Content analysis of the Rorschach had led to the notion that each card possessed some unique affective pull. Research testing the validity of that hypothesis was reviewed. Of all the cards only three seemed to have a unique affective connotation, viz., Cards III and X elicit pleasant affective responses, Card IV unpleasant ones. The research methodology was critically assessed and recommendations for future research were offered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckN.HerronW. G.The meaning of the Rorschach cards for children. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1969, 33, 150–153.
2.
BochnerR.HalpernF.The clinical application of the Rorschach test. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1942.
3.
BrownF.An exploratory study of the dynamic factors in the content of the Rorschach protocol. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1953, 17, 251–279.
4.
HafnerA. J.Rorschach card stimulus values for children. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1961, 25, 166–169.
5.
HershensonJ. R.Preference of adolescents for Rorschach figures. Child Development, 1949, 20, 101–118.
6.
LevyJ. R.Changes in the galvanic skin response accompanying the Rorschach test. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1950, 14, 128–133.
7.
LindnerR. M.Content analysis in Rorschach work. Rorschach Research Exchange, 1946, 10, 121–129.
8.
LoiselleR. H.FisherV.ParrishC. E.Stimulus value of Rorschach inkblots and percepts as perceived by children and schizophrenics. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1968, 32, 238–245.
9.
LoiselleR. H.KleinschmidtA.A comparison of the stimulus value of Rorschach inkblots and their percepts. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1967, 27, 191–194.
10.
MagnussenM. G.ColeJ. K.Further evidence of the Rorschach card stimulus values for children: A partial replication (and generalization). Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1967, 31, 44–47.
11.
MitchellM. B.Preference for Rorschach cards. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1952, 16, 203–211.
12.
OsgoodC. E.SuciG. J.TannenbaumP. H.The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: Univer. of Illinois Press, 1957.
13.
RabinA. I.A contribution to the “meaning” of Rorschach's inkblots via the semantic differential. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1959, 23, 368–372.
14.
RorschachH.Psychodiagnostics: A diagnostic test based on perception. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1951.
15.
SappenfieldB. R.Perception of attractive and repelling qualities in Rorschach blots and responses. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1965, 21, 308–311.
16.
SchleiferM. J.HireA. W.Stimulus values of Rorschach inkblots expressed as trait and affective characteristics. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1960, 24, 164–170.
17.
ZaxM.BenhamF. G.The stimulus value of the Rorschach inkblots as perceived by children. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1961, 25, 233–237.
18.
ZaxM.LoiselleR. H.Stimulus value of Rorschach inkblots as measured by the semantic differential. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1960, 16, 160–163. (a)
19.
ZaxM.LoiselleR. H.The influence of card order on the stimulus value of the Rorschach inkblots. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1960, 24, 218–221. (b)
20.
ZaxM.LoiselleR. H.KarrasA.Stimulus characteristics of Rorschach inkblots as perceived by a schizophrenic sample. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1960, 24, 439–443.
