Rorschach test

Method

The Rorschach test is suitable for subjects from age five through adulthood. The administrator and subject sit side by side at a table, with the examiner slightly behind, to reduce inadvertent cues that might influence responses and to maintain a relaxed but controlled atmosphere. Ten official inkblots, each printed on a separate white card about 18 by 24 cm, are used; all have near perfect bilateral symmetry and vary in color and shading. These variations are intended to elicit different types of responses, commonly involving animals, human figures, or abstract shapes, and may provoke associations related to authority, interpersonal dynamics, or sexuality.

The test proceeds through a free association phase where the subject responds to all inkblots, followed by an inquiry phase where each card is presented again and the subject indicates where they saw what they originally perceived and what made it look that way. Subjects may hold and rotate the cards; whether they rotate them or ask permission to do so can reveal personality traits. The psychologist records everything the subject says or does, and responses are analyzed using a tabulation and scoring sheet and, if needed, a separate location chart.

Usage

The Rorschach test is primarily administered by psychologists. As of 2007, forensic psychologists used it 36% of the time, and in custody evaluations, 23% of psychologists employed it with children. One survey indicated that 124 out of 161 clinical psychologists who provide assessment services use the Rorschach, and 80% of graduate psychology programs teach it.

Another study found that only 43% of clinical psychologists use it, while school psychologists do so less than 24% of the time. During World War II, U.S. Army psychiatrist Douglas Kelley and psychologist Gustave Gilbert gave the test to 22 Nazi leaders before the first Nuremberg trials, with results published decades later. Computerized interpretation began in the 1950s and 1960s when psychologist Zygmunt Piotrowski created a system with over 1,000 rules but no summary or narrative.

In the 1970s, psychologists Perline and Cabanski developed a computerized version that included summaries and conclusions, marketed worldwide. In the 1980s, John Exner introduced a computerized interpretation based on his Exner Comprehensive System, which is now the only such system commercially available. Debate over computerized assessment continues because there is no definitive correct interpretation to compare scores against.

Inkblots

Card I often prompts subjects to ask how to proceed, and questions about turning the card are not very significant; it provides clues about handling new stressful tasks but is not usually difficult, with readily available popular responses. Card II features red details frequently seen as blood, which can indicate how a subject manages feelings of anger or physical harm, and it can induce a variety of sexual responses.

Card III is typically perceived as containing two humans interacting, offering information about how the subject relates to others; response latency may reveal struggling social interactions. Card IV is notable for its dark color and shading, posing difficulties for depressed subjects, and is generally seen as a big, sometimes threatening figure, with the subject in an inferior position; it elicits a sense of authority and is almost invariably classified as male, leading to its nickname 'The Father Card.' Card V is easily elaborated, not usually perceived as threatening, and instigates a change of pace after more challenging cards; it is the easiest blot for generating a good quality response. Card VI has texture as its dominant characteristic, often eliciting associations related to interpersonal closeness; it is specifically a 'sex card,' with likely sexual percepts reported more frequently than on any other card, though other cards have a greater variety of commonly seen sexual contents.

Controversy

Some skeptics consider the Rorschach inkblot test pseudoscience, as several studies since the 1950s suggested that conclusions reached by test administrators were akin to cold reading. In the 1959 edition of Mental Measurement Yearbook, Lee Cronbach stated that the test had repeatedly failed as a predictor of practical criteria and that there was nothing in the literature to encourage reliance on Rorschach interpretations. Major reviewer Raymond J. McCall noted that despite tens of thousands of tests administered and over 2,000 publications, the vast majority of hypothesized relationships to personality dynamics and behavior had never been validated empirically.

A moratorium on its use was called for in 1999. A 2003 report by Wood and colleagues offered more mixed views, acknowledging that some Rorschach scores possess validity greater than chance, though falling short of proponents' claims. Its value as a measure of thought disorder in schizophrenia research is well accepted, and it is used regularly in research on dependency and less often on hostility and anxiety.

Substantial evidence justifies its use as a clinical measure of intelligence and thought disorder. Critics also note that the blots are not entirely meaningless, and that a patient typically responds to meaningful as well as ambiguous aspects. Reber described the blots as merely the vehicle for the interaction between client and therapist, concluding that the test's usefulness depends on the tester's sensitivity, empathy, and insightfulness independently of the Rorschach itself.

Did You Know?

• The use of interpreting ambiguous designs to assess personality dates back to Leonardo da Vinci and Botticelli.
• Interpretation of inkblots was central to a late 19th-century game called Gobolinks.
• Australian artist Ben Quilty has used the Rorschach technique in his paintings by loading impasto oil paint onto a canvas and pressing a second canvas onto it.