This article was downloaded by: [University of Massachusetts]

On: 27 December 2014, At: 16:48

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personality Assessment

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

Validity of the Rorschach Mutuality of

Autonomy Scale: A Replication Using
Excerpted Responses
Jeffrey Urist & Merton Shill
Published online: 10 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Jeffrey Urist & Merton Shill (1982) Validity of the Rorschach Mutuality of Autonomy
Scale: A Replication Using Excerpted Responses, Journal of Personality Assessment, 46:5, 450-454, DOI:
10.1207/s15327752jpa4605_1

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4605_1

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our
agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the
accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and
views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not
the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be
relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor
and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,
expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,
or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 4.5~ Journa! of"ingr~o?2dityAssessment, 1982, 46, 5

Validity of tha RorockrecE; !idutuaJlty a%Autonomy Scale:

A Rephioation [i.lslnaEac-ecpted Responses
JEFFREY UP.IST and MEYFON SI-IIZL
Vnivrrbiry of h'iictigan
Abstract: This study examines rho tlie of cup-erptedRorschach responses for rating object rela-
tlons. This assezsment of objzcr .e;atlons lotuses on a dimension defiaed as Mutuality of Au-
mromy. A Rorschach Scaie fcr ?~iutualityof abtono~r~y 1s presented. Its applicaiion to excerpted
Rorschach data is dess;ijeG. Raters did riot a ~ p i the
y Mutuality cf Autonomy Scale to theentire
p r o t o c ~ las had been don? previously (Urist, 1977). Instead, in an attempt to argue that Ror-
schach ratings in facr reflected ivlutuality of kutanomy and not extraneous factors, ratings were
bmed exclusively 03 excerptea responses. Relrability for the excerpiir-g was at a high level of
agreement, ;nd the Rorschach Mutua1;ty of A ~ l r o n o Scores
~y based on these excerpts c~rrelated
significantly with independent clinic21 ratings of Mutuality of Autonomy.
Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts] at 16:48 27 December 2014

In a przvious!y reported stxdy (Urist, to app!y the MAS to excerpted Ror-

1577) an objeci relaiions sca!e, organized
around the dimension of Ml~tua!i?yof
Autonomy, was developed for the ROT-
scliach and applied to the protocols of 60
patients. Tbe Rorschach ratings for MLI-
tuality of Autonomy correlated signifi-
c a n t ! ~with independent measures of ob.
ject relations, specifical:~ therapist
ratings and clinical ratizlgs based on an
eutobiographical task.
The aim of the prese~tpaper is to ad-
dress a specific methodological question
raised by the prwious study. In that
stcdy ihe Mutuality of Autcnomy Scale
(MAS) had been applied to the subject's
estire protec~l.Raters, then, had many
types of diagnostic 5ata availabie to
them other thzn those specifi; ~ercepts
which, it was hypothesizled, reflected the
intrapsychie organization of self and ob-
ject representations. Thought disorder,
primitive sexual or aggressive content,
peculiar verbalizations, as well as other
consciously or unconsciously perceived
diagnostic data, were all part of the total
data that served as the basis for the Ror-
schach ratings on the MAS. The ques-
tion then arises, were the raters in fact
rating Mutuality of Actonomy and not
same other dimensioi~conveyed thrsugh
the Rorschach data? Does the Ror-
schach specifically reflect, as had been
hypothesized, the individual's chatacter-
istic and enduring modes of experiencing
object relationships? What followed
from this is ryported below: the attempt
schach raspowes rather than to entire
protocols.
Method
Szibjects
The subjects were 60 adolescent pa-
tients, seiected at random from among
those referred for psychological testing
at Uiiiversity Hospitd Yaurh Services
over the past three years. Thirty were
outpatients, and 30 inpatients. Of the in-
patients, 16 were male and 14- female.
The ozlpatierit subjects included 14
males and 14 females. The tctal sample
ranged in age between 13 years, 6
months, and 17 years, 2 months. The
standard devistion of subjects ages was
1.53 with a mezn age of 15 years, 4
manths. All subjects were judged to be
free of any orgapic deficit. The average
IQ was 109, ranging from 99 to 127. The
Rorschachs were administered by psy-
chology interns of varying degrees of
experience. The average R for this
sample of protocols was 24.6, ranging
from 9 to 43 with a mode of 22.
The Ratirig of MutuliEity of Autonomy
The Mutuality of Autanomy Scale
(MAS), as suggested above, was con-
ceived in terms of a developmental line
reflecting the gradual intrapsychic pro-
cess of individuation and the child's
changing conclepti~nof its relative em-
beddedness in, or psychic separateness
from, figures in the external world. The
thematic imagery that forms much of
 J. URIST and M. SHILL
the basis for the scale was organized
around the model of the mother-child
dyad. The Scale involves a series of dif-
ferentiations in thematic content which
are thought to represent points of de-
velopmental significance in the child's
shifting experience of self in relation to
the mother, and vice versa. The Scale it-
self as well as a detailed review of its the-
oretical underpinnings appear in the
original study (Urist, 1977) and therefor
appear bellow in summary form only.
These points of developmental sig-
nificance vvhich represent the basis of
the Scale biegin at the primitive end with
the theme of undifferentiated, symbiotic
Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts] at 16:48 27 December 2014
fusion of body parts. Next would be that
point where the child experiences self
and mother as each havingphysical pri-
orietorship over their respective bodies,
yet where the body of one can be experi-
enced as under the magical control or
will of the other.
The Scale proceeds through themes of
mirroring where, for the very young
child relatedness requires that self and
other be defined as extensions of one
another's need states. Somewhat higher
level anaclitic themes involve a greater
degree of differentiation between self
and other, eventhough object relations
at this level can be based heavily on need
satisfaction,
Higher developmental levels approach
more and more the stage of true object
constancy {(Fraiberg,1969) where other
people are valued as separate individuals
i n their own right. At the most advanced
extreme of ithis developmental line would
be the capiscity for empathy, involving
an intense realistic investment in the sub-
jective world of another, while still main-
taining the sense of mutual autonomy.
A scale for the Rorschach was con-
structed, d~efiningquantitatively differ-
ent categories of thematic content that,
as a scale, would reflect the stages in the
above structural progression in the de-
velopment d object relations. The Scale
was regardled as applicable to all rela-
tionships depicted in the content of the
subject's Rorschach percepts. Relation-
ships among people, animals, plants,
inanimate objects, vague forces, etc.,
45 1
were included.
In constructing the Scale, an attempt
was made to recognize the way in which
aggressive content, as well as libidinal
themes, are rnanifested across the full
range of Muluality of Autonomy. We
avoided building into the scale a preju-
dicial weighting of libidinal themes over
aggressive ones, as though relationships
depicted in aggressive terms ips10 facto
reflected some deficiency or absence of
Mutuality of Autonomy. Themes of in-
tense object-related competition be-
tween figures, for example, was regarded
as reflecting a relatively high degree of
Mutuality of Autonomy.
The scale itself cor~sistedof the follow-
ing 7 points:
1. Reciprocity-Mutuality.
2. Collabol-ation-Cooperation.
3. Simple Interaction.
4. Anaclitic-.Dependent.
5. Reflection-Mirroring.
6. Magical Control-Coercion.
7. Envelopment-Incorporation.
For the sake of brevity the scale, which
appears in the 1977 article, is not repro-
duced here. In constructing the: scale,
the hope was to achieve more than just a
grouping of seven, compartmentalized
categories, bud rather, a sense of an in-
ternally consistent dimension. In an at-
tempt to emphasize further the Scale's
reflecting a continuaus coherent dimen-
sion, it was presented to the raters, pre-
ceded by a brief definition of Mutuality
of Autonomy which was sa follows:
Mutuality of Autonomy refers to the
degree to which people in relationships
are conceived of, by the subject, as psy-
chologically autonomous; as possessing
a n enduring, inherent psychic existence.
The subject experiences others as possess-
ing a self, while at the same time objec-
tively recognizes his or her own existence
as one object among many. Both self and
others are simultaneously experienced by
the subject as possessing an identity, a
will, and the subjective, affective experi-
ence of selfhood. The subject conceives of
relationships as respecting theseattributes
independently of fluctuations in the need
state of either one's self or of the ather in-
dividual witlhin the relationship.
 452 Validity of the Rorschach Mutuality of Autonomy Scale
Excerpting
As mentioned above, the Rorschach
scale was intended to be applied to all re-
sponses depicting relationships of any
kind. Implied relationships were also
included; for example, a "squashed bug"
would be seen as implying a "squasher"
even if it were not elaborated. Out of the
60 protocols, then, any and all responses
that reflected in their content an explicit
or implied relationship were indepen-
dently excerpted by a pair of raters. The
excerpting led to the following: out of
a total of 1477 responses contained in
the 60 protocols, the raters disagreed 87
times whether or not to excerpt (i.e., in-
Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts] at 16:48 27 December 2014
clude) a particular response. Raters, in
other words, agreed 94% of the time on
the excerpting. All 87 disagreements
were then resolved through discussion,
resulting in a total of 302 excerpted re-
sponses for the 60 subjects.
The Rorschach MAS was then applied
to the excerpted responses. Since typi-
caliy a given subject would perceive a
number of relational themes that often
would cover a range of MAS scores, the
following scores were calculated for each
subject based on applying the MAS to
the excerpted responses.
1. highest MAS score
2. lowest MAS score
3. average MAS score
4. high average MAS scorf
5. low average MAS score
6. overall MAS scorec
" The high average score involved the mean of
highest three scores.
The low average score involved the mean of the
lowest three scores.
The overall score involved the rater's judgement
of the most representative score.
Clinical Ratings of
Mutuality of Autonomy
Independent clinical ratings of object
relations were generated by applying a
clinical version of the Mutuality of
Autonomy Scale (CMAS) to the confi-
dential records of the 60 subjects. These
ratings were done by a pair of experi-
enced clinicians. Where, in the judge-
ment of one or both of the clinicians, a
given subject's chart failed to provide
sufficient data for a relatively high de-
gree of confidence in their rating, that
subject was excluded from the study (the
original n was 65; 5 were excluded). The
confidential records included at least a
developmental history, family history,
admission note, clinical progress notes,
notes by nursing staff, and regularly up-
dated treatment plans.
Only those entries made prior to the
testing were made available to the clini-
cal raters. Since 10 of the 60 subjects
were either currently in the hospital or
had therapists who were still available to
provide ratings, it was possible to in-
clude therapist's ratings of object rela-
tions for these 10 subjects. The thera-
pist's ratings could then be compared to
the ratings based on these subjects' rec-
ords, both scores being based on the
same clinical Mutuality of Autonomy
Scale (CMAS).
The CMAS, then was used to generate
therapist rating$ for 10 subjects and was
applied to the charts of all subjects. It
included the same introduction that pre-
ceded the Rorschach MAS and consis-
ted of seven points, paralleling the Ror-
schach Scale. The reader is referred to
the 1977 study for the text of the CMAS.
Results
The reliability for all pairs of raters
appears in Table 1. Also in Table 1 is the
percent agreement between the therapist
ratings and the clinical record ratings
for the 10 subjects on whom therapist
ratings were available. Since Rorschach
raters (a) scored each of 302 excerpted
responses, and then (b) had to determine
an ovrall score for each subject, there
are exxentially two reliability scores of
the Rorschach ratings. The Rorschach
ratings in Table 1 reflect the percent
agreement between raters for the overall
Rorschach score given to each subject.
The percent agreegment between Ror-
schach raters across all 302 Mutuality of
Autonomy ratings (i.e, the scoring for
each excerpted re~ponse)was as follows:
52% exact hits, 59% within j/, point and
68% within one point.
The highest correlation with the clini-
cal record ratings of object relations was
 J. URIST and M. SHILL
Table 1
Reliability of Ratings: Percent Agreement Between Raters
Rorschach Mutuality Ratings n = 60
Clinical Records Mutuality Ratings n = 60
Therapist Ratings with
Clinical Record Ratings n = 10
Table 2
Intercorrelations of Rorschach Scores
with Clinical Record Scores
clinical
Records
Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts] at 16:48 27 December 2014
Score
Rorschach Overall .53*
Rorschach Average .48*
Rorschach Low Average .50*
Rorschach High Average .37*
Rorschach Highest .17
Rorschach Lowest .51*
* Significant at .OOI level.
generated by the overall Rorschach
score. As reflected in Table 2, all Ror-
schach scores tended to correlate signifi-
cantly @ = .001) with the clinical record
ratings except for the highest Rorschach
score.
Discussion
The significant correlation between
the Rorschach Mutuality of Autonomy
ratings of the excerpted responses and
the clinical ratings of object relations
supports the idea that the scale does in-
deed tap the subject's capacity for ob-
ject relations. The argument that such a
correlation may reflect the influence of
an additional or extraneous factor is not
supported by these results. The effect of
a more general Rorschach health-sick-
ness factor appears significantly less
likely in the face of the ability of the
more focused use of excerpted responses
to generate a significant correlation with
an independent measure of object rela-
tions. It is, of course, possible that raters
may still have been influenced to some
degree by other qualities of the excerp-
ted responses themselves, such as form
Percent Witnin Percent Within Percent
One Point K Po~nt Exact Hits
--
72 60 38
74 72 62
90 85 80
level, or by particular aspects of the con-
tent unrelated to Mutuality of Auton-
omy. Nevertheless, the possibility of
such extraneous factors has been signifi-
cantly reduced, given the results of the
excerpting.
The results raise the question of the
validity of the different measures of ob-
ject relations used i r ~this study. Camp-
bell and Fislce (1959) emphasize that
validity can be established onl:y by a
combined strategy of (a) assessing the
same trait by different methods, and (b)
measuring different traits by the same
method (multitrair..mulf inet hod ma-
trix). This type of approach offers the
possibility of comparing in the future
various methods for the aSSeSSnlent of
object relations. Being able to contrast
the effectiveness of the Rorschach to
that of other approaches to assessing
object relations would appear to be
worthy of further ex.ploration.
Specific cornparision between these
findings and results of the 1977 study is
complicated by the fact that the present
study makes use of clinical ratings based
on the patients' charts whereas in the
earlier study, Rorschach MAS scores
were instead correlated with direct
ratings by staff of patients' actual be-
havior as we11 as of other projective
data. With the attempt at validation be-
ing based on differing external measures,
it is difficult to compare the current cor-
relations to those found in the previous
study, othr than to note that in both
cases the R.orschach MAS scores cor-
related significantly with the respective
clinical measures. In the previous study,
obtained correlations between Ror-
schach MAS and staff ratings were
somewaht low~er(r = .47) than the cur-
rent correlation using ratings based on
 454 Validity of the Rorschach Mutuality of Autonomy Scale

charts (r = .53). On the other hand, the method matrix. Psychologzcal Bulletin, 1959,
previous study revealed a correlation of 56, 81-105.
.63 between Rorschach MAS and ratings Fraiberg, S. Libidinal object constancy and men-
tal representation. Psychoanalytic Study of the
of Mutuality of Autonomy based on an Child, 1969, 24, 9-46.
autobiographical task. Kernberg, 0.Borderline conditions and patho-
Clinical ratings based on patients' logzcal narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson,
charts clearly leave a great deal to be 1975.
desired as a consistently rich and de- Kohut, H. The analysis of the self: New York: In-
pendable source of clinical data across ternational Universities Press, 1971.
subjects. One can speculate that in vivo Mahler, M., & Furer, M. On human symbiosis
and the viczssitudes of individuation: volume I ,
clinical ratings would represent a more infantile psychosis. New York: International
appropriate external validating instru- Universities Press, 1968.
ment than the use of patients'charts, and Settlage, C. The psychoanalytic understanding of
would, in this case, have allowed for a narcissistic and borderline personality disorders:
better comparison between excerpted advances in developmental theory. Journal of
the American Psychoanalytzc Association, 1977,
and nonexcerpted Rorschach measures. 25, no. 4, 805-834.
Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts] at 16:48 27 December 2014

Nevertheless, the current findings do Urist, J. ThepRorschach test and the assessment of
support the claim that obtained corre- object relations. Journal of Personality Assess-
lations between Rorschach measures ment, 1977, 41, 3-9.
and external clinical measures of Mutu-
ality of Autonomy do reflect valid mea- Jeffrey Urist
surement of that variable. University Hospital
Psychiatric Hospitals (Box 11)
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
References
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. Convergent and Received: January 24, 1981
discriminant validation by the multitrait-multi- Revised: June 5, 1981