On This Page:ToggleFeaturesThematic Apperception TestDraw a Person TestRorschach Inkblot TestCritical Evaluation
On This Page:Toggle
On This Page:
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 theRorschach inkblotand 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
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:
Thematic Apperception Test
The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) is a projective psychological test wherein individuals view ambiguous pictures and then create stories about them.
By analyzing the narratives, psychologists aim to gain insight into the individual’s emotions, inner conflicts, and interpersonal dynamics, as it’s believed that personal experiences and underlying feelings influence the created stories.
The thematic apperception test taps into a person’sunconscious mindto 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.
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.
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.
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).
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:
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
The examiner evaluates the drawing based on a variety of criteria. This can include the size of the drawing, the placement on the page, the presence or omission of body parts, the level of detail, and other aspects. For some standardized versions of the DAP, scoring systems are in place, but interpretations can still be subjective.
It’s essential to approach the analysis with caution. While these interpretations can offer insights, they are not definitive diagnoses. Individual and cultural differences, as well as context, play a crucial role in understanding the meaning behind the drawings.
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.
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 ascentral nervous systemdysfunction or mental retardation.
Example
The HTP, though mostly given to children and adolescents, is appropriate for anyone over the age of three.
Rorschach Inkblot Test
It consists of 10 symmetrical inkblots – 5 are black and white, 2 are black/red/gray, and 3 are multicolored (Exner, 2003).
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.
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 onpsychoanalysis, 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
Disadvantages
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 ofinterpretation(4th ed.). Wiley
Flanagan, R., & Motta, R. W. (2007). Figure drawings: A popular method.Psychology in the Schools,44(3), 257-270.
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.Rorschach inkblot
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
Piotrowski, C. (2015). On the decline of projective techniques in professional psychology training. North American Journal of Psychology, 17(2).Reynolds, C. R., & Hickman, J. A. (2004).Draw-a-person Intellectual Ability Test for Children, Adolescents, and Adults. Pro-ed.Rorschach, H. (1921).Psychodiagnostik. Bircher.Scott, L. H. (1981). Measuring intelligence with the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test.Psychological bulletin,89(3), 483.Smith, D., & Dumont, F. (1995). A cautionary study: Unwarranted interpretations of the Draw-A-Person Test.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,26(3), 298.Weiner, I. B. (1994). The Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) is not a test: Implications for theory and practice.Journal of Personality Assessment, 62(3), 498–504.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6203_9
Piotrowski, C. (2015). On the decline of projective techniques in professional psychology training. North American Journal of Psychology, 17(2).
Reynolds, C. R., & Hickman, J. A. (2004).Draw-a-person Intellectual Ability Test for Children, Adolescents, and Adults. Pro-ed.
Rorschach, H. (1921).Psychodiagnostik. Bircher.
Scott, L. H. (1981). Measuring intelligence with the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test.Psychological bulletin,89(3), 483.
Smith, D., & Dumont, F. (1995). A cautionary study: Unwarranted interpretations of the Draw-A-Person Test.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,26(3), 298.
Weiner, I. B. (1994). The Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) is not a test: Implications for theory and practice.Journal of Personality Assessment, 62(3), 498–504.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6203_9
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
