• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of tables and figures
 Introduction
 Procedure and apparatus
 Results
 Conclusions and summary
 Appendix A
 References
 Biographical sketch






Title: Perceptual rigidity
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098007/00001
 Material Information
Title: Perceptual rigidity an experiment with the Rorschach test and the autokinetic effect
Physical Description: iv, 26 2 leaves. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Bova, Louis William, 1927-
Publication Date: 1958
Copyright Date: 1958
 Subjects
Subject: Perception   ( lcsh )
Autokinesis   ( lcsh )
Rorschach Test   ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis -- University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 25-26.
Additional Physical Form: Also available on World Wide Web
General Note: Manuscript copy.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098007
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000568405
oclc - 13651507
notis - ACZ5139

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 1 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page i-a
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
    List of tables and figures
        Page iv
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Procedure and apparatus
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Results
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    Conclusions and summary
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
    Appendix A
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
    References
        Page 25
        Page 26
    Biographical sketch
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
Full Text










PERCEPTUAL RIGIDITY: AN EXPERIMENT

WITH THE RORSCHACH TEST AND

THE AUTOKINETIC EFFECT











By
LOUIS WILLIAM BOVA, JR.


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
June, 1958















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The author dishes to express his very sincere appreciation

to Dr. E. P. Home, Chairman of the Supervisory Committee, for his

able and ready assistance in the formulation and direction of this

study.

Thanks are also due to the other members of the advisory

committee, Dr. J. C. Dixon, Dr. E. D. Hinckley, Dr. W. W. Ehrmann,

and Dr. H. Wunderlich, for their continued interest and guidance.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........ ........ ii


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ............... iv


Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . .... ..1


II. PROCEDURE AND APPARATUS . . . . . 6


III. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . 13


IV. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY . . . . .. 18


APPENDIX A .......... .......... 22


REFERENCES ............ . ...... 25















LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES


Table


1. Intercorrelations Amnr Rigidity Scores, Autokinetic
Movement Scores, and Reaction Times for the Normal
Sample . . . . . . . .

2. Intercorrelations Among Rigidity Scores, Autokinetic
Movement Scores, and Reaction Times for the Brain
Damaged Sample . . . . . . . . .

3. Correlations Between Ages and Rigidity Scores for
the Normal and Brain Damaged Samples . . . . .

4. Correlations Between Ages and Autokinetic Movement
Scores for the Normal and Brain Damaged Samples . .

5. Mean Differences Between Samples for Rigidity
Scores, and Autokinetic Movement Scores . . . .





Figure

1. Autokinetic Apparatus . . . . . . .


Page














CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION


The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship

between two measures of rigidity: (1) a measure which may be de-

rived from the perceptual responses to the Rorschach test, and

(2) a measure based on the perceptual responses to the autokinetic

phenomenon.

The definition and measurement of "rigidity" have been

handled in a number of different ways as evidenced by a review of

the literature (3, 6, 11). One definition is that it is a reduction

and/or loss of perceptions and ideas as a result of the organism's

attempt to control overwhelming feelings of anxiety. Rigidity,

therefore, can be measured by a person's responses to various per-

ceptual tasks. Fisher (7) has developed such a measure for the

Rorschach test. This measure will be used in this study.

It is a technique whereby the perceptual responses to the

Rorschach test can be described along a continuum of rigidity such

that the lower the score the less the manifestation of the trait.

This in turn can be related to the autokinetic effect when it is

measured by the movement traced by the observer in reporting his

autokinetic experience. A limited expression, i.e., low score, of

perceived movement reflects a greater degree of rigidity than an

extensive perception of movement or high score.












The specific hypotheses proposed to examine the relationship

between these specific expressions of rigidity are:

1. Those subjects who express a greater amount of rigidity

on the Rorschach test will perceive a correspondingly

smaller amount of autokinetic movement.

2. Those subjects who express a greater amount of

rigidity on the Rorschach test will show a corres-

pondingly greater reaction time between the presen-

tation of the autokinetic stimulus and the perception

of movement.

3. Those subjects who express a greater amount of auto-

kinetic movement will have a correspondingly shorter

reaction time between the perception of the autokinetic

stimulus and their perception of movement.

A review of the literature provides limited evidence which

supports the conceptualization and feasibility, although not the

validity, of these hypotheses. And, although the contents of the

investigations are somewhat related to one another, three main areas

or purposes may be highlighted as they pertain to this study. Thus,

the first type of study provides evidence that there is consistency

in an individual's behavior such that we expect a rigid subject to

respond to similar situations in rigid ways. The second kind of

investigation provides evidence that the Rorschach test is a suit-

able measure of rigidity; and the third area of experimentation

supplies evidence that the autokinetic phenomenon is a sensitive












effect such that it can be expected to reflect differences and

variations in rigidity.

Klein and Schlesinger (10) conducted a study to determine

the consistency of behavior by investigating the difference in the

ability of two groups to perceive apparent movement. One group was

characterized as being stimulus bound and the second as completely

opposite in nature, i.e., flexible. Both groups were selected on

the basis of the individuals' Rorschach protocols; the analysis of

the data indicated that both groups exhibited consistent behavior.

The constricted stimulus bound members were unable to perceive

apparent movement over as wide a range of frequencies or stimulus

configurations as were the members of the flexible group.

Johnson and Stern (9) also oriented their research directly

at the concept: ". a contribution to the validation of one of

the basic tenets of such theories of personality, namely, that a

person will respond in a relatively constant manner to different

perceptual situations." The procedure they followed was to select

a rigid and a labile group on the basis of Fisher's rigidity scale

for the Rorschach test. They then compared the two groups'

responses to intermittent photic stimulation. The conclusion

reached was: ". individuals who respond in a perceptually rigid

manner in one task will respond in a like manner to a different

perceptual situation. The one factor that both have in common is

that they are ambiguous perceptual situations."











The development of Fisher's technique for measuring rigidity

on the Rorschach test follows from clinical usage and various investi-

gations by others in the field (5, 8, 12, 14). The scale includes

a number of ratios and "signs" which have been weighted to provide

an overall score reflecting the degree of rigidity expressed. Since

his publication of the scale it has been used in a variety of investi-

gations which demonstrate its acceptance as a valid instrument.

DeVos (4), for example, used it in his study of the acculturation of

the Japanese American. In the study he selected various levels of

acculturation and found that he was able to distinguish these on the

basis of their Fisher rigidity scores.

Becker (2) also used Fisher's rigidity scoring method in a

study directed at showing the relationship between the perception of

distortion from aniseikonic lenses and the degree of rigidity mani-

fested by normal male and female subjects. He hypothesized that

individuals who take a longer time to see the effect and/or report

less distortion will reveal a greater amount of rigidity. The

hypothesis was supported by the results of the investigation.

The sensitivity of the autokinetic phenomenon to various

personality characteristics has been established by many investi-

gations. Young and Gaier (18), for example, conducted an investi-

gation concerned with the autokinetic phenomenon as a means of pre-

dicting the difference between suggestible and non-suggestible

subjects. The two groups of ten subjects each were selected on the

basis of their answers to the Bernreuter Personality Inventory,











scales B3-I, B2-S, B4-D, and the Hysteria scale of the MMPI. The

results of the investigation indicated that there was a statistically

significant difference in the amount of autokinetic effect perceived

by the two groups. The suggestible group experienced more movement.

A related study was carried out by Rechtschaffen and Mednick

(13). Although they were concerned with the application of the

phenomenon as a projective technique for personality testing, they

did demonstrate the influence of suggestion or set. Nine subjects

were told that the experiment was concerned with the perception of

words being written by the light. All of the subjects reported the

perception of words, many of which were emotionally toned and

relevant to the individual's personality characteristics.

