When Homer nods: an examination of some systematic errors in Rorschach scholarship

Considerable evidence has demonstrated that many scientists attempt to avoid disconfirmation of a favored theory. This tendency sometimes characterizes the scholarship of both those who favor the Rorschach (Exner, 2000) method and those who find it seriously flawed. Psychologists who use the Rorschach impressionistically are not deterred by the literature demonstrating that this procedure has thus far shown little established validity. Those who criticize the Rorschach dismiss the objectivity of the American Psychological Association (APA) Blue Ribbon Panel, which concluded that the test has proven validity, and by implication, they also dismiss the APA peer review process that approved the panel report. In addition, they ignore over 400 published studies showing the Rorschach has acceptable validity when responses are scored objectively.     

Monitoring psychotherapy with performance-based measures of personality functioning

In this commentary, I review a meta-analysis and three original research reports concerning the Rorschach (Exner, 2003; Rorschach, 1921/1942) and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; Murray, 1943) assessment in psychological treatment planning and outcome evaluation. The information in these four articles bears witness to the potential utility of performance-based personality assessment measures for this purpose. The strengths and limitations of the articles suggest several guidelines for future research designed to examine this Rorschach and TAT application including an emphasis on effectiveness studies, longitudinal data, integrated independent variables, observable dependent variables, sophisticated data analysis combining nomothetic and idiographic presentation, and the incremental contribution of performance-based measures to psychotherapy-related personality assessment.     

A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review

Peer review is the most important aspect of reputable journals. Without it, we would be unsure about whether the material published was as valid and reliable as is possible. However, with the advent of the Internet, scientific literature has now become subject to a relatively new phenomenon: fake peer reviews. Some dishonest researchers have been manipulating the peer review process to publish what are often inferior papers. There are even papers that explain how to do it. This paper discusses one of those methods and how editors can defeat it by using a special review ID. This method is easy to understand and can be added to current peer review systems easily.     

Scientific Peer Review: A Case Study From Local And Global Analyses.

The dialog between Staddon (2001, 2004) and Baum (2004) raises general questions about the nature of scientific peer review. Their dialog displays effects on peer review of differences of opinion about the relative merits of local and global analyses. Baum (1995, 1997, 2001, 2002) favors global analyses as a paradigm different, newer, and better than the local, dynamic, real‐time approach that plays a significant role in Staddon (2001). According to the Kuhnian perspective (Kuhn, 1996) Baum advocates, we can better understand his review of Staddon (2001) by considering the implications for it of his commitment to the idea that a global analysis is a superior scientific paradigm. This commentary examines some characteristics of local and global analyses, as well as some of their possible implications for peer review in the context of a reviewer's belief in the Kuhnian idea of incommensurability: According to this idea, a reviewer who either is, or who believes he is, from one paradigm is unlikely, for better or worse, to understand or perhaps even tolerate work from a different paradigm. It is recommended that a process be developed to encourage “truth in peer reviewing” to reduce possible conflicts of interest embedded in the current conception of scientific peer review.     

When reviews attack: ethics, free speech, and the peer review process.

The peer review process, whether formally applied in publication and grant review, or informally, such as exchange of ideas in scientific and professional newsgroups, has sparked controversy. Writers in this area agree that scholarly reviews that are inappropriate in tone are not uncommon. Indeed, commentators have suggested rules and guidelines that can be used to improve the review process and to make reviewers more accountable. In this paper, we examine the relevance and impact of ethical codes on the conduct of peer review. It is our contention that the peer review process can be improved, not by a new set of rules but through closer attention to the ethical principles to which we, as psychologists, already subscribe.     

Data and issues to Consider in Reconciling Self-Report and the Rorschach

Archer and Krishnamurthy (1993a, 1993b) systematically reviewed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-Rorschach research and found that there is minimal if any association between the two tests. In response to this review, data are reported demonstrating a positive association between various Rorschach variables and objective criteria. Data gleaned from published and yet unpublished sources suggest that the Rorschach is related to various self-report, other-report, and behavioral criteria, with children and adults, for psychosis and other constructs. Data are also presented suggesting that part of the disagreement between the two tests may be due to different types of response bias and positive self-presentations on the two tests. Research findings pertinent to differential validity as a function of the number of Rorschach responses protocol are also explored. I conclude with research recommendations regarding test-specific understandings of response bias and Rorschach protocol complexity as a moderator variable.     

