a factor analytic study of three enneagram …
TRANSCRIPT
A FACTOR ANALYTIC STUDY OF THREE ENNEAGRAM PERSONALITY
INVENTORIES AND THE VOCATIONAL PREFERENCE INVENTORY
by
PHILLIP M. SHARP, B.B.A., M.S.
A DISSERTATION
IN
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Approved
Accepted
May, 1994
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author expresses appreciation to the members of the
dissertation committee who devoted their valuable time to
this project. Each of them played an important role as
educators during my tenure with their department. Special
thanks goes to Dr. Julian Biggers who served as the
committee chairman. His wisdom and experience were
invaluable. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the
special effort that Dr. Loretta Bradley made as both a
committee member and a reader. Without her encouragement,
this document would not have achieved its literary quality.
Dr. William Carter, committee member ex-officio,
supplied the original idea for this dissertation. His
encouragement and enthusiasm motivated the author
considerably. Additionally, his provision of subject data
and financial support contributed significantly to this
study.
The work of Don Richard Riso was crucial to the
theoretical presentation of the Enneagram system in this
dissertation. It was his conceptualization of the system
that this author relied on primarily.
A great appreciation is extended to the Enneagram
researchers. Dr. Helen Palmer, Dr. Jerome Wagner and Dr.
Thomas Zinkle for the use of their inventories. Without
their willingness, this project would have been impossible.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Problem Statement 3
Justification of Study 5
Purpose 6
Questions 7
Limitations of the Study 7
Preview of the Remainder of the Study . . . . 8
II. LITERATURE REVIEW 9
History of the Enneagram System 9
Early Developers 9
Modern Developers 15
System 17
The Three Triads 19
Essence 21
Ego 22
Ego Fixation 22
Typology 2 3
Type Descriptions 2 3
Wings 49
Review of Enneagram Research 50
• • •
111
Holland and Western Psychological Typologies . 54
Holland's Theoretical Assumptions . . . . 58
Typology 60
Hexagon 60
Hexagonal Concepts 62
Clinical Scales of the Vocational Preference
Inventory 70
Personality Change 7 3
A Comparison Between the Theories 7 3
III. METHODOLOGY 83
Questions 8 3
Design 84
Subjects 85
Instruments 86
Wagner Inventory 8 6
Cohen-Palmer Inventory 87
Zinkle Inventory 89
Vocational Preference Inventory 9 0
Procedures 92
Analysis of Data 93
IV. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION 97
Analyses of Individual Inventories 97
The Vocational Preference Inventory . . . 97
The Cohen-Palmer Enneagram Inventory . . . 102 The Wagner Enneagram Inventory 108
The Zinkle Enneagram Inventory 113
IV
Analysis of All Enneagram Inventories . . . . 119
Analysis of Each Enneagram Inventory with the VPI 12 6
Analysis of the VPI with the Cohen-Palmer Inventory 12 6
Analysis of the VPI with the Wagner Inventory 130
Analysis of the VPI with the Zinkle Inventory 13 6
Composite Analysis of the Enenagram and VPI
Inventories 141
Summary of Findings 149
V. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 152
Analysis of Individual Inventories 153
Analysis of the Three Enneagram Inventories Combined 159
Analysis of Enneagram Inventories with the
VPI 162
Summary of Findings 167
Limits of the Study 17 0
Recommendations 17 0
REFERENCES 173
APPENDICES
A. SUMMARY OF SUBJECT DATA 177
B. ENNEAGRAM INVENTORIES 180
C. ORDER OF TEST ADMINISTRATION FOR WORKSHOPS . . . 206
LIST OF TABLES
1. Summary of Types 2 6
2. Comparison of Holland and Enneagram Types 78
3. Factor Analysis of Holland's Vocational Preference Inventory 98
4. Factor Analysis of the Cohen-Palmer Enneagram
Inventory 103
5. Factor Analysis of the Wagner Enneagram Inventory . 109
6. Factor Analysis of the Zinkle Enneagram Inventory . 114
7. Factor Analysis of all Enneagram Inventories . . . 121
8. Factor Analysis of VPI and the Cohen-Palmer Enneagram Inventory 127
9. Factor Analysis of VPI and the Wagner Enneagram Inventory 131
10. Factor Analysis of VPI and the Zinkle Enneagram Inventory 13 7
11. Factor Analysis of VPI and all Enneagram
Inventories 142
12. Summary of Results 154
13. Summary of Subject Data 178 14. Order of Test Administration for Workshops . . . . 2 07
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Kircher's enneagram 10
2. Sufi Enneagram 12
3. Rise's Triads of the Enneagram 2 0
4. Enneagram Adjective Names 24
5. Holland's Types on the Hexagon 61
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A review of the history of personality theories
revealed that most theories attempted to describe and
classify individual differences (Hall & Lindzey, 1978). In
studying both the primitive ideas of Hippocrates and the
empirically derived traits of Raymond Cattell, this
researcher found an obvious motif concerning the separation
of personalities into distinct categories or types. Chaplin
(1975) defined a type as each separate pattern of
characteristics used to categorize people. One difficulty
in researching any theory of personality typology concerned
the accuracy with which the theory described the traits,
characteristics, motivations, and dynamics of humans. This
review of the history of psychology uncovered at least 15
personality typologies (Capretta, 1967; Hall & Lindzey,
1978; Wagner, 1981). No theory was encompassing enough,
however, to gain wide acceptance from theorists and
practitioners of mental health (Zinkle, 1974).
Historically, in attempting to construct and evaluate
typologies that were more comprehensive and appealing,
investigators employed two basic approaches to research.
One direction used quantitative analyses, depending upon
responses to self-report personality inventories for
validation. An example of this was the study of the
1
2
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & Briggs, 1976), based
on Jungian theory. Another example of this approach was
Raymond Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire
(Cattell, Eber & Tatsuoka, 1970), which used a trait-factor
approach and factor analyses.
A second direction of typological research depended
upon oral traditions, narrative descriptions, and
interviews with individuals. Such qualitative analyses
gained increasing respect as viable research strategies
during the 1980s (Gaston & Marmar, 1989). Investigators
such as Helen Palmer (1988) and Don Richard Riso (1990)
used this approach in their study of a new personality
typology from the East.
Americans discovered this new typology, the Enneagram
system, within the last 50 years. It found a small, but
strong, group of devotees within the discipline of
psychology who hailed it as potentially the most viable
typology to date. Together with psychiatrists, counselors,
and clergy, psychologists pursued research to both validate
the theory, and to use its principles in their professions.
They found the Enneagram to be a theoretical system for
describing personality types, as well as a geometric
configuration representing the types and their respective
systemic relationships. A complete description of both the
theoretical system and the geometric configuration follows
in the next chapter.
Problem Statement
Investigators explicated Enneagram theory by means of
qualitative research techniques, which was a time-consuming
process. To compound the problem, the most effective
methods of identifying types were the following. One
method was to teach the subjects the theory and to ask them
to self-identify (Wagner, 1981). A second method for
typing individuals required an expert in Enneagram theory
to observe and interview people and their significant
others (Riso, 1990). The third method involved
participation with, and identification by, groups of people
trained in Enneagram theory (Zinkle, 1974). Each of these
methods also were time-consuming.
Another issue contributing to the problem concerned
the resistance of individuals in the research community to
accept qualitative techniques of investigation, thereby
producing doubts about the validity of the Enneagram
typology. Since the qualitative properties of personality
types were difficult to verify, researchers often attempted
to quantify these components in hopes of empirically
evaluating them. Historically, efforts to validate a
typology often depended upon the researcher's ability to
design and administer an inventory to measure the
personality constructs. Such was the case when researchers
attempted to validate Jungian theory using the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI).
Attempting to resolve both the time and validity
issues through quantitative methods, researchers
constructed inventories to "blind-type" personality
according to Enneagram theory. While many different
investigators constructed inventories, only a few made
efforts to empirically validate their instruments (Palmer,
1988; Randall, 1979; Wagner, 1981; Zinkle, 1974). One of
the earliest inventories to be empirically constructed and
evaluated was Zinkle's (1974) inventory. Using a pool of
rationally constructed items, he administered his inventory
to more than 185 subjects. Analysis of their performance
on Zinkle's instrument demonstrated moderate validity and
modest test-retest reliability, r= .58-.98. The final
instrument, composed of 225 items, classified 52% of the
subjects as distinct personality types.
Wagner (1981) constructed a similar instrument, which
included some of the items from Zinkle's inventory. He
administered his inventory to 390 subjects, along with the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Millon-Illinois
Self-Report Inventory (MSRI). Participants were later
contacted to determine whether they judged themselves to be
the same personality type originally assigned. The
resulting reliability coefficients (Cohen's kappa) were
high for each type, k > .76. In addition, persons judged
to be a particular Enneagram type consistently scored high
on the same scales of both the MBTI and the MSRI
instruments, providing support for concurrent validity.
Generally, Wagner found significant differences at the .01
level of significance when comparing the scores of each of
the Enneagram types on the MBTI and the MSRI scales.
Unfortunately, while these studies produced promising
results, they were neither rigorous nor substantial enough
to validate the theory and provide accurate typing.
Additionally, only a few studies confirmed the established
psychometric properties, such as the reliability and
validity of these and other Enneagram instruments (Cohen &
Palmer, 1988; Randall, 1979). In essence, the field of
Enneagram research acquired a definite qualitative bias.
Justification of Study
Faced with these latter problems, the present
researcher considered it appropriate to further study the
three strongest Enneagram instruments: the Cohen and Palmer
Inventory (Palmer 1988), the Wagner Inventory (1981), and
the Zinkle Inventory (1974). This investigator recognized
the need for this study to contribute to the reduction of
these problems, adding further data to enhance the existing
body of knowledge. Therefore, research conducted for this
dissertation was an effort to address several issues. One
problem was the lack of quantitative research in the field
of Enneagram studies. Another problem was the lack of
sufficient information concerning the psychometric
properties of Enneagram instruments, especially validity.
Finally, this dissertation indirectly addressed the issue
of finding an efficient way to blindly identify Enneagram
types.
Purpose
The present research focused on gathering data and
performing factor analyses to address the previously stated
issues and to answer the questions below. Furthermore,
this researcher believed that a factor validation of the
Enneagram instruments would assist in both strengthening
and refining the inventories assessed. Additional factor
analyses compared the Enneagram instruments with an
existing instrument to establish concurrent validity,
hoping that these comparisons would lend further insight
into the personality constructs under study.
To pursue this latter goal, Holland's (1985)
Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI) was selected. For
comparison, the researcher chose an instrument constructed
from a modern, occupational typology. Any common factors
found between the VPI and Enneagram instruments were
potential evidence to move the Enneagram theory further
towards validation.
Questions
The authors' claims of validity for the above-
mentioned Enneagram instruments needed further evaluation.
The status of these instruments raised several questions
that were ripe for research. This researcher asked the
following questions:
1. What was the relationship, if any, between the
three instruments and their scales?
2. Were identically named scales among the three
inventories measuring the same constructs to
the same degree?
3. Could the analyses performed, yield a better
instrument for typing personality based on
Enneagram theory?
4. How did the instruments and the Enneagram theory
relate to Holland's previously validated
personality typology?
Limitations of the Study
Although this study was extensive and required a great
amount of time to complete, the researcher conducted it
with the understanding that it would need replication. The
significant factors of limitation are listed below.
1. Generalizability beyond the population used in
this study was not claimed, due to the high
number of collegiate subjects.
8
2. The factor analyses of the subscale scores
assumed that the items composing the scales
adequately and appropriately sampled each
individual type. In the event that this
assumption was not accurate, it raises questions
about the interpretations made of the
statistical data.
Preview of the Remainder of the Study
Chapter II conveys the historical development of the
Enneagram theory and reviews previous research on the
system. A brief discussion concerning the personality
typology of John Holland, which is the theoretical
foundation for the VPI follows. Chapter III presents the
methodology of this study, including the design,
procedures, and description of both subjects and
instrumentation. Chapter IV reports the results of
analyses from this study. Chapter V provides a discussion
of the results, concluding with recommendations for future
research.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
History of the Enneagram System
Early Developers
Sufis. Although the origin is mysterious, the roots
of the Enneagram typology extend back over 4,500 years ago
(Riso, 1987). The Sufis, a mystic Moslem, Middle Eastern
group of scientists and philosophers are the acknowledged
sixth-century developers of the system. A Sufi sect, the
Sarmouni brotherhood, is the recognized caretaker of the
system. This sect passed the oral tradition from master to
master over the centuries. Sarmouni masters used the
system to reveal to their pupils some aspect of those
disciples' personalities. In approximately the 12th
century when the Sufis did write about the system, they
used the language of poetry and symbolism to evade their
Moslem critics (Ranaghan, 1989).
Kircher. The Enneagram symbol may have originated
with the Jesuit mathematician Athanasius Kircher (circa
1600), although there does not appear to be a link between
Kircher and the Sufis. The front cover of his 1665
publication, Arithmoloqia, displayed an enneagram (denoted
by a small "e") composed of three equilateral triangles
having all nine points equidistant from each other (Figure
1). This enneagram represented the concepts of
11
Arithmology, a metaphysical philosophy which proposed that
the universe is founded upon numbers.
As an example of this philosophy, Kircher claimed that
since the number three was special, then the number nine
must be trebly special. Three times the triad, the number
nine, which he designated "the triple Ternary," had a
special place in his system. Supposedly, the ennead (nine
choirs of angels in three degrees), represented by his
enneagram, governed the angelic world. Through these, the
triune monad (God) flowed into the material world. The
monad created the world using the three categories of
number, weight, and measure.
Although both enneagrams represent mystical ideas.
Figure 1 illustrates that the Kircher enneagram was quite
different from the symbol that developed in the late 19th
century (Figure 2). This latter Enneagram, spelled with a
capital "e", is the symbol that depicts the Enneagram
system under consideration in this dissertation. The
triangles' vertices on the enneagram are equidistant from
each other, whereas those on the Enneagram are not. The
theoretical explanation for the unjoined vertices in two of
the Enneagram triangles is beyond the scope of this paper.
It is sufficient to state that the explanation is esoteric
and even those most knowledgeable of Enneagram theory do
not claim complete understanding.
13
Gurdjieff. The essentials of the current Enneagram
system derive from the teachings of George Ivanovitch
Gurdjieff (1870-1949), a Russian-born mystic. Much of what
he taught in relation to the Enneagram reflected the
esoteric traditions of the 19th century (Bennett, 1973).
While in search of these esoteric truths, Riordan (1975)
stated that the teenage Gurdjieff and his friends, the
"seekers of truth," traveled around the world including
central Asia, Ethiopia, and the Solomon Islands. Riordan
believed that during his travels, Gurdjieff encountered the
Sufi orders of the Sarmouni and the Naqshbandi. It was
perhaps these orders that taught him Enneagram theory.
Gurdjieff may have benefited from several other
influences in developing his version of the Enneagram.
Webb (1980) stated that Gurdjieff may have encountered the
work of Kircher, an arithmologist. Arithmology, a school
of thought which focused on meaning versus amount or value
in numbers, was apparently an influence. For example, some
arithmologists believed that three forces were necessary in
the creation of any phenomenon. Looking at the equilateral
triangle in the middle of the Enneagram, one can see that
Gurdjieff made a graphic representation of this "law of
three." He claimed that this represented a suprahuman
force such as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The
remaining connected points, in an irregular six-sided
figure, represented the "law of seven," signifying the
14
nonlinear pattern of spiritual manifestations into the
material world (i.e., the Ray of Creation). Starting at
the topmost point of the circle (number nine), a count of
the intervals between numbers reveals seven intervals (not
counting the three and six).
Thus, this depiction of the Enneagram represents a
union between the "law of three" and the "law of seven"
(Riordan, 1975). Not only did Gurdjieff incorporate some
mystical ideas, but the diagram also represents some
mathematical properties. The triangle represents the
Trinity seeking reassembly into the Absolute or unity
(one). Mathematically that is symbolized through one
divided by three which yields a repeating decimal of
.333333 . . . Supposedly, the other points on the circle
connect in such a way as to reflect the striving of all
seven points of the "Ray of Creation" to return to unity.
It is symbolized through one divided by seven which yields
a recurring six-digit series of . 142857 . . ., which is
void of multiples of three. Looking at the Enneagram,
lines stretch from point one to point four, and from point
four to point two and so on in the successive order of the
digits in the latter repeating decimal number. The
arithmological, mathematical, and mystical ideas depicted
in this diagram demonstrates the holistic world-view of
many that use the diagram. It is a world-view that
recognizes the unity and interdependence between the
15
physical laws, and material and spiritual entities, rather
than separating these into discrete categories.
Up to this point, the rich and complex history of
spiritual and mystical tradition kept the Enneagram
movement on the sidelines of mainstream psychology. It
suited the use of "seekers" and a variety of fringe groups.
Other thinkers, however, further developed the Enneagram
theory into a form more palatable to modern empiricists.
Modern Developers
Ichazo. One such thinker, Oscar Ichazo, further
developed the Enneagram theory into a personality typology
compatible with psychological study and use. Born in
Bolivia in 1931, Ichazo had an epileptic disorder in
childhood. At age 19, Ichazo met with a group in Buenos
Aires studying Zen, Sufism, the Cabala and consciousness
raising techniques (Palmer, 1988). He hoped that these
techniques would help him control his seizures. Ichazo
later traveled throughout the East to study Yoga, Buddhism,
Confucianism, I Ching, and martial arts. During that time
he spent two years as a member of a Sufi school in
Afghanistan, where he claims that he discovered the
Enneagram. He later taught others what he had learned.
Ichazo started his first school and taught students in
Santiago, Chile, where he was lecturing at the Institute
for Applied Psychology. Later he moved to Arica, Chile and
16
some students followed. In 1970, 54 North Americans came
to visit the self-proclaimed guru for intensive
psychospiritual training. Consequently, Ichazo traveled to
the United States of America in 1971. He started a school
in New York, and subsequently schools in San Francisco and
Santa Monica.
After years of both teaching and learning, Ichazo
correctly identified the characteristic, negative emotional
tone (passion) with which each personality type struggles.
In addition, he proposed therapeutic solutions for each
type's characteristic neurotic compulsion (ego-fixation).
These accomplishments earned him recognition in the
American history of the Enneagram.
Naranjo. Another notable figure was the Chilean
psychiatrist Claudio Naranjo, a student of Ichazo. He
delineated the connections between the typology and modern
psychology. In addition, he proposed the major defense
mechanisms preferred by each of the nine individual types.
Naranjo was also a teacher. Many of his American
students, such as Helen Palmer, Kathleen Speeth, Bob Ochs
7 and Don Richard Riso are responsible for the upsurge in
popularity the Enneagram theory currently is enjoying.
Some of these individuals are actively researching the
typology. This dissertation presents a summary of their
research and theoretical work.
17
System
The Enneagram is a personality typology and dynamic
system, the roots of which reach back over 4,500 years
(Hurley & Dobson, 1991). The word "enneagram" comes from
the Greek words "ennea" meaning "nine," and "grammes"
meaning "points." This geometric symbol signifies the Sufi
belief that everything material has its beginnings in the
spirit world.
It . . . can be used to map the process of any event from its (spiritual) inception through all the stages of that event's progress in the material world. The Enneagram . . . is applied to mapping cosmological processes and the unfolding of human consciousness. (Palmer, 1988, p. 10)
Although the symbol has an esoteric tradition, it serves as
a graphic representation of personality dynamics for modern
students of Enneagram personality typology.
As a visual aid and model for conceptualizing the
Enneagram system, it is helpful to look at the diagram
(Figure 2), which contains a pictorial representation of
the types and the systemic relationships between them.
Looking at the circle, each point where two lines converge
and touch indicates one of the nine personality types. The
lines drawn between the various points represent the
potential for dynamic movement. Movement in one direction
represents the integration, or positive, personal growth of
the type. As a type integrates, it moves toward one of the
18
other types, and takes on many of the healthy qualities of
that other type. Movement in the opposite direction
represents disintegration, or deterioration of mental
health. When a type disintegrates, it moves toward another
type, taking on many of the negative characteristics of
that type.
The direction of integration is characterized by the
numerical sequence: 1-7-5-8-2-4-1. Type One integrates in
the direction of Type Seven. Type Seven integrates in the
direction of Type Five. In contrast, the direction of
disintegration is characterized by the sequence: 1-4-2-8-
5-7-1. Types Three, Six and Nine have their own separate
dynamic which is explained in the following paragraph. The
direction of integration for these latter types is
characterized by the sequence: 9-3-6-9. Accordingly, the
direction of disintegration is characterized by the
sequence: 9-6-3-9.
In looking at the geometric figure, notice that types
3, 6 and 9 connect by a set of lines that are separate from
the others. This separate configuration represents the
distinction of these types that are the primary personality
types (Riso, 1987). Each of the other types is a variation
on one of these major types. Thus, each primary type is
bordered by two other types. The result is three groups of
three or three triads.
19
The Three Triads
According to Riso (1987), the Enneagram is a graphic
representation of the nine types, categorized by three
triads. As Figure 3 illustrates, each triad contains three
personality types. Riso designated the triads by the
following names: the Doing Triad, the Relating Triad, and
the Feeling Triad. Each type in the triad will either
overuse, underuse or block the operation of that particular
quality. Although everyone has the ability to do, to
relate, and to feel, one property predominates most often
in the shifting balance among the three. Riso (1987)
discussed the triads as follows:
For example, in the Feeling Triad, the Two has overdeveloped its feelings, expressing only its positive emotions while repressing its negative ones. The Three is most out of touch with its feelings, projecting an image which substitutes for genuine feelings. The Four has underdeveloped the personal expression of its feelings, revealing itself indirectly through some form of art or aesthetic living.
In the Doing Triad, the Five's ability to do is underdeveloped: it substitutes thinking for doing, endlessly going around in ever more complex, yet isolated thoughts. The Six is most out of touch with its ability to act on its own without the approval of an authority figure of some sort. And the Seven has overdeveloped its ability to act, becoming hyperactive and manic until it flies out of control.
In the Relating Triad, the Eight has overdeveloped its ability to relate to the environment, seeing itself as bigger than everyone
20
The Relating Triad (8, 9, 1)
9
The Doing Triad (5, 6, 7)
The Feeling Tria^ (2, 3, 4)
Figure 3 Rise's Triads of the Ennecigram
l\\
21
else. The Nine is most out of touch with its ability to relate to the environment as an individual since it identifies with another, living through someone else rather than becoming independent. And the One has underdeveloped its ability to relate to the environment in the sense that it feels less than an ideal which it constantly strives to attain, (p. 26)
Essence
In describing what makes each type unique, the term
"essence" is often used by Enneagram theorists. A child is
born "pure essence; a natural being in an ordered cosmos,
one with all men and with God, instinctive, loving. This
is the perfect state of innocence" (Lilly & Hart 1975, p.
331). Thus, essence has to do with one's own innate
potentials (Palmer, 1988). When living in essence, there
is no conflict between thoughts, emotions or instincts.
Being integrated and at one with the environment, a person
acts appropriately and intuitively to maintain well-being.
Such action reflects a non-defensive trust in people and
the world. In developmental terms, this is most apparent
during the period in life when the child relates to the
mother and the world in a sensate and undifferentiated
fashion (Palmer, 1988). Having no boundaries, a child is
unable to differentiate between himself or herself, others
and the environment. Although an adult learns to live
22
separate from his or her essence, he or she can reunite
with that state of being.
Ego
A child develops a (false) personality, or ego, for
survival between the ages of four and six. A child's
environment molds his or her ego, with significant
influence from society and parents. In the words of Palmer
(1988, p. 19), "personality develops in order to protect
and defend essence from injury in the material world."
Therefore, when the child's implicit trust in people, the
environment, and God suffers injury, defenses develop to
protect the child from further harm. Thus, the personality
makes a defensive layer between essence and the world,
separating the self from the world (Keen, 1973).
Consequently, only consciousness of one's own ego remains,
striving for survival in a world perceived as dangerous and
incapable of satisfying one's deepest needs.
Ego Fixation (Compulsion)
Theoretically, each person should have a full range of
responses available for use, as represented by the points
of the Enneagram circle (Figure 1). A person's energy
should "flow freely from one point to another around the
circle" (Wagner, 1981, p. 26). This would represent the
state of living in essence. In contrast, most people
23
become trapped at one point; hence the term ego-fixation.
The person prefers particular patterns of affect, effect,
and cognition. Consequently, a person exercises certain
qualities more often, almost to the exclusion of others.
Repeated use leads to the automatic repetition of the
fixated patterns that are rigid methods of defending
against the natural process of life (Keen, 1973, p. 68).
Consequently, a person becomes very predictable in his or
her reactions to life situations.
Typology
The Enneagram system posits that there are nine major
types of personality (Palmer, 1988). Each person
emphasizes a particular gift or asset in his or her
personality type. Thus, each number on the Enneagram
represents a basic psychological orientation, a distinct
way of approaching life. Therefore, all human beings can
be classified as only one of the nine types.
Type Descriptions
Since time and space do not permit a thorough
discussion, a brief summary follows for each of the nine
types. Each type has an adjective name (Figure 4) that
depicts one of the more prominent and noticeable qualities
of that type (Riso, 1990). While the name is not a
complete or fully accurate characterization of the people
24
Peacemaker
Leader
7
Generalist
Loyalist
Thinker
Reformer
Helper
Performer
Artist
Figure 4 Enneagram Adjective Names
25
who have that personality type, the summary descriptions
(Table 1) are sufficient to help distinguish between the
types. Although some types are referred to using a
masculine pronoun, and other types using a feminine
pronoun, the types are not gender specific.
Type One (The Reformer). An ability to accept his own
humanity and that of others, with all of its flaws, appears
in a Type One when he is functioning at his best. As a
mature and balanced person, a Type One can accept the
subjective and less rational side of human nature as an
equally valid part of existence. His wisdom and prudence
enables him to tolerate his own and others' rights to make
mistakes and to be imperfect. Tolerance does not, however,
diminish the Reformer's ability to make rational and
objective decisions.
In keeping with his rational approach to life, the
Reformer seeks to live as a moral, law-abiding citizen.
Integrity, self-discipline and adherence to moral
principles dominates his life. Type One promotes the
pursuit of such characteristics as honesty and justice in
the lives of others by setting an example.
When not at his best, unattainable ideas of perfection
are the heart and soul of a Type One. The Reformer seeks
to live out moral codes in a rigid fashion. This
facilitates an authoritarian position of moral superiority.
Type One believes that his point of view is the right one.
Table 1 Summary of Types
26
TYPE ADJECTIVE NAME
FIXATION OTHER CHARACTERISTICS
Reformer
Helper
Performer
Artist
Thinker
Loyalist
Resentment
Flattery
Vanity
Melancholy
Stinginess
Cowardice
Wisdom, good judgment, perfection, internal critic, one right way
Self sacrifice, empathy, need to be thanked, want gratitude, manipulate
Ambitious, motivator, achievement, optimism, surface deep, opportunist
Authentic, self-revealing, sense of loss, emotional, feels out of place
Intellectual, independent, curious, observer, threatened by the world
Endearing, team player, anxious, authority oriented, devil's advocate
8
Generalist Planning
Leader Vengeance
Peacemaker Laziness
Accomplished, loves variety, avoids pain, gluttons for life and new experiences
Seeks justice and power, bold, confrontational, strong, aggressive
Settled, even-tempered, trusting, lives through others, oblivious
27
Hence, his mission to perfect himself and to reform the
world fosters his continual frustration.
The Reformer also is infamous for the "internal
critic" that lives inside his head. This judgmental voice
defends Type One's actions, anticipating and responding to
potential criticism. It is forever prompting the
analyzation, clarification, and refinement of any personal
statements, beliefs, or perceptions. The "critic"
functions to keep anxiety in abeyance by leading the
Reformer to qualify and improve on every thought or deed,
to avoid mistakes, inaccuracy, and imperfection. This
perfectionism produces an approach to life that is best
described as both meticulous and dilatory.
Therefore, it is not surprising that self-control is
another major objective for a typical One. To maintain it,
he often acts counter to his feelings and impulses.
Ultimate objectivity is a goal of supreme importance.
Thus, it is important to repress feelings because of their
capacity to interfere with judgment. Type One denies
himself pleasure and even denies his own sexual impulses.
Guilt plagues him concerning the instances when he does not
meet his own standards.
Perhaps in unconscious reaction to his own failures,
an unhealthy Reformer relates to other people through
fault-finding, lecturing and scolding. The notion of the
least bit of imperfection is intolerable, uncomfortable and
28
taken as a personal insult. Rather than react with anger,
which is an unacceptable and imperfect emotion. Type One
carries an attitude of resentment towards the flaws that he
perceives in others.
With a constant attitude of resentment, the Reformer
has his own unique relationship problems. On one hand, his
critical harshness tends to irritate others, because a Type
One is impossible to please. Naturally, this can strain
and injure friendships. On the other hand, the unhealthy
Reformer also has difficulty trusting others and allowing
people to see his imperfect humanity. The belief that he
must be flawless to be acceptable by others exacerbates
such suspicion. Imperfections revealed might become the
grounds for rejection and even critical disdain.
Type Two (The Helper). When Type Two is functioning
at her best, she has an incredible capacity to love
unconditionally, without expectation of something in
return. In times of crises, she is dependable. When
someone is needy, she has an ability to sense the need
and meet it, whether by assistance or encouragement. This
displays an ultimate orientation towards people.
Naturally, the Helper altruistically focuses on others
rather than on herself. Sensitive to the welfare of
others. Type Two tends to be the most empathetic of the
types. She is also relationship-oriented. It is important
29
to the Helper to preserve relationships, taking the time to
do little, meaningful acts such as remembering birthdays.
