TAT Scoring Manual 1

November 20, 2002 Dear Colleague, Thank you for your interest in the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scales (SCORS). There are three versions of the manual: one for TAT and projective stories; one for other forms of narrative data such as interviews, early memories, and relationship episodes from psychotherapy transcripts; and one for stories told to the Picture Arrangement subtest of the WAIS-R. The narrative version can also be used to code patients globally based on observation over several clinical hours. In recent years we have changed, augmented, or piloted changes in the TAT and narrative manuals in three ways. First, we have increased the scale points from 5 to 7, based on data suggesting that coders could make finer discriminations if given specific anchors for scale points 1, 3, 5, and 7, rather than for each of 5 scale points (see attached appendices). Second, we have added additional dimensions since the original four (complexity/cognitive structure of representations, affective quality of representations, understanding of social causality, and capacity for emotional investment in relationships and moral standards), in the following ways. We have split the emotional investment dimension into two dimensions, capacity for investment in relationships, and capacity for investment in moral standards. We have added a thematic scale (dominant interpersonal concerns), which can be coded using the same codes for either projective or other forms of narrative data (see Appendix 2). We have added the following scales for narrative data (which are often not scorable from TAT stories, although Mark Hilsenroth at Adelphi and his group have been able to score some of them from TAT stories): experience and management of aggression, self-esteem, and identity and sense of self.

Third, we have tested different scaling techniques, including the original, rationally derived scaling system, a Q-sort method, and a factor-analytically derived method (currently under investigation). Initially we intended the Q-sort to supersede the rating system, but with the possible exception of the dominant interpersonal concerns, which lend themselves to a Q-sort method, we have returned to the original scaling approach because of stronger reliability in pilot studies, although some research groups have been able to obtain good reliability using the Qsort version. At the present time, we recommend using the 7-point scaling systems reproduced directly after this letter in the enclosed PDF files for both TAT (Appendix 1) and narrative methods (Appendix 2); alternatively, users could simply use the original manuals. Because we have not completed

TAT Scoring Manual 2 revising the manuals to reflect these 7-point scaling systems, to use these versions, which have now been used reliably in several studies, we suggest (a) training first on the original 5-point systems; (b) then reading through the Q-sort versions of the TAT manual to get a sense of how to score the dominant interpersonal concerns and to distinguish the two emotional investment dimensions; and (c) finally, to practice scoring using the 7-point scaling systems reproduced in the appendices here. Note: Do not try scoring TAT stories or other narratives from reading the appendices alone. These appendices provide the current scaling system, but they are not adequate for training, and their use presupposes that the coder has already become reliable using the original system. You may choose to use one or all of the scales (as long as you do not use the Q-sort, which requires using either all dimensions or only the dominant interpersonal concerns emotions scale). Thank you for your interest in the SCORS. We would appreciate receiving a copy of any study or dissertation using the SCORS. Best regards,

Drew Westen, Ph.D. Professor, Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University

TAT Scoring Manual 3 CURRENT RATING SUMMARY SHEET (OCTOBER, 2002) Score 1 3 Complexity of Representations of People Representations of people are poorly differentiated from each other; person tends to be profoundly egocentric or embedded in own point of view. Descriptions of people's personalities and internal states have little subtlety or complexity; descriptions may be simple, unidimensional, fluid, inconsistent, or poorly integrated; person may see people as all good or all bad. Descriptions of people's personalities and internal states have some depth but are stereotypical. Descriptions of people's personality and mental states are rich and complex; the person is psychologically minded, attending to the subtleties of personality and subjective experience. Affective Quality of Representations Descriptions of people and relationships are grossly malevolent, with little hope of comfort or kindness between people. Descriptions of people and relationships are unpleasant or hostile; people may feel painfully alone. Descriptions of people and relationships have both positive and negative elements but overall have a slightly positive or hopeful tone. On balance, people and relationships are experienced as positive and enriching. Note: where affective quality is bland or defensive (e.g., the person appends happy endings to stories), code 4; for ordinary malevolent responses to cards that draw malevolent responses (e.g., 13MF), code 3. Score 1 Emotional Investment in Relationships Expresses a need-gratifying orientation toward relationships; relationships appear interchangeable, unimportant in themselves, useful for self-soothing, highly tumultuous, or absent but not valued. Descriptions of relationships are emotionally somewhat shallow; relationships may be continuous but lack depth or are based primarily on mutual participation in shared activity or mutual self-interest. Descriptions of relationships demonstrate evidence of conventional concern, friendship, altruism, caretaking, or love. Describes deep, committed relationships characterized by mutual sharing, interdependence, and respect. Note: where only one character is described and no relationship is depicted, code 2.

5 7

Score 1 3 5 7

5 7

TAT Scoring Manual 4 Score 1 Emotional Investment in Values and Moral Standards Evidences a relative absence of moral values and concern for needs of others; may describe antisocial, manipulative, or aggressive acts without any sense of these actions as morally problematic. Generally tries to avoid wrongdoing but has little genuine emotional investment in values, capacity for guilt, or heartfelt moral standards; moral concerns tend to focus on reward or punishment rather than fully internalized moral standards; may have childlike views of right and wrong or views of morality that appear unconventional but are largely self-serving; may view authority as arbitrary and illegitimate; may apply excessively harsh moral standards to the self or others. Appears invested in moral values or social norms and to experience guilt for hurting other people or failing to meet moral standards; has conventional moral views and respect for authority figures. Thinks about moral questions in a way that combines abstract thought, a willingness to challenge or question convention, and genuine compassion; appears committed both to abstract ideals and values and to concrete others. Note: where no moral concerns are raised by a particular story, code 4; where the person experiences the self as globally bad or evil for who s/he is rather than what s/he has done (i.e., for a specific deed), code 3. Score 1 Understanding of Social Causality Explanations of people's behavior or narrative accounts of interpersonal events are highly unlikely, illogical, or distorted; the person does not appear to understand why people do what they do. Explanations of people's behavior or narrative accounts are slightly confusing; descriptions of interpersonal events have minor logic errors, unexplained transitions, or idiosyncratic attributions; descriptions of people's thoughts and feelings may be slightly incongruent. Narrative accounts are sensible and coherent; stories include a relatively complete plot and comprehensible explanations of the way people think, feel, and behave. Narrative accounts of interpersonal events are particularly coherent and compelling. Note: where subject describes events as if they just happen, with little sense of why people behave the way they do (i.e., alogial rather than illogical stories that seem to lack any causal understanding), or essentially provides a concrete description of the card with little or no story, code 2. For stories that are relatively straightforward and sensible but do not have complete narrative structure (e.g., a true ending), code 4.

TAT Scoring Manual 5 Score 1 3 Dominant Interpersonal Concerns Probably present, but not entirely clear. Clearly present but neither particularly central to the story or subject nor idiosyncratic (e.g., authority conflicts on Card 1). Clearly present and central to the action of the story. Clearly central to understanding who the subject is or what s/he is struggling with; theme is unusual for the card, idiosyncratically elaborated, or obviously highly charged emotionally. Note: Rate each theme scored on each card using this 7-point scale; all other themes receive no score. A typical story will be rated for 1-3 themes. Dominant Interpersonal Concerns d01 nurturance, dependence, trust, security, or mentorship, where the relationship is not between peers, and the experience is emotionally positive emotional intimacy or closeness between marital partners or lovers sexual intimacy, sexual desire, or romance affiliation, friendship, belongingness, or closeness with friends or family mastery, achievement, self-control, skill acquisition, or knowledge seeking autonomy; self-assertion, independent thinking, or pleasure in behave autonomously admiration, exhibition, recognition, sense of specialness, basking in acclaim, or having followers identity, self-definition, or reflecting upon or searching for ones place in the world dominance; striving for or struggling over power, control over others, status, or class rejection, abandonment, or being sent away inferiority in comparison to others victimization, gross exploitation, asymmetrical violence, severe verbal cruelty, deliberate infliction of harm, gross negligence, or physical abuse sexual victimization, rape, or sexual abuse conflictual dependence (such as overdependence, clinginess, or fear of commitment)

5 7

d02 d03 d04 d05 d06 d07

d08 d09 d10 d11 d12

d13 d14

TAT Scoring Manual 6 Score d15 Dominant Interpersonal Concerns disappointed authorities, critical parents, or characters who chronically worry about meeting high parental standards loners; depicts people who seem schizoid, unrelated, or unconcerned about their lack of connection to others guilt (moral guilt evoked by breaking a particular moral rule or standard) self-loathing or global badness of the self; (sense of badness must be general, not tied to a particular action) failure, incompetence, or inadequacy rescue; depicts characters who are rescued fears about safety, survival, or protection competition sexual competition (love triangles, competition for mates, etc.) helplessness feeling misunderstood; depicts people who feel that significant others misunderstand or do not respond empathically to them loneliness, isolation, or lack of meaningful relationships (must be distressing to the subject) fear of losing self-control, fear of ones own impulses, or disdain for others acceptance of or submission to their own desires sexual conflict (e.g., preoccupation with, or avoidance of sexual themes; notable anxiety about sexual content) punishment or worry about being punished crusading; depicts characters who morally crusade role reversal self-victimization (not to be scored for suicide unless includes self-defeating or masochistic elements) aggression; depicts aggressive acts that fall short of victimization, or people struggling with aggressive impulses authority conflicts

d16

d17 d18

d19 d20 d21 d22 d23 d24 d25

d26

d27

d28

d29 d30 d31 d32

d33

d34

TAT Scoring Manual 7 Score d35 d36 Dominant Interpersonal Concerns conflicted identification with a person or group neglect; depicts characters who are physically neglected, or whose basic needs for food, shelter, or clothing are unmet low self-esteem shame; depicts people who feel ashamed, humiliated, dishonored, or slighted stereotyped sex roles concern about sexual orientation; characters are concerned or confused about orientation not belonging , being an outcast, outsider, or scapegoat sadism, with attitude of enjoyment or satisfaction self-blaming; attributes characters misfortunes to their own enduring psychological traits or attributes loss; depicts characters who have lost, or fear losing, a significant other through death suicide defectiveness, handicap, or something being mentally or physically wrong emptiness or meaninglessness frustrated by circumstance; depicts characters who are frustrated or impeded by social circumstances that obstruct attainment of goals betrayal resignation; characters are resigned or fatalistic

d37 d38 d39 d40

d41 d42 d43

d44 d45 d46 d47 d48

d49 d50

TAT Scoring Manual 8

ORIGINAL MANUAL TO USE FOR TRAINING SOCIAL COGNITION AND OBJECT RELATIONS SCALE (SCORS): MANUAL FOR CODING TAT DATA

Drew Westen, Ph.D. In collaboration with Naomi Lohr, Ph.D., Kenneth Silk, M.D., Kevin Kerber, M.D., and Sonya Goodrich, Ph.D.

University of Michigan Department of Psychology 580 Union Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1346 July, 1985 Revised, April, 1987; October, 1988; May 1989; April 1990

TAT Scoring Manual 9 For several years the representational processes underlying interpersonal functioning have been explored in two independent literatures: psychoanalytic object relations theory and social cognition research (for reviews, see Greenberg and Mitchell, 1983; Fiske and Taylor, 1982; Singer and Kolligian, 1987; Westen, 1990a). Object relations approaches have examined, from a clinical perspective, the nature and development of representations of self and others and the affective processes brought to bear on those representations, with a focus on pathological object relations in personality disorders. Using an entirely different database, social cognition researchers from an experimental perspective have explored mechanisms of social information processing, with a focus on normal, modal processes. The present manual is part of an effort to develop systems for measuring different aspects of individual differences in social cognition and object relations. Similar manuals for use with other forms of narrative data (such as interviews, psychotherapy sessions, and descriptions of early memories) and stories told to the Picture Arrangement subtest of the WAIS-R are available upon request from the first author. The present manual provides scoring criteria for the assessment of four dimensions or object relations/social cognition from TAT responses: complexity of representations of people, affecttone of relationship paradigms, capacity for emotional investment in relationships and moral standards, and understanding of social causality. These different dimensions are conceptualized as interrelated but distinct aspects of object relations and social cognition (i.e., as cognitive and affective processes medicating interpersonal functioning) that can be measured independently of each other. With the exception of affect-tone of relationship paradigms, these scales measure developmental aspects of object relations and social cognition. Given that the TAT evokes only a limited subset of a person's enduring repertoire of interpersonal schemas. expectancies, affects, wishes, fantasies, conflicts, and knowledge. and that the purpose of these scales is to measure object-relational/social-cognitive processes or structures the subject typically brings to bear interpersonally, stories should be scored at the highest level attained during the response, unless expressly stated otherwise in the scoring rules for particular scales. The manual includes several parts. First is a synopsis of each scale. Second is a description of the theoretical basis for each measure and of the research and clinical observations and traditions that were used in its construction. The third section is comprised of scoring rules for each scale. Although these dimensions are interdependent, for purposes-of research they have been operationalized as orthogonal. While at times this may limit the capacity of a given scale to capture certain aspects of the phenomenon it is designed to measure, this was necessary to avoid. artificial inflation of correlations between scales stemming from overlapping scoring rules. We would like to extend our appreciation to John Boekamp, Margaret 8uttenheim, Laura Gold, Alfred Kellam, Janet Leigh, Natasha Lifton, Karen Saakvitne, Mara The fourth section consists of two sets of practice protocols of sample TAT stories and corresponding scores and scoring rationales for each story on each scale. The fifth section includes a reliability protocol which can be used to establish interrater reliability on the measures, along with scores for each story (to check against the scoring of our research group). Finally, four brief charts of scoring rules are included to facilitate coding.

TAT Scoring Manual 10 We would recommend use of graduate student or PhD. psychologist coders only, preferably with clinical experience. Undergraduate raters are unlikely to have the experience and psychological -mindedness necessary to code interview data on these dimensions unless they are exceptional. Trained coders should meet periodically to resolve all scoring discrepancies, reviewing the theoretical rationales and scoring rules each time. Coders should always train only on one scale at a time; it is preferable that coders who will be scoring multiple scales score ail data on one scale at a time. Our experience is that the best way to learn to code data reliably using these measures is as follows. First, the coder should familiarize him/herself with the aims and theoretical background of the measure described briefly in the first section. Second, the coder should carefully read the scoring rules two or three times and then proceed to score the first practice protocol. He or she should then read the model answers and scores and adjust his/her coding accordingly. It is optimal at this point to meet with a second coder who is simultaneously training on the measure to discuss scoring of the first protocol and differences between raters or between raters and scores in the manual. Next, the coder should similarly score practice protocol #2, read the scoring rationales for that protocol, and meet once again with other coders to discuss scoring differences. Finally, each coder should score the reliability protocol and compute interrater reliability. Coders should then meet once more to discuss discrepancies. Once a researcher is experienced with these measures, it is preferable to train, future coders personally, with multiple meetings, so that theoretical and coding questions can be-discussed. The same process should be repeated on each scale. Because these measures were constructed so that scale points would represent relatively equal intervals from a theoretical perspective, we have considered the data continuous and thus used Pearson's Product-Moment correlation in calculating interrater reliability, intraclass correlation coefficient or weighted Kappa (Cohen, 1968) would be equally appropriate and yield comparable reliability estimates using these scales. We would recommend double-coding all data and applying the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula to the correlation coefficient to provide an accurate measure of reliability of multiply-scored data. Alternatively, reliability could be calculated using weighted Kappa, with Rosenthal correction for multiple coders. We have obtained reliabilities (uncorrected) in the range of .75 to .95, and considerably higher (.85-.98) with correction for multiple coding. We thank Silverman, and Jennifer Stuart for helping in refining the scoring rules and/or for participation in discussing eventuating in scoring rationales for the practice protocols in this manual. Scale construction drew heavily from a variety of coding schemes designed by object relations and developmental social cognition researchers, particularly Blatt et al. (1981), Bogen (1982), Damon (1977), Loevinger et al. (1970), Mayman (1967), Selman (1980), Thompson (1981), and Urist (1977). Data on the validity of the scales can be found in Westen (1990a) and Westen, Lohr, et al. (1990). The number of observations (TAT cards per protocol) necessary for reliable measurement depends on the nature of the sample (e.g., clinical or college student), the way the TAT is administered, and the particular scale. For most purposes we recommend a minimum of six cards per subject. Although in some clinical samples five cards may suffice, we recommend. where possible eight to ten cards, which should yield internal consistency estimates (Cronbach`s alpha) in the range of .80. Although different methods of administration yield codeable data, optimal administration of the TAT for these purposes is standard clinical administration, asking the subject to describe what happened, what led up to it, the outcome, what .the characters are thinking and feeling, and probing for elements that are left out or are unclear or confusing. In samples with limited variance, we recommend either (1) arbitrarily

TAT Scoring Manual 11 establishing a distribution (such as a flattened normal curve, as in a Q-sort procedure (see Block, 19791 and requiring coders to sort responses to fit the distribution), or (2) giving intermediate scores (e.g., 2.5).

TAT Scoring Manual 12 SYNOPSIS OF SCALES Complexity of Representations of People Principle: scale measures the extent to which the subject clearly differentiates the perspectives of self and others: sees the self and others as having stable, enduring, "multidimensional dispositions: and sees the self and others as psychological beings with complex motives and subjective experience. Level 1: At Level l the person does not see others as clearly differentiated or bounded, and/or does not differentiate his own thoughts and feelings from those of others. Level 2: At Level 2 the person sees people as clearly bounded, separate from self and from each other, but lacks an elaborate sense of people's subjective states, motives. or enduring characteristics. The focus is largely on behaviors and momentary actions. People are seen as primarily unidimensional, existing in situations rather than across situations. Where people are understood as having enduring qualities, these are generally global, evaluative traits like "nice" or "mean." Level 3: At Level 3 the person makes inferences about subjective states in addition to focusing on behavior. Understanding of other people's psychological processes and subjective experience does not, however, delve far beneath the surface. The person has ideas or "theories" about others' enduring characteristics, but these intuitive theories are either unidimensional, overly general, or lacking in subtlety. There is little sense that people could do things "out of character" or experience psychological conflicts. Level 4: At Level 4 the person has an appreciation for the complexity of the subjective states of others and has a multifaceted view of personality dispositions. Component parts of personality are not yet understood as aspects of an interacting system, in which enduring dispositions can come into conflict or be brought to bear in different ways in different situations. While the person recognizes the potential for disparities among actions, self-presentations, and internal states, he or she has minimal awareness of disparities between conscious and unconscious mental events. Level 5: At Level 5 the person sees people in complex ways, making elaborate inferences about their mental states, motivations, points of view, and unconscious processes. People are seen as having conflicting feelings and dispositions, and as expressing different aspects of their personalities in different situations. Affect-tone of Relationship Paradigms Principle: scale measures affective quality of representations of people and relationships. It attempts to assess the extent to which the person expects from the world, and particularly from the world of people, profound malevolence or overwhelming pain, or views social interaction as basically benign and enriching. Level 1: At Level l the person views the social world as tremendously threatening and/or experiences life as overwhelmingly capricious and painful. People are seen as abandoning, abusing, or. destroying others and oneself with no reason, other than perhaps maliciousness or unconcern. People are often classified as victims and victimizers.

TAT Scoring Manual 13 Level 2: At Level 2 the person views the world, and particularly the world of people, as hostile, capricious, empty, or distant, but not overwhelming. The person may feel tremendously alone. People may be experienced as unpleasant or uncaring, but not primarily as threats to one's existence. Level 3: At Level 3 the person has a range of affectively charged object representations/person schemas and interpersonal expectancies, though these are not primarily positive. People are seen-as capable of loving and being loved, of caring and being cared for, but on balance social interaction is evaluated as mildly negative. Level 4: At Level 4 the person has a range of affectively charged object representations/person schemas and interpersonal expectancies. People are seen as capable of loving and being loved, of caring and being cared for, but on balance social relations are evaluated as neutral or mixed. Level 5: At Level 5 the person has a range of affectively charged object representations/person schemas and interpersonal expectancies, but on balance relations with others are seen as positive. The person generally expects to like or enjoy other people, to be liked by them, and to be able to count on them with some consistency. Capacity for Emotional Investment in Relationships and Moral Standards Principle: scale measures the extent to which others are treated as ends rather than means, events are regarded in terms other than need-gratification, moral standards are developed and considered, and relationships are experienced as meaningful and committed. Level 1: At Level l the person is primarily concerned with. and views good and evil in terms of, his or her own gratification (and expects that others do the same). People are seen as existing only in relation to oneself: they are treated as tools for the achievement of one's desires; as mirrors or audience for one's displays; or as impediments to one's gratification. People may be seen as useful or comforting at the moment but are not invested in emotionally for. their unique characteristics. Rules and authorities are seen as obstacles unless momentarily useful. Level 2: At Level 2 the person has a clear sense of potential conflicts between the needs or desires of self and others, though the primary aim remains the satisfaction of one's own wishes. There is a rudimentary sense of right and wrong, characterized by an equation of prudence and morality (i.e., bad actions are bad because they lead to punishment), and the person experiences some remorse following impulsive action. Moral injunctions that exist may be primitive and harsh. Although the person may clearly have attachments, investment in other people (i.e., concern for, and pursuit of the good of significant others) remains clearly secondary to self.-interest. Friends are valued but in many respects remain interchangeable; the basis for friendship tends-to be shared activity. Level 3: At Level 3 the person considers the needs and wishes of significant others in making decisions. Pleasing other people, being liked, and behaving in accord with the standards of respected authorities are salient aims-which often override self-interest. The person is concerned with being good and experiences guilt when his or her thoughts, feelings, or actions conflict with internalized standards. Rules are respected because they are rules; manners and conventions are seen as important and even natural. Moral rules are relatively rigid and concrete, and there may be a pronounced sense of duty, particularly to certain people. Relationships are valued but may not be very deep.

TAT Scoring Manual 14 Level 4: At Level 4 the person is capable of forming deep, committed relationships in which the other is valued for his/her unique qualities. Commitment to others often overrides personal desires, but actions on behalf of another are undertaken without a rigid sense of duty or a predominant desire to be liked for one's good deeds: Moral judgments, values, and modes of conflict-resolution remain relatively conventional. .The person is concerned with doing the right thing, as defined by society or respected authorities, which is frequently expressed in more abstract terms and is often self-abnegatory. Relationships are seen as lasting over time and involving considerable commitment and intimacy. Level 5: At Level 5 the person treats self and others as ends rather than means. The person is interested in the development and happiness of both self and others, and attempts to achieve autonomous selfhood within the context of real involvement with, and investment in others. Conflicts between people with conflicting legitimate interests are understood as requiring compromise. Authorities and rules are not taken to be absolute: the person has a sense of the conventional nature of social rules and believes that at times these must be overridden or changed because they conflict with self-generated or carefully considered standards, or when they do significant harm to people in concrete circumstances. Understanding of Social Causality Principle: scale measures the extent to which attributions of the causes of people's actions, thoughts, and feelings are logical, accurate, complex, and psychologically-minded. Level 1: At Level 1 the person does not understand the concept of causality in the social realm. There is either no sense or necessity to understand why behaviors. feelings or situations emerge, or explanations that are advanced are grossly illogical. Level 2: At Level 2 the person has a rudimentary understanding of social causality. Actions are explained as responses to environmental stimuli or as resulting from simple feelings or intentions. Explanations of behaviors, feelings, or interactions frequently have mild logic errors or inconsistencies. Level 3: At Level 3 the person on logically and accurately. explain social phenomena. Although the person recognizes that psychological processes influence action, causality is seen as largely external to the person. Level 4: At Level 4 the person has a basic understanding of the role of psychological events in motivating action. There is considerable recognition of the importance of people's thoughts and perceptions in mediating between stimulus and response, though understanding of psychological causality is incomplete or applied only irregularly. Level 5: At Level S the person understands feelings and behaviors as caused by psychological processes, which may or may not be elicited by environmental stimuli. Complex thoughts, feelings, and conflicts are seen as mediating action. The person makes complex inferences about the psychological processes of others and attempts to influence others' perceptions.

TAT Scoring Manual 15 Dimensions of Object Relations and Social Cognition: A Theoretical Introduction Complexity of Representations of People Fundamental to object relations theory in psychoanalysis is its focus on mental representations ("object representations"). Object representations are conscious and unconscious, affectively laden ideas and images about the self, others, and the relationships between self and others, which- derive from interpersonal experiences as well as from rears and fantasies about those experiences. Based on extensive clinical observation. object relations theorists have proposed that the quality of a person's "object world" (Jacobson, 1964) or "representational world" (Sandier and Rosenblatt, 1962)--that is, the totality of social representations--is a central aspect of personality structure and is critical to interpersonal functioning. Recently researchers studying. attachment (Bretherton, 11985; Main et a1., 1985) have begun following up Bowlby's (1969) suggestion based on object relations theory, that the quality of attachment between infant and mother is mediated by the "internal working models" each partner in the transaction has of the other and of the relationships, and that aspects of these working models or representations of the attachment relationship can be coded in children and adults. Although object relations theorists vary widely in their particular models of the development of self- and object-representations, they are largely in agreement about three developmental phenomena (see. e.g., Jacobson, 1964; Kernberg, 1976; Greenberg and Mitchell, 1983). First, development of representations is characterized by increasing differentiation, in which. the points of view of self and others are gradually more clearly distinguished. Although recent infancy research (Stern, 1985; Horner, 1985) has called into question many psychoanalytic hypotheses about .infantile undifferentiation, the developmental literature on egocentrism (see Flavel l, 1985; Light, 1983; Piaget, 1926) and perspective taking (Selman, 1980) has amply documented children's progressive ability to differentiate their own from others' perspectives in a number of domains (although the unity of egocentrism as a structural property of cognition in childhood remains in question; Ford, 1979). A second feature of the psychoanalytic account is that object representations gradually become more complex and integrated as children mature. A third developmental tenet is that; whereas young children tend to split their representations of people by affective valence (that is, they have difficulty integrating representations of people which include both positive and negative attributes), both children and adults are able to integrate more complex, ambivalent or multivalent representations. Once again, though many specific features of these developmental hypotheses have recently drawn criticism from an empirical perspective, such as the developmental timetables (the notion that the "splitting" of representations is overcome by age five, or that representations are complex and integrated by that period; Westen, 1989, 1990a, b), research in developmental psychology has by and large documented many of these developmental processes (Shantz, 1983). Although diagnostic assessment of an individual's mental representations has been an area of concern for over fifty years by psychoanalytic diagnosticians (Wrist, 1980), research into their structure, development, and affective quality has been a more recent development. Mayman (1967, 1968) suggested that projective tests such as the Rorschach Inkblot Test and his Early Memories Test (1968) elicit descriptions of people in relationships which "bear the imprint of [the individual's] formative interpersonal history and reveal something of his ingrained relationship dispositions" (1967, p. 18). Mayman and his colleagues have developed measures for coding aspects of object relations from projective tests which they have used in clinical research. For example, and Mayman (1974) found significant correlations among a variety of measures of level of object-relational functioning (from poor, undifferentiated, and uncomplex, to healthy,

TAT Scoring Manual 16 differentiated, and complex), developed for the Rorschach, the Early Memories Test, and dream reports. In addition, Krohn and Mayman found significant correlations between levels of objectrelational functioning as measured in dream material and as rated by therapists and supervisors who had in-depth clinical knowledge of the patients. Blatt and his colleagues have carried out an extensive program of research, primarily aimed at assessing the structural or formal dimensions of object representations (Blatt and Lerner, 1983). Based on an integration of object relations theory and Piagetian and Wernerian cognitivedevelopmental theory, Blatt has constructed measures to assess the differentiation, articulation, and integration of human and quasi-human responses on the Rorschach and has applied these both to developmental and pathological samples. In the first use of non-projective measures to assess object representations, Blatt and his colleagues (1979) have also assessed the content and structure of object representations as manifested in open-ended descriptions of significant others, in particular, parents. (For a more thorough description of object relations research, see Blatt and Lerner, 1983; Stricker and Healey, 1990). Research on the development of representations of self and others in developmental psychology has explored many of the same phenomena. with an entirely different database and methodology. Research on the development of representations of self in infancy (.Stern, 1985; Lewis and Brooks-Gunn, 1979) suggests that infants initially form some sense of an actionoriented, experiencing self through a recognition of the contingencies between their own actions and the outcomes they produce. Gradually in the second and third years toddlers develop a "categorical self," which is a representation of the self as having certain objective qualities and fitting into various categories (such as male or female, young or old). In other words, infants fairly early seem to develop a sense of self as subject, and gradually distinguish a sense of self as object ("I" vs. "me"; James; 1890). A great deal of research on development of representations of self in childhood and adolescence (Rosenberg, 1979; Damon and Hart, 1982; Wylie, 1979) suggests that representations of self in the preschool years tend to be concrete, transitory, relatively unorganized, and often. contradictory. In the preschool years and early childhood actions and body self-representations predominate, as do relatively manifest social identity elements (such as race and gender). By adolescence, the focus on concrete and. external attributes shifts to an emphasis on the psychological interior, i.e., on internal thoughts, feelings, and personality dispositions. Research regarding the development of concepts of others is quite extensive and suggests a similar developmental trajectory (see Shantz, 1983 for review). Livesley and Bromley (1973), for example, conducted a program of systematic research on the development of. person perception in children between the ages of seven and fifteen. They found that children progressively provide more psychological statements about people rather than descriptions of actions or physical attributes, and focus more on covert, abstract qualities, such as dispositions, values, and' beliefs. Throughout childhood subjects also provided more differentiated use of traits, with a greater recognition that traits are hierarchically organized with multiple components, and that broad, generalized representations of people typically need to be qualified in order to be accurate (see also Leahy, 1976; Barenboim, 1977; Harter, 1983). Between late childhood and adolescence (at least in Western, industrialized societies), most studies find that children move from focusing on relatively unidimensional traits as personality descriptors to a focus on processes, including unconscious personality processes. Adolescents also come to the recognition that personality can change, and that people can express different aspects of their personality in different ways and in different situations. Throughout childhood and adolescence, people develop a greater capacity to represent the subjective experiences of

