Abstract. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship betweena self-report (explicit) measure of interpersonal difficulties – the Inventory ofInterpersonal Problems (IIP; Horowitz et al., 2000) – and the Rorschach, whichincludes implicit measures of self-perception and interpersonal relatedness.Seventeen a priori predictions were made regarding the face-valid associations(i.e., correlations) between the IIP and selected Rorschach variables. A sampleof 62 undergraduates were administered the Rorschach and IIP. Their IIPscores were slightly higher than the normative sample reported by Horowitz etal. (1988). Nonetheless, seven predicted relationships were statistically signif-icant and included the following Rorschach variables: Intellectualization In-dex, AG, FM, S, T, Y, and MOR. These results remained significant when theywere controlled for response productivity. Five of the predicted correlationsapproached statistical significance and included the following Rorschach vari-ables: T, Food, Egocentricity Index, and M%. Most of the correlations wereobserved in the submissive hemisphere of the interpersonal circumplex. Non-significant results were partially explained to be the result of “heteromethodinversion” (Bornstein, 2002) in which defensiveness in admitting difficulties insome interpersonal domains leads to apparent inconsistencies in explicit andimplicit measures of a given trait or quality.
Keywords: Rorschach, Inventory of Interpersonal Problems
The Rorschach and Interpersonal Problems
In clinical practice, the assessment of problematic interpersonal behav-ior has received greater emphasis in recent years. Among the empiricallysupported self-report measures that have emerged for this purpose, oneclinically focused instrument has been researched especially extensively:
3
the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-64; Horowitz, Alden, Wig-gins, & Pincus, 2000). The IIP-64 yields results on 8 subscales that maybe plotted on the “interpersonal circumplex” (also called the “interper-sonal circle”), a structural model of personality with well-establishedreliability and validity (Gurtman, 1996; Horowitz, Dryer, & Krasnope-rova, 1997; Kiesler, 1996; Wiggins, 1985). The circumplex is based onthe idea that “human interpersonal behavior represents blends of twobasic motivations: the need for control (e.g., power, dominance), and theneed for affiliation (e.g., love, friendliness)” (Kiesler, 1996, pp. 7–8).These primary motivations form the bipolar vertical (dominance/sub-mission) and horizontal (hostility/love) axes of the circumplex, with in-terpersonal qualities that represent blends of the two principal tenden-cies arranged along the circle’s circumference. These qualities are situ-ated on the circle directly across from opposite tendencies, andcollectively divide the circle, in most recent models such as that used bythe IIP, into octants. The circumplex is also composed of concentricrings ref lecting the capacity of interpersonal inventories to assess notonly the quality of relational tendencies (i.e., what vector or segmentemerges with respect to the four principal poles), but also their intensityor magnitude (i.e., the length of the vector). Thus, inventories such as theIIP can provide precise quantitative information about both the natureand the severity of an individual’s interpersonal problems. Results onthe IIP are expressed as T-scores on 8 interpersonal dimensions: (1)Domineering/Controlling; (2) Vindictive/Self-Centered; (3) Cold/Dis-tant; (4) Socially Inhibited; (5) Nonassertive; (6) Overly Accommodating;(7) Self-Sacrificing; (8) Intrusive/Needy.
Many have observed that projective (implicit) and objective (self-re-port) measures assess differing levels of motivation and self-awareness(Bornstein, 1999, 2002; Bornstein, Bowers, & Robinson, 1995; Ganellen,1996; Masling, 1997; McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989). Thisdivision has been most evident between the Rorschach and MMPI (Ga-nellen, 1996). However, integrative work with these measures suggestsnot only that implicit and explicit behavior measures can be meaning-fully integrated, but that combining them yields an informational gestaltthat exceeds the sum of its parts. For instance, Lovitt (1993), Finn(1996), and Ganellen (1996) describe ways that both convergent anddivergent findings from the Rorschach and MMPI can shed light on suchimportant psychological qualities as a person’s impression management,defences (which may include varying degrees of self-deception), andcognitive-affective functioning in structured and unstructured contexts.
R.B. Schneider et al.
4
Accordingly, when conducting personality assessment with an interper-sonal focus, evaluating problematic relational behavior as implicitlymeasured by the Rorschach and explicitly measured by a well-researchedinterpersonal self-report measure (i.e., the IIP) would seem likely to shedlight on the respective strengths and weaknesses of implicit and explicitassessment of interpersonal problems, and perhaps reveal some ways inwhich they may complement each other. However, while the Interper-sonal cluster of the Rorschach Comprehensive System (hereafter, CS)provides important information about an individual’s needs, attitudes,and coping styles that may inf luence interpersonal behavior, Exner(2003) states that it does not directly reveal specific aspects of one’srelational environment or tendencies. With this variable cluster, hypoth-eses about an individual’s typical interpersonal functioning must bebased on a higher degree of inference than is necessary for some of theother CS clusters.
