What Is the Rorschach Inkblot Test? What Is the Rorschach Inkblot Test? Search the site By Kendra Cherry - Reviewed by a board-certified physician. Updated May 09, 2016 Many people have heard of the famous Rorschach inkblot test in which respondents are asked to look at ambiguous inkblot images and then describe what they see. The test often appears in popular culture and is frequently portrayed as a way of revealing a person’s unconscious thoughts, motives or desires. The Rorschach inkblot test is a type of projective psychological test created in 1921 by a Swiss psychologist named Hermann Rorschach. Often utilized to assess personality and emotional functioning, it is the second most commonly used forensic test after the MMPI-2 . A 1995 survey 412 clinical psychologists in the American Psychological Association revealed that 82% used the Rorschach inkblot test at least occasionally. The History of the Rorschach Test Rorschach was certainly not the first to suggest that a person's interpretation of an ambiguous scene might reveal hidden aspects of that individual's personality.

He may have been inspired to create his famous test by a variety of influences. As a boy, Rorschach had a great appreciation for klecksography or the art of making images from inkblots. As he grew older, Rorschach developed a mutual interest in art and psychoanalysis . He even published papers analyzing the artwork of mental patients, suggesting that the art they produced could be used to learn more about their personalities. One game created in 1896 even involved creating inkblot monsters to use then as prompts for stories or verse. Alfred Binet had also experimented with the idea of using inkblots as a way to test creativity and originally planned to include inkblots in his intelligence tests. Inspired perhaps by both his childhood hobbies and his studies of Sigmund Freud's dream symbolism, Rorschach began to develop a systematic approach to using inkblots as an assessment tool. Rorschach developed his approach after studying more than 400 subjects, including over 300 mental patients and 100 control subjects. His 1921 book Psychodiagnostik presented ten inkblots that he selected as having high diagnostic value. The book also detailed his approach to scoring responses to the test.

Rorschach's book found little success, and he died suddenly at age 38 just one year after the text's publication. Following the publication of the book, however, a wide variety of scoring systems emerged. The test has grown to be one of the most popularly used psychological tests. How Does the Rorschach Test Work? The Rorschach test consists of 10 inkblot images, some of which are black, white or gray and some of which are color. A psychologist who has been trained in the use, scoring and interpretation of the test shows each of the ten cards to the respondent. The subject is then asked to describe what he or she thinks the card looks like. The respondents are free to interpret the ambiguous image however they want. They can focus on the image as a whole, on certain aspects of the image or even on the white space that surrounds the image. Once the subject has provided a response, the psychologist will then ask further questions to get the subject to further elaborate on his or her initial impressions. The psychologist also rates the reactions on a large number of variables such as whether the subject looked at the whole image. These observations are then interpreted and compiled into a profile of the individual.

Criticisms of the Rorschach Test Despite the popularity of the Rorschach test, it has remained the subject of considerable controversy. The test was criticized extensively during the 1950s and 1960s for its lack of standardized procedures, scoring methods and norms. Before 1970, there were as many as five scoring systems that differed so dramatically that they essentially represented five different versions of the test. In 1973, John Exner published a comprehensive new scoring system that combined the strongest elements of the earlier systems. The Exner scoring system is now the standard approach used in the administration, scoring, and interpretation of the Rorschach test. In addition to early criticism of the inconsistent scoring systems, detractors note that the test's poor validity means that it is unable to identify accurately most psychological disorders . As you can imagine, scoring the test can be a highly subjective process. One of the key criticisms with the Rorschach is that it lacks reliability . Two clinicians might arrive at very different conclusions even when looking at the same subject's responses.

The test is primarily used in psychotherapy and counseling, and those who use it regularly often do so as a way of obtaining a great deal of qualitative information about how a person is feeling and functioning. The therapist and client can then further explore some of these issues during therapy. The test has shown some effectiveness in the diagnosis of illnesses characterized by distorted thinking such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Some experts caution that since the Exner scoring system contains errors, clinicians might be prone to over-diagnosing psychotic disorders if they rely heavily on Exner's system. Despite the controversies and criticisms over its use, the Rorschach test remains widely used today in a variety of situations such as in schools, hospitals and courtrooms. Today, some psychologists dismiss the Rorschach as merely a relic of psychology's past, a pseudoscience on par with phrenology and parapsychology. Authors Wood, Nezworski, and Garb suggest that while the Rorschach is certainly worthy of criticism, it is not without merit. The test's use in the identification of thought disorders had been well established, and the available research does suggest that the test's validity is greater than that of chance.

