[1][2] The general theoretical position behind projective tests is that whenever a specific question is asked, the response will be consciously formulated and socially determined.
Advocates of projective tests stress that the ambiguity of the stimuli presented within the tests allow subjects to express thoughts that originate on a deeper level than tapped by explicit questions, and provide content that may not be captured by responsive tools that lacks appropriate items.
This holds that an individual puts structure on an ambiguous situation in a way that is consistent with their own conscious and unconscious needs.
[7] In an influential review, the Rorschach Inkblot Test using the CS method has been labeled as a "problematic instrument" in terms of its psychometric properties.
The results are based on a psychodynamic interpretation of the details of the drawing, such as the size, shape and complexity of the facial features, clothing and background of the figure.
As with other projective tests, the approach has very little demonstrated validity and there is evidence that therapists may attribute pathology to individuals who are merely poor artists.
Unlike the Rorschach test and TAT, the Animal Metaphor is premised on self-analysis via self-report questions.
The test has been used widely as a clinical tool, as an educational assessment, and in human resource selection[citation needed].
The subject's response is considered to be a projection of their conscious and/or unconscious attitudes, personality characteristics, motivations, and beliefs.
[10] Created by Silvan Tomkins, this psychological test consists of 25 sets of 3 pictures which the subject must arrange into a sequence that they "feel makes the best sense".
Jung came to recognize the existence of groups of thoughts, feelings, memories, and perceptions, organized around a central theme, that he termed psychological complexes.
This discovery was related to his research into word association, a technique whereby words presented to patients elicit other word responses that reflect related concepts in the patients' psyche, thus providing clues to their unique psychological make-up [13][14][15] Graphology is the pseudoscientific[16] analysis of the physical characteristics and patterns of handwriting purporting to be able to identify the writer, indicating psychological state at the time of writing, or evaluating personality characteristics.
The criticism of lack of scientific evidence to support them and their continued popularity has been referred to as the "projective paradox".
[30] Decades of works by advocates, e.g., David C. McClelland, David Winter, Abigail Stewart, and, more recently, Oliver Schultheiss, have shown clear validity for these tools for certain personality traits, most especially implicit motivation (as contrasted with self-attributed or "explicit" motivation, which are conscious states),[31][incomplete short citation] and that criticisms of projective tools based on techniques used for responsive tools is simply an inappropriate method of measurement.
Moreover, Soley and Smith report that when used with larger Ns in research, as opposed to the clinical assessment of an individual, projective tests can exhibit high validity and reliability.
Neither of these assumptions are fully accurate, and have led researchers to develop alternative terminology to describe various projective measures.
Projective testing, such as the Rorschach, requires subjective responses from the examinee, and can in theory involve objective (actuarial) interpretation.
Projective techniques, including TATs, are used in qualitative marketing research, for example to help identify potential associations between brand images and the emotions they may provoke.
Projective techniques are used extensively in people assessment; besides variants of the TAT, which are used to identify implicit motive patterns, the Behavioral Event Interview pioneered by American psychologist David McClelland and many of its related approaches (such as the Critical Incident Interview, the Behavioral Interview, and so on) is fundamentally a projective tool in that it invites someone to tell a specific story about recent actions they took, but does not ask leading questions or questions with yes or no answers.