Running Head: PERCEPTIONS OF SITUATIONS FROM THE TAT …psy2.fau.edu/~shermanr/Serfass&Sherman2013...

Running Head: PERCEPTIONS OF SITUATIONS FROM THE TAT

6/22/2013 - Article “in press” at Journal of Research in Personality

Personality and Perceptions of Situations from the Thematic Apperception Test

David G. Serfass & Ryne A. Sherman

Florida Atlantic University

Author Notes

David G. Serfass, Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University;

Ryne A. Sherman, Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University

All statistical analyses were conducted using R (R Core Development Team, 2013).

Supplemental materials, including data and analytic scripts for reproducing the results presented

herein are available at http://psy2.fau.edu/~shermanr/TATSupplemental.zip.

Correspondence regarding this article may be addressed to David Serfass, Department of

Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33431. E-mail:

[email protected].

Perceptions of Situations 1

Abstract

Participants (N = 186) viewed three pictures from the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT;

Murray, 1938) and rated the situations contained therein using a new measure of situations, the

Riverside Situational Q-Sort (RSQ; Wagerman & Funder, 2009). Results support a two-

component view of situation perception: an objective component attributable to the situation

being perceived and a subjective component attributable to the person doing the perceiving

(Murray, 1938; Rauthmann, 2012; Sherman, Nave & Funder, 2013; Wagerman & Funder, 2009).

Further, distinctive perceptions of situations were consistent across pictures and were associated

with the Big Five personality traits, particularly Neuroticism and Openness, in a theoretically

meaningful manner. These results provide support for perception as a core process for how

personality traits work.

Keywords: Personality, Perceptions, Situations, Construal, Thematic Apperception Test


Personality and Perceptions of Situations from the Thematic Apperception Test

Everyday experience suggests that people perceive their surroundings differently from

one another. The idiom “Is the glass half-empty or half-full?” is perhaps the most common

expression implying such individual differences in perception. One’s response to this question is

thought to indicate a dispositionally positive or negative outlook on life. This further suggests

that differences in perception like the one just described are related to personality. Studies have

shown meaningful relationships between personality and behavior, life-outcomes, and even life

expectancy (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006; Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi & Goldberg, 2007;

Friedman, Tucker, Tomlinson-Keasey, Schwartz, Wingard, & Criqui; 1993). Given the breadth

of these relationships, it seems likely that personality would also be related to differences in the

ways in which people view their surroundings. Indeed, one definition of personality – one’s

characteristic patterns of behavior, thought, or emotional experience that exhibit relative

consistency across time and situations – makes it quite apparent that subjective interpretations of

the world make us who we are (Allport, 1937). Surprisingly, however, the relationship between

personality and perceptions of situations has received little empirical attention (cf., Rauthmann

2012; Sherman, Nave, & Funder, 2013). This may be due to the fact that until recently there has

been no broadly accepted measure of situations (Wagerman & Funder, 2009). The goal of this

study is to examine agreement (i.e., consensus) and individual differences (i.e., construal) in the

way people perceive the same situations as well as the relationship between personality and such

distinct construals.


Situations: Objective and Subjective Properties

Returning to the previously mentioned glass idiom, nearly every person viewing such a

glass will agree on several things. First, there is a glass. Second, there is some liquid in the glass,

occupying half of the total capacity while the rest of the glass is occupied by a gas. Such readily

agreed upon (i.e., consensual, objective) properties are what Murray (1938) called the “alpha

press.” However, when answering the question “Is the glass half-full or half-empty?” one must

provide his or her own interpretation as to whether the volume of that liquid is a lot or a little.1

Such subjective interpretations are what Murray called “beta press.” Thus, one’s perception of

the glass is made up of both objective properties, or alpha press, and subjective interpretations, or

beta press. It stands to reason that the perception of situations may also stem from these two

sources: objective characteristics and the subjective interpretation (Sherman et al., 2013). Some

empirical evidence supports this view. For example, Sherman and colleagues (2013) found that

the average agreement among raters of the same situational stimuli was r = .49, concluding that

“the primary basis of individual perceptions of situations is their objective nature” (p. 5).

However, these same researchers also demonstrated that individual differences in perceptions

(i.e., subjective interpretations) of situations are both consistent and related to personality.

Person Perception

Although research on situation perception is relatively scant, decades of research on

person perception can be instructive for understanding situation perception. The level of

consensus in observer ratings of a target’s personality varies with the amount of acquaintance

between the rater and the target, but a conservative average consensus is about .20 (Kenny,

Albright, Malloy, & Kashy, 1994). Such a lack of consensus about targets shows that different

observers rate the same person differently. Indeed, a large portion of the variance in person


perception is due to the perceiver (Kenny, 1991; Kenny, 2004; Kenny, West, Malloy, &

Albright, 2006). Using the Social Relations Model (SRM), Kenny and colleagues partition

variance in judgment into four components: Mean, Perceiver, Target, and Perceiver x Target

(Kenny et al. 2006). The SRM incorporates both alpha and beta press by considering both Target

(objective) and Perceiver (subjective) effects. Kenny (1994) found average Perceiver variance to

be about 20%, average Target variance to be about 15%, and average Perceiver x Target variance

to be about 20%. While the SRM is typically applied to person perception, others have begun

using it in the context of situation perception. One recent study found Perceiver variance

between 6% and 9%, Situation (Target) variance between 17% and 27%, and Perceiver by

Situation variance, which also includes error using this methodology, between 67% and 74%

(Rauthmann, 2012). These variances in situation perception are fairly similar to those found by

Kenny (1994) in person perception.

Moreover, perceiver effects in the realm of person perception are related to gender and

personality. For example, people tend to rate others’ personalities as similar to their own (i.e.,

assumed similarity; Kenny, 1994; Srivastava, Guglielmo & Beer, 2010). Perceiver effects are

also related to gender with women rating individuals as higher on Agreeableness,

Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Openness and lower on Neuroticism (Srivastava et al.,

2010). Another recent study examined the relationships between a tendency to rate friends’

personalities in certain ways and dispositional characteristics, including personality (Wood,

Harms & Vazire, 2010). The results indicated that an observer’s personality was related to his or

her perception of others’ personality beyond assumed similarity effects. For instance, agreeable

people rated others not only as more agreeable, but also more conscientious, open, and

emotionally stable. Because personality is linked to perceptions of people, it seems reasonable to


think that personality is also related to perceptions of situations.

Relationships between Personality and Construals

Construal Research

Previous research has demonstrated that individual differences are related to distinct

perceptions of social environments. For example, some people are more likely to expect rejection

in relationships (Downey & Feldman, 1996; Downey, Freitas, Michaelis & Kouri, 1998). In turn,

these people are more likely to perceive intentional rejection in the ambiguous behavior of a

partner; essentially, they perceive the same behavior differently from people who score lower on

rejection sensitivity. Similarly, aggressiveness also appears to influence perception of situations.

