↓ Skip to main content

BLOTS AND ALL: A HISTORY OF THE RORSCHACH INK BLOT TEST IN BRITAIN

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#50 of 538)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
BLOTS AND ALL: A HISTORY OF THE RORSCHACH INK BLOT TEST IN BRITAIN
Published in
Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/jhbs.21776
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Despite the easily recognizable nature of the Rorschach ink blot test very little is known about the history of the test in Britain. We attend to the oft-ignored history of the Rorschach test in Britain and compare it to its history in the US. Prior to the Second World War, Rorschach testing in Britain had attracted advocates and critiques. Afterward, the British Rorschach Forum, a network with a high proportion of women, developed around the Tavistock Institute in London and The Rorschach Newsletter. In 1968, the International Rorschach Congress was held in London but soon after the group became less exclusive, and fell into decline. A comparative account of the Rorschach in Britain demonstrates how different national institutions invested in the 'projective hypothesis' according to the influence of psychoanalysis, the adoption of a nationalized health system, and the social positioning of 'others' throughout the twentieth century. In comparing and contrasting the history of the Rorschach in Britain and the US, we decentralize and particularize the history of North American Psychology.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 15 42%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 14%
Social Sciences 5 14%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 17 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2017.
All research outputs
#3,389,725
of 28,833,811 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences
#50
of 538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,716
of 317,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,833,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,798 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them