To increase the Rorschach’s predictive power in the interpersonal do-main, Perry and Viglione (1991) developed a measure called the HumanExperience Variable (HEV). The HEV is scored from any human, humandetail, quasi-human, or quasi-human-detail responses, human-experi-ence responses, human movement responses, and percepts scored fromcooperative and aggressive interaction. Based on the form quality ofthese percepts, the presence or absence of cognitive distortions in theverbal articulation of the response, and the presence or absence of ag-gressive, affiliative, or morbid percepts, responses that contain humanelements are globally categorized as either “good” or “bad” and thenentered into an algorithm that yields the HEV for a Rorschach examinee.In their nonpatient study of 105 females, Burns and Viglione (1996)reported that two groups were clearly delineated: a “low interpersonalrelatedness” group with a mean HEV of 0.40 (SD 1.60), and a “highinterpersonal relatedness” group with a mean HEV of –1.70 (SD 2.00).In other words, higher scores appear to be associated with greater inter-personal difficulty.
The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree of rela-tionship between IIP variables, the HEV, and select CS variables, partic-ularly those in the Interpersonal cluster. It was hoped that such an anal-ysis would clarify the extent to which the HEV and Rorschach CS vari-ables are associated with relational problems. By examining theinterrelationships between selected CS variables and results on the IIP,the study sought to examine the generality problem of the Interpersonalcluster discussed by Exner (2003) and, perhaps, to suggest with greater
Rorschach and Interpersonal Problems
5
specificity the kinds of interpersonal problems that the Rorschach mayassess.
A number of a priori predictions were made about relationships be-tween selected CS variables, Perry and Viglione’s HEV, and problemsreported on the IIP. These predictions were made on the basis of seem-ingly face-valid relationships of certain CS variables to various circum-plex-measured interpersonal problems.
CS Variables – Interpersonal-Perception Cluster
– COP: The cooperative-movement variable is related to the capacity toenvision cooperative human activity. It was predicted that COP scoreswould correlate positively with scores on IIP scales 6 (Overly Accom-modating), 7 (Self-Sacrificing), and 8 (Intrusive/Needy), with highestcorrelations seen with Scale 6. Negative correlations were expectedwith scales 2 (Vindictive/Self-Centered), 3 (Cold/Distant), and 4 (So-cially Inhibited), with the strongest inverse correlations expected withScale 2.
– AG: Scores on this variable were predicted to show the strongest positivecorrelation with those on Scale 2 (Vindictive/Self-Centered), and alsoto correlate positively with scales 1 (Domineering/Controlling) and 3(Cold/Distant). Negative correlations were predicted with scales 5 (Non-assertive), 6 (Overly Accommodating), and 7 (Self-Sacrificing), with thestrongest negative correlations predicted with Scale 6.
– T: The texture variable relates to the need for contact and closenesswith others, and the propensity to seek it. Low-T individuals tend tobe relationally guarded or distant. Conversely, those exhibiting veryhigh T may be unusually needy and feel a chronic sense of emotionaldeprivation. T was predicted to correlate negatively with Scale 4 (So-cially Inhibited) and positively with Scale 8 (Intrusive/Needy).
– Food: Percepts of food on the Rorschach are related to dependencyneeds. Food > 0 suggests a longing to be taken care of. Scores on thisvariable were predicted to correlate positively with scores on Scale 8(Intrusive/Needy) and negatively with scores on Scale 4 (Socially In-hibited).
– Isolate/R: The Isolation Index suggests the degree to which an individ-ual feels socially alienated; when the score is > .33, the isolation ismarked. The strongest positive correlation was expected between theIsolation Index and Scale 4 (Socially Inhibited). Additional positive
R.B. Schneider et al.
6
correlations were predicted with scales 3 (Cold/Distant) and 5 (Non-assertive).
CS Variables – Self-Perception Cluster
– 3r + (2)/R: The Egocentricity Index (EI) is a broad indicator of self-concern, and at low and high extremes may suggest self-esteem prob-lems or narcissistic tendencies, respectively. It was predicted that theEI would positively correlate with scales 2 (Vindictive/Self-Centered)and 3 (Cold/Distant), and negatively correlate with scales 6 (OverlyAccommodating) and 7 (Self-Sacrificing).
– H: (H) + Hd + (Hd): This ratio is related to one’s capacity to envisionother people as unitary, autonomously functioning beings. A deficitin this ability suggests that one tends to perceive others as need-grat-ifying “parts” or fantasized distortions (or some combination there-of), rather than as “wholes.” The normal ratio is approximately 2:1.The ratio’s components were predicted to relate to IIP scales in thefollowing ways: H (the perception of whole humans) was predicted tocorrelate positively with scales 6 (Overly Accommodating) and 7 (Self-Sacrificing), while (H) + Hd + (Hd) (the total perception of part-hu-mans) was predicted to correlate positively with scales 2 (Vindic-tive/Self-Centered) and 3 (Cold/Distant).
– Fr + rF: Ref lections suggest an unhealthy self-preoccupation. Like theEI, ref lections were predicted to correlate positively with scales 2 (Vin-dictive/Self-Centered) and 3 (Cold/Distant), and negatively withscales 6 (Overly Accommodating) and 7 (Self-Sacrificing).
