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

ABSTRACT
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

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

Reccived for publication January 20, 1997

277

I i,Lq ct al.:
nnaire, Coll_.Antropol.
The Projection Questionnaire,
psychoanalytic standpoint, following
Freud, shame is first felt in the family en-
vironment. Later, during the formation of
instances ofideal nature belonging to su-
perego, this feeling is internalised. At the
end of process, shame is experienced in
social contacts through projections of
these instances onto persons and institu-
tions."
The projection is also one of mecha-
nisms in establishing a symbiotic rela-
tionship. "He assumes that a more differ-
entiated ego is forced to project this
archaic nucleus filled with ambiguity and
vagueness into the external world, plac-
ing it into every situation that provides se-
curity, either in case ofparticular partners
or usual way of life and institutions... The
projection of ambiguity nucleus estab-
lishes a "symbiotic relationship.,... The
primitive defence mechanisms also lead
to isolation and hinder the development
of intimacy (repression, negation andpro-
jection).2.
Gilliland3 observes a considerable use
of the projection by normal people faced
with diffrculties: "Through our observa-
tions we could witness that some of the
local residents ofthe island, that were in
a hard position as well, started reinforce-
fully using projcctions as an unconscious
mechanism of defence. Thus, they started
to blame the refugees... For instance,
completely irrationally, they often blamed
the refugees for the Iack of tourists and
the downfall of tourism."
Moroa notices a dominance of the pro-
jection in a group therapy of soldiers: "In
the initial stage ofgroup therapy aggres-
sion andprof ctiuity were dominant...ma-
jority of group members had come with
strong feeling of aggression and belief
that others were responsible and to
blamed for what had happened to them..
Gregurekl' shows a dominance of the
projection by refugees in a refugee camp
and in therapy: "In group dynamics
278
22 (199
Coll. Ant
( 1998) 7:277-289
large group of refugees is dominated by
early, primitive defence mechanisms
which M. Klein (1946) described as be-
longing to schizoid-paranoid (projection,
splitting, negation) and depressive state
... Here exists the gap between the two
good objects, the one form memories and
the present one projected on the team
members."
Eysenck6-8 was especially critical of
all psychoanalytical advances. His critics
initiated many rcsearches in efficacy of
psychoanalytic therapy. Many psycho-
analystss-20 investigated the connectior.t
between group-analysis curative factors
and the outcome of curing in their rela-
tion with the clinic picture of patients.
Kernbergls, Betty Josephle and Weiss20
support the view that it is possible to esti-
mate the patient's psychic maturation
during therapy by observing changes of'
his,&er mechanisms of defence.
Bilii2a investigates the quantity of the
projection in group-analysis and the pos-
sibility ofevaluating the changes in ther-
apy by estimating the projection25. Tlying
to achieve a precise evaluation ofthe pro-
jection, the first objective was to con-
struct and standardise a specific instru-
ment for measuring the projection, which
is presented at the scope of this paper.
Goals
An acceptable specific instrument for
measuring the defence mechanism pro-
- "The Projection Questionnaire" was
jection, was not found using computer in-
vestigation of referent databases and in
contacts with colleagues. Therefore, the
authors had to develop and standardise
such an instrument themselves. They
it "The Projection Questionnaire."
named
