The state of anxiety, dissatisfaction with oneself and others adversely affects the personality, limiting its capabilities and abilities. Therefore, it is so important to correctly diagnose the causes of the state of anxiety, disorder. To do this, you can use several psychodiagnostics, including the Rosenzweig frustration test and its children's version.

Characteristics of the frustration technique of Rosenzweig

Frustration - stress state psyche, which can be caused different kind obstacles on the way to achieving the set goals. At the same time, barriers can be both objective (which arose not through the fault of a frustrated person) and subjective, that is, artificially contrived. A test for diagnosing this condition was proposed in 1945 by American psychotherapist Saul Rosenzweig.

The goals of testing are:

Diagnostics is valuable in that, among other things, it determines the explicit and covert aggression in character. The frustration test allows you to identify the focus of anger - on yourself or on others. And also find out which way to resolve conflict situations is closer to the child: to blame others, put up with difficulties or look for constructive solutions.

The methodology has been adapted for use among citizens former USSR a group of scientists at the Research Institute. V.M. Bekhterev. As a result, two options appeared: for mature people and for children. Moreover, there are differences only in the content, the form of testing is the same. Projective technique based on a study of the types of human reactions to the 24 pictures offered to him. They show two or more people having a dialogue; the task of the subject is to come up with a replica of one of the interlocutors.

Procedure for conducting the pictorial frustration test

The use of stimulus material for adults is recommended from the age of 15. The children's version is used to test schoolchildren aged 6 to 13. In the period from 13 to 15 years, both versions of the test can be used.

It is allowed to carry out diagnostics both in group and in individual form. For deep analysis individual model more informative, as it makes it possible to evaluate not only the verbal reaction, but also the mood, facial expressions, gestures, eye contact etc.

Testing of babies is carried out only one on one, while the task of an adult is to record the answers of the child. Subjects aged 10 years and older are asked to fill in the empty field on each of the 24 pictures with a response to the statement of the depicted interlocutor. This must be done as quickly as possible, without thinking too much.

To get a complete picture, the experimenter needs to note all important nuances- intonation, facial expressions of the subject, and so on

File: Stimulus material (adult and child version)

Analysis of results

Treatment

Test pictures are divided into two groups according to the nature of the situation:

• obstacle - the character is confused, this interferes with understanding the essence of the problem or issue; the task of the subject is to explain the situation (cards No. 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24);
• accusation - the hero without replicas serves as a "whipping boy", which the subject needs to justify (tasks No. 2, 5, 7, 10, 16, 17, 19, 21).

Some situations of accusation can be taken as an obstacle and vice versa. Therefore, it is important to correctly interpret the reactions of the subject. The analysis of the child's remarks is carried out along two vectors:

• the direction of the reaction;
• type of response.

The first parameter means:

• extrapunitive reactions (denoted by the letter E) - hyperbolization of the situation, the need for its resolution by third parties;
• intropunitive (I) - the subject takes responsibility for himself, circumstances are perceived as experience;
• impulsive (M) - an alarming situation - something inevitable that will pass by itself.

By type of response, the following responses are distinguished:

• obstructive-dominant (OD) - the subject constantly focuses on difficulties;
• self-protective (ED) - the child tries in every possible way to evade responsibility, protects his "I";
• Necessary-persistent (NP) - the test-taker seeks constructive solution Problems.

The ancient Roman historian Publius Tacitus said: "It is human nature to attribute every accident to someone else's fault."

If in the answer the emphasis shifts to obstacles, then a dash (E ', I ', M ') is placed next to the letter of the reaction direction. Answers in which the child makes a bet on self-defense are not marked in any way. When the test subject's remark expresses a desire to satisfy needs, it is marked with a lowercase letter.

The semantic content of the studied factors is presented in the table (the number of the situation is indicated in brackets):

	OD	ED	NP
E	E'. “What am I going to eat?” (one); - “If I had a brother, he could help me” (3); - “I like her even more” (5); - "I want to play with someone too" (6).	E. - “I will sleep, but you won’t, right?” (ten); - “I don’t want to be friends with you” (8); - “But it was you who drove my dog ​​out of the front door” (7); E. - "No, quite a few mistakes" (4); - “I also really want to play, and I have experience” (6); - “No, I didn’t take your flowers” ​​(7).	e. - “You must definitely give me this ball” (16); “Guys, where are you! I need help!”(13); -“Then turn to someone else” (3).
I	I'. - "I really like to sleep" (10); - “I gave in so that you could still catch me” (13); - “No, it doesn’t hurt me at all” (15); “But now it has become much tastier” (23).	I. - “Take it, but I will never take anything without permission again” (2); - “I am ashamed that I prevented you from playing” (6); - “I did very badly” (9); I. - “I didn’t want to push her at all” (9); - “I wanted to get a better look at her, but she accidentally fell” (9)	i. - “Then I will definitely take it to repair” (3); - “I myself want to buy this doll” (5); - “I will gladly give you my baby doll” (9); “I won’t repeat this mistake next time” (10).
M	M'. - “Well, okay, swing to your health!” (21); - “I myself can come to you” (18); - “It will probably not be very interesting there” (18); -"It's already late. It's time for me to sleep" (10).	M. - “Well, if there is not enough money, then you can get by” (5); - “I really am not yet an adult” (6); - "Well, okay, you won this time" (8).	m. - “Now I’ll sleep, and then maybe I’ll go outside” (10); - “I myself will go to rest” (11); “Let's wait another five minutes. It will soon dry up and dry up” (19); - “When you get tired, I will also ride” (21).