TAT Scoring Manual 17 others in complex and accurate ways, as well as to integrate traits of opposite affective valence and greater subtlety (Harter, 1983). Outside of object relations research, which is focused on comparisons of various normal and pathological groups, individual differences in the complexity of representations of self and others have received little attention. Linville (1985) has recently been studying the relation between complexity of self-concept, measured by the number of separate traits or roles a person endorses, and affective extremity, and has argued that complex representations of self buffer affective extremity (see also Kernberg, 1975; Westen, 1985). The present manual is aimed at coding what might be called "working" representations of self and others, as opposed to "prototypic" representations. In developmental research that asks for free-response descriptions of self or others, the researcher codes for the complexity of relatively conscious, ideal-typical representations which consist of lists of typical or prototypic features of the person being described. Such representations are likely to be quite different from working representations, that is, concepts of the self or others in action, which are brought to bear in actual social- situations and which structure momentary cognition. Sandier and Rosenblatt (1962) distinguished between prototypic self-descriptions and the particular "shape" of the selfconcept active at any particular time. Similarly, Markus and her colleagues (Markus and Wurf, 1987) have recently begun to discuss self-concepts in "working memory," although they have drawn upon a cognitive science model of working memory that fails to differentiate active from conscious representations. The notion of working representations, which are active in structuring both conscious and unconscious information processing and behavior and have conscious components, is related to conceptions of "internal working models". The coding scheme in this manual derived from clinical experience, research and theory reported here and elsewhere, and a number of manuals previously developed for other forms of data by other researchers (e. g., Blatt et al., 1981; Damon, 1977; Mayman, 1967; Selman, 1980; Thompson, 1981; and Urist, 1977). At the lowest level of the scale subjects have difficulty differentiating their own perspective from the perspectives of others. At slightly higher levels they provide simple, unidimensional portraits of people which are nevertheless clearly differentiated from each other. At the highest levels subjects manifest a complex understanding of the nature, expression, and context of personality and subjective experience. Affect-tone of Relationship Paradigms An important dimension of the representations underlying interpersonal functioning is the affecttone of relationship paradigms. From a psychoanalytic perspective, this can be conceptualized as the affective coloring of the object world, ranging from malevolent to benevolent. From a social-cognitive perspective, this can be understood 3s the affective quality of interpersonal expectancies, i.e., the extent to which the person expects relationships to be painful and threatening, or pleasurable and enriching. Within the psychoanalytic framework the concept of affect-tone has been implicitly used by theoreticians of psychopathology, particularly borderline personality disorder (Klein, 1948; Kernberg, 1975; Masterson, 1976; Gunderson, 1984). For Kernberg, the malevolent object world of the borderline patient largely reflects a projection of his/her own intense aggression. Masterson (1976) emphasizes the lack of integration in borderline patients of various "partobjects," i.e., relatively primitive representations of some aspect of self-other interaction which are organized around a particular affect-dominated script or interactional paradigm. According to

TAT Scoring Manual 18 Masterson, in borderline patients two such part-object units are of particular importance: withholding and rewarding units. Because of empathic failures of the infant's primary caretaker in the first few years, these two units never become integrated, and the person remains fearful of a withholding, malevolent, abandoning object who can leave the person helpless, empty, profoundly alone, and abandoned. Gunderson (1984) similarly attributes the malevolence characteristic of borderline phenomenology to the person experiencing his/her "major object" as frustrating or unavailable. The empirical study of affect-tone from a psychoanalytic perspective has involved measurement'-of affective qualities of human figures on projective tests. Mayman and his colleagues (1967, 1968; llrist, 1977; Krohn and Mayman, 1974) have examined the content of human figures on the Rorschach Inkblot Test, the Early Memories Test, and dream reports, and have documented differences among patients at different levels of pathology. Many of these instruments have, however, measured both affective and cognitive aspects of object relations simultaneously (for example, coding lack of differentiation of representations and malevolence simultaneously as low-level object relations). Blatt and colleagues (Blatt and Lerner, 1983; Blatt et al., 1976) have developed a system for coding malevolence of representations from Rorschach human figures as part of a multidimensional. scoring system for object relations using the Rorschach. Borderline subjects have been found to have significantly more malevolent responses on the Rorschach than various control groups (Lerner and St. Peter, 1984; Stuart et al., 1990). Other studies have demonstrated characteristically malevolent responses in paranoid schizophrenics. (Blatt and Wild, 1976) and depressives (Blatt, 1974). Benevolent responses have been found to be characteristic of other patient groups, such as non-paranoid schizophrenics (Blatt, et al., 1976). Social cognition researchers have not yet focused much attention on the affect-tone of relationship paradigms or of interpersonal expectancies. One exception is Dodge (1986), who has investigated the tendency toward hostile attributions in aggressive boys. His research suggests that aggressive boys have a tendency to make malevolent attributions where their non-aggressive. peers do not, and that this is exacerbated in threatening interactions in the laboratory. Fincham and colleagues (1987), Larrance and Twentyman (1983), and JanoffBulrnan (1989) have studied related phenomena in distress marital couples, abusive mothers, and trauma victims, respectively. Several social-psychological instruments have been .developed to measure attitudes related to affect-tone of relationship paradigms using self-report questionnaires. Wrightsman (1964), Rosenberg (1956), and Fey (1955) have developed measures of people's broad beliefs about how much faith they can have in others. Rotter's (1967) Interpersonal Trust Scale assesses a similar dimension. Like other aspects of object relations and social cognition, affective expectations of relationships are likely to be differentiated, so that a person expects different things from different kinds of relationships. A patient with focal neurotic issues around her relationship with her mother may, for example, have relatively neutral or positive expectations of interactions with males but may expect criticism or jealousy from women. Many patients with severe character disorders seem to manifest overgeneralized or poorly differentiated affective expectations, so that differentiated and hierarchically organized social-cognitive structures with different affective qualities in different domains (e.g., males vs. females) and at different levels (males vs. older male authority figures vs. father) may be relatively absent or may become relatively undifferentiated with strong emotional arousal.

TAT Scoring Manual 19 The coding scheme in this manual was derived from clinical experience, from research and theory reported here and elsewhere, and from a number of manuals previously developed For other forms of data by other researchers (e.g., Blatt et al., 1981; Mayman, 1967; and Urist, 1977). At the lowest level of the scale, subjects manifest an expectation of relationships as profoundly hostile. or malevolent, whereas at the higher ends of the scale subjects have a broad range of affective expectations but generally expect relationships to be benign and enriching. Capacity for Emotional Investment in Relationships and Morals "Emotional investment" refers to the endowing of the representation of a goal, desired state, or aspects of a relationship with affect such that cognized divergence of reality from that goal-state leads to negative affect and/or cognized convergence of reality with the goal-state leads to positive affect (Westen, 1985). Although object-relations theorists diverge in their particular accounts of development (see Greenberg and Mitchell, 1983); they all posit a developmental movement from a need-gratifying pattern of emotional investment (often referred to as "narcissistic"), in which relationships with others are valued primarily for the gratification, security, or benefits they afford, to mature object relations based on mutual love, respect, and concern for others who are valued for their specific attributes. Fairbairn (1952), for example, posits a movement from immature to mature dependency. The development of mature patterns of emotional investment in relationships entails three maturational processes. The first is the development of the capacity to regulate emotional investment, so that- the person neither jumps prematurely and wholeheartedly into intense relationships with total investment (as in borderline personality disorders) or defensively withdraws from relationships to avoid pain and vulnerability (as in avoidant and schizoid personalities and dynamics)- A second process involved in the development of mature patterns of emotional investment is the evolution of a capacity to invest in specific others for their unique qualities. A third process is the development of a capacity to invest in moral values, prohibitions, and ideals that regulate relationships and provide meaning to life and which take precedence over one's own wishes and impulses, even when these are strongly aroused. Research in developmental psychology, while challenging the developmental timetables suggested by psychoanalytic theorists (who propose that much of this affective maturation occurs by the end of the oedipal period, i.e., by age six) has documented many of these developmental processes (Westen, 1989; 1990 a, b). The development of the capacity to invest in others and to set aside need-gratification as .one's predominant aim in interpersonal relations is chronicled in the research literature on the development of friendship. This research typically entails semi-structured interviews in which children are asked what a friend is, how friends are made and lost, etc. Shantz summarizes the findings of this body-of research as follows: In accord with much of the research in other areas of social cognition, the friendship conceptions undergo a good deal of change and development, the major changes appearing to be: (1) from defining friendship as a concrete, behavioral, surface relationship of playing together and giving goods to more abstract, internal dispositional relationships in adolescence of caring for one another, sharing one's thoughts and feelings, and comforting each other; (2) from a self-centered. orientation of the friend as satisfying one's wants and needs to a mutually satisfying relation; (3) from momentary or transient good acts between individuals to relations that endure over time and occasional conflicts...(1983, p. 531). Selman (1981) has proposed a stage model of friendship, in which children move from defining friendship in terms of proximity or playing together to a conception of "intimate and mutually

TAT Scoring Manual 20 shared relationships" in which friendship is viewed as involving mutual intimacy and support. Selman's data point to two developments in the child's experience of friendship: a movement from self-interest to mutual concern; and a shift from undifferentiated, situational friendship, to friendships with distinct people who are nonetheless readily discarded, to more durable friendships between people who have a history together. Research on children's conceptions of justice, convention, and authority provide further evidence of the development of emotional investment in the interpersonal arena and suggest the same general developmental patterns (Damon, 1977). Young children define fairness and justice in terms of their own wishes and interests: "judgments like, 'I should get more candy than Jimmy' are not distinguished from statements like, 'I want more than Jimmy.' The child's distribution choices derive from his wish for a given act to occur and from his attempt to ensure pleasant consequences for himself or for his close associates" (Damon, 1977, p. 78). Children's view of authority follows a similar sequence. In a study of children ages four to nine, Damon found that the youngest children did not differentiate between what they want and what authorities expect of them: children at the earliest -level generally believe that authorities should conform to the self's desires and not the other way around" (1977, p. 183). Research on moral development has extensively documented the shirt from need-gratifying to more mature object relations in the moral realm (see, Rest, 1983; Lickoria, 1976). Kohlberg's theory is especially relevant in this regard (Kohlberg and Kramer, 1969), in that it posits a movement from preconventional moral reasoning in which the child views good and bad in terms of the hedonistic implications of action (rewards or punishments), to conventional moral reasoning in which the child seeks the approval of authorities and internalizes moral standards which are viewed as right and legitimate, to postconventional moral reasoning, in which a small sub-group of adults considers moral questions in more . abstract, less culture-bound terms by formulating and applying general principles rather than specific, learned rules. Gilligan (1982) has recently amended Kohlberg's theory, arguing that high-level moral development .in women frequently takes the form of a greater concern for relationships and the needs and feelings of others in a more- immediate way, rather than the more abstract, philosophical, reflective version. of high-level moral development embodied in Kohlberg's highest levels. Cognitive-developmental researchers who have examined the development of children's conceptions of friendship, authority, morality, etc., have largely conceptualized development along these lines from a cognitive perspective. Cognition is, however, necessary but-not sufficient for these developmental processes. By and large, research does not consistently support a relationship between measures, of social knowledge or perspective-taking and either aggression or "prosocial" behavior (Shantz, 1983, pp. 526-529). Although the maturation of the capacity for emotional investment in people and relationships depends in part on cognitive development--a person cannot love another person for his or her unique qualities without being able to represent them cognitively, or often cannot respond appropriately to the needs of others without being able to understand their perspective--simply-possessing a complex representation or capacity for complex social cognition does not imply maturity of emotional investment. Many sociopaths "know" social rules; if asked how a model citizen would answer items from the Comprehension Subtest of the WAIS-R such as, "what is the thing to do if you find a letter on the ground, stamped and addressed?" they can typically (with wink and a smile) provide a perfect answer. What sociopaths typically lack is not knowledge of social rules; it is an affectivemotivational investment in them. By and large, research does not consistently support a relationship between measures of social knowledge or, perspective-taking and either aggression or "prosocial" behavior (Shantz, 1983, pp. 526-529). When children view friendships as vehicles for gratification, they are not only saying something about their cognitive

TAT Scoring Manual 21 representations of friendships, but they are simultaneously describing what they value in relationships. The coding scheme in this manual was derived from clinical experience, from research and theory reported here and elsewhere, and from a number of manuals previously developed for other forms of data by other researchers (e.g., Damon, 1977; Selman, 1980; Drist, 1977; Kohlberg and Kramer, 1969; Loevenger et al., . 1970). It largely reflects a developmental scheme (Westen, 1985) which views the development or emotional investment as entailing. the transition through three stages in the affective relationship between self and other. In the first stage, to the extent that others are clearly differentiated from the self, they are viewed primarily as instruments of gratification, security, and comfort. In the second stage, people, relationships, and ideals come to be valued as ends in themselves. Moral values at this stage reflect an emotional investment in the ideals, values, and prohibitions of idealized and respected authorities, as cognized by the child at the time of their. acquisition and subsequently revised through experience. Failure to meet these standards leads to guilt, shame, and lowered self-esteem. At the highest stage the person is capable or forming deep, committed relationships in which the other is valued for his/her unique qualities, and the treats both self and others as ends rather than means. The individual is interested in the development and happiness of both self and others, and attempts to achieve autonomous selfhood within the context of real involvement and investment in others. The person has a sense of the conventional nature of social rules and ~believes that at times these must be overridden or changed because they conflict with carefully considered standards or because they do significant harm to people in concrete circumstances. The scale in this manual adds transitional levels between these broad stages, for a total of five levels of the scale. The highest level excludes a sub-group of people who would score at the upper end of Kohlberg's scale who may espouse seemingly postconventional views but who are unable to involve themselves in committed relationships and whose ideology reflects an early failure of internalization of values rather than a mature transcendence of conventional standards, an outlet for tremendous rage against devalued or dehumanized others who are experienced as exploiters, or a desperate quest for a "cause" to establish and maintain a tenuous. sense of identity. Although at first glance the combining into one scale of investment in relationships and investment in moral values and ideals may seem arbitrary, the scale combines the two for the following reasons. First, morality is a system for regulating relations among people, particularly between self and others. Although cognition about morals may proceed to some degree independently of investment in people, the development of investment in morals -- that is, the motivational basis for the practice of morality--cannot, because the relative emotional "weight" one places on the needs of .self and others depend on how much one actually cares about the interests of other people. Second, it is impossible to separate a need-gratifying interpersonal orientation from a need-gratifying moral orientation because interpersonal conflict resolution is. applied morality. Thus, at least at the lower end of the scale, .a need-gratifying orientation would lead to the same score on both scales, rendering separate scales superfluous. Preliminary empirical evidence suggests that the correlation of these two dimensions is high enough to merit giving them a single score. Third, the underlying structure that emerges across many domains of research--on friendship, convention, morals, etc., as well as from clinical- observation--is that development in emotional investment in the social world proceeds from need-gratification to investment in independent others. Gilligan's critique of Kohlberg suggests that true concern with the needs of significant others is inseparable from moral concerns; the present scale essentially incorporates two paths to maturity at its highest levels, one involving depth of relatedness, and the other involving reflection on relatedness in the context of capacity for investment in others.

TAT Scoring Manual 22 True depth of relatedness involves some considerable degree of autonomy, so that the other is not simply experienced as part or self, and true "postconventionality" involves commitment to real people rather than just to abstractions. Understanding of Social Causality Although object relations theories, have typically described unidimensional stages which do not distinguish particular cognitive or affective processes with specific developmental trajectories, these theories, and. the clinical observations upon which they are based, suggest that the ways patients with profound psychopathology interpret interpersonal events tend to be quite idiosyncratic. Clinical experience with patients with borderline personality disorders, for example, suggests that these patients tend to make highly idiosyncratic, illogical, and inaccurate attributions of people's intentions; these attributions are often of a malevolent nature. From clinical observation of borderline adolescents and adults, Westen (1990d) has speculated about a "borderline attributional style," characterized by egocentric attributions, expectations of malevolence in interpersonal relations, tendency to make peculiar and inaccurate attributions, and tendency to make affect-centered attributions (that is, attributions which are congruent with mood or affective valence of representations of specific others, rather than more cognitivelybased attributions). Relevant research largely supports this conceptualizations (Westen, Lohr, et al., 1990; Westen, Ludolph, Silk, et al'., 1990). Although there has been minimal psychoanalytic experimental research on social causality, Blatt et al. have-developed a measure for scoring "motivation of action" in human figures on the Rorschach Inkblot Test (1976). Following Wernerian and Piagetian developmental theory, Blatt's measure rates the degree of internality of action, that is, whether action is seen as unmotivated, reactive, or intentional. Stuart et al. (1990) applied Blatt's scale to a sample of subjects with borderline personality disorder, major depressive disorder, and normals, and found that borderlines' representations of action tended to be significantly more intentional (i.e., developmentally advanced) than both comparison groups.- In contrast to both normals and depressives, for whom more complex attributional statements correlated with more benevolent attributions on Blatt's measure, benevolence and complexity of attributions (i.e., internality) were highly negatively correlated-for borderlines. Extensive social-cognitive research has been carried out on the development of understanding of social causality in children (Piaget, 1926, 1970; Shantz, 1983; Whiteman, 1967; Chandler et al., 1978; Selman, 1980). This research suggests a number of developmental shifts in the way children infer causality in the social 18 realm. These developmental achievements include increased complexity, abstractness, accuracy, internality (that is, focus on internal psychological processes rather than on surfacelevel, observable, behavioral causes), and understanding of unconscious processes. Children tend to move from making internal to external attributions (Heider, 1958; Ruble and Rholes, 1981), and they become increasingly able to distinguish between intentional and accidental behavior (Livesley and Berndt, 1975; Shantz, 1983). As children get older they also become increasingly adept at taking others' perspectives (Selman, 1980), with a resulting increase in the complexity and accuracy of their attributions. Children's increasing understanding of unconscious processes is documented in studies which find a progressive understanding of defense mechanisms as ways of modulating unpleasant affects (Chandler, et al., 1978; Whiteman, 1967; King, 1971). Complexity, abstractness, and accuracy of attribution of the causes and consequences of emotions also develops throughout childhood and adolescence (Masters and Carlson, 1984).

TAT Scoring Manual 23 With the exception of research on depressive attributional style, few studies have examined individual 'differences in attributions, particularly in attributional complexity or accuracy. Dodge and Somberg (1987) found that aggressive boys tend to attribute aggression to others when explaining their behavior, suggesting a bias toward malevolent attributions, much as one finds. clinically in borderline patients. Fletcher and colleagues. (1986) developed an Attributional Complexity Scale, a self-report instrument designed, to measure. individual differences in complexity of attributions. This scale includes items such as, "I don't usually bother to analyze and explain people's behavior." which asks subjects to indicate how complexly they think about interpersonal events. Construction of the present measure drew upon clinical experience, theory and research reported here; and specific coding manuals developed by other researchers (e.g., Bogen, 1982; Damon, 1977; Selman, 1980). Its aim is to assess the logic, complexity, and accuracy of social causality as manifest in subjects' descriptions of interpersonal events. At the lowest levels, causality is preoperational in Piaget's sense: it is illogical or alogical, with confused, inappropriate, highly unlikely, or absent attributions of interpersonal phenomena. At the middle levels, subjects make accurate attributions which are relatively non-complex. At the highest levels, subjects manifest an understanding of the way complex psychological processes are involved in the generation of thoughts, feelings, and actions.

TAT Scoring Manual 24 SCORING RULES Complexity of Representations or People Principle: scale measures the extent to which the subject clearly differentiates the perspectives of self and others; sees the self. and others as having stable, enduring, multidimensional dispositions; and sees the self and others as psychological beings with complex motives and subjective experience. Level 1: lack of clear differentiation between characters; boundary confusion; confusion of points or view. Level 2: characters separate but unidimensional; emphasis on momentary actions or physical descriptions of characters; fluid characterization. Level 3: characters described as having some, though relatively simple, enduring qualities; some elaboration of psychological processes or internal life; some sense of continuity over time of attitudes or simple dispositions. Level 4: characters recognized as having complex subjective states, enduring characteristics, or mixed emotions or attributes. Level 5: characters recognized as possessing enduring and momentary traits and states, complex motives or conflicts, or mixed feelings or attributes with. complex subjective experience. General scoring rules: (1) Where the bulk of a story is clearly one level but, some brief remark is two or more levels above or below, score the intermediate level. Otherwise, score highest level attained. (2) Any intrusion of poor differentiation, boundary confusion, or confusion of characters' points of view "spoils" an otherwise high-level response and automatically brings the score to Level 1. Level 1 Principle: At Level 1 the person does not see others as clearly differentiated or bounded, and/or does not differentiate his own thoughts and feelings from those of others. (1) Score for characters who are "twinning," i.e., seen as sharing the same situation, thoughts, or feelings, particularly if this seems highly unlikely. Characters represented in the picture may be described as an undifferentiated "they," with a single set of thoughts, feelings, or intentions, when this is unlikely. Do not score if shared experience seems reasonable in the context of the story and there are at least some unshared thoughts and feelings. Characters seen as in conflict may be described as sharing the same thoughts or worrying about one of the characters' plight; e.g., "they're both worried about her being alone." Emotions may be attributed to situations or to the story as a whole, or subject may not clearly differentiate whose emotion is whose. Score for unreferenced pronouns that are not corrected and do not appear simply to reflect grammatical errors; e.g., in a story about a mother and a son (with no father mentioned) arguing, the subject states in the midst of describing their argument that "they might feel helpless, that they don't know what to do to help their son" (where the first "they" clearly referred to mother and son, but the second is indeterminate). If main characters are described in an undifferentiated way, score Level 1 even if other, more peripheral characters are bounded.

TAT Scoring Manual 25 Score undifferentiated characters on Card 10 as Level 2 or 3. depending on complexity of subjectivity ascribed to them. (2) Score if one character represented in the card is seen as a thought in the mind of another, where lack of elaboration or the literal (as opposed to metaphorical) quality of the response suggests that this is not a playful, symbolic response but instead represents a failure to recognize the independence and basic separateness of characters. (3) Score for response that suggests a boundary confusion or the confusion of the physical and the psychological. For example, "For some reason I don't think the father's gonna make it, because of the way the doctor looks--kind of fuzzy, not definite. When I think of things as clear or definite, I think of them as confident or sure. [is the doctor fuzzy about it, or is the picture fuzzy?] The picture is fuzzy." Or: "There's another really faded out impression in the corner of a woman sitting near his brain, so maybe she wants him to be with her and not with someone else." (4) Score for failure to define any character at all (e. g., "there's a violin in this picture, and it's going to be played"). Level 2 Principle: At Level 2 the person sees people as clearly bounded, separate from self and from each other, but lacks an elaborate sense of people's subjective states, motives, or enduring characteristics. The focus is largely on behaviors and momentary actions. People are seen as primarily unidimensional, existing _in situations rather than across situations. Where people are understood as having enduring qualities, these are generally global; evaluative traits like "nice" or "mean. .. (1) Score for lack of complexity of characterization. Characters are minimally elaborated or unidimensional, with description of simple thoughts and feelings not going much beyond the tester's instructions to provide these details.- Subject's emphasis may be on physical description of characters, with no elaboration of their internal lives. Any traits used to describe them are global, evaluative, and univalent; e.g., "he's an evil person," or "she is nice." Score when even relatively complex-sounding traits seem to be affective rather than cognitively driven (i.e., based primarily on a-univalent feeling of liking or disliking, as when a character who is described with seeming complexity is really nothing but a witch). Presence of salient affect-driven representations in a response "spoils" an otherwise higher-level response and leads to a score of Level 2. If there is a strong suspicion, but not certainty, that a seemingly complex representation is affect-driven, score Level 3. (2) Score for characters who seem to have a momentary existence, with no sense of continuity, enduring dispositions, or life history, except perhaps unelaborated recent history grafted on. For example, someone stole the money of two characters, and "I think they're gonna look for it, and before, they thought they were stealing money." People may be defined in terms of momentary actions; e.g., "he saw a house and wanted to go in it, and it was real scary and he got scared when he went in the door so he ran out..." Score when the subject describes what the character does (i.e., behaviors) rather than describing traits or dispositions that give a picture of who the character is. (3) Score for fluidity of characterization, even where the character is complex; e.g., "she's either very asleep or she doesn't care either. way that he's standing there or not." Do not score for fluidity when the character changes because the subject changes the story. Only score where the subject clearly does not seem to keep one relatively coherent representation of the character in mind while presenting the story. Score for affectively "split" representations of the same person at two different points in a story, even if the representations at each point are complex, when the subject cannot, or does not, see the need to integrate two opposing

TAT Scoring Manual 26 univalent descriptions. For example, score where a character is evil and later becomes totally good, without adequate explanation of the transformation. Split responses of this sort "spoil" an otherwise higher-level response. (4) Score for simple understanding of feeling-states and intentions. Judgments of feeling may involve simple reading off of facial expressions, with no elaboration of psychic life; e.g., "the one on top seems really calm, the other seems really frightened, or concentrating on one thing; the one by the tree seems to be concentrating only on her." Feelings may be described with terms such as "sick" or "tired," or with relatively simple and unelaborated emotion words; e.g., "she is very upset," "he is angry." If the subject imagines a character experiencing two emotions, she or he cannot see how to integrate them and thus offers the two emotions as alternative versions of the story. Level 3 Principle: At Level 3 the person makes inferences about subjective states in addition to focusing on behavior. Understanding of other people's psychological processes and subjective experience does not, however, delve far beneath the surface. The person has ideas or "theories" about others' enduring characteristics, but these intuitive theories are either unidimensional, overly general, or lacking in subtlety. There is little sense that people could do things "out of character" or experience psychological conflicts. (1) Score for minor elaboration of characters' mental lives, beyond description of simple feeling states or intentions, where characters remain stereotypic or not well developed. (2) Score for some minimal sense of trait continuity over time or some mention of enduring attitudes, where characters remain unidimensional; e.g., "this is a little boy who usually likes to play music." Do not score for continuity of actions when implications are not explicitly drawn about the character's disposition; e.g., "he normally does that," or, "he practices everyday." Do not score for statements like, "this is a boy who likes to play the violin," when these are essentially extensions of the current scene, unless specifically qualified by a statement implying a longer-term disposition (e.g., "this is a boy who has wanted to play the violin for many years"). (3) Score where a character experiences one relatively simple emotion which is ascribed to multiple causes, at least one of which is described in terms of its subjective components (e.g., "she is upset because she is afraid he will die and also because she does not want to be alone"). (4) Score for minor fluidity of characters where the coder has a clear sense after reading the story what the character is like. (5) Score for recognition of a difference between reality and appearance with respect to emotions; e.g., "he's acting like he hates the violin because he wants them to think he hates it so he can really surprise them when he plays the song." (6) Score where the subject provides a relatively rich or elaborate picture of the character which says little about the character's enduring personality or mental life; in other words, provide for elaborations on the context or the person or the social roles he or she plays where there is minimal psychological description of the person (e.g., "this is an immigrant child in the 1920s"). Do not score for elaborate physical descriptions. Level 4 Principle: At Level 4 the person has an appreciation for the complexity of the subjective states of others and has a multifaceted view of personality dispositions. Component parts of personality are not yet understood as aspects of an interacting system, in which enduring dispositions can

TAT Scoring Manual 27 come into conflict or be brought to bear in different ways in different situations. While the person recognizes the potential for disparities among actions, self-presentations, and internal states, he or she has minimal awareness of disparities between conscious and unconscious mental events. (1) Score for detailed elaboration of subjective states in the specific situation of the store Where there is, in addition, more than a minimal sense of what the character is like in other situations or sense of enduring qualities, score Level 5. (2) Score for a sense of enduring qualities (other than simple traits or likes and dislikes) ascribed to a character without much elaboration of subjectivity. (3) Score where two global, relatively simple traits with opposite affective valence are ascribed to the same character (e.g., "she's nice but dumb"). (4) Score for explicit recognition that characters have mental conflicts, when such. conflicts are either unelaborated or elaborated only during inquiry and do not appear to have been central in shaping the action of the story. Score for detailed elaboration of characters' psychic lives when such elaboration has no relation to the character's current actions or to the plot; e.g., subject tells a story about a man rationally discussing a business deal with his father, and then proceeds in the inquiry to provide a detailed sketch of the character's long-standing fears of sexuality. Score for some sense of extended timeframe for a character's psychological predicament or dilemma. (5) Score where characters experience mixed emotions, where there is little sense of what the character is like outside of the particular situation. (6) Score for characters whose enduring personality dispositions are described with qualification; e.g., "she's sometimes quick to get angry, but not always." (7) Score for simple conflicting intentions (e.g., "he knew he should speak up on her behalf, but he couldn't do it himself"). Level 5 Principle: At Level 5 the person sees people in complex ways, making elaborate inferences about their mental states, motivations, points of view, and unconscious processes. People are seen as having conflicting feelings and dispositions, and as expressing different aspects of their personalities in different situations. (1) Score for characters whose subjective experience is elaborated and who are also either multidimensional or seen in the context of enduring dispositions. Score for characters who are described as having both enduring and momentary traits and states (which need not be conflicting or discrepant). _Do _not score for ornate elaborations of a character's momentary dilemma or experience in one dimension (e.g., lengthy description of a boy as a violin player without extended temporal dimension to his psychological attributes); score Level 4. (2) Score for explicit contrasts between the way the character is in the picture and the way s/he usually is, where the character's qualities are well developed. (3) Score for characters who are described as experiencing ambivalent feelings simultaneously, where there is some sense of what the character is like out of the particular situation. (4) Score for characters who have extremely complex motives or elaborated mental conflicts. Do _not score for momentary situational conflicts between characters; e.g., "she wants him to stay; and he's considering it but will leave." (5) Score where characteristics or traits with opposite affective valence are ascribed to the same character, where at least one such trait is not global or is qualified (e.g., "she's nice, but sometimes she doesn't think things out"; "she's smart, but she's thoughtless").