Online Rorschach Test The Ink Blot Test The inkblot test (also called the "Rorschach" test) is a method of psychological evaluation. Psychologists use this test in an attempt to examine the personality characteristics and emotional functioning of their patients. This test is often employed in diagnosing underlying thought disorders and differentiating psychotic from non-psychotic thinking in cases where the patient is reluctant to openly admit to psychotic thinking. During the test you will be shown a series of ink blot images. Look at each ink blot for a moment, then select the appropriate response(s). At the end of the test your responses will be analyzed and scored, and a summary of the test evaluation will be presented to you. To take the test, click the "Begin Test" button. The Rorschach inkblot test Rorschach Inkblot Test By Peter Reilly, Psy.D. on January 8th, 2007 Share About this test: The Rorschach inkblot test is a method of psychological evaluation. Psychologists use this test to try to examine the personality characteristics and emotional functioning of their patients.

The Rorschach is currently the second most commonly used test in forensic assessment, after the MMPI, and has been employed in diagnosing underlying thought disorder and differentiating psychotic from nonpsychotic thinking in cases where the patient is reluctant to openly admit to psychotic thinking. More Information: There are ten official inkblots. Five inkblots are black ink on white. Two are black and red ink on white. Three are multicolored. The psychologist shows the inkblots in a particular order and asks the patient, for each card, "What might this be?". After the patient has seen and responded to all the inkblots, the psychologist then gives them to him again one at a time to study. The patient is asked to list everything he sees in each blot, where he sees it, and what there is in the blot that makes it look like that. The blot can also be rotated. As the patient is examining the inkblots, the psychologist writes down everything the patient says or does, no matter how trivial. The psychologist also times the patient which then factors into the overall assessment. Using the scores for these categories, the examiner then performs a series of mathematical calculations producing a structural summary of the test data.

The results of the structural summary are interpreted using existing empirical research data on personality characteristics that have been demonstrated to be associated with different kinds of responses. Both the calculations of scores and the interpretation are often done electronically. A common misconception of the Rorschach test is that its interpretation is based primarily on the contents of the response- what the examinee sees in the inkblot. In fact, the contents of the response are only a comparatively small portion of a broader cluster of variables that are used to interpret the Rorschach data. (No Ratings Yet) Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach in Watchmen Watchmen, the blockbuster film adaptation of a beloved graphic novel , opens Friday. The movie's vigilante hero, Rorschach, spends much of his screen time hidden behind an ink-splattered mask. We're all familiar with Rorschach inkblots , but do psychologists still use them? Yes, though there is some debate over how useful the tests can be. Many psychologists use Rorschach inkblots to gauge personality and measure emotional stability. They're often used as character evidence in civil court proceedings and parole hearings and as a way of diagnosing mental illness in a clinical setting.

According to the Society for Personality Assessment, the Rorschach inkblot test is second in popularity only to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory among professionals in the field. Advertisement The inkblot test was invented in 1921 by a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst named Hermann Rorschach. He'd been a longtime fan of Klecksography, a Swiss parlor game based on the creation and interpretation of inkblots, and he noticed that his patients sometimes saw unusual meanings in the images. Soon he'd worked out a standard diagnostic procedure using 10 image-cards, by which he could interpret aspects of someone's personality. Plate V , for example, was almost always interpreted by healthy subjects as a bat or a moth; schizophrenics were either unable to answer or saw moving people in the shape. (The name of the test was misleading from the very start. The "inkblots" Rorschach used were actually his own drawings, not random images created by dropping ink on a piece of paper and folding it in half.) Rorschach died from a burst appendix shortly after publishing his findings. In subsequent years, clinicians modified Rorschach's testing methods but continued to use his original set of cards.

To ensure the images would be identical, the cards were all printed on the same press Rorschach first used in Switzerland, using a secret template. To this day, the American Psychological Association's standard of ethics discourages members from distributing the official inkblots , but the images are easy enough to find on the Internet. The test is conducted in two parts. First, the psychologist asks the patient for a gut response to each card. Then the psychologist gives the cards to the patient and asks him to explain his initial interpretations. In its original version, the patient would then be given a somewhat freewheeling analysis on the basis of his responses. Later, psychologists worried that the test was too subjective, and during the 1960s an American psychologist named John E. Exner used extensive clinical testing to create what was thought to be a major improvement on Rorschach's scoring system. There's been some controversy over the reliability of Exner's Comprehensive System . Some critics have argued that the results of his version of the Rorschach test don't match up well with other personality tests and that they may overestimate the prevalence of psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia and depression.

