This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 11 October 2014, At: 18:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personality AssessmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

An External Construct Validity Study ofRorschach Personality VariablesDeborah F. GreenwaldPublished online: 22 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Deborah F. Greenwald (1990) An External Construct Validity Study ofRorschach Personality Variables, Journal of Personality Assessment, 55:3-4, 768-780, DOI:10.1080/00223891.1990.9674111

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1990.9674111

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions andviews expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are notthe views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not berelied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylorand Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

JOURNAL OF PERSONALTY ASSESSMENT, 1990, 55(3&4), 768-780 Copyright @ 1990, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

An External Construct Validity Study of Rorschach Personality Variables

Deborah F. Greenwald Northeastern University

This study examined (a) hypothesized relationships between Rorschach variables and self-report test measures relating to nominally similar aspects of personality functioning and (b) interrelationships among Rorschach variables. Sixty-two undergraduates were administered the Rorschach, Barron Ego Strength Scale, Kaplan Self-Derogation Scale, Eagly Self- Esteem Scale, Multiple Affective Adjec- tive Checklist (MAACL), Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, and the Rotter Locus of Control Scale. Only a few of the predictions received confirma- tion: inanimate movement (m) correlated, as expected, with MAACL anxiety and hostility, the egocentricity index (3r + 2)/R (R = total responses) correlated significantly with self-esteem, and human movement with minus form level (M -) correlated (inversely) with ego strength. Among the unpredicted findings were some that appear inconsistent with standard Rorschach interpretation. Rorschach variables human movement (M), and experience actual (EA), generally interpreted as reflecting coping resources, related significantly with self-report measures of poor coping and of dysphoric affect. In general, the Rorschach appears better at identifying weaknesses in the ego rather than strengths.

The purpose of this study was (a) to test the validity of interpretations commonly applied to Rorschach variables by using self-report personality scales, (b) to further illuminate these variables by examining their relationships to other Rorschach indices, and (c) to explore unpredicted associations in order to generate hypotheses for future research and to provide potentially useful clinical information. A normal sample was used for the latter purpose in order to observe associations that are free of possible skew, which might occur by investigating patient groups. The interpretations of Rorschach variables made here are largely based o n the Exner (1986) Comprehensive System. The in- creasing widespread use of this system and shared reliance o n interpretations derived from this approach make validation especially important for clinician and researcher alike.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

RORSCHACH VALIDITY 769

The first hypothesis tested was that m, diffuse shading (Y), and the differerlce scores, adjusted and unadjusted, would relate significantly to trait anxiety and external locus of control (Rotter, 1966). Variables m and Y are usually interpreted (Exner, 1986) as primarily state-dependent responses to stress, with m seen as reflecting an inner experience of tension and a possible sense of poor control (Mayman, 1977) and Y reflecting a sense of inability to act, accompanied by pain. Therefore, it was expected that high-anxious individuals would be more prone to the elevated distress that m and Y reflect (Martin, Blair, & Hatzel, 1987). The difference (D) score is interpreted as an indication of the adequacy of coping ability. A positive D score suggests that the individual has ample resources ]for managing press and demands, and a negative D score ~resumabl~ indicates the presence of anxiety and vulnerability due to insu&cient coping strength -for current needs. Although the unadjusted D score is interpreted as reflecting tem- porary or state coping strength, the adjusted score is seen as reflecting more enduring abilities to cope. Therefore, it was expected that the m, Y, and D score variables would relate to anxiety and to the sense of control over one's fate.

The second hypothesis was that the aggression index (AG), morbid content (MOR) and m would correlate significantly with a measure of hostility. PLG contains obvious aggressive content and would be resumed to reflect hostile thoughts or feelings. Exner (1986) cited several studies finding significant correlations between AG and aggressive behavior or verbalizations. MOR (Exner, 1986) reflects percept content of damage or destruction and miglht, therefore, indicate a projection of hostile urges. Finally, m, reflecting stress, loss of control, and possibly frustration (Klopfer, Ainsworth, Klopfer, & Holt, 19'54) is also likely to be associated with hostility.

