This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 04 November 2014, At: 14:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Psychology:Interdisciplinary and AppliedPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

Self-Validation in ProjectiveTestingAlbin R. Gilbert aa Department of Psychology , Wheaton College ,Norton, Massachusetts, USAPublished online: 02 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Albin R. Gilbert (1958) Self-Validation in Projective Testing,The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 46:2, 203-209, DOI:10.1080/00223980.1958.9916285

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1958.9916285

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

32 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Published as a separate and in T h e Journal of Psychology, 1958, 46, 203-209.

SELF-VALIDATION I N P R O J E C T I V E TESTING*’ Department of Psychology, Whea ton College, Norton, Massachusetts

ALBIN R. GILBERT

Projective testing can take its lead from the legal court practice of cross- examination.

A. THE RATIONALE OF PROJECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION The rationale of “projective cross-examination” is based on the assump-

tion that a normal, mature person strives, perceives, and behaves in preferred ways . According to Goldstein, the organism has a bent to actualize itself by “preferred behavior” within given situations. Such behavior is marked by greater pregnancy and simplicity, and by minimal energy expenditure ( 5 ) .

This theory as well as everyday observation has led this author to try out a novel projective device whereby an individual is made to step imagina- tively “into the shoes” of different persons, finding themselves in a specific motivational setting. In acting out such varying, preferably contrasting, r6les he will manifest his preferred behavior.

B. APPLICATION TO SENTENCE-COMPLETION 1. IZZustration

A subject may, for example, be put through his paces in varying situations calling for self-reliance. Such situations may be suggested fictitiously by some such set of sentence-openings as the following (see Figure 1, Items

W h e n things go wrong , I tend to-, Notice that this sentence-opening, patterned on self-reliance, is positive and in the first person. Then, at an- other time, at random, and after he has acted in different, unrelated r&les, the subject is exposed to the following equivalent, but negatively couched item: W h e n things go wrong , I rarely-.

So far the subject speaks for himself. A t another time, however, again a t random, we make him imagine a fictitious person, acting in the same setting involving self-reliance : W h e n things go wrong , Candace usually-.

*Received in the Editorial Office on May 20, 1958, and published immediately at

IPaper, delivered at the XVth International Congress of Psychology, Brussels,

21-24) :

Provincetown, Massachusetts. Copyright by T h e Journal Press.

July 28-August 3, 1957.

203

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

32 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

204 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

111.

9.

10.

11.

12.

e with vou? NQ.

WEN Rx)PU ARGUE W I l V UE, I rn careful t o t r y t o understand the reeson behind t h e i r anger. W H R 4 PEOPII: ARCm WITH M, I W N ' T find it sasy t o keep calm when they do a l l t he t a l k i n g and you cannot ge t II u o d in edgewise. W E N PEOPLE ARGUE W 1 l V X. , HE IS l i k e l y t o t a l k reasonably with them and defend t h e views he believea a r e r i g h t . YHEN Pg0PI.X ARCWE WITH HIM, HE IS NOT e a s i l y exc i t ed , because ha t r i e e t o b e o k up h i s ar-ents w i th well-thought-out s t a t w a n t s which mean sonsthing t o him.

-. a r g m n t s of opponents and t o reamon with then. She admits becoming upsat only when she haa no nay of t a l k i n e back, i n o t h e r words, vhen I a t iOMl i tY is blocked.

The sub jec t w i l l always t r y to underatand the

V I . -t when PO wronk-7 NQ.

21. UHEN THINGS M URONC, I TEND TO bs diaeouragsd somatinee, p a r t i c u l a r l y when th ings go wrong cons i s t en t ly . o f t h i s I generally try t o look i n t o myaelf and conaidar my present s t t i t u d e tovard l i f e and my contingent ac t ions . UHEN THINGS GO URONG, I RAWLY t h ink w s r y t h i n g ha. t o go wrong -- t he re i n always pnmkthinn t o look fonird t o . UWr THINGS M URONG, Y. USUALLY does not becorn d i seourqed r i g h t away, beeauaa she t r i e s t o find Out why th ings are going wrong. YHEN THINGS GO URONC, HE WE3 NOT USUALLY give up without L l i t t l e e f f o r t t o discover exac t ly what 18 wrong.

