Hypnotic Age Regression: A Critical Review

THEODORE XENOPHON BARBER, Ph.D.

W H I,EN GIVEN THE SUGGESTION

that he is 5 months old, the hypnotized
person at times indulges in infantile acts
such as thumbsucking, babbling, crawling,
bed-wetting, and feeding from a bottle.
Pertinent to on-going research in the behavioral and physiological sciences are reports
indicating that during such "hypnotic age
regression" subjects manifest (1) some infantile reflex responses and (2) some overt
behavioral responses that are not within the
range of knowledge of infant or child behavior available, under normal conditions,
to the adult. An example of the first is the
apparent reinstatement of the "infantile
plantar reflex" under hypnotic regression to
an age of 5 months;28' 44' 63 an example of
the latter is the recall by subjects under
hypnotic regression to age 4, of the exact
day of the week on which their fourth
birthday fell.61 To form an estimate as to
the validity and possible significance of such
reported effects of "hypnotic age-regres-

sion," the present paper reviews relevant

clinical and exprimental studies.

Role-Playing
Previous surveys of the literature 27 ' 29 ' 3S '
so, 2,64 asked: Is hypnotic age regression
real or is it role-playing? The question, as
stated, is amenable to more than one answer, depending on how we conceive of the
critical terms. For instance, hypnotic age
regression is not "real" if this word connotes a reinstatement of all behaviors typical of an earlier chronological age: under
"regression" to infancy, the hypnotized person does not topple from his chair; he
understands the spoken word, and he obeys
instructions to return to the present lime.
But hypnotic age regression is also not
role-playing if this term implies deception,
pretense, or dissimulation: available evidence indicates that when return to an
earlier life-period is suggested, the "good"
hypnotic subject remains, for a time, relatively unconcerned with the immediate experimental situation and vividly imagines
From the Mcdfield (Mass.) State Hospital; the or fantasies himself as an infant or child.
Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology; i,3,5 since words such as "real" and "roleand the Department of Psychiatry, Boston Univei
playing" lead to semantic problems which
sity School o Medicine.
are difficult to resolve empirically, we
This study was supported by Research Grant
MY3253 from the National Institute of Mental shall, in the following discussion, focus on
a somewhat different question: When "reHealth, U.S. Public Health Service.
The writer is indebted to the following for con- turn" to infancy or childhood is suggested,
structive criticisms of a preliminary draft of the does the "good" hypnotic subject exhibit
manuscript: Paul D. Parker, M A, W. Dennis some behaviors that are (1) characteristic of
Engels, M D; Catherine Barber, M A.; Milton S infancy or childhood and (2) difficult or
Palanker, MA.; Harry Freeman, MD; and Don- impossible for the normal adult to perform
ald M. Isaac, MA.
voluntarily?
Received for publication May 22, 1961.

PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE

BARBER
Studies Using Physiological Criteria
Elicitation of "Unconditioned
Infantile Reflex"
Investigations concerned with the ontogeny of the plantar reflex have at times2s.
44,03 b e e n interpreted as follows. Up to
about 5 months of age the infant responds
to plantar stimulation with upturning (dorsiflexion) of the large toe (the Babinski
toe sign); from the age of 7 months and
above, flexion of the toes is the normal
plantar response. Gidro-Frank and Bowersbuch-s asked: Is the dorsiflexor response to
plantar stimulation revived under hypnotic
regression to early infancy? Working with
three carefully selected subjects, they found
that, under hypnotic regression to below 5
months of age, each subject showed the
Babinski dorsiflexor response, and that,
under hypnotic regression to an age of 7
months and above each subject showed
normal plantar flexion. In confirmatory
studies, True and Stephenson63 found that
5 of 6 hypnotized subjects showed the Babinski sign at the suggested age of one
month, and McCranie et alM found that
3 of 10 subjects showed the Babinski under
hypnotic regression to 5 months of age.
Since in each of these experiments the
dorsiflexor toe response appeared spontaneously without being suggested, the experimenters concluded that hypnotic regression
to early infancy is sufficient to revive an
unconditioned infantile reflex. This interpretation is open to question. Dorsiflexion
of the large toe (the Babinski sign) is not
the characteristic response of the infant
to plantar stimulation; the characteristic
response from a few days after birth to
about 7 months of age consists of a sudden
total withdrawal of the extremity. In a
careful study with 75 infants, McGraw45
found that withdrawal of the limb followed
plantar stimulation in all infants up to
about 3 months of age and in 60 per cent of
infants up to about 7 months of age. In
earlier studies, Wolff55 had observed a typical Babinski in only 13 of 389 observations
VOL. xxiv, NO 3,1962

287
made on infants below 7 months of age, and
Burr17 had noted such wide variation in
the digital response of 69 infants as to
conclude that no specific movements of
the toes could be considered as characteristic of the. infantile response to plantar
stimulation.
Why was hypnotic regression to early inlancy associated with the uncharacteristic
Babinski toe response? There are at least
two possibilities:
1 In the normal adult, it is possible to
elicit a Babinski response under conditions
which involve depressed muscle tone such
as in sleep, drowsiness, fatigue, and narcosis.19 Indirect evidence also suggests that
the Babinski sign (in non-neurological conditions) may be a function of depressed
tonicity; e g., small closes of scopoiamine,
which depress tonus, may give rise to a
Babinski, while physiological doses of
physostigmine (eserine), which apparently
elevate tonus, may abolish a positive Babinski;08 "deep hypnosis," which is associated
at times with relaxation and depressed
tonus,24 is sufficient at times (without suggestions of age-regression) to produce a
Babinski response.32' s6< H Since, during hyp
notic regression to early infancy, the subjects assumed the relaxed "sleeping posture
of an infant,"28 it appears plausible that, in
these instances also, the Babinski response
was due to a general depression of muscle
tone But how can one explain GidroFrank and Bowersbuch's observation that
normal plantar flexion was present during
hypnotic regression to all ages above 7
months and that the Babinski response was
present only during hypnotic regression to
below 5 months of age? It is possible that
suggestions oE increased relaxation and
"deeper sleep" were given concurrently with
suggestions to regress to below 5 months
of age. It is also possible that the hypnotized subjects interpreted the suggestion,
"You are now 5 months old," as meaning,
"You are now more relaxed and more
deeply asleep than before."69 In either
case, the suggestions could have given rise

