This article was downloaded by: [190.55.198.

179]
On: 15 May 2013, At: 13:40
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personality Assessment

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

Toward a Process-Based Framework for Classifying

Personality Tests: Comment on
a
Robert F. Bornstein
a
Derner Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies, Adelphi University
Published online: 05 Dec 2007.

To cite this article: Robert F. Bornstein (2007): Toward a Process-Based Framework for Classifying Personality Tests: Comment
on , Journal of Personality Assessment, 89:2, 202-207

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223890701518776

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 89(2), 202207
Copyright

C 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Toward a Process-Based Framework for Classifying

Personality Tests: Comment on Meyer
and Kurtz (2006)
Robert F. Bornstein
Derner Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies
Adelphi University

Meyer and Kurtz (2006) argued that the longstanding psychological test labels objective and
Downloaded by [190.55.198.179] at 13:40 15 May 2013

projective have outlived their usefulness, and invited further work focusing on alternative
terms for these measures. This Comment describes a framework for classifying personality
tests based on the psychological processes that occur as people respond to test stimuli. Because
an attribution process is involved in responding to both types of measures, those instruments
formerly called objective tests are labeled self-attribution tests, and those formerly classi-
fied as projective tests are labeled stimulus-attribution tests. The possibility of extending
the process-based framework beyond personality, to psychological tests in general, is also
discussed. Clinical and empirical implications of a process-based framework are considered.

Meyer and Kurtz (2006) argued persuasively that the long-
standing psychological test labels objective and projec-
tive have outlived their usefulness, for two reasons. First,
these labels are misleading. As Meyer and Kurtz noted, ob-
jective tests hardly can be considered objective measures of
the psychological constructs they purport to assess; on the
contrary, scores on these tests are affected by myriad threats
to external validity, including respondent bias, subtle con-
text/setting effects, and scorer error (Allard, Butler, Faust, &
Shea, 1995; Masling, 2002). Moreover, evidence supporting
the role of projection in shaping responses to projective
tests is inconclusive at best (Exner, 1989; Weiner, 2003);
extant data suggest only that a projection-like dynamic may
influence certain types of responses to ambiguous test stimuli
under certain limited circumstances (Bornstein, 2007).
The terms objective and projective are not only sci-
entifically inaccurate, but problematic from a professional
standpoint as well. As Meyer and Kurtz (2006) pointed out,
the term objective carries with it an array of unwarranted
positive connotations, seeming to imply objectivity in pre-
diction when in fact the term refers only to the mechanical
nature of test scoring. Conversely, because of its association
with Freudian theory and a plethora of flawed Rorschach
writings that have appeared over the decades, the term pro-
jective has acquired such a negative halo that even selective
and biased critiques of the validity of projective tests are
readily accepted by members of the professional community
(see, e.g., Wood, Nezworski, & Stejskal, 1996).
Meyer and Kurtz (2006) offered a range of alternative
labels to replace the terms objective and projective, con-
cluding their editorial by inviting further work on the topic.
This Comment contributes to that ongoing effort by outlin-
ing a framework for classifying personality tests based on the
psychological processes that take place during testing (i.e.,
the cognitive and affective dynamics that occur as the testee
perceives, evaluates, and responds to test stimuli).
A PROCESS-BASED FRAMEWORK FOR
CLASSIFYING PERSONALITY TESTS
Because an attribution process is involved in responding to
both types of measures, what formerly were known as objec-
tive tests might better be labeled self-attribution tests; what
traditionally have been called projective tests are more ac-
curately labeled stimulus-attribution tests. In the following
sections I describe key features of these two types of tests in
the context of a process-based framework.1
1 I use the term attribution in its broadest form here, not only to denote the
causal inferences that people draw regarding various internal experiences
and external events (Buehner & McGregor, 2006), but also to include the
neurocognitive mechanisms through which people automatically attribute
meaning to stimuli whose purpose and identity are unclear (see Kensinger
& Schacter, 2006).
 BORNSTEIN ON MEYER & KURTZ
Self-Attribution Tests
Instruments that traditionally have been identified as objec-
tive tests (e.g., the NEO Personality Inventory; Costa &
McCrae, 1985) typically take the form of questionnaires
wherein people are asked to (1) acknowledge whether or
not each of a series of trait-descriptive statements is true of
them; or (2) rate the degree to which these statements describe
them accurately. As McClelland, Koestner, and Weinberger
(1989) pointed out, such measures assess self-attributed
traits, motives, emotions, and need statescharacteristics
that a person acknowledges as being representative of his or
her day-to-day functioning and experience. Thus, these mea-
sures reasonably may be described as self-attribution tests.
In responding to self-attribution test items people typi-
cally turn their attention inward to determine if a given test
statement captures some aspect of their feelings, thoughts,
motives, or behaviors. Given the dynamics of memory and
memory distortion, coupled with peoples reliance on various
Downloaded by [190.55.198.179] at 13:40 15 May 2013
judgment heuristics to make decisions regarding self-relevant
events and experiences (Loftus & Davis, 2006; Schwarz
et al., 1991) however, self-attribution test scores will not nec-
essarily yield accurate information regarding trait-related be-
haviors and experiences. Moreover, given recent research on
content nonresponsiveness (e.g., random or markedly acqui-
escent responding) it is clear that mostbut not alltestees
genuinely attempt to engage in and respond to these test
items via an introspective process (see Gallen & Berry, 1996;
Graham, 2000).
Self-attribution tests may be further divided into two cat-
egories: those wherein the person is asked to judge the ap-
plicability of a test item describing a longstanding pattern,
and those wherein they are asked to judge the applicabil-
ity of a test item describing behavior or experiencing in the
here-and-now. For the most part trait-focused measures (e.g.,
the trait version of Spielbergers [1989] State-Trait Anxi-
ety Inventory [STAI]) involve retrospection, whereas state-
focused measures (e.g., the state version of the STAI) in-
volve introspection aimed at elucidating current, ongoing
experience.2
Although responses to self-attribution tests typically begin
with introspection (and sometimes retrospection), another,
very different processdeliberate self-presentationoften
follows. Consider how a person might respond to the state-
ment, I often have difficulty controlling my anger. Even if
one can recall numerous instances of angry outbursts, one still
might choose to respond No to that item to present oneself in
a positive light. (Conversely, one might choose to respond Yes
2 In lieu of asking the respondent to report longstanding behavior or
current functioning, some self-attribution test items ask the respondent to
speculate regarding attitudes, abilities, or preferences (e.g., I would make a
good leader, I would rather be a physician than an attorney). With respect
to psychological process these are more closely aligned with trait than state
test items.
203
to that item even in the absence of anger-related memories if
the goal is to appear unhealthy rather than healthy.)
Stimulus-Attribution Tests
Measures that require people to interpret ambiguous stimuli
may be characterized as stimulus-attribution tests, because
regardless of whether one is confronted with an inkblot and
asked What might this be? or with a drawing or painting
and asked to describe the events depicted thereinthe fun-
damental task is to attribute meaning to a stimulus that can
be interpreted in multiple ways. This attribution process oc-
curs in much the same way as the attributions that each of us
makes dozensperhaps hundredsof times each day as we
navigate the ambiguities of the social world (e.g., when we
attempt to interpret our friends failure to greet us as we pass
on the street; see Bornstein, 2007, for a detailed discussion
of this attribution process).3
Does the stimulus-attribution label suggest that projection
is never involved in responding to ambiguous test stimuli
like inkblots? Not at all. First, it is important to recognize
that all projections are in fact attributions. This is true re-
gardless of whether one ascribes to the traditional Freudian
view (which conceptualizes projection as a mechanism for
disavowing unwanted traits, thoughts, and emotions; Freud,
1896/1962), a contemporary psychodynamic view (which
conceptualizes projection as a method of avoiding responsi-
bility for negative events and protecting self-esteem; Cramer,
2000), or the socialcognitive view (which conceptualizes
projection as a cognitive distortion wherein the degree to
which others share ones views is overestimated; Newman,
Duff, & Baumeister, 1997). When a person concludes in the
absence of compelling evidence that their boss dislikes them,
their neighbor is out to get them, or their extreme political
beliefs actually are shared by many, that person is engag-
ing in an attribution (or, more accurately, a misattribution)
process.
Note that all these inaccurate inferences reasonably might
be labeled projections. They are, but they are also attributions,
and in this context it is useful to recognize that attribution is
a broader and more encompassing term than projection. All
projections represent attributions, but not all attributions (or
misattributions) are necessarily projections.
Finally, as is true of self-attribution tests, responses to
stimulus-attribution tests often are modified by peoples ef-
forts to present themselves in a positive or negative light.
As Exner (1991) and Weiner (2003) pointed out, people typ-
ically generate many more Rorschach responses than they
3 In conceptualizing the psychological processes that occur as people
respond to stimulus-attribution tests it is important to note that responses to
ambiguous test stimuli are not determined exclusively (or even primarily)
by personality characteristics of the testee but by stimulus characteristics as
well, and it is possible to study empirically the impact of stimulus pull on
responses to stimulus-attribution test items (Weiner, 2003).
 204 BORNSTEIN
ultimately verbalize; deliberate self-presentation (including
censorship of certain percepts) limits the number and type of
responses articulated. The same is true of responses to other
stimulus-attribution tests. Moreover, given the demand char-
acteristics of most psychological testing situations, this cen-
sorship represents an appropriate self-presentation strategy
and a positive prognostic sign. Although research indicates
that it is more difficult to deliberately fake ones answers
to stimulus-attribution tests than self-attribution tests (Born-
stein, Rossner, Hill & Stepanian, 1994), self-presentation
clearly plays a role in shaping responses to both types of
measures.
BEYOND PERSONALITY: EXTENDING THE
PROCESS-BASED FRAMEWORK TO OTHER
PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS
A process-based framework is useful in contrasting the men-
