Psychology 111 Laboratory in Personality and Clinical Assessment Jack Wright Brown University 1/15/2019

Agenda Projective methods: Announcements Rorschach Chapman & Chapman Readings Groth-Marnat Lillienfeld Announcements FFM/NEO lab reports returned tomorrow Mr. Dube’s office; 10am 1/15/2019

Patterns of Test Usage in Clinical Research (from Butcher & Rouse, 1996, Annual Review of Psychology) (see also Groth-Marnat, 2009) MMPI BFI=big five inventory; DPI=Dependent Personality Inventory; MCM=Millon Clinical Multiaxial; 16PF=Cattell 16 Personality Factors; Ror=Rorschach; TAT=Thematic Apperception Test; PAI=Personality Assessment Inventory

Patterns of Test Usage in Clinical Research # Studies (from Butcher & Rouse, 1996, Annual Review of Psychology) (see also Groth-Marnat, 2009) BFI=big five inventory; MCM=Millon Clinical Multiaxial; 16PF=Cattell 16 Personality Factors; Ror=Rorschach; TAT=Thematic Apperception Test 1/15/2019

History & Development of Rorschach Criticisms of “Objective” methods Subject to reporting biases Content is sometimes obvious Social desirability, self-enhancement may play role “Nomothetic” approach constrains content “Common” traits on which everyone can be scaled Simple, impoverished content “Shallow” rather than “deep” (see Dawes, 1998) Does not provide sufficiently idiographic data E.g., needs, motives, impulses of the individual 1/15/2019

History & Development of Rorschach Blotto Parlor game in late 1800s Players made “creative responses to inkblots” Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922) Studied art as a secondary-school student Swiss psychiatrist; interested in developing field of psychoanalysis Worked at adolescent psychiatric ward Observed children with certain disorders seemed to give similar answers when describing images 1/15/2019

History & Development of Rorschach Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922) Argued people “project” their feelings and impulses onto ambiguous stimuli Responses serve as clues to personality structure and dynamics Published results based on patients and normals in the monograph Psychodiagnostik (1921). Died at 37 before test development was completed Current status second most commonly used test in clinical practice & forensic assessment 1/15/2019

History & Development of Rorschach Rorschach’s colleagues Beck Like Rorschach, emphasized criterion-based method Klopfer Psychoanalytically-based approach, relying more on the analyst’s interpretation Wide variation in test conditions and coding Exner’s “Comprehensive System” Emphasized standardization of test situation and coding Claimed to return to actuarial, criterion-based method Most commonly used system in U.S. 1/15/2019

Polarized views of method Clinical usefulness Appeal of method that claims to be fake-resistant Appeal of flexible method that relies heavily on interpretive powers of clinician “[A] measure of personality functioning, and it provides information concerning aspects of personality structure and dynamics that make people the kind of people they are.” (Weiner, 1999) “Exner has almost single handedly rescued a drowning beast and breathed life back into it. The result is the resurrection of perhaps the single most powerful psychometric instrument ever envisioned.” (http://www.rorschach.org/, 2008)  1/15/2019

Polarized views of method Scientifically suspect Unacceptable subjectivity; questionable reliability, validity "Nobody agrees how to score Rorschach responses objectively. There is nothing to show what any particular response means to the person who gives it. And, there is nothing to show what it means if a number of people give the same response. The ink blots are scientifically useless." (Bartol, 1983). Projective test of examiner "The only thing the inkblots do reveal is the secret world of the examiner who interprets them. These doctors are probably saying more about themselves than about the subjects." (Anastasi, 1982). Impediment to science and practice “The rate of scientific progress in clinical psychology might well be measured by the speed with which it gets over the Rorschach” Lillienfeld et al. (2000) 1/15/2019

Polarized views of method Unethical application of testing “Now that I am no longer a member of the APA Ethics Committee, I can express my personal opinion that the use of Rorschach interpretations in establishing an individual's legal status and child custody is the single most unethical practice of my colleagues.  It is done, widely.  Losing legal rights as a result of responding to what is presented as a "test of imagination ," often in a context of "helping," violates what I believe to be a basic ethical principle in this society — that people are judged on the basis of what they do, not on the basis of what they feel, think, or might have a propensity to do.  And being judged on an invalid assessment of such thoughts, feelings, and propensities amounts to losing one's civil rights on an essentially random basis.” (Dawes, 1991) 1/15/2019

Rorschach controversies Rorschach in the media CBC report on release of materials (see RealPlayer library on laptop Macintosh-Rorschach....mov Lorandos Cross Examination of Expert part 1 (RealPlayer library on laptop) On web: http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/macintosh-rorschach-090730.mov Or play from downloaded copy in RealPlayer library 1/15/2019

Rorschach Exercise 1. Overview materials and administration 2. Exercise in pairs Form teams of 2, administer & take notes Do not attempt to score 3. Exercise with naïve participant (after class) Team of 2 administer to participant Follow test procedures as carefully as possible Score, as described later 1/15/2019

Administration of Rorschach “Introduction Phase” Make examinee comfortable Sit side-by-side, not face-to-face Avoid comments that might increase anxiety or discomfort about being “tested” Keep situation ambiguous Avoid information about what subject should do or say Instructions: “In this session, I’m going to show you some inkblots. I will ask you what the inkblot might be.” 1/15/2019

Administration “Association Phase” Give first card and ask, “What might this be?” If questioned about how to respond, say “People see all sorts of things in the blots.” Avoid comments about quantity/type of response, whether subject can rotate the card. If asked, respond by saying, “It is up to you to decide.” Repeat for each card (Examiner will take notes; more shortly.)

Administration “Inquiry Phase” Begin after all ten cards have been administered. “OK, we’ve done them all. Now we are going to go back through them. It won’t take long. I want you to help me see what you saw. I’m going to read what you said, and then I want you to show me where on the blot you saw it and what there is that makes it look like that, so that I can see it too. I’d like to see it just like you did, so help me now. Do you understand?” EG: “What made it look like _____?” Do NOT ask, “Is it mainly the shape?” etc 1/15/2019

Scoring: Decoding protocol into “Sequence of Scores” Quadrant on card; we will not use. “Location” , with “developmental quality” subcodes. “Organizational activity” Popular responses. Specific percept Pairs. “features responded to” 1/15/2019

Scoring: Primary Codes—Location Symbol Definition Criterion W Whole response Entire blot is used in the response. All portions must be used. D Common detail A frequenty identified area of the blot. (Card-specific; see text) Dd Unusual detail An infrequently identified area. (Card- specific; see text) S Space response White space is used. Score ONLY with another location Symbol, as in WS, DS, DdS. (see Table 9.1, Groth-Marnat, 2001) 1/15/2019 (based on Exner, 1993, The Rorschach: A comprehensive System, Vol. I)

Key terms “Specific form demand” Primary location codes (W, D, Dd, S) have additional subcodes “Specific form demand” “[M]eans that the object being reported generally has a consistent form. The object’s name or title implies a specific shape. For example, man, bird, or butterfly all suggest specific shapes. In other words, specific form demand is equated with specific shape.” (Rose, 2008) “Developmental quality” “Refers to the degree of meaningful organization or integration used in the response” (Rose, 2008) 1/15/2019

Primary Codes—Developmental Quality Symbol Definition Criterion “Unitary or discrete portions of the blot are articulated and combined into a single answer. Two or more objects are described as separate but related. At least one of the objects involved must have a specific form demand, or must be described in a manner that creates a specific form demand.” + Synthesized Response 15 sepcial scores - unusual verba;lizations and aggressive movement Special indices - reorg and comparisons of scores from different catgeories Examples: A dog walking among some bushes, a man with a funny hat on, an airplane flying through some clouds, the head of a little girl, wearing a hair ribbon. (see Table 9.2, Groth-Marnat, 2001) 1/15/2019 (based on Exner, 1993, The Rorschach: A comprehensive System, Vol. I)

Primary Codes—Developmental Quality Symbol Definition Criterion + Synthesized Response Same as above, except: “None of the objects involved has a specific form demand, or is articulated in a way to create a specific form demand.” v/ + Synthesized Response Examples: “Clouds coming together,” “Some sort of bay with the vegetation on the shore” “A rock and some dirt around it” 15 sepcial scores - unusual verba;lizations and aggressive movement Special indices - reorg and comparisons of scores from different catgeories (see Table 9.2, Groth-Marnat, 2001) 1/15/2019 (based on Exner, 1993, The Rorschach: A comprehensive System, Vol. I)

Primary Codes—Developmental Quality Symbol Definition Criterion + Synthesized Response “A discrete area of the blot is selected and articulated so as to emphasize the outline and structural features of the object. The object reported has a natural form demand, or the description of the object is such as to create a specific form demand.” v / + Synthesized Response o Ordinary Response 15 sepcial scores - unusual verba;lizations and aggressive movement Special indices - reorg and comparisons of scores from different catgeories Examples: “A fir tree,” “a cat”, “a totem pole,” “a maple leaf,” “a bat”, “a flag” (see Table 9.2, Groth-Marnat, 2001) 1/15/2019 (based on Exner, 1993, The Rorschach: A comprehensive System, Vol. I)

Primary Codes—Developmental Quality Symbol Definition Criterion “A diffuse or general impression is offered to the blot or blot area in a manner that avoids the necessity of articulating specific outlines or structural features. The object reported has no specific form demand, and the articulation does not introduce a specific form demand for the object reported.” + Synthesized Response v / + Synthesized Response o Ordinary Response v 15 sepcial scores - unusual verba;lizations and aggressive movement Special indices - reorg and comparisons of scores from different catgeories Vague Response Examples: “A cloud,” “the sky”, “the colors of sunset,” “some ice”. (see Table 9.2, Groth-Marnat, 2001) 1/15/2019 (based on Exner, 1993, The Rorschach: A comprehensive System, Vol. I)

Primary codes: Determinants (see Table 9.3) “Refers to the features, style, characteristics, or aspect of the inkblot that the examinee responded to.” (Rose, 2008) Form F Form answers Movement M Human movement response FM Animal movement m Inanimate movement Chromatic Color C Pure color CF Color-Form FC Form-Color Cn Color naming Achromatic color C’, C’F, FC’ Shading-Texture T Pure texture TF Texture-form FT Form-Texture 15 sepcial scores - unusual verba;lizations and aggressive movement Special indices - reorg and comparisons of scores from different catgeories

Primary codes—Determinants (see Table 9.3) Shading-Dimension V Pure vista response. VF Vista-form response. FV Form-vista response. Shading-diffuse Y Pure shading YF Shading form FY Form shading Form dimension FD “form-based dimensional “ or “depth” response Pairs and reflections (2) Pair response (2 identical objects reported) rF, Fr Reflected form 15 sepcial scores - unusual verba;lizations and aggressive movement Special indices - reorg and comparisons of scores from different catgeories 1/15/2019

Coding: Form Quality “How accurately the percept relates to the form” (see Table 9.4) 1/15/2019

Content Codes Type and quantity of specific percepts in the responses (see Table 9-5) Whole human, H or (H) Human detail, Hd or (Hd) Human experience Whole animal Animal detail Anatomy And others (continues…) 1/15/2019

Popular responses (see Table 9.6) Responses that are commonly given to each card EG: Card I: W, “Bat”, “Butterfly” 1/15/2019

“Organizational Activity” “[T]he degree of organization required to integrate the form described in the response.” “A Z score is assigned to any response that includes form and meets at least one of the following criteria:” ZW W (whole) response with developmental qualilty of + or v/+ ZA 2 or more adjacent objects in relation ZD 2 or more distant objects in relation ZS White space is integrated with other areas 15 sepcial scores - unusual verba;lizations and aggressive movement Special indices - reorg and comparisons of scores from different catgeories 1/15/2019

Scoring of Z values 15 sepcial scores - unusual verba;lizations and aggressive movement Special indices - reorg and comparisons of scores from different catgeories 1/15/2019

Overview of Administration, summary, and interpretation 1. Association & Inquiry 2. List the sequence of codes for each response 3. Record frequencies for each variable 4. Perform calculations required to obtain the ratios, percentages and derived scores 5. Consult norm tables and diagnostic profiles 1/15/2019

Practice with Rorschach Materials you will receive Set of inkblots Share if necessary Note number appears at top left (non-standard feature) This will be orientation of person viewing the card 1/15/2019

Practice with Rorschach Procedure for practicing Rorschach Pair off Assign one person role of examiner vs. examinee Suggest you switch after 5 cards if you get that far Administer cards Association phase Inquiry phase 15 minutes 1/15/2019

Demonstration of Rorschach Take notes during inquiry phase Careful notes on what the person said Area, color, shading, outlines, motion, or other features that the subject identifies as related to their association Scoring will occur after the inquiry phase has been completed More later 1/15/2019

Class ends here; material continues in next Website for help in scoring the Rorschach: http://www.virtualpsychology.com/index.html 1/15/2019

“Structural summary” # times Z score occurred on sequence sheet Sum of Z scores on that sheet “Weighted Z, from Table 10.2” 1/15/2019

“Structural summary” Other scores not Discussed. # of each code on previous # of each developmental quality (DQ) subcode attached All FQs 1/15/2019 Human Movement FQs with W or D codes

“Structural summary” – “The Core Section” (partial) R Total number of responses FM Total number of animal movement (FM responses) m Total number of inanimate movement response (m) “Lambda (L)” “Relates to issues of economizing the use of resources.” # responses with Pure F determinants R – F (Total responses – Pure form responses) Example: 6 Pure F = .32 25 - 6 1/15/2019

“Structural summary” – “The Core Section” (partial) Erlebnistypus (EB) Used to measure “the dominant style of decision making activity.” Based on human movement (M) and chromatic color responses (FC, CF, and C) WsumC = .5*FC + 1*CF + 1.5*C EG: 4 FC, 4CF, and 0 C responses, WsumC = 6.0. EB is ratio of M:WsumC responses, or 5:6.0 in our example Experience Actual (EA) “Available resources”; “Capability to initiate deliberate action in coping situations.” Sums the components of the EB ratio. EG: EB=5:6, EA = 11 1/15/2019

“Structural summary” Lambda Experience actual Total # responses EB ratio Sums of Animal movement And inanimate movement 1/15/2019

Illustrative Interpretive Questions What is the quality of the person’s self-focus? With what frequency and efficiency does the person try to organize his/her environment? With what balance and passivity does the person interact with his/her environment? How will the person respond to the affective stimuli of his/her world? 1/15/2019

Illustrative interpretations # of W responses has been described as linked to general intelligence Movement responses are said to suggest strong impulses or high motor activity Low response rate said to be associated with mental retardation, depression, and defensiveness “Confabulatory” responses are taken as signs of a disordered state 1/15/2019

Sample “Constellations” 1/15/2019

Sample “Constellations” 1/15/2019

Sample “Constellations” 1/15/2019

Questions about Exner’s CS system Norm groups Often unclear how samples were formed Selective summary statistics provided, but not underlying distributions Self citation Most cited studies written by Exner Not published in peer-reviewed outlet Access to source studies Wood, Nezworski, Stejskal (1994) Each selects one topic (e.g., narcissism) Writes to E for copies of unpublished studies No studies provided 1/15/2019

Questions about Exner’s CS system Access to source studies (Wood et al.) Request repeated, assistant responds: “The majority of these are not written in a publishable form. Instead, they usually include a brief statement concerning the methodology of the study…” Further inquiries reveal “statements” were apparently handwritten on sheet of papers or on a computer printouts Exner subsequently declined when other investigators requested access to raw normative data Other data integrity questions Recently disclosed that 221 (41%) of his norm subjects were mistakenly duplicated Error not detected for over 20 years 1/15/2019

Illusory Correlations Chapman & Chapman Many projective tests lack reliability and validity E.g., DAP, Rorschach Nevertheless, clinicians believe tests are useful And show substantial consensus is the specific meanings of certain “signs” Attempt to account for the persistent belief about sign-symptom associations despite lack of empirical evidence Performed series of 13 experiments See article Here, we partially replicate one condition Do this before discussing details 1/15/2019

Chapman & Chapman demonstration Form pairs Please, not groups of 4-5 Download C & C demonstration See email “Chapman demo…ppt” Avoid talking Write down responses independently Complete demonstration before we talk more… 1/15/2019