Examiner Influence on the Holtzman Inkblot Technique
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 7-1965 Examiner Influence on the Holtzman Inkblot echniqueT Robert G. Hamilton Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Clinical Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Hamilton, Robert G., "Examiner Influence on the Holtzman Inkblot echniqueT " (1965). Master's Theses. 3654. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/3654 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXAMINER INFLUENCE ON TIE HOLTZMAN INKLOT TECHNIQUE by Robert G. Hamilton A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the Degree of Master of Arts Western Michigan University Kalamazpo, Michigan July 1965 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to his committee chairman, Dr. Malcolm H. Robertson, for his more than generous do nation of time. He wishes to thank him especially for his guidance, in volving the intellectual work in the conception of the project, from the kernel of an idea to its fruition. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. David O. Lyon for reading the paper from an editor's viewpoint and for his helpful suggestions. Ac knowledgement is extended to Dr. Henry W. VonHolt for his constructive comments and positive criticisms on aspects of projective techniques. Acknowledgement is given to Dr. Jack E. Asher for his aid in helping the author with the appropriate statistical analysis. ' Special thanks is given both to the many students who freely gave of their time to obtain subjects for the experimenter and to the subjects who participated in the experiment. Without their help the study would have been impossible. The author would like to express his warmest appreciation to Miss Mary E. Wibalda for her continued encouragement during the writing of this thesis. He thanks her also for her untiring devotion in typing the many drafts of this paper and for her creative assistance. Robert G. Hamilton • ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION • 1 EXPERIMENT I • . 11 Method .. 11 Results . 15 EXPERIMENT II. 20 Method 20 Results . 21 DISCUSSION • 25 SUMMARY. 33 REFERENCES 34 APPENDICES 36 A. Questionnaire 36 B. Digram of the four experimental variables . 39 LIST OF TALES TALE PAGE 1 Analysis of Variance for 15 HIT Scoring Categories • • • • • • . • • • • • • • 16 2 Inter-Grou Comparison of Six HIT Re sponses by the Newman -Keuls Metod • • . 3 Chi -Square Analysis for Si HIT Re sponse Categories • . • • • . 19 4 A t Test Aalysis of Questionnaire Re sponses of Real Subjects • • • • • • • 19 5 A t Test Analysis of Questionaire Re sponses of Pseudo Subjects • • • • • • 22 6 A t Test Comparison of Questionnaire Responses of Rea and Pseudo Subjects • • . 22 iv INTRODUCTION Clinical psychologists have, in general, favoued the use of projec- tive technques in the assessment of personality. One of te most popuar and widely used techniques has been te Rorschach Inklot Test. Since its publication in 1921, there has been considerable research on the test which has revealed some of its weaknesses. Te recent development of the Holtzman Inkblot Technique (HIT) is an endeavour to overcome three major weaknesses of the Rorschach: lack of agreement in scoring, an un- • standardized inquiry, and difficulty of interpretation due to variations in the number of responses (Holtzman, Thore, Swartz, and Herron, 1961). However, tere are stil other factors present which tend to limit the objectivity of the test. One area of difficulty is the effect of the eaminer's personality and beaviour upon te subject's responses. During te past 15 years, a number of studies have stimulated interest in the problem of examiner influence on projective test responses. Two comprehensive re- view articles by Masling (1960) and Kintz, Delparto, and Mettee (1965) have summarized te work with te Rorschach, but no research has been done with the HIT in tis particuar area. Tus te present study explored the effect of the examiner's attitude upon the results of te suject's HIT protocol. Recent research has show that the Rorschac responses cannot be 1 2 regarded solely as a function of the subject's personality. A number of studies have investigated the examiner's influence on the subject's re sponses. For instance, Lord (1950) examined Rorschach response cate gories under three experimental conditions: hostile administration, neu tral administration, and friendly administration. Thirty-six subjects took the Rorschach under three conditions. Under each condition, the test was administered by a different female examiner. She found significant differences in 20 response categories between the three conditions. A significant difference was also found between each examiner's subjects under the neutral condition. This latter variation was associated with the effect of the examiner's personality. The effect that differentexaminers may have on a subject's responses to the Rorschach was also examined by Baughman (1951). He had IS exam iners administer and score the Rorschachs of 633 out-patients of neurotic classification. His results showed significant differences between the examiners for 16 of the 22 scoring variables. As Baughman points out, the main difficulty in interpreting the data is that the differences are not entirely a result of the different personalities of the examiners, but also reflect variations in scoring. Gibby (1952) investigated the influence of theexaminer on the inquiry . phase of the Rorschach. He found that even when he constructed a stand ardized inquiry, there was still a difference in some of the scoring cat- 3 egories due to the examiner's personality. As an example, his results showed that overt hostility of the examiners produced an increase in the shading response category. In another attempt to study examiner influ ence on the Rorschach, Gibby, Miller, and Walker(1953) selected a homo genous group of subjects. Experienced examinersand standard conditions of testin� were used. The authors found three scoring categories (F, C, and FY) with significant differences due to personality differences in ex- aminers. Sanders and Cleveland (1953) also found an interactionbetween theex aminer's personality and the type of protocol which he obtained from the subject. Nine students took the Rorschach, after which they were trained as Rorschach examiners. Each administered the Rorschach to 30 differ ent subjects. To control for possible variation due to scoring error, they had two experiencea clinical psychologists score the protocols. At the end of theadministration, each subject completed a questionnaire dealing with the attitude of the examiner. The subjects seemed to indicate a liking for examiners whom they perceived, in general, as being low in anxiety as compared to those who were rated high in anxiety. The authors also found that overtly anxious examiners (as determined by subjects' ratings on a questionnaire) elicited a higher number of responses, a greater variety of responses, and more white space from the subjects than did the exam iners with lower overt anxiety.Furthermore, the "more overt the exam - 4 iner' s hostiity, te more stereotypy and passivity and the less huma and hostile content the subjects revealed" in te protocol. On the other hand, Berger (1954) examined the efect of the eaminer's personality on te subject's Rorschach protocol and concluded tat, on te whole, te test reected ony insignificant examiner differences. Tis finding does not agree with that of Lord or Sanders ad Cleveland. Since Lord's study was conducted under higly varied conditions o adminis tration, tis may accout for te discrepency between te two studies. Berger did find a significant relatonship between two.response categories, popuar and space, in te examier's own Rorschach protocol, and his tendency to elicit the same two response categories in the protocols of the subjects which he tested. The preceding six studies have examined some aspect of te exam iner's personality, conscious or unconscious, which inuenced the out come of te subject's protocol. Te following four pieces of research are concered with verba ad nonverba cues given deliberately by the exam iner. Subjects may consciously or unconsciously respond to tese cues and thus certain response categories may be signiicantly atered. Wickes (956) ivestigated the effectof veral and nonverbal beaviour of the examiner uon te Rorscach protocol. In the verbal group, te eaminer alterately said, "good", "fine", or "all: right" after each move ment (M) response. In the nonverbal group, the examiner aternately 5 nodded, smiled, or leaned forward after each M response. Te admin istration of the third group was conducted without any cues. The findings showed a significant increase in the number of M responses for bot the verbal and te nonverba grous. Efects of verbal and nonverbal reinforcement on te Rorscach were also eamined by Gross (959). In te verbal reinforcer group te exam- iner said, "good", in te nonverbal reinforcer grou te examiner nodded after every huma content response, and in te control gToup no cues were given. He found a significant increase in te number of human con tent responses for te verbal and nonverbal groups, Magnussen (960) found a significant increase in te number of popular responses between a grou given a verbal reinforcer, "uh-huh", and agroup given a nonver bal reinforcer, nodding of te head, as compared to a control group. The studes with verba and nonverbal condtioning so far have been concered with te efect of examiners explicitly giving reinforcement to elicit an increase in certain subject response categories. Masling (965) investigated the examiner's unconscious tendency to conditon subjects' responses on te Rorschac. He instructed two groups of graduate stu dents in the use of te Rorschac.