Chapter 2a: Hermann Rorschach



CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION:

A PSYCHOLOGICAL X-RAY: THE POWER OF THE RORSCHACH

“The Rorschach, as a test, provides a broad array of data concerning many characteristics of the individual that, if read correctly, provide an in-depth portrait of the individual as an individual” John Exner, 1997

My name is James Wood. I am a clinical psychologist and Associate Professor at the University of Texas at El Paso. Spread on the desk in front of me are the results of a Rorschach Inkblot test, recently administered to a deeply disturbed 50-year-old man.

For more than half a century psychologists have prized the Rorschach as one of their most precious instruments. The patient is shown 10 inkblots and asked to tell what each resembles.[i] When scored and interpreted by an expert, a patient’s responses to the blots may reveal important information about personality and intellectual functioning. Called a “psychological x-ray”[ii] and "perhaps the most powerful psychometric instrument ever envisioned,”[iii] the Rorschach is psychology’s second most popular personality test and is regularly used in mental health clinics, schools, and legal cases.[iv]

The Rorschach results in front of me reveal a deeply disturbed individual. I will begin by interpreting the findings, then discuss how they reflect this man’s inner and outer reality. After reading this discussion, you will have a deeper understanding of the nature and depth of his disturbance and of how the Rorschach works.

Blind Analysis of Rorschach Results

from a Deeply Disturbed 50-year-old Man

Rorschach experts sometimes engage in “blind analysis,” interpreting the test results without any information about the patient except age and gender. A blind analysis is the acid test of the expert’s skill because all the interpretations are based on the inkblot results alone. The following section provides something very similar. The interpretations are taken directly from two recent books by the most influential contemporary authorities on the Rorschach. In a sense, this is a blind analysis conducted by these experts. I am simply the clerk transcribing their thoughts.

Impaired thinking. First, the test results indicate that this man suffers from moderately impaired thinking and a significantly distorted view of reality. [v] It is likely that he misinterprets events and the actions of people in several significant areas of his life. Despite this impairment, he is unusually cautious and thoughtful, preferring to gather information and reflect on it before he acts.[vi] He habitually approaches problem solving in an analytic way.

Severe depression. The Rorschach also clearly indicates the presence of severe depression. The man’s score on the Rorschach Depression Index. is very high.[vii] He has probably been suffering from extreme sadness and feelings of hopelessness for several weeks. The physical signs of depression are also likely, such as disrupted sleep, loss of appetite, and fatigue. His Rorschach contains two “Morbid” responses (for example “a Georgia O’Keefe painting of a cow skull”), which suggests a depressive, pessimistic view of himself.[viii] Furthermore, a disproportionate number of his responses focus on the black or gray features of the blots, indicating that he is holding back his emotions.[ix]

Interpersonal problems. The Rorschach results indicate not only that the man is depressed, but also that he has persistent difficulty relating with other people. He tends to be overly preoccupied with himself, dependent, guarded, angry, and somewhat withdrawn.[x] Many of his responses involve fictional or fantasy figures (“Tiger Lily from Peter Pan,” “Two laughing gargoyles”), indicating that his relationships with other people are based largely on his own imagination rather than reality[xi] He is also highly concerned about other people, relates to them effectively, and is probably regarded as likeable and outgoing.[xii]

The Accuracy of the Rorschach Interpretation

These Rorschach interpretations are based on the best current books and authorities. I also double-checked them by running the scores through a popular computer interpretation program for the Rorschach. But is this blind analysis really accurate? Does it truly provide deep insight about the 50-year-old man? I can say with considerable confidence that it does not. Did I forget to mention that I am 50 years old? The test results are my own, based on a Rorschach recently administered to me by a well-qualified clinical psychologist who is trained and experienced with the Rorschach.

Impaired Thinking

Let’s begin with my supposedly impaired thinking and distorted view of reality. If the Rorschach is correct then I deserve a great deal of credit for having overcome my mental disabilities. My undergraduate degree was from Harvard. I received a master’s degree from the Yale Divinity School and a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Arizona. I have published over 30 articles and book chapters, including several during the past year It’s true that I’ll never win the Nobel Prize, but aside from my Rorschach results there’s little to suggest that my thinking is unusually impaired or that my view of reality is more distorted than average.

Severe Depression

Next is my “depression,” which shows up as a high score on the Rorschach Depression Index, some “Morbid” images, and several responses based on the black and gray aspects of the inkblots.

A depressed person is persistently sad, has little interest in normal activities, feels fatigued and is low on energy. He feels hopeless and may have thoughts of death or suicide. He has difficulty concentrating on things even so simple as reading a book or watching a television program. Sleep and appetite are usually disrupted.

I have none of these problems. My mood is normal, even a little cheerful. I am interested in many activities, such as writing this book, taking care of small home improvement projects, and spending time with my family. My energy level is about average. My concentration is fine and so is my appetite. I sleep soundly, though my wife complains about my snoring. If I am depressed, I haven’t noticed it. Maybe my wife is depressed about the snoring, but that doesn’t count.

How can it be that the Depression Index (usually called the DEPI) shows that I’m depressed even though I’m not? In fact, the large majority of studies over the past decade have found that the DEPI bears little or no relationship to depression. Despite these studies, the books of leading Rorschach experts continue to claim that a high score on the DEPI indicates depression. Many clinical psychologists read the books and ignore the research.