The third hypothesis tested was that (3r + 2)/R the ratio of whole responses to human movement responses (W:M), the sum of vista responses (VFDM0R.- FV, VF, V), form-dimension responses (FD), and MOR responses would correlate with self-esteem, self-derogation, and depression. Exner's (1974) vari- able (3r + 2)/R, interpreted as an index of egocentricity or self-focus would be expected to relate to measures of positive and negative self-feeling. Exner (1986) cited evidence of the association of this variable with depression. However, studies with child inpatient (Belter, Lipovsky, & Finch, 1989), child nonpatient (Gordon & Tegtmeyer, 1982), and adult forensic samples (Simon, 1985) found no relationship for the index with self-esteem. With regard to W:M, when W is more than twice M, the ratio can be interpreted as indicating that aspiration levels outpace resources, possibly resulting in a sense of failure or disappoint- ment in the self (Klopfer et al., 1954). Thus, an association is hypothesized between high scores on this ratio and negative feelings about the self. V, and to a lesser extent, FD, are seen as reflecting critical self-regard (Exner, 1986) or anxious introspection (Klo~fer et al., 1954, p. 268), whereas MOR sugge!jts pessimism (Exner, 1986).

A fourth hypothesis was that popular responses and the percentage of good

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

770 GREENWALD

form level responses (X+ %), both indications of the ability and/or willingness to conform to conventional standards, would relate to social desirability.

The final hypothesis was that the adjusted D score, M + , X+%, the Last-Weiss Ego-Strength Scale (Last & Weiss, 1976), and (inversely) M- , VFDMOR, and AG would relate to the Barron (1953) Ego Strength Scale. The adjusted D score, as previously noted, was expected to reflect the adequacy of available coping resources, as compared to persistently experienced demands and stress. M + , as a reflection of ideational activity congruent with reality, was seen as an especially important coping resource, whereas M - was expected to be a sign of serious flaws in judgment and, therefore, in effective coping. The Last-Weiss Ego-Strength Scale, composed of five types of good form level responses, was developed to reflect good cognitive control over drive-related experiences. X + % was somewhat similarly seen as an indication of perceptual accuracy and the capacity for good judgment and of the extent to which there is freedom from distortion in perceptions. VFDMOR and AG were hypothesized to relate (inversely) to ego strength, because they are presumed to reflect dysphoric affect, which would be likely to interfere with the capacity for optimum adjustment.

METHOD

Subjects and Procedures

The sample was comprised of 62 students at a large urban university who were recruited for paid participation in the study and completed all procedures. There were 42 females and 20 males, ranging in age from 18 to 25, from largely middle to upper middle class backgrounds. The sample was mainly White (53 of primarily European ancestry, 2 African Americans, 3 Asians, 2 Hispanics, 1 Indian, and 1 Melanesian).

Each subject was administered the Rorschach; the Eagly (1967) version of the Janis-Field Self-Esteem Scale; the Kaplan (1975) Self-Derogation Scale; the Barron (1953) Ego-Strength Scale; the Multiple Adjective Affect Checklist (MAACL; Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965), scored for anxiety, depression, and hostility; the Rotter (1966) Locus of Control Scale; and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960, 1964). I, an experienced instructor of the Exner system, administered and scored all Rorschachs, using the Exner (1986) procedure; graduate student assistants administered the self- report tests.

RESULTS

The Exner (1986) variables included in the analyses were R, the D score, adjusted D score, M, M + , M -, EA, es, FC +, FC, CF+, FM+ , animal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

RORSCHACH VALIDITY 771

movement (FM), m, Y (FY + YF + Y), texture (TI (m + TF + T), X+ '%, minus form level (X- %), Lambda, whole responses (W), W:M, MOR, AG (3r + 2)/R, popular responses (P), suicide constellation, space (S), the weighted sum of six special scores (WSUM6), and S + . Two other variables included were VFDMOR, and the Last-Weiss (Last & Weiss, 1976) Ego-Strength Scale, tlhe sum of M + , S + , FM + , FC + and CF + . Means for most of the variables were within 1 standard deviation of Exner's nonpatient adult norms. However, tlhe mean for X + % was more than 1 standard deviation below the norm, whereas means for X- %, M - , S, and suicide constellation were quite high. The means and standard deviations for the self-report measures and for the Rorschach variables are reported in Table 1.

Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated between Rorschach variables and self-report ~ersonal i t~ scales. Results that were significant or near-significant are presented in Table 2. Intercorrelations among Rorschach variables that are significant or approach significance are reported in Table 3. Because many Rorschach indices showed significant associations with R, after the initial correlation analysis R was partialled out of these relationships. This process afforded a look at the meanings of the Rorschach indices that could not be attributed to response productivity, though for the clinician using the Rorschach, the nonpartialled correlations will probably be more useful. When- ever partialling for R altered the significance levels of the observed relationships, the resulting correlations are reported in parentheses in Tables 2 and 3. By and large, the partial correlations showed little change in the magnitude of the first-order associations.

The first hypothesis in the study was that m, Y, and the D scores (adjusted and unadjusted), as indices of anxiety, would correlate with the MAACL anxiety scale. Of these variables, only m correlated significantly with MAACL anxiety (r = .26, p < .05; see Table 2). Surprisingly, MAACL anxiety also correlated significantly, in a direction contrary to that expected, with EA (r = .31, p < .05), one of the components of tha D score, generally interpreted as representing the individual's organized resources for coping with stress arid demands. In addition, anxiety also showed significant and unexpected associa- tions with M (r = .29, p < .05) and T (r = -.25, p < .05), suggesting that human movement responses may be associated with dysphoric affect and that texture responses, at least in moderate frequencies, may indicate a low level of anxiety.

The same three Rorschach variables (m, Y, and D) were also hypothesized to show associations with external locus of control, but none of these relationships was significant. Instead, the Rorschach variables that related to external locus of control were X-% (r = .28, p < .05), AG (r = .27, p < .05), M - (r = .37, p < .01), and M (r = .25, p < .05). These findings suggest that those who tend to see control of their life as existing outside themselves are also likely to distort

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

772 GREENWALD

TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Self-Report and Rorschach Variablesa

Variables M SD

Barron Ego-Strength 53.02 9.97 Eagly Self-Esteem 62.33 9.24 MAACL anxiety 8.09 3.17 MAACL hostility 9.55 5.22 MAACL depression 12.22 5.17 Social desirability 13.45 5.19 Locus of control 10.55 3.73 Self-derogation 13.88 3.25 R 26.02 7.23 Difference score - .82 1.70 Adjusted difference -.I6 1.30 M 4.08 2.68 M + 2.56 1.70 M- .71 1.05 E A 7.29 3.21 es 10.10 4.96 FC + 1.48 1.28 FC 3.03 1.94 CF + 3 1 1.16 FM + 2.58 1.57 FM 4.21 2.51 m 1.87 1.26 Y 1.77 1.64 T .63 1.02 X + % 52.29 12.79 X-% 21.24 10.05 Lambda .83 .57 Last-Weiss 7.76 3.71 W 11.13 4.65 W:M 4.57 4.64 MOR 1.50 1.66 AG .68 1.01 (3r + 2)/R .31 .17 VFDMOR 2.81 2.15 P 5.48 1.66 S-Con 4.47 1.71 S 3.75 2.52 WSUM6 2.77 3.76 S + 1.11 1.0

"N = 62.

their perceptions of reality and, especially, to exhibit distorted and unrealistic ideation.

A second hypothesis was that AG, and secondarily, MOR and m, would correlate significantly with MAACL hostility. The correlation for AG was close

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

TABLE 2 Significant and Near-Significant Correlations and Correlations Partialled for R Between Rorschach and Self-Report Measuresa

Barron Eagly M A A C L M A A C L M A A C L Social Rotter Locus Kaplan Ego-Strength Sexb Self-Esteem Anxiety Depress Hostility Desirability of Control' Self-Derogation

M

M-

E A

FC FM + FM m

T X + %

X-%

Lambda

W:'M MOR AG

3r + 2 - R

P

R WSUM6

U 3 Note. Numbers in parentheses have been partialled for number of responses.

"N = 62. bl = male, 2 = female. 'High scores reflect external orientation. # p < .lo. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

