Citation
The effects on inkblot barrier scores of different levels of body awareness during body stimulation exercises

Material Information

Title:
The effects on inkblot barrier scores of different levels of body awareness during body stimulation exercises
Creator:
Smith, Gary Gragg, 1944-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 126 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Adjectives ( jstor )
Anxiety ( jstor )
Bodily awareness ( jstor )
Body image ( jstor )
Definiteness ( jstor )
Exercise ( jstor )
Gestalt therapy ( jstor )
Philosophical psychology ( jstor )
Sex linked differences ( jstor )
Somatosensory perception ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF ( lcsh )
Gestalt therapy ( lcsh )
Holtzman inkblot technique ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Psychotherapy ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 120-124.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Gary Gragg Smith.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
025842891 ( ALEPH )
03392902 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












THE EFFECTS ON INKBLOT BARRIER SCORES OF
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF BODY AWARENESS
DURING BODY STIMULATION EXERCISES












By

GARY GRAGG SMITH


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF'FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY












UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1977

























Copyright by
Gary Gragg Smith
1977







































To Ellen















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


I wish to express my deepest appreciation to

Dr. Vernon Van De Riet, the chairman of my supervisory committee. He has been tremendously supportive and helpful during the course of an arduous project.

I also wish to thank Dr. Jacquelin Goldman, whose involvement and personal encouragement have been great assets to me in carrying out this study. I thank Dr. Harry Grater, Dr. Marilyn Zweig, and Dr. Robert Isaacson for their assistance and their stimulating ideas.

I am grateful to Dr. Seymour Fisher, whose work in body image has helped open up an exciting area of psychological theory and research. I thank him also for scoring the inkblot records for this dissertation.

I would also like to thank Dr. Hugh Davis for his kind cooperation and assistance.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......... ................... iv

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

ABSTRACT ............ ...................... ix

Chapter

I. THE BACKGROUND AND FOCUS OF THE STUDY .... 1

Introduction. ....................... . 1
Philosophical Context of the
Concept of Body Image ..... ......... 3
Early Psychological Theorists and
Body Image . ....... ............. 1-0
The Body Boundary .... ............ 13
Boundary and Psychological Treatment 24 The Focus of the Present Study ..... 31 II. METHOD ........... ...... . ......... 42

Subjects ...... ................ 42
Measures .......... .......... 42
Procedures ....... .............. 44
Experimental Sessions .. .......... 45
Scoring . ....... .. ......... 54

III. RESULTS ........ ................... 57

Effects of Treatment and Sex . ...... 57 IV. DISCUSSION ........ .... ........... ...83

Boundary Measures .... ............ 83
Affect Measures: AACL and Semantic
Differential ........ ........ ...93
Correlational Results ... .......... 99

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .... ............ 106












TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued


Appendices Page

A. INKBLOT SERIES X, Y AND Z, COMPILED
FROM HIT FORMS A AND B .... ........... 113

B. AFFECT ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST .. ......... 114

C. SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL CHECK LIST ........ 115

D. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF
PSYCHOLOGY CONSENT FORM .... ........... 118

E. QUIZ ON ARTICLES HEARD BY GROUP II ...... 119 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......... .................... 120

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ....... ................. 125
















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. List of Variables and Their Abbreviations . 58

2. Means and Standard Deviations of Barrier
and Penetration Pretest and Change
Scores .. ...... ................ 59

3. Means and Standard Deviations of Affect
Adjective Check List and Semantic
Differential Pretest and Change
Scores ....... .................. 61

4. Means and Standard Deviations of Posttest
and Followup Scores .... ............ 65

5. Results of the Analyses of Variance ..... 67

6. Comparisons of Barrier Change2 Means of
Each Experimental Group with the Barrier
Change2 Mean of the Control Group . . . . . 70

7. Sign Test Analyses of Barrier Score Changes
from Pretest to Posttest (BCl) and from
Pretest to Followup (BC2) for Each
Group Individually .... ............ 71

8. A Posteriori Analyses of Significant
Interaction Effects on Change
Scores ....... .................. 73

9. Significant Sex Differences on Pretest
and Change Scores .... ............. 74

10. Correlations Between the Measures at Pretest, Posttest and Followup Where
at Least One of the Three Is
Significant ...... ................ 76


vii











LIST OF TABLES--Continued


Table Page

11. Significant Correlations of Pretest,Barrier
and Penetration Scores to Affect Adjective
Check List and Semantic Differential Change Scores Computed for the Total Sample (N=96), for Males (N=48) and
for Females (N=48) ... ............ 77

12. Significant Correlations of Pretest Affect Adjective Check List and Semantic
Differential Scores to Barrier and Penetration Change Scores Computed
for the Total Sample and for Each Sex . . . 79

13. Significant Correlations of Pretest Barrier and Penetration Scores to Affect Adjective
Check List and Semantic Differential
Pretest and Change Scores Computed Within
Treatment Groups .... ............. 80

14. Significant Correlations of Pretest Affect Adjective Check List and Semantic
Differential Scores to Barrier and Penetration Change Scores Computed
Within Treatment Groups .. .......... 82


viii













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



THE EFFECTS ON INKBLOT BARRIER SCORES OF
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF BODY AWARENESS
DURING BODY STIMULATION EXERCISES



By

Gary Gragg Smith

June, 1977



Chairman: Vernon Van De Riet Major Department: Psychology


Previous studies have shown that attention to the

body's peripheries can augment body boundary definiteness, as measured by increases in inkblot Barrier Scores. It has not been clear whether Barrier increases would occur as a function of physical stimulation per se, independently of level of attention to the body. In the present study it was hypothesized that attention is the effective factor in such experiments, and that Barrier scores would increase differentially as a function of various levels of attention to the body during physical exercises.

Twelve male and twelve female subjects participated in each of four treatment groups: a "non-body" control; a task-oriented "outward attention" condition; a "body ix










stimulation only" condition; and a "Gestalt" condition. The experimental conditions represented a hierarchy of levels of body awareness with the Gestalt group representing the highest level. All experimental groups participated in the same physical exercises. Subjects were seen in small groups of both sexes.

Holtzman inkblot records were taken pre-treatment, post-treatment, and 48 hours following treatment. Barrier and Penetration scores were obtained. Other measures were the Affect Adjective Check List and Semantic Differential Scales rating "This Experiment" and "My Mood Right Now." Change scores from pretest to posttest and pretest to followup were analyzed for treatment and sex effects on all variables.

The hypothesis that all experimental groups would show greater mean Barrier increases than the control at posttest was not confirmed. No groups increased significantly. The hypothesis that only the Gestalt group would show a significant mean Barrier increase at followup also was not confirmed. Males in the "outward attention" condition showed a significant mean increase. This was interpreted in terms of sex differences regarding the relationship of achievement drive to boundary definiteness. No other group showed a significant mean increase in Barrier. However, a sign test on Barrier scores in the Gestalt group showed a significantly high proportion of increases from pretest to followup.








In the Gestalt group, males generally decreased in

positive affect from pretest to followup, while females increased in positive affect. This was interpreted in terms of sex differences in attitudes toward body awareness.

In all groups, from pretest to posttest, males increased and females decreased on measures of the Activity of their own mood and the Activity of the experiment. Males decreased and females increased in evaluation of their own mood. From pre to followup, males increased and females decreased on the measure of Potency of one's own mood.

Barrier scores correlated significantly and positively with Penetration scores at pretest and posttest. At pretest, Barrier scores correlated significantly and negatively with Hostility and with ratings of the experiment's Activity and Potency.

It was concluded that incremental levels of body

awareness did not produce differential effects on Barrier scores. However, the sign test results within the Gestalt group and the significant mean Barrier increase among males in the outward attention group call for further investigation of possible lasting or delayed effects on Barrier scores of brief experimental procedures.

It was also concluded that females responded with

increased positive affect and males with decreased positive affect to the body awareness procedures in the Gestalt condition. It was felt that this result has important implications for body therapies.















CHAPTER I


THE BACKGROUND AND FOCUS OF THE STUDY


Introduction

This study is concerned with an area that has historically received little experimental attention--the relationship of body sensation to psychological functioning. More specifically, it is an experimental exploration of the effects of different "levels of body awareness" on inkblot Barrier scores, a measure of body boundary definiteness which has shown relationships with numerous personality indices.

This kind of research is important from two perspectives. First, it has the potential to add to existing knowledge accumulated by basic research in body image, specifically that concerning the "boundary" aspect of body experience. It might also provide data which would further refine the current view of the meaning and utility of the Barrier score itself.

Secondly, the research has relevance to psychotherapy and counseling. A number of therapeutic approaches have been developed by psychoanalytically oriented and "third force" psychologists which utilize techniques directly involving the body or which emphasize the
1











importance of body awareness and body-boundary definiteness. Examples of these, respectively, are Des Lauriers' (1962) psychoanalytically based techniques for body boundary enhancement in schizophrenics, and the body awareness techniques of Gestalt therapy. There has been little empirical investigation into the efficacy of these methods though there is literature containing a good deal of theoretical speculation and many clinical vignettes illustrating the role of attention to body sensations in therapy.

Gestalt therapy is perhaps the most influential and widely accepted of the "body therapies," though it is by no means limited in theory and technique to body concerns. In fact, Gestalt therapy offers a world view--a global, holistic theory that is applicable to social and environmental thinking as well as to psychotherapy (e.g., Perls, Hefferline, and Goodman, 1951; Rozak, 1968). Yet at its core is a call to "return to the senses," to return to organismic self-regulation. An emphasis on awareness of body feelings and sensations underlies the theory throughout. Levitsky and Perls (1970) believe such bodily awareness "constitutes our most--perhaps our only--certain knowledge."

The present study has to do with the effects on body boundary definiteness of attention to sensations from the skin and muscles. A guiding hypothesis is that some of the techniques of Gestalt therapy serve to augment









3
1
body-boundary definiteness. This is seen as a result of a combination of two factors: the active involvement of the body itself and the attitude toward body experience that is fostered by Gestalt therapy. Before an explicit presentation of the proposed study is made, it is worthwhile to discuss the historical background and context of "body image." The concept has not long been viable in the world of personality theorists, and it lacks clear definition. What is remarkable is that it has developed at all, given the philosophical biases generally prevalent in American psychological research.

Philosophical Context of the

Concept of Body Image

As Fisher and Cleveland (1968) point out, personality theory today reflects a philosophical heritage that has effectively excluded the individual's experience of his body as a personality variable. About the only consideration the body has traditionally received is as a physiological system which is the source of "needs" and "drives."

Hanna (1971) elaborates on this philosophical heritage. He takes an evolutionary point of view, saying that human cultural development has been characterized by a predominantly assimilative mode of adaptation to the environment. Conscious, rational abilities developed in humans as a means


iThe full meaning of "body-boundary definiteness" is discussed at a later point.









4
to control and tame the environment. In the process, consciousness came to be emphasized as the distinguishing attribute of humans, and philosophers and theologians emphasized "mind" and "spirit" in their attempts to define human beings. Bodies, including those of humans, were relegated to the lower status of matter. Thus, by identifying self with "mind," we long overlooked the body as part of our essential humanness. On the other hand, modern science and technology, developing from a base of philosophical empiricism and positivism, have all but eliminated a concept of mind. Objectivism is their functional attitude in an ever more refined effort to investigate and control the physical environment. For objectivism, the body has become but another object to be studied and manipulated in a world "out there," an orientation that has further alienated people from their "somatic being."

Thus, one can see a great separation in the development of the physiological and biological sciences from that of the study of personality. Psychology, in an effort to be objectively scientific, has developed a strong tradition of behaviorism. This movement, with its elimination of reports of experience as valid data, has created an extremely unfavorable climate for investigations of body experience. In this context, it is quite understandable that personality theorists " have failed to work out any but the simplest formulations regarding how the









5

individual organizes his perception of his own body and how these perceptions affect his behavior" (Fisher and Cleveland, 1968, p. v).

The work of some phenomenological philosophers,

concerned with the questions of being and consciousness, has made "embodiment" a central concept. The work of Marcel and Merleau-Ponty has relatively recently begun to influence directly or indirectly psychological theory and research. Some of this research will be reviewed later. The thinking of psychoanalytic theorists has been another stimulus for much of this work, and it will also be discussed later.


Gabriel Marcel

Gabriel Marcel was perhaps the first philosopher

(in 1914) to consider the body as a "central datum, to be investigated for its own sake and in its own terms, in terms of one's own experience of his body" (Zaner, 1964). Marcel sees "my body qua mine" as the axis of all metaphysics. For him the fundamental question of metaphysics is "Who, or what am I?"--and the answer at root is "I am my body."

Marcel arrives at this by means of what he calls

"second reflection," a mode of investigation that gets to the level of "'the concrete and personal I,' the 'man of flesh and bone,' the 'I exist' in its indecomposable unity" (Zaner, 1964, p. 9). Science, in its concern with objective











validity, stays at the level of "first reflection"; the scientist forgets himself for the sake of his work, attempting to maintain anonymity in order to discover objective laws. While this orientation is fruitful in the investigation of the physical world, first reflection is not adequate to deal with problems of the self. Insofar as the self is taken as an object or problem, "one will have missed precisely what one set out to discover" (Zaner). The self is necessarily "myself," and for me, my self, my existence, cannot be an object. It therefore must be approached from within, which is what second reflection does. For Marcel, an affirmation of existence is not "I think, not even I live, but I experience " (Marcel, 1940; quoted in Zaner).

Reflection on experience reveals that to exist is

not just to exist "for myself," but that "I manifest myself," and this manifestation is actualized by the body. In consciousness, we can either regard the body as an instrument, in which case it becomes an object--a datum in space--or we can apprehend it internally through bodily sensations. The latter reveals the body as subject, wherein it is bound up with consciousness, feeling, and participation in the world. The ground for this participation is being-embodied--"my body qua mine."

To be embodied is also to be exposed to the world-to be present to the world. My "being-to-the world" is my











embodiment. "As embodied, not only do I become able to engage myself in the world by means of bodily activities, I also and just because of that, open myself to the world's actions on me. I partake of the world by means of my fundamental sentir which connects me to my body, and by means

(of) that, to the world itself" (Zaner, p. 41).

The body is thus, "in sympathy with things . . I

am really attached to and really adhere to all that exists-to the universe which is my universe and whose center is my body" (Quoted in Zaner, p. 42). As will be seen later, these notions anticipated certain formulations of Gestalt therapy, which sees the self as a moment in the total environmental field.

To Marcel the relationship of the body to the world is not an objective one then, wherein objects are perceived by consciousness in some mediated fashion via messages from "outside" to "inside." Rather the body is the primary felt base of all experience of the world. It is in terms of our embodied participation in the world that "I am my body."


Maurice Merleau-Ponty

Maurice Merleau-Ponty states that he has "tried,

first of all, to re-establish the roots of the mind in its body and in its world, going against doctrines which treat perception as a simple result of the action of external things on our body as well as against those which insist on the autonomy of consciousness. These philosophies











commonly forget--in favor of a pure exteriority or of a pure interiority--the insertion of the mind in corporeality, the ambiguous relation which we entertain with our body, and, correlatively, with perceived things" (1969, p. 368). It is the investigation of these relations which has "initiated us to the truth"; he, like Marcel, was concerned with being--an ontology of human existence, and he saw "embodiment" as the fundamental problem in this endeavor.

Also like Marcel, for Merleau-Ponty the body is our "being to the world." "Etre-au-monde forms the matrix in which both physical-physiological and psychical processes are concretely united, lived as a single current" (translated and quoted from Phenomenologie de la Perception [1945] by Zaner, 1964, p. 147). Consciousness is always lived, experienced from moment to moment as engaged in the world, that is, embodied.

From this shared ground with Marcel--that consciousness is founded on the body as lived--Merleau-Ponty develops a theory of the nature of the transactions of the body and the world, which is also a theory of perception; and because for him it is the same as perception, a theory of consciousness. The body, as experienced by the one whose body it is, is "'a decisive moment in the genesis of the objective world.' That is to say, it is that in virtue of which there are objects for me" (Zaner, p. 152). The body "puts into form" the objects of the world.









9
Human beings exist in a lived-space, which is organized in terms of a corporeal scheme. (The formulations concerning the corporeal scheme draw heavily on the theories of Gestalt psychology and the work of Kurt Goldstein, who incorporated the figure-ground concept into a model of personality-behavior.)

This corporeal scheme is developed by means of bodily movements and actions in specific situations. It is dynamic, in that in a particular situation, with a particular perceptual target, the entire body is oriented toward that target. Each sense, through the corporeal scheme, implicates the entire body. Thus, the body develops a unity. Zaner points to the analogy with Piaget's developmental theories. "When Piaget's child, Laurent, learns to differentiate the thing-heard from the thing-seen (and thus no longer for example to attempt to see sounds), and yet sees and hears the same object, what has happened, Merleau-Ponty contends, is that there has appeared a certain unification of the body, the senses, and the objects thereof, and that along with this unification (as its consequence) there develops a scheme" (p. 169). Thus, this scheme represents the development, over time, of a tying together of perceptions of the various senses and of the same sense in different situations. The corporeal scheme, as the unification of these various perceptions, makes possible our perception of an "object."









10

It is via the corporeal scheme that the world is ordered and maintains its permanence. The lived body itself, however, cannot be an object of perception in the world because it is the means by which there are objects. The body and its movements are constantly experienced simultaneously as the world is experienced; in order for the world to be experienced. Things in the world are given to consciousness "in a living connection comparable (or rather, identical) to the one which exists among the parts of my body itself" (Merleau-Ponty, 1945, quoted in Zaner, p. 151). Thus, it is possible to experience an object as the same, whether we are to the right or left of it, or whether we see it, touch it, or smell it. We are presented with a theory of the unity of the body and the world as we perceive it. This unity is the foundation of all consciousness.

The influence of Merleau-Ponty can be seen in much of the recent psychological research on body image, particularly in that of the "sensory-tonic group" (e.g., Wapner, 1964, Wapner and Werner, 1965, and Witkin, 1965). Also, Merleau-Ponty shares with Perls a reliance on the ideas of Gestalt psychology and those of Goldstein.

Early Psychological Theorists and Body Image

As a backdrop for the body-boundary research to be presented it is worth mentioning some early psychologists









11

who did recognize the importance of body experience phenomena. Among the first was G. S. Hall (1898), who, with a questionnaire, asked children of different age levels their earliest memories relating to parts of their bodies. He concluded that the hands and fingers are the earliest parts of the physical self to attract attention, and conjectured that "when hand and mouth meet, body consciousness begins."

The most explicit early recognition of the body's function in personality was made by Freud in "The Ego and the Id," first published in 1923. He saw the body as the starting point for the formation of the ego. The perceptions arising from the surface of the body are the earliest means by which an individual discriminates himself from the environment. The ego is ultimately derived from these bodily sensations and may be regarded in part as a mental projection of the body's surface. For Freud, "the ego is first and foremost a body-ego " (1952, p. 703). Freud's ideas regarding developmental stages have strong body image implications in that the stages are conceptualized as being centered around specific body parts, that is, erogenous zones.

Other early psychoanalysts were less explicitly concerned with body-image aspects of personality, but their importance was implied. Fisher and Cleveland point out the body-image implications of Adler's emphasis on the role of









12

organ inferiority in neurosis. They also show that Jung's mandala and Rank's maternal symbols relate to body-image boundary in that they have containing, protective qualities (1968, pp. 46-49).

Schilder (1935) was an early psychoanalytic writer who, on the basis of his own introspection and clinical experience, presented ideas which anticipated some of the current work concerning body-boundary. In discussing an individual's internal perception of the body, he suggests in regard to surface sensations, "the outline of the skin is not felt as a smooth and straight surface. The outline is blurred. There are no sharp borderlines between the outside world and the body" (p. 85). However, when an object is touching the skin as when we touch an object with our hands or with another body surface, "At this very moment, the surface becomes smooth, clear, and distinct" (p. 86). He was also talking about body-boundary when he emphasized "how labile and changeable the body image is, the body image can shrink or expand; it can give parts to the outside world and can take other parts into itself" (p. 202). These ideas, along with his discussion of a postural model of the body, were forerunners to more recent thinking. Also in a footnote (p. 86) he mentions a notion that has implications for present day body awareness techniques. "We come to the general formulation that intoxication and pathological changes bring to the consciousness











(body) phenomena which are present in the normal person, but are there neglected. Our tendency to live in the world of reality leads us to neglect what is going on in the field of sensations." As we shall see, what Schilder points out is neglected is considered by Gestalt therapists to have an important place in "the world of reality"; one in which awareness should be developed.

Another writer in the psychoanalytic tradition,

Wilhelm Reich (1960), made body phenomena the core of both his theoretical system and his therapeutic approach. He called his therapy "character analysis," a technique to dissolve the "character armor" maintained by neurotic individuals. Character armor is manifested bodily as "muscular armor," a chronic hypertension of peripheral musculature. According to Reich, there are seven armor bands surrounding the body, segmenting it from the head to the pelvis. The goal of therapy is to loosen these armor bands systematically, allowing the natural flow of orgone energy to occur. This loosening is accomplished by direct physical manipulation as well as by more traditional verbal techniques.

Reich's formulations had great influence on Perls, particularly his concepton of "retroflection" as the muscular manifestation of repression.


The Body Boundary

Body-boundary may be thought of as the consciously or subconsciously perceived "border," or line of









14

demarcation, which separates the individual from the external environment. It is possible to differentiate two recent approaches to the study of body-boundary phenomena. In the first, the body is dealt with directly as a consciously perceived object. In this approach, research is aimed toward identifying conditions under which changes in the perception of body-boundaries may be observed. Boundary, then, is dealt with primarily as a dependent variable. In the second approach, body-boundary is understood as an element of personality. A person always carries an idea, usually subconscious, of the body's boundaries. This idea is rooted in past experiences with the surface of the body and, like other personality variables considered to be developmentally shaped, is a relatively stable trait which influences the individual's characteristic ways of functioning. Body-boundary taken this way has been handled experimentally mainly as an independent variable.

Research of the former type has been done most extensively by the sensori-tonic group at Clark University. Sensori-tonic field theory exhibits ties to the work of Merleau-Ponty. It is described by Wapner (1964, pp. 6-44). Basically, it assumes "perception is a reflection of the relation between proximal stimulation and ongoing organismic states." Thus, what is perceived is seen as a function of the outside object, or stimulus, the present state of the organism, and the relationship between the two in









15

any given situation. Changes in perception can thus occur as a function of changes in the organism or in the environment; i.e., "in either aspect of the polarity 'organism: object' ."

Body-boundary changes in this group's research are equated with changes in perceived size of different body parts. Changes in perceived arm length and head width have been observed in situations where the independent variable was openness or confinement of the surrounding space. The arm was perceived as shorter and the head narrower in a confined as opposed to an extended space (Wapner, McFarland, and Werner, 1962).

Increasing the "definiteness" of the body-boundary

by touching the skin has also been shown to produce smaller apparent size of body parts. For example, Humphries (cited in Fisher, 1970, pp. 30-31) found shrinkage in the perception of arm length when the finger tips were touched. Also, Wapner and Werner (1965) report changes in perceived arm length as a function of the arm being used as an instrument in transaction with the environment. When the arm was used to point to an object, it was perceived as longer than when it was simply extended. When a short stick was held to point with, the arm was percieved as even longer. When a similar study was made with children, pointing with the stick extended the perception of arm length even farther than for adults. The developmental implication of this is









16

that the child differentiates less between the pointing device and his arm than does the adult. Relatedly, apparent head width was found to be greater in children than in adults.

These studies help place body-boundary in a developmental context consistent with psychoanalytic theories concerning the "body-ego's" importance in differentiating the individual from the world as well as with the "organismicdevelopmental" theories of perception offered by Wapner, Witkin (1965) and others. In both of these schools, the body image is seen as becoming more articulated over time. For Witkin (1965) this articulation includes two dimensions: the extent of inner differentiation and the extent of body separation from the external field, i.e., boundary definiteness. This experienced articulation of the body is necessary in discriminating what is "inside" from what is "outside," and in producing a clearly articulated external world. In other words, a degree of body articulation is necessary in the perception of objective reality.

Apparent head width and arm length have also been

found to be larger in schizophrenics and in normals who have taken LSD than in normal adults under normal conditions (Liebert, Werner, and Wapner, 1958). These results were interpreted as indicating a regression in the LSD condition which reduced boundary definiteness.

These latter studies suggest a functional relationship of body-boundary change ana developmental and











psychopathological variables, thereby lending credence to the idea of body-boundary as a personality variable.

Fisher and Cleveland (1968) developed a theory of the "body image boundary dimension" as a personality construct. They see the body as involved in a "relatively intricate linkage . . as an object with the central internalized systems that constitute the framework of the personality" (p. 35). The way a person experiences his or her body reflects the workings of these systems.

Each internalized system has formal boundary properties "which vary relative to the nature of the relationships that were the prototype for the system. For example, if an individual's interactions with the mother figure have been such that she had a series of meaningful, clear-cut, and stable expectations of him and he in turn developed similar patterns of expectations of her, one would assume that the interiorized system growing out of the relationship would have definite well-articulated boundaries. If, however, the mother's expectations have been experienced as not meaningful or as erratic and inconsistent, it would make for a poorly organized interior system with ill-defined boundaries" (pp. 353-354). "It is hypothesized that the qualities of the boundary one ascribes to one's body reflect the predominance of either poorly or well-bounded internalizations" (p. 354).









18

For Fisher and Cleveland, then, an individual's

perceived body-boundary definiteness is an index of his or her personality organization and integration. A person's boundary is seen as "a screen which he interposes between himself and outer situations and which he can carry with him at all times. It makes it possible for him to feel that he is not open and vulnerable to everything which occurs in his vicinity and that there is some dependable definiteness about his immediate behavioral space. This facilitates his viewing himself as existing in an environment in which the safety factor is fairly constant" (p. 354). Level of body-boundary definiteness, then, is viewed as a stable, ongoing characteristic, not ordinarily affected by situational changes.

The "screen" aspect of boundary is not taken in any sense, however, as a wall to hide behind or a line of defense against the world. Rather, the boundary is seen as the place of contact with the world; it provides a sense of individuation and security which facilitates perception and the initiation of contact in the social and physical worlds.

In addition to the patterns of expectations mentioned above as a source of boundary, skin and muscle sensations themselves are assumed to give rise to boundary definiteness. This comes about by reason of the fact that the expectancies, or "sets," generated by well-articulated









19

systems have action significance. They are sets to respond to the world in particular ways, ". . exterior layers of the body (particularly the musculature) tend to be equated with voluntary, reality-coping behavior, whereas the body interior is equated with involuntary response. The orientation of the person (with definite boundaries) is therefore translated into a persistently high level of activation of the exterior body layers. There is a set to respond with this region of the body which is manifested in a long-term pattern of preparatory excitation" (p. 358). There is thus a feedback system, a self-reinforcing circuit between peripheral activation and sets toward certain kinds of behavior. Fisher suggests (1970), on the basis of findings to be cited below, that the actual experience of boundary sensations is also, in itself, an important source of boundary definiteness.

Fisher and Cleveland developed a method of scoring

responses to inkblot stimuli which purportedly measures the degree of an individual's experienced body-boundary definiteness. A "Barrier" score (B) is given to inkblot percepts which emphasize definite characteristics of the peripheries. Containing vessels, such as a basket or jug, fancy costumes, turtles with shells, and masks are examples of inkblot responses that would be scored B. The higher the Barrier score, the more definite the person's boundaries are assumed to be. Inkblot percepts which indicate a weakness or











penetrability of boundaries are given a "Penetration" score (P). Examples of Penetration responses are a torn coat, a squashed bug, and a person bleeding. Among normal subjects, P has not shown the predictive power of B, and has been neither negatively nor positively correlated with B. It therefore cannot be taken to have the opposite meaning of Barrier.

The Barrier score has shown a positive relationship to a number of variables which, taken together, Fisher and Cleveland designate as "self-steering behavior." High (above median) B subjects have been found to rate significantly higher than low-B subjects on the TAT aspiration index and measures of classroom achievement. High and lowB subjects scored higher on McClellan's n achievement test than median-B subjects. That low-B subjects scored high on this test was explained in terms of compensatory behavior (1968, p. 121). Generally, these studies suggest a higher level of goal setting for high as opposed to low and median-B persons.

Other studies reported by Fisher and Cleveland suggest that high-B subjects exhibit a greater need for task completion; less suggestability; greater orientation toward self-gratification; greater ability to express anger outward; and a greater ability to tolerate stress than low and median-B subjects (1968, pp. 117-1952).











Fisher (1970) found that high-B subjects exhibit

significantly greater perceptual vividness of the environment in a study using the Ames Thereness-Thatness Table to measure perceptual vividness. Relatedly, Twente (1964) found, in a questionnaire study of waking-up behavior, that Barrier score was significantly and positively correlated with behavior aimed at increasing sensory contact with the environment and at communicating with other people.

Frede et al. (1968) studied how college students would portray social interaction by means of a miniature stage setting where they arranged miniature characters and told stories about them. It was found that Barrier score was significantly positively correlated with total amount of social interaction and negatively correlated to the amount of distance between the figures placed on the stage. Ramer (1963) found that high-B subjects sent significantly more messages and issued more opinions and clarifying statements than did low-B subjects. Cleveland and Morton (1962), in a study of psychiatric patients in group therapy, gave a sociometric questionnaire to group members at the end of four weeks. They found that high-B patients were significantly nominated more often than low-B patients for their ability to influence other members; inclination to put the group above personal goals; helping to resolve differences; and other group interaction skills.








22

The results of these studies support Fisher and Cleveland's earlier investigations of Barrier score and group interaction (1968, pp. 206-230). The high Barrier person is characterized as one who is more likely to be involved, sensitive, and facilitative in interactions with other people.

At the physiological level a number of studies have related Barrier score to measures of external (skin and muscles) and internal (usually heart) body reactivity. Davis (1960) compared normal subjects with unusually high Barrier scores to subjects with unusually low Barrier scores on measures of muscle potential, skin resistance, and heart response. Low-B subjects were higher in indices of heart reactivity and high-B subjects were significantly higher on measures of muscle reactivity. Fisher and Osofsky (1967), Roessler et al. (1966), and Zimny (1965) report further studies in which greater external activation (skin resistance) was significantly related to higher Barrier scores.

Other studies reviewed by Fisher (1970), which used hospitalized patients with external (e.g., dermatitis) and internal (e.g., ulcers) symptoms, show that higher Barrier scores are generally associated with external symptoms and low Barrier scores with internal symptoms.

The studies most persuasively linking the boundary measures directly with perception of the body have been among those treating Barrier and Penetration scores as









23

dependent experimental variables. Reitman and Cleveland (1964) found that neurotics manifested decreased Barrier and increased Penetration scores following sensory isolation, while for schizophrenics the reverse pattern obtained. Fisher and Renik (1966), using a test-retest design, found that subjects who were caused to focus more attention on their skin and muscles showed a significant increase in Barrier compared to a control group. Subjects focusing attention on interior body parts showed a significant decrease in Barrier scores. Van De Mark and Neuringer (1969) found significantly higher Barrier scores for subjects who underwent a treatment of external somatic stimulation compared to those in neutral and internal stimulation conditions. They also used analogous conditions in which subjects were asked to imagine, rather than actually experience bodily, the stimulation conditions. These conditions also affected Barrier scores; subjects who imagined the external stimulation showed significantly higher Barrier scores that those in the other imagining conditions.

Darby (1970) used active muscle involvement in a

similar project with schizophrenics. He found that active physical exercise was instrumental in producing a Barrier increase, but imagining procedures were not. Luhn (1971) however, reports that both actual and imagined stimulation resulted in increased Barrier scores among schizophrenics. These studies will be discussed again later in relation to the present experiment.











Boundary and Psychological Treatment

Cleveland (1960), using data furnished by Goldman (1960), found that schizophrenic patients who were judged to have improved markedly during hospitalization showed significant increases in Barrier scores and significant decreases in Penetration scores. While treatment was not explicitly body oriented, it is assumed that the process of improvement involved an increase in these patients' experienced body-boundary definiteness.

Des Lauriers (1962) has presented a method of treatment for schizophrenics which is explicitly based on bodyego theory. It is presented here in order to represent the therapy implications of an essentially psychoanalytic theory of body boundary.

Des Lauriers assumes that increasing the patient's narcissistic cathexis of his or her bodily boundaries will lead the patient to develop an increasingly healthy reality relationship. Among his theoretical postulates are (p. 61) "The primary model of reality, as a psychological experience, is the experience of the bodily self, as bounded, finite, limited in space, separated and differentiated from what it reaches by transgressing such bodily boundaries." And, "The genetic development of the experience of reality involves, at progressively more complex levels of organic and functional developments, experiences of bodily sensations, bodily feelings, bodily images, bodily movements, bodily thoughts."








25

The schizophrenic has lost awareness of his or her bodily limits and thus is prevented from experiencing him or herself and the world as real. Therapy is conceived as a process of systematically helping the patient to regain the experience of the bodily self as bounded and separated from the non-self in the real world. In order to do this, the patient needs to be "stimulated insistently, not to draw him out of himself, but rather to make him take cognizance of himself experiencing the stimulus given. In the confused and disorganized world of the schizophrenic, the therapist must stand out as a clear-cut, welldelineated, intruding force" (p. 63).

The energies of the therapist then are directed

toward contact with the patient, toward making the patient take notice of his or her body contours. Like a mother with her child, the therapist should engage in physical, sensual, and emotional contact with the patient. The process is one then of maturation, in which the patient comes to know his or her own body, rather than one of "learning how" to perceive the body. "It is a matter of presence: a forceful, insistent, intruding presence of the therapist," rather than one of developing a relationship. It is only after this maturational process of "narcissistic cathexis" has occurred that a meaningful relationship can develop.









26

Gestalt Therapy and Boundary

The word "boundary" for Gestalt therapy doesn't

necessarily mean "body-boundary," though it may mean that and often does. For Gestalt, the boundary is the point of transaction in the organism/environment field. This doesn't mean between the organism and environment: "When we say 'boundary' we think of a 'boundary between'; but the contact boundary does not separate the organism and its environment; rather it limits the organism, contains and protects it, and at the same time it touches the environment . . . the contact-boundary--for example, the sensitive skin--is not so much a part of the 'organism' as it is essentially the organ of a particular relation of the organism and the environment" (Perls, et al., 1951, p. 229). The organism/environment is a unified whole. Contact and transaction occur also within the organism-at boundaries of parts of the organism, which are body structures and processes. These always occur in relation to the organism/environment field, however; the organism doesn't exist in isolation. The self occurs at the boundaries of contact; in health, awareness develops, a gestalt forms and the transaction is completed. The boundary, the point of contact, of existence of the self, is fluid. The boundary (self) differentiates us from other.

For Gestalt therapy, the individual has needs and

meets them, through sensory-motor functions, by contacting









27

the environment and assimilating those aspects of it that are nourishing. The need is the organizing figure of a Gestalt, and the contact-assimilation process is driven by the natural biological process of aggression, which is life-supporting. The ego is the identifying and alienating aspect of the organism--the conscious realm of fantasy, values, rationality and irrationality. For Perls, the ego is also conceived of as a boundary. It is the fantasized or conscious boundary between what is self (identified with) and other (alienated) (Perls, 1969).

When the ego identifies with the self as it is in actuality--i.e., as in process of organismic self-regulation--the organism is healthy. When the ego identifies with something outside the organism--something that hasn't been assimilated by organismic process but is mistaken as self, such as societal or interpersonal expectation--it becomes alienated from the self. This alienation is blocking. The aggression of the healthy organism is turned unhealthily back on the organism to prevent phenomena relevant to needs from being contacted. This turning back of aggression may take the form of muscular contraction.1

1This is Perls' adoption of Reich's idea of retroflection, which generates muscular armor. For Perls, Reich and the other psychoanalysts had some success in unifying the "mind" and "body," but were mistaken in their implicit assumption that the functioning organism could be understood "within the skin." That is, the organism for Perls is an abstraction from the organism/environemnt field. It cannot be seen as it actually is when segregated from the environment.








28

For example, a man, through identification with the social dictum, "big boys don't cry," deliberately inhibits a genuine need, sobbing, by contracting the diaphragm. Over time, this contraction is taken over autonomically, and he becomes unaware of it. Besides not crying, he is also unable to feel sadness or to breathe freely. The energy of sobbing and the energy of aggression have become bound up together in confluence with the social demand, and the man has become self-alienated. The task of therapy is to help the man differentiate and reestablish the boundary of the two parts: diaphragmcontraction (aggression against sobbing) and sobbing. When the boundary is established, the parts may function again in dynamic relations with the whole: i.e., the energy of aggression may be directed toward contact, the man may again feel and express genuine sadness and by breathing freely, he may again assimilate more fully from the environment one of the sources of his energy.

Part of the process of Gestalt therapy involves

focusing attention at the place where the bounded energy is stored, i.e., where boundaries have becomed blurred. In the example above, this would probably be the diaphragm area. Since the client is not aware of the tension there, it is the task of the therapist to guide him. If the therapist has noticed a shortness of the man's breathing, for instance, he might ask him to be aware of his breathing









29
and attendant sensations. Through this kind of directed awareness, sensations of tension may arise from the abdomen and the therapist would ask the client to "stay with" these. In this way, the tightness, the constriction of the diaphragm may emerge as figure and the client will come to awareness of how he, right now, is inhibiting himself. By identifying with his inhibiting self, he (ego) is in a position to take responsibility for what was totally unnoticed before.

There are two ways in which Gestalt therapy techniques have direct relevance to the body boundary concept already presented. First, the kind of muscular tension that Gestalt focuses on is often, if not usually, located in peripheral musculature. A component of retroflection is desensitization of affected body areas. The individual doesn't experience sensations from these areas. The technique described above illustrates how the therapist attempts to help the client recover such sensations.

Second is the fact that Gestalt is an active therapy. The client is often asked to move, to act on fantasies. This might involve transforming an involuntary "gut level" feeling--say a knot in the stomach--into voluntary external muscular action. For example, a particular client may motorically express this inner sensation by squeezing a pillow in order to express, and therefore fully feel, his or her anger. By responding in this active fashion--not









30

just verbally, in fantasy, and by unnoticed muscle tension--the client works toward awareness of his or her functioning.

Gestalt therapy considers openness to body experience an essential element in living fully. The Polsters (1974) discuss the sensori-motor functions as united. "At times of union between awareness (of sensory experience) and expression (motor action), profound feelings of presence and wholeness of personality, clarity of perception and vibrancy of inner experience are common" (p. 215).

Gestalt therapists have developed body awareness

exercises designed to help the individual get in touch with his or her body. For example, in Gestalt Therapy, Perls offer an exercise in guided body awareness. In this section (p. 86), he makes the distinction between visualizing the body and feeling it. Perls says, for example, "Most persons, lacking adequate proprioception of parts of their body, substitute in place of this visualization or theory. For instance, they know where their legs are and so they picture them there. This is not feeling them there! With a picture of your legs or a map of your body you deliberately walk, run or kick after a fashion; but for free, unforced spontaneous functioning of these parts you need felt-contact with your legs themselves. This you must get directly from proprioception of their tensions and tendencies to movement. To the extent that there is a discrepancy









31

between the verbal concept of the self and the felt awareness of the self--and it exists to some degree in practically everyone--this is neurosis" (p. 86). This, of course is reminiscent of Marcel's and Merleau-Ponty's views on the body-subject, as opposed to the body as object or instrument. Perls is saying that most of us have adopted an objective view of our bodies, and that this is a crucial form of self-alienation.

In regard to the present study, it is significant

that all of the techniques Perls recommends for developing "body awareness" directly stimulate the muscles and skin-i.e., gymnastics, dancing, massage, soaking in the tub, and electric vibrator.


The Focus of the Present Study

This study was concerned with the effects on inkblot Barrier scores of different "levels" of body awareness. The term awareness as used here refers to the nature of the attention given to bodily sensations during exercises which stimulate peripheral muscles and skin.

Studies mentioned earlier showed that Barrier scores could be increased by having subjects participate in exercises which focused attention on surface sensations. Looking at the boundary augmenting techniques used in each of these studies, one sees that in every case subjects were either instructed to attend specifically to certain types of sensations, or the exercises were of an intrusive or











strenuous nature which drew attention to the muscles and skin. For example, the techniques used by Fisher and Renik involved having subjects report every time they felt a sensation from the skin and arrange bristles in order of stiffness after rubbing them across the back of the hand. Van de Mark and Neuringer had their subjects participate in activities such as holding their arms out horizontally for one minute and having an electric vibrator run over their shoulder, neck, and arms. They also had subjects imagine doing each of the exercises, with no actual physical stimulation. This also produced a significant increase in
1
Barrier scores.

Thus, it appeared to the author that focused attention alone may be sufficient to produce an increase in Barrier scores, while physical activity is effective only insofar as it is a means of drawing subjects attention to the body. This was an underlying hypothesis of the present experiment.

However, the results of Darby's (1970) study may have provided evidence that mitigates this assumption; that is,

1The imagining procedures, while they demonstrate the role of central cognitive processes, do not rule out the physiological activation of the imagined body areas. Jacobson (1931) reports a study which directly relates to this. He found that when instructions were given to imagine bending the arm, action currents were registered from the arm. Interestingly, in connection with Gestalt, when instructions were to visualize bending the arm, action currents were registered from the ocular region, but not the arm. Other studies dealing with muscular activation and thinking are reviewed by Humphrey (1951).











that activity per se, rather than somatic awareness, accounted for the increases he observed in Barrier scores. Among schizophrenic subjects, he found increments in Barrier increases corresponding to the level of physical activity involved in each of his experimental conditions-from no increase in his imagination condition through slight (but significant) increases in conditions of passive body stimulation, to large increases under a condition of strenuous physical activity. He discussed the possibility that the body stimulation was effective only insofar as it helped focus thinking on the body, but he also felt there was a strong likelihood that, given the absence of B increases in his wholly cognitive condition, the incremental increases indicated that somatic stimulation per se was the operative factor.

The present author felt, however, that this increment might just as easily be accounted for in terms of differential levels of conscious attention to the body elicited by Darby's various methods of physical stimulation; that is, the more strenuous the exercises, the more attention was drawn to the body.

The present study was designed in part to help

clarify this matter of attention versus body stimulation. It was conceived to go beyond previous investigations in that it would directly address the problem of attention to body sensations during physical stimulation. An attempt













was made to separate the possible effects of physical activity and attention by holding the level of physical stimulation constant while manipulating the level of attention given to body sensations. One condition of the present study represented an approach opposite that taken by Van De Mark and Neuringer. In their imagination condition they had subjects imagine doing certain physical activities while actual physical stimulation was kept minimal. In condition II of the present study, subjects engaged in physical exercise while attention to the body was minimized. If the increment that Darby observed was actually a function of physical activity and not attention, then it follows that increases in Barrier would occur in condition II that would be comparable to those expected in conditions where the same physical exercises were performed in conjunction with focused attention on body sensations. On the other hand, if such an increment is a function of levels of attention, Barrier scores would show differential changes among these conditions.

A further concern of this study was the idea that therapeutic body awareness techniques would have an augmenting effect on B beyond that expected from simple body stimulation exercises alone. The evidence already discussed in this paper suggests strongly that degree of boundary definiteness, which may be measured by the Barrier score, is an important factor in personality health. Fisher (1973)









35

suggests that people be instructed early in the importance of this, and that they be shown ways to augment their feelings of boundary strength. The work of Des Lauriers and Gestalt therapy are examples of therapeutic approaches that might accomplish this. It was stated early in this paper that Gestalt therapy serves to heighten boundary articulation in two ways: it emphasizes active body involvement and it specifically educates clients in body awareness.

Gestalt body awareness exercises focus attention on the body in a special way. The client is asked not just to observe body sensations but to feel them. The distinction is made between our normal ways of thinking about and using the body and experiencing them as "me." Gestalt, then, fosters a special kind of attitude in relation to body sensations. The idea comes up that this kind of attitude-attention to peripheral body sensations would have a stronger effect on a measure of body boundary definiteness than would other modes of attention accompanying the same overt conditions of body stimulation.

That the subjectively experienced closeness of an

external object affects the perception of it has been shown in a study done by Glick (1964). Within a sensori-tonic theoretical framework, he investigated the effects of subjects adopting an "inner frame of reference" as opposed to an "external frame of reference" on a task involving the











localization of an object in space. He found that when subjects adopted an attitude of "fusing" the object with their bodies (i.e., dissolving the separation of self and object) the object was located in a direction opposite (on a right-left plane) to the localization made by subjects who saw the object in the normal way, as "out there." He interpreted this in an organismic-developmental framework, saying the first condition represents the "nonpolarized" subject-object relations characteristic of early periods of development. This is consistent, of course, with developmental theories of body-boundary definiteness. It also highlights the role of what we might call a conscious "body-attitude" in the perception of objects.

With its emphasis on body awareness, Gestalt therapy seems to foster an analogous body-attitude in relation to body sensations themselves. On the assumption that attention, and not physical stimulation per se, is the effective variable in augmenting boundary definiteness, it was felt that this "Gestalt attitude" would heighten body boundary experience to a measurable degree compared to other combinations of boundary attention and boundary stimulation. In order to test this hypothesis a study was designed in which three "levels of body awareness" were compared to a "non-body" control condition. The levels ranged from one in which conscious experience of the body was minimized to one where it was presumably maximized. The experimental











conditions all involved the same procedures for body stimulation. The conditions were as follows:

I. A non-body control.

II. A condition in which subjects were instructed
to ignore body sensations and pay careful
attention to a series of recorded articles.
The articles were chosen for their abstract, non-body related content. In order to help motivate attention, subjects were told they
would be tested on the material at a later
time.

III. A condition in which subjects were told simply
to do the various exercises. They were given
no instructions concerning what they should
attend to.

IV. A condition in which subjects were acquainted
with the ideas of Gestalt therapy concerning
body awareness. This included a discussion concerning "identifying" with the sensations
and feeling them as "me." As they did the
exercises they were occasionally reminded to
"stay with" and "be" their sensations.

In order to measure changes in Barrier scores, Holtzman inkblot records were taken at three different times from each of the four groups: before the treatment, immediately following the treatment, and two days after the treatment. Three equivalent forms of the inkblot test were used (see Inkblot Administration).

There were two reasons for including a followup measure in this experiment. First, it was felt that on measures taken immediately after treatment, the body stimulating conditions might be boundary enhancing for subjects in all the experimental conditions. Even in the condition of minimal body attention, the exercises would be expected











to stimulate greater than usual awareness of body sensations. It was felt, however, that on a followup measure differential effects of the experimental conditions would more likely be observed. It was speculated that Barrier measures taken forty-eight hours following the experimental treatment would show greater increases for subjects in the condition which combined body experience with a Gestalt orientation. This conjecture was based on the assumption that the Gestalt condition would represent a more potent form of focused attention on boundary sensations than would be obtained under the other conditions; therefore its effects would more likely be retained.1

A second, related, reason for the followup test was simply that it has never been done in a study of this type. Fisher (1970) and Darby (1970) both feel it would be unreasonable to expect any effects from a relatively short session of body stimulation to last longer than the immediate experimental situation. However, as noted earlier, Fisher does feel that continued exercises would have measurable long term effects.

The study, then, allowed an investigation of "lasting" effects on Barrier scores of stimulating conditions similar to those used in previous studies, i.e., the "body only" condition. In line with Fisher's and Darby's

1Ideally, in Gestalt terms, the sensations would be experienced by an "identifying ego" rather than an "observing ego."











speculation, it was hypothesized that this condition and the "outward attention" condition would not show effects on the followup test, but would on an immediate posttreatment test.

A measure of each subject's Barrier score change

(BC) consisted of the difference between his or her pretreatment Barrier score and that obtained on the test given immediately after treatment. To investigate lasting effects, BC consisted of the difference between scores on the pretest and the followup test. These measures were designated BC1 and BC2, respectively.

Fisher (1970) reports that with very large samples, small but significant sex differences in Barrier and Penetration scores have been found. Specifically, males have shown lower B and higher P than females. These differences did not appear in earlier studies using fewer subjects. Due to the relatively small number of subjects participating in the present study, it was felt that there would be no justification for predicting sex differences in Barrier scores.

The following specific hypotheses were investigated:

1. Mean BC1 will be higher for that group of
Ss who participate in a condition involving
body stimulation and attention directed away
from the body than for those in a non-body
control condition.

2. Mean BC1 will be higher for that group of
Ss who participate only in the body stimulation exercises than for those in a non-body
control condition.











3. Mean BC1 will be higher for that group of
Ss who participate in a "Gestalt condition"
combining body stimulation and awareness than for those Ss in a non-body control condition.

4. Mean BC for that group of Ss who participate
in a condition involving directing attention
away from the body will not be greater than
that for the group of Ss in a control
condition.

5. Mean BC for that group of Ss in a body
stimulation only condition will not be greater
than that for Ss in a control condition.

6. Mean BC2 will be greater for that group of
Ss who participate in a "Gestalt condition"
than that for Ss in a control condition.

7. There will be no difference in pretest Barrier
scores of males and females.

8. There will be no difference in pretest Penetration scores of males and females.

Also, interaction effects of sex and treatment conditions were investigated. No specific effects were hypothesized; however, it has been suggested by Fisher (1970) that boundary definiteness may have different behavioral implications for males and females. For example, for males it may be relatively more associated with physical action, while for females it may be more associated with attention to the body's appearance.

While there were no directional hypotheses in regard to Penetration scores, protocols were scored for P to be analyzed for differential effects of the treatment conditions and sex.

The study also investigated the relationship of the body-boundary measures to measures of subjects' affective









41

states. It was felt that subjects' feelings during the course of the experiment might be systematically related to pretest scores on the boundary measures.

It was also felt that the feeling states of individuals might be affected differently by the treatment conditions and would possibly be related to sex and changes in boundary scores. If this sort of relationship were found, it would possibly have important implications for therapeutic approaches designed to augment boundary definiteness.

In order to investigate these possible relationships, the three scales of the Affect Adjective Check List (AACL; Zuckerman, 1960, Zuckerman et al., 1964) were administered to subjects at pretest, posttest, and followup. The three scales are designed to measure Anxiety, Hostility, and Depression.

Also, Semantic Differential scales (Osgood et al., 1957) were compiled and Ss were asked to use them in judging two concepts: "My Mood Right Now," and "This Experiment." Like the other measures, the Semantic Differential (S.D.) scales were administered at three times during the experiment.

The ACCL and S.D. scales are referred to generally

as "affect" measures throughout this paper. No directional hypotheses were formulated in regard to these measures.















CHAPTER II


METHOD


Subjects

Subjects were University of Florida and Florida State University students in undergraduate psychology courses. A total of 96 Ss participated in the study, 91 from the University of Florida and 5 from Florida State. There were 24 subjects in each of the 4 treatment conditions. There were 12 males and 12 females in each condition. The author was the experimenter.


Measures

The Holtzman Inkblot Technique (HIT) was used in the experiment to obtain Barrier and Penetration scores. This was chosen rather than the Rorschach because it is designed to obtain only one response for each inkblot and because equivalent forms are available.

Transparent slides of the inkblots were used in

order to make administration in a group setting possible. Commercially available slides of the HIT, form A were used. In addition, slides of form B of the test were made by the








43
1
author. From the 90 blots of forms A and B combined, three forms (labeled X, Y, and Z) were compiled of 25 inkblot slides each. Equal numbers of colored inkblots were included in each of these forms. Also, the HIT includes a number of vague, asymmetric blots. Equal numbers of these were included in each of the three forms.

The commercial slides (form A) showed a higher quality than those made by the author. Specifically, the form B slides had a slight but noticeable grey tint to the background. In an attempt to balance any possible effect from this difference in background tint, series X, Y, and Z were designed to include equal numbers of HIT forms A and B. The sequence of slides representing these variations in color, vagueness, and background tint was matched in forms X, Y, and Z. The HIT inkblots and their order of presentation in forms X, Y, and Z are shown in Appendix A.

The Affect Adjective Check List is shown in Appendix B. This check list contains three scales, measuring Ss Anxiety, Hostility, and Depression.

Semantic Differential Scales used in the experiment are shown in Appendix C. Four scales were used to derive scores for each of three factors: Activity, Evaluative, and Potency. Subjects used these bipolar scales to judge

1Reproduced by permission for research purposes
only. Copyright (c) 1958 by the Psychological Corporation, New York, N. Y. All rights reserved.








44

two concepts: "My Mood Right Now" and "This Experiment." To control for position effects, scales representing the same factor were alternated in polarity direction (e.g., valuable-worthless but sad-happy) and order of factors represented was rotated.

Thus, there were a total of 11 measures taken in the experiment. All of the measures were taken at three times during the experiment: pre-treatment, post-treatment, and 48 hours following treatment (followup).

Dependent variables were scores on the above measures taken at the times indicated. Of particular interest were change scores derived by subtracting pretest scores from posttest scores (C1) and pretest scores from followup scores (C2).

Equal numbers of each sex within each treatment condition made the data amenable to a sex-by-treatment analysis of variance design.


Procedures

Subjects were obtained from the University of Florida psychology department pool by an announcement on the experiment bulletin board asking students to sign up for an experiment entitled "Perception of Inkblots." The notice stated the number and length of sessions, times for the sessions, the location of the experiment, and the number of hours experimental credit. It asked Ss to sign up for the time slots they could make. Ss were recruited from a course








45

in psychology at Florida State University by the author's announcing the title of the experiment and the times and location where interested students could come.

All Ss who completed the experiment participated in three sessions: an experimental session lasting approximately 1 1/2 hours; a followup testing session 48 hours later lasting approximately 45 minutes, and a debriefing session, usually several days later, which lasted 45 minutes.

Ss in all treatment conditions were seen in small groups varying in size from 3 to 12 members. All groups were made up of members of both sexes, but not always of equal numbers of each sex. (It was originally planned to have 10 Ss in each of these groups, five males and five females. Practical difficulties prohibited this. See Discussion.)

All sessions were conducted in a classroom with Ss seated at desks or tables. Each session was begun 10 minutes after the time designated on the sign-up sheet, whether or not all those who signed up were present. A notice was put on the door asking latecomers not to interrupt. The notice also informed latecomers how to contact E to make arrangements to participate in later sessions if they wished to do so.


Experimental Sessions

Testing procedures were identical for Ss in all

treatment conditions. E began each session by thanking Ss











for their participation and going over their schedule for the experiment. He then gave all Ss acopy of the University of Florida Department of Psychology Consent Form which contained information about the experiment (Appendix D). Ss were asked to read and sign this form. E answered any questions in very general terms. E then assigned a code number to each subject and instructed Ss to put this number, rather than their names, on every sheet of testing material throughout the experiment. Ss were occasionally reminded of this during the course of the experiment.

When the consent forms were returned, E said "Before we get to the inkblot test I would like for you to complete this short test." E then gave Ss a packet containing the AACL and S.D. scales. The order of these tests in the packets was alternated for all administrations as a control for possible effects of test order. Instructions for these tests were printed on the test forms. As he handed out the forms, E stated "I would like for you to read the instructions and complete the tests I'm giving you now. If you have any questions just raise your hand and I'll come and answer them."

When all Ss had completed these tests, E informed

Ss that the inkblot test would now be given and the following instructions were given (adapted from Swartz and Holtzman, 1963):

You will be shown a series of inkblots, each
of which will be projected on the screen before
you for one minute. Usinq your imagination, write











down a description of the first thing the blot
looks like or reminds you of.
None of these inkblots has been deliberately
drawn to look like anything in particular. No
two people see exactly the same things in a series
of inkblots like these. There are no right or
wrong answers.
Write down one response for each blot. Number
each response in the left margin of your paper.
I will call out the number of each blot as it
appears.
Write as complete a response as possible in the
time you have. Be sure to write down a response
for every blot.
Now I will show you an example. Do not write
anything yet. (E showed inkblot X.) A common response to this blot is "a bat or winged creature" (E pointed out outline of bat, with head,
tail, wings). Another response might be a "pool of oil" (E showed how color and shading might be
used). Another common response is "a steer's
head" (E outlined steer's head--D in middle of
blot).
You can see that the form of the blot helps
determine the response "bat," but for "pool of
oil" the shading has more influence. Also, note
that in the "steer's head," the entire blot
wasn't used. You may use the whole blot or any
part of it in your description.
(Card Y was projected.) In this blot you
might see a human figure (E outlined), a
skeleton, or blood.
(The initial instructions were repeated and
Ss were asked if they had any questions.)

Ss' attention was called to the long legal pads on

the desks or tables in front of them and they were asked

to use the black ballpoint pens provided by E. A sheet of

carbon paper was in each legal pad so that duplicates would

be made of each record. They were shown how to place this

carbon paper.

The 25 slides of form X were then projected on the

screen. The first two were projected for 70 seconds, the

remaining slides for 60 seconds. In order to reinforce Ss









48

responding to the slides, the following comment was made by E when slide 2 appeared on the screen. "Write out as complete a description as you can in the time available." When slide 3 appeared, E said, "Just let your imagination run, and put down what the inkblot suggests to you--what you see in it." When slide 6 appeared, E repeated the comments made during slide 2's presentation. These comments were not made during the presentation of forms Y or Z.

After the presentation of the first series of inkblots, one of the four treatment procedures was carried out. These procedures lasted approximately fifteen minutes in all four treatment groups.

As soon as the treatment procedures were finished, E said, "Now I'd like to show you another series of inkblots. The instructions are the same as those I gave you earlier. Please write one response for every inkblot." Ss were then shown form Y of the inkblot test. Following this, they were given another packet containing the AACL and the Semantic Differential scales. When all Ss had completed these tests, they were thanked, reminded of the time for the second session, and dismissed. (Except group II. See below.)


Group I (Control)

When pretesting was completed, E gave the following instructions: "In this part of the experiment we are just going to sit quietly and listen to some music. All I will











ask you to do for the next few minutes is stay in your

seats, listen to the music, and please do not talk to each

other."

E then played a tape recording of the first two

movements of Haydn's "Concerto in D" for harpsichord and

orchestra. Ss were then shown form Y of the inkblot test.


Group II (Outward Attention)

Following the pretests Ss were given these instructions:

The purpose of this part of the study is to
investigate your attention to verbal information
while maintaining unusual physical postures. The postures are not difficult, but they will require
some physical effort. I should say now that if for any reason you feel you should not attempt
these postures, feel free not to do them. As you
are listening to the material, I would like for
you to try to ignore any sensations from your
body and pay full attention to what is being said.
When I turn on the tape recorder you will hear
a series of four articles that contain quite a few
details. Later on in the experiment, I will
measure your retention of the material.
I will let you listen to some of the material
for a few minutes before you begin the postures and I will stop the recording for a moment when
it's time to adopt the first posture. There are seven postures I will ask you to adopt, each for a period of one minute or less. Therefore I will
interrupt the articles at short intervals in order
to tell you what positions to take.
Bear in mind that the material will be presented only one time, so it would be impossible to
remember everything. The best way to approach this is probably just to listen attentively to
what you are hearing at the moment without trying
to keep in mind what you have already heard.

The tape recorder was then turned on and the articles

were heard being read by E. The articles were selected from

Newsweek magazine and dealt with legal and economic topics.








50

They were, in order, (1) "Dueling Cameras" (May 10, 1976),

(2) "Up Goes Steel" (May 10, 1976), (3) "EEOC Under Fire" (May 10, 1976), and (4) "Truckin on Up" (April 12, 1976).

Early in the third article the tape was stopped and instructions were given for the first posture. Ss were reminded to "try to ignore any sensations from your body and pay full attention to what is being said." The tape was stopped whenever instructions for a new posture were given. For all the postures, Ss were instructed to close their eyes. The postures were as follows:

1. Lift both arms and hold them straight out
to either side (for one minute).

2. Bring the shoulder blades toward each other
and hold (one minute).

3. Sitting straight in your chair, lift both
legs and hold them straight out in front
(one minute).

4. Sitting straight in the chair, tilt your
head back as if looking at the ceiling
(one minute).

5. While standing, cross the left arm over
your stomach and your right arm behind
your back and twist at the waist to the
right (one minute).

6. While standing, cross the right arm over
your stomach and the left arm behind your
back and twist to the left (one minute).

7. While sitting, simultaneously hold your arms
and legs out, bring your shoulder blades
toward each other, and tilt your head back
(30 seconds).

Immediately following these experimental procedures, Ss were given the posttest measures. Ss in this group only








51

were then given a 10 item true-false quiz covering the material in the recorded articles (Appendix E). Group III (Body Stimulation Only)

Following pretesting Ss were instructed- to sit

quietly and listen to some recorded music: Movement I of "Concerto in D" for harpsichord and orchestra. This was done in order to make the duration of the treatment procedures comparable for all groups. When the music was over, E gave the following instructions:

"Now I would like for you to do a few simple physical exercises. They are not difficult but they will require a little physical effort. If for any reason you feel you cannot or should not do these exercises, please feel free not to do them." Ss were asked to close their eyes during all the exercises and instructions for the seven exercises listed above were given. Immediately following this the posttests were administered.


Group IV (Gestalt)

Immediately after pretesting, the following was read to Ss by E:

In this part of the experiment I would like
to discuss the importance of body awareness in personality health. Also, in a few minutes, I will ask you to do a few simple body awareness
exercises.
Fritz Perls, the originator of Gestalt therapy,
said this about body awareness: "Most persons, lacking adequate proprioception (that is, perception) of parts of their body, substitute in











place of this visualization or theory. For instance, they know where their legs are and so they picture them there. This is not feeling them there! With a picture of your legs or a map of your body you deliberately walk, run or kick after a fashion; but for free, unforced spontaneous functioning of these parts you need felt-contact with your legs themselves."
Perls is saying that many of us, because
we spend so much of our lives paying attention to things outside our bodies, come to lose the intimate feeling of our bodies. We don't have a felt awareness of our body. Instead, we see our body as an object. We use it as a tool, but forget that our body is very much a part of our self. After all, our body is always with us. It is the basis for everything we do, feel or think.
There is evidence that people who have a
greater felt awareness of their body sensations are also more attuned to whatever is going on in their surroundings.
Relatedly, body awareness is important in
understanding ourselves. Body sensations often communicate our feelings. By paying attention to these sensations, we can become clearly aware of feelings that previously were vague. To help a person become aware of his or her body sensations and what these sensations are expressing, Gestalt therapists use a special technique. They ask the client to fantasize that he or she is a particular body part, and then describe what it feels like to be that part.
As an example of this, I will tell you about a student I once had. He told me one day that he was unable to find the material he needed to write an assigned paper. We discussed the resources available, and he finally said that he could indeed find the material and would have the paper in on time. As he was saying this, I noticed that his right hand was clenched into a fist. I asked him to be aware of his hand, and asked him what he was doing with it. He said, with some surprise, "I'mmaking a fist." I then asked him to identify with--"to be"--his hand and tell me, as his hand talking, what he was feeling. His hand, clenched rigidly, said, "I'm very tense and I'm holding myself tight. I am digging my fingernails into myself and I am angry. I refuse to write that paper!" At that moment, the student realized that he really had a strong feeling about not writing the paper--and











for reasons that had little to do with locating
source material. We realized that his hand,
the one that would actually do the writing, had been expressing these feelings while he had not been consciously aware that he felt so strongly
about it.
In these body awareness exercises you are
about to do, I would like for you to try to feel
your body sensations in a similar manner. I would
like for you to be open to whatever sensations
might arise, such as tingling or itching of your skin, heat or cold, heaviness or tenseness. Try
to pay attention only to your body. If your mind
wanders, bring your attention back to whatever
body feelings may be occurring at the moment.
As I mentioned earlier, there are two ways you
can experience your body. First, you can have a mental picture of a body part, say your hand, and then mentally observe any sensations arising from
it. Or you can feel your hand as being a close,
intimate part of yourself. In this way of experiencing, you identify with your hand. In a sense, you are your hand. As you do these exercises, I
would like for you to try to experience your body
in this manner. That is, you are your body.
It may be a little difficult to get what I
mean, so I want to take a minute now for you to
think about it and ask me any questions you have.

Discussion was limited to three minutes. During the

discussion E told Ss that "These exercises may be a little

strenuous. If for any reason you feel you shouldn't do

them, please feel free not to. They are designed to make

you aware of sensations from parts of your body. that you

use all the time, but normally wouldn't pay much attention

to. I hope you will try to experience these exercises with

an experimental attitude, even if they are not particularly

pleasant."

Ss were then instructed to do the exercises in the

same manner as outlined above for group II. During the

exercises E occasionally reminded Ss to "stay with," "be"








54

and "be aware of" body sensations occurring at that moment.

Upon completion of the exercises posttest measures were taken.


Followup Testing Session

Procedures were identical for all treatment groups. E began the session by saying "Today I'd like to show you another series of inkblots. The instructions are the same as I gave you before. Please write as complete a response as you can for each blot in the time you have. Write one response for each blot."

The inkblots were then projected on the screen.

Following this, the AACL and Semantic Differential packets were distributed. When these were completed by Ss, E reminded them of the time for the debriefing session and ended the session.


Scoring

The inkblot records were sent to Dr. Seymour Fisher of the Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York Medical School, Syracuse. Dr. Fisher scored the protocols for Barrier and Penetration responses and returned them to the author. The records were coded in such a way that Dr. Fisher had no knowledge of the sex or experimental group of Ss.

The AACL and Semantic Differential records were scored by the author. The AACL records were scored for









55

Anxiety, Hostility, and Depression according to the procedures outlined by Zuckerman (1960) and Zuckerman et al. (1964). The six factor scores on the Semantic Differential (three for each of two concepts) were derived in the following manner.

Each scale was given a score from 1 to 7 corresponding to the position of the check-mark made by the S on one of the seven spaces. This 1 to 7 scoring represented a "negative-to-positive" dimension in relation to the factor represented by the scale. For example, a score of 7 represented the most pleasant rating on the "unpleasant-pleasant" scale. Scale scores were summed over the four scales for each factor and averaged, giving a factor score. There were thus six factor scores taken three times for each S.

Pretest scores on all eleven measures for each subject were subtracted from the corresponding posttest scores for that subject to derive a measure of change in that score (C1). Pretest scores were also subtracted from followup scores to derive a measure of change from pretest to followup (C2). For example, the change in a subject's judgment on the evaluative factor of "This Experiment" from pretest to posttest was designated "EvECI. A change on the same factor in regard to "My Mood Right Now" was designated "EvMCI.

In this manner there were five scores derived on

each of the eleven measures for each S: pretest, posttest,








56

followup, CIand C This resulted in a total of 55 scores for each subject. Of primary interest in the study were the change scores, C1, and C2; thus a total of 33 dependent variables were subjected to analysis--the 11 pretest, CI, and C2 scores.
















CHAPTER III


RESULTS


Effects of Treatment and Sex

A list of the variables and their abbreviations is

shown in Table 1. Means and standard deviations of Barrier and Penetration pretest, Cl, and C2 scores classified by treatment group and sex are shown in Table 2. Means and S.D.s of the other variables are shown in Table 3. Means and standard deviations of posttest and followup scores, by treatment group, are shown in Table 4. A two-way analysis of variance was done with each set of pretest and change scores. Table 5 shows a summary of the results of
1
these analyses. Each analysis had the following degrees of freedom for the source of variance indicated:


Sex: 1
Treatment: 3
Sex x treatment: 3
Error: 88
Total: 95



1Conventional summary tables for each of the 33 analyses of variance are not shown due to the excessive length of presentation this would entail. These tables are available in the form of computer printouts.






















TABLE 1

List of Variables and Their Abbreviations


Abbreviation
Post- FollowupVariable Pretest Pretest Pretest

1. Barrier B BC1 BC2 2. Penetration P PC1 PC2

3. Anxiety Anx AnxC1 AnxC2 4. Hostility Hos HosC1 HosC2 5. Depression Dep DepC1 DepC2 6. Activity Ma ActM ActMC1 ActMC2 7. Potency M PotM PotMC1 PotMC2

8. Evaluation M EvM EvMC1 EvMC2 9. Activity Eb ActE ActEC1 ActEC2 10. Potency E PotE PotEC1 PotEC2 11. Evaluative E EvE EvEC1 EvEC2


aM = My Mood Right Now.

bE = This Experiment.











TABLE 2


Means and Standard Deviations of Barrier and Penetration
Pretest and Change Scores


Pretest
Standard
Deviation


Barrier Scores Posttest-Pretest(C,)


Mean


Standard Deviation


Followup-Pretest(C2) b
Standard
Mean Deviation


Group I Males Females

Group II Males Females

Group III Males Females

Group IV Males Females


Sex


Me an


9.25 9.08 9.41

8.00 7.92 8.08

7.79 8.08 7.50

7.83 8.33 7.33


3.35 2.71 3.98

3.42 4.34 2.39

2.99 3.73 2.15

4.12 4.79 3.47


.33 .50 .25

.33 .25
- .42

.75 .50 1.00

1.21 1.08 1.33


3.32 2.39 4.16

3.37 4.09 3.64

4.11 5.09 3.04

3.89 4.12 3.82


.04
- .42
.50

1.88 3.17 .58

1.00
.50 1.50

1.50 1.25 1.75


3.13 2.53 3.70

3.92
4.43 2.99

3.26
3.87 2.57

3.11
3.77 2.42


a











TABLE 2--Continued


Pretest


Standard Deviation


Penetration Scores Posttest-Pretest(C )a
Standard
Mean Deviation


Followup-Pretest(C2) b
Standard
Mean Deviation


Group I
Males
Females

Group II Males Females

Group III Males Females

Group IV Males Females


= Change from pretest to


bc2 = Change


posttest.


from pretest to followup.


Sex


Mean


5.29 5.58 5.00

5.67 6.42 4.91

5.13 5.25 5.00

4.83 5.50 4.17


2.94
3.34 2.59

2.58 2.57 2.47

3.30 4.24
3.31

2.30 2.15 2.33


- .87
-1 .50
- .25

- .46
-1.08
.17

-1.13
-1 .33
- .92

- .17
- .33
0


3.11
3.53 2.63

2.73
3.34
1.89

3.66 4.46 2.84

2.59
2.49 2.79


- .41
-1.00
.17

- .88
-1.17
- .58

- .25
- .58
.03

- .79
-1.08
- .50


3.53 3.72 3.32

3.49 4.15 2.84

3.15 4.17 1.78

2.06 2.23 1.93





TABLE 3


Means and Standard Deviations of Affect Adjective Check List
and Semantic Differential Pretest and Change Scores


Males Females
Standard Standard Standard Variable Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

Group I


Anx Hos Dep ActM PotM EvM ActE PotE EvE AnxCl HosCI DepCl ActMCl PotMC1 EvMC1 ActEC1 PotECl EvECl AnxC2 HosC2 DepC2 ActMC2 PotMC2 EvMC2 ActEC2 PotEC2 EvEC2


6.41 7.79 13.70 3.91 3.62
5.19 3.66 3.60 5.34 1.08 1.91
1.75
- .27
.16
- .41
- .14
.08 .43 .91
.83 2.45 .04 .13
- .30
- .14
.15
- .33


3.47 3.17 5.31 .67 .68
.89 .64 .61 .72 3.28 3.51 5.36 .94 .90 1.04 .92 .96 .94 3.52 3.77 6.85 1 .10 .91 .98 .88 .62
.83


5.33 6.66 12.25 4.00 3.72 5.58 3.72 3.58 5.35 .91 2.66 2.91
- .16
.27
- .89
- .10
.22 .75 .66 .33 .41 .33 .41
- .25
.06 .27
- .29


2.87 2.77 5.86 .73 .59 .49 .60 .63 .57 3.31 3.42 6.58 .98 .84 1.06 .96 .99
1.09 2.14
2.10 4.75 .84 .94 .72 .58 .61
.62


7.50 8.91 15.16 3.83 3.52 4.81 3.60 3.62 5.33 1.25 1.16 .58
- .37
.06 .06
- .18
- .06
- .12
1.16 1.33 4.50
- .41
- .14
- .35
- .35
.04
- .37


3.80 3.26 4.46 .63 .77 1.05 .69 .62 .86 3.38 3.58 3.72 .92 .98 .79 .92 .94 .68 4.60 4.97 8.16 1.24 .82 1.22 1.09 .63 1.03








TABLE 3--Continued


Males Females
Standard Standard Standard Variable Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

Group II


Anx Hos Dep ActM
PotM EvM ActE PotE EvE AnxCl HosCl DepCl ActMCI
PotMC1 EvMC1 ActCl PotECI EvECI AnxC2 HosC2 DepC2 ActMC2 PotMC2 EvMC2 ActEC2 PotEC2 EvEC2


7.08 8.00 14.20 4.32 4.06 5.00 3.66 3.90 4.86 .70 2.04 1.66
- .37
.11
- .17
.02 .40
- .20
- .79
- .62
-1.20
- .08
- .15
.37
.06 .01 .06


3.37 4.00 6.26 .87 .67 1.11
.64 .81 .84 2.99 4.76 4.55 1.21 .64
1.29 .84 .84 .92
3.91
3.32 3.67 .93 .81 1.07 1.09 .70 .89


7.16 9.00 14.41 4.10 4.12 5.18
3.64 3.97 4.75 1.08 .33 1.25
- .04
.16 .52 .12 .25 .14
- .25
-1.00
-1.75
.18 .12 .18 .25 .04 .33


3.35 4.84 6.54 .68 .63 1.11
.60 .77 .85 2.84 4.73 3.81 1.09 .57 .74 .77 .73 .73 4.15 3.90 3.44 .85 .79 .83 1.00 .79 .80


7.00 7.00
14.00 4.54 4.00 4.81 3.68 3.83
4.97 .33 3.75 2.08
- .70
.62 .16
- .08
.56
- .56
-1.33
- .25
- .66
- .35
- .18
.56
- .12
.02
- .20


3.54
2.79 6.26 1.02 .73 1.11 .70 .86 .84 3.22 4.33 5.33 1.28 .72
1.63 .93 .94 .98 4.75 2.73 3.96 .96 .86 1.28 1.20 .63 .92





TABLE 3--Continued


Males Females Standard Standard Standard Variable Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Mean Deviation
Group III


Anx Hos Dep ActM PotM EvM ActE PotE EvE AnxCl HosCl DepCl ActMCI PotMC1 EvMC1 ActECI PotECI EvECl AnxC2 HosC2 DepC2 ActMC2 PotMC2 EvMC2 ActEC2 PotEC2 EvEC2


7.04 8.25
14.87
4.05 3.96 4.91 3.71 3.79 5.02 .04 .70 .08
- .04
- .05
0.00
- .04
.16
- .23
.45 .04 .70
- .20
- .14
.05
- .08
.01
- .28


3.25 3.37 5.95 1.05 1.01 1.36 .82 .52 .95 3.44 3.29 3.95 1.36 1.24 1.18
1.29 .80 1.10
2.53 2.51
5.70 1.03 .90 1.05 1.05 .78 .93


6.58
7.25 14.50 4.02 4.02 4.75
3.50 3.85 4.68
- .41
.75
-1.08
.25
- .08
- .04
.56 .25
- .22
.75 .50

- .33
- .20
.06 .18
.04
- .16


3.26 3.69 6.48 1.07 1.31
1.40 .83 .61 .91
3.60 2.89 3.34
1.29 1.44 1.02 1.31 .91
.92
2.26 2.35 4.78 .93 1.21 .76
1.03 .83 .64


7.50 9.25 15.25 4.08 3.91 5.08
3.93 3.72 5.35 .50 .66
1.25
- .33
- .02
.04
- .64
.08
- .25
.16
- .41
1.41
- .08
- .08
.04
- .35
- .02
- .39


3.31
2.83 5.64 1.08 .65
1.36 .78 .43 .90 3.37
3.77 4.30 1.41 1.06 1.36
1.00 .70
1.29 2.85
2.67 6.63
1.15 .48 1.30 1.05 .75 1.18








TABLE 3--Continued


Males Females
Standard Standard Standard Variable Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

Group IV


Anx Hos Dep ActM PotM EvM ActE PotE EvE AnxCl HosCl DepCl ActMCI PotMCI EvMCI ActECI PotECl EvECI AnxC HosC2 DepC2 ActMC2 PotMC2 EvMC2 ActEC2 PotEC2 EvEC2


6.29 7.54 14.29 3.88 3.70 5.39 3.72 3.73 5.06 .45 .29 .75
- .17
.14 .29 .17 .17
- .12
- .41
.33 .29
- .06
- .12
- .07
.27 .21 .07


3.41 3.62 6.16 .94 .82 1.15 .66 .57 .67
3.71 3.41 6.38 1.07 .92 1.22 .70 .86 .69 4.68 4.08 7.03 1.09 1.02 1.48 .83
.70 .58


4.58 5.50 11.91 3.54 3.47 5.60 3.58 3.83 4.85 2.25 1.50 2.58 .29 .52
- .72
.35 .27
- .25
1.66 2.75 3.83 .10 .39
- .85
.35
0.00
- .18


2.64 2.50 4.18 .78 .78 .84 .54 .64 .52 2.73 2.19 6.73 .96 .75
.93 .67 1.01 .67 3.79 2.80 6.83 .98 .81 .97 .90 .78 .44


8.00 9.58 16.66 4.22 3.93 5.18 3.87 3.64 5.27
-1.33
- .91
-1.08
- .64
- .22
.14 0.00 .08 0.00
-2.50
-2.08
-3.25
- .22
- .64
.70 .18
- .43
.33


3.33 3.47 7.04 .99 .84 1.40 .75 .50 .75 3.79 4.05 5.69 1.00 .95 1.35 .72 .70 .71 4.68 3.77 5.42 1.21 .97 1.51 .77 .56 .61
















TABLE 4

Means and Standard Deviations of Posttest
and Followup Scores


Posttest Followup
Standard Standard Variable Mean Deviation Mean Deviation
Group I
B 9.58 2.71 9.33 3.00 P 4.41 2.06 4.87 2.17 Anx 7.50 3.07 7.33 3.17 Hos 9.70 3.60 8.62 3.65 Dep 15.45 1.06 16.16 7.10 ActM 3.64 1.06 3.87 .92 PotM 3.79 .89 3.76 .87 EvM 4.78 .90 4.89 1.18 ActE 3.52 .75 3.52 .63 PotE 3.68 .91 3.76 .66 EvE 4.90 .94 5.01 .82
Group II
B 8.33 3.57 9.87 3.27 P 5.20 2.68 4.79 2.44 Anx 7.79 2.91 6.29 3.23 Hos 10.04 4.75 7.37 3.43 Dep 15.87 4.99 13.00 6.17 ActM 3.94 .94 4.23 .77 PotM 4.17 .84 3.90 .84 EvM 4.82 1.18 5.37 .87 ActE 3.68 .73 3.72 .99 PotE 4.31 .58 3.89 .72 EvE 4.65 .96 4.92 .70
Group III


B
P
Anx Hos Dep ActM PotM EvM


8.54 4.00 7.08 8.95
14.95 4.01 3.91 4.91


2.96 2.65 3.46 4.18 6.04 1.29 1.18 1.18


8.79 4.87 7.50 8.29 15.58 3.84 3.82 4.96


2.60 2.25 2.99
3.43 5.70 .77 .76
1.16


















TABLE 4--Continued


Posttest Followup
Standard Standard Variable Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

ActE 3.67 .94 3.63 .64 PotE 3.95 .63 3.80 .61 EvE 4.78 1.04 4.73 .95
Group IV
B 9.04 3.38 9.33 3.33 p 4.66 2.11 4.04 2.36 Anx 6.75 2.89 5.87 2.73 Hos 7.83 3.31 7.87 3.12 Dep 15.04 5.87 14.58 5.14 ActM 3.70 .66 3.82 .66 PotM 3.85 .72 3.58 .74 EvM 5.10 .88 5.32 .73 ActE 3.90 .66 4.00 .90 PotE 3.91 .76 3.52 .63 EvE 4.93 .89 5.13 .92












TABLE 5

Results of the Analyses of Variance


Significance Level
Variable Sex Group Group X Sex

Pretest
1. Barrier .71 .44 .90 2. Penetration .11 .78 .84 3. Anxiety .02* .77 .27
4. Hostility .02* .90 .02*
5. Depression .10 .92 .44 6. Activity M .16 .32 .36 7. Potency M .97 .21 .48 8. Evaluative M .19 .47 .40 9. Activity E .26 .98 .51 10. Potency E .43 .45 .93 11. Evaluative E .05* .21 .50

Post-Pretest (CI)

1. Barrier .81 .83 .99 2. Penetration .20 .72 .92 3. Anxiety .26 .74 .09
4. Hostility .84 .27 .04*
5. Depression .50 .63 .16 6. Activity M .01* .78 .74 7. Potency M .20 .85 .49 8. Evaluative M .01* .64 .56 9. Activity E .02* .68 .15 10. Potency E .64 .63 .65 11. Evaluative E .85 .68 .08

Followup-Pretest (C2)

1. Barrier .93 .29 .21 2. Penetration .25 .88 .98 3. Anxiety .08 .35 .15
4. Hostility .14 .49 .01* 5. Depression .91 .18 .01*
6. Activity M .11 .94 .38 7. Potency M .04* .62 .10
8. Evaluative M .05* .21 .04*
9. Activity E .06 .46 .92 10. Potency E .25 .34 .65 11. Evaluative E .62 .17 .15

*Denotes a significant effect (p<.05).











Pretest Analyses

Analyses of variance were conducted on pretest scores to identify any initial significant differences between sexes, groups, or sexes within groups. Three such differences emerged. Females, overall, scored significantly higher on pre-treatment Anxiety than males (means =

7.50 and 5.29, p<.02). Also, a significant interaction effect emerged for Hostility scores. Of the eight treatment x sex combinations, group IV females showed the highest mean on Hostility (9.58), and group IV males showed the lowest (5.50). Finally, the mean for females on the Evaluative factor for "This Experiment" (EvE) was significantly greater than that for males (5.23 and 4.91, p<.05).

None of the other affect variables, nor the inkblot measures, showed significant differences in pretest scores among groups or sexes.


Change Scores: Inkblot
Variables

Two-way analyses of variance were done on C1 and C2 scores for both Barrier and Penetration scores. All four of these analyses yielded nonsignificant Fs.

An inspection of the data revealed that Barrier

scores for all experimental groups had higher mean increases from pre to followup than from pre to posttest. Dunnett's test (Winer, 1962) for comparing each treatment with a control was carried out for Barrier C2 scores. This test was









69

carried out on males and females data combined and separately (Table 6). For the combined-sexes comparison of each treatment with the control nonsignificant ts resulted. The test on females' data only also yielded nonsignificant ts. The test on male subjects' data resulted in a significant t(2.368, p<.05, one-tail test) for the group II vs. control comparison, but not for those involving groups III or IV. The BC2 mean for males in group II was 3.17; for control group males it was -.42.

In order to examine the direction of changes within each group, sign tests were carried out on Barrier changes from pre to posttest and from pre to followup. These tests were carried out on data from each group as a whole (N=24) and from each sex within each treatment group (N=12). The results are shown in Table 7. Nonsignificant results were obtained on all tests on pre-to-post changes. For pre-tofollowup changes, however, there were three significant outcomes. Group II males showed a proportion of increases to decreases beyond that expected by chance (p=.035), as did group IV females (p=.035). For the combined sex test, group IV also had a significantly high proportion of increases in Barrier scores (p=.019).


Change Scores: AACL Variables

Two-way analyses of variance on C1 scores for Anxiety, Hostility, and Depression yielded one significant F. A significant interaction effect was found for Hostility scores




















TABLE 6

Comparisons of Barrier Change2 Means of Each Experimental Group with the Barrier Change2 Mean of the Control Group


Difference
Between
Comparison Means t


Sexes Combined
Control X Outward Attention 1.84 1.90 Control X Body Stimulation Only .96 .99 Control X Gestalt 1.46 1.51

Males Only
Control X Outward Attention 3.59 2.37* Control X Body Stimulation Only .92 .61 Control X Gestalt 1.67 1.08

Females Only
Control X Outward Attention .08 .07 Control X Body Stimulation Only 1.00 .84 Control X Gestalt 1.25 1.05


*p<.05, one-tail test.


Note. Comparisons were made using Dunnett's test.












TABLE 7

Sign Test Analyses of Barrier Score Changes from
Pretest to Posttest (BC1) and from Pretest
to Followup (BC2) for Each Group Individually

Group Increase Decrease p BC1

Sexes Combined
Control 11 10 NS Outward Attention 13 11 NS Body Stimulation Only 14 9 NS Gestalt 15 9 NS
Males Only
Control 6 5 NS Outward Attention 7 5 NS Body Stimulation Only 6 5 NS Gestalt 7 5 NS
Females Only
Control 5 5 NS Outward Attention 6 6 NS Body Stimulation Only 8 4 NS Gestalt 8 4 NS

BC2

Sexes Combined
Control 10 10 NS Outward Attention 13 8 NS Body Stimulation Only 13 8 NS Gestalt 17 6 .019
Males Only
Control 4 5 NS Outward Attention 9 2 .035 Body Stimulation Only 6 6 NS Gestalt 8 4 NS
Females Only
Control 6 5 NS Outward Attention 4 6 NS Body Stimulation Only 7 2 NS Gestalt 9 2 .035

*Probabilities are one-tailed.

Note. The Ss showing no increase or decrease are excluded.









72

(p<.04). Tukey's method of a posteriori analysis showed that this result was accounted for by the difference between means for females in group II (3.75) and females in group IV (-.92). (The results of the Tukey tests are shown in Table 8.) Analysis of AACL C2 scores resulted in two significant Fs--one for interaction effects for Hostility scores (p<.01) and one for interaction effects on Depression scores (p<.01). Tukey's test showed that the result for Hostility scores was accounted for by the difference between group IV males (mean = 2.75) and group IV females (-2.08). For Depression, the difference between means of group I females (4.50) and group IV females (-3.25) was responsible for the significant F.


Change Scores: Semantic
Differential Variables
Analyses of variance on C1 scores of the six S.D.


measures yielded three significant Fs. All three were sex effects. For Activity M the mean C1 score for males was .08; for females it was -.51 (p<.01). For Evaluative M the female mean was .10; the male mean was -.55 (p<.01). For Activity E the mean for males was .23; for females, -.23 (p<.02). All significant sex effects are shown in Table 9.

Analysis of C2 scores resulted in three significant

Fs. Males'mean score on Potency M was .12; females was -.27 (p<.04). A significant interaction effect (p<.04) was found for Evaluative M C2 scores. Tukey's test showed that the

















TABLE 8

A Posteriori Analyses of Significant Interaction
Effects on Change Scores


Variable


Sex X Treatment Combination


Hostility C1

Meana


Hostility C2


Mean


Depression C2

Mean


Evaluative MC2


Mean


FII MI FI MIV MIII FIII MII FIV 3.75 2.67 1.67 1.50 .75 .67 .33 -.92 MIV FI MIII MI FII FIII MII FIV 2.75 1.33 .50 .33 -.25 -.42 1.00 -2.08


FI MIV FIII MI MIII FII MII FIV 4.50 3.83 1.42 .42 .00 -.66 -1.75 -3.25


FIV FII MII MIII FIII MI FI MIV .71 .56 .19 .06 .04 -.25 -.35 -.85


Note. Analyses were made using Tukey's test.


aMeans not joined by horizontal bars are significantly different (p<.05).



















TABLE 9

Significant Sex Differences on Pretest
and Change Scores


Variable Males Females


Anxiety (Pretest)

Mean


Evaluative E (Pretest)

Mean


Activity MC1 Mean


Evaluative MC1

Mean


Activity EC1 Mean Potency MC2 Mean


5.29


7.50


4.91


5-23


.08


- .55


.23


.12


- -.51


.10


- .23


- .26


Note. p<.05. Analyses were made using two-way analyses of variance.









75
interaction effect was accounted for by the difference between means of group IV females and group IV males (.71 and -.85 respectively).


Correlational Analyses

Eleven-by-eleven intercorrelational matrices were

generated, showing Pearson Product Moment correlations and significance levels (two-tailed) of each score with every
1
other score. Separate matrices were produced for pretest, posttest, and followup scores with correlations based on the total sample of subjects (N=96). In order to determine any relationships of change in boundary scores to initial scores on the affect measures, as well as initial boundary scores to changes in affect scores, matrices were produced which showed correlations of pretest scores with C1 and C2 scores. These were computed overall (N=96), by sex (N=48), by treatment group (N=24) and by sex within each treatment group (N=12). Table 10 shows those correlations computed overall for pretest, posttest, and followup scores where at least one of these three was significant (p<.05).

Table 11 shows significant correlations, computed overall and by sex, of Barrier and Penetration pretest scores to the change scores of the other dependent variables.

1The matrices are not included due to their excessive length. The author has the matrices in the form of computer printouts.









76








TABLE 10

Correlations Between the Measures at Pretest,
Posttest, and Followup Where At Least One
of the Three Is Significant


Comparison Pretest Posttest Followup


B to P B to Hos B to ActE B to PotE Anx to Hos Anx to Dep Anx to PotM Anx to EvM Anx to EvE Hos to Dep Hos to PotM Hos to EvM Hos to PotE Hos to EvE Dep to ActM Dep to PotM Dep to EvM Dep to EvE ActM to PotM ActM to EvM ActM to ActE ActM to PotE PotM to EvM PotM to ActE PotM to PotE PotM to EvE EvM to ActE EvM to EvE ActE to PotE ActE to EvE PotE to EvE


.30
-.23
-.31
-.22 a
.74 .69 .30
-.57
-.35
.69 .39
-.50
.04,NS
-.32
.12,NS .21a
-.65
-.37
.41 .07,NS .38
-.03,NS
-.34
.25 .32
-.21 a .11,NS
.47 .16,NS .22a
-.24


.24
-.03,NS .14,NS .06,NS .77 .69 .36
-.58
-.34
.71 .51
-.55
.22 a
-.46
-.21'
.28
-.63
-.40
.38 .16,NS .36 .22 a
-.42
.10,NS .46
-.44
.11, NS .54 .31 .22a
-.29


.15, NS 13,NS .13, NS .08,NS .73 .72 .39
-.56
-.41
.78 .25
-.55
.04,NS 20a
-.23
.09,NS
-.57
-.53
.45 .34 .25 .15,NS
-.21a
-.00,NS
.22a
-.20
.20 .49 .33 .15,NS
-.44


= r<.05.


