Stansard versus handwritten TAT procedures on measures of word count, preference, and the occurrence of dialogue.

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to examine the effect a change in TAT administration would have on stories elicited. Two different TAT conditions were used: the standard oral procedure where subjects told their stories to an examiner who wrote them down, and a procedure in which the subjects recorded their own stories in writing. It was hypothesized that stories from an oral protocol would be significantly longer than stories from a written one, but that written stories would contain significantly more dialogue than oral ones. It was also hypothesized that subjects who participated first in the written condition would produce significantly shorter written stories than subjects who participated first in the oral condition. Also examined was whether or not preference for a particular protocol would increase productivity on that same protocol. The study was comprised of 13 men and 15 women enrolled in Introduction to Psychology at Emporia State University. They were divided evenly into 2 groups. Group 1 participated in the oral condition followed by the written condition; Group 2 proceeded from the written condition to the oral condition. The results indicated that the difference in word production between oral and written protocols was not significant (p= .0777). Preference for an oral or written protocol did not increase performance on the preferred procedure (p > .50). Students who participated first in the oral condition did not produce longer written protocol than students who participated first in the written condition (p > .10). That students would give more instances of dialogue in the written condition was also not significant (p= .057).