Psychologists' Ambivalence toward Ambiguity: Relocating the Projective Test Debate for Multiple Interpretative Hypotheses.

This article critically relocates the debate concerning the validity and utility of projective tests within multiple interpretative and process oriented approaches. Some scholars opine that there could be alternate ways of looking at projective tests, for example using it as a technique to elicit cognitive and emotional states or as behaviour samples. Supporting, modifying or denigrating the use of projective tests may reflect different underlying attitudes toward ambiguity and multiple interpretation of a situation. Thus it represents either of two different traditions of psychology: one, aspiring to attain a structured and organized view of human behaviour facilitating prediction, and the other, an acceptance and appreciation of idiographic and divergent responses that may not necessarily be predictive, but informative about the multiple possibilities of human thought process. This latter approach would be more concerned with the process of experiencing rather than with obtaining a relatively final and fixed answer to the dilemmas of existential conditions. The possibility of such approach was always present in the history of projective tests, but has been subdued under the hegemonic pressure of diagnostic utility. The present author argues that a process oriented view of responses to ambiguous situations, along with a sensitivity to human diversity and multiple interpretations rather than emphasizing commonality, may open up a fresh relocation of projective technique within psychology. Training of projective technique may incorporate this consideration for future researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]