Test administration and standard instructions

As far as test administration and instructions are concerned, procedures are strict and discussed in details in several publications (e.g., Langens & Schüler, 2003; Pang, 2010b; Schultheiss & Pang, 2007; Smith et al., 1992). A standard procedure requires that each picture should be presented for about 10 to 15 seconds, after which participants are told to write a story on a sheet of paper or type it directly into the computer. They should have no

opportunity to view the picture once they have started writing. A maximum of five minutes are given for writing each story. It is very important to exert as little pressure as possible on participants (e.g., Lundy, 1988). This is the reason why computer administration is

recommended over administration by an experimenter.

By using computers for writing PSE stories researchers also save time because they do not have to transcribe stories for coding. Online assessment increases the reach of research on implicit motives to other parts of the world (Blankenship, 2010).

For example, Blankenship and Zoota (1998)compared the amount of power imagery in stories written by hand and those written on the computer under timed and untimed

conditions in a laboratory setting. Contrary to expectations, there were no differences in total amount of power imagery for five stories (raw scores) in computer-written versus handwritten conditions (M = 10.45, SD = 5.58, n = 60 versus M = 10.63, SD = 6.04, n = 60, respectively), or in timed versus untimed conditions (M = 10.43, SD = 5.44, n = 60 versus M = 10.65, SD = 6.16, n = 60, respectively). The authors also noted that participants in the timed, computer- written condition, reported that they felt rushed; therefore, they recommend that when the PSE is presented on the computer, participants not be timed.

Naglieri et al. (2004)provided further guidance for testing online. The benefits of internet testing are speed, cost, and convenience. Testing over the internet provides rapid communication of findings to clients, patients, researchers, and the public. It also allows researchers to collect data rapidly, conveniently, and at lower costs than in face-to-face research settings. Internet testing is cheaper and more efficient; it saves valuable time and provides results more rapidly and easily compared with face-to-face testing. The authors came to the conclusion that online assessment is appropriate when proper attention is given to validity and reliability, and they stress that “internet testing should be subjected to the same

defensible standards for assessment tools as paper-and-pencil tests when their results are used to make important decisions” (Nagliery et al., 2004, p. 161). On the other hand, the

psychologists should be open to new opportunities that might evolve with the development of new methods of testing, and the limits of psychometrics might be expanded to keep pace with these innovations.

Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, and John (2004) explored six preconceptions held about internet collection of data. The authors compared internet versus traditional models of

gathering data using the Big Five Inventory and found out that findings based on data gathered on the internet are comparable to those from traditional methods. For example, it

was proved that the samples gathered using internet methods are at least as diverse as many of the samples already used in psychological research, and internet users do not differ from nonusers on markers of adjustment and depression. The data provided by internet methods are also of at least as good quality as those provided by traditional paper-and-pencil methods, and, thus, the data collected from internet methods are not as flawed as is commonly believed. It is true that internet data can be compromised by anonymity of participants, but researchers can take steps to eliminate repeat responses.

To summarize, web questionnaires possess some strengths, such as large and diverse samples and motivated respondents, as well as drawbacks, such as lack of control over the participants´ environment and susceptibility to fake responses. On the other hand, traditional methods which are sometimes viewed as superior to internet methods can have their own weaknesses such as over-reliance on student samples and lack of anonymity. The authors conclude that „there is room for both, and researchers should select whichever method suits their particular research goals“ (Gosling et al., 2004, p. 102).

Standard instructions for the PSE administration can be found in several publications (Atkinson, 1966d; Lundy, 1988; Pang, 2010b; Schultheiss & Pang, 2007; Smith et al., 1992). The German version of the instructions can be found in Langens and Schüler (2003).

In general, it is important to emphasize that instructions should be conveyed as suggestions, not commandments. According to the standard procedure, participants are asked to write a story in response to four standard questions:

1) What is happening? Who are the persons?

2) What has led up to this situation? What has happened in the past? 3) What is being thought? What is wanted?

Typically, these probes are spaced evenly down the page with enough room for the participant to write a paragraph in response to each probe. But Blankenship and colleagues (Blankenship et al., 2005, 2006; Blankenship & Zoota, 1998) offered interesting

improvements which can increase the reliability of the PSE. The authors suggested that each paragraph of the PSE story should be coded separately and independently from the rest of the story. If the paragraphs of the story are viewed as test items, they vary in difficulty level, and participants put different achievement imagery into the stories they write in response to the picture and the probes on which the stories are based.