Psychological Tests Don't Think

8/3/2019 Psychological Tests Don't Think

1/12

This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries]On: 24 October 2011, At: 05:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personality AssessmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

Psychological Tests Don't Think: An

Appreciation of Schafer's Psychoanalytic

Interpretation In Rorschach TestingBruce L. Smith

Available online: 10 Jun 2010

To cite this article: Bruce L. Smith (1993): Psychological Tests Don't Think: An Appreciation of Schafer's

Psychoanalytic Interpretation In Rorschach Testing, Journal of Personality Assessment, 61:3, 596-606

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6103_15

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand,or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6103_15http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6103_15http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20


2/12

JOURNALOFPERSONALITYASSESSMENT, 993,61(3), 596-606Gjyright6 1993, awrenceErlbaumAssocjakes,Inc.

Psychological Tests Don't Think: AnAppreciation Of Schafer sPsychoanalytic Interpretation InRorschach Testing

Bruce L. SmithBerkeley, CA

Roy Schafer s Psych oana lytic Interpretation in Rorschach Testinghas, for nearly 40years, represented a hallmark of psychodynamically informed psychological assess-ment. In this article, Schafer's contribution isreviewed in light of recent contributionsto the Rorschach literature. Following a summary of the main sections of the work,Schafer's approach to the Rorschach is critically re-examined from the perspectiveof modem assessment practice. Differences between the epistemological bases ofpsychoanalytic and empirical methods of Rorschach interpretation are highlighted,and the prospects for an integration of these two approaches are considered. It isconcluded that Schafer's contributionremains as fresh today as when written40 yearsago.

It is hum bling to realize that at an age when most psychologists are desperatelycasting abou t for dissertation topics or perhaps accruing supervised clinical hourstoward licemure, Roy Schafer had already authored or coauthored three booksdestined to be classics (R app ort, Gill, & Schafer, 1968; Schafer, 1948 ; Schafer,1954). Of all these volumes, none provides a better model for the rigorousintegration of clinical data and theory than his 1954 classic, PsychmnalyticInterpretation in Rorschach Testing. Prior to World War II, clinical psychology inthis country w as primarily concerned with the assessment of intelligence in schoo lsettings. The w ar changed all of that; the role of psycho logists greatly expanded asthe mental health needs of servicemen and veterans swamped the existing services.Carefu l assessm ent of personality and psychopathology became of critical im p r t-ance, an d clinical psychology as we know it today really began in the 1940s and1950s. This developmentwas spearheadedby David Rapaport and his colleagues--including Schafer-at the Menn inger Clinic. Their work included an immenselyfruitful cross-fertilization between psychological testing and psychoan alytic the-


3/12

PSYCHOANALYTICINTERPRETATION 597

ory, with each shaping and informing the other. The results were to define to a largeextent the p ractice of diagno stic testing for the next quarter century.At the time R apaport and his colleagues began their work, the primary existingmode ls of diagnostic testing were from Europe and were rooted in the Kraepeliniantradition of description and classification.For example, Rorschach's main focus inhis early work on the inkblot technique was in articulating the ways in whichdifferent diagnostic groups differed (Rorschach, 1942). By imbedding Rorschachinterpretation in a co mpreh ensive psychoan alytic theory of mental processes, theMenninger group was able to transform a heretofore limited exercise in diagnosticclassification and discre te prognostication into a clinical enterprise of incredibledep th and richness. Paul Lerner wrote in appreciation of this work: "[they] providedthe clinical tester with a bedrock of co nceptualizations hat allowed test inferen~cesof rem arkable scope and range" (Lemer, 1991, p. vii). In my opinion, the crow ningachievem ent of this project was S chafer's 195 4 volume. in what follows, I reviewSchafe r's co ntribution and discu ss its relevance for the contem porary Rorschachclinician.Sch afer 's approach to Rorschach inte rpre tation is rooted in the belief Ithatpsychodiag nosis is only as good as the theory upon which it is based. He w rote inhis Preface: "What [a psycho logical test] accom plishes depends upon the thinkingthat gu ides its application. This gu iding thought is psychological theory, whetherexplicit and systematized or implicit and unsy stem ati~e d'~1954, p. xi). Schafer's"guiding thought" is the comprehensive psychoanalytic heory of thinking that wascrystallized by David R ap po rt (R apport, 1950,1951,1952). Schafer saw his t i kas the explication of the internal processes that led to the creation of a response andthe elucidation of a way of interpreting the various data from the test situation interm s of "the interp lay of impulses, defenses, and adaptive strivings" (1954, p. 3).

