Evaluation of the structure, functioning, and pathology of personality has traditionally been an essential and challenging psychological assessment component. Various assessment methods have been used for the realization of this aim, such as subjective, objective, and projective. Each of these methods has some strengths and weaknesses (Blais and Baity, 2008). There has been controversy regarding the projective methods’ nomenclature, and whether these should be labelled as projective tests or projective techniques. Many scholars preferred to call these devices projective techniques because most projective instruments lack the psychometric properties possessed by an objective test. Projective techniques compared to the subjective and objective assessment methods in which assessment is made either in terms of information obtained from others (case history, interview) or based on the direct description of people by themselves (inventories), are based on fundamentally different assumptions; people can project their personality dispositions if presented with unstructured ambiguous stimuli and provided the liberty to respond.
Projective techniques have a long and rich
history, William Shakespeare wrote about the projective usefulness of clouds,
and William Stern used cloud images as test stimuli before Rorschach's use of
inkblots. Galton suggested the use of the word Association Methods, and Kraepelin
used these methods for clinical diagnosis and categorization. Binet and Henry
(1896) initially used pictures and inkblots as the projective indices of
intelligence and other mental abilities, i.e., creativity and imagination.
Adler also used the recall method as a kind of projective approach in which the
subject was asked to recall his first memory. Even in ancient epics like
Upnishads, Bible, and stories in Sufism, there are references to the importance of
interpreting narrative information (Groth-Marnat, 1992). Utterances of Greek
oracles like inkblots were open to varying interpretations. Interpretations of
artistic works have also been considered to reveal something about the artist
and his or her subject (Hammer, 1958).
Freudian psychoanalytic framework strongly
influenced the early conceptualization of projective assessment. The projective
techniques were defined in terms of the Freudian notion of unconscious
processes and ego defence mechanisms, particularly projection. It is reflected
in that the greatest development and the reliance on projective tests occurred
between 1930 to 1960 when Psychoanalysis was the most dominating force in
Psychology. Some experts do not intend to stick to the Freudian definition of
projective techniques with the assertion that a relationship between projection
as conceptualized by Freud and projective techniques cannot be ascertained in
all cases. So, the projective techniques are called so for another reason:
because these are constructed so that the subject can project into his
responses significant components of his personality. The responses to the
stimuli of projective techniques are determined not only by the stimuli to
which he is responding but by his personality.
Also read 5 STAGES OF A RELATIONSHIP! Dr Manju Antil I Wellnessnetic Care
Many definitions of projective tests/ techniques
have been offered over the years (Anderson and Anderson, 1951; Landzey, 1961;
Murstein 1963; Semenoff, 1976; Freeman, 1962). Perhaps, the pragmatic one can
be taken from a Psychological Dictionary (English and English 1958) which
defines projective techniques as “a procedure for discovering a person’s
characteristic modes of behaviour by observing his behaviour in responses to a
situation that does not elicit or compel a particular response.”
In general, it is considered that projective
techniques are based on projection, an unconscious process in which (1)
attributions of thoughts, attitudes, emotions, and other characteristics are
made by the individual to other persons or certain characteristics of objects
in his environment; (2) attributions of his own needs, drives, and motives to
others in his environment; or (3) individual draws inferences based on his past
experience, on the basis of which test stimuli are meaningfully organized.
Projection is not considered as being of personal origin as the content of
projection is experienced as an external perception and of external origin. In
this light, a projective test technique is one in which a subject is presented with a stimulus situation providing him with an opportunity to impose upon it his
personal needs and his specific perceptions and interpretations.
Wholistically projective techniques tend to
embody the following distinguishing characteristics (Rotter, 1954):
1.
In projective techniques, ambiguity or lack of structure of test
material is a prerequisite that is, different people perceive it differently. In
response to the unstructured and ambiguous stimulus, subjects are forced to
impose or project their own structure, and in doing so, they reveal something
about themselves such as needs, wishes, conflicts, and Ambiguity. in test stimuli
can be introduced by choice of stimuli, by the instructions given to the
subjects, or by combining both.
2.
Projective techniques employ a wide range of stimuli such as inkblots, incomplete
sentences, line drawings, and pictures. No matter what stimuli are selected and
used, the examination procedure is set up to ensure the highest degree of
ambiguity and unstructureness. These unstructured situations are presented to
the subject for resolution with the underlying assumption that the handling of
this ambiguous task will involve various aspects of personality make-up and its
dynamic structure
3.
Projective techniques are indirect in the sense the subjects are not aware of
the purpose of the test to some extent, i.e., the purpose and intent of projective
techniques are disguised, and respondents are also not aware of the relevance and
significance of their responses. In the projective techniques, there is no
attempt on the examiner's part to ask the subjects directly about their needs,
wishes, impulses, or troubles; the route is indirect which prompts the subjects
to provide more elaborated data.
4.
Projective techniques, in contrast to other assessment techniques, provide more
freedom in the choice of responses. It captures the uniqueness of the
personality of the respondent.
5.
Since there are no bindings on the respondent in projective techniques, they
yield more responses. These responses can be interpreted as dealing with more
variables. Since the range of responses is broad, the examiner can make
interpretations along multiple dimensions (cognitive, conative, and affective)
such as motives, adjustment, diagnostic category, defence mechanisms, coping,
and so on. Most objective tests provide a single score for a
disposition, whereas projective techniques can provide both quantitative and
qualitative multiple information about a disposition or trait, or attribute.
Also read How to become a Clinical Psychologist in the UK। Dr Manju Antil। Wellnessnetic Care
Controversy over the use and relevance of
projective techniques has been one of the most significant controversies and
debates in Psychology. Advocating scholars assert that projective techniques
provide deep information and knowledge about various dimensions of a person’s
functioning unobtainable through other assessment techniques (Growth &
Marnat, 2009). So, the projective techniques are usually described as X-rays of the mind or a kind of “open sesame” into the unconscious. Over the last four
decades, a considerable amount of research has been conducted, organized, and
cited in this regard. On the other hand, critics have highlighted the weakness
of projective techniques including flawed norms, subjective scoring, the vulnerability of responses to situational factors, over-reliance on
impressionistic interpretations, poor inter-rater reliability, poor test-retest
reliability (low stability), unsupported research for many interpretations,
subjectivity in interpretations, the fake ability of results, poor prediction of
criterion or external behaviours and general poor validity ( Camar et al.,2000,
Groth- Marnat 2006)
Beyond the criticisms mentioned above,
projective testing/techniques continue to be highly popular among mental health
professionals. Recent surveys of practitioners of projective techniques
indicate that three (Rorschach, TAT and House Tree Person of the 10 most widely
used tests by clinical psychologists are projective (Camara et al, 2000).
Many forms of the projective method such as
inkblots, pictures, incomplete sentences, word associations, own writings and
drawings, and others have been developed oriented to elicit responses that can
reveal the individual's personality structure, thoughts, values, motives,
emotions, modes of coping and adjustment, or complexes. One thing common among
all these projective techniques is the ambiguity or unstructureness of the
material presented to the subjects. Projective techniques have been classified
according to different plans which are, interm of nature of test material, modes
of responses or interpretations. In terms of the degree of ambiguity and nature
of test material, Lindsey (1959) classifies the projective techniques as (1)
Association techniques, (2) Completion techniques, (3) Construction techniques,
and (4) Expression techniques.
Association techniques are based on the
psychological process of association in which connections are established among
experiences, stimuli, and other events and then are stored in the mind. The
associative techniques have a long history in psychological experimentation
dating back to Galton (1879). Was experimentally studied in psychological
laboratories with a growing interest in psychoanalysis after 1900 association
techniques emerged as a clinical technique. Jung and other dynamic
psychologists made extensive use of the association method for the detection of
complexes. Word Association Tests by Jung, Cant, and Rossenoff are the main representatives
of this technique. These tests are oriented to minimize ideation and emphasize
the immediacy of response. In these, subjects are instructed to reply to the word
stimuli by the first word, image, or percepts that come into mind first.
Constructive techniques include all
those test situations where the examinee is to construct or frame structures
out of unstructured material Inkblot tests like Rorschach Inkblot Test,
Holtzman Inkblot Technique, and Somatic Inkblot Series (SIS) are the best
examples and representatives of this category of projective technique. TAT also
belongs to it as its subject is to construct or create a story about the given
picture.
In completion techniques, some incomplete
verbal material is presented and the subjects are to complete these sentences
or informants. The completing informants are considered to come from the
unconscious of a person. Incomplete Sentences Blank (Rotter and Willerman, 1947) is the true
representative of this technique.
In Refractive techniques, examinees
are provided with the opportunity to their personality in the forms of
paintings, drawings, handwriting, etc. In Expressive Playing Techniques, the
subjects are given a situation in which they are to perform a particular role
for a certain period in a group of two or more persons. Here, subjects can also
be provided with the situation in which they are to express themselves as in
psychodrama or dance.
In choice /ordering techniques, the subject is to
order the given item (photos, sentences, etc.) as per their choices or
preferences. Another plan of categorization of projective technique is in terms
of the degree of ambiguity of test material. In this plan, the projective
technique can be classified into three categories (1) Unstructured (inkblots),
(2) Semi-Structured (TAT), and (3) Structured (Sentence Completion, Word
Association, Role-Playing, Psychodrama, Draw-a-man, etc.)
This is all about our this article, let us know if you like it, share your views in comments section
Posts
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment