SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health

ISSN 0971-6610 SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health July 2019 Editorial: Projective Techniques are not moribund: Comment on the Benson et al. (2019) Assessment Practices Article Chris Piotrowski 73-76 Implicitly Measured Self Definition and Social Definition Predict Men’s Life Outcomes 10 Years Later Sharon Rae Jenkins, Pui San Tse, Jeffrey Vance and Ashley Allison 77-86 Is Gambling Addiction Related to Celebrity Addiction? Brad Lian, Mara S. Aruguete, Ho Huynh, Lynn E. McCutcheon and Michael P. Murtagh 87-96 Contemporary Research Emphasis in Personality Assessment: A Bibliometric Analysis Mapping Investigatory Domain (2009-2018) Chris Piotrowski 97-103 The Importance of Lambda to the Generalizability of Rorschach Findings Reported in the Literature Carl Gacono 104-106 Interpersonal Relationship Matrix, Marital Quality and Loneliness Pattern of Parents of Clients with Borderline Personality Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Normal Controls: A Comparative Exploration Arundhati Biswas, Nilanjana Sanyal and Manisha Dasgupta 107-117 Revisiting the Rorschach Controversy: The Rorschach Test- A Ghost of the Past or a Bearer of further promise? Tilottama Mukherjee and Sreetama Chatterjee 118-127 Maintenance of Cognitive Drill Therapy Gains in Test Anxiety: A Pilot Study Deepak Kumar, Bhavana Arya and Rakesh Kumar 128-133 Official Publication of the Somatic Inkblot Society www.somaticinkblots.com

SIS JOURNAL OF PROJECTIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND MENTAL HEALTH is a Refereed Journal and published twice a year (January, July) by the SOMATIC INKBLOT SOCIETY and is devoted to the advancement of research in the areas of projective psychology, personality assessment, psychotherapy and mental health. The journal is broadly concerned with the development of inkblot tests and personality assessment in clinical, counseling, cross cultural, organizational and health psychology settings. It aims to reach clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, psychiatrists, social workers, medical professionals and professional managers interested in the understanding and modification of human behavior. The journal includes (a) research articles (b) review articles (c) case reports (d) news about conferences (e) book reviews, and (f) letters to the editor. MANUSCRIPTS PREPARATION& SUBMISSION: Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the format of APA. The manuscript should be prepared only in MS Word. No other formats are acceptable. An MS Word Template for preparing manuscript can be downloaded from the SIS Website.The print version of the manuscript is not considered. The typewritten manuscript in MS Word should be submitted only through email to any one on following Email IDs. 1. Dr. Bankey L. Dubey, Ph. D. Editor Emeritus, Email: bldubey@gmail.com 2. Dr. Naveen Gupta, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief, Email: dr_naveengupta@yahoo.com 3. Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Ph.D. Executive Editor, Email: jain.imhh@gmail.com REVIEW AND EDITING:All submissions to the journal are Peer Reviewed independently before acceptance and publication in the journal. The Editorial Board of SIS Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health have full rights to accept/reject or require a re-submission of submitted manuscripts. Minor additions/ deletions/ changes can also be made in the manuscript at the level of Editors. ETHICS POLICY: It is the responsibility of the authors to ensure that the submitted content is free of all errors. Plagiarism should be checked before submission to the journal and Ethical Clearance must be obtained from appropriate Ethical Clearance Committee. The authors shall remain accountable for any issue arising in this regard. ARTICLE PROCESSING CHARGES: No article processing charges are levied on the authors. However, all authors are encouraged to join life membership of Somatic Inkblot Society. COPYRIGHT OF PUBLICATIONS: All published content become the copyright of the Journal. JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTION: The Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health is delivered to the members of the Somatic Inkblot Society as a membership privilege according to the nature of the membership and opted preference for Print Version or Soft Copy. We encourage the individuals and Institutions to become member of the Somatic Inkblot Society on the prescribed Membership Application Form available in this issue of the Journal or download from SIS Website to receive a copy of the journal. The membership fee should be remitted in following manner: Online Payment Details: Submit Multicity Cheque/DD Name of Account: SIS Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health Account No. 32297525238 Bank: State Bank of India IFS Code: SBIN0032182 Type of Account: Saving Bank Branch Address: SBI, Property No.4, Block-A, Sector-23, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, Payee: SIS Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health Payable at: Delhi Bank: State Bank of India Send on following address by Speed Post/ Registered Post only: Dr. Naveen Gupta, Ph.D., Director, Hindustan Institute of Management and Computer Studies, Farah, Mathura-281122 U.P. (INDIA) Email: dr_naveengupta@yahoo.com, Cell: 91-9627182913 CHANGE OF ADDRESS: Any changes in address should be communicated for updating our records and seamless receipt of the Journal to Prof. B.L.Dubey Email: bldubey@gmail.com SIS Website:http://www.somaticinkblots.com Copyright ©1994.Somatic Inkblot Society, India

Editorial Projective Techniques are not moribund: Comment on the Benson et al. (2019) Assessment Practices Article Historically, projective methods, as a class, have been the target of extensive criticism in the scholarly literature (e.g., Lilienfeld et al., 2000). Although the Rorschach has been the prime target of this barrage of condescending scholarly attacks, reviews of the extant survey-based literature on „Test usage‟ in both practice and doctoral-level training have provided evidence that most of the primary projective tests (the Rorschach, Thematic tests, Drawing techniques) continue to be included in the assessment tool-kit of mental health professionals, including psychologists (Frauenhoffer et al., 1998; Piotrowski, 2015, 2016, 2018). One recent report, in an analysis of published studies over a 30-year time period, found that SCTs continue to be embraced by child clinicians and school psychologists for both educational and mental health assessment purposes (Piotrowski, 2017). Thus, I found the findings reported by Benson et al. (2019) most interesting, but some of their conclusions a bit unfounded. These investigators conducted a survey on assessment practices based on a national sample of practicing school psychologists (most were members of the National Association of School Psychologists(NASP) or nationally-certified school psychologists) and compared survey results to prior assessment surveys of the NASP. The findings indicated that 97% of respondents use broad-band behavior rating scales, 87% use adaptive rating instruments, and 85% focus on evaluations related to academic achievement. Moreover, 30% of professional time in school psychology practice is spent on “writing and formatting reports for individual assessments” (p. 37). These findings, reported by Benson et al., although contrary to the testing practices of prior surveys, are really not that surprising nor unexpected due to emerging trends in the assessment field and developments regarding new testing instruments (perennially introduced by both clinician-researchers and test publishers). What was rather perplexing is the statement by Benson et al. that “Today, few projective tests of any kind are used” (p. 43) by school psychologists. Based on Benson et al.‟s own data (presented in their Table 5): 26% of their sample use Sentence Completion; 11% use the Bender-Gestalt; 16% the House-Tree- Person; 16% the Draw-A-Person; and 15% the Kinetic Family Drawings. Moreover, all these projective tests (PT) ranked among the top 100 testing instruments across a large pool of rating scales, interview formats, academic & achievement tests, adaptive measures, brief mental health scales, and broad-band personality tests. Admittedly, many of these PT were reported to be used only a handful of times each month, but the fact that these PT currently rank among a myriad of popular tests is a testament to their clinical, diagnostic, and academic value in both child and adolescent assessment. Indeed, several projective methods were ranked quite high in all of the 5 earlier assessment NASP surveys cited by Benson et al., and these PT are still among the top 100 tests noted in both Tables 5 and 6.Moreover, projective tests need to vie for attention against a perennial group of newly introduced tests and measures over time. Furthermore, given that there are thousands of tests and measures referenced in the Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook, it appears rather commendable that a number of projective tests make Benson et al.‟s list, after all these decades. In this regard, several studies, not cited by Benson et al., are worthy of mention. First, Kennedy et al. (1994), in a national survey of school psychologists, found that a variety of assessment measures, including some projective tests, were quite popular in

practice. Another recent study, on a sample of 116 NASP members, reported that school psychologists preferred tests with robust psychometric properties, but also the respondents acknowledged using projective tests in practice (see Whitney, 2011). As Benson et al. found that Sentence completion tests(SCT) were reported as the most relied upon projective method by their sample (ranked #52 overall), I would like to focus on this particular assessment measure as a case in point. Although usage of SCT by mental health practitioners has diminished in recent years (Piotrowski, 2017), quite surprisingly, Delphi poll findings point to the general acceptance of SCT in terms of clinical credibility (see Norcross et al., 2006). Moreover, Koonce (2007), in a survey of NASP members, found that 30% relied on SCT (which was ranked 9th) in assessment of ADHD. Since Benson et al. proffered few conclusions, based on their findings, with regard to graduate training in assessment, I would like to shed some light on this issue. Test usage in practice is partly a function of exposure during instruction and supervision (and depth of coverage) in training programs. Undoubtedly, lack of faculty interest in projective methods translates into disinterest in the next generation of school psychologists, despite suggestions noted in the recent literature on promotion of teaching PT in the school psychology curriculum (Dana, 2007; Flanagan & Esquivel, 2006; Hughes et al., 2010). An examination of the recent literature offers some perspective on the status of SCT in professional training settings. To illustrate, Table 1 shows the emphasis on instruction with SCT across several survey-based studies of graduate-level programs, particularly internship sites, in the mental health field. These aggregated findings point to a high degree of acceptance with regard to the clinical utility of SCT by academic faculty and internship training directors. Table 1. Recent Survey Data on SCT use in Graduate-level Professional Training Study Method Findings Neukrug et al. (2013) Based on survey data from 210 counselor educators across the U.S., this study examined graduate-level coverage of assessment instruments by instructors 70% of instructors reported teaching emphasis with the Rotter ISB (ranked 36th); the Forer SCT noted my 27%. Ready et al. (2016)

236 internship directors‟ views on pre-doctoral academic training in testing and assessment SCTs were endorsed by about 25% of these directors; somewhat more emphasized in child clinics (by 40%). Bates (2016) 182 APPIC internship directors‟ views on assessment/testing training practices Compared to other tests, SCTs ranked 14th (endorsed by 23% of directors); SCTs are relied upon in assessment by 44% of interns. Mihura et al. (2017) Assessment/testing training reported by 83 APA clinical psychology programs SCTs were „covered‟, overall, in 47% of programs; more emphasized in practitioner-focused training. Stedman (2018) 355 APA-approved Internship directors Based on type of program (child, adult, mixed), interns‟ usage of SCTs ranged from 18-41%.

With regard to research, a cursory examination of recent scholarship shows that research attention regarding traditional SCT and newly developed Sentence completion measures remains active (e.g., Huang, 2016; McGrath & Carroll, 2012; Weis et al., 2008). In order to gain a perspective on recent research interest with PT, Table 2 displays the volume of scholarship on the top 5 projective assessment methods noted in the Benson et al. study. Table 2. Number of References where these Projective Tests were a Main Focus of Study since 2012 Test Scholarly Articles Dissertations Books Sentence Completion Bender-Gestalt House-Tree-Person Draw-A-Person Kinetic-Family-Drawing I have some departing thoughts on Benson et al.‟s presentation: First, while projective tests were singled-out as „rarely used today‟, there was no mention of „rarely used‟ in reference to symptom-specific measures like the Children‟s Depression Inventory or the Children‟s Manifest Anxiety Scale or broadband psychopathology measures like the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI) or the MMPI-A (all ranked below 60th place in the Benson et al. survey). Second, the statement by Benson et al. that their findings “exemplifies the evidence-based practice movement” (p.46), seems somewhat illfounded and premature. Some of the assessment instruments, including behavior rating scales, that are highly ranked in their Table 5 have not received extensive empirical support, whereas many of the measures not highly ranked have shown solid psychometric credibility (e.g., MMPI-A, MACI, Beck Anxiety Inventory). Perhaps, Benson et al.‟s statement reflects an aspirational tone. Third, Benson et al. found extensive use of technology resources such as software/online services with regard to administration and scoring of tests. In the name of „cost & time‟ efficiency this finding is understandable, but I would caution that reliance on computer-based test interpretations (CBTI) is a separate matter. In fact, published data indicate strong concern by assessment professionals regarding the validity of CBTI reports (Spielberger & Piotrowski, 1990), which may have implications for how school psychologists utilize diagnostic decision-making in report writing (see Wilcox & Schroeder, 2015). In conclusion, based on current evidence in the available literature, the future status of projective methods for assessment purposes may be somewhat limited, but clearly not moribund—not in the specialty of school psychology, nor in practice by mental health professionals (Garb et al., 2002; Peterson et al., 2014).Even the recent APA national survey of professional psychologists finds the Rorschach among the top 10 tests (Wright et al., 2017).That being said, I acknowledge that the reported data in the Benson et al. (2017) study provide a keen perspective on the emerging status and breadth of assessment practices, specific to the field of school psychology. References Bates, S. (2016). Internship directors‟ perspectives on psychological assessment training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University. Benson, N.F., et al. (2019). Test use and assessment practices of school psychologists in the United States: Findings from the 2017 national survey. Journal of School Psychology, 72, 29-48. Dana, R. (2007) Culturally competent school assessment: Performance measures of personality. Psychology in the Schools, 44(3), 229-238. Flanagan, R., & Esquivel, G.B. (2006) Empirical and clinical methods in the assessment of personality and psychopathology: An integrative approach for training. Psychology in the Schools 43(4), 513-526. Frauenhoffer, D., et al. (1998). Psychological test usage among licensed mental health practitioners: A

multidisciplinary survey. Journal of Psychological Practice, 4, 28-33. Garb, H.N., et al. (2002). Effective use of projective techniques in clinical practice: Let the data help with selection and interpretation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 454-463. Huang, C. (2016). The development of Multifunctional Sentence Completion Test. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 47(4), 547-579. Hughes, T.L., et al. (2010). The importance of personality assessment in school psychology training programs. In E. Garcia-Vasquez, T.D. Crespi, & C.A. Riccio (Eds.), Handbook of education, training, and supervision of school psychologists in school and community, Vol. 1: Foundations of professional practice (pp. 185-211). New York: Routledge. Kennedy, M.L., et al. (1994). Social-emotional assessment practices in school psychology. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 228-240. Koonce, D.A. (2007). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessment practices by practicing school psychologists. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25(4), 319-333. Lilienfeld, S.O., et al. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(2), 27-66. McGrath, R.E., & Carroll, E.J. (2012). The current status of “projective tests”. In H. Cooper et al. (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 1: Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics (pp. 329-348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Mihura, J.L., et al. (2017). Psychological assessment training in clinical psychology doctoral programs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(2), 153-164. Neukrug, E., et al. (2013). A national survey of assessment instruments taught by counselor educators. Counselor Education & Supervision, 52, 207-219. Norcross, J.C., et al.(2006). Discredited psychological treatments and tests: A Delphi poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(5), 515-522. Peterson, C.H., et al. (2014). Assessment use by counselors in the United States: Implications for policy and practice. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92, 90-99. Piotrowski, C. (2018). Sentence completion methods: A summary review of 70 survey-based studies of training and professional settings. Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health 25(1), 60-75. Piotrowski, C. (2017). Thematic Apperception Techniques (TAT, CAT) in assessment: A summary review of 67 survey-based studies of training and professional settings. Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 24(1), 11-24. Piotrowski, C. (2016). Drawing techniques in assessment: A summary review of 60 survey-based studies of training and professional settings. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 42(2), 220-236. Piotrowski, C. (2016). Bender-Gestalt Test usage worldwide: A review of 30 practice-based studies. Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 23(2), 73-81. Piotrowski, C. (2015). Projective techniques usage worldwide: A review of applied settings 1995-2015. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 41(3), 9-19. Piotrowski, C. (2015). Clinical instruction on projective techniques in the USA: A review of academic training settings 1995-2014. Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 22(2), 83-92. Ready, R.E., et al. (2016). Psychology internship directors‟ perceptions of pre-internship training preparation in assessment. North American Journal of Psychology, 18(2), 317-334. Spielberger, C.D., & Piotrowski, C. (1990). Clinicians‟ attitudes toward computer-based testing. The Clinical Psychologist, 43(4), 60-64. Stedman, J.M., et al. (2018). Current patterns in personality assessment during internship. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 74(3), 398-406. Weis, R., et al. (2008). Construct validity of the Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank with clinic-referred and non-referred adolescents. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(6), 564-573. Whitney, S.R. (2011). Assessment practices of school psychologists. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York. Wilcox, G., & Schroeder, M. (2015). What comes before report writing? Attending to clinical reasoning and thinking errors in school psychology. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(7), 652-661. Wright, C.V., et al. (2017). Assessment practices of professional psychologists: Results of a national survey. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 48(2), 73-78. Chris Piotrowski, Ph.D. Senior Editor, and Research Consultant, University of West Florida, Email: cpiotrowski@uwf.edu

As assessed by thematic apperceptive techniques (TATs), self-definition and social definition are two personality styles with differing worldviews and sources of individual identity definition. Self-defining individuals view the world in causal terms and prefer internal, personal definitions of self, whereas socially defined individuals see the world as less systematic and accept external social roles ascribed by their social contexts. Most previous research on these styles has studied women‘s life patterns. The current multi-method study extends that literature to men, using a longitudinal sample studied in 1958-60 to 1969-71 from the Guidance and Oakland Growth Studies at the Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley. Self-definition in 1958-60 predicted higher social class 11 years later, along with valuing intrinsic aspects of jobs and having jobs that used their skills, both with social class controlled. Socially defined men valued extrinsic job aspects that accommodated family life. Selfreport and interviewer ratings of marital satisfaction and adjustment were significantly higher for self-defining men than socially defined, but not with social class controlled. Interviewers rated self-defining men‘s morale higher than socially defined, independent of social class. Future research should examine these issues in modern samples having quite different gender role ascriptions. Self-definition and social definition are two personality styles differentiated by an individual‘s resistance to versus acceptance of societal definitions of self and behavior. Self-defining people favor personal, individual definitions when making life choices, whether these choices are consistent with cultural norms for people of their social identity, whereas socially defined individuals accept the given societal definitions and choose accordingly (Stewart, 1992a; Stewart & Winter, 1974). The former act on their personal preferences, whereas the latter are more influenced by social norms and extrinsic pressures (Jenkins, 1996). The two styles are also associated with differing world views. Self-defining people see the world as a rational, orderly place where goal-oriented action is both possible and effective, and socially defined people see the world as a less predictable place and therefore are less likely to consider taking instrumental action (Stewart, 1978, 1980). Stewart and Winter (1974) developed the selfdefinition and social definition system for scoring thematic apperceptive technique stories (TATs) rather than using a self-report scale because this narrative approach is less influenced by social desirability and social norms. Furthermore, since storytelling is not constrained by the structure of a self-report scale, it is more suitable for measuring processes such as personality styles that are sensitive to individuality and the effects of situations (Bornstein, 2011; Jenkins, 2014, 2017a). Since stories are samples of operant thought that reflect the storyteller‘s worldview, the generalizability of these samples to the operant thoughts that guide real-world behavior such as career choice tends to be high (McClelland, 1980; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). Among operant measures, TATs have a long history in both research and clinical practice (Piotrowski, 2017), and recent technical developments are broadening the associated methodological vocabulary (Annotti & Teglasi, 2017; Jenkins 2017b; McClelland et al,1989; Teglasi, 2013). Further research in this area is needed to assist assessment for clinical treatment planning (Bram, 2013).

Most of the previous research on these two personality styles has been conducted on samples of women, including self-defining and socially defined women‘s nontraditional career pursuits (Stewart, 1980; Jenkins, 1996) and life choices (Jenkins, 1996). The present study was designed to examine the generalizability of these findings in men. Self-definition, Social Definition, and Women’s Lives: Stewart (1992a) developed the self-definition-- social definition scoring system in the historical context of the American second wave of feminism to assess a woman‘s general resistance to or acceptance of the restrictive sociocultural role definitions for women at that time. Based on the content of their empirically derived TAT scoring categories, Stewart and Winter (1974) concluded that women favoring each of the two styles appear to perceive and experience the world differently. For the self-defining woman, the world was more logical, and was organized sequentially in terms of causes and effects in which reasons drive events and people‘s actions. This worldview organization allows volitional purpose-driven actions to be effective for the actor. The socially defined women‘s world appeared less causally ordered. This looser organization provides less certain guidance for one‘s actions and less control over outcomes, making the individual more dependent on external influences both concrete (e.g., the weather) and abstract (e.g., fate; Stewart & Winter, 1974). For example, when college women and men were asked to rate their interpersonal problems, the self-defining were higher on problems they could in theory control (being domineering), and the socially defined were higher on problems involving evading external social stressors (socially avoidant; Weber, Vance, Harrison, & Jenkins, 2018). In women, self-definition is associated with relative freedom from restrictive gender-role definitions (Stewart, 1980). Self-defining women tend to be more autonomous in relation to role norms, better able to manage multiple roles, and more likely to engage in instrumental thought and actions. Socially defined women tend to adjust to demands, assimilate to role norms, and be more willing to acknowledge distress (Jenkins, 1996). Jenkins reported that socially defined women were more likely to experience conflict between their work and family roles. While societal changes in regard to women‘s careers since the years when the Jenkins data were gathered have altered the social norms for women‘s roles, a socially defined personal style may still make one more susceptible to role conflict. Stewart (1978) found that compared to socially defined women, those who are more self-defining were more likely to define stress as located outside of themselves and solutions more within themselves. This in turn leads to being more likely to respond with action while not assuming personal responsibility for the problem‘s existence. Jenkins (1996) suggested that these styles represent thought schemas related to actions of agency in self-defining women and actions of response in the socially defined. Selfdefining people may however join or create a social system in which they have structural power that supports their sense of self or provides a support system against larger or more powerful social pressures (Jenkins, 1996). Stewart and Winter (1974) reported that selfdefining women tended to find more pleasure in activities that exercise their personal agency. Socially defined women tended to find more pleasure in activities resulting in a positive mental state (e.g., peaceful). Selfdefining women further reported fear of failing at an instrumental act, as compared to socially defined women fearing being defined as a failure by another person or institution (Stewart & Winter, 1974). There is some evidence that self-definition might be related to upward social class mobility because of its association with pursuit of higher education, which confers greater personal autonomy. For example, in Winter,