288
to a sufficient fall in lonicity to attain the
threshold for elicitation of ihe Babinski
response.
2. Sarbin34 has pointed to an alternative possibility: the subjects may have become aware of the purpose of the experiment and may have voluntarily performed
the dorsifiexor response. Data presented in
the original reports suggest that this possibility should not be summarily dismissed.
For instance, Gidro-Frank and Bowersbuch
write that their subjects, when not hypnotized, could not by voluntary effort produce dorsiflexion on plantar stimulation.
Since the normal person is able to "turn
his large toe up" any time he so desires, it
appears plausible that Gidro-Frank and
Bowersbuch's subjects were purposively trying to respond in accordance with what
they surmised was expected of them, namely, to show dorsiflexion under hypnotic regression to early infancy and to show normal flexion under all other conditions.
In brief, the elicitation of the Babinski
response does not indicate (as has been assumed) that an unconditioned infantile
reflex was reinstated during hypnotic regression to early infancy. The characteristic
response of an infant to plantar stimulation is not the Babinski but withdrawal of
the limb, with variability in the response of
the toes. The elicitation of the Babinski
sign in the "regression" experiments may
have been due to diminution of tonicity
associated with assumption of the infantile
sleeping posture or realization by the subject of what was wanted, followed by voluntary performance of the dorsifiexor toe response.
Abolition, and Revivification of
"Involuntary" Conditioned Responses

A number of experimenters38'i0-43 have

asked: Can an involuntary conditioned response be abolished by "returning" the
hypnotized subject to a time preceding its
establishment? LeCron40 conditioned handwithdrawal and eye-blink to the sound of
a buzzer in 4 subjects; under hypnotic re-

HYPNOTIC AGE REGRESSION

gression to a time preceding the conditioning, both conditioned responses were abolished. However, in a similar experiment
with 12 subjects, McCranie and Crasilneck43 found that, although the conditioned hand-withdrawal was abolished under hypnotic regression, the conditioned
eye-blink was not affected. Similarly, Krotkin and Suslova38 found, with 3 subjects,
that a conditioned eye-blink response was
not abolished under hypnotic regression to
a time preceding the conditioning.
Edmonston22 reversed the question: Can
an involuntary conditioned response which
has been extinguished be revived by hypnotically regressing the subject to the time
when it was present' The eye-blink response produced by a puff of air on the eye
was conditioned in 6 experimental subjects
to a concurrent presentation of a click and
an increase in biightness; some weeks
later the conditioned response was abolished by sufficient extinction trials to meet
a criterion When regiessed hypnotically to
the time of the original conditioning, all
subjects again manifested the eye-blink response but not "in exactly the same manner
as it had been established."
The criterion measures (conditioned
hand-withdrawal and conditioned eyeblink) were categorized by the experimenters as involuntary responses, and the
findings were interpreted as indicating that
involuntary responses can (or cannot) be
abolished or re-established by hypnotic age
regression. In actuality, the experiments
indicate little if anything concerning the
fate of involuntary responses: a series of
investigations, summarized by Hilgard and
Marquis,80 demonstrates that such responses as conditioned hand-withdrawal
and conditioned eye-blink, can be voluntarily inhibited and voluntarily performed.
Electroencephalographic Alterations
To determine if the slow and auythmic
brain waves found during the early months
of life are revived under hypnotic regression to a neonatal period. True and StePSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE

BARBER
phenson63 suggested an age of 1 month to
6 hypnotized adults; no change was observed on the electroencephalogram (EEG).
Subsequently, Schwarz et a/."6 regressed 5
hypnotized subjects to various infant age
levels, and McCranie et al.4i regressed 10
adults to 1 month ot age; in all cases, the
EEG continued to show normal adult patterns.
Under different circumstances, Kupper39
found EEG alterations associated with hypnotic age-regression. The 24-year-old subject in this case was hospitali7ed for convulsive sei7.ures which had existed since
age 18. On admission, the patient had an
EEG that showed "diffuse abnormalities"
consistent with a convulsive disorder. Psychiatric interviews indicated that the seizures were related to an emotional problem
which involved hostility toward the father
The critical study was conducted as follows
Age 12 (antedating the seizures) was suggested; the EEG was within normal limits
Serial EEGs lemained normal through succeeding suggested years until age 18 (following the first attack) was suggested, at
this point "diffuse abnormalities" were observed. The EEG record was then brought
to within normal limits by "reassuring" the
patient Subsequently, a convulsive seizure
was produced under hypnosis by bringing
forth material related lo the patient's conflict with his fathei.
Hypnotic age-regiession m.iy h.i\e been
helpful, but it was not necessary to produce
the effects. Kupper writes: "In this man.
the trigger to a convulsive seizure centered
about a personal conflict whose resolution
could lower the emotional danger point
enough for clinical improvement. Under
hypnosis and in interviews, only this emotional problem could produce an attack or
a perceptible change in the electroencephalogram " (italics added) In subsequent studies, Barker and Barker11 and
Stevens58 also produced convulsions in unhypnotized epileptic patients by inducing
"emotional conflict " Tn addition, Barker
antl Barker found that by inducing "disVOL. xxiv, NO. 3,1962