When functioning at less than best, however. Type Two
expresses many good feelings and intentions. The Helper
easily overextends herself, because she wants to
participate in everyone's life. Consequently, her
commitment to people can be shallow and fleeting and she
might not keep all the promises she has made. This makes
her less credible.
In fact, personal motives are not always noble for the
Helper. Rather, her focus on others belies the ulterior
motives of seeking love, attention, support and gratitude.
Due to a Type Two's penchant for repressing awareness of
unpleasant thoughts and feelings, she often is unaware of
her ignoble motives and manipulative tendencies. Instead,
she tends to conceive of herself as a self-sacrificial
saint with nothing but the most noble of intentions.
Anyone who implies the opposite is met with a reaction of
fury and righteous indignation. For Type Two to
acknowledge such duplicity implies that she is unlovable,
both by self and others.
Because the avoidance of rejection is paramount, a
Helper depends on social approval to maintain a sense of
identity and well-being. To garner this approval, she uses
empathy and self-sacrifice in order to make herself
indispensable to others. Relating to others with
30
possessive intimacy, she encourages them to be self-
revealing to her. Type Two wants to be the center of other
peoples' lives, to be the social conduit, or regulator
through which all information must pass (Riso, 1987). To
have such an important position would assure her of having
the love and devotion she desperately desires.
Consequently, she alters herself to elicit this
loyalty. The Helper denies parts of herself and plays
whatever role she thinks will fulfill another person's
expectations or needs. The result may be that she has a
self-conception of "many selves" and no assurance of which
one is real (Palmer, 1988). Inevitably, the Helper comes
to resent the denial of the other parts of herself and
strives for personal freedom within the context of her
dependent relationships.
Habitually denying the existence of her own needs.
Type Two projects these needs onto someone else, and then
attempts to fulfill those needs for that person. The
Helper sees herself as having no needs in contrast to the
rest of the world which she perceives as being needy. From
her point of view, there is something unacceptable, even
ugly, about having her own needs or requesting that people
fulfill them. Instead, Type Two manipulates others into
recognizing and fulfilling her needs. In the process, the
Helper works to gain the love of anyone that can help her
achieve her desires.
31
When unsuccessful in getting the expected love,
unhealthy Helpers tend to feel like martyrs. They
sometimes resort to psychosomatic illness. This has a
motivational component, in that Type Two can at least
elicit nurturing behavior from others, which may substitute
for the love she feels she is unable to obtain. Playing
the role of the invalid may be the ultimate attempt to
produce guilt in those who should have given Type Two the
love, appreciation, and gratitude that she expected.
Type Three (The Performer). When Type Three is
functioning at his best, he learns to accept himself for
who he is. He acknowledges both liabilities and assets,
eschewing grandiose notions concerning superiority and
importance. Instead, he accepts an honest and modest view
of his abilities. His chief concern focuses on being
authentic, finding the place where reality and image
converge (Riso, 1987). As he shifts his focus from the
external world to the internal world, emotions, thoughts
and behaviors begin to genuinely come from within, rather
than being portrayed simply for the benefit of others.
Because he is so keenly perceptive of other people's
reactions to him, the Performer responds immediately by
projecting the appropriate image. In doing so, he is able
to display the qualities called for at the moment: self-
confidence, self-worth, or any other positive
characteristic. Such an ability makes him adept at
32
marketing ideas and negotiating the public arena; and Type
Three has the ambition to do so. Consequently, he easily
pours his entire energy into improving both himself and his
image.
At less than best. Type Three seeks status, success,
and prestige to show that he is superior to the rest. The
Performer creates rivalries and contests with others to
prove himself. Competition, performance, power, and
winning becomes his main priorities. This leads to
conflict with other people. Therefore, he can be friends
with people only if he feels superior to them.
It is no surprise that life for Type Three centers on
continuous activity and work. Performance and achievement
are crucial, due to a fundamental conviction that only
winners are lovable and self-esteem depends on success.
Such values make it simple for a Type Three to become a
workaholic. To preserve his self-esteem, he will go so far
as to pay selective attention to success and reframe
failures (Palmer, 1988).
If unable to make the kind of advances that he
believes will improve his status, the Performer will work
hard on creating an image of success. Essentially, he
creates an image to successfully market and habitually be
in great demand. What he projects is no more than surface
deep, however. The projection changes to meet situational
demands. Whatever makes him fit in, helps him succeed, and
33
seems appropriate at the moment is what the Performer
becomes, does, or feels. Hence, the typical Three is a
series of disconnected projections or images (Riso, 1987).
He has no soul, loyalty, conviction, or authenticity
beneath his masks. The roles played are for the sake of
avoiding what he most fears, rejection. Habitual role-
playing, however, makes it easy to confuse the role with
the genuine self.
People inevitably give attention to Type Three in
response to the desirable images that he projects. This
inflates his feelings of self-worth, producing a fear of
being ordinary. Therefore, a Performer works overtime to
garner continuing admiration. To accomplish this, he often
brags and makes exaggerated claims about himself and his
performance. In extreme form, this results in the making
of fantastic claims based on a few shreds of truth.
Type Four (The Artist). Of all the personality types.
Type Four, at her best, has the ability to be the most
genuine. Since being aware of her identity is of prime
importance. Type Four celebrates her individuality and her
separateness from other people (Riso, 1987).
With a tendency toward authenticity and self-
revelation, this type is most aware of feelings when
expressing them. The Artist has a way of being direct and
genuine, rather than deceiving herself or others about her
foibles, worries, or deficits. Since this is an important
34
and integral part of who she is, it would be tremendously
deceptive not to communicate the entirety of herself (Riso,
1987). Such frankness can often be embarrassing.
When at less than her best, a Type Four may feel
hesitant to express her true self. Consequently, she may
sublimate this expression through some art form which
indirectly communicates some vulnerable part of herself.
If the Type Four is not an artist, vocationally or
avocationally, she tends to look for some aesthetic form of
self-expression. This appears in the desire to acquire or
admire beautiful art objects or other material possessions.
Such expression seems to provide what she feels is missing
in her, a sense of wholeness (Riso, 1987).
The Artist also thinks of herself as more refined and
sensitive than other people (Wagner, 1981). It is
important to feel passionate about beauty, and the
surrounding emotions make her feel vital and sophisticated.
A very lively and robust imagination enables this type to
enhance both objects and relationships in such a way as to
receive maximum emotional impact from everything (Riso,
1987).
Unfortunately, this can engender certain problems.
For example, the Artist has difficulty appreciating
feelings that are not intense. A lack of intensity tends
to be equated with a lack of authenticity. Also, having
overdeveloped the ability to feel. Type Four finds
35
frustration in pursuing her goal of authenticity. Such
constant focus on often irrational and conflicting feelings
makes it difficult to get a firm sense of the self (Riso,
1987) .
Another common theme in the life of Type Four is
preoccupation with a sense of loss, deprivation, or
abandonment. This often follows a real loss or abandonment
(Palmer, 1988). Rather than move beyond this to appreciate
what the present has to offer, this type fixates in grief
over the loss (Wagner, 1981). That which seems
unattainable translates into feelings of deprivation. It
holds the greatest appeal and may be what the Type Four
strives hardest to regain. In another Artist, there may
be a melancholic attitude about what she feels life has
denied her. Frequently, the Artist believes that obtaining
the perfect romance would fill the void in her life. In
any case. Type Four goes on smiling despite her tragedy.
Along with the grief, an unhealthy Artist frequently
has a sense that she is out of place in the world.
Somehow, she feels different from others and perhaps deeply
flawed. When she looks at others, it appears to her that
everybody else is happy and has found that which they seek.
In contrast. Type Four usually seems to feel left out.
Frequently, this leads to envy of others' position,
circumstances and possessions in life. If she only could
be like someone else, then Type Four thinks she would be
36
truly happy. Alienation and tension between the Artist and
the world sometimes feeds on feelings of tremendous
inequity.
Type Five (The Thinker). Type Five tends to be
intellectual. At his best, the Thinker can find patterns
in what others perceive as a confusing array of phenomena.
He can see straight through to the core of matters, while
concurrently developing the ability to see the broad view.
Type Five's ability to delay judgment allows him to
recognize truths that are unrecognizable to others.
Staggering and innovative insights arise from his
independent way of thinking. He has an uncanny ability to
discover that which is most profound.
With his active mind, the Thinker can concentrate
intensely on whatever he studies. The world is a gold mine
of knowledge for him. Type Five is able to use his
knowledge and his perceptions to lead others and to make
great contributions to the world. When he takes an active
and participatory role in life, he realizes that he can
have tremendous influence on people, decisions and events.
At less than best, the Thinker lives almost
exclusively in the intellectual realm, neglecting his body
and his emotions. He is more at home with his cognitive
representation of the external world, from which he
reconstructs reality as he sees it. Prone to be inactive
in the external environment. Type Five often has no reality
37
check. Thus, it is easy to see why his intricate theories
and knowledge seem reductionistic or bookish. Often unsure
that his ideas are complete enough, the Thinker is
reluctant to share or act upon them (Riso, 1987).
For this type, knowledge is a means of gaining power.
Consequently, the Thinker fears the revelation of self to
others. This makes him vulnerable, and since Type Five
sees himself as smaller than the world, it is a place that
threatens to both defeat him and to overcome his defensive
barriers (Hurley & Dobson, 1991). Thus, keeping a safe
distance and ensuring predictability is often crucial to a
Five's sense of well-being. Hypervigilance is a frequently
employed defense against potential threats. This, in turn,
can lead to the misinterpretation of environmental cues and
the drawing of inaccurate conclusions (Riso, 1987).
Immobilizing fear and terror may result from the
misperception of reality as dangerous and unpredictable.
Unfortunately, this perpetuates the barriers and emotional
distance that the Thinker places between himself and the
world.
Thus, maintaining close, interpersonal relationships
can be taxing and it is often easier for the Thinker to
withdraw into his reclusive, cognitive world. Since Type
Five tends to be independent and suspicious, he avoids
relationships and commitments characterized by emotional
dependency and domination (Palmer, 1988). Often, the
38
Thinker assumes that others are being manipulative, when in
fact that is not the case. Therefore, when relationships
are risked, they tend to be stormy and chaotic (Riso,
1987) .
Wary of manipulation, the preference of the Thinker is
to avoid potential conflict altogether. Remaining in the
background, or at the perimeter of any event, facilitates
this. Should a feared scenario be unavoidable, the Type
Five is likely to respond inappropriately, or handle the
problem as it is perceived, rather than as it actually is.
Only after participating in some interaction or activity
will a Type Five process feelings (Palmer, 1988). This
usually happens later while alone, in privacy where the
Thinker rejuvenates.
Aptly labeled stingy, the unhealthy Type Five
withholds himself, being miserly with time, money,
resources, energy, feelings and insight (Wagner, 1981).
Distrustful of the process of life, he waits on the
sidelines, observing while life goes by. Perception of
life, and the intellectual processing of it, substitutes
for actual participation. Unable to participate in the
reciprocity of life, the Thinker hoards his thoughts and
perceptions to avoid the empty feeling that results from
sitting on the borders of life.
Type Six (The Loyalist). When functioning at her
best. Type Six sees herself as equal to others. She finds
39
the courage to assert herself without searching for the
approval of others. This results from increasing self-
confidence as she begins to realize that she is a good,
capable person herself. Relationships between the Loyalist
and others become balanced, with a healthy interdependence.
Even at her best, a Type Six may not feel that she is
completely equal to others. She works hard to engage and
endear herself to other people in hopes of forming a
lasting, emotional bond with someone else (Riso, 1987).
Due to the anxiety that often accompanies her attempts to
find security external to herself. Type Six seeks stable,
long-lasting relationships. To elicit these relationships,
she becomes the loyal, indispensable friend. The Loyalist
is not likely to break the emotional bonds of friendship.
Not only is Type Six a loyal friend, but she firmly
commits to values that undergird society. One of these
values is the family, with which she strives to maintain
close ties. Another related value is that of community,
and she promotes this through participation in various
groups. Her values may include a commitment to faith,
religion, and other traditional groups and authorities.
Relationship with authority is a key issue for this
type, especially when functioning at less than best. Type
Six tends to overestimate the power of leaders, those who
have the strength and power to act. While wanting to find
the protection of a leader or organization due to feelings
40
of impotence, she conversely mistrusts authority figures.
Palmer (1988) states that a Type Six has a lifelong need to
avoid the threat of meddling by powerful people who may
take advantage. To circumvent this, she works very hard to
perceive situations from all other points of view. One day
she espouses one philosophy and on another day she takes an
opposite position. By this she hopes to keep others happy
and to avoid punishment or retaliation. The consequence of
this "Devil's Advocacy" is that Type Six vacillates between
alternatives in decision-making (Riso, 1987).
Type Six can take forceful action once she believes
that she has received the approval of the appropriate
authority or is acting according to established guidelines.
Being compulsive about group standards, the Loyalist makes
a good team player, and she usually helps to form the solid
core of any organization. This arises from the need to
feel that she is part of a group that shares the same
values, beliefs and ideology. Such a group makes her feel
more powerful and stronger.
The Loyalist, however, is not always eager to be
obedient to authorities or groups. Occasionally, she
believes that she needs to react against authority so that
she does not appear easy to manipulate (Riso, 1987). A
change in demeanor from deference to caution and obstinacy
is possible. Double messages may accompany frequent
reversals of positions, along with passive-aggressive
41
behavior. In fact, opposition to authority may become a
lifestyle for a Type Six who challenges an authority's
stand by playing "Devil's Advocate" (Palmer, 1988).
A Type Six may have a counterphobic personality, in
contrast to the typical phobic quality. She faces her
anxieties and fears by behaving in exact opposition to the
behaviors normally dictated by her phobia. Thus, in an
attempt to overcome her passivity, she may become
aggressive. Belligerence can be a ploy for hiding her
fear. Attempting to overcompensate for a perceived
weakness, she may behave in a manner very opposite to the
beliefs she seems to cherish.
After responding aggressively to an authority, the
Loyalist may feel afraid that the authority will retaliate
or not forgive. To ward off this anxiety. Type Six may
respond by compulsive adherence to the rules. The Loyalist
might internalize the rules of external authorities to the
degree that she feels a heightened sense of responsibility
(Zinkle, 1974). Should others skirt the law and get away
with it, the Type Six may become resentful and interpret
this as a personal affront, displaying an inclination to
accuse and report the wrong-doers.
Type Seven (The Generalist). At his best. Type Seven
is able to trust that he can fulfill his needs without the
frantic consumption of everything he desires. Rather, the
Generalist can learn contentment with the excitement of
42
life as it happens and the pleasures that it brings. From
this, he creates a life of curiosity and activity oriented
to the world around him. An exhilarated, euphoric attitude
usually accompanies his activity and it is important to him
to play just as hard as he works.
Because he is enormously productive, the Generalist
tends to accomplish much within his lifetime, beyond the
achievement level of his peers. His diverse interests and
expertise facilitate his finding ways to apply his
knowledge from one field to another (Riso, 1987). Since
Type Seven is not afraid of new experiences, his most
positive outlook on life helps him to see endless
possibilities and make as many plans.
When functioning at less than best. Type Seven avoids
focusing on only one thing. This counteracts the fear of
missing some gratifying experience. Therefore, he moves
into a mode of acquisition to obtain everything possible.
As such, the Generalist views the world from the standpoint
of being deprived. Caution, however, prevents his lust for
experience from outstripping his capacity to acquire,
assimilate and enjoy.
Since Type Seven engulfs himself in a never-ending
flurry of activity, any space of inactivity would be
boring. Therefore he says "yes" to every new opportunity
that comes along. He eagerly make new plans, savoring the
pleasant expectation of the fulfillment of those schemes.
43
Usually, these plans do not materialize, but rather are
replaced by more plans.
A Generalist's high level of activity often engenders
a superficial analysis of life. Consequently, he may not
grow or learn from experience. The Generalist can dabble
in many areas but never really master anything. Yet,
convinced of his or her own "special ability" to master
all, this type takes a little experience, combines it with
imaginative ideas, and pronounces that he is an expert in
the field of focus. Once completing the initial
exploration, however. Type Seven avoids the daily
commitment to a project. He is ready to move on to new
adventures (Palmer, 1988).
An unhealthy Type Seven represses pain and tends to
dislike the delay of gratification. Consequently, he
spares no resource to obtain instant gratification.
Placing the appropriate limits and controls on himself is
frequently difficult for this type (Riso, 1987). If
anything, he is greedy and wants to experience and have
everything pleasant in excessive amounts. Type Seven may
even use other people and then quickly lose interest in
them. This often arises from a hedonistic lifestyle.
Type Eight (The Leader). Type Eight has a knack for
leading, commanding and giving directions. She is a
naturally confident and assertive person with little or no
propensity for self-doubt or insecurity. Typically
44
aggressive and authoritative, the Leader effectively wields
power for better or worse. At best. Type Eight becomes a
champion of the rights of others. Justice for self and
others is a lifelong issue and Type Eights can be quite
heroic and fearless in its pursuit. Capable of embodying
the hopes and dreams of her followers, the Leader can
inspire others to be the best that others can possibly be.
At less than best. Type Eight can use her influence
for herself. Her concern centers on merely achieving her
own goals, building her own kingdom and empire, or making
money. Whereas a Leader overrelates to the environment in
order to control it (Riso, 1987), she achieves her aims
through confrontation and forceful manipulation.
Intimidation becomes a tool for encouraging others to
retreat and to let the Type Eight have her way.
Unrestrained, the Leader may tyrannize people, not
considering others' needs, wants and desires. This happens
because she often denies the softer, gentler and warmer
capabilities of her humanity (Wagner, 1981). Consequently,
the way to win an Eight's trust and respect is to stand up
to her in the midst of a confrontation (Palmer, 1988).
Occasionally, an unhealthy Leader is more egocentric
and possesses the attitude that only one person can have
power. Since she has an ability to recognize the leaders
in other groups, she naturally seeks to ally herself with
those that have power. To oppose a Type Eight in the
45
pursuit of her goals is to risk annihilation. In such a
case, plans and projects tend to be indistinct from the
Leader's sense of self so that the failure of one is the
defeat of the other. This makes her a dangerous person.
With the overt expression of aggression, the defense
mechanism of repression operates to protect Type Eight from
any guilt feelings or anxiety associated with her actions
(Riso, 1987). A sense of empathy and appreciation for
others' needs, and a conscience, seem to be sparse or
absent qualities in such a Leader. To her, it is important
to win at any cost; to ensure the fulfillment of her needs.
Dominating and ruthless. Type Eight may destroy everything
and everyone rather than be faced with the possibility of
losing and having to submit to someone else. Riso (1987)
suggests that the Eight's lurking fear is of being forced
to submit to someone. That person, in turn, might treat
the Eight as cruelly as she treats others. Additionally,
the Eight fears that others are incompetent to lead.
A frequent tendency in this type is the penchant to
see the world in terms of all or nothing, of black versus
white, i.e., extremes (Palmer, 1988). She sees other
people as either "for" or "against" her. If another person
is in authority over her, she may perceive that person as
one of two polar extremes. Either the authority is always
favorable to her, or the authority is always against her.
It is difficult for a Type Eight to see the "in between."
46
Similarly, when a Leader is ready to do battle with
someone, she may likely ignore other viewpoints and
contradictory evidence (Palmer, 1988). To do so would
weaken the Leader's position, producing vulnerability.
However, not every Type Eight operates in this fashion. A
Leader can learn to maintain her sense of strength in spite
of having to negotiate with others.
A Type Eight loves a good fight, because she believes
that truth and hidden agendas surface in the midst of
conflict (Palmer, 1988). With nothing hidden, this type
feels secure, because the likelihood of being blindsided
diminishes when all the rules, intentions, and perceptions
of others are in full view. Should someone surprise a
Leader or mistreat her in a malicious manner, revenge
becomes this type's primary goal. In the quest to avoid
exploitation, she likely rushes blindly and angrily to even
the score, often beyond reasonable limits.
Type Nine (The Peacemaker). When Type Nine is
functioning at his best, he can be a bastion of peace,
contentment and emotional stability. This follows the
realization of his unity and completeness within himself as
well as his unity with the world around him. Not only does
he recognize the true value and worth of himself and
others, but the security and strength that he draws from
this recognition comes without pretense. Out of this
nature arises twin abilities. One is to demand one's own
47
rights when appropriate. The other ability is to
compromise and negotiate to keep the peace.
Considering his prizing of peace. Type Nine goes to
great lengths to ensure that it pervades his life. Not
only does he want peace himself, but the Peacemaker wants
others around him to be at peace as well. To ensure this,
he often acts as mediator, helping others negotiate and
resolve their differences. An ability to appreciate all
points of view, along with an absence of hidden agendas,
facilitates this. Type Nine's honesty, sensitivity, and
unconditional positive regard makes him a natural mediator.
The phrases "don't rock the boat," and "peace,
regardless of cost" indicate a Peacemaker's attitude when
he is functioning at less than best. A passive, receptive
orientation to life gives him no reason to change or
question anything (Riso, 1987). He readily accommodates
himself to, and identifies with, other peoples' desires,
lifestyles and world-views, without scrutinizing what he is
accepting. This is much easier than raising questions and
asserting his opinion, which may lead to enduring any
conflict or potential abandonment.
Rather than live life for himself, a Peacemaker seeks
to live life through union with someone else.
Possibilities include union with a spouse, children, or
some other person. That other person may be a guru-like
individual, an external source to whom Type Nine looks for
48
solutions and answers, rather than facing internal
conflicts and working out his own answers. A Type Nine can
abdicate responsibility for his own living to the point
where oblivion becomes the hallmark of his existence.
Participation in life continues, but in a disconnected way,
so that whatever happens does not impact him deeply.
Because he refuses to deal with problems. Type Nine
may develop an attitude of resignation. One of the most
basic convictions to which a Peacemaker adheres is that his
ideas, opinions, needs, and wants are unimportant in
others' eyes. Should Type Nine develop his own agenda, he
fears that this might lead to his abandonment.
Consequently, he is content to let others make the
decisions rather than to risk this. Feeling discounted, a
sense of resignation develops, along with an attitude that
"life is not so great," and "it's not that big of a deal
anyhow." A natural response for Type Nine is to "forget
the self" (Wagner 1981), to lose contact with his own
opinions, desires and needs. Great conflict surrounds the
Peacemaker's attempts to make decisions, caught between the
desire to be heard and the desire to be accepted.
While this type may appear to be accepting someone
else's decision, internally he often is resistant and
resentful toward the decision-maker (Palmer, 1988). Type
Nine tends to express his disagreement through passive-
aggressive means. This may take the form of slowness to
49
follow through on some course of action, or through a
stubborn refusal to act. Sometimes he may simply forget to
fulfill a responsibility or get sidetracked by inessential
details and tangents, not discerning the real priority.
Wings
An important issue in understanding Enneagram
personality types is the concept of "wings." Although
Enneagram theorists believe that each individual is one
basic personality type, there are many hues of each
personality pattern. When looking at a type, as placed on
the diagram, one should take note of the types on either
side. Theorists believe that significant characteristics
of either one of these neighboring types may appear in an
individual's personality. For instance, consider Type
Four, the Artist. If the Artist were to have a three-wing,
one would expect any number of the Type Three's
characteristics to be part of the Type Four's personality.
A Type Four with a three-wing driven by social
ambition may accomplish much in a field of the arts.
Concerned with how others view him or her, this Type Four
may strive to compete and to project an acceptable image.
In spite of the drive toward extroverted pursuits, the
individual may hide a lurking fear of failure, chagrin and
self-exposure.
50
Review of Enneagram Research
Although the subject of the Enneagram personality
typology is virtually unknown, it has received serious
attention from researchers, especially over the past 20
years. Synopses of some of the major and more widely known
works on the topic follow.
Rater Reliabilities. Gamard (1986) based his
dissertation on a study of rater reliabilities in
identifying Enneagram types. He looked at the interrater
reliability and validity of ratings made by experienced
judges classifying people according to Enneagram typology.
Judges selected 36 representatives from 276 videotaped
interviews with university students. Thirty-one different
judges, divided into two groups, rated each interview.
Group A contained 15 experienced judges who had known the
system for an average of 14 years. Group B consisted of 16
less experienced judges who had known the system an average
of seven years. Gamard (1986) statistically verified that
the group of judges with greater experience had greater
interrater reliability. In conclusion, he stated that this
did not have clinical significance, although results
suggested that greater familiarity with the theory resulted
in more accurate typing.
Classification. For his doctoral research, Randall
(1979) attempted to develop an inventory that would blindly
classify subjects into their correct Enneagram type (as
51
compared with expert judgments). The investigator reduced
a pool of 535 possible items to 229 items and used these
items on a five-point Likert scale to develop his
inventory. Data collected from responses by 92 subjects,
previously typed by expert diagnosis, were subjected to an
item analysis. This resulted in the reduction of the
number of usable items to 95. Results of the study showed
that the inventory would only correctly classify 23.3% of
the subjects. Therefore, the inventory had limited
practical use.
Wagner (1981) attempted to develop an inventory that
would correctly classify individuals based on the Enneagram
typology. For his doctoral research, he selected a sample
of 390 adults who were previously aware of the typology
through workshops and classes, and who knew their Enneagram
types. He administered the Enneagram inventory, the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator, and the Millon-Illinois Self-Report
Inventory to the subjects. Profiles on these last two
inventories were congruent among the Enneagram types,
yielding concurrent validity for the Enneagram instruments.
Wagner concluded that the Enneagram inventory appeared to
have diagnostic value.
Conducting dissertation research, Zinkle (1974) had
two objectives. The first was to create a reliable and
valid inventory for "blind-typing" subjects based on the
Enneagram personality typology. Second, he wanted to
52
administer this Enneagram instrument to a heterogeneous
sample to ascertain whether the types existed and to what
degree they were present in the general population. A
comparison of inventory results to previous typing by a
knowledgable group produced moderate validity, and test-
retest reliability was acceptable. The Enneagram
instrument correctly typed only 52% of the subjects.
Based on his data, Zinkle only found evidence to support
the existence of seven of the nine Enneagram types.
Palmer (1988) conducted research on the Enneagram
typology. Her research was both qualitative and
quantitative. An Enneagram expert. Palmer taught many
extended workshops and seminars, which served as a basis
for her qualitative research. She assembled and
interviewed panels which contained representatives of the
different Enneagram types. In her book The Enneagram,
Palmer (1988) included extensive descriptions of the
individual types. From this research, she developed her
own Enneagram inventory for personality typing.
Her book not only reported on the conclusions of her
qualitative research, but also included the results of her
quantitative research. She administered her Enneagram
inventory to 172 subjects who had determined their types
before testing. Type identifications, based on raw scores,
were more useful for some types than for others. Using
discriminant analysis, however, she found that the weighted
53
items correctly classified 97% of the subjects into the
correct typological groups.
Riso (1987, 1990) wrote two books on the subject of
the Enneagram system. His earlier work gave a brief
discussion of the origins and dynamics of the system, and
described each of the personality types in length. His
second work supplemented the first book and expanded on
some topics. This book contained a more extensive
description of his theory of psychopathology based on the
Enneagram system. He also included a chapter with his own
questionnaire for the purpose of Enneagram personality
typing. Although both his theoretical discussions of the
Enneagram and his instrument were more sophisticated than
the work of the above-mentioned authors, his research was
entirely qualitative in nature. Riso did not present any
empirical evidence to support his questionnaire.
The research discussed above documents the attempts
made to objectively provide supporting data for Enneagram
theory. Investigators used various approaches in efforts
to both classify subjects based on Enneagram typology and
to concurrently validate their instruments. An underlying
goal was to integrate Enneagram theory with other modern
psychological theories. Although their work produced
promising results, the researchers recognized the need for
further studies.
54
In a continuing effort to integrate the Eastern
Enneagram theory with modern psychological theory, the
present researcher chose to use a Western psychological
typology developed by John Holland. Consequently, a
discussion of Holland's (1959) typology follows, providing
a foundation for his Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI).
In order to place it in historical context, the discussion
of the VPI is preceded by a brief review of Western
typologies.
Holland and Western Psychological Typologies
Attempts to classify human personality date back as
early as 420 BC when the ancient philosopher Hippocrates
developed his simplistic theory. He attempted to identify
a collection of characteristics common to different
personalities. Such a theoretical system is a typology and
each separate pattern of characteristics used to categorize
people is a "type" (Chaplin, 1975).
Subsequent physicians and psychiatrists developed
their own typologies. Pinel and Kraepelin created
typologies to classify pathological personalities
(Capretta, 1967). Jung and Sheldon developed the earliest
non-pathological typologies in the Western hemisphere (Hall
& Lindzey, 1978). The work of these latter theorists
influenced Holland (1959) in the development of his modern
and prominent typology. A discussion of his work follows
55
below, because it formed the theoretical foundation for his
instrument, the Vocational Preference Inventory, the key
comparative instrument for the present study.
Influenced by trait and factor theory, Holland (1959)
developed his theory of vocational choice. His theory was
a modern personality typology that has long been the object
of research (Benninger & Walsh, 1980; Florence, 1973;
Johnson, 1987). Particularly, researchers in the fields of
vocational psychology and individual interest measurement
studied his theory more frequently than professionals in
any other disciplines.
There were several ideas that contributed to Holland's
conception of the study of personality and vocation. One
idea was that "the choice of a vocation is an expression of
personality" (Holland, 1973, p. 2). That is, he believed
that vocational interests, as well as avocational and
recreational preferences, were an expression of
personality. A corollary idea was that "interest
inventories are personality inventories" (Holland, 1973, p.
