The Rosenzweig Frustration Test, created in 1945 by Saul Rosenzweig*, is widely used among projective methods.on the basis of his theory of frustration (frustration from Latin "deceit", "disorder").

Description: The methodology of frustration tolerance (modified by N.V. Tarabrina) is designed to study reactions to failure and ways out of situations that impede activity or satisfy the needs of the individual. The test subject is offered 16 situations in which an obstacle is created (stop, discourage, offend, confuse) and 8 situations in which the subject is accused of something. There is a connection between these groups of situations, since the "accusation" situation suggests that it was preceded by the "obstacle" situation, where the frustrator was, in turn, frustrated.

The stimulus material of Rosenzweig's method of drawing frustration consists of 24 drawings depicting faces in a problem situation. One of the characters says a phrase that describes the essence of the problem. An empty square is depicted above another character. The subject must give for him any answers that come to his mind. Their content is analyzed in order to identify the type of resentment (aggression and its focus - on oneself, on others). The type of aggression differs in what turns out to be more significant for the person being tested (obstacles, censure of others, the search for constructive solutions to problems).

The adult version of the test is used from the age of 15. The children's version of the technique is intended for children 4–13 years old. In the interval of 12–15 years, it is possible to use both the children's and adult versions of the test.

Rosenzweig frustration test, modified by Tarabrina, adult version. (Method of picturesque frustration. / Technique of frustration tolerance. / Questionnaire for the diagnosis of aggressiveness - reactions to resentment):

Instruction.

You will now be shown 24 drawings. Each of them depicts two talking people. What the first person says is written in the box on the left. Imagine what the other person might say to him. Write the very first answer that comes to your mind on a piece of paper, marking it with the appropriate number. Take the task seriously. Try to work as quickly as possible.

Stimulus material of the Rosenzweig test.

Key to the Rosenzweig test. Processing the results of the frustration tolerance technique.

Test processing consists of the following steps:

1. Response score
2. Determination of the indicator "degree of social adaptability".
3. Definition of profiles.
4. Definition of samples.
5. Trend analysis.

Response score.

As mentioned earlier, the situations depicted in the figures can be divided into two main groups.

• Situations" obstacles"(ego-blocking). In these cases, some obstacle, character or object discourages, confuses in a word or in some other way. This includes 16 situations.
  Images: 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24.
• Situations" accusations" (super ego blocking). The subject thus serves as object of accusation. There are 8 such situations.
  Images: 2, 5, 7, 10, 16, 17, 19, 21.

Each of the responses received is evaluated, in accordance with Rosenzweig's theory ** , according to two criteria: according to the direction of the reaction (aggression) and according to the type of reaction.

According to the direction of the reaction subdivided into:

Extrapunitive: the reaction is directed at the living or non-living environment, the external cause of frustration is condemned, the degree of the frustrating situation is emphasized, sometimes the solution of the situation is required from another person.

Intropunitive: 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. The subject accepts the frustrating situation as favorable for himself.

Impulsive: the frustrating situation is seen as something insignificant or inevitable, surmountable over time, there is no blaming others or oneself.

According to the type of reaction are divided into:

Obstructive-dominant. Type of reaction "with fixation on an obstacle". Obstacles that cause frustration are emphasized in every possible way, regardless of whether they are regarded as favorable, unfavorable or insignificant.

Self-protective. Type of reaction "with fixation on self-defense". Activity in the form of censuring someone, denying or admitting one's own guilt, evading reproach aimed at protecting one's "I", responsibility for frustration cannot be attributed to anyone.

Necessarily-persistent. Type of reaction "with fixation on satisfaction of need". The constant need to find a constructive solution to a conflict situation in the form of either asking for help from others, or accepting the responsibility to resolve the situation, or the belief that time and the course of events will lead to its resolution.

The following letters are used to indicate the direction of a reaction:

E - extrapunitive reactions,

I - intropunitive reactions,

M - impunity.

Reaction types are indicated by the following symbols:

OD - "with fixation on an obstacle",

ED - "with fixation on self-defense",

NP - "fixed to meet the need."

From combinations of these six categories, nine possible factors and two additional options are obtained.

From the combination of these 6 categories, 9 possible score factors are obtained.

Each answer can be evaluated by one, two, rarely three counting factors.

Each factor is written in the corresponding column opposite the answer number, and its counting value in this case (two fixed indicators on one answer) corresponds to not one whole point, as with a single answer indicator, but 0.5 points. A more detailed breakdown of the answer into 3,4, etc. indicators is possible, but not recommended. In all cases, the total sum of all scoring factors with a fully completed protocol is 24 points - one point for each item.

All responses of the subject, coded as counting factors, are recorded on the protocol form in the columns corresponding to the type, opposite the counting points.

Counting factors for classifying responses

Step by step description of results processing:

First you need to determine the direction of the reaction contained in the response of the subject (E, I or M), and then identify the type of reaction: ED, OD or NP.

Description of the semantic content of the factors used in the evaluation of responses (adult version)

So, the response of the subject in situation No. 14 “Let's wait another five minutes”, according to the direction of the reaction, is impunitive (m), and according to the type of reaction, “with fixation to satisfy the need” (NP).

The combination of these or those two options is assigned its own literal meaning.

If the idea of ​​an obstacle dominates in an answer with an extrapunitive, intropunitive or impunitive reaction, the sign "prim" (E', I', M') is added.

The type of reaction "with fixation on self-protection" is indicated by capital letters without an icon (E, I, M).

The type of response "with fixation to meet the need" is indicated by lowercase letters (e, i, m).

Extra- and intropunitive reactions of a self-protective type in situations of accusation have two more additional evaluation options, which are denoted by the symbols E and I.

The appearance of additional options for counting E and I is due to the division of the test situation into two types. In situations of "obstruction" the reaction of the subject is usually directed at the frustrating person, and in situations of "accusation" it is more often an expression of protest, upholding one's innocence, rejection of accusation or reproach, in short, persistent self-justification.

Consider the example of situation number 1. In this situation, the character on the left (the driver) says: "I'm sorry that we splashed your suit, although we tried very hard to avoid the puddle."

Possible answers to these words with their evaluation using the above symbols:

E' - "How unpleasant it is."

I’ - “I didn’t get dirty at all.” (The subject emphasizes how unpleasant it is to involve another person in a frustrating situation).

M' - "Nothing happened, it is a little splashed with water."

E - "You are clumsy. You are a klutz."

I - "Well, of course, I should have stayed on the sidewalk."

M - "Nothing special."

e - "You will have to clean."

i - "I'll clean it."

m - "Nothing, dry."

Since the answers are often in the form of two phrases or sentences, each of which may have a slightly different function, they can be denoted by two corresponding symbols if necessary. For example, if the subject says: "I'm sorry that I caused all this anxiety, but I will be glad to correct the situation", then this designation will be: Ii. In most cases, one counting factor is enough to evaluate the answer.

