a study of hypnotic age regression using the rorschach

Western Michigan University Western Michigan University

ScholarWorks at WMU ScholarWorks at WMU

Dissertations Graduate College

8-1982

A Study of Hypnotic Age Regression Using the Rorschach Scored A Study of Hypnotic Age Regression Using the Rorschach Scored

by the Exner Comprehensive System by the Exner Comprehensive System

Scott William Trylch Western Michigan University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

Part of the Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Trylch, Scott William, "A Study of Hypnotic Age Regression Using the Rorschach Scored by the Exner Comprehensive System" (1982). Dissertations. 2537. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/2537

This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected].

http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/


https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/grad

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2537&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/716?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2537&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/2537?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2537&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]



A STUDY OF HYPNOTIC AGE REGRESSION USING THE RORSCHACH SCORED BY THE

EXNER COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM

by

Scott William Trylch

A Dissertation Submitted to the

Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fu lfillm ent of the

requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education

Department of Counseling and Personnel

Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan

August 1982

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

A STUDY OF HYPNOTIC AGE REGRESSION USING THE

RORSCHACH SCORED BY THE EXNER

COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM

Scott William Trylch, Ed.D.

Western Michigan University, 1982

The purpose of the study was to compare Rorschach results of

hypnotically age regressed subjects with three groups of controls:

deeply hypnotized, hypnotizable simulators, and minimally susceptible

simulators. The study tested the null hypothesis that hypnotically

age regressed subjects d iffe r significantly from subjects in deep

hypnosis, hypnotizable simulators, and minimally susceptible

simulators on Rorschach scores when scored by the Exner Comprehensive

System. A second null hypothesis was that there would be no

difference between the age regressed subjects and the three control

groups in correspondence to the Exner age norms.

The 24 volunteer subjects were screened for psychological

problems, then administered the Stanford Hypnotic Clinical

Scale-Adult and based on th e ir score assigned to the experimental or

one of three control groups.. Rorschach testing was counterbalanced

for the six subjects in each group; three taking a preexperimental

waking Rorschach, and three a postexperimental test. The subjects in

the age regression and deep hypnosis groups then practiced attaining

their respective hypnotic states in three practice sessions. All

subjects were administered a Rorschach in their respective


experimental condition. The Rorschachs were given by a second

experimenter, blind to the experiment. The Rorschachs were scored by

the experimenter. and another experimenter, also blind to the

experiment; differences in scoring were arbitrated.

An Analysis of Variance for change scores based on differences

between waking and respective experimental condition Rorschach score

means for the four groups yielded only chance differences. The

hypothesis that there would be no differences between the groups in

correspondence to children's age norms could not be rejected. I t was

tested by using Rorschach variables where the children mean differed

by two standard deviations from the adult mean.

I t was concluded that the experiment did not demonstrate a

difference between age regressed, deeply hypnotized, hypnotizable

simulator, and minimally susceptible simulator groups on Rorschach

variables. However, the small number of subjects in each group

provided a low level of statistical power for detecting possible

significant differences.


INFORMATION TO USERS

This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.

UniInternational300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106


8227138

Trylch, Scott William

A STUDY OF HYPNOTIC AGE REGRESSION USING THE RORSCHACH SCORED BY THE EXNER COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM

Western Michigan University EdD. 1982

UniversityMicrofilms

International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M I 48106

Copyright 1982

by

Trylch, Scott William

All Rights Reserved


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In memory of Merodean V. Trylch

I wish to acknowledge Dr. William A. Carlson's support, warmth,

caring and challenge throughout the dissertation process. I greatly

appreciated his availab ility and willingness to give time in order to

help me complete the study. I am also grateful to the other members of

my committee: Dr. Mai Robertson, Dr. Bob Oswald, and Dr. Michael

Stoline from whom I have learned a great deal and whose relationship I

value.

I especially want to thank Joyce Pull urn at the Mott Children’s

Health Center for her long hours of typing the dissertation and helping

me with the revisions. I valued her support and caring that helped me

complete this project. I am also appreciative of David Littlehales at

the Hurley Medical Center for his efforts in learning to administer the

Rorschach, and his additional long hours in giving the test. I further

wish to thank Jim Buechele for his effort in scoring the protocols and

arbitrating the differences. Lastly, I would like to thank Demetra

Collia and Nancy O llila at the Western Michigan University Computer

Center for their programming work.

A special thanks also goes to John E. Exner, J r . , Ph.D. for

allowing me to reproduce his adult and children's norms in the

dissertation. I also wish to thank the volunteers whose time and effort

made this study possible.

i i


I wish to especially thank my wife, Darlene, who endured long hours

of my absence, and s t i l l more time at home spent in completing this

paper. I appreciated her loving concern, and help in completing the.

project. I also want to thank my sons, Jason and Jeremy, for silently

accepting my not being able to spend more time with them, and my long

hours away. One last note of appreciation goes to Kelly, the co llie ,

who couldn't understand where his master always went.

i i i


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... f i

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................ vi

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................ v ii

CHAPTER

I . INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1

Purpose of the Study....................................................... 31

Hypotheses . . . .................................................................. 31

I I . METHOD........................................................................................... 34

Subjects ............................................................................. 34

Procedure ........................................................................... 34

Data Analysis.................................................................... 42

I I I . RESULTS ......................................................................................... 44

IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 55

REFERENCE NOTES .......................................................................................... 52

REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 63

APPENDICES

A. P ilot Study.................................................................................. 70

B. Handout Explanation to Potential Volunteers DescribingInvolvement in Research Concerning Hypnosis ..................... 82

C. Informed Consent Form............................................................... 83

D. Debriefing ................................................................................... 84

E. Debriefing Handout ..................................................................... 85

F. Individual Subject Scores on the Stanford HypnoticClinical Scale for Adults (SHCS-Adult) .............................. 85

G. A Note of Some Subjects Who Experienced SomeDistress Relation to the Experiment .................................... 87

iv


Table of Contents—Continued

H. Percentage Agreement on In it ia l Scoring for Experimenter and Additional Scorer for Each Response .................. 91

I . Rorschach Sequence of Scores and Structural Summary for each Subject during Waking (Pre/Post) and Experimental Sessions .................................................. 115

J. Exner Age Norms ............................................................................ 211

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 213

v


LIS T OF TABLES

1. Group Totals and Means for the Four Groups on the StanfordHypnotic Clinical Scale-Adult (SHCS-Adult) and Age Regression Item....................................... 45

2. One-Way Analysis of Variance Testing Differences Between theStanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale-Adult (SHCS-Adult) Resultsfor the Four Experimental Groups.................................................... 45

3. One-Way Analysis of Variance Testing Differences Between theFour Groups on the Age Regression Item of the Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale-Adult (SHCS-Adult).....................................................46

4. Percentage Agreement on In it ia l Scoring for Experimenter andAdditional Scorer..................................... 47

5. Waking State Group Means for a ll Subjects..................................... 49

6. Experimental State Group Means for a ll Subjects.......................... 51

7. Mean Group Correspondence to Children's Age Norms During Experimental Condition 53

A. Rorschach Results for P ilot Study Subjects................................... 73

B. Rorschach Means for Age Regressed and Waking State.................... 74

C. Correlated Sample t - tests Comparing Waking State and AgeRegressed RorschacFf Scores................................................................ 76

D. Waking State and Age Regression Sign Correspondence to ExnerAge Norms and Sign Test..................................................................... 77

vi


LIST OF FIGURES \ . .

1. Flowchart of Experimental Design and Procedure...................................41

2. P ilo t Study Experimental Design and Procedure........................... ,- ....7 2

v ii


CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Hypnotic age regression had long been used in psychotherapy for

the recovery of denied or repressed memories or for a cathartic

reexperience of traumatic emotional experiences. Dramatic instances

of its use have been recorded by Erickson and Kubie (1941), Lindner

(1944) and Wolberg (1964).

Lindner (1944) integrated the use of age regression with

psychoanalysis. He reported that hypnoanalysis would permit the

analyst to move past resistances to reconstruct earlier l i fe

experiences that were the genesis of current problems. Also, i t

would shorten the length of therapy from years down to three or four

months. His report on the course of treatment with a criminal

psychopath suggested that hypnoanalysis emphasizing age regression

was effective in the amelioration of criminal psychopathy.

Wolberg (1964) reported several processes by which the

uncovering of buried memories by age regression was helpful in

overcoming problems encountered by patients, such as the recall of

previous terrifying experiences from childhood and/or ones which

occurred in adulthood. This often resulted in a cathartic experience

that culminated in symptom removal. Another mechanism was the recall

of less intense traumas in childhood which had remained in the

unconscious, but which could be reframed according to adult knowledge

and interpretations.

1


A poignant example of the clinical usefulness of hypnotic age

regression in other than traditional long-term psychotherapy was

offered by Erickson and Kubie (1941). In that case the patient was

in it ia lly uninterested in undergoing hypnotherapy, and was inducted

into trance by an indirect technique used by Erickson. This was

justified because of the patient's increasing depression and the lack

of success of more traditional approaches. The focus of the

patient's symptomology, beyond the depression, was vomiting that

occurred a fter her boyfriend attempted to kiss her. Under age

regression i t was revealed that the patient's mother had taught her

several misconceptions regarding sexuality that accounted for the

patient's vomiting. The patient's mother had died before she had an

opportunity to correct any of her earlier teachings. Under hypnosis

and in the waking state Erickson took the place of the deceased

mother, and amended the earlier teachings. This resulted in an

elimination of the vomiting when faced with sexuality and dramatic

decrease and alleviation of depressive symptomology.

Despite the dramatic claims for the therapeutic effectiveness of

hypnotic age regression in psychotherapy, the scientific valid ity of

the age regressed state has been d iffic u lt to support with

experimental data (Barber, 1962). Overall reviews of the literature

(Barber, 1962; Kline, 1953; Gebhard, 1961; Hilgard, 1968; Yates,

1961) have explored several parameters relating to the controlled

study of hypnotic age regression which included the concept of the

age regressed state and causation, who can achieve age regression,

possible types of age regression, and dependent measures as well as


experimental designs used to test hypotheses concerning the

phenomenon.

Barber (1962) held that age regression was a form of role

playing. He supported his position by a careful review of the

litera ture evaluating the outcomes and designs used in the study of

hypnotic age regression. His review indicated that many of the

studies demonstrated that subjects simulating or role playing a

childlike state performed more like children on the dependent measure

than did those who were age regressed during a hypnotic trance. He

took the stance that experimental studies of age regression supported

the notion that age regressed subjects showed a mixture of adult and

childlike responses on whatever dependent measures were used. He

ended his review by hypothesizing that future studies would find no

difference between hypnotically age regressed and control subjects.

In contrast to the role playing theory was the functional

ablation theory. Edmonston (1961) described the state of age

regression under hypnosis as:

...th e /functional ablation theory, places greater emphasis on what is done to the subject as i t affects how he behaves during hypnotic age regression. Bo.th learned and maturational behaviors which appeared after the age to which the subject is regressed, are said to be functionally ablated by the hypnotist and no longer accessible as part of the subject's response repertory. This theory is essentially one of verbal conditioning. The words spoken by the hypnotist thus become the stimuli evoking the various behaviors of hypnotic age regression (Edmonston 1961, pg. 127).


To test the functional ablation theory, Edmonston developed an

eye blink conditioned response in.subjects then extinguished i t . He

then age regressed half of the subjects to the acquisition period and

found "a close approximation of their acquisition behavior"

(Edmonston 1961, pg. 137). The control group continued to show

extinction. Barber (1962) la ter criticized the study on the grounds

that the subjects could have been simulating the conditioned

responses.

Hilgard (1968) in an examination of the literature reported that

he could not accept the rea lity of complete ablation of experience

and revivication. He fe l t that age regression could be established

and measured with childlike handwriting during regression being one

such measure. However, he added that an observing ego would be

retained during age regression, and thus signs of adult behavior

would be evident.

In another review, Yates (1961) suggested that three theories

have been used to explain hypnotic age regression. The neurological

theory called for an organic reproduction of engrams produced at a

younger age, and an inhibition of the cortex, except for the area

that received auditory stimuli (from the hypnotic operator). The

habit reactivation theory postulated an inhibition of current

response patterns and thus permitted the reactivation of earlier

response patterns. The role playing theory enjoined the subject to

experience a psychological condition allowing them to act in a role

that is much younger than their chronological age. I t was suggested


that a combination of the theories might best account for age

regression.

A champion of the neurological theory of age regression was

Kline (1953). He put forward the idea that age regression entailed

an alteration of the subject's time space continuum perception. This

was to involve a "central state of perceptual release or

disorientation which permits activ ity in any dimension or direction

of time space orientation" (Kline, 1953, pg. 26). Thus Kline fe lt

that hypnotic age regression was a valid state, but an experience

limited to only certain subjects, who had been able to become deeply

hypnotized.

Gebhard (1961) also addressed the issue of what accounts for

hypnotic age regression at a neurological level. He identified three

possibilities. The f ir s t was the possibility that the subject was

responding on the basis of neural mechanisms established at the age

to which the subject was regressed (corresponds to the functional

ablation theory). Second, the subject may have used memories from

any age to role play or act out a role suggested by the experimenter.

Third, the subject's responses may be a combination of the f ir s t two

in varying amounts.

A basic neurological question was: what was the nature of

storage of previous experiences and memories in the brain, were

memories stored intact or were they selectively stored in a manner

that allowed for progressive change and decay over time? Penfield's

(1952) research indicated that electrical stimulation of certain

areas of the temporal cortex did result in a recollection or


reexperience of certain memories. The evoked recollection was a

reproduction of what the patient visually experienced or fe lt in the

situation. I t was not a reproduction of the whole experience and did

not include those elements of the environment to which the patient

did not attend originally.

But he was not able to establish a specific single location for

memories. To account for the finding that extirpation of a certain

area of the cortex in one hemisphere did not result in the

elimination of a memory, Penfield (1952) fe lt that memories were

stored in each cerebral hemisphere. He postulated the existence of a

centrencephalic system which was a neurone system centrally placed in

the brain and equally connected to both hemispheres. This system was

to coordinate the various sensations associated with various memories

after the temporal cortex was stimulated.

Penfield's research was done with patients that were subject to

temporal lobe epilepsy, and the research revealed only those memories

that spontaneously erupted under electrical stimulation. The

research did imply the possibility of intact storage of memories, and

that stimulation of the sensory areas of the cortex produced

responses particular to that area.

In a more recent summary (Gazzaniga, Steen, & Volpe, 1979)

stated that memory did not have one s ite , but more likely multiple

neural representations. Further, they considered the biochemical

basis of memory and included the study of neurotransmitters, but were

not able to obtain any absolute proof of a specific neurotransmitter

involved in memory storage. They ended up postulating that memory


storage may include the whole history of an event, whose storage may

be at several sites and dependent upon reception from various

neurotransmitters.

The research on how stimulation of certain areas of the brain

elic ited memories seemed to run counter to modern theories of

learning, particularly the consolidation model (Hilgard & Bower,

1966). Most learning theories called for learning through repetition

or reinforcement, and that under conditions of disuse memories faded.

However, hypnotic age regression purported that a ll experiences were

retained and may be accessible to the conscious mind under hypnosis.

While no definitive proof was available from research, i t did

appear that memories could have been stored intact. This would have

suggested that hypnotic age regression could have been consistent

with the manner in which the brain stored memories. However, a more

detailed study of the literature regarding the experimental

examination of the phenomena of age regression seemed in order.

Three areas of studies were reviewed, those that used physiological

c rite ria , those that used psychological tests or c rite ria , and those

that specifically used the Rorschach as the dependent measure.

Gidro-Frank and Bowersbuch (1948), McCranie and Crasilneck

(1955), True and Stephenson (1951) have studied subjects who were

regressed to infancy. The dependent measure was whether or not the

Babinski sign was reinstated. The studies found that the Babinski

sign was reinstated when the subject was regressed to younger than

five months of age. Barber (1962) criticized these studies on

several grounds. F irst, the dorsiflexion of the large toe (the


Babinski sign) is not the characteristic response of the infant to

plantar stimulation. McGraw (1941) found that withdrawal of the limb

was the more characteristic response to plantar stimulation in

infants up to about seven months. Second, the Babinski response

might have been found in normal adults in conditions such as sleep,

drowsiness, e tc ., where depressed muscle tone occurs. Third, the

subjects may have been aware of the nature of the experiment and

simply given a Babinski response.

More recently Raikov (1980) studied age regression to infancy

with ten subjects regressed to infancy and measured across several

variables considered characteristic of infancy (Babinski sign,

sucking reflex, crying, etc.) with the hypnotic operators naive to

behavioral expectations in infancy. Only one of the subjects showed

a ll seven of the infant behaviors expected. The rest of the subjects

ranged from two to six behaviors. The experimenter concluded that

the reproduction under hypnosis of the components of early childhood

and infancy was possible to a certain degree. This research is

vulnerable to Barber's (1962) criticisms of early studies.

Others (Ford & Yeager 1948; Kupper, 1945; McCranie, Crasilneck &

Teter, 1955; Schwartz, Bickford & Rasmussen, 1955; True &

Stephenson, 1951) studied the effect of age regression on EEGs. In

Kupper's (1945) study a twenty-four-year-old patient with convulsive

seizures was studied taking EEGs at several ages during hypnotic age

regression. The EEGs remained normal until age eighteen which was

the hypothesized onset of the patient's symptomology following a

period of great anxiety. Ford and Yeager (1948) used a similar


design and were not able to replicate the earlier findings. A

patient that had been given a craniotomy because of a history of

grand mal seizures was regressed to a preoperative age with rid

difference found between regressed and waking state. Schwartz et

a l. (1955) concluded that seizures could be reactivated by age

regressing subjects to the time of their last seizure. The induced

seizures were not accompanied by a change in the EEGs. McCranie et

a l. (1955) and True and Stephenson (1951) had found that subjects

regressed back as far as age one month showed an EEG no different

from their adult EEG.

I t appeared that the evidence was equivocal with regard to EEGs

being altered under hypnotic age regression. Barber (1962)

critic ized the aforementioned Kupper (1945) study on the grounds that

the patient showed highly episodic seizures that centered around a

personal conflict. Thus, i t was reasoned that EEG alterations might

have resulted without the use of hypnotic age regression.

The use of conditioning techniques for the study of hypnotic age

regression has also been explored, as in Edmonston's (1961) study

cited above. Edmonston found that an experimental group showed some

return of' a conditioned reflex under hypnotic age regression vs. a

control group, when both groups had extinguished the conditioned

reflex prior to the experimental testing.

In a similar study by McCranie and Crasilneck (1955) using six

subjects, the results were equivocal. The subjects had been

conditioned to withdraw their hand when presented with an auditory

stimulus, this was lost during age regression. The same subjects


retained an eyelid reflex conditioned to a tap on the wrist,

irregardless of their age. Le Cron (1952) also found that under age

regression subjects showed an absence of conditioned responses when

presented with the conditioned auditory stimulus. A much earlier

study by Gakkenbush, Polinkovskii, and Fundiller (1930) used one

subject and found that when the subject was regressed to age nine

months fear of a burning match had to be conditioned.

In a unique study True (1949) examined subjects' ab ility to

recall the day of the week that Christmas and their birthdays fe ll

on. F ifty subjects were age regressed to age four, seven, and ten.

The responses were compared against a 200 year calendar. During age

regression 82.3% of the subjects stated the correct response, the

other 17.7% answered less than half of the questions correctly.

Inaccurate responses increased at regressed age four, which is

consistent with developmental age expectations. The exact frequency

of recall during the waking state was not stated but was reported to

be "extremely small" (True, 1949 pg. 584).

Attempts to replicate True's (1949) findings in similar

experiments were attempted (Barber, 1962; Best, & Micheals, 1954;

Reiff & Scheer, 1969, Yates, 1960) with mixed results. None of the

studies used as many subjects, even put together, as the original

study done by True.

Barber (1962) critic ized True's (1949) study on several grounds.

He stated that many nursery school age children don't know the day of

the week when asked. Indeed the original results showed a lower

recollection rate of Christmas and birthday dates when age regressed


to age four and higher rates of date recollection when the subjects

were regressed to age 10. Critici-sms were, also made that the

subjects may have spoken among themselves about the nature of the *

experiment and that they may have been able to "figure out" the days

asked about by computation in their head. Of the two, the former

criticism seemed plausible but the la tte r untenable.

Another interesting experiment was presented by As (1962). The

subject who as a child spoke Swedish, was age regressed to childhood.

During age regression, he responded to questions presented in English

with answers in Swedish. This seemed to imply an incomplete age

regression, or to support the postulate that hypnotic age regression

did not involve a complete ablation of experiences after the age to

which the subject is regressed.

The use of Piagetian type perceptual cognitive tests were

utilized by Reiff and Scheerer (1960) with five subjects. The age

regressed subjects were more able to perform at the regressed age

level according to European norms. In reviews of the study, Barber

(1962) indicated that European norms of Piagetian tasks may not be

appropriate for American and British children. Orne and O'Connell

(1961) found fau lt with the study because the age regressed subjects

had more practice than did the simulators.

In a replication of the Reiff and Scheerer (1960) study,

O'Connell, Shor and Orne (1970) added control groups to obtain a

more sophisticated design. One group was to pretend to be

hypnotized, with the hypnotist not having known which subjects were

real and which were simulators (cryptosimulators). The intention of


such a maneuver was to maximize motivation in simulators. Other

groups were run to replicate the earlier study.

The outcome of the experiment provided no evidence for

hypermnesia with age regression, the performance of the

cryptosimulating group equaled that of the age regressed group with

striking subjective alterations during hypnotic age regression, but

no overwhelming evidence for hypnosis vs. role playing. The authors

concluded that the study brought the valid ity of age regression into

question.

In reviewing the O'Connell et a l. (1970) study, i t was easy to

have been impressed by the standards for experimental design laid

down by the experimenters. However, in terms of the

cryptosimulators, one wondered (even with supposed nonsusceptibles)

where simulation ends and hypnosis begins. Could the

cryptosimulators in fact have been hypnotized by a powerful indirect

induction technique? (Erickson, Rossi & Rossi, 1976; Erickson &

Rossi, 1979 & 1981).

S t il l other investigators used other dependent measures to study

age regression. Walker, Garrett & Wallace (1976) and Wallace (1978)

found that age regressed subjects were able to show a restoration of

eidetic imagery. The dependent measure in these studies was

reproduction of random dot stereograms. Spanos, Fehana & Hendrikus,

(1979) were not able to replicate those findings.

In a classic study (Stalmaker & Riddle, 1932) subjects were

better able to recall poetry learned earlier when age regressed

rather than in a waking state. Efforts in similar experiments (Huse,


1930; M itchell, 1932; Rosenthal, 1944; Sears, 1954; White, 1940;

Young, 1926) ended with mixed and,inconclusive results.

Responses to the Ponzo and Poggendorff illusions under age

regression have also been evaluated (Parrish, Lundy & Leibowitz,

1969). The 10 subjects were screened by Barber's Suggestibility

Scale (BSS), (Barber & Glass, 1962), the selected subjects were

presented Ponzo and Poggendorf illusions under four conditions:

waking state, hypnotized without age regression, hypnotized with age

regression to age 9 and to age 5. The results indicated that

hypnosis fac ilita ted the return of visual cues and mannerisms

suggestive of earlier stages of perceptual development when compared

to a control group under task motivation, the effect was more

pronounced for the Ponzo than for the Poggendorf illusion.

Platonow (1933) reported that three subjects age regressed and

given the Binet Simon at regressed ages of four, six, and 10 gave

test data generally consistent with these ages. This was

accomplished despite only a brief hypnotic induction and the

suggestion that each subject would become a child of six, e tc ., being

repeated three times.

In related research, Young (1940) age regressed 10 subjects to

age three and obtained mental ages on the Stanford Binet (1916

Edition) that averaged age four years eight months. The

nonausceptible controls obtained an average mental age of five years

five months. I t was noted that the induction technique used in the

above study and in Young's (1937) prior report was to suggest after


an in it ia l induction that the subject was three years old, without

any other deepening or age regression technique.

In a slightly rnore sophisticated study, because of the

measurement of the subject's hypnotizability with the

Friedlander-Sarbin Scale of Hypnotizability (1938), Sarbin (1950)

gave the Stanford-Binet to nine age regressed subjects. I t was found

that the mental age obtained with testing was always higher than the

age to which the subjects were regressed. I t was concluded that

"there is no authentic and complete regression to earlier age-roles

insofar as intelligence tests are concerned" (Sarbin, 1950, pg. 225).

Kline (1950) used the Otis Self-Administering Test of Mental

A bility with 10 subjects, however there was no testing for

hypnotizability. The subjects were regressed to ages 15, 10, and

eight, the scores obtained during age regression were appropriate for

the norms of the suggested age and remained constant for the

subjects.

The use of the Stanford-Bi net to test an age regressed subject

was also investigated by Spiegel, Shor, and Fishman (1945). The

subject was regressed to several different ages and given the

Stanford-Binet. The results showed the subject to score very close

to the suggested age, sometimes slightly lower, sometimes higher.

Changes in the subjects' scores over time were correlated with l i fe

events, such as moving from a rural to urban environment. I t was

reasoned that hypnotic age regression resulted in an ablation of a ll

memories that would have occurred after the regressed age. This was


thought to result in the releasing of the personality and

intelligence manifestations of the appropriate age;-

One comparison between the Sarbin (1950) and Spiegel et a l.

(1945) studies was the hypnotic technique used to age regress the

subjects. In the former study, after the induction of trance, the

subjects were directly suggested to be a specific age. In the la tte r

study, more time seemed to be taken in suggesting the ablation of

experiences. In addition, the subject was introduced to "a friend'1

who became consistent with the regressed age. The point in the

comparison was that in the Sahbin (1950) investigation where the

technique was direct with less e ffo rt to deepen trance in order to

age regress the subject, the results did not support the authenticity

of age regression. In the Spiegel et a l. (1945) study more time and

effort were spent to establish the ablation of experiences and to

introduce the subject to "a friend" who was consistent with the

regressed age. This study obtained data more supportive of the

authenticity of age regression. Therefore, i t seemed warranted to

indicate that studies of hypnotic age regression ought to be able to

assure that subjects are sufficiently deep in trance to permit age

regression.

Gakkenbush et a l. (I960)-, Keir (1945), and Leeds (1949) have

used intelligence tests to study changes during hypnotic age

regression. These inquiries used only one subject, so

generalizations from them were limited. However, the Gakkenbush et

a l . , (1960) investigation showed mental age on the Binet consistent

with the age to which the subject had been regressed. In the Leeds


(1949) study, vocabulary definitions were higher than expected for

the age to which the subject was regressed.

The use of cognitive perceptual tasks was also employed in a

report by Gard and Kurtz (1979). The tests utilized were the

Stanford-Binet, Goodenough Draw-A-Person and Bender Gestalt. The

sixteen subjects were screened for psychopathology and assigned to

experimental and simulator groups according to scores on the BSS.

The study failed to find measured cognitive differences between the

simulators and experimental subjects in the age regressed condition.

The subjects had been hypnotized by a taped induction and then age

regressed to seven using a detailed suggestion process.

In an earlier study, Crasilneck and Micheal (1957) used the

Bender Gestalt to measure performance under age regression. The 10

subjects were judged to be somnambulistic. The Bender was

administered in four ways*, during the waking state, with instructions

to pretend to be four years of age, hypnotized and instructed to be

age four, and hypnotically regressed to age four. The experimenters,

who judged the Bender protocols, were blind to the nature of the

experiment and were called upon to judge the age of each of the

Bender protocols. The authors concluded that the subjects were able

to comply to a certain degree but did not seem to reach the level

suggested. The subjects, functioning as their own control, acted

more like the age suggested under hypnosis than in the waking state,

and some approximated the suggested age even more when hypnotized and

age regressed.


Several authors (Dolin, 1960; Gard & Kurtz, 1979; Gakkenbush,

1960; Kline & Guze, 1951; • Taylor, 1950) have used drawings to

evaluate changes during hypnotic age regression. The Gakkenbush

(1960) study found the age regressed drawings to have been identical

with samples from the subjects' childhood. Kline & Guze (1951)

reported that the subjects' drawings under age regression were more

primitive than the waking state drawings. The Taylor (1950) and Orne

(1951) inquiries found that the drawings done during hypnotic age

regression showed a mixture of childlike and adult responses, and

thus, were regarded as not being supportive of genuine age

regression. Further, a personal communication from Karen Machover to

Orne (1951) suggested that the drawings in the study were not like

drawings typically made by six year olds.

The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) has been used as a

dependent variable to assess hypnotic age regression on several

occasions. Kline and Haggerty (1953) studied the origin of

vocational interests using the TAT with a single subject. The

subject was regressed to several ages and also asked to simulate

these ages in the waking state. The findings showed more childlike

alterations in verbal productivity during age regression than in

waking simulation. The findings were used to support the valid ity of

hypnotic age regression.

Reyher and Shoemaker (1961) used the TAT to study conflict

resolution in psychoanalytic psychotherapy. The five deeply

hypnotizable subjects were given randomly selected TAT cards with

instructions given in trance for some of the cards to activate


disturbing emotions (conflict cards) and others to activate

meaningful but not disturbing .emotions (neutral cards). Post

hypnotic suggestions were given suggesting that when the cards were

readministered in the waking state the same emotions would be fe lt as

before but they were to be revealed directly or indirectly in the TAT

stories. The results indicated that the conflict cards exposed more

underlying repressed material in the age regressed state than in the

waking state. The large differences between the waking state and

hypnotically regressed state on the neutral cards was taken as

evidence that hypnosis was an altered state of awareness where

"unconscious drives tend to be perceived in terms of gratification

rather than threat." (Reyher & Shoemaker, 1961, pg. 413).

The real-simulator design was used by Schofield and Reyher

(1974) to study differences in TAT and Symonds Picture Story Test

stories with hypnotically aroused conflict in age regressed and

waking states. The 22 female subjects had been screened for lack of

evident psychopathology and were able to carry out several tasks on

the Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (Weitzenhoffer &

Hi 1gard, 1962). A conflict was induced during hypnosis and the same

instructions were given to the simulators, but without them being

hypnotized. After that card 2 of the TAT and card B8 of the Symonds

Picture Story Test were administered during age regression or

stimulation and in the waking state. The outcome of the study was

considered to at least partia lly support the altered state model of

hypnosis. The hypnotic subjects gave more direct drive expression

responses, and showed greater changes in affective motivational

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission

states when comparisons were made between age regressed and waking

states on one of the two thematic cards,. The hypnotic subjects, when

compared to the simulators, were also able to produce more intense

emotional reactions in the age regressed condition and reported more

vivid and emotional experiences during age regression. The one

comparison where the simulators appeared to be more like the

regressed age was on WISC Vocabulary subscale scores, where the

hypnotic subjects scored higher than the simulators when compared to

their WAIS score on the same subtest.

The studies using the TAT and other thematic stories had

generally supported the ablation theory of hypnotic age regression.

I t was fe lt that the Rorshcach would provide an even more ambiguous

stimulus, and thus, would have been a very useful dependent variable

to assess hypnotic age regression.

Bergman, Graham, & Leavitt (1947) used hypnotic age regression

to validate Rorschach responses given during age regression to

various ages. They stated their support for the valid ity of age

regression, and cited some supportive evidence from the literature.

They suggested that when the Rorschach was administered at several

age levels i t would be of interest for four reasons. F irs t, the

Rorschach would be d iff ic u lt to simulate, therefore i t became a

useful dependent variable. Second, i f regression produced a valid

alteration in the personality i t would have been measured by the

Rorschach. Also, the series of Rorschachs might have resulted in a

developmental history of diagnostic and therapeutic value. Lastly,


the Rorschachs were expected to show change over time, reflective of

personality change.

The subject was a twenty-year-old male conversion neurotic

following traumatic battle experiences that had brought additional

stress on a rather rigid character structure. He was given the

Rorschach in the waking state and then hypnotized to eight different

ages from three to 17. The results in the in itia l hypnotic state

showed a sh ift to less rigid determinants; greater M, FC versus F and

FC‘ according to the Klopfer scoring system (Klopfer, Ainsworth,

Klopfer & Holt, 1954).

During age regression several factors were noted in the

Rorschach protocols suggestive of younger functioning, such as a

decrease in number of responses according to age, general increase in

animal movement (FM) and animal content (A%) with younger regressed

age, and color naming (Cn) present at regressed age three and five .

The authors concluded that the Rorschach reflected changes in

functioning held to be consistent with the regressed age and in

keeping with the clinical picture revealed in a reconstructive

therapy.

Previously Keir (1945) had found less inhibition in the age

regressed Rorschach of a patient versus those results found in the

waking state. Two subsequent investigations (Mercer & Gibson, 1950;

Norgab, in LeCron ed., 1952) were essentially replications of the

Bergman et a l. (1947) study. In the Mercer and Gibson (1950) report,

the subject was a twenty-six-year-old alcoholic with a strong

conflict between passive dependent needs and aggressive trends. The


subject was found to be a good hypnotic subject and was regressed on

three successive days to ages six, 10, and 14. During each age

regression session the subject was given the Rorschach, the

Stanford-Binet Vocabulary, and the Goodenough Draw-A-Person. After

the series of age regression sessions, the subject was given the

Rorschach in the waking state. The authors did not focus on scoring

the Rorschachs, instead they dealt with content interpretations. I t

was concluded that because the test data was consistent with

expectations at various age levels that a true regression had been

established. The problem was that this interpretation was based on

the author's interpretation of the Rorschach protocols and on the

performance on the other tests. The Rorschach scoring was not

reported and no age norm expectancies were evident.

Another way to study hypnosis using the Rorschach was reported

by Hodge and Wagner (1969). One subject, a thirty-one-year-old

psychiatric patient, took the Rorschach in a lig h t, medium, and deep

trance state. The Rorschach results indicated more primary process

thinking as the depth of trance increased. An evident oedipal theme

became even more pronounced in the deeper trance state. In addition

to interpretation of the content, the authors scored the protocols

and made a'comparison of the results. For instance, the subject's F+

was 100% in the waking state, 83% in medium trance, and 57% in deep

trance. This showed in a quantitative fashion the decrease of ego

functioning for the subject in deep trance.

