Development and Structure of the Body Image, Volume 2 [2] 9780898596991, 0898597005, 0898596998

Citation preview

DEVELOPMENT and STRUCTURE of the BODY IMAGE Volume 2

This page intentionally left blank

DEVELOPMENT and STRUCTURE of the BODY IMAGE Volume 2

Seymour Fisher Upstate M e d ica l C enter State U niversity o f N e w York

V p Psychology Press A

Taylor &. Francis Group NEW YORK AND LONDON

First Published 1986 by Lawrence Erlbaum A ssociates, Inc. Published 2014 by Psychology Press 711 Third Avenue, New York, N Y 10017 and by Psychology Press 27 Church Road, Hove, East Sussex, BN3 2FA Psychology Press is an imprint o f the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 1986 by Lawrence Erlbaum A ssociates, Inc. All rights reserved. No part o f this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Fisher, Seymour. Developm ent and structure o f the body image. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Body im age. I. Title BF697.5.B63F67 1986 155.2

85-16182

ISBN 13: 978-0-898-59699-1 (hbk)

Publisher’s Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality o f this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original may be apparent.

To m y wife

This page intentionally left blank

Contents Volume 2

Acknowledgments Introduction

ix

xi

II. The Body Boundary: Modulating Contact with the World

8. Experiential and Filtering Aspects of the Body Boundary

343

9. Communication and Intimacy

369

10. Life Goals and Preferences

395

11. Coping with Change, Threat, and Stress

425

12. The Boundary and Somatic Response Patterns

457

13. Deviant Behaviors

479

14. Negative Findings

507

15. New Perspectives and Ideas Concerning Boundary Functioning

509

vii

V iii

III.

C O N TEN TS

Patterns of Body Awareness

16. New Findings Concerning the Body Landmark Signal System

543

17. Body Prominence

599

18. Speculations and Constructions

625

Appendices A. Barrier and Penetration Scoring

659

B. Body Focus Questionnaire

673

C. Body Prominence Scoring

681

Bibliography Author Index Subject Index

689 841 865

Acknowledgments

This book evolved while I was a member of the Faculty of the Department of Psychiatry of the State University of New York Medical School in Syracuse, New York. I wish to express my appreciation for the support I have received by way of facilities, computer services, and a general ambiance conducive to scholarly work. Special thanks are in order to the Upstate Medical Center li­ brary, which can apparently locate anything that has ever been printed. Also, grants from the National Institutes of Health have from time to time been of real assistance to my research. I owe much to my wife, Dr. Rhoda Fisher, for innumerable conversations in which we explored body image issues. My daughter, Ms. Eve Fisher, and my son, Dr. Jerid Fisher, aided in the collection of data for several studies, and I thank them. My secretary, Ms. Mary McCargar, has now seen me through ten books. Her superb typing and common sense helped to keep the whole enterprise moving. Special acknowledgments are due to the publishers listed below for permis­ sions to quote extensively from various of my published papers. Williams and Wilkins: Theme induction of localized somatic tension, Journal o f Nervous and Mental Disease, 1980, 168: 721-731. American Psychological Association: Boundary effects of persistent inputs and messages, Journal o f Abnor­ mal Psychology, 1971, 77: 290-295. Influencing selective perception and fantasy by stimulating body land­ marks, Journal o f Abnormal Psychology, 1972, 79: 97-105. Academic Press: Anxiety and sex role in body landmark functions, Journal o f Research in Personality, 1978, 12: 87-99. ix

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction Volume 2

This is volume 2 of Development and Structure o f the Body Image. Volume 1 presents a thorough review and analysis of the body image literature from 1969. The present volume details, in the main, research concerned with test­ ing and evaluating a number of major theoretical concepts relating to body image which I have developed. The following major topics are considered: organization of the body image boundary; assignment of meaning to specific body areas; general body awareness; and distortions in body perception. The bibliography for all the work described in the two volumes is contained in this second volume.

xi

This page intentionally left blank

The Body Boundary: Modulating Contact with the World

M

INTRODUCTION

In two previous publications (Fisher, 1970; Fisher & Cleveland, 1968) the concept o f the body boundary was explored in elaborate detail. This concept depicts peo­ ple as varying with respect to the firmness or defi­ niteness they ascribe to their body boundaries. A t one extreme are those who view their body as clearly and sharply bounded, with a high degree o f differentiation from nonself objects; at the opposite pole are people who regard their body as lacking demarcation or dif­ ferentiation from what is ((out there.” Marked individ­ ual differences exist in how one distinguishes the space encompassed by one's body from the surrounding non­ body space. Boundary phenomena have been o f cen­ tral interest in many scientific arenas. They have evo­ ked a good deal o f speculation in the social sciences. Alm ost every major psychological theorist has made use o f boundary concepts in explaining behavior. The list is unlimited, for example, Freud (1927), Werner (1957), Jung (1931), Lewin (1935), Mahler (1958), Federn (1952), Reich (1949), Erikson (1950), Koffka (1935), Bateson (1972), and Witkin et al. (1962). Reviews o f the boundary constructs o f a number o f such theorists may be fo u n d elsewhere (Fisher, 1970; Fisher & Cleveland, 1968). 329

330

THE BODY BOUNDARY: MODULATING CONTACT WITH THE WORLD

The idea of a psychologically defined body boundary has appeal at a theoretical level but is difficult to spell out and operationalize. Those who most prominently ponder this idea seem usually to have in mind a cluster of attitudes about the defining or protective functions of the periphery of the body. Such attitudes are explicitly or implicitly assumed to be largely uncon­ scious and to involve an image or schema of how one’s body is both con­ nected to and distinguished from other bodies and objects. The range of methods developed to measure the state of the body image boundary is quite limited. Witkin (1962) and his associates adopted an approach based pri­ marily on the assumption that the ability to differentiate a stimulus from its context is also an index of self-differentiation; and presumably the greater the level of self-differentiation, the more articulated is one’s body boundary. This approach has made use variously of judgments of the vertical in confusing contexts, the ability to detect embedded figures, and the amount of differenti­ ated structure displayed in human figure drawings. The body boundary has also been evaluated by sensori-tonic investigators (e.g., Wapner & Werner, 1965a) in terms of body size estimates. They have tracked boundary articulation, as it apparently varies as a function of sensory input (e.g., touch) to the body periphery or of disorganization resulting from the ingestion of psychotomimetic drugs, by measuring parallel shifts in the judged sizes of particular body regions. Boundary dissolution is regarded as increasing the perceived magnitude of body parts. There have also been scattered attempts (Fisher, 1970) to develop boundary indices derived from the literal bounding attributes of figure drawings1 (e.g., strong versus weak drawing lines); questionnaire items about attitudes toward various kinds of inputs (Quinlan & Harrow, 1974); feelings about self disclosure (Young, 1976); body ratings (Armstrong & Williams, 1977); and verbal associations (Hartley, 1967). Fisher and Cleveland (1968) devised a new approach to measuring body boundary definiteness. It is based on the manner in which individuals struc­ ture the boundary regions of their imaginative elaborations of inkblots. It had been discovered (Fisher & Cleveland, 1958) that, in describing a series of ink blots, subjects varied considerably in the characteristics they ascribed to the peripheries of their percepts.2 There were marked differences in the fre­ quency with which definite structure, definite substance, and definite surface qualities were attributed to the periphery. These differences were found to be correlated with various direct and indirect measures of body feeling and body sensation. A good deal of evidence accumulated that the way people depict the boundaries of their ink blot responses mirrors how they feel about their own body boundaries. The more they view their boundaries as firm and well articulated, the more likely they are to visualize ink blot configurations as definitively bounded. Indices of boundary definiteness derived from ink blot responses were meaningfully related to such diverse body phenomena as the relative perceptual prominence of the body surface as compared to the body

INTRODUCTION

331

interior in the body schema; intensity of concern about the vulnerability of the body exterior; the distribution of psychosomatic symptoms at exterior versus interior body sites; and differences in physiological reactivity between exterior and interior sectors of the body. This material provided a rationale for regarding the ink blot responses as closely linked with body events and more specifically with the psychological and physiological differentiation between exterior and interior regions of one’s body. It is useful at this point to specify in more detail the nature of the ink blot indices that were developed for measuring body image boundary defi­ niteness. Responses such as the following were found to represent an ex­ pression of definite boundaries: cave with rocky walls, man in armor, animal with striped skin, turtle with shell, mummy wrapped up, woman in fancy costume. These are percepts whose content positively highlights the bound­ ary in some way. They are labeled Barrier responses. In each Barrier re­ sponse the surface is characterized by a protective, enclosing, decorative, concealing, or substantive connotation. The Barrier category embraces refer­ ences to clothing, animals with unusual skins, overhanging or protective surfaces, buildings, vehicles, animals with container characteristics (e.g., kangaroo), and enclosing geographical formations (e.g., valley, lake sur­ rounded by land). A second boundary index concerns percepts that empha­ size the weakness, lack of substance, and penetrability of persons and objects. The term Penetration response is applied to them. Some examples are: mashed bug, person bleeding, broken body, torn coat, body seen through a fluoroscope. In this category are included also representations of openings (e.g., door, vagina), degenerative processes (e.g., withering skin), and states of insubstantial existence (e.g., ghost, shadow). The detailed criteria used for scoring Barrier and Penetration responses in ink blot protocols can be found in Appendix A. In most samples studied, Barrier scores have been normally distributed. While Penetration scores are also usually normal in character, they more often are seriously skewed. The scoring objectivity of the Barrier and Penetration indices has been examined in a long string of studies. Fisher (1970) indicated that multiple reports concerning scoring reliability coefficients between independent judges typically ranged in the high .80s and .90s. Table II. 1 presents a representative series of subsequent reports concerning scoring objectivity. One can see that the majority of coefficients for the Barrier score are .90 or higher. The coefficients for the Penetration score are equally good. There is no doubt that judges who take adequate care to learn the scoring rules can attain a high level of agreement with each other. As was detailed elsewhere (Fisher, 1970), the test-retest3 reliabilities of the Barrier and Penetration scores (with intervening time intervals of a day to several weeks) average in the .70 range. Split half and odd-even reliabilities have averaged in the high .60s and low .70s. Neither the Barrier nor Penetration scores have shown significant suscep-

TABLE 11.1 Summary of Representative Studies of Scoring Objectivity for Barrier and Penetration Scores 1. Green (1974)

For Barrier: Judge A vs. Judge B = .94

2. H enderson (1977)

For Barrier: Judge A vs. Judge B = .93 For Penetration: Judge A vs. Judge B = .97

3. O lasov (1975)

For Barrier: Judge A vs. Judge B For Penetration: Judge A vs. Judge B

.94 .96

4. Statm an (1978)

For Barrier: Judge A vs. Judge B = .82

5. D arby (1969)

For Barrier: Judge A vs. Judge B .97 For Penetration: Judge A vs. Judge B = .99

6

. Sanders (1969)

7. D aly (1972)

8

. Johnson (1974)

9. Schutz (1977)

For Barrier: Judge A vs. Judge B Judge A vs. Judge C

.89 .89

For Barrier: Judge A vs. Judge B

.99

For Barrier: Judge A vs. Judge Judge B vs. Judge Judge A vs. Judge For Penetration: Judge A vs. Judge Judge B vs. Judge Judge A vs. Judge

B C C

.90 .91 .93

B C C

.89 .86 .90

For Barrier: Judge A vs. Judge B = .98

10. H ibbs (1977)

For Barrier: Judge A vs. Judge B = 95.6 percent agreem ent

11. Cleaveland (1974)

For Barrier: Judge A vs. Judge B = .84

12. B erez (1976)

For Barrier: Judge A vs. Judge B = .83 For Penetration: Judge A vs. Judge B = .91

13. L ong (1972)

For Barrier: Judge A vs. Judge B = .92 For Penetration: Judge A vs. Judge B = .95

14. D annem iller (1976)

For Barrier: Judge A vs. Judge B = 93.33 percent agreem ent

15. Cohen (1979)

For Barrier: Intercorrelations am ong three independent jud ges

.95—.98

NORMS

333

tibility to individual examiner differences nor have they proven to be corre­ lated with social desirability response sets (Klieger, 1968). Smith (1971) explored the possibility that extremes in examiner behavior would affect boundary response^. In one condition, the subjects (8 male, 8 female) had a brief, highly formal interaction with the examiner (male) before he admin­ istered the Rorschach blots. But another sample of subjects (8 male, 8 female) participated in a mutual-disclosure interview with the examiner before the Rorschach Inkblots were administered. No significant differences in Barrier or Penetration scores emerged between the two groups. The formal versus disclosing behavior of the examiner did not affect the subjects’ boundary scores, Np consistent correlations of reed magnitude have ever been reported between intelligence measures and either the Barrier or Penetration indices. There have been a few scattered reports of significant low order correlations, but the bulk of the findings indicate negligible relationships.4 When measuring Barrier or Penetration, it is essential that response total be controlled. There is a significant positive correlation between boundary scores and number of responses given. Subjects who are to be compared with respect to Barrier or Penetration should have produced equal numbers of inkblot images. This can be arranged in various ways.5 Fisher and Cleveland (1968) devised a method that is based on limiting to 25 the number of responses given to the Rorschach inkblots. The details of the procedure are available elsewhere (Fisher & Cleveland, 1968). The Holtzman et al. (1961) Inkblots, which call for giving only one response to each of 45 blots, are another means.6

NORMS

It is difficult to specify norms for the Barrier and Penetration scores. Data have been collected with diverse methods and under a variety of conditions. Some studies have obtained responses to the Rorschach blots, and others have employed the Holtzman Inkblot Test. Some have limited themselves to 25 of the Holtzman blots, and others have included the entire series of 45 cards. Some have obtained inkblot responses on an individual basis, and others have involved projection of the blots on a screen so they could be viewed by a group. There are also other variations, such as permitting subjects to take unlimited time versus sharply controlling the time available for responding to each inkblot, using one rather than another of the parallel forms available for the Holtzman Inkblot Test, or scoring Barrier and Pen­ etration by computer (Gorham, Moseley, & Holtzman, 1968) rather than by hand. Another complication is that Fisher (1970) instituted simplified scoring procedures that have been applied in many studies, but other investigators

334

THE BODY BOUNDARY: MODULATING CONTACT WITH THE WORLD

have continued to use criteria originally presented by Fisher and Cleveland (1968) and also described by Holtzman et al. (1961). Studies that have used the Fisher revised Barrier scoring system and were based on a response total of 25 responses (secured either from the Rorschach or the Holtzman Blots) have usually resulted in mean values in the 7-9 range. Penetration means have been in the 3.5-5.5 range. Surprisingly, some studies that have made use of all 45 Holtzman blots have come up with similar mean values. It is puzzling why the addition of 20 more blots would not result in grossly higher means. This could be a function of the fact that such studies have typically used the nonrevised scoring criteria, but this seems unlikely in view of the relatively small differences between the revised and nonrevised systems. Another possibility is that the last 20 cards of the Holtzman Ink­ blots have less pull for Barrier than the first 25, but data published by Swartz, Witzke, and Megargee (1970) indicate that this is not the case. One can only speculate that there are unsuspected large differences in the nature of the samples studied or in the test conditions prevailing at the time subjects are responding to the blots. This is a matter that remains to be clarified. Mean­ while, caution should be exercised when comparing mean Barrier and Pen­ etration scores across studies that have elicited inkblot responses with different blots and unlike procedures (e.g., individual versus group admin­ istration). However, there is evidence that Barrier or Penetration scores derived from Rorschach Inkblots correlate highly with scores based on Holtzman Inkblots. Dannemiller (1976) found in a mixed sample (normals, criminals) of subjects (N = 75) that Barrier scores derived from the two different sets of inkblots correlated .85, and the correlation for the two sets of Penetration scores was .83.

VERBAL OUTPUT

Some question has been raised as to whether the Barrier score is influenced by the number of words in the protocol from which it is derived. Several studies (e.g., Appleby, 1956; Megargee, 1965) have shown correlations of the order of .46-.56. However, Fisher (1970) found in an extensive review of the issue that such correlations are inconsistent.7 Further, he demonstrated that the decision as to whether a response should be scored Barrier can be reduced in 69% of instances to the presence of a single word, in 75% to the presence of two words or less, in 93% to three words or less, and in 99% to four words or less. The great majority of Barrier responses potentially in­ volve using only three or four words in describing a blot. In addition, Fisher (1970) investigated whether test-retest changes in Barrier scores resulting from exposure to experimental conditions (e.g., stress, shifting focus of body attention) could be linked to parallel changes in number of words present in the test-retest protocols. The results clearly indicated that such was not the

DEVELOPMENTAL TRENDS

335

case. There were meaningful changes in the Barrier score that were indepen­ dent of number of words.

CONVENTIONAL RORSCHACH DETERMINANTS

A comment is in order concerning the relationship of the Barrier and Pen­ etration scores to conventional inkblot indices.8 As described by Fisher (1970), it has been possible to find in multiple samples only one Rorschach determinant that is consistently correlated with Barrier. Number of human movement9 responses shows low to moderate (about .30-.45) positive cor­ relations with Barrier. Other determinants such as form quality, color, and shading do not have significant links with Barrier. As for the Penetration score, it has been found not to have consistent correlations with any of the conventional Rorschach indices.

DEVELOPMENTAL TRENDS

There is some ambiguity whether the boundary scores vary with age. In earlier studies, when care was not taken to control for inkblot response total, it was difficult to compare meaningfully the Barrier or Penetration scores of various age groups whose response totals were often quite different. More recent studies, which have carefully equalized response totals, suggest there may be some increase in boundary definiteness as children mature and move from ages 4 or 5 toward adolescence. Woods (1966) compared the Barrier scores of children at three different age levels: 8, 10, 12. There were 22 boys and 20 girls studied at age 8 and at age 10. For age 12, 28 boys and 31 girls were included. Holtzman Inkblots were administered (on a group basis), and a total of 25 responses was obtained from each subject. The mean Barrier scores obtained for each age group were as follows: Males age 8 3.36 Females age 8 4.35 Mean average age 8 3.86 Males age 10 3.86 Females age 10 4.35 Mean average age 10 4.11 Males age 12 4.93 Females age 12 5.87 Mean average age 12 5.40 The overall difference among the age groups was found to be statistically significant. McFee (1968), using the same basic methodology, extended the

336

THE BODY BOUNDARY: MODULATING CONTACT WITH THE WORLD

Woods study to two additional Midwestern age groups: 18 and 20. There were 9 males and 10 females studied at the 18-year level and 11 males and 8 females at the 20-year level. The mean Barrier scores were 7.44 and 6.60 for males and females respectively in the 18-year-old sample; and 8.00 and 7.75 respec­ tively for males and females in the 20-year-old sample. The overall means for each of these age levels are significantly higher than those of the younger groups studied by Woods. As one scans the Woods and McFee data, one can see that little Barrier change occurred between ages 8 and 10 and even the increase from age 10 to 12 was a relatively modest one. However, the shifts from age 12 to ages 18 and 20 were of larger proportion. Penetration scores were not computed for either the Woods or the McFee subjects. Gardner and Moriarty (1968) obtained Holtzman Inkblot responses from 29 boys and 31 girls who were divided equally between 9-year-olds and 12year-olds (matched for IQ). Barrier and Penetration scores were computed. No real differences between the age groups emerged for the Barrier score. However, the Penetration scores of the younger group were significantly higher. Swartz, Witzke, and Swartz (1967) presented data concerning the bound­ ary scores of children at three different age levels: 6, 9, and 12. There were roughly 40 males and 40 females included at each level from a United States locale (Austin, Texas) and equivalent numbers from a Mexican locale (Mex­ ico City). Holtzman Inkblots were scored for Barrier and Penetration. Barrier showed a sharp significant increase (in both cultures) from ages 6 to 9 and then leveled off. The Penetration scores of the Texas children increased significantly from ages 6 to 9, but then declined to a small degree from ages 9 to 13. The Mexican children showed a steady significant increase in Penetra­ tion across the three age levels. At 6 and 9 years of age, the Mexican children obtained significantly lower Penetration scores than did the Texas children, but the difference vanished by age 12. The Barrier score was significantly higher in the Texas samples at all three age points.10 Although the findings from the three studies just described are not consist­ ent, they do broadly indicate a trend for boundary definiteness to increase from around ages 5 or 6 up to age 20.1112 Other data (Fisher, 1970) suggest that after age 20 there are no further consistent chronological changes in the boundary scores even into advanced old age.

SEX DIFFERENCES

A certain amount of evidence was originally mustered (Fisher, 1970; Hartley, 1964; Jacobson, 1966) that females have higher Barrier and lower Penetration scores than males. The differences were small but statistically significant. Such sex differences have also been described in children and adolescents (e.g., Gordon, 1964; Morton, 1965). Studies (e.g., Colvin, 1977; Swartz, 1965)

BARRIER CONFIGURATIONS

337

have continued to show a trend for female children13 to obtain higher Barrier and lower Penetration scores than do male children.14 However, a few have not come up with such a sex difference (e.g., Gardner & Moriarity, 1968; Schnabl, 1973). A survey of 20 recent studies involving both male and female adults revealed evidence of greater boundary definiteness in females in about 50% of the cases. These differences were statistically significant in only a few instances. Of the 20 studies surveyed, there were only two in which males were inclined to display greater boundary articulation. It is probably fair to say that females tend to a small degree to have more definite body image boundaries than do males. The idea that females may have more articulated boundaries than men is certainly a contradiction of the stereotype that portrays the male as superior to the female with regard to such variables as self-definition, clarity of body concept, and body security. A view emphasiz­ ing male superiority in this respect was especially fostered by Witkin et al. (1954), who found that men are better able than women to utilize body cues in making spatial judgments, and who therefore concluded that men have a more secure and effective body concept. Fisher (1970) mustered a good deal of data suggesting that the female is more comfortable with her body than is the male. It was proposed that social definitions make it easier for women than men to link their identity to the body. Fisher noted: One could argue that the culture encourages the female to be more interested in her body than it does the man. Also, her role as a woman is more explicitly identified with her body and its functioning than is true of the man. The man’s role and status are typically defined in terms of his accomplishments and attainments rather than in terms of his body attributes, but for the woman her role is still largely defined in relation to the attractiveness of her body to the male and her ability to bear children. . . . A woman probably more nearly equates self with body. She has a clearer concept than a man of the role her body will play in her life. It is quite apropos to point out further that one of the prime eventual goals of most women involves the conversion of her body into a “container” or protective enclosure for the production of children. Does not the successful conceptualization of one’s body as a containing, protective form necessarily mean that it must be experienced as having clear and dependable boundaries? (p. 198)

It may, indeed, be the importance of the body as a container for the creation of new life that is primarily responsible for the female’s apparently greater sense of having a bounded body. The whole issue of sex differences in body perception is considered in greater detail at a later point. BARRIER CONFIGURATIONS

Since 1970, when Fisher analyzed the literature concerned with body bound­ ary phenomena, there has been an interesting accumulation of new material.

338

THE BODY BOUNDARY: MODULATING CONTACT WITH THE WORLD

Several hundred additional pertinent studies have been completed. We now turn our attention to presenting these studies and relating them to earlier findings. How well have previous generalizations fared in the more recent studies? Can the new observations be used to construct more complex notions about body boundary functioning? Before we present the aggregate results that have accumulated, a brief general orientation is provided concerning the manner in which persons with definite boundaries (as defined by the Barrier score) were originally found to differ from those with indefinite boundaries. There were broad differences in personality, values, and style of behavior. Those with definite boundaries proved to be relatively more autonomous and “ self-steering.” They were more likely than the poorly bounded to have high achievement motivation and to seek task completion. They were less suggestible and also less likely to be blocked or disturbed when confronted by stressful frustration. They displayed more independence in group interaction, but in such a manner as to facilitate rather than interfere with group objectives. They were better able to persist at tasks. In their general outlook they were more oriented toward interaction with others. They had a greater interest in communication and literally had a greater preference for human contact. Vaguely bounded per­ sons were, in contrast, characterized by interests in activities and vocations that minimized the human factor. By way of illustration of this last point, high Barrier subjects were attracted to disciplines concerned with human be­ havior (e.g., anthropology and psychology), whereas low Barrier subjects showed a preference for impersonal fields like physics and chemistry. It may be said that the possession of definite boundaries was accompanied by wellstructured individuality, concern with accomplishment, enhanced ability to maintain poise in difficult situations, and a special investment in commu­ nicative interaction.15 These traits, attitudes, and skills turned out to be aspects of even broader organizing configurations that were represented also at physiological and sensory levels. The possibility of a relationship between boundary definiteness and phys­ iological response was first suggested by studies of people with psycho­ somatic symptoms. It was noted that patients with symptoms involving the skin or musculature (e.g., neurodermatitis and rheumatoid arthritis) were more likely to produce clearly bounded percepts than patients with symp­ toms in the body interior (e.g., duodenal ulcer, colitis). This stimulated the hypothesis that the person with definite boundaries tends to channel excita­ tion to the outer layers of the body (viz., skin and muscle), whereas the person with indefinite boundaries channels excitation to interior body sec­ tors. A number of studies were carried out with this hypothesis in mind. It was shown that in normal subjects and also in patients with psychosomatic symptoms there was a significant trend for those with definite boundaries to manifest relatively high physiological reactivity in the skin and muscle (as

NOTES

339

defined by GSR, muscle potential, vasoconstriction) and relatively low reac­ tivity in the body interior (as measured by heart response). However, those with indefinite boundaries displayed just the converse of this pattern. It was therefore conjectured that the manner in which an individual’s body image boundary is organized may result in long-term excitation patterns charac­ terized by differential arousal of body exterior as compared to body interior sites. More broadly speaking, it appeared that the various styles of life characterizing those with different boundary attributes were represented also in differences at the physiological level. The summary just presented applies to the Barrier score. Results of studies of the Penetration score, which was originally devised by Fisher and Cleveland (1968) to represent another approach to boundary vulnerability, cannot so neatly be put together. There have been all kinds of surprises in working with this index. It has not turned out to be simply the opposite of the Barrier score. Also, evidence has emerged that Penetration images do not always have vulnerability connotations and may actually depict a readiness for certain kinds of boundary transactions. A detailed consideration of the Penetration score is provided in a later chapter.

NOTES 1Dines (1982) examined the relationship of the Barrier score to how well subjects maintain accurate proportionality among the various body parts in their figure draw­ ings. The study involved adolescents (ages 11-21) with and without amputation defects (total N = 91). Barrier was determined from responses to 10 Holtzman Inkblots. N o relationship could be demonstrated between Barrier and accuracy in depicting pro­ portionality in figure drawings. The results need to be interpreted with caution in view of the small number of inkblot responses secured from each subject. 2Landis (1970) has devised measures of “ ego boundary permeability-impermeability,” which resemble the Fisher-Cleveland body boundary scores. The Landis measures likewise involve the scoring of inkblot imagery. They embrace such catego­ ries as objects whose surfaces are soft and easily permeated, perspectives that imply a view through an outer surface, disintegrated boundaries, “Siamese” percepts in which two animals or persons share a boundary belonging intrinsically to both. Landis concluded from studies of normal subjects that “the impermeably bounded subjects showed more psychological distance and restraint in their environmental and interpersonal transactions, whereas the permeably bounded subjects revealed more social mobility and overall closeness” (p. 132). Other researchers have reported relationships between the Landis boundary scores and values (Barish, 1980), style of disposition of tension (Senior, 1981), and psychoneurotic symptomatology (Thornton, 1980). Klos (1976) and Cleaveland (1974) have raised a number of criticisms concerning the logic of the Landis scoring system.

340

THE BODY BOUNDARY: MODULATING CONTACT WITH THE WORLD

Cleaveland obtained Barrier scores and the Landis scores for the same sample of subjects ( N = 40 males) and found a correlation of .37 (p < .05) between Barrier and Permeability and .39 (p < .05) between Barrier and Impermeability. Obviously, the Barrier score has only small overlap with the Landis scores. 3Test-retest values for parallel forms of the Holtzman Inkblots have varied widely as a function of test-retest intervals and age. For example, Fisher and Renik (1966) and Renik and Fisher (1968) reported correlations respectively of .85 and .87 for Barrier when retest followed after a short intervening task. Holtzman et al. (1961) reported correlations of .38 and .43 for Barrier and Penetration (in a college student sample) when there was a week intervening between test and retest. In another instance, they reported correlations of .51 and .34 for Barrier and Penetration respectively (in 11th graders) after an intervening period of 3 months. 4Although a number of studies (e.g., Fisher, 1970; Richter & Winter, 1966; WolfDorlester, 1976) have found no consistent relationships between boundary articulation and measures of creativity, there have been occasional reports of significant correla­ tions. Clark, Veldman, and Thorpe (1965) noted that measures of creative thinking in early adolescents were positively and significantly correlated with Penetration. Lehrer (1969) discerned a significant positive correlation between Barrier and tests of creativity in male college students, but not in females. Obviously, any link between creativity and boundary attributes that may exist is a fragile one. 5There have been studies that have not controlled response total and have simply computed boundary scores as a percentage of total responses. However, such per­ centage scores are crude and inadequate. 6It has also been possible to obtain a reliable measure of Barrier or Penetration by securing responses to only 25 of the Holtzman et al. (1961) blots. It is debatable whether even more shortened versions can be reasonably employed (Branton, 1970). N ote too that, when blots were carefully administered in groups, the Barrier and Penetration scores obtained were fairly equivalent to those secured by individual administration (Swartz, Witzke, & Megargee, 1970). It is probably wise to limit group administrations to small numbers of subjects so that variables like motivation, dis­ tance from the screen, and noncompliance with instructions can be controlled. 7Darbes and Hay slip, Jr. (1975) more recently found only scattered low order correlations between Barrier or Penetration and number of words in responses to Holtzman inkblots. 8Rice, Greenfield, Alexander, and Sternbach (1976) analyzed monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs to determine their degree of similarity for various Holtzman Inkblot scores. Although several of the scores (e.g., color) seemed to reflect a significant genetic component, this did not hold true for either the Barrier or Penetra­ tion scores. 9As discussed by Fisher (1970), this correlation may represent the fact that they are “both sensitive to variables which are associated with the individual’s habitual degree of muscular activation and kinesthetic awareness. To some degree they both reflect the impact of kinesthetic experience upon the perceptual-imaginative process in­ volved in the production of inkblot responses” (p. 164). 10Holtzman, Diaz-Guerrero, and Swartz (1975) reported relatively low stability in the Barrier and Penetration scores of American and Mexican children (ages 5-17) who were retested yearly over a 6-year period.

NOTES

341

11The findings of Harrison (1975) suggest that there may be temporary decreases in Barrier at the time of pubescence. It is pertinent too that Horner (1983) analyzed the literature dealing with stranger anxiety in children and concluded that early signs of body boundary formation are implicit in the warding off behaviors displayed by infants during their first year. 12One special developmental phenomenon should be described at this point. Liebetrau and Pienaar (1974) appraised South African children in the following age categories: 6, 8, 10, and 12. There were 20 children at each age level. Half were boys and half girls. All children were administered the Rorschach, and Barrier and Penetra­ tion scores were determined. The children were also classified into good versus poor adjustment groups on the basis of ratings made by their teachers. In the 6-year-oid sample the good and poor adjustment groups did not differ with regard to Barrier or Penetration. But at ages 8, 10, and 12, well-adjusted children had significantly higher Barrier scores than did the poorly adjusted. Penetration was significantly higher in the poorly adjusted in the 8-year-old sample. But at age 10, the pattern reversed and the well adjusted had significantly higher scores. At age 12, still another reversal occurred, and once again the poorly adjusted children had significantly higher scores. These findings indicate that beyond age 6 the well adjusted were typified by relatively high Barrier scores. The Penetration score was, beyond the age of 6, relatively high in the poorly adjusted children (viz., at ages 8 and 12). However, at age 10 an elevated Penetration score was associated with good rather than poor adjustment. If future studies verify this finding, the possibility must be considered that a successful transition from latency to adolescence may initially require a facing up to certain dangers associated with a sexually maturing body that are so threatening as to intensify Penetration imagery. Those who avoid this confrontation process may be evidencing an inability to come to grips with their body transformations. 13The writer collected Holtzman Inkblots from 20 boys and 18 girls in a kinder­ garten class. The girls had higher Barrier scores than the boys, but not significantly so. The girls had significantly (p < .05) lower Penetration scores than the boys. 14Rice et al. (1976) have shown in opposite-sex adult dizygotic twins (N = 29) that females obtain significantly higher Barrier scores than do males. 15Fisher (1970) presented data indicating that the Barrier score is positively corre­ lated with sensitivity to stimuli. A well-delineated boundary provides protective security but also facilitates a sensitive tuning to one’s environs. Schmukler (1976) could not detect overall relationships between Barrier and sensitivity to color stimuli. But he did find a borderline positive correlation between Barrier and sensitivity to color in a context where there were the fewest cues present as to the spatial location of the color stimuli. Parenthetically, there was a significant trend for low and high Barrier subjects to prefer red and for medium Barrier subjects to prefer blue.

This page intentionally left blank

8

Experiential and Filtering Aspects of the Body Boundary BODY EXPERIENCE ASPECTS

It is not easy to accept the idea that when persons manufacture images from inkblot stimuli they are providing information about their body experiences. Both Barrier and Penetration scores are based on the assumption that the unstructured nature of inkblots somehow invites people to project body experiential patterns. Presumably, feelings about one’s own body boundaries are translated into the qualities ascribed to the boundaries of inkblot per­ cepts. Hermann Rorschach entertained a related idea when he speculated that the perception of human movement in inkblots reflects muscular or kinesthetic sensations existing in the perceiver. It is pertinent too that Fisher (1970) demonstrated in one study that the more aware persons are of their stomach just before responding to the Rorschach blots, the greater the number of images they produce with oral or nutritive connotations (e.g., food, smoking, biting). Their highlighted awareness of their stomach is di­ rectly translated into oral inkblot themes. The problem of demonstrating that the Barrier score is an index of feelings about the boundary regions of one's body was originally approached indi­ rectly by examining the correlations between Barrier images and certain modes of body perception. In a study carried out by Fisher and Fisher (1964) there proved to be a significant positive correlation between Barrier and the reporting of relatively more body sensations from the boundary region of the body (viz., skin and muscle) than from the body interior (viz., stomach and heart). Similarly, the Barrier score was significantly positively correlated in males (but not females) with experiencing more 44symptoms” in the body exterior (skin, muscle) than in the body interior (stomach, heart) after ingest­ ing a placebo that had been presented as a “harmless drug” that would produce a variety of symptoms and sensations. Moreover, significant positive links were found between the Barrier score and the selectively enhanced sensitivity to stimuli referring to the boundary regions of the body. Barrier was positively correlated with relatively better memory for phrases referring to skin and muscle sensations (e.g., skin itch, muscles stiff) than to stomach and heart sensations (e.g., heart beat, stomach full). The Fisher and Fisher findings were later largely replicated in a Japanese sample (Koide, 1977). In still another study (Cassell, 1966) the B arrier score was significantly 343

344

8.

EXPERIENTIAL ASPECTS OF THE BODY BOUNDARY

positively correlated with selectively superior sensitivity to tachistoscopically presented pictures of body exterior parts as compared to perception of pictures of body interior parts. The most direct evidence for the anchoring of Barrier responses in body boundary experiences came from a chain of studies by Fisher (1970) and Renik and Fisher (1968) that sought to manipulate Barrier by altering body sensations. The typical design was to obtain a baseline measure of Barrier (with Holtzman Inkblots) and then expose the subjects to conditions that either enhance body boundary sensations (e.g., touching the skin) or en­ hance awareness of the body interior (e.g., drinking water). A retest Barrier score was obtained immediately after body stimulation. Included were con­ trol subjects who received no body stimulation. In three different studies involving normal college students there was a significant pattern for Barrier to increase during exterior and decrease during interior stimulation. These findings were supportive of the logic underlying the conceptualization of the Barrier index. In none of these studies was the Penetration score considered. Two exploratory studies were also carried out by Fisher (1970) to determine if exterior versus interior stimulation would affect Barrier responses in schizo­ phrenic persons. In one of these studies no effect was obtained, but in a second, more carefully designed effort, the results found in normal samples were significantly duplicated. The first outside verification (by a source other than the Fisher laboratory) of the studies that have been outlined with regard to use of exterior and interior stimulation to alter Barrier came from the work of Van De Mark and Neuringer (1969). They undertook a two part project. First, they demon­ strated that when subjects are made to focus their attention on exterior or interior body sites, there are corresponding apparent increases of sensations at those sites. This occurs whether the exterior versus interior focus is accomplished by direct stimulation of the body or by asking subjects to imagine such stimulation. Then, in a new sample Van De Mark and Neu­ ringer found that the exterior versus interior focusing techniques produced corresponding increases versus decreases in Barrier scores that would be expected in terms of the logic of the score. This occurred whether the focusing procedure was based on direct body stimulation or called for sub­ jects to imagine it. The results for the Penetration score indicated that internal focus increased Penetration imagery more than did external focus. The internal physical focus technique produced a greater increase in Penetra­ tion than did the imagination focus procedure.1 The overall results of this study were striking in the clarity with which they showed that both the Barrier and Penetration2 scores are linked to the manner in which attention is distributed to exterior versus interior aspects of one’s body. The basic assumption that the process of highlighting one’s body bound­

BODY EXPERIENCE ASPECTS

345

aries makes one more sensitive to the surface or boundary aspects of nonself objects has been nicely supported by Palmer (1970). His study is of particular importance because he showed that the sensitivity applies to other than the images elicited by inkblots. He rubbed an astringent lotion on the thorax of 19 male subjects and compared their responses to a series of photographs during such skin arousal with those in a control condition when no astringent was used. After both conditions, the subjects were asked to indicate their degree of liking for photographs that had been chosen to represent five different categories: (a) people whose skin was highlighted; (b) surfaces with brilliant glassy or metallic reflecting qualities; (c) surfaces that were non­ brilliant and emphasized softer, texture elements; (d) surfaces viewed in unusually close, “microscopic” perspective; (e) three-dimensional emphasis with contrast between foreground and background. There was a significant trend for the skin and brilliant surface photographs to be less liked during the experimental condition. Also, significantly greater liking was shown during the experimental condition for the pictures depicting close microscopic views of surfaces. The more subjects reported that the liniment aroused noticeable or distracting skin sensations, the greater was the difference between their experimental and control ratings. Palmer concluded: “results of the present study suggest that by articulating an individual’s experience of the surface of his body one can differentially sensitize him to the surface qualities of external nonbody objects” (p. 91). As mentioned, this study deserves special notice because it indicates that body boundary experiences can affect reactions even to well-structured photographs that lend themselves to boundary connotations. Since 1970 new studies have been launched to investigate how body experience shapes the boundary attributes of inkblot images. The first two to be described involved normal subjects. However, neither used the specific methodology of directing attention to exterior versus interior body sites that was previously successful in bringing about Barrier score changes. Smith (1977) exposed male and female college students to four different conditions: (a) control—listening to music; (b) outward attention—listening to readings from legal and economic magazine articles (and expecting to be later tested for mastery of the material) while participating in body exercises; (c) per­ forming body exercises; (d) engaging in Gestalt body exercises and also receiving instructions as to how to open oneself psychologically to the body sensations aroused. There were 12 males and 12 females in each condition. All of the exercise procedures were intended to increase awareness of the musculature. The outward attention procedure was designed to evaluate the effect of exercise in a context where attention was simultaneously drawn away from the body. This was done because Smith was interested in differen­ tiating between the effects of exercise and the body focusing effect of

346

8.

EXPERIENTIAL ASPECTS OF THE BODY BOUNDARY

muscular exertion. Holtzman Inkblots were administered before each pro­ cedure, then immediately afterwards, and again at follow up 48 hours later. Barrier and Penetration scores were ascertained. The data indicated no significant effects when the Barrier scores obtained immediately after the manipulations were compared with those obtained before any manipulations had occurred. This was also true for Penetration scores. Further analysis did not indicate that the Barrier score changes from pre- to follow up were significant for the total sample. When the sexes were analyzed separately, a similar result was found in the female subjects. How­ ever, there was a significant trend for males performing exercises (while listening to material being read aloud) to show a greater increase in Barrier than did the controls (listening to music). No significant trends emerged for the Penetration scores. Sign tests of Barrier and Penetration changes were done within each group. They indicated no significant shifts from pre- to posttest. However, for pre- to follow up there were two groups displaying significant Barrier increases: (a) the exercise plus outward direction of atten­ tion male sample; (b) the combined male plus female sample exposed to Gestalt exercises. Obviously, the overall results were not impressive. They could be dis­ missed as being of a chance order. Smith wondered whether the negative results might have been due to the fact that the subjects had unusually high Barrier scores at pretest and therefore were limited in possible increases by a ceiling effect. However, Smith did attach importance to the fact that the male attention outward plus exercise group showed a greater Barrier increase on follow up than did the controls. He speculated that this was due to the summation of several factors: (a) the body exercises increased activation of the boundary region of the body; (b) the task aroused achievement motiva­ tion particularly strongly in males because subjects were told that they would be tested to see how much they had retained of the content of the articles read to them, and presumably such arousal in the males would activate attitudes parallel to a high Barrier attitude; (c) the task called for a focus of attention outward, and this might be presumed, as suggested by the work of Lacey (1959), to increase skin conductance and decrease heart rate, which in turn would foster an increased ratio of exterior to interior body sensations that characterizes a high Barrier orientation. It is worth digressing for a moment to describe an interesting sex dif­ ference that appeared in response to the Gestalt exercises designed to inten­ sify body awareness. Subjects had been asked to rate themselves and their mood while inkblot responses were being obtained. Analysis of these ratings indicated that from pretest to follow-up females became less depressed, less hostile, and more positive in mood, whereas males described themselves as becoming more depressed and hostile. Smith noted that this sex difference was congruent with Fisher’s (1970) finding that women are more comfortable

BODY EXPERIENCE ASPECTS

347

with their body experiences than are men. He stated: “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” (p. 96). Another study of normal persons was reported by Statman, Jr. (1978). He assessed the effects of three procedures on the Barrier score: (a) physical exercises to increase sensations from the body musculature; (b) cognitive exercises to intensify awareness of personal identity; and (c) control exer­ cises to maintain focused attention. Thirty-two male and 32 female college students participated as subjects. They first responded to 25 cards of the Holtzman Inkblot Test; then filled out several questionnaires inquiring vari­ ously about socioeconomic background, articulateness of personal identity, and mood. One of the experimental or control conditions was administered next in sequence. Finally, a second set of 25 Holtzman blots was admin­ istered. Blots were scored only for Barrier. During the physical exercise, experimental condition subjects performed various stretching and isometric exercises. In the cognitive experimental condition, subjects were asked to recall what they were like at earlier ages, to compare their present self with what they were like at age 11, and to list their positive and negative person­ ality traits. In the control condition, subjects were asked to list their favorites in a variety of areas, to sort designs into like and dislike categories, to list all the geographical locales they could remember having been in, and to list all the words they could think of that began with a number of different letters. No real Barrier change differences were found among the three condi­ tions. However, there was a generally significant trend for all groups to increase in Barrier from test to retest. It is logical to expect that the exercise condition would tend to increase muscle activation and thereby intensify boundary articulation. But some reservations about the boundary reinforcing value of exercise will shortly be offered. It is also understandable that the procedure designed to intensify awareness of personal identity could increase Barrier. After all, individuality and clearcut definition of self have been shown to be associated with definite boundaries. But the question arises why the control condition too intensified body boundary articulation. The control procedures are hardly of a neutral character. In fact, they may be just as focused on the subject’s individuality as the cognitive procedure designed for this purpose. Is it not self-focusing to ask subjects for their favorites, their likes and dislikes, and all the locales they have previously spent time in? The so-called control condition was probably quite potent in highlighting self. Previous research by Fisher (1970) has shown that few of many variables that have been examined really increase Barrier scores. For example, Barrier scores are not augmented by listening to arousing or relaxing music, looking in a mirror, watching an exciting movie, and so forth. In fact, only exercise and focusing attention on the skin and muscles have previously been sue-

348

8.

EXPERIENTIAL ASPECTS OF THE BODY BOUNDARY

cessful in reinforcing the body boundary. That all three conditions in the Statman study increased Barrier may be a unique occurrence. It is a major finding of this study that focusing attention on self as an individuated and special entity can intensify boundary definiteness. Before considering the implications of the two foregoing studies dealing with normal people, let us review several projects that have assessed the effects of different conditions upon body boundary definiteness in schizo­ phrenic persons. Darby (1970) appraised 75 male schizophrenic inpatients. No differentiation was made with regard to schizophrenic subtype. Fifteen subjects were randomly assigned to each of five different conditions: (a) somatic—performing body exercises; (b) imaginative somatic—imagining that one is performing various body exercises; (c) separateness—having sensory experiences related to feeling separate (e.g., lying on a hard table, listing as many differences as possible between self and the experimenter); (d) fusion—being exposed to sensory experiences (e.g., lying on a soft mattress, holding hand in water at skin temperature) that presumably mini­ mize boundary delineation; (e) control—looking at a series of pictures with­ out boundary connotations. Twenty-five cards of the Holtzman Inkblot Test (Form A) were administered just prior to each condition, and then 25 cards (Form B) immediately afterwards. The data indicated that highly significant increases in the Barrier score from pretest to posttest were achieved in those conditions (somatic, sepa­ rateness, fusion) in which there was actual stimulation of skin or muscle. No changes of significance occurred in the imagination or control conditions. The Barrier changes in the somatic and separateness conditions significantly exceeded the change in the control condition. A word is in order concerning the findings for the fusion condition. Although Darby originally thought that the fusion stimulation would reduce boundary articulation, he later con­ cluded that any type of stimulation applied to the boundary (whether soft or similar in temperature to the skin) calls attention to, and highlights, that region. This, in turn, increases Barrier imagery. Darby commented too on the fact that the imagination conditions did not affect the Barrier score, whereas, in the original Van de Mark and Neuringer (1969) study, the imagination manipulation applied to normal persons did produce significant Barrier in­ creases. He wondered if this discrepancy was due to the inability of schizo­ phrenics to mobilize a sustained process of imagining themselves as engaged in physical activity. No significant changes in the Penetration score were detected for any of the experimental conditions. Overall, the study demon­ strated that the Barrier score is augmented by any condition that stimulates awareness of the boundary sheath of the body. Another pertinent probe was instituted by Luhn (1971). Sixty hospitalized schizophrenic women and 60 nonschizophrenic women (personnel working in psychiatric installations) participated. The schizophrenics were exposed to

BODY EXPERIENCE ASPECTS

349

six conditions, and 10 subjects were randomly assigned to each. The condi­ tions were: (a) external physical—inducing external body awareness by phys­ ical means (e.g., engaging in exercise, holding hands in cold water); (b) external symbolic—inducing external body awareness by imagining the phys­ ical procedures in the external physical condition; (c) internal physical— inducing internal body awareness by physical means (e.g., swallowing ice, listening to one’s own heart); (d) internal symbolic—inducing internal body awareness by imagining the physical procedures in the internal physical condition; (e) neutral physical—inducing neutral awareness (e.g., by looking at pictures of scenes, listening to music); (f) neutral symbolic—inducing neutral awareness by imagining the procedure in the Neutral physical con­ dition. Twenty-five Holtzman inkblots were administered before and after the various conditions. The blots were taken from Holtzman alternate Forms A and B. Analysis of the data indicated that schizophrenics exposed to external physical stimulation showed a significantly greater increase in Barrier than did those exposed to internal physical stimulation or those in the neutral condition. This was not true for the external imagination versus neutral or internal conditions. None of the internal conditions produced B arrier changes significantly different from the changes in the neutral conditions. Barrier score changes during the external imagination condition did not differ significantly from those during the external physical condition. Like­ wise, the Barrier score changes during the internal imagination condition did not differ from those during the internal physical condition. Note that the relative equivalence of physical and imagination conditions in their impact on Barrier is not congruent with the findings of Darby (1970) described earlier. The general pattern of results indicates that the only effective influ­ ence on the body boundaries of the schizophrenic subjects was external stimulation. The schizophrenics did have significantly lower Barrier scores (in the pretest phase) than did the nonschizophrenics. This finding is exam­ ined in more detail later. No attempt was made by Luhn (1971) to investigate changes in the Penetration score. Greene (1971) looked at both Barrier and Penetration scores in hospi­ talized schizophrenic men and women (equal numbers). Fourteen non­ paranoids were assigned randomly to each of two conditions: (a) external somatic—stimulating awareness of exterior body regions (e.g., by muscular exertion, putting hands on ice); (b) internal somatic—stimulating awareness of the body interior (e.g., by swallowing ice and listening to one’s own heart). The Rorschach Inkblots were administered subsequent to each procedure. Response total was controlled by means of the technique proposed by Fisher and Cleveland (1968). Barrier and Penetration scores were determined. Bar­ rier was significantly higher in the external somatic than in the internal somatic group. Also, Penetration was significantly higher in the internal than

350

8.

EXPERIENTIAL ASPECTS OF THE BODY BOUNDARY

in the external group. The findings successfully supported the differential effects of external and internal body stimulation on both the Barrier and Penetration scores. An interesting variation in this study was an attempt to measure Barrier and Penetration with a new technique, the Kinget (1952) Drawing Completion Test, which calls for the completion of incomplete drawings. The content of the drawings was scored by means of the usual Barrier and Penetration criteria. No differences of significance emerged for the Kinget Barrier score, when subjects were compared in the external versus internal conditions. However, the Kinget Penetration score was, as predicted, significantly higher in the internal than in the external condition. It is of interest that the Penetration scoring system could be successfully extended in this fashion to a new form of response material.3 Greene looked at possible sex differences in Barrier and Penetration for both the inkblot and drawing data and could find none. Finally, he interpreted the general pattern of his results as provid­ ing convincing support for the construct validity of both the Barrier and Penetration measures. Muzekari and Kreiger (1975) outlined an attempt to alter Barrier and Penetration by providing body exterior and interior focusing experiences to chronic schizophrenics over a relatively extended period of time. Twenty-four male and 24 female schizophrenics were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions and one control condition: (a) external body focus, e.g., identifying external parts like head, face, and limbs; determining one’s weight; and experiencing tactile sensations; (b) external body focus with videotape feedback; (c) internal body focus (e.g., lectures on skeletal system, digestive system , and heart; exercises to increase pulse; exaggerated breathing exercises); (d) control (e.g., discussion of hospital status and plans about return to community). Each subject experienced the condition for 2025 minutes per day for a total of 5 days. Holtzman blots (25 cards) were administered pretest on day 1 and posttest on day 5. All subjects simul­ taneously participated in group therapy sessions. No significant differences in Barrier or Penetration change scores could be detected among the four conditions. In speculating about why their findings differed from the more positive ones obtained by other investigators, Muzekari and Kreiger noted: “Al­ though presentation of the body awareness procedures over a 5-day period was intended to provide subjects with a more intense experience, the op­ posite effect may have occurred, thus diluting the experience. Furthermore, subjects were also attending group sessions in a social interaction treatment program that may have tended to lessen the impact of the experimental interventions” (p. 435). There are several other difficulties with the design of this study. The tasks used to create external and internal stimulation seem at times to be inappropriate. For example, the internal focus condition made use

BODY EXPERIENCE ASPECTS

351

of exercises to increase the pulse rate. It is difficult to see how such exercises would not simultaneously intensify muscle activation. One is struck too with the fact that the control condition, which involved the subjects with such themes as their current hospital status and their plans after being released from the hospital, could easily have been more stressful than any of the experimental procedures. A final point is that the average patient in this study was about 55 years of age and had been chronically hospitalized. Of the three earlier summarized studies (Darby, 1970; Greene, 1971; Luhn, 1971) dealing with schizophrenics, two (Darby, Luhn) involved subjects in the 3545 year age range. That is, they were considerably younger than the Muzekari and Kreiger subjects and probably hospitalized for significantly less time. Therefore, the Muzekari and Kreiger results may reflect in part the difficulties of gaining the cooperation and involvement of severely chronic patients. They may also reflect the greater rigidity of the pathological de­ fenses one would expect in such long-hospitalized persons. What emerges from the several studies just reviewed? First, it seems fair to say that those using the same basic methodology that earlier investigators (viz., Fisher & Renik, 1966; Renik & Fisher, 1968; Van De Mark & Neuringer, 1969) successfully employed to focus attention on specific exterior versus interior body sites obtained analogous results. It will be recalled that the successful procedures usually called for subjects to focus narrowly on spe­ cific organs or sectors. The studies just reviewed were able to increase Barrier whenever they utilized focal exterior stimulation and they decreased it by means of interior stimulation. This was clearly true in the Luhn (1971) study, which most exactly replicated the previously successful design. It was also true in the Darby (1970) study with regard to the “ separateness” con­ dition (e.g., feeling the input of a hard table upon which one was lying) and the so-called fusion condition (e.g., feeling water against one’s skin). None of the external and internal procedures used in the other studies duplicated the specificity of focal attention called for by the procedures originally developed by Fisher and Renik (1966). A word is in order concerning the attempts in several of the projects to use exercise to increase boundary articulation. The rationale is that doing exer­ cise requires muscle activity, which increases the intensity of muscle sensa­ tions and this, in turn, results in a more definite image of the body boundary. This can certainly happen. However, exercise also speeds the heart, affects breathing, and may even produce strong sensations in various internal organs. Thus, there may be an unknown percentage of persons who react to exercise by becoming more focused on the body interior than on the exte­ rior.4 It is problematic whether exercise in general, can be depended on to induce consistent dominance of sensations in the boundary sheath. More focused procedures, like asking subjects to monitor sensations in the skin or in the muscles, have proven to be more directly effective.

352

8.

EXPERIENTIAL ASPECTS OF THE BODY BOUNDARY

With regard to the Penetration score, the Luhn (1971) study, which best duplicated the Fisher and Renik (1966) body focusing techniques, provided direct support for the fact that exterior stimulation decreases Penetration imagery and that interior stimulation increases it. However, the Separateness and Fusion conditions in the Darby (1970) study, which significantly affected the Barrier score, had no impact on Penetration. Perhaps the Barrier score is sensitive to a wider range of body exterior defining variables than is the Penetration score. Generalizing from the present studies and those earlier reviewed by Fisher (1970), it seems justified to say that procedures that direct attention, in a controlled focused fashion, on exterior versus interior body sectors will result in changes in both the Barrier and Penetration scores congruent with the theoretical rationales of those scores. An intriguing new possibility presented itself in the Statman (1978) obser­ vation that Barrier could be significantly increased by means of cognitive exercises designed to intensify awareness of personal identity. He asked subjects to concentrate on themselves as persons who not only differed in various ways from other people but also from what they had been like at earlier points in time. This concentration had a boundary reinforcing effect. This finding implies that the boundary can be bolstered by magnifying the self in specific ways in the current perceptual field. An analogous idea was offered by Fisher (1970), when he proposed that paranoid schizophrenics may artificially strengthen their boundaries by assigning themselves grandiosely expanded significance and prominence. Some evidence favoring this concept has surfaced—schizophrenics’ Barrier scores have proven to be positively correlated with their degree of grandiosity, as defined by observers’ ratings (Fisher, 1970). Roger (1982, 1983) has published two studies pertinent to this general issue because they concern the effects on the boundary of enhancing self-esteem. In an initial experiment (1982) he obtained baseline boundary scores (by means of Holtzman Inkblots) from 128 male English soldiers, then exposed the soldiers to an experience designed to increase self-esteem in some and decrease it in others, and secured retest boundary scores. The manipulation of self-esteem was accomplished by dividing the subjects into four-man groups and asking each to discuss the best strategy for surviving if he crashed in the desert. After 15 minutes, each group chose a leader who had contributed the most to the solution of the problem and a nonleader who had contributed the least. The mean second-administration Barrier score for the leaders was significantly larger than the corresponding score for the non­ leaders. However, Roger cautioned that in the absence of a significant ANOVA interaction, the effect could not be reliably attributed to the experi­ mental manipulation. There was, though, a significant interaction for the Penetration score in the direction of indicating a relative decline in Penetra­ tion for the leaders as compared to the nonleaders. Other measures (viz.,

BOUNDARY FILTER FUNCTIONS

353

body cathexis, personal space preference, self-drawing) had been admin­ istered before and after. The leaders became relatively more positive toward their body and apparently less concerned about maintaining distance in social interactions. No changes emerged with respect to the size of the self­ drawings. In a second study (involving 91 male English soldiers), Roger (1983) attempted to replicate his findings under field conditions, in which the self­ esteem manipulation was of a different order. Manipulation was based on the subjects’ participating in a 1-week course designed to develop leadership skills. There was no public information as to how well they had done in the course, but Roger felt that “the tasks involved in the course provided unam­ biguous feedback about individual performance” (p. 289). No significant changes in the boundary scores were found as a function of the subjects’ level of achievement in the leadership course. This was true also of the body cathexis scores. The self-drawing procedure was not used in this second study. It is difficult to generalize on the basis of the two Roger’s studies. The second failed to replicate, but it involved a different design that was probably less direct and controlled in how it attempted to raise or lower self esteem.

BOUNDARY FILTER FUNCTIONS

If the body boundary scores truly have to do with boundary phenomena, it should be possible to relate them meaningfully to boundary regulating func­ tions. They should, for example, be pertinent to such processes as the transmission of information from “out there” to “in here” or the projection of attitudes from “in here” to “out there.” It should be possible to show that inputs that presumably cross an hypothetical boundary leave some evidence of their passage, as defined by effects on the boundary scores. A number of projects were designed to explore this matter.5 Fisher (1971) initiated studies to determine how a range of stimulus inputs modify the body boundary, as depicted by the Barrier score. The typical design was to obtain a baseline measure of Barrier by means of the Holtzman Inkblots (first 25 cards of Form B), then to expose subjects to an input, and simultaneously to obtain re­ sponses to a retest series of Holtzman blots (first 25 of Form A). The subjects were alone while reacting to the inkblots and wrote their own responses. This procedure provided Barrier change scores as a function of specific inputs. Six different input studies were conducted.6 We shall consider them in some detail. Study /. Study I employed intense white noise (35 decibels). One sample experienced the white noise during retest, and a control group received no stimulation during retest. The subjects were told that the purpose of the noise was to evaluate their ability to deal with a distraction while performing a task.

354

8.

EXPERIENTIAL ASPECTS OF THE BODY BOUNDARY

This explanation was offered in all subsequent studies enumerated here. The interval between test and retest in Study I was 7 days. Study II. Study II utilized a tape recording of a voice that enunciated a variety of statements with strong hostile content. The following is a repre­ sentative excerpt from the hostility tape: “hate, kill, push, explode, slap, hurt, strike, demand, scream, hit, curse, fight, I hit him, I ordered him to leave, I broke my way out, I insisted.” It was played at a high loudness level, but not unpleasantly so. The voice on the tape was always the same sex as the subject’s, and this was true in all of the studies described here. Study I II The same hostility tape recording was employed as in Study II. Study IV. Study IV involved a tape recording of a voice expressing affective statements with dependency connotations. The following is a repre­ sentative excerpt from the tape: “I am weak, I depend on people, protect me, I need someone, empty, communicate, I like help, I like to be protected, be helped, be protected, get advice, get some friends, see my mother.” Study V. This study used a tape recording of a voice expressing de­ pressive themes. The following is a representative extract from the tape: “lonely, all by myself, I feel sad, sad, sad and low, I have the blues, lonely, the world is a dreary place, no hope at all, bleak, what’s the use, no hope.” Study VI. This study’s tape recording was of a voice offering positive, reassuring statements. The following is an illustrative excerpt: “I feel mar­ velous, it is a pleasant day, it is nice, pleasant, I feel good, all is well, I like the way things are going, the world is enjoyable, calm and even, safe.” Following the completion of the Holtzman A Blots in each of the above conditions, subjects were asked to rate on a 5-point scale the degree of unpleasantness (1 = highly unpleasant) of the input to which they had been exposed. In several studies supplementary questionnaires were administered to determine whether trait or attitudinal measures might be predictive of the boundary impact of the input condition. Thus, in Study III, which involved exposure to the hostility tape, subjects were asked, prior to the Holtzman B blots, to fill out the Buss-Durkee Hostility Scale (Buss, 1961) and the Thurstone Temperament Schedule (1953). In Study V, which involved ex­ posure to the depressive message tape, just prior to the Holtzman B blots, subjects completed the Depression scale of the Murray-Harvard Question­ naire and the Thurstone Temperament Schedule. Finally, in Study VI, which exposed subjects to the positive, reassuring tape message, the Murray-Har­ vard Depression Scale and the Thurstone Temperament Scale were once again administered prior to the Holtzman B blots. Barrier in all Holtzman protocols was scored blindly. The subjects employed in the various studies (Table 8.1) were all college students recruited by payment of a fee. The median age in all samples was consistently 20. The number of subjects in each sample was: Study I: 18 women; Study II: 21 men and 21 women; Study

355

9.3 10.1

9.6 9.1 9.0 8.4

III. Male Fem ale

IV. Male Fem ale

V. Male Fem ale

N ote: X = not tested.

8 .8

9.1 9.1

II. Male Fem ale

VI. M ale

7.9 9.1

M

I. Fem ale experim ental Fem ale control

S tu d y

3.1

3.3 3.6

3.6 3.3

3.6 2.9

2.9 3.5

3.1 3.2

SD

Barrier, H o ltzm a n B

8 .6

7.8 8.3

8 .0

8.7

7.2 8.9

3.4

3.6 3.8

3.1 3.1

3.0 3.8

3.3 3.1

3.0 3.4

6.7 8.7 5.8 7.3

SD

M

Barrier, H o ltzm a n A

X

X

1.8

.9 X

2.5 1.1

2.5 3.2

5.5 5.9

8.9 7.0

X X

M

.6

1.8

1.1

3.7 3.2

2 .0

3.9

X X

SD

X

2 .2

4.8

1.8

1.6

3.8 3.3

6.4 4.1

X X

SD

Im agery, H oltzm a n A

1.5

1.5 1.9

5.5 4.3

5.7 4.1

X X

M

Im agery, H oltzm an B

TABLE 8.1 Means and Standard Deviations of Barrier Scores, Inkblot Imagery Scores, and Unpleasantness Ratings

3.9

3.7 3.2

2 .8

3.5

2 .8

3.4

2.1

3.1

2.9 X

M

.8

.6

1.1

.8

.8

1.3 .9

1.0

1.0

.9 X

SD

U n p lea sa n tn ess R a tin g

356

8.

EXPERIENTIAL ASPECTS OF THE BODY BOUNDARY

III: 21 men and 16 women; Study IV: 15 men and 15 women; Study V: 15 men and 16 women; and Study VI: 15 men. In analyzing the data from the various studies, one of the questions that initially arose was whether changes in inkblot imagery would reflect the specific input to which subjects had been exposed. For example, if subjects were exposed to the hostility tape, could the impact be shown in terms of a change in inkblot hostility imagery from test to retest? The methods for analyzing imagery changes employed in each study follow in brief outline. Study I.: The imagery analysis was not undertaken with reference to the white noise effect. Study II: Each inkblot protocol was blindly scored for all references containing an explicit statement of hostility. Any references to hostile affect (e.g., “hate,” “dislike”), aggression (e.g., “ shoot,” “hit”), or intent to harm (e.g., “will kick him”) were scored as hostile. No response could attain a score higher than 1. Ten protocols were independently evaluated by another judge, and he showed 92% agreement with the author. Study III: The same analysis was employed as in Study II. Study IV: Dependency imagery in the inkblot responses was blindly scored in terms of the following content categories: figures touching or assisting others in a friendly fashion, figures worshipping or explicitly sub­ mitting to a power (e.g., praying), figures in a state of weakness whose role implies a wish to be helped (e.g., beggar, sick person). Two judges who independently scored 15 protocols attained 85% agreement. Study V: The possible impact of the depression tape on depression imagery was evaluated by blindly scoring the following categories of imagery: being sad, depressed, pathetic, bleak, in a state of mourning, and suffering. Two independent judges who evaluated 10 protocols attained 86% agreement. Study VI: No evaluations of imagery changes relevant to the reassuring tape input were made. Table 8.2 shows the test-retest means for the specific categories of imagery that were analyzed in each study. The increase in hostility imagery in Study II was significant both for the males (t = 2.0,/? < .05), and for the females (t = 2.9, p < .01). However, the changes in hostility imagery in Study III were not significant for either the males or the females. The increase in depen­ dency imagery in Study IV was of borderline significance for the males (t = 1.7, p < .10) and was clearly significant for the females (/ = 2.1, p < .05). The increase in depression imagery for the males in Study V was borderline in significance (/ = 1.6, just short of the 1.7 value required for the .10 level). The increase for females was definitely significant (/ = 2.1, p < .05). In general, although there are exceptions, each of the various input tapes tended to produce an increase in the category of imagery to which it was directed.

BOUNDARY FILTER FUNCTIONS

357

TABLE 8.2 Summary of Data Concerning Effects of Various Inputs on the Boundary M ale B arrier C h an ge

Input Study Study Study Study Study Study

I — W hite n oise II — H ostility III— H ostility IV — D ep en d en cy V — D ep ression IV— P ositive R eassurance

_

3

_2

X ****

3

j***

-

.9 1.2

-

.2

F em ale

Im a g ery S core C h an ge X + 3 .2 * * 0

B arrier C h an ge

Im agery S core C hange X

-1.2 -1.8*

_l_2

9* * * *

-1.2

+ 1. 6

+ 1.0*

-1.1

+ 1. 3 * *

+ 1. 0

-

X

.1

X

j

2

***

X

N ote. X = not tested. Unm arked change scores do not even attain .20 level o f significance.

*p - .10 **p = .05 ***/? < .05 * * * * /?
P < .01) is significant. N on e o f the other individual differences attains significance.

362

8.

EXPERIENTIAL ASPECTS OF THE BODY BOUNDARY

TABLE 8.4 Barrier Changes During Experimental and Control Conditions in Women

C on dition

N

In itial B arrier

N egative Self-Confrontation Positive Self-Confrontation M ystery Story Air Pollution E ssay

15 15 18

10.40 10.69 10.94

10

10.10

cr

R e te st B arrier

3.22 2.99 4.02 4.11

7.00 9.13 11.50 8.50

CT 2.28 4.37 3.53 2.93

D iff - 3.40a -1 .5 6 .56 - 1.60

aThis difference, as indicated by a t test, is significant. N on e o f the other individual differences attains significance.

you are critical—with which you are dissatisfied. After you have done so, turn on this tape recorder. Clearly state the first self-criticism and speak about it for five or six minutes. Give details and illustrate. Then take the second selfcriticism and do likewise. Continue until you have completed all six of the selfcriticisms.

After the subjects completed this task, they were asked to choose from a list of 30 negative adjectives (e.g., unfriendly, cold, prejudiced) five they considered most typical of themselves. If they could not find five that they felt fitted them, they were allowed to supplement the list with negative adjectives of their own selection. Then, they enunciated the five adjectives into the tape recorder and briefly explained why they had chosen each. Finally, they repeated the list of adjectives over and over until told to stop. Each subject made a 30-minute tape recording full of negative, self-attacking information. The moment it was completed the subjects were asked to respond to the retest Holtzman blots, but they were told that the recording would be played to them the entire time that they were responding to the blots in order to test their ability to cope with a distraction. 2. Positive Self-Confrontation. The instructions and procedure were ex­ actly the same as for the Negative Self-Confrontation condition, except that the subjects discussed their own positive assets rather than negative traits. They chose self-descriptive adjectives from a list of positive, praising words (e.g., friendly, dependable, good looking) rather than from a negative list. 3. Mystery Story Control. One control condition involved the subjects’ reading into a tape recorder a passage from an exciting mystery story (The Ferguson Affair by Ross MacDonald). The tape recording was later used to expose the subjects during the retest blots to the sound of their own voice presenting material that was exciting but without any obvious self-reference. 4. Pollution Essay Control. A second control called for the subjects first to write down what they considered to be ten major causes of air

BOUNDARY FILTER FUNCTIONS

363

pollution. Then they made a 3-minute tape recording explaining each of the ten pollution causes. This additional control was introduced in order to expose them during the retest phase to a recording of their own voice communicating spontaneous ideas about a topic with considerable topical interest, but with no direct self-reference. The subjects were college students recruited by payment of a fee. The Negative Self-Confrontation sample consisted of 15 males and 15 females; mean ages were 21.3 and 21.7 years, respectively. The Positive Self-Confrontation sample included 15 males and 15 females; mean ages were 20.2 and 22.7 years, respectively. The Mystery Story Control group contained 12 males and 18 females; mean ages were 21.3 and 21.8 years, respectively. The Pollution Essay Control group consisted of 12 males and 10 females; mean ages were 20.7 and 20.1 years, respectively. Analysis of variance indicated that the difference scores in the male group were significantly differentiated (F = 3.4 2 , d f = 3/so, p < .05). The Negative Self-Confrontation tape produced a decrease in Barrier that exceeded the changes in the other groups. The same pattern of significant results was found in the female sample (F = 3.7 7 , d f = 3/54, p < .05). Here too the Negative Self-Confrontation tape produced a significant decline in Barrier. But, as shown in Tables 8.3 and 8.4 , the Positive Self-Confrontation tape did not have the predicted augmenting effect on the boundary in either the male or female samples. Because a few past studies have shown a positive correlation between Barrier and number of words in subjects’ responses, an analysis was under­ taken to determine if the shifts in Barrier scores were linked with shifts in number of words used in Holtzman B versus A protocols. Barrier shifts proved to have chance relationships with shifts in number of words. This finding is congruent with a previous report by Fisher (1970). One cannot explain the degree of shift in Barrier in terms of differences in verbal output among the conditions. Incidentally, the amount of time the subjects were exposed to the tape while responding to the retest blots was determined by watching them through a one-way mirror. There were no significant dif­ ferences in the tape exposure time among the four conditions. The results support the hypothesis that information that has negative or attacking implications with regard to self disrupts the boundary. In both the male and female samples the degree of boundary disturbance produced by the Negative Self-Confrontation tape was of greater magnitude than any previous technique had been able to produce. It needs to be emphasized that the boundary disturbance produced in the present female sample is unique. In past studies females demonstrated more durable boundary attributes than males and they showed great stability in the face of a large variety of threatening experimental inputs. The hypothesis that information that enhanced the self would increase boundary definiteness was not supported. It is not clear why this was so. The subjects seemed to be just as ego involved in the self-positive tapes they

364

8.

EXPERIENTIAL ASPECTS OF THE BODY BOUNDARY

constructed as they were in the self-negative tapes. Also, the tapes were of equal duration. It can only be speculated that there might have been some­ thing about listening to tapes in which they openly praised themselves that was not self-enhancing and was perhaps even discomforting and embarrass­ ing. It is probably more socially acceptable for people to criticize themselves publicly than to praise themselves lavishly. In fact, perceiving that they were heaping great praise on themselves, the subjects may have reacted with a self-critical sense of being immodest. Perhaps different results would be obtained if the self-positive input had been in the form of the approving voice of a friend rather than the subject’s own voice. The study of boundary effects has been extended to a consideration of what happens when subliminal inputs are introduced. A growing literature (e.g., Dixon, 1971; Silverman et al., 1982) has documented the fact that stimuli that are out of conscious awareness may affect behavior. Fisher (1975) con­ ducted a study that explored the effects of subliminal auditory stimuli on the Barrier score. In this study, subjects were seated alone in a room; responded to 25 Holtzman inkblots (Form B); and were exposed to an auditory source of subliminal intensity while responding to a second set of 25 Holtzman inkblots (Form A). Barrier score changes as a function of the subliminal input were computed. A variety of inputs were utilized with different samples. They consisted of taped messages concerning different themes, such as hostility, depression, reassurance, vulnerability, and body feelings. There was also a control condition in which subjects were exposed to a blank tape. A detailed description of the experimental methodology and the results may be found elsewhere (Fisher, 1975, 1976b). It was found that, in essence, any subliminal input produced a significant Barrier decrement in males. Whether the subliminal message was threatening or reassuring in content, it brought about loss of boundary articulation. However subliminal input had little or no effect on the Barrier scores of women.9 Fisher’s (1975) explanation for this sex difference was as follows: The difference in boundary response between men and women reflects a basic contrast in orientation learned in the process of socialization with regard to being penetrated or allowing outside forces to gain entry to the inside of oneself. The stimulus which is out of awareness may be conceived of as registering centrally as an input of some kind, but lacking the identification of those inputs which occur in the more conventional fashion and which are filtered through various defense systems. Thus, the out-of-awareness input would be experienced as a force which gained entry to the self without the usual opportunities to control or modify it. Considerable data have now accu­ mulated which indicate that the feminine mode is to be open, receptive, and relatively non-anxious about (indeed, often pleasurably anticipating of) pen­ etration. At the level of the body, penetration, as it occurs during sexual intercourse, is a goal which most women value. The masculine mode is to be closed and also alertly prepared to resist intrusion, (p. 97)

OVERVIEW

365

With this perspective, one may theorize that men reacted to the out-ofawareness messages as alien intrusions that had mysteriously evaded their usual defensive stance against such a possibility.10 The unexpected bypassing of their defenses left them with a significant sense of boundary loss that was reflected in a decrease in Barrier score. But the women, who are much less concerned about defending themselves against intrusion, found the bypass­ ing of their defenses to be a relatively nonthreatening event which did not create significant sensations of boundary loss. An interesting question that arises with respect to the pattern of results relates to why males charac­ teristically reacted to the subliminal input with boundary loss rather than with increased boundary articulation. One might expect that individuals who experience a sense of having been invaded would be motivated to strengthen or bolster their defensive boundaries. No simple explanation can be offered in the present context for the empirical fact that boundary loss rather than boundary strengthening occurred. More is said about this matter at a later point. The material reviewed in this section indicates that in males the Barrier score is sensitive to inputs that one might expect to have boundary signifi­ cance. However, a parallel sensitivity in females has not been demonstrated, although this probably reflects the relative resilience of the female body boundary rather than a failing of the Barrier score, as such. Indeed, data are presented at a later point that show that women’s boundaries do change meaningfully in the course of certain complex interpersonal involvements (e.g., being hypnotized). Unfortunately, no attempt was made in the studies just cited to determine if the Penetration score is affected in predictable ways by various inputs.

OVERVIEW

Appreciable progress has been made in mustering evidence both that the Barrier index reflects feelings about the exterior encasing sheath (skin and muscle) of the body and also that it taps functions basic to boundary regulation. The original meaning of the Barrier score was suggested by an analogy derived from the fact that persons with rheumatoid arthritis, whose symptoms make them look as if they are encased in stiff armor, also produce a high number of Rorschach responses (e.g., man in an overcoat) in which the boundaries of the percept have protective connotations. With time, more solid data were collected to tie the Barrier imagery with greater directness to actual body feelings and sensations. Thus, correlational studies were under­ taken that showed that Barrier was correlated with the ratio of exterior to interior body sensations, with feelings of security about one’s body, and with differential sensitivity to pictures of exterior and interior body parts. The next validating step was to look at the effects on the Barrier score of

366

8.

EXPERIENTIAL ASPECTS OF THE BODY BOUNDARY

experimentally manipulating exterior versus interior body sensations. Sub­ jects were given instructions that affected their distribution of attention to specific body sites. Precisely as predicted by the theory underlying the boundary scores, it was found that procedures that highlight the skin and muscle sheath of the body increase boundary definiteness, and those inten­ sifying awareness of the body interior have the opposite effect. Multiple investigations have affirmed that inkblot imagery can mirror patterns of body experience. Interesting and encouraging connections have also been shown to exist between stimulus inputs and changes in boundary articulation as defined by the Barrier score. Inputs that may be logically presumed to have boundary breaching impact produce decrements in Barrier, particularly in male subjects. The findings make it more reasonable to conceptualize the Barrier score as metaphorically descriptive of a membrane that encloses the individual and changes its permeability when the surrounding medium appre­ ciably alters its characteristics.

NOTES 1Significant sex differences were observed in this study. Male Penetration scores were higher than those of the females for the physical interior focus condition, whereas the opposite was true for the imagination interior focus condition. Males exposed to the imaginative internal focus procedure reported significantly fewer internal sensations than did females exposed to this procedure. There was no sex difference during the physical internal focus condition. It appears that females are more effective than males in utilizing their imagination to produce an internal body focus. 2Previous work by Fisher (1965b) also provided data linking the Penetration score to body feelings and attitudes. The Penetration score was found to be significantly correlated with selective recall for words with penetration connotations, words with body threat implications, and words with death meaning. The higher the Penetration score, the poorer was the recall for words referring to body threat or intrusion. 3Newbold (1979) has described a meaningful application of the Barrier and Pen­ etration content categories to the analysis of the literary productions of Roman writers (e.g., Horace, Virgil, Tacitus). There seems to be the possibility that spon­ taneous verbal productions, even if not elicited by inkblots, can provide information about the body boundary. Hartley (1967) has shown a similar potentiality for verbal associations. He obtained associations to a series of homonyms (e.g., cell, sling, rash) from subjects differing in their Barrier characteristics and was able to compile a cross-validated list that produced Homonym Barrier scores that correlated quite highly with standard Barrier scores. The Homonym Barrier score has been subsequently applied in a few studies (e.g., Stockwell, 1970). Armstrong and Williams (1977) developed body rating scores that correlated moderately well with Barrier and Penetration. They asked psychiatric outpatients (28

NOTES

367

male, 37 female) to generate a series of conceptual dimensions by means of which they could rate 10 body parts (lungs, heart, stomach, throat, intestinal tract, skin, arm m uscles, hair, fingers, feet). Five of these body parts refer to the exterior of the body and five to the interior. The number of distinctions employed in rating each body part was taken as a measure of Cognitive Differentiation. Thus, total External Differentia­ tion and total Internal Differentiation scores could be computed. Each subject had also responded to the Rorschach blots (total responses controlled), and Barrier and Penetration scores were determined. The Barrier score proved, as predicted, to be significantly negatively correlated with the Internal Differentiation score. It was not significantly correlated with the External Differentiation score. Penetration was, as would be predicted, significantly positively correlated with Internal Differentiation. However, it was not significantly correlated with External Differentiation. Two of four expected relationships were confirmed. These findings are of interest because they demonstrate to some degree the existence of selective cognitive attitudes toward body exterior versus interior regions as a function of Barrier and Penetration scores and also the possibility of measuring boundary attributes with a technique other than inkblots. 4 Davis (1980) investigated the effects of a 20-week exercise program on the Barrier and Penetration scores of 25 women. He did not detect any impact of the program on boundary definiteness. 5In earlier studies, Fisher (1970) found that a variety of input conditions did not affect the body boundary (as defined by Barrier). For example, no Barrier changes were induced by any of the following: soothing music, march music, exciting film of a car race, film with mutilation theme, boring film, intense kinesthetic experience produced by vibrators, feedback of one’s image in a distorting mirror. Also, exposure to a stress situation failed to produce a significant Barrier shift. Jacobson (1966) and Rosenzweig and Gardner (1966) reported too that sensory isolation had no effect on the Barrier scores of normal subjects. A study by Reitman and Cleveland (1964) demonstrated that in a schizophrenic sample sensory isolation resulted in signifi­ cantly higher Barrier and lower Penetration scores; in a neurotic group, the isolation experience induced lower Barrier and higher Penetration scores. 6 Larger portions of this material were previously presented by Fisher (1971). 7 In two previous studies (Fisher & Renik, 1966; Renik & Fisher, 1968) in which Holtzman blots were administered and then readministered, with only a neutral 15minute social interaction intervening, the mean Barrier shifts were respectively + .25 and + .27. 8Rhoda Fisher (1966c) found that boundary functions in male children were sus­ ceptible to maternal hostility. 9 In a subsequent study, Fisher (1976b) found that extremely long exposures to subliminal inputs can produce boundary decrement in women. 10Silverman and Candell (1970) reported several complex patterns of boundary changes in male schizophrenics exposed to subliminal visual input involving hostile and symbiotic themes. However, their observations were not confirmed in a later study (Silverman, Candell, Pettit, & Blum, 1971).

