8 male and 8 female undergraduate students furnished written stories to Card 2 and Card 14 of the TAT. Each story was scored for n Ach first using McClelland's system (1953) and secondly utilizing Kiefer's (1952) method, which was devised for cross-cultural comparisons. Analysis of Ss' stories showed significant correlations ranging from .32 to .56 for these two scoring systems. These findings were interpreted in the light of the intention of the different scoring systems. McClelland's method appears best suited to determine the strength of a particular need while Kiefer's system indicates the direction and diversity of the needs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JensenA. R.Review of the TAT. In BurosO. K. (Ed.), Personality tests and reviews. Highland Park, N. J.: Gryphon Press, 1970. P. 932.
2.
KieferR. B.The thematic apperception test pictures: A study of common stories as told by normal, adult females. Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association Annual Meeting, Banff, June, 1952.
3.
KieferR. B.An objective scheme of analysis for the TAT with implications for cross-cultural research. Paper presented at the meeting of the XIII InterAmerican Congress of Psychology, Panama City, December, 1971.
4.
KieferR. B.The application of an objective scheme of analysis for the TAT in cross-cultural research. Paper presented at the meeting of the XIV InterAmerican Congress of Psychology, Sao Paulo, April, 1973.
5.
LesserG. S.KrawitzR. N., & PackardR.Experimental arousal of achievement motivation in adolescent girls. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 59–66.
6.
McClellandD. C.The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953.
7.
McClellandD. C.The achieving society. New York: Van Nostrand, 1961.
8.
MurrayH. A.Thematic Apperception Test manual. Cambridge: Harvard Univer. Press, 1943.
9.
TedeschiJ. T., & KianM.Cross-cultural study of TAT assessment for achievement motivation: Americans and Persians. Journal of Social Psychology, 1962, 58, 227–234.