The test has also been criticized because the images (and the responses you should give) are readily available on the Internet, and so many variables can affect its outcome. Bonus Explainer: Are the inkblots on Rorschach's mask in the movie genuine Rorschach inkblots? No. Artists designed the cinematic mask on the basis of the one drawn in the original comic book . (The inkblots in Watchmen appear to be more ornate than Hermann Rorschach's originals. "In the first place, the forms must be relatively simple," the psychiatrist wrote many years ago. "Complicated pictures make the computations of the factors of the experiment too difficult.") There may also be a legal reason for the departure: The official Rorschach images are still under copyright in some countries. Do shrinks still use Hermann Rorschach's inkblot test? Should they? - CSMonitor.com Do shrinks still use Hermann Rorschach's inkblot test? Should they? Latest News The Google homepage today honors the psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach, who would have celebrated his 129th birthday today. Google of Is that a butterfly? Or is it a woman holding a pair of scissors?

Do you perceive images of movement, of aggression, of abandonment? How long does it take you to respond? Do you focus on part of the image or take in the whole thing? Did you ask if it was okay to turn the card upside down? Are your responses exuberant or restrained? Now, let's talk about why you responded the way you did. Photos of the Day Photos of the Day 01/17 Devised in 1921 and rivaling perhaps only the Stanford-Binet IQ test as psychology's most well-known assessment, the Rorschach test has endured, notably in areas where the science of the mind intersects with the justice system, in situations where people have an incentive to present themselves a certain way. For instance, a 1997 study found that it was used in 48 percent of child custody cases in the United States. A 1999 study found that it was used in 28 percent of evaluations of emotional trauma . Parole boards take prisoners' Rorschach responses into account when deciding whether or not to grant them freedom. Prosecutors use the test when deciding whether or not to bring sexual abuse charges. Juries use it in their decisions to recommend death sentences.

Proponents of the Rorschach say that the subject's responses can be scored reliably and that it provides important information – such as a person's likelihood of committing suicide – that cannot be gained through other tests. They say that the test, when used alongside more formal standardized assessments, can help provide more nuanced pictures of subjects' anxieties and fantasies, their ability to handle stress, their sexual proclivities, and, overall, how they structure their thoughts and perceptions. The test itself consists of 10 cards with bilaterally symmetrical images, five black and white, and five with color. To call the images 'inkblots' is not quite accurate – Rorschach carefully drew each one, with the specific aim of diagnosing schizophrenia. The cards have since been used in assessing the mental states of millions of people, and have remained nearly exactly the same through the years. On its website, Hogreffe Publishing, which has printed the cards on the same press since the 1920s, emphasizes its efforts to preserve the integrity of the scoring system by keeping each batch consistent .

Even today, each reprinting of the plates themselves requires great attention, and is done on what can now only be regarded as ancient equipment, which is carefully maintained exclusively for this purpose, so as to maintain a virtually identical reproduction of the originals. Even the weather has to be taken into account, and if it is too humid, or too dry, the printing process has to be rescheduled. The cards themselves have remained the same, but the methods of interpreting responses have not. By 1950, there were five different methods of scoring the test. A measure of standardization came in the 1970s, when psychologist John E. Exner developed a systematic scoring system and established a baseline against which other test takers could be compared. Mr. Exner's "Comprehensive System" includes about 100 variables, such as whether the subject focussed heavily on details instead of the whole image (a possible sign of obsessiveness), whether the subject saw images in the white spaces around the ink (hostility?), and whether the subject describes imagery of death and damage (depression?). Exner's system subdued many, but not all, of the Rorschach's critics.

In 2000, a trio of psychologists published a review of the Rorschach test, along with two other commonly used "projective" tests that seek to use ambiguity to pry open a window to the subject's unconscious mind. Writing in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Emory University psychologist Scott Lilienfeld, James Wood of the University of Texas at El Paso, and Howard Garb of the University of Pittsburgh, found that a "substantial majority" of Rorschach's measurements lacked empirical support . The authors cited surveys that showed that psychologists agreed on only about half of Exner's 100 variables. They found that the test showed very little reliability when it came to diagnosing depression, anxiety, psychopathy, and most other conditions, with the notable exceptions of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. What's more, some studies have shown that Rorschach interpretations might fall victim to cultural bias. Research has shown that blacks, hispanics, and Native Americans have tended to score differently according to the Comprehensive System than white Americans. And yet, there still might be something to the test. Writing in the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice in 2003, Drs.

