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 RorschachBohm 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 nearlying 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, Gteborg 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.
Visiting statistics

Latest update: November 29, 2001.

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 preRorschach 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"

Moderate-Severe
Traumatic Brain
Injury

10

37

Mild Traumatic
Brain
Injury,Concussion

19

Infectious Brain
Disease

10

Anoxia

Brain Tumor

16

Cerebral Infarct

Vascular Dementia

Alzheimer-Type
Dementia, Pick's,
BSE

15

Parkinsons, Chorea

15

Multiple Sclerosis,
Dystrophies, CP,
Torticollis

16

Seizure Disorders,
ECT, Tourette's

22

20

75

Chemical
Abuse/Dependency

10

13

53

Learning Disability,
Minimal Brain
Dysfunction

17

Mental Retardation,
Developmental
Delay, Autism

12

36

Sleep Disorder

Lobe-Specific
Injuries,
Experimental
Lesions

11

17

40

Experimental
Perceptual
Conditions

Mis-Identified as
Brain Damage

Totals by Decade

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

12

19*

19*

15

26

15

15

126

North America

11

62*

58*

27

25

20

12

215

Asia

18

South America

12

Africa

Totals by Decade

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

1920s

1930s

1940s

1950s

1960s

1970s

1980s

1990s

Total

Differential
Diagnosis of Brain
Damage

10

32

22

26

27

25

147

Cognitive Studies of
Organic Populations

17

19

16

10

82

Personality Studies
of Organic
Populations

12

16

16

11

12

78

Identification of
Organic Signs in
Rorschach Records

25

19

68

Lesion localization
Tool

13

Exploration of
Perceptual Skills

10

13

Statistical Analysis

Assist in Treatment
Planning

Compare the
Rorschach with
Other
Neuropsychological
Instruments

Exploration of
Evolving Organicity

Totals by Decade

28

90

85

51

72

45

42

419

Research Goal

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 selfservice. 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. Its my belief that this is a more
important contribution to neuropsychology than the experts might have
realized. In its 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 patients first test experience, simply
by being experienced and re-processed in memory, enhances the patients
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. Id 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? Im 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? Its 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 psychologys 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
Schdeltrauma mittels des Rorschach'schen Formdeutversuches. Zeitschrift
fr 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 Other

The relevance of Hermann Rorschachs
method for the philosophy of perception
Helge Malmgren, MD, PhD
Department of Philosophy, Gteborg University, Sweden
helge.malmgren@phil.gu.se

Poster presentation at Tucson III:

Toward a Science of Consciousness

Tucson, 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 Rorschachs approach lies in his
insistence that peoples 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 Rorschachs
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 Rorschachs 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 kinaestheticoptic 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
Rorschachs 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 subjects 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 Rorschachs 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 Rorschachs 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 Exners 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 Rorschachs 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 Wrzburg 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 subjects 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 nondeclarative, 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 subjects 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-Pontys phenomenology, research on imitation, and the ecological
optics of James and Eleanor Gibson. I want to develop this theme here.
Gibsons 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 Gibsons
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
partners 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 partners perspective what the partner intends to do. A
heavyweight fighter certainly stays upright longer if he tries to sense the
other guys 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 Redstrm (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 cooperation 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. MerleauPontys 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 ones reach, so how can the perception of the horizon be analysed in
terms of practical apprehension? The solution lies, I think, in MerleauPontys 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 subjects left hand is immediately identified with his partners, his
actions immediately models himself on the others, 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 Johanssons 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 Gsta Frbrj, Susanna Lundqvist, Filip Radovic and Johan Redstrm 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: Bermdez, 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: Brten, 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: Fti, 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. Moores epistemology. Doxa, Lund 1983.
Meltzoff, A.N., Moore, M.K., Infants understanding of people and things: from body imitation to folk
psychology. In: Bermdez, J.L. (ed), The Body and the Self. MIT Press 1995, 43-70.
Merleau-Ponty, M., Phnomenologie de la Perception (Paris 1945). English translation
Phenomenology of Perception (Routledge 1962).
Mourly Vold, J., Ueber Hallucinationen, vorzglich Gesichtshallucinationen, auf der Grundlage
von cutan-motorischen Zustnden und auf derjenigen von vergangenen Gesichts-Eindrcken.
Allgemeine Zeitschr. fr Psychiatrie, 57 (1900).
Mourly Vold, J., ber den Traum. Ed. O. Klemm. Barth, Leipzig 1910-12.
Redstrm, J., Affordances, information pickup, och direkt perception. Gteborg University, 1998
(mimeographed).
Rorschach, H., Psychodiagnostik. Eine Wahrnehmungsdiagnostische Experiment. Bircher, Bern 1921;
later eds. Huber, Bern. All quotes from 9th ed (1972).
Rorschach, H., ber Reflexhallucinationen und verwandte Erscheinungen. Zeitschr. fr 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 Rorschachs ideas with a number of contemporary
theories and empirical findings which I have not discussed in the poster. Pertinent examples are
Kosslyns 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 pageALONGITUDINALPILOTSTUDYOF

THERORSCHACHASA
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICALINSTRUMENT
HelgeMalmgren1,MarianneBilting2,GstaFrbrjandGranLindqvist2

1
2

Dept. of Philosophy, University of Gteborg, S-412 98 Gteborg, Sweden.

Dept. of Neurosurgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gteborg, 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
Sixpatientswithorganicmentaldisorders,inallcasesincludingKorsakoffsamnestic
disorder(KAD)andinfourcasesduetoacomplicationafterananeurysmoperation,
werefollowedforuptotwoyears.Eachpatientwasassessedatleastthreetimes;the
totalnumberofassessmentpointswas26.Thepatientsneuropsychiatricstatuswas
assessedclinicallyaccordingtothediagnosticsystemofLindqvist&Malmgren.The
severityoftheindividualdisordersandtheglobalseverityoftheneuropsychiatric
disturbancewereestimatedoneachoccasion.Thepatientswereassessedusing

memory,concentrationandgeneralintelligencetests,andindependentlywith
RorschachaccordingtoBohmsmethod.
Thescoreson38selectedRorschachvariableswerecomparedwiththeclinical
assessmentsandwiththeothertestdata.Inaccordwithearlierstudieswefoundthat
KADhasaRorschachprofilewhichdifferssignificantlyfromthefindingsinpatients
whereotherorganicmentaldisordersdominatetheclinicalpicture.Wealsosawa
previouslynotreportedsignofKAD,namely,frequentcontaminatedwhole
responses.
Acomparisonwiththejudgmentsofglobalseverityalsogavesomesupporttothe
thesisthattheRorschachisavalidindicatoroforganicmentaldisorderingeneral.
Altogetherthestudyshowsthatthelongitudinaldesignoffersgreatpossibilitiesfor
theanalysisofRorschachsignsoforganicmentaldisorders.
KeyWords:
Rorschach, Intracerebral aneurysm, Korsakoffs amnestic disorder, Organic mental
disorders.

Introduction
ThestudyoftheRorschachtestinorganicmentaldisordershasalong
history,beginningwithRorschachsowninvestigations(1921pp171ff)of
patientswithdementia,Korsakoffspsychosis,generalparesisandlethargic
encephalitis.OtherpioneerSwissresearchersinthisfieldinclude
Oberholzer(1931).Piotrowskisten"organicsigns"(Piotrowski1937)also
heldearlypromise.AlotofresearchwasdoneintheU.S.A.duringthe
followingdecadestotestandtoimprovePiotrowskissignsbutwithno
greatsuccessexceptforestablishingbeyondreasonabledoubtthat
Piotrowskissignsdohavesomevalidityindiscriminatingnormalsubjects
frombraindamagedones.ForreviewsseeGoldfriedetal(1971),Velez
Diaz(1973);muchoftherelevantworkuptoabout1970intheclassical
EuropeanandtheAmericanRorschachtraditionshasalsobeensummarised
byBohm(1972pp320ff,1975pp145ff).Duringthe70sand80s
comparativelylittleresearchwasdonewiththeRorschachregardingorganic
disorders(foranexcellentreviewseeCaputo1989),andupuntilthepast
fewyearsonlysporadicattemptsweremadetouseExnersRorschachin
connectionwithneuropsychiatricconditions(butcfEllis&Zahn1985).
AshasbeennotedbyVelezDiaz(1973),Caputo(1989)andothersthereare
severalmajormethodologicalproblemsinvolvedinanystudyofthe
Rorschachinorganicmentaldisorders.Twowellknownsuchproblemsare:

TheRorschachtestissensitivetosomanydimensionsofhuman
personalitythatthevariabilityduetotheorganiccomponentmayeasily
vanishin"noise"duetoothersources.
Theorganicmentaldisordersareaveryheterogeneousfamilyof
disturbanceswhichcannotbeexpectedtoproduceaunitaryRorschach
picture.
Tothese,twoothersmustbeadded,theimportanceofwhichhaveinour
opinionnotbeensufficientlyappreciated:
Muchoftheclinicalpsychiatricheterogeneityremainsevenifgroupsof
patientswithunitaryaetiologyarestudied.Compareforexamplethe
diversityoforganicmentalsyndromesobservedinagroupof100patients
havingundergonetranssphenoidalhypophysectomi(Lindqvist1966).
Manydiagnosticdifficultiesinorganicpsychiatry,especiallyincaseswith
multiplesimultaneousreactionforms,canberesolvedonlyinalongitudinal
perspective.ComparetheproblemwithintheframeworkofDSMIIIR,
1987ofdiagnosingDementiaorAmnesticSyndromeinapatient
fulfillingthecriteriaforDelirium(seealsoMalmgren&Lindqvist1993).
Theseconsiderationsimplythefollowingmethodologicalcriteria:
(i)thatthediagnosticframeworkwhichisusedmustdefinetheorganic
mentaldisordersintermsofpsychopathology(independentlyofaetiology);
(ii)thatthesubjectsstudiedshouldbecarefullydescribedwithrespecttothe
kinds,severityandtimecourseoftheorganicmentaldisordersthatthey
exhibit;
(iii)thatalongitudinal(ormixedgroup/longitudinal)studydesigncould
offergreatadvantages,bothbyimprovingdiagnosticprecisionandby
reducingvariabilityduetoirrelevantfactors.
Thestudyreportedonherefulfilsthesecriteria.Itisapilotinvestigation,
basedonsixcasesofKorsakoffsamnesticdisorder(KAD,seebelow),and
itsaimswere:
topresentdetailedcaseanalysesofthetimecourseofKAD;
toexploretheperceptualprocessesinRorschachonthecaselevelby
comparingdifferentprotocolsfromthesamepatientsintheamnesticstate;
tosuggestnewRorschachindicatorsofKAD;and

toexploreonapilotscalethepossibilitiesofusingthelongitudinal
approachfortheformaltestingofRorschachcriteriafororganicmental
disorders.
SomeearlyresultsofthestudywerepublishedinSwedish(Malmgren1973,
1977),mainlyfocusingoncaseorientedcomparisonsoftestsofthesame
patientondifferentoccasions.AfterthepublicationofLindqvist
Malmgrenssystemoforganicpsychiatry(theLMsystem,Lindqvist&
Malmgren1990,1993),theclinicalpatientdatawerereclassifiedaccording
tothatsysteminordertoenableamorestringentanalysis.
ThesixmaindisordersrecognisedintheLMsystemarethefollowing(for
furtherexplanationsseealsoLindqvist&Malmgren1993):
1Somnolencesoporcomadisorder(SSCD),alsoknownas"pathological
impairmentofwakefulness".
2Asthenoemotionaldisorder(AED).ThemildformsofAED,mainly
manifestingthemselvesasconcentrationdifficulties,mentalfatiguability,
secondarymemorydisturbancesandirritability,havetraditionallybeen
called"neurasthenia".Themoresevereformsoftenjustifyadiagnosisof
dementia.
3Confusionaldisorder(CD)ordelirium.
4Hallucinationcenestopathydepersonalisationdisorder(HCDD),a
disorderwhichinitsfullblownformcomprisesallthreeofthesymptoms
mentionedinitsname.
5Korsakoffsamnesticdisorder(KAD),whichischaracterisedbyprimary
retrogradeandanterogradeamnesia,oftentogetherwithconfabulations.The
DSMIIIRtermforthisdisorderis"AmnesticSyndrome".Asarule,KAD
iscombinedwiththefollowingdisorder:
6Emotionalmotivationalbluntingdisorder(EMD),alsoknownas"the
frontallobesyndrome"althoughtheunderlyingbraindisturbanceneednot
belocalisedtothefrontallobes.
Thesedisordersoftenoccurtogetherindifferentcombinations,sometimes
givingrisetocomplicatedclinicalpictureswhichcanberesolvedintotheir
componentsonlybymeansofacarefullongitudinalanalysis.
Thepresentpaperaimsattheevaluationofthefollowingthreehypotheses
concerningthesixpatientsstudied(notethatthereisapotentialconflict
betweenthethirdhypothesisandthetwofirstones):

Thetestsfromalloccasionswhenthesubjectshaveasignificantorganic
mentaldisordersshouldfulfilsuggestedRorschachcriteriafororganic
diseaseingeneral;
Thereshouldbeacorrelationbetweenanindependentestimateofglobal
severityandRorschachvariablessuggestedasgeneralsignsoforganic
mentaldisorders;
ThereshouldbeacorrelationbetweenthedegreeofKAD(Korsakoffs
amnesticdisorder)andRorschachvariablesdescribedascharacteristicof
KAD(orrelatedcategoriessuchasKorsakoffssyndrome).

Method
Subjects
Beforethemicroneurosurgicalera,operationsforrupturedaneurysmsonthe
anteriorcommunicatingarteryoftenproducedseverecomplicationsinthe
formofatransientorchronicmixedorganicmentaldisorderdominatedby
memorydisturbancesofKorsakoffstype.Thiscomplicationwasfirst
describedbyLindqvist&Norln(1966).In197274,thefirstauthor(HM)
hadtheuniqueopportunitytorepeatedlyadministertheRorschachtoa
numberofpatientswithsuchrupturedaneurysms("aneurysmpatients")and
toasmallnumberofpatientswithKorsakoffsamnesticdisorderdueto
othercauses.Altogether,11patientsweretested;sixofthesewereselected
fordataanalysisbasedonthefollowinginclusioncriteria:averifiedKAD,
longenoughobservationtime,reasonablycertainclinicaldiagnosesatthe
timeofthetestings,andacertifiedchangeinrelevantneuropsychiatric
variablesbetweentestings.Theremainingmaterialcomprises4aneurysm
patients(onewomanandthreemen,referredtobelowasPats.A,B,Cand
G)andtwootherpatients(bothmen:Pat.E,traumaticbraininjury,andPat.
F,heartarrest).Theageofthe6patientsatthefirsttestrangedfrom44to
63years,mean54.Foradetailedclinicaldescriptionofthetimecourseof
thepatientsorganicmentaldisorders,see"Resultsanddiscussion".
Data
Thefirstauthor(HM)testedall6patientsrepeatedlywiththeRorschach
accordingtoBohmsmethod(Bohm1972).Threeoftheaneurysmpatients
(A,BandC)weretestedalsobeforetheoperation.Altogether26testswere
performed,allexceptoneinclosetemporalconnectionwithregularly
scheduledneuropsychiatricexaminations.Thefollowuptimevariedfrom2
to22months.Atmostretests,therewasacompleteornearcomplete
amnesiaforprevioustestings.AtthetimeofeachRorschachtesttheclinical

