What's Wrong with the Rorschach? Science Confronts the Controversial Inkblot Test

Rating:
Summary: A good read with profound implications
Review: - STRONGLY recommended to all observers of how science impacts culture; certainly required reading for all interested in how psychology influences society.
- "Rorschach test" has entered the language as an idiom for an ambiguous stimulus that prompts responses showing more about those who respond than about the stimulus itself. This book tells the fascinating story of how a parlor game became a psychological instrument that also influenced popular culture. Just as most of us know IQ = intelligence, we know Rorschach Test = how our biases control our perception. Or we think we know this. It's worth reading the book just to trace this history. But the book tells a more profoundly important story.
- Readers are likely to come away with a sober view of how psychologists' clients and those caught in the legal system, including innocent children pulled between divorcing parents, are at the mercy of those who evaluate them. The importance of what may seem like niggling concerns about the Rorschach then becomes clear in this context.
- In an evenhanded, careful, interesting manner Wood and colleagues give a simple, but non-condescending overview of the science involved in controversies about the Rorschach -- and there is definitely real science to be considered. One need not come to a technical understanding to appreciate the practical importance of the scientific controversies associated with the Rorschach.
- Rank this book with Stephen J. Gould's classic _The Mismeasure of Man_ in showing how we can injure ourselves and others by failing to heed scientific evidence that disconfirms our biases.
- I have been using the Rorschach in my professional practice for about 25 years. I was trained by Rorschach experts. I've been teaching psychologists in training to use the Rorschach for the past 15 years. For much of that time I have been a cautious defender of the inkblot test. Paraphrasing an old joke, I believed there was a pony buried in all the Rorschach's accreted manure. My doubts grew as students working under my supervision were unable to confirm Rorschach claims. This book shows that others shared my doubts: Most who have tried to test the Rorschach, including many true believers, have come away frustrated. But "Rorschachers" seem unable to see the problems and consumers have not had a fair chance to judge for themselves.
- Wood and colleagues have tilted the balance in my mind. I will no longer be using the Rorschach in psychological evaluations. Their book is now required reading for my graduate students.

Rating:
Summary: a terrible book
Review: Almost everyone has heard of the Rorschach test. It consists of a series of ten ink blots that are presented to the patient with a request to tell what he sees in them. The responses constitute, or so it is claimed, something of an x-ray of the respondent's total personality and character.

Why should such perceptions of ink blots give a such a powerful picture of mental life ? The reasons are said to lie in psychoanalytic theory, which hold that unconscious motivations, unique to an individual, govern our every perception. Moreover, it has been said, the Rorschach test "works," i.e. it can predict behavior, and it can tell the mentally sick from the healthy.

But, as these authors painstakingly demonstrate, there is amost no validity whatever in these claims. It is true that gross mental illness can generally be detected by this test, as, for instance, when a patient claims that he can very clearly see God conversing with Elvis Presley in Card I of the test. But then again, this kind of diagnosis surely needs no Rorschach. Beyond that, the test has failed each and every reasonable attempt at validation. Scientifically oriented psychologists have rejected the Rorschach a long time ago. Some clinical psychologists hold on to it, for reasons that are not -- to put this politely -- edifying.

To someone like me who has been exposed to Rorschach instruction in graduate school many years ago, this book gives truly fascinating information. The abysmal failure to validate the test, of course, is no news. But the details about the internal battles within clinical psychology give a rare insight into the foibles of apparently educated men. The authors are particularly good at analyzing why it is that for certain people the test, to this day, retains credibility. The answer here turns out to be strikingly similar to the reasons why fortune tellers can thrive in a presumably science-dominated world.

When I was an undergraduate psychology student a truly long time ago, I had a great teacher, Gardner Murphy, whose memory I cherish to this day. Upon reading this book, I took Gardner Murphy's old text from my shelf to see what he had to say about the Rorschach. I was shocked to find that he accepted the unfounded claims of the Rorschachers of his day, citing studies that were never replicated by anyone else. So it turns out that Murphy had feet of clay.