The most extensive investigation of the sensitivity of the

phenomenon to personality characteristics was carried out by Voth

(17). Some 845 psychiatric patients were tested and the results

indicated that the phenomenon is more pronounced in schizophrenia,

epilepsy, psychasthenia and anxiety states. As a general rule it

was absent or greatly reduced in hysteria, manic-depressive psychosis,

and involutional psychosis. A retest of fifty-four of the subjects

showed a high degree of reliability for the phenomenon.

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship

between a measure of rigidity derived from the perceptual responses

to the Rorschach test and a measure of rigidity based on the per-

ceptual responses to the autokinetic effect.















CBH PTER II


PROCEDURE AND APPARATUS


Procedure

The procedure was to test each subject on the autokinetic

phenomenon first; secondly, to administer the Rorschach test; and

then to repeat the autokinetic situation. When first introduced to

the experimental situation each subject was asked for some general

information such as his name, age, and educational background, and

encouraged to feel comfortable and to express any doubts or fears he

might have about being a subject. He was then shown the chair in

front of the apparatus and given the following instructions:

Here is a sheet of paper. It is to provide a record of
your observations. Sit in this chair (the experimenter ad-
justs the clip board in the subject's lap) and when directed
place your face here (experimenter points to the viewer).
Then look ahead of you and you will see a point of light.
If . and when the light begins to move I want you first to
operate the switch at your left (experimenter points out switch
and how to operate it). Do nothing more with the switch.
Devote your attention then to tracing (experimenter gives the
subject a pencil) the movements of the light on the paper. You
should start tracing from the center of the paper. There is a
large "X" placed there for that purpose. Get ready. The
room lights will be turned out when we begin.

If a subject indicated that he did not understand the

instructions or if there were any questions they were reread with

explanation. When the subject was ready the experimenter ex-

tinguished the room lights from the back of the apparatus, turned












on the autokinetic light source and recorded the reaction time of

the subject. He was then allowed two minutes of viewing from the

moment he signaled that he had perceived the movement of the light.

In those cases where no movement was seen the subject was permitted

to observe for a total period of five minutes.

The subject was then allowed a short rest period before the

Rorschach test was administered. The procedure here was according

to the method outlined by Beck (1). After another short rest

period the subject was retested in the autokinetic situation.

The instructions for the second trial in the autokinetic

situation were abbreviated in that there was no reference to the

chair, clip board, etc. He was simply told:

Look ahead of you and you will see a point of light. If
. and when the light begins to move I want you first to
operate the switch at your left. Do nothing more with the
switch. Devote your attention to tracing the movements of
the light on the paper. You should start tracing from the
center of the paper. Get ready. The room lights will be
turned out when we begin.

The raw data consisted of a Rorschach protocol from each

subject as well as his reaction time (RT), and graphic recordings

of the autokinetic movement perceived in two trials.

In order to transform the Rorschach data to rigidity scores

(RS) capable of statistical analysis each protocol was scored by

Beck's (1) method. These in turn were scored for rigidity according

to Fisher's outline. The essential factors in the rigidity scoring

are: F F#o, W%, Dd7., A7, sum M, sum FC, sum FY, T/IR, total number

of responses, content, and card turning. Appendix A provides an











outline of the important variables and the weighting assigned to

them in order to arrive at a total rigidity score.

The amount of movement, i.e., total distance the light was

seen to travel during the two minute period, expressed by the subjects'

graphic recordings was measured to the nearest tenth of an inch to

give a single score for the autokinetic effect. To measure the

distance of the recordings from the starting point proved to be

difficult since many of them were very erratic and not subject to

accurate measurement by a graduated wheel. Consequently the lines

were "straightened" for each subject by tracing them on another sheet

of paper while manipulating the recording so that each part of it was

covered while directing the tracing pencil in a vertical line. The

resultant line was measured to the nearest tenth of an inch.

Reaction time was the third variable measured and consisted

of the time lapse in seconds between the presentation of the light

and the subject's perception of movement. The score here was taken

to the nearest second as measured by a stop watch.


Subjects

In deciding on the sample to be used in the investigation it

was felt that much information could be gained by including subjects

from an abnormal population. Therefore, since a hospital population

was available to the experimenter, the study was repeated with a

sample of brain damaged patients.

The normal sample consisted of fifty white male students











drawn from the population enrolled at the time at the University of

Florida. They were students who for the most part were taking

introductory courses in psychology, but were naive concerning the

autokinetic phenomenon and the interpretation of the Rorschach

test. The method of selection was voluntary in that sheets of

paper announcing the scheduled times for participation in the

experiment were submitted to the various classes and the students

were allowed to participate as they pleased; their cooperation in

the experiment was thus obtained. In some cases friends of the

students also volunteered and were allowed to participate if they

were enrolled in any college. In all cases the subjects had to be

physically able to participate in the experiment as outlined as well

as be mentally alert and show no signs of mental disturbance.

The brain damaged sample was collected from the patients at

the General Medical and Surgical Veterans Hospital at Coral Gables,

Florida. This sample consisted of thirty-one subjects. The

selection was based on the records of the patients available to the

experimenter and included patients who had a medical diagnosis indi-

cative of brain damage of some nature. Thus, such medical diagnoses

as brain tumor, cerebral vascular accident, multiple sclerosis, brain

encephalopathy, cancer of the brain, i.e., metastases, brain syndrome

associated with cerebral arteriosclerosis, and traumatic head injury

were included. Lobotomy and chronic brain syndrome associated with

alcohol were not included.

All of the patients were screened for physical ailments which












would prevent their cooperation. Thus a hemiplegic patient who had

brain damage but could not hold a pencil or operate a switch was

excluded from the sample when his name came up in the records. The

same was true of patients who had a record of mental illness, and

others who had displayed negativism and uncooperative behavior on

the ward. Thus, the final sample consisted of only those patients

who were physically able to cooperate, whose attitude was cooperative,

who had no history of mental illness, and who were white males with

diagnoses indicative of brain pathology.

In the two samples age and intelligence were not matched

since Thurstone (15) has shown that the relationship between the

autokinetic effect and intelligence is negligible; and Voth (17) has

shown that there is no significant relationship between the auto-

kinetic effect and age. However, there were factors inherent in

the selection of the subjects which had a limited itching effect.

For example, the selection of brain damaged subjects from a group of

veterans assures a standard of intellectual endowment and literacy

not too different from that of the normal sample. The average age

and educational level for the brain damaged sample was 45 years and

10.1 grades. The average age and educational level for the normal

sample was 21.6 years and 14.4 grades. The range of ages was from

24 to 66 for the brain damaged sample and 17 to 27 for the normal

sample.











Apparatus

The apparatus used to elicit the autokinetic phenomenon con-

sisted of a large black box 18 3/4" x 18 3/4" x 52 1/2" with an ex-

ternal viewer at one end and a light source at the other. See

Figure 1. The source itself, a milk white 7W G. E. screw base

candle bulb, was fixed behind a removable black opaque metal plate.

All illumination to the subject was screened out except for a circle

of light of a 1 mm. radius.

Large black curtains suspended from the ceiling screened off

an area large enough to shield the apparatus and the experimenter,

who operated the light from the back of it. Consequently, the

subject saw only the viewer with a small toggle switch to the left

which was used to signal the beginning of the autokinetic effect to

the experimenter.

The tunnel was supported behind the curtains on a table

approximately three feet above the floor and the viewing apparatus

adjusted to eye level for the subject when in a sitting position.

Thus the subject's face was kept in a position which provided a

direct line between his eyes and the light source.

A clip board, to be held in the lap, held an eighteen inch

square piece of paper on which the subject was to record any per-

ceived movement of the light. A large red "I' to help guide the

subject had been placed in the center of each sheet of paper. Each

subject was provided with a sharp combination red and blue pencil.




















































$4,
o oa
0 44 -.4




U
mW 41

0




4 04






rid













CHAPTER III


RESULTS


The statistical methods used to analyze the data consisted

of the Pearson product-moment correlation technique and the t- test

of significance of a difference. The correlation technique was

used to determine the relationship between: autokinetic movement

scores and rigidity scores, rigidity scores and reaction time, and

reaction time and autokinetic movement scores. It was also used

to determine the relationship between: age and rigidity scores, age

and autokinetic movement scores, as well as the reliability of the

autokinetic movement scores. The t- test was used to determine the

significance of the difference between the two samples' means for

autokinetic movement scores and rigidity scores.