TAT Scoring Manual 28 Affect-tone of Relationship Paradigms Principle: scale measures affective quality of representations of people and relationships. It attempts to assess the extent to which the person expects from the world, and particularly from the world of people, profound malevolence or overwhelming pain, or views social interaction as basically benign and enriching. Level 1: unambiguously malevolent or overwhelmingly painful; grossly negligent caretakers or significant others. Level 2: predominantly hostile but not overwhelming-, empty; profound disappointment or loneliness; negligence and indifference. Level 3: mixed representations, mildly negative tone. Level 4: mixed representations, neutral tone. Level 5: predominantly positive; sense of benign interdependence. General scoring rules: (1) consider transitional objects (pets, teddy-bears, etc.) as human objects; (2) score primarily for affect-tone of relationship paradigms and only secondarily for optimism or pessimism of story. For example, if relationships are seen as eventuating in pain or disappointment, but the character adapts by finding a way to be content in isolation, score primarily for the experience of relationships as negative. (3) If subject describes characters as happy in the face of others' misfortunes, do not score up for mixed affects; score, for unambiguously negatively-toned interpersonal schemata. (4) Gratuitous violence where not typically seen "spoils" an otherwise higher-level response, unless the affect-tone of relationships depicted clearly cannot be accurately scored as Level 1. Level 1 Principle: At Level 1 the person views the social world as tremendously threatening and/or experiences life as overwhelmingly capricious and painful. People are seen as abandoning, abusing, or destroying others and oneself with no reason, other than perhaps maliciousness or unconcern. People are often classified as victims and victimizers. (1) Score for unambiguously malevolent representations of people or interaction, or for grossly negligent caretakers or significant others. If character escapes malevolence through his own efforts or those of someone else, score Level 2. If the story is overwhelmingly about evil and malevolence, and a savior theme is tacked on at the end and is not integral to the real action of the story, score Level 1. (2) Score for gratuitous violence or aggression where not common (e.g., Card 3BM, "she got beaten up"; or Card 4, "he's gonna slap her across the face"), or violence toward animals, unless focus is on succorance from someone who prevents the violence. (3) Do not score for ordinary malevolent responses to cards 15, 18GF, or 13MF; subject must add idiosyncratic malevolent elaboration to score Level 1 on these cards. If character is seen as hostile with minimal idiosyncratic elaboration, score Level 2. (4) Do not score fights between characters that reflect competition or masculine bravura, unless elaborated with idiosyncratic malevolence; e.g., do not score for fistfights on Card 4 unless idiosyncratically traumatic or malevolent; score Level 2.

TAT Scoring Manual 29 Level 2 Principle: At Level 2 the person views the world, and particularly the world of people, as hostile. capricious, empty, or distant, but not overwhelming. The person may feel tremendously alone. People may be experienced as unpleasant or uncaring, but not primarily as threats to one's. existence. (1) Score for predominantly hostile interactions which are not overwhelming. People may be seen as capricious, the world may be experienced as very threatening but without significant violence, or life may be seen as offering character/s a very unpleasant existence. (2) Score for sense of people as unempathic or as passing strangers (e.g., "in their own worlds"), where this is .upsetting to the characters or subject. For example, "she's either very asleep or doesn't, care either way that he's standing there or not--not paying him any attention at all. That could be what's upsetting him." People may be seen as pushing others .into doing things, with minimal interaction or consideration on either part. If characters are bland and unelaborated but not bland and indifferent toward each other, score Level 3 or 4. 3) Score for profound loneliness or sense of aloneness. If the story manifests an overwhelming sense of loss or loneliness with only one small "bright spot," score Level 2. (4) Score for character running from someone, even with implication of running for life, where there is no elaboration of general malevolence. (5) Score for victimization, where victimization is seen as partly self-generated, not only the result of malevolent or impersonal forces. (6) Score for failed ministrations by well-intending others, or escape from malevolent. forces. (7) Score for escape from a very unpleasant existence through one's own efforts, where there is no help from others and no clear sense of relatedness to others. (8) Score for implied compassion of one character for another. (9) Score for physical. fights reflecting bravura or competitiveness. (10) Score for defensively positive stories, or for inability to produce a story where it is clear that the subject is warding off aggressive or highly unpleasant content. Score only where it is clear that the subject is disturbed by the material (e.g., "I'm not going to tell that story. Let's make this about two lovers"). Do not score for tacked-on happy endings when the subject seems undisturbed by the content, or appears amused or playful. in providing a glib ending- If defensive affect-tone is strongly suspected but not clear, or the subject is more obsessional, in his/her indecision about which affect-tone to choose, score Level 3. Level 3 Principle: At Level 3 the person has a range of affectively charged object representations/person schemas and interpersonal expectancies, though these are not primarily positive. People are seen as capable of loving and being loved, of caring and being cared for, but on balance social interaction is evaluated as mildly negative. . (1) Score for mildly negative representations. Score for arguments between characters without malevolence. (2) Score for affectively mixed representations where the tone is largely. negative or where a character was saved by another from an interpersonally-inflicted (though non-lethal) harm (e.g., an unfair accusation). Different, characters may represent different affect-tones of the object world; e. g., a man is falsely accused of a crime but is saved by a wise lawyer. Any explicit sense of real compassion by a character brings the response at least to Level 3.

TAT Scoring Manual 30 (3) Score for character being comforted after a loss unless relatedness between living characters is clearly an afterthought tacked onto a story about overwhelming loneliness (in which case, score Level 2). (4) Score for escape from danger effected through the help of benevolent others, where the danger is not the result of malevolent or abusive forces (e.g., a boy is saved from death by a surgeon). Where escape from malevolence (i.e., real danger resulting from an intentional force) occurs with help from others, score Level 2. (5) Score where no interaction between characters is depicted, and the affect-tone is consequently neutral (e.g., "the woman went into the room and saw the, vase which the wind had knocked over. She picked it up and left.") "Object world" refers to the person's entire ensemble of generalized and specific representations of people (i.e., cognitive-affective interpersonal schemas). Level 4 Principle: At Level 4 the person has a range of affectively charged object representations/person schemas and interpersonal expectancies. People are seen as capable of loving and being loved, of caring and being cared for, but on balance social relations are evaluated as neutral or mixed. (1) Score for affectively mixed interactions where there is no real danger to characters. Characters may be in conflict, but the outcome of their conflicts or decisions is not calamitous (e.g.. man and woman who love each other in conflict about whether he should go to war, and he eventually does so but returns unharmed). (2) Score if characters are somewhat bland and unelaborated but do not appear averse to relating to each other. (3) Score for minimal affect involved in the story, where the affect tone is relatively neutral. If the affect-tone is neutral because no relationships are described at 'all, score Level 3. (4) Score for giving or sharing, where this seems more to be an expectation or social obligation than an act of good will, love, or generosity. Level 5 Principle: At Level 5 the person has a range of affectively charged object representations/person schemas and interpersonal expectancies, but. on balance relations with others are seen as positive. The person generally expects to like or enjoy other people, to be liked by them, and to be able to count on them with some consistency. (1) Score for predominantly positive characters and interactions. People may be seen as doing things for each other or responding to each others' wishes. Do not score if the story includes a loss of a significant other (scores Levels 1-3, or 4 in rare cases if loss is largely a backdrop to a story with positive affect tone of relationships). . (2) Score where.-there is a mix of affects with predominantly positive feeling tone. (3) Score for people being successful and happy in their endeavors.

TAT Scoring Manual 31 Capacity for Emotional Investment in Relationships and Moral Standards Principle: scale measures the extent to which others are treated as ends rather than means, events are regarded in terms other than need-gratification, moral standards are developed and considered, and relationships are experienced as meaningful and committed. Level l: need-gratification is primary aim, even in interpersonal relations; characters selfpreoccupied;. people seen as tools for character's gratification without consideration of conflicting needs or wishes. Level 2: moral conflict or conflicting interests recognized, but single character's needs are clearly central; moral demands followed to avoid punishment; harsh and primitive moral injunctions; friendships interchangeable. Level 3: stereotypic compassion or mutuality; obedience to internalized, conventional moral standards or duty; orientation to pleasing others. Level 4: long-term, committed relationships; mature empathy; commitment to abstract ideals. Level 5: compromise between autonomous actors; concern for conflicting interests; adherence to moral principles despite unconventionality or unpopularity; pursuit of self-development in context of meaningful relationships. General scoring rules: (1) Score for highest level attained unless an otherwise conventionalsounding story is "spoiled" by the breakthrough of material suggesting profound selfpreoccupation or a need-gratifying orientation to relationships. Because subjects' responses on this scale are biased by social desirability, evidence of low level emotional investment on the part of the subject that slips through outweighs higher-level material. (2) Where the subject betrays functioning two or more levels apart (e.g., Level '4 commitment to someone but also Level 2 sense of primitive badness), score the .intermediate level unless one is clearly predominant or generative of the other (e.g., when extraordinary devotion to someone reflects a need to allay a primitive sense of guilt). This scoring rule should be used very rarely. Level 1 Principle: At Level 1 the person is primarily concerned with, and views good and evil in terms of, his or her own gratification- (and expects that others do the same). People are seen as existing only in relation to oneself: they are treated as tools for the achievement of one's desires; as mirrors or audience for one's displays; or as impediments to one's gratification. People may be seen as useful or comforting at the moment but are not invested in emotionally for their unique characteristics. Rules and authorities are seen as obstacles unless momentarily useful. (1) Score for wanton trickery or pursuit of self-interest without any concern for others. Subject portrays characters carrying out proscribed or clearly deleterious acts (e.g., killing, raping) without any sense of remorse, or feeling primarily happy in the face of their own bad deeds or someone else's misery. If this response occurs on Card 15, score as.Leve1.2, unless it is idiosyncratically elaborated or subject clearly identifies with the character. .Score Level 2 or 3 if subject uses morally evaluative terms to describe the event. such as "these people are really bad," or "people shouldn't be treated that way." (2) Score for focus on only one character's point of view in a conflict, or lack of recognition of conflict between characters where conflict is clear from the story. Score for people pursuing their own needs without regard For each other or each other's perspective, or pursuit

TAT Scoring Manual 32 of need-satisfaction as a response to failures of significant others. Score where a character takes an action with major impact on significant others without apparent concern or interest in their wishes or their actual viewpoint. Do not score for parents imposing their wishes on children (e.g., violin lessons) unless the action is clearly against the child's interests. Where characters pursue their own needs without heed of the other on Card 4, score Level 2 or 3. Where burglary scenes are depicted on Card 5 with no mention of any other issues or relationships. score Level 2. Score for sense of people as important only to be used. (3) Score if subject focuses on a single character and leaves characters out of his/her story who are depicted in the card. Score if no other characters. are even alluded to on cards depicting a single character, if focus is entirely on the momentary actions of the character (e.g., "this is a man who is thinking about climbing a rope, and he does"), and if there are no indications of higher-level functioning, such as capacity for delayed gratification, persistence. or any sense of impulse control or internalized values, which suggest precursors or prerequisites for greater object-relatedness. If any of these are present; score at least Level 2. (4) Score for people depicted as mirrors, tools for gratification, or transitional objects (i.e., used for self-soothing). Score where all action is directed toward helping one character. Score where people seem to exist for the person or are valued as objects to be there for the person or to tell things to, but not in a mutua11y interactive way (e. g., "he climbed a rope and went home to tell his mother"). Score if a character is brought into the story only as someone to whom the main character can run for safety. Others may be valued only for protection from loneliness; e.g., "she's pretty annoyed, and worried that she should leave, which would be problematic because she doesn't want to live alone." Focus may be entirely on the gratification or succorance of one character; e.g., "I think he feels sick and wants his mom. He's gonna have some medicine and feel better." Do not score if the subject elaborates the helper's perspective, if the helper seems to be a character in his/her own right who exists for reasons other than helping the protagonist, or if the helper seems motivated by the desire to fulfill a social role or obligation; score Level 2 or 3. Where ambiguous; score Level 2. (5) Score for profoundly self-preoccupied characters, or for. primary focus on characters' bodily sensations; e.g., "maybe he's gonna draw a picture of himself"; or "he's thinking and feeling his muscles." Score for characters preoccupied with their own images or reflections. (6) Score if subject responds egocentrically, putting himself or someone he knows into the story, 'putting in gratuitous self-serving themes (e.g., a child responding, "they're thinking of giving some toys to their kids"), or is unable to keep the stories separate from himself and significant others in his own life. _Do _not score for storybook, or movies characters (e.g., Cary Grant, Ebenezer Scrooge) or for simple mention of similarity between a story and one's life (e.g., "that reminds me of what happened to my sister"), except where the story becomes about the real-life person or event (e. g., "and what's gonna happen in this card is that my sister is going to leave. her husband"). (7) Score for need-gratifying conception of relationships, where friends who are momentarily not gratifying are easily dismissed (e.g., because of a single conflict or argument). Do not score if character is described as experiencing a sense of loss when a friendship ends; score Level 2 or 3. (8) Score for loners or for sense of schizoid unrelatedness of characters to each other. Score for two characters in the same card without any sense of psychological relatedness, where neither is involved with the other. Score for insane people when there are no other autonomous characters. Score for sense of people as unreal or dehumanized; e.g., "this is a madwoman-talking to a mannequin." Score where a character is grossly devalued. (9) Score when the primary theme of the story is need-gratification, even without apparent harm to someone, when there is minimal sense of relationship between people. (10) Score for lack of response to a major .interpersonal event, such as a death.

TAT Scoring Manual 33 Level 2 Principle: At Level 2 the person has a clear sense of potential conflicts between the needs or desires of self and others, though the primary aim. remains the satisfaction of one's own wishes. There is a rudimentary sense of right and wrong, characterized by an equation of prudence- and morality (i.e., bad actions are bad because they lead to punishment), and the person experiences some remorse following impulsive action. Moral injunctions that exist may be severe and poorly modulated. Although the person may clearly have attachments, investment in other. people (i.e., concern for, and pursuit of the good of significant others) remains clearly secondary to self-interest. Friends are valued but in many respects remain interchangeable; the basis for friendship tends to be shared activity. (1) Score for trickery or self-serving actions with some recognition of .the impact on others. (2) Score for conflict between characters who clearly know what the other wants but do not heed their wishes; score when it is ambiguous whether they are heeding at all. Score for two people arguing, with no mediation, no resolution, or total conflict. Score for persistence of an interpersonal problem with no resolution.. (3) Score for characters who avoid disobedience only to escape punishment. Score for themes of punishment (e.g., going to jail) or for characters getting apprehended, without mention of guilt or remorse. Score for parents punishing children for impulsive acts where the parents seem to exist only as punishers; if they are characters in their own right, score Level 3, particularly if the subject explicitly views them as teaching a moral lesson in a nonabusive way. If parents are abusive in their punishment, score Level 2, unless subject clearly indicates an unambivalent belief that abuse of this sort is wrong and should not occur;. in that-case, score Level 3. If subject raises the issue of guilt, score Level 3, even if portrays character as beyond remorse. (4) Score for hints of grandiosity; e.g., "he was not good enough for her," where there is little evidence in the story of why that would be the case (e.g., the man is not mistreating the woman). Do not score for grandiose outcomes on Card 1 such as, "he wilt grow up and be one of the greatest violin players ever," unless elaborated significantly. Where grandiosity is allied with self-servingness or a need-gratifying orientation to relationships, score Level 1. (5) Score for impulsive aggression with some remorse. If this occurs in the context of a committed relationship, score Level 3. Score for characters who experience a morally ambiguous aversive affect other than guilt (such as "worry") when. performing immoral actions. If the affect stems entirely from hedonistic concerns rather than remorse (e.g., worry about getting caught), and the subject does not condemn the act or suggest punishment as a likely outcome, score Level 1; if the affect is clearly guilt, score Level 3. In order to score Level 3 for guilt for immoral actions, the coders must be absolutely certain that the affect is guilt; comments such as "he felt bad" are not specific enough to bring the score to Level 3 unless the coder is confident from the context that guilt is the intended affect. (6) Score for interchangeable friends, where there is some sense of attachment or sadness at friendship ending. Score for loss themes where there is a lack of depth to the attachment (e.g., character mourns the loss of another person with an unspecified relation, such as "he's upset because this lady has died"). Where friendships are represented, score Level 2 if basis of relationship could be proximity or simple participation in mutual activity, unless there are indications of higher-]eve] relatedness or moral development. Score. for engagement in conversation unless there are indications of higher-level relatedness. Score for superficial relationships. indicative of the subject's knowledge of, but not particular investment in relationships. Score for friendships which seem primarily to reflect mutual self-interest.

TAT Scoring Manual 34 (7) Score for responses that seem overwhelmingly to be categorized as Level 1 but have some hint of real moral concern or conventionality. Score for responses which lack the profound self-preoccupation of Level 1 but do not demonstrate the social conventionality or sense of interpersonal connectedness of Level 3. Score where ail action is directed toward helping one character, where it is unclear to what extent the helper is a character with his/her own identity. Score for hint of characters wishing to please others, where this is ambiguous or their motives seem primarily self-serving. (8) Score for sense of impulse control, frustration tolerance, or perseverance, where notin the service of moral or clearly interpersonal ends (e.g., a boy perseveres at the violin even though he would like to go out and play). Perseverance must be explicit, not inferred. (9) Score for arbitrary authority, where the authority appears to have power but is not viewed as fair or is not invested with legitimacy. Score for false accusations, suggestive of a tendency toward externalization to avoid punishment. Where the person is saved by a wise or benevolent elder, score Level 3; where the arbitrariness of power is described in a broader social context with a clear sense of moral issues and relatedness between characters, score Level 4 or 5. Score for disobedience of parental authority or the authority of concrete individuals where the crime is victimless and the person is not disobeying on principled grounds (e.g., a boy disobeys his parents and plays baseball instead of the violin), when no other scoring rule seems appropriate. Score where defiance of authority seems to stem primarily from a simple desire to assert autonomy. (10) Score for profound masochism, or for characters acquiescing in severe or chronic abuse. If subject explicitly and unambivalently states that people do not deserve to be treated this way, score Level 3. Level 3 Principle: At Level 3 the person considers the needs and wishes of significant others in making decisions. Pleasing other people, being liked, and behaving in accord with the standards of respected authorities are salient aims which often override self-interest. The person is concerned with being good and experiences guilt when his or her thoughts, feelings, or actions conflict with internalized standards. Rules are respected because they are rules; manners and conventions are seen as important and even natural. Moral rules may be relatively rigid and. concrete, and there may be .a pronounced sense of duty, particularly to certain people. Relationships are valued but may not be very deep. (1) Score for characters who obey moral standards because these are valued rules or edicts of respected authorities, not just to avoid unpleasant consequences. - Characters express concern for others and dislike of bad actions because they are wrong. Score for a rigid, moralistic sense of rules or duty. Score for concern for conventions, social norms, manners, and being nice. Characters may be described as chivalrous, protecting someone else's honor, or fulfilling social obligations (e.g., going to war). Characters may. perform prosocial or expected behaviors or fulfill role expectations. Score for unquestioned acceptance or gender role stereotypes. (2) Score for relatively unelaborated, stereotypic displays of concern or good feeling, such as enjoyment of others' company or "mutual love." Score for characters who are clearly attached, but where there is minimal sense of history to their relationship, or love for one another as particular people, or where the description is so stereotypic that little .inference can be drawn about the subject's capacity to invest emotionally (as opposed to. his/her knowledge that some people like or love each other).

TAT Scoring Manual 35 (3) Score for profound sense of duty to help specific others or to carry out specific internalized rules. Where duty is expressed in explicitly abstract form (i.e., duty to abstract ideals which leads to action, rather. than duty to particular rules or relationships), score Level 4. (4) Score for experience of guilt for immoral or harmful actions. If guilt is extremely global and unmodulated or evokes extreme retribution, score Level 2. (5) Score for people appropriately carrying out relatively selfless duties, such as caretaking responsibilities. Score for a helping orientation. Score for people doing things to make others happy unless there is a real sense of commitment or compassion, in which case score Level 4. Score for superficial altruism or consolation of someone who is suffering or grieving. Score for performance of social roles or obligations (e.g., taking an injured person to a hospital). Score for generosity or magnanimity (e.g., willingness to make up after an argument). Where the person doing the helping has an unspecified identity or relationship to the person being helped, score Level 1 or 2 (e.g., "someone comes and helps her"). (6) Score for omnipotent authorities or wise older figures. Characters may happily obey authorities with little or no protest. Score for internalization of parental wishes or values. Where there is a real sense of compassion or empathy for the parents' perspective beyond simple identification, score Level 4. (7) Score for unconventionality or rejection of social roles where there is minimal sense of relatedness to others. Where unconventionality is principled and occurs in the context of relatedness to others, score Level 4 or 5. If rejection of authority or social roles seems to be motivated primarily by a need-gratifying orientation or by rage, score Level 1; if defiance or disregard of authority seems to stem from a simple desire to assert autonomy; score Level 2. Level 4 Principle: At Level 4 the person is capable of forming deep, committed relationships in which the other is valued for his/her unique qualities. Commitment to others often overrides personal desires, but actions on behalf of another are undertaken without a rigid sense of duty or a predominant desire to be liked for one's good deeds.. Moral judgments, values, and modes of conflict-resolution remain relatively conventional. The person is concerned with doing the right thing, as defined by society or respected authorities, which is frequently expressed in more abstract terms and is often self-abnegatory. Relationships are seen as lasting over time and involving considerable commitment and intimacy. (1) Score for long-term, committed relationships which are relatively elaborated affectively. Do not score for stereotypic portrayal of long-term, committed relationships (e.g., "these are two old people who have lived together for many years and love each other very much"); score Level 3. Score for depth of attachments. (2) Score for mature empathy. Do not score for simple compassion for a person's obvious pain (e.g.., sadness for a person experiencing a loss); score Level 2 or 3. . (3) Score for clear, nonstereotypic enjoyment of another's qualities. (4) Score for commitment to relatively abstract ideals or postconventional values, where there is at least some suggestion of investment in real people rather than in empty ideals. (5) Score for conflicts between people where at least one of the antagonists clearly expresses concern for the other despite their current animosity. (6) Score for obedience or compliance stemming from concern for others, not primarily from unilateral respect for authority..

TAT Scoring Manual 36 Level 5 Principle: At Level 5 the person treats self and others as ends rather than means. The person is interested in the development and happiness of both self and others, and attempts to achieve autonomous selfhood within the context of real involvement with, and investment in others. Conflicts between people with conflicting legitimate interests are understood as requiring compromise. Authorities and rules are not taken to be absolute; the person has a sense of the conventional nature of social rules and believes that at times these must be overridden or changed because they conflict with self-generated or carefully considered. standards, or when they do significant harm to people in concrete circumstances. (1) Score for creative compromise or mediation of conflict suggestive of a recognition of the legitimacy of competing interests and/or the inadequacy of rigid application of conventional solutions. Do not score for children growing to like what their parents want for them; score Level 3 or 4. (2) Score for sense of conflict between social norms and characters' own considered standards, or recognition of relativity of social norms and values, with some sense of investment in empathy for real people rather than abstract values or groups. Characters may be seen as standing up for their principles (especially those that involve the welfare of others) despite adversity, social disapproval, unpopularity, or contrary laws. Do not score if clear indications of Level 1 patterns of investment, with need-gratifying standard opposed to social standards; in that case, score Level 1. Score Level 2 if opposition to authority . seems largely to reflect the need to assert autonomy. If unclear whether a seemingly "postconventional" standard is motivated by a mature sense of relativity of tradition or a self-serving disregard of community standards, score Level 3. If subject describes a clearly "postconventional" moral stance, but the sense of commitment to relationships is unclear, score Level 3 or 4, depending on degree of certainty. (3) Score for elaborated depiction of pursuit of self-definition, self-development, or mastery within the context of description of mature, committed relationships. Understanding of Social Causality Principle: scale measures the extent to which attributions of the causes of people's actions, thoughts, and feelings are logical, accurate, complex, and psychologically-minded. Level 1: noncausal; grossly illogical; causally disconnected major sequences. Level 2: environmental and behavioral causes; minor logic errors; simple intentions. Level 3: simple psychologically mediated causes; complex behavioral causality. Level 4: unidirectional internal causes; cognitive mediation of action. Level 5: actions and interactions result from complex psychological processes; characters respond to, and seek to influence, inferred mental states of other characters; unconscious motivational processes. General scoring rules: (1) If the subject provides multiple responses, score the highest level response unless one or more of the responses has logic errors, in which case score 1 or 2 (depending on the severity of the error). (2) Score material obtained through up to three inquiries by the tester. (3) Faulty logic "spoils" an otherwise high-level response, bringing the

TAT Scoring Manual 37 score automatically to Level 1 or 2. (4) In scoring stories with this scale, the coder should first ask, "Is the action in this story logical?" If so, s/he should then ask, "What is causal?"- Finally, if there are implicit or explicit-causal statements, the coder should then ask, "Is it internal (i.e., psychologically-minded)? And is it complex?" (5) If, upon inquiry, the subject gives a response two levels above the previous response, score the intermediate level. Level 1 Principle: At Level 1 the person does not understand the concept of causality in the social realm. There is either no sense of necessity to understand why behaviors, feelings, or situations emerge, or explanations that are advanced are grossly illogical. In constructing this scale we made considerable use of measures devised for coding children's stories by Bogen (1982). (1) Score for noncausal or grossly illogical stories, or for large unexplained transitions or transformations (e.g., "this boy wanted to play the violin, and he went to the store and bought some candy, and he didn't play the violin"). Score for use of magic to explain actions or results, except where it is clearly. playful or in jest. Score where the only causality is physical, not social; e.g., a man slides down a rope and burns his hands, or a boy stays up late at night and gets tired. (2) Score for unexplained affects, which simply seem to come and go, or for absence of any indication of how characters came to conclusions in order to act. Score for isolated affects leading up to a situation, where the action would only make sense if the subject first explained the affect; e.g., "what led up to it was grief." Do not score where the cause of the affect can be readily inferred. (3) Score if subject explains actions or motives on the basis of peculiar reading of signs, such as interpreting a picture on the wall as an indication of a character's mental state; do not score if the rest or the response is rich, playful, and elaborated, suggesting creative use of symbolism. (4) Score for bizarre scenes, where the scene or the character's placement in it is not explained; e.g., "I think this is a madwoman talking to a mannequin, in an old Southern mansion." (5) Score where motives are attributed inappropriately, peculiarly, or in a very unlikely way (e.g., a mother hating her child because it is not physically attractive, unless the mother is described in such a way that this makes sense, e.g., as very narcissistic). Score where motives are ascribed animistically to various forces (e.g., "the world was trying to teach her a lesson for what she did"). Level 2 Principle: At Level 2 the person has a rudimentary understanding of social causality.., Actions are explained as responses to environmental stimuli or as resulting from simple feelings or intentions. Explanations of behaviors, feelings, or interactions frequently have mild logic errors or inconsistencies. (1) Score for actions or feelings viewed as caused by environmental stimuli. Characters behave in response to impersonal forces or behaviors of other characters, without significant mediation by their psychological states or, processes; e.g., "he fell down and hurt his hand and went home to tell his mother and she put a Band-Aid on it." Impersonal events may evoke simple affects, which in turn influence action (e.g., a boy walks into a scary house, so he runs

TAT Scoring Manual 38 away; or a death causes a person to be despondent and to go into a cemetery to place flowers on the grave)-. If behavioral interaction between characters is very complex (for example, a complicated but logical chain of events leading one to the next), score Level 3. (2) Score for minor logic errors or minor unexplained events or transitions in a set of otherwise clear causal relationships. Score for incongruity between thoughts, feelings, and actions. Affect does not fit action (e.g., a child hanging his head after misdeeds feels "tired"), a feeling is incongruent with what the character is thinking, or thoughts and emotions are momentary and unintegrated with the plot or enduring characteristics. To score for minor logic errors, the coder must be confident that an error in logic occurred; do not score if ambiguous. To score for minor unexplained transitions, score if an explanation could possibly be inferred, but many other explanations could equally be entertained. (3) Score for sense of causality where only minimally elaborated or implied but readily inferred. (4) Score for thoughts producing action, but without causal mechanisms explaining the thoughts; e.g., "they're thinking very hard. The man is going to have an idea to go on a surprise trip." Score for people planning and intending but not carrying out their intentions, unless there is an explanation of inaction, in which case treat inaction as an action. (5) Score for action seen as stemming from simple intentions; e.g., "he wanted to play the violin,. so he went out and bought one"; "she wanted to know what had happened, so she asked"; "he liked to climb ropes so he could see things across the river." Score for people responding appropriately to simple emotions; e.g., "he got scared, so he ran." (6) Score for people seen as having complex motives or traits when it is unclear whether these dispositions have a causal impact on depicted action; e.g., "this is a man visiting a graveyard weeping for a friend. And he's a strange, soft-spoken, but gentle man, who cares deeply about people." (7) Score for near-magic abilities of seemingly omnipotent authorities to achieve desired states. Level 3 Principle: At Level 3 the person can logically and accurately explain social phenomena. Although the person recognizes that psychological processes may influence action, causality is seen as largely external to the person. (1) Score for minor elaboration of psychological causes in an account that is primarily focused on environmental or behavioral causes. Elaboration of psychological causes must be beyond description of the causal impact of relatively simple feeling-states or intentions. (2) Score for complex mental states that are evoked but do not lead to any behavior, unless there is-a complex understanding of what led up to the mental state psychologically, in which case-score Level 4 or 5. (3) Score for behavioral causality where multiple causes produce a single response. (4) Score where the subject makes a generalized-statement that indicates a relatively sophisticated understanding of causal processes even where this is not reflected in the story; e.g., "they became friendly because they went through an awful situation together--you know how experiences like that can cement a friendship." If complex and nonstereotypical, score Level 4. (5) Score for unidirectional behavioral causes where the subject points to the influence of the broader social system on thought, behavior, or consequences for actors (e.g., "this is a good example of the way working-class people are. forced to act").

