PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN

VOL. 56. No. 2, 1959

ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES 1

GARDNER LINDZEY
University of Minnesota

Classification is a menial task! It is applied settings, where the interrela-

generally considered to be tedious, tion between various projective tech-
unexciting, and an activity, at least niques frequently appears to be a
for American psychologists, to be matter of vast importance.
delegated to someone else. In spite Before turning to a definite pro-
of this deficiency in allure, and the posal in regard to classification, let
general tendency of most psycholo- us consider some of the suggestions
gists to prefer the immediately more that have been made in the past. A
rewarding activities of experimental number of prior observers have con-
analysis or broad theoretical formula- cerned themselves with the ways in
tion, there seems little doubt that which projective techniques can be
some emphasis upon classification is clustered or grouped, but probably
important in every branch of psy- the first and best known of such at-
chology. The concern of the present tempts is contained in the pioneer
paper is with a relatively humble article by Frank (1939), recommend-
problem of taxonomy—the classifica- ing the use of projective techniques.
tion of projective techniques. He suggested that these instruments
I shall summarize briefly a num- could be distinguished in terms of
ber of approaches to this problem whether the responses they elicited
and suggest a basis for classification were constitutive, interpretative, ca-
that seems to me superior to the vari- thartic, or constructive. The test
ous alternatives. Such an enterprise may be considered constitutive if the
is obviously of interest to those who 5 is required to provide a structure or
teach or theorize about projective form for relatively unstructured or
techniques, for some kind of order ambiguous stimuli, such as finger
must be imposed upon this diverse paints or Rorschach cards. When
array of instruments if they are to be the S is asked to indicate what the
discussed efficiently and intelligently. meaning of the stimulus is to him, for
Moreover, a classification that can example, if he is asked to assign
be agreed upon, and that seems to meaning to a picture, the test is con-
make psychological sense, should sidered to be interpretative. The
serve some function in research and cathartic test involves some delib-
erate attempt to induce the 5 to ex-
1
This paper is an outgrowth of a mono- press or release emotion in the process
graph on the use of projective techniques in of reacting to the stimuli, as in the
social research initiated by the former Com- case of doll play or psychodrama. If
mittee on Social Behavior of the Social Science
Research Council. Preparation of the article the .S is required to build or organize
was supported by Research Grant M-1949 stimulus materials, such as blocks or
from the National Institute of Mental Health toys, in such a manner as to reveal
of the National Institutes of Health, Public "some of the organizing conceptions
Health Service. I am grateful to my colleague of his life" (p. 403) the test is labelled
Ephraim Rosen for his suggestions and to
Arthur Hill for assistance in preparing the constructive. In a subsequent formu-
tabular material. lation Frank (1948) h^s a.dded the
158
 CLASSIFICATION OF PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES 159
category of refractive techniques. (1950) suggests three classificatory
These are devices that depend upon principles that have implications for
error or distortion in the S's judg- projective techniques. First of all,
ment of some set of stimuli, and are there is the question of whether the
typified by instruments involving device is disguised or not, that is,
tachistoscopic presentation of stimuli whether the 5 can estimate accu-
related to a given motive or conflict. rately the intent of the examiner. This
Helen Sargent (1945) has consid- dimension might appear to have no
ered the problem of classifying pro- utility in the present context, as vir-
jective techniques somewhat more tually all projective techniques are
broadly, suggesting that these de- assumed to be disguised, but there is
vices may be grouped in terms of: actually a moderate degree of varia-
(a) the nature of the materials pre- tion among projective techniques
sented to the 5s; (b) the functional along this dimension. Second is the
use the 5 makes of the materials; (c) question of whether the instrument
the method of presentation used by is structured or not. Campbell ap-
the examiner; and (d) the purpose pears to use this term to refer to both
for which the test is employed. She the ambiguity of the stimulus and
suggests that under the heading of the amount of freedom permitted the
materials, the tests may be distin- S1 in determining how he will respond.
guished in terms of whether they in- Again these are qualities that are in-
volve presentation of ink blots, pic- volved in the differentiation of pro-
tures, stories, art media or sounds. jective techniques from other per-
The categories proposed under the sonality devices. Nevertheless, there
heading of functional uses employed is considerable variation between
by the 5 are the same as those ini- projective techniques along these
tially recommended by Frank—con- dimensions and they might well pro-
stitutive, interpretative, cathartic, vide the basis for important classifi-
and constructive. In distinguishing catory distinctions. Third is the dis-
between tests on the basis of method tinction between "voluntary self-de-
or technique of presentation, Sargent scription as opposed to diagnosis based
considers variations in both presenta- upon differential performance in an
tion and interpretation. The main objective task" (p. 15). Virtually no
distinctions in presentation she dis- projective technique can be consid-
cusses have to do with the degree of ered to depend upon "voluntary self
standardization, or "experimental description" so that this dimension is
control," that is imposed upon the of only passing interest in its present
examiner and 5. Differences in in- form.
terpretive approach that she identi- Recently, Campbell (1957) has
fies have to do with an emphasis upon presented a revision of this analysis
empirical origin, as opposed to the- which is intended to refer more spe-
oretical derivation, of the interpreta- cifically to projective techniques.
tive system. She suggests distin- The new formulation includes three
guishing the tests in purpose accord- polar dimensions: voluntary versus ob-
ing to whether they are used princi- jective (Is the 5 to report something
pally for diagnosis, therapy, or ex- accurately or is he to provide his
periment. "own" or "first" response, without
In a discussion of the indirect regard for correctness ?); indirect ver-
measurement of attitudes, Campbell sus direct (Does the 5 know the pur-
160 GARDNER LINDZEY
pose of the test?); and free-response There are many additional distinc-
versus structured (Can the 5 respond tions between projective techniques
much as he chooses or must he select that can be proposed. For example,
from a limited array of alternatives?). we may point to the differences be-
These dimensions are then combined tween structural or formal techniques,
to describe various kinds of psycho- as opposed to "meaning" or content
logical tests and Campbell considers techniques. Here the distinction has
examples of the resultant types. He to do with whether, in interpreting
concludes that most projective tech- the test, the focus of the examiner is
niques are voluntary, indirect, and upon the way in which the task is
free-response but some projective performed—the speed and quantity
techniques can be described as volun- of response, the relative frequency of
tary, indirect, and structured; volun- certain types of words, the tendency
tary, direct, and free-response; objec- to respond to all or to part of the
tive, indirect, and free-response; and stimulus, etc.-—-or upon the meaning-
objective, indirect, and structured. ful outcome of the performance. The
Cattell (1951) has suggested that formal device is concerned with cer-
the fundamental process involved in tain quantifiable aspects of the re-
projective tests is not projection but spondent's general pattern of re-
misperception and that these devices sponse, and there is little or no in-
should, consequently, be called "mis- terest in the content or meaning of
perception techniques." Further- what the respondent is saying or do-
more, he has indicated that such de- ing. The Rorschach technique is
vices may be divided into four differ- usually considered to be primarily a
ent classes depending upon the form formal test, although there is consid-
of misperception that operates. First, erable evidence for a shift in recent
there is the instrument that depends years toward more extensive use of
on naive misperception, where the S is content in interpretation. If the in-
unable to recognize the fact that terpretation is focussed upon what the
others feel and think differently than individual says or does and its mean-
he does and, as a result, generalizes ing, or the thematic connection be-
his own perceptions to everyone else. tween various response elements, the
Second, there is the test that utilizes .instrument would be classified as a
the process of autism, where the S content technique. Illustrative of
modifies or distorts his perception in this type of instrument is the cus-
such a manner as to satisfy or reduce tomary use of the Thematic Apper-
his needs and desires. Third are the ception Test.
instruments that involve press com- Further, we might distinguish be-
patibility misperception, where the 5 tween those tests that are admin-
views the environment as existing in istered individually, as opposed to
such a form as to fit, or make reason- those that are capable of group ad-
able, his motives and affective states. ministration. Actually, this is a diffi-
Fourth are the devices that depend cult distinction to maintain, for as
upon ego defense misperception where soon as someone develops an indi-
the distortion in perception takes vidual technique that seems to pos-
place at the service of unconscious sess utility, there are certain to be a
and repressed motives, in a form de- number of investigators eagerly seek-
termined by the various mechanisms ing to adapt the technique for group
of defense. administration. Nevertheless, at any
 CLASSIFICATION OF PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES 161
given point in time it is possible to to provide a prior rational or theoret-
distinguish between tests in terms of ical basis to justify the use of a par-
how readily they can be adapted to ticular response element as diag-
meet the demands of group admin- nostic of a particular personality at-
istration. For example, the sentence tribute. In practice, it is clear that all
completion test can be given in devices represent mixtures of these
group settings very readily, while two extremes. The individual who
doll play or word association tech- professes to be disinterested in theory
niques are considerably more difficult and concerned solely with empirical
to administer outside of the indi- association must make some decision
vidual session. about where to look for his empirical
One might classify projective de- regularity, and here he obviously
vices in terms of the sense modality must drag in some "theory" or prior
involved. For example, there are assumptions. On the other hand, the
visual, auditory, and even tactual individual who is interested in a prior
stimuli employed in tests now in use. rationale, if he is sophisticated, must
An additional distinction between show considerable curiosity about
these devices can be made in terms whether his theoretically predicted
of the degree of response multiplicity relationship is, in fact, sustained in
permitted by the technique. There the world of reality and, thus, he in-
are a few techniques that require the troduces the crass empirical criterion.
S to choose between a small num- In spite of this overlap, many instru-
ber of specified alternatives, for ex- ments appear to be more heavily in-
ample, the Szondi Test; while others fluenced by prior theorizing than
permit a theoretically (and almost others. In general, the Blacky Pic-
practically) limitless number of re- tures have developed with a close
sponses, as in the TAT. relationship to explicit theory, while
Similar to one of the distinctions the Rorschach, during at least much
proposed by Sargent, is the difference of its development, seems to have
between rational and empirical tests. been treated as an empirical device.
On the one hand, we have techniques The potential systems of classifica-
where there is no rationale provided tion we have considered are by no
for the fact that a given type of re- means exhaustive but they serve to
sponse seems to be associated with a illustrate the rich variety that offers
given personality characteristic. Nor itself to the person who surveys this
is the individual who develops such area. How to choose between all of
an instrument concerned with this these alternatives? Perhaps an
state of affairs. As long as there is a answer to this question can be pro-
firm association between a particular vided by attempting to classify the
type of test response and a given per- classifications. That is, if all the prin-
sonality variable, he believes that the ciples of classification can be grouped
test may be used in a dependable and together, it may be possible to select
useful fashion. The extreme of this from among them the avenue that
approach implies only an interest in seems most fruitful.
the empirical regularity, with no con- From what has already been said,
cern for underlying processes or in- it is clearly possible to distinguish be-
termediary factors. On the other tween six different approaches to the
hand, we have techniques where classification of projective tech-
there is a reasonably careful attempt niques. First, there is the distinction
162 GARDNER LINZDEY
based upon attributes that inhere in chological processes involved in the
the test material itself. Here we are various tests, for it is this classifica-
concerned with variation in the tion that points to what the S is ac-
stimulus material, for example, struc- tually doing. In so far as these tests
tured versus unstructured or audi- are distinctive, and to be treated as
tory versus visual. Second, we may significantly different, it seems likely
classify the tests in terms of the that the major determinant of this
method by which the technique was de- distinctiveness will be the differences
vised or constructed, for example, the in what the 5 is actually engaged in
distinction between rational and em- as he responds. It is also worth note
pirical techniques. Third, we may that a number of the other types of
distinguish between these devices on classification are more or less directly
the basis of the manner in which the specified by distinctions based upon
test is interpreted, for example, formal mode of response, for example, if the
analysis versus content analysis, or technique elicits choice responses, we
"sign" interpretation versus holistic know a good deal about whether it
interpretation. Fourth, we might will emphasize formal or content
propose a classification that is based analysis, whether it is likely to be
upon the purpose of the test, for ex- capable of group administration, and
ample, the assessment of conflict as whether it will be structured or not.
opposed to the measurement of mo- Even if we agree that distinctions
tives, or the general description of between projective techniques based
personality as opposed to the estima- upon variation in the type of response
tion of specified dimensions of per- elicited from the 5 are most impor-
sonality. Fifth, we might propose a tant, there is still the task of arriving
set of categories that are concerned at just the proper array of such dis-
with differences in the administration tinctions. For most purposes it
of the test, for example, group tech- seems sufficient to think in terms of
nique as opposed to individual tech- five general types of response. These
nique, or self-administered versus ex- are: (a) association, (b) construction,
aminer-administered. Sixth, we can (c) completion, (d) choice or order-
distinguish between the instruments ing, and (e) expression. Obviously,
on the basis of the type of response not every test can be fitted neatly
they elicit from the S, for example, into only one of these categories.
story construction as opposed to as- There is the usual overlap and am-
sociation. biguity in the world of reality. How-
All of these distinctions have some ever, with very little effort it is possi-
usefulness and something can be said ble to classify virtually every projec-
in favor of each of them as providing tive technique as involving predom-
the best means for classifying projec- inantly one of these types of re-
tive techniques. In spite of this, I sponses. More significant is the fact
would argue that the final type of that when projective techniques are
classification, the one based upon classified on this basis, we find that
differences in type of response, is the instruments brought into the
easily the most important and the same category have a general congru-
one that merits emphasis. The essen- ence and psychological consistency
tial consideration here is that this that makes it easily possible to con-
classification seems most likely to be ceive of similar underlying psycho-
closely related to the underlying psy- logical processes.
 CLASSIFICATION OF PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES 163
The reader will note certain sim- as an important means of gaining
ilarities between the present cate- insight into the hidden reaches of the
gories and those proposed by Frank mind. It is not surprising, therefore,
(1948). However, Frank's categories that a number of important tech-
do not consistently refer to the na- niques embodying this mode of re-
ture of the 5"s response, for example, sponse have been developed, the most
the refractive distinction points to popular of which are the Word Asso-
the interpretive process; and, in some ciation Test and the Rorschach test.
cases, the distinction implied by his Also typical of this type of instru-
labels does not seem empirically ment are Stern's Cloud Test and cer-
clear, for example, the distinction be- tain auditory projective tests.
tween interpretive, constitutive, and Second are the construction tech-
constructive is by no means evident. niques. Here we find a group of in-
Most important is the fact that his struments that require the 5 to create
categories do not produce the same or construct a product which is typi-
clusters of instruments that the pres- cally an art form such as a story or
ent classification generates. picture. There is a minimum of re-
Let us characterize very briefly striction placed upon the S's re-
each of these types of projective sponses and in some cases, such as the
techniques and indicate, in an illus- blank card of the Thematic Apper-
trative manner, the individual tests ception Test, even the original stim-
that would be included under each ulus is under little control by the ex-
heading. First of all, are the associa- aminer.
tive techniques. Here the 5 is set to The focus of this type of instru-
respond to some stimulus presented ment is upon the outcome, or prod-
by the examiner with the first word, uct, constructed by the 5 and not
image or percept that occurs to him. upon his behavior or style in the
Such devices minimize ideation and process of creating or responding.
emphasize immediacy. The S is not The 5 is set to provide a product that
to reflect or reason but, rather, to is meaningful and personally relevant
respond with whatever concept or to the eliciting stimuli. The response
word, however unreasonable, first process may begin with simple asso-
rises to consciousness, or occurs to ciation, but the requirements of these
him. tests force the S to modify and elab-
These techniques, in certain re- orate the original association, so as to
spects, represent a bridge between ex- satisfy normative requirements for
periment and the clinical setting, for what constitutes a story or other art
in both areas there have been exten- form. Unlike the associative tech-
sive studies of what happens when an niques, these instruments require the
individual is asked to respond to some S to engage in complex, cognitive ac-
stimulus with the first association tivities beyond mere association. Il-
that comes to his mind. It was nat- lustrative of these devices are the
ural that students of the normal, Thematic Apperception Test, the
conscious, human mind should use Blacky Pictures, and the Make-A-
this device as a means of mapping, Picture-Story Test.
or laying bare, the structure of Third, we find the completion tech-
mental events. Further, once Freud niques. These measures provide the
had devised the method of free asso- S with some type of incomplete prod-
ciation this approach was accepted uct and the requirement that he com-
164 GARDNER LINDZEY
plete it in any manner he wishes. practice. It is presumed for these
They differ from the associative tech- measures that the S not only reveals
niques in that both the stimulus and himself, but also that he expresses
the response are typically much more himself in such a manner as to influ-
complex and thus the response is less ence his personal economy or adjust-
immediate. Furthermore, the com- ment. Typically these instruments,
pleted product is usually expected to as in the case of the constructive
meet certain external standards of techniques, require the 5 to combine
good form or rationality, e.g., there or incorporate stimuli into some kind
are rules about what constitutes a of a novel production. Unlike the
sentence or a story and they presum- constructive techniques, however,
ably operate to determine the S's there is as much emphasis upon the
completions. When compared to the manner or style in which the product
construction techniques, the re- is created, as upon the production it-
sponses elicited by these instruments self. In other words, the chief dis-
are generally simpler and more re- tinction between these measures and
stricted. The best known example constructive devices is the assump-
of this type of instrument is the tion of therapeutic efficacy, and the
Sentence Completion Test, but greater emphasis here upon the style
equally typical are the Picture Frus- or manner in which the constructive
tration Study and argument comple- process is carried out. Typical of
tion and story completion tech- these instruments are play tech-
niques. niques and drawing and painting
Fourth are choice or ordering tech- techniques, as well as psychodrama
niques. These instruments resemble and role playing devices.
the associative measures in the sim- So much for this simple classifica-
plicity of the response set provided tion. It is evident that the person
for the 5s. Here the respondent who wishes a more complex basis for
merely chooses from a number of differentiating projective techniques
alternatives the item or arrangement can readily introduce additional di-
that fits some specified criterion such mensions. Thus, if we return to the
as correctness, relevance, attractive- six types of classification mentioned
ness, or repugnance. In some cases, earlier, we can easily construct a
such as the multiple choice Rorschach typology of the sort represented in
and TAT, these devices mirror other Table 1. In this table each test is
techniques except that the 5 is asked represented by a double plus ( + +)
not to produce an association or a in the rows that are fully appropriate
construction but rather to select from or descriptive of the test and by a
a number of hypothetical responses single plus (+) in the rows that are
the one that seems most appropriate only partially or incompletely appro-
to him. The two tests that provide priate. Thus, for the Rorschach test
the most effective illustration of this a double plus ( + +) in the "formal"
category are the Szondi Test and the row, and a single plus (+) in the
Picture Arrangement Test. "content" row, indicates that both
Fifth are the expressive techniques. formal and content approaches are
As a class, these methods represent a used in interpreting the Rorschach,
bridge between the diagnostic and but with greater emphasis placed
therapeutic, for all of them play an upon formal variables. The reader
active role in current therapeutic should note that we have rated these
 TABLE 1
DIMENSIONAL COMPARISON OF PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES

Ror- Word TAT MAPS Blacky Sent. P-F Pict. Drawing Psycho-
Szondi Arrang.
schach Assn. Pict. Complet. Study Painting drama
Mode of Response:
Associative ++ ++
Construction
Completion
++ ++ ++
++ ++
g
CO
Choice or ordering + + ++ ++
Expression ++ ++
Stimulus Attributes:
Sensory Mode:
I
Visual ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + §
Auditory ++ ++
Tactual +
Structured ++ + + + ++ + +
Unstructured ++ + ++ ++
3
Manner of Interpretation:
Formal ++ + + + + ++ ++ ++
Content + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++
Dimensional + ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +
Holistic ++ ++ ++ + + ++ ++
Purpose of Test:
General Personality Description ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++
Assessment of Specific Attributes + ++ + ++ ++ ++ +
Identification of Diagnostic Groups + + + ++
Method of Administration I
Individual ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Group Co
++ ++ ++
Self + +
Restriction of Responses + + + + ++ ++
Free Responses ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Method of Construction:
Rational + + ++ + + +
Empirical + + + ++ ++ ++
166 GARDNER LINDZEY
tests according to their typical or of decreasing internal homogeneity.
most highly developed use, in order How meaningful are these clusters,
to maximize differentiation. There- and how do they compare with the
fore, in rating "mode of response" the groupings based on our classification
Rorschach is assigned a double plus according to type of response? To
( + +) for the "associative" row, and begin with, it should be noted that
no rating for the "choice or ordering" three of the clusters (Sentence Com-
row, in spite of the fact that the test pletion Test and P-F Study; TAT,
is sometimes given in group forms MAPS, and Blacky Pictures; Szondi
that involve choice or ordering. It and Picture Arrangement Test) are
must be admitted that not every one identical with the clusters that would
of the judgments registered in this have been derived from the single cri-
table would meet with unanimous terion of "type of response." Fur-
approval among other psychologists, thermore, it is clear that according
but the majority of the decisions are to this matrix of indices the Word
quite evident and with a little further Association Test is the most indi-
definition of terms, and specification vidual of all the instruments, for its
of standards of judgment, would be lowest D index is appreciably higher
made consistently by most trained than those indices linking the tests
psychologists. that we have clustered together.
Thus, we are able to construct a Finally, it turns out that the Ror-
profile for each projective test, repre- schacli test is singularly difficult to
senting its classification according to classify. It is clustered with drawing
a variety of criteria. Moreover, if we (painting) techniques and psycho-
wish, we can readily compute coeffi- drama on the basis of low D indices,
cients of similarity or discrepancy to but it also shows considerable sim-
indicate the amount of association ilarity to the MAPS Test and the
between the various instruments on TAT, although not with the Blacky
these ratings. Illustrative of such an Pictures. All in all, the classification
approach is Table 2 which presents a that emerges from this somewhat
matrix of deviation coefficients (Os- tedious and difficult method of anal-
good's and Suci's D index [1945]) ysis bears a strong resemblance to
that estimate the degree of associa- the simpler classification we have pre-
tion between the instruments as they sented, and at the same time it repre-
were rated in Table 1. The reader sents a somewhat blurred outcome.
should note that computation of There seems little basis at this point
these indices involved the minor sin for concluding that there is any su-
of overlooking the fact that our rated periority to such an approach.
dimensions are not orthogonal. To summarize, this paper has
A further step in the analysis is pointed to the importance of estab-
represented in Table 3 where we find lishing some consistent basis for clas-
illustrative clusters of techniques sifying projective techniques, and has
that seem to be similar to each other considered a number of possible ap-
in their profiles. All of the tests in- proaches to this problem. A classifi-
cluded in the same cluster are linked cation based upon the mode of re-
by a D index that would place them sponse elicited from the 5 was identi-
in the lower quartile (most similar) fied as most promising, and it was
of the 55 indices presented in Table suggested that projective technique
2. The clusters are presented in order responses can be divided meaning-
 8
TABLE 2 §
INDICES OF DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES
1
Rorschach
Word
Assn. TAT MAPS
Blacky
Pict.
Sent.
Complet.
P-F
Study Szondi
Pict. Drawing Psycho-
Arrang. (Painting) drama
i
Rorschach
Word Assn. 5.292
4.243
TAT
MAPS
Blacky Pict.
4.243
5.744
5.477
6.481
5.000
2.449
3.606 4.359
1
Sent. Complet. 6.083 5.916 5.099 5.916 5.099
P-F Study 6.928 5.831 5.831 6.633 5.000 2.236
Szondi 5.099 6.164 4.899 4.899 4.796 5.385 5.831
Pict.-Arrang. 6.557 6.708 7.000 6.856 6.324 5.477 5.568 4.582 a
Drawing (Painting)
Psychodrama
3.464
4.690
6.481
6.000
4.690
5.099
4.472
4.690
6.245
6.708
6.403
6.557
7.348
7.483
5.657
6.782
6.708
7.681 3.464
i
3
I
Co
168 GARDNER LINDZEY
TABLE 3
PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES CLUSTERED ACCORDING TO PROFILE SIMILARITY