The score for most responses depends on one factor. A special case is presented by interpenetrating or interconnected combinations used for answers.

The explicit meaning of the words of the subject is always taken as the basis of the calculation, and since the answers are often in the form of two phrases or sentences, each of which can have a different function, it is possible to set one counting value for one group of words, and another for another.

The data obtained in the form of literal expressions (E, I, M, E ', M ', I ', e, i, m) are entered in the table.

Definition of the indicator "degree of social adaptability" - GCR.

The indicator of the "degree of social adaptation" - GCR - expresses the percentage of matches of the counting factors of a particular protocol (in points) with the total number of standard responses for the population.

The number of such points for comparison in the author's original is 12, in the Russian version (according to N.V. Tarabrina) - 14. Accordingly, the denominator in the fraction when calculating the GCR percentage is the number of standardized points (in the latter case 14), and the numerator is the number of points, received by the tested by coincidence. In the case when the subject's answer is encoded by two counting factors and only one of them coincides with the normative answer, not a whole, but 0.5 points is added to the total sum of the numerator of the fraction.

The normative answers for the calculation are shown in the table below.

Standard Response Values ​​for Adult GCR Calculation

Note: in the denominator - the number of standard points, in the numerator - the number of match points.

Definition of profiles.

The total scores of each of the nine scoring factors are recorded in the table of profiles on the protocol form. In the same table, the total total score and the percentage (from 24) of all answers of each direction (in a line) and each type (in a column) are indicated.

Profile table

Average test statistics for groups of healthy individuals (in %)

Definition of samples.

Based on the profile table, the samples.

There are only 4 of them: 3 main and 1 additional.

Sample 1: Statement of the relative frequency of answers of different directions, regardless of the type of reactions.

Sample 2: reflects the relative frequency of reaction types.

Sample 3: reflects the relative frequency of the most frequent three factors, regardless of types and directions.

The three main patterns make it easier to note the predominant modes of response by direction, type, and combinations thereof.

Additional sample consists of comparing ego-blocking responses with the corresponding super-ego blocking responses.

Trend analysis.

During the experience, the subject can noticeably change his behavior, moving from one type or direction of reaction to another. Any such change is of great importance for the understanding of frustration, as it shows the attitude of the subject to his own reactions.

For example, the subject may begin the experiment by giving extrapunitive responses, then after 8 or 9 situations that arouse feelings of guilt in him, begin to give intrapunitive responses.

Analysis involves revealing the existence of such tendencies and ascertaining their nature. Trends are marked (recorded) in the form of an arrow, above the shaft of the arrow indicate a numerical assessment of the trend, defined by the sign "+" or "-". "+" - positive trend, "-" - negative trend. The formula for calculating the numerical assessment of trends: (a - b)/(a + b)

where a is the quantification in the first half of the protocol; b - quantification in the second half of the protocol. To be considered indicative, a trend must fit into at least 4 responses and have a minimum score of ±0.33.

There are 5 types of trends:

• Type 1 - consider the direction of the reaction on the scale O - D (factors E", I", M "),
• Type 2 - consider the direction of the reaction on the scale E - D (factors E, I, M),
• Type 3 - consider the direction of the reaction in the N - P scale (factors e, i, m),
• Type 4 - consider the direction of the reaction, not taking into account the columns,
• Type 5 - consider the distribution of factors in three columns, without considering the direction.

Interpretation of the Rosenzweig test.

The subject more or less consciously identifies himself with the frustrated character in each situation of the technique. On the basis of this provision, the response profile obtained is considered characteristic of the subject himself. The advantages of S. Rosenzweig's technique include high retest reliability, the ability to adapt to different ethnic populations.

The content characteristics of individual indicators of the methodology, theoretically described by the author, correspond mainly to their direct values, described in the section on calculating indicators. S. Rosenzweig noted that in themselves the individual reactions recorded in the test are not a sign of "norm" or "pathology", in this case they are neutral. Significant for interpretation are the total indicators, their general profile and compliance with the standard standards of the group "The last of these criteria, according to the author, is a sign of the adaptability of the subject's behavior to the social environment. The test indicators do not reflect structural personality formations, but individual dynamic characteristics of behavior, and therefore this tool did not imply psychopathological diagnosis. However, a satisfactory distinguishing ability of the test in relation to to groups of suicides, cancer patients, maniacs, the elderly, the blind, stuttering, which confirms the expediency of its use as part of a battery of diagnostic tools.

It is noted that high extrapunity in the test is often associated with inadequate increased demands on the environment and insufficient self-criticism. An increase in extra-punitiveness is observed in subjects after social or physical stress exposure. Among the offenders, apparently, there is a camouflage underestimation of extrapunitiveness relative to the norms.

An increased indicator of intropunity usually indicates excessive self-criticism or insecurity of the subject, a reduced or unstable level of general self-esteem.

The dominance of the reactions of the impulsive direction means the desire to settle the conflict, hush up the awkward situation.

The types of reactions and the GCR indicator, which differ from the standard data, are typical for persons with deviations in various areas of social adaptation.

The trends recorded in the protocol characterize the dynamics and effectiveness of the subject's reflexive regulation of his behavior in a situation of frustration. According to the assumption of some authors, the severity of tendencies in the test is associated with instability, internal conflict of the demonstrated standard of behavior.

When interpreting the results of applying the test as the only research tool, one should adhere to the correct description of the dynamic characteristics and refrain from conclusions that claim to be of diagnostic value.

The principles for interpreting test data are the same for the children's and adult forms of the S. Rosenzweig test. It is based on the idea that the subject consciously or unconsciously identifies himself with the character depicted in the picture and therefore expresses the features of his own "verbal aggressive behavior" in his answers.

As a rule, in the profile of most subjects, all factors are represented to one degree or another. "A "complete" profile of frustration reactions with a relatively proportional distribution of values ​​by factors and categories indicates a person's ability to flexible, adaptive behavior, the ability to use various methods of overcoming difficulties, in accordance with the conditions of the situation. On the contrary, the absence of any factors in the profile indicates that that the appropriate modes of behavior, even if they are potentially available to the subject, are most likely not to be implemented in situations of frustration.

The profile of frustration reactions of each person is individual, however, it is possible to identify common features that are characteristic of the behavior of most people in frustrating situations.

An analysis of the indicators recorded in the profile of frustration reactions also involves a comparison of the data of an individual profile with standard values. At the same time, it is established to what extent the value of the categories and factors of an individual profile correspond to the average group indicators, whether there is an exit beyond the upper and lower limits of the allowable interval.

So, for example, if in an individual protocol there is a low value of category E, a normal value of I and a high M (all in comparison with normative data), then on the basis of this we can conclude that this subject in situations of frustration tends to downplay the traumatic, unpleasant aspects of these situations and to inhibit aggressive manifestations addressed to others where others usually express their demands in an extrapunitive manner.

The value of the extrapunitive category E exceeding the norms is an indicator of the increased demands made by the subject on others, and can serve as one of the indirect signs of inadequate self-esteem.

The high value of the intropunitive category I, on the contrary, reflects the subject's tendency to make excessively high demands on himself in terms of self-accusation or taking on increased responsibility, which is also considered as an indicator of inadequate self-esteem, primarily its decrease.

Categories characterizing the types of reactions are also analyzed taking into account their content and compliance with standard indicators. Category 0-D (fixation on an obstacle) shows the extent to which the subject tends to focus on the existing obstacle in situations of frustration. If the 0-D score exceeds the established normative limit, then it should be assumed that the subject tends to over-fixate on the obstacle. It is obvious that the increase in the 0-D score occurs due to a decrease in the E-D N-P scores, i.e., more active types of attitude towards the obstacle. The E-D score (fixation on self-defense) in the interpretation of S. Rosenzweig means the strength or weakness of the "I". Accordingly, an increase in the E-D indicator characterizes a weak, vulnerable, vulnerable person, forced in situations of obstacles to focus primarily on protecting his own "I".

The N-P score (fixation on meeting the need), according to S. Rosenzweig, is a sign of an adequate response to frustration and shows the extent to which the subject shows frustration tolerance and is able to solve the problem that has arisen.

The overall assessment of the categories is supplemented by a characteristic for individual factors, which makes it possible to establish the contribution of each of them to the total indicator and more accurately describe the ways the subject reacts in situations of obstacles. An increase (or, conversely, a decrease) in a rating for any category may be associated with an overestimated (or, accordingly, underestimated) value of one or more of its constituent factors.

* Saul Rosenzweig,07.02.1907 – 09.08.2004 ) , other translations into Russian Rosensweig, Rasensweig, Rosenzweig, Rosenzweg, Rosenzweik, etc.; - American psychologist, specialist in personality problems, psychological diagnostics, schizophrenia. Professor at Saint Louis University. Developed a theory of frustration.

** Frustration theory by Saul Rosenzweig.

In a situation of frustration, Rosenzweig considers three levels of psychological defense of the body.

1. Cellular (immunological) level, psychobiological protection is based here on the action of phagocytes, skin antibodies, etc., and contains exclusively the body's defense against infectious influences.
2. Autonomous level, also called the level of immediate need (according to Cannon's typology). It involves the defense of the organism as a whole against general physical aggressions. Psychologically, this level corresponds to fear, suffering, rage, and physiologically - to biological changes such as "stress".
3. The highest cortical level (protection of the "I") includes the protection of the personality against psychological aggression. This is the level which includes mainly the theory of frustration.

This distinction is, of course, schematic; Rosenzweig emphasizes that, in a broad sense, the theory of frustration covers all three levels and all of them mutually penetrate each other. For example, a series of mental states: suffering, fear, anxiety, - referring in principle to three levels, in fact represent fluctuations; suffering belongs simultaneously to levels 1 and 2, fear - to 2 and 3, only anxiety - exclusively to level 3.

Rosenzweig distinguishes between two types of frustration.

1. Primary frustration, or deprivation. It is formed if the subject is deprived of the opportunity to satisfy his need. Example: hunger caused by prolonged fasting.
2. Secondary frustration. It is characterized by the presence of obstacles or counteractions on the way leading to the satisfaction of the need.

The already given definition of frustration refers mainly to the secondary one, and it is on it that the majority of experimental studies are based. An example of secondary frustration is: the subject, starving, cannot eat, because the arrival of a visitor interferes with him.

It would be natural to classify frustration reactions according to the nature of the suppressed needs. Rosenzweig believes that the modern lack of classification of needs does not create obstacles to the study of frustration, but rather the lack of knowledge about the reactions of frustration themselves, which could become the basis of classification.

Considering suppressed needs, two types of reactions can be distinguished.

1. Continuation reaction of need. It comes up constantly after every frustration.
2. Defense reaction "I". This type of reaction refers to the fate of the personality as a whole; it arises only in special cases of a threat to the individual.

In the reaction of the continuation of the need, it aims to satisfy this need in one way or another. In the self-defence reaction, the facts are more complex. Rosenzweig proposed to divide these reactions into three groups and retained this classification for the basis of his test.

1. The answers are extrapunitive (externally accusing). In them, the subject aggressively blames deprivation of external obstacles and persons. The emotions that accompany these responses are anger and excitement. In some cases, aggression is first hidden, then it finds its indirect expression, responding to the projection mechanism.
2. The answers are intrapunitive, or self-blaming. The feelings associated with them are guilt, remorse.
3. The responses are impulsive. Here there is an attempt to evade the reproaches made by others, as well as to oneself, and to view this frustrating situation in a conciliatory way.

It is possible to consider the reactions of frustration from the point of view of their directness. Direct reactions, the response of which is closely related to the frustrating situation and remains a continuation of the initial needs. Reactions are indirect, in which the response is more or less substitutive and, to the maximum, symbolic.

And finally, reactions to frustrations can be considered from the point of view of the adequacy of reactions. Indeed, any reaction to frustration, considered from a biological point of view, is adaptive. We can say that the reactions are adequate to the extent that they represent the progressive tendencies of the personality rather than the regressive ones.

Two extreme types can be distinguished in responses to continuation of needs.

1. adaptive persistence. Behavior continues in a straight line despite obstacles.
2. Nonadaptive persistence. The behavior is repeated vaguely and stupidly.

Two types are also distinguished in the responses of the "I" defense.

1. adaptive response. The answer is justified by the circumstances. For example, an individual does not have the necessary abilities and fails in his enterprise. If he blames himself for the failure, his response is adaptive.
2. Inappropriate response. The answer is not justified by the existing circumstances. For example, an individual blames himself for a failure that is actually caused by other people's mistakes.

One of the important ones is the question of the types of frustrators. Rosenzweig identifies three types of frustrators.

• To the first type, he attributed deprivation, that is, the lack of the necessary means to achieve a goal or satisfy a need. There are two types of deprivation - internal and external. As an illustration of "external deprivation", i.e., the case when the frustrator is outside the person himself, Rosenzweig cites the situation when the person is hungry, but cannot get food. An example of internal deprivation, i.e., with a frustrator rooted in the person himself, is the situation when a person feels attracted to a woman and at the same time realizes that he himself is so unattractive that he cannot count on reciprocity.
• The second type is losses, which are also of two types - internal and external. Examples of external losses are the death of a loved one, the loss of a home (a house burned down). As an example of internal loss, Rosenzweig cites the following: Samson losing his hair, which, according to legend, contained all his strength (internal loss).
• The third type of frustrator is conflict: external and internal. Illustrating a case of external conflict, Rosenzweig gives the example of a man who loves a woman who remains faithful to her husband. An example of internal conflict: a man would like to seduce the woman he loves, but this desire is blocked by the idea of ​​what would happen if someone seduced his mother or sister.

The above typology of situations that provoke frustration raises big objections: the death of a loved one and love episodes are put in the same row, conflicts that relate to the struggle of motives, to states that are often not accompanied by frustration, are poorly identified.

However, leaving aside these remarks, it should be said that the mental states of loss, deprivation, and conflict are very different. They are far from the same even with various losses, deprivations and conflicts, depending on their content, strength and significance. An important role is played by the individual characteristics of the subject: the same frustrator can cause completely different reactions in different people.

An active form of manifestation of frustration is also withdrawal into a distracting activity that allows one to "forget" oneself.

For depressive states, manifestations of frustration are typical of a feeling of sadness, a consciousness of insecurity, impotence, and sometimes despair. A special kind of depression are states of stiffness and apathy, as if temporary stupor.

Regression as one of the manifestations of frustration, it is a return to more primitive, and often to infantile forms of behavior, as well as a decrease in the level of activity under the influence of the frustrator.

Singling out regression as a universal expression of frustration, one should not deny that there are cases of expression of frustration in a certain primitiveness of feelings and behavior (with obstacles, for example, tears).

Like aggression, regression is not necessarily the result of frustration. It can also occur for other reasons.

Emotionality is also one of the typical forms of frustration.

Frustration differs not only in its psychological content or direction, but also in duration. The characterizing forms of the mental state may be brief outbursts of aggression or depression, or they may be prolonged moods.

Frustration as a mental state can be:

1. typical of a person's character;
2. atypical, but expressing the beginning of the emergence of new character traits;
3. episodic, transient (for example, aggression is typical for a person who is unrestrained, rude, and depression is typical for a person who is insecure).

Rosenzweig introduced the concept of great importance into his concept: frustration tolerance, or resistance to frustrating situations. It is determined by the individual's ability to endure frustration without losing his psychobiological adaptation, that is, without resorting to forms of inadequate responses.

There are different forms of tolerance.

1. The most "healthy" and desirable is the mental state, which, despite the presence of frustrators, is characterized by calmness, prudence, readiness to use what happened as a life lesson, but without any complaints about oneself.
2. Tolerance can be expressed in tension, effort, restraint of unwanted impulsive reactions.
3. Tolerance of the type of flaunting, with emphasized indifference, which in some cases masks carefully concealed anger or despondency.

In this regard, the question arises of the education of tolerance. Do historical or situational factors lead to frustration tolerance?

There is a hypothesis that early frustration influences behavior in later life, both in terms of later frustration reactions and in other aspects of behavior. It is impossible to maintain a normal level of education in a child if, in the gradual course of development, he does not acquire the ability to solve in a favorable way the problems that confront him: obstacles, restrictions, deprivations. In this case, one should not confuse normal resistance to frustration with tolerance. Frequent negative frustrations in early childhood may later be pathogenic. It can be said that one of the tasks of psychotherapy is to help a person discover a past or present source of frustration and teach how to behave towards him.

Such, in general terms, is Rosenzweig's theory of frustration, on the basis of which the test was created, described for the first time in 1944 under the name of the "drawing association" test, or "frustration reaction test".

4.75 Rating 4.75 (2 votes)

The Rosenzweig frustration test will help to deal with the unknown in a person, namely, to find out what behavior will be in an unpredictable situation, how conflict situations, obstacles and difficulties are tolerated on the way to the goal.

It is easy to pass the Rosenzweig test, it is more difficult to interpret it, but the walking one will master the road!

• Purpose of the test
• Description
• Instructions for the Rosenzweig test
• Test material: come test online
• Handling test results
• Interpretation of the Rosenzweig test
• Analysis of results

Rosenzweig's frustration test

Purpose of the test

The technique is designed to study reactions to failure and ways out of situations that impede activity or satisfaction of the needs of the individual.

The test was developed by the American scientist Saul Rosenzweig.

Saul Rosenzweig (February 7, 1907 - August 9, 2004) was an American psychologist, specialist in personality problems, psychological diagnostics, and schizophrenia. Professor at Saint Louis University. Developed .

Test Description

frustration- a state of tension, frustration, anxiety caused by dissatisfaction with needs, objectively insurmountable (or subjectively so understood) difficulties, obstacles on the way to an important goal.

The technique consists of 24 schematic contour drawings, which depict two or more people engaged in an unfinished conversation. The situations depicted in the figures can be divided into two main groups.

• Situations obstacles". In these cases, some obstacle, character or object discourages, confuses in a word or in some other way. This includes 16 situations.
  Images: 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24.
• Situations accusations". The subject thus serves as object of accusation. There are 8 such situations.
  Images: 2, 5, 7, 10, 16, 17, 19, 21.

There is a connection between these groups of situations, since the "accusation" situation suggests that it was preceded by the "obstacle" situation, where the frustrator was, in turn, frustrated. Sometimes the subject may interpret the situation of "accusation" as a situation of "obstruction" or vice versa.

The drawings are presented to the subject. It is assumed that "responsible for another", the subject will more easily, more reliably express his opinion and show typical reactions for him to get out of conflict situations. The researcher notes the total time of the experiment.

The test can be applied both individually and in groups. But unlike group research, another important technique is used in individual research: they are asked to read the written answers aloud.

The experimenter notes the features of intonation and other things that can help clarify the content of the answer (for example, a sarcastic tone of voice). In addition, the subject may be asked questions regarding very short or ambiguous answers (this is also necessary for scoring).

Sometimes it happens that the subject misunderstands this or that situation, and although such errors are in themselves significant for a qualitative interpretation, nevertheless, after the necessary clarification, a new answer should be received from him. The survey should be conducted as carefully as possible, so that the questions do not contain additional information.

Instructions for the test

For adults: “You will now be shown 24 drawings. Each of them depicts two talking people. What the first person says is written in the box on the left. Imagine what the other person might say to him. Write the very first answer that comes to your mind on a piece of paper, marking it with the appropriate number.

Try to work as quickly as possible. Take the task seriously and don't joke around. Don't try to use hints either."

Test material - take the Rosenzweig test online

Handling test results

Each of the responses received is evaluated, in accordance with the theory, Rosenzweig, according to two criteria: in the direction of the reaction(aggression) and by type of reaction.

According to the direction of the reaction are divided into:

• Extrapunitive: the reaction is directed at the living or inanimate environment, the external cause of frustration is condemned, the degree of the frustrating situation is emphasized, sometimes the solution of the situation is required from another person.
• Intropunitive: 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. The subject accepts the frustrating situation as favorable for himself.
• Immunitive: the frustrating situation is seen as something insignificant or inevitable, surmountable “over time, there is no blaming others or oneself.

According to the type of reaction are divided into:

• Obstructive-dominant. Type of reaction "with fixation on an obstacle". Obstacles that cause frustration are emphasized in every possible way, regardless of whether they are regarded as favorable, unfavorable or insignificant.
• self-protective. Type of reaction "with fixation on self-defense". Activity in the form of censuring someone, denying or admitting one's own guilt, evading reproach aimed at protecting one's "I", responsibility for frustration cannot be attributed to anyone.
• Necessary-persistent. Type of reaction "with fixation on satisfaction of need". The constant need to find a constructive solution to a conflict situation in the form of either asking for help from others, or accepting the responsibility to resolve the situation, or the belief that time and the course of events will lead to its resolution.

The following letters are used to indicate the direction of a reaction:

• E - extrapunitive reactions,
• I - intropunitive reactions,
• M - impunity.

Reaction types are indicated by the following symbols:

• OD - "with fixation on an obstacle",
• ED - "with fixation on self-defense",
• NP - "with a fixation on the satisfaction of need."

From combinations of these six categories, nine possible factors and two additional options are obtained.

First, the researcher determines the direction of the reaction contained in the response of the subject (E, I or M), and then identifies the type of reaction: ED, OD or NP.

Description of the semantic content of the factors used in the evaluation of responses (adult version)

Description of the semantic content of the factors used in the evaluation of responses (children's version)

So, the answer of the subject in situation No. 14 "Let's wait another five minutes", according to reaction direction is impunitive (m), and according to reaction type- "with fixation on the satisfaction of need" (NP).

The combination of these or those two options is assigned its own literal meaning.

• If the idea of ​​an obstacle dominates in an answer with an extrapunitive, intropunitive or impunitive reaction, the “prim” sign (E’, I’, M’) is added.
• The type of reaction "with fixation on self-defense" is indicated by capital letters without an icon (E, I, M).
• The type of response "with fixation to meet the need" is indicated by lowercase letters (e, i, m).
• Extra- and intropunitive reactions of the self-protective type in situations of accusation have two more additional evaluation options, which are indicated by the symbols E and I.

The emergence of additional counting options E and I due to the division of the test situation into two types. In situations " obstacles» the reaction of the subject is usually directed to the frustrating personality, and in situations « accusations"It is more often an expression of protest, defending one's innocence, rejecting an accusation or reproach, in short, persistent self-justification.

We illustrate all these notations on the example of situation No. 1. In this situation, the character on the left (the driver) says: "I'm sorry that we splashed your suit, although we tried very hard to avoid the puddle."

Possible answers to these words with their evaluation using the above symbols:

• E'“How embarrassing.”
• I'“I didn’t get dirty at all.” (The subject emphasizes how unpleasant it is to involve another person in a frustrating situation).
• M'"Nothing happened, it's a little splashed with water."
• E“You are clumsy. You are a fool."
• I“Of course I should have stayed on the sidewalk.”
• M- "Nothing special".
• e"You'll have to clean up."
• i"I'll clean it up."
• m- "Nothing, dry."

Since the answers are often in the form of two phrases or sentences, each of which may have a slightly different function, they can, if necessary, be denoted by two corresponding symbols. for example, if the subject says: "I'm sorry that I was the cause of all this anxiety, but I will be glad to correct the situation," then this designation will be: II. In most cases, one counting factor is enough to evaluate the answer.

The score for most responses depends on one factor. A special case is presented by interpenetrating or interconnected combinations used for answers.

The explicit meaning of the words of the subject is always taken as the basis of the calculation, and since the answers are often in the form of two phrases or sentences, each of which can have a different function, it is possible to set one counting value for one group of words, and another for another.

The data obtained in the form of literal expressions (E, I, M, E ', M ', I ', e, i, m) are entered in the table.

Next, GCR is calculated - group conformity coefficient, or, in other words, a measure of the subject's individual adaptation to his social environment. It is determined by comparing the responses of the subject with standard values ​​obtained by statistical calculation. There are 14 situations that are used for comparison. Their values ​​are presented in the table. In the children's version, the number of situations is different.

General GCR Chart for Adults

General GCR table for children

• If the subject's answer is identical to the standard one, a "+" sign is put.
• When two types of responses to a situation are given as a standard response, it is sufficient that at least one of the responses of the subject coincides with the standard. In this case, the answer is also marked with a "+" sign.
• If the subject's answer gives a double mark, and one of them corresponds to the standard, it is worth 0.5 points.
• If the answer does not correspond to the standard, it is indicated by the 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%), a percentage value is calculated GCR subject.

Adult GCR Percentage Conversion Table

Table for converting to GCR percentages for children 8-12 years old

Table for converting to GCR percentages for children 12-13 years old

quantitative value GCR can be considered as measures of individual adaptation of the subject to his social environment.

Next stage– filling in the table of profiles. It is carried out on the basis of the test's answer sheet. The number of times each of the 6 factors occurs is counted, each occurrence of the factor is assigned one point. If the response of the subject is evaluated using several counting factors, then each factor is given equal importance. So if the answer was rated " Her”, then the value of “ E" will be equal to 0.5 and " e”, respectively, also 0.5 points. The resulting numbers are entered in the table. When the table is complete, the numbers are summed up in columns and rows, and then the percentage of each amount received is calculated.

Profile table

Table for converting profile scores to percentages

The percentage ratio E, I, M, OD, ED, NP obtained in this way represents the quantitative features of the subject's frustration reactions.

Based on the numerical data profile, three main samples and one additional sample are generated.

• The first sample expresses relative frequency of different directions of response, regardless of its type. Extrapunitive, intropunitive and impunitive responses are arranged in order of their decreasing frequency. For example, frequencies E - 14, I - 6, M - 4, are written E\u003e I\u003e M.
• The second sample expresses relative frequency of response types regardless of their directions. Signed characters are written in the same way as in the previous case. For example, we got OD - 10, ED - 6, NP - 8. Recorded: OD > NP > ED.
• The third sample expresses the relative frequency of the three most common factors, regardless of the type and direction of the response. For example, E > E' > M are written.
• The fourth additional pattern includes comparison of answers E and I in situations of "obstacle" and situations of "accusation". The sum of E and I is calculated as a percentage, based also on 24, but since only 8 (or 1/3) test situations allow the calculation of E and I, the maximum percentage of such answers will be 33%. For interpretation purposes, the percentages received may be compared to this maximum number.

Trend Analysis

Trend analysis is carried out on the basis of the subject's answer sheet and aims to find out whether there has been change in reaction direction or reaction type subject during the experiment. During the experiment, the subject can noticeably change his behavior, moving from one type or direction of reactions to another. The presence of such changes indicates the attitude of the subject to his own answers (reactions). For example, the reactions of the subject of an extrapunitive orientation (with aggression towards the environment), under the influence of an awakened sense of guilt, can be replaced by answers containing aggression towards himself.

Analysis involves revealing the existence of such tendencies and finding out their causes, which may be different and depend on the characteristics of the subject's character.

Trends are written in the form of an arrow, above which a numerical assessment of the trend is indicated, determined by the sign "+" (positive trend) or the sign "-" (negative trend), and calculated by the formula:

(а-b) / (а+b), where

• « a» - quantitative assessment of the manifestation of the factor in the first half of the protocol (situations 1-12),
• « b» - quantitative assessment in the second half (from 13 to 24).

A trend can be considered as an indicator if it is contained in at least four responses of the subject, and has a minimum score of ±0.33.

Analyzed five types of trends:

• Type 1. The direction of the reaction in the graph is considered OD. 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 in general only once, the factor M' appears three times. There is no type 1 trend.
• Type 2 E, I, M.
• Type 3. Factors are considered similarly. e, i, m.
• Type 4. The directions of reactions are considered, not taking into account the graphs.
• Type 5. Cross-trend - consider the distribution of factors in three columns, without considering the direction, for example, considering the column OD indicates the presence of 4 factors in the first half (score marked 3) and 6 in the second half (score 4). The graphs ED and NP. In order to identify the causes of a particular trend, it is recommended to conduct a conversation with the subject, during which, with the help of additional questions, the experimenter can obtain the necessary information of interest to him.

Interpretation of test results

First stage interpretation is to study the GCR, the level of social adaptation of the subject. Analyzing the obtained data, it can be assumed that the subject, having low percentage of GCR, often conflicts with others, because it is not sufficiently adapted to its social environment.

Data concerning the degree of social adaptation of the subject can be obtained using a repeated study, which consists in the following: the subject is repeatedly presented with drawings, with a request to give in each task such an answer that, in his opinion, would need to be given in this case, i.e. "correct", "reference" answer. The “index of mismatch” of the answers of the subject in the first and second cases provides additional information about the indicator of the “degree of social adaptation”.

At the second stage, the obtained estimates of six factors in the table of profiles are studied. are revealed stable characteristics of the subject's frustration reactions, stereotypes of emotional response, which are formed in the process of development, upbringing and formation of a person and constitute one of the characteristics of his individuality. The reactions of the subject can be directed to its environment, expressed in the form of various requirements for it, or on himself as the culprit of what is happening, or a person can take a kind conciliatory attitude. So, for example, if in a study we get a test score of M - normal, E - very high and I - very low, then on the basis of this we can say that the subject in a frustration situation will respond with increased frequency in an extrapunitive manner and very rarely in intropunitive. That is, we can say that he makes high demands on others, and this can serve as a sign of inadequate self-esteem.

Estimates regarding types of reactions have different meanings.

• Grade OD(type of reaction “with fixation on an obstacle”) shows to what extent the obstacle frustrates the subject. So, if we got an increased OD score, then this indicates that in frustration situations the subject is dominated more than normally by the idea of ​​an obstacle.
• Grade ED(type of reaction "with a fixation on self-defense") means the strength or weakness of the "I" of the individual. An increase in ED means a weak, vulnerable person. The subject's reactions are focused on protecting his "I".
• Grade NP- a sign of an adequate response, an indicator of the degree to which the subject can resolve frustration situations.

Third stage of interpretation- study of trends. The study of tendencies can go a long way in understanding the attitude of the subject to his own reactions.

In general, it can be added that on the basis of the survey protocol, conclusions can be drawn regarding some aspects of the adaptation of the subject to his social environment. The methodology in no way provides material for conclusions about the structure of personality. It is only possible to predict with a greater degree of probability emotional reactions of the subject to various difficulties or obstacles that get in the way of satisfying a need, achieving a goal.

Analysis of test results

The subject more or less consciously identifies himself with the frustrated character in each situation of the technique. On the basis of this provision, the response profile obtained is considered characteristic of the subject himself.

The advantages of S. Rosenzweig's technique include high retest reliability, the ability to adapt to different ethnic populations.

S. Rosenzweig noted that the individual reactions recorded in the test themselves are not a sign of “norm” or “pathology”, in this case they are neutral. Significant for interpretation are total indicators, their overall profile and compliance with standard group standards. The last of these criteria, according to the author, is a sign of adaptability of the subject's behavior to the social environment. The test indicators do not reflect structural personality formations, but individual dynamic characteristics of behavior, and therefore this tool did not imply psychopathological diagnostics.

However, a satisfactory distinguishing ability of the test in relation to groups of suicides, cancer patients, maniacs, the elderly, the blind, and stutterers was found, which confirms the expediency of its use as part of a battery of tools for diagnostic purposes.

It is noted that high extrapunity in the test is often associated with inadequate increased demands on the environment and insufficient self-criticism. An increase in extrapunitiveness is observed in subjects after social or physical stress exposure.

Among the offenders, apparently, there is a camouflage underestimation of extrapunitiveness relative to the norms.

An increased indicator of intropunity usually indicates excessive self-criticism or insecurity of the subject, a reduced or unstable level of general self-esteem.

The dominance of the reactions of the impulsive direction means the desire to settle the conflict, hush up the awkward situation.

The types of reactions and the GCR indicator, which differ from the standard data, are typical for persons with deviations in various areas of social adaptation.

The trends recorded in the protocol characterize the dynamics and effectiveness of the subject's reflexive regulation of his behavior in a situation of frustration.

When interpreting the results of applying the test as the only research tool, one should adhere to the correct description of the dynamic characteristics and refrain from conclusions that claim to be of diagnostic value.

The principles for interpreting test data are the same for the children's and adult forms of the S. Rosenzweig test.

It is based on the idea that the subject consciously or unconsciously identifies himself with the character depicted in the picture and therefore expresses the features of his own "verbal aggressive behavior" in his answers.

As a rule, in the profile of most subjects, all factors are represented to one degree or another. A "complete" profile of frustration reactions with a relatively proportional distribution of values ​​by factors and categories indicates a person's ability to flexible, adaptive behavior, the ability to use various ways to overcome difficulties, in accordance with the conditions of the situation.

On the contrary, the absence of any factors in the profile indicates that the appropriate modes of behavior, even if they are potentially available to the subject, are most likely not to be implemented in situations of frustration.

The profile of frustration reactions of each person is individual, however, it is possible to identify common features that are characteristic of the behavior of most people in frustrating situations.

An analysis of the indicators recorded in the profile of frustration reactions also involves a comparison of the data of an individual profile with standard values. At the same time, it is established to what extent the value of the categories and factors of an individual profile correspond to the average group indicators, whether there is an exit beyond the upper and lower limits of the allowable interval.

So, for example, if in an individual protocol there is a low value of category E, a normal value of I and a high M (all in comparison with normative data), then on the basis of this we can conclude that this subject in situations of frustration tends to downplay the traumatic, unpleasant aspects of these situations and to inhibit aggressive manifestations addressed to others where others usually express their demands in an extrapunitive manner.

The value of the extrapunitive category E exceeding the norms is an indicator of the increased demands made by the subject on others, and can serve as one of the indirect signs of inadequate self-esteem.