What was of interest in the Hodge and Wagner (1969) study, with

regard to studying age regression with hypnosis, was the finding that


a deep trance state alone had been correlated with Rorschach

protocols that would be suggestive of childlike functioning. On the

other hand, ' could the subject in a deep trance state have

spontaneously slipped into an age regression?

The Rorschach has also been used as a stimuli for hypnotically

induced dreams. Wiseman and Reyher (1973) hypnotized 13

somnambulistic subjects, and handed them the Rorschach cards one at a

time with the suggestion that they look at the card and then dream

about the card. They were later given the Rorschach in the usual

manner. I t had been hypothesized that the standard administration of

the Rorschach, done after the induced dreams, would show more primary

process thinking. The results in both the in it ia l experiment and a

refined replication tended to support the hypotheses that the

postdream Rorschach administrations resulted in more primary process

material in the Rorschach protocol. In the second study, the

experimental group was compared both to a waking and a simulating

control group.

In terms of Rorshach scores, the experimental group showed a

decrease in F+% and a significant increase in FM and M%. The

protocols were also scored by Holt's (1960) method for assessing

primary and secondary process.

The studies, that have been thus far reviewed wherein the

Rorschach had been used as a dependent variable, have indicated that

responses to the Rorschach may be altered during or because of

hypnosis. But they were limited because of using only one subject,


or because they did not test the valid ity of age regression as a

state, or did not u tiliz e age regression.

Closer to an experimental study of age regression in hypnosis

u tiliz in g the Rorschach as the dependent measure was Orne's (1951)

investigation. This inquiry was reviewed above regarding the finding

that figure drawings produced in the age regressed state showed a

mixture of adult and childlike characteristics. The procedure was to

hypnotize 10 somnambulistic subjects and directly suggest that they

were six years old. During regression, the Rorschach was

administered followed by figure drawings. Two to five days la ter the

tests were readministered. In reviewing the Rorschach test findings,

Orne (1951) noted changes in the age regressed protocols. But he

also stated that the Rorschachs showed features which he fe lt would

never be expected in the record of a six-year-old child. He reasoned

that while deep personality changes were reflected in the Rorschach

protocols of age regressed subjects, that the subjects continued to

show the personality organization of the adult.

The f ir s t true experimental study using the Rorschach to

investigate hypnotic age regression was done by Staples and Wilensky

(1968). In that study nine subjects, who had been screened by the

Davis and Husbund Scale (1931)' for hypnotizability, were assigned at

random to two experimental groups and a control group. The

experiment consisted of meeting with each subject individually for

four sessions.

The f ir s t session was a screening session with the subjects

developing a light trance. In the second session, the two


experimental groups were placed in deep hypnosis to the

somnambulistic level, and asked to perform simple imaginative acts.

The control subjects were asked to perform the imaginative acts

without hypnosis. In the third session the f ir s t experimental group

was hypnotized, age regressed to six and given the Rorschach, with

posthypnotic amnesia suggested. During the third session, the second

experimental and control groups were given the Rorschach in the

waking state. In the fourth session the f ir s t experimental group was

given the Rorschach in the waking state while the second experimental

group was age regressed to age six. Thus, the order of presentation

of the Rorschach to the two experimental groups was counterbalanced,

while the controls practiced imaginative acts before being asked to

simulate being age six while taking the Rorschach.

A repeated measures analysis of variance showed significant

differences between the age regressed/simulated age six and waking

states on developmental level scores, but not between the

experimental and control groups. A developmental level score based

on the principles established by Phillips and Smith (1953) was also

used. These scores clustered close together and did not show greater

regression among the members of the experimental group.. The

authors' concluded that the data did not show more authentic

regression among the age regressed subjects than among the

simulators. They further reported that they did not replicate

Sarbin's (1950) earlier finding that regressed performance was more

authentic than simulated regression.


A second experiment that investigated hypnotic age regression

with the Rorschach was done by Solomon and Goodson (1971). The

hallmark of this study was the availab ility of Rorschachs actually

done by the subjects during adolescence (average age about 13 at

in it ia l testing). The 11 subjects were assigned to experimental or

control groups after obtaining their score on the Stanford Hypnotic

Susceptibility Scale, Form C (Weitzenhoffer & Hi 1gard, 1962).

All subjects were given an adult waking Rorschach in the f ir s t

session. The experimental group was given eight to ten hours of

practice in hypnosis prior to the age regression session; the control

group spent three to five hours working with lig h t states of

hypnosis. The testers who administered the Rorschachs in the

simulation and regressed conditions were blind to the purpose of the

experiment. The hypnotic subjects were led to a somnambulistic state

and tested, while the simulators were told that they were being

tested for their ab ility to pretend.

Interspersed in the practice sessions were several test

sessions. One was a memory session in which the subjects were to

reproduce their original adolescent Rorschach from memory. Then

there was a simulation session for a ll subjects. Lastly, there was

the critica l age regression session for the experimental group and a

second simulation for the controls.

The availab ility of Rorschachs actually produced by the subjects

between the ages of nine to fifteen allowed for a comparison with the

Rorschach produced by the same subject during the experiment. The

original Rorschach was compared with each subsequent protocol by a


method "which involved consideration of substantive content, location

and intellectual and/or affective determinants of percepts" (Solomon

and Goodson, 1971 pg. 249). The results • indicated that when

comparing the level of correspondence between the original Rorschachs

and those produced in the experimental or control conditions no

overall difference was found between the experimental and control

groups. Developmental scores were also calculated in the manner used

in the aforementioned Staples and Wilensky (1968) study. Again no

significant differences were found between the experimental and

control groups. The use of standardized age norms (Beck, Levitt &

Molish, 1961) allowed another comparison to be made between the

groups. I t was concluded that the Rorschach scores were more

adolescent like in both the simulation and age regressed condition

than in the waking state. However, the Rorschachs of the age

regressed subjects were not more adolescent like than those of the

simulators. The authors did find that W, %W, and R were most like ly

to d iffe r between the adult and regressed or simulated Rorschachs.

I t was reported that the data supported the role playing theory

of hypnotic age regression. However, the authors noted that hypnotic

age regression may function to reproduce experiences which are

retrievable and the subject may role play those that are not

retrievable.

While the Staples and Wilensky (1968) and Solomon and Goodson

(1971) studies both used the d iff ic u lt to simulate Rorschach as the

criterion measure in their studies of age regression, the actual

manner in which to quantify the data became d iff ic u lt because


Rorschach protocols have been scored and evaluated in many ways. One

way to evaluate Rorschach data is to look for significant.differences

of any kind between the regressed and simulating groups. A second is

to check the data obtained under various conditions against

developmental norms. Both of these approaches called for well

developed age norms and for the Rorschach to be a reliable test

instrument.

Exner (1974, 1978, Note 1; Exner, Weiner, & Schuyler, 1976) has

developed a well researched scoring system and age norms for the

Rorschach. This allows researchers to compare Rorschach protocols

with norms based on samples of over one hundred subjects at each age.

Thus, i t is possible to directly compare the Rorschach performance

expectations of a five-year-old with those of an adult. Exner (1978)

has also established more psychometric respectability for the

Rorschach. He found test retest correlation coefficients ranging

from .66 to .90 for 100 nonpatient adults when the second testing

took place 35 to 38 months after the f ir s t . That finding took place

across several scoring variables. Also, his statements about the

interpretation of various response categories are often backed by

research.

Another research consideration was the manner in which the

subjects were tested for hypnotizability. In the experimental

studies on age regression using the Rorschach as the dependent

variable both the Stanford Scale for Hypnotizability Form C

(Weitzenhoffer and Hi!gard, 1962) and the Davis and Husbund Scale

(1931) had been used. Other studies reviewed had used the Barber


Suggestibility Scale (Barber & Glass, 1962) and the Friedlander and

Sarbin Scale (1938). The general assumption had been that screening

for subjects who were'deeply hypnotizable and/or somnambulistic would

provide the best subjects. These scales did only limited

screening/testing of age regression. However, another scale had been

developed that more directly measured susceptibility to hypnotic age

regression.

The Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale for Adults (SHCS-Adult) had

been developed by Morgan and Hilgard (1978/1979). This scale allowed

a more direct measure of hypnotic age regression in a standardized

situation. Although the measure was based on the subject's report,

i t did allow the examiner to regress the subject to one of the

elementary school years. The subject was then asked to rate the

experience on a scale that ranged from one to five. A score of one

suggested no experience of regression, a score of five suggested that

the subjects experienced themselves as reliving a past experience.

The issue of standardized hypnotic inductions and possible

incomplete or less than optimal hypnotic techniques to establish age

regression was also evident from the literature review. Previous

research had pointed out some variations in performance between age

regressed subjects and simulators based on cue structure provided by

the hypnotist (McConkey and Sheehan, 1980). Also Schirado (1979)

found that the depth of trance increased as induction techniques

became more personalized. His research reached the conclusion that

technique plays a significant role in hypnotic results, doubt was


expressed regarding the use of standardized techniques in research on

clinical hypnosis.

The litera ture also suggested that not only must individualized

hypnotic techniques be employed, but particular hypnotic techniques

have been reported to be especially useful in fac ilita tin g age

regression. Erickson (Haley, 1967) noted the advantages of the use

of a confusion technique building upon truisms found in everyday l i fe

to be an effective hypnotic technique in the establishment of age

regression. I t was also suggested that the hypnotic operator must

become someone out of or consistent with the subjects past during the

age regression in order to be consistent with the regressed age.

Thus, i t seemed that given the established usefulness of age

regression in psychotherapy, and the enhancement of techniques for

its measurement, that a further study of hypnotic age regression is

indicated. The study w ill u tiliz e the Rorschach because of its

ambiguity and the d iffic u lty in distorting results. The Rorschach's

usefulness, as a dependent measure, is enhanced by the development of

the Exner Comprehensive System (Exner, 1974, 1978) which provides age

norms and the sound empirical basis of the system. The SHCS-Adult

shows promise as a technique for screening those subjects that were

most susceptible to age regression. Lastly, personalized induction

and age regression techniques w ill be used in an effort to provide

optimal conditions for the development of age regression.

Several issues regarding experimentation with hypnosis has to be

addressed. The advantages of selecting highly hypnotizable subjects

has already been stated; further support for that position came from


Yates (1961) and Orne (in Fromm & Shor eds., 1972). But the issue of

handling the simulators or control group has been a thorny problem in

hypnotic research. Orne (in Fromm & Shor eds., 1972) challenged the

stance that special efforts must be made to motivate the control

group. He stated that the hypnotic relationship was not

characterized by a high level of motivation on the subject's part to

please the hypnotist, any more than any other subject examiner

relationship. Thus, the need for specific training for control group

simulators is questioned. This stands in contrast to Barber's (1962)

assertation that simulators in hypnotic experiments are not properly

motivated and are often not given training sessions. He argues

further, that the lack of training allows the simulators to feel

awkward in the experimental situation. But Orne (in Fromm & Shor

eds., 1972) argues that special training for simulators w ill lessen

their spontaneity and develop a fear of looking foolish. Weighing

both arguments, the experimenter w ill not provide pretraining for

simulation control groups.

Another experimental design issue related to the real-simulator

or cryptosimulator design calls for the hypnotist to be blind as to

which subjects were hypnotized and which were simulating. Despite

Orne's (in Fromm & ' Shor eds.,' 1972) -documented claims to the

contrary, i t is fe lt that simulators in such a design may become

hypnotized. Erickson (Erickson, Rossi & Rossi, 1976; Erickson &

Rossi, 1979, 1981) has written of the advantages of indirect

approaches to trance induction even with d iff ic u lt or supposedly

unhypnotizable subjects. Consequently, the real-simulator or


cryptosimulator technique is rejected as part of the experimental

design because i t is feared that the simulators could become

hypnotized with that procedure.

Another point to consider had been made by Barber (1962). He

noted that in most experiments with hypnosis the highly susceptible

experimental group was compared with a group of nonsusceptible

controls. The inclusion of an additional control group of

hypnotizable but not hypnotized subjects appears necessary.

Purpose of the Study

This study is intended to compare the Rorschach results scored

according to Exner Comprehensive System (1974, 1978) of a group of

age regressed subjects with the Rorschachs of control groups of

minimally susceptible simulators, hypnotizable but not hypnotized

simulators, and a group of deeply hypnotized but not age regressed

subjects. The study is to evaluate the valid ity of age regression as

measured by the Rorschach when scored by the Exner comprehensive

system.

Hypotheses

The hypotheses formally stated in the null form are as follows:

1. There w ill be no difference in Rorschach scores

between hypnotically age regressed subjects, minimally

hypnotizable simulators, hypnotizable simulators, and


deeply hypnotized and age regressed subjects.

2. Rorschach scores for the experimental group w ill not

show more correspondence to children's age norms than •

w ill the Rorschach scores for the control groups.

In relation to the above null hypotheses the most important Rorshcach

variables to be considered are:

D Detail response

S White space response

M Inanimate movement

FC Form color

FD Form based dimensional response

A% Percentage of animal responses

EA:ep Ratio of experience actual to

experience potential

Fd Food content

ALOG Autistic Logic special score

PER Personal special score

INCOM Inappropriate Combinations special

score

FC:CF+C Ratio of form color responses

to color form and pure color

and responses

C+Cn Color plus color naming responses


These scores were selected by comparing the Exner age norms

children (Exner, Note 1) with those for adults (Exner, 1978).


CHAPTER I I

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were selected from volunteers who were w illing to

participate in an experiment dealing with hypnosis. Subjects were at

least 18 years of age. The selection process was not based on other

demographic characteristics such as age, sex, race or socioeconomic

status. The main criterion for selection was the level of

hypnotizability as measured by the Stanford Hypnotic Clinical

Scale-Adult (SHCS-Adult). However, subjects were not included in the

experiment who manifested during the in it ia l contact, signs of

psychopathology or mental deficiency.

A total of 24 subjects were selected after the in it ia l

SHCS-Adult screening. The subjects were assigned to the experimental

or one of three control groups on the basis of their SHCS-Adult

results. Each group had six subjects. A subject who dropped out of

the experiment was replaced by another subject with similar

SHCS-Adult characteristics; the replacement subject went through the

entire experimental process.

Procedure

Prior to the in itia tion of the actual experimental process a

34


pilo t study was conducted with four subjects. The purpose of the

p ilo t study was to help familiarize the experimenter with the

experimental procedure. I t also allowed for sk ill development in the

hypnotic techniques specific to this experiment. (Appendix A)

Volunteers for the actual experiment were chosen from among

those who responded to printed requests (Appendix B) for subjects;

the requests were posted and handed to prospective subjects. The

subjects then signed an informed consent (Appendix C) and were given

an in it ia l screening with the SHCS-Adult.

There were five items on the SHCS-Adult, hence five was the

highest score obtainable and zero the lowest. The age regression

item consisted of a l is t of five statements with the statement that

best described their experience endorsed by the subject. The series

of statements on the age regression item ranged from an experience of

no regression (one) to an experience of complete return to either the

th ird , fourth, or f if th grade (fiv e ); for purposes of quantification

a score of four or five on this item and the hypnotist's subjective

rating determined whether the subject passed the item.

Assignment to experimental groups was based on SHCS-Adult

scores. Six subjects who passed at least three SHCS-Adult scores and

obtained a score of at least four on the age regression item were

assigned to the age regression/experimental group. Subjects were

included in this group i f they selected a five or wavered between

selecting a four or a five on the age regression item or gave

subjective indications of age regressibility such as a clearly

childlike tone of voice and answering questions with a child's


vocabulary as well as giving, during the screening, a vivid

description of these activities when age regressed. One subject who

was in it ia l ly included in the age regression group, but who during

the experimental session did not experience age regression was

excluded from the study. This subject was dropped from the

experiment without the test protocol having been seen or scored by

the experimenter.

Another 12 subjects who passed at least three of the SHCS-Adult

items were assigned to the deep hypnosis or hypnotic simulator

control groups at random, six to each group. Subjects in these

groups gave fewer subjective indications of having been age regressed

during the screening. The minimum susceptibility group was made up

of six subjects who passed no more than one of the SCHS-Adult items.

After the subjects were placed into experimental or control

groups, waking state Rorschach testing was counterbalanced for each

group by having three subjects from each group take the Rorschach

before the age regressed, deep hypnosis or simulated session

Rorschach, and three subjects took their waking Rorschach after the

age regressed, deep hypnosis or simulation Rorschach session.

Subjects in the age regression or experimental group and in the deep

hypnosis control group who received their in it ia l Rorschach in the

waking state were given suggestions to become amnesic for their

in it ia l Rorschach administration when later hypnotized.

Subjects in the age regression and deep trance groups were seen

for three sessions to work on deepening trance for the deep hypnosis

control group and becoming age regressed for the age regression or


experimental group. Subjects in both groups learned to keep their

eyes open without interfering with their trance state. Subjects in

these groups 'who could not obtain this crite ria were to have been

discontinued from the experiment and replaced with a similar subject.

Trance group subjects (age regression and deep hypnosis groups)

were hypnotized and trance deepened through the use of personalized

techniques. Subjects in the age regression group were age regressed

through a confusional technique that bu ilt upon truisms and focused

on the ablation of experiences that occurred after the target age of

fiv e . The age five was chosen because the norms for this age were

most discrepant with adult norms. (Exner, Weiner & Schuyler, 1976 &

Exner, 1978)

In view of the discussion concerning the training of simulators

(page 30), the other two control groups, the hypnotically susceptible

(pass three or more SHCS-Adult items) and minimally susceptible (pass

one or less at the SHCS-Adult items) groups were not given any prior

training before the simulation session. After in it ia l screening or

the in it ia l Rorschach at least two days passed before the

experimental session.

For the subjects in the four groups who took the waking

Rorschach after the age regression, experimental deep hypnosis or

simulation session Rorschach, two days passed before the last

Rorschach was administered. This made the time of testing consistent

with those subjects taking the waking Rorschach before the

experimental Rorschach.


All of the Rorschachs were administered by a second experimenter

blind to the experiment. During the session when the Rorschach was

administered while the subject was age regressed, in deep hypnosis,

or simulating instructions given differed in order to be consistent

with the respective condition. I t was explained to the second

experimenter that some subjects w ill be hypnotized, some w ill not.

The second experimenter was trained in the Exner (1974) method of

administering the Rorschach. Despite training, some deviations in

technique were noted, but because this examiner did a ll the testing,

any errors were randomly distributed.

For the age regression group, after hypnotic induction and age

regression had been established, attention was given to whom the

subject might indicate the experimenter to be, otherwise the

experimenter introduced himself as the subject's kindergarten

teacher, principal, or friendly adult. Suggestions were given that

the subject was in a room in his elementary school and fe lt quite at

ease with the person doing the testing, who then entered and

administered the Rorschach.

The deep hypnosis group was deeply hypnotized and told to remain

hypnotized while a test was administered to them and suggestions were

made as to current person, place and time. The examiner entered and

administered the Rorschach. The experimenter remained in the room

while the Rorschachs were given and brought the subjects out of

trance after testing.

The hypnotizable simulator and minimally susceptible control

groups received the following instructions in the simulation session:


39

You are not to go into trance. You are not to be hypnotized today. But I want you to~act and behave' like you would i f you were five years old. You w ill not be five years old. You w ill be the age you are now, but I want you to behave and think like a five - year-old would think and behave.

After experimentation was completed each subject was debriefed

(Appendix D) and the nature of the experiment explained to them.

Provisions were made for follow-up care in the unlikely event of any

distress attributed to hypnosis or the experimental procedure

(Appendix E).

Overall, the experimental design was similar to the separate

sample pretest posttest control group design as defined by Campbell

and Stanley (1966). In each group half the subjects received a

pretest, half a posttest, thus counterbalancing the design. A'flow

chart of the experimental design and procedure was presented in

Figure 1.

The design employed was expected to control many of the threats

to internal validity identified by Campbell and Stanley (1966). Such

threats to internal valid ity as history, testing, selection and

regression were regarded as controlled by this design. Other threats

such as maturation, instrumentation, mortality, and interactions were

also controlled but were not deemed as significant threats because of

the nature of the experiment.

Employing a second experimenter, blind to the experiment, to

administer the Rorschachs kept the experimenter out of the data


collection process and was a step toward meeting the recommendations

for researchers made by Barber (1976). The experimenter scored the

Rorschachs as did one other individual trained in the Exner

Comprehensive System (1974) and who was blind to the research. While

the second scorer was blind to the nature of the research, he was

erroneously given a set of protocols with handwritten notation that

indicated whether they were done in the pre/post or experimental

condition. However, he was unable to decipher a ll of the notations,

and stated that he was unaware of the nature of the experiment.

After the experimenter and second scorer had scored the

protocols independently, a percentage of agreement in scoring was

calculated. Discrepancies in scoring were then arbitrated in person

and by telephone until agreement was reached on a ll scores.


Volunteers Given Stanford Hypnotic C linical Scale - Adult ______________ (SHCS-Adult)_______________

Subjects that passthree of fiv e SHCS- adult items

Age Regression DeepGroup (A) HypnosisScore 4 or 5 Groupon SHCS-Adult (B)age regressionfrom

ISubjects passing one or no SHCS- adult items

HypnctizableSimulatorGroup(C)

MinimallySusceptibleGroup(D)

r

*1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 U2taking Nothing Waking Nothing Waking Nothing Waking Nothingstate state state stateRorschach Rorschach Rorschach Rorschac!

Ax & A2 & B2 c1& c2 D1 SD2

Practice Practice Nothing NothingAge Deep

Regression Hypnosisthree to five three to

sessions five sessionsi" 1 r ~ ~ 4 i i ♦Aj & A2 B1 & B2 ^1* ^2* ^1* & d2

Rorschach Rorschach Roschach given withgiven in age given in deep instructions to simulateregressed state hypnosis being age five

*1 A2 B1 b2 C1 C2 D1 D2

Nothing Waking Nothing Waking Nothing Waking Nothing Wakingstate state state stateRorschach Rorschach Rorschach Rorschach

. . . 1 j i 1 *Debriefing

Figure 1. Flowchart of Experimental Design and Procedure


Data Analysis

In having reviewed ways in which the data could have been

analyzed several issues emerged. F irst, in reviewing the Exner

(1978; Exner, Weiner & Schuyler, 1976) age norms i t became evident

that, even when comparing the adult norms with those for the

5-year-old, nearly a ll of the confidence intervals established by

going two standard deviations below the adult mean and two standard

deviations above the child mean overlapped. Thus, differences

between age regressed and adult waking state Rorschachs might be

minimal even i f the subjects were genuinely regressed. Compounding

this d iffic u lty was the likelihood of intrasubject factors. As

indicated by the p ilo t study (Appendix A) one subject was two

standard deviations above the adult norms for the number of waking

state responses, and also two standard deviations above the age 5

norms for the number of responses given while age regressed. This

finding could be regarded as consistent with the subjects

psychodynamics, but i t raised havoc in the data when added with the

scores obtained by other subjects to establish a group mean.

Because of the sample distributions between expected adult

Rorschach performance and the expected performance of children age

fiv e , parametric tests may not always establish valid differences

between the waking state and subjects who were regressed, in deep

hypnosis or simulating; and between age regressed, deeply hypnotized,

and simulating subjects. Nonparametric measures such as the sign

test could determine whether the findings show the data headed in


the expected directions or not. In the Pilot Study (Appendix A) the

jt-test revealed a few significant differences between waking and

regressed Rorschach performance, but the Sign Test showed the data

for the waking and age regressed states headed in the direction

predicted by the Exner (1978; Exner, Weiner & Schuyler, 1976) age

norms.

The data was evaluated for significant differences between the

waking state and age regression, deep hypnosis or simulation; and

between age regressed, deeply hypnotized and simulating subjects.

But because such an analysis may not have detected some valid

differences other tests were to be done in order to establish whether

the data was in the direction predicted by the Exner (1978; Exner,

Weiner & Schuyler, 1976) age norms.


CHAPTER I I I

RESULTS

A summary of each subject's score on the Stanford Hypnotic Clinical

Scale for Adults (SHCS-Adult) is presented. For purposes of comparison,

both the overall score for items passed and the specific score on the

age regression item are presented.

Group I , the Age Regression Experimental group, consists of six

subjects who obtained either four or five passes on the SHCS-Adult and

passed the age regression item (Appendix F). Two subjects dropped out

of the experiment because they found the age regression procedure

distressing, follow-up on those subjects suggests they experienced only

minimal distress that abated after dropping out of the exeriment

(Appendix G). The Deep Hypnosis Control Group and Group I I I , the

Hypnotizable Simulator Control Group, contain subjects passing from

three to five items on the SHCS-Adult. Their scores on the age

regression item range from two to four, with the six subjects obtaining

a four on this item having wavered between a three or a four and give

fewer subjective indications of having been age regressed. The subjects

in Group IV, Minimally Susceptible Simulators, a ll passed either one or

none of the SHCS-Adult items and none of them passed the age regression

i tern.

Table 1 gives a summary of the group totals and means for the four

groups on the SHCS-Adult and for the age regression item on that scale.

44


45Table 1

Group Totals and Means for the Four Groups on the SHCS-Adult and Age Regression Item

SHCS-Adult SHCS-Adult Age Regres- Age Regres-Total Mean sion Item sion Item

Total Mean

Group I Age Regression 28 4.67 27 4.50Group I I Deep Hypnosis 23 3.83 20 3.33Group I I I Hypnotizable 23 3.83 20 3.33

SimulatorsGroup IV Minimally 4 .67 15 2.50

Susceptible Simulators

Table 2 presents the results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance

to test for significant differences among the four groups.

Table 2

One-Way Analysis of Variance Testing Differences on the Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale-Adult Results for the Four Experimental Groups

Source DF Mean £Squares

Between Groups 3 18.73 44.60*Within Groups 20_ .42

23* £ < .0 1

A review of the One-Way Analysis of Variance presented in Table 2

finds the Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale-Adult (SHCS-Adult) results for

the four groups differing significantly (£ < .01). However, a posthoc

Tukey test revealed a critica l ratio of 1.03 at the .05 level of


significance, which means that while Group IV, the minimally susceptible

simulators, differed significantly from the other groups, the age

regression group, the deep hypnosis group, and the hypnotic simulator group

did not d iffe r significantly in SHCS-Adult scores on hypnotizability (Table

1).Table 3 presents the results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance which

tested the differences between mean scores on the age regression item.

Table 3

One-Way Analysis of Variance Testing Differences Between the Four Experimental Groups on the Age Regression Item of the Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale for Adults (SHCS-Adult)

DF MeanSquares

F

Between Groups 3 4.72 12.42*Within Groups 20 .38

23* £< .01

In reviewing the results of Table 3, i t is found that the groups do

vary significantly, (p < .0 1 ) , when comparing SHCS-Adult scores on the age

regression item. A posthoc Tukey test revealed a critical ratio of .95 at

the .05 level to establish differences between group means. With this

ra tio , a significant difference is found between Group I , the age

regression experimental and the minimally susceptible simulators, but not

between the deep hypnosis or hypnotizable simulators and the minimally

susceptible simulators (Table 1).

The percentage of agreement between the experimenter's and second


47scorers in it ia l independent scoring was calculated by the following

formula:

Number of scoring categories used by experimenter

Number of scoring + categories used by - Discrepancies

additional scorer= Percentage

AgreementNumber of scoring categories used by experimenter

Number of scoring + categories used by

additional scorer

The results of the calculations on percentage agreement between

experimenter and additional scorer are presented in Table 4.

Percentage Agreement on In it ia l Independent Scoring for Experimenter and Additional Scorer

Grand total percentage agreement for a ll tests = 86% (£=24 }Grand total percentage agreement for a ll waking state testing = 85% (n=24)Grand total percentage agreement for a ll waking state pretesting = 85%

(Of 12)Grand total percentage agreement for a ll waking state posttesting = 85%

(n=12)GraricT total percentage agreement for a ll experimental condition testing =

86% (£=24)Grand total percentage agreement for a ll experimental testing done with subjects who had preexperimental pretesting = 86% (£=12)Grand total percentage agreement for a ll experimental testing done with subjects who then had postexperimental testing = 86% (£=12)

Table 4

Group I

Waking State £ Experimental £

preposttotal

87%85%86%

336

84%88%

87%

336


Waking State £

Group I I

Experimental £

pre 83% 3 86% 3post 88% 3 81% 3total 83% 6 84% 6

Group I I I


pre 86% 3 90% 3post 86% 3 88% 3total 86% 6 89% 6

Group IV


pre 85% 3 84% 3post 80% 3 84% 3total M% ’S m nr

From Table 4 i t can be seen that the percent of agreement in scores

for the experimenter and additional scorer was 80 percent or above for a ll

groups and grand totals. The percentage of agreement for each subject and

each response is available in Appendix H.

Table 5 presents the waking state group means on the Rorschach

variables for a ll subjects (Pre and Post combined, n=6 per group). The

Sequence of Scores and Structural Summary for each subject appears in

Appendix I and the age norms for adults (Exner, 1978) as well as the age

norms for children (Note 1) appear in Appendix J for purposes of comparison.


49Table 5

Waking State Group Means for a ll Subjects

RorschachVariables

AgeRegression

DeepHypnosis

HypnotizableSimulators

MinimallySusceptibleSimulators

M SD M SD M SD M SD

RLocationFeatures

18.83 10.25 20.33 8.76 18.67 9.50 20.00 10.73

W 3.83 2.32 6.67 2.88 6.50 3.08 9.33 2.50D 11.17 6.40 11.67 9.77 10.33 6.15 8.83 6.27Dd 3.67 5.20 2.00 1.41 1.83 1.94 1.83 2.14S 2.33 3.93 2.83 3.55 .67 1.03 1.83 2.14Dw .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00DQ+ 2.17 2.23 2.67 1.97 4.00 2.28 4.83 5.35DQo 15.67 10.25 15.67 8.94 12.67 5.47 13.17 8.23DQ- .33 Determinants

.51 .50 .55 .50 .55 .17 .41

M 2.50 1.38 3.00 1.67 4.50 2.74 2.83 2.14FM 2.17 1.33 2.50 2.35 2.50 1.38 3.83 3.55m 1.00 .89 .33 .52 1.83 1.47 .83 1.33C+Cn .17 .17 .00 .00 .33 .82 .00 .00Sum C 1.17 1.17 1.00 1.10 2.33 1.97 2.50 1.87Sum C‘ .00 .00 .17 .41 .17 .41 .83 .98Sum Y .33 .52 1.50 2.35 .00 .00 1.17 1.94Sum V .33 .52 .50 .55 .33 .52 .17 .41Sum T Sum

.50 .84 .67 .82 .33 .82 .33 .52

Shading 1.17 1.29 2.83 3.87 .83 .82 2.00 2.77FD .17 .41 .33 .52 .00 .00 .33 .52F 10.50 6.63 12.17 7.31 8.33 5.40 8.83 5.46FQX+ .50 .84 .33 .52 .67 .52 .17 .41FQXo 15.50 8.46 15.00 6.45 13.83 6.82 16.17 9.45FQXw 2.00 1.79 3.67 3.27 3.67 3.14 3.50 2.17FQX- .50 .55 1.17 1.47 .50 .55 .33 .52No Form .17 .41 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00P 4.83 .75 4.33 2.25 5.17 1.72 5.50 2.66Zf 6.17 2.32 9.17 2.41 8.83 4.12 12.83 5.74Blends 1.00 .89 1.83 1.33 2.67 2.07 3.00 2.83(2) 7.17 4.54 5.83 3.19 7.67 2.88 5.67 4.41Pure H 2.33 .82 2.50 1.52 4.17 2.48 2.33 2.25Fd .17 .41 .17 .41 .00 .00 .00 .00


50

Rorschach Age Deep H yp n o tizab le M in im a llyV a r ia b le s Regression Hypnosis S im u la to rs S u s c e p tib le

S im u la to rs

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Ratios & Derivations Lambda 1.46 1.01 1.55 .82 1.28 1.60 1.09 1.13X+% .85 .05 .77 .10 .78 .11 .80 .16F+% .62 .33 .57 .28 .70 .13 .73 .18A% .53 .09 .74 .73 .49 .13 .52 .13Afr .61 .16 .47 .14 .51 .19 .44 .163r+(2)/R .41 .07 .40 .19 .73 .50 .50 .13H+Hd 3.50 2.74 4.83 1.72 5.50 2.88 2.67 2.81EA 3.33 1.89 3.75 2.16 6.33 4.00 4.42 7.17ep 4.33 1.97 5.67 1.02 5.17 3.31 7.17 6.11SpecialScoresFABCOM .17 .41 .00 .00 .17 .41 .33 .52INCOM .33 .52 .33 .52 .83 .75 .50 .84ALOG .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00CONTAM .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00CP .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00MOR .17 .41 .00 .00 .33 .82 .17 .41PER .00 .00 .17 .41 .17 .41 .17 .41PS V .00 .00 .17 .41 .17 .41 .17 .41DV .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00Total .67 .52 .67 .82 1.83 1.47 .83 1.17

Table 6 presents the experimental condition group means on the

Rorschach variables for a ll subjects (Pre and Post combined, n=6 per

group).


Tab le 6

Experimental Condition Group Means for a ll Subjects

RorschachVariables

AgeRegression

DeepHypnosis

HypnotizableSimulators

MinimallySusceptibleSimulators

M SD M SD M SD M SD

RLocati on Features

18.50 8.96 18.83 8.33 17.17 3.97 15.67 6.25

U 4.83 1.94 6.83 2.79 6.83 2.71 6.67 2.34D 10.33 6.83 9.50 5.09 9.50 4.28 7.33 4.32Dd 3.33 2.58 3.17 2.14 .83 .75 1.67 1.21S .83 .98 3.67 4.32 .33 .82 1.17 .75Dw .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00DQ+ 3.17 2.04 3.00 2.10 3.17 2.79 4.17 2.14DQo 13.50 .96 14.67 8.60 12.33 4.27 10.50 4.93DQ- .83 Determinants

.98 .67 1.21 .50 1.23 .33 .82

M 2.33 1.75 2.67 1.86 3.33 1.37 3.67 1.47FM 3.50 2.43 1.50 1.05 2.00 1.41 2.67 2.34m 1.00 .89 .17 .41 .50 .84 1.67 1.63C+Cn .17 .17 .17 .41 .50 .84 .17 .41Sum C 3.00 1.27 1.00 1.55 2.67 2.06 3.67 1.75Sum C' 1.00 1.55 .50 .55 1.17 .98 .67 .82Sum Y .17 .41 .67 .82 1.00 1.55 .50 .55Sum V .00 .00 .50 .84 .00 .00 .17 .41Sum T Sum

.67 1.21 .17 .41 .50 .55 .17 .41

Shading 1.83 2.65 1.83 2.00 2.67 3.61 1.50 1.73FD .50 1.23 .33 .52 .17 .41 .00 .00F 8.17 5.50 11.50 7.97 7.50 4.85 5.83 4.22FQX+ .17 .41 .33 .52 .50 .55 .83 1.60FQXo 13.50 10.46 13.83- 4.92 12.33 2.50 11.50 1.62FQXw 3.50 2.43 4.00 ' 3.90 3.50 2.81 3.00 2.10FQX- 1.33 1.21 .67 1.21 .50 1.23 .33 .82P 3.17 1.33 5.50 1.52 5.00 1.79 4.17 1.94Zf 7.17 3.71 10.00 3.74 9.33 2.73 9.33 4.63B1ends 1.83 1.33 .83 2.04 2.50 1.64 2.67 1.37(2) 8.83 5.49 4.83 2.71 6.67 3.27 5.33 2.42Pure H 1.83 1.17 2.50 1.87 2.50 1.38 2.00 1.27Fd .50 1.23 .17 .41 .83 .75 .00 .00


52Rorschach Age Deep H ypn o tizab le M in im a llyV a r ia b le s Regression Hypnosis S im ulators S u s c e p tib le

S im u la to rs

M SD M SD M SD M SD

No Form Ratios & Derivations

.00 .00 .00 .00 .33 .82 .00 .00

Lambda .77 .30 2.53 3.47 .89 .67 .61 .36X+% .68 .19 .77 .07 .77 .15 .80 .04F+% .60 .33 .73 .11 .80 .36 .74 .16A% .53 .12 .46 .06 .53 .04 .50 .12Afr .54 .17 .49 .10 .52 .23 .47 .103r+(2)/R .51 .24 .35 .20 .60 .27 .40 .12H+Hd 2.50 1.38 4.00 1.55 3.33 1.21 2.17 1.47EA 4.33 1.34 3.33 2.32 5.58 2.22 5.75 2.44epSpecialScores

6.33 3.88 3.50 1.87 5.17 1.94 5.83 2.86

FABCOM .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .33 .52INCOM .33 .52 .83 1.17 .50 .84 .33 .52ALOG .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .33 .52CONTAM .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00CP .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00MOR .83 .98 .00 .00 .00 .00 .50 .55PER 1.17 1.60 .17 .41 .67 1.03 .67 .82PSV .33 .82 .33 .52 .17 .41 .17 .41DV .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00Total 2.83 2.40 1.33 1.03 1.33 1.75 2.33 1.51

An Analysis of Variance based on change scores obtained by getting

the absolute difference between waking and experimental condition

Rorschach scores for each group was done. Comparisons were made for the

total groups (n=6, per group) and for those subjects who took a

preexperimental Rorschach (n=3, per group) and a postexperimental

Rorschach (n=3, per group). The results indicated seven significant

differences in 153 tests, an outcome that is not different from chance

alone. When posthoc tests were done on the seven significant

differences, one showed the Age Regression group to d iffe r significantly

from the others.


In Table 7 a comparison is made of selected Rorschach variables and

the mean of each group's correspondence to the children's age norms.

The variables were sleeted because they show the most pronounced

differences between the adult norms and the children's norms for age

five (Exner, 1978, Note 1). Cut-off scores were developed for Rorschach

variables D, S, m, FC and FD by scoring as childlike any score two

standard deviations below the adult age norm but within the confidence

interval based on the age five children's mean and standard deviation.

The cutoff scores for ALOG, INCOM, DV, PER, Fd and C+Cn used the same

procedure as above but setting the critica l point above the adult mean

because the la tte r scores are expected to be higher for children than

adults. For EA:ep and FC:CF+C the critica l direction was obtained by

scoring as childlike those ratios obtained by 90% or more of the age

five sample.

Table 7

Mean Group Correspondence to Children's Age Norms During Experimental Condition

RorschachVariables

CriticalPoint

AgeRegression

DeepHypnosis

HypnotizableSimulator

MinimallySusceptibleSimulator

M S M S M S M S

D 4.10 10.33 0 9.50 0 9.50 0 7.33 0S .91 .83 + 3.67 0 .33 + 1.17 0m .30 1.00 0 .17 + .50 0 1.67 0FC 1.16 2.17 0 .83 + 1.33 0 2.33 0FD .78 .00 + .33 + .17 + .00 +ALOG .20 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .33 +INCOM .32 .33 + .83 + .50 + .33 +


54Rorschach C r i t ic a l Age Deep H yp n o tizab le M in im a llyV a r ia b le s P o in t Regres- Hypnosis S im u la to r S u s c e p tib le

s ion S im u la to r

M S M S M S M S

DV .20 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0PER 1.37 1.17 0 .17 0 .67 0 .67 0Fd .90 .50 0 .17 0 .83 0 .00 0C+Cn .60 .17 0 .17 0 .50 0 .17 0A* .54 .53 0 .46 0 .53 0 .50 0EA 4.33 + 3.33 + 5.58 0 5.75 +ep EA<ep 6.33 3.50 5.17 5.83FC 2.17 0 .83 0 1.33 0 2.33 0CF+C FC<CF+C .83 .17 1.33 1.33

Total 4 4 3 4% Correspondence 29% 29% 21% • 29%Note S = Score

+ = corresponds to children's age norm0 = does not correspond to children's age norm

In reviewing Table 7 i t is noted that one group had 21%

correspondence to the children's age norms, while the other groups had

29%.


CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The f ir s t null hypotheses, that there w ill be no difference on

Rorschach scores between hypnotically age regressed subjects, minimally

susceptible simulators, hypnotizable simulators and deeply hypnotized

subjects could not be rejected. The results of the analysis of variance

based on change scores between waking and experimental conditions showed

seven significant differences in 153 analyses, with only one of the

seven differences showing the age regression group to d iffer

significantly from the other groups on posthoc testing. When the

Rorschach variables defined as most important (see page 32) are

considered, they do not show the age regression group to d iffe r

significantly from the other groups. The results were obtained when the

groups were separated for order of testing (pre or post, n=3 per group)

or when the data was pooled (n=6 per group).

The small sample size in each group (n=6) and pre or post subgroup

(n=3) provides a low level of statistical power for detecting any

significant differences that might exist. The results do not show

marked differences between the age regression and other groups as might

be expected i f age regression were a state that allows recovery of

childlike functioning, but the small sample size may not allow

statistical differences that might become evident with more subjects.

The second null hypothesis, that Rorschach scores for the

Experimental (Age Regression) group, w ill not show more correspondence

55


age norms than w ill the Rorschach scores for the control groups (Deep

Hypnosis, Hypnotizable Simulator and Minimally Susceptible Simulator,

could not be rejected. The results from comparing the total mean (n=6)

with critica l scores developed for Rorschach variables having age five

means that d iffe r from the adult mean by two standard deviations or are

found in at least 90% of the children's sample, did not show the

age regression group means to be more childlike than those for any other

group. None of the groups showed more than 4 out of 14 (29%) selected

Rorschach variables corresponding to the children's norms, with the age

regression group faring as well as any of the other groups, but not

exceeding them in correspondence to children's norms.

While small sample size could be a factor here, i t is less likely

because inferential statistics were not used and the question was

whether a group's mean score on selected Rorschachs variables

corresponded more with children's norms than did the scores of another

group. The results do not show sufficient differences between the age

regression group and the three control groups in correspondence to

children's age norms.

Based on the results, one might conclude that when six hypnotically

age regressed subjects are compared with six subjects each in deep

hypnosis, hypnotizable simulator and minimally susceptible groups, with

a criterion age of fiv e , i t is unlikely that significant differences

w ill be seen between the groups. Further, when Rorschach variables are

selected for their discrepancy between adult and age five norms, the age

regression group w ill not show a greater correspondence to the age norms

with only a few Rorschach variables for any of the groups showing a


57correspondence to children's age norms. This finding suggests a

possibility of a mixture of adult and childlike functioning for subjects

in their respective experimental conditions.

The present findings can be meaningfully compared with the Staples

and Wilensky (1968) study because the target age for regression was six

and because some sim ilarities exist in Rorschach scoring methods. In

the previous study one overall developmental score was obtained based on

location scores and determinants, that developmental level score was

actually a precursor to the Exner (1974) system. However, Exner

separates his scoring into developmental quality for location scores and

form level of determinants, yielding eight scores instead of the one

summary score used by Staples and Wilensky (1968). While an exact

comparison of the two studies is not possible, the outcome was similar

to that of the current study in the respect that a significant

difference was not found between their six age regressed subjects and

three simulating controls. However, the Staples and Wilensky (1968)

study also had a low level of statistical power for detecting

significant differences because of the small number of subjects.

The results of the other experimental hypnotic age regression,

using the Rorschach as the dependent variable, Solomon and Gordson

(1971) are d iff ic u lt to compare with the current study. In the (Solomon

& Goodson, 1971) study comparisons between age regressed and Rorschachs

previously produced by the subjects when they were the criterion age,

with the criterion age being in the teens. Nevertheless, with regard to

the hypotheses of the present study, the outcome of the Solomon and

Gordson (1971) study was similar in that the six experimental and seven


58

control subjects did not d iffe r significantly when the age regressed and

simulated conditions were compared.

The inclusion of a deep hypnosis group in the present study allows

for a further test of the finding by Hodge and Wagner (1969) where one

subject's Rorschach indicated more childlike functioning as trance was

deepened. While this doesn't rule out the subject having slipped into

an age regressed state, that likelihood could at best be conjecture at

this point. The current study found no significant difference between a

hypnotically age regressed group and a group of deeply hypnotized

subjects; but no significant differences were noted with groups of

hypnotizable or minimally susceptible simulators. Other studies

(Bergman, Graham and Leavitt, 1947; Kier, 1945; Moore and Gibson, 1950;

Norgab, in LeCron ed ., 1952) are more limited in comparability because

of the use of only one subject or not having a control group. Orne

(1951) used 10 subjects and compared waking state Rorschachs and other

tests with the same measures being used when the subject was age

regressed. Deep personality changes were reflected but mixed with adult

like functioning; because of the lack of a control group that study

would best be compared with the Pilot study (Appendix A).

When considering the results of the current study in relation to

the results of previous studies, sim ilarities are found in that when

less than ten subjects per experimental and control group are used, i t

is unlikely that significant differences on Rorschach scores w ill be

seen between groups of hypnotically age regressed, deeply hypnotized,

hypnotizable simulator, and minimally susceptible simulator subjects.


The results of this study could be taken as support for the

position that hypnosis is best described as role playing. However, the

data do not necessarily indicate that the experimental age regressed

subjects were not in a state of age regression, but that their

performance on the Rorschach during that time was not significantly

different from simulating and deeply hypnotized subjects. The lack of

significant differences could be because age regression, while genuine,

may be a mixture of adult and child behaviors, as suggested by Hilgard

(1968). I f that were the case then statistical differences might be

obscured by the combination of adult and child functioning as reflected

on the Rorschach. During the study one subject described herself as

feeling as i f she were going through a mirror or window to return to age

five when age regressing, and that some of her stayed on the other side

(her adult age) when she was age regressed. This subject's experience

seems to describe how one may feel when returning to a younger age, but

s t i l l retain an adult observing ego.

A point to consider in evaluating the outcome of this study is that

there appears to be no objective way to evaluate the depth of age

regression. For the purposes of this study, inclusion in the

experimental group was based on the subject's score on the Stanford

Hypnotic Clinical Scale-Adult (SHCS-Adult). Passing the age regression

item is based on the subject's report of having returned to an earlier

age. Of the subjects in the age regression group, three cut of six

(Appendix F) obtained a score of four on the age regression item, a

passing score, but one that only requires the subjects to feel in part as

though they were reliving an experience but s t i l l remember that they are


60

their present age. Thus, some of the subjects may have been only

partia lly or pseudoregressed.

One factor that is d iff ic u lt to account for in quantitative

research is the experiences of the subjects. One interesting comparison

is between the reports of a simulating subject and an age regressed

counterpart. The simulating subject, a pediatric nurse sensitive to

children, talked about experiencing a "rocketship" she saw during her

simulating session Rorschach as the Space Shuttle Columbia, an

experience discrepant with the functioning of a five year old. In

contrast, an age regressed subject reported seeing "African natives like

on George Pierrot" and that "My daddy watches that a ll the time." The

television program reported by the la tte r subject has not been aired

since the early 1960's , and thus, was consistent with being age

regressed. Thus, subtle contextural cues which are d iff ic u lt to

quantify, can be useful in assessing more authentic simulating or

genuine age regression.

Future experimenters would do well to include more subjects in each

experimental group in order to reach a level of statistical power that

would detect a significant difference i f one were to exist. Such a

design might well include two experimenters doing the hypnosis, with

each doing ah equal number of subjects in the experimental and each

control group. The experimenters doing the testing should be blind to

the research and test on equal number of subjects in each group.

Ideally, the testers should be experienced with the Rorschach as

administered in the Exner Comprehensive System (1974).


The age norms developed by Exner (1978, Note 1) have proven very

useful in providing established points to which data can be compared.

The norms provide some link to previous research (Staples and Wilensky,

1968 & Soloman and Goodson, 1971) and w ill most likely be updated and

extended in the future. While the norms often show overlapping

confidence intervals between children and adult means, this appears to

be an accurate population estimate and needs to be kept in mind by

future researchers.

In the final analysis there is meager experimental evidence for the

existence of hypnotic age regression. However, i t w ill continue to be

used by clinicians who find i t to be useful. Therefore, continued

investigation is indicated to provide a more complete understanding.


Reference Notes

1. Exner, J. E. print.

The Rorschach: a comprehensive system , vol. I I I .

2. Exner, J. E. Rorschach Workshops Alumni Newsletter, 1980.

3. Exner, J. E. Rorschach Workshops Alumni Newsletter, 1981.

4. Exner, J. E. Personal Communication, July 2, 1982.


REFERENCES

As A. The Recovery of Forgotten Language Through Hypnotic Age Regression: A case report. The American Journal, of Clinical Hypnosis. 1962,5 ,̂ 24-29.

Barber, T. X. Hypnotic Age Regression: A critica l review;Psychosomatic Medicine. 1962, 24, 286-299.

Barber, T. X. P itfa lls in human research: ten pivotal points. New York: Pergamon Press Inc. 1976.

Barber, T. X. & Glass, C. B. Significant Factors in Hypnotic Behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1962, 64, 222-228.

Beck, S. J ., Beck, A. G., Levitt, E. E ., & Molish, H. B. Rorschach's test vol I : basic processes (3rd, ed .). New York: Grune and Stratton, 1961.

Best, H. L ., & Micheals, R. M. Living out "Future" Experience under Hypnosis. Science. 1954, 120, 1077.

Bergman, M. S ., Graham, H., & Leavitt, H. C. Rorschach Exploration of Consecutive Chronological Age Regressions. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1947, 2, 20-29.

Campbell, D. T ., & Stanley,. J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Co., 1966.

Crasilneck, H. B ., & Micheal, C. M. Performance on the Bender under Hypnotic Age Regression. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1957, 54, 319-322.

Davis, L. W. & Husbund, R. W. Study of Hypnotic Susceptibility in Relation to Personality Traits. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1931, 26, 172-182.

Dolin, A. 0. An Attempt at a Physiological Analysis of the Elements of Individual Personality Experience. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Library Bulletin (Translation Series)* Report No. TG-236-T-159, 1960. Translation from Arkiv Biologicheskihh Nakk. 1934, 3£, 25-52.

Edmonston, W. E. An Experimental Investigation of Hypnotic Age Regression. The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis. 1961, J , 127-138.

Erickson , M.H. & Kubie, L. S. The Successful Treatment of a Case of Hysterical Depression by a Return Under Hypnosis to a Critical Phase of Childhood. Psychoanalytic Quarterly. 1941, JO, 582-609.


Erickson, M. H ., Rossi, E. L. & Rossi, S. I . Hypnotic realities: the induction of clin ical hypnosis and forms of indirect suggestion. New York: Irvington, 1976.

Erickson, M. H. & Rossi, E.L. Hypnotherapy: an exploratory casebook.New York: Irvington Publishers, 1979.

Erickson, M. H ., & Rossi, E. L. Experiencing hypnosis, therapeutic approaches to altered states. New York: Irvington Publishers,1981.

Exner, J. E. The Rorschach: a comprehensive system. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974.

Exner, J. E. The Rorschach: a comprehensive system, vol. I I : currentresearch and advanced interpretation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978.

Exner, J. E.; Weiner, I . B. & Schuyler, W. A Rorschach handbook for the comprehensive system. Bayview, New York: Rorschach Workshops, 1976.

Ford, G. F ., & Yeager, C. L. Changes in the Electroencephalogram in Subjects under Hypnosis. Disorders of the Nervous System. 1948, _9, 190-192.

Friedlander, J. W., & Sarbin, T. R. The Depth of Hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1938, 33, 453-475.

Fromm, E ., & Shor, R. E. (eds.). Hypnosis: research developments andperspectives. Chicago: A!dine Publishing Co., 1972.

Gakkenbush, U. W. The use of Hypnotic Inhibition to Study the Development of Human Personality. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Library Bulletin (Translation Series!! Report. TB 230T-153, 1960. Translation from Sovremennaia Psikhonevrologiia 1928, 7, 272-277.

Gakkenbush, 11. M., Polinkovskii, S. I . , & Fundiller, R. I . Experimental Study of Personality Development by Hypnotic Inhibition. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physic's Laboratory (Translation~Series). Report No. TG-230-T-152, 1960. Translation from Trudy Institu tia Psifchonevrologia Kiev. 1930, 2 , 236-272.

Gard, B. & Kurtz, R. M. Hypnotic Age Regression and CognitivePerceptual Tasks. The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1979, 21, 268-277.

Gazzaniga, M. S ., Steen, D., & Volpe, B. T. Functional neuroscience.New York: Harper & Row, 1979.


Gebhard, J. W. Hypnotic Age Regression: A Review. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1961, 139-168.

Gidro-Frank, L ., & Bowersbuch, M. K. A Study of the Plantar Response in Hypnotic Age Regression. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders,1948, 107, 443-458.

Haley, J. Advanced Techniques of Hypnosis and Therapy: Selected Papers of Milton Erickson, M.D. New York: Grune and Stratton, 196/.

Hilgard, E. R. The experience of hypnosis: a shorter version of hypnotic susceptibility. New York: Harcourt Brace Janovich, 1968.

Hilgard, E. R. & Bower, G. H. Theories of learning (third edition).New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.

Hodge, J . , & Wagner, E. The Effect of Trance Depth on Rorschach Responses.American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1969, 11, 234-238.

Holt, R. R. Manual for the scoring of primary process manifestations in Rorschach responses. New York: Research Center for MentalHealth, 1960.

Huse, B. Does the Hypnotic Trance Favor the Recall of Faint Memories? Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1930, 13̂ 519-529.

Keir, G. An Experiment-in Mental Testing During Hypnosis. Journal of Mental- Science., 1945, 9_1, 346-352*.

Kline, M. V. Hypnotic Age Regression and Intelligence. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 1950, 77̂ , 129-132.

Kline, M. V. Hypnotic Retrogression: A Neuropsychological Theory of Age Regression and Progression. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1953, 1_» 21-28.

Kline, M. V. & Haggerty, A. D. An Hypnotic Experimental Approach to the . Genesis of Occupational Interests and Choice I I I . Hypnotic Age Regression and the Thematic Apperception Test. A Clinical Case Study in Occupational Identification. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1953, 18-31.

Kline, M. V. & Guze, H. The Use of a Projective Drawing Technique in the Investigation of Hypnotic Age Regression and Progression.British Journal of Medical Hypnotism, 1951, 3̂ , 10-21.

Klopfer, B., Ainsworth, M.D., Klopfer, W. G. & Holt, R. R. Developments in the Rorschach technique, volume I: and theory, New York: Harcourt Brace & World, In c ., 1954.

Kupper, H .I. Psychic Concomitants in Wartime Injuries. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1945, 7, 15-21.


LeCron, L. M. The Loss During Hypnotic Age Regression of an Established Conditional Reflex. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1952, 26, 657-662.

Leeds, M. A Hypnotic Regression Series. Persona 1949, 1_,13-16.

Lindner, R. L. Rebel without a cause the story of a criminal psychopath, New York: Grune & Stratton, 1944.

McConkey, K. M. & Sheehan, P. W. Inconsistency in Hypnotic Age Regression and Cue Structure as Supplied by the Hypnotist.The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1§80, 28, 394-4081

McCranie, E. J. & Crasilneck, H. B. The Conditioned Reflex in Hypnotic Age Regression. Journal of Clinical & Experimenta l Psychopathology, 1955, 16, 120-123.

McCranie, E.J.; Crasilneck, H. B. & Tefer, H. R. The Electroencephalogram in Hypnotic Age Regression. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1955, 29,85-88.

McGraw, M. B. Development of the Plantar Response in Young Infants. American Journal Diseases of Children, 1941, 61,1215- 1221.

Mercer, M. & Gibson, R. W. Rorschach Content in Hypnosis:Chronological Age Level Regression. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1950, _6, 352-358.

M itchell, M. B. Retroactive Inhibition and Hypnosis. Journal of General Psychology, 1932, 7_, 343-359.

Morgan, A. H. & Hilgard, J.R. The Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale for Adults. The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1978, 1979, 21, 134-147.

Norgab, B A. Rorschach Psychodiagnosis in Hypnotic Regression.In L. M. LeCron (Ed.) Experimental Hypnosis, New York: McMillian,1952.

O'Connell, D.; Shor, R. & Orne, M. Hypnotic Age Regression: An Empirical and Methodological Analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 76, 1-32.

Orne, M. T. & O'Connel, D.N. Age Regression by Hypnosis:A Review of R e iff, R. and Scheerer, M. Memory and Age Regression. Contemporary Psychology, 1961, £ , 70-77.

Orne, M. T. The Mechanisms of Hypnotic Age Regression: An Experimental Study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951, 46,213-225.


Parrish, M.; Lundy, R. M. & Leibowitz, H. W. Effect of Hypnotic Age Regression on the Magnitude of the Ponzo and Poggendorff Illusions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 74, 693-698.

Penfield, W. Memory Mechanisms. Archives of Neurological Psychiatry 1952, 67, 178-198.

P h illips, L. & Smith, J.G. Rorschach interpretation: advancedtechnique, New York: Grune and Stratton, 1953.

Platonow, K. I . On the Objective Proof of the Experimental Personality Age Regression. Journal of General Psychology, 1933, 9, 190-209.

Raikov, V. L. Age Regression to Infancy by Adult Subjects in Deep Hypnosis. The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1980, 22,(3),156-162.

R eiff, R. & Scheer, M. Memory and Hypnotic Age Regression. New York: International University.Press, i960.

Reyher, J. & Shoemaker, D. A Comparison Between Hypnotically Induced Age Regression and Waking Stories to TAT Cards:A preliminary report. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1961, 25, 409-413.

Rosenthal, B. G. Hypnotic Recall of Material Learned Under Anxietyand Non-anxiety Producing Conditions. Journal of Personality, 1950, 19 221-228.

Sarbin, T. R. Rorschach Patterns Under Hypnosis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1939, 315-318.

Sarbin, T. R. Mental Changes in Experimental Regression. Journal of Personality, 1950, 3J, 221-228.

Schirado, W. C. The effects of standardized and personalized hypnotic induction techniques on depth of trance. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1979.

Schofield, L..& Reyher, J. thematic Productions Under Hypnotically Aroused Conflict in Age Regressed and Waking States Using the Real- Simulator Desiqn. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1974, 83 (2 ), 130-139.

Schwartz, B. E.; Bickford, R. G. & Rasmussen, W. G. Hypnotic Phenomena Including Hypnotically Activated Seizures Studied with the Electroencephalogram. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 1955, 122, 564-574. :

Sears, A. B. A comparison of Hypnotic and Waking Recall. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1954, 2, 296-304.


68Solomon, D. & Goodson, D. H ypnotic Age Regression E va luated A g a in s t a

C r it e r io n o f P r io r Perform ance. The In te rn a t io n a l Journal o f C l in ic a land E xperim enta l H ypnosis. 1 9 7 1 , 4 1 , 24 3 -2 5 9 .

Spanos, N. P.; Ferhana, A. & Hendrikus, S. J. Hypnotic Age Regression and Eidetic Imagery: A fa ilure to replicate.' Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1979, 88, 88-91.

Spiegel, H ., Shor, J . , & Fishman, S. An Hypnotic Ablation Technique for the Study of Personality Development. Psychosomatic Medicine,1945, 7, 273-278.

Stalnaker, J. M., & Riddle, E. E. The Effect of Hypnosis on Long Delayed Recall. Journal of General Psychology, 1932, £ , 429-440.

Staples, E. A ., & Wilensky, H. A Controlled Rorschach Investigation of Hypnotic Age Regression. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1968, 32, 246-252.

Taylor, A. The Differentiation Between Simulated and True Hypnotic Regression by Figure Drawings. Unpublished Masters Thesis, City College of New York, 1950.

True, R. M. Experimental Control in Hypnotic Age Regression States.Science, 1949, U 0 , 583-584.

True, R. M .S te p h e n s o n , C. W. Controlled Experiments Correlating Electroencephalogram, Pulse, and Plantar Reflexes with Hypnotic Age Regression and Induced Emotional States. Personality, 1951, 1_?252-263.

Walker, N. S ., Garrett, J. B ., & Wallace, B. Restoration of Eidetic Imagery via Hypnotic Age Regression: A preliminary report. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 85, 335-337.

Wallace, B. Restoration of Eidetic Imagery via Hypnotic AgeRegression: More evidence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978,87, 673-675.

Weitzenhoffer, A ., & Hilgard, E. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale Form C. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press,1962.

White, R. W., Fox, G. F ., & Harris, W. W. Hypnotic Hypermnesia for Recently Learned Material. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1940, 35, 88-103.

Wiseman, R. J ., & Reyher, J. Hypnotically Induced Dreams Using the Rorschach Inkblots as Stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 27̂ , 329-336.

Wolberg, L. P. Hypnoanalysis. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1964.


Yates, A. J. Simulation and Hypnotic Age Regression, International Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1960, 8_, 243-249.

Yates, A. J. Hypnotic Age Regression. Psychological Bulletin, 1961, 58, 429-440.

Young, P. C. An Experimental Study of Mental and Physical Functions in the Normal and Hypnotic States. American Journal of Psychology, 1926, 37, 345-356.

Young, P. C. The Veridicality of Hypnotically Induced Regression. Psychological B ulletin , 1937, 34, 784.

Young, P.C. Hypnotic Regression-Fact or A rtifac t. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1940, 35, 273-278.


70

APPENDIX A: PILOT STUDY

METHOD

Subjects were selected for the p ilo t study on the basis of

availab ility and willingness to participate when verbally requested to do

so. While the subjects a ll proved to be moderate to highly hypnotizable,

Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale-Adult (SHCS-Adult) scores of three or more

items passed, only one subject obtained a score as high as four on the age

regression item (one is no experience of regression, five is the experience

of returning to an earlier age and reliving that age). One of the four

subjects was not given the SHCS-Adult but was able to produce rigid arm

catalepsy during the in it ia l hypnotic session, suggesting at least moderate

hypnotizability. The subjects were a ll female ranging in age from 17 to

41.

A counterbalanced design was produced by having two subjects take the

Rorschach in the waking state f i r s t and then later after three to five

hypnotic and age regression training sessions in the age regressed state.

For the other two subjects three to five hypnotic and age regression

training sessions were provided after the in it ia l assessment, with the

Rorschach given in the age regressed state in the last hypnotic session,

the waking state Rorschach was then administered two days after the age

regression Rorschach. For both groups amnesia was induced during hypnosis

after the f ir s t Rorschach was administered whether i t was administered in

the waking or age regressed stated. The four subjects were able to open

their eyes and remain age regressed. During age regression i t was


suggested that the subjects would return to their kindergarten room and

feel at ease with the man who would have them do some things. Figure 2

summarizes the experimental design and procedure.


Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4Hypnotized SHCC-Adult SHCA-Adult SHCS-Adultarm cata age regres-' age regres age regressionlepsy sion items sion item item score:induced score: four score: three three maybe

maybe four four

. ■Waking Wakingstate stateRorschach Rorschach

■Three age Three age Four age Three ageregression regression regression regressiontraining training training trainingsessions sessions sessions sessions

amnesia for amnesia forwaking state waking stateRorschach Rorschach .induced induced

Age regres Age regres Age regres Age regressionsion Ror sion sion Ror Rorschachschach amnesia Rorschach schach amnesiafor testing for testinginduced induced

Waking Debriefing Waking Debriefingstate stateRorschach and Rorschach anddebriefing debriefing

Figure 2. Pilot Study Experimental Design and Procedure


73RESULTS

Table A shows the Rorschach results for the.p ilo t study subjects. The

Rorschachs were scored according to the Exner Comprehensive System (1974).

Table A

Rorschach Results for Pilot Study Subjects

SHCS-Adult Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4Age Regression Score

Not Given 4 3-4 3-4

RorschachCategory______ Waking Hy* Making Hy* Waking Hy* Making Hy*

R 28 30 22 13 35 27 42 29Location

W 15 10 5 4 7 5 6 4D 12 19 17 9 27 22 36 24Dd 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1S 3 4 1 1 5 6 4 3DW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DeterminantsM 1 0 3 2 7 4 9 4FM 1 2 1 0 5 1 3 5m 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 1FC 1 3 0 0 4 3 1 1CF 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0

C+Cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Wt. sum C .5 1.5 0 1 4 1.5 .5 .5Sum C‘ 1 3 0 0 2 2 1 1Sum T 3 2 0 1 9 0 2 1Sum Y 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 1Sum V 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 1Sum a ll shading 6 6 2 2 12 2 5 4

FD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Fr + rF 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

(2) 2 5 7 3 14 7 13 7F 19 19 11 9 15 17 17 13

Ratios & Deviations

P 4 6 4 2 3 3 7 4Lambda 2.1 1.7 1.2 2.3 .68 .63 .68 .68

X+% 75% 75% 95% 92% 75% 82% 90% 77%F+% 72% 70% 90% 82% 68% 85% 88% 76%A% 71% 73% 45% 23% 26% 33% 40% 68%


74RorschachCategory Waking Hy* Waking Hy* Waking Hy* Waking Hy*Afr .47 .43 .29 .63 .40 .50 .50 .383r + (2)/R .28 .16 .32 .23 .40 ' .26 .40 .24

H + Hd 3 6 9 6 15 12 10 10I f 14 10 6 3 17 12 18 5

Blends 2 0 1 0 2 2 2 2EArep 1.5/8 1.5/11 3/4 3/1 10.5/9 5.5/3 11/9 4.5/10M:sum C Special Scores

1: .5 0:1.5 3:0 2:1 7:4 4:: 1.5 9:.5 4:.5

DV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0AL0G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0INC0M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0FABC0M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sum Special Scores

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PSV

*Hy=Hypnoti

2 4

c Age Regression

0 0 2 2 0 1

In reviewing Table A differences seem evident on a subject by subject

basis. To better explore the differences between the waking and age

regressed states the total group means were calculated and these are

presented in Table B.

Table B

Rorschach Means for Age Regressed and Waking States

RorschachCategory Waking State Means Age Regressed Means

R 31.75 24.75Location

W 8.25 5.75D 23.0 18.50Dd .50 .50S 3.25 3.50DW 0 0

DeterminantsM 5.0 2.50FM 2.50 2.0m 1.50 .25

FM+m 4.00 2.25FC 1.50 1.75


75

RorschachCategory Waking State Means Age Regressed Means

CF CF+C+CnWeighted sum C Sum C'Sum T Sum YSum a ll shading FDFr + rF

(2 )F

Ratios & Deviations

PLambda

X=%F+%A%Afr

3r+(2)/R H + Hd

ZfBlends EA >ep*Special Scores

DV ALOG FABCOM CONTAM Sum Special Scores

PSV

.25 .25

1.25 1.003.501.50

01.009.00

15.50

4.501.16

.84

.80

.46

.42

.359.25

13.751.7550%

0.25.250

.501.00

.50

.50 1.121.50 1.00

.253.50

0 0

5.50 14.50

3.751.32

.82

.78

.49

.49

.228.507.50

.50 50%

0000

0.75

♦Percent EA>ep

Table B revealed some apparent differences between the waking state

Rorschachs for the four subjects and the age regressed Rorschachs. Table C

presents the results of t -tests done to compare the means on waking state

versus age regressed Rorschachs.


76T ab le C

Correlated Sample Rorschach Scores

t-tests Comparing Waking State and Age Regression

Rorschach RorschachCategory t (df=3) Category t (df=3)

R 2.20 Ratios &U 1.44 DeviationsD .31 P .68Dd 1.78 Lambda .97S -.89 X+% .54DW 0 F+% .07

Determinants A% .36M 3.57 Afr .69FM .38 3r + (2}/R 1.41m 2.23 H + Hd .52FM+m 1.71 Zf 7.97***FC .10 Blends 2.60*CF .40 Special

Weighted Sum C .30 ScoresSum C' .40 DV -

Sum T 1.15 ALOG -

Sum Y 5.00** INC0M 1.04Sum V 8.00*** FABC0M 1.04Fr + rF 1.75 Sum Special 1.21

FD - Scores(2) 1.57 PS V 1.56

Two tailed t-tes tP <.10*P < .05**£ < .0 1 ***

The results of the jt-tests presented in Table C revealed four

comparisons that were at or less than the .05 probability level, and one

comparison that reached the .10 or trend level of significance. These

results do not support an overall hypotheses of a significant difference

between Rorschachs performed in the waking state versus the age regressed

state using a sample of four subjects three of whom obtained SHCS-Adult


77scores of three or more items past and scores of three or four on the age

regression items.

A Sign Test was applied to the data presented in Table B, a plus was

assigned i f the direction of the group means were in accord with the age

norms presented by Exner (Exner, 1978; Exner, Weiner & Schuyler, 1976) and

a minus i f i t were not. Thus, fo r example, i f the mean number of M

responses in the adult waking state was larger than the age regressed mean

a plus was assigned because the results were in the direction predicted by

the age norms. In the Sign Test only those categories where the age norms

did not allow a direct comparison were excluded (FM, m, C + Cn/C + CF + Cn,

and Sum C). The scoring categories and the sign according to the age norms

as well as results of the Sign Test are presented in Table D.

Table D

Waking State and Age Regression Sign Correspondence to Exner Age Norms and Sign Test

Category Sign Category Sign Category SignR + Sum T + Afr +W - Sum Y + 3r + (2)/R -

D + Sum a ll H + Hd +Dd 0 Shading + ZF -

S + FD 0 Blends +DW 0 Fr + r f + EA ep 0M + (2) + DV 0

FM + m + F + ALOG -

FC - P + FABCOM -

CF + Lambda + PS V +Weighted X+% + Sum SpecSum C + F+% + ia l Scores -

Sum C - A% +


7.8

+ = waking state and age regressed group means in the expected direction of Exner Age Norms, - = not in expected direction 0 = no difference between waking and age regressed means

Sign Test £ < .01

Table D shows that the results of the Sign Test favor a rejection to

the null hypotheses that the subjects did not show a correspondence to

their respective Exner (Exner, 1978; Exner, Weiner & Schuyler, 1976) age

norms depending upon whether they were in the age regressed or waking

state. Thus, the subjects showed Rorschach scores in the direction of the

Exner (Exner, 1978; Exner, Weiner & Schuyler, 1976) age norms; in the

waking state the scores were in the direction of the adult norms, during

age regression to age 5 they were in the direction of the age 5 norms.

DISCUSSION

The lack of s tatis tica l significance between the waking and age

regressed Rorschachs for the p ilo t study subjects is mitigated by several

factors. F irs t, the sample size was small, and considerable variation was

evident between the subjects which masked actual differences when making

group comparisons. One subject showed an increase in A% of 28% during age

regression versus the waking state, lower and even opposite directions in

A% for the other subjects hid this difference. Closely related to the

individual differences were the psychodynamics related to Rorschach

performance. Subject two was in outpatient psychotherapy at the time of

testing and recalled age five as a time of relatively less conflict. The

above factors could account for her higher adult versus age regressed A%,

i t would account for EA being lower than ep in the waking state.


Subject one was also somewhat idiosyncratic in that her age regressed

Rorschach results were quite discrepant from the age norms (two standard

deviations above the age five norm in total number of responses (R) as an

example). When interviewed la ter she explained that in many ways she was a

precocious five-year-old, pushed and encouraged to perform. Thus, the word

dissect used in her age five Rorschach responses was not discrepant with

her functioning at age five because at that time she had a dissection k it.

At age 17 when she participated in the experiment she was more rebellious

despite being a college engineering student.

Another factor to be considered was the nature of the age norms

established by Exner (1978; Exner, Weiner & Schuyler, 1976). In a ll of the

scoring categories using the adult mean and standard deviation and

establishing a confidence interval two standard deviations below the mean

is well within the confidence interval set up by using the age five

standard deviation and going two standard deviations above the age five

mean, even though these are the most discrepant from the adult norms.

Thus, a s ta tis tica lly significant difference may be d iffic u lt to find

between the Rorschachs of age regressed subjects and those of the same

subjects in the waking state. This is particularly true for such

categories as X+% where the adult mean differs by only 2 percentage points

from the age five mean. Thus, the significant differences revealed by the

sign test demonstrated how the waking state and age regressed group means

for each Rorschach scoring category were significantly (at the .01 level)

in the directions expected given the Exner (1978; Exner, Weiner & Schuyler,

1976) age norms. This result was obtained despite relatively few

significant differences between the waking state and age regressed group


80

means for each Rorschach scoring category and underlines the point that

because of the nature of the age norms, significant differences between

waking state and age regressed group means may not be found. The results

of the sign test also suggested that differences between age regressed

subjects and simulators may be more in the manner of direction, and perhaps

not revealed by testing for significance between group means.

Another d ifficu lty with the p ilo t study was that the subjects did not

fu lly meet the crite ria of excellent age regression subjects as measured by

the SHCS-Adult. Only one subject obtained a score of four on in it ia l

screening, with two other subjects saying "three maybe four" when asked

about their experience during the age regression item. During the training

sessions a ll of the subjects reported an increased capacity to experience

themselves as age five . Subject one showed clear cut mannerisms of a child

during testing and, in fact, balked during the testing and had to be

encouraged to continue. Another subject performed well while taking the

Rorschach as a five-year-old until the experimenter's co llie pushed open

the door and entered the room. Had the experimenter been more a le rt, he

could have said something like "how did that dog get in the school?"

In addition to the Rorschach, a ll of the subjects were asked to "put

your name here" on a piece of paper, in both the hypnotically regressed and

waking states. All of the subjects printed their names in the age

regressed state. One subject's printing (subject 1) was like a scrawl,

suggestive of age regressed functioning and a ll of the subjects used the

correct last name for when they were age five . The adult waking state

names were written in three of the cases, printed in one. Subject number

four who printed her name in both age regressed and waking states, printed


her name across an entire sheet of paper in the age regressed state, but

kept within the lines in the waking state. The handwriting samples were

suggestive of genuine age regression (Hilgard, 1968).

The p ilo t study suggested several factors to be considered in a fu ll

scale study. F irs t, a larger sample size would be useful.

Counterbalancing the usefulness of a larger sample size is the time and

expense involved when adding additional subjects. Individual as well as

group variations must be considered when evaluating the effects of age

regression. Testing for statis tica l significance can be supplemented by

comparing groups and individuals with the age norms. For instance, an

individual or group that performs more than two standard deviations below

the adult age norms in the age regressed state but scores well within the

adult norm confidence intervals during the waking Rorschach is showing a

difference, thus a sign test may be used. These differences could become

more evident when comparing minimally susceptible hypnotic simulators and

hypnotically age regressable subjects.

Lastly, the p ilo t study indicated that subjects should not come from a

clinical population as the clinical population age norms are less

discrepant from the age five age norms than are normal adult age norms.

When evaluating the results, some attention has to be paid to individual

psychodynamics that might account for variations from either adult or age

five age norms.


82

APPENDIX B

HANDOUT EXPLANATION TO POTENTIAL VOLUNTEERS DESCRIBING INVOLVEMENT IN RESEARCH

CONCERNING HYPNOSIS

I am looking for volunteers to participate in research concerning hypnosis and related experiences. Each volunteer has to be at least 18 years old.

The research w ill be carried out by a doctoral student trained and experienced in the use of hypnosis. You w ill not be asked to do anything that w ill make you look s illy or prove embarrassing. There w ill be no effort to probe into personal affairs or to provide treatment. The experiment w ill be conducted solely for serious scientific purposes.

There are no expected risks due to participation in the research. Furthermore, the experimenter w ill be available to answer any questions you may have following participation. Only a limited number of volunteers w ill be included in the research. I f you have any questions and/or would like to schedule an appointment, call or contact:

Name:__________________________

Phone:_________________________

Address: ._______

(Adapted from Schirado, 1979)


83

APPENDIX C

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Purpose of the research: The purpose of this research is to studyindividual- reactions and experiences during various hypnotic and other related experiences.

Procedures: After an in it ia l screening, volunteers w ill be assigned tovarious experimental procedures.

While certain data w ill be collected, no effort w ill be made to probe into personal a ffa irs . The data w ill be held in s tric t confidence. I t is further considered most rare that subjects have unwanted side effects or concerns after having been hypnotized once or many times. The experimenter w ill remain available to answer any questions you may have following participation in the experiment.

Confidentiality: The data collected in this experiment w ill be held inconfidence. The published dissertation w ill not contain any subject names, only age and sex may be included with the data.

Participation: Participation in the research is voluntary. The volunteermay, at any time cease participation and have a ll data from their participation destroyed. Participation in the experiment w ill not in any way affect your employment or student status.

I have had an opportunity to review and ask questions regarding the above statements and I wish to participate voluntarily in the research as described.

Si gned:_______________________________

Witness:______________________________

Sex:____________ Age___________________

Date:_________________________________



84APPENDIX D

DEBRIEFING

To be presented to the volunteer verbatim:

"Now that you have concluded the experiment, te ll me i f you haveany questions or concerns regarding your experiences." (Wait forresponse.) "I can't te ll you about the exact nature of the experiment until i t is completed, but I ' l l be glad to meet with you in (specify time when subjects w ill a ll have completed the experimental process) to discuss the experiment, just give me a call at that time." " Although i t is veryrare for people to experience unwanted side effects after hypnosis, you maycontact me by calling (subject handed debriefing handout).



85

APPENDIX E

DEBRIEFING HANDOUT

Thank you for your help and participation in this research. I f questions or concerns arise after you leave today, feel free to contact me. I can be reached at:

(Name)________________________

(Phone)_______________________

(Address)_____________________



APPENDIX F

INDIVIDUAL SUBJECT SCORES ON THE STANFORD. HYPNOTIC CLINICAL SCALE FOR' ' ADULTS (SHCS-ADULT) '

Group I Age Regression

SHCS-Adult Score onSubject Items Passed Age Regression Item

1 4 52 4 53 5 44 5 45 5 46 5 5

Group I I Deep HypnosisSHCS-Adult Score on

Subject Items Passed Age Regression Item

7 3 48 4 29 3 4

10 5 411 3 212 5 4

Group I I I Hypnotizable SimulatorsSHCS-Adult Score on

Subject Items Passed Age Regression Item

13 4 314 4 415 4 316 3 317 4 318 4 4

Minimally Susceptible Simulators Group IV

SHCS-Adult Score onSubject Items Passed Age Regression Item

19 0 320 1 321 0 222 1 223 1 324 1 2


87APPENDIX G

A NOTE ON SOME SUBJECTS WHO EXPERIENCED SOME DISTRESS

IN RELATION TO THE EXPERIMENT

The following descriptions are of two subjects who noted some negative

experiences that caused them to discontinue involvement in the experiment.

Also described is one subject who noted an exacerbation of some previous

symptoms that were correlated with the conclusion of the experiment. The

f ir s t two subjects • report no psychological distress related to the

experiment and the last reports a considerable re lie f from emergent

symptoms.

SUBJECT A

Subject A was in the age regression experimental group. The subject

reported that during age regression they were beginning to recall more

vividly earlier troublesome issues with their parents. The subject also

reported that while these issues are always active, particularly in the

relationship with their parents, age regression simply made them more aware

of them. The subject decided to discontinue involvement in the experiment.

Follow-up was easy as the experimenter has frequent contact with the

individual. Observations have indicated no problem or symptoms. When the

subject was asked directly about how they were doing seven weeks a fter they

had discontinued involvement with the experiment, no psychological distress

due to the experiment was reported.


While the experimenter had focused on the subject returning to a happy

day in childhood, he might have done better to suggest more directly that

the subject not recall troublesome experiences. Once negative memories

were reported, he might also have been well to help the subject rerepress

such material with the additional instructions given that they could easily

recall such information i f they ever decided to enter psychotherapy to work

out issues with their parents. There were no clinical indications that

this person wanted psychotherapy at this time, i f such indications arise in

the future, a referral w ill be made.

SUBJECT B

Subject B was also in the age regression experimental group. When

f ir s t age regressed to fiv e , the subject reported feeling i l l , but was able

to complete the session. Later, in the waking state, this volunteer

reported that when they were five years of age, they were almost

continually i l l , and in fact missed prolonged periods of school. The

experience of returning to age five had thus proven unpleasant and this

subject decided to discontinue involvement in the experiment.

Despite the unpleasantness of the age regression experience for this

volunteer,'no i l l effects werfe reported to continue after they were out of

trance. A phone call seven weeks later found the subject reporting no

aftereffects or psychological distress due to participation in the

experiment.


SUBJECT C

89

Subject C was in the deep hypnosis group and had a history of

nocturnal teeth grinding or bruxism that had not been detected prior to

in itia tion of involvement in the experiment. Otherwise, there was no

reason to question this volunteer's acceptability for involvement in the

experiment.

During the last session, the subject reported a tightness of the jaw

and a suggestion was given that i t might loosen. In the next week

following the experiment, the subject reported an extremely painful jaw.

At that time, the history of bruxism was uncovered. In addition, on at

least one previous occasion prior to involvement in the volunteer had

suffered in a similar fashion with an abscessed tooth. Neither the subject

nor the experimenter could directly tie the pain to involvement in the

experiment, and indeed there were some tension producing problems currently

in the subject's l i f e .

Nevertheless, some hypoanthesthesia and brief treatment were offered

to the subject. She also consulted her dentist who ruled out an abscessed

tooth and suggested the pain was related to bruxism. The subject was given

a prescription for Valium and a pain re lie f drug by the dentist and fitted

for a night-time biting plate.

The volunteer continued to meet with the experimenter and has found

re lie f through hypnosis. While some symptoms persist, the volunteer

reports considerable improvement. The dentist has requested a l is t of

other hypnotic practioners whom he could refer other bruxism patients to


90

and a physician who had knowledge of the situation requested that the

experimenter teach him how to do hypnosis.

In this situation, there appears to be only a correlation between the

exacerbation of previous symptoms with experimentation. The experimenter

fe lt the best course was to provide as much assistance as possible.

Later, the previously ruled out abscessed tooth was found by the

dentist to be the cause of the patient's pain and appropriate treatment was

in itia ted .


APPENDIX H

PERCENTAGE AGREEMENT ON INITIAL INDEPENDENT SCORING FOR EXPERIMENTER AND ADDITIONAL SCORER FOR EACH RESPONSE

GROUP I

Subject 1

Pretest Experimental

I . 1 . 90% I . 1 . 92%I I . 2. 100% I I . 2. 82%

3. 93% 3. 80%I I I . 4. 83% I I I . 4. 75%

5. 100% IV. - 100%IV. 6. 83% V. 5. 83%

7. 92% VI. - 100%V. 8. 87% V II. 6 94%

9. 85% V II I . 7 83%VI. 100% IX. - 100%

V II. 10. 79% X. 8 82%V II I . 11. 93% 9. 86%

12. 79% 10. 82%IX. 13. 76%X. 14. 100% Overall Agreement:

15. 55%

Overall Agreement: 86%


S u b jec t 2

P re te s t .

I . 1 . 93%I I . 2. 87%

3. 90%I I I . 4. 83%IV. - 00%V. 5. 83%

VI. - 100%V II. 6. 78%

V II I . 7. 83%8. 100%

IX. 9. 73%X. 10. 100%


Experim ental

I . 1. 100%I I . 2. 80%

3. 83%4. 100%5. 91%

I I I . 6. 80%7. 71%8. 75%9. 73%

IV. 10. 92%V. 11. 92%

VI. 12. 83%V II. 13. 85%

14. 100%V II I . 15. 72%

16. 80%17. 100%

IX. 18. 67%19. 70%20. 83%

X. 21. 80%22. 92%23. 91%24. 92%25. 100%



S u b je c t 3

P re te s t •

I . 1. 100%2. 100%

I I . 3. 87%4. 89%

I I I . 5. 82%IV. 6. 84%V. 7. 93%

VI. 8. 90%9. 91%

V II. 10. 74%V II I . 11. 79%

12. 77%13. 75%14. 90%

IX. 15. 85%X. 16. 80%

17. 80%18. 82%19. 100%


Experim ental

I . 1. 71%2. 92%

I I . 3. 73%I I I . 4. 69%IV. 5. 88%V. 6. 77%

VI. 7. 73%V II. 8. 86%

V III. 100%IX. 9. 88%X. 10. 90%

11. 83%



S u b jec t 4

Posttest

I . 1. 75%2. 67%

I I . 3. 88%I I I . 4. 100%IV. 5. 100%V. 6. 93%

VI. 7. 80%8. 100%

V II. 9. 86%10. 90%

V III . 11. 76%12. 100%

IX. - 100%X. 13. 79%

14. 100%15. 91%16. 82%


Experim ental

I . 1. 93%2. 94%3. 100%4. 100%

I I . 5. 100%6. 94%

I I I . 7. 100%8. 100%

-9. 83%VI. 10. 0%

11. 93%V. 12. 95%

VI. 13. 100%V II. 14. 100%

V II I . 15. 100%IX. 16. 73%X. 17. 73%

18. 100%19. 100%20. 85%21. 94%



S u b je c t 5

P o s tte s t

I . 1. 100%2. 100%

I I . 3. 88%4. 79%5. 100%6. 71%

I I I . 7. 83%8. 73%9. 58%

10. 75%IV. 11. 71%

12. 83%13. 0%14. 82%

V. 15. 100%16. 93%17. 93%18. 80%19. 83%

VI. 20. 100%21. 70%22. 80%23. 80%24. 77%

V II. 25. 94%26. 83%

I I I . 27. 100%28. 67%29. 85%30. 80%31. 80%

IX. 32. 71%33. 92%34. 82%35. 90%36. 80%

X. 37. 80%38. 91%39. 86%40. 92%41. 92%


Experim ental

I . 1. 100%2. 100%

I I . 3. 94%4. 100%5. 0%6. 61%

I I I . 7. 75%8. 100%9. 0%

IV. 10. 69%11. 92%

V. 12. 94%13. 75%

VI. 14. 92%15. 100%16. 100%17. 100%

V II. 18.19. 100%20. 58%21. 100%

1111. 22. 100%23. 82%24. 0%25. 100%

IX. 26. 100%27. 92%28. 92%29. 91%

X. 30. 87%31. 100%32. 100%33. 80%34. 64%



S u b jec t 6

P o s tte s t

I . 1. 100%2. 100%

I I . 3. 100%4. 92%

I I I . 5. 88%IV. 6. 83%V. 7. 86%

VI. 8. 80%V II. 9. 83%

V II I . 10. 94%IX. 11. 88%X. 12. 60%


E x p e rim en ta l.

I . 1. 93%I I . 2. 83%

3. 94%I I I . 4. 95%IV. 5. 73%

6. 92%V. 7. 100%

VI. 8. 100%V II. 9. 89%

10. 91%V III . 11. 92%

IX. 12. 82%X. 13. 71%

Overall Agreement%: 87%


GROUP I I

Subject 7

Pretest

I . 1. 82%2. 75%

I I . 3. 81%I I I . 4. 83%

IV. 5. 90%6. 00%

V. 7. 87%VI. 8. 100%

V II. 9. 100%V II I . 10. 79%

IX. 11. 81%X. 12. 100%

13. 88%14. 91%


Experim ental

I . 1. 92%I I . 2. 89%

I I I . 3. 89%IV. 4. 67%V. 5. 100%

VI. 6. 75%V II. 7. 75%

V II I . 8. 70%IX. 9. 75%X. 10. 69%

11. 82%



S u b je c t 8

P re te s t Experim ental

I . 1. 86%2. 100%

I I . 3. 75%I I I . 4. 85%

5. 00%IV. 6. 83%

7. 100%V. 8. 100%

VI. 9. 100%V II. 10. 81%

V II I . 11. 81%IX. 12. 74%X. 13. 73%

14. 67%


I . 1. 75%2. 86%

I I . 3. 75%I I I . 4. 95%

5. 100%IV. 6. 92%V. 7. 88%

VI. 8. 77%V II. 9. 80%

V III . 10. 96%11. 73%

IX. 12. 77%X. 13. 77%

14. 85%



S u b jec t 9

Posttest

I . 1. 93%2. 100%3. 75%

I I . 4. 88%5. 100%6. 83%7. 78%

I I I . 8. 94%9. 83%

10. 100%IV. 11. 92%

12. 73%13. 82%

V. 14. 100%VI. 15. 100%

V II. 16. 94%17. 100%18. 92%19. 00%

V II I . 20. 71%21. 80%22. 100%

IX. 23. 100%24. 90%25. 83%26. 85%

X. 27. 100%28. 100%29. 100%30. 75%


Experimental

I . 1. 75%2. 75%3. 86%4. 60%

I I . 5. 81%6. 100%7. 67%8. 00%

I I I . 9. 88%10. 62%

IV. 11. 67%12. 62%13. 00%

V. 14. 93%15. 100%16. 50%

VI. 17. 91%18. 86%

V II. 19. 89%20. 69%21. 91%22. 28%

V II I . 23. 73%24. 100%25. 91%26. 100%

IX. 27. 100%28. 90%29. 67%30. 75%31. 75%32. 00%33. 92%



S u b jec t 10

P re te s t Experim ental

I . 1. 82% I. 1. 94%2. 86% 2. 94%3. 83% 3. 94%

I I . 4. 95% I I . 4. 100%5. 100% I I I . 5. 100%6. 50% 6. 90%

I I I . 7. 90% 7. 83%8. 81% IV. 8. 92%

IV. 9. 100% 9. 92%10. 93% V. 10. 100%

V. 11. 100% 11. 100%12. 00% VI. 12. 93%

VI. 13. 92% V II. 13. 78%V II. 14. 83% 14. 92%

V II I . 15. 100% V II I . 15. 93%'IX. 100% 16. 75%X. 16. 85% 17. 100%

17. 100% IX. 18. 93%19. 86%

Overall Agreement: 85% X. 20. 88%21. 78%22. 83%



S u b je c t 11

Posttest

I . 1. 100%2. 90%3. 90%

I I . 4. 86%I I I . 5. 80%

IV. 6. 71%V. 7. 100%

VI. 8. 75%9. 100%

V II. 10. 64%V II I . 11. 84%

IX. 12. 73%13. 80%

X. 14. 100%15. 77%

Overal1 Agreement: 84%

Experim ental •

I . 1. 100%2. 100%3. 90%

I I . 4. 100%I I I . 5. 79%IV. 6. 79%V. 7. 100%

VI. 8. 83%V II. 9. 69%

V II I . 10. 71%XI. 11. 80%X. 12. 25%

Overal1 Agreement:


S u b jec t 12

Posttest Experimental

I . 1. 79% I. 1. 100%2. 100% 2. 73%3. 91% 3. 100%4. 100% I I . 4. 100%

I I . 5. 100% 5. 86%6. 82% I I I . 6. 94%7. 82% 7. 100%8. 92% IV. 8. 77%

I I I . 9. 94% V. 9. 100%10. 90% 10. 90%11. 75% VI. 11. 100%

IV. 12. 83% 12. 90%13. 80% V II. 13. 91%

V. 14. 92% 14. 100%15. 92% 15. 90%16. 75% V II I . 16. 93%

VI. 17. 90% 17. 90%18. 100% IX. 18. 100%19. 90% X. 19. 92%20. 73% 20. 90%

V II. 21. 100% 21. 67%22. 100%

V III. 23. 90% Overall Agreement: 91%24. 90%

IX. 25. 88%26. 100%27. 90%

X. 28. 90%29. 100%30. 80%31. 70%32. 80%



GROUP I I I

Subject 13.

Pretest

I . 1. 80%2. 100%

I I . 3. 92%4. 94%

I I I . 5. 91%6. 79%

IV. 7. 100%V. 8. 100%

VI. 9. 91%V II. 10. 81%

V II I . 11. 78%IX. 100%X. 12. 100%

13. 92%14. 90%


Experimental

I . 1. 92%2. 100%

I I . 3. 89%I I I . 4. 89%

5. 77%IV. 6. 100%

7. 80%V. 8. 100%

9. 93%VI. 10. 93%

V II. 11. 93%12. 100%

V II I . 13. 86%IX. 100%X. 14. 90%

15. 92%16. 100%



S u b jec t 14

P o s tte s t

I . 1. 96%2. 80%

I I . 3. 67%I I I . 4. 86%

5. 85%6. 91%

IV. 7. 75%V. 8. 100%

VI. 9. 87%V II. 10. 88%

V III . 11. 00%12. 69%

IX. 13. 83%X. 14. 100%

15. 100%16. 81%17. 83%18. 92%


Experimental

I . 1. 83%2. 91%3. 100%

I I . 4. 85%5. 100%6. 100%

IV. 7. 80%V. 8. 100%

VI. 9. 83%V II. 10. 94%

V II I . 11. 78%12. 73%13. 00%

IX. 14. 93%15. 83%

X. 16. 90%17. 93%18. 100%19. 70%

Overal1 Agreement: 84%


S u b je c t 15


I . 1. 89% I. 1. 93%I I . 2. 64% 2. 71%

I I I . 3. 82% I I . 3. 100%IV. 4. 76% 4. 73%V. 5. 100% I I I . 5. 76%

VI. 6. 85% 6. 73%V II . 7. 82% IV. 7. 93%

V III . 8. 82% V. 8. 100%IX. 9. 80% 9. 92%X. 10. 65% VI. 10. 74%

V II. 11. 88%Overal1 Agreement: 81% V II I . 12. 89%

IX. 13. 93%X. 14. 79%

Overall Agreement: 83


S u b jec t 16

P re te s t

I . 1. 82%I I . 2. 81%

I I I . 3. 100%IV. 4. 100%

5. 82%V. 6. 100%

VI. 7. 67%V II. 100%

V II I . 8. 100%IX. 9. 75%X. 10. 100%

11. 92%


Experimental

I . 1. 94%2. 100%

I I . 3. 81%I I I . 4. 100%IV. 5. 74%V. 6. 100%

VI. 7. 90%8. 86%

VII 9. 82%V II I . 10. 93%

IX. 11. 77%X. 12. 100%

13. 86%



S u b je c t 17


I . 1. 100% I . 1. 100%2. 100% 2. 100%3. 100% I I . 3. 88%

I I . 4. 89% 4. 100%5. 92% I I I . 5. 94%

I I I . 6. 83% IV. 6. 86%7. 88% V. 7. 100%

IV. 8. 88% 8. 100%9. 94% V. 9. 100%

10. 85% V II. 10. 94%11. 100% 11. 94%

VI. 12. 86% V III . 12. 95%V II. 13 88% IX. 13. 95%

14. 100% X. 14. 71%15. 75% 15. 100%

V II I . 16. 93% . 16. 100%17. 73% 17. 100%

IX. 18. 100%19. 69% Overall Agreement:20. 81%

X. 21. 69%22. 93%23. 100%24. 91%



108

S u b jec t 18

P re te s t

I . 1. 94%2. 93%3. 60%4. 100%

I I . 5. 67%6. 63%7. 82%

I I I . 8. 92%9. 57%

10. 69%IV. 11. 100%

12. 75%13. 80%14. 00%

V. 15. 73%16. 93%17. 100%18. 90%

VI. 19. 69%20. 92%21. 79%22. 100%23. 90%

V II. 24. 63%25. 100%

V II I . 26. 89%27. 91%28. 100%29. 70%

IX. 30. 77%X. 31. 00%

32. 100%33. 80%34. 100%35. 100%


Experim ental

I . 1. 70%2. 100%

I I . 3. 80%4. 75%

I I I . 5. 93%6. 80%7. 100%

IV. 8. 54%9. 92%

V. 10. 92%11. 93%

VI. 12. 100%13. 90%

V II. 14. 100%15. 62%

V II. 16. 100%17. 100%

IX. 18. 91%19. 89%20. 100%21. 90%

X. 22. 92%23. 100%24. 92%



S u b jec t 19

Pretest Experimental

I . 1. 92% I. 1. 83%2. 85% 2. 00%

I I . 3. 88% I I . 3. 91%4. 100% 4. 83%

I I I . 5. 90% I I I . 5. 92%6. 100% 6. 92%

IV. 7. 93% 7. 100%V. 8. 100% IV. 8. 73%

VI. 9. 86% V. 9. 100%V II. 10. 83% VI. 10. 92%

V II I . 11. 76% V II. 11. 83%IX. 12. 75% V III. 12. 79%X. 13. 92% IX. 13. 79%

14. 100% 14. 100%15. 82% 15. 83%16. 100% 16. 92%17. 90%

Overall Agreement: 85%Overall Agreement: 89%


S u b jec t 20

P re s te s t Experim ental

I . 1. 93% I . 1. 90%I I . 2. 88% 2. 79%

I I I . 3. 89% 3. 00%4. 84% I I . 4. 77%

IV. 5. 87% 5. 80%6. 80% I I I . 6. 83%

V. 7. 62% 7. 89%VI. 8. 100% IV. 8. 79%

9. 75% V. 9. 93%V II. 10. 67% VI. 10. 80%

11. 00% 11. 79%V II I . 12. 83% V II. 12. 86%

IX. 13. 85% 13. 82%14. 68% X. 14. 93%

15. 100%Overall Agreement: 80% IX. 16. 76%

X. 17. 60%18. 00%



S u b je c t 21

P re te s t

I . 1. 82%2. 83%

I I . 3. 86%I I I . 4. 78%

IV. 5. 85%V. 6. 86%

VI. 7. 100%8. 70%

V II. 9. 77%V II I . 10. 79%

IX. 11. 92%X. 12. 29%

Experim ental

I . 1. 79%I I . 2. 71%

I I I . 3. 60%IV. 4. 88%V. 5. 82%

VI. 6. 100%VI. 7. 78%

V III . 8. 83%IX. 9. 81%X. 10. 37%




S u b je c t 22

P re te s t ' Experim ental

I . 1. 100% I. 1. 100%2. 75% 2. 79%3. 71% 3. 77%4. 87% I I . 4. 75%5. 79% 5. 100%

I I . 6. 73% I I I . 6. 100%7. 62% 7. 94%8. 90% IV. 100%9. 79% V. 8. 100%

10. 100% 9. 92%I I I . 11. 95% VI. 10. 85%

12. 77% 11. 69%13. 90% V II. 12. 93%

IV. 14. 92% V III. 13. 92%15. 92% 14. 92%16. 75% IX. 15. 88%17. 92% 16. 80%18. 80% X. 17. 100%

V. 19. 81% 18. 100%20. 78% 19. 92%21. 92%

VI. 22. 75% Overall Agreement:23. 92%24. 100%25. 80%26. 92%

V II. 27. 89%28. 72%29. 70%30. 94%31. 83%32. 75%

IX. 33. 78%34. 77%35. • 87%

X. 36. 100% :37. 100%38. 93%39. 81%



S u b jec t 23

P o s tte s t Experim ental

I . 1. 79%2. 86%3. 93%

I I . 4. 75%5. 71%

I I I . 6. 89%7. 100%8. 90%9. 100%

IV. 10. 80%V. 11. 88%

12. 64%13. 83%

VI. 14. 86%15. 100%16. 100%17. 92%

V II. 18. 78%19. 100%20. 81%

V II I . 21. 84%22. 100%23. 62%

IX. 24. 80%25. 67%

X. 26. 18%


I. 1. 92%2. 100%

I I . 3. 61%4. 55%

I I I . 5. 88%6. 00%7. 100%

IV. 8. 76%V. 9. 87%

10. 73%VI. 11. 80%

12. 83%13. 100%14. 90%15. 83%16. 92%17. 81%

V III . 18. 80%19. 73%20. 80%21. 67%

IX. 22. 87%23. 87%24. 50%25. 82%



S u b je c t 24

P o s tte s t

I . 1. 88%I I . 2. 100%

I I I . 3. 92%IV. 4. 100%V. 5. 92%

VI. 6. 85%V II. 7. 87%

V II I . 8. 100%9. 100%

IX. 10. 82%X. 11. 83%


Experim ental

I . 1. 93%I I . 2. 92%

I I I . 3. 83%IV. 100%V. 4. 100%

VI. 100%V II. 5. 88%

V II I . 6. 100%IX. 100%X. 7. 91%



APPENDIX I1,15

RORSCHACH SEQUENCE.OF SCORES AND STRUCTURAL .SUMMARY FOR EACH SUBJECT DURING WAKING (PRE/POST) AND EXPERIMENTAL SESSIONS

Sequence of Scores Subject 1 PreGroup I

Card RT No. Location Determinants) Content(s) POP Z Score Special

I 7" 1 Do Fo AI I 30" 2 Do FTo A

3 Do FT. FYo A PI I I 5" 4 Do Mpo (2) H P 3.0

5 Do Fo AIV 5“ 6 Ddo Fo (2) eg

7 Do FVo GeV 5“ 8 Wo FMpo A P 1.0

9 Do FMpo (2) AdVI 17" Rejection

V II 10" 10 Do F§ (2) A P11 Ddo mf.CFo Ex

IX 40" 12 D+ Mo (2) H,A 3.0X 6" 13 Do Fo (2) A P

14 Dd- F- Xy,Hd

Reproduced with permission from John E. Exner, J r ., Ph.D.


1,16STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 1 Pre

Group I

R=15 Z f=3

L o catio n F eatures

ZSum=7 P=5

Determi nants (Blends First)

(2)=6

Contents Contents(Idiographic)

W = 1 FI * FYn H = 2 Bl= .......................=m *CFo (H) = Bt=

D = 10 0 Hd = 1 Cg=l .......................=(Hd) = Cl=

Dd = 3 M = 2 A = 8 Ex=l =FM = 2 (A) = Fi=

S = m = Ad = 1 Fd= sC = (Ad) = Ge=l

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= =CF = A1 = Ls=FC = An = Na= ......................... =

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay Xy=l

+ = 1 + = FC‘ = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 12 o = 2 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special ScoringV = w = TF = 0 Col.Shd B1 > 0 DV_ = 1 - = FT = 1 0 3r+(2)/R * .30 INCOM =

no V = +Zd >+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = +ep > EA ALOG

FV = 1 +CF+C FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = OX+% < .70

YF = OS 3 CPFQx FQf FY = OP < 3 or r \8 MOR+ = + = rF = OH* 2 PERo = 13 o = 5 Fr = + R * 17 PSVw = w = FD = 4̂ Total Total = 0- = 1 - = 1 F = 6noform =

ZSum-ZestZdEBeb(FM=2 m=l Blends:R a:p Ma:Mp

Ratios, Percentages, and Derivations

= 7-6 = 1.0 = 2:1 = 3:3 T=2 C'=

= 2.15 = 2:3 = 1:1

EA=3.0 ep=6.0 V=1 Y=

FC:CF=C = 0:1W:M = 1:2W:D = 1:10L = 6/8=.75F+% =5/6 83%X+% =13/14=93%A% =9/14=64%

Afr =5/9=.56 3r+(2)/R=6/15=.40 Cont:R =8:15 H+Hd:A+Ad=3:9 (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)= H+A:HD+Ad=10:2

XRT Achrom=44/5=8.8“ XRTChrom=91/5=18.2"


V I7Sequence o f Scores S u b jec t 1 Experim ental

Group I

Card RT No. Location Determinant(s) Content(s) POP Z Score Special

I 6" 1 Wo Fo (2) A2 Wv rFw Finger

PaintingI I 9" 3 D- F- Ad

I I I 6" 4 Do Mpo H PIV 49" RejectionV 7" 5 Ddo Fw (2) Hair clip

VI 13" RejectionVII 26" 6 D+ Mpo (2) H P

V III 28" 7 Dd- F- AirplaneIX 3" RejectionX 23" 8 Do Fw (2) A

9 Do FCo (2) A P10 Ddo FCo (2) A


118STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 1 Experim ental

Group I

R=10 Zf=l ZSum=3.0 P=3 (2)=6

Location Features Determinants Contents Contents- (Blends First) (Idiographic)

W = 2 H = 2 Bl= Finger Paintings(H) = Bt=

D = 5 Hd = cg= Hair Clip..........=!(Hd) = Cl=

Dd = 3 M = 2 A = 4 Ex= Airplane............=:FM = (A) = Fi=

S = m = Ad = 1 Fd= .......................=C = (Ad) = Go=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= =CF = 2 A1 = Ls=FC = An = Na= =

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay xy= =

+ = 1 + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 6 o = 2 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 1 w = TF = U Col.Shd B1 5" 0 DV_ = 2 FT = 0 3r+(2)/R < .30 INCOM =

no V = *Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = Oep > EA ALOG

FV = TJCF+C > FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = +X+% < .70

YF = 0S> 3 CPFQx FQf FY = UP < 3 o r> i8 MOR+ = + = rF = 1 UH < 2 PER = 2o = 5 o = l Fr = +R< 17 PSVw = 3 w = 2 FD = Total Total = 2- = 2 - = 2 F = 5noform =


ZSum-Zest = 3.0 -,* FC:CF=C = 2 :0 Afr = 4/6=.67Zd W:M = 2:2 3r+(2)/R= 9/10=.9EB = 1:1 EA = 2 W:D = 2:5 Cont:R =6:10eb = 0 ep = 0 L = 5/5=1.00 H+Hd:A+Ad=2:5(FM= m= T= C'=: V= y= ) F+% = 1/5=20% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)Blends:R = 0:10 X+% = 5/10=50% H+A:HD+Ad=6:la:p = 0:2 A% = 5/10=50% XRT Achrom =

101/5 = 20.2"Ma:Mp = 0:2 XRT Chrom =

69/5 = 13.8"


1,19

Sequence o f Scores S u b jec t 2 PreGroup I

Card RT No. Location Determinant(s ) Content(s) POP Z Score

I 3" 1 Wo Fo A P 1.0I I 8" 2 Do FVo (2) A P 4.5

3 Do Fo AI I I 20" 4 D+ vPo (2) H P 3.0IV 20" 5 Wv Fwa Ink Blot 2.0V 5" 6 W+ FM o A, Fd P 1.0

VIVII

28"13" 7 W+

Rejection Mpo (2) H, paper P 2.5

weightV III 18" 8 D+ FMa A P 3.0

9 W+ Fro LsIX 46" Wv C Painting/ 5.5

modern artX 25" 11 Dd- F- An 5.5

FABCOM


120

R = ll Z f=9

L o ca tio n F eatures

W =

D =

Dd =

S =

DW =

DQ

+ = 5 o = 3 v = 2 - = 1

6

4

1

M Quality

+ =

o = 2 w =

no form =

Form Quality

FQx + = o = 8

FQf + =

0 = 1w = 1 w = 2- = 1 - = 2noform =

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 2 PreGroup I

ZSum=28 P=6 (2)=3

Determinants Contents Contents(Blends First) (Idiographic)

H = 2 Bl= ink b lot............=1(H) = Bt=Hd = Cg= paper weight...=1

(Hd) = Cl=M = 2 A = 5 Ex= Painting/modern art=lFM = 2 (A) = Fi=m = Ad = 1 Fd=l ........................=C = 1 (Ad) = Ge=Cn = Ab = Hh= ....................... =CF = A1 = Ls=lFC = An = Na= ........................=C' = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay Xy= ......................... =FC‘= S-Constellation (Adult)T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special ScoringTF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DVFT = U3r+(2)/R <.30 INCOM =V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOM = 1VF = Oep > EA ALOGFV = 1 +CF+C> FC CONTAM =Y = OX+% < .70YF = 0 S > 3 CPFY = 0P< 3 o r> 8 MORrF = OH < 2 PERFr = 1 +R <. 17 PSVFD = I Total Total = 1F = 4


ZSum-ZestZdEBeb(FM=2 m=Blends:Ra:p

Ma:Mp

= 28-27.5 = .5= 2:1 EA = 2:1 ep T= C‘ =

= 0:11 = 2:2

= 0:2

FC:CF=C = 0 :1 Afr = 4/7=.57W:M = 6:2 3r+(2)/R= 6/ll= .55

= 3 W:D = 6:4 Cont:R = 8:11= 3 L = 4/7=.57 H+Hd:A+Ad=2:5V=1 Y= ) F+% = 2/4=50% (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=

X+% = 8/10=80% H+A:HD+Ad=7:0A% = 5/11=45% XRT Achrom =

69/5=13.8"XRT Chrom =

117/5=23.4"


Sequence o f Scores S u b je c t 2 Experim entalGroup I

Card RT No. Location Determinant(s) Content(s) POP Z Score

I 5" 1 Wo FC'o A P 1.02 Ddo Fw (Hd)

I I 28" 3 D+ FMp.iFTo A (P) 3.04 Do FCo A5 Do Fw Hd

I I I 5" 6 Do Fwa Hd7 Dd+ FM o (2) Ad 4.08 Do FCo (2) An9 Do FC'o (2) H

IV 28" 10 Wo FC'o AV 2" 11 Wo FC'o A P 1.0

VI 9" 12 Do FTo Ad PVII 7" 13 Do Fo (2) A

14 Do Foa (2) AV III 15" 15 D+ FM 'TFo A, Ls P 3.0

16 Ddo F- Mask17 Ddo FCo A

IX 3" 18 Ddo Fo (2) Ad19 D- F- Doll

X 10" 20 D- F- A21 Do FCw (2) A22 Do FCo (.2) Bt23 Do Fo (2) A24 Do Fo Bt


122STRUCTURAL SUMMARY Subject 2 Experimental

Group I

R=24 Zf=5 ZSum=12 P=4 (2)=10

Location Features Determinants Contents Contents(Blends First) (Idiographic)

W = 3 FMp.FTo FM .TFo

H = 1 Bl= (H) = Bt=

Mask................. =1

D = 16 Hd = 2 Cg= (Hd) =1 Cl=

Doll................. =1

Dd = 5 M =FM = 1

A = 12 Ex= (A) = Fi=

S = m = C =

Ad = 3 Fd= (Ad) = Go=

DW = Cn = CF =

Ab = Hh= A1 = Ls=

FC = 5 An = 1 Na= ......................... =DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=

C‘F= Ay Xy=+ = 3 + = FC * = 4 S-Constellation (Adult)o = 19 o = T = 0FV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = w = TF = 0 Col.Shd B1 > 0 DV_ = 2 FT = 1 0 3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INC0M =

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = +ep > EA ALOG

F V = 0CF+C ^ FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = TJX+% < .7 0

YF = 0S> 3 CPFQx FQf FY = 0P < 3 o r> 8 MOR+ = + = rF = 1 OH < 2 PERo = 17 o = 5 Fr = +R <17 PS Vw = 4 w = 3 FD = 7 Total Total = 0- = 3 - = 3 noform =

F = 11


ZSum-Zest = 1 2 - 1 0 FC:CF=C = 5:0 Afr = 10/14=.71zd = 2.0 W:MEB = 0:2.5 EA = 2.5 W:Deb = 3 : 7 ep = 10.0 L(FM=3 m= T=3 C'=4 V= Y= ) F+%

Blends:R =2:24 X+%a:p = 2:1 A%

Ma:Mp = 0:0

= 3:0 3r+(2)/R= 10/24=.42= 3:16 Cont:R = 10:24= 11/13=.85 H+Hd:A+Ad=l:15 = 5/11=45% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

1:0= 17/24=71% H+A:HD+Ad=14.3= 15/24=63% XRT Achrom =

51/5=10.2"XRT Chrom =

61/5=12.2"


123Sequence o f Scores S u b je c t 3 Pre

Group I


I 2“ 1 Wo FM o A P 1.02 Do Fo A

I I 6" 3 W,So FCw Mask, (H) 4.54 D,So mo Rocket, Fi 4.5

I I I 9" 5 W+ M . FC. m + H 5.5M DIV 6" 6 Do FD,Mp.FTo (H) P

V 8" 7 Wo FMpo A P 1.0VI 9“ 8 Do Fo Ad

9 Do Fo AdVII 9" 10 Dv Fo (2) Cl

V II I 21" 11 Do Fw (2) A12 Do Fo Hd13 Do F- . H

• 14 Do CFo LsIX 2" 15 Do Mpo (2) (H)X 15" 16 Ddo FCo (2) A P

17 D.So Fw A 6.018 Do Fo (2) A19 Do Fo (2) Bt

INCOM


124STRUCTURAL SUMMARY

R=19 Zf=6

Lo catio n Featu res

ZSum=22.5 P=4

Determinants (Blends First)

Contents

S u b jec t 3 ?reGroup 1

Contents(IdiograpJsic)

W = 4 MaFC.,ma+ H = 2 Bl= Mask...------ = 1FD.Mh.FTo (H) = 3 Bt=l

D = 14 Hd = i Cg= Rocket......... = 1(Hd.)= Cl=i

Dd = 1 M = 1 A = 7 Ex=FM = 2 (A) « Fi=i

S = 3 m = 1 Ad •= Fd= =

C = (Ad)= Ge=DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=

CF = 1 A1 = Ls=IFC = 2 An = Jia=

DQ M Quality C‘ = Art = Sx=C*F= Ay = Xy=i .............................=

+ = 1 + = 1 FC: = S-Constel1ation fftsult)o = 17 o = 2 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special ScoringV = 1 W = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 D¥~ — - = FT = I[3r+(2)/R < .30 IHCOM = 1

no V = +Zd>_+3.5 FABCQM =form = VF = Oep EA ALOG

FV = OCF+C > FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = CX+% < .7 0

YF = 0S> 3 CPFQx FQf FY = OP < 3 o r> 8 MGR+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PERo = 14 o = 7 Fr = ^R <17 PSVw = 3 w = 2 FD = 1 Total Total - 1- = 1 - = 1 F = 10noform =


ZSum-Zest = 22.5-17 FC:CF=C = 2 :1 Afr =9/10=.90Zd = 5.5 W:MEB = 3:3 EA=5.0 W:Deb = 4 :1 ep=5.Q L(FM=2 m=2 T=1 C*= V= Y= ) F+%Blends:R =2:19 X+%a:p = 4 :3 k%Ma:Mp = 1:2

= 4 :3 3r+(2)/R= /I9=-37=4:14 Cont:R =11:19= 10/9=1.11 H+Hd:A+Ad=3:9 = 7/3=78% (H)+(Hd):(AH(Ad)=3:0 =15/19=79% H+A:HD+Ad=12:3=9/19=47% X RTAchrom=34/5=5.8"

XRTChrcm=53/5=10.6"


125Sequence o f Scores S u b je c t 3 Experim ental

Group I


I 30" 1 Wv mpw2 Do Fw (2)

I I 12" 3 Wo FwI I I 8" 4 Wo FMpwIV 15" 5 Wo FM.'fttoV 10" 6 Wo FMHo

VI 26" 7 Do FoV II 10" 8 Wv Fo

V III 11" RejectionIX 16" 9 D+ Mo (2)X 11" 10 Wv CFw

11 Do FCo (2)

Blob 1.0Ad

Mask 4.5Ad 5.5(H) 2.0A P 1.0 MORA MORCl 2.5

(H) 4.5ShapesBt PERS,DV


126STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b jec t 3 Experim ental

Group I

R = ll Z f=7

Location Features

ZSum=19 P=1


(2)=3


W = 7 FMp*mpo H = Bl= Blob............ . .,=1(H) =2 Bt=l

o ii 4* Hd = Cg= Mask............ ...=1(Hd) = Cl=l

Dd = M = 1 A = 2 Ex= Shapes........ .. ,=1FM = 1 (A) = Fi=

S = m = 1 Ad = 2 Fd=C = (Ad) = Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=CF = 1 A1 = Ls=FC = 1 An = Na= =

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C*F= Ay xy=

+ = 1 + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 7 o = l T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 3 w = TF = 0 Col.Shd B1 > 0 DV = 1

FT = + 3r+(2)/R <.30 INCOM =no V = £Zd>+3.5 FABCOM

form = VF = +ep> EA ALOG =FV = OCF+C > FC CONTAM s

Form Quality Y = +X+% < .7 0YF = OS > 3 CP s

FQx FQf FY = +P 4 3 o r> 8 MOR = 2+ = + = rF = OH ^ 2 PER = 1o = 6 o = 2 Fr = +R <17 PSV =w = 5 w = 2 FD = 5_ Total Total = 4_ = - = F = 4noform =


ZSum-Zest = 19-20.5ZdEBeb(FM=2 m=2

-1.51:15 EA = 2.5 4:0 ep = 4.0 T= C'= V= Y=

Blends:R = 1:11 a:p = 1:5

Ma:Mp = 1:0

FC:CF=CW:MW:DLF+%

X+%A%

1:1 Afr = 3/8=.387:1 3r+(2)/R= 3/ll=.277:4 Cont:R = 8:114/7=.57 H+Hd:A+Ad=0:42/4=50% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

2:06/11=55% H+A:HD+Ad=4:24/11=36% XRT Achrom =91/5=

18.2"XRT Chrom =

58/5=11.6"


127

Card RT No. Locatii

I 1" 1 Wv2 D+3 Ddo4 Ddo

I I 3" 5 Wo6 D,S+

I I I 7“ 7 Do8 D+9 Ddo

IV 8“ 10 WoV 5" 11 W,So

VI 38" 12 WoVII 2" 13 D+

V III 4" 14 W+IX 23" 15 Dd-X 2" 16 Do

17 Do18 Do19 Do20 D+

Sequence o f Scores S u b jec t 4 E xperim entalGroup I

Y.C'w Ink 1.0FM w (2) A 6.0Fo (2) HdFMpw ACFo (2) A,B1 4.5 INC0M,M0RMo Rocket Ship, 4.5

FiF ” AMpg (2) H P 3.0FM w (2) AFw A 2.0Fw A P 1.0Fg (A) 2.5Ho (2) H P 3.0FM o (2) A,Ls P 4.5CF.M - (2) (H),Bubbles 2.5Fo (2) A PFo. (2) AFM®o (2) AFMpw (2) AFM o (2) A,Bt


128

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 4 Experim entalGroup I

R=20 Zf=ll ZSum=34.5 P=5 (2)=13


W = 6 Y.C'w H = 2 Bl=l Ink................. =1CF.M - (H) = Bt=l

D = 10 Hd =1 Cg= Rocket Shi p ..=1(Hd) = Cl=

Dd = 4 M = 2 A = 13 Ex= Bubbles..........=1FM = 7 (A) = 1 Fi=l

S = 2 m = 1 Ad = Fd= =C = (Ad) = Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= ......................... =CF = 1 A1 = Ls=lFC = An = Na= =:

DQ M Quality C1 = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay xy=

+ = 6 + = FC1 = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 12 o = 2 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 1 w = TF = + Col.Shd B1 > 0 DV- = 1 - = 1 FT = 0 3r+(2)/R < .30 INCOM = 1

no V = 0zd>+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = +ep> EA ALOG

FV = +CF+C > FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = +X+% < .7 0

YF = 0S> 3 CPFQx FQf FY = OP < 3 or > 8 MOR = 1+ = + = rF = OH <c2 PERo = 11 o = 4 Fr = 1JR <17 PSVw = 7 w = 2 FD = £ Total Total = 2- = 2 - = 1 F = 7noform =


ZSum-Zest = 34.5--34.5 FC:CF=C = 0:2 Afr = 7/13=.54zd = 0 W:M = 6:3 3r+(2)/R= 13/20=.65EB = 3:2 EA = 5 W:D = 6:10 Cont:R = 11:20eb = 8:2 ep = 10 L = 7/13=.54 H+Hd:A+Ad=3:14(FM=7 m=l T= C' = 1 V= Y=l) F+% = 3/6=50% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

0:1Blends:R = 2:20 X+% = 11/20=55% H+A:HD+Ad=16:la:p = 8:3 A% = 14/20=70% XRT Achrom =54/5=

10.8"Ma:Mp = 2:1 XRT Chrom =

39/5=7.8


1.29Sequence o f Scores S u b jec t 4 Post

Group I


I 27" 1 Ddo Fo An2 Ddo FMpo Ad

I I 36" 3 Do FMpO (2) A PI I I 10" 4 Do Mao (2) H P 3.0IV 10“ 5 Do Fo A 2.0V 5" 6 Mo Fo A P 1.0

VI 22" 7 Ddo Fo An8 Wo Fo A

V II 5" 9 Do Fo (2) H P10 Do FY§ An

V III 16" 11 Do FM o (2) A 3.012 Do Fo A

IX 27" RejectionX 43" 13 Do Fo (2) A P

14 Do Fo A15 Do F° a (2) A16 Do FM w A


1.30STRUCTURAL SUMMARY Subject 4 Post

Group I

R=16 Zf=4 ZSum=9 P=5 (2)=6

Location Features Determi nants Contents Contents(Blends First) (Idiographic)

W = 2 H = 2 Bl= ...............=(H) = Bt=

D = 11 Hd = cg= ....................... =(Hd) = Cl=

Dd = 3 M = 1 A = 10 Ex= —FM = 4 (A) = Fi=

S = m = Ad = 1 Fd= ......................... =C = (Ad) = Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= ......................... =CF = A1 = Ls=FC = An = 3 Na= ..........................=

DQ M Quality C‘ = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay xy= ......................... =

+ = + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 16 o = l T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = w = TF = 0 Col.Shd B1 > 0 DV_ s - = FT = 0 3r+(2)/R <•30 INCOM =

no V = 0zd>+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = +ep > EA ALOG

FV = OCF+C > FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = OX+% < .70

YF = 0S> 3 CPFQx FQf FY = 1 UP < 3 or> 8 MOR = 1+ = + = rF = OH < 2 PERo = 15 o = 10 Fr = +R < 17 PSVw = 1 w = FD = 2 Total Total = 1_ = - = F = 10noform =


ZSum-Zest = 9-10 FC:CF=C = 0:0 Afr = 6/10=.60Zd = -1 W:M = 2:1 3r+(2)/R= 6/16=.38EB = 1:0 EA = 1.0 W:D = 2:11 Cont:R = 4:16eb = 4:1 ep = 5.0 L = 10/6=1.67 H+Hd:A+Ad=2:ll(FM=4 m= T= C*= V= Y=1 ) F+% = 10/10-100% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=Blends:R = 0:16 X+% = 15/16=94% H+A:HD+Ad=12:la:p = 3:2 A% = 10/16=63% XRT Achrom =69/5=

13.8“Ma:Mp = 1:0 XRT Chrom =

132/5=26.4"


131

Card RT No. Locatii

I 1" 1 Do2 Do

I I 15" 3 Dd+4 Do5 W+6 Do

I I I 15" 7 Do8 Ddv

IV 1" 9 Wo10 Ddo

V 43" 11 W+12 Ddo

VI 25" 13 Wo14 Wo15 Do16 Do

VII 2" 17 Do18 Do19 Ddo20 Ddo

V III 12" 21 Do22 D,So23 Do24 Do

IX 3" 25 Do26 Ddo27 Do28 Do

X 2" 29 Do30 Do31 Do32 Do33 Do

Sequence o f Scores S u b je c t 5 Experim entalGroup I

Determinant(s) Content(s) POP Z Score Special

Fo (2) AFq AMQo n (2) HdFC.FMpo AFo (2) AFo„ HhFMpo (2) AF8 B1M ,FDo HFM o AMP (2) Hmpo (2) AFo AdFo BtFo ArrowF§Mo (2)

Funny PenH

Fo Amao NaFo (2) FdFo AFCo Torn clothFo (2) AFo Xmas TreeFCo (2) (H)FCo (2) AdFo (2) AdFo (2) FdFMpo (2) AFo (2) BtFo (2) FdFCo tentMpo (2) A

PER

3.0

P 4.5

4.0

2.0

1.0 PER2.5 MOR2.5 PER,M0R

P 3.0

1.0PER

INCOM

P

PER



Group I

R=33 Zf=9 ZSum=23.5 P=3 (2)=17


W = 5 FC.FMpo M . FDo

H = 3 Bl=l (H) =1 Bt=2

Arrow............=1

D = 21 Hd =1 Cg= (Hd) = Cl=

Funny pen...=l

Dd = 7 M = 4 FM = 3

A = 12 Ex= (A) = Fi=

Torn c lo th ..=1

S = 1 m = 2 C =

Ad = 3 Fd=3 (Ad) = Go=

Tent............. =1

DW = Cn = CF =

Ab = Hh=l A1 = Ls=

Xmas tre e ...= l

FC = 4 An = Na=l =DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=

C‘F= Ay Xy= .......................=+ = 3 + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 29 o = 5 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special ScoringV = 1 W = TF = 0 Col.Shd B1 > 0 DV_ = - = FT = 0 3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM = 1

no V = +Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = Oep > EA ALOG

FV = OCF+C > FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = TTX+% < .70

YF = 0S> 3 CPFQx FQf FY = OP ^ 3 o r> 8 MOR = 2+ = + = rF = OH < 2 PER = 4o = 33 o = 18 Fr = OR < 1 7 PSVw = w = FD = _1 Total = 7

noform =

F = 18


ZSum-Zest = 23.5-27.5 ' FC:CF=C = 4:0 Afr = 13/20=.65Zd = -4.0 W:M = 5:5 3r+(2)/R= 17/33=.52EB = 5:2 EA = 7.0 W:D = 5:21 Cont:R = 15:33eb = 5:0 ep = 6.0 L = 18/15=1.2 H+Hd:A+Ad=4:15(FM=4 m=2 T= C'= V= Y= ) F+% = 18/18=100% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

1:0Blends:R = 2:33 X+% = 33/33=100% H+A:HD+Ad=16:4a:p = 5:6 A% = 15/33=45% XRT Achrom =72/5=

14.4"Ma:Mp = 3:2 XRT Chrom =

47/5=9.4"


133

Sequence o f Scores S u b jec t 5 PostGroup I


I 13" 1 Ddo Fo (2) A2 Do *7° A

I I 10" 3 D+ Mao (2) H4 D,So mo Space Ship,

Fi 3.05 Do Fo A6 Dd,So FC'o (2) Hd

I I I 15" 7 Do Fo A8 Dd,So Fo Bt9 Dd,So Fo, A

10 Do FM w AIV 9" 11 Wo FM .FDo A 2.0

12 Dd,S+ Mp+ (2) H 5.0V 5" 13 Wo FMao A P 1.0

14 D,So Mpw (2) H15 Dd,S+' Mo (2) Hd16 Do Fo Hd17 Do Fo (2) Ad

VI 5" 18 Wo Fo A P 2.519 Ddo Fo An20 Do Fo Pen21 Do Fo Hh22 D+ FMpo (2) A 2.!

V II 8" 23 Dd+ Mo (2) H P 3.124 D,So Fo (2) A P

V III 7 25 Do Fo (2) A P26 D,So Fo eg27 Ddo Fo (2) Hd,Cg28 Do Fo An29 Ddo Fo Bt

IX 26" 30 Do Fo (2) A31 Ddo Fo (2) Ad32 Ddo Fw A33 Do Fw Hd34 Do • Fw Hh

X 8" 35 Do FCo (2) Bt36 Do FDo An37 Dd,So mp+ Statue38 Do FCo (2) A39 Ddo Fo Peach Pits


,134

R=39 Zf=7

L ocatio n Features

W =

D =

Dd =

S =

DW =

DQ

3

22

14

10

M Quality

+ = 5 + - 1o = 34 o = 3 v = w = 1

no form =

Form Quality

FQx FQf+ = 2 + =o = 32 o = 20w = 5 w = 3

noform =

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY

ZSum=19 P=5 (2)=16

S u b jec t 5 PostGroup I



FMa.FDo

MFMmCCnCFFCC' ’C‘FFC'TTFFTVVFFVYYFFYrFFrFDF

532

= 2

= 1

= 1

123

H = 4 Bl =(H) = Bt=3Hd =5 Cg=2

(Hd) = Cl=A = 15 Ex=

(A) = Fi=lAd = 2 Fd=(Ad) = Go=Ab = Hh=2A1 = Ls=An = 3 Na=Art = Sx=Ay Xy=

S-Constellation (Adult) OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 'O Col.Shd B1 > 0 U3r+(2)/R < -3 00Zd>+3.5 £ep > EA OCF+C > FC OX+% < .7 0 +S > 3OP < 3 or > 8 OH < 2 HR <17

1 Total

Spaceship.

Pen............

Statue___

Peach p it.

=1

=1

=1

=1

Special Scoring DVINCOM = 1 FABCOM = ALOGCONTAM =

CP MOR PER PS V

Total = 1


ZSum-Zest = 19-20.5 FC:CF=CZd = -1.5 W:MEB = 5:1 EA = 6.0 W:Deb = 5:1 ep = 6.0 L(FM=3 m=2 T= T' = V= Y=l) F+% Blends:R = 1:39 X+%a:p = 7:4 A%

Ma:Mp = 3:2

= 2 :0 Afr = 15/24=.63= 3:5 3r+(2)/R= 16/39=.41= 3:22 Cont:R = 13:39= 23/16=1.44 H+Hd:A+Ad =9:17= 20/23=87% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)== 34/39=87% H+A:HD+Ad =19:7= 17/39=44% XRT Achrom =

40/5 = 8"XRT Chrom =

66/5 = 13.2"


135Sequence o f Scores S u b je c t 6 Experim ental

Group I


I 5" 1 Wo FMpo A 1.0I I 11" 2 W,So FC.FT.FM w Ad 4.5

3 D+ FM o a A P 3.0I I I 5" 4 D+ FC' Ma+ (2) H P 3.0 PERIV 9" 5 Do FMpw Ad

6 Wo Fo (H) 2.0V 2" 7 Wo Fo A P 1.0

VI 9" 8 Do F§ AVII 19"1 9 D+ Mo (2) H 3.0

10 Do Fo Rocking PERchair

V III 5" 11 W+ FMa.CFo (2) A,Ls,Fi 4.5IX 8" 12 Dd+ mao (2) Doll, Ball 2.5X 16" 13 W,So M .C- H, magic 5.5

colors


136

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 6 Experim entalGroup I

R=13 Z f=10 ZSum=30 P=3 (2 )= 4


w = 6 FC.FT.FM w H = 3 Bl= Doll..............=1FC'.M + (H) =1 Bt=

D = 6 FM .CFo Hd = Cg= Ball............. =1M .C- (Hd) = Cl=

Dd = 1 M = 1 A = 5 Ex= Magic Colors=lFM = 3 (A) = Fi=l

S = 2 m = 1 Ad = 2 Fd= Rocking chair=lC = (Ad) = Go=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= =CF = A1 = Ls=FC = An = Na= .......................=

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay Xy= ....................... =

+ = 5 + = 1 FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 8 0 = 1 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = w = TF = 0 Col.Shd B1 > 0 DV- = - = 1 FT = +3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM =

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = +ep > EA ALOG

FV = +CF+C > FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = OX+% < .7 0

YF = 0S> 3 CPFQx FQf FY = OP < 3 or> 8 MOR+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PER = 2o = 9 o = 4 Fr = +R <17 PS Vw = 2 w = FD = 4 Total Total = 2- = 1 - = F = 4noform :


ZSum-Zest = 30-31 FC:CF=C = 1:2 Afr = 3/10=.30zd = -1 W:M = 6:3 3r+(2)/R= 4/13=.31EB = 3:3 EA = 6 W:D = 6:6 Cont:R = 10:13eb = 6:2 ep = 8 L = 4/9=.44 H+Hd:A+Ad = 3:7(FM=5 m=l T=1 C' = 1 V=0 Y=0) F+% = 4/4=100% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

1:0Blends:R =4:13 X+% = 10/13=77% H+A:HD+Ad =9 :2a:p = 7 :2 A% = 7/13=54% XRT Achrom =

41/5=8.2"Ma:Mp = 3 :0 XRT Chrom =

45/5=9.0"


137

Sequence o f Scores S u b je c t 6 PostGroup I


I 2" 1 Wo Fo A P 1.02 Wo Fo A 1.0

I I 10" 3 W,So Fw Ad 4.54 Do F8Ho

(2) (H)I I I 10" 5 Do (2) H PIV 9" 6 Wo Fo (A) 2.0V 2" 7 Wo Fo A P 1.0

VI 13" 8 Do Fo AVII 5" 9 Wo Fw Swing

Set5.5

V III 9" 10 Wo m̂ .FCoMPo

Bt 4.5IX 11" 11 D+ (2) H 2.5X 15" 12 Do Fo (2) A P

13 Do Fo (2) Ad


STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 6 PostGroup I

R=13 Zf=8 ZSum=22 P=4 (2)=5

Location Features Determinants Contents Contents(Blends F irst) (Idiographic)

W = 7 ma.FCo H = 2 Bl = Swing S e t...= l(H) =1 Bt=l

D = 6 Hd = Cg= .....................=(Hd) = Cl=

Dd = M = 2 A = 5 Ex=FM = (A) =1 Fi=

S = 1 m = Ad = 2 Fd= =C = (Ad) = Go=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=CF = A1 = Ls=FC = An = Na= .......................=

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay xy=

+ = 1 + = FC'= S-Constellation (Adult)

CMIIOCMIIO T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special ScoringV = W = TF = OCol.Shd B1 >* 0 DV_ = _ = FT = 03r+(2)/R <.30 INCOM =

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = Oep> EA ALOG

FV = 0CF+C> FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = UX+% < .70

YF = 0S> 3 CPFQx FQf FY = OP < 3 o r> 8 MOR+ = + = rF = OH < 2 PERo = 11 o = 8 Fr = +R <17 PSVw = 2 w = 2 FD = 1_ Total Total = 0_ = 1 _ = F = 10noform =


ZSum-Zest = 22-24 FC:CF=C = 1:0 Afr = 4/9=.44zd = -2.0 W:M = 7:2 3r+(2)/R= 5/13=.38EB = 2:.5 EA = 2.5 W:D = 7:6 Cont:R =7:13eb = 1:0 ep = 1.0 L = 10/3=3.33 H+Hd:A+Ad =2:7(FM= m=l T= C‘= V= Y=) F+% =8/10=80% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

1:1BlendstR = 1:13 X+% = 11/13=85% H+A:HD+Ad =8 :3a:p

Ma:Mp

= 1:1

= 1:1

A% = 7/13=54% XRT Achrom = 31/5=6.2"

XRT Chrom = 55/5=11"


139Sequence o f Scores S u b je c t 7 Pre

Group I I


I 12"1 1 W+ Mpo (2) H 4.02 W,So F§M“o

Mask 3.5I I 8" 3 W+ (2) (H) 4.5

I I I 21" 4 D+ Mo (2) H ■ P 4.0IV 5" 5

6W-Wo

F-F°a

(A)Hd

2.0

V 15“ 7 Wo FM o A 1.0VI 11" 8 Do Fo Something

Mpo Ff ° a

Indian9 Wo (2) (H) P 2.5

V III 37" 10 Do (2) A,Ls P 4.5IX 15" 11 W+ M .FM o (2) H,A 5.5X 20" 12 Do n fo (2) A P 4.0

13 D+ FM 0 n (2) A 4.014 D+ FC.FMP.

FM o(2) A,Ls 4.0


1.40STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 7 Pre

Group I I

R=14 Zf=12 ZSum=43.5 P=5 (2)=9

Location Features Determinants Contents(Blends First)

W = 8 Ma.FMao . H = 3 Bl =FC.FMp.FMao (H) =2 Bt=

D = 6 Hd =1 Cg=

(Hd) = Cl=Dd = M = 4 A = 6 Ex=

FM = 4 (A) =1 Fi=S = 1 m = Ad = Fd=

C = (Ad) = Go=DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=

CF = A1 = Ls=2FC = An = Na=

DQ M Quality C‘ = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay Xy=

+ = 6 + = FC'= S-Constellation (Adult)0 = 7 O II cn T = 0FV+VF+V+FD > 2v = w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0- = 1 - = FT = 03r+(2)/R < .30

no V = +Zd^+3.5form = VF = +ep > EA

FV = 0CF+C > FCForm Quality Y = 0X+% < .70

YF = 0S > 3FQx FQf FY = OP < 3 or> 8+ = + = rF = OH < 2

O II CO O II CO Fr = +R < 17

w = w = FD = 3 Total- = 1 - = 1 F = 4noform


Contents(Idiographic)

Mask. .=1

Something...=lIndian

Special Scoring DVINCOM = FABCOM = ALOGCONTAM =

CPMORPERPSVTotal = 0

ZSum-Zest = 43.5-38.0 FC:CF=C =zd = 5.5 W:M =EB = 5:.5 EA = 5.5 W:Deb = 7 :0 ep = 7.0 L =(FM=7 m= T= C‘= V= Y=) F+%

Blends:R = 2:14 X+%a:p = 9 :3 A% =

1:08:58:64/10=.40 3/4=75%

13/14=93%7/14=50%

Ma:Mp = 3:2

Afr = 5/9=.56 3r+(2)/R= 9/14=.64 Cont:R = 8:14

H+Hd:A+Ad =4 :6 (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=

1:1H+A:HD+Ad =12:1

XRT Achrom = 46/5=9.2"

XRT Chrom = 101/5=20.2"