Aggressive boys attribute hostile intentions to others more than nonaggressive boys (Dodge &

Frame, 1982). Relatedly, aggressive individuals tend to spontaneously infer hostile traits to an

actor (Zelli, Huesmann & Cervone, 1995). This research shows compelling relationships

between personality traits and construal. However, rejection sensitivity and aggressiveness are

very specific traits, and, respectively, perceiving intentional rejection and inferring hostile traits

are very specific construals. Therefore, a more comprehensive description of the relationship

between personality and perceptions of situations is necessary.

Big Five Traits and Situations

One recent study found relationships between broad personality traits (i.e., the Big Five)

and perceptions of situations (Rauthmann, 2012). Specifically, individuals scoring high on

Neuroticism rated neurotic situations as occurring more frequently, having higher activation, and

stronger negative valence. This trend was found for each of the Big Five traits with their

respective situation analogues.

However, the there are a few limitations to Rauthmann’s (2012) research that warrant a


closer examination of the topic. First, the “Big Five Situations” used as situational stimuli were

simply items describing the properties of situations (e.g., “Others react negatively toward me” or

“Stressful time”). Because participants rated such items and not situations with settings,

participants, or activities (for a description of the features of a situation; see Rauthmann, 2012),

the applicability of such results to the perception of actual situations is limited. Also, participants

only rated each situation item on three properties: frequency, valence, and activation. There is

substantial research aimed at identifying the taxonomy of situations, and there is little consensus

(Edwards & Templeton 2005; Kelley, Holmes, Kerr, Reis, Rusbult, & van Lange, 2003;

Sherman, Nave, & Funder, 2010; Yang, Read, & Miller, 2006), indicating situations are difficult

to adequately describe and unlikely to be understood fully based on three ratings. Therefore, a

more comprehensive description of these situations is necessary to fully understand differences

in perception. Thus, while Rauthmann’s (2012) demonstrates that personality is related to the

ways in which people perceive situations, these limitations warrant further research.

Comprehensive Situational Assessment and Perception

Before one can examine the relationship between personality and situation perception (in

a broad sense), it is first necessary to have some method for evaluating the psychological

properties of situations. Indeed, the lack of such a measure has been a pervasive issue in

personality and social psychology for some time (Frederiksen, 1972; Hogan, 2009; Reis, 2008).

One tool aimed at quantifying a broad array of psychological properties of situations was

recently developed. The Riverside Situational Q-Sort (RSQ v3.15; Wagerman & Funder, 2009)

contains 89 items describing the psychological properties of situations (e.g., “Talking is

permitted,” “Context is potentially anxiety inducing”). The RSQ has been used in studies linking

situational similarity with behavioral consistency (Sherman et al., 2010) and examining


situational influences on the degree to which one’s behavior matches his or her personality

(Sherman, Nave, & Funder, 2012).

More recently, one study used the RSQ to examine perceptions of a broad range of

situations and scores on a variety of personality measures (Sherman et al., 2013). In this study

participants came to the lab for five sessions. During the first session, they completed a battery of

personality measures. At each subsequent session, participants wrote a short description of what

they were doing the day before at a given time. Participants then rated this situation using the

RSQ. Next, consensual ratings of the descriptions written by participants were gathered from

four research assistants who independently read and rated each description. These ratings were

then used to partial out (i.e., remove) the consensual (objective) portion of the original

participants’ ratings of the situation with the RSQ, leaving only distinct construals of situations.

Analyses of these distinct construals showed that participants’ construals were consistent across

the four situations. In other words, the “beta press” that an individual brings to one situation is

similar to that which he or she brings to the next situation.

Sherman and colleagues (2013) also found relationships between personality scores and

these situation construals. For instance, Openness was related to construal of the RSQ items

“Includes aesthetic stimuli” (r = .21) and “Includes intellectual stimuli” (r = .20). Also, Negative

Trait Affect (a combination of depression and Neuroticism) was related to “Is being criticized” (r

= .21) and “Frustrating or Adverse” (r = .17). This demonstrates that personality is related to a

propensity to interpret real-world situations in a certain way. To date, this appears to be the only

study that has assessed a broad range of perceptions in addition to a comprehensive battery of

personality measures.


However, this study was not without limitations; the consensual ratings were derived

using research assistants’ ratings of the participants’ written descriptions of the situation. Only

the participant actually experienced the original situation. That is, the research assistants read

descriptions of real situations provided by the participants written on 3×5 (in.) notecards and

then rated what they thought those situations were like, never actually seeing or experiencing the

situation the participant experienced. This raises at least two possible methodological problems.

The first problem is that the situation written on the card had already been filtered

through the eyes of the participant. Essentially, it is possible that these descriptions were already

construed (Sherman et al., 2013). Perhaps two individuals in the same situation would write

different descriptions, because beta press influences such descriptions. In this case, the

differences in the description, which would be part of the actual differences in construal and

therefore the variable of interest, would not be fully detectable using this methodology. Such a

problem, if true, would serve to reduce the size of distinctive perceptions (construals) and

thereby reduce their consistency and attenuate their associations with personality.

On the other hand, using written descriptions is also problematic because the participants

and research assistants may not have been rating the same situation. Take for instance the

description of “I was watching TV.” Different people may imagine, and therefore rate, different

situations while reading this description (e.g., a drama vs. a sitcom). A rater may have a different

situation in mind than the participant who wrote this, meaning that they are effectively rating

different situations. Such a problem, if true, would serve to artificially increase the size of

distinctive perceptions. This could influence the consistency of construals and the relationship

with personality. This study seeks to address these two, potentially counter-acting, concerns by

having all participants view the same stimuli.


The Current Research

The goal of this study is to examine the relationship between personality and perceptions

of situations. This study expands on prior research in this area in several ways. First, this study

improves upon the methodology of Rauthmann (2012) by using a comprehensive measure of

situations, the RSQ. Second, this study also resolves the situational stimuli issues associated with

the written descriptions used by Sherman and colleagues (2013) and the situational items used by

Rauthmann (2012). This is accomplished through the use of pictures as situational stimuli. While

pictures are not real world situations, they do provide a type of standardized situational stimuli in

which differences in perception can be measured. They allow each participant to interpret the

situation depicted in each picture in his or her own way, assuring no situations have been

previously construed, as opposed to written descriptions that may have already been construed.

(E.g. Two people in the same situation may have written two different descriptions.) The use of

pictures also assures that all participants rate the same stimulus, as opposed to written

descriptions that may be imagined differently by two different people (e.g., two people reading

one description may think of two different situations). Therefore, pictures were chosen as

stimuli, because they capture many of the properties real world situations, while retaining the

desired level of stimulus control.

