Projective Psychological Assessment of Large Multimodal Models Using Thematic Apperception Tests

Self-report questionnaires remain the prevailing tool for probing the psychological states of persona-conditioned agents (PC-Agents). However, classical instruments inherit two well-known threats: contamination from training corpora and directional bias driven by social-desirability or contextual framing. To overcome these methodological bottlenecks, we ask whether projective paradigms can be adapted into a robust psychometric tool. We introduce GenPT (Generative Projective Testing), which reformulates TAT, Rorschach, and SCT with newly generated stimuli and organizes assessment as a three-stage pipeline to derive standardized psychological indicators and target states. Evaluating PC-Agents induced via CharacterRAG and AnnaAgent profiles, we benchmark GenPT's reliability and validity against classical questionnaires. The results indicate that questionnaires exhibit systematic directional shifts under social-desirability framing, most strongly on suicide ideation. In contrast, GenPT's collected behavioral patterns stay near the symmetric baseline. Furthermore, under a longitudinal counselling context, GenPT-based depression assessment shifts by roughly an order of magnitude more than the questionnaire counterpart when Qwen3 serves as the backbone. Overall, GenPT complements self-report methods in scenarios where contamination resistance, bias asymmetry, and context sensitivity matter. Code and stimuli can be found at https://github.com/sci-m-wang/GenPT.

Multimodal large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored as automated evaluators in clinical settings, yet their scoring behavior on ordinal clinical scales remains poorly understood. We benchmark three frontier LLM families against supervised deep learning models for scoring Clock Drawing Test (CDT) images on two public datasets using the Shulman rubric. While fully fine-tuned Vision Transformers achieve the best calibration (MAE 0.52, within-1 accuracy 91%), zero-shot LLMs remain competitive on tolerance-based agreement (GPT-5 MAE 0.67, within-1 accuracy 92%) despite higher absolute error. However, per-score analysis reveals that all three LLM families exhibit a pronounced central tendency effect (systematic endpoint compression): predictions are systematically compressed toward the middle of the scale, with over-prediction at the low end (score 0 to 1) and under-prediction at the high end (score 5 to 4). This effect disproportionately affects the clinically critical extremes where accurate scoring most impacts screening decisions for cognitive impairment. Targeted ablations show that neither few-shot exemplars spanning the full score range nor removing clinical terminology from the prompt eliminates the effect. Our findings extend the LLM-as-a-judge bias literature from NLP evaluation to clinical assessment, and highlight the need for calibration-aware evaluation and post-hoc calibration before deploying LLM-based raters in high-stakes screening workflows.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly deployed in human-facing roles where personality perception is critical, yet existing benchmarks evaluate this capability solely on numerical Big Five score prediction, leaving open whether models truly perceive personality through behavioral understanding or merely prejudge through superficial pattern matching. We address this gap with three contributions. (i) A new task: we formalize Grounded Personality Reasoning (GPR), which requires MLLMs to anchor each Big Five rating in observable evidence through a chain of rating, reasoning, and grounding. (ii) A new dataset: we release MM-OCEAN (1,104 videos, 5,320 MCQs), produced by a multi-agent pipeline with human verification, with timestamped behavioral observations, evidence-grounded trait analyses, and seven categories of cue-grounding MCQs. (iii) Benchmark and analysis: we design a three-tier evaluation (rating, reasoning, grounding) plus four sample-level failure-mode metrics: Prejudice Rate (PR), Confabulation Rate (CR), Integration-failure Rate (IR), and Holistic-grounding Rate (HR), and benchmark 27 MLLMs (13 closed, 14 open). The analysis uncovers a striking Prejudice Gap: across the field, 51% of correct ratings are not grounded in retrieved cues, and the Holistic-Grounding Rate spans only 0-33.5%. These findings expose a disconnect between getting the right score and reasoning for the right reason, charting a roadmap for grounded social cognition in MLLMs.