The results for the normal sample have been tabulated in

Table 1. As can be seen, the relationship between rigidity scores

and the autokinetic movement scores was not significant, r = -.06

(p) .05). In addition, the relationship between reaction time and

rigidity scores failed to reach a 5 per cent level, r .11 (p> .05).

However, the correlation between reaction time and autokinetic move-

ment scores was significant, r = -.29 (p(.05).

As shown in Table 2, the correlations between the three

variables were all significant for the brain damaged sample. The

correlation coefficient between rigidity scores and autokinetic














TABLE 1

INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG RIGIDITY SCORES, AUTOKINETIC MOVEMENT
SCORES, AND REACTION TIMES FOR THE NORMAL SAMPLE


Variables Coefficient of Fiducial
Correlated Correlation Limits (5%)


RS and AKM -.06 0.00 .39

RS and RT .11 0.00 .37

RT and AKM -.29# 0.02 .57

#Significant at .05 level.






TABLE 2

INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG RIGIDITY SCORES, AUTOKINETIC MOVEMENT
SCORES, AND REACTION TIMES FOR THE BRAIN DAMAGED SAMPLE


Variables Coefficient of Fiducial
Correlated Correlation Limits (5%)


RS and AKM -.58* .28 .77

RS and RT .37# .01 .63

RT and AKM -.53* .21 .74


*Significant at .01 level.
#Significant at .05 level.











movement scores was -.58, between rigidity scores and reaction time

was .37, and -.53 between reaction time and autokinetic movement

scores.

Table 3 summarizes the relationships between age and rigidity

scores for the normal and brain damaged samples. Neither the corre-

lation of -.25 (p) .05) for the normal sample nor the correlation of

.14 (p).05) for the brain damaged sample was significant.

The relationship between age and autokinetic movement scores,

as shown in Table 4, was not significant, r : .09 (p>.05), for the

normal sample. The correlation coefficient of the two variables

was significant, r : .50 (p<.Ol), however, for the brain damaged

sample. Consequently a partial correlation coefficient was computed

for this sample between rigidity scores and autokinetic movement

scores with age held constant. The resultant coefficient of -.76

(p .01) was significant.

The results summarized in Table 5 show the mean rigidity

scores and mean autokinetic movement scores, as well as the signifi-

cance of the difference, for the two groups. As can be seen, the

difference between the mean rigidity scores is signifIcant at the .01

level of confidence, whereas the difference between mean autokinetic

movement scores is significant at the .05 confidence level.

The Pearson product moment correlation between Trial I and

Trial II in the autokinetic situation was .70 for the normal sample,

36 subjects taking the test twice, and .78 for the brain damaged

sample.















TABLE 3

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AGES AND RIGIDITY SCORES
FOR THE NORMAL AND BRAIN DAMAGED SAMPLES


l Coefficient of Fiducial
Sample Correlation Limits (5%)


Normal -.25 0.00 .49

Brain Damaged .14 0.00 .46


TABLE 4

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AGES AND AUTOKINETIC MOVEMENT
SCORES FOR THE NORMAL AND BRAIN DAMAGED SAMPLES


Sa e Coefficient of Fiducial
Sample Correlation Limits (5%)



Normal .09 0.00 .27

Brain Damaged .50* 0.16 .72


*Significant at .01 level.



















TABLE 5

MEAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SAMPLES FOR RIGIDITY SCORES, AND
AUTOKINETIC MOVEMENT SCORES



Rigidity Autokinetic
Scores Movement
Scores


Sample Normal Brain Normal Brain
Damaged Damaged



Mean 23.7 49.2 7.7 5.9


t- test 6.3* 2.1#


*Significant at .01 level.
#Significant at .05 level.














