A fiQMMIIS® 9 $S§B0 ASS M S B sj^lr TPpf Pr' rTP? *&zP*£F,W" ^£$fn*Gw ^P1 fjrWS^T^w' P MT -fflpyF M$SI *w V-y w

TO 9 U FtOfttCHAGH INK BLC^S "gSjf 3iWi WWfPHs ^w^jpral* 'WII^VWW ^w?F

I f M M l I t #w "ft W *N$$y? #

/ ^ u ? C-

ixnxx, \ \>( C\_VA/ D*ftJ^ W i t * SttfeoOl'of

a GMfmm m of ksoro and mess ess posses

TO f ® RORSCHACH XiK BLOTS

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Com®IX of the

North 7«xm State XJhlveraity In Partial

Fulfillaent of the Requirement#

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCZSKCB

By

Penny Dm Corrtn, B* A.

Denton, Texaa

June* 196 5

TABLE OF QQmWIfB Page:

LIST Of TABLES . . . . Iv

Chapter

x# wxmmtxm . . . . i Hypothesis Slsnlficance of tfc* Study Subject® m& Methodology Definition of Ttros

II, JVBXJISSD STUDIES , . » . .. .. , , «, . # 10

i i i , ahalssxs or mm 21

IV. SUMHAJGf , • , 29

APPEHDXX . 31

wmLtmmfM . . 85

u i

MSf QW f ABUE8

fatoin Page

I # Response Befleotlng Signif icant Differences* • 21

11* Hal# snd Female Response Differences* • • 2?

I l l # Comparative S#o»# of Male Subjects * « * * • » * • • 31

I f . Comparative Scores of Female Subtests • • • « * • « « 32

U

onxfm i

xmnmrncfim >W ^5^ *P^ *WPt slffpP£ *9$r&$nS!

fhli «t*iy m a not an Bfetfttw* to 4»feav»tn» m u m * of

behavior* 7fct« liwftftttgfttten daait bMigaUy with p#r*

••ptUMtl brntmm Higr© «wi whifco ooU*g»

students, feting m m InttpMlA* tfMMtttfc of

behavior la that; behavior it tht rttponst «*d* to tfct

Internal and txfctvnaft ttfriwtwtiifc, «*a fete® mw ft parson

wwpowdii to this onytroniwnt is d@t«»l«§€ largely toy

th# w i the envtronoent it p»«#lir#€« ffee study of ptp*

flffliOft 8R28t Also fe# ft Study Of behftVlOT.

Xtftttbtali** btsie tttutpfcimi was that tn® my a ptr®©»

parotides it a reflection of patterns ingrained In tfet

individual's ptrtcfttllfcy «gtot<4ip«

ft# underlying hypothetis in projectiv« M i p i i is lt*t «ti Individual* given & neutral, tsbigueut, MfttttMMA by waging sotaethlng meaningful out of the ®%Vm\m in %m1k a war that hit tatcMttitu* ntttt* pttottwft&ltiit, feelings, attitudes, anxieties, and mine* ar® etlled into play.*

Hypothesis

Vhtt study bad fch@ following hypotfittitt Btgyott and

whites pvtttuM with tht ta*t atatolguous etitwili# wa£*r the

mm mA environoanttl oondltlons, mil respond

^John M. Hadley, Clint»al gag. (Ht* Ytivfe, 1961), p* 555V

2

differently because the two group# possess different

personality patterns due to influencial difference# such

as ethnic and environmental factors*

Little research has been done in the area of Negro

and tfhlte comparison with use of projective techniques,

Dreger and Killer cited only two in their comparison of

psychological etudlea of Hegroes and whites in the TJnited

States. "It seems to us that there wust he oore studies

comparing white and negro on the Rorschach, but we have

found only two, from both groups mr». oofpmd

by Abel, PUftvoNtki, laid Stone (19^) in t#w» of *p#ettta

responses to the ink blots.m2 In the other study, Italnbrook

and Slegel (19^) administered the group Rorschach to high

sohool and college students of both races*

Beoause of the lack of research done in this area, no

formal theories have yet been stated which would have a direct

relationship to this study.

Accept the Rorschach for what it 1st a sheerly empirical bmhnlqm. We need not camouflage this . basic fact by superimposing equally•dubious theo- , retinal, structures as m afterthoughtVm Rorschach as m adaptive task still hm novel features, whioh can be utilised* The history of science is replete with many m empirical discovery which hat proved useful despite its raf*#»to*y nature from the point of view of theory, e.g* the early aspirin, weather teamwmtum, ahoek therapy, taypm-U* . ft* • ^ Rorschach technique may have to toe ranked among thenar

SRalph Dreger and Kent Miller, Fsfcboiogicis, Studies of negroes and Whites in the United States, ~ -fh§. Pathological Bulletin* LVII (September, I960), 375.

3yuila» Block, "Psychometric Aspects of the Rorschach Technique,• Journal of protective Techniques< XXVI (June, 19®), 170, •

this study m» not based on & formal theory but on previous

research comparing Hegro m m white differences. *he affir-

mation op refutation of the pw^oiM hypothesis either supports

or falls to support antecedent studies in this area.

Significance of the Study

As of today there have been only a few studies of Kegro

and white personality differences with m m ot m m m m h ' r n

Xwfe Hot Jtft, This may be due, In part, to the fact that

It Is extremely time consuming to properly administer and

score enough Rorschach* to produce a representative sample

of a population* In the past It has sometimes been difficult

to obtain subjects In racial studies but this problem Is reduced

In a large university environment•

8mm of the comparisons of Hegroes and whites in the past

have been made under Inadequate testing conditions. Other

studies give evidence of unequal motivation between the two

groups to be compared which effected erroneous conclusions*

Only the fellow scientist who has attempted to induce one hundred Southern darkies to offer themselves as subjects In an experiment of this sort can have any conception of the difficulties involved in actually getting the subjects into the laboratory, threat#,, cajolery, flattery, bribery m & every other comeefeiblt ruse within the bounds of reason and the law mm : m * sorted to in order to bring the number of subjects tested up to the desired :iiai3»d# During the course of the four month* in whieh the writer was, attesting to entloe ntgrafta into hie tafcartttovy* he gladly provided vocal solos for negro «taroba** harangued TtuudttglviiiB. meetings and delivered forraal graduation addresses at m g m co»«' »ti*©w®iife»S but the scheme whloh proved most pxvxSuatlvft of subjects m m the establishing of a flat fee of 50 cents

to all who would offer themselves m subjects and adding thereto the offer of transportation from and to their boms In * riokisty old ford hired for the purpose» To that old Ford and tha outlay of * few dollars In ''fees* the writer attrlbutee his sueoess lia ultimately obtaining 100 negro gwbjeots* It m i a never-to-be-forgotten experience, the tamer and scat whereof, however, n m than eoapmfcttA for nany weary and dlssouraging hours vhieh It ooat to witness a subject fleeing over the hill In fright or vcfvam&ng. dtalaien on the foot of the laboratory etepa at tht last mommt*

Qood ooawunloatlon la imperative to aoourate interpre-

tat ion of Rorschach reaponses* The examiner must understand

the different dialaota of the subjects ha examines *

While tha Roraohaoh la ostensibly a peresptual teat, operationally apeaking It mat be considered a verbal task only indirectly setting at tha perception via the verbalisation, fhia fact may not cauae any consternation until reflects fully upon the fact that %iw teste# smat manifest an «trewe sensitivity to the determinants of hla per««ptl0Hi It mmb munlcats the important#- of for®, waA In tha case of using shading, whether tha oonoept la %m** or three-dimensional, whether It Involvaa the peroeptlon of "texture* or perhaps "vista" to mention Justs a few possibilities* But even if a person possesses ft keen awareness of the determinants of his percep-tion, doea ha poaaess the vocabulary with which to eowualcate thea to the examiner? It la apparent that to convey verbally the nuances of hla per* oeptlon a peraon needs a precise sad extensive vocabulary# One amy well wonder whether the dearth of determinants found in low socio-economic olasa protooola reflects a "simple" perceptual world or a small and limited vocabulary*?

Bias can play a detrimental role In etudlea of Kegroes

and whites using projective techniques• Psychological exam-

are not neoessarlly exempt from blaa or social atereotypea*

^Albert 0xmaa4 Race In InhiMfelaii (Mm Torts* 1923), PP* 5-6.

5B. Z. Kuratsln, "Factor Analyses of the ftOMtahftah,* immml. of OoiiSttllliM. .f^ehology* XXI? (June, i960), 266*

Clark* and C««pbail a tat* that "-it it a ooamonplaea of aoolal

payohology that mx> impraaaiona of othar persona ara biased

by tha social ataraotypaa which wa hold*"** Tha lntarpra-

tat ion of a Roraohaeh protocol ia not antiraly ob^aotiva

and in tha handa of an obatinata axaainar tha ftoraohaeh

looaaa ita vaiua m a raaeareh tool,

tha purpoaa of thia atudy ia to cowpara Hagro and whita

raaponaaa to tha Roraehaah, Tha aathoda uaad in thia atudy

mm propoaad to aiiminata errors avidanaad in previous

raaaaroh and to praaant a mora aoourata piotura of Jiagro

and whita differences .

Subjeots and Mathodoiogy

fha Roraohaoh waa adminiatarad to fifty-two Hagro and

whita collaga atudanta of both aaxaa* Tha aubjaata oonaiatad

of twalva Magro aala, twalva whita mala, fourtaan Hagro famala,

and fourtaan whita faaala atudanta attanding Korth Taxaa Stata

Univaraity and Taxaa Woman*a Vnivaraity during 1963 « t 196**,

Tha aubjaota uaad for thia atudy wara mil ohoaan on a volun-

tary baaia from tha two univaraitiaa in Denton, Taxaa,

B#«aw@ of thia toathod of obtaining subjects, tfct

tional diffaranoti batwaau tha groupa ha*a *•*»<vetettd*

Motivational diffaranaaa W m m groupa tatva sometimes .bvmigfet

about arrom in aanaiuaiona of other atudiaa. "Awtim tha

^Sobart 1* Clarka tad Donald T* Campbell, "A S«WHI* atnrtton of Bias in Zatlmatea of Vagpo Ability," 2g& Journal St Abnomal and SooUl Riyahology. M (Hove«b«r,

ttott serious single souroe of error la intellectual «easure~

mmt can be described under the general heading of not ivat ion

in the test situation/^ Motivation alao play* an important

role in personality Measurement, An individual who has no

desire to take the Rorschach will be very unproductive in

responding,

The Horsohach mm administered to each subject In a

room where the subject could feel at ease and be without

the distraction of other people, There was an informal

atmosphere for all subjects and the following instructions

were given*

You will be given a series of ten eards, one by one* The carda have on them designs made up out of ink blots* X-ook at each card, and tell the examiner what you s m on eaeh card, or anything that might to# represented Look at eaeh card m long as you Ilk#? only to# sure to tell the exam~ iner everything that you see on the card as you look at it. When you have finished with a card, give it & to tto# examiner m a sign that you m m through with It*

The examiner remained completely aft#* the

instructions were given and recorded the #ntlv# test of the

subject's ttitrntnt# eonwrning the ink blots*

It is this absolute assurance that there will be no evaluation* no interpretation, no probing, no personal reaction by the counselor, that gradually pernlts the olient to experience the relationship as on# in which all d#f#mat« tan be ditpttuM withr-is relationship in which the client feels, "I can be the real toe, no pretenses. -9

7Kadley, g£* clt>« p* 39^*

8s* J. Beck, Bra#tttoa*b,i Test* Bmii. grottsiti (Hew York, 1950)# P* 2.

%arl Rogers, 1M»1SC, (Boston, 1951), 208-209»

By accepting all reaponaea to the Ink biota on the

aau# level and without evaluation, the subject reduces the

tendency to give only thoee reaponaea which ere believed to

be approved of by the examiner.

Definition of Terms

Bach record «aa divided Into three major divisional the

location of the reeponee, the determinant of the response

and the content of the rtapoM** If the subject attenda to

all portions of the blot figure in making a response, w la

•ooved* B responses rtlat# to certain portions in each

Ink blot figure that are moat commonly selected and responded

to. Different factors operate to favor one or another

detail« *Siae# poeltlon, and spaoe rhythm play rolea of

varying importance*'*1'0 The Dd responses are made to oertaln

portlona of the card, not attended to regularly In any con-

siderable number of records• Detail and rare detail responaea

mm listed in ietk'e first volume.*1 spaoe reaponaea, (S)

refers to thoae reeponaea M a when "the person perceives a

white space aa aonethlng with meaning* whether in connection

with another detail or by lteelf."12 Reaponaes which were

determined by the form or ahape of the ink on the cards are

10Beck, ogi, oit,. p* 2%, uIbld. pp. 15T-W* 12Xbld. p. 41.

8

referred to as f responses and mm scored P+ if

perciepf® having good form mA &mm& F*» If

percepts having poor form, Kovwwmt responses (K) are

thou# in tfhloh the subject peroelvee human movements or

activities in the card, "The response, as Rorsohaah under-

stands lt# realty reproduce# movements or activities that a

la carrying on iclthln his mental llfe.*1^ 98 responses are

determined mainly by the form with the color having a slight

influence, Whan a response la saored 09 the color of the

blot had a greater influence than the form although the

form was alao involved in the perception, A response

determined entirely by the color of the blot, the for®

having no influence, is scored C.

The fC represent feelings which make for an effortless and adefuata caret iaml adjuetment to others because the individuals feelings have been socialized properly* At the other extreme, the 0 Indicate impulsive, exclusively self-centered feel-ings with a disregard for other peoplefs needs, possible reactions, and rights . ft» CP point to feelings which are self-centered and labile, but still dttpligraM** at least intellectual, consider* ation for others * The average adult la expected to produce no pure color responses# andLt«iaa as aany form-color as color-form responses,14

There are nine scoring symbols In ths light-determined

category. These responses are scored in a similar manner as

13Beck, gg,* glS.,, p. 24, *| |i

* James Brussels Kenneth Hitch, and ly«int Fietroweki, 4 jtritteisti Traliiim ttanyiil.. (Hew York, 1950), pp, 66-67

9

the color responses Just described. The symbol# for these

responses mrnt f, *F, ff# ¥t V?, t?#. f# ft, arid IT. * Is

& response to shading, V Is the perception of a three-

dlwenslonal effsct, and f it scored when the subject

perceives the ink blot as having tmctuvt*

Beok uses & number of synbols to represent the content

on a Rorschach protocol.1^ two of the aore frequently used

ar@ the symbols for hutaan responses (H), and for anltsal

responses (A). Popular responses <P) refer to any of the

twenty-one statistically based responses which are perceived

most frequently, Thess responses and the cards on which 1

they can be found are listed In &eck*s first volume.

f!» pyabol T/%« refers to the average tint# it t«ks#

for the subject to make a first response after being handed

the card and #R is the symbol used for the total number of

responses . Experience balance is the relation between the

total nuober of scored novansnt rutspowse§ and the total nun«

ber of scored color responses. All movement responses have

the value of one. Color responses have the following values«

C 1.5* CF 1.0, and PC 0.5.

op. clt». pp. 217~221<

*%bld.> PP. 208-211.

CHAPTER II

RELATED $f®SS

Kllneberg could find little evidence for marked person-

ality differences between Negro and whites m interpreted

fro® experiments and test material,

The difference* between Negro and white per-sonality aa reflected In testa and experiments seea not to fea marfanl* There Is » incomilataiMiy in the findings, and significant differences are rare. This Is undoubtedly due in part to the nature of the tavta* probably also to the tm% that a sub-stantial similarity in cultural backgrounds results in a corresponding aivlltrtty in the raapovuHMi to the tests* we can only repeat that the ob-tained through the use of tests cannot be wore valid than the test used sad that completely satisfactory research in this field will have to wait until pay-«holo$i«ta have devised more ade^ate m m u m * for the study of mmmsaltty*1

It m w inferred that lore adequate p$m®aallty measures would

elicit more conelatency In studies Involving personality

differences* Although the Rorschach technique has aowi

faults, it Is considered by aany psychologists aa the most

adequate instruaent of personality measurement that haa yet

been devised.

(He» *orkKli^4f*p C^arOBterlatloa of SJj® ftatglfBt »«mro

10

11

Mjrrdal stated the Inpreaeloa that nil Vegroes exper-

t««M a conflict feaoanse of their oolor.

If the dark Negro accepts the white Man*a evaluation of skin color, he aust ataap hlaaelf '«i inferior. If %M light Megre accepts Ihlt evaluation, he places hloaelf above the darker -Hegroee hut beloa tha whites•.* The conflict produces a personality profelea for «vii7 single Wegro# And fa* XAgroti acoompllth m entirely stftseessful adjustment ,8

Virwr also holds to the conviction that solar haa m

influence in Negro personality development*

While «e do not elala that eolor evaluation! hsvs a greater influence than some othar factor* la developing negro personality, m da insist that social mn%twmtw organised around oolor greatly affaet thia development aad that all Hsgroes, By Uflai In the frmfimn Xag*o ayataa, are forced r to a#|»a% theaeelvea to evaluatioaa of this aort,-5

Warner believed Kagroaa of superior quality to tea nore

aaara of tha dlffaraaoaa between Hegro and white liberties

and mere affected by thla awareness *

Tha aors intelligent and sensitive, tha nora oultured and refined a iagro ©ay be, the nora oompletely ha aaalmllatea and transmits tha national Ideals, tha aors serloualy Is ha made to faal that his not, and raoa alone, bare him from annoying tha full rights of Amerlaan oltisanehip4 Tha paratfo* la made expliait for him in tha disparity ha mwmt ' . . halp observing between what ha la taught in aahool about democracy and tha "American dream,M m the mm hand, and the aetual discrimination with which ** la Mnframtad on tha other.*

J rrdal, to f&| SUES. .fttfelfB . mm, .Mffwffliwr wsj; >• m*

3l»loyd Warner, Bmford ta^ar# and Walter Color aad Hunan Mature'(Waahlngtan, B.C., im)* p. 7. '

P* 895»

12

In * smeary of hit ease of Kegroea, Warner

statee ttiati

In the om« atudlee analysed 1ft ttm foregoing chapter# ttit influence of color on personality has btm eonalatently eaphealsed with mmpmt to iflttlooi both within the Hegro world and between the raoti* Certain clear lopllcattons have eaerged. they indicate both the foree of oolor as * factor In the social and econoraie situation of Negroes and also equally marked limitation* on the dots**-Inanoa of this factor In personality formation,*

Karon used the fomklns-Hom Picture Arrangement feet in

a designed to reveal Negro and whit# dlfforeneea m

wall as the causes of these differences. Hi hla conclusion

It mm stated thati

It was possible to dealgn a program of research whleh would M l onlj assass the sta-tistical algnlfleaoea of tha findings* hut also ' dater«ine whether these same findings would reomr

. consistently from expsrtaant to experiment, whleh <' would dateiwtise wither the differences between . negroes and whit** mm tiered!S«*f, sr the reeu.it of the caafce sanctions# and whleh ifould exclude ' the possibility that the dlffs*snces In personality «l#tt he attributed to and of the plausible tits**-

, . native explanations. It hm bam clearly established that tm taste

aiinetlona have m effeot upon the personality struc-tures of the people who feel them, and that this effeet is reflected in eleven characteristics * Tha faot that iiothsrn Negroes differ from southern »«§roet on preelaely the sane characteristics and In the sane

• way as do northern whltea served to eliminate the possibility that these traits represented hereditary differences between Negroes and whltea* thus# the caste sanction® not only have an effeet upon person-ality, hut these effects are sufficient to account for tha differences In personality between legroe# and whites #&

^""1,, P, 293.

W t w m swon, 8SSE2 m w i w («•» York, 1958), p, 171•

13

Individual* are wad® m of mm& dynamic interacting

variables. Mo one can be juat white or Juat a Negro

because being of a certain race la Juat one Interacting

variable of the total self, but an Important factor

because of the great influence on the behavior and thinking

pattern of the individual. The Megro'a concept of a Kegro,

•nd the perception of himself as a Megro, has an important

pert to play in his personality development,

Gray inquired vocational preferences of 800 Megro • .

children in the first to six grades. These results were

compared with the responses given by white ohlldren obtained

by Boynton, The Megro and white girls gave similar prefer-

ences but the Megro male voiced more interest in professional *r

occupations than the white male.

In 1939* Sicha made a study of the Rorschach "Krlebness-

Typua" or M to C ratio using 100 white and 100 Megro subjects,

His finding was that both groups were more extrotenalve than

introveralve and Megroes were more extrotenslve than the 8

whites• Mo findings were presented other than this and

there was no other interpretation to the findings*

7Suaan Gray, "The Vocational Preferences of Megro School Children," & Q«nstle ftwrtiology. IOCIY ( i W , S39-t%?*

H. Sicha# #A Study of Rorschach Erlebnesa-Typus of Comparable White and Megro Subjects,* unpublished master's thesie* I/epartment of Psychology, Columbia University, 1939.

' . r ; - ^

' * i - :

.1 •

' 1

' V ' , " , !,•

-I-"' •>

1%

aavl* m%Honed the result# of * study whieh would

give evidence that dlfferense* b*twe*n negroes and white*

are due to environmental faotor**

During the First World W W t h e A**y testers found that Segro recruit* from the Sorth ware superior to Mfcgroes fro® the South and that Megroes

' from certain northern atat** were euperior to white* f w » certain Southern statu •*

Davie aoneiuded that there mm mmmmUe different* Segroes and whites* rn iwplle* that then# dif*

ferenees are due to tooth envlromaental and bewidltary fa®tors with emphasis m the environmental factors. .. •

, m oonaluaioit* one e*n **y that there is w>'// ' proof that Vegro** and white* are inherently*to# . same* So «awy nonracial faetora enter into tb* v:-"-results that m definitive tester ©serges#

. - over, it 1* doubtful whether the MMt»l~t*ftl*lt - v.:/;r

• ' will ever lead ltaelf to any swurtiw:;-/ - of native difference® between the group* fh© • •• • i»esp#iwihilitF for tto* dlftmmmtm has ttlU t« v

: tot divided between the two general faetora of ,: ;; ;; • / heredity and emvironsent• So far «• heredity,. _ -

.'«bi«h 1* a biologies! faetor, i t It <\/. • • la at bottom a aattar of individual family

mot of raoa# whtiti la an arbitrary elj#*l£liat|ott:f. '•'••• that l*» heredity i« e«vrl*d by §©*elfls , • and la family lines, not by aoeiai group** «*»f T;

are superior and inferior strains: in #v#» of people*, wli*th*r by mm or nation or oil**#. • What tto average moldenee of herttliary tmtfm ;, :• may b#»- is not known* A* to the anvi*,oafii#»i#1. factor* it has been eiearly derotastrated that -y

and ©ultural eaiu&itlonlns aff*et the •.. stores* There *r# ©artced differences dapaftliig

upon variations in background* to eompared wttfe• , the white1*, the Hegro 's aoolal background

; - , inferior, and in t*i** of w ^ f v « e n t o f t h « t g t - "Measured by the test*, the iegro 1* on tto* averti*-

. • inferior, but as the environwnt of the Megro approx-• ' i«ate* m®m and wore- eloeely that of the white, hi*

mferiority tends to disappear*1"

S!Aairto» IWU, ISBSm iB iMtflifim SfflitlX {»•« *01?k* 19*9), P. 372.

l°Xbl<i„ p. 373.

s

15

In 196®* Katz w& Qohm found that male Jltgr© college

students gave fewer correct mmmm to pmblmm when working

with a whit® teammate thm when working alone, ft* efficiency \

of the whites was not found to decline in the presence of a \

*egro, These finding# may suggest that whites have a greater

influence on the behavior of ttegroea than Negroaa haw ©n % 11 ^

whites.

In Dreger and Killer1a review of comparative studies of

Begroee and whltea in the United States it wm reported that

Muaaen'a study using the TAT and moat investigations using

Rosetu&welg's Picture Frustration Study Indicate that there la

a tendency for Megroee to project wore aggreaalve reaponaee It

than do whltea*

One of the moat controversal artlclea ever to b# pub~

llahed la that of McSurie'a* Long and other inveatlgator*

believed ttcOurk's article to be an attempt "to lay a scientific

baala for Increasing racial discrimination in the United

Itat#®*"1^ la the article McOurk statea i

• far as ovr lciiowlada* of the problem go@@, the improvements In social and aeonomle opportunities have only Increased the differences m%mm Kegroes and mitm* This U because aueb improvements have

UI» Kata and N. Cohen, "The Sffecta of Training Kegroes upon CSoopergtive Problem Solving in Blracial T^rnm^ S£ urnr I May , ig62)7SF$25^

12Ralph Dreger and Kent Miller# "comparative fisyebo-logical Stwtle# of Btgrottt and Whltea in the United States," The fsmtrnlmiml miimM* V9U (September, i960), 376,

^Howard Long, "The Relative fcwrniiM Capacity of Sfcoroea and Whites,n Journal. Ml Meiirt. M I M i ®WX ©ring# 1957)»

16

been given to tooth rftoUl groups—not only to the Magr0t*«HH)6 the whites have {Wof&M mora fro# the®**# a fruitful approaeh to raelal ©quality cannot follow the lines of social and eoonoato manipulation, There is something wore important, aaore baeic# to the ra$* problem then differences in external opportunity,14

Another attempt to ley a baals for racial dleorlmlnatlon

la that of ®^org«#a# file w o r t « n praptrad W oommlaeloa

of tl» Sotimi* of Alabama In m effort to gift evidence that flB@

United States Supreme Court*e ruling on the school Integration

oases le potentially one of the most fateful decieion* ever

made by a court*"*5 jn George's diacrlptlon of the Hegro

personality* It is stated thati

These obaervatlona of .pay#hot©fl#%8 regarding Begroea In Africa «*• very to the judgments one hears expressed by Americana who have eeen much of Negroes. Indolence, improvidence, and pauperism are qualities commonly ascribed to them. 7t» aame qualities exists among acme whites, but the Incidence la much higher among negroes. Some of ua know Negroes who are intelligent, induatrloua, thrifty, and dependable) but these are net qualities that char-acterise large nuafcere of the race.*0

It is mtovtmmf Indeed that ao many mmlmm m both

sides of an Issue have the before beginning m

investigation and have a tendenoy to present only that inform

nation of consequence thftt will support their ^answers/' It

Is wise to consider the motives of the examiner when inter-

preting any study of Hegro-white differences*

* Grants McOurk, "A Scientist's Report on Earn Btimmmm PnltM Stake,, m m lit pfii. Hasagfe. (September 21, 1956), » 7 W and 92»

l5«e»i»y o*ofgj» S S a . ? W y , s l g i j a Report ftvapaasd by CoswESa™ of tf» governor of Alabama ffnivesntty of Horth (MUPOIIIMI Hedlcal School, 1962), p. U

*

l6Ibld,> p. 18 u-»

I?

Kardiner gave the l&preaalon ©f feting on the "envlron-

mmtmt aldeH of the laaue* There ts evidence that Kardiner

la in ayopathy with the Negro people end hie opinion indlcatea

that aoclaty m a whole la Itaa efficient becauae of the

atreaaea under which %b© Negro Uvea,

We can eusaiarlae the total picture of the peraonalltlea that follow in a few aentencee• ft» Negro, in ooo&HMt to tint white, la a m m unhappy person} lit hi# * hard#** emvtrow^iii to • • live in* and the Internal stotta 18 pfnter# If -''unhappy8 ** mean he tnjeya learn, ht euffera more. There la not one personality trait of the 8egr© the tourct of whleh cannot %# traced to hit difficult living condition#* There are no e*otp~ tiona to thla rule* The final reault la a wretched internal life* This do#® not mmm& he la a wort# citizen. It atrely meane that tot au*t be mm careful w A vigilant, and «Mtt> m v A m l » of which tt» whit# mm la fvet* Thla fact in ttmlf* the m m m % W to exercite tontrol, la dlatraotlve and d«»tim«ttve of epontantity and eaee, Mevtover* it dittlnlahea the total tooial effectiveneaa of the peraonallty, and it la aapecially in thla regard that the aooiety a* a whole auffer* from the internal B % m m m under which ttot Hegro Uvea,1*

Kardiner*a work and thoughta concerning the Begro'e

peraonallty la aunwariaed aa followat

Xa timm auch a thing m a baalc personality for the #®sr©f Thla work provea decidedly that there la. Though he Uvea in Afflerioan eultror*/ the Iftgvo Uvea under apeclal condltiona whloh give thla per-aonallty a dlatlnctlve configuration. Taking aa our bate line the white middle claaa, the condltlona of life for the Kegro are so dlatlnctlve that there la an actual alteration of the pmnmmm to which tat wait adapt, Hence* tat developa a dlatlnctlve perior-al lty» Thla baalc Negro peraonallty it, however, a

*?Abra« Kfcvdintr M l Lionel Overaey, The. (Mam York, 1931), p. Si,

18

caricature of lb® corresponding whit* personality# the Megro ouat adapt to the same culture#

mat accept the sam social goals# but without the ability to achieve than* This limitation In social opportunities aocounts for tha difference In personality totifigurafcten,18

In 19^5 Able used tha fh©matlo Apperception Test to

oompare Hegroes and whites and found some significant dlf~

ferences•

With a white female examiner Abel (19*15) found that both white males and females and Hegr© female® mm more mwmmtmtim on the TAT than Hegro Males# who were of at least equal Intelligence to the other groups. Comssunloat 1 veness was measured by the a o M f of Ideas and the number of words# both of whleh yielded significant differences,1*

When Abel# Plotrowskl# and St on® compared negro and white

morons they found little dlfferenoes between the two groups*

"Out of the entire set of comparisons only one showed a real

difference between the two groups: negroes gave wore II than

whit##*n20

In a study more closely related to the present one#

Stalnbrook and Slegel administered the group Rorachach to

high sehool and college students* They concluded that high

school and college Negroes are leas impulalve# more emotion-

ally stable# and possess less anxiety# but are less mature

21 than high tehtol and college whites.

l8Ibld„ p. 31?•

19]>reger and Miller# o^. fl|.., P. 376.

m M ± - » P* 375. glXbld,, p. 375-

19

tm fait ««tpew##® of twanty-four gagroaa of 2?

different mx« a«a and at **«• mm atudiad by Ooldfarb«

TtMwa taata ateta!atarad by * tniMd ®wmimv mmI

@o@r«4 a#««rti*i® to Klopfar'a Wilted. 4® li»ta«w*tad by

Ooldfarb* 100 pa* oast of tha avfejaata taatad |»v» avldoaa*

of daap amciaty, aggraaaion, auapioiouanaaa, emotional

iaolation, deficient rapport with othara, apathy, paaaivlty,

and eo&plianaa. ll» «§i®a*fe#i that evar nimtf per aanfc of

the aubjeete had m redueed intellectual effieieney and a

eonfliet with ftgftvd to aggreeaive

It Is important that atadiea aging tt» ftmafctah a#

m mmmmh tool uaa %m data of a stogie txnisif mtmv

than ooafclnad data from a group of i»l8«»» Klopfer,

Btek, Flatve«»iel» and ©there, um different symbols in

s®o«ftg;tii# Roreehseh and plaoe ewphwii on different ports of the prototol in their iatarpwtatioas* Scoring sua «ej?y from sxweuisr to essa&M** Silver and sa** found*

Syatematiaally offering and withholding oral rwifis to yoixUtfikl aubjeote fwwt a ssasvilly «f-prtvad population eerred to modify their Rorsehaoh protooola in the direetioa of rnmtm tha« gowNfoftfe longer, more spontaneoua and more ereative, Henever, theee finding# varied f«w aaa examiner to another and tended to eanaal one another *han tha «•** for fiva twiRt-n mm eortinad* the lattar finding ahould mm® m a methodological naming againat

***• obtained by several experimented in an inveatigation.23

22Xardinar and Oveeey, HI,*# P» 330» 23Aibert * * Silver and John Oerr, "Tha Sffeot of Oral ,

6fftftlfta«tleft m Children*a lte»set*»fe Saa**« and Mftfewwaafr-B®twe@« Examiners," Journal £t Clialoal xxx

(July, 1063), 311. A/>"/

20

The motor ©f stmdles ©f American Mmrom mlng the

ftoraehaoh is quite Halted. Klopfer etateai

fh@re have been eurprlalngly few studies of Aaerloan Kegroea with the Roraohaoh, It la aur-prising beeauaa tins Horaohaoh la the beat available technique for evaluating Intellectual oapaeltlea on ft HQulture-freen basis, a baa la not eubjeet to the blaaea aowe inveatigatora feel to.be preaent in the objective Intelligence teat.**

The studies of Hegro and white difference have been

done by exanlnera having a variety of alaa and purpose®.

The purpoae of the examiner for doing the atudy haa, In

seme eaaea, influenced hla oonolualone and Interpretation

of data* ,'

Most of the pmt atudlea give evident# for differences

between the peraonallty and intellectual functioning of

Hegroea and whltea• The peliita of disagreement aeea to be-:

In what areas do Hegrots and whit## differ, how rauoh do they

differ in eaeh of theae areaa, and what are the factora

reaptmalble for theae differences?

2l*Bruno Klopfer. Davolowamtli In £gt Teohnlqu» (H*« York, 1956). p. l3K

emrast i n

AKALY3XS OF DATA

/

the area® whleh % m Negro and white stents

exhibited the *ost slgnifloant differences were spaoe

responses, movement responses, animal responses, human

responses, m m & o m responses, rare details, vista responses,

average tine for the first response, and the total number of

responses. Table 1 shows the scores having the nost slgnlf-

leant difference# between the ftogro and white students,

flftf W f

' RESPQIISt SCORES KS*£S0VX1NI SXOHIFICAHT DXFfSRSMOSS

Group n$ kx& t* A£ T A R #1 #?

Negro % 5 ^ 10.5 53 US 24.5 32 13

White 6 3.0 13.5 m 22.5 12.5 18,5 31 30

The four soores having the greatest variance between

Megroes and whites are Ajf, £$, Bd$ and Aa£«

The Megroes who participated In this study gave a lesser

msaber of space responses than did the whites. The Hegro

students averaged four per cent space responses whereas

the white students averaged six per cent. Using the ohi

square method It was found that in less than one ohanoe

21

2S

in tea oould suoh a significantly different number of spaoe

response® ooour siaply fey aooidaat * Spm# raspon®#® indioate

oppositional tendenoias, contrariness, and negativism* Ssate

states that ""they raflast an essential ingradlant ^ par-

sonslit?# the holding to a purpose/1 The difference t»

total mwbar of space responses given by each group gave

the impression that tha Hagro atudants express lias op*

position than do tha white students. Ability to express

opposition can ba a desirable or undesirable personality

trait dapanding on whether tha individual is standing up

for ahat ha bellevea to ha right or if ha la Juat being

stubborn*

Ftnar movement responses vara given by Vigpo studants

than by tha white studants» tha white atudants gava an

average of 13*5 percent aovaaant ra»po»a»» while 10*5 par

tent of tha Regroea* rasponsas wars scored aovet&ent * This

difference is significant at th# fiva par oant confidence

level* [Hoveaent is a good indication of creative i«agination> V V V y ) r, < , ^

fantasy activity, and intelligence, and is often *aaw-by

individuals who ara not dapendant upon others for an enjoyable

life. "Tha lover one goaa in the intelligence scale, the

fewer the *. n 2/ln Abel, Piotrowski, and Stone's study it

lSmm isaaa (

i m m , Rogaoimehfs Test* ix. lieltfg, g£ m m York, i f W T T T W .

P* 23•

23

tiflUt found that Hegro morons gave mm movement responses

than white morons• The differences reflected In their

study and the present one are most likely Am to dif-

ferences in the subjects being compared.

The greatest difference In response pattern exhibited

by the two groups was the difference In total number of

animal responses. Forty-four per cent of the white students'

responses were anlnal whereas fifty-three per cent of the

Hegro students responses were anlnal. A difference as

this has a probability of less than .001 of

happening by chance alone.

Charooterls t la*lly the normal Individual who produeea a high a£ (say 50 per cent or above) has little Insight Into his own behavior. Be tends to express conventional attitude#, leads a routine existence* aocepts the mores for his group, lacks Introspective tendencies, is not excessively oon-cemed with the future and, In general, Is the "average ® m u in his •ooloMenoala group,

Individuals who tend to develop long records also

tend to produce a low number of anlnal responses and are often

of above average Intelligence, The results of this study show

the white students to have both fewer animal responses and

a longer record, m mm%wed by the number of responses,

given by eaeh group of students wasi white males 36, Hegro

stales 31# white females 39» end Hegro females# 33. The

3Leslie Phillips and Joseph Smith, norschach Interpret tatloni Advanced Technique (lew fork, 1555), P. n?:

2%

Negro males gave fewer responses than 414 the white males,

white females, or Negro females , this givti support to

Ate#l*s belief that Negro males are the least communicative

of the f<rar groups. As was cited earlier, Abel found Negro

males to give fewer words and Ideas to the fAf than Negro

females, white or white wait®.*

The white students gave more than twloe the number of

vista responses that the Negro students gave* According

to Beck, the most important meaning of vista is Its re* 5

flection of feelings of inferiority, A total of thirty

vista responses 'was. given by the white students and thlr*

teen vista responses were given by the Negro students•

A chi square of 4,2 indicates that the difference In the

total cumber of Negro and white vista responses Is signif-

icant at the five per cent confidence level,

fhe Ml® and female Negroes perceived more anatomy

in the Ink blots than did male and female whites, The

white students gave a total of twenty~nine responses

with anatomy content, A total of forty~five responses

of anatomy content mm given by th© Negro students. In

light of the fast that all Negroes used In this study were

living In a white dominated environment, It appears they

may have experienced a hesitancy toward acting out and have

**Dreger and Miller, clt.» p. 376,

Becte, Rorschach*a Testi |I» p, 33,

85

& conscious intellectual control over their destructive

Impulses.

Anatomy content reflects a sensitivity to, awl conoern with* the •xprnstloti of destructive impulses* ?aradoxieelly, those individuals who act out their destructive impulses do not develop anatomy content* the records of en assaultive group are conspicuously devoid of any anatomy responses# However, to tb# «xt«nt that m Individual is »oti~ vated by destructive impulses but is unable to express these digestif he is likely to tfawtXep anatomy content

It cannot be stated which group possesses a greater

destructive impulse. The Rorschach results only give the

impression that the Mtgroea used In this study «#» mom

concerned about this destructive impulse than wire the

whites, Other evidence exhibited by the Hegro students

for a hesitancy toward aetlpg out is their increased •

iwactlen tins to make their first response* The white

males had the shortest initial reaction time of seventeen

•ese&d*» The white females gave their first teapot** to

the cards after an average hesitancy of twenty seconds.

the initial reaction times for tits Hegro m l m mA females

were twenty-four seconds and twenty~flve seconds respectively,

Small details {M) reflect an Interest in minute, often

over-lootod elements, &» abundance of small detail# indi-

cates thoroughness «ms exactness • flu white students used

more of the small areas of the inJc blots in making their

r**pons*» than did tbs Negro students > Ttm mmm$s per «*nt

Phillips and Smith, og> pit., pp* 123-12*.

of Dd responses for each group wast white males 12 per

cent, whit# female® 13 per cent, Negro males 8 per cent,

and Negro females 9 per cent. Phillip# and Smith state

that*

Experimentally, was found to be poaltlvely related to the ability to with-stand atreas In a payohomotor learning situation. Clinically an emphasis on Dd la obaerved to be associated with an intellec* tuallsad and methodical ordering of relationships* It is characteristic of persons who are desorlbed aa eold and reserved rather than war* and spon-taneous • »

The number of human responses given by both the negroes

and the whites In this study was greater than the number H

elted by Beok aa the mean. Of the Negro responses, IT#5

per oent were scored human and 28,5 per cent of the white

reaponses were seored human, The average per cent of human

responses given by each group wast white male 22 per eent,

Negro male IT per eent, white female 23 per eent, and Negro

18 per eent* fte primary significance of human

content la that it implies an interest m and aenaltlvity

to others, although not necessarily r.n Involvement with

others, tfhen » exceeds expeotancy the subject Is likely

to be both sensitive and hypercritical of otbera. The

orltlealneas reflected here may be related to the fact that

all the subjects used In this etudy were young college

students. It is Interesting that the females gave more

7Ibid., pp. 14*15.

Beck, Rorschach's foat.f I. Hilt MmmmM.. (New fork, 1950), p* 230»

27

fll> ro

7 !/• , w

human raaponsaa than fcto# b»1m in thl# study* and tha

ahltat gave mors huaan raaponaaa than tha Kigroei,

Tha avaraga mwfear of ©ontant oatagorlaa uaad by aaoh

group of studanta «aa: whlta male® 10,8, liagro male* 9.7#

whit® faaalaa 12,5# and Ntgro faaalaa 11.2. Tha whltaa

had a wldar ranga of oontant than tha Stgrott and tha

faaalaa had a wldar ranga of aontant than dtd tha nalaa.

Beck atataa that "...tha fawar tha aontant oatagorlas,

tha laaa Intalllgant, or tha lasa Intalllgantly funatlonlng,

th» individual la—l.a., ha la of loir endowment, or anxloua

or dapraaaad, or habitually rigid and Inhlbltad,"

batwaan male and famala mapmmm mm

foual whloh wara In kaaplng with pravloui atudlaa. Thoaa

difference* ara llatad below In Tabla XZ«

TABLE II

MALI AMD FE8U£ EESPOHSE DIFFERENCES

Group Sua C Sum II Sun Pf TAR #R Dd£ m

Male* 60.0 80 2* 20.5 33.5 10 19.5

WaalM 110.0 152 76' 22.5 36.0 11 20.5

Tha Negro and white fanaia students raapondad «ora to

oolor, «ova*ant, and ahadlng than did tha Xagro and white

Roraohach'a Tests XI, p# 42,

28

male students, fh#si> differences give the impression that

ttm female atnatarta who participated in this study «xptrinn®#

a with more vivid emotional lift than do the salts#

The negro and white females gave go** than twice a*

nan? shading responses as the male students, This response

difference between stale# and females is too signifleant to

be overlooked, Shading reeponaes have been interpreted in

a variety of ways by those who have worked with the Rorsohaoh

teohnique and no simple explanation ean be offered as to its

meaning. It has been said to refleet anxiety, self~oontrol,

defenaiveness, oautiousnesa, tolerance, adaptability, and

imagination among other things• Work needs to be done in

this area before aound inferenoes oan be made from shading

responses •

Comparative scores of all the subjects used in this

study are included on the first pages of the appendix.

These comparative soores are followed by the summaries of

each student*s Rorsohaoh protoool.

CJt&fM r?

SUMMARY

This study was a comparison of responses to Q % M $

made fey *••«&» and iMIt eet-%ege student®.

Fifty-two student* w®rt chosen on % voluntary basis f*e« ^ T S W

in Denton, Texas, and m m ai»S,i*t8t#»d

fch© Mymetmh xm mm mm* The Rorschach mm administered

and scored according to the method suggested by Stole, A

comparison mm mA% of the content and statistically derived

scores specific to the Rorschach*' «yw»

It teas hypothesised that there wou d be/\signlfleant

differences between thejjfcesponses of -lisB*e-an nfcfefeft students,

because of the difference in ethnic and environmental factors

which influence their personality formation*

The two groups exhibited significant differences in

their responses to the ink blots. The white students gave

more space responses, movement responses, rare details, human

responses, vista responses, and total number of responses than

the Negroes* The Negro students gave were animal responses,

anatomy responses, end had a longer average time for the first

response than did the whites* These differences in response

patterns suggested that the Negro students expressed less

29

30

opposition* had a lower level of intellectual functioning,

exhibited more control over their emotionality, and had leee

interest in minute elewrota than did the white students*

[ The conclusions of this thesis should not toe generalised

beyond the college student population. $#**£(caution ehould

also fee taken to avoid laateing ta£t*tdu«&. evaluations or Jwdg~

went® on the baa la of these Sfpil A Ittvf* variety of

individuals presented themselves for testing, few of which

could be considered as representative of their group*

APPBHBXX

TABLE ZZX

COMPARATIVE SC0RK3 OF HALK STOJWOTS

Ag*

R , S . 18 H.O» 18

J . D , 18 J .O. R.B. D »H» S .H. H*X« R *8* D ,S . T.C,

18 22 19 18 18 20 18 20

Averaget

M,W. 11 J»R# II B»P« 18 J«M* 21 B»B. 19 O.J* IT J .H. 18 B » f . 18 x . a . 18

R.B. 18 P«M» 18

Averagei

T _ , 5 l

White Male?

61 87 65

n 15

m w i IT 11 19 * 4 1%

5 23 3

5 10 6

0 25 19 ' 22 17

13

5

%

l l 10

vrsns 28 36 5 7% 44 39 26 52

W W AS

23 9 73 13 49 1% 50 25 33 22 37 33

t2 18 0 19

17 83 17 80

6' 61 25 69 28 72 17 67 11 85

6 78

t t r

21 9 *7 22 17 23

0 10 23 3 16 30

33 9 125 6 37 16 0 39 18

17 16 24 4 19 27

22 12 32 t

n 70 f * ^ r y 73 7% '2 85 IS 73

«are *fit I t i 77

TTSf 0 23 0 30 2 0 9 % 4 24 8 £--88-49

33 g 23 8

59 35 10 0 4 57 11 15 52 0 40 20 40 60

3<r-3T—f-$t-0 80 7 to 53

_ , _ 0 52 15 38 62 —$-40-0 -40—10—fO—#-6©-40~

9—4 0

54

°i" I I " i f

31

TABLE rtr

Qmmmftm smwm m mmm mmam

32

Subject Age

FJ t . B*J. P.D# S»S* A»? « T.A. B#F • !>»?• S.N. D.7. *•3. s,s» P.H. J »c«

18 22 t o 19 19 18 18 18 18 22 18 21 19 19

Av t f t f l t t

M#E» sua. L*ft, S »B« L«A» S«B« M«P» L«J • I.I, B » S.D. Of «s» R.N. M.T.

If 20 18 18

ll 18 18 18 18 20 18 W 19

Averages

o n 59 81 1® 23 25 67 85 0 10 A8~J»L .5 13 53 8 2 . . . 6 12

% 63 W W 81 56 52 61

72

88-10-14.^.1. 87 5 I f 2 i

0 43 19 2 68 % 0

6 10 21 I 17 16

17 17 16 18 w

7 2

9 10 16 .... 3 20 ... 5... 2 10 6 12 12

6 4

f C I F W 0 41 30 32 52 0 77 17 10 87 11 29 34 8 76 12 24 24 .9.35. 9 37 U 23 74

.33 ..1.4.. 19 62 -5-9 0 3 . 3 2 | 5 M l 9 0

25 7

7 84 67 33 11 76 13 77 ' ?

65

9 26 JJ 16 8 11

3 37 30 16 - 10 38

.16 .14 32 3 12 35 19 24 21

" 9 34 43 0 23 21 13 9 67 10 12 51 14 8 59 21 11 43

64 71

72 59 66 67 82 46

91 §7 75

t i t 0 22 18 18 0 I f 14 14 14 27 8 14

8 6 0 5 23 10

1 86

S

V 0 15 17 0 12 0 0 29 6

98 3 13 16 WVnBt-tt 95 0 19 23 67 0 19 23 — r r r t r

3 3 0

10 0 4 10 4 6 5

"D" 0 4

f 11 i r i T W 2 1 7 1 1

9 59 10 15 73 0 71 5 41

0 21 71 U 16 36 57

0 64 27 4 82 12 51 18 41 57 7 41 22 15 68 17 54 0 17 83 6 59 6 18 76 16 49 22 11 70

-0- 55 15' f ' W 0 51 35 6 71 4 50 34 15 81

T i r w t r w

~rr 6 14 36 12 13 34 8 56 14 7 .'M 44 14 '"3d 22 2 "14 51

17 -.'18 41 0 ' 25 24 6 "19 17

J9--M .J1_ 5 16 20 23 21 31 1 41 26 F-W 5Jr

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

S3

Student

Sex Mfett Age 18 Class..

tace MUM. Pes Ling c ondit i oris good

L®caticm

W Mi D

M M S s>»

5 1

15 2 a i

Total 26

Dd%

Determinant

p •+ 18 A XI M Ad n

W a Tr 1 F- i H 5

26 Cg 3

fetal 26 9A 2

Approach?

Sequence:

Experience:

W (D) Ddi

ImgitiKr

5»l

C ontent P f

F/f~ F~*f

Sf

M f" PC f

* CFf fetal g6 A°f

Hjf T/Uf

Analysis

I F ~ T

II §«©*

Student H» 0»

34

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

PateD—« 1963 Race tfhlt*

seXMaU Age nft Classwtmmh, Testing Conditionsj

L®cation D od w a

a

Total br

Wfoi X)% Ddfe.

Determinant f* P-II FC CF ff

m

Approach: M D Ml

Sequence: UW»gul«r

Experience: g|g

16 10 8 3 a 1 1 1

Total 4?

C ontent Ar 3 Mu I 0@ 3 8 10 m 7 k ix so a Ft Bte M Fd m It#

3 1 a 2 1 1

F9 P/%" F-%"

Analys is

4&~

W-

c P ? P A G H

T/1R 9 ft

Total %?

Studen t R*

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

D a t e P — . 1 9 6 3 R a c e K h l t e

3 1

Sex Age 21 Class 3r. Testing Conditioris §Q@a

Lscation W 6 D 11

M 5 Ds 1

T o t a l 23

D% Ddf

26 "52

Determinant f * 1%

II CP PC f f

Approach: Ml (S) MI

Se que nc e: l«Vftgllla*

E x p e r i e n c e : 3 )2*5

2 3 2 1 I

f e t a l 23

Content A I

M Aft Ml f r

10 F% % F/% % F-^C 2 I I

Analysis

s% p <f

ttt#S«x 1 FC$f c f ^ t

M a t 23 a#"

J 3 -

T/IR 17 8—1

Student 3». D.

36

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Date3tej»196% Race White

Sex Malei Age i& ClassWim.&h>. Testing Conditioris flotkl

Lecation

W Vm

D M

% i

18 o

Total 23

Determinant

F +

ft e* f§ 0

W o % <7

n e t :

Approach: tf.Dl. (Dd)

Sequence: trrtgulST

Experience: Xig

II 6 I

I 1

Total 23

Content

A 5 Is to Ha I

In M m 80 Ge Ira SI

I 5 1 2 1 2 2 I I I I

F% P f f

Analys is

*0%$X 23

s% p|—22,

FCfo W C F Q i

A% , 23

T/lfl io aa®.

31

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student 3, Q« j)siteMOV*1963 Race Whlta

Sex Kal« Age 18 Class >S1»U Testing Conditioris POO*

Location

¥ D m m

5 23 i i

Total 30

D#"

Determinant

F* 1% k 20 F** 5 III 2 CF 3 ®8 1 90 * A a 2 H 3 1 2 Ff 1 Am 2

Art I total 30

total 3©

Approach: (*) .21 (Dd)

Se que nc e: irregular

Experience: 3<3

Content F% Let

Analys is

F/% 7 4 f - G £

P% 27 M% 10 F c ^ t r CF^~H A% ~

T/1R"

3S

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student ft*

Sex Male Age 22 Cla ss

Date Jftn»1964 Race Ifotfcq

Testing Conditions^

Lecation

W D

DD 08 DdB

T 72

Total 125

6 d j o t

Dd% 33

Approach:

Sequence:

Determinant

F* f -*C H PV CF 0

72 28 a

5 1

Total 125

(«5 (0) M S

Irregular

Experience: 7510»5

Content

Qt B1 PI Ail He M A SH Ma Art,Ad Tv H ftp

Art X*,C1 Bt LB

% Btt Id Al? I®

5 2 1 a t 15 46 7 2 1 3

11 i 4 1

3 1 2 3 3

F% F/%~ F-C

Analys is

s%~is

M% g FC% 6 c p^

Ajg fr

T / i R _ S - l m *

Total 125

39

Student $•. 38*

Sex

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Dateltey .1964 RaceWhite

W%

Age 19

Lecation Determinant

If 0

M

% II 1

total 16

Class Fresh« Testing Conditions Qood

Analysis

J* F-H

MFf

ff

Dd% (vl

Approach: Wt D (Dd)

Se que nc e: lrragulW

Experience:

10 t 2 1 I 1

Total 16

Content

A m B ktl» La, PI Bt Vh LS

F% 7 F/fo I F-% 3 S% 1 ?fo I M% 1 FC%

I CFfo I A%

E%

IS

Total 16 t / i r t t a<»,

Studen t $* H.

40

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

D a t e Race

SexMftl# Age 18 Classgy&gfc»„ T e s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s $P0&

L s c a t i o n V 5 D 13

Total IS

a s D% 72

Dd$ y

Dete rminan t Content f t 3 A 6 p* Q I 3

H 3 3«x , I t t I f c a 1m 2 F - 2 Ltt 2

Bt 3 T o t a l I S Le,X* X

Approach: D ( M )

Se que nc e : i r W g u l W

E x p e r i e n c e : 3*1

F% F/%"

A n a l y s i s

F -%_M s £ _ 0

c s P C Q l

f a t a l I S CF%

T/ l f l S a c .

u

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student If, « ,

Sex Mala Age. If

J ) a t R a c e White

Claasg»Miit>. Test ing C o n d i t i o n s j ^ ^

L@cation

V D

Bs M

4 13

To ta l 24

Determinant

F+ F-GF F0 f f

fir D d ^ l T

Approach: H 0 Ddl

Se que nc e: IrvtgalttV

Exper ience: O i l , 5

1

1 1 I

24

Content

A S W Art Hd,5«x I®

Analys is

P/% F - % 2 a

2 1 2 I I I I I I

Tota l 24

13-P% i-ss

FC^ 5" C I Q

T /UTJ

m

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student _R*H» Pate&#<6-»1963 Race Whit®

Sex Malft Age 20 Class Fresh, Te3tlng Condit ions flood

Lecation

V D

Me 0®

W% 11

3 82

I 1

fOWl 2?

Determinant

* F-fC OF

C M

Dd% U

Approach: (W) D{ (M)

Sequence: Irregular

Experience: X5%

16 5 S a 1 1

Total 2?

Content

A B1 1 An Ad Sex,Hd M My X* X® LB

F-%g! S ^ "

P% i f p/%: % 3 i 2 2 2 1 1

Analysis

Total ST

P%2C

FC?f~ CF?T~

IT/IR"~T!

*3

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student p y

Sex tftelft Agelfi

DateX>»C«1963 Race Whlt>«

ClassPreah> Testing Conditions flood

L0cation

f 0

odi

D% 72 D d O l

Approach:

Sequence:

2 a s T

T o t a l 32

Determinant

f • 1ft A it 5 t

w I F1 i OF 3 M 2 FC 2 Hd 3 m I » 3 n to a

ct 1 A) So 2 t I la %

L* 1 Total 32 fr I 32

CI I m I m 2

(V) D Mi

i r r e g u l a r

Exper ience :%i§

Content Analysla

p frw WfT:

pc^r CF^~W kfW hjTT*

T/IITTI

T o t a l 32

m

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student

Sex

T, C,

Age 20 Class Jr» . Testing Condit ionsJJoOd

L®cation «• 0 a m

Dd5f

H6 sr

Approach:

Sequence:

1 2% 1% 2 1

Total U2

Determinant

F * ?*>•

Tt M

m

Total

m (D) ( m )

twegmlay

Experience: 4:0»5

25 9

1

la

Content

ft» 1 Oe f An 6 XriR % 4 12 K *

Art 2 aq I Ad 3 Ml I la I M I

total %2

Analysis 81

F/% 7A F - % 2 S Q .

IS M*mi)

M% 15 PC% CF^

35.

T Sec ,

Studen t *T#BU

45

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

D ate J a n , 1964 Race Bf tgro

Sex Halt Age 18 Class Soph , Testing ConditIons QOOd

L®cation

V 0

M

% 20

t

t o t a l 26

Jg-15.

Dd.%

Determinant

F * f -

1 MS Fir F f 90

14 6 2 I 1 2

T o t a l 26

Approach: (If) P| M

Se que nc e: iWOgBiftr

Experience: 2:1

Content

A 8 A r t m 0 1 se En**®# #pg? X* Re

12 %

2 1 X 3 1 1 I

Tom 26

Analysis T7

p / r ~ w — P-% 30

s<r p% m M C f FC% 8 CFfo

k%

T/IR XO Sifli

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student

Sex Age If

— — P at e Fob >1964 R ac e MeggO

Class PlMHrtu Testing Conditions

Location

Total 31

w% 16 D?rrr Dd% T

Determinant

f*

Approach: (W) Dt (&&)

Sequence:

Experience:

1%

Total $1

Content

A

Mr

Tv

P> P/%~

Analysis

I 1 1 2 FC?r 6 CF "

Total 31

F - % 2 1 s% 0

A % ,12

I T/1R |J I

I?

Student B-» , ?.

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

DateHareh 196%ace 86gPO

SexUftl# Age 18 ClassFr0ih« Testing; Conditions Oood

Location

¥ 0

f & m i 27

wl_ii

Dd^

Determinant Content

*• I$ A 18 n 2 a a F- $ Cg 1 FT 2 to 3 OF 1 m % m I Fd I

01 I Total 27

Total 27

Approach:

Sequence:

(w) »i C w )

irregular

Experience: 2?1»5

Analysis

P/% f-£~2I

M% P C<f CF% R

™ _ x T/1RJU. lj§&, kNSMIHMMlHMI

m

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student J» H» Date A? ll*lf ftace

Sex Age 21 Class aofft* Testing Condltlons P 0 0*

Lecation

V 3 0 Od 3 m 1

Total SI

<4 W/i D % 1

Determinant

f t

9 m

m Wf n

Dd# 6

Approach: <w) »i Cm)

Se que nc e: irrtgttlar

Experience: 8*1.5

aft 10 I i m $

Total 5%

Content

II, & 4 Ad IS Hd,S«* » 4,1*8 Allj8G An Ma 3c

Analys is

1 F/% 22 F-$T 6 S^ 6 p$f

FC% ft 1 CF% 1 k<f I l l f 1T/1R" 1

total 51

MM*.

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student

Sex llnl® Age 19

J) a te mar 1964 Rac<

Class 3 P* Test ing Conditions

Lecat ion

n o

oa

D% sts in

Dd% l l

8 si 18

f # t » l

Determinant

F* M

FS® m FV 0F 90

0

Approach: f f ) (D) OAf

Sequence: i m g u U c p

Exper ience: g fg

33 a §

X 5 f 3 t

T o t a l 5%

C ontent

A R M 1# A r f d «® f r Sh m M I s Mil CI Ik

Art

t l t

10 1 I a a i a

Analysis FFO 72

F/% P-5TT!

p^" pc^r

CF?f

2T/1R" % 2 X I !• I

fotml 5*

50

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student &• *

Sex ItfelMft Age.

D ot/uly.l9W R a c e«eBTO

;la3#°Ph' Testing Conditions Good

L®cation

ti 10 D 1%

Da I

fetal 25

WS 40

Dd^"^"

Determinant

F +

n m

16 6 a I

Total 2$

Approach: W| (D) { W )

Sequence:

•irregular

Experience: 2i5

Content

A 6 M % 41 i fl i Sh i An § M 2 Hd,Sex % I 2 la 1 tot 1

Total 23

J " # y s

p ^ - « — F-%"

13

T/IR;

%

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student J. M. Date Jul if iQfi&Race u*

Sex Male Age. II QXassSanh- Testing Conditions

Lscation

tf V8 0

Bs M

W5L D^g Dd^IQ

2 1

S5 I 3

TotmX 32

Determinant

* • F» Wf PC M

Approach:

Sequence:

(W) B$ M irreguXar

18 6 I 1 6

folftl 32

C ontent

H A 3c An M

Afc

X 3 x

Analysis

9 7 2

F/fo

fotal 32 T/1R"

SJT 3%

FC?T CF?f

•49--3--0--§4-

Ǥ Sooi

Experience

52

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student B. V, Pat (July lQ6ft Race Ritftyo

L®cation Determinant

w 5 F+ Wa 1 f«r 0 a Dd 1 ft

Totml IS

vlMl

Class JTesting Conditions 0

Content Analysis

H Br

fotHl 15

Approach: M| (3) ( W )

Sequence: irregular

Experience: ot0.5

11 A 8 a M 3

Hd I 1 1m I

A, I* 1 15 LB t

P/% p - g _ m S^ f

M% 0 PC% CF?f

T/1R" .Bug,,

53

Student

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Date J u l y Race*«8**

Sex Hula Age I S ClassFgQfe* Testing: Condit i o n s ^ ® ^

L®cation

i Ws

D

% I 0

total 13

^ 63 Dd/o

Determinant Content

F • 8 4 T f* 2 An 2

M I I 1 Ff X an i FO I » t I

M 1 fotftl 13

Total 13

Approach: V| (D) (Od)

Sequence:

Exper ience : 1*0»5

AnaJ.ys ia TC/«

P ff F-% ay

s ^ B " p£"T K%

FCJT QFF

KF

T/1R 37 g io7

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

S t u d e n t ^ Date July 196** Race thMETO

SEX MAI® Age 22 Class J r . Teating Conditions food

Lscation W € D I

Total 10

Dd " - t o -

Determinant f • T fa CP WT

Approach: V( (jj) (Sd) Sequence:

Experience: 0il#5

1 1 T

Total 10

Content A T

An 1 M 2

Total 10

Analysis j!0

F/%T3 F-$T s Q "

FCJTVT c f T W A% 70

t / i r a?

53

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student K. B, D a t e J u l y iMlRace

Sex WilO Age 18 Class Testing Conditions d3P&

L®cation

¥ WS » M

% 1

40 9

t o t a l 5*

WA d% 74 '

P d S T T T

Approach:

Sequence:

Experience:

Determinant Content

F • 32 I 30 f I 1# 1 F*» 13 A,H 2 f f I M 1

K 5 » 6 90 2 An 1

Art i Total ;.$4 81 i Total ;.$4

m 2 u i eg i W 1 N§ % m t M l

Q M l *ot*i 5*

i w e g a l a r

5fl.

Analys is

P-jT-fB" s% T 7% ¥ M% 9

FC% 4 CF%

A d : H%Tt

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

5$

Student P* D ate July 106» Race ifogro

Sex Hal# Age 18 Class Testing ConditIons

L©cation

V 5 0 28 8t 2

Total 35

wfoii.

D d % Q

Determinant Content

F + 26 I 16 f- 5 » 3 n x Att 4

m i Bt I CF I ti a F* 1 M %

Hu 1 Total 35 US 8

8t 1 fr 1

Total 35

Approach: |tf) PI ( M )

Sequence: iwtpiXw

Experience: %%%4$

P% F/% F-%"

Analys is

Sjf

FCf CF%"

T/lR 1? Sfti

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student

Sex ,Age_y

D ate 196ft Race WhUfr

Class, ffpttflh* Testing Conditionsjtood

L®cation

* ©

M m

w%

Dd %

3 2

•oft* 33

Approach:

Sequence:

Experience:

Determinant

F + *~ C FC if x ft

(w) J>t M

613

18 * 1 1 1 i a

T®t*l 33

Content Analysis

A Art SI f r ft H,Art lid Bt M Aft* Ab 09 li

il t 1 1 € i i 2 1 i 1 l 1

Ff/o - £ P 3% P$" M <fc

pcjt cp t

fot*i 33

T/lR"

m

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student K. J-

Sex wmwi 1* Age m

D ate April 151 Race It#

Class Jr» Testing Conditions .§§24,

L®cation

V M Mft D

WI32. D% Kp D d Q £

% I*

19

Total AU

Determinant

II f + ff F-9C fff

Approach:

Sequence:

f| (D) M l

imgular

11 21 2

Vottl 44

Content

I

M Hd,Pt Art

A Hd RO U 01 a: An 'M Fd Is SI

Analysis

9 l 3 1 1 1 14 2

2 I I X I t

F/f F-% 1Q

P%21.

PC% CF?f A Q [ H% ^0

T/1R 8 Sea,

Total 44

Experience: 3,1 gg

m

Student &•

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

p a t e J*n»X96^ R a c e Vtelt*

SexfftWlIft Age gO c l a s s Tes t ing Condi t ions 0 o o d

L®cati on Determinant Content

\}% d£"

Ddjf

0

D 26 *• 1? t 3 F - 3

Dd I * T 90m X

TotaX 39 F T 2

TotaX 30

Approach: (W) ©I (Dd)

Sequence: IrWMpiXfa?

E x p e r i e n c e : 8:X»5

b » lid S® fr

X I X

s ^ o«r~m m yrw

TotaX 30' p c '% W QF% A j n r

H $ r r r T/lR 3T ^ w «

m

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

St udent S« S» Date F«b,196» Race Whlf

Sex Female Age 19 Class PWltU Test ing C onditions flood

L©cation

M &

0t M

Dd%H

Approach:

Sequence:

I 5 I

Total 38

Determinant

*+ F** CF FC M FX

Wft w

(W) 01 Ml

irregular

XO a I 6 8 a 1 1

Total 38

C ontent

a : s Sc Art B1 Mttifeta*

§ Tr Oft An

Bt* M «#Ay Ls W

Analysis

1 I f 1 1 1 1 1 i I 3 X

F% F/% 38 P-% 2S S$ *4 ?% M ¥1% 24

FC%' 16 CF% It A% m E% *4

T/IR 10 {TEA.

ToUl 38

Experience: 9*7

Student P«

61

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Date May 196* Race

Whlta

Sex m m l 9 Age 19 Class fgagh.Te31ing Condit ions Oood

Lecation

D OA W m

9 t>%n

m T i T

Approach:

Sequence:

28

3 2

Total 32

Determinant Content / F#

f* H M % F/% f- 3 as 4 F-% €F % B1 1 S% FY 4 La 5 P# K 2 H 5 M%

Tt 2 Bt 3 PCfo m i A i CF% tv* t 4a¥ 4

F1 1 A% wr i Bh 1 Hfo

01 1 T/1R Total 32 §© 1

ft 1 SO 2

Total 32

(W) D Ml

Uragular

Experience: 3**»5

1ST

62

Student T# A#

Sex

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Date tt&y 196% Race Whlta

;Age 18 Class Fg&Sti* Testing Conditions QockI

D% Dd%

L©cation Determinant Content

m a f* 19 Re 3 w 6 at 3 M 1 0 23 FC 6 A 12

M I M I B1 1 m 3 Wf 2 Se l

?. 3 W 2 Total 35 PC? 1 Tr 2 Total 35

h a Total 35 Hh 5.

Cg 2 I# 1 Ftt I

?—23- It . 2 y fJl

s.. Total 35

Approach: g j> (M)

Se que nc e: irftkgulax*

Experience: Is6*5

Analysis Ffo &

f/% F - m s Q ?

wf FC<f CFf

20

J L li 12 Seo,

63

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student B» F» Date Mfty 196^ Race WMfc#

Sex f»«&le Age 18 Class fresfa« Teating Conditioris flood

Location

WS_LS-£SL

Determinant

tfi 1 F + 15 D 12 F« 2

1m 1 ** I w 3 CF 1 M It 1? I M

HFX % Total 21

Tosal 21

c a 0 5 -

Approach: V (U) M i

Sequence: tVVftgttlttP

Experience: lil«5

Content

lit g Og g. 01 I Art; 1 An 1

k 6 m a H 1 Ad 1 M 1

1 Pr 1 X« i

Analysis p | Lm p/$__8a F"% 1.g s Q T \ r t / ... i—L p^—IS.

PC fo

1 T/IR ok &»a

Total 21

m

Student I»« P<

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

D ate April Race Whit#

Se#®«»l# Age 16 ClassyrtitSs, Testing ConditionsftQOi

B W De Del

L®cation

3% 3 2 %

Total %3

w# 7 d00£ Dd%9

Determinant

Approach: (W) 01 M

Sequence: lCTVgUlAT

Experience:10*5

20 10 I 3 I

fir

M m rr

war F* €F F

Tot ill 43

Content

I C« Ad Uh Fd Bfc Ab La^Rl m,n\ Ar,Kl Hd A X*

Analysis

9 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 6 13 2

F/% P-ill S% 1

m% aft pcgui; CF?f A O i

t/ir; H%1

fetal %3

65

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student

Sex

JL J) at e 1, o&it Rac e tfhtf

Age IS Class yramh^ Testing Conditions U m A

Lscation

W D

I* ?

fotm si

up

Determinant

F+

II ff

FC

9 2 % 3 I a

Total SI

D c C S

Approach: Mj ^ ( M ;

Sequence: ifethodlCftl

Experience:

Content

k 8 H 6 M % A,LB a la 1

Totax si

Analys is F °/o f/% li P-% is s ^ r ^

10 F G Q f l ^ £L

ii — w

T / I R 23 Si

60

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student V, Date W&b.mhk Race Mhifc* Age gg Class Testing Conditions a^ad

L@cation

f D

M D*

Ma

Wo 11

D d Q i

T 50 6 1 3

total if

Determinant

F# W** M

f t f f f

PC car

Approach: (ff) jj$|

Sequence: iWfgulay

Experience: 14*4

28 13 1H % 1 1 % 2

Total i?

Content

Ar 8© Ab ft 44 E

HI I t I,a A

m la Art Ma Sc Pr ?d

1 I 1 1 4 11 ?

Total 67

Analys i3 61

p-% s?T p% lft Mg 21

CP !& «

! si 19 t /K: i 2 3 1 1 2 3

9 Sufi i

Student F. M M M U t a d U i

6?

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

D ate ftaar 1964 Race Whlf

Sex ywale Age 18 c lass IJjWMtfSUTesting Conditions CtoP#

L©cation

D% Dd.% 1

Determinant

W T 1+ 26 fto 3 0 38 * 7 I 1 Dd ll f 1 m i fis 1 ff 3 m 1 M s 1 IC 1 A 15

m 1 Ay 1 Total 51 I- 3 Bt 2 Total 51

m 1 141 3 w 1 fi I CI 1 m 1 war 1 Art I

29 Total 51 Total 51

Approach: Vi (D) M l

Se que nc e: trrtgttlftT

Experience:

Content Analysis

F/% 70 F-% S% 7

13L M% 17

FC4 12. CF^ A5__JSL

T/lR I

6S

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student

Sex

Lsca t i on

W © M M

Ms

D%~ a

Approach:

Sequence:

IT 31

T 3 1

T o t a l 59

J) a t eJ«a Rac e Whit*

A 8® £L Class .tk». Tes t ing Condi t ions § 0 M

Determinant

10 F + 85 F - 11 mm 1

fC 6 f t 1 It? 1

f 1 0* 2

T o t a l 59

VI (0 ) M l

i m g u l a r

Expe r i ence : 1 3 1 $ 3

C ontent

II 12 A a *

1 1st $ St 3 Ad % X* 1 All 2 F l 2

U»A 1 » 1 Ab 2 11 % Mil 1 do 1

T o t a l 59

Analys i s Fc/ 61

P/ p. t o 1£L

s Q 1Z.

M% 17 pc%_M CF7r~|-

T/lR"

Student f. K.

m

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

D at e »l«y 1964 Rac e Whit*

SexJN*l» Age 19 Class 30Ph« Testing Conditicms flood

Lecation Determinant

w 6 P + 26 Z> 28 ff 5

M i I I1** § M 1 W i

CFV I fatal *3 WV I fatal *3

m % OF 3

Total *3

\1% \k D ° r w Dd5TSr

Approach: CM) 0 M l

Sequence: Irrtgttllf

Experience: Ol4

Content

Bt M Ar A m 01 Art **

1 Jte,A Ife.M Am So tfd

ft a i

i i a i 2 I 1 t t

Analysis H 72 p/%IMZZZI F - o m z

p%15" M%_§" PC% ^ cf^ gr

T/1R n SiC,

Tot*l 13

70

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student

Sex

JUJk

Age 1Q Class

Date April Race

Testing Conditions flood

L@cation

W D m m Me

Wo 1 % *»Q

D d O L

%

i I 1

fetal 2?

Determinant

P* m Wf m FC

Total 2?

Approach: {#) (D) -Ml

Se quenc e: invgttlftr

Experience: 2l0»5

Content

13 20 A 2 » It Tr,Ft 2 Ad 1 M I »t

M 27 CI

Votftl

Analys is

F/% ^ p-%

1. %

1 2 11 %

-i/a

FC%

_ i M% 2.

CF% q

Student

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

71

DateApril 19f%lac

Sex INHMBtl# Age 19 Class Seph* Testing Conditions ftOOfl

L®cation

If P

M s M

\i% \y . Dd%

Approach:

Sequence:

12 56 1 2

TotmX 71

Determinant

f* ff ff CP *e Fit F*» Y *

nay

tf Bf C M )

iwtfala*

Experience: 8sl7

2% 5 a n 10 1 8 1 T 1

f@tftl 71

C ont ent Analys is

4 At» M m ci s Ls 8,11 Ft Ab B1 Bt Rp Ay He W Ma fttt sg Sc

it 8h Afft Fd,Cl

IT

1 § 10 *

1 1 1 I

$

I I w -ii.

T/iR 19 gift**

1 1 3 1 i 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total 71

Student a, a,

72

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Date War,lQ6U Race Wftywv

Sexw<smm1** Age 3Q Class Saab.. Testing Conditions HoM

Dd %

Location

D W

Dd

30 k a

fetal 36

Determinant

r* w* GF

It M Ff Cf

Approach:

Sequence: Cw) m (M) tstmml w

Experience

21 2 %

3 1 3 2

Total 36

Content

la A to Ad Hd Ay H Hh

CI IA fd Kit F1

I I# 4 1 8 I 4 1 a i i a i i

Total 36

" P

•a

FCf~T r* T P # ^ y

J <* CFjTTf A 0/ f ^

17 •L/ Soo,

73

Student L» R,

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

pate Hay 1:

Sexg«fB&I» Age 3.8 da ss

Race

» Testing Conditions Q00&

L®cation Determinant Content

0 21 F+ 20 k 11 W 5 3 n 2 St 1 f 1 LS 2 Mi a M 2 m a C 1 8* I

Total 3* 0? 3 M 7

Total 3* Ff 3 Pl,U 1 f0 1 & I

M * Total 3% A,JU* 2

FA 1 I

w Total 3* D5 73 Total 3*

Dc$,.. IS Total 3*

Approach: (») 0 Cd

Se que nc e: Irregular

Experience: 2*5

Analysis 71

F/% F-%"

SF

M F" FC%~ CF/T

X H

13 8ao«

?*

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student H« D ate May 106% Ract

Sex Age IS

L®cation

* D

M

3 10 I

Total 1*

V/o 21 p f T T

D d % l "

Approach:

Sequence:

Experienc

Class ggoah. Testing Conditions flood

Analysis Determinant

F+ 9 *r I F~ $ l 9 ff 1 m t f I M I

01 1 Total 1% L» I

e:

H B M

i m p A i r

OsO

Content F? to. F/% 7 5

•f ~/° wM S%

M ? T ^ "

Total $

FC% 0 C F J C $

JEL

T/XR" t

79

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student L» A *

Sex Feaale

Date W m 196ft aci ism. fAge *9 class F > 1 h g e sting Conditions

Dd?f

L®cation Determinant

V IS f* 23 p 23 9* 7

MS 3 to 4 M 2 K 2 M f f ? 3

M # I ff s

4* OF 2

fot»l 4* OF 2

36 -&h

Approach:

Sequence:

Experience:

m is) c w )

i n w o a r

3s*

Content

A no Hi »

§# Bt Id CI Hh Art '

%

F# ISf/jT 4p-^"

3 sf % p$"

I Wfc * FCf % C P C * k f 1 H?f Bp/in" 2

Analysis

total m

St-

ML

as i t i

76

Sfrmlenfc S. B«

SOWAR?

D*t« my I

Wmmlm km 18 .. 01— Pmm*fmUm CowUUowi

Losstloa OetsrHittant 0ORt«l»t

Dd 2 FIT 1 A 13 D 1$ t + 15 f3? 1

CHI 2 1 1 H $ Dds 1 P~ 1 M I

f 1 : Ml t Total 2S

Total aa to ta l 22

. '4

Apwoaoh* (*) 01 MS

Soqu«na«t Irregular

Ext*rl«iieet 5*0

Analysts

*AJI

mmomm othm

SfeMsat Mm I...

XAMtion

W * % 1

^ - j w s e -

fla* Feaiale ACT Ccw*lHottt,,,tet(,

V 18 F+ *• 3 ft D 29 M

M ® 1 OF

Total 51 MFC FC

Approach!

Sequence;

Bttarwliiaftt

O ) CM)

IfTtfttlai1

Exp«rlenot» §1%

5

I t I

Total 51

Contain

h km m Be I fi M m at n$km Pr Ls Ci OS Hd Mn

it s 2 8 y I

1 I 1 I I I 1 I

fetal 51

Analysis

f / i l ~

7$

RORSCHACH SUMMARY

Student L. J» Date May 1964 M.m Hegro

Se-x Feraal© Agt

Location Betermiwmt

W 6 >$+ Dd 7 F- 7 0 28 M 6

MQF 1 Total 41 CP 2 Total 41

PC 4 ft 1

Total 41

M* 15 Em HO M * ir:

Approach! (W) D M l

Sequence x . irregular

Expertena@s 7:5

18 Clag« Fresh« Tee ting Conditions Jfood.

Content Analysts

A H An Hd B1 M m ft?

01 In Cg I« Bt Wd

13 7 2 2 1 k 2 2 1 2 1 1 2' 1

Total 41

m ",:&2 .. T/lH' IB

79

3twl«ttt, ZtJto,

RORSCHACH SUJfHAKt

„my,,imi, ,, ll,^»l,l,&m„

s«t m m u ,$m II conditions .fet,

Location i Determinant » Content Axtalyftlft

w D

% 20

Total^

Determinant Content

? * 13 I S OF i ; All 1 F- % ; B1 t

; FT I Art 2 FT I . M 5 m % : la 3 C 1 61 I

Pi l m m g% ; Bt 2

; Total 24

Approaehs V p| (Dd)

Sequences twepilar

0t6»5

80

Studont S« ?<

RORSCHACH SUKtttJH

Pat® Apri l 19&» Raee

Sox Foaalo M® 18 .01 mn F r e s h e s t l o g Condit ion* Qood

An&lyais Locat ion Content

W 3 w* in a i D 13 CP 1 ; So 1

Dd 1 f - e Art I *8 1 An I

fofeal l ? it 1 m. % fofeal l ? Ad 2

Tota l l ? I * I Tota l l ? a t i 0e 1

T o t a l IT M 18 „ M" fg"""

m€ W ' ' w m

Approaotu W B! ( M )

I r r e g u l a r

Exp«rioncot 1 :1*5

f / m ' - W ifee:

81

mmcmm rnmmrn

atudant S> P.

—« »—aia Am.. m Claae_loBluJge« i»g eoMtUofui.j00l

Mftttttl

V 1 D as M T B® ' 1

Total 37

Detenainant

F * ft

3W? M OF

App*o&@tii W B ail

Saqna&oat imwfnl«r

tx.perimm®i 6IT

16 6 1 2 i 6

Total 37

Cariwiit

A H ** Ad An ft m M$tw

?i 14 m m Hd

Analyala

10 6 1 @ 3 1 I 1 I I I .1 I I

® / " 0 0

ToMl 37

8a

Q> 31

D 16 Dd t M 2 W 1

m%ta 20

m m m m swowmr

mt® 1964 . mm . _ SL le tei 18 Clw,

Determlntat

% 3

H IT f+ f-

*©tal 20

Approach! (W) 01 C©)-

Experiences *t0

Coat*nt

Co&dlt loMjgggd,

AnalytU

1 4 M 4? All Fi in

3 11 1 2 t % I

Total 20

? r^i111

r fS' r gi":. r"''sft i

tAH'

8?

mrnomm msrnmi

Studant R« M. Date April 196% ......liggft.

S*x Pemala Act 19 ClMBjasihjOTUng Conditions

Location

0 w M

2 f

Total 31

tffg i

i terniinant

M T ?+ 23 #- I

ItofaX 31

Approaohj (W) D Ml

Setjuencs: U*«gul«*

Kxp*rl*no*t ?»0

Content

H a An a 3* i

: A ii m 3 ; JWI § 1 % %

Total 31

Analysts

m

RORSCHACH SlMIJfX

imte Rar.i964 tea® Jteng®

Sex Petaai® Me 1<

location

w D M

% at i

Total 36

m is..

rf1

Oetaraiisant

P * F* » CP fC

Approach* (w) 0$ CM)

&«quftna«t irregular

BkpmpImmnm 6tl»5

12 I 6 1 1

¥0tAl 36

Content Aaalptl*

a ? Jf 10 F-5T 1 ssr i fir $ i i i

i k Cg Hd M Pd Bt m fotMil 26 TAR

FO: c:

bxbliograpkt

Booia

Beo*' i ^ 7 S i » 3tratton, 1961. , . .

.of rtrstt©***

1mrnml* 3mm®, Kennath HlUh, awl Zygwm* & ftoraahaoh temlslM Manual* third tdttlw, law York# 5§Hi»P!tiiri¥.«rT

Crana, Albarfc Loyal, lata York, Q. »* StacfSrf

- " • c k e S S E , a " 1 °

ml<:l.u°>Aif.'!jgiyi^r*gi^"^^UnaaX^aS Fw<"><>l08y' * "

K»rdl«ier, Abram, w*J U«»l Oveajy, g & agS 2| gEBSSSiSa. Xni fork, If, tf» Morton aid Cowpany, Xno • > 1951*

Karon, Strtrs® P«» Tfat. Mtaw*. PubUahlng Cowpany 7±oo,, I95&T

Kltmtxrg, 0„ ch»raet«rlBti.o» of Q a »ri.a^n SsBo, Hs" YdVlE# HiUPp&P* 19^ #'

Klopfar, Bruno, paffittpytp. J& IfffMtHft* yen York, World Book company, 1956.

MyrdBi, 0., ja American BUssSfi. » « *<**. 1 9 W "

RillUM, tsalU, and Joseph 0. 8«ltl». W A M f.«hnim», Ne* York, Onrne <m« Str»«on, 1353.

itogsra, owi sues-ssseaa. Q8SIB> a®**00-Mifflin COiWW# I w H

85

86

ArtloIts

Block, Willia® £.* "P*yeho«etrie Aepeeta of the Roraohaoh f I S S © l q i 9 i a J D C U t

Clarke, Robert B«» and Donald T. Campbell, • A £fc»on» t rat 1 on of Bias lia Bttlmafei of Hegr© Ability, JH© j g a | L e ,

sai Soeial T»wfiOl<Mak X*X (»ove«S^Tl95b),

Dreger, Ralph Saeon, and Kent S. PiyshologlOil Sttadiee of li®gro@» and Wiitet In ®*s united statea," ftwhoioKiftii. a»i,l®M% v f t i {B#p%mtow, I960), 361-402.

Ony* Suaan, wftie Vocational Preferenoea of School Children,* Journal. o£ Mig l fMC* ^ U9**)# 23*~2*7«

Katg, I ,» and ft* Cohen, "The Sffeote of framing Mtfroei upon Cooperative Problem Solving in Biraeial feaas/ Journal 319^32!, A" 111 1*1^ (**y»

Long, Boiiard Bale, "The Relative Looming Capacity of Hegroee fluid Whitee," Joiifml of Kmem* Bdueatlon, XXVI (Spring, 1957)> 121~13*.

Ho Ourk, Praiilc C«, "A Sclentiat'e Report flf i i « piffe™noe»." g foq l State® and World &&£&> (September 21, 1956) p i ™

$

Iturateln, B. X., "Factor Analyaee of the Roraehaeh," „ g£ gQtttttlfriiM fttyoholtg* n r f (June, i960), 262-

Silver, Albert W», and John Derr, "The Sffeet of Oral Orat-ifloation on Children*a Rorachaeh Soorea and Differences Between Examiner®/' Jovial 2t SMi l i t l . I t l t M g E * XIX (JUly, 1963), 310-311.

a?

Report#

Oeorgo* tfealey Critz, I l s l t y o£ | M f i t t . fowtexaa# (a report prepareaoy oomlaaToifof fMlfemMtaop of Alabama), KteivertSty of Horth Carolina Medioal School, 1962»

Lloyd W„ Buford H. Jtmker, end Walter A. Adaiss, °jm' ~ " " " ' * " " ~ " *

Ctatma

JF w v t w j p w * w * JF w p w - w * mmw *w ** j

Colm and itaMtt Mature** Waahtngton, D» C,# Aaerioan a s s t i <& ^ O T t t u r i i ^ i *

tfopubllehed Materials

Slcha, N* H,, "A Study of Roraohaoh Brlebneea-Typua of Comparable white and Hegro Subject*,* unpubllahed •: ®aeter*» theala, Department of Fayohology* Columbia University, 1939•