Studies in Vicariousness: The Effect of Immobilization on Rorschach Movement Responses

Rorschach movement and dreams: A validation study using drug-induced dream-deprivation.

“…In this context, it might be appropriate to note that in the eight previously cited studies on the part of Rorschach's formulation concerning the relation between motor inhibition and movement, several report more significant results with M than with FM and m while only two report the reverse: Neel (1960) obtained more significant results with m, and Goldman and Herman (1961) obtained more significant results with FM.…”

“…Support for part of this formulation exists. Beginning with the work of Singer, Meltzoff, and Goldman (1952) and Meltzoff, Singer, and Korchin (1953), a great deal of evidence has accumulated to show that Rorschach was correct about the relationship between motor inhibition and the movement response (Bendick & Klopfer, 1964;Goldman & Herman, 1961;Neel, 1960;Singer & Herman, 1954;Singer & Opler, 1956;Singer & Spohn, 1954). Evidence for a similar relationship between motor inhibition and dreams was produced by Hourly Void and, more recently, by Dement and Wolpert (1958).…”

Dream function reconsidered.

“…Further evidence was a long time in coming, but finally Singer, Meltzoff, and Goldman (1952) and Meltzoff, Singer, and Korchin (1953) demonstrated that physically immobilized Ss produced significantly more Rorschach movement responses than did unrestricted controls. Subsequently, their basic finding was confirmed in a number of independent investigations (Goldman & Herman, 1961;Neel, 1960;Singer & Herman, 1954;Singer & Opler, 1956;Singer & Spohn, 1954). As yet, no one seems to have commented on the similarity between these findings with Rorschach movement responses and Mourly Void's with dreams, but it is a rather striking one.…”

Factors in movement perception.

“…A correlation between the movement response and ability to inhibit movement suc-cessfully has been found by Meltzoff, Singer, and Korchin (1953), Singer and Spohn (1954), Singer and Herman (1954), and Singer, Wilensky, and McCraven (1956). Moreover, the fact that movement responses tend to be increased by motor inhibition tasks or by immobilizing or inhibiting conditions has been demonstrated by Singer, Meltzoff, and Goldman (1952), by Meltzoff, Singer, and Korchin (1953), by Goldman and Herman (1961), and by Neel (1960). Most of the effects found in these studies relate primarily to the human movement response, but the conditions in the study of Goldman and Herman influenced only the animal movement response significantly, while those in Neel's study affected inanimate movement most strikingly.…”