Projective Testing. Historical Foundations and Uses For Human Resources Management

Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 205218
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Human Resource Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/humres
Projective testing: Historical foundations and uses for human

resources management
Nathan T. Carter a,, 1, Michael A. Daniels b, 1, Michael J. Zickar b
a
b
University of Georgia, Department of Psychology, 323 Psychology Building, Athens, GA 30602, United States
Bowling Green State University, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green, OH 43403, United States
a r t i c l e
Keywords:
Projective testing
Personality testing
Applied psychology
History
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
The use of projective psychological measures has intrigued scientists and the general public for
nearly a century. In the following, we provide the historical and conceptual foundations for a
variety of projective measures and review empirical research using them in application to
areas relevant to human resource management (HRM). From these reviews, we argue that the
slowing of projectives research in HRM applications over the past two decades does not appear
to be warranted given these findings. Based on this historical account, we note two major
barriers to the use of these measures in HRM. The first is the lack of an HRM-centric literature
on projectives, as most research has drawn on theories and measures designed in the context
of abnormal attributes. Secondly, subgroups of researchers have historically become mired in
what we call philosophical deadlock, wherein the evidence provided by one group does not
address the concerns of another and vice versa. We humbly provide some suggestions and hint
at future directions for projective measurement in HRM.
2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The use of projective psychological measures has intrigued scientists and even the general public for nearly a century. In this
special issue, the use of these types of measures in application to human resource management (HRM) science is explored. We
believe that the examination of projective measurement's history in its field of birth (psychology) as well as organizational
science is paramount to developing an informed, well-rounded discussion that can help researchers avoid the foibles of the past.
Here we provide the historical and conceptual foundations of different projective measures, and review their use in areas relevant
to HRM. Based on our review, we suggest that the evident trend of slowing research in the use of many projective measures for
HRM applications is not warranted given the empirical record. We note two major barriers to the use of these measures in HRM
that we believe contributed to the dearth of recent research in the area.
First, we propose there is a great need for HRM-centric literature on projectives. Historically, most projective measures are
rooted in theories and perspectives seated in the context of abnormal attributes. As will be noted, this fact has serious legal and
ethical implications for HRM practitioners. Further, the lack of an HRM-centric literature has resulted in measures that do not
always address the practical administration and scoring issues specific to HRM. We therefore advocate the development of an
HRM-centric literature that: a) uses normal theories of personal attributes for projective test development; and b) considers the
practical concerns of HRM practitioners as a central concern for researchers in the area.
Secondly, we suggest that subgroups of researchers investigating projectives within and outside of HRM realms have
historically become mired in what we call philosophical deadlock, wherein the evidence provided by one group does not address
The authors kindly acknowledge Andre Patton for his inuence on this article.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 (706) 542-2174.
E-mail address: carternt1981@gmail.com (N.T. Carter).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work. Order of authorship presented alphabetically.
1053-4822/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.12.002
206
N.T. Carter et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 205218
the concerns of another, and vice versa. Based on these emergent themes in our historical review, we humbly suggest three guidelines
for researchers to consider in the interest of avoiding such deadlock in the future. Namely, we argue that: a) projectives' correlations
with self-report measures are not always the gold standard for validity; b) different measurement methods are not always
competing for the construct; and c) the focus of questions of validity should be focused on whether the construct causes variation in
test scores.
We organize the following historical review according to the taxonomy of projective measures put forward by Lindzey (1959)
and reiterated by Lilienfield, Wood, and Garb (2000). Table 1 outlines several clinical and HRM-oriented projective tests that
fit these different categories, which are as follows: a) Association; b) Construction; c) Completion; d) Arrangement; and
e) Expression. Only one article could be found in the Expression domain that applied to HR, and therefore we do not discuss it
here. Additionally, the only Completion technique we could find a record for in the HRM literature was the sentence completion
method, and therefore we focus only on this technique. In presenting these reviews and suggestions, we hope to encourage a line
of research on projective measurement that embraces its purported advantages for HRM (e.g., resistance to faking, prediction of
important outcomes), but avoids the pitfalls experienced by the pioneers of projective measurement in HRM (e.g., negative
applicant reactions, legal action, philosophical deadlock).
2. Association techniques
Association techniques ask the participant to respond with whatever comes to mind after being presented with a stimulus,
which is usually a picture or a word. This method is purported to minimize ideation and emphasizes immediacy (Lindzey, 1959,
p. 163). In other words, the idea is to capture the subject's immediate, unfiltered response. Building from Freud's free association
techniques, these responses are thought to be a window into unconscious motives, maladies, and conflicts. Here, we discuss two
of the most popular association techniques that have been used in employment settings: the Rorschach and Word Association
Tests.
2.1. Rorschach
Developed in 1921 by Swiss Psychiatrist, Hermann Rorschach, the Rorschach Ink Blot Test has remained one of the most well
known (and controversial) projective tests ever used (Lilienfield et al., 2000). In the Rorschach, respondents are presented with a
series of 10 inkblots (5 black and white and 5 with color) on separate cards and asked, What might this be? Frank (1948)
proposed that these responses, once expertly scored, are indicative of internal emotional experiences that might normally be
suppressed by the respondent. However, Exner (1989) rejected this projective hypothesis and argued that responses reflect the
way in which the respondent conceptualizes the world. This is in line with Cattell (1951), who suggested that these techniques
really measure respondents' misperceptions, as opposed to their projections.
Table 1
Types of projective measures, examples of tests developed for clinical and organizational settings, and examples of past HRM uses.
Type
Tests developed specifically for clinical

settings
Tests developed specifically for

organizational settings
Examples of past uses in HR-relevant

areas
Association
Cornell Word From (CWF; Mittelmann &

Brodman, 1946)
Rorschach Ink Blot Test (Rorschach,
1912)
Rorschach Group and Multiple Choice
Test (Harrower & Steiner, 1945)
Draw-a-Person Test (Machover, 1949)
House-Tree-Person Test (Buck, 1948)
Mirror Drawing Test (Brower, 1948)
Thematic Apperception Test (Morgan &
Murray, 1935)
Washington University Sentence
Completion Test (Loevinger, 1976)
Rozenzweig Picture Frustration Study
(Rosenzweig, Fleming, & Clarke, 1947)
Structured-Objective Rorschach Test

(SORT; Stone, 1958)
Perceptanalytic Executive Scale (PES;
Piotrowski & Rock, 1963)
Selection of managers (Rorschach)

Promotion of managers (Rorschach)
Predicting supervisory performance
(SORT)
Predicting managerial success (PES)
None
Assessment of implicit motives (TAT)

Assessment of performance (TAT)
Prediction of occupational accidents
(TAT)
Office of Strategic Services Sentence

Completion Test (OSS SCT; Murray &
MacKinnon, 1946)
Personnel Reaction Blank (PRB; Gough,
1971)
Miner Sentence Completion Test
(MSCT; Miner, 1964)
Szondi Test (Szondi, 1947)

Luscher Color Test (Luscher & Scott,
1969)
Projective Puppet Play (Woltmann,
1960)
Handwriting Analysis (Beyerstein &
Beyerstein, 1992)
TomkinHorn Picture Arrangement

Test (PAT; Tomkins & Miner, 1957)
Holistic Selection of high-level military

personnel (OSS SCT)
Mechanical Selection of lower-level
employees (PRB)
Predicting counterproductive work
behavior (PRB)
Selection of managers (MSCT)
Promotion of managers (MSCT)
Attitude change in managers (MSCT)
Executive personality and motivation
assessment (PAT)
Selection of salespersons (PAT
None
Construction
Completion
Arrangement/Selection
Expression
None
207
As with most other assessment techniques of its time, the Rorschach test came under increased scrutiny and criticism in 1950s
due to a lack of scoring standardization procedures, a lack of normed data, low interrater reliability, and weak validity evidence
(Dawes, 1994). In fact, Dawes noted, in 1959, many of the world's most eminent psychologists were lined up against the use of
the Rorschach (pg. 151). In response to these criticisms, Exner (1974) developed the Comprehensive System (CS) for scoring the
Rorschach, which standardized the administration and scoring procedures and also offered norms for both adults and children. In
this system, responses are scored based on factors related to content (e.g., people or sexual content), location (e.g., focus on the
whole inkblot vs. a specific area), determinants (e.g., observing something involving color, dimensionality, or movement), and
other characteristics (e.g., the organization of the response, illogical and uncommon responses). These scores are then combined
in a structural summary, which provides standing on broad dimensions such as depression, egocentricity, and ability to cope with
stressors.
With regard to psychometric properties of the Rorschach's CS, there remains a great deal of controversy. For example,
interrater reliability evidence has been shown to be highly variable across the various CS scores. In fact, one study found that
intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of two graduate student raters ranged from .2 to 1.0 with a median of around .80,
depending on the CS dimension (Acklin, McDowell, Verschell, & Chan, 2000). Although this points to problematic reliability
evidence for some dimensions, a more comprehensive study by Meyer et al. (2002) found ICCs ranging from .82 to .95 depending
on the type of rater, with a mean pooled ICC of .91. The temporal stability of the Rorschach appears to be less contentious. In a
meta-analysis of CS studies that reported testretest reliability, Grnnerd (2003) reported correlations of .84 over three weeks
and .5 over five weeks. However, more research is needed in this area as it was found that only about 40% of Rorshach studies
report testretest reliability (Garb, Wood, Nezworski, Grove, & Stejskal, 2001). Validity evidence for the CS, mostly conducted in
the clinical realm, has also been mixed and highly dependent on the dimensions and criteria chosen. Across dimensions,
meta-analyses tend to report mean validity coefficients of about .30 (Lilienfield et al., 2000). Hiller, Rosenthal, Bornstein, Berry,
and Brunell-Neuleib (1999) found that the type of criterion measure (self-report vs. objective criterion) was a significant
moderator. That is, the MMPI was more strongly related to self-report outcomes and the Rorschach was more strongly related to
objective outcomes. The authors reason that the larger correlation between the Rorschach and objective outcomes may be due to
the inability of respondents to respond in socially desirable ways on the Rorschach.
The use of the Rorschach in HRM settings has been much more sparse, and most research done to predict work outcomes was
conducted during the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. For example, Dulsky and Krout (1950) used the Rorschach to successfully predict
promotion potential in a sample of factory supervisors. Corresponding with the drastic reduction in research attention, the
Rorschach's use in applied settings as a selection tool has also dramatically decreased. In Spielberger, 1979 posited that the
Rorschach was one of the most frequently used selection tests in police departments. However, research has shown that it has
been largely abandoned over the years with a more recent survey finding that only 5.8% of police departments used the test in
2003 (Cochrane, Tett, & Vandecreek, 2003).
Piotrowski and Rock (1963) developed a complex method for coding the Rorschach, called the Perceptanalytic Executive Scale
(PES), which was used to identify talent for managerial positions. This scale consisted of 32 discrete test reaction scores combined
to form an overall score of management potential. In their study of 110 executives, independently categorized as either successful
or unsuccessful, analyses showed that scores on the PES accurately predicted managerial success. Given the purported initial
success of this scale, it is surprising that the PES was never widely implemented in managerial selection systems. This could be
due to a lack of replication, the development of the CS, or the difficulty of scoring (Del Giudice, 2010).
Although the Rorschach is purported to provide a rich and in-depth understanding of employee personality structure, it is also
cautioned that the Rorschach may be too expensive and time-consuming to administer, especially to non-managerial employees
(Brower & Weider, 1950; Reiger, 1949). We see this is as a major drawback of this method and a likely roadblock to its further
development for employment settings. To address these limitations, a group administration and multiple-choice version of the
test were also developed (Harrower & Steiner, 1945). The validity evidence for the group administration method has been mixed
(see Jensen & Rotter, 1945; Piotrowski, Candee, Balinsky, Holtzberg, & Van Arnold, 1944).
A variant of the Multiple Choice Rorschach was developed, called the Structured-Objective Rorschach Test (SORT; Stone,
1958). This measure specifically aims to identify temperaments that are related to organizational functioning. Among others,
these include theoretical, pedantic, activity potential, and human relationships. Hicks and Stone (1962) found that the S-O
Rorschach was the strongest predictor of several performance outcomes in a battery of self-report measures given to 76
supervisors. For example, the human relationships dimension was significantly correlated with peer ratings (though not
supervisor ratings) of performance (.39), promotability (.29), and versatility (.25).
It should be noted that these studies used different dimensions of the Rorschach, thus limiting their comparability with regard
to validity evidence. Further, the limited research examining the psychometric properties and validity of more practical Rorschach
formats (e.g., SORT) for use in organizational settings has produced mixed results. Therefore, future research may be needed to
determine the validity of the Rorschach in organizational settings. Del Giudice (2010) has taken a first step by outlining the ten
Rorschach dimensions that have been shown to be the most strongly related to leader performance (e.g., cognitive capacity,
self-improvement, autonomy). As we note later, there may be other issues that preclude the utility of such research.
2.2. Word association tests
The word association technique relies on a stimulus word to which respondents are asked to respond with the word(s) that
first comes to mind. This technique has been in use for over a century. Sir Francis Galton (1879) is frequently credited as the first
208
to use word association to study his own reactions to a set of 75 vocabulary words. James McKeen Cattell, inspired by the work of
Galton (see Gillham, 2001), was also an early pioneer of this method of measurement. Cattell and his colleagues conducted
continuous collections of associative responses to words in his laboratory over many years.
Although Galton and Cattell's work on word association was important, their studies dealt mostly with reaction time and the
cognitive aspect of associations. It would be the psychodynamic perspective of Jung, 1910) that would be most influential in
shaping the technique as a projective measure of internal, non-cognitive variables (see Klopfer, 1973). In 1909, Jung presented a
talk at Clark University on the topic. In this talk, Jung presented 100 words meant to strike easily almost all complexes or
practical occurrence, presenting differences between response times across words for normal and hysterical persons. Further, he
discussed scoring in a statistical fashion that might surprise some modern applied psychologists.
Most importantly, Jung was the first to show that associative responses yield not only information concerning cognitive process,
but also emotional matter. Jung and Eder (1919) published an entire book on the topic of association, along with studies concerning
response times and attempts to distinguish normals from those with psychological complexes. Following this work, word
association tests saw an initial surge in interest, but experienced a large decrease in popularity around the 1950s (see Vernon, 1953).
Projective word association techniques have seen some interesting applications to HRM. Early uses can be found in brief
descriptions of military applications, such as selection of fitness for flight training (Kellum, 1948), the selection of British Army
Officers (Ferguson, 1947), the development of the in-house AirCorps Word Association Tests (US War Department, 1941), as well
as the KentRosanoff test in American Army medical installations. However, these brief accounts tend to either provide little
information (perhaps due to security concerns) or discuss word association tests as ancillary to other measures (e.g., TAT and
Rorschach; see US War Department, 1941).
At least one author was hopeful for the use of word association tests in more general HRM applications. Brower and Weider
(1950) touted the Cornell Word Form (CWF; Mittelmann & Brodman, 1946) as a high-potential measurement technique, with
particular attention to its presumed resistance to faking. In the CWF, the respondent is asked to provide two responses to each
stimulus word (e.g., sleep, mother). Weider (1951) showed significantly different CWF scores for employees reliably rated good
and poor in their performance. However, the remainder of his studies appears to have been more medical and psychiatric
instead of HRM-oriented (e.g., Weider, Keeve, Bela, & Wolff, 1946).
Gough (1976) provided an interesting application of word association tests to the measurement of creativity in a sample of
research scientists and engineers (most with PhD or Master's degrees). In this article, the KentRosanoff test (Kent & Rosanoff,
1910a,b) was compared to Gough's own word association test. Whereas the KentRosanoff is a collection of 100 seemingly
random words which was designed for diagnostic uses in clinical settings, Gough used a measure composed of 100 scientific
terms as stimuli (e.g., protons). Participants responded to both measures such that they provided the first word to come to
mind. For both measures, different samples were used for norms by tabulating the frequency of each of the free responses given
by participants, categorizing word usage rates. Gough hypothesized and confirmed that being in the 1% to 9.9% range was
predictive of peer and supervisory ratings of scientists' creativity on the scientific word association test, but to a lesser extent for
the KentRosanoff. The author concluded that moderately uncommon responses were indicative of creativity, whereas very
uncommon responses (b1%) actually indicated the opposite.
Surprisingly the Gough study represented the only in-depth study of word association tests applied to an HRM-related area
that we were able to locate. Molish (1972) speculated the decline was at least partially due to the researchers' shying away from
the psychodynamic perspective and issues involved with response sets, norming, and language (Rabin, 1968). Therefore,
although Gough's (1976) study showed that usage rates were related to creativity in scientists, little is known about how such
techniques would fare in more general HRM applications and settings.
3. Construction techniques
Construction techniques require the subject to create something, such as a story or drawing (Lindzey, 1959). This response
requires more cognitive processing than word associations. Because of the extremely ambiguous nature of the stimulus, subjects
are thought to project inner qualities in the construction of the response. We discuss the most common (by far) construction
technique used in employment settings: the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT).
3.1. Thematic Apperception Test
The TAT was first developed by Henry Murray at the Harvard Psychological Clinic in the early 1930s. The TAT consists of a set
of ambiguous pictures about which subjects are asked to create a story (Morgan & Murray, 1935). These stories are assumed to
reveal important information about the motivations and personality of respondents. Murray's (1938) seminal book, Explorations
in Personality, included some experimentation using the TAT. However, the book was mostly an exploration in how to best use the
method, and ways to cull some meaning from it through subjective interpretations on the part of the clinician.
Later researchers would seek to gather validity evidence using more empirical approaches. Specifically, David McClelland and
his colleagues most notably John Atkinson developed a program of research based on theories of basic human motives. For
example, to assess validity they experimentally induced the drive of hunger in participants, and then compared self-reports of
hunger with a TAT that was content-coded for hunger themes (Atkinson & McClelland, 1948). They found that self-report ratings
for hunger were dependent on both time of day (a social/external cue) and the number of hours elapsed since participants had
eaten, whereas the TAT stories told by participants were dependent only on the length of food deprivation.
209
These authors also worked to refine the scoring procedures of the TAT to make them more reliable and valid (Atkinson &
McClelland, 1948; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953). Whereas Murray believed that the scores from each expert rater
of the TAT should be pooled to form a composite score, Atkinson and McClelland argued that this compounded the error implicit
in each person's subjective rating, and created a scoring that measured motive arousal for three primary needs: n Achievement, n
Affiliation, and n Power.
Meta-analytic correlations between TAT-based, unconscious motives and self-report, conscious motives are null (McClelland,
Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989; Spangler, 1992). McClelland argues that this reflects the strength of the TAT, as it indicates the two
are tapping different aspects of the same construct (i.e., implicit vs. explicit motives; McClelland, 1999). McClelland also argued
that early accounts of poor testretest reliability that resulted in the popular view of the TAT as unreliable, may have been due to
the instructions given to be creative when developing stories. He argued that this caused participants to work harder on the
second measurement occasion to diverge from their original story for the sake of creativity. When participants are given specific
instructions to not worry about the level of similarity or difference between the stories, testretest reliabilities are significantly
higher compared to instructions to make the stories different, though still low by self-report standards (Winter & Stewart, 1977).
In the first published use of the TAT applied to personnel testing, Murray and Stein (1943) discuss the conduct of a selection
battery to select United States Army officers for combat duty by measuring their potential for leadership. The measure, the Rapid
Projection Test (RPT) was described as an offspring (p. 389) of the TAT meant to be administered in both small and large groups.
When groups were small, examinees viewed twelve images containing one person who was matched to their sex. Examinees
were then prompted by two questions regarding each image, and were told this was a test to see how well they could size up
people. The first, What is he thinking? was administered for every picture. The second could be, What has happened? What
is he feeling? What will he do? or How will it turn out? For each of these two questions, respondents could choose from six
answers to these questions, and a sum-score was used to measure twelve traits (one per picture).
Briggs (1954) presented a modification of the TAT for use in group assessment, consisting of ten cards made particularly to
select enlisted Navy for admission to the U.S. Naval Submarine School at New London. This report was followed by another Navy
report that explicated the inter-rater agreement (between .81 and .84 Pearson r between raters, and around 65% agreement), but
provided no correlations or findings regarding external variables (Eron, Sultan, & Auld, 1955).
By 1966, a retrospective on the use of projective measures in personnel psychology was presented by Kinslinger in
Psychological Review. He notes some interesting studies not mentioned above, including findings that indicated significant
differences in TAT scores reflecting Need for Achievement for salesmen categorized as high and low-performing based on
supervisor ratings (Botha & Koper, 1963). More notably, Kinslinger (1966) discussed a rare type of criterion-related validity study
showing lower accident liability for a group of South African bus drivers selected using the TAT and a group not selected by the
TAT (Shaw, 1965).
By the 1970s it appears work in HRM-related domains had slowed considerably. We were only able to find a handful of studies
from after this point. Durand and Shea (1974) showed that Need for Achievement was positively related to the level of business
activity 18 months following assessment in a sample of persons operating small businesses. In an article reflective of the more
recent move of industrialorganizational psychologists to person-organization fit, Johnson (1974) found that those high in Task
Orientation as measured by the TAT had a more positive self-reported perception of their relationship to the organization. Morris
and Fargher (1974) showed that in a sample of 60 business owners, high n achievement TAT scores were significantly related to
the growth rate of their respective businesses.
Mohan and Brar (1986) showed in a study of 93 Swiss trainees and 101 skilled industrial workers that there were no significant
differences between high and low work efficiency groups in regards to their TAT scores for the three needs. Spangler (1992) found
that a TAT n Achievement measure strongly predicted career success in the presence of intrinsic or achievement incentives,
whereas questionnaire methods were positively related to career success in the presence of extrinsic or socially-influenced
incentives. Overall, TAT relationships were higher. On the other hand, a meta-analysis by Collins, Hanges, and Locke (2004) found
that both TAT and questionnaire measures predicted entrepreneurial behavior with no significant difference in validity coefficients
between methods. Perhaps the most recent study relevant to the concerns of HRM scientists was Dreyfus (2008), who showed the
TAT had no predictive utility in explaining the effectiveness of research and development managers.
In spite of the lack of fully consistent evidence for differences in criterion-related validity, it seems that there is only some
support for McClelland's assertion that the two measurement methods tap different aspects of the same construct domain. For
example Spangler's (1992) findings of differential validity provides support for the idea that implicit measures predict people
doing things, especially if they are non-declarative, whereas more overt measures predict people's conscious descriptions and are
likely to relate to more declarative behavior. However, the findings of Collins et al. (2004) have found no differences in the two
methods' criterion-related validities relating scores to overt behavior. Adding to this complexity, some studies discussed above
found no evidence for the TAT predicting important HRM-relevant outcomes, whereas others have. Thus, although it appears that
the two measures may tap different aspects of the same construct, more research would be needed to disentangle this wide
variety of findings. However, as we will note later, there may be limited utility in these and other more clinically oriented
measures for HRM practitioners.
4. Completion techniques: sentence completion tests
SCTs are likely the most commonly used (in any profession) of the projective measures (Holaday, Smith, & Sherry, 2000). For
SCTs, respondents provide the rest of a partially completed sentence. In spite of their genesis being related to the word association
210
measures described here, they have avoided some of the dogma surrounding the psychodynamic perspective after breaking with
it. In fact, in the same review that noted the aforementioned perception of word association, the author notes that researchers
believe SCT approaches to be among, if not the most, valid of projective techniques (Molish, 1972). Further, SCTs represent a
unique instance of projective techniques, in that measures designed specifically for personnel and HRM management purposes
are abundant relative to other projectives.
Similar to word association methods, the SCT approach began as a way to measure cognitive variables. Herman von
Ebbinghaus was famous in his early career for work on human memory; however, in later years he expanded his repertoire and
was involved in research involving mental tests that would later inform the StanfordBinet intelligence tests. Part of this research
involved designing an SCT (Ebbinghaus, 1897), which was later adapted for use in the English language (Kelley, 1917; Traube,
1916; Ebbinghaus wrote in German). However, it would not be until 1930 that the SCTs were used as projective measures
(Symonds, 1947).
The first instance of the SCT method as a projective was Tendler's (1930) research designed for gaining insight into emotions.
The article contains no references and begins by discussing the disadvantages of free association and self-report forms. Tendler's
approach to SCTs was psychodynamic in perspective in the same way as word association techniques, which he notes as a major
advantage of the approach for both clinical and personnel work. Despite Tendler's exposition of the advantages of this approach
and showing some validity evidence using self-report personality inventories, Tendler's appeal has been mostly ignored (see
Symonds, 1947).
Perhaps the first large-scale application of SCTs to HRM-related areas was in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) Assessment
Program by Murray and MacKinnon (1946), which was designed to select candidates into the OSS. 2 Although Murray and
MacKinnon only mention the SCT in passing, the method was the focus of two works by Morris Stein, a clinical psychologist at the
Veterans Administration (Stein, 1947, 1949) whom suggested it could be used instead of Rorschach and TAT techniques,
especially for unimaginative persons. However, as discussed by Highhouse (2002), little statistical evidence was used in the OSS
program, and information from psychologists' general reports was integrated holistically to make decisions. Although some
general research on SCTs was stimulated by the OSS examinations (e.g., Rohde, 1946, 1947), most of this research through the
1960s would concern applications to clinical diagnostic issues (e.g., Aronoff, 1967; Forer, 1950; Rotter, Rafferty, & Schachtitz,
1949; Sacks & Levy, 1950). However, two specific measures, the Personnel Reaction Blank and the Miner Sentence Completion
Scale, would come to see attention in the HRM area.
4.1. Personnel Reaction Blank

The first focused application of an SCT in HRM-relevant research can be credited to social/personality psychologist Harrison G.
Gough. Gough was a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley from 1949 to 1986, and is most famous for
developing the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1956) and co-founding Consulting Psychologists Press (now CPP, Inc.).
However, he was also the creator of the Personnel Reaction Blank (PRB), a measure created on the basis of social psychological
theory as opposed to the psychodynamic measures of the past. The PRB has been noted as the first personality-based integrity
test, and has been noted to have an exceptional combination of advantages in psychometric and economic terms (Viswesvaran &
Ones, 1997).
Gough developed his theory of psychopathy in 1952 (Gough & Peterson, 1952) and applied this theory to stimulus response
through the PRB. Under this view, antisocial individuals would have difficulty taking the perspective of others. He posited this
inability was indicative of a predilection to have a lack of self-control, and therein to exhibit a pattern of antisocial behavior. The
PRB asks respondents to complete vague statements by indicating whether they are True of False. The item content is vague in
that it is not obvious that the items tap the likelihood of counterproductive work behaviors.
The PRB was first developed by Gough as a non-commercial research tool in 1954 to measure dependability, conscientiousness,
and social conformity (Gough, 1971; p. 669). The first application of the (then) 94-item measure noted by Gough was an Italian
translation and standardization of the form (Gough, 1962), vaguely described as an application to personnel selection (Sciola, 1962).
Loudermilk (1966) appears to be the first to use the test. He studied the relation between batteries of physical and psychological
assessments (e.g., aptitude, personality) administered to workers in paper and lumber mills. Among the 13 resulting test scores, the
PRB showed the largest correlation with supervisors' ratings of work efficiency, r = .33, rivaled only by measures of Verbal and
Numerical Aptitude. Gough (1965) also authored papers in the Italian journal, Bolletino di Psicologio Applicata, using the PRB. One
study of Italian clerks showed a correlation of .28 between the PRB and performance ratings, and another (Gough & Freddi, 1967)
showed a correlation of .38 with performance ratings of 79 steel workers.
In Loudermilk's (1966) publication, the measure is described only as a short personality test developed by Gough (1954) to
assess the dependability-conscientiousness personality factor (p. 303). However, by its next appearance in the literature in
1971, the PRB had gone through iterations wherein it was a 92-item and finally a 70-item measure of all three constructs
originally mentioned by Gough in 1954 (see above) that was made commercially available (Gough, 1972). In the first published
use of the English form by Gough (1971), he compared a large sample of delinquent (i.e. in jail or juvenile detention, N = 3,034)
and non-delinquent (N = 619) Americans that suggested the PRB showed high discrimination between these subsamples for both
males and females.
2
Note the OSS would later become the United States Central Intelligence Agency.
211
After 1971, very few applications of the PRB appear in the literature until the 1990s. To date, this research has shown mostly
positive results. From our review of the literature, it is apparent that this revival of the PRB was due to the influential review of the
honesty/integrity test problem by Sackett, Burris, and Callahan (1989). In fact, the rate of PRB publications from 1990 to 1999
more than doubled in comparison to the number studies published prior to that. However, around 1996, the popularity of the PRB
appears to have experienced a major decline. We believe it is likely that evidence of negative applicant reactions (Whitney, Diaz,
Mineghino, & Powers, 1999) and faking (Alliger, Lilienfeld, & Mitchell, 1996) may be the reason for this reversal.
In 1989, Frost and Ralfison compared what they refer to as overt (i.e., typical self-report with more transparent item content)
and covert personality-based tests. The authors purported that an overt test (the Honesty scale of the Personnel Selection
Inventory; London House, Inc., 1980) was better at predicting theft, counterproductive work behavior, and drug abuse than the
covert PRB. However, a major limitation was that outcome measures were self-report. Therefore, in our opinion it is likely that the
outcome is actually related to brazen counterproductive behaviors, and could actually indicate support for the validity of the PRB
for predicting more covert (as opposed to overt) behaviors. This is consistent with findings involving other projective measures
(see our discussion of the TAT). In fact, using factor analysis, Woolley and Hakstian (1992) showed that the PBR hangs together
with a group of other covert personality-based integrity measures that differ distinctly from the overt measures of similar
constructs used for similar purposes (i.e., employment testing). This makes the finding of Frost and Rafilson (1989) somewhat
less surprising.
Using a more high-fidelity outcome, Kobbs and Arvey (1993) showed that subsamples of nurses who did and did not have
official action taken on their licenses were well-discriminated by scores on the PRB, even when controlling for factors such as
education, sex, and household income. Contrary to Frost and Rafilson (1989), another investigation by Woolley and Hakstian
(1992) showed the PRB was related to admissions of counter-productivity. Further, the results of Connelly, Lilienfeld, and
Schmeelk (2006) showed that the PRB was unrelated to mental ability, moral reasoning, and ego development measures, and was
negatively related to measures of several psychopathic personality traits (e.g., Machiavellianism). The authors concluded that this
latter finding suggests integrity tests are more likely to be associated with actual moral behavior than with moral reasoning, a
positive finding for users of integrity tests.
Although much of the early research on the PRB was positive, some more recent investigations appear to take a more negative
tone. Whitney et al. (1999) showed that applicant reactions toward personality-based integrity measures (including the PRB)
were more negative than self-report forms. Further, recent research has shown that respondents can successfully fake the test
(Alliger et al., 1996; Byle & Holtgraves, 2008), lending skepticism to one of the more prominently purported advantages of the
PRB.
In its most current form, the personality aspect of the PRB contains 62 scored items that sum to form the Person Reliability
Index (PRI), which is made up of four sub-scales: a) Sense of Well-Being; b) Prosocial Background; c) Compliance with Social
Norms; and d) Conventional Preferences. Most recently, this updated measure has been used to argue that a focus on
externalizing, a trait related to impulsivity, antisocial behavior, and risky behavior including substance abuse, should be
considered by integrity test researchers (Blonigen et al., 2011).
In sum, the PRB has shown a good deal of evidence that supports its use in HRM-related areas for predicting important
outcomes such as performance, and has shown an ability to distinguish between persons likely and unlikely to engage in and
endorse undesirable behaviors. However, more recent research has cast doubt on its utility. Particularly, evidence of the potential
for faking and concerns over applicant reactions appears to have driven researchers away from its consideration in HRM
applications. Alternatively, more recent versions of the PRB and the work of Blonigen et al. (2011) suggest that the PRB may have
the potential to make a comeback in HRM.
4.2. The Miner Sentence Completion Test
Whereas the PRB was designed to assess lower-level employees, another SCT popular in HR-related arenas is the Miner SCT
(MSCT; Miner, 1960), which was developed for managerial assessments involving selection and promotion (Berman & Miner,
1985; Carson & Gilliard, 1993; Ryan & Sackett, 1987). The Miner SCT (MSCT) was developed by John B. Miner, then a professor at
the University of Oregon. Miner is well-known as a leading theorist on management, and has been highly involved in research on
the MSCT for decades.
The MSCT asks respondents to complete a series of sentences that are then scored by judges as Positive, Negative, or
Neutral. Example item stems are Policemen and My family doctor At formulation, the MSCT was described as a measure
of attitudes toward supervisory jobs, but Miner began to believe it more generally tapped a desire to compete for and exercise
power over other people (1961, p. 18), later conceptualized as a motivation to manage (Miner, 1964). By 1965, Miner had further
refined the framing of the MSCT within the role-motivation theory of managerial effectiveness (e.g., see Berman & Miner, 1985),
which he frequently noted as being similar to McClelland's theories of achievement motivation (see McClelland, 1961; McClelland
& Winter, 1969; Miner, Smith, & Bracker, 1994). This theory posits that managerial positions in different organizations have
several roles in common. Correspondingly, the MSCT measures the various roles posited by role-motivation management theory
(e.g., attitude toward authority figures and motivation for competition in games). For a complete review of the theory see Miner
(1993).
Miner's (1963) first study using the desire-based conceptualization of the MSCT (Miner, 1968) showed that, as predicted, a
group of research managers were lower in the desires discussed above than sales managers. A series of studies by Miner and his
colleagues would follow, further aligning the MSCT with role-motivation theory and pointing out some of the limitations of the
212
theory and method. In 1968, Miner claimed validity evidence for the MSCT by showing those with explicitly stated managerial
goals showed significantly higher motivation to manage than those without such goals. However, in 1971, Miner presented a
series of three studies showing that the MSCT did not have any predictive utility in predicting success of consultants, whereas the
TomkinsHorn Picture Arrangement test (discussed below) did. His conclusion was that the MSCT was likely more valuable in
larger organizations (e.g., Miner, 1963), and not in small, professional consulting firms (e.g., Miner, 1971).
Both Miner (1965) and Bowin (1973) showed that students taking a course on managing ineffective performance (based on role
motivation theory) positively changed their attitudes (measured by the MSCT) toward role prescriptions assigned at the beginning of
the course, suggesting support for the measure's validity (Miner, 1993). Showing another boundary condition of role management
theory, Miner, Rizzo, Harlow, and Hill (1974) used large samples of students in simulated organizational situations to show that MSCT
scores were related to promotion decisions in highly structured, bureaucratic organizational simulations, but not in low-structure
conditions. This supported Miner's (1971) conclusions regarding his findings in the sample of consultants discussed above.
Although much of Miner's findings for the MSCT were positive, some researchers remained unconvinced of the approach.
Brief, Aldag, and Chacko (1977), taking issue mostly with the subjectivity of ratings provided to responses, presented an
investigation of the MSCT in relation to two self-report measures and concluded that there was a lack of evidence of convergent
and discriminant validity with these measures. Miner (1978) responded to these allegations. First, Miner showed that more
experienced researchers showed higher agreement than those in the Brief et al. (1977) study. In responding to construct validity
criticisms, Miner asked whether a failure to find significant relationships between the MSC[T] and the PVQ [Personal Values
Questionnaire] has anything to do with the construct validity of either instrument. One is a measure of motives, the other of
values Because two variables are consistently correlated with a third [managerial success] is not reason to expect that they
should necessarily correlate with each other (Miner, 1978, p. 288).
One interesting feature of the exchange between Miner and Brief et al. involved the possibility of using a multiple-choice
version of the MSCT. In 1977, a multiple-choice version of the MSCT was introduced (see Miner, 1977), and Brief et al. (1977)
recommended it replace the original based on their findings. However, Miner (1978) noted that the multiple-choice version,
although predictive of managerial success, had shown high score inflation relative to the free-response version. As shown above,
several replications of Miner's (1965) original result had confirmed his findings in various conditions with the original MSCT, and
two studies would continue this trend for the MSCT with minimal race and sex differences (Bartol, Anderson, & Schneier, 1981;
Miner & Crane, 1981). However, things suddenly changed around this time.
In 1981, a commercial version of the MSCT was published that included a component with a multiple-choice format. The
original scale remained unchanged and was designated Form H (for hierarchy, referring to the hierarchical structure of the MSCT),
with the new form being termed Form P (for use in professional systems). In the next few years, some controversy in scoring the
MSCT saw light in the published literature. This controversy was mostly between Miner and Bartol, whose investigations had
shown some major inconsistencies, most importantly, a disagreement in the decline in managerial motivation found by Miner
and Smith (1982). Although we do not review this debate in detail, the basic question was the effect of raters, with Bartol,
Schneier, and Anderson (1985) arguing that Miner's raters, although more reliable, were possibly biased in their ratings (giving
higher ratings on average than Miner himself). An attempt at discrediting a similar argument was lodged by Miner, Smith, and
Ebrahimi (1985) against Bartol, Anderson, and Schneier (1980).
After this controversy, research using the original, free-response form of the MSCT slowed considerably, with Bartol turning to
use of the forced-choice version (e.g., Bartol & Martin, 1987), and then others (Erberhadt, Yap, & Basuray, 1988). In spite of some
early use of the forced-choice version, the form appears to have never really taken off in that only these two studies were found
using this form.
In the years following 1990, mostly meta-analytic results for the MSCT were published, with some exceptions that were still
establishing the basic hypotheses addressed by Miner in 1965 with variations on questions related to race (e.g., Stevens &
Brenner, 1990; Tomkiewicz, Brenner, & Esinhart, 1991). Carson and Gilliard (1993) showed high and stable (i.e., low variability)
correlations of just over .30 with performance ratings, and variables suggesting opting in to management professions
(i.e., managerial status, career plan). Eagly, Karau, Miner, and Johnson (1994) showed significant, but small, gender differences on
the original projective form, using 51 datasets covering a 30-year period. A meta-analysis involving the relation between
achievement motivation and entrepreneurial activity showed that the MSCT had higher correlations with activity than the TAT
and for both projectives to be on par with one another in prediction, but were uncorrelated with one another. As the authors
note, this may be suggestive that certain measures represent different aspects of the construct (Collins et al., 2004), a position we
will consider in detail in the Discussion section.
Although the MSCT has shown mixed results, the majority of studies showed favorable results in a wide variety of settings using
highly variable criteria. Further, we believe many of the less positive findings for the projective form were likely misleading, due to
researchers' consideration of correlations with self-report measures as a necessary condition for validity, a similar complaint lodged
against the TAT. As will be addressed in our discussion, we believe this represents an unfortunate state of affairs in research on
projectives applied to HRM. Overall, given the mostly positive findings for the MSCT and the importance of motivational constructs to
the management literature, we take the position that the slowing of research involving this measure was likely unwarranted.
5. Arrangement techniques: The TomkinHorn Picture Arrangement Test
Arrangement techniques require respondents to order a series of pictures or objects based on some criterion, such as
correctness, attractiveness, or relevance (Lindzey, 1959). It contains elements of association because the various options are
213
compared, as well as elements of construction because the ordering often tells a story. Here we focus our discussion on the one
arrangement technique developed specifically for HRM purposes, the TomkinHorn Picture Arrangement Test (PAT; Tomkins &
Miner, 1957).
The PAT requires the subject to arrange a series of three ambiguous pictures in a way that makes the most sense. They are also
asked to write a sentence for each of the three pictures to explain what they believe is happening in the story. The full version
contains 25 such tasks, though versions with as few as 3 have been used. All of the pictures involve people engaging in daily
activities, with over half having something to do with work. There is no clear, expected order in which the pictures should be
arranged, allowing the respondent freedom to create a story through their chosen arrangement. Some of the characteristics
purported to be measurable with this technique include aggression toward supervisors, persistence and consistency of work
habits, and reaction to criticism (Brower & Weider, 1950).
In Miner and Culver (1955) analyzed data from 44 top-level executives and 31 professors and found that the executives'
arrangements were more likely to suggest fears of illness and failure, as well as feelings of helplessness. One study investigated
the predictive validity of the PAT as well as several other personality/cognitive ability measures in a sample of salesmen. Using
several indices of objective performance, the author found that the PAT correlated in the high .5 range, considerably higher than
the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and confirmed this relationship through cross-validation (Miner, 1962), making this a
particularly strong study. A study in 1973 found that management consultants scored higher than managers on the PAT-rated
dimensions of work motivation, nonconformity, and emotional instability (Miner, 1973).
Though there appeared to be some promise regarding the validity and usefulness of the PAT, it is no longer used in
organizations in its original form (Highhouse, 2002), and we could find no more published applications than the handful of
studies summarized above. Further, we could find no clear reason for the decline in its use, though it may have been due to
Miner's shift in focus to the MSCT (see above), which was more practical from an administration perspective.
6. Discussion
As can be seen, a good deal of research has been conducted using projective techniques in application to HRM problems.
Results have been mixed for many measures, whereas others have had more positive outcomes. From our literature review, we
view projective techniques as having serious promise in terms of utility for application, as well as construct validity that is
important for both research and application. However, a common theme among all the projective techniques is a general decrease
in HRM applications. This seems unfortunate given the susceptibility of self-report measures to faking and more recent advances
in projectives that are discussed elsewhere in this issue (e.g., conditional reasoning; implicit associations).
We posit that this decrease has likely resulted for two major reasons. First, practical and legal complexities arise when
considering the use of projectives. It is our position that most of these concerns could be alleviated if HRM were to work toward
building its own literature concerning both the development and application of projective measures. Secondly, it would appear
that researchers at some point in the study of projectives in HRM contexts reached a sort of philosophical deadlock. By this, we
mean that researchers of one ilk were not convinced by the methodology or logic of another, and vice versa. Below we discuss
these issues in turn, and try to make suggestions where appropriate.
7. The need for an HRM-centric literature on projectives
First and foremost, we believe there is a pressing need for an HRM-centric literature on projectives. This position grew out of
our observation that most research on projective measures in HRM applications originates from outside of the field. Although it is
wise to draw upon general psychological theory for informing measure development, an unfortunate fact is that nearly all the
measures discussed here were originally meant for, or developed within, theoretical traditions rooted in clinically oriented
realms. As will be noted, this could possibly carry legal implications, which is not unrelated to the next point: HRM researchers
have very different practical considerations than clinicians and research psychologists. Below, we detail some potential problems
with adopting measurement methods developed for clinical psychology. We then note that an HR-centric literature could
alleviate most, if not all of these problems.
7.1. Measures should be based on normal theories
What is clear from our review of projective testing is that nearly all were developed under frameworks designed for detecting
psychopathology. Even many of the projective tests developed specifically for the purposes of HRM are still based on clinical
conceptions of abnormality. For example, whereas a particular scoring system was developed for the Rorschach (i.e., the
Perceptanalytic Executive Scale) to select managers, the Rorschach itself was developed to identify abnormal psychological
functioning. In addition, the PRB was initially validated on the outcome of delinquency and was based on Gough's theory
of psychopathy (Gough & Peterson, 1952). To a certain degree, these are outcomes that are of interest to HRM professionals
(e.g., stress, negative self-perceptions, and depression). However, it would be better to develop techniques using normal
theories of human behavior and personality. For example, developing a less fakeable measure of conscientiousness would be of
great benefit to the field. This is also in line with calls for more of a focus on positive psychology in the management sciences
(Luthans, 2002; Zickar, 2010) in that it would focus on what is right with individuals as opposed to what is wrong.
214
Moving away from clinical-based measures is highly important from a legal standpoint. The Americans with Disabilities Act
prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of mental disability. Thus, the use of anything considered a medical test of
mental disability would be off-limits for organizations. The EEOC outlines factors that indicate whether a test is of a medical
nature or not. These include, whether a health care professional administers the test and analyzes the results, whether the test is
meant to determine impairments or evaluate health, whether the test is invasive, whether it tests physiological characteristics or
task performance, whether it takes place in a medical environment, and whether the administration of the test requires the use of
medical equipment (Gonzales-Frisbie, 2006, p. 191).
Based on these guidelines, it seems the most problematic features of projective testing in the workplace is that most tests were
originally developed to measure some form of mental impairment. Indeed, recent case law ruled that a personality assessment
can violate employment provisions of the ADA if the test was originally designed to detect mental illness. In Karraker v.
Rent-A-Center, the use of the MMPI was ruled in violation of the ADA even though only normal personality was being used for
selection purposes (see Gonzales-Frisbie, 2006). It was reasoned that even though it was not the intention of the defendant, low
scores on the MMPI were more likely to indicate disability. Additionally, the invasiveness of clinical-based measures could violate
the ADA. Affirming this issue, the ruling in Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corporation (1991), the MMPI was found to violate California
privacy laws. The issue of invasiveness is certainly applicable for even HRM-centric measures grounded in theories of
psychopathy. For example, Jones (1991) found items from the Employment Inventory and the PRB were rated as more invasive
than the more job-relevant questions in the Personnel Selection Inventory. Although the case is not directly relevant, the Supreme
Court's guidelines resulting from Ricci v. DeStefano (2009) should be considered for developing projectives that include
job-relevant stimuli. Finally, we believe Gough's (1976) use of science-related stems and responses in studying creativity in
scientists can be considered an exemplary method of development and standardization of a job-relevant projective measure.
7.2. HR's practical administration and scoring issues
Another potential obstacle for the use of projectives in the workplace is that of administration and scoring. First, a majority of
these measures must be administered individually, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Reiger (1949) stated,
Therefore the cost of administering these techniques may make it impractical to use them, except for jobs which involve at least
a moderate investment on the part of the employer (p. 569). However, efforts to create multiple-choice measures (e.g., SORT,
CWF) and group administration measures (group Rorschach, SCTs) have shown some promise. We believe more research in HRM
is needed to develop projectives that are easily administered in electronic formats (e.g., computer-based testing) or to larger
groups of applicants in person.
Additionally, the scoring of projective tests has historically needed the expertise of trained clinical psychologists. However,
this is not feasible for all organizations and would likely invite claims of discrimination under the ADA. Thus, we believe that more
straightforward scoring schemes should be developed for HR-centric projective tests. Additionally, normative data for these
techniques would eliminate any reliance on clinical interpretation. The CS for the Rorschach (Exner, 1974; see above) was a good
first step; however, there have been criticisms that these norms are based on small samples and overpathologize normal
individuals (Lilienfield et al., 2000). The studies used to develop these norms are unpublished and unavailable to the public. Thus,
we call for more comprehensive and transparent normative efforts for projective tests, particularly for objectively scored
measures.
8. Suggestions for avoiding philosophical deadlock
By the term, philosophical deadlock, we refer to a discipline divided into camps that are locked in a situation wherein the
arguments of one camp do not address the concerns of the other. This appears to have occurred repeatedly in the history of
projective testing within HR-related areas as well as psychological science in general. Below, we provide several points that we
believe can help the field of HRM avoid this deadlock, making reference to some occurrences of these problems found in our
literature review.
8.1. Self-report measures are not the gold standard
In conducting this review, we noted that a common debate in the field revolves around using relationships between
projectives and self-report measures of the same or similar constructs as evidence for the validity and utility of projectives. We
feel that this debate is misguided and ignores the basic theory of projection that is used to develop these measures. The TAT and
PRB were both refuted based on such evidence. At first glance this may seem a rational position. After all, self-report personality
forms are often referred to as objective measures, and often possess highly desirable psychometric properties in a statistical
sense. However, we argue that the relation of projective and self-report measures is often irrelevant to both the validity and
utility of projective measures.
We take a position similar to Bornstein (2002), McClelland et al. (1989), and Miner (1978) that this could in fact represent
evidence of discriminant validity as long as the projective measure still relates to important outcomes in expected ways.
Therefore, we propose that HRM researchers should seek to establish projective measures' relations with irrefutable outcomes,
such as observed (e.g., number of disciplinary actions) or other-inferred behavior (e.g., performance ratings) in high-fidelity or
215
real settings. We believe relying purely on self-report measures to establish the validity and utility of projectives in some sense
misses the point, particularly when there is a motivation to distort responses. This idea is highly related to our next suggestion.
8.2. Measures are not always competing for the construct
As noted above, projectives have been dismissed in the past due to null relations with self-report measures of the same or
similar constructs. For example, the TAT was criticized by Murstein and Mathes (1996) for its lack of relation to self-report Big 5
personality traits. However, we agree with other authors (e.g., Bornstein, 2002) who have stated that this reliance on convergent
validity based on the traditional multi-trait multi-method approach (i.e., Campbell & Fiske, 1959) is flawed when assessing
projective measures. Self-report measures are likely assessing self-attributed traits that are subject to self-presentation motives.
Implicit measures aim to assess non-declarative motives that affect behavior directly (McClelland et al., 1989).
Bornstein (2002) refers to a process dissociation approach in understanding relations between projective and self-report
measures. He argues that these two types of measures should predict convergent behaviors, be moderately correlated, and be
affected by different moderating variables. We think it would be wise for HRM researchers to consider this model when
developing projective tests. Additionally, the incremental validity of projective measures over other self-report measures is
important for future research. To date, there is little research on this topic, with conflicting evidence for each projective test
(Lilienfield et al., 2000). Further, HRM researchers could utilize latent variable models to understand whether the two types of
measurement occupy unique locations of the construct space. In other words, the two measurement methods do not necessarily
need to compete with one another, but may be complimentary, providing equally important information about the construct of
interest.
8.3. Focus on whether the construct causes scores
Theoretically rich measurement should be the goal in pursuing endeavors related to projective testing. As noted by Cervone
(2010), psychology has gone from measurement theory to psychological theory in reverse, paying more attention to statistical
indicators than striving for realist accounts of the causal link between constructs and scores. Statistical techniques can only do so
much. Statistical analyses with external variables do help us understand the utility of such measures, but do not truly address the
realist idea of validity, whose aim is to show that the attribute of interest is the cause of score variability (Borsboom, 2005).
However, we take the position that validity is a precondition of utility, and therefore is a critical consideration. Without truly
establishing validity, we cannot realize the full potential of scientific theories for predicting work behaviors and performance.
9. Concluding remarks
In this article, we hope to have provided an in-depth look at the history of projective testing in HR-related areas, and to have
evaluated how the debate over projectives has played out in the past. Our aim was not to criticize, but to utilize the past
experiences of the fields of psychology and HRM to encourage thoughtful discourse. We believe explorations of projective testing
in HRM science are timely, and we are quite excited about this special issue. Being open to new ideas and new methodologies is
paramount to the development of the HRM field, and alternatives to self-report measurement tools for explaining and predicting
organizational phenomena are greatly needed. We hope the review and ideas presented here have inspired and energized HRM to
look to new possibilities with their eyes on the past!
References
Acklin, M. W., McDowell, C. J., II, Verschell, M. S., & Chan, D. (2000). Interobserver agreement, intraobserver reliability, and the Rorschach Comprehensive System.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 1547.
Alliger, G. M., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Mitchell, K. E. (1996). The susceptibility of overt and covert integrity tests to coaching and faking. Psychological Science, 7, 3239.
Aronoff, J. (1967). Psychological needs and cultural systems. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Atkinson, J. W., & McClelland, D. C. (1948). The effect of different intensities of the hunger drive on thematic apperception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38,
643658.
Bartol, K. M., Anderson, C. R., & Schneier, C. E. (1980). Motivation to manage among college business students: A reassessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17,
2232.
Bartol, K. M., Anderson, C. R., & Schneier, C. E. (1981). Sex and ethnic effects on motivation to manage among college business students. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 66, 4044.
Bartol, K. M., & Martin, D. C. (1987). Managerial motivation among MBA students: A longitudinal assessment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 112.
Bartol, K. M., Schneier, C. E., & Anderson, C. R. (1985). Internal and external validity issues with motivation manage research: A reply to Miner, Smith, and
Ebrahimi. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 229305.
Berman, F. E., & Miner, J. B. (1985). Motivation to manage at the top executive level: A test of the hierarchic role-motivation theory. Personnel Psychology, 38,
377391.
Beyerstein, B. L., & Beyerstein, D. F. (1992). The write stuff: Evaluations of graphology - the study of handwriting analysis. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Blonigen, D. M., Patrick, C. J., Gasperi, M., Steffen, B., Ones, D. S., Arvey, R. D., et al. (2011). Delineating the construct network of the personnel reaction blank:
Associations with externalizing tendencies and normal personality. Psychological Assessment, 23, 1830.
Bornstein, R. F. (2002). A process dissociation approach to objective-projective test score inter-relationships. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 4768.
Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Botha, E., & Koper, C. (1963). An investigation into some patterns of motivation of soft drink salesmen. Psychologia Africana, 10, 123126.
Bowin, R. B. (1973). Attitude change toward a theory of managerial motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 686691.
Brief, A. P., Aldag, R. J., & Chacko, T. I. (1977). The Miner Sentence Completion Scale: An appraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 635643.
216
Briggs, D. L. (1954). A modification of the Thematic Apperception Test for naval enlisted personnel (N-TAT). Journal of Psychology, 37, 233241.
Brower, D. (1948). The relations of visuo-motor conflict to personality traits and cardiovascular activity. The Journal of General Psychology, 38, 6999.
Brower, D., & Weider, A. (1950). Projective techniques in business and industry. In L. E. Abt, & L. Bellak (Eds.), Projective psychology: Clinical approaches to the total
personality (pp. 437461). New York: Knopf.
Buck, J. (1948). The H-T-P technique: A qualitative and quantitative scoring method. Journal of Clinical Psychology Monograph Supplement, 5, 1120.
Byle, K. A., & Holtgraves, T. M. (2008). Integrity testing, personality, and design: Interpreting the Personnel Reaction Blank. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22,
287295.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81105.
Carson, K. P., & Gilliard, D. J. (1993). Construct validity of the Miner Sentence Completion Scale. Journal of Ocupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 171175.
Cattell, R. B. (1951). Principles of design in projective or misperceptive tests of personality. In H. H. Anderson, & Gladys L. Anderson (Eds.), An introduction to
projective techniques (pp. 5598). New York: Prentice-Hall.
Cervone, D. (2010). Aligning psychological assessment with psychological science. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 152153.
Cochrane, R. E., Tett, R. P., & Vandecreek, L. (2003). Psychological testing and the selection of police officers: A national survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(5),
511537.
Collins, C. J., Hanges, P. J., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of achievement motivation to entrepreneurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 17,
95117.
Connelly, B. S., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Schmeelk, K. (2006). Integrity tests and morality: Association with ego development, moral reasoning, and psychopathic
personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 8286.
Dawes, R. M. (1994). House of cards: Psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York: Free Press.
Del Giudice, M. J. (2010). What might this be? Rediscovering the Rorschach as a tool for personnel selection in organizations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92,
7889.
Dreyfus, C. R. (2008). Identifying competencies that predict effectiveness of R&D managers. The Journal of Management Development, 27, 7691.
Dulsky, S. G., & Krout, M. H. (1950). Predicting promotion potential on the basis of psychological tests. Personnel Psychology, 3, 345351.
Durand, D., & Shea, D. (1974). Entrepreneurial activity as a function of achievement motivation and reinforcement control. Journal of Psychology, 88, 5763.
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., Miner, J. B., & Johnson, B. T. (1994). Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. The Leadership
Quarterly, 5, 135159.
Ebbinghaus, H. (1897). Uber eine neue methode zur prfung geistiger fhigkeiten and ihre anwendung bei schulkindern [About a new method for testing
intellectual abilities]. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane, 13, 401457.
Erberhadt, B. J., Yap, C. K., & Basuray, M. T. (1988). A psychometric evaluation of the multiple choice version of the Miner Sentence Completion Scale. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 48, 119126.
Eron, L. D., Sultan, F., & Auld, F. (1955). The application of a psychometric scoring procedure to a group modifaction of the TAT (N-TAT). Journal of Consulting
Exner, J. E. (1974). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system, vol. 1, New York: Wiley.
Exner, J. E. (1989). Searching for projection in the Rorschach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 520536.
Ferguson, R. T. (1947). Organization and work of the War Office Selection Boards. Inter-Allied Conferences on War Medicine (1942-1945), 1, 215219.
Forer, B. R. (1950). A structured sentence completion test. Journal of Projective Techniques, 14, 1530.
Frank, L. K. (1948). Projective methods (pp. 111). Springfield: Thomas.
Frost, A. G., & Rafilson, F. M. (1989). Overt integrity tests versus personality-based measures of delinquency: An empirical comparison. Journal of Business and
Galton, F. (1879). Psychometric facts. Nineteenth Century, 5, 425433.
Garb, H. N., Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M. T., Grove, W. M., & Stejskal, W. J. (2001). Towards a resolution of the Rorschach controversy. Psychological Assessment, 13,
433448.
Gillham, N. W. (2001). Sir Francis Galton and the birth of eugenics. Annual Review of Genetics, 35, 83101.
Gonzales-Frisbie, J. (2006). Personality tests in jeopardy: An evaluation of the Seventh's Circuit decision in Karaker v. Rent-A-Center and its implications on the
future use of personality tests in pre-employment screening. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor and Employment Law, 9, 185205.
Gough, H. G. (1954). The Personnel Reaction Blank. Berkley, CA: Author.
Gough, H. G. (1956). California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA, England: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Gough, H. G. (1962). Manuale per il Personnel Reaction Blank, edizione italiana [Manual for the Italian Edition of the Personnel Reaction Blank]. Firenze: Organizzaioni
Speciali.
Gough, H. G. (1965). La fidatezza come fattore qualitative del lavoro degli impiegati [Dependability as a qualitative factor in an employee's work]. Bollettino di
Psicologia Applicata, 69-70, 37.
Gough, H. G. (1971). The assessment of the wayward impulse by means of the personnel reaction blank. Personnel Psychology, 24, 669677.
Gough, H. G. (1972). Manual for the Personnel Reaction Blank. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Gough, H. G. (1976). Studying creativity by means of word association tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 348353.
Gough, H. G., & Freddi, G. (1967). La predizione del rendimento in un programma di addestramento per l'industria [Prediction of performance in an industrial
training program]. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 93102.
Gough, H. G., & Peterson, D. R. (1952). The identification and measurement of predispositional factors in crime and delinquency. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
16, 207212.
Grnnerd, C. (2003). Temporal stability in the Rorschach method: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 272293.
Harrower, M. R., & Steiner, M. E. (1945). Large Scale Rorschach Techniques. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Hicks, J. A., & Stone, J. B. (1962). The identification of traits related to managerial success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 428432.
Highhouse, S. (2002). Assessing the candidate as a whole: A historical and critical analysis of individual psychological assessment for personnel decision making.
Personnel Psychology, 55, 363396.
Hiller, J. B., Rosenthal, R., Bornstein, R. F., Berry, D. T. R., & Brunell-Neuleib, S. (1999). A comparative meta-analysis of Rorschach and MMPI validity. Psychological
Assessment, 11, 278296.
Holaday, M., Smith, D. A., & Sherry, A. (2000). Sentence completion tests: A review of the literature and results of a survey of members of the Society for
Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 371383.
Jensen, M. B., & Rotter, J. B. (1945). The validity of the multiple choice Rorschach test in officer candidate selection. Psychological Bulletin, 42, 181185.
Johnson, H. R. (1974). Some personality correlates of the relationships between individuals and organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(623), 632.
Jones, W. E. (1991). Assessing privacy invasiveness of psychological test items: Job relevant versus clinical measures of integrity. Journal of Business and
Jung, C. G. (1910). The association method. The American Journal of Psychology, 21, 219269.
Jung, C. G., & Eder, M. D. (1919). Studies in word association: Experiments in the diagnosis of psychopathological conditions carried out at the psychiatric clinic of the
University of Zurich. New York, NY: Moffat, Yard & Company.
Kelley, T. L. (1917). Individual testing with completion test exercises. Teacher's College Record, 18, 371382.
Kellum, W. E. (1948). An early attempt to evaluate psychological fitness for flight training. Contact, 6, 232235.
Kent, G. H., & Rosanoff, J. A. (1910a). A study of association in insanity. American Journal of Insanity, 3796.
Kent, G. H., & Rosanoff, J. A. (1910b). A study of association in insanity. American Journal of Insanity, 317390.
Kinslinger, H. J. (1966). Application of projective techniques in personnel psychology since 1940. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 134149.
Klopfer, W. G. (1973). The short history of projective techniques. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 9, 6065.
217
Kobbs, S. W., & Arvey, R. D. (1993). Distinguishing deviant and non-deviant nurses using the Personnel Reaction Blank. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8,
255264.
Lilienfield, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 2766.
Lindzey, G. (1959). On the classification of projective techniques. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 158168.
Loevinger, J. (1976). The origin of conscience. Psychological Issues, 9, 265297.
London House, Inc. (1980). The Personnel Selection Inventory (PSI). Park Ridge, IL: London House Press.
Loudermilk, K. M. (1966). Prediction of efficiency of lumber and paper mill employees. Personnel Psychology, 19, 301310.
Luscher, M., & Scott, I. (1969). The Luscher Color Test. NY: Washington Square Press.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695706.
Machover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure: A method of personality investigation. Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Oxford: Van Nostrand.
McClelland, D. C. (1999). How the test lives on: Extensions of the Thematic Apperception Test approach. In L. Geiser, & M. I. Stein (Eds.), Evocative Images: The
Thematic Apperception Test and the art of projection (pp. 163175). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690702.
McClelland, D. C., & Winter, D. G. (1969). Motivating economic achievement. New York: Free Press.
Meyer, G. J., Hilsenroth, M. J., Baxter, D., Exner, J. E., Jr., Fowler, J. C., Piers, C. C., et al. (2002). An examination of interrater reliability for scoring the Rorschach