This page intentionally left blank

9 I

Communication and Intimacy

The idea of a boundary conjures up themes having to do with closeness and distance. Boundaries are lines of demarcation and separation that define access. One might think that people with strongly structured boundaries would somehow be aloof from other people. Their boundaries could be pictured as barriers to communication. However, the facts speak otherwise. A considerable amount of research has shown that in normal persons a definite boundary is associated with an alert interest in others and a desire to communicate with them. In 1958, Fisher and Cleveland, after reviewing several studies concerned with the relationship of the Barrier score to be­ havior displayed by individuals in small group settings, decided that: “High Barrier members demonstrate an interest in people and individual feeling. They press forward . . . in their search for human contact. Low Barrier . . . were noted to be more impersonal. They remained relatively inactive in group participation and sought guidance for their conduct in objective rules and regulations” (p. 216). Prior to 1970 the following major studies pertinent to the issue of boundary and style of social interaction had been completed: 1. Fisher and Cleveland (1958) created groups that were saturated with either high or low Barrier persons and asked them, as a cooperative effort, to complete various tasks (e.g., create stories, discuss problems). Analysis of the data indicated: One type of philosophy emerges from the behavior and attitudes expressed by the groups composed of members with a body-image schema of firmness and definiteness. Assertiveness, self-initiative, and achievement orientation charac­ terize their approach. . . . N o t only do they talk more in their group discussions about getting things done, these same groups were also observed to indulge in a greater amount of interaction, free expression, and initiative, in contrast to the groups with low Barrier members. In these (low Barrier) groups a far more passive and inert kind of group interplay occurred. Members tended to sit back and await the emergence of a leader who then structured their mode of conduct for them. (pp. 214-215)

2. A second study made use of data gathered at a meeting of a human relations training laboratory. The participants engaged in a series of intensive group discussions and rated each other by means of a sociometric question­ 369

370

9.

COMMUNICATION AND INTIMACY

naire. The findings were summarized as follows by Fisher and Cleveland (1958): In general the high Barrier members are more frequently nominated as behaving in a free and democratic manner, in contrast to the low Barrier subjects. . . . High Barrier scorers are seen as setting group goals above per­ sonal goals in conducting the training group activities. In exact opposition are the low Barrier members who receive significantly more nominations for seek­ ing after personal goals in carrying out the group meetings. High Barrier members receive an exceptionally high number of nominations for being active in promoting a warm and friendly group atmosphere. Probably as a con­ sequence of such behavior they also receive the larger number of nominations for being accepted by the group, (p. 225)

3. Fisher and Cleveland (1958) presented evidence that the degree to which patients in group therapy took the lead in getting the group to deal with personal problems and to encourage others to become active in in­ vestigating themselves was significantly and positively correlated with their Barrier scores. 4. Cleveland and Morton (1962) asked psychiatric patients who were involved in a group interaction therapy program to fill out a sociometric questionnaire. They discovered that the high Barrier participants received significantly more nominations than the low Barrier participants for the following: helping to resolve differences that arise among other group mem­ bers, trying to keep the group “on the ball,” being the one to whom the group members prefer to talk, putting group above personal goals, and high accept­ ance by the group at large. 5. Ramer (1963) created an experimental situation in which subjects were isolated from one another and instructed to communicate by notes with a fictitious partner. The written communications were analyzed, and it was found that high Barrier subjects sent significantly more messages and more units of communication that the low Barrier subjects. The high Barrier subjects also issued more opinions and clarifying, orienting statements than the low Barrier subjects. 6. Morton (1965) obtained sociometric nominations from adolescents in a school context and did not detect a relationship between boundary defi­ niteness and how positively subjects were perceived by their peers. There was, however, an interesting significant trend such that the higher individuals’ Barrier scores were the more likely they were to award their sociometric choices to others with equally as definite boundaries.1 7. Frede, Gautney, and Baxter (1968) asked subjects to create scenes with cardboard figure representations of people and to make up stories about them. The results indicated that the higher subjects’ Barrier scores, the

COMMUNICATION AND INTIMACY

371

significantly greater was the interaction they depicted among the figures. Also, the Barrier score was significantly and negatively correlated with the average distance between the placements of the figures. The Barrier score was not correlated with how often the figures in the stories moved toward, away from, or against each other. 8. Twente (1964) reported that when persons first awaken in the morning their need to establish communication with other people was positively and significantly correlated with their Barrier score. The studies just summarized portrayed persons with well-defined bound­ aries as being particularly interested in communicating with others and initiating relationships. Subsequently, other researchers continued to explore this area with two classes of studies that differ in orientation. One rather simplistically asks whether the Barrier score will predict how close strangers will stand to each other. The typical design is to recruit a sample of college students, determine their Barrier scores, and then measure how distant they stand when asked to walk up to a stranger in a laboratory setting and engage in a brief conversation. A second class of studies involves more sophisticated experimental designs in which boundary definiteness is related to interaction patterns that either are more naturalistic or embrace segments of behavior considerably more complex and meaningful. Let us first scan the studies based primarily on the idea that social interactions can be defined by the physical distance between persons who are strangers or who have been assigned hypothetical identities. Among studies summarized earlier, one by Frede et al. (1968) involved subjects who created scenes with cardboard figures and made up stories about them. In this instance the Barrier score was found to be negatively and significantly correlated with the average distance between placements of the figures. Subsequent studies based on the distance concept have produced mixed results. Greenberg, Aronow, and Rauchway (1977) appraised 41 female and 24 male college students to whom the Holtzman Inkblots were administered. Two measures of interpersonal distance were also obtained. One measure was the Comfortable Interpersonal Distance Scale (Duke & Nowicki, 1972), which is a paper and pencil technique that calls for subjects to imagine they are standing at a central point of a plane with lines radiating from it and that the experimenter is approaching them along one of the lines in order to carry on a conversation. Subjects indicate where on the line they would find it com­ fortable for the experimenter to stop. A second measure commonly used is based on subjects’ walking toward the experimenter and stopping at a dis­ tance that would be comfortable for carrying on a conversation. In the present study, subjects were asked to maintain eye contact with the experi­ menter. The Barrier scores were found to be negatively and significantly correlated with the distance scores derived from the Comfortable Interper­

372

9.

COMMUNICATION AND INTIMACY

sonal Distance Scale and negatively (but not significantly) with the distance scores based on actual approach to the experimenter. That is, analogous to the Frede et al. (1968) findings, the trend was for those with the more definite boundaries to prefer being closer to the experimenter. In discussing why better results were obtained with the Comfortable Interpersonal Distance Scale than the actual physical approach measures, Greenberg et al. sug­ gested that the latter was too artificial and less representative of usual social encounters. Several other studies have established a significant link between the Bar­ rier score and social distance measures, but in a reverse direction! Rauter (1972) selected samples of high Barrier (defined by Rorschach Inkblot re­ sponses) and low Barrier college men and divided them into dyads: 15 high Barrier dyads, 15 low Barrier dyads, and 15 mixed Barrier dyads. Each dyad was assigned the task of discussing for 4 minutes a brief motion picture and of rendering a decision about the picture in the 4th minute. The interactions were videotaped and measures were derived concerning the distances be­ tween the heads of the participants at several points during the discussion process. It was found that during the 4th minute, when a definitive decision was required, the high Barrier dyads maintained significantly greater distance than did the low Barrier dyads. The difference in preferred distance between high and low Barrier dyads over the entire 4 minutes was of borderline significance {p. < .10). Sanders (1976) studied 34 male and 43 female college students. Holtzman Inkblots were administered and also the Duke and Nowicki (1972) Comfort­ able Interpersonal Distance Scale. In the male sample, a significant positive correlation was found between Barrier and the preferred distance when the approaching stranger was a male. There was only a chance relationship when the approaching stranger was labeled as a female. Exactly the same result was observed in the female sample. The basic trend, then, was for both the male and the female subjects to prefer greater distance between self and the approaching stranger as a direct function of their own degree of boundary definiteness. However, the effect occurred only when the imagined approach­ ing stranger was a male. Sanders speculated that this pattern of results appeared because the approach of a female stranger was not experienced as sufficiently threatening to mobilize defenses presumably linked to boundary attributes. Cavallin and Houston (1980) appraised 100 male college students who had responded to the Rorschach Inkblots. Measures of personal space preference were secured by asking each subject to approach a male assistant from the front, left, right, and back, and to be approached by the assistant from the same four directions. The data indicated that the higher the subjects’ Barrier score, the significantly farther away they preferred to stay from the assistant when they approached the assistant from the front. The Barrier score was not

COMMUNICATION AND INTIMACY

373

correlated with preferred distance based on other than the front approach. The Penetration score had only chance correlations with the preferred dis­ tance measures.2 Roger (1976) examined preferred distance correlates of the Barrier and Penetration scores (derived from responses to Holtzman Inkblots) in a group of black female leaders (N = 13) and a group of black female nonleaders (N = 13), all of whom were college students. Preferred distance was measured in two ways: (a) in terms of where subjects stopped when approaching another individual; and (b) how much space was introduced between doll figures that were used to enact scenes. The Barrier score was positively and significantly correlated in the leader group with the distance intervening when the sub­ jects chose to stop as they approached another person. None of the other correlations of either Barrier or Penetration with the distance indices was significant. The studies just summarized that indicate significant positive correlations between the Barrier score and preferred interaction distance have been viewed by some as contradictory of the original Fisher and Cleveland (1958) findings concerning the relationship of boundary definiteness to behavior in small groups. If high Barrier people are so interested in communication and involvement, why do they choose to stand at a relatively distant position when confronted by a stranger in a laboratory setting? This is a simplistic perspective. In earlier work in this area, what typified high Barrier persons in their small group behavior was not a fixed tendency to be close or distant, but rather to behave in ways that facilitated group functioning. It may be appro­ priate to draw close to a person following a period of exploratory interaction that has laid the foundation for it; it may be just as appropriate to keep at a nonintrusive distance from that person before sufficient opportunity to be­ come acquainted has occurred. In any case, there also have been studies of boundary definiteness and preferred distance whose results were largely nonsignificant. In 1969 Dosey and Meisels secured Rorschach Inkblot responses from 91 male and 95 female college students. Three measures of preferred distance were also obtained: (a) how far subjects chose to stand when approaching a number of other persons; (b) the distance that subjects placed between a silhouette of self they had drawn and a fixed silhouette representing the opposite sex; and (c) whether subjects chose to sit close to or distant from the experimenter when they entered a room in which he was sitting. The three measures of preferred distance turned out not to be significantly correlated with one another. Barrier scores had only chance correlations with the three mea­ sures. Cleaveland (1974) worked with 40 male enlisted men in the United States Army. Rorschach Inkblots were administered; and, because response total was not controlled Barrier scores were expressed in percentages. Two mea­

374

9.

COMMUNICATION AND INTIMACY

sures of preferred distance were obtained: (a) how close subjects chose to sit to the experimenter when asked to “draw up a chair” and talk to him; and (b) how close subjects placed stick figures representing self and a variety of other persons (e.g., father, mother) when instructed to depict the figures “meeting together.” The two types of distance measures proved not to be significantly related. Also, the Barrier score had only chance correlations with the distance measures. Hibbs (1977) investigated a sample of low Barrier (10 male, 10 female) and high Barrier (10 male, 10 female) college students. Barrier scores were ascer­ tained from responses to the Rorschach Inkblots. Distance measures were obtained by determining where subjects chose to stand when asked to approach and talk briefly with a person of the same sex and another of the opposite sex. In addition, subjects were asked “to draw a picture of your family,” and the distances between figures (whose identities had been desig­ nated by subjects) were determined. Surpisingly, the two different measures of distance were found to be negatively and significantly correlated. This documents the characteristic lack of consistency among indices presumed to measure preferred distance. The Barrier score proved to be unrelated to the distance score based on where subjects chose to stand in their encounters with persons of each sex. A borderline trend {p < .09) was observed for low Barrier females to draw their family figures farther apart than did high Barrier female figures and farther apart than all male subjects did. A serendipitous finding emerged from the data analysis. There was a significant trend for high Barrier subjects to place themselves closer, in their family drawings, to the same-sex than to the opposite-sex parent. The effect was particularly striking in low Barrier males and in high Barrier females, all of whom placed themselves closer to the mother. Hibbs speculated that, if boundary definiteness is in part a function of how clear one’s role models have been, it would then be congruent that those with high Barrier scores should feel relatively closer to the same-sex parent, who would, after all, represent the most direct form of model. This last finding may be a promising lead; two previous observations in the literature have a similar ring. Rosenbluh (1967) reported a sex difference in the context of an experimen­ tal design in which male and female subjects identified the concept underly­ ing a series of words presented to them. The words referred to various parts of the body, some pertaining to the upper and some to the lower aspects of the body. The design was such that half the subjects were seen by an experimenter of like sex and half by one of the opposite sex. One of the measures taken during the experiment was the amount of time the subject talked. The talk-time data indicated, at a significant level, that when the experimenter was the same sex as the subject, subjects with high Barrier scores increased the amount of time they talked, and talk time decreased for those with low Barrier scores. When the experimenter was of the opposite

COMMUNICATION AND INTIMACY

375

sex to the subject, a trend was found for the high Barrier subjects to decrease talk time and for the low Barrier subjects to increase it. An index that defined subjects’ efficiency in discerning the concept underlying the words presented to them indicated that high Barrier men arrived at solutions significantly faster than low Barrier men when the experimenter was a male. But when female subjects were matched with male experimenters, the reverse trend appeared. Obviously, high Barrier persons felt more comfortable with au­ thority figures of the same sex. In another study, Fisher (1970) found in four separate samples of male college students that the Barrier score was positively and significantly corre­ lated with the relative predominance of male as compared to female figures in the total array of inkblot responses produced. An analogous finding did not appear in female samples. However, the results for males suggested that high Barrier males are more focused on male than female oriented images. The several findings just reviewed may prove to be important. We may learn that one basic condition for developing well-defined body image bound­ aries is to have available a parent with the same-sex body who provides an unequivocal identification model. Having a same-sex parent who is for some reason difficult to equate oneself with (e.g., being absent, possessing unat­ tractive traits) may increase the probability of seeking identification with the opposite-sex parent. It may be relatively more difficult to construct a wellbounded concept of one’s body when one’s identification model is of the opposite sex and obviously differs so markedly from self in anatomical form and structure. Another possibility to consider is that the same family condi­ tions (e.g., conflict between parents) that might prevent a child from seeing the parent of the same sex unambivalently as an identification model may also interfere with building up a sense of possessing secure boundaries. Overall, the work that has looked at the links between the Barrier score and simple indices of preferred distance from others, whether in a positive or negative direction, has come up with enough significant findings to merit careful thought. Perusal of the studies that have given different patterns of results has not revealed obvious discrepancies in their design that would explain the differences. One can say only that in some contexts the Barrier score is positively correlated with preferred distance and in others negatively so. One can speculate as to what makes for the contrasting patterns. Past research has suggested that persons with definite boundaries are generally more skillful and adept in relating to others than are those with vague boundaries; it may be that there are unknown conditions in the various studies that in some instances communicate that keeping one’s distance is the most adaptive strategy and in other instances communicate just the opposite. As earlier noted, it is absurd to equate adaptive social behavior with any one strategy such as always being close or distant.3 What do we find when we look at approaches that have gone beyond the

376

9.

COMMUNICATION AND INTIMACY

use of gross spatial distance as an index of social interaction? Researchers have ranged widely in their attempts to explore the possible role of the boundary in personal relationships. De Roo (1966)4 was interested in whether the behavior of counselors vis-a-vis their clients would be linked to the counselors’ personality characteristics as measured by various scores de­ rived from responses to Holtzman Inkblots. Twenty-nine (26 male, 3 female) graduate students taking advanced counseling courses were each asked to submit a tape recording of one of their counseling sessions. The interactions with the client were evaluated in terms of a quantified scoring system con­ cerned with such variables as affectivity, restrictiveness, time orientation, and degree of focus on or investment in the client. Only a few scattered correlations were found between Holtzman Inkblot scores and the behavior of the counselors toward their clients. However, the largest significant rela­ tionship to emerge was a positive one between the Barrier score and the degree to which counselors directed their attention to their clients. The better defined the counselors’ boundaries, the more the clients were treated as central to the interaction. De Roo suggested that counselor attributes most likely to foster such a focus on the client are “ self acceptance, self-con­ fidence, and attempts to communicate” (p. 110). He considered that there was an analogy between his findings and Ramer’s (1963) report of a positive correlation between Barrier and being directly communicative. A multiple regression analysis also indicated that the counselor’s Barrier score contrib­ uted positively and significantly to the tendency to keep the counseling sessions focused on the present rather than the past or future. Further, the counselor’s Penetration score contributed positively and significantly to being nonrestrictive toward the client and negatively and significantly to focusing on the client. It was generally apparent that the boundary did mediate how counselors dealt with their clients. Schutz (1977) was interested in self-disclosing behavior as a function of the boundary. He predicted a curvilinear relationship, such that persons with medium Barrier scores would self-disclose in a social interaction more than would those with high or low scores. His prediction was derived from a speculation by Fisher and Cleveland (1968) that unusually definite boundaries might have negative effects on functioning. He had an interviewer interact individually with 96 male college students whose Barrier scores had been determined from responses to the Rorschach Inkblots. Various conditions were introduced; for example, whether there was an external barrier (desk) between the subject and the interviewer or whether the interviewer provided self-revealing information about himself to the subject. The verbal inter­ changes during the interviews were recorded and an objective scoring system was applied to ascertain how self-revealing the subject had been. As pre­ dicted, a significant curvilinear relationship was found between Barrier and

COMMUNICATION AND INTIMACY

377

amount of self-revealing behavior. Those with medium Barrier scores were more self-revealing than either low or high Barrier scores. Only the difference between the intermediate and low Barrier subjects reached significance. Whether or not the interviewer self-disclosed had no effect on subject self­ disclosure as a function of subjects’ Barrier scores. Likewise, the presence of an external barrier between the interviewer and the subject had no effect as a function of subjects’ Barrier scores.5 Greene (1976) examined the effects of the Barrier score on preferred and avoided seating arrangements in small groups. The subjects were 40 male and 16 female college students. Their Barrier scores were ascertained from their responses to the Rorschach Inkblots. Because response total was not con­ trolled, the scores were computed as percentages of total responses. The subjects were distributed randomly among 4 groups (N = 15, N = 13, N = 14, N = 14). Each group met for 60 minutes twice a week for 3 weeks. Before each session, chairs were arranged in a circle. The task set for each group session was to study the group processes. A male leader was assigned to each group, and his role was to interpret in a nondirective and nonsupportive fashion the covert group dynamics, especially with reference to issues of leadership and authority. At the end of each session, the experimenter obtained self-report data from the subjects concerning their perceptions and feelings about the group. He also recorded their seating arrangements. It was predicted that the low Barrier subjects would evidence heightened defensive behavior in terms of where they chose to sit in relation to two reference points, viz., the group leader and the room exit. The expectation was that low Barrier subjects would avoid seats close to the leader and would be dispro­ portionately attracted to seats nearest the room exit (a potential escape route). Presumably, the low Barrier persons would be most uncomfortable in the small group context in which closeness and intimacy were matters of discussion and concern. Analysis of the data indicated at a significant level that more of the low Barrier subjects avoided sitting near the leaders than did high Barrier sub­ jects. More than 80% of the former and about 50% of the latter showed such avoidance. The high and low Barrier subjects did not, however, differ in their preference for seats near the door. Yet an analysis of the relationships between preferring seats near the door and self-reports concerning how subjects experienced the group interaction revealed that low Barrier subjects who sat near the door felt withdrawn and detached from the group, whereas the high Barrier subjects who were close to the door felt both involved with and capable of influencing the group. Greene wondered if the high Barrier subjects’ sitting near the door represented some kind of role as a gatekeeper or manager of the group boundaries. He speculated too that the unstructured nature of the group setting was particularly important in highlighting dif­

378

9.

COMMUNICATION AND INTIMACY

ferences between the well- and poorly bounded because “lack of externally defined structure . . . exacerbates the fears of unexpected, chaotic events in the boundary-indefinite individual” (p. 248). Sanders6 (1969) described a finding that bears on the general issue under discussion. Certain aspects of her study were earlier described. She selected (by means of the Holtzman Inkblots) male and female subjects (N = 60) who represented high, medium, and low Barrier categories. One of the tasks she assigned to the subjects asked that a series of statements about somatic symptoms be sorted into categories in terms of whether they applied to themselves. For some reason the task evoked frequent questions from the subjects. Sanders ascertained the number of questions asked by each individ­ ual. She thought this would provide an index of dependency behavior. Pre­ sumably, asking questions was equivalent to asking for help. This could very well be an inaccurate assumption. Subjects could just as easily have raised questions to express criticism or to obtain clarification or to establish more personal contact with the experimenter. In analyzing her data, Sanders found a significant positive correlation between subjects’ Barrier scores and the numbers of questions they posed. As noted, one can interpret this to mean that persons with more definite boundaries behaved more dependently or that they were simply more active in setting up a communicative connection.

COMMENT

The sheer number of statistically significant results emerging in this section supports the network of previous observations documenting that the bound­ ary mediates how people behave in social encounters. Although the findings based simply on measures of how close or distant one prefers to be from others are mixed and open to alternative interpretations, the other studies cited have pretty much shown that the Barrier score is positively correlated with a desire to be communicative and “in touch.” The De Roo (1966) work indicated that counselors with higher Barrier scores are particularly likely to focus their attention on their clients during counseling sessions. Schutz (1977) demonstrated that in an interview context people with more definite boundaries are especially inclined to be self-revealing. Greene (1976) ob­ served in an unstructured small-group setting that those with higher Barrier scores were less defensive and more motivated to get close to the group action. Sanders (1969) found that among subjects participating in an experi­ ment, those with higher Barrier scores addressed a relatively large volume of questions to the experimenter. It is impressive that the communicative orien­ tation associated with well-articulated boundaries has shown up in such diverse contexts. The Penetration score has seldom been included in the

SEXUAL INTIMACY

379

studies of social interaction. In the few instances where it has been included, the results were not impressive. To experience one’s body as possessing a well-defined border or contour (as defined by the Barrier score) provides a secure base from which to negotiate with others. Well-contoured borders may also represent the crystallization of past primary relationships that were so rewarding as to stimulate enthusiasm for genuine involvement with other people.

SEXUAL INTIMACY

Sexual encounters, of course, represent a highly intimate form of social interaction. The closeness is unique and typically eventuates in the partners’ blending body surfaces and parts. One would anticipate that the state of a person’s boundaries would have an effect on how such blending is perceived. Does possessing well-defined boundaries render sexual intimacy more en­ joyable? Do persons with vague boundaries find it threatening to get in­ tensely close to another? As earlier mentioned, Fisher (1973c) investigated this matter in some detail. Using Holtzman Inkblots, Fisher obtained Barrier and Penetration scores from five different samples ( N = 42, N = 41, N = 43, N = 40, N = 49) of women and related these scores to a spectrum of measures concerned with such variables as orgasm consistency, intercourse frequency, preference for vaginal versus clitoral stimulation, feelings during sexual excitement, concern about getting hurt during intercourse, and at­ titudes toward one’s sex partner. The overall results revealed little of interest. Most of the correlations of the boundary scores with the sexual indices were of a chance order. A few scattered trends emerged. For example, the Barrier score was positively and consistently correlated in several samples with the ability to experience multiple orgasms. It also showed some consistency in correlating positively with intercourse frequency; and when changes in the Barrier score were computed for women in one sample in relation to their shifting from the clothed to the unclothed state, it was found that those experiencing boundary decline while unclothed had special orgasm difficulties. But, generally, it did not appear as if the boundary played much of a part in women’s sexual experiences. Subsequent work opened other perspectives on this matter in relation to both women and men. Grossbart (1972) recruited 40 persons who represented 20 male-female couples either married or living together. They were all college graduates. Rorschach Inkblot responses were secured from them. In addition, they filled out a variety of questionnaires concerned with their sexual behavior, feelings, and fantasies. The questionnaires dealt with such

380

9.

COMMUNICATION AND INTIMACY

variables as actual and desired intercourse frequencies; orgasm consistency; feelings before, during, and after orgasm; localization of sexual sensations; and sexual problems and difficulties. Other questionnaires inquired about experiences with feelings of loss of boundaries (e.g., confusion concerning extent and ownership of body parts, dissociative sensations). Grossbart’s basic hypotheses were that sexual responsiveness would be positively corre­ lated with long-term boundary definiteness (as defined by the FisherCleveland boundary scores) but negatively correlated with the inabililty to reduce boundedness in sexual situations. The data were analyzed at several different levels, including reduction of the number of variables by means of factor analysis. Grossbart stated: “The results strongly support the general hypothesis of the relevance of ego and body boundary dimensions to sexual responsiveness and the experience of sexual intercourse” (p. 119). More specifically with regard to the role of the body boundary (largely as defined by the Barrier score) in sexual respon­ siveness, he noted: A firm body boundary as an enduring trait for women is positively correlated with frequency of actual and desired intercourse and is also positively corre­ lated for males with having intercourse as frequently as desired . . . and selfratings of sexual responsiveness and negatively correlated with erection prob­ lems and premature ejaculation. These findings are all in accord with the hypothesized correlation between a firm body boundary and responsiveness. Yet women’s body boundary firmness correlates positively with worries about losing emotional control during intercourse, pain during intercourse, and va­ ginal tightness and dryness. Firm body boundaries for men also correlate with diminished genital sensations during intercourse fantasies, problems with ejaculatio retardata, having orgasms in a smaller percentage of acts of inter­ course, and feeling sad or anxious or angry rather than warm, relaxed, and happy after intercourse, (p. 121)

It appears that both women and men with firm boundaries engaged in sexual activity with greater frequency. Also, the more definite the male’s boundaries, the more he described himself as sexually responsive and less likely to have difficulties with erection or premature ejaculation. However, there were also negative sexual factors linked with having definite boundaries. Well-bounded women were more likely to experience pain and vaginal tightness and dry­ ness during intercourse, and well-bounded men were particularly prone to delayed ejaculation and to experience certain kinds of subjective discomfort during sexual encounters. Grossbart suggested that, although well-defined boundaries facilitate aspects of sexual interaction, they interfere with others. He said with regard to the interference aspect: “In sexual situations this tendency toward the formation and maintaining of a firm muscle and skin boundary or fence interferes quite directly. Vaginal tightness and dryness

SEXUAL INTIMACY

381

form a literal genital fence which produces pain and can prevent intercourse entirely. A similar tension in the penis, the male version of the genital ‘fence’, deadens genital sensations, and can prevent orgasm and ejaculation, al­ though producing consistent and lasting erections” (p. 123).7 Olasov (1975) took an equally complex approach to the general problem under consideration. He appraised 40 married women (average of 15 years of education). The Holtzman Inkblots were used to compute Barrier and Pen­ etration scores. Figure drawings were obtained to ascertain the Witkin et al. (1962) Articulation of Body Concept score; and a questionnaire by Hollender (1970) was administered that was designed to evaluate how much one wishes or needs to have one’s body held. In order to explore subjects’ behavior, fantasies, and sensations during sexual interactions, several measures were taken: A Bodily Responsivity Questionnaire inquired into the relative consis­ tency of various kinds of body image experiences during different phases of heterosexual lovemaking (viz., before, during, and after intercourse). Specific scores were derived with respect to positive and negative internal sensations (vaginal, visceral) and external sensations (skin, muscle, clitoral). Measures were derived too of changes in consciousness, sensations of merging, feel­ ings of happiness, and attitudes toward sex partner. Subjects wrote accounts of their usual process of sexual arousal and release. These written accounts were scored for various dimensions like locus of focus of attention, merging sensations, and feelings of loss of boundaries. The data8 analysis indicated scattered relationships. Compared to low Barrier women, the high Barrier women were less likely to report that during intercourse they experienced significant loss of consciousness or strong feelings of merging with sex partner. Women with medium Barrier scores were significantly more likely than women with high or low Barrier scores to experience negative sensations in the exterior sectors of the body during intercourse. Women of medium orgasm consistency gave the greatest number of Barrier responses, significantly more than the low orgasm consistency group, who gave the fewest. Results for the Penetration score indicated that low Penetration women were least inclined to maintain prolonged genital contact with the sex partner (by keeping the penis inside vagina), had the weakest orgasms, and were least likely to experience merging either during or after intercourse. Olasov wondered, apropos of the finding about merging, whether “women unsure about the integrity of their body image boundaries may seek in coital fusion a sense of wholeness which otherwise they lack” (p. 166). Incidentally, none of the other body image measures (viz., figure drawing, “wish to be held” questionnaire) correlated with more than a few scattered sexual response indices. Olasov summarized his principal observa­ tions concerning the boundary and sexual response as follows:

382

9.

COMMUNICATION AND INTIMACY

Women with the highest body boundary definiteness had the lowest levels of merging and changes in orientation and consciousness . . . Low Barrier women had the lowest level of arousal during foreplay . . . they were most likely to show a sequence of body image changes involving low levels of arousal during foreplay followed by increased reactivity during intercourse, but no significant release of sexual tension. Women of intermediate orgasmic consistency gave the most Barrier responses, and women highest in orgasmic consistency were intermediate in their boundary definiteness. Although high Barrier women are orgasmic and want to be held, they tend not to be highly stimulated by foreplay and are unwilling to relinquish their body image boundaries during intercourse through body image diffusion, (p. 171)9

Comment

The scattered reports concerning the boundary and sexual behavior are not yet substantial enough to be integrated. Fisher’s (1973c) work demonstrated the difficulty of finding consistent, replicable relationships between the boundary scores and questionnaire measures of sexual feelings and attitudes. Grossbart did detect a trend for well-bounded men and women to seek relatively frequent sexual experiences; and this is one area in which his findings match those of Fisher. Grossbart also found other instances in which sexual adequacy (e.g., ability to maintain erection) was positively linked with boundary definiteness. However, he reported too that possessing well-de­ fined boundaries was positively correlated with certain sexual difficulties, particularly with either lack of feelings or the presence of discomforting sensations in the sex organs. Olasov’s results did not overlap with those of either Fisher or Grossbart. He failed to find a correlation between the Barrier score and intercourse frequency. He did note a trend for low Barrier women to have orgasm and sexual release problems. One of the difficulties in interpreting the material just reviewed is that in all of the studies large numbers of measures of sexual behavior were employed and only a tiny proportion proved to be significantly related to boundary parameters. It could be argued that the total results are explainable on a chance basis. However, the correlations between the Barrier score and inter­ course frequency seem to be of a more substantial nature. That intense sexual experiences do result in dramatic alterations in body feeling and that they involve such unique intimacy certainly lead to the expectation that the body boundary would play a mediating role. However, at this point, we must inconclusively wait for more data.

TIES WITH PARENTS

It is logical to include in this chapter material concerned with the influence of parents on their offsprings’ boundary characteristics. Obviously, the parent-

TIES WITH PARENTS

383

child relationship is highly intimate and, as is well documented, usually becomes a model for the child’s future modes of relating to others. A good deal of past effort has gone into trying to understand the ways in which parent behavior shapes the child’s boundaries. Fisher and Cleveland (1958) originally reported that there were only low order, largely nonsignificant relationships between parents’ Barrier scores and the Barrier scores of their offspring. Fisher (1970) later verified this observation in a larger-scale study.10 It seems clear, then, that the process of boundary formation in children is not based on a direct isomorphic duplication or imitation of the boundary at­ tributes of their parents. In an earlier exploration of the factors affecting boundary development Fisher and Cleveland ascertained the following: 1. The mothers of high Barrier children were significantly less rigid (as defined by a Rorschach Inkblot index) than were the mothers of low Barrier children. Although the rigidity difference fell in the same direction for fathers of high versus low Barrier children, it did not reach statistical significance. 2. A measure of maladjustment derived from the Rorschach Inkblot re­ sponses of mothers indicated significantly greater disturbance in those with high Barrier as compared to low Barrier children. An analogous result was not found with respect to fathers. 3. Thematic Apperception Test stories obtained from mothers of high Barrier children differed from those of mothers of low Barrier children; the former contained significantly more themes of closeness among family mem­ bers and more often displayed a style of story construction that was definite and goal oriented. No such differences were found with respect to fathers. Fisher and Cleveland concluded that there was a trend for low Barrier persons to have been raised by mothers who were insecure, inappropriately rigid, and likely to give the message that the world lacks meaningful struc­ ture. Later studies by Fisher (1970) provided additional information. 1. An analysis of the values of parents with children who differed in boundary attributes revealed: “It would appear that parents with strong interests in cognitive abstractions and the economic uses of objects and materials have sons (7-11 age range) with poor boundaries; whereas parents with interests in the artistic and all that is linked with the term have sons who possess well articulated boundaries” (p. 295). This pattern applied only with respect to parents and their sons in the 7-11 age range. It did not hold up when sons in the 12-17 age range or daughters in any age range were involved. 2. Parents’ scores on the Thurstone (1953) Temperament Scale did not predict either their sons’ or their daughters’ Barrier scores. 3. When a modification of the Parental Attitude Research Instrument (Chorost, 1962) was administered to parents, the derived scores showed only scattered relationships with the Barrier scores of the parents’ children. Fisher summarized these relationships as follows:

384

9.

COMMUNICATION AND INTIMACY

While all of the findings described above could be attributed to chance, it is worth while to consider their tenor. Most of the statistically significant results involved comparisions of fathers and their daughters. The father who favors a non-authoritarian, affectionate approach to one’s children which allows them full access to outside views and does not expect them to feel unusually obli­ gated to, or in awe of, their parents is perhaps the one most likely to encourage clear boundaries in his daughter. Poor boundaries in a daughter seem to go along with a father who is controlling and impersonal and who wants to relate in terms of his own special right to expect obedience or feelings of obligation. The other results which were cited have similar implications. That is, the Barrier scores of sons in the 7-11 category were negatively related to how much the parents favored treating them in a dependent, over-protective fashion; and the Barrier scores of boys in the 12-17 range were negatively related to the degree to which the parents felt they should be protected against obtaining sexual infor­ mation. Finally, there was a trend for children in the 12-17 category to have high Barrier scores if their mothers felt they should have the right to disagree with their parents, (p. 300)

4. There was an interesting trend for the number of human movement images (M) given by parents when responding to Rorschach Inkblots to be positively correlated with the Barrier scores of the sons in the 7-11 age range. However, this relationship was not duplicated for sons in the 12-17 age range or daughters in any of the age categories. In an overview of the findings just enumerated Fisher remarked: Cutting across sex and age groupings, one may say that there are trends for the parent with definite boundaries, high M, high Aesthetic interests, low Economic interests, and low degree of Authoritarianism in childbrearing prac­ tices to have children with the most definite boundaries. . . . these trends resemble findings in previous exploratory studies in which parents of children with definite boundaries were noted to be particularly oriented toward personal human contact and free nonrigid modes of response, (p. 301)

Fisher (1970) noted further: From several different sources there is evidence that the parent showing sensitivity to feeling and stimulus subtlety and oriented toward engagement with others is likely to encourage a clear sense of boundedness in his children. One could paraphrase this by saying that the parent who is open to experience and communication, particularly as it emerges from contact with others, pro­ vides boundary enhancing conditions. Apparently, under such conditions a child can more easily learn that there is interest in responding to him as a person and that his communications are received and treated as meaningful. To be attended to and meaningfully perceived rather than ignored, rejected, or attacked may be the underlying factor which promotes the experience of being a delineated person. The actual empirical findings do not clearly demonstrate this view, but they point roughly in the same direction, (p. 311)11

TIES WITH PARENTS

385

Despite the apparent trends just presented, it must be recognized that past research in this area has produced only modest results. The relationships described are of a low order and somewhat fragmentary. Pertinent research completed since 1970 has focused on the correlations between the Barrier score and adult persons’ memories and images of their parents, rather than the attributes of the parents. The present writer obtained Holtzman Inkblot responses from three samples of women (sample 1: N = 40; sample 2: N = 43; sample 3: N = 35) and also administered the Roe and Siegelman (1963) Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire, which evaluates attitudes toward one’s parents. The median educational level in the groups varied from 14 to 15 years, and the median age from 24 to 27. Sample 3 consisted of black women. The Roe and Siegelman questionnaire that was administered taps 10 different dimensions12 of the subjects’ attitudes toward mother and also father. In sample 1, neither the Barrier nor the Penetration scores were significantly correlated with any of the 10 dimensions of attitudes toward each parent. This was likewise true in samples 2 and 3. Obviously, the women who varied in boundary definiteness did not correspondingly vary in their conscious re­ ports of what their parents were like. Tolor and Jalowiec had reported in 1968 that, when male college students were asked to respond to the Parental Attitude Research Instrument “as you think your mother would have rated it,” the resultant scores were unrelated to the Barrier score.13 Similarly unrewarding results were reported by Munn (1979), who admin­ istered the Holtzman Inkblots to male college (N = 60) students. In addition, he administered a self report questionnaire that depicted subjects’ recall of mother’s behavior with regard to how accepting-rejecting she had been and the degree to which she had exerted lax-firm control. Scores were also derived from Thematic Apperception stories with regard to the degree to which parental figures were portrayed as supportive. These scores were based on a system developed by Witkin et al. (1962). The Barrier scores of the subjects proved to have largely chance relationships with the measures concerned with perception of the parental figures. One significant finding that did emerge indicated that those persons with medium Barrier scores were significantly more likely than either low or high Barrier persons to depict parents in their Thematic Apperception stories as nonsupportive.14 The subjects for the study had been recruited on separate occasions from two different sources. On inspection of his data, Munn (1979) noted that there appeared to be disparate patterns of results in the two samples. One sample had behaved in a markedly antagonistic fashion while the psychological tests were administered, and its Barrier scores were distinctly elevated. The sec­ ond sample had been compliant and cooperative. Munn labeled the first sample as Reluctants and the second as Residuals. In the Residual group, a significant positive correlation was found between the Barrier score and the

386

9.

