Issues and Methods in Rorschach Research

John E. Exner, Jr.

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780805819021
• eBook ISBN: 9781317843702
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Clinical Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Any research that involves the use of the Rorschach or focuses on the nature of the Rorschach must be framed in the context of the basic principles that mark any scientific investigation. However, most texts concerning research design or data analysis do not deal directly with many of the unusual issues that confront investigators who use the Rorschach in their research. The nature of the test and test procedures are somewhat different than for most psychological tests, and, often, these special characteristics become critical when research designs are formulated. Similarly, some of the data of the tests are quite different from the customary distributions yielded by other psychological tests. Thus special care must be exercised when considering the variety of tactics that might might be used in analyzing the test data.

This text is unique in that it is specific to the Rorschach. Bringing together experts on Rorschach research, this volume presents in-depth treatments of every facet of methodology -- from design to analysis -- as well as more conceptual issues. It is designed to aid investigators in contending effectively with the many difficult challenges that are often encountered in Rorschach research.

This work adds to the information already available to the accomplished researcher as well as provide some enlightenment for the Rorschach research novice. It dispels the notion that rote methodology or analyses can be applied routinely to studies involving the Rorschach. And it helps to improve the quality of investigations in which the test is included, and contribute in some way to the improvement of the overall research yield in the Rorschach community.

Chapter One

Introduction

John E. Exner, Jr.

Rorschach research can be exciting and rewarding, or it can be frustrating and disappointing. Sadly, it is easy to do bad Rorschach research, but that need not be the case. Good Rorschach research is not that difficult, but it does require care. The main problems that confront most Rorschach investigators are created by two elements. First, the test is very complex and much of the data do not fall neatly into so-called normal distributions of scores common to most other psychological tests. Second, Rorschach research is really personality related research and personality is a very intricate psychological phenomenon. Because of this, investigators must be prepared to contend with the difficult issue of individual differences.

Unfortunately, many who are interested in undertaking Rorschach research often are less well equipped, by reason of training or experience, to form the most appropriate design to address an issue, or select the best method of data analysis to test an issue in a meaningful way. Historically, as psychology has grown and diversified, the relation between those committed to its applications and those committed to research has grown more distant. As a result, many ideas for Rorschach research, devised by those using the test routinely in the clinical setting, are not implemented because of a sense of ineptness concerning experimentation. This is due, at least in part, to the many changes that have occurred since the mid-1960s regarding the level of research expertise that should be required of the clinical student. Before the mid-1960s most all clinical students were required to develop expertise in the methods of research and data analysis. For many, this was an unreasonable requirement, yet it did reflect the scientist-practitioner model strongly advocated by a series of conferences on clinical training (APA, 1947; Raimy [Boulder Conference], 1950; Strother [Stanford Conference], 1956; Roe [Miami Conference], 1959).

In 1965, the Chicago conference on clinical training reaffirmed the importance of the scientist–practitioner model, but the criteria for the model was redefined in a manner that clearly broadened its parameters and reduced specific requirements (Hoch, Ross, & Winder, 1966). At about the same time, a new degree (Psy.D.) began to be offered, which afforded quality training in the applications of psychology, but with a considerably reduced emphasis on research requirements. During the next decade, many of the more traditional Ph.D. programs in clinical psychology also altered requirements regarding skill development in research; so ultimately, models for training the clinician have been changed to require less expertise in areas of research and more time devoted to the development of clinical skills. An unfortunate byproduct of these changes has been the development of an animosity between those who identify themselves as committed to the clinical applications of psychology and the more traditional models of experimental psychology.

In many ways, the revolution that began in the 1960s against stringent training in experimental methodology has been profitable as clinical students entering the field today are better prepared to address the practical issues with which they are confronted daily. The trade-off, however, has been less positive if research skills are used as a basis for judgment. Clinical students and their postdoctoral counterparts are far less well prepared to conduct scientific inquiry than was once the case. Psychology is supposedly a science, but the output of adequately trained scientists among those graduating from a multitude of doctoral programs in psychology that have a commitment to practice, is woefully lacking. Even when the motive exists, the expertise often does not. This is especially true when Rorschach research is at issue.

Even reasonably well-trained experimental psychologists will probably have trouble researching this awesome and sometimes confusing test unless they are acutely aware of the problems that it poses. Those committing themselves to some research with the Rorschach must begin with the basic notions concerning research and then attempt to expand those notions to the investigation they hope to devise.

Clearly, the overall objective of research is to uncover new knowledge but, within that general framework, specific research targets vary considerably. Some studies are designed to test theoretical propositions, but many are structured to expand information gleaned from previous investigations. Others are designed to replicate findings, and numerous investigations are of a hunt-and-peck variety, which search through available data sets seeking new information or a clarification of previously developed information.

Regardless of whether the objective is specific or broad, the goals of any research are not always easily achieved. Usually, this is not for a lack of ideas. Ideas for research evolve easily from many sources. Some derive from elaborate theoretical positions, others generate from impressions or hunches that accumulate over time, and some are fomented by experiences in which limited information and/or understanding concerning an issue or task breeds questions that, for one frustrating reason or another, do not have answers readily available. Good research is rarely uncomplicated and, no matter how well thought through the propositions or design may be, a risk of failure always exists. Thus, the results can be rewarding and even exciting, or they may breed frustration and disappointment.

Typically, those who become vested in scientific inquiry formulate questions to be addressed through a careful, critical study of relevant literature in order to profit from the findings and experiences of others. Ultimately, a general idea is reduced to a more sharply defined question and then the challenge becomes one of phrasing the question so that it can be investigated empirically, in a systematic and controlled manner. This is the way of research, and Rorschach-related research is no different.

Almost all Rorschach research seeks to test or investigate presumed relationships between phenomena of the test and phenomena of the person. The test, as it is commonly used, seeks to explain the manifestations of psychological organization and functioning, both of which contribute to a better understanding of the individual as a unique entity. But, any understanding of an individual also implies an understanding of groups of individuals, so that the ultimate goal of any research, including Rorschach research, is the development of a set of propositions and interrelated constructs that presents a systematic view of the phenomena of people.

Unfortunately, contemporary textbooks on experimental methodology, measurement, or statistics seem to sidestep many of the confrontations encountered by the Rorschach researcher. This has contributed to the fact that Rorschach history is marked by a huge number of published investigations, which, to the critical reader, are clearly marked by errors in design, implementation, and/or analysis. It sometimes appears as if those most interested in studying the test, or its use as a dependent measure, were least well equipped to understand the intricacies of scientific inquiry or naive to many research issues that are peculiar to the Rorschach. No one should become overly cautious about using the Rorschach in research for which it is appropriate because of its complexity, but, at the same time, no one should be naive in expectations that Rorschach research is simple and straightforward.

In general, errors in Rorschach-related research can be placed into at least one of several categories: hypotheses developed from conclusions reported in flawed studies, poor subject selection, insufficient number of subjects, examiner (experimenter) bias, faulty methodology, failure to account for response styles, failure to understand the nature of the test, inappropriate data analysis, and overgeneralization of results. These errors are not always independent of each other. Often, investigations that focus on the test or its applications are marked by several of these blemishes and yet, for reasons that are not very clear, they find their way into the literature and become cited routinely as Rorschach gospel.

Hypotheses Based on Conclusions Reported in Flawed Studies

One of the most common errors is the assumption that anything appearing in the literature is truth. This error probably is most common among studies done by graduate students to meet dissertation requirements, but it is by no means limited to that group of investigators. Every researcher is burdened by the task of a literature review, which, when done thoroughly, illuminates the accumulated findings regarding a question or issue. Exhaustive literature reviews are very time consuming, and during the past two or three decades, a tendency has evolved for investigators to rely more and more on shortcuts that reduce the amount of time required for developing an adequate literature review and/or pinpointing those studies from which a seemingly sound hypothesis is formulated.

The forerunner of the shortcut tactic was Psychological Abstracts, a historically important publication of the American Psychological Association, which began in 1920s. It contains the titles of published articles together with a very brief summary of the topic investigated. Subsequently, Dissertation Abstracts was designed to be like Psychological Abstracts, but with a focus on dissertations that might not be published for a considerable period of time, or that might not be published at all. During the past decade or two, the wonders of the computer have permitted the development of new brief forms of collating relevant studies and these have evolved into hard copy publications. They include a variety of PsyScan programs, each of which is designed to offer brief reports concerning published and/or unpublished works by using a computer lexicon. Thus, each author is encouraged to note key words—such as Rorschach, introversive, schizotypal, and so on—and up to 10 critical key words will be computer entered.

If prospective researchers are interested in a literature review, they merely have to enter a search for key words related to a topic and a computer will spew forth a summary, abstract, or titles of all works related to those topics. It is a marvelous process, but it does not constitute an adequate literature review for several reasons. First, the printout summaries are relatively brief and usually focus on results that may or may not be interpreted correctly. Second, the methodology employed is not described in detail. And, third, the critical words seemingly relevant to a topic may not have been included by the author(s) when the article was written. But, even if an important study is included in the printout, the output falls far short of providing a critical review of the literature. Nonetheless, it appears that this computer-generated output has become a mainstay for researchers who are interested in formulating investigations that include the Rorschach.

