The Rorschach ink blot test is a psychological projective test of personality in which a subject's interpretations of ten standard abstract designs are analyzed as a measure of emotional and intellectual functioning and integration. The test is named after Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922) who developed the ink blots, although he did not use them for personality analysis.
The test is considered "projective" because the patient is supposed to project his or her real personality into the ink blot via the interpretation. The ink blots are purportedly ambiguous, structureless, entities which are to be given a clear structure by the interpreter. I imagine those who believe in the efficacy of such tests think that they are getting into the deepest recesses of the patient's psyche or subconscious mind. The tests let them see what is really on the patient's mind. I also imagine that those who give such tests have come to believe themselves to be experts at interpreting their patients' interpretations. After all, they have been trained, perhaps even certificated and licensed, to render the ink blot test.
What evidence is there that an interpretation of an ink blot (or a picture drawing or sample of handwriting--other items used in projective testing) issues from a part of the self that reveals true feelings, rather than, say, creative expression? What justification is there for assuming that any given interpretation of an ink blot does not issue from a part of the self bent on deceiving others? or on deceiving oneself for that matter? Even if the interpretations issued from a part of the self which expresses desires, it is a long jump from having desires to having committed actions. For example, an interpretation may unambiguously express the desire to have sex with the therapist, but that does not imply either that the patient has had sex with the therapist or that the patient, if given the opportunity, would agree to have sex with the therapist.
Rorschach testing is inherently problematic, however. For one thing, to be truly projective the ink blots must be considered ambiguous and without structure by the therapist. Hence, the therapist must not make reference to the ink blot in interpreting the patient's responses or else the therapist's projection would have to be taken into account by an independent party. Then the third man would have to be interpreted by a fourth ad infinitum. Thus, the therapist must interpret the patient's interpretation without reference to what is being interpreted. Clearly, the ink blot becomes superfluous. You might as well have the patient interpret spots on the wall or stains on the floor. In other words, the interpretation must be examined as if it were a story or dream with no particular reference in reality. Even so, ultimately the therapist must make a judgment about the interpretation, i.e., interpret the interpretation. But again, who is to interpret the therapist's interpretation? Another therapist? Then, who will interpret his? etc.
To avoid this logical problem of having a standard for a standard for a standard, etc., the ink blot folks invented standardized interpretations of interpretations. Both form and content are standardized. For example, a patient who attends only to a small part of the blot is "indicative of obsessive personality;" while one who sees figures which are half-human and half-animal indicates that he is alienated, perhaps on the brink of schizophrenic withdrawal from people. [Dawes, 148.] If there were no standardized interpretations of the interpretations, then the same interpretations by patients could be given equally valid but different interpretations by therapists. What empirical tests have been done to demonstrate that any given interpretation of an ink blot is indicative of any past behavior or predictive of any future behavior? I suspect the evidence is either anecdotal or trivial or both. (A depressed man sees a bug being squashed by a giant; a man under great stress sees a building collapsing on a man who is trying to hold it up like Atlas.)In any case, the best case empirical scenario would involve little more than establishing correlations. In short, interpreting the ink blot test is about as scientific as interpreting dreams.
To have any hope of making the ink blot test appear to be scientifically valid, it was essential that it be turned into a non-projective test. The blots can't be considered completely formless, but must be given a standard response against which the interpretations of patients are to be compared as either good or bad responses. This is what John E. Exner did. The Exner System uses ink blots as a standardized test! On its face, the concept seems preposterous. Imagine admitting people into med school on the basis of such a standardized test! Or screening candidates for the police academy! ["I didn't get in because I failed the ink blot test." ] I am sure the defenders of the test are well-armed with reams of statistical studies demonstrating the validity of their tests. Please, set those studies down right there next to the ones which demonstrate the validity of honesty tests and the validity of lie detectors and truth serum tests.
I suggest that skeptics set up a metatherapy which gives standardized interpretations of Exner interpretations. I'll bet we could back up our diagnoses with statistical correlations galore demonstrating megalomania, pseudoscientificitus, post hoc dissociation, statistical correlationitus and HumptyDumptyWebsterosis [the tendency to think you can create reality by assigning words to imagined structures as you see fit.]
In conclusion, I ask the rorschach enthusiast to consider that it is possible that his or her interpretation of a patient's interpretation could be wrong, misguided, or even a projection of a deeply disturbed person. Consider that it is possible that interpretations of ink blots or dreams or drawings or handwriting may be no different in structure than words spoken or gestures made in interviews. They are capable of many interpretations, some true, some false, some meaningful, some meaningless. It is an unprovable assumption that dreams or ink blot interpretations issue from a source deep in the self which wants to reveal the real self. The mind is a labyrinth and it is a pipe dream to think that the ink blot is Ariadne's thread to the light of day. For all we know, interpretations of ink blots are sometimes an expression of an urge to be creative, sometimes an expression of our strongest current desire, sometimes an expression of a current hope, sometimes an expression of an attempt to amuse others, sometimes an expression.....you get the point. It seems arrogant and presumptuous to assume that each of these aspects of a person isn't essentially as real as each of the others. To hold up a standardized interpretation as a model of mental health or vitality or whatever is to deny the variety of purposes we know linger in each of us.
See related entry on pareidolia
reader comments
17 Jul 1996
I hope you will take the time to talk to a psychologist or psychiatrist
before debunking a sometimes useful tool. The Rorchach ink blot can be
over-interpreted to be sure, yet, there are certain characteristics of
response which very accurately predict mental illness and conflict. If I
were to explain these, it would render the test useless to anyone who read
this. The reliability of the test is, in part, due to the fact that the
patient does not know what kind of information in his responses, is
pertinent.
I have seen a profile of a patient from a Rorchach. This was a patient of
whom I had privileged and intimate knowledge, (of which the testing
psychologist had none) and found the test VERY accurately described many
aspects of the patient's personality and relationships. Maybe you should
read about this, rather than theorize from the hip.
-- S Durrenberger MD
reply: theorizing from the hip is a problem of mine, but being a physician you must understand how hard it is to break ingrained habits. Anyway, how long can this test remain useful when the info you won't reveal has been published and is available to anyone who cares to dig for it. Don't forget that the one who administered the Rorschach also met with, conversed with and interacted with the patient. The evaluation of the patient's personality wasn't based soley on the interpretation of the patient's interpretation of ink blots.
1 Nov 96
You might be surprised at the usefulness of the Rorschach. As you mentioned, it
is not really a projective test. One looks at the structure of the person's
responses. The people who are researching this test are not soft
scientists--the data is pretty meticulous, in order to avoid lapsing into the
kind of pseudo-science that characterized interpretation in the past. There's
much more subtlety in the interpretation than is conveyed by your passage.
Anyway, I'm a psychologist, and find that many people are skeptical of it. But
it is one of the stranger discoveries of my life that such an odd technique
really does seem to have merit. The same types of people really do produce the
same types of responses to the blots. I never would have believed it when I
first began reading about it years ago. Of course, to make sense of the
responses, one has to first have a coherent understanding of personality. The
cards alone don't provide that. Its impossible to interpret the cards, or any
test, well, if there is no cohesive understanding of personality with which to
inform the results.
reply: You are correct. I would be surprised at the usefulness of the Rorschach.
further reading
Dawes, Robyn M., House of Cards - Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth (New York: The Free Press, 1994).