The system of analysis employed was limited entirely, of course, to Rorschach signs. It is another problem to understand the process, and interpret the significance, of registering specific variables in Rorschach responses. Other changes may be seen clinically and through other tests. Furthermore, representation of change reflected in the Rorschach may not neressarily he present clinically. Clarification of these issues will eventually enrich our understanding not only of clinical processes but of pcrsonality generally. The findings of this paper do show, however, that the Rorschach technique reliably distinguishes personality changes in threc groups of subjects, through the use of molecular, rather than atomistic, interpretations in areas meaningful to the therapist. CONCLUSIONS The experimental design involved the use of Itorschach test-retest with nineteen subjects undergoing psychoanalytic therapy, fourteen subjects undergoing nonanalytic (supportive) therapy, and nine untreated subjects who were in need of therapy. Regarding the analytic subjects as our experimental group, we used the non-analytic and untreated groups as controls. The pathological status of the three groups as reflected in diagnosis was approximately equal in percentage terms. The average duration of therapy (not therapeutic hours) was almost exactly the samc in both therapeutic groups; though in our untreated group time elapsing between Horwhachs was twice as long as it was in either of the therapeutic groups.Our findings indicate that personality changes were more extensive, and probably more profound, in the analytic than in our supportive-therapy groups, though these changes could be explained in terms of intensity of treatment and the time variable (session-hours) involved. The therapeutic-control, or non-analytic, group showed less thorough modification of subjects' personality dynamics, and did not show any changes which were not also significantly present in the analytically treated group. For the untreated controls, changes were obtained in two areas, only one of which was also present in a therapeutic group. I n a negative way, this finding tends to validate the significance of the changes in our therapeutic groups. No statistically significant changes were found in three concept-areas included in our system, and the explanation offered is that these are coordinate concepts whose modification must be expected, if at all, on even deeper levels of therapy than either of our therapeut,ic groups were afforded in the time involved.
PROBLEMOne of the basic Sxondi assumptions is that the six photographs of patients in a given diagnostic category express a common "need-system" or "drive factor'' which is present in exaggerated form in that type of mental disturbance. The signifirance of a subject's choices is derivcd from his having discriminated and responded to this significant common feature. The individual picture in the category does not matter; it is the iiumber of choices from the category that counts. From this, it appears to follo...