mentalstatusofthepatientswasindependentlyjudgedbyGL,and
complementarypsychometrictestingwasperformedbyMB.TheRorschach
protocolswerescoredbyHMandGFincollaboration.
WhenthedatawerereclassifiedaccordingtotheLMsystem,theseverity
ofeachdisorderoneachoccasionwasfirstratedonafourstepscale(using
1,2and3formild,moderateandseveredisturbancesrespectively,but0.5
forverymildforms)basedontheclinicaldocumentationandthe
psychometricdataexceptRorschach.Withthepossibleexceptionofthe
ratingsforAED,theseestimatesarenotsufficientlystandardisedtobeused
inpreciseinterpatientcomparisons.Onsomeoccasions,theclinical
judgementhadtobebasedonanextrapolationfromestablishedknowledge
aboutthenaturalcourseofthedifferentorganicmentaldisorders.Because
ofdiagnosticdifficultiesnoseparationwasmadebetweenSSCDand
unspecificfatiguereactions(UF).Anestimateoftheglobalseverityofthe
patientsdisturbancewasalsomadeforeachoccasion.Theprimaryratings
wereadjustedaccordingtotheclinicaljudgementsofimprovementor
deterioration,resultinginamorefinegrainedpictureofeachpatients
developmentovertime.
Theclinicalpsychopathologicalprofilesandtheirtimecourseswere
comparedwiththefindingson37Rorschachvariables(Table1),mostof
whichhaveearlierbeensuggestedas"organic"indicators.Theyincludethe
individualPiotrowskisignsandthePiotrowskiindex,mostitemsinBohms
(1975,p147)"generalorganicRorschachsyndrome",mostitemsinBohms
list(1975,p157)offindingsinalcoholicKorsakoff(Table2),andfinallya
fewvariablestheanalysisofwhichwerepromptedbythedata.

Table1:Rorschachvariablesselectedforanalysis
Var.

Description

Exp.

Source

Totalno.ofresponses

/+

Piot1,BohmK

T/R

Timeperresponse

Piot2

W%

Percentageofwholeresp.(notDW,
WS)

+/(?)

BohmG,K

*W%

Percentageofwholeresp.(inclDW,
WS)

+/(?)

BohmG,K

DW

NumberofweakDWresponses

BohmG

*M+

Numberofsharpmovementresponses /(?)
(includingMC+andMCh+)

Piot3,BohmK

M/M Numberofweakmovementresponses

BohmK

Ms

Numberofsmallmovementresponses

BohmK

F+%

Formlevel(Rorschachsmethod)

Piot5,BohmK

Conf1

Numberofclearconfabulations

BohmG

*Conf

Weightedindexofconfabulations

BohmG

CoC1

Numberofclearconfabulatorycombs.

BohmK

*CoC

Weightedindexofconfabulatory
combs.

BohmK

*Cr

Numberofcolourresponses(allkinds)

BohmG

CType Colourtype(Bash,numericalversion)

BohmG

CNam

Colournaming

Piot4

A%

Percentageofanimalresponses

+/(?)

BohmG,K

Libi1

Numberofclearlyuninhibited
responses

Study

*Libi

Weightedindexofuninhibited
responses

Study

Numberofvulgar(popular)responses

BohmG

V%

Percentageofvulgar(popular)
responses

Piot6

Orig+

Numberofgoodoriginalresponses

/(?)

BohmG,K

Orig

Numberofweakoriginalresponses

BohmG

Orig% Percentageoforiginalresponses

BohmG,K

Rej

BohmG

Rejections

CoNe1 Numberofclearcontams./neologisms

Study

*CoNe Indexofcontaminations/neologisms

Study

PersG

Perseveration,grossorganictype

BohmG

*Pers

Perseveration,anykind

Piot7

Rep

Repetitions

BohmK

Stp

Stereotypephrases

Piot10

Imp

Impotence

Piot8

Plx

Perplexity

Piot9

Locd

LocalizationdifficultiesinInquiry

BohmG

Edg

Edging

BohmG

LAw

Loweredawarenessofinterpretation

BohmG

Piot

Piotrowskisindex

Piot

Var.,variablename.Exp.,expectedsignaccordingtoPiotrowskiandBohm
ofcorrelationbetweenRorschachvariableandorganicmentaldisorders:/

+,negativeexpectedcorrelationwithglobalseverity,positivewithKAD./
(?),negativeexpectedcorrelationwithglobalseverity,undeterminedwith
KAD.+/(?),positiveexpectedcorrelationwithglobalseverity,
undeterminedwithKAD.Abbreviationsofsources:Piot1,Piotrowskis
firstsign,etc.BohmG,BohmsgeneralorganicRorschachsyndrome.
BohmK,BohmssignsforalcoholicKorsakoff.Study,variablederivedfrom
obvioustrendsinpresentdata.
Thereisalargeamountofredundancyinthefullsetofvariables,sofor
someofthetasksinthestudyasubsampleconsistingof16variableswas
usedinstead.
Table2:SomesuggestedcharacteristicsofalcoholicKorsakoffssyndrome
*Numberofresponsessometimesveryhigh
*NotsofewB
Introversiveexperiencebalance
*OftenWassuccessivecombinationsorconfabulatory
combinations
*TendencytosmallMresponses
*SporadicMresponses
*ConsiderablyloweredF+%
*MediumA%
*SometimesveryhighOrig%()
MannerofapproachWD(Dd)
Loosesuccession
*Repetitions
Subjectenjoysinterpreting

*)meansthatthevariableisinvestigatedinthepresentstudy.
AfterBohm(1972),p.331.ComparealsoBohm(1975),p.157.

Analysis
Threedifferentmethodsofstatisticalanalysiswereemployed:
Statisticalmethod1

Descriptivestatisticswerecollectedon16Rorschachvariablesforalltests
donewhenthesubjecthadsomesignificantorganicmentaldisorders.This
turnedouttobeall26occasions.Inthisway:
thenumberoffalsenegativesonPiotrowskisindexcouldbecalculated,
and
caveatsconcerninganumberofsuggested"organic"signscouldbe
formulated.
Statisticalmethod2

Fromthesetof26protocols,twosubsetswerepickedout.Thefirstgroup
(KAD+)consistsof14protocolstakenwhenKADwasjudgedtobethe
dominatingorganicmentaldisorder.Thiswasalwaysatorclosetothe
heightofthesubjectsglobalpsychopathology.Thesecondgroup(AED+)
contains7protocolstakenpreoperativelyorlateinconvalescence,whena
mildAEDwasjudgedtobethedominatingorganicmentaldisorder(orone
ofthetwoequallydominatingdisorders).Fornaturalreasonsthesetwo
groupswere"high"and"low",respectively,ontheestimateofglobal
severity.Descriptivestatisticsonthetwogroupswerecalculatedforthe16
Rorschachvariables,andtheresultswerecomparedonanintuitivebasis.
Thegroupscontainunequalnumbersofprotocolsfromthedifferent
patients,whichmakesformalsignificancetestingofdifferenceswith
standardmethodsimpossible.Thecomparisonwasthereforemainlyused
heuristically:
tosuggestcorrelationsbetweenclinicalandRorschachvariables;
tohelpfindtentativeRorschachpatternscharacteristicforpatientswith
KADandwithamildAED,respectively(thelatterfindingsarenotreported
here).
Statisticalmethod3