Men‘s Life Outcomes 10 Years Later: 79 McClelland, and Stewart‘s (1981) longitudinal study, self-defining women earned more advanced degrees than did their socially defined classmates. Jenkins (1996) found that self-defining women in their senior year of college were more likely to have graduate degrees three years later and more often engaged in nontraditional careers than were their socially defined counterparts. Thus, the picture of these styles that emerges from the literature on women paints the selfdefining women‘s worldview as one that encourages personal autonomy, active problem-solving, and engagement with the world. In contrast, the socially defined women‘s world appears uncertain and potentially stressful, with themselves concerned with others‘ mental states and their own, vulnerable to conflict, and unsure how to respond. Self-definition, Social Definition, and Men: To date, fewer studies have examined the correlates of men‘s self-definition and social definition. However, there is some indication that these two personality styles are also relevant for studying men, especially about their adherence to traditional masculine gender role demands. In the decades when women‘s full-time careers were less common and were considered questionable, men who were self-defining in college were more likely than their socially defined counterparts to have career-involved wives 14 years later, especially if the couple had children (Winter et al., 1981). These findings suggested that selfdefining men may be relatively flexible regarding gender role norms in their family, whereas socially defined men adhered to the traditionally masculine family provider role. In this longitudinal study, self-defining men more often described themselves as ―focused‖ and ―energetic‖ (p. 93) and rated themselves higher on how strongly their college experience had affected them (p. 102) than did their socially defined peers, suggesting that their preference for self-direction does not exclude situational influences, specifically educational ones. Furthermore, Winter et al.‘s (1981) study of long-term outcomes of college related changes in self-definition – social definition over time to college activities that encouraged independence of thought. This included participation in varsity sports for women (which was gender-role transcendent in the 1970s). For men, gender transcendent activities related to greater gains in selfdefinition included majoring in humanities or engaging in voluntary service work, in contrast to activities considered more stereotypically masculine such as majoring in biology or chemistry. Thus, if over time men choose jobs and life situations that encourage autonomy from restrictive role norms, their self-definition might increase. The Present Study: In the post-World War II America of the 1950s and 1960s when our participants were studied, gender roles were clearly differentiated, with post-war masculinity emphasizing a man‘s ability to protect, support, and provide for a family, and femininity manifested in homemaking as a career for women. In this sociocultural context, we conceptualized short-term and longer-term outcomes for our longitudinal study. We found no literature on ‗nontraditional careers‘ for men that would parallel that for women. However, we could examine traditional masculinity in terms of career and family role investments. We expected that the planful instrumentality and pursuit of structural power via higher education associated with women‘s selfdefinition would generalize to men in the shorter term, resulting in higher socioeconomic status over the ensuing ten years relative to socially-defined men. We expected socially defined men to yield more rapidly to the gender-normative responsibilities of marriage and family formation. These circumstances might leverage more practical and immediate career involvement, due to the historical masculine role norm imperatives of the time to support a family. Furthermore, they would likely choose careers that would minimize conflict with

family responsibilities beyond the provider role, choosing less demanding careers that could afford more time for their family at the expense of relatively slower upward social mobility. There is little reason to think that global job satisfaction would differentiate self-defining and socially defined men, but they might attain the same level of satisfaction via different routes. Self-defining men‘s inclination to pursue their personal preferences suggests that they would choose jobs for reasons intrinsic to the work itself, such as interest in the content of the work and using their skills. The long-term pursuit of intrinsic satisfaction at work, along with their presumed agentic instrumentality, should lead them to jobs where they make effective use of their skills. In contrast, socially defined men would be more invested in work as a means to the end of family goals and the role of ‗family man‘, choosing jobs that would not conflict with family priorities, secure jobs that provided a good income whether or not it was the kind of work they would prefer. Paradoxically, given the emphasis in masculine gender role norms on employment and providing for a family, over the longerterm men who attain a higher social class standing earlier in life should eventually be better providers and thus perhaps experience more marital satisfaction and a better marital adjustment, and in turn higher morale, that those who were less upwardly mobile. Thus, if self-defining men indeed attain higher social class status earlier in their lives, they might ultimately have better marriages and higher morale than the socially defined men who prioritized family goals. Thus, we hypothesized that a) a man‘s selfdefinition in the late 1950s would predict his higher social class 10 years later, b) selfdefining men would value intrinsic features of jobs more than socially defined men would, c) socially defined men would prioritize extrinsic job characteristics more than self-defining men would, d) self-defining men‘s instrumental agency at work would manifest in jobs that use their skills, and e) more marital satisfaction and better marital adjustment for self-defining men than socially defined men would follow, along with better morale. Method: Participants: Participants were 101 men of the Guidance (n = 51) and Oakland Growth (n = 50) Studies of normal child development at the Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley. As described by Eichorn (1981), the Guidance Study (GS) began in 1928 with a random community sample of infants. The Oakland Growth Study children were 10-12 years old when that study began in 1931. The age range within each study is about 1.5-2 years, and the two samples differ in age by about 8 years. Although a small number of African American children were included originally, the vast majority were Anglo-American, and individual ethnicity data were not available. Both samples were seen by the research team for extensive multi-day, multi-method assessments at least annually through age 18, then studied again as a combined sample in adulthood approximately every 10-12 years, now known as the Intergenerational Studies. The present sample includes men who told Thematic Apperception Test stories in the first adult wave (Adult I; 1958-1960) when they were in their 30s, and who also completed a comprehensive questionnaire and/or were interviewed about major life areas at the second adult wave (Adult II) in 1969-1971. Due to missing data, the sample sizes vary across analyses. Procedure: During the first wave of the Intergenerational Studies (Adult I), when OGS participants were 36-38 years old and the GS participants were about 29-31, they told stories about six Morgan-Murray Thematic Apperception Test cards (Morgan & Murray, 1935; Murray, 1943). However, the card sets differed; for OGS, cards 1, 2, 3BM, 4, 6BM, and 12F were used, and for GS, 1, 4, 6BM, 7BM, 3GF, and M18 (the last unique to IHD and not in the final Murray set). Thus, to avoid

Men‘s Life Outcomes 10 Years Later: 81 possible error variance due to card pull differences (Authors anonymized, under review; Cramer, 2017; Siefert et al., 2016; Stein et al., 2014), we considered using only scores from the overlapping cards 1, 4, and 6BM. However, this choice would dramatically reduce the validity of the situation sampling by narrowing the range of contexts represented in the stimuli (Jenkins, 2017b). Therefore, scores from all cards for each study were used. The resulting self-definition – social definition scores did not differ between the studies, t(99) = .763, p = .448. Card 1 shows ―A young boy [who] is contemplating a violin which rests on a table in front of him‖ (Murray, 1943, p. 18). Card 2 is a ―country scene: in the foreground is a young woman with books in her hand; in the background a man is working in the fields and an older woman is looking on‖ (Murray, p. 18). In Card 3BM, ―On the floor against a couch is the huddled form of a boy with his head bowed on his right arm. Beside him on the floor is a revolver‖ (Murray, p. 19). Card 3GF presents ―A young woman [who] is standing with downcast head, her face covered with her right hand. Her left arm is stretched forward against a wooden door‖ (Murray, p. 19). Card 4 depicts ―A woman [who] is clutching the shoulders of a man whose face and body are averted as if he were trying to pull away from her‖ (Murray, p. 19). In card 6BM, ―A short elderly woman stands with her back turned to a tall young man. The latter is looking downward with a perplexed expression‖ (Murray, p. 19). Card 7BM has ―A gray-haired man [who] is looking at a younger man who is sullenly staring into space‖ (Murray, p. 19). Card 12F shows ―The portrait of a young woman. A weird old woman with a shawl over her head is grimacing in the background‖ (Murray, p. 20). Card M18 has a man in a dark suit sprawled face down on the covers of a bed. Ten years later (Adult II), 68 men who had also told stories at Adult I completed a selfreport questionnaire that included questions about their career attainment, aspects of their job, and marital satisfaction, and participated in extensive life history and career interviews that included interviewers‘ ratings of job and marriage variables. Measures: Self-definition--social definition at Adult 1 (Stewart, 1992b). The self-definition--social definition score denotes the person‘s location on a continuum from self-defining to socially defined. Positive scores indicate the selfdefining end of the continuum, and negative scores indicate that social definition predominates. Each story is evaluated for the presence or absence of five content categories. Two of these indicate the presence of self-definition. Causality (C, +1) is scored for the explicit use of a word or phrase denoting causation such ‗as‘, ‗because‘, ‗thus‘, or ‗as a result‘. Reason-Action Sequence (RA, +1) is scored when the last temporal element of the story is an instrumental action motivated by a clear reason. Not only must the actor‘s reason for the action be clear but it must be told using the active voice of an active main verb. Three categories indicate the presence of social definition. Uncaused Action (UA, -1) is scored when no action is depicted at all, the last temporal action is irrational, or the actions are described without a reason. Mental State Ending (MSE, -1) is scored when the story concludes with the mental (or emotional) state of a character or a state of being (as opposed to an action). Ineffective Actor (IA, -1) is scored when the actor is unable to act or actions undertaken are futile. It is also scored when the ending is impersonal. The archived stories were scored by expert self-definition scorers who had attained and sustained reliability exceeding rho = .80 with standard practice materials using Stewart‘s (1992b) scoring manual. We thank Suzanne Meterko and Sherrie Dukes Kohack for their scoring. Any scores from the five categories are summed for each card resulting in a percard score ranging from a possible -3 to 2. The sum of the card scores is the participant‘s self-definition score.

Social class at age 40. Participants‘ social class circa age 40 for both studies was determined by the Institute for Human Development‘s sociologists based on Hollingshead‘s (1957) Two-Factor Index of Social Position that combines a weighted education score and weighted occupational score to create five classes. Note that 1 = highest class and 5 = lowest class. Intrinsic and extrinsic job aspects. In the Adult II questionnaire, participants rated several aspects of their current job on a fivepoint scale from 1 = ‗dislike it very much‘ to 5 = ‗like it very much‘, then checked the items in the same list of job characteristics that they considered most important to them. Both lists of items were categorized into intrinsic and extrinsic aspects. Intrinsic aspects of jobs included the job matched their interests, used their skills, provided opportunities for advancement, and let them develop their ideas freely. Extrinsic aspects included convenience for family, amount of leisure time, and security of job. Items were averaged for each scale. Interviewer ratings of job. The Adult II assessment included a comprehensive life interview covering major areas of life. Interviewers completed a series of ratings that included overall job satisfaction rated on a scale from 1 = dissatisfied to 4 = most satisfying activity; and specific aspects of jobs, including the extent to which the job used the individual‘s skills, rated on scale from 1 = no use of skills to 6 = uses skills a great deal. Self-rated marital satisfaction. The Adult II questionnaire included a single item asking participants to rate their satisfaction with their marriage on a scale from 0 = very unhappy to 10 = almost perfect. Interviewer ratings of marriage and morale. Among the interviewer‘s ratings was one item on marital adjustment based on the entirety of the participant‘s discussion of his marriage, which was rated on scale from 1 = extreme conflict to 5 = exceptionally happy. A second global rating of morale based on the entire interview was rated on a scale from 1 = poor to 7 = good. Results: Descriptive Statistics: Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. The GS and OGS means and SD did not differ for any variable. Table 1.Descriptive Statistics and Correlations with Self and Social Definition Measure M SD r Partial ra Self-definition-social definition Adult I -5.15 3.01 -- -- Hollingshead social class ~age 40 b 2.30 .99 - .26** -- Job satisfaction Adult II c 2.56 .78 .16 .15 Intrinsic job aspects - likes Adult II d 4.06 .74 .03 .00 Extrinsic job aspects - likes Adult II d 3.85 .93 .03 .07 Intrinsic job aspects - important Adult II e .37 .23 .37** .34** Extrinsic job aspects - important Adult II e .16 .26 -.26* -.17 Job uses skills Adult II f 5.49 1.11 .24* .20+ Worker is effective on job g 5.71 .94 .26* .18 Marital satisfaction Adult II h 7.16 1.67 .23+ .18 Marital adjustment Adult II i 3.39 .97 .26* .16 Morale Adult II j 4.71 1.28 .30** .27* + p< .10. * p< .05. ** p< .01. a Controlling for social class. b Weighted combination of education and occupational status; lower score is higher class. c Interviewer rated on scale from 1 = dissatisfied to 4 = most satisfying activity. d Self-rated on a 5 point scale from 1 = dislike very much to 5 = like very much. e Selfreport: 0 = item checked, 1 = item not checked. f Interviewer rated on scale from 1 = no use of skills to 6 = uses skills a great deal. g Interviewer rated on scale from 1 = worker is ineffective to 6 = worker is highly effective. h Self-rated on scale from 0 = very unhappy to 10 = almost perfect. i Interviewer rated on scale from 1 = extreme conflict to 5 = exceptionally happy. j Interviewer rated on scale from 1 = poor to 7 = good. Hypothesis Tests: As shown in Table 1, correlational analyses indicated that by the Adult II assessment, selfdefining men had attained higher social class status than socially defined men 10 years

Men‘s Life Outcomes 10 Years Later: 83 after they told stories, r(95) = -.26, p = .01. Although self-definition was unrelated to job satisfaction in general or to differential liking for intrinsic or extrinsic aspects of their job, self-defining men were significantly more likely than socially defined men to identify intrinsic aspects of their job as important to them, both before, r(65) = .37, p = .002, and after social class was controlled, partial r(64) = .34, p = .006. Conversely, socially defined men valued extrinsic aspects of jobs more than did self-defining men, r(69) = -.26, p = .031, but partialling social class dropped this association below significance, r(68) = -.17, p = .145. Regarding interviewer‘s ratings of job characteristics, self-defining men‘s jobs made more use of the men‘s skills than did socially defined men‘s, r(69) = .24, p = .039, and selfdefining men were rated as more effective on the job than were their socially defined counterparts, r(69) = .26, p = .031. The former was only partly explained by social class, partial r(68) = .20, p = .096, but job effectiveness became nonsignificant when social class was controlled, partial r(68) = .18, p = .131. In the domain of marriage, married men who were self-defining rated their marital satisfaction marginally higher 11 years later on the Adult II questionnaire compared with the socially defined men, r(60) = .23, p = .076, and the interviewers concurred in rating them higher in marital adjustment, r(69) = .26, p = .03. However, both ratings were notably correlated with social class, r(69) = -.20, p = .127, and r(69) = -.33, p = .004, respectively, so the original findings became nonsignificant with control. The interviewers also rated the self-defining men‘s morale higher than for the socially defined men, r(69) = .30, p = .01, which remained significant with social class controlled, r(68) = .27, p = .024. Exploratory Analyses: Given the important role of social class as an apparent mediator of many of the longitudinal associations between self-definition and life outcomes, we explored the possibility of intrinsic job values as a second mediator through a series of bivariate analyses. Unfortunately, missing data across methods would render tests of mediation models potentially misleading. Although the correlation of social class with intrinsic job values was not significant, r(58) = -.20, p = .12, this small to medium effect size could be sufficient to explain bivariate associations of job values with other job variables. Intrinsic job values were related significantly to interviewer-rated job satisfaction, r(56) = .30, p = .023; job‘s use of skills, r(58) = .28, p = .033; and marginally to morale, r(58) = .22, p = .089, but not marital satisfaction or adjustment. Controlling for social class did not materially affect the association between intrinsic job values and job satisfaction, r(55) = .28, p = .035, or job‘s use of skills, r(57) = .25, p = .055, but the other associations were nonsignificant when so controlled. Discussion: These findings support the previous research distinguishing self-defining and socially defined personality styles, extending the knowledge base about personality influences on women‘s careers and family outcomes to men. The results highlight the importance of social class as a covariate in studies of associations between personality style and men‘s life outcomes. In these longitudinal analyses, self-definition–social definition might be related to men‘s career and marriage outcomes 11 years later largely because being self-defining contributes over time to both men‘s upward social mobility and their valuing of intrinsic aspects of their job. Thus, these men first pursued higher education, as did self-defining women (Jenkins, 1996; Winter et al., 1981), then situated themselves in upwardly mobile career positions that provided resources for the kind of socialstructural power that could sustain autonomous action and an individuated personal identity, as Jenkins (1996) found for self-defining women.

Perhaps self-defining men selectively pursued higher education and the higher-class occupations not only since these professional and managerial careers allow them to define the particulars of their own work situation but because they allow enactment of one‘s own self-definition. However, self-defining men‘s valuing of intrinsic aspects of jobs was explained only partially by social class, even though managerial and professional jobs tend to provide the autonomy and advancement opportunities that constitute half of the intrinsic job aspects index. The other two items, involving the man‘s interest in the work and its use of his skills, address directly the self-defining person‘s valuing of their personal preferences over extrinsic role demands. Given the 10-year span between the personality measurement and the social class and job assessment, these findings are consistent with sociological theories of the psychological impact of occupational selfdirection (e.g., Kohn &Schooler, 1978). More self-defining men entered higher status careers that provide the conditions for independence of thought that Winter et al. (1981) found related to increased selfdefinition over time. Socially defined men‘s valuing of extrinsic aspects of their job, specifically convenience for the family, available leisure time, and job security, suggests that whether or not they married earlier than self-defining men, family concerns rather than higher education took precedence in their job choice priorities, consistent with masculine role demands of the time. This is generally consistent with the practical nature of the extrinsic job aspects, i.e., their utility for fulfilling traditional masculine role demands regarding supporting and providing for a family. In the long run this choice may have slowed their upward social mobility by not preparing them for career advancement. Our findings suggest that somewhat ironically, this life path led them to slightly less satisfying and well-adjusted marriages (partly explained by their lower social class standing) and lower morale than that enjoyed by self-defining men. Their marriage and morale outcomes are consistent with Weber et al.‘s (2018) report that socially defined people experience problems with social avoidance, which, if combined with a sensitivity to role conflict as Jenkins (1996) found for socially defined women, would be a challenging combination in a marriage. It is paradoxical that in the long run, due to their higher social class standing, self-defining men were better able to fulfill the financially related facets of the ‗family man‘ role than were the socially defined men who emphasized family-friendly aspects of jobs. These findings should not be interpreted to mean that self-defining men valued family commitments less than job commitments, or less that socially defined men did. Neither group reported more job satisfaction or less family involvement overall. This study has several particular strengths. Longitudinal community-based samples are relatively unusual in the career development literature, especially when looking at the role of personality style and midlife outcomes. Thus, our findings are more likely to generalize widely compared to college student samples. The implicit measurement of selfdefinition – social definition from TAT stories is not biased by participants‘ impression management efforts or social desirability. As a multi-method study, the variety of measurement tools—TAT narrative analysis, self-reports, interviewer ratings—ensures that correlations are not inflated by shared artifacts of measurement method, as is common in studies using only self-report rating scales. The study also has limitations that especially affect its generalizability. Most obviously, the considerable historical change in American gender and family roles in the past 50 years might yield quite different findings in the present day (Stewart & Healy, 1989). A technical limitation is the difference between GS and OGS in picture stimuli used to measure self-definition – social definition, with only three of the six cards given in common between the two studies. Nevertheless, this narrative style scoring system appears robust

Men‘s Life Outcomes 10 Years Later: 85 to these picture differences, with no notable difference in mean self-definition scores between the two, which would not be expected for content-based scoring systems (Jenkins, 2017; Smith, Feld, & Franz, 1992). Also, since this report is a secondary analysis of previously collected data, variables for analysis had to be chosen from among those available, limiting the research questions that could be addressed. Future research in this area should include cards designed to sample work-related situations to better generalize findings to similar situations (Jenkins, 2017b). Such pictures are few in the Murray (1943) picture set. Measuring self-definition – social definition at two longitudinal time points in relation to the person‘s job conditions over time would allow examination of both the effect of personality on career outcomes and the effect of job conditions on personality (Kohn & Schooler, 1978, 1982). Finally, given the role of gender role norms in the 1950s and 60s, comparable modern-day studies that consider historical changes in cultural norms and values are a high priority. References: Annotti, L. A., & Teglasi, H. (2017). Functioning in the real world: Using storytelling to improve validity in the assessment of executive functions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(3), 254-264. doi:10.1080/00223891.2016.1205075 Bram, A. D. (2013). Psychological testing and treatment implications: We can say more. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(4), 319-331. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2012.736907 Bornstein, R. F. (2011). Toward a process-focused model of test score validity: Improving psychological assessment in science and practice. Psychological Assessment, 23(2), 532-544. doi:10.1037/a0022402 Cramer, P. (2017). Defense mechanism card pull in TAT stories. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(1), 15-24. doi:10.1080/00223891.2016.1207080 Eichorn, D. H. (1981). Samples and procedure. In D. H. Eichorn, J. A. Clausen, N. Haan, M. P. Honzik, & P. H. Mussen (Eds.), Present and past in middle life (pp. 33-51). New York: Academic Press. Hollingshead, A. B. (1957). Two factor index of social position. Yale University Press, New Haven. Jenkins, S. R. (1996). Self-definition in thought action, and life path choices. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(1), 99-111. Jenkins, S. R. (2014). Thematic apperceptive techniques inform a science of individuality. Rorschachiana, 35, 92-102. doi: 10.1027/1192-5604/a000065 Jenkins, S. R. (2017a). The narrative arc of TATs: Introduction to the JPA special section on thematic apperceptive techniques. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99, 225-237. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2016.1244066 Jenkins, S. R. (2017b). Not your same old story: New rules for thematic apperceptive techniques (TATs). Journal of Personality Assessment, 99, 238-253. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2016.1248972 Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The reciprocal effects of the substantive complexity of work and intellectual flexibility: A longitudinal assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 84(1), 24-52. doi:10.1086/226739 Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1982). Job conditions and personality: A longitudinal assessment of their reciprocal effects. American Journal of Sociology, 87(6), 1257-1286. doi:10.1086/227593 McClelland, D. C. (1980). Motive dispositions: The merits of operant and respondent measures. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 1, pp.10-41). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6), 737-743. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.6.737 McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96(4), 690. Morgan, C. D., & Murray, H. A. (1935). A method for investigating fantasies: The Thematic Apperception Test. Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry, 34, 289-306. Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic Apperception Test manual. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Piotrowski, C. (2017). Thematic apperception techniques (TAT, CAT) in assessment: A summary review of survey-based studies of training and professional settings. Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 24(1), 3-17.

Siefert, C. J., Stein, M. B., Slavin-Mulford, J., Sinclair, S. J., Haggerty, G., &Blais, M. A. (2016). Estimating the effects of Thematic Apperception Test card content on SCORS–G ratings: Replication with a nonclinical sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(6), 598-607. doi:10.1080/00223891.2016.1167696 Smith, C. P., Feld, S. C., & Franz, C. E. (1992). Methodological considerations: Steps in research employing content analysis systems. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (Ch. 37). New York: Cambridge University Press. Stein, M. B., Slavin-Mulford, J., Siefert, C. J., Sinclair, S. J., Renna, M., Malone, J., Bello, I., &Blais, M. A. (2014). SCORS-G stimulus characteristics of select Thematic Apperception Test cards. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 339-349. Stewart, A. J. (1978). A longitudinal study of coping styles in self-defining and socially defined women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(5), 1079. Stewart, A. J. (1980). Personality and situation in the prediction of women‘s life patterns. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5(2), 195-206. Stewart, A. J. (1992a). Self-definition and social definition: Personal styles reflected in narrative style. Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 481-488). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stewart, A.J. (1992b). Revised scoring manual for selfdefinition and social definition. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analyses (pp. 489-499). New York: Cambridge University Press. Stewart, A. J., & Healy, J. M. (1989). Linking individual development and social changes. American Psychologist, 44(1), 30-42. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.1.30 Stewart, A. J., & Winter, D. G. (1974). Self‐definition and social definition in women. Journal of Personality, 42(2), 238-259. Streiner, D. L. (2003). Being inconsistent about consistency: When coefficient alpha does and doesn‘t matter. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 217–222. Teglasi, H. (2013). The scientific status of projective techniques as performance measures of personality. In D. H. Saklofske, C. R. Reynolds, & V. L. Schwean (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of child psychological assessment (pp. 113–128). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Weber, K. M., Vance, J., Harrison, A., & Jenkins, S. R. (2018). Implicitly measured self-definition and social definition relate to self-reported interpersonal problems circumplex scales. Journal of Projective Psychology& Mental Health, 25, 92-101. Winter, D. G., McClelland, D. C., & Stewart, A. J. (1981). A new case for the liberal arts. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Winter, D. G., Stewart, A. J., & McClelland, D. C. (1977). Husband's motives and wife's career level. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(3), 159. SIS Abstracts Download The soft copies of the abstracts of published papers of all issues in SIS Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health commencing from Volume 1 (Launching year 1994) to the current year can be downloaded free of cost from the website of Somatic Inkblot Society on following URL: SIS Abstracts: http://somaticinkblots.com/abstracts/ Copyright ©1994. SIS Center, India

containing two measures of gambling addiction and two measures of celebrity addiction were administered to 182 adult participants from the United States recruited through Mechanical Turk to determine the nature of the relationships among these scales. As expected, the gambling measures correlated positively with each other and the measures of addiction to celebrities correlated positively with each other. As hypothesized, both gambling measures correlated positively with both measures of addiction to celebrities. The authors discussed possible causes for the latter finding. These findings imply that persons who are addicted to gambling may be susceptible to other addictions, specifically an addiction to celebrities. Furthermore, these two types of addictions share several attitudes and behaviors. Gambling Addiction: Excessive gambling is a serious social problem that is linked to criminal behavior (Frank, Lester, & Wexler, 1991; Reith, 2006) as well as to poor occupational (Ladouceur, Boisvert, Pepin, Loranger, & Sylvain, 1994), family, and social relationships (Affifi, et al, 2010; Jacobs, et al, 1989; Kweitel & Allen, 2000; Lorenz & Jaffee, 1988). It is estimated that more than 17% of all gamblers recognize that gambling has had a negative impact on their lives (Australian Productivity Commission, 2010). Several studies have attempted to determine whether personality traits are related to pathological gambling, with impulsivity having been found to be significantly linked (Hodgins & Holub, 2015). Krueger, et al, (2005) monitored males before, during, and after a gambling session in a casino. Those reporting high impulsivity had higher heart-rate levels than those reporting low impulsivity, and they found a positive relationship between impulsivity scores and the severity of addictive gambling. Hodgins and Holub (2015) examined the structure of impulsivity using principal component analysis, the result of which was a two-factor solution. The first factor, trait impulsivity, correlated with problem gambling severity, while the second factor, sensation-seeking, was correlated with gambling involvement but not gambling disorder. Hodgins and Holub cite seven other studies that found a positive relationship between impulsivity and gambling disorder in clinical populations, three studies that found a positive relationship in non-clinical populations, and three studies that failed to find a significant relationship. More importantly, these authors cited three studies of impulsivity in children that successfully predicted gambling addiction in young adults, strongly suggesting that impulsivity is a causative factor rather than an effect. Data from a large sample of pathological gamblers in the United States revealed that 49.6% suffered from mood disorder (Petry, et al, 2005). A meta-analysis of 11 high quality studies of problem and pathological gamblers showed that 37.9 % were comorbid for mood disorders (Lorains, et al, 2011). Using the Gambling Urge Scale (GUS), Raylu and Oei (2004) found significant correlations between GUS scores and measures of both anxiety and depression. More recently, Smith, et al, (2013) found that GUS scores were positively correlated with scores on a depression measure. Particularly noteworthy is a study of problem and pathological gamblers conducted by Chou and Affifi (2011) with a large representative U.S. sample. Interviews were conducted with these individuals in 2000- 2001, and again three or four years later. Controlling for a variety of relevant variables,

