Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Harvey’s belief systems in adolescents : problems of response categorization Litzcke, Hans Georg 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A47 L58.pdf [ 5.27MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094471.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094471-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094471-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094471-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094471-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094471-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094471-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094471-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094471.ris

Full Text

HARVEY'S BELIEF SYSTEMS IN ADOLESCENTS: Problems of Response  Categorization  by HANS-GEORG LITZCKE B.Ed., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1969  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION in  ;  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1978 Hans-Georg Litzcke, 1978  In  presenting  an  advanced degree  the I  Library  further  for  shall  agree  scholarly  by  his  of  this  written  thesis  in  at  University  the  make  that  it  thesis  freely  fulfilment  of  of  Columbia,  for  It  financial  is  for  shall  Educational Psychology of  British  September 12th,  Columbia  1978  by  the  understood  gain  for  extensive  permission.  University  British  available  p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d  2075 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  Date  partial  permission  representatives.  Department o f The  this  requirements  reference copying  Head o f  that  not  the  of  I  agree  and this  or  that  study. thesis  my D e p a r t m e n t  copying  for  or  publication  be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  ABSTRACT In 1961 O. J. Harvey, David E. Hunt, and Harold M. Schroder published a theory of personality structure and development.  Major research  based on that theory has continued under 0. J. Harvey at the University of Colorado u n t i l now with the r e s u l t that the theory underwent some reformations.  Several aspects, especially those dealing with descriptive indexes  of personality and the assumed implications of functioning seem largely confirmed through research. However, most reported measurements were done with a "free response" measure on samples from University students.  Furthermore,  as f a r as t h i s  writer was able to ascertain, no independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the instrument has been reported. For the purpose of attempting such an evaluation, Harvey's "free response measure" (with a s l i g h t modification) was  coupled with a "forced  choice" measure that was t h e o r e t i c a l l y assumed to measure the same variables. Both parts of the instrument, presented i n a booklet form, were administered to a non-systematic sample of grade 9 and 10 high school students. Subsequently, results obtained through judgemental categorizations were c a r e f u l l y recorded.  Scoring procedures for the "forced choice" measure  were based on p r o b a b i l i t y considerations i n such a way that the meaning of and confidence i n scores would correspond as closely as seemed possible to the meaning of and confidence i n judged categorizations. Surprisingly d i f f e r e n t pictures emerged from comparisons of the results.  The "free response" measure, while found very demanding on the  l e v e l of judgemental expertise and, hence, of questionable  reliability  unless i n the hands of rather " f i n e l y " tuned judges, was found, nonetheless, to be an instrument of remarkable s e n s i t i v i t y i n i t s a b i l i t y to point up i n f e r e n t i a l positions from the t h e o r e t i c a l structures of personality.  For  t h i s reason, the results from the free response measure were used as a p r o v i s i o n a l l y v a l i d baseline from which the results of the forced  choice  measure were subsequently interpreted. The results from the "forced choice" measure seemed at f i r s t sight completely unrelated to the "free response" measure, but closer inspection showed a pattern which made the f a i l i n g s of the instrument understandable and lead to directions that would have to be taken to bring the functioning of the "forced choice" measure into closer correspondence with the functioning of the "free response" measure. With the obtained frequencies  of categorizations of the "free  response" measure, one "external" and several " i n t e r n a l " comparisons of frequencies  of b e l i e f system functionings were made.  comparison of t h i s sample to reported  In the "external"  frequencies by Harvey, differences  were found - but not a l l of them as expected.  I t was suggested that these  differences might eventually disappear when the chronological age of the respondents would equal that of the respondents i n Harvey's samples. Research into d i s t r i b u t i o n pattern of system functioning across d i f f e r e n t cultures with d i f f e r e n t patterns of childrearing would shed l i g h t on problems of g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y and developmental aspects of the theory. Internal comparisons showed that frequencies structures  of personality  (as defined by b e l i e f system functioning) were e s s e n t i a l l y  independent of sex and grade l e v e l .  Contrary to Harvey's i n d i c a t i o n , levels  of "articulateness" were found to be much higher i n certain personality structures than i n others.  I t was also shown that "norms" of prejudice  seen as varying over time at d i f f e r e n t rates f o r d i f f e r e n t concepts, occurred i n t h e i r entire range (no prejudice - strong prejudice) only i n two major types of personality functioning.  I t was argued that, i f , as i t  seems, prejudice' does not occur i n c e r t a i n personality structures, then the whole issue of tolerance, etc. i s i n the entire domain o f discussion between the two remaining personality types. In conclusion, the adequacy of the "free response" instrument was assessed i n terms of i t ' s possible purposes.  As a research and diagnostic  t o o l i t received "high marks", but as a means to separate students into d i f f e r e n t levels and as a means t o monitor t h e i r progress, i t received hardly any "marks" at a l l .  I t was argued that by taking b i t s and pieces  from the theory and, armed with a very problematic  measurement instrument,  one would rush headlong into yet another episode of charlatanism. research questions were posited, the most important ones being about g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y and developmental processes Along t h i s way e f f o r t s should also be continued  Several  questions  of system functioning.  to develop an "objective"  standardizable instrument preferably as a d i r e c t rather than an i n d i r e c t measure of system functioning.  The theory of b e l i e f system functioning was  viewed as a valuable topic i n teacher  education.  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  i i  TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES  . . ..  LIST OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I.  INTRODUCTION  v vii viii ix 1  Nature and Purpose of Study A B r i e f Descriptive Outline of Some Important Aspects of Harvey's Work Description of Harvey's b e l i e f systems — Distribution of the systems from samples of defined populations — Description of the tests used by Harvey f o r the purpose of assigning people to the b e l i e f systems — A b r i e f summary of some of the construct validations reported by Harvey. II.  MODIFICATION OF "THIS I BELIEVE" QUESTIONNAIRE  14  The Rationale f o r the Modification Presentation o f the Modified Instrument III.  OBSERVATIONAL RESULTS FROM SAMPLE Response Categorizations from the "Free Response" Section of the Modified Instrument Judgemental procedure (see also appendix A) — Key used f o r categorizations — Display of examples of response categorizations — Display of frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s of complete sample and of various analyzed subgroups of sample.  25  vi Response Categorizations from the "Forced Section  Choice"  Key used — Display of frequencies within each of the 14 items — Display of a comparison of frequencies obtained for the t o t a l sample by both the "Free Response" and "Forced Choice" sections. IV.  DISCUSSIONS  43  Examinations of Examples of "Free Response" Patterns as Indicators of System Functioning; Success and Failures External and Internal Group Comparisons of the Sample Under Study V.  CONCLUSION: INTERPRETATIONS, AND POSSIBLE DIRECTIONS OF FURTHER RESEARCH  63  Questions of Adequacy of the "Free Response" Measure Implications from Group Comparisons WORKS CITED  74  APPENDIX A  76  Judgemental Strategy and Rationale f o r Strategy, Display of Two Agreement Indexes and Summary of Agreement Indexes i n Percentage Forms APPENDIX B A Complete Quotation of "System Response Patterns" From 0. J . Harvey's 'Scoring the "This I Believe" (TIB) Test', pp. 9-12  82  vii  LIST OF TABLES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.  15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.  Structural Main and Subvariables of Harvey's B e l i e f Systems . . . . 5 Some Important Content Variables of Harvey's B e l i e f Systems . . . . 6 Percent Distributions of Samples of Defined Populations 9 Dogmatism & Authoritarianism as Approximate Measure of B e l i e f Systems 13 Key Used for C l a s s i f y i n g B e l i e f Systems from the "Free Response" Section (Part B) 25 Key Used f o r Rank-Ordering "Articulateness" from the "Free Response" Section (Part B) 26 Keys Used f o r C l a s s i f y i n g Two Additional Responses from the "Free Response" Section (Part B) . 27 Frequency Distributions of B e l i e f Systems from "Free Responses" of Total Sample (N = 122) and Various Subgroups of Sample 37 Key for System and Admixture Designations for the 14 Item Forced Choice Section _ 39 Frequencies of System Type Responses f o r Each of the 14 "Forced Choice" Items from Total Sample (N=122) . . . . . . .40 Number and Extent of Agreements on Scores from "Free Responses" and from "Forced Choices" from Total Sample (N=122) 42 Two Indexes of System Response Type Attraction for 14 "Forced Choice" Items 50 Relations of Indexes (I's) of System Response Type Attraction for 14 "Forced Choice" Items 51 B e l i e f System D i s t r i b u t i o n of Sample as Estimated by the "Free Response" Measure Compared to the Estimated Distributions I f I t Had Been Drawn from a Population of L i b e r a l Arts Students 55 Chi-Square Tests f o r Differences i n Distributions of B e l i e f Systems 56 Levels of "Articulateness" i n B e l i e f Systems and Admixtures . . . . 57 Levels of "Articulateness" i n B e l i e f Systems Combined With Dominant Admixtures 58 Test for Independence Between "Judgemental Confidence" and Levels of "Articulateness" 60 Sex Distributions i n B e l i e f Systems Combined with Dominant Admixtures 61 Grade Distributions i n B e l i e f Systems Combined With Dominant Admixtures 61 Number and Extent of Agreements on Categorizations of "Free Response" Between Judge I and Judge II." Total Sample N=122 78 Number and Extent of Agreements on Scores From "Free Responses" Between 1st Panel Adjustments and 2nd Panel Adjustments. Total Sample N=122 79 Indexes of Judgemental Agreements 81  viii  LIST OF FIGURES 1.  Frequency Distributions of B e l i e f Systems and Dominant Admixtures as "Seen" from "Free Responses" and from 14 "Forced Choice" I terns  14  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Dr. Stephen F. Foster, Dr. J . Gordon Nelson, and Dr. Harold Ratzlaff f o r agreeing to serve on my committee, f o r reviewing the  proposal f o r t h i s thesis, and f o r much h e l p f u l advice.  I am much  indebted to Dr. H. Ratzlaff for reviewing s t a t i s t i c a l material i n this paper.  My s p e c i a l thanks go to Dr. S. F. Foster f o r his supervision,  encouragement, time, and patience.  My thanks are extended also to  Professor 0. J . Harvey of the University of Colorado for giving me h i s kind permission to use and modify h i s t e s t format (TIB-74) Copyright 1974. I would also l i k e to thank Dr. Carolie J . Coates f o r presenting 0. J . Harvey's work with much enthusiasm i n the summer of 1974 at this University.  1  I.  INTRODUCTION  Nature and Purpose of Study The primary purpose of this observational study i s to evaluate the problems of measuring " b e l i e f systems" i n adolescents.  The study i s based  on Harvey's model o f personality organization which allows inferences of differences i n structures of personality from analyses of expressed b e l i e f s . Specified differences i n expressed b e l i e f s as well as t h e i r assumed implications are interchangeably systems".  referred to as "conceptual  systems" or " b e l i e f  Theoretical and reported empirical investigations of the model  w i l l be outlined i n some d e t a i l i n the section to follow. response categorizations w i l l be analyzed  Problems of  from responses to a two-part  modified version of Harvey's measurement instrument which was administered to 122 Grade 9 and 10 high school students.  One section of the modified  instru-  ment i s a "free response" measure, the other, a "forced choice" measure. the categorizations from the "free responses", judgemental d i f f i c u l t i e s be examined and the obtained  In will  categorizations from the "free response" measure  w i l l then be compared to those from the "forced choice" section. Secondly, the paper w i l l compare the best attainable categorizations from the sample with Harvey's published frequencies of categorizations from college groups.  This secondary purpose amounts to a goodness-of-fit  and invites some a p r i o r i hypothesizing  test  that can be expressed as follows:  inasmuch as Harvey's model describes developmental stages ( i . e . b e l i e f system 1 i s i n some sense assumed to be a p r i o r developmental stage to b e l i e f system 4), and inasmuch as developmental stages may be assumed to  2  be i n greater flux i n grade 9's and grade 10's than i n college freshmen, i t i s a reasonable expectation that the comparison should show a s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater frequency of system l ' s and admixtures i n this sample of high school students than the reported frequencies from a freshman population. Furthermore, the expected results would tend to be pushed into the same directions from contaminations of f i c t i t i o u s l y higher categorizations of system l ' s and admixtures caused by judgemental misreadings of responses r e l a t i v e l y lower i n articulateness than those of college students. T h i r d l y , the study w i l l examine i n t e r n a l comparisons of subgroups of the sample at hand.  As a corollary to the reasons advanced i n the  previous paragraph, one may reasonably expect a r e l a t i v e l y greater frequency of system l ' s and admixtures i n lower levels of articulateness than at higher l e v e l s .  One may also reasonably expect a d i r e c t i o n a l l y s i m i l a r  difference i n comparisons of grade 9's with grade 10's.  Concerning other  i n t e r n a l comparisons such as between response patterns of boys and g i r l s , neither t h e o r e t i c a l nor common sense assumptions can e a s i l y be  advanced  for any further useful a p r i o r i statements. It must be noted at this time that the study sample i s a nonsystematic sample drawn from one school; i . e . , not a random sample of grade 9 and 10 students.  For t h i s reason, any generalizations from the observed  outcomes to other populations or to the same population can be done only speculatively. In the section to follow, the reader w i l l find an overview of some aspects of Harvey's work that are considered e s s e n t i a l to the understanding of the concerns of t h i s paper.  3  A B r i e f Descriptive Outline of Some Important Aspects of Harvey's Work 0. J . Harvey, David E. Hunt, and Harold M. Schroder have posited four major conceptual' systems to which people may be assigned i n accordance with an analysis of t h e i r expressed b e l i e f s .  These b e l i e f s have been  characterized by Harvey as "deeply held attitudes or values".^  In contrast  to recent e f f o r t s i n a t t i t u d i n a l research to attach very s p e c i f i c meanings to concepts such as "attitudes" and "values", Harvey chooses to use these terms rather loosely - a choice probably i n d i c a t i v e of the lack of an English equivalent f o r the German "Anschauung" which denotes a person's r e l a t i v e l y consistent norm of thinking, f e e l i n g , and behaving towards many d i f f e r e n t objects and situations as long as these are perceived by the 2 person -as important to himself.  More recently, Harvey has theorized that  the b e l i e f systems w i l l function (i.e., express and behave) at t h e i r most consistent patterns at some optimal l e v e l of personal involvement.  In  spite of some c l a r i f i c a t i o n s through research i t i s not quite clear what 3  this optimal l e v e l i s .  Hence, for the time being, i t may be simpler to  think of b e l i e f systems i n terms of one of Harvey's e a r l i e r d e f i n i t i o n s :  0. J . Harvey, "Beliefs and Behavior: Some Implications f o r Education", The Science Teacher, 37 (December 1970) : 10. 2 0. J . Harvey, David E. Hunt, and Harold M. Schroder, Conceptual Systems and Personality Organization (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1961), p. 2. In this early work the authors explain t h e i r preference f o r the term "Anschauung" over "attitude". 3 One attempt to c l a r i f y the assumption f o r an optimum l e v e l of "ego - involvement" can be found i n the study by Alma Grabow M i l l e r and 0. J. Harvey, "Effects of Concreteness - Abstractness and Anxiety on I n t e l l e c t u a l and Motor Performance", Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 40 (1973): 444-451.  4  "A b e l i e f system represents a set of predispositions to perceive, f e e l toward, and respond to ego-involving s t i m u l i and events i n a consistent way. " The t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s underlying Harvey's b e l i e f systems are derivatives from several generalizable theories.  Somewhat s i m p l i s t i c a l l y  one may v i s u a l i z e these theories as convergent onto a kind of l i f e - f o r c e p r i n c i p l e that seeks to maintain the i n t e g r i t y of any organism or system. It i s from this p r i n c i p l e and from empirical observations that the b e l i e f systems have been construed and delineated as d i f f e r e n t sets of " d e f i n i t i o n a l matrices" that people appear to adopt f o r interpreting the world around them and for maintaining and defending the " s e l f " . ^  Harvey  has also theorized that the kind of b e l i e f system that a person comes to represent results from d i f f e r e n t styles of upbringing.^  More immediately  important than t h e o r e t i c a l positions i s the extent to which the systems of the model can be c l e a r l y and consistently d i f f e r e n t i a t e d .  To this end  one must examine the defining variables of the d i f f e r e n t systems with some care. The postulated b e l i e f systems have been defined i n terms of (a) "structure" and (b) "content".  By "structure" Harvey means the  4 0. J . Harvey, "Belief Systems and Education: Some Implications for Change", i n The Affective Domain, ed. Jack Crawford (Wash., D.C.: Communication Service Corporation, 1970), p. 68. ^Harvey's t h e o r e t r i c a l positions are outlined b r i e f l y i n O. J . Harvey "Conceptual Systems and Attitude Change", i n Attitude, Ego-Involvement and Change, ed. Carolyn W. Sherif and Muzafer Sherif (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967), pp. 201-205. This theory i s explored i n O.. J. Harvey and Catherine Felknor, "Parent - Child Relations as an Antecedent to Conceptual Functioning", i n Early Experience and the Processes of S o c i a l i z a t i o n , eds. G. A. Milton, R. A. Hoppe, and E. C. Simmel (New York: Academic Press, 1970), pp. 167-203.  5  organizational patterns of b e l i e f s f a l l i n g i n t o hierarchies that p a r a l l e l only approximately ness".  the main dimension referred to as  "concreteness-abstract-  The more concretely functioning person would tend to structure  (express) his b e l i e f s i n terms of "absolute" rather than " r e l a t i v i s t i c " ; "sophisticated" (accepting readily ideals of the predominant culture) rather than "open", and other s i m i l a r s t r u c t u r a l dimensions.  The non-parallel  patterns of these subvariables seem to arise from some q u a l i t a t i v e difference i n functioning of the systems which i s not e n t i r e l y controlled by the main dimension of "concreteness-abstractness".  The pattern that  would arise from Harvey's d e f i n i t i o n s i n h i s scoring booklet for the "This I.Believe" (TIB) test can be shown i n table form.  7  TABLE 1 STRUCTURAL MAIN AND SUBVARIABLES OF HARVEY'S BELIEF SYSTEMS Systems Structural  - Dimension  1  2  3  4  a  b  c  d  concrete  , . . .main . - abstract ( . . ) dimension  absolutism  - relativism  a,b  a,b  c  d  cliche  - originality  a,b ,c  a,b, c  a,b,c  d  naivete  - awareness  a,b  c  a,b  d  cynicism  - criticalness  x  a  X  d  a,b  c  a,b  d  b  a  c,d  c,d  sophistication - openness defensiveness  - co-operation  SOURCE : 0. J. Harvey, 'Scoring the "This I Believe" (TIB) Compiled from material on pp. 6-8.  Test . 1  The following exposition r e l i e s heavily on 0. J . Harvey's 'Scoring the "This I Believe".(TIB) Test', manuscript on f i l e , 0. J . Harvey, University of Colorado, 1965. (Mimeographed.)  6 The rank order (a), (b), ( c ) , (d) indicates how closely the l i s t e d system functions with regard to the f i r s t term of the subvariable.  That i s ,  i f a system i s designated (a) i t functions most with the f i r s t term of the subvariable, i f i t i s designated (d) i t functions least with the f i r s t term and, conversely, functions most with the l a s t term. are  I f two designations  given, the rank order position i s shared with another system; i f three  designations are given, the rank order position i s shared with three systems. An (x) means that Harvey has indicated no functioning at a l l along that l i s t e d dimension. Superimposed within this "structure" of the b e l i e f systems i s the "content", meaning any and a l l items about which a person has any strong ("egc—involving") feelings.  Although Harvey does not e x p l i c i t l y say so,  i t seems clear that the "content" dimension (presumably a discrete variable) i s never completely independent of the s t r u c t u r a l dimension (presumably a continuous variable). "content" focus for the systems.  Harvey also indicates a d i f f e r e n t  For t h i s reason, i t seems j u s t i f i a b l e to  l i s t separately variables that are mainly "content" defined. TABLE 2 SOME IMPORTANT CONTENT VARIABLES OF HARVEY'S BELIEF SYSTEMS Systems "Content"  external causality need for friends high rule orientation i n problem solving . high  1  2  3  4  i n t e r n a l causality  a ,b (God)  c,d  a,b (people)  c,d  low  a,b ,c  a,b ,c  a,b,c  d  low  a,b  a,b  c,d  c,d  Dimension  —  SOURCE: 0. J. Harvey, 'Scoring the "This I Believe " (TIB) Test'. Compiled from material on pp. 7-9.  7  The q u a l i t a t i v e difference i n the variables that are mainly "content" defined make any rank ordering almost impossible.  The "need for friends"  variable providing one of the most important guide posts f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the systems, e s p e c i a l l y system 3, may possibly serve as the best illustration.  Harvey uses the following descriptive d e f i n i t i o n :  "System 1, 2, and 3 persons tend to place a high value on friends. System l ' s t y p i c a l l y say that the most important thing i n l i f e i s to have a few good friends. System 2's value friendship highly, but generally indicate that such relationships are d i f f i c u l t to develop, are unstable a f f a i r s , and hurt people when they dissolve. System 3 persons tend to say that everyone needs lots of friends - that such relationship help one to grow and understand oneself. System 4's welcome friendship but do not have a strong need to surround themselves with friends."^ Harvey's four b e l i e f systems w i l l now be presented i n a much abbreviated form. System 1:  Along the s t r u c t u r a l dimensions, system  found at the lower end of the hierarchies.  1  persons are  They tend to express t h e i r  b e l i e f s i n s i m p l i s t i c terms, i n either - or propositions, i n clear-cut avoidance of uncertainty and acceptance of norms that should, ought, or must be followed.  Their most prominent b e l i e f content focuses on r e l i g i o n ,  authority, t r a d i t i o n , people with influence and power, to a l l of which they express highly positive attitudes.  System 1 people tend to be rule  oriented and seem to have d i f f i c u l t i e s to admit another point of view. System 2: system 1 people.  In a s t r u c t u r a l sense they tend to be very close to They share to only a s l i g h t l y lesser degree the  absolutism and evaluative organization of b e l i e f s .  System 2 tend to  focus t h e i r b e l i e f on the same content as system 1 people.  However, they  tend to hold strongly negative attitudes to items to which system 1 people would tend to be highly p o s i t i v e .  Ibid., p. 8.  System 2 people d i s t r u s t authority,  8  f e e l alienated and tend to have low self-esteem, but w i l l generally express sympathy towards the underdog and lone i n d i v i d u a l .  System 2 people are  the most cynical and defensive of a l l the postulated systems. System 3 people i n t h e i r s t r u c t u r a l organization tend to be more complex and open than e i t h e r systems 1 or 2.  In terms of content t h e i r  focus i s on people, friendship, neighborliness, harmony, and helpfulness. They seem to be almost t o t a l l y animated by personal relationships, forming often most complex dependency patterns.  System 3 people w i l l be highly  positive to situations and plans that are perceived as b e n e f i c i a l to other people.  Conversely, the only negative attitudes generally expressed  are to aspects that may harm people. System 4 people occupy the uppermost end i n the s t r u c t u r a l organization of b e l i e f s .  How  d e f i n i t e l y they seem to be there i s somewhat  graphically i l l u s t r a t e d by the designations just presented i n tabulated form from the d e f i n i t i o n s of Harvey.  No other system has such a clear  rank order position on a majority of defined dimensions. highly abstract functioning may  Their r e l a t i v e l y  f i n d expression i n tolerance of  inconsistencies and contradictions, and i n some apparent  paradoxes.  System 4 people seem to have fewer pre-focused "content" items than any 9 of the other systems. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Systems i n Samples of Defined Populations D i s t r i b u t i o n patterns found by 0. J . Harvey seem to suggest  two  trends.  Ibid., pp. 9-12. In view of the importance f o r correct scoring procedures the reader i s provided with a f u l l quotation of Harvey's characterization of "System Response Patterns" i n Appendix B of this paper.  9  (A)  The educational i n s t i t u t i o n s (as defined below) tend to favour the recruitment of system 1 persons and to a lesser extent system 3 persons; and, conversely, disfavours system 2 people and to a much lesser extent, system 4 people.  (B)  There i s an apparent acceleration of the s e l e c t i v i t y trend (with the exception o f system 3) as people advance to more senior positions i n educational i n s t i t u t i o n s . These two effects are tabulated below. TABLE 3 PERCENT DISTRIBUTIONS OF SAMPLES OF DEFINED POPULATIONS Percent d i s t r i b u t i o n s of samples of defined populations  System 1  35%  45%  55%  75%  90%  System 2  15%  5%  NIL  NIL  NIL  System 3  20%  25%  15%  NIL  NIL  System 4  7%  5%  4%  NIL  NIL  Sample: Several 1000 L i b e r a l Arts Students, University of Colorado  Sample: Undergrad. Ed. Majors, University of Colorado  Sample: Practice Te ache r s , University of Colorado  Sample: Principals of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico  Sample: Superintendents of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico  SOURCE: O. J . Harvey, "Beliefs and Behavior: Some Implications for Education", The Science Teacher,37 (December 1970): 13. A l l d e f i n i t i o n s of samples exactly as given by 0. J . Harvey. Note: Total percentages do not add up to 100 because some respondents can not be assigned to any of the major systems. Description of the Two Tests Used by 0. J . Harvey for the Purpose of Assigning People to the B e l i e f Systems Harvey's most important test f o r the purpose of assigning people to one of the b e l i e f systems i s the previously referred to sentence completion  10.  test c a l l e d "This I Believe" ( T I B ) . I t contains nine such items as, "This I Believe about l y i n g " .  The subject must write at least two sentences f o r  each item i n the sequence of appearance i n the (TIB) booklet. must be completed within two minutes.  Each item  The Test i s scored by trained judges.  A system designation i s assigned to the respondent discrepant or f a i l s to discriminate.  even i f one response i s  I f there i s enough variety i n the  responses the most predominant system i s l i s t e d f i r s t , the next second. example, 2_, 4. "enough".) tions.  For  (Unfortunately, one does not know precisely what constitutes  Harvey says that rarely w i l l one require more than two  designa-  Harvey reports an interjudge r e l i a b i l i t y for three or four judges as  .9 or higher.  Harvey also reports a high .80's t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y for  one week and also for s i x month intervals."'""'" The second test obviates the use of judges. ceptual System Test" (Form CST-71).  I t i s called "Con-  This instrument r e l i e s mainly on the  q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the "content" variables and other variables from construct validations. from v i o l a t i o n of God's law."  For example item 35 reads:  "Guilt results  A high agreement score on this item would  place the respondent towards system 1.  Another example, item 26, reads: 12  "I enjoy making s a c r i f i c e s for the sake of the happiness of others."  0 . J. Harvey, This I Believe Test (Form TIB-74), Copyright 0. J. Harvey. i U  1974,  "^Harvey, "Belief Systems and Education", p. 73, and 0. J. Harvey, ed., "System Structure, F l e x i b i l i t y and C r e a t i v i t y " , i n Experience, Structure and Adaptability (New York, Springer Publishing Company, 1966), p. 47. It i s assumed that these figures mean simple ratios of agreements to t o t a l responses. 0. J. Harvey and James K. Hoffmeister, Conceptual Systems Test Form CST-71, Copyright 1971, 0. J. Harvey and K. Hoffmeister. The example given derives from a copy of t h i s 48 item t e s t .  