TAT Scoring Manual 39 (6) Score for complex chains of behavioral causes, where a series of events logically unfolds; with effects of an action rippling through a system and in multiple directions. Do not score unless very complex. Level 4 Principle: At Level 4 the person has a basic understanding of the role of psychological events in motivating action. There is considerable recognition of the importance of people's. thoughts and perceptions in mediating between stimulus and response, though understanding of psychological causality is incomplete or applied only irregularly. (1) Score where one character's actions stem from elaborated psychological causes. For example, "he is getting out of the relationship because he is feeling stifled and wants autonomy." A single character's actions may stem from psychic conflict. Actions are not perceived as simply reactive to behavior without much thought or feeling. Do not score for emotions elicited by environmental or behavioral causes which do riot in turn eventuate in action; mental states must themselves be causal, not. just caused, unless the subject describes the psychological processes leading to these states (e.g., "he was feeling very anxious, probably because it reminded him of the way his mother treated him"). Score Level 3, 4, or 5 for complex mental states, depending on the complexity of the attribution of the cause of the state, where Level 3 represents minimal causality, and Level 5 reflects complex causality (as in the example above about the character feeling anxious because of the association to his mother). _Do not score for simple intentions. If unclear whether the psychological cause is elaborate or is a simple intention, score Level 3. If only one character is depicted in the card, score complex internal causes Level .5. (2) Score for recognition that behaviors are influenced by people's construal of the situation. Characters' actions result in part from their perspective on, or understanding of the situation, where the subject indicates a recognition that this is likely to differ from the perspective of others in the same situation. Do not score if people's perspectives are simple and stereotypical. (3) Score for characters who respond to the perceived wishes of others. If any character has complex understanding of others' wishes, score Level 5. (4) Score for complex, nonstereotypical, generalized causal statements (e.g., "their relationships really changed after that--you know how when someone feel wronged, he becomes suspicious and starts to see things even when they're not there"). (5) Score where more than one character's actions have internal causes but none of' the causes is complex. Level 5 Principle: At Level 5 the person understands feelings and behaviors as caused by psychological processes, which may or may not be elicited by environmental stimuli.. Complex thoughts, feelings, and conflicts are seen as mediating action. The person makes complex inferences about the psychological processes of others and attempts to influence others.' perceptions. (1) Score where multiple actors in an interaction act on the basis of elaborated perceptions, thoughts, wishes, or conflicts. To score Level 5, at least one person must have complex internal motivation, and at least one other person must have internal motivation (even if not complex). If only one character is depicted in the card, score if that character acts on the basis of complex internal processes; if the motives are internal but not complex, score Level 3 or 4, depending on degree of complexity.

TAT Scoring Manual 40 (2) Score if one or more characters respond to their perception of other people's thoughts or perceptions. Do not score for actions based on perception of others' wishes, except where these are complexly elaborated; score perception or wishes Level 4. Do not score Level 5 if thoughts, perceptions, or expectations of others that influence action are shared by the actor or have been internalized as ideals; e.g., score Level 4 for, "he is feeling that his father has always set standards for his life." Score for one or more characters trying to influence other characters' thought. (3) Score for actions based on introspection or character's examination of her/his own mental processes. (4) Score for unconscious motivational processes. (5) Score for complex unidirectional internal causality where the subject also elaborates a generalized causal statement (e.g., referring to a "growth experience" that typically accompanies such interactions as occurred in the story).

TAT Scoring Manual 41 PRACTICE SET #1 Card 1 (8 sec.). The boy's parents made him take violin lessons, but he didn't want to. His parents just told him to go practice. He feels angry because he doesn't want to. So he just sits down ..and decides not to practice. Then his parents come in and they're angry because he's not practicing. So he starts practicing, but he doesn't like it. I guess that can be the end. Card 3BM (16 sec.). The person was taken away to a concentration camp and one of his relatives was just killed, so he feels really sad that someone he loves is dead. Um...and he also teals sad because he thinks he's going to die... but he doesn't, because after a while, some troops come in to save him. (Why in a concentration camp?) Because it's World War II and he's a Jew in Germany. (What relative died?) I guess his wife maybe. (Any idea what this object is?) I thought it was a ring of keys. (How does that fit into the story?) I guess maybe that he had stolen them to get out of his cell, but they didn't work, so he's sad about that, too. Card 4 (48 sec.). Well, it a married couple and... (20 sec.) uh; a man comes in to take their home, but the man in the picture is angry, so he says, "Let me at him." But the woman doesn't want to see a fight so she tries to keep him back and says, "It won't do, any good." So the man who came to their home leaves and says, "If you don't give me the money in a few days, I'll have to throw you out." (Why is the man taking their home'?) Because they couldn't pay for it. (Who's the man?) The man they borrowed money from to pay for the home, so I guess they're paying him back. (Why does the man leave and give them more time'?) Maybe he feels sorry for them, or he'd rather have the money than throw them out and not have the money. (Why haven't they paid?) Because they don't have good enough jobs that they earn enough. Card 13MF (43 sec.). The man comes into the room and finds that the lady's dead. So he feels really sad. Then he leaves--and goes to -the police to find out who killed her. (Before?) I guess the woman was sleeping, and someone came in and killed her. (Why?) Maybe it was a rape. (Man in picture know the woman?) Probably her husband. (Did killer, know her?) No. (And?) The police find the man who killed her 'and they put him in jail. The lady's husband is still sad. (He thinking?) "Oh, what happened? Who did this? And why?" Card 10 (30 sec. ). Its a little girl and her grandmother. Um, the girl is sad because one of her pets died, so she goes to her grandma and the grandmother holds her and says not to cry. And -that it's okay to miss her pet, and she explains that she had pets that died, too, and it's really sad when it happens. The little girl's still sad and she wonders why it had to die. I guess the grandmother rocks her to sleep, (that led up to the pest dying?) I think old age (?) a horse. (Why grandmother say not to cry?) Because she doesn't like seeing the little girl cry. (Grandma feeling?) She feels sad because she had known the horse, for a long time too, and she remembers how sad she was when she was little and pets died. (And?) They have a funeral for, the horse and the little girl still feels sad, but, she learns to accept it. Card 1. Well, this kid, he's been studying to play the violin and he was kinds forced into it by his parents--and he's net very good, he doesn't enjoy playing iv and he's wondering how much longer he'll have to play it--wondering it' he'll ever be good at it--if he decided to keep playing or if his parents decide for him-if he has to keep playing. Pretty soon his mother is going to come into the room and tell him to start practicing. (Feel?) He's saying to himself, "I don't really want to play this, but I will if it will make my mother happy." (Decide to keep playing?) Well, his parents make him keep up with the lessons for a year and he starts getting better and in the end, plays really well and plays for an orchestra..

TAT Scoring Manual 42 Card 3BM. This is a lady with uhm--she's a paraplegic and she's spent the past year in 'a wheelchair because of an accident-and she's gotten tired of living her life in a wheelchair and decided that she's learn--teach hers-elf to walk. So today while v she was alone she stood up to taker her first steps--but her legs gave out beneath her and she just tell down. Shy reels pretty rushed right now, because she really wants to learn to walk pretty bad and get out of her wheelchair. (Future?) She is going to keep trying to teach herself to walk and eventually she'll be able to walk but with a noticeable limp. That's be a few years in the future. Card 4. Im trying to think of a past to go with the present This man and woman used to be lovers--a few years back-but things didn't work out between them They Went: their separate ways and -the man married someone else. They met tip at a crass reunion and decided to go out for lunch. And the man found out that the woman's flame for him had never died. (Flame?) Yeah-and now she's making a pass at him. Hit the man fells guilty 'cause he's married so ha turns affray from her. Eventually he's going to break free and tell her to leave him along. (She feel?) She wants to convince him to just forget. about his wife. She feels 1i She tries hard enough she can make him change his mind, But after he pulls himself away from her she realizes her` plan won't ward;. Because he loves his wife too much. In the end, she just lets go and lets him leave. That's it. 6BM. The woman's husband just passed away a couple of days before. Her son came to visit after his father died. He's living in the city now while his parents had a farm. That's why its taken so long for him to get back to the farm after his father died. The woman's worried about what's going to happen to the farm. The son is sorry he was so far away when his father died. He uhm, feels like he should be responsible for the farm now, but he doesn't feel he should leave the city because he has a, good job there. His parents paid for his college education so he feels a commitment to put his college education to use. And in the end, his mother agrees with him. She sells the farm and moves to the city where her son is a lawyer. Card 7BM. This took place in the 1930's. The younger guy is a college student who is home during the summer break, I. guess. His grandfather 1 lives at home with his parents, brothers, and sisters. The grandfather is telling his grandson about how tough times are 'because it's during the depression. The grandson still has two years or college to go and is wondering if he's going to be able to afford those two years of college. The grandfather feels that his grandson can do it if he really wants to, but that he'll have to work for what he really wants. The grandfather says that he'll support his grandsons as much as he can financially throughout the summer and over the course of the neat two years. The grandson works at various odd jobs and manages to work his way through college. And after he graduates he thanks his grandfather for the encouragement and -tells him that he'll pay back any money that he borrowed, even though it only amounted to about 100 dollars. The end. (smiles.) Card 18GF. Two women were home alone on a stormy night and the power want out. There were no lights in the house at all. Uhm...The women who are sisters were separated--one was upstairs, one -was downstairs. When the lights want out., they both stared to search for candles using just the light coming through the windowsthe lightning-- to see their way around. The sister who was upstairs thought there might be some candles in the hallway a t the top or the stairs. She made her, way into the hallway but not being able to see her way very well, shoe cell down the steps. The sister who was downstairs heard her sister fall down the steps and rushed over to her and picked her up. At that moment, the lights came back on. In this picture, the sister who was downstairs can see that her sister is bleeding, beaten pretty badly from the fall down the steps. She feels she should get her sister to a doctor. The sister who is upstairs is unconscious, so she doesn't feel anything. And the sister who is downstairs is going to carry her

TAT Scoring Manual 43 sister out to the car and drive in the pouring rain to the doctor's house (Happens?) The sister gets medical attention and recovers fully. (?) In the picture? One is unconscious. The other is pretty sad to see her sister beaten up I guess by the stairs. Card 15. This man lived during the 18th century and he's standing in the middle of a cemetery, grieving at the loss of his wife and several of his friends that he's outlived. .. He feels lonely because everybody's dead. And he's kind. sorry that he lived longer than everybody else. He's at the cemetery because it would have been his wife's birthday and he always spent his wife's birthday with her. But now that he's at the cemetery he feels grief and sorrow because he is standing among all of his dead friends. In a little while he'll return home to his empty house. (How die?) Old age, -sick sickness Maybe pneumonia. Card 13MF. This man stayed late at the office tonight. He came home about 10:00 which is five hours later than what he usually comes home. He's pretty tired, so he decided to go straight up to bed. But when he got there he noticed that his wife had been murdered. He checks for her pulse, but there is none. She's bean strangled Uhm... he starts to cry. And he knows he has to call the police right away, but while he's crying, he just cant get up the energy to call. He's going to sit down and continue crying and wander to himself why it happened and try to think of a reason, but he won't be able to think of one. After a half an hour, he'll pull himself together and call the police. The police will comp- out with the photographers and a coroner and they'll lead him out of the room where he's been sitting since he got homed He'll tell the police as much of what happened as he knows, .about how he came home, found his wife and waited while, he called the police. While he's sitting in the living room telling his story to the police he'll see his wife's body which is covered with a sheet being wheeled out of the house and hell he'll starting 'crying again (Shrugs shoulders., looks up at me) (Who killed'?) (Pause) I don't know. (Make up?) (pause) Nope. Card 2. This girl lives out in the country and one day when she's walking home from school, she comes upon a farm where a man is plowing the field The farmer's wife is standing nearby then, She's pregnant. She gonna have her fifth child. The farmer's wife isn't happy because she spends her days working all day cleaning earning the house, taking care of all her kids and helping out the chores around the farmer like, milking the cows and fetching water from the well. The girl realizes that she doesn't want to end up like the farmer's wife. She doesn't want to marry a farmer and spend her days breaking her back. Meanwhile the farmer is getting his fields ready and he feels like he's just got to keep on working and finish the field before nightfall. It's a recurring thought to the girl to get away from this country-escape from the country, and she'll continue to have that thought until she graduates from high school and moves to a town, not really a big city, and becomes a teacher. (?) She'll feel like she has to escape until she finally does. The farmer's wife will keep being a farmer's wife, cleaning house, doing chores and having kids and the farmer will keep on being a farmer until they die I guess. Card 15. He looks like a grave robber. He's just thinking of digging those graves up. (Pause.) Well the end of the story, dug one of the graves up and left. (Why dig up?) He was sick. (Then what?) Then he went home. I don't know how it would end. Maybe caught by police and jailed. My imagination seems really small. Can't imagine what some of these pictures would tell. (Smile.) He doesn't even look human in a way. Maybe hes a devil. (Assume he's a devil.) Maybe he's a devil and he's come to take these people to hell. I don't know what the devil does to people in graveyards Looks capable of torture, not even alive Card 4. Looks like lady made husband angry. She's trying to pacify, smooth it over. (What do to make angry?) She didn't agree with him. Maybe she's apologizing and giving in. (What not

TAT Scoring Manual 44 agree with about?) (Sigh and smile. Pause.) Can't think. (Leave for a bit.) She calms him down, guess they make up, it's alright - (What is making up like?) He's not mad anymore 'cause she gave in and agreed with him. I used to have an imagination, could make up stories for the kids. Have pain in neck, real stiff. (?) Have had for months. (When lose imagination?) I guess when I first started getting depression after that Imagine things wrong with mind. (Supportive response on my part and snore interaction, verbatim lost.) Lately I been imaging self as crazy person:, Imagine I'll never be OK, feel sorry for the kids. Card 10. (Pause) Very close and happy old couple. Look like grandparents. Remind me of my grandparents before they died., married over 50 years. At a dead end here, (Specifically?) Just happy together, secure. (Circumstances?) Looks like its time just before bed They're alone, just have had a good conversation. Card 6BM Thats an angry time. Maybe- something's happened to his father. They're waiting together Maybe he's in hospital waiting anxiously for his condition. Maybe hes dying. Looks like they don't knoll) what to do or say. Can't see an end to this. I'll say he died. They try to help each other (What brought father's illness) Maybe just old and got cancer. Card 7GF (Long pause.) Looks like site might be reading a book reading a book to he,, daughter. Daughter looks like she is picturing events in the book. You want the events in the book? (Whatever you want.) Daughter enjoying , it's relaxing. (Mother feel feeling?) (She repeats question.) I don't !:now. (Try a guess ) Probably hoping daughter enjoying story, making effort for daughter to enjoy story. Card 1. This story scores a 2 because there is no elaboration of what the boy is like other than at this particular moment in this particular conflict with his parents, and the subjective states described are simple, expectable, undifferentiated reactions (he's "angry," the parents are "angry"). Card 3BM. This story scores strong , 2. It scores a 2 because there is no depth to the . .characterization. There is a description of his sadness as a response to many things but no differentiation of different emotions as responses to different situations. It comes close to 3 for an elaborated but non- psychological characterization a Jew in Germany in a concentration camp), bit it is not quite rich enough for a solid id 3. Card 4. This story scores a 2 because of the lack of elaboration or what each character is like If you took these characters out of the story and tried to imagine what they were like you could not form a. picture of them. Descriptions of internal processes are largely observations of relatively simple feeling states" Card 13MF. This story scores a 2 because beyond differentiation of characters, there is no elaboration of characterization. If the "Oh, what happened" speech had occurred Without so much prodding by the tester, it would probably have pushed the story Close to a 3. Card 10. This story scores a 4 for two reasons. First, the grandmother is bringing her own lifeline into this story to help her understand what's happening in the present, so that there is a sense of enduring quality to the grandmother. Second the girl is able at the end of-the story to have mixed emotions, both to feel sad and to have a feeling of acceptance at the same tune, though it is not entirely clear that the feelings are simultaneous. Card 1. This story scores a low 4 because the main character has a mental conflict between wanting to do what his mother wants and not wanting to play the violin, though this conflict is relatively unelaborated and stereotypical.

TAT Scoring Manual 45 Card 3BM. This. story score a 4. It comes close to a 5 because of the juxtaposition of her current state as crushed and what appears to be a more enduring characteristic of determination. It is only a 4, however, because of the .ambiguity about whether or not the determination is a general character trait or something specifically directed at this one situation, i.e., having become a paraplegic. It also comes close to a 5 because of the rich sense one has after reading the card of what the person is like. Card 4. This story scores a 4 because of the complexity of the conflict the character is experiencing between his wishes for the woman and his guilt It does not receive 3 5 because or the absence or much sense of what either character is 1 like out this particular situation, and because the man's conflict is somewhat externalized. Card 6. This story scores a solid 5 because the main character is experiencing ambivalent feelings simultaneously, acting on complex motives, and experiencing elaborated mental conflicts. Card 7. This story scores a 4. It receives a 4 because of the level of description of each character's subjective experience, and because one has a clear sense by the end of the story of what these characters are like It is only a weak 4, however, because neither characters personality or experience is really thoroughly fleshed out. Card 18GF. This story scores a 2 because of the-lack of elaboration of anything ,bout the specific characters. Tile characters 5 are differentiated however, which brings the story to a rather than a 1. Card 15 This story scores a strong 3. It comes close to a 4 both because of the elaborate portrait of the man without much depth to the description or his personality, and because his grief is described in terms of specific thoughts: the man laments his long life and comes to be with his wife who is dead which is probably a symbolic action, though this is not elaborated. It does not score a 4, however because so much of the character's experience is a simple grief response. Card 13MF. This story scores a strong 3. It comes close to a 4 because of some complexity to the man's psychological experience, represented by alternations of distress, existential attributions, and "pulling himself together." It receives a 3 because of the lack of elaboration of psychic lift and the lack of any enduring character traits. We are told several times that the man is upset, but there is not much depth his feelings and thoughts other than shock and grief that his wife has been killed. Card 2. This card scores a 5 because of the combination of an elaboration of her momentary experience and the extended temporal context represented by the statement that she has a recurring thought to get away from the country. This story goes beyond a 4 in that there is more than minimal sense of trait continuity over time, and the extended time frame for the character's predicament clearly represents a 'psychological statement rather than an enduring sense of the situation. Card 15. This card scores a 2 because there is a differentiation of the character from the rest of the card but theta is no elaboration to his personality. Card 4. This story scorns a 2 because of the differentiated characters with no complex complexity The inner thoughts described are relatively simple emotional processes and are elicited only with great effort by the -tester.

TAT Scoring Manual 46 Card 10. This card scores a 2 because it is a simple undifferentiated response to Card 10. Card 6BM. This story scores a clear 1 because of the lack of differentiation of the characters. There are only "theys," and no descriptions of separate characters. An emotion is attributed to the scene. Card 7GF. This card scores a 2 because the characters are differentiated but not elaborated.

TAT Scoring Manual 47 Affect Tone, Scoring Rationales for Practice Set #1 Card 1. This story scores a 2 because, while neither action is particularly malevolent, it is univalently negative there does not appear to be any empathy on either side. Card 13M. This story stores a 2 because of escape from malevolence . Card 4 . This story scores a 2 because of the threat posed by the money lender to the life, liberty, and happiness' of the couple whose horny he is threatening to take away. There is not enough in this story about the relationship between the couple to give the' story a mixed quality of affect-tone. Card 13MF. This story score's a 2 because it is an ordinary malevolent response to 13MF. Card 10. This story scores a 3 because the story is primarily about the grandmother comforting the granddaughter in her time of grief. Card 1. This story scores a 4 because of mixed affects. Even though much of the story is about conflict, the boy is oriented to making his mother happy, and ultimately finals a mutual mutually satisfactory solution If the ending had not been so harmonious, this story would have scored a 3. It could not score a 5 because the boys ultimate pleasure in the violin can only be inferred and is not explicit Card 3BM. This card scores 2 for (partial ) escape from an unpleasant existence without the help of others. The fact that she is a paraplegic would be mitigated by the hopeful tone of the story if there were some help, or some relationship. with others That she is taking her first few steps with no one around to watch or help suggests an empty, non-nurturant object world. The absence of people in the story in part leads one to score on affect affect-tone of the story itself, which is largely bleak (and ends with her deformed). Card 4. This story scores a 4 primarily because of the basically ambivalent relationship expressed, with neither a predominantly positive or negative affect tone. There is conflict between two different relationships for the man, and the extent of conflict in this story at the present time rules out a score of 5. The man's choice of staying with his wife 'because of his love for her suggests that a 2 would not be an appropriate score. Card 6BM. This story scores a 3 because of the mixed affect-tone. Even though the interaction comes from the adversity of the woman's husband dying, both partners in the relationship (mother and son) are making every effort to take care of each - other and to stay close. Card 7BM. This story scores a 5 because of the solidly positive relationship between the grandfather and grandson, and their mutual concern for each other's welfare. Card 18GF. This story 'scores 2 because of the twice-occurring intrusion of an aggressive theme (being "beaten up"). Had the intrusion occurred only once, tire story would have scored a solid 3 for escape from danger effected through the help of a benevolent other, because the level of inference required to interpret "beaten up" Would be too high. However, the second occurrence leaves little doubt that the sister was saved from some kind of malevolence or abuse by her sister. Card 15. This story scores a 2 because of the sense of profound aloneness. Card 13MF. This story scores a 2 because it is an ordinary malevolent response to this card.

TAT Scoring Manual 48 Card 2. This story scores a 2 for escape from an unpleasant existence by the characters own efforts. It does not score a 3 because of the emphasis on the emptiness and bleakness of the lives of the farmer-and his wife l e, and the absence of any other relationship paradigms attributed to the protagonist. Any elaboration of, for example, the girl's enjoyment or her (interpersonal) role as teacher would have brought the stop to a score of 3. Card 15. This story scores a 1 because or the gratuitous violence brought in with the 'theme of torture. Card 4. This story scores a 2 because of the quality of relationship in which the man seems willing to stay in the relationship only if the woman compromises herself significantly and placates him from what really appears to be his failing. The woman is accommodating, and the two people make up, but the quality of the relationship is clearly far worse than neutral. Card 14. This story scores a 5 because of the positive tone to the interaction. Card 6BM. This story scores a very weak 3, Though the tone of much of the story is colored by the loss the hint of relatedness between characters who try to help each other brings the story to a mixed affect-tone, and hence a score of 3. For clinical purposes this would probably be scored a 2 because or the overriding sense or bleakness and fragmentation. Card 7GF. This story scores a 5 because of the benign and caring nature of the interaction.

TAT Scoring Manual 49 Emotional Investment, Scoring Rationales for Practice Set #1 Card 1. This story scores a 2 because of obedience to avoid punishment. It also scores a 2 because it represents a conflict between characters who know what the other wants but do not heed their wishes. Card 3BM. This card scores a 2 because of the relative lack of relatedness of the main character. The person is sad in part because someone he loves is dead; however, that someone does not appear to be specified in the subject's mind until specifically asked, and even than it remains hazy. The story tends more to be about this particular person's sadness for a number of reasons but not in particular about relatedness to others. Card 4. This story scores a 1 because of the wanton disregard of others welfare The story is primarily about a character who is interested in taking from others regardless of the consequences. The relationship between the man and woman was not elaborate enough to suggest much real commitment. The subject almost gave a higher-level answer in suggesting compassion but then spoiled it with "or he'd rather have the money than throw them out and not have the money." Card 13MF. This story scores a 2 because of the lack of depth of attachment. A man is sad about the death of an unspecified woman who only with inquiry becomes his wife. The theme of punishment (jail) also leads to a score of 2. Card 10. This story scores a 4 because of the depth of the relationship between daughter and grandmother and because the grandmother demonstrates empathy. It scores at least a 3 for many reasons. It has a wise older figure, it is stereotypically conventional, the grandmother displays compassion, and the little girl clearly has a capacity to invest emotionally in others (in this case a transitional object). The subject almost spoils the response, however, by turning the grandmothers empathy into egocentrism ("she had know the horse for a long time too"), but having had a feeling in the past ("she remembers how sad she was when she was little") can be a source of genuine empathy. Card 1. This story scores a 3 because the boy finally capitulates out of a sense of duty to his mother and gradual gradually internalizes her point of view. Card 3BM. This story scores a 2. It scores only a 2 because the story has only one character, and there is no relatedness to other characters who might have been brought in. It scores a 2 instead of a 1 because of the extraordinary impulse control of the protagonist. Card 4. This story scores a 3 because of a recognition of conflict between two characters who are interested in their own as well as each other's welfare. The story is very much about the man's guilt, as well as conventional issues of staying with or leaving the wife for an old flame. Card 6BM. This story scores a strong 4 because of the depth of the characters' concern for each other and the attempt to find a solution to their conflict. While much or: the story is about the man's sense of duty, the story is pulled up by the mother's choice to be with the son, which sacrifices her own interest because she thinks that this is the best thing to doe Her decision does not appear to be particularly conventional or particularly out of a sense of duty, yet there is not quite enough sense of either post-conventionality or creative compromise to lead to a score of 5.

TAT Scoring Manual 50 Card 7BM. This story scores a solid 3. The story revolves around a revered grandfather, who constitutes an awesome authority figure. In addition, the story is largely about the boy's sense o-e duty and his conventional virtues of. working hard and being good to the people who are important to him, as well as suggesting a rather rigid morality (paying back every cent). Card 18GF. This story scores as a 3 because of the character's seemingly conventional selfless concern for the sister There is a hint of a sense of duty in the subject's phrasing, "She feels she should get her sister...," though this is probably an artifact tar the instruction to tell what the characters are feeling. Card 15. This story scores a weak 4 because of the sense of the protagonist as a man whose life was made meaningful by long term attachments to others Card 13MF. This story scores a 3 for the mans apparent long-term attachment to his wife, though had he not re-emphasized the mans grief at the end it may have been scored a 2, particularly because of the distant phase he noticed that his wife had been murdered. Also suggestive of Level 3 functioning is his awareness of social conventions (calling police) and his investment in these despite his grief. Card 2. This story scores a 3. On the one hand, the protagonist seems to recognize the sense of duty of the farmer and his wife and to reject this for herself, which has a "post-conventional" ring to it. On the other hand, her rejection of tradition seems only to benefit herself, and there is no sense of connection to others. The farmer and his wife only seem important as foils for her own fears and fantasies. Card 13. This story scores a solid 1 because of the character's lack of any interest in what is happening to the people he is harming. The man ends up being a devil and torturing people, with no thought about the people whose graves he is robbing or the dead people he is torturing. It does not score a 2 for punishment theme because the possibility of prison is offered only parenthetically and with qualification. Card 4. This story scores a low 3. It scores a 3 because of a conflict between people where one character seems intent on pleasing or being. conciliatory toward the other. It comes close to a 2 for an apparently masochistic relationships, although there is not enough evidence that this is true of the relationship between the characters in general, rather than a momentary situation. Card 10. This story scores 3 for the enduring sense of commitment. There ,is not enough sense of love for their individual characteristics, or much beyond a. conventional image of loving old people to score a 4. Card 6. This story scores a. 3 because of the mutuality of the compassion, although it Would have scored a 2 either the comment about helping each other, because of the apparent shallowness of the relationship. Card 7GF. This story scores a 3 because of the clear sense of mutual attachment and the mother's commitment to her daughter's enjoyment It approaches a 4 because of what is almost empathy on the part of the mother for the daughter.

TAT Scoring Manual 51 Social Causality Scoring Rationales for Practice Set #1 Card 1 This story scores a 3 because of the multidirectional behavioral causes. Card 3BM This story scores a 2 because environmental events (going to a concentration camp, having relatives killed) leads to an emotion. The emotion, in turn, does not lead to any kind of behavioral response. It comes close to a 3 for two causes of a single emotion, but the emotion itself is noncausal (i.e.., does not lead to any responses), and the two causes (the relative's death and fear for himself) seem to reflect changes in elaboration of the story-line rather than more complex causality. Card 4 This story scores a 3 because the interaction of the two men leads to a response -by the woman. The man who lends the money acts (perhaps) on the basis of his feeling sorry for them, but feeling sorry is a simple emotional state rather than the kind of more elaborated internal state leading to an action that would be needed to score a level 4. Card 13MF. This story scores a 2 because of the simple stimulus-response quality to the causality. Card 10 This story scores a 3 because the action of the grandmother sterns from a concern for what the little girl is feeling It does not score a 4 because there is not a great deal of complexity or inference. The grandmother is making about what tike girl is experiencing It would have scored a 2, for simple stimulus-response causality (loss causes sadness, empathy causes consolation), if not for the grandmother's fairly complex empathic awareness. Card 1 This card scores a 4 because o-f the complexity of the boys internal thoughts leading to an action. It does not score a 5 because he is primarily responding to another persons wish, and this wish is not well elaborated. Card 3BM This story scores a strong 4, moving in the direction of a 5. It scores a 4 because clearly her actions stem from unidirectional, internal causes; it does not quite reach a score of 5 because of the lack of elaboration of her mental life beyond a typical story of the determination of handicapped. Card 4 This story scores a 5. The man is clearly experiencing a psychic conflict, and the woman is reacting to what she perceives to be on the mans mind. Card 6BM This story scores a 4 because of the complexity to the man's conflict around coming home and his commitment to putting his college to good use. What brings the story down from a 5 to a 4 is the lack of elaboration of the mothers mental life which leads her ultimately to sell the farm and to agree with her son, and an ambiguity about whether the son's feeling-state actually causes any response (though .in this case his refusal to move may be considered a response, given that the mother is pressing him to do otherwise). Card 7BM. This story scores a strong 4. It scores a 4 because of the bidirectional internal causality; the boy is acting on the basis of his gratitude towards his grandfather and his wish to make it through college, and -the grandfather is acting on the basis of his perception of his grandson's ability to make it and his own wishes for his grandson to achieve. It scores a 4 instead of a 5 because both of these motives are stereotypic and neither is particularly well developed.

TAT Scoring Manual 52 Card 18GF This story scores a .solid '' because of a clear sense of causality in stimulusresponse terms with no elaboration of psychological processes,. Card 15 This story scores a 4 because of the complexity of the man's motivation in coming tothe cemetery ,(being at the cemetery because it would have been his wife's birthday). Much of the complexity of his thinking, however, is not causal, which would prevent the story from scoring-any higher than a 4 It is unclear to what his coming to the cemetery on his wife's birthday is psychologically motivated (as opposed to a ritual, for example). Card 13MF This story scores a 4 because of the complexity of the character's internal response to his wire's death. The conflict between cal 1 calling the police -And knowing he has to call them on the one hand., and feeling immobilized by grief, sadness, and obsessional thoughts about why she has been killed on the other, leads to a delay In his ability to make the phone call he needs to make. Internal causality is, however, only unidirectional. Card 2 This story scores a very high level 4. It scores at least a 4 because of the complexity of psychological states of the girl that lead to her action. It is a very high 4 because of the extent to which she is imagining what it would be like to be the farmer's wife. What keeps the score at a 4 as opposed to 3 is the lack of any interaction between the characters or a lack of psychological causes in the characters other than the girl leading to actual actions (e.g., the farmer may not like his lot in life, but this does not seem to affect his action). Card 15 This story scores a 2 because of the relationship between a simple intention to rob a grave and carrying out that intention. Card 4 This story scores a strong 2 or a weak 3. It would score a 3 for multidirectional causality if the subject had made explicit that the man expressed his anger in a way (e.g., Jelling). If that had been the case, the lady's action would have made him angry, and his angry response would have, in turn., caused h, to try to pacify him, leading to a change in his behavior, which would have bee! multidirectional His actions, however, are only implicit, so that causal causality appears more unidirectional, with her constantly trying to influence his, mood-state but without his responding. Card 10 Thus story scores a 1 because of the absence of any sense of causality The closest the subject comes to providing a causal statement is in the last sentence "Must've had a good conversation," though it is unclear that this is meant as a cause of their current state or rather as just a description. Card 6BM This story scores a 1 because of the disconnection between "that's an angry time and the rest of the story. The discrepancy presents itself as a major transit that is not explained. Card 7GF . This story scores' a 3 because the mother is orienting the way she is telling the story to the perspective of the daughter and is making an effort to influence daughter's feelings in this matter. The complexity or this is not enough to score a 4 .

TAT Scoring Manual 53 PRACTICE SET #2 Card 3BM [1] Uhm - this is a wife who uhm - has just been in an argument with her husband and he, got very harsh and rough and hit her and uhm - basically pushed her across the room and so she. kinda fell against this couch and is just crouching there now. And she feels ...(Sighs) confused and worn out and uhm - afraid to get up because he'll just push her down again. She's crying. And what happens is eventually her husband leaves the room - either leaves the house or just goes to bad or something and she'll eventually get up and does the things she has to do to keep herself and the house and family going as if nothing happened. (think?) Uhm..she's thinking how did it come to be .this way and what can she do to make things change, but she doesn't know, she's very confused, (feel?) T just told you tray again?) Hurt and angry. Love and hate. [2] This woman just murdered somebody. There was same kind or argument, and I think she murdered her husband.., and she's crying because it had to be this way, and she knows that she'll be put in prison for murder, and she'll probably turn herself in to the authorities since there's nothing else she can do... I think she's crying because she loved 'the person she killed. [3] (sighs as picks up and looks at it) (16") I can't make out what's in the corner -- is that a. knife? (whatever you see it as) (52") Well., I guess this woman is pretty despondent she's contemplating suicide-she takes a long time to think about it... um.. it's a lot of conflict abort people she's going to hunt if she does but I think she decides that -there is no hops, and goes ahead and cuts her wrists.. That's all. _ [4] This is a young woman and she is very tired, dejected and -frustrated. This is a time in her life when she has just broken up with a boyfriend and she is added problems with her roommate aril people at work have piled on many added responsibilities that she is afraid she can't handle. She thinks she'll get by and she's wandering how best to handle it and even though sire has confidence that things will eventual eventually work out she cannot deny that she is very upset at the moment Do you want an outcome? (Yes) She will make some plans about how to handle her situation and she will start working on soma big part of it so she feels that she's not avoiding it and she will treat herself in some small way, do something that makes her feel good and talk to a friend. [5] (She picks up the card while she looks at it.) She's a patient in a state hospital and she just tried to stab herself. (What led up to it?) She was depressed (What over'?) I don't know. she'll die. (What do you think she's thinking and feeling) She's feeling sad, like she wants so die. [6] (Picks up as she does with all the other cards ) Oh Id Say this was a woman in a mental institution and shes gotten up and had breakfast and then went to the dayroom and has absolutely nothing to do for the rest of the day and so she just sits in this position passing time. (What will the outcome be?) Shell go to bed at night (laughs). (What is she thinking and feeling) Sheshes probably depressed or maybe in another world entirely. [7] Um... a. woman had an argument with a friend and um..realizing that she wasn't getting anywhere with her points, she escaped to another room, a quiet corner, where she hid her face and kept her .... her thoughts to herself. That's not much of an end... um...I don't see this picture so much as an .end, as portraying any .end. One would have to imagine the end but its more as the middle of the story. (What would you imagine to be the outcome?) I would say, given this picture, after a goodly amount. of time, and hour, hour. and a half, the woman would submerge

TAT Scoring Manual 54 her sorrow and go on with what she was doing before the argument occurred. (What might the argument have been about?) Um..money childrearing, a family-type domestic argument, self respect or respect for one another, something like that. (What is. she thinking and feeling'?) Really misunderstood or um... sort of a combination of not feeling she can express what she wants to say and at the same time not being 1 listened to. I see the whole picture as sort of an escape on the part of the person. Card 4 [1] Uhm.... (sigh, long pause) I don't have a story. (Give it some time.) (pause) in general uhm this man is uhm, preoccupied with something he has to do or somewhere he wants to go and he's trying to go to that place or -to do that thing, and the woman is trying to get him to stay with her - uhm - but he's not paying much attention. die's really preoccupies) with this other thing. (What is he preoccupied with?) I_ don't know,. (pick something. ) h bunch of things could ....but nothing really fits the picture that well I think. Its something relatively serious, .because he looks very intent and not like he just wants to go. off and. watch football with his buddies, and yet not too incredibly earthshaking because the woman would be more upset than she is. Plot as earthshaking as him going off to war or something, but something in between those things. He is just thinking about this thing he's about to go and do,. He's not plying attention to the woman...he feels eager to get going. And she is uhm thinking - that she won't have as much run with him gone and she wants him to stay, but - it uhm - but she's not, y'know - devastated because he is not that important to her as an individual, he's just the man she happens to be with and she'll just have to find another, and while that's kind of a pain, it's more or an annoyance than a big problem nor her. And he leaves ..and she - kind err says "damn" and lights up a cigarette (she feel?) just - uhm - annoyed.. - (What -took him away from her?) Some male thing. ('?) (shakes her head) [2] This is like a scene from an old American movie ...woman looks almost like a foreign actress, maybe she's American.., Looks like a grim melodrama...and the man is probably an outlaw... and she's probably trying to stop him from going out into a dangerous Situation (outcome?) Since this is the movie, the man will pr probably be shot and kill and (almost laughs, turns card over). (Characters feeling?) The woman is upset and sad, and the man is worried...knows he's going to die. [3] (lights cigarette looks at it reluctantly (56") This man has a problem of some sortsome emotional upheaval. He looks angry too. He wants to throw in the towel. His wife is trying to reason with him and hes turning away from her;-I guess eventually she does comfort him and calm him--he, realizing that she's very supportive and cares about him. That's all. (What kind of emotional problem?) oh, perhaps he can't hold a job and he's feeling unworthy and they have financial problems, and he's been drinking. (She thinking and feeling'?) What is she thinking? That she can't give up on him. [4] These are two people in a movie, an actor and an actress anal they're playing a dramatic scene in 3 1950s movie. Ah..they're both married to other people and even though the focus of attention right now is on the actor, the actress is thinking that in real life the actor is a very nice guy and she enjoys his friendship. She likes the guy and she likes acting with him and she's looking forward to sitting down with him after the scene and having a cup of coffee and talking about the movie. (Explain even though the focus is on the actor.) In the scene, she doesn't have to say much right now. (VL gist is, doesn't have to concentrate on the scene.) She has the luxury of allowing a noncharacter thought to enter- her mind. (3' 50").

TAT Scoring Manual 55 [5] We looks like he's crazy and she's trying to take care of him. (What could each be thinking now?)' I really don't know. Sorry, (What do you think will happen?) He'll hit her. and she'll leave.. [6] This looks like a movie. Like a 30s movie. (13") The man is going to rush out to do something rash. His wife is trying to restrain him and talk some sense into him but he's going to go out anyway and get into a fight and get beat up. It's a labor union movie because he looks like he has a work shirt on, (laughs) (What are they thinking and feeling?) Hes angry and she's concerned, she's worried. [7] (Looks closer.) (23") Um... a man and a woman are in a restaurant and -the Min is...is urn... affronted or um... annoyed by what another man is urn... how another man is looking at the woman he's with anti either through words or- glances or gestures., in effect he challenges the other man or it comes to a point. of a challenge that could involve a fight, but certainly a direct confrontation. But he's restrained from any action by the woman he's with. The woman attempts to restrain him. I don't know necessarily what again, the outcome..Um....I'd say, given the little bit-the little there is in this picture, she'll probably succeed in restraining him because I don't see the determination in his eyes to um-to carry through (What are they thinking and feeling?) He's thinking anger and sort of a personal whatever...happened, he took very personally in himself and she is feeling very concerned for his feelings but not taking whatever it is personally. Card 13MF [1] (Frowns brow furrows. Look of intent, alarm mixed with pain on her face as she stares at the card. Turns the card sideways on table, looks at it, then turns it facing her. Turns her head to view the picture from the side, still frowning, turns her head back and shakes her head.) Nothing comes to mind at 2. Verbatim lost all?) Not a story. (What does come to mind?) I can't figure out why her chest is uhm - unnatural, raised - I can't male up something to explain that - I don't know what this guy's doing and I don't - I don't want to make a story out of it. (flips card. Attitude a cross between nonchalance and stubbornness - shakes her leg back and forth.) [2] This man is getting up in the morning... they've had sex the night before ...perhaps they're not married, but they could see each other again..she's very sleepy, and will probably sleep -he will leave the apartment alone?... I think he's going to work...and he is going to see her again, probably will see her again, since they had a good time together... but he doesn't live there. . [3] God!. These get better and better. (slowly puts on glasses, looks reluctantly) him...(24") Man comes home, finds that his wife has overdosed, and she's dead, and he's grief-stricken. He can't face it..he doesn't want to accept it, feels guilty... (gives it to me) (what outcome?) I don't know! (shrugs) (Make something up) (sighs, looks at me, then slowly takes back the card) ...I guess ha becomes vary distrustful and reclusive. He's afraid to, uh,... form close relationships doesn't want to hurt anyone else. (how does he feel, he hurt her?) by somehow making life unbearable. (pushes -the card to me.) [4] Um... it's a man and a woman in a steady relationship but not married. They're living together and it is morning. It is the woman's vacation. She usually has to get up with him but this morning she decides to stay in bed and the guy has to go in to work. We has a -meeting and he's still very tired arid the two of them had stayed up late the night before and they'd had a lot of sex until the early morning hours and he's gotten about 5 good hours of sleep but he's still pretty sluggish and he is trying to open his eyes and wake up and he's trying to decide what..whether to drink two cups of coffee though he really doesn't like coffee and doesn't drink that much of it.

TAT Scoring Manual 56 [5] The woman just died and the man is very sad and frightened. (What do you think he's scared of?) 'Cause he's alone. '(What might happen?) He'll kill himself. (Because he lost the woman?) Yeah. [6] This man is deeply ashamed of something he's just done Hes dressed and the woman's not. (Long silence) and so he's going to sneak off without anybody seeing him. I can't decide if he's murdered her or not, maybe he has., but he wants to get out of there quick-- he's ashamed. So he's going to go home and never tell anybody. [7] Um... a man had spent a night with a woman, hardly knew her um..he..it's morning now and he is up, puts on the same clothes that he had worn the night before and gets ready to go off to work or somewhere and he turned to take another look at the parson hed met and was overcome by a combination of um..fatigue and um..guilt. Um..in terms of the end of the story, I would say that he leaves and doesn't act on either the guilt or the fatigue So he's going to go back to bed and hes not going to wake her up and..the end of the story is them going their separate ways. (What is she thinking and feeling?) I would say shes asleep and its not..I dont know what shes thinking, and he is, hes sort of a combination of disgusted and bone weary. Card 15 [2] This is a representation of the basic conventional position of man in the world..in which he's condemned to die, and this looks like the representation of a man, but not an actual man, who stands on the , brink of death at every moment.. because of the cross in the background, he was placed there by God and unable to alter the situation, no matter how terrifying it may be for him and the outcome will be he will die and a tombstone will be placed in the spot where this is [3] (scrunches face) I think this is the spirit of someone that's buried in the cemetery. He's feeling trapped and confined... um..and he wants to escape but he doesn't know how...I guess he's doomed to be frozen in that state forever. [4] This is a man who walls by a graveyard on his way to work everyday and one evening on his way back from work, he becomes curious and walks in-to the graveyard and reads one of the headstones and he tries to imagine what kind of life the dead person led. He moves over and reads another headstone and the second headstones has an epitaph and he considers the meaning of the epitaph and the person buried there and the person's family and behind that he sees another headstone. A child is buried there and lie becomes completely intrigued and captivated by all the epitaphs and names on the gravestones. (Subject is told to slow down and that must catch up with him.) (Subject looks toward exam; examiners desk and notes that there is a dictaphone sitting on it, says) I see you have a tape recorder here you don't like to use it. He wanders grave by grave, reading, wondering, considering his own mortality. Many different thoughts of an existential nature his values, his past, he does this with complete disregard of the time until nearly 8 hours have past and it is nearly midnight and it is very cold, and at that point, he goes home. [5] That's a figure of death standing in a cemetery. He's thinking about wholl he'll get next.. It's an ugly picture. (She turns the card over and gives it to me) Do we have to go through -that whole stack over there? (No, there are just Chase. two more cards here.) [6] This old preacher went to the cemetery to look for somebody, his wife's grave. Hes saying a prayer of some sort Probably a diabolical one. His hands are pointing down instead of up

TAT Scoring Manual 57 (gestures) that's not what you're supposed to do! (laughs) Maybe he hated his wife. He leaves the cemetery when he's done. (What is he thinking and feeling?') Something evil. Probably wishing that she rots in hell [7] (moves closer to the card. ) This um..a man confronts his..of just for..just for story purposesI guess his father recently died. His father recently died and this ah man is confronting him in the graveyard or in the cemetery with um..some sense of loss, but mostly bitterness over lost opportunities, or the man is clearly angry and confronted by maybe..he isnt young himself..hes left to deal with dwindling opportunities himself. But hands are folded as in prayer but the gesture is more out of habit. Hes not praying up, almost pointing accusingly at the grave rather than praying to her. And um..the um..the picture is so umhas such a sense of doom about it that the .end of the story is no better than the present in terms of any resolution of the living, the crisis of the living person. Um... that's about all I can say about this. (What would the outcome be?) Um... I don't see the um..the emotions portrayed here as having any catharsis or washing away of grief, which is usually what occurs in a mourning process. Hut in this case, the death surrounding him would only reinforce his um... I don't know... his unhappiness is even too easy a word. His fatalism, --or sense a-P his own death-impending. [8] Okay before this someone died shortly before this, buried And, uh, nobody came to the funeral or the burial. And, uh, this ghost or whatever it is..uh is uh, kind of represents the evil uh side of the person who died and it's kind of..uh..is there just because he's responsible for the fact that there's no one else there. (Why resp?) Because he made the person so unlikable so he's responsible because no one liked him because it's part or his personality. (!`that are they thinking or feeling now?) This person isn't feeling like he knows he's bad but he wonders what. purpose that served and if he wasn't bad. In other words he regrets*. having caused this whole situation. Card 18GF [1] (sighs - frowns) This woman is an actress, and she's rehearsing a scene just on her own. Its not an official rehearsal or anything - and she's using a. resusa - Annie doll to help her with the scene (smiling). And the scene she's rehearsing is a death scene - -the doll is being her ]over who is dying,. The do] 1 doesn't feel anything - and is net thinking anything (smiling). The woman, uhm - the woman is really getting into playing her role and the lines she's saying are coming very. naturally to her - they seem almost real. They're highly motivated she really does feel sad and grieving - and she's mostly uhm..filled with this character - there's not much other consciousness in her watching herself or uhm..acting like that. She finishes -the scene and kind of just sits there in silence for a while and then she gradually comes out or the spell or the character and sort of laughs and mentally congratulates herself on being able to become so involved in it and she thinks she did a pretty good job. (Character of) (Long pause) I don't know what the character's like. (play about:?) I don't know, (make up'?) No. [2] I guess this woman is holding a. dead sister--she died of a heart attach., old age... and she's in grief holding the lifeless body and the woman who dies was living with her sister because she was a widow and the sister will nevertheless carry o n with her life, after the funeral and they loved each other (turns card over). [3] Looks like this woman fell down the stairs ...maybe her sister or mother found her at the bottom and is trying to lift her up...(scrunches face) and she looks pretty hopeless, like she real realizes it's too late..that's all. (outcome?) The outcome, I guess, was just the fact that it was too late to help her.

TAT Scoring Manual 58 [4] You know, I've seen this picture before (VL) and I remember making up a story to this. The person whose face you cant see is sick. Now the person on the bottom had fainted and the other person was trying to revive her and is very concerned. (VL, the concerned person has already called the hospital.) Ive since found out that this is a choking picture. (How did you find out?) I don't know. Whoever showed the cards one time (VU. Don't know if it really is a choking picture or not. I can look at it as a choking picture as well. (The cards are intended to be ambiguous. Tell whatever story comes to mini about it at present.) These are two sisters that live alone in a house and they're at ways arguing and the younger sister just got very upset and burst into tears and flew off in a violent rage'-and even though she knows it is wrong she attacks her younger..older sister and begins choking her. (Outcome'?) Ah..they will separate. Both sisters. will have many regrets and they will lead very ordinary lives, very boring lives actually. [5] God., One woman is strangling another. Really depressing pictures. Woman who's the murderer looks very depressed, maybe she thinks she's doing it for the other person's good. (What would her reason be?) I have no idea. But she doesn't 1 look angry, she 1 looks sad, 1 like she doesn't want t o do it. They' l 1 take the woman to jail, she'll kill herself. (What could have led up to it?) I don't know. (Whit could the .other woman be thinking or -reeling?) Nothing She's just frightened,. Maybe she asked the first woman -to kill her. (Because`') Because they're both very depressed. [6] (Makes a face.) What is this woman doing!? What is she holding'.:' What is this!''? (Pointing to one of the women.) `low can't tell me, huh? huh? It looks like she's strangling someone. I don't know. Her hand looks so contorted! (50") It's a horror movie and the large woman is strangling, doing something, to the smaller woman. She's got a mean look on her face, if that is a woman, and after she's done strangling her she's going to put her in bed and put the house on fire and leave.. (Puts card down abruptly.) (What are they thinking and feeling?) Well the first one is probably dead (laughs) and the -big one she looks mean (laughs) her mouth is all down at the edges, she looks mean and vicious and cruel and .I can't tell about the first one, she just looks limp. (Looks closer, picks up the card again and replaces it.). [7] (Before we begin this, subject asks jokingly whether I have a budget for yellow pads.) (Moves closer to the card. 22l This is a scene of ah..comforting, and also shared ah...sorrow but comforting, too.. A story could be something along the lines that a you younger woman or a slightly younger woman say she lost her child, had a miscarriage um-and sought comfort -from either another woman Or her mother. It's hard to tell the ages. And the ah..the older woman all... feels the pain but also ah... .. feels the pain of the younger woman and um. . . the most notable action is it looks like the older woman is stroking the hair of the other woman which is even a mire direct attempt of comforting or um,. reassurance. And the end would be that both of them would probably be drawn closer as people even though the traumatic experience only happened to the one. a :a bonding process for both. (What are they thinking and feeling?) Um..I would say the younger woman is in pain and in sorrow over personal..over her own situation, and -the other woman is empathetic or sympathetic to the woman's plight, but in pain also over the other woman's pain--sort of a shared sense of it.

TAT Scoring Manual 59 Complexity of Representations of People, Scoring Rationales for Practice Set #2 Card 3BM [I] This story scores a 4 because the character has mixed emotions, but there is little sense of what she is like outside of the situation. The mixed emotions are al also relatively minimally elaborated, though it cannot score a 3 because of the clear sense-of ambivalence (hurt and anger, love and hate). [2] This story scores a 2 because of the- absence of much of a sense of either what the woman is like out of the situation or of her psychological experience. She is clearly feeling bad but there is not enough of an internal state, beyond a simple emotion to score a Level 3. [3] This story scores a 4 because of the conflict that the woman is experiencing about people she will hurt if she kills herself. . [4] This story scores a 4. It scores 4 because of the very elaborate sense of this woman's subjectivity and of the multiple things she has on her mind. It comes close to scoring a 5 because the reader almost gets a sense of what she is like outside of the situation, but it requires a little too much inference on -the part or the coder to form a portrait of this person's enduring characteristics. [5] This story scores a 2 for the absence of any enduring qualities ides to the character or. any depiction of the character's subjective state beyond a simple feeling, namely sadness. [6] This story scores a 2 for the absence of any sense of the character's personality or subjectivity. [7] This story scores a 4 because or the complex differentiation the subject makes about ruby the woman feels misunderstood, namely that she knows she has difficulty expressing what she wants and also because she -feels she's not being listened to. Before that comment, the story scored a 3 because of minimal but some elaboration of her psychological experiences, namely feeling misunderstood and feeling that she was not getting anywhere with her points. Card 4 [1] This story scores a 4 because or both characters' elaboration of mental states, particularly the woman's. It does not score a 5 because neither one has any history., and the mental states are not terribly complex. Nevertheless it is more complex than a 3 because tire woman, for example, is thinking that she will not have as much fun with him gone and wants him to stay, and the subject is able to differentiate several different levels of distress that she may be in, such as devastation versus mild annoyance . [2] This story scores a 2 for the absence or descriptions of mental states or of characteristics of the two characters. It does not score for the woman looking like a foreign actress because that appears primarily to be a perceptual elaboration rather than any kind of characterization of the woman. [3] This story scores a 4 because of the complexity of the mental states. The man is realizing something about the way the woman feels toward him, and the woman is thinking that she

TAT Scoring Manual 60 cannot give up on him. The subject also makes a more general comment about the man's selfesteem, in the mention of his feeling "unworthy." [4] This story scores a 3 for minor elaboration past the simple intention, namely wanting to sit down with the man after acting with him and looking forward to having a drink. It also scores for a recognition of the difference between reality and appearance. . [5] This story scores a 2 for the absence of any characterization or any elaboration of the character's subjective states. The univalent trait of "crazy" and the focus on momentary actions fit the criteria for Level 2. [6] This story scores a 2 for the absence of any complexity to either the characterization or the .subjective states. Her combination of being both concerned and worried is not enough to bring the score to a Level 3 for more than one emotion, since those appear to be the same emotion. [7] This story scores .3 very strong 3: It scores a 3 because of the elaboration of the man's mental state in thinking about getting into a fight and in taking something. personally. - It does not, however, meet criteria for 4, although it comes close. It would require more of a sense of conflict or an elaboration or a less stereotypic subjective state to warrant a score of 4. CARD 13MF [1] This story scores a weak 2 for the total lack of elaboration of anything about the characters. It comes to a. 1 because the woman is not really represented; the subject only describes her as having a particular kind of chest and a particular pose. .Nevertheless, it can be assumed that she recognizes that there is, indeed, a woman in the picture and a man, but that she was not able -to form any more complex elaboration' of their subjectivity or personality. [2] This story scores a 2 for the total absence or any description of personality for subjective experience. The only thing we know about the characters is that they had a good time together, which is a momentary feeling. [3] This story scores a high 4. It scores a 4 because there is not only soma description of the character's currant mental state (guilty and grief-stricken) but also a description o1' what this makes him become It is unclear to what extent his becoming distrustful and reclusive is a further elaboration of relatively situationally-induced mental state or whether it reelects long-term personality dispositions, The story comes close to a 5 because or hints at the latter, but it is not quit,.-complex enough to score a 5,. [4] This story scores an extremely weak 3, It scores a 3 rather than a 2 because there is a fleeting mention of enduring attitudes, namely that the parson normally does not like coffee. Had the subject instead simply mentioned that he is drinking coffee or that he normally drinks coffee this would not represent any elaboration of the character and would lead to a score of2, which is the predominant score for this story; nevertheless, the character is represented as having an enduring attitude with which he is currently acting in contrast with, which brings the story to a weak 3. [5] This story scores a 2 for the absence of detailed elaboration of subjectivity. The man is described as having simple feeling states. [6] This story scores a 2 because of the absence of any elaboration of that the man is deeply ashamed.

TAT Scoring Manual 61 [7] This story scores a 3 because the man is described as having more than one emotion, although-his emotions are relatively simple. Fatigue and guilt would probably alone not bring the story to a Level 3 because fatigue really is more of a physiological state, although the addition of disgust with fatigue and guilt brings the story to a 3. CARD 15 [2] This story scores a 1 because the character loses his individual identity as a particular person and instead becomes "a symbol or a. representation of a man," rather than a real, live, psychological being. [3] This story scores a 2 for the absence of anything beyond simple feeling states. Feeling trapped and confined would score a Level 3 for a more differentiated affective state it were referring to a more interpersonal or metaphorical situation; in this case, however, it refers to the feeling of "someone who is, indeed, physically trapped because he is locked up in a casket, which is more of a stereotypic then -in elaborated feeling state. [4] This story scores an extremely strong Level 4, moving close to a Level 5. It scores a 4 because of an .extremely complex representation of a current subjective state which is by and large situational. It comes close to a 5 because the man is reflecting on his past, and because one could argue that his reasons for going from tombstone to tombstone constitute complex motivation. [5] This story scores a 2 for a unidimensional figure with one affective. valence, with no elaborated subjectivity. [6] This story scores a clear 2 for the unidimensional affectively-driven quality of the representation, The roan is nothing but .a diabolic, evil min, whose only enduring traits are global and univalent [7] This story scores a 5 for or several reasons. complex subjective state, which includes mixed a sense of bitterness over lost opportunities.. alongside this complex sense of subjectivity is 'attributes of the character, namely that' ha is someone who is progressively becoming bitter over lost opportunity, seeing himself as dwindling over time and relatively fatalistic [8] This story scores a 1 because the character is not only described as a ghost, which for this card does not bring a story to a Level 1because it is fairly common but because primarily the person had been made to represent an evil side of a person. This represents a lack of differentiation for a description of a person represented as primarily a part object, namely a piece of a person who has somehow independently been responsible for what this person is doing. It is not clear that he sees parts of people as integrated; rather, a part-person can be responsible for an action and can be physically unintegrated with the person as a whole. CARD 18GF [1] This story scores a 4 for the complexity of the representation of the subjectivity of the character. There is also a clear recognition of the difference between. reality and appearance with respect to her emotions: she is able to see that 'a' woman can act one part and feel another, or even more complexly, that she can act a part and end up feeling it. It does not score a S for undifferentiation for the comment that "they're highly motivated" because that appears to

TAT Scoring Manual 62 refer to the lines that she is saying as being highly motivated by what she is feeling, rather than any kind of differentiation problem. [2] This story scores a 2 for the absence of complex subjective states. The woman is feeling bad and will carry on with her life, although we know very little about her as a person or about what she is feeling beyond this situation. [3] This story scores a 2 for the absence of any sense of subjectivity other than simply realizing that she has gotten there too late and being sad about it. [4] This story scores a 3 for the combination of the woman's recognition that what she is doing is wrong, the experience of both sisters as having many regrets, and the sense that the characters will lead ordinary lives. [5] This story scores a 1. It would be a 3 because of the combination or very simple but slightly mixed emotions, in the woman being sad and not wanting to kill the other woman but doing it anyway. What brings this story to a 1 is the final statement following the query. The subject says that the First woman asked the second woman to kill her, and when asked why, she responded, "because they're both very depressed." This represents a blurring of -the two perspectives because the first woman would ask the second woman to !till her because she is depressed, not because both of theta are depressed. [6] This story scores a 2 for the for-us on actions (woman strangling., doing something, etc.), as well as for the univalent duality of the character. [7] This story scores' a high 4. It scores a 4 because there is an incredibly complex reps representation of the current subjective experience. There is not, however, a clear sense of what either person is like outside of the situation:. One sloes have a sense that the older woman is an empathic person and probably -a strong person, and if this were even slightly more explicit it would score a 5. Nevertheless the subject never generalizes about this person's characteristics outside of the current situation; hence the score of Level 4.

TAT Scoring Manual 63 Affect-tone of Relationship Paradigms, Scoring Rationales fop Practice Set #2 CARD 3BM [1] This story scores a 1 because of the violence this card typically does not draw violent responses. It comes closer to the general scoring principle for Level 2 because of the lack of a total sense of malevolence; nevertheless, presence of violence spoils the card to Level 1. [2] This story scores .a 1 because of the theme of murder and the sense that nothing can be done. Loving the person does not bring the story to a mixed affect-tone because of the murder, which is not terribly common on this card. [3] This story scores a 1 for an overwhelmingly painful world, in which -there do not appear to be any significant others to save the protagonist 'from her deep sorrow. [4] This story scores a 3, probably a strong one. It scores a 3 'For 'the mixed affect tone with a primarily negative valence The story begins as a 2, but it appears that the subject is straining against a card with negative stimulus value to provide a story that fits more with her sense of optimism, which brings the story to a high 3. [5] This story scores a clear 1 because not only of the profound sense of despair which leads the woman .to kill herself but also because of the absence of anyone to help her, which constitutes negligent caretaking' given that she is in a state . hospital. [6] This story scores a 2 because of the empty, distant duality of the woman's object world: there does not appear to be anyone in her life, and she experiences a general sense of depression. Without the emptiness and bareness or her object world namely the absence of any human contact, this story would have scored a 3 for a mildly negative response. [7] This story scores a 2 for predominantly hostile images which are not overwhelming. It comes close to. a 3 for a mildly negative representations but there is minimal sense of any positive, relationships. This woman essentially feels misunderstood and feels she has to escape from someone or from the people around her. The theme of escape from a nonmalevolent force also leads to a score of 2. CARD 4 [1] This story scores a 3 because of generally unpleasant relationship paradigms but largely only a mildly negative tone. If the woman in the story had been very upset by the man leaving, it clearly could have scored a 2 for people who are not only distant toward each other but also for more unempathic relationship paradigms. The subject, however, does not seem to find the indifference of the characters toward each other terribly upsetting which leads to a score of 3 rather than 2. [2] This story scores a 2 but is difficult to score because of a discrepancy between application of a specific rule At Level 1 and a clear clinical experiential/intuitive" "feel" of the story as Level 2. For research purposes, it could scorn a 1 for the introduction of a malevolent theme of killing. For clinical purposes, it would be scored a 2 because the person is able to modulate the sense of malevolence. This is a tricky scoring decision because although there is -clearly malevolent content, the person has the ego-strength to modulate it, and the phrase, "since this is a movie," suggests that the person is distinguishing between what happens in the real world and what

TAT Scoring Manual 64 happens in a movie, the latter which may be stereotypically malevolent. This story could also score a 2 for failed ministration by a benevolent other. [3] This story scores a high 3 because it is a generally negative response with many hints of positive affect-tone to representations. The man is angry and wants to throw' in the towel, and the tenor of the story is clearly negative; yet not only does he realize that he has someone who is supportive of him, but she also feels that she cannot give up on him. This represents an affectively mixed representation where the tone is' largely negative, part particularly where a character is saved by another from some !rind of harm. [4] This story scores a 5 for the benign and positive quality to the object world. The woman not only likes the man and is looking forward to sitting dawn with him and having a cup of coffee but she also enjoys both his friendship and her professional relationship with him. [5] This story scores a 1 for gratuitous violence where this is not typical. [6] This story scores a 2 for fist fighting on Card 4. The general tenor of the story is that there is a theme of gratuitous violence, yet it is in a card which typically draws this response. The outcome is not terribly malevolent, and there is same sense of relatedness between the characters. [7] This story stares a 3 for mixed, mildly negative representations. There is a clear sense of a positive relationship between -the man and woman so that despite the man's intention to get into a fight, he ends up not doing anything rash or harmful . CARD 13MF [1] This story scores a 2 because the subject's inability to produce a story clearly seems to stem morn her difficulty dealing with the aggression an the card. Had the interviewer not specifically noted the loop of alarm mixed myth pain an the subject's face., chic story would have scored a 3 for the inability to produce a story brut without a clear sense that some kind of aggressive fantasy runs disrupting flat person's ability to respond: [2] This story scores a 4 for the generally positive representations. It does score a 5 because of the absence of a real sense of relationship between the people -though it clearly does score a 4 because the relationship between them is, in its own terms, entirely positive. [3] This story scores a 2 because of the sense of relationship as harmful and as needing to be warded off, but without a general sense of overwhelmingness. For clinical 'purposes one might suspect that a score of 1 might be appropriate since there appears to .be a victim-victimizer schema being activated and perhaps a the profound sense of distrust beneath the surface, particularly in the subject's commentary that the man does not want to hurt anyone else by somehow making life .unbearable, suggesting that relationships are so destructive that people die from them as did the woman in the story. Nevertheless, for research purposes, this story scores a clear 2. [4] This story scores a 4 for a relatively positive relationship between the characters. There is-not enough clear sense of mutual enjoyment of the relationship to score a 5. [5] This story scores a very weak 2, moving in the direction of a 1. It scores a 2 because of a relatively non-idiosyncratic, negative response to Card 13MF On any other card this would have

TAT Scoring Manual 65 scored a Level 1. The question in terms of Level 1 versus 2' hinges on whether the theme of suicide is idiosyncratic on this card, even though gratuitous violence would not be. [6] This story scores a 2 for an ordinary malevolent response to Card 13MF. [7] This story scores a 3 for the mixed affect-tone with a mildly negative flavor. CARD 15 [2] This story scores a 2, though one could argue for a 1. It scores a 2 because it is, while idiosyncratic, not necessarily more idiosyncratically malevolent than typical response to Card 1. On the other hand, one could argue for a 1 because of the sense that being in-the world is terrifying because one could die at any minute., Whether one scores it a 1 or a 2 in part depends on how seriously one takes it as a symbol is representation of an existential position rather -than a reflection of the person's object world, although the two are obviously related. [3] This story scores a 2 for a relatively ordinary malevolent response to Card 15. There is no gratuitous violence beyond that which is typically ascribed to this card,. [4] This story scores a 4 for the relative neutrality despite the content The person is doing a lot of thinking, reflecting and considering his own mortality, but the subject doesnt seem captured by the negative quality or the stimulus [5] This story scores a 1, although a relatively high 1. It scores a 1 because the person thinking about who he will get next suggests a malevolent object world, particularly in light of the subject's not only viewing it as "an ugly picture" but also becoming distressed enough by the card to want to avoid doing the rest of the cards. It comes close to a 2 as an ordinary malevolent response, although people do not typically bring in a paranoid theme of the person looking for people like it 1. [6] This story scores a 1 for an idiosyncratic malevolent response to Card 15. The story starts out as a clear Level 2, but as the subject gets more engrossed, he turns the character into someone who not only hated his wife but she rots in hell. The idea that person could wish even more or damnation on his dead wife goes well beyond an ordinary malevolent response. [7] This story scores a 2 for a generally gloomy and unsettling picture, but largely one which falls within the confines of an ordinary malevolent response to Card 15. It comes close to being an idiosyncratic elaboration in the final comment about his sense of his own death impending, although much of the gist of the story s simply that the person is angry about how a relationship has gone, and that a person who was important to him has died. [8] This story scores a 2 for a profound sense of loneliness and despair. It does not score a 1 because. there is no real sense of malevolence from other people; in fact, the repugnance of people toward him and their absence seems to stele largely from his actions which have driven them away. CARD 18GF [1] This story scores a 3 for 'the mixed affect-tone. The extent to which the character vets into the scene of feeling extremely upset suggests that there may be more of a negative quality to this story than she suggests by calling it simply a rehearsal. Nevertheless the woman ends with

TAT Scoring Manual 66 a sense of efficacy, congratulating herself on a ,job well done,. The combination of the two affect-tones leads to a score of 3, though it is clearly moving in the direction o f a 4 . [2] This story scores a 2 for a relatively idiosyncratic unpleasant: response to Card 18GF. [3] This story scores a 3 for a relatively bleak, ordinary response to Card 18GF. It also scores for failed ministrations of a significant other. [4] This story scores a 2 because the general tone is more of violence leading to regret and remorse, and of ordinary bleakness, rather than overwhelming malevolence. On another card this would have scored a Level 1 for the intrusion of aggressive material, but particularly on this card, in which many subjects produced choking responses (and particularly for this subject who has been informed that this card is about choking), Level 2 seems more appropriate. [5] This story scores a 1 for an idiosyncratic, overwhelmingly painful malevolent object world in which people not only kill each other but ask each other to do soy [6] This story scores a 1 for idiosyncratic malevolence. The theme of burning down tin house after killing the women adds an extra touch of the macabre [7] This story scores a 4 for the clearly positive and soothing relationship between tile characters. The focus of the story is on the development of the relationship between the two, and the subject clearly betrays his positive expectations of relationships. Nevertheless, the story does not score a 5 because some kind of tragedy has brought the two women together and persists as a theme in the story.

TAT Scoring Manual 67 Capacity for Emotional Investment, Scoring Rationales for Practice Set #2 CARD 3BM [1] This story scores a 2 for profound masochism, in that the woman apparently stays with her husband despite having been abused by him. There is no sense that the subject views what has happened as bad or sees the woman as having the right to leave, or even has the character consider confronting her, husband or leaving the situation. It also scores for the man's profound immorality with no remorse, with a hint of conventionality in the woman's keeping her family going even despite this adversity. [2] This story scores a 2 because the woman kills her husband and is mainly concerned about apprehension, and because she is experiencing. an aversive affect other than guilt in the context of a heinous crime It does not score a 3 for impulsive action in the context of a committed relationship because there is not enough evidence of commitment (and wanton killing bespeaks a lack of commitment), and does not score a Level 1 because there is a major theme of apprehension and punishment. [3] This story scores a 2 because the character recognizes other people's needs but nevertheless disregards them in deciding to kill herself [4] This story scores a 2 because, although there are many relationships .. mentioned, there is vary 1 little sense of real relatedness. The woman seems somewhat distressed by the loss of her relationship, but she seems mainly to be preoccupied with the hassles at work and with her need to do something to make herself feel better, including using friends. The use of friends in this case could be a Level 3 sense of friendship, but that is not clear enough in the story to merit a [5] This story scores a 1 for the total lack of relatedness between the character and anyone else and because of the self-preoccupation. [6] This story scores a 1 for self-preoccupation in the absence of any mention or relationships.. [7] This story scores a 2 for interpersonal conflict with no resolution, Without the conflict it would have scored a 1 because or the absence or any sense of relatedness between the character and anyone else. CARD 4 [1] This story scores a 1 because of the lack of real emotional investment of either character in each other. It would have scored a 2 because of the two characters not heeding each others wishes, but it is spoiled by the comment that the woman really does not care about the man and can simply replace him easily with someone else which fits criteria for friends who are easily dismissed and replaced. [2] This story scores a strong 2, although it could be scored a weak 3. It scores a 2 because the woman seems to exist as a helper or person to worry about the main character, rather than as a character in her own right. It also scores a 2 because of the lack of mention of any moral concerns about the woman caring for an outlaw, and the man's outlaw status, or the woman being terribly aggrieved about the loss of the serious relationship when he dies. It comes close

TAT Scoring Manual 68 to a 3 because the woman has some definition as a character in her own right, bur probably too minimal to be scored Level 3. [3] This story scores a 4 for the clear commitment of the woman to the man, despite his current problems There is also a sense of mutuality to the relationship which leads to a score of 4. The sense of unworthiness by tire man brings the story at least to a 3 because it is a manifestation of internalized ideals and the sense of failure to meet them. One character's expression or concern for another, the wife's sympathy towards her husband, also fits the criteria for Level 4. [4] This story scores a very high 3. It scores a 3 because there is not enough sense that the woman values the relationship rather than simply enjoys the man's company, and there is a great deal of focus on the woman's experience rather than on both of. their experience. At the same time, it comes close to a 4 because of the clear emphasis that the subject makes on the importance of this friendship to the woman despite the fact that such themes are not that often described on this card or in general on the TAT. [5] This story scores a 2 because the woman pays some attention to the man's needs but nevertheless leaves an abusive relationship. She is a helper but establishes her own, identity in the story when she leaves. [6] This story scores a 3 for stereotypic concern. On this scale unless there is a spoil by a breakthrough of low level emotional investment which belongs tar the subject rather than to the characters, coders should score for the highest level obtained. Thus the story scores a 3 rather than a 2. [7] This story scores a 3 for the stereotypic concern of the woman. It comes close to a score of 4 for mature empathy, in that the woman may be concerned about the man's feelings given his construal of the situation, al though it is not absolutely .explicit that her concern is for the particular way he feels and why he feels it, in an empathic way; as opposed to simply being upset for him because he is upset. CARD 13MF [1] This story scores a 1 because, although the subject barely gives enough material tea score, she describes no sense of any kind of relationship between the two characters, who are described more in terms of physical characteristics than ,in terms of any history or connection between them. This comes close to a simply rejection of the card, which on this scale would yield no score rather than a score of 1. [2] This story scores a 2 for the mutual self-satisfaction and interchangeable nature of the friendship. It does not score a 1 because both characters are clearly getting something from their relationship with each other, yet it does not score a 3 because the friendship is simply based on each one gratifying his or her own needs. [3] This story scares a 3 for the sense of primitive badness on the part of the subject. The sense that the man has somehow destroyed the woman and-that he has to stay away from other people to avoid destroying them is an example of primitive guilty rather than the kind of mature, integrated guilt that stems from a sense or values. "In contrast, in this example, the subject seems to believe that horrible retribution follows from his actions or from the very. nature of his character.

TAT Scoring Manual 69 [4] This story scares .a very low 3. It scores a 3 because of -the subject's need to insert that the sexual activity is occurring in the context of a steady relationship, which either suggests some conventional moral concerns or an emphasis on committedness as a context for the sexual activity. It comes very close to a 2, however, because it is not terribly clear whether the basis of the relationship is sex, which qualifies more as mutual self-interest. Nevertheless, the tact' that the subject makes a point of mentioning that it is a steady relationship as opposed to simply saying that t-hose are two people who had a good night 'together brings the story to a Level 3. [5] This story scores a very weak 2. It scores a 2 because of the loss theme where there is some sense or attachment or sadness at the friendship ending. It comes close to a 1, however, because the subject seems to focus on the man's aloneness and fear rather than on the 1 loss This may be due, however, to the fact that the tester only asked about the lass clear affect namely fear, rather than about the sense of loss., and hence biased the way the subject responded. Because it is unclear whether, this reflects the subject's own response or a bias by the tester, it should be scored Level 2. [6] This story scores a 2 for some primitive sense of remorse, shame, or having done something bad. It is unclear whether his affect reflects some kind of moral concern or simply worry about apprehension. [7] This story scores a 2 or a 3. It could score a 2 because of a clear sense of the interchangeable nature of his relationship and because the man's guilt is so barely developed and seems to be either guilt or fatigue or some combination or the two. Nevertheless, typically one scores up on this scale and thus could make a strong argument for a score of Level 3. For research purposes this should probably score although for clinical purposes this story has more of a feel of a 2. CARD 15 [2] This story scores a 1 for the schizoid unrelatedness of the character. There is no mention of anything other than his relationship to a diffuse world or some kind of deity who has put him in the graveyard as a representation. [3] This story scores a 1 because of the total absence of any relationship to anyone else. [4] This story scores a 4 for a combination of some post-conventionality (wrestling with existential issues and values) With probable relatedness to others which is not entirely clear. It scores for probable relatedness because the character seems to be very interested in knowing what the other peoples lives were 1 like which suggests a capacity to get outside of himself. Nevertheless, we know nothing about this man's relationships to living people and how he could wander through a cemetery for a day with no mention of anyone else. [5] This story scores a 1 because of the figure of deaths total lack of concern with anything other than who ha is going to get next. One could argue that it is 2 because it is occurring on Card 15, in which this kind of response is not terribly uncommon, although this is probably idiosyncratic enough to score a Level 1. It also scores a. Level I for momentary existence of a character with no mention of anyone else. [6] This story scores a Level 1 because this person is wishing something evil on his wife yet the subject mentions no remorse in his thoughts and no explanation of anything she might have done to deserve this.

TAT Scoring Manual 70 [7] This story scores a very weak 2. It scores a 2 because of the 1 loss theme, however superficial.. It comes close to a 1 because, depending on how one reads it', it is almost spoiled by the character's preoccupation with his own concerns, his own death rather than with much sadness at his fathers death. Nevertheless, the second mention of mourning probably reinforces the 'loss theme enough to bring the story to a Level 2. [8] This story scores a clear 2 for the sense of primitive badness. It comes close to a 1 because of the total lack of relatedness of the character to anyone else, but the theme of badness so permeates the story that the score of Level 2 is appropriate. CARD 18GF [1] This story scores a 1 for multiple reasons. First, it scores for dehumanization of the character who is turning from a human into a doll. Second, it scores for the profound self-preoccupation of the subject who is busy watching herself rather than interacting with anyone else. Third, it scores for hints of grandiosity given the total absence of any relatedness to anyone else and the subject's self-congratulation without any sense of relatedness. [2] This story scores a 3 for stereotypic love, compassion, and loss.. [3] This story scores a very weak 3. It scores a 3 because of the lie]ping orientation of the mother and sister. It comes very close to a 2 because of the lack of elaboration of them as anything other than helpers. [4] This story scores a 2 For impulsive aggression with some remorse. It scores a 2 rather than a 3 because there is not a clear sense or commitment in the relationship remorse in the context of impulsive action would have brought the score up to a Level 3 [5] This story scores an extremely week 2. It scores a 2 for an aversive affect other than guilt when a character is performing a grossly deleterious act. It comes close to a 1 however, because it is so confused as to why a person would murder another person and somehow feel that it was in the other persons good that one wonders whether aggression is being rationalized away. [6] This story scores a 1 because of murderous action undertaken with no feel feeling other than the desire to do something further like burning down the house. [7] This story scores a 4 because of the clear sense of mature empathy and committedness of the older woman towards the younger.

TAT Scoring Manual 71 Social Causality Scoring Rationales for Practice Set #2 CARD 3BM [1] This story scores a 3 because of the minor psychological mediation of the woman's behavior. The subject's elaboration that the woman gets up and does things around the house to act as if nothing can happen. suggests enough elaboration of psychological causes to bring the story to Level 3. . [2] This story scores a 2 for two reasons. First; there is minimal psychological causality involved in an argument leading to the woman murdering her husband. There is also a causal peculiarity in the subject's comment that "it had to be this way," which, on the less pathological side, could simply be a figure of speech meaning that it is a shame that this happened, or, on the other hand, it could reflect causality closer to Level 1 in the sense that impersonal forces somehow made this determined. [3] This story scores a 3 for some elaboration of psychological causes, in which the elaboration does not go far beyond description of -the causal impact of relatively simple feeling states. This story is primarily about how a woman who fuels despondent !<ills herself, which is relatively simple causality. What complicates this story is the use of the word "conflict," which leads one to think that it may be a Level 4 or 5. What mitigates against that is that the Level 4 scoring rule for complex psychological mediation suggests that the actions have to stem from 'elaborated psychological causes, and in this case we know nothing about the causes of the woman's despondency. The conflict also does not lead to any action; the subject simply responds to one side of the conflict, namely wanting to kill herself, which she does. [4] This story scores a 5 for complex internal motives in a card depicting only one character. [5] This story scores a 2 for relatively simple stimulus-response causality; one can presume that the subject feels that someone who is in enough trouble to be in a state hospital might therefore want to stain herself. [6] This story scores a 2 because of a minimal causality of any sort, where one can infer that the woman's depression and/or the lack of things to do in a mental hospital lead her to sit for the rest of the day passing time [7] This story scores a 2 for a minor logic error. Without a. logic error, it probably would have scored a 3 for the psychological mediation of the action. The comment, however 'that the subject does not "see this picture so much as an end, [but] as portraying any end," brings an element or vary peculiar causality into the story. The subject seems to be making an odd statement about the results of human affairs more generally which is certainly peculiar logic, at least in relation to the card. For this reason, it comes close to a 1, although this statement is probably cryptic enough that one should conservatively score it Level 2. CARD 4 [1] This story scores, a weak 4 for the woman's complex emotional state that is not itself causal but is explained psychologically. Although most of the story is a Level 2, because the man, who is the only person acting in the story, is acting or the basis of a simple preoccupation with some other "thing," the subject's description of the causes of the woman's emotional state is elaborate enough and sophisticated enough. to warrant a Level 4. Tine description of her as upset but not

TAT Scoring Manual 72 devastated and the elaboration of why that is in terms of how the woman . is perceiving the man, and what psychological functions he performs for her, clearly suggests an understanding of psychological causality. [2] This story scores a 2 for relatively stereotypic stimulus-response causality. The woman acts on the basis of her worry about the man, and the man dues not seem to act at all. [3] This story scores a 5 because of the causal impact of the characters' recognition of the way the other thinks. It would score at least a 5 even without that because of the complexity to 'the woman's causality. [4] This story scores a 2 because of the absence of any causality beyond the relatively simple idea that the woman is going to have a cup of coffee with the actor because she likes h. Although this does not look particularly simple through all of the words.; when one looks at the actual structure of the causal it: it is simple stimulus-response causality. There are psychological statements about the woman arid her role, but those do not lead to action and hence are not scored for causality. [5] This story scores a weak 2. It scores a 2 because of the stimulus-response causality entailed by the statement that: he will hit her, and she will respond to leaving. It comes close to a 1 because we do not know why she is taking care of him or why he will hit her, although one can infer he will hit her because he is crazy. [6] This story scores a 2 for a relatively simple a causality. (t also scores for relatively minor causal error in.-the assumption that because the man has a work shirt on it therefore must be a labor union, although the person may have simply been using the word "because" as a way to describe why they saw it that way. [7] This Story scores a 4 because of the recognition that the behavior of the man is influenced by his construal of the situation,. There is a clear recognition the part of the subject that the man is taking this personally. The man interprets gestures and glances in a way that others might not. CARD 13MF [1] This story scores a 1 for lack of causality. [2] This story scores a 2 for the simple stimulus response causality of these people seeing each other again because they had a good time the last time. [3] This story scores a 2 for minor logic errors and missing statements of causality. It scores a 2 because there is little reason to believe that a person would really become this distressful, reclusive, and guilty after a wife had killed herself, to the extent that he would blame himself for making life unbearable for her. If there had been some elaboration of how he had made life unbearable, it might have made more sense, but without any evidence of that, it comes close to a Level 1 for a delusional sense that his presence alone somehow contaminated her enough to make her kill herself. [4] This story scores a 2 because of the. absence of anything beyond very simple causation. Although-there were plenty of descriptions in the story, there are no causal statements or psychologically-minded explanations of why people are doing what they are doing.

TAT Scoring Manual 73 [5] This story scores a 2 for simple stimulus-response causality. [6] This story scores a 2 for relatively simple causality. Although there is mention-of the man's emotions, the emotions are not complex enough to be considered psychological mediation which would score a Level 3. In addition, much of the causality has to. be inferred. [7] This story scores a 3, though a low one. It scores a 3 because of the subject's 'comment that the man leaves and does not act on either the guilt or the fatigue, which suggests that his inaction is actually an action,. Iii this case, the recognition that he could act on the guilt or fatigue suggests that the subject understands the way psychological events mediate between environmental events and ultimate responses. CARD 15 [2] This story scores a 1 for the bizarre attributions about representations of man and the man standing on the brink of death at every moment. Although the subject is clearly making an existential statement, the attribution to this particular card and the way it is done is clearly on the bizarre side. [3] This story scores a 2 for minor logic errors as well as for relatively simple causality, if any. Because this is Card 15, which typically draws responses that involve other worlds, simply prosonce or a spirit who has feelings is not enough to score down to Level 1. At the same time however, not only is this story extremely unlikely, :but the statements about being doomed to be frozen and his feelings about that give hints of peculiar attributional processes [4] This story scores a 5 because of the complex e:: way in which walking through the graveyard not only activates many thoughts, feelings, and contemplations on the part of the character, but an the way his own psychological reaction to being in the cemetery determines his actions in staying in the cemetery for eight hours, [5] This story scores a 2 for relatively simple causality, in that the figure of death (presumably a grim reaper of sorts) is con; contemplating who to get next train, because this is Card 15 evocation of spirits or various sorts does not lead to a score of 1 for magical causality. [6] This story scores a 1 for severe causal problems. There would have to be tremendous elaboration of why a preacher has come to a graveyard to say a "diabolical prayer,', what such a prayer might be and what function it serves, and why the man would want his wife to rot in hell at all. Without this information, the attribution does not make any sense. [7] This story scores a 1 for bizarre causality throughout the narrative. [8[ This story scores a 2, although a low one. It scores a 2 because of the way one side of the person is represented in a ghost, which accounts for the person's dislike. It comes close to a 1 because that is a relatively bizarre notion, although since this is Card 15, representing something in the form of a ghost is less peculiar in its causality. CARD 18GF [1] This story scores a 4 because of the sophisticated psychological understanding involved in the subject's differentiation of playing the role versus psychologically putting oneself into a role in a meaningful way and then introspecting about ones .mental processes. It scores a 4 rather

TAT Scoring Manual 74 than a 5 because there are two characters depicted in the card, and even though the subject turns one of them into a nonhuman (who consequently will not leave causality) only one character depicted in the card has internal causality. [3] This story scores a weak 2 for inferred simple causality: the woman -reel s hopeless because her sister or mother looks dead. there is so little action in this story that it could equally be scored a 1 for lack of causality, [4] This story scores a 2 for mildly illogical causality and for relatively simple causality. The illogic is that people do not start choking their sisters for as little reason as given in this story; in order for this to score above a y and to avoid the error, the subject would have to at least aplain why this woman can fly into these kinds or attacks and begin choking her relatives. [5] This story scores a 1 for grossly illogical causality, in the idea that rune person is (tilling another for the other person's good and because shes killing her because they are both depressed. The causality is especially bizarre because people who are depressed, even who might wish they would be dead, would not ask that they be choked to death [6] This story scores a 1 for the bizarre causality. There would have to be a very good explanation for why a person would not only strangle someone but then put the person in bed and light the house on fire, beyond simply being a mean person who is vicious and cruel. Specifying that this reflects that woman's character does bring the story close to a 2 although the causality remains extremely unlikely. [7] This story scores a clear 5 because of the bi-directional, complex internal causality.

TAT Scoring Manual 75 PRACTICE SET #3 Card 1(a) I think it looks like the little boy's deciding whether he wants to pick it up and play it?--am I gonna get judged good or bad for what I say?--I get the idea--like his eyes, like someone pushed him into the decision--he doesn't look very happy. (Looks at back of card.) "Outcome?" I don't know what he'll do. Card 1(b) Do I tell them in that order? (However you want is OK.) ... what led up to it (repeat of instructions)-hm...I see a little boy... who has been taking violin lessons for some time now-he appears to be upset about something that has happened in his last lesson... he appears to be contemplating either giving kip or continuing with the violin. He's not too sure if all his efforts and attempts to conquer the knowledge of mastering the violin will be worth it. He will probably... (mouth expression) ...give it at least one more try at playing the violin. Is that too short'? (however you want is 0K) That's it if I covered everything then. Card 15 Definitely a graveyard--not one of ray happiest thoughts. She's (sic) pretty sad.I think it explains itself. "Make up a plot, like in a story." Let's say a family member died, and looks like she's pretty alone-well, she is alone, looks real sad, wishes the person hadn't died. Maybe she's talking to him? I think we'll stop there. "Gonna happen?" T don't know, that's why I'm here to find out (sic), I'm using the same example. If I'm not being helpful here for myself, say something, because I'm here to get better. '"What did you mean by your previous statement'.-?" I have a problem like that--the first time I came in here was because of a death. I normally don't look at pictures like that, I avoid them,. (Takes out can of breath spray and squirts it.) Card 5 . . . um. .. Is it OK to give my character names? (as you wish) Mary has been away shopping for the day.' -ore or less out for a stroll window shopping-She returned home and seems to be conscious of whether or not there is someone in her apartment waiting for 'her or not. She remembers locking the door before she left, but the door is unlocked when she returns. She enters the apartment only to find no one there... and is a bit uncertain as to whether or not she really did lock the door or not. Card 10 I think they look sad. I think maybe there was a problem thereI cant tell whether it was a man or a lady; I think this persons consoling this person. Something bad must have happened. What could have happened? Death, maybe? Who? Family member or something. Outcome? (coughs) I dont have a cold; I get nervous, I cough. I dont know, how can I answer whats gonna happen, I dont know. Doesn't look like everything's gonna by all right for a. while. "What's making you nervous?" I don't want to get a panic attack in my chest, for one. Maybe I can relate to the pictures, and I didn't like the one two back--they're all either scary or sad, or somebody's leaving or somebody's left. Card 3BM John was a poor peasant who lived on a farm in the country... he's been hungry most of his life ...One day he was caught stealing chickens. He was arrested and put into jail--where ha now. sits--wondering what the outcome will be in court. Pie will go to court only to find that the taws of the land will have him serve a jail sentence for trying to feed himself and his family-but going about it the wrong way (puts down)... "reeling?" (Picks up card.) He's feeling very alone, and very helpless--he feels he needs someone to turn to, but he's faced with the fact that there's no one to turn to but himself. Card 13MF This looks. like he killed her-she looks dead. He look s relieved (laughs). "Why might that 'be^' Because his hand's over his ayes; but also looks like he might be sad also. "Sad and relieved?" I'm ,just giving two examples -said because maybe crying, and relieved because just wiping his foreheads and she 1 looks dead because she's just still, and her arm's

TAT Scoring Manual 76 an the flour,. "Why did ha kill her-if you mere a novelist?" I don't think about things 1 like that-I try not to. "How come?" Think about death? That's one of my very big problems,. Card 4 ...oh...yeah--I see a young married couple who have been vacationing in South America far the last couple of weeks... The husband has been telling his wife that they will have to return home seen--so that he can return to his job..his wife is trying to persuade him to stay in South America a bit longer--perhaps even try to rind employment in South America so that they can live there ...The husband is feeling rather uncertain as to what to do... he yells his wife that ha will at least postpone going bask to work and look far a job in the meantime. They're both feeling my very young anal al alive ...and very, v-erg happy...they don't -feel they should 6e tied down to any one set life style The husband mill find brief employment in South America bray sometime in the near future will have to return to the states to find good work. Card 2 .. He looks mean maybe because he's so muscular? and again looks like a gloomy place. Doesn't-- I don't know--(pause)--He looks like he's gonna hit the horse. I dont know, doesn't look very happy, the whole thing doesn't. Nothing (laughs). Card 15 (staring at card in his hand)William has been staying with his sister for the last two months..because she has been very ill..his sister is his only living relative ..and he's very concerned for her welfare...all of his concern has been--has come to no avail because the disease she has is terminal ...The funeral was only last week ...and he now stands over her grave as he has every day since the funeral ...He's remembering all the good times they had as children and thinking of all the things she meant to him ...He's reeling very lonely and distant from the rest o-f the world... He's also feeling kind of bitter, toward the world that took his sister from him... he's kind of uncertain how to handle it ...but in the future, time, as--it is so well known to, will heal all wounds. Card 18GF She looks like she's either deed, or that she's killing her (smiles, sips coke as it at movie theatre). She looks as it she doesn't like her (laughs). I don't think she looks that sad, I think maybe she's killing her. "Why killing?" (Patient looks up, as if to a third party, like 'why is he doing this to me?'.) " Why do you ask these things? I'm curious. I don't know why she's killing her, or why she would be leaning over the railing I like that. I hope I'm not being cross-rude to you. I don't have the answers--if I had 'em, I wouldn't be here, right? "Why is it hard making up stories'?" I don't know. "Reflect on it." I don't know, everything I think is usually bad or something bad happens--I try not -to think about it, but I still do. "Bad?" Sad. Card 6BM ...Bill has been working for a large corporation for the last few years and still ---living with his mother who is alone now due to the death of Bill's father. Bill's manager is transferring him to another one of the company's outlets--several hundred miles away from home. The transfer is important to Bill because it means a promotion. So he has decided to take the promotion and move away from home ...He was kind of uncertain as to how to break the news to his mother ....but decided just to coma straight out and tell her why he was leaving ...Bill's feeling a bit upset with his mother for male making him feel so badly about leaving ...but, he realizes this is the best move -for himself-so, he must stick with his decision... Bill's mother is feeling very hurt and rejected that her son is going to leave her after all these years..but, deep inside, she knows that this is what he must do. Bill will leave next week and find his new job very enjoyable and yet he will care enough for his mother to write her often, and visit her when he can.

