evaluation of the effectiveness of autogenic training in

EuropeanPsychologist

w v v

V ¥

Evaluation of the Effectivenessof Autogenic Training inGerontopsychologyIts Role in Developmental Intervention and Its Effectson Development-Related Cognitions and Emotionsas well as Psychosomatic Complaints in the Elderly

Giinter KrampenUniversity of Trier, Germany

This paper presents the results of two studies on the promotion of person-al self-regulation of development, personal control over development anddevelopment-related emotions as well as generalized locus of control andpsychosomatic well-being in the elderly using autogenic training (AT),a psychophysiological self-control method using self-inductions of phys-ical and mental relaxation. Subjects were 120 adults aged 66-80 years.Study I had a randomized cross-over design with a waiting list group;Study II had a randomized cross-over design comparing the effects ofintroductory courses on autogenic training and of a general health edu-cation program. Each program phase continued for 8 weeks, with one

small group meeting per week. Tests were conducted in both studies beforeprogram start, during mid-program, after total program, and 6 monthsafter the end of the program. Data were gathered on development-relatedemotions, personal control over development, personal self-regulation ofdevelopment, psychosomatic complaints, and generalized locus of con-trol. The results point towards short-term as well as long-term effects ofautogenic training on these variables. Possible applications of autogenictraining in gerontopsychology are discussed as well as its role in devel-opmental intervention and its references to the action-theory orientedperspective in developmental psychology.

Keywords: Autogenic training, Treatment effectiveness evaluation, Developmental intervention, Internal external locus of control, Gerontopsychology.

To date, most empirical work on the effectiveness ofautogenic training as well as on its theoretical founda-tions in psychophysiology, learning theory, and behav-ior modification has been done with reference to its ap-plications in clinical and medical psychology (e.g.,Krampen, 1992 a; Luthe, 1969-1973). Only a few studieshave included applications in educational psychologyand industrial psychology, focusing for the most part onclinically relevant aspects in these domains (i. e., the re-duction of test anxiety or stress reactions, or the promo-tion of coping behavior; e. g., Krampen, 1992 a; Snider &Oetting, 1966). However, while the treatment effective-ness of autogenic training is confirmed by those studies(at least as an effective additional treatment techniqueaccompanying other methods), most of them remain

European Psychologist, Vol. 1, No. 4, December 1996, pp. 243-254© 1996 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

purely pragmatic and symptom-oriented, i. e., withoutdifferentiated reference to a psychological theory (Gor-ton, 1959; Pikoff, 1984). Even worse, up until now, thereare no conceptually sound nor empirically well-found-ed applications of autogenic training in applied devel-

Gunter Krampen is Professor in the Department of Psychology at theUniversity of Trier, Germany, and at the Institut Superieur d'Etudes etde Recherches Pedagogiques at Walferdange, Luxembourg. His mainareas of research are developmental psychology, personality re-search, educational psychology, social psychology, and selected top-ics of clinical psychology.

Correspondence concerning this, article should be~addressed to Gun-ter Krampen, University of Trier, Department of Psychology, D-54286Trier, Federal Republic of Germany, (tel +49 651 2012967 or +49651 38323, fax +49 651 309915, e-mail [email protected]).

243

Gunter Krampen

opmental psychology: Its utility as a developmental in-tervention has rarely been tested, either conceptuallynor empirically. This is astonishing in view of the clearand differentiated relationships of autogenic training tothe concept of developmental intervention and the ac-tion-theory oriented approach to human developmentin adulthood as well.

Three historical merits of Johannes H. Schultz, the founder ofautogenic training, must be considered when speaking of the de-velopment of modern psychological treatment methods. (1) Veryearly on — in the 1920s — he dismissed the heterosuggestive (di-rective) treatment strategy in favor of an approach focusing on theindividual's competencies and capabilities to actively regulatehis/her own development,behavior, and experience (Schultz, 1926,1970). Therefore, autogenic training has since been termed an auto-suggestive self-help technique. (2) From the beginning Schultz wasengaged in empirical studies (for the most part single-case reports,but also some group studies), which analyzed the applicability andthe effects of autogenic training not only in clinical samples, but inhealthy persons, too — together with preventive treatment indica-tions. (3) This early research was conducted in group settings. Thus,autogenic training is historically one of the first — if not the first —psychological group treatment approach that aimed at preventiveoutcomes concerning the improvement of personal self-regulationcompetencies.

Autogenic training is defined as a psychophysiological self-control technique aiming at physical and mental relaxation (seee. g., Pikoff, 1984; Schultz & Luthe, 1969). It uses auto-suggestionsby which individuals learn to alter certain psychophysiologicalfunctions with, initially, minimal intervention by another personand, after the technique is learned, with no intervention by anotherperson. The individual learns postural and cognitive skills. In arelaxed sitting position (for technical details see below: Study I —Procedure) the training uses seven short verbal standard formulas,emphasizing feelings of (1) general peace, (2) heaviness in thelimbs, (3) peripheral warmth, (4) respiratory regularity, (5) cardiacregularity, (6) abdominal warmth, and (7) coolness of the forehead.The formulas are introduced in this sequence, each one being prac-ticed in the introductory course group and alone at home until theintended effect is observed. Mastery of all formulas requires dailytraining for several weeks (at least 2 months). Once learned, auto-genic exercises provide not only relief from psychosomatic com-plaints and disorders, but should also become part of a daily relax-ation routine. Individuals use the exercises as a coping device inanticipation of and during stress as well as a self-management tech-nique for relaxation and recuperation: "In its most complete form,then, autogenic training represents the fusion of physiological, cog-nitive, and behavioral elements into what for some becomes a life-long method of emotional and physical self-control" (Pikoff, 1984,p. 622). The specific treatment objectives of autogenic training referto (1) the promotion of the person's capabilities to relax and to rest,(2) the reduction of overwhelming negative affects, (3) the reduc-tion of nervousness, (4) the promotion of performance (e. g., selec-tive attention and memory recall), (5) the self-regulation of auton-omous nervous system processes (like heart rate and body temper-ature), and (6) the promotion of self-control and self-actualizationthrough enhanced self-perception and self-regulation (see, e.g.,Krampen, 1992a; Schultz & Luthe, 1969; Pikoff, 1984).

244

With its focus on primary prevention and competencedevelopment, autogenic training shows a priori markedcommon features with the concept and methods of de-velopmental intervention (e.g., Danish, 1981; Danish,Smyer, & Nowak, 1980). Whenever autogenic trainingtakes into account the developmental status and possi-bilities of the participants, and whenever it is conceptu-alized with reference to a theory of human develop-ment, it effectively becomes developmental interven-tion. Up until now, most existing, empirically evaluateddevelopmental intervention programs in gerontopsy-chology have focused on the enhancement of compe-tence in specific behavioral domains (e. g., cognitiveskills: Baltes & Willis, 1982; self-assertiveness: Hudson,1983; coping behavior: Danish, D'Augelli, & Hauer,1981). These programs are based on theories of humandevelopment which refer to the specific behavior andattitude domain found in the program. In contrast toexisting programs, the development-related treatmentobjectives of autogenic training refer to the promotionof more general self-regulatory competencies and self-efficacy as well as development-related emotions, cog-nitions, and efforts.

These variables — development-related emotions,cognitions, and efforts — are central concepts of action-theory-oriented, constructivistic approaches to humandevelopment (e.g., Brandtstadter, 1984, 1989; Brandt-stadter, Krampen, & Heil, 1986; Lerner & Busch-Ross-nagel, 1981). This theoretical orientation is based on thepremise that the individual is not simply a passive sub-ject of developmental changes, but rather actively triesto influence and to gain control of development and ag-ing. Therefore, the action perspective on life-span devel-opment focuses on (1) the development-related emo-tions of the person (his/her affective future outlook andautobiographical retrospect) and (2) the person's effortsactively to regulate his/her own development. In accor-dance with action theory, both variables are conceptual-ized within this approach as dependent on both subjec-tive evaluations of developmental goals and subjectiveself-efficacy beliefs (e.g., Bandura, 1981, 1989). Of cen-tral relevance is the concept of personal control over de-velopment, which is defined as the expectancy of theperson with regard to his/her possibilities to controland to regulate his/her own development (Brandt-stadter et al., 1986). Implications of this theoretical per-spective for developmental interventions include theobjectives of enhancing the self-regulation competenciesof the individual, strengthening his/her personal con-trol over development, optimizing his/her develop-ment-related emotions, and promoting his/her personal


Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Autogenic Training in Gerontopsychology

self-regulation of development. These developmentalobjectives correspond to the treatment objectives ofautogenic training: the promotion of a person's capabil-ities of self-regulation and self-help.

Thus, autogenic training can be considered a formof developmental intervention. Moreover, as an inter-ventional method, it preceded the action and self-effica-cy perspective in life-span developmental psychologyby at least five decades. Yet, there is little empirical re-search regarding the relevance of autogenic training indevelopmental interventions. At most, some resultspoint towards the impact of autogenic training on theenhancement of generalized internal locus of controland self-concept as well as the indicative relevance ofthese variables for the effectiveness of autogenic train-ing (e. g., Johnson, 1976; Krampen, 1991 a; Krampen &Ohm, 1985). But these results refer directly neither todevelopment-related emotions, personal control overdevelopment, and self-regulation of development nor togerontopsychology. Therefore, the two studies present-ed below empirically test the conceptual compatibilityof autogenic training as a developmental interventionwithin the action-theory approach to human develop-ment. It is hypothesized that autogenic training im-proves prospective development-related emotions bydecreasing a person's depressive-resignative outlookand increasing his/her optimistic-active outlook towardown personal future. As well, personal control over de-velopment and self-regulation of development are im-proved. With reference to the specific treatment objec-tives of autogenic training, it is expected that psychoso-matic complaints as well as externality in generalizedlocus of control beliefs will be reduced and internality ingeneralized locus of control improved upon learningautogenic training.