The pictures chosen as stimuli for this study come from the Thematic Apperception Test

(TAT; Murray 1943). For a number of reasons, the pictures from the TAT provide an ideal set of

stimuli for studies examining situation perception. First, these pictures contain many of the

relevant features of situations (e.g., clearly identifiable locations, persons, and objects). Second,

the TAT pictures were designed to be ambiguous and open to interpretation. Indeed, it is not

coincidental that Murray, the same researcher who partitions situation perception into alpha and


beta press, designed the TAT. Lastly, the TAT has a rich psychological tradition and is a well-

known and widely used measure (Cramer, 2004; Rossini & Moretti, 1997; Watkins, Campbell,

Nieberding & Hallmark, 1995).

This study also examines personality pathology directly, expanding on the current body

of research.2 Prior research has not examined the relationships between personality pathology

and distinct construals. Sherman and colleagues (2013) assessed Psychological Well-Being,

Depression, and Narcissism, but other personality pathologies (i.e., those identified by the DSM-

IV; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) were not assessed.

Hypotheses

This study has three hypotheses. The first hypothesis is consensus; people will agree with

each other about the psychological properties of the situations depicted in the TAT pictures.

Consensus is expected for two reasons. First, Sherman and colleagues (2013) showed that there

is generally agreement in the way people perceive situations, and this finding is expected to

replicate here. Beyond this, it is difficult to imagine a world in which people do not largely agree

about the features (e.g., rules, norms, expectations) of the immediately present context. That is, it

would be nearly impossible for small groups and large societies to function at all if, at least to

some degree, people did not generally agree about what was in front of them.

However, people do not fully agree about everything. Thus, while consensus is expected,

it is also anticipated that individuals will vary in their perceptions of the situation depicted in the

TAT cards. The second hypothesis is that individual differences in perceptions (distinct

construals) will be consistent across the three situations depicted in the TAT cards that

participants view.


Lastly, the third hypothesis is that personality will be correlated with such distinct

construals. In particular, it is expected that this study will find patterns of trait and construal

relationships that are similar to those found by Sherman and colleagues (2013). For instance,

Neuroticism should be related to the distinct use of the RSQ items that suggest anxiety and fear:

“Is being criticized,” “Is being insulted,” “Frustrating or adverse,” and “Can arouse feelings of

self-pity.” Similar theoretically meaningful patterns are expected for the other Big Five traits as

well. Extraverted individuals should see more opportunity for interaction with others. Individuals

high on Openness should perceive more intellectual and aesthetic stimuli. Agreeable individuals

should perceive less interpersonal conflict in situations. Conscientious individuals should

perceive more focus on achievement and a greater need for action.

Beyond the Big Five personality traits, this study also examines the relationship between

personality pathology and distinctive construals. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders outlines characteristics and diagnostic criteria for 10 personality disorders (4th

ed., text rev.; DSM–IV–TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000), and the pattern of

construals associated with each of these pathologies should reflect these characteristics. For

example, Narcissists should report a lack of concern for others in a situation, because this

disorder is characterized by excessive feelings of self-importance and a lack of empathy.

Similarly, other personality pathologies should show construal patterns consistent with their

respective characterizations and diagnostic criteria.

Method

Participants

A total of 186 (99 female, 87 male) undergraduates from the Florida Atlantic University

subject pool served as the participants for this study. Participants were compensated with partial


course credit. The Ethnic breakdown of participants was 20% African American, 4% Asian, 45%

Caucasian, 18% Hispanic, 10% Other, and 3% No Response.

Measures

California Adult Q-Sort. The California Adult Q-Sort (CAQ; Bem & Funder 1978;

Block, 1978) is a comprehensive personality measure that consists of 100 statements that can be

used to describe a person (e.g., “Tends to be self-defensive”; “Is thin skinned”). This is

administered using a Q-Sort procedure in which people are required to sort these statements into

one of nine categories from 1 (extremely uncharacteristic) to 9 (extremely characteristic). The

CAQ uses a forced-choice procedure in which only a certain number of descriptions may be

placed into each category, resulting in a quasi-normal distribution. Participants used a computer

program to facilitate this procedure.

The Big Five Inventory. The Big Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999) is a 44-

item personality survey designed to measure the five factors of personality as derived from

repeated lexical analyses. The Big Five taxonomy provides a summarizing view of personality

(McCrae & Costa, 2008), and scores are computed for each dimension: Neuroticism,

Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness. Items are rated on a 5-point

Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Table 1 shows the reliabilities

and relevant descriptive statistics for the BFI scores.

Multi Source Assessment of Personality Pathology. The Multi Source Assessment of

Personality Pathology (MAPP; Okada & Oltmanns, 2009) is an 80-item questionnaire designed

to assess ten personality disorders defined by the DSM-IV-TR (e.g., Obsessive-Compulsive

Personality Disorder, Avoidant Personality Disorder, etc.). The MAPP has been used to predict

outcomes such as maladjustment to military life and early separation from the military


(Oltmanns & Turkheimer, 2009). Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 0 (strongly

disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).3 Table 1 shows the reliabilities and relevant descriptive statistics

for the MAPP scores.

Riverside Situational Q-Sort. The Riverside Situational Q-Sort (RSQ v3.15; Sherman et

al., 2010; Wagerman & Funder, 2009) is an 89-item measure designed to capture the

psychological properties of situations. The RSQ consists of 89 statements that can be used to

describe a situation (e.g., “Frustrating or adverse,” “Physical attractiveness is salient”).

Participants use a computerized Q-Sorting program to sort these 89 items into 9 categories from

1 (extremely uncharacteristic) to 9 (extremely characteristic), using a forced-choice procedure

resulting in a quasi-normal distribution.

Stimulus Material

Thematic Apperception Test. The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; Murray, 1943) is

one of the most commonly used projective measures of personality for clinical purposes

(Watkins et al., 1995; Rossini & Moretti, 1997). The TAT consists of a set of 20 black and white

pictures depicting relatively ambiguous situations. In a typical TAT study, participants are asked

to construct stories about these pictures, and these stories would be scored for several underlying

themes (e.g., affiliation, aggression; Murray, 1943). In this study, three TAT cards were used as

stimuli rather than the full set of 20 pictures. This reduction was made in an effort to reduce

fatigue effects from repeated use of the RSQ. The three pictures used in this study, TAT cards 2

(Field), 6BM (Man & Woman), 14 (Window) were selected because they depict clear situations

and everyday activities.4 The Field card depicts a two women and a man in a field with one

woman holding books, the Man & Woman card depicts two people standing near each other, and

the Window card shows the silhouette of a person standing near a window.


Procedure

The study was conducted in two sessions with each session lasting one and a half hours.

The study was divided into two sessions in order to reduce participant fatigue, as each Q-Sort

requires about 30 minutes to complete. Participants were free to schedule their own Session 2;

therefore, the time between sessions varied, depending on the subjects’ preferences. The mean

time between sessions was about 4 days, and the median time between sessions was 2 days.

Approximately 20% of participants completed both sessions the same day; conversely, one

student took 35 days to return for the second session.

In the first session, participants came to the laboratory, and completed the three

aforementioned personality measures using a computer-testing format. Participants were then

asked to look at one TAT card. The sequence of pictures shown was counterbalanced to reduce

order effects. Participants then wrote a brief paragraph describing the situation depicted in the

TAT card based on the following instructions:

“These pictures are meant to be ambiguous, so it is up to you to determine what

you think is happening. Please write a description of what you think is happening.

Describe what is happening at the moment, what the characters are feeling and

thinking.”

These instructions were derived from Murray’s (1938) TAT Manual, although they were slightly

modified. The average length of these brief paragraphs was 98.34 (SD = 57.84) words.5 After

completing their description of the situation, participants rated the situation using the RSQ. Once

this was completed, participants were dismissed until Session 2. In the second session,

participants completed the same procedure that they completed for the first picture in Session 1,


but this time for two additional pictures. After completing Session 2, participants were thanked

and dismissed.

Results

Hypothesis 1

Consensus. The first hypothesis was that participants would agree about the situations

depicted in the TAT cards. To assess agreement, first, a consensus RSQ profile of each picture

was estimated by calculating the mean RSQ profile on that picture.6 Next, profile correlations

were computed between the consensual profiles and each participant’s rating of the TAT card.

The average profile correlation was r = .40 (SD = .20) for the Field picture, r = .57 (SD = .22) for

the Man & Woman picture, and r = .46 (SD = .24) for the Window picture. However, due to the

fact that such profile correlations confound distinctive similarity with normativeness (i.e., the

fact that, most situations are not hostile or threatening; see Furr, 2008), a baseline for comparison

needs to be established (Furr, 2008; Sherman, Nave & Funder, 2012). This baseline was

computed by correlating each participant’s ratings of each TAT card with the consensual ratings

of the other two other pictures. The baseline agreements for the three pictures are r = .24 for the

Field picture, r = .34 for the Man & Woman picture, and r = .23 for the Window picture.

Three Student’s one-sample t-tests, after applying Fisher’s r-to-Z transformations, were

then used to test the hypothesis that the average agreement within situations was greater than the

average agreement between situations (i.e., the baseline agreements). The results were

statistically significant for all three TAT cards: t(185) = 11.89, p < 2.2 × 10-16

for the Field

picture, t(185) = 17.59, p < 2.2 × 10-16

for the Man & Woman picture, and t(185) = 15.00, p <

2.2 × 10-16

for the Window picture. In each case there was greater agreement within each


situation depicted by the TAT cards than across situations. Thus, the consensus hypothesis was

supported.

Hypothesis 2

The second hypothesis was that distinct construals would be consistent within

participants across situations. If participants exhibit consistent construal patterns (i.e., distinct

perceptions), this suggests that a portion of the participant’s interpretation of the situations

depicted in the TAT cards is due to something about the participant.

Measuring Construal. Following a procedure adapted from Sherman and colleagues

(2013), a linear regression was used to predict the participants’ actual RSQ profile from the

consensual profiles. The residuals were retained as distinct perceptions, or construals. This

procedure for calculating distinctive perceptions was repeated for each of the three pictures for

each participant. Therefore, each participant had a profile of 89 distinct construals corresponding

to the 89 RSQ items for each picture. This method of calculating distinct construals is

conceptually similar to simply calculating the arithmetic difference between participant RSQ

profiles and the consensual RSQ profiles. Often, both methods yield similar results, but they are

not exactly the same. In fact, Sherman and colleagues (2013) concluded that the, “regression

analysis yields a more sensitive and appropriate measure of situational construal” (p. 5) for these

kinds of data.

Within Person Consistency of Construals. A profile correlation of the distinct

construals for each participant between different TAT cards was calculated for each pair of the

three pictures. The average profile correlation of distinct construals between each pair of

situations depicted in the TAT cards was r = .10 (SD = .16) for the Field and Man & Woman

pictures, r = .11 (SD = .20) for the Field and Window pictures, and r = .11 (SD = .16) for the


Man & Woman and Window pictures. Three Student’s one-sample t-tests, after applying Fisher’s

r-to-Z transformations, were used to test the hypothesis that the profile correlations of residuals

for each participant were greater than zero. The results were statistically significant for all pairs

of TAT cards, t(185) = 8.73, p = 7.406 × 10-16

for the Field and Man & Woman pictures, t(185)

= 7.59, p = 7.527 × 10-13

for the Field and Window pictures, and t(185) = 9.32, p < 2.2 × 10-16

for the Man & Woman and Window pictures. The results show there is within-person

consistency of distinctive construals between the situations depicted in these TAT cards, thus

hypothesis 2 is supported.

Hypothesis 3

The third hypothesis was that personality is related to the ways in which people

differentially perceive situations. This hypothesis is first examined in a general fashion, using the

CAQ. Then, patterns of distinct perceptions characteristic of individual traits are examined at the

level of the individual situation (TAT picture) and aggregated across all three situations. Lastly,

evidence for replication of previous research (Sherman et al., 2013) is considered.

Creating Composite Construals. Because participants showed consistency in their

distinct construals across situations, construal composites were created by averaging the

construals for each RSQ item across situations for each participant, leaving each participant with

one 89 item composite construal profile. The average within-person profile correlation for the 89

RSQ item construals across the three situations was r = .11 (SD = .11), resulting in an average

within-person reliability for the composite construals of .22 (SD = .24). At the item level, the

average inter-item correlation for construal scores across the three TAT cards was r = .10 (SD =

.05). The average item reliability for construals was .24 (SD = .11).


Relationship between Personality and Distinct Construals. Due to the large number of

possible relationships between personality items (100 CAQ items, 5 BFI scales, and 10 MAPP

scales) and construal values (89 RSQ items), it is not appropriate to evaluate the statistical

significance of these relationships using a traditional p < .05 strategy. A number of relationships

would be statistically significant simply due to chance alone. To account for this possibility, a

randomization procedure described by Sherman and Funder (2009) was used to determine an

overall level of statistical significance of these findings.7 This procedure was used to evaluate the

hypothesis that personality, broadly speaking and quantified by the CAQ, is related to distinct

construals of situations. This hypothesis is tested for each picture on the situation level and on

the aggregate construal level. The relationships found between personality and distinct

perceptions of situations were greater than expected by chance for the Field picture (p = .018)

and the Window picture (p = .043), and these relationships trended toward statistical significance

for the Man & Woman picture (p = .100). The relationship between personality and the

aggregate construal patterns was greater than expected by chance (p = .004).

