RORSCHACH HUMAN MQVEMENT AND
EA ELY MEMC R 1’ ES

Them for Hm Degree at: M. A.
MICHEGEN STATE SNEVEESETY

Richard. A... “3P5re-stmaas

1960

IHhJa'IS

nchigan Scam

University

LIBRARY

 

M'

C

 

 

RORSCHACH HUMAN MOVEMENT AND
EARLY’MEMORIES

BY
RICHARD A. WESTMAAS

A THESIS
Submitted to the College of Science and Arts
Miohi an State University of Agriculture and
App ied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1960

 

 

’\
J >
o a.
(A. L
.l.
.‘ 1i
i
a .
b . L
V. .
.
.

(V
.e

‘f'
'~.

5

6/

fix.)

\

$3“.

N“ (*2)

ACKNORLEDGEHENT

I wish to eXpress my gratitude to Dr. Gerald
F. King for his active participation and helpful
criticism in the different phases of this study.
His experience and enthusiasm served as a constant
source of encouragement. I would like to thank
Drs. Albert I. Rabin and Joseph Beyher for serving
on my oral examination committee and for their

helpful suggestions.

Richard A. Westmaas

ii

l .. A. _ . . ‘. ‘.
‘ ,-- L ° . . .. , ., ,- . -. '7 -. “.
r~ -._ .' . ' ‘V 'fl ‘_).-v| I I
‘1‘" T/I43J~J.Lg -. n “=4. 1» 2"”; Jul ‘1 ~J--- “L
o J

, -_ , “ it '. t r q. rv ' l" ‘
I, 1«J‘) 1...},L.) ~“ViJ-»zi~.. (IL . llg'a .7 1“;

 

" v“ "I". " ’ (a "YI" "'5'“ (_.‘. 07.:‘1" 3. ‘.
3 LC 1.1 . 'Ll I.-‘A ' 'J -J‘ t: .1 . l A .L )J -b ‘.\.’ OAJ. A.” ‘14- I -1. IL.)

: . ~ v

v. . 7N ‘ r'~ --~ ~ ' - ' " ‘ - u“ "I ~' VI ' \r " c
_ | . . _ . .. .. ‘ - e... .-
_ .‘ . . v - . -‘. g ' . ,l > J. : . ‘J . «.J J— kl _’ ‘1». “.r - ' 1'. \ ’ '.‘

' ' , , . -‘ . ,3 ,' t‘. _ - .r_ ‘ . ' . ‘ .
tall 1, Lil, .‘ -- . , 1"}; 0‘34? h» 1d 3531:!

i “.1 '{ . “‘. ti. {‘4‘ .1. \JJ-al: . .‘UA

"‘ t V ‘ J .$ ,‘ y, ‘. f. .j . f. ‘ ' H: 2 ‘ .‘-‘ P r‘ ,‘ ., ‘
L A 144-4 ‘3 1- u—J —|"‘ril‘\q i _\9 “L
- _ ' l . 0'
. o. ‘ I ‘ 0 l I ‘L F r
g -1 .'..~_4. l "J _.‘4 _j_, {_A

BOBSCHACH HUMAN MOVEMENT AND

EARLY MEMORIES

BY

Richard A. Westmaas

AN ABSTRACT
Submitted to the College of Science and Arts
hichigan State University of Agriculture and
«Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1960

.5...-

L-..
,J
+4.

.
1.
J . .
.
.k A
a‘o .4
. L
C!.* it.
. —
_uI.
. v I
. .
l o .3
.
A .

. _
..
.u c
s. I
f) ...
A|v i
.
.. ....
a1
..
vll \c.
4\
I] g.
”I. 0‘

, PI
. a. . d
.‘1 all“
A... 1.1,.
\
vIJ .
. \
I .
.
l
I
fix . \
.1. \
L ..r.\
.‘4 W1
‘
Ink
..
.1

.
)4
O‘-
..
.
1!. .i‘
a t
l‘
.‘A ‘-
. A.
. .1
o‘
s A
. L . a.
Ii. . A
.l k

x
M.

~. I

(J,

_ Richard Westmaas

In a recently published study, King (1958) critically
reviews current interpretations of the Rorschach human move-
ment response (E), and offers the following as a basic in-
terpretation: "g,ref1ects the ability in fantasy to project
the self in time and space in the interpersonal sphere“.
Hypotheses derived from this formulation received support
in his investigation among male veterans institutionalized
in a neur0psychiatric hospital. The present study was
designed to test the applicability of King's interpretation
of Elia a non-pathological setting.

Three hypotheses relating g production to the ability
to recall early memories were derived from King's formulation.
Specifically, it was hypothesized that HighAM producers, as
compared with Low-g producers, would: (I) recall memories
from an earlier age; (2) show less uncertainty in estimating
the age of early memories, and; (3) recall more elements in
early memories.

Subjects were college students drawn from classes in
introductory and general psychology at Michigan State University.
A total of 130 subjects were tested with a group-administered
Rorschach and an Early Memory Questionaire deve10ped for
this study. A High-M group, consisting of subjects with
seven or more g, and a Lowfifl_group, consisting of subjects
with three or fewer g_were formed. These preliminary groups
were then equated on the variables of age, intelligence, and

.Rorschach a, The final groups each contained 26 subjects.

iv

as

.0
Vin

VII.

.

A-

'1’.

f .

. .

r»

 

.
v .
0.x. (J
51 C
. . 1
r._ . .1
c. . .\
uJ .
i. .)
“r: r i Ir.
. x. 1..
.J 7 .I1
I . r to
. \
,l (e
r .f: -
(v
- . .L e l
.....u 1L.
0‘ . _
I‘d
r.
a... m I
+1
'. Ifi
0' _ §
_ ..
Us . r‘.
z
I u . (
.;
y .l. . g
a: .
-u an
‘0 . \
.I-Io _
C.
.5 .
. l. ‘.
Q I l k r
. . .
L -
. (1 "\
2.... V.
. .. i
. . r.
..
1 J
.. I t x
I a
.
‘. v I
a 3..“ t c
.
M r A y .
1 .
.
_ .4
- n
a a .4»!
. ...

.In,. .\
(. F!:
s. 4.
.
t-
I .r n
J
a . l
a . j ._ .
'o.
m - 1
.. .i .-
rt :3... f
a .
I (F tell

i. I

v u

r‘ P

.- Ya

I. r
I..

. v
V

O

.. «A.

C. r...
.I
L.

.\f .o

( (lb

.5 L .C
.t
f... .i. ..
u n. . . a
. -
. .1 .
I. .. HAL
') -..r
w 4 I
\. - . L
n a 1
.\ u l
t- V.
v
I. T

 

 

.J
.
.. .
.\
r‘J
. .4.
4 g .u
w w L.
. s o
I . I
r; . .—
p.‘ I
.u.
.
r 1 a
'* '
.L r
o . “v.
. . , .
...\. - u
.. a a
. . Q . m
7. .
. .
h! .
.
\.. etc.
I... r
.‘L. ... .4 p...
. . v
u n. ..
.1 r.
. u . .
«J L.\ '.
1.5.. T1.
vi «1;
l.‘ n .
a
‘ gr.
\ .
i.
.
\I ’1‘ I» A
u I
r
.- -
. r .ltA
1.
x .
.
w .
.. z .
e... .
.k I r.
.- ~
.3 .
I r.
L —|.
I O i
.. ..
1L . .. 2r ..
ltl .II
It . a L

-’-'

‘.\ e

\JAA

 

An analysis of the data yielded statistically signi—
ficant support for the second hypothesis, but not for the
first and third. The High4fl group was significantly less
uncertain in estimating age of early memories. The two
groups did not differ significantly on age of recalled
memories or on number of memory elements recalled.

In the discussion it was pointed out that the present
study differs from that of King in several important respects.
Specifically, there are differences in the type of subjects
used, in the frequency of g_reported for high and low groups,
and in the methodolOgy employed. That this study obtained
significant results for one out of the three hypotheses
tested, despite the above differences, was interpreted as
offering some limited support for the prOposed interpretation.
The need for further research in this area was indicated,
with suggestions for increasing the sensitivity of an

.early memory questionaire.

’2' 44:)../ . .
Approved by:__L.//,. LKJ . £5

5 c
Date: bi "-4-1 N, //6 O

.7

h
.‘
d

t

"\
J

l

..

v£~n

.‘J
C

E

‘7!

.C

(IN

A

Cpl.

.ol‘

.4 ‘7

i}

H"

5. .-..— —.-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES..................................vii
I. INTRODUCTION...............................
II. M2TH0D.....................................
Subjects.................................
Procedure................................

Early Memory Questionaire................

to 'Q ~: tn 0: rd

III. RESULTS....................................
IV. DISCUSSION................................. 1?
General Considerations................... 1?
Discussion of Results.................... 20
V. SUMMARY.................................... 26
VI. REFERENCES................................. 28

APPENDICESCOOOCCCOOOO0.00.0000...0.000.000.00000029
Appendix I (Instructions for Group Rorschach)

Appendix II (The Early Memory Questionaire)

vi

. O C
. . U
. I D
c o o
v o o
O I O
. C I
O O O
a n o
O O O
C C O
C l o
C O .
:‘ .~
4' 1';

o n 0 o
O O I o
I o e I
0 v o o
a o O O
I O O O
I O O O
o t I I
I O o O
I
o o I o
. o . w
o O C O
”f . f,
7‘ ' .‘
,x _ .

.0...

O O I I

QOO

O a I
O O o
O O O

.4...

IOOCIGIIOOC

a O .
... -
.
.
I U 0
I a O
..
-
a O -
O O O
O i I
I O '
o o 0
IL
5
.L '
r“

0 O h
. ..
g o a
t a 0

r1 _.

' I O
I I I
O o O
.

r "
I 8

T f" '

h I O O O

i

C

O 0 O
. .
o 0 O
O O C
O 0 C1

D O O
o l O
a o o

-.'

,. .
i
.5-
.i
.1...

5 L

.J»

LIST OF TABLES
- Page

Table 1. Comparison of Lowe! and High-E Groups on
Age, Rorschach g, and a Measure of
IntelligenceOOOOOOO0.000CIOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO 6

Table 2. Comparison of Lowag and Highéfl Groups on"
G10b81 age Of memory SCOreSCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIO

Table 3. Comparison of Lowsfl_and HighAfi Groups on _
Age Estimates for Individual Memories......ll

Table 4. Comparison of Lowe! and Highag Groups on
Uncertainty in Estimating Ages of
memories...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000000013

Table 5. Comparison of Lowzg and Highég_Groups on
Uncertainty Scores for Individual
liemorieBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.000.000.000000000—13

Table 6. Comparison of Lowe! and Hi hag Groups on
Number of Memory Elements ecalled.........15

Table 7. Comparison of Low—g and Highafl Groups on
Number of Playmates and Toys Recalled......15

vii

0

. J
A\ r
x n.
. .
v
.A .L
,. ..
‘ 1
A
., ,.
.
1
f‘ r

..,l _

. a
r I I
I

-' 6.5.

0400....

rat

"‘3

-.
- : '
0- “ r»

v P ‘
‘\

.- T
" 'C’I.
-,~. .
‘
C
‘ Q
~ Jr '
5., _.
. "V63. I!
'1 mi

.9.

\a

P’.

3

’
\

,‘-<

"V

INTRODUCTION

Among the Rorschach determinants, the human movement
respdnse (g) has received a good deal of attention. Sev—
eral interpretations of g were supplied by Rorschach,(:1948
(originally 1981)] such as intelligence, creativity, sugges-
tibility (inversely related to g), emotional stability, in—
tensive rapport, and empathic capacity. Research evidence
does not support all of these interpretations equally. King
(1958) reviewed several of the meanings of g,pr0posed by
Rorschach and later authors, and points out that many of_the
interpretations are collateral meanings. That is, the inter—
pretations are of limited generality, and their application
must be conditioned by the characteristics of the individual
who produces the responses. Thus, as Beck (1945) points out,
g_may have different meanings when found in the records of
hospitalized patients than with normal individuals.

