the change of personal constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of construct implications
TRANSCRIPT
This dissertation has been microiiimed exactly as received 66-1790
HINKLE, Dennis Neil, 1935- THE CHANGE OF PERSONAL CONSTRUCTS FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF A THEORY OF CONSTRUCT IMPLICATIONS.
The Ohio State University, Ph,D., 1965 Psychology, general
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
THE CHANGE OF PERSONAL CONSTRUCTS FROM THE
VIEWPOINT Or A THEORY OF N
CONSTRUCT IMPLICATIONS
Dissertation
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of
The Ohio State University
by
Dennis Neil Hinkle, B.A., M«A,
The Ohio State University
1965
Approved by
Adviser Department of Psychology
Acknowîedgmshtâ
The author would like to acknowledge a profound sense of gratitude
for the inspiration provided by his adviser, Dr. George A, Kelly. By so
doing, the author Joins those legions which for decades will acknowledge
the ir indebtedness to th is patient prophet.
The many fine hours of conversation with Dr. Don Bannister and
Mr. Ralph Cebulla and the in te res t of Ed Moore and Jack Adams-Webber
were much appreciated.
Finally , i t was my wife, Joyce, who made th is experience possible.
i i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION'. T ......................... ...................................... 1
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................ 5
I I I . A FORMAL THEORY OF CONSTRUCT IMPLICATIONAND CHANGE........................... ........................................... 15
Background and in i t ia l formulation . . . . . . 15
C o ro l la r ie s ........................... 19
Terms .......................................................................... 22
The In i t ia l formulation of a theory ofconstruct change ....................................................... 25
IV. PROCEDURE, INSTRUMENTS, SCORING, ANDSPECIFIC EXPERIMENTAL PREDICTIONS ........................... 28
Introduction and general hypotheses ................ 28
S u b j e c t s ............................................................... 29
Procedure .............................................................. 30
Scoring .............................................................. 40
The hypotheses stated operationally...................... 44
V. RESULTS........................................................................ 46
VI. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . 54
VII. A BRIEF AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH . . 67
VIII. SUMMARY............................................................................ . 74
APPENDIX ............................................................................................... 75
Instructions ........................................................... 76Data ........................................................... 79
BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................... 107
A utobiography ............................................................................. . 113
i i i
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Ockham's razor Is a sharp and bloody Instrument, In the surgical
excision of complexity, the u se r 's unsteady hand a l l too often leaves
the t issue of oversimplification as well as that of simplicity. In the
meantime, human lives hang in the balance while "heaters” debate the
merits of the ir respective«and respectable-microscopic perspectives.
Dr. Don Bannister (Visiting Professor, The Ohio State University, Spring,
1965; personal communication) recently made the observation that in a l l
other sciences except psychology, a s c ie n t i s t 's explanation for a given
phenomenon Is considerably more complex than the layman's explanation
for the same phenomenon. The continuation of a rapacious reductlonlsm
in psychological theorizing with Its resulting psychology of minimal
men w il l , however, be rejected as being an Inferior explanation by lay
men, who assuredly have the good sense and wisdom to do so. Professor
George A, Kelly's Psychology of Personal Constructs, however, has as
i t s s ta r ting point the complex personal constructions of a man's out
look on the vjorld. I t a lso has the audacity of being se lf-re flex ive;
that Is , I t applies to psychologists and th e ir psychologizing as well
as to those who are psychologized, i t s focus of convenience concerns a
human being's anticipations of the a lterna tive constructions of his l i f e ,
i t has as i t s psychotherapeutic goal constructive psychological movement.
1
It assumes that a man is not condemned by his past history. As such, i t
aspires to be "a psychology of the optimal man"—not the minimal man,
but the optimal man.—man in the process of being human (37)«
The ex p lic i t ly stated model of Man from the viewpoint of personal
construct theory Is Man, the s c ie n t is t . —one who predicts, wagers, an tic-
:ipates, expects, and implies, for the purpose of further predicting,
wagering, an tic ipa ting , expecting, and-ImH^Ing, The philosophy of
constructive a lternativism , upon which personal construct theory is
based, says that the model of Man as a sc ien t is t is but one of the pos
sib le a lterna tive constructions of Han. Personal construct theory,
therefore, does not limit i t s e l f to the passing of judgments about what
a man is , but rather i t focuses on what a man is trying to be and the
process of his becoming, that is , the process of constructive psycholog
ical movement.
It is the process of the changing of personal constructs—recon
struction and psychological movement—that is the primary concern of
th is d isse rta tion . The main question asked is "What determines the
re la tive resistance to change of personal constructs?" In addition to
some relevant empirical findings with respect to th is question, the
following contributions are also offered:
1. An in i t ia l formulation of a theory of construct implication.
Briefly , th is theory develops the idea that construct d e fin i
tion must involve a statement of the location of a construct
dimension in the context of a hierarchic#! n e t w o r k construct
Implications, Here, "implication," "prediction," "an tic ipa tion ,"
and "expectation" are regarded as being synonymous terms. The
3
theory wîll o ffer some ten tative defin itions of personal
construct theory terms from the viewpoint of an implicative
network of construct relations» From th is viewpoint, con
s truc ts will be regarded as having only one charac te ris tic ,
qua lity , or property; namely, a construct has d iffe ren tia l
implIcat ions in a given hierarchical context»
2, Construct implication methodology. This research concerns
i t s e l f with the re la tive resistance to change of personal
constructs in a hierarchical context from the viewpoint of
a theory of construct implications. The following three
methodologies will be presented;
a« The hierarchical method for the e l ic i ta t io n of superor
dinate constructs. This was developed to te s t several
hypotheses about the hierarchical level of superordina
tion of constructs.
b. The re la tive resistance to slo t change grid. Since the
resistance to change of personal constructs is to be
the major dependent variable of the study, th is tech
nique represents the procedure that operationally defines
th is variable,
c . The implication grid . This procedure presents, in sys
tematic form, the network of inpllcations that re la te a
set of constructs in a given hierarchical context.
Much will be said of I t la te r .
3. Questions and suggestions for further research. The general
approach of th is Investigation has raised a host of theoretical,
4
methodological, and empirical questions» Hopefully, the
reader will find these to be the most significant "resu lts"
of th is d issertation .
CHAPTER il
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In view of the intentions of th is research as se t forth in the
f i r s t chapter, th is review will be limited to those studies conducted
within the context of personal construct theory which re la te to the
general area of construct change. The d isserta tions of Landfield (40)
and Levy (46) provide relevant reviews fran other orientations. Levy,
for example, includes research from information tteory , experimental
extinction, discrimination learning, intolerance of ambiguity, and
rig id ity . The body of personal construct theory research was reviewed
and relevant studies were selected with the following two c r i te r ia in
mind: (1) The constructs investigated or u t il ized in the research
should be theore tically related to construct change. (2) The research
should be capable of being interpreted in the light of a theory of the
network of construct implications and should be suggestive of further
research along these lines.
Several of the various measures derived from the grid form of
the Rep Test which re la te to reconstruction are measures of constel-
la to riness , permeability, and propositionality , Bennion (2) and
Levy (46) were concerned with the e ffec ts of invalidation on prepo
sitional and consteilatory constructs. They operationally defined
constellatory constructs as those which were s ignificantly loaded on
5
6
the general factor of a conventional analysis of the Repgrid. Flynn
(7) Investigated construct constellatoriness and cognitive complexity
as related to role v a riab il i ty . He used the explanatory power of the
f i r s t construct fac tor as a measure of cognitive complexity and defined
the degree of constellatory structure as the explanatory power of the
f i r s t figure factor on a Repgrid modification* He found that role
v a r ia b il i ty vBs s ign ifican tly related to construct conste lla toriness ,
but not to cognitive complexity*
In terms of a theory of construct implication, constellatoriness
refers to the re la tion between a given construct and others such that
a polar position on the given construct Implies polar positions on the
other constructs# Pre-emptiveness, from th is frame of refernece, means
tha t a position on the given construct implies those poles of the other
constructs upon which an element is not to be located, e ither because
the element is outside the range of convenience of the other construct,
or because the element is to be located on the opposite pole of the
other construct, i . e . , a prior constellatory relationship , e .g . ,
"Psychologists are useful, not hyperbolic, and not i l l e r a t e ." What
we mean by the degree of constellatoriness or pre-emptiveness presents
an Interesting question. The contrast of constellatoriness and pre
emptiveness would seem to be propositionality; however, these terms
can perhaps more usefully be seen as the extremes of a continuum which
delineates the degree of certa in ty—expressed as a probability function-
as to the u t i l i t y of Implying, or pre-emtively not Implying, certain
construct relationships in terms of the principle of maximizing the
to ta l number of construct Implications within the personal construct
system. Propositions! thinking thus implies a suspension of judgment
( l , e , , a superordinate construction) as to the implicative gain of
each of the a lte rna tive patterns of construction under consideration,
Constellatoriness and pre-emptiveness indicate an expectation of high
probability that certa in patterns of construction will increase the
to ta l implicativeness of the system more than others. Proposition
a l i t y , conste lla toriness , and pre-emptiveness are thus not seen as
a quality of a single construct, but rather, as the probabilistic
superordinate an ticipation of the to ta l implicative gain that would
resu lt i f tv» or more construct dimensions were placed in an implica
tive relationship to one another. It is a superordinate statement
about the probable u t i l i t y of a given implicative network. When
—defined in th is manner, a construct network may be e ith e r preposi
tional or constella tory . The Repgrid defin itions of constella toriness
used by Bennion, Levy and Flynn are based on the principle of frequency
of conjunction; thus, i f a wide variety of objects were to be entered
on the Repgrid as figures, and constructs of color, shape, height,
weight, and hardness were e l ic i te d , and if most of the objects were
construed as heavy, hard, short, chartreuse, parallelepipedons, then,
fay the principle of frequent conjunction, these constructs v»uld be
said to be constella tory , in th is example constella toriness is
c learly a function of the population sample. To say, therefore,
that these particu lar constructs imply one another Is a most tenuous
assumption—although not an altogether unreasonable one. In view
of th is , the Implication grid technique developed In th is d isse r ta
tion provides a promising means of exploring the general problem of
constella toriness and propositionality of personal constructs.
8
The constructs of permeability and range of convenience are
theore tically related to construct change, Binner (4) and Gettesman
(8) allov^d people to mark a zero on the Repgrid if neither construct
nor contrast could be applied on a figure, and used th is as a measure
of permeability—impermeability. Hess (10) used the same operation
as a measure of the range of convenience of the constructs. This
suggests tha t perhaps I t would be more useful to define a permeable
construct as one whose range of convenience is re la tive ly unexplored.
Once i t s range of convenience has been fu lly elaborated and c la r if ied ,
i t becomes impermeable. According to the theory of the present
research, the convenience—or inconvenience—of rela ting constructs
Is a function of the effects such a relation would have on the
respective Implicative networks of each of the constructs. For
example, if I combine a geometrical and a zoological construct and
come up with a parabolic toad—the offspring of an exponential
mother and a hyperbolic father—then my problem in assessing the
implicative u t i l i t y of such a union consists of finding points of
compatible implications. What does the meaning of toads say about
the meaning of parabolas, and vice versa? By contrast, where are
the points of compatible sim ilarity between the implications of the
constructs of roundness and b i l l ia rd balls? Or cubical b i l l ia rd
balls? Or compassionate psychological research?
The meaning of th is toad fe t ish for the present investigation
is somewhat obscure, so le t us return to the c it ing of scripture.
The studies of Isaacson (13) and Cromell and Caldwell (6) reported
that ratings on personal constructs were significantly more extreme
than on provided constructs. These resu lts could be predicted from a
theory of construct implications i f the d ifferen tia l implications of
personal constructs is shown to be significantly greater than the
implications of provided constructs. That is to say, i t would be
more important to resolve constructions! ambivalence on constructs
of high Implicative significance»-due to the greater threat potential
of misconstruction—than on constructs of low significance.
Resnlck and Landfield (54) in th e ir investigation of the
Dichotomy Corollary distinguished between logical dichotomous con
struc ts (e .g . , mature— immature) and peculiar dichotomous constructs
(e .g . , in te l l ig en t—bad). This suggests that peculiar dichotomous
constructs represent a highly constellatory relationship between two
constructs (e .g . , in te l l ig en t—stupid and good—bad), A way of testing
to see whether peculiar constructs represent a relationship of two
construct dimensions would be to ask the subject whether a l l events
which are described by the negation of one pole of the construct must
necessarily be described by the opposite pole of that construct.
Validation, invalidation, range of convenience, type and length
of social in teraction , focus of a tten tion of the construer, perceived
self-movement, constella toriness , propositionality , and h o s t i l i ty are
dimensions which have been u til ized in the various investigations of
the Experience Corollary, This corollary stated that a person's
construction system varies as he successively construes the replica
tions of events. These investigations are , therefore, relevant to
the general problems of construct change.
ÎO
Bîerî (3) and Lundy (48) assessed the effects of social In ter
action on construction, in a la te r study Lundy (49) specified other
dimensions determining the d irection of change in interpersonal per
ception, He demonstrated a relationship between incorporation and
d iffe ren tia t ion (focus of a tten tion upon one se lf or upon another
person) and the notions of assim ilatlve pro lection end differentia!
accuracy. It may be tha t these studies were pinning down some of
the possible superordinate construction^ about the process of con
struing another, e .g . , "He is like me; unlike me. How do i see him;
how does he see me; how does he see himself; how do I see my re la
tionship to him; h%f does he see I t ; how does he see the way t see
our re la tionship—or myself—or him, e tc .?"
Poch (53) investigated the sh if t change of constructs (change
from one dimension to another) and found that such change was
greater for invalidated constructs than for validated ones. Newman
(51) measured construct change by the amount of element (Repgrid
figures) switching on various construct dimensions. Among other
things, he found that change—defined in th is way—was more likely
following invalidation on those constructs along which one perceives
himself to be moving in time than on the stable se lf-constructs .
Using the implication grid technique, one would expect to find that
the se If-movement constructs would imply s ign ifican tly fewer changea
on other constructs under conditions of s lo t change than would be the
case with the stable se lf constructs. The general hypothesis here is
that change of subordinate implications (element switching) Is
fa c i l i ta te d by s tab il iz ing the superordinate implications of a
î î
construct» For example, i t would be more threatening to say to a
beginning the rap is t , "You don 't understand what your patient is trying
to t e l l you" than I t would be to say "You show signs of making a fine
and sensitive c lin ic ian , but right now you don't understand what your
patient is trying to t e l l you," This seems to be an important princi
ple which needs to be experimentally demonstrated.
In addition to the above-mentioned threat interpretation of
Newman's study, i t Is also likely that the stable self constructs are
those along which movement is limited by the absence of an elaborated
a lte rn a tiv e , i . e . , anxiety. Thus, movement on stab le se lf constructs
may be limited by e ithe r extensive implicative invalidation—threa t—
or the absence of an elaborated a lte rna tive—anxjetjr. The converse
should a lso be true for the se if-movement constructs.
The general princip le of maximizing the to ta l number of implica
tions within a construct system can also be related to the studies of
Bieri (3) and Lemcke (45). The Bieri generalization gradient—also
supported by Lemcke*s d isse r ta t io n—indicates that the generalization
of construct change does not follow the c lassical generalization
gradient as found In conditioning studies . Invalidation of a construct
tends to s ta b il iz e those constructs which are most similar to i t . This
e ffec t could be accounted for by a theory of construct implications if
i t is shown th a t the sim ilarity of constructs is d irec tly related to
the degree of interrelatedness of th e ir implicative networks. Thus,
when invalidation of a construct threatens an Implicative network with
invalidation, s tab il iza tion of similar constructs will function to
preserve the implicative u t i l i t y of the threatened netvsrk to which
they are re la ted . For example, if being e ither a productive researcher
M
or an e ff ic ie n t therapis t implies one's usefulness as a psychologist,
then invalidation of one of these c r i te r ia will probably lead a per
son to in i t ia te a s tab iliz ing strategy with respect to the other in
order to maintain the conception of himself as being a useful
psychologist. Is not th is strategy reflected in the profession today?
The relationship of these hypotheses to research in the f ie ld of cog
nitive dissonance is probably clear enough to require no elaboration.
The implication grid provides a promising means for testing these
notions.
The paper by Howard and Kelly (12)—based on Howard's d isse r ta
tion (11)—argued th a t cl^nges in a person's behavior must follow his
construing of the change. This follows from the Fundamental Postulate
of personal construct theory. In terms of implications, th is says that
a person cannot move along meaningless dimensions and that he therefore
cannot behave meaninglessly.
The previously cited work of Levy (4?) reported that a f te r
high invalidation reconstruction was greater on constellatory con
struc ts (defined by high loading on the f i r s t Rep te s t fac to r) , and
that with increasing Invalidation the increase of change for constella
tory constructs was greater than the increase of change for the prop-
iwsitional ones. He also hypothesized tha t under conditions of low
Invalidation change of prepositional constructs would be greater than
change of constellatory constructs, Tl% resu lts were in the predicted
direc tion , but did not reach significance. Bennion (2/ was also
interested in th is sane problem. Interestingly, he found consistent
individual differences in that some subjects resisted change on
13
constellatory constructs, while others resisted change on proposi t Iona1
ones* While Landfield (40,41,42,44) was concerned with a movement
Interpretation of th rea t rather than the constellatory problem, his
work—along with the research of Levy and Bennion=>»can be interpreted
in light of construct implications* From th is frame of reference,
psychological movement—construct change—will be resisted when such
a change is anticipated as leading to an insninent comprehensive
reduction of the to ta l number of predictive implications of the personal
construct system ( th rea t) , or as creating a re la tive absence of pre
d ictive implications rela ting to the events with which one is con
fronted (anxiety). Stated in i ts non-defensive form, th is is the
corollary that a person always changes in that d irection which he
anticipates will maximize the to ta l number of predictive implications
in his system* This can be accomplished by e ith e r the expansion or
c la r if ica t io n (definition) of his system, or both, Landfield, among
other things, found that a person tends to perceive as threatening
those people who are as he was in the past but no longer wishes to be
and who expect him to be as he was In the past but no longer wishes to
be»and tha t the individual will perceive himself as being less predict
able to himself in social relationships Involving threatening acquaintances
than in those involving non-threatening acquaintances. This suggests
an Inferential Incompatibility between a rejected past se lf construc
tion and a person's present or future construction of himself, such
that acceptance of the past construction Is anticipated to create a
reduction or absence of predictive implications.
Î4
i t is a lso assumed that when a construct subsystem is validated,
invalidated, or found that i t s range of convenience does not cover the
events In question, then th is same determination can also be applied
to those superordinate constructs which governed the process of con
structing the subsystem in question. Constellatoriness and proposi
t io n a l i ty are regarded as being one class of such superordinate con
struc tions, and not as qua lit ie s of particu lar construct dimensions.
The constructions which determine the process of construing for various
people constitu te a v i ta l research area. It is hoped that modifications
of the implication grid will be useful in these areas.
Finally, with reference to Landfield's paper (43) on the close
ness of opposites—reaction formation, extreme behavioral transformation,
e t c . , as considered from the point of view of personal construct theory,
the above elaborated implication hypotheses would lead one to predict
that behavioral transformation (s lo t movement) would occur only on
those constructs which have well elaborated networks of Implications
for both poles of the construct. Indexing the Implications of each
pole of constructs w ill f a c i l i t a t e d iffe ren tia l predictions with
respect to the d irection and ease of psychological reconstruction.
CHAPTER III
A FORMAL THEORY OF CONSTRUCT IMPLICATION AND CHANGE
This chapter presents the background and in i t ia l formulation of a
theory of construct implications, defines various coro llaries and terms,
and f in a l ly applies the formulation to the problem of construct change.
