The issues of studying the concept and diagnosing frustration are current problems of psychology both in theoretical and practical terms. The purpose of S. Rosenzweig's method, including the children's version, is to study the emotional reactions and behavioral patterns of an individual when faced with obstacles that block the satisfaction of needs and limit active activity. This test will help you more fully understand the characteristics of the test person’s behavior and the characteristic tendencies of emotional reactions in a traumatic situation of frustration.
S. Rosenzweig's drawing frustration test: what it is and what it is intended for (in general and for children in particular)
The development of Saul Rosenzweig's theory of frustration began in 1934, the procedure for technical improvement of the idea took another four years, and by 1938 it received its final formulation. The distinctive features of the method were scientific argumentation, methodological consistency and harmony. The purpose of the method is to determine the content of the concept of frustration and diagnose traumatic psychological states of the individual caused by situations of loss and defeat. The understanding of the term itself in the scientific literature is ambiguous; the literal meaning of the word “frustration” means disappointment, destruction of hopes for achieving a goal, i.e., it implies a stressful situation in which previously planned actions are violated, plans collapse. This interpretation of the term is popular in the scientific community, but not all theoretical psychologists accept it. From the point of view of many authors, frustration must be perceived as an organic part of a broader problem, such as the degree of psychological stability of an individual to overcome life's problems, the ability to take a blow and reaction to a traumatic challenge.
Life difficulties belong to two qualitative levels:
- The category of surmountable problems, even if the resolution of such a situation will require great psychological mobilization and effort from the individual.
- Insurmountable difficulties, when faced with which a person admits his helplessness and complete impotence.
The attention of scientists specializing in the study of frustration focuses specifically on insurmountable barriers that prevent the satisfaction of needs. In addition, one should distinguish between the concepts of a frustrator, that is, an external causative agent of a situation, and frustration itself, which means an internal reaction of the individual. So, by the term frustration in the future we will understand precisely the psychological state of the individual, which is provoked by an external obstacle and is perceived as an insurmountable difficulty in implementing plans.
Frustration occurs in cases where the body encounters more or less insurmountable obstacles or obstructions on the way to satisfying any vital need.
Rosenzweig S.
The picture-association method and its application in a study of reaction to frustration // J. Pers. 1945. V.14.
The behavioral model during frustration can unfold according to two most likely scenarios:
- Mature, rational, creative, analytical and balanced, allowing for flexibility and variability of behavior.
- Infantile, aggressive, tough and hysterical.
Rosenzweig offers his typology of psychological defense:
- Elementary cellular level - the body automatically turns on physiological defense mechanisms during infection.
- The general defense in a situation of external physical hostility is a psychological reaction characterized by an emotional background of fear, anxiety, anger, and at the physiological level a “stress” type reaction.
- The highest level is activated when it is necessary to respond to psychological threats to one’s self; in fact, this is the level of the theory of frustration.
Rosenzweig notes two types of frustration:
- Loss - a person is deprived of the necessary conditions to satisfy his needs, for example, thirst caused by lack of water.
- Blockage - there are barriers to achieving the desired goal.
The reaction of an individual in a situation of necessary defense of the “I” is complex; the classification of this reaction by direction formed the basis of the Rosenzweig test:
- Extrapunitive - externally directed behavior of the victim, the person being tested emotionally blames external circumstances or the environment for the deprivation he experiences. The responses are accompanied by a state of affect and hidden aggression.
- Intrapunitive - internal orientation of accusation, state of guilt, self-flagellation, remorse, increased self-criticism, turning into a state of despondency.
- Impunitive - an attempt to come to a reconciling compromise, avoiding uttering direct accusations both towards others and oneself.
The typology of reactions also has its own classification scale:
- Emphasis on the obstacle factor - concentration of attention on an obstacle, its pronounced dominance, regardless of its significance or assessment (important, unimportant, favorable or not).
- Self-defense is the desire to protect one’s “I”, avoiding accusations and reproaches, removing responsibility for the situation.
- Persistent-inertial - persistent focus on the need to satisfy a need, searching for a productive solution to a conflict situation, asking for help, or hoping that time and circumstances will become decisive factors in resolving the problem.
Quite often, the answers will contain two polar responses in an effort to achieve needs satisfaction:
- Adaptive inertia. The subject's actions will continue to search for an effective way to resolve the situation, despite interference and obstacles.
- Non-adaptive inertia. Actions are characterized by persistent stubbornness and psychological rigidity. Persistent reproduction of an ineffective and simplified behavior model.
There are also two types of responses in an individual’s attitude towards protecting one’s “I”:
- Adaptive - justification of an existing result by personal circumstances, for example, by the fact that the subject does not have the necessary resource base of abilities to implement his enterprise. The answer will be considered adaptive if the individual turns to himself in search of the reasons for failure and recognition of his own responsibility.
- Non-adaptive - the person will justify his own failure by external circumstances, for example, mistakes made by others.
It is worth noting that the same provocation can cause different behavioral reactions depending on the individual characteristics of the individual.
- Active behavior is characterized by a search for an outlet, engaging in activities that distract from painful experiences and thoughts, replacing the feeling of disappointment and dissatisfaction.
- A depressive state will cause apathy, a feeling of powerlessness, sadness, a feeling of devaluation and the meaninglessness of any actions. This state often turns into despair.
- Regression will lead to psychological freezing in infantile behavior, primitive and useless in its helplessness.
Emotionality and aggressiveness are also common forms of frustration.
An important criterion for the typological classification of frustration is not only the content aspect or direction, but also the duration of the mental state:
- typical for temperament and personality;
- atypical, but in the future there is a high probability of its consolidation as a new character trait;
- random, unstable (for example, aggression for a person more prone to depressive reactions or, conversely, depression for an unrestrained and rude person who often shows hostility and a tendency to violence).
Rosenzweig introduced an indicator of tolerance, resistance to frustration without loss of mental adequacy:
- The most benevolent behavior is characterized by balance, prudence, and a willingness to view the situation as a useful life experience, without self-deprecation.
- Self-control, mobilization of efforts to restrain an overly emotional reaction, impulsiveness. This behavior is characterized by a state of excessive stress.
- Ostentatious bravado, demonstrating indifference that hides anger and disappointment.
The issue of nurturing healthy and constructive frustration is relevant, since the hypothesis about the radical influence of early childhood reactions on stereotypical adult behavior is quite popular in the scientific literature. Frequent traumatic frustrations of an early age can have a negative painful meaning in the future. It is impossible to raise a mature, self-sufficient person without developing in her the skills to productively resolve difficult situations that interfere with her full life.
Procedure for conducting the children's version of the test
The S. Rosenzweig test technique adapted for children was launched in 1948. The technique was based on the belief that the drawing version would be well received by children as a game of comics, so they expected to get more direct and frank answers than from adult subjects. The children's test is intended for work with children aged four to fourteen; from the age of fifteen it is advisable to use the adult version of the method; from the age of twelve it is permissible to use the adult test. When determining the testing option, it is necessary to take into account the degree of intellectual and psychological readiness of the child for one or another method of conducting research.
The test uses as stimulus material a series of twenty-four simple graphic cards with everyday scenes from life, which are designed for direct, unambiguous answers from the test subject. Each drawing depicts two characters, usually a child and an adult or a child of the same sex and a child of the opposite sex. Above the left character there is a dialog box with text, and above the right character there is an empty field in which you must enter the words of the test taker. There is no facial expression of the drawn participants in the scene, in order for the subject to show his own attitude to the situation.
The “super-ego” obstacle is a situation where the main character becomes the object of criticism and accusation. Accordingly, there are nine such cards: 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 19, 22.
Illustration scenes numbered 11 and 15 are classified as undetermined and are therefore not included in the first or second groups.
Stimulus material for S. Rosenzweig's children's test
Drawing from the group obstacle “I” No. 1 Drawing from the group obstacle “I” No. 2 Drawing from the group obstacle “super-I” No. 3 Drawing from the group obstacle “I” No. 5 Drawing from the group obstacle “super-I” No. 8 Drawing from the group obstacle "I" No. 16 Drawing from the group obstacle "I" No. 17 Drawing from the group obstacle "I" No. 18 Drawing from the group obstacle "I" No. 20 Drawing from the group obstacle "I" No. 21 Drawing from the group obstacle "I" No. 23 Drawing from the “I” obstacle group No. 24 Drawing from the “I” obstacle group No. 10 Drawing from the “I” obstacle group No. 4 Drawing from the “super-I” obstacle group No. 6 Drawing from the “super-I” obstacle group No. 7 Drawing from group obstacle “I” No. 9 Drawing from the group obstacle “super I” No. 12 Drawing from the group obstacle “super I” No. 13 Drawing from the group obstacle “super I” No. 14 Drawing from the group obstacle “super I” No. 19 Drawing from the group obstacle “super-ego” No. 22 Drawing from the group of vague subjects No. 11 Drawing from the group of vague subjects No. 15
There is a logical relationship between these two groups, when the “super-ego” type scene was preceded by the “ego” blocking scene, where the frustrator acted as a source of obstacle and deprivation. In addition, the distinction between the two groups is not strictly unambiguous, since the scene of accusation was preceded by a scene of deprivation or hindrance, thus one who is in the position of the accuser may find himself in the position of the accused, depending on the interpretation of the test taker.
The psychologist hands the cards to the child and says: “The pictures show two or more people saying or doing something to each other. We can recognize the words of one, since they are written, but the answers of the second are unknown to us, what do you think he said, try to answer quickly, without hesitation.”
The purpose of the experiment is the desire to remove the stereotypical social attitude fixed in the child’s mind and to facilitate the symbolic transfer of the subject’s “I” to one of the characters in the plot picture. It is necessary to explain to the test taker that there can be no right or wrong answers “to the assessment”; all his answers are important, accepted and valuable. Additional comments from the researcher in an atmosphere of friendly conversation will help the child relieve the fear of a bad or incorrect answer and avoid the psychological stress of the exam situation. Such negative fears and pressures of the test taker can lead to his unconscious insincerity, secrecy in actions, and, consequently, bias in the results of the study.
If the child’s level of proficiency in reading or writing techniques does not allow him to independently enter answers on the cards, then the psychologist does this for him, then recording the results in the protocol. The author's recommendations for the children's version of the test suggest conducting an oral survey with children under eight years of age. At an older age, the test taker writes down the answers independently, even in the conditions of an individual method of conducting the study. After the test is completed, the child reads his answers out loud, and the psychologist makes the necessary notes and notes in the protocol.
In general, testing takes place within fifteen to twenty minutes. The testing procedure technique provides for both individual and group methods of work. A group method of organizing research is allowed from the age of nine and in the number of four to six children. A fairly common situation is when a child, despite a positive perception of the study, finds it difficult to give his explanations on the plot picture under the first number. This may be due both to a misunderstanding of the psychologist’s request and instructions, and to the ambiguity in the interpretation of the scene itself. To overcome this problem, it is worth paying attention to clarifying the task through leading questions; if such stimulation turns out to be ineffective, then move on to the card numbered two. It is worth returning to the answer to the first picture at the end of the study. Refusal to answer carries useful information about the characteristics of the child’s personality or his living conditions, and therefore should also be recorded in the protocol.
It is also possible that the plot of the card may be misinterpreted, for example, when a child attributes the events of card No. 17 to the morning rather than the evening, thus distorting the meaning of the situation itself and ultimately losing its research significance. The original answer is recorded in the protocol; at the end of the research procedure, the subject’s correct understanding of the plot is clarified by means of leading questions, then the final version is recorded. It is important to note that all corrective actions are carried out only after receiving and recording the initial version of all answers according to the proposed drawings.
Processing the results of S. Rosenzweig's frustration test and their interpretation
In the symbolic language of letter designation, the classification of the direction of reactions will look like this:
- E - extrapunitive behavior;
- I - intrapunitive behavior;
- M - impulsive behavior.
The typology of reactions is represented by the following letter combination:
- OD - emphasis on the obstacle factor;
- ED - self-defense;
- NP - persistent-inertial behavior.
Various combinations of these six categories result in nine primary and two secondary options.
The first stage of the study determines the direction of reactions (E, I, M), and the second clarifies the typology (OD, ED, NP).
The combination of two answer options receives a separate letter designation:
- The designation “prime” (E`, I`, M`) is added when an extrapunitive, intrapunitive or impunitive response is combined with fixation on the obstacle;
- Reaction option with dominance of self-defense - E, I, M;
- The reaction with a persistent desire to achieve the implementation of plans is recorded in lowercase letters - e, i, m;
- Extrapunitive and intropunitive behavior in combination with an accusation reaction received two additional designations - E, I (with a dash below). The situation is characterized by persistent self-justification and denial of one’s guilt.
When interpreting data in a child's test, an approach similar to an adult's is used.
It is convenient to illustrate the rating scale using the example of analyzing the answers related to the eighth figure. The card graphically depicts a scene of dialogue between two girls, in front of whom lies a broken doll. The heroine located to the left turns to her interlocutor with accusations against her: “It was you who broke my best doll!”
E` - the answer emphasizes the obstacle, the hindrance, for example: “This situation is unpleasant for me, I’m upset. I’m very sorry that such a wonderful doll was broken!”
E - aggressiveness, hostile behavior, threats and accusations towards the interlocutor: “You yourself are to blame for what happened!” The child denies any involvement in the incident.
E (with a line below) - the testee denies his guilt, as a rule, in scenes of accusation: “I did not do what is attributed to me.”
e - the solution to the problem is delegated to another character: “This is your problem, you decide what to do.”
I (approx.) - the situation of frustration, despite the negativism, is assessed as useful, for example: “Now you can have a new toy, even better!” The words may convey emphasized participation and empathy: “I’m sorry that you’re worried so much!”
I - self-accusation, feelings of guilt, remorse: “Please forgive me, it’s my fault, I’ll never do that again.”
I (Option I with a dash below) - the test taker admits his involvement, but refuses to accept responsibility for his action: “I did it by accident, I didn’t mean to.”
i - the child offers his active help in resolving the situation: “I’ll fix everything now, I’ll fix it!”
M` - the situation of frustration is deliberately devalued, the small significance and exaggeration of the problem are emphasized, the child withdraws himself: “What actually happened? I have nothing to do with this."
M - the responsibility of those present is denied, condemnation is lifted: “No one is to blame, this was what had to happen.”
m - hope that the problem will resolve itself over time, or some events will happen: “Let’s wait, the situation will change over time.”
The results of the children's test are recorded according to indicators that coincide with the adult test: reaction profile, samples, GCR indicator. All indicators are entered into the evaluation form. The scoring system in the children's and adult tests is the same.
Rosenzweig's experimental findings highlight that younger children (6–7 years old) are more prone to spontaneous and direct expression of unrestrained hostile reactions.
The GCR (Group Conformiti Rating) indicator clarifies the degree of agreement between the child’s answers and the most standard, typical option, thus identifying the coefficient of the degree of adaptation to the social environment.