289
tressing thoughts and feelings" it was possible to produce previously unobserved EEG
abnormalities in some patients with epilepsy, and Stevens found that b) provoking
"intense emotional response" it was possible "to precipitate previously unobtained
epileptiform abnormalities in the electroencephalogram of one-third of a group
ot [30] patients with convulsive disorders
and to reduplicate or exaggerate previously demonstrated pathological electroencephalogiam changes in another third."
Use of Other Physiological Criteria
Ford and Yeager24 worked with a patient
who had manifested a right homonymous
hemianopsia prior to undergoing craniotomy for removal of a colloid cyst from the
floor of the third ventricle; following the
surgery, vision gradually returned to normal. In the critical experiment the patient
was hypnotically regressed to a period
shortly before the operation. The authors
write that under this condition the patient "showed a right homonymous hemianopsia"; although this statement has been
used in support of the contention that
involuntary physiological functions are revived under hypnotic regression to a time
when they were originally present,29 the operations on which the statement is based
are not specified. Apparently, the hypnotically regressed subject stated that he could
not see in certain parts of his visual field;
however, objective tests appropriate to demonstrate the presence of hemianopsia were
eithei not performed or, if performed, were
not reported.
Erickson23 worked with a 19-year-old
patient who, during his seventeenth year,
was drugged and beaten into unconsciousness and did not regain full consciousness
tor approximately 48 hours Under hypnotic regression to the traumatic day, the
patient appeared to re-enact the forced
drugging and beating. At one point during the re-enactment, he suddenly collapsed; patellar and pupillary reflexes
seemed absent and muscle tonus, pulse, and

290

HYPNOTIC AGE REGRESSION

respiration appeared markedly diminished. day) and she was able to recall (with and
Before accurate counts of pulse, respiration, without hypnosis) the exact day ot the
and blood pressure could be made, the pa- week and the associated events
Subsetient recovered. After several minutes of quently, Reiff and Scheerer32 asked 5 subconfusion, he apparently collapsed again, jects, regressed to their tenth and seventh
and then again recovered. Erickson inter- birthdays, to identify the day of the week.
preted these data as indicating that by At the suggested age of 10, three subjects
means of hypnotic age regression it is named the wrong day, one said "I don't
possible to relive a former experience "as know," and one was correct; at the suggested
if in the course of the actual original de- age of 7, three named the correct day, one
velopment." However, alternative inter- was incorrect, and one answered "I don't
pretations appear plausible: for example, know." Barber9 regressed nine "excellent
the patient may have been simulating un- hypnotic subjects" (selected from an origiconsciousness, or he may have fainted at nal group of 70 hospital employees) to
the recall of former traumatic experiences; their tenth birthdays. After the subject
unhypnoiized persons have also been gave a realistic and detailed description (in
known-to faint during emotional arousal.
the present tense) of the events of the
birthday, he was asked to name the day of
the week. One subject said it was "a
Studies Using Psychological Criteria
schoolday," one said "I don't know,"' and
7 replied with a specific day; 6 of the 7 anRecall of Specific Days
swers were incorrect. Burke (as reported by
61
True used 50 college students as sub- Barber0) also regressed nine "excellent hypjects, each of whom was regressed hypnoti- notic subjects" (selected from an original
cally to Christmas day and his birthday at group of 104 women college students) to
the ages of 10, 7, and 4. On each suggested their tenth birthday; when asked to name
day the subject was asked: "What clay of the clay of the week, 3 answered "I don't
the week is this?", and his reply was scored know" and the others named a specific
against a 200-year calendar. In 81 per cent day; all answers were incorrect.
of the cases the replies were accurate Of
The results of the above experiments
the total answers, 93 per cent were correct
at the suggested age of ten, 82 per cent at suggest that True's findings may be difficult
the suggested age of 7, and 69 per cent ai to confirm; this supposition is strengthened
by the following
the suggested age of 4.
1. It is reported that of the 50 subjects
Four subsequent studies, which were designed to confirm True's findings, reported participating in True's study, better than
contrary results Best and Michaels14 hyp- 60 per cent correctly identified the day of
notically regressed 5 subjects to two past the week on which their fourth birthday
birthdays that had fallen on either a Satur- Jell, and better than 75 per cent correctly
day or a Sunday. The regressed subject identified the day on which Christmas fell
was asked to describe the events of the when they were 4 years old What these
selected day. Nine of the 10 birthdays in data signify is an open question in light
with American nursery
question were misidentified, the subject of a recent study
9
stating that he had attended school when school children, which found that only
a week end was actually involved. The about 25 per cent of A -year-olds (or 5-yearone birthday which was identified correctly olds) are able to give correct answer to
under hypnotic age-regression was also iden- such questions as, "What day of the week is
tified correctly under normal conditions; in today?", or, "What clay of the week was
this case, the subject's grandfather had died yesterday^"
on the specified day (her fourteenth birth2. True 62 has pointed out that his 50
PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE

BARBER
subjects were tested over a period of many
months; they may have discussed the experiment with each other.
3. Sutcliffe50 notes that it is possible to
compute mentally the day of the week on
which any past birthday or Christmas
day fell, as follows. A birthday or a Christmas which fell on a particular day ( say, a
Monday) on a certain year, fell one day
earlier (that is, on Sunday) on the previous year, provided the previous year was
not a leap year; if it was a leap year, it
fell two days earlier (that is, on Saturday) .* To determine if subjects are aware
of this relationship, Yates80 asked 49 college
students (under normal conditions) on
which day of the week their tenth, seventh,
and fourth birthdays fell. Two minutes
were permitted for each answer. After the
subject replied, he was asked how he arrived
at his answers. The percentage of correct
replies (31 per cent for age ten, 29 per
cent for age seven, and 20 per cent for age
four) ran consistently above the 14 per cent
of correct answers expected by chance.
Forty-two subjects (86 per cent) stated that
they had tried to use the above or a similar
method to figure out the answers.
Further studies which set out to confirm
True's findings should control for foreknowledge of the purpose of the experiment on the part of the subject, and should
use appropriate interview techniques to
determine if accurate answers are due to
mental computation performed as described above.f
Intelligence Tests
The Binet Tests, which are based on
standard norms for children of various
age levels, have been widely employed
in studies of hypnotic age regression Jn
an early experiment, Platonow"'1 administered the Binet-Simon to 3 hypnotic subjects under the assigned ages of 10, 6, and
*lt should be emphasized that pioper use of
this relationship enables one to compute mentally
a past Christmas or birthday wilhin seconds.
fSce Addendum.
VOL. xxiv, NO. 3,1962

