Journal of Personality Assessment

ISSN: 0022-3891 (Print) 1532-7752 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

Psychophysiological Reactions to the Response

Phase of the Rorschach and 16PF

Sharon H. Momenian-Schneider , Virginia M. Brabender & Sanjay R. Nath

To cite this article: Sharon H. Momenian-Schneider , Virginia M. Brabender & Sanjay R. Nath
(2009) Psychophysiological Reactions to the Response Phase of the Rorschach and 16PF, Journal
of Personality Assessment, 91:5, 494-496, DOI: 10.1080/00223890903088727

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890903088727

Published online: 11 Aug 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 219

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjpa20
Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(5), 494–496, 2009
Copyright
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0022-3891 print / 1532-7752 online
DOI: 10.1080/00223890903088727

BRIEF REPORT

Psychophysiological Reactions to the Response Phase of the

Rorschach and 16PF
SHARON H. MOMENIAN-SCHNEIDER, VIRGINIA M. BRABENDER, AND SANJAY R. NATH

Institute for Graduate Clinical Psychology, Widener University

In this pilot study, we investigated whether there was a differential psychophysiological response during the beginning, middle, and end of
the administration of a performance-based instrument (Rorschach Inkblot Method, RIM; Exner, 2003) versus a self-report measure of personality
(Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, 5th ed. [16PF]; Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 1993). Results indicate that adult participants (n = 15)
experienced greater electrodermal activity during the administration of the RIM as compared to the 16PF. Effect sizes for the differences between
the instruments were all very large (Cohen’s d = 1.71 at beginning, d = 1.1 at middle, and d = .98 at end).