2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. 11.
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.
19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.


Note. p<.01 unless indicated by a, a NS = not significant.


















TABLE 11

Significant Correlations of Pretest Barrier and
Penetration Scores to Affect Adjective Check
List and Semantic Differential Change
Scores Computed for the Total Sample
(N=96), for Males (N=48) and for Females (N=48)


Comparison r

Total Sample

B to:


PotEC1 PotEC2 P to: ActEC1 ActEC2


.22 .24


.26a .24


Males

B to:
PotEC1 .31 ActEC2 .22 P to:
ActEC1 .33 ActEC2 .29


Females

B to:
PotMC1 .31


Note. p<.05; a = p<.Ol.








78

Table 12 shows correlations of pretest affect scores to boundary change scores. Tables 13 and 14 show significant pretest to change correlations computed by treatment group and by sex within treatment groups.















TABLE 12

Significant Correlations of Pretest Affect Adjective
Check List and Semantic Differential Scores to
Barrier and Penetration Change Scores
Computed for the Total Sample and for Each Sex

Comparison r Total Sample

ActE to BC1 .25 EvE to BC1 .24 ActM to BC2 .22 Anx to PC2 .20 EvM to PC2 -.27a


Males

Anx to PC2 .33 EvM to PC2 -.32

Females

Hos to PC1 -.40a Dep to PC1 -.39a EvM to PC1 .46a


Note. p<.05; a = p<.Ol.









80



TABLE 13 Significant Correlations of Pretest Barrier and
Penetration-Scores to Affect Adjective Check
List and Semantic Differential Pretest and
Change Scores Computed Within Treatment Groups


Comparison r Group I B to:
EvEC2 .39

P to:
EvMC2 -.43 PotMC .40 Males
P to:
PotE -.58
EvMC2 -.73a Females

None

Group II P to:
ActMC2 .72a Males
None

Females
B to:
EvMC -.66
EvMC 2 -.67a
P to:
PotEC2 .59 Group III


B to: EvE ActMC PotMC1 AnxC 1 AnxC 2


.43 .44
-.46
.51 .53a


















TABLE 13--Continued



Comparison r


Males
B to:
ActE -.75a
AnxC1 .58

P to:
ActEC1 .58

Females
B to:
HosC 1 .60 AnxC 2 .63
P to:
PotM .57

Group IV
B to:
PotEC1 .58a
ActEC2 .49

P to:
ActEC2 .40

Males
B to:
ActE -.69a PotEC2 .71a

Females
B to:
ActE -.57 ActMC1 -.59

P to:
EvEC1 .60 EvEC 2 .57


Note. p<.05; a = p<.Ol.











TABLE 14

Significant Correlations of Pretest Affect Adjective
Check List and Semantic Differential Scores
to Barrier and Penetration Change Scores
Computed Within Treatment Groups


Comparison r Group I
None
Males
EvE to BC1 .62 Females
None

Group II
None

Males
PotM to PC2 .64

Females
EvE to BC .63 Anx to PC1 -.65 Hos to PC1 -.68
EvM to PC1 .7 Group III
EvE to BC1 60a
EvE to BC2 .43 Males
ActE to BC2 .66a Females
EvE to BC1 .80a
PotM to BC2 .59

Group IV
None

Males
Anx to BC2 -.70a PotE to PC1 -.57

Females
None

Note. p<.05; a = p<.Ol.















CHAPTER IV


DISCUSSION


Boundary Measures

Barrier

The results of the study do not confirm the author's hypothesis that boundary definiteness would be enhanced differentially by incremental levels of body awareness during body stimulation exercises. It will be recalled that based on the evidence of previous research, it was hypothesized that all the experimental groups would show greater mean increases in B than the control group on measures taken immediately following the exercises. While there were Barrier changes in the predicted direction for two of these groups (III and IV), none of these increases was significant. Possible reasons for this will be discussed at a later point.

It was also hypothesized that on the followup measure, a significant mean increase would be found in Barrier scores of group IV subjects only. This hypothesis was not confirmed either, but some evidence did emerge that supports the notion that the experimental treatment had an enhancing effect on the Gestalt group's Barrier scores. The sign tests showed that, while the mean increases were not of 83








84

sufficient magnitude to attain significance, the proportion of increases to decreases was significantly greater than would be expected by chance. Group IV was the only group in which this occurred when males' and females' scores were combined. Notably, the proportion in the control group was exactly what would be expected by chance: 10 increases/10 decreases. From the "outward attention" group there emerged a surprising result; of all the Barrier score change analyses, the only experimental subjects to show a significantly higher mean increase in B than the control subjects were the males in group II. This increase was found from pretest to followup. It was not predicted. The hypothesis in regard to group II was that subjects would show an increase immediately following the treatment, but that the effects of the treatment would not last. The question then is "Why did males in group II show a significant increase in B from pretest to followup but not from pre to posttest?"

The possibility cannot be discounted that this was a spurious result. When a large number of significance tests is carried out on a set of data, as was the case in this experiment, the probability becomes large that at least one will turn out significant by chance alone. In view of the number of tests performed on the data of this experiment, all of the significant results have to be interpreted with this in mind. The large number of correlations computed,








85

especially, calls for great caution in interpretation.

On the other hand, the results of the sign test offer some support for the idea that the significant mean BC2 score of group II males is not spurious. The proportion of increases to decreases in B(9/2) was significant for this group. (The proportion was not significant when group II females' scores were included.) On the assumption, then, that this result is true, what speculation can be made concerning the reasons for it?

The explanation might be found in an investigation of two factors which previously have been related to bodyboundary. First, at the physiological level, studies reported by Lacey (1959) and Kagen and Moss (1962) have demonstrated that when subjects are oriented to receive information from "outside," skin conductance increases and heart rate decreases. When attention is turned "inward," the pattern is reversed. Heightened skin activity seems to be characteristic of a state of openness and receptivity to the environment. This is consistent with the "contact" orientation of the person with definite body boundaries. Since the Barrier score has been positively related to measures of skin-activation and activation of peripheral muscles (Davis, 1960), it may be, as Fisher suggests, that the high Barrier person has a characteristic level of peripheral activation which is greater than that typical of the low Barrier person. At the same time, however,









86

Lacey's work suggests that this level of peripheral activation can vary situationally, depending on the origin (outside or inside) of the information attended to. This implies that Barrier scores too, if they are partly a function of peripheral activation, could vary situationally.

Secondly, it has been demonstrated that Barrier

scores are related to measures of achievement motivation and need for task completion. Specifically, high-B subjects of both sexes have scored higher than low-B subjects on measures of these traits. However, adjective check list measures of achievement drive, where descriptive adjectives were chosen both by subjects (Shipman, 1965) and by others rating the subjects (Fisher, 1966), have been positively related to B only among males. At the level of social and self perception, it appears that achievement drive is related to B among males but not females. Traits of achievement drive and task orientation do seem to have a traditionally masculine character in terms of cultural stereotypes. The self-steering pattern of behavior (i.e., autonomous, competitive, achievement oriented), said by Fisher and Cleveland to be typical of the high B individual, also seems to exemplify the cultural ideal for masculine behavior and attitudes.

It is plausible that the experimental procedures in group II brought into play both of these factors; i.e., heightened peripheral activation as a function of the









87
physical activity and attention focused "outside," and achievement needs. Ss were told to pay close attention to recorded articles and that they would later be tested on the material. It is worth speculating that this task orientation could have tapped a system in the males involving achievement needs and competition that is related, more strongly in males than females, to body-boundary definiteness.

In sum, the conjecture made here is that the task

orientation of group II and the actual physical stimulation of the exercises combined in their effects to stimulate the production of Barrier percepts. That this would occur only among males might be accounted for in terms of culturally shaped sex differences in responding to task situations. In this regard, it is appropriate to note that females in group II had the highest mean increase in Hostility (3.75). This was significantly different than the group IV females' mean of -.92. Group II males' change was negligible (.33).

This explanation suggests that further research is warranted into possible situational effects on Barrier other than those which involve direct attention to the body. The possibility is raised that boundary definiteness, while typically maintaining at a particular level for an individual, may be affected by specific behavioral demands--for example, the demand to achieve on a test. The results of this study also suggest that such effects may not be









88

immediately seen. Barrier scores in group II did not increase at all on the measure taken right after the experimental procedures. Fisher (1970) reports studies that resulted in no Barrier change immediately following conditions designed to either bore, excite, or place under stress the subjects involved. It seems possible now that, had a followup measure been taken, some effects on Barrier might have been observed.

One possible reason then for the lack of B increase on the posttest among group II males may be that the psychological processes involved simply required more time to become organized. By the time of the followup testing, a "task set" toward the experiment, with a concomitant increase in boundary definiteness, might have been developed. There are other factors which might help account for the lack of posttest increases, not only in group II, but in the other experimental groups as well.

One possibility is fatigue. Each experimental session lasted an hour and a half. Prior to the posttest, Ss had responded to the two affect measures, had written responses to 25 inkblots, and had engaged in some rather tiring physical exercises. (In previous studies, where Barrier increases were reported, Ss gave their responses orally.) Fatigue might have resulted in less of the kind of elaboration in posttest responses that is likely to lead to a score of B, for example, "soldier" instead of








89
"soldier with epaulettes on his shoulder." Another effect of fatigue might be that it is a more generalized, diffuse body state, internal as well as peripheral, which would partially counter the effects of attention to specific body areas such as skin and peripheral muscles. Perhaps if the pretesting had been done in a separate session, a day or two before the experimental session, fatigue would have been less likely at the time of the posttest.

A second factor which might have militated against changes in B is statistical. The mean Barrier score for this sample of 96 Ss was 8.22 on the pretest. In no group did the means show a notable decrease at posttest and followup. This is quite noticeably higher than reported means for other college samples. Fisher reports a mean of

4.66 for a sample of 46 college males and 5.45 for a sample of 61 college females. The combined mean of Van De Mark and Neuringer's control sample (20 males, 20 females) was

2.75. These were all from scores on individually administered inkblot tests. Holtzman (1961) reports a significantly lower mean for group compared to individual administration--6.2 and 7.9 respectively. Also, the Holtzman results were obtained on the basis of a response total of 45 rather than 25, as were the other means, including the present sample. If the proportion of B to response total is consistent, the Holtzman means would fall to 3.44 and

4.38 for a record of 25 responses. The point here is that the Ss in this experiment seem to be "high Barrier"




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE EFFECTS ON INKBLOT BARRIER SCORES OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF BODY AWARENESS DURING BODY STIMULATION EXERCISES By GARY GRAGG SMITH A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

PAGE 2

Copyright by Gary Gragg Smith 1977

PAGE 3

To Ellen

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Vernon .Van De Riet, the chairman of my supervisory committee. He has been tremendously supportive and helpful during the course of an arduous project. I also wish to thank Dr. Jacquelin Goldman, whose involvement and personal encouragement have been great assets to me in carrying out this study. I thank Dr. Harry Grater, Dr. Marilyn Zweig, and Dr. Robert Isaacson for their assistance and their stimulating ideas. I am grateful to Dr. Seymour Fisher, whose work in body image has helped open up an exciting area of psychological theory and research. I thank him also for scoring the inkblot records for this dissertation. I would also like to thank Dr. Hugh Davis for his kind cooperation and assistance. IV

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i v LIST OF TABLES vii ABSTRACT j_ x Chapter I. THE BACKGROUND AND FOCUS OF THE STUDY .... l Introduction , 1 Philosophical Context of the Concept of Body Image 3 Early Psychological Theorists and Body Image . 1-0 The Body Boundary 13 Boundary and Psychological Treatment . . 24 The Focus of the Present Study 31 II. METHOD • 4 2 Subjects 42 Measures 42 Procedures . . 44 Experimental Sessions 45 Scoring 54 III. RESULTS 57 Effects of Treatment and Sex 57 IV. DISCUSSION 83 Boundary Measures 83 Affect Measures: AACL and Semantic Differential 93 Correlational Results 99 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 106 v

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS --Continued Appendices Page A. INKBLOT SERIES X, Y AND Z, COMPILED FROM HIT FORMS A AND B 113 B. AFFECT ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST 114 C. SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL CHECK LIST 115 D. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY CONSENT FORM .118 E. QUIZ ON ARTICLES HEARD BY GROUP II 119 BIBLIOGRAPHY 120 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 125 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. List of Variables and Their Abbreviations . . 58 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Barrier and Penetration Pretest and Change Scores 59 3. Means and Standard Deviations of Affect Adjective Check List and Semantic Differential Pretest and Change Scores 61 4 . Means and Standard Deviations of Posttest and Followup Scores 65 5. Results of the Analyses of Variance 67 6. Comparisons of Barrier Change 2 Means of Each Experimental Group with the Barrier Change 2 Mean of the Control Group 70 7 . Sign Test Analyses of Barrier Score Changes from Pretest to Posttest (BCg) and from Pretest to Followup (BC~) for Each Group Individually 71 8. A Posteriori Analyses of Significant Interaction Effects on Change Scores 73 9. Significant Sex Differences on Pretest and Change Scores 74 10. Correlations Between the Measures at Pretest, Posttest and Followup Where at Least One of the Three Is Significant 76 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES — Continued Table 11 . 12 . 13. 14 . Significant Correlations of Pretest, Barrier and Penetration Scores to Affect Adjective Check List and Semantic Differential Change Scores Computed for the Total Sample (N=96), for Males (N=48) and for Females (N=48) Significant Correlations of Pretest Affect Adjective Check List and Semantic Differential Scores to Barrier and Penetration Change Scores Computed for the Total Sample and for Each Sex . . . Significant Correlations of Pretest Barrier and Penetration Scores to Affect Adjective Check List andSemantic Differential Pretest and Change Scores Computed Within Treatment Groups Significant Correlations of Pretest Affect Adjective Check List and Semantic Differential Scores to Barrier and Penetration Change Scores Computed Within Treatment Groups viii Page 77 79 80 82

PAGE 9

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Cbuncil of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE EFFECTS ON INKBLOT BARRIER SCORES OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF BODY AWARENESS DURING BODY STIMULATION EXERCISES By Gary Gragg Smith June, 1977 Chairman: Vernon Van De Riet Major Department: Psychology Previous studies have shown that attention to the body's peripheries can augment body boundary definiteness, as measured by increases in inkblot Barrier Scores. It has not been clear whether Barrier increases would occur as a function of physical stimulation per se, independently of level of attention to the body. In the present study it was hypothesized that attention is the effective factor in such experiments, and that Barrier scores would increase differentially as a function of various levels of attention to the body during physical exercises. Twelve male and twelve female subjects participated in each of four treatment groups: a "non-body" control; a task-oriented "outward attention" condition; a "body IX

PAGE 10

stimulation only" condition; and a "Gestalt" condition. The experimental conditions represented a hierarchy of levels of body awareness with the Gestalt group representing the highest level. All experimental groups participated in the same physical exercises. Subjects were seen in small groups of both sexes. Holtzman inkblot records were taken pretreatment , post-treatment , and 48 hours following treatment. Barrier and Penetration scores were obtained. Other measures were the Affect Adjective Check List and Semantic Differential Scales rating "This Experiment" and "My Mood Right Now." Change scores from pretest to posttest and pretest to followup were analyzed for treatment and sex effects on all variables. The hypothesis that all experimental groups would show greater mean Barrier increases than the control at posttest was not confirmed. No groups increased significantly. The hypothesis that only the Gestalt group would show a significant mean Barrier increase at followup also was not confirmed. Males in the "outward attention" condition showed a significant mean increase. This was interpreted in terms of sex differences regarding the relationship of achievement drive to boundary definiteness. No other group showed a significant mean increase in Barrier. However, a sign test on Barrier scores in the Gestalt group showed a significantly high proportion of increases from pretest to followup. x

PAGE 11

In the Gestalt group, males generally decreased in positive affect from pretest to followup, while females increased in positive affect. This was interpreted in terms of sex differences in attitudes toward body awareness. In all groups, from pretest to posttest, males increased and females decreased on measures of the Activity of their own mood and the Activity of the experiment. Males decreased and females increased in evaluation of their own mood. From pre to followup, males increased and females decreased on the measure of Potency of one's own mood. Barrier scores correlated significantly and positively with Penetration scores at pretest and posttest. At pretest, Barrier scores correlated significantly and negatively with Hostility and with ratings of the experiment's Activity and Potency. It was concluded that incremental levels of body awareness did not produce differential effects on Barrier scores. However, the sign test results within the Gestalt group and the significant mean Barrier increase among males in the outward attention group call for further investigation of possible lasting or delayed effects on Barrier scores of brief experimental procedures. It was also concluded that females responded with increased positive affect and males with decreased positive affect to the body awareness procedures in the Gestalt condition. It was felt that this result has important implications for body therapies. xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER I THE BACKGROUND AND FOCUS OF THE STUDY Introduction This study is concerned with an area that has historically received little experimental attention--the relationship of body sensation to psychological functioning. More specifically, it is an experimental exploration of the effects of different "levels of body awareness" on inkblot Barrier scores, a measure of body boundary definiteness which has shown relationships with numerous personality indices. This kind of research is important from two perspectives. First, it has the potential to add to existing knowledge accumulated by basic research in body image, specifically that concerning the "boundary" aspect of body experience. It might a.lso provide data which would further refine the current view of the meaning and utility of the Barrier score itself. Secondly, the research has relevance to psychotherapy and counseling. A number of therapeutic approaches have been developed by psychoanalyt ically oriented and "third force" psychologists which utilize techniques directly involving the body or which emphasize the 1

PAGE 13

2 importance of body awareness and body— boundary definiteness. Examples of these, respectively, are Des Lauriers 1 (1962) psychoanalyt ically based techniques for body boundary enhancement in schizophrenics, and the body awareness techniques of Gestalt therapy. There has been little empirical investigation into the efficacy of these methods though there is literature containing a good deal of theoretical speculation and many clinical vignettes illustrating the role of attention to body sensations in therapy. Gestalt therapy is perhaps the most influential and widely accepted of the "body therapies," though it is by no means limited in theory and technique to body concerns. In fact, Gestalt therapy offers a world view--a global, holistic theory that is applicable to social and environmental thinking as well as to psychotherapy (e.g., Peris, Hef f erline , and Goodman, 1951; Rozak, 1968) . Yet at its core is a call to "return to the senses," to return to organismic self -regulation . An emphasis on awareness of body feelings and sensations underlies the theory throughout. Levitsky and Peris (1970) believe such bodily awareness constitutes our most — perhaps our only — certain knowledge . " The present study has to do with the effects on body boundary definiteness of attention to sensations from the skin and muscles. A guiding hypothesis is that some of the techniques of Gestalt therapy serve to augment

PAGE 14

3 body-boundary definiteness."'" This is seen as a result of a combination of two factors: the active involvement of the body itself and the attitude toward body experience that is fostered by Gestalt therapy. Before an explicit presentation of the proposed study is made, it is worthwhile to discuss the historical background and context of "body image." The concept has not long been viable in the world of personality theorists, and it lacks clear definition. What is remarkable is that it has developed at all, given the philosophical biases generally prevalent in American psychological research. Philosophical Context of the Concept of Body Image As Fisher and Cleveland (1968) pointout, personality theory today reflects a philosophical heritage that has effectively excluded the individual's experience of his body as a personality variable. About the only consideration the body has traditionally received is as a physiological system which is the source of "needs" and "drives." Hanna (1971) elaborates on this philosophical heritage. He takes an evolutionary point of view, saying that human cultural development has been characterized by a predominantly assimilative mode of adaptation to the environment. Conscious, rational abilities developed in humans as a means The full meaning of "body-boundary definiteness" is discussed at a later point.

PAGE 15

4 to control and tame the environment. In the process, consciousness came to be emphasized as the distinguishing attribute of humans, and philosophers and theologians emphasized "mind" and "spirit" in their attempts to define human beings. Bodies, including those of humans, were relegated to the lower status of matter. Thus, by identifying self with "mind, " we long overlooked the body as part of our essential humanness. On the other hand, modern science and technology, developing from a base of philosophical empiricism and positivism, have all but elimi nated a concept of mind. Objectivism is their functional a ttitude in an ever more refined effort to investigate and control the physical environment. For objectivism, the body has become but another object to be studied and manipulated in a world "out there," an orientation that has further alienated people from their "somatic being." Thus, one can see a great separation in the development of the physiological and biological sciences from that of the study of personality. Psychology, in an effort to be objectively scientific, has developed a strong tradition of behaviorism. This movement, with its elimination of reports of experience as valid data, has created an extremely unfavorable climate for investigations of body experience. In this context, it is quite understandable that personality theorists ". . . have failed to work out any but the simplest formulations regarding how the

PAGE 16

5 individual organizes his perception of his own body and how these perceptions affect his behavior" (Fisher and Cleveland, 1968, p. v) . The work of some phenomenological philosophers, concerned with the questions of being and consciousness, has made "embodiment" a central concept. The work of Marcel and Merleau-Ponty has relatively recently begun to influence directly or indirectly psychological theory and research. Some. of this research will be reviewed later. The thinking of psychoanalytic theorists has been another stimulus for much of this work, and it will also be discussed later. Gabriel Marcel Gabriel Marcel was perhaps the first philosopher (in 1914) to consider the body as a "central datum, to be investigated for its own sake and in its own terms, in terms of one's own experience of his body" (Zaner, 1964). Marcel sees "my body qua mine" as the axis of all metaphysics. For him the fundamental question of metaphysics is 'Who, or what am I? "--and the answer at root is "I am my body . " Marcel arrives at this by means of what he calls second reflection, " a mode of investigation that gets to the level of "'the concrete and personal I,' the 'man of flesh and bone, ' the ' I exist' in its indecomposable unity" (Zaner, 1964, p. 9). Science, in its concern with objective

PAGE 17

6 validity, stays at the level of "first reflection"; the scientist forgets himself for the sake of his work, attempting to maintain anonymity in order to discover objective laws. While this orientation is fruitful in the investigation of the physical world, first reflection is not adequate to deal with problems of the self. Insofar as the self is taken as an object or problem, "one will have missed precisely what one set out to discover" (Zaner). The self is necessarily "myself," and for me, my self, my existence, cannot be an object. it therefore must be approached from within, which is what second reflection does. For Marcel, an affirmation of existence is not "I t hink , not even l_ live , but jE experience . . ." (Marcel, 1940; quoted in Zaner) . Reflection on experience reveals that to exist is not just to exist "for myself," but that "I manifest myself, 1 and this manifestation is actualized by the body. In consciousness, we can either regard the body as an instrument, m which case it becomes an object— a datum in space— or we can apprehend it internally through bodily sensations. The latter reveals the body as subject, wherein it is bound up with consciousness, feeling, and participation in the world. The ground for this participation is being-embodied — "my body qua mine . " To be embodied is also to be exposed to the world — to be present to the world. My "being-to-the world" is my

PAGE 18

7 embodiment . "As embodied, not only do I become able to engage myself in the world by means of bodily activities, I also and just because of that, open myself to the world's actions on me. I partake of the world by means of my fundamental sentir which connects me to my body, and by means (of) that, to the world itself" (Zaner, p. 41). The body is thus, "in sympathy with things ... I am really attached to and really adhere to all that exists-to the universe which is my universe and whose center is my body" (Quoted in Zaner, p. 42). As will be seen later, these notions anticipated certain formulations of Gestalt therapy, which sees the self as a moment in the total environmental field. To Marcel the relationship of the body to the world is not an objective one then, wherein objects are perceived by consciousness in some mediated fashion via messages from outside to "inside. " Rather the body is the primary felt base of all experience of the world. It is in terms of our embodied participation in the world that "I am my body." Maurice Merleau-Ponty Maurice Merleau-Ponty states that he has "tried, first of all, to re-establish the roots of the mind in its body and in its world, going against doctrines which treat perception as a simple result of the action of external things on our body as well as against those which insist on the autonomy of consciousness. These philosophies

PAGE 19

8 commonly fo.rget--in favor of a pure exteriority or of a pure inferiority the insertion of the mind in corporeality, the ambiguous relation which we entertain with our body, and, correlatively , with perceived things" (1969, p. 368). it is the investigation of these relations which has "initiated us to the truth"; he, like Marcel, was concerned with being--an ontology of human existence, and he saw "embodiment" as the fundamental problem in this endeavor. Also like Marcel, for Merleau-Ponty the body is our being to the world." " Etre-au-monde forms the matrix in which both physical-physiological and psychical processes are concretely united, lived as a single current" (translated and quoted from Phenomenoloqie de la Perception [1945] by Zaner, 1964, p. 147). Consciousness is always lived, experienced from moment to moment as engaged in the world, that is, embodied. From this shared ground with Marcel — that consciousness is founded on the body as lived — Merleau-Ponty develops a theory of the nature of the transactions of the body and the world, which is also a theory of perception; and because for him it is the same as perception, a theory of consciousness. The body, as experienced by the one whose body it is, is '"a decisive moment in the genesis of the objective world. That is to say, it is that in virtue of which there are objects for me" (Zaner, p. 152) . form" the objects of the world. The body "puts into

PAGE 20

9 Human beings exist in a lived-space, which is organized in terms of a corporeal scheme. (The formulations concerning, the corporeal scheme draw heavily on the theories of Gestalt psychology and the work of Kurt Goldstein, who incorporated the figure-ground concept into a model of personality-behavior . ) This corporeal scheme is developed by means of bodily movements and actions in specific situations. It is dynamic, in that in a particular situation, with a particular perceptual target, the entire body is oriented toward that target. Each sense, through the corporeal scheme, implicates the entire body. Thus, the body develops a unity. Zaner points to the analogy with Piaget ' s developmental theories. "When Piaget's child, Laurent, learns to differentiate the thing-heard from the thing-seen (and thus no longer for example to attempt to see sounds) , and yet sees and hears the same object, what has happened, Merleau-Ponty contends, is that there has appeared a certain unification of the body, the senses, and the objects thereof, and that along with this unification (as its consequence) there develops a scheme " (p. 169). Thus, this scheme represents the development, over time, of a tying together of perceptions of the various senses and' of the same sense in different situations. The corporeal scheme, as the unification of these various perceptions, makes possible our perception of an "object."

PAGE 21

10 It is via the corporeal scheme that the world is ordered and maintains its permanence. The lived body itself, however, cannot be an object of perception in the world because it is the means by which there are objects. The body and its movements are constantly experienced simultaneously as the world is experienced; in order for the world to be experienced. Things in the world are given to consciousness "in a living connection comparable (or rather, identical) to the one which exists among the parts of my body itself" (Merleau-Ponty , 1945, quoted in Zaner, p. 151). Thus, it is possible to experience an object as the same, whether we are to the right or left of it, or whether we see it, touch it, or smell it. We are presented with a theory of the unity of the body and the world as we perceive it. This unity is the foundation of all consciousness . The influence of Merleau-Ponty can be seen in much of the recent psychological research on body image, particularly in that of the " sensorytonic group" (e.g., Wapner, 1964, Wapner and Werner, 1965, and Witkin, 1965). Also, Merleau-Ponty shares with Peris a reliance on the ideas of Gestalt psychology and those of Goldstein. Early Psychological Theorists and Body Image As a backdrop for the body-boundary research to be presented it is worth mentioning some early psychologists

PAGE 22

11 who did recognize the importance of body experience phenomena. Among the first was G. S. Hall (1898), who, with a questionnaire, asked children of different age levels their earliest memories relating to parts of their bodies. He concluded that the hands and fingers are the earliest parts of the physical self to attract attention, and conjectured that "when hand and mouth meet, body consciousness begins . " The most explicit early recognition of the body's function in personality was made by Freud in "The Ego and the Id," first published in 1923. He saw the body as the starting point for the formation of the ego. The perceptions arising from the surface of the body are the earliest means by which an individual discriminates himself from the environment. The ego is ultimately derived from these bodily sensations and may be regarded in part as a mental projection of the body's surface. For Freud, "the ego is first and foremost a body —ego . . . " (1952, p. 703). Freud's ideas regarding developmental stages have strong body image implications in that the stages are conceptualized as being centered around specific body parts, that is, erogenous zones . Other early psychoanalysts were less explicitly concerned with body-image aspects of personality, but their importance was implied. Fisher and Cleveland point out the body-image implications of Adler's emphasis on the role of

PAGE 23

12 organ inferiority in neurosis. They also show that Jung's mandala and Rank's maternal symbols relate to body-image boundary in that they have containing, protective qualities (1968 , pp . 46-49 ) . Schilder (1935) was an early psychoanalytic writer who, on the basis of his own introspection and clinical experience, presented ideas which anticipated some of the current work concerning body-boundary. In discussing an individual's internal perception of the body, he suggests in regard to surface sensations, "the outline of the skin is not felt as a smooth and straight surface. The outline is blurred. There are no sharp borderlines between the outside world and the body" (p. 85) . However, when an object is touching the skin as when we touch an object with our hands or with another body surface, "At this very moment, the surface becomes smooth, clear, and distinct" (p. 86) . He was also talking about bodyboundary when he emphasized "how labile and changeable the body image is, the body image can shrink or expand; it can give parts to the outside world and can take other parts into itself" (p. 202) . These ideas, along with his discussion of a postural model of the body, were forerunners to more recent thinking. Also in a footnote (p. 86) he mentions a notion that has implications for present day body awareness techniques. We come to the general formulation that intoxication and pathological changes bring to the consciousness

PAGE 24

13 (body) phenomena which are present in the normal person, but are there neglected. Our tendency to live in the world of reality leads us to neglect what is going on in the field of sensations." As we shall see, what Schilder points out is neglected is considered by Gestalt therapists to have an important place in "the world of reality"; one in which awareness should be developed. Another writer in the psychoanalytic tradition, Wilhelm Reich (1960), made body phenomena the core of both his theoretical system and his therapeutic approach. He called his therapy "character analysis," a technique to dissolve the "character armor" maintained by neurotic individuals. Character armor is manifested bodily as "muscular armor," a chronic hypertension of peripheral musculature. According to Reich, there are seven armor bands surrounding the body, segmenting it from the head to the pelvis. The goal of therapy is to loosen these armor bands systematicaiiy, allowing the natural flow of orgone energy to occur. This loosening is accomplished by direct physical manipulation as well as by more traditional verbal techniques. Reich's formulations had great influence on Peris, particularly his concepton of "retrof lection" as the muscular manifestation of repression. The Body Boundary Body-boundary may be thought of as the consciously or subconsciously perceived "border," or line of

PAGE 25

14 demarcation, which separates the individual from the external environment. it is possible to differentiate two recent approaches to the study of body-boundary phenomena. In the first, the body is dealt with directly as a consciously perceived object. in this approach, research is aimed toward identifying conditions under which changes in the perception of body-boundaries may be observed. Boundary, then, is dealt with primarily as a dependent variable. In the second approach, body-boundary is understood as an element of personality. A person always carries an idea, usually subconscious, of the body's boundaries. This idea is rooted in past experiences with the surface of the body and, like other personality variables considered to be developmen tally shaped, is a relatively stable trait which influences the individual's characteristic ways of functioning. Body-boundary taken this way has been handled experimentally mainly as an independent variable. Research of the former type has been done most extensively by the sensori-tonic group at Clark University. Sensori-tonic field theory exhibits ties to the work of Merleau-Ponty . It is described by Wapner (1964, pp. 6-44). Basically, it assumes "perception is a reflection of the relation between proximal stimulation and ongoing orga— nismic states. Thus, what is perceived is seen as a function of the outside object, or stimulus, the present state of the organism, and the relationship between the two in

PAGE 26

15 any given situation. Changes in perception can thus occur as a function of changes in the organism or in the environment; i.e., "in either aspect of the polarity 'organism: object ' . " Body-boundary changes in this group's research are equated with changes in perceived size of different body parts. Changes in perceived arm length and head width have been observed in situations where the independent variable was openness or confinement of the surrounding space. The arm was perceived as shorter and the head narrower in a confined as opposed to an extended space (Wapner , McFarland, and Werner, 1962). Increasing the "definiteness" of the body-boundary by touching the skin has also been shown to produce smaller apparent size of body parts. For example, Humphries (cited in Fisher, 1970, pp. 30-31) found shrinkage in the perception of arm length when the finger tips were touched. Also, Wapner and Werner (1965) report changes in perceived arm length as a function of the arm being used as an instrument in transaction with the environment. When the arm was used to point to an object, it was perceived as longer than when it was simply extended. When a short stick was held to point with, the arm was percieved as even longer. When a similar study was made with children, pointing with the stick extended the perception of arm length even farther than for adults. The developmental implication of this is

PAGE 27

16 that the child differentiates less between the pointing device and his arm than does the adult. Relatedly, apparent head width was found to be greater in children than in adults . These studies help place body-boundary in a developmental context consistent with psychoanalytic theories concerning the body-ego's" importance in differentiating the individual from the world as well as with the "organismicdevelopmental " theories of perception offered by Wapner, Witkin (1965) and others. In both of these schools, the body image is seen as becoming more articulated over time. For Witkin (1965) this articulation includes two dimensions: the extent of inner differentiation and the extent of body separation from the external field, i.e., boundary definiteness. This experienced articulation of the body is necessary in discriminating what is "inside" from what is "outside," and in producing a clearly articulated external world. In other words, a degree of body articulation is necessary in the perception of objective reality. Apparent head width and arm length have also been found to be larger in schizophrenics and in normals who have taken LSD than in normal adults under normal conditions (Liebert, Werner, and Wapner, 1958) . These results were interpreted as indicating a regression in the LSD condition which reduced boundary definiteness. These latter studies suggest a functional relationship of body-boundary change and developmental and

PAGE 28

17 psychopathological variables, thereby lending credence to the idea of body-boundary as a personality variable. Fisher and Cleveland (1968) developed a theory of the body image boundary dimension" as a personality construct. They see the body as involved in a "relatively intricate linkage ... as an object with the central internalized systems that constitute the framework of the personality (p. 35) . The way a person experiences his or her body reflects the workings of these systems. Each internalized system has formal boundary properties "which vary relative to the nature of the relationships that were the prototype for the system. For example, if an individual s interactions with the mother figure have been such that she had a series of meaningful, clear-cut, and stable expectations of him and he in turn developed similar patterns of expectations of her, one would assume that the interiorized system growing out of the relationship would have definite well-articulated boundaries. If, however, the mother's expectations have been experienced as not meaningful or as erratic and inconsistent, it would make for a poorly organized interior system with ill— defined boundaries (pp • 353-354) . "it is hypothesized that the qualities of the boundary one ascribes to one's body reflect the predominance of either poorly or well-bounded internalizations" (p. 354) .

PAGE 29

18 For Fisher and Cleveland, then, an individual's perceived body-boundary definiteness is an index of his or her personality organization and integration. A person's boundary is seen as "a screen which he interposes between himself and outer situations and which he can carry with him at all times. It makes it possible for him to feel that he is not open and vulnerable to everything which occurs in his vicinity and that there is some dependable definiteness about his immediate behavioral space. This facilitates his viewing himself as existing in an environment in which the safety factor is fairly constant" (p. 354). Level of body-boundary definiteness, then, is viewed as a stable, ongoing characteristic, not ordinarily affected by situational changes. The "screen" aspect of boundary is not taken in any sense, however, as a wall to hide behind or a line of defense against the world. Rather, the boundary is seen as the place of contact with the world; it provides a sense of individuation and security which facilitates perception and the initiation of contact in the social and physical worlds . In addition to the patterns of expectations mentioned above as a source of boundary, skin and muscle sensations themselves are assumed to give rise to boundary definiteness. This comes about by reason of the fact that the expectancies, or "sets," generated by well-articulated

PAGE 30

19 systems have action significance. They are sets to respond to the world in particular ways, "... exterior layers of the body (particularly the musculature) tend to be equated with voluntary, reality-coping behavior, whereas the body interior is equated with involuntary response. The orientation of the person (with definite boundaries) is therefore translated into a persistently high level of activation of the exterior body layers. There is a set to respond with this region of the body which is manifested in a long-term pattern of preparatory excitation" (p. 358). There is thus a feedback system, a self-reinforcing circuit between peripheral activation and sets toward certain kinds of behavior. Fisher suggests (1970), on the basis of findings to be cited below, that the actual experience of boundary sensations is also, in itself, an important source of boundary definiteness. Fisher and Cleveland developed a method of scoring responses to inkblot stimuli which purportedly measures the degree of an individual's experienced body-boundary definiteness. A "Barrier" score (B) is given to inkblot percepts which emphasize definite characteristics of the peripheries. Containing vessels, such as a basket or jug, fancy costumes, turtles with shells, and masks are examples of inkblot responses that would be scored B. The higher the Barrier score, the more definite the person's boundaries are assumed to be. Inkblot percepts which indicate a weakness or

PAGE 31

20 penetrability of boundaries are given a "Penetration" score (P) . Examples of Penetration responses are a torn coat, a squashed bug, and a person bleeding. Among normal subjects, P has not shown the predictive power of B, and has been neither negatively nor positively correlated with B. it therefore cannot be taken to have the opposite meaning of Barrier. The Barrier score has shown a positive relationship to a number of variables which, taken together, Fisher and Cleveland designate as "self-steering behavior." High (above median) B subjects have been found to rate significantly higher than low-B subjects on the TAT aspiration index and measures of classroom achievement. High and lowB subjects scored higher on McClellan's n achievement test than median-B subjects. That low-B subjects scored high on this test was explained in terms of compensatory behavior (1968, p. 121). Generally, these studies suggest a higher level of goal setting for high as opposed to low and median-B persons. Other studies reported by Fisher and Cleveland suggest that high-B subjects exhibit a greater need for task completion; less suggestability ; greater orientation toward self-gratif ication; greater ability to express anger outward; and a greater ability to tolerate stress than low and median-B subjects (1968, pp. 117-1952).

PAGE 32

21 Fisher (1970) found that high-B subjects exhibit significantly greater perceptual vividness of the environment in a study using the Ames Thereness-Thatness Table to measure perceptual vividness. Relatedly, Twente (1964) found, in a questionnaire study of waking-up behavior, that Barrier score was significantly and positively correlated with behavior aimed at increasing sensory contact with the environment and at communicating with other people. Frede et al . (1968) studied how college students would portray social interaction by means of a miniature stage setting where they arranged miniature characters and told stories about them. It was found that Barrier score was significantly positively correlated with total amount of social interaction and negatively correlated to the amount of distance between the figures placed on the stage. Ramer (1963) found that high-B subjects sent significantly more messages and issued more opinions and clarifying statements than did low-B subjects. Cleveland and Morton (1962), in a study of psychiatric patients in group therapy, gave a sociometric questionnaire to group members at the end of four weeks . They found that high-B patients were significantly nominated more often than low-B patients for their ability to influence other members; inclination to put the group above personal goals; helping to resolve differences; and other group interaction skills.

PAGE 33

22 The results of these studies support Fisher and Cleveland s earlier investigations of Barrier score and group interaction (1968, pp. 206-230). The high Barrier person is characterized as one who is more likely to be involved, sensitive, and facilitative in interactions with other people. At the physiological level a number of studies have related Barrier score to measures of external (skin and muscles) and internal (usually heart) body reactivity. Davis (1960) compared normal subjects with unusually high Barrier scores to subjects with unusually low Barrier scores on measures of muscle potential, skin resistance, and heart response. Low-B subjects were higher in indices of heart reactivity and high-B subjects were significantly higher on measures of muscle reactivity. Fisher and Osofsky (1967), Roessler et al . (1966) , and Zimny (1965) report further studies in which greater external activation (skin resistance) was significantly related to higher Barrier scores. Other studies reviewed by Fisher (1970), which used hospitalized patients with external (e.g., dermatitis) and internal (e.g. , ulcers) symptoms, show that higher Barrier scores are generally associated with external symptoms and low Barrier scores with internal symptoms. The studies most persuasively linking the boundary measures directly with perception of the body have been among those treating Barrier and Penetration scores as

PAGE 34

23 dependent experimental variables. Reitman and Cleveland (1964) found that neurotics manifested decreased Barrier and increased Penetration scores following sensory isolation, while for schizophrenics the reverse pattern obtained. Fisher and Renik (1966) , using a test-retest design, found that subjects who were caused to focus more attention on their skin and muscles showed a significant increase in Barrier compared to a control group. Subjects focusing attention on interior body parts showed a significant decrease in Barrier scores. Van De Mark and Neuringer (1969) found significantly higher Barrier scores for subjects who underwent a treatment of external somatic stimulation compared to those in neutral and internal stimulation conditions. They also used analogous conditions in which subjects were asked to imagine , rather than actually experience bodily, the stimulation conditions. These conditions also affected Barrier scores; subjects who imagined the external stimulation showed significantly higher Barrier scores that those in the other imagining conditions. Darby (1970) used active muscle involvement in a similar project with schizophrenics. He found that active physical exercise was instrumental in producing a Barrier increase, but imagining procedures were not. Luhn (1971) however, reports that both actual and imagined stimulation resulted in increased Barrier scores among schizophrenics. These studies will be discussed again later in relation to the present experiment.

PAGE 35

24 Boundary and Psychological Treatment Cleveland (1960) , using data furnished by Goldman (1960), found that schizophrenic patients who were judged to have improved markedly during hospitalization showed significant increases in Barrier scores and significant decreases in Penetration scores. While treatment was not explicitly body oriented, it is assumed that the process of improvement involved an increase in these patients' experienced bodyboundary definiteness. Des Lauriers (1962) has presented a method of treatment for schizophrenics which is explicitly based on bodyego theory. It is presented here in order to represent the therapy implications of an essentially psychoanalytic theory of body boundary. Des Lauriers assumes that increasing the patient's narcissistic cathexis of his or her bodily boundaries will lead the patient to develop an increasingly healthy reality relationship. Among his theoretical postulates are (p. 61) The primary model of reality, as a psychological experience, is the experience of the bodily self, as bounded, finite, limited in space, separated and differentiated from what it reaches by transgressing such bodily boundaries." And, "The genetic development of the experience of reality involves, at progressively more complex levels of organic and functional developments, experiences of bodily sensations, bodily feelings, bodily images, bodily movements, bodily thoughts."

PAGE 36

25 The schizophrenic has lost awareness of his or her bodily limits and thus is prevented from experiencing him or herself and the world as real. Therapy is conceived as a process of systematically helping the patient to regain the experience of the bodily self as bounded and separated from the non-self in the real world. In order to do this, the patient needs to be "stimulated insistently, not to draw him out of himself, but rather to make him take cognizance of himself experiencing the stimulus given. In the confused and disorganized world of the schizophrenic, the therapist must stand out as a clear-cut, welldelineated, intruding force" (p. 63). The energies of the therapist then are directed toward contact with the patient, toward making the patient take notice of his or her body contours. Like a mother with her child, the therapist should engage in physical, sensual, and emotional contact with the patient. The process is one then of maturation, in which the patient comes to know his or her own body, rather than one of "learning how" to perceive the body. "it is a matter of presence : a forceful, insistent, intruding presence of the therapist, rather than one of developing a relationship. it is only after this maturational process of "narcissistic cathexis" has occurred that a meaningful relationship can develop.

PAGE 37

26 Gestalt Therapy and Boundary The word "boundary" for Gestalt therapy doesn't necessarily mean "bodyboundary , " though it may mean that and often does. For Gestalt, the boundary is the point of transaction in the organism/environment field. This doesn't mean between the organism and environment: "When we say 'boundary' we think of a 'boundary between'; but the contact boundary does not separate the organism and its environment; rather it limits the organism, contains and protects it, and at the same time it touches the environment . . . the contact-boundary — for example, the sensitive skin— is not so much a part of the 'organism' as it is essentially the organ of a particular relation of the organism and the environment " (Peris, et al., 1951, p. 229). The organism/environment is a unified whole. Contact and transaction occur also within the organism— at boundaries of parts of the organism, which are body structures and processes. These always occur in relation to the organism/environment field, however; the organism doesn t exist in isolation. The self occurs at the boundaries of contact; in health, awareness develops, a gestalt forms and the transaction is completed. The boundary, the point of contact, of existence of the self, is fluid. The boundary (self) differentiates us from other. For Gestalt therapy, the individual has needs and meets them, through sensory-motor functions, by contacting

PAGE 38

27 the environment and assimilating those aspects of it that are nourishing. The need is the organizing figure of a Gestalt, and the contact-assimilation process is driven by the natural biological process of aggression, which is life-supporting. The ego is the identifying and alienating aspect of the organism--the conscious realm of fantasy, values, rationality, and irrationality. For Peris, the ego is also conceived of as a boundary. It is the fantasized or conscious boundary between what is self (identified with) and other (alienated) (Peris, 1969) . When the ego identifies with the self as it is in actuality i . e . , as in process of organismic self-regulation the organism is healthy. When the ego identifies with something outside the organism--something that hasn't been assimilated by organismic process but is mistaken as self, such as societal or interpersonal expectation--it becomes alienated from the self. This alienation is blocking. The aggression of the healthy organism is turned unhealthily back on the organism to prevent phenomena relevant to needs from being contacted. This turning back of aggression may take the form of muscular contraction.^ This is Peris' adoption of Reich's idea of retroflection, which generates muscular armor. For Peris, Reich and the other psychoanalysts had some success in unifying the "mind" and "body," but were mistaken in their implicit assumption that the functioning organism could be understood "within the skin." That is, the organism for Peris is an abstraction from the organism/environemnt field. It cannot be seen as it actually is when segregated from the environment .

PAGE 39

28 For example, a man, through identification with the social dictum, "big boys don't cry," deliberately inhibits a genuine need, sobbing, by contracting the diaphragm. Over time, this contraction is taken over autonomically , and he becomes unaware of it. Besides not crying, he is also unable to feel sadness or to breathe freely. The energy of sobbing and the energy of aggression have become bound up together in confluence with the social demand, and the man has become self-alienated . The task of therapy is to help the man differentiate and reestablish the boundary of the two parts: diaphragmcontraction (aggression against sobbing) and sobbing. When the boundary is established, the parts may function again in dynamic relations with the whole: i.e. , the energy of aggression may be directed toward contact, the man may again feel and express genuine sadness and by breathing freely, he may again assimilate more, fully from the environment one of the sources of his energy. of the process of Gestalt therapy involves focusing attention at the place where the bounded energy is stored, i.e., where boundaries have becomed blurred. In the example above, this would probably be the diaphragm area. Since the client is not aware of the tension there, it is the task of the therapist to guide him. If the therapist has noticed a shortness of the man's breathing, for instance, he might ask him to be aware of his breathing

PAGE 40

29 and attendant sensations. Through this kind of directed awareness, sensations of tension may arise from the abdomen and the therapist would ask the client to "stay with" these. In this way, the tightness, the constriction of the diaphragm may emerge as figure and the client will come to awareness of how he, right now, is inhibiting himself. By identifying with his inhibiting self, he (ego) is in a position to take responsibility for what was totally unnoticed before. There are two ways in which Gestalt therapy techniques have direct relevance to the body boundary concept already presented. First, the kind of muscular tension that Gestalt focuses on is often, if not usually, located in peripheral musculature. A component of retrof lection is desensitization of affected body areas. The individual doesn't experience sensations from these areas. The technique described above illustrates how the therapist attempts to help the client recover such sensations. Second is the fact that Gestalt is an active therapy. The client is often asked to move, to act on fantasies. This might involve transforming an involuntary "gut level" feeling say a knot in the stomach — into voluntary external muscular action. For example, a particular client may motorically express this inner sensation by squeezing a pillow in order to express, and therefore fully feel, his or her anger. By responding in this active fashion — not

PAGE 41

30 just verbally, in fantasy, and by unnoticed muscle tension--the client works toward awareness of his or her functioning . Gestalt therapy considers openness to body experience an essential element in living fully. The Polsters (1974) discuss the sensori-motor functions as united. "At times of union between awareness (of sensory experience) and expression (motor action) , profound feelings of presence and wholeness of personality, clarity of perception and vibrancy of inner experience are common" (p . 215). Gestalt therapists have developed body awareness exercises designed to help the individual get in touch with hxs or her body. For example, in Gestalt Therapy , Peris offer an exercise in guided body awareness. In this section (p. 86), he makes the distinction between visualizing the body and feeling it. Peris says, for example, "Most persons, lacking adequate proprioception of parts of their body, substitute in place of this visualization or theory. For instance, they know where their legs are and so they picture them there. This is not feeling them there! With a picture of your legs or a map of your body you deliberately walk, run or kick after a fashion; but for free, unforced spontaneous functioning of these parts you need felt-contact with your legs themselves. This you must get directly from proprioception of their tensions and tendencies to movement. To the extent that there is a discrepancy

PAGE 42

31 between the verbal concept of the self and the felt awareness of the self and it exists to some degree in practically everyonethis is neurosis " (p. 86). This, of course is reminiscent of Marcel's and Merleau-Ponty ' s views on the body-subject, as opposed to the body as object or instrument. Peris is saying that most of us have adopted an objective view of our bodies, and that this is a crucial form of self-alienation . In regard to the present study, it is significant that all of the techniques Peris recommends for developing "body awareness" directly stimulate the muscles and skin-i.e., gymnastics, dancing, massage, soaking in the tub, and electric vibrator. The Focus of the Present Study This study was concerned with the effects on inkblot Barrier scores of different "levels" of body awareness. The term awareness as used here refers to the nature of the attention given to bodily sensations during exercises which stimulate peripheral muscles and skin. Studies mentioned earlier showed that Barrier scores could be increased by having subjects participate in exercises which focused attention on surface sensations. Looking at the boundary augmenting techniques used in each of these studies, one sees that in every case subjects were either instructed to attend specifically to certain types of sensations, or the exercises were of an intrusive or

PAGE 43

32 strenuous nature which drew attention to the muscles and skin. For example, the techniques used by Fisher and Renik involved having subjects report every time they felt a sensation from the skin and arrange bristles in order of s ^^ff ness after rubbing them across the back of the hand. Van de Mark and Neuringer had their subjects participate in activities such as holding their arms out horizontally for one minute and having an electric vibrator run over their shoulder, neck, and arms. They also had subjects imagine doing each of the exercises, with no actual physical stimulation. This also produced a significant increase in Barrier scores.''' Thus, it appeared to the author that focused attention alone may be sufficient to produce an increase in Barrier scores, while physical activity is effective only insofar as it is a means of drawing subjects attention to the body. This was an underlying hypothesis of the present experiment . However, the results of Darby's (1970) study may have provided evidence that mitigates this assumption; that is, X The imagining procedures, while they demonstrate the role of central cognitive processes, do not rule out the physiological activation of the imagined body areas. Jacobson (1931) reports a study which directly relates to this. He found that when instructions were given to imagine bending the arm, action currents were registered from the arm. Interestingly, in connection with Gestalt, when instructions were to visualize bending the arm, action currents were registered from the ocular region, but not the arm. Other studies dealing with muscular activation and thinking are reviewed by Humphrey (1951) .

PAGE 44

33 that activity per se, rather than somatic awareness, accounted for the increases he observed in Barrier scores. Among schizophrenic subjects, he found increments in Barrier increases corresponding to the level of physical activity involved in each of his experimental conditions — from no increase in his imagination condition through slight (but significant) increases in conditions of passive body stimulation, to large increases under a condition of strenuous physical activity. He discussed the possibility that the body stimulation was effective only insofar as it helped focus thinking on the body, but he also felt there was a strong likelihood that, given the absence of B increases in his wholly cognitive condition, the incremental increases indicated that somatic stimulation per se was the operative factor. The present author felt, however, that this increment might just as easily be accounted for in terms of differential levels of conscious attention to the body elicited by Darby's various methods of physical stimulation; that is, the more strenuous the exercises, the more attention was drawn to the body. The present study was designed in part to help clarify this matter of attention versus body stimulation. It was conceived to go beyond previous investigations in that it would directly address the problem of attention to body sensations during physical stimulation. An attempt

PAGE 45

34 was made to separate the possible effects of physical activity and attention by holding the level of physical stimulation constant while manipulating the level of attention given to body sensations. One condition of the present study represented an approach opposite that taken by Van De Mark and Neuringer. In their imagination condition they had subjects imagine doing certain physical activities while actual physical stimulation was kept minimal. In condition II of the present study, subjects engaged in physical exercise while attention to the body was minimized. if the increment that Darby observed was actually a function of physical activity and not attention, then it follows that increases in Barrier would occur in condition II that would be comparable to those expected in conditions where the same physical exercises were performed in conjunction with focused attention on body sensations. On the other hand, if such an increment is a function of levels of attention. Barrier scores would show differential changes among these conditions. A further concern of this study was the idea that therapeutic body awareness techniques would have an augmenting effect on B beyond that expected from simple body stimulation exercises alone. The evidence already discussed in this paper suggests strongly that degree of boundary definiteness, which may be measured by the Barrier score, is an important factor in personality health. Fisher (1973)

PAGE 46

35 suggests that people be instructed early in the importance of this, and that they be shown ways to augment their feelings of boundary strength. The work of Des Lauriers and Gestalt therapy are examples of therapeutic approaches that might accomplish this. It was stated early in this paper that Gestalt therapy serves to heighten boundary articulation in two ways: it emphasizes active body involvement and it specifically educates clients in body awareness . Gestalt body awareness exercises focus attention on the body in a special way. The client is asked not just to observe body sensations but to feel them. The distinction is made between our normal ways of thinking about and using the body and experiencing them as "me." Gestalt, then, fosters a special kind of attitude in relation to body sensations. The idea comes up that this kind of attitude-attention to peripheral body sensations would have a stronger effect on a measure of body boundary definiteness than would other modes of attention accompanying the same overt conditions of body stimulation. That the subjectively experienced closeness of an external object affects the perception of it has been shown in a study done by Glick (1964) . Within a sensori-tonic theoretical framework, he investigated the effects of subjects adopting an "inner frame of reference" as opposed to an "external frame of reference" on a task involving the

PAGE 47

36 localization of an object in space. He found that v/hen subjects adopted an attitude of "fusing" the object with their bodies (i.e., dissolving the separation of self and object) the object was located in a direction opposite (on a right-left plane) to the localization made by subjects who saw the object in the normal way, as "out there." He interpreted this in an organismic-developmental framework, saying the first condition represents the "nonpolarized" subject-object relations characteristic of early periods of development. This is consistent, of course, with developmental theories of body— boundary definiteness. It also highlights the role of what we might call a conscious "body-attitude" in the perception of objects. With its emphasis on body awareness, Gestalt therapy seems to foster an analogous body-attitude in relation to body sensations themselves. On the assumption that attention, and not physical stimulation per se, is the effective variable in augmenting boundary definiteness, it was felt that this Gestalt attitude" would heighten body boundary experience to a measurable degree compared to other combinations of boundary attention and boundary stimulation. In order to test this hypothesis a study was designed in which three "levels of body awareness" were compared to a "non-body" control condition. The levels ranged from one in which conscious experience of the body was minimized to one where it was presumably maximized. The experimental

PAGE 48

37 conditions all involved the same procedures for body stimulation. The conditions were as follows: I. A non-body control. II. A condition in which subjects were instructed to ignore body sensations and pay careful attention to a series of recorded articles. The articles were chosen for their abstract, non-body related content. in order to help' motivate attention, subjects were told they would be tested on the material at a later time . III. A condition in which subjects were told simoly to do the various exercises. They were given no instructions concerning what they should attend to. IV. A condition in which subjects were acquainted wit the ideas of Gestalt therapy concerning o y awareness. This included a discussion concerning "identifying" with the sensations and feeling them as "me." As they did the exercises they were occasionally reminded to stay with" and "be" their sensations. In order to measure changes in Barrier scores, Holtzman inkblot records were taken at three different times from each of the four groups: before the treatment, immediately following the treatment, and two days after the treatment. Three equivalent forms of the inkblot test were used (see Inkblot Administration) There were two reasons for including a followup measure in this experiment. First, it was felt that on measures taken immediately after treatment, the body stimulating conditions might be boundary enhancing for subjects in all the experimental conditions. Even in the condition of minimal body attention, the exercises would be expected

PAGE 49

38 to stimulate greater than usual awareness of body sensations. It was felt, however, that on a followup measure differential effects of the experimental conditions would more likely be observed. it was speculated that Barrier measures taken forty-eight hours following the experimental treatment would show greater increases for subjects in the condition which combined body experience with a Gestalt orientation. This conjecture was based on the assumption that the Gestalt condition would represent a more potent form of focused attention on boundary sensations than would be obtained under the other conditions; therefore its effects would more likely be retained. 1 A second, related, reason for the followup test was simply that it has never been done in a study of this type. Fisher (1970) and Darby (1970) both feel it would be unreasonable to expect any effects from a relatively short session of body stimulation to last longer than the immediate experimental situation. However, as noted earlier, Fisher does feel that continued exercises would have measurable long term effects. The study, then, allowed an investigation of "lasting" effects on Barrier scores of stimulating conditions similar to those used in previous studies, i.e., the "body only condition. In line with Fisher's and Darby's Ideally, in Gestalt terms, the sensations would be experienced by an "identifying ego" rather than an "observing ego."

PAGE 50

39 speculation, it was hypothesized that this condition and the "outward attention" condition would not show effects on the followup test, but would on an immediate posttreatment test. A measure of each subject's Barrier score change (BC) consisted of the difference between his or her pretreatment Barrier score and that obtained on the test given immediately after treatment. To investigate lasting effects, BC consisted of the difference between scores on the pretest and the followup test. These measures were designated BC^ and BC^, respectively. Fisher (1970) reports that with very large samples, small but significant sex differences in Barrier and Penetration scores have been found. Specifically, males have shown lower B and higher P than females. These differences did not appear in earlier studies using fewer subjects. Due to the relatively small number of subjects participating in the present study, it was felt that there would be no justification for predicting sex differences in Barrier scores . The following specific hypotheses were investigated: 1. Mean BC^ will be higher for that group of Ss who participate in a condition involving body stimulation and attention directed away from the body than for those in a non-body control condition. 2. Mean BC-^ will be higher for that group of Ss who participate only in the body stimulation exercises than for those in a non-body control condition.

PAGE 51

40 3. Mean BC^ will be higher for that group of Ss who participate in a "Gestalt condition" combining body stimulation and awareness than for those £s in a non-bodv control condition. 4. Mean BC 2 for that group of Ss who participate in a condition involving directing attention away from the body will not be greater than that for the group of Ss in a control condition. 5. Mean BCfor that group of Ss in a body stimulation only condition will not be greater than that for Ss in a control condition. 6. Mean BC 2 will be greater for that group of Ss who participate in a "Gestalt condition" than that for S^s in a control condition. 7. There will be no difference in pretest Barrier scores of males and females. 8. There will be no difference in pretest Penetration scores of males and females. Also, interaction effects of sex and treatment conditions were investigated. No specific effects were hypothesized; however, it has been suggested by Fisher (1970) that boundary definiteness may have different behavioral implications for males and females. For example, for males it may be relatively more associated with physical action, while for females it may be more associated with attention to the body's appearance. While there were no directional hypotheses in regard to Penetration scores, protocols were scored for P to be analyzed for differential effects of the treatment conditions and sex. The study also investigated the relationship of the body-boundary measures to measures of subjects' affective

PAGE 52

41 states. It was felt that subjects' feelings during the course of the experiment might be systematically related to pretest scores on the boundary measures . It was also felt that the feeling states of individuals might be affected differently by the treatment conditions and would possibly be related to sex and changes in boundary scores. If this sort of relationship were found, it would possibly have important implications for therapeutic approaches designed to augment boundary definiteness . In order to investigate these possible relationships, the three scales of the Affect Adjective Check List ( AACL ; Zuckerman, 1960, Zuckerman et al., 1964) were administered to subjects at pretest, posttest, and followup. The three scales are designed to measure Anxiety, Hostility, and Depression. Also, Semantic Differential scales (Osgood et al . , 1957) were compiled and Ss were asked to use them in judging two concepts: "My Mood Right Now," and "This Experiment." Like the other measures, the Semantic Differential (S.D.) scales were administered at three times during the experiment . The ACCL and S.D. scales are referred to generally as 'affect" measures throughout this paper. No directional hypotheses were formulated in regard to these measures.

PAGE 53

CHAPTER II METHOD Subjects Subjects were University of Florida and Florida State University students in undergraduate psychology courses. A total of 96 Ss participated in the study, 91 from the University of Florida and 5 from Florida State. There were 24 subjects in each of the 4 treatment conditions. There were 12 males and 12 females in each condition. The author was the experimenter. Measures The Holtzman Inkblot Technique (HIT) was used in the experiment to obtain Barrier and Penetration scores. This was chosen rather than the Rorschach because it is designed to obtain only one response for each inkblot and because equivalent forms are available. Transparent slides of the inkblots were used in order to make administration in a group setting possible. Commercially available slides of the HIT, form A were used. In addition, slides of form B of the test were made by the 42

PAGE 54

43 author. From the 90 blots of forms A and B combined, three forms (labeled X, Y, and Z).were compiled of 25 inkblot slides each. Equal numbers of colored inkblots were included in each of these forms. Also, the HIT includes a number of vague, asymmetric blots. Equal numbers of these were included in each of the three forms. The commercial slides (form A) showed a higher quality than those made by the author. Specifically, the form B slides had a slight but noticeable grey tint to the background. in an attempt to balance any possible effect from this difference in background tint, series X, Y, and Z were designed to include equal numbers of HIT forms A and B. The sequence of slides representing these variations in color, vagueness, and background tint was matched in forms X, Y, and Z. The HIT inkblots and their order of presentation in forms X, Y, and Z are shown in Appendix A. The Affect Adjective Check List is shown in Appendix B. This check list contains three scales, measuring Ss Anxiety, Hostility, and Depression. Semantic Differential Scales used in the experiment are shown in Appendix C. Four scales were used to derive scores for each of three factors: Activity, Evaluative, and Potency. Subjects used these bipolar scales to judge Reproduced by permission for research purposes only. Copyright (c) 1958 by the Psychological Corporation, New York, N. Y. All rights reserved.

PAGE 55

44 two concepts: "My Mood Right Now" and "This Experiment." To control for position effects, scales representing the same factor were alternated in polarity direction (e.g., valuable-worthless but sad-happy) and order of factors represented was rotated. Thus, there were a total of 11 measures taken in the experiment. All of the measures were taken at three times during the experiment: pre-treatment, posttreatment, and 48 hours following treatment (followup) . Dependent variables were scores on the above measures taken at the times indicated. Of particular interest were change scores derived by subtracting pretest scores from posttest scores (C^) and pretest scores from followup scores [C ) . Equal numbers of each sex within each treatment condition made the data amenable to a sex-by-treatment analysis of variance design. Procedures Subjects were obtained from the University of Florida psychology department pool by an announcement on the experiment bulletin board asking students to sign up for an experiment entitled "Perception of Inkblots." The notice stated the number and length of sessions, times for the sessions, the location of the experiment, and the number of hours experimental credit. it asked Ss to sign up for the time slots they could make. Ss were recruited from a course

PAGE 56

45 in psychology at Florida State University by the author's announcing the title of the experiment and the times and location where interested students could come. All S^s who completed the experiment participated in three sessions: an experimental session lasting approximately 1 1/2 hours; a followup testing session 48 hours later lasting approximately 45 minutes, and a debriefing session, usually several days later, which lasted 45 minutes . Ss in all treatment conditions were seen in small groups varying in size from 3 to 12 members. All groups were made up of members of both sexes, but not always of equal numbers of each sex. (It was originally planned to have 10 Ss in each of these groups, five males and five females. Practical difficulties prohibited this. See Discussion . ) All sessions were conducted in a classroom with Ss seated at desks or tables. Each session was begun 10 minutes after the time designated on the sign-up sheet, whether or not all those who signed up were present. A notice was put on the door asking latecomers not to interrupt. The notice also informed latecomers how to contact E to make arrangements to participate in later sessions if they wished to do so. Experimental Sessions Testing procedures were identical for Ss in all treatment conditions. E began each session by thanking Ss

PAGE 57

46 for their participation and going over their schedule for the experiment. He then gave all Ss a copy of the University of Florida Department of Psychology Consent Form which contained information about the experiment (Appendix D) . Ss were asked to read and sign this form. E answered any questions in very general terms. E then assigned a code number to each subject and instructed Ss to put this number, rather than their names, on every sheet of testing material throughout the experiment. £s were occasionally reminded this during the course of the experiment. When the consent forms were returned, E said "Before we get to the inkblot test I would like for you to complete this short test." E then gave Ss a packet containing the AACL and S.D. scales. The order of these tests in the packets was alternated for all administrations as a control for possible effects of test order. Instructions for these tests were printed on the test forms. As he handed out the forms, E stated 'I would like for you to read the instructions and complete the tests I'm giving you now. If you have any questions just raise your hand and I'll come and answer them. " When all Ss had completed these tests, E informed Ss that the inkblot test would now be given and the following instructions were given (adapted from Swartz and Holtzman, 1963) : You will be shown a series of inkblots, each of which will be projected on the screen before you for one minute. Using your imagination, write

PAGE 58

47 down a description of the first thing the blot looks like or reminds you of. None of these inkblots has been deliberately drawn to look like anything in particular. No two people see exactly the same things in a series of inkblots like these. There are no right or wrong answers. Write down one response for each blot. Number each response in the left margin of your paper. I will call out the number of each blot as it appears . Write as complete a response as possible in the time you have. Be sure to write down a response for every blot. Now I will show you an example. Do not write anything yet. (IS showed inkblot X. ) A common response to this blot is "a bat or winged creature" (E pointed out outline of bat, with head, tail, wings) . Another response might be a "pool of oil" (E showed how color and shading might be used). Another common response is "a steer's head" (E outlined steer's head — D in middle of blot) . You can see that the form of the blot helps determine the response "bat," but for "pool of oil" the shading has more influence. Also, note that in the "steer's head," the entire blot wasn't used. You may use the whole blot or any part of it in your description. (Card Y was projected.) In this blot you might see a human figure (E outlined) , a skeleton, or blood. (The initial instructions were repeated and Ss were asked if they had any questions.) J3s attention was called to the long leqal Dads on the desks or tables in front of them and they were asked to use the black ballpoint pens provided by E. A sheet of carbon paper was in each legal pad so that duplicates would be made of each record. They were shown how to place this carbon paper. The 25 slides of form X were then projected on the screen. The first two were projected for 70 seconds, the remaining slides for 60 seconds. In order to reinforce Ss

PAGE 59

48 responding to the slides, the following comment was made by E when slide 2 appeared on the screen. "Write out as complete a description as you can in the time available." When slide 3 appeared, E said, "Just let your imagination run, and put down what the inkblot suggests to you — what you see in it." When slide 6 appeared, E repeated the comments made during slide 2's presentation. These comments were not made during the presentation of forms Y or Z. After the presentation of the first series of inkblots, one of the four treatment procedures was carried out. These procedures lasted approximately fifteen minutes in all four treatment groups. As soon as the treatment procedures were finished, E said, "Now I'd like to show you another series of inkblots. The instructions are the same as those I gave you earlier. Please write one response for every inkblot." Ss were then shown form Y of the inkblot test. Following this, they were given another packet containing the AACL and the Semantic Differential scales. When all Ss had completed these tests, they were thanked, reminded of the time for the second session, and dismissed. (Except group II. See below . ) Group I (Control ) When pretesting was completed, E gave the following instructions: "In this part of the experiment we are just going to sit quietly and listen to some music. All I will

PAGE 60

49 ask you to do for the next few minutes is stay in your seats, listen to the music, and please do not talk to each other . " E then played a tape recording of the first two movements of HaydnÂ’s "Concerto in D" for harpsichord and orchestra. Ss were then shown form Y of the inkblot test. Group II (Outward Attention ) Following the pretests Ss were given these instructions : The purpose of this part of the study is to investigate your attention to verbal information while maintaining unusual physical postures. The postures are not difficult, but they will require some physical effort. I should say now that if for any reason you feel you should not attempt these postures, feel free not to do them. As you are listening to the material, I would like for you to try to ignore any sensations from your body and pay full attention to what is being said. When I turn on the tape recorder you will hear a series of four articles that contain quite a few details. Later on in the experiment, I will measure your retention of the material. I will let you listen to some of the material for a few minutes before you begin the postures and I will stop the recording for a moment when it's time to adopt the first posture. There are seven postures I will ask you to adopt, each for a period of one minute or less. Therefore I will interrupt the articles at short intervals in order to tell you what positions to take. Bear in mind that the material will be presented only one time, so it would be impossible to remember everything. The best way to approach this is probably just to listen attentively to what you are hearing at the moment without trying to keep in mind what you have already heard. The tape recorder was then turned on and the articles were heard being read by E. The articles were selected from Newsweek magazine and dealt with legal and economic topics.

PAGE 61

50 They were, in order, (1) "Dueling Cameras" (May 10, 1976), (2) "Up Goes Steel" (May 10, 1976), (3) "EEOC Under Fire" (May 10, 1976), and (4) "Truckin on Up" (April 12, 1976). Early in the third article the tape was stopped and instructions were given for the first posture. Ss were reminded to "try to ignore any sensations from your body and pay full attention to what is being said." The tape was stopped whenever instructions for a new posture were given. For all the postures, Ss were instructed to close their eyes. The postures were as follows: 1. Lift both arms and hold them straight out to either side (for one minute) . 2. Bring the shoulder blades toward each other and hold (one minute) . 3. Sitting straight in your chair, lift both legs and hold them straight out in front (one minute) . 4. Sitting Straight in the chair, tilt your head back as if looking at the ceiling (one minute) . 5. While standing, cross the left arm over your stomach and your right arm behind your back and twist at the waist to the right (one minute) . 6. While standing, cross the right arm over your stomach and the left arm behind your back and twist to the left (one minute) 7. While sitting, simultaneously hold your arms and legs out, bring your shoulder blades toward each other, and tilt your head back (30 seconds) . Immediately following these experimental procedures, Ss were given the posttest measures. Ss in this group only

PAGE 62

51 were then given a 10 item true-false quiz covering the material in the recorded articles (Appendix E) . Group III (Body Stimulation Only ) Following pretesting Ss were instructedto sit quietly and listen to some recorded music: Movement I of "Concerto in D" for harpsichord and orchestra. This was done in order to make the duration of the treatment procedures comparable for all groups. When the music was over, E gave the following instructions : "Now I would like for you to do a few simple physical exercises. They are not difficult but they will require a little physical effort. If for any reason you feel you cannot or should not do these exercises, please feel free not to do them." Ss were asked to close their eyes during all the exercises and instructions for the seven exercises listed above were given. Immediately following this the posttests were administered. Group IV (Gestalt ) Immediately after pretesting, the following was read to Ss by E: In this part of the experiment I would like to discuss the importance of body awareness in personality health. Also, in a few minutes, I will ask you to do a few simple body awareness exercises . Fritz Peris, the originator of Gestalt therapy, said this about body awareness: "Most persons, lacking adequate proprioception (that is, perception) of parts of their body, substitute in

PAGE 63

52 place of this visualization or theory. For instance, they know where their legs are and so they picture them there. This is not feeling them there! With a picture of your legs or a map of your body you deliberately walk, run or kick after a fashion; but for free, unforced spontaneous functioning of these parts you need felt-contact with your legs themselves." Peris is saying that many of us, because we spend so much of our lives paying attention to things outside our bodies, come to lose the intimate feeling of our bodies. We don't have a felt awareness of our body. Instead, we see our body as an object. We use it as a tool, but forget that our body is very much a part of our • After all, our body is always with us. It is the basis for everything we do, feel or think. There is evidence that people who have a greater felt awareness of their body sensations are also more attuned to whatever is going on in their surroundings. Relatedly, body awareness is important in understanding ourselves. Body sensations often communicate our feelings. By paying attention to these sensations, we can become clearlv aware of feelings that previously were vague. To help a person become aware of his or her body sensations and what these sensations are expressing. Gestalt therapists use a special technique. They ask the client to fantasize that he or she a particular body part, and then describe what it feels like to be that part. As an example of this, I will tell you about a student I once had. He told me one day that he was unable to find the material he needed to write an assigned paper. We discussed the resources available, and he finally said that he could indeed find the material and would have the paper in on time. As he was saying this, I noticed that his right hand was clenched into a fist. I asked him to be aware of his hand, and asked him what he was doing with it. He said, with some surprise, "I'm, making a fist." I then asked him to identify with--"to be" — his hand and tell me, as his hand talking, what he was feeling. His hand, clenched rigidly, said, "I'm very tense and I'm holding myself tight. I am digging my fingernails into myself and I am angry. I refuse to write that paper!" At that moment, the student realized that he really had a strong feeling about not writing the paper — and

PAGE 64

53 for reasons that had little to do with locating source material. We realized that his hand, the one that would actually do the writing, had been expressing these feelings while he had not been consciously aware that he felt so stronalv about it. 7 In these body awareness exercises you are about to do, I would like for you to try to feel your body sensations in a similar manner. I would like for you to be open to whatever sensations might arise, such as tingling or itching of your skin, heat or cold, heaviness or tenseness. Try to pay attention only to your body. If your mind wanders, bring your attention back to whatever body feelings . may be occurring at the moment. As I mentioned earlier, there are two ways you can experience your body. First, you can have a mental picture of a body part, say your hand, and then mentally observe any sensations arising from it. . Or you can feel your hand as being a close, intimate part of yourself. in this way of experiencing, you identify with your hand. In a sense, you are your hand. As you do these exercises, I would like for you to try to experience your body in this manner. That is, you are your body. It may be a little difficult to get what I mean, so I want to take a minute now for you to think about it and ask me any questions you have. Discussion was limited to three minutes. During the discussion E told Ss that "These exercises may be a little strenuous. If for any reason you feel you shouldn't do them, please feel free not to. They are designed to make you aware of sensations from parts of your body, that you use all the time, but normally wouldn't pay much attention to. I hope you will try to experience these exercises with an experimental attitude, even if they are not particularly pleasant . " Ss were then instructed to do the exercises in the same manner as outlined above for group II. During the exercises E occasionally reminded Ss to "stay with," "be"

PAGE 65

54 and "be aware of" body sensations occurring at that moment. Upon completion of the exercises posttest measures were taken. Followup Testing Session Procedures were identical for all treatment groups. E began the session by saying "Today I'd like to show you another series of inkblots. The instructions are the same as I gave you before. Please write as complete a response as you can for each blot in the time you have. Write one response for each blot. " The inkblots were then projected on the screen. Following this, the A ACL and Semantic Differential packets were distributed. When these were completed by Ss , E reminded them of the time for the debriefing session and ended the session. Scoring The inkblot records were sent to Dr. Seymour Fisher of the Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York Medical School, Syracuse. Dr. Fisher scored the protocols for Barrier and Penetration responses and returned them to the author. The records were coded in such a way that Dr. Fisher had no knowledge of the sex or experimental group of Ss . The AACL and Semantic Differential records were scored by the author. The AACL records were scored for

PAGE 66

55 Anxiety, Hostility, and Depression according to the procedures outlined by Zuckerman (1960) and Zuckerman et al . (1964). The six factor scores on the Semantic Differential (three for each of two concepts) were derived in the following manner. Each scale was given a score from 1 to 7 corresponding to the position of the check-mark made by the S on one of the seven spaces. This 1 to 7 scoring represented a "negativeto-positive" dimension in relation to the factor represented by the scale. For example, a score of 7 represented the most pleasant rating on the "unpleasant-pleasant" scale. Scale scores were summed over the four scales for each factor and averaged, giving a factor score. There were thus six factor scores taken three times for each S. Pretest scores on all eleven measures for each subject were subtracted from the corresponding posttest scores for that subject to derive a measure of change in that score (C^). Pretest scores were also subtracted from lowup scores to derive a measure of change from pretest to followup (C 2 ). For example, the change in a subject's judgment on the evaluative factor of "This Experiment" from pretest to posttest was designated "EvEC^." A change on the same factor in regard to "My Mood Right Now" was designated "EvMC^." In this manner there were five scores derived on each of the eleven measures for each S: pretest, posttest,

PAGE 67

56 followup, C 1 , and C 2 . This resulted in a total of 55 scores for each subject. Of primary interest in the study were the change scores, and C 2 ; thus a total of 33 dependent variables were subjected to analysis-the 11 pretest, C^, and C 2 scores.

PAGE 68

CHAPTER III RESULTS Effects of Treatment and Sex A list of the variables and their abbreviations is shown in Table 1 . Means and standard deviations of Barrier and Penetration pretest, C -^ , and C 2 scores classified by treatment group and sex are shown in Table 2. Means and S.D.s of the other variables are shown in Table 3. Means and standard deviations of posttest and followup scores, by treatment group, are shown in Table 4. A two-way analysis of variance was done with each set of pretest and change scores. Table 5 shows a summary of the results of these analyses. 1 Each analysis had the following degrees of freedom for the source of variance indicated: Sex : 1 Treatment: 3 Sex x treatment: 3 Error: 88 Total: 95 Conventional summary tables for each of the 33 analyses of variance are not shown due to the excessive length of presentation this would entail. These tables are available in the form of computer printouts. 57

PAGE 69

58 TABLE 1 List of Variables and Their Abbreviations Variable Abbreviation Pretest PostPretest FollowupPretest 1. Barrier B BC^ bc 2 2 . Penetration P PC 1 PC 2 3. Anxiety Anx AnxC^ AnxC 2 4 . Hostility Hos HosC^ HosC 2 5. Depression Dep DepC^ DepC 2 6. Activity M a Ac tM ActMC 1 ActMC 2 7 . Potency M PotM PotMC 1 PotMC 2 8 . Evaluation M EvM EvMC 1 EvMC 2 9. r_ Activity E° ActE ActEC 1 ActEC 2 10. Potency E PotE PotEC 1 PotEC 2 11. Evaluative E EvE EvEC^ EvEC 2 M = My Mood Right Now. E = This Experiment.

PAGE 70

59 e o •H -p rd P •P CD c CD SP T3 4-) (0 rd •H -P > CO CD 0) Q -P (D 03 P P PM (0 03 S3 rd -P 03 03 S3 rd 03 S3 rd CD £ (N u . 03 0 p p •H ro ro o CM ro CX VO I-" 0" • — 1 CM in rd -p i — l LO rcx CM CO UO rH rCD 03 rd -p S3 •H ro CN ro on CM CO CO CM CO CO CM 0) rd > p -P CD CP 03 U o S3 rd CD £ O (M O o >sj< in co r-~ oo co h m o o o o in m m i — i o in in in (m HHH S3 CO U S3 rd CD ' 03 0 CO p +3 p •H CM p 03 P P P CD rd CD SP 03 a PQ CD •H 1 03 P -P 44 S3 P CO CM 0 rd rd CD 43 CQ •p w CO U -p S3 ro O LO ro LO CM in o o rH CO ro pi c CO rd ro LO CM ro CM LO o CM o ro CQ o 03 0 CD .p aj 03 Q S3 LO CO rH o CM CO cx CO o ro ro ro rd CM o o CX o O LO 00 ro ro CD • £ a> cx CD H cn 1 — 1 H cn i — 1 H cn 1 1 H CO rH CD rd
PAGE 71

TABLE 2 — Continued 60 X! CM a c X 0 X D *H ro CM Cn] ON in in CO NO co CO CO C0 X LT) rco i — 1 00 rH r— ! O CN ON 0 X tO X C ft cn cn cn cn CN CO 1 — 1 CN CN 0 to > p X 0 IP co a a p 5 O l — 1 c i — I o co 00 in CO CO ON CO O 1 — 1 G o i — I 00 rH LT) CN LT) o rO LO o a> IP 2 i — ! I I I I I I I i r i co aj p o o CO G O ft X (0 p X 0 c 0) ft 0 rc X O P ft (0 X x (0 G ft 0 > X 0 CO Q C (0 0 2 ft ft ft ft in CD co n rg ft ft O'! r ft co CN ft ft CD CD ft CD ft CD ft ft CM DC O'! DC LTl ft r^ CN CN CN r^ocn cd co ft ft ft cn ftft CO ft CN ftOft ftftcTi ftft ft i — ! ft i — I O II! II III I I -p CO a) -p X to o cu o X c X o p •H ft ft ON CO ro i — 1 o m CO 0 X ON CO l n LD un co CN CO co CO X 0 X c CN CO CN CN CN CN CO co CN CN CN CO 0 > 0 X 0 X CO a 0 p CP c ON 00 o C" CN i — i co LO o CO o 0 cn l n o ID N 1 ON 1 — 1 CN o 00 LO 0 2 lo in m LD ID U 1 l n LO 'sT LD CO CO H CO c n 0 H 0 H 0 > 0 H CO 1 — 1 H W 1 — 1 H CO 1 — 1 H CO rH 0 0 0 03 0 03 0 0 Dp i — i E Dp i — l E Dp i — 1 6 Dp i — 1 E P 0 0 p 0 0 p 03 0 P 0 0 X O 2 2 O 2 IP O 2 2 0 IP 0 P P P p cn u U u e> X CO 0 -p 0 p a p ip 0 tm G to X CJ ft CN u u CO X Change from pretest to followup.

PAGE 72

TABLE 61 ro +J 0 •H 0 M 0 U G 0 O •G O U CO 0) > CD C n •H G -P (0 u ,c (D u •n 03 T! < G G 4-1 U 4-> QJ 0 44 0 4-1 44 < 0 G 4-1 CD 0 l 1 0 rd G •H O 44 •H c 4-1 0 03 G •H 0 > 4-4 0 4-1 a -H Q xs G O 0 •H xs 44 G G 03 0 -P E CO 0 CO 03 G 03 05 G 0 U3 C 03 0 £ G 03 O G -H 0 4J T3 03 G -H 03 > +J 0) CO Q G 03 0) £ c o •H 4-1 03 •H > (D CO Q C 03 0) £ 03 G 03 4-1 T3 03 C 03 4-1 CO Q C 03 0) £ X! 03 •H g 03 > H a p o G o O'Xi^mr^LncTicN'xioooocNitNoocricNj'^rooot^^D'^rcNcNcriroro ooN'4'^or^oQ)ioooroLn^'!T>(rir'^ffi^)i4)a^H(Ncoo3ovDo n ro ^ ro n ro ^ ^ CO i — I I — I I — I Or-t4000CNrHOCNr0LnijD00['^'£>lOCX340CNl000Or-HN'LnLn''3' inoiriocn/icococooKNdLnnooHOHHoiici'i'rHoioio Moinnoi^oioiioHd i — i i — in* i i i i i i i r-'r-''£)rocna'ior r >r''rHCNco*j'ix>coc^cri^OLn' : 3 , *3’CNoor4 cor'Coi^LD'g'vo^OLnoO'crLncricoocTicyiOrHrHr'Coc^r'Ln'xi CN CN LO ro ro co H (N (N O’ oivomoMoocNcoinHcoH oicDcMor'ior'iooioicooi cDr'CcoiNiOcoroHoiHincDhoi i — I CN CO i — ICN][ % COf T 3'4 , 03^(NOC4CN incor4'4'roinoio3in 04 CN I I r^r'Hr^oocTi^rHcNcoHcD'^o^cN'Xi^cNr^ M’Hmcovocococor'MLnoicriaiooimcriLnr' o iH oo oo cn oo i— I a\ cr\ co co co ro ouo ro oo in H010H(N01COO'4'COr4100'lOr4 ^i^noiiDHiocooiooir^oirH^ co oo co i — i ^cooiHono^oiO'jioo) I— lO^OlCO^OHrOHHOn lonoooioiinoioiiOrH 1 — I I I CN I I c s CD 4-1 CD O w w +4 4-> Q < ft W W X o > c CD W < i — 1 1 — 1 rH 1 — 1 CN CN (N CN 1 1 i — 1 u u 1 — 1 CJ u rH CN CN CN u U CN CJ U CN U u *r< <*Cl( £ u w w u U u u £ £ U w w u 0 CD 4-> 41 £ 44 44 w X 0 CD 44 44 £ 44 44 w 0 0 O 0 > o 0 > c 0 0 0 0 > O 0 > m a c CD H < CD w < PC a < CD W c CD w •62 .37

PAGE 73

TABLE 3--Continued 62 G TS O G H fd +j VO CM CO 1 1 o VO CM ro ro 00 CM ro ro O CO in ro VO VO IO 00 O ro CM TJ rd l n rCM O rH r00 CO CM ro ro CM vo cr> CT> 0\ ro\ CTl 00 CM CM vo CT\ V ) C •H 0) co CM VO i — 1 i — 1 ro in rH rH 0 CN ro 1 — 1 P 01 fd CO Q £ a) pH G o o o o i — { 00 ro rm m 00 o CM VO CO VO VO ro in vo LO CO IO CM CM O rd o o o in o CO VO CO 0\ ro o p" VO rH O in in ro CM vo ro 1 — 1 m 1 — 1 0 CM ai £ r'sf ro ro ro CM t — 1 rH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 G T 3 0 G •rH fd -p LO 00 ro i — 1 o LO ro rH o\ H' ro ro in 0 0 in 0\ ro O o\ 0 ES fd ro 00 LD VO VO i — 1 VO rCO CO 00 O in rrrrrH o\ 0 CO 00 O rCO C •H (0 > ro VO rH CM ro rH O ro CO 1 — 1 cn 4 J 0 ) ai CO Q rH fd £ G VO o rH o CM 00 rin 00 ro in O’ vo CM CM in 0 l n 0 in CO CM 00 in CO fd rH o -h 1 — 1 rH i — 1 VO O' \ ro CO CM o i — 1 LO rH CM rH CM 0 1 — 1 rH rH CM 0 CO 01 £ H ro> m ro CO •^ 1 — 1 i — i rH 1 — 1 H i — l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a, G 0 G G O T> 0 G •H ra 4J o vo rr-* rH rH o\ VO LO rH o CT\ O’ O’ CM rH CM ro rH r0 0 T3 (0 co o CM 00 VO i — 1 VO 00 CO cr> rin cn vo CM CO CO Os o\ ro vo 00 O 0 p" 00 G •H 03 > ro VO rH CM •vr •O’ l — 1 rH ro ro ro l — 1 1 — 1 -P (u CO Q G 00 o o CM VO O VO o VO o *^r vo rH rcm 0 0 G\ CM 0 00 m vo rH vo . CO r^* o VO CO i — 1 rH O 0 CM 10 CM 0 rH ro 0 O 0 0) *ert 4H w fd c o 0) o 0 > u 0 > c o 01 u 0 > 0 0 > c 0 01 0 0 > 0 0 > > C E Q
PAGE 74

TABLE 3 — Continued 63 to (U (d e 0) Cm C 13 O P -H id -P 13 (0 C -H id > •p in P 0 ) d> co Q id a CDC'l00t-'rHO0nrHrHOCTCH'a'lH’04rHrH04C0inC0r0rHC0r0mH' nncH'oinri'coiflaHoauniNrtofncnoMNinMnoihocoiD mmcoHHH mmnHHHH 04 in h* rH >h C id d) S H H H comomnunoinco inminooMnooic i — i i — iincoincoH’ininn] H , r'-00400in04(N i — ! I I I I I in o m o io oo ^ p r^m mcNOr-tOrH i i i c 13 0 P -H id -P 13 +J 0) CO Q a p o p u lnMnmHiomoiin'a'cruniO'taidiooinHonoininaii'i cNjrocooofncomco'H , cNcrironjrHrHcorHminr^ocrioor-cn fnmnHHH ronfOHHHH H (N IN in i — I rH rH c id

rH iH rH rH 04 04 IN 04 rH 1 — 1 rH CJ U H U CJ rH (N IN CN CJ U 04 u U 04 a a M W u o u a a u w w u u u u a a u w w o X W Or 4-> -p a 4-> 44 w X CO CL. -M 4-1 a 4-1 4-J W X in a. 4J 4-> a 44 44 w c O 0) U o > U o > c o d) o o > o 0 > d 0 Q) O o > o O > a < Ph w C ft w < ffi Q C P M < p. w
PAGE 75

TABLE 3 — Continued 64 to 0) i — I £ a) tn c T3 O 5-1 fa rO -P T3 05 C fa 0 ! > -p ai to Q c 0) a> £ c 03 O 54 fa 03 -P 03 03 C -H 03 > -P ai to Q c 03 03 £ £ 03 O S4 fa 03 4-> 03 03 C fa 03 4-1 CO Q C 03 03 £ 43 o) •H M 03 > > $ O 5-1 C3 co r'fa ai fa o co fa o ai oo fa in O lO (Ti 1/1 CTl o lo r-~ r~~ o fafafa(Nooaooovoinoo[-'far'-a'iOoocofar''Ooofa IDl/lfahO-COt/llDl/ir'faO'Oir'OllOOlDO'OOCOOlCOOlOlhfa CN CN fa CN CN tD OO CN to cDOfafaO'Ocoooi/ii/iocooiojcNinr'inici/loo inLnaiLnfatDincococNinincNini^cocNCNtDr'OO o ct\ in in o fa co co cn o fainfaoooomoooofacNfacN i — i fa CN OO facNtofacNinton-r'ifa fatDfaCTicxjfatomtDr' oor'CNcNOiooooocoooaicNcoooooo (OomcNOcmoiooooofaroM/i oo oo to CO OO 145 fa fa fa O' fa fa fa aifaaicooCTicNcotOLna-iinr'-faair'-r'-cNr— icoa-ito cNincNoor^cor^r^ofaoNn'fafacNfafafafaoocNO CN [" fa o CN CN O' o loo'-facocomcocoin i l l l l £ X w Cu-P coma < « a < £ w w 4J £ 4-1 4J w o > u o > i — 1 fa rH i — I CN ON 1 — 1 > 1 fa a u rH u u 1 — 1 CN CN u u u u u £ £ u w w u u u u £ £ X tn a -P 4-1 £ -p 4 -> w X tn a 4-1 4 -> C 0 ai o 0 > a o > c 0 03 a 0 < tc Q < C 4 W < Ai w < K Q < Ai CN CN ON U U ON u w w u £ 4-1 44 W > o o > W < Ai W

PAGE 76

65 TABLE 4 Means and Standard Deviations of Posttest and Followup Scores Posttest Followup Standard Standard Variable Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Group I B 9.58 2.71 9.33 3.00 P 4 .41 2.06 4 .87 2.17 Anx 7.50 3.07 7.33 3 . 17 Hos 9.70 3.60 8 .62 3.65 Dep 15.45 1.06 16 . 16 7 . 10 ActM 3.64 1.06 3.87 . 92 PotM 3 .79 . 89 3.76 .87 EvM 4.78 .90 4 . 89 1.18 ActE 3.52 .75 3.52 .63 PotE 3.68 .91 3.76 .66 EvE 4.90 .94 5.01 .82 Group II B 8.33 3 . 57 9.87' 3 . 27 P 5.20 2 .68 4.79 2.44 Anx 7.79 2.91 6 . 29 3.23 Hos 10.04 4.75 7 . 37 3.43 Dep 15.87 4 . 99 13.00 6.17 ActM 3.94 .94 4 . 23 .77 PotM 4.17 .84 3.90 . 84 EvM 4 .82 1.18 5.37 .87 ActE 3 . 68 .73 3.72 .99 PotE 4 . 31 .58 3.89 .72 EvE 4.65 . 96 4 . 92 .70 Group III B 8 . 54 2.96 8 .79 2.60 P 4.00 2 . 65 4 . 87 2.25 Anx 7.08 3.46 7 . 50 2.99 Hos 8.95 4 .18 8.29 3.43 Dep 14.95 6.04 15.58 5.70 ActM 4.01 1.29 3.84 .77 PotM 3 . 91 1.18 3.82 .76 EvM 4.91 1.18 4 . 96 1 .16

PAGE 77

TABLE 4 --Continued Posttest Followup Variable Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation ActE 3.67 .94 3.63 .64 PotE 3.95 . 63 3.80 .61 EvE 4 . 78 1 . 04 4.73 .95 Group IV B 9 . 04 3.38 9.33 3.33 P 4.66 2.11 4 . 04 2.36 Anx 6.75 2.89 5.87 2.73 Hos 7.83 3.31 7.87 3.12 Dep 15.04 5.87 14 . 58 5.14 Ac tM 3.70 .66 . 3.82 . 66 PotM 3.85 .72 3.58 . 74 EvM 5.10 .88 5.32 .73 ActE 3.90 .66 4.00 .90 PotE 3.91 . 76 3.52 .63 EvE 4 . 93 .89 5.13 .92

PAGE 78

67 TABLE 5 Results of the Analyses of Variance Significance Level Variable Sex Group Group X Sex Pretest 1 . Barrier .71 .44 .90 2 . Penetration .11 .78 .84 3. Anxiety .02* . 77 .27 4. Hostility . 02* . 90 . 02* 5. Depression .10 . 92 .44 6 . Activity M .16 . 32 . 36 7. Potency M .97 .21 .48 8 . Evaluative M .19 . 47 . 40 9. Activity E .26 . 98 . 51 10 . Potency E .43 .45 .93 11. Evaluative E .05* .21 . 50 Post-Pretest (C^) 1 . Barrier .81 . 83 . 99 2. Penetration .20 .72 . 92 3. Anxiety .26 .74 . 09 4 . Hostility . 84 . 27 . 04* 5. Depression .50 .63 .16 6 . Activity M .01* .78 .74 7. Potency M .20 . 85 .49 8 . Evaluative M . 01* . 64 .56 9. Activity E .02* .68 .15 10. Potency E . 64 .63 . 65 11. Evaluative E . 85 . 68 . 08 FollowupPretest (C 2 ) 1 . Barrier . 93 .29 .21 2. Penetration .25 .88 . 98 3. Anxiety .08 . 35 .15 4 . Hostility .14 .49 . 01* 5. Depression . 91 .18 . 01* 6 . Activity M .11 . 94 . 38 7 . Potency M . 04* . 62 .10 8 . Evaluative M . 05* .21 .04* 9. Activity E . 06 .46 . 92 10. Potency E .25 . 34 . 65 11. Evaluative E .62 .17 .15 *Denotes a significant effect (p<.05).

PAGE 79

68 Pretest Analyses Analyses of variance were conducted on pretest scores to identify any initial significant differences between sexes, groups, or sexes within groups. Three such differences emerged. Females, overall, scored significantly higher on pre-treatment Anxiety than males (means = 7.50 and 5.29, p<.02). Also, a significant interaction effect emerged for Hostility scores. Of the eight treatment x sex combinations, group IV females showed the highest mean on Hostility (9.58), and group IV males showed the lowest (5.50). Finally, the mean for females on the Evaluative factor for "This Experiment" (EvE) was significantly greater than that for males (5.23 and 4.91, p<.05). None of the other affect variables, nor the inkblot measures, showed significant differences in pretest scores among groups or sexes. Change Scores: Inkblot Variables Two-way analyses of variance were done on and C 2 scores for both Barrier and Penetration scores. All four of these analyses yielded nonsignificant Fs. An inspection of the data revealed that Barrier scores for all experimental groups had higher mean increases from pre to followup than from pre to posttest. Dunnett's test (Winer, 1962) for comparing each treatment with a control was carried out for Barrier scores. This test was

PAGE 80

69 carried out on males and females data combined and separately (Table 6). For the combined-sexes comparison of each treatment with the control nonsignificant ts resulted. The test on females' data only also yielded nonsignificant t s . The test on male subjects' data resulted in a significant t ( 2 . 3 6 8 , p<.05, one-tail test) for the group II vs. control comparison, but not for those involving groups III or IV. The BC 2 mean for males in group II was 3.17; for control group males it was -.42. In order to examine the direction of changes within each group, sign tests were carried out on Barrier changes from pre to posttest and from pre to followup. These tests were carried out on data from each group as a whole (N=24) and from each sex within each treatment group (N=12). The results are shown in Table 7. Nonsignificant results were obtained on all tests on pre-to-post changes. For pre-tofollowup changes, however, there were three significant outcomes. Group II males showed a proportion of increases to decreases beyond that expected by chance (p=.035), as did group IV females (p=.035). For the combined sex test, group IV also had a significantly high proportion of increases in Barrier scores (p=.019). Change Scores: AACL Variables Two-way analyses of variance on C scores for Anxiety, Hostility, and Depression yielded one significant F. A significant interaction effect was found for Hostility scores

PAGE 81

70 TABLE 6 Comparisons of Barrier Change 2 Means of Each Experimental Group with the Barrier Change 2 Mean of the Control Group Comparison Difference Between Means t Sexes Combined Control X Outward Attention 1.84 1.90 Control X Body Stimulation Only . 96 . 99 Control X Gestalt 1.46 1.51 Males Only Control X Outward Attention 3.59 2.37* Control X Body Stimulation Only . 92 .61 Control X Gestalt 1.67 1.08 Females Only Control X Outward Attention . 08 . 07 Control X Body Stimulation Only 1.00 .84 Control X Gestalt 1.25 1 . 05 *p<.05, one-tail test. Note. Comparisons were made using Dunnett's test.

PAGE 82

71 TABLE 7 Sign Test Analyses of Barrier Score Changes from Pretest to Posttest (BC^) and from Pretest to Followup (BC 2 ) for Each Group Individually Group Increase Decrease P* BC 1 Sexes Combined Control 11 10 NS Outward Attention 13 11 NS Body Stimulation Only 14 9 NS Gestalt 15 9 NS Males Only Control 6 5 NS Outward Attention 7 5 NS Body Stimulation Only 6 5 NS Gestalt 7 5 NS Females Only Control 5 5 NS Outward Attention 6 6 NS Body Stimulation Only 8 4 NS Gestalt 8 4 NS bc 2 Sexes Combined Control 10 10 NS Outward Attention 13 8 NS Body Stimulation Only 13 8 NS Gestalt 17 6 .019 Males Only Control 4 5 NS Outward Attention 9 2 . 035 Body Stimulation Only 6 6 NS Gestalt 8 4 NS Females Only Control 6 5 NS Outward Attention 4 6 NS Body Stimulation Only 7 2 NS Gestalt 9 2 .035 *Probabilities are one-tailed. Note . The Ss showing no increase or decrease are excluded .

PAGE 83

72 (p<.04). Tukey ' s method of a posteriori analysis showed that this result was accounted for by the difference between means for females in group II (3.75) and females in group IV (-.92). (The results of the Tukey tests are shown in Table 8.) Analysis of A ACL C 2 scores resulted in two significant Fs--one for interaction effects for Hostility scores (p<.01) and one for interaction effects on Depression scores (p<.01). Tukey ' s test showed that the result for Hostility scores was accounted for by the difference between group IV males (mean = 2.75) and group IV females (-2.08). For Depression, the difference between means of group I females (4.50) and group IV females (-3.25) was responsible for the significant F. Change Scores: Semantic Differential Variables Analyses of variance on C 1 scores of the six S.D. measures yielded three significant Fs. All three were sex effects. For Activity M the mean C-^ score for males was .08; for females it was -.51 (p<.01). For Evaluative M the female mean was .10; the male mean was -.55 (p<.01). For Activity E the mean for males was .23; for females, -.23 (p<.02). All significant sex effects are shown in Table 9. Analysis of C 2 scores resulted in three significant Fs. Males' mean score on Potency M was .12; females' was -.27 (p< . 0 4 ) . A significant interaction effect (p<.04) was found for Evaluative M C 2 scores. Tukey ' s test showed that the

PAGE 84

73 TABLE 8 A Posteriori Analyses of Significant Interaction Effects on Change Scores Variable Sex X Treatment Combination Hostility Mean 9 FII MI FI MIV Mill Fill Mil FIV 3.75 2.67 1.67 1.50 .75 .67 .33 -.92 Hostility C 2 MIV FI Mill MI FII Fill Mil FIV Mean 2.75 1.33 .50 .33 -.25 -.42 1.00 -2.08 Depression C 2 FI MIV Fill MI Mill FII Mil FIV Mean 4.50 3.83 1.42 .42 .00 -.66 -1.75 -3.25 Evaluative MC 2 FIV FII Mil Mill Fill MI FI MIV Mean .71 .56 .19 .06 .04 -.25 -.35 -.85 Means not joined by horizontal bars are significantly different (p< .05) . Note . Analyses were made using Tukey ' s test.

PAGE 85

74 TABLE 9 Significant Sex and Differences on Change Scores Pretest Variable Males Females Anxiety (Pretest) Mean 5.29 7 . 50 Evaluative E (Pretest) Mean 4.91 5.23 Activity MC^ Mean . 08 .51 Evaluative MC-^ Mean .55 . 10 Activity EC^ Mean .23 .23 Potency MC 2 Mean .12 .26 Note . p<.05. Analyses were made using two-way analyses of variance.

PAGE 86

75 interaction effect was accounted for by the difference between means of group IV females and group IV males (.71 and -.85 respectively). Correlational Analys es Eleven-by-eleven intercorrelational matrices were generated, showing Pearson Product Moment correlations and significance levels (two-tailed) of each score with every other score . ^ Separate matrices were produced for pretest, posttest, and followup scores with correlations based on the total sample of subjects (N=96) . In order to determine any relationships of change in boundary scores to initial scores on the affect measures, as well as initial boundary scores to changes in affect scores, matrices were produced which showed correlations of pretest scores with Cg and C ^ scores. These were computed overall (N=96), by sex (N=4 8 ) , by treatment group (N=24) and by sex within each treatment group (N=12) . Table 10 shows those correlations computed overall for pretest, posttest, and followup scores where at least one of these three was significant (p< . 05 ) . Table 11 shows significant correlations, computed overall and by sex, of Barrier and Penetration pretest scores to the change scores of the other dependent variables. The matrices are not included due to their excessive length. The author has the matrices in the form of computer printouts .

PAGE 87

76 TABLE 10 Correlations Between the Measures at Pretest, Posttest, and Followup Where At Least One of the Three Is Significant Comparison Pretest Posttest Followup 1. B to P .30 .24 .15, NS 2 . B to Hos -.23 -.03, NS -.13, NS 3. B to ActE -.31 . 14 ,NS -. 13, NS 4 . B to PotE . 22 a . 06, NS .08, NS 5. Anx to Hos .74 .77 .73 6. Anx to Dep . 69 .69 .72 7. Anx to PotM . 30 . 36 . 39 8 . Anx to EvM -.57 -.58 -.56 9. Anx to EvE -.35 -.34 -.41 10. Hos to Dep .69 . 71 . 78 11 . Hos to PotM . 39 .51 .25 12 . Hos to EvM -.50 . 55 -.55 13 . Hos to PotE . 04, NS . 22 a -. 04, NS 14 . Hos to EvE -.32 -.46 -. 20 a 15 . Dep to ActM -.12, NS . 2 l a -.23 16. Dep to PotM . 2 l a .28 . 09, NS 17. Dep to EvM -.65 -.63 . 57 18. Dep to EvE -.37 -.40 -.53 19. ActM to PotM .41 .38 .45 20. ActM to EvM . 07 ,NS . 16, NS . 34 21. ActM to ActE . 38 . 36 .25 22 . ActM to PotE -.03, NS . 22 a .15, NS 23. PotM to EvM -.34 -.42 . 2 l a 24 . PotM to ActE .25 . 10, NS -.00, NS 25. PotM to PotE . 32 .46 . 22 a 26. PotM to EvE . 2 l a -.44 -.20 27 . EvM to ActE . 11, NS .11, NS .20 28 . EvM to EvE .47 .54 .49 29. ActE to PotE . 16, NS . 31 .33 30 . ActE to EvE . 22 a . 22 a . 15, NS 31. PotE to EvE -.24 -.29 -.44 Note . p<.01 unless indicated by a, a = p<.05. NS = not significant.

PAGE 88

77 TABLE 11 Significant Correlations of Pretest, Barrier and Penetration Scores to Affect Adjective Check List and Semantic Differential Change Scores Computed for the Total Sample (N-96), for Males (N=48) and for Females (N=48) Comparison r Total Sample B to : PotEC 1 . 22 PotEC 2 . 24 P to : ActEC^ .2 6' ActEC 2 .24 Males B to: PotEC 1 . 31 ActEC 2 .22 P to: ActEC 1 .33 ActEC 2 . 29 Females B to: PotMC^ . 31 Note . p<.05; a = p<.01.

PAGE 89

78 Table 12 shows correlations of pretest affect scores to boundary change scores. Tables 13 and 14 show significant pretest to change correlations computed by treatment group and by sex within treatment groups.

PAGE 90

79 TABLE 12 Significant Correlations of Pretest Affect Adjective Check List and Semantic Differential Scores to Barrier and Penetration Change Scores Computed for the Total Sample and for Each Sex Comparison r Total Sample ActE to BC^ .25 EvE to BC^ . 24 ActM to BC 2 . 22 Anx to PC 2 . 20 EvM to PC 2 . 27 a Males Anx to PC 2 . 33 EvM to PC 2 -.32 Females Hos to PC^ 1 o Dep to PC^ -. 39 a EvM to PC 1 . 46 a Note . p< . 05 ; a = p< . 01 .

PAGE 91

80 TABLE 13 Significant Correlations of Pretest Barrier and Penetration Scores to Affect Adjective Check List and Semantic Differential Pretest and Change Scores Computed Within Treatment Groups Comparison r Group I B to : EvEC 2 . 39 P to : EvMC 2 .43 PotMC 2 .40 Males P to: PotE EvMC 2 -.58 . 7 3 a Females None Group II P to : ActMC 2 . 72 a Males None Females B to : EvMC-. EvMC 2 -.66 -. 67 a P to : PotEC 2 .59 Group III B to : EvE ActMC, PotMC^ AnxC^ ' AnxC 2 .43 .44 -.46 . 51 . 53 a

PAGE 92

TABLE 1 3--Continued Comparison r Males B to : ActE AnxC^ . 75 a .58 P to : ActEC 1 . 58 Females B to : HosC^ AnxC 2 . 60 .63 P to : PotM . 57 Group IV B to: PotEC, ActEC^ . 58 a .49 P to : ActEC 2 .40 Males B to: ActE PotEC 2 -. 69 a . 71 a Females B to : ActE ActMC-j^ -.57 -.59 P to : EvEC, EvEC 2 .60 .57 Note . p< . 05 ; a = p<.01.

PAGE 93

82 TABLE 14 Significant Correlations of Pretest Affect Adjective Check List and Semantic Differential Scores to Barrier and Penetration Change Scores Computed Within Treatment Groups Comparison r Group I None Males EvE to BC-^ .62 Females None Group II None Males PotM to PC 2 . 64 Females EvE to BC, Anx to PCI Hos to PC, EvM to Pc| .63 -.65 -.68 . 77 a Group III EvE to BC, EvE to BC^ . 60 a .43 Males ActE to BC 2 . 66 a Females EvE to BCg PotM to BC 2 . 80 a .59 Group IV None Males Anx to BC 2 PotE to PC^ . 7 0 a . 57 Females None Note . p< . 05 ; a = p< . 01 .

PAGE 94

CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION Boundary Measures Barrier The results of the study do not confirm the author's hypothesis that boundary definiteness would be enhanced differentially by incremental levels of body awareness during body stimulation exercises. It will be recalled that based on the evidence of previous research, it was hypothesized that all the experimental groups would show greater mean increases in B than the control group on measures taken immediately following the exercises. While there were Barrier changes in the predicted direction for two of these groups (III and IV) , none of these increases was significant. Possible reasons for this will be discussed at a later point. It was also hypothesized, that on the followup measure, a significant mean increase would be found in Barrier scores of group IV subjects only. This hypothesis was not confirmed either, but some evidence did emerge that supports the notion that the experimental treatment had an enhancing effect on the Gestalt group's Barrier scores. The sign tests showed that, while the mean increases were not of 83

PAGE 95

84 sufficient magnitude to attain significance, the propor tjon °f increases to decreases was significantly greater than would be expected by chance. Group IV was the only group in which this occurred when males' and females' scores were combined. Notably, the proportion in the control group was exactly what would be expected by chance: 10 increases/10 decreases. From the "outward attention" group there emerged a surprising result; of all the Barrier score change analyses, the only experimental subjects to show a significantly higher mean increase in B than the control subjects were the males in group II. This increase was found from pretest to followup. It was not predicted. The hypothesis in regard to group II was that subjects would show an increase immediately following the treatment, but that the effects of the treatment would not last. The question then is "Why did males in group II show a significant increase in B from pretest to followup but not from pre to posttest?" The possibility cannot be discounted that this was a spurious result. When a large number of significance tests is carried out on a set of data, as was the case in this experiment, the probability becomes large that at least one will turn out significant by chance alone. In view of the number of tests performed on the data of this experiment, °f the significant results have to be interpreted with this in mind. The large number of correlations computed,

PAGE 96

85 especially, calls for great caution in interpretation. On the other hand, the results of the sign test offer some support for the idea that the significant mean BC£ score of group II males is not spurious. The proportion of increases to decreases in B(9/2) was significant for this group. (The proportion was not significant when group II females' scores were included.) On the assumption, then, that this result is true, what speculation can be made concerning the reasons for it? The explanation might be found in an investigation of two factors which previously have been related to bodyboundary. First, at the physiological level, studies reported by Lacey (1959) and Kagen and Moss (1962) have demonstrated that when subjects are oriented to receive information from "outside," skin conductance increases and heart rate decreases. When attention is turned "inward," the pattern is reversed. Heightened skin activity seems to be characteristic of a state of openness and receptivity to the environment. This is consistent with the "contact" orientation of the person with definite body boundaries. Since the Barrier score has been positively related to measures of skin-activation and activation of peripheral muscles (Davis, 1960) , it may be, as Fisher suggests, that the high Barrier person has a characteristic level of peripheral activation which is greater than that typical of the low Barrier person. At the same time, however,

PAGE 97

86 Lacey's work suggests that this level of peripheral activation can vary situationally , depending on the origin (outside or inside) of the information attended to. This implies that Barrier scores too, if they are partly a function of peripheral activation, could vary situationally. Secondly, it has been demonstrated that Barrier scores are related to measures of achievement motivation and need for task completion. Specifically, high-B subjects of both sexes have scored higher than low-B subjects on measures of these traits. However, adjective check list measures of achievement drive, where descriptive adjectives were chosen both by subjects (Shipman, 1965) and by others rating the subjects (Fisher, 1966) , have been positively related to B only among males. At the level of social and self perception, it appears that achievement drive is related to B among males but not females. Traits of achievement drive and task orientation do seem to have a traditionally masculine character in terms of cultural stereotypes. The self-steering pattern of behavior (i.e., autonomous, competitive, achievement oriented), said by Fisher and Cleveland to be typical of the high B individual, also seems to exemplify the cultural ideal for masculine behavior and attitudes. It is plausible that the experimental procedures in group II brought into play both of these factors; i.e., heightened peripheral activation as a function of the

PAGE 98

87 physical activity and attention focused "outside," and achievement needs. Ss were told to pay close attention to recorded articles and that they would later be tested on the material. It is worth speculating that this task orientation could have tapped a system in the males involving achievement needs and competition that is related, more strongly in males than females, to body-boundary definiteness . In sum, the conjecture made here is that the task orientation of group II and the actual physical stimulation of the exercises combined in their effects to stimulate the production of Barrier percepts. That this would occur only among males might be accounted for in terms of culturally shaped sex differences in responding to task situations. In this regard, it is appropriate to note that females in group II had the highest mean increase in Hostility (3.75). This was significantly different than the group IV females' mean of -.92. Group II males' change was negligible (.33). This explanation suggests that further research is warranted into possible situational effects on Barrier other than those which involve direct attention to the body. The possibility is raised that boundary definiteness, while typically maintaining at a particular level for an individual, may be affected by specific behavioral demands--for example, the demand to achieve on a test. The results of this study also suggest that such effects may not be

PAGE 99

88 immediately seen. Barrier scores in group II did not increase at all on the measure taken right after the experimental procedures. Fisher (1970) reports studies that resulted in no Barrier change immediately following conditions designed to either bore, excite, or place under stress the subjects involved. It seems possible now that, had a followup measure been taken, some effects on Barrier might have been observed. One possible reason then for the lack of B increase on the posttest among group II males may be that the psychological processes involved simply required more time to become organized. By the time of the followup testing, a "task set" toward the experiment, with a concomitant increase in boundary definiteness, might have been developed. There are other factors which might help account for the lack of posttest increases, not only in group II, but in the other experimental groups as well. One possibility is fatigue. Each experimental session lasted an hour and a half. Prior to the posttest, Ss had responded to the two affect measures, had written responses to 25 inkblots, and had engaged in some rather tiring physical exercises. (In previous studies, where Barrier increases were reported, Ss gave their responses orally.) Fatigue might have resulted in less of the kind of elaboration in posttest responses that is likely to lead to a score of B, for example, "soldier" instead of

PAGE 100

89 "soldier with epaulettes on his shoulder." Another effect of fatigue might be that it is a more generalized, diffuse body state, internal as well as peripheral, which would partially counter the effects of attention to specific body areas such as skin and peripheral muscles. Perhaps if the pretesting had been done in a separate session, a day or two before the experimental session, fatigue would have been less likely at the time of the posttest. A second factor which might have militated against changes in B is statistical. The mean Barrier score for this sample of 96 S.s was 8.22 on the pretest. In no group did the means show a notable decrease at posttest and followup. This is quite noticeably higher than reported means for other college samples. Fisher reports a mean of 4.66 for a sample of 46 college males and 5.45 for a sample of 61 college females. The combined mean of Van De Mark and Neuringer's control sample (20 males, 20 females) was 2.75. These were all from scores on individually administered inkblot tests. Holtzman (1961) reports a significantly lower mean for group compared to individual administration — 6.2 and 7.9 respectively. Also, the Holtzman results were obtained on the basis of a response total of 45 rather than 25, as were the other means, including the present sample. If the proportion of B to response total is consistent, the Holtzman means would fall to 3.44 and 4.38 for a record of 25 responses. The point here is that the Ss in this experiment seem to be "high Barrier"

PAGE 101

90 individuals. It seems a safe speculation that high-B people are less likely than low-B individuals to show an increase in B as a result of experimental boundary augmenting techniques. A sort of "ceiling" on Barrier scores may exist. Some evidence for such a ceiling would seem to be found in the correlation in this study of pretest B with change in B. For pre-B to both BC^ and BC 2 , the corre l at ion was -.61 (p=.0001). The higher the initial Barrier score, the less likely it is that Barrier will increase. Thus, one possible reason for the small amount of Barrier increase observed in this study is that the subjects were relatively high Barrier to begin with. A third set of factors that might have affected Barrier score changes, as well as all the other measures, has to do with experimental controls. Some difficulty arose from the fact that Ss were seen in a group setting. This procedure was chosen because it was felt that a large N could be obtained in this manner. The planned procedures called for 10 subjects, 5 male and 5 female, to be seen in each session. Three such groups would produce an n of 30 for each experimental condition. However, for some sessions fewer than half of those students who had signed up came to the session. In two other sessions, more than 10 Ss were present because E allowed students who had missed their sessions to attend a later one, thinking that this might help offset the anticipated absentee rate for the later session.

PAGE 102

91 The result was that the subject groups ranged in size from 3 to 12, with most having 5 to 8 subjects. The author suspects that the differences in time required for the "busy work" of these sessions (e.g., collecting test booklets, answering questions) might have affected responses to the measures. Relatedly, while E's verbal instructions were the same, differences in rapport with the subjects might have existed among groups of different size, with a greater amount of direct contact between E and Ss in the smaller groups; for example, in terms of such factors as physical proximity, eye contact and Ss feeling less anonymous. In short, the standardization of the experimental conditions was undermined by the variation in group sizes. Before a discussion of the other results is taken up, it is worth mentioning again the results of the sign test on the Gestalt group's Barrier scores. While these results do not confirm the author's hypothesis concerning them, they do suggest that the focused body awareness techniques of Gestalt therapy would have an effect on body boundary definiteness beyond that of simple physical exercises. The sign test results for the "body stimulation only" condition were not significant. The results call for further study. Under better controlled conditions, perhaps with Ss seen individually, the results would quite likely show pronounced effects. Also, the group IV results, along with those of group II, call for further study of. possible

PAGE 103

92 lasting effects of various experimental conditions on Barrier scores. In fact, the term "delayed effects" is more applicable to the outcome of this research. The possibility of this sort of effect (lasting or delayed) has not been considered in work prior to the present experiment Penetration No specific hypotheses were made in regard to Penetration scores and no significant sex or treatment effects were found in the analysis of P change scores. In all the groups, however, P was slightly lower at posttest and followup than at pretest. The mean changes were -.65 and -.58 for PC-^ and PC 2 respectively. This is consistent with the test-retest (form A and form B) findings of Holtzman (1962) who found a significant decline in Penetration scores from trial 1(5.0) to trial 2(4.0). This decline in P cannot be attributed to the different forms because their order of presentation was alternated among his 120 subjects. While it hasn't generally shown good predictive power among normal subjects, P has shown significant relationships with affect measures in special groups and special instances. For example, Swartz (1965) found significantly higher Penetration scores among high anxiety children than among low anxiety children. Also, results indicative of possible situational affects on P were reported by Smith (1971) . P was negatively related to a measure of "comfort" (r=-.42, p<.05) among subjects who participated in a "formal" administration

PAGE 104

of the Rorschach test, but not among subjects who participated in a "mutual disclosure interview" with E prior to the test administration. It may be that while it is not a very powerful measure of anxiety, the significant decrease in P found by Holtzman and the slight decrease in P (not significant) noticed in this experiment are reflective of Ss feeling more at ease with the inkblot test on the second trial. However, P was not correlated with the AACL anxiety measure in this experiment . So, in terms of the experimental conditions, no effects on P were found. A few significant correlations of P with other measures did emerge, however-. These will be discussed at a later point. Affect Measures: AACL and Semantic Differential Some potentially important findings came out of the analyses of the affect change scores. There were two significant interaction effects involving the Gestalt condition which showed, generally, a more positive reaction to it by females than by males. Both of these effects showed up in the C 2 analyses. For Evaluative M, group IV females increased the most (.70), while their male counterparts showed the greatest decrease (-.85). This difference was significant. Group IV females also showed the largest decrease in Depression

PAGE 105

94 (-3.25), while the males increased (3.83). This difference was not quite significant, though it is consistent with the other findings reported here. Females in group I increased most in Depression scores (4.50, significantly different than group IV females' mean). The mean Hostility score for group IV males increased more than that for any other group (2.75) . For group IV females, the mean showed the greatest decrease (-2.08). The difference between these means was significant beyond the .05 level. The import of the Hostility score changes is mitigated by the fact that a significant difference between group IV males' and females' scores was found on the pretest Specifically, males had the lowest mean score (5.50) and females the highest (9.58). The significant difference in C 2 scores, then, could be largely a function of statistical regression toward the mean for each of these scores. However, when this result is considered along with those for EvM and Depression, which are not equivocal, a pattern appears of females responding significantly more favorably to the Gestalt procedures than the males. The females in this condition, from pretest to followup, became less depressed, less hostile, and made a more positive evaluation of their own mood. The males, on the other hand, lessened their evaluation of mood and became more depressed and hostile .

PAGE 106

95 These results, overall, are illuminated by Fisher's (1970) findings regarding the personality correlates of body awareness in males and females. A number of Fisher's results have shown that, first, women are significantly more aware of their bodies than men are. Further, for women, level of body awareness, as measured by the Body Prominence score, is significantly related to boundary definiteness. Therefore, it is also likely indicative of a woman's sense of individuation and identity. On the other hand, for men, level of body awareness has been consistently related only to measures of the intensity of oral wishes and conflicts. In other words, for males, degree of body awareness is positively associated with dependency and unresolved incorporative and sex role conflicts. Fisher points out that the fact that the body would be perceived differently by males and females seems quite understandable when its different roles for the sexes are considered. A female's social role is more greatly defined in terms of her body--e.g., by its attractiveness and its biological role in childbirth. As a result of her body's social and biological roles, the female's sense of identity probably has more direct body connotations. The identity and body attitude of the male, on the other hand, is more shaped by expectations that he perform and accomplish. The body is not very directly involved in this. To the extent that it is, it is likely

PAGE 107

96 to be experienced more as a tool to be used in accomplishing those things that are important for self-esteem and identity . The affect findings in the Gestalt condition are consistent with this formulation. In this condition, Ss were asked to "feel," to "identify with" their bodies. If this tapped subconscious passive-dependency needs in the males — needs that are antithetical to their presumed self-ideal in this culture--it is no mystery that they might feel threatT ened and respond emotionally in negative ways. For the females, on the other hand, the conditions were likely seen as more in keeping with their customary modes of gratification, thus they responded significantly more favorably than the males. It is also notable that the sign test for Barrier increases in group IV, while significant overall, was significant only for the females when the sexes were treated as separate groups. This may be related to the greater Barrier-body awareness association in females found by Fisher . The results are in keeping, then, with the idea that females are more in tune with their bodies, while males are more likely to be alienated from theirs as a function of cultural shaping. One implication for body therapies is this: the somatic blocking mechanisms in males may be more strongly

PAGE 108

97 bolstered by introjected cultural expectations. In general, therapy would have to be directed toward understanding and overcoming these intro j ections to a greater extent than would be the case with females. The other significant results from the affect analyses were indicative of overall sex differences, independent of the treatment conditions. Females increased positive evaluation of their mood from pre to posttest, while males decreased their scores on this measure. This may be related to the significant sex difference in Anxiety at pretest. Females scored higher than males (7.50 and 5.92, respectively) . It is possible that the females were more anxious (or at least, more willing to report anxiety) than males when going into an unknown situation--especially one with the mystique of a psychological experiment. The increase in mood evaluation may have been a function of exposure to the situation, with concomitant feelings of greater safety. This speculation is somewhat supported by the negative correlation (-.57, p<.0001) of Anxiety with Evaluative-Mood on the pretest and by the significant positive correlation (.46, p<.001) of Pretest Anxiety and EvMC^ scores among females but not among males (r=.25, NS). It is possible that regression effects account for these correlations. If it is assumed that they do not, it appears that, for females, the higher the initial Anxiety, the more positive the change in mood evaluation following the experimental procedures .

PAGE 109

98 The other significant sex differences indicate that the males in all experimental conditions responded to the experiment in a generally more intense manner than did the females. On ActMC^ , PotMC 2 , and ActEC-^ males' scores increased while females' decreased. Thus, males' scores changed on these measures in the direction of reporting their own mood was more: "Potent" (i.e., hard, severe, strong, contained) and "Active" (active, fast, tense, hot) . Also, from pre to posttest, the males' perception was that the experiment became more Active. Several of the correlational results help in interpreting these findings. Potency-Mood was significantly and positively correlated with Hostility at all three testings (.39, .51, .25). It was significantly related to Depression at pretest and posttest (.21, .28) and negatively so with Evaluative-Mood on all three testings (-.34, -.42, -.21). This suggests that the increase in PotM for males, along with the decrease in EvMC^ indicates a generally less favorable response to the experiment by males than females. Why males in all conditions would have more, negative feelings than the females is not clear. Possibilities that may be worth exploring would involve such factors as the sex of the experimenter and the nature of the activities involved in the experiment. Males may not be as "psychologically oriented" as females. For instance, males might not have been as favorably disposed as females to the repeated

PAGE 110

99 exposure to the psychological tests themselves, involving as they did the reporting of emotions and the imaginative creation of meaningful forms out of intrinsically meaningless inkblots. Another possibility is that, since there was only one E, these results may represent responses to the particular experimenter. In regard to the "action" and "strength" implications of the Semantic Differential measures, the increases on these factors might also reflect a general tendency among males to approach situations in a psychologically more aggressive, active manner than females. Correlational Results A great many significant correlations occurred among the dependent variables. No attempt will be made to discuss all of them. Of primary interest here are those results that indicate possible relationships, within treatment conditions, of the affect measures to the body boundary measures. Discussion of these will be preceded by a brief look at some of the more noteworthy relationships that showed up in the intercorrelational computations overall. Perhaps it should be mentioned again that, given the large number of correlations computed, quite a few probably attained significance by chance. Another important point to make is that it is always risky to make inferences from correlational data; in themselves, they imply nothing except

PAGE 111

100 that there is a relationship between two variables. Interpretations are necessarily speculative and, at best, cannot go beyond suggesting leads to be confirmed or denied by further research. Much of the present data demands an even greater measure of conservatism: the relationships of pretest to change scores. If the correlation of two pretest scores is significant, then the correlation of one of these to the change score of the other is dependent on the initial relationship. The best interpretation in this case is that the pretest/change score result is a statistical artifact. For this reason, only those significant pretest/change score correlations that did not show pretest/pretest significance are assumed to offer new information. In all cases, interpretation will be avoided where a tautological relationship of any sort appears likely. Overall Analysis: Pretest , Posttest, and Followup Correlations It is notable that only four significant correlations involving the boundary measures showed up on the pretests. Only one of these relationships was also significant on the posttest (B to P) and none was significant at followup. Unless regression effects account for this "dropping out" of significance, the lack of significance following pretest might reflect differential effects of the various treatment procedures .

PAGE 112

101 The positive correlation of B to P on the pre and posttest arouses particular interest (.34, p<.003; .24, p<.02). Such a relationship has not been reported before; in fact, a difficulty with the Penetration score has been that it has not shown a relationship to Barrier. The intuitive notion that it represents the "opposite" of Barrier has not been borne out, and the results here suggest that for this sample its meaning actually parallels that of Barrier. At any rate, the writer can offer no explanation for this correlation at the present time. Barrier scores showed slight but significant negative correlations on the pretests with Hostility (-.23, p<.02), Activity E (-.31, p<.002) and Potency E (-.22, p<.03). These three measures did not correlate significantly with each other on the pretests. We can say that those with higher Barrier scores tended to see the experiment, on first impression, as being more "passive," "relaxed," "free," "soft," etc., than those with lower B. At the same time, they brought less Hostility to the situation. Perhaps those with more definite body-boundaries, feeling greater security within themselves, see the environment as generally more benign and less threatening than those with ill-defined boundaries. The AACL measures intercorrelated fairly highly across all three testings (Table 10). These scores taken together appear to indicate a level of general negative

PAGE 113

102 affect. The extent of their commonality is reflected in the consistent negative correlation of Evaluative-Mood with each of these scores: -.50 to -.55 with Hostility; -.56 to -.58 with Anxiety; -.57 to -.65 with Depression. The intercorrelations of the Semantic Differential factor scores were not as high as those of the AACL scores. The highest were, quite expectedly, generally among those which used the same scales in judging the different concepts. For example, Evaluative-Mood correlated .47 to .54 with Evaluative-Experiment. Among the factors made up of unlike scales, Activity-Mood and Potency-Mood showed the highest correlations: .38 to .45. In one instance, a fairly high significant correlation of a pretest Semantic Differential factor with pretest Barrier was found in a specific experimental group but was not significant overall or in any other group. EvaluativeE correlated -.42 (p<.04) with Barrier in Condition III. Also, a relatively large, though not quite significant, pretest correlation was found in group II females (-.36). Probable artifacts of these results were the correlations of .80 among group III females and .63 for females in group II of pretest Evaluative-E and BC^ . It appears that these two sex x treatment conditions accounted for the overall significance of EvE to BC^ . These are probably best considered chance results, although they may reflect some tendency for higher Barrier females to be less positive in their initial evaluation of the experiment.

PAGE 114

103 Correlations of Pretest to Change Scores In several instances pretest affect scores were related to boundary change scores where no significant correlation of the corresponding pretest scores was found. Slight but significant correlations were found of PC 2 with pretest Anxiety and Evaluative-Mood scores (.20, p<.05 and -.27, p<.01, respectively). This is the only relationship of P to Anxiety that was discovered in this study, though as mentioned earlier, past studies have demonstrated such relationships. Apparently, the less favorable the mood and the more anxiety, the greater the likelihood a subject would show an increased Penetration score at followup . Correlations found within some treatment and sex x treatment groups but not within others may indicate differential effects on relationships of the various treatment conditions. In the "body stimulation only" condition, pretest Barrier scores were correlated positively with change in Anxiety at both the posttest and followup test (.51 and .53, p<.02). This suggests that the higher Barrier Ss in this group tended to become more anxious in a situation where they were simply asked to perform the exercises. It is not clear why these subjects, and not those in the other conditions, would respond in this manner. A possible lead may lie in the fact that no explanation was given for the exercises in this condition, as it was in the other

PAGE 115

104 experimental groups. If high Barrier individuals have a greater disposition toward involvement, participation, and manipulation of events (as past research has suggested), it is conceivable that they might have a greater need to understand a particular situation. If this is true, not being given a stated purpose for the exercises might give rise to anxiety. Among males in the Gestalt condition, but not females, Anxiety and Barrier were related somewhat differently. In this case, pretest Anxiety scores were negatively related to change in Barrier as measured at followup (r=-.70, p<.01) . (The correlation of pretest Anxiety and Barrier, incidentally, was negligible; .05.) The higher the initial Anxiety, the smaller the increase in Barrier score. This result connects with those discussed earlier for group IV males. Males appear to be less receptive to and more threatened by the idea of getting in touch with their bodies. If they are generally anxious to begin with, the probability of resistance to a somatic approach in therapy would be even greater. The problem of sex differences in responses to body therapies calls for more study. The correlations of Penetration scores to affect change scores are difficult to interpret due to their lack of consistent meaning in previous research. However, the relationships found for males and females combined, within conditions, do make sense if we understand higher Penetration

PAGE 116

105 scores to indicate a personality that is preoccupied inward, rather than oriented toward contact with the environs In various groups, there were positive correlations of initial P with increases in perception of Activity and Potency in one's own mood and the experiment. Also in one condition, P correlated negatively with Evaluative-Mood C 2 scores. It seems understandable that a higher P individual who tends to avoid involvement in surrounding events, would when required to become involved, experience them as more . potent and active than would the person with a lower Penetration score; also, that such involvement in a situation perceived as overly active and possibly intrusive would lower the individual's evaluation of his or her own mood.

PAGE 117

CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In previous studies, increases in inkblot test Barrier scores have resulted when subjects focused attention on sensations from the surface of the body. Physical exercise has also resulted in Barrier increases. It has not been clear whether or not Barrier increases would occur as a function of physical exercise per se, independently of the level of conscious attention given the body. In the present experiment, the level of physical stimulation was held constant while the level of attention to the body was manipulated. It was felt that if physical stimulation per se were effective in producing Barrier increases, subjects directing attention away from the body during physical exercises would show Barrier effects comparable to those of subjects who deliberately focused attention on their body peripheries while doing the same exercises. On the other hand, if attention is the primary operative factor, subjects would exhibit differential Barrier increases corresponding to various levels of body awareness. It was hypothesized that experimental conditions requiring different levels of body awareness would produce differential increases in Barrier scores when compared to 106

PAGE 118

107 a "non-body" control condition (group I). The experimental conditions were as follows: a task-oriented "outward attention" condition (group II); a "body stimulation only" condition (group III) ; and a "Gestalt" condition (group IV) . The Gestalt condition represented the highest level of body awareness . In order to measure affect during the experiment, subjects were given the three scales of the Affect Adjective Check List and Semantic Differential scales rating "This Experiment" and "My Mood Right Now." These tests and three separate inkblot forms derived from the Holtzman Inkblot Test were administered pre-treatment , post-treatment, and 48 hours following treatment. For purposes of analysis, change scores were computed from pretest to posttest (C-^) and from pretest to followup (C 9 ). This was done for all variables . Specific hypotheses and their outcomes were the following : 1. Mean BCy would be greater for Ss in group II than for those in group I. This hypothesis was not substantiated. B changes for group II at posttest were negligible. 2. Mean BC-^ would be greater for group III Ss than for group I Ss . This was also unsubstantiated, though changes in the predicted direction were observed. 3. Mean BCg would be greater for Ss in group IV than for those in group I. This was also unconfirmed. Barrier increases were slightly greater than those for group III, but did not attain significance.

PAGE 119

108 4. Mean BC 2 of Ss in group II would not be greater than that of Ss in group I. This hypothesis was confirmed for females, but not for group II males. The males' mean BC 2 score was 3.17, significantly greater (p<.05, one-tail test) than that of the control males (-.417). The result was interpreted as a possible effect of the previously demonstrated connection of boundary systems with systems related to achievement motivation and task orientation. It was conjectured that due to culturally shaped sex differences in behavior and attitudes related to achievement needs, females' boundary definiteness was not affected by the task nature of the group II procedures . The result also represents a delayed augmenting effect on boundary of a relatively short experimental procedure. It encourages further research into lasting or delayed effects, not only of body awareness techniques, but of other situational variables. It seems that certain immediate behavioral demands may augment or diminish body boundary definiteness and that their effects on Barrier scores may take time to become evident . 5. Mean BC 2 of Ss in group III would not be greater than that of Ss in group I. This was substantiated. This result, along with the BCg results, indicate no significant effects on B of the "body stimulation only" condition. This is in contrast to the results reported by Van De Mark and Neuringer, who used a similar procedure. 6. Mean BC 2 of Ss in group IV would be greater than that of Ss in group I. This hypothesis was not confirmed. However, some evidence did emerge that the Gestalt procedures had an overall augmenting effect on boundary definiteness. A sign test on Barrier change scores showed that a significantly higher proportion of Gestalt subjects increased their Barrier scores from pretest to followup than would be expected by chance. This did not occur on the pre to posttest change, nor did it occur among any other subjects except group II males. These results suggest that more research is needed into lasting and delayed effects on Barrier.

PAGE 120

109 7. There would be no difference in pretest Barrier score means of males and females. This was confirmed. 8. There would be' no difference in pretest Penetration means of males and females. This was also confirmed. The results for hypotheses 7 and 8 are consistent with previous findings that sex differences on the boundary measures would be expected to show up only with very large samples. The results of the data analyses generally did not confirm the author's hypothesis that incremental levels of body awareness would have differential effects on Barrier scores. None of the specific hypotheses regarding Barrier score increases were substantiated by the analyses. The results from the outward attention condition and, to a lesser extent, the Gestalt condition, did suggest, however, that these experimental conditions had the effect of increasing Barrier scores and that the effect required time to become apparent. The analysis of the affect data revealed sex differences in response to the Gestalt condition that have potentially important implications for Gestalt and other body therapies. Females in this condition, from pre to followup, became less depreseed, less hostile, and increased in positive evaluation of their own mood. Males in group IV lessened their evaluation of mood, and increased in depression and hostility. The difference between males' and females' means was significant (p<.05) for the EvaluativeMood and Hostility scores. This result was interpreted

PAGE 121

110 in terms of culturally conditioned sex differences in attitudes toward the body. Males would seem to identify less with their bodies than females and therefore feel less comfortable and more threatened when asked to feel and experience body sensations in an immediate, self-involving manner . Other significant results were that males, independent of treatment condition, decreased in Evaluative-Mood scores from pre to posttest while females increased on these scores. Also, males' scores increased and females' scores decreased on ActMC^, ActMC 2 , and ActEC^ . These findings were interpreted generally as indicating that the males experienced the experimental conditions in a less favorable, more intense manner than did the females. Among the correlational results, the significant positive correlation of B to P at pretest and posttest (r=.34 and .24) arouses curiosity. In previous studies, these measures have not been significantly related. No explanation for this result is evident. Other significant correlations involving a boundary measure at pretest were of B to Hostility (-.23), ActivityE (-.31), and Potency-E (-.22). it appears that higher Barrier scores were associated with a tendency to see the experiment, on first impression, as less active and potent. Also, they were associated with less hostile feelings. Besides its relationship to Barrier, Penetration correlated

PAGE 122

Ill with none of the other dependent variables at pretest. Within treatment groups, Barrier scores and Anxietyscores were involved in two notable significant relationships. In the "body only" condition pretest Barrier scores were positively correlated with increase in Anxiety at both posttest and followup (.51 and .53, p<.02). That higher B subjects in this condition would tend to become more anxious during the experiment might be accounted for by the lack of an explanation given for the exercises in this group. This speculation is based on the assumption that high-B individuals would have a greater need than low-B persons to understand a situation they are involved in. Also, among males in the Gestalt condition, pretest Anxiety was correlated negatively to BC 2 (-.70, p<.01). In this condition only, which as noted earlier aroused feelings of hostility and depression in males, it appears likely that initial anxiety militated against males responding to the body attention procedures by increasing Barrier scores .

PAGE 123

APPENDICES

PAGE 124

APPENDIX A INKBLOT SERIES X, Y AND Z, COMPILED FROM HIT FORMS A AND B X Y Z 1. Al 1. Bl 1. A31 2 . A2 2 . Al 6 2 . A3 2 3. A3 3. B34 3. B15 4 . B45 4 . A17 4 . B16 5. A4 5. A18 5. A3 3 6 . B3 6 . Al 9 6 . A34 7 . A5 7 . B28 7 . B14 8 . B41 8 . A2 0 8. B6 9. B7 9 . B29 9. A35 10. A6 10. A21 10. A36 11 . A7 11. A22 11 . A37 12. A8 12 . A2 3 12. A3 8 13. B40 13. B27 13 . Bl 2 14 . B 31 14 . Bll 14 . B20 15 . A9 15 . A24 15. A39 16. A10 16. B35 16. A4 0 17. B39 17. A25 17 . B10 18. All 18. A26 18 . A41 19. A12 19. A27 19. B17 20. B38 20. B22 20. A42 21 . Al 3 21. A2 8 21 . B8 22 . B44 22 . B36 22 . A4 3 23. A14 23 . A2 9 23. A44 24 . B37 24 . A30 24 . B4 25. Al 5 25. B19 25. A45 113

PAGE 125

APPENDIX B AFFECT ADJECTIVE CHECKLIST The following adjectives describe ways in which people can feel — they describe various emotional states. Think about the way you feel right now. Circle those adjectives that apply to you (describe the way you feel) at this moment . active enthusiastic lonely stormy agreeable fearful loving strong afraid fine lost suf f er ing alive fit low sunk alone forlorn lucky sympathetic amiable free mad tame angry friendly mean tense awful frightened merry tender bitter furious miserable terrified blue gay nervous terrible calm glad offended thoughtful cheerful gloomy outraged tormented clean good panicky understanding cooperative good natured peaceful unhappy contented happy pleasant unsociable cruel healthy polite upset desperate hopeless rejected vexed destroyed inspired sad whole disagreeable interested safe wilted discontented irritated secure willful discouraged joyful shaky worrying disgusted kindly steady young enraged 114

PAGE 126

APPENDIX C SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL CHECK LIST This check list is designed to measure the meanings of certain things by having you judge them against a series of descriptive scales. Please make your judgments on the basis of what these things mean to you . Here is how to use these scales: If you feel that the concept at the top is very closely related to one end of the scale, you should place your check-mark as follows: fair x or unfair fair x unfair If you feel that the concept is quite closely related to one end of the scale (but not extremely) , you should place your check-mark as follows: strong x or weak If scale this strong the concept is way : only weak slightly related, check the active X passive or active X passive If you consider the concept to be neutral on the scale, then place your check-mark in the middle: safe _ _ _ x _ _ _ dangerous 115

PAGE 127

116 Work at fairly high speed. Do not worry or puzzle over individual items. It is your first impression that I want. But don't be careless, because I do want your true impressions. MY MOOD RIGHT NOW valuable worthless hard soft active passive lenient severe slow fast unpleasant pleasant tense relaxed beneficial harmful strong weak sad happy free constrained cold hot

PAGE 128

117 THIS EXPERIMENT active : : J passive hard : : soft valuable : : worthless lenient : : severe unpleasant : : pleasant slow : fast beneficial : : harmful tense : : relaxed strong : ; weak cold : : hot free • constrained said happy

PAGE 129

APPENDIX D UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY CONSENT FORM Subject's name Subject's address_ Project number 767 Project Title Perception of Inkblots Principal investigator Gary G. Smith Date I agree to participate in the research as explained to me below: The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships among scores on several personality measures (including the Holtzman Inkblot Technique) , taken under different conditions. In order for the results obtained in the study to be valid, it is important that subjects do not know beforehand what relationships and conditions will be investigated. The final session will be devoted to an explanation and discussion of the experiment. (There will be a total of three sessions.) In order to insure subjects' confidentiality, code numbers will be used on all test forms, rather than subjects names. The above stated nature and purpose of this research, including discomforts and risks involved (if any) have been explained to me verbally by . Furthermore, it is agreed that the information gained from this investigation may be used for educational purposes which may include publication. I understand that I may withdraw my consent at any time without prejudice. Signed I have defined and fully explained this research to the participant whose signature appears above. Signed 118

PAGE 130

APPENDIX E QUIZ ON ARTICLES HEARD BY GROUP II T F 1. The founder of Polaroid Corporation was Edwin H. Land. T F 2. Kodak's new instant camera is collapsible like the SX-70. T F 3. Kodak is suing Polaroid for infringement on at least 10 of Kodak's patents. T F 4 . Basic metals make up 7 percent of the wholesale price index. T F 5. The major steel companies raised prices by about 6 percent in May of this year. T F 6. Lowell Perry resigned as chairman of EEOC after admitting to charges of fiscal mismanagement . T F 7. The EEOC recently settled a discrimination suit against American Telephone and Telegraph in excess of $20 million. T F 8. The teamsters' strike involved 450,000 drivers . T F 9. Secretary of Labor Frank Fitzsimmons helped with the teamsters' contract negotiations. T F 10. Ford Motor Co. laid off 20,000 workers during the three day strike. 119

PAGE 131

BIBLIOGRAPHY Cleveland, S. E. Body image changes associated with personality reorganization. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1960 , 2_4_, 256-261 . Cleveland, S. E., and Morton, R. B. Group behavior and body image: A followup study. Human Relations , 1962, 15_, 77-85. Darby, J. A. Alteration of some body image indexes in schizophrenics . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 1970 , 35^ 116-12. Davis, A. D. Some physiological correlates of Rorschach body-image productions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1960, 6_0, 432-436 . Des Lauriers, A. M. The experience of reality in child hood schizophrenia . New York: international Universitie 1 s Press, 1962. Fisher, R. Body boundary and achievement behavior. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment , 1966, _30_, 435-438. Fisher, S. Body experience in fantasy and behavior . New York: Appleton-Century-Crof ts , 1970. Fisher, S. Body consciousness . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973. Fisher, S., and Cleveland, S. E. Body image and person ality. New York: Dover Press, 1968, rev. ed . Fisher, S., and Osofsky, H. Sexual responsiveness in women: Psychological correlates. Archives of General Psychiatry , 1967, 17 , 214-226. Fisher, S., and Renik, 0. Induction of body image boundary changes . Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1966, 30_, 429-434 . 120

PAGE 132

121 Frede, M. C., Gautney, D. B., and Baxter, J. D. Relationships between body image boundary and interaction patterns on the MAPS test. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 196 8, 32_, 575-59 8 . Freud, S. The ego and the id. In R. M. Hutchings (ed.), The great books of the western world . William Benton Publisher, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952, vol . 54, pp. 697-717. Glick, J. An experimental analysis of subject-object relationships in perception. Ph.D. thesis. Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, 1964, Dissertation Abstracts , 1965, 25_(8), 4826-4827. Goldman, R. Changes in Rorschach performance and clincial improvement in schizophrenia. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1960, 2j4_, 403-408. Hall, G. S. Some aspects of the early sense of self. American Journal of Psychology , 1898, 9_, 315-395. Hanna, T. Bodies in revolt: A primer in somatic thinking . New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1971. Holtzman , W. H., Thorpe, J. S., Swartz, J. D., and Herron, E. W. Inkblot perception and personality . Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1961. Humphrey, G. Thinking . New York: Wiley, 1951. Jacobson, E. American Journal of Physiology , 1931, 96 , 115-25; 9J7 , 200-09 . Kagen, J., and Moss, H. A. Birth to maturity . New York: Wiley, 1962. Lacey, J. I. Psychophysiological approaches to the evaluation of psychotherapeutic process and outcome. In E. A. Rubenstein and M. B. Parloff (eds.), Research in psychotherapy . Washington, D.C.: National Publishing Co., 1959, 160-208. Levitsky, A., and Peris, F. S. The rules and games of Gestalt therapy. In J. Fagen and I. L. Shepherd (eds.), Gestalt therapy now . Palo Alto, California: Science and Behavior Books, Inc., 1970. Liebert, R. S., Werner, H. , and Wapner , S. Studies in the effect of lysergic acid diethylamide. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry , 1958 , 79_, 580-584.

PAGE 133

122 Luhn, C. L. Effects of differing stimulation techniques on body boundary in schizophrenics. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971 (November), vol . 32 T5-13) , 3010. McGlothlin, W. H., Cohen, S., and McGlothlin, M. Longlasting effects of lsd on normals. Paper presented at annual meeting of American College of Neuropharmacology, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1966. Marcel, G. Du refus a 1 ' invocation . Gallimard, Paris, 1940 . Merleau-Ponty , M. Phenomenologie de la perception . Paris Gallimard, 1945. Merleau-Ponty, M. An unpublished text by Maurice MerleauPonty: A prospectus of his work. In The essential writings of Merleau-Ponty, A. L. Fisher (ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1969. Osgood, C. , Suci, G., and Tannenbaum, P. The measurement of meaning. Urbana : University of Illinois Press, 1957 . Peris, F. S. Gestalt therapy verbatim . Lafayette, California: Real People Press, 1969. Peris, F. S., Hefferline, R. F., and Goodman, P. Gestalt therapy. New York: Julien Press, 1951. New York: Dell , 1965. Pols ter , I., and M. Gestalt therapy integrated: Contours of theory and practice . New York: Brunner/Nazel Publishers, 1974. Ramer, J. The Rorschach barrier score and social behavior Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1963, 27_, 525-531 Reich, W. Wilhelm Reich: Selected writings . New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1960. Reitman, E. E., and Cleveland, S. E. Changes in body imag following sensory deprivation in schizophrenic and control groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1964 , 6_8_, 168-76 . Roessler , R. L., Burch, N. R., and Childers, H. E. Person ality and arousal correlates of specific galvanic skin responses. Psychophysiology , 1966 , 3_.

PAGE 134

123 Rozak, T. The making of a counter culture . Garden City, New York, 1968. Schilder, P. The image and appearance of the human body . London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Terebur, and Co., 1935. Shipman, W. G. Personality traits associated with bodyimage boundary concern. Presented at annual meeting of American Psychological Association, New York City, 1965. Smith, G. G. Experimenter-subject acquaintance, Rorschach Â’ barrier score, and attitude toward the experiment: An experimental analysis. Master's thesis, Univeristy of Florida, 1971. Swartz, J. D. Performance of highand low-anxious children on the Holtzman inkblot technique. Child Develop ment, 1965, 36_, 569-575 . Swartz, J. D., and Holtzman, W. H. Group method of administration for the Holtzman inkblot technique. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 1963, 19_, 433-441. Twente, E. W. Patterns of awakening. The Clinical Counselor , 1964 , 1_, 7-17. Van De Mark, S. N., and Neuringer, C. The effect of physical and cognitive somatic arousal on Rorschach response. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1969, 3_3 , 458-465. Wapner, S. An organismic developmental approach to the study of perceptual and other cognitive operations. In C. Scheere, Cognition: Theory, research, promise . New York: Harper and Row, 1964. Wapner, S., McFarland, J. H., and Werner, H. Effect of visual spatial context on perception of one's own body. British Journal of Psychology, 1962, 53, 222-230. Wapner, S., and Werner, H. An experimental approach to body perception from the organismic-developmental point of view. In S. Wapner and H. Werner (eds.), The body percept. New York: Random House, 1965, _____ Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.

PAGE 135

124 Witkin, H. A. Development of the body concept and psychological differentiation. In The body percept . New York: Random House, 1965. Zaner, R. M. The problem of embodiment . The Hague: Martinus Highoff, 1964. Zimny, G. H. Body image and physiological responses. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1965, 9, 185-188. Zuckerman, M. The development of an affect adjective check list for the measurement of anxiety. J ournal of Consulting Psychology , 1960, 24_, 457-462. Zuckerman, M. , Lubin, B., Vogel, L., and Valerius, E. Measurement of experimentally induced affects. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1964, 28, 418-25.

PAGE 136

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Gary Gragg Smith was born July 29, 1944, in Memphis, Tennessee. In 1958 he moved with his family to Avon Lake, Ohio, and in 1960 to Whittier, California. He graduated from Whittier High School in 1962. Following graduation from California State College at Fullerton in January, 1967, he worked as a substitute teacher for the Fullerton Union High School District and as a counselor at Orange County Juvenile Hall, Santa Ana, California. In September, 1968, Dr. Smith began graduate study in the Department of Psychology at the University of Florida. He received the degree of Master of Arts in August, 1971. For the academic years 1968-69 and 1971-72, he was a United States Public Health Service Trainee in clinical psychology. For the academic years 1969-1971, he was teaching assistant to the late Dr. Sidney M. Jourard. Dr. Smith completed his internship at the University of Florida Counseling Center in 1973. During his graduate career he also took part in the founding and operation of the Alternative Counseling Center of Gainesville, Florida. From August, 1973, to January, 1976, he was Clinical Director of the Drug Project in Gainesville, a nonresidential treatment program for drug addicts. 125

PAGE 137

126 Dr. Smith is married to Dr . Ellen Ashdown, who is an Assistant Professor of Humanities at Florida A and M University. They have three children — Kristen, Ian, and Lance.

PAGE 138

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. :lin Uuq in da'cquelin Goldmar Professor of Clinical Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. .Harry Grati Professor /of Psychology 21

PAGE 139

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. J Z . r't-u Robert Isaacson Professor of Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / O.Viiu g l — — u. — d Marilyn B. Zweig l Assistant, Professor of Philosophy This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Psychology in the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. June 1977 Dean, Graduate School