Historical Development of Inkblot Technique

History of Inkblot Procedures

In many countries, performing psycho-diagnosis is a major role of the psychologist

who works in a clinical setting. Among the psychological tests most frequently used,

inkblot techniques are the most favored (Sundberg, 1961; Hinkle, Nelson and Miller,

1968; Sharma, Ojha and Vagrecha, 1975; Wade, Baker, Morton and Baker, 1978; Dubey,

1982). Published in 1921, the Rorschach psycho-diagnostic test occupied a major

position in the inkblot technique until 1956 when Wayne Holtzman developed his

technique, to overcome some of the limitations of the Rorschach.

The needs of the busy clinicians and the increasing demands for psycho-diagnosis

inspired Wilfred Cassell to develop a system of inkblot techniques. He uses modern

video technology to make it usable as a self-administered technique. Before discussing

the various limitations of existing inkblot techniques, it is worthwhile to trace the history

of the use of inkblot procedures in psychological investigation.

Beginning of Inkblot Procedure

The history of the inkblot procedure is not easily traced. It is traceable only through

Rorschach’s own writing, and through the writings of Emil Oberholzer, Walter

Morgenthaler and George Roemer. Zubin, Eron and Schumer (1965) indicated that the

concept of formless stimuli, used in inkblot techniques to stimulate the imagination,

can be traced back to Leonardo Da Vinci and Botticelli in the fifteenth century.

Exner (1969) wrote that it was important to note that in Europe during the latter half of

the nineteenth century, and the early part of the twentieth century, there was much

public interest in inkblots, not as a test but more as a game. It was very common for

inkblots to be used in a popular parlor game called “Blotto”, where the challenge was

to associate an image to a design. The design might well have been created right there,

or taken from the many inkblots and similar designs appearing in contemporary books

and magazines. “More formally, there was in Europe and the United States, considerable

experimentation attempted with inkblots as tests of imagination, personality and

intelligence. Krugman (1942) cites the evidence that as early as 1895, Binet and Henri

suggested that inkblots could be used for studying various personality traits, especially

visual imagination. Dearborn, while working at Harvard University, published an article

in 1897 discussed the potentials of employing inkblot techniques in experimental

psychology. As Tulchin mentions, in 1848 Dearborn published the results of applying

an inkblot technique to a group of sixteen subjects, wherein he used twelve sets of

inkblots, each having ten blots similar in nature. Tulchin also cites the pre- Rorschach

work of Sharp, Kirkpatrick, Whipple, Pyle, Bartlette and Parsons, all of whom published

material between 1900 and 1917 concerning inkblot methodology in the United States

and England” (Exner, 1974).

Baumgarten-Traumer (1942) mentioned that in 1910 in Moscow there appeared an

atlas for experimental research on personality, published by a Russian psychologist

named Theodere Rybakow who was a tutor at Moscow University. In the atlas, there

was a test consisting of eight inkblots. All of them were asymmetrical. Rybakow indicated

that her husband’s decision to work with inkblots was stimulated by the observations of

Konard Gehring, a teacher. Gehring discovered while using inkblots displayed on very

large sheets of paper at the front of the classroom, that certain children gave very

similar responses to a variety of inkblots, even though the images were different in their

form and color.

Zubin and Eron (1966) described three periods in the history of inkblot use in projective

testing. Artists who painted “indeterminate forms to simulate creative imagination”

comprised the pre-experimental period in the nineteenth century. Binet introduced the

“psychological experimental period” in 1895 with his assessment techniques, which measured imagination as an index of cognitive ability. Binet believed that a large number and variety of inkblot responses were a positive correlation to a “lively visual imagination” (Binet and Henry, 1895). Other inkblot researchers hypothesized that conscious awareness was slowed by ambiguous stimuli, thus making the perceptual process accessible for research purposes (Dearborn, 1897; Whipple, 1910). The third historical period began in 1911 with Herman Rorschach’s innovative research on “the interpretation of accidental forms” (1951). His interest in art forms and perception surfaced when he was a schoolboy. He was affectionately nicknamed “Klex” or “inkblots”

by his peers (Cassell, 1980). Roemer (1967) wrote that Rorschach’s first purpose for

developing an inkblot test was to investigate the subject’s reflex hallucination through

viewing inkblots. Cassell (1965) initially used inkblots to study the subject’s body

perceptions and somatic symptoms. Cassell (1980) extended his use of this technique

to where the clinician could better hear the suffering individual’s “inner cry.”

In summary, it can be said that the beginning of inkblot use may be traced back to the

fifteenth century and that a sizable amount of work was done towards the end of the

nineteenth century. Inkblot procedures have been used for studying imagination, thought

processes, reflex hallucinations, intelligence and personality. Currently, they are being

used to understand the subject’s psychopathology and to hear his/her “inner cry.” At

present the work is going on at various international SIS Centers.

Existing Inkblot Tests

There are three major standardized tests based on inkblots. The pioneer amongst

them was the Rorschach Inkblot Test published in 1921. Use of this test to explore the

subject’s psychopathology and basic personality structure is well known. A research

publication by Reynolds and Sundberg (1976) ranked the Rorschach test as number

one. They based their findings on Buros Mental Measure Yearbook. A survey conducted

on the members of The American Psychological Association Division-12, and The

Indian

6 Historical Development

Association of Clinical Psychologists showed concern from respondents about the

limitations of the test (Wade et al 1978; Sharma, Ojha and Vagrecha, 1975; Dubey,

1982). Zubin (1965) has charged seven major failures as follows:

1. Failure to provide an objective system, free of arbitrary conventions, and showing

high interscorer agreement.

2. Lack of satisfactory internal consistency, or test-retest reliability.

3. Failure to provide cogent evidence for clinical validity.

4. Failure of the individual Rorschach scoring categories to relate to diagnosis.

5. Lack of prognostic, or predictive validity with respect to the outcome of treatment,

or later behavior.

6. Individual differences between groups of normal subjects.

7. Failure to find any significant relationships between Rorschach scores and

intelligence, or creative ability.

In 1953, Fiske and Baughman reported that practitioners feel that the variation in the

total number of responses is too much to be able to interpret the ratio scores adequately.

Also, the meaning of the indices changes depending upon the length of the protocol,

because the relationship between Rorschach scores and the total number of responses

is complex and curvilinear.

Many workers compute percentage ratio in an effort to control the length of the protocol.

Holtzman (1956) pointed out that such procedures were very unsatisfactory, not only

because of the non-linear relationships between R and other Rorschach’s scores, but

also because of the crude, unstable and metric qualities of most Rorschach variables.

Holtzman et al (1956) pointed out that much of the controversy over the Rorschach

arises from the failure to distinguish between the Rorschach as a projective technique

in the hands of a skilled clinician, and the Rorschach as a psychometric device, that

yields scores having relevance for personality assessment. The analysis of responses

to inkblots has ranged all the way from one extreme to the other of the projective

psychometric continuum.

Wayne Holtzman developed an inkblot test to overcome some of the limitations of the

Rorschach. The main limitation of the Rorschach, as experientially determined, was

the problem of variation in the length of the protocol (Fiske and Baughman, 1953;

Dubey et al, 1978, 1979, 1989). As Fiske and Baughman pointed out, the relationship

between Rorschach scores and the total number of responses are complex and

curvilinear. Consequently, the usual effect of R linear regression methods for removing

the confounding effect of R will generally fail.

Dubey, (1982), in a study of 300 subjects, found that most of the Rorschach indices are

dependent upon the number of responses. When the groups of Normal, Neurotics, and

Schizophrenics were divided, on the basis of number of responses, into high productivity

and low productivity, many indices which were found to be significant lost their

significance. It further strengthened the findings of Fiske and Baughman, and supported

the intention of Holtzman.

The advantage, which Holtzman introduced in his test, was to offer an alternate series

of the inkblot stimuli test for reassessing the personality after some type of intervention.

Holtzman provided 45 cards in each series. The subject is required to give one response

per card. Holtzman categorically selected only 22 variables such as: reaction time,

location, form definiteness, form appropriateness, color, shading, movement,

pathogonomic verbalization, integration, human, animal, anatomy, anxiety, hostility,

barrier, penetration, popular, etc. His test is said to measure almost the same aspects of

personality that are measured by the Rorschach. Holtzman has clearly emphasized

the psychometric approach. The Holtzman test has wide application and is popular.

However, the research output is not as prolific as that of the Rorschach test. The Somatic

Inkblot Series is a recent extension of the traditional inkblot projective techniques. The

test was developed specifically to understand the manifestation of problems through

somatization, and to hear the suffering individual’s “inner cry.” The test images are

viewed on a television using a video cassette recorder (VCR). The subject’s responses

are recorded on a separate response sheet. The procedure can be done while the

patient waits for his/her turn at a clinic or a hospital. In some cases where the individual

has good ego strength, the procedure can be completed at home.

8 Historical Development