Intercultural Use of Rorschach1

In all cross-cultural studies to date, the question of the validity of the test has been recognized as a problem. Honigmann (1955), reviewing Rorschach research of this kind, has pointed out that few fieldworkers have been prepared to use the test alone but have employed it in association with other tests or to supplement their own observations (Honigmann 1949; Gladwin and Sarason 1953; Billig, Gillin, and Davidson 1947-48). They are thus able to "compare the results obtained by the test and standard theories of interpretation to data independently derived" (Honigmann 1955:254-55). This procedure, he suggests, may eventually hold promise of some systematic examination of such attempts leading to the development of a "truly universal testing instrument." Generally speaking, workers using the test cross-culturally have been cautious in advancing any great claims as to the efficiency of the Rorschach procedure, confining themselves to use of the test as yielding information collateral to interview materials and regarded in much the same way. The stated emphasis is in most cases to regard the responses as the most significant material. Spindler and Goldschmidt (1952), for example, speak of a Rorschach response as a "personal variant of a culturally patterned response to a relatively open situation," and warn against over-facile use of standard interpretations. But in fact some interpretation, however careful, is attempted in all these and other studies. And all interpretation is haunted by doubts such as these expressed by Sarason (1953:438) commenting on his work with the Truk material: