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

For example, using a graduate student sample, Jost and
multimethod approach by which the assessor uses different
Epstein (1956) found that electrodermal activity (EDA)
instruments to arrive at a comprehensive appraisal of
increased af- ter the presentation of Card I and leveled off as
personality. One respect in which methods are uniquely varied
the response phase progressed. Jost and Epstein interpreted
is level of structure (Leichsenring, 2004; Schachtel, 1966).
these results as a heightened period of anxiety when first
Instruments that present the client with familiar stimuli and a
confronted with the unstructured nature of the task.
restricted range of response (e.g., self-report instruments such
The number of studies done on the psychophysiological ex-
as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2
perience of the Rorschach and other performance-based tech-
[MMPI–2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, &
niques, although small, far exceeds the psychophysiological
Kaemmer, 1989] and the Personality Assessment Inventory
research conducted on the experience of self-report personal-
[Morey, 1991]) are seen as eliciting information that lies
ity assessment. In fact, we uncovered no studies in this area.
within conscious awareness relative to less structured
This study was designed to address this lack of research by
instruments. The response processes associated with varying
assessing participants’ psychophysiological responses to per-
levels of structure have been subjected to minimal empirical
sonality measures that differ by level of structure. In
scrutiny. Newmark, Hetzel, and Frerking (1974) compared
particular, our interest was to test whether
adults’ self-reports on taking a structured (MMPI) and
psychophysiological arousal at the beginning, middle, and end
nonstructured (Rorschach; Exner, 2003) test and found greater
of administration of the RIM and Sixteen Personality Factor
increases in state anxiety following the less struc- tured
Questionnaire (5th ed. [16PF]; Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell,
instrument. A subsequent study with children (Newmark,
1993) would differ. We hypothesized that psychophysiological
Wheeler, Newmark, & Stabler, 1975) obtained the same pat-
arousal, as assessed by EDA, would be higher during all
tern of findings in relation to the structured/nonstructured
phases of the performance-based measure, the RIM, than
contrast.
during the corresponding phases of the self-report instrument,
Although these studies have provided preliminary support the 16PF.
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 METHOD
the measurements, thereby obscuring whether heightened Setting and Participants
anxiety exists throughout the structured tests. The graduate student (S. H. Momenian-Schneider)
Psychophysiological research on less struc- tured personality conducted the study at a university-affiliated biofeedback
assessments, such as the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM), clinic located in a mid-Atlantic state. Participants were 15
indicates that the administration of these instru- ments induces undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psychology
changes in autonomic nervous system activity that are coursework. Informed con- sent was obtained from all
indicative of increased stress and anxiety (Dale, 1985; participants. Age range was 17 to 29 years old = with a mean of
Kettunen, Ravaja, Na¨a¨ta¨nen, & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, 19.6 years (SD 2.8); 53.3% of the sample was male and
2000). 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
Received November 16, 2007; Revised January 15, 2009.
Address correspondence to Virginia M. Brabender, Institute for Graduate
participants, this was the first time they had been connected to
Clinical Psychology, Widener University, One University Place, Chester, PA EDA monitoring equipment and taken a personality test.
19013; Email: vmbrabender@widener.edu

494
PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL REACTIONS TO THE RESPONSE PHASE 495
data,
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
 (Acklin, 2002; Beutler, 1995;

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
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., Na¨a¨ta¨nen, 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.