Transactional Analysis Journal

http://tax.sagepub.com/

Hemisphere Lateralization and Specialization and Transactional Analysis Concepts of

Ego States
Martha Millard Nims
Transactional Analysis Journal 1981 11: 213
DOI: 10.1177/036215378101100305

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://tax.sagepub.com/content/11/3/213

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Transactional Analysis Association

Additional services and information for Transactional Analysis Journal can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://tax.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://tax.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://tax.sagepub.com/content/11/3/213.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jul 1, 1981

What is This?

Downloaded from tax.sagepub.com by Ana Farcas on May 22, 2014

 Hemisphere Lateralization and Specialization and
Transactional Analysis Concepts of Ego States
Martha Millard Nims
Abstract
This study explores tbe relationsbip
between left/rigbt bemispbere lateraliza-
tion and ego states (Adult/Cbild) of trans-
actional analysis. Fifteen rigbt banded
male subjects were evoked into ego states
by an audio stimulus tape developed by
tbis study and validated by TA experts. Tbe
EEG results were non-significant. A signi-
ficant relationsbip did appear between tbe
self-report of 21 subjects regarding the
Adult and tbe left bemispbere.
Researcb Background
This research was designed to explore
the relationship between L/R hemisphere
Iateralizing and the ego states (Adult/Child)
of Transactional Analysis.
Researchers in the past decades have
considered more and more questions
about the human mind with the assistance
of technology. Of particular interest is the
work of Sperry and Bogen (1969) who re-
searched the split brain patients and the
lateral specialization research (Galin &
Ornstein, 1972, 1974, 1976). Sperry, et al,
(1969) reported that the hemispheres of the
brain have different cognitive functions.
They concluded that the right hemisphere
functions in a spatial, holistic mode and
t~at the left hemisphere serves in analytic,
lineal style. By inference from Sperry's
descriptions, it is possible that, through
technology, modem neurophysiology may
be givingpresent day psychologists a means
of understanding human personality for
which Freud (1913), Berne (1968), and
others had hoped.
Berne in particular was interested in
the work of Penfield, whose physiologi-
Vol. u, No.3, July 1981
Downloaded from tax.sagepub.com by Ana Farcas on May 22, 2014
cally oriented studies were considered by
Berne during his development of Transac-
tional Analysis. Berne, in personal com-
munication with Thomson (1968), expressed
the belief that the ego states functioned
from a particular area of the brain. He felt
that research would locate this area.
Ego States
The central theorem of Transactional
Analysis is the existence of the three be-
haviorally indentifiable ego states labeled
Parent, Adult and Child.
The Transactional Analysis theory is
based on the interaction between the various
ego states within one individual or between
the ego states of several individuals. Berne
felt Parent, Adult and Child have "civic
identities, meaning that the prototypes for
each are or were persons who lived at a
certain address," existed at a given time
etc. The Child ego state is a remnant of
the real child that existed when the person
was very young. The Parent ego state was
introjected from the real parents of the
individual at an earlier time of life. The
Adult ego state is functional, cognitive
and directed toward "objective appraisals
of reality" (Berne, 1964).
All of these states: Parent, Adult and
Child are present in the normal adult indi-
vidual.
George Thomson (1972, Transactional
Analysis Journal, Vol. 11:4) stated that
ego states are recognizable in nature. The
result of Thomson's study was that:
"~ransactional Analysis experts,
naive normal and naive psychiatric
subjects could all identify ego states