The book is divided into two main sections. In the first, Schafer undertakes adetailed examination of the interpersonal dynamics that influence Rorschachtesting, the response process itself, and the analysis of thematic content. Ofparticular note is his discussion of the criteria for the adequacy of interpretations.The second section is a detailed discussion of the analysis of defenses in IheRorschach, including separa te discussions of repression, denial, projection, andobsessive-com pulsive defen sive operations.Schafe r stressed the interpersonal nature of the testing situation. He defined thissituation as a com plex psychological structure, an "intricate interperso nal relation-ship w ith realistic and u nrealistic aspects" (1954, p. 6). It is his contention that onecan interpret the results of psychological tests only by taking into conside ration thetotality of the testing situation in which the responses occur. Both patient alndevaluator bring to the testing needs, problems, and expectations that can Ibeexpected to a ffect their performance of their respective roles and, thus, the dataobtained. Scha fer undertakes a detailed examination of the various dynamics thatcan be o bserved in a psychological examination. He uses as his m odel the trans-ference-countertransference relationship that exists in psychoanalytic psychother-apy. Regarding the evaluator, Schafer observes that his or her needs and pm blenisderive from three sourrxs: professional situation, including relationships with


4/12


5/12

PSYCHOANALYTIC INTERPRETATION 599

From the point of view of psychoanalytic ego psychology-which is the point of'view of this theoretical approach to the Rorschach test-all thought and behaviormust be understood in part as an expression of a particular balance of egodynamics and id dynamics, that is of progressive, adaptive trends and regressive,autistic trends. @. 81)

He suggests that the test instructions, "what might this look like," suggest to thesubject a task involving the com ingling of reality testing an d fantasy:Responsible reality testing and free fantasy.. .mingle and interact during the forma-tion of each response. m e nstructions] pull the patient out of himself by directinghis attention to the inkblots, but they simultaneously push him back into himself bydirecting his attention to the images, memories, and concepts that make up a largepart of his inner life. @. 77)'

Comp are this with Exnier's description of the process by which a subject com es upwith a response:

The several operations that have been described as occurring during the three phasesof the response process, scanning, encoding, classifying, refining, evaluating, dis-carding, and selecting.. .are cognitive operations, similarto those evoked in process-ing visual stimuli related toproblem-solving or decision-making tasks. (Exner, 1989,p. ~ 2 6 ) ~To explicate his understanding of the response process further, Schafer analyzesthe dream-percept continuum. He identifies four nodal points on a continuum ftommore primitive to more advanced levels of psychic functioning: dreaming,

dayd ream ing, purposeful visua lizing , and normal perceiving. After a brief conslid-eration of the characteristics and psych ic level of each of the se points, he a ttacksthe question of where the Rorschach response might fall on this continuum. ]Hemakes the initial point that different responses would appear to have differentperceptual qualities, with the more realistic responses located nearer the progrcs-sive, secondary process pole of the continuum and m ore subjective, unrealisticrespo nses at the regressive, primary process pole. In this statement, he appears closeto E xner's (1989) contention that projection ex ists only in those Rorschach re-sponses that a re of poor form level or are overelaborated beyond the stimulusproperties of the blot. How ever, Schafer goes on to dem olish the sim ple dichotomybetween "realistic" an d "unrealistic" responses by pointing out that subtle proper-ties of responses that are otherw ise unremarkable bear the imprint of the primaryprocess. The popular anima ls on Card VIII, for examp le, may be perceived as rats,'~eterson ndSchilling recently discussed this very point in a lucid treatment of the concept of cwdpull (Peterson& Schilling, 1983).* ~ v e nhe termsused to describe the unit of analysis: "response"for Schafer, "answer" for Exner areillustrative of this difference.


6/12

coyo tes, weasels, lions, lizards, and so forth. They may have four legs or three legs(with the fourth either missing or hidden behind the "tail"). They may be engagedin some activity (more or less articulated) or not. In o ther words, even the mostprosaic response m ay contain primitive, highly personalized material that may bemore o r less opaque to the observer. He concludes that it is thus futile to attemptto locate even a single response at a point on the dream-perception continuum.Schafer nex t considers m ore closely the similarities and differences betweendreams and percepts as a way of understanding the regressive shifts that occurduring a Rorschach testing. Of particular interest here is Schafer7sdiscussion ofthe importance of interpersonal communication in shaping the Rorschach response(in contrast to the private dream experience) and his consideration of the variousregressive and progressive shifts that occur during a testing. He suggests hat factorslike the test instructions, the absence of external reference points, and the absenceof narrative continuity encourage creative regression, whereas the external refer-ence points -the blots themselves, the need to verbalize the responses, and theon-guard ego functions, both adaptive and de fen siv e-a ll serve as counterregress-ive forces. Patien ts, therefore, differ in the extent to which they m ust regress beforeresponding, the extent to which they can regress, the ease with which they regressin different dynamic areas, and the ease with which they recover from thesetemporary regressions.Schafer next takes up the question of thematic analysis and the interpretation ofcontent. He makes the point that static content categories are an inadequate meansof analyzing them atic content. They are, he argues, vestiges of a largely discreditedpsychology of personality that emphasized class concep ts as opposed to functionalor dynam ic concepts. He notes that the responses of a lamb, a sleeping infant, anda cradle are thematically related, although they represent three different scoringcategories. Schafer's solution is to analyze Rorschach content thematically, byasking the question, "How is this sequence [of responses] an expression of the sameproblems and means of coping with problems that are expressed in the dynam icthemes in the content and in test attitudes and behavior?" @. 119). He po ints outthat advances in them atic interpretation may depend more on developm ents inpersonality theory than in specific research on the Rorschach itself.Follow ing this section, Schafer presents one of the most useful d iscussions inthe entire book, a consideration of the criteria for judging the adequacy of interpre-tations. He suggests six such criteria:

1. The sufficiency of the evidence. Here he suggests the number of images thatpoint to a common theme, as well as the presence of evidence from differentdomains, for example, content and formal scoring.2. Th e appropriateness of the depth of the interpretation. He points out thatthe m ore elaborate , rich protocols allow for "deeper," in the sense of moreunconscious, interpretations than do records with fewer, less elaborated re-sponses. In this context, he criticizes fixed symbolic card meanings (e.g., "mothercard" or "father card7') as presumptuous efforts to arrive at "deep" interpretationsin spite of the patient.


7/12

3. Interpretation of the m anifest form of the tendency. What is meant here isthe attemp t to specify how a given set of dynam ics is likely to be m anifested inthe pa tient's behavior. Sch afer admits that this is o ften the m ost difEicult criterionto meet.4. Estimation of the intensity of the tendency. Unless the sp ecific importanceof a given tendency is articulated for the particular patient, the psychologist runsthe risk of mak ing interpre tations that might apply to everyone--perfectly vallid,but perfectly spurious @. 153).5. Need for a hierarchic position in the total personality. Schafer criticizes wha the term s "chain-like interpretations" (e.g., "The p atien t is anxious. He tends to behostile. H is defenses are co mpu lsive, but inefficient,") in which the variousstatemen ts are not integrated dynamically. (In the foregoing example, an interpre-tation that stres sed the patient's hostility, the use of compulsive defenses to wardoff ex pressions of this hostility, and the appearan ce of anxiety in reaction to fa iluresof these de fenses, would constitute a hierarchical interpretation.)6. Specification of both adaptive and pathological aspects of interpreted tend-encies. Because the Rorschach is most often used in clinical settings in which thepatient's psychopa thology is the object of scrutiny, there is a frequent tendency tooverlook the adaptive features of his functioning. Schafer m akes the crucial pointthat all psycho logical tendencies have both pathological, regressive and adaptw e,progressive aspects.The rem ainder of the volume-indeed the bulk of it-is devoted to a study ofthe interpretation of defensive operations in Rorschach data. It i s this section thatis most well know n and most frequently referred to. Schafer begins his treatmentby defining defenses as "the operations by which impulses and their representa-

