A comparison of clinical manifestations of hostility with Rorschach, and MAPS test performances

136 Pages·04.813 MB·English

by  Walker, Robert Gregory

A COMPARISON OP CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS
OP HOSTILITY WITH RORSCHACH, AND
MAPS TEST PERFORMANCES
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the Department of Psychology
The University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Robert G-regory Walker
June 1950
UMI Number: DP30400
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing
UMI DP30400
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
Pk- Ps u^/^3
0- ;i~o
This dissertation, written by
.......ROBERT.. GJREGORYJVALKER.......
under the guidance of h..i.S.. Faculty Committee
on Studies, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by the Council
on Graduate Study and Research, in partial ful­
fillment of requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF P H ILO S O P H Y
ean
S Date. 3 3 ..
¥<
Committee on Studies
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Grateful acknowledgment is made to the many people
who made this study possible. The author is indebted to
Dr. S.M. Wesley and the other members of his doctoral
committee for helpful guidance and criticism. A debt of
gratitude is acknowledged to the Veteran’s Administration
for the magnificent cooperation and assistance received.
A special vote of thanks is made to the psychotherapists
who gave so generously of their time and efforts. While
it is difficult to acknowledge all the people who helped,
it would be impossible not to mention Dr. Ruth Tolmari,
Dr. Bruno Klopfer, Dr. Mortimer Meyer, Dr. Marshall 'Wheeler
and Dr. Edwin Shneidman. Greatest gratitude is expressed
to the author’s wife, Wilma, to whom this study is dedicated,
for her unstinting efforts in preparing the manuscript.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAG-E
I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS USED . . 1
The problem . 1
Statement of the problem . . ......... 1
Importance of the study . ........... 1
Definition of terms used . . ............ 2
Hostility ........................... 2
Hostility patterns................... Ip
Defensiveness......... ............. Ip
Object............................... Ip
Content............. 5
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................. 6
General manifestations of hostility . . 6
Causes of hostility................. 12
Manifestations of hostility in projective
test material..................... lip
III. SOURCES OF DATA.......................... 26
The patient population ................. 26
The source of the therapy ratings . . . . 30
The tests administered.................. 3k-
The Rorschach Test................... 3&
The Make A Picture Story T e s t ........ 3&
The Rosenzweig Picture-Frustration
S t u d y ................. ............ 39
i v
CHAPTER VAGE
The Hostility Questionnaire......... Lj_l
IV. PROCEDURES................................ Li-5
The therapy ratings................... Ip5
Distribution of the therapy ratings . .
Treatment of the therapy ratings . . . . Ii9
The Rorschach Test..................... 55
The Make A Picture Story T e s t ........... 65
V. RESULTS.................................. 70
Statistical treatment of the data . . . . 71
Principal findings ..................... 73
Supplementary findings.................. Qli.
VI. DISCUSSION................................ 92
VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................. 98
Summary............................... 96
Conclusions . ............. 100
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................... lOlf.
APPENDIX....................................... 109
LIST OP TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I. Age and Education of the Patients........ 27
II. Diagnostic Groupings of the Patients . . . 28
III. Interval Between Testing and Rating . . . . i{-6
IV. Inter-correlations of all Parts of the
Rating Scale with each other and with the
Over-all Rating....................... 50
•V. Coefficients of Correlation Between Humber of
Rorschach Responses and Rorschach Hostility
Score................................. 59
VI. Correlations between Ratings of Hostile
Content by the Three Rorschach Judges . . 62
VII. Inter-correlations among Rorschach Judges . 61p
VIII. Guide Sheet for Scoring Hostility In the
MAPS Test........... . . . 68
IX. Correlations between Therapy and Test
Ratings..................... '......... 7l|_
X. Rorschach, MAPS and Questionnaire Inter­
test Correlations ..................... 76
XI. Correlations betvfeen some Hon-weighted
MAPS Scores and Certain Parts of the
Therapist Rating Scale ................ 80
TABLE
XII. Correlations between the Picture-
Erustration Study and Therapists1
Ratings ........................... '.
XIII. Correlations between Rorschach Hostility
Scores and Various Parts of the Therapy
Rating Scale .......................
XIV. Correlations between Length of Contact in
Therapy, Age, Education, Diagnosis and
the Therapy and Test Ratings ........
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS USED
I. THE PROBLEM
Statement of the problem. The purpose of this study
is to determine the relationships between estimates of
hostility ba.sed on certain psychological test performances
and clinical judgments based on therapeutic Interviews.
Importance of the study. Some reference to hostility
and its relation to personality adjustment is made in an
appreciable proportion of all psychodiagnostic reports.
Similarly, the psychotherapist finds almost Invariably that
his patients manifest, to a greater or lesser degree, diffi­
culty In handling their hostile feelings. Indeed, it is
felt by many clinicians that neurotic hostility patterns
play a decisive role in the emotional disturbance of most
individuals who seek therapy. Horney (23) believes that
hostile Impulses of various kinds form the main source from
which neurotic anxiety springs.
One of the primary functions of psychological testing
Is to help the therapist gain insight into the psychodynamics
of his patient* If the psychodiagnostician is to contribute
toward a better understanding of the patient’s hostility
pattern, then, it is necessary that it be shown that
2
dependable relationships exist between the patient’s
performance on our tests and his behavior in the thera­
peutic situation.
Interest in hostility among psychodiagnosticians
and therapists is understandable in view of the fact that
this concept is such an essential one in the dynamics of
human behavior. Penichel (l6) discusses in almost every
type of psychiatric maladjustment the various dynamic
effects of neurotic hostility upon personality functioning.
In a recent book on the development and dynamics of
personality, Saul (Ij-2) writes
There is no more fateful motive force in man than
hostility--it is essential for his survival but it also
produces neurosis, criminality, war and social unrest
. . . Hostility is one of the most difficult forces
in human beings to domesticate. Necessary-and useful
as It is in certain circumstances, such as under primitive
conditions of nature in killing for food and in self-
defense, it is one of the greatest sources of human
suffering. For civilized man, neither wild bea.sts
nor the forces of nature nor even the dread germs of
disease are the greatest cause of suffering. It is the
hostility within man himself which is directed against
his own kind. (ij-2, p. 108)
A final indication of the importance of investigation
in this area is the extremely limited information available
from previous research.
II. DEFINITION OF TEEMS USED
Hostility. This term refers to any behavior (including
affective orientation, feelings or sets) motivated by the