Foreachpatient,thecorrelationovertimeforaselectedpairofmeasures
wascalculated,andthemeanofall6intrapatientcorrelationswastakenas
anestimateofoverallcorrelationofthetwomeasures.Thenumberofintra
patientcorrelationcoefficientshavingthesamesignwerecounted,andthe
SignTestwasusedtoassesswhetherthetruemeanofthecoefficients
differedfromzero.Thesameanalysiswasrepeatedforalargenumberof
pairsofmeasures,anditwasthustested

towhatextenttheclinicalsyndromescorrelatedwitheachotherandwith
globalseverity,and
towhatextentglobalseverityandseverityofKADcorrelatedwiththe37
Rorschachvariablesinthewayexpectedfromourhypotheses.
Itshouldbenotedthatwithasamplesizeofsixpatients,signtest
significanceatthe5%levelrequiresthatall6correlationshavethesame
sign.

Resultsanddiscussion
Clinicalcourses
FourofthesixmaindisordersoftheLMsystemwererepresentedonatleast
onetestoccasion,namely,SSCD(possiblymixedwithUF),AED,KADand
EMD.InFigure1,theseverityofthesedisordersandtheestimatedglobal
severityareshownforeachtestoccasion.Itcaneasilybeseenthatalthough
boththetimecourseandthestateattheendoffollowupvaryconsiderably
betweenpatients,therewasaconsistenttrendtowardsfinalimprovementin
allclinicalvariablesexceptAED.SSCD/UFwasrareandgenerallymild
andtransient,AEDwasomnipresent,mildandstationary,whiletheamounts
ofKADandtoalesserdegreeEMDvariedconsiderablyfrompatientto
patientandbetweendifferenttestoccasions.Therewasnotestoccasion
withoutthepresenceofanysignificantorganicmentaldisorder.

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 = Korsakoffs 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 = Korsakoffs 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

Thecorrelationsbetweentheestimateofglobalseverity(Global)andthe
severityofthespecificorganicmentaldisorders,andbetweenthese
disordersthemselves,wereanalysedaccordingtothethirdmethod
mentionedabove(intraindividualcorrelationcoefficientsandsigntest).All
coefficientmeanswerepositiveexceptthatbetweenKADandSSCD/UF
whichwasweaklynegative.ThecorrelationsbetweenGlobalandKAD,
betweenEMDandKAD,andbetweenGlobalandEMD,wereallstrongly
positive,andthetwofirstonesapproachsignificanceonthesigntest(p=.
0625).
Theresultsimplythatintraindividualvariabilityintheglobalseverityscore
wasprobablymostlyduetotheamountofKAD(andtoalesserdegree,
EMD)present.Theyalsoindicatethatitisvirtuallyimpossibleto
disentangletheeffectsofKADfromthoseofEMDinthepresentstudy.
However,sinceEMDismostprobablyaninvariableaccompanimentof
KAD,thisimpossibilityneednotdetractmuchfromtheclinicalvalueofour
results.Forthesamereason,wehavechosentosimplifythefollowing
discussionbyleavingoutmostfurtherreferencestoEMD.
Rorschachdata
Statisticalmethod1

InTable3,thebasicdescriptivestatisticsfor16selectedRorschach
variablesinthewholegroupof26protocolsisshown.Ifseenonlyinthe
lightofcertainsuggestedRorschachsignsoforganicmentaldisordersin
general,someofourdatamayatfirstsightseemsurprising,namely:
ThemedianofthenumberofpositivePiotrowskisignswas4which,even
takingintoaccountthefactthatwescore"Impotence"conservatively,
meansthatthefalsenegatives(using5asthecutoffpoint)makeupatleast
50%ofthegroup.
ThemediansofR,F+%andM+were19,81.5%and2,whichshouldbe
comparedwiththePiotrowskicuttingpointsof15,70%and1,respectively.
Table3:Basicdescriptivestatistics,forthewholesampleof26protocols,
onthe37RorschachvariablesdescribedinTable1.Forexplanationsof
variablenames,seeTable1
Mean Std.dev. Count Minimum Maximum Median

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

2,0

*M+

1,9

1,4

26

5,0

2,0

M/M

0,2

0,3

26

1,0

Ms

0,04

0,2

26

1,0

F+%

75,8

17,7

26

38,0

100,0

80,5

Conf1

0,7

1,0

26

3,0

*Conf

1,1

1,1

26

3,5

1,0

CoC1

0,5

0,9

26

3,0

*CoC

1,9

2,0

26

7,0

1,0

*Cr

2,8

2,1

26

9,0

2,0

CType

0,9

0,1

23

0,8

1,2

0,9

CNam

26

55,7

15,5

26

31,0

85,0

53,0

Libi1

1,7

1,8

26

6,0

1,0

*Libi

3,6

3,6

26

12,0

2,0

5,5

2,4

26

2,0

10,0

5,0

30,1

11,1

26

8,0

50,0

31,5

Orig+

1,5

2,1

26

6,0

Orig

3,3

2,9

26

10,0

2,0

Orig%

26,8

16,4

26

57,9

26,3

Rej

0,5

1,0

26

4,0

CoNe1

1,0

1,3

26

6,0

1,0

*CoNe

2,9

3,2

26

13,0

2,5

PersG

0,4

0,4

26

1,0

0,5

*Pers

1,8

1,1

26

0,5

4,5

1,5

Rep

0,7

0,8

26

2,0

Stp

0,1

0,2

26

1,0

Imp

0,1

0,3

26

1,0

Plx

1,0

26

1,0

1,0

1,0

Locd

0,7

0,5

26

1,0

1,0

Edg

0,2

0,5

26

2,0

A%

V%

LAw

1,0

0,2

26

1,0

1,0

Piot

4,1

1,3

26

2,0

6,5

4,0

Wethinkthattheseaberrationsfrom"expected"valuescanallbeexplained
bythepeculiaritiesoftheKAD(and/orEMD,cfabove).Ithasalreadybeen
notedbyotherinvestigatorsthatRandM+donotbehaveinthesameway
inpatientswith(alcoholinduced)KADasinother"organics"(cfTable2).
OccurrencesofhighF+%wouldaccordwiththeclinicalobservationthat
KADpatientsareoftenwellpreservedintellectually.AverylowF+%has
beensuggestedastypicalforalcoholicKAD(Table2),butitshouldbe
emphasisedthatthealcoholiccasesmostprobablydifferfromthepost
operativeonesbyhavingmuchmoreotherorganicpsychopathology.
AnothernoteworthyfindinginTable3isthefollowing:
Contaminationsandneologisms(CoNe)arerareinthegeneralpopulation,
andtheyhavenotbeensuggestedassignsoforganicityingeneral.Inthe
presentsample,however,theywerefrequent.Weinterpretthisasevidence
thattheyareduetothepresenceofKAD(cfalsobelow).
Statisticalmethod2

InFigure3,themeans(2SE)forKAD,AED,Globaland16selected
RorschachvariablesinthetwogroupsofprotocolsKAD+andAED+(as
definedinMethod)areshown.Theresultsofthiscomparisonmaybe
summarisedasfollows.
MostoftheRorschachvariablesbehavedaswouldbeexpectedfrom
PiotrowskisandBohmscriteria(Table1),consideringtheintergroup
differenceinglobalseverity.
TheexceptionsareR,T/R,W%andCoNe.

