AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS
VOLUME 33, NUMBER I, JULY 1990
Hypnotic Age Regression and the Autokinetic Effect Eric J. Van Denburg Veterans Administration Lakeside Medical Center Based on research with children, we hypothesized that hypnotically age-regressed adult subjects would respond differentially across stimuli conditions on the autokinetic illusion. We assigned 18 highly susceptible subjects, assessed on the Harvard Group Susceptibility Scale, to one of three treatment groups: waking control, standard hypnotic induction, and age regression. Three target shapes, a control stimulus (circle), a representational stimulus (profile of a man), and a symbolic stimulus (cross) were presented. Results failed to show reinstatement of childlike performance on this perceptual illusion. The conceptual and empirical implications for future age-regression studies on memory, perception, and emotion are discussed.
While hypnotic age regression has impressive anecdotal evidence (Erickson & Kubie, 1941; Gill & Brenman, 1961), it has been difficult to demonstrate empirically that hypnotically age-regressed adults are functionally equivalent to children. Yates (1961) and Barber (1962) reviewed early studies, and concluded that while the "good" hypnotic subject vividly imagines he or she is a child, and behaves in a "childlike" manner, behavior on standard measures is often not cornpara-
ble to children. Orne and O'Connell (1961); O'Connell, Shor, & Orne, (1970); and Young (1940) also questioned the validity of hypnotic age regression. Later researchers improved on the methodology of early studies. Greenleaf (1969) examined subjects serving as their own control on developmental tasks under age regression and hypnotic simulation (Orne, 1959). He concluded age regression produces a "mixed," not total, regression but that age regression led to more vivid, childlike responses than simulation. Gard and Kurtz (1979) hypothesized age-regressed subjects would appear "younger" on cognitive tests than simulators. Results were opposite the predicted direction, although hypnotized and age-regressed subjects had more emotional shifts than simulators. Given current data, it may be impos-
For reprints write to Eric J. Van Denburg, Ph.D., Psychology Service, 116B, VA Lakeside Medical Center, 333 East Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60611. Received June 9, 1987; revised February 28, 1989; second revision July 5, 1989; accepted for publication March 12, 1990. 50
AGE REGRESSION AND THE AUTOKINETIC EFFECf
sible to reinstate "childlike" cognitions with age regression, although perceptions and feelings are childlike. Within the psychology of perception, effects of age regression on perceptual illusions have been studied. Parrish, Lundy, and Leibowitz (1969) found responses to the Ponzo and Poggendorff illusions among age-regressed subjects were comparable to children. Ascher, Barber, and Spanos (1972), however, failed to cross validate these results and noted marked variability in all subjects' responses to both illusions. Despite variability with the Ponzo and Poggendorff illusions, researchers have shown age changes with other illusions (e.g., Pressey & Wilson, 1978). Of relevance to this study, Borresen (1979) examined children's responses to the autokinetic illusion: the apparent movement of a stationary light in darkness. Several authors discuss variables affecting latency, direction, and extent of movement (Royce, Carran, Aftanas, Lehman, & Blumenthal, 1966; Levy, 1972); also of interest is meaningfulness of target shapes (Borresen, 1973, 1979; Toch, 1962). In Borresen's 1979 study, children in five age groups (4, 6, 8, 10, and 12) viewed stimuli of varying symbolic complexity: control (circle); geometrical (arrow); representational (car); and symbolic (cross). Although he found no differences in movement with the control stimulus as age increased, other stimuli led to decreased movement with increased age. These results may have occurred because young children have not learned the meaning of complex stimuli. As learning increases with age, such stimuli likely acquire meaning, lessen in ambiguity, and stabilize. This presumption is based on research on the retina of adults (Pritchard, 1961). Although simple figures (e.g., cir-
51
cles) vanish when the retina is stabilized, complex targets (e.g., facial profiles) disappear slowly or partially. Although Borresen's study is unreplicated, it provides a check on age regression: might age-regressed subjects, like children, respond differentially across stimuli on the autokinetic illusion? Specifically, it is predicted: (1) Age-regressed subjects will report more movement than non-age-regressed subjects on high-meaning targets (symbolicChristian cross; representational-human profile); (2) Age-regressed subjects will not differ from non-age-regressed subjects on a control target (circle). Method Subjects
