Rorsarch InkBlot Test

Vaishnavi Arora (22223129)

4MPCLNCR B
CHRIST (Deemed to be University) Delhi NCR
Psychodiagnostic Lab-II – MPS451N
Dr Neeraj Panwar
April 10, 2024
Aim-

To assess different facets of personality of an individual using Rorschach Inkblot Test

Introduction

Personality refers to our characteristic ways of responding to individuals and situations.

Within the realm of psychology, there is no common definition of personality, however there are

a few agreed upon definitions that hold common concepts. According to Allport (1961),

“personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychological systems

that determine his unique adjustment to his environment.” It is also defined as several

characteristics that blend in together to make an individual unique (Weinberg & Gould, 1999).

Personality can be understood thoroughly through two approaches: trait approach and

type approach. The type approach explains personality by looking at patterns in the observed
behaviors of people. Some examples of type theories are William Sheldon’s type theory

proposing endomorphic, mesomorphic and ectomorphic divisions and Friedman and Rosenman’s

type A and B personalities. Trait approach theorizes personality as a set of dispositions, broad

traits. Gordon Allport with the cardinal, central and secondary traits, Cattell’s 16 Personality

factors and the big five factor model by Costa and McCrae are psychologists that theorized

personality through this approach. An interactional approach however, would suggest that

situational factors vitally help in determining behavior (Anastasi, et. al.,1997).

“Personality tests" specifically measure emotional, motivational, interpersonal, and

attitudinal traits, rather than cognitive abilities. These tests are designed to provide insight into an

individual's non-intellectual qualities, such as their behavior, values, and attitudes towards others

(Anastasi, et. al.,1997). Personality assessment involves measuring an individual's personal traits

through various methods, such as interviews and psychological tests. These tests help

psychologists gain insight into an individual's typical characteristics, such as their thoughts,

emotions, and behaviors. The process of assessment involves gathering information and

analyzing it to provide a clear picture of an individual's personality. The results of the assessment

can then be used to further research in the field. Personality assessment is an important tool that

helps us better understand ourselves and others. Personality assessment methods can be broadly

classified into three categories: (1) Personality Inventories, which include standardized

questionnaires that measure personality traits and characteristics, (2) Projective Techniques,

which use ambiguous stimuli to elicit unconscious thoughts and feelings, and (3) Observational

Methods, which involve the direct observation of an individual's behavior in real-life settings.

Personality inventories are often used to provide a snapshot of an individual's personality traits,

while projective techniques can reveal unconscious thoughts and feelings that may be difficult to
access through other methods. Observational methods can provide valuable insights into how an

individual behaves in natural settings, such as at work or in social situations.

There have been various definitions put forth to explain the fundamental rationale behind

projective tests, which is known as the projective hypothesis. One of the most comprehensive

analyses of this concept is credited to L.K. Frank (1939). The basic premise of the projective

hypothesis is that when individuals are presented with an unclear or ambiguous stimulus, their

interpretation of it is influenced by their internal needs, emotions, experiences, previous

conditioning, cognitive processes, and other relevant factors. Essentially, the way people

perceive and respond to projective test stimuli provides valuable information about their

underlying personality traits, thought patterns, and psychological states (Kaplan, et. al., 2001).

Projective techniques are advantageous when compared to other structured personality

tests since they have the capability to circumvent conscious defenses and enable clinicians to

obtain access to latent psychological information, such as conflicts and impulses, that individuals

themselves may not be aware of (Kaplan, et. al., 2001). As a result, advocates of projective

techniques have emphasized that they offer additional validity for personality assessment and

psychopathology, which is not as apparent through structured measures (Riethmiller & Handler,

1997a,b; Weiner, 1999).

Projective testing techniques can mainly be divided into 4 types, which are i) Association

tests. ii) Construction tests. iii) Completion tests. iv) Choice or ordering tests and v) Expressive

tests (Lindzey, 1959)

History of Rorschach Inkblot Test

 Hermann Rorschach, born on November 8, 1884, in Zurich, Switzerland, hailed from a

modest background. His father, a painter of humble means, supplemented his income by teaching

art privately. From a young age, Hermann displayed a keen interest in drawing, earning the

nickname "Klex" from his school friends, derived from his fondness for Klecksography. This

childhood pastime involved creating unique figures by folding ink-blotted paper, foreshadowing

the blurred images central to his Psychodiagnosis test. Graduating in Medicine from Zurich in

1909, he coincided with the burgeoning influence of Sigmund Freud's revolutionary ideas.

Rorschach avidly absorbed Freud's concepts, particularly regarding the unconscious, which

transitioned from philosophical abstraction to scientific inquiry (Filho, 2020).

In 1911, Rorschach delved into studies and research with inkblots, seeking more than

mere exploration of imagination and fantasy. He aimed to develop a method for personality

assessment, integrating inkblot interpretation with perception and apperception. On November

12, 1912, he earned his Doctor of Medicine degree from the University of Zurich and published

"Reflex Hallucinations and Symbolism," further advancing his psychodiagnosis methodology.

Influenced by psychoanalytic principles, Rorschach, alongside Otto Biswanger and colleagues,

established the Zurich Psychoanalysis Society (Pichot, 1984; Filho, 2020).

In 1914, he pursued a specialisation in psychiatry at the University of Zurich. From 1915

to 1922, Rorschach served as chief physician at Herisau Hospital, collaborating with Hans Behn

Eschenburg. Eschenburg later developed a parallel series of inkblots known as the Behn-

Rorschach test. Symon Hens's research in 1917 profoundly influenced Rorschach during this

period. Hens utilised 8 cards featuring uncoloured ink stains to analyse responses from children,

normal adults, and psychotic patients (De Freitas, 2005).

 The following year, in 1918, Hermann Rorschach devised 15 boards incorporating two

key elements: axis and symmetry. These boards varied in colour, with some in black and white,

others in black and red, and some in full colour. He commenced experimentation with these

boards on patients at Herisau Hospital, as well as on nurses, medical students, children, and other

individuals, comprising a sample of 288 mentally ill and 117 "normal" subjects. Rorschach noted

correlations in responses among schizophrenic patients, leading him to propose that mental

health could be evaluated based on an individual's visual information processing. He then

submitted his test boards to a publisher for serial printing. As requested by the publisher, the

boards were condensed to 10, a format that has since remained unchanged (Schwarz, 2011;

Filho, 2020).

As per John Exner (1993), Hermann Rorschach initially unveiled the 10 inkblots in 1921

through a monograph titled "Psychodiagnostik." This publication encapsulated the findings of

Rorschach's extensive studies and experiments with the devised boards. Within this work,

Rorschach laid the groundwork for what he termed a projective test (Rorschach, 1942). He

elucidated his intention to probe individuals' imaginative interpretations by prompting them to

articulate associations evoked by the presented drawings. Preceding this endeavour, Rorschach

delved deeply into the mechanisms of dreams, delirium, and hallucinations. Despite his enduring

adherence to Freudian principles, traces of Jungian influence are discernible in his concepts and

language (Alexy, 2018). Rorschach aimed to unveil the internal imagery and cultural imprints

within his patients' responses. His primary aim was to discern whether patients exhibited

neurotic or psychotic tendencies, prevailing psychoanalytic constructs in Psychiatry at the time.

The fundamental premise posited that when confronted with an ambiguous image, such as an
inkblot, an individual's mind would endeavour to imbue it with significance, thereby revealing

the individual's mental state (Filho, 2020).

The creation of the boards, their utilisation with patients and "normal" individuals, the

composition of the book, and its challenging publication in June 1921 transpired in just over

three years (Hubbard & Hegarty, 2016). The subsequent year saw Rorschach's untimely passing

at the age of 37 due to acute peritonitis resulting from appendicitis, shortly after the release of his

publication. His premature demise prematurely halted further exploration into the

Psychodiagnostic method (Filho, 2020).

In the absence of a clear leader to guide its administration, scoring, and interpretation, at

least four distinct "systems" emerged. Unsurprisingly, doubts and inquiries regarding the test's

reliability and validity eventually arose. In the late 1950s, John Exner entered the scene. David

Rapport, Bruno Klopfer, Marguerite Hertz, Zygmunt Piotrowski, and Samuel Beck each

contributed to his aspiration to amalgamate various systems into a more cohesive framework

(Exner, 1993). Exner's (1993) initial investigations revealed that while each system "possessed

significant merit, they also exhibited notable flaws to varying degrees" (p. viii).

Review of Literature

Since its inception by Hermann Rorschach in his seminal work "Psychodiagnostik"

(Rorschach, 1951), the Rorschach test has been a subject of extensive examination and debate

within psychological literature. Various authors have delved into its peculiar origins and

developmental trajectory, shedding light on its nuanced complexities (Krishnamurthy et al.,

2011; Meyer, 2017; Schott, 2014). Positioned against its structured self-report counterparts,

proponents argue that the Rorschach test offers a unique advantage by probing beyond conscious

and overt behavioral manifestations (Finn, 1996; Stenius et al., 2018).

Advocates of the Rorschach method contend that its reliance on ambiguous stimuli with

minimal instructions enables access to examinees' unconscious processes, thus providing insights

into their automatic, structural, and longitudinal functioning (Siipola & Taylor, 1952; Weiner et

al., 1996). Furthermore, proponents assert its potential in detecting and assessing repressed

traumatic memories, particularly those related to abuse, albeit subject to critical scrutiny

(Cerney, 1990; Leavitt & Labott, 1996; Otgaar et al., 2019).

In addition to its diagnostic potential, the Rorschach test holds promise within therapeutic

contexts, serving as a valuable component in comprehensive differential diagnosis assessments.

It offers a unique lens through which to observe an individual's responses to ambiguity, ascertain

preferred clinical intervention methods, and monitor therapeutic progress (Rose et al., 2002).

Expanding its utility, recent literature has explored the Rorschach method's efficacy in

detecting alterations linked to various aspects of psychic functioning. Specifically, studies have

highlighted its relevance in identifying memory deficits, emotional containment issues, impulse

control challenges, linguistic errors, and perseveration tendencies (Alexy, 2018; Kumazaki,

2016; Mothersill et al., 2016; Sanvicente-Vieira et al., 2017).

 The Rorschach method underscores its multifaceted role in psychological assessment and

intervention. While controversies persist regarding its reliability and validity, its unique ability to

access unconscious processes and provide nuanced insights into psychological functioning

continues to fuel scholarly inquiry and clinical application.

Description of the test

The Rorschach Inkblot test consists of 10 cards in total which includes chromatic (colored) and

achromatic (black and white) cards. The inkblots consist of 5 black and white cards

(cards 1, 4, 5, 6, 7) and 5 coloured cards (cards 2, 3- black, white and red & cards 8, 9, 10- multi-

colored). The ultimate aim of the test is to understand the uniqueness of the individual. The test

focuses on psychological operations and experiences which provide a sneak peek to the routine

decision-making processes of the individual.

Purpose of the Rorschach test

❖ Personality Assessment: One of the primary purposes of the Rorschach test is to assess an

individual's personality traits, including their cognitive style, emotional responsiveness,

interpersonal relationships, and coping mechanisms. By analysing their responses to the

inkblot images, psychologists can gain insights into various aspects of the individual's

personality structure and functioning.

❖ Psychopathology Detection: The Rorschach test is also used to detect signs of

psychopathology, such as mood disorders, anxiety disorders, personality disorders, and

psychotic disorders. Certain response patterns or content may indicate underlying

 psychological disturbances, providing valuable diagnostic information for treatment

planning and intervention.

❖ Insight into Unconscious Processes: The projective nature of the Rorschach test allows

for the exploration of unconscious thoughts, feelings, and conflicts that may not be

readily accessible through other assessment methods. Responses to the inkblots reflect

unconscious aspects of the individual's psyche, shedding light on hidden or repressed

psychological material.

❖ Assessment of Cognitive and Perceptual Processes: Beyond personality and emotional

assessment, the Rorschach test can also provide insights into an individual's cognitive and

perceptual processes. Analysis of response characteristics, such as cognitive complexity,

perceptual accuracy, and attention to detail, can inform understanding of their cognitive

functioning and information processing style.

❖ Treatment Planning and Monitoring: In clinical settings, the Rorschach test is used to

inform treatment planning and monitor therapeutic progress. By identifying personality

strengths and vulnerabilities, as well as areas of psychological distress or dysfunction,

psychologists can tailor interventions to meet the individual's specific needs and track

changes over time.

Different scoring methods

1. Comprehensive System (CS): Developed by John Exner, the Comprehensive System is one of

the most widely used scoring systems for the Rorschach test. It involves a detailed coding

process where responses are categorized based on various factors such as location, determinants
(e.g., form, color), content, and popular responses. Scores are then derived from these categories

to assess personality characteristics and psychological functioning.

2. Exner's Scoring System: This system, developed by John Exner as an extension of the

Comprehensive System, provides a structured approach to scoring Rorschach responses. It

includes specific rules and criteria for coding responses, as well as algorithms for generating

scores related to personality variables and clinical indicators.

3. Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS): R-PAS is a relatively newer scoring

system for the Rorschach test, designed to provide a more standardized and evidence-based

approach to interpretation. It emphasizes empirical research findings and psychometric

properties in scoring and interpretation, aiming to enhance reliability and validity.

4. Holtzman Inkblot Technique (HIT): Developed as an alternative to the Rorschach test, the

Holtzman Inkblot Technique uses a different set of inkblots and scoring methods. It focuses on

quantifying responses based on specific dimensions such as form, movement, and color, with

scores derived from statistical analyses of normative data.

5. Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM): The PDM offers a psychodynamically oriented

approach to Rorschach scoring and interpretation. It emphasizes themes and content analysis to

gain insights into unconscious processes, defense mechanisms, and personality dynamics.

Clinical Utility
 The Rorschach Inkblot Test is a psychological assessment tool that is commonly used in

clinical practice. It is based on the idea that a person's responses to a series of inkblots can reveal

information about their personality, emotions, and thought processes.

Despite its widespread use, the clinical utility of the Rorschach test remains controversial.

Some experts argue that it is a valuable tool for understanding a patient's psychological

functioning, while others argue that it lacks validity and reliability and can lead to inaccurate or

biased interpretations.

Several meta-analyses have been conducted on the Rorschach test, and the results have

been mixed. One meta-analysis by Viglione, Perry, and Meyer (2000) found moderate evidence

for the validity of the Rorschach test in predicting a patient's clinical diagnosis and treatment

outcome. Another meta-analysis by Wood, Lilienfeld, Garb, and Nezworski (2000) found that

the Rorschach test had low predictive validity for clinical outcomes, but may still have some

value in understanding a patient's personality traits.

Despite these mixed findings, the Rorschach test remains widely used in clinical practice.

Some clinicians believe that it can provide valuable insights into a patient's personality and

thought processes that may not be captured by other assessment tools. However, it is important

to use the test in conjunction with other assessment measures and to interpret the results

carefully, taking into account the potential biases and limitations of the test

Alternatives to the Rorschach test in psychological assessment

1. Thematic Apperception Test (TAT): This test involves showing individuals ambiguous

pictures and asking them to tell a story about what they see. It's often used to assess personality

characteristics, emotional functioning, and underlying motives.

2. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI: The MMPI is a self-report inventory

consisting of a large number of true/false questions. It's widely used to assess various aspects of

personality and psychopathology, including depression, anxiety, and personality disorders.

3. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI): This self-report inventory is specifically designed to

measure the severity of depression symptoms in individuals. It consists of a series of questions

about mood, behaviour, and physical symptoms related to depression.

4. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS): This comprehensive intelligence test assesses

various cognitive abilities, including verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working

memory, and processing speed. It's often used to evaluate intellectual functioning and cognitive

strengths and weaknesses.

5. Projective Drawings: These involve asking individuals to draw pictures or complete

incomplete drawings, which are then interpreted to gain insights into their thoughts, emotions,

and personality characteristics.

6. Structured Clinical Interviews: These interviews involve asking individuals standardized

questions about their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to assess for specific psychological
disorders or symptoms. Examples include the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID)

and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI).

These alternatives offer different approaches to psychological assessment, and the choice of test

depends on the specific goals of the assessment, the population being assessed, and the

preferences of the psychologist or clinician conducting the evaluation.

Drawbacks

Criterion Contamination and Experimenter Bias. This critique suggests that when the

same person acts as both the experimenter and the scorer of the Rorschach test, there's a risk of

bias contaminating the results. The individual's preconceived notions, beliefs, or expectations

could unconsciously influence how they administer and interpret the test, potentially skewing the

results in favor of confirming their hypotheses (Garfield, 2000).

Lack of Hypothesis Neutrality. The concern here is that when researchers or clinicians

administer the Rorschach test with implicit hypotheses in mind, they may inadvertently influence

the test process and interpretation to confirm those hypotheses. This lack of neutrality could

undermine the objectivity and validity of the test results, as they might be biased towards

confirming the researcher's preconceived notions rather than reflecting the true psychological

characteristics of the individual being tested (Garfield, 2000).

Validity. The Rorschach test's overall validity is poor (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2017). While

it can diagnose bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and schizotypal personality disorder (Wood et

al., 2000), it's less effective for PTSD, anxiety disorders, depression, and various personality
disorders (Exner, 1995; Carlson et al., 1997; Hunsley et al., 2015; Wood et al., 2015). Examiners

using its norms may over-pathologize individuals, especially from lower socio-economic

backgrounds and children (Cooke & Norris, 2011; Costello, 1998; Frank, 1994; Hamel et al.,

2000). The test lacks validity in assessing impulsiveness, criminal behavior, violence, and child

sexual abuse (Lilienfeld et al., 2001), and claims about predicting homosexuality lack scientific

support (APA, 2009).

Poor Relationship with Psychiatric Diagnoses. This critique takes support from the

limitation discussed above, and suggests that the Rorschach test demonstrates a weaker

association with psychiatric diagnoses compared to other assessment tools like the MMPI. The

limited correlation between Rorschach scores and diagnoses undermines its utility as a diagnostic

tool in clinical practice (Hiller et al., 1999).

Administration

According to the Exner’s scoring system, the participant responds to what they see in the

pictures, after which an Inquiry is conducted. In this phase, the information provided by the

participant is reviewed and clarified, written verbatim similar to the response phase. This is an

important section for coding of the responses as the response phase can help answer the content

but the inquiry phase answers location, determinant, form quality. This is to understand what

makes the image look like what the participant is seeing and where the response appears.

Testing of limit: it is a form of post-inquiry phase which includes the questions that might be

worth considering (Klopfer & Kelly, 1942). It was reported that in some cases, specially people
with psychosis, when there are a limited number of popular responses, and to understand if they

could not classify or failed to report them. For these, the examiner can ask the participant by

showing some cards if they see that object or not.

Scoring

The responses of Rorschach are converted into Rorschach symbols which have been called

scoring. Once a protocol has been collected from a subject, each response is coded in a special

Rorschach language. The scores that are crucial to interpretation are the frequency scores for

each of the codes. Collectively, they represent the Structural Summary. The coding responses

consists of five categories:

1. Location (to which feature of the blot did the subject respond)

There are three symbols for this category, that are W (whole blot), D (common detail area), Dd

(unusual detail area), and the symbol S is added to any of them if white space is included too.

Whole blot is when the person uses the entire blot and all portions are used. The criterion for

coding D is based on the suggestion of Rorschach who refereed to these as ‘Normal’ areas. It

could be differentiated with the frequency by which people respond. There are some areas in

every card that are used more frequently in forming answers by the person taking the test. When

it comes to the Dd response, it includes any response that is not whole or common detail area.

These are the areas that attract little attention for the majority of people taking the test. The S

response is given when the person includes the white space either with other blot areas or a

response that only includes white space area.

Table 1. Location coding

 Location Type Whole Entire blot + White Usual detail Unusual detail White space

space

Codes W WS D Dd S

2. Determinant (What features of the blot contribute to the formulation of the answer)

This has a lot of symbols, which are used to denote the use of form, chromatic colour,

achromatic colour, three kinds of shading and three kinds of movement.

Table 2. Symbols and Criteria for Determinant Coding

Category Symbol Criterion

Form F Form answers

Movement M Human Movement response

FM Animal movement response

m Inanimate movement response

Chromatic color C Pure colour response

CF Colour- form response

FC Form-colour response

Cn Colour naming response

 Achromatic color C’ Pure achromatic colour response

C’F Achromatic color form response

FC’ Form achromatic colour response

Shading- Texture T Pure texture response

TF Texture- form response

FT Form-texture response

Shading- Dimension V Pure vista response

VF Vista form response

FV Form-vista response

Shading- Diffuse Y Pure shading response

YF Shading form response

FY Form- shading response

Form Dimension FD Form based dimensional response

Pairs & Reflections (2) The pair response

rF Reflection- form response

Fr Form-reflection response

3. Form Quality (is the object described appropriate for the blot contours used?)
There are four symbols included in this, that are +, o, u, -. The manual talks about the symbol to

be given according to the response given by the participant.

4. Content (What is the class of content to which the response belongs?)

The symbols for the content of the responses are logical abbreviations such as H for human, A

for animal and so on.

5. Popular (Does the response occur with a high frequency in the general population?)

There is only a symbol that is P, if the response is popular.

Beck (1937) and Hertz (1940) added a sixth category:

6. Organisational activity (the meaningful integration of blot features.)

A numerical score is given for organisational activity (Z score) when the responses involve

integrating or organising the blot areas in a complex manner.

Rapaport et al. (1946) added another category

7. Special scores (strange verbiage and pathognomic features in responses)

Special scores are of two types, DV (deviant verbalisation) and AG (where action is aggressive).