In an attempt to establish a basic meaning for EJ King
points to the common interpretation of human (3) responses
as indicating interest in people. He suggests that more.
attention be paid to this interpersonal aspect of the g re-
spouse, which by definition involves humans or human activ-
ities. Interpretations of g_as indicating ability to em—
pathize with others is one meaning which focuses on inter-
personal relations, and some studies do indicate a relaé
tionship here (e.g., Hertzman & Pearce, 1947; Frankle, 1953).
That empathy is not a basic or general meaning of g, however,

is indicated by the observation that paranoid schizophrenioa,

‘ ’
.(u
a:
7...
.. h
h 4
r.
.3 .

'(z

-.i ._ }

"I
JV

.'..1

L7

‘—

r
fit

“It“

a I‘.‘
_’ll

‘1
It
A.‘

we.
(.6

J .
foil.

3‘ (‘2 j

r

‘1"!

'1..

fr:

'7' a
‘ ...\n

.’

:0

:11

J
V

‘ f1 "5

'
~

~‘
I

s}

_who are notoriously lacking in empathic ability, are often
high in.!_production. Thus, it may be that interpersnnal
projection does not have to be aocurate,~ta., empathic, to
enhance MIproduction on.the Rorschach. Considerations such
as these led King to prOpose the following formulation as
the basic meaning of g; '§_ref1ects the ability in fantasy
to project the self in time and space in the interpersonal
.Bphere'I (1958, p.4).

-In his investigation, King explored the implications
of his interpretation of !_as it applies to the maladjusted.
He proposed that,§,has special relevance to the individual's
orientation to his problem I'in'terms of his perception_of
the.nature of his problem, his perception of the origin of .
his problem, his reaction to the problem, and his view of
the future“ (1958, p.5). Utilizing 60 patients in a Yet-
erans Administration neurOpsychiatric hospital, King tested
four hypotheses relating 3 production to the patient's
orientation to his problem. He hypothesised that High4!
producers, as compared with Low<§_producers, would show:
(1) a greater tendency to recognise their problems (111-.
messes) as involving disturbances in interpersonal rela—
tionships, (8) a greater tendency to project themselves back-
wards in time in accounting for the origins of their problems,
(3) a greater tendency to utilize interpersonal fantasy in‘
ceping with their problems, and (4) a greater tendency to
project themselves beyond their present problems into the

future. Using the method of a controlled interview, he

.‘Wx

. 4 4 . 1.1 .L .2 -s A£--
" l” " ' ‘ ~"* .- . "t . ‘r 4* .v. . r ' - ~ ' -
“~ ‘ . 4 t '. U I f. i ‘u l) 3 ka- j .fi 1 | A " . t s y(“ A l :3 Kit; R‘U L"!

11 ‘fztz-"'j'.-").E‘.'I.i ‘1 ,- H M, 1., (“Hz -'“‘~ 1 :3‘1,”I"""9

. a: s \ ‘- ‘_ - v.- .1.-
L. '4 I ~ I ‘ ”, I l ‘ D '4 ‘ ‘ I s ( ‘v ‘ Q' i ’ ‘ 'n 5-. I \ " O ‘
‘IL 1 I I- , . _ V". . _ . x ‘ H ,‘ L...’ |’ .1 I - -' I'.
s f ‘ . .‘ . s ‘ "I 0 r 1 n _ I: I .If " I ".Ovlh , '- n‘. ,. g‘ ; s 5'1 3 ‘ f
‘I A,‘ \0 . ) .VsJ J .. 0 ‘AL " .JJ’
4 ~a-fl “-
to e . L‘ L 4- — x 13 I - - J I. n - -+- .r . In! ‘J v J '\ .. _' L U

B p ;Q‘f) ”3194-3

_ -, “I. ." ,. ‘ _. ,7 .. ‘ , s
.‘1'?.i U“i‘_.-_L‘Y.._3 "'-,.;‘.- -31 I 99’... '?‘\~"«,A[ LI? 711

-I ., F 1. . g1 , .. r , ‘ s a . , g H ‘ a ._
(7-3.1, ‘- v l'. .L 1- L '. I ab '1 L I J u 3 - . L.- U . - -I L‘ I
.w - - 4 .~. (in. 'c ‘1 .rfl'r‘ H"". "A 1 "r' “ F‘ 1' H"{ ’1' <1:

\l' x. “J J 5‘ a L I 2 .g _’ . ‘1- C ' .. o 4 I} a 4 I '__ . - - “ a
m
“ ' ’« r : .‘ "f - . . IN " H 151.] 3-41,- -",w '1, I t f\- I Try 4‘ 531,-y
i J a L L. ' a “Jet .1. “Volumes- -1 L ._ '. u a. LU' H.134. v.
s . - - - r r .
s r -( I f f ‘ ' , — \c‘ , \p ‘ ' ‘ r I f' ' ‘ ‘ ‘1. ‘ . f‘
~' ‘1. I ‘ A] ‘ J- In - 1 ‘ ‘ J «Y i .s t I . I ‘s I -3 C’ .L n L \l - I | L -- K1 — U
- r ' ' . - - .- .
‘. v . . , -_.- . . . . ,- ~o o, r - .--' -, w. u.- . 9 - , ‘. .-. .f . :,
-m"fwifi , vid(11-‘L‘J«eu .uiiewflxi 3-9 ,’.uteeuu p-'
— . _ \
s , . e
I .. - - , , -. o - ;' ‘ H ‘l . 'J'u'
r.u1.f). J 1., k "J1“ J Luz. .(‘-;. ,1 .‘Lf J'A..) .t -
,. . A s

v n \ -
" h - r l‘ 'r ‘ 4 e ' ' . . J L r\ s~ w~ Iv — f» /- -¢
'ezu U '1': I- . '1 k \- LL)“ ' All I '3— ‘Q ‘ ’~ “‘ (‘1 ("all ( l “ 11‘ ’l'
0 1 es. 0 ' - ‘ I o
r f ‘ V _- r ' rm 1' J "L h- ‘ > ~- - ~ \ . Q \ a , I . r' s N
U u L ‘1. .L ' A 1\v 1‘ -! L, .5. ')A L \J -1 ( 'o‘ -' z. 11-5 I " I 'j I I ‘J L ' I L '7
o ' ff ‘ s r q r- s ”6' + f“ "\ '_ *- N ‘ ’ v! ‘
a ‘ 4" ( ~, .' : . Q r, - v: . ‘. - ’f -‘ '_' '- s a -. .'- .
l ‘- 1i ‘, ’- .~ , - I L a" ‘ A f ":1 1- -I‘ ..... .L U p'. (..’l U I. \J . . ~ » . ' L4 a 54 ‘J . a ' ”Q7 ‘2 _‘ f

'v
‘4-
3

I
u)
I“ x

‘ _
\b’
v~lt
A
' 2
q,
W
.51
is...
".
F!
a.
r”
.J
F
‘ ’1
V

found significant differences between a.High-g_group and
a Lowޤ_group in support of each of these hypotheses. The
interpretation of !_offered by King has thus received support
among a sample of hospitalized males manifesting various
kinds of psychOpathology.

If the meaning of !,as formulated by King is considered
a basic or universal meaning, further investigations samp-
ling from other papulations, especially non—hospitalized
pepulations, are needed. However, the investigation of the
meaning of y’among normals cannot focus on orientation to
the individual's illness as with a hospitalized sample.
Among the possible manifestations of the ability which a
purportedly reflects is recall of experiences occuring remote-
ly in time. The formulation states that g_reflects ”the a-
bility in fantasy to project the self in time and space in
the interpersonal sphere." An individual with a relatively
high ability of this kind would be expected to have freer
access to interpersonal experiences occuring remotely in
time than a person with low ability. Furthermore, since
interpersonal relations are in some way involved in nearly
all of one's experiences, it would follow that the individual
with free access to interpersonal cues remote in time and
space would be able to recall a wide variety of early ex-
periences more readily than the individual with less access

to these cues.

«an.

‘3‘?

s
I". I
L] --‘

'q n: I no . I. .- .-
‘ *1» i l- : .[l r v, i

Q “"

.1-4
.rvo.
I

‘s

‘) C

".".I
.IA

3

.ssl

.‘l
P../
r
, .x
. .
(
A
v
..
w
.
.6 .
r.
0.-
h s
s
...

ctr

31‘

'<

s.‘

I(".'.
.n \

I'

-w

,‘fTQ’I‘ *3 "

'T .I‘
J.

1" ~'
"v)—’¢b

s-
5
i

.L

.
,..
v.
I
.1
‘

C.
L»

i

..
I-
...

I".
..

8

I
a.

.r.
.u
II.
a

THE PROBLEM
The present investigation represents an attempt to
test the application of the basic meaning of'g proposed by
King in a non-pathological setting. -The sample is taken
from a "normal" population consisting of college students.
The tests of King's formulation of the meaning of g,involve

the ability to recall experiences from early childhood.

HYPOTHESES
The specific hypotheses tested are as follows:

I. High3§,producers recall memories from an earlier age

than Lows! producers.
II. Higheg producers diow less uncertainty in estimating

the ages at which early memories occurred than Lowag

prom cers.
III. High-!,producers recall more elements in early memories

than Lowa§,producers.

v't

1L

&

' r
,

u
.

METHOD

§gb1ect§

The subjects (§s) were recruited from among students
enrolled in introductory and general psych010gy courses at
Michigan State University. The advertisement of the ex—
periment on the sign-up sheets described it as a study of
perceptionand early memories. No mention of the Rorschach
was made until the students actually arrived for the admin-
istration so as to preclude a bias in sampling arising from
students' attitudes toward the Rorschach. The Rorschach
was administered to a total of 120 gs. Protocols were
scored.for number of E and for total number of responses (3).
The number of E,ranged from one to fourteen, with a median
of five. A Lowfifi and a Highag group were formed from the
total sample using the criteria of three or fewer’g,for the
Low;g_group and seven or more for the Highafi group. The
two preliminary groups were adjusted on the basis of age,
Rorschach g, and a measure of intelligence consisting of
derived scores on the ACE psychological tests given the
students on admission to the University. The final groups
each consisted of 26 gs. There were nine females and seven-
teen males in the Lowag group, and seven females and nineteen
males in the High-4g group. Table 1 shows that the groups
were quite similar with respect to age, Rorschach fl, and in-

telligence.

C

'5n -"
U «fa

f
7 L.

V'V,‘,

n'l

is.

J "y 1.?

1431“.

+
\2

,‘ V

tls'q

u“-
s“ '

i"

,.A

.. . av

u-

'.l'
~s

A" C

fr,'
.L\

z" 0“.

TABLE 1

Comparison of Lowfifl and Highfifl Groups on Age,
Rorschach-B and a Measure of Intelligence

 

Age Rorschach .B_ Intelligence

 

'r

 

.E 21.23 21.58 5.92
“"411 5.2 2.45 5.93 1.71
a 20.65 23.09 6.00
High‘l‘q- in 2.06 5.63 1.98
.1; .92 .94 .16
p, >.30 . >.30 >.80

 

.
K
--
..
\
- -_.

1’.
f x'

| 7"
-r :_‘ .,‘t
\ ‘1 ‘n

u..- H.

."
I

‘J'. L.

.. .r—

-. --—-

o-mm.—.—-~.u---..

 

w " ‘
. a» - I ,— .n. . . . .
i - , s . . 1 A) . ' ' 1 l
A. i 1‘! .- —. . '_)L& .- k.‘ I!\ u L l- ) .l'.1 V
'- I
I ’ _
’ "" ' '.| z ' I f'l ‘ 1‘. r g; “I...
. i ' . -u A ‘ - .3 ‘ 1 .. g...“ ‘-.-
'-
l
_,.__._ - _- - - .- -- -.-. h... u- . . a—.~ o o-.-— s...“
.N' — -— - ...... .. .u s. v Q a. w... c— v —- our... - ~- a-»--~ ———-‘s A- ~ -- - "cc-v—.p
‘ "'. . -. W, C: -1
r... - x; ~ 5 '.
o -1 - — . a --u v t A — — - v- - - - ~—- & —-r -- -l- .- ‘-‘~.h- 'F' ‘n--- - hi..-
I . . C- - ' p I
. . -\ .
- . ’ "" K . " .1 ‘ V ' 'r .
. . . ,
fl . . "‘ 0 fit]
. ,. . -—
._ . ~ ‘3 K.
._ O .. _ 9 u...
...-.._.. ._.. - -........
s: . f
i \ 1 4 - I
s . ~- . V O - ‘ I . 1
--' a. I '
. _,. . 1.. _.L ‘ .
.‘ . ..‘ -, . —.
. . C " k1. . ‘3 \s .J
- "1-.....
. - - ”q --o- w..— .-—- h... - s- u - «u..- -a-w-> .— -~ o.--— --..-~.a.-M--o-—
‘. A. ‘
. \I ‘ . \J
I . (
\ s \ '1 . s ‘
' ~
--.-. ”-1- 4 -l-~._ 1—. “--. -. u...- e.- - a-“-—sw

Progedure

The Rorschach was administered as a group technique
using the general procedure for free response as outlined
by Harrower-Erickson (1945). The standard Rorschach cards
were employed, using an Opaque projector and a 6' x 6'
screen.. Each slide was exposed for three minutes, during
which time the'gs wrote their respOnses on sheets provided
them by the experimenter. An inquiry was then conducted,
with the instructions to describe the location of responses
and to add any qualitative or descriptive information about
the responses which occured to them. (See appendix I for
text of instructions to.§s). In scoring the protocols, the
criteria for g and .13 described by Beck (1944) were employed.
It was found that scoring 1! and g in protocols obtained by
the group method presented few difficulties not found in the
scoring of the individually administered Rorschach.