But Murphy wrote long before the devasting negative findings that Wood, et. al. cite in this book. So he had something of an excuse for his gullibility. No such excuse can be advanced for those who support the Rorschach today.

I think that this is an exceedingly important book, and I reward it five stars without qualm. Nevertheless I must mention that it could have benefitted from more than a bit of editing. It is inexcusably repetitious. Beyond that, the prose is needlessly rough. But these are minor complaints. The book is a jewel, a rough diamond to be sure, but a true jewel.

Rating:
Summary: A rough diamond
Review: Almost everyone has heard of the Rorschach test. It consists of a series of ten ink blots that are presented to the patient with a request to tell what he sees in them. The responses constitute, or so it is claimed, something of an x-ray of the respondent's total personality and character.

Why should such perceptions of ink blots give a such a powerful picture of mental life ? The reasons are said to lie in psychoanalytic theory, which hold that unconscious motivations, unique to an individual, govern our every perception. Moreover, it has been said, the Rorschach test "works," i.e. it can predict behavior, and it can tell the mentally sick from the healthy.

But, as these authors painstakingly demonstrate, there is amost no validity whatever in these claims. It is true that gross mental illness can generally be detected by this test, as, for instance, when a patient claims that he can very clearly see God conversing with Elvis Presley in Card I of the test. But then again, this kind of diagnosis surely needs no Rorschach. Beyond that, the test has failed each and every reasonable attempt at validation. Scientifically oriented psychologists have rejected the Rorschach a long time ago. Some clinical psychologists hold on to it, for reasons that are not -- to put this politely -- edifying.

To someone like me who has been exposed to Rorschach instruction in graduate school many years ago, this book gives truly fascinating information. The abysmal failure to validate the test, of course, is no news. But the details about the internal battles within clinical psychology give a rare insight into the foibles of apparently educated men. The authors are particularly good at analyzing why it is that for certain people the test, to this day, retains credibility. The answer here turns out to be strikingly similar to the reasons why fortune tellers can thrive in a presumably science-dominated world.

When I was an undergraduate psychology student a truly long time ago, I had a great teacher, Gardner Murphy, whose memory I cherish to this day. Upon reading this book, I took Gardner Murphy's old text from my shelf to see what he had to say about the Rorschach. I was shocked to find that he accepted the unfounded claims of the Rorschachers of his day, citing studies that were never replicated by anyone else. So it turns out that Murphy had feet of clay.

But Murphy wrote long before the devasting negative findings that Wood, et. al. cite in this book. So he had something of an excuse for his gullibility. No such excuse can be advanced for those who support the Rorschach today.

I think that this is an exceedingly important book, and I reward it five stars without qualm. Nevertheless I must mention that it could have benefitted from more than a bit of editing. It is inexcusably repetitious. Beyond that, the prose is needlessly rough. But these are minor complaints. The book is a jewel, a rough diamond to be sure, but a true jewel.

Rating:
Summary: The Rorscach IS controversial
Review: Don't let the other reviews fool you - many psychologists, especially in the forensic area where the testing and conclusions advanced are subject to scrutiny, are abandoning the Rorschach. The authors have mixed the methods of their arguements, using anecdotes for accessiblity, but here are many, many formal studies behind their conclusions. I predict the Rorschach, in its present form, will be dead in less than 20 years. Nobody will want to pay for a test with such little proven validity and utility, and so subject to overpathologizing people.

Rating:
Summary: An Embarressing Distortion of the Research
Review: Dr. Wood and his colleagues have been publishing these same arguements regarding their reservations about the Rorschach Test for several years. Despite scholars' efforts to explain the authors' misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the instrument, its current use, and the research regarding the Rorschach's psychometric properties, these authors persist in repeating inaccuracies regarding its scientific properties.

This book is an embarressment to scientific experts who actually understand the research that these authors present with such misunderstanding.

Rating:
Summary: a terrible book
Review: I am not a defender of psychological testing; in fact, I think it has serious limitations as evidenced by the relatively poor correlation of IQ with actual life achievement. In this book the authors set out upon a critique of one of psychology's most treasured tests: the inkblot, a projective personality test designed to reveal underlying pathologies. The research, however, is terrible; it's self referential and sloppy, and while the authors claim to be champions of the scientific method, their book is really no more than a few paltry opinions and some "data" gathered on the internet. I'm sorry I bought this book.

Rating:
Summary: Hypocritical screed by clinicians who should know better
Review: If you are looking for an unbiased review of the current Rorschach empirical literature, this book is NOT the place to look. That's what I was looking for when I read this book, and was quite disappointed. Yet, I hate to admit that I was initially taken in by the authors' emotional writing style. It was only after some perspective and looking up some of the research cited (and not cited) in this book that I realized the irony -- that is, the authors use the very method that they condemn to make their 'case.' In that sense, I would rate this book a '4 or 5' for anyone interested in critical analysis and persuasion (even if you're not interested in the Rorschach) as a wonderful example of how information can be misused, distorted, and employed for personal gain.
Here are some of the issues: First, as implied by the title of the book, its purpose is to evaluate the status of the Rorschach from a scientific perspective. Yet, this was only a VERY small portion of the book. That is where I'm most regretful that I actually bought the book. Furthermore, in their 'scientific review,' the authors frequently actually 'cite' correspondence from Internet discussion lists as their 'scientific data!' Ha! This is absurd. And they do so in the context of building up a 'case' in their 'scientific review' that there is some big conspiracy among these Rorschach researchers that the authors are letting the public in on. In fact, this not-so-concealed conspiracy theory comprises most of the theme of the book! One begins to wonder why the authors are so invested in passionately and condescendingly dissing this test and the test's researchers. Very poor form, authors.

Here are more examples:
1. In the first few pages of the book, the first author (Wood) begins by telling us some of his own Rorschach test results. And then he proceeds to expect us to take his word for it that any negative implications of these results are absurd, since he's such a well-adjusted guy (by his own report). Yet I found it funny that his very book seemed to support some of these interpretations; if they're not true, he should have been more careful to not display those characteristics in his book. Especially the interpretation that says he's egocentrically focused on himself. (does anyone else see the irony here?) That was actually humorous! I got a kick out of that.

2. If the reader is already lulled into sympathizing with this poor author and the invalidity of the test from these first few pages, they will be further inclined to believe the next section (and use it as verification of the author's conclusions in the preceding pages). The next few pages discuss a court case involving child sexual abuse; an abusing father was not identified and was allowed to have custody of the child. As you might guess from the authors' title of their book, this was the Rorschach's fault. Yet, this was a case where there were MANY lapses and errors on the part of *all* the professionals involved in the case (and hindsight is 20-20). In a court case (or any evaluation), any personal report of the people involved and any 'test' results can be misused, misinterpreted, ignored, and invalid. Yet the authors seem to think it is the fault of one test. This is a great section to show how emotional manipulation can lead one to lose their own critical abilities.

3. Throughout the book, the authors use emotional manipulation and single 'case studies' like these, as well as conclusions based on minor details of research and out-of-context posts from Internet discussion (!) groups. This is ironic and somewhat funny, since these are the very methods that the authors themselves most strongly critique!

4. However, their book is a psychologist's treat in examples of primitive defenses: Splitting, idealization, devaluation, projection. The authors are good and the Rorschach researchers are bad (splitting). There is even a chapter title that characterizes anyone who attempted to integrate the past Rorschach approaches as "Still Waiting for the Messiah" on the part of the psychologists interested in the Rorschach (idealization). Then the authors proceed to nitpick -- no, not exactly the Rorschach research but -- the Rorschach researchers themselves (!), making them sound like idiots and suspicious characters (devaluation and paranoia). Yet, if one actually READS the published articles they cite (especially by Gregory Meyer who they cite and frequently villainize), one finds a quite thoughtful and actually VERY scientific approach. Wow. The authors of the book "What's Wrong with the Rorschach" aren't even in the same league.

So, what's wrong with this book? Answering that question is the only reason to read it.