Friedman’s work has led to an eighth category:

8. Developmental Quality

One of the four symbols for Developmental Quality are added to the Location coding as it

increases the interpretive value of the data. According to Apperceptive approaches, there was a
difference in how people approach the figure, whether it is a strong imagination in forming

responses or a simplistic or concrete manner. It was described using words unorganised, simple,

organised, combinatory and superior. The unorganised response is where the specification of

features is not taken into consideration in the blot, such as clouds, paint, etc. the one that has

specific features like a person or a tree, it is a single object as there is a necessity of organising

some of the stimulus features in a meaningful way. Combinatory or superior responses require a

higher level of cognitive action that do not provide information concerning the organisation of

features required in forming the response, such as ‘two people picking up a large boulder’.

Comprehensive system was published later on (Exner, 1974), that included four categories which

are + (synthesis), o (ordinary), v (vague), v/+ (vague synthesised).

Table 3. Symbols and Criteria used for Developmental Quality

Symbol Definition Criterion

+ Synthesized response Two or more objects are described as separate but related.

At least one of the objects involved must have a specific

form demand, or be described in a manner that creates a

specific form demand (a dog walking among some

bushes)

o Ordinary response An area of the blot is identified as a single object which

has features that create a natural form demand or the

description of the object is such as to create a specific

 form demand (e.g., a fir tree, a cat)

v/+ Vague/ synthesized Two or more objects are described as separate but related.

response None of the objects involved have a specific form

demand and the articulation does not introduce a form

demand for any of the objects (e.g., clouds coming

together)

v Vague An object is reported which has no specific form demand,

and the articulation does not introduce a specific form

demand for the object (e.g., a cloud, the sky)

Note. Sourced from Rorschach manual (Exner, 1997)

One important rule of coding is the cardinal rule in the responses of Rorschach, is that it should

represent the cognitive operation that occurred at the time the person gave response. Another

important rule is that all of the components that appear in the response should be included in the

coding.

The Structural Summary- Upper Section

Location features. There are three elements regarding location

1. Organisational activity:

It includes a) Zf (Z frequency) stating the number of times a Z response has occurred in the

record, b) ZSum which is the summation of the weighted Z scores assigned, c) estimated weight

ZSum (Zest), derived from a table of estimated

 2. Location Codes

The three location codes are tallied separately. One is the total of W+D responses and the second

is the frequency of the S responses. The S frequency is not subtracted for the tallies for the three

basic location codes of W, D, or Dd.

3. Developmental Quality

Frequencies are entered for each of the developmental quality codes.

Determinants. All the determinants are tallied separately, except when occurring in blend,

which are added in a separate section under Blends. The determinants in the Blends section are

not counted again when entering the frequencies for the single determinants in the column

headed, Single.

Form Quality. a) FQx (Form Quality Extended), consisting of all of the responses in the

record.

b) MQual (Human Movement FQ), distribution of the types of form quality for all of the

Human Movement responses.

c) W+D (Common Area FQ), recording the FQ frequencies of all the responses that have

been given to W and D areas.

Contents. This includes each of 27 categories. It represents the total number of times that the

content has been given in the record, whether it is primary or secondary.

Approach Summary. This includes the sequence of location selections used by the client when

responding to each card.

Special Scores. Two calculations are required in this, a) Raw Sum of the first six special scores

(Raw Sum6). This is the total for all Level 1 and Level 2 scores for DV, INCOM, DR, and

FABCOM plus the ALOG and CONTAM entries.

b) Weighted Sum (WSUM6)= (1) x DV+ (2) x DV2 + (2) X INCOM+ (4) x INCOM2 + (3) X

DR + (6) X DR2 + (4) x FABCOM + (7) x FABCOM2 + (5) x ALOG + (7) x CONTAM

The Structural Summary- Lower Section

The Core Section. Lamba (L)= (Number of Responses having only Pure F determinants)/ R-F

(Total R minus Pure Form answers). This compares the frequency of pure F responses to all

other answers in the record.

● Erlebnistypus (EB): Relationship between human movement and weighted sum of the

chromatic colour responses. WSumC= (0.5) x FC + (1.0) x CF+ (1.5) x C

● Experience Actual (EA)= Sum M + WSumC

● EB Pervasiv (EBPerv), is a ration concerning dominance of an EB style in decision

making activity, which is determined by three criteria:

a) The value for EA ≥ 4.0

b) Value for Lambda ≤ 1.0

c) The value of EA falls between 4.0 and 10.0, one side of the EB must be at least two

points greater than the other side. If the value of EA is more than 10.0, one side of the EB

must be at least 2.5 points greater than the other.

If the three criteria meet, it is calculated by dividing the larger number in the EB by the smaller

number.

● Experience Base (eb), compares the relationship among all nonhuman movement

determinants to the shading and achromatic colour determinants. It provides information

concerning stimulus demands experienced by the subject. eb= Sum FM+m: Sum of

SumC’+ SumT+ SumY+ SumV

● Experienced Stimulation (es), relates to the current stimulus demands. es= FM+m+

SumC’+ SumT+ SumY+ SumV

● The D Score (D), provides information concerning the relationship between EA and es. It

relates to stress tolerance and elements of control. First, the raw scores are calculated,

EA-es.

This is then converted to scaled difference score, from the table.

Table 4. D Conversion Table

Value of (EA-es) D Score

+13.0 to +15.0 +5

+10.5 to 12.5 +4

+8.0 to 10.0 +3

+5.5. to +7.5 +2

+3.0 to +5.0 +1

-2.5 to +2.5 0

-3.0 to -5.0 -1

-5.5 to -7.5 -1
 -8.0 to 10.0 -3

-10.5 to 12.5 -4

-13.0 to -15.0 -5

Note. Sourced from Rorschach manual (Exner, 1997)

● Adjusted es (Adj es): this tells if the score has been influenced by situational elements.

