This article was downloaded by: [University of New Hampshire] On: 06 March 2015, At: 01:06 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Personality Assessment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
The Susceptibility of the Rorschach to Malingering: A Critical Review Glenn G. Perry & Bill N. Kinder Published online: 22 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: Glenn G. Perry & Bill N. Kinder (1990) The Susceptibility of the Rorschach to Malingering: A Critical Review, Journal of Personality Assessment, 54:1-2, 47-57 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1990.9673972
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
JOURNALOF PERSON.4LFY ASSESSMEhT, 1990, %(I & 2). 47-57 Cop!.rlght G 1990, Lawrence Eribaum Assmates Inc.
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
The Susceptibility of the Rorschach to Malingering: A Critical Review Glenn G, Perry and Bill N. Kinder khiversity of South Ftarida
Ernp~ricaistudies of rnaik~germgon the Rorschach are reviewed. liesuks from :hese studies are to :his point inconsixen: and ~ncmclusi\-e.Plithoilgh severat indices are reiateci to rriaiingering in incixidsai stdies! nc specific rnalingeri:lg p:rern has been t&nd that replicates across studies. A rnethodolog~iziprobier;;. specif~cto this !irerarure ir discussed and k t w e research designs are r e c o m ~ e n d e d .
-i here are many instances in which individuals might desire co malinger, or fake a mental iHness, in to2ayJs society. Criminals wishing to avoid jaii sentences, accident viccims wishing to sue fur damages, a n d /orTreterans seektng substantial
government disabiiiry payments are exemples of individuals who might consider maIinpeting during pspchoIog~a1testing. Often, psychological test batteries include the Rorschach test. because it is believed to be resistant :o intentio~a; 1941, rnanipIa:ion by the subject (Exner, 1974, 1975, 19%; Fosberg, IS'%,
1343). 13 t h ~ sreview. we first br~eflvexamme the process In\oh ecl in iormu;ating responses to the Rorschach ~nkbIots.Next, we reliew the pubiishe? Rorschach malingerixg htemture :n an attempr t o cieterxne :f some reiiahle response pattern can be detected :f:ar would rnd~catemal:nger~ng. Finzl!~. we b r ~ e ? ~ conslder the Jata analysis problems mherent rn s t a t ~ s r m i ma1rs:s of rhe Rorschach :es:.
THE RORSCEIACH RESPONSE PROCESS Exner t 1986)a r g ~ e dthat t i e process of d e e~l o p g a response tc. the :nkbiots is a prob~em-sci.imgtask !cvolvmg decrslon chorces arnong a range ct:pocenr:ai responses. It is lnkeiv the response process occurs verv quicklv a:ld :nvolvec at ieast three phases: (a)visual :np.it, encod:ng, a d r2r.k order:ng ei the potential
48
PZmY AND KINDER
responses; thf discardzng potential answers Jile to icw rankings or through censorship; and ic! seiectrng the remanning responses by reason of tram: stries. or scate insuences [Exner, 1986). If Exner's conceptualmtion is correct, the Rorschach response process is beavdv influenced by conscious cognitive prscesses. i herefere, the possibiky exists for vaIlt;onai conscious aireration of the responses.
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
-
MALINGERING ON THE RORSCHACH The eari): studies were carried out by Fosberg (1938, 134 I , 1943). Fosberg (i938) had 2 subjecrs take the Rorschach repeatedly under four conditions: (a) standard instructions, (Dj instructions r3 make rhe best impressior,, ic) instructions to m&e the worst impression, and id) inscructicns to find specific determinants. Fosberg applied the chi-square technique tc. the protocols to &:ermine if the b u r protocols were drawn from the same population jpersonj. Becarase no significant differences were forrnci, Fosberg cencluded, The Rorschach test does not lend irseifto manipulations based upon the subjective persornal es:irnation of character, good, Sad, or indifferent (as cac so easily be done in the more popdar paper and pencil tes:s) Su: faithfully crates the more permanent picture. (?. 30)
In 1941, Fosberg again investigated the effect of varied instructions on Rorschach scores. He again used a test-retest design, b:;t with 25 males and 25 females as the sub~ects.His lnstrucrions were: (a! standard instructions; (b) directions to make the best possibk impression; (ci directions to make the worst possible impression; and (d) standard instructions, Rather chan empieying the ,. cm-square technique, he made pairwise correlations across the four ccnditions. The parrwise correlatmns were qu:re hrgh, ranging from the 711~and -80s for contents, to the .%r and -33s for l o c a t m ~varaables and deterxinmts. Because rhe correlations between the seandard tests and the "best" 6.92; 2nd "worst" (.99 1 tests were high and the correlation between the best and worsr tests are st:Il ir. the .80s, Fosberg concluded, "The attempt s t iaislfymg the Rorschach protocoi faled. The conciusion 1s :hat the test catmot be kked" (p. 13). Ur,fcrt.uxxelp, Fosberg's statlstrcai procedures were unsomd. Cronback (1949 reviewed Fosberg's s ~ d l e and s scad.
h one study he etsed chi-sqilare
:o show that the psychograms for each persoR corresponded. Bur rhis statisticai test mereill showed that the D score in record i ts nearer to D In record 2 that i: is to W , C, or other scores. That is, he showed that the scores me not paired a t random. But, since each score has a relativeiy iimiteci range for all people-x.: D tends :o be iarge, rn rends to be small, etc.--he wau!d
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
have also obcained a significantly iarge chi-square if he had app!ied the same procedure to four records from dijferent persons . . . Fosbergs second s t u d y , wng correiatior,cecb.nique, is ncc sounder than the first. That is, pairs ofvaiuec such as W,-W1 D,-3;, etc. were entered in :he same correiat~oncharr. As before, the generally greater magnitude 31 0 causes :he twc: sets ta correizte, but high correlatjens uvuid have nee^ obtained if the scores correlated came korr, rwc different. subjects. (p.424)
In his 1943 studv, Fosberg repor:eci on the methods adoped b\ subjects In arremptmg to fake resulcs on the Rmscharh durrng h ~ s! 9 i studv. The d:s:nbst~ons of the methods are extreme]., ptatvk~rtrc,rndlcanng a d ~ v e r s of ~t~ method bur lnttle consensus on ahv method. tie saggested that b e c a s e the subjects were professors and sy~dentsin ps\.chohg\. and thev "couid not rnaterlallv rnfluence the test results, c e r t a d v 'test-nave' subjects iodld not :r&ence the Rorschach tesr" (p. I2OL A resdt of Fosberg's f:ncirngs was a strenghezed behei that the Rorschach process was one ~ n v o h n gmvokntarv ;.rolect:on of mconscious personairtv traits. The Rorschach was believed KO he unfakabie and o n h one research prolect was published for nezrh a decade. Bentcn (1315) reporred on cl:r,ical data, suggestrng char the overall Seha\ror of rnakngerers appears to be out of keeprng w t h thelr other rest perf~rmanceand general behamor He hrther suggested that a decrease In X and a failure to see any popular iP) responses as weG as Increases :r. response trme and rejections mav be characreristic of malingers cn the Rorschach. Unfortcrnateiv, hns conclmons were based on h ~ s :r,terprerarson o i rl:n~cal data and d ~ dnot inc;ude any statistical analvsis. Therefore, his work attraced little attentior. anl; drd not a?pear t c s t ~ m d a t e further research act1v:tr. The nex: s t d i e s were pubhstied m the 1953s car^ & Shavzrn, 1950, Feldrnan & Graiev, 13541. Car? and Shame rnod:fied Fosberg's design .sing 2; male psychoiogv students in a rest-retest design counterbaiance' on ixsrructmns to e ~ t h e rglr7ea "good ~mpression"or a 'bad rmpressioc." When the data were andyzed, usng a t test, onlr the C-scorr difference n a s stat~s:>cail\ s ~ g n r f ~ a nTher t. went on to suggest, however, that the :nd:vrdual proflies clear15 showed d~tierences."B;t the d~rectrontaker b\ :rrd?vidualsnbleccs waz so dwerse, among the indwtdua; subjects, that :her were balanced out 1n the anaivsis" (p. 232) Carp and Shavzm tnen caicula~edc h ~squares to determne d the two dtstrlbutmns from each subject were sirnrlar and found three of the dlstnbuaons were sgnrficantly drfferent. Carp and Shavzln concluded that some sdqeccs can vanr t h e r pessonallty pic:xe as reflected bv the Rorschach under mstructlons to make good or bad rmpressrons. Feidrnan and Gralek (19%) admrcrstered the Rarschach to s~bjects:n g o u ~ adrninistratmns as recommended bv Harrower-Er~cksonif9411. Using a staticgros:, compar:son des~gc,one g r m p was given the Rorschach first m d e ~ standard Instructrons and retested m t h rnstrsctmns to "glse the worst possrble
50
PERRY AND KINDER
impression." A seconri g r o q was given one adnirnistratioc of the Rorschach with instructions to "give the worst possible impression." They found both "rnahger" groups respcmded with increases in inasmate movement in!, colorC): form-coior (FC),sex, and anatomy (.4r;)and farm pius pure color (CF decreases :n F when compared to the control group. Their results are of ques~ionahieexternai validity, however, beczuse factor anaivsrs of data derived from group admlnistrzt~onof the Rorschach ha: been shown to measure a ddferent set of underlving constructs than fac:or analvsk of data derived from ~ndivrdualadministrarion of :he Rorschach (ShaEer, Dnszynski, Qr Tnomas,
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
+
1931!. Feldnan and Gralev asked s~bjectswhat strategies were used :c the rnaiingering attempr. Srrayegies ~eported,in order of frequency, were as fo1~ovi.s:"(a) avoiding che normal response; (bj emphasizing sex; (c) aentmning symptoms of maladjustment; (cl) using a specific mental dlsorder as a g d e ; (e) using an unspecified mental disorder as a guide; if)stressing aggressii/e and gory concepts'' (p. 352). In 1967: Easrcn and Felgerkmirr: used a test-retesr Jesign with a controi , . group. ;neir experimental group received standard inscructions for the first resting and malinger instructmns on retest. Their control group received standard :nstructions or, boch admir.istrations of the test. This design allowed them to examine the effect ior repetition as well as. :he effect for inscructions. They found a decrease in D:P, 05j, and R as a result sf the instructions to malinger. They also found, however: an increase in D,!-I, Ad, and R as weii as a decrease in A and t? as a resuit of repetition. Therefore, part of the variance in the resuits from a test-recest design seems t c be 2 $mctio~iof the interaction of the repetirion effects. and the :nstruction effects. This interaction clouds rhe interpretation of such designs. This problem appears espedaiiy significant nher, test-retest designs are used with the Rorschach due to the carry-aver-effect influence of the Rorschach inquiry, Another decade fclIowed without Further published research. When resezrch o~ malingering resumed in the late 1970s and the early i980s, there was a shift in research design, moving away from the test-retest design. Test-retest designs are seen in osIy one study during the 1970s and 1982s (Seamons, Howeil, Cariisie, ;Sr Roe? i981i. Seamons et al. used a counterbaiartced rest-retest desrgn with h r cells of 12 prism inmates €ram each of the foliowing diagnostic categories: nonschizophrenin. latent. schizophrenic: residual schizophrenic, and psycho~ic schizophre~ic. During rhe initial testing ehep administered :he korschach tc half of each group with instructions to "appear as if you zre a ncrrnai. well adjusted individual," and to the other half with irastructions to "appear as if you are mentaiiy 31 and psychotic." During :he second testing, each subject received :he aiternate inscrxtions, The jmxocois were scored in accordance with the Exner (1974) scoring sgstem and an anaiysrs of var:ance iAKCVA) was performed on the 48var~aDl.esscored. Searnons et ai. r b m d thar rpl
7
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
when the subjects were asked to appear mentally ill, the:r protocok showed a decrease in P ana ax: increase ir: B1, ep, IYCGk!, F.4BC0411. and dramatic responses (defined as themes of depression, sex, blood, gore, conhsion, mutilation! hatred, fighting, and decapitation'). N a significant changes were noted in the ratlix, percentages, and derwarlons. Expert judges we-e ahie to &&:entiare correct1-y betueen :hose who were a&ed t c a?pear normal or asked to fake psvchosis. Seamons et ai. sugges~edthat uher. the X -t- 'or F+ B, and i are in the norma: range wth a h g h number of dramatic, blood, texrare. s h a h g , i:s:a. nonhuman macement, or inappropriate combmarlans, ~t mai be lnAcar . e af an attempt to zppear menrakv :I;. biore recent studies have generally wed mulr~celidesigns w r h controI groups rathcr t5an test-retest designs. The change t o ;ndtrceli des~gnsu:th contra: groups began with Bash (1978).Bash compared diagnosed malingerers w t h h a h c i n a d n g schizophrenrcs. nonhailacinaring schizoph:enics, and nonpsychotic mental patients. She found :hat the maiingerers coxid be digerexiated frcm aH other groiqs oniy on the foiiowing scores: rejection of cards, fallure to report easy populars, and low FB. Bash concluded that naiingerers are no: 2 special group because they cannat be differentiated 02 maw: other variables. The final four studies {AfSert, Fox. S: Kahn, 19%: Meisaer. i3E.I; 5,ktmar;. 1983; Cherton, 1984)trained subjects in various aspects oipsychopathoiog and then asked them t c fake the psvchopathoIogy during psychnbgicai testing. The assumption ir: these studies is thai subjects cautd no; easily fake a conditicn they did not understand. T h i s Lack oi knowieslge of the role to be ccilld have ied to very weak rnanipuiations in previous research! hecause pas' subjectswere asked t o fake a condition when thev could have had littie or :lo knowledge about the condition t o be faked. Albert et al. ii98N and 3I:ttman (i9R3)evaiuateh the degree t o n hich expert judges could detect malingering. Alinert et ai. established iisur cells of six protocols each from the foliowing groups: ps~chorlc:npa:ients, u n : n h m e d fzkers, mle-informed fakers, and normais with standard instructions, These p r o r o d s were randomly: assigned to packets contaming one erotocci of each condition. The packers were mailed to 201 Fellows o i the Sociery for Personality Assessment with a requesr that a diagnosis be deveiopecl, that the !udge reports his or her degree of certainty in rhe diagnosis, that the judge ex~aiuates:he possibility of malingermg, and that h e protocol be rated on eight dimensions of pathology. Usable sets ofresponses were obtained from 46 of the packets. Albert et ai. used a chi-square rechnique and found that (a) the uninformed fakers were diagnosed psychotic as often as the actual ib) the informed fakers were diagnosed psychotic at a higher rate than the actual psychoticsl and (c! judges were equally certain of the diagnoses across c-xperimentai g r m p ~ . h 3 k n a n (,1983)a h a used judges t o interpret Rorschach protcxois. She asked 39 cdiniciacs,well trained in the interperation an2 saxing of the Rorschach?to
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
5% PERRY A X ? UNDER judge a packet of five randomiv assigned protocols. The protocois were taken horn groups of inpatient depressives, inprient schizophrenics, uninformed fakers (whc were asked ro simulate schizophrenia bur were uninformed a b m t the role). icforrned fakers (asked tc simlate schizophrenia and informed &our the role); and normal controis with standard instructions. Mittman f m n d that the judges diagnosed the unirstorrned fakers as sc:fiizophretlic significantly less often than the actual schizophrenics. Judges, however, were foaled by the pro:ocols oi the informed. iakers who were weli versed in the role of schizophrezia. h4btnan concurred with Albert et ai, (1980) and concluded that tile Rorschach could be srrsceptibie to rnaringering if respondents were well informed about their roie. These two studies have demonstrated that "experrs" cannot ahvajrs discriminate between acrual psychotic profiles and roie-sophisticared malingering profiles. Becailse roie-.informed malingerers have been judged to be psychotic more frequently than actnal psvchotics, the validity of the Rorschach Frotocol must 5e questioned ii t i e prorocol arises from a situation ir: which malingering for secondary ga:c cnrrki be ar: issue. To detect t h s malingering! research turned agairr to seeking discriminatory patterns :n the structurai data, but this time r znrormed fakers were included in rhe research designs ib'reiser. 1484; Overton, "
1984:. Meiser ji984E used five trained examiners, blind to the experimental conditions of the study? to administer the Rorschach to 58 nondepressed uciversiq students. Irrrrnediace':y prior to ~ a k h gthe Rorschach, 3 of the subjects were trained irr the ciiniczi symptoms of depression and asiied to fake depression. The remaining 29 subjects received starr:%ard instructions. Meisner anaiyzed the variables by first evaluating rhe distribution of the varkbie and thec using a two-factor ANOVA, a Mann-Whitnea. U test, or a Fischer Exact Test. Meisner b u n d that when the subjects attempted tc fake depression their protocois showed a reclucr~cn:n R and an Increase m blood corrterr: end morbid specmi scores. K o decermmants were srgn~ficantlpsfiected by attempts tc fake depression. hiersner ccncided char the silsceptibd:tv of the Xorschach lndnces a i depressron to fak:ng was markedly Emred. Overton (1984) randorniy asslgned 12. male and 3 fenale undergraduate psychology stctdents to three groups. Subjects were adrn:nrstered the Rorschach by examiners whc were blind to the experrrnentd condltmns. The contrd group recewed standard msrructmns, the nonlniormed group received mairnger 13struct~ons,and the informed group was gwen specrfrc mstructions on how to m a h g e r iri the r d e o i E schzzophrenic. Data were anahzed using mu!t:variate zndyses of variance {MANOVAs)and ANOL'As Aithough Overton found muhpie treatment efiecrs, he suggested rhar reha'bie patterns o i rnatlmger~ng coilid ROC be found. The data md~caredthat the nonrniormed fakers appeared cioser to psychotic than the ~nfornedfakters who prod-sced protocds too pronosnced to be beileved arid whose behavmral presentatron was znconsrsrent
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
with psvchosls 0:'e~ton suggested that maimgerrng could hest be denrrfred rr. the context of extratest behavior, h~storv,and possltie moc:vation of the subject. Pett~greu, Tuma, Pickermg, and Whelton (1 983i used a new mukple-choice group adminrstrat~onRorschach lnstrlnrnent to dlfierent~atesrudenrs asked to simulate psychosis from students with nornal instrilcticns and civilly committed psvchotics a5 well as forensic inpatient psychotics. Thelr stimuli were coior reproduc:ions of standard inkblots :n reduced size on a single page. Five responses were preselected for each biot with four multipie-choice akernacives designated far each response forming a 50-questton ob~ect:vetex. The akernative answers for each questlon barled form and wordmg from good brn, nonb~zarrcwording :o poor form, blzarre wordzng. Pecttgrew et ai found that s:mulators gave more good-form, bizarre-wordmg answers and s~gges:ed that s~mulatorsare "exposed by theu cwn perceptual accuracv" (p. 468). hithough t h ~ s1s the onlv design to date that has contro'rled for Larlance :r, R, rhe unqueness of the des~gnsuggests that the resuits arc dlff1c.k tc? generalize to the general Rorschach rnalmger heramre. The Rorschach Workshops (i98';' htlum~i3msietter reporred that rhe:r h e a r project o n rnalinger~ngu nearrng completion '&'I& respecr ro the Schlzophren:a index (SCZi,. thelr eariv resuits sugesr that between 217% and 2 5 8 of s h j e c t s who have considerable informarion about schizophrenia can obtzin values of 4 for the SCZI.Aimosr none ob:ak? values of 5 for the SCZT . . . 5 of 15 n o n s ~ h i z o ~ h r e psvchiacric ~ic ~nparientswhc. h a v e contact with schizophrenics were abie to pioduce a record :n ksh~chthe SCZI has a vaiue of 4 but none in the sampie prociuced a record in which :he SCZI has s i&e oi 5 . (p. 111
Cons~deredas a whole, the Ilterature suggests tkat Rorschach scores can be b,; the subjecr. altered h r conditions external to the subject and 'or voi~t~onaih At this trme, however, the resdts are exrremely rrlconalstent anc! rto re!~able p a r m a of responses In a protocoi chat would indicate the presence of m a h germ&has beer: identified. A few patterns have been suggested, bur to date these o! this heterogenem. have nor been replicated. Perhaps a s n g d ~ i a nproportmn t and &!we to replicate, 1s due t c unsound deslgn and. or data anai\s:s procedures.
RORSCHACI-I DATA ANALYSIS PROBLEMS When research
1s conducted usmg the Rorschach, research des!gc and data znalvsls must take znto account the varlabilltv of the number of responses (R'r between subjects and the dependence on R of m m v determ:nanrs, ~ndlces,
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
54
PERRY AND KINDER
ratios, and so on, This appears particularly critical in Rorschach malingering research because the maiingering or fake haci subjects have been showr. t c respond by reducing R in their pmtocois. The primary problem created by differences in R is that the various Rorschach indices are not experirnectaliy Independent-the coca1 record is collected at once, and productwity idhences neariy all the scores. Therefore, if group scores are exaxirred without controiling for differences in 2,the grsup differences found could be a function of differe x e s in R rathe: than a fcnnction of the experimentai condition. One of the strengths of the Rorschach is tire lack of structue, which allows t h e subject to srmcture che experience tc: meet his or her idiosyncratic needs. This freedox to create a distinctive response set results ir, an individualistic. protocoi, giving the examiner a unique gEmpse of a subjecr's cognitive processes. This type of information is superb when the icterest is in an idiographic examination of the individuai, but: ~ o ~ p l i z a ~the e s ':cvestigatlon when attexpdng to look 2t nornothetic data from a group of individuals when not only each group member has a different number of responses? but also, each group mean differs in responsiviry. The very beauty of the Rorschach, its iack of struc:ure allowing perceptive ilnicians a giirripse at the individ>aal's i$iographic thought processes, now becomes a hindrance. Differexes in 3 must be contrciied to the maxirnak extent possible to investigate nonothetic Rorschach d x a . Without such control, differences in rhe magnitude of the Rorschach vaPiabies in quest-iorr can be confounded! resulting in ictergreration diifituities. Cronbach (llii49) stated, ~
~
Where groups differin torai nnrnher of responses, this fac:o; m s r be held constant before other differences can be soundly ixerpreted. Three devices for doing rhis are: rescormg a fixed ncmber of responses on ail papex. construct:ng s&y-ol;ps equated or: :be nnmber of responses, and znaipzing profiies of rrormdized scores (partern rabuiarioni. (p. 426)
A fourth method for controihg for the differences in X is statistic& control through par:iaiing or residuaiizing (Exner, Vlgiione, Sr Giileswie, 1954; Mason, Cohen, Sr Exner, 1985; Shaffer et at., 198li. As early as 1944 Cronbach suggested that because the errors and poor choices of statistical procedsres are so widespreaci, few of the conclusions for s:a:rstical studies of the Rorschach can be trusted. Airnost 4C:years later. these same cricicisrns appear to apply, at ieast with respect to the malingering data reviewed in rhis article. Xt is apparent &a: when conducting a Rorschach study using nornothetic data, research goups must be equa:ed on R prior to any significance tests. No research to dare of malingering on rhe Rorschach has contrsiieci for diserences in 3 prior tc. submitting the scores to various statistjcai tests. This suggests that the resulting findings fron the entire literature or=malingering on the Rorschach must be questioned because any variability found may have been
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
a factor of the varaable's depenciencv on R rather than the expecmental conditions. The hndrngs of Albert et aI. (1980 and Mxtrnari (1963) are exempt %omthls scrutmv because thelr hndengs were basea on declsiox mad? Is\. ~ddges who rerlewed tdiograph~cprotocols, and they drd nor attempt to analvze nomothetic data Dv c o l l a p s q the mternal scores vl~tirmthe protocols across groups.
k r h z p s the hndmg most prornlnent In the literatu-e ts tha: u hen ssblects were asked to maimger or {ake psvchos~son the Rorschach, rhex responded wick ?rotocols exhrb~trnga reduction :r, R Because R was unconrroilec! :n h t h e r anaivses, hndrngs indtcatmg reduct~onsIn other determinants rnust be questioned. Researchers have reported that the protocols of :nformed mahgerers d l s p h ~a reductnon In P, F, ?;I, and D responses as well a- a reduction In the F + ? o and IY+ %. Each of these ~ndiieshas been shown to be posrveiv correiated with R, a hlch c'aoucis the mterpretatm-i of these find~ngs. Increases .n determnants or mdrces, in a reduced R protocol, are easier cc mterpre: as the resdts of the expenmental intervention. T h x 15 especiallv true of those determinants and ~ndrcesthat are posltlvelv corre:ated a d R Increases have been shown rn the protocols of rnformed malmgers for Bi, !SCOh4 FABCOIII, bizarre content, CF -i- C, and In the n ~ r n b e rof' rejections Ongoing s r u d ~ e ssuggest that informed malingerers can aim tncrease :he -urnher of SCZI
r e s p o n s e ~ 4 svet, however, no reliabie pattern of respondmg b.as been fo~n:! to be specificailv related :o mahngering across stud~es. Future research on Rorschach rr,al:ngerinp needs :o con:roI for the number of control responses through either expermentai desgn or appropriate ftat~st~cal methods. Second, the measurement scale and the frecjuencv dlstnb~tionso i the varrzbles In thc stuciv shouid be carefiLllv evaiuared to ensure that rhe proper statistical tests are chosen and that the assumprions of these statistical rests are nut \ d a t e d . Third, the experimental group imaiingerersj should be trained in the psychopathoiogy to be role piaved. Fourth. no study of malingering has utilized a c independen? rna~ipuiationcheck to determ~neif malingerers are indeed arrempting :Q carry our their instructions to "fake had." The inclusion of the MMPT variditv scales might provide valuable data ir: this regard iGraham, 1987). Enaliy, it- is importax to consider chat individzais actualiy atrempting rc maiinger in a clinicat setting are operating frorr, a motxationaI set quite different from that of college undergrad.jates instructed :o malinger or fake the 7 horschaci: in an experimental serting. Additionally, the question remains as tc whether individuals conscious!y planning t o malinger or fake the Rorschach can actuaiiy "learr-r"the types of behaviors or response sryles :bought tc be indicative
56
PERRY AND KNDER
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
sf serious ernotisaal disturbance without specific instructions, The eariy data from the Rorschach Workshops (1987) suggested &a: this is a distinct possibility, at least for some Inciividuzls, and this possibiiitv clearly merits further investigation.
Albert, S., Fox,
H,.6r Kahri, M.
(1980). Faking psychosis on the Rorschach: ,Can expert judge5 Assessmenr, 44, 1 15.- I 1 ii
detec: malingering? .bmm? o f Pcrsona!ip
Bash, f. Y. (1978. A study designed to differentiate between schizilphren~co&nders and mahngers. (3oc:oral d1sser:ation. New York University, 193s). L?iaeriaciofi Absrracts international, 39. 29733. Renton. A, t. (liio5i. Rorschach periarmances oi suspec:ed rnailngc~ers.JoumaI of Abnomai and Sociai Fsyhlogy7 40.9-96. Carp, A. t.: & Shavzin, A. k. (1953). The suscepcibiiiry to hlsification of the Rorschach ;$, 230-235. psychodiagnostic :echnique. journal of Consultmg Psyholog~~ Cronbach, t. 1. (1949). Staristical methods applied :o Rorschach scores: A revleu.. Ps~ciL3iogica! Bulktin, 46, 393-428. Easton, K., & Feigenbaum, K. ii967j. An examinazon of a?: experimental ser to fake :he Rorschach test. Perceptual and Motor. Skills, 24, 871-874 Exner, j. E. (1974:. Tne iiorschaci: A compcirerrsiuc sysrem ( V d . i .j. New York. W e y . 2). New York: Wile?. Exner. ,;. E. (197% The Rorschach: A cornp~ehersivrrysrem !\:a:. New :.Yo& Wiey. Exner, J. E.(1986).ThE & m ~ h - h : A cornprehemive rytem (Vd. 1; 2nd 4. Exner, 4. E., Vigiione, D. J., & Giliespie, K. (1964). Reiationshipz between Rorschach variabies as relevanr to the interpretation o i s:ructiarai data. journal of Fersona1it.y Assessmenr, 48, 65-70" Feidrnan, hl. f.; & Graiey, f. (19543. The etiecx of ar: experimental set to sirnuiaze ahnorrnaiity o n lournni oj Pwiectitv Terjmiques, 38. 326-334. g r m p Rors~hach Fosberg, i. 6,.(i9338).Rorschach reactions ~ n t l e varied r instructions. Rorsch-h Researci; Exci~onge,3: .;L-3c. Fosberg, i. A. (1441). An experimental study of the reliability of the Rorschach psvchodiagnos:ic technique. Rorschu;i: Research Exchange, 5, 72-S$. Fasiberg, 1. A. (1943). How dc subjects at:empt to fake results on the Rors:hch tes:? Rorscirrrch Research Exchange: 7 , 119-I 2 1. Graham, J. R. 11987). TLc MMPL A practicaI guide. New York: Oxford llniverstty Fress. Harrower-Erickson, kt. 9. :]%I). Directions of the adminis:ra:~on of the Rorschach gmup-rest. Eorschal.. Research Ecchnge, 5 , 145-1 53. Mason, B. J., Cohen, 3. B., & Exner, 3. E. (1985j. Schizophrenic, depressive. and non-patien: personality organization described by Rorschach iac:or structures. journal n j Personaii~Assessment, 4C! 235-305. Meisner, j. 5.(l964). Susceptihiky of Rorschach depression correiates to ma!ingering (Doc:orai dissertation, Ca!iforh School of Professionai Psychoiogy: 1983). Dissertc~tiol:Abst~actsi+rternc.tional. 45, 33533. W:tman, 3. E. i1983!. Judges abi!:ty to diagnose sch~zophreniaon the Rorschach: The effect of malingering (Doctoral dissertation, t o a g Islanc! L'niversi:y, 1983:. D!ssertation Abs:rac:s inrernational, 44,12163. Overton, M. 3'. !!984). An exarr,inatio> of naive and wie informed faking on Rorschach performance (Doctoral dissexatioa. Unwersity of Tennessee. 1984:. Dissertation Ahsr~ilcrsInter.narional, $5, 6835.
