Abstract

What are Introductory Psychology Textbooks Telling Students About the Rorschach? J L Mihura & R Alperin

University of Toledo

This study evaluated the presentation of the Rorschach inkblot test in introductory psychology textbooks. Thirteen recently published popular introductory psychology textbooks were reviewed for their presentation of the initial development of the Rorschach, administration, scoring, and interpretation, reliability and validity, and final conclusions. All textbooks discussed the Rorschach. All described the Rorschach as a psychoanalytic instrument with the purpose of revealing unconscious dynamics. Four (31%) said its unique purpose was to reveal things that people were consciously trying to fake or hide. About half of the textbooks focused on content or subjective interpretations. Overall, the textbooks’ evaluation of the Rorschach was largely negative. Most textbooks concluded that Rorschach reliability and validity was low. Most textbooks (85%) arrived at all or mainly negative final conclusions. Therefore, as enrollment in introductory psychology courses is about 1.5 million per year, most introductory psychology textbooks are telling millions of people that the Rorschach is an invalid psychoanalytic instrument. Furthermore, the majority of future psychologists are likely presented with an initial negative impression of the Rorschach.

This study evaluates the presentation of the Rorschach inkblot test in introductory psychology textbooks. We evaluated the presentation of: (a) test development, (b) the nature and purpose of the test, (c) administration, scoring, and interpretation, (d) the critique of the instrument (viewpoints, reliability and validity research), and (e) final conclusions.

Textbook inclusion criteria was based on sales volume, determined by an independent textbook research company that evaluates textbook sales volume (Monument Information Resource; MIR). Thirteen of the top introductory psychology textbooks were used in this study (15 were included by the research company, but two were identical except for accompanying supplementary material; 2 textbooks were by the same author, but both were included as they were written for different difficulty levels and were both in the top sales category). See Appendix A for the textbook references.

An index search was used to find Rorschach content in the textbook. For the evaluative criteria used, see supplementary material. If the texts’ discussion of projective tests was clearly applied to the Rorschach, (as was sometimes the case in the textbooks) this information was used in the present ratings.

See Next Page

Introduction (cont.)

Introduction

Approximately 1.5 million people per year take an introductory psychology course (Griggs, Jackson, & Napolintano, 1994). So for millions of people, not limited to future psychologists, their understanding of psychology is likely influenced by the information in this course. Due to the multitude of topics covered in this course, students may be left with impressions instead of being able to critically evaluate each topic. For topics that are complex and controversial, adequate presentation is challenging.

Results

Most (85%) of the introductory psychology textbooks did not give any history on Hermann Rorschach’s development of the instrument. All of the textbooks described the Rorschach as a psychoanalytic instrument with the purpose of revealing unconscious dynamics. Four (31%) said that this purpose was specifically to reveal things that people were consciously trying to fake or hide. About half implied or stated that Rorschach interpretation was subjective; all examples of interpretation were either content/thematic or an emotional reaction to the cards (one). Two textbooks used the content/thematic interpretations as examples for caution against test use. About half did not refer to the CS or norms; while 38% stated or implied that psychologists now commonly use the CS and/or norms. Overall, the majority of the textbooks focused on content/thematic interpretation to illustrate the Rorschach.

The viewpoints, research, and conclusions were largely negative. Most concluded that Rorschach reliability and validity was low. Most textbooks (85%) arrived at all or mainly negative conclusions (no overall positive). In summary, and to answer our initial question--most introductory psychology textbooks are telling millions of students that the Rorschach is an invalid psychoanalytic instrument. Furthermore, the majority of future psychologists are likely presented with an initial negative impression of the Rorschach.

Joni L Mihura:Joni L Mihura:Joni L Mihura:Joni L Mihura:

Method

Discussion

Results

Table 1. Evaluation of the Rorschach in Introductory

Psychology Textbooks

Initial development

Evaluation

H. Rorschach included

85% [omitted: a. h]

Description of initial test development

•Driving along the countryside he noticed that what his children saw in the clouds fit their personalities (1) [e]

•Interested in art and the occult (influenced by Justinus Kerner), combined word-association approach with inkblots, impressed that his responses varied from his patients’ (1) [f]

•No description (85%) [a-d, g-m]

Nature of test •Psychoanalytic/unconscious (100%) [a-m]

Purpose of test

Unique purpose •To reveal things people are consciously trying to fake or hide (31%) [a, b, h, l]