Study I: Effectiveness of AutogenicTraining in the Elderly

Method

Subjects. The participants of Study I were 60 Germanadults (M = 73.6, SD = 5.3 years; age range: 67-80 years;39 females and 21 males) who were receiving no psychi-atric or psychotherapeutic treatment and who lived intheir own houses or apartments. Regarding former oc-cupational status and level of education, subjects be-longed to the middle-class. They were recruited by theannouncement of introductory courses on "autogenictraining" within a community service program. The


courses were announced with preventive treatment ob-jectives for the healthy elderly in an institution for openadult education.

Measures. Data were collected before program start, atmidpoint, and at the end of the program as well as 6months after the program was over. The measures usedincluded (1) the "Scales for the Measurement of Prospec-tive Development-Related Emotions" (EM-P; Brandt-stadter et al., 1986), a German adjective list measuringpersonal depressive-resignative and optimistic-activefuture outlook via ratings of 13 different facets of posi-tive or negative emotional attitudes towards personaldevelopment over the next two years of life (e. g., "WhenI think of the coming two years in my life, I feel discour-aged; . . . I feel depressed;... I feel venturesome;... I feelhopeful"; internal consistency r« > .81). (2) The "Scalesfor the Measurement of Personal Developmental Con-trol" (P-CON; Brandtstadter et al., 1986), a Germanquestionnaire measuring subjective evaluation of 20 de-velopmental goals and the expectancies about one's per-sonal impact on the attainment of these goals. Goal eval-uations and control expectancies are aggregated into anindicator of (weighted) internal developmental controlbeliefs (see Brandtstadter et al., 1986; internal consisten-cy in the present sample: r(f > .79). (3) The German ver-sion of "IPC Scales" (Krampen, 1981) of Levenson (1974)measuring generalized internality (I), powerful others'control (P), and chance control (C) in locus of control ofreinforcement; internal consistency rtt > .75. (4) The"Symptom Checklist for Autogenic Training" (AT-SYM;Krampen, 1991 b), a German symptom checklist includ-ing four-point rating scales of 48 mainly psychosomaticcomplaints with indicative relevance for autogenictraining; internal consistency rff > .91. Test-retest reliabil-ity and validity of all scales used were confirmed in test-construction studies (see Brandtstadter et al., 1986;Krampen, 1981,1991b).

Procedure. After randomization and pretest, the subjectsof Group 1 (n - 30) participated in two separate intro-ductory courses on autogenic training (15 participantsper course, one group-meeting per week for 8 weeks);the subjects of Group 1(n- 30) were the waiting controlgroup. After 8 weeks Group 2 became the treatmentgroup (in two separate AT-courses), and group sessionsin Group 1 stopped.

Autogenic training was imparted to the partici-pants of all (four) courses in the same way, using stand-ard procedure and formulas (see Schultz & Luthe, 1969):After exercise of the "simple sitting posture" (which was

245

Gunter Krampen

preferred to the horizontal training posture and the re-clining chair posture because of its higher practical val-ue), closure of eyes, and passive concentration (imply-ing a casual and functional passivity toward the intend-ed functional changes), and the technique of comingback to normal (flexing arms vigorously, breathingdeeply, opening eyes), the standard exercises of auto-genic training were introduced and trained. Two formu-las were introduced in each group meeting after an in-troductory discussion with the participants. The mentalstandard exercises refer to auto-suggestions of thestandard formulas (a) "I am at peace" - "Peace," (b) "Myright/left arm is heavy" - "Heaviness" (the dominantarm was selected), (c) "My right/left arm is warm" -"Warmth," (d) "Breathing calm and regular" - "Itbreathes me," (e) "Heartbeat calm and regular," (f) "Mysolar plexus is warm," and (g) "My forehead is cool."Participants were trained to practice passive concentra-tion and "mental contact with the part of the body indi-cated by the formula (e. g., the right arm), and mainte-nance of a steady flow of a film-like (verbal, acoustic orvisual) representation of the autogenic formula in themind" (Schultz & Luthe, 1969, p. 15). Thus, from a psy-chophysiological point of view, the stage is set for relax-ation and self-regulation during autogenic exercises bythe reduction of extero- and proprioceptive stimulation,and by the verbal content of the formula implying thatthe relevant psychophysiological system works auto-matically. Participants practiced the learned autogenicexercises alone at least twice daily.

Data were collected in both groups on all variablesbefore (pretest) and after (first posttest) the programstart in Group 1. After the first 8 weeks, Group 2 becamethe treatment group, and Group 1 did not receive fur-ther treatment. Following the treatment of Group 2, asecond posttest was performed in both groups on allvariables. In addition, a follow-up was carried out on allevaluative variables 6 months after the end of the entireprogram for both groups. Furthermore, the "Follow-upInventory for Autogenic Training" (AT-KATAM; Kram-pen, 1991 b) was included in the follow-up, measuringattitudes towards autogenic training, general well-be-ing, the frequency of autogenic exercises in everydaylife, and the subjective effectiveness of the differentautogenic formulas.

Results

Mean comparisons for all pretest variables indicatedthat the randomization procedure resulted in compara-ble groups (£(58) < 1.43). There were four dropouts in

246

Group 1 and three dropouts in Group 2 during the train-ing program. All dropouts were due to acute physicaldisorders and the need for hospitalization. Thus, theevaluative results presented here are based on a total of53 participants. Means and standard deviations for pre-test, posttests, and follow-up measures are summarizedfor both experimental groups in Table 1.

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)with the factor Groups (1,2) and the repeated measure-ment factor Time (1,4) was computed, including all sev-en measures. Single mean comparisons between groupsand times of measurement were computed by univari-ate analyses of variance (resulting in estimates of effectsize d; Cohen, 1977) and validated by a posteriori tests(Duncan procedure). Significant results are presentedgraphically in terms of standardized T-scores (see Fig-ures 1-6).

MANOVA yielded significant main effects for thegrouping factor (F(7, 45) = 5.06, p < .01), the repeatedmeasurement factor (F(21,31) = 7.69, p < .01), and a sig-nificant interaction between Group and Time (F(21, 31)= 8.05, p < .01). Single mean comparisons betweengroups (treatment versus control group) for the firstposttest showed (1) significantly higher scores in active-optimistic future outlook (p < .01, effect size d = .82) andsignificantly lower scores in depressive development-

60 -i

58-

56-

54-bo•3 5 2 -

50-

48-

Pretest 1st Posttest 2nd Posttest Follow-up

Figure 1Depressive future outlook at pretest, posttests and follow-up in Experimental Group 1 and Experimental Group 2(Study I).



Table 1Means and standard deviations of dependent variables in Experimental Group 1 (n = 26) and Experimental Group 2 (n= 27) in Study I.

VariablePretest

M SDFirst posttestM SD

Second posttestM SD

Follow-upM SD

Depressive future outlookGroup 1Group 2

Optimistic-active future outlookGroup 1Group 2

Personal control over developmentGroup 1Group 2

Internality (IPC-I)Group 1Group 2

Powerful others control (IPC-P)Group 1Group 2

Chance control (IPC-C)Group 1Group 2

Psychosomatic complaints (AT-SYM)Group 1Group 2

8.28.0

22.021.8

154.1150.4

29.230.0

27.326.9

30.530.3

56.357.2

5.35.8

5.14.9

44.246.0

4.84.1

3.94.1

4.94.7

18.419.2

6.48.1

26.122.0

173.5149.7

33.829.8

28.127.4

25.729.9

35.857.3

5.45.7

4.95.1

43.047.3

4.94.2

4.14.1

4.94.6

17.919.0

6.56.7

26.327.2

175.6178.1

33.934.0

27.727.9

25.224.1

35.235.4

4.94.7

5.04.9

45.246.5

4.44.3

4.04.0

5.04.8

17.818.5

5.75.4

28.127.9

189.4188.3

34.534.2

26.927.4

24.924.7

32.133.3

5.05.4

5.15.1

44.345.2

4.14.3

4.04.1

4.84.9

17.617.8

60-i

2 5 8 -oo

b 56"1 54~3

° 52-an]<2 5 0 -

>••5 4 8 -C3

1 4 6 -

U 4 4 -O

4 2 -

4 0 -

60-i

§ 58-o

H Group 1 g 56_

| Group 2

^ ^_ •

i ^^M

• •••

m 1 54~• 1 52-B 3 50-H °• - 48-H 8 46-

^ B g 44-^ H £ 42-

" ™ ^ ^ - 40 -

n•

iiipB_Pretest 1st Posttest 2nd Posttest Follow-up Pretest

Group 1

Group 2

_ _ • • •

""Ij

•L-PJ

••

1—iH•

••L-P-

1st Posttest 2nd Posttest Follow-up

Figure 2Optimistic-active future outlook at pretest, posttests andfollow-up in Experimental Group 1 and ExperimentalGroup 2 (Study I).

Figure 3Personal control over development at pretest, posttests andfollow-up in Experimental Group 1 and ExperimentalGroup 2 (Study I).

European Psychologist, Vol. 1, No. 4, December 1996, pp. 243-254© 1996 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers 247

Gunter Krampensc

ores

)

b

"<3e

nter

6 0 -

5 8 -

5 6 -

5 4 -

5 2 -

5 0 -

4 8 -

4 6 -

4 4 -

4 2 -

4 0 -

•

! •Pretest

Group 1

Group 2

^ ^

•̂ •LPJlstPosttest 1

••1IL_pj.nd Posttest

1•1•Lp.Follow-up

aint

s (T

-sco

res)

tic

com

plom

aPs

ycho

s

6 0 -

5 8 -

5 6 -

5 4 -

5 2 -

5 0 -

4 8 -

4 6 -

4 4 -

4 2 -

4 0 -

n1•1IJ-PJPretest

••Jfl HJ Group 1

^ H | Group 2

1r |•L-PJ1st Posttest 1

!nd PosttestL-P-Follow-up

Figure 4 Figure 6Internality at pretest, posttests and follow-up in Experimen- Psychosomatic complaints at pretest, posttests and follow-tal Group 1 and Experimental Group 2 (Study I up in Experimental Group 1 and Experimental Group 2

(Study I).

oo

b

|u

60 -i

5 8 -

5 6 -

5 4 -

5 2 -

Group 1

Group 2


Figure 5Chance control at pretest, posttests and follow-up in Ex-perimental Group 1 and Experimental Group 2 (Study I).

