79 terms

Rorschach Interpretation

<17:defensive/resistant, low IQ, Neuropsychological Impairment, malingering, depressed, admin problems

>27: obsessive-compulsive, manic, over-ideational, expect high Dds
L >.9
avoiding or oversimplifying stimuli,response style that rejects complexity, narrow world view, often in trouble because they don't view or value social demands
L <.28
overinvolved with stimuli, can't keep economical distance, fears and inhibitions impede processing efficiency, high achievement orientation
EB style
M:WsumC- coping, problem solving, Decision-making,
M= Cog Resources
WsumC= Affective Resources
EA>10: 2 sides must have 2.5pt difference
EA<10: 2 sides must have 2 point difference
WsumC >M= Extratensive
M>WsumC= Introversive
None= ambitent
divide larger by smaller/ cutting score of 2.5 or > = pervasive
F+m: SumShading
F+m+ Cognitive stressors
Sumshading= Affective stressors
information concerning stimulus demands/ kinds of psychological activities that promote frequency of demands
FM+m+Sumshading current stimulus demands
current capacity for maintaining stress and adequate control of reaction EA-es
Typical capacity for managing stress and maintaining adequate control over reactions
Low: stress overload, overwhelmed, impulsive, disorganization
-Y and m
EA-Adjes- situational coping capacity
Negative: stressors outweighing coping resources
Positive: Superior coping abilities
0= well adjusted
Consider L
High L= avoidant style- filters
Intellectualization Index
diffusing impact of stressors?
shading blends
painful affective experience
# of blends
psychological complexity
color-shading blends
emotional confusion
Sum C'
uncomfortable affective constraint- uneasiness, anxiety, discomfort
Sum T
1= willingness/reasonable interest in connecting with others and experiencing closeness
T>1: state of neediness
T<1: very cautious of developing closeness, interpersonally distant
Sum V
most troubling: self-review, good hard look at self and don't like what you see- you can't win- painful affect- focus on negative features of onself (self-berating due to guilt)/ higher among seriously depressed or suicida
Sum Y
emotional stress, situational, feeling anxious, worried, sad- immobilization- helpless passivity in response to affective experience
CDI:: managing stress in interpersonal/social world: relational stress
When both DEPI and CDI are elevated- CDI compounds DEPI?
Intell index high- coping problems- may be due to defenses- affect clamped down. Affective experience is being reduced by use of intellectualization
EB style and Lambda:
EB: how is affect projected into the world (intra: control over emotions/ extra- display emotions openly- influenced by emotion and much more responsive to them/ ambi: mixed- variable use and expression
Lambda: not attuned to nuisances of experience- not attuned to shades of gray. When high- not attuned to the nuisances of emotion
FC: CF + C
FC: Control- more modulated side- should be higher than other side for adults- if it is lower may be indicative of low emotional control
FC↓: CF + C↑: emotional controls are loose- doesn't maintain stringent control over emotional expression
FC↓: CF + C↓: impoverishment/underdevelopment of affective resources- not enough affective resources built up- if both are low WsumC should be low (affective resources)
Pure C
unrestrained ventilation of feelings- IMPULSIVITY IN AFFECTIVE DISPLAY
Keep EB style in mind- extratensive- not terribly surprising
how much of affective energy being given to restraint
SumC': uncomfortable restraint, holding back
WsumC: affective internal psych resources
strong variable- EMOTIONAL RESPONSIVENESS- how much does individual respond to affective content in the environment
average: willing to process emotional experiences/content and respond to it
high: drawn into emotional stimulus- extratensive
low: avoidant of emotional stimulation- stay away from it- no attraction- intra
Anger, oppositionality, negativism (1, 2 or 3 okay- may reflect a degree of independence) higher than 3- clear characteristic (>4 considerable anger)- after constructional interpretation- eyeball the sequence of scores- first or second card- more reaction to the assessment and situational factors
reports color in achromatic card- form of denial- denial of negative affect and substitution of positive affect
underlying insecurity/inadequacy- if positive
hyper vigilance- attributing cause of problems/ failures to external events- "it's not me"- constantly watching his or her back - need to protect self from external danger
Egocentricity Index: 3r+ (2)/R
Pairs and reflections reflect EGOCENTRICITY- developmental variable (higher in kids)
High: high degree of self focus- look at Fr + rF (narcisstic like- juvenile narcissism)/ may be a higher degree of self concern
Low: low self esteem- SELF-NEGLECT- not giving enough focus to the self