Background and in i t ia l formulation
This theory of construct implication arose In response to three
observations. The f i r s t concerned the visual representation of construct
subsystems. Kelly represents a construct as a s tra igh t line with a dot
or small c irc le a t each end. A subsystem consists of an unconnected
c lu s te r of such representations a t various angles to one another in
space. Perhaps due to an electronics background, I had tended to
v isualize subsystems In terms of three dimensional binary interconnected
c i rc u i ts and drew them in the form of three dimensional genealogical
tab les . The second issue concerned the conceptualization of constella
toriness and propositionality . Kelly (15, p. Î5S) writes "A construct
which permits i t s elonents to belong to other realms concurrently, but
fixes th e ir realm membership, may be called a constellatory construct"
and "A construct which leaves i t s elements open to construction in a ll
other respects may be called a prepositional construct," The degree
of constella toriness of a construct seemed to me—by analogy—to be
something akin to the strength of a magnetic f ie ld eminating from each
15
16
pole of a construct. The greater a pole 's f ie ld strength, the
greater the number of constructs which clustered around I t , Also by
analogy, the looseness and tightness of constructs seemsito have some
thing to do with the e la s t ic i ty of the line which separated the poles.
The third issue dealt with construct defin ition , A superordinate
construct “ is one which Includes another as one of the elements In Its
context"; a subordinate construct " Is one which Is Included as an
element In the context of another" (Kelly, p. 532). With the exception
of the constructs a t the top and bottom of a hierarchy, a l l other con
struc ts are both superordinate and subordinate. Also, If a construct
can be loose or t ig h t , permeable or impermeable, prepositional or
constellatory from time to tin®, what then defInes a construct? This
constitu tes the essential point of departure for th is d isserta tion .
For Kelly, propos!t io n a l l ty , pre-emptiveness, constella toriness,
looseness, tightness, permeability, impermeability, e tc . , are qua lit ies
or properties of a given construct. The only unchangeable quality of
a construct is I ts dichotomous nature. Now, what If we accept the
Dichotomy Corollary, but re jec t these other notions as being con
struc t q u a li t ie s , how then can they be usefully defined? This will
be discussed shortly.
According to Construct Theory, the function of a construct
is an tic ipation . The Choice Corollary indicates tha t we anticipate
events (e .g . , other constructs) in order to expand or c la r ify our
systen of an ticipa tions. Thus, construct theory assumes that a per
son always chooses those constructions which he anticipa tes will
maximize the to ta l number of anticipations within his personal construct
17
systen. The Fundamental Postulate Indicates that a person's system
of anticipations psychologically channelizes his anticipatory proe-
:esses--h ls construing. The epistomologlcal basis of th is theory
implies that constructs always an tic ipa te or subsume other constructs,
not things=in=themselves. Thus, the theory being formulated focuses
on construct an ticipations.
In the present theory, the term "implication" has been substi
tuted for "an tic ipa tion ." A polar position on a given dichotomus
construct implies polar positions on certain constructs, and th is
polar position may, in turn, also be Implied by polar positions on
other constructs. The construct positions which a given construct
implles are called the superordinate implIcations of tha t construct;
when the polar positions on the given construct are fmplied by posi
tions on other constructs—either singularly or in combination (d is
junction or conjunction)—these construct relationships are called
the subordinate implications of the given construct. I t follows that
the defin ition (c la rif ica tion ) of a construct would require a s ta te
ment of both the subordinate and superordinate implications of each
of i t s poles. Such a de fin ition—in context—Is called the range of
implication of tha t construct. I t is the sum of the subordinate and
superordinate ranges of implication. The to ta l number of implications
in the range of implication of a construct could be used as a measure
of the meaningful ness of that construct. The subordinate range of
Implication provides a measure of th& level of superordination of a
construct. The range of convenience of a construct (Kelly, p. 137)
18
covers a l l those contexts In which the user found i t s application useful.
In contrast, the range of implication of a construct is an Index of the
extensiveness of I ts subordinate and superordinate network of implica
tions in a given context. It would thus be possible to Investigate
the ranges (plural) of implication for a given construct In various
contexts.
Let us now turn our a tten tion b riefly to the various forms of
implication between two constructs; for example, construct A=B and
construct X-Y. A wide variety of specific implicative combinations
are possible, but four commonly observed patterns are the p a ra l le l ,
orthogonal, reciprocal, and ambiguous forms, which are described as
follows;
1. P a ra l le l ; A implies X and B implies Y. (e .g . , love—hate;
pleasantness—unpleasantness).
2. Orthogonal; A implies X, but B does not imply Y; also A
Implies X and B implies X, but neither implies Y. (e .g . , employed-
unemployed; has income—has no income). Also, good—bad; e v a lu a t iv e -
objective),
3« Reciprocal : A implies X and B implies V and X Implies A and
Y Implies B, ( e .g . , nervous—calm; tense—relaxed). This kind of a
relationship suggests a functional equivalence of the construct labels.
The significance of reciprocal Implications in terms of a factor
analysis of the implication grid will be discussed in Chapter Yl.
4 . Ambiguous; A and B Imply X, and B implies Y; a lso A Implies
X and Y, and B implies X and Y. One subject, for example, when re la t
ing desirable—undesirable and real ism—ideal ism, said tha t realism
19
and Idealism both Implied desirable and undesirable aspects for him.
Conflict theory and double-bind theory re la te to these Implicative
dtlengnas. Such situations seem to result fran (1) an incomplete ab
straction of the differences between the contexts In which the construct
was used: or (2) In the case of the example abovs—the subject used
one construct label for tvio Independent constructs, e .g . , real Ism -
Ideal ism in the sense of tes ting ldeas~not tes ting Ideas and realism—
Idealism In the sense of not having goals—having goals. When c la r i
f ied , the subject could then re la te each of these usages of real ism -
ideal Ism to desirable—undesIrable in the unambiguous parallel form,
in th is sense psychological movement, conflic t resolution, and Insight
depend on the locating of such points of ambiguous Implication and the
resolving of them into paralle l or orthogonal forms.
The logical combinations of poles, number of implications, and
direction of Implications suggest other forms, but th is will suffice
to Indicate the te r r i to ry opening up for th is aspect of construct
theory research.
Corollaries
So fa r we have said that constructs are dichotomus, i . e . , have
d iffe ren tia l implications, and each pole has a subordinate and super
ordinate range of Implication of the various forms described in a given
context of usage. The range of convenience of a construct refers to
the number of contexts In which I t has been found to be useful, i t is
essential to maintain the d is tinc tion betwen the symbol of a construct
{verbal labels, e tc ,) and the construct I ts e lf in a given context.
20
The indexing of the range of implications is regarded as a necessary
feature of construct defin ition . In view of these notions, le t us
now review several of the eleven basic corollaries of personal con
s truc t theory (Kelly, p. 103).
!e Organization Corollary: "Each person charac te ris tica lly
evolves, for his convenience In anticipating events, a construction
system embracing ordinal relationships between constructs." This
says that construct implication is typically unidirectional, e .g . ,
A implies X, but X does not imply A. Constructs will therefore vary
with respect to the number of constructs implying them and the number
of constructs which they imply. I t should be noted that constructs
may be used e ither conjunctively or disjunctively to imply a polar
position on a given construct, e .g . , A and B together imply X, but
neither A nor B alone implies X; and e ither A, or B, or both, imply X,
2. Range Corollary: "A construct is convenient for the a n t ic i
pation of a f in i t e range of events only." That is , polar positions
on a given construct are implied by a f in i t e number of polar positions
on other constructs. This has been called i t s subordinate ranges of
implication. The superordinate ranges of implication of a construct
are similarly res tr ic ted ,
3, Choice Corollary: "A person chooses for himself tha t a l t e r
native in a dichotomized construct through which he anticipates the
greater poss ib ili ty for extension and defin ition of his system." Since
e i th e r extension or defin ition resu lts in an increased number of
implications, the Corollary can be reworded to s ta te that a person
21
chooses for himself tha t a lte rna tive in a dichotomized construct through
which he an tic ipa tes the greater poss ib ili ty for increasing the to tal
number of Implications of his system. That is to say, a person always
chooses in that direction which he antic ipa tes will Increase the to tal
meaning and significance of his l i f e . State in the defensive form, a
person chooses so as to avoid the anxiety of chaos and She despair of
absolute certa in ty . This corollary of maximizing the to ta l number of
predictive implications in one's personal implicative network provides
the theoretical basis for the present d isserta tion ,
4. Fragmentation Corollary: "A person may successively employ a
variety of construct subsystems which are in feren tia lly incompatible
with each o ther .” In view of the Choice Corollary discussed above,
th is suggests that inferential incompatibilities will be resolved
only when such a resolution is anticipated to maximize the to tal
implicativeness of the personal construct system. This highlights the
v ita l importance of the personal constructions about the process of
construing for the general problem of construct change.
5. Modulation Corollary: "The variation in a person's con
struction system is limited by the permeability of the constructs
within whose range of convenience the variants l i e . " A construct
is permeable " i f i t will admit to i t s range of convenience new
elements which are not yet construed within i t s framework" (Kelly,
p. 79)« Thus, permeabi 1 i ty—"the capacity to embrace new elements"
(Kelly, p. 80)—represents the yet unexplored range of convenience of
a construct* From the viewpoint of construct implications permeability
is equivalent to inferential compatibility. Thus, the varia tion in a
22
person*s construction system is limited by the inferential compatibil
ity between the variants and those constructs within whose range of
convenience the variants l ie . (The variation is also limited in
accord with the principle of maximizing the to ta l implicativeness
of the construct system.)
Terms
This in i t ia l formulation of a theory of construct implication
a lso suggests a number of ten tative defin itions of various other per
sonal construct theory terms:
I . A construct. Earlier we indicated that construct de fin i
tion should include a statement of the subordinate and superordinate
implications of the construct. The problem here is how much can these
implications change from context to context before the identity of the
construct is lost? Essentially , a construct is a specific basis for
d if fe ren tia l an ticipations or responses. Since a given construct
symbol may represent a variety of specific bases (constructs), i t is
important tha t a construct and i t s symbol not be equated. For
example, what a person considers to be “honest" in the context of
criminals may be vastly d iffe ren t from “honest" in the context of in
timate friends. Since the subordinate and superordinate implications
of “honest—dishonest" could be expected to d if fe r widely between
these two contexts, in what sense could we say that the same construct
is being used in each situation? The trans-contextual identity of a
construcf can perhaps be defined as the points of Identical subordinate
and superordinate Implications. For example, if in context X, A, B,
23
and C Imply honesty, and honesty Implies I , 2, and 3 while in context
Y, A, D, and E imply honesty, and honesty implies 1, 4, and 5, then the
trans-contextual identity of honesty consists of A and 1. This defin
ition is defin ite ly a ten tative one,
2. Looseness-tightnessa, This refers to the va riab il i ty of the
predictions made from a construct, A loose construct can be defined
as one whose superordinate Implications, or subordinate implications,
or both, vary from context to context, e .g . , i t s c lass!fleet Ion c r i te r ia
and/or i t s significance may vary. Notice that i t is possible to loosen
or tighten independently e ither the superordinate Implications or the
subordinate implications, as well as to loosen or tighten both. Thus,
I t is possible for a person to be loose about what constructs imply
one's position on a given construct and tigh t about what that position
implies—or vice versa-“Or both. Defined In th is way looseness-tightness
describes the extent of v a riab il i ty or construct relationships and not
qu a li t ie s of a particu lar construct. This defin ition is also ten tative
and needs refInement—especially in terms of the lim its that inferential
compatibility places on loosening and tightening and the maintenance of
the trans-contextual identity of constructs,
3. Subordinate and superordinate constructs. In an implicative
relationship between two constructs that construct which implies polar
positions on the other construct is called the subordinate construct;
that construct whose polar positions are implied by the other construct
is called the superordinate construct.
4. Core and peripheral constructs. This d is tinc tion separates
constructs according to the net loss of the to ta l number of Implications
24
which would resu lt If the construct dimension were to be removed
from the construct system. Peripheral constructs are those whose
e l ifflînation—or addition—v«îuld not appreciably a l t e r the implies^
t îve u t i l i t y of the system.
5. Permeabi11 tv— impermeabi1i ty . The permeability of a con
s truc t refers to t te number of new constructs with which i t Is found
to be in feren tia lly compatible. In th is sense, i t is the yet unex
plored range of convenience of a construct.
6. Prepositionality . constellatorlness and pre-emptIveness.
This has been previously discussed a t greater length in Chapter I t .
With respect to the principle of maximizing the to ta l significance of
the construct system, these terms refer to the degree of certain ty one
has about the implicative u t i l i t y of rela ting (or not re la ting—in the
pre-emptive case) certain construct dimensions. As such, they are
superordinate constructs about various construct networks and not
q u a li t ie s of particu lar constructs. Prepositional thinking means th a t
one has suspended judgment about the ultimate significance of the
various construct patterns under consideration. Constel la to ri ness and
pre-emptiveness mean that such a judgment has been rendered. One may
frequently re la te certain construct dimensions either because one Is
certa in of the u t i l i t y of the particu lar relationship, or because no
a lte rna tive relationships have yet been envisioned.
7. Anxiety. Anxiety Is the awareness of the re la tive absence
of implications with respect to the constructs with which one is con
fronted.
^58, Threat. Threat can be seen as the awareness ( e ,g , , a super-
ordinate construction and anticipation about the construct system) cf
an 1m inent comprehensive reduction of the to tal number of predictive
implications of the personal construct system, Landfield (40), for
example, using a content approach to th rea t, found—airong other things—
that the po ss ib il i ty of accepting a rejected past se lf construction vras
threatening. The acceptance of a rejected past se lf construction would
not leave a person without predictive implications, but—presumably--
the person an tic ipates tha t the acceptance of the rejected construction
would resu lt in a net reduction of the to ta l number of predictive im
plications as compared with his present implicative network due to the
Inferential incompatibilities between the past and present se lf con
structions. Threat, then, is the anticipation of a net implicative
loss, (in addition, the construction of one^s construct system as
e ithe r having suffered a substan tia l, unalterable Implicative loss, or
as being no longer expandable, might provide a useful basis for a
theory of depression.)
The in i t ia l formulation of a theory of construct change
Within the general context of personal construct change, three
types of change can be delineated. Shift change refers to a change
from one construct dimension to another, e .g . , viewing a person along
a mature—iRgnature dimension, then sh ifting to an honest—dishonest
dimension. The change from one a lterna tive of a dichetcmus construct
to the other a lte rna tive is called slo t change, e .g . , viewing a person
26
as mature, then regarding him as immature. Scalar change is a slo t
change in the magnitude used to describe a construct a lte rna tive , e .g . ,
less mature and more mature in contrast to immature. The focus of
convenience of th is d isse rta tion concerns the slo t change of personal
constructs.
From the viewpoint of construct implications, the Choice Corol
lary says that a person chooses for himself that a lterna tive in a
dichotomized construct through which he anticipates the greater possi
b i l i ty for increasing the to ta l number of implications of his system.
Thus, a person would re s is t movement in the direction of reduced impli
cativeness (threat) or the re la tive absence of implications (anxiety).
The Modulation Corollary indicates tha t the variation In a person's
construction system Is limited by the inferential compatibility between
the variants and those constructs within whose range of convenience the
variants lie* I t follows, then, that s lo t movement would be more
likely to occur on those constructs that have a similar number of
implications for each pole and for which each set Is equally compatible
with the res t of the construct system than would be the case for con
s truc ts of a markedly unequal number of polar implications, or con
s truc ts for which the acceptance of one of the sets of polar implicaé
tions would lead to extensive inferential incompatibilities in terms
of the re s t of the system. Also, s lo t imvement is more probably on
constructs of few polar Implications, because the anticipated threat
and anxiety would be correspondingly less.
The Organization Corollary says that construct implication is
typically un id irectional, tha t is , constructs on me level imply the
27
polar positions of constructs a t the next level and these constructs
in turn imply polar positions on constructs a t a s t i l l higher level,
and so on, so as to form construct hierarchies. The higher up the
hierarchy a construct is located, the greater will be the number of
Implications in I ts subordinate range of implications, e .g . , the more
constructs th a t will be needed to define I ts polar positions. Thus,
If one knows his polar position on a construct functioning a t a high
level of superordination, then he can also probably an tic ipate his
polar positions on the wide variety of subordinate constructs which
imply that position. That is , the polar positions of a superordinate
construct can be used to monitor probab&Wsticaliy the polar positions
of constructs within i ts subordinate range of implication. Since the
poiar positions of constructs operating a t a high ievel of superordin
ation should have a broader range of implication. I t is expected that
they will also show a greater resistance to slo t change than constructs
functioning a t a low level on the hierarchy. This is predicted, because
the degrees of threat and anxiety are assumed to be a function of the
number of Implications available.
The re la tiv e resistance to slo t change of personal constructs
is the major dependent variable of the study discussed in the following
chapters. This will be related to the polar implications of constructs
and the ir hierarchical level. In addition to a number of issues which
will be discussed subsequently, th is study provides a te s t of the
u t i l i t y of a number of formulations which have been presented in th is
chapter, particu larly the Choice Corollary.
CHAPTER IV
PROCEDURE, INSTRUMENTS, SCORING, AND SPECIFIC EXPERIMENTAL PREDICTIONS
Introduction and general hypotheses
The purpose of th is study was threefold; Primarily, f t attempted
to develop a methodology whereby a person could communicate aspects of
his networks of construct implications In a standardized and systematic
fashion. Hopefully, these systematic representations would then provide
a f e r t i l e basis for the generation of a number of hypotheses fo r further
research exploration. Secondly, the study would provide the Informa
tion necessary for an Internal analysis of the charac te ris tics of the
implication grid methodology Itself* As I t turned out, many of the
Important charac ter is tics of the Implication grid had not been realized
un til a f te r the data had been collected. Finally, specific predictions
about the change of personal constructs—which had been derived from
the theory of construct impiicatlons—would be tes ted . This would
provide a demonstration of the u t i l i t y of the theory and associated
methodology.
The four general hypotheses which were derived from construct
Implication theory and investigated In th is study are as follows:
I. The re la tive resistance to s lo t change of personal constructs
will be d irec tly related to the superordinate range of implications of
those constructs. This is based on the principle of maximizing the
28
29
to ta l liTiplicatlveriess of the system and the notion that the anticipated
degree of threat will be a d irec t function of the number of Implica
tions Involved In the change»
2. Constructs functioning a t a higher level of superordI nation
In a hierarchical context will have a larger superordinate range of
Implications than constructs functioning a t a low level. This would
not be predicted for constructs functioning a t the highest level of
superordI netIon In a hierarchy,
3. Constructs functioning a t a higher level of superordInation
In a hierarchical context will have a larger subordinate range of
implications than constructs functioning a t a low level,
4 . Constructs functioning a t a higher level of superordination
In a hierarchical context will show a greater re la tive resistance to
s lo t change than constructs functioning a t a low level, (This
hypothesis assumes the va lid ity of hypothesis 2, above.)
Although the data permit the testing of a number of additional
hypotheses (to be elaborated In Chapter VI), these were the ones of
principal In terest In th is in i t ia l Investigation of construct Impli
cation, The exact operational defin itions of these hypotheses will
be presented following a discussion of the general procedure, Instru
ments, and scoring methods.
Subjects
The subjects of th is experiment were undergraduate students
taking Psychology 401, an Introductory psychology course. As part
of the course requirements,gad&student was required to partic ipa te
30
as a subject In four hours of psychological experimentation. The sign
up sheet for th is study stated simply that i t was a four hour extensive
personality interview; that the resu lts were completely confidential;
and that each subject would have an opportunity to have the mathemati
cal analysis of his interview explained if hs requested i t , A to tal
of 28 people participated in t l^ experiment—II males and 17 females»
The mean age was 20 years with a range from IS to 31. Most of the
subjects were in th e ir freshman or sophomore year in college.
Procedure
1. The introduction. When a subject appeared for his "person*
a l l t y Interview," he was told tha t we were interested in having him
explain himself to us in a particu la r fashion which could la te r be
mathematically analyzed. The resu lts of the interview would be ex
plained to him la te r i f he wished and they were completely confiden
t i a l , He would be free to leave with the fu ll four hours of experi
mental c red it as soon as he completed the interview, (The average
running time per subject was actually ju s t under 3 hours.) The sub
je c t was informed tha t 5 minute breaks would be taken a f te r each
aejor section of the interview, and that breaks could be taken a t
any time the subject requested them.
