The Classical Rorschach

These pages are devoted to the presentation and promotion of the Rorschach method, concentrating on the way it has been practiced within the classical European tradition - from Hermann Rorschach himself in 1921, via Ewald Bohm in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's, and to the contemporary workers in the Rorschach-Bohm tradition. You can here find basic information about Hermann Rorschach, about the different Rorschach traditions and the essential differences between them, and about the current scientific debate about the Rorschach test. There are also some links to other Web pages devoted to the Rorschach

method.

The information on these pages has been carefully selected so that it can be made publicly available without interferring with the clinical and scientific use of the Rorschach test. Hence no specific information about the test procedure, about response categories and so on has been included, and of course no pictures of the Rorschach cards are shown. For expert discussions on specific Rorschach matters, you are referred to the closed discussion lists (see below).

The picture of Hermann Rorschach on this page is from H. Ellenberger, The Discovery of the Unconscious (Basic Books 1970). Reproduced with kind permission from Institut Henri Ellenberger, Paris.

Contents:

Who was Hermann Rorschach?

The Rorschach traditions

The European way

American schools

Differences and controversies

Using the Rorschach method in patients with brain damage

Theoretical issues: Perceptual and cognitive processes in the Rorschach

Full texts and downloadable Rorschach stuff

Special report: Memories from the 5th ERA Congress

External links (Rorschach and related):

XVIIth International Congress of Rorschach and Other Projetive Methods  (Rome, Sept. 8-14, 2002)

The International Rorschach Society (a list of all national societies can be found there)

European Rorschach Association (ERA)

The Swedish Rorschach Society(in Swedish)

The Society for Personality Assessment (SPA; an American association with long traditions. Responsible for the Journal of Personality Assessment)

Rorschach Inkblot Test (useful American page with mainly Exnerian stuff)

Rorschach Information and Discussion list This is a high quality discussion list centering on the CS Rorschach, but open also for near-lying topics. A great number of archived messages are available for members of the list.

Projectives list This e-mail discussion list is devoted to projective techniques, including Rorschach systems other than the CS.

Hans Huber AG (Seattle/Toronto/Switzerland/Germany. Sellers of the test material and the basic European books)

PAR (Psychological Assessment Resources) (American distributors of Exner stuff, including a training program for Windows: Rorschach Trainer)

Psimatica (among other things, European distributors of the Exner system)

Ror-Scan (a scoring and interpretation program for the Exner system)

In memory of Bruno Klopfer (an interesting website dedicated to this Rorschach pioneer)

Quality of life in severe epilepsy (an ongoing Swedish research project using the Rorschach test)

Leopold Szondi Forum (a Swedish page devoted to another projective method)

Philosophy of Cognition, Göteborg University (a mixed lot, but the Rorschach specialist may find something of interest among the online papers and posters).

HyperHermann,my Classical Rorschach training program for Mac and Windows:

Version 1.2  (Swedish/English, for Mac only)

Version 1.4 for IBM/PC - trilingual, Swedish/English/Spanish - now released!

1.4 (in English)

1.4 (en castellano)

Pages maintained by Helge Malmgren.     Latest update: November 29, 2001.    Visiting statistics

The Rorschach as a Neuropsychological Instrument:

Historical Precedents and Future Use

Janette S. Caputo

Ph.D., Psy.D., A.B.P.P., President, Rehabilitation Strategies, P.C. Adjunct Assistant Professor, Dept. of Psychiatry, College of Human Medicine,

Michigan State University E-mail: caputo@pilot.msu.edu

           

Contents:

Abstract Introduction

Early history

The crisis of the 1960s

The goals of research

Methodologies

The future is here - how well did we predict it?

Further suggestions

References

 

Abstract

In 1988, the author completed a comprehensive review of the pre-Rorschach and Rorschach literature dealing with its use in evaluating organic brain dysfunctions. Monographs, journals articles, presented papers and oral history reports from 1890 to 1988 yielded over 6000 records; 4500 were within the scope of the investigation. Review and preliminary analysis of these 4500 studies narrowed the final review set to 600 Rorschach studies of varied neuropsychological populations worldwide. Much of this work came from the 1930s to 1950s, and much of it was criticized in the 1960s to 1980s, with the development of neuropsychology as a subspeciality while the Rorschach was devalued by its opponents. As part of the same 1988 study, leading neuropsychologists and leading Rorschach proponents were asked to predict the role of the Rorschach for neuropsychological needs of the twenty-first century. The last ten years of Rorschach literature shows that very little additional research on organic populations has taken place, although interest in such studies has frequently been expressed.  The present paper includes a concise overview of past uses of the Rorschach with neuropsychological populations, including this decade, and summarizes the populations and the amassed Rorschach data on them. The paper identifies methodological strengths and weaknesses of the past studies, with relevance to future research. Suggestions for needed future investigations are offered, including those areas identified by the experts' 1988 predictions of the role of the Rorschach as a neuropsychological instrument for the coming century.

Introduction

The idea of using the Rorschach as a means of assessing behavioral and cognitive changes that accompany various neurological diseases dates back to Rorschach himself, who in early years thought his method might be used to detect epilepsy at early stages.  Proof that we continue to wonder about the role of the Rorschach with neurological populations is evident in this symposium today.

The first neuropsychological Rorschach record to be published was part of the Psychodiagnostik (1921), as Rorschach included an illustrative record from a patient suffering from Korsakoff's Syndrome.  However, the largest potential neuropsychological population in the early years of the method was epileptic; Rorschach and his colleagues had a great interest in this population.  Unfortunately for them, but of great good fortune for the patients, the invention of the electroencephalograph in 1929 made a huge contribution to the diagnosis of epilepsy and the Rorschach method was not needed as a primary diagnostic tool.  However, when Oberholzer (1931) published the first paper on the Rorschach record of epileptics, he used the data to identify organic signs similar to those Piotrowski later elaborated so succinctly.

The heaviest concentration of early neuropsychological work with the Rorschach occurred in the 1940s and 1950s, when the emphasis was on defining specific disease personalities, such as "the epileptic personality".  Studies then focussed on three primary organic groups: epileptics, persons of limited intellect, and people who had undergone lobectomy or lobotomy. In more recent years of Rorschach neuropsychological research, the heaviest concentration of interest is occurring now, in the 1990s.  Today the emphasis is on the cognitive and behavioral sequelae of brain injury and renewed exploration of perceptual skills.    

Rorschach Studies of Neuropsychological Populations: Types of Neuropsychological Populations Studied

Population Type 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Total

Unspecified "Neuropsychiatric"

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 5

Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

0 1 8 10 3 8 3 4 37

Mild Traumatic Brain Injury,Concussion

0 1 5 5 1 4 1 2 19

Infectious Brain Disease

1 1 3 3 1 0 1 0 10

Anoxia 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3

Brain Tumor 0 1 7 3 1 1 2 1 16

Cerebral Infarct 0 0 2 0 3 1 1 0 7

Vascular Dementia 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3

Alzheimer-Type Dementia, Pick's, BSE

0 3 0 1 1 3 4 3 15

Parkinsons, Chorea

1 2 2 2 2 5 1 0 15

Multiple Sclerosis, Dystrophies, CP, Torticollis

0 0 6 5 0 1 2 2 16

Seizure Disorders, ECT, Tourette's

0 7 22 20 9 9 8 0 75

Chemical 1 0 10 8 13 9 8 4 53

Abuse/Dependency

Learning Disability, Minimal Brain Dysfunction

0 0 1 3 3 2 7 1 17

Mental Retardation, Developmental Delay, Autism

2 3 3 1 5 12 6 4 36

Sleep Disorder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

Lobe-Specific Injuries, Experimental Lesions

0 4 11 17 3 3 1 1 40

Experimental Perceptual Conditions

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3

Mis-Identified as Brain Damage

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Totals by Decade 5 25 83 79 46 60 45 30 373

 

This paper will present a brief overview of the historical trend of nearly 400 Rorschach studies over eight decades, identifying neuropsychological populations that have been of interest to Rorschachers to date, the research questions they have asked and the strengths and weaknesses of their studies.  After reviewing the past and looking at the present, it will be time to look to the future.  In 1989 I conducted a predictive study asking experts in the Rorschach, in neuropsychology, and in psychohistory how neuropsychologists would be likely to use the Rorschach in the twenty-first century.  Their answers were not only interesting, some of them were correct.  I will also share a brief glimpse of some of those ideas with you today and suggest some of the research questions I think we need to consider in the next decade.  

Early history

At the beginning of this century, psychiatric hospitals included many people who had neurological disorders.  In addition to those who suffered from seizure disorders and mental retardation, there were also tumor patients, and survivors of traumatic brain injury.  As a practicing psychiatrist, Rorschach and his contemporaries had many opportunities to include these populations in their studies.

In the 1920s there was a unitary concept of organicity with a dichotomy of patients: quite simply, those who were considered organic and those who were not.  Most of the earliest Rorschach studies of neuropsychological populations either explored it's effectiveness as a tool to diagnose organicity using a sign approach in analyzing the records of persons with known organic diagnoses, or they explored personality within the diagnosed organic groups.  In the 1920s personality analysis was emphasized more than assessment of cognitive skills or deficits, as personality was believed to have a very important prognostic role in the disease state.  From the 1920s well into the 1930s, a patient's personality was recognized as an important factor in acquiring organicity and in prognosis after a neurological disorder was diagnosed.

By the 1940s many practitioners believed certain personality types were predisposed to certain neurological dysfunctions.  Thus, the "epileptic personality" of the 1940s was a precursor of the "Type A personality" widely recognized by professionals and the general public in later decades for its relationship to cardiovascular disorders.   Although this was a rich field for potential research, the late 1930s and early 1940s also produced an abundance of another type of neuropsychological patient: those who had survived significant head trauma, from war.  The growth of this population was also a significant factor in the development of applied clinical neuropsychology.

One more important research population was created with the use of psychosurgery as a popular treatment from 1936 to 1950; a period that overlapped with the peak of Rorschach popularity in the 1940s and 1950s.  Lobotomies, lobectomies, and even hemispherectomies added impetus to cerebral localization studies.  As the majority of psychosurgery patients were institutionalized for many years, longitudinal studies could also be designed.  A number of neuropsychological Rorschach studies were devoted to these patients, and a very good review of them was published in the Journal of Projective Techniques.  This article, written by Ross and Block (1950), reviewed nineteen published studies and four on-going investigations that utilized the Rorschach to study these unfortunate patients.  Many of the primary attributes of frontal lobe injury, such as impulsivity and perseveration, were first described in these studies, although they are not commonly cited, recognized, or even known by many of today's neuropsychologists.

By the beginning of the 1950s, there were three competing notions of the role of personality in illness:  first was the continuing 1940s idea that certain personalities were predisposed to certain illnesses. A second position was that specific emotional conflicts led to specific physiological disturbances, much like Freud's theory that repressed sexual conflict led to conversion

hysteria.  The third position was that it was the cumulative stress level a person endured rather than specific conflicts that led to physiological malfunctioning, that the nature of the stress was less relevant than the amount of stress produced, an idea that led to some excellent work on a wide variety of stress related illnesses.  

The crisis of the 1960s

In the 1960s clinicians began to recognize the role of environmental as well as social factors in the development of disease and the idea of a disease personality reversed from a causative hypothesis to a reactive hypothesis.  In other words, the "epileptic personality" was still recognized, but instead of being seen as a predisposition for epilepsy, it was seen as the individual's reaction to epilepsy.  How much this contributed to a new trend is unclear, but it is clear that the most profound effect the 1960s had on how the Rorschach was used with neuropsychological populations was to move the emphasis away from personality and toward neuroscience.  With increasingly sophisticated technologies, neurodiagnostic techniques began to expand exponentially, promoting research on very detailed cerebral mapping.  This was also in part a response to the 1950s academic controversy over the reliability and validity - in essence the "scientific-ness" - of the Rorschach.  Polarization among clinicians was common, with staunch advocates of the method pitted against equally staunch detractors, those who trained in the 1960s and later.  Although the earliest neuropsychologists, such as Harrower, Benton, Diller, and even Reitan had been quite comfortable with the Rorschach as a research and clinical tool for use with neurological populations, the new neuropsychologists of the 1960s were not.  In North America this group identified most strongly with experimentalists, anatomists, and neuroscientists.  A high percentage of their work was devoted to the development of other, notably objective, tests to tap individual skills areas and the Rorschach was treated with disregard by many and even derision by some.

About half of the Rorschach studies on neuropsychological populations published in North America in the 1940s and 1950s had been produced by Europeans who had relocated during or after the war.  Although a number of Americans had been trained to use the Rorschach, and many other types of Rorschach studies were produced, neuropsychological research with the Rorschach was sparse in North America in the 1960s.  In Europe and other parts of the world the frequency of such studies remained relatively stable.    

Rorschach Studies of Neuropsychological Populations: Publications by Continent

Continent Where Published

1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Total

Europe 5 12 19* 19* 15 26 15 15 126

North America 0 11 62* 58* 27 25 20 12 215

Asia 0 0 0 0 2 8 6 2 18

South America 0 2 2 2 2 1 3 0 12

Africa 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Totals by Decade 5 25 83 79 46 60 45 30 373

*Approximately 50% of the North American publications in the 1940s and 1950s were written by

Europeans who had emigrated to the United States and Canada during and after World War II.

The emphasis on neuroanatomy may have decreased Rorschach studies in North America, but it also had a positive effect, as it promoted personality and cognitive studies associated with specific portions of the brain.  The confirmation of the "frontal lobe personality" was a very important concept for neuropsychologists and Rorschachers alike.  For the first time, the relationship between localized brain injury and disease was unquestionably associated with highly specific emotional and behavioral sequelae as well as with specific cognitive changes.  

The goals of research

In the 1980s the overall rate of this area of Rorschach research declined with the single exception of differential diagnosis of brain damage, which was consistent with the primary goal of many neuropsychologists.  In the 1990s, this type of diagnostic study has decreased and the emerging area of highest interest is in the exploration of perceptual skills.  In the States we have a saying:  "What goes around, comes around" and in neuropsychological studies the Rorschach is again being used as a perceptual measure as it was originally planned before the richness of the data for personality interpretation was recognized.    

Rorschach Studies of Neuropsychological Populations: Stated and Apparent Research Goals

Research Goal 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Total

Differential Diagnosis of Brain Damage

3 10 32 22 26 27 25 2 147

Cognitive Studies of Organic Populations

0 7 17 19 8 16 5 10 82

Personality Studies of Organic Populations

0 3 12 16 8 16 11 12 78

Identification of Organic Signs in Rorschach Records

3 6 25 19 3 8 2 2 68

Lesion localization Tool

0 1 3 4 2 0 1 2 13

Exploration of Perceptual Skills

0 0 0 0 2 0 1 10 13

Statistical Analysis 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 6

Assist in Treatment Planning

0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 6

Compare the Rorschach with Other Neuropsychological Instruments

0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 5

Exploration of Evolving Organicity

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Totals by Decade 6 28 90 85 51 72 45 42 419

 

Traumatic brain injury has been, and remains, one of the most fascinating of research populations.  Even from the early years, an interest in identifying signs to detect and thus diagnose brain damage took clear precedence over the use of the Rorschach as a means to facilitate treatment planning.   In 1929 the EEG machine was the most advanced medical technology since Marie Curie showed the world how to use radioactivity to help wounded World War I soldiers.  The search for Rorschach signs of organicity that Oberholzer had started was elaborated by Piotrowski (1957); this successful task was necessary due to the absence of imaging technology that exists today.

Some studies were crude, with gross generalizations made from single cases or from very small and poorly controlled samples.  Tests of statistical significance were rare. In brain injury studies, confounding variables, such as location, source, and force of injury were frequently ignored and premorbid behaviors were often overlooked.  Eventually, enough large-scale studies were also conducted to confirm and establish the consistency and importance of organic signs such as perseveration, cognitive impotence, and perplexity. Quite remarkably, given the nature of contemporaneous uses of the Rorschach method, studies of the psychic trauma that accompanied the physical trauma of brain injury were not undertaken.

Another important positive effect on neuropsychological research with the Rorschach came from the study of patients with brain tumors.   As tumor surgeries were planned rather than random events, unlike traumatic brain injuries, they allowed for pre-operative as well as post-operative Rorschach studies and improvements in research design and analysis were immediately facilitated.    In addition, studies of children with tumors encouraged interest in the relationship between physical development and cognitive development, particularly in the area of altered development.

Just as the neuropsychological populations Rorschachers have studied have changed as neurodiagnostic techniques have advanced, investigatory goals have also changed.  There is more interest in degenerative disease such as Alzheimer's Disease, spongiform encephalopathies and other devastating dementias.  Our continuing interest in traumatic brain injury, which is increasingly better defined by the complementarity of imaging tools and neuropsychological assessment tasks, is also seen from the perspective of maximizing each survivor's potential for functional independence.  

Methodologies  

The single greatest weakness of Rorschach studies over the past eighty years has been the focus on single populations without matched control groups.

Today's review of research trends evident in 373 different neuropsychological studies shows that we continue to produce studies of single populations with too little comparison to normal controls. In the past eight decades, individual case studies decreased from an average of 20% in the first four decades that were basically the early technology years to 8% in the last four decades, the advanced technology years.  But studies of single neuropsychological groups dropped insignificantly from 50.5% to 49.7% and still comprise too many of our efforts.  

Studies comparing neuropsychological populations with other clinical populations remained the same at 17% for both halves of the past eighty years, but studies that utilized a normal control group matched for demographic variables rose from 14% in the early technology years to nearly 24% for the advanced technology period.  Although quantification of Rorschach data has become much more standardized, statistical analysis of the outcome data of multiple records, commonly missing from early studies, has frequently been inadequate in later studies.  Only one meta-analysis has been possible to date.  It is to be hoped that, as more carefully controlled studies emerge, additional analyses to confirm the robustness of our outcomes wil be possible.

A fascinating review by Riklan and Diller (1957) highlights another serious problem with our past studies:  "normal" controls were often not normal groups at all, but were taken from other medical or psychiatric populations.

Another common weakness of past studies has been the use of very small populations, sometimes as small as 5-10 patients, although there have certainly been exceptions.  One of the most remarkable exceptions is a study published by Stauder in 1938, in which he reported on 2215 Rorschach

records from 1780 subjects including 500 epileptics.  I am not suggesting we take on a task of this magnitude, but we do need to look to sufficient sample sizes to support our conclusions.

A trend toward better definitions of research populations has been evident for several years and this is a particularly important factor in neuropsychological studies.  In the past, for example, traumatic brain injury has been treated as a unitary concept in Rorschach investigations.  Now, researchers are showing more regard for severity of injury, duration of acute injury, force of injurious impact and how much recovery time has elapsed prior to the patient's evaluation, all of which have been shown to be significant in other forms of neuropsychological testing.   Even more recently Rorschach studies are identifying severity of brain injury with interest in comparing characteristics of mild, moderate, and severe levels of injury, and this is a step toward constructive research with treatment application outcomes.  

The future is here - how well did we predict it?

At my request in 1988, seventeen experienced clinicians highly qualified in their respective fields as psychohistorians, neuropsychologists, or Rorschach experts agreed to predict how the Rorschach would be used for neuropsychology in the twenty-first century.  They produced 157 predictive statements from eight open-ended questions, and were able to reach consensus on 44 of the predictions.  Some were thought provoking, such as the idea that we should be developing new conceptual models for the Rorschach, and reached consensus very quickly.  Other predictions were truly whimsical, like the suggestion that franchised stand-alone computerized Rorschach terminals would appear in shopping malls for self-service.   I'm confident you will be glad to hear the experts also reached consensus on that one very quickly, voting it as decidedly unlikely to occur.

Question 1 was about perception.  The experts said perceptual research using the Rorschach would not increase in the next century, unless sophisticated equipment became available to monitor brain activity during the test administration.  Such equipment is now available in both PET and SPECT scans; although none of the 1990s studies have used this equipment, nearly one quarter of this decade's neuropsychological Rorschach studies have been on perception so perhaps we will see some imaging studies with the Rorschach in the next few years.

Question 2 asked about personality research and the experts predicted greater use of the method in applied neuropsychology, such as stroke or brain injury rehabilitation, as well as continued studies on the personality associated with certain neurological disease states.  Only one 1990s study

was related to neuropsychological treatment, but a full quarter have been investigating personality factors in neurological populations.

Question 3 was specifically about the role of the Rorschach in the neuropsychologist's repertoire for the twenty-first century and the experts had a lot of trouble agreeing on specific ideas.  They easily agreed that neuropsychologists need to be knowledgeable about the method and that it could be useful for longitudinal studies.  Itís my belief that this is a more important contribution to neuropsychology than the experts might have realized.  In itís unique ambiguity, the Rorschach allows for an infinite variety of responses, a characteristic that is not shared by any other neuropsychological instrument.  With most cognitive tasks, and certainly with most neuropsychological tests, the patientís first test experience, simply by being experienced and re-processed in memory, enhances the patientís performance on a second testing, which then enhances performance on a third testing and so on.  The Rorschach is not vulnerable to this practice effect: even when a subject remembers previous responses, new responses are always possible and even likely.

Question 4 asked the experts to consider how the Rorschach would evolve and, although they could not agree on exactly how, all the experts thought some level and type of computerization is inevitable.    We have seen some of that inevitability in action at this Congress.  Past controversies generated questions 5 and 6, but the experts readily agreed the Rorschach would remain an important psychological method in the future, and that graduate training should include it, although there would always be some criticism of it.   They also agreed that acceptance of the test requires production of empirically sound research studies.  

Further suggestions

As I looked over the 1990s Rorschach neuropsychological studies as well as the rest of the neuropsychological literature some other suggestions for productive research came to mind.  Iíd like to see an  exploration of the psychic trauma that accompanies awareness of progressive brain pathology and the decision making that is faced by patients and families.   Humankind not only lives longer, we are better at diagnosing progressive decline. Now we need to help people deal with it. I wonder about the effect on personality of the demented elderly who are treated with Aricept or other cognitive stimulants. I also wonder about early years: can we learn how violence is neuropsychologically mediated and develop a primary prevention by intervening before violent ideas become violent actions?  Iím curious about the relationship between autism, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and frontal lobe injury:  I think their Rorschach records would be quite similar.  I wonder about hyper-oral traumatically brain injured patients:  has their

experience with life-threatening injury increased their dependency needs?  Has their new orality superseded other thoughts and needs?  Itís hard to imagine what the world looks like to a stroke patient with unilateral visual neglect.  I wonder if the symmetry of the blots will help or hinder their production of percepts, and whether the method can still be used with them.  A few months ago I found a grief model that reflects the stages of recovery a brain injury survivor demonstrates and I found myself wondering how that could be monitored (by serial Rorschachs, perhaps?) so unresolved bereavement could be avoided.

The data from the 1990s shows Rorschachers continue to be interested in neuropsychological populations.  There are no indications that neuropsychologists will drop their interest in neuroanatomy but many are recognizing the need for applied neuropsychologists who assist patients to  functional independence.  The wealth of information that can be derived from the Rorschach, which remains one of psychologyís most powerful tools, must not be overlooked:  research collaborations between Rorschach experts and clinical neuropsychologists would be my personal choice for the future.    

References

Caputo J., Rorschach Studies of Neuropsychological Groups of the Past, Present and Future. Dissertation, Central Michigan University 1989.

Oberholzer E., Zur Differentialdiagnose psychischer Folgezustande nach Schädeltrauma mittels des Rorschach'schen Formdeutversuches. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Neurologie und Psychiatrie 136 (1931), 596-629.

Piotrowski Z., Perceptanalysis. Macmillan, New York 1957.

Diller L., Riklan M., Rorschach correlates in Parkinson's Disease: M, motor inhibition, perceived cause of illness, and self-attitudes. Psychosomatic Medicine 19 (1957), 120-126.

Rorschach H., Psychodiagnostik. Bircher, Bern 1921.

Ross W.D., Block, S.L., "The use of projective techniques in the evaluation of neurosurgical approaches to psychiatric treatment." J. of Projective Techniques 14 (1950), 5-14.  

Top of page

Back to Rorschach Texts page

Moving towards the OtherThe relevance of Hermann Rorschach’s method for the philosophy of perception

  

Helge Malmgren, MD, PhDDepartment of Philosophy, Göteborg University, Sweden

helge.malmgren@phil.gu.se  

Poster presentation at ”Tucson III”:

Toward a Science of ConsciousnessTucson, AZ, April 27-May 2, 1998

 

Contents:

Hermann Rorschach and the kinaesthetic response  Dreams, hallucinations and movement responses

How can movement be a determinant?

Seeing a movement is a case of practical knowledge

Seeing motor space

Ecological optics and the movements of others

Physiognomic perception

Inner and outer space

Moving towards the Other

Acknowledgements References Addendum

Card 1 Card 2 Card 3 Card 4

Hermann Rorschach and the kinaesthetic response

The main contribution of Hermann Rorschach to the history of psychology and psychiatry was not the discovery that ambiguous pictures could be used for diagnostic purposes. The latter idea had occurred to several investigators before him.1   Instead, the real novelty of Rorschach’s approach lies in his insistence that people’s responses to the inkblots should be described not only in terms of what is being seen, but also in terms of how it is seen. Hence the most important things to note about any response are such things

as: which part of the blot is being interpreted? is it a small or a big part? is the percept diffuse or structured? is it based on contours, or on the colours and shadings? is it a ”good” form or a ”bad” form?, and so on. This insight is nowadays represented in a four-fold way of classifying responses: manner of approach, determinant, content and originality. Rorschach does not himself use these terms, but it is convenient to reconstruct his ideas with the help of them.

The most original, and probably the most debated, of Hermann Rorschach’s ideas is that of movement as a determinant.  In his book,2   Rorschach defines the movement responses as

...those interpretations which are determined by the perception of form plus kinaesthetic contributions.

He stresses the point that not any seen movement is to be classified as a movement response. The essential question to ask is whether the movement is being felt, and not only seen. The ”feeling” which is needed is the kinaesthetic feeling which, according to Rorschach, belongs to a motor impulse to perform the movement which is seen. Hence, movement responses are often accompanied by a manifest tendency on part of the subject to imitate the seen movement.

From Rorschach’s definition also follows that ”a stone falling from a roof” is ordinarily not a movement interpretation. And even when a human being is seen as moving, the response need not always be determined by any kinaesthetic-feeling component. The alternative name for movement responses, ”kinaesthetic responses”, is therefore to be preferred. Importantly, ”a standing man” is as a rule a kinaesthetic response, although the man is not seen, or felt, as actually moving. _______________________ 1 The best source concerning the pre-history of the Rorschach test is Ellenberger (1954, 1993). 2 Rorschach (1972) p. 25 (translation HM).

Dreams, hallucinations and movement responses

In his doctoral dissertation, which antedates his more famous book with nine years, Rorschach had described several cases of so-called ”kinaesthetic-optic” and ”optic-kinaesthetic reflex hallucinations”. These are cases where a visual hallucination is conditioned by kinaesthetic impressions or other bodily experiences, or a kinaesthetic/somatosensory hallucination is caused by visual stimuli. The first kind is exemplified when a schizophrenic patient who is performing rowing movements starts hallucinating first a lake, and then a whole fleet of war ships. When another schizophrenic subject reports that he feels that he has been transformed into the animal or inanimate object which he sees, we have an example of the second kind.3

Rorschach’s dissertation was partly inspired by the investigations of the Norwegian philosopher and psychologist John Mourly Vold, who had

performed extensive and systematic studies of the influence of tactile and kinaesthetic stimuli on the contents of dreams. He found, for example, that people who have had their feet tied very often dream of walking, climbing and so on. These dreams usually involve the dreamer herself, but sometimes another person is instead seen climbing, and sometimes the dream just contains a ”climbable” object.4   Mourly Vold himself also extended his research and theorising to cases of hallucinations.5

Both Mourly Vold and Rorschach point out the similarity between these optic-kinaesthetic and kinaesthetic-optic hallucinations or dreams on the one hand, and everyday cases of connections between kinaesthetic, somatosensory and visual experiences on the other. Rorschach gives several such everyday examples:  when moving a limb in the dark, we  often vividly visualise it; many people visualise an object better if they ”draw it in the air”; we tend to feel the postures and movements of people which we see depicted on the scene and in paintings. He ascribes an important role to ”association” in the genesis of such inter-sensory connections, including those underlying many cases of reflex hallucinations. However, Rorschach believes that associative principles cannot explain all reflex hallucinations; indeed, he reserves the term ”reflex hallucinations in the narrow sense” for the non-associative cases.6  For these, an innate coupling seems to be required. _______________________ 3 Rorschach (1912), p. 374, 364. 4 Mourly Vold (1900), p. 838 f; cf Mourly Vold (1910/12), quoted in Rorschach (1912), p. 371f. 5 Mourly Vold (1900). 6 Rorschach (1912), p. 397; cf also Mourly Vold (1900), p. 861.

How can movement be a determinant?

Rorschach’ definition of the movement, or kinaesthetic, response led to a still unresolved controversy within the Rorschach test community. One main problem has to do with the concept of a determinant. In connection with his discussion of form as a determining factor, Rorschach seems to say that a form response is one which is determined by the real form of the (interpreted part of the) blot.7  In the same vein, John Exner defines ”determinant” in terms of “the blot features that have contributed to the formation of the percept”.8  However, this way of thinking leads to a blatant contradiction if one wants to speak of movement as a determinant. Obviously, the actual blot does not move, nor does it entertain any intention to move. And if — as Rorschach says — kinaesthetic engrams (memory traces) are active when a subject sees a movement in a static blot, these engrams stem from the subject’s brain, not from the blot.

How is this difficult conceptual situation to be remedied? One possible way out is to move away, in theory and/or in praxis, from Rorschach’s statement

that movement or kinaesthesia is a determining factor, and instead simply use ”Movement” as a kind of content category. However, it then becomes difficult to draw a non-arbitrary line between those seen movements which are ”Movement” interpretations and those which are not — not to speak about the corresponding problem for seen non-moving objects. At least, no clear reason remains to draw the lines where Rorschach once draw them.

A second option is to try to rethink the concept of a determinant. Perhaps we could relax the criterion that it must be a stimulus property? There are indeed strong evidence in Rorschach’s own text that when speaking about the determining factors behind the responses, he was actually thinking of the mental processes by means of which we try to make our percepts fit the stimulus properties. And Exner clearly steps away from stimulus properties when he uses the presence of emphatic identification as the basic criterion for the scoring of ”Movement”. However, Exner has dropped the specifically kinaesthetic component, because of the methodological problems involved in assessing the presence and importance of the ”kinaesthetic memory experiences” which Rorschach postulated. This means that in Exner’s system, ”Gloomy mood” can be classified as a movement response. _______________________ 7 Rorschach (1921), p. 22. 8 Exner (1993), p. 103.

Seeing a movement is a case of practical knowledge

Hermann Rorschach’s main teacher was the famous Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler, and from Bleuler he also got his pre-Gestalt, associationist psychology. Had he lived, speculates his biographer,9  Rorschach would have developed his theory in line with phenomenology and Gestalt psychology. As it turned out, he left it to others to lay a modern foundation for his method. Until this has been done, the movement responses will remain a riddle.

The associationist doctrine that kinaesthetic experiences are necessarily involved in our knowledge of our own movements has since long been abandoned. In psychology the turning point was the research on ”imageless thought” by Ach and other psychologists of the Würzburg school around 1900, research which was partly inspired by phenomenology and which was followed up and deepened by the Gestalt psychologists. Within analytical philosophy, the theory of kinaesthetic impressions seems to have lived on until the later Wittgenstein gave it a final blow.10

Can we define ”kinaesthetic response” without postulating kinaesthetic impressions? Let us first remember that according to Rorschach, a subject who gives a movement response often shows a tendency to imitate the seen movement. He thinks that this should be regarded as a sign that the essential

kinaesthetic experiences are present. An alternative, non-associationist description is that both the tendency to move and the kinaesthetic imagery (if either is present) are contingent expressions of the subject’s practical, perceptually based apprehension of which movement is performed. ”Practical apprehension” is here simply the intentional component of practical (procedural) knowledge. As Ryle says, we know how to swim without being able to describe it; as modern psychologists say, we have non-declarative, procedural knowledge of swimming. Subtract the conditions of truth and justification from this knowledge; what remains is the act of practical apprehension. And if such an act is based on perception, we have a perceptual, practical apprehension of a movement — a practical perception.

Thus, a kinaesthetic response in the Rorschach can be defined as a practical perception of a motor activity — a response in which the subject sees how to do what another person does. Some refinements are needed, however. _______________________ 9 Ellenberger (1993), p. 230. Rorschach died less than a year after the publication of his book. 10 Wittgenstein (1953).

Seeing motor space

Not all practical perceptions of movement involve other people (or other animals). Indeed, the most common kind is that which occurs when we see how to do something, for example how to reach an object or how to walk to avoid an obstacle. In these cases, the immediate expression of our knowledge is not the imitation of an act, but the performance of the act itself.

When one sees what to do, or what is being done, which is the role of vision in the process? Not all such knowledge depends on the visual identification of the subject’s own movements, either concurrently or at any earlier time. The fact that very young infants know how to turn their eyes towards objects, and how to grasp for them, clearly illustrates the point. This point can also be expressed by saying that innate visuo-motor couplings play an essential role in perception-action chains. The well-known research of Meltzoff and Moore and others on imitation in very young infants is another example.11  The main conclusion to draw from this research is that the infant often has practical, perceptual knowledge about which act is being performed, although it does not see, and has never seen, itself perform the same act.12

There is an obvious connection here with the theory of the body schema as formulated by Merleau-Ponty.13  A major part of our knowledge of our own body has a practical character; for example, we know in the practical sense where to scratch the skin when it itches. Such knowledge is independent of vision not only because it works without visual input, but also in the sense

that what is known it is not primarily a visual position. The body schema is  nothing but this fundamental system of practical knowledge. According to Merleau-Ponty the body schema — as a system of practical apprehensions — is essentially involved when one imitates another person. He also makes the point that imitation does not presuppose that the subject can see his own movements.14  It is therefore, in a certain sense, immediate. _______________________ 11 Meltzoff & Moore (1995). 12 The methods and results of Meltzoff and Moore have been subject to criticism. See for example Heimann (in press). My main conclusion is however not threatened by this criticism. Cf. also Wyrwicka (1996). 13 Merleau-Ponty (1962). For my choice of the term ”body schema”  rather than ”body image” cf Gallagher (1995). 14 Merleau-Ponty (1962) pp. 352.

Ecological optics and the movements of others

During the last decade, some authors have noticed the connections between Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology, research on imitation, and the ecological optics of James and Eleanor Gibson. I want to develop this theme here.

Gibson’s concept of affordance is naturally interpreted in terms of practical knowledge. In other words, what happens to an animal when it sees a plant as having the affordance being edible can be described by saying that the visual system makes the organism prepared to eat the plant. And Gibson’s point that perception of affordances is usually direct can be read as saying that there is no need for any cognitive representation to intervene between the ambient optic array and the practical apprehension of an affordance.15

There are a number of social affordances.16  An approaching enemy can, and should, be seen as somebody to flee from, while an approaching conspecific of the opposite sex may sometimes be seen as somebody to mate.  There are also affordances of being somebody to co-operate with  in specific ways.

One distinguishing mark of social interactions is that the required action depends on what is predicted about the partner(s). Such a prediction of a partner’s behaviour can, in principle, be made using two very different mechanisms. One may use the same method as when judging the movements of an inanimate object, which essentially reduces to extrapolations from observed movements (as for example in intercepting a thrown ball). Or, which is usually much more effective, one may try to see from the partner’s  perspective what the partner intends to do. A heavyweight fighter certainly stays upright longer if he tries to sense the other guy’s intentions than if he calculates time-to-contact with the approaching fist.

I suggest that the perception of social affordances involves the translation of visual input into two motor patterns, since the practical knowledge how to

act depends on the practical knowledge how the other person acts. Only because the fighter knows practically what the other guy intends to do, can he avoid its consequences. If this description is correct, manifest imitation is just the special case where the two seen patterns are the same. The basic mechanism is much more general and has high ecological validity apart from imitation. _______________________ 15 Cf Redström (1998). 16 J. Gibson (1979), p. 42; see also Bruce, Green & Georgeson (1996), ch. 16.

Physiognomic perception

Before we go deeper into the philosophical aspects of our theme, I want to point to another psychological and psychopathological field of relevance for it. I am referring to the existence of so-called physiognomic perception, of which at least a part may be described as misplaced practical apprehension of motor intentions. Hermann Rorschach points out that several test subjects seem to see — and ”feel” — human-like movements or motor attitudes in objects such as trees, household artefacts, etc. For example, a tree can be seen as standing proudly erect, or as stretching their branches towards another tree. Now, this way of seeing things is certainly not restricted to the test situation. People vary a lot with respect to how strong their tendency to this kind of ”perceptual animism” is.17  The same holds for the tendency to perceive faces and facial expressions in objects.18  The pioneer in developmental psychology, Heinz Werner, tells us that physiognomic perception is more common in young people,19  and the psychopathologist Klaus Conrad describes how the initial phases of confusional states are often characterised by a loosening of ordinary object perception and the intrusion of more and more physiognomic material.20

A natural explanation of these phenomena is the biological one. It is very important for the survival of organisms that they have a low threshold for the perception of other living creatures, so that they will be able to flee from aggressors in time. In this perspective, the sensitivity to movements of the peripheral part of the retina can be classified among the relevant facts. Also, a low threshold for physiognomic perception helps intraspecific co-operation to work smoothly. The price to be paid is a lot of misplaced perceptions.

However, I suspect that this explanation may be too simple, and that the ease with which physiognomic perception of inanimate objects can be initiated reflects that it may have a even more fundamental perceptual function than warning us about the possible presence of other creatures. I will next speculate a little about the nature of our perception of space. _______________________ 17 Some (including the present author) can very easily put themselves in an attitude where almost everything is seen under such an aspect. For a marvellous description of

how the world can seem to a person who is sensitive to physiognomic traits, cf Lingis (1996). 18 An interesting report on another case of high sensistivity in this respect can be found in the work of Franz From, who was a close collaborator of the famous Gestalt psychologist Edgar Rubin. Cf From (1971), pp. 66f. 19 Werner (1961). 20 Conrad (1960), pp. 385ff.

Inner and outer space

The idea that our apprehension of external space has a motor component is certainly not new.21  Merleau-Ponty has given one of the fullest formulations of it. Our perception of close external space, he says, is largely practical in nature: we see how to do in order to reach an objects, to avoid it, or to grasp it. Furthermore, our practical knowledge how to reach a certain object in our immediate visible environment is usually direct: we directly know how to move our arm to catch a close visible object. This is quite analogous to our direct knowledge where to scratch when it itches. Hence the body schema includes not only the body, but also a part of the environment. Merleau-Ponty’s highly original and suggestive comments on the nature of perceived depth must be read with these theses in mind.22

But what is then the status of distant space? Certainly, the horizon is not within one’s reach, so how can the perception of the horizon be analysed in terms of practical apprehension? The solution lies, I think, in Merleau-Ponty’s analysis of the role of the body schema in imitation. In the following excerpt he gives his most explicit definition of his concept of body schema:

In normal imitation, the subject’s left hand is immediately identified with his partner’s, his actions immediately models himself on the other’s, and the subject projects himself or loses his separate reality in the other, becomes identified with him, and the change of co-ordinates is pre-eminently embodied in this existential process. This is because the normal subject has his body not only as a system of present positions, but besides, and thereby, as an open system of an infinite number of equivalent positions directed to other ends. What we have called the body image is precisely this system of equivalents, this immediately given invariant whereby the different motor tasks are immediately translatable.23

I take this to mean that external space is given to us as a practical system of possible movements from different positions, where each position, in turn, is a point in the same space. Distant objects and the horizon are apprehended as reachable in steps. Seeing inanimate objects as having intentions is simply one useful way of imagining starting points for some of these steps through space. Hence the abundance of physiognomic perception. _______________________ 21 When Berkeley says that space perception is founded on the sense of touch, one possible interpretation is that what is seen  in spatial perception is not a set of purely visual qualities but a set of motor possibilities. See especially Berkeley 1901 (1709), pp. 148ff. 22 Merleau-Ponty (1962), pp. 254ff. 23  Merleau-Ponty (1962), pp. 141-2. On the term ”body image”, cf above, note 13.

Moving towards the Other

Let us now return to the main theme of this paper. The reader may already have guessed that I want to define a kinaesthetic interpretation in the Rorschach test as a response which is based on the usual mechanism for practical perception of motor intentions, as described above. This definition also clarifies the wide sense in which all movement interpretations can be said to be ”form responses”.24  It is well known that perception of real human and animate movement is based on high level optical invariants, as is for example illustrated in Gunnar Johansson’s famous experiments.25  As Gibson points out, there are also event-specifying invariants in momentary or frozen displays such as ordinary (static) pictures.26  These invariants have not been studied to anything like the extent of the studies of real motion perception. But it is obvious that the optical invariants for specifying human motor intentions in a still picture are also very high level and not easily describable in terms of elementary shapes.27  Of course, Rorschach-like displays would offer great opportunities to study them better!

In the meantime we have to rest content with saying that kinaesthetic interpretations are  a kind of ”form” responses, although they are based on shape information of very specific kinds and use this information in a very special way. If an interpretation involving movement is instead based on the mechanisms which we ordinarily use in the identification of the shapes of close inanimate objects, it is a form response in the usual, narrow sense.

My final, philosophical suggestion is that the above analysis of the way we perceive motor intentions allows for the possibility that these perceptions are independent of our objectivating perceptions of close spatial structures. This gives a clear sense in which the perception of other subjects may be prior to the perception of objects: extracting the invariants necessary for the former achievement need not presuppose extracting the (lower-level) invariants needed for the latter. If combined with the Gibsonian view that practical perception is usually direct, the analysis also leads to the conclusion that our knowledge of other minds may be direct. The latter thesis can then be seen to be compatible with a thoroughly naturalistic epistemology.28 _______________________ 24  Bohm (1972), p. 46. 25 Cf. Bruce, Green & Georgeson, pp. 328ff. 26 Gibson (1979), p. 294. 27 This, by the way, explains the fact — noted already by Rorschach — that kinaesthetic responses in the Rorschach test often bridge otherwise clear contour ”gaps”. 28  Incidentally, this conclusion is very similar to the main point in Malmgren (1976). Cf also Malmgren (1983).  

Acknowledgements I want to thank Gösta Fröbärj, Susanna Lundqvist, Filip Radovic and Johan Redström for valuable

comments — and Linnea Malmgren for the blots!

References Berkeley, G., An Essay towards a New Theory of Vision (1709, in: A. Campbell Fraser ed., The works of George Berkeley, Vol. I, Oxford 1901). Bohm, E., Lehrbuch der Rorschach-Psychodiagnostik. 4 Aufl., Huber 1972. Bruce, V., Green, P.R., Georgeson, M.A., Visual Perception. Psychology Press 1996. Conrad, K., Die symptomatischen Psychosen. In: Gruhle et al, Psychiatrie der Gegenwart, Bd. II. Springer 1960, 369-436. Ellenberger, H., The life and work of Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922). Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 18 (1954), 172-219. Reprinted many times, e.g. in Beyond the Unconscious. Essays by Henri F. Ellenberger. Ed. M. Micale, Princeton U.P. 1993. Exner, J., The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System. Part I.  Wiley 1993. From, F., Perception of Other People. Columbia U.P. 1971. Gallagher, S., Body schema and intentionality. In: Bermúdez, J.L. (ed), The Body and the Self. MIT Press 1995, 225-44. Gibson, E.J., Ontogenesis of the perceived self. In: U. Neisser (ed.), The Perceived Self. Cambridge U.P. 1993, 25-43. Gibson, J.J., The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Erlbaum 1979, 1986. Heimann, M., Imitation in neonates, in older infants, and in children with autism: feedback to theory. In: Bråten, S. (ed.), Intersubjective Communication and Emotion in Early Ontogeny. Cambridge U.P. (in press). Kramer, R., The Rorschach M response: a return to its roots. J. of Personality Assessment, 57 (1991), 30-6. Lindqvist, G., Malmgren, H., Classification and Diagnosis in Organic Psychiatry (= Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 88, Suppl. 373, 1993). Lingis, A., The body postured and dissolute. In: Fóti, V.M. (ed.), Merleau-Ponty: Difference, Materiality, Painting. Humanities Press 1996, 60-71. Malmgren, H., Immediate knowledge of other minds. Theoria 42, 1976, 189-205. Malmgren, H.,  Immediate Knowledge: A study in G.E. Moore’s epistemology. Doxa, Lund 1983. Meltzoff, A.N., Moore, M.K., Infants’ understanding of people and things: from body imitation to folk psychology. In: Bermúdez, J.L. (ed), The Body and the Self. MIT Press 1995, 43-70. Merleau-Ponty, M., Phénomenologie de la Perception (Paris 1945). English translation Phenomenology of Perception (Routledge 1962). Mourly Vold, J., Ueber ”Hallucinationen”, vorzüglich ”Gesichtshallucinationen”, auf der Grundlage von cutan-motorischen Zuständen und auf derjenigen von vergangenen Gesichts-Eindrücken. Allgemeine Zeitschr. für Psychiatrie, 57 (1900). Mourly Vold, J., Über den Traum. Ed. O. Klemm. Barth, Leipzig 1910-12. Redström, J., Affordances, information pickup, och direkt perception. Göteborg University, 1998 (mimeographed). Rorschach, H., Psychodiagnostik. Eine Wahrnehmungsdiagnostische Experiment. Bircher, Bern 1921; later eds. Huber, Bern. All quotes from 9th ed (1972). Rorschach, H., Über ”Reflexhallucinationen” und verwandte Erscheinungen. Zeitschr. für die gesamte Neurologie und Psychiatrie, 30 (1912), 357-400. Werner, H., Comparative Psychology of Mental Development. New York 1961. Wittgenstein, L., Philosophische Untersuchungen/Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell 1953. Wyrwicka, W., Imitation in Human and Animal Behavior. Transaction Publ., 1996.

Addendum It would be of obvious interest to compare Hermann Rorschach’s ideas with a number of contemporary theories and empirical findings which I have not discussed in the poster. Pertinent examples are Kosslyn’s theory of mental imagery  and the recent neuropsychological findings by Jeannerod and others  about visuo-motor couplings in the brain. I intend to make these comparisons in a later, longer version of the paper. _______________________ 29 Kosslyn, S., Image and Brain. MIT Press 1994.

30 Jeannerod, M., The Cognitive Neuroscience of Action. Blackwell 1997.  

Card 1

Two dancing gorillas can be seen in this Rorschach-like picture. (Thanks to Linnea Malmgren!)

Card 2

Is this two persons whose postures express discontent with the dance on the previous picture?

Card 3

This picture also invites to interpretation in terms of an emotional expression.

Card 4

1. One can see this as the roots of a tree. 2. Or as a the feet of a big bird, or a dinosaur. If you now go back to the first interpretation, it may have aquired a ”physiognomic” character!

Top of page

Text page

Main pageA LONGITUDINAL PILOT STUDY OF THE RORSCHACH AS A

NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL INSTRUMENT

Helge Malmgren1, Marianne Bilting2, Gösta Fröbärj and Göran Lindqvist2

              1 Dept. of Philosophy, University of Göteborg, S-412 98 Göteborg, Sweden. 2 Dept. of Neurosurgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden.

Please address reprint requests to the first author.

This paper was first published in: Carlsson, A M et al, Research into Rorschach and Projective Methods (Swedish Rorschach Society, Stockholm 1997), pp. 117-39. Reproduced with permission from the publisher.

Contents:

Abstract Introduction Method Analysis Results and discussion Conclusions References

Abstract

Six patients with organic mental disorders, in all cases including Korsakoff’s amnestic disorder (KAD) and in four cases due to a complication after an aneurysm operation, were followed for up to two years. Each patient was assessed at least three times; the total number of assessment points was 26. The patients’ neuropsychiatric status was assessed clinically according to the diagnostic system of Lindqvist & Malmgren. The severity of the individual disorders and the global severity of the neuropsychiatric disturbance were estimated on each occasion. The patients were assessed using

memory, concentration and general intelligence tests, and independently with Rorschach according to Bohm’s method.

The scores on 38 selected Rorschach variables were compared with the clinical assessments and with the other test data. In accord with earlier studies we found that KAD has a Rorschach profile which differs significantly from the findings in patients where other organic mental disorders dominate the clinical picture. We also saw a previously not reported sign of KAD, namely, frequent contaminated whole responses.

A comparison with the judgments of global severity also gave some support to the thesis that the Rorschach is a valid indicator of organic mental disorder in general. Altogether the study shows that the longitudinal design offers great possibilities for the analysis of Rorschach signs of organic mental disorders.

Key Words:

Rorschach, Intracerebral aneurysm, Korsakoff’s amnestic disorder, Organic mental disorders.  

Introduction

The study of the Rorschach test in organic mental disorders has a long history, beginning with Rorschach’s own investigations (1921 pp 171ff) of patients with dementia, Korsakoff’s psychosis, general paresis and lethargic encephalitis. Other pioneer Swiss researchers in this field include Oberholzer (1931). Piotrowski’s ten "organic signs" (Piotrowski 1937) also held early promise. A lot of research was done in the U.S.A. during the following decades to test and to improve Piotrowski’s signs but with no great success except for establishing beyond reasonable doubt that Piotrowski’s signs do have some validity in discriminating normal subjects from brain-damaged ones. For reviews see Goldfried et al (1971), Velez-Diaz (1973); much of the relevant work up to about 1970 in the classical European and the American Rorschach traditions has also been summarised by Bohm (1972 pp 320ff, 1975 pp 145 ff). During the 70’s and 80’s comparatively little research was done with the Rorschach regarding organic disorders (for an excellent review see Caputo 1989), and up until the past few years only sporadic attempts were made to use Exner’s Rorschach in connection with neuropsychiatric conditions (but cf Ellis & Zahn 1985).

As has been noted by Velez-Diaz (1973), Caputo (1989) and others there are several major methodological problems involved in any study of the Rorschach in organic mental disorders. Two well-known such problems are:

• The Rorschach test is sensitive to so many dimensions of human personality that the variability due to the organic component may easily vanish in "noise" due to other sources.

• The organic mental disorders are a very heterogeneous family of disturbances which cannot be expected to produce a unitary Rorschach picture.

To these, two others must be added, the importance of which have in our opinion not been sufficiently appreciated:

• Much of the clinical psychiatric heterogeneity remains even if groups of patients with unitary aetiology are studied. Compare for example the diversity of organic mental syndromes observed in a group of 100 patients having undergone transsphenoidal hypophysectomi (Lindqvist 1966).

• Many diagnostic difficulties in organic psychiatry, especially in cases with multiple simultaneous reaction forms, can be resolved only in a longitudinal perspective. Compare the problem — within the framework of DSM-III-R, 1987 — of diagnosing Dementia or Amnestic Syndrome in a patient fulfilling the criteria for Delirium (see also Malmgren & Lindqvist 1993).

These considerations imply the following methodological criteria:

(i) that the diagnostic framework which is used must define the organic mental disorders in terms of psychopathology (independently of aetiology);

(ii) that the subjects studied should be carefully described with respect to the kinds, severity and time course of the organic mental disorders that they exhibit;

(iii) that a longitudinal (or mixed group/longitudinal) study design could offer great advantages, both by improving diagnostic precision and by reducing variability due to irrelevant factors.

The study reported on here fulfils these criteria. It is a pilot investigation, based on six cases of Korsakoff’s amnestic disorder (KAD, see below), and its aims were:

• to present detailed case analyses of the time course of KAD;

• to explore the perceptual processes in Rorschach on the case level by comparing different protocols from the same patients in the amnestic state;

• to suggest new Rorschach indicators of KAD; and

• to explore on a pilot scale the possibilities of using the longitudinal approach for the formal testing of Rorschach criteria for organic mental disorders.

Some early results of the study were published in Swedish (Malmgren 1973, 1977), mainly focusing on case-oriented comparisons of tests of the same patient on different occasions. After the publication of Lindqvist-

Malmgren’s system of organic psychiatry (the LM system, Lindqvist & Malmgren 1990, 1993), the clinical patient data were re-classified according to that system in order to enable a more stringent analysis.

The six main disorders recognised in the LM system are the following (for further explanations see also Lindqvist & Malmgren 1993):

1 Somnolence-sopor-coma disorder (SSCD), also known as "pathological impairment of wakefulness".

2 Astheno-emotional disorder (AED). The mild forms of AED, mainly manifesting themselves as concentration difficulties, mental fatiguability, secondary memory disturbances and irritability, have traditionally been called "neurasthenia". The more severe forms often justify a diagnosis of dementia.

3 Confusional disorder (CD) or delirium.

4 Hallucination-cenestopathy-depersonalisation disorder (HCDD), a disorder which in its full-blown form comprises all three of the symptoms mentioned in its name.

5 Korsakoff’s amnestic disorder (KAD), which is characterised by primary retrograde and anterograde amnesia, often together with confabulations. The DSM-III-R term for this disorder is "Amnestic Syndrome". As a rule, KAD is combined with the following disorder:

6 Emotional-motivational blunting disorder (EMD), also known as "the frontal lobe syndrome" although the underlying brain disturbance need not be localised to the frontal lobes.

These disorders often occur together in different combinations, sometimes giving rise to complicated clinical pictures which can be resolved into their components only by means of a careful longitudinal analysis.

The present paper aims at the evaluation of the following three hypotheses concerning the six patients studied (note that there is a potential conflict between the third hypothesis and the two first ones):

• The tests from all occasions when the subjects have a significant organic mental disorders should fulfil suggested Rorschach criteria for organic disease in general;

• There should be a correlation between an independent estimate of global severity and Rorschach variables suggested as general signs of organic mental disorders;

• There should be a correlation between the degree of KAD (Korsakoff’s amnestic disorder) and Rorschach variables described as characteristic of

KAD (or related categories such as Korsakoff’s syndrome).  

Method

Subjects

Before the microneurosurgical era, operations for ruptured aneurysms on the anterior communicating artery often produced severe complications in the form of a transient or chronic mixed organic mental disorder dominated by memory disturbances of Korsakoff’s type. This complication was first described by Lindqvist & Norlén (1966). In 1972-74, the first author (HM) had the unique opportunity to repeatedly administer the Rorschach to a number of patients with such ruptured aneurysms ("aneurysm patients") and to a small number of patients with Korsakoff’s amnestic disorder due to other causes. Altogether, 11 patients were tested; six of these were selected for data analysis based on the following inclusion criteria: a verified KAD, long enough observation time, reasonably certain clinical diagnoses at the time of the testings, and a certified change in relevant neuropsychiatric variables between testings. The remaining material comprises 4 aneurysm patients (one woman and three men, referred to below as Pats. A, B, C and G) and two other patients (both men: Pat. E, traumatic brain injury, and Pat. F, heart arrest). The age of the 6 patients at the first test ranged from 44 to 63 years, mean 54. For a detailed clinical description of the time course of the patients’ organic mental disorders, see "Results and discussion".

Data

The first author (HM) tested all 6 patients repeatedly with the Rorschach according to Bohm’s method (Bohm 1972). Three of the aneurysm patients (A, B and C) were tested also before the operation. Altogether 26 tests were performed, all except one in close temporal connection with regularly scheduled neuropsychiatric examinations. The follow-up time varied from 2 to 22 months. At most re-tests, there was a complete or near-complete amnesia for previous testings. At the time of each Rorschach test the clinical mental status of the patients was independently judged by GL, and complementary psychometric testing was performed by MB. The Rorschach protocols were scored by HM and GF in collaboration.

When the data were re-classified according to the LM system, the severity of each disorder on each occasion was first rated on a four-step scale (using 1, 2 and 3 for mild, moderate and severe disturbances respectively, but 0.5 for very mild forms) based on the clinical documentation and the psychometric data except Rorschach. With the possible exception of the ratings for AED, these estimates are not sufficiently standardised to be used in precise inter-patient comparisons. On some occasions, the clinical

judgement had to be based on an extrapolation from established knowledge about the natural course of the different organic mental disorders. Because of diagnostic difficulties no separation was made between SSCD and unspecific fatigue reactions (UF). An estimate of the global severity of the patient’s disturbance was also made for each occasion. The primary ratings were adjusted according to the clinical judgements of improvement or deterioration, resulting in a more fine-grained picture of each patient’s development over time.

The clinical psychopathological profiles and their time courses were compared with the findings on 37 Rorschach variables (Table 1), most of which have earlier been suggested as "organic" indicators. They include the individual Piotrowski signs and the Piotrowski index, most items in Bohm’s (1975, p 147) "general organic Rorschach syndrome", most items in Bohm’s list (1975, p 157) of findings in alcoholic Korsakoff (Table 2), and finally a few variables the analysis of which were prompted by the data.    

Table 1: Rorschach variables selected for analysis

Var. Description Exp. Source

R Total no. of responses -/+ Piot 1, Bohm K

T/R Time per response + Piot 2

W% Percentage of whole resp. (not DW, WS) 

+/(?) Bohm G, K

*W% Percentage of whole resp. (incl DW, WS) 

+/(?) Bohm G, K

DW- Number of weak DW responses + Bohm G

*M+ Number of sharp movement responses (including MC+ and MCh+)

-/(?) Piot 3, Bohm K

M-/M±  Number of weak movement responses + Bohm K

Ms Number of small movement responses + Bohm K

F+% Form level (Rorschach’s method) - Piot 5, Bohm K

Conf1 Number of clear confabulations + Bohm G

*Conf Weighted index of confabulations + Bohm G

CoC1 Number of clear confabulatory combs. + Bohm K

*CoC Weighted index of confabulatory combs.

+ Bohm K

*Cr Number of colour responses (all kinds) - Bohm G

CType Colour type (Bash, numerical version) + Bohm G

CNam Colour naming + Piot 4

A% Percentage of animal responses +/(?) Bohm G, K

Libi1 Number of clearly uninhibited responses

  Study

*Libi Weighted index of uninhibited responses

  Study

V Number of vulgar (popular) responses - Bohm G

V% Percentage of vulgar (popular) responses

- Piot 6

Orig+ Number of good original responses -/(?) Bohm G, K

Orig- Number of weak original responses + Bohm G

Orig% Percentage of original responses + Bohm G, K

Rej Rejections + Bohm G

CoNe1 Number of clear contams./neologisms   Study

*CoNe Index of contaminations/neologisms   Study

PersG Perseveration, gross organic type + Bohm G

*Pers Perseveration, any kind + Piot 7

Rep Repetitions + Bohm K

Stp Stereotype phrases + Piot 10

Imp Impotence + Piot 8

Plx Perplexity + Piot 9

Locd Localization difficulties in Inquiry + Bohm G

Edg Edging + Bohm G

LAw Lowered awareness of interpretation + Bohm G

Piot Piotrowski’s index + Piot

Var., variable name. Exp., expected sign according to Piotrowski and Bohm of correlation between Rorschach variable and organic mental disorders: -/+, negative expected correlation with global severity, positive with KAD. -/(?), negative expected correlation with global severity, undetermined with KAD. +/(?), positive expected correlation with global severity, undetermined with KAD. Abbreviations of sources: Piot 1, Piotrowski’s first sign, etc. Bohm G, Bohm’s general organic Rorschach syndrome. Bohm K, Bohm’s signs for alcoholic Korsakoff. Study, variable derived from obvious trends in present data.

There is a large amount of redundancy in the full set of variables, so for some of the tasks in the study a subsample consisting of 16 variables was used instead.  

Table 2: Some suggested characteristics of alcoholic Korsakoff’s syndrome  

*Number of responses sometimes very high

*Not so few B

Introversive experience balance

*Often W as successive combinations or confabulatory combinations

*Tendency to small M responses

*Sporadic M- responses

*Considerably lowered F+%

*Medium A%

*Sometimes very high Orig% (±)

Manner of approach W± - D± - (Dd)

Loose succession

*Repetitions

Subject enjoys interpreting

*) means that the variable is investigated in the present study.

After Bohm (1972), p. 331. Compare also Bohm (1975), p. 157.  

Analysis

Three different methods of statistical analysis were employed:  

Statistical method 1

Descriptive statistics were collected on 16 Rorschach variables for all tests done when the subject had some significant organic mental disorders. This turned out to be all 26 occasions. In this way:

• the number of false negatives on Piotrowski’s index could be calculated, and

• caveats concerning a number of suggested "organic" signs could be formulated.  

Statistical method 2

From the set of 26 protocols, two subsets were picked out. The first group (KAD+) consists of 14 protocols taken when KAD was judged to be the dominating organic mental disorder. This was always at or close to the

height of the subject’s global psychopathology. The second group (AED+) contains 7 protocols taken preoperatively or late in convalescence, when a mild AED was judged to be the dominating organic mental disorder (or one of the two equally dominating disorders). For natural reasons these two groups were "high" and "low", respectively, on the estimate of global severity. Descriptive statistics on the two groups were calculated for the 16 Rorschach variables, and the results were compared on an intuitive basis. The groups contain unequal numbers of protocols from the different patients, which makes formal significance testing of differences with standard methods impossible. The comparison was therefore mainly used heuristically:

• to suggest correlations between clinical and Rorschach variables;

• to help find tentative Rorschach patterns characteristic for patients with KAD and with a mild AED, respectively (the latter findings are not reported here).  

Statistical method 3

For each patient, the correlation over time for a selected pair of measures was calculated, and the mean of all 6 intra-patient correlations was taken as an estimate of overall correlation of the two measures. The number of intra-patient correlation coefficients having the same sign were counted, and the Sign Test was used to assess whether the true mean of the coefficients differed from zero. The same analysis was repeated for a large number of pairs of measures, and it was thus tested

• to what extent the clinical syndromes correlated with each other and with global severity, and

• to what extent global severity and severity of KAD correlated with the 37 Rorschach variables in the way expected from our hypotheses.

It should be noted that with a sample size of six patients, sign test significance at the 5% level requires that all 6 correlations have the same sign.  

Results and discussion

Clinical courses

Four of the six main disorders of the LM system were represented on at least one test occasion, namely, SSCD (possibly mixed with UF), AED, KAD and EMD. In Figure 1, the severity of these disorders and the estimated global severity are shown for each test occasion. It can easily be seen that although

both the time course and the state at the end of follow-up vary considerably between patients, there was a consistent trend towards final improvement in all clinical variables except AED. SSCD/UF was rare and generally mild and transient, AED was omnipresent, mild and stationary, while the amounts of KAD and to a lesser degree EMD varied considerably from patient to patient and between different test occasions. There was no test occasion without the presence of any significant organic mental disorder.  

Time courses of the different organic mental disorders in patients A-C. Abbreviations:

A1 = patient A, first test occasion (etc) Global = estimate of global severity SSCD/UF = somnolence-sopor-coma disorder, and/or unspecific fatigue KAD = Korsakoff´s amnestic disorder AED = astheno-emotional disorder EMD = emotional-motivational blunting disorder Arrow: operation or (for patients E and F) other main causative event Figures below each occasion: days before (-) or after main event

Time courses of the different organic mental disorders in patients E-G. Abbreviations:

A1 = patient A, first test occasion (etc) Global = estimate of global severity SSCD/UF = somnolence-sopor-coma disorder, and/or unspecific fatigue KAD = Korsakoff´s amnestic disorder AED = astheno-emotional disorder EMD = emotional-motivational blunting disorder Arrow: operation or (for patients E and F) other main causative event Figures below each occasion: days before (-) or after main event

The correlations between the estimate of global severity (Global) and the severity of the specific organic mental disorders, and between these disorders themselves, were analysed according to the third method mentioned above (intra-individual correlation coefficients and sign test). All coefficient means were positive except that between KAD and SSCD/UF which was weakly negative. The correlations between Global and KAD, between EMD and KAD, and between Global and EMD, were all strongly positive, and the two first ones approach significance on the sign test (p = .0625).

The results imply that intra-individual variability in the global severity score was probably mostly due to the amount of KAD (and to a lesser degree, EMD) present. They also indicate that it is virtually impossible to disentangle the effects of KAD from those of EMD in the present study. However, since EMD is most probably an invariable accompaniment of KAD, this impossibility need not detract much from the clinical value of our results. For the same reason, we have chosen to simplify the following discussion by leaving out most further references to EMD.  

Rorschach data

Statistical method 1

In Table 3, the basic descriptive statistics for 16 selected Rorschach variables in the whole group of 26 protocols is shown. If seen only in the light of certain suggested Rorschach signs of organic mental disorders in general, some of our data may at first sight seem surprising, namely:

• The median of the number of positive Piotrowski signs was 4 which, even taking into account the fact that we score "Impotence" conservatively, means that the false negatives (using 5 as the cut-off point) make up at least 50% of the group.

• The medians of R, F+% and M+ were 19, 81.5% and 2, which should be compared with the Piotrowski cutting points of 15, 70% and 1, respectively.  

Table 3: Basic descriptive statistics, for the whole sample of 26 protocols, on the 37 Rorschach variables described in Table 1. For explanations of variable names, see Table 1  

  Mean Std.dev. Count Minimum Maximum Median

R 19,2 7,4 26 8,0 40,0 19,0

T/R 89,2 34,4 26 48,0 155,0 78,5

W% 40,7 15,8 26 9,5 78,9 39,6

*W% 51,4 17,8 26 20,0 78,9 52,1

DW- 0,3 0,6 26 0 2,0 0

*M+ 1,9 1,4 26 0 5,0 2,0

M-/M± 0,2 0,3 26 0 1,0 0

Ms 0,04 0,2 26 0 1,0 0

F+% 75,8 17,7 26 38,0 100,0 80,5

Conf1 0,7 1,0 26 0 3,0 0

*Conf 1,1 1,1 26 0 3,5 1,0

CoC1 0,5 0,9 26 0 3,0 0

*CoC 1,9 2,0 26 0 7,0 1,0

*Cr 2,8 2,1 26 0 9,0 2,0

CType 0,9 0,1 23 0,8 1,2 0,9

CNam 0 0 26 0 0 0

A% 55,7 15,5 26 31,0 85,0 53,0

Libi1 1,7 1,8 26 0 6,0 1,0

*Libi 3,6 3,6 26 0 12,0 2,0

V 5,5 2,4 26 2,0 10,0 5,0

V% 30,1 11,1 26 8,0 50,0 31,5

Orig+ 1,5 2,1 26 0 6,0 0

Orig- 3,3 2,9 26 0 10,0 2,0

Orig% 26,8 16,4 26 0 57,9 26,3

Rej 0,5 1,0 26 0 4,0 0

CoNe1 1,0 1,3 26 0 6,0 1,0

*CoNe 2,9 3,2 26 0 13,0 2,5

PersG 0,4 0,4 26 0 1,0 0,5

*Pers 1,8 1,1 26 0,5 4,5 1,5

Rep 0,7 0,8 26 0 2,0 0

Stp 0,1 0,2 26 0 1,0 0

Imp 0,1 0,3 26 0 1,0 0

Plx 1,0 0 26 1,0 1,0 1,0

Locd 0,7 0,5 26 0 1,0 1,0

Edg 0,2 0,5 26 0 2,0 0

LAw 1,0 0,2 26 0 1,0 1,0

Piot 4,1 1,3 26 2,0 6,5 4,0

     

We think that these aberrations from "expected" values can all be explained by the peculiarities of the KAD (and/or EMD, cf above). It has already been noted by other investigators that R and M+ do not behave in the same way in patients with (alcohol-induced) KAD as in other "organics" (cf Table 2). Occurrences of high F+% would accord with the clinical observation that KAD patients are often well preserved intellectually. A very low F+% has been suggested as typical for alcoholic KAD (Table 2), but it should be emphasised that the alcoholic cases most probably differ from the post-operative ones by having much more other organic psychopathology.

