A Study of Hypnotic Age Regression Using The Rorschach Scored by

Western Michigan University
ScholarWorks at WMU
Dissertations Graduate College
8-1982
A Study of Hypnotic Age Regression Using the Rorschach Scored

by the Exner Comprehensive System
Scott William Trylch
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations
Part of the Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy Commons
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 wmu-scholarworks@wmich.edu.
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 p artial fu lfillm e n t of the
requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Education
Department of Counseling and Personnel

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 sig nifican tly 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
fo r the six subjects in each group; three taking a preexperimental
waking Rorschach, and three a postexperimental te s t. The subjects in
the age regression and deep hypnosis groups then practiced attaining
th e ir respective hypnotic states in three practice sessions. All
subjects were administered a Rorschach in th e ir 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.
It 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 s ta tis tic a l power for detecting possible
significant differences.
INFORMATION TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy o f 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 o f the material submitted.
The following explanation o f 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 o f movement during exposure,
duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For
blurred pages, a good image o f 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 o f “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is
customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer o f 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.
Uni
International
300 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
University
Microfilms
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 a v a ila b 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 fo r 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 e ffo rt in scoring the protocols and
arbitrating the differences. Lastly, I would lik e to thank Demetra
C ollia and Nancy O llila at the Western Michigan University Computer
Center for th eir 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 e ffo rt
made this study possible.
ii
I wish to especially thank my w ife, 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, fo r s ile n tly
accepting my not being able to spend more time with them, and my long
hours away. One las t note of appreciation goes to Kelly, the c o llie ,
who couldn't understand where his master always went.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... fi
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................ v ii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
Purpose of the S tu d y....................................................... 31
Hypotheses . . . .................................................................. 31
II. METHOD........................................................................................... 34
Subjects ............................................................................. 34
Procedure ........................................................................... 34
Data A nalysis.................................................................... 42
III. RESULTS ......................................................................................... 44
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 55
REFERENCE NOTES .......................................................................................... 52
REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 63
APPENDICES
A. P ilo t S tud y.................................................................................. 70
B. Handout Explanation to Potential Volunteers Describing

Involvement in Research Concerning Hypnosis ..................... 82
C. Informed Consent Form............................................................... 83
D. Debriefing ................................................................................... 84
E. Debriefing Handout ..................................................................... 85
F. Individual Subject Scores on the StanfordHypnotic

C linical Scale for Adults (SHCS-Adult) .............................. 85
G. A Note of Some Subjects Who ExperiencedSome

Distress Relation to the Experiment .................................... 87
iv
Table of Contents—Continued
H. Percentage Agreement on In itia l Scoring fo r Experi

menter and Additional Scorer fo r Each Response .................. 91
I. Rorschach Sequence of Scores and Structural Summary

for each Subject during Waking (Pre/Post) and Experi
mental Sessions .................................................. 115
J. Exner Age Norms ............................................................................ 211
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 213
LIS T OF TABLES
1. Group Totals and Means for the Four Groups on the Stanford
Hypnotic Clinical Scale-Adult (SHCS-Adult) and Age Regres
sion Item....................................... 45
2. One-Way Analysis of Variance Testing Differences Between the

Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale-Adult (SHCS-Adult) Results
for the Four Experimental Groups.................................................... 45
3. One-Way Analysis of Variance Testing Differences Between the

Four 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 and

Additional Scorer..................................... 47
5. Waking State Group Means fo r a ll Subjects..................................... 49
6. Experimental State Group Means fo r a ll Subjects.......................... 51
7. Mean Group Correspondence to Children's Age Norms During Ex

perimental Condition 53
A. Rorschach Results fo r P ilo t Study Subjects................................... 73
B. Rorschach Means fo r Age Regressed and Waking State.................... 74
C. Correlated Sample t - tests Comparing Waking State and Age

Regressed RorschacFf Scores................................................................ 76
D. Waking State and Age Regression Sign Correspondence to Exner

Age Norms and Sign Test..................................................................... 77
vi
LIST OF FIGURES \. .
1. Flowchart o f 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 fo r 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 e a rlie r lif e
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 te rrify in g 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.
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
ju s tifie d 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 fte r 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 e a rlie r teachings. Under hypnosis
and in the waking state Erickson took the place of the deceased
mother, and amended the e a rlie r 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 fo r the therapeutic effectiveness of
hypnotic age regression in psychotherapy, the s c ie n tific v a lid ity of
the age regressed state has been d iffic u lt to support with
experimental data (Barber, 1962). Overall reviews of the lite ra tu re
(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
lite ra tu re 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
ch ildlike state performed more lik e 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
ch ild like 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 re
gression. Bo.th learned and maturational behaviors
which appeared a fte r 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 re
gression (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 h a lf of the subjects to the acquisition period and
found "a close approximation of th eir acquisition behavior"
(Edmonston 1961, pg. 137). The control group continued to show
extinction. Barber (1962) la te r criticized the study on the grounds
that the subjects could have been simulating the conditioned
responses.
Hilgard (1968) in an examination of the lite ra tu re reported that
he could not accept the re a lity of complete ablation of experience
and revivication. He f e l t that age regression could be established
and measured with ch ild like 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 fo r an organic reproduction of engrams produced at a
younger age, and an inhibition of the cortex, except fo r 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 e a rlie r
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 th eir 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 alteratio n of the subject's time space continuum perception. This
was to involve a "central state of perceptual release or
disorientation which permits a c tiv ity in any dimension or direction
of time space orientation" (K line, 1953, pg. 26). Thus Kline f e lt
that hypnotic age regression was a valid state, but an experience
lim ited 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
p o s s ib ilitie s . 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 fo r 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 f e l t 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 orig in ally.
But he was not able to establish a specific single location for
memories. To account fo r 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) f e 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
a fte r 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 lik e ly 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
e lic ite d memories seemed to run counter to modern theories of
learning, p articularly 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 d e fin itive 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 lite ra tu re regarding the experimental
examination of the phenomena of age regression seemed in order.
Three areas of studies were reviewed, those that used physiological
c r ite ria , those that used psychological tests or c r ite 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) critic ized these studies on
several grounds. F irs t, 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 re fle x , crying, e tc .) 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 sim ilar
design and were not able to replicate the e a rlie r 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 th e ir la s t 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 fa r as age one month showed an EEG no different
from th e ir adult EEG.
I t appeared that the evidence was equivocal with regard to EEGs
being altered under hypnotic age regression. Barber (1962)
c ritic ize d the aforementioned Kupper (1945) study on the grounds that
the patient showed highly episodic seizures that centered around a
personal c o n flict. Thus, i t was reasoned that EEG alterations might
have resulted without the use of hypnotic age regression.
The use of conditioning techniques fo r 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 o f' 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 sim ilar study by McCranie and Crasilneck (1955) using six
subjects, the results were equivocal. The subjects had been
conditioned to withdraw th e ir 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 w rist,
irregardless of th e ir 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 e a rlie r
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' a b ility to
recall the day of the week that Christmas and th eir 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;
R eiff & 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) c ritic ize d 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 th e ir 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 a fte r the age to
which the subject is regressed.
The use o f Piagetian type perceptual cognitive tests were
u tilize d by R eiff 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 B ritish children. Orne and O'Connell
(1961) found fa u lt with the study because the age regressed subjects
had more practice than did the simulators.
In a replication of the R eiff 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 e a rlie r 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 fo r hypnosis vs. role playing. The authors
concluded that the study brought the v a lid 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 simulationends and hypnosis begins. Could the
cryptosimulators in fact have been hypnotizedby a powerful indirect
induction technique? (Erickson, Rossi & Rossi, 1976; Erickson &
Rossi, 1979 & 1981).
S t ill 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 e a rlie r when age regressed
rather than in a waking state. Efforts in sim ilar 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 fa c ilita te d the return of visual cues and mannerisms
suggestive of e a rlie r stages of perceptual development when compared
to a control group under task motivation, the effect was more
pronounced fo r the Ponzo than fo r the Poggendorf illu sio n.
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 b rie f 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 fiv e years
fiv e months. I t was noted that the induction technique used in the
above study and in Young's (1937) prior report was to suggest a fte r
an in it ia l induction that the subject was three years old, without
any other deepening or age regression technique.
In a s lig h tly 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 e a rlie r age-roles
insofar as intelligence tests are concerned" (Sarbin, 1950, pg. 225).
Kline (1950) used the Otis Self-Administering Test of Mental
A b ility 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 fo r 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 if e
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 a fte r 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, a fte r the induction of trance, the
subjects were d irectly 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
e ffo rt 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 s u ffic ien tly 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
al., (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 u tilized were the
Stanford-Binet, Goodenough Draw-A-Person and Bender Gestalt. The
sixteen subjects were screened fo r psychopathology and assigned to
experimental and simulator groups according to scores on the BSS.
The study fa iled 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 e a rlie r 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 th eir own control, acted
more lik e 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
prim itive 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 ch ildlike 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 lik e
drawings typ ically 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 v a lid 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 fo r some of the cards to activate
disturbing emotions (co n flict 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 f e l t as
before but they were to be revealed d irectly 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 p a rtia 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 lik e the
regressed age was on WISC Vocabulary subscale scores, where the
hypnotic subjects scored higher than the simulators when compared to
th e ir 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 f e 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 th e ir support for the v a lid ity of age
regression, and cited some supportive evidence from the lite ra tu re .
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 iffic 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 rig id character structure. He was given the
Rorschach in the waking state and then hypnotized to eight d ifferen t
ages from three to 17.The results in the in itia l hypnotic state
showed a s h ift to less rigid determinants; greater M, FC versus F and
FC‘ according to the Klopfer scoring system (Klopfer, Ainsworth,
Klopfer & H olt, 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 fiv e .
The authors concluded that the Rorschach reflected changes in
functioning held to be consistent with the regressed age and in
keeping with the clin ica l 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
co n flict between passive dependent needs and aggressive trends. The
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
subject was found to be a good hypnotic subject and was regressed on
three successive days to ages s ix , 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. It
was concluded that because the te s t data was consistent with
expectations a t 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 la te r given the Rorschach in the usual
manner. I t had been hypothesized that the standard administration of
the Rorschach, done a fte r 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 fa r 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 v a lid 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 ch ildlike 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 te r 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 f e l t 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 fir 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)' fo r 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 lig h t trance. In the second session, the two
experimental groups were placed in deep hypnosis to the
somnambulistic le v e l, 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 i r 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 i r 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) e a rlie r 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 a v a ila b ility of Rorschachs actually
done by the subjects during adolescence (average age about 13 at
in it ia l testin g ). The 11 subjects were assigned to experimental or
control groups a fte r obtaining th e ir 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 fiv e 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 fo r th e ir a b ility to pretend.
Interspersed in the practice sessions were several test
sessions. One was a memory session in which the subjects were to
reproduce th e ir original adolescent Rorschach from memory. Then
there was a simulation session fo r a ll subjects. Lastly, there was
the c ritic a l age regression session for the experimental group and a
second simulation fo r the controls.
The a v a ila b ility of Rorschachs actually produced by the subjects
between the ages of nine to fifteen allowed fo r 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, L evitt &
Molish, 1961) allowed another comparison to be made between the
groups. It was concluded that the Rorschach scores were more
adolescent lik e 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 lik e 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 iffic u lt to simulate Rorschach as the
criterion measure in th e ir studies of age regression, the actual
manner in which to quantify the data became d iffic 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 fo r well
developed age norms and for the Rorschach to be a relia b le test
instrument.
Exner (1974, 1978, Note 1; Exner, Weiner, & Schuyler, 1976) has
developed a well researched scoring system and age norms fo r 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 a fte r 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 fo r 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
fo r 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 fo r 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,
it did allow the examiner to regress the subject to oneof the
elementary school years. The subject was then asked to rate the
experience on a scale that ranged from one to fiv e . 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 lite ra tu re 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
clin ica l hypnosis.
The lite ra tu re also suggested that not only must individualized
hypnotic techniques be employed, but particular hypnotic techniques
have been reported to be especially useful in fa c 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 f e
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 fo r screening those subjects that were
most susceptible to age regression. Lastly, personalized induction
and age regression techniques w ill be used in an e ffo rt to provide
optimal conditions fo r 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 fo r specific training fo r 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
fu rth er, 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 fo r simulators w ill lessen
th e ir 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 fo r 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 f e l t 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 iffic u lt or supposedly
unhypnotizable subjects. Consequently, the real-simulator or
cryptosimulator technique is rejected as part of the experimental
design because it 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 v a lid 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 fo r the experimental group w ill not
show more correspondence to children's age norms than •
w ill the Rorschach scores fo r 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 fo r adults (Exner, 1978).
CHAPTER I I
METHOD
Subjects
Subjects were selected from volunteers who were w illin g 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 fo r 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 itia l
SHCS-Adult screening. The subjects were assigned to the experimental
or one of three control groups on the basis of th eir SHCS-Adult
results. Each group had six subjects. A subject who dropped out of
the experiment was replaced by another subject with sim ilar
SHCS-Adult characteristics; the replacement subject went through the
entire experimental process.
Procedure
Prior to the in itia tio n of the actual experimental process a
34
p ilo t study was conducted with four subjects. The purpose of the
p ilo t study was to help fam iliarize the experimenter with the
experimental procedure. I t also allowed fo r s k ill development in the
hypnotic techniques specific to this experiment. (Appendix A)
Volunteers fo r the actual experiment were chosen from among
those who responded to printed requests (Appendix B) fo r 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 fiv e was the
highest score obtainable and zero the lowest. The age regression
item consisted of a l i s t of fiv e statements with the statement that
best described th e ir 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 t h grade (fiv e ); for purposes of quantification
a score of four or fiv e 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 a c tiv itie s when age regressed. One subject who
was in it ia ll y 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.
A fter the subjects were placed into experimental or control
groups, waking state Rorschach testing was counterbalanced fo r 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 th e ir waking Rorschach a fte r 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 th e ir in itia l Rorschach in the
waking state were given suggestions to become amnesic fo r th e ir
in it ia l Rorschach administration when la te r hypnotized.
Subjects in the age regression and deep trance groups were seen
fo r three sessions to work on deepening trance fo r the deep hypnosis
control group and becoming age regressed fo r the age regression or
experimental group. Subjects in both groups learned to keep th eir
eyes open without interfering with th e ir trance state. Subjects in
these groups 'who could not obtain this c rite ria were to have been
discontinued from the experiment and replaced with a sim ilar 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 b u ilt upon truisms and focused
on the ablation of experiences that occurred a fte r 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 a fte r 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. It 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 train ing , 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, afte r 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, prin cip al, or friendly adult. Suggestions were given that
the subject was in a room in his elementary school and f e l t 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 te st 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 a fte r 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'
lik e you would i f you were fiv e 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 lik e a fiv e -
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 sim ilar 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 v a lid ity identified by Campbell and Stanley (1966). Such
threats to internal v a lid ity as history, testing, selection and
regression were regarded as controlled by this design. Other threats
such as maturation, instrumentation, m ortality, 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 lin ical Scale - Adult
______________ (SHCS-Adult)_______________
I
Subjects Subjects
th at pass passing one
three of fiv e SHCS- or no SHCS-
adult items adult items
Age Regression Deep Hypnctizable Minimally

r
Group (A) Hypnosis Simulator Susceptible
Score 4 or 5 Group Group Group
on SHCS-Adult (B) (C) (D)
age regression
from
*1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 U2
taking Nothing Waking Nothing Waking Nothing Waking Nothing
state state state state
Rorschach Rorschach Rorschach Rorschac!
Ax & A2 & B2 c1 & c2 D1 S D 2

Practice Practice Nothing Nothing
Age Deep
Regression Hypnosis
three to fiv e three to
sessions fiv e sessions
i" 1 r ~ ~ 4 i i ♦
& d2
Aj & A2 B1 & B2
^1* ^2* ^1*
Rorschach Rorschach Roschach given with
given in age given in deep instructions to simulate
regressed state hypnosis being age fiv e
b2
*1 A2 B1 C1 C2 D1 D2
Nothing Waking Nothing Waking Nothing Waking Nothing Waking
state state state state
Rorschach Rorschach Rorschach Rorschach
1
... 1 j i
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 irs t, in reviewing the Exner
(1978; Exner, Weiner & Schuyler, 1976) age norms i t became evident
th a t, even when comparing the adult norms with those fo r 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 meanoverlapped.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 P ilo t Study (Appendix A) the
jt-te s t revealed a few significant differences between waking and
regressed Rorschach performance, but the Sign Test showed the data
fo r 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 fo r 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 fo r Adults (SHCS-Adult) is presented. For purposes of comparison,
both the overall score fo r 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 a fte r 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 fiv e items on the SHCS-Adult. Their scores on the age
regression item range from two to four, with the six subjectsobtaining
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 fo r the age regression item on that scale.
44
45
Table 1
Group Totals and Means fo r 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 4.50

Group I I Deep Hypnosis 23 3.83 20 3.33
Group I I I Hypnotizable 23 3.83 20 3.33
Simulators
Group IV Minimally 4 .67 15 2.50
Susceptible Simulators
Table 2 presents the results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance
to test fo r significant differences among the four groups.
Table 2
One-Way Analysis of Variance Testing Differences on the Stanford

Hypnotic Clinical Scale-Adult Results fo r 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 c ritic a 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 fo r Adults (SHCS-Adult)
DF Mean F
Squares
Between Groups 3 4.72 12.42*

Within Groups 20 .38
23
* £ < .0 1
In reviewing the results of Table 3, i t is found that the groups do
vary sig n ifican tly, (p < . 0 1 ) , when comparing SHCS-Adult scores on the age
regression item. A posthoc Tukey test revealed a c ritic a l 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
47
scorers in it ia l independent scoring was calculated by the following
formula:
Number of scoring Number of scoring

categories used by + categories used by - Discrepancies
experimenter additional scorer
= Percentage
Agreement
Number of scoring Number of scoring
categories used by + categories used by
experimenter additional scorer
The results of the calculations on percentage agreement between
experimenter and additional scorer are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Percentage Agreement on In itia 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 fo r a ll experimental testing done with
subjects who had preexperimental pretesting = 86% (£=12)
Grand total percentage agreement fo r a ll experimental testing done with
subjects who then had postexperimental testing = 86% (£=12)
Group I
Waking State £ Experimental £
pre 87% 3 84% 3

post 85% 3 88% 3
total 86 % 6 87% 6
Group I I
pre 83% 3 86% 3

post 88% 3 81% 3
total 83% 6 84% 6
Group I I I
pre 86% 3 90% 3

post 86% 3 88% 3
total 86% 6 89% 6
Group IV
pre 85% 3 84% 3

post 80% 3 84% 3
total M% ’S m nr
From Table 4 i t can be seen that the percent of agreement in scores
fo r the experimenter and additional scorer was 80 percent or above for a ll
groups and grand to tals. 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.
49
Table 5
Waking State Group Means fo r a ll Subjects
Minimally
Rorschach Age Deep Hypnotizable Susceptible
Variables Regression Hypnosis Simulators Simulators
M SD M SD M SD M SD
R 18.83 10.25 20.33 8.76 18.67 9.50 20.00 10.73

Location
Features
W 3.83 2.32 6.67 2.88 6.50 3.08 9.33 2.50
D 11.17 6.40 11.67 9.77 10.33 6.15 8.83 6.27
Dd 3.67 5.20 2.00 1.41 1.83 1.94 1.83 2.14
S 2.33 3.93 2.83 3.55 .67 1.03 1.83 2.14
Dw .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
DQ+ 2.17 2.23 2.67 1.97 4.00 2.28 4.83 5.35
DQo 15.67 10.25 15.67 8.94 12.67 5.47 13.17 8.23
DQ- .33 .51 .50 .55 .50 .55 .17 .41
Determinants
M 2.50 1.38 3.00 1.67 4.50 2.74 2.83 2.14
FM 2.17 1.33 2.50 2.35 2.50 1.38 3.83 3.55
m 1.00 .89 .33 .52 1.83 1.47 .83 1.33
C+Cn .17 .17 .00 .00 .33 .82 .00 .00
Sum C 1.17 1.17 1.00 1.10 2.33 1.97 2.50 1.87
Sum C‘ .00 .00 .17 .41 .17 .41 .83 .98
Sum Y .33 .52 1.50 2.35 .00 .00 1.17 1.94
Sum V .33 .52 .50 .55 .33 .52 .17 .41
Sum T .50 .84 .67 .82 .33 .82 .33 .52
Sum
Shading 1.17 1.29 2.83 3.87 .83 .82 2.00 2.77
FD .17 .41 .33 .52 .00 .00 .33 .52
F 10.50 6.63 12.17 7.31 8.33 5.40 8.83 5.46
FQX+ .50 .84 .33 .52 .67 .52 .17 .41
FQXo 15.50 8.46 15.00 6.45 13.83 6.82 16.17 9.45
FQXw 2.00 1.79 3.67 3.27 3.67 3.14 3.50 2.17
FQX- .50 .55 1.17 1.47 .50 .55 .33 .52
No Form .17 .41 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
P 4.83 .75 4.33 2.25 5.17 1.72 5.50 2.66
Zf 6.17 2.32 9.17 2.41 8.83 4.12 12.83 5.74
Blends 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 4.41
Pure H 2.33 .82 2.50 1.52 4.17 2.48 2.33 2.25
Fd .17 .41 .17 .41 .00 .00 .00 .00
50
Rorschach Age Deep H y p n o tiza b le M in im a lly
V a ria b le s R egression 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 &
Deriva
tions
Lambda 1.46 1.01 1.55 .82 1.28 1.60 1.09 1.13
X+% .85 .05 .77 .10 .78 .11 .80 .16
F+% .62 .33 .57 .28 .70 .13 .73 .18
A% .53 .09 .74 .73 .49 .13 .52 .13
Afr .61 .16 .47 .14 .51 .19 .44 .16
3r+(2)/R .41 .07 .40 .19 .73 .50 .50 .13
H+Hd 3.50 2.74 4.83 1.72 5.50 2.88 2.67 2.81
EA 3.33 1.89 3.75 2.16 6.33 4.00 4.42 7.17
ep 4.33 1.97 5.67 1.02 5.17 3.31 7.17 6.11
Special
Scores
FABCOM .17 .41 .00 .00 .17 .41 .33 .52
INCOM .33 .52 .33 .52 .83 .75 .50 .84
ALOG .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
CONTAM .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
CP .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
MOR .17 .41 .00 .00 .33 .82 .17 .41
PER .00 .00 .17 .41 .17 .41 .17 .41
PSV .00 .00 .17 .41 .17 .41 .17 .41
DV .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Total .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).
T ab le 6
Experimental Condition Group Means for a ll Subjects
Minimally
Rorschach Age Deep Hypnotizable Susceptible
Variables Regression Hypnosis Simulators Simulators
M SD M SD M SD M SD
R 18.50 8.96 18.83 8.33 17.17 3.97 15.67 6.25