Subjects were students at Washington University, recruited by notices for unpaid volunteers in a hypnosis study. As hypnotizability may be correlated with reports of autokinetic movement (Wallace & Garrett, 1973; Graham & Pernicano, 1979; Wallace, 1980), only highly susceptible subjects were used. All scored 9 or above on the Harvard Group Susceptibility Scale (HGSS) (Shor & Orne, 1962). The 18 highly susceptible subjects were from an original N of 50. In three groups there were three men and three women, the groups being: waking control (M HGSS = 10; SD = 1.1); standard hypnotic induction (M HGSS = 9.7; SD = .82); and hypnosis with age regression (M HGSS = 10; SD = .89). Subjects' ages ranged from 18-27 (M = 20.5; SD = 2.33). Apparatus
Subjects were tested individually in a 10 x 10 m. light-proofed room. The lighttight box containing the light source was flat black inside, measured 63.5 cm. high,
52
VAN DENBURG
45 cm. wide, and 77 cm. long, and was on a stand 1.4 m. in height. Three 7 1/2 watt bulbs provided light through the target cutout. The front panel had a 5 ern, round opening. The stimulus disc allowed light through the cutout as it rotated. Lights were operated by the experimenter behind the subject, who sat 1.8 m. from the panel, with his/her eyes level with the targets. Stimuli were a circle, Christian cross, and profile of a man facing left. Stimuli cutouts were approximately 3.8 sq. ern. in area.
Procedure Subjects entered the light-proofed room with lights on; they were told of the experiment and of the random group assignment. They were asked to sit for 3 minutes with eyes closed to achieve dark adaptation. The experimenter was aware of the study's hypotheses. He was a graduate student in clinical psychology with hypnosis training. Subjects were read the following: This is an experiment in the perception of the movement of light. When you are told to do so, you will open your eyes. You will then see immediately in front of you a relatively small target of light with a particular shape. You will look at that target shape and trace the movement of the light with this pencil on the pad of paper immediately in front of you. Before picking up the pencil, please feel the pad with your hand. Notice the smooth bump in the center (a thumbtack). I would like you to use that bump as a reference point to represent the original apparent position of the point of light as you see it. So, if you see the light move to the left, trace from the center bump to the left of the paper. When the light is turned off, please stop your tracing until the next target of light is presented. Are there any questions?
For controls, to equalize conditions, they were asked to sit for a period equal to the hypnosis + age regression subjects. Lights were then turned out, it was requested eyes be opened, and stimuli were presented randomly three times for 30 seconds. The standard hypnosis group sat for the same period as age-regression subjects to equalize conditions. A taped induction from the Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale for Adults (SHCS: Adult) followed (Morgan & Hilgard, 1978/1979). The subject was given two suggestions (Move hands together & lower hand held out) to increase hypnotic depth. Lights were then turned out, it was requested eyes be opened, and stimuli were presented. For age-regression subjects, the same taped induction was used, followed by ageregression suggestions of Greenleaf (1969) with subjects told to regress to 7. After suggestions, subjects were told to open their eyes, write their names, and tell their age. Changes in appearance, writing style, and questions about being 7 were used to assess age regression. All age-regressed subjects reported being 7, had changes in writing (more primitive compared to a prior sample), and recalled many details of second grade. With age regression ensured, lights were turned out, it was requested eyes be opened, and stimuli were presented. Results Overall results were not in the predicted direction. To support the hypotheses as stated, an interaction effect of a 3 X 3 ANOVA would have had to occur, and it did not F(4,153) = .336, p < .853. The ANOVA failed to reveal a main effect for groups F(2,153) = 1.703, p < .186. There was, however, a significant main effect across groups in perceived movement of the target shapes, F(2,153)
AGE REGRESSION AND THE AUTOKINETIC EFFECT = 3.17,p < .045. A Duncan's Multiple Range Test showed differences across targets with the standard hypnotic induction group's response to the circle (M = 43.6), the age regression group's response to the circle (M = 42.6), and the waking control group's response to the cross (M 18.3).
