Abstract
Zeldow and McAdams (1993) recently presented artifactual explanations for our data showing dissimilarity between the content of speech elicited by the Thematic Apperception Test (Murray, 1943) and free speech tasks (Schnurr, Rosenberg, & Oxman, 1992). In particular, they alleged that our findings resulted from a lack of psychological meaning in our content categories and in the free speech task. We cite empirical and theoretical support to refute this allegation and provide additional analyses of our data that are consistent with our earlier suggestion that text samples elicited under different conditions may not be interchangeable.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
