Defining Projective Techniques: Finding Common Ground for Discourse

Abstract

In 2000 Lilienfeld, Wood, and Garb defined projective tests in a traditional yet loose manner. When a more precise and exclusive definition is furnished, two classes of responses indicative of deviancy can be logically derived. It is suggested that a focused review of the literature yields consistent relations between psychopathology and two response types, falsifications and misrepresentations. This provides common ground for recognizing a circumscribed core of valid predictors across projective techniques.