CHAPTER IV


CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY


The hypothesis that subjects who display higher rigidity

scores would perceive correspondingly smaller amounts of autokinetic

movement was accepted for the brain damaged sample on the basis of a

correlation coefficient equal to -.58. For the normal group the

correlation coefficient of -.06 was not significant.

The second hypothesis, which stated that subjects with greater

rigidity scores will have longer reaction times, was also accepted

for the brain damaged sample, but rejected for the normal sample.

The correlation coefficient between the two variables was .37 for

the brain damaged sample and .11 for the normal sample.

The third hypothesis, that subjects who perceive greater

amounts of autokinetic movement would have shorter reaction times,

was considered to be tenable for both samples. The correlation

coefficient for the brain damaged sample was -.53, whereas that for

the normal sample was -.29.

The reliability of the autokinetic effect was examined by the

test-retest method and the results showed the correlation coefficient

was .70 for the normal group and .78 for the brain damaged group. An

acceptable degree of reliability was demonstrated for measurement of

the phenomenon.

The influence of age on rigidity scores was examined by

18











computing a correlation between the two variables for both of the

samples. The correlation coefficient was .14 for the brain damaged

sample, and -.25 for the normal sample. Since neither correlation

is significant it is concluded that age is not an important variable

contributing to the rigidity of perception shown by the subjects on

the Rorschach test,

In addition the influence of age on autokinetic movement

scores was examined by computing a correlation between the two

variables for both of the samples. The correlation was significant,

r = .50 for the brain damaged sample, but not for the normal sample,

r : .09. Moreover, a partial correlation coefficient of -.76 between

rigidity scores and autokinetic movement scores with age held constant

indicated that age was not contributing to this degree of relationship

between them. In this study age is not the important variable con-

tributing to the subjects' perception of autokinetic movement.

From the results it can also be concluded that for the brain

damaged and normal subjects the quicker autokinetic movement is per-

ceived the greater the distance it is likely to travel in a restricted

period of time. In this instance the brain damaged sample showed a

significant relationship between rigidity scores and amount of auto-

kinetic movement perceived, and between rigidity scores and reaction

time, but the normal sample did not; thus there may be a certain

critical minimum degree of rigidity necessary for this relationship

to manifest itself on these particular tests. There was a signifi-

cant difference between the degree of rigidity manifested by the two












groups on the Rorschach test. The brain damaged group had a mean

rigidity score of 49.2, more than twice that of the normal group who

showed a mean rigidity score of 23.7. Consequently it appears that

a critical minimum rigidity score must be reached.

In summary, a normal sample composed of fifty white, male

college students, and a second sample of thirty-one brain damaged

hospital patients were administered a Rorschach test and also placed

in an autokinetic situation in an effort to determine the relation-

ship between the two when each is used as an instrument to measure

rigid behavior.

The Rorschach test protocols were scored for rigidity accord-

ing to Fisher and the recordings of the amount of movement perceived

were measured to the nearest tenth of an inch. These data repre-

sented the degree of rigidity manifested by the subject in each

situation and a Pearson product-moment correlation was used to

establish the relationship. A t- test was also used to determine

whether a significant difference existed between the samples'

rigidity scores, and the amount of autokinetic movement recorded.

The results failed to show a significant relationship between

age and rigidity scores for either group, and between age and auto-

kinetic movement scores for the normal group. However, a significant

relationship between age and autokinetic movement scores for the

brain damaged sample was shown. A partial correlation, between

their rigidity scores and autokinetic movement scores with age held

constant, was significant, indicating age was not the significant













variable. The results also indicated a significant relationship

between rigidity score and autokinetic movement, reaction time and

rigidity score, and amount of autokinetic movement and reaction time,

for the brain damaged sample, but only between reaction time and

autokinetic movement for the normal sample. The difference between

rigidity scores and autokinetic movement was also significant for

the two groups. Thus, it was concluded that quicker perception of

movement is positively related to the amount of movement perceived,

but that there is probably a critical minimum degree of rigidity

necessary before there is a relationship shown between rigidity

score and autokinetic movement, and between reaction time and

rigidity score.