TAT Scoring Manual 77 Card 4 Looks like they probably had a fight, he's trying to leave and she doesn't want him to leave, she looks kinda desperate, maybe a little. "What could they have been fighting about?" I have an answer for this time (Smiles.) Probably another woman, because man and woman in the background that's not her ..He looks kinda happy, actually Can I smoke? "Prefer that you not." Oh, why is it no one in Psychiatry smokes! (Smiles.) Card 13MF ...John has bean going with Sally for several years now... but during last few months their relationship hasn't been going toe well ...they got into a big argument this evening... so John returned to his apartment early. He sat at his apartment brooding and wondering whether it was worthwhile to continue the relationship. (Long pause.) He decided that he should try his best--to make the relationship work. and shortly returned to Sally's apartment to apologize. Shortly after making love, they got into another argument and John alas too frustrated to take it anymore... In a fit of rage he beat Sally rather badly-but quit very shortly, and immediately welt very bad about it. He's feeling as it he's almost cut off part of himself--for sincerely now the relationship is over. And John will never sere Sally again. Card 5 She looks. I like she saw something she's scared of--her eyes look like it, I think: her expression-or maybes she heard some loud noises, or people arguing. "Take one and make a story." Maybe she heard noises and opened the door and 'thought someone was breaking in her houses, and she went try look. "What did she find? Somebody broke in her house (says with conviction). "Still 'there'?' Yeah! (Smiles, but not laughing) "Outcome?" I think she's gonna shut the door because one arm--she's only got it partially open, so she's gonna get away. Card 12M ...(long pause) ...Ray fell asleep on the sofa a couple of hours ago--after reading a book for a short while... his father entered the room and saw Ray sleeping on the sofa and waved his hand in front of his face to see. if he was still asleep or not ...Ray has been dreaming about one of the girls in his class at high school. He has been thinking of asking her (out) over and over again..sometimes she accepts his offer, and at other times turns him down leaving him feeling rather uncertain. Ray's father is kind of happy to see his son sleeping so early in the evening--he feels his son must have had a hard day at school. After finding his son is sound asleep Ray's father brings him a blanket from upstairs and covers him. Ray will go to school tomorrow and contemplate asking the girl out for a date but will probably put it off for some timefeeling as uncertain as he does. Card 1 (Reluctant to tell story. Asked if he would prefer the tape recorder be turned off and he replied yes.) He looked at that thing. Nothing else (story?) He wasn't happy (Why not?) in the daytime he wasn't real happy. (Any guesses why?) No. (After?) Nothing else. Card 2 That man he is walking up the corn field planting seeds. He used that horse to help him to do the fields and when he plowed them hes gotta wait until it rains. for the corn to grow. (After?) The rains come down and he has to take all the corn out of that thing, the green thing l?) The green corn cob, then he boils it. (Before?) He was waiting. He was resting. He was looking around to see if it was done. Card 7BM The younger man is considering the older man's advice. The older man seems to be his father. His rather has strict ideas about the way things should be, but the young man is questioning whether they really make sense. He is contemplating living with his girlfriend whom he knows he loves very much, but this does not seem to matter to his father. In the end he decides that the best thing to do is to go ahead and live with her, even though for a while his rather may disapprove.

TAT Scoring Manual 78 Card 7BM This guy, he doesn't have any clothes on and he's tied up by a rope. He's hanging by a rope and there's all kinds or stuff in that hole that's gonna try and eat him up and he let go and. He's dead and all the animals down -there eat him and snakes go up the rope and that man they ate all of him. He got ate up, all or him and he don't got no socks on and no shirt on and no pants and all the animals ate him up all in pieces and stuff and that man was dead forever! And ha was in heaven for .ever and ever. (Thinking before that) ' Seal. (How on rope in the first place?) A man got him and got him because he thought that he was the one he killed those girls with. Card 2 This is a. story of a girl who is deciding whether or not to leave the farm. This has been the family's way of making a living for generations upon generations, She sees the life her mother lives and really does not want the same for herself and while she is on her way to school she is watching her brother tilling the fields, toiling away. The family wants her to stay, but she wants to go far away to school. In the end, she will go to the state school so she can be near her family and help out at the farm, far enough away that she can gain her independence and go to a good school.

TAT Scoring Manual 79

TAT Scoring Manual 80

TAT Scoring Manual 81

TAT Scoring Manual 82

TAT Scoring Manual 83

TAT Scoring Manual 84

TAT Scoring Manual 85

TAT Scoring Manual 86

Q-SORT VERSION TO USE FOR DOMINANT INTERPERSONAL CONCERNS SOCIAL COGNITION AND OBJECT RELATIONS SCALE: Q-SORT FOR PROJECTIVE STORIES (SCORS-Q)

Drew Westen, Ph.D. Department of Psychiatry The Cambridge Hospital and Harvard Medical School

1493 Cambridge St. Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 498-1167

December, 1993; revised November, 1995

TAT Scoring Manual 87 For several years the representational processes underlying interpersonal functioning have been explored in two independent literatures: psychoanalytic object relations theory, and social cognition research (see Horowitz, 1988; Westen, 1991). Object relations theorists have examined, from a clinical perspective, the nature and development of representations of self and others and the affective processes brought to bear on those representations. Their focus has been on pathological object relations (that is, problematic patterns of thought, feeling, and motivation that underlie interpersonal functioning in intimate relationships), particularly in personality disorders. Social cognition researchers have explored mechanisms of social information processing, largely in normal subjects, using experimental methods. The present manual is part of an effort to develop instruments for measuring individual differences in dimensions of social cognition and object relations. This manual provides scoring criteria and practice exercises for a Q-sort method for assessing social cognition and object relations from TAT protocols. The TAT and similar projective techniques provide an excellent source of data for assessing object relations because subjects are asked to apply their experience of relationships in creating stories about ambiguous social scenes, including what happened, the outcome, and what the characters are thinking and feeling. For optimal reliability and validity, data collection and scoring should proceed as follows. As in standard clinical administration, subjects should be asked to make up a story in response to a TAT card or similar stimulus, including what happened, what led up to it, the outcome, and what the characters are thinking and feeling. The tester should probe incomplete or ambiguous responses. Ideally, administration would consist of 1520 cards, although we are fording that as few as 10 cards generally provides adequate data, depending on the sample. Administration of ten or more cards may seem onerous to the potential user, as it requires thirty to forty minutes of administration (unless subjects self-administer the TAT). With research, however, as with other domains of human endeavor, "what you get out of it depends on what you put into it": Few clinicians believe they can even begin to assess object relations in thirty minutes or less. Subjects' responses should be audiotaped and transcribed. Alternatively, experienced administrators may take verbatim records. (This is particularly advantageous if a laptop computer is accessible, as this eliminates the time and expense of transcription.) Alternatively, subjects can self-administer the TAT by writing responses in a group administration, or through computer administration of the cards, in each case with appropriate instructions prior to each response. Clinical administration is preferable, but we do not yet have data on precisely how much is lost without the advantage of probing. Two to three blind coders should then code the transcripts using the procedures described in this manual after attaining initial interrater reliability. Where two coders can achieve unadjusted interrater agreement (Pearson's r) at or above .67 (and hence, with Spearman-Brown correction, at or above .80; see Anastasi's book on psychological testing, 1988 edition), two coders should be adequate, although reliability increases with the number of competent coders. Coders should independently Q-sort each protocol and discuss every I 10th protocol after independently scoring it, to prevent coder drift. One coder is never adequate for using this instrument, even if that coder has previously attained a high level of interrater reliability with another rater. There is simply too much judgment involved, and hence too much opportunity for error. Also, coders must at least be graduate students, preferably with some clinical experience. Undergraduates cannot code reliably using the SCORS-Q. Do not bother trying, despite the obvious advantages in terms of manpower and expense. Even the brightest undergraduates are simply not sophisticated enough for the task. The manual consists of four parts. Part I describes the theoretical basis for the SCORS-Q, previous research using its progenitor (the SCORS), and the development and potential utility of the measure. Part II delineates the items and scoring procedures. Part III provides a series of training protocols. Part IV supplies another series of TAT protocols for further training and assessment of reliability. Note, however, that Parts III and IV have not yet been revised according to the addendum provided

TAT Scoring Manual 88 with this manual; that is, they are based on a 1-9 ranking system (rather than 0-7), they assume that all items will be used in a single Q-sort instead of two separate Q-sorts, and a few of the items have been changed since those parts of the manual were written. Nevertheless, they provide a close approximation and are essential to use for training. Conceptual Basis of the SCORS-Q The SCORS-Q reflects an integration of clinically based object relations theories with experimentally generated theories in cognitive science, particularly social cognition. It builds upon both theoretical traditions while addressing some of the conceptual and empirical limitations of each. Several assumptions inherent in most object relations theories, and some of their attendant empirical and conceptual difficulties, include the following (see Westen, 1989, 1990a, 1991, 1992a, 1992b): (1) A continuum of development is isomorphic with a continuum of pathology. The object relations of patients with a borderline level of personality organization are often described as "primitive," but our language, and its underlying assumptions, has prevented us from discriminating two very different meanings of "primitive": primitive as developmentally early and primitive as grossly pathological. The direct mapping of level of personality disturbance from the borderline to the neurotic range onto a developmental timetable of preoedipal to oedipal has been useful heuristically but now needs to be reconsidered as a global theory of pathological object relations. Issues become even more complex when one places psychosis and psychotic forms of personality organization on the same continuum, as psychosis largely does not fit a developmental model at all. (2) The origin of severe character pathology lies in the first three years of life. In many cases this assumption is likely correct, but it is very difficult to evaluate because the same child and the same caretakers typically interact, often in manifestly pathological ways, well beyond the preoedipal years. Unempathic preoedipal mothers are often unempathic oedipal and latency mothers, and one cannot simply assume that the damage is done only or primarily during a critical period, or that goodenough parenting during the latency years could not substantially alter an incipient disordered character structure. Biological abnormalities, and the fears, fantasies, wishes, and expectations resulting from the severe sexual abuse in latency that has been found in the developmental histories of a substantial proportion of borderline subjects in several recent studies (Herman et al, 1989; Ogata et al, 1990; Westen, Ludolph, Misle, et al, 1990; Zanarini et al, 1989), are likely implicated in many cases of severe object relations disturbances as well. (3) Certain phenomena indicative of severe character Pathology (such as splitting, poorly integrated self-structure, and narcissism) are normatively transcended by the oedipal period. Several researchers have challenged many aspects of the psychoanalytic account of infancy on empirical grounds (e.g., Stern, 1985; Lichtenberg, 1981; Peterfreund, 1978). Less typically cited is a body of literature on the development of social cognition which has examined phenomena such as the development of representations of self and others in childhood and adolescence, and which is of direct relevance to object relations theory. By and large, research on the development of children's conceptions of friendship, morality, authority, the self, and significant others supports basic psychoanalytic assertions about the development of object relations--such as the view that representations become more differentiated, complex, integrated, and inclusive of subrepresentations with opposing affective valence--but suggests considerable revisions in the relevant timetables. Self-serving modes of relatedness, a tendency to split representations, and an inability to form cohesive and multidimensional representations of the self and objects persist throughout much of childhood and are not specifically associated with the preoedipal period. If this is the case, theories of borderline object relations that link such phenomena in pathological adults to developmental disturbances in the preoedipal period are highly problematic. Many of the phenomena we call "preoedipal" in character-disordered adults are normatively preadolescent.

TAT Scoring Manual 89 (4) "Object relations" refers to a unit= phenomenon or developmental line. Diagnosis of a patient's global level of object-relational capacity is clinically useful, but both clinically and theoretically this heuristic may lead to a failure to consider several interdependent but distinct phenomena and developmental lines subsumed under the rubric of object relations. These include representations of self and others, attributional processes, capacity for mature emotional investment in the self and others, capacity to take the perspectives of others, self-observation, moral development, empathy, interpersonal wishes, dominant interpersonal concerns and conflicts (such as struggles around trust or autonomy), and affective quality of relationship schemas. These are distinct developmental lines, and there is no reason to assume that a patient's level of maturity in one is a good predictor of maturity or developmental level in another. (5) Object-relational processes are essentially the same across cultures. Object relations theorists too often write about "the infant" or "the oedipal-aged child" without consideration of cultural influences. Many contemporary descriptions of separation-individuation, for example, are strikingly similar to the dilemmas of individuation that Fromm (1942) years ago ascribed to advanced capitalism. Similarly, one cannot write universally of the development of "the self' without attending to culture (Geertz, 1973; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Shweder & Bourne, 1982; Triandis et al, 1990) and degree of technological development (Westen, 1985). The literature on social cognition is not without conceptual problems, either (see Westen, 1991, 1992a). For example, while researchers have now clearly documented an extensive array of unconscious cognitive processes (see, e.g., Kihlstrom, 1987), theorists remain reluctant to consider the possibility of unconscious emotional and motivational processes, which have been documented in experimental as well as clinical investigations (see McClelland et al, 1989; Shedler et al, 1993; Westen, 1990b). Notions of "activation" and concepts of "working memory" continue to be encumbered by faulty assumptions about consciousness and memory (such as the failure to acknowledge that highly activated, but emotionally charged representations can remain inaccessible to consciousness through repressive and other defensive processes). Analysis and critique of these two literatures has a number of implications for assessment of social cognition and object relations. For example, if object relations is multidimensional, measures must be multidimensional. A person's object relations should not simply be characterized as high- or lowlevel, because most people have strengths and weaknesses (and if a given patient has only the latter, this is crucial to know). Further, people rarely function at a single level on any dimension at all times. Researchers in personality psychology over the last twenty years have wrestled with the extent to which personality functioning varies by situation (e.g., Mischel, 1968, 1990). From a cognitive-psychodynamic perspective, activation of object-relational processes likely depends on the schemas to which a current situation or relationship is being assimilated (e.g., a humiliation schema, an authority schema, etc.); hence, not only do individuals have varied vulnerabilities, but different processes are likely to be activated at different times within an individual depending on circumstances. Measures must thus be sensitive to fluctuations in functioning. Finally, different object-relational processes may manifest in different sorts of data, so measures should be constructed for use with a range of data sources, such as clinical interviews and projective tests. If conscious access to psychological processes is limited by dynamic factors (not to mention cognitive factors; see Nisbett & Wilson, 1977), then questionnaires cannot be the exclusive or primary data source of researchers in this area. Development of the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scales (SCORS) With these issues in mind, the investigator and his colleagues constructed and began validating the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scales (SCORS), which were applied to various forms of projective and nonprojective data, such as TAT responses, early memories, psychiatric

TAT Scoring Manual 90 interviews, and psychotherapy transcripts. (Different manuals were constructed for different forms of data.) The SCORS assessed four dimensions, each on a 5-level scale. The theoretical basis for these four dimensions is as follows: Complexity of representations of people: Although object relations theorists differ widely in their particular models of the development of self- and object representations, they are largely in agreement about three cognitive developmental phenomena. First, development of representations is characterized by increasing differentiation, in which the points of view of self and others are gradually more clearly distinguished. Second, object representations gradually become more complex and integrated as children mature. Third, superseding an earlier tendency to split representations by affective valence is a capacity to integrate richer, more elaborate, ambivalent or multivalent representations. Social-cognitive developmental research (see Harter, 1983; Selman, 1980; Shantz, 7 1983; Westen, 1989, 1990; Westen, Klepser, et al, 1991) largely supports these contentions but challenges the timetable proposed by many object relations theorists, who assert that these developmental processes are largely complete by age 6. Complexity of representations: The measure of complexity of representations was designed to assess the extent to which the subject clearly differentiates the perspectives, and recognizes the complexity and subjective experience, of the self and others. At the lowest level, subjects have difficulty distinguishing people and perspectives. At slightly higher levels they provide simple, unidimensional portraits of people, often dominated by a single affective valence, which are nevertheless clearly differentiated from each other. At the highest levels, subjects manifest a mature understanding of the nature, expression, and developmental context of personality and subjective experience. Affect-tone of relationship paradigms: A second dimension, stressed by theorists from Melanie Klein (1929) to Kernberg (1976), is the tendency to experience relationships as relatively benevolent or malevolent, or the affect-tone of relationship paradigms. This refers both to the tendency to retrieve affect-laden representations of one sort or another to consciousness and the unconscious organization of experience of the self in relation to others. Research from a social-cognitive perspective has documented high rates of hostile or aggressive attributions or malevolent expectations in aggressive boys, abusive parents, and trauma victims (Dodge, 1986; Janoff-Bulman, 1989; Larrance & Twentyman, 1983). This dimension is not developmental in the way the other three scales are: children do not progress from malevolent to benevolent representations. The measure of affect-tone of relationship paradigms was designed to assess the extent to which the person expects relationships to be destructive and threatening or safe and enriching. Capacity for emotional investment in relationships and moral standards: Although differing in their timetables, object relations theories and developmental research converge on the notion that development proceeds from a need-gratifying orientation toward people, to mature object relations based on mutual love, respect, and concern for others who are valued for their specific attributes (e.g., Damon, 1977; Gilligan, 1979; Kohlberg, 1976; Fairbairn, 1952). The measure for assessing capacity for emotional investment in relationships and moral standards largely reflects a developmental model aimed at integrating object relations theory and theories of superego development with research on moral and social development (Westen, 1985). At the lowest levels, to the extent that others are clearly differentiated from the self, they are viewed primarily as instruments of gratification, security, and comfort. At the highest, the person manifests a capacity to form deep, committed relationships in which the other is valued for his/her unique qualities; has a sense of the conventional nature of social rules and roles; and is capable of selective internalization and critical reflection upon various belief-systems. Individuals who appear highly philosophical in their moral judgments or use apparent post-conventionality to split the world in two camps (e.g., oppressed and

TAT Scoring Manual 91 oppressors), and who show no evidence of clear love of, or commitment to specific others, receive low scores on this dimension. Understanding of social causality: Clinical experience with patients with severe personality disorders suggests that these patients tend to make highly idiosyncratic, illogical, and inaccurate attributions of people's intentions. Extensive research in the development of social causality in children (see Shantz, 1983; Selman, 1980) suggests a number of developmental shifts in the way children infer causality in the social realm, at least in industrialized societies. These developmental processes include increased complexity, abstractness, accuracy, internality (that is, focus on internal psychological processes rather than on surface-level, observable, behavioral causes), and understanding of unconscious processes. - The measure of understanding of social causality was designed to assess the logic, complexity, and accuracy of causal attributions. At the lowest levels, causality is illogical or alogical, with confused, inappropriate, or highly unlikely attributions. At the highest levels, subjects manifest an understanding of the way complex psychological processes, including unconscious processes, are involved in the generation of thoughts, feelings, and actions. These dimensions were ultimately incorporated into the SCORS-Q, so coders should familiarize themselves with these broad domains and their five levels. A figure describing the levels of each of the four scales can be found in Appendix A and should be studied carefully before continuing. Studies Using and Validating the SCORS The SCORS has been validated in several ways (see Westen, Lohr, Silk, et al, 1990), by our research group and others. The scales, particularly affect-tone, correlate with clinician- and selfreported social adjustment, and predict various criterion groups. For example, clinical psychology students score higher than natural science graduate students with similar GRE scores on complexity of representations and social causality but not on affect tone, as expected (because clinical psychology students have chosen an occupation suggestive of psychological-mindedness but are not likely to be distinct in the degree of malevolence they expect from relationships) (Westen, Huebner, et al, 1992). TAT scores on each dimension tend to correlate with scores on the same dimension assessed from interview data and with similar dimensions assessed by other personality measures where such instruments exist (see Barends et al, 1990; Leigh et al, 1992; Segal, Westen, Lohr et al, 1993). Schneider (1990) applied the SCORS to transcripts of interpersonal episode descriptions produced in brief psychoanalytic psychotherapy. She found that complexity of representations and capacity for emotional investment increased significantly from the initial interview to the end of treatment and remained significantly higher at six-month follow-up. Weinberger and colleagues (Malik & Weinberger, 1993) and Bernstein (1992) found correlations between the subscales and personality disorder diagnoses. Hibbard et al (in press) distinguished clinical from nonclinical subjects and demonstrated convergent validity with relevant scales from the MMPI. Porcerelli et al (1993) have similarly found convergent validity with the MMPI, and have found predicted differences on the SCORS between groups (such as antisocials and schizophrenics) assessed by the MMPI. Ornduff and colleagues (1994, 1995, in press) have examined the object relations of physically and sexually abused adults and children and distinguished them from comparison subjects. Interrater reliabilities for the four scales in all research to date by our own group and others has ranged from .80 to .98. Coefficient alpha for the more cognitive dimensions (complexity and social causality) is as high as .80 to .90 with as few as four coded responses. Affecttone and capacity for emotional investment require 10 to 16 observations for comparable levels of internal consistency. Several studies have examined patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) using the SCORS applied to various sources of data, notably TATs and early memories. The basic findings are as follows: (1) BPDs show more variability in cognitive complexity that comparison subjects, often manifesting simplistic or split representations, but at other times manifesting extremely complex (if distorted) representations. (2) BPD responses are characterized by more

TAT Scoring Manual 92 boundary disturbances than other subjects. (3) BPDs show more negative mean affect-tone and a higher percentage of malevolent responses than other subjects. (4) BPDs show deficiencies in the capacity to invest in relationships and moral standards, and a notable presence of extremely needgratifying responses. (5) BPDs demonstrate lower level understanding of social causality and a tendency to offer grossly illogical attributions of the causes of people's feelings and behavior (see Nigg, Lohr, Westen, et al, 1991; Nigg, Silk, Westen, et al, 1992; Segal, Westen, Lohr, et al, 1992; Westen, Ludolph, Lerner, et al, 1990; Westen, Lohr, Silk, et al, 1990). With respect to normal development, studies have shown that normal children develop on all four dimensions except affect-tone between second and twelfth grade (Westen, Klepser, Ruffins, et al, 1990). Other research has examined the links between the variables assessed in the SCORS and actual developmental events, such as maternal separation, neglect, disrupted attachments, and sexual abuse. The data supported the contention of object relations theorists that the relationship with the mother is critical in the genesis of object-relational pathology: Several maternal variables predicted pathology in most or all dimensions studied, notably maternal psychiatric illness, maternal alcohol abuse, history of prolonged separations from the mother, and number of mother surrogates (suggesting the lack of an inadequate relationship with a single primary maternal caretaker). The number of risk factors prior to age five present in a case (such as report of being a "difficult infant," abuse, maternal rejection, or loss of parent in the first four years) was also highly predictive, particularly correlating with affect-tone and capacity for emotional investment (r=-.44 and -.46, respectively). Sexual abuse, typically occurring in middle childhood, was also associated with later disturbances in social cognition and object relations. A study by Nigg, Silk, Westen, et al (1992) found, using an adult inpatient sample, a similar association between malevolent representations and a history of sexual abuse. Even within a borderline sample, for whom malevolent relationship schemas are pathognomonic, sexually (but not physically) abused borderlines showed more malevolence than their nonabused borderline peers. The generalizability to a randomly selected outpatient sample or to the normal population is unknown.

TAT Scoring Manual 93 Development of the SCORS-Q Over the course of the investigations described above, a number of problems have emerged that necessitated substantial revision, including moving from a five-point scaling system to a Q-sort procedure (the SCORS-Q). These problems include the following: (1) Different scoring rules on a single level of a scale may not be diagnostically equivalent. The measure can amply pick up degree of disturbance but at times may obscure profiles of qualitatively different disorders with similar depth of pathology, such as different personality disorders (see Bernstein, 1992). A patient can receive equally low scores on the affect-tone scale, for example, for hostile representations of relationships and for profound loneliness; both of these are prototypical of borderline patients but only the former may be prototypical of paranoid personality disorders. (2) Correlations among the four scales have been too high, especially between the more cognitive dimensions, which have correlated as high as .60 in some studies. (3) The four scales are composite dimensions, which may obscure independent variation of some of their component subdimensions. In particular, the capacity for emotional investment scale includes two intertwined dimensions, commitment to relationships and commitment to values and moral standards. It also includes a security of attachment dimension that does not follow a similar developmental course as these other two dimensions and is likely to be orthogonal to them (that is, at a single developmental stage such as infancy, some individuals may be securely, while others are insecurely, attached). The social causality scale similarly includes two dimensions, attributional complexity and attributional logic. The attributional complexity dimension overlaps with complexity of representations and hence inflates intercorrelations between the two scales. The relations among subdimensions within a scale should be determined empirically rather than imposed by scoring procedures. (4) In some cases, the measures have difficulty discriminating developmental phenomena from pathological (particularly psychotic) phenomena. For example, noncausal or highly illogical attributions are not distinguished from bizarre or psychotic attributions, and early developmental levels of commitment to relationships (such as need-gratifying patterns of relatedness) are confounded with pathological styles of attachment (e.g., schizoid) which receive equally low scores. (5) Coding of spontaneously occurring narrative material, as in psychotherapy sessions, entails the problem of parsing responses into units. (This problem does not apply, of course, to coding projective stories, where the parsing is done according to card presented.) This is not insurmountable, and has been addressed by Luborsky and his research team (Luborsky & CritsChristoph, 1990), but it is cumbersome. (6) High and low scores on a single dimension are mutually exclusive, so the only way to assess variability of functioning is to examine variance across measurements rather than mean scores. (7) The scales lack a measure of thematic content or dominant interpersonal concerns, which is a very important dimension of object relations. A Q-sort instrument, carefully constructed and designed with these difficulties in mind, offers a solution to these problems. The Q-sort procedure was once widely used in personality research and is currently experiencing a renaissance, largely because of the pioneering efforts of Jack Block (1978). Currently the Q-sort is being used in domains such as the assessment of attachment (e.g., Kobak & Cole, 1992) and of the relative roles of situational versus dispositional contributions to behavior in experimental situations (Funder & Colvin, 1991). A Q-sort is a set of items, usually printed on cards (which can be arranged and rearranged), which provide a standard language for comprehensively describing a domain, such as object relations. Standardization of the language is what allows trained raters using the Q-sort to harness inference in a way that can be compared across raters. Ideally, the language should be close to the data and relatively free of jargon (e.g., "tends to devalue or denigrate people in a haughty way,"

TAT Scoring Manual 94 rather than "has bad object relations"), making use of limited clinical inference but minimizing idiosyncratic interpretive leaps. After examining or eliciting raw data from a patient (such as interview or TAT responses), the rater sorts the items into piles according to a fixed distribution (e.g., 80 items sorted into 8 piles of ten, scored 0-7), ranging from those items that do not describe the subject at all (scored 0) to those that are highly characteristic of the subject (scored 7), with the remaining cards sorted as appropriate in between. This procedure has the advantages of a forced-choice format, as raters cannot list any subject as high or low on every item, while simultaneously having the advantages of a 1-9 Likert rating system in which data can be analyzed as continuous. The SCORS-Q (one version for interview data, an another for projective stories) was constructed in the following way. First, the four scales that comprise the SCORS were broken down into five dimensions, distinguishing potentially distinct subdimensions within one of the SCORS dimensions (capacity for emotional investment) as suggested by empirical investigations, and adding a sixth. These dimensions are as follows: (1) Cognitive Structure of Representations (complexity, differentiation, integration) (2) Affect-tone of Relationship Schemas (3) Emotional Investment in Relationships (4) Emotional Investment in Values and Moral Standards (5) Understanding of Social Causality (6) Dominant Interpersonal Concerns The SCORS-Q for narrative data includes four other dimensions that cannot be assessed from projective stories: management of aggression, self-esteem, identity, and social skills and interpersonal behavior . Next, scoring rules that have proven empirically discriminating for each of these dimensions were condensed, combined, and rewritten into 42 items. Each dimension is thus represented by at least seven items, the bulk of which are numbered between 1 and 51. All items beginning with a 1 (e. g., a11, a12, a13, etc.) were taken from level 1 of the SCORS for that dimension (in this case, the letter 'a' stands for affect-tone of relationship schema's), those beginning with 2 (e.g., c21, c22, etc.), from level 2 ('c' for social causality), etc. (In many cases the levels were condensed, but the general principle remains the same, with higher scores reflecting better functioning.) Additional items were added, representing phenomena (such as psychotic attributional processes) previously missing from the measures. These items begin with either 0 or 9: Items beginning with 0 (e.g., a01, c01) tap psychotic processes, whereas those beginning with 9 (e.g., r91, r92) assess nonpsychotic processes that do not fall on a developmental continuum (such as attachment style). Finally, 53 thematic items were added (interpersonal themes such as love, achievement, competition, rejection, abandonment, sexual victimization, etc. that recur in a protocol). These items were derived from clinical observation, anthropological accounts, theory (e.g., Eriksonian developmental dimensions), and research (e.g., Henry Murray's [1938] classification of motives, contemporary research on interpersonal concerns [L. Horowitz et al, 1990], and clinical measures such as Luborsky's work on core conflictual relationship themes [Luborsky & Crits-Christoph, 1990]) and tested for their comprehensiveness against data from TAT protocols, Early Memories Test protocols, and clinical interviews. The first several of these items (d01-d09) reflect interpersonal wishes or motives that often lead to pleasure and are not necessarily dysfunctional. The remaining items are randomly ordered.

TAT Scoring Manual 95 The advantages of the new measure over the SCORS are substantial. Rather than forcing all discriminations into 4 dimensions, it allows ratings on 95 dimensions. Analysis of items and configurations permits much more subtle discriminations, for example, among patients with different personality disorders. Items that intercorrelate too highly were deleted to eliminate the previous problem of overlapping scoring rules in different scales. Developmental and pathological dimensions can be distinguished readily because they are assessed by different items. Parsing of narrative material into meaning-units for scoring is no longer necessary because ratings are made on the entire protocol. Variability of functioning, such as a tendency to function on different developmental levels of the same variable at different times, can be assessed directly, because items tapping different developmental levels of the same phenomenon are not mutually exclusive and can both be endorsed in describing a subject. The Q-sort measure also assesses recurrent interpersonal themes or dominant interpersonal concerns, which were missing from the more structural dimensions assessed by the SCORS. One of the most important advantages of this revised scoring method is its potential utility in actual clinical work, building a bridge between theory, research, and practice. In the past, the clinical assessment of object relations from either psychiatric interviews or psychological tests involved a highly subjective process. As a consequence, two intake summaries or psychological testing reports written on the same subject might show minimal similarity, leading critics such as Mischel (1968) to conclude that projective tests and psychodynamic assessment are inherently unreliable. The SCORS-Q, like other Q-sorts, requires multiple observers to use a single language in describing a patient's object relations. In so doing, it harnesses clinical inference in a valid and reliable way. It also permits reliable clinician-raters to produce highly similar narrative accounts of a patient's object relations, written in the form of a dynamic formulation, the similarity of which can be assessed with a simple correlation coefficient. Indeed, the current procedure can actually produce meaningfully structured narrative reports, and hence be useful in writing psychological testing reports. Because the items that comprise the Q-sort configure theoretically within developmentally and clinically meaningful categories, they can be recombined into these broader categories once the rater has assessed a patient. The procedure for report construction is as follows. Once the rater has Q-sorted a subject, items from the "most characteristic" pile (scored 7) are redistributed face down in piles arranged according to the broader dimensions assessed (cognitive structure of representations, affect-tone of relationship schemas, dominant interpersonal concerns, etc.). Next, the rater redistributes the cards from the pile scored 6, then 5, and on down until all the piles are re-sorted by category. When the piles are then turned over, the rater can write a report, organized by category, relying upon the cards toward the top of each. The report can also include rule-outs by using the cards at the bottom of the piles. For example, an assessment of a borderline patient might begin as follows: With respect to the cognitive structure of representations, Mr. L has trouble differentiating representations, describing people as if they share the same thoughts and feelings when this is unlikely. He tends to describe people's personalities and internal states with little subtlety or complexity, although at times, he ascribes complex motives, feelings, and subjective states to people. He did not show signs of psychotic confusions of inner and outer or subject and object. With respect to the affect-tone of representations of relationships, Mr. L. tends to describe people and relationships as grossly malevolent, although he does not show delusional paranoia. At other times, however, and particularly in more superficial relationships, his descriptions of relationships are largely mixed or neutral in emotional tone, suggesting a wider range of expectations of relationships and a specific vulnerability in intimate relationships. As for his dominant interpersonal concerns, themes of rejection, abandonment, and loss recur in his accounts of relationships. He also depicts themes of victimization, although he does not appear to focus on sexual victimization. At times he seems to

TAT Scoring Manual 96 view himself as globally bad, and to disparage himself for failure or incompetence. He also tends to feel helpless and misunderstood, evidences sexual conflict in his preoccupation with sex, and appears confused, concerned, or conflicted about his sexual orientation, although he does not acknowledge this. This narrative account was written entirely from Q-sort items on three of the six dimensions of social cognition and object relations, with only minimal embellishment. A second clinician, if trained to code reliably, would produce a highly (and quantifiably) similar narrative account. (A computer program for recombining sorted data into draft test reports is in the planning stages.) For clinical purposes, however, some elaboration of particular items is useful, such as specifying conditions under which vulnerabilities (e.g., malevolent representations) emerge (as above, in close versus superficial relationships) along with examples from the subject's responses, but this brief sample should illustrate the potential utility of this technique in providing complex, reliable clinical formulations. To assess a subject using the SCORS-Q, coders read or listen to an audiotaped TAT protocol or similar set of stories, and then sort the 42 structural items and 53 thematic items according to the degree to which they are descriptive of the subject. The optimal procedure is to work from a transcript. The coder should examine one story at a time, determining the items from each category (from the list below) that best describe the story, and record these on the SCORS-O Rating Form for Projective Stories. Card by Card Ratings sheet (enclosed). For each story coders will typically (but not always) list one item from each category, with the exception of the Dominant Interpersonal Concerns dimension, on which any number of themes may emerge in a story. Any items that seem probable but not certain after reading a response should be recorded in parentheses. These storyby-story ratings are not used for data analysis for the SCORS-Q, although until validation research is further along, we recommend that you analyze them as a second set of data using means for each scale across all cards, since this approximates the old, better-validated 5-level scoring system. The primary purpose of making these card-by-card ratings, however, is to force the coder to examine each response carefully rather than to "eyeball" the protocol, and to provide the coder with a list of the number of times each item emerged in the protocol, which facilitates Q-sorting. After doing this card-by-card analysis, the coder is now ready to consider the entire protocol as a gestalt. Q-sorting is based on the whole protocol, not the individual cards. For each of the two Q-sorts (the structural Q-sort, consisting of the items from the first five dimensions, and the thematic Q-sort, consisting of the items from the dominant interpersonal concerns dimension), the coder should sort the items into eight piles according to the degree to which they apply to the subject, where Pile 0 is absolutely not descriptive to of the protocol. pile 7 is absolutely descriptive or de ruing of the protocol, and the items in the piles in between are intermediate. Simply because an item showed up in one story does not mean that it should be placed high in the sort, unless it was particularly striking and unusual. For example, achievement themes are extremely common in response to Card 1 of the TAT, so if an achievement theme shows up there but nowhere else in the protocol, item d05 (tends to describe pleasurable instances of mastery, achievement, self-control, skill acquisition, or knowledge seeking) should be placed in Pile 0 or 1. In general, to be placed high in the sort, an item should be diagnostic of the person--that is, extremely true, distinctive, and robust. If the coder strongly suspects that an item is true of the person but is not positive, it should not be placed higher than Pile 4. The best rule of thumb is the "other coder" rule: Would another coder be likely to place the item high? The items should be sorted into piles according to the following distributions, keeping separate the structural items from the thematic items: Thus, among the 42 items that comprise the five structural scales of the SCORS-Q, only 3 can be placed in Pile 7. Thus, the coder has to decide which 3 items are most descriptive of the protocol, which means that at least two structural scales will not have any items represented in Pile 7. In principle, all three items placed in Pile 7 could come from one scale if these three items

TAT Scoring Manual 97 best described the subject, but in all likelihood this will not be the case. Typically at least one item from each scale will be placed in Pile 5, 6, or 7, but again, this depends on the coder's view of which items best describe the person whose protocol is being scored. The coder will note that this distribution approximates the right tail of a normal distribution. The purpose of this one-tailed distribution is twofold. First, it prevents confusion about the meaning of items whose negative pole could mean either that the trait does not apply to this subject or that the opposite of the trait applies, which can cause unreliability among coders (Shedler, personal communication, 1992). Second, empirically, this distribution emerged through sorting protocols. Most items do not apply to any particular subject and can be ruled out immediately; they either are clearly not true of the subject or appear once or not at all in a ten-to-fifteen-card protocol and do not seem to be salient for a subject. Hence, piles 0 and 1 together comprise over half the distribution. The items that are most discriminating for a subject using this Q-sort are those that are in the righthand piles (especially 5,6, and 7). Limiting the number of items in those piles thus weights most heavily the items that most discriminate a given subject. After Q-sorting each protocol, the rater should record the sort on the SCORS-Q Rating Form for Projective Stories (enclosed). Pile # of structural items # of thematic items 7 3 3 6 3 3 5 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 5 5 1 7 7 0 15 22

We have found that the easiest way to Q-sort a protocol is to begin by sorting the items into five piles, from right to left: those that absolutely describe the person (which will form the basis for Pile 7), those that are highly descriptive, those that are somewhat descriptive, those that are not very descriptive, and those that absolutely do not apply to this person (which will form the basis for Pile 0). Then, working from right to left, gradually resort the items in the highest piles down to the lowest to fit the required distribution. For example, you may initially have 6 items in the highest pile, and you will have to choose the 3 that are most true of the subject (Pile 7), moving the other 3 down to Pile 7. To derive scale scores for the structural dimensions, the following weighting system is used, where the weight is multiplied by the level of the item (e.g., item a31 is affect-tone level 3, so "3" is multiplied by whatever weight applies). (Items r91 and r92 are considered Level 1 on the Emotional Investment in Relationships scale for this purpose.) For a given scale, only items that fall within a four-pile range, including the pile in which the highest-ranked item for that scale is placed, are used in calculating the scaled score. Thus, if an affect-tone item appeared in Pile 7, then any affect-tone items in piles 4-7 would be used to calculate the affect-tone scale score. If the affect-tone item that received the highest rank only appeared in Pile 5 (i.e., no affect-tone item was placed in Piles 6 or 7), then any affect-tone items in piles 2-5 would be used to calculate the scale score. If two items from the same scale are both in one pile, the weight for that pile is multiplied by the average of their two levels. For example, suppose a3 l and a21 are both in Pile 7, a41 is in Pile 6, and no other affect-tone item is above Pile 3. Thus, the scale score for affect tone is as follows: .60 x mean (3 + 2) = 1.50 +.40x4= 1.60 3.10

TAT Scoring Manual 98 In contrast, if al 1 is in Pile 6, nothing is in Pile 4 or 5, and a21 is in Pile 3, the scale score for affect-tone would be as follows: .75x1= .75 + .25x2=.50 1.25

Pile 7 6 5 4 3 2 I 0 Pile 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

1.0 x X X X

.60 .40 x x x x

.50 .30 .20 x X X X

.45 .27 .18 .10 X X X X

Weights .55 .70 .65 .80 .35 1.0 .56 .30 .25 .44 .10 .10 .20 x X x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Weights .75 1.0 .56 .44 .25 x X X X

.48 .34 .18 X X X

.42 .52 .28 .38 .18 .12 .10 X X X X X X

.67 .33 X X X

.60 .28 .12 X X X

.75 .25 X X X

1.0 x X

.56 .46 x x

.48 .34 .18 x X

.42 .28 .18 .12 x X

.52 .38 .10 x X

.67 .33 x X

.60 .28 .12 x X

.48 .34 .18 X

.42 .28 .18 .12 X

.52 .38 .10 X

.67 .33 X

.60 .28 .12 X

.75 .25 X

Note: A dash means that no item for that scale is in that pile. An "x" means that data from that pile are not used in the algorithm. No score is given for a scale if the highest item in the sort for that subject is in Pile 3. s01. descriptions of people show psychotic disturbances [psychotic thinking renders representations of people incoherent, extremely difficult to follow, or so symbolic that they no longer appear real] s 11. views of people are sometimes poorly differentiated from each other [describes people as if they share the same thoughts and feelings when this is unlikely; describes people as an undifferentiated "they"; ascribes feelings to situations rather than to people] s 12. tends to be profoundly egocentric, embedded in his or her own point of view [his/her own issues tend to intrude into social situations; tends to insert his or her own life into the stories and appears unable to keep the stories separate from him/herself and significant others] s21. tends to describe people's personalities and internal states with little subtlety or complexity [may describe people as one-dimensional, as if they have a momentary existence, with no enduring dispositions or life history; tends to enumerate what people do (i.e., behaviors) rather than who they are (i.e., traits or dispositions); offers very little about people's internal lives other than simple feelings such as "tired," "upset," or "angry"] s22. sees people at times as all good or all bad [may describe people with global and univalent traits, such as "nice" or "evil"; this may apply to the same person at two different points in the story, who is

TAT Scoring Manual 99 split into good one moment and bad another; may describe people with complexity, but complex representations tend to be affect-driven (that is, fueled by an underlying sense of the person as all good or all bad); score for rescuers when they seem to exist only for that purpose and sweep in to save the day in an idealized way; do not score for rescue themes except under these circumstances] s23. descriptions of people tend to be fluid, inconsistent, or do not "hang together" coherently [score even if aspects of response show complexity; do not score if subject simply offers alternate possibilities about what the character might be like or might be thinking] s31. descriptions of people's personalities and internal states tend to be stereotypical [may elaborate on characters' social roles (e.g., this is an immigrant child of the 1920s) or demographic features; descriptions of personality are not multifaceted or complex; representations of personality may have some depth but are filled with obsessive detail--cognition appears to be used primarily to avoid affect; may recognize that two people in a situation can construe it differently, or that a person can be torn between two relatively simple desires or intentions (e.g., "he knew he should speak up for himself, but he couldn't do it); representations of internal states may have some depth but are filled with obsessive detail--cognition appears to be used primarily to avoid affect] s41. tends to describe people's personalities in rich and complex ways and to ascribe complex motives and subjective states to people [endows characters with enduring dispositions and life history; descriptions of people show them to have both positive and negative traits; may recognize that people can experience opposite feelings simultaneously or can experience mental conflicts (e.g., conflicts between wishes, or between wishes and fears); tends to make inferences about unconscious processes] s51. is extremely psychologically minded, attending to subtleties of people's personalities and subjective experience Affect-tone of Relationship Schemas a01. has delusional paranoid ideas about people or relationships [delusional paranoid themes emerge, either in asides or in stories] a11. tends to describe people and relationships as grossly malevolent, with little hope of comfort or kindness between people [representations are grossly malevolent but do not appear clearly delusional; rays of hope in descriptions of relationships or situations do not seem credible or central, and may be tacked on at the end to undo malevolent stories; tends to insert gratuitous violence or sadism where not common and does not appear to enjoy doing so; do not score for ordinary malevolent responses to Cards 13MF, 18GF, and 15, where the stimulus draws stories about death or rape (score only where responses to these cards are idiosyncratically malevolent or violent] a21. tends to describe relationships as hostile, empty, alienating, or painfully absent [people seem uncaring or unempathic but not necessarily grossly malevolent: interpersonal conflicts persist with minimal chance for mediation or resolution: depicts people who escape from malevolent or highly unpleasant circumstances; efforts by caretakers often fail; score for ordinary malevolent responses to Cards 13MF, 18GF, and 15, where the stimulus draws stories about death or rape, and where the story is not idiosyncratically malevolent or violent; people seem profoundly and disturbingly alone (score here for the quality of characters' subjective experience as described by the subject, not for the way the rater might feel if in that situation)]

TAT Scoring Manual 100 a22. tends to ward off upsetting or anxiety-provoking views of people or relationships [stories (or their endings) are defensively positive, sparse, or nonexistent, where it is clear (through slips, syntax, etc.) that the subject is warding off aggressive or very upsetting material; do not score where the response appears sparse because the subject is depressed and depleted but not particularly defensive] a31. descriptions of interpersonal events tend to have positive and negative elements [e.g., a person is consoled after a loss; people argue but resolve the problem; a person is falsely accused of a crime but is saved by a wise lawyer; do not score where primary theme is malevolence; placement of this item toward the higher end of the protocol sort (e.g., pile 7, 8, or 9) can reflect a wide range of affecttones that emerge throughout the protocol, not just within a given card] a32. depictions of people and relationships tend to be emotionally bland [but people are not particularly averse to interacting with each other] a41. tends to have positive expectations of the social world [people interact in both positive and negative ways, but on balance relationships are depicted as positive and enriching; people tend to be reasonably happy and successful in their endeavors] Capacity for Emotional Investment in Relationships r11. tends to depict relationships as interchangeable, unimportant in themselves, or useful primarily for self-soothing [characters seem to find other people important only insofar as they are useful; tends to focus on only the gratification or succorance of one character (which may not necessarily be unkind, e.g., "I think he feels sick and wants his mom. He's gonna have some medicine and feel better"); other people may be minimally elaborated as independent figures, and seem to exist only as helpers; do not score if the focus of the story is as much on the subjectivity or feelings of the helper as of the helped, which implies that the subject is either identifying with the helper or imagines the helper as an independent other; tends to describe relationships and people who seem interchangeable or not valued for their particular qualities (e.g., friends who are not gratifying are easily dismissed; relationships may end without a sense of loss); characters have a need-gratifying orientation toward friendship; subject often does not allude to other people on cards that depict a single character; describes people with minimal relatedness to others without comment or concern; tends to depict, without commentary, people who pursue their own needs without recognition of, or concern about, the impact on others (e.g., a character fails to respond to a major interpersonal event in another's life, such as a loss)] r12. appears grandiose or unrealistically convinced of his/her self-importance [may emerge through asides, or through ascription to characters of magnificence or incredible abilities with which the subject seems clearly to identify; hints of grandiosity slip into characterization; people depicted tend to be profoundly self-preoccupied (e.g., "he's gonna draw a picture of himself"] r13. tends to devalue or denigrate people in a haughty way [characters are sometimes grossly devalued, either in the story or in asides] r21. descriptions of enduring relationships tend to be emotionally somewhat shallow [describes relationships that are continuous or valued but seem based primarily on mutual participation in shared activity or mutual self-interest, or demonstrate less investment than would be conventional) r31. descriptions of relationships show evidence of conventional concern, friendship, altruism, caretaking, or love

TAT Scoring Manual 101 r41. tends to describe deep, committed relationships with mutual sharing, interdependence, and respect [tends to depict relationships that are deep and committed, based on love and respect for the other's personal qualities; people depicted are not afraid to depend upon one another in a mutual way; may depict characters who earnestly try to negotiate conflicts between their own interests and the needs of others or pursue self-definition or self-development within the context of mature, committed relationships (do not score for children coming to accept their parents' values)] r91. tends to describe loners and not to be disturbed by their aloneness [subject clearly identifies with their avoidance of relationships or depicts them as unconcerned by it; characters must appear actively to prefer not to be in a relationship, or have a distinctly interpersonally unconnected feel to them; do not score when the subject simply does not mention relationships (e.g., a boy who is solitarily playing his violin with no mention of other people, but who shows no particular signs of being a loner] r92. tends to describe tumultuous, highly ambivalent, or highly conflictual relationships [score only where there is evidence that the relationship is tumultuous over time-that is, do not score for momentary arguments, for a relationship ending, or where a longer-term relationship is lacking; score for conflicted avoidance in relationships, where the character wants to be involved but stays away] Capacity for Emotional Investment in Values and Moral Standards v11. 1. tends to describe antisocial, manipulative, or aggressive acts without concern for others and without moral commentary [may describe characters whose unconventional values or rejection of authority appear primarily self-serving; do not score where the subject implicitly condemns the negative acts] v21. moral concerns tend to center on reward or punishment rather than guilt [characters may avoid disobedience primarily to escape punishment; characters may complain of false allegations, suggesting a tendency to externalize; may depict characters who are punished, but feelings of guilt or moral commentary are absent; tends to depict parental figures as agents of reward or punishment, not as independent others with their own lives, values, and interests; score where obedience is assumed without commentary or without clear sense of internalized moral standards] v22. tends to describe persistence or impulse control but not commitment to moral or ethical values [persistence is not in the service of moral or clearly interpersonal values, e.g., persistence at the violin; do not score for simply continuing to play unless subject explicitly describes a capacity to work hard to achieve an end even when this is not pleasurable] v23. tends to think in simple or childlike ways about moral issues [may use very simple words such as "bad" or "evil" to describe wrongdoing; may depict characters who experience morally ambiguous emotions such as "bad," rather than guilt, when performing immoral actions; may describe an "eye for an eye" mentality that does not appear to be based on a particular internalized value system; may describe immoral actions with vague references to their badness] v24. tends to reject authority, or to depict authorities as arbitrary and illegitimate v25. tends to express unconventional values without clear commitment to specific others or relationships [characters may show hints of unconventional moral thinking but no clear relatedness to any specific other; rejection of conventional values may be primarily an outlet for a sense of rage or a way of splitting the world into camps of oppressors and oppressed, etc.]

TAT Scoring Manual 102 v26. tends to depict characters with extremely harsh moral standards or severe self-condemnation v27. tends not to think about moral issues, and to show little interest in ethical concerns [high placement of this item in the protocol sort suggests the absence of almost any moral issues throughout the protocol] v31. tends to depict characters who obey standards established by respected authorities or wise older figures [characters tend to accept or internalize parental wishes, expectations, or ways of approaching problems; do not score for simple knowledge of social scripts] v32. appears invested in moral values or social norms and to experience guilt when transgressing [may depict characters who express concern for conventional rules. manners, social norms, honor, duty, or social obligations; describes characters who feel guilty when breaking moral rules; presence of guilt is not essential to score for investment in moral values or social obligations] v41. thinks about moral questions in a way that combines abstract thought, a willingness to challenge or question convention, and genuine compassion [depicts characters who show commitment to relatively abstract ideals or values that transcend or challenge conventional views as well as and love for specific others] Understanding of Social Causality c01. narrative accounts of interpersonal events or explanations of people's behavior show psychotic disturbances in thought that render them difficult to follow c 11. tends to offer highly unlikely, illogical, or distorted explanations of people's behavior or narrative accounts of interpersonal events [e.g., a mother hates her infant because of some inferred personality characteristic; the story may have major unexplained transitions, or characters may undergo poorly explained or highly unlikely transformations] c12. tends to describe interpersonal events as if they just happen, with little sense of why people behave as they do [tends to provide noncausal stories, with minimal logic or plot development, and little sense of why people behave as they do; descriptions of interpersonal events are more alogical than illogical; affects and motives may come and go with minimal explanation; descriptions of interpersonal episodes do not seem to lead anywhere or have narrative structure; score where a plot emerges only with considerable prompting] c21. tends to offer slightly confused or confusing explanations of people's behavior or accounts of interpersonal events [descriptions of interpersonal events tend to have minor logic errors or unexplained transitions, which may leave one wondering which of several possible explanations could account for behaviors or outcome; may depict thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are not entirely congruent with each other, such as a person who feels "tired" after a rejection; score for stories that have some semblance of plot but that are incomplete] c22. tends to understand people and interactions in sensible but relatively elementary ways [score where subject offers understandable but incomplete narratives (e.g., stories that lack real endings) or where subjects attributes people's behavior to environmental events or simple intentions rather than to inner thoughts, feelings, or meanings (e.g., simple emotions may motivate behavior, such as "he fell down and hurt his hand and cried, so he went home to get his mother to put a Band-Aid on it" or "he liked to climb ropes so he could see things across the river"]

TAT Scoring Manual 103 c31. tends to provide straightforward narrative accounts of interpersonal events in which people's actions flow from the way they experience or interpret situations c41. tends to provide particularly coherent narrative accounts of interpersonal events [stories appear to be guided by an overall gestalt of the event, with a problem or tension-state that builds and is ultimately resolved; the subject may offer a moral, title to the story, broader meaning, or punch line to give the story coherence] Dominant Interpersonal Concerns d01. tends to describe pleasurable instances of nurturance, dependence, trust, security, or mentorship where the relationship is not between peers (e.g., parental caring) [do score for peer or sibling relationships if the action taken is parent-like, such as caretaking; do not score for consolation after loss unless subject clearly emphasizes the consolation] d02. tends to describe pleasurable instances of emotional intimacy or closeness between marital partners or lovers [score for mutuality of love or concern] d03. tends to describe pleasurable instances of sexual intimacy, sexual desire, or romance [do not score for rape] d04. tends to describe pleasurable instances of affiliation, friendship, belongingness, or closeness with friends or family [do not score for intimacy between lovers or marital partners, or where closeness primarily comes in the context of caretaking; do not score for love between parents and their children, which should be scored d01 for nurturance, except where the relationship is described as more a symmetrical friendship] d05. tends to describe pleasurable instances of mastery, achievement, self-control, skill acquisition, or knowledge seeking d06. tends to describe pleasurable instances of self-assertion, independent thinking, or autonomy [do not score where these are primarily related to authority conflicts or to a counterdependent escape from parental authority or failed relationships] d07. tends to depict themes of admiration, exhibition, recognition, sense of specialness, basking in acclaim, or having followers d08. depicts themes of identity, self-definition, or reflecting upon or searching for one's place in the world [score also for lack or loss of identity or for identity crisis] d09. tends to depict themes of dominance, striving for or struggling over power, control over others, status, or class [score also for coalition-building, that is, affiliation for the purpose of gaining power or influence, or for nonviolent coercion; do not dl 1. tends to depict themes of inferiority in comparison to others [subject must clearly mention the comparison to others] d12. tends to depict themes of victimization [score for themes of gross exploitation, asymmetrical violence, severe verbal cruelty, deliberate infliction of harm, or physical abuse; score only when these are troubling to the subject or clearly evaluated negatively (rather than, for example, a source of enjoyment); do not score for typical masculine bravura on Card 4 unless alloyed with idiosyncratic violence] d13. tends to depict themes of sexual victimization, rape, or sexual abuse

TAT Scoring Manual 104 d14. tends to depict themes of conflictual dependence [such as overdependence, clinginess, inability to make decisions alone, inability to give up an unsatisfying relationship, feeling like a burden, disliking or being conflicted about nurturance, becoming fiercely independent in response to unpleasant parental or love relationships, fear of commitment, or fear of being engulfed or emotionally intruded upon; score for characters who seem to be waiting to be helped who do not feel particularly helpless (that is, they expect help to come); do not score for rescue themes] d15. tends to depict disappointed authorities, critical parents, or characters who chronically worry about meeting high parental standards [score also where subject displays these concerns with the tester] d16. tends to depict themes of diffuse negative affect, psychic pain, internally "falling apart," or global sense of "upset" that cannot easily be labeled as any single emotion d17. tends to depict themes of moral guilt [that is, guilt evoked by breaking of a particular moral rule or standard; do not score for global badness or failure to meet non-moral standards unless subject experiences this failure as a moral failing; score for feeling morally ashamed] d18. tends to depict themes of self-loathing or global badness of the self [that is, nonspecific, severe, and global self-hate for who one is and not specifically for what one has done; score for self-loathing, sense of evilness or rottenness of self, sense of self as destroying or contaminating people, or highly irrational self-blame; do not score for characters who are despicable but do not hate themselves] d 19. tends to depict themes of failure, incompetence, or inadequacy [score for shame or guilt for failing to live up to nonmoral internal ideals or standards (e.g., for achievement), frustration at inability to perform or carry out a task, or self-blame for things not working out] d20. tends to depict themes of fatigue, depletion, weariness, or exhaustion d21. tends to depict stories indicative of fears about safety, survival, or protection [score for themes of scariness, body damage, blood, fear of attack, natural disasters, car accidents, accidental harm, monsters, or need for protection; do not score where loss or death provides the backdrop for a story rather than being an integral part of it; do not score on Card 4 for the woman worrying about the man's safety, or for fights that do not clearly involve mortal danger unless the subject clearly emphasizes the scariness of the situation; do not score for victimization unless fear is an integral element of the subject's response] d22. tends to depict competitive themes [score for rivalry between peers or siblings, efforts to outdo a peer or sibling, conflicts over beating others or succeeding, jealousy, envy, or feeling unfairly treated compared with a peer or sibling] d23. tends to depict themes of sexual competition [oedipal rivalry, siding with opposite sex parent against same-sex parent, sexual jealousy, sexual honor, love triangles, competition for mates, avoidance of socializing with members of the same sex, fighting to protect status with a mate, or fears or conflicts related specifically to outdoing a member of the same sex] d24. tends to feel helpless or depict themes of helplessness [characters feel they are the victim of forces outside of their control; may also score for attitude of the subject in taking the test if this is particularly clear]

TAT Scoring Manual 105 d25. tends to depict people who feel that significant others misunderstand or do not respond empathically to them [score for people who feel empty and alone even when they are with each other] d26. tends to depict themes of loneliness, isolation, or lack of meaningful relationships [score only where these are clearly viewed as distressing; that is, do not score for loners who are not particularly distressed by their aloneness, or for interpersonal interactions that seem bland but not painful] d27. tends to depict themes indicative of conflicts about self-control [score for characters who appear afraid of their own impulses or of losing self-control, or for disdain for others' acceptance of or submission to their own desires] d28. evidences sexual conflict [through obvious avoidance of sexual issues or themes, notable anxiety about sexual content, preoccupation with sexual issues, or themes of chronic sexual dissatisfaction, fears of sexuality, or fears of the genitals of one sex or both] d29. tends to depict themes of punishment or worry about being punished d30. tends to depict characters who crusade [fight evil, victimization, or oppression] or throw themselves into a cause d31. tends to depict themes of martyrdom [finding virtue in self-sacrifice or extreme discipline, power through sickness or helplessness, or unnecessary or inappropriate self-denial for the benefit of others] d32. tends to depict themes of self-victimization [such as sexual masochism, self-mutilation, or relationships in which the person exposes him/herself to repeated verbal or physical assaults despite the possibility for escape; do not score for suicide unless the story has other masochistic elements] d33. tends to depict themes of aggression or of people struggling with aggressive impulses [score also for hostile acts that are not serious enough to constitute victimization; score where the subject appears to be wrestling with aggressive issues or impulses, as evidenced by slips and asides; score for masculine bravura, such as fights on Card 4; do not score for enjoyment of aggression] d34. tends to depict themes indicative of authority conflicts [e.g., themes of battling authority, questioning authority, feeling condescended to by authority, being condescending to authority, identification with the oppressed battling against authority, or rigidly exonerating authority from legitimate attacks or criticisms; do not score for rejection by parents; score for oppositional behavior vis--vis the tester] d35. tends to depict themes of conflicted identification with a person or group [such as an attempt to break an identification with a previously admired or internalized figure, conflict over whether one wants to be like an identification figure, conflict about one's race, or value conflicts where at least one set of values is clearly associated with an authority figure or object of previous identification] d36. shows evidence of gender confusion

TAT Scoring Manual 106 d37. appears to have low self-esteem [as manifest in themes of self-dislike or unattractiveness, or in verbal behaviors indicating a negative view of self, difficulty accepting compliments, or tendency to make self-blaming or self denigrating statements] d38. tends to depict people who feel ashamed, humiliated, dishonored, or slighted [score for shame at being seen doing something wrong or embarrassing; do not score for moral shame in one's own eyes that is more akin to guilt] d39. tends to depict stereotyped sex roles d40. tends to depict themes of confusion or concern about sexual orientation d41. tends to depict themes of being an outcast, outsider, or scapegoat, or not belonging [score for relationships with peers or groups, not for rejection by authority figures or attachment figures] d42. tends to depict themes of violence or sadism, with attitude of enjoyment, satisfaction, or clear lack of concern [where the subject appears more likely to identify with the perpetrator than the victim] d43. tends to attribute characters' misfortunes to their own enduring psychological traits attributes [subject has a or pessimistic explanatory n style--that is, attributes e causes of misfortunes to factors that are internal (aspects of the person rather than the situation), stable (enduring), and global (are broadly applicable to many domains of the person's functioning] d44. tends to depict characters who have lost, or fear losing, a significant other through death d45. tends to depict themes of suicide d46. tends to depict themes of defectiveness, handicap, or something being mentally or physically wrong [do not score for "badness" unless subject fairly explicitly ties this to construct of defectiveness; do not score for illnesses unless they are chronic and seen as handicapping or stigmatizing] d47. tends to depict themes of emptiness, meaninglessness, or boredom d48. tends to depict characters who are frustrated or impeded by social circumstances that obstruct attainment of goals (e.g., job loss, being socially restricted to limited roles, racism) d49. tends to depict themes of betrayal [do not the subject emphasizes feelings of betrayal] score for sexual infidelity (d23) unless d50. tends to depict characters who feel resigned or fatalistic [do not score for characters who are severely depressed or helpless] d52. tends to depict relationships characterized by role reversal [such as young children taking care of their parents, or people feeling like their parents' parent; do not score for adults caring for their aging parents] d53. tends to depict characters who are rescued