248

related emotions in Group 1 (p < .05, d = .31); (2) signifi-cantly higher personal control over development inGroup 1 (p < .01, d = .53); (3) a significantly lower scorein chance control (p < .01, d = .88) and a significantlyhigher score in internality (generalized locus of control;p < .01, d = .88) in Group 1; (4) no significant group dif-ferences in powerful others' control (p > .10); (5) a signif-icantly lower AT-SYM total score in Group 1, indicatinga reduction in psychosomatic complaints (p < .01, d =1.16).

The results of time comparisons confirmed be-tween-group results (see Table 1 and Figures 1-6). Intra-individual comparisons for pretest and (both) posttestdata point towards significant increases of positive de-velopment-related emotions, personal control over de-velopment and generalized internality as well as to-wards a significant decrease in psychosomatic com-plaints, generalized chance control, and in the indicatorof negative development-related emotions (p < .01; .33 <d < 1.14). Follow-up data gathered 6 months after train-ing confirm these short-term effects of autogenic train-ing and point towards lasting and increasing effects.Comparisons of the pretest and follow-up data show



that all positive changes last for at least 6 months (p <.01). Comparisons of the (second) posttest and follow-up data indicate further positive trends in the reductionof psychosomatic complaints (p < .10, d = .16) and in theincrease of personal control over development (p < .10,d = .26).

At follow-up, 41 of the 53 participants reported thatthey practiced autogenic exercises "at least one or twotimes a week" (or more frequently), with six participantsreporting exercising "at least one or two times permonth." Six former participants reported that they hadstopped autogenic exercises entirely (shortly after theend of the course).

Conclusions

Autogenic training was shown to be an effective treat-ment for the modification of development-related emo-tions and personal control over development in a sam-ple of elderly. Moreover, reductions of psychosomaticcomplaints as well as changes in generalized locus ofcontrol were observed. Between-group as well as timecomparisons confirm these results. However, only theresults from the first experimental phase (in whichGroup 1 was the treatment and Group 2 the controlgroup) met the requirements of a true experimental de-sign. But even here, nonspecific treatment factors (i. e.,one group meeting per week, related social activities,and the possibility of seeing other people) may have in-fluenced the results. Therefore, in the second empiricalevaluation, the waiting control group conditionswitched to another group treatment condition. This re-sulted in a randomized cross-over design comparingtwo treatments.

Study II: Effectiveness of AutogenicTraining Compared with AnotherGroup Treatment

Methods

Subjects. Participants of Study II were 60 German adults(M = 74.2, SD = 4.9 years; age range: 66-79 years; 36females and 24 males) recruited from a home for theelderly (without nursing facilities). Regarding past oc-cupational status and level of education, all subjects be-longed to the middle-class. The course title was changedto "Health Education and Autogenic Training." All par-ticipants had been living in the institution for at least


one year, none was in psychiatric or psychotherapeutictreatment, and none was in need of care.

Measures. Again, data were gathered with the EM-P-Scales (internal consistency rtt > .83), the IPC Scales (r« >.73), and the AT-SYM (rtt > .88). The very extensive P-CON-Scales were dropped in favor of the more econom-ical German research questionnaire "Questionnaire forthe Measurement of Development-Related Action Ef-forts" (E-REGU; Krampen, 1992 b), which assesses tenlife and behavior domains in which subjects havechanged actively over the last 6 months (e. g., "In the last6 months of my life I have actively changed somethingfor the better in the life domain of social relations"; "...of family relations"; "... of mass media consumption";"... of eating habits"; r« > .64).

Procedure. After randomization and pretest, the subjectsof Group 1 (n = 30) participated in two separate intro-ductory courses on autogenic training (15 participantseach, one group-meeting per week for 8 weeks), andsubjects of Group 2 (n = 30) participated in two separatecourses of a General Health Education Program. The lat-ter program lasted for eight weeks with one group-meeting per week. It was implemented to control fornonspecific treatment factors resulting from group-meetings and related social activities (see above). Ittherefore included only simple group discussions ofgeneral health topics (i.e., diets, sleep disorders, andphysical exercise) and — after short lectures — was re-alized in a nondirective group leadership style. After thefirst posttest, Group 1 changed to the Health EducationProgram and Group 2 to the introductory AT-courses.Following the entire program, a second posttest was in-troduced as well as a follow-up 6 months later, includ-ing all variables and, again, the follow-up inventory AT-KATAM.

Results

Mean comparisons in all pretest-variables confirmedthat the randomization procedure resulted in compara-ble groups (£(58) < 0.91). There were four dropouts ineach group during the course program and in the fol-low-up. Six participants dropped because of acute phys-ical disorders and hospitalization, and two died. Thus,evaluative results are based on a total of 52 subjects.Means and standard deviations of all variables for allpretest, posttest, and follow-up-measures are summa-rized for both experimental groups in Table 2.