Locati on
Features
U 4.83 1.94 6.83 2.79 6.83 2.71 6.67 2.34
D 10.33 6.83 9.50 5.09 9.50 4.28 7.33 4.32
Dd 3.33 2.58 3.17 2.14 .83 .75 1.67 1.21
S .83 .98 3.67 4.32 .33 .82 1.17 .75
Dw .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
DQ+ 3.17 2.04 3.00 2.10 3.17 2.79 4.17 2.14
DQo 13.50 .96 14.67 8.60 12.33 4.27 10.50 4.93
DQ- .83 .98 .67 1.21 .50 1.23 .33 .82
Determinants
M 2.33 1.75 2.67 1.86 3.33 1.37 3.67 1.47
FM 3.50 2.43 1.50 1.05 2.00 1.41 2.67 2.34
m 1.00 .89 .17 .41 .50 .84 1.67 1.63
C+Cn .17 .17 .17 .41 .50 .84 .17 .41
Sum C 3.00 1.27 1.00 1.55 2.67 2.06 3.67 1.75
Sum C' 1.00 1.55 .50 .55 1.17 .98 .67 .82
Sum Y .17 .41 .67 .82 1.00 1.55 .50 .55
Sum V .00 .00 .50 .84 .00 .00 .17 .41
Sum T .67 1.21 .17 .41 .50 .55 .17 .41
Sum
Shading 1.83 2.65 1.83 2.00 2.67 3.61 1.50 1.73
FD .50 1.23 .33 .52 .17 .41 .00 .00
F 8.17 5.50 11.50 7.97 7.50 4.85 5.83 4.22
FQX+ .17 .41 .33 .52 .50 .55 .83 1.60
FQXo 13.50 10.46 13.83- 4.92 12.33 2.50 11.50 1.62
FQXw 3.50 2.43 4.00 ' 3.90 3.50 2.81 3.00 2.10
FQX- 1.33 1.21 .67 1.21 .50 1.23 .33 .82
P 3.17 1.33 5.50 1.52 5.00 1.79 4.17 1.94
Zf 7.17 3.71 10.00 3.74 9.33 2.73 9.33 4.63
B1ends 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 2.42
Pure H 1.83 1.17 2.50 1.87 2.50 1.38 2.00 1.27
Fd .50 1.23 .17 .41 .83 .75 .00 .00
52
Rorschach Age Deep H y p n o tiza b le M in im a lly
V a ria 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
No Form .00 .00 .00 .00 .33 .82 .00 .00

Ratios &
Deriva
tions
Lambda .77 .30 2.53 3.47 .89 .67 .61 .36
X+% .68 .19 .77 .07 .77 .15 .80 .04
F+% .60 .33 .73 .11 .80 .36 .74 .16
A% .53 .12 .46 .06 .53 .04 .50 .12
Afr .54 .17 .49 .10 .52 .23 .47 .10
3r+(2)/R .51 .24 .35 .20 .60 .27 .40 .12
H+Hd 2.50 1.38 4.00 1.55 3.33 1.21 2.17 1.47
EA 4.33 1.34 3.33 2.32 5.58 2.22 5.75 2.44
ep 6.33 3.88 3.50 1.87 5.17 1.94 5.83 2.86
Special
Scores
FABCOM .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .33 .52
INCOM .33 .52 .83 1.17 .50 .84 .33 .52
ALOG .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .33 .52
CONTAM .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
CP .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
MOR .83 .98 .00 .00 .00 .00 .50 .55
PER 1.17 1.60 .17 .41 .67 1.03 .67 .82
PSV .33 .82 .33 .52 .17 .41 .17 .41
DV .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Total 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 fo r 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 fo r age
fiv e (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 fiv e children's mean and standard deviation.
The cutoff scores fo r ALOG, INCOM, DV, PER, Fd and C+Cn used the same
procedure as above but setting the c ritic a l point above the adult mean
because the la tte r scores are expected to be higher fo r children than
adults. For EA:ep and FC:CF+C the c ritic a 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
Rorschach C ritical Age Deep Hypnotizable Minimally

Variables Point Regres Hypnosis Simulator Susceptible
sion Simulator
M S M S M S M S
D 4.10 10.33 0 9.50 0 9.50 0 7.33 0

S .91 .83 + 3.67 0 .33 + 1.17 0
m .30 1.00 0 .17 + .50 0 1.67 0
FC 1.16 2.17 0 .83 + 1.33 0 2.33 0
FD .78 .00 + .33 + .17 + .00 +
ALOG .20 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .33 +
INCOM .32 .33 + .83 + .50 + .33 +
54
Rorschach C r it ic a l Age Deep H y p n o tiza b le M in im a lly
V a ria b le s P o in t R egres- Hypnosis S im u la to r S u s c e p tib le
sio n S im u la to r
M S M S M S M S
DV .20 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0

PER 1.37 1.17 0 .17 0 .67 0 .67 0
Fd .90 .50 0 .17 0 .83 0 .00 0
C+Cn .60 .17 0 .17 0 .50 0 .17 0
A* .54 .53 0 .46 0 .53 0 .50 0
EA 4.33 + 3.33 + 5.58 0 5.75 +
ep EA<ep 6.33 3.50 5.17 5.83
FC 2.17 0 .83 0 1.33 0 2.33 0
CF+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 norm
0 = does not correspond to children's age norm
In reviewing Table 7 it 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 i r 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 iffe r
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 s ta tis tic a l power fo r 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
s ta tis tic a l differences that might become evident with more subjects.
The second null hypothesis, that Rorschach scores fo r the
Experimental (Age Regression) group, w ill not show more correspondence
55
age norms than w ill the Rorschach scores fo r 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 c ritic a l scores developed fo r Rorschach variables having age fiv e
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 lik ely
because inferential s ta tis tic s 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 fo r th e ir 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 fo r any of the groups showing a
57
correspondence to children's age norms. This finding suggests a
possibility of a mixture of adult and childlike functioning fo r subjects
in th e ir 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 s im ila ritie s 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 fo r 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 sim ilar
to that of the current study in the respect that a significant
difference was not found between th e ir six age regressed subjects and
three simulating controls. However, the Staples and Wilensky (1968)
study also had a low level of s ta tis tic a l 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 iffic 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 sim ilar 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
fo r 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 e d ., 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
lik e functioning; because of the lack of a control group that study
would best be compared with the P ilo t 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 fo r 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 th e ir
performance on the Rorschach during that time was not significantly
d ifferen t 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 s ta tis tic a l 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 e a rlie r
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
th e ir present age. Thus, some of the subjects may have been only
p a rtia lly or pseudoregressed.
One factor that is d iffic u lt to account fo r 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. Thesimulating subject, a pediatric nurse sensitive to
children, talked about experiencing a "rocketship" she saw during her
simulatingsession 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 lik e
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 iffic 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 s ta tis tica l 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.
Id eally, 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 lin k to previous research (Staples and Wilensky,
1968 & Soloman and Goodson, 1971) and w ill most lik e ly 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 fin a l analysis there is meager experimental evidence for the
existence o f 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. The Rorschach: a comprehensive system , vol. I I I .

p rin t.
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 o f 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 c ritic a 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 ., L e v itt, E. E ., & Molish, H. B. Rorschach's

te s t vol I : basic processes (3rd, e d .). 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 ., & L eavitt, 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 fo r 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 T raits. 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 C ritical Phase
of Childhood. Psychoanalytic Quarterly. 1941, JO, 582-609.
Erickson, M. H ., Rossi, E. L. & Rossi, S. I . Hypnotic re a litie s : the
induction of clin ic a l 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 : current

research 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 and

perspectives. 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 In s titu tia
Psifchonevrologia Kiev. 1930, 2 , 236-272.
Gard, B. & Kurtz, R. M. Hypnotic Age Regression and Cognitive

Perceptual 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 su scep tib ility. New York: Harcourt Brace Janovich, 1968.
Hilgard, E. R. & Bower, G. H. Theories of learning (third e d itio n ).

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.
H olt, R. R. Manual fo r the scoring of primary process manifestations

in Rorschach responses. New York: Research Center fo r Mental
Health, 1960.
Huse, B. Does the Hypnotic Trance Favor the Recall of Faint Memories?
Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1930, 13^ 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, 77^, 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 Id entification . International Journal of C linical 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.
B ritish Journal of Medical Hypnotism, 1951, 3^, 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 C linical and Experimental
Hypnosis, 1§80, 28, 394-4081
McCranie, E. J. & Crasilneck, H. B. The Conditioned Reflex in

Hypnotic Age Regression. Journal of C linical & Experimen
ta 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 o f 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 In hibition 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 illip s , L. & Smith, J.G. Rorschach interpretation: advanced

technique, New York: Grune and S tratton, 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 C linical Hypnosis, 1980, 22,
(3),156-162.
R e iff, 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 Anxiety

and 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 Electro
encephalogram. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 1955, 122,
564-574. :
Sears, A. B. A comparison of Hypnotic and Waking Recall. International

Journal of C linical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1954, 2 , 296-304.
68
Solom on, D. & Goodson, D. H yp n o tic Age Regression E v a lu ate d A g a in s t a
C r it e r io n o f P r io r P erform ance. The In te r n a tio n a l Jo u rn al o f C lin ic a l
and E xp e rim en tal H ypn o sis. 1 9 7 1 , 4 1 , 2 4 3 -2 5 9 .
Spanos, N. P.; Ferhana, A. & Hendrikus, S. J. Hypnotic Age Regression

and Eidetic Imagery: A fa ilu re 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 D ifferen tiatio n 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 ., G arrett, 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 Age

Regression: More evidence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978,
87, 673-675.
Weitzenhoffer, A ., & Hilgard, E. Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale

Form C. Palo A lto , California: Consulting Psychologists Press,
1962.
White, R. W., Fox, G. F ., & H arris, W. W. Hypnotic Hypermnesia for

Recently Learned M aterial. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1940, 35, 88-103.
Wiseman, R. J ., & Reyher, J. Hypnotically Induced Dreams Using the

Rorschach Inkblots as Stim uli. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1973, 27^, 329-336.
Wolberg, L. P. Hypnoanalysis. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1964.
Yates, A. J. Simulation and Hypnotic Age Regression, International
Journal of C linical Hypnosis, 1960, 8_, 243-249.
Yates, A. J. Hypnotic Age Regression. Psychological B ulletin, 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 V erid ic ality of Hypnotically Induced Regression.

Psychological B u lle tin , 1937, 34, 784.
Young, P.C. Hypnotic Regression-Fact or A rtifa c t. Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology, 1940, 35, 273-278.
70
APPENDIX A: PILOT STUDY
METHOD
Subjects were selected fo r the p ilo t study on the basis of
a v a ila b 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, fiv e is the experience
of returning to an e a rlie r 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 la te r a fte r three to fiv e
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 a fte r 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 a fte r the age
regression Rorschach. For both groups amnesia was induced during hypnosis
a fte r 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
th e ir eyes and remain age regressed. During age regression i t was
suggested that the subjects would return to th e ir 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 4
Hypnotized SHCC-Adult SHCA-Adult SHCS-Adult
arm cata age regres-' age regres age regression
lepsy sion items sion item item score:
induced score: four score: three three maybe
maybe four four
. ■
Waking Waking
state state
Rorschach Rorschach
■
Three age Three age Four age Three age
regression regression regression regression
training training training training
sessions sessions sessions sessions
amnesia for amnesia for
waking state waking state
Rorschach Rorschach .
induced induced
Age regres Age regres Age regres Age regression

sion Ror sion sion Ror Rorschach
schach amnesia Rorschach schach amnesia
for testing fo r testing
induced induced
Waking Debriefing Waking Debriefing

state state
Rorschach and Rorschach and
debriefing debriefing
Figure 2. P ilot Study Experimental Design and Procedure
73
RESULTS
Table A shows the Rorschach results for th e .p ilo t study subjects. The
Rorschachs were scored according to the Exner Comprehensive System (1974).
Table A
Rorschach Results fo r P ilo t Study Subjects
SHCS-Adult Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4

Age Regression Not Given 4 3-4 3-4
Score
Rorschach
Category______ Waking Hy* Making Hy* Waking Hy* Making Hy*
R 28 30 22 13 35 27 42 29
Location
W 15 10 5 4 7 5 6 4
D 12 19 17 9 27 22 36 24
Dd 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
S 3 4 1 1 5 6 4 3
DW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Determinants
M 1 0 3 2 7 4 9 4
FM 1 2 1 0 5 1 3 5
m 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 1
FC 1 3 0 0 4 3 1 1
CF 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
C+Cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wt. sum C .5 1.5 0 1 4 1.5 .5 .5
Sum C‘ 1 3 0 0 2 2 1 1
Sum T 3 2 0 1 9 0 2 1
Sum Y 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 1
Sum V 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 1
Sum a ll shading 6 6 2 2 12 2 5 4
FD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fr + rF 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
(2) 2 5 7 3 14 7 13 7
F 19 19 11 9 15 17 17 13
Ratios &
Deviations
P 4 6 4 2 3 3 7 4
Lambda 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%
74
Rorschach
Category Waking Hy* Waking Hy* Waking Hy* Waking Hy*
Afr .47 .43 .29 .63 .40 .50 .50 .38
3r + (2)/R .28 .16 .32 .23 .40 ' .26 .40 .24
H + Hd 3 6 9 6 15 12 10 10
If 14 10 6 3 17 12 18 5
Blends 2 0 1 0 2 2 2 2
EArep 1.5/8 1.5/11 3/4 3/1 10.5/9 5.5/3 11/9 4.5/10
M:sum C 1: .5 0:1.5 3:0 2:1 7:4 4:: 1.5 9:.5 4:.5
Special
Scores
DV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AL0G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INC0M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FABC0M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum Special 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scores
PSV 2 4 0 0 2 2 0 1
*Hy=Hypnoti c Age Regression
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
Rorschach
Category Waking State Means Age Regressed Means
R 31.75 24.75
Location
W 8.25 5.75
D 23.0 18.50
Dd .50 .50
S 3.25 3.50
DW 0 0
Determinants
M 5.0 2.50
FM 2.50 2.0
m 1.50 .25
FM+m 4.00 2.25
FC 1.50 1.75
75
Rorschach
Category Waking State Means Age Regressed Means
CF .25 .50
CF+C+Cn .25 .50
Weighted sum C 1.25 1.12
Sum C' 1.00 1.50
Sum T 3.50 1.00
Sum Y 1.50 .25
Sum a ll shading 3.50
FD 0 0
Fr + rF 1.00 0
(2 ) 9.00 5.50
F 15.50 14.50
Ratios &
Deviations
P 4.50 3.75
Lambda 1.16 1.32
X=% .84 .82
F+% .80 .78
A% .46 .49
Afr .42 .49
3r+(2)/R .35 .22
H + Hd 9.25 8.50
Zf 13.75 7.50
Blends 1.75 .50
EA >ep* 50% 50%
Special
Scores
DV 0 0
ALOG .25 0
FABCOM .25 0
CONTAM 0 0
Sum Special
Scores .50 0
PSV 1.00 .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.
76
T ab le C
Correlated Sample t-te s ts Comparing Waking State and Age Regression

Rorschach Scores
Rorschach Rorschach
Category t (df=3) Category t (df=3)
R 2.20 Ratios &

U 1.44 Deviations
D .31 P .68
Dd 1.78 Lambda .97
S -.89 X+% .54
DW 0 F+% .07
Determinants A% .36
M 3.57 Afr .69
FM .38 3r + (2}/R 1.41
m 2.23 H + Hd .52
FM+m 1.71 Zf 7.97***
FC .10 Blends 2.60*
CF .40 Special
Weighted Sum C .30 Scores
Sum C' .40 DV -
Sum T 1.15 ALOG -
Sum Y 5.00** INC0M 1.04

Sum V 8.00*** FABC0M 1.04
Fr + rF 1.75 Sum Special 1.21
FD - Scores
(2) 1.57 PSV 1.56
Two tailed t-te s t

P <.10*
P < .0 5 **
£ < .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
77
scores 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 Sign

R + 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 0
M + (2) + DV 0
FM + m + F + ALOG -
FC - P + FABCOM -
CF + Lambda + PSV +
Weighted X+% + Sum Spec
Sum 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
th e ir 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 ta tis tic a l significance between the waking and age
regressed Rorschachs fo r 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% fo r 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 fiv e as a time of relative ly less co n flic t. The
above factors could account for her higher adult versus age regressed A%,
i t would account fo r 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 fiv e norm in total number of responses (R) as an
example). When interviewed la te r she explained that in many ways she was a
precocious five-year-o ld, pushed and encouraged to perform. Thus, the word
dissect used in her age fiv e Rorschach responses was not discrepant with
her functioning at age fiv e 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 deviationand going two standard deviations above the age five
mean, even though theseare the mostdiscrepant from the adult norms.
Thus, a s ta tis tic a 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 fo r such
categories as X+% where the adult mean d iffers by only 2 percentage points
from the age fiv e 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 fo r 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 iffic u lty with the p ilo t study was that the subjects did not
fu lly meet the c rite ria of excellent age regression subjects as measured by
the SHCS-Adult. Only one subject obtained a score of four on in itia l
screening, with two other subjects saying "three maybe four" when asked
about th e ir experience during the age regression item. During the training
sessions a ll of the subjects reported an increased capacity to experience
themselves as age fiv e . Subject one showed clear cut mannerisms of a child
during testing and, in fa c t, 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 c o llie pushed open
the door and entered the room. Had the experimenter been more a le rt, he
could have said something lik e "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 th eir 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 fiv e . 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 o f 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 s ta tis tic a 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 c lin ic a l 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 fo r 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
e ffo rt to probe into personal a ffa irs or to provide treatment. The
experiment w ill be conducted solely for serious s c ien tific 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 lim ited number of volunteers w ill
be included in the research. I f you have any questions and/or would lik e
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 study

individual- reactions and experiences during various hypnotic and other
related experiences.
Procedures: After an in it ia l screening, volunteers w ill be assigned to

various experimental procedures.
While certain data w ill be collected, no e ffo rt 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 a fte r 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.
C onfidentiality: The data collected in this experiment w ill be held in

confidence. The published dissertation w ill not contain any subject names,
only age and sex may be included with the data.
P articipation: Participation in the research is voluntary. The volunteer

may, at any time cease participation and have a ll data from th eir
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:_________________________________
84
APPENDIX D
DEBRIEFING
To be presented to the volunteer verbatim:
"Now that you have concluded the experiment, t e ll me i f you have

any questions or concerns regarding your experiences." (Wait for
response.) "I can't t e 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, ju s t give me a call at that time." " Although i t is very
rare for peopleto experienceunwanted side effects a fte r hypnosis, you may
contact 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 a fte r 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 on
Subject Items Passed Age Regression Item
1 4 5
2 4 5
3 5 4
4 5 4
5 5 4
6 5 5
Group I I Deep Hypnosis

SHCS-Adult Score on
7 3 4
8 4 2
9 3 4
10 5 4
11 3 2
12 5 4
Group I I I Hypnotizable Simulators

SHCS-Adult Score on
13 4 3
14 4 4
15 4 3
16 3 3
17 4 3
18 4 4
Minimally Susceptible Simulators

Group IV
SHCS-Adult Score on
19 0 3
20 1 3
21 0 2
22 1 2
23 1 3
24 1 2
87
APPENDIX 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 r e 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
vivid ly e a rlie r troublesome issues with th e ir parents. The subject also
reported that while these issues are always active, particularly in the
relationship with th e ir 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 d irectly about how they were doing seven weeks a fte r 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 th e ir 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 fiv e years of age, they were almost
continually i l l , and in fact missed prolonged periods of school. The
experience of returning to age fiv e had thus proven unpleasant and this
subject decided to discontinue involvement in the experiment.
Despite the unpleasantness of the age regression experience fo r this
volunteer,'no i l l effects werfe reported to continue afte r they were out of
trance. A phone call seven weeks la te r found the subject reporting no
aftereffects or psychological distress due to participation in the
experiment.
89
SUBJECT C
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 tio n 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 sim ilar 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 li f e .
Nevertheless, some hypoanthesthesia and b rie f 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 fo r Valium and a pain re lie f drug by the dentist and fitte d
for a night-time biting plate.
The volunteer continued to meet with the experimenter and has found
r e lie f through hypnosis. While some symptoms persist, the volunteer
reports considerable improvement. The dentist has requested a l i s 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
f e l t 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 te d .
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%
II. 2. 100% II. 2. 82%
3. 93% 3. 80%
III. 4. 83% III. 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%
V I. 100% IX. - 100%
V II. 10. 79% X. 8 82%
V III. 11. 93% 9. 86%
12. 79% 10. 82%
IX. 13. 76%
X. 14. 100% Overall Agreement:
15. 55%
Overall Agreement: 86%
S u b je c t 2
P r e te s t . Experim ental
I. 1. 93% I. 1. 100%
II. 2. 87% II. 2. 80%
3. 90% 3. 83%
III. 4. 83% 4. 100%
IV. - 00% 5. 91%
V. 5. 83% III. 6. 80%
VI. - 100% 7. 71%
V II. 6. 78% 8. 75%
V I II. 7. 83% 9. 73%
8. 100% IV. 10. 92%
IX. 9. 73% V. 11. 92%
X. 10. 100% VI. 12. 83%
V II. 13. 85%
Overall Agreement: 86% 14. 100%
V III. 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 r e te s t • Experim ental
I. 1. 100% I. 1. 71%
2. 100% 2. 92%
II. 3. 87% II. 3. 73%
4. 89% III. 4. 69%
III. 5. 82% IV. 5. 88%
IV. 6. 84% V. 6. 77%
V. 7. 93% VI. 7. 73%
VI. 8. 90% V II. 8. 86%
9. 91% V III. 100%
V II. 10. 74% IX. 9. 88%
V II I . 11. 79% X. 10. 90%
12. 77% 11. 83%
13. 75%
14. 90% Overall Agreement: 81%
IX. 15. 85%
X. 16. 80%
17. 80%
18. 82%
19. 100%
S u b je c t 4
Posttest Experim ental
I. 1. 75% I. 1. 93%
2. 67% 2. 94%
II. 3. 88% 3. 100%
III. 4. 100% 4. 100%
IV. 5. 100% II. 5. 100%
V. 6. 93% 6. 94%
VI. 7. 80% III. 7. 100%
8. 100% 8. 100%
V II. 9. 86% -9. 83%
10. 90% VI. 10. 0%
V III. 11. 76% 11. 93%
12. 100% V. 12. 95%
IX. - 100% V I. 13. 100%
X. 13. 79% V II. 14. 100%
14. 100% V III. 15. 100%
15. 91% IX. 16. 73%
16. 82% X. 17. 73%
18. 100%
20. 85%
21. 94%
S u b je c t 5
P o s tte s t Experim ental
I. 1. 100% I. 1. 100%
2. 100% 2. 100%
II. 3. 88% II. 3. 94%
4. 79% 4. 100%
5. 100% 5. 0%
6. 71% 6. 61%
III. 7. 83% III. 7. 75%
8. 73% 8. 100%
9. 58% 9. 0%
10. 75% IV. 10. 69%
IV. 11. 71% 11. 92%
12. 83% V. 12. 94%
13. 0% 13. 75%
14. 82% VI. 14. 92%
V. 15. 100% 15. 100%
16. 93% 16. 100%
17. 93% 17. 100%
18. 80% V II. 18.
19. 83% 19. 100%
VI. 20. 100% 20. 58%
21. 70% 21. 100%
22. 80% 1111. 22. 100%
23. 80% 23. 82%
24. 77% 24. 0%
V II. 25. 94% 25. 100%
26. 83% IX. 26. 100%
III. 27. 100% 27. 92%
28. 67% 28. 92%
29. 85% 29. 91%
30. 80% X. 30. 87%
31. 80% 31. 100%
IX. 32. 71% 32. 100%
33. 92% 33. 80%
34. 82% 34. 64%
35. 90%
X. 37. 80%
38. 91%
39. 86%
40. 92%
41. 92%
S u b je c t 6
P o s tte s t E x p e rim e n ta l.
I. 1. 100% I. 1. 93%
2. 100% II. 2. 83%
II. 3. 100% 3. 94%
4. 92% III. 4. 95%
III. 5. 88% IV. 5. 73%
IV. 6. 83% 6. 92%
V. 7. 86% V. 7. 100%
VI. 8. 80% VI. 8. 100%
V II. 9. 83% V II. 9. 89%
V III. 10. 94% 10. 91%
IX. 11. 88% V III. 11. 92%
X. 12. 60% IX. 12. 82%
X. 13. 71%
Overall Agreement%: 87%
GROUP I I
Subject 7
Pretest Experim ental
I. 1. 82% I. 1. 92%
2. 75% II. 2. 89%
II. 3. 81% III. 3. 89%
III. 4. 83% IV. 4. 67%
IV. 5. 90% V. 5. 100%
6. 00% VI. 6. 75%
V. 7. 87% V II. 7. 75%
VI. 8. 100% V II I . 8. 70%
V II. 9. 100% IX. 9. 75%
V III. 10. 79% X. 10. 69%
IX. 11. 81% 11. 82%
X. 12. 100%
14. 91%
S u b je c t 8
P r e te s t Exp erim en tal
I. 1. 86% I. 1. 75%
2. 100% 2. 86%
II. 3. 75% II. 3. 75%
III. 4. 85% III. 4. 95%
5. 00% 5. 100%
IV. 6. 83% IV. 6. 92%
7. 100% V. 7. 88%
V. 8. 100% VI. 8. 77%
VI. 9. 100% V II. 9. 80%
V II. 10. 81% V III. 10. 96%
V II I . 11. 81% 11. 73%
IX. 12. 74% IX. 12. 77%
X. 13. 73% X. 13. 77%
14. 67% 14. 85%
Overall Agreement: 81% Overall Agreement: 85%
S u b je c t 9
Posttest Experimental
I. 1. 93% I. 1. 75%
2. 100% 2. 75%
3. 75% 3. 86%
II. 4. 88% 4. 60%
5. 100% II. 5. 81%
6. 83% 6. 100%
7. 78% 7. 67%
III. 8. 94% 8. 00%
9. 83% III. 9. 88%
10. 100% 10. 62%
IV. 11. 92% IV. 11. 67%
12. 73% 12. 62%
13. 82% 13. 00%
V. 14. 100% V. 14. 93%
VI. 15. 100% 15. 100%
V II. 16. 94% 16. 50%
17. 100% VI. 17. 91%
18. 92% 18. 86%
19. 00% V II. 19. 89%
V III. 20. 71% 20. 69%
21. 80% 21. 91%
22. 100% 22. 28%
IX. 23. 100% V II I . 23. 73%
24. 90% 24. 100%
25. 83% 25. 91%
26. 85% 26. 100%
X. 27. 100% IX. 27. 100%
28. 100% 28. 90%
29. 100% 29. 67%
30. 75% 30. 75%
31. 75%
33. 92%
S u b je c t 10
P r e te s t Experim ental
I. 1. 82% I. 1. 94%
2. 86% 2. 94%
3. 83% 3. 94%
II. 4. 95% II. 4. 100%
5. 100% III. 5. 100%
6. 50% 6. 90%
III. 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 III. 15. 100% V III. 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 Exp erim en tal •
I. 1. 100% I. 1. 100%
2. 90% 2. 100%
3. 90% 3. 90%
II. 4. 86% II. 4. 100%
III. 5. 80% III. 5. 79%
IV. 6. 71% IV. 6. 79%
V. 7. 100% V. 7. 100%
VI. 8. 75% V I. 8. 83%
9. 100% V II. 9. 69%
V II. 10. 64% V II I . 10. 71%
V II I . 11. 84% XI. 11. 80%
IX. 12. 73% X. 12. 25%
13. 80%
X. 14. 100% Overal1 Agreement:
15. 77%
Overal1 Agreement: 84%
S u b je c t 12
I. 1. 79% I. 1. 100%
2. 100% 2. 73%
3. 91% 3. 100%
4. 100% II. 4. 100%
II. 5. 100% 5. 86%
6. 82% III. 6. 94%
7. 82% 7. 100%
8. 92% IV. 8. 77%
III. 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.
I. 1. 80% I. 1. 92%
2. 100% 2. 100%
II. 3. 92% II. 3. 89%
4. 94% III. 4. 89%
III. 5. 91% 5. 77%
6. 79% IV. 6. 100%
IV. 7. 100% 7. 80%
V. 8. 100% V. 8. 100%
VI. 9. 91% 9. 93%
V II. 10. 81% VI. 10. 93%
V III. 11. 78% V II. 11. 93%
IX. 100% 12. 100%
X. 12. 100% V II I. 13. 86%
13. 92% IX. 100%
14. 90% X. 14. 90%
15. 92%
S u b je c t 14
P o s tte s t Experimental
I. 1. 96% I. 1. 83%
2. 80% 2. 91%
II. 3. 67% 3. 100%
III. 4. 86% II. 4. 85%
5. 85% 5. 100%
6. 91% 6. 100%
IV. 7. 75% IV. 7. 80%
V. 8. 100% V. 8. 100%
VI. 9. 87% VI. 9. 83%
V II. 10. 88% V II. 10. 94%
V III. 11. 00% V III. 11. 78%
12. 69% 12. 73%
IX. 13. 83% 13. 00%
X. 14. 100% IX. 14. 93%
15. 100% 15. 83%
16. 81% X. 16. 90%
17. 83% 17. 93%
18. 92% 18. 100%
19. 70%
Overal1 Agreement: 84%
S u b je c t 15
I. 1. 89% I. 1. 93%
II. 2. 64% 2. 71%
III. 3. 82% II. 3. 100%
IV. 4. 76% 4. 73%
V. 5. 100% III. 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 je c t 16
P re te s t Experimental
I. 1. 82% I. 1. 94%
II. 2. 81% 2. 100%
III. 3. 100% II. 3. 81%
IV. 4. 100% III. 4. 100%
5. 82% IV. 5. 74%
V. 6. 100% V. 6. 100%
VI. 7. 67% V I. 7. 90%
V II. 100% 8. 86%
V III. 8. 100% V II 9. 82%
IX. 9. 75% V III. 10. 93%
X. 10. 100% IX. 11. 77%
11. 92% X. 12. 100%
13. 86%
S u b je c t 17
I. 1. 100% I. 1. 100%
2. 100% 2. 100%
3. 100% II. 3. 88%
II. 4. 89% 4. 100%
5. 92% III. 5. 94%
III. 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 je c t 18
P r e te s t E xp erim en tal
I. 1. 94% I. 1. 70%
2. 93% 2. 100%
3. 60% II. 3. 80%
4. 100% 4. 75%
II. 5. 67% III. 5. 93%
6. 63% 6. 80%
7. 82% 7. 100%
III. 8. 92% IV. 8. 54%
9. 57% 9. 92%
10. 69% V. 10. 92%
IV. 11. 100% 11. 93%
12. 75% VI. 12. 100%
13. 80% 13. 90%
14. 00% V II. 14. 100%
V. 15. 73% 15. 62%
16. 93% V II. 16. 100%
17. 100% 17. 100%
18. 90% IX. 18. 91%
VI. 19. 69% 19. 89%
20. 92% 20. 100%
21. 79% 21. 90%
22. 100% X. 22. 92%
23. 90% 23. 100%
V II. 24. 63% 24. 92%
25. 100%
V III. 26. 89% Overall Agreement: 90%
27. 91%
28. 100%
29. 70%
IX. 30. 77%
X. 31. 00%
32. 100%
33. 80%
34. 100%
35. 100%
S u b je c t 19
I. 1. 92% I. 1. 83%
2. 85% 2. 00%
II. 3. 88% II. 3. 91%
4. 100% 4. 83%
III. 5. 90% III. 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 III. 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%
S u b je c t 20
P r e s te s t E xp erim en tal
I. 1. 93% I. 1. 90%
II. 2. 88% 2. 79%
III. 3. 89% 3. 00%
4. 84% II. 4. 77%
IV. 5. 87% 5. 80%
6. 80% III. 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 r e te s t Exp erim en tal
I. 1. 82% I. 1. 79%
2. 83% II. 2. 71%
II. 3. 86% III. 3. 60%
III. 4. 78% IV. 4. 88%
IV. 5. 85% V. 5. 82%
V. 6. 86% VI. 6. 100%
VI. 7. 100% VI. 7. 78%
8. 70% V III. 8. 83%
V II. 9. 77% IX. 9. 81%
V III. 10. 79% X. 10. 37%
IX. 11. 92%
X. 12. 29% Overall Agreement: 75%
S u b je c t 22
P re te s t ' E xp erim en tal
I. 1 . 100% I. 1 . 100%
2. 75% 2. 79%
3. 71% 3. 77%
4. 87% II. 4. 75%
5. 79% 5. 100%
II. 6. 73% III. 6. 100%
7. 62% 7. 94%
8. 90% IV. 100%
9. 79% V. 8. 100%
10. 100% 9. 92%
III. 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 je c t 23
I. 1. 79% I. 1. 92%
2. 86% 2. 100%
3. 93% II. 3. 61%
II. 4. 75% 4. 55%
5. 71% III. 5. 88%
III. 6. 89% 6. 00%
7. 100% 7. 100%
8. 90% IV. 8. 76%
9. 100% V. 9. 87%
IV. 10. 80% 10. 73%
V. 11. 88% VI. 11. 80%
12. 64% 12. 83%
13. 83% 13. 100%
VI. 14. 86% 14. 90%
15. 100% 15. 83%
16. 100% 16. 92%
17. 92% 17. 81%
V II. 18. 78% V III. 18. 80%
19. 100% 19. 73%
20. 81% 20. 80%
V III. 21. 84% 21. 67%
22. 100% IX. 22. 87%
23. 62% 23. 87%
IX. 24. 80% 24. 50%
25. 67% 25. 82%
X. 26. 18%
S u b je c t 24
I. 1. 88% I. 1. 93%
II. 2. 100% II. 2. 92%
III. 3. 92% III. 3. 83%
IV. 4. 100% IV. 100%
V. 5. 92% V. 4. 100%
VI. 6. 85% VI. 100%
V II. 7. 87% V II. 5. 88%
V III. 8. 100% V II I . 6. 100%
9. 100% IX. 100%
IX. 10. 82% X. 7. 91%
X. 11. 83%
1,15
APPENDIX I
RORSCHACH SEQUENCE.OF SCORES AND STRUCTURAL .SUMMARY FOR EACH SUBJECT

DURING WAKING (PRE/POST) AND EXPERIMENTAL SESSIONS
Sequence of Scores Subject 1 Pre

Group I
Card RT No. Location Determinants) Content(s) POP Z Score Special
I 7" 1 Do Fo A
I I 30" 2 Do FTo A
3 Do FT. FYo A P
III 5" 4 Do Mpo (2) H P 3.0
5 Do Fo A
IV 5“ 6 Ddo Fo (2) eg
7 Do FVo Ge
V 5“ 8 Wo FMpo A P 1.0
9 Do FMpo (2) Ad
VI 17" Rejection
V II 10" 10 Do F§ (2) A P
11 Ddo mf.CFo Ex
IX 40" 12 D+ Mo (2) H,A 3.0
X 6" 13 Do Fo (2) A P
14 Dd- F- Xy,Hd
Reproduced with permission from John E. Exner, J r ., Ph.D.
1,16
STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 1 Pre
Group I
R=15 Z f= 3 ZSum=7 P=5 ( 2)=6
L o c a tio n F eatu res Determi nants Contents Contents

(Blends F irs t) (Idiographic)
W = 1 H= 2 Bl= .......................=
FI * FYn
(H) = Bt=
m *CFo 0 .......................=
D = 10 Hd = 1 Cg=l
(Hd) = Cl=
Dd = 3 M = 2 A= 8 Ex=l =
FM = 2 (A) = Fi=
S = m = Ad = 1 Fd= s
C = (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 Scoring
V = 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 CP
FQx FQf FY = OP < 3 or r \8 MOR
+ = + = rF = OH* 2 PER
o = 13 o = 5 Fr = + R * 17 PSV
w= w= FD = 4^ Total Total = 0
- = 1 - = 1 F = 6
no
form =
Ratios, Percentages, and Derivations
ZSum-Zest = 7-6 FC:CF=C = 0:1 Afr =5/9=.56

Zd = 1.0 W:M = 1:2 3r+(2)/R=6/15=.40
EB = 2:1 EA=3.0 W:D = 1:10 Cont:R =8:15
eb = 3:3 ep=6.0 L = 6/8=.75 H+Hd:A+Ad=3:9
(FM=2 m=l T=2 C'= V=1 Y= F+% =5/6 83% (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=
Blends:R = 2.15 X+% =13/14=93% H+A:HD+Ad=10:2
a:p = 2:3 A% =9/14=64% XRT Achrom=44/5=8.8“
Ma:Mp = 1:1 XRTChrom=91/5=18.2"
V I7
Sequence o f Scores S u b je c t 1 E xp erim en tal
Group I
Card RT No. Location Determinant(s) Content(s) POP Z Score Special
I 6" 1 Wo Fo (2) A
2 Wv rFw Finger
Painting
I I 9" 3 D- F- Ad
I I I 6" 4 Do Mpo H P
IV 49" Rejection
V 7" 5 Ddo Fw (2) Hair clip
VI 13" Rejection
V II 26" 6 D+ Mpo (2) H P
V III 28" 7 Dd- F- Airplane
IX 3" Rejection
X 23" 8 Do Fw (2) A
9 Do FCo (2) A P
10 Ddo FCo (2) A
118
STRUCTURAL 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 F irst) (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=
CF = 2 A1 = Ls=
FC = An = Na= =
C'F= Ay xy= =
+ = 1 + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)
o=6 o=2 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring
v = 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+% < .7 0
YF = 0S > 3 CP
FQx FQf FY = UP < 3 o r> 8 i MOR
+ = + = rF = 1 UH < 2 PER = 2
o=5 o = l Fr = +R < 17 PSV
w= 3 w= 2 FD = Total Total = 2
- = 2 - = 2 F = 5
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 3.0 -,* FC:CF=C = 2 :0 Afr = 4/6=.67

Zd W:M = 2:2 3r+(2)/R= 9/10=.9
EB = 1:1 EA = 2 W:D = 2:5 Cont:R =6:10
eb =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:l
a: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 je c t 2 Pre
Group I
Card RT No. Location Determinant(s ) Content(s) POP Z Score
I 3" 1 Wo Fo A P 1.0
II 8" 2 Do FVo (2) A P 4.5
3 Do Fo A
III 20" 4 D+ vP o (2) H P 3.0
IV 20" 5 Wv Ink Blot 2.0
Fwa
V 5" 6 W+ FM o A, Fd P 1.0 FABCOM
VI 28" Rejection
V II 13" 7 W+ Mpo (2) H, paper P 2.5
weight
V III 18" 8 D+ FMa A P 3.0
9 W+ Fro Ls
IX 46" Wv C Painting/ 5.5
modern art
X 25" 11 Dd- F- An 5.5
120
Group I
R = ll Z f= 9 ZSum=28 P=6 (2)=3
L o c a tio n F eatu res Determinants Contents Contents

W = 6 H= 2 Bl= ink b lo t............=1

(H) = Bt=
D = 4 Hd = Cg= paper w eig h t...=1
(Hd) = Cl=
Dd = 1 M = 2 A= 5 Ex= Painting/modern art=l
FM = 2 (A) = Fi=
S = m = Ad = 1 Fd=l ........................=
C = 1 (Ad) = Ge=
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= ....................... =
CF = A1 = Ls=l
FC = An = Na= ........................=
C'F= Ay Xy= ......................... =
+ = 5 + = FC‘= S-Constellation (Adult)
v = 2 w= TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV
- = 1 FT = U3r+(2)/R < .30 INCOM =
no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOM = 1
FV = 1 +CF+C> FC CONTAM =
YF = 0S>3 CP
FQx FQf FY = 0P < 3 o r > 8 MOR
+ = + = rF = OH < 2 PER
o = 8 0=1 Fr = 1 +R <. 17 PSV
w= 1 w= 2 FD = I Total Total = 1
- = 1 - = 2 F = 4
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 28-27.5 FC:CF=C = 0 :1 Afr = 4/7=.57

Zd = .5 W:M = 6:2 3r+(2)/R= 6 /ll= .5 5
EB = 2:1 EA = 3 W:D = 6:4 Cont:R = 8:11
eb = 2:1 ep = 3 L = 4/7=.57 H+Hd:A+Ad=2:5
(FM=2 m= T= C‘ = V=1 Y= ) F+% = 2/4=50% (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=
Blends:R = 0:11 X+% = 8/10=80% H+A:HD+Ad=7:0
a:p = 2:2 A% = 5/11=45% XRT Achrom =
69/5=13.8"
Ma:Mp = 0 :2 XRT Chrom =
117/5=23.4"
Sequence o f Scores S u b je c t 2 Experim ental
Group I
Card RT No. Location Determinant(s) Content(s) POP Z Score
I 5" 1 Wo FC'o A P 1.0

2 Ddo Fw (Hd)
I I 28" 3 D+ FMp.iFTo A (P) 3.0
4 Do FCo A
5 Do Fw Hd
III 5" 6 Do Fwa
Hd
7 Dd+ FM o (2) Ad 4.0
8 Do FCo (2) An
9 Do FC'o (2) H
IV 28" 10 Wo FC'o A
V 2" 11 Wo FC'o A P 1.0
VI 9" 12 Do FTo Ad P
V II 7" 13 Do Fo (2) A
14 Do Foa
(2) A
V III 15" 15 D+ FM 'TFo A, Ls P 3.0
16 Ddo F- Mask
17 Ddo FCo A
IX 3" 18 Ddo Fo (2) Ad
19 D- F- Doll
X 10" 20 D- F- A
21 Do FCw (2) A
22 Do FCo (.2) Bt
23 Do Fo (2) A
24 Do Fo Bt
122
STRUCTURAL SUMMARY Subject 2 Experimental
Group I
R=24 Zf=5 ZSum=12 P=4 (2)=10