Discussion Contrary to predictions, hypnotically age-regressed subjects did not differ from hypnotized or control subjects in perceived movement on the symbolic (cross) or representational (man) targets. There were, however, significant differences across groups in perceived target movement. As seen in Table 1, illusion responsiveness was characterized by high variability. There are two ways of viewing the results: methodological and conceptual. The null results could be due to flaws in methodology. For example, a larger N, better checks of hypnotic susceptibility, other measures of autokinetic movement, use of simulators, and replicating Borreson's work might have altered the findings. Conceptually, if results are accepted, the Table 1 Mean Perceived Movement in mm by Groups on Autokinetic Stimuli Targets Targets Groups
Circle
Cross
Man
Waking Control
32.2 (28.1) 43.6 (42.0) 42.6 (34.7)
18.3 (12.6) 34.7 (37.2) 32.7 (27.7)
24.4)
Hypnosis Age Regression
(21.3)
25.7 (32.8) 26.2 (26.2)
Note. Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.
53
study shows the problem reinstating childlike functioning with age regression. Nash (1987) notes this problem occurs frequently, and as methodology improves, positive findings decrease. Difficulties producing shifts with age regression may be due to overlearning (Hilgard, 1970) or neurological changes (Barber, 1979). Or, difficulties may be in conceptual confusion, or being overly literal. For example, in this study it was suggested age-regressed subjects "will really be 7." Simply because we say this and the subject acts as if 7, does not mean he is 7, or even that he believes he is 7, in the way that he believes in gravity. However, his age-regressed experience may lead to childlike behavior, and freer access to images and feelings. Attempts at replicating childlike performance to prove the "reality" of age regression may be misguided. Instead, what is clinically relevant in age regression are experiential and affective phenomena. Clinicians do not assume patients are again children in a literal sense. Rather, hypnotic age regression is a means of increasing the vividness of a childhood experience. This study, like others (e.g., Page, 1985), tried to show literal, objective shifts. In contrast, Nash (1987, 1988) and with his colleagues (Nash, Drake, Wiley, Khalsa & Lynn, 1986) urge that we drop the claim that age regression literally reinstates childhood processes. Nash (1987) suggests: "Hypnotic age regression may be of the same ilk as hypnotic age progression or past-life regression: It elicits a profoundly believed-in experience that may have important diagnostic and therapeutic properties and may, because it is hypnosis, involve a different mode of processing information (e.g., primary
54 process mentation), but it does not seem to involve a bonafide return to or reinstatement of childhood" (p.SO). References Ascher, L., Barber, T., & Spanos, N. (1972). Two attempts to replicate the Parrish-LundyLeibowitz experiment on hypnotic age regression. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 14, 178-185. Barber, T. (1962). Hypnotic age regression: A critical review. Psychosomatic Medicine, 24, 286-299. Barber, T. (1979). In E. Fromm & R. Shor (Eds.) Hypnosis: Developments and new perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Aldine. Borresen, C. (1973). Autokinetic movement as a function of the implied movement of target shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97, 89-92. Borresen, C. (1979). Children's autokinetic movement as a function of inferred movement of target shape. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 235-240. Erickson, M. & Kubie, L. (1941). The successful treatment of a case of acute hysterical depression by a return under hypnosis to a critical phase of childhood. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 10, 592-609. Gard, B. & Kurtz, R. (1979). Hypnotic age regression and cognitive perceptual tasks. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 21, 270-277. Gill, M. & Brenman, M. (1961). Hypnosis and related states: Psychoanalytic studies in regression. New York: International Universities Press. Graham, K. & Pernicano, K. (1979). Laterality, hypnosis, and the autokinetic effect. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 22, 79-84. Greenleaf, E. (1969). Developmental-state regression through hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 12, 20-36. Hilgard, J. (1970). Personality and hypnosis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levy, J. (1972). Autokinetic illusion: A systematic review of theories, measures, and
VAN DENBURG
