Response Productivity in Rorschach Research: A Caution on Method

We examined the differences between narcissism, mode of defense, and level of aggression on the Rorschach. We also investigated differences in borderline, narcissistic, and Cluster C personality disorders by examining responses to Rorschach content variables. The Lerner Defense Scale (P. Lerner & H. Lerner, 1980), the aggressive content section of the Holt (1977) method for assessing primary process manifestations, a modified version of Exner's (1986a) Egocentricity Index, Wagner's (1965) exhibitionistic M score, and grandiosity were scored on the Rorschach protocols of 17 borderline, 17 narcissistic, and 17 Cluster C personality disorders. Borderlines were found to employ primitive defensive structures to a greater degree and severity, show more intense and overall aggression as well as more responses on the three forms of aggression in the Holt method, and have higher levels of grandiosity. Narcissists evinced significantly higher levels of egocentricity than borderlines and higher levels of idealization than the Cluster C group. Convergent validity was found on the measures of defense and aggression, which showed a strong relationship between primitive aggression and primitive defense.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

A Rorschach Study of Narcissism Defense, and Aggression in Borderline, Narcissistic, and Cluster C Personality Disorders

Hilsenroth¹,

Hibbard²,

Nash³

et al. 1993

“…Such an approach was employed herein. Earlier attempts to deal with this problem by dividing each variable by R are both ineffective and inappropriate, as numerous writers have pointed out (Cronbach, 1949;Fiske & Baughman, 1953;Kalter & Marsden, 1970). Likewise, a more sophisticated remedy based on the formation of contrasts or ratios of scores rests on questionable assumptions and should probably be avoided (Haggard, 1978).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Orthogonal Dimensions of Individual and Group Forms of the Rorschach

Shaffer¹,

Duszynski²,

Thomas³

1981

Most dimensional analyses of traditional Rorschach scoring categories have either failed to control for differences in total R or have done so by introducing a nonstandard mode of administration. Consequently, the results of such studies may be either distorted or of questionable relevance to more typical situations. The present analyses, which compared both group and individual forms of the Rorschach administered to large samples (over 500 each) of male medical students, controlled for differences in total R by using residualized scores from which the linear effects of R had been partialled. The factor-analytic results are expressed in terms of seven easily interpretable factors (including total R), five of which are similar across forms, and simple formulas for deriving norm-referenced factor scores from the data of individual test administrations are provided.

“…) Martin (1 968) concluded that in limiting subjects to one response per blot, the potential for sequential analysis is lost. Kalter and Marsden (1970) indicate that this method for controlling R may fail in the case of subjects who are unable to give even one response per blot and with those who insist on giving more than one response to one or more cards. Slemon, Neiger and Quirk (1965) note that this procedure also may misrepresent subjects who have a tendency to give whole responses as their first reaction to a card.…”

Section: Ntra-subject Response Consistency' Of the Holtzman Inkblotmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…(Coan, 1965;Hanssen, 1967;Holtzman, 1961Holtzman, , 1968Kalter & Marsden, 1970;Martin, 1968;Slemon, Neiger, & Quirk, 1965;and Thetford, 1965. ) Martin (1 968) concluded that in limiting subjects to one response per blot, the potential for sequential analysis is lost.…”

Section: Ntra-subject Response Consistency' Of the Holtzman Inkblotmentioning

confidence: 97%

Intra-Subject Response Consistency of the Holtzman Inkblot Technique

Hayslip

Darbes

1974

Forty undergraduate psychology students, ages 18-30 years, produced five rather than one response per card in order to evaluate the validity of the criticisms of the Holtzman Inkblot Technique's (HIT) limitation of the S to his first response per card. Present results supported the conclusion that one response per card is misleading, and that additional responses to each blot may be needed in order to present a more accurate, representative picture of the S as reflected in his HIT scores. Various subject-specific and test-specific factors possibly influencing the results were mentioned, and should be taken into account in evaluating the results of the present study.