Projective Tests: Thematic Apperception Test and Related Methods

UPI Study › Courses › Psychology of Personality › Free lessons › Lesson 2.5 Free with a free account

Projective Tests: Thematic Apperception Test and Related Methods

Psychology of Personality · Chapter 2: Methods and Ethics in Personality ResearchSection 2.5 · lesson 10 of 838 min · free with a free account

← Trait Assessment, OCEAN Model, and Fundamental Attribution ErrorNext lesson: Nomothetic and Idiographic Analyses of Personality Traits →

Earn 3 college credits for Psychology of PersonalityRecommended for credit by NCCRS · Psychology 300 · self-paced · one payment, lifetime access
Enroll in Psychology of Personality · $250 →Download the syllabus (PDF)

In this lesson

A method with modest reliability that still earns a place, if you know what to use it for.

  • Explain the assumption underlying projective assessment
  • Describe how the TAT elicits and codes responses
  • State why reliability is weaker than for self-report
  • Place projective findings correctly in an assessment

Free study notes

Get this lesson's notes by email

The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.

One email. Unsubscribe in one click.

Transcript

Everything said in the video, section by section (1,089 words). Read along, or search it.

Methods and Ethics in Personality Research

Projective Tests and the Thematic Apperception Test

Here is an instrument that is measurably less reliable than the alternative, and still worth knowing. That combination is uncomfortable, and this section works through it. We will cover the assumption underlying projective assessment. How the Thematic Apperception Test elicits and codes what it gets. Why its reliability is weaker than self-report, stated without softening. And what job it can still legitimately be given in an assessment.

The Logic

Ask Nothing Directly and See What Arrives

Projective tests present ambiguous stimuli, and ask respondents to interpret them. The assumption is that people project their inner motives, conflicts and concerns. Onto unstructured material that does not constrain them. The mechanism is the absence of a correct answer. Because there is no obviously right response, there is nothing to perform toward. So the technique aims to bypass deliberate self-presentation. The kind that can distort self-report inventories. And that is a genuine problem it is trying to solve. Self-report is only as good as the respondent's willingness to describe themselves accurately. And their ability to do so, which is a separate limitation again.

The TAT

Three Questions About a Picture

The Thematic Apperception Test, usually shortened to the TAT, exemplifies the approach. Respondents view ambiguous scenes, and compose stories about them. Each story answers three questions. What is happening. The respondent must supply a situation the picture does not specify. What led to it. A cause has to be invented, and the invention comes from somewhere. And how it will resolve. An expectation about how such situations end. Every one of those answers is unconstrained by the image itself. Which is precisely why the examiner is interested in them. The picture is not the test. What the person adds to it is the test.

The Coding

Themes, Counted Rather Than Admired

Scorers then analyse recurring themes in the narratives. Themes such as achievement, power, or affiliation. The premise is that the narratives reflect the storyteller's own preoccupations. Rather than the pictures themselves. So if a person's stories keep turning toward competition and rank. That recurrence is treated as belonging to them, not to the scenes. Pay attention to the word recurrence there, because the whole inference rests on it. A single story about achievement is just a story. A pattern across many stories is what the method treats as a signal.

The Danger

Free Interpretation Reads Back the Interpreter

There is an obvious danger in interpreting material this open. Unstructured judgement is vulnerable to the examiner's own biases. The material is open-ended by design. Which means an examiner looking for a particular theme can generally find it. And will not experience that as reaching for it. So interpreting projective material requires a systematic scoring framework. Rather than free intuition, however experienced the interpreter. The framework is not bureaucracy. It is the only control the method has. This is structurally the same point as blind coding in research design. You do not ask the examiner to be unbiased. You constrain what is allowed to count as a code.

The Fix

Standardised Coding Buys Back Consistency

Standardised coding systems for the TAT quantify motive imagery. Which improves consistency between different scorers. Quantify is the operative verb in that sentence. A rubric that says count instances of achievement imagery can be applied by two people. And their counts can be checked against each other. An impression cannot be checked that way. There is nothing to compare. One consequence follows, and it is easy to miss. The reliability of a projective finding is a property of the specific scoring system used. It is not a property of the test in general. So the right question is never whether the TAT is reliable. It is which system was used, and how well it performs.

The Verdict

State the Weakness Without Hedging

Now the verdict, which should be stated without hedging. Projective tests generally show weaker reliability and validity. Than well-constructed self-report inventories. That is the honest summary of the evidence. And it holds even with standardised coding systems in place. It is worth understanding why, rather than just accepting it. Open-ended responses must be interpreted before they can be scored. And every interpretive step is a place where consistency can leak away. So the trade is replicability, in exchange for access to less conscious content. That is a defensible trade in some situations, and an indefensible one in others. What makes it indefensible is pretending the trade was never made.

Side By Side

Two Instruments, Opposite Properties

Set the two families of instrument side by side. The projective stimulus is ambiguous. The self-report stimulus is structured items. The projective response is open-ended. The self-report response is a fixed scale. Conscious control is lower in projective testing, and higher in self-report. Typical reliability is moderate to low, against higher for self-report. And the main strengths differ accordingly. Revealing hidden motives, versus producing replicable scores. Read down that table and you will notice something. Every row is the same trade, viewed from a different angle. Lower conscious control and lower reliability are the same property. Described once as a benefit, and once as a cost.

Still Useful

Three Jobs They Do Well

These limitations do not render projective methods useless, and it would be lazy to conclude that. They can generate hypotheses, to be checked by other means. They can open conversation about sensitive themes. And they can capture motivational content that direct questioning may miss. What the limitations constrain is the job the method can be given. A weak instrument used to generate a question is entirely appropriate. The same instrument used to settle one is not. That distinction does more work than any argument about whether projective testing is valid.

The Placement

One Source, Weighted by What It Earned

So responsible practice gives projective findings a specific place. One source within a multimethod assessment. Weighted according to the demonstrated reliability of the specific scoring system used. Not according to how compelling the narrative happened to be. And not according to how confident the examiner feels about their reading of it. That is a rule you can actually apply on a Tuesday afternoon. It converts a vague instruction to be cautious. Into a question with an answer. What is the reliability of this coding system?

Consolidate

A Story That Starts a Conversation

Finish with the method used well. A clinician uses TAT narratives to surface a client's unspoken fear of failure. Then explores that fear directly in therapy. The stories served as conversation starters, not standalone diagnostic verdicts. And notice why the reliability problem did not sink the exercise. The finding did not need to be reliable enough to diagnose anyone. It needed to be suggestive enough to ask about. After which the conversation carried the weight, not the test. So, three things to hold from this section. Ambiguous stimuli, to reduce deliberate self-presentation. Standardised coding, to hold consistency between examiners. And a role in the assessment proportionate to the evidence behind it.

About Psychology of Personality at UPI Study

Psychology of Personality (Psychology 300) is a self-paced online course of 83 video lessons in 13 chapters, from Freud, Adler and Jung to biological, behavioral, cognitive, existential and humanistic theories, traits, personality disorders and culture. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.

Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →

Compare: Abnormal Psychology vs Psychology of Personality

Why take it here

Why students take Psychology of Personality with UPI Study

What makes each person who they arePsychology of Personality compares the major explanations of why people differ: psychoanalytic and neo-analytic theories, biology and evolution, learning, cognition, existential and humanistic views, and trait models, plus how personality is measured and studied. It is a common course in psychology degrees.
Credit at a fraction of the priceThe same 3 credits can cost $750 or more at a US college. Here it is one payment, self-paced, with lifetime access.
Finish your degree soonerTransfer credits reduce the courses you still owe, so you can graduate earlier or lighten a heavy semester.
Strengthen an applicationA completed college-level course on an official transcript shows admissions and scholarship committees you can do the work.
Study on your own scheduleNo start dates, no deadlines. Watch the lessons, practice, and take the final when you are ready.
130,000+students helped with college creditsACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Where the credit goes

Universities that work with NCCRS

Psychology of Personality carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Thomas Edison State UniversityThomas Edison State UniversitySigned partnerUniversity of the PeopleUniversity of the PeopleSigned partnerCharter Oak State CollegeCharter Oak State CollegeSigned partnerStrayer UniversityStrayer UniversitySigned partnerColumbia Southern UniversityColumbia Southern UniversitySigned partnerIndiana TechIndiana TechSigned partnerPenn StatePenn StateWorks with NCCRSSouthern New Hampshire UniversitySouthern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRSSUNYSUNYWorks with NCCRS +many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →

Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.

FAQ

Questions students ask us

About Projective Tests: Thematic Apperception Test and Related Methods

What is the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)?
The Thematic Apperception Test is a projective personality test in which people view ambiguous pictures of scenes and tell a story about each one, explaining what is happening, what led to it, and how it will turn out. Because the picture specifies none of this, what the person adds is treated as revealing their own motives and concerns. The TAT was developed by Henry Murray and Christiana Morgan at Harvard in the 1930s.
How is the Thematic Apperception Test scored?
The TAT is scored by analyzing recurring themes across a person's stories, such as achievement, power, or affiliation. A single story about achievement means little; a pattern across many stories is treated as reflecting the storyteller's own preoccupations. Standardized coding systems count instances of motive imagery so that two scorers' results can be checked against each other. Reliability therefore depends on the specific scoring system used rather than on the test in general.
Are projective tests reliable and valid?
Projective tests generally show weaker reliability and validity than well-constructed self-report inventories, even when standardized coding systems are used. Open-ended answers must be interpreted before they can be scored, and each interpretive step allows inconsistency between examiners; an examiner looking for a theme in open material can usually find it. The trade-off is lower replicability in exchange for possible access to less conscious content that direct questions may miss.
How should projective tests be used in a clinical assessment?
Projective tests are best used to generate hypotheses and open conversations, not to deliver standalone diagnoses. They should be one source within a multimethod assessment, weighted by the demonstrated reliability of the scoring system used rather than by how compelling a story seems. For example, a clinician might notice a fear of failure in a client's TAT stories and then explore that fear directly in therapy, where the conversation carries the weight.

About the Psychology of Personality course

How many college credits is Psychology of Personality?
Psychology of Personality (Psychology 300) carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
How much does Psychology of Personality cost and what is included?
$250, paid once, with lifetime access: all 83 video lessons, a practice quiz after each, the graded work and final exam, and an official transcript when you finish. Students who want several courses choose UPI Study PRO instead.
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
UPI Study has signed partner agreements with universities such as Thomas Edison State University, University of the People and Charter Oak State College, and works with universities such as Penn State, SNHU and SUNY. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities. Use "Find my college" on this page to check yours.
How long does Psychology of Personality take?
It is self-paced with no deadlines. The 83 lessons total about 8 hours of video; most students add reading and practice time and finish in a few weeks to a few months, on their own schedule.
How are the exams done?
Quizzes and assignments are online in the course. The final exam is taken online with proctoring; a person on the UPI Study team checks assignments, usually within two days.
How do my credits reach my college?
When the course shows 100% complete, request the official transcript from your dashboard. It is sent to the college you name, and you can send it to more than one. Check your college first with "Find my college" on this page, or ask Athena.

Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Psychology of Personality.

83 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.

Enroll in Psychology of Personality →Download the syllabusEvery course with PRO →
Psychology of Personality
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →