SITUATIONAL AND ATTITUDINAL INFLUENCES ON RORSCHACH RESPONSES

Many of the manuals on the Rorschach present data for "normal" subjects which explicitly or implicitly are given as normal reference points. These reference points differ somewhat from manual to manual. They differ a good deal from the Rorschach data obtained from two army populations examined by the writer and his colleagues. Linn(8) also found discrepancies between the responses made by his soldiers and "normals" based on civilian populations. His explanation of the cause of the discrepancies does not seem to suffice for our groups.

An attempt to throw light on the nature of their responses led to a detailed study, in the case of some of our subjects, of each card. This involved readministration of all the plates and was followed by a discussion with the subjects of their reactions. Their comments during this discussion helped to explain why they initially responded to the Rorschach plates as they had. These comments showed that the responses had been influenced by the operation of specific attitudes toward the test and the tester, by previous experiences, and by the educational, occupational and cultural background. They suggest the importance (a) of knowing this background, (b) of knowing the subject's assumptions about and attitudes toward the test and the examiner, (c) of preparing the subject for the test so that he will face it with the proper mental set and without false assumptions, and (d) of segregating those individuals who do not react adequately to ambiguous perceptual objects but who might give richer responses to tonal, manipulatory or verbal materials.

A partial explanation of the differences in the various normal reference points for the Rorschach examination may be that the populations on whom the norms were based differed in backgrounds and attitudes.

Perhaps the discrepancies in the "normals" is one indication of the difficulties involved when the Rorschach test, which was designed and extensively used for the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders, is applied to normal individuals. That which is an excellent tool for categorizing individuals into various disease entities, may require reevaluation before it is used for normal individuals. What may be needed is a thorough study of normal subjects' protocols without the use of present clinical concepts, percentages and ratios. This may lead to reconsideration of the significance of various categories and ratios of responses when made by normal individuals, and to the discovery of more adequate methods of studying normal personalities.