– MOR: Giving more than 2 morbid responses on a Rorschach suggeststhat one feels psychologically damaged, depleted, and at the mercy ofmalevolent external forces. However, it seemed somewhat difficult topredict which IIP scales would correlate with MOR, given that this sortof dysphoric self-perception appears common to many psychologicalproblems. Depression would seem most strongly associated with thesort of feeling suggested by the MOR variable. However, as Horowitzet al. (2000) speculate, different interpersonal problems may be asso-ciated with subtypes of “autonomous” and “dependent” depression,which are inf luenced, respectively, by an anxious desire to maintaincontrol of one’s life and an urge to seek caretaking by others. Blatt andSchichman (1983) have proposed a similar distinction, which they call“introjective” and “anaclitic” configurations of psychopathology. Pin-
Rorschach and Interpersonal Problems
7
cus and Gurtman (1995), in their structural analyses of self-report de-pendency measures using the circumplex and the five-factor model ofpersonality together, identified “submissive dependency” as a distinc-tive and perhaps especially pathological and distress-prone form ofinterpersonal dependency that may be evoked under certain socialcircumstances. Thus, in a marked departure from the inverse correla-tions of diametrically opposed octants on the circumplex, MOR waspredicted to correlate positively with both scales 1 (Domineer-ing/Controlling) and 2 (Vindictive/Self-Centered) and again withscales 4 (Socially Inhibited) and 5 (Nonassertive).
Other CS Variables
– S: An excess of white space responses suggests that the individual hasa chronic hostile and oppositional stance toward the environment. Swas predicted to correlate positively with scales 1 (Domineering/Con-trolling), 2 (Vindictive/Self-Centered), and 3 (Cold/Distant); and neg-atively with scales 5 (Nonassertive), 6 (Overly Accommodating), and 7(Self-Sacrificing).
– Y: Diffuse-shading responses suggest a tendency to become anxious andapprehensive under situational stress. Given the interpersonal assess-ment context and unfamiliar, unstructured task of the Rorschach, Y waspredicted to correlate positively with Scale 4 (Socially Inhibited).
– FM: The animal-movement variable has been linked to unmet needs,both physiological and psychological. FM was predicted to correlatepositively with the broadly submissive/unassertive scales of the IIP: 4(Socially Inhibited), 5 (Nonassertive), and 6 (Overly Accommodating).
– M: The ability to perceive plausible human movement on the Ror-schach (as evidenced by M responses with good form quality) suggeststhe capacity for empathy and human relatedness. M was predicted tocorrelate positively with scales 6 (Overly Accommodating) and 7 (Self-Sacrificing), and negatively with scales 2 (Vindictive/Self-Centered)and 3 (Cold/Distant).
– Afr: The affective ratio provides information about how comfortablea person is with emotion. Afr was predicted to correlate negativelywith scales 3 (Cold/Distant) and 4 (Socially Inhibited), and positivelywith scales 7 (Self-Sacrificing) and 8 (Intrusive/Needy).
– 2AB + (Art + Ay): The Intellectualization Index relates to an individ-ual’s tendency to defend against the raw power of emotions by “strip-
R.B. Schneider et al.
8
ping” events and experiences of their affective content and processingthem in a primarily ideational way. The intellectualization defencewas predicted to be used more heavily by those scoring high on scales3 (Cold/Distant) and 4 (Socially Inhibited) – i.e., was predicted to cor-relate positively with those scales – and very little by those scoringhigh on scales 7 (Self-Sacrificing) and 8 (Intrusive/Needy) – i.e., waspredicted to correlate negatively with those scales.
Human Experience Variable (HEV)
Higher HEV scores appear to be associated with more impaired inter-personal functioning. As such, the HEV was predicted to correlate pos-itively with scales situated in the “hostile” left hemisphere of the IIPcircumplex – scales 2 (Vindictive/Self-Centered), 3 (Cold/Distant), and4 (Socially Inhibited). A negative correlation was predicted between theHEV and scales 6 (Overly Accommodating), 7 (Self-Sacrificing), and 8(Intrusive/Needy), with the strongest negative correlation predictedwith Scale 6.
There was an overall pattern to these predictions. Many Rorschachvariables that were predicted to correlate positively with “dominant”scales were also expected to correlate negatively with the “submissive”scales, and vice versa. Similarly, many Rorschach variables predicted tocorrelate positively with “hostile” scales were expected to correlate neg-atively with “friendly” scales, and vice-versa. As stated above, the excep-tion was MOR, which was expected to correlate positively with IIP vari-ables in two distinct areas of the circumplex (scales 1 and 2, and scales4 and 5).
Method
Participants
Participants in this study were undergraduate students at a private south-ern university recruited for voluntary participation. They receivedcourse credit in return for participation. Sixty-five individuals participat-ed in this study. However, only 63 returned for the Rorschach (describedbelow), despite efforts to contact the other two. One of these partici-pants did not provide enough Rorschach responses for the data to be
Rorschach and Interpersonal Problems
9
valid. Thus, the final sample included 62 individuals, with 35 female and27 male participants (56.5% and 43.5%, respectively). Because the num-ber of females completing the IIP in the first stage of the study wasinitially much higher than the number of male participants, males wereselectively recruited in the latter portion of the study.
Measures
Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-64; Horowitz, Alden, Wiggins,& Pincus, 2000)
This version of the IIP is a 64-item Likert self-report measure of interper-sonal difficulty and distress that yields 8 factor-analytically derived sub-scales of problematic relational behavior. Results on these subscales areexpressed as T-scores and may be plotted on an interpersonal circumplex.Counterclockwise from the top of the circle, these subscales include (1)Domineering/Controlling – being too controlling or manipulative in in-terpersonal interactions; (2) Vindictive/Self-Centered – being frequentlyegocentric and hostile in dealing with others; (3) Cold/Distant – havingminimal feelings of affection for, and little connection with, other people;(4) Socially Inhibited – being socially avoidant and anxious, and havingdifficulty approaching others; (5) Nonassertive – having difficulty express-ing one’s needs to others; (6) Overly Accommodating – being gullible andeasily taken advantage of by people; (7) Self-Sacrificing – being excessivelyself less, generous, trusting, caring, and permissive with others; and (8)Intrusive/Needy – imposing one’s needs and having difficulty respectingthe personal boundaries of other people.
