Clinical Assessment of Object Relations Using the TAT

Richard Niolon, Ph.D.
According to Westen, there are four aspects of Object Relations (OR) to assess when interpreting TAT stories

1) Complexity of Representations of People
Are people simplistic, too complex to figure out, just like the client in ways the client likes ("I'm smart, and they are smart"), just like the client in ways the client doesn't like ("I'm self-centered, and the character is too")…?

Developmentally, we see that as we grow older we separate more from other objects, develop a more complex picture of ourselves and others, and then engage in less splitting of objects

-the lowest level would be people in the story are all alike, and all like the client (whether the client realizes this or not); others may be generalized in broad and vague ways as benevolent or harmful, with no real forethought as to why or how; those who make you take responsibility for your actions are bad, and those who let you off the hook are good
-slightly better would be the people in the story are simplistic but different from each other; splitting occurs when there are all good and all bad characters, and they sometimes change completely to the other side; those who hold you accountable are doing their job, but maybe they like making others unhappy
-best would be people who are complex, and behave as they do for a variety of reasons; sometimes this causes conflict inside a person, and the best answers can deal with that

2) Affect-Tone
What is the emotional character of people? Are they malevolent and abusing, or kind and loving?

Developmentally we see a better understanding of others' motives, including motivations for self-protection as different from malevolence, and drives for gratification tempered by the value of short-term versus long-term goals.

-the lowest level would be people in the story behaving in self-centered and manipulative ways to satisfy their own needs.
-slightly better would be people who act as they do for a variety of needs, feelings, and desires, and they show some recognition of how acting on their feelings effects others.
-best would be people who are aware of the positive or good emotions everyone has, the negative or bad emotions everyone has, and the interplay between them; they would have genuine feelings for each other

(This is some of what I get at when I summarize the nature of relationships on the TAT and ask, "If all the world worked like this, what would the world be like?")

3) Emotional Investment
This ranges from narcissistic, self-centered, need gratification (people exist to satisfy my desires) to commitment and value orientation (people have their own needs, and we all have to work together in some way to get what we want). This can be seen in the way people are valued (for their ability to satisfy my needs versus for their unique contributions to society).

-the lowest level would be people provide for specific needs I have, like nurturance, security, etc; the characters are impulsive and uncaring of the consequences to others, or may care but don't change their ways; other forgive them magically and they don't get punished
-slightly better would be people who are valued for who they are, and the character can feel sadness or shame for letting them down ("He was sad, but he couldn't give up his career to be with her when she followed her dream. She left and they lost contact"); they show less impulsivity and more ability to think before acting
-best would be people who are judged against their own potential, and the characters have deep commitment ("He gave up his career plans to be with her and support her in her dreams. When she was successful, she said 'Now it's your turn,' and she supported him going back to school. It was hard, but they were committed to each other's happiness")

4) Social Causality
How does the world work, and why does it work that way? Are the person's rules about how the world works logical and consistent, illogical and irrational, idiosyncratic and delusional, concrete and simplistic, or abstract and complex? Even more basic, does the person really try to make rules about the world and how it works so they can predict and explain, or do they simply accept that "Stuff Happens" and you never know what life will throw your way…

-the lowest level would be concrete, illogical, based on inaccurate operations, and likely omits interpersonal dynamics, problems are resolved by powerful others or by some "magical transformation" or "aha!" experience; morality is based on whether it's good for me; little responsibility is had for one's actions
-slightly better is attributions about the world that are accurate if not simple, and based on rational observations and thoughts, morality is based upon getting caught after doing clear harm; people have to pay the price of their actions, generally at the hand of others or diffuse emotional states like sadness
-best would be attributions that reflect a complex understanding of the world, morality is based on Kant or Golden Rule, and harm to others can be subtle; people take responsibility for their actions for internal reasons, and are able to make up for wrong doings even if never caught