Downloaded by [190.55.198.179] at 13:40 15 May 2013
tal activities that occur as people respond to self-attribution
and stimulus-attribution tests; this framework may be use-
ful for classifying other types of psychological tests as well.
Table 1 extends the process-based framework to the broader
array of assessment tools used by psychologists today, group-
ing these instruments into six categories based on the men-
tal activities and behaviors involved in responding to these
tests.
Thus, in addition to self-attribution and stimulus-
attribution tests there exist performance-based tests, which
include the Bender (1938) Visual-Motor Gestalt Test (when
used as a neurological screen), the Implicit Association Test
(Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2005), and various intelli-
gence and neuropsychological measures. Within the process-
based framework performance-based tests are distinguished
from stimulus-attribution tests because different processes
and tasks are involved, a distinction not captured by cur-
rent test labeling approaches (see Meyer et al., 2001; Meyer
& Kurtz, 2006). Whereas performance-based tests require
the respondent to perform structured behavioral tasks (e.g.,
copy figures from cards, assemble jigsaw puzzles) with per-
formance evaluated according to predefined scoring crite-
ria, respondents scores on stimulus-attribution tests like the
Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; Murray,
1943) are derived from open-ended descriptions and elabo-
rations of test stimuli.
In the process-based framework constructive tests also
are distinguished from stimulus-attribution tests, because
constructive tests require respondents to createliterally
to constructnovel products (e.g., drawings, written de-
scriptions) with minimal guidance from the examiner and no
test stimulus physically present. Machovers (1949) Draw-
a-Person (DAP) test would fall into this category, as would
Blatt, Chevron, Quinlan, Schaffer, and Weins (1988) mea-
sure of Qualitative and Structural Dimensions of Object
Representations (QSDOR), which asks the respondent to
generate descriptions of key introjects (e.g., mother, father,
self, God) that are then scored along various structural and
content-based dimensions. Put another way, in contrast to
stimulus-attribution tests such as the Rorschach and TAT
wherein testees describe stimuli whose essential properties
were determined a priori and which are physically present
during testing, in constructive tests the stimulus exists only
in the mind of the respondent (e.g., a maternal or paternal
introject).
Continuing through Table 1, observational measures (as
often are used to quantify behavior in hospitals, class-
rooms, shopping malls, and other settings) may be dis-
tinguished from informant-report tests (wherein data are
derived from knowledgeable informants descriptions or
ratings). Although in both cases judgments are made by
an individual other than the person being evaluated, dif-
ferent processes are involved in generating these judg-
ments, with observational measures based on direct obser-
vation and immediate recording of behavior, and informant-
report tests based on informants retrospective, memory-
derived conclusions regarding characteristics of the target
person.4
DO THE ADVANTAGES OF A
PROCESS-BASED FRAMEWORK OUTWEIGH
ITS DISADVANTAGES?
In discussing limitations in the current terminology used
to classify personality tests Meyer and Kurtz (2006) raised
the possibility thatbecause any framework for grouping
psychological tests into categories is likely to be less than
perfectperhaps assessment psychologists should simply
identify each test by name and forego any attempt to create an
overarching classification scheme. Although identifying tests
by name rather than by category has the advantage of elimi-
nating ambiguity that might arise when tests are grouped and
labeled, a process-based framework for classifying psycho-
logical tests offers several advantages in this regard.
4 Certain types of measures (e.g., Q-sorts) may be included in more than
one category, depending upon whether they involve self-description (i.e.,
self-attribution), or description by a familiar other (in which case they rep-
resent informant reports). Similarly, most archival data can be classified
either as a form of observational measure (if data initially were based on
direct observation, e.g., nurses notes of patient behavior), or as a form
of informant report (if data consist of the summary conclusions or judg-
ments of knowledgeable others, e.g., end-of-semester evaluations provided
by teachers or academic advisors). Finally, whereas structured interviews
represent self-attribution tests (akin to verbal questionnaires; see Rogers,
2003), unstructured and semistructured interviews whose focus is deter-
mined largely by the clinicians inferences and assessment goals are best
considered techniques for gathering and synthesizing clinical data, not as
formal psychological tests.
 BORNSTEIN ON MEYER & KURTZ 205