tions are blocked from expression in consciousness and action7'@. 161). Allbehavior, with the exception of ove rtly psychotic expressions of im pulse, bea r theimprint of defensive operations. Schafer observes that it is impossible, exceptheuristically, to separate defenses from the impulses against which they arearrayed, in any sam ple of behavior. Similarly, it is usually impo ssible to differen-tiate com pletely the d efensive and adaptive aspects of eg o functions. Nevertlhe-less, he suggests that the attempt to do s o is conceptually worthwhile. He thenindicates that it is his intention to focus on the defensive aspects of the Rorsch achresponse process.In look ing for eviden ce of defen ses in Rorschach records, Schafer stresses theimportance of integrating observations from all areas of data: scores, thematiccontent, and test attitudes. Because defense is merely one aspect of behavior,"different aspects of the same Rorschach response seem to express similar oropposing aspects of the interplay of impulses, defensive operations, and adaptiveoperations" @. 165). Careful analysis of the interplay between the various catego-ries of data-for exam ple, a good form response of frightening content verbalizedgleefully m ay be understood to represent a hostility (impulse) that is projected(defense) and reacted to counterphobically (second defense), but in an adaptivemanner (as represented by the good form).


8/12

602 SMITH

Following this general discussion, Sch afer discusses in greater detail the variousinteractions possible be tween specific scores, themes, and attitudes. He then treatsrather extensively the various Rorschach indices of ad aptive success and failure.This discussion sets the table for the remainder of the book, a consideration of thefour main types of defen ses as reflec ted in Rorschach protocols: repression, denial,projection, and obsessivecompulsive defenses.Schafer begins each chapter with a careful definition of the defense in question,follow ed by some general test expectations, for instance, how the particular defensemight be expected to manifest itself in a Rorschach record. What follows is a seriesof case studies, four each, illustrating repression, projection, and absess ive-co mp ul-sive defenses, and two for denial. Each case study includes a brief paragraphdesc ribing the patient, the verbatim Rorschach record including Schafer's scoring,and detailed observations about the specific responses as well as the protocol a s awhole. No a ttempt is made to summarize the wealth of clinical lore that is presentedhere. In his analysis of the records, Schafer moves effortlessly from content todeterminant to attitude, observing how the patient uses his or her perception toreinforce a defense against an impulse stimulated by the blot, or how the contentden ies some tbeme that is simultaneously expressed by the use of de terminants. Inso doing, he av oids the simp le cataloguing of defenses that one often sees withapproachesbased so lely on a consideration of scoring. At the same time, he is carefulnot to engage in "wild analysis," always seeking confirmation of interpretivehypotheses in other aspects of the protocol and rejecting those that are not supportedby fw the r data. To give but a single example, Schafer interprets the following initialRorschach responses of a 30-year-old paranoid schizophrenic woman:

Oh, it looks like a tiger staring at me [#I]. And it also looks like a bat-like thing-justthe outlines [#2]. Sort of whiskers over there [upper middle projections; reference to#I]. I don't know, sort of a tiger or a cat. Well it's fiercer than a cat. A very fierceTabby; the way it's staring at me. p h a t made the tiger look fierce?] The light, theeyes; on first look it looked tigerish. The V-shaped, pointed light spaces might havebeen fiery eyes [upper middle spaces] and maybe teeth [lower middle spaces]. Andthen if you look closely at the inner section [middle Dl it looks like an insect body[reference to#2],eelers [upper middle] and wings [sides] and the white space [inside]is just space. It is almost microscopic; one of those x-rays: you see animal-like innerchannels and various things, you know, down the center. @p. 320-321)thus:In "a tiger staring at me" we have a clear, simple, blandly unabashed verbalization ofa paranoid projection. Moreover, the Confabulation and Self-reference in the re-sponse, the patient's bland lack of ado about its fearful content, and her giving it asthe first response in the record, all suggest that the patient has been psychotic for sometime and is in a superficial way at home with her paranoid ideas.... @. 321)

He go es on to discuss the significance of the condensation ("fierce Tabby") as adouble defensive failure (in this case a failure of denial following the failure of