General GCR table for children
| Situation number | Age groups | |||
| 6–7 years | 8–9 years | 10–11 years | 12–13 years old | |
| 1 | ||||
| 2 | E | E/m | m | M |
| 3 | E | E; M | ||
| 4 | ||||
| 5 | ||||
| 6 | ||||
| 7 | I | I | I | I |
| 8 | I | I/i | I/i | |
| 9 | ||||
| 10 | M'/E | M | ||
| 11 | I/m | |||
| 12 | E | E | E | E |
| 13 | E | E | I | |
| 14 | M' | M' | M' | M' |
| 15 | I' | E'; M' | M' | |
| 16 | E | M'/E | M' | |
| 17 | M | m | e; m | |
| 18 | ||||
| 19 | E | E; I | E; I | |
| 20 | i | I | ||
| 21 | ||||
| 22 | I | I | I | I |
| 23 | ||||
| 24 | m | m | m | M |
| 10 situations | 12 situations | 12 situations | 15 situations | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
- If the subject gives an answer that is identical to the generally accepted one, then we put “+” - 1 point.
- If the assessment is ambiguous, it receives 0.5 points.
- If the answer contradicts the standard one, then we denote it with a “-” sign - 0 points.
The total number of situations considered is accordingly taken as 100%, thus, by calculating the sum of points that the child’s answers scored, we can calculate the percentage of the value GCR. For children 6–7 years old there were 10 such situations, for children 8–9 years old - 12, for children 10–11 years old - 12, for children 12–13 years old - 15 situations. For example, if a 7-year-old subject scored 6 points, then the individual GCR percentage would be 60. GCR
The second stage of the research procedure is to fill in the profile values. For this purpose, the general protocol of the test taker’s answers is used. Each of the six types of reactions is assigned one point; if the answer has an ambiguous position (“Mm”), then each factor is given 0.5 points. The obtained indicators are recorded in the protocol table, the numbers are grouped into rows and columns, the total amount and its percentage are calculated.
19,5Interpretation of research results
1. Analysis of GCR indicators.
A low digital value indicates conflict and hostility of the test taker, poor adaptation to the social environment.
2. Analyze the six aspects of the profile table.
Increased extrapunitiveness is a symptom of inappropriately high expectations in relation to the external social environment and insufficient self-criticism. A low percentage of E means the subject’s tendency to downplay the negative painful aspects of situations, and an indicator that exceeds the norm signals the presence of increased pretentiousness towards others, indirectly indicating problems with inadequate self-esteem.
High percentages of intropunity indicate low self-esteem and excessive demands on oneself. The predominance of intropunitive behavior indicates a desire to smooth out the severity of the conflict and hush up an unpleasant situation.
Indicators of protocol recordings demonstrate the dynamics and effectiveness of self-control and the degree of awareness of the test taker of his actions in a situation of frustration. When summing up the results of the study, individual values are compared with normative group indicators, and attention is paid to whether a violation of the upper and lower limits of the permissible interval has been recorded.
- High scores in the OD (obstacle focus) category indicate that the test taker is overly concentrating on the obstacle, exaggerating its significance, and abdicating much of the responsibility for solving the problem. In this case, as a rule, indicators of more active behavior E-D, N-P will be underestimated.
- The E-D (self-defense) assessment is directly related to the characteristics of personality strength and self-confidence. Accordingly, a low percentage will tell about the problems of uncertainty, weakness, vulnerability and vulnerability of the child’s self, which constantly takes a position of self-defense.
- The N-P assessment (persistence in meeting needs) shows the degree of adequacy of the response to the challenge of a traumatic situation, determines the level of personal maturity and readiness to take responsibility for independently solving the problem.
3. Research of general trends.
This stage is important for the subject to understand the characteristics of his behavior and for self-esteem.
It is important to note that the method does not pretend to make global conclusions about the structural characteristics of the personality of the test taker. The test allows you to draw interesting conclusions regarding the subject’s relationships with others and, with a certain degree of probability, assume his emotional reactions to obstacles that have arisen that block the satisfaction of needs.
S. Rosenzweig's test is widely used in psychological practice to solve various problems and has established itself as a fairly reliable psychological tool. In addition, this test is successfully used in research work and allows us to identify gender, personality, ethnic and other factors and characteristics that determine the behavior of adults and children in situations of frustration.
Rosenzweig's Picture Frustration Test
Brief history of the creation of the technique:developed in 1945 based on the theory of frustration. There are modifications of the technique designed to study attitudes towards national minorities, problems of maintaining peace, etc. In Russian psychodiagnostics, the technique was used for the differential diagnosis of neuroses, in predicting socially dangerous actions of mentally ill patients (N.V. Tarabarina, 1973). An adult, a children's and a version for diagnosing adolescents have been developed.
General theoretical principles, which served as the basis for the methodology:The methodology is based on the theory of frustration developed by S. Rosenzweig (from Latin - deception, futile expectation, frustration). According to the theory, frustration occurs in those cases when the body encounters more or less significant obstacles on the way to satisfying any vital need. The body’s protection in frustrating situations is carried out at three levels: cellular (action of phagocytes, antibodies, etc.), autonomous – protection of the body as a whole from physical “aggressions” (corresponds psychologically to states of fear and suffering, and physiologically to changes, occurring in the body under stress), the cortical, psychological level, at which the identification of the appropriate types and directions of personality reactions is carried out. In addition to imagination and perception as indicators of motivational processes when constructing the test, the principle of correlating motive and obstacle was used.
Data on the validity and reliability of the methodology:According to foreign researchers, the test-retest reliability coefficient is 0.60 – 0.80. The validity is quite high, for example, according to the extrapunitiveness parameter, identified independently by the methodology, it is 0.747. The tasks that make up the Rosenzweig test are heterogeneous. Experiences (and actions) regarding test situations in different circumstances will vary. Rosenzweigs was able to identify fairly high rates of test-retest reliability of the technique; for the adult version of the technique, the coefficients ranged from +0.71 for male subjects (on the impunitive response scale) to +0.21 for female subjects (on the group conformity rating).
Target: diagnostics of behavioral characteristics in situations associated with the emergence of difficulties, obstacles that impede the achievement of a goal, this test also reveals the characteristics of the subject’s aggression.
Application area:There are 2 options for the method:children's version of the technique - from 4 to 14 years old and an adult version of the technique.
Organization: The examination can be carried out individually or in a group; the required time is 20-30 minutes.
Examination procedure:standard (if necessary, the time spent by the subject to answer is recorded).
Brief description of the technique:
The technique consists of 24 drawings depicting persons in a frustrating situation. The situations presented in the text can be divided into two main groups.
1. “Obstacle” situations. In these cases, some obstacle, character or object, discourages, confuses in a word or in some other way. This includes 16 situations - pictures No. 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24.
2. The situation of “accusation”.The subject then serves as the object of the accusation. There are eight of them: drawings No. 2, 5, 7, 10, 16, 17, 19, 21.
There is a connection between these types, since the situation of “accusation” suggests that it was preceded by a situation of “obstacle”, where the frustrator was, in turn, frustrated. Sometimes the subject may interpret the situation of “accusation” as a situation of “obstacle”, or vice versa.
Stimulus material:cards with schematic outline drawings depicting 2 or more people engaged in an unfinished conversation, in a frustrating situation created by the presence of an obstacle or accusation. Adult version - 24 cards, children's version - 8 cards. The character on the left speaks words that describe his own or another individual's frustration. Above the character depicted on the right there is an empty square in which the subject must enter the first answer that comes to mind.
Processing the results:Using this method, the following information is extracted: three types of reactions, three directions of reactions, coefficient of group conformity ( GCR ), a complete pattern of behavior, and trends in behavior over time.
According to the direction of the reaction, they are divided into: 1) extrapunitive ( E ) – the reaction is directed at the environment, the external cause of frustration is condemned and its degree is emphasized, sometimes a solution to the situation is required from another person. 2) intropunitive ( I ) – the reaction is directed at oneself with the acceptance of guilt or responsibility for correcting the situation that has arisen; the frustrating situation is not subject to condemnation. 3) impunitive ( M ) – a frustrating situation is considered as something insignificant or inevitable, surmountable over time, there is no blaming others or oneself.
By type of reaction: 1) O.D. obstacle-dominant / with fixation on an obstacle ( E ’, I", M") - obstacles that cause frustration are emphasized, regardless of whether they are assessed as favorable, unfavorable or insignificant 2) ED Ego-defensive / with a fixation on self-defense (E, I, M ) – activity in the form of blaming someone, denying or admitting one’s guilt, evading reproach, aimed at protecting one’s “I” 3) NP need-persistent / permissive / fixated on meeting needs (e, i, m ) - a constant need to find a constructive solution to a conflict situation in the form of either demanding help from other people, or accepting the responsibility to resolve the situation, or confidence that the time and course of events will lead to its resolution.
The corresponding table contains methods for assessing the test subjects' answers. The scores are recorded on a record sheet for further processing. It involves calculating the indicator GCR , which can be designated as the “degree of social adaptation.” This indicator is calculated by comparing the responses of a particular subject with the “standard”, statistical average.
Group conformity coefficient ( GCR ) – the degree of exposure of the individual to the influence of the group, is a method of social adaptation. The higher GCR , the more conformist the subject is, dependent on others, less independent, unoriginal in making decisions and implementing them. The lower GCR , the more developed are the positive qualities - independence, independence, originality.
A complete pattern of behavior is a “formula” of a person’s behavior in stressful situations, consisting of symbols denoting these reactions, written in descending order of their quantitative expression.
Behavioral trends quantitatively reflect the dynamics of changes in method indicators over time. They reflect the strengthening or weakening of one or another psychological characteristic, expressed as a percentage.
The results are processed according to the following plan:
1. fill out the calculation table, counting the repetition of each of the symbols, then their sum (this sum vertically and horizontally should be equal to 24)
2. use the table to convert the amounts received into percentages
3. write down in symbols a complete pattern of behavior in descending order of the quantitative representation of each symbol
4. check GCR with the key (according to Tarabrina), the number of matches doubles, then convert them into percentages
5. calculate trends. To do this, count the occurrence of the symbol ( e, i, m, E, I, M, E’, I”, M ’) in the first half of situations (up to 12 inclusive) and in the second half. Then subtract the smaller number from the larger number while maintaining the sign, divide the difference by the amount of occurrence of this symbol and convert the resulting number into a percentage.
6. general interpretation of results
|
Extrapunitive reactions |
Intrapunitive reactions |
Impunitive reactions |
|
O.D. |
E' Extrapeditive The presence of a frustrating obstacle is persistently emphasized |
I' Itrapeditive The frustrating obstacle is not perceived as such, it even seems useful and beneficial |
M' Impedative Obstacle, etc. is minimized or completely negated |
ED |
Extrapunitive A person or object in the surrounding world is accused The subject aggressively denies responsibility |
Intrapunitive The subject blames only himself for everything IThe subject admits his guilt, but does not see any particular crime in the crime committed. |
Impunitive The situation is inevitable, all responsibility is removed from the “frustrator” |
NP |
Extrapersistive Someone else is expected to solve the problem |
Intrapersistive The subject offers compensation options |
Imperative "Time is the best healer" |
Brief description of the scales:see "processing of results" and the table.
Algorithm for constructing a diagnosis and features of interpretation of the methodology:
The subject consciously or subconsciously identifies himself with the frustrated character in each picture situation. The interpretation technique includes several stages.
The first stage is to study GCR , which is an important indicator of the technique. Thus, if a subject has a low percentage of GCR, then it can be assumed that he often has conflicts (of various types) with those around him, that he is not sufficiently adapted to his social environment.
The second step is to examine the scores of the six factors in the profile table. Estimates regarding the direction of reactions (E, I , M), have meanings arising from theoretical concepts of frustration.
So, for example, if we get a test subject’s rating M - normal, E - very high, I - very low, then on the basis of this we can say that a subject in a frustrating situation will respond with increased frequency in an extrapunitive manner and very rarely in an intropunitive manner. That is, it can be assumed that he makes increased demands on others, and this may serve as a sign of inadequate self-esteem.
Assessments regarding types of reactions have different meanings. The OD assessment (type of reaction “with fixation on an obstacle”) shows to what extent the obstacle frustrates the subject. So, if we received an increased rating O.D. , then this suggests that in frustrating situations the subject is more than normally dominated by the idea of an obstacle. Grade ED (the type of reaction “with a fixation on self-defense”) means a weak, vulnerable personality. The subject's reactions are focused on protecting his “I”. Evaluation NP - a sign of an adequate response, an indicator of the degree to which the subject can resolve frustrating situations.
The third stage of interpretation is the study of trends. It can be of great importance in understanding the subject's attitude towards his own reactions.
In general, we can add that based on the examination protocol, conclusions can be drawn regarding certain aspects of the subject’s adaptation to his social environment. The technique in no way provides material for making conclusions about the structure of personality. It is only possible to predict with a greater degree of probability the emotional reactions of the subject to various difficulties or obstacles that stand in the way of satisfying needs and achieving goals.
Literature:
Fundamentals of Psychology: Workshop / Ed.-compiled by L.D. Stolyarenko. - Rostov n/d: “Phoenix”, 2001.
projective constitutive additive frustration
The text of the experimental psychological methodology for studying frustration reactions by S. Rosenzweig was modified at the Research Institute named after. V. M. Bekhtereva. Rosenzweig's technique, like the hand test, is projective, and therefore very necessary for a qualitative study of the personality of the subjects.
S. Rosenzweig's theory of frustration, like many scientific theories in general, is, of course, not free from a broad understanding of its significance in the diagnosis and prognosis of personal development and growth. But in general, the experience of using this technique testifies to its value in the differential diagnosis of character accentuations, behavioral disorders (including socially dangerous ones), neurotic conditions, as well as in the positive sense of establishing the optimal state of mental health of children and adults.
Experimental psychological methods for studying frustration reactions.
This technique was first described in 1944 by S. Rosenzweig under the name “Methodology of Drawing Frustration.” The stimulus situation of this method consists of a schematic outline drawing of two or more people engaged in an ongoing conversation. The characters depicted may vary in gender, age and other characteristics. What all drawings have in common is that the character is in a frustrating situation.
The technique consists of 24 drawings depicting persons in a frustrating situation.
The situations presented in the text can be divided into two main groups.
1. “Obstacle” situations. In these cases, some obstacle, character or object discourages or confuses a person in a word or in some other way. This includes 16 situations - pictures 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24.
2. Situations of “accusation”. The subject then serves as the object of the accusation. There are eight of them: figures 2, 5, 7, 10, 16, 17, 19, 21.
There is a connection between these types, since the situation of “accusation” assumes that it was preceded by a situation of “obstacle”, where the frustrator was, in turn, frustrated. Sometimes the subject may interpret the situation of “accusation” as a situation of “obstacle” or vice versa.
The experiment procedure is organized according to the instructions attached to the set of drawings.
Test score. Each response is evaluated in terms of two criteria: direction of response and type of response.
1. Extrapunitive reactions (the reaction is directed at the living or inanimate environment - the degree of the frustrating situation is emphasized, the external cause of frustration is condemned, or the resolution of this situation is made the responsibility of another person).
2. Intropunitive reactions (the reaction is directed by the subject to himself: the subject accepts the frustrating situation as favorable for himself, accepts the blame or takes responsibility for correcting this situation).
3. Impulsive reactions (the frustrating situation is considered by the subject as insignificant, as the absence of someone’s fault, or as something that can be corrected by itself, one just has to wait and think).
Reactions also differ in terms of their types:
1. The type of reaction “with fixation on the obstacle” (in the test subject’s response, the obstacle that caused frustration is emphasized in every possible way or interpreted as a kind of benefit or is described as an obstacle that is not of serious importance).
2. Type of reaction “with fixation on self-defense” (the main role in the subject’s response is played by defense of oneself, one’s “I”; the subject either blames someone, or admits his guilt, or notes that responsibility for frustration cannot be attributed to anyone ).
3. Type of reaction “with fixation on need satisfaction” (the response is aimed at resolving the problem; the reaction takes the form of a demand for help from other persons to resolve the situation; the subject himself takes on the task of resolving the situation or believes that time and the course of events will lead to its correction) .
The combinations of these six categories result in nine possible factors and two additional options. To indicate the direction of a reaction, the letters E, I, M are used:
E - extrapunitive reactions; I - intropunitive; M - impunitive.
Types of reactions are indicated by the following symbols: OD - “with fixation on an obstacle”, ED - “with fixation on self-defense”, and NP - “with fixation on satisfying a need”.
To indicate that the idea of an obstacle dominates the response, the “prime” icon (E, I, M") is added. The type of reaction “with a fixation on self-defense” is indicated in capital letters without an icon. The type of reaction “with a fixation on satisfying the need” is indicated lowercase letters e, i, m.
The corresponding table contains methods for assessing the test subjects' answers. The scores are recorded on a record sheet for further processing. It involves calculating the GCR indicator, which can be designated as the “degree of social adaptation.” This indicator is calculated by comparing the responses of a particular subject with the “standard”, statistical average.
Description of the semantic content of factors
|
OD “with fixation on an obstacle” |
ED “with a fixation on self-defense” |
NP "with a fixation on need satisfaction" |
|
|
E" - the answer emphasizes the presence of an obstacle. Example: “This situation definitely frustrates me (annoys, worries)." Occurs mainly in situations with an obstacle |
E - hostility, censure are directed against someone or something in the environment. The answer contains accusations, reproaches, and sarcasm. Example: “Go to hell!”, “You are to blame!” The subject actively denies his guilt for the offense committed. Example: “I didn’t do what you accuse me of.” |
f - it is required, expected, or explicitly implied that someone must resolve the situation. Example: “You need to resolve this issue.” |
|
|
I" - a frustrating situation is interpreted as favorable and useful, as bringing satisfaction (or deserving of punishment). |
I - censure, condemnation is directed at oneself, the feeling of guilt, one’s own inferiority, and remorse dominates. |
i - the subject himself undertakes to resolve the frustrating situation, openly admitting or hinting at his guilt. |
|
|
M" - the difficulties of a frustrating situation are not noticed or are reduced to its complete denial. Example: “This situation doesn’t make any difference.” |
M - the responsibility of a person who finds himself in a frustrating situation is minimized, condemnation is avoided. Example: “Nothing, we learn from mistakes.” |
m - the hope is expressed that time and the normal course of events will resolve the problem, you just need to wait a little; or that mutual understanding and mutual compliance will eliminate the frustrating situation. |
|
There are 14 situations in total that are used for comparison. Their values are presented in the table (see below). A “+” sign is placed on the left side of the subject’s protocol sheet if the subject’s answer is identical to the standard answer. When two types of answers to a situation are given as a standard answer, then at least one answer that coincides in meaning with the standard one is sufficient. In this case, the answer is also marked with a “+” sign. If a subject's response produces a double score and one of them is standard, it is scored 0.5 points. If the answer does not correspond to the standard one, it is indicated with a “-” sign. The scores are summed up, counting each plus as one and each minus as zero. Then, based on 14 situations (which are taken as 100%), the percentage value is calculated GCR test subject. Quantitative value GCR can be considered as a measure of the subject’s individual adaptation to his social environment.
Profiles. The frequencies of occurrence of each of the 9 counting factors are entered in the profile squares. In this case, each counting factor that was used to evaluate the answer is taken as one point. If the answer is estimated using several counting factors, then in this calculation any division between the counting factors is calculated on a proportional basis, with each factor given equal weight.
When 9 squares of profiles are filled in (see the test subject's answer sheet), the numbers are summed up in columns and rows. Since the number of situations is 24, the possible maximum for each case is 24, and based on this, the percentage of each amount received is calculated. The percentage ratio E, I, M, OD, ED, MR calculated in this way represents the characteristics of the frustration reactions of the subject expressed in quantitative form.
Samples. Based on the numerical data profile, three main and one additional samples are compiled.
1. The first pattern expresses the relative frequency of different directions of response, regardless of its type. Extrapunitive, intropunitive, and impunitive responses are arranged in order of decreasing frequency. For example, frequencies E - 14, I - 6, M - 4 are written: E > I > M.
2. The second pattern expresses the relative frequency of response types, regardless of their direction. Sign characters are written in the same way as in the previous example. For example, we received OD-10, ED - 6, NP - 8. It is written: OD > NP > ED.
3. The third pattern expresses the relative frequency of the three most frequently occurring factors, regardless of the type and direction of the response. It is written, for example: E > E" > M.
4. The fourth additional sample includes a comparison of E and I responses in the “obstacle” and “blame” situations. The sum of E and I is calculated as a percentage, also based on 24, but since only 8 (or 1/3) of the test situations allow the calculation of E and I, the maximum percentage of such answers will be 33. For interpretation purposes, the resulting percentages can be compared with this number.
Trend analysis. During the experiment, the subject can noticeably change his behavior, moving from one type or direction of reactions to another. Such a change is of great importance for understanding frustration reactions, since it shows the attitude of the subject to his own reactions. For example, a subject may give extrapunitive responses at the beginning of an experiment, and then, after nine or ten situations that make him feel guilty, begin to give intropunitive responses. Analysis involves identifying the existence of such trends and clarifying their nature. Trends are recorded in the form of an arrow, above the shaft of which a numerical assessment of the trend is indicated, determined by the sign “+” (positive trend) or “-” (negative trend).
The formula for calculating the numerical assessment of the trend: (a - b)/(a + b), where a is the quantitative assessment in the first half of the protocol, b is the quantitative assessment in the second half. In order for a trend to be considered representative, it must fit into at least four responses and have a minimum score of 0.33.
Five types of trends are analyzed.
Type 1. The direction of the reaction in the OD column is considered. For example, factor E" appears six times: three times in the first half of the protocol with a score of 2.5 and three times in the second half with a score of 2 points. The ratio is +0.11. Factor I" appears only once overall , Factor M" appears three times. There is no Type 1 tendency.
Type 2. Factors E, I, M are considered similarly.
Type 3. Factors e, i, m are considered similarly.
Type 4. The directions of reactions are considered without taking into account graphs.
Type 5. Cross-sectional tendency looks at the distribution of factors in three columns without considering direction; for example, examination of the OD column indicates the presence of 4 factors in the first half (score designated 3) and 6 in the second half (score 4). The graphs ED and NP are treated similarly.
Interpretation
The subject consciously or subconsciously identifies himself with the frustrated character in each picture situation. The interpretation technique includes several stages.
The first stage is to study GCR, which is an important indicator of the technique. So, if the subject has a low percentage GCR, then we can assume that he often has conflicts (of various types) with people around him, that he is not sufficiently adapted to his social environment. The second step is to examine the scores of the six factors in the profile table. Estimates regarding the direction of reactions (E, I, M) have meanings arising from theoretical concepts of frustration.
So, for example, if we receive from a subject a rating of M - normal, E - very high, I - very low, then on the basis of this we can say that the subject in a frustrating situation will respond with increased frequency in an extrapunitive manner and very rarely in an intropunitive manner. It can be assumed that he makes increased demands on others, and this may serve as a sign of inadequate self-esteem.
Assessments regarding types of reactions have different meanings.
The OD assessment (type of reaction “with fixation on an obstacle”) shows to what extent the obstacle frustrates the subject. So, if we received an increased assessment of OD, then this indicates that in frustrating situations the idea of an obstacle prevails in the subject, more than normally.
The ED rating (type of reaction “with fixation on self-defense”) means a weak, vulnerable personality. The subject's reactions are focused on protecting his “I”.
The NP assessment is a sign of an adequate response, an indicator of the degree to which the subject can resolve frustrating situations.
The third stage of interpretation is the study of trends. It can be of great importance for understanding the subject's attitude towards his own reactions. The duration of the examination is 20-30 minutes.
In general, we can add that based on the examination protocol, conclusions can be drawn regarding certain aspects of the subject’s adaptation to his social environment.
The technique in no way provides material for making conclusions about the structure of personality. It is only possible to predict with a greater degree of probability the emotional reactions of the subject to various difficulties or obstacles that stand in the way of satisfying his needs and achieving his goal.
|
Figure No. |
|||
FORM FOR PROCESSING RESULTS
Evaluation of the subject's answers. Profile table
|
Trends 1. |
||||||||||
|
General behavior pattern: |
||||||||||
Table for conversion to percentages
 |
|
Identification of hidden aggression and frustration - the applied significance of the technique
Rosenzweig's Picture Frustration Test sets the main goal of eliciting the subject's hidden hostility. At the same time, it involves additionally determining the type of aggression:
 |
 |
Theoretical basis
Each of the answers received, according to Rosenzweig’s theory**, is assessed according to 2 criteria:
 |
 |
 |
 |