Extended Report of Rorschach Personality and Barnum Statements
Extended Report of Rorschach Personality and Barnum Statements
Extended Report of Rorschach Personality and Barnum Statements
PDXScholar
Regional Research Institute Regional Research Institute
1982
Patricia A. Thomas
Citation Details
Dana, Richard H. and Thomas, Patricia A., "Extended Report of Rorschach Personality and Barnum Statements" (1982). Regional
Research Institute. 16.
https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/rri_facpubs/16
This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Regional Research Institute by an authorized
administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Rorschach Personality and Barnum Statements:
An Extended Report
Abstract
were obtained although rates of endorsement for all concepts were high.
/ Rorschach Personality
I
Consumers of personality assessment reports find them to be deficiertt
in content and communication style (Dana, 1980). The continued use of the
contain between 20% and 30% Barnum concepts (Dana & Fouke. 1979) while profes
more than one code type (Caldwell, Note I). While these sources define Barnum
The 18 Barnum statements came from an established list (Forer, 1949) plus
two later additions (Snyder & Larson. 1972). The other statments had been re
liably abstracted from 31 Rorschach reports (17 male and 14 female college-
student volunteers) and reliably clustered into 286 concepts. The frequencies
of these 286 concepts in the 31 original reports were examined and frequent
concepts were defined as those 70 concepts which occurred in 10 to.31 reports. The 217
Infrequent concepts were defined as those which occurred only once. The concepts
in length and vocabulary level with concepts in the Barnum list. The 65 remain
females (I age 19.8; SD ~ 1.9) were asked to indicate the numbers of persons
each statement described in percentages from zero to 100. and t-tests were
males endorsed only one concept more frequently than females, females endorsed
nine concepts significantly more frequently than males. There were no overall
significant sex differences between the three categories of concepts. The average
and 51.2 (Infrequent) with standard deviations of 9. 9.9, and 10.0, respectively.
were all highly significant (~- .00001). either by sex or with sexes combined.
Discussion
The high endorsement rates for all categories of concepts did not accord
at least half of an unspecified group. Since both method and content issues
These subjects typically have little vested interest in imposed research parti
cipation and may respond with sets for acquiescence and/or social desirability.
The uniformly high rates of concept endorsement may reflect response behaviors
match concepts in the Frequent and Infrequent lists with Barnum statements for
may have had their uniqueness diluted by matching with Barnum statements. A
third concern is with the label "Frequent" concepts. Frequent concepts may
/ Rorschach Personality
reports. Without base rates for all categories of concepts that appear in
o~ these reports. Such information may be basic not only to our understanding
reports would be helpful. For example, Allport (1937) has identified common
traits. Central traits impart personal identity and individual traits define
cover that Barnum statments occur more frequently in Rorschach reports than
teristics and to provide a descriptive portrait of a person, but the exact di
mensions of this portrait have not been empirically established. While a dozen
item variance. Furthermore, not all of these factors are replicable from the
Reference Notes
actuarial data. Invited address for the meeting of the Society for Per
~, submitted.
/ Rorschach Personality
References
1937.
711-715.
1972, ~, 384-388.
/ Rorschach Personality
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Endorsement Frequencies of 65
Concept Mean
;IF ** 37.5
~
18.5
Concept
-Mean S.D.
341 48.1 21.8
2F 52.5 25.4 35F * 53.5 27.2
3F 76.3 24.3 36B 33.8 22.7
4F 70.9 22.2 371 54.1 19.8
SF 64.8 23.4 381 59.6 19.0
6B * 51.0 18.9 391 34.1 23.4
71 66.2 21.1 401 29.8 23.6
8B * 57.0 21.6 41B 40.8 19.4
91 58.0 17 .8 421 53.1 21.8
10F 51.6 21.2 43F 49.8 21.5
lIP 52.9 18.3 , 441 35.5 20.9
12F 54.4 19.7 451 * 39.8 24.9
13F 52.8 20.3 46B 64.6 19.8
14F 53.2 24.6 47Ft 50.5 26.4
151 41.4 19.3 48B 58.7 19.5
16F 76.0 22.8 49F 71. 7 19.2
17B 69.7 17 .6 SOB 57.1 27.3
18F 67.4 17.0 51I 66.4 23.6
19B 69.0 23.3 521 47.3 21.3
20B 49.9 22.6 53B 67.9 23.1
21B 73.1 19.3 541 59.3 25.4
22F 38.8 21.8 551 79.7 17.6
23F 49.3 25.5 56B 64.1 20.6
24F 47.4 21. 7 571 * 45.6 33.0
25B
26F
61.8 21.0 58P * 62.0 28.9
27F
76.4 24.2 591 * 59.8 19.0
45.1 22.3 60B 59.3 25.2 \
28F 57.1 20.1 61F 51.4 20.7
291 39.4 18.6 62B 67.0 23.5
30F 53.6 24.4 631 * 59.0 17 .9
31B 70.5 25.2 64B 81.3 16.0
32F * 40.3 21.7 651 43.7 23.0
331 54.6 21.1
% 3. experiences conflict
% 5. uses fantasy
% 6. independent thinker
% 8. self-critical
-----.;
% 9. easy to like
_ _ _% 11. perceptive
-----'
% 14. tension interferes with use of inner resources
-----'
% 15. inner' strength is low
-----'
% 16. needs approval, responsiveness, belongingness
-----'
% 18. can relate to others
-----'
% 19. self-doubts
-----.;
% 20. insecure
experiences anxiety
-----'% 26.
_ _---:% 27. introspective
extraverted
-----'% 41.
_ _----:% 42. love for nature
mysterious
-----'% 44.
young and old simultaneously
--'---% 45.
_ _---:% 46. usually affable (sociable)
____% 47. experiences difficulty with interpersonal relationships