problem gambling was still found to be significantly predictive of mood disorders. The same four studies cited above also found that problem and pathological gambling were linked to anxiety disorders. For example, Lorains et al. (2011) found that anxiety disorders were comorbid (37.4%) with disordered gambling, whereas Petry et al. (2005) found a slightly higher (41.3%) comorbidity rate. More recent studies have confirmed significant links between problem gambling, anxiety, and depression (Barrault, et al, 2017; Cartmill, et al, 2015; Jouregui, et al, 2017; Moreau, et al, 2016; Welte, et al, 2017), as well as a link between problem gambling and impulsivity (Brown, et al, 2016; Moreau et al., 2016). There is also some evidence that pathological gamblers lack coping ability (Jouregui et al., 2017). Increased odds of dating violence, severe marital violence and severe child abuse have also been linked to problematic gambling behavior in one study (Affifi et al., 2010). The problems noted in these prior studies would seem to suggest an inability to effectively deal with the issues caused by excessive gambling. Thus, excessive gambling appears to be strongly related to impulsive behavior, mood and anxiety disorders, and the inability to cope with stress. Celebrity Addiction: A celebrity can be described as any living person who is famous for virtually any reason. The Celebrity Attitude Scale was developed to measure the strength of one‟s attraction to a favorite celebrity (CAS; McCutcheon, Lange, & Houran, 2002). Numerous studies based on the Celebrity Attitude Scale (Maltby, et al, 2002; Maltby, et al, 2001; McCutcheon, et al, 2004; McCutcheon, et al, 2014; McCutcheon et al., 2002) suggest that there are three increasingly more extreme sets of attitudes and behaviors associated with celebrity worship. Low levels of celebrity worship are believed to be non-addictive and have generally been shown to be benign (Maltby, et al, 2011). The second level, labeled Intensepersonal, reflects individuals‟ compulsive feelings about the celebrity. The most extreme expression of celebrity worship is labeled Borderline-pathological. This third level is believed to reflect an individual‟s borderline pathological attitudes and behaviors toward a favorite celebrity. It is the second and third levels that have been shown to be most likely to be linked to problematic behavior (Maltby, et al, 2004; Maltby, Houran, & McCutcheon, 2003; McCutcheon, et al, 2014). McCutcheon et al. (2002) offered an “Absorption-Addiction” theoretical model to explain celebrity worship. According to this model, most persons who form a strong attachment to a favorite celebrity do so primarily for entertainment and to strengthen social bonds with like-minded friends (level one). However, a weak identity in some individuals facilitates psychological absorption with a celebrity in an attempt to strengthen identity and a sense of fulfillment. That is to say that a few persons move from level one to level two. The absorption can take on an addictive component in some persons, leading to more extreme behaviors to sustain the individual‟s satisfaction with one‟s favorite celebrity (level three). Evidence in support of this model can be found in studies showing that level one is usually associated with attitudes and behaviors that are considered social or “normal,” whereas less desirable attitudes and behaviors are linked to levels two and three. Further evidence stems from a study in which the highest CAS subscale scores were obtained on level one, followed by level two, then level three, as the theoretical model predicts (see Vega et al., 2013). Celebrity addiction appears to have similar links with problematic behaviors as does addictive gambling. Some of the same personality traits linked with addictive gambling, such as impulsivity, depression, anxiety, and poor coping ability, seem to be present in celebrity worshipers. Maltby et al. (2011) found that scores on the two problematic levels of the CAS correlated

significantly with the Big Five measure of Neuroticism and each of its facets, including impulsivity, anxiety, and depression. McCutcheon and his colleagues found that impulsiveness correlated significantly with the most addictive (Borderline-pathological) of the three levels of celebrity attraction (McCutcheon et al., 2014). The results highlighted the tendency to focus on the present (rather than the future) also characterized those who scored high on the Borderline-pathological level, a possible indication of a lessened ability to cope. McCutcheon, Aruguete, McCarley, and Jenkins (2016) found that persons who scored high on the two problematic subscales of the CAS (but not the level-one subscale) also tended to endorse threatening attitudes and behaviors directed toward celebrities. Martin, et.al, (2003) found that the two problematic levels of celebrity worship were associated with cognitive inflexibility, another possible indicator of coping inability. A follow-up study confirmed the original findings, but only for the Intense-personal level (Maltby, et.al, 2004). Maltby et al. (2001) found that measures of depression and anxiety were both correlated with scores on the Intense-personal level of celebrity admiration. Furthermore, they argued that these results might have stemmed from failed attempts to cope with stress. A study in which coping styles were compared with CAS scores found that participants who scored high on the Intensepersonal level tended to use denial and mental disengagement as coping strategies, and those who scored high on the Borderlinepathological level gravitated to the use alcohol and drugs (Maltby, et al., 2004). The primary purpose of the current research was to determine if excessive attraction to gambling is related to excessive admiration for celebrities. The results may be useful and informative for therapists who treat gambling addiction since personality traits underlying excessive gambling seem to be shared with other types of addictive behaviors. In keeping with the literature reviewed above, the authors predicted that two measures of problem gambling will correlate positively with each other, and with two measures of addiction related to celebrities. In addition, the two measures of addiction to celebrities are expected to correlate positively with each other. Method: Participants: Of our initial sample of 210 participants, 28 were removed due to not meeting our validity checks (see “Validity Checks” below for a complete explanation). All statistics are based on the remaining sample of 182. The participants consisted of 69 (37.9%) females and 113 (62.1%) males who were United States citizens between the ages of 21 and 70. Their mean age was 34.81 (SD = 10.34). Potential respondents were asked not to participate if they never gambled. Self-reported Whites (n = 137, 75.3%) outnumbered Blacks (n = 12, 6.6%), Asians (n =19, 10.4%) and “Others” (“Others” = American Indian/Alaskan Native, Other or unknown, and Multiracial; n =14, 7.7%). Measures: Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). The PGSI is a nine-item scale consisting of questions such as “Have you borrowed money or sold anything to get money to gamble?” and “Have you felt that you might have a problem with gambling?” This index was intended for use with the general public, unlike an older scale that was used with clinical populations (Holtgraves, 2009). The response format is a 4-point scale with “Never” equal to 0 and “Almost always” equal to 3. High scores indicate the presence of problem gambling. The PGSI has shown adequate temporal stability over a 14-month interval, and adequate validity (Currie, Hodgins, & Casey, 2013; Holtgraves, 2009). For example, the amount spent on gambling per month and the number of gambling games played in the past year increased as PGSI scores increased (Currie et al., 2013). Previous research has yielded a Cronbach alpha of .77 with a Chinese version of the

PGSI (Loo, Oei, & Raylu, 2010). Cronbach alpha in the present study was .92. Gambling Urge Scale (GUS). The GUS is a six-item scale containing such items as “All I want to do now is gamble,” and “I want to gamble so bad that I can almost feel it.” The GUS correlates significantly with other measures of problem gambling (Raylu & Oei, 2004), and can be used to assess gambling urges among non-clinical persons (Smith et al., 2013). Responses to all six items are measured on a Likert scale with a range from 1 to 7, and 6 to 42 for the Total scale. High scores indicate a strong urge to gamble. The scale has shown high internal consistency (.93, Raylu & Oei, 2004; .93, Smith et al., 2013) and acceptable validity (Smith et al., 2013). Cronbach alpha in the present study was .96. Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS). The 23-item version of the CAS has been shown to have adequate psychometric properties over the course of several studies (Ashe & McCutcheon, 2001; Maltby et al., 2002; Maltby & McCutcheon, 2001; McCutcheon et al., 2002; Wong, Goodboy, Murtagh, Hackney, & McCutcheon, 2010). Participants are asked to choose their favorite celebrity and identify why that celebrity is considered famous from a list of 14 categories (acting, science, religion, music, politics, sports, etc.). The response format for the CAS is a 5-point scale with anchor points being “strongly agree” equal to 5 and “strongly disagree” equal to 1. High scores indicate a strong attraction to one‟s favorite celebrity. Across several studies total scale Cronbach alphas ranged from .84 to .94 (McCutcheon et al., 2004). Cronbach alpha in the present study was .95 (n = 172). The CAS consists of three subscales. Entertainment-social (ES; alpha = .86) is reflected in agreement with items like “My friends and I like to discuss what my favorite celebrity has done.” A second level of celebrity worship is characterized by more Intense-personal (IP; alpha = .92) feelings, defined by items like “I have frequent thoughts about my favorite celebrity, even when I don‟t want to.” The third level, labeled Borderlinepathological (BP; alpha = .72), is shown in items like: “If I were lucky enough to meet my favorite celebrity, and he/she asked me to do something illegal as a favor I would probably do it.” The second measure of attitudes toward celebrities is the single item “How would you rate your interest in celebrities generally?” (HWRICG), with “very weak interest” equal to one, and “very strong interest” equal to 7. This item has been used several times with the CAS and has been found to correlate positively with the CAS. The mean of correlation coefficients from five studies describing the link between total CAS scores and scores on this item is .404 (McCutcheon et al., 2004). A more recent study found that total CAS scores correlated .40 and .43, respectively, with HWRICG scores (McCutcheon & Richman, 2016). Validity Checks To minimize the likelihood of persons who were not really gamblers contaminating the current data analysis in order to claim the 50-cent reward, validity checks were inserted in two scales. Two nonscored items (numbered 7 & 8) added to the GUS were nearly mirror opposites of existing GUS items. For example, Item six reads “I crave a gamble right now,” and item seven reads “I have no urge to gamble right now.” If respondents agreed with both items six and seven (by responding with either a 5, 6, or 7), and also agreed with items two and eight (by responding with either a 5, 6, or 7), we assumed they were not responding thoughtfully to the GUS (likewise regarding response options of 1, 2, and 3)and we deleted them from the data analysis (20 were dropped). Similarly, on the PGSI, we added two non-scored items (numbered 10 & 11) which were almost exactly the same as existing PGSI items. For example, item six, “Has gambling caused you any health problems, including stress or anxiety?” means essentially the same thing as item 11, “How often has gambling caused you any health problems, including stress or anxiety?” Item

ten means essentially the same thing as item eight. If respondents disagreed on items six and eleven (by responding 0 or 1 on one item & 2 or 3 on the other), and also disagreed on items ten and eight (by responding 0 or 1 on one item & 2 or 3 on the other), we assumed they were not responding thoughtfully to the PGSI and we deleted them from the data analysis (3 were dropped). We also looked at the total time spent on the entire survey. We believe that it would be virtually impossible for respondents to meaningfully or thoughtfully complete the entire survey in less than 90 seconds, so five respondents were deleted for that reason. The total number of respondents that were deleted as a result of failing validity checks was 28 (23 from the GUS and PGSI checks and 5 more from the time check). Procedure: Participants were recruited through Amazon‟s Mechanical Turk, a method that has been shown to be valid (Bates & Lanza, 2013).Participants had the option of withdrawing from the study at any time. The authors created an online survey with several different orders of presentation of the four measures to reduce the probability of a systematic order effect. Then, participants were provided with a URL link to the survey titled, “Gambling and Other Behaviors.” Participants read that they were taking part in two separate studies, one on attitudes toward celebrities and one on their views about gambling. Participation was restricted to United States citizens between the ages of 21 and 70, and non-gamblers were asked not to participate. After providing informed consent, participants completed the four measures described above in counterbalanced order along with basic demographic questions (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity). Finally, participants were compensated cents for their participation through Mechanical Turk. Data Analysis: The data were analyzed using SPSS by first computing means, standard deviations, and range of scores for each of the measures used in the study. Pearson correlations were then computed to determine the relationships between these measures. Finally, several multiple regressions using the celebrity measures as the dependent variables and the gambling measures as independent variables to gain greater insight into celebrity-gambling relationships were performed. Results: The means, standard deviations, and possible range of scores are shown in Table 1. The authors predicted that the two measures of problem gambling would correlate positively with each other. Scores on the GUS did correlate significantly with scores on the PGSI (r = .71, p <.01), as shown in Table 2, confirming that prediction. We also hypothesized and found that the two measures of celebrity admiration, CAS Total and HWRICG, correlated significantly (r = .42, p<.01). Finally, we predicted that both problem gambling measures would correlate positively with both measures of celebrity admiration. Indeed, the GUS correlated positively with CAS Total (r = .39, p<.01) and HWRICG, (r = .22, p<.01). Furthermore, the PGSI correlated with CAS Total (r = .34, p<.01), and with HWRICG (r = .16, p =.04). Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges for the Scales Used (N = 182). Mean Standard Deviation Range CAS ES 30.68 8.36 10-50 CAS IP 19.59 8.41 9-45 CAS BP 10.57 3.69 4-20 CAS Total 60.80 18.89 23-115 HWRICG 4.24 1.58 1-7 GUS 16.57 10.01 6-42 PGSI 14.29 5.52 0-27

Table 2. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Among Scales Used in the Sample. 1. CAS ES --- .73 .77 .92 .35 .24 .19 2. CAS IP --- .81 .93 .45 .50 .43 3. CAS BP --- .90 .40 .41 .37 4. CAS Total --- .42 .39 .34 5. HWRICG --- .22 .16 6. GUS --- .71 7. PGSI --- (ns = 166-182) Note: All correlations are significant at the p<.01 level except .16, where p = .037. Several multiple regressions using the celebrity measures as the dependent variables and including gender, age, and race as independent variables along with the gambling measures to more rigorously assess the celebrity-gambling relationships were performed. With HWRICG as the dependent variable, the adjusted R2 was .06. With CAS ES as the dependent variable, the adjusted R2 was .13; with CAS BP as dependent variable the adjusted R2 was .26; with CAS Total as dependent variable, the adjusted R2 was .28. We obtained the highest predictive power with CAS IP as dependent variable, with an adjusted R2 of .39 (see Table 3). GUS was associated in a statistically significant manner with each of the measures of celebrity worship, while the PGSI was a statistically significant predictor of only the CAS IP scale. Age and gender were unrelated to celebrity worship, whereas race was an inconsistent predictor. Despite a strong correlation between our two gambling predictors, GUS and PGSI (.71), multicollinearity did not appear to be an issue, as VIF values were below the conservative 2.5 threshold (VIF for GUS = 2.03 and VIF for PSGI = 2.13). Table 3. Regression analyses with celebrity measures as dependent variables. Dependent Variable CAS Total B (p) CAS ES B (p) CAS IP B (p) CAS BP B (p) HWRICG B (p) IVs Constant 45.82 (.01) 27.03 (.01) 12.08 (.01) 7.20 (.01) 4.19 (.01) GUS .81 (.01) .30 (.01) .41 (.01) .15 (.01) .04 (.03) PGSI .43 (.17) .01 (.95) .29 (.02) .10 (.09) -.01 (.87) Gender .26 (.92) .20 (.88) -.02 (.99) .09 (.87) .34 (.16) Age -.02 (.89) -.02 (.72) -.02 (.77) -.01 (.80) -.01 (.25) Race -5.06 (.08) -1.40 (.29) -2.72 (.02) -.40 (.47) -.62 (.03) Adj R2 .28 .13 .39 .26 .06 Discussion: The main purpose of the present study was to determine if a positive relationship exists between addiction to gambling and addiction to celebrities. Perhaps the most profound result is that both gambling measures correlated positively with both measures of celebrity admiration, which supports speculation about the possible causation underlying these significant relationships. The authors also expected and found that the two gambling addiction measures correlated positively with each other as reported in previous research (Raylu & Oei, 2004; Smith et al., 2013). Likewise, the authors

hypothesized and found that the two measures of celebrity admiration correlated positively as reported in previous studies (McCutcheon et al., 2004; McCutcheon & Richman, 2016). One possible explanation for the link between gambling addiction and celebrity addiction is that certain shared personality traits predispose persons to become behaviorally addicted to gambling, celebrities, or both. As noted earlier, some of the same personality traits linked with addictive gambling (i.e., impulsivity, depression, anxiety, and poor coping ability) seem to be present in celebrity worshipers (Maltby et al., 2001, 2011; McCutcheon et al., 2014). There is some evidence for a brain pathway for drug addiction that is shared with gambling addiction and other addictions (Tamminga & Nestler, 2006). Thus, therapeutic drugs used to treat one addiction may be efficacious in the treatment of pathological gambling (Tamminga & Nestler, 2006); and, based on our findings, addiction to celebrities as well. While drug treatment for addiction to celebrities may seem far-fetched, we note that persons who score high on the CAS tend to approve of celebrity stalking (McCutcheon, Aruguete, McCarley, & Jenkins, 2016; McCutcheon, Scott, Jr., Aruguete, & Parker; 2006), an activity that can have criminal consequences. The authors also wanted to demonstrate that the obtained scores were similar to scores obtained previously with the same measures, thus bolstering confidence in the current findings. Scores on the measures of celebrity admiration proved to be similar to scores obtained in previous research. For example, means, standard deviations, and Cronbach alphas that we obtained on the CAS and its subscales were all similar to numbers obtained in previous research (McCutcheon et al., 2004), and the correlation between CAS Total and HWRICG that we obtained (.42) is nearly identical to the values of .40 and .43 obtained by McCutcheon and Richman (2016). Previous studies of the percentages of favorite celebrities chosen from each of the 14 categories typically show that acting, music, and sports, in that order, account for 80 % or more of the choices (McCutcheon et al., 2004; McCutcheon & Richman, 2016). In the present study, we replicated that order and obtained a percentage of 89. Furthermore, scores on our measures of gambling addiction also proved to be similar to scores obtained in previous research. For example, the mean score we obtained on the PGSI (14.29) was similar to the mean of 8 PGSI mean scores (16.23) derived from a meta-analysis conducted by Callan, Shead, and Olson (2015), and our GUS mean (16.57) was similar to that (14.99) obtained by Raylu and Oei (2004). Collectively, all these comparisons suggest that most of our participants took the survey seriously, with good intentions. One limitation of the correlational designs, prevalent in both addictive gambling and addictive celebrity admiration research, is the inability to determine causation. Do the negative personality characteristics attract persons to excessive gambling and/or excessive celebrity admiration, or do these excesses contribute to depression, anxiety, and impulsivity? Moreover, are there hidden causal variables present? A related explanation is that both gambling and celebrity worship provide excitement for those whose lives may otherwise be dull and routine. Cartmill and colleagues (2015) referred to this as the „escape style,‟ and they provided support for this hypothesis by showing that problem gambling behavior has been associated with both anxiety and a tendency to dissociate. Furthermore, Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Houran, and Ashe (2005) found that fantasy proneness and dissociation were significantly correlated with scores on CAS IP and CAS BP, the two „addictive‟ levels of celebrity worship. One seminal study found that individuals who were unemployed and less educated (controlling for age), were likely to score high on the Celebrity Attitude Scale (McCutcheon et al., 2004). Perhaps, the unemployed and less educated are likely to

face a duller future, thus they might be more prone to seek excitement. One of the main findings from a previous study was a significant relationship between sensation seeking and lack of focus on the future, on the one hand, and high scores on CAS BP, the most addictive level of celebrity worship, according to the “Absorption-Addiction” model (McCutcheon et al., 2014). A study of problem gamblers in the USA found that those who lived in disadvantaged neighborhoods and were least educated had the most problem gambling symptoms (Welte et al., 2017). Another study (Peck, 1986) found that gamblers wish to escape boredom, and yet another concluded that the primary motivation for gambling is excitement related to risk and the possibility of winning (Zuckerman & McDaniel, 2003). On the other hand, Smith and colleagues (2013) found no relationship between gambling urge and sensation seeking. The authors found it interesting thatin our regression analyses (see Table 3) CAS Entertainment/Social (ES) “explained” considerably less of the variance (R2 = .13) than the other two levels, CAS IP, and CAS BP (R2 = .39 & R2 = .26, respectively). This is consistent with the “Absorption-Addiction” model, which postulates that there is very little absorption or addiction to a favorite celebrity on the relatively benign CAS ES level, where celebrities are valued primarily for their ability to entertain and provide something to discuss with friends (McCutcheon et al., 2002; Vega et al., 2013). Current limitations include the aforementioned inability to determine cause and effect. Clearly, a more sophisticated research design is needed to tease correlation apart from causation. In addition, our mean scores for the PGSI and the GUS were below or at the mid-point of the scales. This suggests that the most problematic gamblers were somewhat underrepresented in the current sample. Thus, results may not generalize well to those who are most addicted to gambling. Additional research with a sample of gamblers who score higher on both measures is needed. Gambling has received considerable attention as a personal and societal problem, and it has been linked to a myriad of other behavioral addictions. Our series of research studies shows that gambling shares common features, including some of the same personal and societal problems, with much less studied addictions, such as that of excessive celebrity adulation. References: Affifi, T. O., Brownridge, D. A., MacMillan, H., & Sareen, J. (2010). The relationship of gambling to intimate partner violence and child maltreatment in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 44(5), 331-337. Ashe, D. D., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2001). Shyness, loneliness, and attitude toward celebrities. Current Research in Social Psychology, 6(9), 123-133. Australian Productivity Commission, (2010, February). Productivity Commission inquiry report - Gambling. (Author), 50. Chou, K.L., & Affifi, T. O. (2011). Disordered (pathologic or problem) gambling and Axis I psychiatric disorders: Results from the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. American Journal of Epidemiology, 173(11), 1289-1297. Doi:10.1093/aje/kwr017 Current Research in Social Psychology, 6(9), 124-133. [on-line]. Available: http://www.uiowa.edu/ ~grpproc/ crisp/crisp.6.9.htm. Barrault, S., Bonnaire, C., & Herrmann, F. J. (2017). Anxiety, depression and emotion regulation among regular online poker players. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33(4), 1039-1050. Bates, J. A., & Lanza, B. A. (2013). Conducting psychology student research via the Mechanical Turk crowd sourcing service. North American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 385-394. Brown, M., Oldenhof, E., Allen, J. S., & Dowling, N. A. (2016). An empirical study of personality disorders among treatment-seeking problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 32(4), 1079-1100. Doi:10.1007/s10899-016-9600-3 Callan, M. J., Shead, N. W., & Olson, J. M. (2015). The relation between personal relative deprivation and the urge to gamble among gamblers is moderated by problem gambling severity: A

meta-analysis. Addictive Behaviours, Online. Doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.01.031 Cartmill, T., Slatter, T., & Wilkie, B. (2015). The role of anxiety and dissociation in young Australian gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31(4), 1215-1226. Doi:10.1007/s10899-014-9510-1 Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., & Casey, D. M. (2013). Validity of the Problem Gambling Severity Index interpretive categories. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29(2), 311-327. Doi:10.1007/s10899- 012-9300-6 Frank, M. L., Lester, D., & Wexler, A. (1991). Suicidal behaviour among members of Gamblers Anonymous. Journal of Gambling Studies, 7(3), 249-254. Doi:10.1007/BF01019876 Hodgins, D. C., & Holub, A. (2015). Components of impulsivity in gambling disorder. International Journal of Mental Health Addiction, 13(6), 699- 711.Doi:10.1007/s11469-015-9572-z Holtgraves, T. (2009). Evaluating the Problem Gambling Severity Index. Journal of GamblingStudies, 25(1), 105-120. Jacobs, D. R., Marston, A. R., Singer, R. D., Widaman, K., Little, T., &Veizades, J. (1989).Children of problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Behaviour, 5(4), 261-267. Jouregui, P., Onaindia, J., & Estevez, A. (2017). Adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies in adult pathological gamblers and their mediating role with anxious-depressive symptomatology. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33(4), 1081-1097. oi:10.1007/s10899-017-9675-5 Krueger, T. H. C., Schedlowski, M., & Meyer, G. (2005). Cortisol and heart rate measures during casino gambling in relation to impulsivity. Neuropsychobiology, 52(4), 206-211. Doi:10.1159/000089004 Kweitel, R., & Allen, F. (2000). Electronic gaming machines: Is there a problem? NorthAmerican Journal of Psychology, 2(1), 167-178. Ladouceur, R., Boisvert, J. M., Pepin, M., Loranger, M., & Sylvain, C. (1994). Social cost of pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 10(4), 399-409. Loo, J. M., Oei, T. P., &Raylu, N. (2010). Psychometric evaluation of the Problem Gambling Severity Index-Chinese version (PGSI-C). Journal of Gambling Studies, online. Doi:10.1007/s10899- 010-9221-1 Lorains, F. K., Cowlishaw, S., & Thomas, S. A. (2011). Prevalence of comorbid disorders in problem and pathological gambling: Systematic review and meta-analysis of population surveys. Addiction, 106(3), 490-498. Doi:10.1111/j.1360- 0443.2010.03300.x Lorenz, V. C., & Jaffee, R. A. (1988). Pathological gambling: Psychosomatic, emotional and mental difficulties as reported by the spouse. Journal of Gambling Behaviour, 4, 13-26. Maltby, J., Day, L., McCutcheon, L. E., Gillett, R., Houran, J., & Ashe, D. D. (2004). Personality and coping: A context for examining celebrity worship and mental health. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 411-428. Maltby, J., Day, L., McCutcheon, L. E., Houran, J., & Ashe, D. (2005). Extreme celebrity worship, fantasy proneness, and dissociation: Developing the measurement and understanding of celebrity worship within a clinical psychology context. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 273- 283. Maltby, J., Day, L., McCutcheon, L. E., Martin, M. M., &Cayanus, J. L. (2004). Celebrity worship, cognitive flexibility, and social complexity. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1475- 1482. Maltby, J., Houran, J., Lange, R., Ashe, D., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2002). Thou shalt worship no other gods - unless they are celebrities: The relationship between celebrity worship and religious orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1157-1172. Maltby, J., Houran, J., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2003). A clinical interpretation of attitudes and behaviours associated with celebrity worship. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 191, 25-29. Maltby, J., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2001). Correlations between scores on attitudes toward celebrities and authoritarianism. Psychological Reports, 88, 979-980. Maltby, J., McCutcheon, L. E., Ashe, D. D., &Houran, J. (2001). The self-reported psychological wellbeing of celebrity worshippers. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 441-452. Maltby, J., McCutcheon, L. E., & Lowinger, R. J. (2011). Brief report: Celebrity worshipers and the Fivefactor model of personality. North American Journal of Psychology, 13, 343-348.

