Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A comparison of three methods of scaling the ambiguity of thematic apperception cards Kuechler, Hans Albert 1961

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1961_A8 K8 C6.pdf [ 9.27MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106206.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106206-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106206-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106206-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106206-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106206-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106206-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106206-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106206.ris

Full Text

A COMPARISON OP THREE METHODS OP SCALING THE AMBIGUITY OP THEMATIC APPERCEPTION CARDS by HANS ALBERT KUECHLER B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I960 A Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l Fulfilment of the Requirement f o r the Degree of Master of Arts i n the Department of Psychology We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the standard required from candidates for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Members of the Department of Psychology The University of B r i t i s h Columbia August, 1961 In presenting t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . I t i s under-stood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Department of Psychology The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver 3, Canada. Date September 1 s t , 1961  A COMPARISON OP THREE METHODS OP SCALING THE AMBIGUITY OP THEMATIC APPERCEPTION CARDS ABSTRACT The primary purpose of t h i s study was the comparison of the rank orders of Thematic Apperception Test cards scaled by three d i f f e r e n t methods of ambiguity. An additional problem was the comparison of these ambiguity rank orders with personality variables drawn from the literature,, Por the f i r s t method of perceptual ambiguity f i v e descriptive statements for each TAT card were used to obtain the proportional agreement of eighty-four judges on which of these statements was most expressive of what they saw i n the card. The degree of agreement of the judges provided the basis for numerical indices and subsequent rank orders by ambiguityo The v a l i d i t y of the descriptive categories was determined by comparing the proportional agreement found i n t h i s study with the frequency with which the statements occurred i n the o r i g i n a l study<> A comparison of ranks based on these data showed a greater than 99 per cent v a l i d i t y for the categories 0 The second method of ambiguity u t i l i z e d fourteen need concerns rank ordered for each TAT eardo The proportional agreement of the judges on the f i r s t ranking need was used In order to determine an index of ambiguity and the cards rank ordered on that b a s i s 0 The agreement of the judges on a l l fourteen ranks was determined by the average intercorrelatlono The rank order of the TAT cards based on the average Inter-c o r r e l a t i o n indices was compared with the rank order derived from the choice of f i r s t ranko A l l rank orders of the TAT cards, when compared as to sex differences, correlated highly, i n d i c a t i n g that the sexes do not appreciably d i f f e r i n t h e i r perceptual and schematic r e a c t i o n s e The rank orders based on the descriptive statements were compared with those based on the rank order of need concernso The lack of rank order c o r r e l a t i o n between the two methods le d to the conclusion that ambiguity values of TAT i i i cards d i f f e r , when they are based on perceptual reactions, from those based on schematic a c t i v i t y which i s involved i n the ranking of the needs,, A t h i r d method of s c a l i n g the ambiguity of TAT cards i s based on the subjective consensus of judges on the number of interpretations f o r each c a r d o The rank order of t h i s method was correlated with the rank orders by perceptual ambiguity and themata rankingo A lack of comparability with both methods was accounted for by the theory that i n the subjective consensus method the global judgement of the subjects r e l i e d on both perceptual reactions and schematic processes and i s therefore not comparable with ranks based on either the perceptual r e a c t i o n or the schematic process alone,, A comparison of the perceptual and schematic ambiguity rank orders was made with quantitative data from TAT researcho It was found that neither perceptual nor schematic ambiguity varied with the productivity of themes, the t o t a l number of words, or the emotional tone of TAT s t o r i e s 0 Mb covariance was found between personality revealingness: and l e v e l s of perceptual or schematic ambiguity,. The mean number of emotional words and the number of statements going beyond the pure des c r i p t i o n of the cards showed no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n with l e v e l s of perceptual or schematic ambiguity» S i m i l a r l y , behavioral response patterns and problems induced by the TAT cards revealed no commensurate v a r i a t i o n with schematic and perceptual ambiguity 0 The lack of c o r r e l a t i o n with personality variables was explained by the fact that i n a l l instances, the data are the r e s u l t of complex psychological functions, including both perceptual and schematic functions^, and are therefore not comparable to ambiguity rank orders based on perceptual reactions or schematic reactions alone. i v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author g r a t e f u l l y acknowledges h i s indebtness to Dr. D.T. Kenny for the t h e o r e t i c a l basis of t h i s study, his Inspiration and u n t i r i n g guidance throughout the course of t h i s study. He wishes to express h i s appreciation to Dr. D.C.G. MacKay fo r his h e l p f u l c r i t i c i s m and active i n t e r e s t . He i s gra t e f u l to Dr. E. Signori and Dr. W.H. Read for t h e i r help i n s o l i c i t i n g the cooperation of students i n t h e i r courses. Last not lea s t , the author's thanks are due to those students of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia who so pa t i e n t l y made t h e i r time and opinions a v a i l a b l e . i i CONTENTS Chapter Page ABSTRACT* • • « 0 « 0 « » o o e Q O Q O » o e o 0 O XXX. I STATEMENT OP THE PROBLEM AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 1 Til© ProtoXQin. © • • o © © © © © © © » o © o © © o 3l Methods of Scaling Ambiguity « . » » o 2 Covariance of Personality Variables with AjnbX^Ulty • e « o * < » o o Q © Q « 9 © © 0 O « o ^ Til© MOCl&X • e » © e e e « * e « © e e © © o e o 3 Linkages of Ambiguity Methods with the II REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE . . ' • . . o . • 16 Stimulus Variations of the TAT. • « • » « • • • 16 Normative Studies of the TAT. 18 Quantitative Studies of the TAT » o 20 Summary of Research Studies . o o o o o o © * © 23 I I I METHOD. • « • • • « • « • • • • • • • • • • • • o * 25 Materials. . . . . . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 25* Subjects . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 26 Administration Procedures 27 Analysis of Data and S t a t i s t i c a l Method . o © o 28 XV RESULTS » » o « e * o 0 « e 9 > e » « i o o o e o e o d 3^ Perceptual Ambiguity Rank Order . . » 36 Apperceptive Rank Order . o o e o o o o o o o © 37 v Chapter Page Subjective Consensus Rank Order 37 Comparison of Perceptual Ambiguity Ranks f o r Sex Differences IjJL Comparison of Different Methods of Ranking . . . . ij.1 Ambiguity by Rank Order of Needs I4J4. Comparison of Themata Ranks f o r Sex Differences. . I4.8 Comparison of Rank Orders by Different Methods . . l\3 Comparison of Perceptual and Schematic Ambiguity with Quantitative Investigations of the TAT . . . £l V DISCUSSION 71 VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 78 REFERENCES 82 APPENDIXES: A Instructions and C r i t i c a l Categories • 85 B Instructions and L i s t of Concerns. 100 C Frequency of F i r s t Ranked Concerns 103 D Rank Order of TAT Cards by Perceptual Ambiguity and Corresponding Uncertainty Measure (Males) . .ll{3 E Rank Order of TAT Cards by Perceptual Ambiguity and Corresponding Uncertainty Measure (Females) ll | 9 F Rank Order of TAT Cards by Perceptual Ambiguity and Corresponding Uncertainty Measure (Combined) 15£ G Rank Order of TAT Cards by Perceptual Ambiguity Based on Frequency of Choice of Five Descriptive Categories 161 v i Page H Rank Order of TAT Cards by Uncertainty Measure Based on Frequency of Choice of Five Descriptive Categories. • 162 I Rank Order of TAT Cards by Perceptual Ambiguity Based on the Choice of F i r s t Rank for Fourteen Needs • • • • • 163 J Rank Order of TAT Cards by Ambiguity Expressed by Average In t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of Fourteen Needs I6I4. K Rank Order of TAT Cards by Perceptual Ambiguity and Corresponding Uncertainty Measure, (Harvey, I960) 165 L Comparison of TAT Cards Ranked by Uncertainty Measure Based upon Proportional V a r i a t i o n i n Behavioral Pattern and Thema (Knehr, Vickery and Guy, 1953) . • 171 M Comparison of Ambiguity Rank Order of TAT Cards with Personality Variables. . . . . . . . 172 v i i LIST OP TABLES Table Page 1 Rank Order of TAT Cards by Perceptual Ambiguity, Apperceptive Ranking and Subjective Consensus. . . . 38 2 Comparison of TAT Card Rank Order by Perceptual Ambiguity and Subjective Consensus (Bijou and Kenny, 1951) . i|2 3 Comparison of TAT Card Rank Order by Uncertainty Measure and Subjective Consensus (Bijou and Kenny, 1951) • • • • •-. 4-3 [}. Comparison of Apperceptive Rank Order of TAT Cards with Perceptual Ambiguity and Subjective Consensus Rank Order . . l|S 5 Comparison of Apperceptive Rank Order of TAT Cards with Uncertainty Measure and Subjective Consensus Rank Order • • . . . • • • • • 1 } . 6 6 Rank Order of.TAT Cards by Schematic Ambiguity Based upon F i r s t Choice from Fourteen Needs and t h e i r Average Inter cor r e l a t i o n . . . . lj.7 7 Comparison of TAT Card Rank Order by Perceptual Ambiguity and Choice of Most Pertinent Need. • • • • 50 8 Comparison of TAT Card Rank Order by Perceptual Ambiguity and Average In t e r c o r r e l a t i o n . . . •' . •. • 52 9 Comparison of TAT Card Rank Order based on Choice of Most Pertinent Need with Apperceptive and Subjective Consensus Rank Order • 53 10 Comparison of TAT Card Rank Order based on Average Int e r c o r r e l a t i o n of Needs with Apperceptive and Subjective Consensus Rank Order. • • • • • 5% 11 Comparison of Perceptual Ambiguity Level with Number of Themes E l i c i t e d (Eron, 1950) . . . . . . . 56 12 Comparison of Schematic Ambiguity Levels with Number of Themes E l i c i t e d (Eron, 1950) 57 13 Comparison of Perceptual Ambiguity Levels with Total Wordage (Rosenzweig and Fleming, 19ij.9) . . . . 58 v i i i llj. Comparison of Schematic Ambiguity Levels with Total Wordage (Rosenzweig and Fleming, ) • o o o © O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ^9 15 Comparison of Perceptual Ambiguity Levels with Q-Sort Values of Personality Revealingness (Kenny and Bijou, 1953)• o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 61 16 Comparison of Schematic Ambiguity Levels with Q,=Sort Values of Personality Revealingness (Kenny and Bijou, 1 9 5 3 ) . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 62 17 Comparison of Perceptual Ambiguity Levels with Emotional Tone (Eron, Terry and Calahan, 1950) . o . 61}. 18 Comparison of Schematic Ambiguity Levels with Emotional Tone (Eron, Terry and Calahan, 1950) . o <, 65 19 Comparison of Perceptual Ambiguity Levels with Mean Number of Emotional Words and Rank Order by Transcendence (Ullman, 1957J Gurel and Ullman, 1 9 ^ 8 e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 * 0 0 66 20 Comparison of Schematic Ambiguity Levels with Mean Number of Emotional Words and Rank Order by Transcendence (Ullman, 1957I Gurel and Ullman, 19,5*8 )© 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 o o o o o o o 6 7 21 Comparison of Variations i n Behavioral Pattern and Thema with Rank Order by Uncertainty Measure (Knehr, Vickery, and Guy, 1953)o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 22 Comparison of Variations i n Behavioral Pattern and Thema with Rank Order by Themata Ranking (Knehr, Vickery, and Guy, 1953)» o o o o o o o o o o 7 0 i x CHAPTER I STATEMENT OP THE PROBLEM AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND The Problem In t h i s study three methods of scaling the ambiguity of Thematic Apperception Cards (TAT) are investigated. The f i r s t approach to stimulus ambiguity i s i n terms of perceptual ambiguity. The proportional agreement of judges on the relevance of descriptive statements for each TAT card provides the b a s i s for a quantitative Index of ambiguity. A rank ordering of the cards based on these indices i s compared with the rank orders obtained by a second and d i f f e r e n t approach to the scaling of ambiguity. The second method involves a rank ordering of fourteen needs according to t h e i r relevance to each of the TAT cards. The proportional agreement of the judges on the f i r s t rank, as well as the average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of a l l the ranked needs f o r each picture, provides a basis for the rank ordering of the TAT cards. Both the perceptual categorization and the themata ranking method are compared with a t h i r d method of scaling ambiguity. In t h i s method the subjective consensus of judges determines the rank order of the cards by ambiguity. Bijou 1 2 and Kenny ( 1 9 5 l ) have shown that the TAT cards may be ordered into three lev e l s of high, medium, and low ambiguity. These data w i l l be used i n t h i s study f o r comparisons. It has already been shown by Murstein ( 1 9 5 8 ) . that the subjective consensus rank ordering of TAT cards by Bijou and Kenny ( 1 9 5 1 ) i s r e l a t e d c u r v i l i n e a r l y to the productivity of themes, as indicated i n Eron's ( 1 9 5 0 ) normative study. That c l i n i c i a n s make more frequent use of the TAT cards i n the moderate ambiguity group than i n the other two sets was indicated i n the study by Ullman ( 1 9 5 7 ) . Gurel and Ullman found that the intermediate ambiguity set of cards produced higher transcendence indices than either the high or low group. It i s a secondary concern of t h i s study to r e l a t e these and other personality variables drawn from the l i t e r a t u r e to the methods of sc a l i n g ambiguity of TAT cards investigated i n t h i s study. Methods of Scaling Ambiguity 1) Perceptual ambiguity rank order. The f i r s t method for scaling the ambiguity of the TAT cards i s based upon the t h e o r e t i c a l formulations of Kenny ( 1 9 6 1 ) , i n which It was hypothesized that ambiguity i s not an I n t r i n s i c q u a l i t y of the picture i t s e l f , but occurs as a r e s u l t of, and i s a function of, the number of d i f f e r e n t perceptual or categorization reactions to these s t i m u l i . A high number of possible i n t e r -pretations, or a low state of agreement, would denote a high 3 d e g r e e o f a m b i g u i t y . C o n v e r s e l y , i f a TAT c a r d were t o evoke o n l y one i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r a l l s u b j e c t s , t h e n i t s a m b i g u i t y w o u l d be n i l . I n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e t h e number o f p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o r e a c h c a r d , p e r c e p t u a l o r d e s c r i p t i v e c a t e g o r i e s w i t h t h e h i g h e s t f r e q u e n c y f o r e a c h c a r d were s e l e c t e d f r o m H a r v e y ' s (I960) d a t a . E i g h t y - f o u r j u d g e s were a s k e d t o s e l e c t t h e p e r c e p t u a l c a t e g o r y w h i c h i n t h e i r o p i n i o n b e s t d e s c r i b e s what t h e y saw i n a TAT c a r d . The p r o p o r t i o n o f c h o i c e s f o r e a c h c a t e g o r y was t a k e n t o be i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e d e g r e e o f a m b i g u i t y o f t h e c a r d a n d was e x p r e s s e d a s a n i n d e x o f p e r c e p t u a l a m b i g u i t y ( P A ) , t h e f o r m u l a f o r w h i c h was s u g g e s t e d b y Kenny (1961): PA = 1 - E p ( i ) 2 PA i n d i c a t e s t h e p e r c e p t u a l a m b i g u i t y a n d p ( i ) r e p r e s e n t s t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f c a s e s h a v i n g c h o s e n e a c h c a t e g o r y . A n a l t e r n a t e f o r m u l a f r o m i n f o r m a t i o n t h e o r y ( S e n d e r s , 1 9 5 8 , p . 8 1 ) g i v e s s i m i l a r r e s u l t s t o t h e p e r c e p t u a l a m b i g u i t y I n d e x . I t I s b a s e d o n t h e p e r c e p t u a l r e s p o n s e a g r e e -ment o f t h e j u d g e s w h i c h i s e x p r e s s e d a s a n u n c e r t a i n t y measure ( H ) : H = - E p ( i ) l o g 2 p ( i ) The s y m b o l s r e t a i n t h e i r f o r m e r m e a n i n g a n d a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e same d a t a . 2) Themata rank order. As a method for determining the cue characteristics of pictures, Jacobs (1958) suggests a ranking of needs i n an order that seemed appropriate for situations portrayed i n each of the twenty-3ix TAT cards, Jacob's procedure and instructions were used. The results were evaluated by the method suggested by Kenny (1961), using the proportion of judges choosing the need most pertinent to a picture as an Indication of uncertainty to arrive at a perceptual ambiguity index. Another measure of ambiguity was computed by the average intercorrelation of a l l the needs ranked for each picture by a l l the judges. If the average intercorrelation is high, this would indicate that the picture i 3 structured i n meaning and the ambiguity Is low. The type of ambiguity investigated by this method is henceforth referred to as 'schematic ambiguity'. 3) Subjective Consensus Rank Order. A third method of scaling ambiguity has been defined In terms of the estimated number of interpretations a group of judges thought would apply to each TAT card, (Bijou and Kenny, 195D. The data drawn from the Bijou and Kenny study w i l l be used i n a comparison with the two other methods of scaling ambiguity. I4.) Apperceptive Rank Order. Harvey (I960) and Long (I960) grouped a large number of descriptive statements made to twenty-six cards into perceptual categories. The frequency with which each statement occurred i n a category i s taken as a measure of perceptual response agreement. A high proportion 5 of descriptive statements t o l d i n response to a p a r t i c u l a r TAT card that f a l l i nto one category would denote a low degree of ambiguity. Conversely, high perceptual ambiguity of a card i s indicated by descriptive statements that are e s s e n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from each other and f a l l Into separate categories. The proportional agreement indicated by the d i v e r s i t y of the descriptive statements was expressed as an index of perceptual ambiguity (PA), and as uncertainty measure (H) 6 A comparison of the data obtained by the f i r s t method of perceptual ambiguity with the rank orders based on the data of Harvey (i960) provided a check on the v a l i d i t y of the descriptive categories to express the perceptual q u a l i t i e s of the TAT cards. Covariance of Personality Variables with Ambiguity It i s a commonly accepted theory that a monotonic re l a t i o n s h i p exists between stimulus ambiguity and personality revealingnesso Although empirical evidence for t h i s b e l i e f i s s t i l l i n s u f f i c i e n t , a number of studies have shown that personality variables change with increasing ambiguity of the TAT cards. Bijou and Kenny (1951) had by the method of subjective consensus grouped TAT cards into high, medium and low l e v e l s of ambiguity and shown a c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between ambiguity and personality revealingness 0 Murstein (1958b) found a s i g n i f i c a n t c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between these l e v e l s of ambiguity and the productivity of themes investigated by Eron i n h i s normative study (1950) <> It was also evident that c l i n i c i a n s make more frequent use of the 6 TAT cards i n the medium ambiguity group than i n the other two groups, (Ullman, 1957). Gurel and Ullman (1958), comparing the three l e v e l s of ambiguity with personality revealingness measured by transcendence scores concluded that the set of medium ambiguity cards are more productive. These studies indicate that the production of fantasy material varies with the degree of ambiguity. It i s therefore of interest to see how the perceptual and schematic ambiguity leve l s of the TAT cards Investigated i n t h i s study compare with the following personality v a r i a b l e s . a) Number of Themes. An analysis of the number of themes e l i c i t e d by each card (Eron, 1950) shows that the TAT cards d i f f e r i n t h e i r stimulatory value. The number of themes that each TAT card evoked was compared with i t s l e v e l of perceptual and schematic ambiguity to determine any v a r i a t i o n of productivity with ambiguity. b) Total Wordage. Rosenzweig and Fleming (19ij.8) determined i n t h e i r study the average number of words given i n response to each TAT card. A comparison of the t o t a l number of words with each of the three high, medium, and low ambiguity le v e l s was made to determine i f verbal productivity varies with either perceptual or schematic ambiguity. c) Personality Revealingness. A comparison of personality factors injected into TAT stories with the three leve l s of psychological ambiguity (Kenny and Bijou, 1953) 7 showed that more personality material was produced by cards of medium ambiguity. The protocols to TAT cards had been rated on a nine point Q-sort scale. These values are compared i n t h i s study with l e v e l s of perceptual and schematic ambiguity for any influence either type of ambiguity may have on personality revealingness. d) Emotional Tone. Eron, Terry and Calahan (1950) found that the emotional tone of the TAT cards varied from sad to least sad with the majority of cards having a sad emotional tone. A rank order based on the emotional tone of the cards was compared with the rank order of TAT card3 by perceptual ambiguity and themata ranking. e) Mean Number of Emotional Words. Ullman (1957)» using a measure of emotional word count, showed that some/cards e l i c i t more material than others. A grouping of the cards into three l e v e l s of emotional word productivity was compared with the three d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of perceptual and schematic ambiguity. f) Personality Factors Measured by the Transcendence  Index. In a follow-up study Gurel and Ullman (1958) concluded that the TAT cards of medium ambiguity used by Bijou and Kenny (1951) showed s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher transcendence scores. A comparison with the rank order by perceptual ambiguity and themata ranking was made to see whether a d i f f e r e n t approach to ambiguity corroborates these findings. 8 g) Variations i n Thema and Behavioral Patterns. Knehr, Vickery and Guy (1953) investigated variations i n thema or problems and changes i n behavioral pattern induced by TAT cards. Such changes were expressed as a frequency i n the o r i g i n a l study and converted i n t h i s study to a measure of uncertainty.. A rank ordering of TAT cards based on the uncertainty measure was compared with the rank order by perceptual and schematic ambiguity to determine any changes that may be commensurate with a change i n the ambiguity of the TAT cardso The present research i s r e l a t e d to the f i r s t of two main issues of a model proposed by Kenny (1961), namely, the relevance of the stimulus properties of the TAT pictures i n the determination of thematic s t o r i e s . The second problem i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the thematic stories and the l e v e l of personality functioningo The Model The Thematic Apperceptive Test i s one of the more popular c l i n i c a l tools for the assessment of personality,. Since the appearance of the l a s t r e v i s i o n i n 191+3 no d e f i n i t e understanding has been reached on why and how i t functions. The solu t i o n of two main problems i s c r u c i a l to such an under-standingo The f i r s t problem involves the c r i t i c a l relevance of the stimulus properties of the pictures i n the determination of the thematic s t o r i e s o A commonly made assumption i s that 9 ambiguous s t i m u l i w i l l f a c i l i t a t e e x p r e s s i o n o f c o v e r t " l a y e r s " o f p e r s o n a l i t y f u n c t i o n i n g . C o n v e r s e l y , s t i m u l i t h a t a r e s t r u c t u r e d w o u l d t e n d t o e v o ke r e s p o n s e s r e f l e c t i n g o v e r t l a y e r s o f p e r s o n a l i t y . T h e r e a p p e a r s , a t p r e s e n t , t o be no agreement w i t h r e s p e c t t o what l e v e l o f p e r s o n a l i t y f u n c t i o n i n g i s " t a p p e d " b y t h e m a t i c t e c h n i q u e s . I f s u c h t e c h n i q u e s r e v e a l u n c o n s c i o u s o r r e p r e s s e d m a t e r i a l , t h e n a c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n o v e r t b e h a v i o r a n d t h e m a t i c c o n t e n t o f t h e s t o r i e s may be h y p o t h e s i z e d . However, one i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t any t h e o r y must t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t i s t h e s t i m u l u s s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e c r i t e r i o n b e h a v i o r i s t o be m a n i f e s t e d . I t i s a l s o n e c e s s a r y t o k e e p i n m i n d t h a t a p p e r c e p t i v e m a t e r i a l s v a r y a l o n g a c o n t i n u u m o f a m b i g u i t y . C l i n i c a l i n f e r e n c e f r o m t h e a p p e r c e p t i v e m a t e r i a l s h o u l d v a r y d e p e n d i n g u p o n t h e d e g r e e o f a m b i g u i t y o f t h e p i c t u r e s t i m u l i a n d k n o w l e d g e o f t h e l e v e l o f p e r s o n a l i t y f u n c t i o n r e v e a l e d . W h i l e t h i s s t u d y i s p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h c o m p a r i n g d i f f e r e n t methods f o r s c a l i n g t h e a m b i g u i t y o f TAT c a r d s , some c o m p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n p e r s o n a l i t y d a t a a n d d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f a m b i g u i t y w i l l a l s o be s t u d i e d o Kenny (1961) c r i t i c a l l y r e v i e w e d t h e e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h on t h e T h e m a t i c A p p e r c e p t i o n T e s t a n d f o r m u l a t e d a t h e o r e t i c a l m o d e l w h i c h s u g g e s t s a new a p p r o a c h t o t h e p r o b l e m o f s t i m u l u s a m b i g u i t y a n d i t s r e l a t i o n t o p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s . T h i s t h e o r e t i c a l m o d e l c e n t e r s a r o u n d t h e c o n c e p t i o n t h a t c h a n g e s i n s e n s o r y i n p u t a r e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , i d e n t i f i e d , 10 labeled, and categorized and subsequently assimilated into a schema. The categorization process i n the case of TAT cards i s thought to occur primarily on a preconscious l e v e l , making i t r e a d i l y available i n awareness„ As d i s t a l s t i m u l i are i d e n t i f i e d and analyzed i n t h i s process, only a l i m i t e d quantity of the t o t a l information i s passed on to the next stage, the arousal of schematized ways of thinking and rememberingo These schemata are under continuous r e v i s i o n and transformation with new information added and old information alteredo Thus schematized ways of thinking are used adaptively i n a new si t u a t i o n , such as one which demands story t e l l i n g to a TAT cardo A fantasy response i s therefore the indiv i d u a l ' s mode of adaption to the demands of the s i t u a t i o n e The physical stimulus as such serves only to evoke the perceptual r e a c t i o n and plays a minimal r o l e i n the deter-mination of the p a r t i c u l a r schema,. The physical stimulus i s never ambiguous i t s e l f since It represents the l i g h t energy impinging upon the eye when a picture i s presented to a subject. The r e s u l t i n g categorization process i s thought to be more highly correlated with the stimulus properties of the picture than with the ensuing fantasy s t o r y 0 However, t h i s perceptual a c t i v i t y deviates from exact psychophysical correspondence by allowing the influences of previous learning, set, and motivation and, p a r t i c u l a r l y the demands of the present s i t u a t i o n , to determine the nature of the categorization reaction. Although these influences are 11 thought to be more closely related to the schematic processes and the verbal response they, nevertheless, assert t h e i r f i r s t influence at the perceptual l e v e l . I t i s at t h i s l e v e l that ambiguity enters into the process 0 Different picture s t i m u l i are able to evoke diffe r e n t perceptual reactions along a continuum of perceptual ambiguity 0 I t i s held that ambiguity varies with the s t r u c t u r a l properties of the card but i s not solely dependent upon i t as various studies have shown (Kenny, 195k-i Weisskopf, 1950). Par more c r u c i a l determinants of ambiguity are the demands of the s i t u a t i o n and, i n response to t h i s , the accommodating behavior of the individualo This accommodating behavior i s the instrumental story t e l l i n g mediated by the schematic processes. I f t h i s accommodating behavior i s l i m i t e d to a s t r i c t choice of responses, and the demands are changed, variations i n ambiguity should be observed. Although the influence of learning and set upon the schemata and categorization reactions can not be completely controlled, t h e i r influence can be narrowed down to a range where common i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b i l i t y s t i l l e x i s ts but s p e c i f i c v a r i a b i l i t y i s eliminated. Common v a r i a b i l i t y might be expected to be the same i n two large but diffe r e n t samples while s p e c i f i c v a r i a b i l i t y would be determined by i n d i v i d u a l -i s t i c q u a l i t i e s . I f , for a subject group, the demands of the s i t u a t i o n are the same and the choice of responses i s controlled, the difference i n perceptual categorization and subsequent behavioral response pattern may be assumed to be due to s p e c i f i c q u a l i t i e s of the stimulus picture under those conditions. 12 Linkages of the Ambiguity Methods with the Model In terras of the objective of t h i s study, providing the subjects with a l i s t of commonly given descriptive categories and demanding a choice of that category which i n th e i r opinion i s most pertinent to the picture, should r e s u l t i n a response due to common v a r i a b i l i t y and the ambiguity of the pictures. As the common v a r i a b i l i t y may be assumed to be the same for d i f f e r e n t groups under the same conditions, the degree of agreement on the choice i s then a matter of the ambiguity of the cards. When a group of subjects i s asked to rank order fourteen needs according to the i r relevance to each TAT card, the demands of the s i t u a t i o n have changed. Limiting the choice to fourteen needs forces the i n d i v i d u a l judge to consider those needs which are considered by everyone else. He i s not able to increase the v a r i e t y of the responses by adding from hi s own personal needs and concerns. It might be argued, therefore, that i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b i l i t y has been reduced to common v a r i a b i l i t y . As the demands of the s i t u a t i o n have been changed by the consideration of needs, instead of categories, ambiguity should also change. The choice of the most descriptive category seems to be more highly correlated with the process of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and l a b e l i n g than with schematic processes. Considering needs and t h e i r relevance to a scene demands, however, over and above the categorization of the need a ce r t a i n degree of 13 p r o j e c t i o n and self-reference. While the ambiguity of each card may well depend upon the uncertainty of perception and categorization, i t i s determined by that stage that p r i m a r i l y responds to the demands of the s i t u a t i o n . In the f i r s t case t h i s seems to be the categorization process but, i n the second part, i t i s the scheraatization a f t e r i n i t i a l categorization has taken place. The t h i r d method of ranking ambiguity requires judgement to estimate the possible number of interpretations i n a TAT card. Making t h i s type of judgement i s a matter of the schematic processes a f t e r extensive categorization has taken place. Ambiguity based on the proportional agreement of subjects on interpretations of a picture i s a measure of variance. With the increasing differences of opinion among the judges, the measured ambiguity of the TAT cards also increases. This judgemental process i s common to a l l three methods of s c a l i n g the ambiguity of TAT cards. The c r i t i c a l stage i n the thought processes, however, where divergence of opinion may be thought to enter, d i f f e r s i n the three methods. In the method of perceptual ambiguity the onus i s on the categorization stage. In t h i s method a f i t t i n g d e s c r i p t i o n of the TAT card has to be chosen. At the categorization stage, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and analysis of the descriptive statements takes place. Due to i n d i v i d u a l differences at t h i s point a v a r i e t y of responses w i l l be recorded from d i f f e r e n t judges. The degree to which the responses to one stimulus card d i f f e r , i s considered as an operational measure of ambiguity. 1% In the second theraata ranking method the various needs to be ranked i n the order of t h e i r relevance to the TAT card are f i r s t analysed and categorized. The information from t h i s stage i s then passed on to the stage of schematization. As needs rather than descriptive statements are Involved, the i n d i v i d u a l has to judge what h i s own needs and concerns would be In a si m i l a r s i t u a t i o n as the one portrayed i n the TAT card. Depending upon the structure of the picture, v a r i a b i l i t y i s r e s t r i c t e d or given free r e i g n . In the case of the l a t t e r i t Is assumed that a high degree of ambiguity i s measured. In the method of subjective consensus the subject makes a global judgement on the ambiguity value of the card. Before he arrives at a d e f i n i t e opinion several mental processes may be hypothesized. Confrontation with the TAT card r e s u l t s i n a perceptual categorization of the picture stimulus. A number of possible labels or categories are considered. This information i s then compared at the schematization stage with possible interpretations and meanings. The resultant response, which i s f a r more complex than a simple sleuthing of Information through psychological stages i s , however, e s s e n t i a l l y based on the selective judgement of both the categorization stage and the schematic process. With the demands of the s i t u a t i o n to rank TAT cards by ambiguity, or to select the most f i t t i n g description, or, to rank a l i s t of needs, the emphasis of the response determination i s s h i f t e d to d i f f e r e n t psychological processes. The v a r i a b i l i t y of 15 responses that i s measured i s i n part due to the stimulus q u a l i t i e s of the TAT picture; i n part i t i s caused by the dif f e r e n t psychological processes. Ambiguity scales w i l l be comparable to the extent to which they are based on the stimulus q u a l i t i e s of the p i c t u r e . As the onus of the response i s s h i f t e d from the categorization to the schematic stage the ambiguity of the card i s assessed from a d i f f e r e n t aspect. It may, therefore, be assumed that methods of assessing ambiguity w i l l not be comparable i f d i f f e r e n t psychological processes determine the response. Since each of the methods of sca l i n g the ambiguity of TAT cards, perceptual ambiguity ranking, themata ranking and ranking by subjective consensus, places the onus of the response on d i f f e r e n t psychological processes, only a low i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of t h e i r ambiguity scales may be expected. The quantitative investigations of the TAT mentioned at the outset are comparisons of personality variables with l e v e l s of ambiguity and are only a secondary concern of t h i s study. . It i s of intere s t to see which method of ranking the ambiguity of TAT cards shows commensurate variance with c e r t a i n personality v a r i a b l e s . As shown by Kenny (1951+)» i t i s erroneous to assume that, with increasing ambiguity, personality revealingness increases. No l i n e a r correspondence can necessarily be expected. CHAPTER II REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE Since the appearance of the t h i r d r e v i s i o n of the Thematic Apperception Test i n 191+3 much research has been directed towards the elucidation of laws governing t h i s apperceptive techniques. As the l i t e r a t u r e has been excel-l e n t l y reviewed by Harvey ( i960) and Murstein (1959). only investigations pertinent to t h i s study w i l l be considered here. Stimulus Variations of the TAT Several studies have concerned themselves with the stimulus q u a l i t i e s of TAT cards. Weisskopf (1950) determined the amount of fantasy material produced under conditions of reduced normal brightness by means of the transcendence index score which measures the responses which go beyond the pure description of the pic t u r e . No differences were found. A sim i l a r study by Bradley and Lysaker (1950) found that variations of brightness produced no differences i n productivity of thematic material. However, an increase i n darkness resulted i n an increase i n the pleasantness of the associations. An increase i n lightness l e d i n i t i a l l y to more pleasant material but then to a decrease i n pleasantness. 36 17 Weisskopf (1950) and Weisskopf-Joelson and Lynn (1953) showed that more fantasy material resulted from complete l i n e tracing of the figures of the cards than with incomplete tracings. Bradley and Lysaker (1957) concluded that as long as the central figure i s not varied the fantasy story does not change e The r e l a t i o n of physical and psychological ambiguity to evoked fantasy material has been explored by Kenny (195l4-)o Physical ambiguity was obtained by exposing photographic reproductions of the TAT cards f o r f i v e seconds and two minutes. The descriptive statements made under these two conditions were scored by the transcendence method of Weisskopf (1950) <> It was found that personality material measured by the number of statements going beyond the pure des c r i p t i o n of the cards d i d not increase with physical ambiguity,. Psychological ambiguity of the TAT cards had been assessed by judges who ranked the cards according to the number of interpretations they thought would apply to each card (Bijou and Kenny, 1951)* A rank order by t h i s method of subjective consensus was used i n t h i s study i n a comparison with perceptual and schematic ambiguity., The 1951+ study by Kenny compared the TAT cards grouped into high, medium, and low ambiguity with transcendence indices of stories t o l d to these cards and found that the medium set of cards showed higher productivity than either the high or low set. U t i l i z i n g the three l e v e l s of psychological ambiguity found by Bijou and Kenny (1951)* Murstein (1958b) found a p o s i t i v e and c u r v i l i n e a r 18 r e l a t i o n s h i p between productivity as measured by means of themes bo TAT cards and psychological ambiguity. Investigating the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the pleasantness of the stories and ambiguity l e v e l , Murstein (1958a) found an increase of pleasantness with increasing ambiguity. Normative Studies of the TAT Eron (1950) analyzed 3*000 TAT stories of 150 male subjects according to themes, l e v e l of interpretation, emotional tone, outcome, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of characters, perceptual d i s t o r t i o n s and attention to d e t a i l s . The subjects ranged from h o s p i t a l i z e d psychotics to h o s p i t a l i z e d and non-h o s p i t a l i z e d psychoneurotics. They included also a normal college student group. An intercomparison of these groups on the above c r i t e r i a showed that two clusters emerged according to whether or not they were h o s p i t a l i z e d or not. Eron concluded from h i s r e s u l t s that the TAT may not be used as a diagnostic t o o l , since the various c l i n i c a l groups did not d i f f e r amongst themselves and from the normal group. Also he interpreted h i s findings to mean, that the external environment, such as a h o s p i t a l , e f f e c t s the fantasy productions. Apart from the influence of the c l i n i c a l group to which the subject belonged^ the responses were considerably influenced by the stimulus factors of the cards. As some cards seemed to be more stimulating than others, he ranked a l l twenty cards of the male series i n the order of productivity of themes * These data w i l l 19 be compared i n the present study with l e v e l s of perceptual and schematic ambiguity.. One main normative study done by Rosenzweig and Fleming (191+9) attempted to establish apperceptive norms for adult males and females„ Popular common responses were tabulated under the heading of Figures, Objects, and Problems and Outcomes fo r each cardo It was suggested that t h i s might serve as a basis for comparing individuals with established group ways of responding and the ways i n which they deviate as individualso A comparison of the sexes on the basis of t h e i r responses showed substantial agreement and only i n c i d e n t a l differences» From these r e s u l t s a l i s t of the t o t a l mean number of words per card f o r each sex was compared with the perceptual and schematic rank of the cardo As part of a comprehensive i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the ambiguity values and personality factors revealed i n the TAT, Harvey ( i 9 6 0 ) and Long ( i 9 6 0 ) empirically formulated descriptive categories for each of twenty-3ix TAT cards e These categories, based on descriptive statements, represent the most common perceptual reactions made to the cards. The f i v e categories with the highest frequency of occurrence for each card were selected for t h i s study* The f i r s t method of perceptual ambiguity rank order i s based on the proportional agreement of judges on the relevance of these descriptive categories,, 20 Quantitative Studies of the TAT Jacobs, (1958) investigating the cue c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of pictures used i n the projective measurement of motivation, suggests a themata checklist or ranking method for scaling the ambiguity of TAT cards. Fourteen needs or concerns selected from Murray (1938) were ranked i n the order of t h e i r pertinence to each of the projective cards. The average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of a l l ranked needs for each card gives an i n d i c a t i o n of the agreement of the judges on the meaning of each card. I f the average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n Is high the picture i s structured and the ambiguity i s low c As the method of scaling the ambiguity of TAT cards does not take into account the problem of weight-ing the proportion of subjects who make di f f e r e n t rank order choices, the proportional agreement of the judges on what need deserves the f i r s t rank i s , i n the present study, used to arr i v e at an index of perceptual ambiguity and uncertainty measure. Also, the TAT cards were rank ordered on the basis of the average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of a l l ranked needs. This procedure, suggested by Jacobs (1958), was adopted as the themata ranking method fo r scaling the ambiguity of TAT cards. The generally held hypothesis that personality revealingness increases as a monotonic function with ambiguity of TAT cards was not supported i n a study by Kenny and Bijou (1953)» TAT protocols were judged by a Q-sort method fo r personality structure and dynamics „ The 0,-score values were compared with the three l e v e l s of ambiguity obtained by the J 2 1 same authors i n a previous study (1951) <> The r e s u l t s showed that personality revealingness was greatest for cards of medium ambiguity but declined for cards with high or low ambiguity 0 The Q-sort values i n d i c a t i v e of personality revealingness were compared with the perceptual and schematic ambiguity rank orders of t h i s study 0 The following studies have attempted to i s o l a t e the stimulatory values of TAT cards and have also contrasted these with verbalized responses made to themB Eron, Terry, and Calahan (1950), using the twenty cards f o r the male and female series, rated protocols along an empirically developed r a t i n g scale of f e e l i n g tone 0 The f i v e point r a t i n g scale extended from sad to happy 0 The authors concluded that the TAT cards have a stimulus value of t h e i r own which determines the emotional tone of the s t o r i e s . TAT cards grouped into three l e v e l s of emotional tone were compared with the three l e v e l s of perceptual and schematic ambiguity 0 Ullman (1957) hypothesized that the TAT cards d i f f e r i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to evoke apperceptive material and, i f t h i s were the case, i t might be hypothesized that c l i n i c i a n s select those cards which e l i c i t more materialo Using a median number of emotional words he showed that some cards e l i c i t more material than others and also that these cards tend to be used more often than others by the examinerso In the present study the number of emotional words e l i c i t e d by each TAT card was compared with the high, medium, and low l e v e l s of perceptual and schematic ambiguity,, 2 2 Gurel and Ullman ( 1 9 5 8 ) i n a follow-up study concluded on the basis of t h e i r data that a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n exists between the ordering of TAT cards by transcendence score and emotional word count. Results based on the protocols of one hundred male neuropsychiatric patients are not necessarily comparable to other normal populations. A comparison of Ullman's ( 1 9 5 7 ) ordering by emotional word count with the three l e v e l s of ambiguity of Bijou and Kenny ( 1 9 5 D showed no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n . A comparison of these three l e v e l s with the ordering by transcendence scoring, however, did show that cards of medium ambiguity e l i c i t s i g n i f i c a n t l y more personality material. Gurel and Ullman's rank ordering of TAT cards by transcendence scores was used i n t h i s study for a comparison with the ranking of cards by perceptual and schematic ambiguity. Knehr, Vickery, and Guy ( 1 9 5 3 ) were interested i n u t i l i z i n g the TAT cards i n exploring personality dynamics of a l c o h o l i c and non-alcoholic patients with assorted d i f f i c u l t i e s that were not revealed by other c l i n i c a l methods. The stories of seventy-eight males and females were analyzed with respect to v a r i a t i o n s i n behavioral pattern and problems or themas induced by the cards. The information was checked against physician's statements whether or not a d d i t i o n a l information was obtained. It was found that confirmation rather than supplementation of the reports was the case. The influence of the cards worked a c o n t r o l l i n g effect upon the nature of the 23 problem, t h i s influence being stronger with respect to the plots than to the actions ascribed t o the characters. To make these findings comparable to data of t h i s study, the TAT cards -were ranked according to the frequency with which they induced variati o n s i n behavior and thema. These rank orders were then compared with the rank order of TAT cards by perceptual and schematic ambiguity. Summary of Research Studies The empirical evidence, as f a r as i t has been outlined here, shows that stimulus ambiguity i s not adequately defined i n terms of the s t r u c t u r a l manipulation of the TAT cards. Incomplete l i n e tracings, photographic b l u r r i n g through under-exposure, and reduction of time exposure have not s u b s t a n t i a l l y influenced personality material as measured by the transcendence index scoring of protocols. S i m i l a r l y , a reduction i n time exposure has only demonstrated an increasing paucity of fantasy material. Increasing the time beyond the optimal time of f i v e seconds d i d not r e s u l t In more personality material. Accumulated research indicates that TAT cards d i f f e r i n t h e i r " p u l l " value and that a c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p exists between the l e v e l on psychological ambiguity investigated by Kenny (195^) and the amount of personality material e l i c i t e d . A medium l e v e l of ambiguity was found to be more highly correlated to the productivity of themes and fantasy material, measured by the transcendence index scoring, than either the high or low l e v e l of ambiguity. These Investigations have led to a new approach to the ambiguity of the TAT cards (Kenny, 1961) which i s intimately linked with the problem of personality revealingnes As a step towards the elu c i d a t i o n of the problem of stimulus ambiguity and personality revealingness, Harvey ( i960) and Long (I960) have developed c r i t i c a l categories which r e f l e c t the perceptual reactions of indivi d u a l s to the TAT cards. The purpose of t h i s study i s the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t methods of scaling the ambiguity of Thematic Apperception Cards to validate the t h e o r e t i c a l conception that changes i n sensory input are assimilated into a schema a f t e r a hypo-t h e t i c a l process of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n or categorization of the stimulus has taken place. CHAPTER I I I METHOD Materials The materials used i n t h i s study consisted of twenty-six cards of the Thematic Apperception Test. These constitute a l l the TAT cards with the exception of cards 6GP, 12F, 13B, 13G and card 16, which were omitted by Harvey (I960) and, therefore, no descriptive categories exist for these cards. The reason for t h e i r omission was l i m i t e d c l i n i c a l usefulness i n the case of card 7GP and the common appearance of card 12P i n textbooks and other publications. The blank card, number 16, i s unsuitable because the conditions of the Harvey study required that the subjects describe what they saw, as opposed to the usual method of imagining some picture and then t e l l i n g a story to i t . Since no young boys and g i r l s were used i n either Harvey 1s, or t h i s study, cards 13B and 13G were omitted. The descriptive categories used were those obtained by Harvey (I960) and Long ( i 9 6 0 ) . These categories had been empirically derived from protocols of fo r t y normal and abnormal subjects who had been asked to describe, i n a twenty-second time exposure for each card, what they saw i n the picture. 25 2 6 The number of categories for each TAT card ranged from f i v e to twelveo The f i v e categories which showed the highest frequency of occurrence i n the protocols of the normal subjects were selected for t h i s s t u d y A f t e r having been randomized each set of f i v e descriptive categories was presented on a mimeo-graphed sheet with the appropriate TAT card. The descriptive categories and instructions are shown i n Appendix A<> The second method of scaling ambiguity used fourteen "concerns" descriptive of needs formulated by Murray (1938)° These concerns were i d e n t i c a l f o r each card and were taken from Jacobs (1958) without mention of the need described., The instructions were s l i g h t l y a l t e r e d to f i t the s i t u a t i o n and are shown with the concerns i n Appendix B o The frequency of the f i r s t ranked concerns i s 3hown i n Appendix C for the male, female and combined sex groups <, Subjects AJ1 subjects were obtained on a volunteer basis from the senior psychology courses at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia,, Two d i f f e r e n t groups were used f o r the two investigationso The f i r s t consisted of a t o t a l of eighty-four students; t h i r t y females and f i f t y - f o u r males„ The age range was from twenty to forty-one years with a mean age of 2 i ^ 0 i ( . 2 for the males and a standard deviation of ij.o76o The age range for the females was from 20 to 1^ .1 years with a mean age of 23<>83 and a standard deviation of 5o99« The mean educational 27 l e v e l of the subjects at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia was 3°92 years for the males, with a standard deviation of l o 3 3 and a mode of i+o00o For the females the mean was 3 o 8 6 , standard deviation of <>805 and mode of i+o00o The second method of scaling ambiguity on the basis of the rank order of needs for each card u t i l i z e d 2I+ males and 2 3 femaleso The age range for the males was from 1 8 to 3l+ years with a mean of 2 2 o 7 1 » a mode of 2 1 years, and a standard deviation of 3<>69 yearso The age range of the females was from 1 8 to 3 7 with a mean of 20<>78 years, a standard deviation of 3 o 6 l and a mode of 2 0 yearso The mean un i v e r s i t y educational l e v e l f o r the males was 3»25 years, with a standard deviation of 0 8 3 and a mode of 3rd year 0 For the females, the mean educational l e v e l was 2 „ 9 6 years with a standard deviation of 0 8 6 and a mode of 3rd year 0 Administration Procedures A l l subjects of the f i r s t group were given mimeo-graphed instructions of what was required of them0 No further elaboration was neededo The descriptive categories as well as the TAT cards were randomized for each subjecto The average time to complete the task of choosing the most descriptive category out of f i v e f o r a l l cards was 2 6 minuteso The room used was the same f o r a l l subjects and no other person but the subject and the administrator were presents The second part of the Investigation, based on the relevance of Murray's needs to each TAT card, was conducted i n 28 the same room under the same conditions as the f i r s t study. The forty-seven subjects were given mimeographed instructions on how to proceed. The average time taken by both groups was two hours and sixteen minutes, with the females taking the longest time. Comments on any relevant aspect of the task were i n v i t e d . The general consensus seemed to be, that the task of ranking the concerns demanded too much time, and that as a re s u l t i n t e r e s t and concentration decreased considerably towards the end of the task. According to the instr u c t i o n s , the l a s t need that was s t i l l c l e a r l y r e l a t e d t o the picture was to be c i r c l e d . It became apparent that h a l f of the fourteen needs were not c l e a r l y r e l a t e d to the cards. Eight students volun-teered to re-rank the needs immediately afterwards and In a l l cases only the need chosen f o r the f i r s t and most pertinent rank was the same as i n the f i r s t attempt. Analysis of the Data and S t a t i s t i c a l Method 1) Perceptual ambiguity rank order. The data of the f i r s t study represented the choice of that c r i t i c a l category that best described what the subject saw i n each card. Por each of the f i v e categories the number of choices i n the male and female groups represent a frequency measure which was o converted to a proportion. The proportions were squared and summed and then subtracted from one according to the formula proposed by Kenny (1961); PA = 1 - E p ( i ) 2 29 PA i n t h i s case i n the index of perceptual ambiguity for each card and indicates the degree of agreement of each group on what category i s most descriptive f o r each cardo The descriptive categories i d e n t i f i e d by the l e t t e r A to E for each card, with the frequency of choice and the r e s u l t i n g index of ambiguity, are l i s t e d i n Appendix D for the male group and i n Appendix E for the female group e An alternative method of determining the ambiguity of each card i s based on the uncertainty measure from Information theory and i s proposed i n Kenny's t h e o r e t i c a l model ( 1 9 6 l ) s This measure i s ind i c a t i v e of the uncertainty of the subjects i n t h e i r choice of categories and therefore represents a measure of ambiguity which was previously defined by the number of alternative perceptual reactions that each card evokes© The formula suggested by Kenny (1961) 1st H = ~ E p ( i ) l o g 2 p ( l ) In the formula, p ( i ) i s the same proportion derived from the previous frequency count• The uncertainty measure f o r each TAT card i s also l i s t e d i n Appendix D for the males and i n Appendix E for the females e A comparison of the rank orders of TAT cards based on the perceptual ambiguity indices with rank orders based on the uncertainty measure shows, by a c o r r e l a t i o n of 0 9 5 or higher, that both measures or formulae express the same q u a l i t y about a thematic cardo 30 A l l cards were then rank ordered on the basis of t h e i r perceptual ambiguity Index (PA) and of t h e i r uncertainty measure (H) f o r both sexes separately. Prom the combined frequency of the two sexes the proportion and subsequent measures of ambiguity (PA and II) were calculated and a combined rank order obtained. These data are shown i n Appendix P. An extract from t h i s appendix l i s t i n g only the rank orders f o r the male, female, and combined sex groups and the corresponding perceptual ambiguity Indices i s shown i n Appendix G. Appendix H shows the rank orders of the male, female, and combined sex groups based on the uncertainty measure» 2) Themata rank order. In the second method of scaling ambiguity, based upon the procedure used by Jacobs (1958)* the frequency of the f i r s t rank choice f o r each card from a l l the male and female subjects was treated as a proportion. Prom t h i s proportion the perceptual ambiguity index was calculated for the male, female, and the combined sexes and the TAT cards ranked ordered. The data are shown i n Appendix I. Fourteen needs had been rank ordered for each TAT card. The agreement of the judges on these ranks was determined by the average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n method suggested by G u i l f o r d (1936) . A high c o r r e l a t i o n would be i n d i c a t i v e of a high state of agreement and low ambiguity and would, therefore, merit a low p o s i t i o n i n the rank order based on these 3 1 c o e f f i c i e n t s . The rank orders f o r the males, females, and the combined sex groups based on the average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of ranked needs are shown i n Appendix J. In the perceptual ambiguity, as well as the themata rank order method, ambiguity data were calculated f o r the sex groups separately and combined to determine whether the sexes d i f f e r e d i n the ranking of the TAT cards. The rank orders of the cards were compared by the Spearman rank order c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t , r«. 3) Subjective consensus rank order. Bijou and Kenny (19^1) rank ordered TAT cards according to the subjective consensus of judges on the number of interpretations possible f o r each card. The difference i n ranking between the sexes was not s i g n i f i c a n t . The data represent the combined judgement of males and females and were compared with the rank order of the combined sexes by perceptual ambiguity and themata rank order method. The Spearman rank order c o r r e l a t i o n was used. Harvey (I960) and Long (I960) had derived descriptive categories from stories of a mixed sex group t o l d i n response to TAT cards. The frequency with which a story occurred In a category was used as a measure of proportional agreement on the meaning of each card. Perceptual ambiguity indices and uncertainty measures were calculated from these proportions and the TAT cards rank ordered. The data are shown i n Appendix K. 32 Every method of ranking the ambiguity of TAT cards was compared with every other method. For the f i r s t method of perceptual ambiguity three rank orders of TAT cards of the male, the female, and the combined sex groups were based on the perceptual ambiguity indices. These ranks were compared by the Spearman rank order c o r r e l a t i o n with the respective male, female, and combined sex groups of the themata rank order method. They were also compared with the male, female, and combined sex groups rank orders by average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of t h i s method. Harvey's combined sex group rank order by perceptual ambiguity index and uncertainty measure was compared with the combined groups rank order of the perceptual ambiguity method and the themata rank order method. The rank order of the subjective consensus method based on combined sex group judgement was compared with the combined sex group rank orders based on the perceptual ambiguity Index and uncertainty measure of the perceptual ambiguity method, the themata ranking method, and the apperceptive rank order derived from Harvey's data. In summary, rank orders were obtained by the method of perceptual ambiguity f o r the male, female, and combined sex group both by perceptual ambiguity and uncertainty measure. TAT cards were rank ordered by the second method of themata ranking f o r the male, female, and combined group based on the perceptual ambiguity indices f o r the f i r s t choice and the average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of a l l the ranked needs. The t h i r d method of subjective consensus (Bijou and Kenny, 1951) provided 33 a r a n k o r d e r f o r c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e r a n k o r d e r s o f t h e combined g r o u p s o f a l l o t h e r methods and H a r v e y ' s ( I 9 6 0 ) combined g r o u p s d a t a which were c o n v e r t e d t o r a n k o r d e r s b a s e d on p e r c e p t u a l a m b i g u i t y i n d i c e s and u n c e r t a i n t y measureso The male and female r a n k o r d e r s were compared w i t h e a c h o t h e r f o r d i f f e r e n c e s as w e l l a s w i t h e v e r y o t h e r m e t h o d ' s sex groups„ A l s o , e v e r y combined group r a n k o r d e r was compared w i t h e v e r y o t h e r combined group r a n k o r d e r f o r d i f f e r e n c e s o f methodo C o v a r i a n c e o f P e r s o n a l i t y V a r i a b l e s w i t h A m b i g u i t y Some q u a n t i t a t i v e s t u d i e s on t h e TAT have b e e n c o n c e r n e d w i t h s t i m u l a t o r y v a l u e s o f t h e c a r d s as w e l l as t h e amount and t h e k i n d o f r e s p o n s e s t h a t were e l i c i t e d , , E r o n (1950) p l a c e s i n h i s n o r m a t i v e s t u d y some emphasis on t h e s t i m u l u s f a c t o r s and the number o f themes e l i c i t e d o S i n c e i t has b e e n shown b y B i j o u and Kenny (1951) t h a t t h e r e i s some j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r g r o u p i n g TAT c a r d s i n t o t h r e e l e v e l s o f a m b i g u i t y , namely h i g h , medium and l o w , t h e r a n k o r d e r s o f t h e c a r d s b a s e d on PA and $ were g r o u p e d s i m i l a r l y b y c o n s i d e r i n g t h e f i r s t f i v e c a r d s as b e i n g t h e h i g h e s t i n a m b i g u i t y , t h e m i d d l e f i v e o f medium a m b i g u i t y and t h e l o w e s t f i v e o f low a m b i g u i t y . . The two g r o u p s o f f o u r c a r d s t h a t f a l l i n between t h e s e g r o u p s were c o n s i d e r e d b o r d e r l i n e c a s e s and were n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a e The t o t a l number o f themes o f t h e TAT c a r d s f a l l i n g i n t o a c e r t a i n a m b i g u i t y g r o u p , r a n k e d b y t h e method o f p e r c e p t u a l a n d s c h e m a t i c a m b i g u i t y , were compared f o r d i f f e r e n c e s 0 The c o r r e l a t i o n r a t i o E was u s e d t o i n d i c a t e t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e 3k number of themes and the ambiguity l e v e l . The data are shown i n Appendix M. The t o t a l number of words e l i c i t e d by each TAT card was investigated by Rosenzweig and Fleming (191+9) • The mean number of words for the TAT cards of high, medium, and low perceptual and schematic ambiguity of the male and female groups were compared by the c o r r e l a t i o n r a t i o E. The data are also shown i n Appendix M. Eron, Terry, and Calahan (1950) investigated the emotional tone of TAT cards and gave the card with the mean saddest r a t i n g a rank of one and the card with the mean r a t i n g of least sad a rank of twenty. These ranks were compared with the perceptual ambiguity measure (PA and H) and themata ranks of males and females by the rank order c o e f f i c i e n t , r». Ullman (1957) states the median number of emotional words that each TAT card e l i c i t s . The t o t a l number of emotional words produced by the cards of a high, medium, or low perceptual and schematic ambiguity l e v e l were compared by the c o r r e l a t i o n r a t i o E. Only cards of the male series were used. Gurel and Ullman (1958) i n a follow-up study, u t i l i z i n g the transcendence index score measure, investigated the differences among TAT cards i n the amount of material e l i c i t e d . The resultant rank order of the male series from highest to lowest transcendence score was compared with the perceptual and schematic ambiguity ranking of TAT cards of the 3$ male series by the rank order c o e f f i c i e n t * Knehr, Vickery and Guy (1953) investigated problem-action responses and emotions induced by d i f f e r e n t TAT cards. The v a r i a b i l i t y of responses to the series of TAT cards common to both sexes was expressed as percent. A high v a r i a b i l i t y implied a greater uncertainty of response and the data were converted to rank orders based on the uncertainty measure H. The rank order of TAT cards and the uncertainty measures are shown i n Appendix L. Whether the variations of behavior and thema were rel a t e d to the perceptual and schematic ambiguity of the TAT cards was determined by the rank order c o r r e l a t i o n . The data are shovm i n Appendix M. CHAPTER TV RESULTS Three methods of ranking the ambiguity of TAT card3 were investigated. A further rank ordering was obtained by converting the frequencies of apperceptive responses of Harvey's (I960) and Long's ( i960) data to measures of uncertainty and perceptual ambiguity. This served as a check upon the r e l i a b i l i t y of the descriptive categories used i n the f i r s t method of perceptual ambiguity. a) Perceptual Ambiguity Rank Order. The combined male and female choice of that descriptive category which they thought would best describe what they saw i n the picture was expressed as a perceptual ambiguity index for each card. Kenny ( 196l) had suggested two comparable formulae f o r an index of ambiguity, the second being the uncertainty measure, H. Hence, a l l proportional responses were also expressed by the uncertainty measure and the TAT cards scaled on that basis. A high degree of uncertainty i n the choice of the most descriptive category denotes a high degree of ambiguity. Por both indices a high numerical value i s representative of high ambiguity and places the respective card high i n t h e rank order. A small value indicates a low degree of ambiguity and 36 37 a l e w p l a c e i n t h e r a n k o r d e r . T h e r a n k o r d e r i n g o f t h e T A T c a r d s o n t h i s b a s i s i s s h o w n i n T a b l e 1 f o r t h e m a l e s a n d f e m a l e s a n d f o r b o t h s e x e s c o m b i n e d . A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e p e r c e p t u a l a m b i g u i t y a n d u n c e r t a i n t y m e t h o d o f a r r i v i n g a t a n i n d e x o f a m b i g u i t y was made b y t h e S p e a r m a n r a n k o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t , y i e l d i n g a . 