with a high degree of accuracy, once
213
MARTHA MILLARD NIMS
the concept of ego states was ex-
plained to them ..... (p. 56).
This study was concerned only with the
Adult and Child concepts leaving out the
Parent ego state. This choice was made
because of the strong parallel descriptions
between the R/L hemispheres and the
Adult/Child.
The parent ego state is determined by
the integration of the child's parents'
messages during the child's early develop-
ment. This process is one of socialization.
The description of the Parent ego state are:
nuturing, judgmental, caring, scolding, etc.,
(Berne, 1961; Steiner, 1974; McCormick,
1977; Thomson, 1977). These concepts do
not lend themselves to the model of hemi-
spheric functions: left/analytical, com-
puter-like, linear logic: and right/spatial
oriented, intuitive and emotional. Con-
sidering the social origins of the Parent
and the complexity of its nature, it seemed
inappropriate to include it in the study.
INTEGRATION OF TRANSACfIONAL
ANALYSIS AND NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
It would sppear that Sperry and Orn-
stein's description of the Left hemisphere
is very similar to the description of the
Adult concept in Transactional Analysis
and the description of the Right Hemi-
sphere similar to the Child concept.
NEUROPSYCHOLOGISTS
(sperry, Gazzaniga, Bogen, Galin, Levy, Ornstein)
Left Hemisphere Right Hemisphere
Analytical, computer- Spatially oriented,
like, sequential logic intuitive, creative,
emotional
TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS
(Berne, Steiner, Harris, Thomson, James)
Adult Ego State Child Ego State
Computer, assessor of Emotional, spontan-
reality, processor of data eous, creative
It seemed reasonable to expect that
instrumentation (BEG) used to distin-
guish between the hemispheres would also
be able to relate these findings to the Ego
states, Adult and Child. It was reasoned
that BBG readings should show that an
individual in a Child ego state is predomi-
214
Downloaded from tax.sagepub.com by Ana Farcas on May 22, 2014
nantly using the right hemisphere and an
individualin an Adult ego state is producing
more energyin the left cognitive hemisphere.
Research
There are almost no studies to validate,
examine or establish the theoretical con-
cepts underlying Transactional Analysis.
An exception is the work of Thomson
(1972). He observed that after fifteen years
there had been no research to test or
establish that ego states do existeven though
the concept of ego states is central to
Transactional Analysis theory.
Research Design
Fifteen right handed male subjects were
evoked into ego states by an audio stimulus
tape developed for this study and con-
sensually validated by experts in Transac-
tional Analysis theory (Appendix 6). BEG
measures taken during these stimuli were
then examined to determine the relation-
ship of the hemispheric L/R dominance
as related to ego state.
The statistical design was a three factor
within subject analysis of variance. The
independent variables were 1) the Adult
and Child stimulus tapes; 2) the location
of measurement, left or right hemisphere;
3) the presentation order of the stimulus
type. A counterbalanced presentation of
the stimulus was done to control for order
effects. (C l' A t - A'1J C~.
To check to be sure that the counter-
balancing was effective, an ANOVA using
ego states, location of measurement
and order was done.
The dependent variable was the propor-
tion of alpha power in microvolts recorded
in the EEG analyzed from one minute
epochs from the temporal placement. The
greater degree of alpha indicated the
greater proportion of inhibition in the
lateralizing effect.
These procedures allowed for a statisti-
cal evaluation of the interaction between
the Child and Adult ego states and the
hemisphere of the brain in which alpha
activity appears. (The level of significance
was set at p. <.05.)
Transactional AnalysisJournal
 HEMISPHERE LATERIALIZAnON AND SPECIALIZATION