What about the Morbid images that I saw in some blots, such as the cow skull from a Georgia O’Keefe painting? As it happens, there are some ambiguous research findings which suggest that Morbid responses may be more common among depressed patients than non-depressed people. However, the difference (if it exists at all) is not large enough to be clinically useful, and many non-depressed individuals give Morbid responses for a variety of reasons. For example, I lived many years in Arizona and New Mexico and own a book of Georgia O’Keefe’s paintings. When I see one of her cow skulls in an inkblot, it probably has more to do with my Southwestern heritage and interest in art than with depression.

Similarly, the fact that I saw several gray and black objects in the blots probably has nothing to do with depression. In the 1930s, a small group of European psychiatrists advanced the theory that people who comment on the black or gray tones of the Rorschach inkblots are “holding back” negative feelings, such as anxiety and depression. As I will explain later in this book, there was no good scientific evidence to substantiate the theory in the 1930s, nor has any compelling evidence turned up in the intervening 70 years. Nevertheless, Rorschach experts routinely interpret such responses as evidence of repressed or suppressed negative emotion.

Interpersonal Problems

Finally, according to the Rorschach results I am an interpersonal disaster -- self-centered, dependent, guarded and angry. When I took the test I fully expected this finding because practically everyone looks “sick” on the Rorschach. For instance, in a study conducted in the early 1980s, psychologists were asked to evaluate the Rorschach scores from a group of mental patients. Unbeknownst to the psychologists, the Rorschach results of some normal individuals were also included with the patients’ scores. The findings of the study were stunning: The psychologists classified nearly 80% of the normal individuals as having serious character flaws or being depressed..[xiii]

Because 4 out of 5 normal people look disturbed on the Rorschach, I consider myself to be in good company. Besides, most Rorschach interpretations regarding character problems lack any good scientific support and are probably no more valid than the advice of a palm-reader. For example, consider the Rorschach finding that I am “guarded.” When I took the test I saw several images in the blots that involved clothing, such as a man wearing a pointed medieval hat and women in high heels. A leading contemporary authority on the Rorschach has warned that such “Clothing responses” can indicate guardedness and a desire to “conceal” something.[xiv] However, he does not cite any research to sustain this idea, which is supported by little more than his opinion.

The same is true regarding the finding that I am “dependent.” It so happens that I saw a popsicle in one of the colored blots. According to the Rorschach books, even a single “Food response” of this kind indicates a high degree of dependency.[xv] However, this interpretation is nothing more than opinion, unsupported by any good scientific evidence.[xvi] Interestingly, there is one study that supports an alternative interpretation (which I prefer), that when someone gives a Food response to the Rorschach, it may be because he or she missed lunch.[xvii]

Contradictions and Direct Hits

Before setting aside my Rorschach, I’d like to emphasize two other points that are especially interesting. First, as you may have noticed, several of my Rorschach results contradict each other. For instance even though my thinking is supposedly distorted, my Rorschach scores also indicate that I’m reflective and analytic in my approach to problem solving. Apparently my thinking is distorted and analytic all at the same time. As another example, even though the Rorschach indicates that I’m self-centered, guarded and angry in my interpersonal relationships, it also says that I relate well to other people and am well-liked.

Psychologists who use the Rorschach are well aware that it often generates self-contradictory statements about patients. There are several strategies for dealing with these anomalies when they crop up. Usually the inconsistencies can be smoothed over or simply ignored when the final test report is written up. Some psychologists actually argue that the contradictions are a proof of the Rorschach’s value: Human personality is complex and self-contradictory, they say, and the Rorschach results accurately reflect this fact. One psychologist who uses the test in legal cases told me how an attorney had once subpoenaed a computerized Rorschach interpretation from her and then pointed out its inconsistencies in court. To avoid further embarrassments of this kind, the psychologist stopped using computerized interpretations in her court cases. In this way, the contradictions could be kept safely out of sight from overly inquisitive lawyers.

The second point I’d like to emphasize about my Rorschach results is that a few of them are “direct hits” that describe me quite well. For instance consider the Rorschach finding that I am unusually thoughtful and reflective, and that I prefer to gather information and analyze situations before acting. I can vouch that the Rorschach is right: As might be expected with a professor, I tend to be more reflective and analytic than most people.

When I viewed the inkblots, I repeatedly saw people engaged in movement (“two dancing dervishes,” “dwarves spraying each other with water”). According to the Rorschach books, such “Human Movement” responses often indicate a thoughtful, reflective personality. In this case, the books are correct and the research supports them. A large number of studies have shown that Human Movement responses tend to be related to reflectiveness and self-restraint.

The Rorschach could be easily dismissed if it were all wrong. But the situation is more complicated. Although the large majority of Rorschach scores are useless, a few can provide accurate information about a patient who has taken the test. If clinical psychologists had tossed away the “chaff” of the test 50 years ago while keeping its few kernels of “wheat,” the Rorschach might now be a modestly successful psychological tool with a legitimate if narrow use.. Unfortunately, the history of the Rorschach has gone in a different direction. In its current form, the few worthwhile scores of the Rorschach are lost among the many scores and interpretations that are pure tripe. The situation would be humorous if it did not regularly result in harm to innocent people. Psychologists using this test can and do cause serious damage in people’s lives. Let me tell you the story that first made me “deeply disturbed” about the Rorschach.

