THE: EFFECTS OF ANXIETY AND CONFORMITY ON T H E STRUCTURED-OBJECTIVE RORSCHACH TEST (SORT)

PHILIP LANGER, ALMA I,. CARLISLE .4ND WILLIAM G . HAYES

Z’lah Slate University

PROBLEM During previous research involving the measurement of response-set on the

SORT(11’ I R I , the problem of motivational influences on SORT protocols has arisen. \\.:hilt. t,he effects of various motives, especially anxiety, have been investi- gated with reference to the original Rorschach@. 3 . 4 , 6 . i l 9 . 16. 2 1 ) , there has been only one study c~oiicerned with the effects of anxiety on the SORT(’O’.

This paper is an exploratory study concerning the effects of two empirically selected motives, anxiety and conformity, on the SORT. Following a common research proccdure, the effects of motivational variables will be determined by select- ing Ss with ext,reme scores (i.e., high and low Ss) on the devices used to measure the motives. The hypothesis for this study is that the SORT protocols will reflect differ- ences in levels of anxiety and conformity.

.-inxiety as defined in this paper, will refer to a score on the modified 50-item Taylor hlanifest. =\nxiet.y Scale (R.I.AS)(’O). There is some indication that this test measures chronic rather than acute anxiety. ( I 4 - 17) Conformity will refer to a score on the Bernberg Human Relat,ions Inventory (HRI) ( 5 ) which has been modi- fied (exclusion of numbers 1, 3, 6, 11, and 15 of the original) by further item analy- sis@).

The SOHT(IY) is a group version of the Rorscl ach. The 15 factors (and their reliability coefficients) include: W (.77), D (.78), Dd (.77), S (.62), F (.64), F- (.71), M (.80), FkI (.78), FC (.go), CF (.63), Fch (.77), A (.72), H (.68), P (.82), and 0 (.77). The factors represent a combination of a number of scoring systems in- cluding Iilopfer and Iielley, Beck, and Harrower-Erickson. The general categories of area, determinants, and content are maintained from the original Rorschach.

METHOD The MAS and Hl t I were administered within a single class period, to 119 Ss

(56 men and 63 women), followed a month later by the SORT. The Ss consisted of students enrolled in a general psychology course a t Utah State University in the Spring Quarter of 1962.

In administering the SORT, E projects each one of the ten blots, mounted on 35 mm slides, onto a screen before the Ss. The sequence of blots was retained from the original Rorschach system and the S has about 2% minutes to respond to each blot. The S has a booklet before him containing ten pages. Each page contains ten triads of responses pertinent to the blot. The S selects one and only one response per triad for a total of 10 responses per blot. Each response in the triad is keyed for blot area as well as for one of the determinants, and many others are also keyed for con- tent and statist.icaily derived scores specific to the SORT.

ItESULTS A N D DISCUSSION The means for men (10.27) and women (9.69) on the HRI, and on the MAS

(16.18 and 17.89 respectively) were not significantly different. The sexes were then combined to give a total N of 119. Ss falling within the upper and lower quartile ranges of both the HRI and MAS distributions were selected to form the “high” and “low” groups. This yielded four groups of 10 each consisting of Ss with the following score patterns on the MAS and HRI :

High Anxiety (HA) and High Conformity (HC) High Anxiety (HA) and Low Conformity (LC) Low Anxiety (L.4) and High Conformity (HC) I,o\v .\nxiety (:I) and Low Conformity (LC)

318 PHILIP LANGER, ALMA L. LARLISLE AND WILLIAM G. HAYES

A 2 x 2 analysis of variance was carried out for each of the SORT variables with results given in Table 1.

TABLE 1. 2 x 2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ANXIETY, CONFORMITY ON THE SORT

Variable Anxiety Conformity Anxiety x Conf omit y

W .05 2.91 .39 D .34 .79 .02 Dd .38 2.78 .66 S F F-

.57 .32 .12

.oo 1.72 1.64

4.39* .14

7.19" M 1.09 1.29 1.09 FM .16 .56 .16 FC .41 2.37 .15 CF 3.49 . 00 1.08 Fch .06 7.25* .18 A .13 .19 .19 H 4.12* . 00 .97 P .71 1.67 6.18* 0 .13 9.90** .72

*Significant at .05 level. **Significant at .01 level. df = 36 and 1.

In a study cited previously on the effects of anxiety and the SORT('O), both the H (human) and CF (color and poor form resemblance) factors differed significantly between high anxiety (HA) and low anxiety (LA) Ss. In both instances, the HA group means were significantly higher than the LA means. In this study, anxiety yielded only one significant difference, the H (human) factor. The mean for the HA group (22.9) was significantly higher than the LA mean (19.3). While the CF factor in our study only approached significance, the means were reversed as compared to the previous study in that the mean for the LA (9.0) was higher than that of the HA (7.6).

Conformity was significant for the 0 (original) and Fch (shading) factors. For 0, the mean for the HC group (6.7) was higher than LC (4.1). Further, it was inter- esting to note that while Stone(19) assigned the Fch variable to anxiety, this study yielded a difference on the conformity dimension. (Again, neither study found a relationship to anxiety). For the Fch factor, the mean of the LC (18.1) was higher than the HC (15.2).

