text:
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main article: United States Bill of Rights
Constitutional Law
of the United States
Overview
Articles
Amendments
History
Judicial review
Principles
Separation of powers
Individual rights
Rule of law
Federalism
Republicanism
Government structure
Legislative branch
Executive branch
Judicial branch
State government
Local government
Individual rights
Freedom of religion
Freedom of speech
Freedom of the press
Freedom of assembly
Right to petition
Freedom of association
Right to keep and bear arms
Right to trial by jury
Criminal procedural rights
Right to privacy
Freedom from slavery
Due process
Equal protection
Citizenship
Voting rights
Theory
Living Constitution
Originalism
Purposivism
Textualism
Strict constructionism
v
t
e
Incorporation, in U.S. law, is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. When it was first ratified, the Bill of Rights only protected the rights it enumerated from federal infringement, allowing states and local governments to abridge them. However, beginning in 1897 with Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago, various portions have been held to be incorporated against state and local government through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
Contents
[hide]
1 History
1.1 Background
1.2 Incorporation
1.3 Selective versus total incorporation
1.4 Due process interpretation
1.5 Incorporation under privileges or immunities
2 Specific amendments
2.1 Amendment I
2.2 Amendment II
2.3 Amendment III
2.4 Amendment IV
2.5 Amendment V
2.6 Amendment VI
2.7 Amendment VII
2.8 Amendment VIII
3 Reverse incorporation
4 References
5 Further reading
History[edit]
Background[edit]
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...
— Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (1791)
The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.[1] Proposed following the oftentimes bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the United States Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in several earlier documents, including the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the English Bill of Rights 1689, along with earlier documents such as Magna Carta (1215). Although James Madison's proposed amendments included a provision to extend the protection of some of the Bill of Rights to the states, the amendments that were finally submitted for ratification applied only to the federal government.
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...
— Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868)
In the 1833 case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments; such protections were instead provided by the constitutions of each state. After the Civil War, Congress and the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, which included the Due Process Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause. While the Fifth Amendment had included a due process clause, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment crucially differed from the Fifth Amendment in that it explicitly applied to the states. The Privileges or Immunities Clause also explicitly applied to the states, unlike the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. In the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was not designed to protected individuals from the actions of state governments. In Twining v. New Jersey (1908), the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Due Process Clause might incorporate some of the Bill of Rights, but continued to reject any incorporation under the Privileges or Immunities Clause.[2]
Incorporation[edit]
The doctrine of incorporation has been traced back to either Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago (1897) in which the Supreme Court appeared to require some form of just compensation for property appropriated by state or local authorities (although there was a state statute on the books that provided the same guarantee) or, more commonly, to Gitlow v. New York (1925), in which the Court expressly held that States were bound to protect freedom of speech. Since that time, the Court has steadily incorporated most of the significant provisions of the Bill of Rights.[3] Provisions that the Supreme Court either has refused to incorporate, or whose possible incorporation has not yet been addressed include the Fifth Amendment right to an indictment by a grand jury, and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits.
Incorporation applies both procedurally and substantively to the guarantees of the states. Thus, procedurally, only a jury can convict a defendant of a serious crime, since the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right has been incorporated against the states; substantively, for example, states must recognize the First Amendment prohibition against a state-established religion, regardless of whether state laws and constitutions offer such a prohibition. The Supreme Court has declined, however, to apply new procedural constitutional rights retroactively against the states in criminal cases (Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)) with limited exceptions, and it has waived constitutional requirements if the states can prove that a constitutional violation was "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."[citation needed]
Rep. John Bingham, the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, advocated that the Fourteenth applied the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights to the States.[4] The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently declined to interpret it that way, despite the dissenting argument in the 1947 case of Adamson v. California by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black that the framers' intent should control the Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment (he included a lengthy appendix that quoted extensively from Bingham's congressional testimony).[5] Although the Adamson Court declined to adopt Black's interpretation, the Court during the following twenty-five years employed a doctrine of selective incorporation that succeeded in extending to the States almost all of the protections in the Bill of Rights, as well as other, unenumerated rights.[6] The Bill of Rights thus imposes legal limits on the powers of governments and acts as an anti-majoritarian/minoritarian safeguard by providing deeply entrenched legal protection for various civil liberties and fundamental rights.[7][8][9] The Supreme Court for example concluded in the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) case that the founders intended the Bill of Rights to put some rights out of reach from majorities, ensuring that some liberties would endure beyond political majorities.[7][8][9][10] As the Court noted the idea of the Bill of Rights “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.”[10][11] This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”[10][11] The 14th Amendment has vastly expanded civil rights protections and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[12]
Selective versus total incorporation[edit]
In the 1940s and 1960s the Supreme Court gradually issued a series of decisions incorporating several of the specific rights from the Bill of Rights, so as to be binding upon the States.[13] A dissenting school of thought championed by Justice Hugo Black supported that incorporation of specific rights, but urged incorporation of all specific rights instead of just some of them. Black was for so-called mechanical incorporation, or total incorporation, of Amendments 1 through 8 of the Bill of Rights (Amendments 9 and 10 being patently connected to the powers of the state governments).[14] Black felt that the Fourteenth Amendment required the States to respect all of the enumerated rights set forth in the first eight amendments, but he did not wish to see the doctrine expanded to include other, unenumerated "fundamental rights" that might be based on the Ninth Amendment. Black felt that his formulation eliminated any arbitrariness or caprice in deciding what the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect, by sticking to words already found in the Constitution. Although Black was willing to invalidate federal statutes on federalism grounds, he was not inclined to read any of the first eight amendments as states' rights provisions as opposed to individual rights provisions.[14] Justice Black felt that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to apply the first eight amendments from the Bill of Rights to the states, as he expressed in his dissenting opinion in Adamson v. California.[15] This view was again expressed by Black in his concurrence in Duncan v. Louisiana citing the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause: "'No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' seem to me an eminently reasonable way of expressing the idea that henceforth the Bill of Rights shall apply to the States."[16]
Due process interpretation[edit]
Justice Felix Frankfurter, however, felt that the incorporation process ought to be incremental, and that the federal courts should only apply those sections of the Bill of Rights whose abridgment would "shock the conscience," as he put it in Rochin v. California (1952). Such a selective incorporation approach followed that of Justice Moody, who wrote in Twining v. New Jersey (1908) that "It is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law. If this is so, it is not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law." The due process approach thus considers a right to be incorporated not because it was listed in the Bill of Rights, but only because it is required by the definition of due process, which may change over time. For example, Moody's decision in Twining stated that the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination was not inherent in a conception of due process and so did not apply to states, but was overruled in Malloy v. Hogan (1964). Similarly, Justice Cardozo stated in Palko v. Connecticut (1937) that the right against double jeopardy was not inherent to due process and so does not apply to the states, but that was overruled in Benton v. Maryland (1969). Frankfurter's incrementalist approach did carry the day, but the end result is very nearly what Justice Black advocated, with the exceptions noted below.
Incorporation under privileges or immunities[edit]
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....
— Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Some have suggested that the Privileges or Immunities Clause would be a more appropriate textual basis than the due process clause for incorporation of the Bill of Rights.[17] It is often said that the Slaughter-House Cases "gutted the privileges or immunities clause" and thus prevented its use for applying the Bill of Rights against the states.[18] In his dissent to Adamson v. California, however, Justice Hugo Black pointed out that the Slaughter-House Cases did not directly involve any right enumerated in the Constitution:
