Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Journal of Projective
Techniques and Personality
Assessment
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hzpa20
To cite this article: Leopold Bellak & Marvin S. Hurvich (1966) A Human Modification
of the Children's Apperception Test (CAT-H), Journal of Projective Techniques and
Personality Assessment, 30:3, 228-242, DOI: 10.1080/0091651X.1966.10120301
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0091651X.1966.10120301
Summary: Since the cr&ation of the CAT fifteen years ago, first introduced in the
pages of this Journal, many studies have been published comparing the stimulus
value of animal versus human figures, Some outcomes favored the animal figures,
while an even larger number favored the human stimuli. It appears that some children respond better to animal stimuli, and some to human figures, depending on
particular characteristics of the child. A human modification of the CAT was therefore developed by Bellak and Bellak. It is hoped this version will be useful with older
children, especially those with an M.A. beyond ten years, and will thus bridge the
gap between the animal CAT and the TAT. The human CAT may also elicit more
information from children with particular personality characteristics.
LEOPOLD
BELLAK
AND MARVIN
S. HURVICH
identify themselves and their parents
with animals. Bender and Rapaport
(1 944) had found animal drawings of
7 to 13 year old disturbed children
helpful in identifying central personality conflict areas. And in the construction of the Blacky pictures, Blum
and Hunt (1952) state that animal
figures were chosen over humans to
add a measure of ambiguity to the
highly structured situations being depicted, with the intent of facilitating
personal ex ression and decreasing resistance to f! gures too close to home.
An early comparison of T A T cards
with animal pictures was reported by
Bills (1950), for 48 male and female
school children ages five through ten.
He found significantly longer stories
to the ten animal (rabbit) pictures,
with less card rejections (18 to I ) , and
concluded that the Ss more easily formulated stories to the animal figures.
A methodological limitation of this
study (and the one by Bills et al. below) was that the animal pictures
were in color and the T A T pictures
were not, resulting in a confounding
of color with the animal-human variable, as Murstein (1963) has pointed
out.
Bills, Leiman and Thomas (1950)
then compared the qualitative differences between stories to the T A T and
animal (rabbit) pictures. Subjects
were four girls and four boys from
third grade, and stories to both T A T
and animal pictures were compared
with non-directive play therapy interviews. Correlations between T A T and
animal pictures for 26 of Murrays
manifest needs ranged from -.09 to
.58, three of these comparisons
reaching the .05 level of significance.
T h e authors concluded that animal
pictures appear to be as valid and
useful as the T A T and easier for
children in formulating stories than
the T A T .
Biersdorf and Marcuse (1953) addressed themselves to the animal vs.
human figure problem by constructing two sets of six pictures (similar
229
to C A T cards, 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and l o ) ,
one set with animal, the other set
with human figures. For 30 first-grade
pupils of both sexes, no significant differences were found on 7 response
roductivity measures, including numger of words, ideas, characters mentioned, characters introduced, and response time indeces. I n a second study,
Mainord and Marcuse (1954) employed the identical stimulus pictures,
but this time- with a group of 28
emotionally disturbed children of both
sexes (21 boys, 7 girls) , aged five
years, four months to eight years, five
months. Again, no significant differences were obtained on the response
productivity measures. However, five
clinicians asked to rate the stories for
their clinical usefulness (amount of
personal structure and dynamics revealed about the child) favored the
human set to a statistically significant
degree (p. 001).
T h e same year Armstrong (1954)
reported a study comparing 60 school
children (ten boys and ten girls from
first, second, and third grades) o n five
C A T cards (1, 2, 4, 8, and 10) and
on a duplicate set of pictures with
human figures, which the author states
were ambiguous as to sex. Mean Stanford-Binet I.Q. for each grade of children was in the superior range. Comparison between groups was made on
length of protocol, number of nouns,
verbs, ego words, transcendence scores
and reaction time. Significant differences i n Transcendence Index scores
were found (i.e,, more subjective, personalized, interpretive responses other
than pure description) in favor of the
human figures. No differences in any
other response measures were attributable to the animal-human figure variable.