11  For t h i s t e s t s i x d i f f e r e n t factors have been analysed:  supernaturalism or  divine fate control, need for structure and order, need to help people, need 13 for people, interpersonal aggression, and general d i s t r u s t . This test when used f o r system c l a s s i f i c a t i o n needs pre-established cut-off values for the mean scores on the factors. is based on "a great deal of empirical f i t t i n g " .  The actual c l a s s i f i c a t i o n Harvey reports that the  CST i s as good f o r system 1, 2 and 3, as the TIB, but not as good for system 14 4 identification. The following w i l l give a selective summarization of a few of the assumed construct validations for the b e l i e f systems. Intelligence measures (WAIS) from three d i f f e r e n t samples were found, as expected, not to be a defining variable for the b e l i e f systems. Harvey reports that only on sub-tests measuring verbal i n t e l l i g e n c e and vocabulary d i d system 2's and 4's score higher than the other systems. these two, system 4's were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than system 2's.  Of Harvey  notes, however, that i n "actual vocabulary usage" both i n TIB answers and i n the role playing a l l systems were equal to each other. Characterizing "creative" responses as e s s e n t i a l l y both novel and appropriate, Harvey concludes from two studies mentioned that " c r e a t i v i t y " tends to be a defining variable along the lines of t h e o r e t i c a l expectations; i . e . , system 4's are much more "creative" than system l ' s .  One study would  13 Harvey, "Belief Systems and Education", pp. 73-74. 14 Ibid., p. 74. Harvey, "System Structure, F l e x i b i l i t y and C r e a t i v i t y " , pp. 48-64. With one noted exception the above reference i s the source f o r a l l the mentioned assumed validations.  seem to support a systems 4 - 2 - 3 - 1 "creative".  rank order from most to least  The other study, however, puts system 3's closer to system 4's 16  than to system I s . Religious involvement  appears to follow quite closely along the  assumed directions with an o v e r a l l systems 1 - 3 - 4 - 2 most to least " r e l i g i o u s " . ing trends:  rank order from  Patterns of church attendance show the follow-  system l ' s attend church regularly - systems 3's occasionally  - system 4's rarely - system 2's very rarely.  This p a r t i c i p a t i o n pattern  tends to be p a r a l l e l e d i n expressed b e l i e f s about r e l i g i o n .  System l ' s  show the highest proportion of b e l i e f s expressing that there i s only one true r e l i g i o n and that everyone needs to worship.  System 4's have a low  involvement, while system 2's i n addition to low involvement express negative attitudes to r e l i g i o n . systems most respondents  tend to  Surprisingly though, i n a l l  characterize themselves as "not very r e l i g i o u s " .  Using two scales, one assuming to measure "authoritarianism" ( i d e n t i f i e d as the "F-scale") the other, "dogmatism" ( i d e n t i f i e d as "Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale"), Harvey reports a " f a i r l y " accurate means of actually assigning respondents  to the b e l i e f systems according to positions  in a 2 x 2 contingency table.  However, i n another place Harvey has  indicated an apparently more accurate way  of categorizing respondents  by  using the same measures f o r a 3 x 3 contingency table as shown below.  Harvey, "System Structure, F l e x i b i l i t y and C r e a t i v i t y " , p. 56-58. The relationships, however, to the construct are not as clear-cut as one might wish or as the reader might be led to assume. Harvey reports rank order of r e l a t i v e percentages from d i f f e r e n t systems. In other words, there were some system l ' s that scored high i n the c e l l of high novelty and high appropriateness.  13  TABLE 4 DOGMATISM & AUTHORITARIANISM AS APPROXIMATE MEASURES OF BELIEF SYSTEMS DOGMATISM  a  Lower Third  Lowe r Third  Middle Third  4  Higher Third  2  E-t  a  o a Eh  Higher Third  <:  Middle Third  H CO  3  1  SOURCE: Harvey, "Conceptual Systems and Attitude Change", i n Attitude, Ego - Involvement and Change, eds. Carolyn W. Sherif and Muzafer Sherif (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967), p. 210. Harvey summarizes a number of other measures that are assumed to have strengthened the construct v a l i d i t y of the b e l i e f systems. measures  Some of these  (like the mentioned " c r e a t i v i t y " scores) are not paper and p e n c i l  tests but observed differences of behavior i n several performance tasks which Harvey discusses under the headings of "Cue U t i l i z a t i o n " , "Change of Set", and "Admission of Deviant Inputs into the Systems".  14  II.  MODIFICATION OF "THIS I BELIEVE" QUESTIONNAIRE The Rationale for the Modification  Rather large claims have been made for the implications of Harvey's model to problems i n education  (a point to which t h i s paper w i l l return).  In view of these claims a r e l i a b l e and v a l i d measurement instrument i s an essential requirement.  From the foregoing introduction i t w i l l have  become apparent that the b e l i e f systems are a construct of s o c i a l psychological i n t e r a c t i o n .  For such a model to be useful i t must remain  sensitive to c u l t u r a l and s o c i a l differences not only i n a p a r t i c u l a r sense but also i n a generalizable one.  For example, i t does not require much  acumen to see that a b e l i e f item about the "American Flag" w i l l not be an "ego-involving" item for a Canadian high school student.  likely  It i s  rather more d i f f i c u l t , however, to foresee whether a substitution to "Canadian Flag" would be adequate.  A very l i k e l y p o s s i b i l i t y i s that  there are generalizable differences i n c u l t u r a l "imprints" from symbols. In t h i s instance a good guess i s that the symbol " f l a g " means much less to a Canadian than to an American. evidence one cannot know how  Unfortunately, without empirical  good one's guess i s . Nonetheless, just as  with any other test which i s to be used i n a new  s i t u a t i o n , one can improve  the face v a l i d i t y and content v a l i d i t y of t h i s instrument.  The  "free  response" (Part B) of the modified instrument r e f l e c t s an attempt to make this improvement by a kind of c u l t u r a l judgement.  In view of the  propinquity of the American and Canadian s o c i a l - c u l t u r a l s e t t i n g the modification i s a small one.  One  further change i n Part B i s the  15  reduction of items to s i x from nine i n the o r i g i n a l TIB.  The reason for this  step derives from Harvey's d i r e c t i o n that the scoring w i l l be most r e l i a b l y done when evaluating the "global" response pattern rather than each item separately.  I f t h i s i s indeed true, then this reduction may  j u s t i f i a b l e economy without a great penalty  ( i f any)  be a  i n the form of a  reduced r e l i a b i l i t y . The inclusion of Part A, which constitutes a much more extreme change from the TIB than Part B just discussed, was siderations.  The foremost of these was  a concern for p r a c t i c a l i t y .  indeed Harvey's model i s useful for education r e l i a b l e and v a l i d way  prompted by two conIf  then one needs not only a  of assigning subjects to the b e l i e f systems but  also one that i s e a s i l y and quickly scored.  The second consideration  came from the reading of the construct v a l i d a t i o n summarized i n the preceding section.  It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that system 2's and 4's were found to  perform better on subtests i n verbal i n t e l l i g e n c e and vocabulary than the other systems.  I f i n t e l l i g e n c e i s not a defining variable i n any sense  for the systems, then confounding influences from better verbal a b i l i t i e s (in spite of the assurance from Harvey that respondents of neither system show a general verbal superiority i n the TIB answers) were seen as a possible threat to a reasonable confidence responses.  l e v e l i n c l a s s i f y i n g the  To the extent that one can draw an analogy from the p r i n c i p l e  that "recognition i s easier than r e c a l l " , i t was  reasoned that i f  respondents could be made to "recognize" rather than to "verbalize" t h e i r "correct" response, one would eliminate verbal superiority as a possible confounding influence. At t h i s point one may  ask, why  which has been described previously. was  not use the Conceptual System Test The reader w i l l r e c a l l that the  empirically f i t t e d to correspond as closely as possible to the TIB.  CST It is  16 also reported as being not sensitive to system 4 c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .  Using  the CST as an alternate form would require a new empirical f i t every time the TIB c a l l s f o r modification. Without doubt, any scale that i s related to any other scale i n any systematic way substitute measure.  can be f i t t e d as a v a l i d  But i t was thought possible to construct a scale that  would measure the b e l i e f systems more d i r e c t l y than the circumspectual approach of the CST.  The outcome was  a "forced choice" scale (Part A) from  multiple choice items thought to centre on Harvey's postulates and probably as e a s i l y modifiable as the TIB.  Also, i f this approach should indicate  some success, one might i n time strengthen this scale by the "horses-mouthapproach", i.e., by substituting actual responses modified TIB form.  from Part B, the s l i g h t l y  In the following display of the complete test form the  reader w i l l be given system indications as scored for the available blanks. With the exception of the f i r s t question, a l l questions as w e l l as item positioning are meant to be randomly arranged. form.  The test i s i n booklet  Every question appears on a separate page, here indicated by a short  horizontal l i n e .  Presentation of the Modified Instrument This I Believe Questionnaire Adopted from Form TIB-74 (Copyright 1974 0. J . Harvey) By s p e c i a l permission from Professor Harvey, University of Colorado, 1975. What this questionnaire i s a l l about This questionnaire attempts to investigate the extent to which students might respond d i f f e r e n t l y from adults to issues that concern most people at one time or another.  Adult responses to these kinds of questions  have already been compiled and are well documented — but we don't have at present any equivalent data on high school students.  I t i s for t h i s reason  that we ask you to give t h i s questionnaire your close attention. You may put your name on the following i d e n t i f i c a t i o n page.  But i f  you are more comfortable without i d e n t i f y i n g yourself, just leave your name off —  but, please, make sure you supply the other requested information. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Page  Name: ( i f desired)  '_  __  ., , (Family Name)  Age:  (Given Name) Sex:  . (Year)  (Month) Grade:  School: Part (A) Forced Choice Directions  The next 14 pages w i l l each present 4 d i f f e r e n t statements p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e f issue.  about one  Imagine yourself as being forced to take sides.  That i s , you must choose one statement  as representing you.  This means  that sometimes you may be i n a r e a l bind because a l l statements may seem equally reasonable or equally bad —  or equally incomplete.  Even i n such a  case take one p o s i t i o n t o which you can give your most support. Read s i l e n t l y  (so as not to influence others) a l l 4 statements.  Then mark your choice - only one - with a c a p i t a l M. (M) stands f o r :  Most l i k e my own p o s i t i o n .  When the time given f o r one item i s over, the administrator w i l l d i r e c t you to turn to the next page. This I believe about questionnaires l i k e t h i s (3)  I t depends on t h e i r purpose.'  (item #1)  I f put to good use, they can help people  to learn more about themselves and others.  18 (1)  They are necessary f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g new  knowledge and for advancing  s o c i a l science for the benefit of a l l people. (2)  They are usually a complete waste of time and do no good to anyone. This one won't be any  (4)  different.  I don't quite know what this i s a l l about! painless break from the daily routine —  But i t looks l i k e a  and i t may have some useful-  ness.  This I believe about schools  (Item #2)  (2)  Schools are part of the establishment,  (4)  There are some things that anyone could b i t c h about; but at least there are quite a few  (3)  but without them you are dead.  choices.  What r e a l l y counts i s that you meet a l o t of people who  often become  good friends. (1)  Schools are a must for becoming a successful c i t i z e n .  This I believe about l y i n g (1)  (Item #3)  Lying i s the exact opposite of saying the truth, and always reveals a coward.  Once a l i a r always a l i a r .  There i s no  such thing as a  white l i e . (4)  Lying i s the opposite of saying the t r u t h — but not the exact  opposite.  That makes i t complicated. (2)  Lying i s a fact of l i f e — into  (3)  l i k e i t or not!  Most people can be conned  anything.  Lying can save face and can prevent hurting people.. In such a case lying i s preferable to the truth.  19  This I believe about equal opportunity for both sexes (2)  Females w i l l never have a r e a l chance —  (Item #4)  the establishment  i s f u l l of  male chauvinists who never w i l l give women an equal break. (1)  A l l people must be given the same basic chance i n l i f e . men and women are women.  But men are  Therefore, i t i s best i f people stay with  roles for which they are most suited by nature. (3)  I f t h i s i s to be achieved, i t must be done c a r e f u l l y so that f r i e n d l y relationships do not suffer.  Women's l i b . i s only good i f i t does not  hurt people i n the long run. (4)  Equal opportunity, yes! enjoyable.  To do a l l things that are p r a c t i c a l and  But remember, equality does not mean sameness. For  example, I don't expect many g i r l s would want a job i n the coal mines.  This I believe about friends (1}  (Item #5)  Friends are very important  in life.  Friendship i s necessary f o r  developing a well-adjusted personality.  People depend on each other  and friendship provides t h i s helping hand. (2)  Friends are important  —  as long as you can trust them —  you can never be quite sure.  and of this  Friends can be and often are one of the  great disappointments i n l i f e . (4)  Friends are great!  You have t o understand t h e i r strong and weak points.  I don't depend on my friends very much to do things that r e a l l y interest me. (3)  I l i k e to do things together with my friends. would be a r e a l drag!  The main thing, however, i s that people need  and deserve help from each other. a l l about.  L i f e without friends  This i s what true friendship i s  20  This I believe about alcohol (3)  (Item #6)  I t can be both, harmless or harmful. and the occasion.  As long as people learn to drink i n moderation,  they w i l l not harm themselves (1)  I t depends on the type of people  or others.  I t can be a s o c i a l disease, because many people have a tendency to become alcoholics.  Therefore, some s t r i c t controls on the use of  alcohol are required. (2)  There always have been drunks. ing problem anyway.  No one can do anything about the drink-  I f people want to become alcoholics that should be  t h e i r business. (4)  I guess people could do without i t .  A r e a l alcoholic i s a t e r r i b l e  sight; but sooner or l a t e r most people w i l l learn how alcohol affects them.  Then they have to make a decision —  This I believe about my teachers (2)  (Item #7)  Most teachers are doing what they are doing because they get paid f o r it.  (3)  hopefully the r i g h t one.  No b i g deal!  Teachers are people.  You have to know them before you can say anything.  Regardless of anything e l s e , most teachers help students quite a b i t . (4)  Teachers?  I can't put them into one bag —  they d i f f e r a l o t .  Maybe  this i s a copout on my part. (1)  Most teachers try. t h e i r best to make students into knowledgeable and law-abiding c i t i z e n s .  This I believe about teamwork (2)  (Item #8)  Most people hope that the others w i l l make a l l the e f f o r t ; so, often nothing gets done unless somebody plays the sucker.  21  (4)  Its success depends on the strength and weaknesses of the people involved.  (1)  Sometimes you are better o f f to do the job yourself.  I t i s good and necessary for development o f character — i n sports.  especially  The opportunity to pool resources for the common good  should never be passed up. (3)  I t may not always succeed. ship, everybody  But i f i t develops new bonds of friend-  can gain something.  Even the weakest person has  something to o f f e r .  This I believe about fashions (1)  (Item #9)  Fashions are not as important as neatness. a g i r l who i s s l o p p i l y dressed —  (4)  Fashions come and go.  Nothing i s as revolting as  regardless of fashion.  I f you wait long enough you are always back i n .  I have not enough time to worry about them very much. (2)  People are judged by what they wear.  Fashions are invented to get  money out of people who are scared to be c a l l e d old-fashioned. (3)  Fashions are fine as long as they allow people to express t h e i r own personality.  This I believe about the church (2)  (Item #10)  I t t r i e s i t s best to hold on to i t s power and to keep people ignorant. It has polluted a l l true r e l i g i o n .  (4)  I t doesn't bother me that there are many people for whom.the church doesn't mean much one way or the other.  (1)  I f i t preaches the true gospel, a l o t of people could be saved from s i n of which we a l l are g u i l t y .  (3)  The question should be:  How much e f f o r t does the church make i n  22  providing help and comfort to those who need i t most.  My rating  depends on the answer to this question.  This I believe about my future (2)  (Item #11)  I t a l l depends on how I w i l l make out. otherwise, you can't get anywhere.  You need good connections;  This i s true now more than ever  before. (4)  I hope that I do not have-to worry too much about money or health, so that I can do things that r e a l l y interest  (1)  me.  I t a l l depends, of course, on the economic s i t u a t i o n .  I f industry  and science keep up with the increasing demand and i f I do as well as i s expected of me, my future should be secure. (3)  There are many p o s s i b i l i t i e s .  But I hope to f i n d a f i e l d i n which I  don't have to get a l l worked up about competing with others..  I would  much sooner find a future that involves work with people.  This I believe about foul language (3)  (Item #12)  I t depends on the circumstances. But i t should never be used i f i t hurts people who mean something to you.  (1)  Even i f many people use i t , inside themselves they know i t i s f i l t h y and i t should be punished.  (2)  Since everything else has been corrupted, why worry about f o u l language?  (4)  Sometimes i t allows you to get r i d of your f r u s t r a t i o n s . i s used a l l the time i t gets to be a bore — noise i n the a i r that cannot do r e a l harm.  But i f i t  i t i s actually only  This I believe about prejudice against East Indians (4)  (Item  #13)  What I know about t h i s problem i s mostly second hand. r e a l l y good explanation what causes i t or how  I have no  to cure i t —  i n myself  and i n others. (2)  Most people only pretend that they are not r a c i s t s . look out for himself i n t h i s dog-eat-dog world.  Everyone has to  Right now  the East  Indians are the r e a l underdogs. (3)  I t has to do with t h e i r d i f f e r e n t r e l i g i o n and strange way On a personal l e v e l most people are ok.  of dressing.  So, one has to know them on  an i n d i v i d u a l basis. (1)  Prejudice and racism are bad and should be condemned.  As long as the  East Indians respect our laws and don't interfere with r e l i g i o n , there should be no prejudice.  This I believe about our country (3)  (Item  #14)  Whatever else may be said, Canada i s known for i t s contribution to achieve harmony among people.  We have not many enemies but a l o t of  friends. (2)  I t always used to be one of the best places i n the world. with eyes to see knows what i s happening right now,  though.  Everybody But  there i s no use t a l k i n g about i t . (4)  I t i s small i n population and large i n space. d i f f e r e n t people —  I t i s home to many  t h i s makes i t an interesting country to grow up  and l i v e i n . (1)  I t i s probably s t i l l the best and most respected placed on earth. have more opportunities f o r people than most other countries. stands as a symbol for freedom and peace.  We  Canada  24  Part B Free Response The following pages w i l l give you an opportunity to respond freely to a given issue. position —  In this section you are simply requested  to state your  as i t f i r s t comes to your mind and as f o r c e f u l l y as you can.  Do not worry too much about s p e l l i n g or neatness. 2 minutes for each question.  You w i l l have  At the end of 2 minutes you w i l l be asked to  turn to the next b e l i e f issue. Put as much of your own true opinion into i t as you possibly can. Try to write at least two sentences about each topic. This I believe about our school:  This I believe about g i r l s going into technical occupations:  This I believe about myself:  This I believe about more immigrants coming into Canada  This I believe about my own generation:  This I believe about my best f r i e n d s :  25  III.  OBSERVATIONAL RESULTS FROM SAMPLE  Response Categorizations from the "Free Response" Section of the Modified Instrument Because the "free response" categorizations represent the anchor point f o r this study they w i l l be presented f i r s t .  The strategy used as  well as several measures of interjudgemental and intrajudgemental agreements have been carefully noted and are given a detailed exposition i n Appendix A of t h i s paper.  Here, i t may be s u f f i c i e n t to indicate that assigning of  b e l i e f systems was taxing the a b i l i t i e s of the judges much more severely than any of the other additional judgemental tasks.  In comparison, the rank  ordering of "articulateness" of respondents on a scale from 1-6, for example, appeared a very minor problem. one rank.  Here, disagreement was never greater than  Moreover, disagreements occurred much more rarely.  The keys  used for categorizations are presented i n tabulated form below. TABLE 5 KEY USED FOR CLASSIFYING BELIEF SYSTEMS FROM THE "FREE RESPONSE" SECTION (PART B)  1  1,  1-2,  1-3,  1-4,  1-X  2,  1  3-1,  3-2,  3-4,  2-1,  2-3,  2-4,  2-X  Dominant 4 s  Dominant 3 s 3,  X's  Dominant 2 s  Dominant 1 s  3-X  4,  4-1,  4-2,  4-3,  4-X  The key i n Table 5 represents a small departure from Harvey's key.  The f u l l  X designation means either that the judges could not agree on a designation  26  even a f t e r d i s c u s s i n g the response o r t h a t they agreed t h a t i t was i m p o s s i b l e to  c a t e g o r i z e t h a t p a r t i c u l a r response w i t h even the s l i g h t e s t degree o f  confidence.  IX, 2X, e t c . means t h a t t h e f i r s t named response  type was  i d e n t i f i a b l e - b u t n o t o v e r l y dominant because i t was d i f f u s e d by o t h e r d i s c e r n a b l e response 2-3-1  types.  Thus, f o r example, Harvey's d e s i g n a t i o n s o f a  would c o l l a p s e i n the p r e s e n t study t o a 2-X.  I t was understood  the X d e s i g n a t i o n was t o be used as l i t t l e as p o s s i b l e . t i o n s mean -the response  1, 2, e t c . d e s i g n a -  type i s d e f i n i t e l y dominant - even i f o t h e r  t e n d e n c i e s a r e vaguely d i s c e r n a b l e . both response  that  1-2, 1-3, e t c . d e s i g n a t i o n s mean t h a t  types are i d e n t i f i a b l e - the f i r s t one s t r o n g e r o r e q u a l t o  the second - a g a i n even i f o t h e r t e n d e n c i e s are vaguely d i s c e r n a b l e .  TABLE 6 KEY USED FOR RANK-ORDERING "ARTICULATENESS" FROM THE "FREE RESPONSE" SECTION (PART B)  1-2 Below Average o f t e n o n l y one sentence or a sentence fragment - thoughts are e x p r e s s e d w i t h o u t much, i f any, e l a b o r a t i o n - vocabulary r e l a t i v e l y r e p e t i t i v e and restricted  3-4 Average u s u a l l y two s e n t e n c e s , e x p r e s s i o n s , although rather simple, are usually quite clear. Thoughts t e n d t o be e x p r e s s e d w i t h some elaboration.  5-6 Above Average u s u a l l y two o r more sentences. Fluency and e x p r e s s i v e n e s s seems h i g h f o r grade l e v e l - thoughts tend to be w e l l e l a b o r a t e d .  NOTE: " A r t i c u l a t e n e s s " , i g n o r e s t o some e x t e n t t h e mechanics o f l i t e r a c y such as s p e l l i n g , p u n c t u a t i o n , and grammatical c o r r e c t n e s s , e s p e c i a l l y where " e x p r e s s i v e n e s s " i s g r e a t e r t h a n - l i t e r a c y .  27  TABLE 7 KEYS USED FOR CLASSIFYING TWO ADDITIONAL RESPONSES FROM THE "FREE RESPONSE" SECTION (PART B) Degree of Acceptance of Immigrants From the "Free Response" item "This I believe about more immigrants coming into Canada." Strong Rejection  General Rejection  Open r e j e c t i o n , d i r e c t reference to a p a r t i c u l a r group or race - negative commentary  Usually oblique reference to others , also negative commentary 1  Complete Acceptance  Conditional Acceptance  1  Acceptance only with some or many ' i f s ' or with some expressed disapproval  Acceptance without any reservations  Degree of Acceptance of G i r l s From the "Free Response" item "This I believe about g i r l s going into technical occupations."  Rejection Total rejection and/ or openly expressed disapproval.  Complete Acceptance  Conditional Acceptance Expressed conditions such as strength, mental a b i l i t y , etc. must be met - must equal that of men.  Total acceptance; only condition - sometimes expressed i s ' l i k i n g ' of such an occupation.  What follows i s a minimally edited t r a n s c r i p t i o n of categorized examples from the "free response" section. grammatical  Corrections of s p e l l i n g and  structure were r e s t r i c t e d to those instances that seemed to  obscure a ready access to the meaning.  Some swear words were abbreviated  i n accordance with the convention of p o l i t e usage.  For reference purposes  a l l examples are prefixed with a c a p i t a l l e t t e r and i d e n t i f i e d with the b e l i e f systems i t was  judged to represent.  indicated i n abbreviated form.  The b e l i e f questions are  A l l examples are from the present sample  of 122 grade 9 and 10 students from a high school i s a middle-class d i s t r i c t .  28  (System 1 - Articulateness:  5, Boy, Grade 10)  Our school:  Its o.k. but i t ' s not as good as a Junior High. I'd much rather prefer a s p l i t Junior & Senior High because I hate having so many people i n one school But I certainly learned alot more up here they r e a l l y push you & the teachers are quite good.  Girls:  I think i t s stupid, every since womens Lib movement they (women) think they should get away from the children leave the home & compete for higher employment. They're just not made for i t . One of these days t h e y ' l l learn.  Myself:  I'm the greatest that ever l i v e d .  Immigrants:  I personally think since the Japs raided Pearl Harbour more and more chinks and Japs have been invading Canada. Vancouver has the largest amount of slant eyes than i n any other part of Canada, geez the Japanese have p r a c t i c a l l y overpopulated t h e i r own home c i t i e s so now t h e i r coming over here and taking a l l the jobs, and making more babies than ever. I think they stink.  Own  I don't know.  generation:  Best friends:  I'm questions.  I don't know where I'd be with out them.  (System 1 - Articulateness:  3, Boy Grade 10)  Our School:  Our school i s okay because we don't l e t tor many foreigners i n . The school i s i n a good r e s i d e n t i a l area so the people aren't scums.  Girls:  I f the g i r l s can handle i t i t ' s okay with me but i n a l o t of jobs a man i s more suitable.  Myself:  I'm a average guy a with predujice but intelligence.  Immigrants:  I think they should get r i d of the one's i n here and don't l e t any more stupid Pun Jabs and Chinese into the country.  Own  Our generation i s with i t while the older generation i s old fashioned l i k e we w i l l be i n a couple of years.  generation:  Best friends:  average  I think my best frinds are nice guys. They're responsible and honest and t h e i r not immigrants.  29 (System 1 - Articulateness:  D:  4, Boy, Grade 10)  Our school:  That i n our world today we need school to get a good job to look after a family. A few people who drop out get lucky but very rarely.  Girls:  I don't mind g i r l s going to technical occupations as long as they can do the job. There i s no reason why they shouldn't.  Myself:  I believe that I am not prejudice and do not consider myself a male chauvanist p i g .  Immigrants:  I think that there should be a ^certain no. of visa's given out a year because we have enough people on welfare r i g h t now without needing any more.  Own generation;  I believe that my own generation i s a good one. There are always some bad applies i n a b a r r e l l .  Best friends:  I believe that my best friends consider me as equal as them. Everybody has there own opions of l i f e and that i s what I f e e l .  (System 1 - Articulateness: 2, G i r l , Grade 9) Our school:  It i s good and the teachers are good.  Girls:  I think i f g i r l s wish to do that why not.  Myself:  I am a lucky person to be l i v i n g where I am and to go to a school, and not have to think about were am I going to get my next meal.  Immigrants:  I think Canada should think about the people we already have?  Own generation:  It i s good and we are lucky to have a l l the things we have.  Best friends:  I don't have a best friend only good f r i e n d .  (System 1 - Articulateness:  5, G i r l , Grade 10)  Our school:  Our school i s r e a l l y a good one. There are a l o t of nice people and good teachers. I t i s clean and i t i s not a problem to come to school, 'cause most of the people l i k e i t here.  Girls:  I think that i t ' s great. I f they can handle the job then why not? I am not a woman's l i b freak but i f that i s what they want to do and i f they can do i t , w e l l go right ahead.  30 Myself:  I come from a good family. I up most of my time. I am not that drink or smoke. I don't I enjoy myself and family and friends.  Immigrants:  Well knowing that we can only have a certain amount of people and that we are reaching our l i m i t I think that we shouldn't have any more. Most of the people that are coming i n are getting jobs and our own people can't. I don't believe that we should accept immigrants for jobs unless our own people have them f i r s t .  Own  Quite of l o t of the people now are i n t o drugs and drinking of course a l o t • aren't. I f e e l that our generation i s not controlled as s t r i c t l y as our parents which i s good but i t i s n ' t good e i t h e r . Our generation i s easier than our parents because, we didn't have to worry about wars; not being able to get food etc. but we have had a few problems.  