1. Rorschach 1
Running head: RORSCHACH
The Rorschach: An Overview and Future Directions
Bernd Weishaupt
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Professor Harriet Gaddy, Ph.D.
GPY 546: Diagnostic Assessment
Centenary College
2. Rorschach 2
Nothing is lost on him who sees
with an eye that feeling gave; for him there's a story in every breeze,
and a picture in every wave.
-Sir Thomas Moore
Overview of The Rorschach and Future Directions
Images are to our visual senses enduring and timeless, like fire, the azure sky, the deep
blue ocean, a starry night, people, animals-cats, dogs, and bats to name a few. In fact the earliest
writings ever recorded by human beings are resplendent with images…antelopes and bears in
prehistoric cave paintings, descriptive images of a heaven and an underworld, fertility symbols, a
primal Tree of Life, and images such as the first bread baked in the first homes of the land in the
creation stories of Ur (ca. 4,000 BCE). Native American and other world creation stories are all
resplendent with scores of images on down to those of creation stories found in the three
Abrahamic faiths- Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Images whether described, drawn, painted,
or printed are, for those of us who have the gift of sight, rich with meaning and associations.
Needless to say, our 86-year-old fascination with Hermann Rorschach’s enigmatic inkblots
should not come as a surprise to anyone. What is surprising is that a numinous, scrying,
projection of inkblot impressions on ten cards, seemingly best left to mystics, is practiced and
vehemently defended into the 21st Century by psychologists who claim to rely increasingly more
on the scientific method than intuition the world over.
The Rorschach Inkblot Test is administered almost ubiquitously. How ubiquitous is this
test one might ask? The MMPI is the only test that is more popular; the Rorschach on average
was administered 6 million times per year world wide in the 1990’s (Wood, Nezworski,
3. Rorschach 3
Lilienfeld, and Garb, 2003, p. 2). Wood et al. found that the Rorschach was used in multiple
settings: in schools to determine emotional problems and learning difficulties, in prisons to
evaluate felons for parole, with convicted murderers facing the death penalty, candidates entering
the ministry or priesthood, airline pilots suspended from their jobs for alcohol abuse and with
suspected victims of sexual abuse. Having experienced the Rorschach myself as a requirement
for entering pastoral ministry, I can readily concur that the test is still popular as a projective tool
to evaluate candidates for ministry.
The source of the original inkblot is ascribed to a popular game (blotto) in the late 19th
Century that might well have it’s roots in the 15th Century from illustrations by Da Vinci and
Botticelli (Exner, 1969, p.1). It is interesting to note that this “Da Vinci code” from the 15th
Century continues to hold a fascination over modern school children in Germany even to this day
in art classes. At present the game is know as “Klecksographie” and I recently discovered a
reference to it listed as part of the art curriculum in the 2001/2002 yearbook in a college prep
school (Gymnasium) in Penzberg, Germany (Gymnasium Penzberg, 2002). Hermann Rorschach
tragically died of appendicitis complicated by peritonitis on April 2, 1922 only a few years after
his monumental and “somewhat accidental” innovation and never got to see how far his
discovery would eventually go (Exner, 1969, p.2). Ten inkblots (Rorschach originally being the
artist that he was, had as many as 40) eventually became the standard from which the Rorschach
test would be administered because the printer was unwilling to advance additional money in
printing more plates-in short, they were out of ink (Exner, p.3)!
Interpretations differ among Rorschach enthusiasts but the test is commonly administered
by handing one card at a time in a specific order to the testee and responses are recorded until all
ten cards have been seen and described. When taking the test, as in my experience, one might be
4. Rorschach 4
asked, “Describe to me what you see?” The testor then may write down responses. These
responses are then interpretated according to one of several systems designed for that purpose.
There might be minor variations in testing procedure among psychologists, but essentially the
purpose is to obtain a “reading” of each card from the test subject, which then becomes subject to
“interpretation.” Interpretation became an issue based on theoretical differences among early
proponents of the Rorschach and 5 systems were developed. These systems are discussed in
detail in Exner’s The Rorschach Systems (Exner, 1969) and need not be elaborated upon here in
any great detail. In his book on the Rorschach systems, Exner puts together an analysis of
Rorschach scores submitted and analyzed by the five of proponents of the systems: Bruno
Klopfer, Samuel Beck, Zygmunt Piatrowski, Roy Schafer and Marguerite Hertz. It might have
been more interesting had the systematizers been able to analyze the reading from the same
person, but five very different people were selected for the comparison; different ages, life
experience, gender and social situation and very different presenting problems and clinical
pictures (Exner, 1969, pp. 257-321). This renders the association between the 5 systems
fascinating, showing some difference in interpretation and approach but less effective for
purposes of comparison and establishing norms.
According to Wood, of the five systems developed for the Rorschach, two divergent
approaches became the most popular during the 1930’s and 1940’s, that of Bruno Klopfer and
Samuel Beck. A survey done by Exner published in 1972 showed that 55 percent of
Rorschachers used Klopfer’s system while 35 percent used Beck’s; the remaining 10 percent
used Piatrowski, Schafer and Hertz’s system (Wood et al. 2003, p. 195). Klopfer, a practitioner
from the European school of phenomenology and psychoanalysis saw the Rorschach as a clinical
tool that should be used and interpreted entirely by clinicians who had the experience necessary
5. Rorschach 5
for analysis (Wood et al. p. 68). While Klopfer relied heavily on clinical experience and his
training in Freudian psychoanalysis, Samuel Beck, critical of the subjective interpretation sought
a more systematic and psychometric approach in order to establish norms for validation of
Rorschach test results (Wood et al. p.69). As an example, Beck suggested a standardized
procedure of written instructions given to the subject. His method of interpretation was based on
an empirical approach derived from a case-study system (Exner, 1969, p. 97). However, within
20 years, the mystique and novelty of the Rorschach seemed to begin to show signs of ennui.
By the mid 1960’s, the Rorschach test came under considerable scientific scrutiny by
prominent psychologists such as Joseph Zubin, Lee Cronbach, Hans Eyseneck, Laurance
Schaffer, Arthur Jensen and Raymond McCall (Wood et al. 2003, pp. 175-182). The decline of
the Rorschach seemed certain until the work of John Exner. In 1969 Exner published a book
describing the various systems in use at the time. Later he attempted to harmonize and unify the
various systems in a book, which he published in 1974, The Rorschach: A Comprehensive
System, the first of three volumes- the third volume was completed in 1982 (Wood et al. p. 196).
By integrating the five systems in use into one “comprehensive system” Exner made Rorschach
history…the Rorschach had been declining steadily during the 1960’s and throughout the 1970’s
and the end was near when in 1980 it had received according one prominent researcher on
projective techniques a “new lease on life” (Wood et al. p. 194). Exner divided the test into three
parts to simplify and unify the process -an introductory procedure and two separate parts; a
response phase where the patient reviews cards one at a time and gives responses and an inquiry
phase where the psychologist reads back each of the responses clearing up any ambiguities as
needed (Wood et al. p. 198). Exner, in a nod to the psychometric community sought to
demonstrate the scientific validity of the Rorschach: he calculated norms from over 700 out of
6. Rorschach 6
1,332 Rorschach protocols, demonstrated an interrater reliability of .85, established a test-retest
reliability factor of .75 to .85, and to top things off Exner added a depression index that claimed
for the Rorschach a high correlation with affective disorders- six more indexes were added in his
“System” including a suicide constellation to help identify patients with suicidal tendencies,
(Wood et al. pp. 193-207). From all angles it seemed like Exner took the Rorschach to the next
level up from Klopfer’s X-ray metaphor of 1940 (the claim that the Rorschach is a psychological
x-ray) and further refined the Rorschach into a unified field theory of human personality…the
Holy Grail of projective tests!
However, presently in the 21st Century, a generation after the Rorschach renaissance,
scientific skepticism and scrutiny has dislodged the euphoria injected by Exner in the 1980’s.
Controversy over the use of the Rorschach and its claims is raging and various problems are
beginning to show up under the light of scientific examination. Much of Exner’s scientific
information on his system from the 1970’s to through the late 1980’s originated from one source-
Exner while newer studies from the 1990’s through 2000 performed by independent researchers
(dissertations and research articles) showed different results (Wood et al. pp. 225-255). Also,
Exner’s list of impressive references in his scholarly studies referred back to his own Rorschach
Workshops most of which were never published (Wood et al. pp. 225-255). Scoring reliability
has been called into question- Exner’s .85 score was not a correlation coefficient at all; it is a
“percentage of agreement.” Percentage of agreement is not a legitimate measure of reliability
(Wood et al. pp. 225-255). Wood lists several other major concerns with Exner’s “System”
such as: the test continues to display a tendency to overpathologize, the numbers for the norms
don’t match, the sample population was handpicked, the test suggests a global validity for far too
many diverse conditions (depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, antisocial tendencies, impulsiveness,
7. Rorschach 7
egocentricity, suicidal tendency and sexual orientation), and Exner consistently failed to make
available his data for peer review.
The question becomes, then, what is the future of this very interesting but greatly
disputed test? When the roller coaster stops, will the Rorschach be put away in a museum with
other medical and scientific curiosities, artifacts & ephemera like snake oil from the Kickapoo
Indian Medicine Company? Or will it indeed continue as a fundamental and nearly universal
projective measure and assessment of personality? The future of the Rorschach is based upon
multiple factors that make it difficult to predict the final position this test will occupy in the
history of psychology, however several patterns present themselves. The Rorschach will
continue to remain controversial and much debated; a position unique among other psychometric
tests that have been studied and reviewed thoroughly by independent researchers. Without
continued strong salesmanship, support, leadership, and intensive training (in the use of it), the
Rorschach, a highly stylized and controversial test will most likely end up in the museum. The
copyright having expired on this secretive test makes it difficult for psychologists to administer
to an uneducated public because the inkblots and their suggested interpretation can be found on
the Internet…contamination is inevitable! Copies of the test and its interpretations occasionally
become available on e-Bay. The 80 plus year history of the Rorschach as a product has already
undergone two 20-25 year cycles. This suggests that the product has reached two growth stages
and ultimately achieved maturity in Exner’s synthesis twenty years ago; it is unlikely that it will
achieve further market penetration and is likely to level off and decline should it survive the
current controversy and psychometric scrutiny. Due to the damage this test has caused in court
cases calling upon forensic psychology; there are Internet help centers such as SPARC (The
Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center) that warn people against submitting to
8. Rorschach 8
Rorschach testing. No major upgrades or improvements have been made since Exner’s
“System”; computerized models of the Rorschach although innovative have not morphed from
Exner’s System and do not display any special discriminating characteristic; they simply provide
typical characteristics of an outpatient population (Prince & Guastello, 1990). Judging from the
foregoing discussion any number of situations involving the Rorschach can be seen as
problematic and complicated thus making it’s future seem uncertain and unstable.
No test in the history of psychology has captured the imagination more than the Rorschach.
In conclusion to this report I have provided a brief summary of four major points that Wood,
Nezworski, Lilienfeld, and Garb, conclude with in “What's Wrong with the Rorschach? Science
Confronts the Controversial Inkblot Test.” Psychologists currently using the Rorschach will
continue to use it. Future generation psychologists will tend to shy away from the controversial
test. Increasing consumer awareness of the shortcomings of Rorschach will pressure
psychologists to relinquish their hold on the test. Forensic and institutional use of the Rorschach
will add further scrutiny and embarrassment to psychologists who use it.
9. Rorschach 9
References
Exner, J. E. (1969). The Rorschach Systems. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Gymnasium Penzberg (2002). Mathematisch - naturwissenschaftliches
und neusprachliches Gymnasium, Jahresbericht 2001/2002, 21. Jahrgang. Retrieved
October, 24, 2007 from source. http://www.gymnasium-
penzberg.de/menu6/jahresbericht_2003.pdf
Prince, R.J. & Guastello, S.J. (1990). The Barnum effect in a computerized Rorschach
interpretation system. The Journal of Psychology, Mar; 124 (2): 217-22
Wood, J. M., M. T. Nezworski, S. O. Lilienfeld, H. N.Garb. (2003). What's Wrong with
the Rorschach? Science Confronts the Controversial Inkblot Test. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass, Inc.
