Reactions to Ink Blots under Free and Pressure Conditions*

Abstract

AN THEIR original impact upon American psychology projective techiuques aroused a wave of confused skepticism, but along with this they produced a crisis in psychological theory Here was the startling proposal that by an unbelievably simple procedure it was now possible to reveal the djmamics of the deepest regions of the personality, to get at phenomena which had eluded the complex expenmental and psychometric methods of probing Could it be possible that such a simple technique might succeed where other methods had failed^ If so, how could its almost magical accomplishment be explained''Originally, explanation was sought in an obvious common feature of the projective techniques, namely, the unstructured nature of the matenals and test sittiation. An important change has occurred, however, in the meamng of the term projecttve teckmque to render this line of explanation obsolete Today projective tests may include anything from completely unstructured free-association to highly structured tests such as the Bender-Gestalt and the WechslerBellevue. Apparently we no longer have a distinct class of proj«:tive tests, we have instead a projective approach which can be api^ied to any test situation Although the present trend implies the existence of a projective process which can be evoked by a large variety of conditions, we know virtually nothing about the psychological character of this process. We do not even know whether the same kind of projective process occurs under both unstructured and structured test conditions Thus the projective magic has been extended, but it remains unexplained This fundamental change in the conception of projective techniques has not been thoroughly assimilated and has not yet penetiated • The writers are greatly iiidd>ted to Professor Hardd R Israel £or generois and helpful suggestxms related to the thrarehcal aspects of this paper.

External and internal stimulus factors in Rorschach performance.

“…These findings indicate that 5s' reaction time behavior in this situation is a general phenomenon, and that M responses individually do not elicit longer reaction times than do individual CF responses. These findings are in agreement with other researches (10,11) which demonstrate that the over-all response set to the Rorschach situation is related to types of responses elicited.…”

“…Other studies in this area have also obtained results suggesting a positive relationship between M production and inhibited motor behavior (5,12). These studies (5,8,10,11,12) have been primarily concerned with movement responses rather than color responses. Thus, while the M:Sum C ratio implies a comparison of two response variables in predicting behavior, research has dealt chiefly with single variables, notably that of human movement.…”

“…Several recent studies have investigated this relationship originally discussed by Rorschach, that is, that movement or kinesthetic responses represent an absence or delay of acting-out, overt motor behavior, while color responses imply a greater tendency to immediate action. Siipola and Taylor (10), using achromatic blots, found a greater production of M responses under "free" conditions than under "pressure" conditions. Similar results were obtained by Singer, Meltzoff, and Goldman (11).…”

Delayed gratification and ego development: implications for clinical and experimental research.

“…Turning first to the direct consequences of motor inhibition or delay, two experimental studies have reported increases in Rorschach movement responses of normals following periods of motor inhibition, i.e., standing rigidly in awkward postures or voluntary slow writing (32,48). Another study has investigated the effects of speeding up or slowing down tempos of Rorschach response and has yielded the conclusion that production of M responses is indeed related to tendencies or capacities to delay response (45). Further work remains to be done but it seems clear that so far the linkage of delay of motor discharge and motion perception and imagination can be demonstrated directly in normal adults.…”

The relation of response length to the Holtzman Inkblot Technique.

“…Lord (19SO) and Sanders and Cleveland (1953) found that examiners who were warm, sympathetic and liked by their subjects obtained significantly more M responses from *This notion is strengthened by Conners' report (personal communication) that one effect of this drug appears to be increased verbalization. them, while Siipola and Taylor (1952) found greater M production under free as opposed to time pressure conditions.…”