141

Sequence o f Scores S u b je c t 7 Experim entalGroup I I


I 7" 1 W,So F8 Mask 1.0I I 16" 2 W+ M*o (2) A P 4.5

I I I 20" 3 D+ Mo (2) H P 3.0IV 30" 4 W- FC*- Hd 2.0V 1" 5 Wo Fo A P 1.0

VI 15" 6 Wv Fw Something 2.5

MpgIndian

VII 10" 7 D+ (2) H,Ice P 3.0V III 5" 8 Do Ftfo (2) A,Ls P 3.0

IX 10" 9 Ddo Mg (2) (H) 2.5X 7" 10 D+ FM*o (2) A,Rocks 4.0

11 D+ FM o (2) A,Ls 4.0


1.42STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b jec t 7 Experim ental

Group I I

R=ll Z f= ll ZSum= 30.5 P=5 (2)=7


W = 5 H = 2 Bl= Mask............. =1(H) =1 Bt=

D = 5 Hd =1 cg= Something...=1Indian

(Hd) = Cl=Dd = 1 M = 4 A = 5 Ex= Ice............... =1

FM = 3 (A) = Fi=lS = m = Ad = Fd=3 Rocks............=1

C = (Ad) = Ge=DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= —

CF = A1 = Ls=2FC = An = Na=

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay xy=

+ = 5 + = FC ‘ =1 S-Constellation (Adult)

11O•‘St-11O T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special ScoringV = 1 w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV

FT = 03r+(2)/R < .30 INCOM =no V = +Zd >j^3.5 FABCOM =

form = VF = +ep > EA ALOGFV = OCF+C > FC CONTAM =

Form Quality Y = UX+% < .70YF = 0S> 3 CP

FQx FQf FY = OP < 3 o r> 8 MOR+ = + = rF = OH * 2 PERo = 9 o = 2 Fr = +R <17 PSVw = 1 w = 1 FD = 2_ Total Total = 0- = 1 F = 3noform =


ZSum-Zest = 30.5-■34.5 FC:CF=C = 0:0Zd = -4.0 W:M = 5:4EB = 4:0 EA = 4.0 W:D = 5:5eb = 3:1 ep = 4.0 L = 3/8=.38(FM=3 m= T= C' =1 V= Y=) F+% = 2/3=67%

Blends:R = 0:11 X+% = 9/11=82%a:p = 6:1 A% = 5/11=45%

Ma:Mp = 3:1

Afr = 4/7=.57 3r+(2)/R=7/ll=.64 Cont:R = 9:1

H+Hd:A+Ad =3 :5 (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

1:0H+A:HD+Ad =12:1 XRT Achrom =

68/5=13.6" XRT Chrom =

58/5=11.6"


143

Sequence o f Scores S u b je c t 8 PreGroup I I


I 8" 1 W,So Fo A 1.02 Ddo

M̂ o (2) FC.FV.CF.Mpo(2)

AI I 25" 3 Wo H,B1 3.0

I I I 33" 4 W+ H P 5.5IV 6" 5 W- F- A 2.0

6 Wo Fo (A) 2.0V 8" 7 Wo Fo A 1.0

VI 15" 8 Wo Fo A 2.5VII 17" 9 Wo Ma,Frw H 2.5

V III 9" 10 W+ FM .CF.Fro CF.TF.m +

A P 4.5IX 15" 11 Wv Na 5.5X 5" 12 Wo Fw Mask,H,Cg 5.5

13 Do Fo Bt 4.0


STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 8 PreGroup I I

R=13 Zf=I2 ZSum= 39 P=2 (2)=2


w = 11 FS' .FV.CF.Mpo H = 4 Bl= 1 Mask........ .. .=1M Frw (H) = Bt= 1

D = 1 FM .CF.Fro Hd = Cg= 1CF.TF.m + (Hd) = Cl =

Dd = 1 M = 1 A = 6 Ex=FM = (A) = 1 Fi=

S = m = Ad = Fd=C = (Ad) = Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=CF = A1 = Ls=FC = An = Na=l

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = Xy= ~

+ = 2 + = FC‘ = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 9 o = 2 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 1 w = 1 TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV =- = 1 - = FT = 03r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM = 1

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = Oep^ EA ALOG =

FV = +CF+C >• FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = 0X+%< .70

YF = 0S-> 3 CP =FQx FQf FY = +P^ 3 or> 8 MOR =+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PERo = 9 o = 6 Fr = +R< 17 PSV =w = 1 w = 1 FD = 3 Total Total = 1- = 1 - = 1 F = 8noform =


ZSum-Zest = 39-38 FC:CF+C = 0:3 Afr = 4/9=.44zd = 1 W:M = 11:3 3r+(2)/R=8/13=.62EB = 3:3 EA = 6 W:D = 11:1 Cont:R = 8:14eb = 2:3 ep = 5 L = 8/5=1.6 H+Hd:A+Ad = 4:6(FM=1 m=l T=1 C'=l V=1 Y=) F+% = 6/8=75% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

0:1Blends:R = 4:13 X+% = 10/13=77%% H+A:HD+Ad = 11:0a:p = 3:1 A% = 7/13=54% XRT Achrom =

54/5=10.8"Ma:Mp = 1 :2 XRT Chrom =

87/5=17.4"




I 9" 1 D,So Fo A2 W.So Fo Ad

I I 2" 3 Wo It .Co (2) H,B1 P 4.5I I I 10" 4 D+ FY.M .FV+ (2) H P 3.0

5 Do FYo A PIV 6" 6 Wo Fo a (A) 2.0V 7" 7 Wo FC'.FM o A P 1.0

VI 5" 8 Wo FO Ad 2.5VII 12" 9 Wo M .Fro H P 3.0

V III 13" 10 Wo FM .FC.Fro A,Ls P 4.5 INC0M11 Wo FCo emblem 4.5

IX 20" 12 Dd,Sv Fw (Ad) 5.5X 10" 13 Dd,So FCw Hd INC0M

14 W+ FCo B+ 5.5 INC0M


1.46

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 8 Experim entalGroup I I

R=14 Zf=10 ZSum= 36 P=6 (2)=2


W = 9 FY.IM .FV+ H = 3 Bl= 1 emblem... , ..=1FS' .FM o (H) = Bt= 1

D = 3 Mo .Fr Hd = 1 Cg=FM5.FC.Fro (Hd) = Cl=M̂ o.C

Dd = 2 M = A = 4 Ex= —FM = (A) = 1 Fi=

S = 4 m = Ad = 2 Fd=C = (Ad) = 1 Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=CF = A1 = Ls= 1FC = 3 An = Na=

DQ M Quality C* = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = xy=

+ = 2 + = 1 FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)CvJIIopH

rHIIO T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 1 w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV =_ =: _ = FT = 03r+(2)/R <.30 INCOM = 3

no V = 0+Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = Oep> EA ALOG

FV = OCF+C > FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = OX+% < .7 0

YF = +S> 3 CPFQx FQf FY = 1 UP -e 3 or > 8 MOR =+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PER =o = 11 o = 4 Fr = +R <17 PS V =w = 2 w = 1 FD = 3_ Total Total = 3- = - = F = 5noform =


ZSum-Zest = 36-31 FC:CF+C = 3:1 Afr = 5/14=.36zd = 4:0 W:M = 9:3 3r+(2)/R=8/14=.57EB = 3:3.5 EA = 6..5 W:D = 9:3 Cont:R = 10:14eb = 2:3 ep = 5.0 L = 5/9=.56 H+Hd:A+Ad = 4 :6(FM=2 m= T= C'=l V=1 Y=l) F+% = 4/5=80% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

0:2Blends:R = 5:14 X+% = 12/14=86% H+A:HD+Ad = 8:4a:p = 4:1 A% = 8/14=57% XRT Achrom =

39/5=7.8"Ma:Mp = 1 :1 XRT Chrom =

55/5=11"




I 5" 1 Wo FO A 1.02 W+ M*+ H,Ls 4.03 W,So Fo Ad 1.04 Dd+ Fo Ls

I I 3“ 5 W+ Mpo (2) H 5Cg (P) 4.56 D,So Fo Capitol

Building7 W,So Fw Ad 3.58 W,So Fw Ad 4.5

I I I 7" 9 D+ Mao (2) H P 3.010 D,So Fw Ad

IV 4" 11 Ddo FDo (H) 2.012 Wo FYo (2) Ls 2.013 W,So Fw Ad 2.0

V 6" 14 Wo Fo A P 1.015 Wo Fo A P 1.016 D,S+ YFo Na 4.0

VI 4“ 17 Ddo Fo TotemPole

18 Do Flo LsVII 5" 19 D+ Mpo (2) H P 3.0

20 DsSo Fo Bust 4.021 Do Fo A22 D,So F§ Hh

V III 5" 23 Dd,So M w H24 Do FM o (2) A P25 Do Fw An26 Do Fo Ls

IX 1" 27 Do Fo (2) (A)28 Ddo Fw Building29 Ddo Fw Hd 2.5

X 4" 30 Do Fw (2) A P31 Dd,So Fw H32 Do Fw (2) A33 Do FCo (2) Bt

PSV

PER


STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 9 E xperim entalGroup I I

R=33 Zf=16 ZSum= 43 P=6 (2)=9


W = 10 H = 6 Bl = ca p ito l...= lbuilding

(H) =1 Bt= 1D = 16 Hd = 1 Cg= 1 totem pole.=l

(Hd) = Cl=Dd = 7 M = 5 A = 9 Ex= bust............=1

FM = 1 (A) = 1 Fi=S = 11 m = Ad = 5 Fd= building...=1

C = (Ad) = Ge=DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= 1

CF = A1 = Ls= 5FC = 1 An = 1 Na= 1 ..................... =

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = Xy= ..................... = *

+ = 6 + = 1 FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 27 o = 3 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = w = 1 TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV- = - = FT = +3r+(2)/R < .30 INCOM =

no V = +Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = Oep> EA ALOG

FV = OCF+C> FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = +X+% <..70

YF = 1 +S> 3 CPFQx FQf FY = 1 0P< 3 or> 8 MOR+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PER = 1o = 21 o = 12 Fr = OR .£17 PS V = 1w = 11 w = 10 FD = 1 £ Total Total = 2- = - = F = 22noform =


ZSum-Zest = 43-52..5 FC:CF+C = 1:0zd = -9.5 W:M = 10:5EB = 5:.5 EA = 5.5 W:D = 10:16eb = 1:3 i2p = 4.0 L = 22/11=2.0IIBrHIIsL

i. T=1 C''= V= Y=2) F+% = 12/22=55%

Blends:R = 0:33 X+% = 22/33=67%a:p = 3:3 A% = 13/33=39%Ma:Mp = 2:3

Afr = 11/22=.50 3r+(2)/R=9/33=.27 Cont:R = 15:33 H+Hd:A+Ad =7:12 (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=


24/5=4.8"XRT Chrom =

20/5=4.0"


Sequence o f Scores S u b je c t 9 PostGroup I I


I 1" 1 W,So Fo A 3.52 Do Fo H3 W,Sv F- Ls 3.5

I I 2" 4 w+ Mp.Fro (H) (P) 4.55 Do Fo A6 Dd,So Fo Spire7 W,So FTw Ad

I I I 1" 8 D+ Mo (2) H P 3.09 D,So Fw Hd

10 Do Fo A PIV 2“ 11 Wo FDo (H) 2.0

12 Ddo FTo Bt 2.013 Wo Fw Ad 2.0

V 1" 14 Wo Fo A P 1.0VI 2" 15 Do Fo Totem

PoleVII 1" 16 D+ Mpo (2) H P 3.0

17 Do Fo A18 D,So Fo Vase19 D,So Fo Bust

V III 3" 20 D,So Fw Hd21 Do FM o (2) A P22 Ddo Fw Hd23 Do Fw An

IX 4" 24 Do Fo (2) (A)25 Do Fo Ad26 D,So Fo Hd27 D,So Fw Building

X 1" 28 Do FCw (2) A29 Do Fo Bt30 Do Fo (2) A31 Ddo Fw H


STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b jec t 9 PostGroup I I

R=31 Z f=9

L o ca tio n Features

ZSum= 24.5 P=5 (2)=6


Contents

W = 7

D = 20

Dd = 4 M = FM =

S = 9 m = C =

DU = Cn = CF = FC =

DQ M Quality C' = C‘F=

+ = 3 + = FC‘=o = 27 o = 3 T =V = 1 w = TF =_ = _ = FT =

no V =form = VF =

FV =Form Quality Y =

YF =FQx FQf FY =+ = + = rF =o = 21 o = 15 Fr =w = 9 w = 7 FD =- = 1 - = 1 noform =

F =

Ratios

ZSum-Zest = 24.5- Zd = -3.0

27.5

EB = 3:.5 EA = 3eb = 1:2 ep = 3.i(FM=1 m= T=2 C

Blends:R = 1:31 a:p = 2:2

Ma:Mp = 1:2

;•= v=

M^.Fro

= 1

= 2

123

H = 4 (H)= 2 Hd = 4 (Hd) =A = 8 (A) = 1 Ad = 3 (Ad) = Ab =A1 =An = 1 Art =Ay =

S-Constellation OFV+VF+V+FD OCol.Shd B1 +3r+(2)/R 0Zd> +3.5 £ep> EA 0CF+C> FC +X+% < .7 0 +S> 3 OP < 3 o r> 0H< 2 OR < 17 3 Total

Bl= Bt= 2 Cg= Cl= Ex= Fi= Fd= Ge= Hh= Ls= 1 Na= Sx= Xy=

(Adult) > 2 > 0

<.30

8



spire........ =1

vase.......... =1

bust.. . . . . .***1

totem pole.=l

building...=1

Special Scoring DVINCOM = FABCOM = ALOGCONTAM =

CPMORPERPSVTotal = 0

FC:CF+C = 1:0 W:M W:D

Afr = 12/19=.63 = 7:3 3r+(2)/R= 9/31=.29= 7:20 Cont:R = 14:31

L = 23/8=2.9 H+Hd:A+Ad =8:11F+% = 15/23=65% (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=

2:1X+% = 21/31=68% H+A:HD+Ad = 15:7A% = 12/31=39% XRT Achrom =

7/5=1.4"XRT Chrom =

11/5=2.2"


Sequence of Scores S u b je c t 10 PreGroup I I


I 1" 1 Ddo Fw Hd2 D,So Fo A3 Wv Fw Space 5.5

InvaderI I 7" 4 D,So Fo Rocket, Fi 4.5

5 Do F° a A6 D,So FM w Ad

I I I 13" 7 Do FYw xy8 W,So Fo Hd.Cg

IV 4" 9 Wo FDo (A) 2.010 Wo FYo Bt 2.0

V 1" 11 Wo FM“o A P 1.012 Wo FM o A 1.0

VI 6" 13 Wo Fo A 1.0VII 4" 14 Do Fo (2) H P

V III 5" 15 Do Fo (2) A PIX 14" RejectionX 2" 16 Dd,So Fw Hd 6.0

17 Do Fo (2) A P

PSV


152STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 10 Pre

Group I I

R=17 Zf=8 ZSum= 23

Location Features

P=4


(2)=3


W = 7 H = Bl= space........=1invader

(H) = Bt= 1D = 8 Hd = Cg= 1 rocket___=1

(Hd) = Cl=Dd = 2 M = A = 7 Ex= —

FM = 3 (A) = 1 Fi= 1S = 5 m = Ad = 1 Fd=

C = (Ad) = Ge=DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= .

CF = A1 = Ls=FC = An = Na=

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = Xy= 1 —

+ = + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 16 o = T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 1 w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV• = - = FT = +3r+(2)/R <.30 INCOM =

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = +ep> EA ALOG

F V = OCF+C > FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = +X+%< .70

YF = +S > 3 CPFQx FQf FY = 2 TIP < 3 o r> 8 MOR+ = + = rF = +H < 2 PERo = 11 o = 7 Fr = OR <17 PSV = 1w = 6 w = 4 FD = 1 5_ Total Total = 1- = - = F = 11noform =


ZSum-Zest = 23-24 FC:CF+C = 0:0 Afr = 3/14=.21zd = -1 W:M = 7:0 3r+(2)/R=3/17=.18EB = 0 EA = 0 W:D = 7:8 Cont:R = 10:17eb = 3 :2 ep = 5.0 L = 11/6=1.83 H+Hd:A+Ad = 3 :8( FM= m= —

i ii O ii < ii -< ii ro F+% = 7/11=67% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=0:1

BlendsrR = 0:17 X+% = 22/33=67% H+A:HD+Ad =8 :4a:p = 3:0 A% = 13/33=39% XRT Achrom =

16/5=3.2"Ma:Mp = 0:0 XRT Chrom =

41/5=8.2"


153SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 10 E xperim ental

Group I I


I 9" 1 W,So Fo Costume 1.0I I 7" 2 W,So FMpw Ad 4.5

3 D,S+ mo Rocket, Fi 4.54 Do Fo A

I I I 8" 5 Do Fo eg P6 Do FYo Xy7 Wo Fw Star War

CharacterIV 2" 8 Wo FDo (A) 5.5

9 Wo Fo Bt 2.0V 7" 10 Wo Fo A P 1.0

11 Wo F°n A P 1.0VI 5" 12 Wo FMpo A 2.5

VII 15" 13 Do Mpo (2) (H) 3.014 Do C'Fo (2) Cl

V III 10" 15 Wo FCw (Hd) 4.516 Ddo Fw Hd17 Do Fo (2) A P

IX 22" 18 Dd,So Fo (2) Hd19 Do Fo A

X 4" 20 D,So Fw (Hd)Cg 6.021 D,So Fw H22 Do Fo (2) A


154


R=22 Zf=ll

Location Features

ZSum= 35.5

Determinants

P=4 (2)=5

Contents Contents(Blends First) (Idiographic)

W = 9 H = 1 Bl= costume....=1(H)= 1 Bt= 1

D = 11 Hd = 2 Cg= 2 rocket........=1(Hd) = 2 Cl= 1

Dd = 2 M = 1 A = 7 Ex= Star War...=lCharacter

FM = 2 (A) = 1 Fi= 1S = 6 m = 1 Ad = 1 Fd= =

C = (Ad) = Ge=DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= ...................=

CF = A1 = Ls= 1FC = 1 An = Na= ...................=

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C'F= 1 Ay = Xy= 1 ~

+ = 1 + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 21 o = l T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 1 w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV

FT = +3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM =no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =

form = VF = +ep >■ EA ALOGFV = TTCF+C > FC CONTAM =

Form Quality Y = OX+% < .70YF = +S> 3 CP

FQx FQf FY = 1 OP < 3 o r> 8 MOR+ = + = rF = +H < 2 PER = 1o = 16 o = 10 Fr = 0R < 17 PSV = 1w = 6 w = 4 FD = 1 4 Total Total = 1- = - = F = 14noform =


ZSum-Zest = 35.5-34.5 FC:CF+C = 1:0zd = -1.0 W:M = 9:1EB 1:.5 EA = 1.5 W:D = 9:11eb = 3:2 ep = 5.0 L 14/8=1.75(FM=2 m=l T= C'=l V = Y=l) F+% = 10/14=71%

Blends:R = 0:22 x + % = 16/22=73%a:p = 1:3 A% 9/22=41%

Ma:Mp = 0:1

Afr = 8/14=.57 3r+(2)/R= 5/22=.23 Cont:R = 15:22

3:1H+A:HD+Ad =10:5

XRT Achrom = 38/5=7.6"

XRT Chrom = 51/5=10.2"


155

SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 11 Experim entalGroup I I


I 6" 123

DoDdoDdo

MoFoFo

HAA

P

I I 38" 4 Do Fo Star Wars Creature

I I I 8" 5 Dd+ Mao (2) An 3.0IV 22" 6 D+ Mao (2) Hd P 3.5V 11" 7 Wo Fo A P 1.0

VI 29" 8 Do FVo FdVII 16" 9 W,Sv VFw

FM w (2)Deep Hole 4.0

V III 41" 10 W+ A,Ls P 4.5IX 13" 11 Ddo Fw Hd 2.5X 26" 12 Wo Fo A, Sea

Creatures


156

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b jec t 11 E xperim entalGroup I I

R=12 Zf=6 ZSum=‘ 18.5 P=4 (2)=3


W = 4 H = 1 Bl = Star Wars..=lCreature

(H)= Bt=D = 4 Hd = 2 cg= Deep ho le ...= l

(Hd) = Cl=Dd = 4 M = 3 A = 5 Ex= Sea creatures=l

FM = 1 (A) = Fi=S = 1 m = Ad = Fd= 1 =

C = (Ad) = Ge=DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= .......................=

CF = A1 = Ls= 1FC = An = Na= =

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = Xy= ~

ii+COn+ FC‘ = S-Constellation (Adult)COIIoCOIIo T = 0FV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special ScoringV = 1 w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV- = - = FT = +3r+(2)/R <. .30 INC0M = 1

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABC0M =form = VF = 1 Oep> EA ALOG

FV = 1 OCF+C> FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = m+% < .70

YF = 0S > 3 CPFQx FQf FY = OP ^ .3 o r> 8 MOR+ = + = rF = +H <T2 PERo = 9 o = 5 Fr = + R < 17 PSVw = 3 w = 1 FD = 3_ Total Total = 1_ = — = F = 6noform =


ZSum-Zest = 18.5-17.0ZdEBeb(FM=1 m=Blends:Ra:p

Ma:Mp

EA= 1.5 = 3:0 = 1:2 ep T= C* =

= 0:12 = 4:0

= 3:0

= 3 = 3 V=2

FC:CF+C = 0:0 W:M W:D

Afr

Y=)

4:3 3r+(2)/R= 3/12=^254:4 Cont:R = 9:12

L = 6/6=1.00 H+Hd:A+Ad =3 :5F+% = 5/6=83% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=X+% = 9/12=75% H+A:HD+Ad =6 .2A% = 5/12=42% XRT Achrom =

84/5=16.8" XRT Chrom =

126/5=25.2"


157SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b ject 11 Post

Group I I


I 2" 12

DoDo

MoFo

H P A

3 Do F2M“.FV-Hd

I I 18“ 4 Dd,S- (H) 4.5I I I 5" 5 D+ Mp+ (2) H,Fi 3.0IV 11“ 6 Dd+ Mao (2) HdV 3" 7 Wo Fo A P 1.0

VI 7“ 89

DoDo

FoFYo

FdFeathers

VII 38" 10 W,Sv Fo Ge 2.5V III 7“ 11 W+ FMpo (2) A,Ls 4.5

IX 25" 12 Ddom .FCo

Hd13 Wo Ex 5.5

X 16" 14 Do Fo (2) A15 Dv Fo (2) Coral


158

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b jec t 11 PostGroup I I

R=15 Z f=6 ZSum= 21 P=2 (2 )= 5


W = 4 M*.FV- H = 2 Bl = Feathers...=1M .FCo Creature

(H)= 1 Bt=D = 8 Hd = 3 cg= Coral.................=1

(Hd) = Cl=Dd = 3 M = 3 > ii Ex= 1 3

FM = 1 (A) = Fi= 1<MIICO m = Ad = Fd= 1 =C = (Ad) = Ge= 1

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= 3

CF = A1 = Ls= 1FC = An = Na= 3

DQ M Quality C‘ = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = Xy= 1 3

+ = 3 + = 1 FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 9 o = 2 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 2 w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV- = 1 - = 1 FT = 03r+(2)/R < .30 INCOM =

no V = +Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = oep > EA ALOG

FV = TTCF+C > FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = 0X+% < .70

YF = 0S> 3 CPFQx FQf* FY = 1 +P< 3 o r > 8 MOR+ = 1 + = rF = U H <2 PERo = 11 o = 5 Fr = +R<.17 PSVw = 2 w = 2 FD = 3 Total Total = 0- = 1 - = F = 8noform =


ZSum-Zest = 21-17 FC:CF+C = 1:0 Afr = 5/10=.50zd = -4.0 W:M = 4:4 3r+(2)/R= 5/15=.33EB = 4: .5 EA = 4.5 W:D = 4:8 Cont:R = 11:15eb = 2:2 ep =4 .0 L 8/7=1.14 H+Hd:A+Ad = 5:4(FM=1 m=l T= C'= V=1 Y=l) F+% = 5/7=71% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

1:0Blends:R =2:15 X+% = 12/15=80% H+A:HD+Ad =7:3a:p = 4:2 A% = 4/15=27% XRT Achrom =

61/5=12.2Ma:Mp =3 :1 XRT Chrom =

71/5=14.2


159

SEQUENCE 0F SCORES SubjectGroup I I

Card RT No. Location Determinant(s) Content(s) POP :

I 1" 1 Wo Fo A P2 Ddo Fo Ad3 Do Fo A

I I 12" 4 Wo Fo A5 Do Fg (2) A P

I I I 5" 6 D+ ITo (2) H P7 Do Fo eg

IV 22“ 8 W- F- AV 9" 9 Wo Fo A P

10 Ddo Fo HdVI 5" 11 Do Fo Sx

12 Do Fo Hh PVII 18" 13 Do Fo H P

14 Do Fo A15 Ddo F°_ Sx

V III 19" 16 Do FMpo A P17 D- F- Hd

IX 11" 18 Do Fw SxX 1" 19 Do Fo (2) A P

20 Do Fo Sx21 D- F- An

1.0

4.5

3.0

2.0 INCOM1.0


160


R=21 Zf=6 ZSum= 11.5 P=8 (2)=3


W = 4 H = 2 Bl= =

(H)= Bt=D = 14 Hd = 2 Cg=l =

(Hd) = Cl=Dd = 3 M = 1 A = 9 Ex= .......................=

FM = 1 (A) = Fi=S = m = Ad = 1 Fd= .......................=

C = (Ad) = Ge=DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= 1 .......................=

CF = A1 = Ls=FC = An = 1 Na= .......................=

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx= 4C'F= Ay = Xy= ....................... =

+ = 1 + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 17 o = l T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special ScoringV = w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 ^ 0 DV- = 3 FT = TT3r+(2)/R ^ .3 0 INCOM = 1

no V = +Zd >+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = +ep> EA ALOG

FV = OCF+C> FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = OX+% < .70

YF = 0S> 3 CPFQx FQf FY = OP * 3 o r > 8 MOR+ = + = rF = OH -tf.2 PERo = 17 o = 15 Fr = TTR-C 17 PSVw = 1 w = 1 FD = _1 Total Total = 1- = 3 - = 3 F = 19noform =


ZSum-Zest = 11.5-17.0 FC:CF+C = 0 :0 Afr = 6/15=.40zd = -5.5 W:M = 4:1 3r+(2)/R= 3/21=.14EB = 1:0 EA = 1.0 W:D = 4:14 Cont:R = 8:21eb = 1:0 ep = 1.0 L 19/2=9.5 H+Hd:A+Ad = 4:10(FM=1 m= T= C'= V== Y=) F+% = 15/19=79% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=Blends:R = 0:21 X+% = 17/21=81% H+A:HD+Ad = 11:3a:p =0 :2 A% 10/21=48% XRT Achrom =

32/5=6.4Ma:Mp =0 :1 XRT Chrom =

48/5=9.6"


161

SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b jec t 12 PostGroup I I

Card RT No'. Location Determinant(s) Content(s) POP Z Score Special

I 16" 12

W,SoDd,So

FMpoFo

ATriangles

3.5

3 Do Fo (2) Bt4 Do Fo A

I I 13" 5 Do Fo A6 Ddo Fo Roof, cupola 4.57 Do FYo Ad8 Do F§Mo

(2) Ad PI I I 11" 9 D+ (2) H P 3.0

10 Do FYo eg11 Do Fo Hd

IV 28“ 1213

W-Do

F-FTw

AA

2.0

V 1" 14 Wo Fo A (P) 1.015 Do Fo (2) Fd16 Do Fw A1

VI 8" 17 Do FYo IndianDesign

18 Do Fo Ad P19 Do F8Mo

Sx 2.520 Do Hd

VII 20" 21 Do Fl °MoFM .FYo F° a

(2) A22 Do (2) H P

V III 21" 2324

D+Do

(2) AGeode

P 3.0

IX 17" 25 Do FM .FYo (2) (A),Fi26 Do Fw Sx27 Do FVo Hd

X 7" 28 Do Fo Wishbone29 Do Fo (2) A P30 D- F- Sx31 D- F- An

INCOM

PER


1629

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 12 PostGroup I I

R=32 Zf=8 ZSum= 23.5 P=6 (2)=10


W = 3 FM*FYo H = 2 Bl= Triangles...= !FM .FYo (H)= Bt=l

D = 27 Hd = 3 Cg= Roof Cupola.=1(Hd) = Cl=

Dd = 2 M = 3 A = 11 Ex= Indian Design=:FM = 2 (A) = 1 Fi=l

S = m = Ad = 4 Fd=l Geode............=C = (Ad) = Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= .......................................=CF = A1 = 1 Ls=FC = An = Na= .......................................=

DQ M Quality C* = Art = Sx= 4C'F= Ay = Xy=

+ = 2 + = FC'= S-Constellation (Adult)o = 26 o = 3 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 4 w = TF = (TCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV_ = - = FT = 1 T)3r+(2)/R < .30 INCOM = 1

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = +ep> EA ALOG

FV = 1 OCF+C > FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = OX+% < .7 0

YF = 0S> 3 CPFQx FQf FY = 4 OP < 3 or> 8 MOR+ = + = rF = OH < 2 PER = 1o = 25 o = 14 Fr = FR< 17 PSVw = 3 w = 2 FD = 1 Total Total = 2- = 4 - = 3 F = 19noform =


ZSum-Zest = 23.5-24.0 FC:CF+C = 0:0 Afr = 10/22=.45zd = -.5 W:M = 3:3 3r+(2)/R= 10/32=.31EB = 3:0 EA = 3.0 W:D = 3:27 Cont:R = 14:32eb = 4:8 ep = 12.0 L = 19/13=1.46 H+Hd:A+Ad = 5:15(FM=4 m= T=1 C'= V=1 Y=6) F+% = 14/19=74% (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=

0:1Blends:R = 2:32 X+% = 25/32=78% H+A:HD+Ad = 14:7a:p = 5:2 A% = 16/32=50% XRT Achrom =

73/5=14.6"Ma:Mp = 3:0 XRT Chrom =

69/5=13.8"


163SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b jec t 13 Pre

Group I I I


I 3" 1 W,So Fo Ad 1.02 Wo FMpo A 1.0

I I 14" 3 Do F§Mo(2) (H)

4 Wo HI I I 3" 5 D+ M* CF.Y+

M Q(2) H,Fi P 3.0

6 Ddo HIV 2" 7 Wo FMpo A 2.0V 2" 8 Wo Fo A P 1.0

VI 15" 9 Do FVo SxVII 18" 10 D+ Mpg

FM o(2) Hd 3.0

V III 16" 11 W+ (2) A P 2.5IX 57" rejection

(2)X 3" 12 Do Fo A13 D,So Fw Hd14 Do Fw A


164

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b jec t 13 PreGroup I I I

R=14 Zf=7 ZSum= 13.5 P=3

Location Features Determi nants (Blends First)

(2)=5


W = 6 Ma.FC.Y+ H = 3 Bl= ..................... =(H)= 1 Bt=

o ii Hd = 2 cg= =(Hd) = Cl=

Dd = 1 M = 3 A = 6 Ex=FM = 3 (A) = Fi=l

S = 2 m = Ad = 1 Fd= =C = (Ad) = Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=CF = A1 = Ls=FC = An = Na= =

DQ M Quality C‘ = Art = Sx=lC‘F= Ay = xy= ........ .............=

+ = 3 + = 1 FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 11 o = 3 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV— = — = FT = ]J3r+(2)/R <.30 INCOM = 1

no V = +Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = Oep> EA ALOG

FV = 1 +CF+C > FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = OX+% < .7 0

YF = 0 S > 3 CPFQx FQf FY = OP < 3 or> 8 MOR+ = 1 + = rF = OH < .2 PERo = 11 o = 4 Fr = +R <17 PSVw = 2 w = 2 FD = 3_ Total Total = 1- = - = F = 6noform =


ZSum-Zest = 13.5-20.5 zd = -6.5EB = 4:1 EA = 5.0eb = 3 :1 ep = 5.0(FM=3 m= T=1 C'= V= Y=l)

Blends:R = 1:14 a:p = 4:2Ma:Mp =3:1

FC-.CF+C = 0:1 W:M W:D

Afr = 4/10=.40 = 6:3 3r+(2)/R= 5/14=.36=6:7 Cont:R =7:14

L = 6/8=.75 H+Hd:A+Ad = 5 :7F+% =4/6=67% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

1:0X+% = 11/13=85% H+A:HD+Ad = 10:2A% = 7/13=54% XRT Achrom =

40/5=8"XRT Chrom =

93/5=18.6"


165

SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 13 Experim entalGroup I I I


I 21" 1 Wo Fo A 1.02 W,So FO Ad 1.0

I I 10" 3 W+ M“o (2) (H) 4.5I I I 15" 4 Do M*+ ' (2) H P 3.0

5 Ddo Mo HIV 2" 6 Wo Fo A 2.0

7 Do FTo BtV 2" 8 Wo Fo A P 1.0

9 Wo Fo A P 1.0VI 13" 10 Wo Fro Hd 2.5

VII 5" 11 Do Mpo (2) H12 Do F°a (2) A

V III 6" 13 Wo FM .FC.Fro A 4.5IX 34" rejectionX 3” 14 Do Fw A

15 D,So Fw Hd16 Do Fo (2) A ' P


166

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b jec t 13 Experim entalGroup I I I

R=16 Zf=9 ZSum= 20.5 P=4 (2)=5


W = 8 FMa.FC.Fro H = 3 Bl = =(H)= 1 Bt=l

D = 7 Hd = 2 cg= =(Hd) = Cl=

Dd = 1 M = 4 A = 8 Ex=FM = (A) = Fi=

S = 2 m = Ad = 1 Fd= .......................=C = (Ad) = Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= .....................=CF = A1 = Ls=FC = An = Na= =

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = Xy=

+ = 1 + = FC'= S-Constellation (Adult)o = 15 o = 4 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 y o DV_ = — = FT = 1 03r+(2)/R -C .30 INCOM =

no V = +Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =form = VF = Oep > EA ALOG

FV = ZJCF+C > FC CONTAM =Form Quality Y = UX+% < .70

YF = 0S> 3 CPFQx FQf FY = OP < 3 or> 8 MOR+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PERo = 13 o = 7 Fr = 1 +R 4. 17 PSVw = 2 w = 2 FD = 2_ Total Total = 0_ = - = F = 9noform =


ZSum-Zest = 20.5-27.5 FC:CF+C = 1 :0 Afr = 4/12=.33zd = -7 W:M = 8:4 3r+(2)/R= 11/16=.69EB = 4:.5 EA = 4.5 W:D = 8:7 Cont:R = 6:16eb = 1:1 ep = 2 .0 L 9/7=1.29 H+Hd:A+Ad = 5:9(FM=1 m= T=1 C'= V= Y=) F+% = 7/9=78% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

1:0Blends:R = 1:16 X+% = 14/16=88% H+A:HD+Ad =12:3a:p = 4 :1 A% 9/16=56% XRT Achrom =

43/5=8.6"Ma:Mp =3 :1 XRT Chrom =

68/5=13.6"


SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 14 Experim entalGroup I I I


I 4“ 1 Do Fo (2) A2 Ddo Fw (2) A3 Do Fo, Bell

I I 1“ 4 D+ FM .Co (2) A,colors P 4.5 INCOMI I I 3" 5 D+ M + (2) H P 3.0

6 Do F§ A PIX 7" 7 Dd- M - (2) (H) 3.5V 3" 8 Wo FMp.FC‘o A P 1.0

VI 1" 9 W- F- Fd 2.5VII 1" 10 W+ Mao (2) H P 2.5

V III 1" 11 D+ FM .FCo (2) A P 3.0 INCOM12 Do FCw (2) A,Ls13 D+ FMao A,Ls

IX 13" 14 Do Mpo (2) H 4.515 Wv Fo Hh PER

X 2" 16 Do Fo Ad17 Do Fo (2) (A),H18 Do FCo (2) A19 D- FC- Ge PER


168

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 14 Experim entalGroup I I I

R=19 Zf=8 ZSum= 24.5 P=6 (2)=11


W = 4 FM*Co H = 4 Bl = Bell..............= 1fmP.fc* (H)= 1 Bt=

D = 13 FM .FCo Hd = Cg= Colors..........=(Hd) = Cl=

Dd = 2 M = 4 A = 9 Ex= =FM = 1 • (A) =1 Fi=

S = m = Ad = 1 Fd=l ....................... =C = (Ad) = Ge=l

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=l ....................... =CF = A1 = Ls=2FC = 3 An = Na=

DQ M Quality C‘ = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = xy= =

+ = 5 + = 1 FC * = S-Constellation (Adult)

o II I—* o o II ro T = 0FV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special ScoringV = 1 W = TF = tfCol.Shd B1 > 0 PSV- = 3 - = 1 FT = 03r+(2)/R <.30 DV

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 INCOM = 2form = VF = Oep > EA FABC0M =

FV = FCF+C > FC C0NTAM =Form Quality Y = 0X+% .70 PER = 2

YF = OS > 3 AL0GFQx FQf FY = 0P<. 3 o r> 8+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2o = 13 o = 6 Fr = OR < 17w = 2 w = 1 FD = £ Total Total = 4- = 3 - = 1 F = 8noform =


Afr = 9/10=.90 3r+(2)/R= 11/19=.58 Cont:R = 11:19 H+Hd:A+Ad =4:10 (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=


16/5=3.2"Ma:Mp = 3 :1 XRT Chrom =

20/5=4.0"

ZSum-Zest = 24.5-24 FC:CF+C = 4:1zd = .5 W:M = 4:4EB = 4:3.5 EA = 7.5 W:D = 4:13eb = 4:1 ep = 5.0 L 8/11=.73(FM=4 m= T= C'=l V= Y=) F+% = 6/8=75%

Blends:R = 3:19 X+% = 14/19=74%a:p = 6:2 A% 11/19=58%


169

SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b jec t 14 PostGroup I I I


I 24“ 1 Wo Mp.FMpo (2) A,Bell,H 1.02 Ddo F8 (A)

I I 23" 3 D+ M w (2) Blobs 3.0 INCOMI I I 4" 4 Do F8 (2) H

5 Do mpo (2) An6 Do Fo A P

IV 15" 7 W- F- Xy,Ad 2.0V 1" 8 Wo FMpo A P 1.0 M0R

VI 7" 9 Wo mpo Guitar 2.5 M0RVII 9" 10 D+ Mo (2) H P 3.0

11 Do Fo Hour GlassFigures

V III 2" 12 Wo FCo a (2) Emblem P 4.5IX 3" 13 W+ FC.FM o (2) (A),Cl,Blobs 5.5X 3" 14 Do FCo (2) A P

15 Do ECo (2) (A)16 D+ FMpo (2) (A) 4.017 Ddo Fw (2) Ge18 Do FCo (2) A


170STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b jec t 14 Post

Group I I I

R=18 Zf=9 ZSum= 26.5 P=5 (2)=12

Location Features

W = 6

D = 10

Dd = 2

S =


Contents

M.PFMP0 FC.FM o

M = 2 FM = 2 m = 2

H = 3 (H)=Hd = (Hd) = A = 6 (A) =3 Ad = 1

Bl = Bt=cg=Cl=lEx=Fi=Fd=


Bell.............= 1

Blobs...........= 2

Guitar.........= 1

Hour Glass..=1 Figures

DW =C = Cn =

(Ad) = Ge=l Ab = Hh= Emblem..........=]

CF =FC = 4

A1 = Ls= An = 1 Na= s

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = Xy=l

ii+ii+ FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 13 o = 2 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = w = 1 TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 PSV_ = X _ = FT = 03r+(2)/R <*.30 DV

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 INCOM =:form = VF = +ep> EA FABCOM

FV = OCF+C > FC CONTAMForm Quality Y = OX+% ** .70 ALOG

YF = (JS> 3 mor =;FQx FQf FY = OP ^ 3 o r> 8 Total =:+ = + = rF = OH < 2o = 15 o = 4 Fr = OR < 17w = 2 w = 1 FD = 1̂ Total- = 1 - = 1 F = 6noform =


ZSum-Zest = 26.5- 27.5 FC:CF+C = 5 :0 Afr = 7/11=.64zd = - 1 W:M = 6:3 3r+(2)/R= 12/18=.6EB = 3:2.5 EA = 5.5 W:D =6:10 Cont:R = 13:18eb = 6:0 ep = 6.0(FM=4 m=2 T= C‘= V= Y=)

Blends:R = 2:18 a:p = 3:6

Ma:Mp = 2:1

L = 6/12=.50 H+Hd:A+Ad = 3:7F+% = 4/6=67% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

0:3X+% = 15/18=83% H+A:HD+Ad =12:1A% = 10/18=56% XRT Achrom =

56/5=11.2" XRT Chrom =

35/5=7.0"


171

Card RT

I 3"

I I 5"

I I I 3"

IV 33 V 8"

VI 23"

V II 9" V III 11“

IX 22" X 10"

SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b jec t 15 Experim entalGroup I I I

No. Location Determinant(s) Content(s) POP Z Score Special

1 Wo M 9 (H) 1.02 Wo FM“w (2) A 1.03 D+ FM o (2) A,Fd P 3.0 PER4 Wo A 4.55 D+ Mo (2) H 3.06 Do Fw (H) INCOM

" 7 Wo FM w A 2.08 Wo FC'o A P 1.09 Wo F§ A 1.0

10 Dd+ m.YFo Rocket, Fi 2.5Smoke

11 W+ Mpo (2) H 2.512 W+ FM .Fro Ls,A P 4.5 PER13 w+ FC.Frw Ls 5.514 Wv m .CFw Ex,Fireworks 5.5



Group I I I

R=14 Zf=13 ZSum= :37 P=3 (2)=4


W = 10 m ,YFo H = 2 Bl = Rocket........=1FM . Fro (H)=2 Bt=COIIQ

FC.Frw Hd = cg= Smoke..........=1ma.CFw (Hd) = Cl=

Dd = 1 M = 3 A = 7 Ex=l Fireworks..=1FM = 3 (A) = Fi=l

S = m = Ad = Fd=l ................... =C = (Ad)= Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=CF = A1 = Ls=2FC = An = Na= =

DQ M Quality C‘ = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = Xy=

+ = 6 + = FC'= 1 S-Constellation (Adult)o = 7 o = 3 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 1 w = TF = UCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV_ = — = FT = 03r+(2)/R <.30 INCOM =1

no V = +Zd>+3.5 FABCOMform = V F = +ep> EA ALOG

FV = OCF+C > FC CONTAMForm Quality Y = +X+%< .70 CP

YF = OS > 3 MORFQx FQf FY = OP < 3 o r> 8 PER =2+ = + = rF = UH < 2 PS Vo = 8 o = l Fr = OR < 17 Total =3w = 6 w = 2 FD = 4̂ Total- = - = F = 3noform =


ZSurn-Zest = 37-41 .5 FC:CF+C = 1:1 Afr 3/11=.27zd = - 4.5 W:M = 10:3 3r+(2)/R= 10/14=.71EB = 3:1.5 EA = 4.5 W:D = 10:3 Cont:R = 10:14eb S 5:2 ep = 7 L 3/11=.27 H+Hd:A+Ad = 2:7(FM=3 m=2 T:=0 C‘ =1 V=0 Y=l) F+% = 1/3=33% (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=

2:0Blends:R == 4:14 X+% = 8/14=57% H+A:HD+Ad = 11:0a:p = 7:2 A% 7/14=50% XRT Achrom =

76/5=15.2Ma:Mp =2 :1 XRT Chrom =

51/5=10.2"


173SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 15 Post

Group I I I


I 13" 1 W+ Mp.Fr+ H,Ls 4.0I I 30" 2 Ddo F- (2) A

I I I 22" 3 Do Mpo (2) H,Cg PIV 16" 4 Ddo Mpo (2) H,Bt 4.0V 20" 5 Wo FS A P 1.0

VI 7" 6 W+ M o.rF Fi ,NaSmoke

VII 27" 7 W+ Mao (2) H P 2.5V III 26" 8 W+ FM . Fro A P 4.5

IX 30" 9 Dd+ FC.FM w (2) A 2.5 INCOMX 37" 10 Do FM .Frw A 4.0


174STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b jec t 15 Post

Group I I I

R=10 Zf=7 ZSum= 22.5 P=4 (2)=5

Location Features Determinants(Blends First

w = 5 Mj+.Fr m o.rF FM o.Fr FC.FM w

D = 2

Dd = 3 M = 3 FM =

S = m = C =

DW = Cn = CF = FC =

DQ M Quality C‘ = C‘ F=

+ = 5 + = 1 FC' =o = 5 o = 3 T =v = w = TF =- = - = FT =

no V =form = VF =

FV =Form Quality Y =

YF =FQx FQf FY =+ = 1 + = rF =o = 5 0 = 1 Fr =w = 3 w = FD =- = 1 no

- = 1 F = 2

form :


H = 4 Bl= Smoke..........=1(H)= Bt=lHd = Cg=l .....................=(Hd) = Cl=A = 5 Ex=(A) = Fi=lAd = Fd= .....................=(Ad)= Ge=Ab = Hh= .......... . . . . . =A1 = Ls=lAn = Na=l =

Art = Sx=Ay = Xy= ....................... =

S-Constellation (Adult)OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special ScoringOCol.Shd B1 > 0 DVTT3r+(2)/R < .30 INCOM =:TjZd >+3.5 FABCOMOep > EA ALOGOCF+C > FC CONTAM+X+% < .70 CP0S> 3 MOROP < 3 o r> 8 PEROH <2 PSV+R <17 Total =

2 Total


ZSum-Zest = 22.5-20.5 FC:CF+C =1:10 Afr = 3/7=.43Zd = 2.5 W:MEB = 4:.5 EA = 4.5 W:Deb = 4:0 ep = 4.0 L(FM=3 m=l T= C‘= V= Y=) F+%Blends:R = 5:10 X+%a:p = 15:3 A%

Ma:Mp = 1:3

= 5:4 3r+(2)/R= 17/10=1.7= 5:2 Cont:R = 8:10= 2/8=.25 H+Hd:A+Ad = 4 :5= 1/2=50% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)== 6/10=60% H+A:HD+Ad = 9 :0= 7/14=50% XRT Achrom =

83/5=16.6"XRT Chrom =

145/5=29"


1.75SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 16 Pre

Group I I I


I 2" 1 Do Fo AI I 21" 2 Do

Mo(2) A

I I I 40" 3 Do HIV 24" 4 Do Fo A

5 Do Fo (2) HdV 7" 6 Wo F§mo

AVI 27" 7 Wv Ex

VII 19" Rejection(2)V III 9" 8 Do Fo A

IX 19" 9 Do Fw (2) An,HdX 11" 10 Do Fo (2) A

11 Do Fw (2) A



R = ll Z f=3

Lo catio n Features

ZSum= 9 P=5


( 2)=6


W = 2 H = 1 Bl= ............................................... =

(H)= Bt=D = 9 Hd =2 Cg= ...............................................=

(Hd) = Cl=Dd = M = 1 A = 7 Ex=l • • • • • • « • • • ii

FM = (A) = Fi=S = m = 1 Ad = Fd= =

C = (Ad)= Ge=DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= ...........................................=

CF = A1 = Ls=FC = An =1 Na=

DQ M Quality C’ = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = Xy= ..........................................=

ii+ii+ FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 10 o = 1 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special ScoringV = 1 W = TF = TTCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV

FT = 03r+(2)/R <.30 INCOMno V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOM

form = VF = Oep> EA . ALOGFV = tfCF+C > FC. CONTAM

Form Quality Y = OX+% < .70 CPYF = 0S> 3 MOR

FQx FQf FY = OP < 3 or> 8 PER+ = + = rF = +H < 2 PSVo = 9 o = 7 Fr = +R <17 Total =i

w = 2 w = 2 FD = 2 Total_ = - = F = 9noform =


ZSum-Zest = 9-6 FC-.CF+C = 0:0 Afr = 4/7=.57Zd = 3.0 W:M = 2:1 3r+(2)/R= 6/11=.55EB 1:0 EA = 1.0 W:D = 2:9 Cont:R = 5:11eb = 1:0 ep = 1.0 L = 9/2=4.5 H+Hd:A+Ad =3 :7(FM= m=l T= C‘= V= Y=) F+% = 7/9=78% (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=Blends:R = 0:11 X+% = 9/11=82% H+A:HD+Ad =8 :2a:p = 2:0 A% = 7/11=64% XRT Achrom =

79/5=15.8"Ma:Mp 1:0 XRT Chrom =

100/5=20"


1.77SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b jec t 16 Experim ental

Group I I I


I 25" 12

WoDo

M .FC'0 Fo

(H)A

1.0

I I 39 3 Do FC.FYoMo

(2) A PI I I 27" 4 Do HIV 20" 5 Do Mo (2) Hd 4.0V 10" 6 Wo Fo A P 1.0

VI 27 7 Do FYo a Flag8 Do YF.M o Ex 2.5

VII 36" 9 Do Fo (2) AdV III 15" 10 Do Fo (2) A P

IX 25" 11 Wo Fw (2) An,Hd 5.5X 12" 12 Do Fo (2) A P

13 Do FYw (2) A


1 /8

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 16 Experim entalGroup I I I

R=13 Z f=5 ZSum= 14 P=4 (2 )= 7


W = 3 M .FC'o H = 1 Bl= Flag............=1FC.FYo (H)=l Bt=

D = 10 YF.m o Hd =2 Cg= ................... =(Hd) = Cl=

Dd = M = 2 A = 6 Ex=l ................. =FM = (A) = Fi=

S = m = Ad = 1 Fd= ................. =C = (Ad)= Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= ................. =CF = A1 = Ls=FC = An =1 Na= ................. =

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C‘F= Ay = xy= ................. =

+ = + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 13 o = 3 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = w = TF = TCol.Shd B1 > 0 PSV- = - = FT = 03r+(2)/R <.30 DV

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 INCOMform = VF = +ep > EA FABCOM

FV = OCF+C > FC CONTAMForm Quality Y = OX+% < .70 ALOG

YF = 0S > 3FQx FQf FY = 2 OP < 3 o r> 8 Total = 0+ = + = rF = +H <2o = 11 o = 5 Fr = +R <17w = 2 w = 1 FD = 4 Total- = - = F = 6noform =

Ratios, IPercentages, and Derivations

ZSum-Zest = 14-13 .5 FC:CF+C = 1:0 Afr = 4/9=.44Zd = .5 W:M = 3:3 3r+(2)/R= 7/13=.54EB = 3 : .5 EA = 3.5 W:D = 3:10 Cont:R = 8:13eb = 1 :5 ep = 5.0 L = 6/7=.86 H+Hd:A+Ad = 3 :7(FM= m=l T= C‘=l V= Y=4) F+% = 5/6=83% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

1:0Blends:R = 3:13 X+% = 11/13=85% H+A:HD+Ad = 8 :3a:p = 4:0 A% = 7/13=54% XRT Achrom =

124/5=24.8"Ma:Mp = 3:0 XRT Chrom =

118/5=23.6"


SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b jec t 17 Experim entalGroup I I I


I 2" 1 Wo FM .FC'o A P 1.02 Do FC'o (2) (H)

I I 25" 3 W+ Mo (2) (H) 4.54 Do Ftf (2) A

I I I 9" 5 D+ Mpo (2) (H) 3.0IV 15" 6 Wo FDo H 2.0V 7" 7 Wo Fo A P 1.0

8 Wo FYo H 1.0VI 7" 9 Wo FI° Ad P 2.5

VII 8" 10 D+ Mn° (2) H P 3.011 D+ Mpo (2) (H) P 3.0

V III 9" 12 W+ FM .Fr.CF+ A,Ls P 4.5IX 17" 13 W+ M .CF.Fro (H),Ls 5.5X 14" 14 Dv CF.C'Fw (2) Germs

15 Do FCo (2) A P16 Do FCo (2) FD17 Do FCo (2) A


STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b jec t 17 Experim entalGroup I I I

R=17 Zf= ll ZSum= 31 P=8 (2)=10


W = 8 FM .̂FC'o H = 4 Bl= .....................=FM .Fr.CF+ (H)=4 Bt=

D = 9 Mp.CF.Fro Hd = cg= i .................=CF.C'Fw (Hd) = Cl=

Dd = M = 4 A = 7 Ex= .................=FM = (A) = Fi=

S = m = Ad = 1 Fd=l =C = (Ad)= Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=CF = 1 A1 = Ls=2FC = 2 An = Na=l ................. =

DQ M Quality C* = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = xy= ................. =

+ = 6 + = 0 FC’= 1 S-Constellation (Adult)o = 10 o = 5 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 1 w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > o PER

FT = 1 TT3r+(2)/R < .30 PSVV = I[Zd>+3.5 DVVF = Oep > EA INCOMFV = +CF+C> FC FABCOM

Form Quality Y = YF =

OX+% < .7 0 0S> 3

ALOGCONTAM

FQx FQf FY = 1 OP < 3 or> 8 Total = 0+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2o = 15 o = 2 Fr = OR < 17w = 1 w = 1 FD = 1 1 Total

F = 3noform =


ZSum-Zest = 31.0-34.5 Zd = 3.5EB = 5:9 EA = 7eb = 2:5 ep = 7(FM=2 m= T=1 C'=3 V= Y=l)

Blends:R = 4:17a:p = 4:3

Ma:Mp = 2:3

FC:CF+C = 2:3W:M = 7:5W:D = 7:10L 3/17=.18F+% = 2/3=67%

X+% = 16/17=94%A% 8/17=47%

Afr = 6/11=.54 3r+(2)/R= 16/17=.94 Cont:R = 6:17 H+Hd:A+Ad =4 :7 (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=

4:0H+A:HD+Ad = 11:0 XRT Achrom =


74/5=14.8"


181SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 17 Post

Group I I I


I 8" 1 Wo Fo A P 1.02 Do F8Mro

Ad3 Do H

I I 10“ 4 W+ Mg FM o

(2) H 4.55 Do A

I I I 23“ 6 Do A,Mask7 W+

n aMp.mp.M o (2) H,Ab,Cg P 5.5

IV 12“ 8 Wo Mp.FDo H 2.09 Wv Mpw candle wax 2.0

V 9“ 10 Wo F+ H 1.011 Wo Fo A P 1.0

VI 5" 12 Wo & M oHh P 2.5

VII 2“ 13 D+ (2) H P 3.014 Do FQ (2) H P 3.015 Do Mpg

FM o(2) Punch & Judy

V III 3" 16 Do A P17 W+ CF.rFo Na 4.5

IX 6" 18 Do Mao (H)19 W+ CF.rFw Na 5.520 D+ Mo _ H 2.5

X 2" 21 D- FC.Mpo (2) Germs22 Do Fo (2) A P23 Do FCo Bt24 Do Fo (2) A

INCOMFABCOM

PERINCOM


STRUCTURAL SUMMARY182

S u b je c t 17 PostGroup I I I

R=24 Zf=13 ZSum= 38 P=8 (2)=8


W = 10 Mp.mp.M H = 8 Bl= Mask............=1Mp.FDo (H)=l Bt=l

D * 14 CF.rFo Hd = Cg=l Candle Wax =1FC.Mpo (Hd) = Cl=

Dd = M = 5 A = 7 Ex= Punch & Judy=lFM = 2 (A) = Fi=

S = m = 2 Ad = 1 Fd= Germs..........=1C = (Ad)= Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = 1 Hh=lCF = A1 = Ls=FC = 1 An =1 Na=2 ............................ =

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = xy=

+ = 6 + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 16 o = 9 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 1 w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV_ = i _ = FT = 03r+(2)/R <.30 INCOM =2

no V = FZd > +3.5 FABCOM =1form = VF = Oep > EA ALOG

F V = 0CF+C> FC CONTAMForm Quality Y = OX+% < .70 CP

YF = 0 S > 3 MORFQx FQf FY = OP < 3 or> 8 PER =1+ = 1 + = 1 rF = OH < 2 PSVo = 20 o = 7 Fr = OR < 17 Total =4w = 3 w = 1 FD = F Total- = - = F = 9noform =


ZSum-Zest = 38-41 .5 FC:CF+C =2 :2 Afr = 9/24=.38Zd = -3.5 W:M = 10:9 3r+(2)/R= 14/24=.58EB = 9:3 EA = 12 W:D = 10:14 Cont:R = 13:24eb = 3:2 ep = 4 L = 9/15=.60 H+Hd:A+Ad = 8:8(FM=2 m=3 T= C'= V= Y=) F+% = 7/9=78% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

1:0Blends:R = 5:24 X+% = 21/24=88% H+A:HD+Ad =16:1a:p = 8:6 A% = 8/24=33% XRT Achrom =

36/5=7.2"Ma:Mp = 5:3 XRT Chrom =

44/5=8.8"


SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b jec t 18 PreGroup I I I


I 2“ 1 Wo FI ° A P 1.02 Do MnW (2) H 6.03 W+ Mpo (2) H 6.04 Do Fo A

I I 8" 5 Wv C.Fo Art6 Dd+ Mo (2) Hd 5.57 Do Fo A

I I I 25'' 8 Do FC'o (2) H P 3.09 Do Maw A, Bowling 4.0

Balls10 Do Fo (2) H P

IV 10*'11 Wo Fo A 2.012 W+ Fo Hd13 Ddo Fw Sx14 Dd,So Fwa eyes

V 2" 15 W+ FM w A 2.516 Wo Fo A P 1.017 Do Fo Tweezers18 Ddv F°a a Ls

VI 2" 19 D+ FM .m w A 2.520 Dv mo Ex21 Dv FVw Dissection22 Ddo Fw A23 Do FTo Indian

Symbol(P)VII 2" 24 W+ Ma+ (2) H 2.5

25 D,So F°a ArrowheadV III 11" 26 Do FM o (2) A P

27 Do Fo Bt28 Dv Fo Ls29 D- F- n Hd

IX 9" 30 Wv CF.mp.Cw Fi ,B1 »Ls 2.5X 11" 31 Wv m o Mardi Gras 5.5

32 Do F§ (2) A P33 Do Mo (2) H 4.534 Do Fw Hd35 Do Fo (2) A

PSV

MOR



R=35 Zf=14 ZSum= 48.5 P=6 (2)=10


W = 10 FMa.maw H = 6 Bl=l Bowling Balls=lC.Fon (H)= Bt=l

D = 20 CF.mpw.C Hd =4 Cg= Eyes............... =1(Hd) = Cl =

Dd = 5 M = 6 A = 12 Ex=l Tweezers........=1FM = 2 (A) = Fi=l

S = 2 m = 2 Ad = Fd= Dissection...=1C = (Ad)= Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= Indian Symbol=1CF = A1 = Ls=3FC = An = Na= Arrowhead___=1

DQ M Quality C' = Art =1 Sx=lC‘ F= Ay = xy= Mardi Gras...=l

+ = 6 + = 1 FC'= 1 S-Constellation (Adult)o = 21 o = 3 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 7 w = 2 TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV_ = x _ = FT = 2 +3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOMform = VF = +ep> EA ALOG

FV = 1 +CF+C > FC CONTAMForm Quality Y = +X+% < .70 CP

YF = 0S > 3 MOR =1FQx FOf FY = OP < 3 or> 8 PER+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PS V =1o = 23 o = 13 Fr = OR <17 Total =2w = 10 w = 4 FD = 4̂ Total- = 1 - = 1 F = 18noform =


ZSum-Zest = 48.5 - 45.5 Zd = 3.0EB = 6:4 EA = 10eb = 7:4 ep = 11(FM=3 m=4 T=2 C'=l V=1 Y=)

Blends:R = 3:35a:p = 11:2

Ma:Mp = 5:1

FC:CF+C = 0:3W:M = 10:6W:D = 10:20L = 18/17=1.06F+% = 13/18=72%

X+% = 24/35=69%A* = 12/35=34%

Afr = 10/25=.40 3r+(2)/R= 10/35=.29 Cont:R = 17:35 H+Hd:A+Ad = 10:12 (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=

18:4H+A:HD+Ad = 18:4 XRT Achrom =


64/5=12.8"


185SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 18 Experim ental

Group I I I


I 13" 1 Wv C'w Finger 1.0Paints

2 Wo Fo A P 1.0I I 18" 3 Wv C Finger 4.5

Paints4 Dd+ Maw (2) A P 3.0

I I I 31" 5 Do Fo (2) H P 3.06 Do Fo (A)7 Do Fw A

IV 21" 8 Wo Fw Big Foot 2.09 Wo Fo (A) 2.0

V 25" 10 Wo Fo A 1.011 Wo Fo A 1.0

VI 38" 12 Do Fo Indian Design13 Do Fo Ad

VII 28" 14 Do Fo Ad15 Do FMpo A

V III 34" 16 Do Fo A P17 Dv CFW Fd

IX 53" 18 Do Fo (H)19 Dv C Crayon/Coloring20 Do Fo Stick21 Do Fw Cl

X 40" 22 Do Fw Hd23 Do FT° Ad24 Do FM w (2) A P 4.0



R=24 Zf=10

Location Features

ZSum= 18.5


P=5

S u b jec t 18 Experim entalGroup I I I

(2)=3


W = 8 H = 1 Bl= Finger Paints=2(H)=l Bt=

D = 15 Hd =1 Cg= Big Foot........=1(Hd) = Cl=l

Dd = 1 M = 1 A = 8 Ex= Indian Design=lFM = 2 (A) =2 Fi=

S = m = Ad = 3 Fd=l Crayon/Color-=lC = 2 (Ad)= Ge= ing

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= Stick............. =1CF = 1 A1 = Ls=FC = An = Na= =

DQ M Quality C' = 1 Art = Sx=C‘ F= Ay = Xy=

+ = 1 + = . FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 19 o = T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 4 w = 1 TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV_ = 1 _ = FT = +3r+(2)/R < .30 INCOM

no V = +Zd>+3.5 FABCOMform = VF = Oep > EA ALOG

FV = +CF+C > FC CONTAMForm Quality Y = +X+% < .7 0 CP

YF = 0S> 3 MORFQx FQf FY = OP < 3 or> 8 PER+ = + = rF = +H < 2 PSVo = 14 o = 12 Fr = OR <17 Total =w = 8 w = 4 FD = 1[ Total- = - = F = 16noform = 2


ZSum-Zest = 18.5-31 FC:CF+C = 0:3Zd -12.5 W:M = 8:1EB 1:4 EA = 5.0 W:D = 8:15eb = 2:2 ep = 4.0 L 16/8=2.0(FM=2 m= T=:L C'=l V=: Y=) F+% = 12/16=75%

Blends:R = 0:23 X+% = 14/22=64%a:p = 2:1 A% 13/24=54%

Ma:Mp = 1:0

Afr = 9/15=.60 3r+(2)/R= 3/24=.13 Cont:R = 13:24 H+Hd:A+Ad =2:11 (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=


125/5=25"XRT Chrom =

176/5=35.2"


187

SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b jec t 19 PreGroup IV

Card RT No. Location Determinant(s) Contends) POP Z Score

I 1 Wo Fo A 1.02 Do fq (2) (H) 1.03 W+ Wo (2) (H) 4.5

I I 4 Do F§ AI I I 5 Do M .FC'o H, Basket P 4.0

6 Do Fo A PIV 7 Wo Fo Ad 2.0V 8 Wo Fo A P 1.0

VI 9 Wo f R Ad P 2.5VII 10 Do Fro (2) Porcelain 3.0

FiguresV III 11 W+ FM .FCo (2) A,Bt P 4.5

IX 12 D,So Fw AdX 13 Dv Fw Hd

14 Do Fo Bt15 Dd+ Fo An16 Do Fo (2) A P17 Do Fo Hd

FABCOM


1.88

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b jec t 19 PreGroup IV

R=17 Zf=9 ZSum= 23.5 P=6 (2)=5


w = 7 Ma FC'o H = Bl = Basket........... =2FM .FCo (H)=2 Bt= 2

D = 9 Hd = Cg= Porcelain....=1(Hd) = Cl = Figures

Dd = 1 M = 2 A = 6 Ex=FM = (A) = Fi=

S = 1 m = Ad = 3 Fd=C = (Ad)= Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=CF = A1 = Ls=FC = An = 1 Na= —


+ = 3 + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 13 o = T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 1 w = 3 TF = (TCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV "_ = - = FT = +3r+(2)/R -C.30 INCOM

no V = +Zd>+3.5 FABCOMform = VF = 0ep> EA ALOG

FV = 0CF+C> FC CONTAMForm Quality Y = 0X+% < .70 CP

YF = 0S> 3 MORFQx FQf FY = OP < 3 or> 8 PER+ = + = rF = OH <2. PSVo = 16 o = 11 Fr = OR < 17 Total =w = 2 w = 2 FD = 2 Total- = - = F = 13noform = 2


ZSum-Zest = 23.5-■27.5 FC:CF+C = 1:0Zd -4 W:M = 7:2EB 3:.5 EA = 3.5 W:D = 7:9eb 1:1 ep = 2.0 L 13/4=3.25(FM=1 m= T=:1 C‘=]L V= Y=) F+% = 11/13=85%

Blends:R = 2:17 X+% = 16/18=89%a:p 2:2 A% 9/18=50%

Ma:Mp = 1:0

Afr = 7/11=.64 3r+(2)/R= 5/17=.29 Cont:R =7:18 H+Hd:A+Ad =0 :9 (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

2:0H+A:HD+Ad =8 :3 XRT Achrom =

Not done XRT Chrom =

Not done


1.89SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 19 Experim ental

Group IV


I 12" 1 Wo Mo (2) H 1.02 Ddo FYo (2) eyes

I I 20" 3 D,So FC'o spaceship4 Do Fw (2) (H)

I I I 10" 5 Do Fw (2) A6 Do Fo (2) An7 Do FCo A P

IV 5" 8 W+ Mpo (H),Bean 4.0stalk

V 4" 9 Wo Fo A P 1.0 MORVI 60" 10 Wo f 2 A 2.5

VII 30" 11 W+ Mg (2) H P 2.5V III 20" 12 w+ FM . FCo A,Bt,Ls P 4.5 FABC0M

IX 18" 13 Do Mpo (2) (H),hole,smoke

14 Do Fo (2) AdX 13" 15 Dd,So Fw Hd

16 Do FCo Bt


190«

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b jec t 19 Experim entalGroup IV

R=16 Zf=6 ZSum= 15.5 P=4 (2 )=8


W = 6 FMa.FCo H = 2 Bl = Eyes............... =1(H)=3 Bt= 1

D = 8 Hd = cg= Spaceship....=1(Hd) = Cl=

Dd = 2 M = 4 A = 5 Ex= Beanstalk....=1FM = (A) = Fi=

S = 2 m = Ad = 1 Fd= Hole............... =1C = (Ad)= Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= Smoke............. =CF = A1 = Ls=FC = 2 An = 1 Na=

DQ M Quality C‘ = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = Xy=

+ = 3 + = FC'= 1 S-Constellation (Adult)o = 13 o = 4 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special ScoringV = w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 D V— = — = FT = 03r+(2)/R <.30 INCOM

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =1form = VF = Oep> EA ALOG

FV = OCF+C > FC CONTAMForm Quality Y = OX+% < .7 0 CP

Yt- = 0S > 3 MOR =1FQx FQf FY = 1 OP < 3 o r> 8 PER =1+ = + = rF = OH < 2 PSVo = 13 o = 4 Fr = +R < 1 7 Total =3w = 3 w = 3 FD = 1_ Total- = - = F = 7noform =


ZSum-Zest = 15.5-17Zd = -1.5EB = 4:1 EA = 5eb = 1:2 ep = 3(FM=1 m= T= C‘=l V= Y=l)

Blends:R = 1:16a:p = 3:2

Ma:Mp = 2:2

FC:CF+C == 2:0W:M 6:4W:D 6:8L 7/9=.78F+% 4/7=57%

X+% 13/16=81%A% 6/16=38%

Afr = 5/11=.45 3r+(2)/R= 8/16=.50 Cont:R = 11:16 H+Hd:A+Ad =2 :6 (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=


111/5=22.2" XRT Chrom =

81/5=16.2"


191f

SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b jec t 20 PreGroup IV


I 20" 1 Wo Fo A P 1.0I I 15" 2 Wo FCo (2 ) A,B1 (P) 4.5

I I I 30" 3 Do M*o ( 2 ) H P 3.0 n r nr tK4 Do M .Fr+

FMpoH P 3.0 M0R

IV 15" 5 Wo A 2 .06 Wo Mo

FMpo(A) P 2 .0

V 5" 7 Wo A P 1 .0VI 25" 8 Do Fo Ad P 2.5

9 Wo J$o AdVII 10" 10 W+ (2 ) H,collar P 2.5

11 Do Foa NecklaceV III 3" 12

13DoDo

FM .FC. Fo_

FTo AHh

P 4.5

IX 10" 14 Dd+ FMp.CF.FYo(2) A.Bt.H 2.5X 20" 15 W+ FM o (2 ) A 5.5 FABC0M


192


R=15 Zf=12 ZSum= 34 P=8 (2)=5


w = 8 M ,Fr+ H = 4 Bl= Collar.............................=1FM°.FC.FTo (H)= Bt= 1

D = 6 FMp.CF.FYo Hd = Cg= Necklace....................=1(Hd) = Cl=

Dd = 1 M = 3 A = 7 Ex=FM = 3 (A) =1 Fi=

S = m = Ad = 2 Fd=C = (Ad)= Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=CF = A1 = Ls=FC = 1 An = Na= S

DQ M Quality C* = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = xy=

+ = 12 + = 1 FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 3 o = 3 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = - w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV_ = — = FT = Tl3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INC0M

no V = +Zd>+3.5 FABC0M =1form = VF = +ep> EA ALOG

FV = OCF+C > FC CONTAMForm Quality Y = 0X+% < .7 0 CP

YF = OS > 3 MOR =1FQx FQf FY = OP < 3 o r> 8 PER =1+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PSVo = :L4 o = 5 Fr = +R< 17 Total =3w = w = FD = 3_ Total- = - = F = 5noform =


Afr = 4/11=.36 3r+(2)/R= 8/15=.53 Cont:R = 9:15

H+Hd:A+Ad =4 :9(H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=


75/5=15.0"Ma:Mp = 3 :1 XRT Chrom =

78/5=15.6"

ZSum-Zest = 34-38 FC:CF+C == 2:1Zd -4 W:M 8:4EB 4:2 EA = 6.0 W:D 8:6eb = 5:2 ep = 7.0 L 5/11=.45(FM=5 m= T= H-

1

O II V= Y=l) F+% 5/5=100%

Blends:R = 3:15 X+% 15/15=100%a:p = 5:4 AX 10/15=67%


SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 20 E xperim entalGroup IV


I 34" 1 Uo Foa A2 Dd,So FM o A

I I 5" 3 Do CFo A 3.0 M0R4 Dd- F- Mask

I I I 5" 5 Dv FQ (2) Earrings PER6 D+ Mg n ( 2 ) H P 4.0

IV 5" 7 W+ FM*.FT.Mpo (A),H 4.0V 12" 8 Uo FMpo A P 1.0

VI 10" 9 W- FMP A P10 Wv mf.FC'o A 2.5

VII 3" 11 D+ Mo H P 3.012 Dd+ FVo Ls 1.0

V III 8 " 13 Do FCo (2) A INC0M14 Do FCo (2) Hh PER

IX 50" 15 D+ FY.FM“o A,Bt 2.5X 10" 16 W+ Cn.FMpw Colors


194

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 20 Experim entalGroup IV

R=16 Zf=8 ZSum= 21 P=4 (2)=4


W = 6 FM ,FT.Mpo H = 3 Bl= Mask.......... ...=1M .FC'o (H)= Bt= 1

D = 7 Cn.FM pw Hd = Cg= Earrings........=1(Hd) = Cl=

Dd = 3 M = 2 > ii 00 Ex= Colors............=FM = 3 (A) =1 Fi=

S = 1 m = Ad = Fd= .......................=C = (Ad)= Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= 1 .....................=CF = 1 A1 = Ls= 1FC = 2 An = Na= .....................=

DQ M Quality C‘ = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = Xy= .....................=

+ = 6 + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 6 o = 3 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 2 w = TF = tfCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV =1_ = 2 - = FT = +3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOMform = VF = +ep> EA ALOG

FV = 1 OCF+C> FC CONTAMForm Quality Y = OX+% *<.70 CP

YF = 0S> 3 MOR =1FQx FQf FY = 0P< 3 o r> 8 PER =2+ = 13 + = rF = OH < 2 PSV

o II t—» o II ro Fr = +R <17 Total =4w = 2 w = FD = 3̂ Total- = - = 1 F = 3noform =


ZSum-Zest = 21-24Zd = -3EB = 3:3 EA = 6eb = 7:4 ep = 11(FM=6 m=l T=1 C'=l V=1 Y=l)

Blends:R = 4:16a:p = 6:4

FC:CF+C = 2:2

Ma:Mp = 2:1

W:MW:DLF+%

X+%A%

= 6:3 = 6:7= 3/13=.23 = 2/3=67%

= 13/16=81% = 9/16=56%

Afr = 4/12=.33 3r+(2)/R= 4/16=.25 Cont:R = 9:16 H+Hd:A+Ad = 3 :8 (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=


64/5=12.8" XRT Chrom =

78/5=15.6"


195

SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b jec t 21 Experim entalGroup IV


I 15" 1 W,So Mn° (2 ) (H)(P)

1.0I I 21“ 2 W+ Mp.CFo (2 ) A,B1 4.5

I I I 45" 3 Ddo Mp CFw (2 ) (H)B1 P 4.0 PSV,AL0GIV 15" 4 Uo M̂ o (H) 2 .0V 10" 5 Uo Ho

FM?o(H) 1.0

VI 5" 6 U+ A,Ls 2.5VII 9" 7 U+ FMV A,Ls 2.5V III 10" 8 U+ FC.tir .CF+ (2) A,B1,Fi 4.5 M0R

IX 40" 9 Do m.CFo Ex,Fi,Ls 2.5X 16" 10 Do Fo (2 ) A

11 Do FCo (2 ) Bt



R = ll Z f=9

L o catio n F eatures

ZSum= 24.5 P=1


S u b jec t 21 Experim entalGroup IV

(2)=6


W = 7 Mp.CFo H = Bl= 3 ..........................=Mp.CFw (H)=4 Bt= 1

D = 3 FC.mYp.CF+ Hd = Cg=M .CFo (Hd) = Cl=

Dd = 1 M = 3 A = 5 Ex= 1FM = 2 (A) = Fi= 2

S = 1 m = Ad = Fd=C = (Ad)= Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=CF = A1 = Ls= 3FC = 1 An = Na= ..................... =

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = xy= .....................=

+ = 4 + = FC ‘ = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 7 o = 3 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = w = 1 TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV_ = — = FT = 03r+(2)/R <.30 INCOM

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOMform = VF = +ep> EA ALOG =1

FV = +CF+C > FC CONTAMForm Quality Y = OX+% < .70 CP

YF = 0S> 3 MOR =1FQx FQf FY = + P < 3 or > 8 PER+ = 1 + = rF = 0 H < 2 PSV =1o = 8 o = 1 Fr = 0 R <17 Total =3w = 2 w = FD = 3 Total- = - = F = 1noform =


ZSum-Zest = 24.5--27.5 FC-.CF+C =1 :4Zd = -3 W:M = 7:4EB = 4:5 EA = 6 W:D = 7:3eb = 5:0 ep = 11 L = 1/10=.10(FM=2 m=3 T= C'= V= Y=) F+% = 1/1=100%

Blends:R = 4:11 X+% = 9/11=82%a:p = 6:3 A% = 5/11=45%

Ma:Mp = 3:1

Afr = 4/7=.57 3r+(2)/R= 6/11=.55 ContrR =7:11 H+Hd:A+Ad = 0:5 (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

4:0H+A:HD+Ad = 9 :0 XRT Achrom =

54/5=10.8"XRT Chrom =

132/5=26.4"


SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 21 PostGroup IV


I 10" 1 W,Sv CF'w Ab, Painting 1.02 Wo Fw A (P) 3.0

I I 5" 3 Do Fw (2) A 3.0I I I 15" 4 Wo Fo (2) A 3.0IV 2" 5 Wo FTo (A) P 2.0V 2" 6 Wo Fo A 1 .0

VI 5" 7 Do Fo A8 Ddo CF’w oriental

screenVII 5" 9 Do Fro (A)V III 20" 10 Wo Fro A,Ls 4.5

IX 10" 11 Wv CFw Painting 5.5X 1" 12 Wo CFo Aquarium 5.5


198

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b jec t 21 PostGroup IV

R=12 Zf=8 ZSum= 25.5 P=1 (2)=2


W = 8 H = Bl= Painting___=2(H)= Bt=

D = 3 Hd = Cg= Oriental....= 1(Hd) = Cl= Screen

Dd = 1 M = A = 6 Ex= Aquarium....=lFM = (A) =2 Fi=

S = 1 m = Ad = Fd= =C = (Ad)= Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = 1 Hh=CF = 2 A1 = Ls= 1FC = An = Na= ..................... =


+ = + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)

o n H-* o o = T = 0FV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring

v = 2 w = TF = TlCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV- = - = FT = 1 03r+(2)/R < .3 0 INC0M

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOMform = VF = 0ep> EA ALOG

FV = +CF+C > FC CONTAMForm Quality Y = +X+% < .70 CP

YF = 0S > 3 MORFQx FQf FY = +P < 3 o r> 8 PER+ = + = rF = +H < 2 PSVo = 7 o = 3 Fr = 2 +R < 17 Total =w = 5 w = 2 FD = j4 Total- = - = F = 5noform =


ZSum-Zest = 25.5--24 FC:CF+C =-- 0:2Zd = 1.5 W:M 8:0EB = 0:3 EA = 3 W:D 8:3eb = 0:3 ep = 3 L 5/7=.71(FM= m= T==1 C'=2 V= Y=) F+% 3/5=60%

Blends:R = 0:12 X+% 7/12=58%a:p - 0:0 A% 8/12=67%

Ma:Mp = 0:0

Afr = 3/8=.38 3r+(2)/R= 8/12=.67 Cont:R =7:12

H+Hd:A+Ad =0 :6 (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

0:2H+A:HD+Ad =8 :0 XRT Achrom =


51/5=10.2"


199SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b jec t 22 Pre

Group IV


I 1" 1 Wo F° n A P 1.02 W+ FY.Mpo (2 ) (H),

Cauldron3.0

3 W,So Mask 1.04 Do Mo H P5 W,So F° n Ad P

I I 3" 6 Do FC.FMpo (2 ) A7 D- F- (2 ) (H)8 Do FCo A9 D,So Fo Spaceship 3.0

10 Ddo F§M .FC.FYo FMpo

( 2 ) HdI I I 8" 11 D+ ( 2 ) H.Pot 3.0

12 Do A P13 Do Fw Ad

IV 5" 14 Wo FDo H 2.015 Wo FYo Bt 2.016 Ddo Fw A 2.017 Wo FVo A 2.018 Wo Fo a A 2.0

V 3" 19 Wo FY.FM o A P 1.020 Dd+ FM o (2 ) A,Ls 2.521 Ddo Fo (2 ) Hd

VI 8 " 22 W+ Fro Ls 2.523 Do Fo Hh P24 Do Fo Sx25 Do Fo Headress/

Totem Pole26 Do mao Rocketship,

FY.MpoMo

ExVII 4" 27 D+ ( 2 ) H 3.0

28. W+ (2 ) H 3.029 Wv rFw Ls 2.5

V III 7" 30 D+ FMa.Fro A P 3.031 Ddo mao Rocket 3.032 Dd+ FCw Ls 3.0

IX 5“ 33 Dd+ CF.M o FMpo

H,Fi34 Dd,So A35 D+ FM o (2 ) A 2.5

X 5" 36 Do F°a (2 ) A P37 Do FMao (2 ) A38 Do FMa.FCo (2 ) A39 D+ FM w (2 ) A 4.0


200


R=39 Zf=20 ZSum= 48.5 P=8 (2)=14

Location Features Determinants Contents Contents(Blends F irst) (Idiographic)

w = 12 FY.Mpo FY,Mpo H = 5 Bl = Cauldron....=lF£• FMpo FM Fro (H)=2 Bt=l

D = 19 M .FC.FYo CF.M o Hd =2 Cg= Mask............. =1FY• FM o FM.FCo (Hd) = Cl =

Dd = 8 M = 2 A = 16 Ex=l Spaceship...=1FM = 6 (A) = Fi=l

S = 4 m = 3 Ad = 2 Fd= Headress/...=1C = (Ad)= Ge= Totem Pole..

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= 1 Rocketship..=lCF = A1 = Ls= 4FC = 2 An = Na= Rocket..........=1

DQ M Quality C‘ = Art = Sx= 1C'F= Ay = xy= Pot............... =1

+ = 11 + = FC'= S-Constellation (Adult)o = 26 o = 6 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 1 w = TF = +Col.Shd B1 > 0 DV- = 1 — = FT = TT3r+(2)/R <.30 INCOM

no V = +Zd >jK3.5 FABCOMform = VF = +ep> EA ALOG

FV = 1 0CF+C> FC CONTAMForm Quality Y = OX+% < .70 CP

YF = +S> 3 MORFQx FQf FY = 1 OP < 3 or> 8 PER+ = + = rF = 1 OH 4C 2 PSVo = 32 o = 10 Fr = 1 TJR <17 Totalw = 6 w = 2 FD = 1 5 Total- = 1 - = F = 13noform =


ZSum-Zest = 48.5-66.5 ' FC:CF+C = 5:1 Afr = 10/29=.34Zd = -18 W:M = 12:6 3r+(2)/R= 23/39=.59EB = 6:3.5 EA = 9.5 W:D = 12:19 Cont:R = 18:39eb = 13:6 ep = 19.0 L = 13/26=.50 H+Hd:A+Ad = 7:18(FM=10 m=3 T= C'= V=1 Y=) F+% = 10/13=77% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

2:0Blends:R = 8:30 X+% = 32/39=82% H+A:HD+Ad = 23:4a:p =13:5 AS = 18/39=.46 XRT Achrom =

21/5=4.2"Ma:Mp = 4:2 XRT Chrom =

28/5=5.6"


201SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b jec t 22 E xperim ental

Group IV


I 19" 1 Wo Fo Mask 1.02 D+ ITo (2 ) H 6.03 Dv F.YFw Solid

I I 6 " 45

WoD,So

FoFo

(2 ) ASpaceCapsule

4.5

I I I 16" 6 Do A7 D+ MPo (2 ) H P 3.0

IV 9" RejectionV 22" 8 Wo Fo A P 1.0

9 Do Fo (2 ) AVI

00CM 10 Wo F§

m o

Hh P 2.511 Do Rocket,Smoke

VII 42" 12 W+ F8m .FCw( 2 ) H 2.5

V III 30" 13 Do Rocket 3.014 Do F§

mf.CFw(2 ) A P 3.0

IX 16" 15 D+ Rocket,Fi16 Wv m w Ex 5.5

X 47" 17 Do FCo (2 ) A P18 Do FCo (2 ) A19 Do CFo (A)


202

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b jec t 22 Experim entalGroup IV

R=19 Zf=10 ZSum= 32 P=5 ( 2)=8


W = 6 F.YFw H = 3 Bl = Mask............. =1m . FCw (H}= Bt=

D = 13 m CFw Hd = Cg= Solid............=1(Hd) = Cl =

Dd = M = 2 A = 7 Ex=l Space capsule=lFM = (A) =1 Fi=l

S = 1 m = 2 Ad = Fd= Rocket..........=3C = (Ad)= Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=l Smoke............=1CF = 1 A1 = Ls=FC = 2 An = Na=

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx=C'F= Ay = xy=

+ = 4 + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)

O II f—*

CO O II ro T = 0FV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 2 w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV— = - = FT = 03r+(2)/R < .30 INC0M =:

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABC0Mform = VF = 0ep> EA AL0G

FV = UCF-rC > FC C0NTAMForm Quality Y = UX+% < .7 0 CP

YF = 0S> 3 M0RFQx FQf FY = 1 OP < 3 or> 8 PER+ = + = rF = 1 OH < 2 PSVo = 14 o = 8 Fr = 1 0R < 17 Totalw = 5 w = 1 FD = 1 Total_ = _ = F = 9noform =


ZSum-Zest = 32-31Zd = 1.0EB = 2:3.5 EA =eb = 4:1 ep =(FM= m=4 T= C'= V= Y=l)

Blends:R = 3:19a:p = 4:2

Ma:Mp = 0 :2

FC:CF+C =3 :2W:M =6 :2

5.5 W:D = 6:135.0 L = 9/10=.90

F+% = 8/9=89%

X+% = 14/19=74%A% = 8/19=42%

Afr = 7/19=.37 3r+(2)/R= 8/19=.42 Cont:R = 11:19 H+Hd:A+Ad =3 :7

(H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)= 0:1

H+A:HD+Ad =11:0 XRT Achrom =

120/5=24" XRT Chrom =

115/5=23"


203SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b ject 23 Experim ental

Group IV


I 7" 1 Wo Fo A 1.02 Wo Fw Airplane

I I 10" 3 D,S+ ma+ Smoke, Fi,a Spaceship

4 W+ FM + A,Stool,Balls 4.5I I I 27 n 5 D+ Mo (2 ) H,drums P 3.0

6 Do Fw A7 Do FCo A P

IV 21" 8 Wo FMpo A P 1.09 Wo Fo A P 1.0

10 Wo Fw A 1.0VI 11" 11 Ddo Fo Musical 2.5

Instrument12 Dd+ Fo Sword in Stone 2.513 Do Fo (2 ) Masks 2.514 Ddo F§ A 2.5

VII 11 15 D+ M .Fro H P 3.016 D,So fr Arrowhead17 Wt M + (2 ) H 2.5

V III 7" 18 Do FMa.FC. Fro A,Ls P 3.019 Do FCw Bt20 Do Fo trilo b ite21 Wo Fw Hd 4.5

IX 19" 22 Wo Mao Na, Volcano 5.523 D+ mo (H),(A) 2.5

X 10" 24 Wo FM .FMH.FC.M+(2) A,underwater P 5.5M +(2) scene

25 Wo FCw Bt 5.5

PER

ALOG

FABCOM


204

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY

R=25 Zf=18

Location Features

ZSum= 53.5


P=7

S u b je c t 23 Experim entalGroup IV

(2)=4


w = 11 Ma.Fro H = 3 Bl = A irp lane....= l

D = 11FM“. FM .1;^firPc.Ma+

(Hd) =

Bt=2cg=Cl=

Smoke........... =1Spaceship...=1 Stool........... =1

Dd = 3 M = 3 A = 10 Ex= Drums............=1FM = 2 (A) = 1 Fi=l Musical Ins.=l

S = 2 m = 2 Ad = Fd= Sword in . . . .C = (Ad)= Ge= Stone....=1

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= Masks............=1CF = A1 = Ls= 1 Arrowhead...=1FC = 3 An = Na= 1 T rilo b ite ...=1

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx= Underwater..C‘ F= Ay = xy= Scene___=1

+ = 7 + = 1 FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)o = 18 0 = 4 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV

- = FT = 03r+(2)/R < .30 INCOMno V = +Zd >+3.5 FABCOM

form = V F = FV =

Oep> EA OCF+C> FC

ALOGCONTAM

Form Quality Y = UX+% < .70 CPYF = 0S> 3 MOR

FQx FQf FY = 1 OP < 3 or > 8 PER+ = + = rF = 1 OH < 2 PSVo = 4 o = 8 Fr = 1 OR < 17 Totalw = 15 w = 4 FD = 1 1 Total- = 6 - = F = 12noform =


ZSum-Zest = 53.5-59.5 FC:CF+C = 5:0 Afr = 8/17=.47Zd = - 6.0 W:M = 11:4 3r+(2)/R= 10/25=.40EB 5:2.5 EA = 7.5 W:D = 11:11 Cont:R = 22:25eb = 7:0 ep = 7.0 L = 12/13=.92 H+Hd:A+Ad =4:11(FM=5 m=2 T== C'= V= Y=) F+% = 8/12=67% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

1:0Blends:R = 3:25 X+% = 19/25=76% H+A:HD+Ad =14:2a:p = 10:2 A% = 11/25=44% XRT Achrom =

55/5=11".Ma:Mp s 4:0 XRT Chrom =

73/5=14"


205

SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 23 PostGroup IV


I 17" 1 W,So Fw Ad 4.02 W,So Fo Ad 4.0 PSV3 W,So Fwa Spaceship 1.0

I I 11" 4 W+ FM o ( 2 ) A,Balls 4.55 D,S+ Mo Spaceship 3.0

SmokeI I I 2" 6 D+ Mao (2 ) H P 3.0

7 Do Fo A P8 Do Fo Vase 4.59 Do A

IV 8" 10 Wo Mp,FDo (H) 2.0V 9" 11 Wo FM o A P 1.0 INC0M

12 Wo F- (2 ) Ad13 Wo Fo Phoenix 1.0

VI 12" 14 W+ Fo Sword in 2.5Stone

15 Do Fo Mandolin 2.516 Do Fo A 2.517 Do f 9 ( 2 ) Masks

VII 3" 18 Do Mp.Fro H P 3.019 D,So f 2 Arrowhead20 W+ M q ( 2 ) H 2.5

V III 5" 21 w+ FM .Fro A,Ls P 4.522 Do Fo Bt 3.023 Do F2 Trilobite

IX 10" 24 Wo Mo Volcano 5.525 Do Mao (2 ) H 2.5

X 1" 26 W FC.FMa Underwater P 5.5 INC0M


206

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 23 PostGroup IV

R=26 Zf=20 ZSum= 61 P=6 (2)=6


W = 13 Mp FDo H = 4 Bl= Spaceship...=1Mp,Fro (H)=l Bt=l Smoke............=1

D = 13 FM .Fro Hd = Cg= Vase..............=1FC.FMao (Hd) = Cl = Balls............=1

Dd = M = 3 A = 6 Ex= Drums............=1FM = 2 (A) = Fi = Phoenix........ =1

S = 5 m = 2 Ad = 3 Fd= Sword in . . . .C = (Ad)= Ge= Stone___=1

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= Mandolin___=1CF = A1 = Ls= 1 Masks............=1FC = An = Na= T r ilo b ite ...=1

DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx= Volcano........=1C'F= Ay = Xy= Underwater..=1

+ = + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult) Sceneo = 19 o = 5 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = 7 w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV_ = - = FT = 03r+(2)/R < .30 INCOM

no V = +Zd>+3.5 FABCOMform = VF = +ep > EA ALOG

FV = OCF+C> FC CONTAMForm Quality Y = OX+% < .70 CP

YF = + S > 3 MORFQx FQf FY = OP < 3 o r> 8 PER+ = + = rF = OH < 2 PSVo = 21 o = 10 Fr = 0R < 17 Totalw = 4 w = 4 FD = 3 Total- = 1 - = 1 F = 15noform =


ZSum-Zest = 61-66.5 FC-.CF+C = 1:0 Afr = 6/19=.32Zd = -5.5 W:M = 13:5 3r+(2)/R= 12/26=.46EB = 5:.5 EA = 5.5 W:D = 13:13 Cont:R = 17:26eb = 6:0 ep = 6 .0 L = 15/11=1.36 H+Hd:A+Ad =4 : 9(FM=4 m=2 T== C'= V= Y=) F+% = 10/15=67% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=

1:0BlendsrR = 4:26 X+% = 21/26=81% H+A:HD+Ad = 11:3a:p 9:2 A% = 9/26=35% XRT Achrom =

49/5=9.8"Ma:Mp — 3:2 XRT Chrom =

29/5=5.8"


207

SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b jec t 24 Experim entalGroup IV


I 1" 1 Wo FC'o A P 1.0I I 11" 2 Wo FM .FC' .FCo A 4.5

I I I 33" 3 Wo Fw A 5.5IV 20" RejectionV 20" 4 Wo FMao A P 1.0

VI 28" RejectionMpoVII 32" 5 D+ (2 ) H P 3.0

V III 24" 6 Do Fo (2 ) A PIX 35" RejectionX 30" 7 Ddo Fo Bt


208

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 24 Experim entalGroup IV

R=7 Z f=5 ZSum= 15 P=4 (2 )= 2


w = 4 FMa.FC'.FCo H = 1 Bl = .......................=(H)= Bt=l

D = 2 Hd = cg= —(Hd) = Cl=

Dd = 1 M = 1 A = 5 Ex=FM = 1 (A) = Fi=

S = m = Ad = Fd=C = (Ad)= Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= =CF = A1 = Ls=FC = An = Na=


+ = 1 + = FC'= 1 S-Constellation (Adult)o = 6 0 = 1 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = w = TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV_ = — = FT = +3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM

no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOMform = VF = +ep > EA ALOG

FV = UCF+C > FC CONTAMForm Quality Y = 0X+% < .70 CP

YF = 0S> 3 MORFQx FQf FY = OP < 3 o r> 8 PER+ = + = rF = +H <2 PSVo = 6 o = 2 Fr = +R < 17 Total =|w = 1 w = 1 FD = 4 Total- = - = F = 3noform =


ZSum-Zest = 15-13.5 FC:CF+C =1: 0 Afr = 2/5=.40Zd = 1.5 W:M = 4:1 3r+(2)/R= 2/7=.29EB = 1:.5 EA = 1.5 W:D = 4:2 Cont:R =3:7eb = 2:2 ep = 4.0 L = 3/4=.75 H+Hd:A+Ad = 1:5(FM=2 m= T= C‘=2 V= Y=) F+% = 2/3=67% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=Blends:R =1 : 7 X+% = 6/7=86% H+A:HD+Ad =6:0a:p = 2:1 A% = 5/7=71% XRT Achrom =

101/5=20.2"Ma:Mp = 1:0 XRT Chrom =

110/5=22.0"


209

SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b jec t 24 PostGroup IV


I 5" 1 Wo FC' FMao A P 1.0I I 26" 2 Wo FM o A 4.5

I I I 42" 3 Wo FC'w A 5.5IV 16" 4 Do FYo xyV 16" 5 Wo Fo A P 1.0

VI 23" 6 w+ Frw Tug BoatVII 21" 7 D+ Mpg (2) H P 3.0V III 48" 8 Do FM o (2) A P

9 Wo Fw Bt 5.5IX 13" 10 Wo FCw Bt 5.5X 5" 11 W+ FCo Bt 5.5


210

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 24 PostGroup IV

R=ll Zf=8 ZSum= 31.5 P=4 (2)=2


W = 8 FC1. FMao H = 1 Bl = Tug Boat...=l(H)= Bt=l

D = 3 Hd = Cg=(Hd) = Cl=

Dd = M = 1 A = 5 Ex=FM = 2 (A) = Fi=

S = m = Ad = Fd=C = (Ad)= Ge=

DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= =

CF = A! = Ls=FC = 2 An = Na= —


+ = 3 + = FC' = 1 S-Constellation (Adult)o = 8 o = 1 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoringv = w = TF = TTCol .Shd B1 > 0 DV

- = FT = IJ3r+(2)/R <.30 INCOMno V = jfZd>+3.5 FABCOM

form = VF = +ep> EA ALOGFV = OCF+C > FC CONTAM

Form Quality Y = +X+% < .70 CPYF = 0S> 3 MOR

FQx FQf FY = 1 OP < 3 or> 8 PER+ = + = rF = +H < 2 PSVo = 7 o = 1 Fr = 1 +R < 17 Total =i

w = 4 w = 1 FD = 5̂ Total_ = - = F = 2noform =


ZSum-Zest = 31.5-■24..0 FC:CF+C = 2:0 Afr = 4/7=.57Zd 7.5 W:M 8:1 3r+(2)/R= 5/11=.46EB 1:1 EA = 2 .0 W:D 8:3 Cont:R = 5:11eb 2:3 ep = 6 .0 L 2/9=.22 H+Hd:A+Ad =1:5(FM=3 m= T= C‘=2 V= Y=l) F+% 1/2=50% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=Blends:R = 1:11 X+% 7/11=64% H+A:HD+Ad =6: 0a:p 3:1 A% 5/11=45% XRT Achrom =

81/5=16.2Ma:Mp =0 : 0 XRT Chrom =

134/5=26.8"


Appendix J

211

Exner Age Norms

Adu1t*(n=325) Childrens', Age 5 * * (n=110)

M SD M SD

RLocationFeatures

21.75 5.10 15.20 4.20

U 7.04 2.80 9.20 3.70D 13.50 4.70 5.60 2.00Dd 1.21 1.10 .40 .30DU - - .10 -

S 1.05 .70 .70 .70DQ+ - - 2.60 1.70DQo - - 7.10 3.60DQv - - 4.80 2.30DQ-Deter- mi nants

.70 .80

H 3.48 1.80 .80 .60FM 2.36 1.40 2.80 1.20m .73 .60 .10 .10FC 3.56 1.20 .50 .80CF 1.23 .90 1.90 .60C+Cn .48 .60 .90 .70Sum C 5.27 2.30 3.50 1.70Sum C' .63 .80 .30 .30Sum T 1.18 .90 .80 .40Sum Y 1.11 .60 .50 .40Sum V Sum

.36 .30 .00 “

Shading 3.28 1.80 1.60 1.00FD .92 .70 .20 .20Fr+rF .14 .70 .70 .50(2 ) 7.61 2.70 7.30 3.30F 9.83 3.20 8.10 2.90P 6.45 2.70 3.80 2.40Zf 9.41 2.30 10.60 3.70Blends 4.90 1.80 1.90 .70Pure M - - 1.60 .80FdRations & Derivations

OCO• .30** 1.50 (age 6-7) .70**

Lamda .82 .30 1.14 .39X+% .81 .12 .81 .11F+% .89 .08 .83 .12


212

Adult*(n=325) Childrens', Age 5 * * (

M SD M SD

Afr .69 .06 1.07 .293r+(2)/R .37 .06 .61 .14Zd - -1.10 2.61M+Hd 4.74 1.40 3.40 1.30k% .39 .08 .54 .13SpecialScoresINCOM .28 .02 1.10 .70FABCOM .12 .10 .60 .30ALOG .13 .10 1.20 .50PSV (within) .05 .20 .90 .60

(across) .04 .10CONTAM .00 - .10 -

CP - .10 .10DV .18 .10 2.10 1.30PER .63 .37 4.40 2.10RatioDirectionalityEA > ep 70% 9%FC > CF+C - 3%

* Source Exner (1978)* * Source Exner (Note 1)

* * * Source Exner (Note 2)

Reproduced with permission from John E. Exner, J r ., Ph.D.


213

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bonime, W. The clinical use of dreams. New York: Basic Books, 1962.

Brenman, B., & G ill , M.M. Hypnotherapy: a survey of the litera ture .New York: International Universities Press, 1978.

Chalmers, L. S. & DeMartino, M. F. (ed) Understanding human motivation, The World Publishing C ., Cleveland, 1965.

Cheek, D. B ., & LeCron, L. M. Clinical hypnotherapy. New York: Grune &Stratton, 1968.

Coe, W. C., & Steen, P. Examining the Relationship Between Believing One Will Respond to Hypnotic Suggestions and Hypnotic Responsiveness. The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1981, 24, 22-32.

Fordham, M. Jungian psychotherapy: a study in analytical psychology.New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.

Freud, S. & Breuer, 0. Studies on hysteria. New York: Avon Books, 1966.

Fromm, E. The forgotten language: an introduction to the understandingof dreams, fa iry tales and myths. New York: Grove Press, 1957.

Gruenewald, D. A Psychoanalytic View of Hypnosis. The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1982, 241, 185-190;

Haley, J. Uncommon therapy: the psychiatric technigues of Milton A. Erickson, M.D. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1973.

Haley, J. Strategies of psychotherapy. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1963.

Hal pern, F. A clinical approach to children's Rorschach's. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1968.

Hammer, E. F. (ed.) Use of interpretation in treatment: technique and a r t . New York: Grune & Stratton, 1968.

Kroger, W. S. Clinical and experimental hypnosis: in medicine,dentistry and psychology, Second Edition. Philadelphia: 37 B. Lippincott Company, 1977.

Kroger, W. S. & Felzer, W. D. Hypnosis and behavior modification, imagery conditions. J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, 1976.

Langs, R. The listening process. New York: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1978.


214Langs, R. The bipersonal f ie ld . New York: Jason Aronson Inc., 1976.

Moore, M. R. Ericksonian Theories of Hypnosis. The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1982, 24, 183-184. •

Moss, C. S. Dreams, images and fantasy: a sematic differential casebook. University of Illin o is Press, Urbana, ItToT

Piotrowski, Z. A. Perceptanalysis. New York: The MacMillian Co.,1957.

Rapaport, D.; G ill , M. M., & Schafer, R. Diagnostic psychological testing. New York: International Universities Press, 1970.

Rhodes, R. H. (ed.) Therapy through hypnosis. North Hollywood:Wilshire Book Company, 1979.

Rhodes, R. H. Hypnosis: theory, practice and application. The Citadel Press, New York, 1970.

Rickers-Ovsiankina (ed.) Rorschach psychology. John Wiley & Sons,Inc ., New York, 1960.

Rossi, E. L. (ed.). The collected papers of Milton H. Erickson on hypnosis, vol. I: the nature of hypnosis and suggestion. New York: Irvington Publishers, In c ., 1980.

Rossi, E. L. (ed.) The collected papers of Milton H. Erickson onhypnosis, vol. I I : hypnotic alteration of sensory, perceptual andpsychophysiological processes. New York: Irvington Publishers,In c ., 1980.

Rossi, E. L. (ed.) The collected papers of Milton H. Erickson on hypnosis, vol. I l l : hypnotic investigation of psychodynamicprocesses ̂ New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc., 1980.

Rossi, E. L. (ed.) The collected papers of Milton H. Erickson onhypnosis, vol. IV: innovative hypnotherapy. New York: IrvingtonPublishers, Inc. 1980.

Schafer, R. The clinical application of psychological tests:diagnostic summaries and case studies. International Universities Press, New York, 1970.

Schafer, R. Psychoanalytic interpretation in Rorschach testing. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1954.

Spiegel, H. M. & Spiegel, D. Trance and treatment: clinical uses ofhypnosis. New York: Basic Books, 1978.


Sullivan, H. S. Clinical studies in psychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, In c ., 1956.

Watzlawick, P. The language of change: elements of therapeuticcommunication. Basic Books, Inc. New York, 1978.

Wolberg, L. R. The technique of psychotherapy (second edition vol. I & I I . New York: Grune & Stratton, 1967.

Zeig, J. K. Ericksonian approaches to hypnosis and psychotherapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1982.


a study of hypnotic age regression using the rorschach

Documents