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 = asthenoemotional disorder. KAD = Korsakoffs amnestic disorder.

Allbutthesecondoftheseexceptionscanagainbeexplainedbythe
peculiaritiesofKAD(cfTable3andabove).Thesecondexceptionmayalso
havetodowiththenatureofamildAED.Intypicalcasesofthiscondition
thepatientscognitiveambitionsarehigh,buttoliveuptothemhemustuse
acontinuous,energyconsumingconsciouseffort(cfalsoLindqvist&
Malmgren1990,ChapterIII:2).Incontrast,thetypicalKADpatientismuch
lessselfcriticalandcanthereforeusefasterstrategies.
Statisticalmethod3

Foreachiteminthefullsetof37selectedRorschachvariables,anattempt
wasmadetodeterminean"expected"directionofitscorrelationwiththe
clinicalvariableGlobal,usingTables12andtheknowncorrelation(inthe

presentsample)betweenGlobalandKAD.Actualintrapatientcorrelations
betweentheRorschachvariablesandGlobalwerethencalculated,and
significancetestingwasperformedasdescribedin"Method".Figure3
illustratesoneessentialstepoftheanalysis.ItshowsthecoursesofGlobal
and16RorschachvariablesinPatientBandthecoefficientofcorrelation
(overtime)betweeneachvariableandGlobalforthispatient.

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.

Theresultsforthewholesampleandall37variablesareshowninTable4.
ForeachRorschachvariable,Table4lists:theexpectedsign(ifany)ofthe
correlationcoefficient;theactualnumberofpositive,negativeandzero
intrapatientcorrelations;themeancorrelationcoefficient;thePvalue
(usingthesigntest)forthenullhypothesisthatthecorrelationmeanwas
zero;andfinallyabriefevaluationtowhatdegreeeachresultsupportsor
disconfirmsourhypotheses.Themainfindingsarethefollowing:
FourofthesignificantresultsconcernLibi1,Libi,CoNe1andCoNe,none
ofwhichhadany"expected"signofcorrelation.Althoughuninhibited
contentsdonotbelongtothePiotrowskiorBohmgeneralsignsoforganic
disorders(Table1),wedonotbelievethatthehighscoresonLibi1andLibi
werespecificallyduetothepresenceofKAD(orEMD).Uninhibited
contentsareprobablybestregardedasveryunspecificindicatorsofimpaired
egofunctioning;cfalsotheuseof"DerepressedContents"intheEgo
ImpairmentIndexofPerry&Viglione(1991).
Concerningcontaminationsandneologisms,seeabove.
Althoughtherewereonly3othersignificantresults,25ofthose31
variableswhichhadan"expected"directionofcorrelationdidtendtohavea
correlationinthatdirection,whiletherewereonly3(weakly)disconfirming
and3ambiguoustrends.This"variablecount"mustofcoursebeinterpreted
withgreatcaution,sincetherearemanyconceptualdependenciesamongthe
variables.
Table4:IntrapatientcorrelationsbetweenRorschachvariablesandglobal
severity
Var.

Exp. Noofcorr
+

Mean ST

Eval. Comment

/+

.158

>.3

T/R

.337

.219

W%

+/(?) 5

.252

.219

*W%

+/(?) 5

.283

.219

DW

.365

>.3

(E)

*M+

/(?)

.405

>.3

(E)

M/M

.385

>.3

(E)

Ms

.864

>.3

(U)

F+%

.682

.0312 E!

OnlyinB1

Conf1

.371

.219

*Conf

.410

.219

CoC1

.672

.250

*CoC

.237

>.3

(E)

*Cr

.023

>.3

(U)

CType

.340

>.3

(E)

CNam

A%

+/(?) 4

.126

>.3

Libi1

.532

.0312 !

*Libi

.588

.0312 !

Notseen
(unexpectedly
rare,Piot4)

(E)

.568

.0312 E!

V%

.353

.219

Orig+

/(?)

.092

>.3

Orig

.723

.0312 E!

Orig%

.399

>.3

(E)

Rej

+/

.070

>.3

CoNe1

.703

.0312 !

*CoNe

.733

.0312 !

PersG

.140

>.3

(E)

*Pers

.395

.219

Rep

.175

>.3

(E)

Stp

.417

>.3

(U)

Imp

.439

>.3

(E)

Unexpectedly
rare,
Piot8.

Plx

Allprotocols
(accordswith
Piot9).

Locd

.606

.219

Edg

.484

.250

LAw

.866

>.3

(E)

Piot

.493

.219

AllexceptC3
(accordsw.
BohmG).

Var.,variablename;forvariabledescriptionsseeTable1.Exp.,expected
signaccordingtoPiotrowskiandBohmofcorrelationbetweenRorschach

variableandorganicmentaldisorders:/+,negativeexpectedcorrelation
withglobalseverity,positivewithKAD./(?),negativeexpectedcorrelation
withglobalseverity,undeterminedwithKAD.+/(?),positiveexpected
correlationwithglobalseverity,undeterminedwithKAD.Noofcorr,
numberofpositive(+),zero(0)andnegative()intrapatientcorrelations.
ST,PvaluewiththeSignTest.Mean,meancorrelation.Eval.,evaluation
ofresultsfromlongitudinaldata:E!,significantresultintheexpected
direction.E,clearbutnonsignificanttrendintheexpecteddirection.(E),
weaktrendintheexpecteddirection.A,ambiguousdata(toofew
correlationsornotrendindata).(U),weaktrendoppositetotheexpected
direction.X,nodefinitepredictionfromBohmorPiotrowski.!,other
significantresult.Comment,verbalcomment,includingotherthan
longitudinalresults.B1,protocol1frompatientB.Piot4,Piotrowskis
fourthsign,etc.BohmG,BohmsgeneralorganicRorschachsyndrome.
AsimilaranalysiscorrelatingthedegreeofKADwiththesame37
Rorschachvariableswasperformed,buttheresultsarenottabulatedsince
therewereveryfewdifferencesfromtheoneanalysistotheother.Thisisof
courseexpectedinviewoftheheavypositiveintercorrelationbetweenKAD
andGlobal.

Conclusions
AlmosteverysingleRorschachsignispolyvalent,i.e.ithasacontext
dependentsignificance,andasimple"signapproach"liketheoneusedhere
cannotevencomeclosetomimickingtheholisticjudgementofthequalified
clinician.Ontheotherhand,thesizeofthepresentsamplehardlyjustifies
theuseofmultivariateorothermoreadvancedanalyticmethods.Inspiteof
this,thestudygivesstrongsupporttotheideathatthenatureanddegreeofa
patientsorganicmentaldisorderistoalargeextentreflectedinhis
Rorschach.Mostsuggestedsignsoforganicmentaldisorderingeneral,and
ofKADorrelatedcategories,behaveasexpected;however,forafewsuch
signsthedatatendtodisconfirmearliersuggestions.Concerning
Piotrowskisindex,ourresultsareinlinewiththemaintrendofearlier
research.
Severalofthesupported"organic"RorschachsignsdonotoccurinExners
"ComprehensiveSystem"(Exner1993),forexampleT/R,Orig,Orig%and
LAw.OthersmaybedifficulttoevaluateinExnerssystemdueto
peculiaritiesofhisrulesofadministration,notablyRandRejwhenthe
numberofspontaneousresponsesisverylowandthepatienthastobe
encouragedverymuchinordertofulfilthedesideratumforaminimum

numberofresponses.ThiscastssomedoubtsonthesufficiencyofExners
systemforanadequateanalysisof"organic"cases.