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster S

Sentence-Comple- Thematic Apper- Rorschach Szondi Test Word Association

tion Test ception Test Test
P-F Study Make-A-Picture- Drawing and Paint- Picture Arrange-
Story Test ing Techniques ment Test
Blacky Pictures Psychodrama

fully according to whether they in- plex (multidimensional) taxonomy

volve: association, construction, com- there seemed to be little basis for pre-
pletion, choice (ordering), or expres- ferring the more cumbersome method
sion. Moreover, when this classifica- of classification.
tion was compared with a more com-

REFERENCES
CAMPBELL, D. T. The indirect assessment of study of personality. J. Psychol., 1939, 8,
social attitudes. Psychol. Bull., 19SO, 47, 389-413.
15-38. FRANK, L. K. Projective methods. Springfield,
CAMPBELL, D. T. A typology of tests, projec- 111.: Thomas, 1948.
tive and otherwise. /. consult. Psychol., OSGOOD, C. E., & Suci, G. J. A measure of
1957, 21, 207-210. relation determined by both mean difference
CATTELL, R. B. Principles of design in "pro- and profile information. Psychol. Bull.,
jective" or misperception tests of personal- 1952, 49, 251-262.
ity. In H. H. Anderson and Gladys L. SARGENT, HELEN. Projective methods; their
Anderson (Eds.), An introduction to projec- origins, theory, and application in personal-
tive techniques. New York: Prentice-Hall, ity research. Psychol. Bull., 1945, 42, 257-
1951. Pp. 55-98. 293.
FRANK, L. K. Projective methods for the Received August 22,1958.