•To reveal unconscious dynamics, no emphasis on conscious deception (69%) [c-g, i-k, m]

Other major emphases

•To ‘break the ice’ or get clients to open up in interview (31%) [d, f, i, j]

What it is supposed to measure

•General personality (92%) [a-c, e-m]

•Emotional disturbances (1) [d]

Additional major emphases:

•Aggressive and sexual impulses (1) [a]

•Emotional disturbances and psychosis (1) [b]

•Schizophrenia, general pathology, response to therapy (1) [f]

Critique

Views expressed •Negative, no positive (38%) [e, i, j, k, l]

•Mostly negative, limited positive (38%) [a, c, d, f, g]

•Negative and positive (23%) [b, h, m]

Reliability conclusions (research)

•Low (62%) [b, d, e, i-m]

•Low with qualifications (23%) [b, c, g]

-Improved with CS, but still lower than objective tests [a, g]

-Low, but proponents say high enough for inferences [c]

•Adequate with CS (1) [f]

•Not addressed (1) [h]Validity Conclusions (research)

•Low (62%) [b, d, e, i-m]

•Low with qualifications (23%) [a, c, g]

-Improved with CS, but still lower than objective tests [g]

-Low, but proponents say high enough for inferences [c]

-Overall low, but good for psychosis [b]

•High with qualifications: response to therapy, schizophrenia, nonspecific problems; but not as valid as other measures [f]

Overall conclusions •Negative, no positive (62%) [a, d, e, i-m]

•Mostly negative, limited positive (23%) [c, g, h]

-Low reliability/validity, but proponents say high enough for inferences [c]

-Low validity, CS improves, but lower than objective tests [g]

-Low validity, subjective, use with caution and clinical skill and judgment [h]

•Balanced (15%) [b, f]

Test procedures

Administration (instructions)

•General: what you see; what it might be, look like, represent; describe; and explain why (100%) [a-m]

Idiosyncratic components

•Add new responses in the inquiry [b]

•Tell what the blot might mean [e]

•Prompt for associations to own life [f]

•Inquiry example: ‘Describe the facelike figures’ ‘What were the figures talking about?’ [h]

Scoring (descriptions)

•Content and structural (54%) [a, b, d, e, g, k, m]

•Content or subjective (no systematic or structural) (31%) [c, i, j, l]

•Content themes vs. ‘objectively scored’ (1) [f]

•No information (1) [h]Interpretation

Approach used •No mention of CS or norms (46%) [a-e, m]

•Mentions CS and/or norms, but not as accepted use (15%) [i, j]

•States or implies CS and/or norms currently used (38%) [f-h, k, l]

•Emphasize clinician subjectively as interpretive source (46%) [a-e, l]

Focus of examples given

•Content or thematic (46%) [b, c, f, i, j, l]

-Content example used as caution against test use (15%) [f, l]

•‘Oh wow!’ to a chromatic color card (1) [g]

•No specific examples (46%) [a, d, e, h, k, m]

References

Exner, J. E., Jr. (1993). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system, Vol. 1: Basic foundations (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Griggs, R. A. Jackson, S. L., & Napolintano, T. J. (1994). Brief introductory psychology textbooks: An objective analysis. Teaching of psychology, 21, 136-140.

Appendix A

a. Bernstein, D. A., Clarke-Stewart, A., Penner, L. A., Roy, E. J., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). Psychology (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co. (a)

b. Coon, D. (1998). Introduction to psychology: Exploration and application (8th ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

c. Feldman, R. S. (1999). Understanding psychology (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

d. Hockenbury, D. H., & Hockenbury, S. E. (1998). Psychology. New York: Worth.

e. Huffman, K., Vernoy, M., & Vernoy, J. (1997). Psychology in action (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

f. Kalat, J. W. (1999). Introduction to psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

g. Kassin, S. (1998). Psychology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

h. Lefton, L. A. (1997). Psychology (6th ed.). Needhman Heights: Allyn and Bacon.

i. Myers, D. G. (1998) . Exploring psychology (4th ed.). New York: Worth.j. Myers, D. G. (1998). Psychology (5th ed.). New York: Worth.k. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). In search of the human mind (2nd ed.). Forth

Worth: Harcourt Brace.l. Wade, C., & Tavris, C. (1998) Psychology (5th ed.). New York: Addison-

Wesley Longman.m. Weitan, W. (1998). Psychology: Themes and variations (4th ed.). Pacific

Grove: Brooks/Cole.