TABLE 3 Intercorrelations Among Rorschach Variablesa

M M + M- E A

FC + FC

CF + FM+ FM

m

Y

T X+% X-%

Lambda

W

W:M

MOR

AG

3r + 2 R

VFDMOR

S WSUM6

FC (r = .31*) Lambda (r = -.38**) AG (r = .45***) (3r + 2)/R (r = .43***) AG (r = .33*) (3r + 2)/R (r = .46***) FC (r = .30*) AG (r = .37**) S (r = .26*) m (r = .33**)[r = .25*] Y (r = .29*)[r = .18] WSUM6 (r = .38**)[r = .48***] MOR (r = .35**)[r = .30*] AG (r = .50***) M + (I = .29*) FM+ (r = .26*) T (r = .29*) CF+ (r = .28*) FC (r = - .43***) FM+ (r = .33**) FM (r = .34**) m (r = .21') Y (r = .39**)[r = .30*] T (r = .32*)[r = .30*] Lambda (r = .31*) W:M (r = - .21/3 MOR (r = .30*) AG (r = .24/3 S + (r = .23#) FC (r = .28*) FM (r = .24') m (r = .43***) Y (r = .47***) W (r = .40**) MOR (r = .36**) FC+ (r = .26*) FC (r = .33**) T (r = .30*) FC (r = .34**) CF+ (r = ..24#) m (r = .21R) Y (r = .50***)[r = .36**] X-% (r = .23') EA (r = .33*) CF+ (r = .43***) Y (r = .34**) X+% (r = -.243 W (r = .26*) MOR (r = .38**) AG (r = .23#) (3r + 2)/R (r = - .24" S (r = .25*) EA (r = .29*) FC (r = .39**) CF+ (r = .47***)[r = .37**] FM (r = .50***)[r = .36**] m (r = .34**) Lambda (r = - .28*) MOR (r = .43***) VFDMOR (r = .25*) S (r = .21R) FC+ (r = .29*) FC (r = .32*) FM+ (r = .30*) S (r = .24#) m (r = -.243 W:M (r = - .27*) (3r + 2)/R (r = .34**) D (r = -.22#) FM (r = .23#) m (r = .24#) W (r = .35**) W:M (r = .35**) MOR (r = .25*) (3r + 2)/R (r = - .46***) S (r = .30*) WSUM6 (r = .24') M (r = - .38**) FC (r = - .43***) Y (r = -.28*) AG (r = - .34**) (3r + )/R (r = - .25*) S (r = .27*) WSUM6 (r = - .26*) M- (r = .27*) FC (r = .31*) CF+ (r = .40**) m (r = .26*) X-% (r = .35**) Lambda (r = -.33**) (3r + 2)/R (r = -.27*) M- (r = - Z * ) rn (r = .26*) X+ % (r = - Z * ) X-% (r = .35**) AG (r = .24') (3r + 2)/R (r = -.41**) FC (r = .30*) CF+ (r = .36**) FM (r = .23" m (r = .38**) Y (r = .43***) X-% (r = .25*)AG (r = .24#) (3r + 2)/R (r = -.33**) WSUM6 (r = .33**) EA (r = .SO***) m (r = .23#) W:M (r = - .24#) Lambda (r = -.34**) MOR (r = .24') WSUM6 (r = .36**) M (r = .43***) M + (r = .46***) m (r = - .24') X+ % (r = .34**) X-% (r = - .46***) Lambda (r = - Z * ) MOR (r = - .33**) W:M (r = - .4l**)[r = - .45***1 VFDMOR (r = .26*) CF+ (r = .24" Y (r = .25*) AG (r = .2l3 (3r + 2)/R (r = -.26*) S-Con (r = .44***) M- (r = .26*) X-% (7 = .30*) Lambda (r = .27*) m (r = .25*) Y (r = .21#) EA (r = .38**)[r = .48***] D (r = .30*) Adj. D (r = .37**) X+% (r = -.ZIT X- (r = .24') Lambda (r = -.26*) MOR (r = .33**) AG (r = .36**)

Note. Numbers in brackets have been partialled for number of responses. "N = 62. 'p < .lo. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

RORSCHACH VALIDITY 7175

to zero, wheras for m, the correlation was significant (r = .28, p < .05) and b r MOR, close to significant (r = .24, p < .lo). This supports an interpretation of a hostile component for m and MOR, but not for AG. AG did, however, show a trend toward significance with MAACL anxiety (r = .21, p < .lo), suggesting a possible anxious but nonhostile connotation for this variable, in a normal young adult college sample.

The third hypothesis was that (3r + 2)/R, W:M, and VFDMOR, as variables reflecting quality of self-image, would correlate with self-esteem, self-derogation, and MAACL depression. The (3r + 2)/R index did correlate significantly with self-esteem (r = .26, p < .05) but not with self-derogation or depression. In addition, there were no significant relationships between either W:M or VFDMOR and self-esteem, self-derogation, or MAACL depression. MOR, by itself, did, however, show a trend with MAACL depression (r = .23, p < .lo). It also showed a strong, but unpredicted relationship with m (r = -39, p < -0 1).

Unpredicted findings with the (3r + 2)/R variable included associations with X+% (r = .34,p < .OIL), X-% (r = -.46,p < .001), M + (r = .46, p < .001), M (r = .43, p < .001), W:M (r = -.41, p < .001), MOR (r = -.33, p < .O I) , and a trend with m (r = - .24, p < -10). The Eagly Self-Esteem Scale, which correlated strongly with the Kaplan Self-Derogation Scale (r = - .70, p < .OO l), also correlated with X+ % (r = .36,p < .01), FM (r = - .3O, P < .05), and m (r = - .25,p < .05). These data suggest significant but modest overlap between (3r + 2)/R and self-esteem, yet also considerable distinctiveness. (3r + 2)/R is associated with high perceptual accuracy and, particularly, with ideation that is in accord with reality, qualities that Eagly correlations with Rorschach indices also suggest is shared by the Eagly Self-Esteem Scale. In addition, however, the data suggest that (3r + 2)/R involves the absence of a pessimistic or negative outlook and the setting of ambitions or goals that the individual is capable of reaching.

A fourth hypothesis in the study was that P and X+% would correlate positively with social desirability. This prediction was not confirmed, perhaps related to the fact X+ % was so low in this sample. Social desirability showed significant correlations only with R (r = .25, p < .05) and with Lambda (r = .25, p < .05), suggesting that socially desirable tendencies may well include a guarded or simplistic response style combined with capabilities to put forth effort at a task, perhaps fiom wishes to appear in a positive light. The ability to formulate pure F responses (Lambda), often associated clinically with the capacity to delay, could be an indication of the subject's ability to control immediate or impulsive response tendencies in order to behave in a socially acceptable fashion.

A final hypothesis was that the adjusted D score, M + , X+, the Last-Weiss Ego-Strength Scale, and (inversely) M - , VFDMOR, and AG would correlate significantly with the Barron Ego-Strength Scale. Of these variables, the Barron

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

776 GREENWALD

measure related significantly only with M - (r = - .26, p < .05), but showed a trend with AG (r = - .23, p < .lo) and with FM + (r = - .24, p < .lo).

There were some results that were not only unpredicted but were also contrary to expectation. One important finding, noted earlier, was that EA, interpreted as representing organized coping resources, correlated significantly but inversely with the Barron Ego-Strength Scale (r = - .27, p < .05) and the Eagly Self-Esteem Scale (r = - .27, p < .05), positively with MAACL anxiety (r = .31, p < .05; as just reported), and showed a trend toward significance with MAACL depression (r = .23, p < .lo). Among Rorschach variables, EA correlated significantly with m (r = .33, P < .01), Y (r = .29, P < .05), MOR (r = .35, p < .01), AG (r = .50, p < .001), and WSUM6 (r = .38, p < .01). M, one of the components of EA and interpreted as representing the tendency to use ideational resources for coping, correlated unexpectedly with MAACL anxiety (r = .29, p < .05), external locus of control (r = .25, p < .05), AG (r = .45, p < .001), (3r + 2)/R (r = .43, p < .001), FC (r = .31, p < .Ol), and showed a trend with social desirability (r = -.23, p < .lo). It is difficult to interpret these findings of relationships between Rorschach variables that are generally interpreted as reflecting coping resources with other measures, sug- gesting poor coping and dysphoric affect. Another set of unpredicted findings was that W correlated significantly with m (r = .26, p < .05), X- % (r = .35, p < .01), (3r + 2)/R(r = -.27,p < .05), M- (r = .27,p < .05), CF+ (r = .40, p < .01), FC (r = .31, p < .05) and Lambda (r = - .33, p < .01). These results suggest an unanticipated association of W with poor judgment, unrealistic ideation, low self-esteem, impulsivity, and strong, relatively less modulated emotional reactivity.

Texture responses (13, in addition to correlating inversely with MAACL anxiety, as was noted also related significantly with FC (r = .32, p < .05), FC + (r = .29, p < .05), FM + (r = .30, p < .05), and female sex (r = .37, p < .01), and show trends with S (r = .24), locus of control (r = -.22), and self- derogation (r = -.24). These data suggest that slightly elevated texture responses within the range shown by this sample (the mean for this sample was just below Exner's, 1986, norm) are associated with a modulated emotional responsiveness, a desire for interpersonal interchange, and freedom from anx- iety and negative self-regard.

Results for m and Y observed in the study imply that these variables signify less-than-optimal functioning. They were related to each other (r = .34, P < .01), and they showed positive associations with MOR (r = .38, p < .O1 and r = .43, p < .001, respectively) and CF + (r = .43, p < ,001 and r = .47, p < .001, respectively). Though m and Y overlap in what they reflect, each also seems to have a very distinct flavor. Thus, m correlated significantly with S (r = .25, p < .05) and inversely with the Eagly Self-Esteem Scale (r = - .25, p < .05), but showed trends with the Barron Ego-Strength Scale (r = - .21), X + % (r = - .24), AG (r = .23), and (3r + 2)/R (r = - .24). These findings suggest that m

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

RORSCHACH VALIDITU 77'7

is associated with dysphoric affect, poor self-image, negativism, and reality distortion. Y, on the other hand, was strongly associated with FM (r = .50, P < .001) as well as MOR and CF+. Y appears to be reflective of impulsivity, or impulsive press, which complements the interpretation of this variable as indicating a painful paralysis (Exner, 1986).

FM + , FC + , and T were significantly intercorrelated (see Table 3), suggesting commonality for these determinants. Interestingly, FC+ did not correlate significantly with CF+ , though FC did (r = .28, p < .05), and FM showed a trend (r = .24).

WSUM6 related significantly to MAACL depression (r = .36, p < .01) and MAACL hostility (r = .28, p < .05), EA (r = .38, p < .01), D (r = .30, p .< .05), and adjusted D (r = .37, p < .01), MOR (r = .33, p < .01), and AG (r .= .36, p < .01); it showed trends with MAACL anxiety (r = .22) and X - % (r = .24). These findings provide moderate support for WSUM6 as an indicator of disordered thinking.

Of the demographic variables, only sex showed significant relationships with other variables in the study: FC (r = .36, p < .01), P (r = .25, p < .05), W:M (r = - .26, p < .05), T (r = .37, p < .01), Lambda (r = - .24, p < .05), Rotter Locus of Control (r = - .25, p < .05), and showed trends with X+ % (r = .22) and X - % (r = - .24). These results suggest that, compared to the men in the sample, the women showed more controlled use of affect, had a greater sense of internal control, had greater need/capacity for interpersonal closeness, exhib- ited a greater likelihood of responding in conventional ways, were more likely to set goals for themselves that were within their resources, and were more complex and flexible in their response style.

DISCUSSION

With a few exceptions, this attempt to validate selected Rorschach variabljes using self-report personality scales as external criteria did not provide support for the hypotheses. Even when expectations of significant relationships between Rorschach variables and self-report measures reached statistical significance, they typically did so at low levels.

Nonetheless, there were some hypotheses that were supported. One is that the Egocentricity Index, (3r + 2)/R, appears to be a useful indicator of high self-esteem, an absence of pessimism toward self and the environment, and perceptual accuracy, including the ability to set realistic goals.

Another supported hypothesis was that regarding the relationships of m to anxiety. This index, and to a lesser extent, Y, were found to be indicators of experiential or behavioral disturbance. For m, the associations with both self-report and Rorschach measures suggest painful inner experience, including anxiety, depression, hostility, low self-esteem, reduced coping skills, and pos-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

778 GREENWALD

sibly poor reality testing. Y, though not showing associations with pain or pathology, did appear related to impulsivity and high emotional reactivity. Because Y is a state-dependent variable (Exner, 1986), it may be that tendencies toward heightened reactivity are temporary, or it may be that these are more long-term characteristics of the individual. In any case, these findings suggest a tension between the lack of activity reflected by Y and an associated poorly modulated urge to action.

Unexpectedly, EA and M do not appear to represent coping resources in this sample. Although M correlated positively with (3r + 2)/R, the correlations with self-report measures, both significant and near significant, are in a direction suggesting limited ego-strength and dysphoric affect. This impression is even stronger for EA, which in this sample is associated with low self-esteem, poor coping skills, dysphoric affect, and thought disorder. It is difficult to know what to make of these results, which run contrary to the typical interpretations of M and EA as coping indices (Exner, 1986). It may be that the low rates of perceptual accuracy for this sample affect the usefulness of M and EA, but it should be noted that M + , in this sample, also did not appear useful as an index of coping strength.

The results just cited and an examination of Table 2 suggest that Rorschach variables show more significant correlations in the direction of poor functioning or dysphoric affect than in the direction of optimal functioning. This observa- tion suggests that the Rorschach may be better at identifying weaknesses or liabilities than strengths.

Compared to males in this sample, females emerged as more affectively responsive, more interested in affectionate contact, more realistic in general and in setting goals, and, with regard to locus of control, more internal a contradic- tion of previous findings (Owens, 1969).

The shading determinants, V, Y, and T are interpreted as indicating painful press (Exner, 1986), yet there were no significant correlations between any of the shading determinants and variables that are suggestive of pain (except, perhaps, for the correlation between Y and m). It is possible that because this is a nonpathological sample and the variability in the shading determinants is within the nonpatient range, significant associations between these variables and anxiety or depression would not be expected.

The significant intercorrelations between FM + , FC + , and T suggest that these variables constitute a cluster, representing either a shared response tendency or a shared personality disposition. That FC + did not correlate with CF+, but rather with other form-dominated determinants, suggests that the implied modulated affective responsiveness may not be associated with emo- tional responsiveness in general. The fact that FM+, on the other hand, showed more of a relationship to CF + is consistent with the greater impulsivity that both these variables are thought to reflect. It may be that, in part, FM + , FC + , and T (largely FT) reflect a unidimensional response style. One possibility

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

RORSCHACH VALIDITY 779

is that, taken together, they represent a general activation tendency that is modulated or controlled.

Although most of the current sample's personality measure scores and Rorschach indices were in line with recognized student or nonpatient norms, the very low perceptual accuracy and substantial perceptual distortion in the Rorschach's of these subjects were not. This calls into question the typicality of the sample and perhaps the generalizability of some of the findings. Obviously, additional studies of this sort with various samples are necessary to test fully the extent of these results.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

An earlier version of this article was presented at the Society for Personality Assessment Annual Meeting in San Diego, March 22-24, 1990.

I thank Joanne Cyr, Roueida Ghadban, Ann Kamenstein, and Roberta Starkey, who assisted with data collection and preparation.

REFERENCES

Barron, F. (1953). An ego strength scale which predicts to response in ~ s ~ c h o t h e r a ~ y . Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17, 327-337.

Belter, R. W., Lipovsky, J. A., &Finch, A. J. (1989). Rorschach Egocentricity Index and self-concept in children and adolescents. J o u d of Personality Assessment, 53, 783-789.

Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathol- ogy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 24, 349-354.

Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: Wiley. Eagly, A. (1967). Involvement as a determinant of response to favorable and unfavorable informa-

tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(3, Whole No. 643). Exner, J. E., Jr. (1974). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system. Vol. 1. New York: Wiley. Exner, J. E., Jr. (1986). The Rorschach: A comprehensiue system. Vol. 1: Basic foundations (2nd ed.). New

York: Wiley. Gordon, M., & Tegtmeyer, P. F. (1982). The Egocentricity Index and self-esteem in children.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55, 335-337. Kaplan, H. B. (1975). Increase in self-rejection as an antecedent of deviant responses. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 4, 281-292. Klopfer, B., Ainsworth, M. D., Klopfer, W. G., & Holt, R. R. (1954). Developments in the Rorschach

Technique, Vol. I: Technique and theory. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Last, U., & Weiss, A. A. (1976). Evaluation of ego-strength based on certain Rorschach variables.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 40, 57-66. Martin, J. D., Blair, G. E., & Hatzel, D. J. (1987). Rorschach correlates of state and trait anxiety in

college students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 539-543. Mayman, M. (1977). A multidimensional view of the Rorschach movement response: Perception,

fantasy, kinesthesia, self-representation, and object-relationships. In M. A. Rickers-Ovsianki~na (Ed.), Rorschach psychology (pp. 229-250). Huntington, NY: Krieger.

Owens, D. A. (1969). Disability-Minority and social learning. Unpublished master's thesis, West

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

780 GREENWALD

Virginia University, Morgantown. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.

Psychological Monographs, 80(1, Whole No. 609). Simon, M. J. (1985). The Egocentricity Index and self-esteem in court ordered psychiatric evalua-

tions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 437-439. Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1965). Manual for the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List. San Diego:

Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

Deborah F. Greenwald 203 Lake Hall Northeastern University Boston, MA 021 15

Received March 1, 1990

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014