Contemporary personality assessment rests on the multimethod
approach by which the assessor uses different instruments
to arrive at a comprehensive appraisal of personality. One
respect in which methods are uniquely varied is level of
structure (Leichsenring, 2004; Schachtel, 1966). Instruments
that present the client with familiar stimuli and a restricted
range of response (e.g., self-report instruments such as the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 [MMPI–2;
Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989] and
the Personality Assessment Inventory [Morey, 1991]) are seen
as eliciting information that lies within conscious awareness
relative to less structured instruments. The response processes
associated with varying levels of structure have been subjected
to minimal empirical scrutiny. Newmark, Hetzel, and Frerking
(1974) compared adults’ self-reports on taking a structured
(MMPI) and nonstructured (Rorschach; Exner, 2003) test and
found greater increases in state anxiety following the less struc-
tured instrument. A subsequent study with children (Newmark,
Wheeler, Newmark, & Stabler, 1975) obtained the same pat-
tern of findings in relation to the structured/nonstructured
contrast.
Although these studies have provided preliminary support for
the structure–anxiety hypothesis, the methodology is limited by
the circularity of using self-report measures to study self-report
measures and the noncontinuous nature of the measurements,
thereby obscuring whether heightened anxiety exists throughout
the structured tests. Psychophysiological research on less struc-
tured personality assessments, such as the Rorschach Inkblot
Method (RIM), indicates that the administration of these instru-
ments induces changes in autonomic nervous system activity
that are indicative of increased stress and anxiety (Dale, 1985;
Kettunen, Ravaja, Näätänen, & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, 2000).
Received November 16, 2007; Revised January 15, 2009.
Address correspondence to Virginia M. Brabender, Institute for Graduate
Clinical Psychology, Widener University, One University Place, Chester, PA
19013; Email: vmbrabender@widener.edu
494
For example, using a graduate student sample, Jost and Epstein
(1956) found that electrodermal activity (EDA) increased af-
ter the presentation of Card I and leveled off as the response
phase progressed. Jost and Epstein interpreted these results as
a heightened period of anxiety when first confronted with the
unstructured nature of the task.
The number of studies done on the psychophysiological ex-
perience of the Rorschach and other performance-based tech-
niques, although small, far exceeds the psychophysiological
research conducted on the experience of self-report personal-
ity assessment. In fact, we uncovered no studies in this area.
This study was designed to address this lack of research by
assessing participants’ psychophysiological responses to per-
sonality measures that differ by level of structure. In particular,
our interest was to test whether psychophysiological arousal at
the beginning, middle, and end of administration of the RIM
and Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (5th ed. [16PF];
Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 1993) would differ. We hypothesized
that psychophysiological arousal, as assessed by EDA, would
be higher during all phases of the performance-based measure,
the RIM, than during the corresponding phases of the self-report
instrument, the 16PF.
METHOD
Setting and Participants
The graduate student (S. H. Momenian-Schneider) conducted
the study at a university-affiliated biofeedback clinic located in a
mid-Atlantic state. Participants were 15 undergraduate students
enrolled in introductory psychology coursework. Informed con-
sent was obtained from all participants. Age range was 17 to
29 years old with a mean of 19.6 years (SD = 2.8); 53.3% of
the sample was male and 46.7% were female. Nearly half of
the sample was White (n = 7), with the remaining participants
being African American (n = 4), Asian (n = 2), and Other
(n = 2). For all of the participants, this was the first time they
had been connected to EDA monitoring equipment and taken a
personality test.
PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL REACTIONS TO THE RESPONSE PHASE
Measures
RIM. In this study, the graduate student presented 10
inkblots to the examinee with the instruction to report “What
might this be?” in conjunction with the Rorschach Comprehen-
sive System (Exner, 2003). The graduate student administered
only the response portion of the RIM, which required between
20 to 30 min, and did not conduct an inquiry.
16PF. The 16PF (Cattell et al., 1993) is a 185-item, paper-
and-pencil instrument with three response choices (true, ?,
false). Completion time for the instrument is estimated as 25
to 40 min. The graduate student chose this instrument due to its
length being comparable to the response phase of the Rorschach.
Psychophysiological data. The graduate student con-
ducted psychophysiological recording using the Pro Comp
Infiniti–Version 2.5.2, and monitored EDA using standard SC
Flex/Pro skin conductance sensors to measure EDA.
Procedure
This analog assessment study was a within-subjects, quasi-
experimental design. Initially, the graduate student told partic-
ipants that they would be participating in a research study to
monitor the body’s reaction to two commonly used personal-
ity tests (they were named) and that they would not receive
feedback from the personality tests. Next, the graduate student
connected participants to EDA sensors on the third and fourth
fingers of the nondominant hand. Each participant was seated
without a view of the computer screen. The graduate student
gave the participants up to 10 min of quiet relaxation time to
acclimate to the experimental condition and to enable the gradu-
ate student to establish a physiological baseline. Mean baseline
data for each instrument was 5.3 micromhos (SD = 3.9) for the
RIM and 5.0 micromhos (SD = 3.4) for the 16PF, consistent
with a relaxed state (Schwartz, 1987).
During both tests, the graduate student asked participants to
remain still and the examiner was present and seated next to
the participant. After the baseline period, the graduate student
administered the response portion of the RIM and the 16PF in
random counterbalanced order. There was a 10-min between-
test interval to achieve a physiological baseline for the second
test administration. Participants took hold of each Rorschach
card with their dominant hands on which there were no sensors.
For the 16PF administration, the graduate student placed a small
folding table in front of the participant so that he or she could
easily answer the questionnaire. The graduate student recorded
the occurrence and time of any gross movements that may have
affected the physiological readings, and data markers were in-
serted shortly after participants began, when they reached the
mid-point (in the case of the 16PF, when half of the items were
completed), and as they approached the end of the 185 16PF
items or after the presentation of Card X of the Rorschach. The
graduate student conducted the study while aware of the hy-
potheses but was not in face-to-face contact with participants
during data collection to reduce suggestibility.
RESULTS
Analyses we performed to ensure that the psychophysiolog-
ical data met assumptions for parametric statistics (linearity,
normality, and homoscedasticity) showed that they were met.
Means and standard deviations of the psychophysiological data,
495
FIGURE 1.—Mean difference scores and baselines for Sixteen Personality Fac-
tor Questionnaire (16PF) and Rorschach at beginning, middle, and end of ad-
ministration. Note that change scores were computed relative to baseline val-
ues. Rorschach baseline M = 5.1 µmhos, SD = 3.4; 16PF baseline M = 5.3
µmhos, SD = 3.9.
measured as difference scores from each individual’s baseline
physiological data, are presented graphically in Figure 1. Given
the counterbalanced design, we conducted an initial compari-
son to see if there was an effect on baseline levels due to order
of administration. No significant difference was found, t(13) =
.65, p = .52 (Cohen’s d = .36, observed power = .16).
We tested the primary hypothesis by conducting a 2
(Rorschach, 16PF) × 3 (beginning, middle, end) within-subjects
factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) with psychophysiolog-
ical difference scores as the dependent variable. There was no
significant interaction, F (2, 28) = .92, p = .41 (Cohen’s f =
.25, observed power = .19) or effect for time, F (2, 28) = 1.53,
p = .24 (Cohen’s f = .33, observed power = .30), but the anal-
ysis yielded a significant effect for assessment instrument, F (1,
14) = 6.08, p < .03 (Cohen’s f = .66, observed power = .63).
Post hoc tests revealed significantly higher psychophysiological
response to the RIM than to the 16PF at beginning, middle, and
end. Effect sizes for the differences between the RIM and 16PF
were all very large (Cohen’s d = 1.71 at beginning, d = 1.1 at
middle, and d = .98 at end).
We also collected data at each card presentation during the ad-
ministration of the Rorschach, with changes from baseline cal-
culated for each of the 10 cards (see Figure 2). A post hoc within-
subjects ANOVA by card was nonsignificant, F (9, 126) = 1.84,
p = .07 (Cohen’s f = .36, observed power = .79); however,
a trend toward a quadratic contrast pattern was detected, F (1,
14) = 4.17, p = .06 (Cohen’s f = .55, observed power = .48),
suggesting higher physiological response for the first card and
last three cards compared to cards two through seven.
DISCUSSION
We designed this study as a pilot investigation to examine
whether instruments that differ by level of structure are expe-
rienced differently by a nonclinical sample of examinees and
whether this difference is associated with the degree of arousal
the individual experiences. We hypothesized that instruments
that are low in structure are more arousal producing, and this pre-
liminary study provided evidence for this hypothesis. Although
a normative assumption in the field (Acklin, 2002; Beutler, 1995;
496
FIGURE 2.—Psychophysiological Response Measured in µmho change scores
to Rorschach Administration. Note that change scores were computed relative
to baseline values. Baseline M = 5.1 µmhos, SD = 3.4.
Finn, 1996), no specific empirical research has been conducted
to substantiate this tenet to date.
The physiological responses we found during the presenta-
tion of the Rorschach cards were significant when compared to
typical autonomic fear responses and significantly higher than
the physiological response during the 16PF. As a comparison,
studies investigating EDA have noted change scores averaging
3.1 micromhos to a 115 decibel noxious sound (Epstein & Fenz,
1970), and an average change of 2.5 micromhos has been noted
in response to gruesome film images (Britton, Taylor, Berridge,
Mikels, & Liberzon, 2006).
Multiple explanations might be offered for why the pattern of
significant differences between the two instruments was found.
For example, the differences could be related to the interper-
sonal nature of the Rorschach versus the relatively impersonal
nature of the 16PF. The differential EDA response could also be
due to the format of each task, and thus further research might
contrast an alternate paper-and-pencil version of the Rorschach
to a more clinically focused self-report instrument because the
16PF is nonsymptom focused. Additional investigations might
also help identify whether reactivity is more related to cognitive
complexity of a given task, the interpersonal process involved
in assessment, or factors related to being physiologically moni-
tored during personality assessments.
This pattern of results points to the need for further research
with larger sample sizes for assessors to understand more fully
response reactivity during the course of a given test, especially
given the effect sizes noted for changes during each test that
might bear significant findings if there were sufficient power.
The effect sizes suggest that there might be an effect for time—
a dip in reactivity during the middle of the administrations—
and both an initial spike and “color shock” with the Rorschach.
Larger samples might bear out the large effect sizes associated
with these promising nonsignificant findings. However, given
the small sample size, these findings must be viewed tentatively.
The largest limitation of this investigation was low statistical
MOMENIAN-SCHNEIDER, BRABENDER, NATH
power, and with a sample size of only 15 participants, it was not
possible to truly assess the meaning of nonsignificant findings
(Cohen, 1988).
Given the challenge of interpreting large effect sizes in the ab-
sence of more rigorous hypothesis testing with adequate power,
this line of research clearly merits follow-up and should be repli-
cated and extended with larger clinical and nonclinical samples.
The external validity of the findings also needs to be established.
Whether these findings with college students can be extended
to clinical populations is a matter for future research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The article was originally presented at the 2007 Society for
Personality Assessment Annual Conference in Arlington, VA.
We thank Dr. Celeste DeBease for her input and support of this
research as well as Dr. Jamie Loving for feedback on an earlier
version of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Acklin, M. W. (2002). How to select personality tests for a test battery. In J.
N. Butcher (Ed.), Clinical personality assessment: Practical approaches (pp.
13–21). New York: Oxford University Press.
Beutler, L. E. (1995). Integrating and communicating findings. In L. E. Beutler &
M. R. Berren (Eds.), Integrative assessment of adult personality (pp. 25–64).
New York: Guilford.
Britton, J. C., Taylor, S. F., Berridge, K. C., Mikels, J. A., & Liberzon, I. (2006).
Differential subjective and psychophysiological responses to socially and
nonsocially generated emotional stimuli. Emotion, 6, 150–155.
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B.
(1989). MMPI–2: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2: Manual
for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K., & Cattell, H. E. (1993). Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire, fifth edition. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and
Ability Testing.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dale E. R. (1985). Skin conductance response to the Rorschach Inkblot Test
(Doctoral dissertation, Rosemead School of Psychology, 1985). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 46, 4B.
Epstein, S., & Fenz, W. D. (1970). Habituation to a loud sound as a function of
manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 75, 189–194.
Exner, J. E. (2003). The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System (4th ed.) Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Finn, S. E. (1996). Assessment feedback integrating MMPI–2 and Rorschach
findings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 543–557.
Jost, H., & Epstein, L. (1956). The Rorschach as a physiological stress. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 12, 259–263.
Kettunen, J., Ravaja, N., Näätänen, P., & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L. (2000). The
relationship of respiratory sinus arrhythmia to the co-activation of autonomic
and facial responses during the Rorschach test. Psychophysiology, 37, 242–
250.
Leichsenring, F. (2004). The role of structure in the assessment of psychopathol-
ogy. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20, 275–282.
Morey, L. C. (1991). The Personality Assessment Inventory professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Newmark, C. S., Hetzel, W., & Frerking, R. A. (1974). The effects of personality
tests on state and trait anxiety. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 17–20.
Newmark, C. S., Wheeler, D., Newmark, L., & Stabler, B. (1975). Test-induced
anxiety with children. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 409–413.
Schachtel, E. G. (1966). Experiential foundations of Rorschach’s test. New
York: Basic Books.
Schwartz, M. (1987). Biofeedback: A practitioner’s guide (2nd ed.). New York:
Guilford.