3). Responses to seemingly neutral content represented
different components of personality. Therefore,
occupational choice reflected motivation, personality and
ability, and ultimately, a person's lifestyle.
A third idea contributing to the theory was that
"vocational stereotypes have reliable and important
psychological and sociological meanings" (Holland, 1973, p.
56
5). Daily experience causes individuals to develop
specific ideas about members of various occupations.
Holland stated that there was some truth to the
generalizations made about certain occupations, such as
lawyers being aggressive and scientists being unsociable.
Another related idea was that "the members of a vocation
have similar personalities and similar histories of
personal development" (Holland, 1973, p. 5). People within
distinct fields have some broad characteristic similarities
that distinguish them from those in other fields. Another
related concept was that "because people in a vocational
group have similar personalities, they will respond to many
situations and problems in similar ways, and they will
create characteristic interpersonal environments" (Holland,
1973, p. 6). In other words, a specific type of
personality creates a type-specific environment.
A sixth idea of Holland's was that "vocational
satisfaction, stability, and achievement depend on the
congruency between one's personality and the environment
(composed largely of other people) in which one works"
(Holland, 1973, p. 6). Given a psychological fit, the
worker has a greater likelihood of successful performance
in that vocation. Conversely, when the worker-environment
fit does not occur, the performance will likely be less
than optimal.
57
Finally, Holland stated that "our knowledge of
vocational life is disorganized and often isolated from the
main body of psychological and sociological knowledge"
(Holland, 1973, p. 6). Thus, the integration of knowledge
and research gained from related fields would assist in
conceptually defining interest and personality types, thus
helping to create appropriate theories. Unfortunately,
researchers define vocational interests in terms of
particular items a person might endorse on an inventory.
This method originated from an attempt to isolate
occupational life from a person's total life and life
style, yielding the subsequent field of "interest
measurement." Holland stated that simply acknowledging
interests as an expression of personality was insufficient.
A move beyond empiricism has facilitated the integration
between interest assessment, psychology and sociology.
To address the lack of integrated vocational theories,
Holland (1959) developed the Theory of Vocational Choice.
Unwilling to limit the theory's focus to vocational life,
Holland extended it to incorporate personality types.
While the focus of the theory was on vocational choice and
changes, it also addressed creativity, emotional cohesion,
and individual development. In his view, vocational
behavior was valuable, being available to public scrutiny.
This contrasted with the covert information that was the
subjective cornerstone of the current personality theories.
58
Providing a foundation for his theory, Holland offered the
following basic assumptions.
Holland's theoretical assumptions. The first
assumption was that "in our culture, most persons can be
categorized as one of six types-Realistic, Investigative,
Artistic, Social, Enterprising, or Conventional" (Holland,
1985a, p. 12). According to Holland (1973, p. 9), a "type"
is a model against which the real person can be measured.
Each type was a consequence of the characteristic interplay
between heredity, culture, people and the environment.
Personality types epitomized some common ways in which
people developed in Western culture. A person's biological
and social heredity, with his or her personal history, lead
to the development of a characteristic set of abilities,
perceptions, goals, values, self-concepts and coping
behaviors. Therefore, a type was an elaborate cluster of
personal attributes that created a number of particular
predispositions.
The second assumption was that "there are six kinds of
environments: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social,
Enterprising, or Conventional" (Holland, 1985a, p. 13).
When people associate, their personalities influence and
give a distinctive flavor to the work environment. Thus,
an environment evolves that corresponds to, or has the
characteristics of, the most prevalent personality type.
59
For instance, in an artistic environment, more artistic
personalities than any other type reside.
Holland's third assumption was that "people search for
environments that will permit them to exercise their skills
and abilities, to express their attitudes and values, and
take on agreeable problems and roles, and to avoid
disagreeable ones" (Holland, 1973, p. 14). Not only do
individuals search for an environment that is consistent
with their personality types, but to some extent,
environments screen for consistent types. This search for
an appropriate fit involves both conscious and unconscious
processes. The fit is a result of a person's self-concept,
and can be partially attributed to the messages given
concerning what a person does well or does poorly.
The fourth assumption was that "a person's behavior
can be explained by the interaction of his personality and
his environment" (Holland, 1973, p. 12). Theoretically, if
a person's personality type and his environmental type are
known, predictions about some possible outcome of the
interaction between the two can be made. Such predictions
might include the choice of vocation, education, behavior,
motivation and accomplishments.
Holland (1959) proposed six major vocational or
personality types. He believed that each individual is
predominantly one type. An individual, however, often uses
coping strategies classified as belonging to a second or
60
third subtype. The types, as assessed by his instruments,
particularly the Vocational Preference Inventory,
demonstrated a moderately positive intercorrelation. This,
of course, indicated that the types are not entirely
independent of each other.
Typology. Holland stated that types are indicative of
psycho-social development in American culture. A "model
orientation" describes the types as a cluster of coping
mechanisms, needs, motives, self-concepts, life history,
goals, roles, aptitudes and intelligence (Holland, 1973, p.
16). Each individual's degree of similarity to the six
model orientations constitutes his or her "personality
pattern" (Holland, 1973, p. 16). Ideally, an individual
will be most similar to the model orientation that
constitutes his or her "personality type" (Holland, 1973,
p. 16).
Hexagon. In order to represent the relationships
between the types, Holland chose a hexagon (Figure 5).
Each corner of the hexagon represents a different type.
Starting with the top left corner, the order of placement
of types follows the sequence R, I, A, S, E, C. Lines
drawn within the model ensure that each type connects with
every other type by a direct line. This graphic
illustrates the similarities between the types and shows
that they are not entirely independent of each other.
61
Realistic Investigative
Conventional A r 11 s L 1 c
E n t e r p r i s i n g
F i g u r e 5 H o l l a n d ' s Types on tlie Hexagon
62
Hexagonal Concepts. Holland used four basic concepts
to describe how personality types and environmental types
come together. One concept was Consistency, which
indicated the degree to which two different types shared
characteristics. Generally, two or three types are
necessary to adequately depict an individual's personality.
When these types are near to each other on the hexagon, the
personality is consistent. An example of consistency would
be SAE, while SRI would be an example of inconsistency.
When an individual or an environment more closely
resembles one type, this indicates Holland's concept of
Differentiation. A differentiated type is likely to work
most productively in a similar environment. When a person
or environment resembles several types, this refers to an
undifferentiated environment or personality.
Another concept is that of Congruence, which occurs
when a person operates in an environment of the same type
as his or her personality. An example of this would be an
S-type personality working in an S environment. This would
provide the opportunities, rewards and need-fulfillment
most likely to facilitate productivity and satisfaction for
an S. In contrast, should an A type personality be forced
to work in a C environment, the expectation would be for
the A to have greater difficulty and frustration.
A final concept is explained by the term Calculus.
This explains the degree of relationship between the types
63
as graphically depicted by type placement on the hexagon,
and the distance between the types. Theoretically, types
located farthest apart on the hexagon from each other would
have the smallest degree of relationship or have less in
common. Types connected by shorter lines, or represented
by adjacent angles, would tend to have more in common.
A brief summary of the model orientation for each type
follows. The descriptions are not exhaustive; however,
they are accurate characterizations. Only those attributes
that help to effectively discriminate between the types
appear. The types occur here in the order in which they
appear on the hexagonal diagram.
Realistic (R). This type has attributes usually
thought of as masculine. These include physical strength,
aggression and good motor coordination. Type R tends to
enjoy activities such as athletics, crafts, shop-work,
mechanics, marksmanship, racing and gardening (Holland,
1973). While there is a clear preference for activities
that demand motor skills, tasks that require verbal and
interpersonal skills such as leadership and socializing are
avoided. This type is not likely to pursue situations
calling for creative or individual expression, or adherence
to some formal or socially acceptable protocol. Rather he
inhabits environments composed of practical, conventional
and less sophisticated people. Often characterized as
64
unsociable, he is frequently passive, submissive and self-
abasing in social relationships.
A marked preference exists for concrete versus
abstract reasoning, as well as an objective approach with
concrete goals. Therefore, the acguisition of material
possessions is a frequent method for asserting the self.
Also, Type R values the physical manipulation of objects
and the hands on approach. This frequently leads to the
choosing of professions such as agriculture, applied
engineering, technical and skilled trades. A sense of
mastery and empowerment results from the operation of
machines, tools and vehicles.
The Realistic type has a simple outlook and perceptual
style, tending to lack the skill of integrating complex
stimuli. He prefers the facts and avoids subjective or
esthetic endeavors. He keeps stress at bay through the
avoidance of introverted or intellectual activities. It is
rare to find a Type R in academic environments requiring
writing and speaking skills. His mathematical aptitude
tends to be greater than the verbal, exceeded only by his
mechanical and psychomotor aptitudes.
Investigative (I). This type of person adapts to her
environment by using intellectual skills. The
Investigative type solves problems through the use of
words, symbols and ideas in contrast to the use of
physical, motor or social skills, all of which Type I has
65
little. This demonstrates her rational, analytic and
abstract cognitive style. Consequently, Type I tends to
prefer scientifically oriented vocations. She favors the
independent work required and the theoretical and scholarly
pursuits involved. She tends to assert herself using
knowledge and intellectual achievement (Holland, 1973),
which is supported by her tremendous aptitude for both
verbal and mathematical subjects.
The Investigative type prefers nonsocial activities
that satisfy curiosity and cognitive complexity, allowing
for individualistic and imaginative expression. These may
include activities such as reading, photography, scouting,
art, music and foreign languages. Often perceived as
unsociable. Type I tends to be non-nurturing and unpopular.
Being introverted, the Type I avoids situations requiring
complex social skills and leadership. When entering into
social relationships, the tendency is to be submissive and
self-abasing.
Social interactions involving aggression are difficult
for this type. Thus, an Investigative type may defend the
self with either negativism or hostility. Intellectual
rationalization, perfectionism and unarguable knowledge are
tools used to ward off the stress produced by interaction
with other people. In any case, avoiding other people
through self-isolation is a basic strategy and defensive
posture.
66
Artistic (A). This type is the most original in both
his approach to life and problem-solving. Intuitions,
impressions and feelings are tools used when contemplating
life. Consequently, Type A expresses his solutions, his
emotions and his viewpoints through some artistic medium.
Artistic talent is his avenue for relating to people. It
also allows him to express his unconventional values in a
way that shields him from social rejection. Being
introverted, sensitive to rejection and self-sufficient, he
may avoid interpersonal relationships in times of stress.
Type A tends to be introspective and to possess high
ideals. His impulsivity and irresponsibility make it
difficult to live up to these high ideas. This may result
in self-abasement and depression. Consequently, he uses
projection to defend himself and place the blame on others
in society. This, in turn, can lead to negative attitudes
towards his culture.
Frequent preferences for this type include debating,
music, English, history, entertainment, artistic endeavors,
school journalism, student government and community
service. These activities allow him to use his verbal,
perceptual and motor skills. With a greater verbal than
mathematics aptitude, he chooses occupations that allow for
originality and creative performance in the arts, or the
teaching of these. In contrast, he avoids activities such
as athletics and auto mechanics.
67
Social (S). This type handles the environment through
the use of social skills. With a social orientation, there
is a preference for activities, goals and values that focus
around the training or behavioral change of people. Being
generally responsible. Type S has a concern for the care of
those that are indigent, incapable and needy. Her
leadership qualities, nurture, and understanding of human
behavior are assets that increase her status and popularity
in society. An orientation to other people garners her the
love, appreciation and loyalty that she desires. The
Social type gets her sense of mastery through the
dependency and admiration of others.
The cheerfulness and sense of adventure that surrounds
a Type S makes her company pleasurable. Although
objective, her decisions often depend on feelings rather
than intellect. Consequently, her objectivity and
decisions are vulnerable to their environment, and the
people with whom she identifies.
This type handles stress and anxiety through
repression and denial. Other coping strategies may include
dependency upon other people, as well as controlling others
by playing an ingratiating role. In times of stress, she
does not delay the gratification of bodily appetites.
The Social type tends to migrate towards religious,
therapeutic or educational occupations with well-defined
social roles. With a high verbal aptitude and low
68
mathematical aptitude, she tends to choose activities that
involve personal and esthetic expression. These may
include church, sports, drama, music, community service,
government, public speaking and journalism. In contrast,
the Social type avoids activities that require the use of
motor skills, machines and tools, since she tends to be
more feminine than masculine.
Enterprising (E). This personality type interacts
with the world in a vigorous, dominant and adventurous
fashion. Brimming with self-confidence, this extroverted
personality uses both a verbal persuasiveness and an
exhibitionistic demeanor as a strong foundation for the
positions of leadership often acquired. Type E often
admires and emulates powerful and wealthy entrepreneurs.
He tends to gravitate towards occupations in sales,
supervision, political and economic leadership.
Type E seeks out tasks and roles that allow him to use
his verbal aptitude to exert his influence and to gain
recognition and popularity. This includes sports, sales,
the arts, broadcasting, and entertainment. Activities that
are confining, routine, manual, and nonsocial, such as
mechanics, scholastics and shopwork, hold little appeal for
him.
In the social realm, the Enterprising type tends to
participate in more activities than any of the other types.
Relationships are often characterized by his domination.
69
exploitation and controlling attitudes. When threatened.
Type E reacts aggressively and easily rationalizes any
action that he takes. He copes with stress and anxiety
through hyperactivity and repression, as well as excessive
eating, drinking and sex.
Conventional (C). The preferred method of coping with
the environment for this type is to choose customary and
socially approved activities, goals and values. Conformity
is a way of relieving anxiety. It is important to present
an image that makes a positive impression; one that appears
conservative, correct, practical and disciplined.
Consequently, spontaneity and personal creativity are rare.
Rather, the Conventional type is more likely to approach
life in a stereotypical fashion with shrewdness and rigid
perfection.
In relationships. Type C tends to socialize with a few
people that she knows best and to be ingratiating towards
them. Since it is difficult for Type C to deal with
emotional and persuasive expression, she sets restrictive
boundaries that limit her commitment to work and to other
people. This reflects her preference for interactions that
are safe, systematic and predictable. With fewer friends,
she can more easily ensure these limited parameters for her
relationships.
The Conventional type often identifies with business
and financial leaders. She tends to play the role of an
70
obedient, dependable subordinate, prone to a dependency
that she is often unable to recognize. Type C seems to
enjoy being either an expert consultant or a middle-
manager. There tends to be a low level of speaking and
leadership ability. This is consistent with her
aptitudes that tend to be higher in mathematics and lower
in verbal areas.
In the vocational realm. Type C tends to show a
preference for rule-oriented occupations that involve
either clerical or computational tasks with a focus on
economic issues. She seems to enjoy structured activities
that require a low level of energy. These may include
spelling, typing, collecting, arithmetic, drama, music and
school journalism (Holland, 1973). Tasks that require
aggression, spontaneity, originality or integration are
avoided. Shopwork, mechanics, sports and creative writing
are among the activities that Type C dislikes.
Clinical Scales of the Vocational Preference Inventory
Each of the previously described model orientations is
associated with a personality scale on the Vocational
Preference Inventory (VPI). Clinical scales derive from
the remainder of the items on the inventory (Holland 1985b)
and their descriptions appear below. Although not
71
exhaustive, the summaries are accurate and supplement the
reader's understanding of the instrument.
Self-Control (SC). The Self-Control scale is defined
by Holland (1985b) as a measure of an individual's ability
to inhibit the impulses to behave, or express thoughts and
fantasies through unhealthy or socially unacceptable means.
Those who score high on this scale are depicted as over-
controlled, inhibited, passive and responsible. They may
be preoccupied with concerns over illness, physical injury,
and medical problems. Those scoring in the average range
tend to possess an adaptive spontaneity and originality.
In contrast, low scorers are impulsive, displaying an
asocial tendency to "act out."
Masculinity-Femininity (MF). Reflecting stereotypical
assumptions about gender-roles, the MF scale assesses the
extent to which an individual identifies with traditional
concepts of masculinity or femininity. High scores
indicate occupational choices that are traditionally
thought of as masculine. These individuals tend to be
unsociable, shrewd and competitive. Low scores represent
a preference for careers that are traditionally identified
as feminine. Holland (1985b) states that there is an
inverse correlation between this scale and the Social and
Artistic scales.
Status (ST). A measure of preoccupation with status
and power, the ST scale provides a measure of self-esteem
72
and self-confidence. High scores indicate the endorsement
of occupations with a high level of prestige. High scorers
tend to be sociable, adventurous, enthusiastic, sensitive,
and expressive. They gravitate towards positions of
leadership in business and the community. No associations
are indicated for those scoring in the mid-range. In
contrast, low scorers tend to display lower self-confidence
and self-deprecation.
Infrequency (INF). Holland (1985b) states that this
scale seems to measure several correlated traits including
self-deprecation, incompetence, social undesirability and a
propensity for both personal and vocational failure.
Additionally, the INF scale appears to be a gauge of social
desirability. Individuals achieving a high scale score are
indicating a preference for undesirable, low prestige,
female-dominated occupations. This implies social,
vocational and intellectual preferences that are atypical.
In comparison, low scorers endorse male-dominated, high-
status occupations that require social, intellectual or
artistic talent.
Acquiescence (ACQ). The ACQ scale primarily detects
an extreme response bias, as indicated by high scores,
resulting from two different personality orientations. One
orientation includes individuals having poor judgment, lack
of personal integration and hyperactivity. The second
orientation consists of well-integrated individuals
73
possessing multiple interests and abilities. Differential
interpretation between the two depends upon the review of
additional information, such as work and personal
histories, vocational and academic achievements. No
interpretational significance corresponds to lower scores.
Personality Change
Holland (1973) stated that events such as trauma,
psychotherapy, experience, and maturation can lead to
personality change. He believed that some of the types are
more susceptible to social experience, and, therefore, more
susceptible to change. These types follow in descending
order from greatest to least potential for change: Social,
Enterprising, Conventional, Artistic, Intellectual,
Realistic. Among these types, those with less consistent
personality patterns presumably have conflicting needs,
assets, and priorities. They would more likely reach out
for external assistance and so be susceptible to
environmental influence yielding a likelihood of change.
In contrast, those with consistent patterns are less
influenced by others and less likely to change.
A Comparison Between the Theories
To date, theoretical links between Enneagram theory
and Holland's theory of Vocational Choice have not been
explicitly made. Each theory evolved independently, and in
74
a separate part of the world, Enneagram theory arose in the
Middle East and Holland's theory developed in the West.
Accordingly, neither theory evolved from the other. Thus,
the comparisons, contrasts and linkages presented in this
section are the present author's original ideas. Holland's
clinical scales are excluded from this comparison, because
this study is concerned with comparing only the personality
types.
Holland believes that vocational choices are an
expression of personality. Although not expressly stated,
Enneagram theorists would concede that the personality
influences occupational choices. While Holland's theory
suggests that personality type may constrict vocational
choice, Enneagram theorists would not be this definitive.
Rather they would assert that while personality influences
the particular occupation that a type will gravitate
towards, more importantly, personality shapes the way in
which the type fulfills the demands of that occupation.
According to Holland (1973), individuals in a
particular vocational group have similar personalities, and
thus will respond to situations and problems in similar
ways. In contrast, Enneagram theorists may state that
there are various personality types in a particular
vocation. Different types may respond in similar ways,
since a particular type can demonstrate individual
qualities possessed by other types, given the demands of
75
the situation. Enneagram theorists believe that when
living in essence, each individual has the full range of
emotional, intellectual and behavioral responses. It is
the development of personality, however, that restricts the
person's living.
While Holland (1973) states that vocational
satisfaction and achievement are dependent upon congruence
between personality and environment, Enneagram theorists
take a different perspective, although they agree that
Holland's statement may be true of those living in
compulsion. Nonetheless, Enneagram theory takes the
Eastern perspective that satisfaction and achievement are
dependent more upon the subjective experience of the
individual and less upon the environment. Consequently,
personal fulfillment and satisfaction occur when one
transcends personal weaknesses and limitations.
Essentially, when an individual moves in the direction of
integration, reconnecting with essence, he or she takes on
the antidotal qualities of the next personality type. For
example, a Type Five (the Thinker) may dislike the
interpersonal bickering that occurs between staff members
in his or her office. Should he or she follow his or her
normal compulsion, withdrawal from the situation and
resentment would represent the typical manner of
responding. If the Thinker takes on the antidotal
qualities of the Type Eight (the Leader), he or she
76
rediscovers his or her ability to take action and
approaches his or her boss with requests for intervention
and suggested solutions. Ideally, the individual type
should be able to subsequently move in the direction of
other types as well (in this case towards the Type Two and
the Type Four), thus acquiring many of their positive
qualities (Wagner, 1981). The reclaiming of these positive
properties of essence leads to a flexibility in responding
to any situation or environment.
Enneagram personality theory is dynamic in comparison
to Holland's static, vocational personality theory.
Enneagram theorists believe that when an individual moves
in the direction of integration, that individual will
acquire some of the positive characteristics of another
type. When an individual moves in the direction of
disintegration, that individual will manifest some of the
negative qualities of a different personality type. Life
circumstances and the level of continual stress may
influence the movement in either direction.
In contrast to Enneagram theory, Holland's
conceptualization of personality type is more static. By
his account, personality is less susceptible to daily or
periodic change. Rather, events such as trauma,
psychotherapy, experience, and maturation may cause
personality change (Holland, 1973). Change is more likely
77
to occur in certain personality types (e.g.. Social,
Enterprising) than others.
Both theories agree that there are a definite number
of specific personality types by which individuals can be
classified. Holland proposes that their are six basic
types while Enneagram theorists pose nine basic types.
Holland states that his personality types reflect psycho
social development in the American and other Western
cultures. In contrast, Enneagram theorists propose that
the Enneagram types occur in every country and culture.
Although some Holland types closely correspond to
Enneagram types (Table 2), other Holland types appear to
have characteristics from more than one Enneagram
type. For example, Holland's Realistic type appears to
have no real similarity to any specific Enneagram type.
One of the closest matches between the two theories,
however, is between the Enneagram Type Five (the Thinker)
and the Holland Investigative type. Type I operating in
the world through the use of words, symbols and ideas has a
lower level of physical, motor and social skills, thus
using them less. The Type I profile resembles the Type
Five, which is deficient in the "doing" function, having a
lower propensity to be active in the world. Instead, the
preference for Type Five is to actively watch from the
sidelines, rather than participate in conversations,
relationships or activities. Both Type I and Type Five are
78 Table 2
Comparison of Holland and Enneagram Types
HOLLAND
Realistic
ENNEAGRAM
No Match
COMMON ATTRIBUTES
Investigative Thinker (Type Five)
Cognitive, Inactive, Scholarly, Nonsocial
Artistic Artist (Type Four)
Creative, Affective, Unconventional, Sensitive
Social Helper (Type Two)
People-oriented, Affective Decisions, Nurture, Compassion
Enterprising Leader (Type Eight)
Vigorous, Persuasive, Self-confident, Aggressive, Dominant
Conventional Reformer (Type One)
Conservative, Rigid, Correct, Practical, Disciplined, Structured
Loyalist (Type Six)
Conformity, Anxiety, Subordinate, Ingratiating
79
introverted, preferring nonsocial, individual activities
that require cognitive complexity and careers that are
scientific or scholarly. These types highly value the
acquisition of knowledge, and often use knowledge as a
defense mechanism for dealing with the stress precipitated
by social interactions.
A similarity occurs between the Enneagram Type Four
(the Artist) and the Holland Artistic personality. Both
the Type Four and the Type A have a creative disposition
and rely on intuitions and feelings as the primary means of
acquiring important life information. While each theory
emphasizes that the respective type often expresses
personal emotions and viewpoints through an artistic talent
or medium, Enneagram theory more clearly emphasizes that
the Type Four may not have artistic ability. Type Four may
simply have a great appreciation and affinity with art and
culture. Nevertheless, the artistic medium allows the
expression of unconventional values in a way that shields
the person from social rejection. In times of stress, both
Type Four and Type A tend to manifest their basic
introverted nature. Being sensitive to rejection, they
withdraw and avoid interpersonal relationships. Self-
abasement, self-blame and depression often indicate the
failure of these types to cope with their circumstances.
80
Holland's Social type and the Enneagram Type Two (the
Helper) are similar. Each has good social skills and a
clear social orientation. These individuals surround
themselves with people who tend to be the central focus of
their activities, goals, and values. Possessing the
qualities of nurture and understanding, these types
cultivate the appreciation and loyalty of others which is
often because their decisions are based on feelings rather
than intellect. The cheerful dispositions of Types Two and
S cause them to be popular and able to cultivate
relationships in which individuals are dependent on them.
In contrast, during stressful times they may manifest
dependency on others and act in an ingratiating manner for
the sole purpose of controlling other individuals.
Enneagram Type Eight (the Leader) bears some
resemblance to the Holland Enterprising type. Both types
are vigorous and dominant, and possess a high degree of
self-confidence. Using their persuasiveness masterfully,
they often aspire to and acquire leadership positions.
Each type also tends to emulate powerful entrepreneurs.
Not surprisingly, relationships for Type E have a tone of
domination and exploitation. Additionally, when facing a
threat, aggression is often the defense that the
Enterprising type uses. Unless moving toward integration,
the rationalized aggression and exploitation are also
characteristic of the average Type Eight.
81
Characteristics of Holland's Conventional type is
reminiscent of the Enneagram Type One (the Reformer). Each
personality believes that it must present an image that is
conservative, correct, practical, and disciplined with life
proceeding in a stereotypical and rigidly perfectionistic
manner. They prefer to approach work in a structured,
rule-oriented fashion involving systematic, predictable
tasks, and interactions avoiding tasks that require
aggression, spontaneity, and originality.
Some characteristics of the Conventional type are more
like the Enneagram Type Six (the Loyalist). Each of these
copes with the environment by choosing customary and
socially approved activities, goals, and values. Anxiety
diminishes through the practice of conformity. In work.
Type C tends to play the role of an obedient subordinate,
prone to dependency that is much like Type Six. In both
work and personal relationships, these types tend to be
ingratiating.
Each system presents the personality types as being
interrelated. Crabtree and Hales (1974) demonstrate that
the Holland personality types are intercorrelated with each
other, and thus not completely distinct. Enneagram theory
asserts that there are three triads of personality types,
which suggests their interrelatedness. Each triad is
organized around a basic personality type. Thus, Types
Five and Seven are variations of Type Six. Types Eight and
82
One are each a variation of Type Nine. Type Three is the
basic personality type from which Types Two and Four vary.
Types closest to each other on the Enneagram figure are the
most related, thus suggesting kinship to Holland's concept
of Calculus on the hexagonal diagram.
This chapter described the roots of the Enneagram
typology along with its theoretical rudiments and the
basics of the personality types. Following a discussion of
Enneagram researchers and their inventories, a summary of
Holland's (1959) well-known typology appeared. This latter
discussion provided a theoretical basis for the Vocational
Preference Inventory (VPI), an instrument featured in this
dissertation.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Attempting to assess the validity of three Enneagram
instruments (Palmer, 1988; Wagner, 1981; Zinkle, 1974), the
present researcher administered these inventories to
subjects in conjunction with Holland's VPI. The hope was to
address validity issues, especially construct validity and
concurrent validity. Although the authors of the Enneagram
instruments had established validity through their research,
further collaborative evidence was necessary to pique the
notice of personality theorists. Additionally, this
researcher asserted that the quantification and
identification of underlying factors would strengthen the
evidence for validity. The following research questions
guided the design and direction of this investigation.
Questions
1. What relationships exist among the three
Enneagram inventories?
2. Do the Enneagram instruments measure what they
propose to measure, (i.e., factor validity)?
3. Do the same typological scales from each of the
three Enneagram inventories load with similar
83
84
proportions on each factor?
4. Does analysis support the existence of nine
factors, indicative of the nine types as
measured by existing Enneagram inventories?
5. What relationships exist between the VPI and the
Enneagram scores and types?
6. Which factors emerge when the scale totals from
the Enneagram instruments and the VPI are factor
analyzed together?
The first four questions addressed construct validity
and the last two involved concurrent validity.
Design
To address the preceding questions, the investigator
conducted four factor analyses. First, each individual
instrument was subjected to a factor analysis. Second, a
factor analysis examined the scale scores of the three
Enneagram instruments together, addressing questions one
through four. Third, a factor analysis examined the scale
scores of each separate Enneagram inventory and factored
them with the VPI scale scores, addressing questions Five
and Six. Finally, a composite factor analysis pooled the
scale scores of all three Enneagram inventories and the
VPI, again addressing questions Five and Six.
85
Subjects
Participants in the investigation were obtained
primarily from student pools in two university settings:
Texas Tech University (Tech) and the University of North
Carolina at Wilmington (UNCW). The 335-person sample
contained (1) students who attended academic-career
workshops offered at both Tech and UNCW, (2) students
needing experimental credit from a psychology undergraduate
research pool at UNCW, (3) participants in a freshman
orientation course at UNCW, and (4) participants in career
workshops offered through the departments of Continuing
Education for the Wilmington, NC, Lubbock, TX, and Tulsa,
OK, communities. Subjects ranged in age from 17 to 67
years of age. The majority of individuals (75%) were
classified as undergraduate college students and the
remaining subjects (25%) were comprised of three younger
adolescents, high-school graduates, college-graduates,
graduate students and professionals. Males accounted for
39% (n=129) of the sample, and females accounted for 61%
(n=206). Anglo-Americans constituted 80% (n=267) of the
sample, African-Americans constituted 9% (n=29), and other
races numbered 2% (n=6). Those who did not report their
race accounted for the remaining 9% (n=33). A complete
summary of subject data is presented in Appendix A.