Wood and Garb showed that, in addition to reliably predicting schizophrenia, certain Rorschach scores correlated with traits such as intelligence, dependency, and disordered thinking, and that the test shows some promise in aiding psychological research. "The virtues of the Rorschach," they write, " are modest but genuine ." "Paradoxically," they write, "although the Rorschach is held in disrepute by many research psychologists, it has achieved its greatest successes as a research tool." The ongoing disagreement over the Rorschach's validity mirrors the dissonance between psychology's research and practice wings. Practitioners tend to have a greater emphasis on the inner logic of an individual's unconscious mind, whereas those seeking to advance the science of psychology seem to have more thoroughly shaken the legacy of Sigmund Freud and his intellectual descendants, focusing instead on the mind as product of biology. To be sure, there are many exceptions on both sides. Perhaps one's acceptance or rejection of the Rorschach is itself a projective response, a measure of one's tolerance for squishy ambiguity, emotional introspection, and qualitative imprecision. Indeed, it could be that those who hastily dismiss or embrace the test are revealing something important about themselves.

Next up Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox. Daily Harrower-Erickson Multiple Choice Rorschach Test This is an interactive version of the Harrower-Erickson Multiple Choice Rorschach Test. Introduction: The Rorschach Test is a projective psychological test developed in 1921 to measure thought disorder. It was developed from the observation that schizophrenia patients often interpret ambiguous images in very unusual ways. In the test, the participant is shown a series of ten ink blot cards and directed to respond to each with what the inkblot looks like. Because completing the Rorschach Test is time intensive and requires and psychologist trained in its usage, there have been many attempts to convert the Rorschach into an objective test for ease of use. The Harrower-Erickson Multiple Choice Rorschach Test was developed in 1943 for the large scale screening of U.S. military personnel. The first work on the MCR reported impressive predictive power, however later work indicates that scores from the MCR have little value and the test does not appear to have been used for much in the last fifty years. This test is provided here just as historical curiosity. Procedure: The MCR consists of ten images.

For each image you will be given some time to memorize it and then on a following page you will have to pick from a list what the best descriptions of that image is. The original instructions call for each image to be projected on a screen for thirty seconds, this test lets you page through as fast as you want, however it is recommended that you not go to fast. Participation: This test is provided for educational purposes only. Medical or professional advice can be provided only by certified practitioners, you may not use this test for those purposes. Answers to this test may be used anonymously for research. Source: Harrower-Erickson, M. (1945). "Large scale Rorschach techniques: a manual for the group Rorschach and multiple choice test". Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher, Ltd. The Rorschach Inkblot Test, Fortune Tellers, and Cold Reading - CSI Skeptic Authors Steven Salzberg and Joe Nickell to Receive Balles Prize in Critical Thinking June 14, 2013 Forbes columnist Steven Salzberg and author-investigator Joe Nickell will each be awarded the 2012 Robert P.

Balles Prize in Critical Thinking, to be presented by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry at the CFI Summit in October. The Rorschach Inkblot Test, Fortune Tellers, and Cold Reading Famous clinical psychologists used the Rorschach Inkblot Test to arrive at incredible insights. But were the astounding performances of these Rorschach Wizards merely a variation on astrology and palm reading? Excerpted by the authors from their book What’s Wrong With the Rorschach? Science Confronts the Controversial Inkblot Test . Psychologists have been quarreling over the Rorschach Inkblot Test for half a century. From 1950 to the present, most psychologists in clinical practice have treasured the test as one of their most precious tools. And for nearly that long, their scientific colleagues have been trying to persuade them that the test is well-nigh worthless, a pseudoscientific modern variant on tea leaf reading and Tarot cards. Introduced in 1921 by the Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach, the test bears a charming resemblance to a party game. A person is shown ten inkblots and asked to tell what each resembles.

Like swirling images in a crystal ball, the ambiguous blots tell a different story to every person who gazes upon them. There are butterflies and bats, diaphanous dresses and bow ties, monkeys, monsters, and mountain-climbing bears. When scored and interpreted by an expert, people’s responses to the blots are said to provide a full and penetrating portrait of their personalities. The scientific evidence for the Rorschach has always been feeble. By 1965, research psychologists had concluded that the test was useless for most purposes for which it was used. The most popular modern version of the Rorschach, developed by psychologist John Exner, has been promoted as scientifically superior to earlier forms of the test. In 1997 the Board of Professional Affairs of the American Psychological Association bestowed an award on Exner for his “scientific contributions” and applauded his version of the Rorschach as “perhaps the single most powerful psychometric instrument ever envisioned.” Such bloated claims to the contrary, however, research has shown that Exner’s approach is beset by the same problems that have always plagued the test.

The Rorschach—including Exner’s version—tends to mislabel most normal people as “sick.” In addition, the test cannot detect most psychological disorders (with the exception of schizophrenia and related conditions marked by thinking disturbances), nor does it do an adequate job of detecting most personality traits (Lilienfeld 1999; Lilienfeld, Wood, and Garb 2000). Despite such shortcomings, the Rorschach is still administered hundreds of thousands of times each year in clinics, courts, and schools. Psychologists often use the test to help courts determine which parent should be granted custody of a child. It’s used in schools to identify children’s emotional problems, and in prisons to evaluate felons for parole. Convicted murderers facing the death penalty, suspected victims of sexual abuse, airline pilots suspended from their jobs for alcohol abuse—all may be given the Rorschach by a psychologist who will use the test to make critical decisions about their lives. In the 1940s and 1950s the Rorschach was unblushingly promoted as a "psychological x-ray” that could penetrate the inner secrets of the psyche.

Although it failed to live up to such promises, the test still possesses a powerful mystique. Blind Analyses and the Rorschach Mystique Why is such a scientifically dubious technique so revered among psychologists? The lasting popularity of the Rorschach has little to do with empirical validity. Certainly one secret of the Rorschach’s success is clinicians’ tendency to rely on striking anecdotes about its extraordinary powers—rather than on careful scientific studies—when assessing its value. Psychologists who treasure the Rorschach can recount colorful stories of how the test miraculously uncovered hidden facts about a patient that other tests failed to detect. Indeed, the test’s rise to popularity was due mainly to the near-magical performances—known as “blind analyses"—that Rorschach experts exhibited to their amazed colleagues during the 1940s and 1950s. In a blind analysis, the Rorschach expert was told a patient’s age and gender and given the patient’s responses to the blots. From this modest sample of information, the expert would then proceed to generate an amazing, in-depth description of the patient’s personality.

During the 1950s, the ability to make such astounding “blind diagnoses” came to be regarded among American psychologists as the mark of a true Rorschach genius. Stunning performances by Rorschach “wizards” converted many psychologists of the era into true believers. For example, one highly respected psychologist has reported how, while still a student, he attended case conferences at which the famed Marguerite Hertz interpreted Rorschachs. Hertz’s astute observations based on the test were “so detailed and exact” that at first he regarded them with great skepticism. However, the young man’s doubts dissolved the day that he and a fellow student presented the Rorschach results of a patient they both knew very well: "We fully expected Hertz to make errors in her interpretation. We were determined to point these out to the group. . . . We were shocked, however, when Hertz was able to describe this patient after reading only the first four or five responses. . . .

Within 25 minutes Hertz not only told us what we already knew but began to tell us things we hadn't seen but which were obviously true once pointed out” (Kaplan and Saccuzzo 1982, 379). Such astounding performances had a profound effect on many budding psychologists. As a leading clinical researcher observed, “Blind analysis is one of the spectacular aspects of the Rorschach technique and has probably been the most important factor in the acceptance of the Rorschach” (Zubin 1954, 305). Rorschach Wizards: A Puzzle in Need of an Explanation The performances of Rorschach wizards bore more than a superficial resemblance to palm reading and crystal ball gazing, although few psychologists of the 1950s were prepared to recognize this connection. By the early 1960s, however, the wizards’ astonishing successes were beginning to turn into a puzzle in need of an explanation. Research revealed that Rorschach virtuosos didn't possess any miraculous powers.

To the contrary, in several well-known studies, leading Rorschach experts failed miserably when they attempted to make predictions about patients (e.g., Little and Shneidman 1959; see discussion by Dawes 1994). Such findings presented a striking paradox. If Rorschach wizards stumbled so badly in controlled studies, how could they produce such amazing performances in blind analyses? The answer to this question was understandable to anyone familiar with the wiles of palm readers. A Few Simple Tricks Two shrewd commentators of the late 1940s had already divined that at least some Rorschach wizards achieved their success by resorting to tricks. In a clever and sometimes humorous article, J.R. Wittenborn and Seymour Sarason of Yale identified three simple stratagems of Rorschach interpreters that tended to create a false impression of infallibility (Wittenborn and Sarason 1949). The first stratagem was as old as the Delphic Oracle of ancient Greece, whose notoriously ambiguous prophecies were crafted to turn out correct, no matter which direction events took. The Oracle once told a king that if he went to war he'd destroy a great nation.

Encouraged, he launched an attack and was disastrously defeated. The prophecy wasn't wrong, however. After all, the Oracle hadn't said which nation the king would destroy. Wittenborn and Sarason noted that Rorschach interpreters resorted to a similar tactic, delivering “ambiguous phrases or esoteric Rorschach clichés which can be given almost any specific interpretation which subsequent developments may require.” Second, Wittenborn and Sarason observed, Rorschach adepts sometimes ensured their success by including several inconsistent or even contradictory statements in the same interpretation: “One or the other of these statements may be employed according to the requirements of the circumstances. Such resourcefulness on the part of the examiner is often ascribed to the test itself.” Third, Wittenborn and Sarason observed, Rorschach experts sometimes enhanced their reputations by giving impressive interpretations after they learned the facts of a case: “Some clinical psychologists, when told about some clinically important features of a patient, say, `Ah, yes.