Rating:
Summary: Hypocritical screed by clinicians who should know better
Review: These authors are all scientists who should understand research, statistics, and scientific theory. How they could knowingly write a book as misleading as this challenges their objectivity (and ethics) as scientists. Suspicions are evident from the outset, when the first author uses his own Rorschach responses to demonstrate how fallible the test is. Given his familiarity with the Rorschach, he gives answers that suggest problems; however, the variables he chooses are ones easiest to malinger (e.g., single response items versus variables based on ratios or percentages). To use his informed protocol to challenge the test is ludicrous; a psychologist who has studied the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale would not give himself the WAIS to determine his IQ.

The authors then give a description of a Rorschach being used incorrectly by inept practitioners to discredit the instrument. If a cook burns a steak, it doesn't mean there was something wrong with the food.

Much of the book is devoted to the Rorschach as used when it was first developed a century ago. Practitioners often used questionable interpretation methods, particularly because they lacked the statistical methods to develop a valid scientific basis for the test. In the 1970s, John Exner tried to take the strongest factors of the numerous scoring systems and develop a scientifically-based system. Since that time, he has been working on the Comprehensive System, which is the only Rorschach method that has sufficient scientific backing. I will not address the aspects of their book that do not concern Exner, because everything else they write is for the sole purpose of making their articles book-length. [Surely they are aware of the difference between the old "blind interpretations" and the current strict methodology for administering and scoring the Rorschach, yet they equate the CS to everything that came before, which is then equated to fortune-telling, Tarot cards and tea leaves. This is such an obvious misrepresentation that to suggest they are connected should be considered a lie. A similarly misleading point is their boldly pronounced claim (in the form of a chapter title) that proponents of the Rorschach call it an "x-ray" of the mind; they later admit that current clinicians do not describe it that way]

Wood et al have published numerous articles attacking the Rorschach, so most of their arguments are reprints from--and have been repeatedly discredited in--scientific journals. Their failures to impose a moratorium on the Rorschach by the scientific community, who see through their shoddy work, have apparently led them to try to dupe the general public (through this book and articles in the New York Times, among other publications). They engage in many of the tactics they accuse Rorschachers of employing, such as an exclusive bias towards research that supports your viewpoint, personalizing the issue and abandoning professional discourse, and dismissing all research against your argument as biased. The flaws in their reasoning are immediately apparent, and reminiscent of political screeds (e.g., by Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, etc.) in their distortions, lies, and half-truths.

In short, here are some facts about the current state of the Rorschach:

1. When the CS is used, validity and reliability is acceptable and comparable to other accepted scientific tests. Some of the research in this area is negative (as Wood et al quickly point out), but the majority of it is supportive (as they neglect to mention). However, it is important to ensure that the CS is used for administration, scoring, and interpretation. This is true for any scientific test, but the Rorshach may be particularly susceptible to individualization.

2. The Rorschach arguably meets all the Daubert criteria that would qualify it for use in legal situations. However, it is not always appropriate to use in legal situations (The same is true of any test, of course).

3. The Rorschach is not attacked as much as these authors would like you to believe. Most of the negative publications against the Rorschach are the work of a very few determined authors, who also wrote this book.

4. The American Psychological Association's PAWG group determined that psychological testing--including the Rorschach--is beneficial for numerous reasons. Wood et al's dismissal of these findings as biased is an insult to the name of the esteemed researchers on the work group, and gives evidence to their own biases.

Wood et al argue that practioners who use the Rorschach have questionable ethics. I think the most questionable ethics are those employed by scientists who knowingly mislead the public by using obviously shoddy methodology, reasoning, and arguments.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent book
Review: What's Wrong with the Rorschach is an amazing book. It provides background into the origins of the Rorschach and a cogent analysis of the scientific basis ( or lack thereof) of this widely used
test. Wood and his fellow authors skillfully describe the theoretical underpinnings of the Rorschach and then explain its subsequent development in simple, easy to understand language.
Despite the book's academic focus, it reads like a well written, tightly plotted whodunit and entertains as it informs. I predict that What's Wrong With the Rorschach will ignite a debate that
will have implications far beyond the test it critiques and will spark an rigorous examination of clinical practice in general. It is a must read for mental health professionals and will be of interest to general readers as well.