1. Rorsarch’s inkblot Thematic Apperception Test
Week 3

2. (.) (.)

3. Original version was in black and white.

4. Projective tests Rorsarch and TAT are a projective tests
“Projective” technique: the idea being that the subject is projecting personality traits and life experiences onto something ambiguous, thereby giving the clinician a window into the workings of his or her mind.

5. Features of Rorsarch
Can be scored for more than 100 characteristics, including those in the three major categories of
(a) content (e.g., Did the client report seeing sexual content in the blots? Or human figures? Or food?),
(b) location (e.g., Did the client report seeing the whole blot as one picture or just one particular area of the blot?), and
(c) determinants (e.g., Did the client report seeing something that involved color? Or movement? Or shading?).

6. Features of Rorsarch Exner’s Comprehensive System (for scoring)
Pre-1970s research on Rorsarch was deemed as unscientific, even by proponents
Now: 3 hrs of clinician time to score (sped up with computer scoring nowadays: $335; ems)

7. Two stages of administration of Rorsarch
Client responds to all cards
Assessor further queries the Client, response by response
Highly standardized administration procedures (sequence of cards, instructions given, assessor probes, etc.)

8. Features of TAT Story-telling methodology, with some prompts
Several scoring systems have been devised
“…the TAT is a complex method of assessing people, which does not lend itself to the standard rules of thumb about test standards [. . .]”
?!?!

9. Features of TAT Unfalsifiable:
IF response = X, THEN trait = anxiety, because TAT accurately identifies anxiety
IF response = ~X, THEN trait = anxiety, because TAT accurately identifies repression of anxiety
Falsifiability is a hallmark characteristic of any scientific theory
Pictures are outdated (yes, that’ true — it’s dated in the 1940s). This is the biggest difference compared to Rorsarch, which is a series of ‘meaningless’ age-defying inkblots

10. Problems projective tests in general
Not everyone follows the administration and scoring requirements
Clinicians sometimes personalize their interpretation and administration
Even if people follow the rules of administration, the Rorsarch is sensitive to environmental influences (e.g., layout of the room)
Even if the test is accurate, you’re shooting at a moving target

11. Problem of projective tests in general
“Sometimes the reliability is good, sometimes the reliability is bad.”
“It depends on the skills of the therapist”
“It depends on culture”
It depends on [insert: defensive response here]
Wait…the above statement sounds stupid. Doesn’t that mean that the test is unreliable?
A good personality test is always highly reliable.
You will learn about the Big 5 on Thurs.

12. Problem of projective tests
“OK, maybe it’s not that reliable or valid, although it sometimes is. But there’s no harm in including it, right?”
What if you have scores from an established scale (e.g., MMPI) that is valid and reliable, and the Rorsarch gives a different conclusion, which test results would you choose?
Beware of confirmation bias
“This client looks neurotic…MMPI says this client is stressed. Rorsarch says that this client is emotionally unstable. I better believe the Rorsarch because this client looks neurotic.”
Err…you already ‘decided’ that this client is neurotic. Why bother with testing?

13. One persuasive argument for validity
Take a group of convicted child abusers and normal people. Give them the Rorsarch. From there, develop test norms.
E.g., child abusers might tend to say Card 1 = BUTTERFLY, nonabusers might tend to say Card 1 = BIRD
Therefore, if Person X answers BUTTERFLY, Person X is more likely to have child abuser tendencies
Problem: the number of child abusers in the population is extremely low. Backward inference is problematic:
P(BUTTERFLY)  P(child abuser) ≠
P(child abuser)  P(BUTTERFLY)
Because: P(BUTTERFLY)  P(child abuser) = 1.0

14. Reasoning about probabilities
Method
Problem
Researchers analyze the strategies of successful stock traders
Then synthesize strategies that they use
Then claim these are the strategies one should use
P(strategy  profits) = 1.00
The result is already known. Probability of event happening after it has happened = So of course the strategy works!
You need a fresh sample of traders, use the same strategy, and see if they still make profits!
P(backward inference strategy  success) ≠ P(forward inference strategy  success)
Smith, G. (2003). Standard deviations.

15. Incremental validity Let’s assume that the Rorsarch/TAT are valid
If projective techniques do not contribute psychologically useful information above and beyond more easily collected data (e.g., scores on self-report instruments, demographic information), then their routine clinical use is difficult to justify.
In other words, is Rorsarch/TAT better than other methods? Does it contribute above and beyond other diagnostic tools?

16. Standardization
A good test should be standardized – people should agree on what each picture measures

17. My conclusion Projective techniques can work in principle
There is nothing wrong with the idea of having a projective technique
What is needed is better projective techniques.
The “reverse engineering” (backward inference) manner of many projective tests is problematic

18. Why is Rorsarch/TAT so successful?
Clever marketing
It capitalizes on something extraordinarily human:
People seek to find meaning where there is none

19. “Sometimes an inkblot is just an inkblot.”

20. Nice reading
Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1,