9 1 + 3 c o r r e l a t i o n f o r t h e m a l e s a n d a .930 c o r r e l a t i o n f o r t h e f e m a l e s . I t i s e v i d e n t f r o m s u c h a r e s u l t t h a t t h e t w o f o r m u l a e e x p r e s s t h e same q u a l i t y a b o u t a c a r d . b ) A p p e r c e p t i v e R a n k O r d e r . H a r v e y (I960) a n d L o n g (I960) h a d i n i t i a l l y o b t a i n e d t h e d e s c r i p t i v e c a t e g o r i e s f o r t h i s s t u d y a n d , a s a r e l i a b i l i t y c h e c k , t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f r e s p o n s e s g i v e n b y t h e i r s u b j e c t s f o r e a c h c a t e g o r y w e r e c o n v e r t e d t o p e r c e p t u a l a m b i g u i t y i n d i c e s a n d u n c e r t a i n t y m e a s u r e s . T h e r a n k o r d e r f o r t h e c o m b i n e d s e x g r o u p b a s e d o n t h e s e m e a s u r e s i s a l s o s h o w n i n T a b l e 1. c ) S u b j e c t i v e C o n s e n s u s R a n k O r d e r . A s p a r t o f t h e t h i r d m e t h o d o f s c a l i n g a m b i g u i t y , a s w e l l a s f o r p u r p o s e o f c o m p a r i s o n , B i j o u a n d K e n n y ' s (1951) r a n k o r d e r o f t h e T A T c a r d s u s i n g c o n s e n s u a l j u d g e m e n t i s a l s o s h o w n i n T a b l e 1. O n l y t w e n t y - t w o c a r d s o f t h e s e t w e r e u s e d i n t h e i r s t u d y . C a r d 13B h a d n o t b e e n i n c l u d e d i n H a r v e y ' s s t u d y a n d t h e r e f o r e n o d e s c r i p t i v e c a t e g o r i e s e x i s t f o r t h i s c a r d . T h i s a c c o u n t s f o r t h e o m i s s i o n o f t h i s c a r d f r o m t h e r a n k o r d e r b y s u b j e c t i v e c o n s e n s u s l i s t e d I n T a b l e 1. TABLE 1 Rank Order of TAT Cards by Perceptual Ambiguity, Apperceptive Ranking and Subjective Consensus PA. H Perceptual Apperceptive Perceptual Apperceptive Subjective Ambiguity Rank Ambiguity Rank Consensus Rank Male Female Combined Combined Male Female Combined Combined Combined Order 1 19 18GF 18GF 6BM 6BM 18GF 18GF 6BM 19 2 9GF 19 19 8BM 9GF 2 6BM 8BM 11 3 6BM 6BM 6BM 18GF 19 15 19 k 18BM k k 2 9GF h 18BM 6BM 9GF 18GF 15 5 18BM 15 k 20 15 15 20 5 5.5 3 B M 5.5 3GF 6 15 k 3GF 13MF k 3GF 18BM 6BM 7 17BM 15 18BM 3GF 8BM k 13MF 3BM 7.5 3BM 7.5 3GF C D (Table continued on next page) 8 18GP 17BM 17BM 17BM 17BM 17BM 17BM 20 9 3GP 18BM 19 18GP 19 18BM 19 13MP 9.5 8BM 9.5 13MP 10 5 9BM ' 12BG 7BM 4 8BM 14 12M 11 9BM 17BM 13MP 14 17GP 13MP 2 3GP 8BM 12 7 B M 9BM 8BM 3GP 9 B M 9GP 13MP 7BM 12*5 15 12.5 17GP 13 8 G P 9GP 2 I3MP 1 7BM 4 13 ©5 15 13.5 I7GF 14 14 8 G P i 4 5 6GP 17GP 11 10 15 17GP 1 7BM 11 2 9BM 9BM 8GP 14 16 13MP 18BM 17GP 8GP 8 B M 18BM 1 12BG 17BM 17 1 6 G P 8GP 5' 12M 7BM 5 12M 9BM 18 2 7BM 1 1 8GP 17GP 12M 5 2 19 11 14 5 12M 11 11 11 9GP 1 20 12M 17GP i i 9BM 1 10 8GP 1 12BG 21 8 B M 10 12M 9GP i 4 14 i 4 2 22 10 11 6GP 2 6GP 8GP 6GP 6GP (Table continued on next page) 23 6GP 12M 10 6GP 2% 20 20 20 10 25 12BG 5 3'BM 7BM 26 3BM 12BG 12BG 3BM 10 12M 3BM 10 20 20 10 9BM 12BG 5 20 7BM 3BM 12BG 12BG 3BM d) Comparison of Perceptual Ambiguity Ranks for Sex  Differences e It i s of interest to see whether the male subjects d i f f e r e d from the females i n t h e i r perceptual reactions to the eardso For t h i s purpose, the two ranks based on perceptual ambiguity, as well as uncertainty measure, were compared by the Spearman rank order c o r r e l a t i o n coefficient« A comparison of the sexes by perceptual ambiguity showed a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of ©522, and f o r the uncertainty measure i t was ©^O^* Both correlations are s i g n i f i c a n t at the ©Ol level© This degree of c o r r e l a t i o n shows that the two sexes do not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e i r perceptual reactions to TAT cards© e) Comparison of Different Methods of Rankingo The rank orders of the TAT cards based on the perceptual ambiguity indices of the males, the females, and the combined sexes were compared with the combined sex group rank order of the subjective consensus method used by Bijou and Kenny (1951)© The r e s u l t s are reported i n Table 2© In a si m i l a r fashion the rank orders of the males, the females, and the combined sexes based on the uncertainty measure were correlated with the rank order obtained by the method of subjective consensus (Bijou and Kenny, 1951)© The r e s u l t s are reported i n Table 3© No s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was found between the females and the combined sex group data, and those of the subjective consensus method© The male ranks correlated with the subjective consensus ranks at s l i g h t l y l e s a than the ©05 l e v e l of significance© kz TABLE 2 Comparison of TAT Card Rank Order by Perceptual Ambiguity and Subjective Consensus, (Bijou and Kenny, 1951) Perceptual Ambiguity Subjective Combined Rank Order Consensus Sex Coefficient Male Female Combined .333 .318 .258 TABLE 3 Comparison of TAT Card Rank Order by Uncertainty Measure and Subjective Consensus. (Bijou and Kenny, 195U Rank Order Uncertainty Subjective Consensus Measure Combined Sex Rank Order Coe f f i c i e n t Male .3&V Female .090 Combined .264 + p < .0$ kh As the present rank order by perceptual ambiguity and uncertainty measure are based on Harvey's (I960) and Long's (I960) c r i t i c a l categories, a comparison of the two rank orders would indicate the r e l i a b i l i t y of these categories to express the most pertinent q u a l i t i e s of the respective carde A comparison shows an agreement of the two subject groups on the pertinence of the categories by a rank order c o r r e l a t i o n of .I4.8I, s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . A si m i l a r comparison of Harvey's c r i t i c a l categories with the rank order by subjective consensus shows a c o r r e l a t i o n of .32lj., which i s not s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05* l e v e l . Table k l i s t s the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s for a comparison on the basis of the perceptual ambiguity index, and Table $ shows the same data f o r the uncertainty measure. The high degree of c o r r e l a t i o n between ranks based on the uncertainty measure and perceptual ambiguity Is again apparent i n these f i g u r e s . f) Ambiguity by Rank Order of Needs. The second method for obtaining a measure of ambiguity was based on the subjects' rank order of fourteen needs to each TAT p i c t u r e . The proportional agreement on the f i r s t rank was used as the basis for a perceptual ambiguity index. The rank orders of the TAT cards based on these Indices are shown i n Table 6 for the males, the females, and the combined sexes. Following the rank order, based on the choice of the most relevant need, a l l ranked needs f o r each TAT card of the separate and the combined sexes were int e r c o r r e l a t e d by the TABLE \\. C o m p a r i s o n o f A p p e r c e p t i v e Rank O r d e r o f TAT C a r d s w i t h P e r c e p t u a l A m b i g u i t y and S u b j e c t i v e Consensus Rank O r d e r A m b i g u i t y A p p e r c e p t i v e Rank B p e a r m a n Rank O r d e r Rank O r d e r Rank O r d e r C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t Perceptual Ambiguity Combined Sex ol+8l++ Subjective Consensus Combined Sex 0321+, " M p < oOl lj.6 TABLE 5 Comparison of Apperceptive Rank Order of TAT Cards with Uncertainty Measure and Subjective Consensus Rank Order Ambiguity Apperceptive Rank Spearman Rank Order Rank Order Rank Order Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t Uncertainty Measure Combined Sex Subjective Consensus Combined Sex .l+90++ .232 + + p < .01 TABLE 6 Rank Orders of TAT Cards by Schematic Ambiguity Based upon F i r s t Choice from Fourteen Needs and t h e i r Average I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n Rank Card F i r s t Choice Card Average I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n Male Female Combined Male Female Combined 20 1 1 1 17GF 1 1+ 3 I7GF 2 5 2 20 2 5 1+ 5 3 7 3 5 3 7 7 15 1+.5 19 11+ 19 k 2 2 8 B M 1+.5 13 9 15 5 12 12 18BM 6 10 7 18BM 6 20 11 6GF 7 h h 11 7 H+ ll+ 1 8 16 s 18GF 8 I 10 14 9 Ik i i 8BM 9 16 1 7BM 10 12 10 9GF 10 9 13 18GF 11 15 12 12M 11 3 15 17BM 12 20 19 2 12 11 16 1+ 13 18 17 11+ 13 10 18 9GF 9 6 13MF ll+ 26 21 12M U+.5 21 21 9BM 15 21 20 2 16 2 8 6GF 16 18 17 8GF 17 11 13 8GF 17 19 8 19 18 17 20 7BM 18 21+ 25 11 19 23 22 3BM 19 15 6 3GF 20 8 15 3GF 2© 13 9 13MF 21 22 23 17BM 21 23 22 3BM 22 & 18; 12B0f 22 3 19 6B 23 3 16 1+ 23 22 23 12BG z\ 2l+ 2k 1 21+ 6 5 10 25 25 25 10 25 25 26 9BM 26 26 26 6BM 26 17 2k 1+8 formula suggested by Gu i l f o r d (1936, p. 119). A high c o e f f i c i e n t s i g n i f i e s a high degree of agreement of the subjects on the rank order p o s i t i o n of the needs relevant to that card and, therefore, by d e f i n i t i o n a low degree of ambiguity. The cards were scaled on the basis of these c o e f f i c i e n t s and the ranks are shown on Table 6. The average Intereorrelations, on which these ranks are based, are shown i n Appendix J. g) Comparison of Themata Ranks f o r Sex Differences. The two d i f f e r e n t rank orders that were obtained by the themata ranking method were compared for differences due to sex. The male rank order based on the choice of f i r s t rank for a need was compared by the Spearman rank order c o r r e l a t i o n with the female rank order. The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of •1|35 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l and shows that the two subject groups do not d i f f e r In t h e i r choice of the f i r s t ranking need for each TAT card. A similar comparison was made for the ranks based on the average In t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of the ranked needs. The c o r r e l a t i o n of .522 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . This shows that no sex differences exist i n the ranking of the fourteen needs. It supports the conclusion of Bijou and Kenny (1951) that males and females do not d i f f e r i n t h e i r method of ranking the ambiguity of TAT cards. On the basis of these findings the data for the two sex groups were combined and the rank orders of TAT cards by perceptual ambiguity, based on the f i r s t choice and the average 49 i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of a l l the fourteen needs, were compared,. The Spearman rank order c o e f f i c i e n t of ©505 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the oOl l e v e l o This indicates that the f i r s t choice of rank, which was shown to be the only rank to have consistent re-rank s t a b i l i t y , does not d i f f e r from the average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of a l l the needs© This method of scaling ambiguity used by Jacobs (1958) and c r i t i c i z e d by Kenny (1961), as not having taken into account the problem of weighting the proportion of subjects who give d i f f e r e n t categorization reactions, d i f f e r s from other methods not so much i n methodological shortcomings as i n the basic mental processes formulated by Kenny ( 1 9 6 l ) e This w i l l be discussed more f u l l y i n Chapter V* h) Comparison of Rank Order by Different Methods© The ambiguity of the TAT cards was scaled by three d i f f e r e n t methods© The rank order by perceptual ambiguity, based on the choice of the most descriptive category, was compared with the themata rank order based on the choice of that need, which seemed to be most c l e a r l y r e l a t e d to the picture© In both methods rank orders were obtained f o r the males and the females separately and for both groups combined© A comparison did not show any s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n ranking by the two sexes© The rank order c o r r e l a t i o n f o r the separate and combined sex groups, based on the method of perceptual ambiguity and f i r s t choice of need i n themata ranking are shown i n Table 7© It i s evident from the lack of c o r r e l a t i o n of the ranks that the t wo methods of scaling the ambiguity of TAT cards d i f f e r significantly© T A B L E 7 C o m p a r i s o n o f T A T C a r d R a n k O r d e r b y P e r c e p t u a l A m b i g u i t y a n d C h o i c e o f m o s t P e r t i n e n t N e e d ^ a ^ F r e q u e n c y o f C h o i c e P e r c e p t u a l A m b i g u i t y M a l e F e m a l e C o m b i n e d M a l e .2l|9 F e m a l e .108 C o m b i n e d -.038 ( a ) C o r r e l a t i o n b y S p e a r m a n R a n k O r d e r C o e f f i c i e n t 51 It was previously shox^ n (p e 1+8) that the ranks based on the average intercorrelation of a l l the needs did not differ significantly from the ranks based on the choice of f i r s t rank for a needo It is therefore not surprising that the ranks for single and combined sexes by perceptual ambiguity do not correlate significantly with those based on the average inter= correlation,. These data are shown i n Table 80 The rank order of TAT cards by the method of subjective consensus used by Bijou and Kenny (1951) was compared with the rank order of the combined group by themata ranking,, Rank orders by the choice of the f i r s t ranking need are significantly different from the subjective consensus rank order,, These data are shown i n Table 9« This table also shows that a rank ordering of TAT cards, based on the c r i t i c a l categories of Harvey ( I 9 6 0 ) , Is significantly different from the ranking based on the choice of f i r s t need© A similar comparison of the subjective rank order and the apperceptive rank3 of Harvey (I960) with the ranks based on average intercorrelation indicates that no relationship existS e Only the ranks based on the combined sex group responses were usedo The data are shown i n Table 10„ i) Comparison of Perceptual and Schematic Ambiguity  with Quantitative Investigations of the TATo It is of interest to see to what degree quantitative personality aspects of the cards may vary with perceptual and schematic ambiguity,, For this purpose several comparisons have been made from data obtained from the published literature of TAT research,, TABLE 8 Comparison of TAT Card Rank Order by Perceptual Ambiguity and Average Intercorrelat ion< a) Average I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n Perceptual Ambiguity Male Female Combined Male .093 Female =.086 Combined -.055 (a.) Correlation by the Spearman Rank Order Coe f f i c i e n t 53 TABLE 9 Comparison of TAT Card Rank Order Based on Choice of Most Pertinent Need with Apperceptive and Subjective Consensus Rank Order Ambiguity F i r s t Choice Spearman Rank Order Rank Order Rank Order Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t Apperceptive Rank Subjective Consensus Combined Sex Combined Sex *087 ol32 5% TABLE 10 Comparison of TAT Card Rank Order Based on Average Int e r c o r r e l a t i o n of Needs with Apperceptive and Subjective Consensus Rank Order Ambiguity Average I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n Spearman Rank Order Rank Order Rank Order Correlation C o e f f i c i e nt Apperceptive Rank Combined Sex Subjective Consensus Combined Sex -.281 .373 55 1) Number of Themes, Eron (1950), as part of a normative study of the TAT, gives the number of themes which each card e l i c i t s . Grouping the cards according to three ambiguity l e v e l s by using the upper f i v e cards and the middle and lower f i v e on the perceptual and schematic ambiguity scale, these l e v e l s were compared by the c o r r e l a t i o n r a t i o with the number of themes each e l i c i t s . As Eron's group was a male population i t was only comparable to the male and combined group of t h i s study. V a r i a b i l i t y of the number of themes with the lev e l s of perceptual ambiguity i s indicated i n Table 11 and with l e v e l s of schematic ambiguity i n Table 12. The re s u l t s are not s i g n i f i c a n t . 2) T o t a l Wordage. Rosenzweig and Fleming's (191+9) report the average number of words i n response to TAT cards. The cards of the perceptual and schematic ambiguity rank order were grouped into three l e v e l s of high, medium, and low ambiguity and compared with the number of words each evoked. It i s evident from Table 13 that the t o t a l number of words given i n response to TAT cards do not vary with the perceptual ambiguity of the card. When the ambiguity rank order was based on the uncertainty measure and used i n a comparison with the number of words equally i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s were obtained. A comparison of the t o t a l number of words for cards which f a l l into three l e v e l s of schematic ambiguity shows no s i g n i f i c a n t covariance. The data are shown i n Table 11+. 56 TABLE 11 Comparison of Perceptual Ambiguity Levels with Number of Themes E l i c i t e d (Eron, 1950) Perceptual Ambiguity No. of Themes Correlation Ratio Male Male .201+ Combined Combined .103 Uncertainty Measure Male Male .036 Combined Combined .lli+ 57 TABLE 12 Comparison of Schematic Ambiguity Levels with Number of Themes E l i c i t e d (Eron, 1950) F i r s t Choice No. of Themes Correlation Ratio Male Male .303 Combined Combined .199 Average I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n Male Combined Male Combined .081+ .355 5® TABLE 13 Comparison of Perceptual Ambiguity Levels with Total Wordage (Rosenzweig and Fleming, 191+9) Perceptual Ambiguity Total Wordage Correlation Ratio Male Male .587 Female Female .610 Uncertainty Measure Male Female Male Female .665 »61j.3 5 9 TABLE ll+ Comparison of Schematic Ambiguity Levels with To t a l Wordage (Rosenzweig and Fleming, 191+9) F i r s t Choice Total Wordage Correlation Ratio Male Male . ^ 5 9 Female Female . 5 9 Q Average In t e r c o r r e l a t i o n Male Male Female Female . 2 5 0 60 3) Personality Revealingness. Kenny and Bijou (1953) measured the extent to which personality factors were injected into TAT protocols with a Q-sort technique© The stories were sorted according to a nine point value scale which indicated the amount of personality material projected. A comparison of the Q-sort values of each card with the psychological ambiguity l e v e l s had shown the medium set of cards to be the most productive i n terms of personality material. In the present study the Q-sort mean values f o r f i f t e e n TAT cards were compared with lev e l s of perceptual and schematic ambiguity. The r e s u l t s of Table 15 show that no covariance exists between personality revealingness and perceptual ambiguity. The nonsignificant r e s u l t s i n Table 16 also Indicate that personality factors are not d i r e c t l y related to schematic ambiguity. 1+) Emotional Tone. Eron, Terry and Calahan (1950) rank ordered the TAT cards on the basis of mean r a t i n g of emotional tone f o r both males and females. A rank order comparison with the uncertainty measure ranking shows, as i s evident from Table 17 that no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s at the .05 l e v e l . When compared with the ranks by perceptual ambiguity only the female groups show a change of emotional tone from sad to least sad with a decrease i n ambiguity l e v e l . This i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . This r e s u l t suggests the hypothesis that the greater the ambiguity of a TAT card the sadder the story. 61 TABLE 1$ Comparison of Perceptual Ambiguity Levels with 0,-Sort Values of Personality Revealingness (Kenny and Bijou, 1953) Ambiguity Personality Revealingness Correlation Ratio Perceptual Ambiguity Q-Sort Value .383 .383 62 TABLE 16 Comparison of Schematic Ambiguity Levels with Q-Sort Values of Personality Revealingness (Kenny and Bijou, 1953) Ambiguity Personality Revealingness Correlation Ratio F i r s t Choice 0,-Sort Value .081+ Average In t e r c o r r e l a t i o n Qt-Sort Value 397 TABLE 1? Comparison of Perceptual Ambiguity Levels with Emotional Tone (Eron, Terry and Calahan, 1950) Perceptual Ambiguity Emotional Tone Rank Order Co e f f i c i e n t Male Male O055 Female Female e3b9 Uncertainty Measure Male Male »l60 Female Female »574'H" ++p < *01 6£ 4 rank order comparison of the mean r a t i n g of emotional tone with the rank order of TAT cards by schematic ambiguity shows inconclusive r e s u l t s which are reported i n Table 18. The s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n of the emotional tone ranks of the female group i n t h i s comparison may not be taken as a s i g n i f i c a n t trend. Schematic ambiguity based on the f i r s t choice of rank shows no similar r e l a t i o n s h i p with the emotional tone but tends to be inversely r e l a t e d . 5) Mean Number of Emotional Words. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the median number of emotional words was c a r r i e d out by Ullman (1957)• A comparison of these data with the three l e v e l s of perceptual and schematic ambiguity f o r the male group by the c o r r e l a t i o n r a t i o does not indicate any s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n at the .05 l e v e l . These data are reported i n Table 19 for the perceptual ambiguity and indicate no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p . Table 20 shows equally non-significant data for the l e v e l s of schematic ambiguity. 6) Personality Factors Measured by the Transcendence  Index. Gurel and Ullman (1958) rank ordered the cards on the basis of transcendence scores. A rank order comparison of t h i s male group with those of the perceptual and schematic ambiguity male groups shows no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p at the .05 l e v e l . The r e s u l t s are sho*m i n Table 19 for perceptual ambiguity and Table 20 f o r schematic ambiguity ranks© 65 TABLE 18 Comparison of Schematic Ambiguity Levels with Emotional Tone (Eron, Terry and Calahan, 1950) F i r s t Choice Emotional Tone Rank Order C o e f f i c i e n t Male Male -.068 Female Female -.273 Average In t e r c o r r e l a t i o n Male Male .16]+ Female Female 412+ 66 TABLE 19 Comparison of Perceptual Ambiguity Levels with Mean Number of Emotional Words and Rank Order by Transcendence) (Ullman, 1957; Gurel and Ullman, 1958) Rank Order Emotional Words Trans c endenc e Correlation Ratio Rank Order Co e f f i c i e n t Perceptual Ambiguity .252 -.12i+ J 67 TABLE 20 Comparison of Schematic Ambiguity Levels with Mean Number of Emotional Words and Rank Order by Transcendence (Ullman, 1 9 5 7 ; Gurel and Ullman, 1 9 5 8 ) Emotional Words Transcendence Rank Order Correlation Ratio Rank Order C o e f f i c i e n t F i r s t Choice .200 - . 2 1 0 6 8 7) Variations i n Thema and Behavioral Patterns. Knehr, Vickery, and Guy ( 1 9 5 3 ) have expressed variat i o n s i n thema and behavioral response patterns induced by TAT cards on a percentage basis. The percent variations induced by each card were converted to a measure of uncertainty using the formula suggested by Kenny ( 1 9 6 1 ) . The data, upon which the ranks are based, are shown i n Appendix L. The TAT cards were ranked on the basis of the v a r i a b i l i t y which they induced i n the thema and behavioral patterns. High v a r i a b i l i t y was rel a t e d to high perceptual ambiguity of the cards, and Table 2 1 shows that apparently no re l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s . When variations of behavioral patterns and thema were compared to a rank ordering of TAT cards by schematic ambiguity, only high v a r i a b i l i t y of thema was found to be rel a t e d to high ambiguity. Variations In behavioral response pattern show no commensurate v a r i a t i o n with schematic ambiguity. The data are reported i n Table 2 2 . 6 9 TABLE 2 1 Comparison of Variations i n with Rank Order by (Knehr, Vickery, Behavioral Pattern and Thema Uncertainty Measure and Guy, 1953) Combined Sexes Behavioral Pattern Thema Rank Order Rank Order Co e f f i c i e n t Uncertainty Measure - . 2 3 6 - . 2 5 % 70 TABLE ZZ Comparison of Variations i n Behavioral Pattern and Thema with Rank Order by Themata Ranking (Knehr, Vickery, and Guy, 1953) Combined Sexes Behavioral Pattern Thema Rank Order Rank Order C o e f f i c i e n t F i r s t Choice .109 .536+ +p < .05 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION The p r i n c i p a l purpose of t h i s study has been the inve s t i g a t i o n of scaling the ambiguity of TAT cards by perceptual ambiguity, themata rank order, and subjective consensuso A second objective was to compare these methods with each other as well as with personality variables© The stimulus ambiguity of TAT cards i s a fundamental problem of any hypothesis which attempts to predict to the nature of personality material evoked© The ambiguity of TAT cards i s i n part dependent upon the s t r u c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s of the picture but i t i s also a function of the mental processes involved i n the accommodating response© Two such mental processes have been hypothesized by Kenny (1961) the f i r s t of which i s considered to be a perceptual or categorization reaction to the physical stimulus pattern received by the r e t i n a e The second mental process assimilates the categorized information into schema a f t e r which the accommodating behavior occurs© The perceptual and the schematic processes are d i f f e r e n t l y influenced by personality factors© Learning, set s and motivation assert t h e i r Influence primarily at the schematic stage, while simple i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and categorization i s lar g e l y determined at the perceptual stage© 71 72 The subjects of t h i s study, who were asked to choose that category which seemed to be most descriptive of what they saw i n the TAT card, made a judgement primarily by i d e n t i f y i n g and categorizing the perceptual Information. A wide diver-gence of these judgements meant i n terms of our theory a high degree of perceptual ambiguity. When needs were ranked i n the order of t h e i r relevance to TAT cards t h e i r rank was primarily determined by the schematic stage. The perceptual information from the categor-i z a t i o n stage was at the schematic stage r e l a t e d to the individual's ideas of needs and previous experience. Scheraatization determined the resultant response. A divergence of opinion on the relevance of each of the needs to the cards was measured as schematic ambiguity. A comparison of TAT card rank orders by perceptual ambiguity with schematic ambiguity showed by the low degree of c o r r e l a t i o n that the categorization and the scheraatization processes d i f f e r i n t h e i r response determination. Any uncertainty that exists at either mental stage revealed i t s e l f as ambiguity. Both the schematization process and the categorization process respond d i f f e r e n t l y to the demands of the s i t u a t i o n . Placing the onus of the response on the perceptual processes r e s u l t s i n measurable perceptual ambiguity which i s d i f f e r e n t from the schematic ambiguity. The l a t t e r type of ambiguity i s seen when the response i s based on the complex i n t e r a c t i o n of learning experiences, set, and motivation. 73 The common response to a TAT card i s a fantasy story, which i s not e n t i r e l y perceptual or schematic, but, i s based on the in t e r a c t i o n of both mental processes* The personality material revealed i n such a story i s influenced by an i n t e r a c t i o n of both perceptual and schematic ambiguity. This more glo b a l type of ambiguity i s measured by the subjective consensus method of ranking TAT cards. Perceptual i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and, with t h i s a ce r t a i n degree of uncertainty, i s passed on to the schematic stage where more s e l e c t i o n takes place and more ambiguity i s included. These resultant responses are the complex product of assimilated perceptual information into a schema. Each of the three methods of scaling the ambiguity of TAT cards i s not comparable with the other two, because i n each instance ambiguity i s determined by a mental process that has a d i f f e r e n t function i n the determination of the response. Different aspects of a comprehensive story may be more r e l a t e d to one type of ambiguity than to another. Kenny and Bijou (1954) nave already shown that more personality material i s e l i c i t e d by the medium l e v e l of comprehensive ambiguity established by the subjective consensus methodo Murstein (1958b) reported that t h i s type of ambiguity i s fun c t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d to the number of themes investigated by Eron (1950); and Gurel and Ullman (1958) showed that more personality material, as measured by the transcendence index, i s produced by the medium l e v e l of ambiguity. These findings 71+ l e d to the assumption that various personality factors may be re l a t e d to degrees of ambiguity as well as types of ambiguity. The present findings show that the Interaction of ambiguity with personality material i s complex. They also suggest the p o s s i b i l i t y that some aspects of personality revealed i n a TAT response are not necessarily r e l a t e d to ambiguity of any sort. Eron 1s normative study had resulted i n an ordering of twenty cards of the male series f o r t h e i r stimulatory value. The rank order by the two methods of perceptual and schematic ambiguity were grouped Into three l e v e l s of decreasing ambiguity and compared with the number of themes e l i c i t e d by the cards i n each l e v e l . It was found that neither perceptual or schematic ambiguity varies s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the productivity of themes for each card. Since Murstein (1958b) found a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between Eron's number of themes and the three ambiguity l e v e l s of the subjective consensus method i t must be concluded that, theme production i n response to TAT cards Is a function of both perceptual and schematic processes but i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y influenced by either mental stage alone. When the average number of words given i n TAT protocols (Rosenzweig and Fleming, 191+9) was compared with l e v e l s of perceptual and schematic ambiguity no s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n was found. Although the c o r r e l a t i o n r a t i o does not a t t a i n a l e v e l of acceptable significance, an above chance trend i s indicated i n the r e s u l t s . It Is also of Interest to 75 note that, although the r e s u l t s are below an acceptable l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e , the t o t a l number of words seems to increase with increasing perceptual ambiguity, yet showed a c u r v i l i n e a r trend when compared to schematic ambiguity l e v e l s * Although these data are not conclusive, the number of words i n TAT protocols are more l i k e l y to be a function of the a f f e c t i v e content of the stories rather than of the ambiguity values of the cards© Kenny and Bijou (19j?3) had quantified the personality material from TAT protocols by means of a Q,-sort techniqueo The r e l a t i v e values on the one=to-nine Q=sort scale given to each card f o r evoking a c e r t a i n amount of personality revealingness were compared with the medium, high, and low le v e l s of perceptual and schematic ambiguityo The r e s u l t s indicate that no s i g n i f i c a n t covariance exists between the amount of personality material of a TAT story and the two types of ambiguity e Both perceptual and schematic a c t i v i t y are determining factors of the resultant story which does not correlate with either process alone 0 A quantitative i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the TAT by Eron, Terry and Calahan (1950) established a rank order by mean ra t i n g of emotional tone. No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found when the emotional tone r a t i n g was compared with the male perceptual or schematic ambiguity rank order of the respective cardo The perceptual ambiguity rank order by the female subjects based on the uncertainty measure reveals an increase of sad emotional tone r a t i n g with increasing ambiguityo 76 S i m i l a r l y , sadness of emotional tone seems to increase s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the schematic ambiguity rank order by the female sex. These r e s u l t s are doubtful indications of female emotionality when i t comes to ambiguous TAT cards for the following reasons: High rank order r e l i a b i l i t y e xists between the perceptual ambiguity index and the uncertainty measure ranking. Secondly, schematic ambiguity determined by f i r s t choice of needs and t h e i r average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n i s the more unreliable measure. The comparison of perceptual and schematic ambiguity with emotional tone y i e l d s , therefore, no conclusive r e s u l t s . In a comparison of the perceptual and schematic ambiguity l e v e l s with the mean number of emotional words (Ullman, 1957)» and also with transcendence scores (Gurel and Ullman, 1958), revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p . S i m i l a r l y , v a r i a t i o n s i n behavioral patterns induced by TAT cards (Knehr, Vickery and Guy, 1953) show no re l a t i o n s h i p to lev e l s of perceptual ambiguity. When behavioral pattern and thema changes induced by TAT cards were compared with the rank order by schematic ambiguity, only thema showed an increased v a r i a b i l i t y with increasing schematic ambiguity. These problems or thema are not equivalent to the thema or needs which had to be ranked for the schematic ambiguity scale. They are, however, of the type that would be determined by the schematic process rather than the perceptual stage and for this reason would l i k e l y show 77 v a r i a t i o n with the type of ambiguity determined at the same mental stage. Although no d e f i n i t e conclusions can be reached on the basis of these r e s u l t s , i t may be concluded that at least t h i s manner of comparison does not reveal any s i g n i f i c a n t relationships and, that the perceptual and schematic rank orders of TAT cards are not d i r e c t l y related to some personality v a r i a b l e s . In a l l cases of comparison only some of the cards of the perceptual ambiguity of themata rank order series could be used since none of the personality variable studies included a l l the cards of the present s e r i e s . Removal of c e r t a i n cards out of a series, male or female, disrupts the continuity, as well as l i m i t s the number of cases, so that the few remaining cards have to show a very strong r e l a t i o n s h i p i n order to be s i g n i f i c a n t . The p o s s i b i l i t y of some commensurate variations was indicated by the in c i d e n t a l cases that showed some s i g n i f i c a n t correlation,, CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Three methods of scaling the ambiguity of TAT cards were investigated and compared with each other as well as with normative and quantitative data drawn from the l i t e r a t u r e 0 The f i r s t method of perceptual ambiguity u t i l i z e d those descriptive categories of Harvey ( i 9 6 0 ) and Long ( i 9 6 0 ) whose high frequency of occurrence indicated a common perceptual reaction,. The proportional agreeement of t h i r t y female and fifty°four male students of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia was used to ar r i v e at an index of perceptual ambiguity and uncertainty measure. The twenty-six TAT cards were rank ordered according to the numerical size of these indices and the male and female rank orders compared f o r s i m i l a r i t y of perceptual r e a c t i o n s e The responses of both sex groups were then combined into one frequency and the indices of perceptual ambiguity and uncertainty measure calculated„ The TAT cards were rank ordered on the basis of these indices„ The frequency of occurrence of the c r i t i c a l categories i n the o r i g i n a l study of Harvey ( i 9 6 0 ) and Long (1960) was used as the basis for the c a l c u l a t i o n of the perceptual ambiguity indices and uncertainty measures for each TAT cardo The v a l i d i t y of the categories to express common perceptual reactions to the cards was determined by cor r e l a t i n g the 78 7 9 perceptual ambiguity and uncertainty measure rank orders with those derived from the frequency data of Harvey and Longo The second method of themata ranking u t i l i z e d fourteen needs rank ordered from most to least relevant for each of the twenty=six TAT cards„ The proportional agreement of the subject groups on the f i r s t rank served as a basis f o r the c a l c u l a t i o n of the perceptual ambiguity index„ The TAT cards were rank ordered f o r the male, the female, and then f o r the combined sex groups,, A second set of rank orders was obtained by using the average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of a l l the ranked needs as an i n d i c a t i o n of schematic ambiguity,, The male, female, and combined sex rank orders by f i r s t choice were compared with the ranks by average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n 0 A l l rank orders of TAT cards obtained by t h i s method of themata ranking were compared with the appropriate rank orders obtained by the perceptual ambiguity method, the apperceptive rank order of cards based on the data of Harvey (I960), and the subjective consensus ranks obtained by Bijou and Kenny ( 1 9 5 1 ) o The intercoraparison of the rank orders of TAT cards for the separate and the combined sexes for sex differences and with every other method of scaling the ambiguity of TAT cards showed the following r e s u l t s : Both the male and the female subjects of t h i s study did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e i r perceptual or schematic reactions to the TAT cards,, A comparison of the ranks obtained by the f i r s t method of perceptual ambiguity with the themata rank order by f i r s t choice 80 and average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n showed no s i g n i f i c a n t correlation,, When the rank order of TAT cards by the subjective consensus method was compared with the perceptual and schematic ambiguity method no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was obtained. In terms of the t h e o r e t i c a l model outlined i n Chapter I t h i s was i n t e r -preted to mean that three d i f f e r e n t types of ambiguity were investigated. Each type of ambiguity, apart from being a function of the stimulus pattern of the TAT card, was deter-mined by a d i f f e r e n t mental process. Further support for t h i s reasoning i s given, paradoxically enough, by the lack of co r r e l a t i o n of the ranks of the perceptual ambiguity and themata ranking method with some personality f a c t o r s . Variations i n perceptual ambiguity and schematic ambiguity were not r e l a t e d to such factors as the t o t a l number of words (Rosenzweig and Fleming, 191+8) or themes (Eron, 1950) given i n response to a TAT card. Nor was any d e f i n i t e i n d i c a t i o n of covariance found between the emotional tone (Eron, Terry and Calahan, 1950), or number of emotional words (Ullman, 1957) and the perceptual and schematic ambiguity of TAT cards. 0,-sort evaluation of personality revealingness (Kenny and Bijou, 1953) did not show any covariance with perceptual or schematic ambiguity. As these values had previously been found to vary with psychological ambiguity by the subjective consensus method (Kenny and Bijou, 1953). the present findings were interpreted as giving support to the t h e o r e t i c a l model. Other variables found to be equally 81 unrelated to these measures of ambiguity were personality factors measured by the transcendence index (Gurel and Ullman, 1958) and variations i n behavioral patterns induced by the TAT cards (Knehr, Vickery and Guy, 1953)* Variations i n problems or thema were found to vary with schematic ambiguity but not with perceptual ambiguity. This was assumed to be due to the s i m i l a r i t y of thema and needs both of which are thought to be primarily related to schematic processes. The psychological processes that determined the variations i n these personality factors were i n the l i g h t of the t h e o r e t i c a l model neither perceptual or schematic alone but were presumably a combination of botho 8 2 REFERENCES Bijou, S©W© and Kenny, D.T© The ambiguity values of TAT cards, J 0 Consult© Psychol., 1951, 15, 203=209. Bradley, J«E. and Lysaker, R.L. Ambiguity as a variable i n the use of a projective technique,, P i l l s b u r y M i l l s , Inc., Minneapolis, Minn©, 1957• (Mimeo.) Coleman, W. The Thematic Apperception Test,, I. E f f e c t of recent experience, I I . Some quantitative observations. J. C l i n . Psycholo, 191+7, 3, 257-=26i|.o Eron, L.D. A normative study of the Thematic Apperception Test. Psychol. Monogr©, 1950, 6l+, (9), No, 3l5o Eron, LoD», Terry, Do and Callahan, R. The use of r a t i n g scales for emotional tone of TAT s t o r i e s . J a consult e  Psychol., 1950, l i | . , i(.73=l+78o Guilford, J©P» Psychometric Methods Q New York, McGraw-Hill, 1936. Gurel, Lo and Ullman, L.P© Quantitative differences i n responses to TAT cards? the r e l a t i o n s h i p between trans= cendence score and number of emotional words. J. projo tech., 1958, 22, 399-!+°!