COMMUNICATION AND INTIMACY

questionnaire measure of how accepting mother was recalled to have been; in the Reluctant group, the correlation was reversed and of borderline signifi­ cance. Further, only in the Reluctant sample was a borderline positive correlation noted between Barrier and depicting mother in Thematic Apper­ ception stories as supportive. In still another level of analysis, Munn (1979) divided the subjects into those whose Barrier score was approximately equal to the Penetration score and those whose Barrier score was distinctly larger than the Penetration score. In the first of these two categories, but not in the second, the Barrier scores were positively and significantly correlated with how accepting mother was recalled (in the self-report questionnaire) to have been.15 Munn could not satisfactorily explain why unlike patterns of results were observed when subjects were classified in that way. However, he suggested that the amount of hostility and frustration prevalent in a sample of subjects while they were providing information about their parents might affect the tenor of that information. This could account, in part, for the paucity of findings when indices of parental attitudes are based on self-reports about how one’s par­ ents behaved. The most promising results have been obtained when the parents themselves were studied rather than persons’ images of their parents. The Barrier scores of children have shown a number of significant rela­ tionships with the values and fantasies (but not personality traits) of their parents. Future research in this area can most profitably focus on parents’ attributes rather than on low or high Barrier offsprings’ memories of them. An additional source of information concerning the influences of parental behavior on boundary formation has come from anthropological sources. In the original work by Fisher and Cleveland (1968), an analysis was undertaken of Barrier score differences among various cultures for whom Rorschach data collected by anthropologists were available.16 It was found that several cultures (viz., Bhil, India; Navaho, Indians of Southwest U.S.; Zuni, Indians of Southwest U.S.) were high Barrier, and several (viz., Haitian and U.S. samples) were low Barrier. Seeking an explanation for these boundary dif­ ferences, Fisher and Cleveland examined what was known about the child rearing practices in the cultures involved and concluded that parents in the high Barrier cultures were softer and friendlier toward their children than were the parents in the low Barrier cultures. The researchers remarked: It appears to us that the high Barrier cultures provide considerably more freedom for the developing child to indulge his impulses than do the low Barrier cultures. For example, there seems to be much less restraint in direct relief of body tensions in the Bhil and Navaho groups (especially during the develop­ mental years) than in the general culture of the United States. It is conjectured that the more a parent denies impulse outlets to his child the more likely are their interrelationships to become antagonistic, and therefore the less likely

TIES WITH PARENTS

387

they are to work out a satisfactory equilibrium between themselves. The ab­ sence of such an equilibrium would seem to minimize the possibility of the child’s communicating closely with the parent in a manner required to experi­ ence him as a consistent model. The parent would therefore be psychologically less available to supply the sort of patterned model that seems to be necessary for the formation17 of definite body-image boundaries, (p. 283)18

Armstrong, Jr. and Tan (1978) tested an aspect of this formulation. They found among the Malaysian population the Senoi, who are typified by un­ usually warm and caring child rearing practices. Senoi children can eat whenever they desire, can eliminate when and where they please, and are held whenever they wish. Much affection is directed to them. They are frequently touched and massaged and are rarely threatened or spanked. Armstrong and Tan obtained Rorschach protocols from 30 male and 30 female members of the Senoi Malaysian aborigines. As predicted, the Barrier scores of the Senoi significantly classified them as a high Barrier culture when compared with the available Barrier scores from other cultural sam­ ples. The results were “consistent with the theory that indulgent child rearing practices contribute to heightened perception of personal boundedness” (p. 165). An additional finding of the study is pertinent to the original Fisher and Cleveland hypothesis that high Barrier cultures are typified by less conflicted value systems than are low Barrier cultures. The 60 Senoi subjects fell into three subgroups (each containing 10 men and 10 women) as a function of how much they had been exposed to the broader and more urbanized aspects of Malaysian culture. One group lived deep in the jungle and had little or no contact with the outside. Each of the other groups was closer to outside influences, but one was closer than the other. The data indicated a significant effect, such that the more isolated the group, the higher was its Barrier score. Miner and De Vos (1960) had previously demonstrated a similar phenomenon in a sample composed of urban and rural Arabs, and Fisher and Cleveland (1968) had shown the same pattern when comparing Japanese-American men struggling to adapt to life in the United States with native Japanese men living in a more culturally homogeneous setting.19 Comment

The amount of convincing information we have about the socialization expe­ riences that shape the body boundary continues to be quite limited. Little has been gleaned from studies that relate persons’ Barrier scores to their memo­ ries of how their parents behaved or treated them. The best leads have come from studying the parents of persons who differ in boundary definiteness. We have learned that parental permissiveness probably encourages boundary

388

9.

COMMUNICATION AND INTIMACY

delineation in offspring. Fisher (1970) found significant trends for children’s Barrier scores to be inverse to the degree of authoritarianism of the parents’ childrearing practices. The data from anthropological sources are nicely congruent with these trends. Fisher and Cleveland’s (1968) original demonstration of a positive correlation between variations in boundary definiteness of cultures and the degree to which such cultures provide the opportunity for young children to indulge their impulses freely has been supported by the Armstrong and Tan (1978) observations of groups in Malaysia. It is interesting too that Armstrong and Tan found evidence to support a previous formulation that Barrier scores are higher in subcultures where conflicting values from the outside are minimal. One might fancifully propose that breaching the value boundaries of a group has a negative impact on the personal boundaries of the individuals in that group. In the case of the Malaysians studied by Armstrong and Tan it is probable that the groups most exposed to outside influences were learning increasingly to impose “civilized” controls on their children and to limit freedom to satisfy body impulses (e.g., anal, sexual). A salient idea conveyed by past findings is that children are most likely to have difficulties in estab­ lishing their boundaries when their parents block free body expression and gratification and in that sense impose an outside command over body events. External control of one’s body is presumably experienced as invasive and a denial of the children’s right to maintain ownership of their own body space. The sense of being in charge of one’s body space is central to feeling protectively bounded. That the Barrier scores of children have not proven to be correlated with specific parental personality traits20 but rather with broad attitudes and values, indicates there are multiple pathways for encouraging boundary construction in one’s offspring. Apparently, any of a number of parental personality styles can provide children with the gratifications and protection they require to feel well bounded. As earlier noted, provocative hints have surfaced that persons with high Barrier scores may feel unusually close to the parent of the same sex and perhaps selectively comfortable with same-sex values and interactions. It will be recalled that Hibbs (1977) reported that when high Barrier subjects were asked to draw a picture of their family, they depicted themselves spatially closer to the same- than to the opposite-sex parent. Further, when interacting with opposite-sex interviewers, high Barrier subjects were likely to display a limited level of communicativeness, and high Barrier males produced an unusually high proportion of male as compared to female imagery in their inkblot responses. Such material suggests that well-defined boundaries are partly a function of one having been able to model oneself closely and unambivalently after the same-sex parent. Perhaps having the same-sex parent body available as a close and direct model maximizes the chances of arriving at a comfortable concept or image

OVERVIEW

389

of one’s own body. Pressures to feel closer to the opposite-sex parent may introduce confusion or threatening complexity as the result of the need to reconcile the disparities between that parent’s body, as a potential identifica­ tion model, and one’s own. For example, it might be confusing to a girl who is trying to build up a feminine image of her body as a potential container for the development of a foetus to find herself too close to father and the contradictory image offered by his body, which has no foetus-containing connotations. Closeness to the opposite sex parent may also increase the possibility of being on the receiving end of messages that clash with one’s sex-role-defined identity. The problem of establishing links between parents’ attributes and their offspring’s boundary scores is complicated by the fact that the nature of these links may change over time. It was indicated earlier that Fisher (1970) had moderate success in finding correlations between certain parent variables (e.g., degree of Aesthetic orientation) and children’s boundaries, but only for children in the 7-11 age range. For offspring in the 12-17 age range, Barrier scores were not at all predicted by parents’ attributes. This implies that as children move into adolescence and become relatively more independent of home base, the state of their boundaries may be a function less of their parents’ attitudes than of the conditions they encounter outside the home. With adolescence, there is probably a shift toward seeing oneself as less attached to mother and father and more intensely affiliated with peers. Therefore, feelings about one’s boundaries may be more influenced by one’s relationships with peers. It might be interesting to know whether the rela­ tionship between parent variables and older children’s boundaries is at all a function of how much the child has established strong bonds with others outside the family. Of course, the parents of older children are themselves older. This means they are not the same people they were in the earlier years of their parenting; and, if those earlier years were particularly crucial to children’s boundary formation, the difference would obviously obscure mat­ ters.

OVERVIEW

The disparate topics taken up in this chapter interlock in depicting the welldefined boundary not as an interference to communication but rather as a facilitator of the process. Those possessing definite boundaries (as defined by the Barrier score) are interested in getting involved with other people. They know how to reach out and to focus interested attention on others. They are adept at making others feel at ease with them. Possibly they learned these skills from parents who were good at fostering a nonintrusive ambience with minimal blocking of body outlets and enjoyments. Scattered findings from studies of parents of children differing in boundary definiteness point in that

390

9.

COMMUNICATION AND INTIMACY

direction. This is analogously true of data from anthropological sources, which associate well-defined boundaries with having grown up in the context of nurturant childrearing practices that tolerate impulse expression.21 The diminished ease of low Barrier persons in intimate contexts may, in part, reflect their anxiety about the potential merging effects of being close to another. They may fear that because their boundaries are tenuous, the act of getting too close could put them at risk of being taken over. Their experi­ ences with parents, who presumably sought to exert command, may have sensitized them. They may anticipate that others will, if given the chance, encroach on their identity. That low Barrier persons also entertain exagger­ ated fantasies about forces in the world that magically exert power over objects (Pogany, 1980) may encourage unrealistic ideas about how other people could gain power over them. They may too readily conjure up fanciful images of how others can gain access to their body space. Consider too that any condition that blurs the self-other distinction could be selectively threat­ ening to persons already unsure of their limits. For example, in relating intimately with persons whom they perceive as very similar to self, the very fact of the similarity could be sufficiently blurring to arouse fears of losing their separateness. On the other hand, it is possible that low Barrier persons would, under certain circumstances, welcome the sense of boundary fading to which they are perhaps susceptible when close to others. They might welcome the opportunity to blend their identity with another perceived as stronger or possessing some admired quality. Although the data are fairly consistent with regard to the association between boundary definiteness and investment in being communicative, they are less consistent with respect to the link between boundary properties and how people react to sexual intimacy. Measures of sexual satisfaction or preferences for specific forms of sexual stimulation do not correlate with the Barrier score. True, a trend exists for amount of sexual activity to be positively correlated with Barrier. Those with definite boundaries apparently have heightened motivation for sexual intercourse. However, the results are mixed and contradictory with regard to other sexual issues. For example, Olasov (1975) reported curvilinear relationships between Barrier and orgasm consistency in women. Fisher (1973c) could not discern significant ties be­ tween Barrier and orgasm consistency in several female samples, and Grossbart (1972) found diminished orgasm capacity in men with elevated Barrier scores. Some observations imply that persons with well-defined boundaries perform relatively well sexually, and others indicate increased difficulties (e.g., tight, dry vagina or unpleasant genital sensations). It might have been expected that the state of the boundary would be unequivocally important in the experience of sexuality. The special intimacy and the sensations of merging that typify sexual encounters should somehow be threatening to those who lack confidence in their boundaries. But it is also possible that the touching and intimacy of the sexual encounter are strongly

NOTES

391

boundary supportive and serve to reassure even those who usually have serious boundary anxieties. Or the threat to the boundary of sexual contact may fluctuate as a function of the time phase of the sexual encounter. For example, low Barrier women are, according to one study (Olasov, 1975), likely to experience relatively less sexual arousal during foreplay than are high Barrier women, but the difference was said to disappear during actual inter­ course. Perhaps low Barrier women are threatened early in the sexual inter­ action, before they have yet had the chance to experience much touching or holding that could provide boundary support. Perhaps high Barrier men become uncomfortable when, as a sexual encounter develops, their partner increasingly responds in an intensely emotional fashion and the sense of being in autonomous control over what is happening diminishes. It is doubt­ ful that the state of the boundary will prove to be a simple mediator of sexual responsiveness in any total sense, but rather will shift its role as a function of such variables as amount of support provided by the sex partner, degree of emphasis on the penetrating aspects of intercourse, and the manner in which power is distributed in the sexual relationship. Applying boundary concepts to sexual behavior may be no more complex than applying them to many other aspects of social interaction. Comment has already been made about the unreasonableness of assuming that persons with well-defined boundaries will always choose to be physically close to others. It is equally unreasonable to assume that well-defined boundaries will consistently lead to a high level of self-disclosure or a large volume of social communication. The sensitive awareness of others that seems to characterize persons with well-delineated boundaries may result in a good deal of self­ disclosure in one context and just the opposite in another. If intimacy or self disclosure is threatening to another, a person with well-defined boundaries may avoid such behaviors. The complexity of the phenomena involved is illustrated by the earlier cited work of Greene (1976), which showed that although high and low Barrier persons may not differ as to where they choose to sit in relation to certain reference points in a small group setting, the reasons for their seating choices may be quite different. Analogously, persons with unlike boundary attributes may display apparently equivalent bits of social behavior, but their reasons for doing so might not be the same. NOTES ^ u r ste in (1972) did not, however, find that college couples who were engaged or going steady manifested any greater similarity in their Barrier or Penetration scores than did randomly matched couples. 2 Estimates of the sizes of various parts of the body were also obtained. There was an interesting significant trend: the smaller that subjects experienced their body, the further away they preferred to be from the assistant. Presumably feeling small makes one feel more vulnerable and therefore more in need of protective intervening space.

392

9.

COMMUNICATION AND INTIMACY

3 In a personal communication (1972) Gerda de Bruijn indicated that in a study of 5th and 6th grade boys and girls in the Netherlands, the Barrier score (derived from Rorschach Inkblot responses) was generally negatively correlated with several mea­ sures of preferred spatial distance. 4This dissertation was not available at the time of the 1970 review of the body image literature by Fisher. 5A previous study (Cleaveland. 1974). which looked at the relationship of Barrier to self-disclosing as defined by a self-report questionnaire, indicated only a chance correlation. Schutz (1977) cites considerable research that casts doubt on the validity of self report measures of self-disclosing tendencies. 6This study was not included in Fisher s 1970 review. 7 One finding of the study is tangential to the major theme of this chapter, but relevant to the issue of how boundary definiteness relates to the localization of responses in exterior versus interior sectors of the body. Subjects had been asked to conjure up a vivid image of having intercourse and to tally the frequencies of internal body, external body, sensory, and genital awareness and sensations. The Barrier score proved to be positively and significantly correlated with amount of external body focus in males but not in females. The Barrier score was not correlated with interior body focus for either sex. There were also a few other relationships that are of exploratory interest. In males the Barrier score was significantly and negatively correlated with focus on the genitals during intercourse, and in females it was positively and significantly correlated with a focus on nonbody sensory experiences during intercourse. The Penetration score was not correlated with any of the localiza­ tion variables in either sex group, except that it was positively linked with body exterior focus in the male sample. 8 Although the various body image measures were largely unrelated, a significant trend was found for the women who had a high or intermediate desire to be held (as defined by the Hollender questionnaire) to have significantly higher Barrier scores than did women who had low desire to be held. 901asov decided, on the basis of the responses to the sexual questionnaires, that “throughout the entire course of lovemaking. increases in reactivity and perception involving the periphery of the body (skin, external musculature, and clitoris) was the single most prominent pleasurable body image change found" (p. 173). 10The largest correlation observed was .26 (TV = .60. p < .05) between fathers* Barrier scores and the Barrier scores of their daughters in the 7-11 age range. The analogous correlation involving daughters in the 12-17 age range was - .14. Fathers* Barrier scores correlated respectively .21 and - .06 with sons* Barrier scores in the 711 and 12-17 age categories. Mothers* Barrier scores correlated with daughters* and sons' Barrier scores at purely chance levels. 11It is striking how similar these conclusions are to those offered by Witkin et al. (1962) concerning the maternal attributes that foster a differentiated field independent orientation in children. 12The 10 dimensions are as follows: Protective. Demanding, Rejecting. Neglecting. Casual, Loving, Symbolic-Love Reward. Direct-Object Reward, Symbolic-Love Punishment, Direct-Object Punishment. 13A study by the present writer involved the exploratory use of a new technique to elicit feelings about one’s parents. Twenty-nine women (median age = 22.0: mean education = 15.0 years) were asked to give 10 associations to each of the following

NOTES

393

words: house, father, sky, mother, cloud, dad, tree, water, mom. fathers first name, mother s first name. These associations were blindly scored for degree of negativity. Words with connotations like bad. angry, cold, and unattractive were classified as negative. The Barrier scores (derived from responses to Holtzman Inkblots) of the subjects did not correlate significantly with the negativity of associations given to mother words, father words, or control words. However, the subjects* Penetration scores correlated positively and significantly with the negativity of associations to mother (r = .52, p < .01) and to father (r = .37, p < .05), but not with the negativity of associations to the control words. One sees here a preliminary cue that persons with elevated Penetration scores may entertain unusually negative concepts of their parents. However, this work must be replicated before it can be taken seriously. 14The Witkin et al. (1962) Articulation of Body Concept scores were also obtained from the subjects, and they turned out to have only chance relationships with the various measures of attitudes toward one's parents. Incidentally, the Witkin et al. measure did not correlate significantly with the Barrier index, as was true in almost all studies that looked at the relationship between these two variables. 15Levine (1976) found in a sample of 98 female college students that degree of approval of one's own body (as defined by the Secord-Jourard Body Cathexis Scale) was positively and significantly correlated with how democratic mother was recalled to have been in her childrearing practices. 16Gorham (1970) subsequently showed that there are Barrier and Penetration differences among 17 cultures in which Holtzman Inkblot protocols were collected. 17Postal (1965) applied the Fisher-Cleveland (1968) boundary schema to an analysis of the Kwakuitl and Hopi cultures and concluded that it provided a cogent approach to understanding a wide range of differences between them. 18Fisher and Cleveland (1968) suggested that there were also other differences between high and low Barrier cultures. For example, they thought that the former would be more typified by well-codified and noncontradictory belief systems than the latter. 19Holtzman. Diaz-Guerrero, and Swartz (1975) reported that American children have both higher Barrier and Penetration scores than Mexican children. Interestingly, when these children were asked to rate various parts of their body on semantic differential continua, the Mexican sample rated the body interior to be more active than did the American sample: and the reverse result was obtained for activity ratings of external parts of the body. 20It is possible that amount of parental hostility may have a focused effect on children's boundaries. Previous work by Fisher (1970) and Tatyrek (1977) demon­ strated that boundary decrement in men is particularly triggered by exposure to messages with hostile content. This raises the possibility that male children who live with chronically angry parents may suffer unusual amounts of boundary loss. Rhoda Fisher (1966c) found that when disturbed boys were provided with therapeutic sup­ port, the probability of their showing increased boundary definiteness as a result of the therapy was inverse to the characteristic hostility level of their mother. The mothers' hostility seemed to interfere actively with the reconstruction of the boys' boundaries. 21 The Penetration score has rarely been included in past investigations concerned with closeness and intimacy. In the few instances (e.g., Cavallin & Houston, 1980: Roger, 1976) where it has been included, the results were not at all promising.

This page intentionally left blank

99

Life Goals and Preferences

INTRODUCTION

There is reason to believe that people who differ in their boundary attributes often interpret events from contrasting perspectives. High and low Barrier persons hold unlike values and concepts about the texture of the world and possible pathways through life. Even their elementary sensory experiences may differ. Fisher (1970) and others (e.g., Cauthen & Boardman, 19711; Wertheimer & Bachelis, 1966) have provided initial evidence that the appar­ ent vividness of stimuli is positively correlated with one’s Barrier score. Well-articulated boundaries seem to be accompanied by an alert receptivity to sensory input. Also, quite marked contrasts in value orientation are linked to boundary variations. Based on an analysis of values and occupational choices, Fisher and Cleveland (1958) concluded that persons with definite boundaries are likely to direct their interests toward people, whereas those with indefinite bound­ aries are drawn to things and abstractions. Persons invested in the physical sciences were found to be relatively low Barrier. Those invested in under­ standing or persuading or guiding people were inclined to be high Barrier. For example, psychologists and anthropologists were found to have signifi­ cantly higher Barrier scores than biologists, chemists, and physicists. Fisher and Cleveland (1958) concluded early in their studies that there were marked differences in personality correlated with the Barrier score. They established that persons with well-articulated boundaries were par­ ticularly likely to take a self-steering stance in the world. With increasing boundary definiteness, there seems to be a greater probability of wanting to set one’s own goals, to be active, and to be autonomous. Definite boundaries are tied to a sharp image of where one is headed and also an enthusiasm to expend extra energy to get there. The purpose of this chapter is, first of all, to examine additional accum ulated evidence concerning past reported dif­ ferences in personality and outlook that relate to boundary variations. Sec­ ond, there is the intent to explore new areas of possible differences in perspective among the well- and poorly bounded.2 395

396

10.

LIFE GOALS AND PREFERENCES

SELF STEERING

Let us examine in detail the idea that increased boundary definiteness is accompanied by an increased ability to be self steering. Fisher and Cleveland (1968) originally visualized self steering in the following terms: Definiteness of boundaries is linked with the ability to be an independent person who has definite standards, definite goals, and forceful striving ways of approaching tasks. We visualized the person with definite boundaries as one who sought special success in life and as one who could not easily be diverted by stress or obstacles from goal attainment. We pictured boundary definiteness as carrying with it a facility for expressing tension by attacking and shaping the environment to make it conform to the individual’s internalized standards. (p. 117)

Various studies carried out by Fisher and Cleveland and others demonstrated the soundness of this model. The Barrier score proved to be positively correlated with high achievement drive, low suggestibility, need for task completion, a clear sense of self, and enhanced motivation for self-expression and gratification. Achievement Motivation

One of the prime elements in the self-steering orientation is the desire to achieve. Past evidence concerning the positive link between Barrier and achievement drive was based on the following significant findings: (a) positive correlations between B arrier and various indices of high aspiration or achievement derived from themes in Thematic Apperception Test stories (Fisher & Cleveland, 1958); (b) higher Barrier scores in overachieving as compared to underachieving students, as defined by scholastic grades (Fisher & Cleveland, 1958); (c) positive correlations between Barrier and teacher ratings of the degree to which students set high goals for themselves (Fisher, 1966a; Fisher & Cleveland, 1958); (d) positive correlations between Barrier and the Achievement score of the Edwards Preference Schedule (Fisher, 1970); (e) positive correlation between Barrier and frequency with which persons choose achievement oriented adjectives when describing themselves (Shipman, 1965); (f) positive correlation between Barrier and selective superior recall for achievement as contrasted to nonachievement words (Fisher, 1970). Since 1970 only a few studies have accumulated concerning the achieve­ ment issue. Hawkins and Horowitz (1971) compared the Barrier scores of seventh-grade boys (N = 76) who had been placed in a residential school because they were underachievers with those of a comparable control group

SELF STEERING

397

of boys ( N = 85) enrolled in a local junior high school. Holtzman Inkblots were used to obtain Barrier scores. As hypothesized, the underachievers had significantly lower Barrier scores than did the controls. The underachievers in the residential school were exposed to 3 months of individual and group counseling; but, when the Holtzman Inkblots were readministered at the end of that time period, no greater change in Barrier had occurred than in the controls, who had received no therapy. Interestingly, when the counselors in the residential school were asked at the completion of the therapy period to indicate which boys had improved significantly in any of the behaviors originally defined as self steering by Fisher and Cleveland, these boys showed a significantly greater increase in Barrier than did the boys considered to be unchanged. Vollmer (1973) secured Barrier scores from Norwegian female college students ( N = 37) by administering the Holtzman Inkblots. The subjects also composed stories about pictures designed to elicit themes of success and failure. The stories were analyzed according to a previously validated system that derives two basic scores: Hope of Success (wanting to achieve and succeed) and Fear of Failure (anticipating failure, concerned about avoiding failure). The Barrier score was not correlated with Hope of Success. How­ ever, it was significantly and negatively correlated with Fear of Failure. The greater the subjects’ Barrier scores, the fewer were their number of themes of fear of failure.3 Sanders (1969) used the Holtzman Inkblots to select from a pool of college students 10 male and 10 female subjects with low Barrier scores, 10 males and 10 females with medium scores, and 10 males and 10 females with low scores. Several measures relevant to achievement drive were also secured: (a) sub­ jects selected multiple choice interpretations of 10 Thematic Apperception pictures and a score descriptive of achievement imagery was derived; (b) subjects responded to the California Psychological Inventory from which an Ai score (Achievement via independence) and an Ac score (Achievement via conformance) were determined. The Barrier score proved to be positively and significantly correlated with the California Psychological Inventory Ai score. Sanders had predicted this relationship, but his hypothesis that Barrier would be negatively correlated with the Ac score was not supported. The latter prediction presumed that high Barrier persons would not channel their achievement drive into struc­ tured, conforming channels. The achievement score derived from multiple choice Thematic Apperception Test responses was significantly related to Barrier. However, greatest achievement drive was shown by subjects with medium Barrier scores, next highest by high Barrier subjects, and the least achievement drive by low Barrier subjects. The few studies just reviewed are, despite some deviations, roughly sup­ portive of the considerable array of previous findings indicating that, with

398

10.

LIFE GOALS AND PREFERENCES

increasing boundary definiteness (as defined by the Barrier score), there is also enhanced investment in achievement. Self Gratification

Another aspect of the self-steering orientation is the capacity to seek self­ gratification. It was originally stated by Fisher and Cleveland (1968): Our formulations concerning the individual with well-differentiated boundaries suggest that he would be oriented toward self-gratification when adequate opportunities for such gratification presented itself. The high Barrier person would seek opportunities to supply himself with what he wants . . . when the high Barrier person has needs he will take advantage of them. His personality structure will be characterized by relatively few tendencies to deny himself satisfaction when there is reasonable opportunity to attain such satisfaction. The low Barrier person would then be conceptualized as one who, even in the midst of opportunity for self gratification, is so conflicted that he finds it difficult to permit himself a direct course to such gratification. The low Barrier person would find it hard to perceive himself as an independent being that has a right to do things for himself and by himself, (p. 134)

In Fisher and Cleveland’s (1958) study women were asked to respond to two questions: (a) If you had one month left to live, how would you spend this time remaining to you? (b) If you had an unlimited amount of money, what would you do with it? When answers to these questions were blindly ana­ lyzed and then related to the women’s Barrier scores, it was found that Barrier was positively linked with being more motivated to seek self-gratifica­ tion and self-satisfaction. Fisher and Cleveland remarked: It is interesting to compare qualitatively the answers given by the high and low Barrier subjects. As one reads over the themes of the high Barrier people, one is struck by the zestful and almost excited way in which they anticipate doing selfsatisfying things which have previously been out of their reach. There is an air of good humor and release about the way in which they phrase their reactions to the questions. The low Barrier people, however, tend to take a grim, stiffly serious attitude toward the questions. They seem to be made anxious by the opportunity afforded them. Their answers are somewhat defensive and appar­ ently intended to convey a sentiment that might be paraphrased as follows: “I am not selfish. I don’t think of m yself first. I would like to think of m yself last.” (p. 137)

The present writer explored the self-gratification issue further by examin­ ing the relationship of the Barrier score to how much people enjoy eating. Obviously, eating is a major source of satisfaction for most people. Would one find that those with more definite boundaries are better able to partake

SELF STEERING

399

directly of oral gratification? Byrne, Golightly, and Capaldi (1963) developed a self-report measure (Food Attitude Scale) that inquires into liking for foods, pleasantness associated with past eating experiences, and the importance of food as a reward and comfort. Responses to each item are registered by the subject as true or false. The higher the score, the more the subject is considered to have a positive attitude toward eating. Three different samples of women were studied to determine the relationship of the Barrier score to the Food Attitude Scale scores. Barrier scores were determined by means of the Holtzman Inkblots. The median ages in all three samples varied from 23 to 26; and the median educational levels from 13 to 14 years. All the subjects were recruited by payment of a fee. In sample 1 (N = 46) the mean Barrier score was 7.48 (a = 3.80), and the mean Food Attitude score was 34.82 (a = 5.26). The correlation between the Barrier scores and the Food Attitude scores was .37 (p < .01, one-tail test). In sample 2 ( N = 43), the mean Barrier score was 7.40 (a = 3.15), and the mean Food Attitude score was 36.44 (ct = 4.93). The correlation between the Barrier scores and Food Attitude scores was .07 (NS). In sample 3 ( N = 29), the mean Barrier score was 7.61 (a = 2.43), and the mean Food Attitude score was 36.17 ( .05); .21 (TV = 42); and .39 (TV = 27, p < .05). In the female samples the correlations were as follows: .40 (TV = .25, p < .05); .29 (TV = 46, p < .05); .05 (TV = 46). All the correlations were positive and four were significantly so at the .05 level or better.7 In multiple samples of normals and hospitalized neurotics no significant correlations were found between Barrier and Blocked Body Openings. Only in the context of schizophrenia was boundary definiteness positively tied to the degree to which one feels that one’s sense organs are blocked (not serving well as input channels). This apparently unique relationship suggests that the process of boundary articulation in schizophrenia is particularly likely to involve closing oneself off. The blocking off process in the wellbounded schizophrenic appears to contrast with the heightened sensory alertness that has previously been demonstrated (Fisher, 1970) to typify normal persons who are well bounded. The maintenance of the boundary in the schizophrenic seems to involve an active inhibitory process that dampens input. Perhaps the boundary in the schizophrenic becomes delineating by virtue of its ability to “ shut out” and establish a sense of having locus of refuge that is shielded and “away from .” Reitman and Cleveland (1964) discovered that schizophrenics who are placed in sensory isolation show an increase in Barrier scores; whereas under the same conditions nonpsychotic individuals manifest a decline in Barrier. If one thinks of sensory isolation as a situation in which sensory input is shut out, this could mean that sensory isolation reinforces the basic shutting out function of the boundary in schizo­ phrenia. Presumably, because the isolation provides assurance that stimuli cannot gain access, the Barrier score is increased. But limitation in stimulus input seems to interfere with the sensitizing role of the functioning boundary in normal persons and can result in boundary blurring.8

SOCIALLY DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

491

The phenomenon of conversion of the boundary into a primarily shutting out system by some schizophrenics is paralleled by other phenomena associ­ ated with schizophrenia, such as retreating into isolation and being phys­ iologically unresponsive to stimulation (Rubens & Lapidus, 1978). Of course the boundary can collapse in schizophrenia, with an accompanying over­ responsiveness to stimulation. Some schizophrenics have poorly articulated boundaries, and others maintain what appears to be an average degree of boundary definiteness. But, even though certain schizophrenics obtain Bar­ rier or Penetration scores in the normal range, the nature of the functioning of their boundaries may have radically altered.9 What determines the direc­ tion in which the boundary will go in schizophrenia? Not much is known about this matter, but we do have evidence that a grandiose or paranoid orientation helps to maintain a well-defined body image boundary, even in the midst of severe psychological disturbance. We know too that the pos­ sibility of such boundary definition in schizophrenics is increased if they can sufficiently isolate themselves and control perceptual input. There are hints from studies (Silverman, Lachmann, & Milich, 1982) of the impact of sub­ liminal stimulation that schizophrenics have a special protective need to keep themselves away from hostile inputs.10

SOCIALLY DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

There is a provocative contrast between the contradictory findings in the literature concerned with the state of the body image boundary in schizo­ phrenics and the consistent findings concerning the boundaries of persons who act out in a socially deviant fashion. In 1970 Fisher concluded from his review of the literature dealing with Barrier and Penetration scores in delin­ quents of various types: One can say that there is a consistent trend for male children and adolescents with school adjustm ent,11 delinquent, or acting-out problems to manifest poorer boundaries than normal controls. This has been shown in terms of data (concerning) children with school adjustment problems, . . . delinquents in custody, and . . . adolescent addicts and delinquents. Only the findings for . . . female delinquents were not consistent with expectation . . . One must ask why more consistent differences were obtained in differentiating male actingout children and adolescents from normal controls than in distinguishing adult schizophrenics and neurotics from normal controls. . . . One possibility is that disturbance of the acting-out variety . . . is basically more linked with the state of the boundary than is neurotic or schizophrenic disturbance. Perhaps the inability to contain oneself motorically is particularly associated with poorly differentiated boundaries, (p. 287)

492

13.

DEVIANT BEHAVIORS

This statement, of course, raises the possibility that in exploring the dif­ ference between schizophrenics who have definite rather than indefinite boundaries, one should look particularly at differences in motoric acting out. Does one find that schizophrenics with vague boundaries are more impulsive and unpredictable in actual acts towards others? Do the schizophrenics with well-defined boundaries maintain motoric control and confine their distur­ bance, no matter how bizarre, to the ideational level? Since 1970 there has been additional affirmation that those who act out motorically have poorly contained boundaries. An extensive project was undertaken by Dannemiller (1976), who appraised 25 male adult criminals imprisoned for assaultive felony offenses (e.g., murder), 25 male adult crimi­ nals imprisoned for nonassaultive offenses, and 25 normal male controls (employed in the prison system). Both the Holtzman and the Rorschach Inkblots were individually administered to all subjects, and Barrier and Penetration scores were computed for each set of blots. In addition, a variety of other measures were obtained: frequency of life history aggression, selfreports of own aggressive behavior (Buss, 1961), ratings by observers of aggression displayed. The Barrier score discriminated significantly among the three groups studied. Both prisoner groups had significantly lower Bar­ rier scores than the normal controls. Also, the prisoners who had committed assaultive crimes had significantly lower Barrier scores than did the non­ assaultive prisoners. The Penetration score showed a significant main effect for group membership. Normal subjects had significantly lower Penetration scores than did either of the prisoner groups. However, no difference of significance existed between the assaultive and nonassaultive prisoners. All the analyses for Barrier and Penetration just described were based on averag­ ing the scores derived from the Rorschach and Holtzman Inkblots. A multi­ ple regression analysis indicated that of 23 variables best predicting group membership, the Barrier and Penetration scores were the second and third best respectively. Only a measure indicative of the individual’s past total history of aggressive acting out was a better predictor. Dannemiller specu­ lated that a well-defined boundary aids in controlling the inappropriate expression of aggression by providing “confirmation to the individual con­ cerning his ability to control his aggressive impulses. Fears about loss of selfcontrol and the inappropriate expression of aggression are not uncommon. If a person feels and believes that he is well contained, then this may well increase his assurance that his aggressive impulses will not break out. To feel and to believe that one is enclosed and well bounded may function as a sign that self-restraints are available to help control aggressive im pulsivity” (p. 47). He added that firm boundaries may help in controlling aggression because of “the physiological fact that well articulated boundaries are associ­ ated with the ability to maintain a persistent and heightened level of muscular

SOCIALLY DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

493

activation. . . . This ability may indicate a capacity to tolerate the build-up of tension and to delay aggressive responses. The individual with well delin­ eated boundaries, therefore, would be better able to restrain himself until the more socially adaptive opportunity for aggressive responses presented it­ self” 12 (pp. 47-48). Lester and Perdue (1974) compared the Barrier and Penetration scores of 50 incarcerated male murderers with those of hospitalized psychiatric pa­ tients (27 female, 16 male), 20 of whom had attempted suicide. Obviously, there are serious methodological problems in comparing prisoners with psychiatric patients and in comparing an all male group with one that contained more females than males. In any case, it was found that the murderers had significantly fewer Barrier and Penetration responses than the psychiatric patients. One cannot make much of these findings in view of the disparities between the two samples. Mullen, Reinehr, and Swartz (1938) administered the Holtzman Inkblots to 83 male juvenile delinquents (ages 13-16) and found generally that they had significantly lower Barrier and higher Penetration scores than the normal adolescents originally studied by Holtzman et al. (1961)13. Mullen et al. indicated that their results affirmed Megargee’s (1965) original observations concerning the lack of definiteness of the boundaries of delinquents.14 More tangential but still pertinent are results obtained by Garfield (1976), who determined the Barrier scores (from Rorschach protocols) of 90 hospi­ talized and 110 nonhospitalized male adolescents. About half the hospitalized group had been admitted because of delinquent or unacceptable aggressive behavior, and another 25% had various psychotic diagnoses. The non­ hospitalized subjects were normal boys attending school. The hospitalized group had significantly lower Barrier scores than did the nonhospitalized. This finding is relevant to the present topic because so many of the subjects in the hospitalized category were delinquents. Although 25% of the hospi­ talized were psychotic rather than delinquent, the findings are still of interest if one recalls that psychosis, as such, has not been shown to be directly characterized by boundary loss. Probably the delinquents in the hospitalized sample contributed most to the overall low Barrier mean of that sample. Incidentally, Garfield predicted and found that Barrier was significantly positively correlated in the total sample with reading achievement.15 There are data indicating that the relationship between boundary defi­ niteness and the inappropriate acting out of aggression seems to apply only when the acting out involves others as targets. An investigation by Kestenbaum and Lynch (1978) suggests that boundary definiteness is not linked with the likelihood of acting out against oneself, as is the case for suicides. In this study, the Barrier and Penetration scores of 10 psychiatric patients who had attempted suicide were compared with those of 10 nonsuicidal psychi­

494

13.

DEVIANT BEHAVIORS

atric controls. No differences appeared between the groups for either of the boundary scores.16 Earlier, Lester (1967) too had found that suicidal patients (N = 20) were not typified by boundary defects. Another form of socially deviant acting out involves the ingestion of illegal drugs and the misuse of alcohol. Fisher (1970) reviewed the available liter­ ature up to 1970 concerning the boundary attributes of persons with drug and alcohol problems and reported that, in the few pertinent studies that had been done, such people tended to have indefinite boundaries. He notes that Leeds (1965) had found male adolescent narcotic addicts to have lower Barrier scores than normal controls (but not lower than nonaddict delin­ quents). He also reported that, although Cleveland and Sikes (1966) had not detected Barrier differences between chronic alcoholic male patients and nonalcoholic psychiatric patients, they did observe significantly higher Pen­ etration scores in the alcoholics.17 Somodevilla (1971) compared a group of multiple drug abusers who were receiving outpatient treatment with a mixed group of psychiatric outpatients who were not drug users and a group of normal college students (nondrug users). There were 10 males and 10 females in each group. The drug abusers had used marijuana, LSD, and amphetamines. Barrier and Penetration scores were computed from Rorschach Inkblot protocols. The drug abusers had significantly lower Barrier scores than either of the two control groups, although the difference from the psychiatric (nondrug) sample was of bor­ derline (p. 10) significance. No differences occurred with reference to the Penetration score. Further, there were neither Barrier nor Penetration dif­ ferences between the psychiatric nonusers and the normal subjects. The Barrier and Penetration responses of all subjects were classified in terms of qualitative content. Little of significance was detected in relation to the Barrier responses of the various groups. But there were a few noteworthy content differences among the Penetration scores of the groups. Drug abusers tended more often than the others to give Penetration images refer­ ring to “rotten or torn human” figures and to the “open m outh.” Psychiatric patients’ Penetration imagery, compared with the other groups’, more often portrayed rotten or torn nonhuman content and also anatomy content. These differences were only of suggestive magnitude. Lerner (1979) was interested in the boundary attributes of persons who are regular users of phencycledine, a drug that can produce effects that mimic schizophrenia. Rorschach responses were secured from male phencycledine users (N = 14) and a male control group (N = 15) composed of persons who were not users of phencycledine. However, the nonusers did indulge in other drugs like m arijuana, hashish and cocaine (but not heroin). The phen­ cycledine users also used heroin (57%) and a wide variety of other drugs. They were clearly much heavier drug users than the controls. Barrier scores were significantly lower and Penetration scores significantly higher in the

MISCELLANEOUS PHENOMENA

495

phencycledine sample than in the controls. Also, greater psychological dis­ turbance in the phencycledine groups was shown in terms of several indices (e.g., MMPI). It was not clear whether the differences between the phen­ cycledine and control subjects were a function of phencycledine or the greater use of a wide range of other drugs by the phencycledine subjects.18 An exception to the trends just outlined was reported by Hartung and Skorka (1980). They focused on persons who were using the psychedelic drug LSD. The sample was composed of 26 males and 17 females living in the Haight-Ashbury section of San Francisco in 1967. Rorschach blots were administered to them. These LSD users were then compared with 22 males and 17 females who were nondrug users, also living in the San Francisco area and matched for age and education. The two samples of subjects did not differ for either Barrier or Penetration. Hartung and Skorka pointed out the highly selective nature of their LSD user group, who were “living in com­ munes or subcultures where psychedelic drugs play an important part in religious or social rituals” (p. 244). In a sense, then, the LSD users they studied were not deviantly acting out. One is reminded of an earlier study by McGlothlin, Cohen, and McGlothlin (1966) in which normal persons ingested LSD on several different occasions in a controlled laboratory setting. Within this context a long term significant increase in the Barrier score occurred. This was speculatively attributed to greater adaptive strength linked with learning to master the stress associated with the LSD effects. In another instance, Clausen and Fisher (1973) reported that samples of normal subjects who ingested phenobarbital or amphetamine in a laboratory setting showed a significant in­ crease in Barrier scores. This was also the case for ingestion of a placebo. It is possible that, when certain substances presumed to have drug potency are ingested in a ceremonial or officially condoned setting, they take on ego supportive connotations that not only do not lead to boundary disruption, but may even be boundary reinforcing.

