COMMONLY USED
PROJECTIVE TEST
AND ASSOCIATED
THEORIES
Objective Methods
Structured tests where people choose answers from set options (like
multiple-choice or true/false). These tests are scored using fixed
rules, so there’s little room for personal judgment from the
examiner.
How They Work:
Answers are scored based on specific personality traits
If responses are inconsistent or random, the test results might
be questioned for accuracy
Some tests have validity checks to catch unreliable answers
Advantages:
Quick and easy to take
Can be given to large groups or on a computer
Fast and accurate scoring, often done by computer
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Projective Methods
A personality assessment technique where individuals
impose structure on unstructured or ambiguous stimuli,
revealing unconscious thoughts, feelings, and
personality traits.
Example: In the chalkboard activity, students “see”
images that aren’t actually there, projecting their
internal thoughts onto the blank surface.
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Projective Hypothesis
The projective hypothesis suggests that when people
see something unclear or vague, their interpretation
reflects their own thoughts, emotions, and experiences.
Example: A scared child sees a shadow in a dark room
and thinks it’s a monster. The shadow is neutral, but the
child projects his fear onto it.
Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo., D.P
Spill some ink in the center of a blank, white sheet of
paper and fold it over. Allow to dry. There you have the
recipe for an inkblot.
“Inkblots as Projective Stimuli”
The Rorschach
Herman Rorschach (1884-1922)
Swiss psychiatrist with a background in art and
psychoanalysis.
Influenced by Carl Jung, who explored methods for
uncovering the unconscious.
In 1913, he published research on analyzing patient artwork
to understand personality.
Developed the Rorschach Inkblot Test, published in 1921.
The test was not immediately successful upon release.
Passed away in 1922 from peritonitis at the age of 38.
Unknowingly left behind a major psychological legacy.
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Historical Antecedents
Early Ideas: J. Kerner (1857) noticed people see unique meanings in inkblots.
Binet's Proposal: Suggested inkblots could be used to assess personality
(1896).
First Standardized Inkblots: Created by Whipple in 1910.
Rorschach's Contribution: Used inkblots to identify psychological disorders,
publishing Psychodiagnostik in 1921.
Initial Rejection: The test was criticized and not widely accepted at first.
Growing Popularity: Over time, it gained recognition and became widely used.
Key Figures: Samuel Beck, Marguerite Hertz, Bruno Klopfer, Zygmunt
Piotrowski, and David Rapaport shaped the test’s development.
Different Approaches: Experts disagreed on administration, scoring, and
interpretation, leading to variations in the test.
Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo., D.P
Stimuli, Administration, and
Interpretation
Stimuli
10 inkblot cards (originally 20,
reduced due to publishing
constraints)
5 black-gray, 2 black-gray-red, 3
pastel-colored cards
Created through symmetrical
inkblot folding
Administration
Individual test with minimal examiner guidance
Two-phase process:
1. Free-Association – Subject describes what they
see
2. Inquiry – Examiner revisits responses and
begins scoring
No restrictions on responses; recorded
verbatim with reaction times
Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo., D.P
Interpretation
Scoring dimensions:
-Location (Whole image, common or rare details)
-Determinants (Form, movement, color, shading)
-Content (Humans, animals, objects, abstract concepts)
-Form quality (Accuracy of perception)
-Frequency (Common vs. unique responses)
Combination of quantitative & qualitative analysis
Interpretation requires advanced training due to complexity
Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo., D.P
Psychometric Properties
Clinical Validation
The Rorschach test gained popularity in the 1940s-50s due to impressive blind
analyses by skilled clinicians, but research in the 1960s revealed that their
accuracy was no better than chance. Explanations for early successes include
the Barnum effect, where general statements seem highly personal, and
confirmation bias, which leads clinicians to focus on supporting evidence while
ignoring contradictions. Some also suggest that multiple interpretations
allowed for seemingly accurate diagnoses. Despite Exner’s Comprehensive
System attempting to standardize scoring, the Rorschach remains controversial
and unreliable, particularly in forensic and clinical settings.
Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo., D.P
Norms
The Rorschach test lacks adequate norming despite being widely used.
Most clinicians rely on Exner’s norms, first established in the 1980s.
However, his original dataset contained a major error—duplicating 221
cases—which led to inaccurate norms. Although Exner later revised his
norms, they remain controversial and differ from other researchers'
findings. Studies suggest that the Comprehensive System's norms may
overidentify psychological disorders in healthy individuals, raising
concerns about its reliability.
Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo., D.P
Overpathologizing
Research shows that the Rorschach test, including Exner’s
Comprehensive System, often misidentifies healthy individuals as
emotionally disturbed. This issue affects both adults and children,
sometimes labeling slightly above-average children as having serious
impairments. Misdiagnosis can have severe consequences, especially in
legal settings like child custody cases, where incorrect findings could
lead to wrongful parental loss. Despite concerns, the Rorschach is still
widely used in custody evaluations. Mislabeling individuals can result in
stigma, unnecessary treatments, and life-altering repercussions.
Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo., D.P
Unreliable Scoring
The reliability of the Rorschach test has been widely debated, with early
studies showing inconsistent results, ranging from very high to
extremely low reliability coefficients. Meta-analyses have attempted to
clarify this issue, with some studies reporting a reliability coefficient of
.83. However, these analyses have been criticized for not separating
reliability from validity. Exner argued that test-retest reliability could
reasonably fall in the .70s. Studies using the Kuder-Richardson formula
suggest the Rorschach may be more reliable than previously thought,
though controversy remains.
Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo., D.P
Lack of Relationship to Psychological Diagnosis
While the Rorschach test can sometimes assess thought disorders and
anxiety, studies have largely failed to establish a strong connection
between Rorschach scores and specific psychological disorders.
Research has shown that it does not reliably diagnose conditions such as
depression, PTSD, psychopathy, or personality disorders. Despite its lack
of diagnostic validity, the Rorschach continues to be used frequently in
clinical and forensic settings.
Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo., D.P
The Problem of “R”
The number of responses given on the Rorschach significantly
influences scores, often leading to misinterpretations. Lack of
standardized instructions and inconsistent scoring methods further
reduce reliability. Research on the test is flawed due to uncontrolled
variables such as race and socioeconomic status. Despite extensive
studies, there is no consensus on the test’s scientific validity, and
without standardization, its credibility remains questionable.
Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo., D.P
The Holtzman Inkblot Test
Created to meet these difficulties such as inconsistent
reponses, lack of standard procedures, and lack of an
alternative form, while maintaining the advantages of the
inkblot methodology.
How it works:
People can only give one response per card (unlike the
Rorschach).
The test has standardized rules for administration and
scoring.
Two forms (A and B) exist, each with 45 inkblots.
Responses are scored on 22 different factors, including
anxiety and hostility.
It has strong reliability, similar to objective personality
tests.
Limitations:
Despite its scientific advantages, it
never became as famous as the
Rorschach.
Holtzman refused to overhype the
test or make exaggerated claims.
Its validity (accuracy in measuring
personality) is questionable.
Studies supporting it are limited and
subjective, depending on the
examiner’s skill.
There isn’t enough evidence to prove
it is more useful than the Rorschach.
Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo., D.P
The Thematic Apperception Test
The TAT involves a series of ambiguous pictures (usually 31 in
total) showing various scenes of people, sometimes with implied or
uncertain social situations.
The subject is asked to tell a story about what is happening in the
picture, including what led up to the scene, what the characters are
thinking and feeling, and what will happen next.
THEMATIC APPERCEPTION TEST
This exercise introduces you to the use of pictures as
projective stimuli. Pictures used as projective stimuli may be photos of real people,
animals, objects, or anything.
OTHER TYPES OF PROJECTIVE
INSTRUMENTS
HAND TEST:
This test consists of nine cards with pictures of hands and one
blank card. The test-taker is asked what the hands on each card might
be doing. Responses are interpreted based on categories like affection,
dependence, and aggression.
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
OTHER TYPES OF PROJECTIVE
INSTRUMENTS
Rosenzweig (roh-zen-zweeg)
Picture-Frustration Study:
This test uses cartoons depicting
frustrating situations. The test-taker
fills in the response of the frustrated
The test-taker is asked to fill in the response of the
character in the cartoon, describing what the
person might say or do in that situation.
character, either orally or in writing.
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Scoring and Interpretation of Rosenzweig
Picture-Frustration Study
Types of Reactions: Responses are categorized based on the type of
aggression expressed, such as:
Intropunitive (aggression directed inward, like self-blame),
Extrapunitive (aggression directed outward, like blaming others),
Inpunitive (aggression avoided or denied).
Response Categories: Responses are also analyzed for themes such as:
Obstacle dominance (focusing on the frustrating barrier),
Ego defense (protecting the person from frustration),
Need persistence (focusing on solving the frustrating problem).
Key Differences of Rorschach Inkblot
test and Thematic Apperception Test
RORSCHACH
INKBLOT TEST
TAT
Use abstract inkblots
Specific images of people
Abstract associations
and scenes
Focused on perception and
cognitive processing
Structured scoring of
responses based on the
inkblot’s content and form.
Narrative
Focused on interpersonal
and emotional dynamics.
TAT’s scoring relies more
on thematic analysis of the
stories.
NONPICTORIAL PROJECTIVE
TEST
1
Word Association Test (words)
2
Sentence Completion Test (Sentences/phrases)
3
Auditory Apperception Test (sounds)
Cohen, R.J, Schneider,
J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo., D.P
Word Association Test
Words as
Projective
Stimuli
Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo., D.P
Imagine yourself comfortably seated in a psychologist’s examining
office. Your task is simple, or at least it seems so. The psychologist says a
word and you say the first word that comes to mind. The test begins. The
first word is hat. You reply coat, the most common response of college
students according to Rapaport, Gill, and Schafer (1968). The test goes on
as follows:
Lamp
Love
Father
Paper
Masturbation
Chairbreast
Car
Penis
Suicide
Word association tests have their origins
in Galton (1879) and were clinically used by
Jung (1910) and Kent & Rosanoff (1910).
Kent and Rosanoff developed a
standardized test with 100 words,
presented to 1,000 normal adults, and
created an objective scoring system.
Rapaport et al. (1968) developed a 60item test covering various themes, with
responses compared between college
students and schizophrenics.
Sentence Completion Test
Words as
Projective
Stimuli
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo., D.P
Auditory
Apperception
Test
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Figure Drawing Tests
1.
Draw-a-Person Test
2.
House-Tree-Person Test
3.
Kinetic Family Drawing Test
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Figure Drawing Test
a projective method of personality assessment whereby the
assessee produces a drawing that is analyzed on the basis of its
content and related variables.
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Draw-a-Person Test
First Drawing
a pencil
a blank sheet of 8 1⁄2-by-11-inch white
paper
Draw a person
“Make it the way you think it should be”
or “Do the best you can.”
Second Drawing
Draw a picture of a person of the sex
opposite
“Tell me a story about that figure,”
“Tell me about that boy/girl, man/lady,”
“What is the person doing?”
“How is the person feeling?”
“What is nice or not nice about the person?”
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
The drawing is then analyzed based on content
and various formal characteristics, such as
placement, size, line quality, symmetry, shading,
and features of the figure drawn.
Draw-a-Person Test
Emanuel Hammer (1958, 1981)
People project their self-image or self-concept in figure drawings, as well as
in other ways (such as in disguised form in dreams and paintings).
Figure Drawings of Male Rapists
Simian-like arms – Arms drawn with exaggerated, animalistic
features.
Exaggerated masculinity – Overly broad shoulders, inflated chest,
and large arms.
Large and imposing figure – Drawing nearly exceeds the boundaries
of an 8.5 x 11-inch paper, symbolizing boundary violations.
Underemphasized lower body – Smaller waist and legs, possibly
indicating insecurity or compensation for weakness.
Absence of clothing – May suggest psychodynamic themes related
to sexual aggression or lack of inhibition.
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Draw-a-Person Test
Figure Drawings of Male Pedophiles
Small, childlike figure – Reflects immaturity and a
failure to assume an adult role.
Incomplete or inadequate body parts – Fewer than
five fingers on a hand, symbolizing inadequacy.
Presence of the Sun – A sign of unmet nurturance
needs, typically normal for a child but unusual for an
adult.
Excessive shading – Suggests heightened anxiety and
internal distress.
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
House-Tree-Person Test
House-Tree-Person Test
The test-taker is instructed to draw a house, a tree, and a person.
Assesses personality characteristics, emotional functioning, and
underlying conflicts.
Symbolic Interpretations
House – Represents the individual's home life, family relationships, and
sense of security.
Tree – Symbolizes strength, stability, and unconscious emotions.
Person – Reflects self-concept, social relationships, and emotional state.
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Kinetic Family Drawing Test
Kinetic Family Drawing Test
Instructions for Administration
Provide the examinee with an 8.5 x 11-inch sheet of paper and a pencil with an
eraser.
“Draw a picture of everyone in your family, including you, DOING something.”
Emphasize drawing whole people rather than stick figures or cartoons.
Encourage depicting actions and interactions between family members.
Post-Drawing Inquiry
Ask the examinee to identify each figure and explain their role in the family.
Discuss the relationships between family members as depicted.
Explore the actions portrayed and the reasoning behind them.
Observe verbalizations and emotional responses during the drawing process.
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Kinetic Family Drawing Test
Related Techniques
Kinetic School Drawing (KSD) – Prout & Phillips (1974)
Adaptation for school settings, where the examinee draws
classmates and teachers.
Kinetic Drawing System (KDS) – Knoff & Prout (1985)
Combines elements of both KFD and KSD for a broader
assessment.
Collaborative Drawing Technique – D.K. Smith (1985)
Family members collaborate on a single drawing, facilitating family
dynamics assessment.
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Figure-Drawing Tests
Criticisms & Psychometric Concerns
Self-Representation Assumption
Assumes drawings are projections of the self (Tharinger & Stark, 1990).
Critics argue drawings may reflect artistic ability rather than psychological state
(Swensen, 1968).
Validity & Scoring Issues
Multiple scoring systems exist, but solid validity evidence is lacking (Watson et al.,
1967).
Expertise does not guarantee accuracy in interpretation.
Karen Machover’s Concerns
Had "grave misgivings" about the misuse of her Draw-A-Person test for
diagnostics (cited in Watson, 1967).
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Figure-Drawing Tests
Defenses & Clinical Utility
Riethmiller & Handler (1997a, 1997b)
Defended the clinical relevance of figure-drawing techniques.
Waehler’s Perspective (1997)
Psychological tests are not foolproof; clinical judgment is essential.
A patient may appear pathological in an interview but normal in a test
and vice versa.
Figure-drawing tests serve as "stepping-off points" for discussion and
deeper client insight.
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Projective Methods in Perspective
Projective Methods in Perspective
Criticism of Projective Tests
Lilienfeld et al. (2000) Findings
Scoring systems for Rorschach, TAT, and figure drawings lack strong empirical support.
Few justifications for continued use of figure drawings.
Bernard Murstein’s (1961) Criticism of Assumptions
Ambiguity does not necessarily increase projection.
Responses are influenced by environmental and situational variables.
Assumptions about projection, idiosyncratic responses, and unconscious influences are
questionable.
The Unconscious: A Controversial Assumption
There is debate over the unconscious as a real entity or a theoretical construct.
Research on hypnosis, signal detection, and personality theories yields mixed results
(Brody, 1972; Erdelyi, 1974).
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Projective Methods in Perspective
Criticism of Projective Tests
Situational Variables Affecting Projective Tests
Test conditions influence responses:
Private vs. examiner-present settings impact story content (Bernstein,
1956).
Examiner’s age and demeanor affect responses (Mussen & Scodel, 1955).
Instructions and subtle reinforcement cues alter outcomes (Henry &
Rotter, 1956; Wickes, 1956).
Masling (1960, 1965) Findings:
Test takers respond to situational and interpersonal cues.
Examiners’ biases influence interpretations.
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Projective Methods in Perspective
Defenses & Clinical Utility
Waehler (1997): Clinical Judgment is Key
Psychological tests are not foolproof; must be interpreted with clinical insight.
Tests like the Rorschach serve as a basis for discussion and deeper insight.
Projective Tests & Impression Management
Rorschach used in forensic settings (Gacono et al., 2008; Weiss et al., 2008):
Less susceptible to "faking good."
Chinese study: Rorschach superior to self-report scales for self-concept
assessment (Cai & Shen, 2007).
Critics argue impression management concerns remain (Conti, 2007;
Ganellen, 2008).
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Projective Methods in Perspective
Conclusion
Projective tests face validity concerns but remain useful in
clinical practice.
Clinicians emphasize their role in gaining qualitative insights.
Research continues to evaluate their scientific and applied
value.
Cohen, R.J, Schneider, J.W., & Tobin, R.M.
Hebrews 4:12 (NIV):
"For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any doubleedged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints
and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."