Monday, March 06, 2006

Ryerson University Gets An A- For Understanding Projectives

I continue to look at how the Canadian market research industry uses and understands projective techniques, and will often search Google to see the flotsam and jetsam of thoughts about projectives and their use in qualitative research. For the first time yesterday, I came across an understanding of Projectives from Ryerson University in Toronto that actually captures the fact that projectives are based on a complex psychological process.
Click here to see the link


What is of interest is the last sentence that says "While deceptively simple, projective techniques often require the expertise of a trained psychologist to help devise the tests and interpret them correctly." Nothing comes closer to the truth about projectives! I wish the Canadian industry would continue to reach-out to people who are trained in psychology to implement and interpret projectives.

The reason I only give Ryerson an A- in its understanding is because of what is contained in this link.

To quote from the page - "For instance, when asked why they might choose to go on an Alaskan cruise, the response might be because of the quality of the scenery, the opportunity to meet interesting people and learn about a different culture. But when the same question is asked as to why a neighbour might go on such a cruise, the response could very well be because of ‘brag appeal’ or to show off... By providing respondents with the opportunity to talk about someone else, such as a neighbour, a relative or a friend, they can talk freely about attitudes that they would not necessarily admit to holding themselves."

While this is true in theory it faces significant issues in practicality. Specifically, we need to ask ourselves if getting a participant to talk about "a neighbour, relative or friend" tells us more about the participant, or more about the "neighbour, relative or friend". For example, I have relatives who would definitely "brag" (ad nauseum in some cases) about their Alaskan cruise, but I have a set of friends who would take the cruise more to discover the science behind Glaciers and Artic Life. As such, the response may vary based on the "friend, relative or neighbour" the participant is envisioning. One relative may be a braggart, another may not, and if this is the case, we need to question the validity of data obtained in this manner. In psychotherapy, a projective like this is used more to find-out about the relationship between the individual and "the neighbour, relative and friend" than it is to find-out about a person's hidden thoughts or desires.

If I wanted to get a person to project about an Alaskan cruise, I would ask them to project the following situation - "Say after your vacation you are contacted by a travel reporter who wants to know all about your vacation. Close your eyes, and start to talk to him about the vacation. What's he going to ask you about the vacation? How do you feel when you are responding? How will you tell your friends and family about the vacation? Will it be the same or different to the way you are talking to the reporter? Now, the reporter pulls out a video camera and tells you to make a silent motion with your body to describe your Alaskan vacation. He wants to include pictures of people in his article. It could be any type of motion or pose, but the point is that you have to communicate the cruise without using words - only your body. How would you do that?"

There are a few advantages to this technique:

- The projection to a reporter is an impartial stranger. There will be not be confusing inter-individual dynamics in the qualitative data. That is, we get the participant to project onto someone else, but without any of the interpersonal dynamics that may be involved in doing so with a relative, neighbour or friend.

- The qualitative researcher should probe the tone of the participant talking to the reporter. For example, the researcher should say things like "I notice you are excited when you are talking - tell me more about the excitement." or "You seem to be stating things very matter-of-factly. How does this relate to the cruise you just took?" or "Do I get a sense that you are bragging to the reporter?"

- Getting participants to use body language to describe the vacation also adds another layer of qualitative data. Besides the actual pose they take, we should be looking at the energy, creativity and effort put in to the pose as a way of understanding what the participant thinks of an Alaskan cruise.

Another projective may be to ask which relative/neighbour/friend that they know would be most likely to take the Alaskan cruise and then ask the participant to describe the person, and their pesonality traits. This way we will see if the participant chooses someone who is a braggart, a true world traveler, an adventurer, an intellect or whomever. The point is that we are not introducing noise into the projection.

Overall, I have to give Ryerson pretty high marks for being some of the first people I have seen in Canada to realize that projectives are both "deceptively simple" and that they require "a trained psychologist to devise and interpret the test." Where Ryerson's example does not get full marks is on its application, and in fact, this illustrates why someone who is trained in psychology is necessary to conduct proper projectives. The example Ryerson provided - having a person project what a relative, friend or neighbour would say about an Alaskan cruise likely tells us more about the relationship between the participant and the relative/neighbour/friend, than it does about the Alaskan cruise itself.