Analyzing Rorschach: Determinants – Form and Color

When the subjects take the Rorschach test, they observe the inkblots and give their answers based on a couple of determinants. Those determinants are the characteristics of the card, such as form, color, shading, and movement.

During the interpretation phase, those answers’ determinants are a vital part of understanding your subject and his test entirely. They are organized into two main groups: form and color.

Form Determinant

If the subject gives an answer based on the shape of the inkblots, then he is using the form determinant (F) to give his answer.

This determinant is related to intellectual processes, and for scoring purposes, we use the plus sign (+) for an appropriate answer and the minus sign (-) for an answer that seems inadequate. Some answers are, however, vague or not precise, making it difficult to score. In that case, you can score it as (+/-).

Keep in mind that the patients can have multiple interpretations of the inkblots, without that classifying their answer as ‘vague.’ The same patient can see a few different things on the same card. As long as he can describe them adequately, it’s a perfectly valid answer.

In the average test, we have around 60% of answers based on form determinant. They reveal an adaptive character, and if the answers also include the color determinant (emotion-related), they can be seen as a socialization factor. However, it is essential to assure that the formal answers are not a mere defense mechanism used by the subject to avoid compromise.

F+ Answers

You count as F+ an answer that is statistically regular amongst the reference population. This kind of response comes from a subject with the ability to adapt and socialize.

Sometimes, you’ll find some more rare productions that are considered F+ because the therapist easily recognizes them. Naturally, this is subjective and depends on the therapist’s sensibility.

F- Answers

The existence of F- answers reveals a weak adaptation of the subject to the real world.

If they appear once or twice, it’s not a problem. It can be proof of the subject’s mental flexibility. However, if the patient keeps giving this type of answer, especially if they are in a more significant number than the F+ answers, then you should be alert.

F+/- Answers

As mentioned above, sometimes, the answers are not clear. The patients may not be able to be precise in their response, can’t choose between two images, or are too vague. In that case, we use the F+/- score, since we are not able to determine the quality of such an answer.

This kind of answer can reveal a worried patient, full of doubts and difficulties in taking a decision, or simply prudence in the decision-making process.

Color Determinant

The color determinant (C) is connected to emotions and feelings. The way the subject reacts to color and shading is an indicator of his relationship with his surroundings.

It is rare to find pure color answers. They are usually associated with formal determinant, which is important because the function of the color in the response is vital to understand the role emotions play in the subject’s life.

Color and affectivity

An answer based on the color determinant refers to a passive perceptive process. The subject is invaded by what is shown to them.

Sometimes, the patient refers to color without content (for example, “it’s red”). This kind of answers can be the result of a defensive behavior to prevent the rising of the anguishes the card may represent for them.

The presence of this determinant in the answers is welcomed, nonetheless. The total absence of color answers can reveal retraction or lack of interest in the external world.

Color and form, an interpretative relationship

Again, it is rare to find a pure C answer, but rather one that is based on both: form and color. Said so, a C answer has a meaning that should be explored carefully.

Pure C answers

If the answer is only based on the color determinant, we simply score it as C. This kind of response can reveal some distance, that can go as far as to a complete abstraction of the patient.

Depending on the color itself and the meaning the subject is giving to it, it can also show the presence of an impulsive activity of destruction or self-destruction.

CF Answers

We score an answer as a CF when the color is dominant, and the form is present as a secondary role, usually with a vague or imprecise outline.

This answer reveals a more emotional and impulsive patient, that tries to control those traits with the form, to adapt to the reality (without, usually, great success).

Nonetheless, the presence of CF answers isn’t, per se, a pathological sign. In the right proportion, it can be beneficial for the test, showing a certain spontaneity.

FC Answers

Technically speaking, we can say that these are the most desirable answers. The color is integrated into a formal element, enriching the response’s quality.

The reason is in control over the emotions in the perceptive recognition. The color is not a destabilization factor, and the subject is perfectly adapted.

C’ FC’ C’F

These scores are used with very specific color answers that reveal a sensibility to the gray shades. This usually refers to depressive humor, restlessness, and anxiety.

One example is saying, “I see a dark bat.” Dark is not exactly a color; however, the black color definitely had an implication in the answer so that it would be an FC’ answer. Regarding interpretation, saying ‘dark bat’ instead of ‘black bat’ can reveal particular anguish in the subject.

Kinesthetics Determinants

Kinesthetics determinants (K) are more complex answers that are based on shape, content, and movement. They are a little ambiguous to define and interpret and deserve significant attention from the therapist.

The kinesthetic answer is due to the apprehension and fusion of three simultaneous factors: form, movement, and human content. When we obtain a response in which the human figure is present is automatically considered a ‘K’ answer. The movement is inherent.

Form, projection, and content

The quality of the form factor is of enormous importance. A K answer based on a high-quality form acquisition shows a harmonious compromise between perception and projection. This type of response reveals a subject with good adaptation abilities.

The projection of the movement, not represented on the cards, brings a dynamic dimension to the perception. It reveals a rich cognitive function and complex mental activity with creative potentialities.

Concerning content, the most important thing to keep in mind is that you only consider a K answer when the whole human body is present, rather than just a part of it.

This type of answer needs great attention from the therapist. Like F answers, they can be scored as +, – or +/-, according to the quality of perception of the different levels involved in the answers.

Generally, they reveal a subject with more maturity and a high level of creativity. Someone who gives K answers is more orientated for the intimate, and their affectivity is more stabilized. They are more empathic and more able to dive into their inner selves without fear.

Minor kinesthetics

Some kinesthetics answers, however, reveal a lower integration and adaptation capacity. Those are the minor kinesthetics.

In some of those answers, the patient transfers his drives to animal images (Kan) and objects (Kob). This answer reveals the behavior of detachment from the things he is not able to deal with.

Sometimes, there is some bizarre “human content,” where the subject describes vampires, werewolves, etc. In these cases, you should score it as H (human).

There is no black and white in Rorschach interpretation

What determines the subject answer is quite relevant for a full comprehension of the person in front of us. Consequently, it’s vital for an accurate interpretation of the test.

As a health professional, you can never forget that all individuals are unique. Some of us are more emotional, some more practical, others extremely creative, without that being a problem or a sign of pathology. The presence of each type of answer isn’t, by itself, a motive to fear for the patient’s adaptation to the real world.

Rorschach tests should be seen as a whole, and not by parts, for a clear, useful interpretation, with all the subtleties that make us humans.

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 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.