be The new instrument had to fulfil
measuring characteristics of validity, ob-
jcctivity. rcliability and measurability27.
The objectives in developing and stan-
a dardising of "The Proiection Question-
V. Bilii et al.: The Projection Questionnaire, Coll. Antropol. 22 (1998) l:277-289
naire" have been (a) to find characteristic
projective statements, (b) to establish a
validity of the questionnaire, (or correct-
ness with which it measures the projec-
tion), (c) to set limits for normal and
pathological use ofthe projection and (d)
to set limits for normal and pathological
use of the projection.
Sample and methods
The first obiective has been to find
characteristic projective statements. To
fulfil that objective the authors had to
evaluate the use ofthe projection by nor-
mal population and by psychiatric
trents.
Therefore, the authors have consulted
the literature, exchanged opinions with
colleagues, and estimated the mode of
mental functioning of various psychiatric
patients and psychically compensated in-
dividuals. Finally, 30 characteristic pro-
iective statements for the first version of
,The Projection Questionnaire" have
been selected which are listed in the Suo-
plement 1.
The authors have grouped the state-
ments in two categories:
a) The statements that reflect the projec-
tion of bad aspects of self and ego.
These are the even numbered items
(2, 4, 6,8, 10, 12, 14, 76, 78,20,22,24,
26. 28 and 30).
b) The statements that reflect the projec-
tion of idealised aspects of self (ego
ideal). These are the odd numbered
items (1, 3, 5, 7,9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 79,
27,23,25,27 and 29).
The sample for standardisation of
"The Projection Questionnaire" consisted
of 250 examinees divided in two groups.
The authors have chosen them by a ran-
dom choice method28. Group 1 consisted
of'125 patients. They have been treated
at Rebro, Clinic for Psychological Medi-
cine, in Zagreb. There were 66 (S2.BSVo)
male and 59 (47.25Vo) female patients.
The age of patients ranged from 20 to 63
years. The average age of patients rvas
37.7 years. TWo psychiatrists independ-
ently diagnostically estimated the pa-
tients. The patients dispersed in several
MKB-10 psychiatric diagnostic catego-
ries: a) Neurotic disorders (58). b) Post-
traumatic stress disorder (I4), c) Somati-
zation disorder (3), d) Antisocial perso-
nality disorder (7), e) Borderline person-
ality disorder (31), fl Schizophrenia, Schi-
zotypal and other psychotic disorders (7),
g) Depressive episode (5). Group 2 con-
sisted of 125 students in the third year of
pa- the Medical Faculty in Zagreb. There
were 49 (39.25'/a) male and 76 rc0.85%)
female students. The age ofstudents ran-
ged from 21 to 30 years. The average age
of students was 22.2 years.
There was no diagnostic estimation of
students because the student group was a
random choice of normal, psychologically
compensated population.
The groups presented independent
samples. They differentiated in gender,
age and psychiatric diagnostic category.
The difierence between groups in gen-
der was 23.6Vo in male and 13.5o/o in fe-
male gender. The difference between
groups in age was 15.5 years per person.
The most important difference between
groups was the presence (group one) or
absence (group two) ofa psychiatric diag-
nostic category.
designed as a self-measuring scale. In
that way, the problem of objectivity has
been solved.
The next objective was to establish the
validity of the questionnaire (or correct-
ness with which it measures the projec-
tion). The last objective was to set limits
for normal and pathological use of the
projection.
Evaluating the use ofthe projection by
normal population and by psychiatric pa-
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

TABLE TABLE 2 TABLE

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

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

282 283
V Bilii et al.: The Projection Questionnaire, Coll. Antropol.22 (1998) 7:277-289
On factor F 1 the following items pro-
jected:
5. People are insincere towards me, 6.
I noticed gossip about me, 2. People are
dishonest to me, 18. The cause of my iso-
Iation is that my social er.rvironment does
not understand me, 12. People hate me.
Factor 1 describes the hostile relation-
ships of individual towards environment.
One experiences, because of the projec-
tion, the relationship inversely - seeing
the environment as hostile.
On factor F 2 the following items pro-
jected:
1. Outside factors are responsible for
my difficulties, 3. The cause of my fail-
ures is my social environment, B. The
causes of my anger are other people, 7.
The causes ofmy fear are outer incidents.
The factor 2 points to the external Io-
cus ofcontrol. (Others are responsible for
my experiences).
At this point, it is important to men-
tion that one of the major goals in psycho-
therapy is removing the locus of control
from outside and putting it inside. In
other words, it is a sign of progress if a
patient is using less the projection, be-
having responsible, and accepts himself
as a creator of his experience4's.
On factor F 3 the following items pro-
jected:
15. My social environment is causing
my guilty feeling, 16. The cause of my
sexual problems is in my partner, 13. The
cause of my emotional problems is not
getting enough love from my social envi-
ronment, 18. The cause of my isolation, is
a fact that my social environment
not understand me.
We can expiain factor 3 similarly as
factor 2. The difference is in emotions
gained from the social environment. The
issue here is in a poor stimulation of emo-
tions by the social environment. The emo-
284
tional deprivation, but not guilt feeling, is
prominent. Therefore, here we are deal-
ing with a regressive dyadic issue2, more
than with superego thal causes guilt.
On factor F 4 the following items pro-
jected:
4. I personally know infallible persons,
11. I personally know faultless persons,
17. I personally know persons who solved
all their problems.
This factor encompassed the projec-
tion of highly estimated self-aspects (ego
ideal). Here we also see a close connection
between projection and idealisationl.
On factor F 5 the following items pro-
jected:
9. I feel strong repulsion to homosexu-
als, 14. The cause of my passivity is that
the social environment does not induce
me enough to activity.
This factor shows a negative conela-
tion between answers on items 9 and 14.
That makes the connection of latent ho-
mosexual and other passive tendencies
possible.
The item 10. which is in group of items
that best differentiate the patients from
students, is evenly dispersed at all fac-
tors. We can say that this item represents
the measure of the projection that in-
cludes what is said for all factors.
Discussion
Normal people also use the projection
in a certain measure3. It is hard to esti-
mate which level of use of the projection
is still normal or closer to psychopathol-
ogy. The evaluation of intensity of use of
does the projection that points to specific psy-
chopathology is not an easy task.
The results of this research confirmed
that normal population and population of
psychiatric patients differ in their use of
the projection. The differences in the pro-
jection of positive aspects of self (ego
_ V. Bili6 et al; The Projection Questionnaire, Coll. Antropol.22 1gg8) 1:277-289
ideal) are not so prominent as in the pro-
jection of unpleasant psychic contents.
The dispersion of answers between pa-
tients and students on each item enabled
the estimation of their levels of use of the
projection.
A factor analysis pointed also to the
qualitative structure of the projection
process.
The grouping of answers of the stu-
dents and the patients from various diag-
nostic categories has been an orientation
for normal, moderate and high pathologi-
cal use of the projection. This was a way
to set limits to the normal, moderate and
high pathological use of the projection.
It has been applied only to items for
which the statistical significant differ-
ence in answers of the students and the
patients has been established.
A factor analysis was applied to those
items. The results of the factor analysis
enabled further consideration about the
nature and kinds of the very process of
the projection.
The items grouped under F 1 and F 2
denote a Dpure< projection: not recognising
of psychic contents (bad and idealised) as
parts ofself. a) F 1 - the recognition ofbad
in external reality b) F 4 - the recognition
of idealised in external reality.
The items grouped under
F b show
negative correlation between one,s stance
toward homosexuality and passivity. A
person defends from his unrecognised
and unacceptable passive parts rhomo-
sexual and others). One uses radical de-
fences, such as projection and denial3O.
The more one uses the projection and
denial as defences against his unrecog-
nised homosexual tendencies, the less he
accepts his passive tendencies at all. The
emphasis is on activity and the passive
tendencies have to be denied.
The items grouped under factors F 2
and F 3 describe less pathological use of
the projection. One is recognising his in-
ner problems, but using the projection, he
is wrongly seeing the cause in external
factors.
The requirement of reliability (the sta-
bility of results in re-testing the same
population) is open for further research.
Most of the population included in the
standardisation of 'The Projection Ques-
tionnaire" was not available for re-test-
ing. The patients have been treated by
few therapists, and were not available for
re-testing. Many of the students have
chosen to remain anonymous. The aut-
hors have offered them that possibility, to
achieve greater co-operation and honesty
in their answering.
A task for further research is to prove
the reliability of "The Projection Ques-
tionnaire". To accomplish that task, it is
necessary to test a greater sample ofvari-
ous diagnostic categories ofpatients, pos-
sible from different psychiatric institu-
trons.
The reliability of instrument would be
confirmed ifa certain diagnostic category
would score a predictable and specific re-
sult, different from the score of other di-
agnostic categories.
Conclusions
The projection is not a process that is
uniformly defined. It can point to differ-
ent psychic states, from normal to patho-
logical.
It is possible to differentiate the vari-
ous levels of psychic maturity, in other
words of psychopathology, trough estima-
ting the projection level. In this research,
a factor analysis has shown that differ-
ences in the projection are qualitative as
well.
Normal population and psychiatric
patients differ in their use of the projec-
tion. The differences in the projection of
positive aspects ofself(ego ideal) and are
not so prominent as differences in the pro-
jection of unpleasant psychic contenti.
Various diagnostic categories of pa-
tients also differ in their use ofthe projec-
tion. The results of this research enablc
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-
NewYork, 1983). 14. TSCHUSCHKE, V, R. DIES, VIC.PRPIC. E. KLAIN. E, CIVIDINI-STRANIC. V
-
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

UPITNIK PROJEKTNTNOSTI: SASTA\.LJANJE, UPORABA I PRIMJENA

SAZETAK
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
tl'Le
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.
Rcsidentcity...
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