[T]he state law under consideration in the Slaughter-House cases was only challenged as one which authorized a monopoly, and the brief for the challenger properly conceded that there was "no direct constitutional provision against a monopoly." The argument did not invoke any specific provision of the Bill of Rights, but urged that the state monopoly statute violated "the natural right of a person" to do business and engage in his trade or vocation.[19]
Thus, in Black's view, the Slaughterhouse Cases should not impede incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states, via the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Some scholars go even further, and argue that the Slaughterhouse Cases affirmatively supported incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states.[20] In dicta, Justice Miller's opinion in Slaughterhouse went so far as to acknowledge that the "right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances ... are rights of the citizen guaranteed by the Federal Constitution," although in context Miller may have only been referring to assemblies for petitioning the federal government.[21]
In the 2010 landmark case McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court declared the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause. However, Justice Thomas, the fifth justice in the majority, criticized substantive due process and declared instead that he reached the same incorporation only through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. No other justice attempted to question his rationale. This is considered by some as a "revival" of the Privileges or Immunities Clause,[22] however as it is a concurring opinion and not the majority opinion in the case, it holds no legal weight in lower courts; it is merely an indication that SCOTUS may be inclined, given the proper question, to reconsider and ultimately reverse the Slaughterhouse Cases.
Specific amendments[edit]
Many of the provisions of the First Amendment were applied to the States in the 1930s and 1940s, but most of the procedural protections provided to criminal defendants were not enforced against the States until the Warren Court of the 1960s, famous for its concern for the rights of those accused of crimes, brought state standards in line with federal requirements. The following list enumerates, by amendment and individual clause, the Supreme Court cases that have incorporated the rights contained in the Bill of Rights. (The Ninth Amendment is not listed; its wording indicates that it "is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution."[23] The Tenth Amendment is also not listed; by its wording, it is a reservation of powers to the states and to the people.)
Amendment I[edit]
Guarantee against establishment of religion
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).[24]
Guarantee of free exercise of religion
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
Guarantee of freedom of speech
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)(dicta).
Guarantee of freedom of the press
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
Guarantee of freedom of assembly
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937).
Guarantee of the right to petition for redress of grievances
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963).[25][26]
Guarantee of freedom of expressive association
This right, though not in the words of the first amendment, was first mentioned in the case NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)[27] and was at that time applied to the states. See also Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends."
Amendment II[edit]
Right to keep and bear arms
This right has been incorporated against the states. Described as a fundamental and individual right that will necessarily be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts, see McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). Self Defense is described as "the central component" of the Second Amendment in McDonald, supra., and upheld District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S (2008) concluding the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States, see, McDonald vs. City of Chicago (2010). "The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored as long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner," McDonald, supra..
Amendment III[edit]
Freedom from quartering of soldiers
This provision has been incorporated against the states within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but has not been incorporated against the states elsewhere.
In 1982, the Second Circuit applied the Third Amendment to the states in Engblom v. Carey. This is a binding authority over Connecticut, New York, and Vermont, but is only a persuasive authority over the remainder of the United States.
The Tenth Circuit has suggested that the right is incorporated because the Bill of Rights explicitly codifies the "fee ownership system developed in English law" through the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and the Fourteenth Amendment likewise forbids the states from depriving citizens of their property without due process of law. See United States v. Nichols, 841 F.2d 1485, 1510 n.1 (10th Cir. 1988).
The "problem" is that the third amendment, by and large, is the only one that is almost never violated by the states and Federal government, almost nobody is suing over the issue, so very few cases are being heard. The U.S. Supreme Court has never had a third amendment case appealed to it.
Amendment IV[edit]
Unreasonable search and seizure
This right has been incorporated against the states by the Supreme Court's decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), although there is dicta in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), saying the "core" of the Fourth Amendment applied to the States.
The remedy of exclusion of unlawfully seized evidence, the exclusionary rule, has been incorporated against the states. See Mapp v. Ohio. In Mapp, the Court overruled Wolf v. Colorado in which the Court had ruled that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the states.
Warrant requirements
The various warrant requirements have been incorporated against the states. See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964).
The standards for judging whether a search or seizure undertaken without a warrant was "unreasonable" also have been incorporated against the states. See Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963).
Amendment V[edit]
Right to indictment by a grand jury
This right has been held not to be incorporated against the states. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884).
Protection against double jeopardy
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969).
Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination
This right has been incorporated against the states.[28][29]
Self Incrimination in Court See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), Malloy v. Hogan , 378 U.S. 1 (1964).
Miranda See Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S. 436 (1966).
A note about the Miranda warnings: The text of the Fifth Amendment does not require that the police, before interrogating a suspect whom they have in custody, give him or her the now-famous Miranda warnings. Nevertheless, the Court has held that these warnings are a necessary prophylactic device, and thus required by the Fifth Amendment by police who interrogate any criminal suspect in custody, regardless of whether he or she is ultimately prosecuted in state or federal court.
Protection against taking of private property without just compensation
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).
Amendment VI[edit]
Right to a speedy trial
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967).
Right to a public trial
This right has been incorporated against the states. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948).
Right to trial by impartial jury
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), which guarantees the right to a jury trial in non-petty cases.[30] See also Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (1966), where the Supreme Court ruled "that the statements of the bailiff to the jurors are controlled by the command of the Sixth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It guarantees that 'the accused shall enjoy the right to a trial, by an impartial jury [...].'"[30][dead link] However, the size of the jury, as well as the requirement that it unanimously reach its verdict, vary between federal and state courts. Even so, the Supreme Court has ruled that a jury in a criminal case may have as few as six members. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970). If there are twelve, only nine jurors need agree on a verdict. Furthermore, there is no right to a jury trial in juvenile delinquency proceedings held in state court. See McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971).
Right to a jury selected from residents of the state and district where the crime occurred
This right has not been incorporated against the states. See Caudill v. Scott, 857 F.2d 344 (6th Cir. 1988); Cook v. Morrill, 783 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1986); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1980).
Right to notice of accusations
This right has been incorporated against the states. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948). See also Rabe v. Washington, 405 U.S. 313 (1972).[30]
Right to confront adverse witnesses
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965).
Right to compulsory process (subpoenas) to obtain witness testimony
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967).
Right to assistance of counsel
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Powell v. Alabama 287 U.S. 45 (1932), for capital cases, see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) for all felony cases, and see Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) for imprisonable misdemeanors.[30] In subsequent decisions, the Court extended the right to counsel to any case in which a jail sentence is imposed.
Amendment VII[edit]
Right to jury trial in civil cases
This right has not been incorporated against the states. See Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916) and Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 U.S. 294 (1877)
Re-Examination Clause
This right has not been incorporated against the states. See Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916)[31]
Amendment VIII[edit]
Protection against excessive bail
This right may have been incorporated against the states. In Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357 (1971), the Court stated in dicta: "Bail, of course, is basic to our system of law, and the Eighth Amendment's proscription of excessive bail has been assumed to have application to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment." In Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (1982), the Court did not reach the issue because the case was dismissed as moot. Bail was included in the list of incorporated rights in McDonald footnote 12, citing Schilb.
