Projective Psychological Assessment of Large Multimodal Models Using Thematic Apperception Tests

Anton Dzega, Aviad Elyashar, Ortal Slobodin, Odeya Cohen, Rami Puzis · Feb 19, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Feb 19, 2026, 6:08 AM

Stale

Extraction refreshed

Apr 13, 2026, 6:41 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence 0.15

Abstract

Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) is a psychometrically grounded, multidimensional assessment framework that systematically differentiates between cognitive-representational and affective-relational components of personality-like functioning. This test is a projective psychological framework designed to uncover unconscious aspects of personality. This study examines whether the personality traits of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) can be assessed through non-language-based modalities, using the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale - Global (SCORS-G). LMMs are employed in two distinct roles: as subject models (SMs), which generate stories in response to TAT images, and as evaluator models (EMs), who assess these narratives using the SCORS-G framework. Evaluators demonstrated an excellent ability to understand and analyze TAT responses. Their interpretations are highly consistent with those of human experts. Assessment results highlight that all models understand interpersonal dynamics very well and have a good grasp of the concept of self. However, they consistently fail to perceive and regulate aggression. Performance varied systematically across model families, with larger and more recent models consistently outperforming smaller and earlier ones across SCORS-G dimensions.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.