The Rorschach and Child Sexual Abuse Allegations:

The Story of Rose Vygotsky and her Children

Rose Vygotsky was blonde, softly pretty, and a little off-beat. When she was in her 20s she’d become involved in New Age religion and worked for a bookstore that sold Tarot cards and crystals. Then in her 30s she took a 180 degree turn toward Christianity. Re-joining the Catholic Church, the faith of her childhood, she also attended services at fundamentalist Christian churches and mailed in money to television evangelists.

Although Rose sang in the choir at St Leo’s, her Catholic parish, she never completely fit in. With her habit of reading the Bible each night for guidance and her enthusiastic references to “The Lord” as if he were a personal friend, she seemed more like a born-again Christian than a Catholic. Furthermore, as a welfare mother Rose was out of place in St. Leo’s middle class congregation. Living in subsidized housing with her teenaged daughter and young son, Rose attended a junior college and only worked part-time at a low-paying job.

Allegations of Abuse

Despite her heavy involvement in religion, Rose had been divorced three times. Her last marriage had been to an evangelical minister, which perhaps explained her religious mannerisms. She had been pregnant when she left him after only six months of marriage. When the baby was born, a boy named Noah, a fierce court battle had ensued over custody and visitation. Rose alleged that Donald River, her ex-husband, had been violent during their marriage and tried to kill her. Then a week before the case was scheduled for trial, Rose’s 8-year-old daughter by a previous marriage suddenly “remembered” that Donald had sexually abused her when she was five.

The domestic court judge, clearly skeptical about the timing of the daughter’s allegations, ruled that Donald should enjoy full rights as a father and regular unsupervised contact with his son. For a year or two Donald’s visitations with Noah proceeded without incident. Then Rose began to revive the accusations she had made during the custody dispute. She claimed that when Noah returned from visits with his father he sometimes bore unexplained bruises on his body and face. Shortly after Noah’s fourth birthday Rose began to call Child Protective Services, voicing suspicion that Donald was physically and sexually abusing him. When the CPS investigators asked for details, however, Rose was unable to provide much more than a few ambiguous remarks that Noah had let fall. CPS interviewed the little boy himself, but he did not tell the investigators anything that seemed to suggest abuse.

Still Rose’s phone calls to CPS continued. It was the kind of case that investigators regard with weary skepticism: A bitter wife making vague and unprovable allegations of abuse against her ex-husband. Unable simply to disregard Rose’s charges but seeking some kind of resolution, the CPS worker in charge of the case requested that she and her ex-husband submit to evaluation by a psychologist. Both parents agreed.

The Psychological Evaluations of Donald and Rose

Donald River’s psychological report came back looking normal. Because he had moved to another state, Donald had been unable to meet with the psychologist appointed by CPS. However, he arranged an evaluation by a psychologist in the city where he was living. It indicated that Donald had no serious psychological problems except for low self-esteem related to his work history.

By contrast, Rose’s psychological evaluation revealed a person with extensive emotional and mental impairments. The psychologist appointed by CPS had administered several psychological tests, including the Rorschach. She reported that Rose was seriously disturbed and probably lacked any genuine concern for her two children. In addition, Rose’s thinking was impaired so that she distorted reality and the actions of other people. The psychologist speculated that Noah had probably made some ambiguous remarks about his father, which Rose had distorted in her mind until they seemed to constitute proof of abuse. Rose was willing to make such allegations, the psychologist added, because she was extremely self-centered, and probably unconcerned about the harm that might be done to either her ex-husband or her son. Rose’s stories about Donald should be treated with extreme caution, as the product of an unbalanced mind.

As might be expected, the attitude of CPS changed substantially after receiving the psychologist’s report. In a phone call the caseworker told Rose about the results and urged her to seek help from a therapist. Rose blew up and accused CPS of abandoning her and her children.

Aftermath of the Psychological Evaluations

In the months following the psychological evaluations Rose continued to batter CPS with phone calls. Her stories grew increasingly bizarre. She said that Donald had locked Noah in a dog cage as punishment, and had sexually abused him in the restroom of a shopping mall. Once she called from a hospital emergency room. She claimed that Noah had told a doctor “My Dad peed in my mouth,” and that bruising had been found in the boy’s throat. CPS duly recorded these strange reports but declined to investigate them further.

Then, eight months after the psychological evaluations had been filed, an event took place that altered the situation in an unexpected direction. Returning from a Sunday afternoon visit with his father, five-year-old Noah told Rose that during their time together his father had slapped and yelled at him, then taken off his clothes and “poked him in the butt.” Noah asked to see a doctor. Rose immediately drove him to a hospital, where Noah once again described what his father had done to him. Bruises on his body were noted by medical personnel and a swab was taken of his rectum using a rape kit. The laboratory test revealed the presence of sperm.

The Vygotsky Case: A Fuller Picture

Because I have professional expertise in the field of sexual abuse, Rose Vygotsky’s lawyer asked me to conduct a detailed review of this case. I read the legal documents and psychologists’ reports, reviewed the medical records and CPS files, and most importantly, interviewed several people who had known Donald River and Rose Vygotsky for years. Here is what could be learned by reading the record and making some phone calls.

Donald River

Although Rose’s ex-husband was described as a “minister,” Donald River had never been ordained, did not have a congregation, and had never attended any kind of seminary. In fact, he had not completed even a single year of college. Nearly 50 years old, Donald had held regular employment for less than 5 years of his entire adult life. He had been married four times, including his marriage to Rose. The positive psychological evaluation sent to CPS from a distant city was grossly misleading, written by a psychologist who had conducted a brief interview and then written his report, without bothering to obtain independent information about Donald or the allegations against him.