So, the subject in situation No. 14 (“Let's wait another five minutes”) showed an impunity reaction (m), the type of which can be defined as “with fixation to satisfy the need” (NP). These answers are standardized: if the child's response matches the sample, then he gets 1 point. The student gave an answer containing a double assessment, one of which coincided with the sample (for example, in situation No. 2, where a girl takes a scooter from a boy, there could also be such a reaction: “You are constantly greedy, so I took it by force”) - 0.5 points are given. Nothing counts for a mismatch.

Those situations for which there are no answers in the table are not taken into account when calculating - these are the so-called "free" solutions.

Summary table of standardized responses:

Number the situation under study	Age
	6–7 years	8–9 years old	10–11 years old	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

Interpretation

Determination of the social adaptation of the child

Calculation of GCR based on the responses of children of primary school age:

GCR	Percent	GCR	Percent	GCR	Percent
12	100	7,5	62,4	2,5	20,8
11,5	95,7	7	58,3	2	16,6
11	91,6	6,5	54,1	1,5	12,4
10,5	87,4	6	50	1	8,3
10	83,3	5,5	45,8
9,5	79,1	5	41,6
9	75	4,5	37,4
8,5	70,8	4	33,3
8	66,6	3,5	29,1

GCR Chart for Middle School Children

GCR	Percent	GCR	Percent	GCR	Percent
15	100	10	66,6	5	33,3
14,5	96,5	9,5	63,2	4,5	30
14	93,2	9	60	4	26,6
13,5	90	8,5	56,6	3,5	23,3
13	86,5	8	53,2	3	20
12,5	83,2	7,5	50	2,5	16,6
12	80	7	46,6	2	13,3
11,5	76,5	6,5	43,3	1,5	10
11	73,3	6	40	1	6,6
10,5	70	5,5	36

The GCR calculation helps to determine whether the child is well adapted in society or there are problems

These indicators are interpreted as follows:

• 12–10.5 (15–13.5) - the child is well adapted in society;
• 10–8 (13–11) - in general, adaptation is successful, but periodically the test person experiences tension (most often in relationships with adults who are not close relatives - for example, teachers);
• 7.5–6.5 (10.5–7.5) - situations of frustration often arise, but the child copes with them on his own;
• 6–4 (7–5.5) - anxiety and tension accompany any undertaking of a student; to overcome obstacles, he needs the help of authoritative adults;
• 3.5–2 (5–2.5) - the child often experiences anxiety, which sometimes develops into aggression directed at peers;
• 1.5–1 (2–1) - tension and aggression are directed at everyone around the baby, in order to cope with it, he needs the help of a specialist.

If the percentage is below 50, then it makes sense to talk about insufficient adaptability. In this case, repeated work of the student with stimulus material for the test in question can help. The experimenter will need to analyze possible mismatches with the sample to determine the nature of the frustration. But in this case, a qualified child psychologist should work with the child.

Rosenzweig's drawing frustration test

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

frustration- a state of tension, frustration, anxiety caused by dissatisfaction of 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. Researcher Notes total time experience.

The test can be applied both individually and in groups. But unlike the group individual study another one is used important trick: 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 shows two talking man. 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.

Figure 1. I'm sorry that we splashed your suit, although we tried so hard to avoid the puddle.

Figure 2. It's terrible, you broke my mother's favorite vase

Figure 3 You can't see the screen.

Figure 4. What a shame, my car broke down and because of this you missed the train.

Figure 5. This is the third time I have come to you with this watch. I bought them from you just a week ago, but as soon as I bring them home, they stop.

Figure 6. According to library rules, you can borrow 2 books at the same time.

Figure 7. Are you making too much noise?

Figure 8. Your friend invited me to the dance tonight, she said that you would not go.

Figure 9. I understand that you need your raincoat, but you must wait until lunch until the manager comes.

Figure 10 You are a liar, you know it yourself.

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

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 to a living or non-living environment, condemned external cause frustration, the degree of the frustrating situation is emphasized, sometimes the resolution 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, overcome "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 conflict situation in the form of either demanding help from others, or accepting the responsibility to resolve the situation, or confidence 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)

	E'. If the answer emphasizes the presence of an obstacle. Example: It's raining heavily outside. My raincoat was very handy" (Fig. 9 ). “And I expected that we would go together with her” ( 8 ). Occurs mainly in obstacle situations.	E. Hostility, censure directed against someone or something in the environment. Example: "the height of the working day, and your manager is not in place" ( 9 ). “Worn-out mechanism, they can’t be made new anymore” ( 5 ). "We're leaving, she's to blame" ( 14 ). E. The subject actively denies his guilt for the misconduct committed. Example: "The hospital is full of people, what do I have to do with it?" ( 21 ).	e. It is required, expected, or explicitly implied that someone must resolve this situation. Example: "All the same, you must find this book for me" ( 18 ). "She could explain to us what's the matter" ( 20 ).
	I'. The frustrating situation is interpreted as favorable-profitably-useful, as bringing satisfaction. Example: “It will be even easier for me alone” ( 15 ).	I. Reproach, condemnation is directed at oneself, the feeling of guilt dominates, own inferiority, remorse. Example: “It was me again that I came at the wrong time” ( 13 ). I. The subject, admitting his guilt, denies responsibility, calling for help extenuating circumstances. Example: “But today is a day off, there is not a single child here, and I am in a hurry” ( 19 ).	i. The subject himself undertakes to resolve the frustrating situation, openly admitting or hinting at his guilt. Example: "I'll get out somehow" ( 15 ). "I will do my best to redeem myself" ( 12 ).
	M'. The difficulties of the frustrating situation are not noticed or are reduced to its complete denial. Example: "Late so late" ( 4 ).	M. The responsibility of a person in a frustrating situation is reduced to a minimum, and condemnation is avoided. Example: “We couldn’t have known that the car would break down” ( 4 ).	m. The hope is expressed that time, the normal course of events will solve the problem, you just need to wait a bit, or mutual understanding and mutual compliance will eliminate the frustrating situation. Example: "Let's wait another 5 minutes" ( 14 ). "It would be nice if it didn't happen again." ( 11 ).

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

	E'. - "What will I eat?" ( 1 ); - "If I had a brother, he would fix it" ( 3 ); -"And I like her so much" ( 5 ); - "I also need someone to play with" ( 6 ).	E. - "I'm sleeping, but you're not sleeping, right?" ( 10 ); - "I'm not friends with you" ( 8 ); - “And you kicked my dog ​​out of the entrance” ( 7 ); E. - "No, not many mistakes" ( 4 ); - "I can play too" ( 6 ); - "No, I didn't pick your flowers" ( 7 ).	e. - "You must give me the ball" ( 16 ); “Guys, where are you! Help me!"( 13 ); - "Then ask someone else" ( 3 ).
	I'. - "I'm very happy to sleep" ( 10 ); “I got myself into my hands. I wanted you to catch me" 13 ); “No, it doesn't hurt me. I just pulled off the railing" 15 ); - "But now it has become tastier" ( 23 ).	I. - "Take it, I won't take it without permission anymore" ( 2 ); - "I'm sorry I interrupted you to play" ( 6 ); - "I did bad" ( 9 ); I. - "I didn't mean to break it" ( 9 ); - "I wanted to look, but she fell" ( 9 )	i. - "Then I'll take it to the workshop" ( 3 ); - "I'll buy this doll myself" ( 5 ); - "I'll give you mine" ( 9 ); "I won't do it next time" 10 ).
	M'. -"So what. Well, swing" ( 21 ); “I won’t come to you myself” ( 18 ); - "It won't be interesting there anyway" ( 18 ); “It's already night. I should already be sleeping." 10 ).	M. - "Well, if there is no money, you can not buy" ( 5 ); - "I'm really small" ( 6 ); - "Okay, you won" ( 8 ).	m. - "I'll sleep, and then I'll go for a walk" ( 10 ); - "I'm going to sleep myself" ( 11 ); "She's going to dry now. Dry" ( 19 ); - "When you leave, I'll rock too" ( 21 ).

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 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 denoted capital letters without a badge (E, I, M).
• The type of reaction "with fixation on the satisfaction of need" is denoted lower case(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.

Appearance additional options counting E and I is 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 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, he is 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."
• 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 function is enough to evaluate the answer.

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 intended 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 (02/07/1907 - 08/09/2004) - American psychologist personality specialist, psychological diagnostics, 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 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 situation is required to be resolved by 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". A 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)

	OD	ED	NP
E	E'. If the answer emphasizes the presence of an obstacle. Example: It's raining heavily outside. My raincoat was very handy" (Fig. 9 ). “And I expected that we would go together with her” ( 8 ). Occurs mainly in obstacle situations.	E. Hostility, censure directed against someone or something in the environment. Example: "the height of the working day, and your manager is not in place" ( 9 ). “Worn-out mechanism, they can’t be made new anymore” ( 5 ). "We're leaving, she's to blame" ( 14 ). E . The subject actively denies his guilt for the misconduct committed. Example: "The hospital is full of people, what do I have to do with it?" ( 21 ).	e. It is required, expected, or explicitly implied that someone must resolve this situation. Example: "All the same, you must find this book for me" ( 18 ). "She could explain to us what's the matter" ( 20 ).
I	I'. The frustrating situation is interpreted as favorable-profitably-useful, as bringing satisfaction. Example: “It will be even easier for me alone” ( 15 ). “But now I will have time to finish reading the book” ( 24 ).	I. Reproach, condemnation is directed at oneself, the feeling of guilt, one's own inferiority, remorse of conscience dominates. Example: “It was me again that I came at the wrong time” ( 13 ). I . The subject, admitting his guilt, denies responsibility, calling for help extenuating circumstances. Example: “But today is a day off, there is not a single child here, and I am in a hurry” ( 19 ).	i. The subject himself undertakes to resolve the frustrating situation, openly admitting or hinting at his guilt. Example: "I'll get out somehow" ( 15 ). "I will do my best to redeem myself" ( 12 ).
M	M'. The difficulties of the frustrating situation are not noticed or are reduced to its complete denial. Example: "Late so late" ( 4 ).	M. The responsibility of a person in a frustrating situation is reduced to a minimum, and condemnation is avoided. Example: “We couldn’t have known that the car would break down” ( 4 ).	m. The hope is expressed that time, the normal course of events will solve the problem, you just need to wait a bit, or mutual understanding and mutual compliance will eliminate the frustrating situation. Example: "Let's wait another 5 minutes" ( 14 ). "It would be nice if it didn't happen again." ( 11 ).

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

	OD	ED	NP
E	E'. - "What will I eat?" ( 1 ); - "If I had a brother, he would fix it" ( 3 ); -"And I like her so much" ( 5 ); - "I also need someone to play with" ( 6 ).	E. - "I'm sleeping, but you're not sleeping, right?" ( 10 ); - "I'm not friends with you" ( 8 ); - “And you kicked my dog ​​out of the entrance” ( 7 ); E . - "No, not many mistakes" ( 4 ); - "I can play too" ( 6 ); - "No, I didn't pick your flowers" ( 7 ).	e. - "You must give me the ball" ( 16 ); “Guys, where are you! Help me!"( 13 ); - "Then ask someone else" ( 3 ).
I	I'. - "I'm very happy to sleep" ( 10 ); “I got myself into my hands. I wanted you to catch me" 13 ); “No, it doesn't hurt me. I just pulled off the railing" 15 ); - "But now it has become tastier" ( 23 ).	I. - "Take it, I won't take it without permission anymore" ( 2 ); - "I'm sorry I interrupted you to play" ( 6 ); - "I did bad" ( 9 ); I . "I didn't mean to break it" 9 ); - "I wanted to look, but she fell" ( 9 )	i. - "Then I'll take it to the workshop" ( 3 ); - "I'll buy this doll myself" ( 5 ); - "I'll give you mine" ( 9 ); "I won't do it next time" 10 ).
M	M'. -"So what. Well, swing" ( 21 ); “I won’t come to you myself” ( 18 ); - "It won't be interesting there anyway" ( 18 ); “It's already night. I should already be sleeping." 10 ).	M. - "Well, if there is no money, you can not buy" ( 5 ); - "I'm really small" ( 6 ); - "Okay, you won" ( 8 ).	m. - "I'll sleep, and then I'll go for a walk" ( 10 ); - "I'm going to sleep myself" ( 11 ); "She's going to dry now. Dry" ( 19 ); - "When you leave, I'll rock too" ( 21 ).

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 represent interpenetrating or interrelated 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 - coefficient group conformity , or, in other words, a measure of the individual adaptation of the subject 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

Situation number	OD	ED	NP
1	M'	E
2		I
3
4
5			i
6			e
7		E
8
9
10		E
11
12		E	m
13			e
14
15	E'
16		E	i
17
18	E'		e
19		I
20
21
22	M'
23
24	M'

General GCR table for children

Situation number	Age groups
	6-7 years old	8-9 years old	10-11 years old	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'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

GCR	Percent	GCR	Percent	GCR	Percent
14	100	9,5	68	5	35,7
13,5	96,5	9	64,3	4,5	32,2
13	93	8,5	60,4	4	28,6
12,5	90	8	57,4	3,5	25
12	85	7,5	53,5	3	21,5
11,5	82	7	50	2,5	17,9
11	78,5	6,5	46,5	2	14,4
10,5	75	6	42,8	1,5	10,7
10	71,5	5,5	39,3	1	7,2

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

GCR	Percent	GCR	Percent	GCR	Percent
12	100	7,5	62,4	2,5	20,8
11,5	95,7	7	58,3	2	16,6
11	91,6	6,5	54,1	1,5	12,4
10,5	87,4	6	50	1	8,3
10	83,3	5,5	45,8
9,5	79,1	5	41,6
9	75	4,5	37,4
8,5	70,8	4	33,3
8	66,6	3,5	29,1

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

GCR	Percent	GCR	Percent	GCR	Percent
15	100	10	66,6	5	33,3
14,5	96,5	9,5	63,2	4,5	30
14	93,2	9	60	4	26,6
13,5	90	8,5	56,6	3,5	23,3
13	86,5	8	53,2	3	20
12,5	83,2	7,5	50	2,5	16,6
12	80	7	46,6	2	13,3
11,5	76,5	6,5	43,3	1,5	10
11	73,3	6	40	1	6,6
10,5	70	5,5	36

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 subject's answer is evaluated using several counting factors, then each factor is given equal value. 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

