Theoretical Analysis of Projective Methods and Modern Drawing Test «Bird»
This article deals with an analysis of the projective methods currently in use. It demonstrates the way in which pojective testing can be used to help identify basic personality functions and both emotional and cognitive disorders, and illustrates problems affecting the theoretical foundations of projective experimentation during the development of the projective technique, while also putting forward a classification of the projective tests currently in use in Russia. The article reveals the importance of using projective testing, basing its theory on the exclusive personalisation of drawing and writing. Drawing have traditionally been interpreted using their symbolism and detail, aswell as the motor reflexes and colour palette employed. As a rule, keeping instructions minimal frees up the imagination of the test subject. The handwriting of the majority of people contains individual characteristics, with their combination and use in letters forming a personally-specific and unreproducible set of signs. The article assesses the usefulness of the Bird Test (E.G. Abakarova, 2014), a projective method which includes an analysis of an illustration (an image of a bird) and its written annotations. It underlines the potential for projective tests to find a use beyond diagnostic work, in the correction of the traits of personality and emotional state of the test subject by finding the most effective route forward.
1. Proyektivnyye metody issledovaniya lichnosti v psikhologii: sb. laboratornykh rabot [Projective methods of personality research in psychology: a collection of laboratory works]. Compiler O. A. Kondratenko. Chelyabinsk, 2007. 49 p. (in Russian).
2. Cotrupi C. N. Northrop Frye and the poetics of process. Toronto, 2000. 145 p.
3. Mackey J. P. The Critique of Theological Reason. Cambridge, 2000. 340 p.
4. Sokolova E. T. Proyektivnyye metody issledovaniya lichnosti [Projective methods of personality research]. Moscow, 1980. 176 p. (in Russian).
5. Todd Dzh., Bogart A. K. Osnovy klinicheskoy i konsultativnoy psikhologii [Basics of clinical and consultative psychology]. St. Petersburg, 2001. 768 p. (in Russian).
6. Buravtsova N. V. Arkhetipicheskiye osnovy professionalnogo stanovleniya lichnosti (proyektivnaya metodika analiza neosoznavayemykh pobuditeley i soprovoditeley professional’nogo stanovleniya lichnosti) [Archetypal foundations of the professional formation of the personality {projective methodology for the analysis of unconscious drivers and escorts of professional development of personality}]. Sotsiosfera [ Sociosphere], 2012, no. 3, pp. 32–37 (in Russian).
7. Dmitriyeva N. V., Perevozkina Yu. M., Kozyreva T. S. Kratkosrochnaya psikhoterapiya v reshenii konfl ikta [Short-term psychotherapy in confl ict resolution]. Mir nauki, kultury i obrazovaniya [World of Science, Culture and Education], 2014, no. 2 (45), pp. 228–231 (in Russian).
8. Venger A. L. Psikhologicheskiye risunochnyye testy: illyustrirovanoye rukovodstvo [Psychological drawing tests: an illustrated guide]. Moscow, 2003. 160 p. (in Russian).
9. Libin V. V., Libina A. V., Libin A. V. Psikhografi cheskiy test: konstruktivnyy risunok cheloveka iz geometricheskikh form [Psychographic test: a constructive fi gure of a person from geometric forms]. Moscow, 2008. 368 p. (in Russian).
10. Abakarova E. G. Otrazheniye individualnykh svoystv lichnosti v simvolakh khishchnykh ptits v psikhologicheskom proyektivnom teste «Ptitsa» [Reflection of individual personality traits into a symbol of a bird of prey in the psychological projective test «Bird»]. Mezhdunarodnyy nauchno-issledovatelskiy zhurnal [International Research Journal], 2017, no. 1–3 (55), pp. 122–124 (in Russian). DOI: 10.23670/ IRJ.2017.55.021.
11. Orlova V. F. Sudebno-pocherkovedcheskaya diagnostika [Forensic handwriting diagnostics]. Moscow, 2006. 160 p. (in Russian).
12. Burinskiy E. F. Sudebnaya ekspertiza dokumentov, proizvodstvo ee i polzovaniye eyu [Judicial examination of documents, its production and use]. St. Petersbusg, 1903. 386 p. (in Russian).
13. Guryanov E. V. Individualnyye razlichiya v graficheskikh navykakh pisma [Individual differences in graphic writing skills]. Izv. akаd. ped. nauk RSFSR [Izvestiya of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR], 1952, iss. 42, pp. 145–170 (in Russian).
14. Cohen N. Complaint over Doctor Who posted inkblot test. New York Times, 2009, August 23.