21.

I do not often feel bothered.

I have never been paralyzed or had any unusual weakness of any muscle.
I have never had asthma.

I go to sleep without thoughts or ideas that make me feel guilty.

I frequently notice my hand shakes when I try to do something.

At times I am on the brink of having a feeling or impulse but am
at a loss to know what it is.

I hardly ever feel pain in the back of my neck.

I have pains in the heart or chest.

When something goes wrong, I generally feel that I am the blame.

I never wake up at night frightened.

Sometimes I feel as if I must injure either myself or someone else.

I am never ashamed of my thoughts and of the things that I do.

I am bothered by a persistent cough.

Parts of my body often have feelings like burning, tingling, or crawling.
I often notice that my body is tense and I have difficulty in relaxing.

Once a week or oftener I feel hot suddenly all over without apparent
cause.

There have been times when I felt like jumping off when on a high place.

I Often feel as if things were not real.

At times I feel as if something dreadful is about to happen.

I am often sick to my stomach.

I am not usually afraid of things or peOple which I know cannot hurt me.
75

22.

23.

24.

25.

27.
28.

29.

31.
32.
33.

314’.

35.
36.

37.
38.
39.
40.

41.
42,
43.

76

I practically never blush.

Sometimes I have strange, unnatural feelings which are hard to
describe.

At times I have a strong urge to do something harmful or shocking.

At times when things are going particularly well for me, I become
suddenly depressed.

Often, even though everything is going fine for me, I feel that I
don't care about anything.

Has a doctor ever said that you had stomach ulcers?
There are very few periods when I am on edge.

There are persons who envy my thoughts and ideas and would like
to call them their own.

I have never had attacks in which I could not control my movements
or speech but in which I knew what was going on around me.

I hardly ever notice my heart pounding.
There are some people who seem to have it in for me.

Sometimes without any reason or even when things are going wrong,
I feel excitedly happy, "on top of the world."

Even though I know I do not have arthritis or rheumatism, I often
have soreness in some of my joints.

I deserve severe punishment for my sins.

There are never times when I lose my'bearings and am at a loss to
know where I am.

At times my eyelid twitches for no accountable reason.
I feel weak all over much of the time.
My thoughts have raced ahead faster than I could speak them.

My mind seems to be divided into two parts which appear to be
struggling with one another.

Sometimes I have a loss of feeling of numbness in a part of my body.
Sometimes I break out in a Sweat even though it is not hot.

There have been times in my life when I felt panic or terror
without any accountable reason.

77

44. I never had a fainting spell.
45. My sleep is fitful and disturbed.
46. I sometimes deveIOp hives or rash for no apparent reason.

47. I love my parents dearly and wish that I could live up to their
expectations.

48. I am seldom Short of breath.
49. I do not suffer from frequent, severe headaches.
50. I seldom or never have dizzy spells.

51. In the presence of friends and familiar surroundings, I sometimes feel
as if the peOple around me were strangers and the setting unfamiliar.

52. iy mouth feels dry much of the time.

53. I have noticed on occasion that parts of my body have felt detached
as if they were not a part of me.

54. There are periods during which I have abdominal cramps for no
apparent reason.

55. I often feel irritated or annoyed without any particular reason for it.
56. At times I have problems with either constipation or diarrhea.
57. I feel anxious almost all the time.

58. I never feel that all my friends and loved ones will abandon me.
59. I have periods of great restlessness.

60. I am bothered by acid stomach several times a week.

61. I have never had strange and peculiar thoughts.

62. At times I become depressed and think that I am no good at all.
63. I have little or no trouble with my muscles twitching or jumping.
64. I hardly ever feel like smashing things.

65. I am easily frightened.

66. Are you bothered by severe itching?

67. I hardly ever become upset without knowing why.

68.

69.
7o.
71.
72.
73.
74.

75.
76.
77.
78.

79.

80.

78
There are times that I suddenly become aware that I have been
gritting my teeth.
At times I feel I lose control over my mind.
Has a doctor ever said your blood pressure was too high or too low?
I never have had blackouts.
I feel frustrated much of the time.
I often notice that I am fidgety.

During sad moments, I never find myself laughing out loud or having
the urge to do so.

I never get the jitters.
I sometimes feel that I am about to go to pieces.
Are you often troubled with bad spells of sneezing?

There are times when I don't have any emotions or feelings at all,
even though I wish I had.

I am aware of the presence of certain thoughts or ideas which I am
unable to grasp.

I am not bothered by people outside, on buses, in stores, etc.,
watching me.

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX G

THE STRONG VOCATIONAL INTEREST BLANK

Table 9. Means of the Three Group ofޤa on Each of the Strong Vocational

Interest Blank Basic Interest Scales.

 

 

 

Left Movers Right Movers Bidirectionals
Scale N = 13 N = 8
Public Speaking 57.61 51.13 48. 25
Law/Politics 56.31 54.63 55.63
Business Management 44.15 50.13 44.75
Sales 52.46 52.63 44.50
Merchandising 47.46 51.50 45.74
Office Practices 46.38 48.88 45.75
Military’Activities 42.31 50.38 45.13
Technical Supervision 43.85 45.50 44.88
Mathematics 45.08 43.00 42.63
Science 54.62 47.38 46.38
Mechanical 46.08 50.00 46.13
Nature 53.51 44.63 48.50
{Agriculture 54.00 51.38 51.13
Adventure 53.54 64.63 61.50
Recreational Leadership 52.31 54.00 49.13
Medical Service 53.23 52.25 48.88
Social Service 60.23 54.63 58.88
Religious Activities 49.46 44.13 42.00
Teaching 57.08 46.88 51.50
Music 57.15 52.75 53.50
Art 58.77 52.00 54.38
'Writing 58.08 53.25 54.75

 

79

80

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10. Analysis of variance of Three Groups of SS (Left-Movers,

Right-Movers, and Bidirectionals) on the Twenty Two

SVIB Scores.

Source SS df MS F

Between Groups 531 2 266 .59
(LM, RM, BD)
Between,§a[Within 11787 26 453
Groups
Total Between.§§ 12318 28
Between Measurement 12948 21 617 7.61*
(22 SVIB Variables)
Interaction Group X 4019 42 96
Measurements
Interactionl§a X 44039 546 81 1.19
Measurements
Total Within SS 61006 609

 

‘Willi???tum“