Individual Trait Relationships. Results of the aforementioned randomization tests

suggest that the relationships found between personality, as measured by the CAQ, and distinct

construals are greater than those expected due to chance. Thus, it makes sense to explore some

specific relationships between personality and construal. As indicated previously, these

relationships are examined at the level of the individual situation (picture) and at the aggregate

level across all three situations. The single situation analysis was conducted by first correlating

the personality trait of interest with the distinct construals for each situation separately and then

averaging, using Fisher’s Z-to-r transformations, the correlations across stimuli. Such effect sizes

represent the average relationship between the trait and construal at the level of a single


situation.8 The aggregate level analysis was conducted by simply correlating the personality trait

of interest with the aforementioned construal composites. Such effect sizes represent the

relationship between the trait and construal at a composite level across three situations (pictures).

Table 2 displays the pattern of correlations between Neuroticism and distinctive

perceptions of the three TAT cards.9 Neurotic individuals were more likely to perceive criticism,

that “Minor details are important,” that “The situation would make some people tense or upset,”

and that someone is trying to convince someone else of something. They were also less likely to

find situations as an opportunity to express femininity, as evoking compassion or warmth,

humorous, or enjoyable. They were less likely to perceive someone as being the center of

attention or as being complemented or praised. These relationships are consistent with theoretical

considerations, as Neuroticism is defined by emotionality and anxiety.

Table 3 shows the pattern of relationships between Openness and distinctive perceptions.

Individuals high on Openness tended to view situations as humorous, intellectually stimulating,

and raising issues of morality. They were also less likely to perceive someone trying to impress

someone else, someone requesting advice, someone controlling resources, or an opportunity to

do things to make someone liked or accepted. This pattern of relationships is consistent with the

theoretical definition of Openness, which includes intellectual and imaginative components.

Table 4 shows the pattern of relationships between Agreeableness and distinct construals.

Persons high in Agreeableness tended to see situations as an opportunity to express femininity. It

is of note this relationship was found for both female and male subjects. They were also more

likely to perceive a reassuring other person present. They saw situations as less complex, anxiety

inducing, and threatening. The relationships found are consistent with theory regarding

Agreeableness, which is defined by warmth and friendliness.


Table 5 shows the pattern of relationships between Extraversion and distinct construals of

the three TAT pictures. People scoring higher on Extraversion were more likely to perceive

someone being counted on to do something, and someone attempting to boss someone else. They

were also less likely to perceive that success requires self-insight, that there is an opportunity to

express masculinity, that introspection is possible, or that aesthetic stimuli are present. This

pattern of correlations does not appear to be particularly consistent with the theoretical

underpinnings of Extraversion.

Table 6 shows the pattern of correlations between Conscientiousness and distinct

perceptions. Individuals high on Conscientiousness perceived situations as an opportunity for

someone to do something to become liked by others, as raising moral dilemmas, and as

potentially enjoyable. Conscientious people were also less likely to perceive behavioral limits.

This pattern of correlations does not appear to be particularly consistent with the theoretical

underpinnings of Conscientiousness.

Replication of Construal Patterns

Are the correlations between construal and personality identified in this study similar to

those found by Sherman and colleagues (2013)? Such replication, if found would strengthen both

the results shown here and those found by Sherman and colleagues. However, the differences in

study designs make perfect agreement between personality-construal relationships unlikely.

Nonetheless, the results for these two studies should at the very least be moderately related.

As previously stated, each Big Five trait measured has a profile of 89 distinct construal

correlations, which are partially shown in Tables 2-6. The study conducted by Sherman and

colleagues (2013) provided similar Tables.10

However, the study by Sherman and colleagues

employed an older, and somewhat different, version of the RSQ, (version 2.0, which is


comprised of 81 items). Thus, to conduct an empirical comparison of construal patterns, it was

necessary to convert these patterns to a common metric. Such a conversion was possible because

the newer version of the RSQ (version 3.15) has many of the same items as the previous version,

with some minor changes or item divisions. Seventy-nine of the items in the 81-item version of

the RSQ can be estimated from the 89-item version by matching analogous items or averaging

two items to compute a representative item score.

These patterns of correlations between each Big Five trait and each of the 79 RSQ

distinct construals from this study were correlated with the patterns found for those same 79

items by Sherman and colleagues (2013). The agreements between construal patterns for each

trait are Agreeableness r = .16, Conscientiousness r = .18, Extraversion r = .09, Neuroticism r =

.43, and Openness r = .27. This indicates that the findings from this study were at least somewhat

consistent (i.e., all were in the positive direction) with those reported by Sherman and colleagues

for each of the Big Five traits. However, the strongest evidence of replication was clearly for

Openness and Neuroticism.

Personality Pathology. Each of the ten MAPP traits was correlated with the average

distinctive construals across the three TAT cards. Examination of the patterns of correlations for

the MAPP traits suggested that they were not easily interpretable or theoretically consistent; thus,

we do not present them here. However, tables displaying patterns of correlations for all 10

MAPP traits are available in the supplemental materials. These trends and the lack of

theoretically interpretable associations between construal and the MAPP are addressed in the

discussion section.


Discussion

This study has several key findings. First, it demonstrated that people’s perceptions about

situations, even situations that are as ambiguous as the TAT cards, which were designed to be

open to interpretation, are largely in agreement. This is consistent with the findings and

conclusions of Sherman and colleagues (2013). Despite high agreement about situations,

individuals also reliably varied in their perceptions of the TAT pictures. This is consistent with

Murray’s (1938) notion that both alpha and beta press contribute to the perception of situations.

Lastly, this study supports the view that situation perception is influenced by both the objective

properties of situations (i.e., the features in the TAT cards) and the personalities of the

individual’s doing the perceiving.

This study demonstrates and describes relationships between personality and perceptions

of situations using standardized stimuli in a laboratory setting. This level of control is important,

because it assures that the results are due to the hypothesized mechanism, namely that it is

something about the participant and not something about the stimuli that yields differential

perceptions. Participants rated the exact same stimuli reliably differently. Thus, the only

difference here was the participants themselves. In this sense, this study reifies the findings of

Sherman and colleagues (2013) and provides evidence that their findings can be extended

beyond the specific circumstances (e.g., time, location, sample) in which they were found. Given

recent concerns about the replicability of research findings in psychology, such a replication is

crucially important (Asendorpf et al., 2013).

In recent years, there has been a movement toward process-based psychology, where the

mechanisms underlying psychological phenomena are the focus of attention (Benet-Martínez et

al., in press). This study provides a step toward a processed based understanding of personality.


