Projective personality tests: thoughts?

Suppose a candidate undergoes psychological testing that includes projective techniques. What happens if, when presented with the very first inkblot, the individual responds by identifying it specifically as a Rorschach inkblot? Does the assessment process grind to a halt right then and there? I am curious about the standard protocol in such a scenario. Furthermore, is it common practice to utilize the Holtzman method instead of Rorschach in these settings?

I don't see why that matters.

Are you just trying to sabotage the process by proving to the psychologist that you've already cracked the code on how the test works?
Do you honestly think a psychologist is going to stop the session just because a subject knows enough to manipulate the results?

That’s just the same old answer, and they’re definitely going to keep digging... why even bother with an answer like that? It feels like a blatant attempt to mess with the testing process.

Plus, the Rorschach isn't some one-of-a-kind thing. Projective tests aren't just synonymous with the Rorschach... there are plenty of them out there.🙂

redharbor9 said:That’s just the same old answer, and they’re definitely going to keep digging... why even bother with an answer like that? It feels like a blatant attempt to mess with the testing process.

Plus, the Rorschach isn't some one-of-a-kind thing. Projective tests aren't just synonymous with the Rorschach... there are plenty of them out there.🙂

I was simply wondering about the actual utility of these assessments when a sufficiently educated subject can manipulate the outcome with such ease. Of course, there is a vast array of projective tests available, but even those become transparent almost immediately once you know what you are looking at.
If I recall correctly, Holtzman was specifically designed to address the shortcomings found in Rorschach.

Look, finding an educated subject in the Rorschach is gonna be a struggle. Even if you do find one, a smart examiner isn't just gonna stop there—they’ll spot the patterns regardless. They're gonna pull in other personality assessments too, making sure the final call is based on the whole damn picture...

Seriously though, why wouldn't you mess with them if you have the chance? 😁

Testing always serves a purpose. If you can afford to mess around—considering the stakes and what's on the line—then why the hell not 🙂
?

I’m with you. You take those opportunities whenever they present themselves. The last time I actually pulled it off was during my military psych eval. A few of us coordinated to mess with the psychologist—honestly, it was one of the few times I actually had a blast.
On the flip side, I didn't have the guts to pull anything with the DMV evaluator, and looking back, I definitely regret that. Next time, I’m going for it.

Yeah, I remember guys trying to pull some bullshit during their military physical, only to show up at the DMV for their driver's license later. They were absolutely stunned when the paperwork from the first exam popped up right in front of them. 😍

It’s a job risk, sure, but you should be able to link the two—meaning once you leave the "crime scene," you don't ever step foot in there again.
And clearly, they got played hard if they actually managed to remember them. 😁

How reliable is that projective test, really?

I recently sat for one, and the results were essentially this:
The projective technique identifies struggles with adaptation, aggression control, social communication, and ego stability.
Regarding personality, signs of personality disorder are present.

How on earth does one derive all that from six little squares and a few dots?

I'm pretty sure there were 8 squares😉

Maybe 8... I can't quite recall exactly.

All I know is I didn't see the point or any deeper meaning, so I just sketched the first thing that came to mind.

That little dot was meant to be one of the stars in the Big Dipper.🙂 I'm particularly proud of that, haha.🤣

Look, the whole point of psychological testing isn't even for the client to get it 🙂

How am I supposed to extract anything meaningful from a test like that? It’s absurd. You’re presented with options like "warmhearted," "cautious," "impulsive," or "irritable." Naturally, everyone just picks "warmhearted" over and over again because that’s what people want to believe about themselves. But eventually, the choices narrow down. Suddenly, you're forced to pick between things like being impulsive or cautious. The whole setup is flawed. It feels like they intentionally design these assessments to force people into picking negative traits—you end up having to select "cautious" or "irritable" or "impulsive" just to finish the damn thing. It’s a rigged game designed to make the subject look bad.

So you claim you see some happy little family pushing a stroller, even though what’s actually there looks more like... well, something else entirely.

You swear you see sunshine, fluffy clouds, and a cozy little cottage, when all anyone can see is a machine gun...

You insist it's just a sleek car with nice alloy rims, despite the fact that it's clearly a tank...

You tell me there's nothing but cabbage growing in the garden, while ignoring the two old ladies out there brawling in the dirt...

With these kinds of delusions, I really don't know what to make of you.😉

Jack Smith5 said:So you claim you see some happy little family pushing a stroller, even though what’s actually there looks more like... well, something else entirely.

You swear you see sunshine, fluffy clouds, and a cozy little cottage, when all anyone can see is a machine gun...

You insist it's just a sleek car with nice alloy rims, despite the fact that it's clearly a tank...

You tell me there's nothing but cabbage growing in the garden, while ignoring the two old ladies out there brawling in the dirt...

With these kinds of delusions, I really don't know what to make of you.😉

So basically, you have to lie just so people think you're one of the good guys.😛

A psychologist holds no real authority. They simply draft an opinion, leaving the ultimate decision-making power to someone else.
I suspect psychologists at recruitment centers have seen it all by now; they don't take these encounters personally.

In my experience, when a client tries to play games with me, I address their behavior head-on and ask why they’re doing it.
If I can't win them over to cooperate after the interview, I'll just report that they are uncooperative and leave it at that.

Regarding projective testing, there are certain methods where you simply cannot fake your way through the answers.

To those wondering how a psychologist can judge a person based on a few shapes or patterns—the answer is: they can't. Projective techniques are merely supplementary tools used alongside other assessment instruments. Even when employing a massive battery of tests, a seasoned professional understands exactly where the limits of drawing conclusions lie.

nimblelynx7 said:I’m with you. You take those opportunities whenever they present themselves. The last time I actually pulled it off was during my military psych eval. A few of us coordinated to mess with the psychologist—honestly, it was one of the few times I actually had a blast.
On the flip side, I didn't have the guts to pull anything with the DMV evaluator, and looking back, I definitely regret that. Next time, I’m going for it.

haha... man, you weren't even messing with her, she probably just couldn't deal with your group... I remember in my group there were these geniuses who would circle every single opposite answer or just pick (a) for everything. But our psychologist showed up at the end of the screening and started reading out names of people who needed to stick around a bit longer... whether it was an accident or on purpose, those guys ended up staying so long they missed all the trains and buses back home. :-)