1m and 1 SumY is subtracted from es to get Adj es.

● Adjusted D Score (Adj D)= EA- Adj es

The Ideation Section.

1. Active: Passive Ratio (a:p): it concerns flexibility in ideation and attitudes.

(Ma+FMa+ma): (Mp+FMp+mp)

2. M Active: Passive Ratio (Ma: Mp): this is concerned with some characteristics of

thinking. The responses of human movement responses that are active are on the left and the

total of passive are entered on right.

3. The Intellectualization Index: 2AB + (Art+ Ay)

The Affect Section.

1. Form- Color Ratio (FC: CF + C): this related to the modulation of affect. Total number

of FC determinants are on the left and the sum of CF +C+ Cn determinants are on the right.
 2. Constriction Ratio (SumC’: WSum C): this relates to the excessive internalisation of

affect, where the total number of C’ is on the left whereas the weighted sum of chromatic

colour is on the right.

3. Affective Ratio: this compares the numbers of responses in last three cards to the first

seven cards.

Afr = Number of responses to cards VIII + IX + X/ Number of responses to cards I + II + III +

IV + V + VI + VII

The Mediation Section.

1. Form appropriate Extended (XA + %): this focuses on the proportion of responses that

has appropriate use of form features.

XA%= Sum of responses that have an FQ coding of +, o, or u

2. Form Appropriate- Common Areas (WDA%): it is concerned with the proportion of

responses given to W and D areas in which there is an appropriate use of form features

WDA% = Sum of W+D responses with an FQ coding of +, o, or u

Sum of W+D
 3. Distorted Form (X - %): This one concerns the proportion of answers in which form use

is not commensurate with the blot features.

X - % = Sum FQx-

4. Conventional Form Use (X + %): the extent to which the appropriate use of form

features has included common object definitions,

X+ % = Sum FQx + and 0

5. Unusual Form Use (Xu%): the extent to which the appropriate use of form features had

included uncommon object definitions

Xu% = Sum FQxu

The Processing Section.

1. Economy Index (W:D:Dd)

2. Aspirational Ratio (W:M)

3. Processing Efficiency (Zd)

The Interpersonal Section.

1. Interpersonal Interest (Human Cont): this section tells us about the interest in people.

Human Cont= the sum H + (H) + Hd + (Hd)

[Hx is not included]

2. Isolation Index (Isolate/R): this section talks about the social isolation

Isolation R= Bt+ 2Cl + Ge + Ls + 2Na

The Self Perception Section

1. Egocentricity Index (3r + (2)/R): This index relates to self-esteem.

3r+ (2)/R = 3x (Fr+ rF) + Sum (2)

R
Table 5. Constellations Worksheet
 Interpretation

Interpreting By Clusters

A lot of data falls into clusters, shown in the table 6. The first seven clusters shows the

basic features of people and the data for each should be viewed during the interpretive process.

The data in the eighth cluster situation related stress, are only viewed if the test findings are of

situationally related stress.

Some variables appear in more than one cluster. This is because they can relate to more

than on psychological feature or operation. A variable might contribute to the findings in one

cluster only if the value signals a deviation, whereas the sam variable may always be important

to findings in another cluster, regardless of its value.

Table 6. Clusters Related to Several Psychological Features

Component or Function Variables

Affective Features DEPI, CDI, EB* (extratensive style), Lamba, EBPer, eb (right

side value [SumC’+ SumT+ SumV+ SumY], SumC’: WSumC,

Afr, 2AB+ (Art+Ay), CP, FC:CF+C, Pure C (frequence &

quality), S, Blends, Col-Shad Blends, Shading Blends

Capacity for control D Score, Adj D Score, CDI, EA (Sum M, WSum C), EB,

stress tolerance Lambda, es & Adj es (FM, m, Sum T, Sum V, Sum C’, Sum

Y)

Cognitive mediation R, Lamba, OBS, XA%, WDA%, X-%, FQ-, S-, (review minus
 answers for homogeneity & levels of distortion) P, FQ+, X+%,

Xu%

Ideation EB* (introversive style), Lamba, EBPer, a:p, HVI, OBS,

MOR, eb (left side value [FM+m], Ma:Mp, 2Ab+ (Art+Ay),

Sum6, WSum6, Quality 6 special scores, MQ, Quality of M

responses

Information processing Lambda, EB, OBS, HVI, Zf, W:D:Dd, Location Sequencing,

W:M, Zd, PSV, DQ, DQ Sequencing

Interpersonal perception CDI, HVI, a:p, Fd, SumT, Sum Human Contents, H, GHR,

PHR, COP, AG, PER, Isolation Index, Content of M & FM

Responses that Contain a Pair

Self-perception OBS, HVI, Fr+ rF, 3r+ (2)/R, FD, SumV, An+Xy, MOR, Pure

H: Nonpure H, Codings for Human Content responses,

Content of all Minus, MOR, Human, & Movement responses

Situation related stress D Score, Adj D Score, EA, EB (zero values), m, SumY, SumT,

SumV, Blend Complexity, Col-Shd & Shd Bl (m & Y), Pure

C, M, M-, M noform

Note: EB is tylistic only if EA is greater than 3.5 and one side of the EB exceeds the other by 2

points or more if EA is 10 or less, or more than 2 points if EA is greater than 10. Sourced from

Rorschach manual (Exner, 1997)

Proceeding Systematically

Interpretation of a Rorschach protocol must include consideration of all of the test data, which

falls into three general categories, the Structural Data, the Sequence of Scores, and the

Verbalizations. Table 7 should be considered for the order by which the data for each cluster

should be addressed.

