Inkblot Perception and Personality

Holtzman, Wayne H.; Thorpe, Joseph S.; Swartz, Jon D.; Herron, E. Wayne

doi:10.1097/00005053-196207000-00012

Cited by 126 publications

(131 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For more than half a century, commentators have repeatedly noted that R, the total number of responses that clients give to the inkblots, can exert a substantial effect on their other Rorschach scores (Anastasi, 1988;Cronbach, 1949;Holtzman et al, 1961;Meyer, 1992aMeyer, , 1993. For example, if one client gives 14 responses and a second client gives 28, the second client has twice as many opportunities to report aggressive content (supposedly indicative of aggressive personality characteristics) or morbid imagery (supposedly indicative of depression).…”

Section: The Influence Of Response Frequency (R) On Cs Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various solutions have been offered for the "problem of R." In the 1960s, Wayne Holtzman and his colleagues (Holtzman et al, 1961) developed an inkblot test resembling the Rorschach that used 45 cards instead of the traditional 10. Clients were instructed to give precisely one response to each card.…”

Section: The Influence Of Response Frequency (R) On Cs Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The research evidence for the WUSCT demonstrates that when carefully conceptualized and constructed, projective instruments can indeed meet scientifically acceptable standards for zero-order and incremental validity (for another example of a thoughtfully constructed projective instrument with promising psychometric properties, see Holtzman et al, 1961, andPeixotto, 1980, for discussions of the Holtzman Inkblot Test).…”

Section: Psychological Science In the Public Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Lilienfeld

Wood

Garb

2000

Psychol Sci Public Interest

607

391

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-AlthoughControversy has been no stranger to the field of personality assessment, and no issue in this field has been more controversial than the scientific status of projective techniques. Indeed, the novice reader attempting to make sense of the sprawling and bewilderingly complex literature on projective techniques is immediately confronted with a striking paradox. On the one hand, during the past four decades a litany of personality assessment researchers (e.g., Anastasi, 1982;Gittelman Klein, 1986;Dawes, 1994) have come forth to decry the reliability and validity of most projective techniques (see Lilienfeld, 1999). Jensen's (1965) famous quotation, although 35 years old, still captures the sentiments of many contemporary scientists toward the Rorschach Inkblot Test and numerous other projective techniques: ". . . the rate of scientific progress in clinical psychology might well be measured by the speed and thoroughness with which it gets over the Rorschach" (p. 238). On the other hand, clinicians in the United States and to a lesser extent those abroad continue to use projective techniques with great regularity, and many contend that these techniques are virtually indispensable to their daily practice (Watkins, Campbell, Neiberding, & Hallmark, 1995). The crux of this paradox was incisively summed up by Anastasi (1982), who observed that "Projective techniques present a curious discrepancy between research and practice. When evaluated as psychometric instruments, the large majority make a poor showing. Yet their popularity in clinical use continues unabated" (p. 564).Indeed, despite the sustained and often withering criticisms directed at projective techniques during the past several decades (Dawes, 1994;Lowenstein, 1987), numerous surveys demonstrate that such techniques continue to enjoy widespread popularity among clinicians. Durand, Blanchard, and Mindell (1988) reported that 49% of the directors of clinical psychology graduate programs and 65% of the directors of clinical psychology internships believed that formal training in projective techniques is important. Watkins et al. (1995) found that 5 projective techniques, including the Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), were among the 10 instruments most frequently used by clinical psychologists. For example, 82% of clinical psychologists reported that they administered the Rorschach at least "occasionally" in their test batteries and 43% reported that they "frequently" or "always" administered it. There is some indication, however, that the popularity of certain projective techniques may be waning. In a recent survey of practicing clinicians, Piotrowski, Belter, and Keller (1998) reported that several projective techniques, including the Rorschach and TAT, have been abandoned by a sizeable minority of users. Some authors (e.g., Piotrowski et al., 1998; Piotrowski & Belter, 1989) have attributed the recent decline in the popularity of projective techniques to the advent of managed care, although at least some of this decline may al...

show abstract

Section: The Influence Of Response Frequency (R) On Cs Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Influence Of Response Frequency (R) On Cs Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Psychological Science In the Public Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Lilienfeld

Wood

Garb

2000

Psychol Sci Public Interest

607

391

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[12] integrated the categories of de viant verbalizations (DVs) developed by Rapaport et al [19] into the scoring system of the HIT. Besides some qualitative modifications Holtzman et al [12] introduced a rating of the degree of pathology on a 5-point scale which varies from 0 (no pathology) to 4 (very severe). The various categories of DVs must be rated concerning these different degrees of pathology.…”

Section: Hohzman Inkblot Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

“…(The study of Fischnaller et al [11] is a sort of exception, but their nonselected sample in cluded only 7 BL patients for whom the cri teria of the diagnosis are not specified.) Fur thermore there is no study of deviant think ing in BL patients which used the Holtzman Inkblot Technique (HIT) [12], which is re garded as equivalent to nonprojective tests of personality concerning psychometric as pects [13, p. 242], In the present study BL patients diag nosed according to the criteria of Gunderson and Singer [2] were compared to neurotics concerning deviant thought processes as sessed by the HIT. This paper tries to find an answer to the question whether classifica tions of individual patients arc possible on the basis of HIT scores of deviant thinking.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Discriminating Borderline from Neurotic Patients

Leichsenring

1990

Psychopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study tried to separate 30 hospitalized borderline and 30 hospitalized neurotic patients by indicators of deviant thinking. Kolb and Gunderson’s diagnostic interview for borderlines and the Holtzman Inkblot Technique (HIT) were applied as diagnostic instruments. It was possible to separate the two groups by the more severe degrees of deviant thinking with relatively high values for sensitivity and specificity (83 and 93%). If these results can be corroborated in cross-validations with independent samples, the HIT would be a very useful instrument for the discrimination of the two diagnostic groups.

show abstract

Therapeutic Effectiveness of Sensory Deprivation

Cleveland¹

1963

Arch Gen Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inkblot Perception and Personality

Cited by 126 publications

References 0 publications

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Discriminating Borderline from Neurotic Patients

Therapeutic Effectiveness of Sensory Deprivation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About