Protection against excessive fines
This right has not been incorporated. See McDonald v. City of Chicago, footnote 13 (2010).
Protection against cruel and unusual punishments
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). This holding has led the Court to suggest, in dicta, that the excessive bail and excessive fines protections have also been incorporated. See Baze v. Rees, 128 S. Ct. 1520, 1529 (2008).
Reverse incorporation[edit]
A similar legal doctrine to incorporation is that of reverse incorporation. Whereas incorporation applies the Bill of Rights to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in reverse incorporation, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been held to apply to the federal government through the Due Process Clause located in the Fifth Amendment.[32] For example, in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), which was a companion case to Brown v. Board of Education, the schools of the District of Columbia were desegregated even though Washington is federal. Likewise, in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña 515 U.S. 200 (1995), an affirmative action program by the federal government was subjected to strict scrutiny based on equal protection.
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "The Charters of Freedom: The Bill of Rights". Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved October 4, 2015.
Jump up ^ Chu, Vivian (21 September 2009). "The Second Amendment and Incorporation: An Overview of Recent Appellate Cases" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 13 October 2017.
Jump up ^ See, e.g., Constitutional Rights Foundation discussion, giving summary, extensive WWW links and timeline; JRank Law Library; Encyclopedia.com Article;BYU Law Review Article
Jump up ^ Congressional Globe: Debates and Proceedings, 1833–1873
Jump up ^ Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 92-118 (1947)
Jump up ^ "Primary Documents in American History", Library of Congress
^ Jump up to: a b Jeffrey Jowell and Jonathan Cooper (2002). Understanding Human Rights Principles. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. p. 180. Retrieved 16 March 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b Loveland, Ian (2002). "Chapter 18 - Human Rights I: Traditional Perspectives". Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction (Seventh ed.). London: Oxford University Press. p. 559. Retrieved 16 March 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b Jayawickrama, Nihal (2002). The Judicial Application of Human Rights Law: National, Regional and International Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 98. Retrieved 16 March 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b c West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette , 319 U.S. 624, Majority Opinion, item 3 (US 1943) (“"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."”).
^ Jump up to: a b Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, slip op. at 24 (U.S. June 26, 2015).
Jump up ^ "Primary Documents in American History", Library of Congress
Jump up ^ Steffen W. Schmidt, Mack C. Shelley, Barbara A. Bardes: American Government and Politics Today, Page 71. Thomson Wadsworth, 2004.
^ Jump up to: a b Amar, Akhil Reed: The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction , Page 234. Yale University Press, 1998
Jump up ^ Curtis, Michael Kent (1994) [1986]. No State Shall Abridge (Second printing in paperback ed.). Duke University Press. pp. 5, 202. ISBN 0-8223-0599-2.
Jump up ^ Curtis, Michael Kent (1994) [1986]. No State Shall Abridge (Second printing in paperback ed.). Duke University Press. p. 202. ISBN 0-8223-0599-2.
Jump up ^ See Doherty, Brian. "Killing Slaughterhouse: Understanding the controversial 1873 decision at the center of the Supreme Court's upcoming gun rights fight," Reason Magazine Retrieved 2010-01-26.
Jump up ^ See Pilon, Roger. "Lawless Judges: Refocusing the Issue for Conservatives," Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume II, page 21 (2000).
Jump up ^ Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947) (Black, J., dissenting).
Jump up ^ See Wildenthal, Bryan. “The Lost Compromise: Reassessing the Early Understanding in Court and Congress on Incorporation of the Bill of Rights in the Fourteenth Amendment". Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 61 (2000).
Jump up ^ Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873).
Jump up ^ Privileges or Immunities Clause alive again
Jump up ^ Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 776 n. 14 (2nd ed. 1998)
Jump up ^ Justice Thomas, in a concurring opinion in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, expressed his view that Everson was wrongly decided and that incorporation of the Establishment Clause is not justified under the Constitution. See Nussbaum, Martha Craven (2008). Liberty of conscience: in defense of America's tradition of religious equality. Basic Books. pp. 105 et seq. and Chapter 4. ISBN 0-465-05164-2. Nebraska Law Review Article.
Jump up ^ Hartman, Gary, Roy M. Mersky, and Cindy L. Tate (2004). "Landmark Supreme Court Cases: "Edwards v. South Carolina."". New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2004. American History Online. Retrieved 15 August 2013. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ "Pearson Prentice Hall: Supreme Court Cases - Edwards v. South Carolina, 1963". Pearson Education, Inc. Pearson Education, Inc. Retrieved 15 August 2013.
Jump up ^ Vance, Laurence M. "Does the First Amendment Protect the Freedom of Association? The Future of Freedom Foundation". The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Jump up ^ Akhil Reed Amar and Renee Lettow Lerner, "Fifth Amendment First Principles: The Self- Incrimination Clause", Michigan Law Review 93 (1995): 857, accessed February 15, 2015.
Jump up ^ Robert L. Cord, "Neo-Incorporation: The Burger Court and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," Fordham Law Review 44, no. 2 (1975): 215-230, accessed February 13, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b c d "Bill of Rights Institute: Incorporation". Bill of Rights Center. Archived from the original on 12 October 2013. Retrieved 11 October 2013.
Jump up ^ "The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation - 1992 Edition --> Amendments to the Constitution --> Seventh Amendment - Civil Trials". U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1992. p. 1453. Retrieved 4 July 2013. The Amendment governs only courts which sit under the authority of the United States, including courts in the territories and the District of Columbia, and does not apply generally to state courts.
Jump up ^ Columbia Law Review, May 2004
Further reading[edit]
J. Lieberman (1999). A Practical Companion to the Constitution. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Regina McClendon, Public Law Research Institute (1994) (stating that "[t]he almost total incorporation of the Bill of Rights lends support to the theory that incorporation of the Second Amendment is inevitable"). "Limits On The Power Of States To Regulate Firearms". W3.uchastings.edu. Archived from the original on 2007-10-13. Retrieved 2008-09-06.
American Jurisprudence, 2d ed., "Constitutional Law" § 405.
Ernest H. Schopler, Comment Note—What Provisions of the Federal Constitution's Bill of Rights Are Applicable to the States, 23 L. Ed. 2d 985 (Lexis).
[hide]
v
t
e
United States Constitution
Text
(via Wikisource)
Preamble and Articles I–VII
Amendments 1–10
Amendments 11–27
Unsuccessful Proposed Amendments
Debates in State Conventions on the Adoption of the Constitution
Preamble
and articles
Preamble
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Amendments
Ratified
Bill of Rights
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Others
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Pending
Congressional Apportionment
Titles of Nobility
Corwin Amendment
Child Labor
Repealed
Eighteenth Amendment
Unsuccessful
Equal Rights
District of Columbia Voting Rights
List of Amendments
Bill of Rights (Amendments 1–10)
Reconstruction Amendments (Amendments 13–15)
Amendment proposals in Congress
Convention to propose amendments
State ratifying conventions
Formation
History
Articles of Confederation
Mount Vernon Conference
Annapolis Convention
Philadelphia Convention
Virginia Plan
New Jersey Plan
Connecticut Compromise
Three-Fifths Compromise
Committee of Detail
Signing
Independence Hall
Syng inkstand
The Federalist Papers
Anti-Federalist Papers
Massachusetts Compromise
Virginia Ratifying Convention
Hillsborough Convention
Rhode Island ratification
Drafting and ratification timeline
Clauses
Appointments
Appropriations
Assistance of Counsel
Bills of credit
Case or Controversy
Citizenship
Commerce
Compact
Compulsory Process
Confrontation
Contract
Copyright and Patent
Double Jeopardy
Due Process
Equal Protection
Establishment
Exceptions
Excessive Bail
Ex post facto
Extradition
Free Exercise
Free Speech
Fugitive Slave
Full Faith and Credit
General Welfare
Guarantee
Impeachment
Import-Export
Ineligibility
Militia
Natural-born citizen
Necessary and Proper
New States
No Religious Test
Oath or Affirmation
Origination
Petition
Postal
Presentment
Privileges and Immunities
Privileges or Immunities
Recommendation
Self-Incrimination
Speech or Debate
Speedy Trial
State of the Union
Supremacy
Suspension
Take Care
Takings
Taxing and Spending
Territorial
Title of Nobility
Treaty
Trial by Jury
Vesting
Vicinage
War Powers
List of clauses
Interpretation
Concurrent powers
Congressional enforcement
Constitutional law
Criminal procedure
Criminal sentencing
Dormant Commerce Clause
Enumerated powers
Equal footing
Executive privilege
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
Judicial review
Nondelegation doctrine
Preemption
Saxbe fix
Separation of church and state
Separation of powers
Taxation power
Unitary executive theory
Display
and legacy
National Archives
Charters of Freedom Rotunda
Independence Mall
Constitution Day
Constitution Gardens
National Constitution Center
Scene at the Signing of the Constitution (painting)
A More Perfect Union (film)
Worldwide influence
US Government Portal • Law Portal • Wikipedia book
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights&oldid=815267477"
Categories:
United States constitutional law
Legal history of the United States
Incorporation case law
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Hidden categories:
CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from September 2011
All articles with dead external links
Articles with dead external links from May 2017
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Français
Português
Simple English
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 13 December 2017, at 20:39.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: role class