2. E lic ita tion of figures. The subject was then asked to
give the f i r s t names of nine people who currently played an important
role in his l i f e and whom he knew well. Parents, siblings nearest
the subject In age, boy friends, g ir l friends, employer, and room
mates were suggested as possible figures* The only res tr ic tions
31
placed on the selection of figures were that the subject must have
known the person for a t least 6 months and must regard the person as
currently playing an Important part In his l i f e .
3. E lic ita tion of the ten subordinate constructs. Since the
hierarchical context used In th is study was to be the sub ject 's con
struction of himself as he would prefer to be, tr iad s were generated
u ti l iz in g a l l nine of the e l ic i ted figures and the subject himself as
one of the elements In every tr ia d . Using the subject as an element
In each tr iad assures that the e l ic i ted constructs will be se lf re le
vant, In order to generate the f i r s t subordinate construct the subject
Is to ld , "We are Interested In understanding you and these people who
play an important part in your l i f e . Now think about these three
people for a moment; Yourself, (person's name), and (person's name).
Is there sane Important way In which any two of these people are
a like In contrast to the third?" The process is repeated nine more
times using new tr iads In each case. After the subject generates his
f i r s t construct, he Is asked not to repeat any construct which he
has previously given; that Is , he Is asked In e ffec t to generate ten
constructs which fo r him are clearly d ifferen t from one another.
When he has generated ten constructs using himself and a l l nine of
the figures, he Is then asked to read over the l i s t In order to
assure that none of the constructs is merely a rewording of some
other l is ted construct. I f , a f te r th i s , sane of the constructs
appear to be similar to the experimenter, the experimenter then
asks t t e subject to explain the differences between the particu lar
32
constructs Sn question. When both the subject and the experimenter
are sa t is f ied tha t the ten e l ic i ted constructs are c learly d ifferen t
from one another, then they proceed to the next step,
4. Side preference of the subordinate constructs. The subject
is now asked to indicate which side of each construct dimension is
clearly descriptive of the kind of person he prefers to be. It is
indicated that he Is not being asked which side describes him now,
but rather which side describes his preferred self-construction.
Occasionally a construct will have no c lear side preferences ( i . e . ,
both sides preferred or neither side preferred); in th is case, new
constructs are generated from the tr iad s until the c r i t e r ia of step
3 above, and th is step are sa t is f ie d . This requirement of a clear
side preference is made in order to assure that the constructs will
have c learly d iffe ren tia l implications. These ten constructs are
entered in the implication grid as constructs 1 through 10 and con
s t i tu te the subordinate constructs of the preferred self-construction
hierarchy.
5, The hierarchical technique for e l ic i t in g the superordinate
constructs of the preferred se lf hierarchy. The subject is now
asked to construe the superordinate implications of his subordinate
constructs. His f i r s t subordinate construct is selected and he is
instructed as follows:
"Now on th is construct you preferred th is side to tha t side.
What I want to understand now is why you would prefer to be here
rather than there (pointing). What are the advantages of th is side
33
în contrast to the disadvantages of that side, as you see it?" The
subject will now generate a construct dimension which has a preferred
side, (Subject 4, for example, said that he preferred to be reserved
in contrast to emotional, because being reserved implied being relaxed
while emotional Implied being nervous; thus relaxed-nervous is his
f i r s t superordinate construct in the preferred se lf hierarchy,) The
subject is stopped and the same question above Is asked of the con
struc t which he ju s t generated, (Subject 8 replied that being relaxed
Implied a be tte r performance, while nervous Implied a poorer perform
ance; thus be tter performance—poorer performance is h is second super
ordinate construct,) The subject will again generate a construct with
a c iearly preferred side. The same question is now asked of th is
construct. The process is continued until (1) the subject can no
longer generate a construct dimension or (2) until he has generated
ten such superordinate constructs which he regards as being clearly
d if fe ren t , though rela ted , from one another and for which he has
indicated a c lea r side preference. If he reaches the top of his
hierarchy before he generates ten d iffe ren t constructs as he sees
them, then the second subordinate construct Is selected and the pros-
-ess repeated until the ten superordinate constructs have been
e l ic i te d .
Earlier p i lo t work showed that people can typically generate
about 8 to 12 such superordinate constructs (using subordinate con
s truc ts e l ic i te d as described) before reaching the top of the
hierarchy, in the p i lo t work, the complete hierarchies for each of
the ten subordinates were e l ic i te d . While th is was most in teresting
34
information. I t was time consuming to obtain. Fortunately I t m s found—
as Is theoretically expected In construct theory—that the chain of
superordinate constructs In the hierarchy generated from the f i r s t
subordinate was almost Invariably repeated In the hierarchies of the
remaining subordinates. That Is to say, we were tapping Into the
general construct hierarchy about one*s preferred se lf a t various sub»
ordinate points. The Organization Corollary predicts that the lines
of implications of these constructs should converge a t higher levels
of superordlnatlon, and th is Is exactly what was found. It should be
emphasized that the specific Information yielded by th is hierarchical
technique Is enormously suggestive of further theoretical research.
Subjects were extremely Interested and Involved with th is part of the
experimental procedure, because—in effect-*they are being asked to
delineate some of th e ir most fundamental commitments In the ir present
l i f e . They are a t the same time rank ordering these commitments In
terms of a scale of values—or over-arching principles of choice.
Unfortunately, the content of these hierarchies Is only very tan-
gentlally related to the Interests of th is present d isserta tion , but
le t me strongly Invite the reader to spend a few mlnuts exploring his
own construct system—or that of a friend—with th is technique.
Constructs functioning a t th is level of superordlnatlon are of
fundamental Importance; an awareness of them is essential for under
standing the world of another human being—or ourselves, (In keeping
with the philosophy of constructive alternatlvism, le t me quickly
append a propos I t Iona1 "perhaps" to th ^ la s t statement! The invita
tion , however, s t i l l stands.)
35
The themes of achievement and a f f i l ia t io n were frequently ob
served in the hierarchies of the people participating in the study.
This re f lec ts the vocational and interpersonal concerns which seem to
typify la te adolescence In th is subculture. The following is a sample
of those constructs which terminated ( i ,e« ; the most superordinete con
structs) the hierarchies of the subjects: get less—get trasre out of
l i f e ; have purpose in l i f e —have no purpose; accomplish nK)re—accom
plish less; happy—unhappy; l i f e —death; good time—bad time; s a t is
fa c t io n - f ru s t r a t io n ; feel wanted—feel unwanted; stimulating—dul 1
and boring; new ideas—same ideas; goals—no goals; cold f e e l in g -
warm feeling; c la r i ty —confusion; more fun—less fun; moody—stable;
people will help you—people won't; miss a lo t—have good times; have
respect of others—be a social outcast; more knowledge—less knowledge;
change—sameness: be worth n h lie—be worthless; and fu l f i l le d in l i f e -
un fu lf il led , For Kelly, the principle that subsumes a l l choice points
is the principle of the Elaborative Choice, the Choice Corollary, in
construct form, th is principle might be worded as: expands or
c la r i f ie s my outlook versus reduces or obscures my outlook. Personal
construct theory assumes that th is is the ultimate principle of choice.
Construct alternatlvism implies that there could be others.
The subject is now asked to review his l i s t of superordinate
constructs to assure tha t they are d iffe ren t from one another. The
ten superordinate constructs a re then entered on the Implication Grid
as constructs 11 through 20,
6. The determination of the re la tive resistance to slo t change
of the e l ic i ted constructs. The twenty e l ic i ted constructs are presented
3b
to the subject two a t a time In such a way tha t each construct Is
paired with every other construct. They are written on 3" x 5" cards,
and the preferred side of each construct Is Indicated with a check
mark. Constructs 1 and 2 are presented to the subject. He Is In-
structed: "Look a t these t w constructs. The check marks Indicate
the sides you said you would prefer to be on. Now, l e t ' s assume for
the moment that you had to change from tl% preferred side to the un
preferred side on one of these constructs, but could remain the same
on the other. Which of these two constructs would you prefer to remain
the same on? Remember, you will have to change on the other one. What
we are trying to find out here Is If you had to change which of these
two changes uould be the more undesirable, as you see i t? We would
prefer you to make a choice whenever possible, but there are two
circumstances In which you will find I t Impossible to make a choice.
The f i r s t is when the two changes both appear to be undesirable to
exactly the same degree, in most cases, however, you will be able to
detect some difference between the two which will enable you to make
a decision. The second Instance Is when I t is not logically possible
to change on one construct and a t the same time remain the same on
the other. This Is the case where changing on one construct logically
Implies that you must also have changed on the other construct. Let
me know when e ither of these two circumstances occur. Any questions?"
Construct I Is now paJred with a l l other constructs, then I t is
removed fron the deck, and construct 2 is paired with a l l of the remain^
Ing constructs; I t Is then removed. This process is continued until
a l l th# constructs have been paired togeth®* with a l l other constructs.
37
The re la tive resistance to s lo t change of the twenty constructs can be
determined by rank ordering them in terms of a scoring formula which
takes into account the number of times each construct resisted being
changed during the pairing sequence* The exact scoring procedure will
be discussed later* The resistance to s io t change grid for each subject
is included in the Appendix*
7e The implication grid technique* Basically, the implication
grid is a matrix of the superordinate and subordinate implications that
In te rre la te a se t of constructs* In th is study only those relationships
of implication which were of the para lle l or reciprocal forms were In
dexed. The subject was instructed as follows; "Consider th is construct
for a moment (construct I ) . Now, i f you were to be changed back and
forth from one side to the other-^that i s , If you woke up one morning
and realized that you were best described by one side of th is construct
while the day before you had been best described by the opposite s id e »
if you realized that you were changed in th is one respect—what other
constructs of these nineteen remaining ones would be likely to be
changed by a change In yourself on th is one construct alone? Changing
back and forth on ju s t th is one construct will probably cause you to
to predictably change back and forth on which other constructs?
Remember, a change on ju s t th is one construct is the cause, while the
changes on these other constructs are the e ffec ts implied by the
changes from one side to the other on th is construct alone. What I 'd
like to find out, then. Is on which of these constructs do you probably
expect a change to occur as the resu lt of knowing that you have changed
38
from one side to the other of th is one construct alone* A knowledge of
your location on th is one construct could probably be used to determine
your location on which of these remaining constructs?" Construct I is
then paired with each of the remaining constructs* The subject then
Indicates In e ffec t the superordinate Implications of paralle l or recip
rocal form of construct I with respect to the set of constructs* This
same process Is repeated for each of the twenty constructs so as to
Index the superordinate Implications of each construct with respect
to the remaining set of nineteen.
After completing the Implication grid , the subject has—in
e ffec t—construed 21 d ifferen t personalities for himself. Each of
the 20 columns on the implication grid represents a possible a lterna
tive self-construction which the subject has envisioned. The twenty-
f i r s t personality is his preferred se lf construction, and th i s Is
represented by his side preferences on t te 20 constructs. The f a c i l
ity with which people complete th is task Is remarkable; I t hints at
the complexity and multitude of a lterna tive self-constructions which
each of us can an tic ipate for ourselves—and for others, as well.
The role v a riab il i ty within persons Is potentially enormous. Even
between people who might be using the same constructs (as defined by
Identical subordinate Implications), there can s t i l l be great Indi
vidual differences in the superordinate Implications of these con
struc ts .
Each subject*: Implication grid is included in the Appmdix.
(Since each of the 28 subjects construed 21 personalities, the collec
tion portrays 588 anticipated self-constructions.) The column patterns
39
represent the superordinate implications of the various constructs.
The row patterns, however, do not match the corresponding column
patterns. The row patterns represent the subordinate implications
of the various constructs with respect to the set of constructs.
That Is, a row pattern indicates those constructs of the set which
could be used to imply one's polar positions on a given construct.
The given construct, therefore, is the common superordinate impli
cation (of paralle l or reciprocal form) of these constructs. These
row and column patterns of the Impgrid (and why not!) are analogous
to the construct and figure patterns of the Repgrld, The Repgrld
is a matrix of constructs about d ifferen t constructs ( I . e . , the
f igures), while the Impgrid is a matrix of the superordinate and
subordinate network of implications tha t in te rre la te a specific
-e t of constructs within a give oontdxt. The context in th is study
was the person's anticipated self-constructions; numerous modifi
cations of context are possible. Many methods of scoring and
factoring the implication grid are also possible; some of these
will be discussed la te r ,
8, Post experimental interview and debriefing. After com
pleting the implication grid a l l subjects v^re asked to comment on
the experiment, particu la rly with reference to what they thought
I t s purpose vas. The vast majority reported that i t had been very
absorbing and Interesting and that they had experienced a sense of
being Intimately understood. They also frequently reported gaining
an increased understanding of th e ir own outlook as a resu lt of
th e ir participation . (So well received was the experimental
ko
procedure în fa c t , that the experimenter was contacted by over one
dozen friends of the subjects asking If they could partic ipa te also.
Most were not students In the Introductory psychology course,} Al#
m s t a l l of the subjects reported having no Idea about the purpose
of the experiment. Three subjects ventured the guess that the
experiment was designed to t e s t the "logical consistency" of the ir
thinking. The subjects were then questioned in detail about what
basis they had used to make th e ir decisions about which constructi
they preferred to remain the same on during the determination of
the re la tive resistance to s lo t change phase of the experiment
(Step 6). Not one subject was able to formulate an explanation for
the basis of his decisions. That Is , how did they know which to
choose? Why did they choose the one they chose? The usual response
was " i don*t know; I Jus t seemed to know; i t ju s t f e l t r igh t,"
This line of questioning le f t the majority of subjects rather
perplexed. The experimenter then answered in de ta il any of the
sub jec t 's questions about the experiment. The average length of
time required to complete the experiment was 2 hours and 53 minutes
with a range from 1 hour and 5 minutes to 4 hours and 40 minutes.
Scoring
A wide varie ty of scoring systems for the data of the
resistance to change grids and the implication grids are possible,
A number of them were t r ie d ; the resu lts of these methods corres
ponded quite closely to the resu lts obtained f r s s the scoring
systems presented below. The scoring systems f in a lly used In th is
h\
study were developed primarily as an attempt to eliminate tied scores
In the data,
Io Resistance to change grid scoring method. The purpose of
th is method is to rank order the 20 constructs In terms of their
re la tive resistance to s lo t change. Because change on some con=
struc t pairs appeared to the subject to be (I) equally undesirable
or (2) logically Incompatible, the number of actual choice pairings
for each of the constructs varied. I t was also observed tha t, not
Infrequently, the pairings of three or more constructs would violate
the logical principle of t ra n s i t iv i ty , that Is, If A Is greater
tian 6, and B Is greater than C, then A Is greater than C, For
example, In the construct pairs A-B, B-C, and A-C, subjects would
occasionally say tha t they would change on B rather than A, change
on C rather than B, but then they would Indicate that they would
rather change on A than C, These Instances might Indicate that
constructs A, B, and C are practically equal in Importance to the
subject, ( I t Is worth noting that the latency time between the
presentation of a construct pair and the final decision by the sub
je c t was markedly longer for pairings of highly similar constructs;
thus, latency measures could be used In subsequent Investigations,)
The Important point here Is that a forced rank ordering of highly
similar constructs (particu larly Is th is so with a cognitively
simple structure) Increases error variance. Since the following
scoring method does force a rank ordering of the constructs along
a 20 step scale, the resu lts reported In th is study are conserva
t iv e , To rank order the 20 constructs, the following rules are
applied In order of precedence:
42
U For each construct obtain t te to ta l number of times
I t resisted being changed in a ll of i ts pairings ( i t s resistance
score). Obtain the total of the number of actual choice pairings
for each construct ( i t s actual choice score). The actual-choice
score is 19 minus the sum of the number of logically Inconsistent
pairings and the number of equally undesirable pairings,
2. Locate a l l those constructs which were never changed in
th e ir pairings. Of these, the one with the highest resistance
score Is designated rank 1, the remainder are then rank ordered
in terms of decreasing resistance scores. (When tied scores occur
here, each of them is assigned the average of the ranks which would
have been assigned had no t ie s occurred.)
3. The remaining constructs are ranked in order of decreasing
resistance scores unless:
a. Tj^ or more constructs have equal resistance scores.
These constructs are then ranked in terms of which one resisted
change more often when paired with the others of the tied se t.
If th is cannot be determined from the grid ( I . e . , no actual choices
occurred between the s e t ) , then they are ranked in order of in
creasing actual choice scores (e .g . , a construct which resisted
change in 9 of 13 actual choice pairings would be given a lover
numerical rank—indicating a greater resistance to change—than a
construct which resisted change in 9 of 19 actual choice pairings.
The logic here is that the resistance score of the f i r s t construct
might have been higher i f the number of actual choice pairings had
been equal.).
43
b. Two untied constructs have resistance scores that
d if fe r by only one point, if the actual choice score is equal to ,
or greater than the actual choice score of the other construct,
the rank order between these two constructs will be determined by
the ir pairing on the grid , that is , the one that resisted change
in th is pairing will be assigned the lovsr rank order number»»
Indicating a greater resistance to change* If the pairing is
indeterminate, then they will be ranked in order of decreasing
resistance scores,
A simpler, though somewhat less accurate scoring method
for the resistance to change grid would be to rank order the con
s truc ts according to the percentage cf times each resisted being
changed in i t s pairings. This will increase the number of tied
scores, however. Notice that the rankings produced by e ith e r of
these methods re f lec t an approximate hierarchy of values or com
mitments for the subject. The logically incompatible pairings
probably indicate constructs of high fac to ria l sim ilarity ,
2, The Implication grid scoring method.
The varie ty of ways in which the implication grid can be
analyzed are s t i l l being explored. Some of these will be d is
cussed In Chapter VI* in th is study the grid was scored as
follows:
a. The column for each construct was summed to indicate
i t s f i r s t order superordinate range of implications. Then the
superordinste ranges of implication for the specific constructs
44
In the superordinate range of Implication for a given construct were
sumned. This sum represents the second order range of implications
for the given construct. The 20 constructs were then rank ordered
in terms of the ir second order superordinate implications. The
numerical rank of I denotes that construct which has the greatest
number of second order implications. The second order range of im
plications was used to minimize t i e scores; actually , the correla
tion between the f i r s t order ranks and the second order ranks was
extremely high, thus, the use of second order implications was
probably superfluous. ( I t should be noted that the superordinate
range includes construct re la tions of both the parallel and recip
rocal forms.)
B, The superordinate range of Implications for the subor
dinate constructs were, respectively, the sum- of the sums of
columns 1 through 10, and the sum of the sums of the columns 11
through 20.
c. The subordinate range of Implications for the subordinate
and the superordinate constructs were, respectively, the sum of
the sums of rows 1 through 10, and the sum of the sums of rows
11 through 20.
The hypotheses stated operationally (see p. 29 for the general
statement).
1. The rank order of the constructs as derived frqn the
resistance to change grid should be highly positively correlated
with the rank order derived from the implication grid.
45
2* The sum on the implication grid of the sums of columns
I-10 will be significantly less than the sum of the sums of columns
II-20 for the group,
3, The sura on the implication grid of the sums of rows
1-10 will be significantly less than the sum of the sums of
rows 11-20 for the group,
4« Constructs 11-20 will have a lower mean resistance to
change rank order (indicating a greater resistance to slo t movement)
than constructs 1-10,
CHAPTER V
RESULTS
The beet resu lts of th is study have l i t t l e to do with the
hypotheses set fo rth in the las t chapter. This research provided a
series of observations about (1) the process of "doing" research
i t s e l f , (2) the individuals who participated in the study, (3) others '
constructions of what the study was a l l about, and (4) the character
i s t ic s of the techniques employed. These observations raised a myriad
of questions; I t Is these questions which constitu te the best resu lts
of the study.