The IIP-64 has well-documented reliability and validity (Horowitz etal., 1988). Horowitz et al. (2000) report Cronbach’s α coefficients rang-ing from .76 to .88 among the scales, and test-retest reliabilities rangingfrom .58 to .84 (r for total score = .79).
Demographic Information Questionnaire
Participants were asked to provide information on sex, age, race, ethnic-ity, marital status, and academic class. A participant identification num-ber was assigned to ensure protocol anonymity.
R.B. Schneider et al.
10
Rorschach Inkblot Method (Exner Comprehensive System) and HumanExperience Variable (HEV)
The Rorschach was administered and scored using the ComprehensiveSystem (CS) (Exner, 2001, 2003), with the 2001 nonpatient norms em-ployed for statistical comparison. As previously mentioned, the HEV isa composite CS-derived variable that incorporates human, human de-tail, quasi-human, quasi-human-detail, or human-experience responses;human-movement and humanlike animal-movement responses; and co-operative and aggressive behavior percepts. Form quality, cognitive dis-tortions, and aggressive, affiliative, or morbid percepts are factored in,and responses are globally categorized as either “good” or “bad” andthen entered into the following algorithm to yield the HEV: HEV = .51X (# Poor H responses) – .75 X (# Good H responses) + .04. This com-posite variable appears able to predict various types of psychopathologysuch as schizophrenia, particularly the paranoid type (Perry, Viglione, &Braff, 1992), and pharmacologically resistant depression (Perry & Vig-lione, 1991). Moreover, the ability of the HEV to predict the overallquality of interpersonal relationships in nonpatients has received empir-ical support (Burns & Viglione, 1996). A number of studies (Burns &Viglione, 1996; Perry, McDougall, & Viglione, 1995; Perry, Viglione, &Braff, 1992) have supported the psychometric soundness of the HEV,and have provided some support for its utility in assessing the quality ofboth one’s object relations and one’s actual relationships with otherpeople (Burns & Viglione, 1996).
Procedure
Data were gathered in a two-stage process. Prior to the first stage, thefirst or third author brief ly informed participants about the study, invit-ed participation, and obtained written informed consent. In the firststage, participants were asked to complete the IIP-64 (Horowitz et al.,2000) and the Demographic Information Questionnaire. In the secondstage, participants were asked to return for administration of the Ror-schach Inkblot Method with one of the researchers, both of whom hadbeen trained extensively in the administration and scoring of the Ror-schach Inkblot Method with the Exner (2003) Comprehensive System.Participants completing both stages of the study received either 3 or 4 hof extra credit, depending on administration time for the Rorschach.
Rorschach and Interpersonal Problems
11
Results
The final sample consisted of 35 females (56.5%) and 27 males (43.5%).The mean age of participants was 19.7 (1.5) years, with a range of 18 to24. Ethnic breakdown consisted of the following: 37 Caucasian (59.7%),12 Hispanic (19.4%), 7 Asian-American (11.3%), and 6 African-Ameri-can (9.7%). The mean, standard deviation, range, and effect sizes (whereapplicable) for all IIP scales and predicted Rorschach variables are re-ported in Table 1. In order to control for response productivity, data arepresented as a percentage of R.
Seven of the protocols (10%) were selected for reliability analysis. In-terrater reliability was computed for many of the key variables betweenthe first and third authors, who scored each others’ protocols blindly.The percent agreement between raters is as follows: Location* – 86%;Developmental quality – 86%; Determinants – 91%; Form quality – 80%;Pairs – 94%; Content – 90%; Popular – 97%. Special Scores – 82%.
Although the IIP sample statistics did not significantly differ frompublished norms, the octant and total scores in this study were all slightlyelevated compared to the standardization sample, primarily in the“friendly” hemisphere of the interpersonal circumplex: scales 5 (Nonas-sertive), 6 (Overly Accommodating), 7 (Self-Sacrificing), and 8 (Intru-sive/Needy). IIP total score was also slightly elevated in this study com-pared to the IIP norming sample. Despite the significant elevations andsuppressions on a number of Rorschach variables, the distributions ofRorschach variables and IIP scale scores in this sample were not signifi-cant for skewness or kurtosis.
Of the 17 Rorschach variables hypothesized to correlate with IIPscores in this study, 7 were statistically significant when both the rawscore of the variables and their percentage of total number of Rorschachresponses were entered into the data analysis: Intellectualization, AG,FM, S, T, Y, and MOR. Pearson correlations are reported in Table 2.
Additional trends were found in five predicted relationships that ap-proached statistical significance: 3r + 2/R and scales 1 (Domineer-ing/Controlling) (r = .23, p = .08) and 2 (Vindictive/Self-Centered) (r =.24, p = .06); Food and Scale 7 (Self-Sacrificing) (r = –.22, p = .09); T and
R.B. Schneider et al.
12
* The location sheet for computing interrater reliability was in black-and-whiteprint. Consequently, it was difficult for raters to determine demarcations in scor-ing locations.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for predicted Rorschach variables and IIP dimensions
Scale 8 (Intrusive/Needy) (r = .25, p = .053); and M% and Scale 2 (Vin-dictive/Self-Centered) (r = –.21, p = .12).
Discussion
In this study, significant Rorschach-IIP correlations were mostly found inthe circumplex’s “submissive” hemisphere (scales 4–7). Thus, the Ror-schach appeared generally to do better at predicting problems with variousforms of excessive interpersonal submissiveness than problems with inter-personal overdominance. Correlations were particularly strong in the low-er right quadrant, where Pincus and Wiggins (1990) found IIP elevationsto be associated with dependent-personality traits, and where Pincus andGurtman (1995) identified the apparently distinct and relationally prob-lematic forms of “exploitable” and “submissive” dependency.
At the same time, this study appears to support Exner’s (2003) com-ments about the CS interpersonal-perception cluster’s rather nonspecif-ic relationship to actual interpersonal behavior. The Rorschach variablesthat appeared most predictive of overall interpersonal difficulty werethe Intellectualization Index and MOR. From the Interpersonal cluster,AG and T were the only variables that correlated significantly with anyIIP scales, though some trends were suggested with COP, and Food.Contrary to predictions, the Isolation Index did not correlate with IIPscales 4, 5, or 6, nor with any IIP scale. It may be that this variable is onlyindirectly related to isolative interpersonal behavior. Surprisingly, theHEV did not correlate significantly with any interpersonal problem asmeasured by the IIP, though it exhibited a weak positive correlation withScale 5 (Nonassertive). It may be that “human experience” – especiallyas measured by a variable derived from globally “good” and “bad” hu-man representations – is too broad a construct to predict circumplex-based interpersonal problems with any specificity.
Some of the significant relationships found were opposite to thosepredicted. These results may indicate the limited relationship of certainRorschach variables to circumplex-measured interpersonal problems.However, in certain cases, they may also suggest how the individualutilizes defence mechanisms, yielding self-attributions that differ sharp-ly from intrapsychic tendencies. As McClelland et al. (1989) have argued,there is empirical support for the notion that implicit and self-attributedmotives may differ fundamentally. Interpreting these differences may
Rorschach and Interpersonal Problems
15
require a “process dissociation” framework to integrate divergent pro-jective and self-report findings (Bornstein, 2002). Notably, though sup-port for the IIP’s psychometric soundness is strong, virtually all IIP va-lidity research seems to have been done using other self-report mea-sures. Thus, such possible divergences from projective results do notappear to have been much explored. In the present study, there are somesuggestions of not just the “heteromethod convergence problem” dis-cussed by Bornstein (2002), but also of what one might call a “hetero-method inversion.” That is, correlational analysis indicated not only alack of relationship among some variables, but inverse relationships be-tween certain Rorschach variables and IIP scales that may representparticipants’ defensive reporting of interpersonal tendencies opposite totheir true relational inclinations.
The variable COP seems to provide one of the most vivid examples ofsuch a potential inversion. It was hypothesized that COP, which repre-sents the ability to envision cooperative human activity, would correlatepositively with scales 6 (Overly Accommodating), 7 (Self-Sacrificing),and 8 (Intrusive/Needy), and negatively with scales 2 (Vindictive/Self-Centered), 3 (Cold/Distant), and 4 (Socially Inhibited). The emergingtrends toward significance, however, were the diametric opposite of thehypotheses: COP showed a tendency to correlate positively with Scale 2and with IIP total score; that is, higher scores on this variable actuallyseemed to accompany egocentrism, coldness, and global interpersonaldifficulty. Thus, COP’s putative representation of the ability to envisionhelpful human relationships and of the propensity to enact them was notsupported by this study’s results. Again, this may be merely an exampleof an Interpersonal cluster variable failing to predict specific interper-sonal behavior, but it may also point to a heteromethod inversion. In thiscase, persons who deeply value and crave human cooperation may, outof anxiety or undue self-reproach, endorse qualities of coldness andegocentrism which they do not, in fact, possess – while the Rorschach, abehavioral measure that may here be more “objective” than self-report,may detect true affiliative tendencies.
Given the complex and, in some cases, surprising overall results, itseems most useful to examine the principal findings for each IIP octant.
– IIP Total Score. As mentioned above, Intellectualization and MOR bothhad significantly positive correlations with the IIP total score, suggest-ing that both emotional avoidance and a sense of psychological wea-riness may be related to global interpersonal difficulty. Such a rela-
R.B. Schneider et al.
16
tionship may be perpetuated in a maladaptive, mutually reinforcingcycle.
– Scale 1 (Domineering/Controlling). No Rorschach variables correlatedsignificantly with Scale 1. However, a positive trend was seen with 3r+ 2/R, suggesting that this Rorschach marker of egocentricity may berelated to self-reported problems with interpersonal overdominance.Such a suggestion of a narcissistic component to overdominance isconsistent with Horowitz et al.’s (2000) finding that persons with nar-cissistic personality disorder often score high on Scale 1.
