ROSENZWEIG

PICTURE
FRUSTRATION
STUDY
PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES

• Lawrence Frank (1939, 1948) introduced the term projective methods

• Respondents project their inner needs and feelings onto ambiguous stimuli

• This assumption is called Projective hypothesis (according to Frank).

• These techniques are dependent on psychoanalytic theory

PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES
• Origin
 Francis Galton: first projective tech, word association test
 This procedure was adapted to testing by Kent and Rosanoff (1910)
 Carl Jung and others used in therapy
 Ebbinghaus (1897) used a sentence completion test to assess intelligence,
later others used it in the assessment of personality
 Influenced by psychoanalytic theory, Rorschach published inkblot test in
1921
 1905: Binet used verbal responses to pictures as a measure of intelligence.
This is a precursor to story telling/TAT
CLASSIFICATION OF PROJECTIVE
TECHNIQUES
• Gardner Lindzey (1959) classified projective techniques into 5 categories
Association to inkblots/words
Word associations
Inkblot tests: Rorschach, Holtzman
Completions of sentences/stories
Sentence completions: Rotter Incomplete Sentences blank
Rozenwig Picture-Frustration Study
Construction of stories or sequences
TAT and its variations
CLASSIFICATION OF PROJECTIVE
TECHNIQUES
Arrangement/selection of pictures/verbal choices (seldom used)
Szondi test
Expressions with drawings/play
Draw-A-Person test
House-Tree-Person test
ROSENZWEIG
PICTURE
FRUSTRATION
STUDY
FRUSTRATION-AGGRESSION
HYPOTHESIS
• FRUSTRATION – A feeling of tension that occurs when our efforts to reach a goal are
blocked.
• AGGRESSION - Behavior aimed at harming others physically or psychologically. It can be
distinguished from anger in that anger is oriented at overcoming the target but not
necessarily through harm or destruction.
• FRUSTRATION-AGGRESSION HYPOTHESIS - The frustration–aggression hypothesis
originally stated that frustration is a necessary and sufficient condition for aggression—
meaning that any frustration inevitably leads to aggression, and any act of aggression is due
to frustration (Dollard et al., 1939). This strong version of the hypothesis was subsequently
modified by two members of the original team, Miller (1941) and Sears (1941), who proposed
that, although frustration does not inevitably lead to aggression, aggression is the inevitable
response to frustration.
FRUSTRATION-AGGRESSION
HYPOTHESIS
• This strong version of the hypothesis was subsequently modified by two
members of the original team, Miller (1941) and Sears (1941), who proposed
that, although frustration does not inevitably lead to aggression, aggression is
the inevitable response to frustration.
• The P-F Study was based on the frustration-aggression hypothesis of the Dollard
group and assumed that outward-directed aggression is maladaptive and that
inward-directed aggression is adaptive.
 INTRODUCTION
 Realizing the need for a technique to assess the reaction of an individual to
frustration, Saul Rosenzweig • developed the Rosenzweig Picture-
Frustration Study (P-F).
 The Picture-Frustration Study technique was developed as a result of
experiments with repression and frustration carried out by Rosenzweig.
 Rosenzweig considered the P-F Study to be “a limited projective device for
disclosing patterns of response to everyday stresses that are of widely
recognized importance to both normal and abnormal adjustment"
(Rosenzweig, Fleming, and Clarke, 1997).
 INTRODUCTION
 The Rosenzweig Picture-Frustration Study is a projective test that assesses
patterns of reaction to typical stress situations. The primary purpose of the
test is to determine how an individual handles his aggressive tendencies in
a social situation.
 The P-F Study technique “stands midway in design between the word-
association-test and the Thematic Apperception techniques… The
technique thus retains some of the objective advantages of the word-
association-test while at the same time approaching to a degree the molar
aspects of personality, which the TAT is intended to probe.” (Pareek &
Rosenzweig, 1999)
ORIGINAL ROSENZWEIG P-F
STUDY
• Originally, the Rosenzweig P-F Study adult form (1996) was the first one to be developed

• Then the revised version (1997) was introduced, followed by the children’s form (1998).

• To the children, the approach of P-F Study could be expected to appeal as a game in
much the same as they are intrigued by the numerous comic strips.
• Moreover, it was anticipated that children would “project” more naively than do adults.

• In all forms of P-F Study, effort has been made to include samples from everyday
situations of life.
 ORIGINAL ROSENZWEIG P-F
STUDY
• Each form of the P-F Study consists of 24 cartoon-like drawings representing frustrating situations, in
which one character is shown to be saying something that causes frustration to the other person
depicted.
• The subject is required to say or write what the other person would say in that situation.
• In children’s form the frustrated individual is always the child.
• In all the forms, there are “ego blocking” as well as “superego blocking” situations.
• Ego Blocking – situations in which some obstacle, personal or impersonal, interrupts, disappoints,
deprives, or otherwise directly frustrates the subject.
• Superego Blocking – Situations that represent some accusation, charge, or incrimination of the subject
by someone else.
THE INDIAN ADAPTATION
OF ROSENZWEIG PICTURE-
FRUSTRATION STUDY
(Children’s Form)
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDIAN
ADAPTATION
• The original Children’s Form of Rosenzweig P-F Study (1998) was adapted for Indian
use.
• In Indian adaptation, little modifications were made to the paraphernalia of the pictures
such as clothing, and furniture, and also to the captions, so that the situations seem more
acceptable to the Indian children.
• There are three editions of the Indian adaption. The first was revised to give the second
version which has formed the base of the multilingual edition which is now used.
• The final edition was standardized on a population of 1000 children aged 4-13 years.

• The Indian adaptation has good reliability (stability coefficient - .51 to .78), and validity.
• The Indian adaptation of Rosenzweig Picture-Frustration Study (Children’s
form) consists of 24 situations depicted in cartoon-like pictures.
• In every situation a child is shown to be someone frustrated.

• While in some situations an adult is the one who inflicts frustration, in others it
is a child.
• The adult who inflicts frustration is sometimes a female or mother figure, and
other times a male or father figure.
• Ego-blocking situations – 1,2,3,4,5,9,10,16,17,18,20,21,23,24

• Superego blocking situations – 6,7,8,12,13,14,19,22

• Ambiguous – 11,15
 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISRATION
• To be administered to children aged 4-13 (both inclusive).

• Can be administered within 20 minutes, either individually, or in groups.

• Group administration is recommended for children 0f 9 years and above.

• Individual administration is more preferred in case of clinical use because it provides an

opportunity for inquiry which makes scoring and interpretation much more reliable.
• The subject has to write his/her answers on the standard examination blank.

• But in a case, where the child cannot write well (illiterate children or children below 8 years of
age), the examiner may write the responses given by the children. In such cases, the examiner
and the subject should use separate copies of the examination blank.
•,
• The standard examination sheet which consists of 24 pictures is given to the child with
the following instructions which are written on the first page. The subject listens to the
examiner and also read the instructions themselves:-
• “We are going to play a game. Here are some pictures of people doing and saying
different things. Look at the pictures carefully one at a time. One person is always shown
talking. Read what the person is saying. Write in the empty space what you think the boy
or girl would answer. The answer you give should be the first thing you should think of.
Work as fast as you can. Proceed to the next picture only after you have written the
answer for the first, and do not leave any pictures unanswered.”
• The main purpose of the instructions is to orient the child away from any self-critical
attitude and towards a more ‘objective’ identification with the anonymous boys and girls
in the pictures. In this way, the subject tends to project and perhaps reveal his/her
underlying modes of response in the depicted situations.
• After the instructions have been read the subject is asked to open the blank, examine
the first situation, and think of the first reply that the character in the picture might
give. The subject is then told to proceed with the other pictures similarly and is left
on his own.
• It is necessary that the subject responds to the pictures in the same sequence in which
they appear in the blank since the analysis of the trends depends upon this order.
• The total time taken by the child in completing the blank should be recorded on the
cover page.
• The subject, after the completion of the blank, may be asked to read aloud the
responses he has written. The examiner may note any significant voice inflection and
can ask non-leading questions to obtain more adequate information for scoring
purposes. This phase is known as the inquiry phase.
USE OF INQUIRY PHASE
• In cases where the answers are too brief or ‘ambiguous’, the inquiry is used to
amplify them for possible scoring.
• The ‘inquiry’ may also suggest to the examiner if a response is based on some
emotion not suggested by the original words, as reflect in subject’s voice.
• Finally, the ‘inquiry’ sometimes affords the necessary information for intrinsic
combination scores.
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND DEFINITIONS
For scoring P-F Study, we need to understand – direction of aggression
and reaction type.
DIRECTION OF AGGRESSION

Extrapunitiveness (E) – Aggression is turned onto the environment.

