The relation of response length to the Holtzman Inkblot Technique.

A Profile Sheet for the Clinical Interpretation of the Holtzman Inkblot Technique

“…For want of a better shorthand term, this cluster has simply been labelled "Intelligence and maturity". with intellectual ability and with the number of words used in responding to the blots (Megargee et al, 1966). However, they reflect more than mere intelligence or even ambition; the Movement, Human, and Barrier scales also seem to indicate concern for others and ego strength (Megargee, 1965b).…”

“…Elaborate, well delineated responses are likely to elevate these scales. Indeed, the A x , Hs, and Pn scales have all been found to correlate significantly with the number of words used in HIT responses (Megargee, 1966), and all three scales often have high loadings on HIT Factor I (Holtzman et al, 1961). After examination of numerous clinical profiles it became apparent that it would be a mistake to interpret moderate elevations on Cluster V as always reflecting pathological emotional lability.…”

“…Clinicians are usually quick to exploit new techniques and a psychologist trained in the Rorschach can learn to administer and score the HIT reliably without too much difficulty (Megargee, 1965a;Megargee, Lockwood, Cato, and Jones, 1966). However, once the clinician has administered and scored the HIT for the first time, his satisfaction often turns to bewilderment as he tries to interpret his findings.…”

The relation of response length to the Holtzman Inkblot Technique: An extension

“…On the basis of the conclusions drawn from the Megargee(5) and Hayslip and Darbes@) studies, the present study attempts to answer the question: "If more responses might be required per card to represent accurately a S with the HIT, could we expect scores obtained in this manner to be influenced by word productivity within a single response as obtained by Megargee (5)? "…”

Predisposition to fantasy and situational variations as determinants of attention in reaction time tasks.

“…Bieri and Blacker (1956) found evidence to the effect that M responses required more time to be produced than did Shading determined responses; the latter were assumed to be a more external or superficial stimulus determinant and consequently requiring less response time. M responses have also been found to require a greater number of words (Megargee, 1966) and to reflect a tendency toward being self-expressive (Lefcourt, 1969). In short, M responses seem to require more effort by S in time, words, and willingness to be expressive than do responses based on more easily perceived determinants.…”