Martin, M. M., Cayanus, J. L., McCutcheon, L. E., & Maltby, J. (2003). Celebrity worship and cognitive flexibility. North American Journal of Psychology, 5, 75-80. McCutcheon, L. E., Aruguete, M., McCarley, N. G., & Jenkins, W. J. (2016). Further validation of an indirect measure of celebrity stalking. Journal of Studies in Social Sciences, 14(1), 75-91. McCutcheon, L. E., Lange, R., & Houran, J. (2002). Conceptualization and measurement of celebrity worship. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 67-87. McCutcheon, L. E., Maltby, J., Houran, J., & Ashe, D. D. (2004). Celebrity worshippers: Inside the minds of stargazers. Baltimore, MD: Publish America. McCutcheon, L. E., & Richman, H. (2016). Do religious skeptics differ from religious believers in their interest in celebrities? Implicit Religion, 19(2), 225-235. Doi:10.1558/imrel.29534 McCutcheon, L. E., Scott, Jr., V. B., Aruguete, M. S., & Parker, J. (2006). Exploring the link between attachment and the inclination to obsess about or stalk celebrities. North American Journal of Psychology, 8, 289-300. McCutcheon, L. E., Wong, M., Black, J., Maynard, D., Frey, R., & Rich, G. (2014). Does “irresponsibility” predict the addictive level of celebrity worship? North American Journal of Psychology, 16(3), 519-530. Moreau, A., Chabroll, H., & Chauchard, E. (2016). Psychopathology of online poker players: Review of literature. Journal of Behavioural Addictions, 5(2), Online. Doi:10.1556/2006.52016.035 Peck, C. P. (1986). A public mental health issue: Risk taking behaviour and compulsive gambling. American Psychologist, 41, 461-465. Petry, N. M., Stinson, F. S., & Grant, B. F. (2005). Comorbidity of DSM-IV pathological gambling and other psychiatric disorders: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 66(5), 564-574. Raylu, N., & Oei, T. (2004). The Gambling Urge Scale: Development, confirmatory factor validation, and psychometric properties. Psychology of Addictive Behaviours, 18, 100-105. Reith, G. (2006). Research on the social impacts of gambling. Project report. Scottish Government, Edinburgh, UK. https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/ media_34552_en.pdf Smith, D. P., Pols, R. G., Battersby, M. W., & Harvey, P. W. (2013). The Gambling Urge Scale: Reliability and validity in a clinical population. Addiction Research and Theory, 21(2), 113-122. Doi:10.3109/16066359.2012.696293 Tamminga, C. A., & Nestler, E. J. (2006). Pathological gambling: Focusing on the addiction, not the activity. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(2), 180-181. Doi: .org/10.1176/appi.ajp.163.2.180 Vega, C., Magpantay, J., Zapanta, J. Y., Tolentino, R. M., Varona, A. A., Tengco-Pacquing,C., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2013). A brief report on Celebrity Attitude Scale data collected in the Philippines. North American Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 213-214. Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Tidwell, M. O., & Wieczorek, W. F. (2017). Predictors of problem gambling in the U.S. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33(2), 327- 342. Doi:10.1007/s10899-016-9639-1 Wong, M., Goodboy, A. K., Murtagh, M. P., Hackney, A. A., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2010). Are celebrities charged with murder likely to be acquitted? North American Journal of Psychology, 12, 625-636. Zuckerman, M., & McDaniel, S. R. (2003). The relationship of impulsive sensation seeking and gender to interest and participation in gambling activities. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1385-1400.

Bibliometric studies, particularly content analysis methodologies, of the extant literature can provide a snapshot on the nature, scope, and breadth of a select body of knowledge available in scholarly repositories. Although several bibliometric studies regarding the field of Personality Assessment have appeared, few have reported on an exploratory ‘topical’ analysis on the main subject areas or domains across a pool of studies over time. The current study is an initial attempt to address this gap in the literature by conducting a content analysis of research studies published in the Journal of Personality Assessment(JPA) over the past 10 years. The major aim is to determine the scope and breadth of investigatory topical areas most emphasized by researchers during this time frame (not on individual tests or assessment instruments under study). An online search in PsycINFO identified a total of 750 articles in JPA from 2009 to 2018; of these, 677 were determined to be ‘primary’ articles (comments, replies, erratum, editorials were excluded) and served as the data-set for the analysis. The author coded each article with a topical descriptor and maintained a scoring template based on frequency counts across categories. The analysis identified34 topical categories which represented at least 1% of the total distribution. The top researched topics were: personality disorders, statistical approaches/methods analysis, models/theory, construct validation, scoring issues/response format, 5-factor/Big 5, interpersonal factors, brief tests/short forms, therapeutic assessment, and cross-national test adaptations. Moreover, a myriad of highly salient topics in the clinical literature received limited investigatory attention in JPA (e.g., Computer report narratives, substance abuse, suicide potential, stress syndromes, Dark Triad, assessment of the elderly, well-being). Overall, this descriptive analysis confirms that the field of personality assessment is robust in scope and reflects varied research interests, yet the breadth of investigatory and/or perhaps editorial topical interest could be expanded to include diverse clinical areas. These exploratory findings should be considered tentative since the study results are based on the scholarly content of only one journal in the field. Future bibliometric studies would benefit by examination of the extant literature, indexed across multidisciplinary scholarly databases, on the general subject area of personality assessment. Introduction: Personality assessment has been major component of mental health evaluations (Blais et al., 2010; Boyle, 2012; Corr et al., 2009; Harwood et al., 2011; Reynolds & Sundberg, 1976; Wright et al., 2016), and a main instructional focus of graduate clinical training (Belter & Piotrowski, 2001; Mihura et al., 2017; Piotrowski, 2015; Piotrowski & Belter, 1999;Smith, 2017; Stedman et al., 2017). Despite the fact that comprehensive textbooks on the topic have harbored much professional attention over the years(Butcher, 2009; Groth- Marnat& Wright, 2016; Hilsenroth & Segal, 2004; Maruish, 1999; Shorey, 2018; Weiner & Greene, 2008), few studies have examined the breadth and scope of this clinical assessment area. Thus, obtaining a comprehensive perspective on the major investigatory focus areas within the domain of the field of personality assessment seems a worthwhile scholarly endeavor. The current study aims to address this void in the literature. Rationale for Study: Bibliometric analysis is a recognized and valid means of gaining an objective perspective on research trends of the extant literature (De Bellis, 2009; Nederhof, 2006), including bibliometric study on a myriad of psychological topics in the mental health field (e.g., Cox et al., 1995; Davis, 1999; Piotrowski, 2012; Schui & Krampen, 2010). Moreover, several reports have examined the journal contents (i.e., contents analysis) of specific scholarly periodicals in the discipline of psychology (e.g., Cascio & Aguinis, 2008;

Mogil, 2009; Piotrowski, 2012, 2016; Weaver et al., 1997; Wylie et al., 2018). Yet despite the vast volume of studies and repository of knowledge on the topic of Personality Assessment, little is known about the breadth of research emphasis and structure of published scholarship on this clinical domain. In fact, bibliometric studies in this area have been sparse. For example, Giegerich (2014) examined how personality assessment was portrayed in 6 popular introductory psychology textbooks. The analysis indicated notable negative bias with regard to coverage of projective techniques. Recently, Piotrowski (2017), utilizing a bibliometric approach, outlined the major topical investigatory areas in the extant Rorschach literature. An online search identified only 4 bibliometric studies targeting journals with a focus on ‘personality’ issues. Carlson (1984) conducted a contents analysis on the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology but focused mainly on methodological factors. Allik (2013) analyzed patterns of cited references across personality psychology journals, whereas Holaday and Boucher (1999) studied research participants groupings in the Journal of Personality Assessment. Another study reported on a comparative analysis of seminal articles versus recent coverage published in the European Journal of Psychological Assessment (Alonso-Arbiol & van de Vijver, 2010). These authors mainly examined measures/tests used in research studies. Serving as an impetus for the current investigation, none of the above studies conducted a detailed ‘topical’ analysis regarding ‘Personality’ issues reflected in the data-set of articles under study. In order to address this gap in the literature, the current bibliometric analysis is the first attempt to identify the breadth of investigatory interest in the area of personality assessment in published research. The focus will be on determining the main areas of research focus, based on individual study aim and design, across the pool of published articles (n=677) over the past decade. To that end, the aim was to identify the major ‘topical’ areas of research investigation in the field of personality assessment in recent years. Investigatory Approach: Since the focus of the current analysis was on Personality Assessment, the author decided to target a key, well-respected scholarly periodical (with a long-standing repository of scholarship): Journal of Personality Assessment (JPA). This journal is a highly regarded publication outlet for high-level scholarship on personality assessment issues (Weiner, 2018; Spielberger & Piotrowski, 1992). In order to obtain a valid portrait of the scope of recent literature, it was decided to limit the review to primary articles which appear in JPA over the past decade (i.e., 2009-2018). An online search in PsycINFO, for this time span, produced 750 references. Of these, 73 were omitted from the analysis as these are not considered ‘primary’ research studies (editorials, comments/rebuttals, corrections/erratum, book reviews). Thus, the final data-set was comprised of 677 articles. Based on extensive experience conducting bibliometric analyses on various research topics and individual journals, the author reviewed each study and determined the topical focus of the article. The specific aim was to determine the main topic/issue under study, not the specific measure or tests in the investigation. For tabulation purposes, a categorical template (delineating topical areas) was maintained. Each article was coded with only 1 topical designation. A running-tab was maintained until all 677 articles were reviewed. This procedure culminated in a rank-ordering of the most frequently researched topics in JPA (2009- 2018). Readers should be aware that the current analysis does not weigh individual research findings, aims not to be evaluative, does not side on controversial issues, does not review the psychometric credibility of specific tests, nor discusses the merits or drawbacks

regarding the practice of personality assessment on the contemporary scene. Simply, this study is descriptive in nature with the sole intent to present a ‘snapshot’ on the scope and breadth of topical focus regarding scholarly research in JPA over the past 10 years. Findings: Table 1 displays, in rank order, the major emphasized topical areas in Personality Assessment research over the past decade. Only those topics that represented at least 1% of the dataset are presented. Perhaps, not surprisingly, personality disorders (Borderline, obsessive-compulsive, narcissistic) continue to be a prominent area of investigator focus. Moreover, there appears to be extensive research interest on novel and improved methods and approaches to statistical analyses of research data, as well as variations in methodological approaches in the analysis of data on individual testing instruments. Further, investigations on testrelated issues such as scoring/coding, response format, and response ‘styles’ seem to be popular research areas. At the same time, there is heavy emphasis on the application of a myriad of models and theoretical formulations to the study of personality assessment issues. These last 3 topics undoubtedly confirm both controversial and emerging viewpoints on key issues in the study of personality; perhaps reflecting the reality that the field continues to evolve and is open to novel perspectives and creative approaches to assessment. Such developments seem to confirm a healthy state of scholarship and indicate that research in the field, while being 100 years old, continues to be expansive and not set on its laurels. Interestingly, there appears to be more research focus on the issue of depression than on anxiety (see Santor et al., 2006). The reason for this is not entirely clear. Noteworthy, researchers in the clinical area of personality assessment are not shy about expressing opposing, controversial, or critical viewpoints, evident in extensive rebuttals/comments/replies which are common features of JPA issues Table 1. Major Topical Areas of Emphasis in JPA Research Studies (2009-2018) Major topical areas of study # of articles % Personality disorders Statistical analysis/procedures & Methodological approaches Models/Theoretical applications 4.5 Cross-cultural comparisons Construct validation 3.5 Coding/Scoring/Response format 3.5 5-Factor traits/Big 5 2.5 Interpersonal circumplex 2.5 Brief tests/Short-forms 2.5 Therapeutic Assessment (TA) 2.5 International test ‘adaptations’ 2.5 Forensic assessment 2.5 Assessment use in therapy or treatment outcome Psychopathy DSM-5 assessment Child assessment Historical significance ‘Trait’ assessment Anxiety Hostility/Aggression

Narcissism Object relations Attachment 1.5 Malingering/Faking 1.5 Depression 1.5 Training/Teaching assessment 1.5 Emotion regulation/reactivity 1.5 Psychoanalytic/Psychodynamic 1.5 Proactive/Healthy personality 1.5 Defense mechanisms Personnel/fitness-for-duty Emotional IQ Perfectionism Social desirability Note. Total dataset (n=677); Topical categories with less than 7 articles are not reported. This analysis also shows that there is a preponderance of research focus on construct validation, mostly concerning: a) individual scales of tests) in reference to the introduction of ‘new’ testing instruments, or c) novel constructs in need of an assessment format or technique. Finally, a perusal of the top topical categories clearly illustrates expansive research endeavors on cross-national adaptations of personality assessment instruments, as well as emphasis on the publication of cross-cultural research efforts. Thus, international attention to the study of personality factors or dimensions attests to the maturation of an evolving, yet scholarly, clinical enterprise. Yet there seems to be a need for additional scholarly discussion on the role of assessment education and training in personality assessment (see Evans & Finn, 2016).A caveat is in order -- Scholarly ‘exchanges’ reported in journals tend to inflate the exposure that select, controversial topics receive based to some degree on editorial preference (Moustafa, 2015). Limited Areas of Research: Table 2. Topical Clinical areas with Sparse Research Attention in JPA Integration of test batteries Assessment report writing Computer-based test interpretations Assessment of juveniles Physical health outcomes Substance abuse Suicide potential/ideation Stress syndromes/PTSD Risk assessment Dark Triad Well-being/Quality-of-life Leadership/Management potential Dyadic/couple assessment Internet/online testing issues ADHD (children and adults) Elderly assessment Neurophysiological Co-morbidity Psychotic states-personality nexus Role of color in assessment 3rd party assessment input Motivation factors IQ/Cognitive reserve interaction Values/religion/spirituality Gender identity Topical analysis frequently provides evidence on areas of sparse or limited research interest. The current findings regarding the distribution of major subject categories, identified several salient areas of clinical issues largely neglected by JPA researchers. Many of the areas noted in Table 2 had less than 6 articles for the 2009-2018 time period. Most noteworthy, are the positive aspects of personality (e.g., well-being, proactive personality features) and issues pertaining to personnel selection, management potential, and adaptive features post-therapy/health outcomes; all of which have received substantial investigatory attention over the past decade in the social sciences. Quite germane to personality assessment, computer-based test interpretations (CBTIs), although a popular ‘practice’ resource, have received scant attention in the personality

assessment literature (see Spielberger & Piotrowski, 1990). Moreover, reflecting the influence of the Internet revolution, online personality testing, while garnering much public/media attention, has been largely ignored by academic scholars (see Gupta, 2007; Weigold et al., 2013).Furthermore, major clinical topic such as substance abuse, suicide potential, and assessment of the elderly are (quite surprisingly) neglected areas in the recent personality assessment literature. However, whether this is a reflection of a specific journal or the field as a whole is an unanswered question. Perhaps, the issue of editorial selection and preference may be a factor on whether an individual study ‘sees the light of day’ (see Bornstein 1991; Moustafa, 2015),or the result of potential conflict of interest (Young, 2009). Limitations: First, this analysis reports on only the most recent (2009-2018) extant research from only one journal; if a complete examination of archival article son the topic of ‘Personality Assessment’ in the PsycINFO database was conducted, a more comprehensive, encompassing review would be evident. Second, this study reports a somewhat rudimentary topical content analysis, from the perspective of one examiner. Thus, a multirater design would enhance ‘coding’ reliability. Third, in order to further our understanding of the structure and breadth of scholarship regarding Personality Assessment, more advanced bibliometric methods(i.e., citation analysis, citation mapping, co-citation analysis) are required (see Hjorland, 2013; Piotrowski, 2013), particularly as the intellectual structure and volume of published literature in the ‘Assessment ‘field expands over time (see Adair & Vohra, 2003, for a discussion). Conclusion: The current bibliometric analysis indicated that although the field of personality assessment publishes primary research reports on a broad-based scope of investigatory areas, a myriad of important clinical topics is not well represented and somewhat neglected by researchers. Whether this finding is a function of journal policies or research interest remains an open question. Based largely on the focus by researchers on a) the perennial introduction of ‘new’ assessment tests/measures, b) cross-national adaptations of established testing instruments, and c) cross-cultural research on ‘personality’ issues, the current findings support the view that the Personality Assessment enterprise is an emerging field in the clinical sciences. References: Adair, J.G., & Vohra, N. (2003). The explosion of knowledge, references, and citations: Psychology’s unique response to a crisis. American Psychologist, 58, 15-23. Allik, J. (2013). Personality psychology in the first decade of the new millennium: A bibliometric portrait. European Journal of Personality, 27, 5-14. Alonso-Arbiol, I., &van de Vijver, F. (2010). A historical analysis of the European Journal of Psychological Assessment: A comparison of the earliest (1992-1996) and the latest years (2005- 2009). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 238-247. Belter, R.W., & Piotrowski, C. (2001). Current status of doctoral-level training in psychological testing. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 717-726. Blais, M.A., Baity, M.R., & Hopwood, C.J. (Eds.). (2010). Clinical applications of the Personality Assessment Inventory. New York, NY: Routledge. Bornstein, R.F. (1991). Manuscript review in psychology: Psychometrics, demand characteristics, and an alternative model. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 12(4), 429-467. Boyle, G.J. (2012). The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment: Personality measurement and testing (Vol. 2). London: Sage. Butcher, J.N. (Ed.). (2009). Oxford handbook of personality assessment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Butcher, J.N. (2009). How to use computer-based reports. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), Oxford handbook

of personality assessment (pp. 693-706). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Carlson, R. (1984). What’s social about social psychology? Where’s the person in personality research? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1304-1309. Cascio, W.F., &Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in I/O psychology from 1963 to 2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1062-1081. Corr, P.J., & Matthews, G. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Cox, B.J., Wessel, I., Norton, G.R., Swinson, R.P., &Direnfeld, D.M. (1995). Publication trends in anxiety disorders research: 1990-1992. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 9(6), 531-538. Davis, D.R. (1999). History and summary analyses of articles published in the Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education: Documenting the first twelve years. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(1), 5-26. De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis. New York, NY: Scarecrow Press. Evans, F.B., & Finn, S.E. (2016). Training and consultation in psychological assessment for professional psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 785-798. Giegerich, M. (2014). Personality assessment as portrayed in introductory psychology textbooks: A qualitative content analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 74(9-B). Groth-Marnat, G., & Wright, A. (2016). Handbook of personality assessment (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Gupta, D. (2007). Proctured versus unproctured online testing using a personality measure: Are there any differences? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton. Harwood, T.M., Beutler, L.E., &Groth-Marnat, G. (2011). Integrative assessment of adult personality (3rd ed.). NY: Guilford Press. Hilsenroth, M.J., & Segal, D.L. (Eds.) (2004). Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, Vol. 2: Personality Assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Hjorland, B. (2013). Citation analysis: A social and dynamic approach to knowledge organization. Information Processing and Management, 49, 1313-1325. Holaday, M., & Boucher, M. (1999). Journal of Personality Assessment: 60 years. Journal of Personality Assessment, 72(1), 111-124. Maruish, M.E. (Ed.). (1999). The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Mihura, J.L., Roy, M., &Graceffo, R.A. (2017). Psychological assessment training in clinical psychology doctoral programs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(2), 153-164. Mogil, J.S. (2009). Pain research from 1975 to 2007: A categorical and bibliometric meta-trend analysis of every research paper published in the journal, Pain. Pain, 142(2), 48-58. Moustafa, K. (2015). Is there bias in editorial choice? Yes. Scientometrics, 105, 2249-2251. Nederhof, A.J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81- 100. Piotrowski, C. (2017). Rorschach research through the lens of bibliometric analysis: Mapping investigatory domain. Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 24(1), 34-38. Piotrowski, C. (2016). Mapping the research domain in the field of applied psychology: A bibliometric analysis of the emerging literature. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 42(1), 11-17. Piotrowski, C. (2015). Projective techniques usage worldwide: A review of applied settings 1995- 2015. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 41(3), 9-19. Piotrowski, C. (2015). Clinical instruction on projective techniques in the USA: A review of academic training settings 1995-2014. Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 22(2), 83-92. Piotrowski, C. (2013). Bibliometrics and citation analysis for the psychologist-manager: A review and select readings. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 16(1), 53-71. Piotrowski, C. (2012). Research areas of emphasis in professional psychology: Past and current trends. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(2), 131- 135.

Piotrowski, C., & Belter, R.W. (1999). Internship training in psychological assessment: Has managed care had an impact? Assessment, 6(4), 381-389. Reynolds, W.M., & Sundberg, N.D. (1976). Recent research trends in testing. Journal of Personality Assessment, 40, 229-233. Santor, D.A., Gregus, M., & Welch, A. (2006). Eight decades of measurement in depression. Measurement, 4(3), 135-155. Schui, G., &Krampen, G. (2010). Bibliometric analyses on the emergence and present growth of positive psychology. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 2(1), 52-64. Shorey, H.S. (2018). Introduction to the special issue on the role of personality assessment in consulting to organizations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(5), 493-497. Smith, J.D. (2017). Introduction to the special issue on teaching, training, and supervision in personality and psychological assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(2), 113-116. Spielberger, C.D., & Piotrowski, C. (1992). Profile of the membership of the Society for Personality Assessment: Comparisons between 1987-1990. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58(2), 423- 429. Spielberger, C.D., & Piotrowski, C. (1990). Clinicians’ attitudes toward computer-based testing. The Clinical Psychologist, 43, 60-63. Stedman, J.M., McGreary, C.A., &Essery, J. (2017). Current patterns of training in personality assessment during internship. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 74(3), 398-406. Weaver, A.J., et al. (1997). What do psychologists know about working with the clergy? An analysis of 8 APA journals: 1991-1994. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 471-474. Weigold, A., Weigold, I.K., & Russell, E.J. (2013). Examination of the equivalence of self-report survey-based paper-and-pencil and Internet data collection methods. Psychological Methods, 18(1), 53-70. Weiner, I.B. (2018). Society for Personality Assessment/Journal of Personality Assessment: A history. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(1), 2-15. Weiner, I.B., & Greene, R. (2008). Handbook of personality assessment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wylie. Wright, C.V., Beattie, S.G., Galper, D.I., et al. (2016). Assessment practices of professional psychologists: Results of a national survey. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47, 617-625. Wylie, L.E., et al. (2018). Four decades of the journal Law and Human Behavior: A content analysis. Scientometrics, 115, 655-693. Young, S.N. (2009). Bias in the research literature and conflict of interest. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 34(6), 412-417.

In several articles, my colleagues and I have addressed concerns regarding methodological issues with the recent RIM research (see Cunliffe et al., 2012; Gacono, Loving, &Bodholdt, 2001; Smith et. al., 2018). In many studies, the impact of these issues is frequently hidden, masked in a description of statistical procedures and shrouded by the umbrella of a meta-analysis. Findings from these flawed studies influence conclusions that may appear “controversial” but are in actuality an artifact of the individual studies’ inadequate design. Alarmingly, such method-related practices negatively impact the scholarly perception of the Rorschach and are frequently cited by editors for rejecting submitted Rorschach studies for publication, based largely on the presence of “controversy” which does not exist. In this brief commentary, the importance of Lambda to the generalizability of Rorschach findings is discussed. Piotrowski’s (2017) recent content analysis of the Rorschach (RIM) literature concluded that the field remains mired in “controversy” which address the scope of approaches regarding the validity of a myriad of scoring indices. But do these seemingly discrepant findings really highlight controversies or are these an artifact of something else? Those trained in the Comprehensive System (CS), prior to the advent of computer scoring, were able to develop a unique and invaluable perspective on the RIM, how it works, and what it means. Numerous hand-scoring of indices, ratios, and constellations resulted in an understanding of the RIM variables, their relationship to other parts of the RIM, and the nature of the dynamics regarding the functionality of the test; much like insights that are only gained by extensive clinical usage of the Rorschach and providing client feedback1. For whatever reason, these essential “insights” are much less apparent, or even absent, in studies in recent Rorschach research. A perusal of the Rorschach literature clearly indicates that statistical

1 Client’s responses to RIM feedback create a reciprocal interaction that offers “clinical validation” of the meaning of Rorschach variables and indices (client real world behavior confirms the Rorschach data). Feedback about individual criterion (e.g., a constellation such as DEPI) is useful as a starting point for a clinician-client interaction. analyses have been relegated to a predominate role at the expense of well conceptualized research designs which demonstrate an understanding of how the RIM actually works (Cunliffe, et al, 2012; Smith et al., 2018). This body of poorly designed research frequently results in contradictory and/or counterintuitive findings that are best understood by their methodological errors rather than true findings. Accepted as valid results in the published literature, these findings promote an apparent “controversy” where none actually exists (Gacono, Evans, &Viglione, 2008; Gacono, Loving, &Bodholdt, 2001). Much Rorschach research has become the tail (statistics) wagging the dog (theory and conceptualization). Unfortunately, this has resulted in what Bob Hare refers to as an “armchair quality” surrounding much of recent Rorschach scholarship. This lack of thoughtful design is most evident in validation studies that do not account for Lambda. Lambda is a straightforward computation, L = F\R-F. By definition, the more pure F in the record relative to R, the higher the Lambda. Therefore, there are fewer other determinants in a record dominated by Pure F. High Lambda, or constricted protocols, most frequently lack a normative distribution of other determinants and variables (evident in

the computation of Lambda). Consequently, validation studies that attempt to assess the relationships among variables and indices, where elevated Lambdas exist, are mostly not appropriate. The assumption that one can utilize a high Lambda sample for validation (unless the constriction is part of the hypotheses) is much akin to studying “psychopathy” in college samples where there are no psychopaths2. Dr. Irv Weiner’s oft spoken words; however, remain always true, “A variable means the same regardless of where and when it is produced.” Dr. Weiner’s statement; however, applies to the “interpretation” of the meaning of variables in group data or an individual protocol. Along these lines, in samples with high Lambda what must first be explained, interpretively, is the reason for the constriction (Gacono & Gacono, 2008). High Lambda may not invalidate the study, or an interpretation of the Rorschachs’ portrayal of the populations’ personality functioning. It does become problematic in validation studies or when attempting to use the results in comparison to other samples (generalizability). This lack of understanding of the way the Rorschach works, related to Lambda, R, and other variables, is most evident in metaanalyses that fail to consider these issues when assessing the appropriateness or the validity of the studies in the data-pool (Cunliffe et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2018). Other factors, such as IQ, may also impact Rorschach production. While factors that impact Rorschach production do not necessarily need to be controlled (e.g., in descriptive studies where the constriction is an accurate reflection of the personality functioning being examined), they must always be considered and reported in validation studies, where

2 At times quantity of R or elevation of Lambda may fit into hypotheses related to the personality of the sample studied (e.g., Gacono, Meloy, & Bridges, [2000] predicted increased R in certain samples of sex offenders). This allowance for a normally distributed range of R is one of the many strong points of CS administration which also allows for a useful sequence analysis. results will be compared to other studies with normative distributions. Often what I have called counterintuitive findings (those that occur counter to theory and other well-designed studies) are solely an artifact of methodological errors as described elsewhere (Gacono & Gacono, 2006; Gacono, Loving, Bodholdt, 2001). At a minimum, all research considered for publication should require authors to list the mean Lambda, its SD and ranges, as well as the presence or absence (appropriate descriptive data) of other factors such as IQ and the presence of brain damage, which may impact Rorschach production. This allows others to evaluate these issues and form their own opinions as to the weight of the study’s findings. Both scientifically and ethically, there should be nothing to hide in conducting research of this kind. In a similar vein, all manuscripts considered for publication should be required to list the mean, SD, and frequency for all variables studied. This allows for comparison of the sample investigated with other studies. It also allows for a determination of whether the author(s) utilized the appropriate statistical analyses. These descriptive data provide a measure of the relative distribution of the variables/indices under investigation. Exner (1995) frequently commented on the problems with abnormal distributions for many Rorschach variables and referred to these distributions as J-shaped curves. Parametric procedures, which are used frequently, are inappropriate for analyzing these variables. Yet, studies I have reviewed continue to ignore this concern. Reporting descriptive data of the type discussed here will go a long way to elucidating many seemingly controversial findings. As researchers/practitioners, scholars should heed John Exner’s (1995) notion that not everything “appearing in the literature was truth” (p. 4). Too often the findings of studies are accepted without questioning basic issues related to their design and how the RIM operates in practice.

This may, in part, be due to a generation of researchers with little or no experience handscoring the RIM (Structural Summary) and/or inadequate experience using the RIM in clinical settings. These two practices, handscoring and clinical usage, provide basic building blocks for understanding how the instrument works. Mastery of the Rorschach cannot be learned or understood solely from reading a book or books and/or administering many Rorschachs. Psychologists are vulnerable to accepting findings in which the statistical analyses may overwhelm, impress, or be difficult to comprehend. For many who practice clinically, statistics was never their favorite course in Graduate School. For many, i.e., journal editors and reviewers, their knowledge of the Rorschach lacks the necessary sophistication to be aware of these critical issues—yet, they continue to pass judgement on manuscripts submitted for publication. Conclusions of flawed meta-analyses are utilized for guiding decisions. This results in a cycle of rejection for psychometrically credible Rorschach research. In Rorschach terms, one strategy for dealing with confusing findings of Rorschach research is to narrow the stimulus field; to focus on the Ds and Dds rather than getting lost in the Ws created by statistics. These details entail examining carefully the author(s) stated methodology and determining whether the above issues have been addressed. Researchers need to review, also, some of the individual studies included in the metaanalysis before accepting the conclusions. The astute research consumer must be Ma instead of Mp and should resist allowing the flaws in the methodology to be coated by statistical gloss. As scientists it is imperative to be knowledgeable about statistical procedures, but not to become so enamored with statistical prowess (blindly accept metaanalytic findings) that one forgets to scrutinize the individual studies analyzed (see Smith et al., 2018). References: Cunliffe, T.B., Gacono, C.B., Meloy, J.R., Smith, J.M., Taylor, E.E., & Landry, D. (2012). Psychopathy and the Rorschach: A response to Wood et al. (2010). Archives of Assessment Psychology, 2(1), 1-31. Exner, J. E. (Ed.). (1995). Issues and methods in Rorschach research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gacono, C.B., Evans, F.B., & Kaser-Boyd, N., & Gacono, L.A. (Eds.). (2008). The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gacono, C.B., Evans, F.B., & Viglione, D.J. (2008). Essential issues in the forensic use of the Rorschach. In C.B. Gacono, F.B. Evans, N. Kaser-Boyd, & L.A. Gacono (Eds.), The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gacono, C.B., & Gacono, L.A. (2006). Some caveats for evaluating the research on psychopathy. The Correctional Psychologist, 38(2), 7-9. Gacono, C.B., Loving, J.L., & Bodholdt, R.H. (2001). The Rorschach and psychopathy: Toward a more accurate understanding of the research findings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77(1), 16-38. Gacono, C.B., Meloy, J.R., & Bridges, M.R. (2000). A Rorschach comparison of psychopaths, sexual homicide perpetrators, and nonviolent pedophiles: Where angels fear to tread. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 757-777. Gacono, L.A., & Gacono, C.B. (2008). Some considerations for the Rorschach assessment of forensic psychiatric outpatients. In C.B. Gacono, F.B. Evans, N. Kaser-Boyd, & L.A. Gacono (Eds.), The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment (pp. 421-444). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Piotrowski, C. (2017). Rorschach research through the lens of bibliometric analysis: Mapping investigatory domain. Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 24(1), 34-38. Smith, J.M., Gacono, C.B., Fontan, P., Taylor, E.E., Cunliffe, T.B., &Andronikof, A. (2018). A scientific critique of Rorschach research: Revisiting Exner's (1995) Issues and Methods in Rorschach Research. Rorschachiana, 39(2), 180-203.

The present study aimed to explore the pattern of interpersonal relationship matrix, marital quality and loneliness of three groups of subjects, namely, parents of Borderline Personality Disorder (P-BPD), parents of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (P-OCD) and parents of normal offspring (P-NC) with respect to selected personality variables, namely, Interpersonal relationship pattern, Marital Quality and Loneliness of the subjects. The sample consisted of 90 male (fathers) and 90 female (mothers) subjects, divided into three groups, age ranging from 40- 62 years. The obtained results were analyzed by using ANOVA followed by Post-hoc Tukey (HSD) test. Results revealed significant profile differences amongst three groups with respect to all the three variables. P-BPD subjects were found to be less unassured-submissive, unassuming-ingenious, warm-agreeable than P-OCD and P-NC subjects. P-OCD clients were more arrogant, calculating, cold-hearted, aloof-introverted, unassuredsubmissive, less warm-agreeable and gregarious-extraverted than P-NC subjects. P-NC subjects had better marital quality than P-OCD subjects followed by P-BPD subjects. Loneliness was found to be greater in B-PBD subjects, followed by P-OCD subject and P-NC subjects. Implications of the study along psychotherapeutic angles have been discussed. Within the socio-cultural doldrums of the current millennium, relationship matrix and allied associates appear to be of prime importance in understanding the personality of individuals. The family, as a primary group, paves the way for etching prominent marks in one’s personality profile. Consequently, family dynamics and interpersonal relationships seem to have a bearing on any frame of personality, be it balanced or having contents of psychopathology. The present attempt is a humble endeavour to probe into the nittygritties of relationship networks of two such selected pathological groups of clients, namely, borderline personality disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder in the comparative platform with normal controls. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) appear to be two common psychiatric disorders that scathe the personality and adjustment profile of individuals. OCD is an Axis-I disorder whereas BPD falls under Axis-II disorder in DSM-V (APA, 2014). The behavioural expression of impulsivity and compulsivity is different but there exist some similarities between these two disorders in terms of symptoms and etiology (Hollander, 1993). A sense of urgency or pressure to perform the impulsive or compulsive behaviour and a relative failure to suppress the behaviours even when they are recognised as being maladaptive to the individual (Hollander, 1993) are found in both the disorders. Poor insight, rigidity, resistance and obsessive control in interpersonal relationship are present in both the disorders (Havashi, 1996). BPD often meets the criteria for both compulsive and impulsive spectrum disorder and a high percentage of client’s report having compulsive personality traits and pathognomonic impulsive behaviour patterns (Zaranini and Weinberg, 1996). Patterns of self-mutilation involve a mixture of compulsive and impulsive features. Aggression and ambivalence are common features of both BPD and OCD clients (Hollander, 1993). Hence both suffer in relational matrix of life contexts.

From the etiological perspective, it is evident that aggression and ambivalence of OCD and BPD stem from their early relationship with their “love object,” most commonly, the mother-figure. Due to inadequate mother-child relationship, parental neglect, over-intrusive parenting, aggression or abuse, the child may develop deficient sense of self and others, fear of abandonment, a sudden shift between positive and negative affect, which serve as future foundation of chaotic relationship and inability to inhibit impulses which are basic symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder (Million et al., 2004). On the other hand, OCD patients, in their anal phase, owing to punitive parenting and harsh toilet-training, develop anger and rage toward parents. Due to parental inadequacy, these individuals are often paralysed with doubt, indecision and ambivalence (Millon et al., 2004). As a result, in both the disorders, inadequate self-concept and feelings of guilt are prominent. Thus, parents play an important role in shaping offspring’s personality (Hankin & Abella, 2005). Parental behaviour is associated with offspring’s reactivity-pattern (Geulayov et al., 2014). Parents are basic foundations of children’s well-being, strength as well as their psychopathology. Children who hold negative perception of parents appears to be at greater risk for pathology (Walker & Mc. Kinney, 2015). In fact, family environment appears to be a pathogenic factor for Borderline Personality Disorder. Fassino et al. (2009); Amianto et al., (2015) revealed that explosive / adventurous mothers were found to relate to their daughters’ borderline personality profile and mothers’ immaturity was correlated with their daughters’ higher level of character immaturity, inadequacy and depressive feelings. Explosive-arrogant fathers’ characteristics were related to daughters’ immaturity and general psychopathology. Thus, it appears that healthy interpersonal relationship with parents, spouse and others can server to buffer from the effects of stressful life events, or conversely can themselves become a stress factor when relationships are dissatisfying (Segrin, 2001). Though relational base for anybody seems to be childhood, its ultimate extension is there in adult relational contexts of partner hood. Marital relationship is the most intimate of all adult human interactions (Cox, 1987). A happy marriage generates more positive interactions with spouse and children which, in turn, leads to more marital satisfaction (Cox, 1999). Parents’ marital satisfaction and conflicts appear to be associated with childrearing. Poor marital satisfaction leads to parental conflict which, in turn, is an important mediator of offspring’s psychopathology (King et al., 1995). Loneliness is a crucial marker of social relationship deficits (Heinrich and Gullone, 2006). Feeling lonely is a universally-lived experience that is significant to mental health and quality of life. Loneliness is understood as a complex dimension in our lives and can be experienced at many levels. The deep dimension of loneliness can entail suffering that is possibly so intolerable that it may turn towards becoming an illness. Loneliness on the part of parents often plays a mediating factor in their offspring’s’ psychopathology (Zhang et al., 2015) The influence of family, parental interaction, marital relationship between parents, their happiness and loneliness pattern are some important factors which contribute to the formation and maintenance of maladaptive behaviour. Understanding parental characteristics and their interpersonal interactions may be the first step in devising primary preventive interventions for mental disorder. The present research endeavour delves into such an attempt to understand interpersonal relationship, marital quality and loneliness pattern of parents of clients with BPD, OCD and normal controls. The present study is guided by the following objectives: 1. To find out whether there exists any difference between parents of offspring with BPD (Group- I), parents of offspring’s with OCD (Group- II) and parents of normal offspring in the different

domains of interpersonal behaviours (namely, Assured- Dominant, Arrogant-Calculating, Cold-hearted, Aloof–Introverted, Unassured- Submissive, Unassuming-Ingenious, Warm- Agreeable and Gregarious-Extraverted), marital quality and loneliness pattern. 2. To find out whether there exists any sex difference in the different domains of interpersonal behaviours (namely, Assured- Dominant, Arrogant-Calculating, Cold-hearted, Aloof–Introverted, Unassured- Submissive, Unassuming-Ingenious, Warm-Agreeable and Gregarious-Extraverted), marital quality and loneliness pattern. 3. To reveal whether intra-group differences exists i.e. whether fathers and mothers of each group differ significantly with respect to the selected variables and their respective domains. Method: Sample: The sample consisted of 90 married males (fathers) and 90 married females (mothers) in the age range of 40-62 years, equally divided into 3 groups – parents of BPD offspring (P-BPD) (Group- I), parents of OCD offspring (P-OCD) (Group-II) and parents of normal offspring (P-NC) (Group– III). The family income of the subjects ranged from Rs. 20000/- to Rs. 45000/-; the subjects had formal education up to at least higher secondary level and all of them were conversant in English. Offspring of the subjects of Group-I and Group –II were diagnosed with BPD and OCD respectively, were suffering for at least a period of 3 years and all of them were on medication. For normal controls, screening was done with General Health Questionnaire-28 (score 4 or below) (Goldberg and Hiller, 1979) for both parents and their offspring. Subjects who were physically handicapped, presently suffering from any other psychiatric and major physical illness or those who had history of psychiatric illness were excluded from the study. Tools Used: The following tools were used in the study: 1. Interpersonal Adjective Scale (Wiggins, 1995): It measured Interpersonal relationship and their behavioural expression. It provides a brief comprehensible measure of 8 domains of personality, namely, Assured-Dominant, Arrogant-Calculating, Cold-hearted, Aloof–Introverted, Unassured- Submissive, Unassuming-Ingenious, Warm-Agreeable and Gregarious- Extraverted. 2. Marital Quality Scale (Shah, 1995): It is a multi-dimensional scale which assesses the qualities of marital life in the Indian context. Low score indicates better marital quality. 3. UCLA Loneliness Scale Version-III (Russell et al., 1978, Russel, 1996): It is a 20-item scale designed to measure one’s subjective feelings of loneliness as well as feeling of social isolation. Subjects rate each item on a scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often). Score ranges from 20-80. Lower score means lesser feelings of loneliness. 4. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) (Goldberg and Hiller, 1979): It is a screening test aimed at detecting psychiatric disorders among respondents. Total score ranges from 0-28. In this study, cut off point for psychiatric morbidity was considered as 4 and above (Basu and Dasgupta, 1996; Goldberg and Hiller, 1979) Procedure: The study was cross-sectional in nature. The data was collected during July 2013-January 2015. English version of the tools was administered individually in a single session to all respondents after obtaining their informed consent. At the end of the session, ambiguities, if any, were clarified. Statistics used: Data were analysed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Post Hoc Tukey’s (HSD) Test to find whether three groups of subjects differed significantly. t-test was done for determining gender differences among the three groups.

Results: Table 1: Mean (M) and Standard Deviations (S.D.) for the different groups (parents of BPD clients, parents of OCD clients and parents of normal offspring for the selected variables and their respective dimensions. Variables Parents of BPD clients (N= 60 ) Parents of OCD clients (N=60) Parents of Normal offspring (N=60) 1. Personality in terms of interpersonal matrix Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD a. Assured Dominant 52.8 5.09 43.37 3.91 46.95 3.97 b. Arrogant Calculating 52.08 5.08 49.43 4.83 36.45 4.38 c. Cold hearted 51.23 5.00 45.23 4.53 27.17 3.95 d. Aloof Introverted 44.98 6.50 50.60 4.26 30.07 3.57 e.Unassured-Submissive 36.92 5.51 50.20 7.25 43.58 5.20 f.Unassuming-Ingenious 40.63 4.64 49.57 3.65 49.40 5.74 g. Warm – Agreeable 35.63 4.98 47.45 3.75 50.40 4.89 h. Gregarious- Extraverted 43.96 5.44 38.27 4.43 45.57 4.49 2. Marital quality 148.55 10.98 130.35 6.80 104.40 8.00 3. Loneliness 56.65 5.48 52.42 4.54 38.88 6.81 Table 2: Means (M) and Standard Deviation (S.D) for Males and Females irrespective of their belongingness to different groups for the selected variables and their respective dimensions Variables Males (N=90) Females (N= 90) 1. Personality in terms of interpersonal matrix Mean SD Mean SD a. Assured-Dominant 49.76 5.35 46.96 5.08 b. Arrogant – Calculating 47.67 8.9 44.27 7.38 c. Cold-hearted 41.93 11.29 40.47 11.11 d. Aloof-Introverted 42.58 10.39 41.16 9.54 e. Unassured- Submissive 42.19 8.9 44.98 6.7 f. Unassuming- Ingenious 46.54 6.5 46.53 6.19 g. Warm-Agreeable 42.81 7.37 46.21 7.99 h. Gregarious- Extraverted 43.51 5.48 41.67 5.85 2. Marital quality 127.35 20.29 128.19 20.12 3. Loneliness 50.43 9.21 48.17 9.65 Table 3: F value obtained from two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showing the significance of the different groups (parents with BPD offspring, parents with OCD clients and parents with normal adults), sex and their interaction for the selected variables and their respective dimensions Variables Sources of variance F – values 1. Personality in terms of interpersonal matrix Assured-Dominant Between Groups Between Sex Interaction 52.68** 19.28** 1.82 Arrogant-Calculating Between Groups Between Sex Interaction 212.12** 24.43** 3.46*

Cold-hearted Between Groups Between Sex Interaction 470.64** 3.47 1.84 Aloof –Introverted Between Groups Between Sex Interaction 280.475** 3.39 1.06 Unassured- Submissive Between Groups Between Sex Interaction 74.78** 8.99* 1.27 Unassuming- Ingenious Between Groups Between Sex Interaction 71.72** .04 1.27* Warm – Agreeable Between Groups Between Sex Interaction 195.30** 24.87** .37 Gregarious- Extraverted Between Groups Between Sex Interaction 39.58** 6.54** 1.62 2. Marital quality Between Groups Between Sex Interaction 380.42** .98 .12 3. Loneliness Between Groups Between Sex Interaction 162.35** 6.18* .18 *p<0.05; **p<0.01 Table 4: Mean difference obtained from Post Hoc (HSD) Tukey’s test corresponding to the different variables and their respective dimensions Variables Combination of groups Mean difference 1. Personality in terms of interpersonal matrix Assured Dominant BPD-OCD BPD-NC OCD-NC 7.43** 5.85** 1.58 Arrogant Calculating BPD-OCD BPD-NC OCD-NC 2.65* 15.63** 12.98** Cold hearted BPD-OCD BPD-NC OCD-NC 6.00** 24.07** 18,07** Aloof –Introverted BPD-OCD BPD-NC OCD-NC 5.62** 14.92** 20.53** Unassured- Submissive BPD-OCD BPD-NC OCD-NC 13.28** 6.67** 6.62** Unassuming- Ingenious BPD-OCD BPD-NC 8.93** 8.77**

OCD-NC .17 Warm – Agreeable BPD-OCD BPD-NC OCD-NC 11.82** 14.77** 2.95* Gregarious Extraverted BPD-OCD BPD-NC OCD-NC 5.7** 1.60 7.3** 2. Marital quality BPD-OCD BPD-NC OCD-NC 18.20** 44.15** 25.95** 3. Loneliness BPD-OCD BPD-NC OCD-NC 4.23** 17.77** 13.53** *p<0.05; **p<0.01 Table 5 a: Mean, SD and t-values for selected dimensions of variables for fathers with BPD offspring (F- BPD) , mothers with BPD offspring (M-BPD) , fathers with OCD offspring (F-OCD), mothers with OCD offspring (M-OCD), fathers with normal offspring (F-NC) and mothers with normal offspring (M-NC) Dimensions of personality in terms of interpersonal matrix Fathers with BPD Offspring(F- BPD) Mothers with BPD Offspring ( M-BPD) Fathers with OCD Offspring (F-OCD) Mothers with OCD Offspring (M-OCD) Fathers with Normal Offspring (F-NC) Mothers with Normal Offspring (M-NC) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Arrogant Calculating 54.58 4.13 49.4 4.68 51.27 4.07 47.60 4.09 36.93 4.54 35.97 4.25 Unassuming Ingenious 40.94 5.27 40.31 3.93 48.27 3.45 50.87 3.42 50.60 5.94 48.20 5.365 Table 5 b: t-values for selected dimensions of variables for fathers with BPD offspring (F-BPD) , mothers with BPD offspring (M-BPD), fathers with OCD offspring (F-OCD), mothers with OCD offspring (M-OCD), fathers with normal offspring (F-NC) and mothers with normal offspring (M-NC) Dimensions of personality in terms of interpersonal matrix t – value for F-BPD- M- BPD df t – value for F- OCD- M-OCD df t – value for F-NC - M-NC df Arrogant Calculating 4.54** 3.15** .852 Unassuming Ingenious .52 55.33 2.93** 57.99 1.64 57.41 Discussion: A. Inter-group analysis: 1. Personality in terms of interpersonal matrix: From the above findings, it can be said that parents of BPD offspring (P-BPD) are more forceful, assertive, dominant and prefer to win arguments than parents of OCD offspring (P- OCD) followed by parents of normal offspring (P-NC), the latter being more democratic in nature. The former group appears to have a strong need for dominance and aggression (Wiggins, 1995). Need for dominance (Murray, 1938) gets fulfilled by overcompensating emotional void among BPD clients (Millon et al., 2004). Parents’ need for dominance reflects upon their deficit in interpersonal interactions which may contribute to the aggression, being expressed by BPD clients as a compensatory mechanism. There may be a genetic and

temperamental basis for BPD clients. Imitation of parental behaviour appears to be also present due to faulty role modeling. P-OCD subjects are less assured-dominant than P- BPD subjects but more than their normal counterparts. Thus, it appears that by means of their dominating interaction pattern and authoritative behaviour, by imposing excessive do’s and don’ts, such parents often introduce the seedlings of aggression, anxiety and doubt in their children (Sica et al., 2003). Arrogant-Calculating individuals express anger and irritation towards others in the form of humiliation and exploitation. They are egoistical, cunning and exploitative in interpersonal sphere. In this domain P-BPD have obtained highest score followed by P- OCD and P-NC. Furthermore, P-BPD subjects tend to prove others wrong and often criticize them publicly. Their world appears to be cynical in nature in which competition and exploitation are the essential means of survival (Wiggins, 1995). It is often correlated with psychopathic factors (Harpur et al., 1989). This interaction style appears also to be present in their offspring as BPD patients receive significantly more paternal criminality (Byrne, et al., 1990). Parents who score higher in this domain often tend to inflict emotional pain and distress in their children. Consequently, the emotionally-abused child, struggling with managing his/ her emotions, cannot cope up with emotional pain, which resultantly leads to emotional dys-regulation and self-injurious behaviour (Holm and Severinson, 2008), being one of the important symptoms of BPD. Huang et al. (2014) revealed that punitive punishment, controlling attitude on the part of parents contribute to the development of borderline personality. P-OCD tends to be more arrogant-calculating in nature than their normal counterparts. These parents also inflict anger and arrogance in their offspring but to a lesser extent than P- BPD subjects. Cold-hearted persons are not warm, cooperative or nurturing in nature. P-BPD subjects are also observed to be more coldhearted in their interpersonal relationship than P-OCD subjects followed by normal controls. Parents of BPD are less kind, understanding and sympathetic than parents of normal adults. These persons reflect patterns of social exchange that involve the granting of status but not love to self and denial of love and status to others. In its problematic form, such individuals show inability to express affection toward another person and have difficulty in making long-term commitments to others (Wiggins, 1995). This kind of exchange often leads to unstable behaviour in their offspring and sometimes a pervasive distrust and suspiciousness toward loved ones (Wiggins, 1995). These people appear to be less empathetic, having poor identification with positive contents of life. They are incapable of exchanging their mental energy with others for personal growth and initiating growth in others. Cold, detached unfavourable parental rearing style appears to have significant influence in developing borderline pathology (Bandelow, et al., 2005). The present study reveals that P-OCD subjects are relatively warmer and cooperative than P- BPD but less cooperative than their normal counterparts. Aaronson et al. (2006) found that BPD patients scored higher on the dimension of lack of availability of attachment figure than OCPD patients. P-NC subjects are more able to initiate positive growth in others in their offspring than the other two groups of parents. Aloof-introverted trait has been reported to be positively correlated with social anxiety (Fenigstein et al., 1975), social avoidance and distress (Watson and Friend, 1969). The present study revealed that P-OCD subjects are more aloof-introverted than P-BPD subjects followed by normal controls. Although love and status are canonical resources of social exchange, such individuals appear not to grant them to their children (Wiggins, 1995). It is through faulty parenting that they give the message that their child is not lovable if s/he is not perfect (Millon et al., 2004). These parents themselves feel anxious and embarrassed in social situations, use escape-avoidance to

cope with their own anxiety (Futh,et al, 2012) and impose their own feelings on their children. The offspring seems to learn from their parents and imitate them spontaneously along maladaptive avenues. P-BPD subjects are less aloof-introverted than P-OCD subjects but more aloof than P-NC subjects. P-OCD people are more shy, timid, meek and self-doubting in nature (Wiggins, 1995). They avoid social challenges, exhibit power over others in a dysfunctional manner and lack confidence (Hirschefel et al., 1977). Fear of negative evaluation is also prominent among them (Watson and Friend, 1969). Dadds et al. (1996) found that mothers of anxious children reinforce and reciprocate more avoidant solutions in conversation regarding anxiety eliciting situations. P-BPD subjects are less unassured and submissive than P-OCD subjects followed by P-NC subjects. It can be said that the air of perceived assuredness which appears to cover a realm of emotional void tends to make them secured, owing to the play of overcompensation defence (Fenichel, 1945). In the present study, normal control subjects lie in the middle range. A certain level of submissiveness is required to follow social norms and conventions which may be a healthy sign on the part of the subjects. Such people can make a balance between granting love and status to self and others, on the contrary P-BPD grant love and status to the self, deny others and P-OCD subjects tend to grant love and status to others but deny love and status to self (Wiggins, 1995). The present study shows that BPD people are less unassuming, ingenious than P-OCD subjects and normal controls. Normal controls and P-OCD subjects are milder, gentler, more conventional, avoid argument, freely admit their mistakes and feel timid in the presence of superiors than P-BPD. Self-control appears to be more in these two groups than P-BPD subjects (Blatt, D’Afflitti & Quinlan, 1976). These traits are negatively correlated with aggression and machiavellianism (Christie and Geis, 1970) which are more prominent among P-BPD subjects. P-OCD and P-NC subject do not differ in the present domain. It can be said that P-OCD follow the same trend as P-NC in order to earn social approval and to maintain general social behaviour. Warm-Agreeable individuals have a disposition to be warm, nurturing, caring and sympathetic in social transaction. P-BPD subjects scored significantly lower in warm agreeable domain, followed by P-OCD subject and P-NC subjects respectively. P-NC people nurture other people, provide emotional benefits to others who are in trouble and are well-adjusted individuals (Plutchik & Platman, 1977). High score in this domain is positively correlated with need for nurturance and unconditional positive regard (Wiggins, 1995) which is significantly less in P-BPD subjects followed by P-OCD subjects. P-BPD are more gregarious and extraverted than P-OCD subjects. P-OCD subjects are less gregarious and extraverted than P-NC subject. No difference exits between P-BPD and P-NC subject in the present domain. P- BPD and P-NC subjects have been found to be more jovial, outgoing, and cheerful in their interactions than P-OCD subjects. These people seek out jobs, social events, activities and social clubs. Unlike aloof-introverted people, in which P-OCD score highest, these individuals like social exchanges. P-BPD also want social bonding and relationships to enjoy life and to be secured in life as normal parents, but they cannot maintain the relationship due to the presence of underlying pathologies. 2. Marital Satisfaction: P-BPD have been found to have less marital satisfaction than P-OCD subjects followed by P-NC subjects. As explained earlier, in the present study, P-BPD are found to be more arrogant calculating, cold-hearted and dominant in their interpersonal interactions; they have poor marital quality than the other two groups. P-OCD subjects have poor marital quality than normal controls but have better marital satisfaction than P-BPD. This is probably because these parents are less

dominating, more warm, generous and caring in their social exchanges than P-BPD subjects. P-NC are well-adjusted individuals and have highest marital satisfaction than these two study groups of subjects (King et al, 1995). 3. Loneliness: P-BPD subjects are lonelier than P-OCD followed by P-NC. Since P-BPD have poor marital quality, cannot grant love and status to others but grant love and status to themselves, such individuals appear to be lonely in their lives. They cannot enjoy beauty of relationship and cannot derive satisfaction from any relationship that resultantly gives rise to feeling of loneliness. Though they are extraverted and want to enjoy interpersonal relationships, they cannot maintain relationship along balanced dimensions. P-NC subjects are warm, agreeable, grant love to self and others and thus they have more effective interpersonal relationship, better marital quality and have less extent of loneliness. B. Gender-wise analysis: Amongst parents, irrespective of groups, males (fathers) appear to be more assured dominant, arrogant calculating, gregarious extraverted than females (mothers), whereas females are more unassured-submissive and warm-agreeable than males. This finding suggests that our culture seems to influence our personality in terms of interpersonal matrix. In eastern culture, through socialisation, males learn to be more dominant, assertive, confident, arrogant and take charge of things in order to maintain their social status and affiliation. Such features are accepted as masculine traits which seem to be reflected in interpersonal matrix. In a maledominated society, as heads of the family, people learn from socio-cultural exchanges that such kind of interaction is required in order to be a well-functioning. On the other hand, females learn that in order to get social approval, they need to be submissive, shy, timid, kind, soft-hearted, warm and affectionate (Eagly & Mladinic, 1989 ; Bem, 1974; Spence et 1979). In contrast, a man behaving in an assertive way might be perceived as strong or even gain respect in some circumstances. This is because such kind of interpersonal behaviour stems from gender-role expectation. In the present investigation, loneliness has been found to be significantly lower in female than male subjects. Females, on the whole, appear to have better social and interpersonal relationships unlike males, which perhaps leads them to have lesser loneliness. C. Intra group analysis: Amongst BPD parents, F-BPD have been found to be more arrogant-calculating than M- BPD. Thus, fathers of BPD are more cynical, aggressive, exploitative than M-BPD. This has been supported by Byrne et al. (1990). Paternal punishment and low maternal emotional warmth appear to be predictors of BPD diagnosis in female BPD clients (Huang et al., 2014). Similarly, among P-OCD, F- OCD are more arrogant-calculating and less unassuming- ingenious than M-OCD. Thus, F- OCD subjects are more aggressive, cynical and less gentle, mild and non-argumentative than M-OCD. Hence, the present study attempts to understand the psychopathology of OCD and BPD clients, the findings of which have psychotherapeutic implications. Conclusion: • Significant inter-group differences have been revealed.  P-BPD have highest loading in Assured- Dominant, Arrogant-Calculating, Cold-hearted and Loneliness and lowest loadings in Unassured-Submissive, Unassuming- Ingenious, Warm-Agreeable and Marital satisfaction, owing perhaps to their dysfunctional pattern of rearing up their own children.  P-OCD have the highest loading in Aloof– Introverted, Unassured- Submissive and Unassuming-Ingenious domain and lowest

loading in Assured-Dominant and Gregariousextraverted domain, probably because of their tendency to avoid stressful encounters with their children.  P-NC subjects have highest warmagreeableness, marital satisfaction and least extent of arrogant-calculating, cold-hearted, aloof-introverted scores along with loneliness, which may be perhaps explained by their healthy style of rearing up of their children. • Inter-gender as well as intra-group analyses reveal significant profile differences. Thus, the present study provides light to the psychosocial profile of parents of BPD and OCD clients compared to their normal counterparts. The investigation is expected to shed light to therapeutic and preventive measures that may be adopted in future. Pinpointing parental characteristics which might serve as antecedents to mental disorders may be an important initial step in devising primary preventive interventions for the development of such disorders. References: Aaronson, C.J., Bender ,D.S., Skodol, A.E., & Gunderson ,J.G.(2006). Comparison of attachment styles in borderline personality disorder and obsessivecompulsive personality disorder, Journal of Psychiatric Quarterly, 77, 1, 69-80. American Psychiatric Association. (2014). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Ed.). Washington, DC: APA Amianto, F., Ercole, R., Marzola, E., Abbate-Daga, G., & Fassino, S. (2015). Parents’ personality clusters and eating disordered daughters’ personality psychopathology. Journal of Psychiatry Research, (In Press). Bandelow, B., Krause, J., Wedekind, D., Broocks, A., Hajak, G., & Rüther, E. (2005) Early traumatic life events, parental attitudes, family history and birth risk factors in patient with borderline personality disorder and healthy controls. Journal of Psychiatry Research, 134 ,2, 169-179 Basu, S. and Dasgupta, S.K. (1996) Bengali version of General Health Questionnaire 28, Calcutta: Department of Applied Psychology, Calcutta University Bem, S.L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162. Blatt, S. J., D’Afflitti, J.P., & Quinlan, D.M. (1976). Experiences of depression in normal young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 383- 389. Byrne, C.P., Velamoor, V.R., Cernovsky, Z. Z., Cortese, L., Losztyn,S.( 1990). A child’s relationships. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 35,590-595 Christie, R., & Geis, F.L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. Cox, F.D. (1999). The Family and Its meaning: The Basic Assumptions. In Eve Howard (Ed.), Human Intimacy, Marriage, (pp. 20-50). Burpara, Yien, Wordworth Publishing Company. Cox, W.M. (1987). Treatment and Prevention of Alcohol Problems: A resource manual, London: Academic Press. Dadds, M.R., Barret, P.M., Rapee, R.M., & Ryan, S. (1996). Family Process and child anxiety and aggression: An observational Analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 715-734 Eagly A. H., & Mladinic A.(1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543-558 Fassino, S., Amianto, F., Gastaldi, F., Abbate- Daga, G., Brambilla, F., Leombruni, P. (2009). Journal of Psychiatric Research, 165, 1-2, 128-136. Fenichel, O. (1945). The Psychoanalytic theory of neurosis. New York : WW Norton Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M.F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical psychology, 43, 522-527. Futh, A., Simonds, L.M., & Micali, N. (2012). Obsessivecompulsive disorder in children and adolescents: Parental understanding, accommodation, coping and distress, Journal of Anxiety Disorder, 26, 5, 624- 630 Geulayov, G., Metcalfe, C., Heron J., Kidger, J., Gunnell, D.( 2014). Parental suicide attempt and offspring self-harm and suicidal thoughts: Results from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) birth cohort. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 53,5,509-17

Goldberg, D.P. & Hiller, V. E (1979). A Scaled Version of General Health Questionnaire, Jr of Psychological Medicine , 9 , 139 - 146 Goldberg, D.P. and Williams, P. (1998). The user’s guide to the general health questionnaire, Windsor: NFER-Nelson Pub. Coy. Hankin, B.L & Abella J.R.Z. (2005). Development of Psychopathology. Sage Publication, Inc. Harpur, T. J., Hare, R.D., & Hakstian, A.R (1989). Twofactor conceptualization of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications. Journal of Psychological Assessment, 1, 6-17 Havashi, N. (1996). “Obsessive-compulsive disorder comorbid with borderline personality disorder: a long-term case study”. Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 50, 2, 51-54. Heinrich, L. M. & Gullone, E. (2006). The clinical significance of loneliness: a literature review. Journal of Clinical Psychology Review, 26 ,6, 695-718. Hirschefeld , R.M.A ., Klerman, G.L., Gough, H.G., Barret . J., Korchin, S.J ., & Chodoff, P. (1977). A measure of interpersonal relationship dependency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 610-621. Hollander, E. (1993). Introduction. In E. Hollander (Ed.) “Obsessive-Compulsive-Related Disorders”, (pp. 1-16), Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc. Holm, A.L., & Severinsson, E. (2008). The emotional pain and distress of borderline personality disorder: a review of the literature, International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 17,1, 27-35 Huang ,J., Napolitano, L.A., Wu, J., Yang, Y., Xi ,Y., Li,Y., & Li K. (2014). Childhood experiences of parental rearing patterns reported by Chinese patients with borderline personality disorder, International Journal of Psychology, 49,1,38-45. King ,C.A., Radpour, L., Naylor, M.W., Segal, H.G., Jouriles, E.N. (1995) Parents' marital functioning and adolescent psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 5, 749- Millon, T., Grossman, S., Millon, C., Meagher, s., & Ramnath, R. (2004). Personality Disorders in Modern Life (2nd Ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, INC Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Plutchik, R. & Platman S.R. (1977). Personality connotations of psychiatric diagnosis: Implication for a similarity model. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 165, 418-421. Russell, D , Peplau, L. A.. & Ferguson, M. L. (1978). Developing a measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42, 3, 290-294 Russell, D. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 1, 20-40 Segrin, C. (2001). Interpersonal processes in psychological problems. New York: Guildford Press. Shah, M. (1995). Clinical Validity of Marital Quality Scale, NIMHANS Journal, 13, 23-31 Sica, C., Caudek., C., Bottesi G., De Fazio, E., Ghisi, M., Marchetti, I., Orsucci, A. (2003) Fathers' “not just right experiences” predict obsessive– compulsive symptoms in their sons: Family study of a non-clinical Italian sample. Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders, 2,3 ,263–272 Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R.L., & Holahan, C.K. ( 1979) . Negative and positive components of psychological masculinity and feminity and their relationships to self reports of neurotic and acting out behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1673-1682 Walker, C.S., & Mc. Kinney, C. (2015). Parental and emerging adult psychopathology: Moderated by gender and affect toward parents. Journal of Adolescence Psychiatry, 44, 134-140 Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of socialevaluative anxiety. Jr. of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 37, 395-412 Wiggins, J.S. (1979). A psychological Taxonomy of traitdescriptive terms: The interpersonal domain, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395-412 Wiggins, J.S. (1995). Interpersonal Adjective Scale. USA: Psychological Assessment. Zanarini, M.C. & Weinberg, E. (1996). Borderline personality disorder: Impulsive and Compulsive features. In J. M. Oldham, E. Hollander, A. E. Skodol (Eds.) Impulsivity and Compulsivity (pp: 37-54), Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc. Zhang, W., Zou, H., Wang, M., Finy. M.S. (2015). The role of the Dark Triad traits and two constructs of emotional intelligence on loneliness in adolescents. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences , 75, 74-79.

Tilottama Mukherjee, Ph.D. Asso. Professor, Dept. of Psychology, University of Calcutta (Email: tilottamamukherjee3@gmail.com) and Sreetama Chatterjee, Clinical Psychologist, Dept. of Clinical Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Calcutta Revisiting the Rorschach Controversy: The Rorschach Test- A Ghost of the Past or a Bearer of further promise? Tilottama Mukherjee and Sreetama Chatterjee For almost the majority of the last century, one test that has both fascinated us and likewise being subjected to immense criticism, is the projective test named Rorschach Ink blot Test. Controversies regarding this test‘s validity and utility was perhaps even higher when different studies used different scoring system before the advent of the comprehensive scoring system. This study aimed to have a look at what different studies have pointed. Although it was seen that different studies yielded equivocal results, majority studies showed its limited use for being used solely for a medico-legal tests, or detection of personality disorders. On the other studies indicated that it proved quite useful in differentiating the protocols of schizophrenia patients and patients with unipolar and bipolar affective disorder from others or normal controls. Thus, looking upon the extent to which it is still used in research context even currently, it may yet not be considered as ghost of the past, instead if its use can be done more judiciously in a proper context with adequate training then perhaps the test can continue being useful. Rorschach Inkblot Test‘ isperhaps one name, that most people in the field of Mental Health are familiar with. It is a noted fact that this test has fascinated us for over a century with its brilliantly crafted inkblots and has come a long way since the time of its inception. It is perhaps one of the most widely applied, influential - and still, immensely controversial - psychological tests in the world still today. But, in spite of an age long controversy, the question that still looms large is -Is the Rorschach destined to become a ghost of the past due to its widespread criticism, or does it still hold material for guiding clinicians in the domain of assessment and planning interventions at present or in the future? The current article aims to elaborate and throw light on what the researches have been telling us so far. History: Some believe that Rorschach's use of inkblots may have been inspired by German doctor Justinus Kerner who, in 1857, had published a popular book of poems, each of which was inspired by an accidental inkblot. Others believe that like most children of his time, he would often play and was inspired in turn by the popular game called Blotto (Klecksographie), which involved creating poem-like associations or playing charades with inkblots. One can see that long before, in 1896, French psychologist Alfred Binet had also experimented with inkblots as a test of creativity and later in 1911 Rorschach had begun his investigation with inkblots and by 1921, he had published Psychodiagnostik. It is said that Rorschach had experimented with a huge number of inkblots, only after which he was able to pin down and finalize ten bilaterally symmetrical inkblots. Some would consider it as a pity that he could not live on to witness the historical effect his test went on to create in the world of psychometric assessment as soon after his book Psychodiagnostikcame out, he died due to peritonitis at the young age of thirty-seven years only. Rorschach Systems: Ever since the Rorschach Test began to be used as a popular projective test, different scoring systems have emerged. One can see that around 1930s Klopfer and his students developed their scoring system, and his system associated heavily with Freudian and Jungian theories of Personality, due to which an emphasis was possibly laid on the symbolic nature of the contents given. A few years later, Beck (1937) had come up with his system where he would place larger emphasis upon the perceptual-cognitive process associated with responses and was presumed to represent a reflection of their responses to

the outer world. Again a few years later, David Rapaport had come up with his system, followed closely by Schafer‘s system of analysis. Other systems that were used less often were the ones by Hertz and Piotrowski. Finally, in 1969, John E. Exner, came up with publishing the first comparison of these five systems entitled The Rorschach Systems and in 1973 he published the first edition of The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System, in which he had introduced the new scoring system. This Comprehensive system was sort of ground-breaking in its own might, as it pointed to the dramatic and stark difference between the different scoring systems, the consequence due to the existing difference and necessitated upon extracting the best components from each of these five existing systems, combined with widespread empirical research upon each component. Till date, this system propounded is considered as the most psychometrically sound Rorschach system as it indeed encompasses the most frequently used scorings from previous systems. How the controversy began: In the year 1920, when Hermann Rorschach had come up with a set of 10 bilaterally symmetrical inkblots, little did he know or perhaps anticipate that almost an entire century later also, his test would be subjected to perpetual controversy. But one can see that from the beginning it was met with skepticism and vice-versa, so much so that groups had got divided into ‗clinical loyalists‘ and ‗academic iconoclasts. So, we saw that while on one hand, Klopfer addressed this test as having X-ray properties in to the soul in the 1940s, Shaffer on the other hand had declared that it can no longer be used as a promising instrument. Jensen (1965) had even recommended that ‗Rorschach be altogether abandoned in clinical practice‘, however if the number of studies that have been published are considered till date, then it somehow offers a different clinical picture. In surveys in 1947 (Louttit and Browne) and 1961 (Sundberg), for instance, it was the fourth and first, respectively, most frequently used psychological test.The ongoing controversy has been so apparent, that in history, entire books and articles have been dedicated to discussing what‘s wrong and right with Rorschach. In 1999 the psychologist Howard Garb even ended up recommending a ban on the use of the test for clinical and forensic purposes until further research was able to demonstrate its validity. One of the now famous criticisms levelled against this test was by authors Wood, Nezworski, Lilienfeld and Garb (2003a) who in their book ‗What‘s wrong with Rorschach‘ had questioned and challenged the overall validity and utility of the Rorschach. They had also sought to explain how it still stands strong despite all the criticisms levelled against it over the past few years but did mention that the test has relatively no special ability to differentiate a patient with personality disorder or some other trauma. The authors of this book had also expressed their concern over using this test as a tool in medico-legal cases. But yet again once can see, that some other researchers heavily differed in their opinions and stated that RIM can be considered as a valid tool capable of assessing personality characteristics like Weiner (1999) . Other researchers like Viglione, Hilsenroth, and Mark (2001) also tried to assert that the recent criticisms of the Rorschach are mostly incorrect. More recently, in 2013, an extensive study done by Mihura, the researcher was able to gather scientific reviews and metaanalyses about the test which seemed to pave way for a reconsideration again for the test for its original uses. Reliability and Validity: Over time, the main areas of dispute that were identified and were considered controversial points were: Inter-rater reliability, objectivity of testers, , how much the results can be verified, general validity, bias of the tests pathology scales, limited number of psychological conditions which it can diagnose, difficulty in replicating test norms, its applicability in court proceedings and finally in assessing the correctness of responses of those who have been already exposed.

Despite the controversies mentioned above, meta-analytic reviews done previously have indicated that overall reliability of Rorschach to be in the low or middle .80s which is not a bad number to consider. During the development of the comprehensive system, Exner had ensured to give special attention to inter-scorer reliability in developing his scoring categories, where no category was included until it reached a minimum of .85 level among different scorers. But test-retest reliabilities have of course provided a different picture, giving a range of .26 to .91. While testing for children, the stability was even found to be even lesser than for adults, but that was attributed to the possibility that children of course go through more developmental change than adults. It is posited that a test's reliability can depend substantially on minute details of the testing procedure, such as the seating position of the tester and subject, words of introduction, verbal and nonverbal responses to subjects' questions or comments, and even the recording procedure. One can see that although Exner had published detailed instructions, but Wood et al. (2003) cites many court cases where they were not stringently followed. Similarly, the procedures for coding responses are well specified but extremely time-consuming leaving them subject to the authors. hence some researchers found that courts cannot choose to consider the findings of Rorschach since ‗results do not meet the requirements of standardization, reliability, or validity of clinical diagnostic tests, and interpretation thus is often controversial‘ (Gacono& Evans, 2007). Additionally, many of the studies may have been poorly conducted, as they were characterized by insufficient controls for IQ ,age,sex, race, and socio-economic status, variations in training required for scorers, insufficient protection from tester bias and inadequate statistical models (Gary-Groth- Marnat,1999). Now although, some authors have went on as far to say that the test does not have even a shred of validity (Reber, 1985) nevertheless, there is substantial research indicating otherwise, that is the utility of the test to measure for a few scores. For instance, researchers have found that Rorschach does seem to be assessing thought disorder, schizophrenia related symptoms or other psychotic disorders better when it is utilized for that purpose, however for other factors such as personality disorders, aggression, violence or even neuropsychological aspects this test may not be the best option for assessment. It is pertinent to note that perhaps what adds to the woes of having a sound reliability and validity is most of the studies that have been done earlier were done so using different systems, hence the results obtained by using one system could not have been generalized to studies using an alternative system. Now, in order to proceed further in discussion, the below mentioned sections attempt to delve deeper into how this test has been administered to various clinical populations and strives to attempt to understand better how the findings of this research can help us in planning further clinical assessment, research, and therapy. Intelligence: Not once, but a repeated number of studies have over time indicated that some Rorschach variables do relate with Intelligence scores (Meyer, 1992; Wood, Krishnamurthy, & Archer, 2003). The variables that have shown most significant correlation are organizational activity and developmental quality. Earlier on, a few researchers had also found that the vocabulary can be used as a predictor of intelligence (Davis, 1961; Hauser, 1963; Trier, 1958), along with other variables such as whole responses, wider content categories and larger number of popular response categories. But it was also found that modern intelligence tests will of course provide a better and more specific assessment. However, other Rorschach variables that have not been able to show a a stable relation are total number of responses, human movement responses, and form quality. It is perhaps a

rhetorical question as to whether intelligence tests should be a first line preference or Rorschach. But in difficult cases, when testing intelligence becomes rather impossible or difficult, RIM may come as an acceptable rescue. Even though, it may be far less reliable than what an objective Intelligence Test may provide, more so owing to the dearth of standardized procedures and norms, yet with proper systematic enquiry, and in assistance with detailed history and mental status examination it may assist in getting a broader view of the cognitive resources of the person assessed. Schizophrenia: Over time and again, research studies have pointed out the utility of Rorschach variables in differentiating the protocols of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia in comparison to patients diagnosed with other disorders or normal controls. Rorschach (1921) himself had noted, that the responses given by patients with schizophrenia often exhibit poor form quality (Frank, 1990; Goldfried, Stricker, & Weiner, 1971). Researchers have pointed out that two kinds of Rorschach scores are mainly related to psychotic disorders. First, as David Rapaport and his colleagues (1946) noted the Rorschach can be used to identify thought disorder, the disorganized cognition and peculiarities of language exhibited by many patients with schizophrenia. Many other studies have shown that psychotic patients who take the Rorschach often show ―deviant verbalizations‖ or slippage in the use of language .Several scoring methods have been developed to measure thought disorder on the Rorschach, the most prominent being the Thought Disorder Index (Johnston &Holzman, 1979; Solovay et al., 1986), the TETRAUT of the Logical Rorschach (Wagner, 2001), and the Weighted Sum (WSum6) of the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach (Exner, 2003). The Comprehensive System‘s Schizophrenia Index (revised recently as the Perceptual Thinking Index) combines scores for thought disorder and form quality (Exner, 2003). The reassuring part is that even the test‘s critics have agreed that some Rorschach scores are related to schizophrenia (Dawes, 1994; Wood, et al., 1996a, 1996b). Though there are many others who think that there are usually easier, more effective ways to do the same since the symptoms of schizophrenia tend to be so stark and serious, that it is usually redundant to administer the Rorschach to confirm a diagnosis established by clinical interview or collateral information (Whitehead, 1985; Wood, Lilienfeld, Garb and Nezworski,2000). Another frequent point cited here is that clinicians who tend to rely on Exner‘s Comprehensive System and its norms are likely to over-diagnose thought disorder and psychotic symptoms and hence it is thought that probably it would be best to be cautious while interpreting solely on its basis as the thought disorder and form quality indexes of John Exner‘s (2003) Comprehensive System, (e.g., the SCZI, WSum6, Level 2 scores, and Conventional Form) presently have only limited clinical usefulness (Wood, et al, 2001a, 2001b). Dubey, Cassell & Dubey (2005) studied the impact of number of Responses on the interpretation of Rorschach indices. Two hundred psychiatric patients admitted in a military hospital and one hundred normal subjects in the age range of 20-40 years, all males were administered the Rorschach test. Several Rorschach scoring indices is said to be dependent on the total number of responses given by the subjects. Therefore, a procedure for controlling the protocol for the productivity was tried. Accordingly, all the 300 Rorschach protocols were divided based on their number of responses into two groups taking the combined median as the cut-off point. The above median group was called ―High Productivity Group (HPG)‖ and below median group as ―Low Productivity Group (LPG)‖. Each of these groups was separately analysed by chi-square test for each of the Rorschach indices. The profile of the subjects in HPG suggested that normal subjects obtained more responses on FM, A, AObj, P and F+ % and low on W, d, F, K, C, Sex and Blood in comparison to schizophrenics. In

LPG, Normal subjects obtained more responses on D, M, FM, H, A, AObj, P and F+% and low on d, At, and Sex in comparison to schizophrenics. The variables which were found discriminating between schizophrenics and normal in both HPG and LPG are D and Sex (more in schizophrenia), FM, A obj, P and F+% (low in schizophrenia), in addition to the pathological responses DW and (H) which were present in schizophrenics. Mood Disorders and Rorschach: Some Rorschach scores that are related to schizophrenia also appear to be related to bipolar disorder and poor form quality seems to be a common finding amongst patients with schizophrenia as well as among patients with bipolar disorder (Frank, 1990). Speaking if mood disorders, one of the most intensely studied Rorschach indicators of depression has been the Depression Index (DEPI) of the Comprehensive Scoring System (Exner, 1991, 1993). The DEPI has been held forth as a sensitive and specific indicator of depression diagnoses (Exner, 1993). However, despite such claims, nearly all independent studies have found that the original and revised versions of the DEPI lack sensitivity and are unrelated to diagnoses of depression in either adolescents or adults (Archer & Gordon, 1988; Archer & Krishnamurthy, 1997). In a more recent study, it was found that the bipolar depression group had significantly higher scores or positive findings in five variables of the Rorschach test, namely Weighted Sum6, Deviant Response level 2 being greater than 0, (CF + C) > FC + 2, PureC> 1, and Populars> 7. This study had also shown that in patients with bipolar depression, thought disorder or cognitive slippage and marked laxness in emotion modulation were more marked than in patients with unipolar depression or in normal controls. This as a result, indicated that the Rorschach test may prove to be an important tool for diagnosing unipolar depression and even unidentified bipolar depression (Kimura et al, 2013). Anxiety Disorders and Rorschach: Some variables have been long hypothesized to bear a relation with anxiety disorders, namely fast card turning, color and shading shocks, card rejections, more than one vista responses and more texture responses, but the results have not been unanimous. Even lower WSumC, fewer food responses and a higher lambda indicating defensiveness has been found to be present in patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia than in patients with other psychiatric diagnosis (Ruiter and Cohen 1992a), however, yet again the results obtained from this study has not been bereft of subsequent criticism as due to methodological discrepancies. In fact, Rosenberg and Andersen (1990) had found out the contrary that there was no significant difference between the total number of SumC responses of patients with panic disorder and other groups. Speaking of other anxiety disorders, one research had found had found that patients with PTSD and dissociative disorder differed significantly on some Rorschach variables such as the CDI or Coping Deficit Index, number of Blends, Negative Human Movement (M-), vague Developmental Quality, formless responses, Pure Human content responses (Pure H), Human Detail content responses, and a Traumatic Content Association score (Lincoln 1993). Lesser number of human responses were also noted in patients of this group. However, the results may not be representing a complete picture as most of the findings were compared against the normative data instead of authentic comparison groups. Secondly the sample size was smaller, hence generalizability is more of an issue. Personality Disorders and the Rorschach: While assessing personality disorders, the last few decades have witnessed the test being applied to different kinds of personality disorders to assess the personality structure and the dynamics of it. If one chooses to begin with the studies that have tried to examine the relation between Rorschach and Narcissistic Personality Disorder or NPD, then also one would see that all studies have not provide unequivocal results. For instance, one

variable which has long been believed to be related to the narcissism is the reflection response. Yet, all studies have not provided a unanimous finding on the relationship between the above stated variable, that is between reflection responses and narcissism. Although some studies did emphasize that there is a relation between reflection responses and narcissism (Exner, 1969, 1993, 1995; Hilsenroth et al., 1997), yet in another study by Gacono et al (1992) where the researcher had studied different kinds of personality disorders (namely borderline personality disorder, psychopathic prisoners with antisocial personality disorder and nonpsychopathic prisoners with Antisocial Personality Disorders) , he had not found any significant between-groups differences for Reflection responses. Similarly, while one study had pointed about finding more Reflection responses among patients with Narcissistic Personality Disorder than among many other diagnostic and normal groups (Hilsenroth et al. 1997), while on the other hand, Himelstein (1983/1984) and Jacques (1990/1991) had failed to find a positive relation was found between reflection scores and scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin& Hall, 1979; Raskin& Terry 1988).Even research done upon Rorschach and Borderline Personality Disorder or BPD has not managed to yielded similar conclusions at all times. Another possible reason behind the failure to replicate results across studies could be perhaps attributed to different methodologies followed. In one review comprising of thirty-nine published group studies, the scores obtained on RIM were compared to that of scores obtained by normal individuals or groups having different psychiatric diagnosis. These studies had taken inpatient groups having different diagnosis and they discovered one thing unanimously, that is all the inpatient groups scored higher by a significant margin in comparison to that of normal controls on the Thought Disorder Index for the Rorschach (TDIR; Johnston &Holzman, 1979) but there was no significant difference between each inpatient group. From earlier on, hypothesis was made that a large number of Rorschach variables are related to Antisocial Personality Disorder or ASPD(Gacono & Meloy, 1994), however, subsequent reviews that were done indicated that most of the variables which were thought to be related have never been replicated independently (e.g., Boundary Disturbance, D scores, Blood responses) or have even been seen in protocols not related to ASPD, that is not exclusive to those having ASPD. Now, for example, the special score of aggressive movement which is presumed to be found in a higher margin amongst ASPD patients was on the contrary found to be higher in patients with borderline personality disorder rather than ASPD patients (Berg et al, 1994). However, this study may have been subjected to criticism later as here the patients scores were compared with normative data or that taken from other published studies. Additionally, some of the variables which were hypothesized to have a relation with ASPD are texture responses, color responses, vista responses, aggressive responses and even number of human responses, however all subsequent studies did not show a significant difference on terms of these variables between those having ASPD and those not having the same (Howard, 1998/1999). Interestingly though, one variable which did find a strong footing while determining the relation between ASPD and Rorschach variables was the number of pair responses. Berg et al. (1994) and Hilsenroth et al. (1997), both had discovered that significantly less frequent number of pair responses were present among ASPD than among Borderline patients. And yet, no other Rorschach variable successfully showed an unanimous relationship to ASPD (Wood, et al, 2000).Thus one can reiterate what was stated at the beginning that there is a long way to go before concluding whether Rorschach has absolute utility in differentiating between protocols of normal controls and those with personality disorder as many of the above mentioned studies have also been criticized for methodological issues.

Psychotherapy: Despite various criticisms hurled at Rorschach for its controversial efficacy as a psychometric test, some researchers have posited that it can act as a helpful additional technique in psychotherapy (Aronow and Reznikoff, 1976). However, whether that is a correct assumption or not still needs to be rigorously tested. Furthermore, therapists who use the test to generate symbolic interpretations must beware of the potential influence of confirmation bias (Nisbett& Ross, 1980), and should actively seek evidence that disconfirms their Rorschach interpretations, as well as evidence that confirms them. Current Scenario in India and abroad: Despite being written off by so many critics through so many years, we still see no dearth of interest amongst the research students and research being done upon the efficacy of Rorschach. Even in a recent study published by the American Psychological Association, it was stated to be more effective in diagnosing mental illness, unlike what some previous researches have mentioned. In this meta analytic and systematic review of the comprehensive system by Meyer, Dumitrascu and Bombel (2013), the variables that assessed cognitive and perceptual processes like the PTI/perceptual thinking Index or the Synthesized Response) were found to be most supported. On the other hand, variables which are much lesser noticed in occurrence in protocols like that of CP or Color Projection or some other scales that have been introduced lately like the Isolation Index or the Egocentricity Index were found to be hold up least. Now, even the comprehensive system has had its fair share of criticism pinned down upon it and it is for the same reason that some researchers belonging from the United States and many other countries namely Meyer, Erd berg, & Shaffer ( 2007) had globally taken part in an extensive project to collect and compile CS norms from all these countries. The productive part that arose out of this is that a collective reference sample of contemporary descriptive values was obtained. Although this global composite sample has helped to address the problems associated with the CS norms, however it has not completely ended the debate over the validity test. Back home in India, one can see that it has since long been considered as a most valuable tool (Sharma et al,1975). Some researchers even found that the RIM diagnosis correlated positively with therapeutic diagnosis (Akhtar, S.,1970). But in a more recent study by Choudhury S. et al (2006) which had studied the utility of Rorschach in Indians, had found that due to absence of proper normative data in India can adversely affect the Indian studies. They had administered Rorschach to both normal subjects, normal army personnel‘s, schizophrenics, patients with neurosis as well as patients with organicity and found very interesting results. They had found that the profiles of normal civilians showed marked difference from that of normal army personnel and from Western norms, which was possibly attributed to culturally determined differences. Also, in their study, it was found that the Rorschach protocols of patients with schizophrenia, neurosis, organicity were different from that of normal subjects, which obviously added fuel to the claim of this test‘s clinical utility. Similar findings have been reported on Schizophrenic, Neurotic and Normal army personnel using Rorschach test (Dubey, 1979, 1982). Manickam and Dubey (2005) highlighted the published studies using Rorschach test and reported historical review and perspectives for future action. In another recent study aimed towards norm development and providing a comparison between profiles of Indian men and women, Bajpai et al (2010) had conducted the study by employing the norms given by Beck. The results had indicated no significant difference between genders except two variables. These results were different from that of Western norms. Hence, one thing which was surely indicated from the above-mentioned studies is that

although Rorschach as a test has proven to show good clinical utility even when administered over Indian people, yet there is a glaring need for making norms at par with Indian context and hence that further necessitates more researches in the Indian context using this tool. Conclusion: One cannot perhaps agree more with what Hunsley& Bailey (1999) had once correctly pointed out that ―The Rorschach has the dubious distinction of being, simultaneously, the most cherished and the most reviled of all psychological assessment tools.‖ While some loyalists have stuck to their point that this test contributes incremental validity in diagnostic decisions (Garb, 1984, 1998), the critics have argued a pertinent point, that is that methodological may not have not taken care of, thus making the positive claims questionable. Although, clinicians are rarely encouraged to rely solely upon this test and nothing else, but one cannot deny that there may be times when the Rorschach may come handy when objective tests and interviews fail to remove the façade. Hence, some researchers have opined, that the merits of the Rorschach are humble but authentic and reasoned that had it been promoted for the correct purposes only over its long history, then probably it would have been less popular among psychologists, but also far less controversial. So perhaps, what now remains to be seen is whether clinical psychologists of the present or future can learn to apply Rorschach for the correct purpose, based on the specific needs of the case, after accepting its limitations, as well respecting its strengths. Thus, to conclude, one may then say that in spite of facing so many controversies and criticisms over most part of the last century, the fact that it is still being used in the clinical setting or being researched upon, itself indicates that it has not yet turned into a mere ghost of the past or faded into oblivion. Instead it may indicate, that it still holds promise of being used as a clinical tool in the coming days, given the test is used in the right way, for the right purpose and administered and scored in the correct standardized procedure by an adequately trained clinician. References: Acklin, M.W. (1993). Psychodiagnosis of personality structure II: Borderline personality organization. Journal of Personality Assessment, 61, 329–341. Akhtar, S, Persad, D., Verma S.K. A Rorschach study of obsessional neurosis (1970). Indian Journal of Clincal Psychology, 139-143. Archer, R. P., & Gordon, R. A. (1988). MMPI and Rorschach indices of schizophrenic and depressive diagnoses among adolescent inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 276 –287. Archer, R. P., & Krishnamurthy, R. (1997). MMPI-A and Rorschach indices related to depression and conduct disorder: An evaluation of the incremental validity hypothesis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 517–533. Baity, M.R., &Hilsenroth, M.J. (1999). Rorschach aggression variables: A study of reliability and validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 72, 93–110. Bajpai, Shweta, Bajpai, Ram, Sengar, K S., Singh, Amool& Desai, N. (2010). Rorschach Profile of Indian Adults. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental health. 17. 180-186. Berg, J.L., Gacono, C.B, Meloy, J.R., &Peaslee, D. (1994). A Rorschach comparison of borderline and antisocial females. Burch, R.F. (1993). Assessment of post-traumatic stress disorder among Vietnam combat veterans: A Rorschach study (Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology at Berkeley/Alameda, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 2742B. Choudhury, S., Augustine, Saldanha, D., Srivastava, K., Kundeywala, S.M., Pawar, A.A. &Ryali VSSR (2006).Norms of the Rorschach Test for Indian Subjects. Medical Journal of Armed Forces India, 62 (2). 153-160. Davis, H. S. (1961). Judgments of intellectual level from various features of the Rorschach including vocabulary. Journal of Projective Techniques, 25, 155–157.

Dawes, R. (1996). House of cards: Psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York, NY: Free Press. Dubey, B.L. (1979). Rorschach Indices of Psychiatric Patients in Army. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6: 175-179. Dubey, B. L. (1982). A Pragmatic View of Rorschach Ink Blot Technique. National Psychological Corporation, Agra. Dubey, B. L., Cassell, W.A. & Dubey A. (2005). Impact of Number of Responses on the Interpretation of Rorschach Indices:SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 12:1, 27-48. Exner, J. E. (1978). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system—Vol. 2. Current research and advanced interpretation. NY: Wiley Exner, J. E. (1993). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system—Vol. 1. Basic foundations (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Exner, J.E. (1969). Rorschach responses as an index of narcissism. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 33, 324–330. Exner, J.E. (1993). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system. Volume 1: Basic Foundations (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Exner, J.E. (1995). Comment on ―Narcissism in the comprehensive cystem for the Rorschach.‖ Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 2, 200–206. Frank, G. (1990). Research on the clinical usefulness of the Rorschach: 1. The diagnosis of schizophrenia. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 573–578. Gacono, C. B. & Evans F.B. (2007). The Handbook of Forensic Rorschach Assessment. New York: Routledge Gacono, C.B., &Meloy, J.R. (1992). The Rorschach and the DSM-III-R antisocial personality: A tribute to Robert Lindner. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 393– 406. Gary-Groth-Marnat (1999). Handbook of Psychological Assessment. Wiley & Sons. Goldfried, M. R., Stricker, G., & Weiner, I. B. (1971). Rorschach handbook of clinical and research applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Hauser, R. J. (1963). The validity of the formal and linguistic aspects of the Rorschach in predicting intelligence. (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1962). Dissertation Abstracts International, 24, 833. Hilsenroth, M.J. (1997). A multidimensional assessment of narcissistic personality disorder (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 4709B. Hilsenroth, M.J., Hibbard, S.R., Nash, M.R., & Handler, L. (1993). A Rorschach study of narcissism, defense, and aggression in borderline, narcissistic, and cluster C personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60, 346–361. Jansak, D.M. (1997). The Rorschach Comprehensive System Depression Index, depression heterogeneity, and the role of self-schema (Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 6576B. Jensen, A.R. (1965). The Rorschach Inkblot Test. In O.K. Buros (Ed.), The sixth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 501–509). Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press. Johnston, M. H., & Holzman, P. S. (1979). Assessing schizophrenic thinking. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Khadivi, A., Wetzler, S. & Wilson, A. (1997). Manic indexes on the Rorschach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 365–375. Klopfer, B. (1940). Personality aspects revealed by the Rorschach method. Rorschach Research Exchange, 4, 26– 29. Kimura, H., Osaki, A., et. L, (2013). Differences between bipolar and unipolar depression on Rorschach testing. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 9, 619-27. Klopfer, B. (1940). Personality aspects revealed by the Rorschach method. Rorschach Research Exchange, 4, 26–29. Levin, P. (1993). Assessing posttraumatic stress disorder with the Rorschach projective technique. In J. P. Wilson & B. Raphael (Eds.), International handbook of traumatic stress syndromes (pp. 189–200). New York: Plenum Press. Lincoln, S.K. (1993). Rorschach indices of multiple personality and dissociative disorders (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 5960B.

Louttit, C. M., & Browne, C. G. (1947). The use of psychometric instruments in psychological clinics. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 11, 49 –54. Manickam, L.S.S. & Dubey, B.L. (2005). Rorschach Inkblot Test in India: Historical Review and Perspectives for Future Action, SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 11:61-78. Meyer, G. J. (1992). The Rorschach‘s factor structure: A contemporary investigation and historical review. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59, 117–136. Meyer, G. J., & Handler, L. (1997). The ability of the Rorschach to predict subsequent outcome: A meta-analysis of the Rorschach Prognostic Rating Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 1–38. Mihura, J.L., Meyer, D.&Bombel, G. (2013).The Validity of Individual Rorschach Variables: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of the Comprehensive System. Psychological Bulletin,American Psychological Association, Vol. 139, No. 3, 548 – 605. Nisbett, R. E. & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pichot, P. (1984). Centenary of the birth of Hermann Rorschach. (Rosenzweig, S. &Schriber, E. Trans.). Journal of Personality Assessment 48: 591–596. Rapaport, D., Gill, M., & Schafer, R. (1946). Diagnostic psychological testing. Vol. II. Chicago: Year Book Publishers. Raskin, R. & Terry, H. (1988). A principal components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1–13. Raskin, R., & Hall, C.S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psyological Reports, 45, 590. Reber, A.S. (1985). Penguin Dictionary of Psychology. Penguin Books. Rosenberg, N.K., & Andersen, R. (1990). Rorschachprofile in panic disorder. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 31, 99–109. Shaffer, T. W., Erdberg, P., &Haroian, J. (1999). Current nonpatient data for the Rorschach, WAIS–R, and MMPI–2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 305–316. Sharma, V.P., Ojha K.N., Vagrecha Y.S. (1975) Clinical Psychology in India. Indian Journal of Psychology, 73-76. Solovay, M. R., Shenton, M. E., Gasperetti, C., Coleman, M., Kestnbaum, E., Carpenter, J. T., et al. (1986). Scoring manual for the Thought Disorder Index. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 12, 483–496. Trier, T. R. (1958). Vocabulary as a basis for estimating intelligence from the Rorschach. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 22, 289–291. Vigilone, Hilsenroth& mark (2001). The Rorschach: Facts,fictions and future. Psychological Assessment, Vol 13(4), 452-471. Wagner, E. E. (2001). The logical Rorschach. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Weiner, I.B. (1999). A review of recent research addressing the utility of the Rorschach. Psychological Assessment 11(3):251-265. Whitehead, W. C. (1985). Clinical decision making on the basis of Rorschach, MMPI, and automated MMPI report data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas. Wood, J. M., Krishnamurthy, R., & Archer, R. P. (2003). Three factors of the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach and their relationship to Wechsler IQ scores in an adolescent sample. Assessment, 10, 259–265. Wood, J. M., Lilienfeld, S. O., Garb, H. N., & Nezworski, M. T. (2000). The Rorschach test in clinical diagnosis: A critical review, with a backward look at Garfield (1947). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 395– 430. Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M. T., & Stejskal, W. J. (1996). The Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: A critical examination. Psychological Science, 7, 3– 10. Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M. T., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Garb, H. N. (2003). What‘s wrong with the Rorschach? Science confronts the controversial inkblot test. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wood, Lilienfeld, Garb & Nezworski (2000). The Rorschach Test in Clinical Diagnosis: A critical review, with a backward look at Garfield (1947). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56 (3), 395-430. Zalewski, C., & Archer, R.P. (1991). Assessment of borderline personality disorder: A review of MMPI and Rorschach findings. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 179, 338–345.

Cognitive Drill Therapy (CDT) relies on verbal exposure to feared disastrous consequences. The cognition of feared outcomes are generated and then time perspective of feared cognition is changed into the present or past which is required to be repeated many times until there is substantial drop in the felt anxiety. This form of exposure has yielded therapeutic benefits in cases of phobia and obsessive-compulsive disorder. In the present pilot study, our aim was to examine the role of verbal exposure of feared outcomes in test anxiety of the students enrolled in coaching centre for preparation of entrance examination of professional degrees such as Engineering and Medical. A sample of 20 participants was drawn which was allocated to two sub-groups (a) Study Group (n=10) and (b) Control Group (n=10). The study group received sessions of verbal exposure and control group was not exposed to any treatment. The results suggest that the test anxiety scores of study group dropped significantly which were maintained over follow up. The implications and scope for future studies are outlined. Anxiety is one of the debilitating conditions which has an adverse impact on performance. Though the experience of anxiety has strong bio-psycho-social factors associated with it, the most important factors as pointed out by many researchers are cognitive. Cognitive reactions to evaluative or performance situations lie at the heart of anxiety response. Schema Model (Beck et al., 1985) proposed that anxiety results from cognitive representations of threat. Often neutral stimuli are interpreted as threatening predisposing an individual to anticipatory anxiety. Prior to any important evaluative task, individuals often feel anxious. Anxiety experienced in an evaluative situation result from heightened physiological activity and anticipation of negative consequences (Hofmann,et al, 2009). Most of the students perceive test and exam situations to be highly stressful and anxiety provoking. Test anxiety is a condition of extreme distress which in many cases may lead to impaired performance. According to Zeidner (1998) test anxiety refers to the experience of physiological over- arousal characterized by tension, somatic symptoms and a looming fear of failure during test situations. This experience of anxiety adversely affects the attentional and memory processes which lead to poor retention and recall (Tse & Pu, 2012). Decreased performance and amotivation have been frequently linked to examination anxiety (Sapp, 1999; Shokrpour, et al, 2011). Students dealing with high levels of test anxiety are found to frequently focus upon (a) bottom up processing of stimuli, (b) anticipation of failure, (c) excessive worry over evaluation, (d) lack of preparation, (e) a cause of shame for their parents, (f) feeling of loss of self-worth (Deffenbacher, 1980; Depreeuw, 1984; Hembree, 1988; Morris et al., 1981). The negative relation between test anxiety and performance can be well explained with the help of cognitive interference model. Individuals with high levels of test anxiety are more worried about the outcome of the test and find it difficult to filter out the thoughts of anticipatory danger. Though anxiety is an adaptive reaction and leads to improved performance, pathological anxiety severely interferes with performance. The effect of test anxiety on performance has been explained as a bell-shaped curve by the Yerkes-Dodson law in 1908 (Buchwald, 2010), and has been consistently supported by numerous studies (Buchwald, 2010). There is an optimum level of test anxiety and it becomes maladaptive when it exceeds a level and interferes with test preparation and performance (Latas,et al, 2010).

Cognitive and exposure therapies are effective in treatment of anxiety related conditions, but the success rate of these treatments is modest (Hofmann, et al, 2012). A need has been felt to explore additional treatment strategies for anxiety which can be delivered safely to individuals suffering from anxiety conditions. Cognitive Drill Therapy (Kumar, 2017; Jain, 2016; Kumar et al. 2012) is based on the core perceived danger, that is, anticipated feared outcomes. The problem of stimulus bound anxiety is conceptualized in terms of its triggers, physiological reactions, perceived danger and dealing of perceived danger by safety measures of avoidance, repetitive acts, and excessive preparedness. The potential of Cognitive Drill Therapy (CDT) as a viable form of psychotherapy may be useful as suggested by available case-based data. The pre-post case studies (Kumar et al. 2012; Dwivedi & Kumar, 2015) have documented the efficacy of this therapy. CDT has been used to treat OCD (Kumar, Sameer & Singh, 2012), phobia (Arya, Verma & Kumar, 2017; Verma, et al, 2018), evaluation anxiety (Arya, et al, 2018) and examination anxiety (Arya, et al, 2018). CDT is still in its initial stages, hence, diverse dimensions of applicability, efficacy and maintenance of acquired gains need be studied through empirical researches. In this background, following hypothesis were formulated for the study. Hypothesis: H1: The post intervention test anxiety scores of the study group will be significantly lower than the test anxiety scores of control group. H2: The test anxiety score of the study group will remain significantly lower than the test anxiety scores of control group at follow up. Method: Research Design: Between Group Repeated measures Sample: Purposive sampling was used to obtain a sample of 20 students in the age range of 19-23 years preparing for medical and engineering entrance exams. The participants were screened from a larger sample who were tested for test anxiety. Those who scored above the cut off score for test anxiety and were willing to be a part of the study were included. The sample was randomly allocated to study group (n=10) and control group (n=10). CDT was applied to the study group and the participants in the experimental group did not receive any intervention. A follow up was done one month after the intervention. Outcome Measure: Test Anxiety Questionnaire (TAQ) by Nist& Diehl (1990) was used to measure the level of test anxiety at three-time intervals. The scores were obtained at baseline, after intervention and at follow up after 30 days of the last intervention session. It is a 10-item questionnaire with 5-point rating scale. Each item is rated on 1-5 with a minimum score of 10 point and maximum score of 50 points. A score of more than 35 is considered as unhealthy anxiety. The students having a score of 36 or more were included in the study. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): A 10-point VAS was used to rate level of anxiety during application of cognitive drill. 1 means no anxiety and 10 means maximum anxiety. Subjective monitoring of anxiety level on VAS was utilized to tweak the cognitive drill on moment to moment basis. CDT Protocol: OBSD Analysis: Cognitive Drill Therapy (CDT) conceptualizes fear as a two-layer structure. The top layer comprises objects or anxiety arousing stimuli; and body-mind reactions triggered by objects of fear and the safety measures taken by an individual to safeguard from the potential threat. The bottom layer which is the primary determinant of anxiety comprises thoughts of potential danger associated with the anxiety experience. The analysis of anxiety response into its components is known as the OBSD Analysis.

1. Objects: All the objects which could trigger examination anxiety like announcement of exam schedule, class tests, discussions about approaching exams etc. 2. Body-Mind Reactions (BMR): The anxiety marks the onset of reactions at the level of the body and the mind. The participants report body-mind reactions like accelerated heartbeat, difficulty in breathing, dryness in mouth, lack of concentration, dizziness etc. 3. Safety Measures: All possible efforts to safeguard against the overwhelming anxiety reactions by studying for longer hours, cutting down on any pleasurable activities, developing somatic symptoms, trying to avoid test, etc. 4. Feared Consequences: The thoughts of feared outcomes (feared cognition) which is reflected in following statements a. I may fail in the test b. If I fail, my rank may get be spoiled c. If I fail, my parents will be ashamed of me d. If I fail, my parents will be angry over me e. If I fail, my reputation in the class will suffer f. If I fail, my teachers will make fun of me g. If I fail, my future will be spoiled h. If I fail, my friends will be successful, and I shall be left behind i. If I fail, my relatives will come to know of my failure and make fun of me j. If I fail, the dreams of my parents will shatter k. If I fail, I will let my parents down OBSD analysis revels that all the feared consequences are rooted in future. The time perspective of the feared consequences is changed from future perspective in following manner: a. I have failed in the test b. I have failed, my rank got spoiled c. I have failed, my parents are ashamed of me d. I have failed, my parents are angry over me e. I have failed, my reputation in the class got spoiled f. I have failed, my teachers are making fun of me g. I have failed, my future is spoiled h. I have failed, my friends are successful, and I am left behind i. I have failed, my relatives came to know of my failure and making fun of me j. I have failed, the dreams of my parents got shattered k. I have failed, I have let my parents down Psycho-education: This forms an important part of CDT. The aim of psycho-education is to make the subject aware of the two-layer structure of anxiety/fear reactions. The subject is made aware of the connection between the feared thought, bodily reactions and experienced emotion. The subject is also educated that all the feared thoughts have a future time perspective and the body, and the mind respond to thoughts and not to the actual events. The participants are also educated that all strong emotions follow the bell-shaped curve, i.e. they rise, causing a lot of discomfort. The rise continues till they reach a peak, after which they eventually decline. CDT is based on the repetition of feared consequences which have been changed in time perspective. The repetition initially causes anxiety to rise but the repetition causes extinction and habituation of anxiety response. As a result, all the thoughts associated with objects of fear would produce normal levels of anxiety. Execution of Cognitive Drill: The drill was executed in a one to one setting by the first author. Feared cognitions were identified for each participant. The feared cognitions were based on common themes of evaluation anxiety, fear of failure, loss of prestige and upward comparisons. Each participant was asked to imagine the exam situation and repeat the drill statements one by one. The BMR ratings were closely monitored by selfreport. If the subject reported difficulty in continuing, a pause of 15-30 seconds was given. The drill was done for all the statements. Individual sessions of 45 minutes each were conducted. The participants required 3-8 individual sessions. There was a

gap of three weeks between pre and post assessment. A follow up assessment was conducted after 30 days of post assessment. Results: The present study was conducted with the aim of testing the efficacy of cognitive drill therapy in reducing the test anxiety of the students. Mann Whitney U Test was done on the data of TAQ for between group comparisons. The results are presented in Table-1. Table-1: Mean, S.D. & Mann Whitney U Test of TAQ Scores of the Two Groups Groups Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Follow-Up Study Group 39.40±2.41 30.30±5.37 26.80±3.64 Control Group 41.10±4.28 40.50±2.54 38.50±3.47 Mann Whitney U Test 41.50 4.5 5.5 Sig. .529 .000 .001 Results indicate that the distribution of preintervention anxiety scores did not differ significantly across the two groups (U=41.500, p=.529). The post-test anxiety scores were significantly different across the study and control groups (U=4.5, p=.000). Subjects in the study group maintained significantly lower anxiety scores at the time of follow up which was taken at an interval of 30 days after post assessment (U=5.5, p=.001). Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test was done for comparisons of pre-post and follow up scores of two groups. The results are presented in Table-2: Table-2: Paired comparisons of the Test anxiety Scores Study Group Control Group Wilcoxon Test Pre Vs Post Pre Vs Follow Up Pre Vs Post Post Vs Follow Up Z 2.703 2.807 .102 1.634 Sig. .007 .005 .919 .102 The results indicate that the scores of study group were significantly different at both post and follow up assessments compared to the scores of pre-test. Whereas, in control group, there was no significant changes in post and follow up scores of control group which suggest that CDT does produce significant changes in test anxiety scores. Discussion: The results confirmed the efficacy of CDT in managing the test anxiety of students. The therapy draws upon behavioral and cognitive theories. Cognitive drill gives an opportunity to the participants to empirically examine the validity of their feared cognition leading to experiential realization of the falsity or nonthreatening nature of outcomes of an adverse feared event. When a person experiences the cognitions without the feared consequences taking place the initial response of distress fails to be maintained for a very long duration and consequently the maladaptive response is also dissolved. The perception of threat is the prime cause of excessive anxiety and continuous repetition of threatening cognition leads to both habituation as well as experiential realization that the feared event may not be as disastrous as being held in the mind. The mechanisms of verbal exposure can be understood in the framework of Emotional Processing Theory (Foa & Kozak, 1986) as well as Inhibitory Learning Theory (Lang, et al, 1999). Emotional processing theory capitalizes on

between and within session habituation response. The verbal repetitions decrease the reactivity to imagined threat perception. The inhibitory learning theory capitalizes on developing safety cognition, i.e. the feared situations will not necessarily be as threatening as being perceived. In the course of verbal exposure, an individual learns that feared event may not take place, even if it happens, it would not be as threatening as being perceived during the anxiety state. There may exist other hypothesized mechanisms of action in Cognitive Drill. In terms of neural pathways, it is hypothesized that retaining feared cognition in the future timeframe might create pathways which trigger anxiety response. When the feared cognition is deliberately and repetitively drilled by changing the timeframe into the past or the present, it might be creating newer neural pathways which are not connected with activation of anxiety response. Chen, Guo & Feng (2018) studied neural correlates of past, present and future time perspective. Their findings suggested the existence of selective neural basis underlying time perspectives. However, additional researches are required to validate the hypothesis both at neural level as well as their implications of verbal exposure. Conclusion: The findings of the study confirm the potential of CDT as an intervention for managing exam anxiety. The students preparing for engineering entrance exams undergo a lot of stress due to the competitive nature of such exams. Exam anxiety adds to this stress as it has an adverse effect on their performance. CDT as an intervention helped to reduce the anxiety in the present study and produced therapeutic benefits. More data can be generated in future studies for testing the efficacy and maintenance of therapeutic gains through cognitive drill. References: Arya, B., Kumar, D., & Kumar, R. (2018). efficacy of cognitive drill therapy in managing test anxiety of students. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 6(3), 136-144. Arya, B., Verma, S., & Kumar, R. (2017). Efficacy of cognitive drill therapy in treatment of specific phobia. Somatic Inkblot Society Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health, 24, 48- 51. Arya, B., Verma, S., Kumar, R., & Mishra, R. (2018). Role of cognitive drill therapy in treatment of evaluation anxiety: A case study. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 8(5). p7743. Beck, A. T., Emery, G., &Greenberg, R. L. (1985). Anxiety disorders and phobias: A cognitive perspective. New York: Basic Books. Buchwald, P. (2010). Test anxiety and performance in the framework of the conservation of resources theory. Cognition, Brain, Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 283 – 293. Chen Z, Guo Y, Feng T. (2018) Neuroanatomical correlates of time perspective: A voxel-based morphometry study. Behavioural Brain Research. 26;339:255-260 Deffenbacher, J. L. (1980). Worry and emotionality in test anxiety. In I. G. Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research and application. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Depreeuw, E. A. M. (1984). A profile of the test-anxious student. International Review of Applied Psychology, 33, 221–232. Dwivedi, S., & Kumar, R. (2015). Efficacy of cognitive drill therapy in agoraphobia with panic disorder: A case study. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health, 22(2), 150-157. Foa, E.B., & Kozak, M.J. (1986). Emotional processing of fear: Exposure of corrective information. Psychological Bulletin,99(1), 20–35. Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 47-77. Hofmann, S. G., Heering, S., Sawyer, A., &Asnaani, A. (2009). How to handle anxiety: The effects of reappraisal, acceptance, and suppression strategies on anxious arousal. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 389–394.

Hofmann, S.G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I.J.J., Sawyer, A. T. & Fang, A. (2012) The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36(5), 427- 440. Jain, R. (2016) Cognitive Drill Therapy. ISBN-13:978- 1539554219. Kumar, R. (2017). Verbal exposure for irrational fears: New directions in research and applications. Clinical and Experimental Psychology,3, 157. Kumar, R., Singh, B., & Sameer, A. (2012). Preliminary test of cognitive drill as an intervention for obsessive compulsive disorder. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology. 39(1), 67-74. Lang, A. J., Craske, M. G., & Bjork, R. A. (1999). Implications of a new theory of disuse for the treatment of emotional disorders. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6(1), 80–94. Latas, M., Pantic, M., Obradovic, D., (2010). Analysis of test anxiety in medical students. Medicinski Pregled,63(11-12), 863-866. Morris, L. W., Davis, M. A., & Hutchings, C. H. (1981). Cognitive and Emotional Components of Anxiety: Literature Review and a Revised Worry- Emotionality Scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 541-555. Nist, P., & Diehl, M. (1990). PHCC test anxiety questionnaire. Retrieved from http://phcc.edu/questionnaire.html. Sapp, M. (1999). Test anxiety: Applied research, assessment, and treatment interventions. NY: University Press of America, Inc. Shokrpour, N., Zareii, E., Zahedi, S., &Rafatbakhsh, M. (2011). The impact of cognitive and metacognitive strategies on test anxiety and students’ educational performance. European Journal of Social Science,21(1), 177-188. Tse, C.S., & Pu, X. (2012). The effectiveness of testenhanced learning depends on trait test anxiety and working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 253- 264. Verma,S., Arya,B., Kandhari, N., & Kumar, R. (2018). Efficacy of cognitive drill therapy in treatment of multiple phobias: A case study. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health,25, 76- 79. Zeidner, M. (1998). Test Anxiety: The State of the Art. New York: Plenum Press. SIS JOURNAL OF PROJECTIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND MENTAL HEALTH (An Official Publication of Somatic Inkblot Society) Published Regularly Twice a Year in January and July First Volume Published in 1994 All Volumes of the SIS Journal are also available in PDF Format Individuals/Institutions can become Member of Somatic Inkblot Society by Submitting Membership Application Form Given in the Journal and Receive Print Version/Soft Copy of the Journal Published After the Date of Membership Free of Cost Bankey L. Dubey, Ph.D., DPM, DM&SP, Editor Emeritus, SIS Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health, E-mail : bldubey@gmail.com

Somatic Inkblot Society

Office Bearers:

President: Bankey L.Dubey, Ph.D. Vice President: Brig. D.Saldanha, M.D. Vice President: Rakesh Pandey, Ph.D. Editor-In-Chief: Naveen Gupta, Ph.D. Gen. Secretary: Shweta sharma, M.Phil. Joint Secretary: Abhilasha Singh, Ph.D. Treasurer: Padma Dwivedi, M.A. Executive Editor: Rakesh Kumar, Ph.D.

Executive Members :

Anand Dubey, MBA. Satyadhar Dwivedi, M.Phil.. Sandhya R. Mohanty, Ph.D. K.N.Ojha, Ph.D. Manoj K. Pandey, M.Phil. Amita Puri, Ph.D. Greesh Sharma, Ph.D. M.P.Singh, Ph.D. Riju A. Singh, MBA.

Past Editors-in-Chief:

B.L.Dubey, Ph.D. Director SIS Center, 7490 Coon Club Road, Medina, OH 44256 (USA) Email: bldubey@gmail.com (1994-2005)

Amool R. Singh, Ph.D., Prof. Dept of Clin. Psy, RINPAS, Kanke, Ranchi-834006 (India) E-mail:sisamool@yahoo.com (2006-2012)

Rakesh Pandey, Ph.D. Prof. Dept of Psy.,Banaras Hindu University,Varanasi-221005 Email: rpan_in@yahoo.com (2013-2015)

Statement Showing Ownership and Other Particulars About SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health Owner: Somatic Inkblot Society Editor: Dr. Naveen Gupta Nationality: Indian Address: Hindustan Institute of Management and Computer Studies, Farah, Mathura-281122 U.P. Periodicity of Publication: Half Yearly Place of Publication: Mathura-281122 Printer’s/Publisher’s Name: Mr Ajay Bhatnagar I, Dr. Naveen Gupta, hereby declare that the particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Sd/ Dr. Naveen Gupta, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health Published by Dr. Naveen Gupta, on behalf of Somatic Inkblot Society at Ajay Printing Centre, 3 Janki Devi Market, Chilli Int Road, Agra-282003 MO: +91 9319123636

SOMATIC INKBLOT SOCIETY Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health Institution/Library Subscription Form Subscription Year:

Name of Institution/College

Name, Designation and Phone No. of Contact Person

Full Mailing Address with PIN/ZIP at which Journal is to be delivered

Email ID:

Phone No. with Country Code:

Institutional Annual Membership (Foreign) US $100 (subscription fee) US$ 20 (Postage Amount) Institutional Annual Membership (Indian) Rs.1500/- (subscription fee) Rs. 100/- for receipt of journal by Registered Post {Total Amount Rs. 1600/- only} Pay Subscription Fee through Bank Deposit

Name of Account: SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health Account Number. 32297525238 IFS Code: SBIN0032182 Type of Bank Account: Saving Bank Bank Name and Address: State Bank of India, Property No.4, Block-A, Sector-23, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110075. Pay Subscription Fee through DD/ Multi-city Cheque payable to SIS Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health. Payable at New Delhi Submit Scanned Subscription Application Form through Email Dr. B.L. Dubey, Ph.D. Editor Emeritus, Email:bldubey@gmail.com Copy to Prof. Naveen Gupta, Ph.D., Director. Editor-in-Chief, Email: dr_naveengupta@yahoo.com Or Submit Print Version of Subscription Application Form by Speed Post to Prof. Naveen Gupta, Ph.D. Director, Hindustan Institute of Management and Computer Studies, Farah, Mathura-281122, India Mention Subscription Fee Deposit Details:

Any Other Information: Signature of Authorized Signatory with Date: Note: 1. Please submit subscription before the month of December. 2. Two Issues of the Journal are published in January and July every year. For SIS Official Use: Subscription Receipt Date: Subscription No.

SOMATIC INKBLOT SOCIETY Membership Application Form Membership Type:

Full Name:

Mailing Address with PIN/ZIP:

Email:

Cell with Country Code:

Date of Birth

Education: (Degree, Year, Institution, Major Field of Study)

Employment: Current position, employer, dates (Graduate Students indicate area of study and degree toward which you are working).

Training and Experience in Personality Assessment

Sponsor (Name Address cell and Email)

Mention whether you need Print Version or Only Soft Copy the Journal

Types of Memberships and Fee Details Individual Annual Membership (Foreign) US $50 Individual Life Membership (Foreign) US $300 Fellow Member- After 10 Years Life Membership (Foreign) US $150 Institutional Annual Membership (Foreign) US $100 Individual Annual Membership (Indian) Rs. 1000/- Individual Life Membership (Indian) Rs. 5000/- Fellow Member-After 10 Years Life Membership (Indian) Rs. 2500/ Institutional Annual Membership (Indian) Rs.1600/- (With Reg. Postage) Institutional Life Membership (Indian) Rs. 10,000/- Pay Membership Fee through Bank Deposit

Bank Name and Address: State Bank of India, Property No.4, Block-A, Sector-23, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. Name of Account: SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health Account Number. 32297525238 IFS Code: SBIN0032182 Type of Bank Account: Saving Bank Pay Membership Fee through Cheque payable to SIS Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health Submit Membership Application Form through Email Dr. B.L. Dubey, Ph.D. Editor Emeritus, Email:bldubey@gmail.com Copy to Prof. Naveen Gupta,Ph.D., Director. Editor in Chief, Email: dr_naveengupta@yahoo.com Or Submit Print Version of Membership Application Form by Speed Post to Prof. Naveen Gupta, Ph.D. Director, Hindustan Institute of Management and Computer Studies, Farah, Mathura-281122, India Mention Fee Deposit Details:

Declaration by Applicant: I certify that the information provided above is accurate and correct. Signature of the Applicant with Date:

Affix Your Photograph

SIS JOURNAL OF PROJECTIVE PSYCHOLOGY & MENTAL HEALTH: ACHIEVEMENTS Journal in WHO’s Listing Members of Somatic Inkblot Society will be glad to know that SIS Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health has been listed by World Health Organization (Global Forum for Health Research) among 25 indexed journals that have published the highest number of articles on mental health from LMICs in Latin America, Africa and Asia (Medline and PsycINFO). Extract from table-6 of “Research Capacity for Mental Health in Low - and Middle - Income Countries: Results of a Mapping Project “(www.globalforumhealth.org) is given below:

Rank Journal Country Language Revista de Psicoanalisis Argentina Spanish Revista de Neurologia Spain Spanish Revista Brasileria de Psiquiatria Brazil Eng.,Spani.,Portuguese Arquivos de Neuro-psiquiatria Brazil Portuguese Acta Psiquiatricay psicologica de Amercia Laina Argentina Spanish Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand Thailand English, Thai British Journal of Psychiatry UK English Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Denmark English Salud Mentale Mexico Spanish Vertex Argentina Spanish Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies India English Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology Germany English Revista Medica de Chile Chile Spanish South African Journal of Psychology South Africa Afrikaans, English Psychological Reports USA English South African Medical Journal South Africa Afrikaans, English The Australian & New Zealand Jr. of Psychiatry Australia English International Journal of Social Psychiatry U. K. English Psychiatry Research Ireland English Social Science & Medicine U. K. English Revista De Saude Publica Brazil Portuguese International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry U. K. English Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health India English Journal Brasilerio de Psiquiatria Brazil Portuguese Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences Australia English

Journal in ProQuest Listing: We are glad to inform you that SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health has been listed in academic research database ProQuest Psychology Journals™. ProQuest is a company in Michigan, United States. It is a leading provider of electronic databases for academic libraries. Databases are used in over 20,000 academic libraries around the country and around the world including some of the most prestigious higher education institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford etc. ProQuest provides abstracts and indexing for more than 640 titles, with over 540 titles available in full text. Users get access to charts, diagrams, graphs, tables, photos, and other graphical elements essential to psychological research.

Abstracted in “APA”Psyc INFO Regd. No. 71632/99, RNI Delhi UGC Journal No.: 48979 SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health July 2019 EDITORS EMERITUS: Wilfred A. Cassell, MD, FAPA, Bankey L. Dubey, Ph.D., Director SIS Centre, 7490 Coon Club Road, Medina, OH 44256, E-mail: bldubey@gmail.com EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Naveen Gupta, Ph.D., Director, Hindustan Inst. of Mgt.& Computer Studies, Farah, Mathura-281122(India) Email: dr_naveengupta@yahoo.com EXECUTIVE EDITOR: Rakesh Kumar, Ph.D. Head Dept of Clinical Psychology, Institute of Mental Health & Hospital, Agra-282002 (India). Email: jain.imhh@gmail.com EDITORS: Anand Dubey, MBA, CEO Dubay Healing center, 490 Coon Club Road, Medina, OH 44256 (USA) E-mail: ad@dubay.bz Christopher Piotrowski, Ph.D. Research Consultant, Univ. of West Florida, 504 Concordia Blvd. Pensacola,FL 32505 Email: cpiotrowski@uwf.edu NilanjanaSanyal, Ph.D., Former Prof. University of Calcutta, Email: sanyal_nilanjana2004@rediffmai.com PUBLICATION MANAGER: Brijesh.K.Gupta, MBA EDITORIAL CONSULTANTS: Abhilasha Singh, Ph.D. AiloUhinki, Ps.D. Amita Puri, Ph.D. Amool R. Singh, Ph.D. Anand P. Singh, Ph.D. Anatoly B. Khromov, Ph.D. Anjana Mukhopadhyay, Ph.D. Antonio Cervigni, Ph.D. Arvind K. Keshary, Ph.D. Barry A. Ritzler, Ph.D. Brig. D. Saldanha, M.D. Carina Coulacoglou, Ph.D. David J. Sperbeck, Ph.D. Deapti Mishra, Ph.D. Dharmendra Jain, D.M. Greesh C. Sharma, Ph.D. J.V. Weissenberg, M.Sc. Jashobanta Mahapatra,Ph.D. Jayanti Basu, Ph.D. Manisha Dasgupta, Ph.D. M.P.Singh, Ph.D. ManojK. Pandey, Ph.D. Nalini Mishra, Ph.D. Padma Dwivedi, M.A. Padmakali Banerjee, Ph.D. Prasant K. Roy. M.Phil. Vikas Sharma, Ph.D. Radhe Shyam, Ph.D. Rakesh Pandey, Ph.D Ranjeet Kumar, Ph.D. Robert B. Williams, Ph.D. S.Chaudhury, M.D., Ph.D. Sandhya Verma, Ph.D. Sandhyarani Mohanty, Ph.D. Sanjukta Das, Ph.D. Shashi Sethi, Ph.D. Yogesh K. Arya, Ph.D.