We see indications of it here, and here, and here.'” Despite the tricks described by Wittenborn and Sarason, however, it’s difficult to believe that all Rorschach wizards of the 1940s and 1950s were conscious fakes. The explanation is almost certainly more complicated than that. But before proceeding further, we'll pause to discuss the psychology of astrology and palm reading. The Barnum Effect In the late 1940s, psychologist Bertram Forer published an eye-opening study that he called a “demonstration of gullibility” (Forer 1949). After administering a questionnaire to his introductory psychology class, he prepared personality sketches. For example: “Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations.” Forer asked the students to rate their own sketches for accuracy. The students gave an average rating of “very good.” More than 40 percent said that their sketch provided a perfect fit to their personality.

The results seemed to show that Forer’s personality questionnaire possessed a high degree of validity. However, there was a diabolical catch: Forer had given all the students the same personality sketch, which he manufactured using horoscopes from an astrology book. The students had gullibly accepted this boiler-plate personality description as if it applied to them uniquely as individuals. Although the statements borrowed from the astrology book were seemingly precise, they applied to almost all people. Following the eminent researcher Paul Meehl, psychologists now call such personality statements “Barnum statements,” after the great showman P.T. Barnum who said, “A circus should have a little something for everybody” (he’s also credited with, “There’s a sucker born every minute”). As Forer had discovered, people tend to seriously overestimate the degree to which Barnum statements fit them uniquely. For example, students in one study who were given Barnum statements disguised as test results responded with glowing praise: “On the nose!

Very good"; “Applies to me individually, as there are too many facets which fit me too well to be a generalization.” Astrologers and Palm Readers Astrologers and palm readers have long used Barnum statements (along with a few other stratagems) to create a false impression that they know the personality, the past, and even the future of people they've never met. The name for such bogus psychic practices is “cold reading” (Hyman 1981; Rowland 2002). Skillful cold readers apply the Barnum principle in many ways, for example by spicing their readings with statements like these: “You're working hard, but you have the feeling that your salary doesn't fully reflect your efforts"; and “You think that somewhere in the world you have a twin, someone who looks just like you.” Such statements appear personal and individualized, but in fact are true of many American adults. After being warmed up with Barnum statements, most clients relax and begin to respond with nonverbal feedback, such as nods and smiles. In most psychic readings, there arrives a moment when the client begins to “work” for the reader, actively supplying information and providing clarifications.

It’s at this critical juncture that a skillful cold reader puts new stratagems into action, such as the technique called the “push” (Rowland 2002). A psychic using the push begins by making a specific prediction (even though it may miss the mark), then allows feedback from the client to transform the prediction into something that appears astoundingly accurate: Psychic: I see a grandchild, a very sick grandchild, perhaps a premature baby. Has one of your grandchildren recently been very sick? Client: No. I. . . . Psychic: This may have happened in the past. Perhaps to someone very close to you. Client: My sister’s daughter had a premature girl several years ago. Psychic: That’s it. Many days in the hospital? Intensive Care? Oxygen? Client: Yes. By using the push, a cold reader can make a guess that’s wildly off target appear uncannily accurate.

The push and other techniques are effective because, by the time the cold reader begins using them, the client has abandoned any lingering skepticism and is in a cooperative frame of mind, thereby helping the psychic to “make things fit.” Intriguingly, scholars who have studied the psychology of palm reading and astrology agree that although some psychics are conscious frauds, many sincerely believe in their paranormal powers. For example, psychologist Ray Hyman, professor emeritus at the University of Oregon, published a classic article on cold reading in the Skeptical Inquirer in which he described his own saga as a palm reader (Hyman 1981). While in high school, Hyman was originally doubtful about the validity of palm reading. But after trying it himself, he became persuaded that it could work magic, particularly when he received a great deal of positive feedback from clients. He became a fervent believer in palm reading and made a “side” living from it for some time. Then one day a friend suggested that Hyman provide his interpretations backwards, giving clients interpretations that were exactly the opposite of what the palm reading textbooks suggested. To Hyman’s amazement, the “backwards” interpretations were received equally well (if not better) by clients.

This sobering experience persuaded him that the “success” of palm reading had nothing to do with the correctness of the interpretations. As such cautionary tales illustrate, Barnum statements can fool both the client who believes them and the naïve psychic who believes the client. Rorschach Wizards: Three Explanations Having taken a detour into the realm of astrology and palm reading, we're ready to return to the land of Rorschach wizards. Let’s begin by considering three plausible explanations for the spectacular performances of the Rorschach virtuosos of the 1950s. First, it’s possible that these Rorschach wizards possessed a special clinical insight, a heightened intuition, that allowed them to surpass ordinary human limitations. Drawing on their unique clinical talents and their experience with thousands of patients, they developed an uncanny skill that allowed them to extract unexpected insights from inkblots. Of course, this is the view that Rorschach devotees have generally preferred. Even today, many psychologists exhibit an extraordinary faith in the powers of clinical intuition. However, belief in the intuitive powers of Rorschach wizards is difficult to reconcile with the revelations of research.

As we mentioned earlier, when the supposedly extraordinary insight of Rorschach experts has been tested in rigorously controlled studies, results have been disappointing. Given such findings, it’s implausible that the Rorschach wizards of the 1950s were possessed of extraordinary clinical insight. Thus, we have to consider a second explanation for their extraordinary performances: Maybe they were frauds. Thanks to the shrewd article by J.R. Wittenborn and Seymour Sarason of Yale that we discussed earlier, there’s little question that some Rorschachers of the 1940s and 1950s used tricks that lent the test a false impression of infallibility. However, it’s extremely unlikely that all Rorschach wizards of the era were conscious frauds. Several prominent Rorschach experts, such as Marguerite Hertz (whose interpretive skills we described earlier), were known to be people of high integrity. Thus we're led to a third explanation: The uncanny Rorschach wizards of the 1950s were probably cold readers who, like the young palm reader Ray Hyman, were deceived by their own performances.

The Rorschach Wizard as Cold Reader If blind diagnosis with the Rorschach was really just cold reading, how could it have worked? A Rorschach wizard about to give a blind analysis usually has access to much more information than do most fortune tellers. First, Rorschach responses usually contain valuable clues regarding a patient’s intellectual capacity and educational level. Furthermore, many responses provide hints regarding the patient’s interests or occupation. As an interesting example, the Rorschach analysis of Nobel-prize-winning molecular biologist Linus Pauling has recently been published (Gacono et al. 1997). Here are a few of his responses to the blots: “The two little central humps at the top suggest a sine curve. . . .” “This reminds me of blood and the black of ink, carbon and the structure of graphite. . . .” “I'm reminded of Dalí's watches. . . .” Even non-wizards can guess that the person who produced these Rorschach responses was well educated in mathematics ("sine curve”) and chemistry ("the structure of graphite”), and probably had broad cultural interests (the reference to artist Salvador Dalí).

Besides such clues contained in the Rorschach responses, other sources of information are often available to a wizard. The fact that the test results come from a particular clinic or hospital can be informative. For example, if the test comes from an inpatient psychiatric unit, the chances are high that the patient is suicidal or out of touch with reality. Thus, the Rorschach wizard who undertakes a “blind diagnosis” is often in possession of a wealth of information that would make a palm reader envious. In the early part of the diagnostic performance, this information can be fed back to the listeners in classic “cold reading style.” For example, with Linus Pauling’s Rorschach, the reading might begin: “Hmmm. This is obviously a very bright individual. Well educated, a `cerebral' type. Focuses on thoughts, probably avoids reacting to events in a purely emotional way. I have the impression of a scientist rather than a business person or artist, though I do see some artistic tendencies.” If the Rorschach comes from a particular source—for example, a therapist who works with moderately troubled clients—the wizard can use appropriate Barnum statements.

For instance, here’s a safe statement that fits virtually all clients one way or another: “This patient’s emotions tend to be inconsistent in terms of their impact on thinking, problem solving, and decision-making behaviors. In one instance thinking may be strongly influenced by feelings. In a second instance, even though similar to the first, emotions may be pushed aside and play only a peripheral role. . . .” This statement, based on a recent Rorschach text (Exner 2000, 87), might well have come from Bertram Forer’s famous astrology book. Notice that the statement merely says that the client’s thoughts sometimes control his feelings, but that his feelings sometimes control his thoughts. Although the statement appears to be saying something important and specific, in fact it applies to virtually all therapy clients (and probably virtually all readers of this article!). Such Barnum statements are apparently still taken seriously by many psychologists today, judging from the large number of Rorschach books that are purchased each year. Thus we can be fairly sure that when Rorschach wizards of the 1950s spouted similar phrases during blind analyses, their colleagues thought something important was being said.