But in view

22.

23.

24.

Isterm- . when thlngs go wrong, she ham d e f i n i t e l y L problem-solving a t t i t u d e toward f r u s t r a t i o n s . She tenda t o analyze them and to find s so lu t ion .

Although she admits being .m!etirna discouraged

I X . lp it h d f o r YOU t o YOU are in t h e w r u ~ ? m. 33.

34.

YHEN I AM IN TW. UROffi . I admit w g u i l t to myself and t o o the r s ve rba l ly . VHEN I W IN THE URONC, I TEND NOT t o f e e l "not gu i l t y" & very g u i l t y a b u t the s i t u a t i o n , and I am not a t ease u n t i l I can c l a r i f y t h i s f e e l i n g t o othera who e r e involved.

35. WHEN SbZ IS IN THE URONC, SHE should be ab le t o a d d t t o herself and t o o tha ra , ve rba l ly , t h a t shO

36. W E N X . IS IN THE URONG, Hs OOES NOT always find it easy t o admit h i s g u i l t .

I n t e rp re t a t ion . When i n t he wrong, t he sub jec t would a i t r o n g ef fort t o admit he r g u i l t and t o mend. But tha re is a p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t she might not s m o n the courage t o do so.

wrong.

CODES

W O N

UPSET

INTELMF'P

INTElfDPP

REASON

HOR

W O N

RI*(MN

COUR

COUR

COUR

DISCOUR

T A B U L I T I Q N 9~ C O D & P R I P U C N C I E Q (from the urubridgsd protocol)

-. SEVCRIT. . .S ; e t c . N a n - S e l f - R u . DISCOUR...S; NJM. ..2; WET... 2 ; HELP... 2; e t c .

KEY TO CODES (alphab.) . Aml-admita lack of se l f - r e l i ance ; CONGEN--seeks con tac t

froa f rus t r a t ion ! HELP--ncsde help and encouragement when a t t he end of her re- mourfes! INTELLOPFUS--reaaona with p o p l e apposing hers JUDCE--relies on her awn Judgement; NOTSELFCONS%- i m not self-conscious in company v i t h important poaple; REASON-raaaons out f r u s t r a t i n g s i t r n t i o n e j SEVCRIT--aelf-critice.l~ UFSET-upsst over i n a b i l i t y t o reason with praona opposing her.

PUSON...14; CONCEN. . . I ; JVCGE...4; NOTSEWCONSC...I; COuRLGE...3;

with congenial pOpl.; C0LW-h.. Oourage t o admit g u i l t ! D I S C O U R - - d i ~ C O W ~ g d

FIGURE 1 TABLE OF TETRADS (FRAGMENT)

"Projective Cross-Examination" of "Self-Reliance," based on direct questions taken from the California Test of Personality, Adult Series.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

32 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

ALBIN R. GILBERT 205

This affirmative version is finally followed, again out of order, by the negative version: W h e n things go wrong, he does not usually-. Notice that the sentence-beginnings, having the same wording except for the men- tioned modifications, meet the requirement of an experimental set-up, with controlled conditions.

Our research has revealed that a subject, put through his paces in such methodically modified rGles, cannot help betraying his preferred behavior. All we have to do is to compare and contrast the subject’s differential be- havior in the related set of sentence-completions.

In our example, the common opening, W h e n things go wrong-, adminis- tered to the college student whose test is illustrated in Figure 1, was com- pleted as follows in the frame of the cross-examination tetrad: 22. “. . . I tend to be discouraged sometimes, particularly when things go wrong consistently. But in view of this I generally try to look into myself and consider my present attitude toward life and my contingent actions.” 22. I ‘ . . . I rarely think everything has to go wrong-there is always some- thing to look forward to.” 23. I ‘ . . . Candace usually does not become discouraged rightaway, because she tries to find out why things are going wrong.” 24. ‘ I . . . He does not usually give up without a little effort to discover exactly what is wrong.’’

The interpretive inference from this set of four sentence-completions can be formulated as follows : “Although she admits being sometimes discouraged when things go wrong, she has definitely a problem-solving attitude toward frustrations. She would analyze them and try to reason out the solution.” T h a t is, of course, only one component interpretation, taken out of the total context of tetrads.

Our research has revealed that the members of completed tetrads validate one another. T h e interpretative inference from any one of the four propo- sitions is validated by the other three. Interpretive self-validation, afforded by projective cross-examination, becomes more apparent when one deals with the whole array of cross-examination sets.

2. Systematic and Randomized Lis t of Variables T h e subject of our illustration was tested on self-reliance. T h e themes

of self-reliance were taken from the well-known California Tes t of Per- sonality, Adult Form A (I) .* T h e test is designed to proble into certain variables of personality, fundamental to personal and social adjustment.

*Thankful acknowledgment is given to the California Test Bureau, Los Angeles, for granting permission to quote questions 3, 6, and 9 from Section l .A of the Cali- fornia Test of Personality, Adult Series.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

32 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

206 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

Fifteen questions, to be answered by “yes” or “no,” deal with self-reliance. In Figure 1 they are listed by Roman numbers and are underlined.

Under each question you will find a tetrad of sentence-openings in heavy print. They have been patterned on that question according to the principle of cross-examination. Since there are 15 questions, the total amount of sentence-openings, patterned on the 15 themes of self-reliance, is 60. In order to conceal the rationale of the test from the subject, the 60 openings were intermixed and a number of buffer items, not mentioned here, was added.

T h e randomized list, thus obtained, was administered to the subject in two sittings of half the list each. T h e subject was asked to complete the openings with the first thing that comes to her mind.

3. Coding the Responses T h e completed response protocol is first recast into the systematic order

by tetrads, exemplified in Figure 1, by three tetrads, each patterned on a specific theme of self-reliance. T h e completions are coded by symbols on the right margin of the test sheet, the codes being derived from the content analysis of the subject’s responses.

4. Tabulation of Code Frequencies

When the coding is finished, the codes are tabulated in descending order of frequencies. In Figure 1, only a fragment of codes is shown. However, the beginning of the total tabulation is indicated at the bottom of the sheet. It yielded the following results.

Reason, i.e., subject reasons out frustrating situations-14 times ; Congen, i.e., seeks contact with congenial people-four times; Judge, i.e., relies on her own judgment-four times ; Notselfconsc, i.e., is not self-conscious toward important people-four times ; Courage, i.e., has courage to admit guilt- three times ; Selfcrit, i.e., selfcritical-three times ; etc.

Indicators of low self-reliance were : Discour, i.e., discouraged over frus- trations-three times ; Admits, i.e., admits lack of self-reliance-two times ; Help, i.e., needs help and encouragement when at the end of her resources -two times; etc. 5 . Interpretation

T h e following indicators of high self-reliance were found :

a. Global interpretation. From the total tabulation of code frequencies (see Figure l ) , a global interpretation of the variable in question (self- reliance) can be derived. T h e interpreter takes his departure from the high code frequencies (Reason, 14 times), qualifying their meaning by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

32 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

ALBIN R. GILBERT 207

related indicators ( Congen, Judge, Notselfconsc, Courage, Selfcrit, etc. ) , and contrasting them with the counter-indicators (Discour, Adm, Upset, Help, etc.). T h e polarity principle, in conjunction with the first and third person approaches, provides checks and counter-checks for every test re- sponse. T h e global interpretation of our subject’s tendency of self-reliance, based on the complete tabulation, was formulated as follows:

T h e subject relies predominantly on her power of reasoning, her own judgment. She has a rational approach to life, likes to analyze diffi- culties as they come up, and tries to find rational solutions. In her social relations she acts with self-confidence, even when meeting important people. She seeks congenial company where she can assert herself and is appreciated. In conflicts with others she tries to be objective and self- critical and has the courage to admit guilt and to take blame. When people approach her with unreasonable demands, she can say “no,” especially when directed by her moral conscience. She will put up in- telligent opposition by trying first to reason with opponents and to explain her stand.