MISCELLANEOUS PHENOMENA

Several other forms of disturbed behavior have been explored within a boundary frame of reference. Bourgeois (1971) examined the Rorschach protocols of 20 French women with anorexic symptoms and concluded that they had significantly lower Barrier and higher Penetration scores than did normal controls. Percival (1982) could not detect significant Barrier or Pen­ etration score differences among normal college women who differed with respect to their am ount of subclinical anorexic-like behavior. Currie, Holtzman & Swartz (1974) obtained ratings from teachers and principals concerning the degree of maladjustment manifested by school children (23

496

13.

DEVIANT BEHAVIORS

girls, 23 boys) and examined how well earlier baseline scores from the Holtzman Inkblots predicted such ratings. The analysis indicated that the Penetration score was not significantly predictive. No formal data were provided concerning the Barrier score. Bentler, Sherman, and Prince (1970) compared the Barrier and Penetration scores (derived from Holtzman Inkblot responses) of 25 male transvestites with equivalent normative scores determined by Holtzman et al. (1961). The transvestites had significantly elevated Penetration scores and also showed a trend toward higher Barrier scores. The conflictual nature of the results was noted by the authors. It is of related interest that Fishbein (1983) reported that men (TV = 29) who were considered by their psychotherapists to display an unusual degree of sex role conflict had significantly higher Penetration scores than men (TV = 29) who were rated by their therapists as showing relatively little sex role conflict. A number of attempts (e.g., Velez-Diaz, 1975a, 1975b, 1976) have been made to discriminate brain injured persons from both normal controls and schizophrenics by means of the boundary scores. Consistent results have not emerged. One study, by Pulos, Wollitzer, and Vitale (1974), probed a group of male patients (TV = 81) with cerebrovascular insufficiency. Intellectual, EEG, angiogram, MMPI, and Rorschach measures were secured from the subjects. Retests were obtained during a 2-year follow-up period. The Barrier score was significantly and negatively correlated with an angiogram measure of insufficiency in the vertebrobasilar system. Such insufficiency is often asso­ ciated with symptoms like visual impairment, numbness, postural impair­ ment, localized weakness, and vertigo. The greater the severity of this form of insufficiency, the significantly lower was the Barrier score. The Penetration score was not correlated with any of the neurological indices. There was a surprising trend for the Penetration score to be positively and significantly correlated with measures of verbal ability, numeric ability, and visual-motor ability. The Barrier score was positively and significantly correlated only with verbal ability. Because most past studies had not indicated a relationship between either of the boundary scores and intellectual measures, the question was raised whether the presence of organic brain damage introduces intellectual func­ tioning as a new mediating variable in boundary experiences. That the Pen­ etration score was positively correlated with good intellectual functioning is, of course, paradoxical. Pulos et al. (1974) speculated that subjects who were most impaired (as defined by their intellectual scores) would have less awareness of their impairment and therefore be less preoccupied with feel­ ings of body vulnerability. For those subjects who survived during the two year follow-up period, a significant curvilinear relationship between Barrier and the passage of time was noted. The Barrier score increased between 1 and 2 years and then decreased. Pulos et al. offered the following explanation (pp. 554-545): “ Since most of the improvement occurs during the first year,

THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS

497

. . . the subject is setting goals dealing with the world rather successfully and thus is optimistic and confident. After the first year, little additional improve­ ment is made, and the subject comes to realize that he must adjust to whatever deficiencies remain” (pp. 544-545). That is, the Barrier score pre­ sumably increases during the period of optimistic expectation and then declines as prospects for future improvement dissipate. This study suggests that there are interesting possibilities for exploring the impact of brain damage on the boundary, with respect to both the intellectual alterations that occur and the dramatic disturbances in life attitudes that evolve. There is a wealth of data to be found when one examines differences among the brain damaged themselves rather than comparing them with normals or other diagnostic groups. That persons with gross intellectual deficit have reduced boundary definiteness has been shown in data collected by Holtzman et al. (1961) and others (e.g., Sailor & Ponder, Jr., 1968) from samples of the mentally retarded. However, Davis (1970) did not find that the boundary scores of a sample of trainable retardates were significantly lower than those of children of normal intelligence of the same chronological age. There are hints that boundary scores may be useful in predicting institu­ tionalization for retardates (Sailor & Ponder, Jr., 1968). Also, a program that improved the physical development of mental retardates decreased their Penetration scores significantly (Chasey, Swartz, & Chasey, 1974).

THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS

There was only a scattering of information available prior to 1970 concerning the effects of therapeutic procedures on the boundary scores. Fisher and Cleveland (1958) had reported a trend for neurotic patients who had improved during individual psychotherapy to be characterized by either an increase in Barrier or a decrease in Penetration. Cleveland (1960a) had shown that schizophrenics who improved during treatment with tranquilizers manifested a significant decrease in Penetration scores. However, no Barrier score changes were noted. Cleveland and Sikes (1966) could discern no changes in Barrier or Penetration in a group of chronic alcoholics who participated in a treatment program focused on group therapy; but a second study (cited by Fisher, 1970) of another group of chronic alcoholics who took part in a similar treatment program showed a significant increase in Barrier score, although no change in Penetration. Cardone (1967) reported no change in the bound­ ary scores of chronic schizophrenics treated with a tranquilizer drug. Those findings are fragmentary, but they seem to suggest a trend for the boundary to become more definite after some forms of therapy. However in the investigations completed since 1970 (cited in Table 13.2), there is little encouragement for such a view. Only a few studies (Levin, 1973; Long, 1972) found a significant change in the Barrier score following a

498

H osp italized schizoph renics (16 male, 17 fem ale) (25 black, 8 w hite) were evaluated pre- and post- several different treatm ent m odalities (e.g ., psychotherapy, tranquilizer)

The intent was to determ ine the effect o f a presum ably therapeutic exp erien ce derived from participating in a selfhelp clinic design ed to give w om en a greater know ledge and sen se o f control w ith respect to their body. There were 20 fem ale experim ental subjects and 20 fem ale controls. In addition to the R orschach Inkblots, w hich w ere adm in­ istered pre- and post-the self-help clinic experience, there were other body im age m easures (v iz., Draw-A-Person, Secord H om onym Test, Jourard-Secord B od y Cathexis scale)

It was h yp oth esized that aw areness training would result in either extrem e low or high Barrier scores shifting to a more norm al m iddle level. There w ere 20 experim ental subjects and 20 controls. M ales and fem ales w ere included in both groups. The experim ental subjects participated in an 8w eek program that involved relaxation ex ercises, body aw areness training, and understanding nonverbal com m uni­ cation

Play therapy was conducted with 9 hospitalized (on a surgical ward) preschoolers (3 girls, 6 boys) to determ ine if such therapy would produce positive body im age changes. In addition to pre and p ost H oltzm an Inkblots, the Draw-APerson Test was adm inistered

M cC uistion (1973)

Levin (1973)

Talabere (1974)

D escription

Long (1972)

S tu dy

N o significant changes in Barrier or Penetration scores were detected. Figure drawing changes w ere also not sig­ nificant.

There was a significant shift in Barrier sco res away from the extrem es. This did not occu r in the controls. N o significant ch an ges in Penetration sco res w ere reported.

N o significant shifts in Barrier or Penetration w ere observed. Few m eaningful ch an ges occurred in the other body im age m easures that w ere secured.

At the end o f a 20-m onth follow -up period, the total sam ple showed a significant increase in term s o f a Barrier m inus Penetration index. This increase was independent o f the particular treatm ent modality.

Findings

TABLE 13.2 Summary of Studies Since 1970 Dealing with Therapy Treatment Effects Upon Barrier and Penetration Scores

CD

CD

The effects o f Structural Integration therapy (Rolfing) on 14 p ersons (7 male, 7 fem ale) were studied. There was an equivalent control group. H oltzm an Inkblots were adm in­ istered pre and post the therapy process. A nother body im age m easure that was em ployed was the Draw-A-Person Test

Twenty (6 male, 14 fem ale) new ly admitted schizophrenics were evaluated shortly after being hosp italized and again w hen considered to be recom pensated. Apparently, treat­ m ent was based largely on the u se o f tranquilizer drugs

Pre-and post-evaluations were m ade o f subjects (17 male, 7 fem ale) in Rolfing therapy, in G estalt therapy (3 male, 7 fem ale), and in a control nontherapy condition (7 male, 7 fem ale). In addition to the H oltzm an Inkblots, other m ea­ sures designed to tap b od y im age variables were adm inistered (v iz., Draw-A-Person, Sem antic Differential ratings o f body areas)

Pre- and p osttestin g was done for subjects ( N = 10) ex p o sed to standard relaxation training, for subjects trained to increase internal body awareness ( N = 10), for subjects ( N = 10) w h o exp erien ced m uscle tensing and releasing training, and for three control groups ( N = 30). A sid e from pre- and p ost-H oltzm an Inkblots, the Rod and Frame Test was adm inistered

Fifty-six normal children w ere divided into 3 groups: one received dram akinetics, a body m ovem ent exercise pro­ gram; a secon d group sim ply interacted with a teacher; a third group did not receive any special treatment. R orschach Inkblots were adm inistered before and after the treatm ent procedures. Only the Barrier score was derived from the R orschach protocols

Sword (1977)

Traube (1977)

Long (1977)

M astellone (1977)

Ryan (1978)

N o significant changes in the Barrier score w ere evident.

N o significant effects o f the treatm ent procedures upon Barrier or Penetration scores were found.

N o significant differences em erged am ong the groups in the degree to w hich Barrier or Penetration scores changed. The only significant changes found for the other body im age m easures involved the Draw-A-Person Test (e.g., more structured balance in the drawings o f the Rolfed than in those o f the control group).

N o significant changes were noted for either the Barrier or Penetration scores.

N o significant changes in Barrier or P enetration scores occurred. O ne o f five Draw-A-Person variables show ed a significant positive shift in the Rolfed group.

500 Description

P erson s in Rolfing therapy (8 fem ale, 6 m ale), yoga training (12 fem ale, 5 m ale) and in a no-treatm ent group (10 female, 8 m ale) were given pre- and posttesting. A sid e from the H oltzm an Inkblots, other tests with body im age im plica­ tions w ere adm inistered (v iz., E m bedded Figures Test, S em antic D ifferential body ratings)

Three groups o f hospitalized d ep ressed patients (sch izo ­ phrenic [ N = 13]; p sych otic [N = 13], neurotic [N = 37]) w ere evaluated pre- and posttreatm ent with antidepressive m edication

Stu dy

Adair-Leland (1980)

O lsen, Legg, & Stiff (1982)

N o pre- to post- changes in the Barrier or Penetration scores w ere detected.

N o significant changes in Barrier or P enetration scores were observed. There were a few significant shifts in Sem antic Differential ratings indicating that the Rolfed individuals described their body as becom in g relatively m ore flexible, active, and effortless than did the controls.

Findings

TABLE 13.2 (cont’d) Summary of Studies Since 1970 Dealing with Therapy Treatment Effects Upon Barrier and Penetration Scores

OVERVIEW

501

therapeutic regimen. Other investigations indicate no body boundary altera­ tions in those who were Rolfed or received other forms of body awareness and relaxation therapy; who were exposed to a women’s self-help clinic experience; or who received tranquilizing or antidepressant medications. Nevertheless, these findings are still incomplete. One cannot find a single well-constructed study in which the boundary impact of conventional psy­ chodynamic therapy or behavior therapy on nonpsychotic persons was meas­ ured.

OVERVIEW

A major issue to be confronted is that body boundary definiteness is low or reduced in those who act out antisocially, but not in schizophrenics. Why would a delinquent or a criminal have more poorly defined boundaries than someone who has largely lost contact with reality? Presumably schizo­ phrenia would bring with it a sense of loss of self and feelings of extreme vulnerability. This is a puzzling matter. As already suggested, one possible explanation is that as persons pass a threshold point and begin to rely heavily on nonreality oriented coping mechanisms, they also embark on qualitatively different modes of sustaining a sense of body boundedness. By conjuring up illusory assumptions, the individual is able to muster a feeling of being adequately bounded. However, within the normal range, the maintenance of the body boundary seems to depend upon persons feeling they can use their voluntary powers (e.g., musculature) to be effective and self-steering. Other variables are probably involved, too, such as having at least a minimum sense of centrality and perceiving past primary figures in one’s life as not having been overly intrusive (Fisher, 1970). In other words, such maintenance re­ quires the conviction that one can move in a world of other persons and objects and get things done rather than end up invaded and destroyed. We have some evidence that schizophrenics shift to a different level of boundary definition. Thus, paranoid schizophrenics may be viewed as rein­ forcing their boundaries by conjuring up a mythical system in which they have an amazing centrality. This centrality19 becomes a means of putting on individuality, importance, and prowess. The paranoid boundary is built on an illusory conviction of being and power, which is translated into Barrier imagery. Another special phenomenon associated with schizophrenia is ex­ periencing the boundary as a “ shutting out” mechanism. As earlier de­ scribed, the Barrier score is positively correlated with feelings of being cut off from outside stimulation (e.g., “My eyes feel like they are covered by a film”), whereas no such relationship has been found in normal or neurotic samples. Apparently, schizophrenics gain a sense of boundedness by regard­ ing the periphery of their body (with its sense organs) as a wall against input.

502

13.

DEVIANT BEHAVIORS

The breakdown in ability to cope with input and the determination to reject it that so often typify schizophrenia probably foster the feeling that one’s periphery is there primarily to block communication. Schizophrenics pre­ sumably derive a conviction of being bounded from having unrealistically retreated to a “within”20 that has become relatively split off from the world.21 Whereas the boundary is perceived by normal persons as providing shield­ ing, it is also experienced as a site for interchange and sensitized contact. From the clues here and there, it becomes apparent that hostility is an important mediating variable in boundary disruption. Particularly pertinent at this point are the Silverman et al. (1982) findings that subliminal visual stimuli with hostile meaning produce more disturbance in schizophrenics than do nonhostile stimuli. Also, low Barrier scores have been consistently found in criminals and delinquents, who are typified by aggressive acting out. It is logical to assume that such persons experience a great deal of anger and interpret the world in especially intense, antagonistic terms. If so, boundary articulation may be difficult to maintain when one feels immersed in a milieu where angry attack is an imminent possibility. To be chronically angry is to anticipate over and over aggressive encounters in which one might get hurt. The threat of becoming a victim of aggression, with all of its connotations of body damage, would create uncertainty about one’s body boundaries. Ag­ gression suggests to people the potentially destructive penetration of their body substance, and this would certainly raise doubts about existing body security systems. As earlier described, Fisher (1970) and also Tatyrek (1977) have shown that even in relatively well-adjusted male college students boundary decrement can be produced by stirring up persistent angry fan­ tasies. The role of aggression in boundary disruption has been demonstrated only in males; disruption of the female’s boundary may involve quite different variables. This issue is taken up in more detail at a later point. There appears to be a link between poorly defined boundaries and impulsivity, in psychologically disturbed, nonpsychotic persons. As already noted, people inclined to impulsive acting out of aggression have low Barrier scores, and obsessive-compulsives tend to have higher Barrier scores than do hysterics. The obsessive-compulsive defensive system is usually con­ ceptualized as being more controlled and inhibited than is the defense appa­ ratus of the hysteric. Further, drug addicts, who are often viewed as impulsive in their orientation, score at the low end of the Barrier continuum. Even within the schizophrenic population, paranoids were found to have higher Barrier scores than nonparanoids; it is probable that more uncon­ trolled impulsive behavior is found in the latter group. These observations do not signify, however, that high Barrier persons are less spontaneous and free than are low Barrier persons. A number of studies (Fisher, 1970) have demon­ strated that high Barrier normal individuals are particularly characterized by

NOTES

503

spontaneity in group situations and likely to initiate a good deal of communi­ cation with others. The question of how therapeutic procedures, which are intended to coun­ ter psychological disturbance, affect the body image boundary merits com­ ment. As noted, although a few early studies showed increases in boundary definiteness in persons who improved over the course of treatment (viz., individual psychotherapy, tranquilizing medication), more recent studies have been more negative. However, if one probes the more recent studies in greater detail, one learns that of two pertaining primarily to the treatment of schizophrenics (Long, 1972; Traube, 1977), one (Long) did produce a signifi­ cant increase in boundary definiteness. Most of the negative studies involved relatively normal people chosen to participate in research-inspired treatment procedures and subjected to techniques designed to give them either body relaxation or increased positive body awareness. Three of the negative studies used structural integration (Rolfing) tech­ niques. In the Rolfing approach, the massage and pressures applied to the subject’s body are intended to heighten awareness not only of the body exterior but also of “deep” structures and body openings. So, both exterior and interior awareness might be simultaneously intensified; and this would not be boundary enhancing. Further, the Rolfing procedures have been de­ scribed as painful and therefore could be body threatening to some.22 One is left with the impression that not much has been done to evaluate the bound­ ary effects of standard therapeutic procedures employed with persons suffi­ ciently disturbed to seek therapeutic assistance. This whole area awaits further investigation.

NOTES irrhis is true despite the fact that in various factor analyses (e.g., Holtzman et al., 1961) the Barrier score loads positively with other inkblot measures presumably indicative of ego integration, and the Penetration score loads positively with mea­ sures reflecting anxiety and disturbance. 2 Quinlan and Harrow (1974) found that the Barrier score was not significantly correlated with Rorschach indices (e.g., contamination) indicative of the breakdown of the boundaries of percepts and ideas. The Penetration score did correlate signifi­ cantly with such indices, but the magnitude was low (about .25). 3Johnson and Quinlan (1980) evaluated fluid and rigid boundaries in terms of the ability of paranoid and nonparanoid schizophrenics to role-play in an improvisational setting. Paranoids were found to have significantly higher Rigid Boundary scores and nonparanoids higher Fluid Boundary scores. Also, Polster (1981) reported that paranoid schizophrenics had significantly higher Barrier scores than did normal controls, as defined by the original Fisher-Cleveland

504

13.

DEVIANT BEHAVIORS

(1968) norms. In the same study, she found that manic-depressive patients averaged higher Barrier and higher Penetration scores than did normals in the Fisher-Cleveland report. N o differences were noted between the schizophrenics and manics with reference to either Barrier or Penetration. 4Seif and Atkins (1979) found that severely phobic adults (30 female, 6 male) had significantly higher Penetration scores than did normal controls. There was, however, no difference in Barrier. Hill (1972) obtained similar findings. Seif and Atkins com­ mented on the clinical similarities between situational phobics and hysterics. 5Berez (1976) comments: “Lacking the independence from or resistance to imme­ diate impressions, the hysteric may not feel like a very substantial individual as he is attracted here, repelled there, fascinated first by one thing and another. He seems to be without a sense of definiteness or personal substance” (p. 41). 6There were several isolated differences between the psychotic and recompen­ sated states. For example, subjects disliked their legs more when psychotic and disliked their eyes and hair more when recompensated. 7 Consistent correlations between Penetration and the various Body Distortion Questionnaire variables could not be established. 8The unique character of the body image boundary in schizophrenics is suggested too by the fact that the Barrier score has been shown (Fisher, 1970) to be correlated with such phenomena as amount of self touching and the use of loud clothing patterns in schizophrenic samples, whereas such relationships have not been demonstrated in normals or neurotics. 9 It should be possible to demonstrate the altered function of the apparently well defined boundary in schizophrenics. For example, Fisher (1968a) has shown in pre­ vious studies of normal persons that the higher their Barrier scores the more vividly they experience stimuli (as defined by perception of pictures presented in the context of the Thereness-Thatness Table [Hastorf, 1950]). The well-defined boundary results in a more alert tuning in to the environment. But if the boundary is primarily a shutting out mechanism for schizophrenics, one might expect their Barrier score to be negatively correlated with the perceived vividness of stimuli. 10It will be recalled that Fisher (1971) found that hostile themes presented liminally have a negative effect upon boundary articulation in normal men but not women. 11Interestingly, male children who develop stuttering difficulties have been found to have higher rather than lower Barrier scores as compared to normal controls (Pienaar, 1968). This may be a function of heightened tension in the musculature, especially in the facial area. 12Abramson (1974) did not find any significant correlations between either of the boundary scores and amount of aggression displayed in doll play by black preschool children (67 male, 56 female). 13Smith and Barclay (1975) demonstrated too that factors derived from a Q analysis of the Holtzman Inkblot responses given by samples of normals, delin­ quents, and retardates classified these types of subjects differently with reference to Barrier and Penetration. There was a clear trend for normals to have more definite boundaries than delinquents who were in an equivalent factor category. 14It is worth mentioning, in view of the indefinite boundaries linked with delin­ quency, that Hare and Craigen (1974) have reported a significant trend for psycho­ paths to show low GSR and high heart rate reactivity.

NOTES

505

15Krippner (1971) too observed a link between the boundary and reading skill. In a sample of children (N = 59), poor readers had significantly higher Penetration scores than those without reading difficulties. N o difference appeared for the Barrier score. Relatedly, Laird, Laosa, and Swartz (1973) found in a group of children (N = 98) that Barrier (but not Penetration) was significantly positively correlated with a measure of reading ability. 16Blatt and Ritzier (1974a) reported that a sample of patients (N = 12) who committed suicide produced more transparency imagery (e.g., room divided in two by a glass partition, layers of clothing perceptible through a sheer fabric, light bulb) in their Rorschach responses than did nonsuicidal patients. Rierdan, Lang, and Eddy (1978) confirmed their findings in a new sample of suicidal patients (N = 14). But Kestenbaum and Lynch (1978) failed to do so in their sample (N = 10) of suicidal patients. The transparency images’ resemblance to responses that are scored Penetra­ tion makes these findings pertinent to boundary concepts. But some responses that are scored as transparencies (e.g., glass partition, light bulb) would be scored as both Penetration and Barrier. This makes it difficult to interpret the possible boundary implications of the Blatt and Ritzier and the Rierdan et al. data. Also, inasmuch as Kestenbaum and Lynch did not find that the transparency imagery differentiated the suicides in their sample, the question still remains as to how well the original findings will hold up in future studies. Overall, interpretative caution is in order when one considers the small sizes of the suicide samples utilized in all three studies cited. 17It will be recalled that Tucker et al. (1972) found, even within a sample of hospitalized psychiatric patients, that those who had been drug-abusers had signifi­ cantly higher Penetration scores. 18Cleveland (1974) published a note in which he compared the Barrier and Penetra­ tion scores of 25 men hospitalized for heroin addiction and 25 men hospitalized for alcoholism. N o differences of significance were found. He remarked, however, that both the Barrier and Penetration scores of these subjects were “unusually high” compared to the normal subjects’ scores originally collected by Fisher and Cleveland (1958). It is not clear whether the differences were statistically significant. One is also puzzled as to how to interpret the fact that both the Barrier and Penetration scores were apparently elevated. This has contradictory connotations. 19It will be recalled that Statman (1978) demonstrated that being the focus of attention can increase the Barrier score in normal persons. 20 One may speculate too that, because the outside world space is rejected and denied by schizophrenic persons, it can shrink psychologically and appear to pull so close to their body that it is almost identified with the body periphery. If so, schizo­ phrenics may dramatize their periphery by focusing on it both as a blocking-out layer and a relatively nonthreatening, controlled representation of “out there.” Any pro­ cess that dramatizes the periphery could, as suggested by previous work (e.g., Fisher & Renik, 1966), increase Barrier imagery. 21This is not to deny that the interior areas of schizophrenic persons are in some ways more open to external influences. However, the major strategy seems to be to inhibit reception of the “outside.” 22 While the boundary scores do not seem to shift as the result of body oriented therapies (e.g., Rolfing), other measures (e.g., Semantic Differential body ratings) have shown positive change.

This page intentionally left blank

99

Negative Findings

There has been a continual process of reaching out to see what new variables are linked to the boundary scores. Just about every known psychological measure has at one time or another been explored in this respect. Many of the resulting observations have proven to be irrelevant or of little value.

PAPER AND PENCIL QUESTIONNAIRES

Numerous past negative observations stem from attempting to relate bound­ ary scores to an infinite number of paper and pencil, self-report questionnaire measures. Both the Barrier and Penetration indices have proven to be unre­ lated to such m easures as extraversion-introversion (Berkowitz, 1977), rigidity (Kidd & Kidd, 1971), religiosity,1 defense mechanisms (Serlin, 1979), conservatism-liberalism, hostility, anality, frugality, orality, dating behavior, masculinity-femininity (Saltaformaggio, 1979), anxiety, locus of control (Saltaformaggio, 1979), self-concept and psychopathology. Holtzman et al. (1961) commented on the relatively few instances in which questionnaire measures correlate significantly with psychological indices derived from other levels of response, such as represented by inkblot images. This is not to say that the Barrier and Penetration scores never correlate with questionnaire indices, but the relative frequency is low.

OTHER BODY IMAGE MEASURES

Boundary scores have, with only minor exceptions, not been found to be related to a number of other body image oriented measures such as the Jourard-Secord (1954) Body Cathexis Test, the Secord (1953) Body Hom­ onym Test, the Witkin et al. (1954, 1962) figure drawing and rod and frame measures, semantic differential self-ratings of the total body and its parts, self-judgments of body size (Shontz, 1969), and reports of various types of distorted body experiences (Fisher, 1970). Whatever dimensions these body image measures tap, they are apparently different from those represented by the Barrier and Penetration scores. Of the various body image measures just cited, only these developed by Witkin et al. (1954) were intended to get at 507

508

14.

NEGATIVE FINDINGS

aspects of body image boundary functioning. Several researchers have com­ mented that a consistent correlation has not been found between the Barrier score and the Witkin et al. dimension of field independence-dependence. Since they both refer to boundary differentiation, one might logically expect some overlap between them. It is puzzling that they have rarely been found to be correlated. One possible lead in this puzzle is that the Witkin et al. (1954) measure has been consistently observed to be linked with cognitive and intellectual vari­ ables (e.g., performance tests like Block Designs), whereas the Barrier and Penetration scores have shown such correlations in only a few selected populations. Somehow the Barrier and Penetration scores have to do more with one’s feelings about the degree of protection and safety provided by the body boundary. The Witkin et al. measure seems to involve a cognitive readiness or ability to set up boundary definitions, not only with reference to one’s body but also with various nonbody contexts. It may be too that it has less to do with feelings about the body as a literal secure container and as a potential target for penetrating forces. One could conceivably have a cog­ nitively well-differentiated concept of the boundary around one’s body space and yet be chronically beset by anxieties concerning whether that boundary can withstand the intrusive forces “out there.”

PSYCHODYNAMIC THEMES

Multiple studies by the present writer have reaffirmed previous conclusions (Fisher, 1970) that one cannot link specific psychodynamic themes to the state of the boundary. Negative results have emerged from investigations into the relationships of the boundary scores to speed of recognition of tachistoscopically exposed themes (e.g., oral, heterosexual, homosexual, hos­ tile); selective learning of words with particular theme connotations; speed of associations to words referring to given psychodynamic areas; and pic­ tures with special emotional meanings presented on the Ames TherenessThatness (Kilpatrick, 1952) apparatus.

NOTE 1Those measures that are not specifically referenced have been studied by the present writer and often by numerous other investigators.

15

New Perspectives and Ideas Concerning Boundary Functioning

We have completed a search of what has been gleaned about the Barrier and Penetration scores since 1970. What new ideas and insights can be extracted? What are the highlights of the multiple studies that have been analyzed?

SIGNIFICANCE OF EXTERIOR-INTERIOR DISTINCTIONS

Evidence has continued to accumulate that the Barrier and Penetration scores are anchored in patterns of body experience. Direct experimental manipulations of sensations in exterior versus interior body sectors do alter Barrier or Penetration imagery in a predictable fashion. If sensations in the skin or muscles are magnified, Barrier is increased and Penetration de­ creased. If sensations are enhanced in the stomach or heart, Barrier re­ sponses are diminished and Penetration augmented. The power of body focusing procedures to influence boundary imagery has been demonstrated in both normal and schizophrenic persons. The original Van de Mark and Neuringer (1969) work had shown that one could alter the boundary simply by imagining experiences in the exterior or interior areas of one’s body. The sense of possessing a protective body sheath seems to be defined by the relative prominence of sensations emanating from that sheath. The question can be asked whether the fact that experimentally manip­ ulating one’s focus of attention to exterior or interior body sites affects boundary definiteness necessarily means that the ratio of exterior to interior body awareness reflects boundary feelings in the naturalistic state. However, it will be recalled, when persons were asked to report spontaneously, the density of their sensations at various exterior and interior sites, the Barrier score correlated positively with relatively greater exterior density. The impor­ tance of the exterior-interior distinction with reference to the boundary is pointed up too by the positive correlation between Barrier and the predomi­ nance of exterior as compared to interior sensations resulting from ingestion of a placebo, as well as the positive link between Barrier and the tendency to report more somatic symptomatology in exterior than interior body locales. More tangential but still pertinent are findings that the Barrier score predicts selective sensitivity to tachistoscopically presented pictures of exterior ver­ sus interior body parts and also predicts selective learning of words that differ in how much they refer to exterior-interior body sensations. 509

510

15.

PERSPECTIVES CONCERNING BOUNDARY FUNCTIONING

The evidence is convincing that persons who produce inkblot images emphasizing boundary definiteness selectively fixate their attention on the space comprising their body sheath. They minimize the internality of their body space. There is a corresponding exterior-interior physiological sub­ strate. The Barrier score is positively correlated with physiological activation relatively greater at exterior (e.g., skin) than at interior (e.g., heart) sites. We do not know whether this physiological pattern is basic to how one experi­ ences one’s boundaries. Although this pattern may play a significant role, it is possible that an equally important factor is a selective perceptual focus more on body exte­ rior than on interior sensations. That is, although given persons might not show high physiological reactivity at exterior body sites, they could con­ ceivably be so selectively tuned to sensations from such sites that the boundary region of the body would be experienced as unusually prominent. Why would one selectively tune into body exterior sensations, rather than interior ones? Fisher and Cleveland (1958) originally theorized that the exte­ rior sheath of the body is specialized for contact with, and manipulation of, one’s environs. The skin is the membrane most directly in contact with the surrounding medium and the musculature is primarily a means for initiating voluntary actions to achieve goals and self-gratification. Presumably, people especially oriented to launching action would focus attention on those body aspects required for such action. Awareness of one’s body sheath would be one aspect of an attitude that favors initiative. What is the role that the perceptual prominence of the body sheath itself plays in the feelings and attitudes typifying a high Barrier person? For example, when individuals are asked in a laboratory situation to enhance their body sheath by focusing attention on it, does this intensify their sense of being self-steering and centrally autonomous? Or is the prominence of the sheath primarily a function of central values and intentions and of little import in its feedback potential? This question invites investigations that would look at the effects of directing one’s attention to the body sheath versus the body interior upon such variables as achievement motivation, suggestibility, and communicativeness. Can altering peripheral experience actually shape central sets? It is possible that the usual state of one’s boundary awareness is simply a reflection of central sets and that altering peripheral awareness would have few effects. Changes in the Barrier score produced by laboratory techniques may be artifacts without real import. On the other hand, it is also possible that when the boundary regions are experientially enhanced, some measure of self-definition and supportive feedback is provided. This is certainly conceivable in view of the several studies already reviewed that suggest that persons utilize clothing and ath­ letic activities to bolster their boundaries. As noted, Compton (1964) found that the Barrier score was positively correlated in schizophrenic women with

SIGNIFICANCE OF EXTERIOR-INTERIOR DISTINCTIONS

511

wearing clothing that highlighted the body boundary. She interpreted this to mean that such women were seeking through clothing to foster centrally a sense of possessing the strength to ward off threat. Relatedly, Brocken (1969) reported that nuns were able to achieve increased boundary articulation by shifting to a new, modernized form of garb. Studies by Bedard et al. (1978) and the present writer found a positive correlation between the Barrier scores of men who were serious athletes and the length of time these men had devoted themselves to the sport. It appeared that the sports activity provided cumulative kinesthetic boundary reinforcing feedback. Boundary definiteness seems to increase in certain naturalistic contexts where special stimulation of the peripheral body sheath occurs. At a later point in this volume, it is also shown that focusing attention on specific peripheral body areas can influence central attitudes. It was earlier proposed that women may, in addition to perceiving the body sheath as the source of action, regard it as the walls of a reproductive container. Women with heightened awareness of the boundary may be un­ usually invested in their reproductive potential. Insofar as women do have a more mixed or complex concept of the function of the body sheath than men do, it may be more difficult to find consistent correlates of boundary awareness in women than in men. Of course, the possibility exists that men too perceive the body sheath as having important containing functions. Perhaps there are men who are preoccupied with the sheath as an enclosure that holds in unacceptable anger or other “bad” impulses. The inhibition and nonexpressiveness typifying low Barrier persons suggest that holding-in functions may impose especially taxing demands on them. Is it possible that the preoccupation of the low Barrier person with the body interior represents in part a vigilant concern with what needs to be kept contained “in there” ? The boundary would then serve not to promulgate self­ territoriality but rather to squeeze it in. Conceivably, what happens in low Barrier persons is that the body boundary moves centripetally away from the actual body surface and becomes localized more as an inward than as an outward facing line of demarcation. There may be a shift from wanting to exert control over what is outside of one’s body to mastering the interior body space. There is little in previous formulations concerning the boundary to explain why persons with low Barrier scores are focused on their body interior. After all, they might just as well be focused on'extra-body space. Why should a sense of being poorly bounded be paralleled by intensified awareness of organs like the heart and stomach? As already indicated, one reason could be the need to maintain sur­ veillance of unacceptable feelings or affects often associated with the viscera. There are empirical findings supportive of the idea that the boundary in low Barrier persons may function in a specialized way to cordon off unacceptable impulses. Suggestive evidence for this point emerged in the earlier cited work

512

15.

PERSPECTIVES CONCERNING BOUNDARY FUNCTIONING

of Johnson (1974), in which persons were asked to learn different kinds of material varying in degree of emotional threat. The emotionally threatening material dealt with sexual and aggressive themes. It was found that the lower the subjects’ Barrier scores, the less they recalled of the sexual and ag­ gressive information. However, their Barrier scores were unrelated to recall of neutral information they had learned. The selective recall displayed could be interpreted as a “ sealing in” of bad material. Another explanation that has been offered concerning the interior focus of low Barrier individuals is that if they feel poorly bounded, they will be concerned that forces from the outside could penetrate into their interior. They would therefore be anxiously preoccupied with that threatened “in­ side” locale. However, one could just as logically reason that if people regard their boundary sheath as vulnerable, they will concentrate their concern on the threatened periphery rather than the interior space. A further possibility is that those with vague boundaries were socialized in a fashion that height­ ened the importance of tuning to signals emanating from the viscera. They may have grown up in families where the more diffuse, amorphous emotional experiences (e.g., generalized anxiety or hostility) associated with the vis­ cera were especially prominent in triggering behavior. This could be the result of a family atmosphere in which diffuse alarming emotion was domi­ nant. Low Barrier persons may have been kept viscerally stirred up for long periods and necessarily came to see the aroused interior as having exagger­ ated significance in the scheme of things. BOUNDARY ALTERING FORCES

Since the original development of the Barrier and Penetration scores, a surprising quantity of information has accumulated concerning conditions that can alter the state of the boundary. This information is outlined in Tables 15.1 and 15.2. One can see in Table 15.1 there are roughly two classes of variables that can initiate an increase in the Barrier score. The first embraces direct somatic influences. It includes the direct focusing of attention on the body sheath and also indirect focusing techniques such as body exercises. It includes too the ingestion of certain drugs and placebo. The second involves variables more customarily defined as psychological. Broadly speaking, they relate to feel­ ings about, and defense of, self (e.g., experiences that increase sense of self importance). The variables in the first, or somatic, category, which have to do with focusing attention on the body sheath, are relatively easy to conceptualize. These include directing attention to the skin and muscle of one’s body and also engaging in body exercises that indirectly activate and therefore high­

BOUNDARY ALTERING FORCES

513

light the body sheath. Presumably, these variables are effective in increasing the Barrier score because they render the boundary region of the body more perceptually prominent. It is more difficult to explain why ingesting sub­ stances like Pentobarbital, d-Amphetamine, and placebo result in a Barrier increase. It has already been suggested that there may be a reassuring quality about ingesting a drug or drug-like substance proffered by an authority figure in the setting of a psychological laboratory. Even so, it is puzzling how the reassurance would translate into images of increased body boundary defi­ niteness. It will be recalled too that in the Fast and Fisher (1971) study in which subjects were given an injection of epinephrine (in the setting of a psychological laboratory) they did not show an increase in Barrier. Although the scores of the female subjects increased slightly, those of the male subjects declined appreciably. Perhaps the injection (which involves direct body penetration) was so threatening that it negated any reassuring elements associated with being given a “drug” substance. Another problem with assuming that ingesting a substance like d-Amphetamine or a placebo is reassuring is that most subjects are rather anxious about and suspicious of swallowing an unknown substance. Possibly, once they have swallowed it and observed no harmful consequences, they rebound and find the experience to be a positive one. We know that drugs are widely used to bolster the self. There is no limit to the range of things that have at one time or another been taken into the body to increase feelings of comfort and security. These feelings frequently derive to an appreciable degree from soothing chemical action. But there is cer­ tainly evidence that they derive in part too from magical powers associated with the whole class of agents labeled as drugs. In the McGlothlin, Cohen & McGlothlin (1967) study, even a drug as potentially threatening as LSD proved eventually to be boundary supportive. The possibility exists that large numbers of people use the myriad of available chemical agents, drugs, and remedies to reinforce their sense that they possess enough body power to ward off intrusion. This may be especially true for those who feel poorly bounded. Several studies have, in fact, determined that drug addicts have low Barrier scores. It would be of interest to ascertain whether their Barrier scores increase after they have taken a drug they trust or endow with potency. The possible boundary-bolstering function of ingesting substances consid­ ered to be powerful or healing deserves serious thought and exploration. We need more studies that examine boundary changes as a function of the properties people ascribe to substances they ingest. Perhaps even just eating a satisfying meal is sufficient to bolster the body boundary. Swallowing something imbued with value may reactivate reassuring images about mother as a feeding, nurturant, and ultimately protectively embracing figure. To feel a resurgence of mother’s protective presence, especially in relation to one’s body, may decrease concern about corporeal threat. The fact that even an

TABLE 15.1 Conditions that Do and Do Not Produce Barrier Score Changes In crease B arrier S core

N o C h an ge

D e crea se B arrier S core

F ocusing attention on skin and m uscle o f own body (Fisher, 1970)

W atching a boring film (Fisher, 1970)

F ocusing attention on heart and stom ach o f own body (Fisher, 1970)

Ingesting drugs like Phenobarbital and dAm phetam ine in the co n ­ text o f a laboratory experim ent (C lausen & Fisher, 1973) Ingesting a placebo thought to be an active drug in the context o f a laboratory e x ­ perim ent (C lausen & Fisher, 1973) Ingesting L S D in a quasitherapeutic setting (M cG lothlin et al., 1967) Cognitive ex ercises to inten­ sify awareness o f personal identity (Statm an, 1978) Participating in various body exercises (Sm ith, 1977) E xp eriences that increase sense o f se lf im portance (Roger, 1982)

W atching a film about body m utilation (Fisher, 1970) L istening to soothing m usic (Fisher, 1970) L istening to exciting m usic (Fisher, 1970) O bserving se lf in a distorting mirror (Fisher, 1970) E xp eriencin g body vibration (Fisher, 1970) Rem oving o n e’s clothing (Fisher, 1973c) B eing exp osed to repetitive tape m essages in w hich persons hear them selves m aking p ositive evaluative statem ents about se lf (Fisher, 1973d) E xp osu re to various forms o f surgery (e.g., Cantor, 1973; Fisher, 1978b) B eing the target o f stressful observation (Fisher, 1970) A dvanced aging (Fisher, 1970)

E xposure to certain form s o f stress, such as being evalu­ ated for level o f in telligence (Lavit, 1970a) or view ing a threatening film (K am en, 1969, 1971) or coping with threatening verbal material (L ew is, 1983) E xperiencing psychotherapy (borderline trend in n eu ­ rotic patients) (Fisher & Cleveland, 1958)

514

E xp osu re to threat o f shock (Iacino & C ook, 1974) B eing pregnant (Fisher, 1973c) E xperiencing o f tranquilizer drug therapy by sc h iz o ­ phrenics (e.g., Cardone & O lson, 1973). H owever, som e reports indicate a p ossib le increase in Bar­ rier (Fisher, 1970) E xp eriencin g an abortion (Rekent, 1973; Schw artz, 1976)

B eing exp osed to repetitive tape m essages in w hich persons hear them selves m aking self-derogatory statem ents (Fisher, 1973d) Awakening from sleep (bor­ derline effect) (Fisher, 1976a) Adapting to the conditions and values of a new culture (Arm strong & Tan, 1978) E xposure o f w om en to a m odified radical m astec­ tom y (Sanger, 1978) E xperiencing sensory isola­ tion (e.g., Reitman & C leveland, 1964). However, som e studies found no effects (e.g., Jacobson, 1965) A ttending to a taped m es­ sage conveying hostile them es. Significant effect only in m ales (Fisher, 1971)

E xposure to a variety o f sub­ liminal m essages (e.g., hostile, depressive, happy). Significant effect largely confined to m ales (Fisher, 1976b) R eceiving an injection o f ep i­ nephrine. The effect occurred only in m ales (Fast & Fisher, 1971) O bserving the world through distorting aniseikonic lenses. Significant effect only in m ales (Fisher & Radin, 1975)

BOUNDARY ALTERING FORCES

515

TABLE 15.1 (cont’d) Conditions that Do and Do Not Produce Barrier Score Changes In crease B arrier S core

N o C h an ge

D ecrea se B arrier S core

M enstruating (Fisher, 1973c) E xposure to a double-bind situation (M esberg, 1969) Suffering long-term body d is­ ablem ent (e.g., paralysis) (Fisher, 1970; M itchell, 1970; N ew ton , 1969) H yp n osis (Freundlich & Fisher, 1974) E xposure to loud w hite n oise (Fisher, 1971) E xperiencing hem odialysis (K estenbaum , 1974)

inactive placebo can increase Barrier imagery, as was true in the Clausen and Fisher (1973) report, indicates the potentially bolstering body image effects of incorporating a substance that has acquired symbolic power. The psychological variables that can apparently increase the Barrier score are of two kinds. One has to do with enhancing feelings of centrality. It is illustrated by the increase in Barrier that Roger (1982) found when he made male subjects feel highly successful and important or that Statman (1978) reported when he gave subjects tasks that rendered them more aware of their own personal qualities (e.g., by comparing themselves with what they were like at an earlier age). As mentioned earlier, Fisher (1970) originally pro­ posed, on the basis of data obtained from the study of paranoid schizo­ phrenics, that reinforcing feelings of centrality could augment boundary definiteness. He conjectured that the reason paranoid schizophrenics ob­ tained relatively high Barrier scores was the “ star” role their delusional systems often assigned to them. He showed too that in schizophrenics the Barrier score was positively correlated with amount of grandiosity displayed. The more universally important subjects felt, the more Barrier imagery they produced. Even if founded on unreal assumptions, a sense of being signifi­ cant shaped their boundaries. We have seen that the presumed effects of enhanced centrality on the boundary can be demonstrated in normal persons. It appears that one re­ quirement for feeling adequately bounded is to be able to muster at least a minimum level of self-importance. Perhaps there has to be a sense of ego significantly large to provide a core about which to construct a self-defining membrane. It is a matter of import to investigate the extent to which simply

516

15.

PERSPECTIVES CONCERNING BOUNDARY FUNCTIONING

magnifying feelings of centrality increases the Barrier score. In theorizing about how feelings of centrality are translated into boundary terms, one could assume that with increased centrality also comes increased inten­ tionally. That is, as persons feel more significant, they have greater motiva­ tion to be active and to impress their individuality on their environs. This, in turn, could result in their directing increased attention to the effectors in their body sheath that implement intentions. When centrality falls too low, people may lose the feeling that they can be active or effective. One would expect a variety of conditions and events that usually allow centrality to be boundary augmenting. They would include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Achieving unusual success. Being recognized by one’s group as a leader or a key figure. Having a great deal of positive attention directed toward oneself. Acquiring a large amount of power. Being in a position to direct increased attention toward oneself as the result of the adoption of a new paradigm concerning one’s place in the world (e.g., as might occur following a religious conversion or a psy­ chotherapeutic interaction).

A second psychological variable that seems at times to produce Barrier increment is exposure to stress. As earlier indicated, elevated Barrier scores were observed in the context of responding to Holtzman Inkblots that had been defined as an intelligence test (Lavit, 1970a); following exposure to a threatening film (Kamen, 1969, 1971); and after dealing with threatening verbal material (Lewis, 1983). Apparently, stress can initiate a mobilization of the boundary. This presumably has adaptive value. When the organism feels threatened, it makes sense to increase self-delineation and to augment feel­ ings of being capable of operating autonomously. This would seem to be the case in as much as persons with well-defined boundaries have proven to have an advantage when confronted by stress. But, as shown in Table 15.1, the actuality is that there have been few instances in which Barrier increases have been observed during stress. Shifts in Barrier have, with minor exceptions, not been detected during exposure to surgery, the threat of shock, long term body disablement, hemodialysis, and so forth. It is not clear what specific conditions in the Lavit (1970a), Kamen (1969, 1971), and Lewis (1983) studies induced elevated Barrier scores only in males. The boundary mobilization phenomenon during stress may be selec­ tively characteristic of males. In the Lewis study the Barrier elevation was observed in both schizophrenics and borderlines; it is not a phenomenon confined to well-adapting persons. In view of past research demonstrating the multiple ways in which people mobilize themselves to cope with emer­ gencies, it is surprising that more instances of Barrier mobilization during

BOUNDARY ALTERING FORCES

517

stress have not been reported. Perhaps it is impossible for most people to muster increased boundary definiteness when the level of threat is inten­ sified. Under the impact of stress, even to maintain one’s usual degree of boundary definition may be a taxing task. What can be discovered from an analysis of the work in Table 15.1 report­ ing a significant decrease in the Barrier score? First, a prime instance presents itself in which the route to boundary reduction is directly somatic. A number of investigators have verified that focusing their attention on the body interior (e.g., heart, stomach) results in decreased Barrier imagery. Obviously, to shift attention away from the body sheath is to decrease its perceptual prominence. Also, it may be that making the body interior more vivid stirs up associations about the viscera that have boundary-dissolving connotations. The viscera are easily linked with illness, surgery, hospitaliza­ tion, and body damage. One could speculate further that directing attention to the body interior lowers the threshold of awareness of unacceptably threatening impulses that need to be controlled and therefore initiates a centripetal, inward-containing movement of the boundary that interferes with its self-delineating functions. There is promise in designing experiments to ascertain whether focusing on the body interior actually affects measures of repression and anxiety about loss of impulse control. There are a few other scattered studies, cited in Table 15.1, in which Barrier decline is linked directly with somatic factors. In the Sanger (1978) study, women who have received a modified radical mastectomy for breast cancer are characterized by low Barrier scores. At the same time, a number of other studies observed no Barrier decline as the result of experiencing serious surgery and body incapacitation. The Sanger findings are probably an anomaly. A somatic effect is suggested too by the Fast and Fisher (1971) report that an injection of epinephrine lowered Barrier scores in men. How­ ever, this effect was significant only in comparison with small Barrier in­ creases in women who had received epinephrine. More will be said shortly about findings involving such sex differences. But first let us look at two instances in which psychological variables were shown to decrease the Barrier score. Fisher (1973d) demonstrated that males or females exposed to a tape recording in which they hear themselves making self-derogatory statements, experience a significant decline in their Barrier scores. Armstrong and Tan (1978) reported that persons brought into close interaction with cultural conditions differing from their own apparently suffer a decrease in Barrier. One is tempted to see a commonality in these two sets of findings. Do they not both represent exposing persons to information that derogates self and implies that one’s current identity is somehow inferior or wrong? This is obviously so with respect to listening to a tape recording that enumerates one’s faults and defects. It probably applies also to people’s having to adapt to another culture that bombards them with alien standards

518

15.

PERSPECTIVES CONCERNING BOUNDARY FUNCTIONING

that implicitly signal “You are not living right. You are the wrong kind of person.” We may be dealing with a psychological vector that has major negative implications for body boundary maintenance. It appears that people have heightened susceptibility to boundary loss when they are made to feel their identity is defective or inferior or unacceptable. This finding takes on double significance when one recalls that increases in Barrier were found to be linked with experiences that make people feel central and important. So one is presented with a vista in which the presence of a basic feeling about one’s significance is boundary reinforcing and its absence is boundary de­ structive. This symmetry is rather persuasive. The role of psychological centrality in the state of the boundary points up again that body image parameters are not simply feelings about one’s body, but also reflect attitudes concerning other important life issues that are coded in body terms. Especially intriguing are the findings in Table 15.1 that men are more vulnerable to a decline in Barrier than are women. Men were found to show a significantly greater decrease in Barrier than women after listening to hostile messages, after exposure to a variety of subliminal inputs, after receiving an injection of epinephrine, and while observing the environment through dis­ torting aniseikonic lenses. In all these instances, the impact on women’s Barrier scores was negligible. In not one report were women more boundary vulnerable than men. And the range of situations in which greater male vulnerability has appeared is impressive. We have already discussed possible reasons for the apparently less resilient nature of the male boundary. Chief among these were: (a) that males are selectively socialized to expect to use their body for aggressive purposes and to expect potentially damaging attack and this would presumably result in their being more sensitive to somatic threat; (b) the possibility that women are more comfortable with their body as a psychological object because they are reared to perceive as one of their primary objectives in life the use of their body to create a child. That is, they are socialized to link their basic identity to the creative power of their body. Men cannot easily establish a link between their identity and their body because physical strength, which is a chief asset of the male body, is no longer of much significance in a world where machines are the major source of power. If these speculations are correct, then men are simply more uncertain about their body and therefore more likely to feel they possess inadequately protective boundaries when they encounter threatening forces. However, it is conceivable that the socialization experiences of men create the expectation they will take prime responsibility for being protectors, warding off dangerous forces. Women may assume men will take the major burden in this respect. If so, the greater susceptibility of the Barrier score in men to decline in threatening situations may represent an adaptive signal function. That is, men may have a lower threshold for perceiving their boundary as vulnerable so that they can cope more quickly and vigorously

BOUNDARY ALTERING FORCES

519

with the approach of danger. The male role may be so defined as to require a specialized system that will announce in body imagery terms the need for defensive preparation. From this perspective, the heightened responsiveness of the male boundary to certain stresses would represent not weakness but rather a positive coping strategy. The Barrier decline seen in males during certain stress conditions may result in part from a special intensity of emo­ tional activation that registers as visceral arousal and decreases the amount of attention focused on the bounding sheath of the body. It may be that the presumed sensitive boundary signaling system of the male is activated too easily. Is it an overreaction for the male Barrier score to decline because the world is being viewed through aniseikonic lenses in a controlled laboratory situation or because a tape recorder repetitively issues words with hostile connotations? Does the special sensitivity of men result in their spending a good deal of time feeling uneasy about their body periphery? There is the interesting possibility that the specific conditions (viz., hostile messages, subliminal input, epinephrine, aniseikonic lenses) that produced boundary decrement in men but not in women share a certain uniqueness. They all involve highly contrived laboratory situations in which the intention was to arouse feelings or sensations that were strange and somehow not controllable by one’s usual defenses. They all represented a departure from real life conditions and sought to initiate experiences that could not be readily anchored in past paradigms. In essence, there was a lack of meaning in the experiences that were triggered. Perhaps males are selectively sen­ sitive to such a class of threats. They may become especially defensive when they feel that forces are acting upon them that are outside their understand­ ing and creating internal sensations that register as alien. It is possible that women are equally aroused by such conditions, but that their concern registers at some defense level other than the boundary. A rare opportunity to probe the dynamics of Barrier decline was provided by the earlier cited studies (Fisher, 1970; Tatyrek, 1977) of the impact of hostile messages on the boundary. These studies showed that listening to a repetitive taped message consisting of references to anger and aggression (e.g., shoot, hate, kill) produced a significant Barrier decrease in males but not in females. The design of the studies was such that baseline responses to the Holtzman Inkblots were obtained and then retest blot responses were secured during exposure to the hostile tape. After verifying the original Fisher observation about hostile input instigating Barrier decrease in men, Tatyrek explored a possible mediator of the process. He theorized that if men who were exposed to the hostile tape were given the opportunity to vent the angry tensions presumably aroused in them by the tape, their Barrier scores would not decline. As earlier described, he conducted an experiment that nicely supported this hypothesis. The boundary was diminished only when the tension created by the tape

520

15.

PERSPECTIVES CONCERNING BOUNDARY FUNCTIONING

message could not be relieved or dissipated. It was the accumulation of tension that was of prime importance. What mechanisms might be involved? One possibility is that as angry tension builds up in men, their fantasies turn more and more to themes of attacking and being attacked. This would necessarily conjure up concern about getting hurt and suffering body damage, and it would therefore not be surprising if feelings evolved that their boundaries might not be sufficiently strong to deal with the fantasied onslaughts. Another possibility is that as hostile images accumulate, there is an accompanying increase in muscular tension representing impulses to act out such images motorically. The pressure for the tension to be acted out might be experienced as a potential loss of control. It could be experienced as an alien or discomforting pressure in the body sheath that would trigger doubts about the stability of that sheath. This would presumably register as a decline in Barrier imagery. If this model has any validity, one wonders about its generality. Is it possible that an accumulation of tension relating to the acting out of any impulses with disapproved or threatening connotations is boundary disrup­ tive? If so, this would reinforce previous speculations that one function of the boundary is to create a safe feeling about the ability to control one’s impulses. It would be profitable to undertake experiments in which tensions other than hostile (e.g., sexual, oral, anal) were intensified in order to determine their boundary effects. Furthermore, it would be of interest to ascertain whether the effects were mediated by the amount of anxiety aroused concerning possible loss of self-control. Fisher (1970) originally suggested that persons with well-articulated boundaries who are accustomed to relatively high ac­ tivation of their muscle sheath would be at ease in dealing with impulse surges that registered as muscle activation. But low Barrier persons might find surges in muscle arousal to cause so much discomfort as to be boundary depleting. Low Barrier scores have consistently typified those (e.g., delin­ quents, drug addicts) who have limited ability to restrain the motoric acting out of impulses. One wonders whether it is the very fact of finding their muscle sheath to be undependable in inhibiting impulses that makes these people feel they lack a well-defined boundary. But, if so, why do schizophrenics, who appar­ ently have lost control of impulse expression, not consistently obtain low Barrier scores? One of the difficulties in confronting this question is that we do not yet have solid data as to whether those schizophrenics who are motorically acting out do or do not have lower Barrier scores than those whose loss of control remains largely in the ideational realm. This is a matter that needs careful scrutiny. Of course, it has also been proposed that in the case of the schizophrenic, new compensatory forms of boundary mainte­ nance based on unrealistic fantasies come into play. Although considerable attention has been devoted to an analysis of the

BOUNDARY ALTERING FORCES

521

conditions that increase or decrease the Barrier score, Table 15.1 reveals many more that simply have no effect upon it. Many conditions involving radical body transformations and distortions do not alter the boundary. Little effect is registered as the result of such conditions as intense body vibration, radical surgery, becoming pregnant, having an abortion, menstruating, under­ going hemodialysis, becoming very aged, watching a movie full of scenes of body mutilation, and being severely disabled. It is paradoxical that what appear to be major body image stressors have little effect on the body boundary, while apparently less directly bodily threatening stimuli impinge significantly. When this paradox was discussed earlier, the possibility was raised that the boundary has to be preserved at all costs against threats of potentially catastrophic proportions. Perhaps the alarm registers at some other level of the individual’s personality economy, but the sense that one’s protective sheath still exists substantially may have to be maintained in order to muster one’s resources in the face of a dilemma that could become disorganizing. The stabilization seems in some instances (e.g., gross body disablement) to require a rigid denial of the real nature of the threat. Shifting to a consideration of conditions that have clearly been shown to influence changes in the Penetration score, we note in Table 15.2 that these have been few. The Penetration score can be increased by focusing attention on the body interior, and it can be decreased by focusing upon the body exterior (Van de Mark & Neuringer, 1969). Penetration imagery has been found in several studies to be elevated just before surgery and to decline after surgery (e.g., Auerbach & Edinger, 1977). It seems also to decline with moderate consistency when women complete their pregnancy and move into the postpartum phase (e.g., Fisher, 1973c). Finally, one study detected de­ creased Penetration in males who had an experience that enhanced their sense of self-importance (Roger, 1982). Two of these change factors have also been significant in producing Bar­ rier alterations. Focusing attention on the body exterior versus interior has caused Barrier shifts, and this was likewise true of augmenting one’s sense of importance. But the Penetration changes linked with surgery and pregnancy lack consistent parallels with Barrier changes. The Penetration score has proven to be largely unaffected by variables such as severe body incapacita­ tion, ingestion of alcohol and a number of drugs (e.g., Pentobarbital, dAmphetamine), body exercises, exposure to laboratory stressors, hemo­ dialysis, becoming pregnant, and abortion. It is difficult to compare the relative susceptibility of the Penetration and Barrier scores to change be­ cause there have been many fewer studies evaluating Penetration in this respect. However, keeping this caution in mind, it seems valid to say that there is no evidence that the Penetration score is more subject to the impact of situational conditions than is the Barrier score. At one time (Fisher, 1970), the impression prevailed that the Penetration index was particularly sensitive

TABLE 15.2 Conditions that Do and Do Not Produce Penetration Score Changes In crease P en etration S core

N o C h an ge

D ecrea se P en etration S core

Focusing attention on body interior (heart, stom ach) (Fisher, 1970)

Ingesting L S D in a quasitherapeutic setting (M cG lothlin et al., 1967)

H ypnosis. B orderline in­ crease in w om en (Freundlich & Fisher, 1974)

Participating in various body ex ercises (Sm ith, 1977)

F ocusing attention on body exterior (skin, m uscle) (Van D e Mark & N euringer, 1969)

A w akening from sleep (Fisher, 1976a) E xp eriencin g abortion (Rekant, 1973) E xp osu re o f w om en to a m odified radical m astec­ tom y (Sanger, 1978) Ingesting alcoh ol (M ayfield, 1968; O hzam a, 1964) B eing pregnant (Fisher, 1973c) E xp osu re to certain forms o f stress, such as being evalu­ ated for level o f in telligen ce (Lavit, 1970a) or view ing a threatening film (K am en, 1969, 1971) E xp eriencin g long-term body incapacitation (e.g., Euchner, 1979) E xperiencing hem odialysis (K estenbaum , 1974) E xp osu re to a double-bind m essage (M esberg, 1969) C oping with threatening ver­ bal m aterial (L ew is, 1983) E xp osu re to various labora­ tory type stressors (e.g., K am en, 1969, 1971; Lavit, 1970a) Ingestion o f Pentobarbital, dA m phetam ine, and placebo in laboratory set­ ting (C lausen & Fisher, 1973) Experiencing o f tranquilizer drug therapy by sc h iz o ­ phrenics (e.g., Cardone & O lson, 1973). However, som e reports indicate a d e­ crease in Penetration (Fisher, 1970) A ging (Fisher, 1970)

E xp eriences that increase sen se o f se lf im portance (Roger, 1982) Subm itting to surgery has b een found in several stud­ ies to result in a d ecrease in Penetration from pre- to postsurgery (e.g., Auer­ bach & Edinger, 1977; Cantor, 1973). Som e stud­ ies discerned no changes (e.g., S eb est, 1973) Shifting from the pregnant to the postpartum state (e.g., Karmel, 1975; M cC onnell & D aston, 1961) S en sory isolation (Taylor et al., 1969). But other stud­ ies have not found changes (e.g., R osen zw eig & Gardner, 1966) E xperiencing psychotherapy (borderline trend in neu­ rotic patients) (Fisher & Cleveland, 1958)

BOUNDARY ALTERING FORCES

523

to situational forces. However, in the light of new data, this view no longer seems justified. While there is considerable boundary stability, it is also apparent that people have to exert vigorous effort to keep their boundaries “tuned up.” There are probably an infinite number of strategies and maneuvers to bolster one’s borders. Presumably, the daily wear and tear of encountering threats, blows to one’s self-esteem, and body intrusions grind into the boundary. People probably learn a repertoire of reparative techniques. We have already seen that athletes appear to secure boundary reinforcement from their ath­ letic pursuits. It will be recalled that Barrier elevations have also been diversely linked to wearing certain kinds of clothing, performing particular forms of exercise, and being tattooed. It is not surprising that there is an inexhaustible supply of products available for increasing the visibility and palpability of the skin sheath. Special comment should be made about the use of self-touching to keep the boundary toned up. Several studies (Grand, 1977) have shown that self-touching increases in certain types of stress situations in which there is a loss of self-differentiation. Presumably, rep­ arative maneuvers include too the many ways in which people try to magnify their importance and centrality. Each person may evolve an hierarchy of somatic and self-expressive strategies for boundary maintenance. A good deal has been written about boundaries as protective structures. Freud spoke of the ego boundary as a Reizschutz that protects the individual against too much input. Experimental studies (Martin, 1968) have certainly shown that most people are selective with reference to what aspects of the prevailing information in their environs they “permit” to gain entry to them. One of the puzzling findings is that the body boundary’s blocking out func­ tions in normal people have not been well demonstrated. Indeed, the Barrier score has been shown to be positively correlated with a sensitized orientation toward stimuli. It will be recalled that normal high Barrier persons are inclined to judge stimuli as having relatively high sensory vividness (Fisher, 1970). It is only in schizophrenics that the shutting out function of the body image boundary seems to be promiment. There may be an interesting paradox contained in such data. Perhaps the normal body image boundary modulates input not primarily through shutting out processes, but rather by selectively magnifying the vividness of what is ego congruent or ego comfortable. It may be the magnification of what is acceptable that reduces the unacceptable to a background level. In other words, the emphasis may not be on what is inadmissible but rather on what is admissible. Perhaps this is one factor that distinguishes nonpathological from pathological filtering strategies. For example, schizophrenics may devote far too much energy to detecting and blocking out what is threatening and thereby lose contact with those aspects of their world that are potentially

524

15.

PERSPECTIVES CONCERNING BOUNDARY FUNCTIONING

gratifying and supportive. If input channels are actually limited, it could follow that selectively increasing the intensity of certain inputs automatically cuts down the competition of other inputs. People with high Barrier scores are perhaps more attuned to others as rewarding inputs, and this may mask the presence of other forces that have threatening connotations. Low Barrier persons may have a diminished ability to selectively magnify specific classes of comforting inputs from “out there.” They may be too focused on inputs from sensory experiences occurring within their body interior. Indeed, the general experience of what is “out there” may be obscured by the highlight­ ing of what is “in here.” Another interesting possibility relating to the filtering functions of the boundary has emerged from the experiments of Alexander and Epstein (1978). They exposed subjects to stimuli of increasing intensity and observed subjects’ skin conductance and experiential responses as a function of inner sources o f arousal. The inner sources were motor efforts (squeezing a dynamometer) initiated during exposure to the various inputs. Analysis of the data revealed “that the dynamometer both reduced reactivity to strong stimuli over trials and interfered with habituation to weak stimuli, [suggest­ ing] the interesting hypothesis that, over trials, proprioceptive stimulation tends to enhance reactivity to low levels of external stimulation and to reduce reactivity to high levels of external stimulation” (p. 392). If one thinks of the Barrier score as reflecting, to some degree, an elevated level of muscular activation (perhaps analogous to that produced by squeez­ ing a dynamometer), it could follow that the well-articulated boundary simul­ taneously results in sensitivity to some classes of stimuli and the blocking out of others. This would help to explain why high Barrier persons have been found to be sensitized to relatively muted stimuli in the context of laboratory presentations, but yet show an ability to ward off or tolerate such extremely intense inputs as pain and stressful demands. The maintenance of persistent high levels of arousal in the muscular sheath of the body may provide a unique resource for differential muting and enhancement of stimulus inputs. The body image boundary is usually conceptualized as a uniform totality. One speaks of “the boundary.” However, if one examines the boundary structures of various objects, it becomes obvious that they are not continu­ ously uniform. One locale of the structure may be weak, and another un­ usually strong. Analogously, persons may have different feelings about certain stretches of their boundaries than about others. They feel secure about their boundary as it encircles the bony head region but feel vulnerable about its protective value in the vicinity of some major body opening in the lower part of the body. They may perceive the muscle sheath as safer in areas with well-developed musculature and less so in less developed areas. They may feel more secure about the boundary in areas they can clearly see (front of body) than in those out of sight (back).

THE VIEW FROM THE BOUNDARY

525

It would be worthwhile to develop techniques for measuring definiteness or security with respect to major localized divisions of the boundary struc­ ture. One possibility would be to analyze the range of Barrier and Penetra­ tion responses produced by individuals and to determine whether certain body locales are highlighted as weak or strong. For example, if a woman conjures several inkblot images in which the vaginal opening is a site of invasion or pathology, it would be reasonable to conclude that the boundary in that area is experienced as particularly vulnerable. Or if a person depicts a number of figures as wearing effective protective structures on the head (e.g., helmet), this could signify a sense that the boundary in the vicinity of the head is felt to be particularly sturdy. Perhaps a sufficient number of such images classified by body region could be secured to permit quantification if subjects were asked to respond to a considerably larger series of inkblots than is used in current research on the boundary. The two forms of the Holtzman Inkblots could provide the potential for obtaining up to 90 re­ sponses. Exciting research possibilities come to mind with respect to whether specific locales of boundary strength versus weakness would dif­ ferentiate males and females, persons with various types of body injury, patients with specific forms of psychopathology, and so forth.

THE VIEW FROM THE BOUNDARY

The profusion of findings concerning the Barrier score permits the con­ struction of general models of the world as viewed from the perspectives of persons with well versus vaguely defined boundaries. The world of high Barrier individuals is person centered. People, rather than nonliving objects, are in the foreground. The spaces between people are experienced as open and accessible. Human agents can transmit information easily and directly to each other. They are interested in communication and do not interpose artificial barriers to it. They expend little energy in armoring themselves artificially with special modes of clothing or protective structures. Movement and action seem to be prominent. People can get to where they want to go, and tasks are likely to be completed. There is an upward trajectory to movement. High Barrier people expect to do well, and they aim high. They assume they will progress and be successful. They anticipate it will be relatively safe to make contact with other people and objects. Few areas of their life space seem alien or off limits. As they look about, they are impressed with the contoured individuality of what comes into view and perhaps for that reason experience stimuli as possessing an extra bit of vividness. They have fairly clear lawful notions of how persons and objects influence each other and are unlikely to attribute such influence to magical forces. They assume people

526

15.

PERSPECTIVES CONCERNING BOUNDARY FUNCTIONING

affect each other largely by initiating action on their own. Action derives from individual will and is not some erratic, unpredictable free-floating force. There are no secret channels of access through boundaries. Distinctions, demarcations, and definitions are dependable but can be altered by a suffi­ cient mobilization of purposeful energy. To interact with others is to contact them but not to cling to or fuse with them. One’s own body is not a site for focusing anxiety. It is not perceived as a fragile object that can be easily injured. In a sense, there is only a limited equation between one’s existence and one’s potentially fallible body. High Barrier persons seem paradoxically to have a well-individuated view of self and yet perhaps to be less totally committed to equating self with body. This speculation derives in part from the fact that they adapt well when they suffer what amounts to the functional loss of their body in conditions (e.g., para­ plegia) involving widespread paralysis. Even with a highly defective body, they continue to operate relatively satisfactorily at a psychological level. Quite the opposite is true for low Barrier persons. They are chronically fearful that their body base will be infiltrated and that they will lose reign over it. Somehow they have more difficulty in conceptualizing self as an indepen­ dent psychological vector. They view the disablement of the body as total disaster. But the high Barrier individual’s attitude might be paraphrased: “Even if I lose my body, I will continue to strive and exist.” Low Barrier persons seem to view their body as something that pulls them away from other people and things. They devote so much attention to what is going on inside of it that they are distracted from outside events. High Barrier persons regard their body as an instrument of interaction. Their attention is typically focused on those body sectors (viz., skin and muscle) that are in touch with what is “ out there.” They do not see their somatic territory as under siege but rather as affirmatively present. This is especially true at times of stress. Low Barrier persons are inclined to feel in danger from unacceptable im­ pulses pressing from within. They often have doubts about their ability to vent such impulses in a controlled fashion. They probably entertain images of their body as filled with pressurized substances seeking outlet. They experi­ ence threat to the boundary from both within and without.1 Low Barrier persons want events arranged in an orderly fashion. They want predictability. Their aim is to create a well-ordered ambience presided over by a higher authority that guides and controls. They are relatively willing to submit to directives and suggestions. They are conforming and do not strongly resist the role of the follower. High Barrier persons resist being subordinated. They want to feel they have the power to say no. Their sen­ sitivity to being subordinate can create trouble for them when they are members of organizations with a prominent vertical hierarchy.2 Their sen­ sitivity can also interfere with obtaining prompt medical treatment because

THE VIEW FROM THE BOUNDARY

527

of their reluctance to submit to the ministrations of a “ superior” physician figure. The concern of low Barrier persons with maintaining a controlled (or­ derly) atmosphere probably reflects in part their anxiety about loss of con­ trol. They are, in fact, vulnerable to acting out forms of disturbance involving an inability to inhibit self. By way of contrast, even when high Barrier persons develop serious personality disturbance, they tend to express it in ideational (e.g., obsessive, paranoid) rather than acting out forms. This is momentarily surprising when one recalls that high Barrier persons prefer to initiate action. In a sense, they like to act out their impulses. Perhaps it is the very fact that they permit themselves day-to-day self-expression that prevents the build-up of tensions to the point where unreasonable venting becomes necessary. Interestingly, while high Barrier persons visualize the world as a place where the individual unit should not be overly restricted, they often feel obliged to implement the goals of the groups in which they are participating. It is a bit puzzling that high Barrier people are apparently more law abiding than those who are low Barrier—if one is to judge by the fact that delinquents and criminals have consistently been typified by low Barrier scores. Would one not expect that high Barrier people, who are set on being self-expressive, would come into conflict with group standards and therefore be judged as law breakers? High Barrier persons are perceived as deviants and unacceptably self-expressive in some settings. But their probable lower representation in grossly criminal populations may reflect socialization expe­ riences that resulted in low motivation for attacking and despoiling others or that produced a high capacity to tolerate the build-up of tension without letting go impulsively.3 The work concerned with the Barrier and Penetration scores that has been reviewed points up the usefulness of conceptualizing such phenomena as self, identity, “I ,” and “my body” from a boundary perspective. A good deal of useful information has accumulated as the result of adopting such a perspective. It is interesting how different theorists operating from often unlike viewpoints have ended up with an image of people that focuses on their spatiality, their division into an inside and an outside, their need to contain impulses or energies in an inner space, their concern with establish­ ing a zone of demarcation between a self region and a nonself region, their need to defend the periphery, and to filter what gets through to the inner space. Such spatially stated images have emerged diversely from the energy metaphors in Freud’s theories, the topographical concepts developed by Lewin (1935), the developmental and differentiation frame of reference adopted by Wapner and Werner (1965a), and by Witkin et al. (1954), the old and persistent notions of introversion-extroversion (particularly as visualized by Jung), and from the growing line of research directly concerned with how

528

15.

PERSPECTIVES CONCERNING BOUNDARY FUNCTIONING

people experience their body. It is, of course, also true that boundary phenomena are of enormous interest in all disciplines that study living organisms. The biologist who analyzes the environmental interchanges of one-celled organisms and the sociologist who looks at complex interactions between social classes are both equally focused on the phenomenon of bounded spatiality.

DEVELOPMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

We have clues that the Barrier score increases throughout childhood and adolescence until about the age of 20. Particularly large increases seem to occur between 6 and 9 years and again between 12 and 18. After year 20, the Barrier score stabilizes and there are no other characteristic shifts even into old age. There does not seem to be any one crucial age point when the Barrier score dramatically increases or decreases. The build-up of the bound­ ary proceeds gradually over an extended time span. Also, no dramatic sex differences in the progression of Barrier accretion have been reported. Horner (1983) examined behaviors in young infants that look like attempts at boundary construction. He noted the defensive responses of infants to strangers and to objects brought too close to them. Infants evidence a rudimentary grading of objects and persons with reference to their harmful or invasive potential. They also exhibit behaviors that indicate motivation to find methods of sealing off from intrusion. We know little about the role that parents play in such early efforts by the child to gain control over what can get to it. However, it is obvious that in a literal sense the parents represent the prime shield available. Defense of the boundary by the infant may revolve primarily around developing effective signals for mobilizing parents to take a protective stance. There are, of course, other strategies for controlling intrusive input. These strategies involve turning attention on and off, avoiding the stimulus, and perhaps initiating and practicing centrifugal patterns of skin, muscle, and mouth arousal. The first empirical data we have concerning the potential role of parents in the young child’s Barrier score derives from previously de­ scribed studies (Fisher, 1970) that included children as young as age 7. There were borderline trends for parents’ intrusiveness to be accompanied by diminished boundary definiteness in their offspring. One of the most depend­ able findings was that children’s Barrier scores were inversely correlated with the degree to which their parents sought to block the children’s gratification of body needs and to impose arbitrary controls upon their body. Repeated experiences that tell children they do not have ownership of their own body

DEVELOPMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

529

result in their feeling a lack of control over their body space. This, in turn, translates into a sense of lacking adequate body boundaries. In the earlier mentioned data reported by Fisher (1970) it was striking that correlations between parents’ attributes and their children’s Barrier scores were virtually absent by the time the children were beyond early adoles­ cence. This could mean that, once children were old enough to have experi­ ences with peers outside of the home, their boundaries were less reflective of their transactions with their parents. It is interesting that adult persons’ Barrier scores were found not to be correlated with their recall of how their parents had treated them. Significant correlations emerged only when chil­ dren’s Barrier scores were related to measurements of parents’ contempo­ raneous characteristics. Conceivably, conscious memories of parents may conceal or exclude information about them that is significant with respect to boundary issues. Unfortunately, the whole matter is obfuscated by the fact that all studies that have looked at the correlation between individuals’ Barrier scores and their descriptions of their parents involved adults whose boundaries could have been affected by many nonparental forces (e.g., relationship with peers, sexual partners) once the original family had been left behind. We know little of the role of immediate personal relationships on the boundaries of adults. We do not know if the body boundary is affected by such variables as whether one is living alone, living in close intimacy with a partner, about to break up a relationship, and so forth. In view of past work demonstrating the importance of centrality (vis-a-vis others) in boundary definition, it is likely factors of this sort are of consequence. But returning to the issue of parental influence on children’s boundaries, one wonders whether it would be useful to study the Barrier scores of children who are undergoing extreme forms of certain clear-cut family expe­ riences. For example, the role of amount of parental control over the child’s body could be examined by comparing children whose parents are adherents of religions that differ sharply with respect to how much they demand denial of body gratification. Or the effects of having to model oneself after a parent with a defective body could be probed by appraising children whose mother or father or both suffer from chronic disablement. Or the potential import of a low level of centrality might be explored by contrasting only children with those being reared in families with multiple sibs. As children mature, those who are well adjusted are most likely to have definite boundaries. Liebetrau and Pienaar (1974) reported that at three different age levels (8, 10, 12) children identified as well adapted had higher Barrier scores than those considered to be poorly adapted. This was not true at age 6. The findings are only preliminary and are based on a white South African sample. They await further verification. However, we do know that in other reports children with various negative attributes (e.g., reading diffi­

530

15.

PERSPECTIVES CONCERNING BOUNDARY FUNCTIONING

culties, school adjustment problems) were observed to be relatively low Barrier scorers. It would be informative to track individual children to ascertain whether changes in their Barrier scores over time reflect the stresses they are encountering and also the adequacy displayed in coping with such stresses. One suspects that early Barrier scores will particularly predict later inclinations to be impulsive and acting out. This is logical in view of the consistency with which acting out adolescents as well as adults have been typified by poor boundaries.

HOW DO THE BARRIER AND PENETRATION SCORES DIFFER?

The Barrier and Penetration scores both seem to relate to the body image boundary, and yet they are obviously different. The original work by Van De Mark and Neuringer (1969) showed that each of the boundary scores was significantly influenced by procedures that directed attention to the outer versus interior sectors of the body. However, although focusing on the exterior increased Barrier and focusing on the interior decreased Barrier, they resulted in quite the opposite pattern of change for the Penetration score. Both boundary scores reflect patterns of body experience but in apparently obverse directions. Yet at the same time, studies have demon­ strated that the two scores are not negatively correlated and in most in­ stances have a chance relationship. We know that the Barrier score is, by and large, a better predictor of various behaviors (e.g., adaptation to body disablement, physiological reac­ tivity at outer versus inner body sites) than is the Penetration index. This may be due in part to the wider range of scores usually obtained with the Barrier as compared with the Penetration scoring systems. In any case, it is puzzling that both scores seem to be obversely responsive to the focusing of attention on exterior versus interior body sites in a laboratory setting, but they are not negatively related when measured in various populations. Al­ though they both reflect the state of the boundary, might they not tap different aspects of this state? One of the most promising leads to answer this question derives from several earlier reviewed studies of the relationships between the boundary scores and various measures of anxiety. It will be recalled that Barrier was significantly correlated with behavioral measures of anxiety but unrelated to subjective self reports of anxiety. Just the opposite correlational pattern typified the Penetration score; it was positively linked with subjective indices of anxiety and unrelated to behavioral ones. These data suggest that, al­ though both the Barrier and Penetration scores represent the state of the

HOW DO THE BARRIER AND PENETRATION SCORES DIFFER?

531

boundary, they do so at different levels. It is as if there were two separate systems monitoring the boundary. The Penetration score relates to the rela­ tive prominence of boundary as compared to interior aspects of one’s body, but there seems to be an additional component somehow related to con­ scious anxiety evoked by the boundary perception. The Penetration score may represent the interaction of two major variables: (a) the perception of the degree to which the body boundary is definite and well structured; and (b) the accessibility of this information and any associated affect to conscious awareness. Two individuals may perceive their boundaries as lacking defi­ niteness, but one may deny or repress the information while the other may conjure vivid Penetration imagery to depict the apparent state of inadequacy. In this sense, the Penetration score represents not only an image of the boundary but also openness (sensitivity) to anxiety generated by that image. The Penetration score would then be subject to all the variables that can determine the relative degree of sensitization versus repression displayed with respect to stimuli. It is not clear how the concept of the Penetration score just presented would apply in those instances where persons obtain both high Barrier and high Penetration scores. If the Barrier score is high, one would assume there would be minimal basis for the kind of boundary concern that can be translated into Penetration imagery. But it is possible that some people continue to be anxious about their boundaries even when they are well defined. Perhaps being confronted by unusually powerful external threats arouses anxiety about being intruded upon despite the fact that one is well bounded. Another possibility is that the meaning of the Penetration score changes as the Barrier score varies. Penetration imagery may very well mirror boundary anxiety in persons with low Barrier scores. However, in those with high Barrier scores the Penetration score may depict not a sensitivity to body anxiety, but rather a sensitivity to body experiences in general. That is, it could represent a form of sensitization to other aspects of body experience (e.g., disapproved sensations relating to sex or hostility) aside from body anxiety. There are investigators who have asked whether the Penetration score can in certain contexts reflect a special experiential open­ ness. However, solid, pertinent facts are simply unavailable at this point. As for the Barrier score, it could be conceptualized as a measure of the structural experience of boundary differentiation but with the conscious, verbally defined affective component minimized. It would be a statement of how the boundary registers at an unconscious level without the selectivity involved in filtering such information through a particular repression-sensitization defense system. Assuming these formulations are correct, why should the Barrier score predict efficiency in coping with tasks in stress situations, whereas the Penetration score does not? If the Barrier score does

532

15.

PERSPECTIVES CONCERNING BOUNDARY FUNCTIONING

depict the definiteness of the individual’s boundary, it is not surprising, in view of the multiple studies linking boundary definiteness with adaptability, that this score should foresee ability to cope with a stress demand. However, the Penetration score would depict not only the perceived state of the boundary but also how this perception was cognitively filtered. Thus, it would not be a straightforward measure of the actual condition of the bound­ ary. This would help to explain why amount of Penetration imagery has in general proved to be less effective than Barrier imagery in predicting various behaviors. Interestingly, if the Penetration score is indeed partially a function of sensitivity to boundary anxiety, it would be an indirect index of how open one is to experiencing anxiety about one’s body. In a few instances (e.g., Euchner, 1979) persons with severe body damage have been found to have unusually low Penetration scores. Conceivably this could reflect a highly repressive and denying attitude toward body anxiety that might adaptively evolve in persons who are confronted with their own severely disabled body and know they can do little to change its condition.

NOTES irThe description of the high and low Barrier life views and styles obviously depicts the former in a relatively more favorable light. It has been difficult to detect any advantages in being a vaguely bounded person, except in the context of having to conform to a highly hierarchical structure in which one must subordinate and mini­ mize one’s individuality. Several investigators have raised the question whether it is possible to have a Barrier score that is too high. Can one’s boundaries be too well defined? From a purely theoretical perspective it might seem that they could be. However, except in a few trivial instances, no solid empirical evidence has emerged to document that high Barrier persons are unusually rigid or over encapsulated. Indeed, if one considers that the Barrier score has been fairly consistently observed to be positively correlated with sensitivity to others, it is not even logical to expect that high Barrier persons will be unusually apart or wrapped in a cocoon. Probably the commonsense connotations of the term Barrier create an image of the definite boundary as a line of inhibition. In that sense the original choice of this term was unfortunate. It should be repeated that at this point in time there is no evidence that a very high Barrier score signifies being unreasonably apart or isolated from others. 2Fisher and Cleveland (1958) described the difficulties encountered by high Barrier persons in a military setting. 3An interesting question is whether the nature of the boundaries persons ascribe to their body influences how they think about other objects. For example, if they have poorly defined boundaries, do they assume most other people are similarly fragile? Are they generally concerned about the security of boundaries in different contexts? Do they worry about the security of their home or the vulnerability of their nation? We know from the Palmer (1970) study that just artificially highlighting sensory input

NOTES

533

from the skin is sufficient to make people selectively hyperaware of the surface properties of pictured objects they are shown. Do persons with high Barrier scores devote special attention to the surface properties of objects? Perhaps outer ap­ pearance is more important to them than to those with low Barrier scores when rendering judgments. The latter may be more concerned with what is going on beneath the surface.

This page intentionally left blank

PRINCIPLES PRINCIPLES PRINCIPLES PRINCIPLESPatterns

of Body Awareness

INTRODUCTION

This section considers the issue o f how people allot attention to the major sectors o f their body. Consider­ able empirical information has been amassed that in­ dicates this process is a crucial aspect o f body image organization. Also, degree o f awareness o f various parts o f the body has proved to have intriguing person­ ality correlates. It will be recalled that the concept o f a differentiated body boundary involves a selective dis­ tribution o f attention to one's body. I f persons have a high Barrier score, they are relatively highly aware o f the body sheath and less aware o f the body interior. The opposite pattern holds true for those with low Barrier scores. Since such selective distribution o f attention to the body proved, in the form o f the boundary scores, to be so profitable an area o f research, the present writer (Fisher; 1970) proposed that other body attentional variables should be explored. There was already a considerable speculative literature linking fo cu sed awareness o f certain body areas with specific emo­ tional states (e.g., Cleveland, 1976b; Mason, 1961; Plutchik & Conte, 1974) and psychoanalytic formulations (e.g., oral and anal character types). Freud con535

536

PATTERNS OF BODY AWARENESS

ceptualized personality development as proceeding in a series of stages linked to the focusing of energy (libido) on a progression of body sectors (viz., oral, anal, genital). He ascribed major importance to the shifting investment in certain body areas as compared to others. Detailed accounts of this perspective, as depicted within a body image frame of reference, may be found elsewhere (Fisher, 1970). The present writer considered that basic to the investigation of how people distribute attention to their body sectors is an objective and reliable means of measuring degree of awareness of specific body parts. Assumedly, awareness of any given part would differ widely among different people. One individual might be minimally aware of it; for another it might be a prominent preoc­ cupation. A troubling question was whether there was stability over time. If persons were highly aware of a body part today, would they be similarly inclined tomorrow? The technique developed for measuring how persons distribute their attention to the various regions of their body is called the Body Focus Questionnaire (BFQ) (see Appendix B). The basic format of the BFQ involves presenting subjects with a series of verbal references to paired body regions and asking them to indicate which of each pair stands out most clearly in their awareness. For example, subjects might be confronted with the choice of indicating greater awareness of the back of their head or the front of their head, of their right or their left arm, and so forth. The final version of the BFQ requests 108 such judgments. It is comprised of eight scales:1 Front-Back, Right-Left, Heart, Stomach, Eyes, Mouth, Head, Arms. The number of items per scale varies from 11 to 19. The average time required to respond to the 108 items is about 20-30 minutes. When the BFQ is administered, the following instructions are given: “Turn your attention upon yourself. Concentrate on your body. Below is a list in which different areas of your body are listed in pairs. In each case pick the area or part which is at the moment most clear in your awareness.” Subjects indicate their choices by marking an IBM answer sheet. A score for a given dimension (e.g., Back) is simply equal to the number of times it is chosen as being more clearly in awareness than the other body areas with which it is compared. (The series of BFQ items is presented in Appendix B.) In order to conceal the fact that specific dimensions of body experience are under scrutiny, the items comprising the various scales are distributed ran­ domly through the list of comparisons. The BFQ represents a compromise between the intent to obtain mean­ ingful samples of certain subjective aspects of body experience and the need to be able to express such information in easily quantifiable terms. Earlier preliminary studies had indicated great difficulties involved in coding per­ sons’ free, spontaneous qualitative reports of their body experiences and using that information to define how they allocate their attention to their body. Other, more disciplined kinds of reports were also explored, such as

INTRODUCTION

537

asking individuals to indicate the frequency of sensations at a few restricted body sites (e.g., stomach versus skin) for a given period of time. Certain of these approaches were partially successful but their overall reliability was low. The technique finally incorporated into the BFQ captures some of the straightforward reporting of body sensations that is found in spontaneous elaborations, but reduces the complexity of the judgments required by focus­ ing on narrow and rather easily managed bits of perceptual information.2 There are few complaints that the judgments required by the BFQ are too difficult, and even children as young as age 7 have managed them adequately. Most of the specific scales assembled were chosen on the basis of previous anecdotal and clinical reports that suggested that certain body areas are particularly likely to become symbolically linked with psychological con­ flicts and attitudes. The language used to refer to body parts and areas in the BFQ was kept as simple and nontechnical as possible. In the course of originally applying the BFQ to numerous populations and within a variety of experimental settings, a great deal of meaningful informa­ tion accumulated. This information has been reviewed by the writer in detail in Body Experience in Fantasy and Behavior (1970). It was discovered that men were more fixed or stable in their BFQ judgments over time than were women. Whereas it was common for male test-retest coefficients (with a week intervening) to attain the .70 level for most of the BFQ dimensions, this seldom occurred for females. Test-retest coefficients for men never dropped below .50, whereas almost 30% of a series of retest coefficients for women fell into the .40s. The relatively greater test-retest stability of male BFQ judgments was particularly evident for the Eyes and Mouth dimensions. The smallest sex differences in stability occurred for the Right-Left, Heart, and Stomach dimensions. As will shortly be described, it was also found that each of the BFQ dimensions was associated with specific conflicts, attitudes, and personality traits. However, there were marked sex differences in the character of these associations. In discussing BFQ parameters, one has to consider the two sexes quite separately. The themes found to be linked with each of the BFQ dimensions are shown in Table III. 1. In each case, the theme was derived from an extensive sequence of investigations. The research strategy used often began with administering personality and interest measures to normal persons represent­ ing a range of BFQ scores. When correlates were found between a given BFQ parameter and other variables in repeated samples, this information was converted into an hypothesis concerning the nature of the basic theme or conflict linked with the BFQ parameter. This hypothesis was, in turn, evalu­ ated with further measures and with direct experimental probes. Let us consider a specific example of this process. Initial exploration of the BFQ Eye score in males revealed that it was significantly negatively correlated with enjoyment of eating, as measured by a scale devised by

538

PATTERNS OF BODY AWARENESS TABLE 111-1 Themes or Conflict Areas Associated with Body Focus Questionnaire Dimensions in Men and Women

B o d y A w aren ess D im en sion

Them es M en

Women

BFQ Back

“Anal character” traits. U n ­ usual con cern about loss o f control

“Anal character” traits

BFQ Right

Inhibition about relating inti­ m ately or sexually to w om en

Investm ent in understanding and identifying with others

BFQ E yes

Conflict about incorporation and “taking in”

BFQ Heart

C onform ance with the proper and virtuous; in­ clined toward religiosity and guilt

O rientation to being sociable and placing value upon close, friendly interactions with others

BFQ M outh

S en sitized to, and conflicted about, aggression

Concern about the exercise o f power

BFQ Stom ach

S en sitized to, and conflicted about, aggression

C oncern about the exercise o f power

BFQ H ead

S elective attitudes toward stim uli with dirt or anal con n otation s

Inhibition about relating inti­ m ately or sexually to men

a

aThe test-retest reliability o f this dim ension was too low to perm it system atic investigation of its significance.

Byrne et al. (1963). Further exploration indicated that it was negatively correlated with recall of words with oral connotations and with ratings of how generous one’s parents were perceived to have been. These findings suggested that the greater one’s awareness of one’s eyes, the greater the anxiety about eating, incorporation, and the likelihood of getting satisfying nurturance and oral input. Additional studies were carried out that replicated the negative correla­ tions between BFQ Eyes and the following: enjoyment of food, facility in recalling oral words, and ratings of parental generosity. When new samples of subjects were studied, it was found, as predicted, that BFQ Eyes was signifi­ cantly correlated with selective response to oral proverbs, oral pictures and words presented tachistoscopically, jokes with oral themes, and ability to give free associations to oral words. A direct experimental test was then undertaken of the link between eye awareness and orality by exposing sub­ jects to a condition that increased their eye awareness and predicting that this would selectively influence learning of oral material by inducing either a

INTRODUCTION

539

repressive or sensitized attitude toward it. The experimental design involved three groups: (a) one learned a list of words containing oral and nonoral words under conditions that intensified their awareness of their eyes; (b) a second learned the words list while exposed to stimuli that increased mouth awareness; and (c) a third learned the words but no attempt was made to influence degree of awareness of any body part. The data indicated a signifi­ cant trend for the subjects with augmented eye awareness to recall a greater proportion of oral words than did the subjects in the other two control groups. Apparently, a sensitized response to oral stimuli was induced. It was concluded from this result and the other data just cited that the amount of attention persons direct to their own eyes is linked with their attitudes toward incorporation and “taking in.” In pondering such findings and those that emerged for other BFQ dimen­ sions, it was eventually concluded that degree of awareness of a body area is not an epiphenomenon, but rather serves an important defensive function. Fisher (1970) conveys the theoretical model that was constructed with re­ spect to this function: The relative vividness of various body areas in the body scheme serves as an organized system of peripheral cues designed to play a role in regulating response. This idea may be compared to the homely analogy of the child who remembers to buy a certain article at the store because his mother tied a string to his finger to remind him of it. Just so . . . may an individual develop on the basis of his socialization experiences a variety of attached strings (i.e., percep­ tually highlighted body areas) which become persistent sources of signals that modify judgments and responses. More formally, the theory may be presented as follows: The body scheme, considered as a series of landmarks with differential sensory prominence, may be conceptualized as a representation in body experi­ ence terms of attitudes the individual had adopted. They are experiences coded as patterns of body awareness (e.g., involving muscle, stomach). It may be presumed that the patterns of body awareness exist as circuits based on the following sequence: perceptual focus upon a body area because of its utility, or significance, or activation in relation to a goal; increased physiological and also sensory arousal of the area as a consequence of its special prominence; further feedback from such arousal to the subsystem in the central nervous system involved in the original highlighting of the area. Thus, the individual’s body scheme contains landmarks which reiterate to him that certain things are important and others are not. Just as a contracting stomach is a signal to seek food, the perceptual prominence of certain muscles maintained at high tonus may be a reminder to attend or not to attend to some class of objects, (pp. 355356)

It is proposed that children learn to associate specific body areas with certain wishes or conflicts. They may link the back of their body with anal problems or their legs with issues of freedom and motility or their heart with

540

PATTERNS OF BODY AWARENESS

issues of conscience and religiosity. They learn to control and make them­ selves secure against the conflictual theme linked with a body area by focusing their attention on that area. This is what children do who fear they may lose control of their urinary sphincter and, therefore, carefully direct their attention to that area to make sure it functions the way they desire. In other words, individuals’ distribution of attention to the different regions of their body can be conceptualized as a system that provides a continuing series of peripheral cues that guide behavior and ensure a sense of control in relation to particular conflictual issues. The most direct experimental support for these formulations has come from studies in which intensifying awareness of localized body areas (hence­ forth referred to as body landmarks) produces selective responses to specific theme stimuli. This was illustrated by the description given earlier of how augmenting eye awareness affected memory for oral words. In Body Experience in Fantasy and Behavior (Fisher, 1970), multiple other experiments were described in which analogous results were obtained. Thus, increasing back awareness selectively affected men’s memory for words with anal meanings. Increasing their awareness of the right side of the body selectively affected their memory for words with sexual significance. Inten­ sifying their awareness of the mouth resulted in increased selectivity in memory for hostile words. In female subjects, back stimulation significantly affected recall of words with dirt connotations. Stimulation of the right side of the body selectively influenced memory for words with social closenessdistance meanings. Increasing awareness of the mouth affected memory for words with achievement references and also selectivity in perceiving pictures with power themes presented tachistoscopically.3 There was solid evidence, primarily in terms of selective memory effects, that the amount of attention directed to specific peripheral body landmarks influences correspondingly specific central attitudes. The idea that peripheral body cues influence selectivity in central percep­ tual processes was boldly stated by Solley and Murphy (1960). They were influenced by the work of Solomon and Wynne (1954), who had demon­ strated that visceral sensations are capable of becoming conditioned stimuli. They were also intrigued with the clinical observations of a psychoanalyst, Braatoy (1954), who had noted that some persons seem chronically to inhibit specific anxiety-laden memories by maintaining continuous tightening of muscle groups. Their interpretation of Braatoy’s observations was that, “The painful memories are ‘locked’ in a state of unawareness by the incessant feedback from the tightened muscles” (p. 244). It was their conclusion that perceptual and interpretative processes can become linked with, and par­ tially controlled by, autonomic and proprioceptive feedback mechanisms. There are numerous converging studies which support this view. The Werner and Wapner sensori-tonic group has assembled much data pertinent

INTRODUCTION

541

to this issue. It has been shown, for example, that memory (Rand & Wapner, 1967) and tactual perception (McFarland, Werner, & Wapner, 1962) may be affected by body posture, and that asymmetrical body sensations may intro­ duce asymmetry into the perceptual field. Razran (1961) has nicely sum­ marized a considerable Russian literature demonstrating that interoceptive stimuli may acquire conditioned control over a range of response systems. Bucci and Freedman (1978) have presented data suggesting that kinesthetic feedback from hand movements accompanying speech may assist in the central organization of thought and sentence structure. A particularly strik­ ing study by Belleville (1964) found that conditioning and extinction in dogs could be significantly influenced by the body experience milieu associated with the effects of certain drugs. The effects observed were apparently not a direct function of the central action of the drugs but rather of the patterns of body sensations they aroused. The work of Valins (1966) is pertinent. He asked male subjects to rate the attractiveness of seminude women in a series of pictures. The men were told that, while they made the ratings, their heart rates would be recorded but that because of a defect in the equipment they would actually be able to hear their own hearts beating. The “heard” heart beat was manipulated so that it changed markedly while the subject was rating certain of the pictures, whereas no changes occurred with reference to the other pictures. It was found that the highest attractiveness ratings were given to those women whose pictures had apparently produced the greatest heart rate change in the subjects. In later studies Valins (1967a, 1967b) showed that the effects of such apparent heart rate shifts were likely to be greatest for men who were emotional and accustomed to observing their own internal reactions. It appears that body experience information can be integrated into and influ­ ence complex cognitive judgments. What emerged from the work in Body Experience in Fantasy and Behavior was, first of all, support for the view that there are fairly consistent individual differences in how people distribute attention to their various body land­ marks. But, more importantly, it was shown that the prominence of body landmarks affects central attitudes and sets in a fashion congruent with the theory that at one level the body image includes a network of peripheral signals (defined in terms of landmark awareness criteria) that serve defensive or adaptive purposes. That is, the body image signals provide guiding cues to which stimuli to approach or avoid as a function of their potential for arousing conflictual anxiety. The body image may represent a way of storing information in the form of persistent sensory reminders of what previous socialization experiences have indicated should be approached or avoided.

This page intentionally left blank

99

New Findings Concerning the Body Landmark Signal System

Subsequent to 1970, a series of new studies was undertaken by the present writer to evaluate in a broader fashion whether amount of awareness of one’s body landmarks plays a role in selective behavior patterns. These investiga­ tions deserve a detailed presentation.1

STUDY I

The first study was concerned with the effects of right versus left peripheral stimulation on selective tachistoscopic perception of heterosexual themes. Data from several studies (Fisher, 1970) indicated that, in men, relative awareness of the right as compared to the left side of one’s body is linked with heterosexual attitudes. Those men who are strongly aware of the right side of the body are typified by limited relationships with women and by anxiety when confronted with sexual stimuli (e.g., pictures depicting heterosexual interaction). The observed association of heterosexual attitudes with the right-left dimension of the body has been conceptualized as due to experi­ ences in which the right-handed individual learns that the right side of his body is stronger and therefore more masculine than the left side. Heightened awareness of the right side is seen as representing an anxious monitoring of that which is symbolic of one’s masculine aims. Presumably, the greater the self-doubts about being able to be effective heterosexually, the greater is the focus of attention on the right side of the body. Fisher showed that increasing a man’s awareness of the right side of his body by means of a vibrator has the opposite effect on the learning and recall of words with sexual meaning than does increasing awareness of the left side of the body. It was therefore hypothesized that men who were made highly aware of the right side of the body would differ from those made highly aware of the left side of the body in their perception of heterosexual themes presented tachistoscopically. No prediction was made concerning the direction of the difference (whether the right- or left-aware group would be able to perceive the heterosexual pictures most quickly) because previous studies (Fisher, 1970) had indicated that intensification of awareness of peripheral body areas may have either inhibitory or facilitative effects on response selectivity. 543

544

16.

FINDINGS CONCERNING BODY LANDMARK SIGNAL SYSTEM

Method

Subjects. The subjects were 57 male college students who were paid a fee for their participation. Their median age was 20 years. Procedure. The design of this study involved comparing responses to tachistoscopically presented heterosexual themes under conditions of in­ creased right awareness and increased left awareness and also a control condition in which right-left awareness was not manipulated. Each subject responded to a series of pictures, developed and standardized by Forrest and Lee (1962), which are line drawings depicting the following themes: neutral (line design), homosexual (two men holding hands), heterosexual (man and woman embracing), narcissistic (man having his picture taken), heterosexual (man and woman sitting close together). Each picture was presented in the sequence just listed and shown at five successively slower speeds (.011, .027, .060, .082, .137 sec.). All pictures were equated for size and visibility of lines. The subject’s description of each picture was taken down as verbatim as possible. One group of subjects (N = 21) had a small vibrator (Oster Massaget, Model 212, 35 w., wt., 2 lb., 4 oz.) attached to the right arm (dorsal surface, 2 in. above wrist); another group (N = 21) had the vibrator attached to the left arm. In both instances, the vibrator was turned on for 1 minute prior to the tachistoscopic task and continued until all the pictures had been viewed. The control subjects (N = 15) did not receive either right or left stimulation during the tachistoscopic task. The response protocols were blindly scored by the writer in terms of the speed at which correct perception of the picture occurred. Either of the heterosexual pictures was considered to be correctly identified when the subject explicitly stated that the two figures were of different sex and were engaged in some kind of intimacy (e.g., kissing, touching, “together,” “doing something romantic”). A second judge, who independently scored 57 pro­ tocols, attained 93% agreement with the writer. The writer’s scoring judg­ ments were those used, except in a few instances where examination of discrepancies indicated that the writer had made an obvious error. The scores derived were rank ordered, with Rank 1 assigned to the picture that was most quickly identified correctly. The ranks of the two heterosexual pictures were the prime scores derived. If the original hypothesis was cor­ rect, the right and left vibration groups would be expected to differ signifi­ cantly with respect to these scores.

Results

The distribution of the heterosexual rank scores was grossly skewed. The median rank for Heterosexual Picture 1 in the right vibration group

STUDY II

545

was 1.5 (range = 1.0-5.0); and for Picture 2 it was 3.5 (range = 1.5-5.0). The equivalent values for the left vibration group were 2.5 (range = 1.0-4.5) and 4.0 (range = 1.5-5.0). Also the equivalent values for the control group were 3.5 (range = 2.5-5.0) and 4.0 (range = 2.0-5.0). A median (McNemar, 1955) test indicated that the right, left, and control groups differed at a borderline level (X2 = 5.2, d f = 2, p < .10) for Heterosexual Picture 1; and although the differences for Picture 2 were in the same direction, they did not approach significance. When the averages of the two heterosexual picture ranks for each subject were compared by means of the median test across the three groups, a significant result was obtained (X2 = 10.9, d f = 2, p < .025). The subjects receiving right vibration had the lowest thresholds for the heterosex­ ual pictures. The left vibration and control subjects had the higher heterosex­ ual thresholds and, in fact, did not differ from each other. The right vibration group had significantly lower thresholds than the left vibration group (X2 = 6.1, d f = 1, p < .02) and also the control group (X2 = 7.8, d f = 1, p < .01). One can say, then, that right vibration produced significantly lower thresh­ olds for the heterosexual themes than did the left vibration or neutral condi­ tions. Note, too, that the impact of right vibration was greater for Picture 1 than Picture 2.

STUDY II

A second approach involved studying the effect of front versus back pe­ ripheral stimulation on tachistoscopic perception of homosexual themes. Fisher (1970) collected considerable data that indicated that the greater a man’s awareness of the back of his body, the more he is caught up with conflicts which are analogous to those Freud (1908) ascribed to the “anal character.” As earlier mentioned, these conflicts center on concern about losing control of “dirty” impulses and behaving in an aggressively besmirch­ ing fashion. One of the special problems considered to typify the male anal character is conflict about homosexual aims. Presumably, there is attraction to intimacy with men and concomitant anxiety about it. Fisher (1970) found just such conflict to characterize the male with high back awareness. It was hypothesized that increasing an individual’s awareness of the back of the body should have an effect on perception of homosexual themes opposite to that produced by increasing awareness of the front of the body. The direction of the difference was not predicted. Method

Subjects. The subjects were 56 male college students who were recruited by payment of a fee. Their median age was 20 years.

546

16.

FINDINGS CONCERNING BODY LANDMARK SIGNAL SYSTEM

Procedure. The procedure was exactly the same as that used in Study I, except that one sample of the subjects (N = 21) responded to a tachistoscope picture series while stimulated by a vibrator on the back and another sample (N = 21) while the vibrator was placed on the front of the body. In both instances, the vibrator was located in the midline at a level equal to a point midway between the sternum and navel. A control group (N = 14) responded to the pictures without any body stimulation. The tachistoscope series con­ sisted of the following themes, which are listed in the order actually pre­ sented: neutral (clothed man), heterosexual (man and woman embracing), homosexual (two men holding hands), hostile (two men fighting), homosexual (nude male, rear view). Homosexual Picture 1 was considered to be correctly identified when the two figures were perceived as men and as engaged in some kind of intimacy (e.g., holding hands, touching, close to each other). Homosexual Picture 2 was judged to be correctly identified when described as a nude male. All of the tachistoscope protocols were blindly scored by the writer and by a second judge. There was 86% agreement. The writer’s scoring judgments were those used, except in a few instances where examination of discrepan­ cies indicated that the writer had made an obvious error. Results

The distributions of the homosexual ranks were markedly skewed. In the back vibration group, the median recognition rank for Homosexual Picture 1 was 4.5 (range = 2.0-5.0) and for Picture 2 it was 4.5 (range = 2.05.0). In the front vibration group, the median recognition rank for Homosex­ ual Picture 1 was 4.0 (range = 1.0-5.0), and for Picture 2 it was 4.0 (range = 1.0-5.0). In the control group, the equivalent values were 4.0 (range = 1.55.0) and 4.0 (range = 1.0-5.0). A median test indicated that the differences among the back vibration, front vibration, and control sample for Homosex­ ual Picture 1 were of borderline significance (X 2 = 4.9, d f = 2, p < .10). The equivalent differences for Homosexual Picture 2 were in the same direction but of lesser significance (X2 = 4.1, d f = 2 ,p < .20). Further, a median test of the difference among the three groups for the averaged threshold values for Homosexual Pictures 1 and 2 proved to be significant (X 2 = 7.0, d f = 2 , p < .01). The back vibration group had greater difficulty in perceiving the homo­ sexual pictures than did the front vibration and control groups. The front vibration and control groups did not differ from each other.

STUDY III

The Fisher hypothesis was pursued further in a study of how enhanced front versus back awareness affects the themes of TAT stories. As earlier men­

STUDY III

547

tioned, Freud regarded homosexual conflict to be characteristic of the “anal character,” and Fisher (1970) demonstrated that degree of back awareness in men was linked with special concern about homosexual issues. When the design of the present study was considered, which would evalu­ ate the effects of front versus back vibration on TAT story themes, it became obvious that the target TAT theme had to be one that appeared with suffi­ cient frequency to provide a range of scores. References to dirt or to homo­ sexual themes are a rarity in TAT protocols. In the search for a pertinent theme to evaluate, attention was given to the fact that within the context of Freudian theory, paranoid attitudes are likely to be linked with the anal character’s homosexual conflicts. Freud (1911), in his analysis of the Schreber case, depicted the paranoid delusion as a means of defensively coping with homosexual conflicts. Themes pertinent to a paranoid-like orientation do, in fact, appear frequently in TAT stories. It was therefore decided to make such themes the measure of front-back stimulation effects. A scoring system was devised that concerned references to situations in which a story figure was depicted as being unfairly exploited, either by nature or by other persons. This category included figures suffering due to natural events (e.g., disease, accident), those unfairly taken advantage of (e.g., cheated) or morally wronged (e.g., wife runs away with another man), and those exploited (e.g., enslaved). No story could earn a score greater than 1, and the total paranoid score was equal to the sum of such values. Method

Subjects. The subjects were 71 male college students who were recruited by payment of a fee. Their median age was 20 years. Procedure. Twenty-five of the subjects responded to 10 TAT pictures (5, 7BM, 8BM, 9GF, 9BM, 14, 17BM, 17GF, 18BM, 20) while experiencing back vibration; 29 responded while receiving front vibration; and 17 control sub­ jects responded without body stimulation. They were given 5 minutes to write each story. Those receiving vibration were told that the purpose of the vibrator was to test their ability to create stories while being distracted. All TAT stories were scored blindly by the writer for the presence or absence of paranoid-type themes. Scores for the entire TAT series could range from 0 to 10. A rater who independently scored 15 protocols attained 84% agreement with the writer. The writer’s scoring, which included all of the protocols, was the basis for the statistical analysis. Results

The distributions of paranoid themes were clearly skewed. The median number of paranoid-type themes in the back vibration group was 5 (range =

548

16.

FINDINGS CONCERNING BODY LANDMARK SIGNAL SYSTEM

1-7). In the front vibration group, it was 3 (range = 1-7); and in the nonvibra­ tion control group 2 (range = 0-6). A median test indicated that the differences among the three groups were significant (X2 = 7.5, d f = 2, p < .025). Back vibration produced the largest num ber of paranoid-type TAT them es; front vibration the next largest number, and the neutral condition the smallest frequency. The difference between the front and back conditions was of borderline significance (X2 = 3.6, d f = 1, p < .10). The difference between the back and neutral conditions was clearly significant (X2 = 6.7, d f = i , P < .01). The difference between the front vibration and neutral conditions was of a chance order. Overall, back vibration resulted in an increase in paranoid-like fantasy. There was a differential impact upon fantasy as a function of the body sector stimulated.

STUDY IV

In this study, an attempt was made to influence the production of a specific TAT theme by increasing mouth awareness in women. Fisher (1970) found evidence that women with heightened awareness of the mouth are unusually concerned with wishes to achieve and to exercise power. It was shown in two studies that mouth awareness was positively correlated with the Political score (which measures interest in power) of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values (1960). Another experiment demonstrated that mouth stim­ ulation, which presumably increased mouth awareness, produced selective learning and recall of words pertaining to an achievement theme. Mouth stimulation, in comparison with stimulation of other control body areas, produced significant inhibition of the learning of achievement words. It was hypothesized in the present study that increasing a woman’s awareness of her mouth would have a selective effect on the production of TAT themes pertaining to achievement or power behavior on the part of female figures. Method

Subjects. The subjects were 36 female college students who were paid a fee for their participation. Their median age was 20 years. Procedure. Eighteen of the subjects responded to seven TAT cards (2, 5, 4, 7GF, 6BM, 6GF, 10) while holding a tongue depressor in the mouth. This was the mouth-awareness-enhancing procedure. The subjects were told that the purpose of the tongue depressor was simply to create a distracting stimulus. Eighteen of the subjects had a tongue depressor taped to the middle of the dorsal surface of the left arm. This served as a control condition. In the other

STUDY V

549

studies already described, there were typically two experimental groups and a nonstimulation control. In the present instance, there is no symmetrical counterpart of the mouth (analogous to right versus left or front versus back) that would permit a logical second experimental group. The most meaningful and economic control, then, seemed to be one that would involve a stimulus which simultaneously was directed to the body but was known not to have pertinence to the conflict theme associated with the mouth awareness. Pre­ vious work by Fisher (1970) had clearly indicated that arm awareness, whether right or left, was in no way correlated with concern about power issues. The TAT records were blindly scored by the writer for all references to female figures who were taking decisive action, or behaving in an achieve­ ment-oriented fashion, or asserting a definite position or viewpoint. Each story could receive a maximum score of 1; the score for the entire TAT series could range from 0 through 7. A judge who independently scored 10 TAT protocols for female power themes attained 86% agreement with the writer. The writer’s scoring, which included all the protocols, was the basis for the statistical analysis. Results

The mean female power score in the mouth awareness group was 4.4 (a = 1.0) and in the control group it was 2.7 (a = 1.2). As predicted, the difference between the means proved to be significant (/ = 4.6, p < .001). The women receiving mouth stimulation produced more power themes than did the women in the control conditions. Once again, the findings indicated that highlighting a body sector could influence fantasy content.

STUDY V

Another test of the right-left landmark model involved persons who had sustained localized injury to either the right or the left side of the body. It was conjectured that damage to either a right- or left-side locale of the body produces a change in the usual pattern of right-left awareness. The injured side would probably come more prominently into awareness. Wapner and his associates (e.g., Comalli, 1966) had shown that disablement of one side of the body introduces asymmetrical tonus effects. If injury to one side results in its becoming perceptually highlighted, and injury to the other has the opposite effect, would this not mean for the body landmark model, that opposite effects should be produced in attitudes toward heterosexual stimuli? In­ asmuch as relative awareness of each side of the body is conceptualized in

550

16.

FINDINGS CONCERNING BODY LANDMARK SIGNAL SYSTEM

men as part of a system that controls response to heterosexual stimuli, would it not follow that right- versus left-side body injury would have selectively opposite effects on response to such stimuli? This was the basic hypothesis that was tested. It was predicted that right- versus left-side injury would have opposite effects on responses to heterosexual stimuli, but the particular direction of each effect could not be specified. Method

Subjects. The subjects were 21 men with right-side and 21 with left-side body injuries. They were inpatients at the Syracuse Veterans Administration Hospital. All were right handed. Their median age was 39 years, and their median education level 12 years. Their injuries were to an extremity, either the leg (N = 26) or arm (N = 16). There were no differences of significance between the right- and left-side injury groups with respect to age, education, severity of injury, duration of injury, and presence or absence of casts and prostheses. Procedure. In order to measure selective response to heterosexual stim­ uli in the right-side versus left-side injury groups, a slightly modified version of the tachistoscopic technique already described was employed. Each sub­ ject was shown the following sequence of five pictures (derived from the Forrest and Lee, 1962, series): heterosexual theme (two figures standing close together); nurturant theme (larger figure and baby figure); aggressive theme (two figures fighting); narcissistic theme (figure facing a camera); heterosexual theme (two figures sitting close together on a bed). Each picture was shown six times successively at progressively slower speeds: .01, .02, .03, .04, .05, .06 seconds. Of course, the focus of the study was subjects’ recognition thresholds for the two heterosexual pictures. The subjects’ de­ scriptions of each picture were taken down as verbatim as possible. Scoring was done blindly by the writer. Results

The threshold rank values for the heterosexual pictures were found to be markedly skewed in their distribution. For Heterosexual Picture 1, the me­ dian rank was 4.5 (range = 1.0-5.0) in the right-side injury group and 4.0 (range = 1.0-5.0) in the left-side injury group. For Heterosexual Picture 2, the median rank was 2.0 (range = 1.0-4.5) in the right-side injury group and 3.0 (range = 1.0-5.0) in the left-side injury group. The difference for Picture 1 was significant (.X 2 = 5.0, d f = 1, p -.025). That is, those with right-side injuries had more difficulty perceiving the heterosexual theme than did those with left-side injuries. The difference for

CONCLUSIONS

551

Picture 2 was in the opposite direction, but did not even approach statistical significance. These results are sufficiently promising to indicate that the site of a localized body injury may, via its alteration of existing body perception patterns, produce central effects not predictable from the literal nature of the injury itself. CONCLUSIONS

The several studies just described extended and supported previous work indicating that there is an organized system of peripheral body signals that influence central attitudes. The earlier studies by Fisher (1970) demonstrated that altering patterns of body perception can influence selective memory in predictable ways. The present findings affirm that altering body perception has effects that extend to selective tachistoscopic perception and fantasy construction. Selective response to tachistoscopic pictures was influenced by changing the sensory prominence of right versus left, front versus back, and mouth sites. Further, the occurrence of certain themes in TAT stories could be controlled by stimulating the mouth and front versus back body sites. Such observations, which link peripheral body awareness patterns with fantasy and personality phenomena, may be said, in the broadest sense, to be anchored in sensoritonic theory, which asserts that body tonus patterns affect central processes. The problem of predicting the directionality of the effect of increasing awareness of a particular body area has been shown by the present results to be even more complex than previously theorized. Fisher (1968b) suggested, on the basis of data then available, that increasing awareness of a body sector by applying stimulation to it results in a shift in central selectivity opposite to that usually associated with high awareness of that sector. Artificially aug­ menting the sensory prominence of an area seemed to shift its selective influence to an opposite polarity. Such augmentation apparently not only disrupted the previous selective pattern, but reversed it. However, the results of the present studies and others completed by Fisher (1970) do not consistently conform to this paradigm. In the present studies right-side stim ulation does lower the threshold for perceiving tachistoscopically presented heterosexual themes which would be congruent with the paradigm because it indicates lesser inhibition in responding to a heterosexual theme rather than the augmented inhibition usually accompany­ ing high awareness of this area. However, back stimulation raises the thresh­ old for perception of tachistoscopically presented homosexual them es, which is not the opposite but rather the characteristic relationship between degree of back awareness and perception of homosexual stimuli. Further, subjects with right-side injuries (who are presumably more right aware) are

552

16.

FINDINGS CONCERNING BODY LANDMARK SIGNAL SYSTEM

relatively inhibited in their perception of a tachistoscopically presented heterosexual theme, which is the characteristic (rather than reversed) rela­ tionship between degree of right awareness and perception of heterosexual themes. In short, there are now a number of findings that do not support a simple theory that artificially augmented awareness of a body area reverses the usual selective set linked with degree of awareness of that area. The complexity of the issues involved becomes even greater if one consid­ ers the present findings indicating that stimulation of back and mouth areas increased, respectively, the production of TAT paranoid and power themes. How is one to interpret the frequencies of occurrence of such TAT themes in the context of the stimulation applied? Do they represent increased sen­ sitivity to certain conflicts or wishes? Or do they represent an intensification of defensiveness with regard to such conflicts? One might speculate that the increase in power themes represents a decrease in defensiveness about power conflicts, whereas the increase in paranoid themes represents a strengthen­ ing of the “paranoid” defense against unacceptable homosexual wishes. Obviously, as new dependent variables are investigated with reference to augmented stimulation of various body sectors, the probability of mean­ ingfully defining the stimulation effects will depend on our being able to specify the level of defense represented by the dependent variables. The fact that number of paranoid TAT themes could be increased by means of back stimulation raises the intriguing possibility of modifying paranoid symp­ tomatology by altering ratios of awareness of front versus back body sites on a long-term basis. Although there is solid evidence that sensory stimulation of peripheral body sites affects central attitudes that are logically related to wishes or conflicts that are associated with such sites, it is not yet possible to predict whether the stimulation will have an inhibitory or sensitizing impact. Inci­ dentally, an interesting lead came from Study V, in which the differential influence of right- versus left-side body injury upon response to heterosexual themes was explored. The results suggested that a localized injury, by chang­ ing the usual perceptual prominence of a body area, may alter central attitudes linked with that area. In these terms, the psychological impact of an injury may extend beyond what might be expected from the literal nature of the injury itself. The same injury might have one psychological effect if it occurs on the front of the body and the opposite if it occurs on the back. Little is known about this matter, and it awaits investigation in depth. Of prime import concerning the overall findings is that they demonstrated that the body scheme is a source of cues that have persistent, selective effects on how the world is interpreted. The body scheme plays an active, directive role in adaptive behavior. It seems to consist to an important degree of a system of sets or intents expressed as body feelings.

CONCLUSIONS

553

The idea that stimulation of a peripheral body landmark can affect central attitudes has been explored too in the work of Gottschalk and Uliana (1976). Subjects (10 male, 10 female) were asked to speak spontaneously for 5 minutes on four different occasions. On each occasion they either held their hands at their sides (Condition A) or used one hand to keep caressing their lips (Condition B). The sequence for half the subjects was ABBA and for the other half BAAB. All the verbal productions were tape recorded and content analyzed for degree of optimism, types of personal relationships specified (e.g., with females, males, inanimate objects), and the valences of the rela­ tionships. The inspiration for the study came from clinical observations of a patient in psychoanalytic therapy who seemed to speak more frequently of women and to be more positive toward all objects when he was touching his oronasal area. Analysis of the data revealed some encouraging trends. Four of the sub­ jects, while lip stroking, consistently expressed more positive feelings associ­ ated with objects, and four other subjects consistently expressed more negative feelings. However, no differences appeared between the two hand position conditions for amount of hope expressed. The most interesting results involved differences in correlational patterns during the mouth-ca­ ressing versus non-mouth-caressing conditions. All subjects had been asked to respond to questionnaires that dealt with various aspects of their psycho­ social background (e.g., marital state, vocational attainment) and their his­ tory of oral activities (e.g., smoking, biting fingernails). A social asset score, designed to represent how well they had apparently adapted psychosocially, was significantly negatively correlated with the amount of increase in hope imagery (in spontaneous speech) during the hands-at-side condition as com­ pared to the mouth-caressing condition. Amount of increase in hope scores was also positively correlated with whether subjects had been breast fed, drank alcohol frequently, and did not chew their fingernails. Further, the intercorrelations of the hope scores (derived from the spontaneous verbalizations) with measures of anxiety, hostility, and object relations (also derived from the spontaneous verbaliza­ tions) were significantly negative during the hands-at-side condition, but faded to nonsignificance when the lips were caressed. The negative correla­ tional pattern observed during the hands-at-side condition had been pre­ viously observed in other populations in which hand position was not manipulated. Gottschalk and Uliana (1976) considered that their data, while not definitive, were encouraging of the hypothesis that mouth caressing can mediate mood and attitudinal variables. The work of Laird (1974) and others indicating that emotional states can be altered by manipulating the position of facial muscles is pertinent to this issue and will be discussed in detail at a later point.

554

16.

FINDINGS CONCERNING BODY LANDMARK SIGNAL SYSTEM

BACK AWARENESS

The specific themes or conflicts that Fisher originally found correlated with awareness of particular body landmarks have been examined by other re­ searchers. This is especially true of the link between back awareness and manifesting anal character traits or concerns. Stone (1974) was interested in whether the BFQ measure of back awareness would correlate significantly with an index of concern about loss of self-control. Previous studies (Fisher, 1970) have suggested that a central preoccupation of the anal character is developing strategies to maintain tight self-control. Stone chose the Califor­ nia F scale as an index of the need to impose control. He noted: “The identification of a person with a strong need to control, not only his own experiences, but also the experiences of those he judges as alien or foreign to his values or beliefs, will serve as the reference for subjects with excessive needs to control. The ‘authoritarian personality’ is essentially such a per­ son . . . ” (p. 7). The BFQ and the California F scale were administered to 55 male and 67 female subjects. Stone (1974) predicted only that persons varying in back awareness would also differ in their F scale scores. It was found that subjects with low F scale scores were significantly higher in back awareness than were subjects with high F scale scores. Subjects with medium F scale scores were similar to the subjects with low F scale scores in back awareness but signifi­ cantly higher in back awareness than those with high F scale scores. What was considered to be an index of concern about self-control proved to be significantly related to amount of awareness of the back of one’s body. The results were clearer in the male than in the female samples. Stone indicated that he had expected (in terms of Fisher’s (1970) original findings) higher back awareness to prevail in those with the greatest commitment to impulse control. As mentioned, Fisher (1970) had found the BFQ Back score in males to be positively correlated with concern about loss of control. However, the mea­ sure of concern was a questionnaire (Thurstone, 1953) that directly asked subjects about their inclinations to be spontaneous and impulsive. The index of loss of control concern used by Stone (1974) was more indirect. It was based on the assumption that the greater the need to be authoritarian, the more one tries to control impulses experienced as alien. Two different levels of measurement may be involved. The Fisher measure taps individuals’ perceptions of how spontaneous they are. The F scale measure is inferential; it can be presumed from past research in this area that high F scale scorers would be the least likely to be aware of how much concern they have about maintaining control. There may be no real contradiction between the Fisher and the Stone observations. They may be tapping into two different selfcontrol constellations.

BACK AWARENESS

555

The subjects had also been asked to respond to a questionnaire that inquired into the frequency with which they had experienced a variety of somatic symptoms. Special consideration was given to symptoms involving the back (e.g., lower back pain), anal functioning (e.g., diarrhea), and the gastrointestinal tract (e.g., gastritis). The greater the F scale scores of sub­ jects, the greater was the number of somatic symptoms they reported. This was particularly true with reference to symptoms like diarrhea, hemorrhoids, and stomach ulcers. Interestingly, lower back pain and upper back/shoulder pain were the most frequent somatic concerns of males with low F scale scores. No direct analyses were provided of the relationship between BFQ Back scores and the frequencies of various somatic symptoms. Vinck (1979) probed whether persons varying in back awareness (as mea­ sured by BFQ Back) showed differences in anal trait attributes. Fisher (1970) had found not only BFQ Back but also BFQ Head in males to be linked with sensitivity to anal stimuli, and Vinck explored this latter relationship too. His subjects were 57 Dutch males and 26 Dutch females who were either medical or dental students. Anality was evaluated in two ways: (a) selective memory for anal words, as measured with the earlier described technique that Fisher (1970) had developed; and (b) a questionnaire constructed by Kline (1967) to evaluate the presence of anal character qualities. A significant negative correlation was found in the female sample between BFQ Back and selective recall for anal versus nonanal words. The greater a woman’s awareness of her back, the relatively fewer anal words she recalled. However, only a chance correlation occurred in the male sample. As predicted, there was a significant (positive) correlation in the male sample between BFQ Head and selective superior recall for anal words. Anality, as defined by the Kline questionnaire, proved to be positively correlated (at a borderline level, using a two-tail test) with BFQ Back in the male sample, but was not so correlated in the female sample. BFQ Head in males was not significantly correlated with the Kline anality score. Vinck felt that his overall results were roughly congruent with those of Fisher. He attributed some of the discrepancies to possible cultural differences between American and Dutch samples. Vinck (1979) also undertook an exploratory examination of how the BFQ dimensions were related to measures of neuroticism, extraversion, masculinity-femininity, test taking attitude, and social desirability. In the female sample, BFQ Back proved to be significantly and positively correlated with neuroticism, both as defined by psychoneurotic complaints and as repre­ sented by complaints about functional somatic problems. It was negatively correlated too at a borderline level with extraversion. None of the other BFQ variables was linked in the females with the personality variables that were examined. Within the male sample, BFQ Eyes was positively and signifi­ cantly correlated with psychoneurotic complaints, whereas BFQ Right was significantly negatively correlated with such complaints and also with com­

556

16.

FINDINGS CONCERNING BODY LANDMARK SIGNAL SYSTEM

plaints about functional somatic problems. It was, in addition, positively correlated with a defensive test taking attitude. Vinck was struck with the pattern of sex differences in his overall findings: In women the front-back dimension is the only being (sic) reliably related to personality: women with higher back awareness show greater emotional lability or neuroticism and are less extraverted. Conversely, women with high awareness of the front of the body show less neuroticism and are more extra­ verted. In men, it is the right-left dimension which appears to be most important. Men with high awareness of the right part of their body appear to be less neurotic, but have at the same time a more defensive test-taking attitude and tend to answer in a more socially desirable way. Those with high awareness of the left side of their body are, then, more neurotic but more open, honest, self critical and presenting a less socially acceptable image of themselves, (pp. 177— 178)

The various findings just cited seem to raise the possibility that degree of awareness of certain body landmarks can be predictive of psychoneurotic symptoms. However, Fisher (1970) was not able to find consistent BFQ score differences among normal, neurotic, and schizophrenic persons.2 Apropos of the Vinck data concerned with back awareness and anality, it is pertinent to mention that Renik (1971) examined the hypothesis that BFQ Back should be positively correlated in males with conflict about homosex­ ual impulses. He derived the hypothesis from Fisher’s (1970) linking of heightened back awareness with anal character attributes and from the orig­ inal psychoanalytic concept that homosexual conflict is a central problem for the anal character. Renik studied two samples of men (N = 24, N = 51). Conflict about homosexual impulses was measured by asking subjects “to list 25 things you are conscious or aware of at this time.” It was considered that their anxiety about homosexuality was proportional to the degree to which they avoided making references to other men. The overall results indicated, as predicted, that in both samples BFQ Back was significantly and negatively correlated with the frequency of references to men.3

OTHER BODY FOCUS QUESTIONNAIRE STUDIES

Bruchon-Schweitzer (1977, 1978, 1979, 1982) conducted several exploratory investigations into possible personality correlates of BFQ scores.4 Her sub­ jects were French university students. In a 1978 study 94 females and 24 males were involved. When the BFQ scores of these French subjects were compared with those of American university students studied by Fisher (1970), significant cultural differences emerged.5 Americans were generally

OTHER BODY FOCUS QUESTIONNAIRE STUDIES

557

more back aware than were the French. French males had higher Eye and Head awareness than did the American males. French females had higher stomach, mouth, and heart awareness than did the American females. To 55 of the women, not only was the BFQ administered but also the Eysenck Personality Inventory, from which three scores were derived: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Defensiveness. Neuroticism proved to be signifi­ cantly negatively correlated with BFQ M outh, as was Defensiveness. Extraversion was positively and significantly correlated with BFQ Mouth. The Eysenck scores had only chance relationships with all other BFQ dimensions. Bruchon-Schweitzer commented with regard to the BFQ Mouth findings: “The scores on the Mouth scale are thus high for the non-anxious, extraverted, and non-defensive girls. This goes with the fact, pointed out by Fisher, that the Mouth score is related to interest in success and power” (p. 1231). In another series of exploratory studies, Bruchon-Schweitzer (1979, 1982) evaluated a total of 377 French university students (79 male, 298 female). BFQ scores were obtained and related to a variety of personality and value m easures (Guilford-Zimmerman Tem perament Survey, Allport-VernonLindzey’s Study of Values, Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Factor Question­ naire, and Eysenck’s Personality Inventory). Cultural differences in BFQ were again observed. As in the previous study, Americans had higher back awareness than the French. They likewise tended to be lower for a number of the other BFQ dimensions (e.g., Eyes, Head, Stomach, Mouth, Heart). Many significant correlations were found between the BFQ variables and the multi­ ple personality and value scores. Brief interpretations were presented with reference to the clusters of relationships that turned up for certain BFQ dimensions. Bruchon-Schweitzer noted with reference to the female sample: “Attention to the head corresponds to a willful, ‘headstrong’ personality; to the right side, one that is healthy, ‘right-minded’, and well-balanced” (p. 841). In addition, back awareness was correlated with theoretical interests and emotional instability; stomach awareness with interest in personal rela­ tionships; mouth awareness with sociability and extraversion; eye awareness with an absence of theoretical interests; and heart awareness with introver­ sion and limited ascendent tendencies. In the male sample such patterns as the following were noted: “Attention to the head corresponds to an audacious, ‘go-ahead’ personality; attention to the arms to the humanitarian qualities of a personality that ‘reaches out’ to others” (p. 841). Further, heart awareness was positively linked with being conservative and group oriented; stomach awareness with aesthetic interests, independence, individuality, and sensitivity; eye awareness with lower levels of tension and guilt; and right awareness with cyclothymic tendencies. It is difficult to compare the multifarious results just enumerated with Fisher’s (1970) original findings, because Bruchon-Schweitzer (1977, 1978,

558

16.

FINDINGS CONCERNING BODY LANDMARK SIGNAL SYSTEM

1979, 1982) used measures different from Fisher’s, and Fisher’s formulations are more often phrased in psychodynamic (psychoanalytic) terms. Also, two different cultures are represented. Here and there is obvious overlap between the two sets of results. For example, Fisher’s conclusion that women with high BFQ Right scores were interested in understanding and identifying with others is paralleled by Bruchon-Schweitzer’s observation that BFQ Right was positively correlated with an interest in personal relations. Or Fisher’s statement that women with high BFQ Mouth scores are concerned with power overlaps with Bruchon-Schweitzer’s conclusion that BFQ Mouth in women is positively correlated with being nonanxious, extraverted, and nondefensive. Or the Fisher conclusion that men with high BFQ Heart scores are religious and concerned with virtue and propriety fits with Bruchon-Schweitzer’s statement that men with elevated BFQ Heart scores are conservative. What is perhaps most important about the Bruchon-Schweitzer studies is that they support the idea that degree of awareness of given sectors of one’s body is linked with specific clusters of psychological vari­ ables. Tremblay (1980) sought to test Fisher’s (1970) original formulation that males’ degree of awareness of the right side of the body is positively corre­ lated with being heterosexually inhibited and displaying limited narcissism. Twenty male institutionalized delinquents in French Canada were studied. Their BFQ Right scores were obtained. In addition, they were systematically rated by judges with respect to several classes of behavior, including diffi­ culties in relating to females. The Draw-A-Person Test was utilized to obtain an index of narcissism based on the degree to which the figure of the same sex was unclothed. The data indicated, as predicted, a significant positive correlation between BFQ Right and judged difficulty in relating to females and also a significant negative correlation with the measure of narcissism. Tremblay was particularly impressed that Fisher’s findings were replicated in a different (French-Canadian) culture. Compton (1969) perused the possible correlates of the BFQ Stomach and Heart scores in female college students (N = 24) who had been evaluated via questionnaire as to their level of anxiety, their preference for various clothing fabrics and colors, and their general awareness of their body. Also, their pressure sensitivity thresholds had been determined. BFQ Heart was unre­ lated to any of the variables. However, BFQ Stomach proved to be negatively and significantly correlated with sensitivity to cutaneous pressure. But it did not relate to either general body awareness or clothing preferences. The sex differences that have consistently appeared in relation to the BFQ dimensions are documented in a report by Stiel (1975). He asked male (N = 28) and female (N = 30) college students to respond to a modified version of the BFQ. The males were relatively more aware of the lower areas of their body and the females more aware of the upper areas. These findings were

OTHER BODY FOCUS QUESTIONNAIRE STUDIES

559

considered to be congruent with Fisher’s (1970) original report of a sex difference in the way men and women perceive the upper versus lower areas of their body. Fisher demonstrated, in terms of selective aniseikonic lens responses, that men are relatively more anxious than women about the upper regions of their body and just the obverse pattern typifies women. These data imply that the body areas that are perceptually most prominent, as defined by the BFQ, are those least associated with anxiety.6 BFQ scores have been appraised to determine how well they predict patterns of body experience subsequent to the intake of drugs and placebo substances.7 Fast and Fisher (1971) asked male (N = 15) and female (N = 15) subjects to respond to the BFQ and subsequently to report the effects of epinephrine and placebo injections. In the male sample, the BFQ did predict rather well the body areas that seemed to be most and least affected by the placebo. The greater the awareness of areas prior to the placebo, the more they were perceived as the sites of action of the presumed unknown drug (placebo). Also, BFQ Head predicted the degree to which the head was perceived as the site of action of epinephrine. None of the other BFQ parameters predicted the epinephrine effects. In the female sample, the BFQ did not predict either the placebo or epinephrine site effects. Clausen and Fisher (1973) explored the experiential effects of three socalled drugs (Pentobarbital, d-Amphetamine, placebo) on female college students (N = 75). Baseline BFQ measures were obtained prior to the ingestion of the “drugs.” These baseline measures were largely nonpredictive of subjects’ rankings of the degree to which the various “drugs” seemed to be affecting different sectors of their body. There was one consistent significant trend: the greater a woman’s baseline awareness of her stomach, the more she felt the effects of the “drugs” registered in her stomach. Also, the higher a woman’s baseline head awareness, the greater the reported impact of Pentobarbital (high dose) on the head. In the Fast and Fisher (1971) male (but not female) sample just described, BFQ Head predicted the perceived impact of epinephrine on the head region. Apropos of this point, Cassell and Hemingway (1970) found that when sub­ jects (male = 9, female = 9) ingested phenobarbital and then responded to the BFQ, the greater the head awareness reported, the more the subjects also indicated they felt sleepy and sedated. In a follow-up study involving 22 male subjects, these results were duplicated. There seems to be a promising possibility that levels of head awareness are useful for predicting and register­ ing drug effects. Incidentally, the subjects in this study were also admin­ istered a stimulant (caffeine); and it was found that the greater the reported arousal, the greater was the awareness of the right side of the body. This was speculatively attributed to the caffeine’s stimulating the heart (on the left side of the body) and thereby initiating a compensatory displacement of focus to the right side (similar to sensori-tonic effects [e.g., Wapner, Werner, &

560

16.

FINDINGS CONCERNING BODY LANDMARK SIGNAL SYSTEM

Chandler, 1951] of stimulating the left side of the body upon displacement of the apparent vertical to the right of true vertical). Investigators have scanned the impact of diverse other conditions on BFQ scores. Kestenbaum (1974) studied 20 males and 24 females in a hemodialysis center. Some had been in dialysis for an extended period, others for only a short period of time, and still others were awaiting the beginning of the procedure. The BFQ was administered to all subjects. A small number of the group awaiting dialysis responded both before treatment began and after treatment was underway. By and large, the only effect of dialysis on BFQ scores was elevated arm awareness in the females (but not males) who were being dialyzed. This was attributed to the arm ’s being the site of the shunt which was inserted to implement the dialysis. Harris (1979) showed obvious increases in stomach awareness in pregnant women. However, other BFQ dimensions did not seem to change during pregnancy. Harris compared white (N = 30) and black (N = 55) pregnant women and discovered that the former had significantly greater stomach focus throughout the pregnancy, a dif­ ference that disappeared postpartum. Karmel (1975) too found significantly increased BFQ stomach scores in pregnant women (French-Canadian, N = 32). Houde and Tetreau (1981) reported that a body oriented therapeutic method had no effects on the BFQ scores of normal, French-Canadian subjects (9 male, 5 female). The BFQ Right dimension has shown the power to predict response patterns associated with the right versus the left sides of the body. Hines, Martindale, and Schulze (1974) have demonstrated that baseline BFQ Right scores are positively and significantly correlated with the preponderance of movements of eyes to the right as compared to the left when persons are asked to respond to reflective questions. Varni, Doerr, and Varni (1975) found in 17 subjects (mainly female) that BFQ Right predicts the relative activation of right versus left body sites as defined by skin conductance. Persons with higher right awareness were typically more right reactive. Boyd and Maltzman (1983) discovered in male (N = 34) and female (N = 43) samples that BFQ Right scores were significant mediators of whether asymmetries in skin conductance occurred during stimulus conditions designed to elicit such asymmetries. Subjects who were most equally balanced in the awareness of the two sides of their body were most likely to show task appropriate lateral skin conductive changes. Surwit, Bradner, Fenton, and Pilon (1978) investi­ gated the relationship between BFQ Right scores and right-left differences in vasomotor activity. They studied 15 women with Raynaud’s disease and found that BFQ Right was positively and significantly correlated with the tendency to display greater right than left vasomotor response during stress. It was correlated too with the degree to which vasoplastic attacks were more likely to occur in the right as compared to left hands. The correlation between BFQ Right and right-left differences in reactivity is but one in a series of related findings.8 Fisher (1958) showed that the

OTHER BODY FOCUS QUESTIONNAIRE STUDIES

561

relative size ascribed to the right versus left sides of one’s body while one views them through aniseikonic lenses is correlated with right-left GSR patterns. He demonstrated (1960c) too in female subjects that the degree of masculinity versus femininity ascribed to the left side of one’s body predicts right-left GSR differences. It has been difficult to ascertain whether body image attitudes pertaining to the two body sides play a role in right-left reactivity or whether the body image attitudes simply mirror differences in right-left activation that exist. Fisher (1970) has shown that focusing attention on a body area can alter its apparent activation level. It is therefore conceiv­ able that adopting differential attitudes toward the right and left sides of one’s body could affect their relative levels of reactivity. It has been proposed elsewhere (Fisher, 1960c) that the right and left body sides provide sites onto which are projected feelings about one’s sex role and that this projection aids in the process of differentiating and integrating identifications derived from the same-sex and opposite-sex models in one’s life. Fisher has documented other instances in which body image distinctions are paralleled by physiological activation differences. There are data indicat­ ing that the relative sizes subjectively ascribed to front versus back regions of one’s body (1961c) or the head versus body sectors (1960a) are linked with corresponding differences in skin resistance at such sites. Fisher (1980) has demonstrated that somatic discomfort in specific body landmarks (which may mirror physiological events at those sites) can be initiated by exposing persons to stimuli that have special significance with respect to the land­ marks. There is as yet an unexplained but apparently highly important connection between the right-left division of the body and the organization of the body image. This is reflected not only in the aforementioned phenomena, but also in the findings of a recent study (Fisher, Greenberg, & Reihman, 1984) that ob­ served a number of striking contrasts between right- and left-handed individ­ uals in how they experience their body. As compared to right-handers, lefthanded subjects were found to have higher Barrier scores, to be less anxious about their body, to experience fewer body image distortions, to distribute their attention differently to body landmarks (as defined by the BFQ), and to complain of fewer serious body symptoms. The left-handed were, at a number of levels, more secure in their body feelings and perceptions. No previous parameter studied has shown such broad power as handedness in predicting body image security. This phenomenon does not seem to be explainable in terms of what is currently known about right and left side brain functioning differences in right- versus left-handed persons. It appears that the values and functions assigned to the two body sides may constitute a fundamental dimension or anlage in the organization of the body image.

562

16.

FINDINGS CONCERNING BODY LANDMARK SIGNAL SYSTEM

ANXIETY AND SEX ROLE IN LANDMARK FUNCTIONING

Fisher has attempted to analyze in more detail the dynamic functioning of the body landmark system under various conditions. What mediates changes in landmark prominence? Of what defensive or adaptive value are the land­ marks? Let us consider the following work.9 Landmarks and Anxiety

The original landmark formulation assumed that one function of the land­ mark system is to control anxiety. Focus of attention on a body sector was considered to act as a persistent signal, permitting the individual to avoid awareness of a conflict theme linked to that sector. This avoidance would presumably decrease the power of the conflict to arouse anxiety. The first study to be described was an initial attempt to test this idea. It was hypoth­ esized that the greater individuals’ awareness of a body landmark, the less anxiety they would have when exposed to stimuli that relate to the conflict theme associated with that landmark. This study also explored the effect of artificially altering a landmark, during exposure to theme material, on the relationship between landmark prominence and anxiety. Previous studies (Fisher, 1970) have shown that the functioning of a landmark is affected if it is artificially highlighted (e.g., with a small vibrator). The effects have been unpredictable, sometimes diminishing and at other times enhancing sen­ sitivity to theme-appropriate stimuli. It was predicted that artificial input into the landmark (during exposure to the conflict theme) would result in a breakdown of the expected negative relationship between landmark promi­ nence and anxiety. Altering the landmark from without would render its functioning unpredictable. A second study was undertaken for cross-validation purposes to deter­ mine whether the significant negative relation obtained between degree of awareness of a specific landmark and degree of anxiety evoked when exposed to the theme linked with that landmark could be replicated. Procedure. The following design was used in Study 1. In one condition, female subjects responded to a short form of the Body Focus Questionnaire (Fisher, 1970) to measure their awareness of the mouth as compared to other body regions. The questionnaire asks the subject to respond to references to 37 paired body areas (e.g., mouth versus heart, mouth versus eyes) and to decide which of the pair she is at that moment most aware of. Measures of mouth, eyes, and heart awareness were computed. Next, the subject was exposed to a taped message designed to arouse anxiety about a theme previously demonstrated in a series of studies (Fisher,

ANXIETY AND SEX ROLE IN LANDMARK FUNCTIONING

563

1970) to be linked to the mouth. The theme concerned power and achieve­ ment. The taped message consisted of phrases (delivered by a female voice) of the following character: “It is important to succeed, power, I have to win, strength, I am winning, no one will get ahead of me, I will be first, power, to achieve is my aim, I will excel, you have to get to the top.” After 5 minutes, the subject was asked to look at a list of words for 1 minute and then to recall as many of the words as possible during a subsequent 5-minute period and write them on a sheet of paper. The list consisted of 10 words referring to achievement and power and 10 words of a neutral quality. The learning of this list, which was developed during previous studies of landm ark them es (Fisher, 1970), was included because preliminary work had indicated that the taped message had a stronger impact if it was potentiated by the subject’s performing a task that forced her to deal actively with the theme of the taped message. Next, the subject responded to the Body Focus Questionnaire a second time. Her exposure to the taped message continued during this time. The retest with the Body Focus Questionnaire was intended to monitor the changes in the mouth landmark. Finally, the Spielberger, Gorsuch, and Lushene (1970) State Anxiety Scale was administered while the taped theme continued. In a second group, the same procedure was followed except that the subject held a tongue depressor in her mouth. The intent was to artificially change her perception of her mouth. In a third group, the same procedure was followed, except the subject wore glasses with ordinary glass in the frames. Only women who did not wear glasses were utilized. The intent was to draw attention away from the mouth by artificially enhancing the eye area. The glasses and the tongue depressor were means of artificially changing the mouth landmark and thus of presumably altering its usual functioning. An additional control was provided by the fact that the Body Focus Questionnaire measures not only mouth awareness but also other body landmarks (viz., heart, eyes). If the predicted inverse relationship between the Mouth score and anxiety during the taped message theme is specific to the link between mouth awareness and the taped theme, then awareness of any other body landmark would have only a chance relationship with amount of theme-evoked anxiety. The procedure in Study 2 was a repetition of that used in the spontaneous condition of Study 1, except that the Body Focus Questionnaire was not administered a second time and the two groups were not included that had been used to test the effects of artificially altering landmarks. Subjects. In Study 1 the subjects in the experimental, tongue depressor, and glasses groups were respectively 32, 14, and 15 undergraduate female college students. In Study 2 the subjects were 34 female college students.

564

16.

FINDINGS CONCERNING BODY LANDMARK SIGNAL SYSTEM

Median age in all samples was 20 (range 17-23). All subjects were paid a fee. The experimenter in all instances was a male who had no knowledge of the hypotheses under investigation. Results

Study 1. The mean baseline BFQ Mouth scores were 6.70 (cr = 1.70), 7.07 (a = .88), and 6.42 (cr = 1.98) in the normal, tongue depressor, and glasses samples, respectively. These means do not differ significantly. The respective changes in mouth awareness from test to retest were + .97 (a = 1.93), + .71 (cr = 1.58), and - .05 (a = 1.73). The pre- and postscores were examined in a 3 x 2 repeated-measures analysis. The differences were found to be significant [F(2, 58) = 3.66, p < .05]. The experimental condition produced the greatest increase in mouth awareness, the mouth depressor the next greatest increase, and the glasses a slight decrease. The mean Spielberger et al. (1970) State-Anxiety scores were 36.67 (cr = 7.30), 36.64 (cr = 6.09), and 38.93 (cr = 7.05) in the normal, tongue depressor, and glasses conditions, respectively. Differences among these means were not signifi­ cant. The distributions of BFQ scores deviated considerably from normal in several instances. Nonparametric analyses were used to appraise their rela­ tionship to State-Anxiety. Baseline BFQ Mouth scores proved to be signifi­ cantly negatively related to anxiety (Spearman Rho = - .42, p < .02). The greater the individual’s awareness of her mouth prior to exposure to the taped theme, the less her anxiety during the exposure. Only chance relationships were found between BFQ Mouth scores and anxiety during the tongue depressor and glasses conditions. This fitted theoretical expectation. There was also a determination whether, as expected, the other BFQ variables (viz., BFQ Eyes, BFQ Heart) would prove to be unrelated to anxiety in the normal condition. Spearman Rho coefficients showed this to be true and equally so in the tongue depressor and glasses conditions. Study 2. The mean BFQ Mouth score was 6.17 (cr = 2.47). The mean Spielberger anxiety score was 36.63 (cr = 9.10). A Spearman Rho coefficient indicated a significant negative relationship (r = - .38, p < .05). The results clearly supported the results of Study 1. Anxiety was not significantly related to the Body Focus Questionnaire Heart or Eye scores, which, as defined by the underlying theoretical framework, should not be sensitive to the theme of the taped message. As predicted, the results in both studies indicated that the greater persons’ awareness of a body landmark, the less the anxiety they experienced when exposed to stimuli linked to the landmark conflict theme. At a general level, this adds further evidence for the view that the way individuals organize their body experiences plays a significant role in their adaptation. But, more

LANDMARK SEX DIFFERENCES

565

specifically, it indicates that there exists a complex body experience system for managing anxiety. The greater the sensory prominence of a landmark, the stronger the inhibiting effect it has on the arousal of specific anxiety-laden fantasies. This holds true, though, only if that sensory prominence reflects the individual’s own habitual level. Artificially altering peripheral input into the landmark alters the functioning of the system of which it is a part. Arbitrary peripheral input into the landmark interferes with a system that apparently depends heavily on a central allotting of attention to given body areas to regulate anxiety. The prime significance of the findings is that they establish that the way persons distribute their attention to their body plays a role in regulating their anxiety level. Their patterns of body perception serve specific defensive purposes.

LANDMARK SEX DIFFERENCES

Previous research (Fisher, 1970) dealing with body landmarks revealed a sex difference with respect to their organization. They were more stable in males than in females. They were also more consistently linked to personality variables in males than in females. In general, it appeared that males had a greater tendency to maintain their landmarks as articulated organized sys­ tems. The studies to be described sought to find out more about this sex difference. It seemed logical to assume that the more masculine one’s orien­ tation, the more one would be motivated to maximize landmark prominence when exposed to material that has threatening connotations in relation to the landmark. This would mean that individuals with a masculine set who are confronted by stimuli that mobilize anxiety about a theme have a greater need than those with a feminine set to defend themselves via the control functions provided by focusing attention on the body landmark pertinent to the theme. They have greater motivation to introduce their own body sensa­ tions as a controlling vector. The hypothesis chosen for testing was as follows: The greater persons’ masculinity, the more likely they are to mobilize a body landmark when confronted by stimuli with the potential for arousing disturbance with respect to the theme linked with that landmark. Femininity would presumably have an opposite pattern of relationship with landmark mobilization. Procedure

Two studies were undertaken, the second cross-validating the first. The procedure in both was to determine amount of change in a body landmark while an individual is exposed to stimuli pertinent to the landmark and to ascertain the relationship of the change to masculinity-femininity.

566

16.

FINDINGS CONCERNING BODY LANDMARK SIGNAL SYSTEM

The abbreviated version of the BFQ was used. It was first administered to establish a baseline. Then the subjects were exposed to a tape recording of a pertinent body landmark theme. They listened to the tape for 5 minutes and responded to the BFQ a second time while the tape continued to play. In this way, shifts in the mouth, eyes, and heart landmarks could be computed under the impact of the taped theme. The learning task used to potentiate the impact of the tape in the previously described anxiety studies was not used in the present studies because preliminary work had indicated that the impact of the tape itself could produce landmark change patterns related to masculinity-femininity. Both males and females were studied. Different landmarks and themes were involved in each instance. Past findings had indicated that the themes linked with landmarks are not the same in the two sexes. For males the landmark variable was degree of eye awareness. Since there is evidence (Fisher, 1970) that the theme linked with eye awareness has to do with incorporation, the taped message to which the males were exposed dealt with eating. A male voice repeated phrases of the following character: “I love to eat, I am hungry, eat, drink, food, swallow, appetite, time to eat, a marvelous meal, restaurant, fill up with food.” At the end of the procedure, the subject rested for 5 minutes. He then responded to the Gough (1957) Masculinity-Femininity scale and the TermanMiles (1936) M-F Test. The Terman-Miles test requests the subject to choose from alternatives the word that each of a series of key words reminds him of. There are 60 items. Choices are scored in terms of whether they are mas­ culine or feminine (as normatively defined). The Gough measures masculinity-femininity more conventionally. It is based on Yes-No responses to questions that inquire how much one prefers certain masculine versus femi­ nine behaviors. Its intent is more obvious than that of the Terman-Miles (MF), which is disguised as a word-association test. Both were included to measure response at different levels of awareness and therefore were likely to involve different degrees of defensiveness. Terman and Miles (1936) reported that the M-F association index was not correlated with M-F measures based on direct inquiry about one’s interests. They were impressed with the com­ plexity of M-F variables. In the cross-validation study to be described, only the Terman-Miles measure was employed. The hypothesis underlying this study requires that increase in eye awareness under the impact of the orality message be positively correlated with masculinity and negatively with femininity. But the hypothesis also requires that changes in awareness of the mouth and heart landmarks, which are not linked to the taped theme, should not be correlated with masculinity or femininity. The procedure in the female sample was the same except that the landmark variable was mouth awareness. Since the theme associated with this landmark concerns power, the same power tape was employed as de-

LANDMARK SEX DIFFERENCES

567

scribed above. The hypothesis under consideration requires that increase in mouth awareness during the taped theme be positively correlated with mas­ culinity and negatively correlated with femininity. But changes in eye or heart awareness should have chance relationships with masculinity and femininity. In the cross-validation samples, a control was introduced to evaluate the role of the taped message intervening between the two administrations of the Body Focus Questionnaire in influencing correlations between TermanMiles M-F (1936) and shifts in eye awareness or mouth awareness. It seemed important to show that any relationship between masculinity or femininity and change in eye awareness or change in mouth awareness reflected the intervening effect of exposure to the appropriate taped message. The control involved the subject’s responding to the Body Focus Questionnaire, then sitting quietly for 5 minutes without exposure to the message, and responding to the retest Body Focus Questionnaire in the absence of the message. Subjects

The experimental subjects in the first study were 21 male and 26 female college students. The experimental subjects in the cross-validation sample were 22 male and 22 female college students. There was also one control sample of 10 males and another of 10 females. The median age in all samples was 20. All subjects were paid a fee. Results

Study 1. The mean baseline BFQ Eye score in the male sample was 7.04 (cr = 2.39), and the retest mean was 6.87 ( a = 2.03). The mean change for Eye awareness was - .17.

- In analyzing the relationships of the masculinity-femininity measures to the changes in BFQ, a covariance approach was used. The part correlation [^(2,3)] was computed in order to determine the correlation between mas­ culinity-femininity measures and retest BFQ scores, with baseline BFQ score effects on retest BFQ scores partialed out. Contrary to prediction, the retest BFQ Eye scores were not significantly correlated with the Gough M-F scores [^(2,3) = .14]. But, as predicted, they were significantly positively correlated [rt(2,3) = .55, p < .02] with the Terman-Miles Masculinity score, negatively correlated with the Femininity score [^(2,3) = - .5 8 , p < .01], and positively correlated with the Mas­ culinity minus Femininity index [^(2,3) = .52, p < .02]. Also, as anticipated, the BFQ retest Heart and Mouth scores had chance correlations with the Gough and Terman-Miles masculinity-femininity indexes. The mean baseline Mouth score in the female sample was 7.30 (cr = 2.49), and the retest mean was 6.74 (cr = 2.47). The mean change for mouth

568

16.

FINDINGS CONCERNING BODY LANDMARK SIGNAL SYSTEM

awareness was - .56. Mouth BFQ retest scores were not correlated with the Gough M-F [^(2,3) = .19]. As predicted, they were positively correlated with Terman-Miles Masculinity [^(2,3) = .54, p < .01], negatively corre­ lated with Femininity [^(2,3) = - .4 4 , p < .05], and positively correlated with Masculinity minus Femininity [^(2,3) = .56, p < .005]. As expected, neither the retest BFQ Eye nor Heart scores were correlated with the Terman-Miles scores. For both the males and females, the results conformed to the hypothesis when the Terman-Miles was taken as the criterion but not when the Gough M-F was used. The distinction between the Gough and Terman-Miles mea­ sures was affirmed by the fact that they were not significantly correlated with each other in either the male or female samples. Study 2. The mean baseline Eye score in the male experimental sample was 7.96 (cr = 2.36), and the retest mean was 7.27 (cr = 2.30). The mean Eye change score was - .6 9 .10 As predicted, the retest BFQ Eye scores corre­ lated positively with Terman-Miles Masculinity [^(2,3) = .43, p = .025]. A one-tailed test was used because this was a cross-validation study with a specific directional hypothesis. The relationship of retest BFQ Eyes with Femininity [^(2,3) = - .35, p < .10] was in the predicted direction but not significant. The relationship with Masculinity minus Femininity was signifi­ cantly in the expected direction [^(2,3) = .40, p < .05]. As predicted, neither the retest BFQ Heart nor Mouth scores were correlated with the Terman-Miles indexes. The mean Mouth score in the female experimental sample was 6.86 (cr = 2.51), and the retest mean was 7.59 (cr = 1.92). The retest BFQ Mouth scores in the female sample were correlated .20 (p > .20) with Terman-Miles Masculinity, - .3 3 (p < .10) with Femininity, and .25 (p < .10) with Mas­ culinity minus Femininity. These relationships were in the predicted direction but not significant. As expected, neither the retest BFQ Eye nor Heart scores were significantly correlated with the Terman-Miles. The mean Eye score in the special male controls was 7.00 (cr = 3.23), and the retest mean was 7.20 (cr = 2.25). The mean Eye awareness shift was .20. The part correlations between the retest BFQ Eye scores and the TermanMiles indexes were, as expected, not significant. The mean Mouth score in the special female controls was 6.10 (a = 1.91), and the retest mean was 5.00 (cr = 2.40). The mean Mouth awareness shift was -1.10. Part correlations of the retest BFQ Mouth scores with the Terman-Miles indexes did not even approach significance. The correlations in the control samples were compared with those in the two experimental samples to determine if they differed significantly. The results shown in Table 16.1 indicate that the coefficients in the male experi­ mental sample in Study 1 were significantly greater than those of the male

2.10