Norway’s legal debate over the Rorschach test
The Rorschach test – known worldwide for its enigmatic inkblots – has long been a symbol of psychology’s more mysterious side. First developed in 1921 by Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach, who died shortly after its publication, the test presents abstract images to individuals and asks: What do you see?
Most people recognise the Rorschach from pop culture references in films, novels and comics. But in Norway, it is at the centre of an intensifying legal controversy. In child custody cases, court-appointed psychologists still use the Rorschach to assess parents’ mental health and caregiving abilities. Supporters describe it as a valuable tool for uncovering emotional issues. Critics argue it has no place in legal settings where lives and families are on the line.
Psychologist Cato Grønnerød, an associate professor at the University of Oslo and head of the Norwegian Rorschach Association, has administered the test in around 150 custody cases since 2016. He and other defenders, including researcher Harald Janson, describe it as among the most extensively studied psychological tools – useful for exploring thought patterns and emotional functioning.
But others – including lawyers and psychiatrists – are far more sceptical. Critics liken it to “reading coffee grains” (a Norwegian expression equivalent to “reading tea leaves”) and warn that it risks influencing court decisions unfairly.
In her article “De svarte flekkene” (“The Black Blots”), journalist Mari Brenna Vollan reports on several troubling cases involving the test. In one case, a father – identified under the pseudonym Daniel – was labelled as having “narcissistic traits” based on his Rorschach responses. He was subsequently restricted to supervised visits with his child. Daniel contested the ruling, arguing that the test says nothing about his parenting ability.
In another case, a father referred to as Andreas was diagnosed with a “mixed personality disorder” after just two hours of testing. Later evaluations by public health services found no such diagnosis. Norway’s State Administrator later ruled that Grønnerød had violated professional standards in the case, citing a lack of clarity and objectivity in linking test results to his conclusions.
Some psychologists still see value in the test – when applied with caution. Psychologist Judith van der Weele, who has reviewed Grønnerød’s reports in high conflict cases, acknowledges its limitations but believes it can offer useful insights when combined with other assessment tools.
In a follow-up article co-written with journalist Line Madsen Simenstad, Vollan broadens the discussion by examining international criticism of the Rorschach. Slovenian psychologist Igor Areh, who has reviewed decades of research, calls the test “Harry Potter’s magic wand” – seemingly sophisticated, but unreliable. He argues that responses to inkblots are shaped by countless factors, including genetics, visual perception, hormone levels, sleep deprivation and stress from legal proceedings – making it impossible to reliably assess personality traits in individual cases.
Areh emphasises that while some group-level patterns may appear in research, the test fails to produce valid results at the individual level – particularly in legal cases, where precision and fairness are crucial.
Emilio Muzio, vice president of the International Rorschach Society, disputes Areh’s conclusions. While acknowledging the test’s imperfections, Muzio argues it can still provide useful information – especially when combined with other tools such as interviews and behavioural observations. Grønnerød also maintains that the Rorschach is not meant to stand alone in custody cases but can offer valuable psychological insights within a broader assessment.
Areh nonetheless stresses that psychological tools designed for therapeutic settings – where nuance and interpretation are expected – should not be applied in legal settings where strict standards of evidence are essential.
Beyond the test itself, the articles raise deeper concerns about the power of court-appointed psychologists in Norway’s custody cases. In contrast to public healthcare, where psychiatric diagnoses require standardised evaluations, some court psychologists have been accused of assigning informal “diagnoses” based on limited testing – labels that can carry long-term consequences for parents, even if later disproven.
The debate raises a fundamental question: Should such a contested tool continue to influence life-changing legal decisions? Or does Norway’s legal system need reform to ensure more transparent, reliable evidence in child custody disputes?
Original article (“De svarte flekkene”) by Mari Brenna Vollan and Line Madsen Simenstad first appeared in Bokmål on 14 June 2025.
It’s available here.
Klassekampen is a Norwegian daily newspaper in print and online.
Summary by KM