222 Early Memory Questionaire ’

The instrument used to measure the ability to recall
early memories was a nine item questionaire developed for
this purpose. This questionaire was administered following
a ten minute intermission at the conclusion of the Rorschach
test. The‘gs were urged to take plenty of time in filling
out the questionaire. A minimal time of twenty minutes was
set to preclude undue haste. ‘

The first item of the questionaire asks the §_to des-

cribe the earliest memory he can recall. Six other items

. _A‘.-—

r
o

1:.

'u.

v.0}

f

G.

t

’ 1.4 .

J

'..- r

k

.I‘ I.

Au:

5 '.
."..

-‘ (nay

'
I

'n “‘ 'n a, 45‘ (—
.\. '1‘ . 1'

I'\
-3
l) A.

,.
E

”I

d ‘J
.

'.

.J- A

.f~<
"':I‘J

t. r-.-
‘ji.
-,t ,.
L) \".

.5.
(.3

as

'J

r“
0

e3.
«1‘

r:-
.L

.‘ ,-.| e
.4 w

I

‘-

1I

Q .~ l‘f‘
V“$1.J“ .L.
,—
Aux
‘r
v‘

{hr .-

1 V\v.'
an:
i) . u ., t .

"g 1

(If)

ask for the earliest memory involving a list of persons
(father, mother, and playmates), or things (house, toys,
clothing) with which the _s_ is likely to have had early and
continuous contact. The s is also asked to estimate to the
nearest year the age at which the remembered experiences
occurred. If he cannot be sure of the exact year, he is to
indicate by means of brackets the likely range of years dur-
ing which the experience occured. The remaining two items
in the questionaire request the §_to list as many of his
pre-school playmates and toys as possible. (See appendix II
for the complete text of the Early Memory Questionaire.)~

The Early Memory questionaire was designed to yield
three kinds of information corresponding to the three hy—
potheses tested. Relating to Hypothesis I is the estimated
age of the reported experiences. The sum of the ages for the
seven memories provides a global age-score for memories, a
general measure of ability to recall memories of an early age.

Relating to HypothesstI is the range of years used
in estimating the age at which the recalled experiences oc-
curred. The wider the range of years needed to embrace the
estimated age, the more uncertainty is indicated. The sum
of the ranges for the seven memories provides a global un-
certainty'score.

. Relating to Hypothesis III is the number of preschool

toys and playmates listed. The number of toys and the num-
ber'of playmates listed provide measures of elements recalled

in early memories.

'L)(

i 'l'. L? Q

fyl“

e

I‘

iii'u-..

' m.

'\
L

‘..-‘ as

c—‘Iq

|

‘ifif‘lf‘

.

(L

rr ,_

('b
1 {-

T.

Li

Nr

’I’T
ii

an

b
J‘-
I .
ll
4‘.
o
it»
‘
1 .
”4
.0
AU
or;
v
1‘
‘
FL
s.v I
c...

«U

‘1‘

l. ..
«.1»
. g
.

inf-,1:

efiuvfimr 1‘3?

..
J

. w

as
olik

“.1.

its

' ‘1' C

‘

". I"
, L-

J .2"

Va’

s
f
d

3

nijele

rug ‘-

o

'1’ . .
.5.

‘.'
..s
.

'4'-

..l l I.

""‘"—‘WT

A.

r;

O 9"."

a

’1‘

xfi'

t
3} TC:

.(-

RESULTS

The results bearing on Hypothesis I are shown in Table 8.
This table presents the comparison of the Loweg_and Highfi!
groups on the global age-score for memories, which was ob-
tained by summing the ages for the seven memories reported.
A‘t‘test was employed, as the assumptions of normality seem
to be met by the data. It can be seen in Table z-A that the
difference between the Low—g and High-g groups in the reported
age of memories, while-in the predicted direction, is minimal
and well within the range of chance expectancy.

While analyzing the age-score data, the possibility
of interaction between uncertainty and reported age occurred
to the investigator. The question was then askedze What dif-
ferences between the two groups will be found if each age-
estimate is adjusted toward the up§er limit of the range of
years used in estimating the memory}. Toward the lower limit
of the range? To explore this matter, the two groups were
compared on both an upward (conservative estimate) and a
downward (liberal estimate) adjustment of the age—scores.
The difference in the conservative age-scores does not reach
significance, although the difference in the predicted direc-
tion found with unadjusted scores is accentuated by this
adjustment. Table 3-0 shows that when age-scores were ad-
justed downward (a liberal estimate of age of memories), the
direction of the difference is reversed, although the dif-
ference does not approach significance.

In Table 3, the comparison of Lowh!_and High-g groups

on (unadjusted) age estimates for the individual memories

I"

‘01;

S'I’C

. '3

.rr‘

J

1.

7‘!

s-

1‘! ."

a”?
L:

n O J
1": (‘ ‘ (fr: r r‘
. . \. -‘ ‘l

a
fit A

f.-
o'

0

IT

I

e
§ ':

i O

r

.1
VI:

(q

.1...

. "'F
I30 .9.

‘
\
s
RICH)

f
‘

J

u

I

‘1 “‘
. i"? ‘

r:
'1’ .

,1.

.A ; r“

-_.(\I

A

R I“
gm

’1.
'4

VYL

10

TABLE 2

Comparison of Low-fl_and High-fl_Groups
on Global Age of Memory Scores

 

 

A. Unadjusted Scores

ii .513. Range

 

Lowefl, 36.0 6.95 18-50
3.5.. = 0529 E >060
Highefl 29.1 5.09 19-37

 

 

B. Adjusted Scores (conservative)
.fl '§Q Range
Lowqfi 35.3 7.40 23—53
Highzfl 33.1 6.78 19-44

 

E = 1.10, E >920<030

 

 

C. Adjusted Scores (liberal)

wfl_ §Q Range

 

wlow-fl, 2517 7.1u 12.u8
_t_ = —.24, Exec
Highfifl 26.1 5.20 13-36

 

r)
V'

g b -
o r ' ‘N I: s l
r 1' I sf , a, ‘u . y r " I‘ ,0 .‘l '
. -l'- -. °' : ,.‘, . t: l - .X" J Jul in r “5. '. ._ .‘\.‘\.I
— “I.
, .
’ ’ .fl".l . . ‘4 Il"\ rl '- ‘ ‘
e L 1-. x’ 1- ,.. ~ ~ .~.\ . ‘. ‘ -t ‘
---- . . - _. a .. . - l u ...l ..._ g... - _. .. ...._ -. - - - ..-- .. --- .-.- ..._. --- - - .. _—.._.._-—- ~_.
_-,,_- ....A ~‘._-._4 _ .- .. .- - .-.--~.-- ---._......-_- -_-...._
, . .
. s- r 7‘ ‘I (' A ‘
t' 2 _ . L ‘ )
_ .4 _ \ \.. .1. V - 5"} .-. . ..
n‘; a ’ v
1. I \ (L
a 0-. _
.no- -.r- ~_*. -,_..,,._ -7 .- .. .__ - -- - . - -.-.--r-.. ...__. - o.— - m‘ -..—. . u--- - ---a..~—- --'- so.-.—»-—--——.-.‘———~

u...- ‘- -
r ‘ " .
a r \' r - ‘ '(‘ ' ~
.0 ‘. K —( .
“ ‘ u- \_ a . ..._ . \ \-. . ‘ ‘
‘ ‘- -
--___.-.. WF-.- - . - - .. .. i .. - - - a- — ——._— ‘ —- -... - .. c. -—_..— - . a...» —7. -u .r . . ”m.
—-- has”.-- - --.---..—-.—. —.r _ - -. _. - -.. -- -v . . --- ---~——... . - .. --- _~..-~- ... . -—- . "M-
4 ‘ ' '
i‘ we . . ‘ .1. L .f . _— I " ‘ , b
\ ~.. 5 .. . \ X s .‘o- a '.‘j -'\.4 .5 .t . t . \n‘ .4! ;') . . .
( I -‘ . 0 .1
~ . .. A. - .
. - - . -
.—_. 4 ~_,__,,, ,....r--_,-,--,_- .7 ._,-__- -u-q. - *—.-—--»- - an - - _-— - hey—— -.--_ -o... c.-. -- — c.- .- .- .—

{‘1-
I
I
W
l
O
f‘.’
I
O
I 1
f‘.
0
I
'\
'J
I
r

A... . v * . . A - n . .- o .- -,__ — - - - -- -. .. - ., - - -. - -. —-.—...- ...-—---.— _.-... .. - - --- ..-..--
..,. .—- — .4 —-.._—- ~- q-.- - -v... --.- — - - r— ._.... . _—__—-.-. - -.-_..._.- -__-..~- -...-—-.
p _ I '
| “. i I r ., (*,. t 1* 1‘ o y ' , I. I
\ F V 0 .~ L I ('\. -\ ‘ k. Ar \ \l -‘J 1" . g . \4
n
C. o .. . ‘
\ I. _I 1 ‘ s
.. . .. _.._
—.-o—-eo~---l-V._-- x_. _- .u--—.— -—. --. o— A» l- —- - .7 — 9..-- a--l - - - ------ - -A . h.-.——---—.—-~~—-.-_—--o.-..-. 7-7....
H“ " l‘z. ' {\ \‘x “ ,-. . ..
a ‘. I ‘V' l ‘ ” 5 ‘
\_’ . - , . X : . \b‘ - in .,IL.
. 1
. 4
:I . ' (—1 ~ _. '-
..J . ‘ .0 . m J
a -— ~
r |l . f. f '
- . . - ,. _
f I
- \ ' . _— -‘s . K d— . J-) 3" . l
- -—- .
— H m-- -- .— -—.——. - - -» --- a — .- —. - u. -,<.-_ h 7-0-7 -lv—- —.—-u -.-~---—-‘.~-.--.——- -..--- —..~-- 4—.-.— —. an...

11

TABLE 3

Comparison of Lowefl and Highefl Groups
on Age Estimates for Individual Memories

 

=—

‘

Median Above median At mdn & below Chi Square

 

Memory Age* Low-fl, High-fl_ Lowefl High-fl_ (with Yates' correction)
1. Earliest 3 10 13 16 13 .223 N.S. ‘
2. Mother 3 13 15 13 11 .077 '
3. Father 4 8 7 l8 19 0.0 '
4. House 3 19 15 7 11 .765 "
5. Clothes n 12 13 14 13 0.0 "
6. Playmate 4 ll 8 15 18 .335 n
7. Toys. 4 10 10 16 16 0.0 '

 

*Based on the total sample (3,: 120)

*9

-~._-. - -- -7

—— - ‘-.--....

~--.-

s-.- ..

_. -—-~—.

-.—_-._..

~_s

. .
u.
.-
.
.2
Is
..
.
L-
s
.-
k
.1
w:

..I..

.. .-..—.-—

u f

.i

I.

V x.

.w‘

wt»

.1... \.

rlir

. t.
_ .4
v \
. U J
1. .
r .
.x .1"
"i
O
r. .
v
). \ . _
s...
or .s \.._ Ix.»
”(J
fl... .r' ._
. —
\llv

\IJ. fi\.
It s
.3
\AM.
..
\
II It
I I

'(
v

4!"

\ ....

- c—«c- *.._- - --0—-—-‘ .-.—r-- a... s.

nu.-.‘

..._.... _— “-.— .-

__._.«__—-

~n-no. -«

'4.
l\

I

'\ \i .1:

13

is summarized. The noneparametric median test was used for
assessing significance of differences on individual items.
As can be seen from the table, the differences in no case
approaches significance, and there is no consistent trend
in.the direction of the differences. Thus Hypothesis I is
not supported for any of the individual memories or for the
pooled ages of memories: Highfi! producers do not differ
significantly from Lowe! producers in the age of reported
memories. I

The results bearing of Hypothesis II are presented in
Table 4. An inspection of the distribution of the global
uncertainty scores showed them to be near enough to a normal
distribution to warrant the use of e.t,test. The ;_of 8.18,
which is significant at the .05 level, indicates that the
groups are significantly different with respect to the range
of years used in estimating their memories. Hypothesis II
is thus confirmed: The Righag producers show less uncertainty
in recalling their early memories than Low-!_producers.

A further analysis of the memories with respect to the
range of years used on the individual items of the questions
‘aire is presented in Table 5. Since the restricted ranges-
of uncertainty scores for individual items did not lend it-
self to analysis with a t_test, a chi-square analysis was em-
ployed. The responses were dichotomized by placing those who
did not use brackets in estimating age (no uncertainty) in
one class, and those who used brackets (indicating uncertainty)

in the second class.

r3 ‘\
- k. -. ha.)

kuno'

I”.

'Y"
I..-

I

{18-31. {.1'.‘

‘1
+

(r r“.

l C:

..
v.

a r

‘\

'T/

. "f‘. ..
‘\

f'.

U

r
'8

..‘.U
'IG(T"'I

[a 'Y
J
I u}

\
a

in

"”é‘a’fli

a;

I'IC

«4..

l\

T.

s‘s

z...
fl.
.4.“

re

"(Q

or

3

9

re
uh 5.-

\f 3 l"!

C
u

(‘3

-. '1'

i:“xte~

u‘

7
- 4

a
J

1.
e.

f‘

C.

(J J‘
t’
l

a: J
i, I] {a

.3.

I

1‘) 'IF

’-

i-.- J

do
J

f“

1“: C: J ‘7‘."7

‘i.‘."‘\ t - [I
J
{NLU

I

the

s"
o .4

If“

I

J. {‘09'1 I!

Y
(J

U
A

'1

I
(- s-

«on.

11:"; L

I«~§szjl

.4,-
U

f

T

‘IiGE
I ‘ “

i1

f

F

94‘ F‘.
r':_(

8

‘ n

-b

{lift '

I

t)
I
r1

a.»

.1.

B .39“:- .I

.w i{e‘
an. lit)

a
r.

‘u "‘.

[A

13

TABLE 4

Comparison of Lowefl and Highs! Groups on
Uncertainty in Estimating Ages of Memories
(Global Uncertainty Scores)

 

 

M §Q Range

 

"High-y 6.92 Laue 0-19

LOW-fl 9.73 4.82 3-21
I; = 2.18, p<.05

 

TABLE 5

Comparison of Lowem and High-fl_Groups on
Uncertainty Scores for Individual memories

 

 

 

§fs using no §'s using Chi Square _
Memory , brackets brackets (with Yates' correction)

Low-fl_ Highefl Lowem Highefl

l. Earliest 5 12 21 14 3.93, n<.05

2. Mother 10 9 16 17 0.0 N.S.

3. Father 7 10 19 16 .35 "

_ b. House 5 10 21 16 1.50 "

5. Clothes 10 13 16 ‘ 13 .31 "

6. Playmate 5 11 21 15 2.26, p).10<.20

7. Toys 5 7 21 19 .11 N.S. A

 

 

.. .,
' (.
.
, . ,w a . .
.1 . . ...
,- . ‘ - .0
. ..
,.
. ‘ f .
O ,r’ _‘__ ‘ ‘ ‘- O -‘
... - - -....._. -- - 2
_- r‘\
I.) c.
.
r‘ . - ". 's‘
'l ' J l- .1
- . ... . ..—-. -.-—..- -.-.
, _ .. . - .. . -
P ' ' ' '
I) i I :(\.
. ... _~ . .
. . . .
s ‘. II-T r I ‘
- -. z
.._. -..- -. .. ..-. 1...... ,
_' .
O ‘.{
.m‘ ‘ u. \ \
. l
. ‘ . ‘J
17"
\‘x. .
- -u r
’.
‘..’ ._. .1.
I“
.‘\ O
\ I“ '~
-Y “‘2“ A
.... T ‘

-

--.--

 

- . n I F I
r r . "1 . , .7 LI ‘ r: . ‘.
-..) J..l .1 n"""\.)' «- .1‘.. '1' »- a. I ‘ It.»
-. ..
. 9 ... . ' , . .9 ,. . .. ; r . ‘
. V ' - ‘ \ , - v ' .. 0' x
.- 'l,t -1 . ' t ". (- -~ ...; .l. .J L ’a’ . a
. v I- - g
" .. A . ‘fi ‘ a I 'x
' . a J -. s. ‘ . . - ... 31 I IL: I
_ - . . - - . - - .-.--- , _ - . - V“-
. ... . ..x... s .. - . ...- .. . .. . _ . . -..... ......—
.
.. . .
--. -..
. . --.—.-.... ..-.-.--. "Ha“.-- .-r.-. _ -...-. .....- - ...—....
0 ' .‘ ‘ ‘
u ._ _ ‘- 1 ' P . ..'. . a
.1 _ . I k ‘. . ‘ ...-L ..| .La
r ‘ ' f r .
, I . , l . . .‘I‘. v _
A_.“) ._- . Y ‘ ' . \,) "Ll .- ‘L ‘
a n - - .0- . —-. —— — -— -. —- .— —.. — _.--- ---‘- --'~- m- ~_ .- A‘l”- a...
‘3.
‘ h.‘ . - (J L
‘0
s ’ r 5 _ ( s. _ _ f
< . - . J .. t r I
g" 1.]... ._ . ."‘ .:_.' “. ,fll fl. (.\4
1-. -...
. .'. '21 T" 1 2. ,- --,~ ..4 wt“ ,__ ,.. I
.7 ‘ .A.,_...... 4 .‘. 1 .~ w.... "n- .. .r .
.. . . . -. .- .. .... -.. - .-. .... .. .- .- - ...- -. -.-“ _ ._ . -. - ...--- -..-.... .. -~ ......
.. - .. .- -.-. . - .. -. . .. .. .. - . .. -....._-.....-.._—.... . -..r-
.' . . 1 . .. : - - t
l I ' I - 9 .
, . J . ~ ‘ I_1 '4 .a-j ._I x
.-. ....
-. s' « . ‘ " «’... -‘ “ "‘f ‘i.’ .
...; . . 1 ..ox.’ . -. 1,. ‘. t‘.... 4
V
s . .. v
f ‘ i...“ ~_ .- 1' . ' .. ’ a
. . \f. . ,1- J. . .s . __
.....- _- .. .. .. - ..a - ..-..- ...... ... -.. .. ._ . .. .. -...-.”..... ..-...a---‘ ...... _ ---__-......_.
.- ,— ' s. . . - .—
lr ‘ . . t-_ 2‘ r (.1 ;\ . g
.— - > ... ~ ‘ 'c .L .- ‘ . g
f A l - ."(\ v 3 " , S
._ _._ \ 1. A 5 .v -_2 ,. l O
, r a. v: .-. .r
2‘.» .14. '. .1‘. _ _ ..“
0*r. f'
i.-. (71 K r. 7%)
u -4 - \_ _ l ' - 4 .
‘-~r “I ~ ., m '- *-
ka' .A It‘ ‘4’ ,. ( a . ..a '\ \' . f;
[7‘ ' ' .1 ,. t ‘2
5 1 \ w! I“ A ‘
l 1
La 1 A \ - L A W J - Q ~./
-e ‘ -
J r‘ (J O_‘ V" \-‘
1 -_ _. _ 3
.. .. ..-- -... _ ..- . - -. --..-- .-. - ...... - -- -. .. .1

14

It can be seen from Table 5 that it is only on ”Earliest
Memory" that the difference between Low»!_and Highqg groups
reaches the .05 level of significance. The difference in
uncertainty approaches significance for the memory of a "Play—
mate.I For the other memories, the differences are in the
predicted direction except for the memory of ”Mother,” in
which there is a negligible difference in the opposite dir-
ection. The analysis of individual memories with respect to
uncertainty of age-estimation thus yields six out of seven
differences in the predicted direction, with uncertainty in
estimating the “Earliest MemoryI attaining statistical sig-
nificance. Hypothesis II is thus given further support by
the analysis of individual memories. ‘

The results bearing on Hypothesis III are presented in
Tables 6 and 7. The number of toys and the number of play-
mates was combined to yield a general memory-element score.
As the data were found to be positively skewed, the non-
parametric median test was employed in assessing the signi-
ficance of the difference. The median number of general mem-
ory-elements recalled is in the predicted direction, but well
within the range a: random fluctuation.

The analysis of the data for number of playmates and
number of toys recalled is presented in Table 7. The median
number of playmates recalled (based onIE = 120) was 2.56.

The median number of toys recalled was 3.35. For purposes
of testing the hypothesis, the medians for both toys and
playmates were set at three. Table 7 shows that the differ-

ences between LowagIand Highfig groups on the number of play-

T.

t \

f
10,.
.‘7\/-.

fr!)

' 3

4'?/‘
..v

‘Y'O‘.

Y

C.

&--

..~

(v ‘~_‘ f- "b
.. I

n m..— -:;
I_, .

o.
3

‘\r4'

.-..i‘fl

f'r‘ c r}.
~~Jd.

n
\JJZ

.'

‘1)

' “I I“. 0"
4' . 1" ~‘.

I ..., ‘

x

I‘-
--

‘-
.lu .

.-
“.'

7..
r...
a. i

. 4 ...
. '4 ,
I -. 41 .

r
J-‘

51 12

:a

r‘.

.., ..
I:

L." I“ ‘5
~ e, \a

4
\r

‘3‘

~ A

. .
I'f Hr ' L
l .- 1 '-‘ 15 ~

3-,}

r.—

ol-

e.. to.

u-
I

I
4"

{1.8

‘?

I"
y it.

3';

F:

can.

0
.I .-

w.)
i.

.1.

(8

.-. 4.

f‘
L.‘

P
I

Cg. Po 1-.

P
I’I‘a.\1\F-j-,
.‘l D

15

TABLE 6

Comparison of Lowfifl and High-fl_Grcups
on Number of Memory Elements Recalled
(General Memory Elements Score)

 

 

 

 

At mdn Above Chi Square
and below mdn (with Iates' correction)
Low-fl 12 ' 14
0.08 N.S.
High-Li 10 16
TABLE 7

Comparison of Lowfifl and Highfim Groups on
Number of Playmates and Toys Recalled

 

 

A. Number of playmates recalled

 

At mdn Above Chi Square
and below mdn - (with Yates' correction)
Low-fl, 12 14
0.0 N.S.
Highgfl, ll 15

 

B. Number of toys recalled

 

At mdn Above Chi Square
and below mdn (with Yates' correction)
Lowgfl 12 14
0.73 N.S.

Highffl 8 18

 

, n

,L.

3‘“

 

 

 

.-. . .n
‘ ' w ’ C I I“ -~-
8 1“ LI . ":-. ...... 1.:1‘. x” .',.J-~ -a‘ {A _ .J.. h‘ .k",
-_ I. A. . ,
p ., I? " .-I . '3 -+ y ”I". _‘ . . - I f n. I f I - l ' ," x.
' - - _ I ‘ -- I i - .
}.. . ,L _i. . x . Am ' . ‘J l I I ‘. ...»: l .' - I“ .' . \.~ ‘- .' . n ’4 h '4 _.
K e" '\. r II L ' f ’r l.' I' 'r ’
I. I _ ...I . ’. , . I. . . I. In. 1-. . .
k . 1, . "-' ~.4 - .’ '_ ' p s" ,‘I. - 1A.. I 1 _‘ ' ' :‘ »_) 1 ¥ !
.. -- .. - - ..1..._... -. - .. a - -.. .. b . _ «- ow.-. _~.— -..-.a _—.-- ...- -. -- -- -—---. .. a ..>.. - v. - — m u. -.- H
- ~ — 1 - .. .o -.-- _ -_ m ...-...... .. .- . - --.. .. -. ..-..._ ..--.__ .... .. --- — -..... .. - o _ .- . .. .. -V __- a. . j...
. .
f. ‘ ‘ ‘ '3 " (“Ir ,‘ - ' ‘ _
‘o .e - ~' ... \ : V . ‘1 .a - X 9.. L] A ‘l 2
3"." ‘ '9 I\I‘ "* r ' 'V ‘ '0'. " ;"ro"
.i v... 9 L.. L. \J L. in I 113-; Wt»; .414 mange.
......— ” .. .. .- . .. ... u... ~... .— ... .. - .. .. ,,. -..s...~.~....-_.r~--.m-. --—-.—..... .. —. _ -. _...—¢——- .--... nun—
‘ ‘ r 1 ' 'r ’
. r
‘v I: .~.-- Jflui‘.,.\1.
..--
I f:
. I. . _, 'u't . 'p
. f ,.
I». .
v4. ..'.L 1"3': .
-4‘.
.... .-»-. --, - .. _ _ - .-. ... ,. . a..o——-~. 7-. - - .. -71... —, i .a -- -- -— -. .— -._. - ~~---<-'.—.——-—wi.—._O‘it‘- m..—~~-.—-.--—o-‘
.\ .
\
1 I s ..
, O" _ '
'. ' t i - 4 , ' .v ,. -' ‘ " .
. ’1‘ ..a ’1 ‘- fiv , a .- ) J L -¢ . . “'- “ l .- ‘1 LI' ' .~ ‘ F .’.<'
-.. ...... _
r' l' r l‘- . '
« ‘ ' I -O ‘ I ~ ‘ 'I I ‘ ~ ~ wr ‘ r ..r 0' ~ I.
n . \L. .1 0 -- v . l
L‘. . . x.., .- u; - '1)..- J, { ‘a."\ ”337.“. L A . .J .. . ...' 3 .
-. . . n > A .1. 4.- - w -. -..... ...—... .. .. .- .- 4....- - _.,__. . .. -- .....v . .. .. ..- -.- .-.. .....- --.”.-. - - . ., a ..- .. -. ,1.
,. .-. I “1—,. - . “...—-...- ’13-. — --..--....-. - ...—--- - ..-—....- —-—._ .-- -. _ ...—.... -- o . .- -.—_e.. .7 i: .. ,_- ,u...
. I‘ a r. I rs . '. ‘. V ' I -" I - '-
. ' ' . _-~-- .‘ | - T I .
1.,V_.I.. - .. -4»-'u . A. C J I t j z I DA" L . «’-
,\ .... v 1" I l I "! r1 . ‘I I- -. I.
— I ‘s |' t -
‘ .‘1;’... J- v.-. .«..‘.a.‘_ .114) ‘J...
I . r -
I . -1 .. . . - .. .
A x .. .ai‘x...‘ -I\V.I .. )_“il _ ./ :ln— :1 ' ‘»._L_. J o‘ .'-
.. a.- .— -— -- » -- » «...-.-v..-~-.._ —-——.-.: H . . - -- u -..—..- nun-.1- - .4 w -..r-—- .- -m— — ....a-s - fl..- --..- --.... -—-— un-‘o—
'_ A
+1.1 '. r I. ..“Tv‘
J .l. 4 I.“ JLL
‘
I
o . e « .. Q .'
1’ r I. 1'. " I ' ' . '<
,. V
\ .5 J .5 n ' t a ‘ .n_ - i
. —— v
.. w -_ . - - - . -7 - - .L . ‘ .... . -..-.. ”.....- . -— -- 4 -- .-. ‘I'. -- -.. .. ... »-...... .
. - . . ..- .— * - —_.—~fi .. -. —.—-—.‘v- 4- -- --.- .«m .- u— .- u..--—.‘- -.-- o .- -..9— - - ...- -- - —- -- . . .. ._ .. ...- r.-. .- ,i.-.
' ' . . ' ‘ t
' ' e 'i’ .' ' 'J l w.‘ '1 " - ,1
‘ .4 . .1 k ‘-' I] l kl ‘v’ J «L K. ‘ .IJ'J L . ‘ i
.
.3 ‘4 a ’ -
P._v‘- ..., ‘ u! .. ,. " i ’-
w- ..I. H- . .m a "..-- .1: . Jr:
- ' . ' ~ ‘ l’
.' Ir Irtp "n-‘~:..’ .‘ “v f‘ -I. , 'D r" r_\I.,I 3,. '3
.'- A L',J\1 '_..I ‘v"- - .J ’ ..v ’ .‘ — .; I. J.‘ v ... A: 3’
. .-.-u. -.- ..-... .....- .v .....— ~ ..- m'am— .-. . ... .... --. —_ ...—.— —.- an bun— -—-— 1—. «mac—“w..— “—4-.- ..vg—a-u—u‘. .. ...- Ina-Hu-n “...-w...-

p

n" 4

."\ ~
-' h‘d‘IJLL

 

l ‘ ~“ I
x - -
b ' '
.. - . ‘_l
. \. . 4 I .
.~' :- (~ . . r g,
.- ' , ' _
.' .L .-l .3 .‘a . ,A. i
--.
*-’H‘.‘#—— - --.. ... a.- r- -a..—._ . »-. .- ~_- . a - -..4-_- -_—-~ —. --"fi-LM t..-“ -... — - -.-

16

mates and on the number of toys recalled are no greater than
would be eXpeoted by chance. The differences are in the pre-
dicted direction, but are not large enough to constitute a
definite trend. Thus Hypothesis III receives no support

from the data: Low§g_producers do not differ significantly
from High-g producers with respect to the number of mem-

ory-elements recalled.

I“.

11
L

\Is

r-f—

1?

DISCUSSION

General Considerations

This study was designed as a test of the generality of
King‘s interpretation of'g_as “... the ability in fantasy
to project the self into time and space in the interpersonal
Sphere.I Whereas King obtained significant differences be—
tween LO‘fM and Highgg groups on all the measures used to
test his hypotheses, the present study obtained a significant
difference for only one of the three hypotheses which were
derived from King's formulation of the meaning of g, It'
should be stressed that this study differs in several im—
portant respects from the study in which King tested his hy-
potheses. Before discussing the results of the present study,
several points of contrast between this study and that of
King will be considered.

_An important difference between the studies is in the
typesof gs employed. Whereas King used hospitalized male
veterans with a variety of psychOpathology, the present
study was done with male and female college students. The
interpretation of M_offered by King eXplicitly claims to be
applicable generally, without regard for presence or absence
of psychopathology. The use of college students may be con-
sidered a test of this generality. In so far as the present
study obtained positive results, the generality of King‘s
interpretation is supported. In the design of this study,
however the use of a different type of §,was only one of
several factors that differed from King's study. Thus neg—

ative findings lose some of their significance in that they

I
I“

,‘\ ‘J

~—
’L."l
'-

""1 L, ,1

.

C" any:

.hfifi‘

.—
.L

‘J
2
v

-3

.1‘ f5 ‘.

.d' a , ‘
....

7‘. Y"

J.

.1

2

"1‘ 13 l.

a.

J
v

9"

If

.
r}.
5‘ a!

‘1:

18

may be attributable to any or all of several sources.

Regarding the assumption of the generality of King's
interpretation of y’as applied to males and females, a sup—
plemental analysis of the data for males only was carried out.
The results for males only (1 for the Low-lg group = 17, E for
the Highfig group = l9) are essentially the same as for the!
total groups. The males in the sample do conform more closely
to the prediction in the age of reported memories, but the
difference between Highag and Low-g,groups of males on age
of reported memories is still not significant (Q_for unadjusted
gross age-scores = 1.46,: = .88, 93.30 <.40).

The difference in gs also affected the criteria for
the formulation of Low-y'and Highgg,groups. All of the cola
lege subjects produced at least one g response, withihe median
falling at five and the upper limit of the range extending
to 14 !_responses. The criterion for the Low-§_group of
three !_or less in this study actually overlaps with the
criterion for King's High-g group, which included gs with
three or more 2, The question is to be raised, then, whether
the interpretation of g,provided by King refers only to re-
lative absence of y’as compared with its presence in whatever
quantity, or whether the interpretation is to be understood
as referring to a linear relation between frequency of y’and
the attribute that g,represents.' The present study offers
no conclusive evidence on this point. i

Another difference between King's study and the present
one is in the method010gy. In this study, the Rorschach

and the Memory Questionaire were administered to groups, where-

’|

4 (

.vl~

\..

'brgi

,. I
I‘,

4

-‘.
v

.I‘.

‘5!
5-.

r.

..
no

-r;
1)..

.‘f

. —
r- v' Pal"
‘I. ‘71,.

' ff.

-.. "

A»
:0

‘2
...

... P5
.' 3..

.1.
U

.rlK
.
uI ~V
L
5.1:
c L
‘. ‘1
(K I.
I ..x.

we
. i...
an A al‘
C W:
‘0
......
V
.. A ...
f
'I
.. .

.1. n

r .

x/

'10

v 1.
. l

I;

r . . ..WJ
. ..I
_- 1:

r

’9
[I
T
...n . i
T! “U
'4.”

a

.

. o. .r‘
r ..x.

. -
... r ._
I a.
3.. .9...

.. . ,1
w n -
I‘ .
.s i
It .
.fi .

-.g
:.L

Y
r

. .L.
I -J

.. 9‘. I
k

4..) '3'

I;

}

Iv- a.

cup

3 K ‘

h

11.1"?“

'I'J

\J

sod

an

2i

o

,._
A-‘«'

19

as in.Xing's study the Rorschach was individually administered:
and individual interviews were used as the source of data for
the dependent variables. We are assuming that the meaning

of g is the same whether produced in a group or in individual
sessions, and that the number of !_is relatively constant

for the individual from one situation to the other. Research
that has been done with group Rorschach administrations ap-
pears to make the latter of these assumptions tenable
(Harrower-Erickson, 1945). The assumption of generality in
the meaning of the Rorschach determinants in group and in
individual administrations is made in all studies which em-
ploy the group method, and there are no apparent reasons for
altering these assumptions. K10pfer warns, however, that “ .
“...the interpretative hypotheses formulated on the basis of
nindividual administration cannot be assumed to be applicable
automatically to group methods' (1954, p.429). ‘

In the present study, which attempts to test the gen-
erality of King's interpretation of’!, the use of group- .
administered Rorschachs may be considered as another aspect
.0! the test of this generality. Because of the other dif-
ferences between the two studies, however, the failure to
confirm two of the three hypotheses derived from King's in-
rterpretation‘can not be attributed only to differences re-
sulting from group as compared with individual administration
or the Rorschach. I

That the present study used a group-administered
questionaire for data on the dependent variable, as compared

with individual interviews in King's study, may be of more

s

Q

[ra‘fr
.-.J

.. ,
a I | .
. u

4‘“ .f-

\

1

i:

m

mi.

l.\l

S

V
‘.

W'Tt‘

'7
‘4

)

20

importance in explaining the different results of the two
investigations. The Early Memory Questionaire is certainly
a less sensitive instrument than the detailed structured in-
terviews employed by King. Individual differences in the
ability to recall early memories would likely be more marked
if measures were taken individually by a more intensive
technique than the one used in the present study. One such
difference, which was observed in the group sessions but not
recorded, is in the amount of time taken to recall early
memories. Whether-these differences would be in the direc-
tion predicted by the present hypotheses is a matter for
further investigation. '
Discussion‘g§_Resultg

The present study, in summary, differs from that of
King in several important respects, namely; in the kind of
_8_s used,’ in the number of movement responses given by High-g
and,Lowag groups, and in the methodolOgy of Rorschach admin-
istration and collection of data for the dependent variables.
It has been pointed out that if the interpretation of g,offered
bvaing is to be considered a basic or general meaning of g,
then predictions based on the interpretation should hold
despite differences in the pOpulation studied and in method-
ology. Since the present study employed several of these
modifications simultaneously, it may be considered a rather
difficult test of the generality of King's interpretation of
3. Despite these modifications in type of §s and in method—
olOgy, one of the three hypotheses derived from King's form-

ulation of the meaning of g received statistically significant

”...
lJ\.J

5"

 

1.
\-
1‘. l
I

K
'4‘

I
o. "
... A
J.

a t.
‘L f

x . t
at

‘1. ‘

...

u-..

r ...

‘1
‘i‘ I...
u 4L

IX -
... . _
0.. fi . l
v. r.
i
1'“
a .
rJn. :1...
y I
\c
. A V.
c A
v ._
... 1v
..- n
.[u
.l
,4
,d e
_. k. .
. .
'0‘
i .
. ‘L
«o. t.
.
.o
l
.
l . .0
,‘\ .
L
t
.I
If
.
T
f4
(L
a
-1
.
\

-',.,- "‘.t' ,.
LL -.,1 .,

’
f
'--'

b 'J

-.- ...r_,.-

i f‘

‘tl

21

...

- ..
‘ I
~

1'

. A
I: J I L7

.
firm-N
';~’,r

I a l f“.

v': p

(-u '
| _
i o

no

(\

4'-

LC

'- l
1

,.

1

"f‘
‘t

21

support. A second hypothesis did not receive statistically
significant support, although the observed differences were
in the predicted direction. There was no support for the
third hypothesis, although the observed differences, while
minimal, were in the predicted direction. The overall re-
sults of this study may thus be regarded as providing some
limited support for the generality of King's interpretation
of g_as “the ability in fantasy to project the self in time
and space in the interpersonal sphere."

The hypothesis which was supported stated that Highfi!
producers show less uncertainty in estimating the age of
early memories than Lowe! producers. The Operational meaning
of uncertainty in estimating age was the number of years
enclosed in brackets. The task before the subject was to
localize a recalled eXperience temporally by specifying his
age at the time of the experience. Specification of the mem-
ory was taken as evidence of uncertainty, the degree of un-
certainty being indicated by the number of years included in
the age-estimate. The results indicated that the High-M
group specified the age of their eXperiences more precisely
than did the LowéM group. The mean difference between the
two groups for the sum of the seven memories was 2.18 years,
which amounts to an average difference on each memory in-
dividually of about ,4 years. These results are in agreement
with the requirements of the interpretation of g_offered by
King.! That positive results were obtained with a nonphospit-
alized sample, in which g production was, as a group, consid-

erabhp greater than King's hospitalized sample, provides

..-.

J' .

'3!

r.
J ‘;

Wii

1"

f

' e

...i. z _
r... ”I.

L. .J
rt. ...
.Y.
or}. .u ..
_“ _. A

‘3” ,~

. 0‘
. f.t.
I. . L
'\< .1 ‘
... _
.l w
t
v .
s .
r \ L .
..
. L "I
u o
o

4
I‘

. \
a;

V1, ‘44
[in TL
,h "v.
(HIM

'r
‘3.

'f'

‘
. A .r\
0,-
_II ... 2|.
_‘|
in.— ..
...»
.r .r...
. ...
. fr.
..
..
gal
...i
11
w .
.
l

\‘ v
..

fw-V' fl
F.

,3.

.
u'

,i 1» 1
on
I . In
a run.
a or
+U . I
L... .v. .J
.H
r. I
.4 ‘I.
. r

Irw ‘
a
_
. . .
a a ..(f. .
.\
I D;
. . A...
I .. .-
A
- .
9. C
. \t .
. .. P?
.i. w. .l
\ I. I
at. it
I n
_
.i...
O. It. .
til *u
-... v . ......
J l. .
. ..I .
a. ‘ ....
.J; . v

.a ,n. 7..

. ..1.

L t

....1. ,..
. ./ .1
. _ ... r

I .. I
r n. .
{$1. -'
.rh is
.11 ‘3
.I.. . r
s - r..L
‘ . .1.
an, M .
v.
a .

L ' ~

('\
J

-': Liv \f"
(t

(‘2

I“.

J "' .

.‘J.

--£

c l.‘
‘a

*1?

I

.w".r
_ .

C" "'1!

-L,,

no?-

3‘ 9.

ur-

~ a

“1
i

.. u.
.p
o
I

:x .
—

0".
4

f.‘-‘"‘r

J
'1 ‘

»+

r -

.l .

23

some basis for considering‘xing's interpretation of the move—
ment response to be a basic or generally applicable inter-
pretation. ‘

It should be noted, however, that the greater precision
of the Higha!,group in estimating the age of memories does
not necessarily indicate greater accuracy. There was no
attempt to establish the actual age of the experiences re-
called by referring to outside sources of information. The
most that can be inferred from the results is that Highfi!
producers view their memories as having occurred at a more
specific pbint in time than Low-y; producers. The Low—g
producers by comparison are more vague in specifying their
age at the time of the remembered experiences.

The first hypothesis stated that High-fi,producers re—
call memories from an earlier age than Lowfifi producers.

Since this hypothesis was not confirmed by an analysis of
the data, it is necessary to examine the meaning of this
negative finding and to suggest possible interpretations.

As was noted earlier, the design of this study differed
from King's study in the type of Se used, the number of‘g
Sproduced, and in methodoIOgy.' Negative results can be attriu
buted to any of these variables. Since the experimental de-
sign does not enable the effects of the different modifica-
tions to be studied separately we_can only offer what appear
to be the most reasonable interpretations.

The use of a non—hospitalized, college sample is one
of the most obvious possible sources of failure to demonstrate

generality in age of early memories. A relatively high level

.1.

g" .

"w-

' I

' . : . ,' ‘ .. -. -. '~ A .- . , -L _.

A‘ :‘1 ..x’J i ‘ ‘ . | 2‘, “V“ '.‘,' v. ‘I 1- . .1 (4“. r. .. .lt-A(I§L ,‘I" ~ v
' s i
r 1' ' - ' ; p-
.f' - ..'~ 3'! .
I
_ _ , (.1 p. -r .’ .J . f . ' "
r‘ in ‘ . v« 4' ‘ V‘ {r ‘ F '1’ T:
, ‘3 x w . . w ,x .Ji 3 t. . r. z,Cu- ..
. - - e ' u ' ,

. , v . .__ .-\ ..e. —v . t . ' ' v f\ . ~ -_ , uro‘ ,l« ,v , C‘ , ! fa

_. . J ‘ .L 8 . K _ ' a .0 w. _. ,. .g" 1}

”I.
. '( ..- — . -\ 1 - ‘ '. l’ ' + .

(Wu ' w! "T .") - {p .. ‘ -. gar” .' :\. '1; '.'.1-'1.;‘.':.:','1,"1 r‘
_ a . . A . > . 4 .7 _ s I .s. L.. ‘ .I - .J

. . - '. -. t " ‘ ' ' r . . I
'r' ~ _.+ '.,. . 1 ...~r\ . -.. a n ,1, +~"*~.
. 51.; —'~ l'.}\ j ' l ‘( ‘ .s. L. ‘ ‘ ‘ ’ . '\ \ n? ". S ‘ ‘k’ I r.‘

.:« +-' . .‘I-, . .~ . - u «.2 x --. 7 r4 .
7 ' - ‘ - - . - -. . . ., n - r ‘ r o

I. " ix? r1 .9 -a— . E -I! . - ‘ -.“ 3‘. L .7“ .- ‘ «J L L ".1 u.» 'e
' n e ~ 7\ . ‘ ' ' v r , .. v r .. i . _-. , ' ' , v. -v ' . w: -' 1 r. 1 ‘y n r0 r- - ‘ "‘- .' ' T
[i 1 t .T A ,. V ... A Y J, .- ‘ 1 J I . I u ' l" e ' " A ‘

J.“ . . .. - - z - - a J . . ' I" - 4‘ - - ' '
_-O ’ a .
' . 0 rm 0 s - .- p
' ..-, _ — - r .a. .- _~ . , , f‘! ... "‘ . , ,-_ s . q p l'» N -_., 5 x . 5. , ‘..’ r ,‘w , i I". , r f . ... ‘ : (a. - . y, ., , V”
d ‘Il‘. ‘ 1.4 -.} I .I; i I i. .’ . . . [I .".L .: t wt”. ‘3 \- ‘3 g,’ {‘3-.;.L). (. L.’

f‘ 1.- ,(g'f-f-‘I my fw'ii erg.” .. “‘ 3'” ‘l‘ n

u r 1 ‘IM r ‘7' :‘, ' -‘ .5 L-a-fi 7". ~ - ..‘a ‘)l fr .'-'1- (".1
. :11. ’ L '.— ab \- ‘J \‘ '. - n "- .I-‘J \ 1 ‘IM.: L ='Il —L ’3.» 4
....
. u c ; '3 - ". - » :- ~‘- . fr ' 5"“‘(2 ft m r. r r-‘r ’ : 'rn ' ‘ are n
. -~..«(L u L. . q 1 J I;*: - ~- -I u .
‘u".

. :' " " ..'7 'f’ ~.. " ' I: n I ‘ . ’ " 'r w" "" "" f '1 V 'i' ‘~ 1 " '8 { ;' ,' f‘ “I 133‘, " J f‘““f«.
J 1. .. . * .L - " I J. ' . ' I a U i - ..J. L k) .,-' ...

L ' .’ --A ~ 1 , i- r: -. .\ ~ :4- r '. ,. .' v " . » -. ' f

'4 ‘ H {1- U 21. l L: P. I} J ' ‘ (TVsi‘r' C: ~rl."‘. . {'7’ “1 ”I

. ' «'5 . '.i i. , . ‘ 7 ’ ,- "‘f' n. '
71." '1-‘ar;.'-.-.T fl :» -u a: 5+ w V- 9d; 531, vogue :3'7fj: 1.1.31!

. I ... ._ . -‘ 3' , - n a, .- «.0 o.» _‘ , . - :' --f 4 1 - - 4‘4 '\ g f‘ F‘s. " ‘

94 :-a ".;n=rn as}...v. .5‘oicbc~usm n1 ha: .neav.pas

- . ,~ ‘ - u r. ‘ --. ‘ ,, . '-" -. -_— .- -. , . - r, -

'. f f" H D: . '. L ‘ 2.. ';)i:.i ‘ . 'f .. 3 "..r '5' i”: ‘l :) Ii: 9 J1, Lf. t ." "" £ A? [I 'j‘ 1“
, 2 '1 . ,. .. A. ' - ,- '- 2'. .4 " .... ..r _ ,' _ . .4. - .- .. '. .... '

firm: ‘32-“? *‘TL3 .' .C Fu’JiTT“! 5'13 air-..Fftis did '.'(‘~) If 1’:

p
r‘ u' " "“rhh ‘T-“f- . -~’\ daft! "I . “‘w’q. w (Liar. .— crI (‘4' rrvri
.") ‘ . . l ' ;L L. ' *1, _ 3 U - . ' ‘ .1 (:4 ., - -' . IV « ‘ \' . U ‘ .L . U
C . *- r
"M - ‘ --rc,w 'rmj1? ..‘i ”‘3". r“ -'f '""".‘N car at pi
. L . . _-.~ .. L .L ~ ..x at f - u k .. 'J L
.
_ ' " ., ." ' i " ' . ' .J - , ‘1- — . - “I"
:‘r ,, I r‘ , . p I I r. V3ffifl£v r I! ‘-: a .1 I C ‘ "f n,
‘ ‘ ‘- -- -~'-o. -. ‘-- J. u .

.23

of g production for the students precluded formation of a
Low—g group with as few as zero or one 9;. One might assume
that the students were also able to recall earlier memories,
as a group, than would be true for a hospitalized, or even
for a more-heterogeneous non-hospitalized sample. However,
the positive findings with regard to the second hypothesis
suggests that the type of sample cannot be primarily respone-
sible for negative findings with regard to the first hypothesis.
Thus we are forced to take a closer look at the assessment
of the dependent variable for the first hypothesis.

Attention had already been called to the relatively
crude measurement provided by the seven items of the group—
administered questionaire. It seems likely in retrospect
that the tasks set for the subject of estimating the age of
the seven memories were not stringent enough to clearly dif-
ferentiate'gs on the basis of their ability to recall early
memories. Further research is needed to investigate this
possibility. 'Such research might employ an instrument which
poses more difficult tests of ability to recall early memories.
For example; increased specificity of time and place, greater
number and variety of memories, and also measurement of the
time taken_to recall early experiences. The fact that the
observed differences were in the predicted direction suggests
that further exploration with a more sensitive instrument
and a less homogeneous sample may be fruitful. Since the
data suggest possible sex differences on this variable, it
is.suggested that future research should address itself to
this posibility. ‘

"i .Ifi

.1

"r:-
. \

hlit‘

In?