Preliminary Hypothesis as Building Blocks

The interpretation if further done using a molecular framework to build a global picture. Series

of hypothesis is formulated as various components of each cluster are studies. None of the

hypothesis should be rejected just because it seems not compatible with other propositions. The

number of propositions generation from each cluster will depend on the deductive skills of the

interpreter. Single hypothesis might be undependable, hence sequential accumulation and

organisation of hypothesis yields sound interpretation.

Table 7. Order for Reviewing Variables Within Each Cluster

Note. Sourced from Rorschach manual (Exner, 1997)

 Method

Material Required

1. Rorschach Inkblot cards

2. Pen/ Pencil

3. Location sheet

4. Rorschach manual

5. Scoring key

6. Stop watch

Participant’s details

➔ Name: SJ

➔ Age: 22 years

➔ Sex: Female

➔ Occupation: Student

➔ Family: Nuclear

➔ Socio-economic Status: Middle class

Preliminary set up

Setting up for the administration of the TAT Assessment involves several preliminary

steps to ensure a smooth and effective process.

1. Collection & Arrangement of Materials: Gathering and arranging all necessary

materials for administering the assessment neatly on a table or desk, including TAT

cards, pens or pencils, instructions for completing the evaluation,

 2. Comfortable Environment: Ensuring that there are adequate lighting and seating

arrangements that support focus and relaxation.

3. Explanation of the Purpose: Before starting the assessment, briefly explain its purpose

and how the information gathered will be used, emphasising confidentiality.

4. Private Environment: Offering a personal space or area where they can complete the

forms without feeling self-conscious or distracted.

Procedure

The client should be seated comfortably, and adequate rapport-building needs to be

established. Sitting is very important and should not be face to face. It has to be done side-by-

side, to reduce the effects of unwanted cues from examiner as well as it gives a much better

view. Thereafter, the participant will be told about starting the test. The cards are to be stacked

facing down and in the appropriate order, with Card 1 on the top. The Location sheet should not

be visible at this time.

The assessment starts with Response phase, where the participant is shown the 10 cards

in order and they have to report, whatever they see in the card. The examiner has to record

everything in verbatim. The participant should hold the card. After they respond, the next phase

is of the ‘Inquiry’ and the examiner asks the participant the specific area that was involved and

identified some of the main features of the object.

After obtaining all the information, coding for scoring and interpretation is done.
Instructions

The test begins by handing the person the first card and asking:

“What might this be?”

This is the only instruction that is given and nothing needs to be added.

Precautions

The following precautions should be taken during the investigation to facilitate its smooth

conduction-

1. External disturbances should be minimal in order to facilitate the smooth conduction of

the assessment.

2. The instructions should be read clearly to the participant and doubts should be cleared.

3. The assessment should be done in one sitting.

4. Rapport should be established to ensure that the participant is comfortable and does not

feel overwhelmed because of the assessment.

5. Clarify any doubts after reading the instructions

6. Follow working times strictly. Use a stopwatch or a test timer.

Results
 Discussion

Protocol is valid and interpretive (R=19). Lamba = 0.26 and EB + 2:8.5.It can be assumed

that, ordinarily, the subject tends to intermingle feelings with thinking patterns during any kind

of problem solving or decision-making activities. The subject must be prone to use and mostly

influenced by her emotions and, generally, are disposed to test out postulates and assumptions

through various kinds of trial-and-error behaviors. During this kind of behavior they tend to

become more tolerant and less concerned while problem solving errors occur.

The subject is extratensive and the EBPEr is found to be 0 suggesting that she is

somewhat

flexible, sometimes she will identify instances in which it seems better to put aside er routinely

intuitive approach for decision making in favor of a more ideational approach. The subject is

less interested in, or less willing to process, emotional stimuli. This represents avoidant style and

tends to depict their preference to limit complexity. It should not necessarily be considered as

liability but instead it reflects a preference to be less involved with emotional stimuli (Afr> 0.43

< average range). Though this is a rare finding among adults and those falling under the category

are regarded as impulsive by others or at least seen as overly emotional or less mature. FC:

CF+C= 2:6; CF+C > FC , Pure C =3 > 1). The subject’s responses reflect more primitive quality

such as blood splattered indicating casual disregard for control which is more common or those

who have frequent modulation failures that give rise to inappropriate or potentially maladaptive

behaviors.

The proportion of blends in in average range as reflected by EB or Lambda, which

suggests that the subject’s level of psychological complexity is not unlike that of most people

with this type. This is an unexpected finding in light of the distress that she seems to be
experiencing. The subject’s responses indicate 2 shading blends (FM.FC’; FM.CF) suggesting

the presence of painful emotions. It has to be concluded that the presence of this kind emotion

hampers most of the psychological functioning of the person. Some areas like attention and

conclusion and usually affected.

 References

Alexy, W. D. (2018). The analyst’s Rorschach: gateway to opening the dialectical field.

Journal of Analytical Psychology, 63(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-

5922.12378

Areh, I., Verkampt, F., & Allan, A. (2021). Critical review of the use of the Rorschach in

European courts. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 29(2), 183–205.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2021.1894260

American Psychological Association. (2009). Report of the American Psychological

Association Task Force on appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation

Cerney, M. S. (1990). The rorschach and traumatic loss: Can the presence of traumatic

loss be detected from the rorschach? Journal of Personality Assessment, 55(3–4),

781–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1990.9674112

De Freitas, M. H. (2005). As origens do método de Rorschach e seus fundamentos.

Psicologia (Conselho Federal De Psicologia. Impresso), 25(1), 100–117.

https://doi.org/10.1590/s1414-98932005000100009

Filho, R. V. T. (2020). Hermann Rorschach: From klecksography to psychiatry.

Dementia & Neuropsychologia (Impresso), 14(1), 80–82.

https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-57642020dn14-010013

Finn, S. E. (1996). Assessment feedback integrating MMPI-2 and Rorschach findings.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 67(3), 543–557.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6703_10
Garfield, S.L. (2000). The Rorschach test in clinical diagnosis—A brief commentary. Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 56, 431– 434.

Exner, J.E. (1991). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system. Volume 2: Interpretation (2nd ed.).

New York: Wiley.

Exner, J.E. (1993). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system. Volume 1: Basic foundations (3rd

ed.). New York: Wiley.

Cooke, G., & Norris, D. M. (2011). Child custody and parental fitness. In Drogin E. Y., Dattilio

F. M, Sadoff R. L., & Gutheil T. G. (Eds.), Handbook of forensic assessment:

Psychological and psychiatric perspectives (pp. 433–458). John Wiley & Sons.

10.1002/9781118093399

Costello, R. M. (1998). Psychometric definition of Rorschach determinant component structure.

European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 14(2), 116–123. 10.1027/1015-

5759.14.2.116

Exner, J.E., & Sendin, C. (1997). Some issues in Rorschach research. European Journal

of Psychological Assessment, 13, 155–163

Frank, G. (1994). Socioeconomic status and the Rorschach. Psychological Reports, 74(1), 95–

98. 10.2466/pr074.1.95

Kumazaki, T. (2016). Theory of mind andVerstehen(understanding) methodology.

History of Psychiatry, 27(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957154x16650791

Hubbard, K., & Hegarty, P. (2016). BLOTS AND ALL: A HISTORY OF THE RORSCHACH

INK BLOT TEST IN BRITAIN. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences (Print),

52(2), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.21776

Hunsley, J., & Bailey, J. M. (1999). The clinical utility of the Rorschach: Unfulfilled promises

and an uncertain future. Psychological Assessment, 11, 266–277.

Leavitt, F., & Labott, S. M. (1996). Authenticity of recovered sexual abuse memories: A

Rorschach study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 483–496.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.2490090307

Lilienfeld, S. O. (2015). Introduction to Special Section on Pseudoscience in Psychiatry.

Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 60(12), 531–533. 10.1177/070674371506001202

Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective

techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(2), 27–66. 10.1111/1529-

1006.002

Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2001). What’s wrong with this picture? Scientific

American, 284(5), 80–87. 10.1038/scientificamerican0501-80

McGrath, R. E. (2008). The Rorschach in the context of Performance-Based Personality

Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(5), 465–475.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802248760

Meyer, G. J. (2017). What Rorschach performance can add to assessing and understanding

personality. International Journal of Personality Psychology, 3(1), 36–49.

https://doi.org/https://ijpp.rug.nl/article/view/29881
Mothersill, O., Charlotte, K., & Donohoe, G. (2015). Emotion and Theory of Mind in

Schizophrenia—Investigating the role of the Cerebellum. Cerebellum (London.

Print), 15(3), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-015-0696-2

Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Patihis, L., Merckelbach, H., Lynn, S. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., &

Loftus, E. F. (2019). The return of the repressed: The persistent and problematic

claims of Long-Forgotten Trauma. Perspectives on Psychological Science (Print),

14(6), 1072–1095. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619862306

Pichot, P. (1984). Centenary of the birth of Hermann Rorschach. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 48(6), 591–596. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4806_3

Sanvicente‐Vieira, B., Romani-Sponchiado, A., Kluwe-Schiavon, B., Brietzke, E.,

Araújo, R. B., & Grassi‐Oliveira, R. (2016). Theory of Mind in Substance Users:

A Systematic Minireview. Substance Use & Misuse, 52(1), 127–133.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2016.1212890

Schott, G. D. (2013). Revisiting the Rorschach ink-blots: from iconography and

psychology to neuroscience. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and

Psychiatry, 85(6), 699–706. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2013-305672

Schwarz, W. (1996). Hermann Rorschach, M.D.: His life and work. Rorschachiana,

21(1), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1027/1192-5604.21.1.6

Siipola, E. M., & Taylor, V. (1952). Reactions to Ink Blots under Free and Pressure

Conditions*. Journal of Personality, 21(1), 22–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

6494.1952.tb01857.x

Stenius, J., Lindfors, O., Antikainen, R., Wahlström, J., Sares‐Jäske, L., & Knekt, P.

(2018). Associations between the Rorschach Ego Impairment Index and Measures
 on Intrapsychic and Interpersonal Functioning. Open Journal of Psychiatry

(Print), 08(01), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpsych.2018.81001

Weiner, I. B., Exner, J. E., & Sciara, A. D. (1996). Is the Rorschach Welcome in the

Courtroom? Journal of Personality Assessment, 67(2), 422–424.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6702_15

Wood, J.M. and Lilienfeld, S.O. (1999). The Rorschach Inkblot Test: A case of overstatement?

Assessment, 6, 341–349.

Wood, J.M., Lilienfeld, S.O., Garb, H.N., & Nezworski, M.T. (2000). The Rorschach Test in

clinical diagnosis: A critical review with a backward look at Garfield (1947). Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 56, 395– 430.

Wood, J.M., Nezworski, M.T., & Stejskal, W.J. (1996). The comprehensive cystem for the

Rorschach: A critical examination. Psychological Science, 7, 3–10