Responses are directed outward, at people or things. In this situation, the
pedestrian might swear at the driver or demand that he pay his cleaning
bill.
Intropunitiveness (I) – Aggression is turned by the subject upon himself.
Responses are directed inward, toward himself; the pedestrian might say,
“It was my fault. I should have stood farther away from the curb,” or “I
guess I didn’t look where I was going—as usual I did a stupid thing.”
GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND DEFINITIONS
Impunitiveness (M) – Aggression is evaded in an attempt to gloss over the frustration.
Responses make light of the problem and are usually delivered in a conciliatory tone; “It
was an accident. It could have happened to anyone,” or “Don’t worry, it was an old suit.
TYPES OF REACTION
Obstacle-dominance (O-D) – Responses, in which the problem created by
the experience is emphasized. The barrier occasioning the frustration stands out in
response.
Ego-defence (E-D) - responses, in which a defense mechanism is used. The ego of the
subject predominates.
Need – Persistence (N-P) - Responses in which focus on the solution of the problem.
Solution of the frustrating problem is emphasized.
GUIDE TO SCORING
REACTION TYPE : OBSTACLE-DOMINANCE
REACTION TYPE:EGO DEFENSE
REACTION TYPE: NEED PERSISTENCE
ITEM SCORES
COMBINATION SCORES
G.C.R:
Global
confirmity
rating
PROFILE AND DEVIATION PATTERN
SUPER EGO PATTERN
 TRENDS
• TRENDS basically refers to the pattern in which the subject responds
to the items. When a category of response predominates in the first
half, it shows a positive trend and when it predominates in the
second half it shows a negative trend.
• The formula for calculating the trend is (a+b)/(a-b).
• a= the amount of the factor in the first half
b= amount of the factor in the second half.
• A trend should atleast be based on 4 items and it should atleast be
more than 0.33 (+ or -).
 INTERPRETATION AND REPORT WRITING
• The report shows that the GCR deviates a little from the expected mean. The GCR
of the patient is 46% which is lower than the expected one [ 62.4% ] , which
suggests lower conformity to the group i.e. the patient’s adjustment to a normal
group is poor.

 Direction of aggression-
• The percentage of E [ extrapunitiveness] is 35% which is lower than the average
[ 43.3 % ]. This indicates the patient has a lower tendency to turn out his
aggression towards the environment.
• The percentage of I [ Intropunitiveness] is 25 % which is fairly similar to the
average [25.6% ] ,that indicates the patient has average tendency to turn her
aggression towards herself.
• The percentage of M [ Impunitiveness ] is 42% , which is much higher than
the average [ 31% ] which indicates that in case of the patient, mostly the
aggression is evaded in an attempt to overcome the situation. This means in most
of the cases, presence of aggression is denied by the patient .
• Here the trend is M >E > I .
Reaction type-
• Here O-D [Obstacle dominance] is 17% which is higher than the average i.e.
11.5% . Here E-D [ Ego defense] is 48% which is lower than the average [ 57%
] . High O-D and low E-D indicates that the patient’s obstacle of aggression
stands out in her reaction but her ego functioning is weak here.
• Here N- P [ Need persistence] is 38% which is higher than the average 31.1%
that indicates higher tendency towards solution focused reaction type.
• In Super-ego patterns , here M+ I is highest in this profile. This indicates
higher tendency of ‘ excusing oneself from blame and to excuse others from the
blame.
Impression-

This profile indicates ;

• In ‘ direction of aggression’ , impunitiveness is prominent.
• In ‘ reaction type’ , because of high O-D and low E-D , poor ego functioning in
case of presence of obstacle is prominent
• In super-ego patterns M + I is highest, which indicates excusing oneself and others
from the blame. This correlates with impunitiveness i.e. denial of aggression.
THANK YOU