° Harvey, EoM. The categorization of perceptual reactions to  the Thematic Apperception Test C a r d S o Unpublished M.A. th e s i s , University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I960. Hochberg, J. Perception: toward the recovery of a definition© Psycholo Rev., 1956, 63, l+ 0 0 =4°5. Jacobs, Bo A method for investigating the cue c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of pictureso In JoW© Atkinson (Ed©) Motives i n Fantasy, Action, and Society, New York, Van Nostrand, 1958. Kagan, J. Contemporary Issues i n Thematic Apperception Methods. Charles C© Thomas, S p r i n g f i e l d , 111©, 1961© Kenny, D©To and Bijou, S©W© Ambiguity of pictures and extent of personality factors i n fantasy responses. J. consult Psychol., 1953, 17, 283-288© " o 83 Kenny, DoT. Transcendence Indices, extent of personality factors i n fantasy responses and ambiguity of TAT cards« J . consult 9 Psycholo, 1951+, 18* 31+5-348 •> Kenny, D»T. A t h e o r e t i c a l research reappraisal of stimulus factors i n the TAT. In Jerome Kagan (Ed) Contemporary  Issues i n Thematic Apperceptiye Methods, Charles C o Thomas, Sp r i n g f i e l d , 1 1 1 . , 1 9 6 1 © Knehr, C o N © , Vickery, A. and Guy, Mo Problem-action responses and emotions i n the Thematic Apperception Test stori e s recounted by a l c h o l i c p a t i e n t s 0 J o Psychol., 1953s 35s 201 - 2 2 6 o Lindzey, G© and Goldberg, M o J o Motivational differences between male and female as measured by the Thematic Apperception Test© J © Person©fl 1953=51+, 2 2 , 101-117© Long, B o Perceptual reactions to the Thematic Apperception  Test Cards. Unpublished M.A© t h e s i s , The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I96O0 Murray, H.A. Thematic Apperception Test Manual. Cambridge, Harvard Univ« Pre s s, 1 9 1 + 3 o Murray, H 0 A 0 , et a l e Explorations i n Personality. New York, Oxford Univ. Press, 1 9 3 8 . Murstein, B.Io Nonprojective determinants of perception on the TAT. J . consult0 Psycholo, 1958a, 2 2 , 195-198• Murstein, B . I . The r e l a t i o n s h i p of stimulus ambiguity on the TAT to the productivity of themesQ J . consulto Psycholo 1958b, 2 2 , 3il-8o ~ Murstein, B . I o A conceptual model of projective techniques applied to stimulus variations with thematic techniqueso J o consulto Psycholo, 1959, 23, 3-l4° Pastore, N o Need as a determinant of perception. J o Psycholo, 1949, 28, l|57-I+75. Reitman, W©R© and Atkinson, J.W. Some methodological problems i n the use of thematic apperceptive measures of human motives. In. J.W. Atkinson, (Ed..) Motives i n Fantasy, Action, and Society, New York, Van Norstrand, 1958, 6 6 i + « 6 b 3 o Rosenzweig, So Apperceptive norms for the Thematic Apperception Test. Io The problems of norms i n projective methods© J . Per So, 191+9, 17, 1+75-1+82© 81+ Rosenzweig, S. and Fleming, Edith E. Apperceptive norms f o r the Thematic Apperception Test. I I . An empirical inv e s t i g a t i o n . J. Pers., 191+9, 17, 1+83-503. Senders, V i r g i n i a , L. Measurement and S t a t i s t i c s . New York, Oxford Univer. Press, 195o, 76-tJL+, 227-21+2. Ullman, L. Productivity and the c l i n i c a l use of TAT cards. J. P r o j . Tech., 1957, 21, 399-1+03. Wallach, H. Some consideration concerning the r e l a t i o n between perception and cognition. J. Pers., 191+9, 18, 6-13. Weisskopf, Edith A. A transcendence index as a proposed measure i n the TAT. J. Psychol., 1950a, 29, 379-390. Weisskopf, Edith A. An experimental study of the eff e c t of brightness and ambiguity on projection i n the Thematic Apperception Test. J. Psychol., 1950b, 29, 1+07-1+16. Weisskopf-Joelson, Edith A. and Lynn, D.B. The eff e c t of variatio n s i n ambiguity on projection In the Children's Apperception Test. J. consult. Psychol., 1953, 17, 67-70. Wittenborn, J.R. The Implications of c e r t a i n assumptions involved In the use of the Thematic Apperception Test. J. consult. Psychol., 1950, ll+, 216-225. 85 APPENDIX A Instructions and C r i t i c a l Categories 86 INSTRUCTION FOR RANKING The purpose of the present study i s to make a comparison of several methods of determining what d i f f e r e n t people see i n a number of pic t u r e s . You w i l l be presented with a set of pictures, and each picture w i l l be accompanied by a l i s t of descriptive categories which describe i n a summary way what a large number of people have seen In the picture. You are to look at each picture, read c a r e f u l l y each of the descriptive categories which belong to i t , and then select the ONE descriptive statement i n each set of f i v e that most nearly expresses what you see i n the card. Draw a c i r c l e around the corresponding l e t t e r of the statement. Consider each descriptive statement c a r e f u l l y before choosing one. You are to follow t h i s procedure for a l l the cards. PLEASE WORK RAPIDLYI DO NOT CHANGE THE ORDER IN WHICH THE CARDS ARE ARRANGED 87 Me are not interested i n asking you your name: however, we would appreciate i t i f you would please f i l l i n the following information. Age: Sex: Year i n University: DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORY A. Intraception (thoughtful): B. Does not want to do study p r a c t i c e : CAHD C. Asp i r a t i o n : 1 D. Parental Pressure; E. Inadequacy: absorbed, thinking, wondering, concentration, dreaming, pensive, meditative, pondering, i n t r o -spective, intent, curious, studious (not just looking at i t or watching i t ) . t i r e d of doing something e.g. studying, p r a c t i c i n g ; doesn't want to play i t ; detests i t ; has had as much as he can take; doesn't care much to practice v i o l i n ; not interested i n i t . hoping, wishing, aspiring, ambitious, wishing he could play i t , wants to learn to play i t , wishes to be a great musician (does not include wonderment as to whether he can ever be an accomplished a r t i s t ) . parents are forcing, compelling. discouraged about success i n playing. 88 DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORY A. Asp i r a t i o n of G i r l ; B. T o i l and hardship: CARD C. 2 D. E. School or student: Sadness: Intraception: wishes to better h e r s e l f , dreaming and hoping for future, wants to get away and better her s e l f , wants future for s e l f . people tr y i n g to make a l i v i n g or s t r i v i n g to make a l i v e l i h o o d on a farm, working hard. going to school, coming from school, taking a course, school teacher. sad, unhappy. thoughtful, daydreaming, thinking, deep i n concentration. DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. Sleeping, t i r e d ! B. Suicide: exhausted or t i r e d a f t e r being played out. thinking of or has t r i e d to take own l i f e . C. Person i s i n trouble: CARD D. Sorrow, g u i l t over something: 3BM E. Punishment over wrongdoing: sadness, despair, disheartened, depressed, broken up or sorrow over something, dejected p o s i t i o n , crying. gotten into mischief or a crime and i s being punished (e.g. locked up), i n prison, mental i n s t i t u t i o n , in.a c e l l . DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. Sorrow g r i e f , heartbroken, crying, B. Marital or romantic f r u s t r a t i o n : C. Death or Loss: CARD D. Shocked by something she has seen: 3GP E. Bad news: had f i g h t with husband or boy frie n d , f i g h t i n family. some loved one has died or l e f t her, has l o s t date. saw something which upset her, seen something t e r r i b l e , scared of what she saw, seen something t r a g i c . just heard bad news, t o l d some-thing shocking. DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. Argument (general): B. Restraint (general): C. Departure from partner: CARD D. Wanting him to do something he doesn't Ij. want to do: E. Comfort from partner: asking, begging, pleading and try i n g to prevent him from leaving her; turning away (physical) of boyfriend, husband or male f i g u r e . t r y i n g to t a l k him into something or get him to do something, convince him of something. woman t r y i n g to comfort, console, counsel, t e l l s not to worry, c o n c i l i a t e s , t a l k s lovingly to man, gives advice. 90 DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. Looking for Thief: B. Surprise: CARD surprised, s t a r t l e d , astonished at what she sees; sees something that she did not expect to see; finds something shocking. C. Curious or i n q u i s i t i v e : Do Looking f o r or c a l l i n g somebody i n room: E. Spying, peeking: looking f o r someone, seeing i f anybody i n room, c a l l i n g somebody or t e l l i n g something to somebody, expecting to see someone, to see i f somebody home, looking rat something. spying or peeking or checking up on what Is going on i n the room checking up on somebody. DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES CARD C. 6BM Bearing or waiting for bad news: B. Both figures concerned: Confession to parent fi g u r e : D. Male figure concern: E. Parental or authority pressure or disapproval: son or male figure t r y i n g to or t e l l i n g bad news such as trouble he i s i n , something unfortunate happened to one or both figures, they have had bad news. they are having a serious discussion about something, he i s upset and she i s worried, both unhappye wants to say or t e l l something to "mother fi g u r e " , confessing or saying something which i s or i s not sp e c i f i e d ; said something he didn't want to say. any reference to male figure as worried, burdened, thoughtful. parent "gotten aft e r son", censuring, q u a r r e l l i n g , hurting, disapproving, compelling by stating what to do, a misunderstanding, male and female figures not agreeing, disgust. 91 DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. Surprise: B. C. CARD D. 6GP Sly, suspicious, intentions of male f i g u r e : Argument: Counseling and advising: E. Conversation: at what he has said, h i s unexpected appearance, amazed, stopped, jumped, s t a r t l e d , astonishment. making passes, preying. either figure explaining something or giving advice to the other f i g u r e . t a l k i n g , discussion, man speaking to woman or vice versa. DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. B. CARD C. 7BM D. Advice from older advice not accepted, rejected, person not accepted: thought to be r i d i c u l o u s ; they are not agreeing. Succorance from older persons: Discussion: younger figure seeking advice, help; or receiving advice, comfort, consolation, sympathy, protection, information from older person. both figures having a conversation, gossiping, having a t a l k , rumination, conference, chat, debate. Thinking, l i s t e n i n g or watching something by both f i g u r e s : E. Disphoric mood: people characterised as being unhappy, worried (covers any unpleasant f e e l i n g ) . 92 DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. A s p i r a t i o n : t h i n k i n g a b o u t b e i n g d o c t o r i n f u t u r e , d r e a m i n g o r h o p i n g o f f u t u r e . CASD 8BM B. Daydreaming: C. A g g r e s s i o n f r o m p e r s o n a l s o u r c e : D. A g g r e s s i o n f r o m i m p e r s o n a l s o u r c e : E . O p e r a t i o n : i m a g i n i n g , v i s u a l i z i n g , t h i n k i n g a b o u t p i c t u r e o r o p e r a t i o n i n b a c k g r o u n d , n i g h t m a r e , w o n d e r i n g i f f r i e n d w i l l p u l l t h r o u g h . man on t a b l e s t a b b e d , s h o t , b o y s h o t t h e man on t h e t a b l e . a s d u r i n g war, c o u l d be a war p i c t u r e , a c c i d e n t a l l y s h o t o r h u r t , h a v i n g a n o p e r a t i o n , b e i n g o p e r a t e d on, t a k i n g b u l l e t o u t , o p e r a t i o n g o i n g on. DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. L o v e : l o v i n g , i n l o v e . B. D r e a m i n g , t h i n k i n g , i m a g i n i n g s o m e t h i n g s p e c i f i e d i n p r e s e n t , p a s t o r f u t u r e . CARD C. L o n e l i n e s s , a l o n e l y woman, she i s s a d . 8GP u n h a p p i n e s s , w o r r i e d : D. C o n t e n t m e n t : c o n t e d , s e r e n e , l o o k s h a p p y o r c o n t e n t . E . D r e a m i n g , t h i n k i n g i m a g i n i n g , w i s h i n g ( u n s p e c i f i e d ) : 93 DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. Tired, exhausted; . B. CARD C. 9BM Death: Resting and sleeping: D. Drunkeness: E. Lazy or individuals associated with l a z i n e s s : they're exhausted - probably exceptionally t i r e d . death and k i l l i n g . snoozing, s i e s t a , relaxation, taking i t easy. sleeping off a drunk, passed out from li q u o r , too much to drink and sleeping i t of f , probably on a good tear. having a nice, lazy time; hoboes, bums, vagrant s. DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. C o n f l i c t between the two women: B. Spying: CARD C. Pear: 9GP D. Hurry: E. Escape: over love, r i v a l r y or something, jealousy. hiding, snooping. t e r r o r , alarm, scared. going somewhere i n a hurry, to meet someone (not running away), two g i r l s seem to be hu s t l i n g . towards something. running away from something, i n f l i g h t . 94 DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. S o r r o w : B. C. CARD 10 D. D e p a r t u r e f r o m p a r t n e r : C o n v e r s a t i o n : L o v e : E . C o m f o r t : g r i e f , d i s t r e s s o r s o r r o w o v e r s o m e t h i n g , s a d n e s s . d o n ' t want t o l e a v e e a c h o t h e r , s a y i n g g o odbye. w h i s p e r i n g , t a l k i n g , s a y i n g s o m e t h i n g . k i s s i n g , e m b r a c i n g , a f f e c t i o n , d e v o t i o n , s e r e n i t y , c o n t e n t m e n t , s a t i s f a c t i o n , warmth, h a p p i n e s s . c o m f o r t i n g , c o n s o l i n g , n u r t u r a n c e t o p a r t n e r , c o n d o l e n c e . DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES CARD 11 A. P r e h i s t o r i c t i m e s : B. A g g r e s s i o n t o w a r d s p e e r s : C. E s c a p e f r o m p e r i l o r a n i m a l : D. A n i m a l o r i n s e c t s p e c i f i e d : E . U n r e a l , f a n t a s t i c : p r e h i s t o r i c s c e n e , p r e h i s t o r i c a n i m a l s , d i n o s a u r . p h y s i c a l harm i n f l i c t e d o r i n t e n d e d between a n i m a l s o r humans, f i g h t i n g . somebody r u n n i n g f r o m o t h e r s . g r a s s h o p p e r , d r a g o n , w i l d a n i m a l : s o m e t h i n g u n r e a l , l i k e f r o m o u t e r s p a c e o r b a d dream. 9£ DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. Praying: B. S i n i s t e r : CARD 12M C. Hypnosis: D. Sickness, i l l n e s s or death: E. Sleeping: praying over or blessing the figure on the couch who i s sick, dead or sleeping. has something e v i l i n mind, t r y i n g to do something harmful. mesmerizing, hypnotizing figure on the couch, casting a s p e l l . figure on couch i s i l l , s ick or dead. figure on the couch i s asleep or sleeping. DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. Trouble: B. Snow: CARD C. Spring or summer: 12BG D. Serenity: E. Reference to people: someone jumping out of boat, i t i s snowing, snowfall. peaceful, serene, relaxing, quiet, they are boating, having a picnic. DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES CARD 13MP A. Death or sickness of partner: B. Remorse or g u i l t : D. E. woman i s dead, i l l or sick. ashamed, sorrow, g u i l t over some-thing he has done to the woman. C. Sorrow over i l l n e s s worry, concern, p i t y or grieving or death of partner: over her death or i l l n e s s . Aggression toward partner: Sorrow (crying), sadness, remorse: physical harm i n f l i c t e d or intended on partner; murder or planning murder of woman. p i t y , anguish (no explanation). 9.6 DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A« Intraceptions B. Looking, gazing at something; CARD C. Suicide: li+ De Escape: E. Aspiration: thinking, wondering, dreaming questioning himself 0 night, sky, moon, sun, stars, heavenly bodies on view; looking or gazing out of window, going to jump or something,, climbing out of the window, t r y i n g to get out of a place. man dreaming, thinking of h i s future, of what he i s going to do, hoping for something better, making plans f o r f u t u r e 0 DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. Unreal or e v i l f igure depicted: B. Death: CARD C« Re l i g i o n : 15 D. Disphoric state: E. Loneliness: Frankenstein, gruesome man, morbid looking soul, skeleton, weird, vulture, skeleton, ghost, spirit,, dead reborn, death, l o s t wife or c h i l d , symbol of death, loathes death„ prayer, seeking consolation from Godo unpleasant, emotional states characterized e.g a dreadful, unhappy, worried, depression, scared and alone, l o s t , a l l aloneo 97 D E S C R I P T I V E C A T E G O R I E S A . P h y s i c a l s t r e n g t h ; CARD 17BM B. Escape: C . E x h i b i t i o n : D . C o m p e t i t i o n w i t h p e e r : E . S e l f - e s t e e m : d e s c r i p t i o n o f m u s c u l a r f e a t u r e s o f a n i n d i v i d u a l o r a n i n d i v i d u a l who i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s t r e n g t h e . g . t r a p e s e a r t i s t , a e r o l i s t . e s c a p i n g f r o m p e r i l , p r i s o n , f i r e , s o m e t h i n g o r s o m e b o d y . s h o w i n g o f f o r d i s p l a y i n g p h y s i c a l s t r e n g t h o r s k i l l . c o m p e t i n g w i t h p e e r i n game o r c o n t e s t . s e l f r e s p e c t o r e n j o y m e n t i n s k i l l , p r i d e i n s k i l l , s e l f -a p p r o b a t i o n , a s p i r i n g t o s t r e n g t h . D E S C R I P T I V E C A T E G O R I E S A . S l a v e r y : B . Men w o r k i n g : C . S u i c i d e : CARD 17GP D . S y m b o l i c c o n t r a s t : E . S o m e t h i n g d i s a s t r o u s o c c u r r i n g : s l a v e s , m a s t e r - s l a v e r e l a t i o n s h i p , b o s s - w o r k e r r e l a t i o n s h i p . c a r r y i n g t h i n g s t o p u t o n b o a t , s c e n e o f l a b o u r , p e o p l e b r i n g i n g i n h a r v e s t , u n l o a d i n g b o a t s . s h e > s n o t g o i n g t o jump o f f b r i d g e , g i r l r e a d y t o jump o f f b r i d g e , c o u l d h a v e i d e a o f s u i c i d e . d e s p a i r a n d s u n s h i n i n g , p a r t o f w o r l d d a y t i m e - o t h e r p a r t n i g h t . s o m e t h i n g h a s h a p p e n e d u n d e r w a t e r , s o m e t h i n g c r u d e i s h a p p e n i n g , d a r k d a y f o r woman. 98 DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. Restraining or arresting f i g u r e : B. Escape: CARD C. 18BM D. Helping* Aggression towards peer: E. Pear or shock: holding or holding back, being arrested. struggling to free s e l f , escaping from someone. held up, holding him up, supporting him. man i s being attacked, "held up"; murder; being grabbed from behind; struggle; i n f i g h t . looks frightened, state of shock, heard.bad news. DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. Comfort: giving comfort, cuddling, helping, consolation. B. Strangling, k i l l i n g , violence: C. Grief or unhappiness: something sorrowful may have happened, p i t y , despiar. CARD D. Accident: 18GP E. I l l n e s s : f e l l downstairs. woman must be i l l , dying, heart attack; seems to have fainted; has collapsed. 99 DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. B. CARD C. 19 D. E. Cold weather, winter, Arctic, Iceland, places depicting cold: U n r e a l : S t o r m : Abstract : Reference to person or persons In picture: haunted, weird, fantasy, ghost, witch. snowed in, blizzard, a gale wind blowing away, wind represented here, snowstorm. artist's abstract painting, modern art, artist's painting. someone is sitting by one of the windows. DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES A. Contemplation: CARD B. Aggression: 20 C. Waiting: D. Economic pressure: thinking, wondering where to go, trying to forget trouble, rumination. secret agent, not very good intentions, looks like up to something, could be gangster. waiting for somebody or something, wasting time, loitering, procrastination. person is compelled or prohibited from, or limited i n doing some-thing because of lack of money. 100 APPENDIX B I n s t r u c t i o n s a n d L i s t o f C o n c e r n s 101 INSTRUCTIONS POR RANKING- CONCERNS You w i l l be shown a series of pictures, one at a time. Please examine each one i n d e t a i l . In cards where there are no persons, make your best judgement as to what the card as a whole i s concerned with. You are asked to decide what the person(s) i n that s i t u a t i o n i s (are) most l i k e l y to be concerned about. Following each picture w i l l be a l i s t of concerns, (e.g., influencing others' opinions, being l i k e d and accepted, personal accomplishment). You are asked to rank the  concerns by assigning a rank of 1 to the concerns you would  expect to be DOMINANT i n the minds of most people In the given  s i t u a t i o n , a rank of 2 to the concern you would expect to occur  next most frequently, and so on, assigning a rank of lk to the  concern you would LEAST often expect a person i n that s i t u a t i o n The same concerns are given following each picture» Put the rank you assign to a concern i n the space before i t . Please t r y to decide while you are looking at the picture what persons i n i d e n t i c a l situations i n r e a l l i f e might be concerned about and then go to the check l i s t f o r ranking. Use a l l the available cues—the si t u a t i o n , the f a c i a l cues, e t c . — t o a r r i v e at your judgement. We are t r y i n g to f i n d out what these p a r t i c u l a r pictures suggest. Even though i t w i l l be d i f f i c u l t i n some instances, you  must rank a l l lk concerns for every p i c t u r e . You w i l l f i n d that some of the concerns seem to apply to a picture and some are not c l e a r l y r e l a t e d . I would l i k e you to c i r c l e the LAST rank which seems to you to be c l e a r l y related to the picture or which i s easy f o r you to rank for that p i c t u r e . In the space at the top of the page, put the l e t t e r corresponding to the picture you are working on, which you w i l l f i n d on the back of the card. 1 0 2 CONCERNS 4. C o n c e r n e d w i t h i n f l u e n c i n g and c o n t r o l l i n g t h e o p i n i o n s o r b e h a v i o r o f o t h e r s . B. C o n c e r n e d w i t h g e t t i n g f o o d o r water t o s a t i s f y h u n g e r o r t h i r s t . C. C o n c e r n e d o v e r n o t d o i n g p o o r l y a t s o m e t h i n g , w i t h a v o i d i n g f a i l u r e . D. C o n c e r n e d w i t h a t t r a c t i n g a t t e n t i o n , g a i n i n g p r a i s e a n d commendation. E . C o n c e r n e d o v e r b e i n g l i k e d o r l o v e d b y t h e o p p o s i t e s e x , o r w i t h a s s o c i a t i n g w i t h a member o f t h e o p p o s i t e s e x . P. C o n c e r n e d o v e r g a i n i n g k nowledge a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g . G. C o n c e r n e d w i t h e s t a b l i s h i n g a n d m a i n t a i n i n g warm f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s . H. C o n c e r n e d w i t h c o m p l y i n g w i t h t h e w i s h e s o f p e r s o n s i n a u t h o r i t y . I . C o n c e r n e d w i t h r e s t i n g , p h y s i c a l r e l a x a t i o n . J . C o n c e r n e d o v e r d o i n g s o m e t h i n g w e l l , w i t h e x c e l l e n c e o f p e r f o r m a n c e , a c h i e v i n g . K. C o n c e r n e d o v e r n o t b e i n g a c c e p t e d a n d l i k e d b y o t h e r s , w i t h a v o i d i n g s o c i a l r e j e c t i o n . L . C o n c e r n e d o v e r p h y s i c a l s e c u r i t y , w i t h a v o i d i n g p h y s i c a l p a i n . M. C o n c e r n e d w i t h h a r m i n g , p u n i s h i n g , o r b e l i t t l i n g someone e l s e . N. C o n c e r n e d o v e r h a v i n g done s o m e t h i n g b a d o r u n a c c e p t a b l e , w i t h e a s i n g f e e l i n g o f g u i l t . 103 APPENDIX C Frequency of F i r s t Ranked Concerns 10% APPENDIX C F i r s t C h o i c e F r e q u e n c y o f F o u r t e e n C o n c e r n s R anked f o r TAT C a r d s ( M a l e s , n = 2%) C a r d 1 - C a r d 2  F r e q u e n c y F r e q u e n c y o f P r o p o r t i o n o f P r o p o r t i o n C h o i c e C h o i c e C o n c e r n f P ( i ) f P ( i ) A 0 0 0 0 B 0 0 % .1666 C 2 .0833 2 .0833 D 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 1 .0%16 F 7 .2916 11 .%583 G 5 .2083 1 .0%16 H 2 .0833 0 0 I 6 .2500 0 Q) J 1 .0%16 3 .1250 K 0 O 2 .0833 L 0 O 0) © M 0 0 0 0 N I .0%16 0 0 ( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d o n n e x t page) io5 C a r d 3 B M C a r d 3GF F r e q u e n c y F r e q u e n c y o f P r o p o r t i o n o f P r o p o r t i o n C o n c e r n C h o i c e C h o i c e f P ( i ) f P(D A 0 0 0 0) B 0 0 © 0 C 0 0! 0) 0 D 0 0 © © E 0 0 6 .2500 F 2 .0833 0 0 G 0 0 0 © H 0 © 0 © I 5 .2083 0 © J 0 © © © K i • Oij.16 .1666 L 0 0 1 • 01+16 M 2 .0833 1 .01+16 N il+ .5833 12 .5ooo ( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d on n e x t page) Card 1+ Card 5 Frequency Proportion of Proportion Choice P(i) f p ( i ) A. 7 .2916 k .1666 B 0 0 2 .0833 C 0 0 0 0) D 1 .01+16 2 .0833 E 9 .3750 2 .0833 F 0 0 k .1666 G 1 .Olj.16 1 .01+16 H 1 .01+16 0 0 I 0 0 1 .01+16 J 0 0 © 0 K 1 .01+16 5 .2083 L 0 0) 0 M 3 .1250 3 .1250 N l .01+16 0 0 (Table continued on next page) Frequency of Concern Choice f 107 Card 6 B M Card 6 G F Frequency of Choice Proportion Frequency of Choice Proportion acern f p ( i ) f P ( i ) A 1 .01+16 .1666 B © © 0) 0 c; 2 .0833 O 0) D 0) 0) © E © 0) s .3333 P 2 .0833 2 .0833 G 0) 0 3 .1250 H 1 .01+16 1 .01+16 I 0) O 0 0) J 0 0 © a E 2 .0833 0 0) L 0 0) 2 . 0 8 3 3 1 .01+16 0 0 N 15 .6250 .1666 (Table continued on next page): 108 Card 7BM Card 8 B M Frequency Frequency Proportion o f Proportion o r" Concern Choice Choice f P(i) f P ( i ) A 9 .3750 0 0 B 0) 0 0 0 C 0) 0 1 .Qll.16 D 0 0 0) 0 E 0 0 0 0 F 5 .2085 5 .2085 Cr 1 .Olp.6 0 0! H 3 .1250 0 0) I 0 0 1 .Oij.16 J 2 .0833 5 .2085 K 2 .0833 0 Oi L 0 0) 5 .2085 M 2 .0833 .0833 N 0 0 $ .2085 (Table continued on next page) 109 Card 8GF Card 9BM Concern Frequency of Choice f Proportion P(i) Frequency of Choice f Proportion P(i)  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 0 0 0 10 6 I 0 k 2 0 0 •1 0 0 0 0 0 .1+166 .2^00 .01+16 0 .1666 .0833 O 0 .0416 0 0 o 0 1 0 0 1 0. 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 01+16 0 0 .01+16 0 .9166 0 0 0 0) 0 (Table continued on next page) 110 Card 9GF Card 10 Frequency of Concern Choice Proportion Frequency of Choice Proportion f p ( i ) f P ( i ) A 0 0 1 .01+16 B 0 0 0 0 C 0 © 0 © D 0 0 0 0 E 2 .0633 20 .8333 F 1' .01+16 0 0 G 1 .Olp.6 1 .01+16 H 0 0 0 0 I 1 .01+16 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 K 2 .0833 0 © L 2 .0833 0 0 M 11 •1+583 0 0 N h .1666 2 .0833 (Table continued on next page) I l l Card 11 Card 12M Frequency of Proportion Frequency Proportion Choice of Concern Choice A f p ( l ) f P ( i ) A 0 0 11 .1+583 B 6 .2500 0 0) C 0- 0) 0 0 D 0! 0) 0 0 E 0 0 1 .01+16 F 2 .0833 1 .01+16 G 0 0 2 .0833 H 0 0 0 0 I 1 .01+16 1+ .1666 J 0 0 1 .01+16 E 0 0 0 0 L 12 .5000 2 .0833 M 3 .1250 2 .0833 N 0 0 0 0 (Table continued on next page) 1 1 2 Card 12 BG Card 13MP icern Frequency of Choice Proportion Frequency of Choice Proportion f P(i) f P ( i ) A 0 OF 0 0 B 0; 0 0; 0 C © 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 E I .01+16 7 .2916 P 0) 0 0 0) G 1 .01+16 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 I 2 0 .8333 0 0 J 0) 0 0 0) E 1 .01+16 2 .0833 L 1 .01+16 0i 0 M 0) 0» 3 . 1 2 5 0 N 0 0 1 2 . 5 0 0 0 (Table continued on next page) Card ll+ Card 15 Frequency Frequency of Proportion of Proportion Concern Choice Choice f P(i) f P ( i ) A. 0 0 h .1666 B 0 0 0 0 C 2 o0833 0 0 D 1 .01+16 0 0 E 2 .0833 0 0 F 9 .3750 3 .12^0 G 1 .0i+l6 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 I k .1666 2 .0833 J 3 .1250 2 .0833 K 2 .0833 2 .0833 L 0 0) 2 .0833 M 0 0 1 .0^16 N 0 0 8 .3333 (Table continued on next page) 111). Card 17BM Card 17GF Frequency Frequency of Proportion of Proportion Concern Choice Choice f P(i) f P ( i ) A 0 0 2 .0833 B 0 0 5 .2083 C k .1666 1 .01+16 D 7 .2916 0 0 E 1 .01+16 3 .1250 F 0) 0 2 .0833 G 0) 0 0 0 H 0 0 1 .01+16 I i .01+16 2 .0833 J 8 .3333 2 .0833 K 0 0 5 .2083 L 3 .1250 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 1 .01+16 (Table continued on next page) 11$ Card 18BM Card 18GF Concern Frequency of Choice Proportion P(i) Frequency of Choice Proportion P(i) A 2 .0833 k . 1666 B 0) 0 0 0 C 0) 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 E 0 0) 0 0) F Q> 0 1 .04,16 G 0 0 1 .01+16 H 3 .12^0 0 0 I 1 .01+16 0) 0 Ji 0J 0 0 0 E 1 .0l{.l6 1 .01+16 L 5 .2083' k .1666 M 6 .2500 9 .3750 N 6 .2500 h .1666 (Table continued on next page) 116 Card 19 Card 20 Frequency Frequency of Proportion of Proportion Concern Choice Choice f p(i) f P(i) A 1 .01+16 1 .01+16 B 5 .2083 1 .01+16 C 0 0 1 .01+16 D 0 0 1 .01+16 E 0 0 1 .01+16 F Qi 0> 1 .01+16 G 1 .01+16 0 O H 0 0 1 .01+16 I 2 .0833 2 .0833 I 1 .01+16 1 .01+16 K 0 0 6 . 2 5 0 0 L 12 . 5 0 0 0 2 .0833 M 0 0 5 .2083 N 2 .0833 1 .01+16 (Table continued on next page) 117 APPENDIX C F i r s t C h o i c e F r e q u e n c y o f F o u r t e e n Concerns Ranked f o r TAT Cards (Females, n = 23) Card 1 Card 2 Concern Frequency of C h oice P r o p o r t i o n P ( i ) F r e q u e n c y o f C h o i c e P r o p o r t i o n P(D A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 0 1 2 0) 9 0) h 6 0 1 0) 0) 0 O .olj.3% .0869 0) .3913 0 .1739 0 .2608 0 • Oij.3% 0 0 3 2 0 1 k 6 1 1 0 2 2 I 0 0 .130% .0869 0 .1739 .2608 0 .0869 .0869 0 0 ( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d on n e x t page) 118 Card 3BM Card 3G-P Concern Frequency of Choice Proportion Frequency of Choice Proportion P ( D P(i) A 0 CD 0 0 B 0 0 1 .o%3% C 0 0; 1 .0%3% D 1 .01+3% Oi 0 E 2 .0869 6 .2608 F 0 0 0 0 G 2 .0869 1 .0%3% H Q) 0' 1 .0%3% I 3 .130% 1 .0%3% J 1 .0%3% 0 0) K 2 .0869 5 .2173 L 1 .0%3% i .0%3% M % .1739 I .o%3% N 7 .30%3 5 .2173 (Table continued on next page) 119 Card 1+ Card 5 Frequency Frequency of Proportion of Proportion Concern Choice Choice f P(i) f P(i) A 8 .3478 .2173 B © 0; 1 .0434 C © 0 1 .0434 D 0 © 0 © E 8 .3478 1 .01+34 F 3 .1301+ 7 .3043 Gr 0 0; 3 .1304 H 0 0 0 0 I 0 © 1 .01+34 J © © © © E: Q) © 1 .0434 L 0 © 1 .01+34 M I .01+34 2 .0869 N 3 .1304 0 © (Table continued on next page) 1 2 0 Card 6BM Card 6GF Frequency Frequency of Proportion of Proportion Concern Choice Choice f P(i) f P ( i ) A 2 .0869 k . 1 7 3 9 B 0 0 0 0 C k .1739 0 0 D 0 0 0) E 1 .1739 F 2 .0869 3 .1304 G 1 .Oi+34 1 .0434 H 2 .0869 2 .0869 I 0 0 I .0)4.3% J 1 .0434 0 0 K 2 .0869 1 .043% L Q) 0 2 .0869-M 2 .0869 0 0 N 6 .2608 5 .2173 (Table continued on next page) 121 Card 7BM Card 8BM Concern Frequency of Choice Proportion Frequency of Choice Proportion f P(i) f P ( i ) A 6 .2608 1 .01+34 B 0 0 1 .01+3% C 1 . 01+34 1 .01+3% D 0 0 0 0 E 0) 0 0 0 F 7 .301+3 7 .30%3 G 1 .01+31+ 0 0 H 5 .2173 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 J 1 .01+31+ 7 .30%3 K 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 3 .130% M 1 .01+31+ 2 .0869 N 1 .01+31+ 1 .0869 (Table continued on next page); 122 Card 8GF Card 9BM Frequency Frequency of Proportion of Proportion Concern Choice Choice f P ( i ) f P(i) 4 0) © 0 © B 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 D Q) 0 0 0 E 6 .2608 0 0 F 6 .2608 0) © G 3 .1301+ © © H 0 0) 0 © I 5 .2173 23 1.0000 J 2 .0869 © 0 K 1 .oi+34 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 © N Q) 0 0 0 (Table continued on next page) 123 C a r d 10 C a r d 9GF F r e q u e n c y F r e q u e n c y o f P r o p o r t i o n o f P r o p o r t i o n C o n c e r n C h o i c e C h o i c e f P ( i ) f P ( D A 3 .130% 1 . o%3% B I ' • OI4.3I4- 0) 0 C 0 0 0 0 D 1 . o%3% 1 cOl+3% E 1 .0%3% 17 .7391 F 6 .1304 1 .01+3% G 0 0 2 .0869 B> 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 o0%3% J 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 M % .1739 0 0 N $ .2173 0 0 ( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d o n n e x t p a g e ) 12% C a r d 11 C a r d 12M F r e q u e n c y F r e q u e n c y o f P r o p o r t i o n o f P r o p o r t i o n C o n c e r n C h o i c e C h o i c e f P ( i ) f P ( i ) A 1 .o%3% 1% .6086 B 3 .130% 0 0 C 0) 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 E 0) 0 1 .o%3% F 0 0 2 .0869 G 0 0 1 •0%3% H 0) 0) 0 0 I 0) 0) 3 .130% J 0 0 0 0 K 0) 0 0 0 L 15 .6520 0) 0 M % .1739 2 .0869 N 0) 0 0 0 ( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d on n e x t page) 125 Card 12BG Card 13MF Concern Frequency of Choice Proportion Frequency of Choice Proportion f P ( D f P ( i ) A 0) 0 0 Q> B 2 .0869 0 © C 0 0 © © D, © 0 © 0 E 1 .04.3% k .1739 F 1 .0%3l| 0 0 G © 0 © © H © 0 1 .043% I 17 .7391 I .043)4 J 1 © © K © © © © L © © © © M © • 0 2 .0869 N 1 •ok3k 15 .6521 (Table continued on next page) 1 2 6 Card 1% Card 15 Concern Frequency of Choice Proportion Frequency of Choice Proportion f P ( i ) f P ( i ) 1 .01+3% 1 .0%3% B 1 .0%3% 0 0 C © © 0 © D 0 0 0 © E © 0 1 .01+3% F 9 .3913 5; " .2173 G © © © © H © © © © I 6 .2608 1 .o%3% J 3 .130% © © K 2 .0869 © © L 1 .0%3% 1 .o%3% M © 0 2 .0869 N © 0 12 .5217 (Table continued on next page}! 127 Card 17BM Card 17GP Concern Frequency of Choice Proportion Frequency of Choice Proportion f P ( D f P ( i ) A 1 • Oj+3% 2 .0869 B 2 .0869 2 .0869 C Q) 0 0 0 D 12 .5217 0 © E Oi 0 k .1739 F 0) © 6 .2608 G 0) 0 0 0 H © 0 0 0 I © © 2 .0869 .2608 © 0 K © © 1 ' L 2 .0869 2 .0869 M 0 0 © © N © 0 k .1739 (Table continued on next page) 128 C o n c e r n C a r d 18BM F r e q u e n c y o f C h o i c e P r o p o r t i o n C a r d 18GF F r e q u e n c y . o f C h o i c e P r o p o r t i o n f p ( i ) f P ( i ) A 3 .130% % .1739 B 0 0 1 .01+3% C 0 0 0 0 D 0) 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 1 .0%3% G 1 .°%3% 1 .0%3% H 2 .0869 0 0 I 0) 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 K 2 .0869 0 0 L 7 .301+3 9 .3913 M .2173 .2608 N 3 .1301+ 1 .0%3% ( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d on n e x t page) 129 Card 19 Card 20 Concern Frequency of Choice Proportion Frequency of Proportion Choice f p ( l ) f P ( D A 0 0 2 .0869 B .2173 3 .130!|. C 0 0) 1 D 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 1 .0I4.3I4. F 0 0 0 0 G 2 .0869 1 .0li.3lt. H 0 0 0 0 I 3 .130% $ .2173 J 0 Q) 0) 0 K 0 0) k .1739 L 10 43%7 2 .0869 M 3 .13014. 2 .0869 N - 0) 0 2 .0869 (Table continued on next page) 130 F i r s t Choice Frequency of Fourteen Concerns Ranked for TAT Cards (Combined, n = 1+7) Card 1 Card 2 Frequency Frequency of Proportion of Proportion Concern Choice Choice f P(i) f P ( i ) A 0) 0) 3 . 0 6 3 8 B 0 0) 6 . 1 2 7 6 C 3 , 0 6 3 8 2 .01+25 D 2 .01+25 1 . 0 2 1 2 E 9 .1911}. 5 . 1 0 6 3 F 7 .11+89 17 . 3 6 1 7 G 9 .1911+ 2 .01+25 H 2 .01+25 1 . 0 2 1 2 I 12 . 2 5 5 3 0 O J 1 . 0 2 1 2 5 . 1 0 6 3 K 1 . 0 2 1 2 k . 0 8 5 1 L 0 0 l . 0 2 1 2 M 0 0 0) 0 N 1 . 0 2 1 2 0 0 (Table continued on next page) Card 3BM Card 3GP Frequency Frequency of Proportion of Proportion Concern Choice Choice f P ( i ) f P(i) A Qi 0 O 0 B 0 0 1 .0212 C 0 0 1 .0212 D 1 .0212 0 a E 2 .01+25 12 .2553 F 2 .01+25 0 0 G- 2 .01+25 1 .0212 H 0 0 I .0212 I 8 .1702 1 .0212: J 1 .0212 0 Qs K 3 .0638 9 .1961+ L 1 .0212 2 .01+25 M 6 .1276 2 .01+25 N 21 .I4I+68 17 .3617 (Table continued on next page) 1 3 2 C a r d 1+ C a r d 5 ioncern Frequency o f C h oice P r o p o r t i o n F requency o f C h oice P r o p o r t i o n f P ( D f P ( i ) A. 15 .3191 9 .191% B 0 0 3 .0638 C 0) 0 1 .0212 D 1 .0212 2 . 01+25 E 17 .3617 3 .0638 P 3 .0638 11 .231+0 G 1 .0212 k .0851 H 1 .0212 0 0 I 0! 0 2 .01+25 J 0! 0 0> 0 K 1 .0212 6 .1276 L 0; 0 1 .0212 M k .0851 5 .1063 N k .0851 0 O ( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d on ne x t page) 1 3 3 Card 6 B M Card 6GF Frequency Frequency of Proportion of Proportion Concern Choice Choice f P( i ) f P ( D 3 . 0 6 3 8 8 . 1 7 0 2 B 0) 0 0 0) C 6 . 1 2 7 6 0 0 D 0 0 0 © E 1 . 0 2 1 2 1 2 . 2 5 5 3 F k . 0 8 5 6 5 . 1 0 6 3 G 1 . 0 2 1 2 h . 0 8 5 6 H 3 . 0 6 3 8 3 • 0 6 3 8 I 0) 0 l . 0 2 1 2 J l . 0 2 1 2 O © K k . 0 8 5 6 1 . 0 2 1 2 L 0 0 k . 0 8 5 6 M 3 . 0 6 3 8 0 © N 21 . 4 4 6 8 9 . 1 9 1 4 (Table continued on next page) 13k C o n c e r n C a r d 7BM F r e q u e n c y o f C h o i c e P r o p o r t i o n C a r d 8BM F r e q u e n c y o f C h o i c e P r o p o r t i o n f P ( i ) f P ( i ) A 15 .3191 1 .0212 B © 0 1 .0212 C 1 .0212 2 .01+25 D 0 0 © © E © © © 0 F 12 .2553 12 .2553 G 2 .01+25 0 © H 8 .1702 0 © I 0 © 1 .0212 jr 3 .0638 12 .2553 K 2 .01+25 0 0 L © 0 8 .1702 M 3 .0638 k .0851 N 1 .0212 6 .1276 ( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d on n e x t page) 135 C o n c e r n C a r d 8GP F r e q u e n c y o f C h o i c e P r o p o r t i o n C a r d 9BM F r e q u e n c y o f C h o i c e P r o p o r t i o n f P ( i ) f P ( i ) A 0 0 © 0 B 0 0 0 © c; 0 0 © © D Q 0 1 .0212 E 16 .3%0% 0 © F 12 •2553 0 0 G k .0851 1 .0212 H 0 © © 0 I 9 . I 9 l i | . .957% J k .0851 © © K 1 .0212 0 0 L 0) © 0 © M © 0 © © N 1 .0212 0 0 ( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d on n e x t p a g e ) 136 C a r d 9GF C a r d 10 C o n c e r n F r e q u e n c y o f C h o i c e P r o p o r t i o n F r e q u e n c y o f C h o i c e P r o p o r t i o n f P ( i ) f P ( i ) A 3 . 0 6 3 8 2 . 0 1 + 2 5 ' B 1 . 0 2 1 2 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 D 1 . 0 2 1 2 1 . 0 2 1 2 E 3 . 0 6 3 8 3 7 . 7 8 7 2 F 7 . 1 1 + 8 9 1 . 0 2 1 2 G 1 . 0 2 1 2 3 . 0 6 3 8 H 0 ) O 0 ) 0 ) I 1 . 0 2 1 2 1 . 0 2 1 2 J P. Q> 0 0 E 2 . 0 1 + 2 5 0 0) L k . 0 8 5 1 0 Of M 1$ . 3 1 9 1 0 0 N 9 .1911+ 2 . 0 1 + 2 5 ( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d o n next p a g e ) 137 C a r d 11 C a r d 12M n c e r n F r e q u e n c y o f C h o i c e f P r o p o r t i o n P ( i ) F r e q u e n c y o f C h o i c e f P r o p o r t i o n P ( i ) A 1 .0212 25 .5319 B 9 .19114. 0 0 C 0 0 O Q) D 0 0 0 0 E 0> 0; 2 .01+25 F 2 .01+25 3 .0638 G 0: 0 3 .0638 H 0 0 0 0 I 1 .0212 7 .11+89 J 0 0 1 .0212 K 0) 0 0 0; L 27 .571+1+ 2 .01+25 M 7 .11+89 1+ .0851 N 0 Q) 0) 0 ( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d on n e x t page) 138 C a r d 12BG C a r d 13MF n c e r n F r e q u e n c y o f C h o i c e f P r o p o r t i o n P ( i ) F r e q u e n c y o f C h o i c e f P r o p o r t i o n P ( i ) 4 0 0 0 0 B 2 .01+25 0) 0 C 0" 0< Q 0 D 0 Qi Q) 0 E 2 .01+25 11 .231+0 P 1 .0212 0 O G 1 .0212 0 0 H 0 0 1 .0212 I 37 .7872 1 .0212 J 1 .0212 0 0 K. 1 .0212 2 o 01+25 L 1 .0212 0 0 M 0 0 5 .1063 N 1 .0212 27 .573+1+ ( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d o n n e x t page) 139 Card 1% Card 15 Frequency Frequency of Proportion of Proportion Concern Choice Choice f P(i) f P ( i ) A 1 .0212 5 .1063 B 1 .0212 0 0 C 2 .01+25 0 0 D 1 .0212 0 0 E 2 .01+25 1 .0212 F 18 .3829 8 .1702 G 1 .0212 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 I 10 .2127 3 .0638 J 6 .1276 2 .01+25? K k .0851 2 .01+25 L 1 .0212 3 .0638 M 0 0) 3 .0638 N 0 0 20 .1+255 (Table continued on next page) ll+O Concern Card 17BM Frequency of C h o i c e P r o p o r t i o n Card 17G-F Frequency o f Choice P r o p o r t i o n f P ( D f P ( D A 1 .0212 k .0851 B 2 .01+25 7 .11+89 C k .0851 1 .0212 D 19 .1+01+2 0 0 E 1 .0212 7 .llj.89 F 0 0 8 .1702 a © 0 © 0 H 0 0) 1 .0212 I 1 .0212 h .0851 J 1% .2978 2 .01+25 K 0 0 6 .1276 L 5 .1063 2 .01+25 M 0: 0) © © N 0 0 5 . 1063 ( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d on next page) l i p . Card 18BM Card 18GP Concern Frequency of Choice Proportion Frequency of Choice Proportion f P(i) f P(i) A 5 0IO63 8 0I702 B 0 0 1 .0212 C o; 0 0 0 D 0 0! 0) 0 E 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 2 .01+25 Gr I o0212 2 .01+25 H 5 ol063 0 0 I i .0212 0> 0 J 0) 0 0 © K 3 .0638 1 .0212 L 12 02553 13 G2765 M 11 .231+0 15 .3191 N 9 .1911+ 5 0IO63 (Table continued on next page) 142 Card 19 Card 20 Frequency Frequency of Proportion of Proportion Concern Choice Choice f P ( i) f P d ) A. 1 .0212 3 .0638 B 10 .2127 4 .0851 C 0 0 2 .01+2^ D 0 0 1 .0212 E 0 0 2 .042.5 F 0 0 1 .0212 G- 3 .0638 1 .0212 H 0 0 1 .0212 I 5 .1063 7 .llj-89 J 1 .0212 1 .0212 K 0 0 10 .2127 L 22 . 4 6 8 I k .0851 M 3 .0638 7 .11+89 N 2 .01+25 3 .0638 (Table continued on next page)1 APPENDIX D Rank Order of TAT Cards by Perceptual Ambiguity and Corresponding Uncertainty Measure (Males, n = 5%) PA H Card Category Frequency of .Response P d ) Proportion Perceptual Ambiguity Rank Uncertainty Measure Rank 19 9GF 6BM % 18BM A 11 .20% .20lj. B 11 C 15 .277 D 15 .277 E 2 .037 A Ik .259 B 16 .296 C Ik .07% D .259 E 6 .111 A 12 .222 B 20 .370 C 9 .167 D 7 .130 E 6 .111 A 1 .019 B 13 .2%1 C 12 .222 D 10 .185 E 18 .333 A 15 .278 B 10 .185' G D 20 .370 .07% E 5» .093 .7619%! .7601+25 .756706 ,7%7l60 .737%66 3 % 5 2.1376 2.1595 2,1786. 2»06%2 2.0912 3 2 % (Table continued on next page) 15 1 7 B M 18GP 3QF 5 9BM A B C D E A B c; E: A B C D) E A B G D E A B C D E; A B G D E 15 21 8 20 % 2 2 1 6 1 2 3 1 1 9 10 26 6 5 8 9 1 1 3 15 22 3 1 2 1 20 2 1 9 .370 .389 .074 .111 .1%8 .370 .07% .222 . 0 7 3 . 2 9 6 .018 .%26 .20% . 1 6 7 .185 . % 8 l .111 . 0 9 3 .1%8 . 1 6 7 .018 .2%1 .278 • %07 .056. .222 .019 .370 .037 .73169% 2.0812 .719355 1.9867 .71%%70 8 1 . 9 7 8 1 . 6 9 7 8 7 6 2.0177 .695526 1.8732 .688182 1 1 I .8996 8 9 1% 12 (Table continued on next page) 7BM 8GF 4 17GP 13MP A B C D E A B G D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B c; D E 12 26 9 5 2 3 19 0) 10; 22 5 17 O 1 21 % 3 27 11 3 10 26 9 15 0 h .222 4 8 1 .167 .093 .037 e056 .352 .000 .185 4 0 7 .278 .315 o 000 .018 .389 .111 • 2l|JL .071+ .500 .07% .056 *5oo .20k .05^ .185 4 8 1 0I67 o277 .000 .681148 .673056 ,67981+6 ,66861+6 0668109 ,657991+ 12 4 17 1.9159 10 1 3 1.71+13 18 1.6726 21 15 1.9028 1 1 16 L878I+ 1 3 1.7305 20 (Table continued on next page) 11 12M 8BM 10 6GP A 29 .537 B 10 .185 C 3 .056 D 5 • .092 E 7 .130 A 22 4 0 7 B 1 .019 C 5 .093 D 3 .056 E 23 4 2 5 A 15 .277 B 6. .111 C 32 .592 D 1 .019 E 0 .000 A. 30 .556 B 8 .348 C 6 . i l l D 2 .037 E 8 .llj . 8 A 2 .037 B % .07% C: 0 .000 21 .389 E 27 .500 A 32 .592 B 8 . 4 8 C 0 .000 D 11 .20k E 3 .056 .6)4,8906 ,6IL1580 .6141266 .633366 .59183% .582880 18 19 20 23 1.86%3 1.7307 1 . 8 1 4 21 1 . 8 4 7 22 l .%839 1.5563 15 19 17 16 23 22 ( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d on n e x t page) 20 12BG 3BM A 15 .277 B 6 .111 e 32 .592 D 1 .019 E 0' .000 A. 1 .018 B 6 .111 C 9 .167 D 38 .704 E 0) .000 A h .07k B 7 .138 C 0 .000 D l+o E 3 .055: .560125 2% 1.1+213 .1+63850 25 1.2MLO 2 5 .1+25518 26 1.2111 26 APPENDIX E Rank Order of TAT Cards by Perceptual Ambiguity and Corresponding Uncertainty Measure (Females, n = 30) PA Card Category Frequency of p ( i ) Perceptual Uncertainty Response Proportion Ambiguity Rank Measure Rank 18GF G; 6 .200 .793466 1 2.299% 19 C 5 .167 .7%0599 2 1.9687 A 5 .167 B, 6 .200 ; 00 D 5 .167 E 8 .266 A 8 .266 B 8 .266 s B 9 .300 E: 0 . 0 0 0 A 8 .266 B 10 .333 C 8 .266 D 2 .067 E 2 .067 A 11 .366 B s: .167 C 3 .100 D 2 .067 E. 9 .300 A. 7 .233 B 12 - .%00 C 3 . 100 D 2 .067 E 9 .300 6BM  6 .738621 3 2.0673 .733666 % 2.0765 15  .  .731222 5 2.076% 3 (Table continued on next page) 3 G F 3BM 8BM 13MP 1 7 B M A 0 .000 B 5 .167 C 7 .233 D 7 .233 E 11 .367 A 13 4 3 3 B 4 .133 C 2 .067 B 6 .200 E 5 .167 k. 6 .200 B 5 .167 0; \ .133 D 13 4 3 3 E 2 .067 A 9 .300 B 12 4 o o C 2 .067 D: % .133 E 3 .100 A\ 7 .233 B 12 4 0 0 C 5 .167 n 0 .000 E; 6 .200 A 11 .367 B 1 .033 C 10 .333 D 3 .100 E 5 .167 .72881jll .722144 .722414 .717822 .717822 .715414 11 1.9413 7.5 2.0669 7.5 2.0669 9.5 2.0305 9.5 1.9149 1.9848 (Table continued on next page) A 8 . 2 6 7 B 0 .000 9BM C 13 .1+33 D 3 .100 E 6 .200 A 3 .100 B 12 .1+00 9GF 0 1 . 0 3 3 D 11 . 3 6 7 E 3 .100 A 0 .000 B i l . 3 6 6 8GF G 0 .000 D 8 . 2 6 7 E 11 .366> A. 15 . 5 0 0 B 7 . 2 3 3 1 C k . 1 3 3 n 0 .000 E k . 1 3 3 A. 8 . 2 6 7 B 2 . 0 6 7 18BM C 15 . 5 0 0 D) 1 . 0 3 3 E, k . 1 3 3 A 16 . 5 3 3 B 3 .100 6GP C 1 . 0 3 3 D 5 . 1 6 7 E 5 . 1 6 7 (Table continued . 6 9 1 2 2 2 12 1 . 8 2 8 2 1 5 . 681+222 13 1 . 8 8 6 3 12 . 6 6 0 7 9 9 ll+ 1 . 5 7 0 1 2 2 . 6 6 0 3 3 3 15 1 . 8 6 3 9 1 3 ,G$S92k 16 1 . 8 1 9 5 16 .61+901+1+ 17 1.81+09 1% on next page) 7BM G 8 .267 .61+861+1+ 18 1.761+7 17 1% C 0 .000 .61+201+1+ 19 1.631+9 21 17GP C 3: .100 .61+0333 20 1.7087 18 A 5 .167 B 15 .500 7 D 1 .033 B 1 .033 A ll+ .1+67 B 10 .333 0 D; 1 .033 E 5 .167 A 1 .033 B 13 .1+33  0 D 12 .l+oo E 1 .1+33 A 3 .100 B 2 .067 C Q .000 D 11 .367 E ll+ .1+66 A 16 .533 B 1 .033 G 2 .067 D 2 .067 E 9 .300 A 10 .333 B 0 .000 C 17 .567 D 1 .033 E 2 • O67 10  .633666 21 1.6375 20 11  .61581+1+ 22 1.690.0 19 12M  .56201+1+ 23 1.1+161 23 0O67 (Table continued on next page) 20 12BG A l 5 .500 B 1 .033 C H+ .1+67 D 0; .000 E 0 .000 A 0 .000 B 8 .267 G 0 .000) D 20 .666 E 2 .067 A 0 .000 B 1 .033 C .100 D 4 .800 E 2 .067 .530822 2k 1.1751+ .1+80666 25 1.1606 25 .3W+22 2 6 1.0135 26 APPENDIX P Rank Order, of TAT Cards by Perceptual Ambiguity and Corresponding Uncertainty Measure (Combined Groups, n = 81+) PA H Card Category Frequency of p ( i ) Perceptual Uncertainty .Response Proportion Ambiguity Rank Measure Rank 1 8 G F C 1 7 . 2 0 2 . 7 7 5 8 7 8 I 2 . 1 7 2 8 I 1 9 C 2 0 . 2 3 8 o759%50 2 2 . 1 0 % 0 A 6 .071 B 29 .345 .202 D; .166 E 18 A 19 o226 B 19 .226 20 .238 D 2k .285 E 2 .023 A 20 .238 B 30 .357 C 17 .202 D 9 .107 E 8 .095 A 17 .202 B 28 .333 C 5 .059 D 25 .297 E 9 .107 A 1 .011 B 18 .2lk C 19 .226 D 17 .202 E 29 .3IL5 6BM  17 .202 .75%629 3 2.1571 9G-F   9 o 745168 ij. 2 o 1005 k %  9 26 .743178 5 2.0283 (Table continued on next page) 3G-F C 7 . 0 8 3 .73671+2 6. 2 . 0 3 7 6 15 C 7 .083 .734745 7 2.0861 17BM C 22 .261 .726256 ' 8 2.0183 8 A 39 .IL64 B 10 .119 C 7 .  D. l k .166 E 14 .166 A 22 .261 B 33 .392  7 .083 D 8 .095 E 14 .166 A 31 .369 B 5 .059 C  . 1 D 5 .059 E 21 .250 A 23 .261 B 12 .142 C 35 .416 D 5 .059 E 9 .107 A 20) .238 B 1 .011 C 33 .392 IX 5 25 .059 E .297 A 10 .119 B 39 46% C 16 .190 D 6 3 .035 E 16 .190 I 8 B M c  6 .723729 9 2.0180 9BM   2 .697881 10 1.8552 15 13MP  16 .190) .697118 11 1.9591 12 (Table continued on next page), 8BM C 8 . 0 9 5 0 6 9 7 0 9 % 12 1.9830 10 1% C 0 oOOO 068192% 1% lo70%6 21 A 39 ©%6k B 20 o238 o 5 D 6 o071 E 11 ol30 A %0 o%76 B 15 ol78 G 6 .071 D' 7 0O83 E 16 O190J A, 29 ©3%5 B 27 .321 D 2 o023 E 26 o309 A. 17 .202 B %1 e%88 C 17 .202 D 6 .071 E 3 ©035 A. 7 0O83 B ;_26 .309 C 7 0O83 D 39 0%6% E 5 o059 A 3 o035 B 30 .357 C 0) .000 D 18 .21% E 33 .392 ,693710 13 1.9771 11 7BM  1 7 . 2 0 2 o 6 7 3 9 8 2 1$ 1 . 8 7 7 5 1 3 17GP 1 I0  .67196% 16 lo87%% 1% 8GP 1 0) 0671866 17 1.705% 20 (Table continued on next page) A 1+1 4 8 8 B 16 . 1 9 0 1 C 19 . 2 2 6 D 0 . 0 0 0 E 8 . . 0 9 5 t A 1 . 0 1 1 B 2 1 . 2 5 0 5 C P . 1 7 8 D % . 5 0 0 E . 0 5 9 A 3 8 452 B 2 . 0 2 3 11 C 7 . 0 8 3 D 5 . 0 5 9 E 3 2 . 3 8 0 A 21 . 2 5 0 B 1+t .01+7 12M G .51+7 D 3 . 0 3 5 E 10 .119 A. 1+8 . 5 7 1 B 11 . 1 3 0 6GP C 1 . 0 1 1 D 16 . 1 9 0 E 8 . 0 9 5 A 5 . 0 5 9 B 6> . 0 7 1 1 0 0; 0 . 0 0 0 D 32 . 3 8 0 E 4 8 8 (Table cont . 6 6 5 6 5 5 1 8 1 . 7 6 7 8 1 6 .652211+ 19 1 . 7 5 5 7 17 .61+0397 20 1.7121+ 19 .620696 21 1.7181 1 8 .611813 22 1.6936 22 .608931+ 23 1.51+71+ 2% on next page) A 30 .357 B 7 .083 20 C 1+6 ..5%7 D 1 .011 E 0 .000 A 10 .119 B 12 . lk2 3BM C h .01+7 D 53 .630 E 5 .059 A l .011 B 7 .083 12 BQ C 12 .11+2 D 62 .738 E 2 .023 .566332 2% 1.3762 25 .563085 25 1.6335 23 .1+27653 26 1.2182 26 161 APPENDIX G Rank Order of TAT Cards by Perceptual Ambiguity Based on Frequency of Choice of Five Descriptive Categories Rank Perceptual Ambiguity Card Male Female Combined Male Female Combined 19 1 2 2 .76191+1 0 71+0599 .7591+50 9GF 2 13 % .7601+25 .681+222 o7%5l68 6BM 3 3 3 .756706 .738621 o75%629 " k % 6 5 .71+7160 o72881+l+ o7%3178 18BM 5 16 9 . 7371+66 .65552% o723729 15 6 5 7 o 731691+ 0731222 o73%7%5 17BM 7 i i 8 o719355 o7l5%l+% 0726256 18GF 8 l 1 = 711+1+70 .793%66 0775878 3GF 9 7o5 6 .697876 o722l+%l+ o7367l+2 5 10 25 19 o695526 o%80666 .65221% 9BM 11 12 10 0688182 o691222 0697881 7BM 12 18 15 0681I+I+8 o6%86%% o673982 8GF 13 1% 17 o673056 0660799 0671866 1% 1% 19 1% 06718I+6 . 61+201+1+ 068192% 17GF 15 20 16 0 66861+6 o6%0333 o67196% 13MF 16 9o5 11 0668109 o717822 o6971l8 1 17 15 18 .657990 o660333 0665655 2 18 % 13 06I+8906 0733666 o693710 11 19 22 20 0 61+1580 0 61581+% o6%0397 12M 20 23 21 0 61+1266 .5620%% 0620696 8BM 21 9o5 12 .633366 .717822 069709% 10 22 21 23 o59l83l+ o633666 060893% 6GF 23 17 22 .582880 0 6%90%1+ 0611813 20 2% 2 4 2k o560l25 o530822 .566332 12 BG 25 26 26 01+63850 .3l|l|lj?2 o%27653 3BM 26 7o5 25 01+25518 o722%%% .563085 1 6 2 APPENDIX H Rank Order of TAT Cards by Uncertainty Measure Based on Frequency of Choice of Five Descriptive Categories Rank Uncertainty Measure Card — Male Female Combined Male Female Combined 6BM 1 4 2 2,1786 2.0673 2.1571 9GF 2 12 4 2o1595 1.8863 2.1005 19 3 9 3 2.1376 1.9687 2.1040 1 8 B M 4 16 9 2 . 0 9 1 2 1.8195 2.0180 15 5 3 5 2.0812 2.0764 2.0861 4 6 10 7 2e061|2 1.9413 2.0283 3GF 7 5.5 6 2.0177 2.0669 2.0376 17BM 8 8 8 1.9867 1.9848 2.0183 18GF 9 1 1 1.9781 2.2994 2.1728 7BM 10 17 13 1.9159 1.7647 1.8775 17GF 11 18 11L 1.9028 1.7087 1.8744. 9BM 12 15 15 1.8996 1.8282 1.8552 13MF 13 l l 12 1.878IL 1.9149 1.9591 5 lij. 25 17 1.8732 1.1606 1.7557 2 15 2 11 1.8610 2.0765: 1.9771 8BM 16 7 10 1.8347 2.0305 1.9830 12M 17 23 18 1.8114 1.4161 1.7181 8GF 18 22 20 1.7413 1.5701 1.7054 11 19 19 19 1.7307 1.6900 1.7124 1 20 13 16 1.7305 Io.8639 1.7678 1% 21 21 21 1.6726 1.6349 1.7046 6GF 22 l4 22 1.5563 ' 1.8409 1.6936 10 23 20 2% 1.4839 1.6375 1.5474 20 2% 2% 25 l.lj.213 1.1754 1.3762 12 BG 25 26 26 1.2440 1.0135 1.2182 3BM 26 5.5 23 1.2111 2.0669 1.6335 163 APPENDIX I Rank Order of TAT Cards by Perceptual Ambiguity Based on the Choice of F i r s t Rank f o r Fourteen Needs Rank Per c e p t u a l Ambiguity Card Male Female Combined Male Female Combined 20 1 1 1 o 861}.658 .869678 o890073 17GF 2 5 2 086464.9 .839358 o880112 5 3 7 3 o86ll97 o826208 .830351 15 4«5 19 .816044 o665523 .762408 8BM 4*5 13 9 .816044 o782713 o8l3997 18BM 6 10 7 o805586 o809195 o8l5863 6GF 7 k k 0802166 o854540 0838466 1 8 16 5 0791741 .737307 o83035l Ik 9 Ik n 0791716 .748661 o780569 7BM 10 . 12 10 o7778l3 o782747 .791376 18GF 11 15 12 .770916 o74l092 .776943 17BM 12 20) 19 o757038 o642825 o72624l k 13 18 17 0750066 .722178 o746996 9GF Ik 9 6 .736197 o8242l6 o820383 12M 15 21 21 0736197 .593731 .675466 2 16 2 8 .729241 .861344 0814018 8GF 17 11 13 o725788 o790308 .766932' -19 18 17 20 o68754l .722257 o713495 11 19 23 22 0663205 o525636 .608554 . 3GF 20 8 15 .656283 .824359 0761501 13MF 21 22 23 0642240 0533205 06OI308 . 3BM 22 6 18 0600763 0831850 .744282 6BM 23 3 16 .583179 0858334 0756044, 12 BG 2k 2k 2% .298688 .438646 .374007 10 25 25 25 0295211 .438645 .371284 9BM 26 26 26 .156383 .000000 0082486 16% APPENDIX J Rank Order of TAT Cards by Ambiguity Expressed by the Average In t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of Ranks of Fourteen Needs Rank Average I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n Gard Male Female Combined Male Female Combined 17GF 1 % 3 .06% .073 .058 20 2 5 % .056 .089 .070 5 3 7 7 .115 .131 .116 19 % 2 2 .136 -.070 .o%5 15 5 12 12 .15% .275 .217 1 8 B M 6 20 11 .175 .%0% .200 11 7 1% 1% .185 .280 .23% 18GF 8 1 10 .190 -.132 .15% 8BM 9 16 1 .20% .29% .01% 9GF 10 9 13 .217 .221 .22% 12M 11 3 15 .222 -.060 .2%5 2 12 11 16 .265 .272 .2%8 1% 13 10 18 .286 .252 .321 13MF 1% 26 21 .301 .563 .357 9BM 15 21 20 .30% .%%1 .351 6GF 16 18 17 .305 .333 .318 8GF 17 19 8 .318 .356 .136 7BM 18 2% 25 .327 .%88 .%56 3BM 19 15 6 .335 .288 .100 3GF 20 13 9 .3%7 .278 .1%0 17BM 21 23 22 .3%8 ,%5% .%02 12BG 22 8 19 .383 .173 .33% % 23 22 23 .%11 •%%% ,%20 1 2% 6 5 .%32 .109 .098 10 25 25 26 .%%9 .%99 .%71 6 B M 26 17 2% .%62 .307 .%%o APPENDIX K Rank Order of TAT Cards by Perceptual Ambiguity and Corresponding Uncertainty Measure (Harvey, I960, Combined Groups) PA H Card Category Frequency of Response P( i ) Proportion Perceptual Ambiguity Rank Uncertainty Measure Rank 6BM 8BM 18GF % 20 A 7 .205 B k .117 C 10 .29% D 6 .175 E 7 .205 A 9 .2k3 B 3 .081 C 9 .2%3 D 8 .216 E 8 .216 A 5 .156 B 10 .312 G 7 .218 D 3 .093 E 7 .218 A 7 .333 B 3 . l l j i C 3 .1%2 D 5 .238 E 3 .142 A h .121 B 7 .212 C 6 .181 E> .121 E 12 .363 .78%849 .782029 .774623 .771975 .761244 I 3 5 2.2599 2.2409 2.2193 2.2209 2.1888 2i 3 (Table continued on next page) 13MP C 9 .300 .751+132 6 2,1285 18BM C 7 .205 .71+8593 7 2.1386 17BM C 3 .083 .71+0190 8 2.1101 8 A 8 .266 B 3 .100 C  .  D 9 .266 E 2 .066 A 13 .382 B 3 .088 .205 n 7 .205 E 1+ .117 A 11+ .388 B 9 .250 3 .083 D 6 .166 E 1+ .111 A 3 6 .085 B .171 o; 15 .1+28 D 6 .171 E 5 .11+2 A 1+ 0 .129 B .000 C 7 .225 D 9 .290 E 11 .351+ A 12 .352 B 12 .352 C 2 .058 D 1+ .117 E 1+ .117 19  1 5 .1+28 .73091+5 9 2.0976 9 12BG-  . 225 . 723318 10 1.9236 16 ll+ 2 .058 .7211+50 11 2.0231 10 .117 (Table continued on next page) 3GP c 7 .200 .705665 12 2.0091 11 15 C 3 .115 .702353 13*5 2.0029 12.5 17G-F c; 3 .115; .702353 13.5 2.0029 12.5 A 16 457 B k . l l i i C 7 .200 D 6 .171 E 2 .057 A 12 461 B 6 .230 3 .  D 2 .076 E 3 .115 A 6 .230 B 12 461 C 3 .115 D 2 .076 E 3 .115 A. 9 .333 B 2 • 07& C 2 .07% D 11 407 E 3 .111 A 2 .055 B 11 .305 C 3 .083 D) .111 E 1? .14% A 1 .031 B 1% 437 C 1 .031 D 8 .250 E 8 .250 11 c   .700189 15 1.96I+1 4 8GF 3 .083 .68760% 16 1.9227 15 .682109 17 1.8327 18 (Table continued on next page)) A 17 459 B 12 • 32k 1 © 5 .135 D 2 .o5% E 1 .027 A 7 .19% B 2 .055 12M C 19 .527 D 5 .138 E 3 .083 A 5 .138 B 2 .055 9BM C 15 .%16 D 0 .00© E 1% .388 A 2 .05k B 5 .135 9GfP C 2 .05k D 8 .216 E 20 .5%o A .153 B 3 .115 2 C 15 .576 D 2 .076 E 2 .076 A 17 .586 B 3 .103 6GP a 2 .068 D 2 .068 E 5 .172 .662I4.73 18 1.8006 2© .655677 19 1.868% 17 •65%33I 20 1.6808 2% .637687 21 1.8025 19 .6200%8 22 1.7968 21 .607163 23 1.7538 22 (Table continued on next page)) 10 A B C D E 4 21 1 .llj.2 • lllj. .11% .600 .028 .593060 2% 1.7007 23 7BM 3BM A B C D E A B C D E 2 17 5 3 1 3 5 2 22 2 .071 .607 .178 .107 .035 .088 .147 .058 .61+7 .058 .582152 2 5 1.6656 25 .545310 26 1.5982 26 171 APPENDIX L Comparison of TAT Cards Ranked by Uncertainty Measure Based upon Proportional Variations i n Behavioral Pattern and Thema (Knehr, Vickery and Guy, 1953) Card Rank Va r i a t i o n of Behavior Uncertainty Measure Rank V a r i a t i o n of Thema Uncertainty Measure 13 1 3.6525 1 2.7231 5 2 3.514,12 k 2.5627 20 3 34758 3 2.690% 1 4 3.2330 9 2.261+7 15 5 3.2211 2 2.7176 16 6 3.0885 7 2.3236 k 7 3.0085 12 1.6799 10 8 2.8866 $ 24850 11 9 2.8353 6 2.1407 1% 10 2.8209 10 2.0975 2 11 2.61+07 8 2.2997 19 12 2.2650) 11 1.861+0 x" = .655, P .05 APPENDIX M Comparison of Ambiguity Order of TAT Cards with Personality Variables 1 7 3 APPENDIX M Comparison of TAT Cards Ranked by Perceptual Ambiguity and Number of Themes E l i c i t e d (Eron, 1950) Perceptual Ambiguity Card Male No. of Themes Card Combined No. of Themes 19 225 19 225 6 B M 395 6BM 395 High h 361 h 361 18BM 413 15 3l+0 15 3l|.0 17BM 301 9BM 273 13MP 456 7BM 316 8BM 287 Medium 111 261+ 2 239 13MP IL56 IIL 26IL 1 237 7 B M 316 12M 352 11 202 8BM 287 12M 352 Low 10 301 10 301 20 1+21 20 1+21 3BM 373 3BM 373 Por males, Correlation Ratio, E = .20l+, p .05 Por Combined, Correlation Ratio, E = .103, P .05 17% APPENDIX M Comparison of TAT Cards Ranked by Uncertainty Measure and Number of Themes E l i c i t e d (Eron, 1950) Perceptual Ambiguity Card Male No. of Themes Card Combined No. of Themes 6BM 395 6 B M 395 19 225 19 225 High 18BM %13 15 3%0 15 3%0 % 361 % 361 17BM 301 9BM 273 2 239 13MP %56 13MP %56 Medium 5 255 7BM 316 2 239 9BM 273 8BM 28? 1 237 1 237 11 202 1% 26% 1% 26% Low 10 301 3BM 373 20 %21 10' 301 3BM 373 20 %21 For Males, Correlation r a t i o , E = .036, p < .05 For Combined, Correlation r a t i o , E = .11%, p < .05 175 APPENDIX M C o m p a r i s o n o f TAT Cards Ranked b y S c h e m a t i c A m b i g u i t y o f F i r s t C h o i c e o f Need and Number o f Themes E l i c i t e d ( E r o n , 1950) S c h e m a t i c A m b i g u i t y C a r d Male No. o f Themes C a r d Combined No. o f Themes H i g h Medium Low 20 5 15 8BM 18BM 7BM 17BM k 12M 2 1 3 M F 3BM 6 B M 10 9BM 1+21 255 31+0 287 1+13 316 301 361 352 239 1+56 373 395 301 273 20 5 1 18BM 2 ll+ 15 6BM % 3BM 12M 11 13MF 10 9BM 1+21 255 237 1+13 239 261+ 31+0 395 361 373 352 202 1+56 301 273 F o r M a l e , C o r r e l a t i o n R a t i o , E = .303, P > «05 F o r Combined, C o r r e l a t i o n R a t i o , E = .199, p > .05 1 7 6 APPENDIX M C o m p a r i s o n o f TAT Cards Ranked b y S c h e m a t i c A m b i g u i t y o f Average I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n and Number o f Themes E l i c i t e d ( E r o n , 1950) S c h e m a t i c A m b i g u i t y C a r d Male No. o f Themes C a r d Combined No. o f Themes H i g h Medium 20 5 19 15 18BM 12M 2 H+ 13MP 9 B M 1+21 255 225 31+0 1+13 352 2 3 9 261+ 1+56 2 7 3 8BM 19 20 1 3BM 15 i l 12M 2 l i+ 2 8 7 225 1+21 237 3 7 3 31+0 202 352 2 3 9 261+ Low 17BM 1+ 1 10 6 B M 301 361 237 301 3 9 5 17BM k 6 B M 7BM 10 301 361 395 301 F o r M a l e , C o r r e l a t i o n R a t i o , E = .081+, p > .05 F o r Combined, C o r r e l a t i o n R a t i o , E = .355, P > «»05 177 A P P E N D I X M C o m p a r i s o n o f T A T C a r d s R a n k e d b y P e r c e p t u a l A m b i g u i t y a n d T o t a l W o r d a g e ( R o s e n z w e i g a n d F l e m i n g , 19%9) M a l e F e m a l e P e r c e p t u a l A m b i g u i t y C a r d T o t a l W o r d a g e C a r d T o t a l W o r d a g e 6BM 160 18GF 1%9 H i g h k 2 158 18BM 1%6 k 1%6 1% 139 3GF 132 M e d i u m 13MF 150 13MF 138 I 11% 9G-F 181 8BM 15% I 118 Low 10 138 % 131 3BM 131 10 136 F o r M a l e , C o r r e l a t i o n R a t i o , E = .587, P > .05 F o r F e m a l e , C o r r e l a t i o n R a t i o , E = .610, p > »05 178 APPENDIX M Comparison of TAT Cards Ranked by Uncertainty Measure and Total Wordage (Rosenzweig and Fleming, 19i+9) Perceptual Ambiguity Card Male Total Wordage Card Female Total Wordage 6BM 160 1 8 G F ll+9 High 18BM ll+6 2 158 h 15% 3 G F 132 13MF 150 k ll+6 Medium 2 161 13MF 138 8BM 15% 9GF 181 2J4, 139 1 118 Low 10 138 10 136 3BM 131 ll+ 131 For Male, Correlation Ratio, E = „665, P > .05 For Female , Correlation Ratio, E = e 61+3, P > e05 179 APPENDIX M Comparison of TAT Cards Ranked by Schematic Ambiguity of F i r s t Choice and Total Wordage (Rosenzweig and Fleming, 191+9) Male Female Schematic Ambiguity Card Total Wordage Card Total Wordage 8BM 1#+ 2 158 High 18BM 11+6 3GF 132 1 111+ 9G-F 181 7BM 158 H+ 131 Medium k 151+ 1 8 G F U+9 2 161 1 118 3BM 131 h 11+6 Low 6BM 160 13MF 138 10 138 10 .136 For Male, Correlation Ratio, E = .559, p > .05 For Female, Correlation Ratio, E = .590, p y .05 160 APPENDIX M Comparison of TAT Cards Ranked by Schematic Ambiguity of Average In t e r c o r r e l a t i o n and Total Wordage (Rosenzweig and Fleming, 1 9 4 . 9 ) Male Female Schematic Ambiguity Card Total Wordage Card Tot a l Wordage 18BM 1%6 18GF 1%9 High 8 B M i5% 1 118 2 161 9G-F 181 13MF 150 1% 131 Medium 7 B M 158 2 158 3 B M 131 3GF 132 1 11% h 14-6 Low 1Q> 138 10 136 6BM 160 13MF 138 For Male, Correlation Ratio, E = 0%52, p > o05 For Female, Correlation Ratio, E = o250, p > «05 181 APPENDIX Hf Comparison of TAT Cards Ranked by Perceptual Ambiguity and Personality Revealingness (Kenny and Bijou, 1953) Perceptual Ambiguity Card Q-Sort Score 19 3.83 k 6.00 High 5.17 17BM 4.33 18BM 5.81 9BM 4.81 13MP 6.39 Medium 8BM 5.08 2 4.94 7BM 5.97 1 5.75 5 4.00 Low 11 4.61 12M 5.39 12BG 3.53 Correlation Ratio, E = .383, p ) .05 182 APPENDIX M Comparison of TAT Cards by Uncertainty Measure and Personality Revealingness, (Kenny and Bijou, 1953) Perceptual Ambiguity Card Q-Sort Score 19 3.83 15 5.17 High k 6.00 17BM %.33 I 8 B M 5.81 8BM 5.08 2 4 . 9 4 Medium 13MP 6.39 7BM 5.97 9BM % . 8 l I 5.75 5 li.oo Low 12M 5.39 11 4 . 6 1 12BG- 3.53 Correlation Ratio, E = .383, p > .05 183 APPENDIX M C o m p a r i s o n o f TAT C a r d s b y S c h e m a t i c A m b i g u i t y o f F i r s t C h o i c e and P e r s o n a l i t y R e v e a l i n g n e s s (Kenny a n d B i j o u , 1953) S c h e m a t i c A m b i g u i t y C a r d Q - S o r t S c o r e 5 %.00 1 5.75 H i g h I8BM: 5.81 2 k*9k 8BM 5.08 7BM 5.97 15 5.17 Medium k 6.00 17BM 4 .33 19 3.83 12M 5.39 11 %.6l Low 13MF 6.39 12BG- 3.53 9BM %.8l C o r r e l a t i o n R a t i o , E = .08%, p > .05 APPENDIX M Comparison of TAT Cards by Schematic Ambiguity of Average I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n and Personality Revealingness (Kenny and Bijou, 1953) Schematic Ambiguity Card Q-Sort Score 8BM 5.08 19 3.83 High 1 5.75 5' 4 . 0 0 18BM 5.81 15 5.17 l l 4 . 6 1 Medium 1 2 M 5.39 2 4 * 9 4 12BG 3.53 9BM 4 . 8 1 13MP 6.39 Low 17BM 4 * 3 3 4 6 0 O 0 7BM 5.97 Correlation Ratio, E = .397, P > .05 185 APPENDIX M C o m p a r i s o n o f TAT C a r d s R anked b y P e r c e p t u a l A m b i g u i t y and Mean R a t i n g o f E m o t i o n a l Tone, ( E r o n , T e r r y a n d C a l a h a n , 1950) Male F e m a l e C a r d Rank C a r d Rank E m o t i o n a l Tone P e r c e p t u a l A m b i g u i t y E m o t i o n a l Tone P e r c e p t u a l A m b i g u i t y 3BM 1 1 9 1 3 M P 1 7 1 3 M F 2 11 18G-F 2 1 15 3 5 15 3 k 6BM h 2 3GF % 6 18BM 5 h 9 G F 5 8 20 k 6 7 18 3 V " 11 6 7 5 15 1 2 M 8 15 2 0 8 16 11 9' IIL 1 7 G F 9 13 7BM 10 9 1 • 10 10 5 11 7 2 11.5 3 1 9 12 1 10 i i . 5 1% 2 13 1 3 6GF 13 11 1Q» 17 1 9 IIL.5 2 8BM 15 16 5 14.5 17 9 B M 1 6 8 8GP 16 9 1 1 7 12 1% 1 7 1 2 Ik 1 8 1 0 1 7 B M 1 9 6 P o r M a l e , Rank O r d e r C o e f f i c i e n t , r ' = .055, P > .05 * P o r F e m a l e , Rank O r d e r C o e f f i c i e n t , r ' = . 3 6 9 , P > .05 1 8 6 APPENDIX M Comparison of TAT Cards Ranked by Uncertainty Measure and Mean Rating of Emotional Tone (Eron, Terry and Calahan, 195>0) M a l e F e m a l e Card Rank Card Rank Emotional Uncertainty Emotional Uncertainty Tone Measure Tone Measure 3BM 1 19 13MF 1 7 13MF 2 9 18GF 2 1 15 3 k 15 3 3 5 B M k 1 3GF k h I 8 B M 5 3 9GF 5 8 20 6 18 4 6 6 4 7 5 11 7 12 12M 8 13 20 8 16 11 9 17GF 9 11 7BM 10 7 1 10 9 $ 11 10 2 n .5 2 19 12 2 10) i i . 5 13 2 13 11 6 G F 13 10 10 1% 17 19 34.5 5 8BM 15 12 5 i%o5 17 9BM 16 8 8GF 16 15 1 17 15 34 17 34 18 16 17BM 19 6 * For Male, Rank Order Coefficient, r' = .160, P > .05 For Female, Rank Order Coefficient, r« - .57l|., P < .01 187 APPENDIX M Comparison of TAT Cards Ranked by Schematic Ambiguity and Mean Rating of Emotional Tone, (Eron, Terry and Calahan, 1950) Male Female Card Rank Card Rank Emotional Tone F i r s t Choice Emotional Tone F i r s t Choice 20 6 1 2 0 8 1 5 11 2 2 11 .5 2 15 3 3 . 5 6G-F 13 3 8BM 15 3 . 5 17GF 9 4 18BM 1 5 17 5 & 5 ' 3GF 1%.5 k 5 6 Ik 18 7 9 OF $ 7 7BM 10 8 8GF 16 8 17BM 19 9 3 4 17 9 h 7 lo- 18GF 2 10 12M 8 l l 1 10 11 2 13 12 19 3 4 » 5 12 19' 12 13 4 6 1 3 11 19 1% 15 3 3 4 13MF 2 15 13MF 1 15 3BM 1 16 11 7 16 6BM h 17 10; 11 .5 17 10 1% 18 18 9BM 16 19 19 * For Male, Rank Order Co e f f i c i e n t , r« = - . 0 6 7 9 , P > . 0 5 For Female, Rank Order < Coefficient , r« = - . 2 7 3 , P > . 0 5 188 APPENDIX M C o m p a r i s o n o f TAT C a r d s Ranked b y S c h e m a t i c A m b i g u i t y and Mean R a t i n g o f E m o t i o n a l T o n e , ( E r o n , T e r r y and C a l a h a n , 1950) Male Female Hard Rank Hard Rank E m o t i o n a l A v e r a g e E m o t i o n a l A v e r a g e Tone I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n Tone I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n 20 6 1 18GF 10 1 5 11 2 19 12 2 19 12 3 17G-F 4 3 15 3 4 20 " 1 4 18BM 5 5 1 11 5 11 9 6 5 5 6 8BM 15 7 9GF 7 7 12M 8 8 14 9 8 2 13 9 2 2 9 HL 18 10 15 14 10 I3MF 2 11 3GF 6 11 9BM 16 12 11 16 12 7BM 10 13 6GF 3 ' 13 3BM 1 14 8GF 8 14 17BM 19 15 4 13 15 4 7 16 10 17 16 1 17 17 13MF 15 17 10 l i L 18 6BM 4 19 * F o r M a l e , Rank O r d e r C o e f f i c i e n t , r V = .164, p > o05 F o r Female i , Rank O r d e r C o e f f i c i e n t , r« = .412, P < .05 189 APPENDIX M Comparison of TAT Cards Ranked by Perceptual Ambiguity and Median Number of Emotional Words (Ullman, 1957) Perceptual Ambiguity Rank Card Median Number Emotional Words* 1 19 2.88 2 6BM 7.63 High 3 4 6.56 k 18BM 5 . 3 1 5 15 4.50 6 17BM 3 . 0 8 7 5 3.50 8 9BM 2.50 9 7BM 5.81 Medium 1 0 3.17 11 1 3 M P 5.37 1 2 1 5.50 13 "2 4.77 1 % 11 2 . 8 0 15 12M 4 . 0 9 Low 16 8BM 4.42 17 1 0 3.70 18 2 0 4.38 19 3BM 5.64 For Male Correlation Ratio, E = .252, p > .05 190 APPENDIX M Comparison of TAT Cards Ranked by Schematic Ambiguity and Median Number of Emotional Words (Ullman, 1957) Schematic Ambiguity Fi r s t Choice Rank Card Median Number of Emotional Words 1 20 [L.38 2 S 3.50 High 3 15 1L.50 IL 8BM IL.IL2 5 18 BM: 5.31 8 7BM 5.81 9 17BM 3.08 Medium 10 LL 6.56 11 12M LL.09 212 2 IL.77 15 13MF 5.37 16 3BM 5.6% Low 17 6BM 7.63 18 10 3.70 19 9BM 2.50 Correlation Ratio, E = .186, p > .05 191 APPENDIX M Comparison of TAT Cards Ranked by Perceptual Ambiguity and Transcendence Scores (Gurel and Ullman, 1958) Rank Perceptual Ambiguity Card T r a n s c e n d e n c e * P e r c e p t u a l Ambiguity High 6BM 1 2: k 2 3 13MF 3 11 7BM k 9 2 5 13 3BM 6 19 8BM 7 16 12M 8 15 1 9 12 20 10 18 10 11 17 18BM 12 h 9BM 13 8 1% 1% 10 15 15 5 17BM 16 6 5 17 7 19 18 1 Low 11 19 Ik For Male, Rank Order Coefficient, r ' = -.12%, p > .05 192 APPENDIX M Comparison of TAT Cards Ranked by Schematic Ambiguity and Transcendence Scores (Gurel and Ullman, 1958) Schematic R a n k  Ambiguity Card Transcendence Fi r s t Choice High 6BM 1 17 k 2 10 1 3 M F 3 15 7BM II 8 12 5 12 3BM 6 16 8BM 7 3.5 12M 8 11 1 9 6 20 10 1 10 11 18 18BM 12 % 9BM 13 19 lij- lij. 7 15 15 3.5 17BM 16 9 5 17 2 19 1% 13 Low 11 19 ll}. For Male, Rank Order Coefficient, r« = -<>210, p > .05 1 9 3 APPENDIX M Comparison of TAT Cards Ranked by Uncertainty Measure and Proportional Variations i n Behavioral Pattern and Thema (Knehr, Vickery and Guy, 1953) Rank  Va r i a t i o n Uncertainty Card of Behavior* Measure 13 1 5 $ 2 7 20 3 11 1 k 6 15 5 2 h 6. 3 10 1 10 i i 8 8 i % 9 9 2 10 h 19 11 1 Rank Va r i a t i o n Uncertainty Card of Therm'3"'" Measure 13 1 5 15 2 2 20 3 11 5 % 7 10 5 10 11 6 8 2 7 h 1 8 6 1% 9 9 19 10) 1 h 11 3 i c For V a r i a t i o n of Behavior, Rank Order Coefficient, r' = - , 2 3 6 , p > o05 For V a r i a t i o n of Thema, Rank Order C o e f f i c i e n t , r« - -.2514., p > »05 19k APPENDIX M Comparison of TAT Cards Ranked by Uncertainty Measure and Proportional Variations i n Behavioral Pattern and Thema (Knehr, Vickery and Guy, 1953) V a r i a t i o n Card of Behavior* F i r s t Choice Card V a r i a t i o n of Thema F i r s t Choice 13 1 10 13 1 10 5 2 2 15 2 3 20 3 1 20 3 1 1 k k 5 k 2 15 5 3 10; S 11 k 6 & 11 6 9 10 7 11 2 7 7 11 8 9 1 8 h 9' % 14 9 5 2 10' 7 19 10 8 19 i i 8 4 11 6 •5C- For V a r i a t i o n of i " = .536, p Behavior, Rank Order < .05 C o e f f i c i e n t , For V a r i a t i o n of r» = .109, p Thema, Rank > .05 Order C o e f f i c i e n t , 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106206/manifest

Comment

Related Items