Unfortunately, many literature reviews neglect seemingly relevant articles, or fail to provide a critical evaluation of relevant articles and simply proceed with the naive conjecture that all in print is worthy. In effect, these tactics of literature review involve the use of secondary sources and, as every competent researcher is aware, such tactics are fraught with problems. There is no substitute for a careful and critical reading of primary sources. For example, theories concerning object relations have become a major research focus in recent years and, usually, each new study in this area cites the results of previous studies somewhat casually, without concern for whether the scales used to measure object relations have been carefully validated, whether they are reliable, or whether the findings derived from one study have been cross-validated in another study. This is not to demean the importance of research in the area of object relations, but simply to highlight the negligence that seems to have marked many of the studies on the issue.

Number of Subjects, Subject Selection, Data Analysis

In the ideal circumstance, research questions involving the Rorschach will be cast in the basic framework of science, which is theory. Then, they will be molded directly into traditional experimental models in which all issues are reduced to hypothesis-testing designs. These are the prospective studies that are directed to test well-formulated hypotheses and, historically, they tend to be regarded most favorably by the research community. Usually, they are neat because of their conceptual framework and their meticulous design, but these models can be abused in Rorschach research. If abuses occur, they usually will involve a less than adequate number of subjects, faulty subject selection, or inappropriate data analysis.

For instance, if the number of subjects is relatively small, the traditional approach may not be appropriate because of the intricacies created when humans are involved as subjects. Almost any group of humans will display a substantial variance for many features. People vary for cognitive ability, education, socioeconomic level, and a variety of other variables that can have an indirect relationship to personality structure as measured by Rorschach. That variance may have only a limited impact on Rorschach data at times, but in other instances, it can create a higher risk of both Type I (falsely rejecting the Null hypothesis) and Type II errors (failure to reject the Null hypothesis when it is false) unless the investigator is painstakingly fastidious in subject selection.

For example, consider a hypothetical Rorschach study that involves a traditional hypothesis-testing design in which either Type I or Type II errors are likely to occur. Suppose the operational hypothesis is that the proportion of blends in a record will be greater under a distraction/frustration situation. This is not an unreasonable hypothesis because data related to blends suggest that they have to do with psychological complexity, and it is logical to assume that situational stress increases complexity. In this hypothetical study, two groups of randomly selected nonpatient adults, 20 in each group, are to be used. All will be high school graduates.

Data will be collected from one subject at a time. All subjects will be seated in a small room and required to add columns of seven 5-digit numbers, with a time limit for each column. The subjects in the experimental group will be exposed to a situational frustration experience. During the time that they are adding the columns, loud, seemingly irritating noises will be broadcast at random intervals. The control subjects will perform the same task, but the noise level will be minimal and reasonably constant. When a subject has completed two thirds of the columns, the Rorschach will be administered in the same small room, by one of five examiners (four subjects each, randomly selected from each group), naive to the purpose of the study. Subjects will be of the impression that they will be required to complete the addition of the remaining columns, under the same conditions, after the test is completed.

The design seems to fit a basic multidimensional model. The noise is the independent variable. The number of columns completed and the number of errors become classification measures to confirm the effect of the distraction, and the dependent measure is the number of blends. However, the classification variables may present either of two potential confounds. First, in theory, the randomization process presumes that variations in intelligence will be essentially similar for both groups. It has been established, however, that less intelligent subjects give significantly fewer blends than brighter people. Thus, if the differences in intelligence are substantial for the two groups, then a Type I error may occur.

If one group includes as few as three subjects with IQ’s of less than 90, and the other group does not, a significant difference for the number or proportion of blends between the groups might be discovered. If the randomization had involved two groups of 50 subjects each, drawn from a college-level population, this issue could be of less concern. But, in that the criterion for selection is simply graduation from high school and the N is limited to only 40 subjects, the possibility of considerable variation in intelligence and/or math skills increases substantially. In other words, the small sample sizes increase the possibility of group differences in simple math skills and thus, increases the likelihood of either a Type I or Type II error. This possibility could easily be offset by the baseline administration of some arithmetic test, either standardized or designed, and the results used to stratify the randomization of subjects.

Second, even if the two groups have reasonably equal capabilities for addition, another potentially serious confound exists. The randomization process affords no way of knowing beforehand how many in each group might be introversiv...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• About the Contributors
• Preface
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Conceptual Issues in Rorschach Research
• 3. Formulating Issues in Rorschach Research
• 4. Variable Selection in Rorschach Research
• 5. Subject Variables in Rorschach Research
• 6. Special Issues in Subject Selection and Design
• 7. Reviewing Basic Design Features
• 8. Issues of Probability and Rorschach Research
• 9. Statistical Power in Rorschach Research
• 10. Basic Considerations Regarding Data Analysis
• 11. Some Special Issues in Data Analysis
• 12. Factor Analysis With Rorschach Data
• Author Index
• Subject Index