It shows that perception is one of the key components making up the personality system (i.e.,

traits) and provides initial evidence for the role of personality as a mediator for situation-

behavior relationships (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). The following hypothetical example may help

illustrate this point. This study has shown that neurotic individuals, as opposed to less neurotic

individuals, are more likely to perceive criticism (r = .18 at the aggregate level) and to perceive

tension (r = .17 at the aggregate level) in situations. If we consider two persons, one high on

Neuroticism and the other relatively low on Neuroticism, interacting with a romantic partner, the

neurotic individual’s tendency to feel tense and to perceive criticism will likely impact his or her

response to the romantic partner. This could increase the likelihood of a negative interaction

(e.g., an argument) for the neurotic individual. The less neurotic individual, on the other hand,

will be less likely to perceive criticism, respond in a negative way, and have such a negative

interaction. This line of reasoning is not only supported by research demonstrating that

Neuroticism is associated with negative interactions amongst couples (Donnellan, Conger, &

Bryant, 2004) and relationship dissolution (Karney & Bradbury, 1995), but it also provides

deeper insight into the relationships between personality, behavior, and life outcomes.

Effect Sizes and Importance

Although the effect sizes reported herein are smaller than the typical findings reported in

personality psychology, in the range of r < .20, the differences in distinct construals and their

respective relationships to personality cannot be dismissed as unimportant (for a discussion on

the importance of small effects; see Abelson, 1985). Over the course of many situations (e.g., a

day, a month, a year, a lifetime) perceptual differences can accumulate and have important

impacts on life outcomes (Sherman et al., 2013). This is illustrated by the larger effect sizes

found for the aggregated construal patterns compared to the single situation results.


Limitations and Future Research

A common criticism of the TAT and other projective measures of personality is the

subjectivity of the scoring procedures that are commonly used (Lilienfeld & Wood, 2001). While

there are rigorous standardized scoring procedures available (see Leigh, Westen, Barends,

Mendel & Byers, 1992; Murray, 1938), most psychologists rely on an intuitive approach

(Lilienfeld & Wood, 2001). As this research demonstrates, the RSQ is a potentially fruitful

method for scoring the TAT. As shown, after removing consensus ratings, distinctive construals

can be used to infer personality traits. Further investigation of this notion is required, but it may

prove to be a novel, useful approach to personality assessment using the TAT.

Future research should further examine the relationship between personality pathologies

and perceptions of situations. There are several possible explanations for the lack of theoretically

interpretable associations between the MAPP traits and distinctive situation perceptions in this

study. One is that personality pathology is simply unrelated to situation perception. However,

given the relationships found between the Big Five Traits and construals, the possibility that

personality pathologies are not related to distinct construals is unlikely. We found that mean

scores on all the MAPP traits were lower than the mean scores for the Big Five traits. This could

mean that we did not adequately capture personality pathology, although given the arbitrariness

of the metrics used it is difficult to say (Blanton, & Jaccard, 2006). There is, however, the

possibility that the self-report administration of the MAPP did not yield valid estimates of

personality pathology. Oltmanns and Turkheimer (2009) found that peer-reports on the MAPP

better predicted separations from military service than self-reports. Based on the results of their

study, it is possible that informant reports would be more closely linked to construals. Also, it is

possible that the college student sample did not have a large enough distribution of personality


pathologies for this analysis. Perhaps, a sample more representative of an adult population, such

as the sample used by Oltmanns and Turkheimer (2009), would be better suited for identifying

these relationships. Either of these issues could have influenced the low mean levels of the

MAPP traits reported and the lack of theoretically consistent associations found between the

MAPP traits and distinct perceptions of situations.

There are several more exciting directions possible for situation perception researchers.

Future research on situation perception may benefit from the use of videos as stimuli. Videos

may provide a better alternative to static stimuli (e.g. pictures, TAT cards). For one, life is a

dynamic process, not static, and videos would be more representative of reality. Videos also

contain more information than pictures. This could have two possible effects on the results found

in this study: the increased information provided by the video might increase agreement and

decrease the size of unique construals, or the increased information might reduce ambiguity and

allow true perceptual differences to be observed more clearly. Both of these options are possible,

but the change from static stimuli to videos would be progress toward generalizability to real

world. However, given the results from Sherman and colleagues (2013), which mirror the results

here, this may not be imminently necessary.

Another direction for future research in situation perception is the development of a

comprehensive situation taxonomy. This study shows distinct construals in three situations

derived from TAT cards, but this is still not a comprehensive description of situations

experienced in reality. These three cards were not selected to be representative of all situations a

person regularly encounters. Rather, they were chosen because they were standardized stimuli

with a clear setting and clear characters for participants to examine. A step towards a greater

understanding of the relationship between construals and personality would be to use a


theoretically or empirically derived representative set of situations as stimuli. However, taken in

conjunction with the work of Sherman and colleagues (2013), these two studies capture many of

the relevant issues in situation perception. Sherman and colleagues (2013) showed differences in

perception of situations actually experienced by participants (although not research assistants),

and this study showed the same phenomena in a standardized setting, thereby ensuring that the

hypothesized mechanisms were indeed present.

This study also lays the groundwork for studying the mechanisms underlying the

relationship between personality and situation perception. This study has shown that, as

suggested by Allport (1937), perception is an important part of the personality system. However,

it has yet to be established exactly how individual differences in situation perception unfold. The

answer to this question likely lies in cognitive and perceptual processes such as attention,

memory, and interpretation. For example, it is possible that neurotic individuals attend more to

threatening stimuli, remember more readily the consequences of threats, and/or simply interpret

stimuli as more threatening than non-neurotic persons. We suspect that connecting the

cognitive/perceptual mechanisms underlying individual differences in personality will be a

fruitful endeavor in the future.

Finally, this study does not offer much in terms of causal mechanisms for the existence of

such individual differences in situation perception. The question remains: where do such

individual differences in situation perception come from? Like most individual differences, we

suspect that both biological and environmental factors play a role. For example, it is possible that

low serotonin levels may affect perceptual processes such that individuals attend to more

negative aspects of stimuli. Or, perhaps, individuals who have experienced numerous negative

situations in life are more likely to recall negative images when exposed to new stimuli. Both of


these examples are quite speculative at this point and are only meant to highlight possible

pathways from which differences in perception may emerge. We suspect that it may take

numerous research efforts to disentangle “how” the personality system yields such differences in

perceptions and “why” such differences exist in the first place.


References

Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological

Bulletin, 97, 129-133. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.97.1.129

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Oxford, England: Holt.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

(4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Asendorpf, J. B., Conner, M., De Fruyt, F., De Houwer, J., Denissen, J. J. A., Fiedler, K.,

…Wicherts, J. M. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology.

European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 108-119. doi: 10.1002/per.1919

Bem, D. J., & Funder, D. C. (1978). Predicting more of the people more of the time: Assessing

the personality of situations. Psychological Review, 85, 485-501. doi:10.1037/0033

295X.85.6.485

Benet-Martínez, V., Donnellan, M. B., Fleeson, W., Fraley, R.C., Gosling, S. D., King, L. A.,

Robins, R. W., & Funder, D. C. (in press). Six visions for the future of personality

psychology. In M. Mikulencer & R. Larsen (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and

Social Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist, 61,

27-41. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.1.27

Block, J. (1978). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Palo

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. (Originally published 1961).

doi:10.1037/13141-000

Cramer, P. (2004). Storytelling, Narrative, and the Thematic Apperception Test. New York, NY:

The Guilford Press.