{'I

mioian s

1‘ .-.

I"yr\
V4~

(... 'x‘, (3.. :‘Y
- . 'u 1‘

. -.-
4

T;
T.
(A

I

arv 3.1%)

'U.

..a f

l

k.

JP

FT.

.uomy

.. .

l“
f—
A
r
d 4
.
.1 x
a
.
f
v
‘

..'..
.-, , . J

,-

.I.
\J

1'

1’ f’IJ

LT‘ "‘
r

.J

1..

*w
U

W91

' I
|‘ ‘I'Lw
.5. 0;.

Car;
'5

s

. -i ”5'!

~1Tom

.9

n
‘I
«a\.- ..

A
r

...
I
a

n

i

C.

".13

1‘.
...

“I (.3 .j

F

1?:

Thai

1

oi

r if) I? ‘I

i-
A

~—
.5.

a

J’

l.

'I .

u".

a“. "! -.
I’JLI "

,F

2 I"? Q

-
I-
3-

f
f'."\ I"!

C.

bk

3
r‘! ‘

f! 'f 9f

I

.IVQ'rf:

r" C. l‘
s, \4

k

24

While the negative results on the variable of age of
reported experiences does not argue conclusively against
King's interpretatian of g, the Specific negative implica-
tions should not be overlooked. This study has shown that
for college students, the number of’g_does not predict age
estimates of reported early memories on a group questionaire.
Only further research can determine the presence and extent
of empirical relations between these variables in different
samples and with a more sensitive methodology.

The third hypothesis concerning the ability to enumer—
ate playmates and toys from pre-school years received no
confirmation in this study. While this task appears to pro—
vide a sensitive measure of the ability to recall early mem-
ories, there is some doubt as to whether this is actually
the case. Despite the relatively wide range of scores on
these tasks (from 0-16 playmates, and from 0-16 toys were
listed), the data are positively skewed, with the majority
oflfis listing less than three playmates and less than four
toys. The fact that the data, particularly on the number
of playmates, are clustered in the range from 0 to 4 play.
mates, indicates that this task did not offer the wide range
of scores necessary for sensitive measurement. It is pos~ '
sible that the negative results are partially attributable
to this crudety in the measuring device. The fact that the
difference between Highéfi and Low-E_groups is more marked
in the number of toys listed, where the scores are more

widely distributed, lends some mild support to this possibility,

..i. . t v r . i 1.. 3 a. a. n... v
E. . . .s .. .... ...i ,. in in .I

. v .. .... n r...“ .us A. 1.” .... ..
,. , .Q . .. .u ... C

l
J
‘-
r
T‘
a
f
..L
{F lJ' [
re
~

‘
I
v
I
4
l
u
‘t
u
0

L
b
i
f-
.l
.J

1 1’ 1c
. I. . e. fl. r: U
. I y \l on \. ...ln ‘ _ L . .
, . . . . . . . . . , l ...
I ) v . 4 . . N. in.
it . . p .” L R. . oh
..Jt. . .. . . v u . . . . «ii
I .. .. . . v ... .I v .vlw . . .1... .
a . . r]. «I t U
I] r u .
,I x . v, . no. t .
.| I n A IP- . o
r . n. . r A s U r .r.“ . i . V . .
tin. r vi .. . r - v Fe 0! .
c . J V V . I} I I ..
J / e (S t .- 6 r . l\. VJN
. T, . "I. L.- . a . .
s 1 .1 v .l s. .0!
t J .O ... .... . 5. I. .t . ... n .
.. is. f. U u q. x .L‘ I. .U s
i. . . .. on . 10. ..l ,-1
. . . ' ...... c .16.
. _ . . I ul
r‘ a. lid . r. p r .. u t
.fl. .- . a . I l . . .I
l ” .rh . u . .1» _ . .I
. l. . . I: \t ..
. .
r I On V. IL V L No. a. t r o O '
v ‘ I u
. .... . u , nth
I}. » ’ v v . ‘1. I
.. a . . . e 3 u no; .. . .U
L y .1 , . L i .. -
L - . . a b .. m . 0 a .
.. a) . v . u u u .
. r .. r . C v .. n. . . k r. . .
..u (. ,.. i? J .‘I. a v ..
O f - J . I r .
. . .. z . . I \
I! .. r. . . I. . .
..- r m a \. o. ... VII. . c . .. \o \w s.‘
. i y ft . is. . 1‘ .
a. 1 - .
F.. .N ~ u....
l'-. l ' 1.!
. , .f. . \
... . .. . err.
‘ Il- . f
v. .I v - .v . ...v r I» II“ . i . t
a '1 I . .
.. Q .1 n .. e . _ t . L
r. . .J . . .. .
- . v\
a. n t {In . I \ ....
.l y g‘ F. o. n .( 1|“ .v
'u: a. a n o
. t u ”..I. ' ..s s p -I\
l \.. . o . a ‘. o II I
Q . u z. . o' u a n.\ . )L . c d w .
. . . . . . a . r .
s. . D . vs . I
J a .1 r . a . . . . ...
I- e \ . I 74 a ...
rJ. .e. 1 . . . .. - V ’I4 ,

a r . V .4 . p; .
(A u .. . 4 .. . I.
. t r .
v . I.
..‘ u 7 I . .l. " .
t . . I «J .. a . 4i
. m . [L 4‘. w- u ..
. . .
r 3., m . . _. ......
. .. . w, I t a
. \IA II IL .- $ A p m
\. 4 e u . l’ I ‘
4 . . .0... L :14 . . I J r. .
. . . . . .. ”(it .I 7 .
, .t... . n i ti . x -
. a . .. , a. . . .J .1 .
t x u I; . . l r . .ls
l. . .t. . . (In
. . .. u
i

x’ "k
I
I
e
.
O.
x

- .
*

i. ..

V

LL

0‘

.A I.
v' -.'.
I a, .. r .

1

i)‘.

f '1 '4

25

It is worth noting that the variability on this task
is determined not only by the ability telecall, but also
by reality considerations. It was assumed for the purposes
of this study that the groups did not differ with respect‘
to the number of playmates or toys they have known. There
was no provision for the more stringent and desirable test
of whether one of the groups recalled a greater prOportion
of the playmates or toys that they had actually had as
children. If the_assumption or an equal number of toys and
playmates among Highag,and Low4g groups is valid, the re-
sults indicate that the Highqg 'sample has no significant
advantage over the Lowfi! sample in recalling toys and play-
mates, a result contrary to our hypothesis.* It is conceiv-'
able, however, that some systematic difference exists with
regard to the actual number'of toys and playmates known in
early childhood. For example, a variety of early interpersonal
experiences may be one of the develcpmental prerequisites for
Highfi! production. Or, on the contrary, one might equally
well suppose that only a small number of stable interpersonal
relationships suffice, and that interpersonal fantasy is:
deveIOped as a means of further pepulating one‘s interper-
sonal world. The present study offers no light on these

interesting speculations.

l.

1.

"f”

BLVD

. ("1i .1

If t

n
1‘
...

‘
~u.IJ
W4.
9'
I 4
.

ll.
1 b

.
..
r .

I

.'_l _
in:

'3'

I.

“
.r.
r...
«I
. .1
'- a

Y'.’ F) p

I»

’I
6'.

.,~ .—, +
‘I

O

‘3’

'V’ r.

.l
I\ I u
r.‘
. a .
In .. .0.
r.
( a .
' II
(4 .
H7 .
..( 4...
I a
.w l\
\. ,
In ~
.... s. .U
Isa '4“
,. . I ~
V J 1
n I .
‘
a .
>II s
. L .
r: r
. av|
. ‘
It . (—
.I V
k \.
.J
\.
.
I;
...I .
6. . .
I O
Iv
. l i
r .s
4 m n.
‘I r
'
\ 7.
LI L
$.I... ‘
pt.

‘ I
...l £
.ié .
filth

I i.
.I

- .‘s
‘ 1-, z
. ,_.

f.»

O

'c

.
one.

\ .

r1f -- hf vf‘
"- s)’ ., g... f. f

5)

er‘
a...

..I)
. ~

f“

A

’-.
a

. s"
.4 §
It;
k
.7
v
T.
...
,
....
I
... iu
us...
(in
II
is.
.
....

26

SUMMARY

In a recently published study, King (1958) critically
reviews current interpretations of the Rorschach human move-
ment response (g), and offers the following as a basic in-
terpretation: "g_ref1ects the ability in fantasy to project
the self in time and space in the interpersonal sphere."
Hypotheses derived from this formulation received confirma-
tion in his investigation among male veterans instititional—
ized in a neurOpsychiatric hospital. The present study was
designed to test the applicability of King's interpretation
of E in a non-pathological setting. I

Three hypotheses relating !_production to the ability
to recall early memories were derived from King's formulation.
Specifically, it was hypothesized that Highޤ_producers, as
compared with Loweg producers, would: (1) recall memories
from an earlier age; (2) show less uncertainty in estimating
the age of early memories; and (3) recall more elements in
early memories.

Subjects were college students drawn from classes in
introductory and general psycholOgy at Michigan State University.
A total of 120 subjects were tested with a group adminis-
tered Rorschach and an Early Memory Questionaire deve10ped
for this study. A Highfig group, consisting of subjects with
seven or more g, and a Lowe; group, consisting of subjects
with three or fewer g_were formed. These preliminary groups
were then equated on the variables of age, intelligence, and

Rorschach R, The final groups each contained 26 subjects.

.I.

.u
. -
....
v;
.I
I‘
A

¥
0
.Q.
.
....
..

. .1
r.
.

O I
.4
....
v L

0..
4-
.
...
r
VI—.
7

vs

V.-
.
.
..L
.I u
.t.
.
-
.
‘
.
.
lei
.\
.. a
(...
.
_
4.
.(._

{A i

(I

‘1

'--fh‘

a
x

s
.
.. .
I
. a

.
Al .
..

x
O
u

.
.

u

.
. .
.
..Z
.‘\.
. _
. ._
".
1...!»

'. 1-‘1'2.
I vfil

'
r
‘

,V.

' 9

oriw

A L! :3

D

'

rf' '1

Q

J ‘1 K

.L
9
.5

(i

a
.I

q (x -AI,

'7'
\

twp
. .‘L 3

C

{‘3‘ (\ PI

h

~"e ‘ V "J

C:

27

'An analysis of the data yielded statistically signi-
ficant support for the second hypothesis, but notfor the
first and third.' The Highfig group was significantly less
uncertain in estimating age of early memories. ‘The two "
groups did not differ significantly on age of recalled
memories or on number of memory elements recalled.

In the discussion it was pointed out that the present
* study differs from that of King in several important respects.
Specifically there are differences in the type of subjects
used, in the frequency of'! reported for high and low groups,
and in the methodology employed. That this study obtained.
significantresults for one out of the three hypotheses';
tested, despite the above differences, was interpreted as,.
offering some limited support for the proposed interpretation,

and as indicating the need for further research in this area.

ri

sf.—

.. . IL.
owl . .
W. )

r
1. ‘I
'. ...
a

L .
..I. .
.I .
. 4 3V
. . .IiA
...
A
c
w
.v
. .
... ...
s I.
w a!
a
n
. ...
.1. '.
r
0..., i
. .
\ .w.
. .
l ’
1
.c I.
I
_ I4
. “I.
h.
. #e
...n ....
n
r

f l
_. .
T
K
r I. L
I
w:
.T.
... m
.1
r. flu
Vr.

~—

f.”
..b.
F
‘3
e
h... P. .
s .
r n» .
(mm .0;
3.... ... .
r.
n; rat.

a. w FJ
. x.—
I.) .1.
urn.“ 1.
\
.4

Q ’
rah.
.
m
. s
s
r
I. J
.
o
. .
_
o
l
a
n n
f
f
.‘L
a. A.
.. ...
f) .
.. ,1 .
. ...
L
\.

rtr,‘
OI. '

h. c: -'

0

28

REFERENCES

Beck, S.J. Rorschach's test. Vol. I. Basic processe .
New York : Grune and Stratton, 1944.

Beck,S.J. Rorschachlg test. Vol. II A_variety'gf'
personality pictures. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1945.

Frankie, A.H. Rorschach human movement and human content
responses as indices of the adequacy of interpersonal
relationships of social work students. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Chicago, 1953.