291

4. In two cases, the "mental ages" under

hypnotic age regression were roughly parallel to (but somewhat higher than) the
suggested chronological ages; however, the
third subject did not approach the norms
for the suggested ages (e g, passing all tests
for an average 7-year-old when assigned
an age of 4).
Young87 carried out two related experiments. In the first, 5 subjects, hypnotically
regressed to age 3, were given 25 items from
the 1916 version of the Stanford-Binet
Under "regression" all subjects attained a
mental age which was higher than the suggested age (average mental age, 4 years and
8 months). Young criticized this study in
that "group hypnosis" was employed and
the 25 test items gave only a rough approximation of the mental age. A better-controlled experiment was subsequently performed; the standard procedure for administering the Stanford-Binet was used in
individual sessions to test 9 subjects hypnotically regressed to age 3, and 7 "unhypnotizable" subjects instructed to simulate
age 3. Hypnotized subjects regressed to age
3 responded on the Binet as if they were 6
years old (average mental age, 5 years and
11 months). Unhypnotized subjects simulating age 3 performed as well as the "regressed" subjects (average mental age, 5
years and 5 months).
Spiegel et al.51 gave the Stanford-Binet to
a 23-year-old patient under normal conditions and under hypnotic regression to 12
chronological levels ranging from age 11/2
to age 20. Under "regression" the IQ
ranged from 95 to 134 (normally the IQ
was 123). Marked discrepancies were noted
at certain age levels; for example, the mental age attained under the suggested age of
5 years and 9 months differed by 17 months
from the mental age attained under the suggested age of 6 years; the authors note that
in reality such a 17-month leap in mental
age hardly ever occurs in 3 months
In these studies the score obtained by the
hypnotized subject under regression to a
specified chronological age was compared
with standard norms for children of that

292

HYPNOTIC AGE REGRESSION

age. This procedme is open 10 criticism notic regression to ages 15, 10, and 8. The
since the subject as a child may have devi- scores under regression were appropriate
ated markedly from the standard norms. to the norms for the suggested age. The
A more appropriate procedure would in- IQ of all subjects remained practically convolve comparing a subject's performance stant, no variation exceeding 4 points. The
under hypnotic age regression with the per- mean IQ was 117 under the normal condiformance given by the same subject on the tion and 118 at each of the suggested ages.
same test when he was actually a child of The lack of variation in IQ, however, does
the stipulated age. This procedure has been not indicate that the "regressed" subjects
followed in two experiments. In Spiegel's "duplicated" their performance at earlier
study,57 mentioned above, the Stanford- age -levels; as Kline himself points out, such
Binet had been administered on one occa- constancy in IQ is not found on the Otis
sion under normal waking conditions. (or on any other standard test of intelliEighteen months later, the subject was hyp- gence) on retesting under normal condinotically regressed back to the day of the tions.* Failure to include a control condioriginal testing, and given a re-test He did tione g., administering the Otis under innot repeat his earlier performance, the pat- structions to imitate the performance of
tern of responses and the total score differed children at the three age-levelsrenders
markedly on the two occasions. Subsequent- Kline's results equivocal In a later study.
ly, Sarbin53 succeeded in finding 9 adults Barber9 found that hypnotic age regression
who had taken the Stanford-Binet at the age was not only unnecessary but also not helpof 8 or 9 (the records of which were still ful in inducing a performance on the Otis
available), were willing to be hypnotized, which was in accord with the norms for the
and were excellent hypnotic subjects Each
assigned age. In this experiment, 9 "excelsubject was hypnotically regressed to the
specific day during his eighth or ninth year lent hypnotic subjects" were given equivawhen he had originally taken the Binet, lent forms of the Otis under normal conand the test was readministered In a con- ditions and under hypnotic regression to
trol session, the same subjects were given age 10. as a control, 9 normal subjects were
the Binet under instructions to simulate the given equivalent forms of the Otis under
behavior of an 8- or 9-year-old child. All normal conditions and under instructions
scores under hypnotic age regression were to perform as they would have at age 10.
higher than scores on the original testing. (To motivate the control group, a 10-dollai
(Average overestimation of the mental age reward was offered for the "best" performunder hypnosis was 3|/ 2 years) Subjects ap- ance ) The IQ of one hypnotically regressed
proached more closely their earlier per- and of 3 simulating subjects remained
formance under regression than under sim- "practically constant," i.e., did not vary
ulation. (Average overestimation of the more than 4 points under the two condimental age under simulation was 514 years.) tions The mean IQ of the experimental
group was 118 under the normal condition
Evidently, performance on the Binet under hypnotic age regression tends to be
Bayley, 12 Bradway.tB Brown,i6 Freeman,25 and
superior to the norms for the assigned age, others who have collected Stanford-Binet lecords
or to the subject's actual performance at fiom children at regular intervals over a period
o years found that the IQ not only varied from
an earlier age.
year to year but also varied much more widely than
Contrary results have been reported with is commonly supposed For example, approxithe Otis Self-Administering Test of Mental mately 25 per cent of the children tested showed
in IQ of more than 15 points on retestAbility. Kline33 administered equivalent aingchange
over a 7-year interval. There is reason to beforms of the Otis to 10 college students lieve that comparable changes in IQ would be obunder normal conditions and under hyp- tained on retesting with the Otis
PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE

BARBER
and 136 under hynotic regression to age 10;
the mean IQ of the control group was 112
under the normal condition and 118 under
simulation of age 10. Replication of Kline's
experiment with the addition of a motivated control group is indicated; the results of Barber's study suggest that, if appropriately motivated, simulating subjects
will not differ from hypnotically regressed
subjects on the criterion measure.
Rorschach and Drawings
Taylor60 gave the Goodenough Draw-aMan Test to 12 hypnotized adults under
the assigned ages of 10, 8, and 6. In a second
session, the same subjects were instructed
to draw a man in the manner of a 10-, 8-,
and 6-year-old child. Goodenough's norms
were used to score the drawings. All drawings showed both mature and immature
features. Scores on the "regressed" drawings did not differ significantly from scores
on the drawings made under simulation
In addition to a drawing test, Orne48 administered the Rorschach to 9 hypnotized
college students under the suggested age
of 6. In a second session, both the
Rorschach and the drawing test were administered under normal conditions and
the drawings were repeated under instructions" to simulate age 6. Drawings actually
made at age 6 by one subject and a
Rorschach administered at that age to another subject were available for comparison; no similarity was noted between the
original and the "regressed" protocols. All
drawings and all Rorschachs made under
hypnotic regression to age 6 showed some
childlike features and some features which
are never found in the record of a 6-year-old
child. In a number of instances, the drawings made under regression were practically
identical with those made under simulation.
Along similar lines, Sarbin and Farberow55 gave the Rorschach and a drawing
test to 6 adults under hypnotic regression
to ages 18, 13, 6, and 3. As in the previous
studies, the Rorschach protocols showed
both childlike and adultlike responses and
VOL. xxiv, NO. 3,1962

293

the drawings tended to be superior to the

norms for the suggested ages.
Crasilneck and Michael18 instructed 10
student nurses to copy the Bender-Gestalt
figures (1) under normal conditions, (2)
under normal conditions with instructions
to pretend to be 4 years old, (3) hypnotized
and instructed to pretend to be 4, and (4)
hypnotically regressed to 4. Three clinical
psychologists, unaware of the nature of the
experiment, rated the maturational level of
the Bender protocols. (Interjudge reliability was satisfactorily high, r, .84-.90.) The
mean maturational levels were rated as follows: (1) 11.2 years (normal condition) ;
(2) 9.9 years (pretending to be 4); (3)
7.8 years (pretending to be 4 under hypnosis) ; and (4) 7.3 years (hypnotically regressed to age 4). (The ratings for conditions 3 and 4 do not differ significantly.)
The authors concluded that although hypnotized subjects try to comply with suggestions that they are children of a certain age,
they do not reach the actual age level suggested.
In brief, in experiments in which the
Rorschach or drawings were used as criterion measures, the "regressed" subjects
manifested both childlike and adultlike
responses and performed at a level which
was superior to the norms for the suggested
ages.
Use of Other Psychological (
A number of reports presented detailed
findings obtained with one subject. In each
case the performance of the hypnotically
regressed subject (on the Rorschach,13' 26>
46 4T
' on the Binet,26' 41- 46 on the WechslerBellevue,34 on handwriting,21'26 or on drawings,13' 21' 26' 4) seemed to parallel the
performance expected from a child of .[he
suggested age. However, each study lacks
a necessary control: the subject was not instructed under normal conditions to imitate the performance of a child.
Reiff and Scheerer52 and Kline and
Guze37 have published experiments which
are open to criticism on other grounds. The

294
former investigators used eight perceptualcognitive tests, two of which (The Hollow
Tube Test and the Left and Right Test)
were selected from Piaget's work with European children, and 6 of which (e.g., a word
association test, an arithmetic test, a timeclock test) were especially constructed for
the experiment by the authors. The test
battery was administered to 5 hypnotized
subjects under the suggested ages of 10, 7,
and 4. As a control, 15 subjects were divided
into three groups of 5 subjects, and each
group was given the battery under instructions to simulate one of the age levels.
Performance under hypnotic age regression
and under simulation was rated as appropriate to the assigned age level in 86 and
43 per cent of the cases, respectively. However, the validity of the norms used in rating performance is open to question. McCarthy,42 Deutsche,20 and Isaacs31 have published data indicating that Piaget's norms
may be inapplicable to American and British children, and the most that Reiff and
Scheerer claim for the six tests they constructed is that they "presumably fit the
cognitive structures" of children at various
age levels. Until norms for American children are established, valid conclusions cannot be drawn from this study.
Kline and Guze37 administered Buck's
House-Tree-Person drawing test to a 23year-old subject (1) under normal conditions; (2) under normal conditions with instructions to simulate age 6; (3) hypnotized
and instructed to simulate age 6; and (4)
hypnotically regressed to age 6. Drawings
made under normal conditions and under
simulation (conditions 1-3) were adultlike
and difficult to differentiate from each other;
drawings made under hypnotic age-regression (condition 4) contained some childlike features. Although the authors concluded that striking alterations in "neuropsychological organization" were found
under hypnotic age regression, they did not
attempt to explain why the drawings made
under instructions to simulate were practically indistinguishable from drawings

HYPNOTIC AGE REGRESSION

made under normal (nonsimulating) conditions. Did the subject actually try to perform like a child when asked to imitate the
performance of a 6-year-old? This question,
related to the problem of controls in "regression" experiments, is discussed more
fully below
Controls in Hypnotic Age Regression
Experiments
In some of the experiments described
above subjects approximated more closely
the norms for the assigned age under "regression" than under simulation. In these
instances, the following may have played
a role in producing a "better" performance
under the hypnotically regressed condition:
1. The control group (simulators) was
selected haphazardly. In contradistinction,
the experimental group was carefully selected from a large original group as the most
hypnotizable; this explicit criterion for
selection, however, is difficult if not impossible to differentiate from an interrelated
implicit criterionnamely, that the subjects
chosen were the most proficient, irrespective
of hypnosis, in carrying out activities involving imagination or fantasy. Barber and
Glass10 have recently presented evidence
indicating that highly hypnotizable individuals are adept at imaginational activities
before they are first hypnotized. In this investigation 512 college students were given
a personality inventory and rated on eight
tests designed to assess hypnotic susceptibility. In comparison with subjects rated as
insusceptible, subjects rated as highly susceptible gave more "yes" answers to such
items as: Do you find daydreaming very
enjoyable? Do you like to read true stories
about love and romance? When you were a
child of about 5 or 6, did you have imaginary playmates who were rather vivid and
almost real? These findings suggest that
differences between the subjects assigned to
the simulating and hypnotic groups may
account for the findings in some of the
"regression" experiments, i.e., the experimental group may have given a "better"
PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE

BARBER
performance than the simulating group not
because they were "hypnotized" or "hypnotically age regressed" but because they
were implicitly selected as especially skilled
in carrying out imaginative activities.
2 Since subjects assigned to the experimental group had participated in preliminary "training" sessions in which they had
become familiar with the experimental situation, formed a subject-experimenter relationship with the operator, and received
practice in performing activities involving
imagination and fantasy in the presence of
another person, it seems likely that they
were comfortable in the critical experiment
(hypnosis) and motivated to give a "good"
performance. In contrast, subjects assigned
to the control group had not participated in
preliminary "training" sessions and had not
had prior experience in carrying out imaginative behavior in an experimental setting.
Since, in addition, subjects in the control
group were instructed, without preliminaries, to imitate the behavior of a child,
and immediately aftenuard given the criterion tests, it seems plausible that they were
not prepared to carry out instructions, were
relatively ill at ease in the experimental
situation, and were not motivated to give
their best performance.
3. These contentions apply to studies in
which the performance of an experimental
group was compared with the performance
of an independent control group. Other
factors may have played a role in experiments in which the subject's performance
under hypnosis was compared with his own
performance under simulation. In these
instances, the "better" performance found
(on some occasions) under hypnotic age
regression may have been due to an awareness by the subject that the experimenter
not only expected but also desired "better"
results under hypnosis. Experimental evidence suggests that "good" hypnotic subjects characteristically strive to fullfill the
expectations and desires of the experimenter- 4' o s and, in some instances, purposively give their best possible perfomance
VOL. xxiv, NO. 3,1962

295
under the hypnotic condition and purposively give an inferior performance under
the control condition.49 Indirect evidence
suggests that this factor may have been
responsible for the results obtained in some
of the "regression" experiments, for example, since the normal adult is able to
imitate a child's manner of drawing and to
raise his large toe, this factor may have
played a role in Kline and Guze's37 experiment, in which the subject was apparently
unable to draw in a childlike manner when
instructed to simulate the age of 6, and in
Gidro-Frank and Bowersbuch's28 experiment, in which subjects were apparently
unable to imitate the Babinski response under normal conditions.
Experimental studies which explicitly
recognize the significance of these factors
are in order. Subjects serving as their own
controls should be unequivocally informed
that as good a performance is expected and
desired under simulation as under hypnosis.
If the experimental design calls for comparison of the performance of an experimental group with the performance of an
independent control group, subjects should
not, as in previous investigations, be assigned to the control group haphazardly.
On the contrary, the control group should
be selected and treated in a manner similar
to that used in the experimental group
(with the exception that no attempt be
made to induce hypnosis) ; eg., the control
group should be selected for proficiency in
carrying out imaginative activities and
should receive "practice" in carrying out
such activities in an experimental setting.
The data surveyed suggest that, under carefully controlled conditions, simulating subjects will not differ from hypnotically age
regressed subjects on the criterion measures.
Summary and Conclusions
1. When told that he is a child of a
certain chronological age, the "good-"-hypnotic subject characteristically imagines
that he is a child and tends to behave HI a

296
childlike manner. However, when assessed
on standard physiological 01 psychological
tests, the behavior of the "hypnotic age
regressed" subject either shows discrepancies from the norms for the suggested age,
or, it in accord with the norms, is of such
a kind as to be amenable to simulation by
the normal adult.
2. Specifically, physiological studies do
not indicate (as has been assumed) that involuntary functions characteristic of an
earlier age level are revived under hypnotic
age regression:
(a) In no case has regression to infancy
been associated with revival of the infantile EEG pattern. (Although in one experiment with an epileptic patient, abnormal patterns on the EEG were abolished and reinstated under hypnotic age
regression, similar EEG effects were produced in the same patient, and in other
epileptic patients, without hypnosis.)
(b) The assertion that involuntary
conditioned responses can be abolished
under hypnotic age regression is based on
a questionable interpretation of experimental data. The so-called "involuntary"
conditioned responses which were assessed
in the "regression" experiments (conditioned hand withdrawal and conditioned eye-blink) appear to be amenable
to voluntary inhibition
(c) Although a Babinski response to
plantar stimulation has been demonstrated in some subjects under hypnotic regression to early infancy, this does not
indicate (as has been assumed) that an
"unconditioned infantile reflex" is recoverable under "regression." The characteristic response of the infant to stimulation of the sole is not the Babinski,
but withdrawal of the limb with variability in response of the toes.
3. On standard psychological tests such as
the Binet, the Rorschach, and Goodenough
drawings, hypnotically age regressed subjects generally manifest some responses that
are atypical of a child, and attain scores
that are superior to the norms for the assigned age, or to the scores they had actu-

H Y P N O T I C AGE REGRESSION
ally attained at the earlier age.
4. In one experiment, subjects under
regression to ages 10, 7, and 4 were able, in
81 per cent of the cases, to state the exact
day of the week on which Christmas and
their birthday fell in the particular year
involved. Indirect evidence suggests that
failure to control crucial experimental variables may have been responsible for these
results; e.g., the experiment was carried
out over a period of many months and it is
possible that the subjects discussed the experiment with each other; four subsequent
experimental studies failed to confirm the
findings; the overwhelming majority of
American 4-year-olds do not distinguish
the days of the week; normal persons can
deduce on which day of the week an earlier
birthday (or a Christmas) fell by counting
back from a known birthday (or Christmas) , one day of the week for each intervening year and an additional day for each
intervening leap-year.
5. In some experiments the "regrssed"
subjects approximated more closely the
norms for the stipulated age than subjects
instructed to simulate. In these instances,
the "better" performance found under the
hypnotic condition may have been due to
such factors as the following. The experimental group was selected under the implicit criterion of proficiency in performing
imaginative activities and had leceived
practice, in preliminary "training" sessions,
in carrying out such activities in an experimental setting. In contradistinction, the
control group was selected haphazardly and
did not participate in prior experiments.
The data reviewed suggest a need for further experiments in which control groups
are selected and treated in a manner similar
to that used for the hypnotic groups. It
can be hypothesized that under such conditions no difference will be found between
hypnotically regressed and control subjects
on the criterion behaviors.