9/12

projection), the autistic quality of the association of whiteness with "fiery," and theintroduction of Response #2 into inquiry responses o # l . All of these observations,however, are treated as ten tative hypotheses, and Schafer proceeds in this mannerwith the entire protocol, generating further hypotheses, confirming some, rejectingothers, until he notes the ways in which the summary scores confirm the im-pressions glean ed from sequence analysis. What is especially noteworthy abloutthis example is the way in which S chafer is able to integrate observations ab~outcontent, determinants, manner of verbalization, and the patient's own affect informing his interpretations. Throughout, his interest is in the meaning of theresponse or set of re sponses for the patient, not som e cookbook approach in whichscores or contents are given invariant meanings.Elegant a s Schafe r's ana lyses unarguably are, and persuasive as is his prose, thequestion may nevertheless be raised: Is this book of other than historical interestto a modern Rorschacher? Certainly much of the theory upon which the boolk isbased appears som ewh at dated. Indeed, Schafer in his own subsequen t writings onpsychoanalysis (Schafer, 1976,1983) h as repudiated many of the assum ptions andabandoned many of the concepts that are so central to this work. In particular,developm ents in object relations theory, including the work of Melanie Klein, havemade their way into the mainstream of American psychoanalytic hinking and havebeen centra l in psychoan alytic test interpretation (Kissen, 1 986 ; Lerner, 1991;Lerner & Lerner, 1988). Schafer7s nalysis of defenses, for exam ple is limited to aconsideration of those m echanism s treated by classica l theory. In recent years, thestudy of primitive states, informed by object relations theory, has led to thearticulation of defenses such as projective identification and sp litting, concepts allbut unknown in the 1950s. Today, the interpre tation of such defensiv e operaticonsis a m ajor part of psychoanalytic work with the Rorschach (Blatt & Lerner, 1982;Cooper & h o w , 1986; Kissen, 1986; Lerner, Albert , & Walsch, 1987).Furthermore, with the development of the C omprehensive System and the trcndtoward biological psychiatry, there has been a renewed interest in quantitativemethods of Rorschach interpretation. Indeed, there are undoubtedly those whowou ld read Scha fer's w ork as little more than a qua int anachronism, an exercise in20th Century phrenology. Is the psychoanalytic method still valid as a way ofinterpreting Rorschach protocols? Is this approach at all com patible with em piricalmetho ds like the Comprehensive System ? These are important questions that areraised by a re reading of Schafer's 195 4 classic.To a large degree, the psychoanalytic and quantitative-empirical methods ofRorsch ach interpretation represent differing epistemologies. Whereas quantitativemethods are rooted in positivism and seek to establish validity by means ofcorrelating test findings with o bservable behavior, the psychoanalytic method is toa large extent hermeneutic Pi co eu r, 1970); concerned not only with the prediction

Of course, the scie ntific status of psychoanalysis has been the subject of considerable debat,: inrecent years. I am stressing the hermeneutic side of this debate to highlight the d ifferences between apsychoanalytic approach and one based primarily on quantitative empiricism.


10/12

of overt behavior, but with the understanding of the process of generating meaning.The internal processes that go into the creation of personal meaning are the objectsof assessment from this perspective. This concept has been explored as it pertainsto the Rorschach by Schwartz and Lazar (1979). Although a discussion of thephilosoph ical underpinnings of psychological assessm ent is obviously beyond thescope of this contribution, I mention it to call attention to the complexities ofattempting to integrate interpretive schemes that derive from such d ifferent philo-sophical traditions. When I first addressed this issue (Smith, 1991), I was of theopin ion that it was impossible to meld successfully such disparate approaches, thatattempts to do so were little more than "Fabulized Combinations." Indeed, theinitial attempts in this direction seemed to bear out this characterization, asatheoretical quantitative methods were applied to structural data and psychoana-lytic interpretationswere applied to the content. More recently, however, there havebeen thoughtful discussions about the ways in which empirically derived structuraldata may be approached psychoanalytically and interpretations derived that areinternally consistent. In my opinion, this can be most easily accomplished bytreating the empirical conclusions as data to be interpreted psychoanalytically.Essentially, the clinician asks himself or herselE What internal processes wouldgive rise to the behav iors predicted by the structural summary? In addition, thesepredictions can be used as a check on hypotheses derived psychoanalytically. Insuch a way, insights obtained from both methods may be com bined into a singlepersonality description.Schafer's most important contribution was his insistence on the importance ofa firm conceptual basis for drawing inferences from test data. This holds regardlessof whether the inferences are drawn solely from quantitative data or from anapproach such as that outlined in Psychoanalytic Interpretation. Schafer arguespersuasively for psychoanalysis as the most comprehensive framework for person-ality evaluation. He foresaw the fact that there would be continuing developmentof psychoanalytic theory and anticipated that the approach to the Rorschach wouldcontinue toevolve with these developments. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that his owninterest in the Rorschach and psychological testing in general did not keep pacewith the developm ent of his psychoanalytic thinking.In my opinion the modem quantitative approach to Rorschach interpretation isfundamentally conservative. The characterization of personality that derives froma consideration of empirical scores is one in which the patient is defined primarilyby static categories, a necessary consequence of infe rences drawn exclusively fiominterindividual comparisons. By contrast, the psychoanalytically informed a pproach seeks to describe the individual in terms of balances of internaI forces. Ityields personality description that is more individualistic and implies a greaterpoten tial for flux or change. It also carries with it, however, the im plication of aneed for m ore individualized treatment planning.The psychoanalytic approach to psychological testing is predicated on theassumption that the psychologist is striving for a s complete a description of thepatient" pe m nal ity as possible. Of course, if all that is desired is the answer to asimple question about mania, for exam ple, to institute pharmacotherapy, then such


