Comparison of American and Chinese College Students by Means of The

Eastern Illinois University The Keep

Masters Theses Student Theses & Publications

1973 Comparison of American and Chinese College Students by Means of the Holtzman Inkblot Technique Te Jung Chang Eastern Illinois University This research is a product of the graduate program in Psychology at Eastern Illinois University. Find out more about the program.

Recommended Citation Chang, Te Jung, "Comparison of American and Chinese College Students by Means of the Holtzman Inkblot Technique" (1973). Masters Theses. 3809. https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/3809

This is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Theses & Publications at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PAPER CERTIFICATE #2

TO: Graduate Degree Candidates who have written formal theses.

SUBJECT: Permission to reproduce theses.

The University Library is receiving a number of requests from other institutions asking permission to reproduce dissertations for inclusion in their library holdings. Although no copyright laws are involved, we feel that professional courtesy demands that permission be obtained from the author before we allow theses to be copied.

Please sign one of the following statements:

Booth Library of Eastern Illinois University has my permission to lend my thesis to a reputable college or university for the purpose of copying it for inclusion in that institution's library or research holdings.

Date Author

I respectfully request Booth Library of Eastern Illinois University not allow my thesis be reproduced because 

Date Author

pdm Cvi1f ARISVN Af1ERICAN AND CHINESE COLLIDE STUD&�TS CF -

MEANS THE HCJLTZMAN INKBLOT TECHNIQUE BY OF (TITLE)

TE JUNG CHA.NG

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

ARTSIN PSYCHOLOGY I-1A�1'ER uF

IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL, EASTERN IUINOIS UNIVERSITY

CHARLESTON, ILLINOIS

1973

YEAR

I HEREBY RECOMMEND THIS THESIS BE ACCEPTED FULFILLING AS THIS PART OF THE GRADUATE DEGREE CITED ABOVE

DATE ADVISER

-'2-11-Z.3DATE DEPARTMENT HEAD COLLillE 5TUDZi�T3 COl{:=-A.RISOl� OF AK�RICA1� A:·iD C}iIN33Z BY r!&\;�s OF Tfij; liJLTZl'ik� Dh3i0T T�C@lIQUE Te Jung Chang

67 Pages December, 1973

?ersonality difforences of American and Chinese college students were investigated. The result indicates that there were no significant differences between the nationality college students, with the exception of latency tt.ro time toward the test instrument.

It_ -19-73> Date

('2. \ 19\1..s Date

/-3-J4-Date COHFA..USON CF ,u.::m:CAl·; A�-ID Ciill�;;;-;� �LLffii!: JTtr.)�;:rs BY E�:.5 OF TiiE: HGiTZ.H.�� Ir�KBI..OT TXH:aQTJE '!'e Jung Chang

67 Pages December, 1973

The major purpose of this study was to explore personality differences between .A:.nerican and Chinese college students.

Sixteen A.�erican college students and two groups of the same nUillber of their Chinese counterparts; one of the Chinese student groups being in the

United States for less than one year and the other group being the United in

States for longer than two years, were randomly selected and matched by ages to be the subjects of this study.

The Holtzman Inkblot Technique (HIT) was administered to all forty-eight subiects by the author and the protocols were scored by two different scorers HI·r who have previously been trained projective techniques, and did not have any in knowledge of the subjects. Twenty-two HIT scoring variables were obtained among these three groups of subjects.

Two Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were undertaken. A Jx2x45 factorial

ANJVA design was used to evaluate latency time among the three groups, as it is related to the effects of different nationality, sex, and inkblots. A Jx2x2x21 factorial AJ:JJVA design was used to evaluate the remaining 21 HIT variables con- sidering the effects of different nationality, sex, judges, and the variables.

The inter-scorer reliability coefficients were also estimated.

(1) The results of this study found American and Chinese college students

. do differ in latency when responding to the HIT inkblots. American college students tended to have longer latency than their Chinese counter,?arts. Cultural and environrr.ental changes do seem to affect people's perception as revealed in responses to the HIT. The Chinese group which had been in the United II,

States loneer than ��o years, had a mean latency tL�e very close to its A.�erican counterpart, the Chinese grou9 I, which had been in the United States �rhile less than a year,· had the shortest latency time. l·!ale and female differences on latency v1ere found to be non-significant. (2) The inkblots themselves have significant differences in inducing latency differences. Certain inkblots seemed to require a greater amount of time for a subject to respond than others.

(3) The main effects of nationality, and of judge alone were found to be non- significant for the remaining 21 HIT variables. Neither nationality nor judt;e was a main factor in determining cross-cultural differences between American and Chinese college stu

HIT variables seem cause more inter-scoring disagreement than others. (6) to

Judges did show discrepancies when scoring certain variables of different nationality group's HIT protocols. (7) The HIT may not be a sensitive instrument to measure the assimilation of a foreign culture over a long period of ti.me.

As was the case in this study, nationality factor alone was not found to be significant.

/2-(7-7� Date

12119(73Date i-0-7+- Date CHII�.ZSE CCLLffiE STUDli�TS CGrC-ARI3GN vF .4l·G.CUCA!\ AKD TiiE nvLTZHA�� r:�KBI.DT TECHNIQUE BY 1":EAN3 vF

Ti JUNJ CH.�'li

A Thesis Submitted in Fartial

Fuli"ilL�ent of t�e Require�ents

tor the Degree of

MASTER J!CnOLOGY CF ARI'S IN .f

EASTERN Iil.INGIS UNIVS.t\SITY

1973 THESIS APPOOVID:

7. - 7 � I Datef Cf_ : \ 7J (?iDate { i \

/-3-?f-Date The writer is ex�re�s fl.is gratitude :)r. Randci.11 H. Best, w h�s t•J to

of the assistance, unC.erstaniling, Chair:?'J.an his The£is Co�!'-�ittee, for guidanc�, encourageiuent, and. inspiration he provided during the rep r tio writing p a a n and this thesis. of

3incere �ratituie is also extenC.ed Jr. Fra:ik Hust."!!"3er, second to �. member of his Thesis Com.IJlittee, for the helpful cr t cisms suggestions, i i , and advice he ;>rovided c1.uring the W?"iting t:i9 es pros,ectus and t..�e thesis. of th is spec l expression of gratitud� is exte e Dr. John J. Rearden, A ia nd d to third member his Thesis Committee, for his helpful sug�estions, able of and assistance in the statistical method and in designing a computer program for data ana s s this study. ly i us9d in Gratitude is expressed. by the writer for the indispensable assistance on test co-scoring, patience, and understanding of his two classmates, Miss Mary

A. Bryne and Hr. Charles Sulcer at I. U. Without their assistance, a s. E. study of this nature could not have been accomplished.

T. J. C.

ii Page

iii TA3LZ 0F COHTiH'IS •

U.:J T CF TABl&S v 1 I�TRODGCTI0N M3THOD 20

Sample • 20 Apl)aratus 20 � Procedure 2l R�ULTS 26 •

42 • • 49 REFERENC&S • • • •

APPENDII A: 53

62 APPENDIX B: •

iii UST CF TABLES

Table Page

Maans and AgP,S of Three Sa.�ple Groups . . . . . 21 • • • • • 1. . . 2. A.\OVA S ry of Nationality, ::>ex, and Inkblots for Latency 27 I • umra.a

J. Al¥JVA ·su:mme.ry of Nationality, Sex, and Judge for HIT 21 Variables ...... 29 ...... 4. Means of Latency on HIT Inkblots. JO All . . 5. Y.eans of Latency on 45 Ink:,lots among the Three Groups. Jl All • 6. Mean Deviations of Latency for Three Groups . . . 33 •

7. Mean Scores of HIT Variables . . . . . 36 • • • • • 21 . . . 8. Means of Variables Scores by Two Judges . . . . 37 . . . . 9. Means of Variables Scores between Sex . . 39 •• . . Means of 21 HIT Variables among Three Groups Scored by Two 1-0. J'Udges • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 40

v COMPARISON OF AMERICAN AND CHINESE COu.IDE STUD&�TS

BY MEL� OF THE HOLTZMAN IN'lCBI.OT TF.CHNIQUE

INTRODUCTION

Although there is a strong belief that peoples in different cultures

vary considerably from each other in their personality characteristics, the

research studies on the relationship of sociocultural factors to the development or personality are Until recently, the studies on culture arrl !5.

personality were largely done by anthropologists. John Honigma.nn (1960)

chose the year 1928 as the actual beginning of culture an:i personality field

research, the year that Margaret Mead published "Coming to Age in Samoa."

He considered that "a nation's culture is embodied in the intra.psychic

structure of its in:iividual members, varying with their social position and

degree or national participation," an:i defined culture and personality as

"an approach to cultural understanding that views culture as it is embodied

in in:iividuals.11 Kardiner (1939) in the late 1930's introduced the concept

of personality which has been perhaps the most influential theore- "modal."

tical conception in the culture and personaJ.ity field, and there has been

widespread acceptance or the notion that in each culture there exists a

core of personality characteristics which are foun:i in most members or the group. Margaret Mead (1951) who has most to renovate the idea or social none

personality un:ier the name "national character," recommended theoretical

basis or approach for st� national character which rests on tour an

assumptions:

First, it regards each way or life an:i, it, each system or within personality, as a whole--a system. Consequentl3, how people behave in one area of culture is significantly related to their behavior in other situations. Second, regardless of cultur� differences, people everywhere possess the same basic human nature. Consequently, dif ferences in the way they learn and in what they become must be accounted 2 for in terr.is of sociallv patterned experience. It follows that beings owe their social personality not to race or national humanorigin but to other persons who mediated it--cornmunioated it, verbally as well as nonverbally. Third, every member of a nation (or of other social system that maintains a culture) is syste ma.tical.lyany representativ9 of its culture: meaning that each member embodies it in an appropriate way, depending on age, sex, and other status characteristics. Fourth, even in a social system as large as a modern nation, aey member of the system can provide some in formation about the national character.

\iith Kardiner's arrl Mead's inspiration anthropologists began to mazzy- conduct their studies on cross-cultural personality ditferences. Lacking ot their methods, they were eager to employ the techniques provided by own psychologists !or personality assessment. The projective techniques, particularly the Rorschach, were used frequently. Kaplan (1961) estimated that over 150 studies in 75 societies have employed projective techniques during the past two decades, the tendency ot its application in cross-cultural and personality stujy is increasing immense).;r. There were pros and cons concerning the application of projective techniques in cross-cultural research.

Kaplan (1961), regardless of his taith.rul devotion to the techniques, admitted that the positive values in projective techniques for cross-cultura1 persona lity were scant. Lindzey (1961) in his Projectiye Techniques Cross- and Cultural Res h, discussed the frequent criticisms of using the projective earc techniques, particularly in relation to valjdity, subtle language dif'terences, etc. Holt (1965) also iniicated the problems of test translation zman am linguistic dif'ferences in addition to measurement control ot adequate and cros�-cultural variables. Barnomr (1963) believed that the reason that the

Rorschach Test has ·been used so often by anthropol6gists is that the Rorschach does not require li�eraoy as some other personality tests do. Moreover, it is not culture-bond, for the blots do not represent acything in particular.

The language problem be ameliorated too. a researcher is fluent in can It 3 the language of the society he is studying, the Rorschach Test can be recorded in the native tongue, as done by Jules Henry (1941) in the Pilaga records he obtained; or it can be given through an interpreter, as tried by Hallowell

(19�1). Holtzman Inkblot Technique (HIT) in cross-cultural research was used much later. The HIT was experimentally developed in 1958 (Holtzman, et. al.,

1961) in the light or growing realization that the Rorschach had inherent psy chometric weaknesses, mostly due to the lack of agreement as to scoring criteria tor ditferent variables (Zubin, 1953; Hertz, 1959).

The earliest cultural research studies were mostly concerned with some particular societies, primitive or foreign ones. The researchers were in terested in "acculturation," or the modal personality, or the area or culture change. The comparison or different cultures arxi nationalities ensued those stuqi.es or single particular culture. The most common type of cross-cultural stlXiy is bi-cultural, usually comparing the United States with another country

(Holt , 1965). A ot the studies were done in the comparison of culture zman tw personallty differences with as many as five or six different cultures or countries.

Since the HIT has not appeared until the year or 19.58, arxi since the cross-cultural personality stu:lies were preceded by some acculturation studies, the or literature in relation to this stooy will include projective rerlw techniques in general, from the acculturation studies to bi-cultural as well as multi-cultural studies.

Important cross-cultural studies using the Rorschach test been done had by Hallowell ( 1942, 19 52), Du Bois ( 1944), Abel am Hsu ( 1949), Honigmann (1949 ),

Wallace (1952), Kodama (1953), DeVos (1954), Richards (19.54), Kaplan, Rickers

and Joseph Brown Yang, Su, Hsu, and Orlsanld.na, (1956), (1956), Dana (1959),

Huang (1962), Macari (1964), Takahasi arxi Zax (1966), am Rabin and Limuaco (1967). 4

Hallowell (1942), one of the early arrl important investigators in terested in the use or projective techniques cross-cultural settings, in studied the acculturation processes arrl personality changes of two separate groups ot the Ojibwa Indians, an American Indian tribe (Salteaux). having By recourse to an interpreter, the author administered the Rorschach test to these 'blo Ojibwa groups: the Lakeside Saulteaux and the lnlarrl Saulteaux; the former consisting of 58 irrlividuals and the latter of representing popula 44� tions of characteristically greater and lesser acculturation. The results or the Rorschach protocols show that the more isolated and less acculturated group, the group, manifested fantasy, domination, ego-centricity, sus Inland piciousness, deliberation, caution, and precision in approaching problems-- a predominantly introversive picture, with practical overtones. The more accqlturated group, the Lakeside group, responded to the blots more quickly than the other an:i showed a greater num.ber or extratensive individuals. However, the personality core, Hallowell found when he scored responses to the Rorschach test given by both groups, was fundamentally the same.