Comprehensive System in eight data sets. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 219274.
Miner, J. B. (1960). The effect of a course in psychology on the attitudes of research and development supervisor. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 224232.
Miner, J. B. (1962). Personality and ability factors in sales performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 613.
Miner, J. B. (1963). Occupational differences in the desire to exercise power. Psychological Reports, 13, 18.
Miner, J. B. (1964). Scoring guide for the Miner Sentence Completion Scale. Buffalo, NY: Organizational Measurement Systems Press.
Miner, J. B. (1965). The prediction of managerial and research success. Personnel Administration, 28, 1217.
Miner, J. B. (1968). The early identification of managerial talent. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 46, 586591.
Miner, J. B. (1971). Personality tests as predictors of consulting success. Personnel Psychology, 24, 191204.
Miner, J. B. (1973). The management consulting firm as a source of high-level managerial talent. The Academy of Management Journal, 16, 253264.
Miner, J. B. (1977). Supplement Scoring guide for the Miner Sentence Completion Scale. Atlanta, GA: Organizational Measurement Systems Press, Inc.
Miner, J. B. (1978). The Miner Sentence Completion Scale: A reappraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 283294.
Miner, J. B. (1993). Role motivation theories. London: Routledge.
Miner, J. B., & Crane, D. P. (1981). Motivation to manage and the manifestation of a managerial orientation in career planning. Academy of Management Journal, 24,
626633.
Miner, J. B., & Culver, J. E. (1955). Some aspects of executive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 348353.
Miner, J. B., Rizzo, J. R., Harlow, P. N., & Hill, J. W. (1974). Role motivation theory of managerial effectiveness in simulated organizations of varying degrees of
structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 3137.
Miner, J. B., & Smith, N. R. (1982). Decline and stabilization of managerial motivation orientation in career planning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 297305.
Miner, J. B., Smith, N. R., & Bracker, J. S. (1994). Role of entrepreneurial task motivation in the growth of technologically innovative firms: Interpretations from
follow-up data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 627630.
Miner, J. B., Smith, N. R., & Ebrahimi, B. (1985). Further considerations in the decline and stabilization of managerial motivation: A rejoinder to Bartol, Anderson,
and Schneier (1980). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 290298.
Mittelmann, B., & Brodman, K. (1946). The Cornell indices and the Cornell Word Form: I. Construction and standardization. Annals of New York Academy of Science,
46, 573578.
Mohan, V., & Brar, A. (1986). Motives and work efficiency. Personality Study & Group Behavior, 6, 3745.
Molish, H. B. (1972). Projective methodologies. Annual Review of Psychology, 23, 577614.
Morgan, C. D., & Murray, H. A. (1935). A method for investigating fantasies: The Thematic Apperceptions Test. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 34, 289306.
Morris, J. L., & Fargher, K. (1974). Achievement drive and creativity as correlates of success in small business. Australian Journal of Psychology, 26, 217222.
Murray, H. A. (Ed.). (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental study of fifty men of college age. New York: Oxford University Press.
Murray, H. A., & MacKinnon, D. W. (1946). Assessment of OSS personnel. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 10, 7680.
Murray, H. A., & Stein, M. (1943). Note on the selection of combat officers. Psychosomatic Medicine, 5, 386391.
Murstein, B. T., & Mathes, S. (1996). Projection on projective techniques = pathology: The problem that is not being addressed. Journal of Personality Assessment,
66, 337349.
Piotrowski, Z. A., Candee, B., Balinsky, C. B., Holtzberg, S., & Van Arnold, B. (1944). Rorschach signs in the selection of outstanding young male mechanical workers.
Journal of Psychology, 18, 131150.
Piotrowski, Z. A., & Rock, M. R. (1963). The Perceptanalytic Executive Scale: A tool for the selection of top managers. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Rabin, A. I. (1968). Projective techniques in personality assessment. Oxford: Springer.
Reiger, A. F. (1949). The Rorschach Test in industrial selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 33, 569571.
Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 2671, 174 L. Ed. 2d 490 (2009).
Rohde, A. R. (1946). Explorations in personality by the sentence completion method. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 169181.
Rohde, A. R. (1947). A note regarding the use of the sentence completion test in military installations since the beginning of World War II. Journal of Consulting
Rorschach, H. (1912). Psychodiagnostics. Berne: Verlag Hans Huber. Ryan, A. M., & Sackett, P. R. (1987). Pre-employment honesty testing: Fakeability, reactions of
test takers, and company image. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1, 248256.
Rosenzweig, S., Fleming, E. E., & Clarke, H. J. (1947). Revised scoring manual for the Rosenzweig picture-frustration study. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary
and Applied, 24, 165208.
Rotter, J. B., Rafferty, J. E., & Schachtitz, E. (1949). Validation of the Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank for college screening. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 13,
348356.
Ryan, A. M., & Sackett, P. R. (1987). A survey of individual assessment practices by I/O psychologists. Personnel Psychology, 40, 455488.
Sackett, P. R., Burris, L. R., & Callahan, C. (1989). Integrity testing for personnel selection: An update. Personnel Psychology, 42, 491529.
Sacks, J. M., & Levy, S. (1950). The sentence completion test. In L. E. Abt, & L. Bellak (Eds.), Projective psychology (pp. 357402). New York: Knopf.
Sciola, V. (1962). Un'applicazione italiana dei tests mentali. In V. B. Zimmerman, & E. Cambursano (Eds.), Le techniche selettive del personale nelle pubbliche
amministrazions (pp. 207231). Bologna: Zanichelli.
Shaw, L. (1965). The practical use of projective personality tests as accident predictors. Traffic Safety Research Review, 9, 3472.
Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corporation California Court of Appeal, First District 235 Cal.App.3d 654, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 77 (1991).
Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for achievement: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 140154.
Spielberger, C. D. (1979). Police Selection and Evaluation Issues and Techniques. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Stein, M. I. (1947). The use of a sentence completion test for the diagnosis of personality. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 3, 4756.
Stein, M. I. (1949). The record and a sentence completion test. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 13, 448449.
Stevens, G. E., & Brenner, O. C. (1990). An empirical investigation of the motivation to manage blacks and women in business school. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 50, 879886.
Stone, J. B. (1958). S-O Rorschach Test Manual. Los Angeles: California Test Bureau.
Symonds, P. M. (1947). The sentence completion test as a projective technique. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 320329.
218
Szondi, L. (1947). Lehrbuch der Experimentelle Triebdiagnostik. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.
Tendler, A. D. (1930). A preliminary report on a test for emotional insight. Journal of Applied Psychology, 14, 122136.
Tomkiewicz, J., Brenner, O. C., & Esinhart, J. (1991). Hispanic persons in business: Is there cause for optimism? Psychological Reports, 69, 847852.
Tomkins, S. S., & Miner, J. B. (1957). The TomkinsHorn Picture Arrangement Test. New York: Springer.
Traube, M. R. (1916). Completion-test language scales. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teacher's College, Columbia University.
US War Department (1941). Notes on psychology and personality studies in aviation medicine. US War Department Technical Manual No. 8-320.
Vernon, P. E. (1953). Personality tests and assessments. London: Meuthen.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1997). A review of the personnel reaction blank. Security Journal, 8, 129132.
Weider, A. (1951). Some aspects of an industrial mental hygiene program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 383385.
Weider, A., Keeve, M., Bela, W. D., & Wolff, H. G. (1946). The Cornell index: A method for quickly assaying personality and psychosomatic disturbances, to be used
as an adjunct to interview. Psychosomatic Medicine, 8, 411413.
Whitney, D. J., Diaz, J., Mineghino, M. E., & Powers, K. (1999). Perceptions of overt and personality-based integrity tests. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 7, 3545.
Winter, D. G., & Stewart, A. J. (1977). Power motive reliability as a function of retest instructions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 436440.
Woltmann, A. G. (1960). Spontaneous puppetry in children as a projective method. In A. E. Rabin, & M. R. Haworth (Eds.), Projective techniques with children. New
York: Grune and Stratton.
Woolley, R. M., & Hakstian, A. R. (1992). An examination of the construct validity of personality-based and over measures of integrity test. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 52, 475489.
Zickar, M. J. (2010). Recognizing the need for a humanistic movement within industrialorganizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 9799.

Projective Testing. Historical Foundations and Uses For Human Resources Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Projective Testing. Historical Foundations and Uses For Human Resources Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 205218

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

Projective testing: Historical foundations and uses for human

N.T. Carter et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 205218

Tests developed specifically for clinical

Tests developed specifically for

Examples of past uses in HR-relevant

Cornell Word From (CWF; Mittelmann &

Structured-Objective Rorschach Test

Selection of managers (Rorschach)

Assessment of implicit motives (TAT)

Office of Strategic Services Sentence

Szondi Test (Szondi, 1947)

TomkinHorn Picture Arrangement

Holistic Selection of high-level military

N.T. Carter et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 205218

N.T. Carter et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 205218

N.T. Carter et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 205218

N.T. Carter et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 205218

4.1. Personnel Reaction Blank

N.T. Carter et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 205218

N.T. Carter et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 205218

N.T. Carter et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 205218

N.T. Carter et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 205218

N.T. Carter et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 205218

N.T. Carter et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 205218

N.T. Carter et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 205218

N.T. Carter et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 205218

You might also like