Projective tests in psychology present people with ambiguous stimuli, deliberately unstructured material such as inkblots or vague images with no single “correct” answer. The person is asked to interpret the material or invent a story about it.
Common examples include the Rorschach inkblot and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). Structure comes from the person, not the stimulus.
The theory is that people project their unconscious feelings, thoughts, and desires onto their interpretations. This gives psychologists insight into emotions and conflicts a person might not report directly.
Key Takeaways
- Ambiguity: Projective tests use unstructured stimuli with no fixed answer, so the person’s own interpretation becomes the data.
- Main Instruments: The Rorschach inkblot test, the TAT, sentence-completion blanks, and figure-drawing tasks each apply the same idea differently.
- Vs. Objective Tests: Unlike fixed-choice questionnaires, projective tests resist deliberate faking but are harder to score consistently.
- Scoring Reform: Exner’s Comprehensive System standardized Rorschach scoring and improved reliability, and R-PAS has refined it further.
- Validity Debate: Meta-analyses find only a minority of scores, mainly those tapping thinking and perception, hold up well (Mihura et al., 2013).
- Best Practice: Use projective results as one part of a multi-method battery, never as a stand-alone verdict.
Features
The seminal works on the “projective hypothesis” were proposed by Murray (1938) and Frank (1939). Frank compared it to a film projector.
Just as a projector throws a hidden image onto a screen, a person facing an ambiguous stimulus “projects” their own way of thinking and feeling onto it. This is why free-form responses to ambiguous, “culture-free” stimuli are believed to surface feelings a person might otherwise disguise.
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:
- The test stimuli incorporate some degree of ambiguity – for example, the Rorschach inkblots elicit the question “What might this be?” and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) requires crafting stories based on pictures of people engaged in unclear behavior.
- While some responses violate the instructions (e.g., refusing to respond), the number of acceptable responses is essentially infinite. Traditional Rorschach administration allowed the respondent to decide how many responses to give, though the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) now limits this to four responses per card.
- The ambiguity is intended to provoke idiosyncratic patterns of responding, such as unusual perceptual interpretations or justifications on the Rorschach or atypical story content or structure on the TAT.
- The free-response format often necessitates individualized administration and specialized training in giving instructions, scoring, and interpretation.
Thematic Apperception Test
The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) is a projective psychological test. People view ambiguous pictures and create stories about them.
Psychologists analyze the stories for emotions, inner conflicts, and interpersonal patterns. The assumption is that personal experience shapes what a person imagines.
The thematic apperception test taps into a person’s unconscious mind. It aims to reveal the repressed aspects of their personality.
The TAT cards are designed for individuals aged 14 and older. A related version, the Children’s Apperception Test (CAT), uses animal figures for children aged 3 to 10. Examiners adjust card selection and interpretation to the person’s age and developmental level.
Procedure
The image used must be interesting enough to encourage discussion. But it must stay vague enough not to give away what is being tested.
TAT is also used outside the clinic, for instance to explore how people perceive different products or services.
The examiner presents a selection of TAT cards one by one. A standard deck has 31 cards. Usually only 10 to 12 are chosen for one session, based on the person’s age, gender, and other factors.
The person tells a story for each card. The examiner stays passive and lets the narrative unfold without interruption. If the person hesitates, the examiner may offer a gentle prompt.
The person must look at the picture(s) and tell a story. For example:
- What has led up to the event shown
- What is happening at the moment
- What the characters are thinking and feeling
- What the outcome of the story was
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.
TAT interpretation is subjective, and interpretations can vary between examiners.
The skill of the psychologist, their familiarity with the test, and their understanding of the individual all play crucial roles in the interpretation process.
- Story Content: The psychologist examines the narratives for common themes, conflicts, characters, and resolutions.
- Emotional Responses: The expressed emotions, anxieties, and feelings in the stories are noted.
- Interpersonal Dynamics: Relationships between characters can provide insight into the individual’s interpersonal relationships and their view of social dynamics.
