How do metaphorical cards work: practical guide, examples and limitations

Metaphorical cards work by presenting an ambiguous image that invites association. A person notices a detail, has an emotional or bodily response, links it to the question and builds an explanation. That explanation may become a useful hypothesis, but it is not automatically a fact, diagnosis or message from the subconscious. The quality of the exercise depends on the wording of the question, freedom to disagree and a later reality check. The less a facilitator supplies the meaning, the more likely the person is to hear their own thought rather than repeat a suggestion.

I once placed the same card in front of two people: an empty chair beside a window. One said, “At last, somewhere to rest.” The other saw the place of someone who was missing. The picture was identical; the current concern, memory and context were not. Since then, I have been especially careful not to offer the first elegant interpretation on another person’s behalf.

Association is a first response, not a final verdict

An association may arrive as a word, memory, bodily sensation, urge to push the card away or wish to keep looking. It shows where attention moved. It does not yet establish what the situation means.

A useful sequence separates four stages:

This order does not dismiss intuition. It stops a quick association from being mistaken for evidence.

Open a metaphorical-card practice in Reflecta

Projection as a cautious frame, not mind-reading

The word “projection” is often used too confidently. In a broad sense, it can describe how people bring expectations, experience and current concerns to an ambiguous stimulus. A single card, however, cannot establish a hidden conflict, personality trait or cause of behaviour.

A careful statement is, “Perhaps this image gives you a way to express something that matters now.” An unsafe statement is, “Your subconscious chose this card because you fear intimacy.” The second closes the inquiry and creates suggestion.

It is more accurate to treat metaphorical cards as a way to organise a conversation with yourself: notice a hypothesis, put it into words and test it. They are not a standardised psychological test.

Why there is no correct answer

A picture can support many readings. The right to say “I feel nothing”, “This card does not fit” or “I see something entirely different” belongs to the method. It is not resistance that must be overcome.

Consider a boat beside the shore:

• one person sees readiness to leave;
• another sees a safe place they are not ready to abandon;
• a third notices that the boat is empty and connects it with lack of support;
• a fourth simply remembers a holiday and does not relate the image to the question.

The task is not to choose the deepest-sounding version. It is to identify which version connects with facts and leads to a useful experiment.

The question shapes attention — and can create suggestion

“What stops me from starting?” directs attention towards barriers. “What support is available?” directs it towards resources. The same neutral picture can be read differently under each question.

A facilitator should therefore avoid supplying an answer:

• replace “That figure looks lonely, doesn’t it?” with “What do you notice about the figure?”;
• replace “Does the door mean a new chapter?” with “What meanings does this door have for you?”;
• replace “Which family member is shown?” with “Does the image remind you of anyone or anything?”;
• replace “What is your subconscious saying?” with “Which hypothesis would you like to test?”

Research on ambiguous figures shows that prior conceptual context can shift which version of an image people perceive. Goolkasian and Woodberry’s study on priming effects with ambiguous figures does not validate metaphorical cards, but it does explain why leading language deserves caution.

One image, two plausible readings

Composite example: a person keeps postponing a conversation about shared responsibilities. They choose a card showing two people carrying a long board through a narrow passage.

Reading one: “We are not coordinating.” Facts: agreements change, work is duplicated and discussions end in irritation. A possible action is to write a short responsibility list together.

Reading two: “I am trying to control both ends.” Facts: the person rarely asks for help and often redoes the other person’s work. A possible action is to hand over one task and agree the result criteria in advance.

Both explanations may fit. To avoid choosing the convenient one automatically, ask: What evidence supports each? What weakens it? What small experiment could distinguish them?

The Reflecta protocol: from image to testable conclusion

1. Form one question about your own sphere of influence.
2. Write down three facts before seeing the card.
3. Describe the image without interpretation.
4. Name the first reaction and bodily response.
5. Form at least two hypotheses.
6. Note facts that support and weaken each one.
7. State your own conclusion without “the card told me”.
8. Choose a small action.
9. Set a criterion and review date.
10. Update the conclusion after a real event.

Save the hypotheses and next step in Reflecta

What research can and cannot support

Studies of ambiguous images show that perception is influenced by context, prior information and expectation. That supports a modest claim: pictures are not interpreted in a vacuum. It does not support the stronger claim that free association reliably reveals personality or an unconscious cause.

The scientific status of diagnostic projective techniques remains contested. A widely cited review by Lilienfeld and colleagues discusses limitations in reliability and validity: The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques. Metaphorical cards should not be presented as a test. Their safer role is an informal tool for reflection, conversation and hypothesis generation.

Research links should not be used as decoration. They are useful here because they set boundaries: ambiguity can stimulate meaning, but a response remains context-dependent and is not an objective measurement of the person.

Working alone and with a facilitator

For self-use, write the question and known facts first. This reduces the temptation to rewrite the starting situation after the card appears. Limit the session to one or two images and finish with an action.

A responsible facilitator protects the person’s interpretation, allows them to pass, does not argue with their response and does not diagnose. If the exercise triggers intense distress, flashbacks, loss of control or concerns immediate danger, stop the card work and seek appropriate professional support.

Conclusion

Metaphorical cards work as a frame for attention. An ambiguous image evokes a response, the question directs attention, and the person constructs a possible meaning. The meaning is not stored in the cardboard; it arises between image, context and experience. The practice becomes useful when the interpretation remains open to alternatives and ends with a real-world check.

Try a careful metaphorical-card reflection in Reflecta

— Sofia Rowan, Official Metaphorical Card Practitioner at Reflecta