Phrase Association Test–Amended and Expanded (EN)

Abstract

The Phrase Association Test–Amended and Expanded (PT), developed by Mandler, Mandler, Kremen, and Sholiton (1961), is a psychological instrument adapted from Heath’s earlier 22-item test (1956, 1960). Its primary function is to assess spontaneous verbal responses concerning specific areas of psychological conflict. The test presents subjects with conflictual phrases and instructs them to provide the first phrase or association that comes to mind. The structure of the PT is designed to narrow the focus and arousal of these responses for systematic analysis across categories such as Neutral, Aggression, Sex, Dependency, and Competition.

The foundational study explored the relationship between specific area anxiety, as quantified by the PT, and imagery observed in the Rorschach test. Results generally supported the hypothesis that anxiety derived from the PT was negatively correlated with manifest threatening imagery, but positively correlated with latent imagery. This indicates the PT is effective in probing underlying psychological defense mechanisms related to threat and conflict management.

Keywords

Phrase Association Test–Amended and Expanded, Test Development, Verbal Responses to Threat, Interrater Reliability, Psychological Conflict, Cognitive Defensive Activity, Associative Learning, Projective Techniques.

Authors

George Mandler, Jean M. Mandler, Irwin Kremen, Robert D. Sholiton.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Phrase Association Test–Amended and Expanded (PT) is to systematically evaluate an individual’s immediate, spontaneous verbal activity when confronted with stimuli representing specific psychological conflict areas. By recording the first response or association, researchers aim to capture defensive processes or areas of emotional arousal that may not be evident through standard self-report measures.

The PT is particularly useful in experimental settings designed to link psychological indices of anxiety and conflict to observable behaviors or physiological responses, providing a more objective measure of threat response compared to traditional projective methods alone. The test’s structure, involving 29 items, facilitates focused quantitative analysis of these defensive responses.

Construct

The PT measures two primary theoretical constructs: Cognitive Defensive Activity and Verbal Response to Threat. The core assumption is that exposure to phrases relating to sensitive or conflictual topics (e.g., Aggression, Sex, Dependency) triggers defensive mechanisms, which are manifested in the nature, latency, and content of the verbal association provided by the respondent.

The comprehensive scoring system categorizes responses into dimensions such as Avoidance, Interference, Recoding, Rationalization, and Personalization. These dimensions operationalize the specific cognitive strategies employed by the individual to manage the threat inherent in the stimulus phrase, thereby quantifying the extent and type of defensive activity utilized in the face of psychological stress.

Validity

The validity of the PT was supported through several empirical findings detailed in the original 1961 study. Crucially, construct validity was evidenced by testing the hypothesis linking PT-measured anxiety to responses on the Rorschach test, a widely recognized projective measure.

The key finding supporting validity was the negative correlation observed between anxiety scores derived from the PT concerning a specific conflict area and the presence of manifest threatening imagery on the Rorschach. Conversely, a positive correlation was found with latent imagery, suggesting that the PT successfully tapped into underlying, less obvious forms of psychological conflict and defensive organization that are often masked by conscious coping strategies.

Reliability

Reliability for the Phrase Association Test is established primarily through Interrater Reliability, which is essential for tests relying on complex qualitative scoring manuals applied by trained judges. The original research utilized percentage agreement between independent scorers to quantify consistency in applying the detailed scoring criteria.

Overall agreement between two scorers for the PT was reported at 73%. Furthermore, the studies demonstrated robust consistency across different experimental conditions: Study I achieved 77% agreement between two judges, and Study II achieved 75% agreement. This high degree of consistency indicates that the manual provided sufficient clarity for judges to categorize the verbal responses reliably, ensuring standardized measurement of defensive behaviors.

Factor Analysis

No formal factor analysis was indicated or reported in the primary documentation for the Phrase Association Test–Amended and Expanded (PT). The test structure relies on theoretically defined categories of conflict (Neutral, Aggression, Sex, Dependency, Competition) derived from clinical observation and psychological theory, rather than empirically derived factors, to delineate the measured constructs.

Instrument

Test Type: Test

Format: Projective/Associative Verbal Response Test (29 items)

Language Available: English (Original research conducted in the United States)

Population Group: Human

Age Group: Adults (College Students)

Population Details: Sample consisted of Harvard College Undergraduates, located in the United States.

Test Methodology: Assessment of Test Reliability; Interrater Reliability assessment of response scoring; Classification under 5400 Cognitive Processes, Memory, and Decision Making.

Keywords

Cognitive Processes, Defensive Mechanisms, Projective Techniques, Psychophysiology, Anxiety Measurement, Verbal Association, Harvard College.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Phrase Association Test–Amended and Expanded (PT) was published in 1961. According to the original documentation, the instrument may be used for Research and Teaching purposes. Information regarding current licensing fees or commercial availability is not explicitly provided in the initial publication records.

Reference’s

Mandler, G., Mandler, J. M., Kremen, I., & Sholiton, R. D. (1961). The response to threat: Relations among verbal and physiological indices. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 75(9), 1–22. The reference can be accessed via DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093803

Items of the Phrase Association Test–Amended and Expanded (PT)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Phrase Association Test–Amended and Expanded (PT)

• Neutral

  N1. The horses worked well together
  N2. Steel company made new equipment
  N3. Farmer dug a new well
  N4. Tugs helped ships reach port
  N5. Children given free summer camp
  N6. Architects planned home for family

• Aggression

  A1. Father convicted for torturing son
  A2. Boy beat mother into unconsciousness
  A3. Mother burned baby in bath
  A4. He suddenly struck his father

• Sex

  S1. Two male monkeys sexually embraced
  S2. Prostitutes do anything men desire
  S3. Female monkey tried mating male
  S4. He enjoys sleeping with men

• Dependency

  D1. Mother bears desert baby cubs
  D2. Father neglects his sick child
  D3. Father lions desert their cubs
  D4. Mother sent neglected child away

Phrases for Study II

• Neutral

  N1. Architects planned home for family
  N2. He built his own boat
  N3. Circus gave them free passes
  N4. The craftsman designed new ornaments
  N5. The dairy farm bought cows
  N6. The horses worked well together
  N7. He overhauled the old motor
  N8. Steel company made new equipment

• Aggression

• Against
  A1. He suddenly struck his father
  A2. He spit in his mother’s face
  A3. Boy beat sister into unconsciousness
  A4. He beat up his roommate

• From

  A5. Father convicted for torturing son
  A6. Mother brutally beat her child
  A7. His brother kicked him in the stomach
  A8. Student attacked by gang

• Sex

• Hetero

  S1. His girlfriend is very promiscuous
  S2. He propositioned the waitress
  S3. After the operation he was impotent
  S4. The prostitute slept with the student

• Homo

  S5. He enjoys sleeping with men
  S6. Homosexuals are easily recognized
  S7. He likes watching nude men
  S8. His roommate made a pass at him

• Dependency

• Rejection

  D1. Father neglects his sick child
  D2. She deserted her baby boy
  D3. His brother refused to help
  D4. His roommate would not loan him money

• Subjugation

  D5. He pleaded with his father
  D6. His mother had to support him
  D7. His sister had to protect him
  D8. He needed help with his homework

• Competition

  C1. He lost the game to his father
  C2. His mother is smarter than he
  C3. His brother is more popular than he
  C4. He just missed the dean’s list
  C5. He did not fulfill his father’s hopes
  C6. His mother was disappointed with his grades
  C7. He did not get the promotion
  C8. He failed to make any team

Scoring Manual for the Phrase Association Test

• I. Avoidance

• 1. Comment on wording or phrasing, reference to task or to other phrases, explicit or implicit (e.g., “These are all bad guys,” “It looks like a headline”).
• 2. Comment on physical aspects of stimulus material.
• 3. Asks for repetition of phrase.
• 4. Gives no substantive response, or says he cannot think of response (whether or not he gives a response).
• 5. Denies own response or questions its adequacy (e.g., “No,” “I meant . . .”).
• 6. Simple repetition of stimulus or restatement without addition of new content—may be synonymous expression. Major content of phrases must be restated in order to score. Also score if subject adds only “Why?” to repetition of phrase.
• 7. Repeats exactly one or two words of the stimulus only.
• 8. One of three shortest reaction times in record, unless there are ties.

• II. Interference

• 9. More than one response, even if only fragmentary or if one of the responses is non-substantive. Do not score if second response is a simple elaboration of the first, but always score if there is clearly more than a one-phrase response. Do not score enumerations.
• 10. Response is unfinished or broken.
• 11. Repeats own response (one word or more).
• 12. Change in length from other responses: the longest (shortest) response is at least twice (no more than half) as long as the next longest (shortest). Or response is one of two (but not more) which fulfill his criterion.
• 13. Gives one-word substantive response or two responses which each consist of a single word.
• 14. Laughs or sighs.
• 15. One of three longest reaction times for substantive responses. Also score for absence of a substantive response.

• III. Recoding

• 16. Misinterpretation or non-sensible response.
• 17. Evasion. Evades central notion of stimulus by giving irrelevant or tangential response which has some connection with the stimulus. Major criterion is evasion of central meaning of the stimulus phrase, a failure to take into account the essential communication of the phrase. Also score if no substantive response.
• 18. Reversal of meaning, e.g., from “a does to b” to “b does to a” or from “a hates b” to “a loves b.” Also score if inserts positive qualities for actor engaged in reprehensible deed.
• 19. Criticizes or questions clarity of meaning (e.g., ” I don’t understand that sentence”).
• 20. Denial of truth of phrase, explicit (“People don’t act that way”) or implicit (from “a does x” to “b does not do x”). Explicit or implicit denial of stimulus or its consequences for the responder (“It doesn’t matter,” “My mother wouldn’t”).
• 21. Intensification or approval of deviant behavior. Frequently this changes meaning by making phrase
  seem ridiculously extreme—an undoing by intensification (e.g., “And then he raped her,” “So what!” “Good!”).

• IV. Rationalization

• 22. Response is in the form of a question.
• 23. Questions rather than denies the validity of the stimulus phrase. Expresses doubt rather than disbelief (e.g., “I wonder,” “Does that really happen?”).
• 24. Justifies or defends central theme of phrase by invoking psychological motives such as character structure (“He was weak, abnormal”) or by inventing sufficient psychological causes for the act. Also score if asks for such an explanation or cause for the act or shifts responsibility within the phrase.
• 25. Reference to norm, e.g., “x is usual, typical, common.” Justification by reference to norm.
• 26. Introduction of characters, other than subject’s family or friends.

• V. Personalization

• 27. Reference to self or family or name of friends or acquaintances.
• 28. Any emotional reaction to statement; any value, ethical, or moral judgment. Must be clear-cut in terms of our cultural norms, not just descriptive adjectives such as “smart.”
• 29. Affect or value judgment is attributed to actor in phrase.