Later, Hallowell (1952) did another acculturation study with the .American

Indian tribe, Lac du Flambeau, one or most acculturated groups or the Saulteaux, also using the Rorschach test, and compared them with his former Lakeside and

groups. He found both similarities and differences in his three Saul Inland teaux groups. all three groups there was a very low percentage or color (C) In responses arrl a low percentage of answers to the last three cards (chromatic ones). The low incidence or color responses would suggest that the Saulteaux

Irrlians tended to expect very little from others were not apt to develop and close emotional ties with them. The scores of h'lnllAn movement (M) were rather high except in the Lac du Flambeau group.. The mean or M was 4 for Inland, 3 tor Lakeside. The implication of this M percentage, combined with the low C 5 percentage was that traditional Saulteaux personality was characterized by introversiveness, With fantasy playing an important role. In the Lac du

Flambeaux group, the mean for M dropped to 1 and was an indication of the disruptive effect of acculturation. three or Ballowell's groups had a All mean of J for or movement. Animal movement responses are believed FM, animal by Klopfer Kelley (1942) to represent the most instinctive layers in the and personality. a normal record the number of M should genera� exceed that In of the reverse is believed to indicate emotional immaturity, as would an FM; excess of CF or C over Therefore, Hallowell's SaUlteaux groups had a FC. characteristic of a weakening of the rigid control, with Lac du Flambeau group manitesting the most weakening rigid control.

Bois (1944) did a comprehensive study of people of ilor by administer Du ing ,the Rorschach test to 37 informants. 17 males am 20 females, arxi these protocols were interpreted by &il Oberholzer, a well-known psychoanalyst and the ear� collaborator with Hermann Rorschach. this study, actual field In observation was done and ranked by Bois and Abraham, two well-known anthro Du pologist. Ranks derived from the Rorschach test showed so much correspondence with ranks derived from the anthropologists' field observations that Oberholzer felt that principles of interpretation used customari� with European and

American subjects could be generaliz� fruit!� to the Alor�se. From the

Rorschach protocols, Oberholzer found that the personality characteristics of' the ilorese illustrate f'earful.ness, suspicion, distrust, apat�, indifference, lack or vigor, egocentricity am greed, shallowness of interpersona1 relations, lack of' elllotional responsiveness, and the absence of neurotic conflict or re

pression in their personality. The ch�racteristics or the Alorese were quite common in acculturated people, such as those found in Saulteaux Indians ma.iv by Hallowell. 6 Lindzey considers Bois' study as a classic in the culture (1961) Du and personality area, and points out several strongly positive features in this study:

First of all, the analysis of the protocols was carried out with little or no knowledge of the individual subjects and their culture, Second, the Rorschach analyst is a person of considerable stature in the field so that whatever advantage may accrue to the test as a consequence of experience and talent should presumably be fully re presented in this study. Third, there is a clear delineation between interences based upon Rorschach data and those derived other from sources of observation. Fourth, there is a wealth of direct observa tion, life-history data, and interpretive material to be used in providing standards for comparison with the Rorschach interpretations. Fifth, the personality inferences extracted from the Rorschach are carefully linked to specified response characteristics.

However, this study is not without its weaknesses. The weaknesses, as regrettably pointed by Linkzey, are:

' 1) No report of the conditions under which the Rorschach was given; 2) In spite of the extensive consideration of the psychology· and culture of these people, there is no serious effect to examine the impact of the culture upon the test-taking process; J) There is a failure to attempt acy formal or controlled comparison between the interpretive statements of Oberholzer and the statements provided by Bois Kardiner based upon observational Du and data• Honigmann (1949) studied the culture and group personality of the Kaska

Indians who lived in northern aritish Columbia and southern Yukon Territory.

Honigmann, not only deeply influenced by Kardiner's concept of modal personality but also by the great emphasis put on the early years of life by Psychoanalytic theory, attempted to synthesize both certain events of early life and certain selected features revealed by adults' overt behavior. The twenty-eight subjects in the stuc:JY consists or 14 adult males, rive adult females, five boys, arxl. tour girls, Participation-observation, life-history, and the Rorschach records were used. to make inference or socially patterned. dominant characteristics or the Kaska personality. Honig found that Kaska social personality was mann characterized by seven, very interrelated, dominant motivations, or value 7 orientations. They were: egocentricity, utilitarianism, flexibility, defer ence, hostility, dependence, and emotional isolation. Honigmann's finding corresponds to Hallowell's finding of his Saulteaux Indians' personality characteristics.

itlallace (1952) used the Rorschach to assess the modal personality of

Tuscarora Indians. Wallace's method is entirely �terent from Hallcr;ell's or other former researchers. Of 70 Rorschach protocols he used, be isblated a modal class ot protocols by selecting those Tuscarora Rorschach records which tell within the modal range for each o! 21 Rorschach factors {deter minants like M, and location categories like W, D, and so forth). Ot Fe, Wallace's total. number of 70 subjects, only 26, or 37 percent, fell into this modal class. Wallace's modal Tuscarora class, exhibiting the "master trait" whi�h considered particularly significant, had a high W (whole location) he percentage--71.2 per ce�t--a terrlency to give rather vaguely seen silllplistic

responses which utilize the blot as a whole. Large D and small d details were

rare. The high W percentage is seen to i1'rlicate a tendency to think in stereo

types.

Wallace further made use of Hallowell's Ojibwa's Rorschach records, and

constructed an Ojibwa modal personality profile drawn up on the same basis as

that of the Tuscarora, which he contrasted with that of the Tuscarora. He

found that the Tuscarora were psychologica1J3 different from the Ojibwa. Both

groups seemed to have underlying needs for dependency and were fearful of out

side emotional contacts. However, the Ojibwa handled their impulses by sup

pression; the Tuscarora by focusing them on stereotypes. The Tuscarora had

more contact with one another, while the Ojibwa were forced to become emotional

ly independent.

While researchers in the United States were enthusiastic to study the 8 acculturated. or modal personality of Indians, some other researchers had their interests in studying acculturated. groups, such as Chinese-Americans, Japanese-

Americans, etc. Morever, some foreign researchers used the Rorschach or other projective techniques to study the personality characteristics of their country- men in their countries. The following are ff!!l'W typical ples: own exam Abel and Hsu (1949) did the first study of the Chinese personality using the Rorschach technique. They compared. two groups of Chinese, those who had been born and educated in the United States and those who had been born in China and had received their school and some of their college education there prior to coming to America. In addition, they applied another variable, that of sex, so that th� might make a comparison of Rorschach results tor males and females born in China and overseas with the possible ertacts ot differential treatment or the sexes in China and in Chinese com- munities in the United States. Subjects of these two groups consisted or

1.5 China-born males (CBM), China-born females 10 American-born 12 (CBF), males 19 American-born emales (ABF) ranging in age from 20 (ABM), and t ; through 39. The Rorschach test was administered to the subjects in the

. period or 1945 to 1948 by three female examiners. treating the results In the authors not only handled the material in the usual Rorschach manner of analyzing the approach, the detenrdnants, and the content, but also looked for quality of content and content sequence, and to some extent they tried

emphasize the influence of culture on personality as revealed. by the test to responses. The Rorschach protocols shOW'ed that roughly twen� to forty responses was the usual number made by American-born subjects or average or superior intellectual levels. Both male groups showed greater reticence

or limitation in making responses than did the female groups. As for the

approach to the blots, both male and female among the China-born subjects 9 showed a preponderance of whole over detail responses, while the American- born subjects gave a greater number of detail answers, more in the pattern they found in America. Although the China-born males showed a slightl.3 greater balance in favor of movement over color responses, the difference was reliable so that authors concluded that .tour groups showed a not all fair degree of ambi-equality in terms or introversive and extraversive tendencies. Both of the female groups, however, were more reactive to both internal and external stimulation since their M to C ratios were higher than were those of the males. The China-born groups gave more than CF responses, FC showing greater emotional control than did the .Ameriona-born groups. American born !"era.ales perceived human figures a good deal more frequentq than did the other groups. There were no significant differences among four groups in

responses. The authors gave a conclusion as follows: anilual Judging from the Rorschach protocols, our China-born groups, male female, fit into this Chinese cultural pattern of controlling andtheir impulses and maintaning a pliant but to some degree distan ciated role in interpersonal relationships. The Chinese-born girls, however, show greater flexibility in their responses than do the China-born males; they have a less rigid status role to maintain; they are not as responsible as are the males for "following in the shadow of their ancestors. The American-born males., have a 11 • • • less clear cut role in society than do the China-born males. They are more uncertain, less sure of the direction in which their lives

should or could lead. • • • In their Rorschach responses these American-born Chinese males seem highly disturbed emotionally since they give frequent anxiety signs or those suggesting repressed and

unsatisfied feelings of rebellion. • • • The American-born girls on the Rorschach appear to be the ones with the most overtly expressed difficulties of adjustment; their protocols indicate that they have hostile-fear feelings toward people, that they are to some degree aware of their inner conflicts, that they have feelings of guilt

are extreme]¥ sensitive about the opinion of other. - and . ••

The credit of Abel Hsu's study is their relativeq explicit and link-

ot personality statements to specific differences in Rorschach scores, 1ng their reporting of average scores on a large number of Rorschach variables

tor the groups being studied, and the thorough knowledge of the Chinese 10

culture possessed by one of the authors. The shortcoming of the study is

tha.t the authors made no attempt to test the statistical significance of

the differences between the four groups in Rorschach scores which are used

interpretively (Lindzey, 1961).

Richards (1954) investigated the personality trait of Chinese in

Hawaii by using 35 Rorschach records collected by Francis Hsu from a group

of Chinese subjects living in Hawaii. Of these 35 Chinese-Americans, 27 were males and 8 females, ranging in age from 16 to 60 and drawn from the upper· socioeconomic class, had completed high school or had some college

education. The psychologist scored and interpreted the protocols without

any background information other than that the subjects were Chinese and

lived in Hawaii. The author concluded that there was no single personality

quality that was characteristic of these Chinese subjects. Although they

showed considerable variability, their average performance differed relative

ly little from the performance of the American subjects the various com � parison groups. When female Chinese subjects were compared with males, they

appeared to show more anxiety and degression in response to the "father

figure," to be more oriented toward inner life, and to display more evidence

of masculine protest. The male subjects, on the other hand, showed more

evidence or disturbance in sexual and interpersonal relations, see�ed less

spontaneous, and·were more concerned �ith prestige social conformity. and The author pointed out that the absence o! comparable Rorschach data !or

non-Chinese Hawaiians was an important de iciency in this study. r A study done by Dana (1959) on "American Culture and. Chinese Persona

lity," using a battery o! tests, including the Rorschach test, given to 20

China-born Chinese attending an American university indicated that the

structure of personality o! the Chinese subjects appeared similar to that ll

or Americans of equivalent social class and degree of education.

Yang, et. al. (1962, 1965) in Taiwan studied Rorschach responses of

normal Chinese adults, and compared them with those of Japanese, and American

subjects. They found that the reaction times of Chinese, Japanese, and

American supjects to Rorschach cards were somewhat different. However, their

findings should be used cautiously when making generalizations because of

methodological shortcomings and their lack of information about other studies.

Kodama (1953) studied the Rorschach responses or Japanese adolescents

of Tokyo areas. He found that Japanese responses to the Rorschach indicated

characteristics markedly different from those regarded as general for the

population 'or the United States. A s ry or this study was given by Nor umma beck and De Vos (1961) as follows:

The nu.�ber or responses is low in all social groups. Rejections are very high (from 20 to 25 per cent) on colored card 9, and black and white cards 6 and 7. There is a relatively high rate of rejection of card 10, which seems related to an inability or reluctance to use the details on this complex card. Difficulty in handling color freely and other indications attest to difficulty with spontaneous affect. Although markedly lower among urban residents than among rural resi dents, personal rigidity is generally very high in comparison with nonns for the United States. A great deal of organizational drive in the use of intellectual functions is indicated; the Japanese subjects are prone to push for complex, integrated whole responses. The sense of reality is generally very adequate. Although sometimes imaginative, responses include little f�ntasy of an extreme sort in directions considered primitive or psychopathological. The form level is charac teristically quite high. Labile color responses are usually percep tually tolerated when they are incorporated in some complex overall concept. Pure color by itself is almost completely lacking. These and other signs attest to the effectiveness of ego control that appears to be characteristic throughout the population.

De Vos (19.54) did a comparative study of the personality differences

in blo generations of Japanese Americans by means ot the Rorschach test.

He compared Rorschach protocols from Issei, Nisei, and Kibei (American-born

Japanese who were sent back to Japan for at least part of their education)

and from American normals, neurotics, and schizophrenics. The study empha- 12 sized intellectual organization, ego controls, control of emotional response, and affective symbolism. The results showed that the Japanese-Americans, in contrast to the non-pathological A.�ericans, were characterized by a high degree of intellectual and personality rigid�ty; they displayed marked ambition or striving the intellectual sphere which often outstripped their actual in capacity; they displayed body pre-occupation and sado-masochistic tendencies in the content of their responses, and they provided evidence of greater mal adjustment.

Takahasi and Zax (1966), at Kagawa University Japan, did a study in in comparison of Japanese and American students in terms of stimulus value of Rorschach inkblots. 40 male and 40 female Japanese and the same number of American college students rated each of the 10 Rorschach inkblots on 21 semantic differential rating scales. It was found that the cross-cultural comparison resulted in a greater number of significant differences in distri butions of ratings on the Rorschach stimuli. The results suggested that comparisons of the rat1ng style between Japanese and American college students should· provide interesting insights into the perso.na.lity differences which differentiate these two cultural groups.

Kaplan, Rickers-Ovsiankina, and Joseph (1956) attempted to investigate cultural differences by means of sorting Rorschach records from four cultures

--Spanish-American, Navaho, Zuni, and Mormon. These protocols were sorted into tour groups: (a) by a worker with no information other than the fact that there were four groups represented, and (b) by a worker who the knw four groups and had some knowledge of the Navaho and Zuni cultures. The results showed that Rorschach protocols from the four cultures were different enough to be sorted with considerable success. HoweVer, the differentiation was more possible with some cultures than others. lJ

Brown (1956) did a study of English migrants to Zealand as a New pilot Rorschach study. Differences in personality organization were found between migrants and non-migrants. Emotional demands of the migrants' situation appeared to distinguish them from non-migrants.

Macari (1964), in his dissertation at Naw York University, attempted to make a cross-cultural comparison between two groups of similar biological descent, one group of subjects was a direct descendant of inhabitants of remote villages of an isolated mountain community in Italy who retained their cultural identity in New York, and the other group of subjects was

New York-born individuals whose behavior identified them as typical of other native-born persons in the New York community at large. Both groups were alike then.in biological descent, sex, age, and marital status, but dissimilar in 'that their respective members belonged to different culture systems. The

Rorschach test was given to the subjects in both groups. Certain Rorschach components were found to be statistically signif'icant in distinguishing between the groups. These traits were ambitious striving (W ), distractibllity (d), speed ·or response (T/R), sexual preoccupation (Se�) and adherence to common ideas (Pop). The data penrl.tted evaluation of these personality traits as stl"Onger or weaker in one group relative to the other.

