UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: The Rorschach inkblot test is a method of psychological evaluation of personality characteristics and emotional functioning.
Devised by the Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922), it remains widely used for forensic assessment and general assessment of personality. But it is a controversial test and many critics raise questions about the extraction of objective meaning from responses to inkblots, some claiming that the test is just about worthless.
The Rorschach is a projective psychological technique of personality measurement. The subject is presented with a standardised set of ambiguous images that can be interpreted in various ways, and is asked to say what he/she sees in them. The subject can "project" some special, private meaning onto each image (much as you project a face onto cracks in the ceiling). Psychologically, the idea is that such projections reflect the differing needs and emotional adjustments of individuals and can reveal their underlying personality patterns.
The Rorschach technique uses a series of inkblots varying in colour, form, shading and complexity. Subjects are shown the inkblot cards in a prescribed order and they describe what they "see" in them. The tester interprets the answers to glean information about the subject's personality.
Scientific evidence in favour of the Rorschach test was never strong and by 1965 confidence in the test was low. A "scientifically superior" form of the test was developed by John Exner in the 1970s but critics still claim that the test remains of little or no value. My article this week is heavily informed by the book What's Wrong with the Rorschach? Science Confronts the Controversial Inkblot Testby J Wood, M Nezworski, S Liecenfield and H Garb (Jossey-Bass,2003).
Wood and co-authors quote research indicating that the test labels most normal people as "sick". They claim that the test cannot detect/diagnose most psychological problems and does an inadequate job of detecting most personality traits. But, despite these alleged shortcomings the test is still widely administered.
Why does the Rorschach test remain so popular despite its fragility in the face of scientific scrutiny? Wood and co-authors attribute this to clinicians' belief in the potency of the test based on anecdotal evidence. The Rorschach test became popular in the 1940s and 1950s on the back of very impressive performances by Rorschach experts before amazed colleagues. These performances were called "blind analysis" where the Rorschach expert was told a patient's gender and age and provided with the patient's response to the Rorschach blots. Armed with this modest information, and interacting with listeners who had provided the information, the expert would generate a penetrating and accurate description of the patient's personality.
This was impressive stuff, but when these "Rorschach Wizards" were tested in rigorously controlled studies they performed poorly. So, how could they put on such impressive performances in blind analyses? Wood and co-authors account for this, to my mind satisfactorily, by explaining that virtuoso individual blind analysis performances successfully used the tricks of the palm-reader and the astrologer.
Wood claims that the Rorschach Wizards used three simple stratagems to create an impression of infallibility. The first is the Delphic Oracle Strategy - make an ambiguous prophesy that turns out correct regardless of the direction events take. The Oracle once told a king if he went to war he'd destroy a great nation. With such encouragement the king launched an attack and was roundly defeated. The prophecy was confirmed!
Secondly, Rorschach Wizards often included several inconsistent statements in the same interpretation and would later emphasise the one that suited the circumstances. Thirdly, they sometimes gave impressive interpretations after they learned the facts of the case - "Aha, we see indications of that, here and here".
Wood suggests that most of the Rorschach Wizards were not conscious fakes but unconsciously used palm-reading skills to gain the confidence of listeners and then induced them to guide them to an accurate diagnosis by unwittingly giving non-verbal cues. You can gain the listener's confidence by making Barnum statements (after showman PT Barnum), statements so general they apply to almost everybody, but the individual interprets them as specifically describing themselves, eg "Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to worry inside". The listener relaxes and starts to work with the reader by providing non-verbal cues (nods, smiles, etc.) and even information and clarification. The blind analysis reader can also get much information about the patient's interests and occupation from their Rorshach responses, eg Linus Pauling, the great chemist, made responses like - "The two little humps suggest a sine curve".
William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science officer at UCC - understandingscience.ucc.ie