Table 2.

Comparisons of means of major Rorschach Variables

Cluster	Variable Name	Description	Characteristics Measured	CP (n = 48)		NA (n =400)
				Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Sig.*
	AdiD	Adjusted D Score	capacity for control	-0.13	1.39	0.03	1.35	n.s.
	D	D Score	stress to lerance and elements of control	-0.62	1.54	-0.15	1.4	n.s.
Controls and stress tolerance	EA	Expreience Actual: M + WSumC	available resources	7.79	4.16	7.14	3.40	n.s.
	M	Human Movement Response	ability to fantasize	3.88	2.77	3.98	2.45	n.s.
	FM	Animal Movement Response	Peripheral thought by need experiences	3.77	2.85	3.67	2.39	n.s.
	m	Inanimate Movement Response	peripheral thought by external demand situations	1.40	1.32	1.13	1.15	n.s.
	Es	Experienced Stimulation: FM + Sum Shading	current stimulus demands	9.67	5.90	7.68	4.02	*
	L	Lambda	economizing use of resources	0.64	0.46	0.96	0.88	**
	Sum Shading	Sum of (C'+T+V+Y)	unusual distress experiences	4.50	4.04	2.88	2.21	**
	Sum C'	Achromatic Color Response	suppression or constraint of emotion	2.21	2.08	1.39	1.43	*
	Sum Y	Diffuse Shading Response	situational stress-related sense of helplessness	1.42	2.07	0.55	0.84	**
Affect	W Sum C	Sum Weighted Color	range of affective experiences	3.71	1.87	3.16	1.90	n.s.
	FC	Form-Color Response	well controlled or modulated emotional experiences	1.33	1.34	1.97	1.63	**
	CF	Color-Form Response	less restrained ventilation of feelings	2.67	1.84	1.98	1.57	*
	Blends	Multiple Determinants	cognitive complexity	4.13	3.38	2.98	2.18	*
	Col-ShdBlends	Color-Shading Blends	uncertainty, confusion ambivalence about feelings	0.92	1.11	0.34	0.62	**
	R	No. of Response	verbal productivity	22.02	8.45	23.51	6.90	n.s.
	W	Whole Response	commendable processing effort	10.73	4.93	11.53	4.59	n.s.
Information Processing	D	Common Details Response	less processing effort than W responses	7.25	5.59	9.55	5.65	**
	Dd	Unusual Detailos Response	more processing effort	3.81	4.44	2.44	1.97	*
	Zd	Processing Efficiency	efficiency of the scanning activity	0.22	5.80	-2.22	4.88	**
	PSV	Perseveration	problem in processing efficiency	0.63	1.14	0.31	0.61	*
	DQ+	Developmental Quality (+)	highest form of analysis and synthesis	6.48	3.47	5.88	3.01	n.s.
	XA%	Form Appropriate Extended	mediational activities for behaviours appropriate for situation	0.86	0.13	0.92	0.06	**
	WDA%	Form Appropriate-Common Areas	mediational activities for behaviors appropriate for obvious situation	0.88	0.12	0.93	0.06	*
	X-%	Distorted Form	disregard or distortion of reality, mediational dysfunction	0.16	0.17	0.08	0.06	**
Mediation	FQx-	Form Quality Minus Responses	distorted, arbitrary, unrealistic use of form	3.50	4.26	1.96	1.67	*
	S-	Minus Response in S Location	mediational dysfunction by negativisim or anger	0.75	1.16	0.37	0.65	*
	P	Popular Response	social conventionality	5.42	2.31	5.48	1.79	n.s.
	X+%	Conventional Form Use	common or conventional mediational decision	0.67	0.17	0.75	0.11	**
	Xu%	Unusual Form Use	less conventional and more idiographic	0.17	0.08	0.17	0.09	n.s.
	MOR	Morbid Content	pessimistic conceptual thinking	0.98	1.73	0.42	0.72	*
	Ma	Active Human Movement	positive conceptual ideation or behavior	2.69	2.24	2.23	1.91	n.s.
	Mp	Passive Human Movement	conceptual ideation of fantasy for defense from reality	1.35	1.90	1.75	1.48	n.s.
	Intell	Intellectualization Index	use of intellectualization as defensive tactic	1.35	1.67	1.57	1.61	n.s.
	Wsum6	Weighted Sum of 6 Special Scores	issue of ideational clarity	9.96	13.03	2.44	3.48	**
Ideation	DV	Deviant Verbalization	distorted language use or idiosyncratic modes of expression	0.54	0.97	0.14	0.38	**
	DR	Deviant Response	indecisiveness or a defensive attempt to detach from the task at hand	1.33	2.04	0.06	0.23	**
	INCOM	Incongruous Combinations	conceptual failure to discriminate and/or a kind of concrete reasoning	0.04	0.20	0.23	0.53	**
	FAB	Fabulized Combinations	less mature forms of ideation	0.69	1.24	0.40	0.74	n.s.
	ALOG	Inappropriate Logic	poor judgement influencing conceptualization	0.42	1.18	0.01	0.11	*
	CONTAM	Contamination	the most severe ideational disorganization	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	n.s.
	Fr+rF	Reflection Responses	narcissistic-like feature of personality	0.23	0.69	0.20	0.53	n.s.
	3r+(2)/R	Egocentricity Index	self-concern and self-esteem	0.31	0.31	0.31	0.14	n.s.
Self-perception	FD	Form Dimension Response	ability for introspection	0.60	0.82	0.61	0.78	n.s.
	Sum V	Shading-Dimensionality Response	chronic preoccupation with negative features of the self	0.65	1.08	0.34	0.62	*
	MOR	Morbid Content	negative or self-image	0.98	1.73	0.42	0.72	*
	Sum T	Texture Variable	openness to close emotional relations	0.23	0.69	0.20	0.53	n.s.
	Human Cont	Number of Human Response	interpersonal interest	5.63	4.98	5.67	3.09	n.s.
Interpersonal perception and behavior	H	Whole Real Human	interpersonal interest and empathy	2.54	2.14	3.09	1.92	n.s.
	GHR	Good Human Representational Responses	effective and adaptive interpersonal behaviors	3.52	2.11	4.30	2.33	*
	PHR	Poor Human Representational Responses	ineffective or maladaptive interpersonal behaviors	3.06	4.15	1.97	1.71	*
	COP	Cooperative Movement	positive interpersonal exchanges	1.02	1.26	1.27	1.27	n.s.
	AG	Aggressive Movement	aggressive or competitive interpersonal exchanges	0.83	1.08	0.34	0.66	**
	PER	Personal Response	intellectual authoritarianism or defensiveness	1.19	1.54	0.28	0.66	**

Sig.* Significance, **p < .01, *p < .05, n.s. no significant difference CP: Japanese chronic pain patients, NA: non-patient adults