86
Instruments
The inventories developed by Wagner (1981), Cohen and
Palmer (1988), and Zinkle (1974) classify people according
to Enneagram typology. These instruments (Appendix B)
were chosen based on published data regarding reliability
and validity (Palmer, 1988; Wagner & Walker, 1983; Zinkle,
1974). This investigator chose the Holland Vocational
Preference Inventory (1985) as a comparative measure. A
wealth of empirical support for the VPI's typology prompted
its selection (DiScipio, 1974; Wakefield & Doughtie, 1973;
Ward, Cunningham & Wakefield, 1976). Essentially, this
study sought to use a well-known typology (Holland's),
which was developed in the West, for the purpose of
evaluating a lesser-known typology (the Enneagram), which
was developed in the East.
Wagner Inventory
Jerome Wagner's Enneagram inventory (1981) has 135
items. It consists of statements concerning personal
attributes and motivations to which subjects respond in a
dichotomized fashion: either "Yes (the item characterizes
me)" or "No (the statement does not characterize me)."
There are 15 of these stimulus statements, which constitute
a separate scale for each of the nine types. The sum of
the "yes" responses yield the raw score for that scale, and
the scale with the highest raw score determines the type
87
assigned. A jury of experts on the Enneagram system and
theory selected the items for inclusion in the inventory.
Wagner and Walker (1983) reported their efforts to
compare their Enneagram inventory with the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator and the Millon-Illinois Self-Report Scale.
Two-thirds of the original sample responded to a follow-up
survey. Between 79 and 100 percent of respondents for each
type rated themselves as the same type that they had
initially judged themselves to be. Using a more efficient
measure of type stability and, thus, reliability, Cohen's
kappa coefficient was computed for each of the nine types,
and yielded coefficients between .76 and 1.00.
To establish concurrent validity, Wagner and Walker
performed one-way Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) between each
of the Enneagram types and the Millon-Illinois scales and
both the Myers-Briggs raw scores and converted scores.
Significant results were obtained for all comparisons
ranging from p <.05 to p <.0001. This demonstrated that
persons judging themselves to be a particular Enneagram
type consistently scored high on the same scales of both
the Myers-Briggs and the Millon-Illinois inventories.
Cohen-Palmer Inventory
The Cohen-Palmer Enneagram Inventory (Palmer, 1988)
has 108 statements concerning behavioral tendencies, with a
total of 12 items per each type-scale. Subjects must
88
respond either that the statement is "like me" or "not like
me." Cohen and Palmer propose that the scale with the most
"like me" responses indicates the subject's type.
To concurrently validate their instrument, Cohen and
Palmer performed one-way ANOVA using post-hoc comparisons
between their inventory and the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI). Significant differences were
found in the way the Enneagram types scored on four
clinical scales of the MMPI. These were depression,
psychopathic deviation, psychasthenia, and social
introversion.
One-way ANOVA comparing the Cohen-Palmer Inventory
with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) indicated
significant differences on the MBTI continuums. Enneagram
Types Three, Seven, Eight and Two corresponded with
extroversion and Types Five, Nine, One, and Six
corresponded with introversion. In other MBTI scales Types
Seven, Eight, and Six were closest to the intuition side.
Considering the thinking-feeling scale. Types Eight, Five,
One, Six, and Seven fell closer to the thinking pole, and
Type Four corresponded with the feeling pole. No
significant differences arose on the perception-judgment
scale.
These results indicated that Enneagram types, as
classified by the Cohen-Palmer Instrument, tended to score
consistently and significantly in certain directions on
89
both the MMPI and the MBTI. These statistically
significant results provided evidence that the CPEI
possessed a modest degree of validity.
Zinkle Inventory
A total of 225 items comprises the Zinkle (1974)
inventory, which has 25 items to sample each of the nine
Enneagram types. Unlike the other inventories, 19 scale
items are "false-keyed," meaning that these items are
indicative of type qualities if denied. Therefore, these
items are added into the total if answered appropriately.
Each scale samples the cognitive, affective, and behavioral
domains with items concerning likes, dislikes, feelings,
motivations, and actions. A jury of experts decided which
items to include originally in the instrument.
To determine validity, Zinkle administered the
inventory to 76 subjects who studied the Enneagram system
and were typed in a group process. Results demonstrated
that 56% of the subjects achieved the same type both in the
groups and on the inventory. Nine percent achieved
conflicting classifications when labeled by the group
versus the inventory. In contrast, 35% did not achieve
inventory results that typed them as one specific type.
To determine item stability, 56 subjects took the
inventory under test-retest conditions, one month apart.
90
Item stability correlations ranged from a high of .98 to a
low of .58, with 12 items in the latter category.
Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI)
Holland's inventory consists of 160 occupational
titles to which a subject responds by indicating his or her
interest, or lack thereof, concerning each title.
Responses are dichotomous and assume a point-to-point link
between occupational titles and occupational choice. The
inventory yields scores for each of Holland's six
personality types. It also gives information about other
personality variables. Other scales on the instrument
include Self-Control, Masculinity-Femininity, Status,
Infrequency (of Response), and Acquiescence, providing a
total of 11 scales. According to Holland (1985b),
respondents must be over 14 years of age and possess at
least normal intelligence.
The VPI's manual (Holland, 1985b) stated that the
purpose of this inventory was to be a brief personality
assessment as well as an interest inventory. Shepard
(1989), in the Tenth Mental Measurements Yearbook, wrote
that the VPI yielded useful data about work style, work
typology, and specific occupational interest. He asserted
that the underlying theoretical constructs were sound.
Shepard cautioned that the validity of the VPI
91
was dependent upon the individual having had sufficient
exposure to occupational titles.
Rounds (1985) reviewed the 7th edition of the VPI,
which is substantially the same as the 8th edition, that is
used in this study. Rounds criticized the VPI, citing the
manual's lack of supporting research for the assumptions of
personality assessment. Furthermore, the supporting data
presented were derived from correlational studies of paper-
and-pencil tests, which did not control the bias introduced
by the method.
Rounds (1985) remarked that Holland portrayed the VPI
personality scales as continuous dimensions for personality
interpretation, and the evidence did not support this. The
scales were treated as categories, however, for the
vocational assessment interpretation, and the data seemed
to better support this. Rounds mentioned that the
supporting evidence for the use of classificatory rather
than dimensional interpretation consisted of the following:
heterogeneous item content, greatly skewed raw score
distributions, low average item endorsements, and moderate
to high scale intercorrelations. In support of the VPI, he
reiterated the evaluation of previous reviewers, stating
the usefulness of the RIASEC scales to assess Holland's
proposed occupational-interest types.
The test-retest reliabilities on scores were moderate
though somewhat unstable over a period of four weeks.
92
Correlations ranged from .56 to .79 for the six scales.
Rounds suggested an examination of the stability of the
code types. In addition, internal consistencies assessed
by corrected odd-even reliabilities were moderately high
overall, but more adequate for males than for females (.80-
.90 versus .68-.85).
Holland's VPI has been the subject of a number of
factor analytic studies (Athanasou, O'Gorman & Meyer, 1981;
DiScipio, 1974; Hales & Harman, 1978; Richards, 1968;
Wakefield & Doughtie, 1973). In general, the research
found between three and six factors for scale factor
analyses and greater numbers for item factor analyses. The
factors did not always have the same content as postulated
by Holland. Suffice it to say that the VPI appeared to be
an adequately validated instrument for research purposes.
Procedures
Data collection began with the administration of a
brief questionnaire to obtain relevant demographic data
concerning age, sex, ethnicity, education, and occupation
(Appendix A). Next, the subjects received the four
inventories in the following order: Cohen-Palmer
Inventory, Vocational Preference Inventory, Wagner
Inventory, and the Zinkle Inventory. In six workshops, the
order of instrument administration (Appendix C) was varied
to ameliorate possible bias due to the order of
93
administration. Subjects received instructions to complete
all items on the inventories. To further avoid biasing the
results, investigators did not identify any of the
instruments as personality measures.
Group testing was the format used for gathering data.
Subjects were solicited in sufficient numbers to ensure
factor stability (Tinsley & Tinsley, 1987). The target
goal of 300 subjects was surpassed with the acquisition of
335 subjects. With 38 variables, a satisfactory subject-
to-item ratio of 1:9 was obtained.
Each inventory was subsequently hand-coded onto
National Computing Systems answer sheets for computerized
scanning. Two people checked each sheet for accuracy. On
all instruments, subjects responded to questions in a
dichotomized format, as either "yes" or "no"; "like me" or
"not like me."
Analysis of Data
In the analysis phase of the study, the Statistical
Analyses System (SAS) version 6.06 was used to generate the
iterated principal factor analyses with orthogonal
(varimax) rotations of the factors. Kaiser's (Cerny &
Kaiser, 1977) Measure of Sampling Adeguacy was obtained for
all analyses. The index is a summary measure of the
difference in magnitude between the partial correlations
and the original correlations. The Measure of Sampling
94
Adequacy indicates whether sufficient variables are
intercorrelated and, thus, appropriate for the common
factor model. Tinsley and Tinsley (1987) note that values
above .80 are highly desirable, whereas values below .50
are unacceptable.
Four factor analyses were performed (a) using only the
scale scores from each individual inventory, (b) combining
the Enneagram scale scores from all three inventories, (c)
taking each Enneagram inventory individually with the VPI,
and (d) analyzing all four inventories, using all Enneagram
scale scores and VPI scale scores to determine the number
of factors present. Theory and research (DiScipio, 1974;
Riso, 1987) persuaded the investigator that there was
likely some dependence between the factors. Enneagram
theory does not postulate the independence of the nine
types, nor did previous research on the VPI offer support
for the independence of Holland's types. Theoretically,
the normal procedure is to use an oblique rotation of the
factors; however, a comparison of the orthogonal and
oblique procedures for these data demonstrated that there
was little difference in the definition of factors.
Following the suggestion of Tinsley and Tinsley (1987), the
factor loadings achieved by use of the varimax criterion
are reported below.
Squared Multiple Correlation coefficients were used as
the initial estimates of communality. The coefficients
95
measured the strength of linear association among the
variables, providing a further index of the appropriateness
of factor analysis. Iterated Squared Multiple Correlations
were generated in order to produce the best estimates of
communality. Although not commented upon, final
communality estimates were produced to give a post-rotation
estimate of the amount of variance that each variable
shared in common with other factors.
The investigator determined the number of factors to
be retained by using multiple criteria. The first was
Cattell's (1966) Scree test, which plots the eigenvalues
and retains all factors prior to the "scree," a point at
which the shape of the curve becomes horizontal. Because
most plots had multiple screes, this criterion alone was
insufficient. A second criterion. Kaiser's (1960) method
of selecting eigenvalues equal to or greater than one, was
used as an estimate of the minimum number of factors to
include. The third criterion was the percentage of
variance accounted for by the last factor, after rotation.
Fourth, the total proportion of common variance accounted
for by the factor solution constituted another criterion.
Finally, the fifth criterion was based upon the
interpretability of the factors.
To demonstrate the application of these criteria, one
might consider an example of the progression of logic.
First, the investigator should examine the scree and the
96
number of eigenvalues equal to or greater than one. The
number of each of these would help to establish the minimum
bound for the number of factors. Second, the percentage of
variance accounted for by the rotated factor solution
should be noted. A five-factor solution that accounts for
60% of the total variance may be preferable to a three-
factor solution that accounts for 50% of the variance.
Third, the percentage of variance accounted for by the last
factor may influence the number of factors determined to be
optimal. A final factor that contributes one percent of
the variance may not account for enough commonality to
justify its extraction. Finally, interpretability of the
factors would be important. For instance, a five factor
solution may provide factors that are more amenable to
theoretical interpretation, compared to a three factor
solution.
The results of the analyses for this study appear in
the next chapter.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
Analyses of Individual Inventories
The initial analyses factor analyzed each of the
individual inventories. This procedure addressed the
question of whether the instruments measured what they
proposed to measure. Each procedure and its results is
reported below.
The Vocational Preference Inventory
Scale totals for each of the 11 VPI scales were
factor analyzed. Kaiser's Measure of Sampling Adequacy,
an index of differences in correlational magnitude,
produced a mean value of .69 for all 11 scales, which
indicated that the variables were sufficient in number to
define the common factors. The individual Measure of
Sampling Adequacy values (Table 3) fell within the range
of .48 (Masculinity-Femininity) to .80 (Artistic). The
.48 value was the only unacceptable score, indicating
that the correlationships of this scale were not
sufficiently contributed to by other scales; therefore,
its appropriateness for the common factor model was
questionable.
Using the previously stated criteria (Chapter III),
the investigator determined that the instrument could
97
98
u o ^ j c >
n en d o
u u • P O 3 <0 T3 PC4 C
r« ro in CM o O
H vD r-<N in vo
o r* 00 CN r O o o O (N
U
c 0 U 0) (U M
(0 c o •H +J
<U U O >
(d en EH -
•O
«0
o
en •H en > i
<a c <
u o u (0
Et4
O
CN m u 0)
n > 0 < -p O .H
o o CO
t ^ O i n v o c n v D o r ^ r ^ v o v o r H t H o o i n s r o
00 ** **
i H
0 4J O
m p[4
> i 4J •rH >
•r4
-P
nsi
(1) CO
Socia
l
c o
u • H 4J 09
- H ^ (d 0) (x:
^ en
0) >
•H 4J lit O*
• H •P
a 9 > c H
n vo
u •H +J n • H 4J V4 •<
(T> VO
rH cd
•r4
u 0 CO
r^ CN
n o
0> rH C (d •r c m 0
.r^ -r^ V4 -P 0 C M 0) 0) > +J C C 0 M U
n tH
1
^ 0 U +J
c 0 o 1 *M rH
0) CO
i H
'^ 1
-Fem
inin
ity
> i •P • r^
c • r^
rH
3 u 09 <d S
(T> CN
(0
3 4J Id 4J CO
r n 1
> i 0 c 0) & 0) V4
<4H
c H
r-r~
0) U C 0) 03
0) •rl
a & 0 <
en
(d >
c cn •H
o +J u
u u >1
-o 0) c •H (0 iH
a u 0) u c (0 •H M 10 >
dP in
vo
rH
CN
73 O C •H (0
u 0) u c <0
•H M (0 >
<0
o
MH
o 4-) c (1) u 0
o CN
T3 0) C
-H «fl rH 04 X H
0) U c Id
•H
Id >
Id 4J 0
99
tr 0 <
^ t^
• tr 0 <
yo 00
•
•o m Q) 0)
rH
(0 EH
3
•H
c o u
CT\ VO
•
II
< m S r-\ r-{
<
MH C M
-P CO
EL4
s
vo vo
•
00 in
•
00 ^
MH C M
JJ CO
Pt4
s
t^ rH
•
o TH
•
c ro
I iH 0) >
o
<
u <0
cr 0)
73 <
c •H rH
a (0
w MH
o 0)
u CO (0 0)
(Q
0) CO
• H (0
o CO
O
H
CO
vo
vo vo
vo vo
o 00
CN
Id 4J o
a) 4J Id g •H +J (S H > i 4J -H rH Id c 3
0 u Id c •H
o CO
o
»
CO
<:
M
cn,
.27
.4
5
.46
.5
5
.43
.48
vo in
100
best be described by three factors (Table 3), which
accounted for 44% of the total variance. Factors one
through three individually accounted for 20%, 15% and 9% of
the total variance. The Artistic (.63) and Social (.69)
personality scales loaded the highest on the first factor
with the addition of the clinical scale. Acquiescence
(.77). Other scales loaded minimally on the factor,
including the Enterprising scale (.37), the Investigative
scale (.34), the Masculinity-Femininity scale (-.41), and
the Infrequency scale (-.37). The high loadings of Type A
and Type S on this factor appears to support Holland's
concept of Consistency; however, the low loading of the
scale for Type I does not as clearly support the concept of
Calculus.
Factor One seems best labeled a Social Sensitivity
factor. This is similar to the factor dimension labeled
"People," which was reported by Athanasou et al. (1981).
It is best described by the adjectives of sociable,
sensitive, energetic, and active, with multiple interests.
Each characteristic is shared by two or more of the scales.
The inverse loadings of the Masculinity-Femininity (MF) and
Infrequency (INF) scales reinforce this interpretation.
Low scorers on the MF scale are endorsing traditionally
female roles which are characterized by a high level of
sociability, in contrast to the unsociable attitude of high
scorers. Additionally, high scores on the INF scale are
101
indicative of unimaginative, unfriendly individuals with
low levels of motivation and little sense of competency.
These characteristics are the inverse of the
characteristics associated with the types and scales which
load positively.
On Factor Two, the Realistic (.67) and Investigative
(.60) scales achieved the highest loadings. The
Acquiescence (.44) and Masculinity-Femininity (.47) scales
loaded moderately. The Self-Control scale (-.50) achieved
a moderate, inverse loading. Again, the loadings of Type R
and Type I support Holland's concept of Congruence.
Consequently, Factor Two is appropriately labeled Social
Aversion. Athanasou et al. (1981) reported a factor
dimension similar to this which they labeled "Things."
This factor would be appropriately described by adjectives
such as pragmatic, unsociable, shrewd, indelicate,
independent and inflexible. A negative correlation for the
Self-Control (SC) scale indicates a lack of social
smoothness and some propensity for impulsivity.
Factor Three loaded most with the Enterprising (.56)
and Conventional (.67) scales, signifying the Consistency
of these types and providing stronger support for the
Calculus concept. Factor Three is best characterized as
the Industrious factor. It is labeled the "Data" factor by
Athanasou et al. (1981). In spite of the conflicting
characteristics of these types, the business-like
102
dedication to hard work constitutes the common thread.
Nonetheless, Type E and Type C achieve this characteristic
in different ways. Type E is filled with a sense of
adventure and energetically approaches many new work
opportunities with enthusiasm. In contrast. Type C is
methodically persistent and orderly in pursuing the work-
ethic. Other adjectives, such as persuasive and
persistent, may also partially characterize this factor.
The Cohen-Palmer Enneagram Inventory
Cohen and Palmer's inventory was evaluated by
performing a factor analysis of the scale raw score totals.
An average Measure of Sampling Adequacy value of .77
represented the nine scales of the inventory, meaning that
the variables were sufficient in number and
intercorrelation to be evaluated by the factor analysis
model. Individual Measure of Sampling Adequacy values
(Table 4) ranged from .51 (Scale Three) to .86 (Scale
Four), indicating that the correlation of each variable was
sufficiently contributed to by other variables, which made
each appropriate for common factor analysis.
Four factors, accounting for 53% of the variance, were
extracted based on the scree test and the proportion
criterion. Each factor contributed 18%, 13%, 13%, and 9%
of the variance, respectively. Factor One appeared to be a
general factor, but application of Enneagram theory
103
u o +J c:
>
B (0
u (0 0)
c
(0 u m O 0) 4J o o X Id u CM
r )
)H O +J O Id
>1 -p 0)
-H
CN r^ in t^ •H O CN ' ^
CN rH t^ Ol c^ CN O ^ ro rH
n ( j > r H o o r o o j r ^ i n c r « r o r H O C N i n r ^ O O n
r t ^
dP CTi
00 dP
m
<
0)
c -H
4J
-H
C 0) > 0) CO
r t ^
vo vo
CN vo
0)
iH 0
rH (0
I
c (0 .C EH O
U
CO • H (0
(0
<
u o +J u (0 [14
0)
CN VO r^ rH 00 rH rH <T> O O
r^ VO O rH n CN
n i n n r n v o c r > c N O < T > v O v O O r o c N ^ O C N i n
0) C -P 0) V4 0) 0) £ 0)
( D 0 H 3 > X > 0 ^ C C 5 J3 O -H -H 0) -H -H O t H E H b b C O C O M Z
cn
p
(0 >
0) cn •H
M O 4J U (0
u (0
u > 1
73 0 c: •H <0 >-\ Q* X u 0) u c fO
•H
(0 >
o CN
dP
(N vo
-0 0) c
•H fO
rH
a X
dP 00
I
u 0 >
o
< cn 2
u (0
cr 73 <
c •H
0) u <0
•H M fO >
f-\
(0 4J 0 H
MH 0
4J c 0) u (H 0 Q
dP
in
II
T3 0) C
-H Id r H
a
0) 0 c
ria
Id >
ota
l
H
r H dui
<a w 14H
o 0) iH :3 cn (0 0) 2 cn ~ iH 0) CO •H to Ui
X • H CO
0) >
•H EL4
u o
p[4
0) 0)
o
0) c o
00
vO 00
in
CN 00
i n 00
104
0)
c in
4J
x: •H
CN
n
a; rH
to EH
• H 4-> c o u
r-t~-
• ** II
r-^
Id +J 0 H
• • (0 0) 4J Id g
•H 4J m u > i
4J •H ,-i Id c 3
0 o •-i Id c
•H b
c 0) > (U CO
X •H CO
0) >
-H CL4
v 3 0 fL4
0) 0) v x:
0 ? H
0) C o
in CN
•
r r--
•
o ^
•
CN ^
•
o o
• rH
00 »*
•
** in
•
105
suggests the name of Fear and Repression. The highest
loading factor-scale correlations were achieved by the
scales for Type One (.63) and Type Two (.65). More
moderate loadings were displayed by the scales for Type
Nine (.59) and Type Six (.49). Finally, Type Four (.33)
achieved the lowest loading.
While the composition of this factor does not easily
make intuitive sense, it may be explicated by the
application of Enneagram theory. Types One and Two are
wings, according to Enneagram theory. Therefore, one would
expect a certain proportion of individuals classified as
each type to endorse characteristics of the other. Because
Type Nine is a wing of Type One, the same line of reasoning
applies. When considering the presence of Type Six, note
that a line of integration-disintegration (movement)
connects it with Type Nine. Thus, some relationship is
expected. Finally, Type Four is connected between Type One
and Type Two by lines of movement.
Looking at the questions that Cohen and Palmer have
included on the scale for Type One, the representative
qualities of criticism and perfectionism are useful in
defining Factor One. Items from the scale of Type Two
connote the concept of human relationships, with emphases
on giving and receiving. The scale for Type Nine seems
best described by the term passivity. What each of these
types appear to share in common can be described by the
106
concept of repression. Type One retains self-control by
repressing emotions. Type Two represses expression of the
true self in order to preserve relationships. Type Nine
represses emotions in order to preserve the peace.
Factor One can further be defined by scale Six, which
seems best described by the concept of fear. Scale items
seem to tap into the fear of success, the fear of imagined
threats, and the fear of powerful people. One might also
say that fear contributes to the defense mechanism of
repression used by the previously mentioned types.
Finally, the scale for Type Four contributes a melancholic
quality of moodiness to the factor's definition.
A second extracted factor. Social Ambition, was more
amenable to interpretation. Two type scales loaded on this
factor. Factor Two was most highly correlated with the
scale for Type Three (.97). A second scale. Type Eight
(.36), loaded on the factor. This factor largely indicates
the endorsement of items best described as ambitious,
competitive, and achievement-oriented. The social arena
is an important part of the picture because it is the
background against which these behaviors are set.
The third factor extracted, the Anxiety factor, was
defined by four variables. The scale for Type Six (.72)
loaded predominately. The scale for Type Five (.53)
correlated moderately with the factor. The scales for Type
107
Nine (.39) and Type One (.33) were minimally correlated
with the factor.
Type Six and Type Five serve as wings for each other.
Consequently, their relationship is not surprising. These
two types share attributes that likely help to define this
factor. Both are insecure and high-anxiety types who see
the world as a threatening place. This has a negative
impact on the development of relationships. Each of them
is in the Doing triad and consequently has difficulty with
taking action.
Type Nine is related to Type Six through their
connection by the lines of movement. A Type Nine
disintegrating to Type Six would likely experience great
anxiety. Type One is also related to Type Nine as a wing.
Both are prone to repress unpleasant parts of their
personalities. Each has introverted tendencies and can
avoid taking action as well; one due to the need to act
perfectly, the other due to the desire to maintain peace at
all costs.
It seemed appropriate to extract a fourth and final
factor. This factor, designated Excess, received its
definition from three variables. The scale variables. Type
Four (.47) and Type Seven (.47), loaded moderately on this
factor. A third variable. Type Eight (.39), attained a
lower loading.
108
Scale items for Type Four indicated emotional excess
and extreme moodiness. A melodramatic quality is apparent
in examining the scale items. Drama and excess of a
different kind were represented in the scale for Type
Seven. This scale reflects a personality dominated by
excessive interests and activities. Continuing with the
theme. Type Eight depicts a personality dominated by
excessive aggression. Confrontation and provocation are
the hallmarks of this scale.
The Wagner Enneagram Inventory
Analysis of the nine variables (scales) for the Wagner
inventory produced an average Measure of Sampling Adequacy
value of .79. Individual values (Table 5) for each of the
scales ranged from .60 (Type Three) to .88 (Type 7),
suggesting that the variables were all appropriate for the
common factor model. Subsequently, an iterated principal
factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed.
A five-factor solution was the most amenable to
interpretation, and it extracted 59% of the total variance.
Individual factors contributed 23%, 14%, 9%, 7%, and 6% to
the extracted variance. Type scales Four (.63), Five
(.77), Six (.73), and One (.63) correlated most with factor
one. Scale Seven (.39) attained a lower loading on the
factor. Consideration of Enneagram systemic theory
suggests that these variables did not randomly appear on
in
109
u 0 4J o (d Pt4
m m 0) u X u
V O C N r H T f V O O O ^ O r H O ^ O r H ^ n
CN
in dP vo
> 1 u o C
> C
B (0 iH
to 0) c: c u iH
in 0) c
Q) 0>
i3 to EH
(0
0)
4->
cn • H cn > i
• H (0 c < M O +J u to
iH U 0) O O4 •P H U (U Id a:
n
V4 0 -p 0 Id P«
V4 0) .;*! Id E (1) 0 Id (D 0
CN
u o O
4J C c o 0) - H
e -p 0) Id
0) c - H 0)
Id x : - H
< o
> 1 4J
u rH 3
o 0)
Vl CD
o c 0 Id rH ta Id
•H o o
CO
i n o o v o v o o c N c y ^ v o r H V O C N C N O C N C N O r H
CM
o ^ ' * O O v O v O O O O O O r H C N O r H O H r H t ^
v o c ^ r H o O l n r - ^ o c N i n r H r ^ r H C N O r H i n C N
n vo
in CO rn r rn a> rH o vo t^ r> n o
vo
0) C o
0) 0) V4
^ *
C 4J u (0 0) x: 0) 3 > X > o> c 0 -H -H (1) -H -H b b CO CO H 2
cn p
• H rO > C
•H
iH O +J U to
U to
> i X)
T3 0) C
•H to
r H a X
EL)
0)
CN VO
00 CM
CN
CN
dP
dP
cn
dP
c •H
to
a X
ExJ
nee
to •H M to >
t H
to 4J 0
23%
59%
II
V 0)
lair
a X
VM
o u c (0 •H
v to >
4J
c (U u iH 0) cu
0) u c (d
H
Id >
Id
0 H
cn
< I iH 0 > o
> 1 u to
cr Q)
T3 <
c
a to
0) iH D cn to 0)
cn
VH
cn •H to
0) C
•H 2 :
-P
•H
c > tl)
CO
X H CO
0) >
00
< cn
V4
O ta
0) 0)
00 00
00
vo
00
o vo
0)
c O
00
c
110
in
Q) f-i
Xi (0 H
•0 0) o c • H 4J
c o u
0)
c CN
rH n
• in
II
H Id 4J 0 EH
• • CD (U 4J Id E
-H 4J (D U
> i 4J •H H Id c 3
0 O
H Id c
•H Ik4
4J JC
cn •H Ixj
c (U > 0) CO
X -H CO
tl) >
-H ta
U 3 0 l>4
0) 0) M
EH
0 5 H
(D C o
a\ n
•
CN '^
•
cn in
•
00 vo
•
o r>-•
H VO
•
VO **
•
^ r»
•
Ill
the factor but that their occurrence reflects certain
dimensions and interrelationships of the types as measured
by the inventory.
It is of theoretical significance that Type Five
loaded on the factor with each of its wings. Types Four
and Six. Each of these types, as measured by the scale
questions on the Wagner inventory, share a quality for
which the factor is named. Social Insecurity. The
questions on the scale for Type Four express a sense of
moodiness, alienation, and the sense of being
misunderstood. Scale items for Type Five appear to measure
withdrawal and social alienation. Additionally, items
measuring Type Six behavior symbolize social anxiety,
indecisiveness, and the fear of authority figures.
Type One, which experiences social difficulties due to
perfectionism, links to Type Four via the line of
integration-disintegration. Type One also connects by the
line of movement to Type Seven, which in turn connects to
Type Five. Consistent with Enneagram theory, one would
expect that an integrating Type Four would endorse some of
the characteristics of Type One, moving from a self-
absorbed subjectivity to a satisfying relationship with
objective reality. Conversely, a disintegrating Type Seven
would also endorse some of the characteristics of Type One,
moving from a state of scattered mania to a compulsive
focus on one objective. Such a move would represent an
112
attempt to regain stability and self-control. The
relationship of Type One to these other types, via the
lines of movement, may explain why the scale for Type One
received a high loading on this factor. Finally, Type Five
disintegrates toward Type Seven in times of stress. This
represents an impulsive and erratic attempt to move out of
the frustrating realm of inaction, reestablishing a
connection with reality.
The second factor extracted was named Achievement
Orientation. Type Three (.71) correlated the highest with
this factor. Moderate correlations appeared between Factor
Two and Type One (.56) and Type Eight (.50). Considering
the high loading of Type Three, the investigator gave
greater weight to the questions for that scale when
defining the factor. Each of these types shares primarily
two characteristics in common. One characteristic is the
dedication to work and achievement. A second
characteristic, which represents a logical correlate, is
the ability of each of these types to repress their
emotions. Type One represses emotions in the pursuit of
perfection. Type Three represses emotions because they
interfere with competition and achievement. Finally, to
maintain a sense of power and self-confidence. Type Eight
represses emotions which could undermine his or her
strength.
113
The third and fourth factors are each synonymous with
a particular scale in that only one variable loaded on
each. Thus, Factor Three is named the Peacemaker factor
because scale Nine (.78) was the only significant loading.
After the same fashion. Factor Four is named the Helper
factor because scale Two (.60) alone loaded noticeably on
this factor.
Factor Five for the Wagner scale is essentially the
same as Factor Four on the Cohen-Palmer inventory and
therefore named the Excess factor. The variables loading
most notably were the scales for Type Four (.44), Type
Seven (.40), and Type Eight (.34). It appears to measure
the excessive moodiness of Type Four, the excessive
activity of Type Seven, and the excessive aggression of
Type Eight.
The Zinkle Enneagram Inventory
For the Zinkle inventory, an average Measure of
Sampling Adequacy of .68 indicated an acceptable level of
interrelationships between the variables. Individual
values (Table 6) for the type scales fell within a range
from .51 (Type Eight) to .75 (Type One), demonstrating the
appropriateness of the data for common factor analysis.
Five interpretable factors were extracted, which accounted
for 62% of the total variance. Factors one through five
contributed 16%, 13%, 13%, 11%, and 9%, respectively.
in
114
u Id O -H +J c U 0) Id Q ta
r ^ c N O O ^ C N O o n ^ ' s j ' O r H O O H H ' ^ O t ^
o 00
dP cn
U O
c > C
B (0 u o to
c c El]
0) >
•H
CO
u
O
O Id
c o
•H (D
O +J CD -P -H > o CO (d Id o x 1X4 cu -P
X a
c o
•rl CD
H 3
a E O ta U
CN vo cn H ^ n vo H VO CN CN CN H i n
H O O CN
o i n H c r > r * o o c r > c N v O H r O H f O r ^ O O H
in dP
n
0 vo i H
^ : (U c
i H - H
to E-t Q)
4J
cn •H cn
•H to c <
IH o 4-) u to
E L .
CN
u 0 -p o Id
ta
H Id
-H 0 0 CO
c 0 •H m 0] 0) v CP 0> <
u o 4J O Id ta
Id
Id
Tl
-p •H 15
v o o i H v o o i n c N i n C N O V O O H O H O O o
.;)• r^ m O O^ H CN
^ o o ov in CN o CN o
(1) a > i E-t
0) c o
0 ^ EH
0) 0) ^ JS EH
Ul 3 0 1X4
0) >
•H b
X H CO
c 0) > 0) CO
4J
s: CJi
•H »
0) c •H 2
cn 0) p
i H to > c 0)
•H E£]
iH O 4J u to
EL4
u to ExJ
> i
i3 T3 0) C
•H to
nH
a X
Ex] 0) U c to •H iH to >
o CN
dP n
CN
13 0) C
•H to
rH a X
ELI
Q) U c to
•H IH to >
to 4J O E^
«4H O
4->
c u iH 0 El<
dP i n CN dP
CN v D
-a o c
•H Id H
a X u 0) u c Id
H u (d > Id
o E-i
115
vo
0) i H
i3 to
EH
-a 0) D C
•H 4J
c o u
CX) vo
•
II
< w S •H r H
< 1 iH <D > O
• •
^ ^ < w s
> 1
u (0 3 0^ Q) T3 <
CP c •H
i H
to m I W
0
0) u 3 cn to 0) S cn
iH 0) cn
•H to ^
0) c - H
z
4J J : 0^
- H
u
c 0) > 0) CO
X H CO
0) >
•H (X4
V4 3 0 CK
(1) 0) u
0 5 H
0)
o
ro vo
•
H i n
•
in vo
•
o t ^
•
00 vo
•
<T> VO
•
r vo
•
(y> vo
•
in
•
00 i n
• in
II
H Id 4J 0 EH
• • CD 0) 4J Id E
•H +J 0) Cd
> i 4J •H
1
Id
c 3
0 o H id c
0) c •H 2:
+ j £ 0>
•H
u
c 0) > 0) CO
X - H CO
0 >
•H b
U 3 0 Pu
0) (U V4
J : H
0
^
0) c o
o vo
•
^ r-
•
r i n
•
(T> i n •
r i n
•
o CTi •
VO i n
•
00
•
^ vo
•
116
The first factor. Withdrawal, correlated most
significantly with Type Four (.90). Type Five (.59) and
Type One (.44) attained more moderate loadings on the
factor. Each of these three types is systemically related.
The Type Four scale constitutes the single, most definitive
variable for this factor. As measured by the Zinkle
inventory, the scale items seem to encompass the qualities
of emotional sensitivity, withdrawal and self-absorption,
and social alienation. Looking at Type Five, the wing of
Type Four, the items from the scale signify withdrawal,
preference for cognitive activities, and social distance.
Type One, connected with Type Four by the line of movement,
is also highly cognitive, withdrawn, and socially inept.
The endorsement of Type One qualities, however, may
represent movement toward integration for some of the
Type Four respondents. It represents a shift from
subjective fantasy to objective reality.
In further considering the composition of this factor.
Rise's concept of the triads was useful. Each of these
types has underdeveloped the particular ability or life-
task of focus in the triad. In the Relating triad. Type
One has underdeveloped the ability to relate objectively
towards the environment. A need for perfectionism
facilitates the development of unrealistic expectations
that easily alienate the Reformer from the environment.
Type Four, a member of the Feeling triad, has
117
underdeveloped the ability to feel. Rather than
experiencing a healthy range of emotional expression, the
Artist focuses on negative emotions, which leads to
withdrawal into fantasy. Considering the Doing Triad, Type
Five underdevelops the ability to take action and
substitutes an active thought-life in place of performance.
A second factor, the Social Aggression factor,
correlated most with two scale variables. Type Eight (.85)
loaded the highest, and Type Three (.61) correlated well
with this factor. Both of these types share some qualities
in common. Each is socially aggressive, achievement-
oriented and self-confident. They differ in that Type
Eight strives for the goal of power, whereas Type Three
strives for the goal of success.
The notion of Compulsion designates the third
extracted factor. Type Six (.70) achieved the highest
loading on this factor. A moderate correlation was
reflected by Type One (.60). Types Five (.37) and Three
(.31) obtained the lowest loadings worth noting. In
keeping with Enneagram theory, the relationships between
Type Three and Type Six, as expressed by the connection via
the lines of movement, may partially account for their
occurrence on the same factor.
A survey of the Zinkle's questions on the scale for
Type Six reveals a pervasive theme of compulsive doubt.
This is apparent in statements that indicate a need for
118
being certain before acting and needing the approval of an
authority figure before taking action. A similar theme,
compulsive perfectionism, characterizes the guestions on
the scale for Type One. To a lesser degree, the theme of
compulsive withdrawal occupies the scale for Type Five.
Adjectives of coolness and aloofness, along with statements
regarding the avoidance of people, lend support to this
idea. Likewise, the theme of compulsive achievement
resides within the scale for Type Three. Declarations of
goal orientation, continuous work, and achievement
orientation depict the tone of the scale.
The scale variables for Type Two and Type Seven
defined the fourth factor, known as Positive Extroversion.
Type Two (.66) correlated most with this factor, followed
by Type Seven (.56) with a more moderate loading. Both
types share common qualities. First, each of these types
overdevelops the function of their triad. Type Two
overdevelops the use of the ability to feel to the extent
that positive feelings are focused on to the exclusion of
negative ones. In comparison. Type Seven overdevelops the
Doing function to the extent that this type engages in a
never-ending flurry of activity. The Generalist shares the
Helper's propensity to ignore negative emotions. Both
types are highly social and extroverted in the sense of
directing energy toward the environment.
119
Finally, the fifth factor. Denial, was itself defined
by two variables. It correlated most with the scale
variable. Type Nine (.74), and yielded a lower correlation
with Type Seven (.43). These variables seem loosely
related to each other. In the context of Enneagram theory,
one can say that each is a wing of Type Eight. In perusing
the statements that Zinkle has included on each scale, the
quality of denial becomes apparent. The Peacemaker
displays the propensity to disavow the presence of any
conflict or negative circumstances that could deprive him
or her of peace. Likewise, the Generalist displays a
propensity for positive focus, denying both the existence
and impact of negative events, whether in the past, future
or present.
Analysis of All Enneagram Inventories
In the interest of addressing several research
questions, a combined analysis of all three Enneagram
inventories was undertaken. The guestion regarding the
existence of relationships between the inventories was
addressed, including whether the same type scales from
different inventories loaded on the same factors. A final
issue concerned the question of whether nine factors would
be found that were similar to the nine Enneagram
personality types.
120
For this analysis of all Enneagram inventories, the
type scales became the variables used in the iterated
principal factor analysis. An overall Measure of Sampling
Adequacy value of .86 supported the contention that the
data was appropriate for factor analysis. Individual
values (Table 7) ranged from .71 (Zinkle, scale Nine) to
.93 (Palmer, scale One). Consequently, the investigator
proceeded with the analysis.
Six factors, contributing 55% of the total variance,
were extracted for this analysis. Individual factor
endowments to variance were 12%, 12%, 10%, 9%, 6% and 6%
for Factors one through six. Factor number one, named
Ambition, was clearly defined by two types from each
inventory; scales for Type Three and Type Eight were the
only ones to load significantly. Four loadings were
moderately high, including Palmer Type Three (.69), Palmer
Type Eight (.70), Zinkle Type Three (.72), and Zinkle Type
Eight (.75). The Wagner scales for Type Three (.57) and
Type Eight (.57) correlated moderately with the factor.
This factor is identical to Factor Two from the analyses of
both the Palmer and Zinkle inventories. It is also similar
to the second factor from the Wagner inventory. Each type
is socially aggressive and self-confident. Additionally,
this factor indicates the endorsement of items that reflect
ambition, competition, and achievement-orientation.
vo
121
u o u
Id • H c 0)
Id Q ta
o o c N O O C N ^ C N i n ^ r » n r n o o v o O O i H O C N O ^ O O O i H C N O . H
iH in CO r> ^ o CN o in o CN M o
in 00 00 tH tH .H 53> o
I I
cn 0)
• H
o c >
to u (0
c (D Ex3
to
it
CO • H cn
f H to
<
iH o +J u to
ELI
in 0) >
V H O +J
V4
o O Id u
1X4
Id u
n 0)
c 0)
o 4-) U U 0) Id E ta H
(d 04
CN 0) 3 0
-H X
_ c (d •< |x<
u o -p o
c o m
0) +J -H > U (D Id Id o VH (X4 04 4-)
X Ixj
(D ID
o X
c 0
• H CD
H 3
E O O
vo 00 00 ' * O H o o
H in H r^ ^ CO o o o o
vo O i n m i n o o ( y > o o i n r M r n o i n c N r n i n ^ t ^ C M C N r H t H H O H H v O C N O r n H ^ r O
vo
I I I I I
n t^ in n n o H O vo iH H
^ CN O ^ »* vo H H CN n CN O
t ^ O H a > ^ c N c r i ' j ' ^ o o o c r > ' H C N i n v o n n i n r o c N H O t H i n n o o r H O
CTi in
in in
H
o 0
n «* 'i'
^
vo m iH
n CN
rn r
n H
H v o c N ^ ^ ' O ' T H m m O C N C N C n n H O H C N
^
o r~ T H
rn rn
r rH
'3' CN
CN
o CN
o vo o
I I
vo H «* CN
• H « * n ' 3 ' 0 ' i ' i n r n o ( r > c N O O f ^ r o H H H i n i H C N n i n v o
in ^ m r-i O CN vo
^ 00 00 <-• in r~ n n ^ r- o O
I I I I
C7^ H
H
in H
CN
vo
rn
00 H o
in
H
1
VO 04
VO CN
04
o
00 04
CN H
1
0^ 04
O
n
H
vo o
CN
in
5
O
^ 3
-.2
8
in
-.0
6
vo
00
o
r S
in
00
CN H
cn 5
o n
rH
H H
CN ^9
CN
n
rH o H
in tS9
-.0
4
vo ^3
rH rH
in
00 tS]
o
cn tsi
(V
H
0) C -P 0) ( U V ^ O ) ( U X I d ) O V ^ O )
( l ) O V 4 3 > X > O ^ C a ) O V 4 3 > C 5 £ 0 H -H Q) -H -H C > X: 0 H
O E H E H f a ( X l C 0 C 0 W 2 O t H E H & 4 ( x |
U l V 4 l 4 ^ V 4 M > H V 4 V 4 V l V ^ l 4 i H k 4
C +J 0 i i : 0)
X > o c •H 0) -H -H CO CO U 2
0)
0 v<
H EH
( D ( D a ) ( D ( D ( l ) ( D ( D ( l ) ( l ) ( D a ) ( l ) ( l ) E E E E E E E E E C C C C C
Id Id Id Id O4 CU (X 04
Id O4
Id Id 04 04
V4 V4 V4 v^ a) 0) 0) Q) 0) 0) H H H
c c c c ^ ^ .!< i d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d H - H - H
0) >
•H
C 4J 0) x : 0)
X > o> c H Q) H -H CO CO W 2
Q) Q) Q) tl) (1) 0) (1)
^ j ^ j«j j < j«: ^ c c c c c c H H H -H -
O ^ I S S I S l S i S I S ^ I S ^ N N N N N N N N t s a
122
00 vo
0) • H JQ (0 EH
Q) 3 C
•H 4J c o u
cn Q) 3
.H to >
o^ •H El]
iH O 4-) U to ElH
x: u to a
> i
X)
•o
c •rH
to .H a X
Ed (D U C to
•H M (0 >
CN
vo
CN
VO H
CN
m
-a Q) c •H to iH Ou X a Q) u
to •H M to >
iH to 4J 0 EH
MH 0
+J c: 0) u 0) 0
vo
<*p vo
dP cn
dP O H
dP CN H
dP CN H
dP in in
II
T3 0) C •H Id H
a X u 0) 0 c Id •H
Id >
ota
l
H
A
= .8
6
w
ver-
All
M
O • •
SA
)
S
>i
u to p cr 0) •0 <
o c •H iH dull
ID W
(4H 0
Q) U 3 cn to
s cn -M Q) cn •H to ^
en (N IS 00
•
CO r^ IS 00
•
P* 00 S 00
•
VO H IS en
•
in t ^ 00
•
^ o IS cn
•
n CN IS 00
•
CN ^
IS r-•
rH a> IS 00
•
cn r^ 04 00
•
00 0^
•
r^ vo Oi t
•
vo H 0* cn
•
in in 04 00
•
M" in 04 00
•
m m 04 00
•
CN 00 04 00
•
H n 04 en
Ot rH N r
•
00 o N 00
•
r» ^ N r>-
•
vD r~ CSl 00
•
in vo N 00
•
^ 00 CO 00
•
n m N 00
•
CN VO
•
H O tsi c n
•
CN 00
^ H
II rH (0 4J 0 H • •
m 0) jj (d E -H 4J (D U
> i
4-) •H H Id c 3 1 0 u H Id
c
cn 3
00
s
r IS
vo IS
in 3
•sj-2
n IS
CN IS
rH IS
cn 04
00 04
r« 04
vO 04
in 04
'3' 04
m 04
CN 04
rH 04
00
•
vo •
o in •
00 in •
<n in •
o •
^ in •
CO in
vO in •
rH VO •
00 in •
m m
•
o vo •
cn 'J •
r-in •
CN in •
m t •
CN VO •
cn N
CO N
r<-N
vo CS]
in N
^ tS9
rn N
CN N
rH N
r in •
00 in •
in »* •
CN VD •
^ in .
CN in •
in r-•
vO ** •
r» in •
ta
123
Factor number two. Anxious Compulsion, receives its
definition from the variables for Types Six, One, and Five
from each inventory. Moderately high loadings were
observed for Zinkle's Type Six (.71) and Type One (.61) and
Wagner's Type Six (.60) and Type One (.55). Zinkle's Type
Five (.48), Wagner's Type Five (.52), and Palmer's Type One
(.46) scales achieved moderate loadings. Minimal loadings
occurred for Zinkle's Type Three (.34) and Type Four (.38),
Wagner's Type Four (.39), and Palmer's Type Five (.34) and
Type Six (.33) .
This factor is similar to the third factor extracted
from the Zinkle inventory. The themes of compulsive doubt,
compulsive perfectionism, and compulsive withdrawal are
repeated for Types Six, One, and Five, respectively.
Characteristics such as alienation, anxiety, insecurity,
and inaction depict other shared gualities. Considering
the presence of Types One and Five, the moderate loading of
Type Four is not surprising. A disintegrating Type One
would be expected to endorse Type Four gualities, as would
Type Five, of which Type Four is a wing. Finally, the
minimal loading of Type Three is not unusual, considering
that it connects with Type Six, by way of the line of
movement. The endorsement of Type Three behaviors by Type
Six and vice versa, is expected.
The third factor appears to reflect primarily the
Cohen-Palmer inventory. This factor carries moderately
124
high loadings from the scales for Palmer Type Nine (.73)
and Type Six (.64). The scales for Palmer Type One (.59),
Type Two (.55), Type Five (.44), and Type Four (.39)
attained modest loadings. Minimal factor-variable
correlations resulted for Wagner Type Five (.34) and Zinkle
Type Four (.33). Due to the diversity of this factor, it
would not be appropriate to interpret it as anything other
than a factor correlated with the Palmer inventory. The
variables that loaded appeared to vaguely correlate by
virtue of the lines of movement and the concept of wings.
The fourth factor was more interpretable. It
contained more items from the Wagner inventory; however,
loadings from the other scales were sufficient to
contribute to factor definition. Moderately high loadings
came from the Palmer Type Four (.63) variable and from
Wagner Type Four (.67). The Wagner scale for Type Seven
(.59) and the Zinkle scale for Type Four (.50) provided
moderate loadings. Then, Wagner Types One (.34), Six
(.31), and Eight (.34), and Zinkle Type Five (.38) loaded
minimally.
Similarities between this factor and the fourth Palmer
factor and fifth Wagner factor suggest this likewise should
be named the Excess factor. In contrast to the previous
factors of the same name, this one more strongly represents
excessive moodiness. Nevertheless, the excessive activity
of the Wagner Type Seven is present. For this factor, the
125
wings of the Wagner Type Seven, which are Types Six and
Eight, load minimally. The Wagner Type Six, which relates
to Type Four via the lines of movement, loads minimally as
well. Finally, the wing for the Zinkle Type Four, which is
Type Five, loads minimally.
The name Positive Extroversion was assigned to the
fifth factor. Its most significant loadings came from
Wagner's Type Two (.70) and Zinkle's Type Two (.63). A
moderate loading was achieved by Zinkle's Type Seven (.45).
Small negative loadings resulted from Palmer's Type Five
(-.31) scale and Zinkle's Type Five (-.32). Each of the
positive scales shares a great propensity for social
interaction and activities oriented towards the external
world. In contrast, the Thinker is prone to social
withdrawal and marked introversion. These complementary
gualities make the factor consistent.
The sixth and final factor was named Denial, much like
the fifth Zinkle factor. It displayed moderate loadings
from Palmer, scale seven (.45), Wagner, scale nine (.57),
and Zinkle, scale seven (.48). Again, the common gualities
included denial of negative circumstances, negative
emotions and their impact.
126
Analyses of Each Enneagram Inventory
with the VPI
A separate factor analysis of each Enneagram inventory
with the VPI provided data for addressing the guestion of
what relationships exist between the VPI types and the
Enneagram types. This step seemed important, because all
scales representing the nine types from the different
Enneagram inventories did not load on the same factors.
Conseguently, this raised the issue that the VPI might
correlate differently with each of the Enneagram inventories.
Analysis of the VPI with the Cohen-Palmer Inventory
Each of the scales representing the personality types
and the clinical scales from the VPI were factor analyzed
together. Analysis of sampling adeguacy yielded an overall
value of .71. Individual Measures of Sampling Adeguacy
(Table 8) ranged from .54 for Holland's Masculinity-
Femininity scale to .83 for Palmer's Type One scale.
Conseguently, scores were judged to be satisfactory and the
factor analysis proceeded. A five factor solution
explained 45% of the total variance with individual
contributions ranging from 5% to 13%.
Analysis produced a first general factor that was
heavily weighted by Palmer items alone. High loadings came
127
iH O
c >
B to M D> to 0 C
c bi iH (U B
r-i to
I
c 00 0
x: 0 O
^ U to Q>
EH 4=
•o C to
>
cn • H cn
. H to c <
O •P u to
E L .
in
V4 0
j-> O Id tC4
(0 3 0 •H ^ •P
m 3 •o c
cn
u 0 -p u Id ta
H Id
•H
o 0 CO
c 0 -H (D >H 0 > <
CN
o Id
-H >
-H
o o
O CO Id ta
•H +J H CD
c 0)
CO
0)
> i EH
^ CN
f -O
H O
n CN
00 in
n vo
CN
o i n c N c n v o ^ o o i n c N O o o o v o O O O C N O H r H O O O O O O
I I
O vo CN H O O
n vo o rH O CN
rH CN vD ^ r CN CN O O H
o o in ON r CN
in vo in r» rH rn vD O
I I I I I
in vo
r~- o O 0 0 H O O O '*
H n v o r ^ ^ r n c n v o c N ^ O H ' I ' O O O O r H
H ^ in in O rH o o
I I
00 CN r^ r^ o rn vo vo ^ O
0 ' * r n ' * r > - r H i n ^ ^ r n m r ^ o o o c N
i n VD CN CN
o o o o I I
u
cto
Id ta
Id u
ene
o
u Q>
aim
04
m m CN H in o CN o O O H O H o
1
v O r H H i n o o r ^ c N ^ v O r H C N i n ^ o o o o v D L n o i n i n o o r H r H r »
OS M < — ' ^ - ^ O CO W CJ CO
|ii4-> C U H C N r n ^ i n v D r - - o o c n S C O M < 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 a 4 a 4 0 4 0 4 0 4
0) >
•H -P Id t7>
0 •H +J - H CO 4->
•H CD 0) >
+J H CO Id
•H -H Id
tn H I C H 0 > i > i
H Id U 4J 4J m c j j -H H H 0 c c c U "^ O H H c:i< j j o H c t^ Q) I 3 H Q) > *w 0 E
>i 0) 0) V4 0) O O Q) 0 U 3 > c c c 5 x : 0 H 0) (1) O EH H ti4 ti4
( D ( D I D ( D ( D ( U ( D ( D ( D ( D V J H E E E E E E E E
C 4J
X > cn c H (D H H CO CO W 2
u 0) E
j j 0 4 J C H (D 0) i d « H p n - ^ ^ ^ , - ^ ^ ^ ^ n ^ . - ^ v ^ o c o t u i d f x ^ - p c b ^ i d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d
H < CO w CJ CO z C 0 M < : 0 4 0 4 O 4 0 4 0 4 O 4 a 4 O 4 O 4
cn Q) 3
^H
10 > c cn
•H ExJ
U O
u 10
EL.
x: u to
EL]
> i X3
"O 0 C
•H
to
a X EiJ 0 U c to
•H M 10 >
in cn
cn vo
CN
CN
VD
CN
128
00
0 r H
Xi to E-t
-v 0 3 c •H 4-)
c o u
V 0 c •H (0
nH
a X Ed
0 U c to
•H iH fO >
r H
to 4-> O EH
MH
o +J c 0 u iH 0 a*
dP in
# r~
00
dP H H
( rn H
dP i n
II
•a
lain
e
(2 X
0) u c
ria
Id >
H Id 4J 0 EH
MSA
=
.71
: O
ver-
All
^"^ <
cy
(M
S
to p cr 0 T3 <
o •H i H dui
to Ui
MH
0
0 V4 3 cn to 0 S
cn ^ M 0 cn
•H to tn::
r-» r-> 04 vo
•
vo Oi Oi r^
•
i n rH 04 00
•
"^ 00 04 t ^
•
cn ^ 04 i n
•
CN rH 04 00
•
Inf
Acq
P
I .6
2
.73
.83
4-> vO CO i n
•
ta ^ S in
•
CJ ^ CO vo
•
H u vo
•
m
•
CO vo •
00
•
00 M VO
•
rn « r-•
cn r~
CO ^ 04 vo
04
VO 04
i n 04
04
m 04
CN 04
H 04
H •
00 vo
•
m •
CN **
•
H i n
•
00
m •
o in
•
cr '3' 0 00 < •
c in H
CN 0^
• 00
II
H Id +J 0 H
• • (D 0) 4-1 Id E
H V m ta > i
4J H r H
Id
c 3
0
u H Id
c H b
4J CO
b
s
u CO
U
ta
CO
<
M
DC
r* H
•
00 m
•
cn CN
•
CN 'a-
•
CN i n
•
rn i n
•
00 ^
•
^ i n
•
00 i n
cn 00 04 in
00 in 04 **
129
from Type Six (.81), Type Nine (.74), and Type One (.68).
The remaining moderate loadings resulted from Type Two
(.57), Type Five (.56), and Type Four (.54). Due to the
abundance of variables, it would be inappropriate to attach
any other significance to this factor.
A second extracted factor was virtually identical to
the first factor. Social Sensitivity, obtained from the VPI
analysis. The Artistic (.67) and Social (.67) personality
types achieved high loadings with the clinical scale of
Acguiescence (.74). Minimal loadings came from the scales
for Enterprising (.40), Investigative (.32), and Status,
(.34). Negative loadings were associated with the
Masculinity-Femininity scale (-.40) and the Infreguency
scale (-.33) .
Another Social Aversion factor was identified as the
third factor, identical to the second factor from the VPI
analysis. The Realistic (.71) and Investigative (.65)
types loaded predominately. The Acguiescence (.47) and
Masculinity-Femininity (.41) scales produced lower
loadings. Finally, the Self-Control (-.49) scale generated
a negative loading.
The Ambition factor reappeared as the fourth factor
for this analysis. Unlike the Social Ambition (number two)
factor of the Palmer analysis. Type Eight (.65) achieved a
higher loading on this factor. Type Three (.70) loaded
most predominantly, and Type Seven (.36) provided a modest
130
loading. Although Type Seven (wing for Type Eight) did not
appear on previous factors identical to this one, the great
need for new activities and experiences is consistent with
the theme of ambition.
The fifth and final factor produced by this analysis
was identical to factor three, the Industrious factor from
the VPI analysis. Two variables loaded in the moderately
high range, which were the Enterprising type (.58) and the
Conventional type (.63). No other individual variables
accounted for a significant proportion of the variance on
this factor.
Analysis of the VPI with the Wagner Inventory
Analysis of the VPI and Wagner inventories produced an
average Measure of Sampling Adeguacy of .73. Individual
values (Table 9) ranged from .51 (Masculinity-Femininity)
to .87 (Wagner Type Seven). Having obtained acceptable
values, the investigator proceeded with the factor
analysis. The eight factors accounted for 56% of the total
variance. Separate factors contributed 13%, 9%, 8%, 8%,
5%, 5%, 5%, and 3% in the order of factor extraction.