As an i l lu s t ra t io n , le t m ecffethe f i r s t two people who partic
ipated (Appendix, subjects 1 and 2). Subject 1 was a 19-year-old,
in te l l ig en t, poised, very a t t ra c t iv e , well dressed sorority g i r l—
from one of the "best" so ro r i t ie s , a t tha t. Noticing the conspicuous
displaying of a rather large diamond ring, the experimenter asked
whether she had recently became engaged—to which she replied with a
radiant warmth, "Oh yes! Two weeks ago today!" In response to a
question about when the happy event was to take place, she said—
with equal radiance--, "in ju s t two and a half years!" This was
s ligh tly unnerving, but th e experiment flowed along smoothly; in
fac t we were ahead of schedule and had enjoyed three leisurely ten-
minute breaks. Then, to construct 16 of the Implication grid , in
addition to the Indicated responses, th is subject became enuretic,
46
47
You read i t correctly . This unnerving; i t had not a t a i! been
taken into account by the d isserta tion prospectus. To spare the girl
the embarrassment of acknowledgment, the experiment was quickly com
pleted and a ruse concocted so tha t she could leave with aplomb—and
a wet bottom. Now, there continued to be some discussion a s to whether
or not th is represented the application of a preverbal construct.
Interestingly; construct 3» wants to get married—doesn't want to
get married, implies rea liS tic—naive (number 9), se lf -c en te red -
broader outlook (number 16), and narrow-minded—well rounded (number
17)* It Is Implied by needed—unneeded (number 15), useful—unuseful
(number 20), and self-centered—broader outlook (number 16), Thus,
construct 16 and construct 3 are reciprocally rela ted; th is is the
only reciprocal implication of construct 3* Construct îô , however.
Is very heavily reciprocally loaded on the other constructs of the
Grid, while construct 3 is not. Apparently the subject had not
elaborated the Implications of wanting to get married, since a
reciprocal Implication is taken to indicate a very high degree of
functional sim ilarity between constructs. Thus, extending the impli
cations of 16 may have indicated to her the significance of wanting
to get married. At any ra te , she produced in teresting “ resu l ts ."
Following th is episode and with much trepidation—the experi
menter hesitantly began the interview with subject 2. This subject
was a 23-year-old, th in , unshaven, dishevelled, suspicious, de libera t
ing male. He seemed to be most interested In the task and frequently
became deeply absorbed in his thoughts, particu la rly with respect
to his unusual elaboration of the Buddhist conception of unity (see
48
construct î4, unîfîed—Isolated), He produced a remarkably syniîïietrîeèî-
1y patterned implication grid through the process of lengthy in te l
lectual Ized discourses about each implication. At the end of the
experiment, he asked to see his implication grid . He studied i t for
some time, then commented on i t s symetry and Interrelatedness, He
asked if the experiment was to te s t the "logical consistency" of his
thinking, and was told "No." He then said, " I t ' s kind of paranoid,
i s n ' t i t?" ; to which the experimenter replied; "I'm not quite sure !
understand what you mean by 'paranoid '." He said, "Well, if i t s really
confidential in here, I ' l l t e l l you. I'm kind of in therapy»with a
psych ia tr is t—group therapy. You know? He says I'm paranoid schiz.
I'm withdrawn, paranoid, and a drug addict—primartly marijuana, but
I 've been off i t for awhile now." He related that he had been quite
socially withdrawn for about the las t five years and used th is to
explain the consistency of his thought. " I f you have nothing else
to do—if you're as withdrawn as I have been—then you'd only have
your thoughts le f t . That's what I do, I put them in order, th a t 's
most a l l I do . . . . Oh, I get depressed often. The world can
never be changed, so I guess I 've Just given up, th a t 's a l l , " His
one ambition In l i f e Is to become a writer (construct 12). His com°
mentary suggests that the maintenance of such an extraordinarily
t ig h t and simple structure would necessitate the following tac t ic s :
1) the use of excessively lopsided, loose, or permeable constructs;
2) the frequent extortion of va lIda tion -hostili ty ; 3) the general
withdrawal from validational—invalidational s ituations ( i . e . , con=
s t r ic t io n of the perceptual f ie ld ) . Notice that the invalidation of
49
almost any one of hi s constructs would produce a massive Implicative
sh if t in the direction of threat; i t is perhaps for th is reason that
he cannot conceive of a changing, evolving "world." His Smpgrid Is
also unusual In that there are no significant differences between his
subordinate and superordinate constructs with respect to the ir super-
ordinate range of implications (Ch! square = -0.15)» or the ir sub
ordinate range of Implications (Chi square = + 0.04). (A negative
sign means that subordinate constructs had more Implications than
superordinate constructs.) The th rea t hypothesis (re la tive resistance
to s lo t movement correlated with superordinate range of implications),
however, was highly significant for th is man (rho = + 0,82, p ^ .0005,
one tailed t e s t ) .
Subject 15, should perhaps also be mentioned. He was a t a l l ,
lanky, crew cut, 18-year-old, Freshman baseball player. He described
himself as "the only child—and spoiled! I rea lly am not very good
a t b a ll , but I need people to t e l l me I'm Important; I like to see my
name in the paper. I guess i t s 'cause i'm hanging on by my fingernails
in baseball . . . . Me and Mom--we're together! We use Dad, 1 guess.
He doesn 't like baseball, but Mom—well, she likes everything I do.
She's rea lly great. She's my best fan. Comes to a l l the games. You
know what my goal is? (Shyly) I want to make vars ity , and when I
graduate I want to give Mom my le t t e r sweater, so she can wear I t to
her women's clubs. She'd be proud with i t on; she already told me
th a t ," And la te r , "To be a success and be able to feel Important,
th a t 's the main thing I want out of l i f e . " Aside from being reminis
cent of a morbid scene from Edward Albee's play The American Dream, he
50
did produce an interesting implication grid. Construct 20 = feèl
Important—feel unimportant—shows the greatest resistance to slot
movement and the highest number of superordinate implications, i t
also has a fa i r ly large number of subordinate implications. This
dimension seems to represent a point of unstable equilibrium^-sr
positive feedback—in th is subsystem, because i t is both the cause
and e ffec t of numerous changes in the system. Thus, s lo t movement
OR th is construct will probably produce a spiraling of ela tion or
depression. Construct 8 - Jewish—Presbyterian—-Is in teresting , be
cause i t showed the second highest resistance to s lo t change, yet i t
had no superordinate implications—which is ju s t the reverse of what
would be expected according to the threat hypothesis. When questioned
about s lo t movement in the direction of becoming Jewish, the subject
replied that he liked Christmas trees and pork, and so, saw no advan
tages to being Jewish, He reported that he had met a Jewish person
once and hadn't much liked him. The obvious paucity of constructs
related to the Jewish pole of the construct suggests that high res is
tance to s lo t change here represents the avoidance of anxiety rather
than th rea t. Being Jewish is a context that is outside the range of
convenience of his system, except for some few, vaguely unfavorable
connotations. Another construct that functioned in a similar way on
several other grids was the dimension masculine—feminine. Here
several males had high resistance to change scores for th is dimension,
but th e ir impgrlds revealed that feminine—masculine had few d ifferent
t ia l implications fo r them (except that movement toward the feminine
pole was to be highly res is ted ) . Perhaps, in pa rt , the s ta b i l i ty of
Si
personality , ro îes, moral a tt i tu des and opinions, e t c . , results from
the re la tive absence of d if fe ren tia l construct implications relating
to s lo t movements; that is to say, the strategy of censorship and other
forms of repressive control are based, in part, on the maintenance of
conditions of anxiety with respect to various s lo t movements. Virtue
in th is form is a synonym for ignorance. I t should be noted that the
presence of these anxiety constructs in th is study constitu te a con=
siderable source of error variance with respect to the threat hypothe
s is being investigated; they had not been anticipated. The technique
of locating constructs tha t are highly resistance to change, but that
have few implications, should be of considerable in te res t in subsequent
research in the area of anxiety, i t is hoped that these i l lu s tra tions
will give the reader some indication of the hypotheses which can be
generated by a careful examination of the data contained in the
Appendix.
The s ta t i s t i c a l analysis of the data In terms of thé specific
hypotheses gave the following resu lts :
Hypothesis 1. The re la tive resistance to s lo t change of
personal constructs will be d irec tly related to the superordinate
range of implications of those constructs,
A Spearman rho was calculated for each subject using the
resistance to change rank order and the second order superordinate
implications rank order fo r the 20 constructs. These individual cor
re la tions are reported in the Appendix, The 28 correlations were
then converted to Fisher Z scores in order to calculate the mean
Spearman rho for the group. In spite of the presence of the anxiety
52
constructs previously discussed, the threa t effect was substantial
and very highly significant (mean rho = + 0.59, t = 3.708, p ^ .0005,
one-tailed , df = 26),
Hypothesis 2. Constructs functioning a t a higher level of
superordination in a hierarchical context will have a larger super
ordinate range of Implications than constructs functioning a t a low
level.
The significance of the difference in frequency of the super
ordinate and subordinate constructs for each subject was determined
by the chi square d is tr ibu tions . The individual resu lts are reported
in the Appendix, For the group, superordinate constructs had almost
18 per cent more superordinate implications than subordinate constructs
( 17.89 %, chi square = 618.34, df = 27, p very significantly less than
.001, since the chi square required for th is value is 55.48,),
Hypothesis 3, Constructs functioning a t a higher level of
superordination in a hierarchical context will have a larger subordin
a te range of implications than constructs functioning a t a low level.
The individual chi squares are to be found in the Appendix,
A difference of nearly 19 per cent more subordinate implications for
superordinate constructs was found (18,89 %, chi square = 1012.65,
df = 27, p very s ign ifican tly less than ,001, since the chi square
required for th is value Is 55.48 ).
Hypothesis 4. Constructs functioning a t a higher level of
superordination In a hierarchical context will shows greater re la
t ive resistance to slo t change than constructs functioning a t a low
level.
53
The mean resistance rank for each of the two subordinate and
superordinate groups of constructs was calculated for each subject.
The rank order range is from 1 to 20, where 1 indicates the highest
re la tive resistance to s lo t change. For the group, the mean
resistance rank for superordinate constructs was 7.86; the mean
resistance rank for subordinate constructs was 13.14; the mean
difference of 5.28 is very highly significant ( t = 10.369, p ^ .0005,
one-tailed, df = 27).
Further analyses of the data which are now in progress will
be discussed in the following chapter.
CHAPTER VS
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The resu lts of th is study have furnished substantial in i t ia l
evidence for the u t i l i t y of the theory of construct Implications and9
the associated methodologies of the hierarchical method> the resistance
to slo t change grid, and the implication grid. The broader theoretical
significance of these resu lts is that they provide support for the
Choice and Organization Corollaries of personal construct theory. In
addition, the findings again highlight the importance of Kelly's
F irs t Principle: " I f you don 't know, ask the person; he ju s t might
te l l you!" Basically, the methodologies of th is study were the means
whereby a person could explain his outlook, in a systematic fashion,
to a rather thick-headed experimenter.
Now, in a chapter such as th is , I t is perhaps a b i t redundant
to say that a d isserta tion about implications has implications for
further research, but such is the case. These ideas are by no means
integrated a t th is point In time, so they will be presented in a
cafeteria s ty le :
I . The construct implication rationale and methodologies
obviously require experimental cross-validation using various t r e a t
ment conditions within subjects, and perhaps various non-verbal
behavior correlates as well. The present study was a correlational one,
54
55
2e Since scalar change is a s lo t change In the magnitude used
to describe a construct a lte rna tive , the general approach of this
study should be useful for investigating th is intriguing form of
construct change, i t is interesting to note tha t scalar reconstruc
tion may, or may not. resu lt in a change of implication; thus, scalar
changes can be used to s ta b il iz e , or a l t e r , an implicative network,
depending on other fac tors. The use of scalar constructions seems to
re la te to the process of loosening and tightening subsystems. Scalar
change appears to be determined by the Increase or decrease in the
number of subordinate constructs which can be used to imply a polar
position on a given construct,
3. The Choice Corollary and the inferential compatibility
in terpretation of the Modulation Corollary suggests an approach to
the determination of the rela tive permeability of constructs. If so,
th is might enable a therap is t to an tic ipa te the e ffec ts of linking
various constructs. (Inference, here, refers to psychological infer
ence; th is is not necessarily equivalent to logical inference.)
4. Constellations, pre-emptiveness, and propositionality have
been previously defined as being a particu lar class of superordinate
constructs about various construct subsystems. The fac t of construct
interrelatedness is in no way taken as a measure of constellatorlness
or propositionality . Such a defin ition provides a new point of
departure for subsequent research.
5. The importance of a person's syperordinate constructs about
subsystems and the process of construing i t s e l f is enormous and
re la tive ly unexplored. Chapter Vi I was written to i l lu s t r a te ju s t
56
th is pointe The concern with hierarchical location in th is study
re f lec ts a strong in te res t in tapping Into the highly superordinate
network of constructs about the process of construing, that is , recon
struction , Impulsivlty, r ig id ity , propositionality , the decision
making and c rea tiv ity cycles, a ll seem to be related to these super-
ordinate constructs about the management of construing and the antîs>
ipated sta tus of the resulting construct system. This notion of the
monitoring of the process of construing provided a basis for the slo t
movement hypotheses of th is study. The Choice Corollary and the
associated threat hypothesis are constructions which were apparently
shared in some measure by the majority of the people in the experiment.
At any ra te , we need to know a good deal more about people's personal
an ticipations and constructions about the process of anticipating—
th e ir principles of "systems management," as It were. Creativity can
be regarded as being a set of such superordinate principles; i f so,
these principles can be communicated and modulated.
6, As an I l lu s tra tio n of the issue Just raised, the following
hypothesis received some support in a p i lo t study; Change in the
subordinate implications of a construct ( l , e , , loosening or tightening)
will be f a c i l i ta te d by the prior s tab iliza tion of the superordinate
implications of that construct; likewise, change in the superordinate
implications will also be fac i l i ta ted by the prior s tab iliza tion of
the subordinate implications of that construct. This Idea was derived
from the th rea t hypothesis and the principle of maximizing the total
system implicativeness as cited in th is d isse rta tion . A psychotherapy
analogue is the resolution of transference by the use of the technique
57
of reassurance. This is the notion that constructura! reorganization
can take place only frœn a position of re la tive s ta b i l i ty . The impli
cation grid technique will soon be used in a formal te s t of these
hypotheses,
7. The implication grid seems to hold promise as a technique
for locating those construct dimensions along which reaction formation
or extreme behavioral transformation would probably occur.
8. in the present study only the parallel and reciprocal forms
of construct implication were indexed by the Impgrid. The orthogonal and
ambiguous forms could also be Investigated by th is technique. Orthogonal
relationships might indicate the points of trans it ion from one hierarch
ical subsystem to another. The implicative dilemmas of the ambiguous
linkages seem related to conflic t and double-bind theory, and are,
therefore, of particu lar c lin ica l in te res t.
9. The trans-contextual identity of constructs has been pre
viously mentioned as a problem in need of resolution. Perhaps the
indexing of the ranges of implication of a construct will be useful
here.
10. The excellent d isserta tion of Jennings (14) involved the
experimental a lte ra t ion of the loosening and tightening phases of the
c rea tiv ity cycle, i theory of construct implication suggests that
the subordinate implications, or the superordinate implications of a
construct, or both, maybe e ither loosened or tightened. The systematic
e ffec ts of these variations remain to be explored. (See also 6, above.)
11. A number of investigators have been interested in the
differences between personal and provided constructs. Isaacson (13)
58
and Cromwell and Caldwell (6), for example» found that personal con
s truc ts resulted In more extreme ratings than provided constructs.
The d is tinc tion is a rb itra ry , however, because a l l constructions are
personal constructions. This d isserta tion supports the hypothesis
that the threat potential of a construct is a function of i t s impli
cative ü ign îf icance. Now, if i t can be shown that the d iffe ren tia l
systematic implications of “personal" constructs are s ignificantly
greater than the implications of "provided" constructs, then one
would expect that i t would be more important to c learly resolve con
structional ambivalence on these constructs of high implicative sig
nificance than on those constructs of low significance.
12, Resnick and Landfield (54) in the ir investigation of the
Dichotomy Corollary distinguished between logical constructs (e .g .,
mature—immature) and peculiar constructs (e .g . , in te l l ig en t—bad).
Perhaps peculiar constructs represent a highly constellatory Impli
cative relationship between two construct dimensions (e .g . , i n t e l l i
gent—stupid and good—bad). A way of testing to see if pecular con
struc ts represent such a re la tionship would be to ask the subject if
a ll events which are described by the negation of one pole of the
construct must necessarily be described by the opposite pole in a ll
cases.
13. Newman*s (51) d is tinc tion between stab le self-constructs
and se lf movement constructs suggests—in terms of construct implica
tions—that movement on stable se lf constructs may be limited by either
extensive implicative invalidation—threa t—or the absence of an
elaborated a lte rna tive—anxiety. The converse kould be predicted for
59
the se lf movement constructs* The Impgrid methodology could be used
to te s t th is hypothesis.
14. This same methodology could be used to c la r ify the meaning
of the fascinating Bieri generalization gradient (3), This e ffec t
could be accounted for if i t Is shown that the sim ilarity of con
s tru c ts is d irec tly related to the degree of In terrelatedness of
the ir superordinate implications in a given hierarchical context.
Thus, when invalidation of a construct threatens the hierarchical Im
p lica tive network with invalidation, s tab iliza tion of similar constructs
will function to preserve the Implicative in tegrity of th is network.
15. The indexing of the polar implications of constructs should
allow one to d iffe ren tia te more c learly between threat and anxiety con
s truc ts , I t should also provide a basis for d if fe ren tia l predictions
concerning the re la tive degree of threat or anxiety, since these
degrees are regarded as being a function of the range of Implication
of the available constructs.
16. Core and peripheral constructs could be d ifferen tia ted by
indexing %he number of implications in th e ir respective ranges of im
plication . This Information would be of particu la r in te res t to the
psychotherapi s t .
17. During the e l ic i ta t io n of construct hierarchies by the
hierarchical method, i t was observed that occasionally a specific
construct label would be given a t several d iffe ren t levels in the
hierarchy, e .g . , i f constructs A, B, and G Imply X, and X Implies
D, E, and F, then occasionally D, E, and F would imply X again, and
th is would, in turn , imply G, H, and I. The construct th a t functioned
60
most frequently in th is fashion was "happy—unhappy," The theoretical
significance of th is is not clearly understood. I t may mean only that
construct labels will have to be "indexed" Ifj the manner of General
Semantics with subscripts indicating th e ir locations In a hierarchy,
18. The data of the Impgrid Is readily amenable to the various
factor analytic techniques that have been used with the Repgrid, The
host of measures that are made possible by a factor analysis of e ither
the columns or rows of the Impgrid are s t i l l in the process of elabora
tion, It Is planned that the data of th is study will be reanalyzed in
light of these measures in the near future. Hopefully, some additional
hypotheses can be tested , as well,
19. A variety of comparisons betweenthe data of the Impgrid and
the Repgrid are possible. To date, we have only a limited number of
protocols from people who completed both designs. The p i lo t studies
of both J , R, Adams-Webber and E. L, Morse (The Ohio State University,
1965) are—among other things—throwing light on th is aspect of con
struct theory research. The advantages of using the combined data
from these two techniques are s t i l l , as yet, untapped,
20. While many modifications of the Impgrid are possible. I t
was used in th is study to indicate the parallel and reciprocal forms
of Implication among constructs of the preferred self hierarchy. I t
is possible to also analyze the patterns of the parallel and reciprocal
relationships separately. On the Impgrid, the c e l ls indicating recip
rocal relationships are the points of column and row synsnetry for each
construct, A reciprocal relationship between two constructs is taken
to Indicate a very high degree of functional sim ilarity between the
61
two constructs. Notice that ths remainder of the implication grid
patterns for the two reciprocally related constructs may d if fe r widely,
as was the case for constructs 16 and 3 for subject ! cited in Chapter
V, or they may be neariy identical. As was suggested by ,*he^perience
of subject 1, markedly d ifferen t patterns might have c lin ica l s ig n if i
cance, Now, if reciprocal relationships Indicate functional s im ila rity ,
then i t seems c learly probable tha t (1) the number of such reciprocal
relationships and (2) the specific reciprocal relationships for each
construct could be easily used to predict the factorical s im ila rity—
or c lus te r membership—of a ll of the constructs on the implication grid.
That is , the construct which shows the highest number of reciprocal re
lationship with the other constructs on the Impgrid should appear as
the center of the f i r s t c lus te r in a factor analysis of the grid. The
Impgrid for subject 8 (see Appendix) furnishes perhaps the c learest
i l lu s t ra t io n . Notice particu larly the two blocks of reciprocal impli
cations for constructs 17, 18, 19, and 20 and constructs 10, 11, 12,
13, 15, and 16. These should appear as two separate c lus te rs when
factored. Notice tha t constructs 11 and 16 have the highest number
of reciprocal implications within the impgrid matrix; they should
thus have the highest loadings in a factor analysis. What is being
suggested here is that perhaps It would be psychologically more
advantageous to factor the patterns of reciprocal implications only.
This variant is presently being explored,
21, Ths Implication grid methodology was developed primarily as
a means to d irec tly assess construct relationships. Many modifications
are possible. For example, one could generate implication grids for a
62
wide variety of contexts and conditions of administration ( I t would be
interesting to see whether the to ta l number of implications on a grid
varied as a function of examiner credulousness, for example.). One
intriguing variation would be to ask a subject to think about a partie-
;u iar person (a Repgrid figure, for example). Then, ask him to indi
cate what other construct locations they could probably imply about
th is person if they only know his location on a given construct and no
others. The resulting Impgrid would portray the ir network of implica
tions about th is one person. The procedure would then be repeated using
d iffe ren t figures in each case. I t is expected that certain constructs
might be related In the context of certain people, but not in others.
Such variations would be of particu lar c lin ica l in te res t . This pro
cedure could be used as a measure of loosened construction; or, perhaps,
the formation of impersonal perceptions by controlling such parameters
as the amount and kind of information supplied, i t a lso offers an
approach to the problem of constellatorlness and propositionality .
Subjects could be asked to rate the ir degree of certa in ty about the
u t i l i t y of each of the construct implications they form, (The impgrid
instructions should s tre ss the idea of probable—not logical—impli-
cation .) These ratings should then indicate areas of potential
loosening and tightening, since they are taken to be measures of con
s te l latoriness and propositionality . As such, they are one of the
predictors of psychological movement. The factors affecting the fo r
mation and a lte ra t io n of them, as well as the systematic consequences
of such a l te ra t io n , will be experimentally Investigated in the near
fu ture. The Impgrid can a lso be used to indicate the superordinate
networks which link various construct subsystems.
63
22. The scoring procedures of the Impgrid are also widely
variable (see 18 and 20, above). I t is possible to calculate an in
dex of logical inconsistency for each Impgrid, This scoring system
is based on the principle of t r a n s i t iv i ty , I . e . , If A implies B, and
B implies G; then A should a lso Imply C. Thus, if construct 1 implies
constructs 3, 7» and 8, then i t should a lso probably Imply everything
that 3, 7, and 8 imply; i t may also Imply additional constructs as
well, but i t should a t leas t imply the constructs implied by 3» 7, and
8. The instances where th is has not been the case—where the probable
implications have not been extended—are of particu lar c lin ica l and
theoretical in te res t . This logical inconsistency Index could be used
as an operational defin ition for insight. The data of the present
study will be reanalyzed using a correction factor for the re la tive
lack of logical extension of construct implications, since not extend
ing the implications of a construct will create a considerable error
in the superordinate implications rank order for that construct.
I t will be of considerable theoretical in te res t to see if the corre
lation between the re la tive resistance to s lo t change ranks and the
superordinate implications ranks ( i . e . , the threa t hypothesis) can
be increased by a correction for the lack of implicative extension,
23. The rows of the impgrid indicate those constructs which
can be used by the subject to imply his polar location on a given
construct; that is , the given construct monitors changes on the con
struc ts within i t s subordinate range of implication. The rows, there
fore, are related to the re la tive range of convenience of the constructs,
64
Now, the Choice Corollary of personal construct theory Implies that
every time a person chooses an a lternative of a dichotomous construct
he must have made some prior decision about whether or not the choice
will elaborate his system. Thus, each person is expected to have a
personal theory or philosophy about what constitu tes the greatest
pathways of elaboration for him. I t is to these constructs that he
refers when making choices among construct a lte rna tives; that is,
the choices must a t least be compatible with these over-arching
personal principles of choice. In order to function effectively these
principles must have an extremely broad range of convenience, since
presumably they monitor a l l construct a lte rna tive choices. Therefore,
if the row patterns indicate the re la tive monitoring range for each
construct, then i t follows that those constructs wW ch have the broad
es t subordinate range of implications should be the ones which consti
tu te these pervasive principles of elaborative choice within the set
for the particular person. Readingthe:Constructs of the implication
grid in order of th e ir row weightings will thus provide a picture of
the hierarchical arrangement of principles within the set which a per
son is using to elaborate his l i f e . To i l lu s t r a te , the following
constructs are a sample of those constructs which had the highest
subordinate range of implications for the people In the study: more
responsibility—less; happy==unhappy; nervous—self-controlled; more
friends—fewer friends; accomplish more—accomplish less; c o n te n t-
discontent; easier to get along with—harder; broad in te res ts—narrow;
understand people—misunderstand; mature—insna tu re; fu ll l i f e —average
65
l i fe ; feeling of w ell-be ing-frustra ted ; do more—do less; get more
rewards—get fewer; self-centered—generosity; easy going—worried;
find out more about se lf and l i f e —less; more job opportunities—
fewer; gain respect of others—loose; have success—have l i t t l e
success.
Notice that the personal meaning of these terms can be defined
by th e ir respective row and column Implications, This provides a means
for locating and c larify ing the directions in which a person is
elaborating his l i f e . In th is sense, they are somewhat related to the
Adlerian concept of Life Style. Whether these ideas about the signify
:'!csnce of Impgrid rows will be substantiated by la te r research remains
to be seen.
24. Individual difference measures such as to ta l number of
implications, number of reciprocal implications, logical inconsistency
(22, above), ra tios of implications for subordinate and superordinate
constructs, construct sim ilarity Indexes, e tc . , might be useful in
future research,
25. The hierarchical method of construct e l ic i ta t io n and the
row analysis of the impgrU both gave hierarchical arrangements of
achievement and a f f i l ia t io n themes. These techniques might be of
in teres t to those interested in these constructs,
26. If the research in the f ie ld of cognitive dissonance
is viewed as basically the evoking of In feren tia lly incompatible con
s truc ts and the subsequent reconstruction to reduce the Incompatibil
i ty , then, by the use of the implication grid technique. I t should be
possible to predict what particu lar personal constructs pairs would
66
be "dissonant" and to what degree. One should also be able to make
some wagers about the direction of "dissonance reduction," as well,
27* Lastly, the most Important single Implication for further
research Is the propost ion that in order to understand another person,
one must understand the network of implications which rela te and
define his personal constructs in specific contexts.
The next phase of research will be to apply the general approach
of th is study to the remaining two aspects of the problem of construct
change; namely, the sh if t change and scalar change of personal con
s tru c ts . Eventually, the resulting theory of construct change will
be brought to bear on the problem of tie analysis of the process of
reconstruction occurring within the context of interacting construct
systems—that i s , the process of two-person social relationships.
The author would very much welcome communication from others whose
research in te res ts might be related to the issues set forth in th is
d isse r ta t ion .
CHAPTER VII
A BRIEF AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH
This d isse rta tion represents both the end point of a cycle of
experience and the beginning of one. The purpose of th is chapter is to
present a b rief autobiographical overview of the six-month cycle of
experience which terminated with the writing of th is manuscript. The
beginnings of a new experience cycle have been delineated in the d is
cussion of the implications for further research in Chapter VI, Since
the focus of convenience of th is research concerns the general problem
of construct change—reconstruction—, the additional requirement of
the self-reflexiveness of psychological theorizing implied by personal
construct theory suggests that such an autobiographical section is
i t s e l f relevant to the general topic of th is d isserta tion . If nothing
e ls e , i t documents tha t experience does not come forth full-blown from
the side of Jove. Experience—in the construct theory sense—is the
interweave of events and constructs, thus th is autobiography documents
a cycle of people in interaction with ideas.
The educational origins of th is research are complex and d if f ic u l t
to t rac e , but i t seems to reflec t the convergence of four interrelated
streams of thought. When , was in i t ia l ly considering "doing" a d isser
ta t io n , (I now know that It is a living one), i t was of the utmost
67
68
împOPtàftce for me to know that I would be able in th is research to ask
people a significant question about the direction of the ir lives, the
answer to which would be significant for me and them and would““ ln t u r n -
lead to further questions. This statement is related to the following
four concerns;
U Meaning and significance In psychology
Z, Change and process conceptions
3, Models of Man
4, The rela tion of science to Man
The word "concern" Is used to Indicate these broad areas of
personal envoivement. It was essentia l that the d iesserta tion experience
should be concerned with nujch more than i ts own completion.
The issue of meaning and significance had become quite sa lien t
for me a f te r completing preparations for the General Examinations in
c lin ica l psychology. Apart from the question of the theoretical s ig n if
icance of the various studies punctuating the geometrical progression
of psychological research, the question of the human significance became
an even more important issue. Granted, the term "human significance"
lacked the elegance—and simple-mindedness—of operational defin ition ,
but there was no denying that i t was fu l l of meaning—and | was not a t
a l l sure that i t s meaning was simply surplus. It Is of in terest that
the most exciting concept I remember from my S-R psychology and learning
theory days was Clyde Nobel's m, meaning —defined as the number of as
sociates to a given stimulus. Here, 1 thought, was an inroad to the
person.
69
Several other issues concerned me. Why was i t that most proponents
of various theoretical positions did not use th e ir espoused position
self-reftexively? That is , why did they use one system of conceptual
ization for themselves and th e ir intimates and another for the ir
"experi^m tal subjects"? is there to be no psychology of psychologists?
What is gained if we regard the phrase "experimental subjects" as a
euphemism for "experimental objects"? What Is gained if we abandon the
hypothetico-deductive ambition to deduce Man? What is gained if we
regard the purpose of psychology as being the creation of Man rather than
his reduction? What Isgplned if we examine Logical Positivism and Dia
lec tical Materialism as modern sides of an ancient coin—the problem of
Being and Becoming? Since each philosophy can be used to construe the
other, are they not a lte rna tive constructions about construing? Can
the structure versus process dichotomy be usefully resolved by regarding
man as structure-in-process? If a psychologist were God-omniscient and
omnipotent*'po3Sessing perfect prediction and control—what then would he
do as psychologist? in the naive realism sense, shall the purpose of the
science of psychology be to discover the secrets of Man by l i f t in g the
nightgown of Nature? This is the ob jec tif ica tion of Man—Man, the object.
Not to acknowledge the existence of another—is that not the ultimate
hosti li ty? What happens i f science is viewed as the human ac tiv ity of the
expansion and a rticu la tio n of anticipations? In what sense can the goals
of science be seen to be human libe rty ; human consnunity—in the sense of
the ccmmunion of persons; and f in a l ly , the evolving awareness of the
beauty and awesomeness of human existence?
70
What you have just read i l lu s t ra te s the kind of thinking which
characterized the rather misty and global origins of th is dissertaion.
As a s ty le of thinking I t was d ila ted , loose, propos!tional. Invita tional,
and an expression of personal învoivement and deeply-felt concern. In a
very important way these issues set the outer parameters of the present
Kork. Realizing tha t outer parameters do not.make d isse rta tions , a very
patient George Kelly chided me by suggesting tha t a d isserta tion on the
Nature of Man would be perfectly acceptable—to which I replied tha t I had
not yet finished my thinking on the Nature of God and the Universe#
Wisely, he then allowed me enough rope to hang myself; th is communicated
fa i th and c la r if ied responsib ility .
From th is point on the process of construing was primarily one
of successive pre-emption and choice, tightening, and seeking and acknow
ledgment of confirmation and disconfirmation. A quotation from John Dewey-
"Conventionalists and extrem lasare not Inquiring."—which I read during
the national e lections, provided a significant turning point. I equated
inquiry with change and decided to focus on the problem of change i t s e l f ,
A sample of the constructs I was elaborating with respect to th is problem
included change—sta b i l i ty , ambiguity—certa in ty , re la t iv i ty —absolutism,
freedom—lim itation, seeking—avoiding, expression—repression, c rea tlv ity -
conformity, fu ture—past, process—en ti ty , expansion—constric tion , f lex
ib i l i ty —fig id ity.open—dogmatic, identity—identity loss, s ta t ic s ta b il i ty -
dynanlc s ta b i l i ty , consonance—dissonance, congruity—incongruity, balance-
imbalance, leveling—sharpenirig, in ternal—external locus of change, h ig h -
low r isk taking, high—low sk i l l a t role playing, the balance of person
predictability versus environment predictability, sociological variables,
71
and the temporal dimensionalizatlon of kitchen sinks. My pre-emption
a t th is level had a t least taken me from the sea, but I t landed me in
an atheoretical swamp. I t was here that I tr ied on George Kelly's
freely offered and amazing set of glasses—and caught sight of land—
with mountains to climb.' Magnificent mountains.'
The problem nav becanfô to see what diange meant in terms of
construct theory, research, and related methodologies. It became quite
apparent—even though ! had "read" Kelly--that the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f
personal construct theory can not be grasped until one has envisioned
with i t . I t is f e r t i 1i ty —significance not yet envisioned.
But vision is not enough, i t is necessary to be involved with the
people who are the subjects of th is science. My armimentarium now con
sisted of such notions as superordination—subordination, v a l id a t io n -
invalidation, construct density, complexity, propositionality, pre-emption,
conste1latorI ness, permeab i 1i ty--impermeabi l ity , 1ooseness—t ightness,
d i la t io n —constric tion , repertory design, seria l Invalidation, e tc . , and
these constructs now stood in a nomothetic network. During th is phase
of the research I was involved in a number of extensive interviews and
small, intensive p i lo t studies. The major lesson here was to learn
how to ask questions about change so as to enable the person to explain
himself to m? systematically. At this time my conceptualizations were
c lu ttered with many individual differences hypotheses which obscured
the s truc tu re-in“process conception I was working toward. Basically, I
explored the things I could do to produce a change and the variety of
ways a person construed change In his l i f e . Since the conception was to
se lf -re f lex ive , I became my most useful subject.
72
The pressure of time became a decisive fac to r, since Î was pre
paring for a Research Fellowship in London, England for the following
year. As i sat staring a t the mass of hypotheses, microtheories, pro
tocols, and f ie ld notes ! had compiled, i acknowledged that the t ine for
tightening and constric tion, pre-emption and choice—was now. i t is
important to mention that a t th is moment ï experienced a sense of de
pression, because—for me—tightening Implied a loss of Implication,
tiœaning, and significance. It was not until my d isserta tion subjects
were well along in th e ir task of explaining themselves systematically
to me that I realized—profoundly—that c la r if ic a t io n and unequivocal
prediction are the means whereby we prec ip ita te ourselves into a new
experience, new meaning, and new significance. Many of the characteris tics
of the Implication grid were to ta l ly unimagined un til a f te r the leap had
been made and the data collected. The sense of the Mystery of existence
is not lost by c la r if ic a t io n and commitment; i t is gained.
I had now specifica lly focused the problem to the construct im
plications of s lo t change. I elaborated the notion that construct de
finition must involve a statement of the superordinate and subordinate
implications—the focus and range of Implication—as well as I ts focus
and range of convenience. The final issue was one of measurement tech
niques and methodology. By th is time I had become sensitive to the
loosening-tightening-testing sequence and could modulate the process,
so that the hierarchical method end the implication grid/technique readily
evolved. The actual running of subjects was highly intimate and meaningful;
i t could hardly have been otherwise, since I was indexing significant
73
personal constructs and the network of Implications rela ting them
for twenty-eight on-going human beings. The running of subjects
represented the end of one cycle experience, but the Intimate
contact and perspective which th is cycle has provided now creates
a magnificent v is ta . In th is sense, determination and in i t ia t iv e
are Inexorably linked.
One final note; This research was a lived human experience.
Science is not a disembodied e n ti ty —a mere exercise in voyeuristic
ob jec tif ica tion ; i t is a human a c t iv i ty —perhaps the human ac t iv i ty .
CHAPTER V in
SUMMARY
This d isse rta tion was conducted within the context of personal
construct theory and addressed i t s e l f to the general problem of the
change of personal constructs. Specifically , i t presented an In i t ia l
formulation of a theory of construct implications which was then applied
to an analysis of the re la tive resistance to slo t change of personal
constructs. The hierarchical method for the e l ic i ta t io n of superordinate
constructs, the re la tive resistance to s lo t change g rid , and the impli
cation methodologies were used to te s t several hypotheses which related
superordinate implications,level of superordination, and resistance to
s lo t change. The findings were substan tia l, highly s ign if ican t, and pro
vided support for the u t i l i t y of the Choice and Orgainization Corollaries
of personal construct theory. Numerous theo re tica l , methodological, and
empirical quest ionswere raised and suggestions for further research
presented.
74
APPENDIX
75
Instructions
This appendix presents the complete data for each subject vdio
participated in the study. The following instructions apply to the
interpretation of these tables;
1. The sex of each subject is indicated a f te r the subject
number,
2. Constructs 1 - 10 are the subordinate constructs; constructs
1 1 - 2 0 are the superordinate ones. The side of the construct which is
typed f i r s t is the side which the subject preferred for his self-construe-
tion,
3. The matrix a t the top of the page is the re la tive resistance
to slo t change grid. The number of each of the twenty constructs is
indicated along the side and bottom of the grid. The rank order of each
construct is indicated d irec tly below i ts number on the bottom of the
grid. The rank order of 1 designates the highest re la tive resistance
to slo t change. A dash under a rank order number means that 0.5 is to
be added to the indicated whole number rank order. An "x" in a column
indicates those constructs on which a subject preferred to make a slo t
change order to remain the same on the given constructs indicated by
the column. A blank in a column indicates, therefore, those constructs
which a subject preferred not to make a slo t change, but was willing to
change the column construct in order to do so. An "x" or a blank in a
row, however, has ju s t the opposite meaning. The le t te r " i ” is used
76
77
to indicate those construct pairs for which a change on one while
remaining the same on the other is iogicaiiy incompatible. Construct
pairs for which no choice could be made, because both changes were
equally undesirable, are indicated by the le t te r "e ."
4. The bottom matrix Is the implication grid . The number of
each of the twenty constructs is Indicated alor^ the side and bottom
of the grid. The rank order of each construct is indicated d irec tly
below i t s number on the bottom of the grid. The rank order of I
designates the highest number of second order superordinate implica
tions . A dash under a rank order number means that 0.5 is to be added
to the indicated whole number rank order. An "x" in a column indicates
the paralle l superordinate implications of the column construct. An
"r" in a column indicates the reciprocal superordinate implications
of the column construct.
5. The Spearman's rho for each subject for hypothesis I follows
the le t t e r "A" a t the bottom of the page. The correlations for
various p values using a one-tailed t t e s t and an N of 20 are as
follows;
rho p
0.378 .050.515 .010.561 .0050.679 .0005
6. The data for each subject for hypothesis 2 follows the
le t t e r "B‘‘ a t the bottom of the page. The f i r s t number is the sum of
the sums of columns I - 10; the second the sum of the sums of columns
II - 20. The th ird number is tte chi square value for each subject.
78
A negative sign means the sum for columns 1 » 10 was greater than the
sum for columns 11 - 20. The p values the individual chi square
values, df = 1, are as follows:
chi square p
2.71 .103.84 ,055.4; .026.64 ,01
- 10.83 .001
7. The data for each subject for hypothesis 3 follows the
le t te r "C" a t the bottom of the page. The f i r s t number is the sum of
the squares of rows 1 - 10; the second, the sum of the sums of rows
II - 20. The third number is the chi square value for each subject.
A negative sign means the sum for rows 1 - 10 was greater than the
sum for rows 11 - 20. The p values are the same as in 6, above.
Subject 1 p
73
ii %
XXX i X X i
î Xe
i ex x x x x x x x i x e e e e e eXXX X X i X X i X
i X Xi 1 1 i
X X X X X1 i i l e
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 5 5 4 3 2 1 31711 9 8 3 318 3 3 3141613101219 72015
x x x x x x x x e e e -------
1 1. quick temper—gentleX 2
3 2. leade r— fb ilowe rX X 4X 5 3. wants to get married—
*•%X
67 4.
Xmoutgoing—keeps to s e l f
X X 8X 9 5. common sense—sc a tte re 10 brained
i l l 6 . conse rvative—radical12
% 13 7. modem ideas—i 14 old fashioned ideas1 15 8. doesn't l e t people takeX 16 advantage of thea-“doesX 17 9. r e a l i s t i c — naiveX 18X xl9 10 . believes in college fo1 —20 women—doesn't
X X X r X XX r X X X X XX r XX X r XXX X XX X r X X r XX X X X r X r X XXX
rr r r r r rr r r r r rX X r r X XX r r r r rr r r rX r r X r r X r r t X r r r r r r r X X r X r r X
r r2019181716151413 113 2 7 9_3u_616
r r XXXX
r X
r t-
XX X X X X
r X X r r
r r r X r
r r r
rr r X
r r r r
X X Xr r r r r r X r r r r r XX X Xt r
121110
rr
XXX
X r r X
X r r X
r X X X X X
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 25 4 8181411101516192012
A;0.750 B;65,129,63.01 0:85,109,6.78
1X 2
345678 9
10mr l 2xl3
1415
ri61718
xl920
1
11. persuades people— causes arguen^nts
12. friendly re la tions— causes arguemnts
13. more friands— fewer
14. security—insecurity
15. needed—unneeded
16. broader ou tlook- self-centered
17. well-rounded- narrow minded
18. get more out of l i f e — get less
19; havB more responsibility —have less
20. useful—unuseful
Subject 2 M
80
1i i
X X X X X X X
iX
i i
X Xi iX X X X XXX XXX
Xi i i i 1 iX X i Xe i1 X X X
X X
iiIiiXXii
iXiX
ii X
XXX1 ii i
XiX
X Xi i
xlOi l la
2019181716151413121110 9 16191914 51312 5 5 51110
1 1 X X X X1 iX X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 7 6 5
55154 3
51817
1 113 X 114 X xl5 1 116 X xl7 X xl8 X xl9 X x202 1 5 5
1. l ib e ra l—conservative
2. lower class a tt i tud es— middle class a ttitudes
3. s tra ig h t forward»» round about
4. concentrate»»drift
5. concerned with a r t— recognition
6. gets by—doing what is expected
7. likes ru ral things— likes urban things
8. ind iffe ren t to disapproval—conce me d
9o flexible . toward morals— s t r i c t
10. consistently honest a with s e l f —incons is te n t ly honest
11. open minded—closed
12. could be a w riter—
r r r r r X
r r
r r r r
r r
r r r r r X r r r r r r 1 couldn 't ber r r r r r r r r r r r 2 13. aware—unaware
XJ4 14. unified—isolated
r r r r r r r r r r X r r r 5r r r r r r r r X r r r r 6 15. happy—unhappy
X X X r r r 7r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 8 16. hones t —dishone s tr r r r r r r r r r r r 9r r r r r r r r r r r r 10 17. respect s e l f -
r r r r r r r r r r r r l i d islike s e l fr r r r r r r r r r r rl2 18. worry le ss— worryr r r r r r r r r r r rl3r r r r r r r r r r r rl4 19. solving problems—
r r r r r r r r r r r X X xl5 bogged downr r r r r r r r r r r rl6 20. accomplish more—
X r X X X X r r r r r X X xl7 accomplish lessr r 18r r r 19X r r 20
2019181716151413121110 19161614 313 8 8 8 3 3
9 8 7 6 5 4 38 31512 82018 111
A:0.817 8:105,101,-0.15 0:102,104,0.04
Subject 3 M
81
1X 2
1 x 3 1 4
5
i iX i
i i l lXX 1X X X X
i 1 X X X 1x x x x x x x x x x X
X X %X X X% X XXX X iX X XX 1 XXX
Xi
X i
X X5 4 3
10xl lxl2113114151617181920
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 16 7 6 3 2 1 5 81414 910201917 411131812
r r r r r r r X r X 1X X X X X X X r r X r r X r X 2
r r X r r X 3X X r X r X r r 4
5X r r 6
X X X X X r X X X r X r r r 78
r r X r r 9X X r 10
X X X X X X r r X X r r r l lX X X X X X X X X X X X r rl2
X X X X r r X X rl3X X X r r r r X X rl4r X 15
X X X X xl6r 17
X r X X X r 18r X X X r 19
X X X X X X X X 202019181716151413121110 9 8 ? 6 5 4 3 2 1
1 . u n d e r s t a n d i n g - - demanding
2. se lf-con tro lled— nervous
3. have goals—d rif t in g
4. considerate of others— self-centered
5. normal sex—abnormal
6. more knowledge—less
7. family harmony- family tension
8. a r t i s t i c ta len t—none
9. weighs the fac ts—jumps to conclusions
10. believe in conditioning —no in te re s t in i t
11. others gain confidence —others loose
12. gain friends—loose
13. people approach you— people avoid you
14. understand people— misunderstand
15. useful—useless
16; wanted—unwanted
17. active—inactive
18. d irection—d rif t in g
19. developing s e l f - staying the Sfflne
20. excitement— boredom
17 9 6 1 4 3 616191018 8201415 2111212 4
A:0.749 B:62.75,2.?3 0:63,74,1.92
82
Subject 4 M
X X X
X X
X X
XX
XXX
X i X
i i X X X % X X X X X
X Xi 1
i i XX X 1 X X X X X
20191S1716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 2 3 5 810 6 6 4 112131820151113151318
î2345678 9
1011121314151617181920
X X r X r X 1r 2
r r X r X r r r X X r r r r X X r 3X X X X r r X X X r r 4X r X r r r r r r X X 5
r 6X X r r r X r X 7
X r X X r X X X r r X r 3X r X r X r r r X X r r 9X X X X X X r r X X X X X r X xlOr r r r r r r 11r r r r r r r X r r X 12X X X X X r r r r r X X X r X r X xl3
X X X X X r X X r X X X X X r xl4r r r r r r X r X r r r 15r r r r X r r r X 16r r r r r r X r X X X r X r X 17r r r r r r X l ar r r r r s r r r X r r X xl9
V X r r r r r r 2020 1918171615141312 1110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1. likes sports-- indifferent
2 . coord inated-- uncoordinated
3. s tab l e - - fly off the handle
4 . f a d d i s h — c o n s e r v a t i v e
5. confidence—lack of
6. unmarried—married
7. college degree— no college degree
8. s i l ly —serious
9. se ttled in goals— unsettled
10. relaxed—nervous
11. masculine—feminine
12. being " in "—outcast
13. friends--fewer friends
14. conversation—fewer conversations
15. feel smart— feel dumb
16. confidence—afraid
17. a tta in goals— fa iling to
18. worthwhile- worthless
19. respect— lack of
20. good job—no job
3 2 4 8 4 61916 8 11913141115 717121018
A;0.584 8:93,120,7.84 0:95,118,5.57
Subject 5 M
83
XXe
123456 7
X X 8X X X X X X X X 9
i i 10i i 11
i X i 12i i X i X 13
i i i i 14i i i i i i X i i i 15
i i i i i 16X i X X X X X i X i i X i il7
x x x x x x x x X X X X X X i X xl8i i i i i i i 19
i i i i i i i i 202019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 13 32015 114 510 S 9 31911 71213 6171315
X X X r r X 1r 2
X r r 3X r 4
X r X X X 5X r 6
X 78
X X X r 9r X X X X 10x x x x r r x r r x X X X X xl lx x r x x X r r X rl2X X X r X r r 13
X 14X r r X X r X X r xl5
r r r X X 16XX X r X r X X 17
X X X X r X X 1819
r 202019181716151413121110 9 S 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1 21611 4 613 814 9 61819201516 411 311
1 . o p e n l y s e n t i m e n t a l —» hidden sentiment
2 . parent—child
3. boyish—g ir l ish
4. lilte science—• indifferent to
5. independent-- dependent
6. modem—old fashioned
7. relig ious—agnostic
8. higher nativein te 1ligence—lowe r
9. adapt to s o c ie ty - rebelled
10. open minded- prejudiced
11. accomplish more-- accomplish less
12. good feeling— bad feeling
13. feel l i fe is great— feel l ife is bad
14. purpose—no purpose
15. more knowledge--less
15. make correct decisions —incorrect decisions
17. more freedwn—less
18. comfort—discomfort
19. progress—sta tus quo
20. being yourself—being a carbon copy
A;0.427 3:38,55,7,61 0:29,64,42,24
Subject 6 F
84
1 1 . i r r e s p o n s i b l e -2 r e s p o n s i b l e3 2 . a g r e e a b l e -
X 4 d i s a g r e e a b l ei 5 3 . s t a n d o n o w n t w o f e e t -
X X X X 6 - f o l l o w sX X X X 7 4 . e a s y g o i n g -
i X X X 8 e x c i t a b l ei i X X X X 9 5 . b r i g h t - - d u 1 1
i i 10X X X X X X X i l l 6 . h u m o r o u s - - n o s e n s eX î 1 i X X 12 o f h u m o r
X X X X X 13 7 . f r i e n d l y - - s n o b b i s hX X X X X X 1 4
X X X X i X X X 1 5 8 . k i n d — n a s t yX X X X X X X 1 6
i i 1 7 9 . f o r g i v i n g - - u n f o r g i v i n gi 1 1 1 8
i i i X 1 9 1 0 . a n i b i t i o u s - -X X 1 X X 2 0 u n a m b i t i o u s
2 0 1 9 1 8 1 7 1 6 1 5 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 . u n p i e d i c t a b l e - -5 3 1 6 1 2 1 1 9 1 0 8 1 8 4 1 6 1 4 1 7 1 5 1 1 3 7 1 9 2 0 p r e d i c t a b l e
1 2 . p o p u l a r - - u n p o p u l a r
r X 1 1 3 . s a t i s f a c t i o n —X r r r X X X r 2 d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n
r r r 3 1 4 . d o m o r e t h i n g s - -X X r X r 4 d o l e s s t h i n g s
r r r r x x r r 5 1 5 . b r o a d m i n d e d -X r 6 n a r r o w m i n d e d
X X r X ï 7 1 6 . u n d e r s t a n d o t h e r s —X X r r r 8 m i s u n d e r s t a n d o t h e r sX X r r r 9 1 7 . l e a r n m o r e —
r r r r 10 l e a r n l e s sr r r l l 1 8 . m o r e o f a f u t u r e -
r r r r r r r r 12 l e s s o f a f u t u r er X X X X 1 3 1 9 . a t t a i n g o a l s —
X X r X 1 4 u n a t t a i n e d g o a l sX r i 5 2 0 . h a p p y — u n h a p p y
X r X 1 6r X r 17
r r X r r r X 1 8r X X r r X X 1 9
X X X X X r X X X 2 0
1914 ô 9 312 519 114 7 8101416 21611 418
A:0.271 3:44,55,2.75 0:47,52,0.53
Subject 7 F
8S
1 1. have <n-7n way about2 home—easy going
X 3 2. adult—childishX X 1 41 1 1 5 3. show emotions—
i i X 1 6 suppress emotionsX X X X X X 7 4, relig ion important—XX X X X 8 relig ion rules1 1 X X 1 9 5. takes In i t ia t iv e —
X X XX X X 10 doesn’ t1 1 1 X 11 6. public s p i r i t e d -
i 1 i 12 m ilitan ti i X X 13 7. lik es to work with
XXX X XX X X 14 hands—doesn 't1 1 1 X X X 15 8. a c tiv ity minded—
i i l l X 1 X 16 homebodyi 1 1 17 9. s t r i c t —lenient with
i 1 X X 18 c h ild 's safety% % % X X X X 1 1 X 119 10. doesn 't like toX X X i X 1 X 1 1 1 120 tease—does
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 11. con ten t —dis con ten t1012 2 1 61315 7 4 817 51520 8141911 318
12. adjusted-»-maladjusted
X X X r r X 1 13. people like you—r 2 people d islike you
r X r X r r 34
14. people do favors fo r you—people won't
r r X r r r r X r 5 15. free atm osphere-r r r r X
X67 16.
stra inedunderstand one another
X X X X X 8 —misunderstandX r r X X
XX 9
1017. mature—regress
X X X X X r X r X X X X X X 11 18. be respected—beX X r r r r r X X r r X X 12 looked down onX r X r X 13 19, choose—obeyX X X X X xl4X X X X r X r r X XX r X 15 20. people not allowed to-X r X r X X
r rXr
1617
- people step on you
X X r r r X X 18X X r X r
X r XXX
19x20
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 17 811 1161319 n. 51519 91419 3 417 6 2 9
A;0.582 8:60,59,-0,02 0:40,79,38.02
Subject 8 M
86
12
1 , r e s e r v e d ° « = e m o t i o n a l
X X 3 2 . m a r r i e d — u n m a r r i e dX X 4X 5 3 , p r i v i l e g e d -
X X 6 d e p r i v e dX 7 4 , p a t i e n t — I m p a t i e n t
X X X X X X X 8X X 9 5 . i n i t i a t i v e — t i m i dX X 1 0
X X X X X X X X 1 1 6 . u n s e 1 f i s h — s e I f i s hX i X X 1 2
i X X X X 13 7 . m a t u r e — i m m a t u r ei X X X X X X X 1 4
i X X 1 5 8 , s m o k e s — d o e s n ' ti X X X X 1 6
i i i 1 7 9 . e d u c a t e d — u n e d u c a t e di i i i X 1 8
i i i i i i 1 9 1 0 , h a p p y — u n h a p p yi i i i i i i 2 0
2 0 1 9 1 8 1 7 1 6 1 5 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 , r e l a x e d — n e r v o u s4 4 6 310 815121118 7 920 214131816 118
X X X X r r X X r X X X r X X 1r 2
X X X X X X 3X X X X r X X X r X X X X X r 4X 5X X % 6X X 7
89
X X X X r r r r r X X X X X 10X X X X r r r r r X X r X X r l lX X X X r r r r r X X X X 12X X X X r r r r X X X X 13
X X X X X X X X 14X X X X r X r r r X X X X X X rl5X X X X r r r r r X X X r X X rl6r r r r 17r r r X 18r r r X 19
r r r X 202019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
12, b e tte s performance- poorer performance
13, higher s a la r y - lower salary
14, buy more things— buy fewer things
15, s a t i s f i e d - d issa tis f ie d
16, eas ie r to get along with—harder
17, companionship- lone liness
18, warm fe e l in g - cold feeling
19, complete as a man- incomplete
20, f u l f i l l purpose- u n fu lfilled
1 5 3 21114191111 8111519 6111718 7 416
A;0,723 8:62 ,91 ,13 .56 0 :57 ,96 ,26 ,68
87
Subject 9 F
1 1. i n d e p e n d e n t -2 dependent
X 3 2. mature—immature1 4
i X i 5 3. emotional—stableX X X X 6 e m o t i o n s
X X X X X X 7 4. broad in te re s ts—i X 8 narrow in te res ts
X X X X X i X X 9 5. leader— followeri 10
. X 11 6. open with friends—i i X X il2 r e s e r v e d
i i i i l3 7. o r i g i n a l —i X i i i 14 non-creative
X X X X X X X X X X xl5 8. modem-X X i i i i X 16 old-fashioned
e e 17 9. consistant—i X X X X i X X 18 inconsistan t
i e e 19 10. th o u g h tfu l-X X X X X X 20 impulsive
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 11 . s a t i s f i e d -5 1 8 21218 ? 611 4 920131916141017 315 d issa tis f ie d
r r X r X r 1 13.r r X r r 2
X X X 3 14.X X r r r r r r X X r r 4
X r r r X r X r 5 15.X X X X X X X X 6X r r X X X X r r X 7 16.
17.r
X X X X X89
X X X r X X X 10r r r r r r r r X 11 18.r X X r r r r r r 12
X r r r r r r r r rl3 19.X X r X X r r r r rl4
X X r r r r X r X r X 15 20.X X r X r r r r r r r 16r r r 17X X X r X r X r 18r r r 19
r r r r 2020191817 16151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
12. feeling of accomplishment— lack of
13. feel free—feel tied down
14. growing up—staying young
15. new experience- same experience
16. s tim u la tin g - du ll and boring
17. respect—lack of
short term friends
pessim istic
5 615 2 7 912 4 3 1171812161910 8191014
A:0.657 3:44,99,68.75 C;65,78,2.60
88
Subject 10 M
1 1, broader relig iousX 2 ou tlook--narrowe ri 3 2. reserved—emotional
X X 4XX X 5 3. enjoys school—
X X X X X 6 doesn 'ti 7 4c in te res ted in
X X X X X X 8 p o li t ic s —uninterestedX X X i X 9 5. enjoys a r t—doesn 'tX X i xlO
i i l l 6, likes hunting—i 1 12 d islik es hunting
i l l i X il3 7. values accomplishsenti i I i i 14 —doesn* t
1 X X X i xl5 8. likes foo tball—i i i X X X X xl6 d is lik es
X i 17 9. adult d r e s s -i i l l 18 teenage dress
i X X 1 1 1 i xl9 10. believes conmmn sensel i t i X 120 important—common
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 sense unimportant4 6 2 111131012 5 8141619 3201715 918 7 11. understand people—
misunderstand12. contribute—
r X r X i not contributer X 2 13. livable society—
r r r r x x r x r r X X 3 unlivableX XX X X X r 4 14. happiness—X XX X 5 unhappiness
X XX X 6 15. masculine—femininer r X r X r r 7
X X X 8 16. acceptance—rejectionX 9
r 10 17, learn more—learns x x r x x r r r X r X r l l lessr r r r x t t r r r 12 18. prepared--unpreparedr r r r r r r x 13r r r r r x r r r r X xl4
1519. success--failuxs
X X X X x r r 16 20, new ideas—same ideasr r r X r r X r X 17r r r r r r X r r 18X r x x r r r x r r X 19
r r r r r r r r202019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1 9 5 71012 3 2 412151818 7181816 61014
A;0.709 8:33,99 ,132.00 0 :45 ,87 ,39 .20
Subject 11 F
89
1 1 . tolerant»»X 2 in to le ran t
3 2 . o rgan ized-i 4 disorganized
X X X 56
3. mature—immature% % % %
X 7 4. down to e a r th -i X X 8 fligh ty
X X X X X X i 9 5. in te llig en t-»1 0 less in te llig e n t
i l l 6 . a r t i s t i c —i X X 12 u n a rtis tic
X K 13 7 . serious—dreamer1 X X X X X 1 4
i X X X 15 8. deeper—shal lowe rX X X X 1 6
i 17 9. accepts—argues over18 l i t t l e things1 9 1 0 . devoted-wishy-washy
X X X X X X X X 2 0
X 1 i X
X X X X2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 15 2 3 1 7 411 9 8 510181412201713 61916
11
12
x r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r X
r r X r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
r r r r
r r r r r r r r
r r r r r
r r r r r r
r r x 2019181? 13 112 7
r r r r r r r x xXX X r r X r r r x r r x r r r r r r r r r x x x x r r r x r r r i r
X X X x r r
r r r x x x r r x r r x r r r x r r r r X r r r x r r r x r r r r r r r r x r r r r r r r r r r r r
rr r x r r r r r r r r x r r r r r r
r r X r r r r r r r r x r r r r rr r r x r r r r x x r r r r r r r r r r x r r x x r r r r r 16151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 4 8 2 2 8 6
r r r r
rr r rr r xr r r
rr
r r r r r r
r r r r4 3 2
1 2345678
r 910
r l l rl2 rl3 rl4 rl5 rl6
r 17 r rl8 r rl9
201
e a s ie r to get along with—harder people with you»® people stay away
13. people help you— people unable to
14. f^el enjoyment— fee l lonely
15. happy—unhappy
16. l i f e seems e a s i e r - l i f e seems harder
17. goals in l i f e —no goals, aimless
18. contented— fru stra ted
19. people t ru s t and respect you— people apprehensive
20. perm itted to do more- perm itted to do less
5111315201916101817
AjO.758 B ;107,157,2.34 0:123,141,2.63
Subject 12 F
90
12
X X 3 X 4
i i i 5 6
i 7i i i 1 8
x x x x x x x x S X X X X X X X xlO i l l X i l l
X i i X ii l l i l l
1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i
i i X X 1 1 1 x l l 1 1 1 1 1 i 1
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
% 1 12 1 113
X 1415
i i l ie 1 17
1 18i 1 19
1 1202019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 2 6 715 4 9 21211192010 8 51714161318
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
r X X X
X r rr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r t r r r r r r
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
r r r r r r r r201818171615141312
2 1 7 3111612 4 9
r x r r x r r 1r X r X r r 2XX XXX X r 3
X 4r X X r X 5
r X 6r r r r 7r X r X r r 8
X 910
X r r r X X r r l lr X r r r r rl2r X r r r r rl3r X r r r X x rl4r r X X r x rl5r X r r r X x rl6r r r r r r rl7r X r r r x r rl8r r r r r r x r r r l 9 r r r r r r r2Q
1110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 62013141017181915 5
1 « dominate»” subservient
2. a rç is t lc — mechanical
3. belong to so ro rity— doesn 't
4. unde rs tending-- fligh ty
5. emotionally involved— carefree
6. married much l a t e r - married soon
7. organ ized- disorganized
8. professional In terests —lay in te res ts
9. in terested in s p o r ts - in terested in job
10. in terested In t r a v e l - in terested in home
11. leader—follower
12. e x c i t in g - uninteresting
13. accomplish more— accomplish less
14. recognition—lack of
15. security—insecurity
16. responsib ility— lack of
17. sa tis fac tio n —superf ic ia l sa tis fac tio n
18. improve s e lf—stay same o r go down
19. fu ll l i f e - average l i f e
20. goals—no goals
A;0.511 8:102,147,19.85 0:90,159,52.90
Subject 13 M
Si
X
X 1 X
I 1 X i XX
i 1 XX X X
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 2 5 7 6 4 1 9151610201814 811 3121719
1 1 . farm—c a n 't farmL3 2. in terested in cars—
X 4 uninterested5 3. plays piano—doesn 't
i 6X X X 7 4. music d irec to r—
X X X X X X 8 doesn 't d irec tX X X X X X X X 9 5. types—doesn* t type
X 1 10X X X X i l l 6. in terested in m usic-
X X K X X 12 uninterestedX % 13 7. employee—boss
1415 8. plays v io lin —doesn 't1617 9. doesn 't play golf—18 does19 10 . teach music—doesn 't
i 2 0
r r r x xr r r x x
X Xr r
r X r X XX
r r r x x x %r x x r x x x r r x x x x xr x x r r x x r r x x xr r r r r x x r r x x x x
XX X
123456 7
X 89
xlO111213
r l 4r X r X X r r 15
r r r r r x r r r r r 16r r r r x x r r r x X X X X X X 17r r r r x x r r X X 18r r r r x x r r X X 19
r r r r s x x r r r X r r r r 2 0:019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
11. less pressure—more
12. freedom—tes t r ie tloa
13. feeling of well-being —frustra ted
14. healthy—unhealthy '
13. more knowledge—less
16. growth—stagnation
17. accomplish more— accomplish less
18. contribute to society —no contribution
19. worthwhile—worthless
20. s e lf exp ress ion - l i t t l e s e l f expression
4 6 6 8 1 5 2 8131812161415 21610112019
A:0.S38 8:53,92,28.70 0:30,115,240.83
32
Subject 14 F
1 1 . work to capacity»»2 doesn't
X X 3 2. put others f i r s t -X i 4 put s e l f f i r s t
1 X X 5 3. open minded-X 6 stubbornX 7 4. sensible—spur of
x x x x x x x S the momntX X X X X X X 9 5. mature—Immature
% X X X X X xlOi X i l l 6 . not obscene—obscene
i 12i i 13 7. la te l llg e n t—s tupid
i i 1 1141 1 1 1 1 15 8. lesse r in te re s t In
1 1 1 1 1 16 sports—strong1 1 1 1 1 i 17 9. rellglous^^ncn^
i l i l 1 18 relig iousi l l 1 % X el9 10. calm-»nervous
X K X X X X X X X 202019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 11. b e tte r grades—lower11 6 3 3 3 9 8 3 7131918201210151617 314
12. accomplish purpose—fa l l to
r x r r r r X r 1 13. help p e o p le -r r 2 hurt people
X r XX x r r 3 14. fee l worthwhile—X X X % X X X X X X X r r X X 4 feel fa ilu reX X X X X X X X X r r X r 5
fi15. sa tis f ie d —not
07g
16. good l i f e —bad l i f e
9 17. happy—not happyx x x x x x x x x x X X X X xlOr X r r r X r X r l l 18. have friends—
X r r r r X r X X rl2 have enemiesr r r 13 19. fee l wanted—
r r x r r r x r X X r l 4 & el unwantedr x x r r r x r r X X r l5 20. be rig h t—be wrongr x x r r r x r r X 16X X X r r r x r r % % rl ?
r X r r 18X r r X X 19X r r r x x r X X x20
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 13 8 1 8 5 7 4 1 5121919191014161715 310
A;0.916 5:46 ,100 ,63 .39 0:60 ,86 ,11 .27
Subject 15 M
01
1 1. goes to church""2 doesn’ t
e 3 2. strong interest inX X X 4 basebâll--mild
X 5 3. marrie d- -umnarrîe dX X X 6
7 4. likes Dapore (boy’s8 name) —dislikes
XX X X e 9 5. equal—8 idekickX 1 i 10i X i 11 6. many a c tiv itie s—few
XXX X X X X X X 12% % X X i X % X 13 7. definite ideas—
X X X X X X X X X 14 floats alongX X % X 15 8, Presbyterian—
X i X X X X X X X 16 Jewishi X X X X X X K 17 9, middle c la s s -
i l l X XX X 1 18 lower classX % X X XX X % % 19 10. goes steady-
1 i 20 opposed to i t2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 11. fee l not alone with
111101213 5171418 4 516 2 315 720 9 819 my problems—feelI t ’s a ll up to me
12. easier to attainr r X 1 goals—harder
X 2 13. do more—do lessX r r 3X X X X 4 14. more information*»r r r r r r r 5 lessr r r r r r r r X X X X X 6 15. p r o fic ien t-r r 7 inexperienced
8 16, attain more goals—X X X 9 attain fewer
r :j> 17, more rewards—fewerr r r r r r X r i lX r X r r X X X X X 12 18. success—mediocrer r r r r r r r X x r r X X rl3X X r r r r r X X x r r 14 19. friends—few friendsX r r r r r r X X x r r 15r r r r r r r r r X x r r X 16 20. feel înçortant—r r r r r r r r r X x r r X rl7 fee l unin^ortantr r r r r r r r r r r 18r r r r r r r r X X r X X X 19
r r r r r r r r r 202019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4k 3 2 1
1 7 2 4 51112 616 8131919 310 819151417
A;0.3S9 8:51,106,59.31 0:37,120, 186.:19
Subject 16 F
94
1 1. ccs2proinigins=®2 stubborn
i 3A
2. jo v ia l—serious
5 3, calm—nervousX X X X X 6X 1 7 4. less eas ily angered—
8 moreXX X X X X X 9 5. friendly—snobbish
e 10K X 11 6. live in co u n try -
12 live in c ity1 1 13 7. stand up for s e lf—
1 i 14 back downX i i i 15 8. g i r l—tomboy
i i i 16l i e 1 1 i 17 9. ta lk a tiv e—quiet
x i e i 18x x s x x s x i % 19 10. doesn’ c use s a t i r ic a lXXX XXX 20 humor—does
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 11. have a good time—710 3 2 1 8 4 6 5121119131420 915171618 miss a lo t
12. happy°=unhappy
r r X X X XX r 1 13. good humored—x x x x x x x x x x X 2 upsetX X X X r r ï X r 3 14. doesn’ t hu rt people’sX r r r r r r r 4 feelings—doesx r r r r t ï i r r r X 5
A15. fee l good—feel bad
r0
X X 7 16. people not afra id to8 approach you— people
x x x x x x x x r r XX X 9 afra idr X 10 17. being a p a rt of things
x r x r x x r r r r xl l —depressed ^ d lonelyx r x ï x r x r x x r X x r r 12 18. people like you—x r x r r r r r r r r 13 people don 't
r r r r r X r X r xl4 19. do more—do lessx r x r r r r r r x X r r r 15
r r r X r x r X 16 20. not get blamedX r X s r x r r r X x r r 17 unfa irly—get biassed
r r X r r 18x r r r r r r x X r r l 9
X r r20201S1S1716Î5141312111Ô 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 111 8 1 9 7 3 2 310131219161817 5 6152014
A:0.749 B;53,113,67.92 0:65,101,19.94
Subject 17 F
1. quie te r--expressesX 2 emotions during
X X 3 utmessary argusœents4 2. doesn't like fishing—5 does6 3. live in c i t y -
X X % X % 7 live in countryX i X % S 4. unmarried now-
i X 9 married nowXXX X X X X X 10 5. mature—immature
! X X 11;■ - i X % 12 6, conservative withi i X 13 morals—liberal
1 i i X 14 7. interested in p o litic s1 i X i X X 15 —uninterested
X X X X X X X X 16 8 . teacher—s tudentX X X X X X X X 17X X X X X X X 18 9. higher education-
X XX i X 19 l o w e r educationXXX XXX X X X X 20 10. like housework—
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 dislike10 5 81213 7 2 2 6 920 41118 11415181816 11. gain friends—
loose friends12. social—alone.
r X r X X 1 isolatedr X 2 13. few mental problems—
3 manyX 4 14. normal l i f e —
r r r 5 breakdownX X X X 6
715. happy—xffihappy
X r r X 8 16. clean—messyx r r r r X X 9
r 10 17. more advantages—r X X r r l l fewerr r r 12 18. higher standard of
r r r r 13 living—Ictjerr r r 14 19. finish education—r X X r r r r rl5 couldn't
XXX X r 16 20. l i f e easier—harderr r XXX r % xl7r r r 18
r r X X 19% % X r r r X X X X 20
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 17 5 9 616 3 1 2 314181115201612 9 81812
A:0,577 8:28,53,22.32 0:26,55,32.35
Subject 18 F
yo
i
i l 1 1% 1 % % x i x i xi 1 i 1 i X
1 X % X i î i x x iX X X x i
i XXX X i lXX X X X X X x x x x x
I x x x x XXX x x x x x x2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1716 4 513 311 1 8 72019 915 212 6141018
1 2
X 3 1 4
X X 5 6
X X X i 1 7i i l l 8
X X X i X X X 9 i x x x x x x x xlO1 X X 11i XX i X 12
1314151617181920
1.
X X r X X r r r r r r r r X 1r r r r r r X r r r 2r r X X r r X X r r X r 3X X r r r r r r r r r r X r 4r r r r r X r X r r X r 5r r r r r X r X X X r r r 6r r r X r r X X X r r X r X r r r 7
r r r r X r r r X 8X r X r r 9
X X r X r r X X X rlOr r X X r r r X r r X X r l l
r r X X r r X r r xl2r r r X X r r r r r r r r rl3X X X X r r X r r r r r 14
X r r r r r X r r r 15r r r r r r r r x l6r r r r X r X r r r rl7r r X X X r r X X r r r r r xiar r r X X r X X r r r r r 19
r r r X X r X X r r r r r 2020]L91S1716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
8 814 3 4 215 11016192013121017 618 5 7
4:0.471 8:106,130,5.43 C: 116,120,0 , 14
strong tenîpsr=“ easy-going
2 = un& rs tanding— narrow minded
3. resp ectfu l- disrespectful
4 e responsib le- irresponsible
5. indifferent— easily hurt
6. perceptive- unrealistic
7. generous— self-centered
8. mature—innocent
9. domineering- submissive
10o happy-go-lucky— quiet
11. d e c is iv e - indecisive
12. self-confidence-™ unsure of s e l f
13. stable—unstable
14. happy—unhappy, «^pressed
15. mature—inma tu re
16. more forsight—less
17. accomplis Went— no accomplishment
18. satisfaction— no satisfaction
19a accepted--rejected
20. belong—being on the outside
Subject 19 F
97
1 1. easy going»»2 high strung
X 3 2. tac t fis 1—tac tlassX X 1 4X X 5 3. In itia tive—lack of
i 1 6X X i i X i 7 4. re lâxe d—ne rvous1 X X % 8
i 9 5. sense of humor—% 10 lacks
1 i l 6. a ttra c tiv e -i X i i 12 unattractive
i i i X 1 1 1 1 i i 13 7. works—overworksi 1 i 1 14
1 i X i i X 15 8, people InteKsted Ini i i i l l 1 1 1 16 me—unlnteres ted
1 1 1 1 X i 1 1 17 9. interest in higher1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 18 education—dlsinte res t
1 1 1 i i i l 1 1 1 19 10. liberal minded-x l i l l i i X 1 i 20 str ic t
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 11. loose perspective—6 1 3 8 410 117 9 511 71519131620141218 keep perspective
12. society approves— society disapproves
X X X X X X r r 1 13. keep job—loose jobX X r X X X r r 2
r 3 14. goes to college—r X X X X X X X r 4 can* t
X X X X r X X 5 15. deep personal sa tis-r r r r x x r r X r X r 6
7fac tion— dis sa t is fae t* Ion
r X X X r X X X X 8 16, accomplish more—r X r r 9 accomplish less
r r X r 10 17. broad minded-r r 11 narrow minded
X r X r X X 12 18. understand people—X r X r 13 misunderstand
r X 14 19. help people—can'tr x x x r x x x x x x X r X X 15 help peopler x x x r x x x x x x X X r X 16 20. learn more—
r X X X X r X r 17 leam lessr X XX r 18
X X X X X X t 19x x x r r x x x r x v X 20
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 11614 5 42015 6 7 8 1 3 81111 21817131019
Â:0.273 8 :61 ,77 ,4 .20 0 :62 ,76 ,3 .16
Subject 20 F
98
K i X i
ii X X X X
X i X i iX X
i i i i
i ;L i
lX 2
1 x 34
i 5X 6
1 1 7X 8
910
J.1112
113x i X XXX XXX x x i i xl 4
i l i 15x i i X X 1 x i i l 6
x x x x x x x x i i i l l xl71 1 i 1 1 18
i i 1 i i i 119x i X X X x x i i 20
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 3 31711 115 8 2 713 5161418 910192012
X r r XX r XX r
X r Xr r r r r
r r r r XX r
r X r Xr r r
Xr X X
XX X r X
r X X
r rr X r
X Xr r
X X 1r 2
r r X r 3r r 4
X X r 5r r X r X 6r r X X X 7
r r r r x 89
r r r 10r X XX r l l
r X X 12r r 13
X r 14r 15
r rl6X r X r X 17r r r 18
r rl9X r X 20x r r X
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 12 4 615181910 91515 520 312 8 7 1 11512
1. in s e n s it iv e - sensitive
2. fights for own way—doesn't
3. talkative—shy
4. popular—unpopnlar
5. feel people like oe— feel people d islike tie
6. like people—don't like people
7. doesn't show feelings—does
8. fr ien d ly - unfriendly
9. in te ll ig e n t - stupid
10. kind—unkind
11. strong person- weak person
12. happy—unhappy
13. stable—moody
14. get what you want-» not
15. better person- lower person
16. not jea lo u s- jealous
17. people get to knew you—people don’ t
18. more friends— fewer
19. not lonely—lonely
20. do more—do less
Note: This subject showed great d ifficu lty in concentrating on theexperinentêî task.
A:-0.250 8:65,50,-3.46 0:65,50,-3.46
Subject 21 F
1 1 .X 2 w o r r ie d
3 2 . s e n s i b l e -X % % 4 s c a t t e r - b r a i n e d
i X 5 3 . m a tu r e — im m ature
X %D
1 7 4o s u r e o f g o a l s —X X X X X X X 8 u n su r e
i 9 5 . i n t e r e s t e d In s p e e c hX X X X X X X X xlO e d u c a t io n — d l s i n t e r e s ti i l l 6 . e a s y t o g e t a lo n g
X X 1 X 12 w i t h — stu b b o r n1 i 13 7 . fu n l o v i n g — s e r i o u s
X i 141 1 1 15 8 . c a r e f r e e — t i e d down
X X X X X 16X X X X X X X X X X X x l 7 9 . e v e n t e m p e r -
X X % X % X X X X X X X X X X X 118 q u ic k tem p erX X 19 1 0 . d o in g t h in g s d i f f e r e n t
i X X X 20 w a y s— sam e w ays2 0 1 9 1 8 1 7 1 6 1 5 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 . g o o d f e e l i n g -
5 42017 8 j 3 111 619 91812 7 1 3 1 6 1 0 1 5 1 4 b a d f e e l i n g1 2 . m ore f r i e n d s — fe w e r
X X r X X X X X r r X X 1 1 3 . f e e l n o t a lo n e —X X X 2 f e e l a lo n er 3 1 4 . f e e l w a n te d ,n e e d e d —X X X 4 f e e l unw anted
5 1 5 . a c c e p t e d — r e j e c t e dr r 6
X X X 7 1 6 . p e o p le w a n t t o h e lpX 8 y o u — p e o p le d o n ' t
r r r 9 1 7 . m ore i d e a s — fe w e rX 10
X X r X X X X X r r X r l l 1 8 . e a s i e r t o s o l v eX r X X 12 p r o b le m s— h a r d e rV X t X 13 1 9 . d e c id e f o r s e l f —
V X r X X 14 o t h e r s d e c i w f o r your r X X 15 2 0 . b e in g an i n d i v i d u a l -
X r X 16 b e in g o n e o f th eX X 17 m a s s e sX % r X r l 8
T r 19t X 20
2 0 1 9 1 8 1 7 1 6 1 5 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 18 6131610 3 4 5 7 81^ 21818 11415101812
AîÔ,807 8 :27 ,45 ,12 .00 0 :2 9 ,4 3 ,6 .7 6
Subject 22 ?
ICO
1 1. in te llectu a l—X 2 non-intellectualX 3 2. seeks out social
4 world—doesn't5 3. w illin g to accept
X X 6 things—rebelliousX 7 4. mature—immature
X X i i 8X X X X X 9 5. happy—moodyi X X X X 1 IQ
i 1 X i i i l l 6 , serious about career-i i X 1 12 doesn't care
i X i 13 7. security—insecurityi i i 14
X X X i i i i l5 8. concerned with l i f ei i i i 16 i t s e l f —concerned
x x x x x x X X i X X X xl7 with own l i f e onlyi X i X i i i 18 9, controlled temper-
i i X X X X X X K 19 hot temperedX i X 1 i i 1 1 20 10, extrovert—introvert
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1510 417 1 9 2 6 711151812 813 314192016
yr rXX r r r
rXr r r rX Xr X r r X
r r r X X X r rx r r X r X r
X r X X r X r
r X r
X X r r r r
r r X r r r r
rr r rrX
rXX X r r r X r Xr X r r r X X r r r r X X r X X r
XX r X X X r r
r r rX X
r X r r r r X r
r r % r r 2019181716151413121110
2121320 1 915 4 5 518
r r Xr r X r rX r r Xr r
r r rX X
X X r r Xr X X r
r r r rX r r r rX X r
r r r
Xr X
r r r
r rr
rrr
rXX X r X
r r r rr X rr r r r 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 7171416 310 81119
123
r 45678 9
10r l l
1213
xl4151617181920
1
11, find out more about s e l f and l i f e — find out less
12» more in te re s tin g person—less
13, sure o f s e l f - mixed up
14, s a t i s f i e d - d issa tis f ie d
15, get more out o f l i f e — get le ss
16, enjoy people— doesn 't
17, b e tte r job—worse
18, takes advantage of opportunity—doesn 't
19, succeed—fa i l
20, e a s ie r to get along with people—harder
Âî0,447 8:87,112,7,18 0:95,104,0.85
ÎOÎ
Subject 23 M
1 1. sc ien tific caæer—X 2 philosophicalX 3 2. plays œusic—doesn® t
X % 4X 5 3. joking type—
6 seriousX X X X X X 7 4. reserved—"beat"X X X X X 8
X 9 5. higher grades—loweri 10
X % i x l l 6. sure of career-12 unsure
X 13 7c unmarried—marriedi X 14
XXX X X xl5 8. a th letic—non-XXX XX xl6 ath letlc
X 17 9. not se lf-con sciou s-i 18 self-conscious
X î X 19 10. uses sarcastic humor-1 X X 20 motherly humor
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 3 4 3 2 1 Ilo more job opportunities4 5 2 31113 7 Ô 114 81018201215161719 9 —fewer
12. concrete, defin ite.sure of s e lf—lo s t .
X r r X r r r X 1 confusing2 13. acconq[>llsh more— .
X r X r X r 3 accomplish lessX r r r r X r 4 14. success—failure
r r r r r r r X r X r r 5X x r r r r r X 6 15. independent-
7 subservientr X X 8 16. society approves—
X r X X X r x r r X X r 9 society disapprovesr rlO 17. help p eop le-
x x r x x x x x x X X X X X xl l net help peopler X r r r r r r 12 18. self-esteem—
X X r X X r r X r r r 13 inferiority complexr r r r r r 14 19. more education-* ^ess
r X X r X X 15r r X 16 20. integrated, broad
X X X X X 17 minded—narrow mindedX r r r r X r X % r X 18
X X X X r X 19X r XX X 20
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 11814 820 417 2 6 51912 91615 7 3 1131110
A;0=057 8 :7 0 ,6 5 ,-0 .3 6 0 :5 8 ,77 ,6 .22
Subject 24 F
iv2
1 1. easy-gelng°=2 bad temper
X 3 2. sense of humor-i 4 seriousi 5 3. happy-unhappy
X X X X 67 4. not p ossessive-
X 8 possessiveX X X X X X X X 9 5. accepting, tolerant—X X X X X X 10 judgingX X X X X X X 11 6. reserved-X X X X X 12 outgoing
i 13 7. bright in school*—i i 14 not bright
X X X X 15 8. likes animals—X X 1 16 hates animals
X X X X X 17 9. responsible-X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 irresponsiblei i X X X X 19 10. patient—
X X X 20 inqpatient2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 . people not mad at me-4 718 8 5 9 1 113161620 6 3161011121419 people mad at me
12. feel better—feel mad
X x x x x x r r x r r 1 13. better grades—X X X X X X X X 2 worse gradesX X X X X X X X X X r 3 14. go on in school—
4 can* tX r 5 15. enjoy more things—
X r X X X X X X X 6 enjoy fewerr r X r r x 7 16. in terested -
8 boredX 9 17. leam more—
X X X X X xlO leam lessX x x r X X X X XXX r l l 18. more friends—fewerX X X X Ï X X X X X rl2r XX r X r 13 19. do more—do lessr X r r 14
r r r X 15 20. worlc hard in sch oo l-r r r 16 lettin g things slide
r r r r r 17x x x x x x x x r x x x xl 8
r r r x 19r x r r r 20
3 9B 1 5 7 5 51315161710 218 8121320J0
A:0.823 8:49,72,10.79 0:54,67,3.13
Subjeee 25 F
Î03
1 1 . f a v o r s l i b e r a l a r t s —2 favors specialization3 2 . extrovert—introve rt45 3. slow in making
X X X 6 decisions—jumps toX X 7 conclusions
X X X X X X X 8 4. healthy—unhealthyX X 9
X X X X i 10 5. wants children—X X i X X 11 doesn'tX X X X X 12 6 . active—p a s sive
X X X X X X X 13X 14 7. desire education-
X X X X X X X X X X i 15 disinterestedX X X X X X X X i 16 8 . plays tennis—X i 17 doesn't
18 9. doesn't take peopleX X X X X i 19 for granted—doesX X X X X i 20 10. patient— impatient
1413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
% % X % %
>019181716910 1 41316 3141112 8 520 717 2 6151819
XX X r
Vr XXX
X
X r X
1 23456 7
X 8X 9r 10
r l l 12
rl3X r X 14X X XX X r 15
X X r 16x x r 17x x r r r 18X X 19
r 202019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1 9 2 7151714 4 4 4101317 41720 7111711
r X r X
r
X Xr r r
r r r r
t t
rrr
11. leam moye— leam less
12. free—bogged down
13. broad Interests— narrow
14. s a t is f ie d - dissatisfied
15. get to know more people—fewer
16. more accurate decisions—less
17. close stable relationships—distant unstable
18. honest with s e l f— dishonest
19. give to o the retake from others
20. needed—unneeded
A:0.346 3:24,40,10.67 0:30,34,0.53
Subject 26 N
104
1 1. mature—insns tu reX 2
X X 3 2. calm—excitedX X X 4
5 3. likes sports—X 1 1 6 dislikes
X X X X % 7 8
4. likes to go out'»'» prefers to stay
% i X i 9 at homeX X X X xlO
i l l5. married‘’°uumarried
X i X X 112 6. usderstaed others^-XX XX X 113 misunderstand
X i X X X 14 7. sedate—characterX X X 15
X X X X 16 8. masculine»»X X X X X X X X X 17 feminine
X % X X X X X X X X X 18 9. gets along»»criticali X X X X X X X X X X X 19 of others
X X X X X X X 20 10. settled down—2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 playboy7131310 4 3 811 9 116 6 22012 519181715 11. treated like an adult
—like a child12. get along in
r r r r r r 1 profession—can* tX r r r r r X 2
313. success—l i t t l e
successr r r r x 4 14. satisfaction—r X r X 5 dissatisfactionr X r r r r r r 6 15. get a lot out of
r r r X X X r 7 8 16.
l i f e —get l i t t l e fu lf ille d purpose-
r X X r r r r r r 9 unfulfilledr r r r r r X rlO 17. get more meaningful
r r r X X r r r r l l things done—getX X r r r r r r r r rl2 less donex x x x r r r r r X r r xl 3 18. change—stay in
x x x r r r r r 14 a rutr r x r r r x r X r 15 19. leam something new—
r r r r r r X xl 6 doesn'tx r r r r r x r X X X X xl7 20. companionship»-X r r X X r 18 being aloneX r r r r x r xl9
r X r r r r 202019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1101212 9 5151610 6 3 3 61914 2181719
A;0.032 8:64,82,3.00 0:54,92,26.74
Subject 27 F
m
1 1 . patient»»looseX 2 temper easily
3 2. neat—sloppyX 4
5 3. considerate of others6 —inconsiderate
X X i 7 4. outgoing—quie tK X i a
x x x x x x X X 9 5. respectful of parentsX X X X X 10 —rebellious
X XX 1 i l l 6. normal—abnormal1 % X 112
1 % XXX % xl3 7. u n se lfish -X i 14 se lfish
x x i x x XXX XX xl5 8. calm—nervousi i X i X X 16X X i 17 9. doesn’ t tease
X X 18 people—doesXX x x x x x x x x x x 119 1 0 . interested in cultureX X X X 1 X X X 20 —disinterested
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 11. easy to get along815 2 41018 312 911162013 6 1 514 71917 with—harder
12. accomplish more»»accomplish less
r X r x x r r i f ï r r 1 13. s a t is f ie d -r r r 2 d issatisfied
r r r r r r X r 3 14. organized-r r X X X 4 unorganised
r r r r 5 15. save tim e-6 waste time
r r r X r X 7 16. do more—do lessX r r r X r 8
X r 9 17. more knowledge-r r r 10 less
X r X r r X r r r l l 18. broad mincbd—X r r r X r XXX X r rl2 narrow mln&d
X r X r r r r X r r % rl3 19. people considerate ofr r r r X r 14 me—inconsiderate
r r r 15 20. more fun-=less funr r r x r r r r X X X rl6
r r X X r r X 17r r r r r XX r 18
r t rl9r r X x x r 20
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 17161115 5 6 4 1 9131820 712 21419 9 9 3
A:D.202 5 :58 ,68 ,1 .72 0 :48 ,78 ,18 .75
Subject 28 M
lOo
i 1. face problesî3“°X 2 escapes from problems
3 2. prefer to save BKjney»»* X 1 4
X X X 5spend I t on unnessary things
X 6 3. dependable-X XX 7 undependableX X 8 4. mature—immature
x x x x X X X X 91 10 5. Interested In school
X X X 111 —disinterestedi X X i X 112 6. neat—sloppy
i i V XX X X 113i 1 i X X X 114 7. hard worker—lazy
i X i i X X X i 115i i i i i 116 8, doesn’ t gossip—
% X X X X 1 Î 1 117 doesi % X X X X X x x x x XXX xl8 9. plays cards—
1 i 1 X X X 119 doesn’ t1 i i i 1 20 10. prompt—slow In
2015181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 paying debts2 51911 613 810 9 7 3201214 41717 11715 11. solve problems—
can’ t12. achievements—
r r r r 1 few achievementsV X 2 13. boost ego—tearV X r XX r 3 I t down
r X r 4 5
14. do better— do worse
r r X 6 15. gain more materialr V X 7 things—gain fewr X r 8
916. sa tisfied —
d issatisfiedr X r XlO 17. gain respect of
r r X x l l others—looseX X X r r r r x x x x xl2 18. wanted—unwantedr r r r r r r r r x r r r rl3X X X r r r r x x x x X xl4 19. make right decisions—X X X r r r r X x x x X xl5 make wrong decisionsx x x x x x r x x x XXX X X xl6 20, s e lf in terest—lack ofx x r r r r r x x x x x x X X xl7 s e l f interestXX r r XX X X xl8X r r
r r r r rr xl 9
r t tlO2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 12 41212191515 215 7102010 4 618 9 717 2
A:0.402 8 :6 2 ,7 6 ,3 .1 6 0:28 ,110,240.14
BIBLIOGRAPHY
107
Bîblîography
1o Bannister, D, A genesis of schizophrenic thought disorder: aserial Invalidation hypothesis. B ritish J. of Psychiatry.1963, m, 680-686.
2, Bennion, R, C, A study of re la tive readiness for changing anticipations following d iscred it to situational behaviors: Hostility and the constellatoriness of personal constructs. Unpublished master’ s thes is , Ohio State Univer., 1959.
3, B ieri, J . A study of the generalization of changes within the personalconstruct system. Unpublished Ph.D. d isserta tion . Ohio State Univer,, 1953.
4, Sinner, P. R. Permeability and complexity: Two dimensions ofcognitive structure and the ir relationship to behavior. Unpublished Ph.D. d isse rta tion , Univer. of Colorado, 1958.
5, Bonarius, J . C. J . Research in the Personal Construct Theory ofGeorge A. Kelly, In Progress in experimental personalityresearch. Brendan A. Maher (Ed). Vol. II , New York:Academic Press, 1965 (In press).
6, Cromwell, R. L . , and Caldwell, 0. F. A comparison of ratings basedon personal constructs of se lf and others. J , c l in . Psychol.. 1962, i 8 , 43-46. ------
7, Flynn, J . C. Cognitive complexity and construct constellatorinessas antecedent conditions of role v a riab il i ty . Unpublished master’ s thes is , Ohio State Univer., 1959.
8, Gottesman, L. E. The relationship of cognitive variables to therapeutic a b i l i ty and training of client-centered therapists .J , consult. Psychol. . 1362, 2è, 119-125.
9, Guilford, J . P. Fundamental S ta t i s t ic s in Psychology and Education.New York: McGraw-Hi 11 ; ' 1950-;
10, Hess, Harrie F. Level of cognitive awareness: I ts measurement andrela tion to behavior. Unpublished Ph.D. d isse rta tion , Univer. of Colorado, 1959,
11, Howard A, R, Psychological change as revealed by self-descrip tions.Unpublished Ph.D. d isse rta tion , Ohio State Univer., 1951.
108
)Q9
12, Howard, A. R,, and Kelly, G. A, A theoretical approach topsychological movement, j . abnorm. soc. Psychol, . 1954, 49, 399-404.
13, Isaacson, G. The meaningful ness of personal and cultural constructs.Unpublished master's thes is , Univer, of Missouri, 1962,
14, Jennings, C, L. Personal construct theory and the c rea tiv ity cycle.Unpublished PhoD, d isse rta tion , Ohio State Univer., 1963,
15» Kelly, 6, A, The psychology of personal constructs, 2 Vol.New York; W, W, Norton & Co., 1955,
16, Kelly, G, A. H ostility . Presidential address. Clinical DivisionAmerican Psychological Association, 1957, Unpublished.
17, Kelly, G, A, interdisciplinary collaboration. Presidential address,Consulting Division, American Psychological Association, 1957, Unpublished,
18, Kelly, G, A, Personal construct theory and the psychotherapeuticinterview. Unpublished manuscript, 1957,
19# Kelly, G, A, The theory and technique of assessment. Annual Rev, Psychol. . 1958, 8, 323-352,
20, Kelly, G, A, Man's construction of his a lterna tives . In G, Lindzey(Ed.), Tl^ assessment of human motives. New York: Rinehart,1958.
21, Kelly, G, A, The function of interpretation In psychotherapy.Three unpublished papers for in s t i tu te sponsored by the Los Angeles Society of Psychologists in Private Practice and the U, of California a t Los Angeles, Jan., 1959,
22, Kelly, G. A. Is treatment a good idea? In Howard, A, R, (Ed,),Therapeutic roles in patien t treatment, sherldem,Wyoming; Veterans Admin,, Hospital, 1959, pp. 20-15, (mlmeo^«:^^hedj^
23, Kelly, G, A. Theory and therapy in suicide: The personal con$M«uctpoint of view. In Shneldman and Farberow, (Ed.) The CQf |g r help. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961,
24, Kelly, G, A. A mathematical approach to psychology. Address toMoscow Psychological Society, 1961,
Kelly, 6, A. The abstraction of human processes. In Proceedings of the XIV international Congress of Applied Psychology. Vol, 2: Personality Research. G. S, Nielson and Stanley Coopersmith, eds, Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1962,
110
26. Kelly, G, A. Europe's matrix of decision. In Nebraska symposium onmotivation, . 1962, M. R, Jones, (Ed,) Lincoln: Univer. of Nebraska Press. 1962,
27. Kelly, G, A, A further explanation of factor analysis. Unpublishedmanuscript, The Ohio State Univer,, 1962,
28. Kelly, G, A, Sin and psychotherapy. Temple University symposiumof psychotherapy, 1962, Unpublished MS, Ohio State Univer,. 1962,
29. Kelly, G, A, In whom confide? On whom depend for what? The fourthannual Samuel H, Flowerman Memorial Lecture presented to the New York Society of Clinical Psychologists on Dec. 7, 1962, Unpublished MS, Ohio State Univer,
30. Kelly, G, A, Psychotherapy and the Nature of Man, Paper read a t asymposium on the nature of man during meetings of the American Psychological Assoc, in Philadelphia, 1963,
31. Kelly, G. A. Ncnparametrlc factor analysis of personality theories,. J . Indiv, Psychol, . 1963, 19, 115-147.
32. Kelly, G. A, The language of hypothesis, J . Indiv, Psychol,, 1964,20. 137-152.
33. Kelly, G, A. The autobiography of a theory. Unpublished MS, OhioState Univer,, 1964,
34. Kelly, 6» A, The psychology of the unknown. For proposed volume onthe philosophy of science, Denis O'Donovan (Ed,),
35. Kelly, 6, A, The th rea t of aggression. Paper presented a t Conferenceon Humanistic Psychology, 1964,
36. Kelly, G, A, The strategy of psychological research. Paper presenteda t Brunei College, London, Bulletin B ritish Psychological Society, 1965, J[8, 1-15.
37. Kelly, G. A, A psychology of the optimal man. In forthcomingbook. The goals of psychotherapy, A. Mahrer (Ed,),
38. Kelly, J . V, A program for processing George Kelly 's Rep Grids on theIBM 1620 Computer, Unpublished MS, Ohio State Univer,, 1963.
39. Ladwig, G, A, Slot-movement under conditions of th rea t. Unpublishedmaster's th es is , The Ohio State Univer., I960,
40. Landfield, A. W, A study of threat within the psychology of personalconstructs. Unpublished Ph,D, d isse r ta t ion , The Ohio State Univer,, 195».
Ml
41. Landfield, A, 17, A movement interpretation of th rea t, J , abnorm,soc. Psychol, . 1954, 4g, 529-532,
42. Landfield, A, V/, Self-predictive orientation and the movementInterpretation of th rea t, J, abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1955. 51. 434-438. —
43. Landfield, A, W, The closeness of opposites, A synthesis and reorientation. Unpublished manuscript, Purdue Univer,
44. Landfield, A, W., & Fjeid, S, P. Threat and se lf-p red ic tab il i tywith p red ic tab ili ty of others controlled: An addendum.Psychol. Rep.. I960, 6, 333-334.
45. Lemuke, Frances £, 5. Some aspects of change process in personalconstruct systems. Unpublished Ph.D. d isse rta tion , Ohio State Univer,, 1959.
46. Levy, L. H, A study of the re la tive information value of constructsin personal construct theory. Unpublished Ph.D. d isse rta tion , Ohio State Univer., 1954,
47. Levy, L. H. Personal constructs and predictive behavior. J . abnorm.soc. Psychol. . 1956, 54-58.
4 8 . Lundy, R, M, Changes In interpersonal perceptions associated with group psychotherapy. Unpublished master's thes is , Ohio State Univer., 1952.
49. Lundy, R, H. Assimilative projection and accuracy of prediction ininterpersonal perceptions, J . abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1956. 52. 34-38. ------
50. Mitsos, S, B, Representative elements in role construct technique.J. consult. Psychol. . 1958, 22, 311-313.
51. Newman, 0. K. A study of factors leading to change within thepersonal construct system. Unpublished Ph.D. d isse rta tion , Ohio State Univer., 1956, Dissertation Abstr. . 1957, 17, 1597-1598.
52. Pedersen, F, A. A consistency study of the R.C.R.T, Unpublishedmaster's thes is , Ohio State Univer,, 1958.
53. Poch, S, M. A study of changes in personal constructs as related toInterpersonal prediction and i t s outcome. Unpublished Ph.D. d isse rta tion , Ohio State Univer., 1952,
i h
54. Resnick, J . , and Landfield, A, W, The oppositional nature of■ dichotomous constructs* Psychol* Rec*, 1961, JJ_, 47-55.
55. Siegel, A, Nonparametric S ta t is t ic s for the Behavioral Sciences.New York; McGraw-Hill, 195^
56. S later, P. The principal components of a repertory grid . 10 BlomfieldSt, London, EC 2 .: Vincent Andrews & Co., 1965.
Autobiography
I, Dennis Neil Hinkle, was born in Akron, Ohio, June 21, 1935.
I received my secondary education in the public schools of Texas,
Florida, Missouri, Indiana, and Ohio. I attended Purdue University,
Miami University, and following a period of service in the armed
forces, I received the degree Bachelor of Arts in 1559 and the
degree Master of Arts in 1962 from Tke Ohio State University.
While enrolled in the Graduate School I received appointments as
a United States Public Health Fellow In 1960-61 and Teaching
Assistant for the years 1961-62 and 1963-64. As part of the
training program in c lin ica l psychology g completed a one-year
internship a t the Palo Alto Veterans Administration Hospital, Palo
Alto, California, In 1962-63. The requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy were completed in 1964-65 during an appointment
as Psychology Trainee a t the Veterans Administration Hospital,
Chilllcothe, Ohio.
113