Harrower-Erickson, Mollie R., a Steiner, M.E. Large scalg
‘ Rorschach technigues. Springfield, Illinois: Charles G.
Thomas, 1945. . .

Bertzman, M., & Pearce, Jane. The personal meaning of the
human figure in the Rorschach. Bayohiatzy, 1947, 10, 413-482.

ling, G.F. A theoretical and experimental consideration of
the Rorschach human movement response. Psychol. Monog.,
1958, 72, Whole No. 458.

Ilapfer, B., Ainsworth, Mary D., Klopfer, W.G., & Holt, R.R.
Develogments lg the Rorschach technigue. Yonkers on Hudson:
World Book 00., 1954.

Rorschach H. Psychodiagnostics: ;a diagnogtic test based'gg
erce tion. Lemkau, P. and Kronenberg B., translators.-
iVerlag Hans Huber Berne Switzerland Gruhe and Stratton,
New York, (Fourth fiditioni 1942.

Walker Helen., & Lev, J. Statistical inference.
New Tort: Henry Holt, 1953. .

. J
a) r J
. .
w)
s .
.
' . v

.
a

x
0
Yr... I
a.
' a
_ .0.
I I
.
....
. .
F.
. a
& ‘

---

f

-- -- .—

u.a. \I...
5\ .IL
.. . .
O .
I ....
v .I a
_
o ...
.
_
i

. .
. .
f . .
u s a
. _
. .
... .4
h....
I f
w._ 0
”....
e a.
1. a o
n.

so
-
...
. .
.
.
\£
‘5'
i.
V. .
‘ I
.<.
.
..L .
. {I
(A
i
. I
_
n.
...
L. .
{I
.J
(I
's
r.
.
- i
.

... ..,
.
a 1 I.
. I. W. Ni.
.. . n
I.
1 . L
I. .
v, s. . L ‘
.91 .l. a...
. Q r).
m n a (
4
I n
s - -
L \v (s
.. .
.. A —. .
Ir!-
I L (a
4 .
1 I . .
. t .
.\l .
s a ..
.
..1
.1
i. p
I... .
- . . e.
I . 1‘
..J v. .
.I.4 If—
. .

fl
4‘

I

. .-.

a
C I
.
r.
'- ‘o
v. P‘
I.
L. L
I. ..
\ ...
. .
.
1.
IL ...
‘
(...
IJ
... .
v.1 r
.4
O
‘1
r
r
o

"A

r
—-- -.‘-—¥——

G
' vat-{u

[I '
. . ... ..
v I I
t
. ‘ .0: H
i .
I .
(
.p.

pi)

 

. 1
.. L ..s.
_ .... p
r _.
L .
r f!
o\ ....
a
.
. ..
I ¢
.
0‘ .
.
M.
.. s .
I s s.
.. A
or...‘
x
. ...
1..

h. _.
. ..

... .r.
... .

. I
I . v
0‘

p I m
u \I -
..
III... ... .
...
. .
. .

.

w, r

T... 4

. ..
I .

. r
.I\
y .. ......
b
.v V.
(
.
v. .
.7. e
O
u’ A.
'I n
O .1
9..
so

...P .
\
I

.
A:
.
Qv
.
C
.
_
.I.
.e. ..
u
-
.
I
. L
... .
.
.
.(I

(.

J rIQL
.- O .
. as _
. I \-
.. I
I .
P g
l.

I‘
... .e
..IA.
f
I
4...

a

Q.
...
L
o . 1
3‘ ....

. ....
_ .
.
a
s
v
0
Ir -.
i.
_ r
(\
o.,.
L
...»

Appendix I
. INSTRUCTIONS FOR GROUP RORSCHACH
The test which you are about to take is a rather in-

teresting one and I think you will enjoy it. All you

have to do is look at some slides which will be projected on
the screen and write down what you see. How the pointabout
these slides is that they are nothing more or less than re-
productions of ink blots. These are the ink blots developed
by'Hermann.Rorschach which you have probably heard about in
your psychology courses. \

‘ Your task is simply to look at the slides, and write
down what they remind you of, resemble, or what they might
be.. Sometimes you may see several different things in one
blotz. Each of these slides will be shown to you for three
minutes, and you may write down your answers at your own
time in the left half.of the sheet before you. (Illustrate).

‘There will be 10 slides in_all. Number the slides
with Roman numerals as they are shown. Put these numbers
in the small column on the ertreme left side of your paper.
It may help you later in the test if you also make a point
of numbering your answers to each slide as you write them
down.‘

Are there any questions?

Here is the first slide. Put the Roman numeral Iyin

the small column at the left.

i.

vr
(0 9’0;

7’

"1‘”:

f:
It
L.
10
o
..-
0.!

Li.

J

'
u
A

'i "i

4‘,

L‘tli
I.

(‘1':

~23 ';

l. .V .’s

\‘E «I...

V“
.i",

. I'

on! ~

I

"'5? In.

u

...,
V
..

f”.
v

.- ... ~.'

r -r-.V

IT

" H“? ‘3
I ,, ,("J

.13!

\\

’Vu\'.~
' V

W A c‘"
._,\

(

nil

F I. .L ".' (3'1 "J

a.

v
4"

1

.- ~L‘.J

,n
\J

r a
nil"!

”a

Lil-"f ‘
.' .1

if? "'2.

ff
'.

:d

.’
.L

\

\a

11

t
I

IOs'

“l
-6

A.
0

no '1 c

Yrs
(.1.

N‘ (-1 5. ft .‘1. ‘4 i‘: If

s {I "‘-

.
a

I“ ‘1

r
.L

I

(1‘ f)

r
4.

{18.33}

A

4
\J

J

I

I 93:

3:13

Instructions.£g; Inguiry .

Well, this has been the first part of the Rorschach
experiment. Now we shall go on to the second. I'm sure you
will have seen a lot of amusing and different things in the
various inkblots, but one of the important aspects of this
test is the fact that I must know as accurately as possible
Just what it is you have seen and where it is you have seen
it. In order that you can do this, you will find a small
diagram representing each slide on the location sheet which
has just been handed to you.

On this sheet I would like you to indicate the areas
on the blots where you saw the things you reported. To keep
your answers straight, you should number your answers to
each blot, - if you forgot to do so before. Then, with your
pencil, draw a line around the area Where you saw that parti-
cular object and attach to that area the number of the answer
you_are describing. For example, suppose you saw in the

2 a dog's head
3 some outstretched hands

first blot: £1} a butterfly

Circle each of the areas where these things were seen and
number the areas with the same numbers you gave your answers.
Like this: (illustrate)

Before you begin to mark off your answers, there is
something else you should do for me. You have to help me re-
construct, as accurately as possible, the kind of experiences
you have been having, or some of the characteristics of the

things you saw. You might for instance, have seen a butter-

fly in this first slide. Perhaps the butterfly looked as if

1
4..

~-...... -..

lo— -- u- ....~ ......—

s—o ”w".

..- -. .. .

.54.

u- r. .,
A.

‘Jsi-I

11'

f 0

’1

pl ..1
I .
.....
\. .
.5. l ...
..\..
I
.l- (‘1
r3.
5
l .. .
1. AU
00
r ..
I‘-
....
{a
(
rt ‘ - .‘II \5!
-J ....L 1 .
u .r i\ ....le
.w.
A I s.l
(I lsl

. 5 b
7 r, t.
.4 LEJ w..\ w
.
.n I. \ .
It‘ I\
.. . .u. ... r
. . o . II
p . «od
.41 I .. v .o. u .
‘ - w . a
r. A .
- I. . . ....
. r. .3
1.. u
. L ,
.-
.s .
.‘vw
elf
r .

;_I
v'{

a .
w. ...
- ~ 5
.\
w .
. ...».

.
I...»
'1 s

A:
A.‘I

' ,

,\‘_“
-6"

O

,.' ~.
‘11...

1“ ‘C
‘ i.

J

1’)

L‘C‘.

-
.LV

‘1';-

 

.. ‘I'

I“

0*

is

*0

C-0-
1

. ..
.l.\.

4‘

it were flying, with wings outstretched, or then, again,
perhaps it was just the shape that reminded you of a
butterfly. Or, you may have seen the hands at the tOp of
Card I. Perhaps they-looked as if they were reaching up
for something or waiting to receive something. You may have
mentioned this sort of thing when you first wrote your answer,
‘hut now is the time to add these things if you did not mention
them before. Put this additional information in the column
Just to the right of your answers. Some of the other cards
had colors on them, and there the colors may have influenced,
what you saw or how you saw.it. These are the sorts of added
bits of information that I would like to have you include in
that right hand column next to your answers. Are there any
questions?

‘ Remember, you are to locate and number each answer on
the miniature blots, and then add whatever information you
care to about your answers. Now we will show each slide

again for you to refer to in doing these two things.

It: s .
. . a
w n)‘
. .r;
u... . a...
I.
.V — pv-

.‘YT

(l

’o-
3....
.K
-
.
I.
L A
.,
;
._
.\
ts.
\
.
l
.k.
I
1.
...
I
I
v

V “
- ..\.

bl,-

‘ N"

7.
.

'IIA
‘

.4
.1
v'

t ‘ ..IL

...
v.1 .
I. t
a. .u
.1;

“
‘0.
s}. c
n 1“
C
.
.uJ
.... 1,.
7‘ 4‘
‘15
o ..
..
I
A} ..
a I a
.v
n‘
o -.
i
.1 a
. 4..
\
"§
. ..
.. I
. v
_
.l
. I
H _
.\
8.0.
‘ .5
l .
\
I. ...
I
'1 I o
f
to ..
I

.t,
of

.1

:3‘ .‘1 (' '

Y

.4

.,.
(
‘ua

L

...

I. w
r u r

O .
... .. .
”...... ..

\

...... ....

O
r In
u\
. . '17
7“ ‘1
. J .
7k k
#16 “J

7"

o

.‘D 6
..t

LJ

w! Us .
'

n. .
...) .‘
.r. . .H

. LI.
I x . l
v .
. .
. fl'i
t,
- l
kl ..
.
. . ~.
..
. .
'1
c . . .
A

zaqmnu
p123

 

Subj ect's Answer Sheet

 

OE B-GSTI

 

GWEN

 

95v

 

33

Appendix II
RAW & G.F.K.

Early Memriea

How far back do your early memories go? People show wide differences
in this respect.- The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain
information about early memories. You will be asked to describe
briefly the nature of some of your early memories and to estimate
your age at the time of each memory.

In estimating your age, underline the appropriate number as indicated
in the first example below. If you cannot be definite about the
specific year of the memory, use parentheses to show the range of
years in which the experience (memory) occurred and then underline
£hg_most likely year g§_th§_memogy. This is illustrated in the second
example below.

Example 1 Years: 1 2 3
Example 2 Years: 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
4 (5 §.7 8) 9 10 11 12

ggestion 1. Think it over carefully and then briefly describe the
earliest memory that you can recall.

At what age were you at the time of this memory?
Years: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12

Qgestion 2. Think it over carefully and then briefly describe the
earliest memory of your mother.

At what age were you at the time of this memory?
Years: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12

759-759

2

ggestion 3. Think it over carefully and then briefly describe the
earliest memory of your father.

At what age were you? Years: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12

ggestion 4. What is your earliest memory of a house? Describe
briefly.

At what age were you? Years: 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12

Qgestion 5. What is your earliest memory of clothes? Describe
briefly.

At what age were you? Years: 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12

ggestion 6. What is your earliest memory of a playmate? Describe
briefly.

At what age were you? years: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12

759-759

3

Qgestion 7. What is your earliest memory of toys? Describe briefly.

At what age were you? Years: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12

ggestion 8. In the previous seven questions, you have listed seven
memories. Review'them briefly and then rate them “pleasant“, “un-
pleasant", or “neutral" in the spaces provided below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Memory 1. Pleasant unpleasant Neutral
Memory 2. Pleasant unpleasant Neutral
Memory 3. Pleasant unpleasant Neutral
Memory 4. Pleasant Unpleasant Neutral
Memory 5. Pleasant unpleasant Neutral
Memory 6. Pleasant unpleasant Neutral
Memory 7. Pleasant unpleasant Neutral

 

 

 

Qgestion 9. Net counting relatives, list the names of all your
preschool (before kindergarten) playmates that you can remember
(if any).

Qgestion 10. List all of your preschool toys that you can remember
(if any).

759-759

 

Elli:

' [Ii 1"