An eight-factor solution emerged as the best fit for
this analysis. A general factor, composed of Wagner
variables, emerged as the first factor. The highest
loading variables included Type Six (.77), Type Four (.76),
131
00
>1 U O
c 0 > c
B (0
to 0 c c
EL]
U 0
c to
0 0
13 to
EH
to
Cl4 >
cn •H cn
r H to c <
u o
4J u to
EL,
O H
o 4J
(D H
O 4J Id M b4 <
c o
t^ H
u Id 0 4J 4J H U CD Id 0 1X4 X
VO CD 3 O
U H
o n •P 4J U CD Id 3 Jx4 -a
c in
H m VH Id 3 O H 4J 4J O Id 0 0 4-1 (d CO CO
(X4
^ 0 4J O Id
(X4
rn
u 0 4J o Id ta
CN
V4 0 4-> 0 Id ta
H
V4 0 4J 0 Id ta
Id H
o o CO
4-> c 0) E 0) > 0)
-H x: o <
H Id
H O 0 CO
H Id ^ 0) c 0) o
c 0
H 4-> (d 4-1 c 0)
H V4
o
c 0
H CD V (U > •a:
>H 0) c 0^ Id S
tl)
> i H
^ O vo rn ^ o ^ O iH ^ o o o o
CN CN rn o
rn rH in r* H O O H H o
^ rn H CN H Tf O H H H O CN
I I I
^ ^ ^ r o> ^ r* O H CN o H o in
cn vo t^ CN vo o o in ^ o
CN m o vo in o o o o o
r CN o H
I I I I I
^ CN o o 00 cn H CN O H CN in vo o
I I I I
^ r ~ i n o v o o o r ^ c N C N r ~ i n H o o o o o r n o o o o o o o o o
I I I I
00 00 o <n o H ^ H
H cn O CN
r > - O i n i n r n r > r n c N H f ^ H m o o o o
H rn Tt H 00
r~ in cn o CN CN O O CN 00 CN o
m c N O c n v D ^ c n r ^ v o O H r n o r n o o
in O vo CN r O O o o
CN CN O t CN CN in H O O O H O H
m 00 in VO H o o o o
v o « * ^ r ^ r n i n v O C N r n r ~ C N C N O C N i n ^
I I
vD vo r* " * ** r * * r^ VO CN H H o ^
C N v o r ~ r n r n r » r H r H t r ) ^ i n ^ r n o o i n o o o o o o o o
H ^ ' ^ V O O C N r n C N i n O H H C N C N V O C N r - ' i n v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O v O r n o t ^ r ^ l ^ i n r H C N
' * * I* • * I I ^ ^
, ^ ^ ^ . . ^ _ ^ ^ ^ _ ^ U t i 4 4 - i C O < H C N r n ^ i n v o r » o o c n O : M < C O W O C O 2 C O M < S S S S S S S S 2
^ Q) > cn H H I 0) c 4->
•H c i d O > i > i S O ) ( u v ^ d ) ( D x : a j +; H C V ^ 4 J 4 - > 0 0 ( D 0 V j 3 > X > C n C
o Id m 0 4J H H c c c 3 x: 0 H H Q) -H H H C T t O H H C C C ( D t U O H H f c C ^ C O C O W Z 4J H H V4 4J 0 H H 3 0 D ] 4 - > 4 - ) H Q 4 C U H C C 0 O ^ ( D V ^ > H V 4 W I S H > H > H > H I H H C D a i d w i t D i 3 H 3 ( i ) a ) a ) ( i ) a ) a ) a ) a ) ( v a ) a ) H ( D H H a ) > i ^ o E - p i 4 H c : c c c c c c c : c Id > 4 J 0 4 J C H CD 0) idMH 3 0 > C n O > 0 > C J ^ O ^ O > 0 ^ 0 > ( U C V ^ O C O ( D i d & 4 4 - ) C O ^ ( d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d O i M i ^ C O U U C O S C O M r c C S l S S S S S I S S I S
cn 0 D
to > c 0 cn
•H EL]
U O
4-> U 10 U-,
x: u to
EL]
> i X]
V 0 c
•H to
^H a X
EL)
0 U c to
•H
(0 >
cn
vo O
cn o
in
vo
vO
00 in
CN
132
dP rn
dP in
dP in
0 .H
to
0
c • H 4-) c o u
dP in
dP 00
0 c
• H to
rH
a X Ex]
0 U c to
• H M to >
i H to 4J 0
E H
(4-4
0
4J
c 0 u M 0
dP 00
dP <n
dP rn H
dP vo in
II
•o
ain
e
H 04 X ta
0) 0
c Id H
Id >
H Id 4J 0
( ^ r*-
•
II
<
w s i H •H < 1
0 > o • •
^^^ < W S
> i
u to 3 cr 0 T3 <
C7> c •H
f H dull
to
w 14-4
0
0 u 3 cn to 0 s cn
^
M 0 cn
• H to ^
r- r-IS 00
•
vo H S 00
•
in o
•
«» * * IS CO
•
m o IS vo
CN 00 IS t^
•
H cn 5 r-
•
cr - O r-< •
<4H ^ C VO M .
4-) H CO VO
•
ta H S in
•
U vo CO vo
t
cn U in
•
vO ta r-
•
00 CO vD
•
r^ < r-
•
CN H r-
•
00 05 vO
•
o> cn IS vo
00 r-IS t -
^ H
• H H
II
H Id 4-> 0 H
• • CD 0) 4-1 Id E
H 4J (D W
> i
4-) H H Id c 3
0
o rH Id c H b
r CN IS ^
«
vo ^ IS vo
•
in ^ ^ vo
•
^ Tt IS vo
•
m vo IS in
•
CN H S •*
•
rH 00 IS in
•
cr ^ 0 00 < •
14-1 r> C rn M
4J H CO in
•
ta ^ S vO
•
u ^ CO vo
•
en O ^
•
00 ta rr
•
vo CO t--
•
o < vo
•
o M in
•
r « vo
t
cn o
00 vo 5 rn
133
Type Five (.72), and Type One (.61). Type Seven (.55) and
Type Two (.32) produced lower loadings. Although this
resembles Wagner's Social Insecurity factor, the increased
loading of Type Seven and the presence of the Type Two
loading invalidates that interpretation for the present
factor. Thus, it seems inappropriate to further interpret
this factor.
The Social Aversion factor emerged second in this
analysis. It is substantially the same as the second
factor from the VPI analysis. Type R (.76) and Type I
(.66) loaded heavily. Acguiescence (.53) loaded
moderately, and Masculinity-Femininity (.32) loaded
(-.44) minimally. Again, Self-Control achieved an inverse
loading .
A modified Achievement-Orientation factor appeared as
the third factor, similar to the like-named factor from the
Wagner inventory. Again, Type Three (.74) and Type Eight
(.56) loaded strongly. Type One (.41) achieved a lower
loading than on the previous factor, and the additional
variables. Type Two (.36) and Type Nine (.42), loaded
minimally as well. With the addition of these two
variables, the factor has a stronger flavor of emotional
repression. Type Two and Type Nine engage in repression of
negative emotions.
Factor number four is the first factor to contain
loadings from both inventories. It is named the Social
134
factor because it receives its most significant loading
from the VPI's Social type (.80). Additionally, Wagner's
Type Two (.34) achieves a modest loading alluding to the
characteristic of positive, people-orientation shared by
both types. The low loading of the Acguiescence scale
(.39) reinforces the theme of sociability. An inverse
loading for the Masculinity-Femininity scale (-.63)
supports the interpretation of this factor, in that high
scores on the MF scale indicate the endorsement of more
masculine occupations, which tend to have an unsociable
guality.
The fifth factor, named Social Status, correlated most
strongly with the VPI's Status scale (.70), indicating a
strong self-esteem and the need for upward mobility. The
Artistic scale (.40) received a lower loading in addition
to the Acguiescence scale (.35). The Acguiescence scale
shares the gualities of sociability and self-confidence
with the Status scale. In contrast, the gualities appear
to be absent for the Artistic type. The Type A description
does, however, share the characteristics of sensitivity and
expressiveness with the Status scale.
The Industrious factor reemerged as Factor Six. Once
again, the Enterprising (.58) and Conventional (.69) types
loaded predominantly. The Acguiescence (ACQ) factor (.30)
increased its loading sufficiently to allow it to help
define the factor. The dominance and range of interest
135
relate the ACQ factor to Enterprising type, and the
conventional outlook is shared in common by both Type C and
high scorers on the ACQ scale.
A new factor. Hesitation, appeared in the extraction
of the seventh factor. Moderately high loadings came from
the Self-Control (.57) and Infreguency (.57) scales. The
Acguiescence scale contributed a moderate inverse loading
of (-.42). In explicating this factor, it is useful to
recall that high scorers on the SC scale are inhibited,
constricted, passive, and preoccupied with potentially
threatening or dangerous situations. High scorers on the
Infreguency scale endorse occupations that are culturally
atypical, low-status, and unpopular. Conversely, high
scorers on the Acguiescence scale endorse many conventional
occupations, which expresses an active interest in a broad
range of occupations. Therefore, this positive attitude of
occupational acguisition contrasts sharply with the
hesitating, less ambitious attitude reflected by high
scorers on the previous scales.
Finally, an eighth factor was extracted and named
Artistic. It displayed a moderate loading of .46 for the
VPI's Artistic scale. Additionally, the Masculinity-
Femininity scale (-.32) provided a small inverse loading,
signifying an absence of traditionally masculine
characteristics. These variables together define the
factor by adjectives such as creative, imaginative.
136
sensitive, emotional, and expressive. These
characteristics have traditionally been considered more
feminine in American culture.
Analysis of VPI with the Zinkle Inventory
The scales of the VPI and the Zinkle inventory were
combined for a factor analysis. The initial Measure of
Sampling Adeguacy produced an average value of .69 for all
variables. Individual values (Table 10) proved
satisfactory and ranged from .55 for the Masculinity-
Femininity scale to .76 for the Enterprising scale. Fifty-
three percent of the total variance was extracted in the
seven-factor solution, with individual factors contributing
12%, 10%, 8%, 7%, 6%, 5%, and 5% of the variance.
The Social-Competency factor reappeared with the
extraction of the first factor in virtually the same
configuration as it was on the VPI analysis. The Artistic
(.64), Social (.71), and Acguiescence (.73) scales
correlated most significantly with the factor. Modest
loadings came from the Investigative (.33), Enterprising
(.38), and Status (.38) scales. The Masculinity-Femininity
scale (-.43) and the Infreguency scale (-.33) loaded
inversely.
A Social Insecurity factor emerged second. This
factor was different from the first Wagner factor in that
there was no loading for Type Seven, making this a more
137
c o
H 4J H
r~ O H
iH U O +J 4J O Id
CD c O
1X4 U
rn CN r~ CN CN ^ cn CN H H H H O vO
vo o CN r- CN O CN rn H H
r ^ r ^ O c n r n i n o O ' * H O r H O H O H r H
I I I I
CN cn
> i U O +J C 0 >
in
^ vo in in 00 rn o CN o o rH in vo o cn rn ^ 'if
O O O CN o o
in o cn in ^ rH O O rH
cn CN 00 o o o
I I
00 cn
B to u o^ to 0 c c u 0
f H
c O - H • H tS3
Id
0 f H Xi (0
EH
0 s: 4->
-a c to
P4 >
o cn •H cn > i
f H (0
<
M O 4J U to
E L ,
H O l4 Id H 0 H to 4J O O O Id CO ta
•P c
cn 0)
u o
4-1
u > <
E
c o Id Id u ta 4-)
(D Ix]
CN
u Id O H 4J O O O Id CO ta
> 1 4-1 H U 3 O 0) CD C
H > i o
JH H C o Id (U 4-) H 4-) O O Q) Id o a
Ct4 CO E o o
> 1
vO r^ O p ' t CN r O O O O rH O O
'a- CN 00 O rn o CN rn O H CM H in
in o O H
p- o o
I I
r vo vo vo
o rn in cn in H o o o rn o o O ' * ^ o c N r n ' * o c N ' * ^ i ' H
' * H O ' * r H O O O r H O O O O
00 CN cn in CN CN O H H H O H
o r* cn ^ CN CN O O
i n r n v o r ^ ' i t O v o v D O H v o r n o H r n v D O i n
I I I I I I
CN rn vo in H rn H o H H o o o o
o o o i r H r H O C N C N r n r n o c N r - o o o o o t ^ H C N r ^ r » v o o o i n
r m ^ H 00 vo in O rn vo r rn o O
r n o o r n r n H ' ^ O r H c n r H c n o c n ^ r n r n r ^ O r H O C N O C N O O H
^^ ^ .^ ^^ ^ ^^ {J I x i j J C O ' H C N r ' j T y i n v o r ^ o o c n P : ; M < C O C I ] U C O 2 C O M < t S ] e S ] N t S ] C S ] N t S 9 t S 9 N
0) >
H 4-)
o td H O^ 4J H IS 4-) H m H 0 Id > 0) c OS M
cn c
o H 4J H (D Id
H H o 0
o u 4-) c : 0
p u <
Id c 0
U H Cu P o U 0)
> c 0 0)
4-» H c H
0) 4J c
> 1 4-) H c
H c H E
o c
CO U U CO £
3 0 _ m 0) Id >«H Id 1X4 4J c
(D D
4J
0) 0) 0 m 0)
>H
0) c: o
0) L4 x: EH
U 3 0
tL4
0) >
H
c
> 0) Ex4 CO CO
(1) (D (1) Q) Q) Q) d)
c H
c H
c H
c H
c C C H H
c o M < ^ a ^ a N N c s ] ^ g ^ g
4-> x: 0) cn c H H
0) (1) H H
c c H H
cn 0 3
f H to > c 0 cn
•H
O 4-> U to
EL,
U
to EL] > i XI •o 0 c
•H to
.H a X
EL]
0 U c to •H
to >
CN
cn
cn in
in O
CN
o m
CN
138
in
in
dP VO
-a O 0 -H P
c 0 'H
nH 4J X3 C to O
EH U
T3 0 C
•H to
i H
a Ed
dP 00
0 u c to
•H M to >
f H to 4->
o £-*
(M
o 4-» c 0 u u 0 CL
dP o H
dP CN H
dP rn in
II
"0
ain
e
H P4
tl) 0 c
ria
Id >
tal
0 EH
0^ VD
•
II
< W S
f H f H <
1
1
u 0 > o • •
^^v
<
w s > 1
u to 3 cr 0 TJ <
&>
c: •H rH
to w I H 0
0 M 0 cn to 0 S
cn m
U 0 cn
•H to u::
r~- r>-N vo
•
vo CN
•
in o ^3 r«
•
** o •
cn o N r
CN vo M vo
•
H ^
•
tr vo o r-< •
MH i n C vo M .
4-> ^ CO VO
•
ta in X in
•
O CN CO vO
•
cn U in
•
vo
t
00 CO vo
•
00 < r-
•
^ H r*
•
H CU r>>
t
cn vo a vo
00 00 ts3 in
vo in
• o H
II
•-i Id 4-) 0 E-t
• • OQ 0) 4-> Id E
H 4-1 (D U
> i 4J H H Id c 3
0 u H Id c H ta
t^ f" N ^
•
VO ' J t j in
•
in o N vo
•
' J H N VO
•
m CN N in
•
CN 0^
•
T-t cn N in
•
cr rn 0 00 < •
M-i m C CN M
P 00 CO rn
•
ta ^ S m
•
U rn CO vo
•
CN O **
•
in w in
•
00 CO in
•
cn < x* •
a« M in
.
00 Oi in
•
cn CN tg rn
00 ^ N vo
139
distinct version of that factor. Moderately high loadings
were achieved by Type One (.70), Type Four (.73), Type Five
(.73), and Type Six (.60). Each of these experiences
tension in the social realm for various reasons which were
previously discussed.
The third extracted factor. Estrangement, displayed a
new aggregation of the Zinkle Types. This factor received
the heaviest loadings from the scales for Type Seven (.66)
and Type Two (.63). Type Nine (.50) loaded moderately, and
Types Three (.36) and Six (.30) received minimal loadings.
Although this factor may share some gualities in common
with the previously named Denial and Repression factors,
the term estrangement communicates a difference as compared
to the earlier factors. Types Seven, Two, and Nine each
has a tendency toward estrangement from their negative
emotions. Types Three, Six, and Nine, the primary types,
all are out of touch with or estranged from the central
abilities or tasks in their respective triads. Type Three
is most estranged from feelings. Type Six is most
estranged from the ability to take action. Finally, Type
Nine is most estranged from the relating function,
specifically the relationship with self (e.g., knowing the
self).
Social Aversion returned as the fourth factor. It is
essentially the same as the like-named factor from the VPI
analysis. The Realistic (.67) and Investigative (.66)
140
scales obtained the most significant loadings. The
Masculinity-Femininity (.48) and Acguiescence (.44)
variables produced modest loadings. Finally, the VPI Self-
Control scale (-.35) contributed a small inverse loading.
Factor number five was similar to the previously named
Social Ambition factor. Unlike the other factor, this one
included a small loading from the Status scale of the VPI.
Thus, Zinkle Type Eight (.77) and Type Three (.57) loaded
most prominently on the factor. The VPI Status scale (.32)
contributed a small loading. Conseguently, this factor was
named Social Ambition number two.
Another Industrious factor returned as the sixth one
on this analysis. It is almost identical to the like-named
factor from the VPI analysis. Moderately high loadings
associate with the Enterprising (.58) and Conventional
(.63) scales. No other variables contributed significantly
to the factor definition.
The seventh and final factor. Constriction, is
somewhat like the former Hesitation factor. The Self-
Control scale (.69) produced the greatest loading, and the
Infreguency scale (.32) contributed the least amount of
definition to the factor. High scorers on the Self-Control
scale tend to be passive, inhibited, and prone to worry
about potentially dangerous or threatening situations.
Individuals who endorse a high number of items on the
Infrequency scale indicate a preference for low-status jobs
141
that carry little responsibility. In summary, this factor
seems to reflect a lack of interest in occupations that are
demanding and competitive with high pressure.
Composite Analysis of the Enneagram and VPI Inventories
A factor analysis of all scale score totals was
performed, which included each of the three Enneagram
inventories and the Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI).
This analysis addressed the guestion of possible
relationships and factors shared in common by the VPI and
Enneagram inventories. For the VPI, both the personality
type scales (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social,
Enterprising, Conventional) and the clinical scales (Self-
Control, Masculinity-Femininity, Status, Infreguency,
Acquiescence) were included in the analysis. This was done
so that responses to all 160 occupational titles would be
included in the analysis, thus including the total
variance.
Kaiser's Measure of Sampling Adeguacy yielded an
average value of .82 for the entire sample of 38 variables.
Individual variables (Table 11) produce values in a range
from .59 (Conventional scale) to .92 (Palmer Type One).
These values indicated that the variables in this sample
were appropriate for factor analysis. An eleven-factor
142
u Id ta
^ o o c n c n o o v o r n H H H H O H O v O H
rn r> ^ CN in rn o H
H r ^ i n c N C N r H m ^ i n i n ^ v o o r n r H ^ f H O O f - H O O O O O O O O O O O O
I I I I I I I I I I I
cn 0
•H u o +J c 0 >
B to u o to 0 c c Ed
O Id ta
cn o Id ta
00
o Id
CC4
o Id
1X4
^ c N v O i n m ^ m i n c N v O r H C N v o v o o r n c n o o O O O O O O H r H O O O H O O ^ J O O r H
O O vo vo in in r~ rH rH .H O O O H
CN CN
*» rn o o o o
I I I I I I I I I I I I
r rn CN o
r n r n O H v o ^ v D r ^ i n o o i n c N C N v o o > o o ^ r n c N v o i n c N i n o O r H r ^ r n v O v O O O O O r n o O O O O O O O O O O O O r H O O O O
r ^ r n r ^ v o i n c N O O ^ O O O O O O O H
r n ' s j - r n o v o o i n o o H H O O O O H H O O
I I
v o o o i n ^ r H ^ ^ r H c n c n r ^ O O ' J ' C N C N i n r N ^ r n c N r n
I I I I I
H O ^ H C N O r » o v o c N ^ H r n o o o H m r ^ v o o H O H m i n o o r n o O H O r H O
I I
O O i n O O C N C N ^ v O H C N r H O O O O O O O O O O O r H
I I
to 0
-H -O Xi c ta (0 EH
vo
O Id ta
C N c n r n c N c n n r ^ v o r n c N r n O O O H O O O O O O O
in r H O vo o
vo r O
CN r ^ c n o i n i n o c N C N c n r - r ^ H C N r n r H v O O r H O O r H C N
I I
PL4
> IM
O
in
O Id
1X4
in ^ ** 00 o H H o o o H o
i n r n v o i n i n o o r n ' * H O H O O O O H
t o
o CN
rH o
vo '*
r>j O
<n o
in O
CN H
r-rH
in o
'* rH
rH o
en CN
CN rH
r in
I I I I I
cn •H cn
f H to c <
u o 4J u to
ELI
O Id ta
m
O Id ta
rn H »* vo O O O rn
f H H c n c N i n o o v o r ^ r ^ r n c n r n r n r n c N r n c N O c N i n H O H O O H O H O O C N O O O O r H t ^ r s l C N r H
^ rH en cn CN O O
I I I I
O ^ c n O O v o r n r n c N t ^ ^ C N O O v o r n r H v O i n v O C N o r n t ^ i n c N O O C N ' * C N v D O O O r n o o o o
m o r- o xJ O O O rH O
^ rn H rn rH CN TH o
I I
CN
o Id
1X4
ON CN CN vD o> rn O H O H O O
in r CN CN
m O
^ v O v O C N v D v O i n c N r n O H H ^ C N O H C N t ^
'S-o
CN CN
rH o
00 CN
rn r-\
CN CN
' o
cn f-i
cn in
CN o
I I I I I I I I I
o Id ta
o c N H ^ ^ o o H O H « 5 r r ^ c N O r - » ^ o i n o ' t o o O ' » o o O H O O O H O O o r ^ v o o i n v o r ^ f H H r ^ ^ H
00 00 rn CN r 00 00 o in vo vo rn o O
— . — » * - . — « , — . ^ - . U l i 4 4 j c O H C N r n ^ i n v o t ^ o o o N H C N r n ^ i n v D r » o o c n O : M < : C O U C J C O 2 : C O M 4 : O 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 : S 3 3 3 3 : S 3 : S : S
143
0
xi to
0
c •H 4J c o u
t - l H
o Id
ElL4
o H
o Id
(X4
cn
Fac
00
o Id ta
t^
o Id ta
vo
O Id ta
in
O Id ta
^ O Id 1X4
in o
CN ' J
' J
o 1
rn H
o H
o CN
in o 1
00 H
^ o
CN H
VO O
1
rn O
1
rn o 1
CN H
CN CN
00 VO
H
o 1
00 rn
cn o
o o
CN
o 1
ON in
vo H
r* H
00
o 1
H H
^ H
1
H H
VO O
1
H
o
en o
rn H
in o
00 CN
ON o 1
vo H
CN H
rn o
vo H
r~ CN
1
r-O
rn in
r~ o
r« o
CN
o
' T H
in H
O H
in O
1
H H
in H
m o
1
o H
1
CN
o 1
in in
in ' i '
rn H
1
r-o
H O
rn o
^ o
vo H
r-o
CN
o 1
CN O
'
H H
^ o
rn O
CN O
vo O
H r
CN H
c 0
H m
averi
u p X ta
rH
ocia
CO
II
^ u 0 4J 0 Id ta
m 0
H 4-) tl)
Aesth
II
rn
ctor
Id 1X4
c 0
H 4J H
00 o dP
rn
cn
U Id ta
CN
O Id ta
o Id
ta
CN ^ c N c n c N C N C N i n r > o o r n r j - H O O H
c N ^ i n v o o o ^ H O r n C N O ' * H O H H O O O
in
H
00 O
CN ^3
o o
cn
rn vo
H in
in
H in
vo ^9
-.07
-.03
00
00
o
cn
CN
O 4J 0 Id ta
Id u 0) c 0) o V4 0) c o> Id :s II
00
u o
4-) O Id ta
c o
H H Id CD
H V^ O 0) O >
CO <
V4 O 4-) o Id ta
0) o c Id E U o
«4H u 0) 04
vo
o 4-> o Id ta
H Id u 0) c 0) o
V4 tn Id 0) c c Ed
H Id
H C tl) o
i n
c o
H 4J Id 4J H m 0) X
u o 4J 0 Id
1X4
4-> H E U O
IM c o o
u o p 0 Id ta
CD CD
c H CD 3
CQ
cn
u 0
4-> u Id ta
iH 0 p u Id ta
U 0 P 0 Id
^ 4
u
u O
4 J u to
ELI
£ U 10 bi
> i Xi
V 0 c •H to
r H a X
EL)
0 U c to •H M to >
CN
i n rn
CN i n
cn 0 P
(0 > c (1) cn
CO r *
rH
rn 00
o cn
CN rn
CN
CN VO
• CN
rn
in
dP rn
cn
dP
dC
dP i n
df> i n
TD 0 C
•H (0
i H a X bi
0 U c 10 •H to >
to 4J O
4 J c 0 u u 0
i n
<*p
r
dP
dP cn i n
Tl 0) c
H Id
r H
a ta tl) u c Id
H U Id >
Id p 0
144
0 i H XH to
EH
0 P C
•H 4J c o u
CN 00
•
II
< OT S
r H
f H <
1 1 (H 0 > o • •
^-^ < OT S
> i U to p cr 0 T3 <
o c •H
r H
a B to OT
vt-4
O
0 U P cn to 0
s cn ^ M 0 cn
•H to u;:
r-04
vo 04
i n 04
^ 04
cn 04
CN 04
rH 04
cr o <
«H
c M
P CO
b S
u CO
o
u
CO
<
H
o::
vo •
o cn
•
' t 00
•
rn 00
•
CN 00
VO 00
•
CN cn
•
i n
r •
rH VO
•
00 vo
•
H VO
•
VO vo
t
ON i n
•
^ r
t
H
•
cn r~
o r*
•
H r
•
t ^ t g
vo N
i n N
^ tS)
rn N
CN N
H ^
ON S
00 S
r S
vo 5
i n S
^ 15
rn ^
CN IS
H
2
ON 04
00 04
rn •
00 00
•
i n 00
•
r 00
•
CN 00
vo r»-
•
o ON
•
cn •
r* 00
r-00
•
H ON
•
i n 00
•
cn 00
•
CN 00
•
i n
•
ON 00
i n 00
•
ON r»
•
en rn N r -
•
00 CN ^ 00
•
H CN
CN CN
II
H Id 4-> 0
EH
• • CD 0) P Id E
H 4-1 (0 ta > i
P H H Id c 3
0 O
H Id
c H ta
f^ 04
vo 04
i n 04
^ 04
rn 04
CN 04
r-i 04
cr 0 <
I4H
c M
p CO
1X4
s
o CO
u
ta
CO
<
M
oc
If) rn
•
CN VO
•
^ in
•
i n vo
•
cn vo
•
vo •
o vo
•
CN 00
•
i n m
•
vo rn
•
r-» ^
•
H VO
•
o ^
•
'd-i n
•
00 i n
•
i n i n
•
00 i n
«
^ vo
•
r tS9
vo N
i n N
^ N
rn N
CN tg
H N
cn S
00
s
r S
vo S
i n S
'* ^
rn »
CN S
H S
ON 04
00 04
r~ in
«
cn vo
•
r vo
•
vo vo
«
VO r-
•
i n in
•
^ vo
t
r« in
•
o in
•
00
•
i n vo
•
H VO
•
r-i
r~ •
• « *
vO
•
rn vo
•
CN vo
•
rn ON r^ vo ^^ i n
• •
O 00 ON vo a vo
* .
145
solution accounted for 59% of the total variance, with
individual factor values ranging from 3% to 14%.
The iterated principal factors analysis yielded an
optimum eleven-factor solution. Most of the factors
strongly resembled those that had appeared on earlier
analyses. The first factor extracted was labeled a general
Enneagram factor and received no further interpretation.
It was defined as such by loadings from 15 separate
Enneagram scales. High loadings came from Palmer's scales
for Types One (.72), Six (.75), and Nine (.70). Moderately
high loadings resulted from Palmer's Types Two (.60) and
Five (.60), Wagner's Types Five (.63) and Six (.62), and
Zinkle's Type Four (.63). Moderate loadings appeared for
Palmer's Type Four (.54), Wagner's Types One (.48) and Four
(.58), and Zinkle's Types One (.54), Five (.51), and Six
(.51). Wagner's Type Seven (.37) contributed a small
loading.
Factor two was a reoccurrence of the previously
discovered Ambition factor. It received high loadings from
Palmer's Type Eight scale (.73) and Zinkle's Type Eight
scale (.80). Modest loadings came from the variables for
Palmer's Type Three (.42), Wagner's Type Eight (.59), and
Zinkle's Type Three (.45) scale.
The third factor. Aesthetics, although similar to the
previous Social Sensitivity factor, is somewhat different
due to a change in the composition of the contributing
146
variables. The Artistic (.70) and Acguiescence (.62)
scales provided the most significant loadings. Factor
definition received further clarification from variables
that loaded modestly. These variables included the
Investigative scale (.39), the Status scale (.47), Palmer
Type Four (.31), Zinkle Type Four (.39), and Zinkle Type
Five (.42).
This scale derives much of its name from the
characteristics of Holland's Artistic Type and the
Enneagram Type Four (the Artist). People scoring high on
these scales manifest creativity, imagination, sensitivity,
emotionality, expressiveness, introversion,
unconventionality, self-revelation, and aesthetic
appreciation. The Holland scales for Type A and
Acguiescence both share the characteristics of multiple
interests and many talents, which supplement the definition
of the factor.
The moderate loading of the Status scale reinforces
the themes of sensitivity, expressiveness, and multiple
competencies, adding a tone of adventure and enthusiasm.
Although at first glance there is an apparent conflict with
the Zinkle Type Five variable, the concept of this being a
wing of Type Four provides a theoretical rationale for
presence of the Type Five variable.
A fourth factor emerged and was labeled Social
Extroversion. Included in this factor are attributes of
147
both the former Social factor and the Positive Extroversion
factor. Two variables contributed most to this factor, and
they were Wagner Type Two (.72) and Zinkle Type Two (.68).
Additional modest loadings came from Holland's Social scale
(.36) and Zinkle's Type Seven scale (.45). Whereas the
Type Two and Type S loadings define this as a strong
people-orientation factor, the presence of Type Seven
reinforces this theme and supports the concept of
extroversion.
Once again, a Denial factor emerged, this time as the
fifth factor. Zinkle's Type Nine scale (.71) contributed
most significantly. Modest loadings resulted from Palmer's
Type Seven (.46), Wagner's Type Nine (.57), and Zinkle's
Type Seven scale (.55). This factor evolves around the
theme of the denial of problems and conflict.
A new factor surfaced as number six. Entitled
Performance, this factor is defined by a loading from each
of the Enneagram Type Three scales. Palmer Type Three
(.67), Wagner Type Three (.65), and Zinkle Type Three (.59)
loaded in the moderate high range. Conseguently, this
factor receives its definition from the description of the
Enneagram's Performer.
Social Aversion reemerged as the seventh factor. It
is identical to the same factor from the VPI analysis.
Holland's Realistic type (.71) and Investigative type (.60)
contributed the highest loadings. The
148
Masculinity-Femininity (.50) scale furnished a moderate
loading. A minimal loading came from the Acguiescence
scale (.34), and a small inverse loading was associated
with the Self-Control scale (-.37).
A general factor associated with the Wagner inventory
became factor number eight. Five variables provided modest
loadings. These included Type One (.45), Type Four (.54),
Type Six (.41), Type Seven (.33), and Type Nine (.37). No
appropriate definition could be assigned to this factor;
therefore, the investigator named it a Wagner-General
factor and interpreted it no further.
Factor nine, entitled Business, partially resembled
the Industrious factor; however, the scale for Holland's
Social type provided a stronger social orientation for the
factor. The Acguiescence scale echoed the gualities of
dominance, enthusiasm and impulsivity associated with the
Enterprising scale, and it also reinforced the social
theme. The Enterprising (.63) and Conventional (.60) types
contributed moderately to the factor. The scales for Type
S (.33) and Acguiescence (.37) provided modest loadings.
Conformity was both the theme and title for the tenth
factor. This factor displayed modest loadings for Zinkle
Type One (.42), Zinkle Type Three (.38), and Zinkle Type
Six (.53). Palmer's Type Four (-.40) provided a small
negative loading. Each of the Zinkle types shares the
common global guality of conformity. Type One conforms to
149
the rational, perfectionistic standards and expectations
that he or she perceives and values. Type Three conforms
to the dominant culture or environment for the sake of
success and the avoidance of rejection. Type Six conforms
to the relevant standards of the group or authority to whom
he or she is loyal. Conversely, Type Four is the epitome
of the non-conformist among the Enneagram types.
Finally, the Hesitation factor emerged once again as
the eleventh factor. It is substantially the same as the
like-named factor number seven on the VPI and Wagner factor
analysis. The Self-Control (.63) and Infreguency (.53)
scales achieved moderate loadings. A small negative
loading was associated with the Acguiescence scale (-.37).
Summary of Findings
Overall, the investigator performed nine separate
factor analyses. An analysis of each individual inventory
initiated the study, followed by separate analyses which
joined the VPI and each individual Enneagram inventory.
Two comprehensive analyses ensued, the first concentrating
on all Enneagram inventories combined, and the second
converging upon all four inventories united.
Considering the individual analyses, three factors
resulted from the investigation of the VPI which were
Social Sensitivity, Social Aversion, and the Industrious
factor. Next, the analysis of the Cohen-Palmer inventory
150
produced five factors, named Fear and Repression, Social
Ambition, Anxiety, and Excess. Five factors emerged from
the Wagner analysis, and they were Social Insecurity,
Achievement Orientation, Peacemaker, Helper, and Excess.
Finally, the Zinkle inventory produce a five-factor
solution which included Withdrawal, Social Aggression,
Compulsion, Positive Extroversion, and Denial.
Subseguently, each Enneagram instrument, accompanied
by the VPI, became the focus of three separate analyses.
First, the analysis of the VPI and Cohen-Palmer inventories
produced five factors, entitled General- Palmer, Social
Sensitivity, Social Aversion, Ambition, and Industrious.
In all, three VPI-specific factors and two Palmer factors
resulted. Second, the VPI and Wagner inventories jointly
produced eight factors. These factors were named General-
Wagner, Social Aversion, Achievement Orientation, Social,
Social Status, Industrious, Hesitation, and Artistic. Five
factors were VPI factors, two were Wagner factors and one
combined significant loadings from both inventories.
Third, the joint analysis of the VPI and Zinkle inventories
yielded seven factors named Social Competency, Social
Insecurity, Estrangement, Social Aversion, Social Ambition-
Two, Industrious, and Constriction. Four factors were VPI
factors and three were Zinkle factors.
Next, the comprehensive analyses proceeded. First,
the combined analysis of all Enneagram inventories produced
151
six factors. Names assigned to these factors included
Ambition, Anxious Compulsion, Palmer-General, Excess,
Positive Extroversion, and Denial. Five of these factors
combined loadings from the inventories and one was Palmer
specific. Second, the combined analysis of all four
inventories produced eleven factors. These were entitled
General, Ambition, Aesthetics, Social Extroversion, Denial,
Performance, Social Aversion, Wagner-General, Business,
Conformity, and Hesitation. Four factors combined scales
from the Enneagram Inventories. Three factors were Holland
specific. Two factors combined both the Enneagram and VPI.
Finally, one factor was Cohen-Palmer specific and the other
was Zinkle specific.
Several themes were prevalent throughout the analysis.
One motif concerned social proficiency and the contrasting
motif of social ineptitude appeared as well. Additionally,
the twin themes of ambition and achievement recurred
throughout accompanied by the related issues of
industriousness and aggression. Type-specific factors were
discovered which included an artistic orientation, helping
and peacemaking. Conversely, psychopathological threads
emerged in several factors concerning anxiety, repression,
compulsion, excessiveness and denial.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
The majority of efforts to explicate and validate
Enneagram theory relied upon the lengthy processes of
gualitative research. Although this form of research was
invaluable, it encountered resistance in the community of
social and behavioral scientists. Conseguently,
Enneagram investigators such as Palmer, Wagner, and
Zinkle developed personality inventories in their efforts
to guantitatively evaluate the typology. Their hopes
were to verify the validity of the Enneagram theory by
demonstrating the ability of their instruments to
effectively identify and classify individual
personalities according to Enneagram typology. These
efforts produced promising results; however, it remained
clear that more rigorous and substantial research was
necessary to achieve their ultimate objectives.
The purpose of this study was to examine the claims of
the above authors concerning the validity of their
personality inventories. Using factor analyses, the
investigator searched for evidence to support the factor
validity of the instruments and, thus, the nine personality
types of Enneagram theory. Additionally, the Enneagram
instruments were factor analyzed together with Holland's
152
153
VPI to investigate the possibility of concurrent factor
validity.
The present investigator sought to answer several
guestions through this research project. One guestion
concerned whether the Enneagram instruments measured what
their authors proposed to measure. To address this
concern, each Enneagram instrument was individually
analyzed.
Analysis of Individual Inventories
The factor analysis of the Cohen-Palmer inventory
produced four factors (Table 12), a number less than the
total number of types that the instrument attempts to
measure. One factor, entitled Fear and Repression,
strongly correlated with Enneagram Type One and Type Two.
It also included loadings from Types Nine, Six, and Four.
A second factor. Social Ambition, correlated only with
Types Three and Eight. The third factor. Anxiety, was
predominantly defined by Type Six and Type Five. Small
loadings were achieved by Types Nine and One. Finally, the
fourth factor extracted. Excess, received its definition
from Type Four, Type Seven, and Type Eight.
Results of the Cohen-Palmer analysis provides support
for some of the characteristics associated with different
types, specifically those correlated with the factor names.
Table 12 Summary of Results
154
VPI
Social Aversion
Social Sensitivity
Inciustrious
COHEN-PALMER
Fear and Repression
Anxiety
Excess
WAGNER
Social Insecurity
Social Ambition Helper
Achievement Orientation
Excess
ZINKLE
Withdrawal
Social Agression
Compulsion
Positive Extroversion
Peacemaker Denial
ALL ENNEAGRAM INSTRUMENTS
Ambition
Anxious Compulsion
Cohen-Palmer General
*Excess
•Positive Extroversion
*Denial
* A like-named factor with similar loadings of the defining variables was discovered in an earlier analysis.
155 Table 12 Continued
COHEN-PALMER & VPI WAGNER & VPI
General Palmer General Wagner
*Social Sensitivity +Social
*Ambition
•Industrious
•Social Aversion
Social Status
•Industrious
•Social Aversion
•Achievement Orientation
Hesitation
Artistic
ZINKLE & VPI
Estrangement
Social Competency
•Social Ambition
•Industrious
•Social Aversion
•Social Insecurity
Constriction
COMPOSITE ANALYSIS OF ALL INVENTORIES
General Enneagram
+Social Extroversion
•Ambition
Business
•Social Aversion
Performance
•Hesitation
+Aesthetic
•Denial
Wagner General
Conformity
The factor contained loadings from both the Holland and an Enneagram instrument. A like-ncimed factor with similar loadings of the defining variaibles was discovered in an earlier analysis.
156
These results are encouraging, but they do not provide
conclusive proof that the Palmer instrument measures what
is claimed. The scale factor analysis may not provide
sufficient data to support the validity of individual
instruments.
A five-factor solution was most appropriate for the
factor analysis of the Wagner inventory (Table 12). A
Social Insecurity factor was the first to be extracted.
Types Four, Five, Six, and One correlated most
significantly with this factor. An Achievement Orientation
factor appeared, which displayed loadings from Type Three,
Type One, and Type Eight. Two factors were associated with
only one type each. The Peacemaker factor was
significantly correlated with Type Nine. The Helper factor
was associated with Type Two. Finally, a fifth factor
appeared. Excess, which was seen on the Palmer analysis as
well. Types Four, Seven, and Eight loaded on this latter
factor.
Results of the Wagner analysis suggested that this
inventory measured some of the same characteristics as the
Palmer inventory. Specifically, the two inventories each
contained a factor entitled Excess. Additionally, the
Wagner Achievement Orientation factor resembled the Social
Ambition factor of the Palmer inventory. Partial support
for the existence of individual types emerged with the
157
Peacemaker and Helper factors and support for factors
defined by type characteristics increased.
The factor analysis of the Zinkle inventory produced
five interpretable factors (Table 12). The Withdrawal
factor correlated most with Type Four. Modest loadings,
however, came from Types Five and One. Both Type Eight and
Type Three defined a Social Aggression factor, and Type
Six, Type Five, and Type Three loaded on the Compulsion
factor. A Positive Extroversion factor resulted from the
relationship between Type Two and Type Seven. A fifth and
final factor. Denial, received its definition from Type
Seven and Type Nine.
Factors drawn from the Zinkle inventory received their
definition from different assortments of the type variables
in comparison to the other Enneagram inventories. Social
aggression was the single factor most like any previously
produced Enneagram factors. Attempting to account for this
anomaly, it is important to recognize that Zinkle's
instrument provided more guestions per type, taking a
larger sample of behaviors. Conseguently, the different
composition of the factors is not surprising.
In all, thirteen different factors emerged from the
separate analyses of the three Enneagram inventories. The
factor Excess was the only one that was substantially the
same on two different inventories. Although no factor was
consistent across all three inventories, each inventory
158
possessed a factor, defined by Types Three and Eight, that
was similar to a corresponding factor on another inventory.
These factors were Social Ambition, Achievement
Orientation, and Social Aggression. They varied due to the
different loadings between the two major types, as well as
the inclusion of Type One on the Achievement factor.
While the data does not provide proof for the
existence of either nine factors or types, similarities
between some of the factors suggests the measurement of
matching constructs. The results imply that the
instruments may partially measure what they propose to
measure. Notably, the instruments varied in length and
guestion content, thereby sampling the types differently.
Therefore, it is not surprising that like-named type scales
among the instruments do not correlate perfectly or always
to a great degree.
Another guestion regarded what relationships might
exist among the three Enneagram inventories and whether
identically-named scales measured the same constructs. A
corollary issue concerned whether the same personality
types, as measured by each inventory, loaded similarly on
the same factors. These issues were addressed by the
following analysis.
159
Analysis of the Three Enneagram Inventories Combined
The issues mentioned above were addressed specifically
by the factor analysis performed on the scales of all three
inventories combined. Although the factors were not
clearly loaded by the same scale variables from each
inventory, the data (Table 12) was promising. Perhaps the
clearest point of commonality between the Enneagram
inventories emerged in the Ambition factor, which received
loadings from the Type Three and Type Eight scales from
each of the inventories. These types share many
similarities and are often confused with each other. The
presence of these scales suggests that each of the
Enneagram inventories measured the same or similar
constructs with these scales.
The second common factor. Anxious Compulsion,
contained loadings of Type One, Type Six, and Type Five
from each of the inventories, albeit in somewhat different
proportions. Palmer's Type Five and Six loaded minimally
in comparison to the loadings of similar types for other
inventories. The factor was not clean in that Zinkle's
Type Three and Type Four and Wagner's Type Four achieved
minimal loadings. Nonetheless, this factor supports the
notion that the scales were measuring similar constructs,
although not to the same degree.
160
A factor named Excess appeared in the analysis of
Enneagram inventories. In spite of its varied composition,
the factor possessed moderately high loadings from each of
the Type Four scales. This offers support for the notion
that each of the Type Four scales are measuring similar
constructs; however, the mixed nature of the factor
suggests that each of the like-named scales measures
distinctly different constructs as well.
Two final factors supported the notion that the
inventories were measuring similar constructs. One factor.
Positive Extroversion, contained moderately high loadings
from the scales for Wagner's Type Two and Zinkle's Type
Two. Additionally, Palmer's Type Five scale and Zinkle's
Type Five both achieved small inverse loadings, which
correlates logically with the concept represented by the
factor. The absence of Palmer's Type Two scale and
Wagner's Type Five scale raises the guestion of whether
these two scales were measuring the same concepts to the
same degree as the like-named scales.
The other supportive factor. Denial, displayed modest
loadings from Palmer's scale seven and Zinkle's scale
seven. Whereas this supports the idea that these two
scales are measuring this concept, the absence of Wagner's
scale seven raises the issue of whether his scale measures
this characteristic. Another possible explanation for this
inconsistency is that individuals did not consistently
161
endorse the same items or types of items when taking each
of the Enneagram instruments.
To summarize, the combined factor analysis of the
Enneagram instruments offered promising results. Factors
containing each of the like-named types, and in some cases
only two of the like-named types, supported the notion that
the instruments were measuring several of the same or
similar constructs. On occasion, one of the like-named
scales was omitted from the common factor, suggesting that
it did not substantially measure the same or a similar
concept. This may be explained in part by the inclusion of
different items among the like-named scales. Another
explanation would be that subjects responded inconsistently
between inventories.
Data analysis has partially supported the notion that
the three Enneagram instruments are measuring the same or
similar constructs, but only in terms of common
characteristics, and not in terms of type. Support for
this was apparent in that each of the personality type
scales loaded on the same factor as at least one other
like-named scale. At times, however, they either loaded in
different proportions or not at all. Conseguently, there
were not nine separate factors, yielding a one-to-one
association with each of the individual personality types.
162
Analyses of Enneagram Inventories with the VPI
An evaluation of the relationship between Holland's
VPI and the Enneagram instruments was addressed by several
analyses. First, the researcher conducted a factor
analysis of only the VPI to establish the factor structure
of that instrument for the current subject population.
Each of Holland's six personality types loaded
significantly on only one of three factors.
The VPI analysis produced a Social Sensitivity factor
(Table 12) primarily loaded by the Artist and Social type
scales. This factor strongly resembled the "People" factor
found in previous factor analyses of the VPI. A second
factor. Social Aversion, appeared which resembled the
"Things" factor identified by past research. This factor
obtained its strongest loadings from the Realistic and
Investigative personality types. Finally, the Industrious
factor was identified, which matched the formerly
discovered "Data" factor. The Conventional and
Enterprising types loaded most heavily on this factor.
A second set of analyses addressed the issue of
relationships between all of the instruments. This aspect
of the research was conducted in two parts. Part One
consisted of a separate factor analysis for each Enneagram
inventory with the VPI. Part Two was an analysis of all
163
four inventories combined. The findings (Table 12) and
conclusions are summarized below.
The factor analysis of the VPI and the Cohen-Palmer
inventory yielded five factors. A general factor appeared
first with loadings from Enneagram Types One, Two, Four,
Five, Six, and Nine. A second factor. Social Competency,
was defined by Holland's Artistic and Social types. Next,
a Social Aversion factor emerged, which was delimited by
Holland's Realistic and Investigative types. An Ambition
factor emerged with loadings from Enneagram types Three,
Seven and Eight. Finally, a recurring Industrious factor
was characterized by Holland's Enterprising and
Conventional types. This analysis failed to produce any
factor which contained significant loadings of both Holland
and Enneagram types.
Analysis of the VPI and Wagner inventories produced
eight factors. The first factor was general and was
composed of loadings from Enneagram types Six, Four, Five,
One, Seven, and Two. Social Aversion emerged second and
was defined by Holland's Realistic and Investigative types.
A modified Achievement Orientation factor appeared next.
It was defined by Type Three and Type Eight, with minor
loadings from Types One, Two and Nine. Factor number four,
the Social factor, included Holland's Social type and the
Enneagram Type Two. The fifth factor. Social Status,
correlated strongly with Holland's Status scale and his
164
Artistic type. Reemerging as number six, the Industrious
factor correlated most with Holland's Enterprising and
Conventional types. A new factor. Hesitation, was the
seventh. It consisted of positive loadings from Holland's
Self-Control and Infreguency scales and a negative loading
from his Acguiescence scale. Finally, factor number eight
correlated with Holland's Artistic type, and thus the
factor was named. This was the first analysis where a
factor defined by both a Holland and an Enneagram type
emerged, the Social factor.
Zinkle's inventory was factor analyzed with the VPI,
and it provided seven factors. The Social Competency
factor appeared first and received its definition from
Holland's Artistic and Social scales. Social Insecurity
emerged second, and it correlated with Types One, Four,
Five, and Six. A third factor. Estrangement, associated
most with types Seven, Two, and Nine. Social Aversion
returned as the fourth factor, defined by the Realistic and
Investigative types. Factor number five. Social Ambition,
correlated with Type Eight and Type Three. Next, the
Industrious factor surfaced as number six, obtaining its
definition from the Enterprising and Conventional scales.
A new factor, Constriction was formed in the seventh
extraction, which associated most with the Self-Control
scale and minimally with the Infreguency scale.
165
Across the three previous analyses, 16 distinct
factors were identified. Two were general Enneagram
factors and the remaining 14 were interpretable. The
Social factor, discovered in the VPI and Wagner analysis,
was the only common factor that included significant
loadings from instruments representing both theoretical
systems. Although this part of the analysis did not offer
great support for the linking of the two theories, it
helped to broaden the factorial definition of the VPI.
Part two of the study's final phase involved the
factor analysis of the VPI with all three of the Enneagram
inventories. This analysis provided an eleven-factor
solution. The first factor was general, and it included
Palmer Types One, Two, Four, Five, Six, and Nine. Wagner
Types One, Four, Five, Six, and Seven all loaded on the
factor, as did Zinkle Types One, Four, Five, and Six.
The remaining ten factors were each amenable to
interpretation. The second factor. Ambition, correlated
with Type Eight from each inventory and Type Three from
Palmer and Zinkle. Aesthetics, the third factor,
correlated with Holland's Artistic, Acguiescence,
Investigative, and Status scales. Additionally, Palmer's
and Zinkle's Type Four and Zinkle's Type Five loaded on
this factor. Factor number four. Social Extroversion,
included loadings from Wagner's and Zinkle's Type Two,
Zinkle's Type Seven and Holland's Social type. These
166
latter two were the sole factors to include loadings from
scales representative of both theoretical systems.
Factor five. Denial, reemerged with loadings from
Zinkle's and Wagner's Type Nine, and from their Type Sevens
as well. A unigue factor appeared sixth and was labeled
Performance because it correlated only with Type Three from
each inventory. Once again, a Social Aversion factor
coalesced with loadings from Holland's Realistic and
Investigative types. A Wagner general factor followed,
which included significant loadings from Types One, Four,
Six, Seven, and Nine. The ninth factor. Business,
correlated with Holland's Social, Enterprising, and
Conventional types. A tenth factor, entitled Conformity,
followed and included Zinkle Types One, Three, and Six with
an inverse loading from Palmer's Type Four. Hesitation was
the eleventh and final factor. It included positive
loadings from Holland's Self-Control and Infreguency scales
with a negative loading from the Acguiescence scale.
This final factor analysis provided two factors that
linked Holland's personality theory with Enneagram
personality theory. Based on this study, it is not
possible to suggest a tremendous commonality between the
theories. The existing evidence, however, is encouraging
and warrants further investigation before authoritative
statements are made concerning the relationship of one
theory to the other.
167
Summary of Findings
Considering the first four research guestions, the
following conclusions were evident. First, the three
Enneagram inventories do not measure nine discrete types as
reflected by factor analysis. The Wagner inventory,
however, furnished two type-specific factors; one defined
by Type Two and one defined by Type Nine. Additionally,
the factor which was defined by each of the Enneagram Type
Three scales suggested that this is a valid type-construct.
Second, the aggregation of Enneagram instrument scales
into common factors made them amenable to interpretation in
light of the Enneagram theory. Had separate factors
representing each scale appeared, each personality type
would have had strong support for its individual existence.
Nevertheless, the existing data was consistent with
Enneagram theory. The freguent occurrence of type wings on
factors supported the notion that neighboring personality
types share more attributes in common than those that are
systemically unrelated. Additionally, the concept of the
lines of integration and disintegration received some
support when factors connected by such lines partially
loaded on the same factors.
Third, the occurrence of a factor with Types Three and
Eight is not consistent with systemic explanations of
Enneagram theory. Nevertheless, the relationship of the
two types is accounted for by current psychological
168
concepts. Each of these types possess characteristics,
such as ambition and achievement-orientation, which are
easily conceived of as correlated gualities. While their
other motivations may differ, both Type Three and Type
Eight possess gualities, that while different, are egually
culturally desirable.
Fourth, findings from both the analysis of all
Enneagram instruments combined, and the analysis of all the
instruments together were egually encouraging. The loading
of like-named scales from various instruments on the same
common factors reinforced the assertion that Enneagram
instruments did, in part, measure the same psychological
constructs. These like-named scales did not always carry
the same weight on each factor, implying that they measured
similar and correlated constructs that were not always
identical. Another possibility was that they measured both
similar and unigue constructs. The similar constructs were
possibly sampled in different proportions, thereby
accounting for the different weights of like-named scales
on common factors. The additional appearance of these same
scales on more than one factor supports this idea as well.
The notion that the Enneagram instruments measured the
same constructs in different proportions, and that each
inventory measured unigue constructs was supported by the
appearance of two factors on the final factor analysis.
One factor was the Wagner-General factor (number eight).
169
and the other factor. Conformity (number ten) was primarily
a Zinkle factor. It is reasonable to believe that each of
these Enneagram inventories measured sufficiently unigue,
highly correlated, constructs compared to the others.
Therefore, each inventory defined an instrument-specific
factor. Nevertheless, the Enneagram inventories correlated
greatly, and the conseguence was the appearance of the
General Enneagram factor.
A fifth conclusion is that, although this study
supplies data supporting the construct validity of the
Enneagram instruments, little evidence supports the
concurrent validation of the Enneagram instruments. The
minor relationships between the Holland and Enneagram
instruments may be partially explained by the different
design of the instruments. The VPI is composed entirely of
occupational titles. In contrast, the Enneagram
instruments are composed of complete statements. The
difference in construct-sampling methods may facilitate
different response styles or sample different constructs.
Another explanation is that college students experience
greater difficulty in endorsing occupational titles, and
they may be ignorant of the full scope and definition of
many professions. Finally, it is important to realize that
the ability of the VPI to measure personality types was
questionable to begin with.
170
Limits of the Study
The sample population for this study may limit the
generalization of the results in two ways. First, the
majority of subjects (75%) were either college freshmen or
sophomores. Conseguently, it is important not to
generalize the results too readily to the public.
Nontraditional subjects, who were either graduate students
or employed college graduates, composed 21% of the sample.
Second, the sample was predominately composed of females
(61%). This may have skewed the resultant data and
influenced the subsequent interpretation of the factors.
Third, the interpretation of the data relied in part upon
the assumption that the inventory items chosen and scales
composed to differentiate the types were effectively doing
so. To the degree that this assumption is inaccurate, the
interpretation should be treated with caution.
An uncontrolled variable that potentially influenced
the results was the order of instrument administration.
The order of administration was varied but not completely
randomized. Therefore, one might argue that the results
reflected some effect of this procedure, although the study
design was not experimental.
Recommendations
Data produced by this study partially supports the
validity of the Enneagram instruments. Nevertheless,
171
further research using the factor analytic procedure would
be invaluable. Subsequent researchers would do well to
increase both the sample size and heterogeneity of their
subject pool. Data produced from more mature populations
may well yield a different outcome, because, presumably,
they would have more definite knowledge of personal
characteristics.
Additionally, future investigators may consider
randomizing the order of test administration. Because the
instructions vary somewhat from test to test, randomization
of the questions was not considered an option for this
dissertation. It may be appropriate to use a single set of
instructions for all three Enneagram instruments in later
investigations.
Further valuable information may be gained by using an
Enneagram adjective check-list, comparing it with the VPI.
Such a comparison might enable the researcher to identify a
stronger relationship between the two theories. In
contrast, Holland's Self Directed Search may provide a more
comparable measure of Holland's personality types, when
used with current Enneagram inventories.
Finally, factor analyses of the inventory items would
yield evidence either for or against the item composition
of the scales. Such analyses would provide data and clues
regarding what characteristics or gualities the scales
actually measure. The results might lead to the
172
construction of a more effective inventory for identifying
Enneagram personality types, and provide a clearer picture
of the degree of relationships between the VPI and
Enneagram inventories.
REFERENCES
Athanasou, J. A., O'Gorman, J., & Meyer, E. (1981). Factorial validity of the vocational interest scales of the Holland vocational preference inventory for australian high school students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(2), 523-527.
Bennett, J. G. (1973). Gurdjieff; making a new world. London: Turnstone Books.
Bennett, J. G. (1983). Enneagram studies. York Beach, MA: Samuel Weiser, Inc.
Benninger, W. B., & Walsh, W. B. (1980). Holland's theory and non-college-degreed working men and women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17, 81-88.
Capretta, P. J. (1967). A history of psychology in outline. New York, NY: Dell Publishing Co., Inc.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire. Champaign, IL.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Cerny, B. A., & Kaiser, H. F. (1977). A study of a measure of sampling adeguacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12, 43-47.
Chaplin, J. P. (1975). Dictionary of psychology. New York, NY: Dell Publishing Co., Inc.
Crabtree, P. D., & Hales, L. W. (1974). Holland's hexagonal model applied to rural youth. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 22, 218-223.
DiScipio, W. J. (1974). A factor analytic validation of Holland's vocational preference inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 4(3), 389-402.
173
174
Florence, J. w. (1973). A further investigation of Holland's theory of vocational psychology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Tulsa.
Gamard, W. S. (1986). Interrater reliability and validity of judgments of enneagram personality types (Doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Integral Studies, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 3152.
Gaston, L., & Marmar, C. R. (1989). Quantitative and qualitative analyses for psychotherapy research: integration through time-series designs. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 26(2), 169-176.
Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1978). Theories of personality. (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6, 35-45.
Holland, J. L. (1973). The psychology of vocational choice. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell Publishing Company.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices; a theory of vocational personalities and work environments. (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Holland, J. L. (1985). The vocational preference inventory; professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Hurley, K. V., & Dobson, T. E. (1991). What's my type? San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco.
Johnson, J. A. (1987). Influence of adolescent social crowds on the development of vocational identity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(2), 182-199.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
175
Keen, S. (1973, July). A conversation about ego destruction with Oscar Ichazo. Psychology Today, pp. 64-72.
Lilly, J. C , & Hart, J. E. (1975). The arica training. In C. T. Tart (Ed.), Transpersonal Psychologies (pp. 329-351). New York: Harper and Row, Publishers. Myers, I., & Briggs, K. (1976). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Palmer, H. (1988). The enneagram: understanding yourself and others in your life. San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers.
Ranaghan, D. G. (1989). A closer look at the enneagram. South Bend, IN: Greenlawn Press.
Randall, S. (1979). The development of an inventory to assess enneagram personality type (Doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Asian Studies, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 4466B.
Riordan, K. R. (1975). Gurdjieff. In C. T. Tart (Ed.), Transpersonal Psychologies (pp. 281-328). New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Riso, D. R. (1987). Personality types. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Riso, D. R. (1990). Understanding the enneagram: a practical guide to personality types. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Rohr, R., & Ebert, A. (1990). Discovering the enneagram (P. Heinegg, Trans.). New York: Crossroad Publishing Co. (Original work published 1989)
Rounds, J. B. (1985). Review of the vocational preference inventory. In Mitchell, J. V. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1683-1684). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.
176
Shepard, J. w. (1989). Review of the vocational preference inventory. in Conoley, J. C , & Kramer, J. J. (Eds.), The tenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 882-883). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.
Speeth, K. R. (1989). The Gurdjieff Work. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.
Tinsley, H. E., & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34 (4), 414-424.
Wagner, J. P. (1981). A descriptive, reliability, and validity study of the enneagram personality typology. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 11-A, 4664. (University Microfilms No. 81-09,973).
Wagner, J. P., & Walker, R. E. (1983). Reliability and validity study of a sufi personality typology: the enneagram. Journal of Clinical Psychology, ^ ( 5 ) , 712-717.
Wakefield, J. A., & Doughtie, E. D. (1973). The geometric relationship between Holland's personality typology and the vocational preference inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2^(6), 513-518.
Ward, G. R., Cunningham, C. H., & Wakefield, J. A. Jr. (1976). Relationships between Holland's VPI and Cattell's 16PF. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 8, 307-312.
Webb, J. (1980). The harmonious circle. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.
Zinkle, T. E. (1974). A pilot study toward the validation of the sufi personality typology (Doctoral dissertation. United States International University, 1974/1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 2418B.
178
Table 13 Summary of Subject Data
Males Females White Black Other Unknown
129 206 267 29 6 33
EDUCATION
Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Student
184 35 19 14 7
College Graduate Unknown High School Elementary School
65 14 5 2
AGE
11-16 17-21 22-29 30-39 40-49 50-67 Unknown
3 216 27 42 19 6 22
N = 335
179
Table 13 Continued
DEGREES REPORTED
AA BA/BS MA/MS PhD/EdD
16 8
DEGREE MAJORS OCCUPATIONS
Agriculture Business Counseling 2 Criminal Justice Education 3 English Engineering Marine Technology Math Education Medical Technology Nursing Philosophy Political Science Psychology 5 Recreational Counseling Social Science Social Work Sociology Student Personnel 2 Special Education 2
Abstractor Attorney Bank Representative Counselor 5 Engineer Graduate Students: in Counseling 3 in Psychology Mediator Psychologist School Counselor Speech Therapist Teacher Therapist
181
The Cohen-Palmer Enneagram Inventory
SCALE: 0= NOT LIKE ME; 1= LIKE ME
0[] 1 (9
0[] 1 (8
0[] 1 (5
0[] 1 (4
0[] 1 (4
0[] 1 (7
0[] 1 (1
0[] 1 (2
0[] 1 (4
0[] 1 (4
0[] 1 (6
0[] 1 (2
0(] 1 (9
1 1 1
1 2
] 3
I may look and act busy, but inside I'm spaced out on details of the room, old memories, or unfinished business.