(Blends F irst) (Idiographic)
W = 3 FMp.FTo H= 1 Bl= Mask................. =1

FM .TFo (H) = Bt=
D = 16 Hd = 2 Cg= D oll................. =1
(Hd) =1 Cl=
Dd = 5 M = A = 12 Ex=
FM = 1 (A) = Fi=
S = m = Ad = 3 Fd=
C = (Ad) = Go=
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=
CF = A1 = Ls=
FC = 5 An = 1 Na= ......................... =
C‘ F= Ay Xy=
+ = 3 + = FC*= 4 S-Constellation (Adult)
o = 19 o = T = 0FV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring
v = w= TF = 0 Col.Shd B1 > 0 DV
_ = 2 FT = 1 0 3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INC0M =
no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =
FV = 0CF+C ^ FC CONTAM =
Form Quality Y = TJX+% < .7 0
YF = 0S > 3 CP
FQx FQf FY = 0P < 3 o r> 8 MOR
+ = + = rF = 1 OH < 2 PER
o = 17 o = 5 Fr = +R < 1 7 PSV
w= 4 w= 3 FD = 7 Total Total = 0
- = 3 - = 3 F = 11
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 1 2 - 1 0 FC: CF=C = 5:0 Afr = 10/14=.71

zd = 2.0 W:M = 3:0 3r+(2)/R= 10/24=.42
EB = 0:2.5 EA = 2.5 W:D = 3:16 Cont:R = 10:24
eb =3:7 ep = 10.0 L = 11/13=.85 H+Hd:A+Ad=l:15
(FM=3 m= T=3 C'=4 V= Y= ) F+% = 5/11=45% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
1:0
Blends:R = 2 :2 4 X+% = 17/24=71% H+A:HD+Ad=14.3
a:p = 2:1 A% = 15/24=63% XRT Achrom =
51/5=10.2"
61/5=12.2"
123
Group I
I 2“ 1 Wo FM o A P 1.0
2 Do Fo A
II 6" 3 W,So FCw Mask, (H) 4.5
4 D,So mo Rocket, Fi 4.5
III 9" 5 W+ M . FC. m + H 5.5
IV 6" 6 Do
M D
FD,Mp.FTo (H) P
V 8" 7 Wo FMpo A P 1.0
VI 9“ 8 Do Fo Ad
9 Do Fo Ad
V II 9" 10 Dv Fo (2) Cl
V III 21" 11 Do Fw (2) A
12 Do Fo Hd
13 Do F- . H
• 14 Do CFo Ls
IX 2" 15 Do Mpo (2) (H)
X 15" 16 Ddo FCo (2) A P INCOM
17 D.So Fw A 6.0
18 Do Fo (2) A
19 Do Fo (2) Bt
124
STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 3 ? re
Group 1
R=19 Zf=6 ZSum=22.5 P=4
L o c a tio n F e a tu re s Determinants Contents Contents

(Blends F irs t) (IdiograpJsic)
W = 4 MaFC.,ma+ H =2 Bl= Mask...------ = 1

FD.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
m = Ad •= Fd= =
S = 3 1
C = (Ad)= Ge=
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=
CF = 1 A1 = Ls=I
FC = 2 An = Jia=
DQ M Quality C‘ = Art = Sx=
C*F= Ay = Xy=i ............................. =
+ = 1 + = 1 FC:= S-Constel1ation fftsult)
V = 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 CP
FQx FQf FY = OP < 3 o r > 8 MGR
+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PER
o = 14 o = 7 Fr = ^R < 1 7 PSV
w= 3 w= 2 FD = 1 Total Total - 1
- = 1 - = 1 F = 10
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 22.5-17 FC:CF=C = 2 :1 Afr =9/10=.90

Zd = 5.5 W:M = 4 :3 3r+(2)/R= /I9=-37
EB = 3:3 EA=5.0 W:D = 4 :1 4 Cont:R =11:19
eb = 4 :1 ep=5.Q L = 10/9=1.11 H+Hd:A+Ad=3:9
(FM=2 m=2 T=1 C*= V= Y= ) F+% = 7/3=78% (H)+(Hd):(AH(Ad)=3:0
Blends:R = 2 :1 9 X+% =15/19=79% H+A:HD+Ad=12:3
a:p = 4 :3 k% =9/19=47% XRTAchrom=34/5=5.8"
Ma:Mp = 1:2 XRTChrcm=53/5=10.6"
125
Group I
I 30" 1 Wv mpw Blob 1.0

2 Do Fw (2) Ad
II 12" 3 Wo Fw Mask 4.5
III 8" 4 Wo FMpw Ad 5.5
IV 15" 5 Wo FM.'ftto (H) 2.0
V 10" 6 Wo FMHo A P 1.0 MOR
VI 26" 7 Do Fo A MOR
V II 10" 8 Wv Fo Cl 2.5
V III 11" Rejection
IX 16" 9 D+ Mo (2) (H) 4.5
X 11" 10 Wv CFw Shapes
11 Do FCo (2) Bt PERS,DV
126
Group I
R = ll Z f=7 ZSum=19 P=1 (2)=3
L o catio n F eatures Determinants Contents Contents

W = 7 FMp*mpo H= Bl= Blob............ . .,=1

(H) =2 Bt=l
Hd = Cg= Mask............ ...= 1
4*
o
ii
(Hd) = Cl=l
Dd = M = 1 A= 2 Ex= Shapes........ .. ,=1
FM = 1 (A) = Fi=
S = m = 1 Ad = 2 Fd=
C = (Ad) = Ge=
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=
CF = 1 A1 = Ls=
FC = 1 An = Na= =
C*F= Ay xy=
o=7 o = l T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring
v = 3 w= TF = 0 Col.Shd B1 > 0 DV = 1
FT = + 3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM =
no V = £Zd>+3.5 FABCOM
form = VF = +ep> EA ALOG =
FV = OCF+C > FC CONTAM s
YF = OS > 3 CP s
FQx FQf FY = +P 4 3 o r> 8 MOR = 2
+ = + = rF = OH ^ 2 PER = 1
o = 6 o= 2 Fr = +R < 1 7 PSV =
w= 5 w= 2 FD = 5_ Total Total = 4
_ = - = F = 4
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 19-20.5 FC:CF=C 1:1 Afr = 3/8=.38

Zd -1.5 W:M 7:1 3r+(2)/R= 3/ll= .2 7
EB 1:15 EA = 2.5 W:D 7:4 Cont:R = 8:11
eb 4:0 ep = 4.0 L 4/7=.57 H+Hd:A+Ad=0:4
(FM=2 m=2 T= C'= V= Y= F+% 2/4=50% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
2:0
Blends:R = 1:11 X+% 6/11=55% H+A:HD+Ad=4:2
a:p = 1:5 A% 4/11=36% XRT Achrom =91/5=
18.2"
58/5=11.6"
127
Sequence o f Scores S u b je c t 4 E xp erim en tal

Group I
Card RT No. Locatii
I 1" 1 Wv Y.C'w Ink 1.0

2 D+ FM w (2) A 6.0
3 Ddo Fo (2) Hd
4 Ddo FMpw A
II 3" 5 Wo CFo (2) A,B1 4.5 INC0M,M0R
6 D,S+ Mo Rocket Ship, 4.5
Fi
III 7“ 7 Do F” A
8 D+ Mpg (2) H P 3.0
9 Ddo FM w (2) A
IV 8“ 10 Wo Fw A 2.0
V 5" 11 W,So Fw A P 1.0
VI 38" 12 Wo Fg (A) 2.5
V II 2" 13 D+ Ho (2) H P 3.0
V III 4" 14 W+ FM o (2) A,Ls P 4.5
IX 23" 15 Dd- CF.M - (2) (H),Bubbles 2.5
X 2" 16 Do Fo (2) A P
17 Do Fo. (2) A
18 Do FM®o (2) A
19 Do FMpw (2) A
20 D+ FM o (2) A,Bt
128
STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 4 Exp erim en tal
Group I
R=20 Z f= ll ZSum=34.5 P=5 (2)=13

W = 6 Y.C'w H= 2 Bl=l Ink................. =1

CF.M - (H) = Bt=l
D = 10 Hd =1 Cg= Rocket Shi p ..=1
(Hd) = Cl=
Dd = 4 M = 2 A = 13 Ex= Bubbles..........=1
FM = 7 (A) = 1 Fi=l
S = 2 m = 1 Ad = Fd= =
C = (Ad) = Ge=
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= ......................... =
CF = 1 A1 = Ls=l
FC = An = Na= =:
DQ M Quality C1 = Art = Sx=
C'F= Ay xy=
+ = 6 + = FC1= S-Constellation (Adult)
v = 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 =
YF = 0S > 3 CP
FQx FQf FY = OP < 3 or > 8 MOR = 1
+ = + = rF = OH <c2 PER
o = 11 o= 4 Fr = 1JR <17 PSV
w= 7 w= 2 FD = £ Total Total = 2
- = 2 - = 1 F = 7
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 34.5--34.5 FC:CF=C = 0:2 Afr = 7/13=.54

zd = 0 W:M = 6:3 3r+(2)/R= 13/20=.65
EB = 3:2 EA = 5 W:D = 6:10 Cont:R = 11:20
eb = 8:2 ep = 10 L = 7/13=.54H+Hd:A+Ad=3:14
(FM=7 m=l T= C' = 1 V= Y=l) F+% = 3/6=50% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
0:1
a:p = 8:3 A% = 14/20=70% XRT Achrom =54/5=
10.8"
39/5=7.8
1.29
Sequence o f Scores S u b je c t 4 Post
Group I
I 27" 1 Ddo Fo An
2 Ddo FMpo Ad
II 36" 3 Do FMpO (2) A P
III 10" 4 Do Mao (2) H P 3.0
IV 10“ 5 Do Fo A 2.0
V 5" 6 Mo Fo A P 1.0
VI 22" 7 Ddo Fo An
8 Wo Fo A
V II 5" 9 Do Fo (2) H P
10 Do An
FY§ 3.0
V III 16" 11 Do FM o (2) A
12 Do Fo A
IX 27" Rejection
X 43" 13 Do Fo (2) A P
14 Do Fo A
15 Do (2) A
F° a
16 Do FM w A
1.30
STRUCTURAL SUMMARY Subject 4 Post
Group I
R=16 Zf=4 ZSum=9 P=5 (2)=6
Location Features Determi nants Contents Contents

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= ..........................=
C'F= Ay xy= ......................... =
+ = + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)
o = 16 o = l T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring
_ s - = FT = 0 3r+(2)/R <•30 INCOM =
no V = 0zd>+3.5 FABCOM =
Form Quality Y = OX+% < .7 0
YF = 0S > 3 CP
FQx FQf FY = 1 UP < 3 o r> 8 MOR = 1
+ = + = rF = OH < 2 PER
o = 15 o = 10 Fr = +R < 17 PSV
w= 1 w= FD = 2 Total Total = 1
_ = - = F = 10
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 9-10 FC:CF=C = 0:0 Afr = 6/10=.60

Zd = -1 W:M = 2:1 3r+(2)/R= 6/16=.38
EB = 1:0 EA = 1.0 W:D = 2:11 Cont:R = 4:16
eb = 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)=
a:p = 3:2 A% = 10/16=63% XRT Achrom =69/5=
13.8“
132/5=26.4"
131
Sequence o f Scores S u b je c t 5 Exp erim en tal
Group I
Card RT No. Locatii Determinant(s) Content(s) POP Z Score Special
I 1" 1 Do Fo (2) A PER

2 Do Fq A
I I 15" 3 Dd+ MQo n (2) Hd 3.0
4 Do FC.FMpo A
5 W+ Fo (2) A P 4.5
6 Do Fo„ Hh
I I I 15" 7 Do FMpo (2) A 4.0
8 Ddv B1
F8 H
IV 1" 9 Wo M ,FDo 2.0
10 Ddo FM o A
V 43" 11 W+ MP (2) H 1.0 PER
12 Ddo mpo (2) A 2.5 MOR
VI 25" 13 Wo Fo Ad 2.5 PER,M0R
14 Wo Fo Bt
15 Do Fo Arrow
16 Do Funny Pen
F§
V II 2" 17 Do Mo (2) H P 3.0
18 Do Fo A
19 Ddo mao Na 1.0
20 Ddo Fo (2) Fd PER
V III 12" 21 Do Fo A
22 D,So FCo Torn cloth
23 Do Fo (2) A
24 Do Fo Xmas Tree
IX 3" 25 Do FCo (2) (H)
26 Ddo FCo (2) Ad INCOM
27 Do Fo (2) Ad
28 Do Fo (2) Fd
X 2" 29 Do FMpo (2) A P
30 Do Fo (2) Bt
31 Do Fo (2) Fd PER
32 Do FCo tent
33 Do Mpo (2) A
132
Group I
R=33 Zf=9 ZSum=23.5 P=3 (2)=17

W = 5 FC.FMpo H= 3 Bl=l Arrow............=1

M . FDo (H) =1 Bt=2
D = 21 Hd =1 Cg= Funny pen...=l
(Hd) = Cl=
Dd = 7 M = 4 A = 12 Ex= Torn c lo th ..=1
FM = 3 (A) = Fi=
S = 1 m = 2 Ad = 3 Fd=3 Tent............. =1
C = (Ad) = Go=
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=l Xmas tr e e ...= l
CF = A1 = Ls=
FC = 4 An = Na=l =
C‘ F= Ay Xy= .......................=
V = 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 Quality Y = TTX+% < .70
YF = 0S> 3 CP
FQx FQf FY = OP ^ 3 o r > 8 MOR = 2
+ = + = rF = OH < 2 PER = 4
o = 33 o = 18 Fr = OR < 1 7 PSV
w= w= FD = _1 Total = 7
F = 18
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 23.5-27.5 ' FC:CF=C = 4:0 Afr = 13/20=.65

Zd = -4.0 W:M = 5:5 3r+(2)/R= 17/33=.52
EB = 5:2 EA = 7.0 W:D = 5:21 Cont:R = 15:33
eb = 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)=
1:0
Blends:R = 2:33 X+% = 33/33=100% H+A:HD+Ad=16:4
a:p = 5:6 A% = 15/33=45% XRT Achrom =72/5=
14.4"
47/5=9.4"
133
Group I
I13" 1 Ddo Fo (2) A

2 Do *7° A
I I 10" 3 D+ Mao (2) H
4 D,So mo Space Ship,
Fi 3.0
5 Do Fo A
6 Dd,So FC'o (2) Hd
I I I 15" 7 Do Fo A
8 Dd,So Fo Bt
9 Dd,So Fo, A
10 Do FM w A
IV 9" 11 Wo FM .FDo A 2.0
12 Dd,S+ Mp+ (2) H 5.0
V 5" 13 Wo FMao A P 1.0
14 D,So Mpw (2) H
15 Dd,S+' Mo (2) Hd
16 Do Fo Hd
17 Do Fo (2) Ad
VI 5" 18 Wo Fo A P 2.5
19 Ddo Fo An
20 Do Fo Pen
21 Do Fo Hh
22 D+ FMpo (2) A 2.!
V II 8" 23 Dd+ Mo (2) H P 3.1
24 D,So Fo (2) A P
V III 7 25 Do Fo (2) A P
26 D,So Fo eg
27 Ddo Fo (2) Hd,Cg
28 Do Fo An
29 Ddo Fo Bt
IX 26" 30 Do Fo (2) A
31 Ddo Fo (2) Ad
32 Ddo Fw A
33 Do Fw Hd
34 Do • Fw Hh
X 8" 35 Do FCo (2) Bt
36 Do FDo An
37 Dd,So mp+ Statue
38 Do FCo (2) A
39 Ddo Fo Peach Pits
,134
STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 5 Post
Group I
R=39 Zf=7 ZSum=19 P=5 (2)=16
L o c a tio n F eatu res Determi nants Contents Contents

(Blends First) (Idiographic)
W = 3 FMa.FDo H= 4 Bl = Spaceship. =1
(H) = Bt=3
D = 22 Hd =5 Cg=2 Pen............ =1
(Hd) = Cl=
Dd = 14 M 5 A = 15 Ex= Statue___ =1
FM 3 (A) = Fi=l
S = 10 m 2 Ad = 2 Fd= Peach p it. =1
C (Ad) = Go=
DW = Cn Ab = Hh=2
CF A1 = Ls=
FC = 2 An = 3 Na=
DQ M Quality C' ’ Art = Sx=
C‘ F Ay Xy=
+ = 5 + - 1 FC' = 1 S-Constellation (Adult)
o = 34 o = 3 T OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring
v = w= 1 TF 'O Col.Shd B1 > 0 DV
FT U3r+(2)/R < -3 0 INCOM = 1
no V 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =
form = VF £ep > EA ALOG
FV OCF+C > FC CONTAM =
Form Quality Y OX+% < .7 0
YF +S> 3 CP
FQx FQf FY = 1 OP < 3 or > 8 MOR
+ = 2 + = rF OH < 2 PER
o = 32 o = 20 Fr HR < 1 7 PSV
w= 5 w= 3 FD 1 1 Total Total = 1
F 23
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 19-20.5 FC:CF=C = 2 :0 Afr = 15/24=.63

Zd = -1.5 W:M = 3:5 3r+(2)/R= 16/39=.41
EB = 5:1 EA = 6.0 W:D = 3:22 Cont:R = 13:39
eb = 5:1 ep = 6.0 L = 23/16=1.44 H+Hd:A+Ad =9:17
(FM=3 m=2 T= T' = V= Y=l) F+% = 20/23=87% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
Blends:R = 1:39 X+% = 34/39=87% H+A:HD+Ad =19:7
a:p = 7:4 A% = 17/39=44% XRT Achrom =
40/5 = 8"
66/5 = 13.2"
135
Group I
I 5" 1 Wo FMpo A 1.0

I I 11" 2 W,So FC.FT.FM w Ad 4.5
3 D+ FM o a A P 3.0
I I I 5" 4 D+ FC' Ma+ (2) H P 3.0 PER
IV 9" 5 Do FMpw Ad
6 Wo Fo (H) 2.0
V 2" 7 Wo Fo A P 1.0
VI 9" 8 Do F§ A
V II 19"1 9 D+ Mo (2) H 3.0
10 Do Fo Rocking PER
chair
V III 5" 11 W+ FMa.CFo (2) A,Ls,Fi 4.5
IX 8" 12 Dd+ mao (2) D oll, Ball 2.5
X 16" 13 W,So M .C- H, magic 5.5
colors
136
Group I
R=13 Z f= 10 ZSum=30 P=3 (2 )= 4

w = 6 FC.FT.FM w H= 3 Bl= D oll..............=1

FC'.M + (H) =1 Bt=
D = 6 FM .CFo Hd = Cg= B a ll............. =1
M .C- (Hd) = Cl=
Dd = 1 M = 1 A= 5 Ex= Magic Colors=l
FM = 3 (A) = Fi=l
S = 2 m = 1 Ad = 2 Fd= Rocking chair=l
C = (Ad) = Go=
CF = A1 = Ls=
FC = An = Na= .......................=
C'F= Ay Xy= ....................... =
+ = 5 + = 1 FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)
o = 8 0 = 1 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring
- = - = 1 FT = +3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM =
FV = +CF+C > FC CONTAM =
YF = 0S > 3 CP
FQx FQf FY = OP < 3 o r> 8 MOR
+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PER = 2
o = 9 o = 4 Fr = +R <17 PS V
w= 2 w= FD = 4 Total Total = 2
- = 1 - = F = 4
no
form :

zd = -1 W:M = 6:3 3r+(2)/R= 4/13=.31
EB = 3:3 EA = 6 W:D = 6:6 Cont:R = 10:13
eb = 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)=
1:0
Blends:R = 4 :1 3 X+% = 10/13=77% H+A:HD+Ad = 9 :2
a:p = 7 :2 A% = 7/13=54% XRT Achrom =
41/5=8.2"
45/5=9.0"
137

Group I
I 2" 1 Wo Fo A P 1.0
2 Wo Fo A 1.0
I I 10" 3 W,So Fw Ad 4.5
4 Do (2) (H)
F8
III 10" 5 Do Ho (2) H P
IV 9" 6 Wo Fo (A) 2.0
V 2" 7 Wo Fo A P 1.0
VI 13" 8 Do Fo A
V II 5" 9 Wo Fw Swing 5.5
Set
V III 9" 10 Wo m^.FCo Bt 4.5
IX 11" 11 D+ MPo (2) H 2.5
X 15" 12 Do Fo (2) A P
13 Do Fo (2) Ad
Group I
R=13 Zf=8 ZSum=22 P=4 (2)=5

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= ....................... =
C'F= Ay xy=
+ = 1 + = FC'= S-Constellation (Adult)
T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring
CM
CM
O
O
II
II
V= W = TF = OCol.Shd B1 >* 0 DV
_ = _ = FT = 03r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM =
form = VF = Oep> EA ALOG
FV = 0CF+C> FC CONTAM =
Form Quality Y = UX+% < .70
YF = 0S > 3 CP
FQx FQf FY = OP < 3 o r> 8 M OR
+ = + = rF = OH < 2 PER
o = 11 o=8 Fr = +R < 1 7 PSV
w= 2 w= 2 FD = 1_ Total Total =0
_ = 1 _ = F = 10
no
form =

zd = -2.0 W:M = 7:2 3r+(2)/R= 5/13=.38
EB = 2:.5 EA = 2.5 W:D = 7:6 Cont:R = 7 :1 3
eb = 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)=
1:1
BlendstR = 1:13 X+% = 11/13=85% H+A:HD+Ad = 8 :3
a:p = 1:1 A% = 7/13=54% XRT Achrom =
31/5=6.2"
55/5=11"
139
Group I I
I 12"1 1 W+ Mpo (2) H 4.0

2 W,So Mask 3.5
W+ F§ 4.5
II 8" 3 M“o (2) (H)
III 21" 4 D+ Mo (2) H ■ P 4.0
IV 5" 5 W- F- (A) 2.0
6 Wo F°a Hd
V 15“ 7 Wo FM o A 1.0
VI 11" 8 Do Fo Something
Indian
9 Wo Mpo (2) (H) P 2.5
V III 37" 10 Do Ff ° a (2) A,Ls P 4.5
IX 15" 11 W+ M .FM o (2) H,A 5.5
X 20" 12 Do n fo (2) A P 4.0
13 D+ FM 0 n (2) A 4.0
14 D+ FC.FMP. (2) A,Ls 4.0
FM o
1.40
Group I I
R=14 Zf=12 ZSum=43.5 P=5 (2)=9

W = 8 Ma.FMao . H= 3 Bl = Mask. .=1

FC.FMp.FMao (H) =2 Bt=
D = 6 Hd =1 Cg= Something...=l
Indian
(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=2
FC = An = Na=
C'F= Ay Xy=
T = 0FV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring
O
cn
0 = 7
II
v = w= TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV
- = 1 - = FT = 03r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM =
no V = +Zd^+3.5 FABCOM =
FV = 0CF+C > FC CONTAM =
Form Quality Y = 0X+% < .70
YF = 0S> 3 CP
+ = + = rF = OH < 2 PER
PSV
O
CO
Fr = +R < 17
CO
II
II
w= w= FD = 3 Total Total = 0
- = 1 - = 1 F = 4
no
form
ZSum-Zest = 43.5-38.0 FC:CF=C = 1:0 Afr = 5/9=.56

zd = 5.5 W:M = 8:5 3r+(2)/R= 9/14=.64
EB = 5:.5 EA = 5.5 W:D 8:6 Cont:R = 8:14
eb = 7 :0 ep = 7.0 L = 4/10=.40 H+Hd:A+Ad = 4 :6
(FM=7 m= T= C‘ = V= Y=) F+% 3/4=75% (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=
1:1
Blends:R = 2:14 X+% 13/14=93% H+A:HD+Ad = 1 2 :1
a:p = 9 :3 A% = 7/14=50% XRT Achrom =
46/5=9.2"
101/5=20.2"
141
Group I I
I 7" 1 W,So Mask 1.0

F8
II 16" 2 W+ M*o (2) A P 4.5
III 20" 3 D+ Mo (2) H P 3.0
IV 30" 4 W- FC*- Hd 2.0
V 1" 5 Wo Fo A P 1.0
VI 15" 6 Wv Fw Something 2.5
Indian
V II 10" 7 D+ Mpg (2) H,Ice P 3.0
V III 5" 8 Do Ftfo (2) A,Ls P 3.0
IX 10" 9 Ddo Mg (2) (H) 2.5
X 7" 10 D+ FM*o (2) A,Rocks 4.0
11 D+ FM o (2) A,Ls 4.0
1.42
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...=1
Indian
(Hd) = Cl=
Dd = 1 M = 4 A= 5 Ex= Ice............... =1
FM = 3 (A) = Fi=l
S = m = Ad = Fd=3 Rocks............=1
C = (Ad) = Ge=
Cn = Ab = Hh= —
DW =
CF = A1 = Ls=2
FC = An = Na=
C'F= Ay xy=
+ = 5 + = FC‘ =1 S-Constellation (Adult)
T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring
•‘St-
O
O
11
11
V = 1 w= TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV
FT = 03r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM =
no V = +Zd >j^3.5 FABCOM =
YF = 0S> 3 CP
+ = + = rF = OH * 2 PER
o= 9 o= 2 Fr = +R <17 PSV
- = 1 F = 3
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 30.5-■34.5 FC:CF=C = 0:0 Afr = 4/7=.57

Zd = -4.0 W:M = 5:4 3r+(2)/R=7/ll=.64
EB = 4:0 EA = 4.0 W:D = 5:5 Cont:R = 9:1
eb = 3:1 ep = 4.0 L = 3/8=.38 H+Hd:A+Ad = 3 :5
(FM=3 m= T= C' =1 V= Y=) F+% = 2/3=67% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
1:0
Blends:R = 0:11 X+% = 9/11=82% H+A:HD+Ad =12:1
a:p = 6:1 A% = 5/11=45% XRT Achrom =
68/5=13.6"
58/5=11.6"
143
Group I I
I 8" 1 W,So Fo A 1.0

2 Ddo A
I I 25" 3 Wo Mô (2) H,B1 3.0
I I I 33" 4 W+ FC.FV.CF.Mpo(2) H P 5.5
IV 6" 5 W- F- A 2.0
6 Wo Fo (A) 2.0
V 8" 7 Wo Fo A 1.0
VI 15" 8 Wo Fo A 2.5
V II 17" 9 Wo Ma,Frw H 2.5
V III 9" 10 W+ FM .CF.Fro A P 4.5
IX 15" 11 Wv CF.TF.m + Na 5.5
X 5" 12 Wo Fw Mask,H,Cg 5.5
13 Do Fo Bt 4.0
Group I I
R=13 Zf=I2 ZSum= 39 P=2 (2)=2

w = 11 FS' .FV.CF.Mpo H= 4 Bl= 1 Mask........ .. .=1

M Frw (H) = Bt= 1
D = 1 FM .CF.Fro Hd = Cg= 1
CF.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
C'F= Ay = Xy= ~
v = 1 w= 1 TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV =
- = 1 = - FT = 03r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM = 1
form = VF = Oep^ EA ALOG =
FV = +CF+C >• FC CONTAM =
Form Quality Y = 0X+%< .70
YF = 0S-> 3 CP =
FQx FQf FY = +P ^ 3 o r> 8 MOR =
+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PER
o = 9 o = 6 Fr = +R < 17 PSV =
- = 1 - = 1 F = 8
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 39-38 FC:CF+C = 0:3 Afr = 4/9=.44

zd =1 W:M = 11:3 3r+(2)/R=8/13=.62
EB = 3:3 EA = 6 W:D = 11:1 Cont:R = 8:14
eb = 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)=
0:1
Blends:R = 4:13 X+% = 10/13=77%% H+A:HD+Ad = 11:0
a:p = 3:1 A% = 7/13=54% XRT Achrom =
54/5=10.8"
87/5=17.4"
Sequence o f Scores S u b je c t 8 E xperim ental
Group I I
I 9" 1 D,So Fo A
2 W.So Fo Ad
I I 2" 3 Wo It .Co (2) H,B1 P 4.5
I I I 10" 4 D+ FY.M .FV+ (2) H P 3.0
5 Do FYo A P
IV 6" 6 Wo (A) 2.0
Fo a
V 7" 7 Wo FC'.FM o A P 1.0
VI 5" 8 Wo FO Ad 2.5
V II 12" 9 Wo M .Fro H P 3.0
V III 13" 10 Wo FM .FC.Fro A,Ls P 4.5 INC0M
11 Wo FCo emblem 4.5
IX 20" 12 Dd,Sv Fw (Ad) 5.5
X 10" 13 Dd,So FCw Hd INC0M
14 W+ FCo B+ 5.5 INC0M
1.46
Group I I
R=14 Zf=10 ZSum= 36 P=6 (2)=2

W = 9 FY.IM .FV+ H= 3 Bl= 1 emblem... , ..=1

Bt= 1
FS' .FM o (H) =
D = 3 Mo .Fr Hd = 1 Cg=
FM5.FC.Fro (Hd) = Cl=
Mô.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= 1
FC = 3 An = Na=
DQ M Quality C* = Art = Sx=
C'F= Ay = xy=
OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring
CvJ
T =
rH
pH
o
O
II
II
v = 1 w= TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV =
_ =: _ = FT = 03r+(2)/R < .30 INCOM = 3
no V = 0+Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =
YF = +S > 3 CP
FQx FQf FY = 1 UP -e 3 or > 8 MOR =
+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PER =
o = 11 o = 4 Fr = +R <17 PSV =
-= - = F = 5
no
form =

zd = 4:0 W:M = 9:3 3r+(2)/R=8/14=.57
EB = 3:3.5 EA = 6..5 W:D = 9:3 Cont:R = 10:14
eb = 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)=
0:2
Blends:R = 5:14 X+% = 12/14=86% H+A:HD+Ad = 8:4
a:p = 4:1 A% = 8/14=57% XRT Achrom =
39/5=7.8"
55/5=11"
Group I I
I 5" 1 Wo FO A 1.0
2 W+ M*+ H,Ls 4.0
3 W,So Fo Ad 1.0
4 Dd+ Fo Ls
II 3“ 5 W+ Mpo (2) H5Cg (P) 4.5
6 D,So Fo Capitol
Building
7 W,So Fw Ad 3.5
8 W,So Fw Ad 4.5
III 7" 9 D+ Mao (2) H P 3.0
10 D,So Fw Ad
IV 4" 11 Ddo FDo (H) 2.0
12 Wo FYo (2) Ls 2.0
13 W,So Fw Ad 2.0
V 6" 14 Wo Fo A P 1.0
15 Wo Fo A P 1.0 PSV
16 D,S+ YFo Na 4.0
VI 4“ 17 Ddo Fo Totem
Pole
18 Do Flo Ls
V II 5" 19 D+ Mpo (2) H P 3.0
20 DsSo Fo Bust 4.0
21 Do Fo A
22 D,So F§ Hh
V III 5" 23 Dd,So Mw H
24 Do FM o (2) A P
25 Do Fw An
26 Do Fo Ls
IX 1" 27 Do Fo (2) (A) PER
28 Ddo Fw Building
29 Ddo Fw Hd 2.5
X 4" 30 Do Fw (2) A P
31 Dd,So Fw H
32 Do Fw (2) A
33 Do FCo (2) Bt
STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 9 E xp erim en tal
Group I I
R=33 Zf=16 ZSum= 43 P=6 (2)=9

W = 10 H= 6 Bl = c a p ito l...= l
building
(H) =1 Bt= 1
D = 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= 5
FC = 1 An = 1 Na= 1 ..................... =
C'F= Ay = Xy= ..................... =*
o = 27 o=3 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring
v = w= 1 TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV
- = - = FT = +3r+(2)/R < .30 INCOM =
FV = OCF+C> FC CONTAM =
Form Quality Y = +X+% <..70
YF = 1 +S> 3 CP
FQx FQf FY = 1 0P < 3 or> 8 MOR
+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PER = 1
o = 21 o = 12 Fr = OR .£17 PSV = 1
w = 11 w = 10 FD = 1 £ Total Total = 2
- = - = F = 22
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 43-52..5 FC:CF+C = 1:0 Afr = 11/22=.50

zd = -9.5 W:M = 10:5 3r+(2)/R=9/33=.27
EB = 5:.5 EA = 5.5 W:D = 10:16 Cont:R = 15:33
eb = 1:3 i2p = 4.0 L = 22/11=2.0H+Hd:A+Ad = 7 :1 2
T=1 C''= V= Y=2) F+% = 12/22=55%(H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
L i.
sII
rH
B
II
1:1
Blends:R = 0:33 X+% = 22/33=67% H+A:HD+Ad = 1 5 :6
a:p = 3:3 A% = 13/33=39% XRT Achrom =
Ma:Mp = 2:3 24/5=4.8"
XRT Chrom =
20/5=4.0"
Group I I
I 1" 1 W,So Fo A 3.5

2 Do Fo H
3 W,Sv F- Ls 3.5
II 2" 4 w+ Mp.Fro (H) (P) 4.5
5 Do Fo A
6 Dd,So Fo Spire
7 W,So FTw Ad
III 1" 8 D+ Mo (2) H P 3.0
9 D,So Fw Hd
10 Do Fo A P
IV 2“ 11 Wo FDo (H) 2.0
12 Ddo FTo Bt 2.0
13 Wo Fw Ad 2.0
V 1" 14 Wo Fo A P 1.0
VI 2" 15 Do Fo Totem
Pole
V II 1" 16 D+ Mpo (2) H P 3.0
17 Do Fo A
18 D,So Fo Vase
19 D,So Fo Bust
V III 3" 20 D,So Fw Hd
21 Do FM o (2) A P
22 Ddo Fw Hd
23 Do Fw An
IX 4" 24 Do Fo (2) (A)
25 Do Fo Ad
26 D,So Fo Hd
27 D,So Fw Building
X 1" 28 Do FCw (2) A
29 Do Fo Bt
30 Do Fo (2) A
31 Ddo Fw H
Group I I
R=31 Z f= 9 ZSum= 24.5 P=5 ( 2)=6
L o c a tio n F eatures Determi nants Contents Contents

W = 7 M^.Fro H= 4 Bl= spire........ =1

(H)= 2 Bt= 2
D = 20 Hd = 4 Cg= vase.......... =1
(Hd) = Cl=
Dd = 4 M = A= 8 Ex= bust.. . . . . .***1
FM = (A) = 1 Fi=
S = 9 m = Ad = 3 Fd= totem pole.=l
C = (Ad) = Ge=
DU = Cn = Ab = Hh= building...=1
CF = A1 = Ls= 1
FC = 1 An = 1 Na=
C‘ F= Ay = Xy=
+ = 3 + = FC‘= S-Constellation (Adult)
_ = _ = FT == 2 +3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM =
no V = 0Zd> +3.5 FABCOM =
form = VF = £ep> EA ALOG
FV = 0CF+C> FC CONTAM =
YF = +S> 3 CP
+ = + = rF = 0H < 2 PER
o = 21 o = 15 Fr = OR < 17 PSV
w = 9 w= 7 FD = 1 3 Total Total = 0
- = 1 - = 1 F = 23
no
form =

Ratios
ZSum-Zest = 24.5- 27.5 FC:CF+C = 1:0 Afr = 12/19=.63

Zd = -3.0 W:M = 7:3 3r+(2)/R= 9/31=.29
EB = 3:.5 EA = 3 W:D = 7:20 Cont:R = 14:31
eb = 1:2 ep = 3.i L = 23/8=2.9 H+Hd:A+Ad = 8:11
(FM=1 m= T=2 C;•= v= F+% = 15/23=65%(H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=
2:1
Blends:R = 1:31 X+% = 21/31=68% H+A:HD+Ad = 15:7
a:p = 2:2 A% = 12/31=39% XRT Achrom =
7/5=1.4"
11/5=2.2"
Sequence of Scores S u b je c t 10 Pre
Group I I
I 1" 1 Ddo Fw Hd
2 D,So Fo A
3 Wv Fw Space 5.5
Invader
II 7" 4 D,So Fo Rocket, Fi 4.5
5 Do F° a A
6 D,So FM w Ad
III 13" 7 Do FYw xy
8 W,So Fo Hd.Cg
IV 4" 9 Wo FDo (A) 2.0
10 Wo FYo Bt 2.0
V 1" 11 Wo FM“o A P 1.0
12 Wo FM o A 1.0 PSV
VI 6" 13 Wo Fo A 1.0
V II 4" 14 Do Fo (2) H P
V III 5" 15 Do Fo (2) A P
IX 14" Rejection
X 2" 16 Dd,So Fw Hd 6.0
17 Do Fo (2) A P
152
Group I I
R=17 Zf=8 ZSum= 23 P=4 (2)=3

W = 7 H= Bl= space........=1
invader
(H) = Bt= 1
D = 8 Hd = Cg= 1 rocket___=1
(Hd) = Cl=
Dd = 2 M = A= 7 Ex= —
FM = 3 (A) = 1 Fi= 1
S = 5 m = Ad = 1 Fd=
C = (Ad) = Ge=
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= .
CF = A1 = Ls=
FC = An = Na=
C'F= Ay = Xy= 1 —
o = 16 o = T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring
• = - = FT = +3r+(2)/R <.30 INCOM =
Form Quality Y = +X+%< .70
YF = +S> 3 CP
FQx FQf FY = 2 TIP < 3 o r> 8 MOR
+ = + = rF = +H < 2 PER
o = 11 o = 7 Fr = OR < 1 7 PSV = 1
w= 6 w= 4 FD = 1 5_ Total Total = 1
- = - = F = 11
no
form =

zd = -1 W:M = 7:0 3r+(2)/R=3/17=.18
EB = 0 EA = 0 W:D = 7:8 Cont:R = 10:17
eb = 3 :2 ep = 5.0 L = H+Hd:A+Ad = 3 :8
11/6=1.83
(H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
-<
iii
( FM= m= F+% = 7/11=67%

ro
—
ii
ii
<ii
O
0:1
BlendsrR = 0:17 X+% = 22/33=67% H+A:HD+Ad = 8 :4
a:p = 3:0 A% = 13/33=39% XRT Achrom =
16/5=3.2"
41/5=8.2"
153
SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 10 E xp erim en tal
Group I I
I 9" 1 W,So Fo Costume 1.0

II 7" 2 W,So FMpw Ad 4.5
3 D,S+ mo Rocket, Fi 4.5
4 Do Fo A
III 8" 5 Do Fo eg P
6 Do FYo Xy
7 Wo Fw Star War
Character
IV 2" 8 Wo FDo (A) 5.5
9 Wo Fo Bt 2.0
V 7" 10 Wo Fo A P 1.0
11 Wo F°n A P 1.0
VI 5" 12 Wo FMpo A 2.5
V II 15" 13 Do Mpo (2) (H) 3.0
14 Do C'Fo (2) Cl
V III 10" 15 Wo FCw (Hd) 4.5
16 Ddo Fw Hd
17 Do Fo (2) A P
IX 22" 18 Dd,So Fo (2) Hd
19 Do Fo A
X 4" 20 D,So Fw (Hd)Cg 6.0
21 D,So Fw H
22 Do Fo (2) A
154
Group I I
R=22 Z f= ll ZSum= 35.5 P=4 (2)=5

W = 9 H= 1 Bl= costume....=1
(H)= 1 Bt= 1
D = 11 Hd = 2 Cg= 2 rocket........=1
(Hd) = 2Cl= 1
Dd = 2 M = 1 A= 7 Ex= Star W ar...=l
Character
FM = 2 (A) = 1 Fi= 1
S = 6 m = 1 Ad = 1 Fd= =
C = (Ad) = Ge=
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= ...................=
CF = A1 = Ls= 1
FC = 1 An = Na= ...................=
C'F= 1 Ay = Xy= 1 ~
FT = +3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM =
form = VF = +ep >■ EA ALOG
FV = TTCF+C > FC CONTAM =
YF = +S> 3 CP
FQx FQf FY = 1 OP < 3 o r > 8 MOR
+ = + = rF = +H < 2 PER = 1
o = 16 o = 10 Fr = 0 R < 17 PSV = 1
w= 6 w= 4 FD = 1 4 Total Total = 1
- = - = F = 14
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 35.5-34.5 FC:CF+C = 1:0 Afr = 8/14=.57

zd = -1.0 W:M = 9:1 3r+(2)/R= 5/22=.23
EB 1:.5 EA = 1.5 W:D = 9:11 Cont:R = 15:22
eb = 3:2 ep = 5.0 L 14/8=1.75
(FM=2 m=l T= C'=l V = Y=l) F+% = 10/14=71%
3:1
Blends:R = 0:22 x+% = 16/22=73% H+A:HD+Ad =10:5
a:p = 1:3 A% 9/22=41% XRT Achrom =
38/5=7.6"
51/5=10.2"
155
SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 11 Experim ental

Group I I
I 6" 1 Do Mo H P
2 Ddo Fo A
3 Ddo Fo A
I I 38" 4 Do Fo Star Wars
Creature
III 8" 5 Dd+ Mao (2) An 3.0
IV 22" 6 D+ Mao (2) Hd P 3.5
V 11" 7 Wo Fo A P 1.0
VI 29" 8 Do FVo Fd
V II 16" 9 W,Sv VFw Deep Hole 4.0
V III 41" 10 W+ FM w (2) A,Ls P 4.5
IX 13" 11 Ddo Fw Hd 2.5
X 26" 12 Wo Fo A, Sea
Creatures
R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156

Group I I
R=12 Zf=6 ZSum=‘ 18.5 P=4 (2)=3

W = 4 H= 1 Bl = Star Wars..=l
Creature
(H)= Bt=
D = 4 Hd = 2 cg= Deep h o 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= 1
FC = An = Na= =
C'F= Ay = Xy= ~
S-Constellation (Adult)
COCO
FC‘ =
+
+ o
n II
ii

CO
o
II
- = - = 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 CP
FQx FQf FY = OP ^ .3 o r> 8 MOR
+ = + = rF = +H <T2 PER
o=9 o = 5 Fr = + R < 17 PSV
_ = —= F = 6
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 18.5-17.0 FC:CF+C = 0:0 Afr

Zd = 1.5 W:M 4:3 3r+(2)/R= 3/12=^25
EB = 3:0 EA = 3 W:D 4:4 Cont:R = 9:12
eb = 1:2 ep = 3 L = 6/6=1.00 H+Hd:A+Ad = 3 : 5
(FM=1 m= T= C* = V=2 Y=) F+% = 5/6=83% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
Blends:R = 0 :12 X+% = 9/12=75% H+A:HD+Ad = 6 . 2
a:p = 4:0 A% = 5/12=42% XRT Achrom =
84/5=16.8"
126/5=25.2"
157
SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 11 Post
Group I I
I 2" 1 Do Mo H P
2 Do Fo A
3 Do Hd
F2 4.5
II 18“ 4 Dd,S- M“ .FV- (H)
III 5" 5 D+ Mp+ (2) H,Fi 3.0
IV 11“ 6 Dd+ Mao (2) Hd
V 3" 7 Wo Fo A P 1.0
VI 7“ 8 Do Fo Fd
9 Do FYo Feathers
VII 38" 10 W,Sv Fo Ge 2.5
V III 7“ 11 W+ FMpo (2) A,Ls 4.5
IX 25" 12 Ddo Hd
13 Wo m .FCo Ex 5.5
X 16" 14 Do Fo (2) A
15 Dv Fo (2) Coral
158

Group I I
R=15 Z f= 6 ZSum= 21 P=2 (2 )= 5

W = 4 M*.FV- H= 2 Bl = Feathers...=1
M .FCo Creature
(H)= 1 Bt=
D = 8 Hd = 3 cg= Coral................. =1
(Hd) = Cl=
Dd = 3 M = 3 Ex= 1 3
>
ii
FM = 1 (A) = Fi= 1
m = Ad = Fd= 1 =
<M
CO
II
C = (Ad) = Ge= 1
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= 3
CF = A1 = Ls= 1
FC = An = Na= 3

C'F= Ay = Xy= 1 3

- = 1 - = 1 FT = 03r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM =
form = VF = oep > EA ALOG
FV = TTCF+C > FC CONTAM =
Form Quality Y = 0X+% < .70
YF = 0S> 3 CP
FQx FQf* FY = 1 +P< 3 o r > 8 MOR
+ = 1 + = rF = UH<2 PER
o = 11 o=5 Fr = +R<.17 PSV
- = 1 - = F = 8
no
form =

zd = -4 .0 W:M = 4:4 3r+(2)/R= 5/15=.33
EB = 4: . 5 EA = 4.5 W:D = 4:8 Cont:R = 11:15
eb = 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)=
1:0
Blends:R = 2 : 1 5 X+% = 12/15=80% H+A:HD+Ad = 7 : 3
a:p = 4:2 A% = 4/15=27% XRT Achrom =
61/5=12.2
Ma:Mp =3:1 XRT Chrom =
71/5=14.2
159
SEQUENCE 0F SCORES Subject
Group I I
Card RT No. Location Determinant(s) Content(s) POP :
I 1" 1 Wo Fo A P 1.0
2 Ddo Fo Ad
3 Do Fo A
I I 12" 4 Wo Fo A 4.5
5 Do Fg (2) A P
III 5" 6 D+ ITo (2) H P 3.0
7 Do Fo eg
IV 22“ 8 W- F- A 2.0 INCOM
V 9" 9 Wo Fo A P 1.0
10 Ddo Fo Hd
VI 5" 11 Do Fo Sx
12 Do Fo Hh P
V II 18" 13 Do Fo H P
14 Do Fo A
15 Ddo F°_ Sx
V III 19" 16 Do FMpo A P
17 D- F- Hd
IX 11" 18 Do Fw Sx
X 1" 19 Do Fo (2) A P
20 Do Fo Sx
21 D- F- An
160
Group I I
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= 4
C'F= Ay = Xy= ....................... =
V = 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 =
YF = 0S> 3 CP
FQx FQf FY = OP * 3 o r > 8 MOR
+ = + = rF = OH -tf.2 PER
o= 17 o= 15 Fr = TTR-C 17 PSV
w= 1 w= 1 FD = _1 Total Total = 1
- = 3 - = 3 F = 19
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 11.5-17.0 FC:CF+C =0:0 Afr = 6/15=.40

zd = -5.5 W:M = 4:1 3r+(2)/R= 3/21=.14
EB = 1:0 EA = 1.0 W:D = 4:14 Cont:R = 8:21
eb = 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 = 11:3
a:p =0:2 A% 10/21=48% XRT Achrom =
32/5=6.4
48/5=9.6"
161
Group I I
Card RT No'. Location Determinant(s) Content(s) POP Z Score Special
I 16" 1 W,So FMpo A 3.5

2 Dd,So Fo Triangles
3 Do Fo (2) Bt
4 Do Fo A
I I 13" 5 Do Fo A
6 Ddo Fo Roof, cupola 4.5
7 Do FYo Ad
8 Do (2) Ad P
F§ P 3.0
I I I 11" 9 D+ Mo (2) H
10 Do FYo eg
11 Do Fo Hd INCOM
IV 28“ 12 W- F- A 2.0
13 Do FTw A
V 1" 14 Wo Fo A (P) 1.0
15 Do Fo (2) Fd
16 Do Fw A1
VI 8" 17 Do FYo Indian
Design
18 Do Fo Ad P
19 Do Sx 2.5
F8 Hd
20 Do Mo
V II 20" 21 Do (2) A
Fl °
22 Do Mo (2) H P
V III 21" 23 D+ FM .FYo (2) A P 3.0
24 Do F° a Geode PER
IX 17" 25 Do FM .FYo (2) (A),Fi
26 Do Fw Sx
27 Do FVo Hd
X 7" 28 Do Fo Wishbone
29 Do Fo (2) A P
30 D- F- Sx
31 D- F- An
162 9

Group 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= 4

C'F= Ay = Xy=
v = 4 w= TF = (TCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV
_ = - = FT = 1 T)3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM = 1
FV = 1 OCF+C > FC CONTAM =
YF = 0S> 3 CP
FQx FQf FY = 4 OP < 3 or> 8 MOR
+ = + = rF = OH < 2 PER = 1
o = 25 o = 14 Fr = FR < 17 PSV
- = 4 - = 3 F = 19
no
form =

zd = -.5 W:M = 3:3 3r+(2)/R= 10/32=.31
EB = 3:0 EA =3.0 W:D = 3:27 Cont:R = 14:32
eb = 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)=
0:1
Blends:R =2:32 X+% = 25/32=78% H+A:HD+Ad = 14:7
a:p = 5:2 A% = 16/32=50% XRT Achrom =
73/5=14.6"
69/5=13.8"
163
SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 13 Pre
Group I I I
I 3" 1 W,So Fo Ad 1.0

2 Wo FMpo A 1.0
II 14" 3 Do (2) (H)
F§ H
4 Wo Mo
III 3" 5 D+ M* CF.Y+ (2) H,Fi P 3.0
6 Ddo MQ H
IV 2" 7 Wo FMpo A 2.0
V 2" 8 Wo Fo A P 1.0
VI 15" 9 Do FVo Sx
V II 18" 10 D+ Mpg (2) Hd 3.0
V III 16" 11 W+ FM o (2) A P 2.5
IX 57" rejection
X 3" 12 Do Fo (2) A
13 D,So Fw Hd
14 Do Fw A
164
Group I I I
R=14 Zf=7 ZSum= 13.5 P=3 (2)=5

W = 6 Ma.FC.Y+ H= 3 Bl= ..................... =

(H)= 1 Bt=
Hd = 2 cg= =
ii
o
(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=l
C‘ F= Ay = xy= .....................=
—= —= FT = ]J3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM = 1
FV = 1 +CF+C > FC CONTAM =
YF = 0S> 3 CP
FQx FQf FY = OP < 3 or> 8 MOR
+ = 1 + = rF = OH < .2 PER
o = 11 o = 4 Fr = +R <17 PSV
- = - = F = 6
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 13.5-20.5 FC-.CF+C = 0:1 Afr = 4/10=.40

zd = -6.5 W:M = 6:3 3r+(2)/R= 5/14=.36
EB = 4:1 EA = 5.0 W:D = 6 :7 Cont:R = 7 :1 4
eb = 3 :1 ep = 5.0 L = 6/8=.75 H+Hd:A+Ad = 5 :7
(FM=3 m= T=1 C'= V= Y=l) F+% =4/6=67% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
1:0
Blends:R = 1:14 X+% = 11/13=85% H+A:HD+Ad = 10:2
a:p = 4:2 A% = 7/13=54% XRT Achrom =
Ma:Mp =3:1 40/5=8"
XRT Chrom =
93/5=18.6"
165
SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 13 E xperim ental
Group I I I
I 21" 1 Wo Fo A 1.0
2 W,So FO Ad 1.0
II 10" 3 W+ M“o (2) (H) 4.5
III 15" 4 Do M*+ ' (2) H P 3.0
5 Ddo Mo H
IV 2" 6 Wo Fo A 2.0
7 Do FTo Bt
V 2" 8 Wo Fo A P 1.0
9 Wo Fo A P 1.0
VI 13" 10 Wo Fro Hd 2.5
V II 5" 11 Do Mpo (2) H
12 Do F°a (2) A
V III 6" 13 Wo FM .FC.Fro A 4.5
IX 34" rejection
X 3” 14 Do Fw A
15 D,So Fw Hd
16 Do Fo (2) A ' P
166
Group 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= =
C'F= Ay = Xy=
v = w= TF = OCol.Shd B1 y o DV
_ = —= FT = 1 03r+(2)/R -C .30 INCOM =
FV = ZJCF+C > FC CONTAM =
YF = 0S> 3 CP
+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PER
o = 13 o = 7 Fr = 1 +R 4. 17 PSV
_ = - = F = 9
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 20.5-27.5 FC:CF+C = 1 :0 Afr = 4/12=.33

zd = -7 W:M = 8:4 3r+(2)/R= 11/16=.69
EB = 4 :.5 EA =4.5 W:D = 8:7 Cont:R = 6:16
eb = 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)=
1:0
Blends:R = 1:16 X+% = 14/16=88% H+A:HD+Ad = 1 2:3
a:p = 4 :1 A% 9/16=56% XRT Achrom =
43/5=8.6"
68/5=13.6"
Group I I I
I 4“ 1 Do Fo (2) A
2 Ddo Fw (2) A
3 Do Fo, Bell
II 1“ 4 D+ FM .Co (2) A,colors P 4.5 INCOM
III 3" 5 D+ M+ (2) H P 3.0
6 Do A P
F§
IX 7" 7 Dd- M- (2) (H) 3.5
V 3" 8 Wo FMp.FC‘ o A P 1.0
VI 1" 9 W- F- Fd 2.5
V II 1" 10 W+ Mao (2) H P 2.5
V III 1" 11 D+ FM .FCo (2) A P 3.0 INCOM
12 Do FCw (2) A,Ls
13 D+ FMao A,Ls
IX 13" 14 Do Mpo (2) H 4.5
15 Wv Fo Hh PER
X 2" 16 Do Fo Ad
17 Do Fo (2) (A),H
18 Do FCo (2) A
19 D- FC- Ge PER
168
Group I I I
R=19 Zf=8 ZSum= 24.5 P=6 (2)=11

W = 4 FM*Co H= 4 Bl = B ell..............= 1
fmP . 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=2
FC = 3 An = Na=
C'F= Ay = xy= =
+ = 5 + = 1 FC*= S-Constellation (Adult)
I— *

ro
II
II
o
o
V = 1 W = TF = tfCol.Shd B1 > 0 PSV

- = 3 - = 1 FT = 03r+(2)/R < .3 0 DV
no V = 0Zd>+3.5 INCOM = 2
form = VF = Oep > EA FABC0M =
FV = FCF+C > FC C0NTAM =
Form Quality Y = 0X+% .70 PER = 2
YF = OS > 3 AL0G
FQx FQf FY = 0P<. 3 o r > 8
+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2
o = 13 o = 6 Fr = OR < 17
w= 2 w= 1 FD = £ Total Total = 4
- = 3 - = 1 F = 8
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 24.5-24 FC:CF+C = 4:1 Afr = 9/10=.90

zd = .5 W:M = 4:4 3r+(2)/R= 11/19=.58
EB = 4:3.5 EA = 7.5 W:D = 4:13 Cont:R = 11:19
eb = 4:1 ep = 5.0 L 8/11=.73 H+Hd:A+Ad = 4 :1 0
(FM=4 m= T= C'=l V= Y=) F+% = 6/8=75% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
1:1
Blends:R = 3:19 X+% = 14/19=74% H+A:HD+Ad =15:2
a:p = 6:2 A% 11/19=58% XRT Achrom =
16/5=3.2"
20/5=4.0"
169
Group I I I
I 24“ 1 Wo Mp.FMpo (2) A,Bell,H 1.0

2 Ddo (A)
F8
II 23" 3 D+ Mw (2) Blobs 3.0 INCOM
III 4" 4 Do F8 (2) H
5 Do mpo (2) An
6 Do Fo A P
IV 15" 7 W- F- Xy,Ad 2.0
V 1" 8 Wo FMpo A P 1.0 M0R
VI 7" 9 Wo mpo Guitar 2.5 M0R
V II 9" 10 D+ Mo (2) H P 3.0
11 Do Fo Hour Glass
Figures
V III 2" 12 Wo FCo a (2) Emblem P 4.5
IX 3" 13 W+ FC.FM o (2) (A),Cl,Blobs 5.5
X 3" 14 Do FCo (2) A P
15 Do ECo (2) (A)
16 D+ FMpo (2) (A) 4.0
17 Ddo Fw (2) Ge
18 Do FCo (2) A
170
Group I I I
R=18 Zf=9 ZSum= 26.5 P=5 ( 2)=12

W = 6 M.PFMP0 H= 3 Bl = B e ll.............= 1
FC.FM o (H)= Bt=
D = 10 Hd = cg= Blobs...........= 2
(Hd) = Cl=l
Dd = 2 M = 2 A= 6 Ex= Guitar......... = 1
FM = 2 (A) =3 Fi=
S = m = 2 Ad = 1 Fd= Hour Glass..=1
Figures
C = (Ad) = Ge=l
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= Emblem..........=]
CF = A1 = Ls=
s
FC = 4 An = 1 Na=
C'F= Ay = Xy=l
FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)
+
+
ii
ii

v = 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 CONTAM
Form Quality Y = OX+% ** .70 ALOG
YF = (JS> 3 mor =;
FQx FQf FY = OP ^ 3 o r > 8 Total =:
+ = + = rF = OH < 2
o = 15 o = 4 Fr = OR < 17
w= 2 w= 1 FD = 1^ Total
- = 1 - = 1 F = 6
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 26.5- 27.5 FC:CF+C = 5 :0 Afr = 7/11=.64

zd = - 1 W:M = 6:3 3r+(2)/R= 12/18=.6
EB = 3:2.5 EA = 5.5 W:D = 6 :1 0 Cont :R = 13:18
eb = 6:0 ep = 6.0 L = 6/12=.50 H+Hd:A+Ad = 3:7
(FM=4 m=2 T= C‘= V= Y=) F+% = 4/6=67% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
0:3
Blends:R = 2:18 X+% = 15/18=83% H+A:HD+Ad =12:1
a:p = 3:6 A% = 10/18=56% XRT Achrom =
56/5=11.2"
35/5=7.0"
171
Group I I I
I 3"1 Wo M9 (H) 1.0

2 Wo FM“w (2) A 1.0
II 5" 3 D+ FM o (2) A,Fd P 3.0 PER
4 Wo A 4.5
III 3" 5 D+ Mo (2) H 3.0
6 Do Fw (H) INCOM
IV 33 " 7 Wo FM w A 2.0
V 8" 8 Wo FC'o A P 1.0
9 Wo A 1.0
F§
VI 23" 10 Dd+ m.YFo Rocket, Fi 2.5
Smoke
V II 9" 11 W+ Mpo (2) H 2.5
V III 11“ 12 W+ FM .Fro Ls,A P 4.5 PER
IX 22" 13 w+ FC.Frw Ls 5.5
X 10" 14 Wv m .CFw Ex,Fireworks 5.5
172
Group I I I
R=14 Zf=13 ZSum= :37 P=3 (2)=4

W = 10 m ,YFo H= 2 Bl = Rocket........=1
FM . Fro (H)=2 Bt=
FC.Frw Hd = cg= Smoke..........=1
CO
Q
II
ma.CFw (Hd) = Cl=

Dd = 1 M = 3 A= 7 Ex=l Fireworks..=1
FM = 3 (A) = Fi=l
S = m = Ad = Fd=l ................... =
C = (Ad)= Ge=
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=
CF = A1 = Ls=2
FC = An = Na= =
C'F= Ay = Xy=
+ = 6 + = FC'= 1 S-Constellation (Adult)
v = 1 w= TF = UCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV
_ = —= FT = 03r+(2)/R <.30 INCOM =1
no V = +Zd>+3.5 FABCOM
Form Quality Y = +X+%< .70 CP
YF = OS > 3 MOR
FQx FQf FY = OP < 3 o r > 8 PER =2
+ = + = rF = UH < 2 PSV
o= 8 o = l Fr = OR < 17 Total =3
w= 6 w= 2 FD = 4^ Total
- = - = F = 3
no
form =
ZSurn-Zest = 37-41 .5 FC:CF+C = 1:1 Afr 3/11=.27

zd = - 4.5 W:M = 10:3 3r+(2)/R= 10/14=.71
EB = 3:1.5 EA = 4.5 W:D = 10:3 Cont:R = 10:14
eb 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)=
2:0
Blends:R == 4:14 X+% = 8/14=57% H+A:HD+Ad = 11:0
a:p = 7:2 A% 7/14=50% XRT Achrom =
76/5=15.2
51/5=10.2"
173
Group I I I
I 13" 1 W+ Mp.Fr+ H,Ls 4.0

II 30" 2 Ddo F- (2) A
III 22" 3 Do Mpo (2) H,Cg P
IV 16" 4 Ddo Mpo (2) H,Bt 4.0
V 20" 5 Wo FS A P 1.0
VI 7" 6 W+ M o.rF Fi ,Na
Smoke
V II 27" 7 W+ Mao (2) H P 2.5
V III 26" 8 W+ FM . Fro A P 4.5
IX 30" 9 Dd+ FC.FM w (2) A 2.5 INCOM
X 37" 10 Do FM .Frw A 4.0
174
Group I I I
R=10 Zf=7 ZSum= 22.5 P=4 (2)=5

(Blends First (Idiographic)
w = 5 Mj+.Fr H= 4 Bl= Smoke..........=1

m o.rF (H)= Bt=l
D = 2 FM o.Fr Hd = Cg=l ..................... =
FC.FM w (Hd) = Cl=
Dd = 3 M = 3 A= 5 Ex=
FM = (A) = Fi=l
S = m = Ad = Fd= ..................... =
C = (Ad)= Ge=
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= ......... . . . . . . =
CF = A1 = Ls=l
FC = An = Na=l =

C‘ F= Ay = Xy= ....................... =
- = - = FT = TT3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM =:
no V = TjZd >+3.5 FA B C O M
Form Quality Y = +X+% < .70 CP
YF = 0S> 3 MOR
FQx FQf FY = OP < 3 o r > 8 PER
+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PSV
o = 5 0=1 Fr = +R <17 Total =
w= 3 w= FD = 2 Total
- = 1 - = 1 F = 2
no
form :
ZSum-Zest = 22.5-20.5 FC:CF+C = 1 :10 Afr = 3/7=.43

Zd = 2.5 W:M = 5:4 3r+(2)/R= 17/10=1.7
EB = 4 :.5 EA = 4.5 W:D = 5:2 Cont:R = 8:10
eb = 4:0 ep = 4.0 L = 2/8=.25 H+Hd:A+Ad = 4 :5
(FM=3 m=l T= C‘= V= Y=) F+% = 1/2=50% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
Blends:R = 5:10 X+% = 6/10=60% H+A:HD+Ad = 9 :0
a:p = 15:3 A% = 7/14=50% XRT Achrom =
83/5=16.6"
145/5=29"
1.75
Group I I I
I 2" 1 Do Fo A
II 21" 2 Do (2) A
III 40" 3 Do Mo H
IV 24" 4 Do Fo A
5 Do Fo (2) Hd
V 7" 6 Wo A
F§ Ex
VI 27" 7 Wv mo
VII 19" Rejection
V III 9" 8 Do Fo (2) A
IX 19" 9 Do Fw (2) An,Hd
X 11" 10 Do Fo (2) A
11 Do Fw (2) A
Group I I I
R = ll Z f=3 ZSum= 9 P=5 ( 2)=6
L o c a tio n F ea tu re s Determinants Contents Contents

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= .......................................... =
FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)

+
+
ii
ii

V = 1 W= TF = TTCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV
FT = 03r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM
no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOM
form = VF = Oep> EA . ALOG
FV = tfCF+C > FC. CONTAM
Form Quality Y = OX+% < .70 CP
YF = 0S> 3 MOR
FQx FQf FY = OP < 3 o r> 8 PER
+ = + = rF = +H < 2 PSV
o= 9 o = 7 Fr = +R <17 Total =i
w= 2 w = 2 FD = 2 Total
_ = - = F = 9
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 9-6 FC-.CF+C = 0:0 Afr = 4/7=.57

Zd = 3.0 W:M = 2:1 3r+(2)/R= 6/11=.55
EB 1:0 EA = 1.0 W:D = 2:9 Cont:R = 5:11
eb = 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 :2
a:p = 2:0 A% = 7/11=64% XRT Achrom =
79/5=15.8"
Ma:Mp 1:0 XRT Chrom =
100/5=20"
1.77
Group I I I
I 25" 1 Wo M .FC'0 (H) 1.0

2 Do Fo A
II 39 3 Do FC.FYo (2) A P
III 27" 4 Do Mo H
IV 20" 5 Do Mo (2) Hd 4.0
V 10" 6 Wo Fo A P 1.0
VI 27 7 Do FYo a Flag
8 Do YF.M o Ex 2.5
V II 36" 9 Do Fo (2) Ad
V III 15" 10 Do Fo (2) A P
IX 25" 11 Wo Fw (2) An,Hd 5.5
X 12" 12 Do Fo (2) A P
13 Do FYw (2) A
1 /8
STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 16 E xperim ental
Group I I I
R=13 Z f= 5 ZSum= 14 P=4 (2 )= 7

W = 3 M .FC'o H= 1 Bl= Flag............=1

FC.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= ................. =
C‘ F= Ay = xy= ................. =
v = w= TF = TCol.Shd B1 > 0 PSV
- = - = FT = 03r+(2)/R <.30 DV
no V = 0Zd>+3.5 INCOM
form = VF = +ep > EA FABCOM
Form Quality Y = OX+% < .70 ALOG
YF = 0S> 3
FQx FQf FY = 2 OP < 3 o r > 8 Total = 0
+ = + = rF = +H < 2
o = 11 o = 5 Fr = +R < 1 7
w= 2 w= 1 FD = 4 Total
- = - = F = 6
no
form =
Ratios, IPercentages, and Derivations
ZSum-Zest = 14-13 .5 FC:CF+C = 1:0 Afr = 4/9=.44

Zd = .5 W:M = 3:3 3r+(2)/R= 7/13=.54
EB = 3 : .5 EA = 3.5 W:D = 3:10 Cont:R = 8:13
eb = 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)=
1:0
Blends:R = 3:13 X+% = 11/13=85% H+A:HD+Ad = 8 :3
a:p = 4:0 A% = 7/13=54% XRT Achrom =
124/5=24.8"
118/5=23.6"
SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 17 Exp erim en tal
Group I I I
I 2" 1 Wo FM .FC'o A P 1.0

2 Do FC'o (2) (H)
II 25" 3 W+ Mo (2) (H) 4.5
4 Do Ftf (2) A
III 9" 5 D+ Mpo (2) (H) 3.0
IV 15" 6 Wo FDo H 2.0
V 7" 7 Wo Fo A P 1.0
8 Wo FYo H 1.0
VI 7" 9 Wo Ad P 2.5
FI °
V II 8" 10 D+ (2) H P 3.0
Mn°
11 D+ Mpo (2) (H) P 3.0
V III 9" 12 W+ FM .Fr.CF+ A,Ls P 4.5
IX 17" 13 W+ M .CF.Fro (H),Ls 5.5
X 14" 14 Dv CF.C'Fw (2) Germs
15 Do FCo (2) A P
16 Do FCo (2) FD
17 Do FCo (2) A
Group I I I
R=17 Z f= 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=2
FC = 2 An = Na=l ................. =
C'F= Ay = xy= ................. =
+ = 6 + = 0 FC’= 1 S-Constellation (Adult)
v = 1 w= TF = OCol.Shd B1 > o PER
FT = 1 TT3r+(2)/R < .30 PSV
V = I[Zd>+3.5 DV
VF = Oep > EA INCOM
FV = +CF+C> FC FABCOM
Form Quality Y = OX+% < .7 0 ALOG
YF = 0S> 3 CONTAM
FQx FQf FY = 1 OP < 3 o r> 8 Total = 0
+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2
o = 15 o = 2 Fr = OR < 17
w= 1 w= 1 FD = 1 1 Total
F = 3
no
form =

Zd = 3.5 W:M = 7:5 3r+(2)/R= 16/17=.94
EB = 5:9 EA = 7 W:D = 7:10 Cont:R = 6:17
eb = 2:5 ep = 7 L 3/17=.18 H+Hd:A+Ad = 4 :7
(FM=2 m= T=1 C'=3 V= Y=l) F+% = 2/3=67% (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=
4:0
Blends:R = 4:17 X+% = 16/17=94% H+A:HD+Ad = 11:0
a:p = 4:3 A% 8/17=47% XRT Achrom =
39/5=7.8"
74/5=14.8"
181
Group I I I
I 8" 1 Wo Fo A P 1.0
2 Do Ad
F8 H
3 Do Mro
II 10“ 4 W+ Mg (2) H 4.5
5 Do FM o A
III 23“ 6 Do n a A,Mask INCOM
7 W+ Mp.mp.M o (2) H,Ab,Cg P 5.5 FABCOM
IV 12“ 8 Wo Mp.FDo H 2.0
9 Wv Mpw candle wax 2.0
V 9“ 10 Wo F+ H 1.0
11 Wo Fo A P 1.0
VI 5" 12 Wo Hh P 2.5
V II 2“ 13 D+ &
Mo (2) H P 3.0
14 Do FQ (2) H P 3.0
15 Do Mpg (2) Punch & Judy
V III 3" 16 Do FM o A P
17 W+ CF.rFo Na 4.5
IX 6" 18 Do Mao (H)
19 W+ CF.rFw Na 5.5
20 D+ Mo _ H 2.5
X 2" 21 D- FC.Mpo (2) Germs PER
22 Do Fo (2) A P INCOM
23 Do FCo Bt
24 Do Fo (2) A
182
Group I I I
R=24 Zf=13 ZSum= 38 P=8 (2)=8

W = 10 Mp.mp.M H= 8 Bl= Mask............=1

Mp.FDo (H)=l Bt=l
D * 14 CF.rFo Hd = Cg=l Candle Wax =1
FC.Mpo (Hd) = Cl=
Dd = M = 5 A= 7 Ex= Punch & Judy=l
FM = 2 (A) = Fi=
S = m = 2 Ad = 1 Fd= Germs..........=1
C = (Ad)= Ge=
DW = Cn = Ab = 1 Hh=l
CF = A1 = Ls=
FC = 1 An =1 Na=2 ............................ =
C'F= Ay = xy=
_ = i _ = FT = 03r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM =2
no V = FZd > +3.5 FABCOM =1
FV = 0CF+C> FC CONTAM
YF = 0S> 3 MOR
FQx FQf FY = OP < 3 o r> 8 PER =1
+ = 1 + = 1 rF = OH < 2 PSV
o = 20 o = 7 Fr = OR < 17 Total =4
w= 3 w= 1 FD = F Total
- = - = F = 9
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 38-41 .5 FC:CF+C = 2 :2 Afr = 9/24=.38

Zd = -3.5 W:M = 10:9 3r+(2)/R= 14/24=.58
EB = 9:3 EA = 12 W:D = 10:14 Cont:R = 13:24
eb = 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)=
1:0
Blends:R = 5:24 X+% = 21/24=88% H+A:HD+Ad = 1 6:1
a:p = 8:6 A% = 8/24=33% XRT Achrom =
36/5=7.2"
44/5=8.8"
Group I I I
I 2“ 1 Wo A P 1.0
FI °
2 Do MnW (2) H 6.0
3 W+ Mpo (2) H 6.0 PSV
4 Do Fo A
II 8" 5 Wv C.Fo Art
6 Dd+ Mo (2) Hd 5.5
7 Do Fo A
III 25'' 8 Do FC'o (2) H P 3.0
9 Do Maw A, Bowling 4.0
Balls
10 Do Fo (2) H P
IV 10*'11 Wo Fo A 2.0 MOR
12 W+ Fo Hd
13 Ddo Fw Sx
14 Dd,So Fwa eyes
V 2" 15 W+ FM w A 2.5
16 Wo Fo A P 1.0
17 Do Fo Tweezers
18 Ddv F° a a Ls
VI 2" 19 D+ FM .m w A 2.5
20 Dv mo Ex
21 Dv FVw Dissection
22 Ddo Fw A
23 Do FTo Indian
Symbol
V II 2" 24 W+ Ma+ (2) H (P) 2.5
25 D,So F° a Arrowhead
V III 11" 26 Do FM o (2) A P
27 Do Fo Bt
28 Dv Fo Ls
29 D- F- n Hd
IX 9" 30 Wv CF.mp.Cw Fi ,B1 »Ls 2.5
X 11" 31 Wv mo Mardi Gras 5.5
32 Do (2) A P
F§
33 Do Mo (2) H 4.5
34 Do Fw Hd
35 Do Fo (2) A
Group I I I
R=35 Zf=14 ZSum= 48.5 P=6 (2)=10

(Blends First) (Idiographic)
W = 10 FMa.maw H= 6 Bl=l Bowling Balls=l

C.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........=1
FM = 2 (A) = Fi=l
S = 2 m = 2 Ad = Fd= D issection...=1
C = (Ad)= Ge=
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= Indian Symbol=1
CF = A1 = Ls=3
FC = An = Na= Arrowhead___=1
DQ M Quality C' = Art =1 Sx=l
C‘ F= Ay = xy= Mardi G ras...=l
+ = 6 + = 1 FC'= 1 S-Constellation (Adult)
v = 7 w= 2 TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV
_ = x _ = FT = 2 +3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM
FV = 1 +CF+C > FC CONTAM
YF = 0S> 3 MOR =1
FQx FOf FY = OP < 3 o r> 8 PER
+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PSV =1
o = 23 o = 13 Fr = OR < 1 7 Total =2
w = 10 w = 4 FD = 4^ Total
- = 1 - = 1 F = 18
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 48.5 - 45.5 FC:CF+C = 0:3 Afr = 10/25=.40

Zd = 3.0 W:M = 10:6 3r+(2)/R= 10/35=.29
EB = 6:4 EA = 10 W:D = 10:20 Cont:R = 17:35
eb = 7:4 ep = 11 L = 18/17=1.06 H+Hd:A+Ad = 10:12
(FM=3 m=4 T=2 C '=l V=1 Y=) F+% = 13/18=72% (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=
18:4
Blends:R = 3:35 X+% = 24/35=69% H+A:HD+Ad = 18:4
a:p = 11:2 A* = 12/35=34% XRT Achrom =
18/5=3.6"
64/5=12.8"
185
Group I I I
I 13" 1 Wv C'w Finger 1.0

Paints
2 Wo Fo A P 1.0
II 18" 3 Wv C Finger 4.5
Paints
4 Dd+ Maw (2) A P 3.0
III 31" 5 Do Fo (2) H P 3.0
6 Do Fo (A)
7 Do Fw A
IV 21" 8 Wo Fw Big Foot 2.0
9 Wo Fo (A) 2.0
V 25" 10 Wo Fo A 1.0
11 Wo Fo A 1.0
VI 38" 12 Do Fo Indian Design
13 Do Fo Ad
V II 28" 14 Do Fo Ad
15 Do FMpo A
V III 34" 16 Do Fo A P
17 Dv CFW Fd
IX 53" 18 Do Fo (H)
19 Dv C Crayon/Coloring
20 Do Fo Stick
21 Do Fw Cl
X 40" 22 Do Fw Hd
23 Do FT° Ad
24 Do FM w (2) A P 4.0
186
Group I I I
R=24 Zf=10 ZSum= 18.5 P=5 (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=l
FM = 2 (A) =2 Fi=
S = m = Ad = 3 Fd=l Crayon/Color-=l
C = 2 (Ad)= Ge= ing
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= Stick............. =1
CF = 1 A1 = Ls=
FC = An = Na= =
DQ M Quality C' = 1 Art = Sx=

C‘ F= Ay = Xy=
+ = 1 + = . FC' = S-Constellation (Adult)
v = 4 w= 1 TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV
_ = 1 _ = FT = +3r+(2)/R < .30 INCOM
FV = +CF+C > FC CONTAM
Form Quality Y = +X+% < .7 0 CP
YF = 0S> 3 MOR
+ = + = rF = +H < 2 PSV
o = 14 o = 12 Fr = OR < 1 7 Total =
w= 8 w= 4 FD = 1[ Total
- = - = F = 16
no
form = 2
ZSum-Zest = 18.5-31 FC:CF+C = 0:3 Afr = 9/15=.60

Zd -12.5 W:M = 8:1 3r+(2)/R= 3/24=.13
EB 1:4 EA = 5.0 W:D = 8:15 Cont:R = 13:24
eb = 2:2 ep = 4.0 L 16/8=2.0 H+Hd:A+Ad = 2 :11
(FM=2 m= T=:L C'=l V=: Y=) F+% = 12/16=75% (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=
1:2
Blends:R = 0:23 X+% = 14/22=64% H+A:HD+Ad = 1 2 :4
a:p = 2:1 A% 13/24=54% XRT Achrom =
125/5=25"
176/5=35.2"
187
Group IV
Card RT No. Location Determinant(s) Contends) POP Z Score
I 1 Wo Fo A 1.0
2 Do fq (2) (H) 1.0
3 W+ Wo (2) (H) 4.5
II 4 Do A
F§
III 5 Do M .FC'o H, Basket P 4.0
6 Do Fo A P
IV 7 Wo Fo Ad 2.0
V 8 Wo Fo A P 1.0
VI 9 Wo fR Ad P 2.5
V II 10 Do Fro (2) Porcelain 3.0
Figures
V III 11 W+ FM .FCo (2) A,Bt P 4.5 FABCOM
IX 12 D,So Fw Ad
X 13 Dv Fw Hd
14 Do Fo Bt
15 Dd+ Fo An
16 Do Fo (2) A P
17 Do Fo Hd
1.88
Group IV
R=17 Zf=9 ZSum= 23.5 P=6 (2)=5

w = 7 Ma FC'o H= Bl = Basket........... =2
FM .FCo (H)=2 Bt= 2
D = 9 Hd = Cg= P o rc e la in ....=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= —
C'F= Ay = Xy=
v = 1 w= 3 TF = (TCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV "
_ = - = FT = +3r+(2)/R -C.30 INCOM
form = VF = 0 e p > EA ALOG
FV = 0CF+C> FC CONTAM
Form Quality Y = 0X+% < .70 CP
YF = 0S> 3 MOR
+ = + = rF = OH <2. PSV
o = 16 o = 11 Fr = OR < 17 Total =
- = - = F = 13
no
form = 2
ZSum-Zest = 23.5-■27.5 FC:CF+C = 1:0 Afr = 7/11=.64

Zd -4 W:M = 7:2 3r+(2)/R= 5/17=.29
EB 3:.5 EA = 3.5 W:D = 7:9 Cont:R =7:18
eb 1:1 ep = 2.0 L 13/4=3.25 H+Hd:A+Ad = 0 :9
(FM=1 m= T=:1 C‘=]L V= Y=) F+% = 11/13=85% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
2:0
Blends:R = 2:17 X+% = 16/18=89% H+A:HD+Ad = 8 :3
a:p 2:2 A% 9/18=50% XRT Achrom =
Not done
Not done
1.89
Group IV
I 12" 1 Wo Mo (2) H 1.0

2 Ddo FYo (2) eyes
II 20" 3 D,So FC'o spaceship
4 Do Fw (2) (H)
III 10" 5 Do Fw (2) A
6 Do Fo (2) An
7 Do FCo A P
IV 5" 8 W+ Mpo (H),Bean 4.0
stalk
V 4" 9 Wo Fo A P 1.0 MOR
VI 60" 10 Wo f2 A 2.5
V II 30" 11 W+ Mg (2) H P 2.5
V 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) Ad
X 13" 15 Dd,So Fw Hd
16 Do FCo Bt
190
«

Group 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= B eanstalk....=1
FM = (A) = Fi=
S = 2 m = Ad = 1 Fd= Hole............... =1
C = (Ad)= Ge=
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= Smoke............. =
CF = A1 = Ls=
FC = 2 An = 1 Na=
C'F= Ay = Xy=
V = w= TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV
—= —= FT = 03r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM
no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABCOM =1
Form Quality Y = OX+% < .7 0 CP
Yt- = 0S> 3 MOR =1
FQx FQf FY = 1 OP < 3 o r > 8 PER =1
+ = + = rF = OH < 2 PSV
o = 13 o = 4 Fr = +R < 1 7 Total =3
w= 3 w= 3 FD = 1_ Total
- = - = F = 7
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 15.5-17 FC:CF+C == 2:0 Afr = 5/11=.45

Zd = -1.5 W:M 6:4 3r+(2)/R= 8/16=.50
EB = 4:1 EA = 5 W:D 6:8 Cont:R = 11:16
eb = 1:2 ep = 3 L 7/9=.78 H+Hd:A+Ad = 2 :6
(FM=1 m= T= C‘=l V= Y=l) F+% 4/7=57% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
3:0
Blends:R = 1:16 X+% 13/16=81% H+A:HD+Ad =10:1
a:p = 3:2 A% 6/16=38% XRT Achrom =
111/5=22.2"
81/5=16.2"
191
f

Group IV
I 20 " 1 Wo Fo A P 1.0
II 15" 2 Wo FCo (2 ) A,B1 (P) 4.5
n r n
III 30" 3 Do M*o (2) H P 3.0 rtK
4 Do M .Fr+ H P 3.0 M0R
IV 15" 5 Wo FMpo A 2 .0
6 Wo Mo (A) P 2 .0
V 5" 7 Wo FMpo A P 1 .0
VI 25" 8 Do Fo Ad P 2.5
9 Wo Ad
V II 10 " 10 W+ J$o (2) H,collar P 2.5
11 Do Foa
Necklace
V III 3" 12 Do FM .FC. FTo A P 4.5
13 Do Fo_ Hh
IX 10 " 14 Dd+ FMp.CF.FYo(2) A.Bt.H 2.5
X 20 " 15 W+ FM o (2) A 5.5 FABC0M
192
Group IV
R=15 Zf=12 ZSum= 34 P=8 (2)=5

w = 8 M ,Fr+ H=4 Bl= Collar .............................=1

FM°.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

C'F= Ay = xy=
o= 3 o = 3 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring
v = - w =
TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV
_ = — = FT = Tl3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INC0M
no V = +Zd>+3.5 FABC0M =1
Form Quality Y = 0X+% < . 7 0 CP
YF = OS > 3 MOR =1
FQx FQf FY = OP < 3 o r > 8 PER =1
+ = 1 + = rF = OH < 2 PSV
o = :L4 o = 5 Fr = + R < 17 Total =3
w= w= FD = 3_ Total
- = - = F = 5
no
form =

Zd -4 W:M 8:4 3r+(2)/R= 8/15=.53
EB 4:2 EA = 6.0 W:D 8:6 Cont:R = 9:15
eb = 5:2 ep = 7.0 L 5/11=.45 H+Hd:A+Ad = 4 :9
(H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
H-1
(FM=5 m= T= V= Y=l) F+% 5/5=100%

II
O
0:1
Blends:R = 3:15 X+% 15/15=100% H+A:HD+Ad =12:2
a:p = 5:4 AX 10/15=67% XRT Achrom =
75/5=15.0"
78/5=15.6"
Group IV
I 34" 1 Uo Foa A
2 Dd,So FM o A
II 5" 3 Do CFo A 3.0 M0R
4 Dd- F- Mask
III 5" 5 Dv FQ (2) Earrings PER
6 D+ Mg n ( 2) H P 4.0
IV 5" 7 W+ FM*.FT.Mpo (A),H 4.0
V 12 " 8 Uo FMpo A P 1.0
VI 10 " 9 W- FMP A P
10 Wv mf.FC'o A 2.5
V II 3" 11 D+ Mo H P 3.0
12 Dd+ FVo Ls 1.0
V III 8" 13 Do FCo (2) A INC0M
14 Do FCo (2) Hh PER
IX 50" 15 D+ FY.FM“o A,Bt 2.5
X 10 " 16 W+ Cn.FMpw Colors
194
Group IV
R=16 Zf =8 ZSum= 21 P=4 (2)=4

W = 6 FM ,FT.Mpo H= 3 Bl= Mask.............= 1

M .FC'o (H)= Bt= 1
D = 7 Cn.FM pw Hd = Cg= Earrings........=1
(Hd) = Cl=
00
M = 2 Ex= Colors............=
ii
Dd = 3
>
FM = 3 (A) =1 Fi=
S = 1 m = Ad = Fd= .......................=
C = (Ad)= Ge=
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= 1 .....................=
CF = 1 A1 = Ls= 1
FC = 2 An = Na= .....................=
C'F= Ay = Xy= .....................=
v = 2 w= TF = tfCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV =1
_ = 2 - = FT = +3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM
FV = 1 OCF+C> FC CONTAM
Form Quality Y = OX+% *<.70 CP
YF = 0S> 3 MOR =1
FQx FQf FY = 0P < 3 o r > 8 PER =2
+ = 13 + = rF = OH < 2 PSV
t—»
ro
Fr = +R <17 Total =4
II
II
o
w= 2 w= FD = 3^ Total
- = - = 1 F = 3
no
form =
ZSum-Zest =21-24 FC:CF+C = 2:2 Afr = 4/12=.33

Zd =-3 W:M = 6:3 3r+(2)/R= 4/16=.25
EB =3:3 EA = 6 W:D = 6:7 Cont:R = 9:16
eb =7:4 ep = 11 L = 3/13=.23 H+Hd:A+Ad = 3 :8
(FM=6 m=l T=1 C'=l V=1 Y=l) F+% = 2/3=67% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
0:1
Blends:R =4:16 X+% = 13/16=81% H+A:HD+Ad = 1 2 :0
a:p =6:4 A% = 9/16=56% XRT Achrom =
64/5=12.8"
78/5=15.6"
195
SEQUENCE OF SCORES S u b je c t 21 Exp erim en tal
Group IV
I 15" 1 W,So (2) (H) 1 .0

Mn°
II 21 “ 2 W+ Mp.CFo (2) A,B1 (P) 4.5
III 45" 3 Ddo Mp CFw ( 2 ) (H)B1 P 4.0 PSV,AL0G
IV 15" 4 Uo Mô (H) 2 .0
V 10 " 5 Uo Ho (H) 1 .0
VI 5" 6 U+ FM?o A,Ls 2.5
V II 9" 7 U+ FMV A,Ls 2.5
V III 10 " 8 U+ FC.tir .CF+ (2) A,B1,Fi 4.5 M0R
IX 40" 9 Do m.CFo Ex,Fi,Ls 2.5
X 16" 10 Do Fo (2) A
11 Do FCo (2 ) Bt
196
Group IV
R = ll Z f= 9 ZSum= 24.5 P=1 ( 2)=6
L o c a tio n F eatu res Determinants Contents Contents

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= 1
FM = 2 (A) = Fi= 2
S = 1 m = Ad = Fd=
C = (Ad)= Ge=
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=
CF = A1 = Ls= 3
FC = 1 An = Na= ..................... =
C'F= Ay = xy= ..................... =
v = w= 1 TF = OCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV
_ = —= FT = 03r+(2)/R <.30 INCOM
form = VF = +ep> EA ALOG =1
YF = 0S > 3 MOR =1
FQx FQf FY = + P < 3 or > 8 PER
+ = 1 + = rF = 0 H <2 PSV =1
o = 8 o= 1 Fr = 0 R <17 Total =3
w= 2 w= FD = 3 Total
- = - = F = 1
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 24.5--27.5 FC-.CF+C = 1 :4 Afr = 4/7=.57

Zd = -3 W:M = 7:4 3r+(2)/R= 6/11=.55
EB = 4:5 EA = 6 W:D = 7:3 ContrR = 7 :1 1
eb = 5:0 ep = 11 L = 1/10=.10 H+Hd:A+Ad = 0:5
(FM=2 m=3 T= C'= V= Y=) F+% = 1/1=100% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
4:0
Blends:R = 4:11 X+% = 9/11=82% H+A:HD+Ad = 9 :0
a:p = 6:3 A% = 5/11=45% XRT Achrom =
54/5=10.8"
132/5=26.4"
Group IV
I 10 " 1 W,Sv CF'w Ab, Painting 1 .0

2 Wo Fw A (P) 3.0
II 5" 3 Do Fw (2) A 3.0
III 15" 4 Wo Fo (2) A 3.0
IV 2" 5 Wo FTo (A) P 2.0
V 2" 6 Wo Fo A 1 .0
VI 5" 7 Do Fo A
8 Ddo CF’w oriental
screen
V II 5" 9 Do Fro (A)
V III 20 " 10 Wo Fro A,Ls 4.5
IX 10 " 11 Wv CFw Painting 5.5
X 1 " 12 Wo CFo Aquarium 5.5
198
Group IV
R=12 Zf =8 ZSum= 25.5 P=1 (2)=2

W = 8 H= Bl= Painting___=2
(H)= Bt=
D = 3 Hd = Cg= O riental....= 1
(Hd) = Cl= Screen
Dd = 1 M = A= 6 Ex= Aquarium....=l
FM = (A) =2 Fi=
S = 1 m = Ad = Fd= =
C = (Ad)= Ge=
DW = Cn = Ab = 1 Hh=
CF = 2 A1 = Ls= 1
FC = An = Na= ..................... =
C'F= Ay = Xy=
0FV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring
n
T =
H-*
o =
o
v = 2 w= TF = TlCol.Shd B1 > 0 DV
- = - = FT = 1 03r+(2)/R < .3 0 INC0M
form = VF = 0ep> EA ALOG
YF = 0S> 3 MOR
FQx FQf FY = +P < 3 o r > 8 PER
+ = + = rF = +H< 2 PSV
o = 7 o = 3 Fr = 2 + R < 17 Total =
w= 5 w= 2 FD = j4 Total
- = - = F = 5
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 25.5--24 FC:CF+C =-- 0:2 Afr = 3/8=.38

Zd = 1.5 W:M 8:0 3r+(2)/R= 8/12=.67
EB = 0:3 EA = 3 W:D 8:3 Cont:R =7:12
eb = 0:3 ep = 3 L 5/7=.71 H+Hd:A+Ad = 0 :6
(FM= m= T==1 C'=2 V= Y=) F+% 3/5=60% (H)+(Hd):(A)+(Ad)=
0:2
Blends:R = 0:12 X+% 7/12=58% H+A:HD+Ad = 8 :0
a:p - 0:0 A% 8/12=67% XRT Achrom =
24/5=4.8"
51/5=10.2"
199
Group IV
I 1" 1 Wo F° n A P 1 .0
2 W+ FY.Mpo (2 ) (H), 3.0
Cauldron
3 W,So Mask 1.0
4 Do Mo H P
5 W,So F° n Ad P
II 3" 6 Do FC.FMpo (2) A
7 D- F- (2) (H)
8 Do FCo A
9 D,So Fo Spaceship 3.0
10 Ddo (2) Hd
D+ F§ .FC.FYo
M 3.0
III 8" 11 (2) H.Pot
12 Do FMpo A P
13 Do Fw Ad
IV 5" 14 Wo FDo H 2.0
15 Wo FYo Bt 2.0
16 Ddo Fw A 2 .0
17 Wo FVo A 2.0
18 Wo Fo a A 2 .0
V 3" 19 Wo FY.FM o A P 1.0
20 Dd+ FM o (2) A,Ls 2.5
21 Ddo Fo (2) Hd
VI 8" 22 W+ Fro Ls 2.5
23 Do Fo Hh P
24 Do Fo Sx
25 Do Fo Headress/
Totem Pole
26 Do mao Rocketship,
Ex
V II 4" 27 D+ FY.Mpo (2) H 3.0
28. W+ Mo (2) H 3.0
29 Wv rFw Ls 2.5
V III 7" 30 D+ FMa.Fro A P 3.0
31 Ddo mao Rocket 3.0
32 Dd+ FCw Ls 3.0
IX 5“ 33 Dd+ CF.M o H,Fi
34 Dd,So FMpo A
35 D+ FM o (2) A 2.5
X 5" 36 Do F° a (2 ) A P
37 Do FMao (2) A
38 Do FMa.FCo (2) A
39 D+ FM w (2) A 4.0
200
Group IV
R=39 Zf=20 ZSum= 48.5 P=8 (2)=14

w = 12 FY.Mpo FY,Mpo H= 5 Bl = Cauldron....=l

FM Fro (H)=2 Bt=l
F£ • FMpo
D = 19 M .FC.FYo CF.M o Hd =2 Cg= Mask............. =1
FY• FM o FM.FCo (Hd) = Cl =
Dd = 8 M = 2 A = 16 Ex=l Spaceship...=1
FM = 6 (A) = Fi=l
S = 4 m = 3 Ad = 2 Fd= Headress/...=1
C = (Ad)= Ge= Totem Pole..
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= 1 Rocketship..=l
CF = A1 = Ls= 4
FC = 2 An = Na= Rocket..........=1
DQ M Quality C‘ = Art = Sx= 1
C'F= Ay = xy= Pot............... =1
+ = 11 + = FC'= S- Constellation (Adult)
v = 1 w = TF = +Col.Shd B1 > 0 DV
- = 1 — = FT = TT3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM
no V = +Zd >jK3.5 FABCOM
FV = 1 0CF+C> FC CONTAM
YF = +S > 3 MOR
FQx FQf FY = 1 OP < 3 or> 8 PER
+ = + = rF = 1 OH 4C 2 PSV
o = 32 o = 10 Fr = 1 TJR < 1 7 Total
w= 6 w= 2 FD = 1 5 Total
- = 1 - = F = 13
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 48.5-66.5 ' FC:CF+C = 5:1 Afr = 10/29=.34

Zd = -18 W:M = 12:6 3r+(2)/R= 23/39=.59
EB = 6:3.5 EA = 9.5 W:D = 12:19 Cont:R = 18:39
eb = 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)=
2:0
Blends:R = 8:30 X+% = 32/39=82% H+A:HD+Ad = 23:4
a:p = 1 3 :5 AS = 18/39=.46 XRT Achrom =
21/5=4.2"
28/5=5.6"
201
Group IV
I 19" 1 Wo Fo Mask 1.0

2 D+ ITo (2) H 6.0
3 Dv F.YFw Solid
II 6" 4 Wo Fo (2) A 4.5
5 D,So Fo Space
Capsule
III 16" 6 Do A
7 D+ MPo (2) H P 3.0
IV 9" Rejection
V 22 " 8 Wo Fo A P 1.0
9 Do Fo (2) A
CM
00
VI 10 Wo Hh P 2.5
F§
11 Do m o Rocket,Smoke
V II 42" 12 W+ (2) H 2.5
F8
V III 30" 13 Do m .FCw Rocket 3.0
14 Do F§ (2) A P 3.0
IX 16" 15 D+ mf.CFw Rocket,Fi
16 Wv mw Ex 5.5
X 47" 17 Do FCo (2 ) A P
18 Do FCo (2) A
19 Do CFo (A)
202
Group IV
R=19 Zf=10 ZSum= 32 P=5 ( 2)=8

W = 6 F.YFw H= 3 Bl = Mask............. =1
m . FCw (H}= Bt=
D = 13 m CFw Hd = Cg= Solid............=1
(Hd) = Cl =
Dd = M = 2 A= 7 Ex=l Space capsule=l
FM = (A) =1 Fi=l
S = 1 m = 2 Ad = Fd= Rocket..........=3
C = (Ad)= Ge=
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh=l Smoke............=1
CF = 1 A1 = Ls=
FC = 2 An = Na=
C'F= Ay = xy=
CO
f—*
ro
0FV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring

O
T =
O
II
II
—= - = FT = 03r+(2)/R < .30 INC0M =:
no V = 0Zd>+3.5 FABC0M
form = VF = 0ep> EA AL0G
FV = UCF-rC > FC C0NTAM
Form Quality Y = UX+% < .7 0 CP
YF = 0S> 3 M0R
FQx FQf FY = 1 OP < 3 or> 8 PER
+ = + = rF = 1 OH < 2 PSV
o = 14 o = 8 Fr = 1 0 R < 17 Total
_ = _ = F = 9
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 32-31 FC:CF+C = 3 :2 Afr = 7/19=.37

Zd = 1.0 W:M = 6 :2 3r+(2)/R= 8/19=.42
EB = 2:3.5 EA = 5.5 W:D = 6:13 Cont:R = 11:19
eb = 4:1 ep = 5.0 L = 9/10=.90 H+Hd:A+Ad = 3 :7
(FM= m=4 T= C'= V=Y=l) F+% = 8/9=89% (H)+(Hd): (A)+(Ad)=
0:1
Blends:R = 3:19 X+% = 14/19=74% H+A:HD+Ad = 1 1 :0
a:p = 4:2 A% = 8/19=42% XRT Achrom =
120/5=24"
115/5=23"
203
Group IV
I 7" 1 Wo Fo A 1.0
2 Wo Fw Airplane
II 10 " 3 D,S+ ma+ Smoke, F i,
a Spaceship
4 W+ FM + A,Stool, Balls 4.5
III 27 n 5 D+ Mo (2) H,drums P 3.0
6 Do Fw A
7 Do FCo A P
IV 21 " 8 Wo FMpo A P 1.0
9 Wo Fo A P 1 .0 PER
10 Wo Fw A 1.0
VI 11 " 11 Ddo Fo Musical 2.5
Instrument
12 Dd+ Fo Sword in Stone 2.5
13 Do Fo (2) Masks 2.5
14 Ddo A 2.5
F§
V II 11 15 D+ M .Fro H P 3.0
16 D,So Arrowhead ALOG
fr
17 Wt M+ (2 ) H 2.5
V III 7" 18 Do FMa.FC. Fro A,Ls P 3.0
19 Do FCw Bt
20 Do Fo tr ilo b ite
21 Wo Fw Hd 4.5
IX 19" 22 Wo Mao Na, Volcano 5.5
23 D+ mo (H),(A) 2.5
X 10 " 24 Wo FM .FMH.FC.M+(2) A,underwater P 5.5 FABCOM
M +(2) scene
25 Wo FCw Bt 5.5
204
STRUCTURAL SUMMARY S u b je c t 23 E xperim ental
Group IV
R=25 Zf=18 ZSum= 53.5 P=7 (2)=4

w = 11 Ma.Fro H= 3 Bl = A irp la n e ....= l

FM“. ;^firPc.Ma+ Bt=2 Smoke........... =1
D = 11 FM .1 cg= Spaceship...=1
(Hd) = Cl= Stool........... =1
Dd = 3 M = 3 A = 10 Ex= Drums............=1
FM = 2 (A) = 1 Fi=l Musical Ins.=l
S = 2 m = 2 Ad = Fd= Sword in . . . .
C = (Ad)= Ge= S to n e ....=1
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= Masks............=1
CF = A1 = Ls= 1 Arrowhead...=1
FC = 3 An = Na= 1 T rilo b ite ...=1
DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx= Underwater..
C‘ F= Ay = xy= Scene___=1
o = 18 0 = 4 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring
- = FT = 03r+(2)/R < .30 INCOM
no V = +Zd >+3.5 FABCOM
FV = OCF+C> FC CONTAM
Form Quality Y = UX+% < .70 CP
YF = 0S> 3 MOR
FQx FQf FY = 1 OP < 3 or > 8 PER
+ = + = rF = 1 OH < 2 PSV
o = 4 o = 8 Fr = 1 OR < 17 Total
w = 15 w = 4 FD = 1 1 Total
- = 6 - = F = 12
no
form =

Zd = - 6 .0 W:M = 11:4 3r+(2)/R= 10/25=.40
EB 5:2.5 EA = 7.5 W:D = 11:11 Cont:R = 22:25
eb = 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)=
1:0
Blends:R = 3:25 X+% = 19/25=76% H+A:HD+Ad = 1 4 :2
a:p = 10:2 A% = 11/25=44% XRT Achrom =
55/5=11".
Ma:Mp s 4:0 XRT Chrom =
73/5=14"
205
Group IV
I 17" 1 W,So Fw Ad 4.0

2 W,So Fo Ad 4.0 PSV
3 W,So Spaceship 1.0
Fwa
II 11 " 4 W+ FM o (2) A,Balls 4.5
5 D,S+ Mo Spaceship 3.0
Smoke
III 2" 6 D+ Mao (2) H P 3.0
7 Do Fo A P
8 Do Fo Vase 4.5
9 Do A
IV 8 " 10 Wo Mp,FDo (H) 2.0
V 9" 11 Wo FM o A P 1.0 INC0M
12 Wo F- (2) Ad
13 Wo Fo Phoenix 1.0
VI 12 " 14 W+ Fo Sword in 2.5
Stone
15 Do Fo Mandolin 2.5
16 Do Fo A 2.5
17 Do f9 ( 2) Masks
V II 3" 18 Do Mp.Fro H P 3.0
19 D,So Arrowhead
f2
20 W+ Mq (2) H 2.5
V III 5" 21 w+ FM .Fro A,Ls P 4.5
22 Do Fo Bt 3.0
23 Do F2 T rilo b ite
IX 10 " 24 Wo Mo Volcano 5.5
25 Do Mao (2) H 2.5
X 1" 26 W FC.FMa Underwater P 5.5 INC0M
206
Group IV
R=26 Zf=20 ZSum= 61 P=6 ( 2)=6

W = 13 Mp FDo H= 4 Bl= Spaceship...=1

Mp,Fro (H)=l Bt=l Smoke............=1
D = 13 FM .Fro Hd = Cg= Vase..............=1
FC.FMao (Hd) = Cl = Balls............=1
Dd = M = 3 A= 6 Ex= Drums............=1
FM = 2 (A) = Fi = Phoenix........ =1
S = 5 m = 2 Ad = 3 Fd= Sword in . . . .
C = (Ad)= Ge= Stone___ =1
DW = Cn = Ab = Hh= Mandolin___ =1
CF = A1 = Ls= 1 Masks............=1
FC = An = Na= T r ilo b it e ...=1
DQ M Quality C' = Art = Sx= Volcano........ =1
C'F= Ay = Xy= Underwater..=1
+ = + = FC' = S-Constellation (Adult) Scene
_ = - = FT = 03r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM
FV = OCF+C> FC CONTAM
YF = +S>3 MOR
+ = + = rF = OH < 2 PSV
o = 21 o = 10 Fr = 0 R < 17 Total
- = 1 - = 1 F = 15
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 61-66.5 FC-.CF+C = 1:0 Afr = 6/19=.32

Zd = -5.5 W:M = 13:5 3r+(2)/R= 12/26=.46
EB = 5:.5 EA = 5.5 W:D = 13:13 Cont:R = 17:26
eb = 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)=
1:0
BlendsrR = 4:26 X+% = 21/26=81% H+A:HD+Ad = 11:3
a: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 je c t 24 E xperim ental
Group IV
I 1" 1 Wo FC'o A P 1.0

II 11 " 2 Wo FM .FC' .FCo A 4.5
III 33" 3 Wo Fw A 5.5
IV 20 " Rejection
V 20 " 4 Wo FMao A P 1.0
VI 28" Rejection
V II 32" 5 D+ Mpo (2 ) H P 3.0
V III 24" 6 Do Fo (2 ) A P
IX 35" Rejection
X 30" 7 Ddo Fo Bt
208

Group 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=
CF = A1 = Ls=
FC = An = Na=
C'F= Ay = Xy=
o = 6 0=1 T = OFV+VF+V+FD > 2 Special Scoring
_ = —= FT = +3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM
FV = UCF+C > FC CONTAM
Form Quality Y = 0X+% < .7 0 CP
YF = 0S > 3 MOR
+ = + = rF = +H < 2 PSV
o = 6 o = 2 Fr = +R < 17 Total =|
- = - = F = 3
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 15-13.5 FC:CF+C = 1 : 0 Afr = 2/5=.40

Zd = 1.5 W:M = 4:1 3r+(2)/R= 2/7=.29
EB = 1:.5 EA = 1.5 W:D = 4:2 Cont:R = 3 : 7
eb = 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 : 0
a:p = 2:1 A% = 5/7=71% XRT Achrom =
101/5=20.2"
110/5=22.0"
209
Group IV
I 5" 1 Wo FC' FMao A P 1.0

II 26" 2 Wo FM o A 4.5
III 42" 3 Wo FC'w A 5.5
IV 16" 4 Do FYo xy
V 16" 5 Wo Fo A P 1.0
VI 23" 6 w+ Frw Tug Boat
V II 21 " 7 D+ Mpg (2) H P 3.0
V III 48" 8 Do FM o (2) A P
9 Wo Fw Bt 5.5
IX 13" 10 Wo FCw Bt 5.5
X 5" 11 W+ FCo Bt 5.5
210
Group IV
R=ll Zf =8 ZSum= 31.5 P=4 ( 2)=2

W = 8 FC1. FMao H= 1 Bl = Tug B oat...=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=
CF = A! = Ls=
FC = 2 An = Na= —
C'F= Ay = Xy=
+ = 3 + = FC' = 1 S-Constellation (Adult)
v = w= TF = TTCol .Shd B1 > 0 DV
- = FT = IJ3r+(2)/R < .3 0 INCOM
no V = jfZd>+3.5 FABCOM
YF = 0S> 3 MOR
FQx FQf FY = 1 OP < 3 o r> 8 PER
+ = + = rF = +H < 2 PSV
o = 7 o = 1 Fr = 1 +R < 17 Total =i
w= 4 w= 1 FD = 5^ Total
_ = - = F = 2
no
form =
ZSum-Zest = 31.5-■24..0 FC:CF+C = 2:0 Afr = 4/7=.57

Zd 7.5 W:M 8:1 3r+(2)/R= 5/11=.46
EB 1:1 EA = 2 .0 W:D 8:3 Cont:R = 5:11
eb 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 : 0
a:p 3:1 A% 5/11=45% XRT Achrom =
81/5=16.2
134/5=26.8"
211
Appendix J
Exner Age Norms
Adu1t*(n=325) Childrens', Age 5 * * (n=110)
M SD M SD
R 21.75 5.10 15.20 4.20

Location
Features
U 7.04 2.80 9.20 3.70
D 13.50 4.70 5.60 2.00
Dd 1.21 1.10 .40 .30
DU - - .10 -
S 1.05 .70 .70 .70

DQ+ - - 2.60 1.70
DQo - - 7.10 3.60
DQv - - 4.80 2.30
DQ- .70 .80
Deter-
mi nants
H 3.48 1.80 .80 .60
FM 2.36 1.40 2.80 1.20
m .73 .60 .10 .10
FC 3.56 1.20 .50 .80
CF 1.23 .90 1.90 .60
C+Cn .48 .60 .90 .70
Sum C 5.27 2.30 3.50 1.70
Sum C' .63 .80 .30 .30
Sum T 1.18 .90 .80 .40
Sum Y 1.11 .60 .50 .40
Sum V .36 .30 .00 “
Sum
Shading 3.28 1.80 1.60 1.00
FD .92 .70 .20 .20
Fr+rF .14 .70 .70 .50
(2 ) 7.61 2.70 7.30 3.30
F 9.83 3.20 8 .1 0 2.90
P 6.45 2.70 3.80 2.40
Zf 9.41 2.30 10.60 3.70
Blends 4.90 1.80 1.90 .70
Pure M - - 1.60 .80
CO
O
Fd .30** 1.50 (age 6-7) .70**

•
Rations &
Deriva
tions
Lamda .82 .30 1.14 .39
X+% .81 .12 .81 .11
F+% .89 .08 .83 .12
212
Adult*(n=325) Childrens', Age 5 * * (
M SD M SD
Afr .69 .06 1.07 .29

3r+(2)/R .37 .06 .61 .14
Zd - -1.10 2.61
M+Hd 4.74 1.40 3.40 1.30
k% .39 .08 .54 .13
Special
Scores
INCOM .28 .02 1.10 .70
FABCOM .12 .10 .60 .30
ALOG .13 .10 1.20 .50
PSV (within) .05 .20 .90 .60
(across) .04 .10
CONTAM .00 - .10 -
CP - .10 .10
DV .18 .10 2.10 1.30
PER .63 .37 4.40 2.10
Ratio
Directionality
EA > 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 lite ra tu re .

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 W ill 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 understanding

of 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, In c ., 1978.
214
Langs, R. The bipersonal f ie ld . New York: Jason Aronson In c ., 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 d ifferen tial

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,

In c ., New York, 1960.
Rossi, E. L. (e d .). 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 on

hypnosis, vol. I I : hypnotic alteration of sensory, perceptual and
psychophysiological processes. New York: Irvington Publishers,
In c ., 1980.

hypnosis, vol. I l l : hypnotic investigation of psychodynamic
processes^ New York: Irvington Publishers, In c ., 1980.

hypnosis, vol. IV: innovative hypnotherapy. New York: Irvington
Publishers, 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: clin ica l uses of

hypnosis. 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 therapeutic

communication. 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 Scored by

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study of Hypnotic Age Regression Using The Rorschach Scored by

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Western Michigan University

Dissertations Graduate College

A Study of Hypnotic Age Regression Using the Rorschach Scored

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

Part of the Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy Commons

This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free

Scott William Trylch

Western Michigan University

RORSCHACH SCORED BY THE EXNER

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

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

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

fo r the six subjects in each group; three taking a preexperimental

waking Rorschach, and three a postexperimental te s t. The subjects in

th e ir respective hypnotic states in three practice sessions. All

subjects were administered a Rorschach in th e ir respective

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

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.

It 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 s ta tis tic a l power for detecting possible

The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an

4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic

Trylch, Scott William

A STUDY OF HYPNOTIC AGE REGRESSION USING THE RORSCHACH

Western Michigan University EdD . 1982

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 a v a ila b ility and willingness to give time in order to

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

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

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

arbitrating the differences. Lastly, I would lik e to thank Demetra

C ollia and Nancy O llila at the Western Michigan University Computer

Center for th eir 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

made this study possible.

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.

who couldn't understand where his master always went.

H. Percentage Agreement on In itia l Scoring fo r Experi

7. Mean Group Correspondence to Children's Age Norms During Ex