Another noteworthy finding in Table 3 is the following:

• Contaminations and neologisms (CoNe) are rare in the general population, and they have not been suggested as signs of organicity in general. In the present sample, however, they were frequent. We interpret this as evidence that they are due to the presence of KAD (cf also below).  

Statistical method 2

In Figure 3, the means (± 2SE) for KAD, AED, Global and 16 selected Rorschach variables in the two groups of protocols KAD+ and AED+ (as defined in Method) are shown. The results of this comparison may be summarised as follows.

• Most of the Rorschach variables behaved as would be expected from Piotrowski’s and Bohm’s criteria (Table 1), considering the inter-group difference in global severity.

• The exceptions are R, T/R, W% and CoNe.

Mean values (± 2 SE) of 16 selected Rorschach variables and 3 clinical variables for two sets of protocols. Abbreviations: AED+ = protocols from occasions when AED was judged to be the dominant organic mental disorder (or one of the two dominant ones); the 7 occasions were A1, A4, A5, C3, E3, E4 and G4. KAD+ = protocols from occasions when KAD was judged to be the dominant organic mental disorder; the 14 occasions were A2, A3, B3, B4, B5, C2, E1, E2, F1, F2, F3, G1, G2 and G3. Rorschach variables as in Table 1; note that the following variables have been scaled by a factor of 10: *M+, *CoC, CType, *Libi, *CoNe, *Pers, Edg and Piot. Clinical variables, scaled by a factor of 10: Glob = estimate of global severity. AED = astheno-emotional disorder. KAD = Korsakoff´s amnestic disorder.

All but the second of these exceptions can again be explained by the peculiarities of KAD (cf Table 3 and above). The second exception may also have to do with the nature of a mild AED. In typical cases of this condition the patients cognitive ambitions are high, but to live up to them he must use a continuous, energy-consuming conscious effort (cf also Lindqvist & Malmgren 1990, Chapter III:2). In contrast, the typical KAD patient is much less self-critical and can therefore use faster strategies.  

Statistical method 3

For each item in the full set of 37 selected Rorschach variables, an attempt was made to determine an "expected" direction of its correlation with the clinical variable Global, using Tables 1-2 and the known correlation (in the present sample) between Global and KAD. Actual intra-patient correlations

between the Rorschach variables and Global were then calculated, and significance testing was performed as described in "Method". Figure 3 illustrates one essential step of the analysis. It shows the courses of Global and 16 Rorschach variables in Patient B and the coefficient of correlation (over time) between each variable and Global for this patient.  

Values of 16 selected Rorschach variables in the 5 tests of patient B in relation to the global severity of organic mental symptoms (Glob, scaled by a factor of 10). Corr = intrapatient correlation coefficient between Rorschach variable and Global. Rorschach variables as in Table 1; note that the following variables have been scaled by a factor of 10: *M+, *CoC, CType, *Libi, *CoNe, *Pers, Edg and Piot.

The results for the whole sample and all 37 variables are shown in Table 4. For each Rorschach variable, Table 4 lists: the expected sign (if any) of the correlation coefficient; the actual number of positive, negative and zero intra-patient correlations; the mean correlation coefficient; the P value (using the sign test) for the null hypothesis that the correlation mean was zero; and finally a brief evaluation to what degree each result supports or disconfirms our hypotheses. The main findings are the following:

• Four of the significant results concern Libi1, Libi, CoNe1 and CoNe, none of which had any "expected" sign of correlation. Although uninhibited contents do not belong to the Piotrowski or Bohm general signs of organic disorders (Table 1), we do not believe that the high scores on Libi1 and Libi were specifically due to the presence of KAD (or EMD). Uninhibited contents are probably best regarded as very unspecific indicators of impaired ego functioning; cf also the use of "Derepressed Contents" in the Ego Impairment Index of Perry & Viglione (1991).

Concerning contaminations and neologisms, see above.

• Although there were only 3 other significant results, 25 of those 31 variables which had an "expected" direction of correlation did tend to have a correlation in that direction, while there were only 3 (weakly) disconfirming and 3 ambiguous trends. This "variable count" must of course be interpreted with great caution, since there are many conceptual dependencies among the variables.  

Table 4: Intrapatient correlations between Rorschach variables and global severity  

Var. Exp. No of corr Mean ST Eval. Comment

    + 0 -        

R -/+ 4 0 2 .158 >.3 X  

T/R + 5 0 1 .337 .219 E  

W% +/(?) 5 0 1 .252 .219 E  

*W% +/(?) 5 0 1 .283 .219 E  

DW- + 2 0 1 .365 >.3 (E)  

*M+ -/(?) 1 1 3 -.405 >.3 (E)  

M-/M + 4 0 1 .385 >.3 (E)  

Ms + 0 0 1 -.864 >.3 (U) Only in B1

F+% - 0 0 6 -.682 .0312 E!  

Conf1 + 5 0 1 .371 .219 E  

*Conf + 5 0 1 .410 .219 E  

CoC1 + 3 0 0 .672 .250 E  

*CoC + 4 0 2 .237 >.3 (E)  

*Cr - 4 0 2 .023 >.3 (U)  

CType + 4 0 1 .340 >.3 (E)  

CNam +           A Not seen (unexpectedly rare, Piot 4)

A% +/(?) 4 0 2 .126 >.3 (E)  

Libi1   6 0 0 .532 .0312 !  

*Libi   6 0 0 .588 .0312 !  

V - 0 0 6 -.568 .0312 E!  

V% - 1 0 5 -.353 .219 E  

Orig+ -/(?) 2 0 2 .092 >.3 A  

Orig- + 6 0 0 .723 .0312 E!  

Orig% + 4 0 2 .399 >.3 (E)  

Rej +/- 1 0 2 -.070 >.3 X  

CoNe1   6 0 0 .703 .0312 !  

*CoNe   6 0 0 .733 .0312 !  

PersG + 4 1 1 .140 >.3 (E)  

*Pers + 5 0 1 .395 .219 E  

Rep + 3 0 1 .175 >.3 (E)  

Stp + 0 0 2 -.417 >.3 (U)  

Imp + 2 0 0 .439 >.3 (E) Unexpectedly rare,  Piot 8.

Plx +           A All protocols (accords with Piot 9).

Locd + 5 0 1 .606 .219 E  

Edg + 3 0 0 .484 .250 E  

LAw + 1 0 0 .866 >.3 (E) All except C3 (accords w. Bohm G).

Piot + 5 0 1 .493 .219 E  

Var., variable name; for variable descriptions see Table 1. Exp., expected sign according to Piotrowski and Bohm of correlation between Rorschach variable and organic mental disorders: -/+, negative expected correlation with global severity, positive with KAD. -/(?), negative expected correlation with global severity, undetermined with KAD. +/(?), positive expected correlation with global severity, undetermined with KAD. No of corr,

number of positive (+), zero (0) and negative (-) intrapatient correlations. ST, P value with the Sign Test. Mean, mean correlation. Eval., evaluation of results from longitudinal data: E!, significant result in the expected direction. E, clear but non-significant trend in the expected direction. (E), weak trend in the expected direction. A, ambiguous data (too few correlations or no trend in data). (U), weak trend opposite to the expected direction. X, no definite prediction from Bohm or Piotrowski. !, other significant result. Comment, verbal comment, including other than longitudinal results. B1, protocol 1 from patient B. Piot 4, Piotrowski’s fourth sign, etc. Bohm G, Bohm’s general organic Rorschach syndrome.  

A similar analysis correlating the degree of KAD with the same 37 Rorschach variables was performed, but the results are not tabulated since there were very few differences from the one analysis to the other. This is of course expected in view of the heavy positive intercorrelation between KAD and Global.  

Conclusions

Almost every single Rorschach sign is polyvalent, i.e. it has a context-dependent significance, and a simple "sign approach" like the one used here cannot even come close to mimicking the holistic judgement of the qualified clinician. On the other hand, the size of the present sample hardly justifies the use of multivariate or other more advanced analytic methods. In spite of this, the study gives strong support to the idea that the nature and degree of a patient’s organic mental disorder is to a large extent reflected in his Rorschach. Most suggested signs of organic mental disorder in general, and of KAD or related categories, behave as expected; however, for a few such signs the data tend to disconfirm earlier suggestions. Concerning Piotrowski’s index, our results are in line with the main trend of earlier research.

Several of the supported "organic" Rorschach signs do not occur in Exner’s "Comprehensive System" (Exner 1993), for example T/R, Orig-, Orig% and LAw. Others may be difficult to evaluate in Exner’s system due to peculiarities of his rules of administration, notably R and Rej when the number of spontaneous responses is very low and the patient has to be encouraged very much in order to fulfil the desideratum for a minimum number of responses. This casts some doubts on the sufficiency of Exner’s system for an adequate analysis of "organic" cases.  

References  

Bohm, E. (1972). Lehrbuch der Rorschach-Psychodiagnostik. (4 ed.). Bern: Huber.

Bohm, E. (1975). Psychodiagnostisches Vademecum. (3 ed.). Bern: Huber.

Caputo, J. (1989). Rorschach studies of neuropsychological groups of the past, present and future. Unpublished thesis for the degree of Psy.D., Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI.

Ellis, D., & Zahn, B. (1985). Psychological functioning after severe closed head injury. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 125-128.

Exner, J. (1993). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system. (3 ed.). (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.

Goldfried, M., Stricker, G., & Weiner, I. (Eds.). (1971). Rorschach handbook of clinical and research applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lindqvist, G. (1966). Mental change after transsphenoidal hypophysectomy. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 42 (Suppl. 190).

Lindqvist, G., & Malmgren, H. (1990). Organisk psykiatri. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Lindqvist, G., & Malmgren, H. (1993). Organic mental disorders as hypothetical pathogenetic processes. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 88 (Suppl. 373), 5-17.

Lindqvist, G., & Norlén, G. (1966). Korsakoff’s syndrome after operation on ruptured aneurysm of the anterior communicating artery. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 42, 24-34.

Malmgren, H. (1973). Några Rorschach-fynd vid postoperativa Korsakowiska minnessvårigheter. Nordisk Psykiatrisk Tidskrift, 27, 530-538.

Malmgren, H. (1977). Rorschach-testets validitet studerad på Korsakow-patienter. In H. Malmgren (Ed.), Plumpar i protokollet. Göteborg: Göteborg University.

Malmgren, H., & Lindqvist, G. (1993). The semantic status of diagnostic criteria for organic mental syndromes and disorders in DSM-III and DSM-III-R. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 88 (Suppl. 373), 33-47.

Oberholzer, E. (1931). Zur Differentialdiagnose psychischer Folgezustande nach Schädeltrauma mittels des Rorschachschen Formdeutversuches. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Neurologie und Psychiatrie, 136, 596-629.

Perry, W., & Viglione, D. (1991). The Ego Impairment Index as a predictor of outcome in melancholic depressed patients treated with tricyclic antidepressants. Journal of Personality Assessment, 56, 487-501.

Piotrowski, Z. (1937). The Rorschach inkblot method in organic disturbances of the central nervous system. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 86, 525-537.

Rorschach, H. (1921). Psychodiagnostik. Bern: Bircher.

Velez-Diaz, A. (1973). Rorschach test in the assessment of organic brain damage in adults: A review of the post-1954 literature. San Juan: Veterans Administration Center.

Top of page

Back to Texts page                

 

                       

Robert Todd Carroll

 SkepDic.com

 

Rorschach Inkblot Test

The Rorschach inkblot test is a psychological projective test of personality in which a subject's interpretations of ten standard abstract designs are analyzed as a measure of emotional and intellectual functioning and integration. The test is named after Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922) who developed the inkblots, although he did not use them for personality analysis.

The test is considered "projective" because the patient is supposed to project his or her real personality into the inkblot via the interpretation. The inkblots are purportedly ambiguous, structureless entities which are to be given a clear structure by the interpreter. Those who believe in the efficacy of such tests think that they are a way of getting into the deepest recesses of the patient's psyche or subconscious mind. Those who give such tests believe themselves to be experts at interpreting their patients' interpretations.

What evidence is there that an interpretation of an inkblot (or a picture drawing or sample of handwriting--other items used in projective testing) issues from a part of the self that reveals true feelings, rather than, say, creative expression? What justification is there for assuming that any given interpretation of an inkblot does not issue from a part of the self bent on deceiving others, or on deceiving oneself for that matter? Even if the interpretations issued from a part of the self which expresses desires, it is a long jump from having desires to having committed actions. For example, an interpretation may unambiguously express the desire to have sex with the therapist, but that does not imply either that the patient has had sex with the therapist or that the patient, if given the opportunity, would agree to have sex with the therapist.

Rorschach testing is inherently problematic. For one thing, to be truly projective the inkblots must be considered ambiguous and without structure by the therapist. Hence, the therapist must not make reference to the inkblot in interpreting the patient's responses or else the therapist's projection would have to be taken into account by an independent party. Then the third person would have to be interpreted by a fourth ad infinitum. Thus, the therapist must interpret the patient's interpretation without reference to what is being interpreted. Clearly, the inkblot becomes superfluous. You might as well have the patient interpret spots on the wall or stains on the floor. In other words, the interpretation must be examined as if it were a story or dream with no particular reference in reality. Even so, ultimately the therapist must make a judgment about the interpretation, i.e., interpret the interpretation. But again, who is to interpret the therapist's interpretation? Another therapist? Then,

who will interpret his? etc.

To avoid this logical problem of having a standard for a standard for a standard, etc., the experts invented standardized interpretations of interpretations. Both form and content are standardized. For example, a patient who attends only to a small part of the blot is "indicative of obsessive personality;" while one who sees figures which are half-human and half-animal indicates that he is alienated, perhaps on the brink of schizophrenic withdrawal from people (Dawes, 148). If there were no standardized interpretations of the interpretations, then the same interpretations by patients could be given equally valid but different interpretations by therapists. What empirical tests have been done to demonstrate that any given interpretation of an inkblot is indicative of any past behavior or predictive of any future behavior? In short, interpreting the inkblot test is about as scientific as interpreting dreams.

To have any hope of making the inkblot test appear to be scientifically valid, it was essential that it be turned into a non-projective test. The blots can't be considered completely formless, but must be given a standard response against which the interpretations of patients are to be compared as either good or bad responses. This is what John E. Exner did. The Exner System uses inkblots as a standardized test. On its face, the concept seems preposterous. Imagine admitting people into med school on the basis of such a standardized test! Or screening candidates for the police academy! ("I didn't get in because I failed the inkblot test.")

The Rorschach enthusiast should recognize that inkblots or dreams or drawings or handwriting may be no different in structure than spoken words or gestures. Each is capable of many interpretations, some true, some false, some meaningful, some meaningless. It is an unprovable assumption that dreams or inkblot interpretations issue from a source deep in the subconscious which wants to reveal the "real" self. The mind is a labyrinth and it is a pipe dream to think that the inkblot is Ariadne's thread which will lead the therapist to the center of the patient.

See related entries on apophenia, pareidolia and tarot cards.

further reading

reader comments

The Classical Rorschach

"What's Wrong with This Picture?" Scientific American, May 2001

Dawes, Robyn M. House of Cards - Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth , (New York: The Free Press, 1994).

Dineen, Tana. Manufacturing Victims: What the Psychology Industry is Doing to People (Montreal: Robert Davies Multimedia Publishing, 1998).

©copyright 2002Robert Todd Carroll

Rolfing

Last updated

Roswell  

SkepDic.com

 

Search the Skeptic's Dictionary

 Prin

t PageSend

Page

The Rorschach Test

The Rorschach Test

After repeated letters from dozens of outraged psychologists and psychiatrists claiming that this page "violates the copyright on

the Rorschach Test", we're compelled to post this notice:

The information presented here, including the outlines of the Rorschach inkblots, is not in violation of copyright law. Please don't waste your time writing us to complain or threatening to "turn us into the publisher".

Disclaimer Of UseReading the information provided here could compromise the administration of the Rorschach test, invalidating your answers. If you don't wish to take the Rorschach test (and we suggest NOT taking it in the context of a custody dispute if at all possible), tell the psychologist that you are familiar with the Rorschach test, have read about the test and have seen the inkblots. Any ethical psychologist will decline to administer the test upon learning this, and the issue of the test's validity will be a moot point.

Please note that the sample responses shown below are not necessarily "good" responses to the Rorschach. They are provided only for purposes of illustration, and we don't advise anyone to use the sample responses.

SPARC's position on the use of the Rorschach test is that it is an inappropriate and unreliable test for use in the context of a child custody evaluation, and that tests such as the Bricklin series or the MMPI-2 are more suitable and more reliable for use personality evaluations in custody disputes.

Related Articles:     Additional Rorschach Information     Common Psychological Tests    

Most people have heard of the Rorschach test (pronounced "raw-shock"), but few have ever seen a real Rorschach inkblot. The blots are kept secret. When you see an inkblot in a popular article on the test (as in the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on the Rorschach test), it's a fake: it's an an inkblot, but not one of the inkblots. There are only ten Rorschach inkblots.

Psychologists want the blots to remain a secret from the general public so that reactions to the blots will be spontaneous. Hermann Rorschach hoped these spontaneous reactions would yield valuable clues to the test subject's personality. Whether they do remains controversial. Many psychologists think the Rorschach test is hopelessly unreliable; others see it as one of the cardinal tools of modern psychodiagnosis. Even among those who acknowledge the value of the test, there is disagreement on interpretation of responses.

Just as secret as the blots themselves are the ground rules for administering the test. There are a few things that you, as a subject, are supposed to know and a lot of things you aren't supposed to know. If you ask about something you're not supposed to know, the psychologist will give you a pat answer as prescribed in Rorschach literature. For example, if you ask if it is okay to turn the card upside down, the psychologist will respond that you may do as you like; it's up to you. The psychologist won't say that many of the cards are easier to interpret when turned; that most people do turn the cards; that he or she will make a notation with a little arrowhead every time you do turn a card; and that you lose points in the initiative department if you don't turn the cards.

You'll be handed the cards one by one in the fixed order devised by Rorschach (there are numbers on the backs of the cards for the psychologist's benefit). The first card, for instance, looks like a fox's head or a jack-o-lantern. The cards are thick, rectangular cardboard, 6 5/8 inches by 9 1/5 inches. Half of the blots are black ink on a white background. Two others are black and red ink on white, and the last three blots are multicolored. The psychologist will always put each card in your hands "right" side up.

You aren't supposed to know it, but the psychologist will write down everything you say. This includes any seemingly irrelevant questions you may have. To keep you from getting wise, the psychologist always arranges to sit to your side and a little behind you, so that you can't look at the card and the psychologist at the same time. Most subjects realize the psychologist is taking notes, of course, but they don't realize that the notes are a special shorthand record of everything said. Some psychologists use hidden tape recorders.

The psychologist will also time how long it takes you to respond, using a "tickless" watch. The psychologist will not ask you to hurry up or slow down and will not make any reference to time, but response times (in seconds) are one of the things he or she is writing in the notes.

Don't hold the card at an unusual angle. Watch how you phrase things. Say "This looks like ..." or "This could be ..." never "This is..." After all, you're supposed to realize that it is just a blot of ink on a card. By the same token, don't be too literal and say things as, "This is a blotch of black ink." Don't groan, get emotional, or make irrelevant comments. Don't put your hands on the cards to block out parts. The psychologist will watch for all of the foregoing as signs of brain damage.

If there are no right answers for the test, there are some general guidelines as to what is a normal response. You can probably see images in the inkblots proper and in the white spaces they enclose. Stick to the former. Don't be afraid of being obvious. There are several responses that almost everyone gives; mentioning these shows the psychologist you're a regular guy.

It is okay to be original if you can justify what you see in the shape, shading, or color of the blot. If you see an abalone and can point out why it looks like one, then say so. Justifiable original responses are usually judged to be indicative of creativity or intelligence.

You don't want non sequiturs, images that don't fit the blot in the judgment of the psychologist. These may be signs of psychosis.

You're expected to see more than one thing on all or most of the cards. Not being able to see anything on a card suggests neurosis. Usually the more things you can see, the better, as long as they fit the form and color of the blot. Of course, you can see things in the whole blot or in parts of it, and images may overlap.

Since time is a factor, it is important to come up with good answers fast. (It looks particularly bad if you take a long time and give a dumb, inappropriate answer.) The most reliable way to come up with good answers is to memorize what the good answers are. Copyright restrictions prevent us from showing you the blots themselves, so we'll use outlines. We'll refer to the blots as psychologists do, as Plates I through X. The psychologist won't mention the numbers to you, but the blots will always be in order.

Plate I

Black ink. A roughly triangular shape, point down, suggesting a broad, foxlike face with prominent ears. Naughty bits: a pair of breasts (rounded projections at top of blot); a vertical female figure, her torso partly visible through a gauzy dress (along center line).

The first blot is easy. How fast you answer is taken as an indication of how well you cope with new situations. The best reaction is to give one of the most common responses immediately. Good answers are bat, butterfly, moth, and (in center of blot) a female figure. Mask, jack-o'-lantern, and animal face are common responses too, but in some interpretation schemes they suggest paranoia. A bad response is any that says something untoward about the central female figure. "She" is often judged to be a projection of your own self-image. Avoid the obvious comment that the figure has two breasts but no head.

If you don't give more than one answer for Plate I, many psychologists will drop a hint--tell you to look closer.

Plate II

Black and red ink. Two dark-gray splotches suggesting dancing figures. Red splotches at top of each figure and at bottom center. Naughty bits: penis (upper center, black ink); vagina (the red area at bottom center).

It is important to see this blot as two human figures usually females or clowns. If you don't, it's seen as a sign that you have trouble relating to people. You may give other responses as well, such as cave entrance (the triangular white space between the two figures) and butterfly (the red "vagina," bottom center).

Should you mention the penis and vagina? Not necessarily. Every Rorsehach plate has at least one obvious representation of sexual anatomy. You're not expected to

mention them all. In some interpretation schemes, mentioning more than four sex images in the ten plates is diagnostic of schizophrenia. The trouble is, subjects who took Psychology 101 often assume they should detail every possible sex response, so allowances must be made. Most Rorschach workers believe the sex images should play a part in the interpretation of responses even when not mentioned. You may not say that the lower red area looks like a vagina, but psychologists assume that what you do say will show how you feel about women. Nix on "crab"; stick with "butterfly."

Plate III

Black and red ink. Two obvious .figures (black ink) facing each other. Butterfly-shaped red blot between the figures; an elongated red blot behind each figure's head. Naughty bits: penises and breasts (at anatomically appropriate positions for each figure).