References
Bohm,E.(1972).LehrbuchderRorschachPsychodiagnostik.(4ed.).Bern:Huber.
Bohm,E.(1975).PsychodiagnostischesVademecum.(3ed.).Bern:Huber.
Caputo,J.(1989).Rorschachstudiesofneuropsychologicalgroupsofthepast,
presentandfuture.UnpublishedthesisforthedegreeofPsy.D.,CentralMichigan
University,MountPleasant,MI.
Ellis,D.,&Zahn,B.(1985).Psychologicalfunctioningaftersevereclosedhead
injury.JournalofPersonalityAssessment,49,125128.
Exner,J.(1993).TheRorschach:Acomprehensivesystem.(3ed.).(Vol.1).New
York:Wiley.
Goldfried,M.,Stricker,G.,&Weiner,I.(Eds.).(1971).Rorschachhandbookof
clinicalandresearchapplications.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Lindqvist,G.(1966).Mentalchangeaftertranssphenoidalhypophysectomy.Acta
PsychiatricaScandinavica,42(Suppl.190).
Lindqvist,G.,&Malmgren,H.(1990).Organiskpsykiatri.Stockholm:Almqvist&
Wiksell.
Lindqvist,G.,&Malmgren,H.(1993).Organicmentaldisordersashypothetical
pathogeneticprocesses.ActaPsychiatricaScandinavica,88(Suppl.373),517.
Lindqvist,G.,&Norln,G.(1966).Korsakoffssyndromeafteroperationon
rupturedaneurysmoftheanteriorcommunicatingartery.ActaPsychiatrica
Scandinavica,42,2434.
Malmgren,H.(1973).NgraRorschachfyndvidpostoperativaKorsakowiska
minnessvrigheter.NordiskPsykiatriskTidskrift,27,530538.
Malmgren,H.(1977).RorschachtestetsvaliditetstuderadpKorsakowpatienter.In
H.Malmgren(Ed.),Plumpariprotokollet.Gteborg:GteborgUniversity.
Malmgren,H.,&Lindqvist,G.(1993).Thesemanticstatusofdiagnosticcriteriafor
organicmentalsyndromesanddisordersinDSMIIIandDSMIIIR.Acta
PsychiatricaScandinavica,88(Suppl.373),3347.
Oberholzer,E.(1931).ZurDifferentialdiagnosepsychischerFolgezustandenach
SchdeltraumamittelsdesRorschachschenFormdeutversuches.Zeitschriftfrdie
gesamteNeurologieundPsychiatrie,136,596629.

Perry,W.,&Viglione,D.(1991).TheEgoImpairmentIndexasapredictorof
outcomeinmelancholicdepressedpatientstreatedwithtricyclicantidepressants.
JournalofPersonalityAssessment,56,487501.
Piotrowski,Z.(1937).TheRorschachinkblotmethodinorganicdisturbancesofthe
centralnervoussystem.JournalofNervousandMentalDisease,86,525537.
Rorschach,H.(1921).Psychodiagnostik.Bern:Bircher.
VelezDiaz,A.(1973).Rorschachtestintheassessmentoforganicbraindamage
inadults:Areviewofthepost1954literature.SanJuan:VeteransAdministration
Center.
Top of page
Back to Texts page

Rorschach Inkblot Test

Robert Todd Carroll

SkepDic.com

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 nonprojective 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 2002

Last updated

Robert Todd Carroll

Roswell

Rolfing

SkepDic.com

Search the Skeptic's Dictionary

Prin
t Page
Send
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 Use
Reading 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:
Psychological Tests

Additional Rorschach Information

Common

Most people have heard of the Rorschach test (pronounced "rawshock"), 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 fourlegged 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
protocolaire
s pour le
test de
Rorschach
Voici un ensemble de documents contenant les fiches qui permettent de prendre des notes structures
lors de la passation du test de Rorschach ainsi que d'autres qui facilitent la cotation des rponses et le
calcul des variables signifiantes.

Sont reprises les fiches telles qu'elles sont classiquement utilises dans le systme "
franais " ainsi que dans le Systme Intgr de J.E. EXNER.
Le document qui vous est propos 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, la :
Page 2 : fiche de prise de notes en passation et enqute (systme " franais ")

Page 3 : modle-type de psychogramme

Page 4 : fiche de cotation de rponse (Systme Intgr)

Page 5 : Rsum Formel (Systme Intgr)

Cliquez ici afin d'obtenir le fichier WinWord contenant les documents prsents :
Fichier au format .doc, c'est--dire le format WinWord visualisable avec votre browser
actuel.
Fichier au format .zip, c'est--dire compact par le logiciel WinZip. Vous aurez donc
besoin de ce logiciel pour le tlcharger.

Cette application Excell permet l'laboration d'un psychogramme (mthode

"franaise") partir des cotations.
Complete URL to this document:
http://www.ulb.ac.be/psycho/fr/docs/contrib/rorschach/kitprot.htm

Cr le 25 septembre 1999 par Benjamin Thiry (merci Graldine Thiry)

Hermann Rorschach (1884 1922)

Hermann Rorschach ( 1884 - 1922) nat Zurich, d'une vieille famille suisse
du canton de Thurgovie. Il est le fils an d'un peintre, professeur de dessin. Il
perd son pre en 1903. Il finissait alors de bonnes tudes l'cole secondaire
de Schaffhouse, o ce dernier enseignait depuis 1886. Trs dou pour le
dessin, il hsite entre une carrire artistique et des tudes mdicales.
Le grand biologiste Haeckel le dcide pour les secondes. Il les mne, comme
c'est alors l'habitude, travers plusieurs Universits : Neuchtel, Berlin,
Berne et surtout Zurich (1904 - 1909).
Il frquente la colonie russe de Zurich, s'enthousiasme par la langue et littrature russes, passe ses
vacances en Russie en 1906 et 1910, pouse en 1910 une collgue russe, Olga Stempelin, et fait le
projet de s'installer en Russie. Il travaille dans ce pays de dcembre 1913 juin 1914, mais, pour des
raisons restes inconnues, revient dfinitivement en Suisse.
Entre-temps, il s'est spcialis en psychiatrie, gagn par l'enthousiasme qui rgne au Burghlzi, la
clinique psychiatrique de l'universit de Zurich, dirige par Eugne Bleuler, o brille Jung, l'inventeur
du test d'associations de mots et o, pour la premire fois, on appliquait aux psychoses les conceptions
psychanalytiques. Il exerait aux asiles de Mnsterlingen (1909 - 1913), et de Mnsingen (1913), de
Waldau, prs de Berne (1914 - 15) et celui de Herisau dont il est directeur adjoint (1915 - 1922).
Deux enfants lui naissent, un garon (1917) et une fille (1919).
Il soutient sa thse de mdecine en 1912, sur les hallucinations-rflexes et les phnomnes associs.
Bien que n'ayant point entrepris une psychanalyse personnelle pralable - la chose tant rare l'poque
-, il pratique des cures psychanalytique sur ses malades et acquiert la comprhension de la maladie
mentale dans la perspective psychanalytique. Il frquente le groupe psychanalytique de Zurich de 1909
1913 (Bleuler, Jung, Maeder, Binswanger et Pfister) et publie des articles, notes et comptes-rendus
assez nombreux dans Zentralblatt fr psychoanalyse. La scession de Jung hors du mouvement
psychanalytique freudien, puis la guerre, disperse le groupe. Quand une socit suisse de psychanalyse
est fonde en 1919 avec Oberholzer, Zulliger, et Pfister, etc., Rorschach en est vice-prsident ; il y
prsente plusieurs communications sur son test et fait des deux premiers nomms d'actifs adeptes. Ces
autres principaux disciples sont des confrres de Waldau (Morgenthaler, Fankhauser) et de Herisau (G.
Roemer et Behn-Eschenburg), ainsi que A. Friedemann, qui fut secrtaire gnral de la socit
internationale Rorschach, et le fils et de Bleuler, Manfred.