Light (1954) designed a study to
compare the T A T and C A T on more
dynamic aspects of story content than
o n reaction time, story length, and
other similar measures, which he felt
were not valid indicators of identification. Subjects were 74 fourth and fifth
graders, aged nine to ten years, six
230
months; with a mean age of nine years
eight months. With five T A T and five
CAT cards presented in a group setting, all of the response measures
(amount and kinds of feelings,
themes, conflicts, and definite outcomes) were significantly higher for
the stories to the TAT.
Boyd and Mandler (1955), noting
contradictory findings in the previously published literature, attempted a
more extensive evaluation than previous workers. Subjects (96 third graders of mean age eight years, five
mths, and mean Kuhlman I.Q. of
101) were told two stimulus stories,
each of which was followed by a
stimulus picture to which they were
requested to write their own story.
T h e main variables were a) type of
stimulus story (animal or human characters), b) content of stimulus story
(central figure engages in socially a p
proved or socially disapproved behavior), and c) type of stimulus picture (animal or human figures). T h e
stimulus pictures (each in an animal
or a human version) showed the main
character from the stimulus stories in
some ambiguous action.
Eight response measures presumably
related to personal involvement were
evaluated in a three way analysis of
variance ( 2 x 2 ~ 2factorial design) T h e
response indices were story length,
presence of original ideas, value judgments] punishment, reward, and new
themes, occurrence of the pronoun I,
and the extent of formal features
(number of words used for the beginning and conclusion of the story).
Analysis of the stimulus story variable revealed that s/4 of the Ss preferred the animal over the human
stories, while the response measures
showed significantly more involvement associated with the stories told
with human characters.
Concerning the stimulus pictures,
the animal figures were found to elicit
more personal involvement than the
pictures with human figures. Animal
pictures had a significantly higher
number of original ideas and beginnings and endings and scored higher
on four of the remaining six response
measures, though short of statistical
significance. T h e animal cards were
found especially to elicit negative
feelings, and the authors concluded
that socially disapproved behavior
seems to arouse more anxiety when
originated by human than by animal
figures.
Furuya (1957) tested 7.2 Japanese
children from first, fourth, and sixth
grades (ages 6 to 12) with the
Marcuse-Biersdorf-Mainord cards. He
found significantly more definite outcomes and more expression of feelings
and of significant conflict in the stories
to the human set. Bellak and Adelman (1960) have pointed out that
the human figure cards used by Marcuse et al. and by Furuya were more
structured than the animal cards with
regard to sex and in some instances
also more structured as to activity:
Thus, while their studies show superiority of human figures on the productivity measures, the decrease of
ambiguity from animal to human figures would appear to limit the range
of response choice, and in this important sense decrease the value of
the human as compared to the animal figures. I n this regard, one can
question the representativeness of the
clinicians preference for human over
animal figures in the Mainord and
Marcuse (1954) work, but replication
studies are needed to clarify the issue.
Simson (1959) also compared the
CAT with human figures. Subjects
were 28 second-graders, 14 of whom
were administered the animal version
first, and the human version two
weeks later, and the reverse order for
the other 14. He found the human
pictures to be associated with shorter
reaction time, longer stories, faster
verbalization and more story themes,
With the intention of providing a
more crucial test of the hypothesis
that young children more readily
identify with animals, Budoff (1960)
LEOPOLD
BELLAK
AND MARVIN
S. HURVICH
chose four year old nursery schoolers
rather than the relatively older children used in previous experiments.
Eighteen subjects with Sanford-Binet
I.Q.s above 120 were administered
nine C A T cards (#6 was omitted),
and an analogous human set in a
balanced order with a n interval of
two weeks between presentations. Response mewn-es were productivity
(number of words spoken), story
level (presence of object naming.
picture description, and a story plot)
and Transcendence Index.
Results showed no statistically significant differences between picture
sets on the three response measures
(except one, attributable to chance
because of the number of com arisons
made). T h e overall trend of t e data,
though not statistically significant,
was for higher scores to the human
figures on both story level and Transcendence Index, the latter being low
or both groups. While he questions
the superiority of the animal C A T
over human figures in comparable
situations, the author states that his
findings fail to solve the problem of
whether young children more easily
identify with animals. Among other
suggestions, Budoff conjectures that
where responses to human figures are
particularly threatening, animal figures might elicit more productive
stories due to the increase of psycholoEical distance (as Blum and H u n t
[I9521 have suggested in another
context).
T h e most recent study comparing
animal and human figures is that of
Weisskopf-Joelson, and Foster (1962) .
These authors, interested in the question of what kinds of pictures elicit
the greatest amount of projection,
created four sets of four C A T cards
(3,4,9, and 10). T h e versions were as
follows: animal figures not in color
(AN), animal figures in color (AC) ,
human figures not in color ( H N ) ,
and a color version with human
figures (HC).
An attempt was made to keep all
aspects of the four stimulus sets con-
23 1
232
ductive with the animal figures, the
authors then reason, could be due to
their finding it easier to reveal themselves under the pretense that they
are telling about animals instead of
humans. T h e general consideration
suggested here is that personality differences of subjects can be associated
with greater productivity to animal or
to human pictures, depending on the
particular personality configuration.
A review of the literature thus reveals that for the conditions evaluated, some outcomes favor the animal
figures, and an even greater number
of studies favor the human figures
(see Table I ) . Of the various factors
likely responsible for the conflicting
results, there is variation among the
studies in stimulus cards employed
and in outcome measures utilized.
Few investigators maintained the a m biguity of age or sex in the human
drawings that is inherent in the animal figures. With regard to outcome
measures, dynamic evaluation (as
compared to word counts, theme
counts, etc.) played a relatively small
role in the reported studies. In addition, subjects varied among the
studies with regard to age, intelligence, and degree and kind of psychopathology. It is likely that the stimulus value of animals gradually decreases between ages seven and ten,
especially if the mental age is higher
than the chronological age. An adequate comparison of the utility of the
two kinds of figures would require
studies which control for and systematically sample from among the above
variables and which emplo the same
outcome measures, inclucling some
dynamic and clinically relevant indices. Especially sparse are studies
employing disturbed children, a point
emphasized by Murstein (1963).
T h e Development of the CAT-HHuman Version
Despite the limitations of the
studies purporting to show that human figures in the CAT setting may
have more stimulus value than the
A Hurnun Modification
of
the C A T
LEOPOLD
BELLAK
AND MARVIN
S. HURVICH
233
TABLE
I-Studies of Animal vs. Human Figures
RESPONSE
MEASURES
RESULTS
Story length, card Animalsrejections
significantly longer
stories, fewer card
rejections
8 M & F, 3rd grade, Comparison on 26 Animals seen as
normal school
of Murrays
easier for children.
children
Manifest Needs
Correlation from a
.09 to + .58 (3 stat
sip)
30 M & F, 1st
Number of words, No significant
Biersdorf &
6 CAT cards (#l,
graders, normal
ideas, characters differences
Marcuse (1953) 2,4,5,8 & 10) vs.
comparable human school children
mentioned,
characters introset
duced, response
time indices
Similar to
No significant
Same as Biersdorf 28 M & F, 5.4 to
Mainord &
Biersdorf and
differences.
8.5, emotionally
Marcuse (1954) and Marcuse
Marcuse (1953).
Human jud ed
disturbed
(1953)
plus ratings of
more clinim%y
clinical usefulness useful.
60 M & F, 1st-3rd Story length,
Human signifi5 CAT cards (#l,
Armstrong
2,4,8.10) vs. a
graders, IQs
number of nouns, cantly higher
(1954)
comparable human superior, normal
verbs, ego words, Transcendence
set
school children
Transcendence
Index. Other
measures-no
Scores &
reaction time
difference
Light (1954)
CAT vs. T A T
75 M & F, 9-10.6,
Amount & kinds
Human-all
normal school
of feelings,
response criteria
children
themes, conflicts significantly
and definite
higher except
outcomes
number of words
2 stones (with ani- 96 M & F, mean
Story length,
Human-for
Boyd &
stimulus stories.
age 8.5, mean I Q presence of
Mandler (1955) ma1 or human
characters), each
101, normal school original ideas,
Animal for
value judgments, stimulus pics
followed by 2 pica children
of animals or
punishment,
humans in amreward, new
biguous action
themes, pronoun
I, and formal
features
Definite outcomes, Human more
Furuya (1957) Same as Biersdorf 72 Jap.. M & F.
6 to 12, normal
expression of
definite outcomes
and Marcuse
(1953)
school children
feelings
and more expression of feelings and
significant conflicts
Story length,
Human superior o n
Simson (1959) CAT vs. cornpar- 28 German,
Age 8-9, normal
speed of
all the response
able human set
second-graders
verbalization,
measures
number of themes,
reaction time
Productivity, story No statistical
18 4-year olds,
Budoff (1960) 9 CAT cards (#6
omitted) vs. com- M & F, all IQs
level and
difference. Trend in
favor of human
parable human set above 120, normal Transcendence
nursery school
Index
children
No difference
4 CAT cards (#S, 40 M & F, 5.5 to 9. Transcendence
Weisskopfnormal kinderIndex
except by
Joelson & F a t e:I 4,9,10) vs. cornpersonality
parable human set. garten
(1962)
color & black &
white
STIMULI
Bills (1950)
10 T A T cards vs.
10 chromatic pics
of rabbits in various activities
Bills, Leiman & Same as Bills
Thomas (1950) (1950)
SUBJECTS
48 M & F, 5 to 10,
normal school
children
234
9
8
01
236
fable, e.g., the mouse outwitting the
lion or helping the lion.
However, the child was drawn with
a somewhat mischievous facial expression, and such a figure might still
elicit stories of a similar nature; such
as giving help to a man who needs a
cane to walk, or by the subject interpreting the shadow near the left knee
as an object suitable for mischief.
Picture four presented relatively
few problems except for the absence
of tails, of course, and the fact that an
infant in arms is not quite the same
as an infant in the maternal pouch,
alas.
Picture five, with its anthropomorphic situation in the original, presented little difficulty.
Picture six, however, was a problem. If one is interested in what Murray has called Press Claustrum, there
just is no substitute for a cave. TO
preserve some of the possible stimulus
value of the outdoor situation (in
primitivity, in romance, in fear of
animals and of the wild), the tentlike
nature of the structure was emphasized by introducing the new feature
of trees. Responses related to the
story of the three bears will hardly
continue to play a role.
Picture seven was also a challenge.
Fears of being devoured needed to be
given a stimulus resembling the tiger
threat. The grasping, evil-toothed,
genii-like figure, supplemented by a
steaming kettle (as seen in cartoons
about cannibals) was introduced for
that purpose. The way the child is
depicted might result in chances of
escape roughly equivalent to those of
the monkey in the original.
Picture eight presented the by now
familiar problem of sexual identity.
However, the adult figures were nearly always identified as female with the
ssible exception of the extreme left
E u r e . Therefore, this figure was
dressed in slacks, rather than a dress,
giving it still some ambiguity, at least
in most of the American subcultures.
Picture nine with its anthropomor-
237
LEOPOLD
BELLAK
AND MARVIN
S. HURVICH
TABLE
11-A Schedule of Adaptive Mechanisms in C A T Responses
MARYR. HAWORTH,
PH.D.
Name........................................................
Critical Scores:
..............................................................................................................................................
DEFENSE MECHANISMS
TOTALS
Reaction-formation (only one check per story)
A.
1. Exaggerated goodness or cleanliness
................................
(A + ................ 2. Oppositional attitudes, rebellion, stubbornness
................ 3. Story tone opposed to picture content
B=5)
Undoing and Ambivalence (only one check per story)
B.
................ 1. Undoing
hot-cold, etc.)
................ 2. Gives alternatives; balanced phrases (asleep-awake;
.
.............. 3. Indecision by S or story character
................ 4. Restates (e.g., "that .........., no this.......... "he was going to, but ..........
C.
Isolation
1. Detached attitude ("it couldn't happen," "it's a cartoon")
................................
................ 2. Literal ("it doesn't show, so I can't tell.")
(6)
................ 3. Comments on story or picture ("That is hard"; "I told a good one.")
................ 4. Laughs at card, exclamations
................ 5. Use of fairy-tale, comic-book, or "olden times" themes or characters
................ 6. Describes in detail, logical; "the end"; gives title to story
................ 7. Specific details, names or quotes ("four hours"; she said, "................"1
................ 8. Character gets lost
................ 9. Character runs away due to anger
................ 10. S aligns with parent against "naughty" child character; disapproves
child's actions
Repression and Denial
D.
................................
1. Child character waits, controls self, conforms, is good, learned lesson
(5)
................ 2. Accepts fate, didn't want it anyway
................ 3. Prolonged or remote punishments
................ 4. "It was just a dream"
................ 5. Forgets, or loses something
................ 6. Omits figures or objects from story (on .#lo must omit mention of
toilet and tub or washing)
................ 7. Omits usual story content
................ 8. No fantasy or story (describes card blandly)
................ 9. Refuses card
Deception
E.
................................
1. Child superior to adult, laughs at adult, is smarter, tricks adult, sneaks,
pretends, hides from, steals from, peeks at or spies on adult (only
(3)
one check per story)
................ 2. Adult tricks child, is not what appears to be (only one check per story)
F.
Symbolization
1. Children play in bed
................................
(4)
................ 2. See parents in bed (#5)
................ 3. Open window ( # 5 , #9); Dig, or fall in, a hole
................ 4. Babies born
................ 5. Rope breaks (#2) ; chair or cane breaks (#3) ; balloon breaks (#4) ;
tail pulled or bitten (#4,7) ; crib broken (#9)
................ 6. Rain, river, water, storms, cold
................ 7. Fire, explosions, destruction
................ 8. Sticks, knives, guns
................ 9. Cuts, stings, injuries, actual killings (other than by eating)
................ 10. Oral deprivation
G.
Projection and Introjection
1. Attacker is attacked, "eat and be eaten"
................................
(4)
................ 2. Innocent one is eaten or attacked
................ 3. Child is active aggressor (bites. hits, throws; d o not include verbal or
teasing attacks)
.:
Date................................
."
I.)
238
................
................
................
................
H.
>
..:
LEOPOLD
BELLAK
AND MARVIN
S. HURVICH
Dynamics Form, Table 111.
In the Adaptive Mechanisms Schedule, the categories are arranged in an
order going from indications of high
control antl constriction to signs of
disorgnnization and loosening of reality ties. Critical score levels for each
dimension were derived from previous work (Haworth, 1962, 1963). A
reliability coefficient of .88 for two
judges had been previously reported
(Haworth 1963).
Subjects were 22 children (1G boys,
6 girls) ; ages six years, three months,
to ten years, three months, referred to
a psychiatric clinic for outpatient
diagnosis or for inpatient treatment,
with diagnoses ranging from neurotic
difficulties and behavior problems to
borderline psychoses. Both sets of
cards were administered to all subjects in a balanced order, with an
equal number of boys and girls in
each of the two administration
groups. The time between administration of the two sets varied from 14
to 20 days for all but two subjects in
each group.
Results showed no significant differences between the animal and human versions of the CAT on the total
number of categories receiving critically high scores. T h e obtained tally
was 62 critical scores for the animal
form, and 55 for the human form,
out of a possible total of 220 (22 Ss x
10 categories per subject) on each
form, with a mean of 2.8 for the animal set, and 2.5 for the human. Comparing the consistency of defense
mechanism scores between the two
forms for the group as a whole, a rank
order correlation of .68 (Kendall's
tau) is found.
Looking at the data in terms of the
consistency for a given subject, approximately half (64) of the 117 critical scores were for the same category
for each subject from animal to human form. For the remaining critical
scores (55), the S receiving a critical
score on a given category for one picture set failed to register a critical
239
..
240
TABLE
111-CAT Story Dynamics
Name:
Sex:
Form: A or H
1. Oral gratification ............ Deprivation ............
Adult is Father............, Mother............, Shadow............ Other............
Punishment theme ............
2. Game............ Fight ............
Winner: Pair............ Single............
Child with: Parent of same sex............ of opposite sex............ Peer............
3. Adult attacks or scolds child ............ Child helps adult............
Adult is king ............ old, tired, lonely, etc.............
Child attacks adult ............
4. Picnic............ Disaster, fire, etc.............
Bike runs over tail or leg............
5. Parents in bed ............
Children play in bed ............ Naughty ............ Sleep............
6. Child runs away............
Attack from outside: feared ............ takes place............
7. Child is: attacked ............ gets away............ turns on large fig.............
8. Scolding, punishing ............ Child is helpful ............
Mention of picture............ Secret............
Male Adult ............
9. Attack from outside: feared............ takes place............
Everyday event ............ Loneliness............
Parents in another room ............
10. Naughtiness relates to toilet ............ other............
Punisher is same sex............ opposite sex............
Continues naughtiness ............ learned lesson............
Cards rejected:
Unusual stories:
LEOPOLU
BELLAK
AN) MARVIN
S. HURVICH
24 1
242