Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Coll. Antropol.

22 (f998) I:277-289
UDC 572-026:159.9.072
Original scientifrc papcr

The Projection Questionnaire:

Design, LIse and Utility

V. Bili6, I. Buzov, V. Gruden and N. Joki6-Begi6

Projection is a widesprectd tnecltanism of defence. It is ctn intportant issue in a
num.ber of'antlropological researches. To estim,ate changes in intensity and flexibility of
the projection a mea,suring instrument is unauoidable.
Material: To standardise the questionnaire answers of 250 examinees were used.
They were diuided in two independent groups. Group 1 consisted of 125 patients treated
at Clinic for Psychological Medicine and Group 2 of 125 students in the third year of the
Medical Faculty in Zagreb.
Methods: To process the results a statistical package SPSS rurzs used. A X2 test was
employed and tables of contingency were made. A factor analysis of "The Projection
Questionnaireu was employed and uaritnax rotation separated fiue factors which char-
acteristic roots were gredter than one.
Results: A new instrument for measuring tlrc projection, "The Projection Question-
naire", is deueloped and standardised. A considerable use of the projection by normal
populatiott is confirmed.

Introduction attachment to this projected ideal, the

sense that the loved other represents the
The projection is a widespread mecha- coming alive in external reality of desir-
nism of defence, which indirectly points able, profoundly longed ideal. But in con-
to a level of person's psychic maturation. trast to Freud, Kernberg frnds that only
It is an important issue in a number of in romantic adolescent love ego ideal is
anthropological researchesl-5. projected. In mature love, which in short
means the existcnce of the full integra-
In falling in lovc, the projection has an
tion of genital sexuality into capacity for
important role, as has been explained by
total object relationship, projection gives
Rudanl: "The idealisation of the love re-
way to the sharing of ideals."
flects theprojection onto the other the as-
pects of one's own ego ideal. It is a projec- Urlii2 points a role ofthe projection in
tion that coincides with the profound psychology of shame: "According to the

Reccived for publication January 20, 1997

22 (199 V. Bilii et al.: The Projection Questionnaire, Coll. Antropol. 22 (1998) l:277-289
I i,Lq ct al.: Coll. Ant
nnaire, Coll_.Antropol.
The Projection Questionnaire, ( 1998) 7:277-289

psychoanalytic standpoint, following large group of refugees is dominated by naire" have been (a) to find characteristic male and 59 (47.25Vo) female patients.
Freud, shame is first felt in the family en- early, primitive defence mechanisms projective statements, (b) to establish a The age of patients ranged from 20 to 63
vironment. Later, during the formation of which M. Klein (1946) described as be- validity of the questionnaire, (or correct- years. The average age of patients rvas
instances ofideal nature belonging to su- longing to schizoid-paranoid (projection, ness with which it measures the projec- 37.7 years. TWo psychiatrists independ-
perego, this feeling is internalised. At the splitting, negation) and depressive state tion), (c) to set limits for normal and ently diagnostically estimated the pa-
end of process, shame is experienced in ... Here exists the gap between the two pathological use ofthe projection and (d) tients. The patients dispersed in several
social contacts through projections of good objects, the one form memories and to set limits for normal and pathological MKB-10 psychiatric diagnostic catego-
these instances onto persons and institu- the present one projected on the team use of the projection. ries: a) Neurotic disorders (58). b) Post-
tions." members." traumatic stress disorder (I4), c) Somati-
The projection is also one of mecha- Eysenck6-8 was especially critical of zation disorder (3), d) Antisocial perso-
Sample and methods nality disorder (7), e) Borderline person-
nisms in establishing a symbiotic rela- all psychoanalytical advances. His critics
tionship. "He assumes that a more differ- initiated many rcsearches in efficacy of The first obiective has been to find ality disorder (31), fl Schizophrenia, Schi-
entiated ego is forced to project this psychoanalytic therapy. Many psycho- characteristic projective statements. To zotypal and other psychotic disorders (7),
analystss-20 investigated the connectior.t fulfil that objective the authors had to g) Depressive episode (5). Group 2 con-
archaic nucleus filled with ambiguity and
vagueness into the external world, plac- between group-analysis curative factors evaluate the use ofthe projection by nor- sisted of 125 students in the third year of
ing it into every situation that provides se- and the outcome of curing in their rela- mal population and by psychiatric pa- the Medical Faculty in Zagreb. There
curity, either in case ofparticular partners tion with the clinic picture of patients. trents. were 49 (39.25'/a) male and 76 rc0.85%)
female students. The age ofstudents ran-
or usual way of life and institutions... The Kernbergls, Betty Josephle and Weiss20 Therefore, the authors have consulted
ged from 21 to 30 years. The average age
projection of ambiguity nucleus estab- support the view that it is possible to esti- the literature, exchanged opinions with
of students was 22.2 years.
lishes a "symbiotic relationship.,... The mate the patient's psychic maturation colleagues, and estimated the mode of
primitive defence mechanisms also lead during therapy by observing changes of' mental functioning of various psychiatric There was no diagnostic estimation of
to isolation and hinder the development his,&er mechanisms of defence. patients and psychically compensated in- students because the student group was a
of intimacy (repression, negation andpro- Bilii2a investigates the quantity of the dividuals. Finally, 30 characteristic pro- random choice of normal, psychologically
jection).2. projection in group-analysis and the pos- iective statements for the first version of compensated population.
Gilliland3 observes a considerable use sibility ofevaluating the changes in ther- ,The Projection Questionnaire" have The groups presented independent
of the projection by normal people faced apy by estimating the projection25. Tlying been selected which are listed in the Suo- samples. They differentiated in gender,
with diffrculties: "Through our observa- to achieve a precise evaluation ofthe pro- plement 1. age and psychiatric diagnostic category.
tions we could witness that some of the jection, the first objective was to con- The authors have grouped the state- The difierence between groups in gen-
local residents ofthe island, that were in struct and standardise a specific instru- ments in two categories: der was 23.6Vo in male and 13.5o/o in fe-
a hard position as well, started reinforce- ment for measuring the projection, which a) The statements that reflect the projec- male gender. The difference between
fully using projcctions as an unconscious is presented at the scope of this paper. tion of bad aspects of self and ego. groups in age was 15.5 years per person.
mechanism of defence. Thus, they started These are the even numbered items The most important difference between
to blame the refugees... For instance, (2, 4, 6,8, 10, 12, 14, 76, 78,20,22,24, groups was the presence (group one) or
completely irrationally, they often blamed Goals absence (group two) ofa psychiatric diag-
26. 28 and 30).
the refugees for the Iack of tourists and An acceptable specific instrument for b) The statements that reflect the projec- nostic category.
the downfall of tourism." measuring the defence mechanism pro- tion of idealised aspects of self (ego
- "The Projection Questionnaire" was
Moroa notices a dominance of the pro- jection, was not found using computer in- ideal). These are the odd numbered designed as a self-measuring scale. In
jection in a group therapy of soldiers: "In vestigation of referent databases and in items (1, 3, 5, 7,9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 79, that way, the problem of objectivity has
the initial stage ofgroup therapy aggres- contacts with colleagues. Therefore, the 27,23,25,27 and 29). been solved.
sion andprof ctiuity were dominant...ma- authors had to develop and standardise The sample for standardisation of The next objective was to establish the
jority of group members had come with such an instrument themselves. They validity of the questionnaire (or correct-
it "The Projection Questionnaire." "The Projection Questionnaire" consisted
strong feeling of aggression and belief named of 250 examinees divided in two groups. ness with which it measures the projec-
that others were responsible and to be The new instrument had to fulfil The authors have chosen them by a ran- tion). The last objective was to set limits
blamed for what had happened to them.. measuring characteristics of validity, ob- dom choice method28. Group 1 consisted for normal and pathological use of the
Gregurekl' shows a dominance of the jcctivity. rcliability and measurability27. of'125 patients. They have been treated projection.
projection by refugees in a refugee camp The objectives in developing and stan- at Rebro, Clinic for Psychological Medi- Evaluating the use ofthe projection by
and in therapy: "In group dynamics a dardising of "The Proiection Question- cine, in Zagreb. There were 66 (S2.BSVo) normal population and by psychiatric pa-

278 279
V Bilii et al.:'Ihe Projection Qucstionnaire, Coll. Antropol.22 (1998) l:277-289 V. Bilii et al.: The Projection Questionnaire, Coll. Antropol.22 (19gg) I:277_2g9


tients, consulting the literatur.zr-23, ex- T
changing opinions with coileagues, and 7"?
estimating the mode of mental function- THE STUDENTS THE STUDENTS
ing of various psychiatric patients and Item Level of {-Lnificgnce _ of more often patient o/o
psychically compensated individuals the 1 15.85 0.0032-p<0.005
Vo of more often patient
answeri r1
authors have concluded that patients use 2 29.38 0.0000-p<0.001 Answer Answer
the projection significantly more than 3 14.10 0.0070-p<0.010 Item oo
ao+ Item 1 234
students do. The patient's greater use of 4 30.55 0.0000-p<0.001 2 4 17.6 7.2 r 15.2
the projection in each weil-chosen item 5 14.57 0.0057-p<0.010 A
5.6 16.8 3.2 3 9.6 l-o 6.4
should show a higher score on a measur- 6 40.92 0.0000-p<0.001 6 77.2 18.4 4 5 10.4 8.8
ing scale. The authors had to show a sig- 7 15.54 0.0037*p<0.005 8 7.2 16 7.2 7 8 5.6 5.6 1.6
nificant difference in answers on each B 39.14 0.0000-p<0.001 10 0.8 r5.2 4.8 916 4
item between the groups. 9 20.46 0.0004-p<0.001 12 16.8 16 11 8.8 6.4
10 18.98 0.0008-p<0.001
I4 4.8 9.6 19 16 3.2 2.4
First, both groups have been tested 16 1.9.2 23 17.6
with first version of "11-r" Projection 11 11. 12 0.0252-p<0.050 81224
18 25 16.8
12 32.59 0.0000-p<0.001 lr.2 4.8 5.6 27
Questionnaire." Then the answers were 20 1.6 18.4 0.8
evaluated on a scale graduated from one
13 8.44 0.0767-p>0.050 22 9.6 t2.8 8.8 to 17.2 6.4
to five points. The gathered data were l4 12.06 0.0169-p<0.050 24 3.3 8.9 2.4
transmitted to the electronic media. That 15 5.62 0.2292-p>0.050 26 8.8 r7.2 4.8

enabled a statistical elaboration with sta-

,ttl 10.02 0.0400-p<0.050 28 4 8.8 7.2 1.6
t7 3.16 0.5322-p>0.050 30 6.4 75.2 9.6 (17 of 18), and answer 4 is highly projec-
tistical programs from SPSS2e package trve.
18 60.44 0.0000*p<0.001
and Excel 6.0. The data were qualita-
19 30.51 0.0000-p<0.001 The patients choose answer 3 more
tively elaborated. Tables of contingency
for answers on each item were con-
20 22.79 0.0001 -p<0.001 and 27) the patients have chosen sig- than the students do in a majority of
structed. A x2 test has been used with a
2T 4.7r 0.3184-p>0.050 nificantly more estimations 1 (no, items (14 of 18), and answer 3 is projec-
purpose to show a level ofsignificance for
22 ,tr-o/ 0.0000-p<0.001 never) and 2 (some times). Table B tive.
9? 16.37 0.0026-p<0.005 shows the preference of each answer
each item. The students choose answer 1 more
24 9.67 0.0465-p<0.050 (in percents) in odd numbered items than the patents do in all selected items
27.04 0.0001 -p<0.001 by the patients. ( 18 of 18), and answer 1 is not projective.
26 20.4r 0.0004-p<0.001
Results 20.46 0.0004-p<0.001 By the results, one can conclude that The students choose answer 2 more
Table 1 shows a Xz and a level of sig- 28 18.02 0.0012-p<0.005 the difference between groups in the pro- than the patients do in a majority of
tq 16.15 0.0028-p<0.005 jection of idealised aspects of self (ego items (13 of 18), and answer 2 is minimal
nificance for each iLem.
30 36.17 0.0000-p<0.001 ideal) is not so prominent, as it is in the projective.
The commentary: Table 1 shows a sta- projection of bad aspects of self and ego.
tistically signifrcant difference for the The differences between students"
The next goal was to set limits for nor- and patients< answers (Table 3) enabled
majority of items (p < 0.05). Such a differ-
mal and pathological use of the projec- the construction of Table 4.
ence between the groups shows that the
tive. They have chosen significantly tion, and to construct a measuring scale Table 4 shows the prevailing of an-
choice of items was good.
more evaluations 3 (every other time), of "1h" Projection Questionnaire.. swers of the patients on each item.
Table 1 also shows that for four items 4 (mostly) and 5 (yes, always). One can In meeting that goal, the authors esti- The results enabled the scoring of an-
(13, 15, 17 and 21), a level of significance
see it in Table 2. mated the differences between students'
is higher than 0.05. This is not a statisti- swers and the construction of a measur-
and patents" answers (Table 3). ing scale of "The Projection Question-
cally significant difference between the Table 2 shows a preference ofeach an-
group 1 and 2. Therefore, these items swer (in percents) in even items by pa- The patients choose answer b more naire". Answer 1 was scored 0 points,
have been omitted from further elabora- tients. than the students do in all selected items answer 2-1 point, answer 3-2 points, an-
(18 of 18), and answer 5 is the most pro- swer 4-3 points and answer 5-4 points.
tion and excluded from the final version b) The answers on the odd numbered jective.
of "1h" Projection Questionnaire." items differed from the one's on the In eighteen items (2, 4, 6,7, B, I0, 12,
a) Answering to the even numbered even numbered items. In the eight odd
The patients choose answer 4 more t4, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29 and
items. the patients were more projec- than the students do in almost everv item 30) the patients were more projective
numbered items (1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 23,25

280 28I
V Bilii et al.: The Projection Qucstionnaire, Coll Antropol. 22 (1998) l:277-289 V Bilii et al.: The Projection Questionnaire, Coll. Antropol. 22 (1999) I:277_2g9

Thirty-one patients were diagnosed as I'OINTS SCORED BY THE PATIBNTS FRONI
The score from zero to nineteen points
ANSWERS PATIENTS CHOOSE NIOSTLY a "Borderline personality 61s61ds1.. They shows a low use of the projection. The an-
scored different results. The lowest score swers of'the students grouped mostly in
Answer was twenty-five points. Answers of Diagnose Points that range (72.8Vr). The authors conclu-
&e:l 34 twenty-six patients (83.8%) grouped abo- 7 (1), 9 (2), 10 (1), 11 ded that such a projective intensity
2 PPP vethirty-five points. From these, answers (2), 13 (3), 15 (1), 16 shows a normal use of the projection, and
4 PPP of trventy-three patients (77.4Vo) were (1), 17 (2), 18 (3), 19 reveals no significant psychopathology.
6 PPP among thirty-five and fifty-three points, (4), 20 (3), 27 (3),22
PPP Ncurosis 58 The score from twenty to thirty-four
and answers of three patients (6.47o) @),23 (6),24 (r),25 points shows a somewhat higher use of
B PPP (.6),26 (4),27 (3),28
10 PPP above fifty-three points. The maximum the projection. The scores of neurotic dis-
(2), s0 (1), 32 (2),33
12 PP scored result was sixty points. order patients were mostly in that range
(1), 34 (1), 38 (1)
T4 PP Fourteen patients were diagnosed as a (63.8Vo).
P 25 (),),26 Q),27 (7),
"Posttraumatic stress disorderu. Answers
18 PPP 28 (1), 33 (1), 35 (4), The authors concluded that such an
of two patients (.74.2Vo') were up to nine- 36 (3), 37 (1), 38 (2), intensity of use of the projection, which
19 P PPP teen points. Arsrvers of' nine patients
20 P PPP Borderline 31 1r (2), 42 (1), 43 (2), somewhat exceeds the normal level, re-
22 PPP rc4.2'/i) grouped from twenty to thirty- 45 (r), 46 (r),47 (2), veals a moderate psychopathology.
24 PPP four points, and answers ofthree patients 50 (1), s2 (.3),54 (.2),

PPP (2I.4Eo) above thirty-five points. 60 (1) The score of thirty-five and more
PPP points shows a highest use of the projec-
28 P Seven patients were diagnosed as a 73, 15,24,26,28,29,
PP tion. The scores ofborderline disorder pa-
29 P PTSD 14 30, 31 (2), 33 (2),37,
30 PPP "Schizophreniau, or a "Schizotypal and 39,40 tients were mostly in that range (83.87a).
other psychotic disorder". Anslvers oftwo Thc authors concluded that such an in-
patients (28.5o/o) were up to nineteen Psychosis 7
12, 76,24 (2),29, 47,
tensity of use of the projection, which sig-
points. Answets of three patients (42.8Ea) 4)
than the students were. Such a result nificantly exceeds the normal and moder-
confirms a hypothesis that psychiatric
grouped from twenty to thirty-four Psychopath 7 25,28 (2),33, 38, 45, ate use of projection, reveals a serious
points, and of two patients (28.5%') above 49 psychopathology.
patients are more projective than psycho- +hirfrr-firra nnintc
logically healthy population. The final Pathologic mourning 28,31,33,38,50
/dcpressive reaction 5
The sensibility and calibrations of
version of "The Projection Questionnaire" Seven patients were diagnosed as an
"The Projection Questionnaire" were ob-
consists of these items. "Antisocial personality disorder". Answers Psychosomatic 3 I, 12,1,4 tained by scoring the results by a unique
The items were renumbered from 1 to
of four patients (57.IE;) grouped from TOTAL 125 measuring scale. The authors evaluated
twenty to thirty-four points, and of three every answer in each questionnaire item
18, starting with the item 2, which is in
patients G2.8E() above thirty-five points. in order to determine its score in points.
the final version the item number 1, etc.
Five patients rvere diagnosed as a "De- By summing all points on all items, the
The final version of "The Projection pressive episode". Answers of three pa- grouped from twenty to thirty-four points. range ofresults scored by the group 1 (pa-
Questionnaire" is enclosed in Supplement 3. tients (607o) grouped from twenty to Answers of two students (1.67a) grouped tients) and group 2 (students) was gai-
The following results were obtained: thirty-four points, and of two patients above thirty-four points: one scored thir- ned.
(407o) above thirty-five points. ty-five, and the other thirty-seven points.
Patients Three patients were diagnosed as a The obtained results enabled the sau-
The results scored by the patients "Somatization disorder". Their ansrvers ging of ,'The Projcction Questionnaire" Factor-analysis of "The Projection
were not homogenous. They dispersed grouped up to nineteen Points. measuring scale. The primary considera- Questionnaire"
through diagnostic categories. Tabie 5 shows how many points the tion was given to the answers of the stu-
patients from various diagnostic catego- dents, ,\slrlotic disorder. and uBorder- Factor anaiysis of "16. Projection
Fifty-eight patients werc diagnosed as
a "Neurotic disorder". Answers of twenty ries scored. line personality disorder" patients. The Questionnaire< was done. Five factors
number of patients from the other diag- were separated by varimax rotation (cha-
patients (34.50/") grouped up to nineteen
Students nostic categories was to small to be of sie- racteristic roots > 1).
points. Answers of thirty-seven patients
(63.80/") groupcd from twcnty to thirty- Ansrvers of ninety-one students (72.8%,)
nificance. After estimating such dispei- Thc only exception was the item 10,
four points. Only one paticnt (1.7%) grouped from three to nineteen points. sion of answers of the students and the which dispersed over all factors, and have
patients, the following limits were set: been included in all item groups.
scored above thirty-four points. Answers of thirty-one students (24.8Eo)

282 283
V Bilii et al.: The Projection Questionnaire, Coll. Antropol.22 (1998) 7:277-289 _ V. Bili6 et al; The Projection Questionnaire, Coll. Antropol.22 1gg8) 1:277-289

On factor F 1 the following items pro- tional deprivation, but not guilt feeling, is ideal) are not so prominent as in the pro- is wrongly seeing the cause in external
jected: prominent. Therefore, here we are deal- jection of unpleasant psychic contents. factors.
5. People are insincere towards me, 6. ing with a regressive dyadic issue2, more The requirement of reliability (the sta-
The dispersion of answers between pa-
I noticed gossip about me, 2. People are than with superego thal causes guilt. bility of results in re-testing the same
tients and students on each item enabled
dishonest to me, 18. The cause of my iso- population) is open for further research.
On factor F 4 the following items pro- the estimation of their levels of use of the
Iation is that my social er.rvironment does Most of the population included in the
jected: projection.
not understand me, 12. People hate me. standardisation of 'The Projection Ques-
4. I personally know infallible persons, A factor analysis pointed also to the tionnaire" was not available for re-test-
Factor 1 describes the hostile relation- 11. I personally know faultless persons, qualitative structure of the projection ing. The patients have been treated by
ships of individual towards environment. 17. I personally know persons who solved process. few therapists, and were not available for
One experiences, because of the projec- all their problems. The grouping of answers of the stu- re-testing. Many of the students have
tion, the relationship inversely - seeing
This factor encompassed the projec- dents and the patients from various diag- chosen to remain anonymous. The aut-
the environment as hostile. tion of highly estimated self-aspects (ego nostic categories has been an orientation hors have offered them that possibility, to
for normal, moderate and high pathologi- achieve greater co-operation and honesty
On factor F 2 the following items pro- ideal). Here we also see a close connection
between projection and idealisationl. cal use of the projection. This was a way in their answering.
jected: to set limits to the normal, moderate and A task for further research is to prove
1. Outside factors are responsible for On factor F 5 the following items pro- high pathological use of the projection. the reliability of "The Projection Ques-
my difficulties, 3. The cause of my fail- jected: It has been applied only to items for tionnaire". To accomplish that task, it is
ures is my social environment, B. The which the statistical significant differ- necessary to test a greater sample ofvari-
9. I feel strong repulsion to homosexu-
causes of my anger are other people, 7. ence in answers of the students and the ous diagnostic categories ofpatients, pos-
als, 14. The cause of my passivity is that
The causes ofmy fear are outer incidents. patients has been established. sible from different psychiatric institu-
the social environment does not induce trons.
The factor 2 points to the external Io- me enough to activity. A factor analysis was applied to those
items. The results of the factor analysis The reliability of instrument would be
cus ofcontrol. (Others are responsible for This factor shows a negative conela- confirmed ifa certain diagnostic category
my experiences). tion between answers on items 9 and 14. enabled further consideration about the
nature and kinds of the very process of would score a predictable and specific re-
At this point, it is important to men- That makes the connection of latent ho- sult, different from the score of other di-
the projection.
tion that one of the major goals in psycho- mosexual and other passive tendencies agnostic categories.
possible. The items grouped under F 1 and F 2
therapy is removing the locus of control
denote a Dpure< projection: not recognising
from outside and putting it inside. In The item 10. which is in group of items of psychic contents (bad and idealised) as Conclusions
other words, it is a sign of progress if a that best differentiate the patients from parts ofself. a) F 1 - the recognition ofbad
patient is using less the projection, be- students, is evenly dispersed at all fac- in external reality b) F 4 - the recognition The projection is not a process that is
having responsible, and accepts himself tors. We can say that this item represents of idealised in external reality. uniformly defined. It can point to differ-
as a creator of his experience4's. the measure of the projection that in- The items grouped under ent psychic states, from normal to patho-
cludes what is said for all factors.
F b show logical.
On factor F 3 the following items pro- negative correlation between one,s stance
toward homosexuality and passivity. A It is possible to differentiate the vari-
jected: ous levels of psychic maturity, in other
Discussion person defends from his unrecognised
15. My social environment is causing and unacceptable passive parts rhomo- words of psychopathology, trough estima-
my guilty feeling, 16. The cause of my Normal people also use the projection sexual and others). One uses radical de- ting the projection level. In this research,
sexual problems is in my partner, 13. The in a certain measure3. It is hard to esti- fences, such as projection and denial3O. a factor analysis has shown that differ-
cause of my emotional problems is not ences in the projection are qualitative as
mate which level of use of the projection The more one uses the projection and
getting enough love from my social envi- well.
is still normal or closer to psychopathol- denial as defences against his unrecog-
ronment, 18. The cause of my isolation, is Normal population and psychiatric
ogy. The evaluation of intensity of use of nised homosexual tendencies, the less he patients differ in their use of the projec-
a fact that my social environment does the projection that points to specific psy- accepts his passive tendencies at all. The
tion. The differences in the projection of
not understand me. chopathology is not an easy task. emphasis is on activity and the passive positive aspects ofself(ego ideal) and are
We can expiain factor 3 similarly as The results of this research confirmed tendencies have to be denied.
not so prominent as differences in the pro-
factor 2. The difference is in emotions that normal population and population of The items grouped under factors F 2 jection of unpleasant psychic contenti.
gained from the social environment. The psychiatric patients differ in their use of and F 3 describe less pathological use of Various diagnostic categories of pa-
issue here is in a poor stimulation of emo- the projection. The differences in the pro- the projection. One is recognising his in- tients also differ in their use ofthe projec-
tions by the social environment. The emo- jection of positive aspects of self (ego ner problems, but using the projection, he tion. The results of this research enablc

284 26i)
V. Bilii et al.: The Projection Questionnaire, Coll. Antropol.22 (1998) )':277-289 _V,.
Bilii et al.: The Projection.Q!grtr!.1u,.", Coll. Antropol. 22 (1998) I:277_289

the conclusion that quantitative and was relatively small. Further research on
qualitative differences in the projection a greater population is necessary for defi- Materijal: Za standardizaciju upitnika upotrebljeni su odgovori 250 ispitanika. Ispi-
are specific. nite conclusions about intensity and tanici su bili podijeljeni u dvije nezavisne grupe. Grupu 1 sadinjavaloie 12b pacijenala,
The sample of patients, when dis- specificity ofthe projcction for each diag- lijedenih na Klinici za psiholosku medicinu, a grupu 2, 125 studenata treie godine Me-
persed in various diagnostic categories nostic category. dicinskog fakulteta u Zagrebu.
Metode: Rezultati su obradeni statistidkim paketom SpsS. primjenjen je
x2 test i
sastavljene su tablice kontingencije. Udinjena je faktorska analiza
"Upitnika projek-
REFERENCES tivnosti" i varimax rotacijom izoliralno je pet faktora s karakteristidnim korienom ve-
iim od jedan.
1. RUDAN, V, Coll. Antropol., 20 (1996) I49.
-2. DIES, R., K. R. MACK-ENZIE (Eds.): Advances in Rezultati: Sastavljen je i standardiziran novi mjerni instrument za projekciju,
URLIC, L, Coll. Antropol., 20 (1996) 319. group psycholherapy: Integrating research and prac-
- 3. GILLI-4.
LAND, M. K., Coll. Antropol., 19 (1995) 103. tice. (Arncrican Group Psychotherapy Association, "Upitnik pro.iektivnosti". Potvrileno je da normalna populacija znadajno upotrebljava
MORO, LJ., Coll. Antropol., 19 (1995).113. 5. GRE- Nerv Vrrk, 1983). 18. STONE, M. H., C. M. LEWIS, projekciju.
GUREK, R., Coll. Antropol., 18 (1994) 231. 6. EY-
A. P BECK, Int. ,I. Group. Psychother.,44 (1994) 239.
SENCK, H. J., J. Consult. Psychol., 16 (1952) 319. 19. SHEEHAN, J. D., X,I. FITZGERALD, GTOUP
7. EYSENCK, H. J.: The future of psychiatry. (Me- - analysis, 27 (7994\ 2Il. 20. KLAIN, E., Psihotera-
thuen, London, 1975). 8. EYSENCK, H. J.: Decline piia, 20 (1990) 2I. 2r.- KERNBERG, O. F., J. Am.
and fall ofthe Freudian empire. (Penguin, Harmond-
Psychoanal. Assoc., 35 (1987) 795. 22. JOSEPH,
9. JONES, fl. E., J. CASTON, A.
8., In: SANDLER, J. (Ed.): Proiection, identification,
srvorth, 1986).
SKOLNIKOFF, J. Am. Psychoanal. Assoc., 40 (1992) projective identification. (Karnac Books, London,
625. 10. I{ANTROWITZ, J. L., J. Am. Psychoanal. 1988). 23. WEISS, J., Psychoanal. Siudy Child,
Assoc., 40 (1992) 628. 11. WATTERSON, D. J., lnt.
(1971) 177. 24. BILIC, V: Projection as indicator of
- 232. 12. YALOM, I. D.:
J. Psychoanal., 35 (1954)
psychotherapy effectiveness. (In Croat.) (M.A. Thesis,
The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. (Btr- Metlical l'aculty. Zrgreb. 1996r. - 25. BILIC. V.. t.
sic Books Inc. Publishers, New York, 1975). 13. BUZOV V GRUDEN, Soc. psihijatr., (ln press). 26.
- -
DIES, R., K. R. MACKENZIE (Eds.): Advances in RADOSEVIC, Z.: Conference on neurology and psy-
group psychotherapy: Integrating research and prac- chiatry. (In Croat.) (Lek, Ljubljana, 1969). 27.
tice. (American Group Psychotherapy Association, BLAZEV]C, D., M. BECK-DVORZAK, M. VLATKO-
Int. J. Group. Psychother., 44 (199,1) 185. 15. GRUDEN, M. KULENOVIC, V VIDOVIC, G. LE-
BOND, G. R., ln: DIES, R., K. R. MACKENZIE ROTIC, L.J. MORO: Influence of parental neurotic
(Eds.): Advances in group psychotherapy: Integrating and othcr patholoplcal regulatory mechanisms on for-
research and practice. (Arnerican Group Psychother- mation of palhological regulatory rnechanisms in
apy Association, New \brk, 1983). 16. LIEBER- children. (In Croat.). (Center for Mcntal Health, Za-
MAN, M. A., In: DIES, R., K. R. N{ACKENZIE (Eds.): greb, 1980). 28. SPSS: Statistical package lor the
Advances in group psychotherapy: Integrating re-
social sciences (Release 3). (Mc Graw-Hill, New York,
search and practice. (American Group Psychotherapy 1986), 29. GREGUR!]K, R., I. LADIKA, E. KLAIN,
Association, Nerv York, 1983). 17. COCHE, E., Iu:
('oll. Ant|opol.. z0 r 19961 345.

v. Bilii
Uniuersity of Zagreb, Clinic for Psychological Medicine,
KiipcLtileua 12, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia


Projekcija je opdeproSiren mehanizam obrane. Pitanje projekcije znaiajno je u
odredenom broju antropoloSkih istraZivanja. Za procjenu promjena intenziteta i fleksi-
bilnosti projekcije neophodan je mjerni instrument.

286 287
V Bilii et al.: Thc Projection Questionnaire, Co)l. Antropol.22 (1998) 7:277-289 V. Bili6 et al.: Thc Projection Questionnaire 99\t{'"p"! 3t (lee8) 1: 2T?_28e

Supplement 7 Supplement 2
Tlrc first uersion of "Tlrc Projection Questiottnairen for students. Th2 uorlting uersiotT of "'I'he Projection Questinttrtnire" lbr tlte potiertls.

QUESTIONNAIRF] Versiort for the patients in the introdu.ctory parl ltas also rubrics:
Allow us to ask you to co-operale in designing of a new diagnostic instrutnent. How long disturbances lasl
Assistance is possibLe by ansuering following i.Lents in questionnaire following your reol feeling
Preuious healing.
and etperiettce. It''lou ttis/t, you catt rentain anotlltnous. In th.ot case, quote only your initiaLs.
The rest is the scLme as tlrc tocn'king uersion for tJrc studeris
Nante and surnenre
The year of birth.
Fi rt islttd scltool u ttJ pro[cssion
Marital stelu.s .

'Ibday's date Supplement 3

T'he final uersion of "The Projection Questionnaire'.
1N S 7 R U C T I ON - eualuate tlrc t'bllouing itents ort one of fiue possible uays
Name and surname
1 No (neuer) 2 Some times 3 Euery other uay 4 Mostly 5 Yes (euer) The year of birtlr.
Resident city. . . .
ITEMS: Finished sclrcol and profession
7. I personally hnow contpletely sincere people. 12 34 5 Maritalstatus....
2. Outer t'actors are responsible for my difficulties. 12 34 Today's date
3. I personally hnow people wlto are fuLl of loue fbr others. 12 34 HoLu Long disturbances last
1. People are dislt.ortest to nte. 12 34 5 Prauious ltealing.
5. I pcrsorrully know extremely responsibLe people. 12 34 5
6. 'I'he cause of nty faiLures is my social enuirortnrent. 12 34 IN S ? R U C T I ON - eualuate the followitsl itents ort one of fiue possibLe ways:
7. I personall.y know infalLible persons. 12 34 5
8. People are insincere totuard.s me. 12 3'1 1 No 1teuer) 2 Some times 3 Euery other uay I Mostly 5 Yes (euer)
9. I pcrsonaLLy l?nou extremely ltonest people. 12 J4 5
70, I rtotir:t:d gossip abont me. 12 34 ITEMS:
17. I personaLly hnow persons who are extremely good. 12 34 5 7. Outer factors are responsible fbr my dit'ficulties. 2315
12. 7'1rc cctuses of m1 fear are outer incidents. 12 34 x 2. People are dishonest to me. 2345
13. Sonze people which I personally know, I respect more than I do myself. 12 34 3. The cause of nzy fctilures is my social enuironment. 2345
14. TIte couses of nty anger are other people. 12 34 4. I personally hnow infallible persons. 2315
75. I personal,ly know people, who earn ntoney with no effort. 12 34 5. People are insincere towards me. 2345
76. I feel strong repulsion lo lnmosexuals. 34 6. I noticed gossip obout rne 2,345
17. I adntire sonte people uhorn I personalLy know. 12 QA 7. Tlrc causes of nry fear are outer incidents. 1 2345
78. I Jnue a feeling th.at destiny is pLotting against n're. 12 t, 8. The causes of my anger are other people. 1 2345
79. I persornlly hnow fauLtLess persons. 12 34 9. I feel strong repulsion to h.otnosexuals. I 2345
20. People hate nte. 12 a, 70. I haue a feeling tlrut destiny is plotting ogairtst me. I 2345
27. I personally hnow people whom I consider truly great souls. 12 17. I personally hnow fo.uLtless persons. I 2345
22, T'he couse of my entotional problems is ttot getting enough loue from tny 72. People hote me. 1 2:1 45
sociol enuircrtntent. 12 J+C 13. 'I'he cause of my emolional problenzs is tlui I clo not gairt enougll Loue
23. I personally hnow irreploceable people. 12 J4) from nty enuironmenl I 2315
24.'I'h.e cattse of nty passiuity is that tJrc social e,,uirctnnrcnt cloes not induce 74. The cause of my passiuity is that the social enuironmeril does not inrluce
nte crtouglt lo ocliuil!. 12 rne enough lo ocliuill. I 2345
25. I personally knou people whom I trust contpl.etely. .i4c 75. My social enuironment is the cause of my feeling guilty. 1 2345
26. My social enuironment is llre cause of my feeling guilty. 12 J40 16. The cause of my sexual probLems is in my partner. 1 2345
27. I personally lenow extreme!.y wise people. 12 .J4C 77. I personally know persons uho solued aIL their problerns' 1 2345
28. Tlte cause of my sexual problents is irt my pertner. 12 78, The cause of my isolotion is that nty social en'uironnt'ent does
29. I personally know persons who solued o,ll tlLeir problerns. 12 345 not understand me. l 2315
30. The cause of nty isolation is tltat my socicLl ent:ironment cloes not und.erstand. me 12 345
288 289