Consistent Responses by Groups of Subjects to Projective Differential Items

Abstract

The nonverbal projective differential test item is described and distinguished from semantic differential items. Projective differential items are pairs of abstract visual stimuli, such as inkblots. Subjects choose one of the two projective stimuli as more similar to a concept being rated. Two studies showed that groups of subjects respond in a consistent manner to such items, with most subjects agreeing that one of the two abstract visual stimuli is more like the concept than the other; this is the projective differential response phenomenon. It was argued that subjects are able to express some aspects of the connotative meanings that concepts have for them through their responses to projective differential items. The potential usefulness of nonverbal items in constructing measuring instruments was discussed.

References

Cummings

T. G.

A methodology for reconstructing and studying social systems linkage processes. (Doctoral dissertation, Univer. of California, Los Angeles, 1970) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 31(8), 3709-A. (University Microfilms Order No. 71-4864).

D'Antoni

J. S.

Jr.

Content-oriented and process-oriented value systems: An examination of the valuing mechanism as it relates to measures of congruence and cognitive style. (Doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Southern California, 1972)

Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 33(8), 4528-A. (University Microfilms Order No. 73-4907).

Daw

R. P.

An assessment of the Holtzman and the Rorschach inkblots using the semantic differential. (Doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Denver, 1964)

Dissertation Abstracts International, 1965, 26(1), 488. (University Microfilms Order No. 65-1985).

Friedman

C. J.

Johnson

C. A.

Fode

Subjects' descriptions of selected TAT cards via the semantic differential. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1964, 28, 317–325.

Little

K. B.

Connotations of Rorschach inkblots. Journal of Personality, 1959, 27, 397–406.

Osgood

C. E.

Semantic space revisited. Word, 1959, 15, 192–200. (Reprinted in Snider & Osgood, 1969, p. 130).

Osgood

C. E.

Sua

G. J.

Tannenbaum

P. H.

The measurement of meaning. Urbana: Univer. of Illinois Press, 1957.

Otten

M. W.

Van De Castle

R. L.

A comparison of set ‘A’ of the Holtzman inkblots with the Rorschach by means of the semantic differential. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1963, 27, 452–460.

Rabin

A. I.

A contribution to the “meaning” of the Rorschach inkblots via the semantic differential. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1959, 23, 368–372.

10.

Raynolds

P. A.

The projective-differential: A general purpose inkblot technique for studying denotable “objects.” (Doctoral dissertation, Univer. of California, Los Angeles, 1969)

Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 31(2), 521–A. (University Microfilms Order No. 70-14, 320).

11.

Sakamoto

Contingency severity and individual performance in a probabilistic game setting. Human Relations, 1980, 10, 687–709.

12.

Saxe

Raynolds

P. A.

Sakamoto

Prediction of behavioral intentions with projective differential scales. Ventura, CA: John W. A. Terrell Memorial Research Foundation, 1981.

13.

Sntder

J. G.

Osgood

C. E.

Semantic differential technique. Chicago: Aldine, 1969.

14.

Weinreich

Travels through semantic space. Word, 1958, 14, 346–366. (Reprinted in Snider & Osgood, 1969, p. 116).

15.

Zax

Loiselle

R. H.

Stimulus value of Rorschach inkblots as measured by the semantic differential. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1960, 16, 160–163.