“Custom-Made or Store-Bought Projective Techniques” What Do They Represent?

Abstract

I t i selecting what projective teclinique resl)onses rnigli t “represent,” m y iiitlebtetlitess to one of my teachers ; i t i d irlols, Di-. Ego11 Hrunswik will be m;itiilest. DI-. Brunswik stressed the need 1’01 complexity, objectivity, and ie1~reseiit;itiveness i n many of his iviitings. In this paper, (a) there will be ; i n ;rttenil)t to deal with the lack ol re~~reserit;itiveness in sonie of the assessiiient studies; (b) then to indicate the nature 01 the unit in projective tecliniqiws ;ind (c) the implicit assuniptions we rely on in building interpreta tions and custom-made additions to the projective-test library; (d) problems ol constancy vs. variability, and (e) finally, the problem o l levels in projective devices. I t is obvious that in this symposium one can liartlly (lo justice to the tremend o u s literature and will of necessity iiiei-ely touch upon many of the criticiil ibsues lacing the alert, researchniintled clinician who used the custom-niacle antl conventional projective techniques.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.