Rorschach possdait en effet une personnalit attachante : presque timide,

cultiv, brillant et profond ds que la conversation l'intressait ; rserv
dans ses premiers contacts, mais d'une grande bienveillance pour les siens
et ses amis, il tait le type mme de l'introversif crateur que lui-mme a
dcrit.
La grande oeuvre laquelle il se consacre aprs sa thse de mdecine, et
que l'improvisation de son Psychodiagnostik suspend brutalement est
dfinitivement la fin de 1917, concerne la psychologie religieuse.

Elle aurait constitu une vaste synthse d'observations pathologiques et de recherches sociologiques
effectues sur certaines sectes suisses, dont l'un des fondateurs avait t intern Mnsingen (celui-ci
avait tabli le culte de son propre pnis, donnait son urine en communion et chassait les dmons par le
cot) et dont la trace remontait jusqu'au Moyen Age, toujours chez les mmes familles de tisserands des
mmes rgions. Les prophtes de ces sectes qui prnaient tous l'inceste, apparaissaient Rorschach
comme des nvross ou des psychotiques, dont la mythologie exprimait, de faon communicative, les
complexes personnels et les archtypes de l' inconscient. Son Psychodiagnostik parat en 1921. Peu
aprs, Rorschach est emport en vingt-quatre heures par une pritonite inoprable, 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

Cr le 4 octobre par Benjamin Thiry

Rorschach (test de)

Le test de Rorschach (cr en 1921 par le psychiatre suisse Hermann

Rorschach et inspir de la psychanalyse) permet dexplorer la personnalit
d'un individu en se basant sur linterprtation qu'il fait dun dessin obtenu
laide de tache dencre.
En laissant libre cours limagination de lobservateur du dessin,
lexaminateur peut se faire une ide assez prcise de sa personnalit.
Ce test, de moins en moins utilis, ltait une certaine poque pour effectuer
un diagnostic, mais galement des preuves de slection permettant de
prciser de faon plus ou moins fiable la structure affective profonde du sujet
qui examinait le dessin.
* Le quotient intellectuel (souvent critiqu depuis sa cration au dbut du
sicle) se dfinit comme le rapport entre lge mental et lge rel du sujet
multipli par 100, lge mental tant valu en utilisant une srie de tests. Par
dfinition, le chiffre normal est de 100 ; quand il est infrieur 70, il traduit
une dbilit mentale; suprieur 140, il indique chez un enfant un niveau
largement suprieur la moyenne (enfant surdou).
Ce sont les psychologues franais Alfred Binet et Thodore Simon qui ont
introduit cette notion de quotient intellectuel en 1950.
lpoque, ceci avait t fait pour permettre de diffrencier les enfants
qualifis de normaux des enfants dits anormaux, et de dterminer ainsi lge
mental rel par rapport lge de ltat civil.
Plus tard, Louis M Termann chef de file dune quipe de psychologues
amricains, reprenait cette notion pour la perfectionner. Il amliora ainsi le
test par une diversification du questionnaire qui tait pos aux enfants, en leur
demandant notamment de terminer une suite de chiffres et de trouver lintrus
parmi une liste de mots.
Il semble que les conditions dans lequel se droule le test, lui enlvent
quelque crdibilit. La notion de quotient intellectuel est sans doute critiquable
du fait quil ne tient pas compte de la personnalit globale du sujet, mais
galement du fait que les rsultats sont parfois influencs par lenvironnement
socioculturel de lenfant et sa raction affective vis--vis des personnes
faisant passer le test. Ainsi, pour certains psychologues, le test quotient
intellectuel doit tre complt par un autre type de test de personnalit 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: JosseyBass, 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 Psychology
General Information
Psychology Department Home Page
UT Austin Home Page

ISSUES IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY

Rorschach 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

Hermann Rorschach

List categories

Swiss psychiatrist, born November 8, 1884, Zurich;

died April 2, 1922, Herisau.

Eponyms A-Z

Associated eponyms:

Biographies by country

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

Female entries
Contact

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.
The Dermatologist's
Guide to Looking Younger
Lawrence J. Green
Only $8.76!

Hermann Rorschach has been described as a studious and orderly pupil who completed his ba
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
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 Neuchtel (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 Rorscha
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 Burghlzli
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 t
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 tim
he had decided to move to Russia permanently, but first wanted to complete his education in
Switzerland.

Since both he and his fiance were poor, in 1909 he chose to take a position in the psychiatric
hospital in Mnsterlingen because the salary was much better than he would have obtained in
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 record
of the patients, including a photographic record which he himself took. At one time he bought
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 w
probably the reason why he put aside this work. He had become interested in the interpretatio
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 subconscio
longing for the mother's breast with the ticking representing heart beats.

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

In 1912, having finished his doctoral dissertation, sur les hallucinations-rflexes et les
phnomnes associs 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 no
do in this position.

Back in Switzerland in 1914 he had no choice but to accept a position at the Waldau psychiatr
clinic near Bern. Rorschachs wife was detained from leaving Russia by a declaration of war an
did not rejoin him in Switzerland until the spring of 1915. Mrs. Rorschachs explanation for her
husbands return to Switzerland was that "in spite of his interest in Russia and the Russians, h
remained a true Swiss, attached to his native land.... He was European and intended to remai

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 Burghlzli".
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
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 disciple
that his penis was sacred and that they should adore it; his urine was called "heaven's drops"
"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 wome
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 Unternhrer (1759-1824) the Antonianer - which had existed towards the end
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 a
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 bee
reduced in size, the colours had been altered and the original patches of uniform colour densit
had been reproduced with a varying degree of saturation. In this way a very important variabl
was included in the text, the so-called shading qualities of the pattern. It is these ten cards th
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 we
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 tota
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 o
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 attentio
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, Zullige
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 profoun
conversationalist. Although somewhat reserved, he was a man of great benevolence to those
closest to him
Bibliography:

Works by Hermann Rorschach:

ber Reflexhalluzinationen und verwandte Erscheinungen.

Doctoral dissertation, Berlin, 1912.

Sur les hallucinations-rflexes et les phnomnes associs.

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 zugehrigen Tests bestehen
aus zehn Teils mehrfarbigen Tafeln.
Bern ; Berlin : H. Huber, 1932 Edition 2. Aufl. Herausgegeben von Dr. W. Morgenthale
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 pape

The application of the form interpretation test (pub. posthumously by Emil Oberholze
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, 60225248, 359379.

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 Frdric 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 Franoise
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 Validitt 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 fr 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, 591596.

M. W. Acklin:
Avoiding Rorschach dichotomies: Integrating Rorschach interpretation.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 1995, 64, 235238.

B. Ritzler:
Putting your eggs in the content analysis basket: A response to Aronow, Reznikoff an
Moreland.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 1995, 64, 229234.

E Aronow, M. Reznikoff & K. L. Moreland:

The Rorschach: Projective technique or psychometric test?
Journal of Personality Assessment, 1995, 64, 213228.

M. W. Acklin & J. Oliveira-Berry:

Return to the source: Rorschachs Psychodiagnostics..

Journal of Personality Assessment, 1996, 67, 427433.

J. H. Kleiger:
Rorschach shading responses: From a printers error to an integrated psychoanalytic
paradigm.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 1997, 69, 342364.

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 f
have ever seen a real Rorschach inkblot. The blots are kept secret. When you
inkblot in a popular article on the test (as in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry o
Rorschach test), it's a fake: it's an an inkblot, but not one of the inkblots. There
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 persona
Whether they do remains controversial. Many psychologists think the Rorschac
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, th
disagreement on interpretation of responses.

Just as secret as the blots themselves are the ground rules for administering th
There are a few things that you, as a subject, are supposed to know and a lot o
things you aren't supposed to know. If you ask about something you're not sup
to know, the psychologist will give you a pat answer as prescribed in Rorschac
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 psych
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 arrowh
every time you do turn a card; and that you lose points in the initiative departm
you don't turn the cards.

You'll be handed the cards one by one in the fixed order devised by Rorschach
are numbers on the backs of the cards for the psychologist's benefit). The first
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
a white background. Two others are black and red ink on white, and the last th
blots are multicolored. The psychologist will always put each card in your hand
"right" side up.

You aren't supposed to know it, but the psychologist will write down everything
say. This includes any seemingly irrelevant questions you may have. To keep y
from getting wise, the psychologist always arranges to sit to your side and a litt
behind you, so that you can't look at the card and the psychologist at the same
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 "tickle
watch. The psychologist will not ask you to hurry up or slow down and will not m
any reference to time, but response times (in seconds) are one of the things he
she is writing in the notes.

Don't hold the card at an unusual angle. Watch how you phrase things. Say "T
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 liter
say things as, "This is a blotch of black ink." Don't groan, get emotional, or mak
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
what is a normal response. You can probably see images in the inkblots prope
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
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
of the blot. If you see an abalone and can point out why it looks like one, then s
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 th
psychologist. These may be signs of psychosis.

You're expected to see more than one thing on all or most of the cards. Not be
able to see anything on a card suggests neurosis. Usually the more things you
see, the better, as long as they fit the form and color of the blot. Of course, you
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 look
particularly bad if you take a long time and give a dumb, inappropriate answer.

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, a
Plates I through X. The psychologist won't mention the numbers to you, but the
will always be in order.

Plate I

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

The first blot is easy. How fast you answer is taken as an indication of how wel
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 o
a female figure. Mask, jack-o'-lantern, and animal face are common responses
but in some interpretation schemes they suggest paranoia. A bad response is a
that says something untoward about the central female figure. "She" is often ju
to be a projection of your own self-image. Avoid the obvious comment that the
has two breasts but no head.

If you don't give more than one answer for Plate I, many psychologists will drop
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 (uppe
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.
don't, it's seen as a sign that you have trouble relating to people. You may give
responses as well, such as cave entrance (the triangular white space between
two figures) and butterfly (the red "vagina," bottom center).

Should you mention the penis and vagina? Not necessarily. Every Rorsehach p
has at least one obvious representation of sexual anatomy. You're not expecte
mention them all. In some interpretation schemes, mentioning more than four s
images in the ten plates is diagnostic of schizophrenia. The trouble is, subjects
took Psychology 101 often assume they should detail every possible sex respo
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.
may not say that the lower red area looks like a vagina, but psychologists assu
that what you do say will show how you feel about women. Nix on "crab"; stick
"butterfly."

Plate III

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

This is the blot that supposedly can determine sexual preference. Most people
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 ask
specify it. By the traditional interpretation, seeing the figures as male is a
heterosexual response (for test subjects of both sexes). Describing the figures
female or acknowledging the androgynous nature of the blot is supposed to be
homosexual response. Does it work? Not really--many straights describe the fi
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
"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
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
The "boots" are fairly conspicuous; between them is the apparent head of a do
Chinese dragon. Many subjects see the blot as an animal skin. After a few sec
though, most can see it as a standing figure seen from below.
The boots become the feet, enlarged because of the unusual perspective. The
and head, at the top, are smaller. Common descriptions are bear, gorilla, or ma
heavy coat. Bad descriptions are monster or attacking bear or gorilla-Rorschac
theorists equate your description of the figure with your perception of your fath
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 projection
the ends of the bat wings as crocodile heads signifies hostility. Seeing the paire
butterfly antennae or feet as scissors or pliers signifies a castration complex.
Schizophrenics sometimes see moving people in this blot. Many psychologists
particular note of the number of responses given to this plate. If you mention m
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: peni
(center line at top); vagina (below penis).

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

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

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 i
of female figures suggests anxiety to some psychologists; seeing it as a walnu
kernel may mean a vulgar fixation.

There is an entirely different side to this blot, but you're not supposed to see it.
white space between the girls or women can be interpreted as an oil lamp or s
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 form
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 l
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 anim
lions, pigs, bears, etc. -on the sides of the blot. They're one of the most commo
responses on the test, and you're assumed to be a mental defective if you don
them. Other good responses are tree (gray triangle at top), butterfly (pink and o
area at bottom), and rib cage or anatomy chart (skeletal pattern in center betw
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

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 (cente
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 menta
block, this is the place to do it. The colors clash, apparently by Rorschach's de
Good answers are a fire with smoke, an explosion (but paranoids are claimed
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 m
head in the pink areas at bottom. (The man is identified as Mark Twain, Santa
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,
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 c
shapes, the most chaotic of the plates. Naughty bits: penis and testes (top cen
gray ink).

The unspoken purpose of this last blot is to test your organizational ability. Plat
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 a
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
orange maple key. If you describe them as blowing bubbles or smoking pipes,
be interpreted as evidence of an oral fixation. Seeing the gray "testes" and "pe
two animals eating a stick or tree indicates castration anxiety.

Last Updated on

Pri
nt
Page
Se
nd

Page

The Rorschach Test:

Additional Information And
Commentary
The Rorschach Test:
Additional Information And
Commentary
Related Articles:
Tests

The Rorschach Test

Common Psychological

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|

FOUNDATIONS
PROJECTS
.
..
..
..
..
APPLICATIONS
mmse
rorschach
..
..
LINKS
..
FRAMES
SPANISH
FRENCH
OVNIBUS

results

an example

the model
mmse test
Rorschach test is a set of 10 plate
maked in the first half of past
century.
The author used symetrical ink
splashes
with different colours and forms.
The test allows evaluation
of various aspects
of personality.
In clinical psychopathology
it has high diagnostic specificitie
and sensibilities.

"Almost all subjects consider

the experience as an imagination
challenge...
The interpretation of casual images
is more in the areas of perception
and ideation"

8 rue des
Gallois app 1023
31400
TOULOUSE
FRANCE
Tel 33-5 62 26 73
46
ovnibus@free.fr

Psychodiagnotik, 1947, Verlag Hans

Huber, Berna
Problems related to accessibility
of plates is an important fence
for diffusion and
developement of this technic.
Itisthecaseofparalelseries
announcedbyRorchachhimself.
Otherwise,
progressinedition
couldopennewspaces
ofresearch.

Tests'objectivity has been judged

by results in double blinded studies.
But it is in clinical context
that the Rorschach has it usefulness.
Its includes discussion