249

Gunter Krampen

Table 2Means and standard deviations of dependent variables in Experimental Group 1 (n = 26) and Experimental Group 2 (n= 26) in Study II.

Variable

Depressive future outlookGroup 1Group 2

Optimistic-active future outlookGroup 1Group 2

PretestM

8.68.8

20.220.6

Personal self-regulation of developmentGroup 1Group 2

Internality (IPC-I)Group 1Group 2

Powerful others control (IPC-P)Group 1Group 2

Chance control (IPC-C)Group 1Group 2

0.40.5

28.629.7

29.128.9

31.631.2

Psychosomatic complaints (AT-SYM)Group 1Group 2

57.056.9

SD

5.85.7

5.15.0

0.91.0

4.14.2

4.03.9

4.95.0

17.818.9

FirstM

6.98.3

25.324.9

2.32.2

31.829.4

28.228.4

31.130.6

38.553.0

posttestSD

5.25.7

4.94.9

0.70.9

4.34.7

4.14.0

5.04.8

18.119.5

SecondM

6.07.1

26.325.4

2.72.5

33.931.7

28.327.9

32.031.5

36.739.4

posttestSD

5.25.6

5.14.8

0.80.9

4.74.1

4.54.1

4.94.9

16.517.8

Follow-upM

5.86.3

28.527.6

4.84.2

33.732.9

29.328.9

31.430.9

37.238.0

SD

5.04.9

5.15.7

0.91.0

4.34.2

4.14.0

5.04.7

17.918.4

60 -i

5 8 -

40-

6 0 -


Figure 7Depressive future outlook at pretest, posttests and follow-up in Experimental Group 1 and Experimental Group 2(Study II).


Figure 8Optimistic-active outlook at pretest, posttests and follow-up in Experimental Group 1 and Experimental Group 2(Study II).

250European Psychologist, Vol. 1, No. 4, December 1996, pp. 243-254© 1996 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers


30Pretest lstPosttest 2ndPosttest Follow-up

Figure 9Personal self-regulation of development at pretest, post-tests and follow-up in Experimental Group 1 and Experi-mental Group 2 (Study II).

E'a

oo

a

o

Group 1

Group 2

Pretest lstPosttest 2nd Posttest Follow-up

Figure 11Psychosomatic complaints at pretest, posttests and follow-up in Experimental Group 1 and Experimental Group 2(Study II).

Pretest 1 st Posttest 2nd Posttest Follow-up

Figure 10Internality at pretest, posttests and follow-up in Experimen-tal Group 1 and Experimental Group 2 (Study II).

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)with the factor Groups (1,2) and the repeated measure-ment factor Time (1,4) was computed including all sev-en measures. Again, single mean comparisons betweengroups and times of measurement were computed byunivariate analyses of variance (resulting in estimates ofeffect size d; Cohen, 1977) and validated by a posterioritests (Duncan procedure). Significant results are pre-sented graphically in terms of standardized T-scores (seeFigures 7-11).

MANOVA yielded significant main effects for thegrouping factor (F(7, 44) = 4.19, p < .01), the repeatedmeasurement factor (F(21,30) = 5.45, p < .01), and a sig-nificant interaction between Group and Time (F(21, 30)= 5.64, p < .01). Single mean comparisons for time andbetween groups for the first treatment part (i. e., AT in-troduction versus Health Education Program participa-tion) showed the following results (see Table 2 and Fig-ures 7-11):1) Positive effects of both treatments (AT and Health Ed-

ucation Program) leading to an increase of optimistic-active future outlook (Group 1: p < .01, d = 1.02; Group2: p < .01, d = .86; between groups: p > .10) and of

European Psychologist, Vol. 1, No. 4, December 1996, pp. 243-254© 1996 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers 251

Gunter Krampen

personal self-regulation of development (Group 1: p <.01, d = 2.37; Group 2: p < .01, d = 1.79; between groups:p > .10). As indicated, these effects proved to be sig-nificant in time comparisons for both treatmentgroups, but not to be significant in between-groupcomparisons. Thus, with reference to these two vari-ables, both treatments show similar effects for twocentral variables of the action-theory approach to de-velopment.

2) Specific positive effects of the autogenic training inthe reduction of psychosomatic complaints (betweengroups: p < .01, d - .77; within group 1: p < .01, d =1.03), in the reduction of depressive future outlook(between groups: p < .01; within group 1: p < .05, d =.31), and in the increase of generalized internality inlocus of control (between groups: p < .01, d = .53; with-in group 1: p < .01, d = .77)). As indicated, these specificeffects of autogenic training are significant with refer-ence to pretest-first posttest comparisons for Group 1as well as with reference to between-group compari-sons for the first posttest data.

3) There were no specific positive effects of the HealthEducation Program implemented in Group 2 (be-tween groups: p > .10; within group 2: p > .10).

4) There were no treatment effects — neither in the be-tween- (p > .10) nor in the within-group comparisons(p > .10) — for powerful other's control and chancecontrol in generalized locus of control beliefs.

The results found for the (second) posttest data (collect-ed after the total program) indicate cumulative effects ofthe two treatment elements, an increasing tendency be-ing observed for all described positive changes (see Ta-ble 2 and Figures 7-11). The results show some advan-tages for Group 1, which participated first in the AT-in-troduction and then in the Health Education Program(pretest-second posttest comparisons for Group 1: p <.01, mean effect size d = .1.32; Group 2: p < .05, meaneffect size d = .93). Powerful other's control and chancecontrol were neglected in these pretest-second posttestcomparisons, because there were, again, no significantwithin- and/or between-group differences (see Ta-ble 2).

Follow-up data showed (1) that 41 of the 52 subjects,who participated in the entire program, practice AT-ex-ercises "at least once or twice weekly" or morefrequently, (2) that personal self-regulation of develop-ment (E-REGU) increases further in comparison withthe second-posttest data in both groups (Group 1: p <.01,d = 2.47; Group 2: p < .01, d = 1.79), and (3) that the sameholds for improvements in optimistic-active as well as

252

depressive-resignative future outlook (p < .05). There areno significant differences between the two groups, bothof which had participated in the entire program at fol-low-up (p > .10).

Conclusions

In the experimental comparison, autogenic trainingproved to be an effective treatment for positive changesin development-related prospective emotions, personalself-regulation of development, psychosomatic com-plaints, and generalized internality in the elderly. Be-tween-group comparisons as well as time comparisonsconfirm the specific effects of AT on psychosomatic com-plaints, generalized internality, and depressive futureoutlook as well as some common effects of both treat-ments (on optimistic-active future outlook and personalself-regulation of development). No significant treat-ment effects were found in the two aspects of externallocus of control of reinforcement. Thus, the reduction ofgeneralized chance control found in Study I to be aneffect of autogenic training could not be replicated inStudy II. However, second-posttest and follow-up datapoint towards cumulative effects of both treatments onthe other (treatment sensitive) variables. These effectsremain stable or even increase within 6 months follow-ing program participation.

General Discussion

The results of both experimental studies indicate signif-icant short-term as well as long-term effects of autogenictraining on development-related emotions, personalcontrol over development, personal self-regulation ofdevelopment, psychosomatic complaints, and general-ized internal locus of control beliefs in the elderly. There-fore, the conceptual compatibility of autogenic trainingwith the action-theory-founded approach to develop-ment in adulthood was confirmed. Positive effects ofautogenic training for all central variables of this ap-proach were observed. Effect sizes reach medium tolarge values (Cohen, 1977).

Of special importance are, first, the results concern-ing covariations of changes in development-relatedemotions, cognitions, and efforts, and second the moreintervention-specific measures of psychosomatic com-plaints and of frequency of autogenic exercise at follow-up. These results point towards the role of autogenictraining as a developmental intervention that can be in-

Europemi Psychologist Vol. 1, No. 4, December 1996, pp. 243-254© 1996 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers


tegrated into action-theory-oriented, constructivistic ap-proaches (Brandtstadter, 1989; Brandtstadter et al., 1986;Lerner & Busch-Rossnagel, 1981) as well as to controland self-efficacy-oriented approaches (e.g., Bandura,1981,1989) to human development.

It must be mentioned, however, that all reportedeffects of autogenic training were measured in bothstudies at the subjective level of questionnaire data. Ver-bal data were obtained on emotional attitudes towardspersonal development in the past and future, personalevaluations of developmental goals, subjectively per-ceived potentials of personal control of development,psychosomatic complaints, and generalized locus ofcontrol of reinforcement. These data need to be validat-ed in future research against external criteria, e. g., ex-pert ratings of individuals' autogenic competenciesand/or development, psychophysiological indicators ofrelaxation, medical data on health and well-being, etc.However, one must not forget that central concepts ofaction-theory as well as self-efficacy approaches to hu-man development are defined as variables referring tothe individual's subjective perceptions and evaluationsof his/her own personal development. Such subjectiveperceptions and evaluations of one's own developmenthave been found to be affected positively by autogenictraining. This is a relevant basis for behavioral changes,which must be analyzed in future research.

The high proportion of participants still using auto-genic exercises with good effects 6 months after thecourse demonstrates the special appropriateness of thismethod for the elderly. Of course, subjects in both stud-ies were self-selected, which limits the generalizabilityof the findings to those who elect to participate in intro-ductory courses on autogenic training. However, this istrue for all developmental intervention programs thatfocus on primary prevention and competence develop-ment. Hirsch (1987) presented findings on age differenc-es in the acquisition of autogenic training which pointtowards more positive attitudes and exercise habitsamong older compared to younger adults: Old personswere more involved in the autogenic exercises, exercisedmore frequently, and rated the significance of autogenictraining for their life much more positively than young-er ones. Thus, in its autosuggestive and contemplativeapproach autogenic training may be especially appro-priate in gerontopsychology. The results presented con-firm this, and the view of autogenic training as a devel-opmental intervention with reference to action-theory-and self-efficacy-oriented approaches in developmentalpsychology should promote its application in geronto-psychology.


References

Baltes, P.B., & Willis, S.L. (1982). Plasticity and enhancement ofintellectual functioning in old age: Perm State's Adult Devel-opment and Enrichment Program (ADEPT). In F.I.M. Craik &S.E. Trehub (Eds.), Aging and cognitive processes (pp. 353-389).New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: A developmental anal-ysis of self-efficacy. In J.H. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cog-nitive development: Frontiers and possible futures (pp. 200-239).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1989). Self-regulation of motivation and actionthrough internal standards and goal systems. In L. A. Pervin(Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology(pp. 19-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brandtstadter, J. (1984). Personal and social control over develop-ment: Some implications of an action perspective in life-spandevelopmental psychology. In P. B. Baltes & O.G. Brim, Jr.(Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 1-32). NewYork, NY: Academic Press.

Brandtstadter, J. (1989). Personal self-regulation of development:Cross-sequential analyses of development-related control be-liefs and emotions. Developmental Psychology, 25, 96-108.

Brandtstadter, J., Krampen, G., & Heil, F.E. (1986). Personal controland emotional evaluation of development in partnership rela-tions during adulthood. In M.M. Baltes & P.B. Baltes (Eds.), Thepsychology of aging and control (pp. 265-296). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-baum.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Danish, S.J. (1981). Life-span development and intervention: Anecessary link. Counseling Psychologist, 9,40^3.

Danish, S.J., D'Augelli, A.R., & Hauer, A.L. (1981). Helping skills:A life development training program. New York, NY: Human Sci-ences Press.

Danish, S.J., Smyer, M.A., & Nowak, C.A. (1980). Developmentalintervention: Enhancing life-event processes. In P.B. Baltes &O.B. Brim Jr. (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 3,pp. 340-366). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Gorton, B.E. (1959). Autogenic training. American Journal of ClinicalHypnosis, 2, 31-41.

Hirsch, R.D. (1987). Das Autogene Training in der Gerontologie(Autogenic training in gerontology). Zeitschrift fiir Gerontolo-gie, 20, 242-247.

Hudson, D.W. (1983). Asserti-carc: Assertion training for the elderlyclient. New York, NY: P. Lang.

Johnson, R.K. (1976). Differential treatments for internal and ex-ternal locus of control insomnia clients. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 37 (1-B), 462-463.

Krampen, G. (1981). IPC-Fragebogen zu Kontrolliiberzeugungen (IPCScales on locus of control). Gottingen: Hogrefe.

Krampen, G. (1991 a). Fragebogen zu Kompetenz- und Kontrolliiber-zeugungen (Inventory on competence and control orienta-tions). Gottingen: Hogrefe.

253

Gunter Krampen

Krampen, G. (1991b). Diagnostisches und Evaluatives lnstrumentar-ium zum Autogenen Training (AT-EVA) (Diagnostic and evalua-tive instrument for autogenic training). Gottingen: Hogrefe.

Krampen, G. (1992a). Einfiihrungskurse zum Autogenen Training(Introductory courses of autogenic training). -Gottingen: Ho-grefe.

Krampen, G. (1992b). Autogenes Training als Entwicklungsinter-vention (Autogenic training as a developmental intervention).Zeitschrift fiir Entwicklungspsychologie und Padagogische Psycho-logie, 24,184-200.

Krampen, G., & Ohm, D. (1985). Zur indikativen Bedeutung vonKontrolluberzeugungen fiir das autogene Training (On the in-dicative relevance of locus of control for autogenic training).In F.-J. Hehl, V. Ebel & W. Ruch (Eds.), Diagnostik psychischerund psycho-physiologischer Storungen (Diagnosis of mental andpsychophysiological disorders) (pp.231—252). Bonn: Deut-scher Psychologen Verlag.

Lerner, R.M., & Busch-Rossnagel, N.A. (Eds.). (1981). Individualsas producers of their development. New York, NY: AcademicPress.

Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctionswithin the concept of internal-external locus of control. Journalof Personality Assessment, 38, 377-383.

Luthe, W. (Ed.). (1969-1973). Autogenic therapy (Vol. I-VI). NewYork, NY: Grune & Stratton.

Pikoff, H. (1984). A critical review of autogenic training in Amer-ica. Clinical Psychology Review, 4, 619-639.

Schultz, J.H. (1926). Uber Narkolyse und autogene Organubungen: Zwei neue psychotherapeutische Methoden (On nai-colysis and autogenic organ exercises: Two new psychothera-peutic methods). Mcdizinische Klinik, 22, 952-954.

Schultz, J.H. (1970). Das autogene Training (Autogenic training)(13th ed.). Stuttgart: Thieme.

Schultz, J.H. & Luthe, W. (1969). Autogenic methods (= Luthe, W.(Ed.), Autogenic therapy, Vol. 1). New York, NY: Grune & Strat-ton.

Snider, J.G. & Oetting, E.R. (1966). Autogenic training and thetreatment of examination anxiety in students. Journal of ClinicalPsychology, 22,111-114.

254European Psychologist, Vol. 1, No. 4, December 1996, pp. 243-254© 1996 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

evaluation of the effectiveness of autogenic training in

Documents