Donald’s real name was Art Villa. Soon after completing a tumultuous high school career (he was expelled for having sex with a girl in the back seat of a car in the school parking lot), Art entered college, married, and had a son. Due to non-attendance at college he failed all his courses. The marriage ended soon afterwards. Art made a few child support payments, then stopped. Thereafter he rarely made any attempt to contact his son. He commented to a friend that his ex-wife’s new husband had a lot of money and was better able to support the child than Art was.

A few years later Art married a second time. Within a few months he quit his job and persuaded his new wife to support him while he attended acting school. When she realized that Art was not attending acting classes and instead was using his free time to carry on affairs with other women, she divorced him. Speaking to me more than 20 years later, this wife said that Art was a con man, and had even worked briefly as a Cadillac salesman so that he could befriend elderly people with money.

Art next moved to Los Angeles, ostensibly to find work as a Hollywood actor. It was during this period that he began to style himself as a singer. He had some talent both as a song-writer and guitarist, and occasionally would earn small amounts of money by playing at gatherings and passing the hat.

In his 30s Art married a third time, this time to a naive 19-year-old farm girl from Wisconsin. Persuading her that he would be betraying his vocation as a musical artist if he accepted a mundane job, Art stayed at home while she went to work to support him. This marriage ended after 5 years.

Left without a source of income, Art miraculously experienced a sudden religious conversion, even though he had not belonged to a church since he was a child. Changing his name to “Donald River,” he founded an organization named “Your Life in Jesus” and began to tour churches, giving concerts on his guitar. Not surprisingly, Art/Donald befriended several elderly people with money, and soon their donations were large enough to fund his one-man religious campaign. He also met Rose Vygotsky. Like the elderly people who supported him, Rose was impressed at first by Donald’s dedication to Christian principles, his beautiful singing voice, and his great personal charm.

Although Rose had said that Donald was physically abusive during their brief marriage, the CPS psychologist had treated this allegation as a manipulative distortion. I discovered however, that Donald had broken Rose’s nose within a few months of their wedding, a fact that was documented by hospital records and an admission under oath by Donald himself. Donald’s third wife, the former farm girl, also reported a history of physical abuse. Her most vivid story concerned a time when Donald had seized her by the hair and slammed her head into a cupboard. Donald’s violence wasn’t limited to family members: In one documented case he’d deliberately used his Ford van to ram a car driven by a 60-year-old process server. In another instance he’d barged into a man’s business in front of witnesses and threatened to bomb the man’s house unless certain monies were paid.

Donald’s sexual habits tended toward the unconventional, to put it mildly. Three of his four wives reported that during their marriages he’d had numerous affairs with other women. His preference was for slim, blond teenagers. One ex-wife reported that he’d pressured her to have “sex for three” with him and a teenaged girl.

Donald demanded sex from his wives several times each day, even when they were ill. During intercourse he insisted that they hold their bodies completely still and refrain from making any sound. He had a liking for anal intercourse and a peculiar fascination with feces. For example, he’d refused to hook up his bathroom to a septic tank, and insisted that his family use an old-fashioned outhouse instead. One wife remembered him taking her to the outhouse and making her look down through the toilet seat, while he lectured her on the important differences between her feces and his own.

Interestingly, Rose had given the CPS psychologist much of the information that I’ve described here. However, based on the Rorschach, the psychologist decided that Rose’s bizarre reports were unreliable and could be discounted.

The Abuse Allegations of Amity Vygotsky.

The allegations of sexual abuse against Donald by Rose’s 8-year-old daughter Amity had been disregarded by the family court judge several years previously. The CPS psychologist, without interviewing Amity, suggested that the girl might have been manipulated into making false statements. However, mental health records indicated that the psychologist should have looked into the matter more closely.

Amity had entered psychotherapy within a few months after Rose fled from her marriage with Donald. Treatment focused on the trauma that Amity had experienced from repeatedly seeing Donald assault her mother. All the mental health professionals agreed that Amity was an unusually intelligent and well-mannered child, with a deathly fear of her former step-father. She would visibly tremble when she talked about him. In therapy she gave detailed descriptions of the beatings that her mother had received and of the numerous ways that Donald had terrified and intimidated Amity herself.

When the custody fight between Donald and Rose began, the therapist noticed that Amity became more and more fearful at the thought that her baby brother might go to live with Donald. Amity expressed anxiety that Donald would mistreat Noah in the same way that he’d mistreated her and Rose. It was in this context that Amity began to tell her therapist about the sexual abuse. Amity recounted several incidents in detail. The first time, she said, was when she was five years old and had passed gas while in the living room. Scolding her angrily, Donald had taken her hand and led her to the bathroom. There he closed the door, pulled down her panties, and under pretense of “wiping” her had inserted his finger deeply into her rectum. Amity retained vivid memories of standing at the bathroom counter and watching in the mirror as Donald penetrated her.

Amity also remembered an incident when Donald had taken her on a trip to see one of his elderly patrons. They had stayed at the woman’s house, with Amity sleeping alone in a bedroom. In the middle of the night Donald entered her room carrying a towel, which he carefully spread beneath her legs. After taking off his underwear and hers, he got on top and rubbed his penis between her legs. “Then it was all wet, and I thought I was bleeding,” she recounted.

Another incident occurred during a camping trip. Donald and her mother had slept in the back of a van, with Amity in a small tent nearby. During the night Donald crawled into the tent, pulled off Amity’s pajama bottoms, then got on top of her as before. When he’d finished, he wiped the wetness from between her legs and put clean panties on her. Donald warned Amity that if she told, he would kill her mother.

Although Amity related these experiences to her therapist, she was reluctant to tell anyone else, including her mother. Only when the custody trial over Noah loomed near did Amity decide to reveal her secret publicly. Amity hadn’t been “manipulated” by Rose into making allegations, as the CPS psychologist had speculated. To the contrary, Rose had been taken by surprise and shocked when Amity told her about the sexual abuse.

Rose Vygotsky.

Finally there was Rose, whom the CPS psychologist had characterized as emotionally disturbed, disordered in her thinking, and incapable of empathy. When I reviewed the hard facts of Rose Vygotsky’s biography, interviewed people who knew her, and examined her psychological test findings (aside from the Rorschach), they revealed a picture that was in striking disagreement with the psychologist’s conclusions.

First, Rose did not at all fit the label of “welfare mother” that was sometimes used to describe her. She had held steady employment throughout her 20s and 30s. When she fled her abusive marriage with Donald, however, she had been forced to leave behind nearly everything she owned. Creeping to a car and escaping in the middle of the night, Rose had taken only her daughter Amity with her. On the advice of a social worker who worked with battered women, Rose had applied for public assistance and subsidized housing, then enrolled for training as a computer graphics specialist. (She subsequently finished her degree and has completed many years of successful employment in her field, working as a graphic artist for an organization that produces religious publications.)

Second, the psychologist’s conclusion that Rose lacked concern for her two children was manifestly wrong, as I learned from various people who knew the family. They agreed that Rose was a devoted and intelligent mother. On top of her own hectic work and school schedule, she took care of her two children’s physical needs, transported them to school, medical appointments, and other activities, and had established a close, nurturing relationship with both of them. Amity, 13 years old at the time of my evaluation, was a well-adjusted “A” student with special talents in mathematics and science. (She has since gone on to earn a Bachelor’s degree in Physics, having served as the first female president of her university’s Physics Club). Noah was a vigorous, outgoing, and highly intelligent little boy. Rose’s success at combining the roles of mother, student, and employee, were inconsistent with claims that she was suffering from distorted thinking, mental impairments, and severe emotional disturbance.

Third and finally, Rose Vygotsky held deep religious values and made an earnest effort to live according to them. As I’ve said, at the time of my evaluation Rose was a born-again Christian trying unsuccessfully to blend into a mainline Catholic parish. She has since left Catholicism and joined an evangelical church where she fits in much better, serving as a lay minister and working with children. However, the persistent pattern then and now has been a dedication to “the Lord” and a firm determination to lead her life in accordance with Christian teachings.

In the course of my evaluation I had the opportunity to check out many of Rose’s “bizarre” stories. In every instance that I could verify, she had been meticulously accurate. For instance, I learned that Noah’s bruises following visitations with his father had been seen by several reliable witnesses, including a Catholic priest. Another example was the urgent phone call from the emergency room about Noah saying “Daddy peed in my mouth:” I found that Noah’s words had been spoken spontaneously to an emergency room doctor who had written them in the medical chart.

Rose Vygotsky had a religious commitment to telling the truth and she accurately recalled verifiable names and events, sometimes from many years before. Any opinion that she was habitually inclined to falsehood or distortion was contrary to everything I could find about her. Yet CPS had blindly accepted and acted on just such an opinion, from a psychologist using the Rorschach.

Rose Vygotsky’s Rorschach.

After reviewing the documentary materials and conducting interviews of several key individuals, I was deeply puzzled by the psychological evaluation of Rose Vygotsky. This negative report, which had persuaded CPS to disregard her urgent calls for help, simply made no sense in light of everything else that I’d learned. At first I suspected that the psychologist who wrote it must have been incompetent. Only gradually did I realize that virtually all the evaluator’s errors could be traced to a single source: her reliance on the Rorschach Inkblot Test. Every damaging conclusion about Rose -- that she was emotionally disturbed, lacking in empathy, and distorted in her thinking -- came from this single test.

Why had the Rorschach mischaracterized Rose in such a negative way? As a graduate student in clinical psychology, I’d been trained to use the Rorschach and was acquainted with its history. I knew that in the 1950s and 1960s the test had come under intense criticism for its lack of scientific support. It might well have been abandoned except for the Herculean efforts of one resolute psychologist, John Exner. Beginning in 1974 when the test was at its lowest ebb, Exner began to publish a series of books describing his own approach to the Rorschach, which he called the “Comprehensive System.” These thick volumes, which still appear every four or five years in costly new editions, have become the “Bible” of the Rorschach over the past 25 years. They not only provide meticulously detailed instructions for administering, scoring, and interpreting the test, but also describe the extensive scientific research that supports it. Most clinical psychology programs today train their students in the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach, and hundreds of psychologists pay to attend Exner’s “Rorschach Workshops” each year. His books have removed the stigma of the Rorschach and re-established it as a reputable psychological test.

In pursuing the Vygotsky case, however, I began to probe the scientific literature on my own instead of depending on Exner’s books. Collecting journal articles and dissertations, I was surprised to discover that contrary to Exner’s claims, most Rorschach scores lacked any good scientific support. Far from being full and balanced presentations of the scientific literature, Exner’s writings were often one-sided, selectively presenting research findings that supported the test, while ignoring those that did not. The scientific basis for the Comprehensive System was weak at best and often non-existent.