The high value of the intropunitive category I, on the contrary, reflects the subject's tendency to make excessively high demands on himself in terms of self-accusation or taking on increased responsibility, which is also considered as an indicator of inadequate self-esteem, primarily its decrease.

If the 0-D score exceeds the established normative limit, then it should be assumed that the subject tends to over-fixate on the obstacle. It is obvious that the increase in the 0-D score occurs due to a decrease in the E-D N-P scores, i.e., more active types of attitude towards the obstacle.

The E-D score (fixation on self-defense) in the interpretation of S. Rosenzweig means the strength or weakness of the "I". Accordingly, an increase in the E-D indicator characterizes a weak, vulnerable, vulnerable person, forced in situations of obstacles to focus primarily on protecting his own "I".

The N-P score (fixation on meeting the need), according to S. Rosenzweig, is a sign of an adequate response to frustration and shows the extent to which the subject shows frustration tolerance and is able to solve the problem that has arisen.

The overall assessment of the categories is supplemented by a characteristic for individual factors, which makes it possible to establish the contribution of each of them to the total indicator and more accurately describe the ways the subject reacts in situations of obstacles.

An increase (or, conversely, a decrease) in a rating for any category may be associated with an overestimated (or, accordingly, underestimated) value of one or more of its constituent factors.

(Visited 182 times, 1 visits today)

Classification:

Designed by Rosenzweig in 1944. Initially, only an adult version, without defining clear age limits. The first adaptation for our country was carried out by Tarabina N.V. (1975). The children's version was proposed by Rosenzweig in 1948. The stated age limits for the children's version are 4-14 years. L.A. Yasyukova claims a narrower age range - 6-12 years. If the child is under 12 but is already in the 7th grade, then he should be given the adult version [Yasyukova].

Diagnostic subject: develops specific emotional and behavioral ways of responding to frustrating situations - in the narrow sense. Individual features of mental processes and states arising from frustration - in a broad sense.

Diagnostic tasks:

1. An assessment of the severity of various types of emotional response, on the basis of which an individual profile of reactions is built and a conclusion is made about the presence of emotional and cognitive stereotypes of response to frustration.

2. Assessment of the degree of social adaptability of the individual.

3. Analysis of the relationship of the individual to himself and to the social environment.

4. Identification of the most likely internal and external conflicts of the individual and analysis of the main means of their resolution and compensation.

5. Assessment of frustration tolerance.

6.Prognostics of personality behavior in extreme conditions of social interaction.

Stimulus material consists of 24 pictures, which depict people in interaction with each other. In the left square of the upper part, a phrase is written that represents the situation as unpleasant either for all participants, or for the participant who has an empty square above. His answer is the subject and must come up with. The peculiarity of the technique is that the images look vague: contour and sketchy, without drawn details, the poses are inexpressive. This leads to a broad interpretation of events.

The situations presented in the test can be divided into two main groups. A. The situation of the obstacle "I" (ego-blocking). In these situations, some obstacle, character or object stops, discourages, confuses, in a word, frustrates the subject in any direct way. There are 16 situations of this type. For example, situation 1. B. The situation of obstacles "from above" (super-ego-blocking). The subject thus serves as object of accusation. He is called to accountability or blamed by others. There are 8 such situations. For example, situation 2.

There is a connection between these two types of situations, because the "super-ego-blocking" situation suggests that it was preceded by an "I" obstacle situation where the frustrator was the object of frustration. In exceptional cases, the subject can interpret the situation of the obstacle "beyond the self" and vice versa.

The subject is given a series of drawings and given the following instruction: “Each of the drawings consists of two or more people. One person is always shown speaking certain words. You need to write in the empty space the first answer that comes to your mind to these words. Don't try to be funny. Act as quickly as possible." The clause in the instructions regarding humor arose not by chance. The comical responses given by some respondents, and perhaps due to the caricature of the picture, are difficult to count.

Methodological basis of the methodology constituted the theoretical views of S. Rosenzweig on the nature of frustration. Frustration is usually understood as a mental state arising from a real or imaginary obstacle that prevents the achievement of a goal. But Rosenzweig understood this term much more broadly: a frustrating situation is any interference, restrictions, unexpected events that violate a person’s sense of self and life.

S. Rosenzweig distinguishes three levels of individual protection against the frustrator: 1) cellular; 2) organismic; 3) cortical, or personal. The technique is designed to study human reactions that are formed at the third level of protection.

Rosenzweig proposes to classify these reactions in three directions and three types. Towards :

Extrapunitive (E) - Reactions directed outward (Everyone is to blame, they must fix everything.) Negative emotions are expressed about the situation that has arisen, the events taking place and the reasons that gave rise to them. Surrounding people are criticized, taught, ridiculed.

Intropunitive (I) - Reactions directed at oneself (I myself am to blame for everything, I will correct the situation myself.) A person considers himself a source of trouble, admits his guilt, takes responsibility for correcting the situation.

Impulsive (M) - Reactions without direction, to "nowhere" or no reaction at all (Nothing happened, no one is to blame, nothing needs to be done.) The situation is considered insignificant, troubles are considered insignificant or inevitable, no one is blamed for what happened .

Type:

Reaction with fixation on an obstacle (O-D) - the reaction contains an emotional assessment of what happened, the attitude is expressed specifically towards the event, and not towards people.

Self-Defensive Focused (E-D) Reaction - discusses people who find themselves in an unpleasant situation. All statements have a personal focus: on others or on oneself.

Reaction with a fixation on resolving the situation (N-P) - Looking for a rational way to resolve the problem or conflict. A person can seek advice, offers to discuss the situation together.

Evaluation of the test and processing of study results consists of two successive stages:

1) Qualitative processing (Coding of responses) - translation of statements into a system of symbols characterizing the type and direction of frustration reactions.

2) Quantitative processing (Calculation of the percentage distribution of reactions for each direction and each type)

Quality processing

It is necessary to determine what type of reaction the statement of the subjects belongs to. The three types of reactions correspond to three columns in the answer sheet. First column (O-D) Answers that give an emotional assessment of events fall here. Second Column (E-D) This is where answers come in that evaluate people who find themselves in an unpleasant situation. Third column (N-P) This includes answers that offer a rational solution to a problem or conflict, an attempt is made to transform the situation.

Coding in column O-D: E" - answers in which everything that happens is assessed as extremely unpleasant. A negative attitude towards what happened, unpleasant emotional experiences can be expressed both by exclamations ("Terrible!") And by focusing on some frustrating aspect of the situation. ("But I books are needed for work!"). I'- despite the existing obstacle, the frustrating situation is interpreted as favorable, profitable, useful. Sample: "This situation is essentially good, you can benefit from it" ("But now they will buy you a new doll"). The response may also emphasize the subject's involvement in the frustration of another person. Sample: "I'm very sorry that you are so upset because of this doll"). M" - the frustrating effect of the obstacle is minimized, up to its complete denial existence. Sample: “This situation doesn’t matter and doesn’t really bother me” (“It’s okay”).

Coding in column E-D: E - accusations, censures, hostility, threats and other open manifestations of aggression are directed against another person or object in the environment. Sample: “This is all to be blamed. You are to blame for what happened,” or “Don’t repeat anything like that again” (“You yourself are to blame,” “And you broke my doll”). E_ (Underlined E) - the subject actively denies his guilt for the wrongdoing. This factor occurs, as a rule, in situations of accusation. Sample: “I didn’t do what you accuse me of” (“I didn’t break your doll!”). I - aggression in the form of censure, condemnation, accusation is turned by the subject on himself. The feeling of guilt, own inferiority, remorse of conscience dominates. Sample: “I should be condemned, blamed for what happened” (“Sorry, I won’t do it again”). _I_ (Underlined I) - the subject admits his guilt, but at the same time denies his responsibility, referring to objective, extenuating circumstances. The factor occurs usually in situations of accusation. Sample: “Yes, I’m to blame, but I didn’t do it on purpose, I didn’t want evil” (“I accidentally, I didn’t want to break”). M - the responsibility of the persons involved in the frustrating situation is rejected, any condemnation is avoided. Sample: “No one (not you, not me) can be blamed for what happened” (“Ok, this can happen to anyone”)

Response coding in column N-P: i - the subject tries to find a way out of the frustrating situation on his own (mostly because of his own guilt). Sample: “I take responsibility for correcting this situation” (“I will fix it now”). e - the resolution of the frustrating situation in an underlined form is expected from another person. Sample: “It is you who must solve this problem” (“And you fix it”). m - the hope is expressed that time or the normal course of events will themselves lead to a solution to the problem, you just have to wait, or mutual understanding will eliminate the frustrating situation. Sample: “The problem will be solved by itself” or “Let’s talk calmly, think about it and the situation will be fixed” (“Wait, dad will come and fix your doll”)

Quantitative processing. It is necessary to count how many times each character was encountered in the test subject's protocol. If the answer is marked with one character, then this character is worth 1 point, if with two, then each of them is worth 0.5 points. Further, the scores are summed up and recorded in the table of profiles.

After scoring and converting the total numerical values ​​of the three rows and columns into percentages, the procedure for interpreting the results takes place, according to the standard sample with respect to the normative values. Particular attention should be paid to the CGA indicator - the coefficient of group adaptation - which indicates the degree of coincidence of the respondent's reactions with the most common in the standardization sample.

Applications:

1. The study of the personality of a patient with neurosis or a patient with neurotic symptoms. The application of the methodology allows us to identify the main sources of problems and conflicts of the individual and to study ways to resolve and compensate them.

2. Psychotherapy. With the help of the technique, the direction of the corrective action can be determined. Some information about personal characteristics, obtained using the technique, will allow predicting contact with the patient and choosing adequate methods of influence.

3. Socio-psychological experiment. The technique is used to determine the individual and social adaptation of a person and to analyze the features of social perception.

4. Diagnostics of business and professional qualities of a person. The technique allows predicting the behavior of a person in frustrating situations related to the studied professional activity. According to the severity of individual reactions in the profile, a more detailed description of business qualities can be compiled.

Advantages:

1. In the Rosenzweig method, the procedure for processing and interpreting the answers of the subject is most successfully formalized and standardized in comparison with other projective methods.

2. Processing of results is simpler, easily divided into stages.

3. Standard evaluation categories are used, the disagreement on the use of which practically does not occur.

4. Speed, ease of implementation, the possibility of group examination.

Disadvantages:

1. Poor control over the reaction process. The stimulus material disposes the subject to direct identification with the character. As a result, he may begin to answer on his own, attracting completely unnecessary self-assessment mechanisms here and passing his answers through the filter of protective mechanisms. Corrected for the light emphasis on this in the instructions and several reminders during the execution of the test itself.

2. Stimulus cards have their own (albeit rather wide) range of suitability. The situation on the card is not always perceived by the subject as frustrating. This is explained either by a certain response strategy that reduces the emotional impact of the situation through its perception as insignificant, or by the absence of similar situations in social experience.

(Rosenzweig S., 1945). A projective technique for studying personality traits. According to Rosenzweig's theory, frustration occurs when an organism (personality) encounters a more or less insurmountable obstacle on the way to satisfying some vital need. Frustration tolerance is the ability to adapt to a stressful situation. The subject is shown drawings depicting frustration situations, and he puts into the mouth of one of the characters in the drawing the words that he must express about this. The reactions of the subject are distinguished according to their orientation (blaming the frustrating factor or oneself, the desire to level the conflict of the situation), according to the type of reaction (emphasizing the frustrating factor, self-defense, the need to resolve the situation).

The technique is useful in the study of personal characteristics of patients suffering from neurosis, psychopathy.

• - See cyanide...

  Dictionary of microbiology

• - See Oxidative-fermentative...

  Dictionary of microbiology

• - See Citrate...

  Dictionary of microbiology

• - trial influences on an organism for the purpose of studying of its fiziol. and biochem. properties...

  Dictionary of microbiology

• - degeneracy of the ground state in condensed systems of interacting objects, which, along with translational degrees of freedom, have c.-l. add. orientation...

  Physical Encyclopedia

• - in cybernetics - one of the most important means of logic. information analysis. The T. apparatus was originally used in the task of monitoring the operation of an electrical ...

  Mathematical Encyclopedia

• - 1) in psychology and pedagogy - standardized. tasks, according to the results of the implementation to-rykh, psychophysiol is judged. and personal characteristics, as well as the knowledge, skills and abilities of the subject ...

  Natural science. encyclopedic Dictionary

• - the assumption put forward by J. Dollard and colleagues that frustration always leads to aggression and that aggressive behavior clearly indicates the frustration that precedes it ...
• - a standardized measurement technique aimed at revealing a hidden property of an object of interest through one or more brief tests with maximum information content ...

  Great Psychological Encyclopedia

• - P. m. f. R. - a semi-projective technique, consisting of 24 pictures, on which 2 people are depicted. in typical life situations characterized by a moderate level of frustration...

  Psychological Encyclopedia

• - a standardized procedure for psychological measurement, which serves the task of determining the severity of certain mental characteristics in an individual ...

  Psychological Dictionary

• - ...

  Sexological Encyclopedia

• Medical Encyclopedia

• - a method for diagnosing diseases caused by staphylococci, which consists in the quantitative determination of antistaphylolysins in blood serum ...

  Big Medical Dictionary

• - a method for the differential diagnosis of infectious allergies in tuberculosis and post-vaccination allergies, based on the effect of a specific reaction after intradermal administration of BCG vaccine in the second ...

  Big Medical Dictionary

• - DNA-t "...

  Russian spelling dictionary

"Rosenzweig's frustration test" in books

5.3.1. Shortened recruitment stage - test, test, test ...