painful self review of negative features- lacking, falling short
INTROSPECTION- intraversives more likely
High: routinely engages in introspection- can promote reevaluation of self (denotes potential)- too high (3, 4 or 5) abusive introspection- stick in a rut0 unproductive (not necessarily negative)
Low or 0: not good for adults- no introspection
Sense of vulnerability that comes from unusual bodily focus or preoccupation- sense of Personal vulnerability
negative self image involving sense of oneself as damaged, unfavorable and negative- don't make a big deal over 1/ 2 or more= negative self image
H: (H)+Hd+(Hd)
interpersonal self reference
H: Realistic object recognition- higher- self image rests on realistic foundation and real experiences instead of fantasy
(H) + Hd + (Hd): unrealistic view- cognitive distortions
missed the mark somehow- look at verbiage- where is the distortion?
any kind of movement is a projection
harm and danger from others- social ineptness
Low: interpersonal space- keep distance- physically and psychologically
if passive outweighs active- interpersonal passivity
dependency- passive dependent features
H contents
amount of interest in people- high interest with high HVI=paranoia and self-protection
Diminished H content: not oriented towards people
Pure H
realistic side- reality-based interest in people
human representational variables- good or poor?
GHR: effective and adaptive interpersonal histories- well liked
PHR: ineffective/maladaptive, interpersonal hx- conflict, failure, rejection
explains response because of personal experience- defensively authoritarian in interpersonal relationships- suggestive of insecurity
Involvement and social interaction
High: socially isolated/not involved
Low: no meaning
COP: view relationships as positive-willing to participate in them
AG: increased likelihood of hostile attitudes and/or aggressive verbal/nonverbal bx towards others- view that relationship have combative or conflict component- natural part
M Responses w/ pairs: look at how action is described- positive, cooperative, joyul- how does person conceptualize humans in motion.
high: more slack- lackadaisical in information processing actions- minimalistic, blinders- don't want to look into nuances- simplified approach to life (not as much influence on ambitents and intraversives)
exerting great effort to being alter- thinking-over processing and thinking about environment
information processing effort- amount of effort put into information processing
Too high? Excessive amount of effort- does it pay off?
Lower than 10: less effort
W: big picture, global viewpoint as opposed to D less holistic- minute/irrelevant details
Dd: high avoidance of complexity- don't want to work hard to reflect something bigger and tie into whole
aspirations to functional capabilities/capacities
2xs as many Ws as Ms varies by EB style
If W tends to outweigh M: more than expected for EB style striving much more than capable of
M outweighs W: underachiever
: degree of efficiency
-3: underincorporator- always a liability
+3: overincorporator of information- sometimes good, sometimes bad- how much info
does person try to take in & organize before proceed to processing
being stuck in set- rigidity- impaired cognitive operations-can't look at other viewpoints in processing
DQ+.and DQv
Degree of sophistication of processing
+: pretty sophisticated
V: little lapses- unsophisticated, inadequately processed immature lapses
Approach Summary
Is there a constant/reliable method? May start holistically and move to details
interpretation of information in the process of developing thoughts and ideas
high: not highly responsive to nuances- straightforward idea formation-degree of complexity that foes into forms ideas
very careful- putting a lot of thought into it- if high- whole cluster should be average or greater/if not- OBS style not working for them
: is the individual willing and/or able to think about things as normal people do/ conventionality
Average: willingness/ ability
Low: highly individualistic in ways of forming thoughts
High: may reflect a preoccupation with conventionality
perceptual thinking conventional/ accurate
idiosyncratic/individualistic- very high = departure
distortions that reflect violations of reality
good conventionality
able to perceive/ develop ideas in conventional ways and can do this when areas are obvious.
*if X=% is not good- would hope that XA% would be better and WDA% would be even better*
how often do misses occur in presence of anger- does negativism contribute to anger?
conceptualization of thoughts and ideas
may be influential- how committed to ideas?
more far apart= rigid/ close=flexibility
if Mp is high- passivity-reliance on fantasy- detrimental and passive
high- pessimistic thinking
Raw Sum6/Wsum
when any special score- concern- distortions- look and see what types
M-: peculiarties in thinking, ideas and concepts
Mnone: disturbance