– Scale 2 (Vindictive/Self-Centered). The only Rorschach variable correlat-ing significantly with Scale 2 was Y, which was inversely related to thescale. Given that Y is an unstable variable, ref lecting psychologicaldiscomfort in response to situational stress, interpretation of this find-ing is somewhat difficult. However, it appears that situational distressmay be minimal for some self-centered persons. In certain individuals,narcissistic traits may provide a buffer against the anxiety that is oftenevoked by the interpersonal context and relatively unstructured taskof the Rorschach. Such individuals, in contrast to more insecure, rage-prone narcissists, might conceivably be more “comfortable” narcissistswho feel a sense of cocky confidence in the assessment context. Thesepersonalities may correspond to the interpersonally “oblivious” typeof narcissist discussed by Gabbard (2000) – a type characterized byarrogance, self-absorption, and apparent imperviousness to interper-sonal criticism. In this study, personalities closer to the “oblivious”narcissistic type may have been responsible for the negative correla-tion between Y and Scale 2.
Two trends were consistent with predictions about Scale 2: the near-sig-nificant positive relationship with 3r + 2/R and the near-significant neg-ative relationship with M%. It appears that the Rorschach’s chief markerof egocentrism may be meaningfully related to the IIP’s dominant-hos-tile octant – in which a capacity for empathy, ref lected in perception ofhuman movement on the Rorschach, appears to be in short supply.
– Scale 3 (Cold/Distant). Intellectualization% correlated positively withScale 3. Notably, this scale is distinguished by emotional disconnec-tion from other people. It appears that, as Weiner (2003) suggests, adefensive propensity to strip one’s experiences of affective content
Rorschach and Interpersonal Problems
17
may be interweaved with interpersonal estrangement. Close relation-ships may be avoided in large part because intimacy is too emotion-laden.
– Scale 4 (Socially Inhibited). Intellectualization also correlated positivelywith Scale 4. In this case, disconnection from one’s own emotionalexperience appears related to fear of rejection or disapproval fromothers. Such persons may employ intellectualization heavily as a wayto defend against these painful anxieties.
MOR% also correlated positively with Scale 4. Persons beset by relentlessapprehension about interpersonal disapproval would seem likely to feelpsychologically depleted by that stress, as well as emotionally damagedby the instances of rejection to which they are chronically hypersensitive.
Finally, AG% correlated positively with this scale. This departed fromthe prediction that this variable would be most strongly related to scalesin the “dominant-hostile” quadrant (scales 1–3). This may be a salientexample of the aforementioned inherent differences between explicit andimplicit motivation: Some persons harboring ego-dystonic aggressive im-pulses may employ reaction-formation, resulting in an endorsement ofexcessive submissiveness and social withdrawal rather than hostile domi-nance. However, it appears that some hostility may remain consciouslyaccessible in a residual sense of one’s disconnection from others. Such aconf lict may be especially potent in college students – young adults whomay still be struggling to individuate, yet are continually in a subordinateposition requiring compliance with academic demands.
– Scale 5 (Nonassertive). AG also correlated positively with Scale 5. Again,defensive overendorsement of submissiveness among hostile personsmay account for some of this relationship. However, AG is a some-what-ambiguous Rorschach variable. It is thought to be associatedwith expectation of hostility in human interactions, but not necessarilywith an urge to act in a hostile manner oneself. It may be that personswho are extremely submissive have come to be that way through re-current experiencing of hostility and aggression from others.
Again, Intellectualization% correlated positively with Scale 5. Self-doubt-ing, extremely submissive persons may not only keep their needs tothemselves, but may further protect themselves from the danger of in-terpersonal conf lict – and from relational disappointment – by minimiz-
R.B. Schneider et al.
18
ing the importance of those needs. Such a dynamic is a central compo-nent of Winnicott’s notion of a “false self” (Mitchell & Black, 1995).
The unexpected negative correlation of FM with Scale 5 is hard toreconcile with explanations for the preceding findings. One would ex-pect unmet needs to be high, not low, among chronically yielding per-sons. Again, heteromethod inversion may be a possible explanation.Some persons who report being too self-doubting and subservient maybe led to do so by truly dominant, self-serving interpersonal tendencies– saying to themselves, in effect, “My behavior is not worthy of me andwhat I deserve.” Such persons may, in fact, fulfill their psychologicalneeds more than they acknowledge.
– Scale 6 (Overly Accommodating). T% had a significant negative correla-tion with Scale 6. Although the characteristic friendliness of personsscoring high on Scale 6 would seem to make contact-seeking likely, afear of offending others may impede reaching out. Horowitz et al.(2000) suggest that persons high on this scale, who are likely to exhibitmany of the traits seen in dependent personality disorder, “assumethat assertive acts offend.” As a result, they may passively wait for oth-ers to make their needs and wishes known, rather than initiate emo-tional contact themselves.
This hypothesis parallels the conceptualization of dependent personalityexamined by Bornstein (1995) as a prelude to his more complex model ofdependency. Bornstein’s work with the Rorschach Oral Dependency(ROD) Scale suggests that in certain contexts – such as when a person ofauthority indicates that reaching out will be rewarded with support – de-pendent persons may actually solicit help quite actively. In the presentstudy, however, results suggest a more passive manifestation of interper-sonal dependency that has traditionally been emphasized. Perhaps theunstructured Rorschach task – which does not provide a clear message thatthe examinee’s “reaching out” actively will be rewarded (the standard re-sponse to “How many should I find?” is “It’s up to you”) – elicited fromdependent personalities less orally “voracious” behavior than the activedependency that Bornstein discusses in certain contexts. Dependent per-sons in this study, uncertain about what was required of them, may havedefaulted to a cautiously passive stance that inhibited contact-seeking.
– Scale 7 (Self-Sacrificing). There was a significant positive correlationbetween MOR% and Scale 7. As Horowitz et al. (2000) point out, a
Rorschach and Interpersonal Problems
19
psychological hallmark of persons high on Scale 7 is a tendency tooverempathize with others, to suffer vicariously; such a chronic shar-ing of pain may lead to a sense of being emotionally worn out. Thispainful overempathizing tendency is associated with the “masochistic”(also-called “self-defeating”) personality (McWilliams, 1994). In thepresent study, the positive correlation with MOR% suggests that highscorers on Scale 7 may be “killing themselves with kindness.”
S correlated negatively with scale 7. This finding supports the a priorihypothesis that excessively self less behavior, while psychologically ener-vating and thus maladaptive in the long run, is generally incompatiblewith sullen oppositionality.
– Scale 8 (Intrusive/Needy). As with Scale 1, adjacent Scale 8 did not cor-relate significantly with any Rorschach variable. However, T had amarginally significant positive correlation with Scale 8, suggestingthat, as hypothesized, Rorschach-measured contact-seeking may be di-rectly related to self-reported intrusive and needy interpersonal behav-ior.
Overall, this study sought to contribute to an understanding of thefollowing question: How directly do intrapsychic phenomena inf lu-ence interpersonal tendencies? Psychodynamic theory suggests thatthis inf luence may be complex and sometimes counterintuitive, as de-fence mechanisms may heavily mediate the relational enactment ofneeds, fears, and expectations. Accordingly, this study also aimed toshed light on the kinds of interpersonal difficulties that people maybe more willing and able to admit to, and those that they may havemore trouble acknowledging. Given that this study did not include anyextra-test information about interpersonal problems, it relied on (andthus ultimately tested) two basic assumptions: (1) that the traits andtendencies putatively represented by certain Rorschach variableswould relate meaningfully to interpersonal functioning as conceptu-alized by the circumplex; and (2) that self-reporting of relational dif-ficulty would be relatively straightforward and undistorted. The firstassumption may be weakened by the lack of specific predictive abilityamong the interpersonal-perception variables that has been noted byExner (2003). The second assumption may be equally problematic, giv-en self-report measures’ vulnerability to distortion and bias (Ganellen,1996) – in this case, a vulnerability that may vary according to where
R.B. Schneider et al.
20
persons fall on the circumplex. In this study, both the highest IIP el-evations and the strongest relationships between Rorschach variablesand IIP scores generally appeared in the circumplex’s “submissive-friendly” quadrant. It may be that, despite the presence in the lowerleft quadrant of some defensive individuals with ego-dystonic hostileimpulses, persons high on self-reported submissiveness tend to bemore willing to admit to interpersonal problems, and to be less resis-tant to both projective and self-report assessment in general.
Aside from the aforementioned difficulties inherent in its projec-tive/self-report correlational design, this study has at least two limita-tions. First, the relatively small sample size may have limited statisticalpower enough to obscure certain relationships. Second, the nonclinicalcollege sample clearly limits generalizability of results to the generalpopulation, and certainly to a clinical population. Furthermore, partici-pants in this study attended a religiously conservative university. As over-all trends suggest, students may have been less willing to endorse prob-lems that were incompatible with their religious values – primarily thosein the “dominant-hostile” upper-left quadrant – than they were to en-dorse those from the “submissive-friendly” quadrant that indicate exces-sive docility.
Acknowledgments
This study was completed at Baylor University, when all three authorswere affiliated with that institution. The authors are appreciative of thesuggestions provided by Robert F. Bornstein, PhD. Portions of thismanuscript were presented at the 2003 Annual Midwinter Meeting ofthe Society for Personality Assessment.
References
Blatt, S.J., & Schichman, S. (1983). Two primary configurations of psychopathology.Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 6, 187–254.
Bornstein, R.F. (1995). Active dependency. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,183, 64–77.
Bornstein, R.F. (1999). Criterion validity of objective and projective dependencytests: A meta-analytic assessment of behavioral prediction. Psychological Assess-ment, 11, 48–57.
Rorschach and Interpersonal Problems
21
Bornstein, R.F. (2002). A process dissociation approach to objective-projective testscore interrelationships. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 47–68.
Bornstein, R.F., Bowers, S., & Robinson, K. (1995). Differential relationships of ob-jective and projective dependency scores to self-reports of interpersonal lifeevents in college student subjects. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 255–269.
Burns, B., & Viglione, D.J. Jr. (1996). The Rorschach Human Experience Variable,interpersonal relatedness, and object representation in nonpatients. PsychologicalAssessment, 8, 92–99.
Exner, J.E. Jr. (2001). A Rorschach workbook for the comprehensive system (5th ed.). Ashe-ville, NC: Rorschach Workshops.
Exner, J.E. Jr. (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.
Gabbard, G.O. (2000). Psychodynamic psychiatry in clinical practice (3rd ed.). Washing-ton, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Ganellen, R.J. (1996). Integrating the Rorschach and the MMPI-2 in personality assess-ment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gurtman, M.B. (1996). Interpersonal problems and the psychotherapy context: Theconstruct validity of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Psychological Assess-ment, 8, 241–255.
Horowitz, L.M., Alden, L.E., Wiggins, J.S., & Pincus, A.L. (2000). Inventory of Inter-personal Problems manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Horowitz, L.M., Dryer, C., & Krasnoperova, E.N. (1997). The circumplex structureof interpersonal problems. In R. Plutchik & H.R. Conte (Eds.), Circumplex modelsof personality and emotions (pp. 347–384). Washington, DC: APA.
Horowitz, L.M., Rosenberg, S.E., Baer, B.A., Ureno, G., Kalehzan, B.M., & Villase-nor, V.S. (1988). Inventory of Interpersonal Problems: Psychometric propertiesand clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 885–892.
Kiesler, D.J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality, psycho-pathology, and psychotherapy. New York: Wiley.
Lovitt, R. (1993). A strategy for integrating a normal MMPI-2 and dysfunctionalRorschach in a severely compromised patient. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60,141–147.
Masling, J.M. (1997). On the nature and utility of projective tests and objective tests.Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 257–270.
McClelland, D.C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed andimplicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690–702.
McWilliams, N. (1994). Psychoanalytic diagnosis. New York: Guilford.Mitchell, S., & Black, M. (1995). Freud and beyond: A history of modern psychoanalytic
thought. New York: Basic Books.Perry, W., McDougall, A., & Viglione, D.J. Jr. (1995). A five-year follow-up on the
temporal stability of the EII. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 112–118.Perry, W., & Viglione, D.J. Jr. (1991). The Rorschach Ego Impairment Index as a
R.B. Schneider et al.
22
predictor of outcome in melancholic depressed patients treated with tricyclic an-tidepressants. Journal of Personality Assessment, 56, 487–501.
Perry, W., Viglione, D. Jr., & Braff, D. (1992). The Ego Impairment Index and schiz-ophrenia: A validation study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59, 165–17.
Pincus, A.L., & Gurtman, M.B. (1995). The three faces of interpersonal dependen-cy: Structural analyses of self-report dependency measures. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 69, 744–758.
Pincus, A.L., & Wiggins, J.S. (1990). Interpersonal problems and conceptions ofpersonality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 4, 342–352.
Steven K. Huprich, PhDDepartment of PsychologyEastern Michigan University501 Mark Jefferson BuildingYpsilanti, MI 48198USAE-mail [email protected]
Résumé
Le but de cette étude était d’évaluer la relation entre une mesure auto-reportée (explicite) des difficultés interpersonnelles – Inventory of In-terpersonal Problems (IIP; Horowitz et al., 1988) – et le Rorschach quiinclut des mesures implicites de la perception de soi-même et desreprésentations de relations. Dix-sept prédictions a priori, portant surdes liens de corrélation entre le IIP et une sélection de variables duRorschach, ont été émises. Le Rorschach et le IIP ont été administrés àun échantillon de 62 étudiants. Leurs scores au IIP étaient légèrementsupérieurs à l’échantillon normatif présenté dans l’étude de Horowitz etal. (1998). Néanmoins, sept liens de corrélation prédits se sont avérésstatistiquement significatifs, liens impliquant les variables Rorschachsuivantes: Index d’Intellectualisation, AG, FM, S, T, Y, et MOR. Ces ré-sultats demeuraient statistiquement significatifs après contrôle de laproductivité des réponses. Cinq des liens de corrélations prédits étaientproches du seuil de significativité. Ces liens impliquaient les variablesRorschach suivantes: T, Nourriture, Index d’Egocentrisme, et M%. Les
Rorschach and Interpersonal Problems
23
résultats nonsignificatifs ont été partiellement expliqués par une “inver-sion hétéro-méthode” (Bornstein, 2002), c’est-à-dire une attitude défen-sive face à la reconnaissance de difficultés dans certains domaines inter-personnels qui conduit à une inconsistance apparente dans les mesuresexplicites et implicites d’un trait ou d’une qualité donnée.
Resumen
El objetivo de este estudio es el de evaluar las conexiones entre unamedida de autoinforme (explícita) sobre dificultades interpersonales: elInventario de Problemas Interpersonales (IIP, Horowitz et al. 1988) y elRorschach, que incluye indicadores de autopercepción y de relacionesinterpersonales. Se realizaron diecisiete prediciones a priori con re-specto a la validez de las asociaciones (correlaciones) entre el IIP y de-terminadas variables Rorschach y se administraron ambas pruebas (IIPy Rorschach) a 62 estudiantes de pre-grado. Las puntuaciones obtenidasen el IIP fueron ligeramente más elevadas que las de los datos normati-vos ofrecidos por Horowitz (1988). No obstante, siete de las prediccionesrealizadas previamente resultaron estadísticamente significativas, in-cluyendo las siguientes variables Rorschach: Indice de Intelectuali-zación, AG, FM, S, T, Y y MOR. Estos resultados se mantuvieron comosignificativos incluso cuando se controló la variación en la productivi-dad de respuestas. Otras cinco predicciones previas estuvieron muy cer-canas a los niveles de significación estadística, incluyendo las siguientesvariables: T, Food, Indice de Egocentrismo y M%. La mayoría de lascorrelaciones se observaron en los aspectos de sumisión dentro del áreainterpersonal. Los resultados no significativos se pueden explicar par-cialmente como resultado de la “inversión heterometódica” (Bornstein,2002), según la cual las estrategias defensivas de un sujeto para admitirproblemas en algunas áreas interpersonales tiende a producir incon-gruencias entre las medidas explícitas e implícitas de ciertos rasgos ocualidades.