Only when her opponents are not accessible to reason, she may occa- sionally come to be upset, discouraged, or angry. Also, her self-reliance may break down when she faces an unstructured situation, defying rational understanding and prediction. But then she can still d raw on her religious resources, pray for divine guidance, and hope for a turn of events allowing her again the rational approach, which is the main- stay of her self-reliance.

6. Analytical interpretation. In addition to the global interpretation, obtained through the coding of equivalent indicators, an analytical interpre- tation can be derived from separate tetrads. In Figure 1, the interpretation of three different tetrads is exemplified. T h e interpretation is per- formed by confronting the positive and negative completions on one hand, and the first and third person completions on the other. This process of “cross-examination” should reveal the preferred tendency on the motiva- tional theme in question.

6. Validation

T h e problem of validation has been discussed in the section on the rationale of projective cross-examination. As the essential feature of this approach it was recognized that the subject’s differential responses to contrasting stimulus material operate as a self-validating device. In other words, cross-examina- tion yields also cross-validation.

Since the testing instrument described here explores individual dimen- sions, it is also susceptible to the psychometric approach. Thus, in the test illustrated in Figure I , three judges, well-acquainted with the subject, were asked to rate it on self-reliance on an eight-point scale, which was modelled

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

32 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

208 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

after Fiske and Cattell ( 1 , 4) . T h e pooled ratings of the judges fell at the 6.17 point of the scale on self-reliance, which rating comes to 77 per cent.

The test score of 53 “self-reliant” statements out of a total of 60 was 86 per cent. T h e quotient of judge-ratings over test scores equals .90, which is close to one, in other words, a high agreement.

T h e interpretation of the subject’s response protocol can be followed by an “inquiry,” in which conspicuous inconsistencies among completions are clarified by way of interview.

C. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This paper presented the principle of “projective cross-examination” as

applied to sentence-completion. When a subject assumes fictitious, varying, preferably contrasting, r6les on which sentence-openings have been patterned, his differential responses reveal which of the contrasting rales are preferred by him. Comparing and contrasting such differential r6le-behavior is “cross- examination.” “Cross-examination” affords also “cross-validation.”

T h e technique of projective cross-examination has been designed as an independent projective instrument for appraising single variables or com- prehensive sets of variables of the personality. But i t can also be utilized for the validation and refinement of direct personality tests and person- ality inventories, as was demonstrated in the present paper.

This author believes that his projective cross-examination makes it hence- forth possible to couple every direct personality test or personality inventory with a projective cross-examinational version. Such confrontation seems to be highly necessary indeed. Simple “yes” or “no” responses to direct personal questions do not always bear up against cross-examinational responses. Our research revealed a quantitative score-to-score correlation between direct statements and their cross-examinational counterpart of only +.17. When the direct responses were clinically compared and contrasted with the cross- examinational responses, the reason of the low correlation became clear ; and the psychodiagnostician could by such confrontation render direct responses not only more meaningful, but also more valid.

T h e research into projective cross-examination is only in its beginnings. One of the long-range objectives of this research is to study typical responses on individual variables and the range of such responses.

In addition to cross-examinational instruments testing individual varia- bles, a global instrument for the appraisal of the total personality has been tentatively developed (2, 3 ) .

T o us the best use of the sentence-completion technique seems to lie in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

32 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

A L B I N R. GILBERT 209

the scorable appraisal of single variables, especially if the technique is im- proved by the cross-examinational device.

REFERENCES 1. CATTELL, R. B. Description and Measurement of Personality. New York: World

2. GILBERT, A. R. Das Projective “Gegen-Satz”-Verfahren. Psychol. Beit., 1953,

3. -. Projective cross-examination. J . of P ~ y c h o l . , 1956, 42, 105-132. 4. FISKE, D. W. Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings

5. GOLDSTEIN, K. The Organism. New York: World Book, 1939.

Book, 1946.

1, 190-226.

from difference sources. J . Abn. W Soe. Psychol., 1949, 44, 329-344.

Depar tment of Psychology W h e a t o n Col lege N o r t o n , Massachusetts

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

32 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014