- Projection: Since TAT is a projective test, personal experiences, desires, fears, and conflicts are believed to be projected onto the characters and events of the stories.
- Consistency: Patterns in responses across multiple cards can provide robust insights into persistent themes or concerns in an individual’s life.
- Comparison to Norms: While TAT doesn’t have strict “norms” like some other tests, experienced psychologists often use their knowledge of typical responses to gauge the uniqueness or concern of a particular narrative.
- Integration with Other Information: The TAT results are often integrated with other clinical data, interviews, and assessments to form a comprehensive understanding of the individual.
Draw a Person Test
The Draw A Person Test (DAP) is a projective assessment that asks a person to draw a human figure.
It is used to evaluate cognitive development in children and, in some interpretations, personality, emotions, or psychological difficulties. The drawn figure is scored on criteria such as detail, proportion, and omitted features.
The same logic extends to houses, trees, and families.
The test evaluates children and adolescents for many purposes, including self-image, family relationships, cognitive ability, and personality.
Procedure
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:
- Who is the person in the drawing?
- What is the person doing?
- What might the person be thinking or feeling?
- “What kind of day is this person having?”
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.
- Body Proportions: The size and proportion of the drawn figure can be indicative of self-perception and self-esteem. A tiny figure might indicate feelings of insignificance or insecurity, while an overly large one might hint at inflated self-importance.
- Omissions: Missing body parts (like hands, feet, or ears) can be significant. For example, omission of hands might be linked to feelings of helplessness, though interpretations can vary.
- Placement on the Page: A figure drawn in the corner might suggest feelings of isolation or marginalization, whereas central placement might indicate a balanced self-concept.
- Detail Level: An excessive amount of detail or focus on specific body parts can indicate fixation or heightened significance. Conversely, lack of detail might suggest avoidance or neglect.
- Sequencing: If multiple figures are drawn, the sequence or order of the drawings might offer insights. For instance, drawing oneself last could hint at self-neglect or prioritizing others.
- Interactions: The interactions (or lack thereof) between figures, if multiple are drawn, can indicate interpersonal dynamics or feelings of connectivity or isolation.
Some figure-drawing tests are primarily measures of cognitive abilities or cognitive development. Scorers look at how well the child draws. They also look at what the drawing contains. 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.
Do Figure Drawings Measure Intelligence?
Aim: Imuta, Scarf, Pharo, and Hayne (2013) tested whether the Draw-A-Person Intellectual Ability Test (DAP:IQ) is a valid screening measure of intelligence.
Method: In two experiments, 100 preschool children completed the DAP:IQ alongside a Wechsler scale. A further 100 adults did the same. Scores on the two tests were then compared.
Results: Correlations between the drawing test and the Wechsler scales were only weak to modest. Rates of misclassification were high in both age groups.
Conclusion: Practitioners should not rely on human-figure drawings as a screening measure of intelligence.
Evaluation: A parallel failure was shown for the personality use of figure drawings. Smith and Dumont (1995) found that clinicians drew confident, unwarranted personality conclusions from a single Draw-A-Person protocol.
Other figure-drawing tests assess interpersonal relationships. The child draws a family, or another scene with more than one person.
Some tests are used to evaluate child abuse. Other tests interpret personality 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 conditions, such as central nervous system dysfunction or intellectual disability.
Example
The House-Tree-Person (HTP) test (Buck, 1948) provides a measure of self-perception and attitudes by requiring the test taker to draw a house, a tree, and a person.
- The picture of the house is supposed to conjure the child’s feelings toward his or her family.
- The picture of the tree is supposed to elicit feelings of strength or weakness. The picture of the person, as with other figure drawing tests, elicits information regarding the child’s self-concept.
The HTP, though mostly given to children and adolescents, is appropriate for anyone over the age of three.
Rorschach Inkblot Test
The Rorschach Inkblot Test is a projective psychological test developed in 1921 by Hermann Rorschach (Rorschach, 1921).
It consists of 10 symmetrical inkblots – 5 are black and white, 2 are black/red/gray, and 3 are multicolored (Exner, 2003).
Procedure
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 asks about each response. This inquiry phase clarifies what aspects of the blot shaped it (Meyer et al., 2011).
Steps are taken to ensure standardized administration procedures and to facilitate coding reliability.
Interpretation
A respondent’s reactions to the inkblots are scored using standardized codes: location, determinants, content, popularity, and form quality. These codes combine into scores for coping style, affect regulation, information processing, and self-perception.
These scores contribute to interpreting perceptual and thought processes and propensities for certain behaviors.
Originally, interpretation was based on psychoanalysis. It now relies more on empirically derived norms and an idiographic approach to cognitive and perceptual constructs (Meyer & Kurtz, 2006).
With proper training and standardized coding, the Rorschach performs well as a broadband performance-based instrument. It complements, rather than replaces, other assessments (McGrath & Carroll, 2012).
The Validity of Rorschach Scores
Critics of the Rorschach ask two separate questions. Is it reliable, meaning consistent across examiners? Is it valid, meaning does it measure what it claims to?
Aim: Mihura et al. (2013) reviewed the evidence systematically. The aim was to settle which Rorschach Comprehensive System scores are actually valid.
Method: The authors conducted meta-analyses of 65 Comprehensive System variables, comparing each to external criteria such as clinician ratings and diagnosis, and separately to self-report.
Results: Across 53 meta-analyses, validity averaged about r = .27 against external criteria but only r = .08 against self-report. About 40 scores showed modest-to-good validity. The rest showed little or none. The best-supported measured cognition and perception.
Conclusion: The Rorschach is neither uniformly valid nor worthless: a subset of scores, concentrated on thinking and perception, earns real empirical support.
Evaluation: This is one of the most important findings in the whole projective literature: it explains how generations of practitioners could sincerely “see” relationships that were never there.
Other Projective Techniques
Two further instruments occupy a middle ground between projective openness and objective, fixed-choice tests. Both sit alongside self-report inventories such as the MMPI.
Sentence-Completion Tests
Sentence-completion tests give the respondent ambiguous sentence stems, such as “I wish…” or “My father…”, and ask them to finish each one.
The stems invite self-revelation. Yet the answers are brief and verbal, which makes them far easier to score than a Rorschach or TAT protocol.
The most researched example is the Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank (Rotter & Rafferty, 1950). It supplies 40 stems.
A semi-objective scoring manual rates each completion on a seven-point maladjustment scale, summed into an overall adjustment score with published norms and cutoffs.
This partial structure is exactly why sentence-completion tests score better on reliability than more open projective methods. Constraining the response format also constrains the scoring problem.
The trade-off is transparency. Because the stems are fairly face-valid, a motivated respondent can edit their answers more easily, which weakens the test’s resistance to impression management.
The Holtzman Inkblot Technique
The Holtzman Inkblot Technique (Holtzman, Thorpe, Swartz, & Herron, 1961) kept the Rorschach’s inkblot format. But it deliberately fixed the format’s psychometric weaknesses.
It replaced the ten Rorschach cards with two parallel forms of 45 blots each. Only one response per card is allowed.
This fixes a serious confound: response counts used to vary widely in the Rorschach and skew other scores.
Because the two forms are parallel, proper test-retest and alternate-forms reliability can be estimated. Each response is scored on standardized dimensions with published norms.
On strictly psychometric grounds, the Holtzman is arguably the best-constructed of the classic inkblot methods. That it never displaced the Rorschach in clinical practice says more about professional habit and training tradition than about measurement quality.
Critical Evaluation
Advantages
- Depth of Insight: Can provide rich, qualitative data about an individual’s unconscious motives, conflicts, and interpersonal dynamics. Because it’s less likely to elicit socially desirable responses, the individual is unlikely to deduce what is being measured, ensuring that behavior remains natural and consistent.
- Flexibility: Suitable for diverse populations and can be adapted for different age groups.
- Less Direct: As an indirect method, it might allow individuals to express thoughts and feelings they might withhold with direct questioning.
Disadvantages
- Subjectivity: The major criticism of projective techniques is their lack of objectivity. Such methods are unscientific and do not objectively measure attitudes in the same way as a Likert scale. Interpretation highly depends on the examiner’s skill, leading to potential variability in conclusions.
- Lack of Standardization: There isn’t a standardized scoring system, which can limit the test’s reliability and validity.
- Time-Consuming: Both administration and interpretation can be lengthy.
- Cultural Bias: Some cards or interpretations might not be culturally appropriate or relevant for all individuals.
- Terminology: The term “projective” has multiple connotations in psychoanalytic theory, including the defense mechanism of externalizing one’s unacceptable feelings, as well as just idiosyncratic interpretation of ambiguous stimuli in general. This ambiguity creates questionable psychoanalytic assumptions when applied to tests.
Why Invalid “Signs” Persist: The Illusory Correlation Problem
Aim: Chapman and Chapman (1969) asked why clinicians confidently report diagnostic “signs” in projective tests that controlled research repeatedly fails to validate.
Method: They gave naive undergraduates fake test protocols. The “signs” in them were, by design, statistically unrelated to the patient descriptions attached. Participants were asked which features co-occurred with which symptoms.
Results: Naive observers “discovered” the same invalid signs that trained clinicians believed in. No such relationship existed. The illusion arose because a sign and a symptom were verbally associated in everyday language, for example a suspicious response “goes with” paranoia.
Conclusion: A clinician’s confidence in a sign is not proof it is valid. Belief in it can be manufactured entirely by language.
Evaluation: This is one of the most important findings in the whole projective literature. It explains how generations of practitioners could sincerely “see” relationships that were never there.
Contemporary Research
The Rorschach’s harshest critics have since revisited their own conclusions. Wood, Garb, Nezworski, Lilienfeld, and Duke (2015) asked whether an earlier review (Mihura et al., 2013) had overestimated its scores’ validity.
They ran new meta-analyses. This time they included unpublished dissertations and used ordinary rather than semipartial correlations, targeting possible publication-bias inflation.
The cognitive scores held up. Tied to thought disorder and perceptual accuracy, they were endorsed as valid enough for applied use. Several non-cognitive scores fared worse once unpublished studies were included.
The result is cross-camp agreement: the Rorschach validly indexes cognition, perception, and thought disorder. Scepticism remains about its use for emotionality or bodily preoccupation.
A separate line of work asks whether newer scoring systems actually improve on the old ones. Pianowski, Villemor-Amaral, and Meyer (2023) gave both R-PAS and Exner’s older system to matched patient and non-patient samples.
R-PAS produced a steadier number of responses per protocol. Its psychopathology markers also told patients and non-patients apart more strongly than the older system did.
Meanwhile, the profession’s own behaviour tracks the evidence. Piotrowski (2015) documented a long-term decline in training time devoted to projective techniques. Programmes now favour self-report and other performance-based measures instead.
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
Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1969). Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027592
Exner, J. E., Jr. (2003). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system: Vol. I. Basic foundations and principles of
interpretation (4th ed.). Wiley
Flanagan, R., & Motta, R. W. (2007). Figure drawings: A popular method. Psychology in the Schools, 44(3), 257-270.
Goodenough, F. L. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. World Book Company.
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.
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.
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
Pianowski, G., Villemor-Amaral, A. E. de, & Meyer, G. J. (2023). Comparing the validity of the Rorschach Performance Assessment System and Exner’s Comprehensive System to differentiate patients and nonpatients. Assessment, 30(8), 2417–2432. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221146516
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
Wood, J. M., Garb, H. N., Nezworski, M. T., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Duke, M. C. (2015). A second look at the validity of widely used Rorschach indices: Comment on Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, and Bombel (2013). Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036005