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

value: li

values: List of amendments to the United States Constitution

value: ul

values: History of the United States Constitution

values: Separation of powers under the United States Constitution

values: Freedom of religion in the United States

values: Freedom of the press in the United States

values: Right to keep and bear arms in the United States

values: United States constitutional criminal procedure

values: Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Template:United States constitutional law

values: Template talk:United States constitutional law

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values: First Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: float: right; clear: right; margin: 0.5em 0 0.8em 1.4em; width:25%; padding: 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa; font-size: 88%; background-color: #F9F9F9;

values: Article Four of the United States Constitution

values: Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 489

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (September 2011)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values:
/wiki/U.S._Supreme_Court
mw-redirect
U.S. Supreme Court

values: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

values:
/wiki/Civil_rights
mw-redirect
Civil rights

values: Edit section: Selective versus total incorporation

values: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Edit section: Due process interpretation

values:
/wiki/Benjamin_Cardozo
mw-redirect
Benjamin Cardozo

values: Edit section: Incorporation under privileges or immunities

values:
/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
mw-redirect
McDonald v. Chicago

values: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 330

values: Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 310

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 268

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 283

values:
/wiki/DeJonge_v._Oregon
mw-redirect
DeJonge v. Oregon

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 299

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 372

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 357

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 468

values: Third Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

values: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 367

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 338

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 378

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 374

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 395

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 348

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 386

values:
/wiki/Public_trial_clause
mw-redirect
Public trial clause

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 333

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 391

values: s:Parker v. Gladden/Opinion of the Court

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 385

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 399

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 403

values: Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 405

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 380

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 388

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 287

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 407

values: Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis (page does not exist)

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 241

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 95

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 455

values: Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishments
mw-redirect
Cruel and unusual punishments