APPENDIX A


SCORING FOR RORSCHACH RIGIDITY

Each of the weights below is a penalty for what is considered to be
excess rigidity or restrictiveness. The larger the final summation
of weights, the greater is the implied rigidity.

I. F per cent (F %)


number
F of
F % of
F % of
F % of
F % of

number
F % of
F % of
F % of
F % of
F % of


of responses is 22 or fewer -
55-60 gives a score of 3
61-70 gives a score of 4
71-80 gives a score of 6
81-90 gives a score of 8
91-100 gives a score of 11

of responses is over 22 -
55-60 gives a score of 4
61-70 gives a score of 5
71-80 gives a score of 7
81-90 gives a score of 9
91-100 gives a score of 12


II. Number of responses (R)


1. If the number of responses lies between
the score is 9.

2. If the number of responses lies between
the score is 6.

III. Percentage of Animal Responses (A)

1. If the percentage of "animal" responses
is 6.

2. If the percentage of "animal" responses
is 8.

3. If the percentage of "animal" responses
is 10.


9 and 15, inclusive,


16 and 20, inclusive,


is 60-70, the score


is 71-80, the score


is 81-90, the score


IV. Form Accuracy (F *)


1. If
a.


the number of responses lies between 15 and 22, inclusive -
and if the F is at least 40 and not higher than 50 -
an F % of 85-90 gives a score of 5
an F % of 90-91 gives a score of 8


1. If
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

2. If
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.











b. Or if the F % is 51 or higher -
an F 7 of 85-90 gives a score of 6
an F % of 91-100 gives a score of 9

If a record contains fewer than fifteen responses only 1/2
of any given weight applies.

2. If the number of responses exceeds 22 -
a. and if the F % is at 35 and not higher than 50 -
an F 7 of 85-90 gives a score of 6
an F 7, of 91-100 gives a score of 10


b. Or if the F
An F 7% of
An F % of


% is 51 or higher -
85-90 gives a score of 6
91-100 gives a score of 12


V. Card Turning

Less than two responses in which the card is viewed other
than in the upright position gives a score of 4.

VI. Color

Less than two FC is scored 6.
(M.FC is not counted as an FC)

VII. Whole Responses (W)


1. If
a.


the percentage of W. responses is 40-50 -
The score is 5 in records where the number
is 22 or under.


b. The score is 6 in records where the number
exceed 22.


of responses


of responses


2. If the W % is 51-60 -
a. The score is 7 where the number of responses is 22 or less.

b. The score is 9 where the number of responses is over 22.


3. If
a.


the W 7 is 61 or over
The score is 10 where the number of responses is 22 or
less.


b. The score is 12 where the number of responses is over 22.











VIII. Small Detail Responses (Dd)

1. If the Dd % is 18-23
a. The score is 3 where the number of responses is under 22.
b. The score is 4 where the number of responses is over 22.

2. If the Dd % is 24-30
a. The score is 5 where the number of responses is 22 or
under.
b. The score is 6 where the number of responses is over 22.

3. If the Dd % is 31-40 -
a. The score is 8 where the number of responses is 22 or
under.
b. The score is 8 where the number of responses is over 22.

4. If the D d % is 41 or over -
a. The score is 10 where the number of responses is 22 or
under.
b. The score is 11 where the number of responses is over 22.

IX. Movement Responses (M)

1. If the number of movement responses is less than two, the
score is 15.

2. If the number of movement responses is less than one, the
score is 20.

X. Content

1. If four or more responses fall into the same content category
(aside from "human" and "animal" responses) -
a. and if the number of responses is 1 through 25, the score
is 7.
b. and if the number of responses is 26 through 40, the
score is 6.
c. and if the number of responses is 41 or over, the score
is 5.