Rabin and Limuaco (1967) attempted to compare the connotative meaning of Rorschach inkblots for American and Filipino college students. 43 Filipino college students, 20 males and 23 females, checked 20 items of the semantic ditf'erential for the ten Rorschach inkblots. The data yielded 79 (out of 200) statistically significant choices of adjectivai polarities. The authors fouzrl that 1) in general, the inkblots were more consistently meaningful for the

American students; 2) there was a rather high congruity, in the relative con

notative meaning of the cards, between the sexes in the American sample. No 14 such congruity between the sexes was obtained for the Filipinos; and 3) if the connotative meaning of Rorschach's inkblots differed from culture to culture (as seemed to be the case in the present instance), and if the mean ing an effect upon the responses and associations produced in the testing had situation, then the practicality and justi!'iability of the universal applica tion of Rorschach interpretive procedures in cross-cultural research might be ser�ously questioned.

Research studies using the Holtzman Inkblot Technique were quite fer-r in comparison to those using the Rorschach test. Since they are directly related to the present study, their importance is not inferior to those studies listed before. Important studies using the HIT had been done by Diaz

Guerrero and Holtzman (1966), Derogatis (196.5), Knudsen, Gorham, and Moseley

(1966), Derogatis, Gorham, and Moseley (1968), and Hanseen and Teigen (1971).

most important cross-cultural personality study using the HIT was The the one done by Diaz-Guerrero and Holtzman (1966). This was a longitudinal cross-cultural project, from 1960 to 1966, attempted to stwzy_the personality development in children of the Marlco and the United States. The study con sisted of 420 American children and a comparable number of Mexican children from three different grade level: Grade 1-6, Grade 4-9, and Grade 7-12. Re peated measurements, which include a battery of tests, were conducted each year for six consecutive years on each of the three age-groups in Austin,

Texas and Mexico City. The results of this study were highly consistent with

Diaz-Guerrero's theory concerning the different sociocultural premises under lying Mexican and American personality development: the Mexicans are more passive and resilient, while the Americans are more active and direct in their style of coping with stress. 15

Derogatis (1965), at the Catholic University of America, did his dis sertation on the co!Tlillonality in perception among cultures by means of the HIT. He attempted to compare the effects of high and low stimulus ambiguity

on commonality in perception. Subjects were 400 college undergraduates, 100 from each of the. countries of Mexico, Germany, China, and the Uni�d States.

The group form of the HIT was ad!ninistered to the subjects. Since peysical manipulation of the perceptual environment was extremely difficult, the ambi guity dimension was accomplished by foreign students, who at the time of the

ratings, were studying this country. The procedure resulttiig 10 blots in in met the selection criterion, .5 high ambiguous, and 5 low ambiguous. The major hypothesis being tested was: commonality perception among persons in with diverse cultural experiences is a function of degree of stimulus ambi

gui'ty presented in the perceptual field. Results, while somewhat equivocal,

indicated 1) significant differences beyond the .001 level between high and low ambiguity, for all determinant scores; 2) significant differences beyond the .Ol level between cultures, on the determinants of Form Definiteness and Color; arxl 3) differences among the cultures, on three determinants, were all not significant under high ambiguity th.an under low ambiguity.

I.nudsen, Gorham, and .Moseley (1966) applied the HIT in search for uni versal popular responses to inkblots five cultures: Denmark, Germacy, Hong in Kong, Mexico, · the United States. The subjects consisted of 108 students, and undergraduates. Instead of administering the HIT in:iividua.l.J3, the authors all used the group administration method developed computer based'scoring and a. program. Using Holtzma.n's criterion for popular response, they found that

there were universal in 23 inkblots and near-universal in 10 additional. The core concept "person" accounted for the populars was found instances; in 15 other concepts were animal, fowl, face or mask, person-riding-animal. land- 16 scape, butterfly or moth, seahorse, fish, and rain or storm. The results showed that across all five cultures there was much more commonality than differences in perception of inkblots.

Derogatis, Gorham, and Moseley (1968) attempted to ex e the concept amin of structural vs. interpretive ambiguity in a cross-cultural study with the

HIT. The ambiguity measures were taken from blo distinct sets of four student samples, each consisted of 10 subjects from the countries of Mexico, Germany,

China (Taiwan), and the United States, all were undergraduate at universities or colleges in the United States. Structural ambiguity ra s were made by ting a sample of 20 professional psychologists. The nature degree of relation and ship between the structural and interpretive ambiguity measures were determined for each of the four cultural groups, and the extent of agreement among them. was,obta.ined for both measures. ngs suggested that ambiguity, when Findi defined in a structural sense, specificall3 as 11ease of response elicitation," is a concept which is held in a highly consonant manner interculturally and may approach being a culture-free concept.

Ranssen Teigen (1971) studied differences on the group version of and the BIT in Norway. 197 Norwegian males and f es were a stered the emal dmini Holtzman lot Technique. Ten variables were selected for closer study. Inkb Significant differences between men and women were fowxi in 7 of the 10 variables.

Female subjects seemed to express a som�hat higher tendency toward perceptual elaboration, verbal expression, and aesthetic interest. F e subjects tended emal to see more f e figures than did the men, and male figures were seen with emal the same frequently by all sexes.

Research studies on cross-cultural differences using projective techni ques other than the Rorschach and the HIT were those using the Thematic Apper ception Test and the Draw A person Test. 17

The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) is one of the projective techniques frequently used by the researchers who were interested the culture and per in sonality field. However, the TAT itself has its inherent weakness, because in some of the pictures , middle-class American settings are depicted which would have little meaning to members of "primitive" society or other cultures.

Facial features of the characters of TAT are "Caucasian. " Therefore, all TAT was seldom used to compare cross-cultural differences of different nationa lities. Usua.14r, a modified TAT was substituted for the original one. For instance, De Vos and Wagatsuma (1961) used modified TAT which closely re a. sembles the original Murray series to study value attitudes toward role be havior of woman in two Japanese viJJages. Sheiwood (19.57) designed a modified

TAT in order to study African people who have assimilated Western culture.

One of the first cross-cultural applications of the TAT was done by

Henry (1947), in his study of Hopi and Navaho children. On the basis of their TATs, Henry found that, among the Hopi, the mother was the principal authority , and the large extended family setting , diftuse emotional attach in ments prevailed. As for the Navaho, there was greater freedom and spontaneity in emotional life. More respect was shown for indirlduality within the family.

Caudil1 's study (1949) of psychological characteristics of acculturated

Wisconsin Objibwa children was among the few studies utilizing the standard

Murray 's TAT series. He found that there was a strong persistence of Objibwa personality over a long span of time , and despite the effects of Western in fluence on Ojibw� culture.

Important cross-cultural research studies using Machover's Draw-A-Per son test (DAP) had been done by Du Bois (1944), Lowenfels (1950) , and Dennis

(1960).

Du Bois (1944) studied the personality of Alorese by using DAP, in 18 accompanying with the Rorschach, and found that the drawings of the Al.orese children were weak and infantile which seemed to have little or no relation to the adult art.

Lowenfels (1950) used to study drawings made by Chippewa Indian DAP children and found that most of the drawings showed that the Chippewa children tended to approach the world an essentially constricted rigid fashion. They in showed, in general, signs of avoidance of emotional involvement with others- evasive, stereotyped, and superficial relationships prevailed.

Dennis (1960) studied cultural influences by the hUlllan figure examining drawings of illiterate Bedoiuns living in the Syrian desert. Bedouins bad had minim.al exposure to Western art, photography, cartoons, illustrations , etc, and no native traditional forms of representative art. According to Good had eno�h' s procedures , the author found that no Bedouin scored higher IQ than a 90. Bedouin draWings of' the human figure were found to conform in several respects with their traditional art. They were were poor in detail, earning a mean Goodenough IQ of' only 50-55. The drawings were averaging only small, two inches in height, and made up la.rgely of' straight lines and darkened sur faces.

Most of the above-mentioned studies had been done on accultural or modal personality, and few studies concerned the cross-cultural aspects, particularly in comparison of two di.:f'f'erent nationalities. Although some of these studies could be used to make some generalization of the characteristics of accultura tion or cross-cultural differences, the validity of such generalization would be questionable with the lapse of time. Since we are now living in a more advanced scientific era, re-consideration of cross-cultural differneces at this moment see!'ls to be !!le9.ningful.

The purpose of this study was to explore the personality differences of 19 two groups of Chinese students (of t.."ie Republic of China ) who were studying in a college in the United States (one group of students had been in the

United States less than one year and the other group of students had been in the United States longer than two years ), and to compare them with those of a similar group of American college students by the Holtzman Inkblot Technique.

It aimed to explore specifically the personality characteristics of Chinese college students, as indicated by the Holtzman protocols, and to determine the extent of their likenesses or differences in comparison to the traits of a sample of American college students. 20

MRTHOD

Samo le

order to compare cross-cultural and personality differences of In American Chinese college students with one another, the author used a and random sample of 16 American college students 32 Chinese college students and as subjects of this study.

Sixteen American subjects for this study were students enrolling at llllnois State University, Nonnal, lllinois. Eight were males arxi eight were females.

Thirty-two Chinese subjects were divided into two groups. Group I

consisted. of sixteen students, eight. males and eight females, being in the

United States for less than one year; Group II, also consisting of sixteen subjects with eight males and eight females, had been in the United States for longer than two years. of the Chinese subjects were also attending All IJJinois State University, Normal, Illinois .

or the forty-eight subjects voluntar� participated in this study. ill The author did not have any knowledge of of them before. Any acquaintance any with the author was not used as an ideal subject.

The ages of the subjects ranged from 18 years to JO years. The means of

ages or these three groups were: the American group bad a mean of 22.J, the

Chinese group I had a mean of 24. 0, and the Chinese group had a mean of 24. 7. II Table 1 presents the m and ages of these three groups. Their educational eans levels were from freshmen to graduate students. The purpose. of the matched

numb�r of male and female subjects was to compare whether there was any d.1!'- ference between male and female students.

Apoaratus 2l TABLE 1

Three �ample Groups Means anrl Ages of I 3ex

, Group !•

.Nationality Ferne.le I .fr I Male (Age) ./f (Age) ! �

I 1. 21 1. 22

2. 23 2. 23 I i 3. 26 3. 22 I

4. 23 4. I! American 2l Group j 5. 22 5. 20 Il l I ! 6. 24 6. 20 ' I 7. 20 7. 23

I. I 8. 24 8. 23 I I

. Mean 22.8 21.7

I l. 19 1. 22

2. 24 2. 23

3. 25 3. 23 4. 27 4. 24 Chinese Group I 5. 28 5. 24

. 6. 25 6. 23

7. 24 7. 24

8. 24 8. 26

Mean 24.5 2).6

I I 22

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Sex . Nationality Group Male (Age) Female (Age) I I 1f

1. 24 1. 24

2. 2. 25 'Z1 3. 30 J. 25

4. 26 4. 25 Chinese .Group 5. 25 5. 24 II 6. 20 6. 24

7. 25 7. 24

8. 24 8. 24

� Mean 25.l 24.J 23 The Holtzman Inkblot Technique, Form A (HIT), a counterpart of the Rorschach Test, was administered to all of the subjects by the author. The res.son for the selection of the HIT as a test tool is its advantages in s�ndardization and easy administration over the Rorschach. The HIT bas two parallel forms, Form A and Form. Each contains 45 printed inkblots, some are achromatic, and some are chro�tic, in addition to two trial blots l and Y. Each subject is required to give one response to each card only. Immediate inquiry follows each response so as to clarify certain aspects of the response and to obtain additional information for scoring purpose.

Typicalverbatim instructions suggested by Holtzman (Holtzman, et. al. , 1961) were usedby the author. They are as follows:

to I have some inkblots here that I would like show you. They wereto made by spilling ink on paper then folding it. I'd like you look at ea.ch inkblot and tell meand what it might look like, what it could be, or what it might represent. Since these are only inkblots and were not made to look like anything, there are tono right or wrong answers. Each blot may look like different things different people. After each response I'll ask you some questions about it because I'd like to try to see it the same way that you do. Just give one res ponse for each card. I'llbe writing down what you say and making note of the time, although you may take as long as you wish. As I have said before, there are no right or wrong answers. Let's try the first card. The administration and scoring procedures also strictly followed the standard procedures listed in the Holtzman Ii:ikblot Technique monograph (Holtz 1961). man, et. al., The follCMing important steps were observed: l. The card should be presented. to the subject right side up. 2. No hint should be provided. Should the subject inquire whether he can turn the ca.rd, he should be informed that it is entirely up to him. J. Immediately following each response, a. brief inquiry is made by the examiner to check on certain aspects of the response and to obtain ad.di- 24 tional information helpful in scorint$. Standard questions concarning the clarification of Location (QL) , Characteristics of the percept (�C), and

Elaboration (QE) are as follows : QL--"w•here in the blot do you see a ?"

QC--"What is there about the blot that makes it look like a ?"

QE--"Is there anything else you care to tell me about it?"

4. A standard recording sheet (published by the Psychological Corpora tion) is used for recording and scoring responses.

twenty-two scoring variables of the HIT included in this study are:

Reaction Time (RT), Rejection (R), Location (L), Space (S), Form Definiteness

(FD), Form Appropriateness (FA), Color (C), Shading (Sh), Movement (M ), Patho gnomic Verbalization (V), Integration (I), Human (H), Animal (A), Anatomy (At),

Sex (Sx), Abstract (Ab), Anxiety (Ax) , Hostility (Hs), Barrier (Br), Penetra tion (Pn), Balance (B) , and Popular (?).

Procedure

Ad.adnistration Test: The HIT was administered to all subjects llll?, 2f. � 48 individually by the author. The place and time of testing was pre-arranged for the subjects' convenience. The rapport and testing situation were parti cularly emphasized so that the test could be given in a very pleasant condition.

Each subject was told that the purpose of the test was to provide a means for the examiner to compare cross-cultural differences of college students of two different nationalities, and there was no individual interpretation involved.

Each subject was given the same instruction, strictly in accordance with the

HIT manual. Since all the Chinese subjects were college students in the United

States, the HIT was given in English. the subject gave response in Chinese, If the response was accepted, but was recorded in English by the author (the examiner). 25 Scoring: After all the subjects were administered the HIT, the recorded 48 p tocols were scored independent.13 by two different scorers who had pre HIT ro viously been trained in projective techniques. Both scorers did not have the slightest knowledge about the subjects except having been informed the purposes of the present study. The reason for using such a 11double-blind" scoring method was to avoid scoring biasly if the tests were scored by the examiner who seemingly knew about his subjects. The 11double-blind" scoring method would further provide a means to compare correlatively the validity of the test results.

The Statistical Method: Test data were analyzed by means of the statistical method of Analysis of Variance. twenty-two HIT variables were subjected All the analysis. Inter-scoring correlations between two different scorers were to also'estimated . 26

RESULTS The data obtained this study were analyzed by using two multivariate in factorial Analysis of Variance (A.NOVA ) designs. The first of these was ap plied to the latency data and the second wa·s used to analyze the remainder of the BIT variables. 21 On the latency variable, the main and interaction effects were analyzed · by means of a Jx2x45 (nationality x sex x inkblots ) factorial analysis of vari ance design. Scores on the latency variable are presented Appendix A in • . The results of the ANOVA for latency show significant differences between

two nationality groups, and among all 45 inkblots. Interaction ei'fects be'bieen

nationa1ity groups the inkblots were also significant. However, dif and all ferences of the main effects between sexes were not significant. Neither were

interaction effects between nationality groups and sexes, between sexes and all

45 inkblots, among nationality , sexes, and inkblots. Table 2 presents the and ANJVA s ry for latency , as it is related to the effects of different nationa umma lity groups, sex, arrl blots.ink

The remaining 21 BIT variables were analyzed means of a Jx2x2x21 ( na. by tionali ty x sex x judge x variables) factorial analysis of variance design.

Scores on these HIT variables foT all 48 subjects are presented. in Appendix B. 21 The ANJVA results for the remaining HIT variables show significant 21 differences among variables. Interaction effects of judges and the all 21 variables, of sexes and variables, an?- of nationality, judge, and the variables

were significant. However, differences were not significant for the main all effect of nationality, and of judges. Differences between the interaction ef

fects of nationality and sex, of judge and sex, and of nationality and the other

variables were not significant. Interaction effects of nationality, sex, and 27

TABLE 2

ANOVA Summary of Nationality, Sex, and Inkblots for Latency

I -, Source I I F I I) I I NS I elf ' l I � • Total I 2;1.59 i i j II Between bjectssu ! 7 l i 4 I 18,760. 0900 4.1475* A (Nationality) ! 2 Ii !i . 1 850 340 1.2935 I B (Sex) j 5, .9 I 2 . 1, 0490 0.3418 AB 546.

S/AB 42 4,523 .1680

within subjects 2ll2 . , C (Inkblots) 945. 2935 5.3192** 44 AC 88 229. 0508 1.2889•• 146. 2298 0.8228 BC 44 ABC. 88 261.0273 1. 4688 SC/AB 1848 177.7124 /

• p <.05

•• p <.001 28 judges ; of nationality, sex, and the variables; and of sex, judges, and the variables were all non-significant. No significant differences were found between the i.nteraction of nationality, sex, judg es, and the variables.

Table 3 presents the ANOVA SUll'lITlary for the ·remaining 21 HIT variables, con- sidering the effects of different nationality, sex, judges, and the variables.

A more detailed analysis of these results reveals several interesting features .

These be described more completely below. Will The F statistic indicates that the main effect of the nationality factor on latency was significant at the .05 level. The means were 25.71 for the

American group, 15.84 for the Chinese group I, and 18 .51 for the Chinese group •

Additional information about latency is presented � Appendix A. II. The effect of the inkblot factor on latency was significant at the main .001 .level. The main latency scores ranged from a high of 30.73 seconds to a low of 10.52 seconds. The mean latency scores on each of the 45 inkblots for

subjects are presented in Table 4. all 48 The interaction between nationality and the inkblots on latency was significant at the .001 level. Table 5 presents the mean latency scores on all

45 inkblots among the three groups. It shows that the American group a had longer latency period on achromatic blots. For ple, mean l.atency time for exam the American group on inkblot f/:28 was 41.81, on was Mean latency and #21 :37. 68 . times for the Chinese group I on the same blots were 27.69 and 14.13 , and the

Chinese group were 22. 69 and 25.38. The mean deviations for latency on the II three groups are presented in Table 6. The. American group showed more. variation with the mean deviations rangi from +10.10 to -9. 77. The Chinese group I had ng mean deviations from +6.89 to -7.42. The Chinese group had mean deviations II fro� +7.86 to -6.53.

The ANJVA for the remaining variables shows that there were signifi- 21 TABLE 3 29 .4.NOVA S ry of Nationality, Sex, and Judgeumma for 21 HIT Variables

- - --� ·-- Source d.f .. HS F

-�- Total 2, 015

Between subjects 47

A (Nationality) 2 281.4129 1.8351

B (Sex) l 606.7637 3.9566•

AB 2 250. 6849 1.6347

S/AB 42 153. 3545

Within subjects 1968

J (Judge) l 0.9722 0.0149

AJ 2 8.4883 1.2967

BJ l 4.1984 o.6414

ABJ 2 9.4434 1.4426

SJ/AB 42 6.5460

I (Variables) 20 35,332.0000 379.3054***

40 124, 2250 1.3336 AI BI 20 185. 2188 1.9884*-

ABI 40 81.4532 0.8744

SI/AB 840 93.1491

JI 20 37.1875 7.9536•••

AJI 40 5. 5943 1.1965•••

BJI 20 3.5306 0.7551

ABJI 40 4.5090 0.9644

SJI/AB 840 4.6755

• .10 p •• < .01 p< ••• .001 p< 30

TABLE 4 eans of Latency on HIT Blots M All

Blot 2 6 9 # ______I Mean �- � l_�_!_� - l.__ ___ - _ 2 . - 52 -�--3!__J5 r16 !] 20. 6 j :�_ 21.21 : � '. � �-=:':_ �� '. .:'. j':1· 46 Blot 1 �8- f 8� 18_. 89_ � �j ii 10 11 ) 12 13 '. 14 j 15 1 16 ; 17 I 1 I' I I ' Mean 8 17.�5 -�2.7 25:�: Blot 1·-19_._�J18.�-�-� l�::i� 5� l_l8:�:�:56:-�� 19 20 21 ; . 22 23 '. 24 . 25 26--···--"- l ------lj i --··· --,---� -· 27 I - . --. ------..---�-· . - --r-·-·- - ... -'------�---_,__j. . - ! • Mean I 17.67 ! 23.38 ! 25. 73 20. 02 21. 71 J 21.79 I 2J • .58 I 27. 60 I 19. 56 --·. ·------l I ---·---· ------�- 1 -+------·!--- Blot --..----t-----�- o 1 -.-----1--- � --:---·-+·-·-- ---·- ----· ----· --- ! 34 i - 2 29 3 31 ; 32 33 35 . 36 i -- ! I -- � i-;; 1 I Mean 8 21 ; l 30. 73 I 26. lJ 13. 12. J. 50 ---·------· _ 26:��-�· j l.Z:.:_°o. Blot 37 38 !.?.39 98_l 88J 44 4 I ______- - ·- ��-L� . -- 1 s._ Mean 22 �� : I I�i • 39 19.15 j 19.27�:_.L11 0.52 11.14 14. 19 I .58 19.63 19. , 17.04 31 TABLE 5

Heans of Latency on All 45 I.Mblots among the Three Groups

Group

14 i Blot! ! 10 i 11 12 �3 I 15 ! 16 J 17 ! 18 j Hean 21.81 22.19 Ii 24.31 i 21. 06 I 28.44 Ij 37 .13 : 22.94 30. 06 i 28.25 l\merican I Blot ! 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 , 26 27 Group I l i I 1 1 , Mean 24.oo !• 29.19 !1 37.69 35.81!I1 29 .56 1 27.44 ! 17. 00 1 26.88 : 25.75 ! ! ! j ! j, , iI Blot 28 29 30 Jl 32 33 34 35 J6 I ! I I J !j Mean !I 41.81 : 35.63 jI 18. 69 32.50 25.31 ll.19 16 .25 2 6 .19 27.50 l j ! ! I! Blot 37 38 ! 39 I 40 41 42 43 44 45 I I l l I l ! e I 27.06 25.69 25.75 21. 69 23.63 17.19 13.69 15.69 23.56 M an 1 ! l \ i j Blot \ 1 2 J j 4 j 5 6 7 8 9 !I I ; i ! I i i I I 1 l Mean 22. 75 ;j 17. 56 22.44 l 19. 00 ; 15.Jl 22.38 j 16.63 i 19.19 ! 20. 56 Blot 10 I 12 lJ 14 15 16 17 18 # ; ll ! j I Mean j ! ! 22.25 j 16. 13 12.00 13.31 18.63 18.88 13.63 20 • 17 ! i 1 ' .51)i .� I Blot 19 ' 20 1 22 j 23 24 I 25 26 27 ! i I I I lroupChinese I ! f I 21 t, Mean 10.94 ! 17.06j 14.13 11.81 13.44 18.38 10.25 i 9.63 15-:J.9-J I Blot I 28 29 JO 31 J2 JJ i 34 35 36 I l I 1 Mean .69 j 7.13 25.50 16.81 ll.25 I 7.6J 15 56 13.94 l Z'?.69 i 18 1 . Blot 37 1 38 39 4o I 41 42 43 44 45 I I Mean 18.88 15.69 l3.69 15.75 14.75 7.13 8.13 14.50 10.19 I j 1 ,, J2 . TA3LZ 5 (Continued)

' I ! I Group Blot 1 i 3 4 5 6 7 ; 8 I 9 3= · 1 2 i ! j ·��an · ! 18. 18.00 '.19.13 22.38 17.81 23.00 13:7;:-27.e1 17.56 Jl ! i I I Blot Ii 10 11 , 12 l'.) 14 15 j 16·--·-17 18 I Hean l I l' . 14.56 ! 15.69 l 15.44 113.38 1 21 19 1 19.69 19.J8 20.06 18. 75 I ! ! Chinese j i9 Group Blot ;� '. 20 21 ! 22 23 24 ! 25 I 26 i 27 II ! l j Mean : · Ij i 18.06 :, 23.88 25.38 12.441 22.13 ! 19.56 ! 13.50 l 16.31 17.75 I ; I I I I i I. . I t ,- I Blot I. 28 ; 29 ; : 34 i 36 I 30 31 32 33 35 1 I ! I1 I t I ! Mean I 22.69 24.06 , 15.44 11 22.50 ' 23.81 i 14.19 .17.75 21.44 20.06 jI ! ' I I I I i Ji . 44 Blot # j 37 ! 38 � 39 40 41 42 43 I 45 , ' . J . I Mean I l . I I . I 21.81 ! 17.50 I; 18.75 ! 20.00 I 19.44 1 7.25 1 11.63 11 12.38 I 17.38 1 : I I . I I . I I I 33

TABLE 6 Mean Deviations of Latency For Three Groups

_ ! 10�- ___ --�� - 5 6 9 � _ -� _ 1��. � �- J 1 l_a_ I ! Blot 10 15 ,f 12 1 13 l 14 j I 16 I 17 i 18 : --·--·- -···- 11 - j; ------r-- --�--- +----�-----'- -�-- MD -J.42 -1.50 1.37 1 -0.54 -0.00 6.21 -1.39 0.81 0.98 ; . I ! I I American Blot#< 19 J 20 I 21 i 22 l 23 24 25 26 ! ! 1 27 · Group , ' ·- +1----:-- MD o.64 0.12 6.27 : io.10 i 2.1--1---7 1-0.04 I -2.27 i 3.-- 58--0-.- 49- I ,____ 1 ! , i 1 l Blot __# _;;;- 29 -;T-32 11 33 34 I 35 36 : I i------TJ+-� --Q-i- I . 1 if I MD 5. 39 ). 81 1 -0. 75 • -0. 02 1-2. 36 -6 71 �·31 , -o. 56 1.31 . ! . -= �. iBlot r .: iI # 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 : : i I � 1 · ! ! l ! ' MD 1 -1.21 . . 0.37 l o.67 1 -J.15 1 -1.33 1 0.98 -J.15 !! -4.19 o.83 ' j l j I Blot l I' I 2 i: 3 4 5 j 6 i 7 I 8 9 i � ---- �------l � � '11 - --+- -�'- �I- + I MD •. 1.41 i o.54 1 2. 76 1 2 29 I 2.si ! -1.29 1 i.91 : i.91 I 4.14 � Blot l I 10 ll ,: --lJ I 14 15 I 16 : 17 18 \ I! 12-TI. ii I l I I ; i i MD 6.89 2.31 -1.07 J 1.58 0.06 -2.17 -0.84 ! i. 181 0.35 J i ! ! j j Chinese I Blot # 19 20 ; 21 22 - 23 24 25 2 27 Group I I ______..._ l � ! _.,._ __ ! -···--+- lI i' ! 61-j lI MD -2. _::-:·13 7:4:J -4. OJ -4. ' O. 76 0.85 -3. 79; -0.19 -�� j: 09 i ! i Blot 28 29 JO 31 32 33 j 34 35 36 l I l i j I I l MD 1.14 , -3.26 1 -2.44! 2.85 -0.99 3.22 1 -2.07 -1.32 -2.38 1

Blot 37 38 : 39 41 42 I 43 45 i 40 44 I MD o.47 j 0.24 -1.53 o.79 -0.34 0.79 1.16 4�49 -2.67 34

TABLE 6 {Continued) I ..8 - Blot 1 3 !; s · 6 9 7- _ ___ -;: ' ; I __.. ··r -�J ' 1 II l I' � MD -5. 70 -1. 70 -3. 22 I -=�98 I 2.3�----:_3.3�_ I 3 7. 86 1 -1. 53 I : ! I �-�� i Blot I 10 j 11 12 13 l 14 15 16 17 18 � I � �� - - � � � : ' l·-- -+- +' -+- --1� -r- �+j· �! I � } t 1 1 I MD -3.47 ; -0.81 1 -0.31 -1.03 : -0.06 -4.03 -2.23 -l.99 · -l.J3 � I I I l I 24 Chinese ; Blot I Group :fl= 19 I 20 l 21 I 22 23 25 26 27 i II!------! MD 1. 90 2. 01 l.15 -6. 08 i. 92 --o. -1·-.42 0.22 -0.31 i I ! ! l 7 2·+-, j f . Blot if 28 I 29 JO 31 32 33 J4 35 J6 MD -6.53 -0.56 3.19 -2.83 3.34 J.49 5.38 1.88 1.07 !1 {Blot if 37 38 39 40 !;l !;2 !;3 4l; 1;5 ··----- Ir· ------,___ _, I 0.74 -0.62 I o.86 2.36 1. 67 -1. 76 1 1. 99 \ -0.Jl 1.84 i I .____..... 35 cant differneces all the variables at the .001 level. The means of a:�ong these 21 variable scores for all subjects are presented in Table For 4l3 7. example , differences can be found betweon For!ll (FD) and Space Definiteness

(S). The former variable had a mean of 79.77, the later with a mean as low as ,62.

The interaction effects between judges and all 21 variables were significant at the .001 level. The means of criterion variables scored by two independent judges are presented in Table 8. The judges' scoring was significantly different on Hovement (M), Pathognomic Verbalization (V), Integration (I), and

Anxiety. (Ax).

The total protocols were scored by two judges respectively. 48 The main effect for the judges was not significant. The inter-scoring reliability coe!ficient concerning the interaction effects of judges and HIT vari- all 21 ables, measured by the following equation (Myers , 1966), resulted. in a of �b .87 (The Riu,estimate is based upon the variability between and within subjects ).

MSslJ /A S - _ __ == I _,, 'Rab MS1J The inter-scoring reliability coefficient concerning the interaction effects of judges, tiona.11ty , and all 21 variables, measured by the fol.lowing equation :ca. (�.yers, 1966 ), resulted a Ra0of .95. in MSs11/AB 'R�b == I - MSs1/A8 The obtained inter-scoring reliability coefficients indicate that there was a high degree of concensus be'bleen the two judges when scoring the total HIT protocols.

The interaction effects between sex and variables were found to all 21 be significantly different at the .01 level. It indicates that female subjects tended to have higher mean scores on Form Definiteness Color (C), Hove- (FD), J6

TABLE 7 Mean Scores of 21 HIT Variables

Variable R L s FD FA Sh c Mean 1.26 27.39 o.63 79.77 32.79 14.85 1.91 ·-·------· - - Variable M v -I H A At Sx Mean 38.07 5.16 14.44 25.49 33.07 2.88 0.65 Variable Ab Ax Hs Br B Pn p Mean ' 2.14 11.59 9.23 5.50 2.93 1.09 6.64 37

�ABLE 8 Means of Variable Scores By two Judges

! i I Variable R L s FD i FA ' Sh c I Mean I� I 1.27 27.04 79. 38 JJ.42 l 15.33 I; 1.71 I i ?:___· l l variable M v �I H I A ! At I! I I - Sx -- · ! ! I I - I i Judg. e I Mean I 36.52 5.98 1I 13.08 i 25.85 JJ.63 2.92 0.71 I I i 1 I l I Ii ' ;-' ....--. • ' Variable : Ab A:x. Hs Br I Pn '! B p 1 ! ! I • I I ' i l Mean l I i l . 2.11 12.52 9.73 5.15 l 2.89 ! o.63 !' 6.69 ' l --t--' !I ! ! Variable l R L : s 1 ' FD FA Sh i ' ' i c l I ! \ l I II i I ' Mean I II i ! 1.25 27.73 I o._54 80.17 : 32.17 { 14.38 2.10 I Ii I ' ; , Variable I M v I I H A At It j i I Sx t ! i. t t i Judge II Mean I ; l! .! 39.63 . 4.33 l 15. 79 25.13 ! 32.52 . 2.e3 I 0.58 ; I i : Variable I Ab A:x. Hs Br ' B p I j Pn ! I ' I! Hean ! 2.10 10.67 8.73 5.85 2.96 I 1.56 6.58 ! i l I J8 m�nt (H), Integration (I), and Human (H) , while male subjects seemed to have higher mean scores on Anato.D1¥ (At), Sex (Sx), Hostility (Hs), and Penetration

Table presents the mean variable scores obtained by both male and fe (Pn). 9 male groups.

A significant Fat the .001 level for the. interaction effects a.aiong nationality, judge, and all 21 variables shows that there were interactive differences in these three factors. Cbvious judges' scoring differences were on Color (C), Movement (H), Pathognomic Verbalization (V) , and Integration (I).

Table 10 presents the mean variable scores among three groups scored by two

judges. 39

T.WLF.; 9 Means of Variable Scores BetweenSex

Variable R L s FD FA c Sh Mean 1.20 27.73 0.75 76.08 33.23 lJ.69 1.71 Male Variable M v I H A At Sx Mean 33.31 5.17 12.98 23.83 32.42 J.54 0.88 Ax Variable . · Ab Hs Br Pn B p

Mean 1.71 ll.73 10.06 5.25 3.27 0.85 6 • .54 ' R L s Variable FD FA c Sh I Mean l.Jl 27.04 0.50 8).46 32.35 16.02 2.10 I

Variable M v r H At Female A Sx Mean 42.83 5.15 15.89 27.15 JJ.73 2.21 o.42 I Ax Variable Ab Hs Br Pn B p Mean 2.56 ll.46 8.39 5.75 2.58 1.33 6.73 40

10 TADLS Means of 21 HIT Variables amone Three Groups Scored by Two Judges

F Sh R L s · c Group Judge ---�abl I r· � l l ' eL' 2.4 4 I 29.06 1.00 I 78.25.;-133 44 19.56 Mean j !I ! I 3.00 I j I ' ! � I I j I I ! 11 !Variable i H V j I H .! A I At Ii Judge I 1 ; ; , : : • : • Sx ' Hean 37.13 7.75 12.44 : 28.38 75 1.63 1. 00 I j ! I j 29. I ! I Ax 1variable: Ab Pn a 1 I I G;-Jii;--r- P---1 3.25 14.88 10.94 5.63 3. I � I 7.13 Mean : erican, i · 11 J :. i.4!o� I L � FA I Group j !variable j R I I S ! FD ! i I �· ·�· Mean 2.43 . 29.94 1 0.63 l 78.75 f 31.38 17 .75 J.69 ; !. I ' •] �!-�--1i jI . 11 I I !variable! M V It I H ; A ! At Sx I Judge II! 38.88 J 5. 25 15. 63 j1 : 27. 63 28 .13 : 1. 56 I 0.88 I i }!ean ,I I I , I .i I I Variable Ab Hs ; Pn I ! i I Ax! Br i r-;-r-;-1 Mean I 3.25 12.a�L9.56[_!.63 ! 3.75 1 1.63 6. 06 I I j' L I S I[ FA C 1 Sh I . !Variable• R I FD ! I I I 1' . I . 0.63 i 28.38 0.56 !1 79.00 30.88 14.00 I 0.8 1 I1 Mean I j I I : : : '. �--1-1 I M A l !Variable! I V I H : I Judge I 33.38 4.00 14.31 21.25 36.38 �3.63 ! 0.50Sx � ! �e an i l j i ! j j l P p l• Variable Ab Ax Hs - Br n B j j ! j I 1.44 j 10.31 j' 8.13 5.44 2.25!1 0.63 6.13 ·! Mean l I 1 I1 Chinese I FA Sh Group I Variable R L s FD c Mean 0.63 28.81 0.44 79.44! 31.25 lJ.25· 1.06 I 1

_ H _ Variable M V A ! At Sx - · I 1 I � ! l --- -- 0 II Judae ll 34.81 I 3. 00 ' 15.56 I 20.81i; J6.19 3.69 j 0.38 Eean i 1! ! 1 I I I Variable Ab Ax! I Hs 1 __p _ 1 1 - i ! Br l P; i---B--1 _-! �1.25 9.3---+--1 -7.5---i6 �-5.94-�--1 2.Jl-4I --·1.-00-- r---5.94-- Mea�� l i j I I : I ! ! 41

(Continued) T.A3LE 10

I ' i I I [! R L C Group jJudge :Variable .3 FD FA Sh ---��_...�--� - i j I i �:�o---.-----�---.- __ , Mean l 75 23.69 o 56 :�- 88 35.94 I 1:2�'.':+ .�5 : __ j l . I ; ! l_13x J 1 !variable 1•1 V At 1 A ! �udge I I' I I H I I I Mean 39. 06 6.19 ; 12.50 27.94 ; 34.75 3.50 i o.63 i ! I ! I ' , --- l ' Hs Br ?n 1 B r----·1 !variable j Ab ' Ax :-- 1 I I l i P ; 2 J8 10 13 38 OO 0 56 i _6 l ��::e �!-I ---+-:--:-:-:- -4_1_�_81-:+-1___· ______-1r-----· __..-----+---__..__ 1 Va le L : 1 : : j � : �: 1 : i � __ I o J 00 1 Mean .69 ! 24.44 0.56 I 82. l 34. 12.13 • l j 1 j .56J t Variable l M V A At Sx !Judge I ! 1; I H l ! ! i II Hean ' 45.19 . 4. 75. I 16.19 26.98 i! 33.25 ; !3.2 5 0.50---i j 1 i j j j · Hs Br B Variable Ab I Ax P I j I I Pn ; ! ! Mean i 1.81 , 9.81 9. 06 5. 00 2.81 2. 06 7. ! I j ;;--j I i . I I l I 42 DI.SCUSSICN

The major objective of this study was to explore personality differences between American and Chinese college students as they responded to the Holtzman

Inkblot Technique (HIT). Similar investigations have been done by Abel and Hsu

Richards Dana and Yang and his colleagues (1949), (1954), (1959), (1962, 1965), using the Rorschach Test. all Based upon the findings generated from the data analysis in this study , the following conclusions can be drawn:

l. American and Chinese college students do differ in latency when responding to the HIT inkblots. American college students tended to have longer latency than their Chinese counterparts. Cultural environmental and changes do seem to affect people' s perception as revealed in responses to the HIT.' The Chinese group II, which had been in the United States longer than two years, had a mean latency time very close to its American counterpart, while the

Chinese group I, which had been in the United States less than a year, had the shortest latency time. Male female differences on latency were found to and be non-significant.

2. The inkblots themselves have significant differences in inducing latency differences. Certain inkblots seemed to require a greater amount of time for a subject to respond than others.

3. The main effects of nationality, and of judge alone were found to be non-significant for the remaining 21 HIT variables. Neither nationality nor judge was main factor in determimng cross-cultural differences between a. American and Chinese college students .

4. Differences between the HIT variables in terms of occurrence frequency

in a protocol see!ll to be significant. 5. Certain HIT variables seem to cau.se more inter-scoring disagreement 4) than others. 6. Judges did show discrepancies when scoring certain variables of different nationality group's HIT protocols. 7. The may not be a sensi ti .instrl.lla.ant to measure the assimila HIT va tion of a foreign culture over a long period of time. As was the case this in study, nationality factor alone was not found to be significant. findings of this study show significant differences between the T'n e American college student group and the two Chinese counterpart groups in terms of the length of ti:ne they took in responding to the inkblots =25. 71, (X 15.84, 18.51). Yang and his colleagues (1962, 1965) also found X == and X = that the reaction ti.me of Chinese, Japanese, and American subjects to the Ror schach cards were noticeably different. The longer latency period, characteristic of t.�e American group, was quite similar to those found in an American norm group 1972)--the lllean (Hill, falls at the 65th percentile when compared with the American college student norm group. Although it was inappropriate to compare the Chinese groups with the norm group for American college students, the expediency, due to lack of a normative standard suitable for both nationality groups, gives a rough indi cation of the position the two Chinese groups held. Compared with the norm for

American students, the mean latency'-for the Chinese group I falls at the 24th percentile, and the mean latency for the Chinese group falls in-between the II 3Jrd 40th percentile. Therefore, the two Chinese groups seemed respond and to to the inkblots more rapidly than their American counterpart group, perhaps indicating a lack of impulse-control, or demonstrating the possibility of an

immediate access to available inner resources.

It was found that certain HIT inkblots required a greater amount of time for a subject's response than others. inspection of the mean latency scores An 44 on all 45 inkblots, shown in Table 5, reveals that American subjects tended

to express a longer latency period when resFonding to certain achromatic

blots. For exa.�ple, the mean latency f�r the A.�erican subjects on blot #28 was and on was while the Chinese group I subjects on the 41. 81, //:21 37. 68, same blots were and and the Chinese group were and 27.69 14.13, II 22.69 2).38. Seemingly, the Chinese subjects of both groups did not show the obvious differ

ences that their American counterparts did. This may indicate that American

subjects are more susceptible to color a.f'fect aroused by inkblot stimulus.

The fact that there were no significant differences found between male

and female subjects, regardless of their nationality, on the latency variable

in this study implies that sex would not be a decisive factor in determining

the latency of a response. On the remaining 21 variables , the findings of the present study sho!f 1) no significant differences among the American group and the two Chinese groups, and 2) no significant differences between the 'bi'o judges' scoring opinions. These results were quite different from those found by previous researchers (Abel and Hsu, 1949 ). Abel and Hsu found that China-born subjects exhibited better impulse-control and maintained a pliant but, to some degree,

distanoiated role, i. e. , shallow relationships with others , in interpersonal

relationships, while their American-born subjects showed less clear-cut social

roles and seemed highly disturbed emotionally. However, the results of this study do partly support the conclusion drawn by Richards (19.54) in which it was found that Chinese subjects'· average performances differed relatively lit

tle from the performances of the American subjects on their Rorschach protocols.

addition, the findings of this study give further support to Dana's research In (1959) in which the structure of personality of the Chinese subjects was found 45 to be similar to that of Americans of equivalent social class and degree of education.

The present study does not proviqe any evidence of significant dif ferences between A.�erican subjects and their Chinese counterparts on their

HIT protocols. It is unlike a previous cross-cultural study done by De Vos (1954), between Ja?anese and Americans , in which the Japanese-Americans were found, contrast to the Americans, to have characteristics of a high degree in of intellectual and personality rigidity, of displaying marked ambition which a. often outstrips their actual capacity, and of displaying body pre-occupation and sa.do-masochistic tendencies in the content of their Rorschach responses. It is also unlike a similar study done by Koda.ma (1953), in which Japanese res ponses to the Rorschach were found to have markedly higher scores in Rejection,

Colar, Form level, and pure Color than those of American subjects.

