How Projective Tests Are Used to Measure Personality

Projective tests in psychology are assessment tools that present individuals with ambiguous stimuli, prompting them to interpret or create stories about them. Common examples include the Rorschach inkblot and Thematic Apperception tests (TAT).

The idea behind projective tests is that when individuals are presented with ambiguous stimuli, such as pictures or inkblots, they will project their unconscious feelings, thoughts, and desires onto their interpretations of these stimuli. By analyzing these responses, psychologists aim to gain insight into the individual’s social behavior, thoughts, emotions, and potential internal conflicts.

The responses reveal underlying emotions, desires, and conflicts, based on the idea that people project their unconscious feelings onto ambiguous stimuli.

Features

The seminal works on the “projective hypothesis” were proposed by Murray (1938) and Frank (1939). They suggested that allowing free-form responses to ambiguous or “culture-free” stimuli would encourage the emergence of personal meanings, feelings, and other implicit processes that may be resistant to conscious efforts at misrepresentation.

Labeling certain assessment techniques as “projective” provided a clever conceptual contrast to more “objective” measures, such as rating scales that restrict the range of acceptable responses.

Some prototypical features of projective instruments include:

1. The test stimuli incorporate some degree of ambiguity – for example, the Rorschach inkblots elicit the question “What might this be?” and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) requires crafting stories based on pictures of people engaged in unclear behavior.
2. While some responses violate the instructions (e.g., refusing to respond), the number of acceptable responses is essentially infinite. Traditional Rorschach administration allowed the respondent to decide how many responses to give, though the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) now limits this to four responses per card.
3. The ambiguity is intended to provoke idiosyncratic patterns of responding, such as unusual perceptual interpretations or justifications on the Rorschach or atypical story content or structure on the TAT.
4. The free-response format often necessitates individualized administration and specialized training in giving instructions, scoring, and interpretation.

Thematic Apperception Test

The thematic apperception test taps into a person’s unconscious mind to reveal the repressed aspects of their personality.

The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) cards are primarily designed for individuals aged 14 and older. However, there are variations of the test, like the Children’s Apperception Test (CAT), specifically tailored for children aged 3 to 10 years. The selection of cards and interpretation are adjusted based on the age and developmental level of the individual.

Procedure

Although the picture, illustration, drawing, or cartoon used must be interesting enough to encourage discussion, it should be vague enough not to immediately give away what the project is about.

TAT can be used in various ways, from eliciting qualities associated with different products to perceptions about the kind of people who might use certain products or services.

The examiner presents a selection of TAT cards one by one. While there are 31 cards in a standard TAT deck, usually only 10-12 are selected for a single session, based on the individual’s age, gender, and other factors.

For each card, the individual creates and tells a story based on the image. The examiner typically remains passive, allowing the individual to provide their narrative without interruption. If the individual is hesitant, the examiner might prompt or encourage elaboration.

The person must look at the picture(s) and tell a story. For example:

• What has led up to the event shown
• What is happening at the moment
• What the characters are thinking and feeling
• What the outcome of the story was

Once all the stories are told, the examiner may ask follow-up questions to clarify certain points or explore parts of the narratives in more depth.

How do you interpret a TAT test?

After the test, the examiner reviews the narratives, analyzing them for themes, conflicts, emotions, interpersonal dynamics, and other relevant psychological insights. The TAT’s results are then often integrated with other assessment data to form a comprehensive psychological profile.

It’s important to note that TAT interpretation is subjective, and there can be variability in interpretations.

The skill of the psychologist, their familiarity with the test, and their understanding of the individual all play crucial roles in the interpretation process.

1. Story Content: The psychologist examines the narratives for common themes, conflicts, characters, and resolutions.
2. Emotional Responses: The expressed emotions, anxieties, and feelings in the stories are noted.
3. Interpersonal Dynamics: Relationships between characters can provide insight into the individual’s interpersonal relationships and their view of social dynamics.
4. Projection: Since TAT is a projective test, personal experiences, desires, fears, and conflicts are believed to be projected onto the characters and events of the stories.
5. Consistency: Patterns in responses across multiple cards can provide robust insights into persistent themes or concerns in an individual’s life.
6. Comparison to Norms: While TAT doesn’t have strict “norms” like some other tests, experienced psychologists often use their knowledge of typical responses to gauge the uniqueness or concern of a particular narrative.
7. Integration with Other Information: The TAT results are often integrated with other clinical data, interviews, and assessments to form a comprehensive understanding of the individual.

Draw a Person Test

The Draw A Person Test, often abbreviated as DAP, is a projective psychological assessment that asks an individual to draw a person.

It’s used to evaluate cognitive development in children and, in some interpretations, to gain insights into an individual’s personality, emotions, or potential psychological disorders. The drawn figures are analyzed based on various criteria, including detail, proportion, and presence or omission of features.

Figure drawings are projective diagnostic techniques in which an individual is instructed to draw a person, object, or situation to assess cognitive, interpersonal, or psychological functioning.

The test can be used to evaluate children and adolescents for various purposes (e.g. self-image, family relationships, cognitive ability, and personality).

Procedure

In most cases, figure-drawing tests are given to children.  This is because it is a simple, manageable task that children can relate to and enjoy.

The child is instructed to draw a picture of a person. Sometimes, further instructions are given, such as drawing a man, a woman, and themselves on separate sheets. This can allow for a more varied assessment.

After the drawing is completed, the examiner may ask the individual about the drawing. Open-ended questions can include:

• Who is the person in the drawing?
• What is the person doing?
• What might the person be thinking or feeling?
• “What kind of day is this person having?”

Questions might be posed to understand the emotions behind certain elements of the drawing: “How does this person feel about what’s happening?”

If the drawing has ambiguous or unclear elements, the examiner might ask about them, e.g., “I’m curious about this over here, can you explain it?”

Interpretation

Some figure-drawing tests are primarily measures of cognitive abilities or cognitive development. In these tests, there is a consideration of how well a child draws and the content of a child’s drawing.  In some tests, the child’s self-image is considered through the drawings.

The Draw-a-Person: QSS (Quantitative Scoring System) is a standardized version of the Draw-A-Person test developed to assess intellectual functioning, primarily in children. It uses objective criteria and a scoring system to evaluate the drawings to estimate cognitive abilities.

In other figure-drawing tests, interpersonal relationships are assessed by having the child draw a family or some other situation in which more than one person is present.

Some tests are used for the evaluation of child abuse.  Other tests involve personality interpretation through drawings of objects, such as a tree or a house, as well as people.

Finally, some figure drawing tests are used as part of the diagnostic procedure for specific psychological or neuropsychological impairment types, such as central nervous system dysfunction or mental retardation.

Example

The House-Tree-Person (HTP) test (Buck, 1948) provides a measure of self-perception and attitudes by requiring the test taker to draw a house, a tree, and a person.

• The picture of the house is supposed to conjure the child’s feelings toward his or her family.
• The picture of the tree is supposed to elicit feelings of strength or weakness. The picture of the person, as with other figure drawing tests, elicits information regarding the child’s self-concept.

The HTP, though mostly given to children and adolescents, is appropriate for anyone over the age of three.

Rorschach Inkblot Test

The Rorschach Inkblot Test is a projective psychological test developed in 1921 by Hermann Rorschach (Rorschach, 1921).

It consists of 10 symmetrical inkblots – 5 are black and white, 2 are black/red/gray, and 3 are multicolored (Exner, 2003).

Procedure

During the test, the respondent is shown each card and asked, “What might this be?” (Meyer & Mihura, 2020).

The respondent verbalizes what they see in each inkblot within a set time limit. The tester then clarifies the response in an inquiry phase to understand what aspects of the blot elicited the response (Meyer et al., 2011).

Steps are taken to ensure standardized administration procedures and to facilitate coding reliability.

Interpretation

A respondent’s reactions to the ambiguous inkblots are analyzed in terms of location, determinants, content, popularity, and other codes to derive scores on variables related to coping style, affect regulation, information processing, self-perception, and more (Mihura et al., 2013; Weiner, 1994).

These scores contribute to interpreting perceptual and thought processes and propensities for certain behaviors.

Originally based on psychoanalysis, interpretation now relies more on empirically derived norms and an ideographic formulation approach assessing cognitive and perceptual constructs (Meyer & Kurtz, 2006).

With appropriate training and methods to promote reliable coding and valid interpretation, the Rorschach can serve as a broadband performance-based instrument complementing other assessments (McGrath & Carroll, 2012).

Critical Evaluation

Advantages

1. Depth of Insight: Can provide rich, qualitative data about an individual’s unconscious motives, conflicts, and interpersonal dynamics. Because it’s less likely to elicit socially desirable responses, the individual is unlikely to deduce what is being measured, ensuring that behavior remains natural and consistent.
2. Flexibility: Suitable for diverse populations and can be adapted for different age groups.
3. Less Direct: As an indirect method, it might allow individuals to express thoughts and feelings they might withhold with direct questioning.

Disadvantages

1. Subjectivity: The major criticism of projective techniques is their lack of objectivity. Such methods are unscientific and do not objectively measure attitudes in the same way as a Likert scale. Interpretation highly depends on the examiner’s skill, leading to potential variability in conclusions.
2. Lack of Standardization: There isn’t a standardized scoring system, which can limit the test’s reliability and validity.
3. Time-Consuming: Both administration and interpretation can be lengthy.
4. Cultural Bias: Some cards or interpretations might not be culturally appropriate or relevant for all individuals.
5. Terminology: The term “projective” has multiple connotations in psychoanalytic theory, including the defense mechanism of externalizing one’s unacceptable feelings, as well as just idiosyncratic interpretation of ambiguous stimuli in general. This ambiguity creates questionable psychoanalytic assumptions when applied to tests.

References

Bellak, L., & Bellak, S. S. (1949). Children’s Apperception Test.

Bellak, L. (1954). The Thematic Apperception Test and the Children’s Apperception Test in clinical use.

Bellak, L., & Abrams, D. M. (1997). The Thematic apperception test, the children’s apperception test, and the senior apperception technique in clinical use. Allyn & Bacon.

Buck, J. N. (1948). The HTP technique; a qualitative and quantitative scoring manual. Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Eron, L. D. (1950). A normative study of the Thematic Apperception Test. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 64(9), i–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093627

Exner, J. E., Jr. (2003). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system: Vol. I. Basic foundations and principles of
 interpretation (4th ed.). Wiley

Flanagan, R., & Motta, R. W. (2007). Figure drawings: A popular method. Psychology in the Schools, 44(3), 257-270.

Goodenough, F. L. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. World Book Company.

Frank, L. K. (1939). Projective methods for the study of personality. The Journal of Psychology, 8(2), 389–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1939.9917671

Harris, D. (1963). Children’s drawings as measures of intellectual maturity. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Imuta, K., Scarf, D., Pharo, H., & Hayne, H. (2013). Drawing a Close to the Use of Human Figure Drawings as a Projective Measure of Intelligence. PLoS ONE, 8(3).

Kamphaus, R. W., & Pleiss, K. L. (1991). Draw-a-Person techniques: Tests in search of a construct. Journal of School Psychology, 29(4), 395-401.

McGrath, R. E. (2008). The Rorschach in the context of performance-based personality assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(5), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802248760

McGrath, R. E., & Carroll, E. J. (2012). The current status of “projective” “tests.” In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Vol. 1. Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics (pp. 329–348). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13619-018

Meyer, G. J., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Advancing personality assessment terminology: Time to retire “objective” and “projective” as personality test descriptors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(3), 223–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8703_01

Meyer, G. J., & Mihura, J. L. (2020). Performance-based techniques. In M. Sellbom & J. A. Suhr (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of clinical assessment and diagnosis (pp. 278–290). Cambridge University Press.

Meyer, G. J., Viglione, D. J., Mihura, J. L., Erard, R. E., & Erdberg, P. (2011). Rorschach Performance Assessment System: Administration, coding, interpretation, and technical manual. Rorschach Performance Assessment System.

Mihura, J. L., Meyer, G. J., Dumitrascu, N., & Bombel, G. (2013). The validity of individual Rorschach variables: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the comprehensive system. Psychological Bulletin, 139(3), 548–605. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029406

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. Oxford University Press.

Naglieri, J. A., McNeish, T. J., & Bardos, A. N. (1988). Draw a Person [DAP]: A Quantitative Scoring System. Psychological Corporation.

Osgood, C.E,  Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, 1