XI. Average Time of Initial Response (T/HR)

1. If the average reaction time per initial response is
a. 25 through 29 seconds, the score is 2.
b. 30 through 40 seconds, the score is 5.
c. Over 40 seconds, the score is 7.

XII. Shading Responses (FY)

Less than two FY responses gives a score of 3.















REFERENCES


1. Beck, S. J. Rorschach's Test: I. Basic Processes. Grune and
Stratton, New York, 1950.

2. Becker, W. C. Perceptual rigidity as measured by aniseikonic
lenses. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1954, 49, 419-22.

3. Cattell, R. B., and Tiner, L. The varieties of structural
rigidity. J. Pers., 1949, 17, 321-41.

4. DeVos, G. A quantitative Rorschach assessment of maladjustment
and rigidity in acculturing Japanese Americans. Genet.
Psychol. Honogr., 1955, 52, 51-87.

5. Fabrikant, B. Rigidity and flexibility on the Rorschach. J.
Clin. Psychol., 1954, 10, 255-58.

6. Fisher, S. An overview of trends in research dealing with
personality rigidity. J. Pere., 1949, 17, 342-51.

7. Patterns of personality rigidity and some of their
determinants. Psychol. Monogr., 1950, 64, No. 1. (Whole
No. 307).

8. Hertz, M. Suicidal configuration in Rorschach records. R.
Research Exchange., 1948, 12, 3-58.

9. Johnson, Laverne C., and Stern, John A. Rigidity on the
Rorschach and response to intermittent photic stimulation.
J. consult. Psychol., 1955, 19, 311-17.

10. Klein, G. S., and Schlesinger, H. J. Perceptual attitudes
toward instability: I. Prediction of apparent movement
from Rorschach responses. J. Pers., 1951, 19, 289-302.

11. Kounin, J. S. The meaning of rigidity: A reply to Heinz
Werner. Psychol. Rev., 1948, 55, 157-66.

12. McAndrew, H. Rigidity and Isolation: A study of the deaf and
the blind. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1948, 43, 476-94.

13. Rechtschaffen, A., and Mednick, S. The autokinetic word
technique. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, 51, 346.











14. Reichard, S. Rorschach study of prejudiced personality. Amer.
J. Orthopsychiat., 1948, 18, 280-86.

15. Thurstone, L. L. A factorial study of perception. Psychometr.
Monogr., 1944, No. 4.

16. Voth, A. C. Individual differences in the autokinetic
phenomenon. J, exp. Psychol., 1941, 29, 306-22.

17. An experimental study of mental patients through
the autokinetic phenomenon. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1947,
103, 793-805.

18. Young, N., and Gaier, E. A preliminary investigation into the
prediction of suggestibility from selected personality
variables. J. soc, Psychol., 1953, 37, 53-60.















BICIGRAPI11CAL ITEMS


The author was born on September 5, 1927, in Bay City,

Michigan. lie attended Bay City Junior College following army

service and received an Associate of Science degree before trans-

ferring to Michigan State University. While at Michigan State

University he majored in psychology and received a Bachelor of Arts

degree in June, 1951.

In September, 1951, he entered the graduate school of the

University of Florida and in June, 1953, he received a Master of

Arts degree with a psychology major The following year was devoted

to internship with the V. A. Clinical Psychology Training Program

and then study for the doctoral degree was resumed at the University

of Florida. During that period he was a graduate assistant and

later half-time clinician with the Psychological Clinic at the

University. lie was also elected to membership in Alpha Kappa Delta,

sociology honorary society, and served as chairman of the Graduate

Seminar Committee.

He is a member of the American Psychological Association and

the Florida Psychological Association. He is currently finishing

his V. A. clinical training in the V. A. G. M. & S. Hospital at

Coral Cables, Florida.













This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the

chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been

approved by all members of the committee. It was submitted to

the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate

Council and was approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.


June 9, 1958


7

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences



Dean, Graduate School

SUPERVISE COMM EE



Chairman










. ------- -- A
tU .S4i < ^




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs