Seventy-three Ss were administered the SORT and HMCR in counterbalanced order. Analysis of protocols indicated that the tests bore little relationship to each other. The results seemed to indicate that the use of suggested responses might invalidate the traditional Rorschach blot-stimulus relationship.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CooleyW. W., & LohnesP. R.Multivariate procedures for the behavioral sciences. New York: Wiley, 1962.
2.
HammesJ. A., & OsborneJ. R.Discrimination of manifest anxiety by the SORT. Percept. mot. Skills, 1962, 15, 59–62.
HoltzmanW. H.Inkblot perception and personality. Austin, Tex.: Univer. of Texas Press, 1961.
5.
LangerP.Compulsivity and response set on the Structured-Objective Rorschach Test. J. clin. Psychol., 1962, 18, 299–302. (a)
6.
LangerP.Social desirability and acquiescence on the SORT. Psychol. Rep., 1962, 11, 531–534. (b)
7.
LangerP.Social desirability and P responses on the SORT. J. clin. Psychol., 1962, 18, 472. (c)
8.
LangerP.CarlisleA. L., & HayesW. G.The effects of anxiety and conformity on the Structured-Objective Rorschach Test (SORT). J. clin. Psychol., 1963, 19, 317–319.
9.
LangerP.HayesW. G., & SharpH. C.Effects of anxiety and induced stress on the Structured-Objective Rorschach Test. Percept. mot. Skills, 1963, 19, 573–580.
10.
LangerP., & McKainC. W.Rigidity and the SORT. J. clin. Psychol., in press.
11.
MunroeR. L.The inspection technique: a method of rapid evaluation of the Rorschach protocol. Rors. res. Exch., 1944, 8, 46–70.
12.
RorschachH.Psychodiagnostics. Berne: Huber, 1942.
13.
StoneJ. B.S-O Rorschach test manual. Los Angeles, Calif.: Calif. Test Bureau, 1958.
14.
ZubinJ.Failures of the Rorschach technique. J. proj. Tech., 1954, 18, 303–315.