In a confrontation I want the other person to oppose me strongly.
I avoid putting time and money into extravagance. I prefer to reduce my needs to a few simple objects.
] 4. People have accused me of being overly dramatic, but they really don't understand my intensity.
] 5. I feel that sadness and pain are the wellspring from which come great art and love.
] 6. I have multiple projects and interests. I'm not after a big success. I don't want to miss out on an experience.
] 7. I procrastinate in decisions because I'm afraid of making mistakes.
] 8. I'm sensing other people's needs so that I can help them and get their affection.
] 9. I resonate with the "tragic clown" figure, smiling through the tragedy.
] 10. I have a special attraction to the mood of melancholy.
] 11. I have a longstanding fear of the dark. Unseen threats might harm me.
] 12. I get confused about how to act when friends from different parts of my life are together in the Scune room.
] 13. I appear to go along with what people want because it's so hard to say no. That doesn't mean that I necessarily agree.
182
0[1 1 (8
0[] 1 (3
0[1 1 (3
0[] 1 (5
0[1 1 (8
0[] 1 (5
0[] 1 (8
0[] 1 (2
0[] 1 (3
0[] 1 (4
0[] 1 (6
0[] 1
(1
0[] 1 (5
0[] 1
(1
0[] 1 (6
] 14. I'm an aggressive, self-assertive person; and I can handle anger directed at me. I'm not afraid to confront other people, and I've done it.
] 15. Hanging around with friends is a waste of my time.
] 16. Being able to organize, set priorities, and make deadlines comes naturally to me.
] 17. I conserve my time, money and self. I really hate it when I don't get my money's worth.
] 18. I fight with people to see their strengths; if they are strong, I can trust them.
] 19. I experience most people as intrusive; they do not respect my space.
] 20. I sense others' weak points quickly, and I will push them there if I am provoked.
] 21. I feel I deserve to be first in someone's life because of all the help I've given them.
] 22. I get so caught up with my worker role that I forget who I am. When I recall my past, I tend to remember what I did well and right.
] 23. I'm eaten by regret for past relationships that can never be regained.
] 24. I get frightened in successful situations (or when I am doing well); I doubt my successes.
] 25. My mind constantly judges how I stand in comparison to others.
] 26. I control myself and feel that expression of strong emotions is self-indulgent.
] 27. People give me feedback that I'm angry though I don't think I am.
] 28. When its time to follow through or take action on my good ideas, I doubt them.
183
0[1 1[1 29. I often criticize myself for not doing better. ^1) Critical voices chatter in my head.
0[1 1[] 30. The worst feeling I have is being criticized by (1) other people.
'm 0[1 ![] 31. Old memories keep surfacing not because I'l.. ( ) nostalgic but because I haven't finished with
them yet.
0[] 1[] 32. I get the feeling that others set me up to (8) fight their battles for them.
0[] 1[] 33. I get so overwhelmed with sidetracks that life (9) seems like a great effort to me.
0[] 1[] 34. I like to have several things to do in the same (7) time slot, so that I can go with the one that
draws me at the time.
0[] 1[] 35. I don't remember my successes. Each time that (6) I have to act, it's like I haven't done it
before.
0[] 1[] 36. I like the theater and dramatic people; I often (4) feel like I'm playing the part of an actor in
my own life.
0[] 1[] 37. When something painful comes up I can put it on (7) a mental "back burner" where it doesn't bother
me.
0[] 1[] 38. I can intuit and meet everybody's needs, but (2) very few people meet mine.
0[] 1[] 39. In working on a project or job I'm concerned (1) that every step of every procedure must be
correct. I can't work at a job that compromises my integrity.
0[] 1[] 40. I often space out or feel sleepy when I'm not (9) really tired.
0[] 1[] 41. My idea of leisure time is strategizing for the (3) next job to be done. I don't like to face a
Sunday with nothing to do but hang out.
0[] 1[] 42. I'm good at standing up and fighting for what I (8) want. I find it easy to express my
dissatisfaction with things.
184
0[] ![] 43. I experience intimacy and strong feelings for ^^) others most when I'm alone; when I'm with them
I seek intimacy but withdraw.
0[] 1[) 44. I can relate to everyone else's position, but (9) I'm unclear about my own.
0[] 1[] 45. I'm like a chameleon in my job; I can present (3) myself differently as the job requires to get
it done.
0[] 1[] 46. Privacy and time alone are essential to me. (5) When I am alone I often wish to share myself
with others.
0[] ![] 47. I'm fearful when I'm exposed as successful in (6) the eyes of others.
0[] 1[] 48. When I give to others I'm keeping score about (2) what I hope to get back.
0[] 1[] 49. There are many fascinating things to do. I (7) avoid getting dragged down by life.
0[11[]50. Icun proud to be recognized as a giver; the (2) recognition is essential to me.
0[] 1[] 51. I'm aware of how I come across to people and (3) will change my presentation to do a more
effective job.
0[] 1[] 52. I want my activities to make life an adventure; (7) if they don't I adapt to backup possibilities.
0[] 1[] 53. I tend to move from one interest to another (7) rather than go into depth in anything.
0[] 1[] 54. I instinctively look for what is threatening in (6) any situation.
0[] 1[] 55. Once I get used to something I don't want to (9) "rock the boat" by changing it.
0[] 1[] 56. Most people don't know it, but they create (8) their own problems.
0[] 1[1 57. I like to place myself on the outskirts of the (5) crowd and watch other people interact.
185
0[] 1[] 58. The arts and artistic expression are very ^^) important for me as a means of channeling my
emotions.
0[] 1[] 59. When I'm in misery and pain I don't want people ( ) to "fix it" and make me happy. There's a
special richness in the quality of sadness.
0[] 1[] 60. It's important to experience a lot of things a (7) little bit, so you really have a taste of
everything in life.
0[] 1[] 61. I find my mind flooded with critical judging (1) thoughts.
0[] 1[] 62. I often feel that my friends don't know the (2) real me. Really, I've fooled them, because
I've shown them only the aspects of myself that they like.
0[] 1[] 63. I use antiquity, elegance and unique (4) surrounding to raise my sense of myself.
0[] 1[] 64. I'm attracted to what is authentic in other (4) people because it makes me feel real myself.
0[1 1[) 65. Even when I know a project will work my mind (6) says "I can't" and "it won't work."
0[] 1[] 66. I feel inspired when merging with powerful, (2) important people.
0[1 1[] 67. I find myself merging into all sides of a (9) conversation. I think that my opinion is all
of the conversation.
0[] 1[] 68. I enjoy the exercise of power. My worst fear (8) is to be controlled by incompetents.
0[] 1[] 69. I identify myself by the job that I do. I (3) compete well and especially enjoy winning.
0[] 1[] 70. I like high-energy, high-status positions. I (3) keep emotions from getting in the way.
0[] 1[] 71. When people want things from me I often wish to (5) withdraw from them.
0[] 1[] 72. I think that most therapy and tests like this (8) are for weak people who can't get it together.
186
0[] 1[] 73. Self-controlled people can shut down their (5) feelings.
0[1 1[] 74. If I get a little of something I want, I won't (8) stop until I'm over-satisfied.
0[] 1[1 75. When I sense someone withdrawing from me I (2) alter myself to become more desirable to them.
0[] ![] 76. I tend to be an assertive, go-getter kind of (3) person. I would do very well in the
promotional aspect of a project.
0[1 1[] 77. I have intense mood swings, I live higher and (4) lower than other people.
0[] 1[] 78. I present myself badly to test out which people (6) will like me and which people won't accept me.
0[] 1[] 79. I am preoccupied with other people's character (1) and the moral systems they live by. I feel
compelled to keep trying to better myself and other people.
0[] 1[] 80. People who show their anger appear out of (5) control to me.
0[] 1[] 81. I am annoyed by the awareness of how perfect (1) any situation could be at the Scurie time I
notice what's wrong with it.
0[] 1[] 82. If someone doesn't like me I'm afraid of them. (6)
0[] 1[] 83. I feel almost compelled to be honest. I (1) sometimes sense a Puritanical streak in
myself.
0[] 1[] 84. I'm often irritated because things aren't the (1) way they should be.
0[] 1[] 85. I have to motivate myself to keep going, (9) because if I come to a halt, I know that I
can't start up again.
0[] 1[] 86. It makes me angry when people that I think are (8) strong fall apart emotionally.
187
0[] 1[] 87. I lose track of the priorities in my life by <^) getting lost in details and irrelevancies. I
space out on activities like inessential projects, shopping, T.V., and collecting things that interest me.
0[] 1[] 88. Making a commitment to a single course is hard (7) for me. It limits other pKDssibilities. I
like to keep my options open.
0[]1[]89. I'm so busy scanning faces for hidden meanings (6) that I often forget people's names.
0[] 1[] 90. I have a sense of longing for what is missing (4) in my life. The present holds the hope that
the future will bring me love.
0[] 1[] 91. I have many interests. I can pursue my (7) interests endlessly. If someone wants to join
me that's fine, but I won't change my interests for them.
0[] 1[] 92. I often feel unappreciated for what I've done (2) for others.
0[] 1[] 93. I have a sharp eye for details that are out of (1) order. Often the least flaw can ruin the
whole thing for me.
0[] ![] 94. If someone makes me do something, I get (9) stubborn inside. I will agree. I think about
it over and over again. I intend to do it, but it doesn't get done.
0[) 1[1 95. I drive myself in order to win. People who (3) don't push themselves are ineffective.
0[] 1[] 96. If someone is holding out I'll push them so we (8) get to the truth of the matter.
0[] 1[] 97. I can withdraw my presence so that I feel that (5) I'm not seen by others.
0[] 1[] 98. My attention gets diverted in conversations. I (9) wake up in the middle and realize that I'm
thinking about details in the environment, old memories, or unfinished projects.
188
0[] 1[] 99. I lead because it's so important to me to get (3) the job done efficiently.
0[1 1[] 100. Detachment feels natural to me, and I prefer it (5) to heavy involvement in relationships.
0[] 1[] 101. When I want something, I'm afraid that someone (6) stronger than me will prevent me from getting
it. So I don't act.
0[) 1[1 102. Many different people think I'm their best (2) friend, but they are not mine.
0[1 ![] 103. I avoid getting into heavy issues. (7)
0[] 1[] 104. Each of my close friends causes me to alter so (2) as to make them feel comfortable.
0[1 11] 105. I like relationships based on activity; I get (3) uncomfortable when relationships get to
emotional.
0[] 1[] 106. I make plans about how much better my present (7) activities will be in the future.
0[] 1[] 107. I really don't like to work unless it feels (7) like an adventure.
0[] 1[) 108. I'm afraid of people when I have more than they (6) do.
189
Wagner Enneagram Inventory
Some of these characteristics and attitudes may not be as true of you now as they were at an earlier time in your life. So, consider these statements in the context of your whole life. Are these statements true of you now OR was there a time in your life when they fit you pretty well.
There are no right or wrong answers to this inventory. So, simply circle each answer how you are or how you have been rather than how you think you should be or how you would like to be.
1.(2) I usually think of myself last.
2.(5) I often feel outside of what's going on, and I don't know how to get in the game, even though I'd like to.
3.(8) I have a sense of immediacy and urgency. It's got to be now. I like to intensify the now.
4.(3) I identify with professionalism.
5.(1) I feel a need to be accountable for most of my time.
6.(6) I seem to sense danger and threat more than others do.
7.(4) My environmental surroundings are very important for me.
8.(7) I'm better at planning things than really doing them.
9.(9) My instinct is not to trust or like conflict.
10.(1) Often the least flaw can ruin the whole thing for me.
11.(3) Being able to get things organized and accomplished just seems to come naturally to me.
12.(9) I can be a dispassionate arbiter because there are good values on both sides.
13.(6) I think of myself as a "God-fearing" person.
14.(2) I frequently feel drawn toward surrendering myself or toward giving myself for others.
15.(8) Justice and injustice are key issues for me.
190
16.(7) I often opt for quantity over quality. For example, I'll read ten books rather than digest one thoroughly.
17.(4) I think of my past with nostalgia and a sense of loss.
18.(5) I have trouble reaching out or asking for what I want.
19.(9) I take pride in being a stable person.
20.(4) I find myself swinging back and forth between highs and lows. Either I'm very up or very down. I don't feel very alive when I'm in the middle.
21.(2) A lot of people feel close to me.
22.(1) If something isn't fair, it really bothers me.
23.(3) I can get so identified with my work or role that I forget who I am.
24.(6; 'Caution" is a very important virtue for me.
25.(8) I have trouble accepting and expressing my tender, gentle, softer, "feminine" side.
26.(5) I often quietly enter or leave a room so others won't notice me.
27.(7) I like to consider the cosmic ramifications of events, the universal importance of everything that happens.
28.(3) People say I'd make a good salesperson.
29.(8) I am a self-assertive person.
30.(2) I like to be asked to do things so I can feel
important and get attention for the warmth and love I give.
31.(1) I resent sometimes that I didn't get the breaks some others did.
32.(6) I tend to take sides and be concerned about whose side people are on.
191
33.(5) I often feel helpless and ineffectual in situations and end up doing nothing.
34.(9) Generally, I don't let myself get too enthusiastic about things.
35.(4) I like to do things properly, with class and good taste.
36.(7) I like to rank people into hierarchies: e.g., who is more enlightened, less enlightened, etc.
37.(9) It's important for me to feel relaxed.
38.(2) I take more pride in my service of others than in anything else.
39.(5) When I feel out of a group or discussion, I sometimes feel contemptuous of their small talk or superficial conversation.
40.(3) I like to have clear goals set and to know where I stand on the way toward those goals.
41.(1) Honesty is very important to me.
42.(8) I find it easy to express my dissatisfaction with things.
43.(4) I sometimes pick up the feelings of another person or of a group to such a depth that it is overwhelming.
44.(7) I like to think of myself as a childlike, playful person.
45.(6) Whether people are for or against my principles is an important issue for me.
46.(1) I put a lot of effort into correcting my faults.
47.(5) I hate to look foolish or to be taken in.
48.(4) I like to think of myself as special.
49.(9) I'm an extremely easy-going person.
50.(8) I like to think of myself as a non-conformist or as a counter-culturalist.
51.(3) I like to keep myself on the go.
192
52.(2) I'm almost compelled to help other people, whether I feel like it or not.
53.(6) I have many fears.
54.(7) Dreams, visions, prophets, mystics appeal to me.
55.(3) I believe that appearances are important.
56.(5) I seem to be more silent than most others. People often have to ask me what I'm thinking.
57.(1) I feel almost compulsively guilty much of the time.
58.(7) I like to tell stories very much.
59.(6) I often end up defending the traditional position.
60.(9) I have an inner sense when things jell and are harmonious.
61.(8) I have a sense for where the power resides in a group.
62.(4) I can dwell on the tragedies of life — suffering, loss, and death — for long periods of time.
63.(2) I feel I deserve to be first in someone's life because of all the care I've shown them.
64.(3) I think of myself as a very competent person.
65.(7) I like to cheer people up and take them away from their suffering.
66.(4) I would like to do something "original" during my lifetime.
67.(9) I generally have little trouble sleeping.
68.(5) When I don't feel a part of what's happening, I withdraw rather quickly.
69.(6) "Doing what my father wants" is important for me.
70.(8) I sense others' weak points quickly.
71.(2) I like to rescue people when I see they're in trouble or are in an embarrassing situation.
193
7 2 .
7 3 .
7 4 .
7 5 .
7 6 .
7 7 .
7 8 .
7 9 .
8 0 .
8 1 .
8 2 .
8 3 . {
8 4 . 1
8 5 . 1
8 6 . (
8 7 . (
8 8 . (
8 9 . (
9 0 . (
( 1 )
( 7 )
( 1 )
( 6 )
( 9 )
( 2 )
( 3 )
( 5 )
( 4 )
( 8 )
(6 )
[7)
[1)
8 )
4 )
9 )
3 )
5 )
2 )
I have trouble relaxing and being playful.
I tend to spiritualize, intellectualize, generalize my experience.
I find myself being impatient much of the time.
People are always getting away with things and that bothers me.
I'm almost always peaceful and calm.
Many times I feel overburdened by others' dependence on me.
When I recall my past, I tend to remember what I did well and right rather than what I did poorly or wrong.
I need a lot of private space.
When I feel lonely, I often feel abandoned by others.
I feel compelled to stand up for my rights and others' rights.
My own fears are my greatest enemy.
I often don't carry out plans because I'm too busy making new ones.
I hate to waste time.
I am not afraid to confront other people and I do confront them.
The arts and artistic expression are very important for me as a means of channeling my emotions.
I generally feel one with other people.
I'm envied a lot by other people for how much I get done.
I frequently feel underhanded in the way I get what I want. I'm something of a sneak.
People often come to me for comfort and advice.
194
91.(4) Patterns or rituals help me to do what I really want to do in my life.
92.(2) I naturally compliment other people. I often compliment others before I'm even aware I'm doing it.
93.(8) I am very much opposed to having others lay their trip on me.
94.(9) I hate to waste my energy on anything. I look for energy-saving approaches to things.
95.(7) It usually takes me time to warm up to strangers.
96.(6) I don't like to speak on my own authority.
97.(3) Accommodation, compromise, taking calculated risks are my approaches to things.
98.(5) I don't know how to engage in small talk very well.
99.(1) As long as I try hard, people can't criticize me.
100.(7) I get into head trips a lot without really carrying out my fantasies and plans.
101.(3) Making decisions is usually not a problem for me.
102.(6) I wonder if I'm brave enough to do what must be done.
103.(1) I often blame myself for not doing better.
104.(5) I go blank when I'm embarrassed or when someone asks how I feel right now.
105.(4) Others often can't understand how deeply I feel about something.
106.(8) I get very irritated when I know I'm being lied to. I can sense deceit and shcun very readily.
107.(2) I sometimes feel that others really don't appreciate me for what I've done for them.
108.(9) I tend to play things down to help other people get settled down.
109.(5) I often sit back and observe other people rather than get involved.
195
110.(2) Most people don't listen to others as well as I do.
111.(1) Being right is important for me.
112.(8) For my taste, there is too much bullshit in this world.
113.(9) Most things are no big deal, so why get excited and carried away? "Much ado about nothing" says it well.
114.(3) I'm a very efficient person.
115.(4) I make an effort to look casual and natural.
116.(6) I tend to be aware of and sensitive to contradictions a lot.
117.(7) I'm a happy, fun-loving person.
118.(7) I tend to throw myself into things enthusiastically and then throw myself into something else enthusiastically. I like to really immerse myself in whatever I'm interested in.
119.(8) I would rather give orders than take orders.
120.(9) I like to put things on "automatic pilot" so I no longer have to worry about them.
121.(4) I often long to have something I don't or to be someone that I'm not.
122.(3) I like to project a youthful, enthusiastic, vigorous, energetic image.
123.(1) Somehow I'm never satisfied; I can never get things good enough.
124.(2) I like to feel close to people.
125.(6) I have trouble with decisions and so am always seeking affirmations and cun constantly getting prepared.
126.(5) I'm very sensitive to any kind of invasion by others, any uninvited intrusions, or any sense of being pushed.
127. (7 I need to get in touch with sobriety and moderation.
196
128.(6) Loyalty is very important for me.
129.(4) People often don't see how sad and weary I cun.
130.(1) I feel almost compelled to keep trying to make myself and what I aun doing better.
131.(3) It's important for me to get things done, to feel I've accomplished something — even though it may be minor.
132.(8) I don't like to leave things, feelings, etc. hanging. I need to have it out.
133.(5) I don't pay that much attention to my feelings. When people ask me how I feel, I frecjuently don't know.
134.(2) I feel at my best when I'm helping someone.
135.(9) I really hate to be unsettled.
197
ZINKLE ENNEAGRAM INVENTORY
PLEASE MAKE A CLEAR MARK BY EACH STATEMENT THAT YOU IDENTIFY AS BEING LIKE YOU OR SOMETHING LIKE YOU
(Two)2
My goal in life is to help others. A lot of people depend on my help and generosity. I take more pride in my service of others than in anything else. Other people don't seem to think of giving, sharing, or helping as much as I do. Most people in life are far to selfish. I sometimes wear myself out helping others. Other people often take advantage of my generosity. My whole life is oriented toward others. My greatest satisfaction comes from making others feel good. A lot of people aren't as grateful as they should be when you help them. I like taking care of others. A lot of people feel close to me. I spend quite a bit of energy trying to satisfy my own needs. I usually think of myself before I think of other people. I regularly go out of my way to compliment other people. I usually get close to teachers, leaders, and such people. Human suffering bothers me more than it bothers most people. I'm very important in the lives of a lot of other people. I usually think of myself last. I'm an exceptionally warm, loving person. I feel good each day if I can help just one person. I am totally generous. I'm almost compelled to help other people. Everything would be okay in this world if there were just more love and kindness. It is my goal in life to offer advice and comfort to those in need.
198
(Three) I am a very goal oriented person. I'm constantly on the go. I'm often puzzled by the inability of others to get things done.
I enjoy working with people who are hard driving. I identify with precision and professionalism. By presenting things just the right way, I often convince others by a good sales pitch. I'm a very forceful, outgoing person. Being able to accomplish, just seems to come natural to me. I'm an excellent, hard driving competitor. I'm better at getting things done than most people. I probably could have made a good salesman. I'm an extremely competent person. Success is more important to me than it seems to be to most people. I'm a very orderly, systematic person. I get more done than the average person. My main sense of identity comes from what I get done. I like constantly having some specific, well-defined goal or standard to work toward. You only get ahead with consistent hard work. I like progress charts, grades, and other indications of how I am doing. I often lose interest in things before they are finished. Getting ahead is extremely important to me. I'm envied a lot by other people for how much I get done. I'm an extremely efficient person. I seem to have more energy than most people. I sometimes have a hard time getting myself up for things psychologically.
(Four) Most people don't appreciate the real beauty of life. My past is very special to me. I have a real sensitivity for art, music and poetry. I sometimes fear that, despite all my efforts, others are somehow more natural than myself. I long to break free to simple spontaneity. I sometimes have prolonged periods of sadness and mourning. I can identify with Thoreau living by himself in the woods.
199
I often imagine and rehearse scenes in my own mind. Other people often lack the capacity to understand how I feel. I like ritual and ceremony. Most people don't appreciate the drama of life like I do. Sometimes I feel isolated in my suffering. I fit in well with almost everyone I meet. I very much like the theater, and fantasize myself being on stage. I like doing things with class and flair. Manners, good taste, and high style are important to me. I strongly dislike thinking of myself as ordinary. I sometimes get caught up in my self-pity and depression. I have an elaborate fantasy life. I sometimes get preoccupied with suffering and loss. Sometimes art seems almost as real as actual life. I long for the natural and spontaneous but never seem to attain it. I am a very happy person. People often don't see how sad and weary I really am. I sometimes feel deprived and left out. (End of Page)^
(Five) I cherish my privacy very much and need a great deal of it. I only talk when I am sure I have something to say. I sometimes feel contempt for the shallowness of others. I am keenly observant. I am more interested in knowledge for its own sake than in how it can be used. In some ways, I live more in thought than in the real world. I often avoid other people. I enjoy using my intellect to organize things into categories. I am a very sensuous person. I need a good deal of time for myself. I am an unusually perceptive person. I take more pride in what I know than anything else. I would like to get more involved with others, but for some reason I can't break out. I'm a rather withdrawing person. I strongly like intellectual systems.
200
I rarely identify with or feel a part of a group effort. Others consider me quiet, cool and aloof. Almost any intellectual topic fascinates me. Most people lack depth. I have an insatiable quest for knowledge. I often sit back and observe other people rather than get involved. Deep, deep down sometimes I feel very empty. I am a very philosophical person. I sometimes bother people because I don't say much. At parties I often end up discussing intellectual things.
(Six) I'm basically a conservative person. Loyalty to some group is very important. I like to proceed slowly, to be careful. I sometimes enjoy going against authority. I almost always do what I am told. I'm usually prepared for all possibilities. It generally takes me a long time to make up my mind. I'm a hesitant, cautious person. I often wonder if I am brave enough to do what must be done. I'm plagued a lot by doubt. I like to be very sure before acting. I often end up defending the traditional position. Everyone needs to look to authority figures for guidance. Without strict laws, it's hard to tell what people might do. Fear and doubt often interfere with my doing. Prudence is more important than enthusiasm. I'm a very dutiful and obedient person. It's important to have a very definite, well-defined code to live by. I sometimes go against recognized authority. It's very important to me to be approved of by authority. I always like to know who my enemies are. Other people admire me for all that I get done. I like to foresee all outcomes before acting. I dislike having limits in which I have to work. It's very important to have some heroes to look up to.
201
(Seven) I like to keep things light and humorous. I enjoy entertainment, stories, and humor more than most people seem to. I'm better at planning things than really doing them. I'm almost totally without suspicion of people and their motives. I seem to enjoy life more than most people do. There are very few things in life which I don't enjoy. I have had very little pain or unhappiness in my life. Other people consider me an unusually friendly person to be around. I had a very enjoyable, happy childhood. Most of my life has been made up of neat, fun, happy times. Things always work out for the best. I enjoy making elaborate plans for the future. I can foresee some hard times ahead. I often don't carry out plans because I'm to busy making new ones. It usually takes me time to warm up to strangers. I'm an unusually optimistic person. I wish other people were more light-hearted about things. Everything in life can be fun. I like other people to see me as an extremely happy person. There is very little reason in life for people to be unhappy. I have very little tolerance for pain and suffering. I have a lot of warm, close friendships. I usually don't see the negative side of life. I converse more easily than the average person. I like almost everyone I meet. (End of Page)
(Eight) Manners and etiquette are important to me. I would rather get my way and be disliked than be liked but not get my way. I enjoy positions of authority. I see others' weak points quickly. I like being in a position of leading others. I'm very good at standing up and fighting for what I want. I find it easy to express my dissatisfaction with things.
202
I often don't go along with what those in positions of authority recommend. I'm not afraid to confront other people. I tend, at least initially, to oppose and reject things. I am pretty readily taken in by "sob stories." I enjoy power. I have very little tolerance for other people telling me what to do. I usually gravitate to where the power is. Most people let themselves get pushed around to much. Many people are too weak, gullible, and wishy washy. Having power is very important to me. I would rather give orders than take orders. In some ways, I'm a fairly weak person. I often use vulgarity. I am very good at most everything I do. I'm almost never embarrassed or put down. I'm not a very bold, daring person. I take pride in being powerful. I'm an aggressive, self-assertive person.
(Nine) I sometimes need outside sources of excitement to get going. I use very few gestures when I talk. I very seldom get anxious. I like getting in a routine. I often play down the importance of things with humor. Most people get too worked up over things. I take pride in being calm and settled. I almost never lose my temper. Most things in life aren't that important. I am almost never upset by inner turmoil. I put a lot of forethought and energy into almost everything I do. Nothing is so sacred that it can't be joked about. I am a very complacent person. I am almost always very peaceful and calm. I like a lot of time to just do nothing. I'm an extremely easy going person. I sometimes offend people by being too pushy.
203
Very few conflicts are so big that they won't go away themselves. Almost nothing in life is that urgent. I see myself, as a very casual, carefree person. I am extremely stable and settled. I can't remember the last time I had trouble sleeping. Comfort and ease are important goals for me. There has been relatively little conflict and turmoil in my life. While there are some differences, most people are pretty much the same.
(One) I keep things neat and in their place. I spend considerable time in the way I groom and dress. I put a lot of effort into correcting my faults. I'm often bothered because things just aren't the way they should be. I am slow but methodical. I often worry about how I am doing. I seem almost compelled to set things right. I am often on edge. I often get impatient with myself. I find myself never satisfied with the way things are. I often resent people making demands on my time. I'm very particular. I am often restless and fidgety. I very much dislike being hurried. I often blame myself for not doing better. I worry about things a great deal. I'm very hard to please. I especially hate to waste time. I often get quite upset with the way other people do things. I am often late. I take more pride in doing something right than most people seem to. I often wonder if the way I'm doing something is really the best way. I feel compelled to fight sloppiness, to clean things up, to impose order. I'm a perfectionist.
205
Notes
^The number in parentheses indicates the type scale that this item represents. These numbers did not appear on the test inventories administered to the subjects.
^The scales were not identified on the test inventories given to the subjects.
3Items were grouped by type and three types were included per page.
207
Table 14 Order of Test Administration for Workshops
Workshop 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Order^ PVWZ
PVWZ
PVWZ
PZVW
PZVW
PVWZ
PVWZ
VZPW
PVWZ
WVPZ
PZVW
PVWZ
PVWZ
Nb
16
13
21
22
24
21
17
18
15
10
14
24
50
Males 9
3
8
8
9
16
6
13
6
4
6
6
12
Females 7
10
13
14
15
5
11
5
9
6
8
18
38
White 14
13
20
20
23
18
12
17
12
7
13
14
48
Black 2
0
1
2
0
2
5
1
3
3
1
7
2
Other 0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
14 VPZW 28 10 18 17
15 PVWZ
16 PVWZ 50 18 32 40 10
^rder in which the inventories were administered. Cohen-Palmer Inventory (P), Vocational Preference Inventory (V), Wagner Inventory (W), and Zinkle Inventory (Z).
"Total Number of Participants