Addendum
An important study by E. Mesel and F. F.
Ledford, Jr. (Arch. Neurol. 7:516, 1959),
PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE

BARBER

297

which attempted to replicate True's61 experiment and also Gidro-Frank and Bowersbuch's2S and Kupper's39 experiments, has recently come to the reviewer's attention.
Mesel and Ledford's findings did not confirm the earlier reports: hypnotically ageregressed subjects did not exceed chance expectations in naming the days of the week
on which previous birthdays or Christmas
days fell; there was no significant alteration
in the plantar response under hypnotic regression to age 6 months or to age 1 month;
and no significant EEG changes were noted
in epileptic patients hypnotically regressed
to a chronological age preceding onset of
convulsions.
Research Division
Medfield State Hospital
Medfield, Mass

References
1. BARBER, T . X. Hypnosis as perceptual-cognitive restructuring: I. Analysis of concepts. / .
Chn. Exp. Hypnosis 5:147, 1957.
2. BARBER, T X. Hypnosis as perceptual-cognitive restructuring: IV. "Negative hallucinations." / . Psychol. 46-181, 1958.
3. BARBER, T . X. T h e concept of "hypnosis."
J. Psychol 45:116, 1958.
4. BARBER, T . X. Toward a theory of pain: Relief
of chronic pain by prefrontal leucotomy,
opiates, placebos, and hypnosis. Psychol. Bull
56 430, 1959.
5. BARBER, T . X T h e necessary and sufficient
conditions for hypnotic behavior Am. J. Chn
Hyfmosis 3.31, I960
6. BARBER, T . X. "Hypnosis," analgesia, and the
placebo effect J A.M. A. 172 680, 1960.
7. BARBER, T . X. Antisocial and criminal acts induced by "hypnosis". A review of experimental
and clinical findings. A. M. A Arch Gen.
Psychiat. 5:301, 1961.
8. BARBER, T X. Physiological effects of "hypnosis " Psychol. Bull. 55-390, 1961.
9. BARBER, T . X Evpeiimental evidence for a
theory of hypnotic behavior: II. Experimental
controls in hypnotic age-regression. Int. J. Clin
Exp Hypnosis. 9:181, 1961
10

BARBER, T . X., and GLASS, L B. Significant fac-

tors in hypnotic behavior

Psychol (in press) .
11.

/ . Abnorm.

Soc.

BARKER, W., and BARKER, S. Experimental pro-

duction of human convulsive brain potentials

VOL. xxiv, NO. 3,1962

by stress-induced effects upon neural integia

tive function: Dynamics of t h e convulsive reaction to stress Res Publ Ass. Nerv. Merit.
Dis 29 90, 1950.
12 BAYLEY, N Consistency and variability in the
growth of intelligence from birth to eighteen
years. / . Genet. Psychol 75.165, 1949.
13.

BERCMANN, M. S., GRAHAM, H . , and LEAVITT,

H. C. Rorschach exploration of consecutive

hypnotic chronological age level regression.
Psychosom. Med. 9 20, 1947.
14.

BEST, H . L , and MICHAELS, R. M. Living out

"future" experience under hypnosis. Science

120-lOn, 1954.
15. BRADWAY, K. P. IQ constancy in the revised
Stanford-Binet from the preschool to the
junior high school level. / . Genet Psychol. 65:
197, 1944.
16. BROWN, R. R. T h e time interval between test
and retest in its relation to t h e constancy of
the intelligence quotient. / . Educ. Psychol. 24:
81, 1933.
17. BURR, C. W. T h e reflexes of early infancy.
Brit. J. Child Dis. !*:152, 1921.
18.

19.
20.

21

22

23.

24.

CRASILNECK, H . B., and MICHAEL, C. M. Per-

formance on the Bender under hypnotic age

regression / Abnorm
Soc. Psychol. 54:319,
1957.
Examination.
DEJONC, R. N. The Neurologic
Hoeber, New York, 1958, pp. 591-593.
DEUTSCHE, M. T h e development of children's
concepts of causal relations. Monograph No. 13,
Institute of Child Welfare, 1937.
DOLIN, A. O. A physiological analysis of the
elements of individual personality experience.
T h e Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics
Laboratory, Library Bulletin
(Translation'
Series), Report No. TG-230-T-139, i960 Translation from Arkhiv Biologicheskikh Nauk. 36:
25, 1934
EDMONSTON, W. E. An experimental investigation of hypnotic age regression. Amer. J. Cltn
Hypnosis 3:\27, 1960.
ERICKSON, M. H Development of apparent
unconsciousness during hypnotic reliving of a
traumatic experience. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat.
38 1282, 1937.
FORD, L. F., and YEACER, C. L. Changes in the

electroencephalogram in subjects under hypnosis Dis. Nerv. Syst. 9:190, 1948.

25 FREEMAN, F. N. Intellectual growth of children
as indicated by repeated tests. Psychol. Monogr.
47 (Whole No. 212) 20, 1936.
26

CAKKEBUSH,

V.

M., POLINKOVSKII, S. I ,

and

FUNDILLER, R. I. Experimental study of personality development by hypnotic inhibition.

HYPNOTIC AGE REGRESSION

298

27
28.

T h e Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics

Laboratory, Library Bulletin
(Translation
Series) , Report No TG-230-T-152, 1960 Translation fiom Trudy Instttula
Psikhonevrologiia,
Kiev 2:236, 1930
GEBHARD, J W Hypnotic age-regression A review. Amer. J Clin. Hypnosis } 139, 1961.
CIBRO-FRANK,

L,

and

BOWERSBUCH, M. K. A

study of the plantar response in hypnotic age

regression. / New. Ment. Dis 107:443, 1948.
29 GORTON, B E T h e physiology of hypnosis
Psychmt Quart. 2J-W, 457, 1959.
30.

31
32-

33.
34.
35.

36.

37.

HILCARD, E. R , and MARQUIS, D G.

JOLOWICZ, E , and HEYER, G. Suggestion Thera-

py and Hypnosis and Hypnotherapy Daniel,

London, 1931, p 141.
K.Lii\E, M V. Hypnotic age regression and
intelligence / Genet. Psychol 77:129, 1950.
KLINE, M. V. Hypnosis and age progression.
A case report / . Genet. Psychol 75195, 1951.
KLINE, M. V. Hypnotic retrogression: A neuropsychological theory of age regression and progression. / . Clin Exp Hypnosis 1.21, 1953
KLINE, M. V Hypnotic age regression and
psychotherapy: Clinical and theoretical observations. Int. J Clin Exp Hypnosis 5:17,
1960.
T h e use of a pro-

jective drawing technique in the investigation

of hypnotic age regression and progression.
lint. J Med. Hypnotism 3:\0, (Winter) 1951
38.

KROTKIN, I

I., and SUSLOVA, M. M Changes in

conditioned and unconditioned reflexes during

suggestion states in hypnosis Central Nervous
(Tianslations
System and Human Behavior
from the Russian Medical Literature) Washington, D C : U. S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1959,
pp 653-669. Translated from Trudy
Institute
Fiziologti Pavlova 5.267, 1956
39. KUPPER, H I. Psychic concomitants in wartime
injuries Psychosom. Med. 7:15, 1945.
40. LECRON, L. M. T h e loss during hypnotic age
regression of an established conditioned reflex.
Psychiat. Quart. 2(5 657, 1952.
41. LEEDS, M. An hypnotic regression scries
Persona 1:13, 1949
42. MCCARTHY, D. Language development of the
pre-school child Monograph No 4, Institute
of Child Welfare, 1930.
43.

MCCRANIE, E

J,

and CRASII.NECK, H

44

The

MCCRANIE, E J., CRASILNECK, H. B , and TETER,

H R. T h e electroencephalogtam in hypnotic
age regression Psychiat. Quart. 29.85, 1955
45. MCGRAW, M. B Development of the plantar
response in young infants. Amer. J. Dis. Child
67:1215, 1941
46

47

Condition-

ing and Learning. Appleton-Century, New

York, 1940, p p . 35; 269-270
ISAACS, S. Intellectual Growth in Young Children Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1930.

KLINE, M. V , and GUZE, H

conditioned reflex in hypnotic age regression.

/ Clin. Exp Psychopath 16A20, 1955

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

MERCER, M., and GIBSON, R. W. Rorschach con-

tent in hypnosis" Chronological age level regression. / . Clin Psychol. 6:352, 1950
NORCARB, B A "Rorschach Psychodiagnosis in
Hypnotic Regression " In L. M. LeCron ( E d )
Experimental Hypnosis. Macmillan, New York,
1952, pp. 178-214.
ORNE, M T T h e mechanisms of hypnotic age
regression: An experimental study. / Abnorm.
Soc Psychol. 46 2\%, 1951.
PATTII-, F A A report of attempts to produce
uniocular blindness by hypnotic suggestion.
Brit J. Med. Psychol. 25.230, 1935
PAn it, F A "The Genuineness of Some Hypnotic Phenomena" In R. M Dorcus (Ed)
Hypnosis and its Therapeutic
Applications
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1956.
PLATONOW, K I On the objective proof of the
experimental personality age regression. / . Gen.
Psychol. 9.190, 1933.
REIFF,

R.,

and

SCHEURER,

M.

Memory

and

Hypnotic Age Regression. Internat. Univ. Press,

New York, 1959
53. SARBIN, T . R. Mental changes in experimental
regression / . Pers. 79 221, 1950
54 SARHIN, T . R. "Physiological Effects of Hypnotic
Stimulation." In R. M Dorcus (Ed.) Hypnosis
and its Therapeutic Applications.
McGrawHill, New York, 1956
55.

SARBIN, T

R., and FARBEROW, N

L. Contribu-

tions to role-taking theory A clinical study of

self and role
J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 47:
117, 1952.
56

SCHWARZ, B

E.

BICKFORD, R

G.,

and RAS-

MUSSEN, W. C Hypnotic phenomena, including hypnotically activated seizures, studied with

the electroencephalogram / New Ment Dis,
122-564, 1955
57

SPIEGEL, H., SHOR, J , and FISHMAN, S. An hyp-

notic ablation technique for the study of personality development. Psychosom. Med. 7 273,
1945
58. STEVENS, J R. Emotional activation of the
electroencephalogram in patients with convulsive disorders / New. Ment Dis 725.339, 1959.
59. SUTCLIFFE, J P "Credulous" and "sceptical"
views of hypnotic phenomena Int. J Clin. Exp.
Hypnosis S 73, 1960.
PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE

BARBER
60 TAYLOR, A The diffeientiation between simu65
lated and true hypnotic legression by
figure
drawings. Master's thesis, The College of the
City of New York, 1950.
66
61. TRUE, R. M Experimental control in hypnotic
age regression states Science 110.583, 1949
62. TRUE, R. M. Personal communication.
co T
T. ir
ic
^ T4r ^
ii J
67.
63. TRUE, R. M , and STEPHENSON, C. W. Controlled
'.
,
,
, ,
experiments correlating electroencephalogram,
pulse, and plantar reflexes with hypnotic age 6 8 regression and induced emotional states. Personality J 252, 1951.
64. WEirzENHOFFFR, A M Hypnotism: An Objec69.
live Study in Suggestibility. Wiley, New York,
1958

VOL. xxiv, NO. 3,1965J

299
WOLFF, L V. The response to plantar stimulation in infancy Amer J. Dis Child 39 1176,
1930.
YATES, A. J. Simulation and hypnotic age regression Int J Cltn Exp. Hypnosis S243,
,ggQ
f

YOUNC, P. C. Hypnotic leeressionfact or arti, . , , .

n
i. / ,c n-o
,n^
r
factJ ] Abnorm Soc.
Psychol ii 273, 1940
'
ZADOR
' J- U e b e r d i e BeeinQussbaikeit und
Pathogenese
des
Babinskischen
Reflexes.
Monatschr. Psychiat. Neurol 64:336, 1927.
ZECKEL, A. Aulhenticity and advantages of age
regression in hypnotherapy. Folia Psychiat. 53:
906, 1950.