Analyzing Rorschach: what to look for?

There is a lot to take into account when analyzing your patient’s answers. The color, the shapes, the details he or she chose… they all mean something for you to interpret, so as a therapist, it’s important to really know the test and study it as much as you can.

 

Different cards, different meanings

The cards aren’t always the same and they have different meanings, as well as they appeal to different parts of the patient’s life and different feelings. You must know exactly what they mean so you can relate it to the way your patient will react and describe said card.

There are 10 cards in the test and you can divide them into four groups.

Dark Grey Cards (cards I, IV, V and VI) – They deal with worries, anguish, and anxiety, and can have different degrees of intensity.

Grey Cards (card VII) – This card is too open, and has a lot of white space. This white space appeals to emptiness or the abyss.

Black, white and red cards (cards II and III) – These cards are able to show you how your patient represents their relationships.

Pastel colors cards (cards VIII, IX and X) – These cards are connected to affection. They appeal to affectivity and, for most of the subjects, they are the most peaceful part of the inquiry phase.

 

How is the card seen by the patient?

The way a card is seen by the patient is important for an accurate interpretation as well. The way he or she perceives the content is vital for us to understand the relationship between the subject and his environment.

The apprehension mode is, for interpretation effects, divided and cataloged into the following hypothesis.

Global – The patient looks at the inkblots as a single object, a single image.

Major Details – The patient sees different things in the same card, using the major and more obvious inkblots in the card.

Small Details – Patient’s answers refer to more rare details, smaller or stranger in their delimitation.

White spots on the card – In this case, the patient focus not in the inkblot, but rather in the white space inside and around the ink blots.

Oligophrenic details – The projective answer occurs without perceptive basis, which means, there is no articulation relatively to projection and perception. The patient usually picks a very small detail and this is the starting point for all he will say next, ignoring the rest of the inkblot.
This is quite common in cases of schizophrenia.

 

As a therapist, all this information is fundamental for a correct interpretation of your patient’s projections. This analysis will allow you to have a notion of your patient’s intellectual abilities and the way he or she perceives, contacts with and relates to his or her surroundings, which will, ultimately, determine the relationship the subject has with the environment and its objects.

Advertisements

Parenting Culture: a Strange New Tendency

Over this past century, society has evolved quickly, with changes happening one after another and faster than ever before. This influenced everything, including the way we see and relate with our children. In the 1970s, a new way of care for our little ones emerged: parenting.

Parents were no longer the adults who take care of children and helped them grow… they had a harder job now. Parents had to shape their children into the human being they wanted them to be. Gopnik (2016) explains it with an interesting metaphor, calling the new parents, carpenters “(…)your job is to shape that material into a final product that will fit the scheme you had in mind, to begin with.”

Obviously, this scheme is not parent-friendly nor does it take into account each child’s particularities, quirks, desires, and wills.

“The parenting picture suggests that you can measure the value of caring for children by measuring the value of the adults those children become” (Gopnik, 2016), so parents want to transform their children into smart, happy and successful adults. Let’s not forget that those adjectives are, in truth, far too subjective for us to make them such a hard rule or goal to be guided by.

Besides, our world is always changing and, with it, so are we. Our children need to evolve with this changing world and what we now face as truths, can be quite a different story tomorrow. And it’s on this uncertain and mysterious tomorrow that they will live. Now, think about it: do we really want out children to turn out exactly like us?

Again, according to Gopnik (2016), we shouldn’t want to shape them into something that will fit perfectly in the world right now, but instead, we should create a generation which can be “robust, adaptable and resilient, better able to deal with the inevitable, unpredictable changes that face them in the future.”

 

Are we harming our children in our eagerness to make them better?

Over the last century, the concept of family itself suffered great changes, that might have boosted this phenomenon. It’s a fact that nowadays we have fewer children than before, but that’s not the only change. We do indeed have smaller families, but also families with more mobility which means the larger or broader family is sometimes far away from us.

The valuable experience of the past, passed down by mothers, grandmothers, and aunts is often enough no longer there and most of us never took care of a baby sibling or cousin. Generally speaking, women have careers and less time for the family, so we started to have children later than before and with almost zero notion of what it is to raise children.

In this context emerged the so-called helicopter parents. We can observe this phenomenon, mostly in some anxious middle-class parents, who want to control everything, avoiding a child’s self-evolution by managing each bit of their schedules and activities. Controlling the environment will not help children in the real (and uncontrolled) world, it’s important that parents ‘let’ children learn and not ‘make’ them learn.

I, personally, think that the modern life enables this behavior even more. Our worries are quite different than before, we want to study more, work more, have more and this creates a gap between the adults and their children, a gap that parents try to compensate, apparently, through the wrong means.

According to Gopnik, there isn’t any scientific evidence proving that following one or another parenting theory will really have some long-term effect. For example, co-sleeping or not, letting them cry or holding them to sleep are pointless discussions that, in fact, do not lead us anywhere, merely draining our energy.

 

So, in the end, is it all pointless? Is it useless?

We can’t answer this question with absolute certainty of what we’re saying, yet scientific facts seem to point to this being the case, yes.

Parenting does not make it better for anyone. Actually, on the contrary, it seems to make it worst for both parents and children. Parents have to deal on a daily basis with anxiety and guilt about pretty much everything, as well as, great doses of frustration since they put so much of their efforts into parenting and yet, it seems that no matter what they are doing, it’s never enough. For children, parenting brings them an “oppressive cloud of hovering expectations” (Gopnik, 2016).

 

So, what should we do?

Things change, it’s a fact. The world, ourselves, everything is a constant evolution and we can’t (nor should we) go back. Evolving and adapting is what has always helped mankind stay alive, so we have to find the best way of doing so, while looking forward. This is the most important lesson you can give to your kids.

Great generals and executives don’t take ages to think through every possible plan and pick the absolute best one (why should we do it with a baby?), they pick one that is good enough and execute it confidently and decisively.

We know that children learn from their parents and caregivers, but in the parenting model, parents believe that they can consciously control that learning. However, studies suggest that the most of what we learn didn’t even come from “conscious and deliberate teaching”. (Gopnik, 2016)

According to the mentioned author “the puzzle is how to provide children with rich, stable, secure context they need to grow up without expecting that we can or should be able to control how they turn out.” So, take confident decisions and know that you are doing the best you can with the best you have.

 

REFERENCES

GOPNIK, Alison (2016). The Gardener and the Carpenter. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

New Parents, new children: raising children in the new century

Times have sure changed a lot over the past 50 years, and the way we see and deal with our children is often a reflection of these changes.

The children are now granted a certain status and have a very different role in our lives. They have more importance nowadays and we’re more and more concerned with them and about them. The way we raise them, and our investment in doing so, is an interesting example of how being a parent is so different nowadays.

Parenting has become some sort of work of its own. This is, in itself, an action that will make us either good or bad parents depending on the kind of parenting we’ll assume and it’s according to Gopnik (psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley), a really recent concept.

According to this concept we apply nowadays, there are right ways of being a parent, right actions to take, and “the right kind of parenting will produce the right kind of child, who in turn will become the right kind of adult” (Gopnik, 2016). So, parenting (what we now call good parenting) becomes a goal, defining us as adults and acts as a source of hard pressure for many of us.

 

The gardener and the carpenter

Gopnik (2016) choose an interesting metaphor to explain the differences between being a parent now and in the past, by using the image of a gardener (“creating a protected and nurturing space for plants to flourish”, Gopnik 2016) and a carpenter (shaping his material into what he wants it to become).

This has great influence in the way we see children and their development and, consequently, in our society and our future as a species.

The idea of parenting becomes a general perspective of perfection, wherein we need to be perfect in order to be good parents, or at least better than the most. Nowadays, parenting is another point for us to evaluate one another (and not often kindly). We look at a child and if we see any hint of bad behavior, we’ll automatically think of bad parenting as a correlation. However, years of studies and even common sense show us that this isn’t exactly correct. How many times do we see two siblings raised exactly the same way who end up turning out so different from one another, especially when it comes to behavior?

Parenting no longer stands for the actions you take in order to take care of your children, but rather a crazy impossible list of things and rules you must do and abide by, or forever be labeled a bad parent. Gopnik (2016) considers that this new perspective “made life worse for children and parents, not better”. According to the author, being a parent is a special relationship and shouldn’t be evaluated as you being a good parent only if you “build” the right kind of kid (and what is that kind of kid, mind you?) and she completes it by saying “love doesn’t have goals […] but a purpose. The purpose is not to change the people we love, but to give them what they need to thrive.”

 

Which of these parents will these children become?

We don’t have a way of knowing exactly how this new vision of children and parenting will really affect all of us in the future. We can try, we can imagine, observing the immediate results, but, this isn’t enough to guess the overall impact this will have on society, in the long run.

“Caring for children is a political subject as well as scientific and personal one” (Gopnik, 2016) It’s not just us the parents or relatives who take care of our children, but plenty more people such as daycare employees, and there is also plenty more information (for both good and bad) and so many different factors that have their own impact in the adults that our children will eventually become.

So, I’ll leave you with some questions:

Is there a fair way to judge someone’s parenting?

Can we evaluate the parents’ abilities by the kind of adult a child become?

Can we predict what’s going to happen for some child, by the way he or she is being taken care of by his or her parents?

Read more about this in the article “Parenting: a strange new tendency”.

 

REFERENCES

GOPNIK, Alison (2016). The Gardener and the Carpenter. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Applying Rorschach: an art with rules and guidelines

When in working on a psychological evaluation, you must be precise and very careful in order to not interfere in the process and to avoid influencing the test results. The very same idea and notion applies to projective tests, probably even more so.

In the case of Rorschach, there are many points where you should be careful and attentive, so the test result can be as reliable as possible.

When you start the test application (phase 1) you must be very precise in the instructions you give to your patient, or you’ll risk having an undesirable impact on the results. You shouldn’t give an instruction that’s too long, yet it should be informative enough for the patient to fully grasp the concept. It should be able to provide the patient with a little relaxation and be able to remain calm knowing that there are no good and bad answers.

The most common instruction given is “I will show you 10 cards and you’ll tell me everything they make you think of, or what you can imagine from these cards.”

When you hand over the card to the patient, you should be certain that you give it over in the right position, so you can observe how the patient manipulates it. If he or she changes its position, it’s an important fact for you should take note of, as well as the position he or she puts the card in.

The content is very important, of course, but the way it is given to you is just as important. Does your patient tell you immediately what he thinks the ink spot shows? Does he hesitate? Are there very long silences in his or her speech?

After you go through all the cards, you should start the inquiry phase. Here, you’ll try to go deeper on the answers you were given.

Then you go directly to the third phase, when you’ll push your patient to the limit in his or her answers (inquiry to the limits) and try to lead him towards everything he’s been avoiding. Why? Usually the avoided subjects are the most important ones for any patient.

There are answers that must be present in some way (like Human figure and same banal answers) otherwise the therapist needs to insist with the patient in order to get at them. This is particularly important regarding the human figure, because it can show you the relationship of the subject with a reality, humanely socialized.

Finally, there is the test of choices. This is a test where you’ll ask the patient to choose the 2 cards he likes the most and two he doesn’t like so much or at all. This phase is an appeal to the affections within them. In this phase you’ll realize which cards received the most positive and negative investment by the subject and it also allows a bigger development by you regarding these cards.

Rorschach – The most famous of projective tests

Whether it be in movies or jokes involving psychiatrists, most people already seen or heard about Rorschach, but just a few know what it really is.

A bunch of ink spots in a piece of paper would be a description you’d get upon asking, but, as a projective test, Rorschach is much more than that. Ancient, some may say, useless, others would argue, it introduces some mistrust into the relationship with the patient and therefore undesirable, some will claim, yet the Rorschach remains a renowned test in the field.

Despite all of its weaknesses, this apparently simple test, together with the clinical interview can indeed prove very useful. Because of its fame, some people think it’s fun to do it, completely bypassing the argument about the mistrust that it might cause, and, of course, its main goal will be achieved: allow us a glimpse into and a better understanding of our subject.

Why do we use it and how does it works?

The Rorschach is used to grant us access to the internal reality of a suffering subject. It will help us understand him, and luckily, show us the way to easing his pain.

This will be made by the articulation of the perception and projection, present in it.

The ink spot is perceived by the subject (manifest content), yet it’s just a spot, nothing concrete, so it will allow the subject to elaborate on what’s perceived according to his experiences and psychic functioning (projecting).

During the test, the subject will (or at least should) be relaxed, have his guard down and then the intrapsychic and interpersonal conflicts will emerge in the shape of desires and frustrations.

Application

As a professional, you must keep in mind that your own perception will naturally interfere in the test results, so, you must apply it in accordance with a rigorous methodological procedure, in order to grant scientific reliability to this instrument.

Projective Tests and their applications

Psychological evaluation is a current procedure, used in many contexts with children and adults alike. Testing is a part of that evaluation and that’s where and when we’ll find the projective tests. However, it’s important to remember that they are an auxiliary method and can never give us a diagnosis by themselves.

Projective tests are inserted in a complete psychological evaluation and can’t be used as a definitive portrait of an individual. By itself, a projective test can’t tell us who a person is or what they are thinking.

 

How do I decide among them?

It’s important to know exactly how they work and the answers they might, or might not, provide you with, so you can choose properly what the best option for you and your patient, actually is, taking into consideration the evaluation’s goals. The truth is that some tests actually complement each other (such as Rorschach and TAT for adults) and you should choose carefully what and which ones you’ll use and apply both when the situation requires it.

 

Are they truly accurate?

You’ll probably find many different opinions about projective tests, but, the better answer for this question is that it “depends on what you’re looking for”.

Projective tests show us a life’s reality, but it must be analyzed within that person’s context to make any sense. The same answer might have different meanings to different people with different lives and experiences, so you can’t make a projective test and expect to know a person solely based on the outcome. Actually, you should know your patient, have some sort of clinical relationship with them and maybe then, the projective test may have some validity.

The answers you’ll get during the test, as well as the behavior the subject will exhibit during its application (for example, trying to create a distance or, otherwise, giving the test an excessive meaning and living the situation with too much intensity – everything counts) are an interesting manifestation of the way that particular person interacts with and interprets the world around them.

The information given by projective tests together with other information from different sources will allow us a better apprehension of the psychic functioning of our subjects.

 

Sounds good, but… what about my patient? How would he or she experience it?

This is one of the first questions you should ask yourself. You know your patients well enough to realize the impact this kind of test will have on them (if you don’t, then probably now is not the time), and, thanks to that, you can evaluate if it’s a good option or if it will do more harm than good. Of course, this is different when you’re facing a mandatory evaluation…

So, I’ll present you with three delicate situations you might find yourself in and that can prevent you from reaching your goals.

You can have in front of you, a person that will live the test like if they were still in school taking some crucial final exam. This is not good for the evaluation as the person will not be relaxed and will probably lie or omit something in their answers whilst lost searching for the best answer in order to get “good grades”.

The most common difficulty however, is what I’d call the suspicious patient. It’s normal to find some mistrust in a patient under evaluation (this also tends to say something about the person), but you should try to change this feeling. Trust is important for accurate results.

And, the last one: the subject that uses the test as a way of expand, sometimes totally and uncontrollably opening themselves up. This kind of patient will use the test to say everything that comes to his mind, no matter what it might be. The test will function as an excuse for them to free themselves and say whatever they want, without filter. Again, it says something about the person and this kind of behavior cannot be ignored.

Projective Techniques and Clinical Psychology

There was a time, where the projective techniques were the most used in any field of psychology, however, with the continuous development of science and the deviations of psychology regarding philosophy, they are now, mostly used by clinical therapists.

Psychology no longer just stands for an individual telling things to a therapist in a closed room. There are many areas of psychology (such as social, educational, forensic…), all of them with a huge development, scientifically speaking, which was a big determinant for clinical field too.

Methods and tools are now widely validated theoretically and methodologically and that provided great advances in the field. However, clinical psychology focuses on the individual as a specific person, a psychological being, according to a specific theoretical and strategical reference.

For us to reach through to the individual, we must have more than what he is saying at this very moment, we have to contextualize that, according to the person’s life story, the context, where all of what they’re saying is inserted, and based on it, the therapist will make the interpretation of such information and make more sense of it.

This is the context where projective techniques and tests are born.

Projection Concept

For a more accurate understanding of all this, it’s necessary to know what the concept of projection means in the field. Psychologically speaking, projection is the way a subject understands his environment and how he answers to it taking into account his experiences.

Consequently, the projective techniques intend to deconstruct a reality, allowing the therapist access to recognize the psychological filters and schemes that may, or are indeed interfering in his relationship with the patient.

Therefore, they are quite important and even effective in clinical psychology, despite the fact that they are considered a little outdated within other fields.