TABLE 1
A Process-Based Framework for Classifying Psychological Tests

Test category Key characteristics Representative tests

Self-Attribution Test scores reflect the degree to which the person attributes NEO Personality Inventory
various traits, feelings, thoughts, motives, behaviors, or Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality
experiences to him- or herself. Disorders
Stimulus-Attribution Person attributes meaning to an ambiguous stimulus, with Rorschach Inkblot Method
attributions determined in part by stimulus characteristics and Thematic Apperception Test
in part by the persons cognitive style, motives, emotions, and
need states.
Performance-Based Test scores are derived from persons unrehearsed performance Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
on one or more structured tasks designed to tap on-line Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test
behavior and responding.
Constructive Generation of test responses requires person to create or construct Draw-a-Person Test
a novel image or written description within parameters defined Qualitative and Structural Dimensions of Object Relations
by the tester.
Observational Test scores are derived from observers ratings of persons Spot Sampling
behavior exhibited in vivo, or in a controlled setting. Behavior Trace Analysis
Informant-Report Test scores are based on knowledgeable informants ratings or SWAP-200
judgments of a persons characteristic patterns of behavior and Informant-Report version of the NEO Personality Inventory
responding.
Downloaded by [190.55.198.179] at 13:40 15 May 2013

The Process-Based Framework Facilitates Test
Score Integration
Because the process-based framework makes explicit the
mental activities that occur as people respond to test stim-
uli, this framework facilitates meaningful integration of
scores on different types of measures in the clinical set-
ting. For example, studies have shown that changes in de-
pressive symptoms affect both self-attributed and stimulus-
attributed dependency scores, whereas more minor vari-
ations in mood states affect stimulus-attributedbut not
self-attributeddependency (Bornstein, Bowers, & Bonner,
1996; Hirschfeld, Klerman, Clayton, & Keller, 1983). It may
be that the increased cognitive load (and diminished atten-
tional capacity) associated with a significant elevation in
depression is sufficient to alter self-attributed dependency
scores while more minor variations in mood state are not.
Conversely, laboratory evidence suggests that the manner
in which the test is introduced has a significant impact
on self-attributedbut not stimulus-attributeddependency
(Bornstein et al., 1994).
Thus, in both research and clinical settings the process-
based framework can help elucidate the dispositional and
situational factors that lead to test score inconsistencies, sug-
gesting variables worthy of further study as we seek to under-
stand the processes that dissociate scores on tests that ostensi-
bly assess the same underlying construct (see also Bornstein,
2002, for examples of other moderating variables).
The Framework Helps Link Personality
Assessment to Other Domains of Psychological
Science
By specifying the mental activities that occur as people re-
spond to different types of psychological tests the process-
based framework helps link personality assessment to re-
search in other areas of psychological science (e.g., cognitive,
social). Only when assessment research is embedded in ideas
and findings from mainstream psychology can we evaluate
rigorously the external validity of our hypotheses and mod-
els by scrutinizing the fit of these hypotheses and models
with those of neighboring subfields. Psychologists in other
areas have often utilized concepts from assessment research
(e.g., internal reliability, discriminant validity) to improve
the psychometric properties of their tests and measures; the
process-based framework can help assessment psychologists
use findings from other subfields (e.g., the dynamics of im-
plicit and explicit memory, the dispositional and contextual
variables that influence causal attributions) to understand
more completely the psychological processes that underlie
responses to different assessment tools.
Psychologists Are Going to Group and Label
Tests Anyway
People classify things into categories and assign labels to
these categories; it is one of many strategies we use to pro-
cess, encode, and store information more efficiently. Regard-
less of whether these things consist of dogs, foods, works
of art, or modes of transportation, studies suggest that once
people have developed some degree of familiarity with the
members of a group they intuitively divide members of that
group into subgroups based on properties of the individual
group members (Corter & Gluck, 1992; Rosch, 1975).
Thus, if assessment psychologists did not derive overar-
ching frameworks and terminologies for classifying psycho-
logical tests, those who use, study, or critique these tests
would do it anyway. In this respect it is better that an orga-
nizing framework be made explicit (and the logic underlying
 206 BORNSTEIN
the framework spelled out in detail) than that multiple con-
trasting frameworks and labels emerge in isolation among
different segments of the psychological community.
CONCLUSION
The process-based framework readily suggests possibilities
for studies focusing on convergences and divergences be-
tween scores from tests in different categories (Bornstein,
2002); this framework also can form a conceptual founda-
tion for intracategory test score comparisons (e.g., contrasts
of results from state versus trait measures of a motive or affect
state, comparisons of results produced by inkblot interpre-
tations versus thematic storytelling). Such studies will not
only help clinicians and researchers understand the factors
that lead to divergences between findings obtained within
a particular test category, but also may create a context
Downloaded by [190.55.198.179] at 13:40 15 May 2013
for research exploring the range of situational and dispo-
sitional factors that combine to affect intracategory test score
consistency.
Finally, it is worth noting that in certain respects the
process-based framework for classifying psychological tests
is analogous to the grouping of psychological syndromes into
overarching categories (e.g., mood disorders, anxiety disor-
ders, personality disorders) in the DSM-IV. Although both
organizing schemes are imperfect, and one could argue that
certain tests (or syndromes) should be categorized or labeled
differently, in both cases the organizing framework facili-
tates clinical work and empirical study. Like the grouping of
syndromes in the DSM series, the proposed system for classi-
fying psychological tests will evolve over time, improving as
new information emerges regarding various assessment tools.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Violeta Bianucci, Daniel Freeman, Mark Hilsenroth,
Michelle Sonnenberg, and all those who participated in the
JPA review process for their helpful comments on earlier
versions of this article.
REFERENCES
Allard, G., Butler, J., Faust, D., & Shea, M. T. (1995). Errors in hand-
scoring objective personality tests. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 26, 304308.
Bender, L. (1938). A visual-motor gestalt test and its clinical use. New York:
American Orthopsychiatric Association.
Blatt, S. J., Chevron, E. S., Quinlan, D. M., Schaffer, C. E., & Wein, S. J.
(1988). The assessment of qualitative and structural dimensions of object
representations (rev. ed.). Unpublished research manual, Yale University,
New Haven, CT.
Bornstein, R. F. (2002). A process dissociation approach to objective-
projective test score interrelationships. Journal of Personality Assessment,
78, 4768.
Bornstein, R. F. (2007). Might the Rorschach be a projective test after all?
Social projection of an undesired trait alters Rorschach Oral Dependency
scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 354367.
Bornstein, R. F., Bowers, K. S., & Bonner, S. (1996). Effects of induced
mood states on objective and projective dependency scores. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 67, 324340.
Bornstein, R. F., Rossner, S. C., Hill, E. L., & Stepanian, M. L. (1994).
Face validity and fakability of objective and projective measures of de-
pendency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 363386.
Buehner, M. J., & McGregor, S. (2006). Temporal delays can facilitate
causal attribution: Toward a general timeframe bias in causal induction.
Thinking and Reasoning, 12, 353378.
Corter, J., & Gluck, M. (1992). Explaining basic categories: Feature pre-
dictability and information. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 291303.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cramer, P. (2000). Defense mechanisms in psychology today: Mechanisms
for adaptation. American Psychologist, 55, 637646.
Exner, J. E. (1989). Searching for projection in the Rorschach. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 53, 520536.
Exner, J. E. (1991). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system: Vol. 2, Inter-
pretations 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
Freud, S. (1962). Further remarks on the neuro-psychoses of defense. In J.
Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works
of Sigmund Freud (vol. 3, pp. 159188). London: Hogarth. (Original work
published 1896.)
Gallen, R. T., & Berry, D. T. R. (1996). Detection of random responding in
MMPI-2 protocols. Assessment, 3, 171178.
Graham, J. R. (2000). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology
(3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hirschfeld, R. M. A., Klerman, G. L., Clayton, P. J., & Keller, M. B. (1983).
Personality and depression: Empirical findings. Archives of General Psy-
chiatry, 40, 993998.
Kensinger, E. A., & Schacter, D. L. (2006). Neural processes underlying
memory attribution on a reality-monitoring task. Cerebral Cortex, 16,
11261133.
Loftus, E. F., & Davis, D. (2006). Recovered memories. Annual Review of
Clinical Psychology, 2, 469498.
Machover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the drawing of the human
figure: A method of personality investigation. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas.
Masling, J. M. (2002). Speak, memory, or goodbye Columbus. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 78, 430.
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-
attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690
702.
Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R.
R., Eisman, E. J., Kubiszyn, T. W., & Reed, G. M. (2001). Psychological
testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues.
American Psychologist, 56, 128165.
Meyer, G. J., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Advancing personality assessment
terminology: Time to retire objective and projective as personality
test descriptors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 223225.
Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic Apperception Test Manual. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Newman, L. S., Duff, K. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). A new look at de-
fensive projection: Thought suppression, accessibility, and biased person
perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 9801001.
Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Understanding
and using the Implicit Association Test: Method variables and construct
validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 166180.
Rogers, R. (2003). Standardizing DSM-IV diagnoses: The clinical appli-
cations of structured interviews. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81,
220225.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192233.
 BORNSTEIN ON MEYER & KURTZ 207

Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, G., & Robert F. Bornstein
Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the Derner Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies
availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
195202.
212 Blodgett Hall
Spielberger, C. D. (1989). State-trait Anxiety Inventory: A comprehensive Adelphi University
bibliography. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Garden City, NY 11530
Weiner, I. B. (2003). Principles of Rorschach interpretation (2nd ed.). Email: bornstein@adelphi.edu
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wood, J. M., Nezworksi, M. T., & Stejskal, W. J. (1996). The Comprehensive
System for the Rorschach: A critical evaluation. Psychological Science, Received January 23, 2007
7, 310. Revised June 15, 2007
Downloaded by [190.55.198.179] at 13:40 15 May 2013