-
and nnrmrthtv 3 v psr~hcxi; and nos-pyhotlc iegal offenders. ioumcti :;P e - m x I m Asseumenr, 45. 30-135. . Shafiei. j.W.. Dmynsici, 1.;.R., &Thomas. C.3. I!%i\. Oxhigonal d m e n s u x o:r :n&v&al snci gr".q fflrrr~sof :he Rorschact. . i o u m d offirionaiz:? Assessme?::. 45. -j
Journal of Personality Assessment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
The Susceptibility of the Rorschach to Malingering: A Critical Review Glenn G. Perry & Bill N. Kinder Published online: 22 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: Glenn G. Perry & Bill N. Kinder (1990) The Susceptibility of the Rorschach to Malingering: A Critical Review, Journal of Personality Assessment, 54:1-2, 47-57 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1990.9673972
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
JOURNALOF PERSON.4LFY ASSESSMEhT, 1990, %(I & 2). 47-57 Cop!.rlght G 1990, Lawrence Eribaum Assmates Inc.
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
The Susceptibility of the Rorschach to Malingering: A Critical Review Glenn G, Perry and Bill N. Kinder khiversity of South Ftarida
Ernp~ricaistudies of rnaik~germgon the Rorschach are reviewed. liesuks from :hese studies are to :his point inconsixen: and ~ncmclusi\-e.Plithoilgh severat indices are reiateci to rriaiingering in incixidsai stdies! nc specific rnalingeri:lg p:rern has been t&nd that replicates across studies. A rnethodolog~iziprobier;;. specif~cto this !irerarure ir discussed and k t w e research designs are r e c o m ~ e n d e d .
-i here are many instances in which individuals might desire co malinger, or fake a mental iHness, in to2ayJs society. Criminals wishing to avoid jaii sentences, accident viccims wishing to sue fur damages, a n d /orTreterans seektng substantial
government disabiiiry payments are exemples of individuals who might consider maIinpeting during pspchoIog~a1testing. Often, psychological test batteries include the Rorschach test. because it is believed to be resistant :o intentio~a; 1941, rnanipIa:ion by the subject (Exner, 1974, 1975, 19%; Fosberg, IS'%,
1343). 13 t h ~ sreview. we first br~eflvexamme the process In\oh ecl in iormu;ating responses to the Rorschach ~nkbIots.Next, we reliew the pubiishe? Rorschach malingerixg htemture :n an attempr t o cieterxne :f some reiiahle response pattern can be detected :f:ar would rnd~catemal:nger~ng. Finzl!~. we b r ~ e ? ~ conslder the Jata analysis problems mherent rn s t a t ~ s r m i ma1rs:s of rhe Rorschach :es:.
THE RORSCEIACH RESPONSE PROCESS Exner t 1986)a r g ~ e dthat t i e process of d e e~l o p g a response tc. the :nkbiots is a prob~em-sci.imgtask !cvolvmg decrslon chorces arnong a range ct:pocenr:ai responses. It is lnkeiv the response process occurs verv quicklv a:ld :nvolvec at ieast three phases: (a)visual :np.it, encod:ng, a d r2r.k order:ng ei the potential
48
PZmY AND KINDER
responses; thf discardzng potential answers Jile to icw rankings or through censorship; and ic! seiectrng the remanning responses by reason of tram: stries. or scate insuences [Exner, 1986). If Exner's conceptualmtion is correct, the Rorschach response process is beavdv influenced by conscious cognitive prscesses. i herefere, the possibiky exists for vaIlt;onai conscious aireration of the responses.
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
-
MALINGERING ON THE RORSCHACH The eari): studies were carried out by Fosberg (1938, 134 I , 1943). Fosberg (i938) had 2 subjecrs take the Rorschach repeatedly under four conditions: (a) standard instructions, (Dj instructions r3 make rhe best impressior,, ic) instructions to m&e the worst impression, and id) inscructicns to find specific determinants. Fosberg applied the chi-square technique tc. the protocols to &:ermine if the b u r protocols were drawn from the same population jpersonj. Becarase no significant differences were forrnci, Fosberg cencluded, The Rorschach test does not lend irseifto manipulations based upon the subjective persornal es:irnation of character, good, Sad, or indifferent (as cac so easily be done in the more popdar paper and pencil tes:s) Su: faithfully crates the more permanent picture. (?. 30)
In 1941, Fosberg again investigated the effect of varied instructions on Rorschach scores. He again used a test-retest design, b:;t with 25 males and 25 females as the sub~ects.His lnstrucrions were: (a! standard instructions; (b) directions to make the best possibk impression; (ci directions to make the worst possible impression; and (d) standard instructions, Rather chan empieying the ,. cm-square technique, he made pairwise correlations across the four ccnditions. The parrwise correlatmns were qu:re hrgh, ranging from the 711~and -80s for contents, to the .%r and -33s for l o c a t m ~varaables and deterxinmts. Because rhe correlations between the seandard tests and the "best" 6.92; 2nd "worst" (.99 1 tests were high and the correlation between the best and worsr tests are st:Il ir. the .80s, Fosberg concluded, "The attempt s t iaislfymg the Rorschach protocoi faled. The conciusion 1s :hat the test catmot be kked" (p. 13). Ur,fcrt.uxxelp, Fosberg's statlstrcai procedures were unsomd. Cronback (1949 reviewed Fosberg's s ~ d l e and s scad.
h one study he etsed chi-sqilare
:o show that the psychograms for each persoR corresponded. Bur rhis statisticai test mereill showed that the D score in record i ts nearer to D In record 2 that i: is to W , C, or other scores. That is, he showed that the scores me not paired a t random. But, since each score has a relativeiy iimiteci range for all people-x.: D tends :o be iarge, rn rends to be small, etc.--he wau!d
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
have also obcained a significantly iarge chi-square if he had app!ied the same procedure to four records from dijferent persons . . . Fosbergs second s t u d y , wng correiatior,cecb.nique, is ncc sounder than the first. That is, pairs ofvaiuec such as W,-W1 D,-3;, etc. were entered in :he same correiat~oncharr. As before, the generally greater magnitude 31 0 causes :he twc: sets ta correizte, but high correlatjens uvuid have nee^ obtained if the scores correlated came korr, rwc different. subjects. (p.424)
In his 1943 studv, Fosberg repor:eci on the methods adoped b\ subjects In arremptmg to fake resulcs on the Rmscharh durrng h ~ s! 9 i studv. The d:s:nbst~ons of the methods are extreme]., ptatvk~rtrc,rndlcanng a d ~ v e r s of ~t~ method bur lnttle consensus on ahv method. tie saggested that b e c a s e the subjects were professors and sy~dentsin ps\.chohg\. and thev "couid not rnaterlallv rnfluence the test results, c e r t a d v 'test-nave' subjects iodld not :r&ence the Rorschach tesr" (p. I2OL A resdt of Fosberg's f:ncirngs was a strenghezed behei that the Rorschach process was one ~ n v o h n gmvokntarv ;.rolect:on of mconscious personairtv traits. The Rorschach was believed KO he unfakabie and o n h one research prolect was published for nezrh a decade. Bentcn (1315) reporred on cl:r,ical data, suggestrng char the overall Seha\ror of rnakngerers appears to be out of keeprng w t h thelr other rest perf~rmanceand general behamor He hrther suggested that a decrease In X and a failure to see any popular iP) responses as weG as Increases :r. response trme and rejections mav be characreristic of malingers cn the Rorschach. Unfortcrnateiv, hns conclmons were based on h ~ s :r,terprerarson o i rl:n~cal data and d ~ dnot inc;ude any statistical analvsis. Therefore, his work attraced little attentior. anl; drd not a?pear t c s t ~ m d a t e further research act1v:tr. The nex: s t d i e s were pubhstied m the 1953s car^ & Shavzrn, 1950, Feldrnan & Graiev, 13541. Car? and Shame rnod:fied Fosberg's design .sing 2; male psychoiogv students in a rest-retest design counterbaiance' on ixsrructmns to e ~ t h e rglr7ea "good ~mpression"or a 'bad rmpressioc." When the data were andyzed, usng a t test, onlr the C-scorr difference n a s stat~s:>cail\ s ~ g n r f ~ a nTher t. went on to suggest, however, that the :nd:vrdual proflies clear15 showed d~tierences."B;t the d~rectrontaker b\ :rrd?vidualsnbleccs waz so dwerse, among the indwtdua; subjects, that :her were balanced out 1n the anaivsis" (p. 232) Carp and Shavzm tnen caicula~edc h ~squares to determne d the two dtstrlbutmns from each subject were sirnrlar and found three of the dlstnbuaons were sgnrficantly drfferent. Carp and Shavzln concluded that some sdqeccs can vanr t h e r pessonallty pic:xe as reflected bv the Rorschach under mstructlons to make good or bad rmpressrons. Feidrnan and Gralek (19%) admrcrstered the Rarschach to s~bjects:n g o u ~ adrninistratmns as recommended bv Harrower-Er~cksonif9411. Using a staticgros:, compar:son des~gc,one g r m p was given the Rorschach first m d e ~ standard Instructrons and retested m t h rnstrsctmns to "glse the worst possrble
50
PERRY AND KINDER
impression." A seconri g r o q was given one adnirnistratioc of the Rorschach with instructions to "give the worst possible impression." They found both "rnahger" groups respcmded with increases in inasmate movement in!, colorC): form-coior (FC),sex, and anatomy (.4r;)and farm pius pure color (CF decreases :n F when compared to the control group. Their results are of ques~ionahieexternai validity, however, beczuse factor anaivsrs of data derived from group admlnistrzt~onof the Rorschach ha: been shown to measure a ddferent set of underlving constructs than fac:or analvsk of data derived from ~ndivrdualadministrarion of :he Rorschach (ShaEer, Dnszynski, Qr Tnomas,
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
+
1931!. Feldnan and Gralev asked s~bjectswhat strategies were used :c the rnaiingering attempr. Srrayegies ~eported,in order of frequency, were as fo1~ovi.s:"(a) avoiding che normal response; (bj emphasizing sex; (c) aentmning symptoms of maladjustment; (cl) using a specific mental dlsorder as a g d e ; (e) using an unspecified mental disorder as a guide; if)stressing aggressii/e and gory concepts'' (p. 352). In 1967: Easrcn and Felgerkmirr: used a test-retesr Jesign with a controi , . group. ;neir experimental group received standard inscructions for the first resting and malinger instructmns on retest. Their control group received standard :nstructions or, boch admir.istrations of the test. This design allowed them to examine the effect ior repetition as well as. :he effect for inscructions. They found a decrease in D:P, 05j, and R as a result sf the instructions to malinger. They also found, however: an increase in D,!-I, Ad, and R as weii as a decrease in A and t? as a resuit of repetition. Therefore, part of the variance in the resuits from a test-recest design seems t c be 2 $mctio~iof the interaction of the repetirion effects. and the :nstruction effects. This interaction clouds rhe interpretation of such designs. This problem appears espedaiiy significant nher, test-retest designs are used with the Rorschach due to the carry-aver-effect influence of the Rorschach inquiry, Another decade fclIowed without Further published research. When resezrch o~ malingering resumed in the late 1970s and the early i980s, there was a shift in research design, moving away from the test-retest design. Test-retest designs are seen in osIy one study during the 1970s and 1982s (Seamons, Howeil, Cariisie, ;Sr Roe? i981i. Seamons et al. used a counterbaiartced rest-retest desrgn with h r cells of 12 prism inmates €ram each of the foliowing diagnostic categories: nonschizophrenin. latent. schizophrenic: residual schizophrenic, and psycho~ic schizophre~ic. During rhe initial testing ehep administered :he korschach tc half of each group with instructions to "appear as if you zre a ncrrnai. well adjusted individual," and to the other half with irastructions to "appear as if you are mentaiiy 31 and psychotic." During :he second testing, each subject received :he aiternate inscrxtions, The jmxocois were scored in accordance with the Exner (1974) scoring sgstem and an anaiysrs of var:ance iAKCVA) was performed on the 48var~aDl.esscored. Searnons et ai. r b m d thar rpl
7
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
when the subjects were asked to appear mentally ill, the:r protocok showed a decrease in P ana ax: increase ir: B1, ep, IYCGk!, F.4BC0411. and dramatic responses (defined as themes of depression, sex, blood, gore, conhsion, mutilation! hatred, fighting, and decapitation'). N a significant changes were noted in the ratlix, percentages, and derwarlons. Expert judges we-e ahie to &&:entiare correct1-y betueen :hose who were a&ed t c a?pear normal or asked to fake psvchosis. Seamons et ai. sugges~edthat uher. the X -t- 'or F+ B, and i are in the norma: range wth a h g h number of dramatic, blood, texrare. s h a h g , i:s:a. nonhuman macement, or inappropriate combmarlans, ~t mai be lnAcar . e af an attempt to zppear menrakv :I;. biore recent studies have generally wed mulr~celidesigns w r h controI groups rathcr t5an test-retest designs. The change t o ;ndtrceli des~gnsu:th contra: groups began with Bash (1978).Bash compared diagnosed malingerers w t h h a h c i n a d n g schizophrenrcs. nonhailacinaring schizoph:enics, and nonpsychotic mental patients. She found :hat the maiingerers coxid be digerexiated frcm aH other groiqs oniy on the foiiowing scores: rejection of cards, fallure to report easy populars, and low FB. Bash concluded that naiingerers are no: 2 special group because they cannat be differentiated 02 maw: other variables. The final four studies {AfSert, Fox. S: Kahn, 19%: Meisaer. i3E.I; 5,ktmar;. 1983; Cherton, 1984)trained subjects in various aspects oipsychopathoiog and then asked them t c fake the psvchopathoIogy during psychnbgicai testing. The assumption ir: these studies is thai subjects cautd no; easily fake a conditicn they did not understand. T h i s Lack oi knowieslge of the role to be ccilld have ied to very weak rnanipuiations in previous research! hecause pas' subjectswere asked t o fake a condition when thev could have had littie or :lo knowledge about the condition t o be faked. Albert et al. ii98N and 3I:ttman (i9R3)evaiuateh the degree t o n hich expert judges could detect malingering. Alinert et ai. established iisur cells of six protocols each from the foliowing groups: ps~chorlc:npa:ients, u n : n h m e d fzkers, mle-informed fakers, and normais with standard instructions, These p r o r o d s were randomly: assigned to packets contaming one erotocci of each condition. The packers were mailed to 201 Fellows o i the Sociery for Personality Assessment with a requesr that a diagnosis be deveiopecl, that the !udge reports his or her degree of certainty in rhe diagnosis, that the judge ex~aiuates:he possibility of malingermg, and that h e protocol be rated on eight dimensions of pathology. Usable sets ofresponses were obtained from 46 of the packets. Albert et ai. used a chi-square rechnique and found that (a) the uninformed fakers were diagnosed psychotic as often as the actual ib) the informed fakers were diagnosed psychotic at a higher rate than the actual psychoticsl and (c! judges were equally certain of the diagnoses across c-xperimentai g r m p ~ . h 3 k n a n (,1983)a h a used judges t o interpret Rorschach protcxois. She asked 39 cdiniciacs,well trained in the interperation an2 saxing of the Rorschach?to
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
5% PERRY A X ? UNDER judge a packet of five randomiv assigned protocols. The protocois were taken horn groups of inpatient depressives, inprient schizophrenics, uninformed fakers (whc were asked ro simulate schizophrenia bur were uninformed a b m t the role). icforrned fakers (asked tc simlate schizophrenia and informed &our the role); and normal controis with standard instructions. Mittman f m n d that the judges diagnosed the unirstorrned fakers as sc:fiizophretlic significantly less often than the actual schizophrenics. Judges, however, were foaled by the pro:ocols oi the informed. iakers who were weli versed in the role of schizophrezia. h4btnan concurred with Albert et ai, (1980) and concluded that tile Rorschach could be srrsceptibie to rnaringering if respondents were well informed about their roie. These two studies have demonstrated that "experrs" cannot ahvajrs discriminate between acrual psychotic profiles and roie-sophisticared malingering profiles. Becailse roie-.informed malingerers have been judged to be psychotic more frequently than actnal psvchotics, the validity of the Rorschach Frotocol must 5e questioned ii t i e prorocol arises from a situation ir: which malingering for secondary ga:c cnrrki be ar: issue. To detect t h s malingering! research turned agairr to seeking discriminatory patterns :n the structurai data, but this time r znrormed fakers were included in rhe research designs ib'reiser. 1484; Overton, "
1984:. Meiser ji984E used five trained examiners, blind to the experimental conditions of the study? to administer the Rorschach to 58 nondepressed uciversiq students. Irrrrnediace':y prior to ~ a k h gthe Rorschach, 3 of the subjects were trained irr the ciiniczi symptoms of depression and asiied to fake depression. The remaining 29 subjects received starr:%ard instructions. Meisner anaiyzed the variables by first evaluating rhe distribution of the varkbie and thec using a two-factor ANOVA, a Mann-Whitnea. U test, or a Fischer Exact Test. Meisner b u n d that when the subjects attempted tc fake depression their protocois showed a reclucr~cn:n R and an Increase m blood corrterr: end morbid specmi scores. K o decermmants were srgn~ficantlpsfiected by attempts tc fake depression. hiersner ccncided char the silsceptibd:tv of the Xorschach lndnces a i depressron to fak:ng was markedly Emred. Overton (1984) randorniy asslgned 12. male and 3 fenale undergraduate psychology stctdents to three groups. Subjects were adrn:nrstered the Rorschach by examiners whc were blind to the experrrnentd condltmns. The contrd group recewed standard msrructmns, the nonlniormed group received mairnger 13struct~ons,and the informed group was gwen specrfrc mstructions on how to m a h g e r iri the r d e o i E schzzophrenic. Data were anahzed using mu!t:variate zndyses of variance {MANOVAs)and ANOL'As Aithough Overton found muhpie treatment efiecrs, he suggested rhar reha'bie patterns o i rnatlmger~ng coilid ROC be found. The data md~caredthat the nonrniormed fakers appeared cioser to psychotic than the ~nfornedfakters who prod-sced protocds too pronosnced to be beileved arid whose behavmral presentatron was znconsrsrent
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
with psvchosls 0:'e~ton suggested that maimgerrng could hest be denrrfred rr. the context of extratest behavior, h~storv,and possltie moc:vation of the subject. Pett~greu, Tuma, Pickermg, and Whelton (1 983i used a new mukple-choice group adminrstrat~onRorschach lnstrlnrnent to dlfierent~atesrudenrs asked to simulate psychosis from students with nornal instrilcticns and civilly committed psvchotics a5 well as forensic inpatient psychotics. Thelr stimuli were coior reproduc:ions of standard inkblots :n reduced size on a single page. Five responses were preselected for each biot with four multipie-choice akernacives designated far each response forming a 50-questton ob~ect:vetex. The akernative answers for each questlon barled form and wordmg from good brn, nonb~zarrcwording :o poor form, blzarre wordzng. Pecttgrew et ai found that s:mulators gave more good-form, bizarre-wordmg answers and s~gges:ed that s~mulatorsare "exposed by theu cwn perceptual accuracv" (p. 468). hithough t h ~ s1s the onlv design to date that has contro'rled for Larlance :r, R, rhe unqueness of the des~gnsuggests that the resuits arc dlff1c.k tc? generalize to the general Rorschach rnalmger heramre. The Rorschach Workshops (i98';' htlum~i3msietter reporred that rhe:r h e a r project o n rnalinger~ngu nearrng completion '&'I& respecr ro the Schlzophren:a index (SCZi,. thelr eariv resuits sugesr that between 217% and 2 5 8 of s h j e c t s who have considerable informarion about schizophrenia can obtzin values of 4 for the SCZI.Aimosr none ob:ak? values of 5 for the SCZT . . . 5 of 15 n o n s ~ h i z o ~ h r e psvchiacric ~ic ~nparientswhc. h a v e contact with schizophrenics were abie to pioduce a record :n ksh~chthe SCZI has a vaiue of 4 but none in the sampie prociuced a record in which :he SCZI has s i&e oi 5 . (p. 111
Cons~deredas a whole, the Ilterature suggests tkat Rorschach scores can be b,; the subjecr. altered h r conditions external to the subject and 'or voi~t~onaih At this trme, however, the resdts are exrremely rrlconalstent anc! rto re!~able p a r m a of responses In a protocoi chat would indicate the presence of m a h germ&has beer: identified. A few patterns have been suggested, bur to date these o! this heterogenem. have nor been replicated. Perhaps a s n g d ~ i a nproportmn t and &!we to replicate, 1s due t c unsound deslgn and. or data anai\s:s procedures.
RORSCHACI-I DATA ANALYSIS PROBLEMS When research
1s conducted usmg the Rorschach, research des!gc and data znalvsls must take znto account the varlabilltv of the number of responses (R'r between subjects and the dependence on R of m m v determ:nanrs, ~ndlces,
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
54
PERRY AND KINDER
ratios, and so on, This appears particularly critical in Rorschach malingering research because the maiingering or fake haci subjects have been showr. t c respond by reducing R in their pmtocois. The primary problem created by differences in R is that the various Rorschach indices are not experirnectaliy Independent-the coca1 record is collected at once, and productwity idhences neariy all the scores. Therefore, if group scores are exaxirred without controiling for differences in 2,the grsup differences found could be a function of differe x e s in R rathe: than a fcnnction of the experimentai condition. One of the strengths of the Rorschach is tire lack of structue, which allows t h e subject to srmcture che experience tc: meet his or her idiosyncratic needs. This freedox to create a distinctive response set results ir, an individualistic. protocoi, giving the examiner a unique gEmpse of a subjecr's cognitive processes. This type of information is superb when the icterest is in an idiographic examination of the individuai, but: ~ o ~ p l i z a ~the e s ':cvestigatlon when attexpdng to look 2t nornothetic data from a group of individuals when not only each group member has a different number of responses? but also, each group mean differs in responsiviry. The very beauty of the Rorschach, its iack of struc:ure allowing perceptive ilnicians a giirripse at the individ>aal's i$iographic thought processes, now becomes a hindrance. Differexes in 3 must be contrciied to the maxirnak extent possible to investigate nonothetic Rorschach d x a . Without such control, differences in rhe magnitude of the Rorschach vaPiabies in quest-iorr can be confounded! resulting in ictergreration diifituities. Cronbach (llii49) stated, ~
~
Where groups differin torai nnrnher of responses, this fac:o; m s r be held constant before other differences can be soundly ixerpreted. Three devices for doing rhis are: rescormg a fixed ncmber of responses on ail papex. construct:ng s&y-ol;ps equated or: :be nnmber of responses, and znaipzing profiies of rrormdized scores (partern rabuiarioni. (p. 426)
A fourth method for controihg for the differences in X is statistic& control through par:iaiing or residuaiizing (Exner, Vlgiione, Sr Giileswie, 1954; Mason, Cohen, Sr Exner, 1985; Shaffer et at., 198li. As early as 1944 Cronbach suggested that because the errors and poor choices of statistical procedsres are so widespreaci, few of the conclusions for s:a:rstical studies of the Rorschach can be trusted. Airnost 4C:years later. these same cricicisrns appear to apply, at ieast with respect to the malingering data reviewed in rhis article. Xt is apparent &a: when conducting a Rorschach study using nornothetic data, research goups must be equa:ed on R prior to any significance tests. No research to dare of malingering on rhe Rorschach has contrsiieci for diserences in 3 prior tc. submitting the scores to various statistjcai tests. This suggests that the resulting findings fron the entire literature or=malingering on the Rorschach must be questioned because any variability found may have been
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
a factor of the varaable's depenciencv on R rather than the expecmental conditions. The hndrngs of Albert et aI. (1980 and Mxtrnari (1963) are exempt %omthls scrutmv because thelr hndengs were basea on declsiox mad? Is\. ~ddges who rerlewed tdiograph~cprotocols, and they drd nor attempt to analvze nomothetic data Dv c o l l a p s q the mternal scores vl~tirmthe protocols across groups.
k r h z p s the hndmg most prornlnent In the literatu-e ts tha: u hen ssblects were asked to maimger or {ake psvchos~son the Rorschach, rhex responded wick ?rotocols exhrb~trnga reduction :r, R Because R was unconrroilec! :n h t h e r anaivses, hndrngs indtcatmg reduct~onsIn other determinants rnust be questioned. Researchers have reported that the protocols of :nformed mahgerers d l s p h ~a reductnon In P, F, ?;I, and D responses as well a- a reduction In the F + ? o and IY+ %. Each of these ~ndiieshas been shown to be posrveiv correiated with R, a hlch c'aoucis the mterpretatm-i of these find~ngs. Increases .n determnants or mdrces, in a reduced R protocol, are easier cc mterpre: as the resdts of the expenmental intervention. T h x 15 especiallv true of those determinants and ~ndrcesthat are posltlvelv corre:ated a d R Increases have been shown rn the protocols of rnformed malmgers for Bi, !SCOh4 FABCOIII, bizarre content, CF -i- C, and In the n ~ r n b e rof' rejections Ongoing s r u d ~ e ssuggest that informed malingerers can aim tncrease :he -urnher of SCZI
r e s p o n s e ~ 4 svet, however, no reliabie pattern of respondmg b.as been fo~n:! to be specificailv related :o mahngering across stud~es. Future research on Rorschach rr,al:ngerinp needs :o con:roI for the number of control responses through either expermentai desgn or appropriate ftat~st~cal methods. Second, the measurement scale and the frecjuencv dlstnb~tionso i the varrzbles In thc stuciv shouid be carefiLllv evaiuared to ensure that rhe proper statistical tests are chosen and that the assumprions of these statistical rests are nut \ d a t e d . Third, the experimental group imaiingerersj should be trained in the psychopathoiogy to be role piaved. Fourth. no study of malingering has utilized a c independen? rna~ipuiationcheck to determ~neif malingerers are indeed arrempting :Q carry our their instructions to "fake had." The inclusion of the MMPT variditv scales might provide valuable data ir: this regard iGraham, 1987). Enaliy, it- is importax to consider chat individzais actualiy atrempting rc maiinger in a clinicat setting are operating frorr, a motxationaI set quite different from that of college undergrad.jates instructed :o malinger or fake the 7 horschaci: in an experimental serting. Additionally, the question remains as tc whether individuals conscious!y planning t o malinger or fake the Rorschach can actuaiiy "learr-r"the types of behaviors or response sryles :bought tc be indicative
56
PERRY AND KNDER
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 01:06 06 March 2015
sf serious ernotisaal disturbance without specific instructions, The eariy data from the Rorschach Workshops (1987) suggested &a: this is a distinct possibility, at least for some Inciividuzls, and this possibiiitv clearly merits further investigation.
Albert, S., Fox,
H,.6r Kahri, M.
(1980). Faking psychosis on the Rorschach: ,Can expert judge5 Assessmenr, 44, 1 15.- I 1 ii
detec: malingering? .bmm? o f Pcrsona!ip
Bash, f. Y. (1978. A study designed to differentiate between schizilphren~co&nders and mahngers. (3oc:oral d1sser:ation. New York University, 193s). L?iaeriaciofi Absrracts international, 39. 29733. Renton. A, t. (liio5i. Rorschach periarmances oi suspec:ed rnailngc~ers.JoumaI of Abnomai and Sociai Fsyhlogy7 40.9-96. Carp, A. t.: & Shavzin, A. k. (1953). The suscepcibiiiry to hlsification of the Rorschach ;$, 230-235. psychodiagnostic :echnique. journal of Consultmg Psyholog~~ Cronbach, t. 1. (1949). Staristical methods applied :o Rorschach scores: A revleu.. Ps~ciL3iogica! Bulktin, 46, 393-428. Easton, K., & Feigenbaum, K. ii967j. An examinazon of a?: experimental ser to fake :he Rorschach test. Perceptual and Motor. Skills, 24, 871-874 Exner, j. E. (1974:. Tne iiorschaci: A compcirerrsiuc sysrem ( V d . i .j. New York. W e y . 2). New York: Wile?. Exner. ,;. E. (197% The Rorschach: A cornp~ehersivrrysrem !\:a:. New :.Yo& Wiey. Exner, J. E.(1986).ThE & m ~ h - h : A cornprehemive rytem (Vd. 1; 2nd 4. Exner, 4. E., Vigiione, D. J., & Giliespie, K. (1964). Reiationshipz between Rorschach variabies as relevanr to the interpretation o i s:ructiarai data. journal of Fersona1it.y Assessmenr, 48, 65-70" Feidrnan, hl. f.; & Graiey, f. (19543. The etiecx of ar: experimental set to sirnuiaze ahnorrnaiity o n lournni oj Pwiectitv Terjmiques, 38. 326-334. g r m p Rors~hach Fosberg, i. 6,.(i9338).Rorschach reactions ~ n t l e varied r instructions. Rorsch-h Researci; Exci~onge,3: .;L-3c. Fosberg, i. A. (1441). An experimental study of the reliability of the Rorschach psvchodiagnos:ic technique. Rorschu;i: Research Exchange, 5, 72-S$. Fasiberg, 1. A. (1943). How dc subjects at:empt to fake results on the Rors:hch tes:? Rorscirrrch Research Exchange: 7 , 119-I 2 1. Graham, J. R. 11987). TLc MMPL A practicaI guide. New York: Oxford llniverstty Fress. Harrower-Erickson, kt. 9. :]%I). Directions of the adminis:ra:~on of the Rorschach gmup-rest. Eorschal.. Research Ecchnge, 5 , 145-1 53. Mason, B. J., Cohen, 3. B., & Exner, 3. E. (1985j. Schizophrenic, depressive. and non-patien: personality organization described by Rorschach iac:or structures. journal n j Personaii~Assessment, 4C! 235-305. Meisner, j. 5.(l964). Susceptihiky of Rorschach depression correiates to ma!ingering (Doc:orai dissertation, Ca!iforh School of Professionai Psychoiogy: 1983). Dissertc~tiol:Abst~actsi+rternc.tional. 45, 33533. W:tman, 3. E. i1983!. Judges abi!:ty to diagnose sch~zophreniaon the Rorschach: The effect of malingering (Doctoral dissertation, t o a g Islanc! L'niversi:y, 1983:. D!ssertation Abs:rac:s inrernational, 44,12163. Overton, M. 3'. !!984). An exarr,inatio> of naive and wie informed faking on Rorschach performance (Doctoral dissexatioa. Unwersity of Tennessee. 1984:. Dissertation Ahsr~ilcrsInter.narional, $5, 6835.
-
and nnrmrthtv 3 v psr~hcxi; and nos-pyhotlc iegal offenders. ioumcti :;P e - m x I m Asseumenr, 45. 30-135. . Shafiei. j.W.. Dmynsici, 1.;.R., &Thomas. C.3. I!%i\. Oxhigonal d m e n s u x o:r :n&v&al snci gr".q fflrrr~sof :he Rorschact. . i o u m d offirionaiz:? Assessme?::. 45. -j