independent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 78, 457-474. Morgan, A. & Hilgard, E. (1978/1979). The Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale for Adults. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 21, 134-147. Nash, M. (1987). What, if anything is regressed about hypnotic age regression? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 42-52. Nash, M. (1988). Hypnosis as a window on regression. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 52, 383-403. Nash, M., Drake, S., Wiley, S., Khalsa, S., & Lynn, S. (1986). The accuracy of recall by hypnotically age regressed subjects. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 95, 298-300. O'Connell, D., Shor, R., & Orne, M. (1970). Hypnotic age regression: An empirical and methodological analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology Monograph, 76, (3, pt. 2). Orne, M. (1959). The nature of hypnosis: Artifact and essence. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 277-299. Orne, M. & O'Connell, D. (1961). Age regression by hypnosis (Review of R. Reiff & M. Scheerer, Memory and hypnotic age regression: Developmental aspects of cognitive function explored through hypnosis.] Contemporary Psychology, 6, 70-72. Page, R. (1985). Hypnotic age regression and moral reasoning. Journal ofPsychology, 119, (1), 71-80. Parrish, M., Lundy, R., & Leibowitz, H. (1969). Hypnotic age regression and magnitudes of the Ponzo and Poggendorff illusions. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 74, 693-698. Pressey, A. & Wilson, A. (1978). Another look at age changes in geometric illusions. Bulletin ofthe Psychonomic Society, 12,333336. Pritchard, R. (1961). Stabilized images on the retina. Scientific American, June, 680-687. Royce, J., Carran, A., Aftanas, M., Lehman, R., & Blumenthal, A. (1966). The autokinetic phenomenon: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 65, 243-260.
AGE REGRESSION AND THE AUTOKINETIC EFFECT
Shor, R. & Orne, E. (1962). The Harvard Group Scale ofHypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Toch, H. (1962). The effects of "meaning" on the autokinetic illusion. American Journal of Psychology, 75,605-611. Wallace, B. (1980). Autokinetic movement of an imagined and an hypnotically hallucinated stimulus. International Journal of
55
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 28, 386-393. Wallace, B. & Garrett, J. (1973). Hypnotic susceptibility and autokinetic movement frequency. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 36, 1054. Yates, A. (1961). Hypnotic age regression. Psychological Bulletin, 58, 429-440. Young, P. (1940). Hypnotic age regression Fact or artifact? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 35,273-278.
VOLUME 33, NUMBER I, JULY 1990
Hypnotic Age Regression and the Autokinetic Effect Eric J. Van Denburg Veterans Administration Lakeside Medical Center Based on research with children, we hypothesized that hypnotically age-regressed adult subjects would respond differentially across stimuli conditions on the autokinetic illusion. We assigned 18 highly susceptible subjects, assessed on the Harvard Group Susceptibility Scale, to one of three treatment groups: waking control, standard hypnotic induction, and age regression. Three target shapes, a control stimulus (circle), a representational stimulus (profile of a man), and a symbolic stimulus (cross) were presented. Results failed to show reinstatement of childlike performance on this perceptual illusion. The conceptual and empirical implications for future age-regression studies on memory, perception, and emotion are discussed.
While hypnotic age regression has impressive anecdotal evidence (Erickson & Kubie, 1941; Gill & Brenman, 1961), it has been difficult to demonstrate empirically that hypnotically age-regressed adults are functionally equivalent to children. Yates (1961) and Barber (1962) reviewed early studies, and concluded that while the "good" hypnotic subject vividly imagines he or she is a child, and behaves in a "childlike" manner, behavior on standard measures is often not cornpara-
ble to children. Orne and O'Connell (1961); O'Connell, Shor, & Orne, (1970); and Young (1940) also questioned the validity of hypnotic age regression. Later researchers improved on the methodology of early studies. Greenleaf (1969) examined subjects serving as their own control on developmental tasks under age regression and hypnotic simulation (Orne, 1959). He concluded age regression produces a "mixed," not total, regression but that age regression led to more vivid, childlike responses than simulation. Gard and Kurtz (1979) hypothesized age-regressed subjects would appear "younger" on cognitive tests than simulators. Results were opposite the predicted direction, although hypnotized and age-regressed subjects had more emotional shifts than simulators. Given current data, it may be impos-
For reprints write to Eric J. Van Denburg, Ph.D., Psychology Service, 116B, VA Lakeside Medical Center, 333 East Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60611. Received June 9, 1987; revised February 28, 1989; second revision July 5, 1989; accepted for publication March 12, 1990. 50
AGE REGRESSION AND THE AUTOKINETIC EFFECf
sible to reinstate "childlike" cognitions with age regression, although perceptions and feelings are childlike. Within the psychology of perception, effects of age regression on perceptual illusions have been studied. Parrish, Lundy, and Leibowitz (1969) found responses to the Ponzo and Poggendorff illusions among age-regressed subjects were comparable to children. Ascher, Barber, and Spanos (1972), however, failed to cross validate these results and noted marked variability in all subjects' responses to both illusions. Despite variability with the Ponzo and Poggendorff illusions, researchers have shown age changes with other illusions (e.g., Pressey & Wilson, 1978). Of relevance to this study, Borresen (1979) examined children's responses to the autokinetic illusion: the apparent movement of a stationary light in darkness. Several authors discuss variables affecting latency, direction, and extent of movement (Royce, Carran, Aftanas, Lehman, & Blumenthal, 1966; Levy, 1972); also of interest is meaningfulness of target shapes (Borresen, 1973, 1979; Toch, 1962). In Borresen's 1979 study, children in five age groups (4, 6, 8, 10, and 12) viewed stimuli of varying symbolic complexity: control (circle); geometrical (arrow); representational (car); and symbolic (cross). Although he found no differences in movement with the control stimulus as age increased, other stimuli led to decreased movement with increased age. These results may have occurred because young children have not learned the meaning of complex stimuli. As learning increases with age, such stimuli likely acquire meaning, lessen in ambiguity, and stabilize. This presumption is based on research on the retina of adults (Pritchard, 1961). Although simple figures (e.g., cir-
51
cles) vanish when the retina is stabilized, complex targets (e.g., facial profiles) disappear slowly or partially. Although Borresen's study is unreplicated, it provides a check on age regression: might age-regressed subjects, like children, respond differentially across stimuli on the autokinetic illusion? Specifically, it is predicted: (1) Age-regressed subjects will report more movement than non-age-regressed subjects on high-meaning targets (symbolicChristian cross; representational-human profile); (2) Age-regressed subjects will not differ from non-age-regressed subjects on a control target (circle). Method Subjects
Subjects were students at Washington University, recruited by notices for unpaid volunteers in a hypnosis study. As hypnotizability may be correlated with reports of autokinetic movement (Wallace & Garrett, 1973; Graham & Pernicano, 1979; Wallace, 1980), only highly susceptible subjects were used. All scored 9 or above on the Harvard Group Susceptibility Scale (HGSS) (Shor & Orne, 1962). The 18 highly susceptible subjects were from an original N of 50. In three groups there were three men and three women, the groups being: waking control (M HGSS = 10; SD = 1.1); standard hypnotic induction (M HGSS = 9.7; SD = .82); and hypnosis with age regression (M HGSS = 10; SD = .89). Subjects' ages ranged from 18-27 (M = 20.5; SD = 2.33). Apparatus
Subjects were tested individually in a 10 x 10 m. light-proofed room. The lighttight box containing the light source was flat black inside, measured 63.5 cm. high,
52
VAN DENBURG
45 cm. wide, and 77 cm. long, and was on a stand 1.4 m. in height. Three 7 1/2 watt bulbs provided light through the target cutout. The front panel had a 5 ern, round opening. The stimulus disc allowed light through the cutout as it rotated. Lights were operated by the experimenter behind the subject, who sat 1.8 m. from the panel, with his/her eyes level with the targets. Stimuli were a circle, Christian cross, and profile of a man facing left. Stimuli cutouts were approximately 3.8 sq. ern. in area.
Procedure Subjects entered the light-proofed room with lights on; they were told of the experiment and of the random group assignment. They were asked to sit for 3 minutes with eyes closed to achieve dark adaptation. The experimenter was aware of the study's hypotheses. He was a graduate student in clinical psychology with hypnosis training. Subjects were read the following: This is an experiment in the perception of the movement of light. When you are told to do so, you will open your eyes. You will then see immediately in front of you a relatively small target of light with a particular shape. You will look at that target shape and trace the movement of the light with this pencil on the pad of paper immediately in front of you. Before picking up the pencil, please feel the pad with your hand. Notice the smooth bump in the center (a thumbtack). I would like you to use that bump as a reference point to represent the original apparent position of the point of light as you see it. So, if you see the light move to the left, trace from the center bump to the left of the paper. When the light is turned off, please stop your tracing until the next target of light is presented. Are there any questions?
For controls, to equalize conditions, they were asked to sit for a period equal to the hypnosis + age regression subjects. Lights were then turned out, it was requested eyes be opened, and stimuli were presented randomly three times for 30 seconds. The standard hypnosis group sat for the same period as age-regression subjects to equalize conditions. A taped induction from the Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale for Adults (SHCS: Adult) followed (Morgan & Hilgard, 1978/1979). The subject was given two suggestions (Move hands together & lower hand held out) to increase hypnotic depth. Lights were then turned out, it was requested eyes be opened, and stimuli were presented. For age-regression subjects, the same taped induction was used, followed by ageregression suggestions of Greenleaf (1969) with subjects told to regress to 7. After suggestions, subjects were told to open their eyes, write their names, and tell their age. Changes in appearance, writing style, and questions about being 7 were used to assess age regression. All age-regressed subjects reported being 7, had changes in writing (more primitive compared to a prior sample), and recalled many details of second grade. With age regression ensured, lights were turned out, it was requested eyes be opened, and stimuli were presented. Results Overall results were not in the predicted direction. To support the hypotheses as stated, an interaction effect of a 3 X 3 ANOVA would have had to occur, and it did not F(4,153) = .336, p < .853. The ANOVA failed to reveal a main effect for groups F(2,153) = 1.703, p < .186. There was, however, a significant main effect across groups in perceived movement of the target shapes, F(2,153)
AGE REGRESSION AND THE AUTOKINETIC EFFECT = 3.17,p < .045. A Duncan's Multiple Range Test showed differences across targets with the standard hypnotic induction group's response to the circle (M = 43.6), the age regression group's response to the circle (M = 42.6), and the waking control group's response to the cross (M 18.3).
Discussion Contrary to predictions, hypnotically age-regressed subjects did not differ from hypnotized or control subjects in perceived movement on the symbolic (cross) or representational (man) targets. There were, however, significant differences across groups in perceived target movement. As seen in Table 1, illusion responsiveness was characterized by high variability. There are two ways of viewing the results: methodological and conceptual. The null results could be due to flaws in methodology. For example, a larger N, better checks of hypnotic susceptibility, other measures of autokinetic movement, use of simulators, and replicating Borreson's work might have altered the findings. Conceptually, if results are accepted, the Table 1 Mean Perceived Movement in mm by Groups on Autokinetic Stimuli Targets Targets Groups
Circle
Cross
Man
Waking Control
32.2 (28.1) 43.6 (42.0) 42.6 (34.7)
18.3 (12.6) 34.7 (37.2) 32.7 (27.7)
24.4)
Hypnosis Age Regression
(21.3)
25.7 (32.8) 26.2 (26.2)
Note. Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.
53
study shows the problem reinstating childlike functioning with age regression. Nash (1987) notes this problem occurs frequently, and as methodology improves, positive findings decrease. Difficulties producing shifts with age regression may be due to overlearning (Hilgard, 1970) or neurological changes (Barber, 1979). Or, difficulties may be in conceptual confusion, or being overly literal. For example, in this study it was suggested age-regressed subjects "will really be 7." Simply because we say this and the subject acts as if 7, does not mean he is 7, or even that he believes he is 7, in the way that he believes in gravity. However, his age-regressed experience may lead to childlike behavior, and freer access to images and feelings. Attempts at replicating childlike performance to prove the "reality" of age regression may be misguided. Instead, what is clinically relevant in age regression are experiential and affective phenomena. Clinicians do not assume patients are again children in a literal sense. Rather, hypnotic age regression is a means of increasing the vividness of a childhood experience. This study, like others (e.g., Page, 1985), tried to show literal, objective shifts. In contrast, Nash (1987, 1988) and with his colleagues (Nash, Drake, Wiley, Khalsa & Lynn, 1986) urge that we drop the claim that age regression literally reinstates childhood processes. Nash (1987) suggests: "Hypnotic age regression may be of the same ilk as hypnotic age progression or past-life regression: It elicits a profoundly believed-in experience that may have important diagnostic and therapeutic properties and may, because it is hypnosis, involve a different mode of processing information (e.g., primary
54 process mentation), but it does not seem to involve a bonafide return to or reinstatement of childhood" (p.SO). References Ascher, L., Barber, T., & Spanos, N. (1972). Two attempts to replicate the Parrish-LundyLeibowitz experiment on hypnotic age regression. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 14, 178-185. Barber, T. (1962). Hypnotic age regression: A critical review. Psychosomatic Medicine, 24, 286-299. Barber, T. (1979). In E. Fromm & R. Shor (Eds.) Hypnosis: Developments and new perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Aldine. Borresen, C. (1973). Autokinetic movement as a function of the implied movement of target shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97, 89-92. Borresen, C. (1979). Children's autokinetic movement as a function of inferred movement of target shape. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 235-240. Erickson, M. & Kubie, L. (1941). The successful treatment of a case of acute hysterical depression by a return under hypnosis to a critical phase of childhood. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 10, 592-609. Gard, B. & Kurtz, R. (1979). Hypnotic age regression and cognitive perceptual tasks. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 21, 270-277. Gill, M. & Brenman, M. (1961). Hypnosis and related states: Psychoanalytic studies in regression. New York: International Universities Press. Graham, K. & Pernicano, K. (1979). Laterality, hypnosis, and the autokinetic effect. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 22, 79-84. Greenleaf, E. (1969). Developmental-state regression through hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 12, 20-36. Hilgard, J. (1970). Personality and hypnosis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levy, J. (1972). Autokinetic illusion: A systematic review of theories, measures, and
VAN DENBURG
independent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 78, 457-474. Morgan, A. & Hilgard, E. (1978/1979). The Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale for Adults. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 21, 134-147. Nash, M. (1987). What, if anything is regressed about hypnotic age regression? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 42-52. Nash, M. (1988). Hypnosis as a window on regression. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 52, 383-403. Nash, M., Drake, S., Wiley, S., Khalsa, S., & Lynn, S. (1986). The accuracy of recall by hypnotically age regressed subjects. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 95, 298-300. O'Connell, D., Shor, R., & Orne, M. (1970). Hypnotic age regression: An empirical and methodological analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology Monograph, 76, (3, pt. 2). Orne, M. (1959). The nature of hypnosis: Artifact and essence. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 277-299. Orne, M. & O'Connell, D. (1961). Age regression by hypnosis (Review of R. Reiff & M. Scheerer, Memory and hypnotic age regression: Developmental aspects of cognitive function explored through hypnosis.] Contemporary Psychology, 6, 70-72. Page, R. (1985). Hypnotic age regression and moral reasoning. Journal ofPsychology, 119, (1), 71-80. Parrish, M., Lundy, R., & Leibowitz, H. (1969). Hypnotic age regression and magnitudes of the Ponzo and Poggendorff illusions. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 74, 693-698. Pressey, A. & Wilson, A. (1978). Another look at age changes in geometric illusions. Bulletin ofthe Psychonomic Society, 12,333336. Pritchard, R. (1961). Stabilized images on the retina. Scientific American, June, 680-687. Royce, J., Carran, A., Aftanas, M., Lehman, R., & Blumenthal, A. (1966). The autokinetic phenomenon: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 65, 243-260.
AGE REGRESSION AND THE AUTOKINETIC EFFECT
Shor, R. & Orne, E. (1962). The Harvard Group Scale ofHypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Toch, H. (1962). The effects of "meaning" on the autokinetic illusion. American Journal of Psychology, 75,605-611. Wallace, B. (1980). Autokinetic movement of an imagined and an hypnotically hallucinated stimulus. International Journal of
55
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 28, 386-393. Wallace, B. & Garrett, J. (1973). Hypnotic susceptibility and autokinetic movement frequency. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 36, 1054. Yates, A. (1961). Hypnotic age regression. Psychological Bulletin, 58, 429-440. Young, P. (1940). Hypnotic age regression Fact or artifact? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 35,273-278.