The psychological report on Rose Vygotsky, I eventually realized, was little more than a fantasy, a fictitious personality description based on Rorschach scores that had little if any validity. As I went over the results one by one, they disintegrated under scrutiny. As you may have guessed, several of Rose’s Rorschach scores were similar to my own. Like me, she had a high score on the Depression Index, a scale invented by Exner. Studies by many independent researchers have found that scores on the Depression Index bear little if any relation to depression, an uncomfortable fact that Exner never mentions in his books.

Rose’s Rorschach, like my own, revealed the presence of “distorted thinking.” In fact research indicates that about 50% of normal people will be labeled in this way by the test, although again Exner makes no mention of this problem. Rose’s Rorschach also showed that she was a reflective person, giving a high number of Human Movement responses. This apparently contradictory Rorschach finding had been deftly smoothed over in the CPS psychologist’s report.

Rose’s Rorschach also contained a small element of humor. Viewing one of the blots, she had reported “A Thanksgiving turkey already eaten.” Following the recommendations in Exner’s books, the psychologist had interpreted this “Food response” as an indicator of extreme dependency: Rose was described as a clingy sort of person who needed someone to lean on. However, the psychologist had missed two relevant details. First, Rose had come to the testing session during her lunch hour without eating anything since breakfast. Food responses tend to be more common when a person is hungry. Second, the date was December 5. About a week earlier, the top shelf in Rose’s refrigerator had been dominated by the carcass of her family’s Thanksgiving turkey. Already eaten.

Particularly damaging to Rose was the psychologist’s characterization of her as extremely self-centered and without empathy for her own children. This conclusion was based on a “Reflection response” that Rose had supposedly given to one of the blots. A response is scored as a Reflection if it refers to a mirror image or reflection, such as “An elf looking at himself in a mirror” or “A pine tree reflected in a lake.” According to Exner’s books, such responses are very rare and always indicate that a person is “narcissistic” and self-centered, with little regard for the needs or wants of others.

The idea that a single Reflection response signals the presence of narcissism has never been substantiated by any good research. In fact, researchers other than Exner have found that Reflections are quite common, occurring in the Rorschachs of nearly 30% of normal individuals. Because the blots are symmetrical, people often turn them on edge and comment that the image resembles some sort of scene reflected in a lake.

However, any discussion of these issues was irrelevant to Rose Vygotsky’s Rorschach, for the simple reason that she had never given a Reflection response at all. The CPS psychologist had simply made a scoring error. According to the record of the testing session, Rose had said that one of the blots resembled “a paper snowflake, like you make by folding a piece of paper and cutting it out.” The psychologist had mistakenly scored this as a Reflection response, even though it didn’t involve a mirror or reflection. Scoring errors and disagreements are fairly common among psychologists who use the Rorschach, although the promoters of the test generally ignore the problem. This particular scoring error had caused Rose to be labeled as narcissistic and deficient in empathy for her children.

The Mystique of the Rorschach

It would be comforting to believe that the story of Rose Vygotsky and her children is merely an isolated incident, not at all typical of the way that psychologists usually do their job. But just the opposite is true. Thanks largely to the success of the Comprehensive System over the past quarter century, the Rorschach is highly popular. Consider the following estimates from surveys in the past 10 years:

In surveys, the Rorschach typically ranks as the 2nd most widely used personality test among clinical psychologists (Number 1 is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, usually called the MMPI, a yes-no questionnaire that is used to identify psychiatric symptoms and psychological disorders) [xviii]

80% of Ph.D. clinical psychology programs emphasize the Rorschach in required testing courses.[xix]

68% of specialist programs in School Psychology also include the Rorschach in standard training[xx]

33% of clinical psychologists in practice consider the Rorschach to be one of the most important tests they use[xxi]

31% of psychologists who evaluate parents in custody evaluations use the Rorschach[xxii]

35% of psychologists who evaluate children for abuse or neglect use the Rorschach[xxiii]

32% of psychologists who evaluate criminals for the courts use the Rorschach.[xxiv]

Particularly striking are the numbers toward the bottom of the list. Between 30% and 35% of psychologists routinely use the Rorschach whenever they conduct assessments in legal cases, such as custody evaluations, child abuse assessments, and criminal evaluations. As such statistics show, there was nothing unusual in the fact that the psychologist in the Vygotsky case used the Rorschach. Approximately 1 out of 3 psychologists in legal settings do the same.

Nor was it unusual that she based her most important conclusions on the Rorschach, even though it was contradicted by other weighty evidence. Because the test is considered unique in its power to reveal the truth about a person, contradictory information is often either ignored or reinterpreted to be consistent with the Rorschach scores. For example, the psychological report on Rose Vygotsky simply didn’t mention that the “distorted” stories she told about her ex-husband had been corroborated by other people. And the report deftly minimized her exemplary performance as a mother: “Although Ms. Vygotsky strives to give the impression that she is a dutiful mother to her children, it is unlikely that she cares deeply about their needs when they conflict with her own. ” Thus Rose’s positive qualities as a mother were explained away as mere illusion, and the negative Rorschach results accepted as “the real story.”

In the 1940s and 1950s the Rorschach was unblushingly promoted as a “psychological x-ray” that could penetrate surface qualities and reveal the deep secrets of an individual’s personality.[xxv] Although they might claim otherwise, many clinical psychologists today still view the test as an x-ray or, to update the image, as a psychological PET scan. Rorschach experts tend to subtly disparage ordinary questionnaires like the MMPI because such tests reveal only what a patient is willing to report about himself. By contrast, the Rorschach is said to uncover a deeper, “implicit” truth, even when the patient tries to conceal it.[xxvi]

Despite its failure to live up to such promises, the Rorschach still possesses a palpable and powerful “mystique.” When introduced into the United States in the 1930s, it attracted a tiny group of enthusiasts who published their own newsletter and held meetings to discuss the test’s subtleties. Because they made overstated claims that went far beyond the available scientific evidence, these early “Rorschachers” were often shunned by psychologists in universities and widely regarded as “cultish.”[xxvii]

Although the Rorschach eventually outgrew this stage and achieved broader acceptance, the somewhat clannish atmosphere surrounding its beginnings has never entirely dissipated. When serious devotees talk about the extraordinary richness and subtlety of the Rorschach, their voices are still likely to take on a distinctive, reverent tone that is never heard in discussions of other psychological tests. Mention of the Rorschach’s well-known shortcomings is avoided as if in bad taste, and serious criticisms are often met with derision or outrage.

Perhaps nothing is more telling than the awe and deference that are shown toward the leading Rorschach experts, who are often treated with the reverence usually reserved for religious figures. My favorite real-life example involved a psychologist testifying in a criminal case. While preparing her evaluation, she had taken the unusual step of phoning John Exner and asking his opinion about the interpretation of a particular Rorschach score.

“Now let me see if I understand,” the judge interrupted. “This Exner, isn’t he sort of the Godfather of the Rorschach?”

“Oh no, your Honor,” the psychologist smilingly replied, “He’s the God of the Rorschach.”

Organization and Purpose of This Book

The Rorschach is not merely a psychological test. It’s also a social and scientific phenomenon. In this book my co-authors and I tell the extraordinary story of how this creaky, flawed assessment technique, invented over 80 years ago, has become one of clinical psychology’s most widely used tools, paradoxically still popular in an era when space stations are orbiting the earth and geneticists are unlocking the human genome. The history of the Rorschach is unexpectedly fascinating because it provides insights into the way that mental health practices in both psychiatry and psychology have groped their way forward during the past century, influenced by science, charlatanism, professional interests, and a genuine desire to promote human welfare and relieve suffering. As the story shows, there are powerful historical and professional reasons why psychologists adopted the Rorschach 70 years ago and have clung to it ever since. And there are equally powerful scientific and ethical reasons why the test has been intensely criticized for the past half century, though usually without much effect.

A Preview of the Chapters

Most of the book follows a historical sequence. Chapters 2 and 3 tell how the inkblot test was invented by Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach shortly after World War I, and how it spread to the United States during the Great Depression and achieved general acceptance during World War II. Chapter 4 describes the heyday of the test in the 1950s and 1960s, when the Rorschach inkblots were often seen as a clinical psychologist’s “trademark”, like a plumber’s wrench or a doctor’s stethoscope. Chapter 5 relates how during the same era research undermined confidence in the test, uncovering its flaws and failings.

Chapter 6 tells the dramatic story of how John Exner “saved” the test in the 1970s with his Comprehensive System for the Rorschach, and Chapter 7 recounts the disconcerting revelations and new wave of scientific criticism that have recently cast doubt on that work. Chapter 8 addresses the fascinating question of why psychologists still cling to the Rorschach, despite the overwhelming negative research evidence and the bad publicity for their profession. Chapter 9 discusses the probable fate of the Rorschach in years to come. Finally, Chapter 10 explains why and how the Rorschach can be kept out of courtrooms and other legal settings. This last chapter on mis-use of the Rorschach in forensic settings is dedicated to Rose Vygotsky and her children, as wel as all the other individuals who have been harmed by psychologists wielding inkblots.

What You Won’t Find: Pictures of the Real Blots

Sadly, there is something that I‘d like to include in this book but can’t -- copies of the actual Rorschach inkblots. Readers who have never seen the blots will naturally want to know what they look like, and because the copyright has apparently expired there is probably no legal obstacle to printing them here. However, after giving the matter some thought, my co-authors and I have decided not to do so..

Psychologists have never quite made up their minds whether the Rorschach inkblots can be safely revealed to the public. On the one hand, members of the profession are justifiably reluctant to reveal the materials of any psychological test, because its usefulness might be compromised. For example, if readers were to see the Rorschach inkblots in this book and later be given the test, they might give different responses than they would have otherwise, thus invalidating the test results. For this reason, some psychologists become quite irate when copies of the Rorschach inkblots appear on the World Wide Web, as they do from time to time, or are otherwise revealed to the public.

On the other hand, there is educational value in showing the blots to interested lay-people, and perhaps little danger of affecting their scores should they later take the test. For example, a study by John Exner and a colleague reported that children’s Rorschach scores stayed pretty much the same when they were given the test a second time, and even when they deliberately tried to change their responses. [xxviii] Research like this suggests that seeing the blots beforehand does not invalidate the test results..

Furthermore, the fact is that the cat -- or the Rorschach -- is already out of the bag. In the 1970s two psychologists published colored copies of the Rorschach blots in a book for the general public called The Nuremberg Mind (which I’ll discuss at greater length in Chapter 4). [xxix] Furthermore, books containing the blots are available in most college libraries and from many used booksellers. I even recently bought a set of used Rorschach cards for only $20 on the Web, and without being asked whether I was a psychologist. I also own an inexpensive paperback with the naughty title Big Secrets: The Uncensored Truth About All Sorts of Stuff You Are Never Supposed to Know.[xxx] It contains black and white outlines of the blots, as well the formula for Coca-Cola and the recipe for Colonel Sanders’ Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Because the Rorschach inkblots are already an open secret, there may not be much point in trying to protect their privacy here. However, out of respect for the feelings of psychologists who feel otherwise, and because the profession’s ethics generally discourage the release of test materials to non-psychologists, my co-authors and I have decided not to reproduce the blots here, but instead to provide readers with some “imitation” blots that resemble the originals. These blots (two in color, two in black-and-white) appear in the illustrations at the center of this book. Readers can look at these blots, or show them to their friends, and ask “What might this be?,” just as Hermann Rorschach did over 80 years ago when he first developed his test. It is his story that we tell in the next chapter.

-----------------------

[i] The exact wording is usually “What might that be?”

[ii] Piotrowski (1980), “CPR: The psychological x-ray in mental disorders,” see also Klopfer (1940) “Personality aspects revealed by the Rorschach method.”

[iii] Board of Professional Affairs (1998 p. 392) of the American Psychological Association.

[iv] In the early 1990s, it was estimated that the Rorschach is given over a million times each year worldwide. The figure given here for the U.S. is intended to be a conservative estimate of the Rorschach’s usage.

[v] “Cognitive impariement” and “distorted view of reality” are based on X-% of .23. For interpretation of this finding, see Weiner’s (1998) Principles of Rorschach Interpretation, pages 113-114.

[vi] “Thoughtful” is based on Pervasive Introversion and a high Zd score. For interpretaion of these findings, see Exner’s (2000) Interpretive Primer, pages 86 and 143.

[vii] The interpretation of an elevated DEPI score may be found in

[viii] The interpretation of two MOR responses may be found in Exner’s (2000) Interpretive Primer, page 263.

[ix] Specifically, the sum of achromatic responses (SumC’) is higher than the weighted sum of chromatic responses (WSumC). The interpretation of this finding can be found in Exner’s (2000) Interpretive Primer, p. 94.

[x] “Overly preocupied with himself” is based on the large number of Pair responses (no Reflections), which elevated his score on the Egocentricity Index. For the interpretation of this Index see Exner’s (2000) Interpretive Primer, p. 257 and Weiner’s (1998) Principles of Rorschach Interpretation, pages 154-155. “Guarded” is based on several Clothing responses. For the interpretation of Clothing responses see Weiner (1998), pages 200-201. “Somewhat withdrawn” is based on an Isolation Index score of .31. For the interpretation of this finding see Exner (2000) page 332, and Weiner (1998) page 163. “Angry” is based on a high number of Space responses. For the interpretation of this finding, see Exner (2000), pages 105-107.

[xi] For interpretation of a high number of fictitious or part-human responses, see Exner’s (2000) Interpretive Primer, pages 267-268.

[xii] “Highly concerned about other people”” are based on the high scores for Pure Human responses and Sum Human responses. For interpretation of these findings, see Exner’s (2000) Interpretive Primer, page 320 . “Relates effectively” is based on GHR > PHR. For interpretation of this finding, see Exner’s (2000) Interpretive Primer, pages 322-324. “Regarded as likeable and outgoing” is based on COP = 5 and AG = 0. For interpretation of this finding see Exner’s (2000) Interpretive Primer, pages 329-330.

[xiii] This study was conducted by Beatrice Mittman, working with John Exner, and is described by Exner (1991, pages 432-433). For a critical discussion of these findings, see the recent article by Wood, Nezworski, Garb, and Lilienfeld (2001b).

[xiv] For the interpretation of Clothing responses, seeWeiner (1998), Principles of Rorschach Interpretation, pages 200-201.

[xv] For the interpretation of Food response, see Exner (1991, p. 184).

[xvi] Even though Exner (1991, p. 184) says flatly that a single Food response indicates a high level of dependency, he elsewhere concedes (Exner, 1997 ,“Future”, pp. 44-45) that “the findings concerning food answers are, at best, limited.”

[xvii] Insert citation to study that found that hunger influences responses to Rorschach or at least to other projective tests.

[xviii] Archer & Newsom, 2000; Watkins, Campbell, Nieberding, & Hallmark, 1995.

[xix] Belter & Piotrowski, 2001, p. 720

[xx] Culross & Nelson, 1997, p. 122

[xxi] Piotrowski, Belter, & Keller, 1998, p. 444

[xxii] Hagen & Castagna, 2001, p. 271

[xxiii] Pinkerman, Haynes, & Keiser, 1993, p. 9

[xxiv] Borum & Grisso, 1995.

[xxv] Give psychological x-ray citations again to Klopfer and Piotrowski.

[xxvi] Insert citation of Bornstein’s in press JPA article on the measurement of “implicit” characteristics by the Rorschach.

[xxvii] Give citations for early Rorschachers being “cultish”.

[xxviii] Give citation to Haller & Exner’s study, showing that Rorschach responses stay the same even if children try to change them.

[xxix] The Nuremberg Mind by Florence Miale and Michael Selzer. Only the copies in the hardback version are in color. The copies in the paperback version are black and white facsimiles.

[xxx] Give citation for book on “Big Secrets”.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download