百度流量统计学院:罗夏测试：仅是本子上的点点污渍？

只是练习本上的几个污渍？

An old psychological test gets a revamp

一个古老的心理测试又重获关注

 Nov 12th 2011 | from the print edition 

IT SOUNDS like voodoo. But the Rorschach test, in which elements of someone’s personality can be deduced, its proponents claim, by his description of what he sees in a series of inkblots, has been used for 90 years, and is still going strong.

这简直和巫术没什么两样。但是罗夏墨迹测试的支持者们认为：通过不同个体对一系列墨迹图案的描述，能够推断出人们性格当中的不同特质。这个测试已经流传了90年，直到现在还依然具有很强的活力。

The original test was devised by Hermann Rorschach, a Swiss psychiatrist, in 1921. It involved someone (usually a psychologist or psychiatrist) asking someone else to look at ten inkblot images. In each case, the interlocutor inquires of the viewer, “What might this be?”, notes the response and attempts to draw conclusions.

最初的实验是由一位瑞士的精神病学家Hermann Rorschach（赫尔曼.罗夏）于1921年所设计。这个实验的基本内容包含一个完整的问答互动过程：即由一位心理学家或者是精神病学家对测试对象关于所见的十个墨迹图案的感受进行交流记录。在每个测试中，测试者都要问被测试者这样的问题：“它看上去像什么？”通过他们的反应和意图来进行推断。

The question has always been, of course, how reliable the connection is between the response to the blots (generally, people, animals or objects) and the alleged diagnosis. Over the years, many experiments have been done to test the link. Now Gregory Meyer of the University of Toledo and his colleagues have reviewed the data. Their results, which form the basis of a new manual* on the topic, suggest the inkblot test does have real power. But Dr Meyer also rejects some of the traditional claims made on its behalf.

质疑者们一直关注的问题就是：如何能够确保对于那些墨迹（通常是指人物像、动物或者是物体）的反映和测试者们做出的所谓推断是真实的呢？在过去的九十年间，研究者们做了无数的测试以期去验证它们间的必然联系。现在，来自托莱多大学的Gregory Meyer和他的同事们重新修正了数据。他们的研究结果认为墨迹测试是确实有效的，并成为了一本新的心理测试手册的基础之一。但Meyer博士同时也驳斥了那些传统支持者们的一些论据。

Dr Meyer’s study is a review of 1,292 papers that report experimental attempts to link Rorschach responses with personality traits that have been established by other means. His main conclusion is that some of the ways the test has been used are, indeed, useless. He proposes, for example, axing the alleged connection between reporting mirrored images in a blot and the viewer’s level of egocentricity. He would also get rid of the idea that if a viewer focuses on the details of an image rather than the broader picture, then he is likely to have an obsessive personality. A third traditional interpretation that does not pass muster, in Dr Meyer’s view, is the suggestion that when a viewer sees things in a blot that the examiner thinks do not resemble the blot, that indicates impaired perception, which can lead to a diagnosis of psychosis. Dr Meyer would not get rid of this altogether. But he thinks the idea needs to be recalibrated.

Meyer博士用了1292页回顾与评论式的文章向我们展现了他的实验观点：那些试图将对于墨迹的反应与人格特征建立起对应联系的研究方式，其实有着不为人所知的其他涵义。他在文中提出：一些在测试中使用的方法其实是无效的。按照他的观点来看，对于图像所反映出被测者所具有的自我中心意识完全是木有必要和必然联系的。他同时也摒弃了这样的一种观点：如果受测试者过于关注图案的细节而不是整体，那他会比普通人更容易对事物产生成见。除去上述两个观点之外，Meyer博士还提出了对另外一个传统观点的质疑，在他看来，如果一个受测者对于墨迹的描述不符合测试者的标准，那在测试者眼中，被测者的洞察力是存在问题的，由此会导致对被测者的诊断结果为精神病；这样的评判方式是有主观漏洞的。当然Meyer博士并未全然否定这个传统的观点，但是他认为对于这个理念或者是判断标准应当重新考量。1

Some Rorschach diagnoses do seem to stand up, though. People who report seeing representations of passivity or helplessness in the blots are thought to have a dependent personality, meaning they rely on others to satisfy their needs. Some of the studies Dr Meyer looked at did indeed find that people who produce such responses are more likely to request guidance in a classroom, ask an experimenter for help when solving puzzles, or hold on to a guide when they are blindfolded. And responses in which a viewer synthesises several elements in an inkblot to show how they are interrelated do seem to be correlated with intellect; such responses are found most often in people who also score highly on an unrelated psychological assessment, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.

然而大部分的罗夏测试的诊断看上去还是成立且持久的。通常说，那些对墨迹图案表现出被动或者是无助的受测者往往都会有依赖型人格，这意味着他们需要让别人来满足他们的欲望或者是要求。Meyer博士的研究确实发现了此类人在课堂上比别人更需要的指导和帮助，特别是在他们解决难题或者是方向未卜的情况之下。还有就是如果受测者在墨迹测试中显示出了对图案中不同元素的综合表达能力的话，往往他们在不相关心理评测中——韦氏成年人智力水平测试也会取得相对较高的成绩。（其实按我的理解就是综合思维能力是智商高的体现，并且是在不同方面的表现）

Dr Meyer disposes, too, of one perennial criticism of the Rorschach test—that it is culture-dependent. Studies in numerous countries come to broadly the same conclusions. A qualified thumbs-up, then, for inkblots. Perhaps the biggest threat to the test is that no one uses fountain pens any more, and so inkblots themselves have more or less become things of the past.

对长年累月间关于罗夏测试的批评——文化依赖，Meyer博士也作出了他自己的诠释。在众多国家中进行的研究结果共同达到了这样一个结论。对于墨迹测试而言，是有资格获得这样的认可的。当然摆在我们面前最大的问题其实是无纸化给我们带来的危机，也许不久的将来，墨迹（图案）就会成为历史长河中的文物吧。

*”Rorschach Performance Assessment System”, by Gregory Meyer, Donald Viglione, Joni Mihura, Robert Erard, Philip Erdberg and Fabiano Miguel. R-pas.org. $99

http://baike.baidu.com/view/604286.htm附着百度知道之罗夏墨迹测试，有兴趣的同志们大可去围观一下