Projective Techniques in the Counseling Process

Projective techniques have a lengthy and vital history in personality assessment, but they have evoked a minimal degree of interest on the part of counselors. Psychometric limitations, lack of training opportunities, and the obscure qualities of the instruments have restricted their use among practitioners. The author proposes a method to stimulate the use of projectives as an integral part of the counseling process and provides justification for the expanded use of the technique as a counseling tool.

Almost 50 years ago, Harold Pepinsky, a pioneer in the counseling profession (Claibom, 1985), urged counselors to use informal projective techniques in counseling as a means to advance the counseling relationship and to increase an understanding of clients (Pepinsky, 1947). Despite the greatly expanded role of the counselor, the increasing diversity of clients served, and the escalating challenge and complexity of issues facing the counselor, Pepinsky's early call has largely gone unheeded. Projective techniques in the counseling profession today are more commonly known for caution and prohibitions in using the instruments than for the potential benefits the devices offer as therapeutic tools (Anastasi, 1988; Hood Johnson, 1990). Given the urgency of equipping the counselor with as broad a repertoire of skills as possible, it is time to revisit Pepinsky's recommendation and to consider the role of projective methods in counseling. The purpose of this article is to review the qualities and practices of projective techniques, describe the value of projectives in counseling, suggest procedures for using the techniques in counseling, and illustrate applications of the methods with selected projective devices.

Distinguishing features of projective techniques include ambiguous directions, relatively unstructured tasks, and virtually unlimited client responses (Anastasi, 1988). These same open-ended characteristics contribute to a continuing controversy about the relative merit of the instruments. Projectives may be perceived as esoteric devices with subjectively determined evaluation procedures, particularly by counselors who seek empirically precise appraisal standards (Anastasi, 1988). A fundamental assumption of projective techniques is that the client expresses or "projects" his or her personality characteristics through the completion of relatively unstructured and ambiguous tasks (Rabin, 1981). A large number of projective instruments are available, including association (e.g., Rorschach tests), construction (e.g. , Tbematic Apperception Test), completion (e.g., sentence completion), expressive (e.g., human figure drawings), and choice or ordering (e.g., Picture Arrangement Test) (Lindzey, 1961).

The use of projective instruments assumes prerequisite psychological knowledge (Anastasi, 1988), with formal training and supervision (Drummond, 1992). Advanced course work is essential for some devices, including the Rorschach and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) (Hood Johnson, 1990), and computer-assisted and computer-adaptive testing (Drummond, 1988) is becoming more common. Training for counselors in projective techniques at the master's degree level is infrequent, with a clear majority of programs surveyed (Piotrowski Keller, 1984) offering no courses in projectives, although most of the training directors indicated that counseling students should be familiar with the Rorschach and the TAT. A recent study of community-based counselors suggests that licensed counselors are not frequent test users of either an objective or projective type (Bubenzer, Zimpfer, Mahrle, 1990). Counseling psychologists in private practice, community mental health centers, and counselors in hospital settings used projectives with relative frequency, but those in university and college counseling centers generally used objective assessments, with minimal employment of projectives (Watkins Campbell, 1989).