Hypnotic Age Regression: A Critical Review

&NA; When told that he is a child of a certain chronological age, the “good” hypnotic subject characteristically imagines that he is a child and tends to behave in a childlike manner. However, when assessed on standard physiological or psychological tests, the behavior of the “hypnotic age regressed” subject either shows discrepancies from the norms for the suggested age, or, if in accord with the norms, is of such a kind as to be amenable to simulation by the normal adult. Specifically, physiological studies do not indicate (as has been assumed) that involuntary functions characteristic of an earlier age level are revived under hypnotic age regression: (a) In no case has regression to infancy been associated with revival of the infantile EEG pattern. (Although in one experiment with an epileptic patient, abnormal patterns on the EEG were abolished and reinstated under hypnotic age regression, similar EEG effects were produced in the same patient, and in other epileptic patients, without hypnosis.) (b) The assertion that involuntary conditioned responses can be abolished under hypnotic age regression is based on a questionable interpretation of experimental data. The so‐called “involuntary” conditioned responses which were assessed in the “regression” experiments (conditioned hand withdrawal and conditioned eye‐blink) appear to be amenable to voluntary inhibition. (c) Although a Babinski response to plantar stimulation has been demonstrated in some subjects under hypnotic regression to early infancy, this does not indicate (as has been assumed) that an “unconditioned infantile reflex” is recoverable under “regression. ” The characteristic response of the infant to stimulation of the sole is not the Babinski, but withdrawal of the limb with variability in response of the toes. On standard psychological tests such as the Binet, the Rorschach, and Goodenough drawings, hypnotically age regressed subjects generally manifest some responses that are atypical of a child, and attain scores that are superior to the norms for the assigned age, or to the scores they had actually attained at the earlier age. In one experiment, subjects under regression to ages 10, 7, and 4 were able, in 81 per cent of the cases, to state the exact day of the week on which Christmas and their birthday fell in the particular year involved. Indirect evidence suggests that failure to control crucial experimental variables may have been responsible for these results; e.g., the experiment was carried out over a period of many months and it is possible that the subjects discussed the experiment with each other; four subsequent experimental studies failed to confirm the findings; the overwhelming majority of American 4‐year‐olds do not distinguish the days of the week; normal persons can deduce on which day of the week an earlier birthday (or a Christmas) fell by counting back from a known birthday (or Christmas), one day of the week for each intervening year and an additional day for each intervening leap‐year. In some experiments the “regrssed” subjects approximated more closely the norms for the stipulated age than subjects instructed to simulate. In these instances, the “better” performance found under the hypnotic condition may have been due to such factors as the following. The experimental group was selected under the implicit criterion of proficiency in performing imaginative activities and had received practice, in preliminary “training” sessions, in carrying out such activities in an experimental setting. In contradistinction, the control group was selected haphazardly and did not participate in prior experiments. The data reviewed suggest a need for furr ther experiments in which control groups are selected and treated in a manner similar to that used for the hypnotic groups. It can be hypothesized that under such conditions no difference will be found between hypnotically regressed and control subjects on the criterion behaviors.