This is the blot that supposedly can determine sexual preference. Most people see the two human figures. Both figures have prominent "breasts" and an equally prominent "penis." If you don't volunteer the gender of the figures, you'll be asked to specify it. By the traditional interpretation, seeing the figures as male is a heterosexual response (for test subjects of both sexes). Describing the figures as female or acknowledging the androgynous nature of the blot is supposed to be a homosexual response. Does it work? Not really--many straights describe the figures as women, and not all gays give a gay response. A 1971 study at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York showed the traditionally heterosexual response (two male figures) to be declining in popularity. The splotches of red ink are usually perceived separately. Common responses are "bow-tie" or "ribbon" (inner red area) and a stomach and esophagus (outer red areas).

Plate IV

Black ink. A roughly triangular blot, point up, with the two lower comer regions resembling boots or pet. Naughty bits: two penises (on either side of blot, near top of triangle); vagina (on center line near top of blot).

Plate IV is the "father card." At first glance it is a difficult blot to see as a single image. The "boots" are fairly conspicuous; between them is the apparent head of a dog or Chinese dragon. Many subjects see the blot as an animal skin. After a few seconds, though, most can see it as a standing figure seen from below.The boots become the feet, enlarged because of the unusual perspective. The arms and head, at the top, are smaller. Common descriptions are bear, gorilla, or man in a heavy coat. Bad descriptions are monster or attacking bear or gorilla-Rorschach theorists equate your description of the figure with your perception of your father or male authority figures.

Plate V

Black ink. A simple, batlike shape. Naughty bits: two penises (the "ears" or "antennae").

Rorschach himself thought this was the easiest blot to interpret. It is a bat or a butterfly, period. You don't want to mention anything else. Seeing the projections on the ends of the bat wings as crocodile heads signifies hostility. Seeing the paired butterfly antennae or feet as scissors or pliers signifies a castration complex. Schizophrenics sometimes see moving people in this blot. Many psychologists take particular note of the number of responses given to this plate. If you mention more images here than in either Plate IV or VI, it is suggestive of schizophrenia.

Plate VI

Black ink. An irregular shape like that of an animal-skin rug. Naughty bits: penis (center line at top); vagina (below penis).

Plate VI is the most difficult blot. The best-rendered penis of all the blots is at top, but few subjects mention it. The rest of the blot doesn't look like much of anything. Some hold that the value of this blot is to have the subject grope for images and possibly reveal subconscious attitudes about sexuality.

Basically, the secret of this plate is to turn it. A good response is to say it looks like an animal hide (about the only reasonable response when held right side up), then turn it on its side and say it looks like a boat or surfaced submarine with reflection, and then turn it upside down and say it looks like a mushroom cloud, a pair of theater masks, or caricatures of men with long noses and goatees.

Plate VII

Black ink. A U-shaped blot, each side of the U resembling a female figure in a narrow-waisted dress. Naughty bits: a vagina (on center line at bottom of U).

Christina Crawford meets projective psychology: This blot is supposed to reveal how you really feel about your mother. Virtually everyone sees two girls or women. Deprecating descriptions of the figures~ "witches," "gossips," "girls fighting," "spinsters" indicate poor maternal relations. Seeing the blot as thunderclouds instead of female figures suggests anxiety to some psychologists; seeing it as a walnut kernel may mean a vulvar fixation.

There is an entirely different side to this blot, but you're not supposed to see it. The white space between the girls or women can be interpreted as an oil lamp or similar object. It is claimed that only schizophrenics usually see the lamp.

Plate VIII

Pink, blue, gray, and orange ink. An almost circular array of interconnected forms--a gray triangle (point up) at top, a pair of blue rectangles in the center, a pink and orange splotch at bottom, and two pink "animal" shapes forming the right and left sides of the circle. Naughty bits: a vagina (pink-orange area at bottom).

The first full-color card is easy. It is important that you see the four-legged animals- lions, pigs, bears, etc. -on the sides of the blot. They're one of the most common responses on the test, and you're assumed to be a mental defective if you don't see them. Other good responses are tree (gray triangle at top), butterfly (pink and orange area at bottom), and rib cage or anatomy chart (skeletal pattern in center between blue rectangles and gray triangles). The entire configuration can be seen as a heraldic design (good answer) or a Christmas tree with ornaments (reaching). Children tend to like this blot and say a lot about it-the bright colors and animal shapes make it more interesting than your basic penis/vagina number (II, IV, or VI).

Plate IX

Green, orange, and pink ink. A very irregular upright rectangle. Orange at top, protruding green areas at center, pink at bottom. Naughty bits: a vagina (center line at bottom).

There aren't many good answers here. If you're going to throw up your hands (figuratively; see warning about emotional outbursts above) and plead a mental block, this is the place to do it. The colors clash, apparently by Rorschach's design. Good answers are a fire with smoke, an explosion (but paranoids are claimed more apt to note the pale green mushroom cloud on the center line at top), a map, anatomy, or a flower. If you turn the card ninety degrees, you can make out a man's head in the pink areas at bottom. (The man is identified as Mark Twain, Santa Claus, or

Teddy Roosevelt.) A bad response is to describe the orange areas at top as monsters or men fighting---a sign of poor social development. As with Plate V, the psychologist may be counting the number of responses you give to this blot for comparison with the preceding and succeeding blots. You want to give fewer responses to this blot.

Plate X

Pink, blue, gray, green, yellow, and orange ink. A loose assortment of brightly colored shapes, the most chaotic of the plates. Naughty bits: penis and testes (top center, gray ink).

The unspoken purpose of this last blot is to test your organizational ability. Plate X is full of colorful odds and ends easy to identify---blue spiders, gray crabs, paired orange maple seeds, green caterpillars, a light-green rabbit's head, yellow and orange fried eggs--and you're expected to list them. But the psychologist will also be looking for a comprehensive answer, something that shows you grok the whole Gestalt. There are two good holistic answers: sea life and a view through a microscope. Some subjects see two reddish faces at top center, separated by the orange maple key. If you describe them as blowing bubbles or smoking pipes, it may be interpreted as evidence of an oral fixation. Seeing the gray "testes" and "penis" as two animals eating a stick or tree indicates castration anxiety.

Additional Notes: Many professionals feel that the Rorschach is outdated, inaccurate, and meaningless. For example:

"Nobody agrees how to score Rorschach responses objectively. There is nothing to show what any particular response means to the person who gives it. And, there is nothing to show what it means if a number of people give the same response. The ink blots are scientifically useless." (Bartol, 1983).

"The only thing the inkblots do reveal is the secret world of the examiner who interprets them. These doctors are probably saying more about themselves than about the subjects." (Anastasi, 1982).

What these comments seem to indicate is that the Rorschach is potentially unreliable, easily mis-interpreted, and essentially not a valid means of determining what it claims to detect. For more information on the use and potential unreliability of the Rorschach test (including comments sent in to us by mental health professionals) read the Additional Rorschach Information page and "Misuse of Psychological Tests in Forensic Settings: Some Horrible Examples" by Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield.

Page Location: http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/rorschach.htm

| Home |Articles|Guide|Forums|Chat|Links|Search|Attorneys|FAQ Center|Dictionary|Surveys|Letters|Guestbook|Email|About|

Kit de fiches protocolaires

pour le test de Rorschach

Voici un ensemble de documents contenant les fiches qui permettent de prendre des notes structurées lors de la passation du test de Rorschach ainsi que d'autres qui facilitent la cotation des réponses et le calcul des variables signifiantes.

Sont reprises les fiches telles qu'elles sont classiquement utilisées dans le système " français " ainsi que dans le Système Intégré de J.E. EXNER.

Le document qui vous est proposé est un document WinWord 6.0 (afin qu'il soit lisible par la plupart des utilisateurs de ce traitement de texte).Il contient plusieurs pages. Vous trouverez, ainsi, à la :

Page 2 : fiche de prise de notes en passation et enquête (système " français ")

Page 3 : modèle-type de psychogramme

Page 4 : fiche de cotation de réponse (Système Intégré)

Page 5 : Résumé Formel (Système Intégré)

Cliquez ici afin d'obtenir le fichier WinWord contenant les documents présentés :

Fichier au format .doc, c'est-à-dire le format WinWord visualisable avec votre browser actuel.

Fichier au format .zip, c'est-à-dire compacté par le logiciel WinZip. Vous aurez donc besoin de ce logiciel pour le télécharger.

Cette application Excell permet l'Člaboration d'un psychogramme (mČthode "franÁaise") ý partir des cotations.

Complete URL to this document:http://www.ulb.ac.be/psycho/fr/docs/contrib/rorschach/kitprot.htm

Créé le 25 septembre 1999 par Benjamin Thiry (merci à Géraldine Thiry)

Hermann Rorschach (1884 - 1922)

Hermann Rorschach ( 1884 - 1922) naît à Zurich, d'une vieille famille suisse du canton de Thurgovie. Il est le fils aîné d'un peintre, professeur de dessin. Il perd son père en 1903. Il finissait alors de bonnes études à l'école secondaire de Schaffhouse, où ce dernier enseignait depuis 1886. Très doué pour le dessin, il hésite entre une carrière artistique et des études médicales.Le grand biologiste Haeckel le décide pour les secondes. Il les mène, comme c'est alors l'habitude, à travers plusieurs Universités : Neuchâtel, Berlin, Berne et surtout Zurich (1904 - 1909).

Il fréquente la colonie russe de Zurich, s'enthousiasme par la langue et littérature russes, passe ses vacances en Russie en 1906 et 1910, épouse en 1910 une collégue russe, Olga Stempelin, et fait le projet de s'installer en Russie. Il travaille dans ce pays de décembre 1913 à juin 1914, mais, pour des raisons restées inconnues, revient définitivement en Suisse.Entre-temps, il s'est spécialisé en psychiatrie, gagné par l'enthousiasme qui régne au Burghölzi, la clinique psychiatrique de l'université de Zurich, dirigée par Eugène Bleuler, où brille Jung, l'inventeur du test d'associations de mots et où, pour la première fois, on appliquait aux psychoses les conceptions psychanalytiques. Il exerçait aux asiles de Münsterlingen (1909 - 1913), et de Münsingen (1913), de Waldau, près de Berne (1914 - 15) et à celui de Herisau dont il est directeur adjoint (1915 - 1922). Deux enfants lui naissent, un garçon (1917) et une fille (1919).Il soutient sa thèse de médecine en 1912, sur les hallucinations-réflexes et les phénomènes associés. Bien que n'ayant point entrepris une psychanalyse personnelle préalable - la chose étant rare à l'époque -, il pratique des cures psychanalytique sur ses malades et acquiert la compréhension de la maladie mentale dans la perspective psychanalytique. Il fréquente le groupe psychanalytique de Zurich de 1909 à 1913 (Bleuler, Jung, Maeder, Binswanger et Pfister) et publie des articles, notes et comptes-rendus assez nombreux dans Zentralblatt für psychoanalyse. La sécession de Jung hors du mouvement psychanalytique freudien, puis la guerre, disperse le groupe. Quand une société suisse de psychanalyse est fondée en 1919 avec Oberholzer, Zulliger, et Pfister, etc., Rorschach en est vice-président ; il y présente plusieurs communications sur son test et fait des deux premiers nommés d'actifs adeptes. Ces autres principaux disciples sont des confrères de Waldau (Morgenthaler, Fankhauser) et de Herisau (G. Roemer et Behn-Eschenburg), ainsi que A. Friedemann, qui fut secrétaire général de la société internationale Rorschach, et le fils et de Bleuler, Manfred.

Rorschach possédait en effet une personnalité attachante : presque timide, cultivé, brillant et profond dès que la conversation l'intéressait ; réservé dans ses premiers contacts, mais d'une grande bienveillance pour les siens et ses amis, il était le type même de l'introversif créateur que lui-même a décrit.La grande oeuvre à laquelle il se consacre après sa thèse de médecine, et que l'improvisation de son Psychodiagnostik suspend brutalement est définitivement à la fin de 1917, concerne la psychologie religieuse.

Elle aurait constitué une vaste synthèse d'observations pathologiques et de recherches sociologiques effectuées sur certaines sectes suisses, dont l'un des fondateurs avait été interné à Münsingen (celui-ci avait établi le culte de son propre pénis, donnait son urine en communion et chassait les démons par le coït) et dont la trace remontait jusqu'au Moyen Age, toujours chez les mêmes familles de tisserands des mêmes régions. Les prophètes de ces sectes qui prônaient tous l'inceste, apparaissaient à Rorschach comme des névrosés ou des psychotiques, dont la mythologie exprimait, de façon communicative, les complexes personnels et les archétypes de l' inconscient. Son Psychodiagnostik paraît en 1921. Peu après, Rorschach est emporté en vingt-quatre heures par une péritonite inopérable, à Herisau (2 avril 1922).

Cette biographie est extraite de "Les methodes projectives" de D. ANZIEU (1976) pp. 38-40. Complete URL to this document:

http://www.ulb.ac.be/psycho/fr/docs/contrib/rorschach/hermann.htm

Créé le 4 octobre par Benjamin Thiry

Rorschach (test de)

 

Le test de Rorschach (créé en 1921 par le psychiatre suisse Hermann Rorschach et inspiré de la psychanalyse) permet d’explorer la personnalité d'un individu en se basant sur l’interprétation qu'il fait d’un dessin obtenu à l’aide de tache d’encre.

En laissant libre cours à l’imagination de l’observateur du dessin, l’examinateur peut se faire une idée assez précise de sa personnalité.

Ce test, de moins en moins utilisé, l’était à une certaine époque pour effectuer un diagnostic, mais également des épreuves de sélection permettant de préciser de façon plus ou moins fiable la structure affective profonde du sujet qui examinait le dessin.

* Le quotient intellectuel (souvent critiqué depuis sa création au début du siècle) se définit comme le rapport entre l’âge mental et l’âge réel du sujet multiplié par 100, l’âge mental étant évalué en utilisant une série de tests. Par définition, le chiffre normal est de 100 ; quand il est inférieur à 70, il traduit une débilité mentale; supérieur à 140, il indique chez un enfant un niveau largement supérieur à la moyenne (enfant surdoué).

Ce sont les psychologues français Alfred Binet et Théodore Simon qui ont introduit cette notion de quotient intellectuel en 1950.

À l’époque, ceci avait été fait pour permettre de différencier les enfants qualifiés de normaux des enfants dits anormaux, et de déterminer ainsi l’âge mental réel par rapport à l’âge de l’état civil.

Plus tard, Louis M Termann chef de file d’une équipe de psychologues américains, reprenait cette notion pour la perfectionner. Il améliora ainsi le test par une diversification du questionnaire qui était posé aux enfants, en leur demandant notamment de terminer une suite de chiffres et de trouver l’intrus parmi une liste de mots.

Il semble que les conditions dans lequel se déroule le test, lui enlèvent quelque crédibilité. La notion de quotient intellectuel est sans doute critiquable du fait qu’il ne tient pas compte de la personnalité globale du sujet, mais également du fait que les résultats sont parfois influencés par l’environnement socioculturel de l’enfant et sa réaction affective vis-à-vis des personnes faisant passer le test. Ainsi, pour certains psychologues, le test quotient intellectuel doit être complété par un autre type de test de personnalité tel que celui de Rorschach.

Inkblot Perception and Personality Inkblots are just meaningless blobs of ink. Yet like clouds and rock formations, inkblots have stirred the Imagination for centuries. In recent years, serious attention has been given to the study of personality through inkblots.

How does an Inkblot test tell the psychologist something about personality? The inkblots don't really do anything. What's important is what people say about the image they see. You might say that the inkblots act as a mirror of the mind.

This kind of personality test is called a projective technique. Other projective techniques include word association and storytelling. All these techniques encourage viewers to say what they see when looking at or thinking about an ambiguous, complex, or even "meaningless" image like a blot of ink on a piece of paper. What may come out in the response is an expression of the person's private world of ideas, fears and wishes.

You've probably heard about the Rorschach Inkblot Test. Working with mental patients In Switzerland, Herman Rorschach In 1921, developed a system of analysis for inkblots which is still used today.

A different approach to Inkblot testing was undertaken by Wayne Holtzman and his colleagues who developed the Holtzman Inkblot technique (HIT) to overcome limitations in the Rorschach. Unlike the Rorschach, which uses only 10 inkblots, the HIT is a more extensive set of 45 inkblots in the test series plus two practice blots.

The inkblots were drawn from a pool of several thousand. While retaining the sensitivity of the Rorschach blots, the HIT is scored for 22 characteristics that can be objectively defined, reliably scored, and efficiently handled by statistical methods.

It is important to remember that the Inkblot test is only one of many tests that psychologists use to help them learn about an individual's personality.

The Holtzman Inkblot Technique is featured as part of a traveling exhibition titled "Psychology: Understanding Ourselves, Understanding Each Other", sponsored by the American Psychological Association in partnership with the Ontario Science Centre, and housed permanently at the Smithsonian Institution.

For more information, refer to the following publications:

Holtzman, W. H., Thorpe, J. S., Swartz. J. D., & Herron, E. W. Inkblot perception and personality. Austin; University of Texas Press, 1961. Holtzman, W. H. Holtzman Inkblot Technique. In A. I. Rabin (Ed.), Introduction to modern projective techniques. New York: Springer, 1968, pp. 136-170. Holtzman, W. H. New developments on the Holtzman Inkblot Technique. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in Psychological Assessment, Vol. 3. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974. Holtzman, W. H. Inkblots through the looking glass. In M. H. Siegel and H. P. Ziegler (Eds.), Psychological Research: The Inside Story. New York: Harper and Row, 1976.

Clinical PsychologyGeneral InformationPsychology Department Home Page UT Austin Home Page

ISSUES IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGYRorschach Technique

1. The Rorschach technique, or what is sometimes called the "Inkblot test," is a projective test. Psychologists who use the Rorschach assume that the ambiguous features of its inkblots result in subjects projecting, or revealing, various characteristics of their personalities via their responses.

2. In fact, however, this is another example of theory continuing to prevail despite the unavailability of supportive data. As long ago as 1965, reviews of the Rorschach were quite critical: "Put frankly, the consensus of qualified judgment is that the Rorschach is a very poor test and has no practical worth for any of the purposes for which it is recommended by its devotees."

3. The development of the Exner system for scoring and interpreting the Rorschach saved it from the total disrepute into which it was rapidly sinking. A 1984 study reported that 82% of the graduate programs in psychology teaching the Rorschach relied primarily on Exner's "Comprehensive System."

4. Recently reported data, however, do not support the Exner system. Despite its theoretical assumptions to the contrary, for example, Exner's "Egocentricity Index" appears unrelated to personality characteristics such as self-focus, self-esteem, and narcissism.

5. A related review concluded that the Exner system has not realized the high-levels of inter-rater reliability it claims. Previous claims regarding the inter-rater reliability of the

Exner system relied on unpublished studies. These studies were not subjected to the scrutiny of peer-review. In other words, two or more psychologists assessing the same Rorschach responses may score them quite differently. In such circumstances, at least one of the psychologists is mistaken.

6. Exner's "Depression Index" (DEPI) supposedly identifies subjects who are clinically depressed. A review of the relevant research, however, does not support the DEPI. It correlates poorly with objective measures of depression such as the Depression scale of the MMPI-2, and the Beck Depression Inventory.

7. Ultimately, the Rorschach invites psychologists to indulge in imaginative speculations unsupported by sufficient empirical data.

8. If you would like more information regarding the Rorschach, you may want to order following publication authored by Dr. Campbell.

"Cross-Examining Psychologists and Psychiatrists as Expert Witnesses." This is a 79-page, single-spaced outline, containing 214 footnoted references. This outline is bound. (Order article #15, cost $59.00).

Home Page | Available Publications | Curriculum Vitae | Professional History

© 1999 Dr. Terence W. Campbell, Ph.D.

This was published as an appendix to: Linus Pauling: A Life in Science and Politics, Basic Books, 1995, which is now out of print.

Probing Pauling's Personality with the Rorschach Ink Blot Test

by Ted Goertzel

Linus Pauling participated in two psychological studies of the personalities of scientists: Anne Roe's The Making of a Scientist, published in 1953, and Bernice Eiduson's Scientists: Their Psychological World, published in 1962. Both of these studies relied in part on the Rorschach method of personality analysis, a psychological instrument first publicized by Hermann Rorschach in 1921. In the Rorschach, the subject is asked to view a series of black and white and colored ink blots and tell the examiner what he thinks the ink blots might be. The subject examines the ink blots one at a time, and the examiner writes down what the subject says and then goes through the record with the respondent to determine where on the blot each image was seen. Since the ink blots are actually only blobs of ink, the subject must draw on his own mind to find anything there.

Psychologists who use the Rorschach test interpret the answers as revealing a great deal about the subject's psychological make-up. There are, however, a range of opinions about the validity and usefulness of the Rorschach test. Some professionals believe that it is best regarded as a clinical tool which can help a therapist in working with a patient, but not as an objective measure of personality. Others believe that the Rorschach has some validity as a measure of what is going on in the subject's unconscious mind. These psychologists have developed a number of objective scoring protocols and even computer programs for analyzing people's responses to the ink blots. They have tested these scoring systems against thousands of cases, and found

correlations between answers to the test and specific constructs of personality. But even those psychologists who believe the Rorschach has a degree of objective validity recognize that the interpretation will differ according to the theoretical perspective of the interpreter. All agree that the Rorschach should be used together with clinical interviews and other diagnostic instruments, not all by itself.

When Victor and Mildred Goertzel began work on this biography in 1962, Pauling told them that he had taken psychological tests for previous researchers, and suggested that these tests might be useful to them. Victor is a psychologist who had used the Rorschach in his Ph.D. dissertation (an experience which left him with a healthy skepticism about the measure). Pauling wrote to Anne Roe, authorizing her to release the Rorschach protocol, which she did.

Pauling was an enthusiastic participant in the Rorschach testing. He went through the 10 cards in 29 minutes, giving images as quickly as Anne Roe could take them down. At the end of the protocol, she observed:

Whew! After the first card and his question I did not actively interrupt him but when he came to a pause I picked up another card. He usually but not always put down the one he was holding and took the other, although he could always have gone on almost indefinitely, I don't think he was more hampered at one time than at another. Possibly there would have been fewer on X [the last card] if it had not been apparent that there were no other cards. He quite enjoyed this.

The key images which Pauling found in each ink blot are given in Table which follows:

------------------------------------------------------------

Table One

Key Images in Linus Pauling's Rorschach Protocol

Card I.

1. pelvis

2. insect ... like a specimen

3. two pairs of white dots ... symmetrical translation

4. sine curve

5. lobster claws

6. bat wing ... I looked for the little hooks a bat uses to hang by but they are not visible.

7. lack of symmetry ... little white line on the left is not there on the right ... a little claw there

Card II. 1. blood and the black of ink, carbon and the structure of graphite ... straight lines in the little central figure are puzzling

2. vulva

3. pair of butterflies ... wings vertical ... facing each other

4. pair of sharp-nosed pliers

5. two rabbits ... in an attitude of supplication

Card III. 1. two men perhaps waiters ... formal dress ... facing each other ... Joos dancers or some other pair of male dancers

2. crab (the men are holding)

3. Picasso ... two white spots ... two eyes looking out ... the nose ... oligocephalic

4. red blotches ... the Bible is standing open

Card IV. 1. a pelt skinned off ... on the skin side and to some extent on the fur side

2. Dali's watches ... the two arms ... hang over in that limp manner

3. spigot that iron comes out of a cupola

4. testicles and penis

pile of skins (referring to 1)

5. gorilla ... standing there, illuminated by a bright light close behind his back

6. carcass of an animal spread open; I seem to see a cleaver, not in the picture but the act of cleaving

7. little group of very small dots ... spots on a Laue photograph ... two-dimensional lattice

Card V. 1. batty

2. swallow tailed butterfly ... moth

3. deer ... horns of a deer in the velvet

4. nut cracker

5. man with a derby hat just below the horns which suggests he is cuckolded

6. Icarus ... like DaVinci's drawing ... wearing skits

7. alligator, the heads ... bulging above the eyes

Card VI. 1. totem pole effect

2. same sort of skin as before

3. the question of embryological development that arises from the ridge down the middle

4. this should be colored and should be orange, I don't know why

Card VII. 1. insect ... the antennae or some mouth parts

2. animal faces and heads, like the funny papers

3. hinge ... special sort of structure ... bivalve

4. crustaceans or lobster claws

5. appearance of islands from the air, but the symmetry tends to remove that because no tropical island would occur in pairs like that

Card VIII.1. nice colors ... sort of skeletal, too

2. couple of animals ... not exactly beaver like, tails to the bottom, climbing up ... Dutch painter, Breughel? ... and of Bosch ... fanciful animals ... the temptation of St. Anthony involved trumpets in the noses and in this case ... tail suggests an adhesive organ, like the placenta

3. the color ... a liver a spinal column of a fish and ribs coming out (refers to 1)

4. one of those Breughel imaginary animals

5. landscape, there has been a lot of erosion by the rain

Card IX. 1. that's Punch, two Punch's ... with pendulous abdomens

2. insects

3. pelvic bones ... from in front instead of above

(referring to Card I)

4. water is dripping, perhaps blood dripping down 5. peaches or similar fruit, four of them arranged in a row

6. flame produced from a central structure

(two elaborations of 1 and 3)

7. holes ... holes of the metal cylinder into which the glass globe of a kerosene lamp would fit and the bottom structure might be the container for the lamp

8. two pigs heads ... end of snout a porcine indication

Card X. 1. wish bone

2. governor of a locomotive the jowls ... 3 ellipses attached together by arms ... dynamically unsatisfactory

3. facing gnomes, two on the right and two on the left, the fatter one with arms around the thinner holding up a green structure which isn't heavy

4. two similar gnomes holding up, perhaps a candle stick...some little insect, colorless, water nymph

5. pelvis

6. a rabbit being held up by

7. two caterpillars

8. nice yellow sea shells, not exactly conch shells ...some sea shells are spiny

9. sea horses, but the tails are bent the wrong way

10. Irish appearance too, the nose, and there is something hanging from both upper and lower lips, mouth open, it's ectoplasmic

11. the California peninsula, geographical costal contour

12. the floats that hold kelp upon the surface

13. a sweet pea, not quite open

14. Madagascar

15. locust

16. a cow lying down

----------------------------------------------------

To the layman who has never studied the Rorschach, Pauling's answers seem very imaginative and creative. As one might expect, there is some scientific terminology. There are more references to animals, plants and geography than to molecular structures. Pauling's lifelong hobby of reading encyclopedias had apparently given him a tremendous wealth of images to draw upon, and he enjoyed the creative process that the test called for.

Rorschach experts, however, can find a great deal more meaning in these responses than lay people. Ted Goertzel asked his colleague, psychologist Michael Wogan, to review the Rorschach protocol. Wogan knew that it was Linus Pauling's protocol, and took his knowledge of Pauling into account in his interpretations. His interpretation highlighted a number of aspects of Pauling's own personality. Wogan thought that Pauling:

- was extremely ambitious

- used a great deal of effort to protect himself against showing emotion

- tended to establish intellectual distance between himself and others, treating himself and others as objects.

- felt considerable emptiness due to the psychic effort devoted to his defenses.

- had a pervasive fearfulness, visualizing the world as being crushed, cleaved apart, split, or bloodied.

- felt a constant need to be in control, which could make problems in intimate relationships. Wogan thought that Pauling's marriage was probably one-sided, and

that he was generally sexist with women although bright enough to avoid expressing this too openly.

The most outstanding feature of Pauling's Rorschach, in Wogan's view, was the lack of emotion. Wogan thought that Pauling was a person who felt little of life's pains and pleasures, avoiding strong emotion through denial and defenses.

In order to check on the reliability of the Rorschach interpretation, we went to the library and compiled a list of 22 specialists who had published articles on Rorschach interpretation in the Journal of Personality Assessment. We wrote to them and asked if they would be willing to do a "blind" interpretation, knowing nothing but the subject's sex and age at the time of testing. Fortunately, seven of these distinguished Rorschach experts generously agreed to participate in this research, purely on a voluntary basis.

When the experts' reports came in, we were pleased to find that they confirmed many of Michael Wogan's impressions. The fact that they were also consistent with each other in many ways increased our belief in the reliability and usefulness of the Rorschach test. On the other hand, we were quite surprised that the experts found as much pathology as they did in Pauling's responses, since Pauling had never required treatment for any kind of psychiatric illness.

The first blind Rorschach interpretation we received was from Clifford DeCato of Widener University. Dr. DeCato has practiced and taught Rorschach interpretation for twenty-five years, and has published widely on the topic. He became intrigued with what he called the "Mystery Case," spending as much as fifty hours of his time scoring and analyzing the record. He used two different scoring systems, the Perceptanalytic system developed by Z.A. Piotrowski and the Comprehensive System developed by John Exner, Jr. He provided us with the computer printouts and scoring records for the systems. Dr. DeCato warned us, however, that there were instances in which he had to make "educated guesses" as to aspects of Pauling's responses, since the psychologist who administered the test was not available for questioning. Several of the other experts, also, had told us that it was not always clear from the record which part of the ink blot Pauling was looking at when he made a particular remark. The record of the session, which was done over forty years ago, was not made with the complete rigor and precision expected of Rorschach records in the 1990s.

Dr. DeCato also warned us that "psychopathology may emerge more dramatically" in the Rorschach than in other tests. This was a useful warning, since his interpretation based on the Comprehensive System began with this rather ominous quote from the computer printout (The Rorschach Interpretation Assistance Program): "Warning!! -- He has many of the characteristics common to people who effect suicide. The possibility of a suicidal preoccupation should be evaluated carefully, and those responsible for his care should be alerted." DeCato went on to note that "the composite of findings concerning thinking and perceptual inaccuracy suggests a possibility of schizophrenia...he appears to be prone to frequent episodes of depression or emotional turmoil...he processes information hastily and haphazardly...his conception of himself is not well developed and is probably rather distorted. His self image includes many more negative features than should be the case."

In real life, Pauling was certainly not schizophrenic, he had never shown any signs of being suicidal, nor had he needed anyone to be "responsible for his care."

Using the Perceptanalytic Method, Dr. DeCato's observations were much closer to the mark, although still focusing on the negatives in Pauling's makeup. He found that the "Mystery Case" was a person who "gives the impression of an adult man who is intellectually very bright and has acquired through reading, education, or experience a wide array of information. He attempts to make his adaptation to the world through the use of his intelligence in a rapid-response fashion...he is often quick to respond without taking the time to review the situation in depth. He often responds hastily and avoids searching for a more thorough understanding of the whole. The upshot of this cognitive style is that he may often use his intelligence in relatively superficial ways and may make some errors of judgment by forming his opinions too hastily, or at the very least, not engaging his intelligence to the fullest... At times his judgment can become quite unrealistic and disorganized when he is assessing himself or others... He tends to focus on himself and his own feelings more than most people do which along with other features of his protocol suggests a painful sense of distortion in his self, a sense of being insufficient or damaged in some way, along with tendencies to brood on his own emotions."

Dr. DeCato further observed that "a strong trait of ingrained long standing anger expressed as hostility and a trend toward being oppositional and/or stubborn is a prominent feature of his personality...the need for his own space, to be his own master, to do things his own way, not be controlled by authorities, or to have control over his own life and be independent are some of the possibilities singly or in combination. People with this trait can sometimes accomplish outstanding achievement by refusing to give in and by insisting on following their principles or convictions no matter what the cost." Dr. DeCato further observed, however, that "in appropriately structured situations he might be able to use these features of his personality constructively or creatively."

These observations based on the Perceptanalytic analysis fitted Pauling much better than those based on the Comprehensive System, but the Perceptanalytic system also led Dr. DeCato to the observation that "many problems in thinking, logic, and synthesizing across cognitive categories occurred which in terms of both frequency and type of distortion are similar to individuals who have schizophrenia." DeCato concluded that the subject was a challenging case for Rorschach analysis, a bright, intellectualized man who "struggles constantly with tendencies toward unrealistic perceptions and judgments which he can keep under control in more superficial situations, but which nevertheless are revealed in odd ideas and associations, leaps and breaks in logic, distortions in self and other perceptions, and emotional misjudgments."  

This research has been published as:  Gacono, Carl B; DeCato, Clifford M; Brabender, Virginia; Goertzel, Ted, "Vitamin C or pure C: The Rorschach of Linus Pauling." Pp 421-451 in Meloy, J. Reid (Ed), Acklin, Marvin W. (Ed), et al.  Contemporary Rorschach Interpretation.  (pp. 421-451). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1997. 

The next psychologist to report in was James Kleiger of the Meninger Clinic in Topeka, Kansas. Dr. Kleiger has had 15 years of clinical, teaching, and supervisory experience with the Rorschach and has published several papers on its clinical uses.

Dr. Kleiger observed that the subject was erudite and took pride in his intellectual judgments. He thought, however, that "unfortunately, his good natured attempts to amuse himself and impress the examiner with his knowledge and wit are quite strained and reveal a desperate effort to manage his confusing world by relying on an ineffective intellectual style... His responses were infused with a language of scientific precision; however, on occasion, he was unable to actually produce a scorable response. Characterologically, one is left with an impression of an individual with narcissistic, obsessional and histrionic traits... There is evidence that this man is working hard to ward off a clinical depression, most likely associated with his underlying sense of narcissistic vulnerability and deterioration. While not actively psychotic, he reveals some signs of idiosyncratic thinking, especially under the impact of his frantic efforts to fend off an unwanted sense of himself as weak and inadequate."

Dr. Kleiger concluded that Pauling's defensive style was generally ineffective and did not fend off feelings of vulnerability or his "nagging sense of cognitive and physical decline." He thought that Pauling showed a tendency to get caught up in emotionally evocative stimuli that would lead one to wonder about a possible hypomanic condition.

The next psychologist to answer was Paul Lerner of Asheville, North Carolina, who has been a leader in Rorschach analysis for many years and has published standard reference works on the subject. Dr. Lerner thought that "the subject presented as a highly pressured, manicky, very striving, idiosyncratic individual who is markedly self centered. He is intellectually exhibitionistic and pretentious. He used the test more to show off his vast storehouse of information than to merely comply with the task... Prominent in the subject's character make-up are obsessive compulsive and narcissistic features... he is self-centered, self-absorbed, egocentric and highly sensitive as to how he is regarded and treated by others... With respect to his thinking, he was an exceptionally bright individual who at this time is losing it."

Lerner thought that Pauling was depressed, and that this depression was related to declining mental powers in middle age. He observed that "the most prominent affect to appear on his test was depression... Particularly distressing is his sense of being a shell of the person he once was...at the time of testing there were test signs to indicate he was suicidal. While I cannot assess the acuteness of the danger, it would be related to feelings of helplessness and powerlessness and a sense of inability to regain his lost self-esteem."

In summary, Lerner concluded that "this once high striving, high-powered, exceptionally bright, proud individual is faltering. Despite attempts to cover it over and compensate for it, he is aware of it and feels it. His brain was exceptionally important to him. It was active, big and powerful, and a source of self-esteem. His pride and joy if you will. It was also his competitive weapon. It is now a source of shame and embarrassment... He is experiencing considerable pain. There is much depressive affect centered around a loss of self-esteem, inner feelings of emptiness, and a sense of being a mere shadow of what and who he once was."

The next interpretation came from John E. Exner, Jr., Executive Director of the Rorschach Workshops and creator of the Comprehensive System for analyzing the Rorschach. He expressed some reservations about the protocol which was "not well

taken and apparently the examiner lost control of the situation." He also thought that having some information about marital status and interpersonal relations might have helped to clarify the "obvious issue of loneliness and/or emotional deprivation" which he observed in the protocol.

Exner thought Pauling "conveys the impression of a very disorganized individual whose thinking currently is fragmented, impulsive, and often quite chaotic. The characteristics of his disorganized thinking are typical of individuals who are unable to control and direct their thinking effectively." This disorganization, in Exner's view, was a chronic feature of Pauling's personality.

This observation is remarkably inconsistent with the known facts about Linus Pauling. If there was one thing Pauling could do, better than almost any other human being, it was organize his thoughts effectively (even if his thoughts, like anyone's, were not always accurate). If Pauling did not organize his responses to the ink blots in the way that most people do, perhaps it was simply because he thought the test did not call for organized, systematic thinking, but for a disorganized "brainstorming" process. Pauling had read the literature on creative thinking, and this literature strongly recommends against imposing structure on the initial phases of a creative process. Pauling's skill in doing this may give some insight into how a highly creative person differs from more typical people.

Exner also felt that Pauling was undergoing some kind of "situationally related stress" which gave him "a marked sense of helplessness regarding his ability to respond effectively to the current circumstances." He thought Pauling was "burdened with some very intense negative feelings which included a marked sense of loneliness and a general pessimistic outlook concerning himself and his world." He observed that "it is obvious that he is a very intellectual person and, among other things, is prone to deal with his feelings on a more intellectual level than is customary for most people." This is certainly a valid observation about Pauling, and one which was noted by the other Rorschachers as well.

Exner thought that Pauling "does not process new information very well even though he makes a very concerted effort to do so. It seems obvious that he had a superior capacity to organize new information, but he often becomes almost obsessively trapped in details and his rather hectic thinking causes him to scan a stimulus field too hastily... This issue of reality testing is complicated even further when issues concerning his self image or self esteem are involved. Under those circumstances, he tends to distort reality considerably... He is not the sort of person who controls his emotional expressions very effectively.. He would like to be close to people but feels a marked sense of loss or failure in his attempts to develop close relations with others."

"In summary," says Exner, "it is very likely that this is an individual who will be regarded by those around him as `crazy.' Certainly, the disorganization of his thinking will convey this impression if one sits and listens to him for any lengthy period of time." In real life, of course, Pauling was a brilliant lecturer who impressed tens of thousands of people with his encyclopedic knowledge, rigorous logic, and brilliant insights.

The next Rorschach interpretation was from Eric Zillmer of Drexel University, who has just completed a book analyzing the Rorschachs of Nazi war criminals. Dr.

Zillmer also noted the deficiencies of the protocol, but thought that it appeared valid in terms of being able to offer meaningful interpretations. He also observed that it was "particularly rich, spontaneous, and included a variety of imagery that would pique the curiosity of any experienced Rorschach analyst." He had it scored separately by two experts, using the Exner Comprehensive System, and the inter-scorer agreement among all the responses exceeded 80%. He then used two different computer programs to generate interpretative hypotheses.

Zillmer thought that Pauling was "a very bright and capable person who responds inconsistently to new problem solving situations or when making decisions... The protocol further suggests that this individual was experiencing substantial emotional uneasiness or distress at the time of the Rorschach administration. This may be related to a general sense of anxiety and tension, unmet dependency needs, and the internalization of emotional experiences."

Zillmer observed that Pauling "is somewhat uncomfortable in dealing with emotional experiences or situations directly... Individuals with this style usually feel uncomfortable about their ability to deal with negative feelings adequately and often `bend reality' to avoid dealing with perceived or anticipated negatives in their environment. This may lead to social isolation, a sense of loneliness, or emotional deprivation. This presents a conflict for this subject since there are indications of strong unmet needs for emotional sharing, accessibility, and interpersonal closeness."

Zillmer thought that Pauling had "unusually good internal resources to meet stress demands," but that he "may not be as controlled in situations where there is an increase in confusion about feelings, or when confronted with highly ambiguous situations." He thought that "a core element in this subject's personality is a narcissistic child-like tendency to overvalue his personal worth. This appears to be a dominant psychological influence which, although not necessarily pathological, does have a substantial influence on his perceptions of the world, as well as on decisions and behaviors."

In terms of interpersonal processes, Zillmer observed that "it is likely that this subject tends to be regarded by others as likable and outgoing." He thought that Pauling "tends to demonstrate a substantial flexibility in his cognitive approach to the environment and might be expected to think about the environment in a more varied manner than found among more cognitively rigid and less creative or intelligent individuals." Zillmer thought that Pauling "displays, at a minimum, an unusual response style which neglects the conventional, expected, simple, or acceptable response to his surroundings."

In summary, Zillmer found the protocol to be very unusual, "most likely given by a highly complex man who has many strengths, but also several liabilities in his personality structure... the present Rorschach inkblot protocol indicates both, the potential for brilliant insight and sophistication on behalf of the respondent, but also the likelihood for inappropriate behaviors ranging from immaturity, to distorted thinking, particularly when confronted with emotionally laden situations. Thus, the central issue which defines the main aspect of the individual's personality structure, is related to how successfully he copes with his affective and emotional world."

Zillmer's interpretations varied considerably from Exner's and DeCato's, despite the fact that he relied, in part, on Exner's computer software which DeCato also used.

This software is based on actuarial data from empirical studies on over 40,000 responses. Exner did not tell us whether he used the software in his own analysis. In checking the computer coding and printouts, however, we found that Zillmer and DeCato had scored the responses in much the same way and received essentially the same computer output. DeCato had stayed closer to the computer output in his interpretation, while Zillmer had used the computer output as a source of hypotheses to be balanced against his overall impression of the personality. On balance, Zillmer's interpretation seemed quite close to Pauling's personality as revealed in the biographical data.

The next Rorschach interpretation came from Vincent Nunno, a psychologist in Oakland, California who has also analyzed the Rorschachs of Nazi war criminals. Dr. Nunno thought that "this individual does not show test features which are commonly associated with a diagnosis of mental disorder." However, he thought that Pauling's responses showed a tendency to obsessively break the stimuli down into details. He observed that "it might be `argued' that people are `creative' because they can see reality in `new ways' rather than conventional or consensual ways, and this is probably true, but in this case, it appears that the breakdown is not due so much to `creativity' but rather, to an eccentric, overly unique, pedantic and self-centered style in which the subject does not perceive `conventional' boundaries, but rather, offers loose impressions or creates arbitrary boundaries in an attempt to `create the field' as he wishes to see it or talk about it rather than truly `analyzing' the natural contours and shapes of the blots."

Dr. Nunno observed that "my own feeling is that this person is using an overly intellectualized, overly self-referenced approach to these blots. He doesn't really `look' at the cards in some `neutral way,' trying to figure out what is there...he just assumes he does see reality without questioning and that it all must relate to him and his experience of the world. Possibly this is a characteristic of individuals who are `famous' for their unique intelligence but who have more difficulty with the world as it is `commonly' perceived by the average person."

He also observed that "I am getting the sense that this was once a man with a highly `functional' intellectual style that is now starting to become less efficient and organized due to aging."

Finally, Dr. Nunno warned that "it is always difficult to evaluate `creative' or `exceptional' people with a test that is grounded in the concept or `normality' as these individuals are not `normals' in the true sense of the word, and their `uniqueness' should not be conceptualized as a pathological deviation from normal expectancies."

At the last minute, we received an interpretation from Dr. Richard Kramer, a clinical psychologist in Israel whose busy schedule did not permit him to spend as much time as he would have liked with the record. Dr. Kramer thought that Pauling was "superficially very bright however his intelligence is more for show rather than what he can actually utilize...he is pedantic and does not think things out in a deep fashion...he is very reactive to his environment and exhibits signs of emotional impulsiveness, defensively, he operates via denial and attempts to psychologically distance himself from things in a narcissistic fashion. The individual is a very aggressive man...he has a great deal of hostility and contempt toward women, in this respect there is a great deal of classic masochism. It may even be that he is impotent

(however, this is admittedly really pushing it as there is no actual data - this is more inferential)."

In real life, of course, Pauling had no problems with women or sexuality, enjoyed life fully with no signs of masochism, and was extraordinarily effective in utilizing his intelligence. When the interpretations diverge so sharply from the reality of Pauling's personality, it is tempting to simply dismiss the Rorschach results as invalid. It would be wrong to reach a conclusion about the validity of the Rorschach as a psychological measure, however, from one case. It may be that there was something in Pauling's personality which made him a particularly difficult subject for Rorschach interpretation. Over the years, many people have observed that genius and madness seem to have something in common. As long ago as 1680, the poet John Dryden wrote:

Great wits are sure to madness near allied,

And thin partitions do their bounds divide.

The Line Between Creativity and Madness.

In his recent biography of Richard Feynman, James Gleick asks "when people speak of the borderline between genius and madness, why is it so evident what they mean?" Perhaps these Rorschach interpretations, so many of which confuse Pauling's creativity with psychiatric disorder, can help us to answer Gleick's question. There is evidence that highly creative people often score similarly to schizophrenics on the Rorschach, even though they do not have any kind of psychiatric disorder. This is believed to be true because creative people are able to draw on primitive psychological processes which "normal" people do not often use. However, they are not stuck on a primitive or chaotic level of thinking, as some mentally ill people are, but are quite capable of integrating their thinking in a mature way when appropriate.

Bernice Eiduson observed this phenomenon in her study of scientists (in which Pauling was included). She thought that scientists as a group had a heightened sensitivity to experiences which:

is accompanied in thinking by over alertness to relatively unimportant or tangential aspects of problems. It makes them look for and postulate significance in things which customarily would not be singled out. It encourages highly individualized and even autistic ways of thinking. Were this thinking not in the framework of scientific work, it would be considered paranoid. In scientific work, creative thinking demands seeing things not seen previously, or in ways not previously imagined; and this necessitates jumping off from "normal" positions, and taking risks by departing from reality. The difference between the thinking of the paranoid patient and the scientist comes in the latter's ability and willingness to test out his fantasies or grandiose conceptualizations through the systems of checks and balances science has established... One might say that scientific thinking is in a way institutionalized paranoid thinking; it sanctions it not only as proper, but also as the irrational that ultimately promotes the rationality of science.

In many ways, Pauling's personality and life history fits the pattern which Eiduson found in many of the scientists which she studied. She observed that scientists:

- were intellectually gifted children, whose greatest talent was their mind

- had limited intimacy with their families as children, particularly with their fathers who were often absent

- found nurturance in intellectual life, turning to reading, puzzles, daydreams and fantasies for entertainment and escape

- received tangible recognition for their intellectual accomplishments in the forms of scholarships and prizes

- built a set of "intellectual fences" to defend themselves against problems or disturbances at home

- learned to value novelty, innovation, and difference, while tolerating any ambiguity and uncertainty which this might create

- developed into intellectual rebels, channeling their aggressions into their intellectual life

- valued logic, rationality and emotional control

- were likely to enter into traditional marriages with competent women who took responsibility for home and children

-were fulfilled by their work as an end in itself, not primarily for the extrinsic rewards it provides

These findings fit Linus Pauling remarkably well. In many ways, Pauling's personality profile was much like other distinguished scientists. Pauling differed from most of the scientists Eiduson studied by his intense involvement in political and medical controversies, and his tendency to take very strong positions on issues where the objective evidence was ambivalent at best. To understand these traits, we need to look at the specifics of Pauling's personality structure.

We sent a summary of our results to each of the Rorschach experts, letting them know who the subject was and sending them a copy of the article on Pauling which we had published in the Antioch Review in 1981. In response, Dr. DeCato rose to the defense of the Rorschach, observing that "there are many startlingly consistent points between your Antioch article and my Rorschach blind analysis." His "attempt to theorize about what might have occurred with Dr. Pauling" is worth quoting at length:

"The description of Dr. Pauling given in the article by Goertzel, et al., in The Antioch Review corresponds on many points with the blind analysis by the Perceptanalytic method. This analysis suggested that he was very bright and intellectualized which means in part that he loved his own ideas more than most things in life. The many instances of unrealistic logic and other instances of "cognitive slippage" which are often found in impaired populations such as schizophrenia were counterbalanced in his personality by a high degree of social awareness and conventionality. In other words, Dr. Pauling was a complex mixture of both conventional trends and highly unconventional trends and at times impulsive and unrealistic thinking.

"The description in the Antioch article corroborates this view in many different places. The blind analysis suggested that he would have difficulties with close relationships but might be able to function well in structured environments. Again, the Antioch article describes a man who preferred to leave everyday affairs to his wife and subordinates, devoting his time and efforts to creative thinking. The tendency to slip into unrealistic thinking was constant, but was generally countered by his high intelligence and wish to be socially respected. For Dr. Pauling,

the conflict probably always existed between believing his own ideas which could be unconventional and his desire to be accepted and respected which is conventional. His tendency to become unrealistic and to believe the reality of his own fantasies over external evidence was both a strength and a weakness. At its best this trend allowed him to be very creative, breaking the usual rubrics and inhibitions of thinking and learned knowledge to produce novel ideas and solutions to problems, a process sometimes referred to as `regression in the service of the ego.' Indeed, there is every reason to believe that his capacity for sudden breaks in conventional logic may very well have helped him make breakthroughs in his research and scholarly efforts. On the other hand his tendency to detach from reality and violate the usual modes of causal thinking and conventional beliefs very likely contributed to his social problems (the social isolation, arrogance, impulsivity, and ill treatment afforded his colleague, Dr. Robinson). In a word, Dr. Pauling was capable of believing things that others might consider unproven or absurd, and held his own ideas in greater esteem and affection than he did people. To him his ideas were more real and more important than anything else leading him to act in support of his ideas and ignore the emotional and interpersonal consequences."

Dr. DeCato's argument makes a lot of sense, since it selects from the Rorschach interpretation those points which are consistent with Pauling's biography. Psychologists who use the Rorschach with their patients probably do much the same thing, interpreting the results in a way which makes sense given what they know from clinical interviews. Of course, much the same thing could be said of fortune tellers who can sometimes make impressive interpretations of Tarot cards or other random phenomena by responding to cues from their clients. In the blind analyses, the experts had no way of knowing which of their interpretations were off the mark.

Pauling's Personality: A Biographer's Appraisal. Perhaps the Rorschach can be useful, even when it is unreliable, because it helps us to break out of our established mental sets and confront new hypotheses. In this final section, and in this spirit, we offer our own interpretation of Pauling's personality. This interpretation includes only those points from the Rorschach interpretations which we believe are consistdnt with the biographical information. Since Eric Zillmer turned out to be a neighbor as well as an expert in personality assessment, we invited him to review all of the Rorschach interpretations and help us in preparing this appraisal.

There is no question that Pauling was extremely intelligent, including both verbal and mathematical abilities. He had an outstanding ability to visualize spatial relationships. He was a creative, intuitive thinker, for whom new ideas came quickly and spontaneously. He contrasted himself to very capable scientists who got new ideas by "fiddling with the equations." By contrast, he said "I've never made a contribution that I didn't get just by having a new idea. Then I would fiddle with the equations to help support the new idea." His approach, as he often remarked, was to have a lot of ideas and then throw away the bad ones.

He had two different intellectual styles in coping with this flow of ideas. In the first, he carefully tested his ideas against empirical data. In this mode, he was open to modifying or even abandoning his ideas if they were not supported. In this process, he often came up with new ideas. He used this mode of thinking in his work in chemistry, and more generally in work which did not involve a strong emotional dimension. He was at his best when he was solving scientific puzzles. In the second

mode of thinking, he became emotionally committed to his ideas and selectively sought out evidence to support them. He became defensive against anyone who questioned his thinking on these matters, often assuming that they were motivated by personal animosity. He made the strongest case possible for his point of view, while minimizing contradictory evidence. His political and nutritional work often followed this second mode of thinking, and it was often effective in advocating for controversial positions.

In contrast to his tremendous enjoyment of intellectual activity, Pauling found emotional life troublesome, and he often tried to avoid situations which involved emotionally charged interactions. He did this especially when he was young, largely as a way to avoid the demands of his mother and others who wanted to steer him away from his intellectual and scientific interests. Once he achieved success with his theory of the chemical bond, he allowed himself to become involved in issues which were emotionally charged for him. Rather than focusing on personal or family life, however, he felt most comfortable in the public arena where he could rely on his skill as a speaker and writer and his prestige as a scientist.

A core element of Pauling's personality was a narcissistic tendency to overvalue his personal worth and seek the approval of others for his ideas and accomplishments. He loved giving speeches and receiving the approval of large groups of admirers, and he devoted a great deal of time and energy to travel and public speaking at the expense of his scientific work. His narcissism was displayed in an extreme sensitivity to criticism, including a tendency to file law suits against his critics.

In his personal life, Pauling was stiff and formal, not the kind of person who enjoyed casual, lighthearted activities. He was happy to leave the responsibility for personal and social matters to his wife, to whom he was quite devoted. He did not spend much time on close friendships which involved meaningful interpersonal commitments. His wife was certain he would never have an affair, because he would not want to spend the time needed to romance a woman. He might have felt isolated or lonely, if it were not for the devoted companionship of his wife and the continual stream of attention from admirers around the world.

He had the capacity for brilliant insight, but also for distorted thinking particularly when confronted with situations which were emotionally laden. In these situations, his intellectual defenses sometimes broke down. The sad confrontation with Arthur Robinson was the worst example of this pattern. It can also be seen in his response to Dr. Moertel and the New England Journal of Medicine.

The personality patterns which Pauling displayed throughout life developed in the period after his father's death. His father had admired him greatly, and encouraged his intellectuality. His mother, because of her illness and vulnerability as a widow, was not able to provide the same degree of support. He found that he could use his intellectual brilliance to maintain independence from her and obtain approval from others. He married a woman who gave him the devotion he was unable to get from his mother.

Despite his tremendous success as a young scientist, Linus Pauling was never satisfied. Having won two Nobel Prizes, he felt he deserved a third. When his brilliance as a scientific innovator declined with age, he fell more and more into his second intellectual style. In his later years, his combativeness and defensiveness

increasingly triumphed over his brilliance and creativity.    

   Home

 List categories

 Eponyms A-Z

 Biographies by country

 Female entries

 Contact

The Dermatologist's Guide to Looking

YoungerLawrence J. Green

Only $8.76!(Prices May Change)Privacy Information

 

  Hermann Rorschach

Swiss psychiatrist, born November 8, 1884, Zurich;died April 2, 1922, Herisau.

Associated eponyms:

Rorschach test A psychological projection test in which inkblots are used clinically for diagnosing psychopathology.

Biography:

Hermann Rorschach was born in Zurich to an ancient Swiss family from the Canton Thurgau. He went to school in the small town of Schaffhausen, in an atmosphere of intellectual and cultural affluence. His father, who died in 1903, was a failed artist who provided a living for his family by working as a drawing teacher in a boys' preparatory school.

Hermann's nickname as a secondary school student was Klex, meaning "inkblot". There has been much speculation as to the extraordinary coincidence of his nickname and the test for which he is now famous. Klecksography was a game which was commonly played by Swiss children and consisted of spotting an ink blot on paper and folding it so that the forms of a butterfly or a bird would be obtained.

Hermann Rorschach has been described as a studious and orderly pupil who completed his basic studies with top marks in all disciplines. He took a great interest in drawing, being an artist of some merit. Towards the end of his schooling in Schaffhausen he wrote to Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) - the famous advocate of Darwin's evolutionary theory - asking him whether he should go into further studies of art or natural sciences. Haeckel advised the second, so in 1904 he entered medical school in Zurich, spending some time at Neuchâtel (German: Neuenburg), Berlin and Berne, but spending the majority of his time in Zurich.

At this time Zurich was a world centre of psychiatry, and a major part of clinical education in Switzerland was devoted to psychiatry. Already in his early days as a medical student Rorschach planned to become a psychiatrist, and his interest in this speciality was undoubtedly boosted during the courses of clinical and theoretical psychiatry which he attended at the Burghölzli university clinic. Not very surprising, with teachers like Auguste-Henri Forel (1848-1931), the almost equally famous successor, Eugen Bleuler 1857-1939), and as fame goes, no other than Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961), who had just worked out the association test to explore the unconscious mind. At this stage the work of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was just beginning to gain in popularity.

In his student days he developed an intense interest in Russia and Russians, and in Zurich he was soon to meet members of the Russian colony in the town. This elite group counted among its members men like Constantin von Monakow (1853-1930), the famous neurologist. Rorschach began learning Russian, and in 1906, while studying in Berlin, he went for a holiday in Russia.

Rorschach graduated in medicine at Zurich in 1909 and at the same time became engaged to Olga Stempelin, a Russian girl in Switzerland, and then visited her family in Kazan. At this time he had decided to move to Russia permanently, but first wanted to complete his education in Switzerland.

Since both he and his fiancée were poor, in 1909 he chose to take a position in the psychiatric

hospital in Münsterlingen because the salary was much better than he would have obtained in a university clinic. He married in 1910 and remained at the asylum until 1913, becoming very popular with the patients by organising theatrical entertainment and keeping very close records of the patients, including a photographic record which he himself took. At one time he bought a monkey and kept it to observe the patients' reactions to it, and also to entertain them.

With a school teacher friend of his, K. Gehring, Rorschach in 1911 was experimenting with inkblots and Jung's word association test on school children and patients. He described these experiments in 1911, though not very systematically. His growing interest in psychoanalysis was probably the reason why he put aside this work. He had become interested in the interpretation of art works by psychotics and neurotics and their own abilities to paint.

Like many psychiatrists of his time he was impressed by symbolic associations, and in a paper, Clock and time, he proposed that some neurotics' love of watches was related to a subconscious longing for the mother's breast with the ticking representing heart beats.

It was in Münsterlingen he became interested in reflexive hallucinations and began his work on the treatise Über Reflexhalluzonationen und verwandte Erscheinungen. His supervisor in this work was Eugen Bleuler (1857-1939).

In 1912, having finished his doctoral dissertation, sur les hallucinations-réflexes et les phénomčnes associés he moved to Russia with his wife Olga in 1913. Although he obtained a well paid position in a fashionable asylum, he remained in Russia for only seven months. This was probably caused by his wish to pursue his more scientific interest, something he could not do in this position.

Back in Switzerland in 1914 he had no choice but to accept a position at the Waldau psychiatric clinic near Bern. Rorschach’s wife was detained from leaving Russia by a declaration of war and did not rejoin him in Switzerland until the spring of 1915. Mrs. Rorschach’s explanation for her husband’s return to Switzerland was that "in spite of his interest in Russia and the Russians, he remained a true Swiss, attached to his native land.... He was European and intended to remain so at any price.

Hermann and Olga Rorschach had two children, a boy born 1917, and a girl born in 1919.

There was a saying amongst psychiatric residents of the day " if you want to eat well, go to Friedmatt; if you want to sleep well, go to Waldau; if you want to learn well, go to Burghölzli". The latter was the main university clinic in Zurich and was were Eugen Bleuler taught.

Towards the end of 1915 Rorschach was appointed associate director of the asylum at Herisau, in the eastern part of Switzerland, close to the Austrian border. He remained here until his premature death in 1922.

In Herisau Rorschach faced a rather heavy workload. The hospital had room for some 300 patients, yet there were only two psychiatrist, the director and the associate director of the clinic. There were no social workers or secretaries, and at the beginning, no subordinate physicians. Here he introduced a course of lectures for the nursing staff, the first of its kind in Switzerland.

Despite his business in the daily routine of the hospital, Rorschach found time for his interest in the psychoanalysis and psychopathology in religion. While investigating some of the strange religious sects in Switzerland, he examined a gentleman called Binggeli who taught his disciples that his penis was sacred and that they should adore it; his urine was called "heaven's drops" or "heaven's balm" and he gave it to them as a medication or instead of the wine for the holy communion. One of his teachings was that the method of expelling demons from young women was to have sexual relations with him! Binggeli was imprisoned for incest with his daughter.

When Rorschach examined the situation more fully he found that the sect was similar to the sect of Anton Unternährer (1759-1824) – the Antonianer - which had existed towards the end of the 18th century and which had also preached the holiness of incest. When he went back through the centuries he found that besides "normal" religious sects, similar aberrant sects which were identical or very similar to those of Binggeli's had been taking place in the same geographic regions aback to the 12th century. When he examined the family three of Binggeli he found that over four centuries, ten relations had played a leading role in these sects.

Then, abruptly his interest in the inkblot test was revoked, when Szyman Hens in 1917 published a doctoral thesis on an inkblot test he had devised with Eugen Bleuler. Hens' technique was similar to the one applied by Rorschach in 1911, as Hens had studied the phantasies of his subjects using inkblot cards.

This led Rorschach to resume his own experiments in 1918, now working frantically. He used altogether 40 cards, but 15 of them much more often than the rest, and he collected the answers to the test from 305 persons, 117 of them non-patients, 188 of them schizophrenous. He showed them the cards and asked the question: "What might this be?" Their subjective responses enabled him to distinguish among his patients on the basis of their perceptive

abilities, intelligence, and emotional characteristics.

Rorschach developed ideas and patterns of thoughts which demonstrate an extraordinary degree of originality. He considered the inkblot test a kind of mirror, in which the inkblots constitute optical stimuli which, in the individual, activates kinestetic pictures which are being projected back into the inkblots. It is based upon man's tendency to projects interpretations and emotions into ambiguous stimuli, in this case inkblots. From these keys trained observers may be able to pinpoint deeper personality traits and impulses in the person taking the test.

Several of Rorschach's colleagues, Bleuler not least so, seem to have been very positive to Rorschach's work and encouraged him to publish his findings. His manuscript containing the original version of the test, consisting of 15 cards, was sent to six publishers - who all refused it. Eventually Rorschach in Bern found a publisher who was willing to print the book - on the condition that the number of cards were reduced to ten. In June 1921 the book was finally printed, but the printing quality of the inkblot cards was anything but satisfying. They had been reduced in size, the colours had been altered and the original patches of uniform colour density had been reproduced with a varying degree of saturation. In this way a very important variable was included in the text, the so-called shading qualities of the pattern. It is these ten cards that are presently being used and are known as the Rorschach test.

The potential sources of inspiration for the use of inkblots as a means to study personality were many. Alfred Binet (1857-1911) had reported on experimentation with inkblots as a test of creativity in the early twentieth century. Even before that, in Germany, Justinus Kerner had published Kleksographien, a book of inkblot-inspired poems in 1857. Kerner, a physician and a painter of some repute, had produced inkblots "through chance" by folding a piece of paper on which some ink had been dropped. He then wrote poems inspired by each of the inkblots. The published book was well received in German-speaking countries and was probably known to Rorschach.

His book Psychodiagnostik represents Rorschach's masterpiece, but the publication was a total disaster. The entire edition remained unsold, and those few who showed some interest, were almost hostile in their critics. The publisher, Bircher, went bankrupt shortly afterwards. Rorschach was somewhat depressed, but far from knocked out. In a lecture to the Swiss psychoanalytic society in February 1922, one month after publication, he spoke of a further development of his test. But fate decided otherwise. On April 1st, 1922, Hermann Rorschach was hospitalised after a week of abdominal pains, probably caused by a ruptured appendix. An explorative laparotomy was performed, but the condition proved to be inoperable, and Rorschach died of peritonitis the following day, only 37 years of age.

In 1927, Hans Huber founded his own publishing house and he purchased Psychodiagnostics out of the inventory of Ernst Bircher. Since 1927 Hans Huber has been the publisher of Psychodiagnostik. Even today, each reprinting of the plates themselves requires great attention, and is done on what can now only be regarded as ancient equipment, which is carefully maintained exclusively for this purpose, so as to maintain a virtually identical reproduction of the originals. Even the weather has to be taken into account, and if it is too humid, or too dry, the printing process has to be rescheduled.

When the Swiss psychoanalytic society had been founded in 1919 with Emil Oberholzer, Zulliger, and Pfister, Rorschach was elected vice president, and gave several lectures at the scientific meetings of the organisation. His work won international respect and an institute was founded in his name in New York in 1939.

Rorschach was described as having an attractive personality, a cultivated, brilliant and profound conversationalist. Although somewhat reserved, he was a man of great benevolence to those closest to himBibliography:

Works by Hermann Rorschach:

Über Reflexhalluzinationen und verwandte Erscheinungen. Doctoral dissertation, Berlin, 1912.

Sur les hallucinations-réflexes et les phénomčnes associés.

Psychodiagnostik : Methodik und Ergebnisse eines wahrnehmungsdiagnostischen Experiments ; (Deutenlassen von Zufallsformen). In the series Arbeiten zur angewandten Psychiatrie, volume 2. Bern, Bircher, 1921.

Psychodiagnostik. Berlin and Leipzig, 1921.2nd edition:

Psychodiagnostik : Methodik und Ergebnisse eines wahrnehmungsdiagnostischen

Experiments (Deutenlassen von Zufallsformen) / Mit den zugehörigen Tests bestehend aus zehn Teils mehrfarbigen Tafeln. Bern ; Berlin : H. Huber, 1932 Edition 2. Aufl. Herausgegeben von Dr. W. Morgenthaler.3rd edition, revised and enlarged, 1942.4th edition, with a new bibliography. 1949.5th edition, with a new bibliography, 1951.6th edition, 1964.7th edition, 1969.8th edition. 1975.9th edition. 1981.10th edition, 1998.

Psychodiagnostics; a diagnostic test based on perception. Including Rorschach's paper, The application of the form interpretation test (pub. posthumously by Emil Oberholzer) Translation and English ed. by Paul Lemkau and Bernard Kronenberg. Berne, Switzerland, H. Huber; New York, N. Y. Grune & Stratton inc., [c1942]

H. Rorschach & E. Oberholzer:The application of the interpretation of form to psychoanalysis. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 1923, 60225–248, 359–379.

Gesammelte Aufsatze. Zusammengestellt u. hrsg. von K. W. Bash Bern : H. Huber, 1965.

References

Samuel Jacob Beck (1896-):The Rorschach test as applied to a feeble-minded group. New York, 1932. With bibliography. Series: Archives of psychology, volume 21, no. 136. Issued also as Ph.D. thesis, Columbia university

Henri Frédéric Ellenberger (1905-):Hermann Rorschach, M.D., 1884-1922. A biographical study. Topeka, Kansas, Menninger Foundation. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, v. 18, no. 5, Sept. 1954. With bibliography.

The Discovery of the Unconscious. Basic Books 1970.

Beyond the unconscious : essays of Henri F. Ellenberger in the history of psychiatry / introduced and edited by Mark S. Micale ; translations from the French by Françoise Dubor and Mark S. Micale. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993

E. Bohm, et al: A Textbook in Rorschach Test Diagnosis. Grune & Stratton, New York & London,1958.

Der Rorschach-Test.Bern, Huber.1974.

Lehrbuch der Rorschach-Psychodiagnostik. 4th ed. Huber, Bern 1972. Later editions are unchanged.

Blindauswertung eines Rorschach-Protokolls : wie steht es um die Validität des Rorschach'schen Formdeutversuchs? : Vergleich mit der Originaluntersuchung und dem Psychogramm von Hermann Rorschach. Bern : H. Huber, 1975. In the Rorschachiana series; 12. Beiheft zur Schweizerischen Zeitschrift für Psychologie und ihre Anwendungen ; Nr. 59.

P. Pichot:Centenary of the birth of Hermann Rorschach. (S. Rosenzweig & E. Schriber, Trans.). Journal of Personality Assessment, 1984, 48, 591–596.

M. W. Acklin:Avoiding Rorschach dichotomies: Integrating Rorschach interpretation.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 1995, 64, 235–238.

B. Ritzler:Putting your eggs in the content analysis basket: A response to Aronow, Reznikoff and Moreland. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1995, 64, 229–234.

E Aronow, M. Reznikoff & K. L. Moreland:The Rorschach: Projective technique or psychometric test? Journal of Personality Assessment, 1995, 64, 213–228.

M. W. Acklin & J. Oliveira-Berry:Return to the source: Rorschach’s Psychodiagnostics.. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1996, 67, 427–433.

J. H. Kleiger:Rorschach shading responses: From a printer’s error to an integrated psychoanalytic paradigm. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1997, 69, 342–364.

 

   © 1994-2001 Ole Daniel Enersen. All rights reserved.

     

The Rorschach Test 

The Rorschach Test

Most people have heard of the Rorschach test (pronounced "raw-shock"), but few have ever seen a real Rorschach inkblot. The blots are kept secret. When you see an inkblot in a popular article on the test (as in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on the Rorschach test), it's a fake: it's an an inkblot, but not one of the inkblots. There are only ten Rorschach inkblots.

Psychologists want the blots to remain a secret from the general public so that reactions to the blots will be spontaneous. Hermann Rorschach hoped these spontaneous reactions would yield valuable clues to the test subject's personality. Whether they do remains controversial. Many psychologists think the Rorschach test is hopelessly unreliable; others see it as one of the cardinal tools of modern psychodiagnosis. Even among those who acknowledge the value of the test, there is disagreement on interpretation of responses.

Just as secret as the blots themselves are the ground rules for administering the test. There are a few things that you, as a subject, are supposed to know and a lot of things you aren't supposed to know. If you ask about something you're not supposed to know, the psychologist will give you a pat answer as prescribed in Rorschach literature. For example, if you ask if it is okay to turn the card upside down, the psychologist will respond that you may do as you like; it's up to you. The psychologist won't say that many of the cards are easier to interpret when turned; that most people do turn the cards; that he or she will make a notation with a little arrowhead every time you do turn a card; and that you lose points in the initiative department if you don't turn the cards.

You'll be handed the cards one by one in the fixed order devised by Rorschach (there are numbers on the backs of the cards for the psychologist's benefit). The first card, for instance, looks like a fox's head or a jack-o-lantern. The cards are thick, rectangular cardboard, 6 5/8 inches by 9 1/5 inches. Half of the blots are black ink on a white background. Two others are black and red ink on white, and the last three blots are multicolored. The psychologist will always put each card in your hands "right" side up.

You aren't supposed to know it, but the psychologist will write down everything you say. This includes any seemingly irrelevant questions you may have. To keep you from getting wise, the psychologist always arranges to sit to your side and a little behind you, so that you can't look at the card and the psychologist at the same time. Most subjects realize the psychologist is taking notes, of course, but they don't realize that the notes are a special shorthand record of everything said. Some psychologists use hidden tape recorders.

The psychologist will also time how long it takes you to respond, using a "tickless" watch. The psychologist will not ask you to hurry up or slow down and will not make any reference to time, but response times (in seconds) are one of the things he or she is writing in the notes.

Don't hold the card at an unusual angle. Watch how you phrase things. Say "This looks like ..." or "This could be ..." never "This is..." After all, you're supposed to realize that it is just a blot of ink on a card. By the same token, don't be too literal and say things as, "This is a blotch of black ink." Don't groan, get emotional, or make irrelevant comments. Don't put your hands on the cards to block out parts. The psychologist will watch for all of the foregoing as signs of brain damage.

If there are no right answers for the test, there are some general guidelines as to what is a normal response. You can probably see images in the inkblots proper and in the white spaces they enclose. Stick to the former. Don't be afraid of being obvious. There are several responses that almost everyone gives; mentioning these shows the psychologist you're a regular guy.

It is okay to be original if you can justify what you see in the shape, shading, or color of the blot. If you see an abalone and can point out why it looks like one, then say so. Justifiable original responses are usually judged to be indicative of creativity or intelligence.

You don't want non sequiturs, images that don't fit the blot in the judgment of the psychologist. These may be signs of psychosis.

You're expected to see more than one thing on all or most of the cards. Not being able to see anything on a card suggests neurosis. Usually the more things you can see, the better, as long as they fit the form and color of the blot. Of course, you can see things in the whole blot or in parts of it, and images may overlap.

Since time is a factor, it is important to come up with good answers fast. (It looks particularly bad if you take a long time and give a dumb, inappropriate answer.) The most reliable way to come up with good answers is to memorize what the good answers are. Copyright restrictions prevent us from showing you the blots themselves, so we'll use outlines. We'll refer to the blots as psychologists do, as Plates I through X. The psychologist won't mention the numbers to you, but the blots will always be in order.

Plate I

Black ink. A roughly triangular shape, point down, suggesting a broad, fox like face with prominent ears. Naughty bits: a pair of breasts (rounded projections at top of blot); a vertical female figure, her torso partly visible through a gauzy dress (along center line).

The first blot is easy. How fast you answer is taken as an indication of how well you cope with new situations. The best reaction is to give one of the most common responses immediately. Good answers are bat, butterfly, moth, and (in center of blot) a female figure. Mask, jack-o'-lantern, and animal face are common responses too, but in some interpretation schemes they suggest paranoia. A bad response is any

that says something untoward about the central female figure. "She" is often judged to be a projection of your own self-image. Avoid the obvious comment that the figure has two breasts but no head.

If you don't give more than one answer for Plate I, many psychologists will drop a hint--tell you to look closer.

Plate II

Black and red ink. Two dark-gray splotches suggesting dancing figures. Red splotches at top of each figure and at bottom center. Naughty bits: penis (upper center, black ink); vagina (the red area at bottom center).

It is important to see this blot as two human figures usually females or clowns. If you don't, it's seen as a sign that you have trouble relating to people. You may give other responses as well, such as cave entrance (the triangular white space between the two figures) and butterfly (the red "vagina," bottom center).

Should you mention the penis and vagina? Not necessarily. Every Rorsehach plate has at least one obvious representation of sexual anatomy. You're not expected to mention them all. In some interpretation schemes, mentioning more than four sex images in the ten plates is diagnostic of schizophrenia. The trouble is, subjects who took Psychology 101 often assume they should detail every possible sex response, so allowances must be made. Most Rorschach workers believe the sex images should play a part in the interpretation of responses even when not mentioned. You may not say that the lower red area looks like a vagina, but psychologists assume that what you do say will show how you feel about women. Nix on "crab"; stick with

"butterfly."

Plate III

Black and red ink. Two obvious .figures (black ink) facing each other. Butterfly-shaped red blot between the figures; an elongated red blot behind each figure's head. Naughty bits: penises and breasts (at anatomically appropriate positions for each figure).

This is the blot that supposedly can determine sexual preference. Most people see the two human figures. Both figures have prominent "breasts" and an equally prominent "penis." If you don't volunteer the gender of the figures, you'll be asked to specify it. By the traditional interpretation, seeing the figures as male is a heterosexual response (for test subjects of both sexes). Describing the figures as female or acknowledging the androgynous nature of the blot is supposed to be a homosexual response. Does it work? Not really--many straights describe the figures as women, and not all gays give a gay response. A 1971 study at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York showed the traditionally heterosexual response (two male figures) to be declining in popularity. The splotches of red ink are usually perceived separately. Common responses are "bow-tie" or "ribbon" (inner red area) and a stomach and esophagus (outer red areas).

Plate IV

Black ink. A roughly triangular blot, point up, with the two lower comer regions resembling boots or pet. Naughty bits: two penises (on either side of blot, near top of triangle); vagina (on center line near top of blot).

Plate IV is the "father card." At first glance it is a difficult blot to see as a single image. The "boots" are fairly conspicuous; between them is the apparent head of a dog or Chinese dragon. Many subjects see the blot as an animal skin. After a few seconds, though, most can see it as a standing figure seen from below.The boots become the feet, enlarged because of the unusual perspective. The arms and head, at the top, are smaller. Common descriptions are bear, gorilla, or man in a heavy coat. Bad descriptions are monster or attacking bear or gorilla-Rorschach theorists equate your description of the figure with your perception of your father or male authority figures.

Plate V

Black ink. A simple, bat like shape. Naughty bits: two penises (the "ears" or "antennae").

Rorschach himself thought this was the easiest blot to interpret. It is a bat or a butterfly, period. You don't want to mention anything else. Seeing the projections on the ends of the bat wings as crocodile heads signifies hostility. Seeing the paired butterfly antennae or feet as scissors or pliers signifies a castration complex. Schizophrenics sometimes see moving people in this blot. Many psychologists take particular note of the number of responses given to this plate. If you mention more images here than in either Plate IV or VI, it is suggestive of schizophrenia.

Plate VI

Black ink. An irregular shape like that of an animal-skin rug. Naughty bits: penis (center line at top); vagina (below penis).

Plate VI is the most difficult blot. The best-rendered penis of all the blots is at top, but few subjects mention it. The rest of the blot doesn't look like much of anything. Some hold that the value of this blot is to have the subject grope for images and possibly reveal subconscious attitudes about sexuality.

Basically, the secret of this plate is to turn it. A good response is to say it looks like an animal hide (about the only reasonable response when held right side up), then turn it on its side and say it looks like a boat or surfaced submarine with reflection, and then turn it upside down and say it looks like a mushroom cloud, a pair of theater masks, or caricatures of men with long noses and goatees.

Plate VII

Black ink. A U-shaped blot, each side of the U resembling a female figure in a narrow-waisted dress. Naughty bits: a vagina (on center line at bottom of U).

Christina Crawford meets projective psychology: This blot is supposed to reveal how you really feel about your mother. Virtually everyone sees two girls or women. Deprecating descriptions of the figures~ "witches," "gossips," "girls fighting," "spinsters" indicate poor maternal relations. Seeing the blot as thunderclouds instead of female figures suggests anxiety to some psychologists; seeing it as a walnut kernel may mean a vulgar fixation.

There is an entirely different side to this blot, but you're not supposed to see it. The white space between the girls or women can be interpreted as an oil lamp or similar object. It is claimed that only schizophrenics usually see the lamp.

Plate VIII

Pink, blue, gray, and orange ink. An almost circular array of interconnected forms--a gray triangle (point up) at top, a pair of blue rectangles in the center, a pink and orange splotch at bottom, and two pink "animal" shapes forming the right and left sides of the circle. Naughty bits: a vagina (pink-orange area at bottom).

The first full-color card is easy. It is important that you see the four-legged animals- lions, pigs, bears, etc. -on the sides of the blot. They're one of the most common responses on the test, and you're assumed to be a mental defective if you don't see them. Other good responses are tree (gray triangle at top), butterfly (pink and orange area at bottom), and rib cage or anatomy chart (skeletal pattern in center between blue rectangles and gray triangles). The entire configuration can be seen as a heraldic design (good answer) or a Christmas tree with ornaments (reaching). Children tend to like this blot and say a lot about it-the bright colors and animal shapes make it more interesting than your basic penis/vagina number (II, IV, or VI).

Plate IV

Green, orange, and pink ink. A very irregular upright rectangle. Orange at top, protruding green areas at center, pink at bottom. Naughty bits: a vagina (center line at bottom).

There aren't many good answers here. If you're going to throw up your hands (figuratively; see warning about emotional outbursts above) and plead a mental block, this is the place to do it. The colors clash, apparently by Rorschach's design. Good answers are a fire with smoke, an explosion (but paranoids are claimed more apt to note the pale green mushroom cloud on the center line at top), a map, anatomy, or a flower. If you turn the card ninety degrees, you can make out a man's head in the pink areas at bottom. (The man is identified as Mark Twain, Santa Claus, or Teddy Roosevelt.) A bad response is to describe the orange areas at top as monsters or men fighting---a sign of poor social development. As with Plate V, the psychologist may be counting the number of responses you give to this blot for comparison with the preceding and succeeding blots. You want to give fewer responses to this blot.

Plate X

Pink, blue, gray, green, yellow, and orange ink. A loose assortment of brightly colored shapes, the most chaotic of the plates. Naughty bits: penis and testes (top center, gray ink).

The unspoken purpose of this last blot is to test your organizational ability. Plate X is full of colorful odds and ends easy to identify---blue spiders, gray crabs, paired orange maple seeds, green caterpillars, a light-green rabbit's head, yellow and orange fried eggs--and you're expected to list them. But the psychologist will also be looking for a comprehensive answer, something that shows you grok the whole Gestalt. There are two good holistic answers: sea life and a view through a microscope. Some subjects see two reddish faces at top center, separated by the orange maple key. If you describe them as blowing bubbles or smoking pipes, it may be interpreted as evidence of an oral fixation. Seeing the gray "testes" and "penis" as two animals eating a stick or tree indicates castration anxiety.

    

Last Updated on

 

   Pri

nt Page

Send Page

The Rorschach Test:Additional Information And

Commentary

The Rorschach Test:Additional Information And

Commentary

Related Articles:     The Rorschach Test     Common Psychological Tests    

The Rorschach test is controversial; some mental health professionals swear by it, some swear at it. For example:

"Nobody agrees how to score Rorschach responses objectively. There is nothing to show what any particular response means to the person who gives it. And, there is nothing to show what it means if a number of people give the same response. The ink blots are scientifically useless." (Bartol, 1983).

"The only thing the inkblots do reveal is the secret world of the examiner who interprets them. These doctors are probably saying more about themselves than about the subjects." (Anastasi, 1982).

With this in mind, we present some additional commentary on the Rorschach test, much of it sent in to the SPARC site by mental health professionals who either use the Rorschach or are familiar with it.

"I disagree with many of my colleagues. I feel one cannot invalidate a test that is of unproven validity. I had a student once who gave the Rorschach and, without even looking at the responses or scores, wrote the '...most obvious psychobabble' he could think of, turning it in as his report. The instructor subsequently told the student that this was '...one of the best reports he had ever seen'. The Rorschach should be used only for its original purpose, i.e. a parlor game. Although I cannot remember the author, I remember

once reading in Buros something to the effect that "The Rorschach was intended to be an x-ray of the mind but it turned out to be more of a mirror". I, for one, think your page does a public service by exposing a vestigial, anachronistic, and invalid psychological assessment procedure."

Daniel E. Stanczak, Ph.D.San Antonio, TX USA - Monday, June 26, 2000 at 11:22:28 (EDT)

One psychologist wrote in and said:

"Just a point of note ... Your information on the Rorschach is somewhat out of date. As a psychologist, I am not so much bothered with the fact that you put the information on the page ... but that it is not accurate. Specifically, in the example you mention that the psychologist used the Beck or Klopfer method. That is correct regarding the example; however, very few American psychologist still use that method. The current method (which is much more valid and reliable) is the Comprehensive System developed by Exner."

"I would suggest that you may want to put some sort of disclaimer at the top of the page that advises readers that the use of the information provided would compromise the evaluation and it is better for the client to tell the psychologist that they are familiar with the Rorschach. They don't have to say why they are familiar, but any ethical psychologist would not then administer the test and the issue of its validity would be a moot point. Or, if the person still wants to take the test, they should probably be aware that a compromised administration is as likely to hurt the person as it is to help them. The reason I say this is that I beleive that most psychologists (ethical ones at least) are looking out for the best interests of the child. If the psychologist suspects the person has been coached (whether in person or otherwise) that will make the person look very bad. On the other hand, if the person "gets away with it" it is possible the information may actually make the person seem worse than they really are."

"I say these things because I presume you want to help those fathers who are really good parents and being screwed by a bad system rather than helping legitimately bad fathers who are playing some game with the lives of their children. Fathers who truly care about their children will show that on the Rorschach and there should be no need to cheat ... presuming an ethical and competent psychologist."

"In the case that the psychologist is not competent or ethical ... here are some more suggestions for your users:

1. Although a client in a court mandated situation may not be able to refuse the evaluation, he can probably refuse to take a Rorschach or contest its use. The easiest way is to simply tell the psychologist that he is familiar with the test. Or the person

can ask the person is they use the comprehensive system and refuse if the person does not.

2. The person can state they are willing to comply with the administration of objective tests (e.g., MMPI-2) but do not want to take projective tests. (By the way... the MMPI-2 is also a notoriously poor test ... it is outdated with poor norms, etc. See Ziskin and Faust's book for more information).

3. After the fact, a person can file a complaint with the State Psychology Board or the American Psychological Association for breach of duty, malpractice, etc.

4. Better yet, if the person can afford it, hire a private psychologist to perform an evaluation. Make sure the psychologist is ethical and competent and has experience in child custody litigation. If one can afford a psychologist who is board certified (i.e., has a ABPP or ABFP after their degree), this is even better because these individuals are more likely to use appropriate child custody assessments."

(Name withheld by request)

One psychologist's comment on the Rorschach Test article:

"If someone took your suggestions at face value, and gave all 'popular' responses included in your list, they might well be seen as rigid, uncreative, and unable to problem-solve in a unique and positive way. Maybe not. It would all depend on a number of factors not included in your article; such as, the interpretive system used, the total number of percepts, and responses to other test materials."

Another psychologist wrote in and said:

"I have performed about 200 full scale custody evaluations for the local family courts in Hawaii and about 4,000 evaluations during my 20 years of testing. I am well aware of the uneven playing field in the divorce business. I have no problem with the accuracy of the information you provide about the Rorschach (although I need to take a closer look). I question its actual value to your clientele especially in light of the obvious violation of test security. As I said before, if you suppose that by reading the material you are helping the client, I think you are mistaken. First, the standard instructions include a question, have you ever taken or heard of the test before? Well, if the person denies that he has (and he has read your website) then he is lying. Second, he places his credibility in question in a situation where the stakes are high. In other words, I don't believe the material should be there at all. I have not had a chance to look your website over in toto but have you also provided coaching material on

the Wechsler scales or the MMPI, the other two most commonly used tests? In short, any actual attempt to put the information to use, presumably for good reasons, is a relatively easy thing to detect (if you don't believe me then check out the MMPI and Rorschach malingering/fake good literature). Then you have a client who during the psych eval comes across as inauthentic, faking, or lying...a potentially devastating outcome in a custody matter."

Marvin W. Acklin, Ph.D, ABPP

Some additional notes from "Misuse of Psychological Tests in Forensic Settings: Some Horrible Examples" by Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield

"Few evaluators using the Rorschach acknowledge its limitations.  If the Rorschach is used, its limitations should be clearly noted unless the Exner system is used.  And then, it is necessary to say what is being scored by the Exner system.  But often, idiosyncratic interpretation techniques are used to form conclusions and make recommendations which affect the lives of people."

"There is no empirical support for the validity of the Rorschach, except when the Exner system is used.  Reviews in the Buros Mental Measurement Yearbook for every year in which this test has been reviewed state that there is no research demonstrating its validity. For example, in the Eighth Mental Measurements Yearbook Peterson concluded: "The general lack of predicted validity for the Rorschach raises serious questions about its continued use in clinical practice.""

In commenting upon the use of the Rorschach, Dawes writes:

"Now that I am no longer a member of the American Psychological Association Ethics Committee, I can express my personal opinion that the use of Rorschach interpretations in establishing an individual's legal status and child custody is the single most unethical practice of my colleagues.  It is done, widely.  Losing legal rights as a result of responding to what is presented as a "test of imagination," often in the context of "helping" violates what I believe to be a basic ethical principle in this society — that people are judged on the basis of what they do, not on the basis of what they feel, think, or might have a propensity to do.  And being judged on an invalid assessment of such thoughts, feelings, and propensities amounts to losing one's civil rights on an essentially random basis."

Example 8

The psychologist in this example interpreted the Rorschach

as reflecting:

[a] ... highly defensive stance which is accompanied with blocking, censoring, and inhibition of his underlying affect ... an undercurrent of anxiety, unrequited love, and cloaked sexuality ... difficulty with relating appropriately to others ... latent polymorphous perverse orientation to the environment ... fantasies (that may include) homosexual, bisexual, and exhibitionist feelings ... hostility toward women ...

Examination of the man's actual responses to the Rorschach yields no evidence for interpreting his Rorschach as pathological.  Although there is indication of scoring, apparently using the Klopfer or Beck scoring approaches, there is no report of any of the ratios and no attempt to base any of the interpretations upon either a scoring summary or specific responses.  Within the Rorschach literature the actual responses of the client do not warrant these interpretations. They are personal, subjective, and idiosyncratic interpretations.  The interpretations assert the reality of inferred unconscious processes going on inside the client.  There are no scientific data to support postulation of these intervening variables.  The phrase, "latent polymorphous perverse orientation to the environment," is meaningless jargon with no referent in reality.

Copyright SPARC 2000. All Rights Reserved.May be freely copied and used provided the SPARC attribution line is kept intact and the SPARC link is included.

Page Location: http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/rorschach2.htm

| Home |Articles|Guide|Forums|Chat|Links|Search|Attorneys|FAQ Center|Dictionary|Surveys|Letters|Guestbook|Email|About|

FOUNDATIONSPROJECTS.........APPLICATI

 

results   an example   the model   mmse test

 

Rorschach test is a set of 10 platesmaked in the first half of past century.The author used symetrical ink splasheswith different colours and forms.The test allows evaluationof various aspectsof personality.In clinical psychopathologyit has high diagnostic specificitiesand sensibilities.

"Almost all subjects considerthe experience as an imagination challenge...The interpretation of casual images

ONSmmse

rorschach....LINKS..FRA

MES

SPANISHFRENCHOVNIBUS 8 rue des Gallois app 102331400

TOULOUSE FRANCETel 33-5

62 26 73 46ovnibus@free.fr

 

is more in the areas of perception and ideation"

Psychodiagnotik, 1947, Verlag Hans Huber, Berna

Problems related to accessibilityof plates is an important fencefor diffusion and developement of this technic.It is the case of paralel seriesannounced by Rorchach himself.

Otherwise, progress in edition could open new spacesof research.

 

Tests'objectivity has been judged by results in double blinded studies.But it is in clinical contextthat the Rorschach has it usefulness.

Its includes discussionand defense of argumentswith a multidisciplinary approach.

Multimedia ressourcescould be used in information adquisitionand interpretation.A distributed databasecould be usedin clinical protocols

We don't thinkthat informatical analysis of results has a great interest

TOP

results   an example   the model   mmse test

This is an adaptation ofthe Rorschach Research Foundation's notationExner, J.E. The Rorschach: A comprehensive System, vol 1 : Basic Foundations, 2nd ed, 1986 John Wiley & Sons, New-YorkK is from Klopfer's notationand C' is about usageof black, white or grey

as colours without shading significanceKopfer,B. The shading responsesRorschach Research Exchange 1938,vol 2 pages 76-79

plate  quantity  duration  description   localisation determinants

(+/-)

 I to 10number of answers  time  text W=whole  F=forms

       voice(sound)  D=detailM=humain mouvement

       graphs(images)Dd=uncommondetail

FM=animalmouvement

       Do=fragmentsee ordinarily as W

m=inanimatedobject's mouvement

       S=addition when white spaces

 C=color

          Cn=naming color

         C'=achromaticalcolor

           K=shade

           T=texture

           V=depht or relief

TOP 

 

results  an example   the model   mmse test

Man, 78 years old, franc senile demency since 3 years.Psychodiagnotik, 1947, chapter V n°27, Verlag Hans Huber, Berna

plate quantity  duration  description   localisation determinants(+/-)

I 

    two horse heads  W  F -

 II

    a plant figure  DW  F -

 III

    something as a flower  W  F -

 IV

IV upside down    

birds

 

 

 

animals

 D

 

 

DW

 F -

 

 

F -

 V

    a bird  DW  F -

VI 

    a leaf  W  F -

 VII

     flowers  W  F -

 VIII

   

a little roof

for the sun

(parasol)

D

D

D

 FC -

F -

F -

 IX

     flowers, roses  DW  CF +

X 

     a rose  DW  CF -

TOP

results   an example  the model   mmse test

 

 create table rorschach(code int8,card int,number int,time int,description text,localisation char(2),

contents test,originality char,PRIMARY KEY (code),FOREIGEN KEY (ssn)REFERENCES WHO,FOREIGN KEY (cgn)REFERENCES CARE);

 

  TOP