It is possible that the discrepancy between the present research and previous research studies is a function of time . Tho se studies done by Abel and Hsu (1949), Richards (1954), and others , were all conducted two decades a.go. Since th.at time, relationships between Junerican people and Chinese people (of the Republic of China ) have grea tzy improved, have been accompanied by a and trend toward the assimilation of American culture. For instance, the Chinese education that once emphasized traini.ng in traditional Chinese philosophy and ethics, now emphasizes the learning of the sciences and of practical knowledge as opposed to the idealistic knowledge taught by Confucius and his contemporar ies. addition, great technical improvements in the mass media have prompted In the far-reaching effects of rlestern culture and its assimilation. of these All may help explain the lack of significant differences between the American and

the Chinese nationality groups in their performances on the HIT. 46

The interaction effects bcVNeen sex and severa� other variables were

shown to be significant at the level. A study of th6 mean variatle scores . .01 between male subjects and female subjects revealed that female subjects tended

to obtain higher scores on Form Definiteness (FD) , Color (C), Movement (M),

Integration and Human (H) than the male subjects did� Form Definiteness, (I), Movement, and Integration. are those of variables regarded as revealing a sub-

ject' s ideational organization ability (Hill, 1972 ). High scores on Form

Definiteness were usually found in subjects with adequate intellectual function- ing (Schafter, 19.54; Holtzman, et. al. , 1961 ). Movement responses tend to re-

fleet the subject's kinesthetic or creative experiences , and the basic attitudes

of the subject toward himself and toward others. High M scores and intellectual

ability were found to have high correlation (Altus and Thompson, 1949). The

Integration score helps in determining the intellectual efficiency at which

the subject functions. The higher the Integration score, the greater is the

subject 's ability to perform work requiring difficult and complex intellectual �� . ·. . �· effort (Hill, 1972). Color responses were considered as a reflection of affect

and emotionality. Human responses reflect a subject 's capacity for social con-

tact. Higher Human scores were found in those subjects who had warm and empathic

interpersonal relationships (Holtzman, et. al. , 1961). In comparison with the

percentile norm for American college students (Hill, 19 72), it was found that

the obtained mean scores on these particular variables by . the female subjects

were quite along the line of the fiftieth percentile of the norm group for American

college students . This suggests , in general, female subjects in this study were

better adjusted than the male subjects. On the other hand, the male subjects

seemed to have higher scores on Anatomy (At), and Sex (Sx), having a 76th per-

centile and over 90th percentile respect�vely as compared with the normative 47

American college student The rather high percentile obtained on (At) group. suggests that male ha.ve a tendency toward over-preoccupation subjects seemed to With body processes. Although the percentile of Sex (Sx) was over 90, the actual mean for Sex response a 87 for the ma.le group and for the f elllale • • w s L�2 group. Sex responses were found only occasionally among college men (Holtzman, et. al. , 1961) . The present finding on the interactions between sex and the variables (significant at the .Ol level) corresponds to the results of Abel and

Hsu's study.

The AUOVA also reveals that differences among these HIT variables 21 were highly significant (p<.001). It should not be surprising to find that some variables occurred. more frequently than others. For instance, is (FD) bown to have more occurrences than (S) and (Sx) .

The interaction effects between judges and all the variables were found to be significant (p 001). On the inspection of the mean scores of HIT <.. all 21 variables in Table 8, it was found that disagreement between the judges larg ely centered on the variables of Movement (M ), Pathognomic Verbalization (V), In tegration (I), Anxiety etc. It is believed by the author that some of (Ax), these variables could irrluce more scoring differences than others. The same 21 reason could also be extended. to the signii'icant finding of the interaction ef fects of judg e, the variables, and nationality (p <:.001).

The interactions among sex, judge, and variables were found to be non-

. . significant. This finding seems to be quite different from those of Abel and

Hsu (1949), and of Richards (19.54). Abel and Hsu's China-born and Anierican born female subjects showed significant differences in such basic traits as hostility, guilt, and sensitivity about opinions of ot.'1ers. Richards ' female

Chinese subjects had characteristics of anxiety , depression, more orientation 48 toward inner life, and i11asculina yrotest. These traits and symptoms did not appear in the present study .

In order to test the reliability between the scores of the judges, an inter-score reliability coefficient for all 21 HIT variables, and an i.�ter- score reliabil.ity coefficient for these variables as it is related to all 48

HIT protocols, were computed. Positive .87 and .95 reliability coefficients were obtained. The present findings are consistent with inter-judge reliability coefficients found by Holtzman and his colleagues (Holtzman, et. al ., 1961), in which a median value of .86 was found in one of their studies for inter-scorer correlations .

Due to the sma.ll size of sample in this study, the generalization of the finding of this study should be made with caution. It is recommended that a future study of aey cross-cultural nature should be conducted, using as large

sample as possible. Instead of individual administration, the group HIT admini- a stration metho1 should be considered. Non-native English speaking subjects should be instructed to respond to the HIT in Eng.lish only , if possible. Translation of the HIT protocols f'rom one languag e to another is very time-consuming , and may alter inkblots ' original meaning .

Sample groups should not o�y be matched by ages, other factors should

also be considered, such as subjects' educ ational background, family and social history, intelligence, etc. ·.i ell-ma.tched groups would be less likely to lean

tow ard certain specific types of responses.

. A final recommendation for further research is that a cross-cultural personality study should better be conducted in a longitudinal way , thereby a more accurate and precise conclusion could be insured. CES REFEREN Abel, T. Hsu, :�orne aspects of _personality of Chinese as M. , & F. L. K. revealed by the Rorschach test. Rorschach Re�e;i.rch 2xchan,ge, 1949, 13,

285-JOl. Altus, Thom?son, G. M. The Rorschach intelligence. W. D. , & as a m�asure of Journal of C·:msultin'! Psycl;olov;, . lJ, 34 -347 BarnoU'..r,V. Culture !!!d.')ersonali ty. 19l.:9,Homewo od, Illin1 ois: The Dorsey Press,

1963.

Brown, L. B. Sngli sh :nigrants to Zealand: A pilot Rorschach study. New Australia Journal of Psychology, (Psychological Abstracts, 1956, 8, 106-110.

1956) Caudill, · Psychological characteristics of acculturated·, asconsin Ojibwa 1. , Children... A.�erican Anthro�ol04ist, 1949, 51, 409-427. Dana, R. H. Americanculture and Chinese personality. .l?sycholog:rNe wsletter, NewYork University, Abstracts, 1959, 10, 314-321. (Psychological 1959) Dennis, The h™n figure drawings of Bedouins. Journal of Social ?sycholozy, :.; •

1960, 52, 209-219. Derogatis, L. R. Co ality in oerceotion cultures function of rrnun am.onz. � � degree of sti.�ulus a..rnbieui ty : ! cross-cultural study with � HoltZ.t'l.!3.n Inkblots. (Doctoral dissertation, The Catholic University of America) Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, No. Ann 1965, 66-9249 . Derogatis, L. R. , others. Structural vs. interpretive ambiguity: A cross & cultural studywith the Holtz.man Inkblots Journal .Q,fPro jective Tech • . nisues � Personalitv Assos��ent, 1968, J2, 66-73. De Vos, G. comparison of the personality differences two generalizations A in of Japanese A.�ericans by mesns of the Rorschach test. Journal !21_ Nagoya �edical Science, Citedby G. Lindze"�, fro�ectiv� 19.54, 17, 153-265. 50

Yer�: A2pletic n-Centur-.1- tec:.....'1i;:;1.:. �s £22. crosf-cn"'.t, 1r3.J. r·)S��rc'.:1. ��i:,, Cr !'ts , 1951, 21:7. o

De Vo s, G. , & Value attitudes toward role behavior of woman .fag3.tsurna, li. in two Japanese villag9s. A.�erican Anth�o2o logi st, 1961, 6J, 1204-1230.

Bois, C. The p��Jle of Alor. l-!ineapolis: f Minnesota Press, Du University o

1944 . Cited by Linzey, ro t v an!

Hallowell, Acculturation processes and personality changes as indicated A. I. by tI'-e Rorschach techniques. Rorschach Research �change , 1942, 6, il2-50.

Hallowell, A. I. Oiibwa re rsona.lity .!n9. acculturation. Chicago : University

of Chica.go ?ress, 1952. Cited by J. J. Honigmann, North America, in F.

L. K. Hsu (ed.) P chol i al anthror.>oloey. HomE:Mood, Illinois: The sy og c Dorsey Press, 1961, 93.

Hanssen , Teigen, K. H. Sex differences on the group ersion of the s. G. , & v HIT. Jo l of Clinical Ps-,tc holoey, 1971, 27, 378-382. urna

J. Rorschach technique in primitive cultures. American Journal 2£ Henry,

Crthopsychiatr;y, 1941, 11, 2J0-2J4.

.J. E. The Thematic Apperception Technique in the study of culture Henry,

personality relation. Generic Psychology Monograph , 1947, 35, 91.

Hertz, M. R. The use and misuse of the Rorschach method. I. Va a ons in ri ti

Rorschach procedure · Journal 2£ Projective Technigue, 1959 23, JJ-48. . ,

E. F. � Holtz.�an Inkblot Tec ue San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Hill, hniq . 1972.

Holtzman, :-:. , others. Inkblot pe r epti n � pe rso lity. Austin, Texas : & c o na The University of T as Fress, 1961. ex

Hol tz:na.n , Cross-cultural research on personality developrnent. Human ·,-: . H.

1965, Development, 8, 65-86. Honigmann , J. and ethos of Kaska society. Ya.le University F'ublica- J. Culture

tions Anthr�pology, 1949 , No. 40. In F. L. K. Hsu ?s7c h�l05ic�1 in (ed. ) anthro';"lolo:zy. Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1961, 93. Homewood, Kaplan, R. Cress-cultural use of projective technique. In F. L. K. Hsu

·� ...: (ed. , F'sychol011;i cal nthr logy Homewood, Illinois : The Dorsey Press, ) a ono . 1961.

Kaplan, B. , oth<:irs. atte.1'11,?t to sort Rorschach records from four cultures. & An

Pr ecti TP.chniaues, 1956, 20, 172-180. Journa.l of oi ve Kardi�er, A. , others. The psych logi l frontiers of society. New York : & o ca Columbia University Press, 1945.

Knudsen, A. K. , others. Universal popular responses to inkblots five & in cultures: Denmark, Germany, Hong Kong, Mexico and United States.

' Journal 2£ Pro�ective Technigues � ?ersonality Assessment, 1966, JO,

135-142.

Kodama , H. A study Rorschach resnonses £.! Japanese. 1953. Cited by .£!: E. Norbeck, and G. De Vos, Japan. In F. L. K. Hsu (ed. ), Psyc hologi cal anthroDology. HomAwood, Illinois: The Dorsay Press, 1961, 19.

Lindzey, G. Projective techniqu es !.!lS! cross-cultural research. New York :

Appleton-CenturJ-Crofts, 196l.

Lowenfels, E. S. i s �projective ·� iU cross-cultural �draw ng il i!l:, vestigations. Unpublished master's thesis, the University of Pennsylvania,

1950. Cited by V. Barnouw, Culture � pe rsonality. Homewood, Illinois:

The Dorsey Press, 196J •

Ma cari, L. A Rorschach study E£ !h.2 re1a tion between pe rsonality traits . M.

� culture trai ts : ! c:::-oss-cul tural b·::rtween r s 2f_ co:it•)arison � g ouo si.!nila!" biclo�· ;_�al d19scent. (Doctoral dissertation, New York University)

Ann Arbor, 1"'.J.ch. : University Microfilms, 1964, No. 64-8472. 52

Hea�, T!'i.:i stu':ly of na �io�'.l.l chara�ter. J. J. HoniJ:na.nn 1'!. I.'1 (ed. ), Y0rk: .1 -- "' · . 1· n Harper •:>o .....:,,) · .J· •- •c-. .!.-.L"'..... �,. .! --- !:ew & Rm-t, 1967, 97-98.

19 . 66

Rabin, A. Limuaco , J. A. A comoarison of the connotative meaning of I. , &

Rorscha.ch 's ink��ots for A.: erican and Filipino college students .

Journal 2.f SDcia::!. 1967, 72, 197-203. ?sycholo;!v,

Schafter, R. inter�retation testing . York: Fsychoanalytic lu Rorschach New Grune Stratton, 19.5'.i.. &

Sherw-ood, T. On the designing of TAT pictures, with special reference to E.

a set for African ?eople assimilating western culture. Journal � S0cial

Psychology, 182-183. 1957, l�5,

Takaha.si, Zax, H. The sti.'llulus value of Rorschach inkblots : A comparison 3. , &

of Japanese and Ax!lerican students. Jananese Psychological Research, 1966,

8, (?syc holo;;ical No. 38-45. Ab stracts, 1966, lll80) Wallace, A. F. C. The modal personality structure of the Tuscarora Iruiians

as revealed by the Rorschach test. Bulletin £! Bureau of American Ethno-

�. 1952, No. 150.

Yang , others. Rorschach responses of normal Chinese adults: K. s., & II.

The normal details. � Psychologi ca Taiwar..ica, 4, 1962, 78-103. (" (Psyc hological Abstracts , 1962, No. 6104)

Yang , others. Rorschach responses of normal Chinese adults: K. s. , & 'IV.

The speed of production. � Fsychologica Taiwanica, 7, - 1 1965, 34 5 .

(Psychological Ab stracts, 1965, No. 14893 )

Zubin, J. Failures of the Ro rschach techniques. Journal .2£ �roj�ctive Tech-

nigues, 1954, 10, 303-315. APPENDIX A

Latency Scores for 48 Subjects in Three Groups 53

Latency Scores for Subjects Three GroU_?S!J.f:. in - .. .., _ -- - - - r· Inkblot ! 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ., . lNat. Sub iect iI i Sex I 3

I !I I I ' 1 : l�5 50 60 23 J4 105 25 37 40 ., ,, 40 35 45 32 I I I .)0 39 I 2 43 53 14 71 06 21 42 34 32 12 17 32 37 I rI ; 48 11 I i I 3 1110I 42 23 15 17 40 23 16 12 23 13 17 26 I II I 08 09 I I! .; I .;i I 4 ; 43 12 38 18 42 07 35 15 04 28 32 03 28 H! I 09 04 I : ':' s 15 55 17 20 65 3 0 37 3 55 2 4 06 34 9 0 I I I 01 0 1 1 6 24 18 JO 05 OJ 35 33 06 05 05 01 23 OJ 11 OJ I I 7 I 37 65 50 13 22 45 110 13 11 19 17 26 10 23 65 05 15 11 12 12 2) 20 07 02 10 05 22 18 20 '1 I 25 8 _ _ �--��--��l �·��- ... Al �' 1 51 26 49 JO 13 20 ,______16 41 56 25 28 22 1 36 52 ! I 2 46 16 48 14 32 4846 15 26 27 17 41 15 53 I 09 57 J 13 07 12 18 16 15 10 10 10 24 21 16 i 08 09 09 I I 4 16 10 15 14 19 06 16 10 10 03 23 10 18 14 J5 ·1I l F I I 5 46 25 10 27 40 10 08 18 21 JO j 09 48 11 ! I 6 14852 45 11 33 08 41 20 12 JO 13 23 41 35 53 29 681I 7 l 16 23 30 40 37 50 22 17 13 25 32 26 Jl 73 23 Ii 8 ! 15 17 30 OJ 23 07 07 14 J5 12 35 09 2J 32 05 1 l .54 (Continued). .�? :::IDII A

i Inkblot Nat.!i .:lex I .. ti l' . 0 . . 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ' .::>UO J9C 0 • ; •I 'I . I i '

1 ! 30 55 18 45 32 46 155 36 38 10 30 07 70 67 35 i ' .5 .5 I 2 I 09 35 30 4 16 35 10 2 23 25 11 24 61 43 29 ! i I I 3 06 07 11 07 40 05 ! ! 15 23 10 12 llO 42 2J I I 04 04 I i • I ' I. 0.5 43 10 07 ll 17 23 50 13 ll 49 18 50 26 10 ' M 4 I l I . I l 5 I 66 87 45 13 27 75 48 22 J5 47 4J 42 55 110 37 Il I I 6 OJ 11 26 05 11 17 03 OJ J.5 15 22 03 27 02 04 I 7 I 10 07 10 27 57 72 32 15 2r 23 35 12 57 I 2l ! I 11 • I l 8 I 10 50 15 28 08 10 15 06 09 29 22 11 13 09 J is I 1 51 25 57 4J 49 45 23 'j ! 87 28 47 18 72 68 13 i Al LJ I 51 i ! I I 2 26 55 11 57 2J 40 67 31 23 12 27 07 13 09 I .so I I I 3 05 20 06 08 11 13 02 13 23 05 14 08 14 15 09 I i I F 4 'I 13 11 09 11 38 50 20 20 28 18 31 31 J5 19 17

I. 5 22 16 29 53 05 44 26 27 lJ 12 35 40 30 26 I I 48 ! I II 6 : 22 67 55 35 78 4 58 27 27 22 24 41 85 45 08 I .5 I I I 55 7 i 41 26 52 50 47 55 65 80 23 Jl 25 23 73 10 ! I lf I I 8 16 06 16 20 35 22 20 21 OJ 35 10 JO OJ OJ 04 55

t..7?ZND IX A (Continued)

Ii I I Inkblot Nat. Sex Subject 44 ! :! I Jl J2 33 34 35 J6 J7 38 39 40 41 42 4J 45 .

J I I I 1 I 17 2J 20 20 J8 27 50 53 24 47 21 46 I I 09 08 29 1 2 ! 56 13 J7 23 13 18 65 22 13 20 41 J8 J6 40 I I l 54 I I ! I � 25 07 04 OJ 15 06 OJ 05 13 11 05 06 OJ I ..I ! I 09 04 t I I M 4 I 42 07 . 04 25 49 05 20 32 10 31 07 16 06 04 11 Ii I I I 1 I I 5 1190 40 31 14 35 49 31 37 40 23 17 57 47 I 54 I 54 6 37 07 08 05 16 10 17 3J J8 08 19 05 22 I I 04 09 i . l 1! 7 .ll 3 27 18 lJ 19 57 0J J 0 27 87 03 7 0 I 28 11 04 8 31 35 07 08 15 20 12 20 17 12 17 15 17 30 08 l Al �!���-1 -� -�  -�� --i 1 20 J4 13 35 10 68 21 52 36 53 10 20 09 21 I I � 54 2 ! J4 22 20 27 73 32 06 7 15 28 18 05 03 10 .31 i 4 I J 13 03 12 15 10 20 17 02 05 1I I 04 04 04 09 04 08 I F 4 I. 22 20 04 05 19 26 12 20 16 12 23 06 07 lJ 10 I 5 25 06 47 22 17 86 10 JO 31 23 42 10 10 1.I I 54 08 6 J5 38 08 lJ 47 30 52 53 40 05 21 2J 23 OJ 27 I 7 28 18 14 J6 51 19 2J JO 19 16 07 25 09 Ii '2:1 04 ! 8 23 06 02 OJ 21 17 05 10 16 OJ 06 lJ 02 !f 04 04 I AF.?Z.'IDL"t A (Continuoo)

I ! I I Inkblot : l .aT t. ! � I · • Subject ! J6X 1 2 _,,� 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 I ' i I ' ! I 1 ! 25 25 21 22 OJ 15 32 03 39 3J 10 ll 27 41 19 I1 44 1 2 18 10 16 22 18 07 16 J6 04 05 14 40 32 14 ! 'l ! iI I 1 I I ' 3 ' 17 09 17 03 16 70 10 05 08 10 08 07 03 10 12 l I M 4 10 ll 20 12 02 38 05 27 12 06 03 26 03 15 08 I i I I i ! I I ..- 5 07 20 08 oe 07 11 17 12 10 21 07 06 04 03 07 !I i. ! ! 21 I I 6 ; 30 05 08 05 12 12 25 17 27 04 28 05 20 19

I 7 07 17 09 20 12 16 11 15 07 57 04 ll 12 30 28 I ' I 8 :100I 47 40 60 32 40 17 105 16 82 22 35 I ! 48 51 32 :a ' I 1 I 15 06 12 12 07 13 02 05 25 07 05 04 ll 12 JC . I I I ! 2 28 40 100 JO 14 14 07 15 38 16 OJ 10 08 18 14 II 07 I 3 30 25 13 13 08 19 07 13 33 08 07 05 15 14 I I F 4 17 15 08 . 12 09 15 26 22 29 12 23 03 04 10 19 I 1 I I 5 I 15 08 20 30 19 07 21 09 04 30 15 04 10 08 35 I I 6 05 21 31 20 04 4J 18 35 27 19 12 11 09 23 08 l� I 7 18 09 17 06 08 15 04 08 15 08 09 14 08 16 I 8 23 13 20 13 65 20 45 12 23 14 65 08 21 07 27 . l i 57 A (Continued) APPB!illIX

j Ii Inkblot at. Subject I Sex I 116 17 12· 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29- 30 ! : I 1' I I 1 12 24 10 24 13 10 17 15 15 12 o4 15 26 10 04 I I I !I I Q/J. iI I 2 I 28 30 07 09 05 05 06 22 03 22 28 25 03 05 I i i i 10 09 l I 04 08 3 I 05 20 08 14 12 09 22 03 12 10 43 j I M I II ! 4 07 30 15 17 12 30 03 22 30 05 05 23 17 31 03 I I

! 09 04 11 o4 : 29 10 04 oe 23 05 10 10 05 20 35 09 09 ! '• 05 13 43 18 30 17 08 10 22 05 12 12 06 i ' 11 Cl 44 15 32 81 28 43 20 49 35 27 37 47 117 12

' lJ 0.5 OJ OJ '1 1 l i 03 15 27 03 20 06 16 08 35 32 08 I i l 04 09 lJ 09 11 11 2 I; 26 32 08 03 10 05 10 24 06 I 07 I 11 3 i 12 15 o4 08 06 10 09 06 03 16 10 10 04 j 04 11 11 I F l 4 ' 02 08 06 08 12 07 03 04 03 07 04 03 . ! 09 I 5 I 24 20 05 09 09 1.5 50 08 05 13 13 50 05 05 /J.l 09 09 1 11 I 6 37 07 31 14 13 21 15 07 86 11 10 I Il I lJ 7 i 18 17 22 06 13 08 16 08 15 04 12 20 13 16 11 09 22 09 8 ! 17 53 28 19 10 15 25 17 13 13 12 I ·I I I A.-;;?;:.:i\JIX A (Continued)

I l Sex I Inkblot 44 • . !'. Nat Subject l 31 32 33 34 35 .36 37 38 39 uo 41 42 43 45 !:I I I i l i 0 I 1 ! 10 04 13 10 30 07 15 07 13 2 17 05 23 25 lJ I Ii 08 ll I 2 ! 25 31 05 06 19 16 04 04 05 06 ' . 38 11 07 I I 1 04 3 j 15 15 20 08 15 08 14 08 0 10 20 06 OJ 17 i I 8 I M i ! 11 08 I 4 I 14 12 12 0 12 13 15 27 16 JO 05 42 16 l ! 08 04 09 8 10 I 5 I 06 07 1 05 07 11 04 04 06 09 07 I 08 0 09 18 04 6 I OJ OJ 02 5 13 05 lJ 01 02 21 03 09 18 04 1 10 04 08 1 I 7 07 04 15 07 4 lJ 14 03 7 8 1I 8 44 45 53 31 20 29 3 JO J2 60 60 23 13 25 33 Cl i. I 1 24 22 17 03 23 28 07 08 12 05 12 10 11 16 06 08 09 05 I 2 1 20 10 06 06 06 12 15 06 2.5 OJ OJ 05 I 18 0 1 1 I 3 12 7 03 04 06 20 2 16 2 06 01 07 13 13 F 09 04 04 04 4 04 05 15 06 06 03 04 04 04 03 OJ I 08 08 08 08 5 70 16 14 27 19 15 12 05 10 11 12 I 1 8 6 90 16 17 0 15 23 12 43 20 2 25 06 12 11 07 i 21 08 1 11 04 I I I 7 22 06 05 06 20 13 4 03 05 07 10 ..I . ,. 18 1 08 I 8 ·2J 25 17 08 JO 14 95 25 0 13' 10 13 07 II 59 A?PB!�IX A (Continued)

I I I i Inkblot Sex 11 µf at. ' II Subject ! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 . l I i I I I

. ! . I 1 35 31 35 66 32 42 25 75 41 36 63 70 17 50 50 I l: 09 j 2 ! 12 10 07 0.'.3 08 06 08 06 08 0 5 08 08 04 12 09 15 3 i: 14 37 05 12 08 21 17 24 15 42 20 18 15 I! M I 11 I 4 04 04 07 04 . 04 04 03 08 06 OJ 08 05 0 5 08 I 5 40 04 05 10 21 16 05 03 07 06 15 09 12 05 26 i 07 I I 09 I I 6 : 10 19 07 13 18 15 18 08 08 05 20 10 06 7 ; 50 36 05 85 75 45 10 llO 26 20 23 13 05 13 50 I I . I --8 5 100 70 65 30 55 40 48 55 50 15 32 30 55 4 � - � � C2 !--� - 09 09 I I �4 - I 1 : 05 04 40 23 05 18 22 23 07 17 JO 10 05

2 05 08 17 09 10 l.'.3 06 15 12 08 11 12 08 14 13 09 I 1 11 3 10 07 10 04 14 26 21 .'.35 12 05 06 07 12

I F 08 I 4 18 10 12 32 23 21 21 05 23 03 05 05 10 09 I I 5 15 11 13 12 06 17 07 08 14 10 11 07 08 08 07

11 6 2.'.3 17 16 25 10 45 22 45 12 lJ 25 23 60 41

7 04 11 18 12 08 30 08 35 08 11 08 09 07 25 13 1 04 8 08 OJ 07 04 05 08 OJ 10 04 15 08 06 4J 05 60

(Continued) AF?tMOOX A.

� I I Inkblot lat. I Sex 1 Subject 1 16 17 19 20 21 22 2J 24 25 26 27 28 29 JO i j j lS I (" 1I iI I 1 s5 20 80 95 60 70 41 e.s 60 62 20 4o 50 50 25

2 iI 05 06 0 5 0 5 OJ 05 07 21 21 07 16 I ! 04 11 09 11 I l i J . 27 1.5 10 JJ 05 19 10 15 JJ 12 23 1.5 l� 15 13 ! I l 4 05 05 07 04 17 07 07 10 05 06 lJ 04 M 04 04 04 '1 ! 5 10 10 07 08 14 10 06 24 08 03 23 05 09 13 i . I 11 ;I I 6 ! 06 10 16 12 20 12 08 07 05 51 06 08 I I 11 11 08 7 60 42 60 67 47 13 10 55 40 32 28 25 41 10 11 II ! . 8 JO 72 42 J4 JO 20 72 37 13 15 12 50 70 1 21 .58 1 20 30 17 32 22 20 20 15 3.5 2.5 50 47 I :z 08 07 2 25 10 16 02 21 07 16 02 09 03 1 12 09 04 04 08 1I 3 16 10 16 09 13 09 12 17 25 05 24 07 i 21 12 07 F 4 31 12 06 09 04 15 13 10 16 13 I 08 11 04 11 04 5 06 11 12 06 30 13 21 06 14 13 18 1.5 08 07 12 6 I 05 35 05 65 90 17 17 15 JO 80 37 .52 11 'Zl 12 7 I 15 12 10 09. 07 14 05 05 13 26 13 ! 04 08 07 07 1 8 I 02 20 05 ·08 05 10 06 03 : 07 12 04 oa 04 07 07 I l 61

A (Continued) APPENDIX

I I l l Inkblot l Nat. l i Subject I 31 32 JJ 34 35 36 �7 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 4.5 i Sex ! '.

;I I I ! ' l 25 50 1.5 65 4o 36 62 15 72 18 10 10 13 15 25 l I 2 � � ll l ; 09 � w � 08 � 09 04 04 � � � ) 3 13 10 14 15 OJ 10 32 26 08 18 i ; ll 29 44 07 09 I 4 i 13 OJ 05 13 12 06 07 05 06 M ! !: 08 07 · 08 04 04 04 I i I I .5 i 22 20 14 12 10 17 25 24 17 07 10 10 I 09 04 09 l Il 6 16 42 06 OJ 18 06 10 12 20 05 I 29 22 04 08 ll I 7 I 22 47 26 25 J2 25 13 SJ JO JO 22 I j 27 07 04 06 !

' I 22 52 8 50 75 l"..__�s 55_ 4o l _ I -�--�� _ 08 __ 148 20 35 05 � C , 27 21 32 37 17 45 18 17 37 14 45 2 I, 1 :i_:_� l 04 I I 2 � � � � ! � � � u � 08 � � � 08 ' lu I J J6 17 17 10 lJ 12 JO 13 06 05 J5 I U ,I 09 27 21 I 4 ! 35 17 13 lJ 14 13 26 OJ 05 10 F ll I 07 08 06 07 I I 5 10 14 17 12 10 06 1.5 17 08 09 07 07 07 ! I 09 I 6 JO 15 J5 J5 36 25 J8 70 42 55 10 23 41 60 !I I 7 JO 05 10 10 13 05 02 05 06 I 04 07 09 09 07 8 i 30 05 06 17 13 08 10 i I i 29 , 08 09 04 04 04 09 04 APPENDIX B

Raw Scores for 21 HIT Variables 62 Raw Scores for 21 HIT Variables -

� Vari.!3.ble � I • J j ; Jl �5 R L s FD FA c Sh M v I a A At Sx Ab Ax Hs Br Fn B p ' J· : , ' I I' M ! 00 J3 02 69 43 .,,':16 01 49 08 14 26 Jl 02 00 01 19 18 12 OJ 01 07 I I' I' 1 ; ! I 04 ' �-· ,.. ,, c: 00 J7 co �� J 31 50 �4 28 2�_, 24 02 00 02 17 14 11 07 ,; 3 06 vO j I ' I ' 02 ' M I 01 JO 92 JO 19 07 43 04 28 19 24 OJ 00 02 24 20 13 09 05 06 ; I 1 . I I 2 I cl01 32 01 ?3 27 21 08 50 05 31 16 24 04 01 02 23 18 14 08 06 07 I M: . ' 00 41 01 90 J4 22 00 J5 OJ 12 41 JO 00 • 04 06 2e 23 OJ 01 00 11 ' 13 i ' i c i co 39 01 90 J4 22 00 J5 OJ 12 41 29 00 04 06 28 23 OJ 01 00 11 i Ml00 35 00 100 37 05 00 49 08 21 47 J7 00 02 00 10 05 01 00 09 : I ' OlJ. ' 1M1. 4 I c ; 00 36 00 116 34 02 02 68 00 29 33 00 01 00 02 05 09 05 06 I I 44 04 : I I M i � 00 J5 OJ 0I'0/ 31 26 00 J2 20 07 28 32 04 02 OJ 20 09 OJ 09 01 06 09 c . 00 34 03 66 31 26 00 J2 17 07 28 32 04 02 OJ 20 OJ 01 06 I 1 ' 09 s i 1 M : co I I 06 49 02 52 37 15 01 10 01 15 19 01 01 02 08 08 OJ 04 00 06 I I 'I I 04 I 6 c '. 05 49 02 36 12 00 01 07 01 15 19 01 01 02 08 08 OJ 00 06 ' 51 . 1 M I ! 01 05 00 71 J4 41 05 J5 13 06 13 43 03 01 02 17 18 04 03 00 04 l7 i I cl01 05 00 71 J4 41 05 35 ·12 06 13 4':1.,, OJ 00 02 17 18 04 OJ 00 OJ I l I M; 07 00 56 25 29 10 JO 04 04 08 10 02 00 01 07 08 06 02 01 01 I CY) ! l e c t 08 07 00 52 20 23 10 28 04 OJ 09 08 01 00 00 06 07 05 02 01 01 I l * N: Nationality

S: Sex

Ss: Subjects

J: Judge 6J ' ·- B hI·- - ,...,,...... 7 Oil C..� .i..J .l. A ( C t 1· nUe·..i...lJ'

. l • !I : I Variable I: I I , Ab Ax

.3 ; I I I Ss: J! R L s FD FA c Sh M v I H A At Sx Hs Br Fn B F I I ;i I ; , • ' . I ! I j i I u 07 I M; 04 30 02 84 26 20 11 19 08 09 29 32 02 02 00 05 02 00 08 I l I 1 I 00 I I 1 1 09 I 1 c: 04 ' I. J7 80 23 21 14 48 01 28 27 32 02 02 00 03 05 02 02 03 I ! t ; 44 o4 09 07 I I M \ l 06 28 00 76 3J 05 02 26 02 16 26 02 01 02 01 00 09 !' 2 II 44 o4 09 1I . c I !l . 06 28 00 77 33 05 02 26 01 15 27 01 01 07 OJ 01 02 08 I 1 iI 07 18 I . Ml 00 36 00 97 35 02 51 05 18 27 J8 01 00 00 15 03 01 01 15 I . ; 3 iI oo 00 09 I I c I I ! 39 9J 34 03 02 46 00 24 24 Jl 01 00 00 08 06 10 02 01 I i I � .,...,.I..( I .i M .: 00 43 01 102 29 02 45 OJ 16 J8 21 00 00 01 09 OJ 10 04 00 05 F I i , I1 I oo 00 I 4 c 11 i I1 2J 04 I 48 01 107 16 02 00 16 39 22 00 01 08 01 OJ I 47 01 I 00 ! M 11 t 01 22 106 33 05 00 57 06 19 J2 J7 OJ 00 00 13 11 04 00 03 I ! 5 i 1 00 o4 I I c ! 01 9 00 111 32 04 00 64 07 23 31 37 02 00 10 11 10 01 OJ 09 0 Ii M ! 02 27 00 82 38 20 02 47 17 J8 34 0 00 05 25 10 05 05 00 06 6 i ll 09 I o2 ll c l i 7./ 00 82 J8 02 22 38 28 00 00 05 25 10 05 05 00 06 07 01 01 I' M 68 04 12 02 26 02 45 35 • 34 08 14 34 22 00 02 27 12 01 I 7 l I 01 c 68 04 I 02 26 02 45 35 34 · 07 12 34 22 00 02 27 12 . 07 01 01 12 I ! M 09 I ll I I 16 01 52 25 02 36 05 05 33 22 01 00 01 10 04 05 05 01 06 8 09 ll o4 I c 04 I 16 00 52 25 02 36 05 06 33 ·22 01 00 01 10 05 01 06 64

APPENDIX B (Ccntinued)

:I I ' . I Ssl L S FD C Variable Sx J R Sh M v Ax Ii S I 1: I t FA I H A At Ab Rs Br Pn B f : I , i I � � . I I I! 21 I i M i 00 22 00 71 28 04 00 J2 OJ 15 29 04 00 05 11 09 05 OJ 00 03 I 1 11 ! I c 00 23 00 7J 26 02 00 35 02 2J 13 29 05 00 07 08 08 05 O'+ 00 02 l l !I l i ! M · l 00 49 02 70 37 04 00 22 00 15 25 J4 07 00 00 14 06 04 01 00 09i i 1 2 I c I oo 51 02 11 J7 04 oo oo i5 os oo oo oo 09 : 25 25 J4 08 06 06 01 I 1 M ! 00 2J 01 77 JO 05 07 Jl OJ JO 20 JJ 00 00 00 OJ 05 lJ 02 00 05 ! 3 I i c;It 00 23 01 79 J2 04 08 JJ 01 J2 17 J2 00 00 00 02 04 14 01 02 I • M iii 11 00 27 01 92 J4 05 00 40 00 19 JO 41 02 01 00 17 07 00 00 �M 4 i c oo I 'I 27 Cl 92 J5 06 00 40 00 20 JO 41 02 01 00 16 11 08 00 00 M i 04 " 1 00 4J 00 91 J6 05 00 26 OJ 07 28 44 00 00 02 18 11 02 00 10 5 C ! . 00 4J 00 90 J6 OJ 00 26 01 07 Jl 44 00 00 02 18 11 04 02 00 10 09 I II M 00 J7 00 85 42 lJ 00 27 09 04 21 39 08 02 00 08 10 02 OJ 00 1 6 C 00 J7 00 85 42 12 00 27 07 04 21 39 08 02 00 08 09 02 OJ 00 M I 21 i I 00 05 00 55 33 J8 00 36 01 10 16 OJ 00 01 12 08 08 05 00 !1I C ! i I 00 05 00 52 JO J6 00 J8 00 13 21 16 03 00 01 12 08 10 06 00 ! I M 04 04 21 00 81 28 04 00 lJ 07 01 07 61 10 00 00 01 06 03 00 ) 8 04 21 "' c I 00 80 28 04 00 13 06 01 07 61 10 00 00 01 06 OJ 04 00 AP?QiDII 3 (Continued)

Variable S Ss : C Sh .N V H A At Sx Ab Hs J i R L $ FD FA I Ax Br o f' I; I .?n

02 25 01 18 24 03 36 07 22 23 36 00 00 01 09 06 04 01 01 ! 1 I M j 84 Cl 1 c 02 27 01 91 16 22 03 38 06 25 21 36 01 07 05 03 03 02 , I ! oo oo oil ! 0:) 09 02 31 44 38 12 13 24 29 01 01 04 20 10 07 00 01 l 2 M 1 64 co 04 00 09 01 28 45 01 38 10 13 24 29 01 01 03 20 10 06 00 01 c 64 04 l I I. I 00 13 86 20 09 04 02 17 36 23 04 02 02 20 15 10 03 05 04 I 00 J M 57 I I 14 00 86 19 08 04 59 03 19 37 21 03 01 01 19 13 11 02 07 04 I I c oo ! I I I 00 21 00 91 36 21 00 42 07 16 20 50 07 01 01 06 06 06 01 09 I 4 ! MI 04 JF 00 19 00 91 36 21 00 44 07 16 18 50 07 01 00 06 05 07 03 01 09 1 1 c M' 00 24 01 85 32 10 00 36 23 22 38 02 00 02 03 06 05 05 02 05 I 04 I 00 24 00 82 33 08 01 43 03 28 20 38 01 00 01 02 05 06 05 03 05 ! c i i 5 02 39 01 71 34 17 00 17 02 05 17 24 OJ 00 05 14 12 OJ 01 00 6 M 04 I 02 I C 40 01 71 J4 17 00 17 01 05 17 24 OJ 00 05 14 12 OJ 01 00 04 I 00 40 00 80 24 02 00 51 01 19 13 46 06 00 00 OJ 02 01 00 27 7 M I 04 I 42 00 83 J5 01 00 51 00 21 13 li6 06 00 00 02 01 05 01 00 07 c I I joo I 56 00 81 Jl 19 00 JO OJ 07 18 39 01 00 00 06 02 01 00 06 M I 02 07 8 02 56 00 e1 Jl 19 00 JO 01 07 18 39 01 00 00 06 07 02 01 00 06 I c 1 66

APPE1"'DIX B (Contin�ed)

I I 1 Variable . !I : S : Ss f• J R L S FD FA C Sh M V Hs Br Pn B ! A At Sx Ab Ax ! I H p I . � • I I t , ! ; M 01 22 00 79 32 02 00 15 04 05 02 52 17 02 00 10 09 04 07 00 02 ' l 1 I C ! 01 22 00 66 25 09 05 36 01 18 42 lJ 02 02 06 04 Cl 04 02 Ij l : j 11 03 01 25 01 80 40 06 01 43 03 17 39 20 01 01 05 26 19 01 01 OS I i 2 ! M . 04 I I j 1 01 25 01 80 40 06 01 4J 02 17 36 24 01 01 OJ 26 18 01 04 01 I I ! c ! 09 I I I M ; 14 01 71 3J 10 13 30 JO 04 OJ 02 lJ 07 OJ 05 J 48 ca I ! J I co oo oe oo t ! I C �! 00 14 01 71 33 09 00 48 12 08 30 29 04 OJ 02 13 07 03 5 00 I o 08 I I i M I 01 38 00 71 37 17 00 46 00 18 29 J8 05 00 00 09 11 03 01 03 05 I 1 I! i � M I 4 1' 01 01 69 37 15 21 26 36 05 08 10 03 01 03 05 1 c 4o oo so oo oo oo I 06 30 70 J1 i2 oo 21 06 06 24 26 08 i2 Il M �J oo oo oo oo Cf) oo oo oo s 06 38 10 31 11 03 05 22 26 01 09 12 i 21 I c ! oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo 00 45 OJ 75 J9 01 00 26 02 04 19 J6 01 00 01 06 11 02 OJ 00 M 04 II I 6 I 1 C 00 45 03 75 39 01 00 26 01 04 19 J6 01 00 01 06 02 OJ 00 11 04 I I. I! 01 00 79 JS 07 00 26 04 16 36 31 02 05 OJ OJ 03 01 02 07 7 I M I 08 08 l C 01 08 00 79 37 06 00 26 04 J5 Jl 08 02 05 OJ OJ OJ 01 02 07 15 I 82 26 13 OJ 39 lJ 29 J3 01 02 04 07 11 8 H j oo oe oo oa oo o5 oo 04 j 00 08 00 86 23 12 OJ 4J 15 11 29 J5 01 00 02 04 05 14 04 00 OJ I C 67

E:·l'DIY. AF? B ( Cor.tinued)

l ' ' I ' Variable • I I 1 l Ss.J R L S FD FA I H A At Sx Ab Ax Hs Br Fn B Si' c 3ll M v .' JI i i ' I i M 00 21 00 86 45 00 53 10 17 32 34 01 . 02 01 11 05 05 01 01 09 t ! 1 i, I 00 18 00 100 l. ;J 1417 70 17 30 02 00 05 14 09 09 10 I c : 04 28 28 CJ.! 20 I { ' 1'1;01 24 01 72 47 12 08 37 07 18 29 J4 00 00 19 13 lJ 00 00 05 2 04 �I ! I , 00 27 00 91 JO 19 07 49 01 23 27 22 00 00 09 13 09 03 10 10 I c i 04 I oo 25 01 ioo 38 05 oo 55 14 15 u3 Jl 01 oo OJ 26 20 c2 oo 3 I M ;I 04 08 I ! ! I I 00 31 01 105 37 00 70 03 31 45 29 01 00 00 13 12 02 ' 02 0 l l c j 04 04 c; I i � I I 00 33 01 69 30 14 01 32 02 08 25 44 02 00 01 09 09 06 05 01 09 l M i 1I I I 00 39 01 72 33 07 01 55 00 26 26 01 00 00 03 08 02 00 06 l 44 04 c i! j 32 c1 92 40 io OJ 41 05 13 27 33 03 oo 19 10 06 02 07 5 � c; oo I I ;.0101 32 01 92 40 10 00 41 OJ 12 23 33 03 00 03 19 01 06 02 00 07 iI c ; ! M 00 00 89 23 22 03 56 00 16 16 47 01 00 00 05 05 C6 05 01 24 04 1I I oo 22 00 94 25 16 00 61 00 19 17 48 01 00 00 05 05 06 05 01 c I 04 ! I 61I ! I M 00 os oo 92 35 32 oo 36 06 08 22 42 02 oo oo 09 07 oo 01 oo i1 7 I l! I ! 00 os oo 92 35 32 oo 33 05 08 22 42 02 oo oo 09 07 oo 01 i1 c; oo I I l lI Il 00 17 oo s2 36 22 lo lJ 35 25 09 oo 02 21 i7 03 06 oo 06 o4 51 I MIi 00 17 00 82 36 22 04 51 09 13 35 25 09 00 02 21 17 OJ 06 00 06 i c l a