Interaction effects between anxiety and conformity yielded significant findings for the following factors: S (space), F- (poor form), and P (popular). The cell means are given in Table 2.

TABLE 2. INTERACTION CELLS MEANS FOR S, F - AND P FACTORS

Variables Groups

HC LC

S: HA 13.8 12.1 LA 12.6 13.3

F-: HA 11.7 12.9 LA 13.7 10.3

P: HA 53.2 54.3 LA 57.2 62.4

The major finding for this paper concerns the H factor. Both studies yielded significant relationships between the H factor and anxiety. The CF factor yielded partial and conflicting results which need further study. The absence of any signi- ficant Fch findings is most disturbing, although it can be argued that anxiety as

THE EFFECTS OF ANXIETY AND CONFORMITY ON (SORT) 319

postulated by a M A S score is not equivalent to that represented by the Fch on the SORT. I t must be noted, however, that Fch has been associated with anxiety, in- rluding that measured by the ML4S(l, 2 1 ) . What is more confusing is the relationship of the Fch variable to a conformity measure. The positive conformity-0 relationship is also indefensible on theoretical grounds. One other possible explanation is that these are simply chance relationships.

The interaction effects further emphasize the need for additional research on the SORT. There is 110 interpretation available for these effects, other than the con- clusions the reader can draw from Table 2. I t would appear that the instrument is sensitive enough to motivational variables (only two were checked in this study) to make further research in this area necessary.

SUMMARY Oue hundred iiiiieteeii Ss were administered the Taylor Manifest Anxiety

Scale, the Berriberg Human Relations Inventory, and the Structured-Objective Rorschach Test. A 2 x 2 analysis of variables yielded several significant findings, as follows: (1) H was related to anxiety; (2) Fch and 0 were related to conformity; and (3) interaction effects were found for S, F -, and P.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 . ALLERHAND, M . E. Chiaroscuro determinants of Rorschach test as indicator of manifest anxiety.

2. ANDERSON, H. H. and ANDERSON, G. L. An introduction to projective techniques. Englewood

3. BECK, S. J. Rorschach's Test I I I . Advances in interpretation. New York: Grune and Stratton,

4. BERGER, L). The Rorschach as a measure of real-life stress. J. consult. Psychol., 1952,17,335-358. 5. BERNBERG, R. E. A measure of social conformity. J. Psychol., 1955,39,89096. 6. COX, F. M. and SARASON, S. B. Test anxiety and Rorschach performance. J. a h o m . soc.

7. FISHER, R. I,. The effect of disturbing situation upon the stability of various projective testa. Psychol. Momg., 1958, 72.

8. GORFEIN, DAVID S. and ANDERSON, L. M. A note on the validity of the Bernberg Human Re- lations Inventory. J . Paychol., 1962, 54, 65-68.

9. I<LOPFEI~, B., AINSWORTH, M. D., KLOPFER, W. G. and HOLT, R. R. Developments in the Rot- schach techniques, Vol . I. Yonkers-on Hudson, N. Y.: World Book, 1954.

10. LANCER, P., HAYES, W. G. and SHARP, H. C. The efiect of anxiety and induced streaa on the Structured-Objective Rorschach Test (SORT). Percept. mot. Skills, 1963, f6, 573-80.

11 . LANGER, P. Compulsivity and response set on the SORT, J. clin. Psychol., 1962, 18, 299-302. 12. LANOER, P. Social desirability and P responses on the SORT. J . clin. Psychol., 196, 18, 472. 13. I,ANGER, P. Social desirability and acquiesence on the SORT. Psychol. Rep., 1962, f 1,531-534. 14. LEE, I,. C. The effects of anxiety level and shock on a paired-associate verbal task. J. ezp.

15. LEVITT, E. E. and GROSZ, H. ,J. A comparison of quantifiable Rorschach anxiety indicators in hypnotically induced anxiety and normal states. J. consult. Psychol., 1960,24, 3135.

16. RIKERS-OVXIANKINA, M. A. Rorschach psychology. New York: John Wiley, 1960. 17. ROSSI, A. M. An evaluation of the manifest anxiety scale by the use of electromyogaphy, J .

exp. Psych.01. 1959, 68, 64-69. 18. SCHAFER, R. The clinical application OJ psychological tesls. New York: International Universi-

ties Press, Inc., 1962. 19. STONE, * J . B. S-0 Rorschach lest manual. Los Angeles, Calif.: Calif. Test Bureau, 1958. 20. TAYLOR, J. A. A ersonality scale of manifest anxiety. J . abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1953,&, 285-290. 21. WALLEII, P. F. $he relationship between the Rorschach shading response and other indices of

J . Proj. Tech., 1954, 18, 407-143.

Cliffs, N . J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962.

1952.

Psychol., 1954, 49, 371-377.

Psychol., 1961, 61, 213-17.

anxiety. J. proi. Tech., 1 x 0 , 24, 211-217.