11/12

an approach may seem cum bersome. In these computerized times in which e:ffi-ciency and cost-effectivenessare all-important, such a com prehensive approaclb ashas been described here may seem outmoded. But to those who appreciate carefulreasoning, attention to detail, and creative application of theory to data, Psychoan-alytic Interpretation in Rorschach Testing remains the high-water mark of thepsychodiagnostician's art.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This review is part of the series Rorschach Classics in Contemporary Perspec tive.The series is edited by Marvin W. Acklin. I gratefully acknow ledge the he lpfulcom men ts of Dr. Roy Schafer on an earlier draft of this review.

REFERENCES

Blatt, S., & Lemer, H. (1982). Investigations in the psychoanalytic theory of object relationsand otjectrepresentations. In S. Masling (Ed), Empirical studies on psychoanalytic theories @p. 159-188).Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.

Cooper, S., & Amow, D. (1986). An object relations view of the borderline defenses: Areview. In M.K&en (Ed), Assessing object relationsphenomena@p. 143471). New York: International Univer-sities Press.

Exner, J. (1989). Searching for projection in the Rorschach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53,520-536.

Exner, J. E. (1986). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system Volume I : Basic foundations (2nd id.).New York: Wiley.

Kissen, M. (Ed.). (1986).Assessing object relatiomphenomena.Madison,Cl? International Universi-ties Press.

Lerner, P. (1991). Psychoanalytic theoiy and theRorschach.Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic PressLemer, H., Albert, C., & Walsch, M. (1987). The Rorschach assessment of borderline defenses.Jourwalof Personality Assessment, 51,344-354.Lemer, H., & Lerner, P. @Is.). (1988). Primitive mental sates and the Rorschach. Madison, (;T:

International Universities Press.Peterson, C., & Schilling, P1 M. (1983). Card pull in projective testing. Journal of PersomlifyAssessment, 47,265-275.Rapaport,D. (1950). On the psychoanalytictheoryof thinking.InternahnalJournal ofPsychoanalysis,31, 161-170.Rapaport, D. (1951). The autonomy of the ego.B u U h of the Menninger Clinic, 15, 113-123.Rapaport,D. (1952). Projective echniquesandthe theory of thinking.Journal ofprojective Techniques,

16,269-275.Rapaport, D., Gill,M., & Schafer, R. (1968). Diagmsticpsychobgical testing (rev. ed). New York:

International Universities Press.Ricoeur, P. (1970).Freud anaphi1osophy:Anessay in inteipretation.New Haven, eT:Yale University

Press.Rorschach, H. (1942). Psychodingnostics.New York: Grune& Stratton.Schachtel, E. (1945). Subjective definitions of the Rorschach test situation and their effect on test

performance. Psychiatry,8, 419448.


12/12

606 SMITHSchafer, R. (1948).The clinical application ofpsyhologica l tests,New York: International Un iversitiesPress.Schafer, R. (195 4). Psychoanalytic interpretation in Rorschach testing. New York: Grune & Stratton.Schafer, R. (1976).Anew language forPsychognnZysk New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.Schafer, R. (1983). The analytic attitude.New York: Basic Books.Schwartz, F., & Lazar, Z. (1979). The scientific status of the Rorschach. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 43, 3,ll.Smith, B. (1991).Theoretical matrix of interp~etation. orschachiana, 17, 73-77.Bruce L. Smith2515 Milvia StreetSuite DBerkeley,CA 94704Received February 26,1993

Psychological Tests Don't Think

Documents

Transcript of Psychological Tests Don't Think