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 370

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 515

values: National Archives and Records Administration

values:
nofollow
external text
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40820.pdf

values:
nofollow
external text
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html

values: Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

values:
/wiki/Martha_Craven_Nussbaum
mw-redirect
Martha Craven Nussbaum

values: Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: s:Constitution of the United States of America

values: s:Additional amendments to the United States Constitution

values: s:Portal:Unsuccessful attempts to amend the United States Constitution

values: s:Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

values: Preamble to the United States Constitution

values: Article One of the United States Constitution

values: Article Two of the United States Constitution

values: Article Three of the United States Constitution

values: Article Five of the United States Constitution

values: Article Six of the United States Constitution

values: Article Seven of the United States Constitution

values: Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment

values: List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution

values: Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution

values: Constitutional Convention (United States)

values: Signing of the United States Constitution

values: Ratification of the United States Constitution by Rhode Island

values: Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Guarantee_Clause
mw-redirect
Guarantee Clause

values: Oath of office of the President of the United States

values: List of clauses of the United States Constitution

values: United States constitutional sentencing law

values: Separation of church and state in the United States

values: Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States

values: United States Constitution and worldwide influence

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Category:United States constitutional law

values: Category:Legal history of the United States

values: Category:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from September 2011

values: Category:All articles with dead external links

values: Category:Articles with dead external links from May 2017

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: Incorporation (Déclaration des droits) – French

values: Incorporação da Carta dos Direitos – Portuguese

values: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights – Simple English

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights rootpage-Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights skin-vector action-view


text:
Thematic apperception test
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Thematic apperception test
Medical diagnostics
MeSH
D013803
[edit on Wikidata]
Thematic apperception test (TAT) is a projective psychological test. Proponents of the technique assert that subjects' responses, in the narratives they make up about ambiguous pictures of people, reveal their underlying motives, concerns, and the way they see the social world.[1] Historically, the test has been among the most widely researched, taught, and used of such techniques.[2]
Contents
[hide]
1 History
2 Procedure
3 Psychometric characteristics
3.1 Reliability
3.2 Validity
3.3 Alternate considerations
4 Scoring systems
5 General Interpretation
6 Criticisms
7 Contemporary applications
8 Popular culture
9 See also
10 References
11 External links
History[edit]
The TAT was developed during the 1930s by the American psychologist Henry A. Murray and lay psychoanalyst Christiana D. Morgan at the Harvard Clinic at Harvard University. Anecdotally, the idea for the TAT emerged from a question asked by one of Murray's undergraduate students, Cecilia Roberts.[3] She reported that when her son was ill, he spent the day making up stories about images in magazines and she asked Murray if pictures could be employed in a clinical setting to explore the underlying dynamics of personality.
Murray wanted to use a measure that would reveal information about the whole person but found the contemporary tests of his time lacking in this regard. Therefore, he created the TAT. The rationale behind the technique is that people tend to interpret ambiguous situations in accordance with their own past experiences and current motivations, which may be conscious or unconscious. Murray reasoned that by asking people to tell a story about a picture, their defenses to the examiner would be lowered as they would not realize the sensitive personal information they were divulging by creating the story.[4]
Murray and Morgan spent the 1930s selecting pictures from illustrative magazines and developing the test. After 3 versions of the test (Series A, Series B, and Series C), Morgan and Murray decided on the final set of pictures, Series D, which remains in use today.[3] Although she was given first authorship on the first published paper about the TAT in 1935, Morgan did not receive authorship credit on the final published instrument. Reportedly, her role in the creation of the TAT was primarily in the selection and editing of the images, but due to the primacy of the name on the original publication the majority of written inquiries about the TAT were addressed to her; since most of these letters included questions that she could not answer, she requested that her name be removed from future authorship.[5]
During the time Murray was developing the TAT he was also involved in Herman Melville studies. The therapeutic technique originally came to him from the "Doubloon chapter" in Moby Dick.[6] In this chapter, multiple characters inspect the same image (a Doubloon), but each character has vastly different interpretations of the imagery—Ahab sees symbols of himself in the coin, while the religiously devout Starbuck sees the Christian Trinity. Other characters provide interpretations of the image that give more insight into the characters themselves based on their interpretations of the imagery. Crew members, including Ahab, project their self perceptions onto the coin which was nailed to the mast. Murray, a lifelong Melvillist, often maintained that all of Melville's oeuvre was for him a TAT.
After World War II, the TAT was adopted more broadly by psychoanalysts and clinicians to evaluate emotionally disturbed patients. Later, in the 1970s, the Human Potential Movement encouraged psychologists to use the TAT to help their clients understand themselves better and stimulate personal growth.
Procedure[edit]
The TAT is popularly known as the picture interpretation technique because it uses a series of provocative yet ambiguous pictures about which the subject is asked to tell a story. The TAT manual provides the administration instructions used by Murray,[7] although these procedures are commonly altered. The subject is asked to tell as dramatic a story as they can for each picture presented, including the following:
what has led up to the event shown
what is happening at the moment
what the characters are feeling and thinking
what the outcome of the story was
If these elements are omitted, particularly for children or individuals of low cognitive abilities, the evaluator may ask the subject about them directly. Otherwise, the examiner is to avoid interjecting and should not answer questions about the content of the pictures. The examiner records stories verbatim for later interpretation.
The complete version of the test contains 32 picture cards. Some of the cards show male figures, some female, some both male and female figures, some of ambiguous gender, some adults, some children, and some show no human figures at all. One card is completely blank and is used to elicit both a scene and a story about the given scene from the storyteller. Although the cards were originally designed to be matched to the subject in terms of age and gender, any card may be used with any subject. Murray hypothesized that stories would yield better information about a client if the majority of cards administered featured a character similar in age and gender to the client.[7]
Although Murray recommended using 20 cards, most practitioners choose a set of between 8 and 12 selected cards, either using cards that they feel are generally useful, or that they believe will encourage the subject's expression of emotional conflicts relevant to their specific history and situation.[8] However, the examiner should aim to select a variety of cards in order to get a more global perspective of the storyteller and to avoid confirmation bias (i.e., finding only what you are looking for).
Many of the TAT drawings consist of sets of themes such as: success and failure, competition and jealousy, feeling about relationships, aggression, and sexuality.[9] These are usually depicted through picture cards.
Psychometric characteristics[edit]
Thematic Apperception Tests are meant to evoke an involuntary display of one’s subconscious. There is no standardization for evaluating one’s TAT responses; each evaluation is completely subjective because each response is unique. Validity and reliability are, consequently, the largest question marks of the TAT.[10] There are trends and patterns, which help identify psychological traits, but there are no distinct responses to indicate different conditions a patient may or may not have. Medical professionals most commonly use it in the early stages of patient treatment. The TAT helps professionals identify a broad range of issues that their patients may suffer from. Even when individual scoring procedures are examined, the absence of standardization or norms make it difficult to compare the results of validity and reliability research across studies. Specifically, even studies using the same scoring system often use different cards, or a different number of cards.[11] Standardization is also absent amongst clinicians, who often alter the instructions and procedures.[12] Murstein[13] explained that different cards may be more or less useful for specific clinical questions and purposes, making the use of one set of cards for all clients impractical.
Reliability[edit]
Internal consistency, a reliability estimate focusing on how highly test items correlate to each other, is often quite low for TAT scoring systems. Some authors have argued that internal consistency measures do not apply to the TAT. In contrast to traditional test items, which should all measure the same construct and be correlated to each other, each TAT card represents a different situation and should yield highly different response themes.[10] Lilienfeld and colleagues [11] countered this point by questioning the practice of compiling TAT responses to form scores. Both inter-rater reliability (the degree to which different raters score TAT responses the same) and test–retest reliability (to degree to which individuals receive the same scores over time) are highly variable across scoring techniques.[13] However, Murray asserted that TAT answers are highly related to internal states such that high test-retest reliability should not be expected.[11] Gruber and Kreuzpointner (2013) developed a new method for calculating internal consistency using categories instead of pictures. As they demonstrated in a mathematical proof, their method provides a better fit for the underlying construction principles of TAT, and also achieved adequate Cronbach's alpha scores up to .84 [14]
Validity[edit]
The validity of the TAT, or the degree to which it measures what it is supposed to measure,[15] is low.[11] Jenkins [16] has stated that “the phrase ‘validity of the TAT’ is meaningless, because validity is specific not to the pictures, but to the set of scores derived from the population, purpose, and circumstances involved in any given data collection." That is, the validity of the test would be ascertained by seeing how clinician's decisions were assisted based on the TAT. Evidence on this front suggests it is a weak guide at best. For example, one study indicated that clinicians classified individuals as clinical or non-clinical at close to chance levels (57% where 50% would be guessing) based on TAT data alone. The same study found that classifications were 88% correct based on MMPI data. Interestingly, using TAT in addition to the MMPI reduced accuracy to 80%.[17]
Alternate considerations[edit]
Despite the conflicting information about the psychometric characteristics of the TAT, proponents have argued that the TAT should not be judged using traditional standards of reliability and validity. According to Holt,[18] “the TAT is a complex method of assessing people, which does not lend itself to the standard rules of thumb about test standards [. . .]” (p. 101). For example, it has been argued that the purpose of the TAT is to reveal a wide range of personality characteristics and complex, nuanced patterns, as opposed to traditional psychological tests that are designed to measure unitary and narrow constructs.[16] Hibbard and colleagues[19] examined several considerations about traditional views of reliability and validity as they apply to the TAT. First, they noted that traditional views of reliability may limit the validity of a measure (such as occurs with multi-faceted concepts in which characteristics are not necessarily related to each other, but are meaningful in combination). Further, Cronbach's alpha, a commonly used measure of internal consistency, is dependent on the number of items in scale. For the TAT, most scales use only a small number of cards (with each card treated like an item) so alphas would not be expected to be very high. Many clinicians also discount the importance of psychometrics, believing that generalizability of the findings to a given client’s situation is more important than generalizing findings to the population.[16]
Scoring systems[edit]
When he created the TAT, Murray also developed a scoring system based on his need-press theory of personality. Murray's system involved coding every sentence given for the presence of 28 needs and 20 presses (environmental influences), which were then scored from 1 to 5, based on intensity, frequency, duration, and importance to the plot.[7] However, implementing this scoring system is time-consuming and was not widely used. Rather, examiners have traditionally relied on their clinical intuition to come to conclusions about storytellers.[20]
Although not widely used in the clinical setting, several formal scoring systems have been developed for analyzing TAT stories systematically and consistently. Two common methods that are currently used in research are the:
Defense Mechanisms Manual DMM.[21] This assesses three defense mechanisms: denial (least mature), projection (intermediate), and identification (most mature). A person's thoughts/feelings are projected in stories involved.
Social Cognition and Object Relations SCOR[22] scale. This assesses four different dimensions of object relations: Complexity of Representations of People, Affect-Tone of Relationship Paradigms, Capacity for Emotional Investment in Relationships and Moral Standards, and Understanding of Social Causality.
Personal Problem-Solving System—Revised (PPSS-R[23][24]). This assesses how people identify, think about and resolve problems through the scoring of thirteen different criteria. This scoring system is useful because theoretically, good problem-solving ability is an indicator of an individual’s mental health. Although the TAT is a projective personality technique that is based primarily on the psychoanalytic perspective, the PPSS-R scoring system is designed for clinicians and researchers working from a cognitive behavioral framework. The PPSS-R scoring system has been studied in a wide range of populations, including college students, community residents, jail inmates, university clinic clients, community mental health center clients, and psychiatric day treatment clients. Thus, the PPSS-R scoring system allows clinicians and researchers to assess for problem solving ability and social functioning in many types of people, without being hindered by social desirability effects.
Similar to other scoring systems, with the PPSS-R TAT cards are typically administered individually and examinees responses are recorded verbatim. Unlike other scoring systems, the PPSS-R only uses six of the 31 TAT cards: 1, 2, 4, 7BM, 10, and 13MF. The PPSS-R provides information about four different areas related to problem solving ability: Story Design, Story Orientation, Story Solutions, and Story Resolution. These four areas are assessed by the 13 scoring criteria, 12 of which are rated on a 5-point scale that ranges from -1 to 3.
Each of these scoring categories attempts to measure the following information:
—Story Design measures an individual’s ability to identify and formulate a problem situation.
—Story Orientation assesses an examinees level of personal control, emotional distress, confidence and motivation.
—Story Solutions assesses how impulsive an examinee is. In addition to evaluating the types of problem solutions that are provided, the number of problem solutions that examinees provide for each of the TAT cards is summed.
—Story Resolution provides information on the examinees ability to formulate problem solutions that maximize both short and long-term goals.
Examiners are encouraged to explore information obtained from the TAT stories as hypotheses for testing rather than concrete facts.
General Interpretation[edit]
Interpretation of the responses will vary depending on the examiner and what type of scoring was used. It is common that the standard scoring systems are used more in research settings than clinical settings. Individuals can select certain scoring systems if they have the goal to evaluate a specific variable such as motivation, defense mechanisms, achievement, problem-solving skills, etc. If a clinician selects not to use a scoring system, there are some general guidelines that can be utilized. For example, the stories created by the individuals in response to the TAT cards are a combination of three things: the card stimulus, the testing environment, and the personality of the examinee. For each card, the individual must subjectively interpret the pictures which involves the individual taking their own experiences and feelings to create a story. Therefore, it is beneficial to look at the common themes in the stories’ content and structure to help make conclusions [12]
With interpretation of the responses, it is important for the clinician to consider some cautions to verify the information is as accurate as possible. First, the examiner should always be conservative when interpreting responses. It is important to always err on the side of caution instead of making bold conclusions. The examiner should also consider all the data when using the TAT in a testing or evaluative setting. One response should not be given more importance over the other responses. Additionally, the examiner should take the individual’s developmental status and cultural background into consideration when examining responses. All of these cautions should be considered when an examiner is using the TAT [12]
Criticisms[edit]
Like other projective techniques, the TAT has been criticized on the basis of poor psychometric properties (see above).[11] Criticisms include that the TAT is unscientific because it cannot be proved to be valid (that it actually measures what it claims to measure), or reliable (that it gives consistent results over time). As stories about the cards are a reflection of both the conscious and unconscious motives of the storyteller, it is difficult to disprove the conclusions of the examiner and to find appropriate behavioral measures that would represent the personality traits under examination. Characteristics of the TAT that make conclusions based on the stories yielded from TAT cards hard to be disproved have been termed "immunizing tactics".[11] These characteristics include the Walter Mitty effect (i.e., the assertion that individuals will exhibit high levels of a given trait in TAT stories that do not match their overt behavior because TAT responses may represent how a person wishes they were, not how they truly are) and the inhibition effect (i.e., the assertion that individuals will not exhibit high levels of a trait in TAT responses because they are repressing that trait). In addition, as the present needs of the storyteller change over time, it is not expected that later stories will produce the same results.[citation needed].
The lack of standardization of the cards given and scoring systems applied is problematic because it makes comparing research on the TAT very difficult. With a dearth of sound evidence and normative samples, it is tough to determine how much useful information can be gathered in this manner.
Some critics of the TAT cards have observed that the characters and environments are dated, even 'old-fashioned', creating a 'cultural or psycho-social distance' between the patients and the stimuli that makes identifying with them less likely.[25] In specific situations it is even hard to identify with people of opposite gender.[26] Also, in researching the responses of subjects given photographs versus the TAT, researchers found that the TAT cards evoked more 'deviant' stories (i.e., more negative) than photographs, leading researchers to conclude that the difference was due to the differences in the characteristics of the images used as stimuli[citation needed].
In a 2005 dissertation,[27] Matthew Narron, Psy.D. attempted to address these issues by reproducing a Leopold Bellak[28] 10 card set photographically and performing an outcome study. The results concluded that the old TAT elicited answers that included many more specific time references than the new TAT.
Contemporary applications[edit]
Despite criticisms, the TAT continues to be used as a tool for research into areas of psychology such as dreams, fantasies, mate selection and what motivates people to choose their occupation. Sometimes it is used in a psychiatric or psychological context to assess personality disorders, thought disorders, in forensic examinations to evaluate crime suspects, or to screen candidates for high-stress occupations. It is also commonly used in routine psychological evaluations, typically without a formal scoring system, as a way to explore emotional conflicts and object relations.[29]
TAT is widely used in France and Argentina using a psychodynamic approach.[citation needed]
David McClelland and Ruth Jacobs conducted a 12-year longitudinal study of leadership using TAT and found no gender differences in motivational predictors of attained management level. The content analysis, however, "revealed 2 distinct styles of power-related themes that distinguished the successful men from the successful women. The successful male managers were more likely to use reactive power themes while the successful female managers were more likely to use resourceful power themes. Differences between the sexes in the power themes were less pronounced among the managers who had remained in lower levels of management" [30]
TAT, along with other psychological tests, is used in India in SSB Interview for commission into the Armed Forces of India.[citation needed]
Popular culture[edit]
Due to the test's earlier popularity within psychology, in the past the TAT appeared in a wide variety of media. For example, the Thomas Harris novel Red Dragon includes a scene where the imprisoned psychiatrist and serial killer Dr. Hannibal Lecter mocks a previous attempt to administer the test to him, while Michael Crichton included the TAT in the battery of tests given to the disturbed patient and main character Harry Benson in his novel, The Terminal Man. The test is also given to the main characters in two widely differing tales about the human mind: A Clockwork Orange and Daniel Keyes's Flowers for Algernon. Italian poet Edoardo Sanguineti wrote a collection of poetry called T.A.T (1966–1968) that refers to the Test.
See also[edit]
Psychology portal
Blacky pictures test
Psychological testing
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Schacter, Daniel, Daniel Gilbert, and Daniel Wegner. Psychology. 2nd. New York: Worth Publishers, 2009. 18. Print.
Jump up ^ Definition of Thematic Apperception Test at TheFreeDictionary.com
^ Jump up to: a b Morgan, W. (2002). "Origin and History of the Earliest Thematic Apperception test". Journal of Personality Assessment. 79 (3): 422–445. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa7903_03. ; see Weber's "Christiana Morgan (1897–1967)," in Michel Weber and William Desmond, Jr. (eds.), Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought, Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, 2008, v. II, pp. 465-468.
Jump up ^ Murray, H. (1973). The Analysis of Fantasy. Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company..
Jump up ^ Anderson, J. W. (1999). Henry A. Murray and the Creation of the Thematic Apperception Test. In L. Gieser & M. I. Stein (Eds.), Evocative Images: The Thematic Apperception Test, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Jump up ^ Vincent, Howard P. (1980). The Trying-out of Moby-Dick. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press. p. Introduction. ISBN 0-87338-247-1.
^ Jump up to: a b c Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic Apperception Test manual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jump up ^ Cramer, P. (2004). Storytelling, narrative, and the Thematic Apperception Test. New York: Guilford Press..
Jump up ^ Schacter, D. L., Gilbert, D. T. and Wegner, D. M. Psychology (loose leaf). Worth Pub, 2011. Print.
^ Jump up to: a b Cramer, P. (1999). Future directions for the Thematic Apperception Test. Journal of Personality Assessment, 72, 74-92.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(2), 27-66.
^ Jump up to: a b c Aronow, E., Weiss, K. A., & Rezinkoff, M. (2001). A Practical Guide to the Thematic Apperception Test. Philadelphia: Brunner Routledge.
^ Jump up to: a b Murstein, B. I. (1963). Theory and Research in Projective Techniques (Emphasizing the TAT). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons
Jump up ^ Gruber, N. & Kreuzpointner, L. (2013). Measuring the reliability of picture story exercises like the TAT. PLoS One, 8(11), e79450. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079450
Jump up ^ http://allpsych.com/stats/unit2/32-2/#.VTQOSWRVikp
^ Jump up to: a b c Jenkins, S. R. (2008). Introduction: Why "score" TATs, anyway?. In S. R. Jenkins & (Eds.), A handbook of clinical scoring systems for the Thematic Apperception Test. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.
Jump up ^ Wildman, R.W., & Wildman, R.W. II. (1975). An investigation into the comparative validity of several diagnostic tests and test batteries. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 455-458
Jump up ^ Holt, R. R. (1999). Empiricism and the Thematic Apperception Test: Validity is the payoff. In L. Gieser & M. I. Stein (Eds.), Evocative Images: The Thematic Apperception Test, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Jump up ^ Hibbard, S., Mitchell, D., & Porcerelli, J. (2001). Internal consistency of the object relations and social cognition scales for the thematic apperception test. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77(3), 408-419.
Jump up ^ Vane, J (1981). "The Thematic Apperception test: A Review". Clinical Psychology Review. 1: 319–336. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(81)90009-x.
Jump up ^ Cramer, P (1991). The Development of Defense Mechanisms: Theory, Research, and Assessment. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Jump up ^ Westen, Drew. Clinical Assessment of Object Relations Using the TAT. Journal of Personality Assessment, Volume 56, Issue 1 February 1991, pages 56 - 74.
Jump up ^ Ronan, G. F. & Gibbs, M. S. (2008). Scoring manual for personal problem-solving system –revised. In S. R. Jenkins (Ed.), A handbook of clinical scoring systems for thematic apperceptive techniques: Series in personality and clinical psychology (pp. 209-227). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Jump up ^ Ronan, G. F., Gibbs, M. S., Dreer, L. E., & Lombardo, J. A. (2008). Personal problem-solving system – revised. In S. R. Jenkins (Ed.), A handbook of clinical scoring systems for thematic apperceptive techniques: Series in personality and clinical psychology (pp. 181- 207). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Jump up ^ Holmstrom, R.W., Silber, D.E., & Karp, S.A. (1990), "Development of the Apperceptive Personality Test", Journal of Personality Assessment, 54 (1 & 2), 252-264.
Jump up ^ Gruber, N. (2017), "Is the achievement motive gender biased? The validity of TAT/PSE in women and men", Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 181.
Jump up ^ Narron, M. C. (2005), Updating the TAT: A Photographic Revision of the Thematic Apperception Test, Dissertations Abstract International, DAI-B 66/01, p. 568, July 2005
Jump up ^ Saxon, Wolfgang (30 March 2000). "Leopold Bellak, 83; Expert on Psychological Tests". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
Jump up ^ Cramer, 2004
Jump up ^ Jacobs, R. L., & McClelland, D. C. (1994), "Moving up the corporate ladder: A longitudinal study of the leadership motive pattern and managerial success in women and men", Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 46(1), 32-41. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.46.1.32
External links[edit]
Book review of Storytelling, Narrative, and the Thematic Apperception Test
Research into the origins of imagery used in the TAT
Information about the Thematic Apperception Test from Thomson Gale
[hide]
v
t
e
Psychological and psychiatric evaluation and testing (ICD-9-CM V3 94.0-94.1, ICD-10-PCS GZ1)
Intelligence tests
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales
Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children
Cognitive Assessment System
Differential Ability Scales
Ammons Quick Test
Personality tests
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
16PF Questionnaire
Revised NEO Personality Inventory
Projective tests
Thematic Apperception Test
Ink blot test (Rorschach test, Holtzman Inkblot Test)
Szondi test
Neuropsychological test
Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)
Luria-Nebraska neuropsychological battery
Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure
Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS)
Other tests
Mental status examination
Wechsler Memory Scale
Benton Visual Retention Test
Vineland Social Maturity Scale
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thematic_apperception_test&oldid=837627962"
Categories:
Projective tests
Psychological testing
Hidden categories:
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from July 2012
Articles with unsourced statements from January 2010
Articles with unsourced statements from June 2017
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Български
Deutsch
Español
Français
Հայերեն
Hrvatski
Italiano
עברית
Македонски
Nederlands
Norsk
Polski
Português
Русский
Suomi
Українська
7 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 22 April 2018, at 00:45.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: th

attrs: colspan style

value: tr

attrs: href title

value: i

value: td

attrs: rel class href

value: span

attrs: href class title

values:
/wiki/Henry_A._Murray
mw-redirect
Henry A. Murray

values:
/wiki/Christiana_D._Morgan
mw-redirect
Christiana D. Morgan

values: Edit section: Psychometric characteristics

values:
/wiki/Test%E2%80%93retest_reliability
mw-redirect
Test–retest reliability

values:
/wiki/Identification_(psychodynamic)
mw-redirect
Identification (psychodynamic)

values:
/wiki/Object_relations
mw-redirect
Object relations

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (July 2012)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (January 2010)

values:
/wiki/Stress_(medicine)
mw-redirect
Stress (medicine)

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (June 2017)

values:
/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_India
mw-redirect
Armed Forces of India

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: display:table-cell;padding:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em;vertical-align:middle

values: margin:0.5em 0 0.5em 1em;border:solid #aaa 1px

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15327752jpa7903_03

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: Template:Psychological and psychiatric evaluation and testing

values: Template talk:Psychological and psychiatric evaluation and testing

values:
row
navbox-group
width:1%;background-color: LemonChiffon

values: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

values:
/wiki/Cognitive_Assessment_System
mw-redirect
Cognitive Assessment System

values:
/wiki/Thematic_Apperception_Test
mw-redirect
Thematic Apperception Test

values:
/wiki/Holtzman_Inkblot_Test
mw-redirect
Holtzman Inkblot Test

values:
/wiki/Rey-Osterrieth_Complex_Figure
mw-redirect
Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2012

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from January 2010

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from June 2017

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Thematic_apperception_test
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: Тематично-аперцептивен тест – Bulgarian

values: Test de Apercepción Temática (T.A.T) – Spanish

values: Թեմատիկ ապերցեպցիոն թեստ – Armenian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-hy
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-hr
display: none;

values: מבחן התפסת נושא – Hebrew

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-he
display: none;

values: Тематско-аперцептивен тест – Macedonian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-mk
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-no
display: none;

values: Test apercepcji tematycznej Murraya – Polish

values: Teste de apercepção temática – Portuguese

values: Тематический апперцептивный тест – Russian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-fi
display: none;

values: Тематичний апперцептивний тест – Ukrainian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-uk
display: none;

values: All languages (initial selection from common choices by you and others)

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Thematic_apperception_test rootpage-Thematic_apperception_test skin-vector action-view