DEVELOPMENT OF THE AUDIO STIMULUS

TAPE RATIONALE FOR THE USE OF Stimulus
AUDIOTAPES The terms Child" Child 2' Adult l' Adult 2 refer to stimulus
It was necessary to find a way to stimulate tapes and are unrelated toany other TA concepts.
a subject into an egostate while he was Child Child Adult Adult
hooked to the EEG. The subject would be 1 2 1 2
physically inactive during the stimulation
because activity increases artifact on the Ego State C, Cz At Az
EEG. (Artifact is muscle movement and
eyeblinks.) Galin and Ornstein had sub- Child C 12 12 0 0 24
jects doing tasks such as writing, moving
block designs and reading. These activities
did not seem appropriate for eliciting ego Adult A 0 0 10 11 21
states.
Parent P 0 0 2 1 3

Discussion 12 48
12 12 12
The stimulus materials. The concept
that ego states could be elicited by audio x2 21.8 26.2 10.51 16.40
stimulus tapes was consensually validated
by sending the audio stimulus tape S
(Study) to twenty teaching members of
P .. .. . ..
ITAA who agreed to evaluate the tape.
.p .01 ..p .001
Thirteen of these experts returned their
evaluations. These evaluations of the Transactional Analysis experts' evaluation of stimulus Ct ,
ego states of the tape stimulus C l' C 2' A l' C2, A" A z and ego states: Parent (P), Child (C), and AdUlt
(A).
A 2 can be seen in Table lao This table
shows the Transactional Analysis experts
are in significant agreement with experi- Table 1a
***Experts' Evaluations
menter's predictions for Tapes C l' C2' A l'
and A 2 as to the ego state of the stimulus.
Educators could use other sources of
Self evaluation. These experts also parti- stimuli besides the audio stimulus used in
cipated in self-evaluation of their own ego this study. Some of these stimuli are video-
states in response to the stimulus materials. tape, movies and live presentations.
Table lb shows the experts' personal Development of skits, films and stories
response to the stimuli which was also which would elicit ego states would be
significantly in agreement with the pre- useful resource materials in the classroom
dicted response. and office.
The evidence of data gathered from the Therapeutically, the concepts of Adult
reactions to Tape S was sufficiently con- and Child are effective in working with
sistent so that it appears that it is entirely psychotic and neurotic patients. The more
possible that one can create stimuli which definitive a therapist can be about these
will elicit predictable ego states. This concepts, the more effectively they can be
finding is of significance to teachers and to translated to the patient's frame of
trainers of Transactional Analysis who reference.
work with adults and children. Educators
could use ego state stimuli to structure In the future when examining the theore-
learning situations for students. They could tical basis of Transactional Analysis, other
also teach awareness of how to shift ego sources of stimuli such as videotape, films
states for appropriate life situations. These and live presentations would be worthy
are important learning skills. of exploration.
Vol. 11, No.3, July 1981 215

Downloaded from tax.sagepub.com by Ana Farcas on May 22, 2014

MARTHA MILLARD NIMS

itself to one of these specific Child states

Stimulus and its relation to the lateralization process.
One of the challenging tasks of this
Child Child Adult Adult
study was the development of a tape which
121 2 could transcend the individual's inner
dialogue and create a minimum of
Ego State C1 c2 A1 A2 crossed transactions. The experimenter
was more successful in developing the
Child C 10 13 3 1 27 Adult tapes and less effective with the
Child tapes. Developing tapes which elicit
Adult A 3 0 9 12 24 a Child response and do not have crossed
transactions is a difficult task and should
Parent P 0 0 1 0 1 be considered for study.
The reactions to Child 2' Adult 1 and
13 13 13 13 52
Adult 2 were significant and support the
hypothesis that, "Ego states are behavior-
ally observable and identifiable in one's
X2 12.2 26.2 8.06 20.6 self and in others. It
P .. .. . .. The findings of this study in the area of
defining and eliciting ego states may have
importance to other researchers. To begin
.p .01 p .001
Transactional Analysis experts' self evaluation ofego states
Parent (P), Child (C), Adult (A), in response to stimulus C1, IR AR
C2, A1, A2
Left Right
lateralizing SUbjects lateralizing SUbjects
Table 1b
Experts' Responses C1 C1
S Report
1 -A
SUBJECf EVALUATIONS 7 +C
Subjects' reactions and evaluations to 10 +C
12 +C
taped materials varied with the stimulus. 16 -P
As can be seen in Table 2a, the subjects' 21 -P
reaction to Child I was random and of no 23 -A
significance. Some subjects. commented 9 +C
14 -P
that they needed to know why the people +C
were laughing. Others were irritated and -A
felt the laughers were silly. The individual +C
dynamics as one reacts in the Child ego
state are rich and varied and difficult to Totals C+ = 5 Totals C+ = 6
predict. AP = 4 AP.= 6
Part of this variation may be tied to the Explanation ofsymbols:
+ indicates self report same asintended ego state
many concepts within the TA classifica- - indicates self report not the same as intended ego state
tion of Child. Some of these are Free Child, AR indicates appropriate EEG given intended ego state
Adaptive Child and Little Professor IR indicates inappropriate EEG given intended ego state
(Steiner, 1974). This study did not address
these separate aspects of Child. The state Table 2a
considered by this study was probably Subject Identification of Ego States when EEG
closest to the Free Child concept in the Did/Or Did Not Lateralize inthe Predicted
response to laughter. A stimulus could be Direction forStimulus C1
developed which predominately confined

216 Transactional Analysis Journal

Downloaded from tax.sagepub.com by Ana Farcas on May 22, 2014

 HEMISPHERE LATERALIZATION AND SPECIALIZATION

IR AR AR IR
Left Right Left Right
lateralizing subjects lateralizing subjects laterallzing sUbjects lateralizing subjects
C2 C2 A1 A1
S Report S Report S Report S Report
4 +c 1 +c 1 +A 4 -p
6 +c +c 2 +A 10 -c
7 +c IS +c 6 +A 12 -c
10 +c 15 +c 7 +A 15 +A
12 +c 18 -A 8 +A 19 -p
16 +c 19 +c 16 +A 21 -c
21 -p 23 +c 18 +A 23 +A
14 -A 9 -A 9 +A 23 +A
13 -A 13 +A 14 +A
17 -A 17 -c
3 -A 3 +A
11 +c 11 +A
20 +c 20 -c
Totals +C=6 Totals +C = 8 Totals +A = 11 Totals +A = 3
-AP = 2 -AP = 5 -CP = 2 -CP = 5
Explanation ofsymbols Explanation ofsymbols
+ indicates self report same asintended ego state + indicates self report same asintended ego state
indicates self report not the same asintended ego state indicates self report not the same asintended ego state
AR indicates appropriate EEG given intended ego state AR indicates appropriate EEG given intended ego state
IR indicates appropriate EEG given intended ego state IR indicates inappropriate EEG given intended ego state

Table 2b Table 2c
Subject Identification of Ego States when Subject Identification of Ego States when
EEG Did/Did Not Lateralize in the Predicted EEG Did/Did Not Lateralize in the Predicted
Direction for Stimulus C2 Direction for Stimulus A1

this study, many months were spent
developing stimuli and determining if they
could be used effectively. Other researchers
may benefit from these experiences and
define their stimuli with more certainty
using foundations developed in this study
and that of Thomson (1972). That experts
could define their own ego state and that
naive subjects could also recognize their
own ego state has not been established
previously. This study strongly suggests
that such self reports are possible.
The statistical analysis revealed no signi-
ficant relationship between the lateraliza-
tion right and left and the Child and Adult
ego state.
Some possible causes for these non-
significant results are as follows:
Audio-stimulus. Because the study used
only audio-stimuli which produce low level
and limited neutral responses, it might be
Vol. 11, No.3, July 1981
expected that stimuli which draw on other
sensory awareness would create a stronger
hemisphere shift. Visual and auditory
stimuli might be effective.
Environment. The laboratory setting
may have contributed to the predominance
of Adult state and the nonstimulation of
the Child ego state. The computer atmos-
phere may have stimulated an Adult
reaction. Experimentation in other settings
such as a playground, classroom or informal
office might be productive in creating a
Child ego state.
Different technique. Using the technique
of right/left eye movements (Galin,
Ornstein 1975), which purport to indicate
brain lateralization, would permit a wider
range of subject movement than does the
EEG. These methods might well provide
different data.
217

Downloaded from tax.sagepub.com by Ana Farcas on May 22, 2014

MARTHA MILLARD NIMS

Subject choice. A large number of the Americans. These males are likely to be
male subjects were middle class medical more linear minded than other groups.
students. Forisha (1978) wrote of the These two factors may definitely affect the
restriction of the emotions of this class of eliciting of the Child ego state. These are
considerations in the choice of subjects in
future research.
AR IR A wareness of EEG. Another artifact of
Left Right the experiment could have been present in
lateralizing sUbjects lateralizing sUbjects the very nature of the EEG which the
A2 A2 subject knew was recording brain waves.
S Report S Report
This knowledge may have kept the subject
in the cognitive linear mode wondering
1 +A 4 +A
2 +A 6 +A how the EEG was recording one's reac-
8 +A 7 +A tions instead of going with the emotional
15 +A 10 +A content of the tape.
18 +A 12 +A
19 +A 16 -p A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUBJECTS
21 +A 23 -p IDENTIFICATION OF EGO STATE AND EEG
9 +A 14 -p
The non-significant results were dis-
13 -C
17 +A appointing but a closer look at the data
3 +A revealed some other interesting relation-
11 +A ships.
20 +A When the EEG was used as a predictor
Totals +A = 12 Totals +A = 5 of the subject's ego state, it was a more
-CP = 1 -CP = 3 reliable predictor of the subject's report
than the experimenter's a priori assump-
Explanation ofsymbols
+ indicates self report same asintended ego slate tions.
- indicates self report not the same asintended ego state The subjects correctly identified the
AR indicates appropriate EEG given intended ego state Adult state, when they were using the left
IR indicates inappropriate EEG given intended ego state hemisphere. The subjects correctly identi-
fied the Child state, but were not lateralizing
Table 2d in the right hemisphere, as indicated by
Subject Identification of Ego States when the EEG. The subjects recognized the
EEG Does/Does Not Lateralize in the Predicted linear/left cognitive state more readily
Direction for Stimulus A2 than they did the spatial or right cognitive
state.
This reduced discrimination could be
due to the quality of the Child tapes. This
Source SS df MS F P would seem to be true for Child 1 which
A Ego State 300.32 1 300.32 All F's ns was not a consistently validated stimulus.
BHemisphere 32.52 1 32.52 1.0 However, Child2' which was 100010 con-
COrder 4.52 1 4.52 sensually validated by both experts and
AB 52.80 1 52.80 subjects, was also not identified correctly.
AB 37.80 1 37.80 One possibility for explaining the Adult
BC 58.30 1 58.30 or left hemisphere recognition could be
18.83 1 18.83 that from childhood most people have been
ABC
Error 68692.30 72 954.06 complimented, "stroked" or rewarded in
some way for linear cognitive thinking. In
Total 69197.59 the process of growing up, middle class
children are commended for linear
Table 3 thinking. As the child learns to count, to
ANOVA: Ten Male, Right Handed Subjects read and to reason, teachers and parents
comment, grade, judge and generally

218 Transactional Analysis Journal

Downloaded from tax.sagepub.com by Ana Farcas on May 22, 2014

 HEMISPHERE LATERALIZATION AND SPECIALIZATION

AR IR ~ AR IR ~

+ 5 6 11 + 6 8 14

- 4 6 10 - 2 5 7

s 9 12 21 s 8 13 21

c1: (.06 + .56 + 2.56 + .56)/c = .52 - <.75 ns.
Explanation ofsymbols
+ indicates self report same asintended ego state
indicates self report not the same asintended ego state
AR indicates appropriate EEG given intended ego state
IR indicates inappropriate EEG given intended ego state
c2: (.56 + 7.56 + 10.56 + .06)/c = 3.57 P <.10 ns.
Explanation ofsymbols
+ indicates self report same asintended ego state
indicates self report not the same asintended ego state
AR indicates appropriate EEG given intended ego state
IR indicates inappropriate EEG given intended ego state

Table 4a Table 4b
Chi Square Table - Child 1 Chi Square Table - Child 2

approve of the child's process. This may likely to be "stroked" or recognized by

lead the child to be more aware of the
state of mind while in that linear process,
especially if his/her future includes achieve-
ment in intellectual endeavors.
Behavior which results from spatial
thinking is less likely to be eulogized by
middle class, upwardly mobile families in
the American culture. While painting,
drawing and sculpting are childhood
activities and pleasures, they are less
parents and teachers. Consequently, the
child may also be less aware of the internal
process while engaging in these activities.
As the child develops, the left hemi-
sphere activity is increasingly rewarded and
the right hemisphere process decreasingly
rewarded.
Further study observing artists, sculptors
and decorators who use this type of spatial
thinking (right hemisphere) would be use-

AR IR ~ AR IR s
+ 11 3 14 + 12 5 17

- 2 5 7 - 1 3 4

s 13 8 21 ~ 13 8 21

A1: (33.06 + 5.06 + 10.56 + .06)/c = 9.28 P <.005
Explanation ofsymbols
+ indicates self report same asintended ego state
indicates self report not the same asintended ego state
AR indicates appropriate EEG given intended ego state
IR indicates inappropriate EEG given intended ego state
A2: (45.56 + .06 + 18.06 + 5.06)/c = 14.81 P <.001
Explanation ofsymbols
+ indicates self report same asintended ego state
indicates self report not the same asintended ego state
AR indicates appropriate EEG given intended ego state
IR indicates inappropriate EEG given intended ego state

Table 4c Table 4d
Chi Square Table - Adult 1 Chi Square Table - Adult 2

Vol. 11, No.3, July 1981 219

Downloaded from tax.sagepub.com by Ana Farcas on May 22, 2014

MARTHA MIllLARD NIMS

These are possible explanations for the

Stimulus identification of the Adult/left hemisphere
state more consistently than the Child/right
Child Child Adult Adult hemisphere activity in this study.
1 2 1 2 Since the study confirms by EEG meas-
sures that subjects could correctly identify
Ego State C1 C2 A1 A2 the Adult ego state in the context of the
linear thinking process, effective applica-
Child C 11 14 5 2 33 tion of these findings would be a device for
change, both therapeutically and educa-
Adult A 5 6 14 17 42 tionally.

Parent P 5 1 2 2 9
Martha Millard Nims lives and works in
San Francisco, California.
1 21 21 21 21 34
REFERENCES
Berne, E. The structure and dynamics of organiza-
X2 3.89 10.72 11.99 19.5 tions and groups. New York: Ballantine Books,

P ns . . .. ..
P( .01 p <.001
All subjects' evaluation of their ego state response: Parent
(P), Adult (A), Child (C) tostimulus C1, C2, A1, A2.
Table 5
All Subjects' Responses
ful. These individuals could, hopefully,
identify this brain process more readily
than academic, intellectual individuals.
Another explanation for the poor identi-
fication of the Child state could be the
identification process of the experiment.
After the processing of the EEG and the
listening to the tapes, the subject had the
concept of ego states explained
and then identified the ego state he
remembered feeling at the time of hearing
the tapes. This meant recalling (linear
process) reactions to stimulus which had
been heard in the last twenty minutes. That
was not an unreasonable time in which to
recall as state, but the very process of re-
calling is linear. This linear process, which
is left hemisphere brain functioning, may
affect the recognition of the Child ego
state. Developing a means of getting a self-
report without the delayed response would
be a challenging task worth developing
in future research.
Inc., 1963.
Berne, E. Transactional analysis in psychotherapy.
New York: Ballantine Books, Inc., 1961.
Berne, E. Intuition IV: "Primal images and primal
judgement." Psychiatric Quarterly, 1955, 29, 634-
648.
Berne, E. Games people play. New York: Grove
Press, 1969.
Berne, E. Principles of group treatment. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1966.
Berne, E. Introduction. Transactional Analysis
Bulletin, 1969,3(31),45-47.
Berne, E. Standard nomenclature. Transactional
Analysis Bulletin, 1969,8(32), 111-112.
Berne, E. W1ult do you soy qfter you soy hello? New
York: Grove Press, 1972.
Berne, E. Intuition and ego states: The origins of
transactional analysis. Son Francisco: TA Press,
1977. A seriesof earlier papers.
Bogen, J .E. Final panel. Drugs and Cerebral Func-
tion, Cerebral Function Symposium. Edited by
W.L. Smith, Charles C. Thomas; Springfield,
Illinois, 1971,263-272.
Bogen, J .E. The other side of the brain dysgraphia
and dyscopia following cerebral commissurotomy.
Bulletin Los Angeles Neurological Society, 1969,
34,73-105.
Bogen, J.E. The other side of the brain II: An
appositional mind. Bulletin Los Angeles Neurolo-
gical Society, 1969,4, 135-162.
Brazien, M. The analysis of brain waves. Clinical
Neurophysiology, 1970,27, 549.
Brooks, L.R. An extension of the conflict between
visualization and reading. Quarterly Journal Experi-
mental Psychology, 1970,22,91-96.
Corsini, R. Current psychotherapies. Itasca, Illinois:
F.E.Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1974.
Davidson, R., & Schwartz, G. The influence of musi-
cal training on patterns of EEG asymmetry during

220 Transactional Analysis Journal

Downloaded from tax.sagepub.com by Ana Farcas on May 22, 2014

 HEMISPHERE LATERALIZAnON AND SPECIALIZAnON
musical and non-musical self generation tasks.
Psychophysiology, 1977,14(1).
Davidson, R., Schwartz, G., : Pugashi, E. Voluntary
control of patterns of EEG parietal asymmetry
cognitive concomitants. Psychophysiology, 1977,
13(6).
Davidson, R., Schwartz, G., Pugashi, E., & Bronfield,
E. Sex differences in patterns of EEG asymmetry.
Biological Psychology, 1976, 4.
Doyle, E., Galin, D., & Ornstein, R. Lateral speciali-
zation of cognitive mode II, EEG frequency
analysis. Psychophysiology, 1974.
Entus, A.K. Hemispheric asymmetry in processing of
dichotically presented speech and nonspeech sounds
by infants. Paper presented at Society for Research
in Child Development, Denver, Colorado, 1975.
Federn, P. Ego psychology and the psychoses. New
York: Basic Books, 1952.
Forisha, B. Sex roles and personal awareness. Scott,
Foreman & Company, 1978.
Freedman, A., Kaplan, H., & saddock, B. Psychiotry/
II. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co., 1975.
Freud, S. The unconscious. Collected Papers. London:
HogarthPresS,1915, Vols.4&5, 1948.
Freud, S. The ego and the id. London: Hogarth
Press, 1927.
Galin, D. Lateral specialization and psychiatric
issues: Speculations on development and the evo-
lution of consciousness. Conference on Evolution
ofLateralization of the Brain. Annals ofNew York
Academy ofScience, 1977.
Galin, D., & Ornstein, R. Hemisphere specializations
and the duality of consciousness. University of San
Francisco, unpublished, 1977.
Galin, D., & Ornstein, R. Lateral specialization of
cognitive mode (An EEG study). Psychophysiology,
1972.
Galin, D., & Ellis, R.R. Asymmetry in evoked
potentials as an index of lateralized cognitive
processes: Relation to EEG alpha asymmetry.
Neuropsychologia, 1975,13,45-50.
Gardner, M., Schulman, C., & Walter, D.O. Fracul-
tative EEG asymmetries in babies and adults.
Brain Information Service Conference Report
#34, UCLA, 1974,37-40.
Gazzaniga, M.S. The dissected brain. New York:
Appleton Century Crafts, Inc., 1970.
Gazzaniga, M.S., Hillyard, S.A. Language and speech
capacity of the right hemisphere. Neurophyschologio,
1971,9,273-280.
Harris, T.A. I'm OK you're OK. New York: Harper
and Row, 1976.
James, M., & Jongeward, D. Born to win. Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1971,23.
John, E., et al. Switchboard versus statistical theories
of learning and memory. Science, 1977,196, #4297,
1393.
Vol. 11, No.3, July 1981
Downloaded from tax.sagepub.com by Ana Farcas on May 22, 2014
Kimura, D. Functional asymmetry of the human
brain in dichotic listening. Cortex, 1967,3, 163-178.
Kimura, D. Left-right melodies. Quarterly Journal
of Differences in the Perception of Experimental
Psychology, 1964,15,166-771.
Kirk, R. Experimental design: Procedures for the
behavioral sciences. Belmont, California: Wads-
worth, 1969.
Levy, J. A review of evidence for a genetic component
in the determination of handedness. Behavior
Genetics, 1976,6,429-453.
MacDonald, H. Interaction of hemispheric asym-
metry with presence and absence of alpha. APA,
1977.
Nebes, R. Superiority of the minor hemisphere in
commissurotomized man for perception of part-
whole relations. Cortex, 1971, 7, 333-349.
Neville, E. Electrographic correlates of lateral
asymmetry in the processing of verbal and non-
verbal auditory stimuli. Journal of Psycho-
linguistic Research, 1973-1974,3, 151-163.
Ornstein, R.E. The nature of human consciousness.
New York: Viking Press, 1974.
Ornstein, R.E. The psychology of consciousness.
New York: Viking Press, 1972.
Penfield, R. Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1959.
Pribram, H. Languages of the brain. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, Inc., 1971.
Sahakian, W.W. History of psychology. Itasca,
Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1972.
Searleman, A. A review of right hemisphere linguistic
capabilities. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84(3),
503-529.
Sperry, R.W. Hemisphere deconnection and unity in
conscious awareness. American Psychology, 1968,
23,723-722.
Sperry, R.W. Lateral specialization in the surgically
separated hemisphere. In: The Neurosciences Third
Study Program. Edited by R.O. Schmidt & F.G.
Worden. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press,
1974,5-19.
Sperry, R.W. Left-brain right-brain. Saturday Review
ofLiterature, 1975.
Sprague, J. Interaction of cortex and superior colli-
culus in mediation of visually guided behavior in
the cat. Science, 1966,153, 1544-1547.
Steiner, C. Scripts people live. New York: Bantam
Books, Inc., 1974.
Thatcher, R. Personal communication to Martha
Nims from William Hudspeth, PhD, 1972.
Thomson, G. Personal communication to Martha
Nims, 1977.
Thomson, G. The identification of ego states. Trans-
actional Analysis Journal, 1972,2(4), 198.
Weiss, E. Principles of psychodynamics. New York:
Green and Stratton, 1950.
221