Dodge, K. A., & Frame, C. L. (1982). Social cognitive biases and deficits in aggressive boys.

Child Development, 53, 620-635. doi:10.2307/1129373

Donnellan, B. M., Conger, R. D., & Bryant, C. M. (2004). The Big Five and enduring marriages.

Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 481-504. doi:10.1016/j.jrp2004.01.001

Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327-1343.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327

Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B. & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in

close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 545-560. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.545

Edwards, J. A., & Templeton, A. (2005). The structure of perceived qualities of situations.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 705–723. doi:10.1002/ejsp.271

Frederiksen, N. (1972). Toward a taxonomy of situations. American Psychologist, 27(2), 114-

123. doi:10.1037/h0032705

Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Schwartz, J., Wingard, D., & Criqui, M. H.

(1993). Does childhood personality predict longevity? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 65, 176-185. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.176

Funder, D. C. (2011). The Construal of situations. Retrieved (October 30, 2012).

http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=1052638

Furr, R. M. (2008). A Framework for Profile Similarity: Integrating Similarity, Normativeness,

and Distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 76, 1267-1316. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

6494.2008.00521.x

Hogan, R. (2009). Much ado about nothing: The person-situation debate. Journal of Research in


Personality, 43, 249. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.022

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and

theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:

Theory and research (2nd ed.) (pp. 102-139). New York: Guilford Press.

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of martial quality and stability:

a review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3-34. doi:

10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3

Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbult, C. E., & van Lange, P. A. M.

(2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal Perception. The Guilford Press.

Kenny, D. A., Albright, L., Malloy, T. E., & Kashy, D. A. (1994). Consensus in interpersonal

perception: Acquaintance and the big five. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 245-258.

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.245

Kenny, D. A. (2004). PERSON: A General Model of Interpersonal Perception. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 8, 265–280. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_

Kenny, D. A., West, T. V., Malloy, T. E., & Albright, L. (2006). Componential Analysis of

Interpersonal Perception Data. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 284–294.

doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_1

Kenny, D. A. (1991). A General Model of Consensus and Accuracy in Interpersonal Perception.

Psychological Review, 98, 155-163. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.98.2.155

Leigh, J., Westen, D., Barends, A., Mendel, M., & Byers, S. (1992). The Assessment of

Complexity of Representations of People Using TAT and Interview Data, Journal of

Personality, 809-834. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00275.x


Lilienfeld, S. O., & Wood, M.J., (2001, May). What’s wrong with this picture? Scientific

American, 41-47.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (2008). The Five-Factor Theory of Personality. In O. P. John,

R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd

ed., pp. 159-181). New York: Guilford.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:

Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality

structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246-268. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Murray, H.A (1943). Thematic Apperception Test Manual (TAT). President and Fellows of

Harvard College, press U.S.A.

Okada, M., & Oltmanns, T.F. (2009). Comparison of three self-report measures of personality

pathology. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31, 358–367.

doi:10.1007/s10862-009-9130-8

Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2009). Person Perception and Personality Pathology. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 32-36 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01601.x

Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential

outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421.

doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127

R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. [Computer

software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Rauthmann, J. F. (2012). You Say the Party is Dull, I Say It is Lively: A Componential

Approach to How Situations Are Perceived to Disentangle Perceiver, Situation, and


Perceiver x Situation Variance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 519–

528. doi:10.1177/1948550611427609

Reis, H. T. (2008). Reinvigorating the concept of situation in social psychology. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 12, 311-329. doi:10.1177/1088868308321721

Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of

personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and

cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 2, 313-345. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x

Rossini, E. D., & Moretti, R. J. (1997). Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) interpretation:

Practice recommendations from a survey of clinical psychology doctoral programs

accredited by the American Psychological Association. Professional Psychology:

Research and Practice, 28, 393–398. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.28.4.393

Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2009). Evaluating correlations in studies of personality and

behavior: Beyond the number of significant findings to be expected by chance. Journal of

Research in Personality, 43(6), 1053–1063. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.05.010

Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. N., & Funder, D. C. (2010). Situational similarity and personality

predict behavioral consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 330-

343. doi:10.1037/a0019796

Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. N., & Funder, D. C. (2012). Properties of Persons and Situations

related to Overall and Distinctive Personality-Behavior Congruence. Journal of Research

in Personality, 46, 87-101. doi:10.1037/a0019796


Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. S., & Funder, D. C. (2013). Situational construal is related to

personality and gender. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 1-14.

doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.10.008

Srivastava, S., Guglielmo, S., & Beer, J. S. (2010) Perceiving Others’ Personalities: Examining

the Dimensionality, Assumed Similarity to the Self, and Stability of Perceiver Effects.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 520-534. doi:10.1037/a0017057.

Wagerman, S. A., & Funder, D. C. (2009). Situations. In P. J. Corr & G. Mathews (Eds.)

Cambridge Handbook of Personality (pp. 27-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Watkins, C. E., Campbell, V. L., Nieberding, R., & Hallmark, R. (1995). Contemporary practice

of psychological assessment by clinical psychologists. Professional Psychology:

Research and Practice, 26, 54–60. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.26.1.54

Wood, D., Harms, P., & Vazire, S. (2010). Perceiver effects as projective tests: What your

perceptions of others say about you. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99,

174-190. doi:10.1037/a0019390

Yang, Y., Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (2006). A taxonomy of situations from Chinese idioms.

Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 750–778. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.09.007

Zelli, A., Huesmann, L. R., & Cervone, D. (1995). Social inference and individual differences in

aggression: Evidence for spontaneous judgments of hostility. Aggressive Behavior, 21,

405-417. doi:10.1002/1098-2337


Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Estimates of Personality Measures

BFI

Trait Mean SD alpha

Agreeableness 3.82 .60 .73

Conscientiousness 3.48 .63 .78

Extraversion 3.35 .82 .85

Neuroticism 2.70 .80 .83

Openness 3.59 .58 .75

MAPP

Trait Mean SD alpha

Anti-Social 2.37 .56 .56

Avoidant 2.24 .73 .73

Borderline 2.22 .65 .72

Dependent 1.81 .61 .74

Histrionic 2.63 .62 .61

Narcissistic 2.52 .56 .66

Obsessive-Compulsive 2.98 .64 .61

Paranoid 2.73 .67 .61

Schizoid 2.22 .53 .51

Schizotypal 2.33 .53 .59


Table 2.

Construal Correlates with Neuroticism

## - RSQ Item Single Situation r Aggregate r

Positive Correlates

16 P is being criticized .11* .18*

11 Details are important. .11* .17*

33 Tense or upsetting. .10* .17*

05 Someone is trying to convince P of something. .11* .17*

26 Situation calls for self-restraint. .10+ .14+

02 Situation is complex. .08 .14+

21 Someone is unhappy or suffering. .08+ .13+

15 Another person is under threat. .09+ .13+

40 People are disagreeing. .07+ .13+

30 Situation entails frustration. .07 .12+

Negative Correlates

89 Opportunity to express femininity. -.14** -.22**

35 Situation evokes warmth or compassion. -.12** -.19*

57 Situation is humorous. -.10* -.17*

01 Situation is potentially enjoyable. -.08+ .15*

88 P is being complimented or praised. -.10* -.15*

58 P is the focus of attention. -.09* -.15*

18 Situation is playful. -.07 -.14+

73 Members of the opposite sex are present. -.08+ -.14+

86 P is being pressured to conform. -.09+ -.14+

87 Success requires cooperation. -.09+ -.13+

70 Situation includes sexual stimuli. -.07+ -.13+

Note. RSQ Item content abbreviated. *** = p < .001, ** = p < .01, * = p < .05, + = p < .10.

p–values for Single Situation column determined via randomization tests to account for non-

independence. N= 186.


Table 3.

Construal Correlates with Openness


Positive Correlates

57 Situation is humorous. .16*** .26***

53 Includes intellectual or cognitive stimuli. .14** .20**

44 Situation raises moral or ethical issues. .12** .19*

59 Situation includes sensuous stimuli. .09+ .13+

19 Introspection is possible .09+ .13+

02 Situation is complex. .09+ .12+

72 P is being abused or victimized .08+ .12

Negative Correlates

04 Someone is trying to impress P. -.12*** -.20**

81 Others may need or are requesting advice. -.13** -.20**

62 P controls resources needed by others. -.12* -.18*

28 Opportunity to make P liked or accepted. -.11* -.18*





Table 4.

Construal Correlates with Agreeableness


Positive Correlates

89 Opportunity to express femininity. .16*** .24***

22 A reassuring person is present. .12** .20**

58 P is the focus of attention. .09+ .14+

46 Allows a free range of emotional expression. .09+ .14+

63 Others present interpersonal cues. .09+ .13+

65 Situation includes aesthetic stimuli. .08+ .13+

76 Basically simple and clear-cut. .09+ .13+

13 Opportunity to show intellectual capacity. .07 .13+

88 P is being complimented or praised. .07+ .11

Negative Correlates

02 Situation is complex. -.16*** -.26***

15 Another person is under threat. -.12** -.20**

66 Situation is potentially anxiety-inducing. -.11* -.18*

42 Situation contains physical threats. -.10* -.16*

50 Situation has potential to arouse guilt in P. -.09+ -.15*

33 Would make some people tense and upset. -.08+ -.13+

40 People are disagreeing about something. -.07 -.12+

8 Talking is expected or demanded. -.08* -.12





Table 5.

Construal Correlates with Extraversion


Positive Correlates

06 P is counted on to do something. .11* .16*

17 Someone is trying to dominate or boss P. .10* .15*

10 Someone needs help. .09+ .13+

72 P is being abused or victimized. .09+ .13+

45 A quick decision or quick action is called for. .08 .12+

2 Situation is complex .08+ .11

Negative Correlates

61 Success in this situation requires self-insight. -.14*** -.22**

80 Opportunity to express masculinity. -.10* -.16*

19 Introspection is possible. -.10* -.15*

65 Situation includes aesthetic stimuli. -.10+ -.15*

01 Situation is potentially enjoyable. -.09+ -.12+

11 Minor details are important. -.09 -.12

49 Opportunity to daydream or fantasize. -.07+ -.11





Table 6.

Construal Correlates with Conscientiousness


Positive Correlates

28 Opportunity to make P liked or accepted. .11* .18*

44 Situation raises moral or ethical issues. .12* .18*

01 Situation is potentially enjoyable. .09* .15*

13 Opportunity to show intellectual capacity .09+ .14+

12 Evokes values concerning lifestyles or politics. .08+ .13+

25 Rational thinking is called for. .08 .12+

89 Affords an opportunity to express femininity. .08 .12+

86 P is being pressured to conform to others. .08+ .12+

39 Situation may cause feelings of hostility. .08 .12+

68 Opportunity to demonstrate ambition. .07+ .12

Negative Correlates

64 Situation includes behavioral limits. -.14** -.22**

26 Situation calls for self-restraint. -.09* -.14+

14 Situation is uncertain. -.08+ -.12+





Footnotes

1 For our purposes here, we shall dispense with late comedian George Carlin’s observation that

the glass is too big.

2 These pathologies are subclinical traits measured on a continuum. No diagnoses were made,

and this study uses a nonclinical college student sample.

3 A 0 to 4 scale was used by Okada and Oltmanns (2009), so it was used again here for

consistency. However, after completion of data collection, one point was added to the responses

to put the measure on a 1 to 5 scale.

4 The names in parentheses are provided as an easy way to identify cards. These shorthand

names are not in the original TAT documentation, and they are used solely for ease of

communication in this report. BM means that this card was intended for males in the standard

TAT procedure, however this card was presented to all participants in this study.

5 These figures are based on 177 of the 186 participants due to data loss by research assistant

error in saving some of these descriptions on the computer. The full set of descriptions given by

participants for each picture is provided in the supplemental materials.

6 A different consensus profile rating was calculated for each participant, after removing that

participant’s own rating. This method ensures that the consensus rating is not influenced by

one’s own perception.

7 In this method, independent variables (e.g., personality profiles) from each participant are

randomly assigned to other participants. Then the average absolute r between the randomly

assigned profiles and the dependent measures is calculated. This procedure is repeated 1,000

times, to form a sampling distribution for the observed average absolute correlation. The

observed average absolute correlation is compared to this sampling distribution to calculate a p-


value (e.g. If 45 out of the 1,000 random samplings have an average absolute correlation higher

than the observed, then p = .045).

8 Of note, the p-values for the correlations in individual-level analysis were computed using a

randomization test to account for non-independence in the combining of the effect sizes (i.e., the

fact that the same subjects were used for all three pictures; see Sherman et al., 2013, p. 6 for

more details on this calculation).

9 Only those correlations reaching p < .10 for Aggregated or Disaggregated results are displayed.

This cutoff is used to make the relevant findings apparent to the reader, and this is a common

practice when examining correlations with Q-sorts (Block, 1978). This display rule is used for all

Tables in this article, but full Tables of correlations are available as supplemental materials.

Tables showing Aggregated correlations reaching p < .05 for each gender are available in the

supplemental materials.

10 This replication analysis is conducted using the Aggregate construal patterns from both

studies.

Running Head: PERCEPTIONS OF SITUATIONS FROM THE TAT …psy2.fau.edu/~shermanr/Serfass&Sherman2013...

Documents

Transcript of Running Head: PERCEPTIONS OF SITUATIONS FROM THE TAT …psy2.fau.edu/~shermanr/Serfass&Sherman2013...