Projective Techniques
Projective techniques and their application represent a point of significant
intersection for psychoanalytic theory, clinical psychology, social psychology,
and cultural anthropology. These instruments include a wide array of materials,
instructions, and interpretative rules, but in spite of this diversity, there are certain
common qualities that distinguish them from other personality measures, such as
inventories, ratings, or situational tests.
The most distinctive feature of projective techniques concerns the presentation to
the participant of a task that is relatively unstructured. This lack of structure
involves ambiguous or vaguely defined stimuli and a relatively unrestricted set
of response alternatives by means of which the subject may assign meaning to the
stimulus material. It is generally assumed that in the process of choosing between
the many alternatives for structuring or interpreting the ambiguous stimulus
material, the subject reveals significant and fundamental aspects of himself.
Ordinarily such devices are considered to be particularly responsive to latent or
unconscious components of the person, and consistently there is a minimum of
subject awareness concerning the purpose of the test. The response data are
typically profuse and often involve fantasy or imaginary creations. The
instruments are highly multidimensional; that is, they are intended to provide
information concerning a large number of personality dimensions.
Projective hypothesis refers to the notion that when confronted with ambiguous
and unstructured stimuli, the responses elicited by a person reflect one’s
unconscious needs, feelings, anxieties, motives, thoughts, conflicts, and prior
behavioral conditioning.
Historical development
The origins and early development of projective tests are closely intertwined with
developments within psychoanalysis. Indeed, Freud’s theory of dreams and
technique of dream interpretation may be considered the most important single
source of the dominant ideas in this area. At about this time Jung’s Studies in
Word-association (1904–1909) appeared, which also has been heavily influential
in the development of projective testing.
The Rorschach test, best known of all projective tests, was developed by a
student of Jung and was undoubtedly influenced by psychoanalytic theory and
practice. The term “projective technique” came to be associated with these
instruments primarily as a result of the writings of Henry A. Murray and L. K.
Frank during the 1930s, {Frank (1939) popularized the term “Projective
Technique”. Murray (1938) earlier used the term “Projection Tests”}. However,
the relationship between the concept of projection and these instruments is
anything but precise (see Lindzey 1961). Indeed, one can say that “projection,”
as the term is conventionally used within psychoanalysis today, is seldom directly
involved in projective-technique responses.
Projection is a defense mechanism in which an individual recognizes their
unacceptable traits or impulses in someone else to avoid recognizing those traits
or impulses in themselves subconsciously. For example, someone who bullies
another for being anxious and insecure may be doing so to avoid
acknowledging they exhibit those same tendencies.
Projection as a technique implies that when confronted with ambiguous and
unstructured stimuli, the responses elicited by a person reflect one’s
unconscious needs, feelings, anxieties, motives, thoughts, conflicts, and prior
behavioral conditioning.
In the two decades following World War I there was a very rapid development
and application of aptitude and ability tests as exemplified by the Stanford-Binet
and various group tests.
Following World War II there were comparable developments in the area of
personality testing, with projective techniques receiving the most prominent
attention.
It was during this period that the Society for Projective Techniques, made up of
persons involved in the study and application of these devices, was formed. At
the same time the Journal of Projective Techniques, a journal that contains only
papers dealing with these instruments, appeared.
In addition, an extraordinarily large number of articles and books concerning
these techniques have been published. Even for a single instrument, such as
the Rorschach test, a total bibliography would now include more than a thousand
items. Moreover, within most modern graduate programs in psychology the
inclusion of one or more courses dealing with projective techniques has become
standard.
The development and application of these instruments have been associated
closely with clinical activities. For the most part, individuals drawn to these
devices have been working in clinical settings, often with disturbed persons and
typically under circumstances where individual subjects could be subjected to a
relatively intensive and detailed study.
Moreover, the techniques have been considered most attractive and useful by
persons who are heavily influenced by psychoanalytic theory. Seldom has a heavy
emphasis upon objectivity, precision, and psychometric elegance been
characteristic of work with these devices.
Projective tests are frequently met with apprehension, doubt, and rejection. And
yet, projective tests proliferate in medicine, scientific research, and pop-culture.
Luis A. Cordón, a scholar on the history of psychology, identified this as an
apparent paradox in the realm of projection. Despite a lack of favorable evidence,
the tests are still popular and widespread globally—aka the “projective paradox”
(Cordón, 2005).
Types of Projective Techniques
There are many different approaches to classifying the projective
techniques (Lindzey 1959), but the most useful approach focuses on the
nature of the response evoked from the subject. On this basis projective
techniques may be grouped broadly into the following categories: (a)
association, (b) construction, (c) completion, (d) choice or ordering, and
(e) expression.
Association techniques
Included under association techniques are those instruments that tend to
minimize ideation and emphasize immediacy of response. The subject is
instructed not to reflect but rather to respond to the stimulus with the first
word, image, or percept that occurs to him.
Construction techniques
Construction techniques require the subject to go beyond simple
association to a stimulus and to create or construct a more elaborate
product, which is typically a complete art form, such as a story or picture.,
such as TAT, Blacky Pictures.
The Blacky Pictures. Closely related to the TAT is the Blacky Pictures test
(Blum 1949), which is intended to investigate 11 specific psychoanalytic
variables, including oral eroticism, oedipal intensity, and castration
anxiety. The test consists of 12 cartoons concerned with experiences in the
life of a dog named Blacky, including his relationships with Mama, Papa,
and Tippy, a sibling. As its central feature the procedure involves story
construction in response to the pictures but adds indications of preference
and a series of direct questions for each picture. While administration is
highly standardized, scoring and interpretation are not.
Completion techniques
Completion techniques present some type of incomplete product, with the
requirement that the subject complete it in any manner he wishes and the
restriction that the completions meet certain standards of good form or
rationality. Best known of these devices are the sentence-completion tests
(e.g., Rotter & Wilierman 1947), which are widely used by both clinicians
and personality investigators. Typically such a device consists of thirty to
one hundred brief sentence stems which the subject is instructed to
complete with the first words that come to mind. In some cases the
instructions to the subject emphasize that the completions should reveal his
own feelings. The type of scoring employed and the customary inferences
derived from this technique suggest its close kinship with the TAT. The
technique is considered most efficient in assessing the content of
personality (attitudes, motives, and conflicts) at a more conscious or
manifest level than such instruments as the Rorschach or TAT. Other
examples of completion tests are story-completion and argument-
completion tests and the Rosenzweig Picture-Frustration Study
(Rosenzweig 1949).
Choice or ordering techniques
Choice or ordering techniques require the respondent to choose from a
number of alternatives the item or arrangement that fits some specified
criterion, such as meaningfulness, relevance, or attractiveness. In some
cases, such as multiple-choice versions of the Rorschach (Harrower &
Steiner 1945) and the TAT (Goodstein 1954), the subject is required to
select from a number of hypothetical responses the one that seems most
appropriate to him.
The Szondi Test. Perhaps best known of these techniques is the Szondi Test.
This test was devised in the late 1930s by Szondi, a Hungarian psychiatrist
(1947), and made popular in the United States through the efforts of Susan
Deri (1949). The test materials consist of 48 photographs of individuals
drawn from eight psychiatric diagnostic categories. A rather complex and
lengthy administration procedure elicits from the subject expressions of
preference for the different photographs. The test is based on the
assumption that a person can be described in terms of eight “need systems”
(presumably reflected in the photographs), with the subject’s selections and
rejections indicating the degree of strength or tension in each.
Although the test enjoyed considerable popularity in clinical settings
during the 1950s, more recently there has been less evidence of application.
Despite some positive features, such as the recommendation of repeated
administrations and a highly objective scoring system, the theoretical
rationale of the test is not compelling. Attempts at empirical verification of
the test seem to be overwhelmingly negative (Borstelmann & Klopfer
1953).
Picture Arrangement Test. A more recent example of an ordering technique
is the TomkinsHorn Picture Arrangement Test. This device consists of 25
plates, each of which contains three line drawings that depict the same
figure involved in different but related activities. The subject is asked to
indicate the order in which these activities took place and to provide a
sentence indicating what is going on in the picture. The efforts of the
authors (Tomkins & Miner 1957) have been devoted primarily to
developing objective methods for dealing with the arrangements selected
by the subject, although they provide suggestions for the use of the
descriptive statements as well.
Expressive techniques
Expressive methods differ from construction techniques in that they place
as much emphasis upon the manner and style in which the product is
created as upon the product itself. They are often considered to be
therapeutic as well as diagnostic devices, since the subject is presumed to
relieve his difficulties in the process of revealing them.
Play. Most popular among the expressive instruments are play techniques.
Originating in play therapy, these methods have been adapted for the
diagnosis and measurement of personality, primarily in children. All the
approaches present the subject with an array of toys which he is encouraged
to use in some manner. Among the objects frequently selected are dolls
representing adults and children of both sexes and various age levels.
Typically the examiner is responsible for recording as much of the subject’s
behavior as possible, including his choice and arrangement of toys,
accompanying comments, and expressive behavior. Except for the work
carried out by Sears and his associates, which has focused on measures of
aggression and dependency (Sears et al. 1953), little has been done with
this technique in the way of standardization and specification of just how
the process of interpretation shall take place. In most instances it is
assumed that the examiner will recognize important motives and conflicts
when he sees them.
Drawing and painting. There is also a variety of drawing and painting
techniques that have been used in personality assessment. Attention has
centered chiefly on procedures using drawings of the human figure, the
most publicized of which have been those of Buck (1948) and Machover
(1949). When the test is administered individually, the examiner usually
notes the subject’s comments, the sequence of parts drawn, and other
procedural details. Scoring of human-figure-drawing tests is essentially
qualitative, being concerned with such stylistic features as the figure’s
stance, size, and position on the page, disproportions, shading, and
erasures. Interpretation of both drawing and painting techniques is far from
precise, in some cases depending largely upon general clinical wisdom,
coupled with a knowledge of some specific rules or generalizations relating
certain features of the drawing or painting to personality characteristics.
Criticism of Projective Techniques:
1. Projective tests take a long time to administer and score.
2. Projective tests are not scalable. (Projective tests can produce an
incredible amount of data. Without a proper team or the technology to
process data, projective tests can appear to be unscalable.)
3. Projective tests lack standardized administration and scoring.
4. Because of the lack of standardization, scoring and interpretation
seem subjective.
5. Projective tests seem like a very qualitative approach to psychology.
6. Projective tests can only tell you information about clinical
psychopathology or personality. (Some critics worry that the excessive
responses to the material in projective tests are associated with the
overestimation of pathology (Viglione and Rivera, 2003). In other
words, there is a chance that psychologists can go digging for
psychological issues—using projective tests as probes—and find
problems that weren’t there to begin with.)