Once the listeners were “warmed up” by such apparently profound insights, the Rorschach wizard’s job became much easier. Abandoning any initial skepticism, listeners probably began giving subtle or not-so-subtle feedback by nodding or smiling. The wizard could use this feedback as a guide for making increasingly precise statements. In all likelihood, wizards probably used something like the push, described earlier. For instance, here’s a hypothetical example of how the push could be used Rorschach-style: Wizard: There are signs of a very severe trauma, it could be recent. Perhaps a rape? Or a violent assault? Listener: No. She . . . Wizard: This trauma may have happened in her teen years or even earlier. She may be repressing it so she doesn't remember. Listener: She was in a severe car accident when she was only eight. Wizard: I think that may be it. She and people she loved were badly injured? Listener: Yes. As this example shows, the push can place the Rorschach wizard in a "win-win” situation. If the long-shot guess is correct—for example, the patient has actually been raped or assaulted—then the wizard’s prediction may seem miraculously accurate.

In contrast, if the guess is incorrect, the wizard can re-interpret it so that it seems “close"—or claim that the trauma occurred but that the patient has repressed the experience! As Ray Hyman pointed out, a cold reader can be entirely sincere. Professional cold readers even have a term, “shut eyes,” to describe individuals who engage in psychic cold reading while sincerely believing in their own paranormal powers. Similarly, most Rorschach wizards of the 1950s who used cold reading techniques probably genuinely believed in the test. When the wizards made certain statements about patients (for example, Barnum statements), they often met with the agreement and even astonishment of their listeners. When they made certain highly intuitive guesses about patients (actually, the push), they found that they were often “close” to the truth, and that their listeners were highly impressed. Reinforced by positive feedback from their colleagues, the wizards gradually became skilled cold readers, believing that their remarkable insights had arisen from the Rorschach. The era of the Rorschach wizards belongs mainly to the past. Although skilled clinicians still occasionally dazzle graduate students with their stunning Rorschach performances, only a few psychologists today engage in public blind diagnoses.

But the legacy of the great wizards lives on. The aura of magic created in the 1940s and 1950s still lingers as the Rorschach mystique, the almost religious awe that many clinicians continue to display toward the test despite its tattered scientific status. Perhaps more important, the Rorschach wizards contributed to the belief—still strong among many clinical psychologists—that intuitions and clinical experience provide deeper insights than mere scientific knowledge can. Thus it is that clinicians still use the Rorschach for purposes for which it has no demonstrated usefulness, mistakenly believing that their supposed insights arise from the extraordinary powers of the test, rather than from their own unrecognized notions and preconceptions. References Dawes, Robyn M. 1994. House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth. New York: Free Press. Exner, John E. 2000. A Primer for Rorschach Interpretation. Asheville, North Carolina: Rorschach Workshops. Forer, Bertram R. 1949. The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 44: 118-123.

Gacono, Carl. B., Clifford M. DeCato, Virginia Brabender, and Ted G. Goertzel. 1997. Vitamin C or Pure C: The Rorschach of Linus Pauling. In Contemporary Rorschach Interpretation edited by J. Reid Meloy, Marvin W. Acklin, Carl B. Gacono, James F. Murray, and Charles A. Peterson. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hyman, Ray. 1981. Cold reading: How to convince strangers that you know all about them. In Paranormal Borderlands of Science edited by Kendrick Frazier. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus. Kaplan, Robert. M., and Dennis P. Saccuzzo. 1982. Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications, and Issues. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole. Lilienfeld, Scott O. 1999. Projective measures of personality and psychopathology. How well do they work? Skeptical Inquirer 23 (May): 32-39. Lilienfeld, Scott O., James M. Wood, and Howard N.

Garb. 2000. The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 1: 27-66. Little, Kenneth B., and Earl S. Shneidman. 1959. Congruencies among interpretations of psychological test and anamnestic data. Psychological Monographs 73 (6, Whole No. 476). Rowland, Ian. 2002. The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading third ed. London, England: Ian Rowland Limited. Wittenborn, J. R., and Seymour B. Sarason. 1949. Exceptions to certain Rorschach criteria of pathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology 13: 21-27. Zubin, Joseph. 1954. Failures of the Rorschach technique. Journal of Projective Techniques 18: 303-315. James M. Wood, M. Teresa Nezworski, Scott O. Lilienfeld, and Howard N. Garb James M. Wood, Ph.D., is in the Department of Psychology, University of Texas at El Paso M.

Teresa Nezworski, Ph.D., is in the Department of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D., is in the Department of Psychology, Emory University Howard N. Garb, Ph.D., is in the VA Pittsburgh Health Care System

Question: Who would use an inkblot or Rorschach Test?
Answer: Psychologist