Impulsiveness and Hostility within the Neuroticism
domain). In summary, although promising, the util-
ity of the NEO-PI-R in routine clinical assessment
remains to be demonstrated.
Projective Tests
Projective techniques have a long and rich history.
William Shakespeare wrote about the projective
qualities of clouds, and William Stern used clouds
as test stimuli before Rorschach and his inkblots. Sir
Francis Galton (1879) suggested word-association
methods, and Kraepelin made use of them. Binet
and Henri (1896) experimented with pictures as
projective devices. Alfred Adler asked patients to
recall their first memory, which is also a kind of
projective approach.
However, the real impetus for projective tech-
niques can be traced to Hermann Rorschach’s clas-
sic 1921 monograph, in which he described the use
of inkblots as a method for the differential diagnosis
of psychopathology. Later in the 1920s, David Levy
brought the inkblot test to America, and it was not
long before Beck, Klopfer, and Hertz all began
teaching Rorschach courses. In 1935, Morgan and
Murray introduced the Thematic Apperception
Test (TAT), and in 1938, Murray carefully
described the process of projection. The termpro-
jectivereally came into popular use following L. K.
Frank’s widely discussed 1939 paper on projective
methods.
The Nature of Projective Tests
For some, the definition of a projective test resides
in Freudian notions regarding the nature of ego
defenses and unconscious processes. However,
these do not seem to be essential characteristics.
Over the years, many definitions have been offered
(Anderson & Anderson, 1951; Lindzey, 1961;
Murstein, 1963; Semenoff, 1976; Wiggins, 1973;
Zubin, Eron, & Schumer, 1965). Perhaps the easiest
solution is a pragmatic one that comes from con-
sulting the English and English (1958) psychological
dictionary, which defines a projective technique as
“a procedure for discovering a person’s characteris-
tic modes of behavior by observing his behavior in
response to a situation that does not elicit or compel
a particular response.”
Projective techniques, taken as a whole, tend
to have the following distinguishing characteristics
(Rotter, 1954):- In response to an unstructured or ambiguous
stimulus, examinees areforced to impose their own
structureand, in so doing, reveal something of
themselves (such as needs, wishes, or conflicts). - The stimulus material isunstructured. This is a
very tenuous criterion, even though it is widely
assumed to reflect the essence of projective
techniques. For example, if 70% of all exami-
nees perceive Card V on the Rorschach as a
bat, then we can hardly say that the stimulus is
unstructured. Thus, whether a test is projective
or not depends on the kinds of responses that
the individual is encouraged to give and on
how those responses are used. The instructions
are the important element. If a patient is asked
to classify the people in a set of TAT cards as
men or women, then there is a great deal of
structure—the test is far from ambiguous.
However, if the patient is asked what the
people on the card are saying, the task has
suddenly become quite ambiguous indeed. - The method isindirect.Tosomedegreeorother,
examinees are not aware of the purposes of the
test; at least, the purposes are disguised. Although
patients may know that the test has something to
do with adjustment–maladjustment, they are not
usually aware in detail of the significance of their
responses. There is no attempt to ask patients
directly about their needs or troubles; the route is
indirect, and the hope is that this very indirect-
ness will make it more difficult for patients to
censor the data they provide. - There isfreedom of response. Whereas question-
naire methods may allow only for a“yes”or a
“no,”projectives permit a nearly infinite range
of responses.
236 CHAPTER 8