Benton C J, Hernandez A C, Schmidt A, Schmitz M D, Stone A J, Weiner B
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983 Nov;45(5):1167-78. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.45.5.1167.
This investigation attempted to replicate and to clarify methodologically an investigation by Pollak and Gilligan (1982). Those investigators reported sex differences in violence imagery to Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) pictures depicting affiliation and achievement situations. Pollak and Gilligan concluded that men perceive danger in situations of affiliation whereas women perceive danger in situations of achievement. It was demonstrated in the present study that Pollak and Gilligan incorrectly classified TAT cards into motivational categories, which may have resulted in incorrect inferences. In addition, their findings could not be replicated when using four different systems for classifying TAT cards into motivational categories. Other potential sources of error in their research, including a restrictive scoring scheme for hostility, unusual instructions, and failure to control for sex role in the TAT pictures, did not influence the pattern of results.
本研究试图重复并从方法上澄清波拉克和吉利根（1982年）所做的一项研究。那些研究者报告了在描绘归属和成就情境的主题统觉测验（TAT）图片中，暴力意象存在性别差异。波拉克和吉利根得出结论，男性在归属情境中察觉到危险，而女性在成就情境中察觉到危险。本研究表明，波拉克和吉利根将TAT卡片错误地归类到动机类别中，这可能导致了错误的推断。此外，当使用四种不同的将TAT卡片归类到动机类别的系统时，他们的研究结果无法被重复。他们研究中其他潜在的误差来源，包括敌意的限制性评分方案、不寻常的指导语以及未能控制TAT图片中的性别角色，都没有影响结果模式。