Data and issues to consider in reconciling self-report and the Rorschach

Archer and Krishnamurthy (1993a, 1993b) systematically reviewed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-Rorschach research and found that there is minimal if any association between the two tests. In response to this review, data are reported demonstrating a positive association between various Rorschach variables and objective criteria. Data gleaned from published and yet unpublished sources suggest that the Rorschach is related to various self-report, other-report, and behavioral criteria, with children and adults, for psychosis and other constructs. Data are also presented suggesting that part of the disagreement between the two tests may be due to different types of response bias and positive self-presentations on the two tests. Research findings pertinent to differential validity as a function of the number of Rorschach responses protocol are also explored. I conclude with research recommendations regarding test-specific understandings of response bias and Rorschach protocol complexity as a moderator variable.     

A consideration of challenges to psychological assessment instruments used in forensic settings: Rorschach as exemplar

In this brief primer, we provide an outline of key issues that will help psychologists organize and prepare their expert testimony. These issues include the need to obtain essential sources of research, a review of the actual legal standards regarding admissibility of test data in expert testimony, the nature of the expert relative to the assessment instrument in expert testimony, the nature of legal versus scientific debate, and the examination of appropriate qualifications of expertise when offering legal testimony. In addition, we use a summary of information contained in several recent articles to address challenges directed against forensic psychological testing. We use the empirical literature on the Rorschach as an exemplar in discussing these issues, as the admissibility of the Rorschach in particular has been challenged, and the issues frequently focused on with the Rorschach are equally applicable to other psychological measures. In this article, we provide essential sources of Rorschach research regarding several empirical studies that summarize important information and directly address previous criticisms of the measure.     

Challenges since Wikipedia: the availability of Rorschach information online and internet users' reactions to online media coverage of the Rorschach-Wikipedia debate

We conducted 2 studies to assess the availability of Rorschach information online and Internet users' attitudes since the inkblots were published on Wikipedia. In the first study, the authors conducted 2 Google searches for Web sites containing Rorschach-related information. The top 88 results were classified by level of threat to test security; 19% posed a direct threat. The authors also found Web sites authored by psychologists that divulged sensitive Rorschach information. In the second study, 588 comments to online news stories covering the Rorschach-Wikipedia debate were coded as expressing favorable or unfavorable opinions regarding the field of psychology, psychologists, and the Rorschach. Eight percent of comments described unfavorable opinions toward psychology, 15% contained unfavorable opinions toward psychologists, and 35% portrayed unfavorable opinions of the Rorschach. Common themes and popular misconceptions of the Rorschach contained in these comments are described. Implications and recommendations for practice are discussed. Limitations, including the second study's narrow sample and self-selection bias, are also detailed.     

Addressing Conceptual Confusions About Evolutionary Theorizing: How and Why Evolutionary Psychology and Feminism Do Not Oppose Each Other

This commentary is a rejoinder to the Buss and Schmitt (2011) and Eagly and Wood (2011) commentaries concerning how evolutionary psychology and feminism might fit together. This rejoinder provides one path toward uniting these perspectives in psychological literature by accomplishing three tasks. First, this rejoinder addresses and removes conceptual confusions offered by Buss and Schmitt (2011) concerning the philosophy of science and psychology research. Second, this rejoinder fits evolutionary psychology perspectives into a correctly understood philosophy of science for psychology. Third, enacting Eagly and Wood’s (2011) suggestions, this rejoinder connects evolutionary psychology and feminism by expanding Tate and Ledbetter’s (2010) stepwise model for understanding the simultaneous contributions of evolutionary and developmental factors to psychological phenomena. Thus, by removing conceptual roadblocks, this rejoinder provides a scaffold for fruitful discussions concerning the interplay of evolutionary psychology and feminist perspectives when characterizing gender differences and similarities.     

Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?

As part of a continuous process to explore the factors that might weaken or corrupt traditional peer review, in this paper, we query the ethics, fairness and validity of the request, by editors, of authors to suggest peer reviewers during the submission process. One of the reasons for the current crisis in science pertains to a loss in trust as a result of a flawed peer review which is by nature biased unless it is open peer review. As we indicate, the fact that some editors and journals rely on authors’ suggestions in terms of who should peer review their paper already instills a potential way to abuse the trust of the submission and publishing system. An author-suggested peer reviewer choice might also tempt authors to seek reviewers who might be more receptive or sympathetic to the authors’ message or results, and thus favor the outcome of that paper. Authors should thus not be placed in such a potentially ethically compromising situation, especially as a mandatory condition for submission. However, the fact that they do not have an opt-out choice during the submission process—especially when using an online submission system that makes such a suggestion compulsory—may constitute a violation of authors’ rights.     

Rejoinder to Commentaries on Malevolent Creativity: A Functional Model of Creativity in Terrorism and Crime,Cropley, Kaufman,and Cropley

In this rejoinder Cropley et al. respond to commentaries made regarding the article “Malevolent Creativity: A Functional Model of Creativity in Terrorism and Crime.” Each commentary adds valuable additional insight into the issue of creativity that does harm.     

Rorschach Stimulus Modification

The major Rorschach stimulus dimensions were varied by E. E. Baughman in a 1954 study leading to the conclusion that only form affects responses. In 1958 his review of the literature in this area led to the same conclusion. The next year he reversed his position on the basis of the most definitive study of Rorschach stimulus modification yet published. However, close examination of the 1954 study demonstates that, contrary to Baughman's original conclusion, it, too, supports the effect of stimulus characteristics.     

Challenges Since Wikipedia: The Availability of Rorschach Information Online and Internet Users’ Reactions to Online Media Coverage of the Rorschach–Wikipedia Debate

We conducted 2 studies to assess the availability of Rorschach information online and Internet users’ attitudes since the inkblots were published on Wikipedia. In the first study, the authors conducted 2 Google searches for Web sites containing Rorschach-related information. The top 88 results were classified by level of threat to test security; 19% posed a direct threat. The authors also found Web sites authored by psychologists that divulged sensitive Rorschach information. In the second study, 588 comments to online news stories covering the Rorschach–Wikipedia debate were coded as expressing favorable or unfavorable opinions regarding the field of psychology, psychologists, and the Rorschach. Eight percent of comments described unfavorable opinions toward psychology, 15% contained unfavorable opinions toward psychologists, and 35% portrayed unfavorable opinions of the Rorschach. Common themes and popular misconceptions of the Rorschach contained in these comments are described. Implications and recommendations for practice are discussed. Limitations, including the second study's narrow sample and self-selection bias, are also detailed.     

Word‐of‐mouth and the forecasting of consumption enjoyment

The digital era has permitted rapid transfer of peer knowledge regarding products and services. In the present research, we explore the value of specific types of word-of-mouth information (numeric ratings and text commentary) for improving forecasts of consumption enjoyment. We present an anchoring-and-adjustment model in which the relative forecasting error associated with ratings and commentary depends on the extent to which consumer and reviewer have similar product-level preferences. To test our model, we present four experiments using a range of hedonic stimuli. Implications for the provision of consumer WOM are discussed.     

Some old and new directions in Rorschach testing

The perennial dispute between clinicians and researchers as to the validity of the Rorschach is discussed. It is suggested both groups are correct in that the Rorschach provides both poor psychometric data as seen by the researcher and rich idiographic data as seen by the clinician. The freedom of the Rorschach response process is viewed as largely responsible for both these situations. Some possible new directions for Rorschach usage and research are discussed which may improve on the quality of the idiographic information provided by the Rorschach test.     

Getting interested in interests for employee selection: Key concerns and areas for future research

The paper by Wille and De Fruyt suggests that vocational interests should be used throughout the human resources cycle and provides a useful model that can facilitate the application of interests throughout this process. This commentary builds on their review to discuss the unique benefits and challenges of implementing vocational interests in the employee selection process. Using research from the employee selection literature, we also discuss potential solutions for many of the issues raised by Wille and De Fruyt. Therefore, our commentary is meant to supplement the focal article and answer specific questions about why and how vocational interests can be used in this high-stakes setting.