	OD	ED	NP	sum	%
E
I
M
sum
%

Table for converting profile scores to percentages

score	Percent	score	Percent	score	Percent
0,5	2,1	8,5	35,4	16,5	68,7
1,0	4,2	9,0	37,5	17,0	70,8
1,5	6,2	9,5	39,6	17,5	72,9
2,0	8,3	10,0	41,6	18,0	75,0
2,5	10,4	10,5	43,7	18,5	77,1
3,0	12,5	11,0	45,8	19,0	79,1
3,5	14,5	11,5	47,9	19,5	81,2
4,0	16,6	12,0	50,0	20,0	83,3
4,5	18,7	12,5	52,1	20,5	85,4
5,0	20,8	13,0	54,1	21,0	87,5
5,5	22,9	13,5	56,2	21,5	89,6
6,0	25,0	14,0	58,3	22,0	91,6
6,5	27,0	14,5	60,4	22.5	93,7
7,0	29,1	15,0	62,5	23,0	95,8
7,5	31,2	15,5	64,5	23,5	97,9
8,0	33,3	16,0	66,6	24,0	100,0

Obtained in this way percentage E, I, M, OD, ED, NP, 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 different directions 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» – quantification factor manifestations 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 social adaptation 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 gives Additional information about the indicator "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 increased demands on others, and this can serve as a sign 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. Trends can be great importance 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 possible only with more probabilities to predict emotional reactions subject to various difficulties or interference 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. Test scores reflect non-structural personal formations, but the individual dynamic characteristics of behavior, and therefore this tool did not suggest psychopathological diagnosis.

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 intropunity score usually indicates excessive self-criticism or subject's insecurity, 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.

Types of responses and GCR that differ from the standard data are characteristic of individuals with deviations in various fields 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 dynamic characteristics and refrain from drawing conclusions that claim 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 be flexible, adaptive behavior, opportunities to use various ways overcoming 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, but it is possible to distinguish common features 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 brake facing others aggressive manifestations where others usually express their demands in an extrapunitive manner.

The value of the extrapunitive category E that exceeds the norms is an indicator of the increased requirements placed by the subject on others, and can serve as one of the indirect signs 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 self-acceptance. increased responsibility, which is also considered as an indicator of inadequate self-esteem, primarily its decline.

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.

E-D grade(fixation on self-defense) in the interpretation of S. Rosenzweig means the strength or weakness of the "I". Accordingly, the increase E-D indicator characterizes a weak, vulnerable, vulnerable personality, forced in situations of obstacles to focus primarily on protecting one's 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.

Main psychological tests: 10 most popular Allergy symptoms - how does an allergy manifest itself, and what to do?

The test occupies an intermediate place between the word association test and the thematic apperception test. He reminds TAT ​​by using pictures as stimulus material. But unlike the TAT pictures, these pictures are very uniform in character and, what is more important, they are used in order to get relatively simpler and uncomplicated answers from the subject, limited both in length and in content. Thus, this technique retains some of the objective advantages of the word association test, while at the same time approaching those aspects of personality that the TAT seeks to reveal.

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

The test material consists of a series of 24 drawings representing each of the characters in a frustrating situation. In each drawing on the left, a character is presented while uttering words describing another individual's frustrations or his own. The character on the right has an empty square above him, in which he must enter his answer, his words. The features and facial expressions of the characters are eliminated from the drawing to help identify these features (projectively). 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 the obstacle "over I" (super-ego-blocking). The subject thus serves as object of accusation. He is called to account 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. AT 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 to empty space the first answer that came to your mind to these words. Don't try to be funny. Act as quickly as possible."

The caveat in the instructions regarding humor did not arise by chance. It is based on all the experience of using this test. It turned out that the comical responses given by some subjects, and perhaps caused by the caricature of the picture, are difficult to count. An experimental study of this limitation in the instructions can be very interesting. Then show the subject how to give the answer.

The total test time is logged. When the test is over, start the survey. The subject is asked to read his responses one by one, and the experimenter emphasizes features, such as intonation of voice, that allow the responses to be interpreted according to the scoring system. If the answer is short or very rare, the experimenter must clarify its meaning in the course of the survey.

It happens that the subject does not understand the situation well, although in this case the reminder itself may be significant, the survey allows you to get a new answer after the meaning of the situation has been explained to the subject

Age limits for the application of the test

The children's version of the technique is intended for children 4–13 years old. The adult version of the test is used from the age of 15, while in the interval of 12–15 years, both the children's and the adult versions of the test can be used, since they are comparable in terms of the nature of the situations contained in each of them. When choosing a child or adult version of the test in working with adolescents, it is necessary to focus on the intellectual and emotional maturity of the subject

Theoretical basis

In a situation of frustration, Rosenzweig considers three levels psychological protection organism.

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 concludes the defense of the organism as a whole against the general physical aggression. AT psychologically this level corresponds to fear, suffering, rage, and on the physiological level - 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 most of the experimental studies. 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 defense 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 with biological point vision, 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.

There are also two types of "I" defense responses.

1. adaptive response. The answer is justified by the circumstances. For example, an individual does not have 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.

• He attributed deprivation to the first type, that is, the lack of the necessary means to achieve a goal or satisfy a need. Deprivations are of two types - internal and external. As an illustration of "external deprivation", i.e., the case when the frustrator is outside the person himself, Rosenzweig cites a situation where the person is hungry, but cannot get food. An example of internal deprivation, that is, with a frustrator rooted in the person himself, can be a 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 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 the case external conflict, Rosenzweig gives the example of a man who loves a woman who remains faithful to her husband. Example 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, and with various losses, deprivations and conflicts, depending on their content, strength and significance. An important role is played by individual characteristics subject: the same frustrator can cause various people completely different reactions.

An active form of manifestation of frustration is also withdrawal into a distracting activity that allows one to “forget” it.

Along with the sthenic manifestations of frustration, there are also asthenic reactions - depressive states. For depressive states, a feeling of sadness, a consciousness of insecurity, impotence, and sometimes despair are typical. 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 typical forms frustrations.

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 like mental condition may 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.

Exist different forms tolerance.

1. The most "healthy" and desirable state should be considered a mental state characterized, despite the presence of frustrators, by calmness, prudence, readiness to use what happened as life lesson but without any self-complaining.
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 affects behavior in later life both in terms of further reactions of frustration, and in terms of 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 early childhood may be pathogenic in the future. 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 a test was created, described for the first time in 1944 under the name of the “drawing association” test, or “frustration reaction test”.

Procedure

In total, the technique consists of 24 schematic contour drawings, which depict two or more people engaged in an unfinished conversation. These 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 in themselves are significant for a qualitative interpretation, nevertheless, after the necessary clarification from him, he should. receive a new response. The original answer must be crossed out, but not erased with an elastic band. The survey should be conducted as carefully as possible, so that the questions do not contain additional information.

Instruction for adults:

“You will now be shown 24 drawings (application in separate folders). 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."

Instruction for children:

“I will show you drawings (application in separate folders) that show people in a certain situation. The person on the left is saying something and his words are written on top in a square. Imagine what the other person might say to him. Be serious and don't try to get away with a joke. Think about the situation and respond quickly."

Results processing

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

Test score allows you to reduce each answer to a certain number of characters that correspond to the theoretical concept. Each answer is evaluated from two points of view.

1. On the direction of the reaction expressed by him:
   • extrapunitive (E),
   • intrapunitive (I),
   • impulsive (M).
2. Reaction type:
   • obstructive-dominant (O-D) (the answer emphasizes the obstacle that caused the subject's frustration in the form of a comment about his cruelty, in a form that presents it as favorable or insignificant);
   • ego-defensive (E-D) ("I" of the subject plays the greatest role in the answer, and the subject either blames someone, or agrees to answer, or denies responsibility at all);
   • Necessarily-Persistent (N-P) (response is directed towards resolving the frustrating situation, and the reaction takes the form of a request for the help of some other person to resolve the situation, the form of accepting the responsibility to make the necessary corrections, or in anticipation of the time that the normal course of things will bring with a fix).

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.

To designate an extrapunitive, intropunitive or impunitive orientation in general, without taking into account the type of reactions, the letter E, I or M is used, respectively. To indicate the obstruction-dominant type after capital letters direction, the “prim” sign () is written - E, I, M. Ego-protective types of extrapunitiveness, intropunitivity and impunity are indicated by capital letters E, I, M. The need-persistent type is expressed by lowercase letters e, i, m. 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) no longer corresponds to 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

Reaction types
Direction of reactions	O-D obstructive-dominant	E-D ego-protective	N-P need-unstable
E - extrapunitive	E" - definitely stands out, the presence of a frustrating circumstance, an obstacle is emphasized.	E is an accusation. Hostility, etc. is manifested in relation to the external environment (sometimes sarcasm). The subject actively denies his guilt, showing hostility towards the accuser.	e - contains a requirement for another specific person to correct the frustrating situation.
I - intropunitive	I" - a frustrating situation is interpreted as favorable or as a well-deserved punishment, or embarrassment by the anxiety of others is emphasized.	I - accusation, condemnation the object presents itself. The subject admits his guilt, but denies responsibility, citing extenuating circumstances.	i - the subject, recognizing his responsibility, undertakes to independently correct the situation, compensate for the losses to another person.
M - impunity	M" - denies the significance or unfavorability of the obstacle, the circumstances of frustration.	M - condemnation of someone is clearly avoided, the objective culprit of frustration is justified by the subject.	m - the subject hopes for a successful resolution of problems over time, compliance and conformity are characteristic.

Description of the semantic content of factors

Definition of the indicator "degree of social adaptability"

The indicator of the "degree of social adaptation" - GCR - is calculated according to a special table. His numerical value expresses the percentage of matches of the counting factors of a particular protocol (in points) with total number 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 last case 14), and the numerator is the number of points received by the subject by coincidence. In the case when the response of the subject is encoded by two counting factors and only one of them coincides with the normative response, in total amount the numerator of the fraction is added not a whole, but 0.5 points.

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

Standard Response Values ​​for Adult GCR Calculation

No. p / p	O-D	E-D	N-P
1	M"	E
2		I
3
4
5
6			e
7		E
8
9
10		E
11
12		E
13			e
14
15	E"
16		E; I
17
18	E"		e
19		I
20
21
22	M"
23
24	M"

Standard Response Values ​​for Calculating GCR for Children

№	6-7 years old	8-9 years old	10-11 years old	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"		EAT"	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

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

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

Reaction type	O-D	E-D	N-P	Sum	%	Standard
E
I
M
Sum
%
Standard

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

Normative indicators for categories (in %)

Average GCR values ​​for children of different ages

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 reactions.

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 extra-punitive 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: \frac(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. In order to be considered as indicative, the trend must fit within at least in 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 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.

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 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, sexual 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 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 uncertainty of the subject, a reduced or unstable level of general self-esteem (Borozdina L.V., Rusakov S.V., 1983). In patients with asthenic syndrome, this figure is especially high.

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 characteristic of persons with deviations in various areas of social adaptation, in particular, with neuroses.

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 some authors, the severity of trends in the test is associated with instability, internal conflict 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 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 inherent in 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.

Stimulus material

Protocol form

adult version

Children's option

Literature

1. Danilova E.E. Methods of studying frustration reactions in children // Foreign Psychology. 1996. No. 6. S. 69–81.
2. Tarabrina P.V. Experimental-psychological method of studying frustration reactions: Guidelines. L., 1984.
3. Frustration: Concept and diagnostics: Study method. allowance: For students of the specialty 020400 "Psychology" / Comp. L.I. Dementy. - Omsk: OmGU Publishing House, 2004. - 68 p.

Scales: extrapunitive, intropunitive, inpunitive reactions; fixation on self-defence, fixation on an obstacle, fixation on the satisfaction of a need

Purpose of the test

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

Test Description

frustration- a state of tension, frustration, anxiety caused by dissatisfaction of 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

Processing and interpretation of test results

Each of the answers received is evaluated, in accordance with the theory of Rosenzweig, 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 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 situation is required to be resolved by 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, overcome "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". A 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)

OD	ED	NP
HER'. If the answer emphasizes the presence of an obstacle. Example: "It's raining outside. My raincoat was very handy” (Fig. 9). “And I expected that we would go together” (8). Occurs mainly in obstacle situations.	E. Hostility, censure directed against someone or something in the environment. Example: "the middle of the working day, and your manager is not in place" (9). “A worn-out mechanism, they can’t be made new anymore” (5). “We are leaving, she is to blame” (14). E. The subject actively denies his guilt for the wrongdoing. Example: “The hospital is full of people, why am I here?” (21).	e. It is required, expected, or explicitly implied that someone must resolve the situation. Example: "Anyway, you must find this book for me" (18). “She could explain to us what the matter is” (20).
I I'. The frustrating situation is interpreted as favorable-profitably-useful, as bringing satisfaction. Example: “It will be even easier for me alone” (15). “But now I will have time to finish reading the book” (24).	I. Reproach, condemnation is directed at oneself, the feeling of guilt, one's own inferiority, remorse of conscience dominates. Example: “It was I who came at the wrong time again” (13). I. The subject, admitting his guilt, denies responsibility, calling for help extenuating circumstances. Example: “But today is a day off, there is not a single child here, and I am in a hurry” (19).	i. The subject himself undertakes to resolve the frustrating situation, openly admitting or hinting at his guilt. Example: “I’ll get out somehow” (15). "I will do my best to atone for my guilt" (12).
MM'. The difficulties of the frustrating situation are not noticed or are reduced to its complete denial. Example: "Late so late" (4).	M. The responsibility of a person who has fallen into a frustrating situation is reduced to a minimum, condemnation is avoided. Example: “We couldn’t have known that the car would break down” (4).	m. The hope is expressed that time, the normal course of events will solve the problem, you just need to wait a bit, or mutual understanding and mutual compliance will eliminate the frustrating situation. Example: “Wait another 5 minutes” (14). "It would be nice if it didn't happen again." (eleven).

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

OD	ED	NP
HER'. - "What will I eat?" (one); - “If I had a brother, he would fix it” (3); - “I like her so much” (5); - "I also need to play with someone" (6).	E. - "I'm sleeping, but you're not sleeping, right?" (ten); - "I'm not friends with you" (8); - “And you kicked my dog ​​out of the entrance” (7); E. - "No, not many mistakes" (4); - "I also know how to play" (6); - "No, I didn't pick your flowers" (7).	e. - "You must give me the ball" (16); “Guys, where are you! Save me!”(13); - "Then ask someone else" (3).
I I'. - “I am very pleased to sleep” (10); “I got myself into my hands. I wanted you to catch me” (13); “No, it doesn't hurt me. I just slid off the railing” (15); - “But now it has become tastier” (23).	I. - “Take it, I won’t take it without permission anymore” (2); - "I'm sorry I prevented you from playing" (6); - "I did bad" (9); I. - "I didn't want to break it" (9); - “I wanted to look, but she fell” (9)	i. - “Then I will take it to the workshop” (3); - “I will buy this doll myself” (5); - "I'll give you mine" (9); “I won’t do it next time” (10).
MM'. -"So what. Well, swing ”(21); - “I won’t come to you myself” (18); - “It won’t be interesting there anyway” (18); “It's already night. I should already be sleeping.” (10)	M. - “Well, if there is no money, you can not buy” (5); - "I'm really small" (6); - "Well, you won" (8).	m. - “I’ll sleep, and then I’ll go for a walk” (10); - "I'll go to sleep myself" (11); "She's going to dry now. Dry" (19); - “When you leave, I will also sway” (21).

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 “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 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, defending one's innocence, rejecting the accusation or reproach, in short, persistent self-justification.

Let's illustrate all these designations 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 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, he is 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."
. 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'll 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 for counting, 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 - the coefficient of group conformity, 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

Situation number OD ED NP
1 M'E
2 I
3
4
5 i
6e
7 E
8
9
10 E
11
12 E m
13th
14
15 E'
16 E i
17
18 E'e
19 I
20
21
22 M'
23
24 M'

General GCR table for children

Situation number Age groups
6-7 years old 8-9 years old 10-11 years old 12-13 years old
1
2 E E/m m M
3 E E; M
4
5
6
7 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'; MM'
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
23
24 m m m M

10 situations 12 situations 12 situations 15 situations

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%), the percentage value of the GCR of the subject is calculated.

Adult GCR Percentage Conversion Table

14 100 9,5 68 5 35,7
13,5 96,5 9 64,3 4,5 32,2
13 93 8,5 60,4 4 28,6
12,5 90 8 57,4 3,5 25
12 85 7,5 53,5 3 21,5
11,5 82 7 50 2,5 17,9
11 78,5 6,5 46,5 2 14,4
10,5 75 6 42,8 1,5 10,7
10 71,5 5,5 39,3 1 7,2

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

GCR Percentage GCR Percentage GCR Percentage
12 100 7,5 62,4 2,5 20,8
11,5 95,7 7 58,3 2 16,6
11 91,6 6,5 54,1 1,5 12,4
10,5 87,4 6 50 1 8,3
10 83,3 5,5 45,8
9,5 79,1 5 41,6
9 75 4,5 37,4
8,5 70,8 4 33,3
8 66,6 3,5 29,1

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

GCR Percentage GCR Percentage GCR Percentage
15 100 10 66,6 5 33,3
14,5 96,5 9,5 63,2 4,5 30
14 93,2 9 60 4 26,6
13,5 90 8,5 56,6 3,5 23,3
13 86,5 8 53,2 3 20
12,5 83,2 7,5 50 2,5 16,6
12 80 7 46,6 2 13,3
11,5 76,5 6,5 43,3 1,5 10
11 73,3 6 40 1 6,6
10,5 70 5,5 36

The quantitative value of GCR can be considered as a measure of the subject's individual adaptation to his social environment.

The next step is to fill in the profile table. 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 “E”, 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

OD ED NP amount %
E
I
M
sum
%

Table for converting profile scores to percentages

Point Percent Point Percent Point Percent
0,5 2,1 8,5 35,4 16,5 68,7
1,0 4,2 9,0 37,5 17,0 70,8
1,5 6,2 9,5 39,6 17,5 72,9
2,0 8,3 10,0 41,6 18,0 75,0
2,5 10,4 10,5 43,7 18,5 77,1
3,0 12,5 11,0 45,8 19,0 79,1
3,5 14,5 11,5 47,9 19,5 81,2
4,0 16,6 12,0 50,0 20,0 83,3
4,5 18,7 12,5 52,1 20,5 85,4
5,0 20,8 13,0 54,1 21,0 87,5
5,5 22,9 13,5 56,2 21,5 89,6
6,0 25,0 14,0 58,3 22,0 91,6
6,5 27,0 14,5 60,4 22.5 93,7
7,0 29,1 15,0 62,5 23,0 95,8
7,5 31,2 15,5 64,5 23,5 97,9
8,0 33,3 16,0 66,6 24,0 100,0

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 the 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 the 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 frequently occurring factors, regardless of the type and direction of the response. For example, E > E' > M are written.
. The fourth additional sample includes a comparison of responses E and I in situations of "obstruction" 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 response sheet and aims to find out whether there was a change in the direction of the reaction or type of reaction of the 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.

Five types of trends are analyzed:

. Type 1. The direction of the reaction in the OD graph 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. The factor I' appears only once in total, the factor M' appears three times. There is no type 1 trend.
. Type 2. Factors E, I, M are considered similarly.
.Type 3. The factors e, i, m are considered similarly.
. 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 regard to direction, for example, consideration of the OD column indicates the presence of 4 factors in the first half (score indicated by 3) and 6 in the second half (score 4). The graphs ED and NP are considered similarly. 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

The first stage of interpretation is to study the GCR, the level of social adaptation of the subject. Analyzing the data obtained, it can be assumed that a subject with a low percentage of GCR often conflicts with others, since he is not sufficiently adapted to his 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 received estimates of six factors in the table of profiles are studied. Stable characteristics of the subject's frustration reactions, stereotypes of emotional response are revealed, which are formed in the process of development, upbringing and formation of a person and constitute one of the characteristics of his personality. The reactions of the subject can be directed to his environment, expressed in the form of various requirements for it, or to himself as the culprit of what is happening, or a person can take a kind of conciliatory position. 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.

The third stage of interpretation is the 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 with a greater degree of probability to predict the emotional reactions of the subject to various difficulties or obstacles that stand in the way of satisfying the need, achieving the goal.

Sources

Rosenzweig test. Technique of pictorial frustration (modified by N.V. Tarabrina) / Diagnostics of emotional and moral development. Ed. and comp. Dermanova I.B. - SPb., 2002. S.150-172.