generation:  Best friends.  enjoy sports, with the type think that i t I have r e a l l y  which takes of kids i s right. great  My best friends are r e a l l y good people. They r e a l l y do go out of t h e i r way to help others as well as themselves. We are very close, and do a great deal of things together. I think that I am r e a l l y lucky and I couldn't have any n i c e r friends.  (System 2, Articulateness:  2, Boy, Grade 9)  Our school:  I think t h i s school i s to small for a l l the people go here. P.S. This school i s f !!!  Girls:  For those g i r l s going into technical schools i s good. P.S. But the schools they come for are f !!!  Myself:  Far-out  Immigrants:  Immigrants coming into Canada i s good, i t makes Canada a better place to l i v e i n .  Own  My generation i s far-out and better then the f. o l d foukes generation.  Best  generation: friend:  I think my best f r i e n d i s f  (System 2, Articulateness:  who  !!!  5, Boy, Grade 10)  Our school:  People i n our school t r y very hard to upper-class and "cool". Really, however, a l l the back-stabbing and o f f i c e p o l i t i c s that goes on though just shows our school as a viscous micro-cosm of the outside world.  Girls :  I f they are q u a l i f i e d to do so, yes, i t i s fine. However, i f they are seeking equality, but r e a l l y s t r i v e to be dominant, I'm against i t .  31 Myself:  I'm influenced i n many ways by my friends. However, I .try to be as i n d i v i d u a l as possible and develop as a person. Right now, I'm l o s t i n l i f e with so many personal choices evolving.  Immigrants;  Fine, but we should consider our job markets and other economic factors as w e l l . We should also consider our English and French national heritage before being overwhelmed by i n Eastern society within Canada.  Own generation:  We are l o s t and confused as a whole. Our r a d i c a l a c t i v i t i v i t i e s , though, only r e f l e c t our desires to be independent as previous generations have. We're going to f i t into the same establishmentarian mold as they do.  Best friends:  My best friends, although few, are d i f f e r e n t . Many impress me as schemers. There are only a few i n which I place an absolute trust. However, there i s always somethings I never t e l l them and they never t e l l me.  (System 3, Articulateness: 6, G i r l , Grade 10) Our school:  I think school i s a r e a l l y important place to meet people and make friends. I t i s also good i n the education point of view and i t helps kids prepare f o r the future. Our school i s very cliquey (sp.?) but most of the people are i n the group of friends that they want to be i n so they enjoy i t . I r e a l l y love xxxxx and would never change schools.  Girls:  I f e e l that i f a g i r l wants to go i n t o a technical occupation i t i s her decision and I'd give her credit for i t . I wouldn't want to be that g i r l , but I'm not going to put her down for doing what she wants to do.  Myself:  My friends are the most important thing i n my l i f e and I couldn't l i v e without them. I do care about my future, the world, etc. but I ' l l always put friendship before anything. In order to be happy I could do without everything but friends.  Immigrants:  I believe i t i s fine f o r people to immigrate into Canada but they should be prepared. I t i s n ' t f a i r to just plop them i n our country because they would be l o s t . But i f they are given (or have arranged for) a place to l i v e , and they w i l l be able to cope, they sure can come - as long as i t doesn't a f f e c t us i n the wrong way. There should, however be a l i m i t 'cause soon they could outnumber Canadians (I mean people born here).  Own generation:  I dont'd think we are a 'bad generation' l i k e alot of people have shown. We are responsible and have a  32 great advantage because we were born into a sophist i c a t e d world. We l i k e to have fun, be rowdy, but most kids do have 'respect' for elders, property, etc. Best friends:  I:  My best friends are r e a l l y important to me. I can t e l l them everything and they are understanding and t r u t h f u l . They have pulled me through alot of times that my parents couldn't have helped with and I honestly couldn't l i v e without them.  (System 3, Articulateness: 5, Boy, Grade 10) Our school:  Our school has a l o t of opportunities. One has many choses to choose i n what he wants to do. There i s too much compitition i n t h i s school. A person should just be able to get involved. There are many good teachers i n the school but some of them are either to slack, or s t r i c t . I wish that some teachers would act more l i k e human beings.  Girls:  I f e e l that i t i s good for a g i r l to go i n f o r techn i c a l occupations. In many respects we need a womens view point. This i s only i f they t r y t h e i r best and have a l o t of interest i n i t .  Myself:  I want to accomplish something i n l i f e that may help people. I try to treat everybody f a i r l y but I don't always do. I may chosen occupation I think that any o f f i c e job would bore me. I would l i k e a job out i n the f i e l d away from the c i t y . I believe that I would l i k e to work close to nature.  Immigrants:  I think that immigrants should come to this country. They bring with them t h e i r culture and r e l i g i o n s which we can learn from. But this should a l l be done in moderation.  Own  My generation has many faults i n i t . I believe that every generation has something to add to socity. So I believe that our generation has some good i n i t . One i s that feelings are express openly there i s no more what other people think but this i s s t i l l prominent i n my school.  generation:  Best friends:  J:  My best friends should stand by me i n time of trouble. There should be an understanding between us. Each of us should respect each others comments and i n t e r e s t .  (System 4, Articulateness: 5, Boy, Grade 10) Our school:  Our school i s pretty good, although we r e a l l y don't need to stay here as long as we do. Work i s stretched out i n Grades 8 & 9, but i n Grade 10 up they pack more in.  33  K:  Girls:  - i f they want to, why not? (Isn't that a slogan). If females who are well suited to certain technical f i e l d s , wish to have a technical occupation, then they should be incouraged as much as males are.  Myself:  It's hard to think objectively about yourself. I am academically i n c l i n e d but lazy, and I have a poor s o c i a l l i f e but enjoy t a l k i n g t o people. I enjoy people by themselves, not i n gangs.  Immigrants:  Canada should welcome immigrants of any race, creed, or colour as long as our own economic s i t u a t i o n can withstand them (which i t can right now). We are a r i c h country and are obligated to help relieve other countries....  Own generation:  My own generation i s the opposite of the l a s t . Most of us agree ( p o l i t i c a l l y ) with our parents. In short, we are lazy and spoiled and cannot l i v e happily without comfort (therefore drugs, e t c . . . ) .  Best friends:  My best friends are great people; they are l o y a l , kind, generous etc.... Maybe I expect too much from friends. If that's the case, that's why I think I don't have many, (friends).  (System 4, Articulateness: 6, G i r l , Grade 10) Our school:  Its an okay school as f a r as they go. One probably i s n ' t better than the other. Though i n sports compitition perhaps certain areas of kids are better athletes than others because of d i e t , background and t r a i n i n g . School i s just a place to gain more s k i l l s and knowledge to prepare you for the future. Other things as making friends and s o c i a l l i f e just f a l l i n naturally.  Girls:  I f a g i r l wants to go into a technical occupation i t s up to her. I f though that i s what she chooses there should be no s o c i a l pressures to prevent her and companies should be w i l l i n g to t r a i n her for the job of her choice. You (everyone of us) are e n t i t l e d to a job or s k i l l we choose to t r a i n i n providing there i s room and work w i l l be available when the t r a i n i n g ends.  Myself:  This i s rather an open question so heres how I ' l l answer. I want to l i v e how I want and make choices for myself. Everything I do i f I'm interested I try as hard as I can. Perhaps I would be c a l l e d a p e r f e c t i o n i s t . But that doesn't mean neat. Thats about a l l I have to say about myself.  Immigrants:  Everyone i s born on to this earth completely equal to  34  each other. So i f someone wants to come to Canada they should be allowed but the s i t u a t i o n changes s l i g h t l y i f there i s a job shortage, etc. The immigrant should t r y to f i t i n as best as they can to our way but t h i s i s sometimes hard. I t should also work vice versa. Own  generation:  Best friends:  L:  I don't think best friends are t o t a l l y important i t s best to t r y to get along with everyone as best we can. That w i l l make everything a b i t better. I f that worked we'd have less problems.  Systems 1-2, Articulateness: 3, Boy, Grade 9 Our school:  I believe that our school i s a l i t t l e lacky i n some aspects of education that some teachers teach.  Girls:  I believe that even i f g i r l s are q u a l i f i e d to do technical work, they shouldn't be. A womans job i s i n the home, with the k i d s , etc. I f a g i r l wants to work she should do maids work, cook or be a secretary or something l i k e that. Follow t r a d i t i o n , leave mens work to the men.  Myself:  I believe that I am an i n t e l l i g e n t , respectable, person. Maybe a b i t of an i n t r o v e r t , but aside from that I think I w i l l be a good c i t i z e n .  Immigrants:  I believe that there should be no more immigrants coming into Canada because our population i s getting infested with i l l i t e r a t e s that cannot even speak english and i f they continue to come i n , they w i l l ruin our society.  Own  I believe my own generation i s very capable of changing the world for better or worse.  generation:  Best friends: M:  Our generation i s unique I think compared to anything I've heard of. Because of excessive dope and booze we are going to have a problem with ourselves as we get older. The trouble with the law enforcement w i l l be increased. I don't no how i t w i l l end or what exactly w i l l happen. One good thing from our generation i s accepting each other better. This i s important I think ( f e e l ) .  I don't have any!!  Systems 1-3, Articulateness: 5, G i r l , Grade 10 Our school:  I r e a l l y l i k e our school a l o t . I wouldn't leave f o r anything. One thing though i t i s very cliquey (sp.) I f e e l sorry for people who are not i n a clique. I guess that i s the way with most schools. I think the best people go to xxxxx, and I'm proud to say t h i s i s my school.  35 Girls  A l i t t l e while ago this would not be considered proper. But I am a l l for i t , personally I can't see myself, but i f that's what some g i r l s want to do that i s t h e i r buisness.  Myself:  My friends i s what my l i f e i s a l l about. I enjoy other people, and that i s one of the reasons I come to school as you could t e l l by my marks.  Immigrants  If immigrants are w i l l i n g to l i v e the way Canadians do, why not. But I think there should be a l i m i t because pretty soon there are going to be more Chinese people and Hindues than us.  Own  I f e e l my own generation are good people. We were to born i n a space age and a time of changes. Sure there are bad people such as grease gangs or whatever. But I'm sure that there always have been. I think the image of the rebellious teenager has been exagerated.  generation:  Best friends:  N:  My best friends are very s p e c i a l to me. They are people that I can talk to about anything and v i s a versa. They are always there to help and without best friends I would be l o s t .  Systems. 1-4, Articulateness: 4, Boy, Grade 9 Our school:  School i s ok and you can learn quite a l o t from i t , but you could possibly learn more without going to school.  Girls  I think g i r l s should have as eaqual opportunities a men, but some jobs aren't just suited f o r g i r l s .  Myself:  I believe i n myself, and I know I can do anything I r e a l l y want to. That i s a l l that matters.  Immigrants  I don't mind immigrants coming i n , but i f too many come, there won't be any more room f o r us. I think that no more immigrants should be allowed i n a f t e r the population reaches a certain point.  Own  It's a l r i g h t , at least they're better than the l a s t generation.  generation:  Best friends:  System X, Our school:  Friends are a very important part of l i f e , and i t i s important that everyone has good friends. I f you don't have any friends, you're i n trouble.  Articulateness: 2, G i r l , Grade 10 Our school, l i k e most these days, i s based on competition (in sports, academics). I think this should be eliminated from the school.  Girls:  It's fine. There i s no reason why they shouldn't enter such a f i e l d . Women are p e r f e c t l y capable people.  Myself:  I don't believe much about myself.  Immigrants:  Fine, provided i t i s on a limited and controlled basis.  Own generation:  Could be less corrupt. maturity.  Best friends:  They're pretty great people.  System X, Articulateness:  Don't push themselves  into  2, G i r l , Grade 9  Our school:  There i s alot of nice people. spirit.  But not much school  Girls:  I think both sexes should do whatever they are comfortable i n who cares i f they are male/female.  Myself:  I can't f i t i t a l l i n !  Immigrants :  I don't care i f they come i n or not. predjudice.  Own generation:  They are naive. are dumb.  Best friends:  My best f r i e n d I can t r u s t but I do not l i k e being with her/him a l l the time. Sometimes unaware.  Too much to say. I'm not  They don't care about anything they  Table 8 on the page following w i l l display the frequency d i s t r i b u tions of the complete sample and of various analysed subgroups as defined by the keys i n Tables 5 to 7.  The abbreviations used derive from the  complete headings used i n Tables 5 to 7 and, therefore, seem self-explanatory The next subsection deals with response categorizations from the "forced choice" part.  The "key" used f o r c l a s s i f y i n g systems w i l l be explain  ed and then presented.  This key, while based on p r o b a b i l i t i e s of either one  response type or two combined response types occurring by chance alone, was designed to allow a d i r e c t comparison with the categorizations obtained from the "free responses".  The subsection w i l l then display the response type  frequencies obtained within each of the 14 "forced choice" items and compare categorizations obtained by the "free response" and "forced choice" methods.  .TABLE 8 •FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF BELIEF SYSTEMS FROM "FREE RESPONSES" •OF TOTAL SAMPLE (N = 122) AND VARIOUS SUBGROUPS OF SAMPLE* -  Description  B o Y s  G i r 1 s  •  i  T N  Dominant l's  Dominant 2's  1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1- X  Dominant 3's  2 2-1 2-3 2 -4 2 -X  Dominant 4's  3 3-1 3-2 3 -4 3 -X  4 4-1 4--2 4-3 4- X  X's  Total Sample  73 48 121  50  7  8  6  5  9  5  -  -  3  6  4  -  1  -  8  3  1  1  -  4  Boys, Grade 9  38  -  38  18  3  1  4  2  2  3  -  -  -  -  2  -  -  -  -  1  1  -  -  1  Boys, Grade 10  35  -  35  17  4  -  -  1  4  1  -  -  -  1  1  -  1  -  5  -  -  -  -  -  A l l Boys  73  -  73  35  7  1  4  3  6  4  -  -  -  1  3  -  1  -  5  1  1  -  -  1  G i r l s , Grade 9  - 20  20  3  -  4  2  1  1  1  -  -  1  2  1  -  -  -  -  2  -  1  -  1  G i r l s , Grade 10  - 28  28  12  -  3  -  1  2  -  -  -  2  3  -  -  -  -  3  -  -  -  -  2  All  - 48  48  15  -  7  2  2  3  1  -  -  3  5  1  -  -  -  3  2  -  1  -  3  Girls  2  Articul.:  1-2  17  9  26  17  -  -  1  2  3  1  Articul.:  3-4  37  9  46  22  5  4  1  1  4  3  -  -  1  -  3  -  -  -  -  1  -  -  -  1  Articul.:  1-4  54 18  72  39  5  4  2  3  7  4  -  -  1  -  3  -  -  -  -  1  -  -  -  3  Articul.:  5-6  19 30  49  11  2  4  4  2  2  1  -  -  2  6  1  -  1  -  8  2  1  1  -  1  St. Re j . . of Imm.  11  4  15  9  2  1  Gen. Re j . of Imm.  19 13  32  20  2  1  1  1  3  1  -  -  1  -  -  -  -  -  1  1  -  -  -  -  Cond.Acc.of Imm.  34 23  57  17  3  6  4  2  3  3  -  -  -  4  3  -  1  -  6  -  1  1  -  3  -  -  1  1  1  -  -  1  1  -  -  -  1  Compl.Acc.of Imm.  7  6  13  3  -  -  1  2  1  -  Rej. of G i r l s  8  -  8  3  2  -  -  -  2  1  Cond.Acc.of G i r l s  34 21  55  27  3  3  3  2  3  1  -  -  2  2  2  -  1  -  4  -  1  -  -  1  Compl.Acc.of G i r l s  24 25  49  16  1  5  3  2  3  2  -  -  -  4  2  -  -  -  4  3  —  1  —  3  * One person f a i l e d to respond i n the "Free Response" section (Part B) of the instrument. Also, subtotals do not always add up to the expected number because on occasion a respondent f a i l e d to answer a p a r t i c u l a r item.  Response Categorizations from the "Forced Choice" Section of the Modified Instrument The key used for c l a s s i f y i n g systems from the "forced choices" i s shown i n Table 9 below as applied to system 1 and admixture 1-2 i d e n t i fications.  A re-arrangement of the response type t o t a l s into a d i f f e r e n t  sequence allows i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ' of the other systems.  For example, the  1-2 system designation f o r a 9, 5, 0, 0 arrangement becomes a 4-3 f o r a 0, 0, 5, 9 re-arrangement.  The rules adapted for system designations are  based on p r o b a b i l i t y considerations. (a)  They are as follows:  A system or an admixture designation w i l l be given as long as e i t h e r the summed p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r chance occurrences f o r at least n A's of one category or at least n i A's and r\2 B's of two combined categories does not exceed 5%.  Thus a score of (5) l ' s and (4) 2's  does no longer qualify for either a system or an admixture designation. (b)  Hence i t gets an X designation.  As long as the accumulated p r o b a b i l i t i e s for two combined terms are at least 10 times lower than the accumulated p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r the highest term alone, an admixture designation w i l l be used rather than a system designation.  Thus a score of (9) l ' s and (5) 2's i s  designated as admixture 1-2, while a score o f (9) l ' s and (3) 2's retains a system 1 designation. (c)  When the relationship i n rule b no longer holds, an admixture becomes a 1-X rather than a 1-2.  Thus a score of (6) l ' s and (3)  2's s t i l l q u a l i f i e s f o r an admixture designation (Rule a) but no longer f o r a 1-2 designation.  39  TABLE 9 KEY FOR SYSTEM AND ADMIXTURE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE 14 ITEM FORCED CHOICE SECTION  Percent of  Percent of 2 p.AOB .00 .00 .00 .01 .00 .01 .04 .11 .00 .02 .09 .30 .63 .00 .01 .13 . 39 1.35 .03 .67 1.06 4.00 1.45 6.14 13.09  .00 .03 .03 .03 .22 .22 .22 .22 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 3.83 3. 83 3. 83 3. 83 3.83 11.17 11.17 11.17 11.17 25.85 25.85 25.85  Response Type Totals 4 2 3  1  A2H  10 10 10 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 A = 4  4 0 3 2 5 0 4 3 2 6 0 5 4 3 2 2 7 0 6 5 4 3 ' 6 5 4 3 5 4 3  Designations 1 1-2 1 1 1-2 1-2 1 1 1-2 1-2 1-2 1 1 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-X 1-X 1-2 1-2 1-X 1-X 1-2 X X X  0 0 -  0 -  2 0 -  -  -  —  —  NOTE: p.A may be found i n any table of summed binominal p r o b a b i l i t y functions, p.AfiB have been derived from summations of exact p r o b a b i l i t i e s for n]_Ann B .„ , „ 14! l . n i + n , ,1,14-(n +n ), [P niAnnoB = -——; , -r) ' {^) ]. n i ! n ! (14-n -n ) 4 2 Thus for any summed p r o b a b i l i t y value for an A-B categorization i n the table one reads at least of A and at least n of B. The c e i l i n g of a l l summations i s n-j_+n = 14. 2  n  i  x  z  y  2  1  v  1  y  ?  1  J  2  2  2  Table 10 below w i l l display the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s of system type responses obtained within each of the 14 forced choice items.  40  TABLE 10 FREQUENCIES OF SYSTEM TYPE RESPONSES FOR EACH OF THE 14 "FORCED CHOICE" ITEMS FROM TOTAL SAMPLE (N=122)  System Type Responses Type 1  § ITE:  2  T.N. T.%  Type 2  Type 3  Type 4  T.N.  1  22  2  69  34  117  2  43  27  29  19  118  3  14  21  48  33  116  4  40  4  17  57  118  5  38  6  59  12  115  6  12  6  60  40  118  7  15  12  65  26  118  8  18  3  71  26  118  9  21  21  61  15  118  10  19  14  43  40  116  11  12  16  31  58  117  12  9  9  40  60  118  13  33  22  32  30  117  14  47  7  18  44  116  343  170  643  484  1640  20.9  10.4  39.2  29.5  100  NOTE: Four respondents spoiled the "Forced Choice" section of the instrument. In some instances respondents o f the remaining 118 f a i l e d to respond to a p a r t i c u l a r item, hence not a l l totals of system type responses add up to 118. A comparison of frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s of systems and admixtures obtained from the t o t a l sample by either the "free response" or the "forced choice" section i s provided i n the grouped bar graph of Figure 1.below. Table 11 which follows shows i n d e t a i l the number and extent of agreements on scores obtained by e i t h e r section.  41  "Free Responses"  "Forced Choices"  CO  w H  u s H D Oi  Dominant 2's Fig. 1. Frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s of b e l i e f systems and dominant admixtures as "seen" from "Free Responses" (.lined columns) and from 14 "Forced Choice" items (dark columns). For admixture types read from top down; thus 1 means 1-4. 4  Table 11 on the next page reads as follows: are (2)  (1) F u l l  agreements  shown i n the narrow zigzag band running from top l e f t to bottom r i g h t . " F i r s t term" agreements  (such as 1-2 and 1; or 1-2 and 1-4) are shown  in the double T-lined wider zigzag band.  (3) Agreement between "second  and f i r s t terms" (such as 1-2 and 2; or 1-2 and 2-4) f a l l within the narrow bands of crosses.  (4)  Complete "reversed term" agreements  into the intersection of the crosses. alone have been c i r c l e d .  fall  (5) Agreements on "second term"  Also, wherever a score f a l l s  into any " f i r s t  term" or "second term" X position at least a minimal part agreement  exists.  TABLE 11 NUMBER AND EXTENT OF AGREEMENTS ON SCORES FROM "FREE RESPONSES" AND FROM "FORCED CHOICES" FROM TOTAL SAMPLE (N=122) SYSTEM DESIGNATIONS FROM "FREE RESPONSES" Dominant 2's 2 2 2 2 1 3 4 X  Dominant l's 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 X  Dominant 3's 3 3 3 3 1 2 X  o  rH CN  •rH  -  o Q  i—I  ro  1  1  o  1  i—i  X  i—l  5  CN CN rH  c w £3 CN  o Q  o  o oo  CN ro CM <tf  X  CN  o  o  1  ro  O O  o  o . Q  o  co <tf  6  1  X  9  1  rH ^  o a  CN  <tf ro  1  ©  o  2  ©1 1  o  o  1 ©  ^ x x.  D  1  48 7  8  5  4  2  2  9  5  2  o o  ©  1 2  o 6  4  O  o o  O  co CN  ro  o  D  ro rH  -H g ro  Dominant 4's 4 4 4 4 1 2 3 X  o  1  o  2! 1  1. 3  1 1  NOTE: The reduction to 117" observations was caused by spoiled responses previously indicated. For admixture types read from top down; thus 1 means 1-4. 4  X  43  IV.  DISCUSSION  Examinations of Examples of "Free Response" Patterns as Indicators of System Funtioning; Success and Failures The examples of response categorizations from the "free response" presented i n the previous section are intended to reveal both the sensit i v i t y and, paradoxically, also the shortcomings of the "free response" measure.  In order to appreciate the problems of the judgemental task,  needs to know a few additional complexities  one  of the b e l i e f systems model  that were not mentioned in the introduction of t h i s paper."'"  As o r i g i n a l l y  conceived, the b e l i e f systems are i n a sense a chart of developing human personality.  This chart shows "nodal" poles of "arrestations" and also  " t r a n s i t i o n a l " stages along a progression  to the most complex p o t e n t i a l  2 functioning of system 4.  A further complication  of the model i s that  i t accommodates inadequately simultaneous functioning of d i f f e r e n t i n t e r -  """Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder, Conceptual Systems and Personality Organization, chap. 6, pp. 158-203 gives a very detailed account of these complexities. In order to i l l u s t r a t e a point adequately, i t seems unavoidable from time to time to r e f e r to some additional complexities of the model. 2 Ibid., p. 66. The authors make clear that they do not attach any t e l e o l o g i c a l meaning to the word "function". Thus, i f a system functions with greater complexity than another system i t does not necessarily have a d i f f e r e n t or higher purpose. I f there i s a purpose to any kind of "functioning" at a l l i t i s the aforementioned p r i n c i p l e of maintenance of the " s e l f " which i s , however, the seed (or axiom) from which the whole theory of b e l i e f systems derives.  pretation matrixes (belief systems) for d i f f e r e n t concepts."  It i s  especially this l a s t complication that w i l l r e g i s t e r i t s e l f i n inconsistencies of responses.  In order to gauge the most dominant or central  aspects of the conceptual functioning, a judge must somehow absorb the global impression from a l l responses and constantly modify the impression 4 with some s p e c i f i c cues from one or the other response. So far as the experience with the sample shows, the "free response" measure appears at some instances remarkably sensitive and at other instances remarkably problematic. related causes:  D i f f i c u l t i e s derive from at least three i n t e r -  (1) lack of judgemental expertise, (2) lack of e x p l i c i t -  ness i n responses, and (3) lack of s u f f i c i e n t consistency i n response patterns.  This discussion w i l l proceed f i r s t with the apparent successes  of the measure. Any free response measure (the present one i s perhaps best characterized as a guided-projective test) has the advantage that i t does not impose l i m i t s or constraints on possible responses, for t h i s reason i t w i l l always be p o t e n t i a l l y more revealing than pre-scaled measures.  A second  advantage of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r test i s that i t c a l l s f o r "opinions" rather than f o r "facts".  People, and perhaps especially adolescents, seem to be  much more ready to give an opinion about something than to account f o r some  I b i d . , p. 77-78, p. 111-112, and p. 170-171. Solutions proposed to the problem of "generalization" of functioning are probably just as tentative as they were 15 years ago.. J  quote:  4 Harvey, "System Structure, F l e x i b i l i t y and C r e a t i v i t y " , p. 47, to "This global approach has been found to produce a higher r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y than single item analysis, presumably because a context or yardstick i s provided against which a single response can more stably and accurately be interpreted."  factual information."^  When examining many responses, these advantages are  quite apparent i n the extent to which several dimensions of the whole range of the b e l i e f systems seem  to be represented.  Since system 1 responses are represented i n r e l a t i v e l y large numbers and since they constitute the base position from a developmental  point of  view, the previous section displays as many as five d i f f e r e n t examples of these. Example A (p. 28) besides exhibiting most of the postulated signs of system 1 functioning — of uncertainty, etc. —  i . e . , a black and white evaluativeness-avoidance  betrays very c l e a r l y a sudden narrowing of the  subject's interpretive matrix, an increased "closedness" when a concept becomes more "central"  i . e . , more ego-involving.  patterns about school the respondent responses about immigrants and g i r l s .  Thus, i n the  i s r e l a t i v e l y more "open" than i n One can i n f e r from the theory that  school i s a r e l a t i v e l y "peripheral" concept to this respondent "immigrants" displacement  response  while  i s a p a r t i c u l a r l y "threatening" concept, and, hence, causes a of functioning towards increased "closedness".^  One may also  note the great defensiveness i n p a r t i c u l a r to the response about "myself". Within the theory this exaggerated proclamation about the " s e l f " could be interpreted as a form of  "avoidance".  The administrators of this test reported several indications that the students enjoyed doing the test. In fact, some students who had not been selected for the test did ask whether they too would be allowed "to do one of these books". S i n c e some of the Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder terminology not formerly introduced i s almost self-explanatory t h i s paper w i l l indicate usage of t h i s terminology by quotation marks but w i l l not supply definitions. 6  46  In example B (p. 28) one can i n f e r a much more homogeneously functioning system 1.  The closedness i s spread over a l l responses.  One  must note the extreme response generalization to almost a l l responses r e f l e c t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r l y strong "ingroup-outgroup" f e e l i n g .  Even i n the  response to "myself" the respondent makes an oblique reference to h i s concern with "others".  Within the terminology of the theory t h i s a l l -  pervading almost involuntary response pattern would be characterized as "ambiguous". Examples C and D (p. 29) represent system 1 response patterns.  less extreme and more t y p i c a l  On f i r s t sight the pleasantness and l e v e l of  articulateness displayed i n the response patterns of example E (pp. 29-30) might be mistaken f o r a more abstract functioning, but the reader should note the o v e r a l l s i m p l i s t i c points of view.  One must i n f e r from the  theoretical postulations a functioning c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a secure belonging to the " r i g h t " class of people.  The few problems perceived  a l l seem  solvable by doing the things that are "proper" and avoiding those that are not.  Inferring again from the theory, one can assume that t h i s system 1  functioning i s a r e l a t i v e l y "open" system within the points of "arrestation" either because a l l the s t i m u l i from the questions are "peripheral" or because the respondent i s so securely embedded i n h i s environment that none of these questions could ever constitute a "refutation", i . e . , a "threat". System 2 functioning, according mental progression  to theory, i s a necessary develop-  towards more complex functioning, but as a stage of  arrestation i t constitutes almost an inversion of system 1 functioning. Thus, the complexity of an object-subject  relationship can be almost  i d e n t i c a l to system 1 functioning, but the d i r e c t i o n of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p is usually inverted i n the same sense that a love-hate r e l a t i o n s h i p may be viewed as an inversion.  47  Hence, i n example F (p. 30) system 2 functioning shows, i f anything, even greater "closedness" functioning i n example B.  and even greater "ambiguity" than system 1.  However, i n example F, one can i n f e r from the  generalized curse extending to four of the responses an a l l pervasive negativision.  Here other negativism  seems to follow the simple rule that  the perceived d i r e c t i o n of the responses of generalized "others" must be opposed on p r i n c i p l e . "immigrants".  This rule would explain the p o s i t i v e response to  Also of note i s the "avoidance" i n the response to "myself".  The excessively closed and generalized s ystem 2 funtioning portrayed here ;  7 may well be a pre-indication of some form of developing  psychopathology.  Example G (pp. 30-31) i n contrast to the previous one indicates a far more "open" system 2 functioning.  In spite of a presumably higher  l e v e l of i n t e l l i g e n c e indicated throughout the responses, one must note the all-pervasive d i s t r u s t of others evident i n every response, and also the fear of possible loss of i n d i v i d u a l i t y . pattern one may  From the o v e r a l l response  i n f e r an " i n d i r e c t " system 2 functioning o r i g i n a t i n g ,  according to theory, from neglect and indifference rather than from ung r e l i a b i l i t y i n the process of  upbringing.  System 3 functioning i n example H (pp. 31-32) can be inferred from the very d e f i n i t e response focus on "people".  This stage has been  characterized i n the o r i g i n a l formulation of the theory as It may  "mutuality".  be h e l p f u l to think of t h i s stage as a f e n c e - s i t t i n g posture.  disposition finds expression  This  i n a peculiar s k i l l of a n t i c i p a t i n g an  Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder, Conceptual Systems and Personality Organization. See chap. 9, pp. 272-325 for an accommodation of the t h e o r e t i c a l concepts of the b e l i e f systems to psychopathology. g Ibid., see p. 180-181 for "Indirect-Direct Variation within System  48  opposing view point which i s always d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y accommodated by modifying or diminishing the "own"  opinion.  can be seen i n a l l but two responses.  This "fence-sitting"" posture  The only two responses that carry a  high degree of conviction are "myself" and "best friends". an absolute, almost desperate, need for friends.  Both express  These patterns are very  consistent with the t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n that "refutation" of a system 3 functioning would be experienced  by r e j e c t i o n and aloneness; hence, the  great concern to remain inoffensive.  In terms of the theory t h i s i s a form  of "neutralization". Example I (p. 32), also judged as representative of system 3 functioning, i s s i m i l a r to the previous one. fear of competition.  One  should note the expressed  This fear would be consistent with the t h e o r e t i c a l  assumption that any measurement with an absolute standard constitutes a potential r e j e c t i o n , hence a p o t e n t i a l "refutation". Examples J and K (pp. 32-34) , judged to be representative of System 4 functioning, display a r e l a t i v e lack of evaluativeness but without the f e n c e - s i t t i n g posture c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of system 3 functioning.  There i s  also a noteworthy lack of self-consciousness, an enviably- relaxed exposition of thought, an awareness of multiple solutions to problems —  a l l these  features are quite consistent with the t h e o r e t i c a l postulates of system 4 expression. This paper has now  demonstrated i n some d e t a i l that b e l i e f systems  as postulated are, i n fact, readily inferable from certain "free responses". Not only does i t appear possible to categorize these response patterns with r e l a t i v e l y high judgemental confidence  (see Appendix A), but also, to  deduce certain t h e o r e t i c a l positions within narrower bounds of the model. These t h e o r e t i c a l points were s e l e c t i v e l y alluded to i n the hope that they might demonstrate the degree of s e n s i t i v i t y of this  instrument.  With "admixtures" or, i n a developmental sense, " t r a n s i t i o n a l stages", judgemental confidence, as far as the resources of this study are 9 concerned, was immediately reduced (one may again refer to Appendix A). Discounting f o r a moment the problem of a possible lack of s u f f i c i e n t judgemental expertise for t h i s p a r t i c u l a r study, one must, nevertheless, i n examining the many response patterns rated as admixtures, acknowledge i n t r i n s i c problems.  To i l l u s t r a t e , i n example M (pp. 34-35) one finds an  o v e r a l l evaluativeness, a d e f i n i t e ingroup-outgroup f e e l i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a r e l a t i v e l y "open" system 1 functioning.  One must also note a strong  people orientation but without strong indications of "manipulativeness" or dependency patterns.  I t would seem that the -3 r a t i n g , here occupying the  second p o s i t i o n , i s more questionable than the 1- rating.  The reader may  f i n d i t i l l u m i n a t i n g , or amusing, to apply his own ratings against the categorizations given to examples L (p. 34) and M (p. 34-35). Whenever an X enters into an admixture, one i s faced with even more diffuse response patterns (in t h i s sample there remained eight admixtures with an X as second term); but where an X appears alone, categorizations become meaningless because responses appear either t r u l y contradictory or un revealing. ing.  From t h i s sample of 122 respondents, four remained with an X rat  Two of these are transcribed as examples 0 (pp. 35-36) and P (p. 36).  Once again the reader i s i n v i t e d to examine these for his own  satisfaction.  From the theory of development of system functions, one should find " t r a n s i t i o n a l stages", i . e . , designations of the types 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, (order may not be very important); but i t i s not immediately clear how the theory accommodates "admixtures", i . e . , designations, of the types 1-4, 2-4, 1-3. "Admixtures" present problems of "generalization" (see Footnote 3 p. 44) or present problems of some form of "regression". See also Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder, Conceptual Systems and Personality Organization pp. 282283.  50  This paper w i l l now discuss the observations from the "forced choice" section of the instrument. F a i l i n g s of the "Forced Choice" Section Even a cursory inspection of the observations from the "forced choice" section w i l l show that t h i s measure i s no ready substitute for the "free response" measure.  For example, F i g . 1 (p. 41) shows at a glance  the t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t patterns of the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n obtained by  TABLE 12 TWO  INDEXES OF SYSTEM RESPONSE TYPE ATTRACTION FOR 14 "FORCED CHOICE" ITEMS ITEM ATTRACTION FOR SYSTEM TYPE RESPONSE T.N.  l's  2's  3's  4's  (IF)  Average expected from "Free Responses"  117  76  17  11  13  (10)  Average observed from "Forced Choices"  117  24  12  46  35  NOTE: A l l comparisons were adjusted to the 117 observations a v a i l able from the "Forced Choice" section. either measure.  Even more convincing i s the lack of agreement when viewing  the two measures i n t e r r e l a t e d l y as i n Table 11 (p. 42); here, one finds only five complete agreements from 117 observations.  Nevertheless, looking at  these f a i l i n g s a l i t t l e more closely w i l l be i n s t r u c t i v e .  By using data from  Table 8 (p.,37) and Table 10 (p. 40), one can create some convenient  indexes  which w i l l make an inspection of the system type responses obtained for the 14 "forced choice" items somewhat more meaningful. in Table 13, may require some explanations.  10  These indexes, shown  Index (IF) has been obtained  By defining a "system type response" as a "score of attraction power" for the item (the item i s the one that scores), i t becomes meaningful  51  by collapsing a l l System l ' s and dominant System 1 admixtures into l ' s ; the same was done f o r 2's, 3's, and 4's p. 37).  (shown under "ALL RESPONSES" i n Table 8,  Index (IF), i n spite of i t s precarious position due to  judgemental  uncertainties, provides a possible "baseline" against which index (10), the average Observed Item Attraction (computed from Table 10, p. 40), may compared.  be  This writer takes the position that index (IF) i s a v a l i d pro-  v i s i o n a l baseline for a possible improvement and adjustment of the forced choice section. for now,  This point w i l l be elaborated i n the concluding section;  i t w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t to discuss the possible causes for the  apparent f a i l i n g s of the "forced choice" section.  The index relationships  i n Table 13 below show the necessary factors required for bringing the observed average attraction power of the system type responses up to the  TABLE 13 RELATIONS OF INDEXES (l's) OF SYSTEM RESPONSE TYPE ATTRACTION FOR ~14 ."FORCED CHOICE" ITEMS  SYSTEM RESPONSE TYPE l's (IF)  = 3.1(10)  (10) = .32(IF) baseline (IF's).  2's (IF)  = 1.5(10)  (10) = .67(IF)  4's  3's (IF)  = .26(10)  (10) = 3.8(IF)  The inverse relationships are also shown.  (IF)  = .4(10)  (10) = 2. 5 (IF)  For example,  i t w i l l be seen that the average attraction of the 14 items for response type l ' s would have to be 3.1 times higher than observed i n order to reach  to use the concept of averages. For example, thus defined, the sum of attraction powers for system 1 type responses for a l l 14 "forced choice" items equals 343; hence, the average attraction power of the instrument for type 1 responses equals 343 * 14 = 24. This concept of average attractiveness w i l l allow a comparison with the average tendencies used in writing the test items.  the expected value of (IF) at the baseline.  A question arises from t h i s  data, why does the "forced choice" section a t t r a c t only about 1/3 as many type l ' s ,  2/3 as many type 2's, but 4 times more 3's and 2.5 times more  4's than would be expected from the (IF's).  For a possible answer one must  re-examine the "central tendency" employed i n writing the items.  One of  the problems anticipated before writing the items was the contamination e f f e c t from s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ; hence, the tendency f o r the response types to be equal i n length and equal i n apparent reasonableness.  This tendency,  in turn, usually dictated engaging the b e l i e f system type responses i n a "peripheral" rather than i n a "central" manner. Pursuing the l i n e of reasoning above, the results shown i n Table 11 (p.  42) take on a new perspective.  One can see that 3's and 4's have very  reasonable agreements on both measures, while most of the l ' s and 2's from the "free response" measure have been "drawn" also into the 3's and 4's by the "forced choice" measure.^ of  Because of t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y high levels  " d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n " , 3's and 4's, w i l l (a) always recognize t h e i r  "true" position even when t h e i r conceptual position i s engaged only "peripherally"; and (b)  have no incentive of any kind to "deny" that  p o s i t i o n ; hence, the o v e r a l l high agreements.  One the other hand, the  l's and 2's, because of t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y low levels of " d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n " , may  (a) i n many instances f a i l to recognize t h e i r "true" p o s i t i o n , and (b)  having done so, take the remaining cues for s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y and, hence, take the 3 or 4 option.  Moreover, those l ' s and 2's that do not f a i l to  Relatively small disagreements such as 3-1 and 1-3 or are probably caused by the interaction of (a) judgemental error shortness of the "forced choice" measure. The high number of X admixtures produced by the "forced choice" measure would l i k e l y by lengthening the measure to, say, 20 items.  3 and 3-1 and (b) and X disappear  53  "see" t h e i r "true" position w i l l most c e r t a i n l y also "see" the remaining cues for s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y and may  then very well opt i n t h i s  "non-  threatening" ( i . e . , "peripheral" concept engagement) for any "easy l i e " . While the above argument does explain the central tendencies of d i s t o r t i o n s f o r the "forced choice" measure, i t does not account for the rather large variations i n "powers of attractiveness" for system type responses among items.  (One could show the magnitude of these fluctuations  by computing some form of variance index.)  A content item analysis may  explain why some items have, for example, almost no "power" to a t t r a c t a system 2 type response. p. 40.  These fluctuations are readily seen i n Table 10,  A content item analysis should show to what extent the central  tendencies of item construction have not been adhered to. i l l u s t r a t e t h i s process with two items. no attraction for type 2 responses.  One  may  Item #2 on pp. 17-18 has almost  Instead, i t has a higher attraction for  type 3 responses than the already high average of the measurement instrument taken as a whole.  The reasons for these discrepancies are most l i k e l y a  too exaggerated "negativism" for the type 2 choice and, conversely, a too pronounced "reasonableness" for the type 3 choice. serve as a second example.  Item #12 on p. 22  may  For t h i s item, as Table 10 reveals, the power  of attraction for a type 1 response i s only about 1/4, but for a type 4 response, almost 2 times the average attraction of the instrument as a whole. Here, the system 1 type response may well be c u l t u r a l l y passe, i . e . , a connection of " f i l t h y language" and "punishment" seem but a few respondents.  out of date to a l l  In contrast, the system 4 type response, by being  the longest and having the "wisdomish" l i t t l e afterthought, appears sophisticated and, hence, unusally reasonable. In respect to item variance of "power of attractiveness" type 2 responses have the greatest fluctuation.  (Table 10, p. 40.)  There are  54  five items for which the power of attraction for type 2 responses f a l l s to less than h a l f the average.  This great unevenness would, of course, tend  to weaken the power of the instrument to "recognize" system 2's, for the keying of the responses was t i e d to p r o b a b i l i t y rules (see Key - Table 9, p. 39). In summary:  t h i s discussion has attempted to explain the central  tendencies for the "forced choice" instruments to (a) correctly recognize 3's and 4's and, (b) f a l s e l y draw l ' s and 2's into type 3 and 4 categorizations.  It has also attempted to show that a content item analysis w i l l  reveal reasons for exceptions to these central tendencies and, l a s t l y , has pointed out one additional reason f o r the instrument's i n a b i l i t y to recognize system 2's. In the section to follow,the paper w i l l examine the obtained f r e quency.distribution of b e l i e f systems for t h i s sample with a reported frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of a large sample from a d i f f e r e n t population.  There-  a f t e r , the paper w i l l compare d i f f e r e n t frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s found among subgroups of the present sample. External and Internal Group Comparisons of the Sample Under Study From groups for which Harvey has reported frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s of b e l i e f systems, the most appropriate for an external comparison of t h i s study i s h i s reported sample of "several 1000 l i b e r a l arts students" (see p. 9 t h i s paper).  The best attainable estimate of the true frequency  d i s t r i b u t i o n of b e l i e f systems for t h i s sample i s , as was argued, the one obtained with the "free response" measure.  It was hypothesized that ..the  present sample would show s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l ' s and admixtures Harvey's sample.  than  The r a t i o n a l for t h i s hypothesis rests i n part on the  r e l a t i v e l y large size of Harvey's sample which, surely, allows one to accept  55  the reported frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s as a very good estimator of the d i s t r i b u t i o n i n h i s defined population of l i b e r a l arts students.  To the  extent that t h i s sample bears an acceptable resemblance to a true random sample, the differences hypothesized between t h i s sample and Harvey's should p r e v a i l .  Table 14- below shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h i s sample and  the expected d i s t r i b u t i o n s for the sample i f i t were drawn from the defined population of l i b e r a l arts students. TABLE 14 BELIEF SYSTEM DISTRIBUTIONS OF SAMPLE AS ESTIMATED BY THE "FREE RESPONSE" MEASURE COMPARED TO THE ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTIONS IF IT HAD BEEN DRAWN FROM A POPULATION OF LIBERAL ARTS STUDENTS BELIEF SYSTEMS  "Observed" "Expected" (rounded to whole number)  3's  4's  TOTALS  ADMIXTURES  l's  2's  50  9  6  8  48  121  42  18  24  9  28  121  NOTE: Figures f o r "expected" are computed from entries i n Table 3 (p. 9). Figures f o r "observed", derived from Table 8 (p. 37). An inspection of Table 14 shows that system l ' s and admixtures are indeed more frequent than could be expected had the sample come from the population of l i b e r a l arts students.  But since there i s a nearly equal  frequency f o r the 4's i t can be seen that the "drain" into l ' s and ad2 mixtures has come at the "expense" of 2's and especially 3's. X  computa-  tions show the following: (I) the sample i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t even at the l a s t entry p = .001 2 in the table for chi-square values df = 4. (x = 33.92)  56  (II) by collapsing categories, other than the one tested into one c e l l finds i n Table 15 below (for a l l Ho:  frequencies  equal, and Hj::  one  frequencies  not equal) whether or not these differences are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at  a levels .001  and  .05.  TABLE 15 CHI-SQUARE TESTS FOR DIFFERENCES IN DISTRIBUTIONS OF BELIEF SYSTEMS df = 1  DIFFERENCE SIGNIFICANT?  BELIEF SYSTEM  = .001  =  .05  System l ' s 2 X. =2.33  No  System 2's  No  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  7C  =  (one-tailed test)  5.29  System 3' s X.  2  =  7.84  Admixtures 2 X. = 18.59 The  No  (one-tailed test)  above findings may  be more e a s i l y interpreted i n the l i g h t of  differences of subgroups i n t h i s sample.  These differences w i l l be pre-  sented below. "Articulateness"  (as defined i n Table 6, p. 26) was  lower for system l ' s and admixtures.  assumed to be  For a comparison of "articulateness"  between observed and expected l e v e l s t h i s paper w i l l assume that levels of "articulateness" are d i s t r i b u t e d normally; further, that average ratings (3-4) w i l l f a l l approximately within 1/2  standard deviations to either  side of the median and, thus, account for about 40% of a l l ratings.  Ratings  57  o f Xl-2) would account f o r 30% and r a t i n g s o f  (5-6)  f o r the remaining  T h i s d i v i s i o n i s suggested t o p r o v i d e a r e a s o n a b l e way  30%.  of establishing  expected v a l u e s f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f l e v e l s o f " a r t i c u l a t e n e s s " w i t h i n o f the c a t e g o r i z e d b e l i e f systems. and expected  (EXP)  T a b l e 16 below compares observed  l e v e l s w i t h i n the b e l i e f systems and  any (OBS)  admixtures.  TABLE 16 LEVELS OF "ARTICULATENESS" IN BELIEF SYSTEMS AND ADMIXTURES  System 2's  'ENESS  System l's  "ARTICU  t-i <  OBS  System 3's  EXP  System 4's  OBS  EXP  5-6 High  11  15  2  2.7  6  1.8  3-4 Avg.  22  20  4  3.6  0  1-2 Low  17  15  3  2.7  Totals  50  50  9  9  Admixtures  Total  N's  EXP  OBS  EXP  OBS  8  2.4  22  14.4  49  36. 3  2.4  0  3.2  20  19.2  46  48.4  0  1.8  0  2.4  6  14.4  26  36.3  6  6  8  48  48  121  OBS  EXP  OBS  EXP  EVELS  En O  8  121  Table 17 compares observed and expected l e v e l s o f a r t i c u l a t e n s s f o r dominant l ' s ,  2's, 3's  and 4's  ( i . e . , admixtures were c o l l a p s e d i n t o  dominant p o s i t i o n s as i n d i c a t e d by t h e i r f i r s t  term).  As can be seen from the d a t a i n T a b l e s 16 and 17, f o r system l ' s as w e l l as f o r dominant l ' s , w h i l e s l i g h t l y a t the low end,  and  " a r t i c u l a t e n e s s " f o r system levels  (5-6).  "articulateness" underrepresented  f o l l o w s v e r y n e a r l y the expected d i s t r i b u t i o n .  be s a i d f o r system 2's  f o r dominant 2's. 3's and 4's  Even f o r the dominant 3's  their  The same can  In sharp c o n t r a s t , the  f a l l s e n t i r e l y i n t o the h i g h and 4's  end,  (Table 17) t h i s t r e n d  58  prevails with the exception of three cases of average "articulateness" for the 3's and one case of average articulateness for the 4's.  By inspecting  TABLE 17 LEVELS OF "ARTICULATENESS" IN BELIEF SYSTEMS COMBINED WITH DOMINANT ADMIXTURES  F "ART I CIJLATENESS"  .Dominant l's EXP  OBS  .Dominant 2's  .Dominant 3's  Dominant 4's Total N'  OBS  OBS  OBS  EXP  OBS  EXP  EXP  S  EXP  5-6 High  23  22.8  5  5.1  8  3.3  12  3.9  48  35.1  3-4 Avg.  33  30.4  8  6.8  3  4.4  1  5.2  45  46.8  1-2 Low  20  22.8  4  5.1  0  3.3  0  3.9  24  35.1  Totals  76  76  17  17  11  11  13  13  117  117  O  oo t> w  NOTE:  Four complete admixtures (X's) were removed from t h i s comparison.  the raw data, one may f a i r l y safely conclude that the system l ' s and 2's as well as the dominant l ' s and dominant 2's have a d i s t r i b u t i o n that follows expected frequencies of "articulateness" as here defined.  In spite of  r e l a t i v e l y small numbers, i t i s also safe to conclude that system 3's and 4's as well as dominant 3's and dominant 4's are at s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher levels of "articulateness" than expected. For the few instances where the data i n Table 16 does not show very clear-cut positions, "X. summarized (a)  computations have been performed.  These are  below:  System l ' s :  The s l i g h t skew into lower levels of "articulateness" i s  not s i g n i f i c a n t ( X  2  = 1.54, df = 2, a = .01).  59  (b)  Admixtures:  The displacement into higher than expected l e v e l of  "articulateness" i s not s i g n i f i c a n t at or = .01, but i s s i g n i f i c a n t at cc = .05 (-X  2  (c)  = 8.91, df = 2) . The t o t a l sample:  The skew into higher levels of "articulateness" than  expected i s not s i g n i f i c a n t at of = .01, but i s s i g n i f i c a n t at or = .05 (-x.  2  = 7.4, df = 2) .  The questions a r i s e s , to what degree was the judgemental responses dependent on levels o f "articulateness".  categorization of  In order to answer this  question each categorization was given a score of "articulateness" as well as a score of "judgemental  confidence".  This data i s shown i n Table 18 (p. 60).  Contingency data i n Table 19 shows observed sex d i s t r i b u t i o n s within combined b e l i e f systems and dominant admixtures with the expected values of proportions derived from the t o t a l d i v i s i o n of boys and g i r l s i n the sample.  S i m i l a r l y , Table 20 shows observed and expected grade-level  distributions.  The data i s presented as s u f f i c i e n t evidence for s t a t i n g  that neither sex nor grade l e v e l i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t l y proportioned within any of the b e l i e f systems combined with dominant admixtures  than  could be expected from the..total proportions o f the sample. Before interpretation of the findings i n the next section the results may be b r i e f l y summarized as follows: Comparisons of the present sample with the d i s t r i b u t i o n patterns as reported by Harvey, show greater numbers of system l ' s and admixtures. These differences follow expectations but are only s i g n i f i c a n t for the admixtures.  System 2's and 3's are s i g n i f i c a n t l y "underrepresented".  for system 2's the difference i s not s i g n i f i c a n t at Of = .001. e s s e n t i a l l y equally represented.  But  System 4's are  The extent of "underrepresentation" of the  2's and 3's i n t h i s sample were unexpected.  60  TABLE 18 TEST FOR INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN "JUDGEMENTAL CONFIDENCE" AND LEVELS OF "ARTICULATENESS" JUDGEMENTAL CO!JFIDENCE Low (0-1) OBS  = oo oo w En S B  00 rt!  j  £ B W H  EXP  OBS  High (3)  EXP  OBS  Totals EXP  OBS  EXP  5-6 High  14  12.96  17  17.41  18  18.63  49  49  3-4 Avg.  12  12.17  19  16.35  15  17.49  46  46  6  6.88  7  9.24  13  9.88  26  26  121  121  Pi  <  Med. (2)  1-2 Low Totals  32  32  43  43  46  46  NOTE: Data f o r "Judgemental Confidence" derives from recorded agreement levels between Judge I and Judge II (see Appendix A), "Low" means either no agreement or only p a r t i a l agreement, "Med." means 1st term or reversed agreement (as 1 and 1-2; and 1-2 and 2-1), and "High" means f u l l agreement. For Ho: Variables are independent Hi: Variables are dependent ?c2 = 2.54, df = 4, a = .01 These figures indicate acceptance for Ho - which i n turn means that there i s no dependency between these variables, i . e . , "Judgemental Confidence" was not influenced by levels of "articulateness". A c o r o l l a r y , which seems more important than the d i r e c t r e s u l t , i s that judgements were not influenced by levels of "articulateness". Comparisons of subgroups show that 3's and 4's are s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger represented i n high levels of "articulateness" than l ' s and 2's. One should note here that the comparisons are not r e l a t i v e to the t o t a l observed proportions of levels of "articulateness" but r e l a t i v e to the expectation of normal d i s t r i b u t i o n s of levels of "articulateness" within each system.  This procedure allows the conclusion that l ' s and 2's, while  61  lower than 3's and 4's i n representation of higher l e v e l s of "articulateness", are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t l y d i s t r i b u t e d from expected values of levels of "articulateness".  For the t o t a l sample the observed levels of  "articulateness" are skewed into the higher end ( s i g n i f i c a n t at  ot = .05,  but not at oc = .001) .  TABLE 19 SEX DISTRIBUTIONS IN BELIEF SYSTEMS COMBINED WITH DOMINANT ADMIXTURES  Domincmt l ' s OBS EXP CO  o  X w  CO  « w  Dominimt 2's OBS EXP  Domincmt 3' s OBS EXP  Domincmt 4's EXP OBS  Tot als EXP OBS  50  46.77  10  10.46  5  6.77  7  8.00  72  72  26  29.23  7  6.54  6  4.23  6  5.00  45  45  76  76  117  117  —  rH •H  U Totals  17  17  11  11  13  13  TABLE 20 GRADE DISTRIBUTIONS IN BELIEF SYSTEMS COMBINED WITH DOMINANT ADMIXTURES  Dominant 1's OBS EXP CO  co Q e> _  Dominant 2's OBS EXP  Dominant 3's EXP OBS  Dominant 4's EXP OBS  Totals EXP OBS  38  36.38  8  8.14  5  5.26  5  6.22  56  56  38  39.62  9  8.86  6  5.74  8  6.78  61  61  76  76  117  117  m  Ci rH  Totals  17  17  11  11  13  13  "Levels of Articulateness" do not seem to have any bearing on the "levels of judgemental confidence" and hence, by implication, no bearing on the b e l i e f system categorization of "free responses".  F i n a l l y , neither sex nor grade levels show any notably disproportional representation within any of the b e l i e f systems combined with dominant admixtures.  63  V.  CONCLUSION:  INTERPRETATIONS, AND POSSIBLE  DIRECTIONS OF FURTHER RESEARCH Questions of Adequacy of the "Free Response" Measure A rephrasing of the primary purpose of t h i s study w i l l help to make the following interpretations of outcomes appear i n a natural sequence. question asked:  i s i t possible i n a "one-shot  The  measure" to see enough of the  s p e c i f i e d variables from a personality model r e f l e c t e d i n responses from adolescents."'" picture:  In more simple terms t h i s i s l i k e asking when viewing a  "can I see enough of what I am supposed to see".  In the discussion  section of this paper the question has been answered with a q u a l i f i e d What remains now  i s to explain what precisely i s "enough" —  "yes".  and the answer  to this depends, i n the opinion of t h i s writer, e n t i r e l y on the purpose for which the instrument i s meant to be used.  Two  c o n f l i c t i n g purposes are  now  presented for estimating the adequacy of the "free response" measure. One purpose might be further research into personality structures and theory formulation or modifications.  In t h i s context, the "free  response measure" would be used most l i k e l y i n conjunction with other measurement instruments and observations of behavior.  This process i s  usually referred to as construct v a l i d a t i o n , but i n f a c t , would more humbly be described as construct d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n : o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n .  I t i s very  This question may, of course, have been answered by others i n a much more complete manner than t h i s study could hope to do. Nevertheless, Harvey gives only scant information on the effectiveness of the TIB with high school students. (See Harvey, "Beliefs and Behavior: Some Implications for Education", p. 73.)  64  much l i k e observing a phenomenon within a chamber of mirros that give a multitude of r e f l e c t i o n s , a l l of which are p a r t i a l l y distorted. mind confronted with these distortions and searching  The human  for the true image,  make provisional corrections on the r e f l e c t i o n s u n t i l a uniform picture emerges. In keeping with the above analogy, this writer would judge the "free response" measure to be a very good "mirror" to provide a p r o v i s i o n a l observation  of very fascinating concepts of personality functioning.  This  paper has shown i n some d e t a i l the often remarkable s e n s i t i v i t y of the instrument to rather s p e c i f i c positions i n the t h e o r e t i c a l framework.  In  addition, one must take note once again that extensive work done with the instrument has given i t some status as a research t o o l . Another primary purpose of the instrument might be i t s use as an " i n s t i t u t i o n a l " t o o l to "observe" e x i s t i n g personality structures and observe " r e s u l t s " of "desirable" changes. for such a purpose?  The  to  Is the instrument good enough  answer here i s much more complicated than in the  former s i t u a t i o n . In the f i r s t place, one now  makes vastly greater claims not  only  for the instrument but also for the t h e o r e t i c a l positions which i t i s supposed to r e f l e c t .  Secondly, the whole question i s clouded by  i m p l i c i t or e x p l i c i t impositions P r e c i s e l y , one  the  of value judgements.  claim that would have to be made i s that the measure  can be used for establishing a r e l i a b l e and v a l i d baseline can analyse a personality structure and from which one At t h i s point one i s already  from which one  can observe change.  in the double bind of certain inadequacies of  the instrument as well as i t s underlying  theories.  Any  "free response"  measure i s inextricably dependent on the l e v e l of judgemental expertise, hence, p r a c t i c a l l y impossible to standardize.  The only possible absolute  65  standard would be the "perfect judge", the one that has "divine insights". By necessity, the second best thing i s to attempt to calibrate "imperfect" judges by some index of agreement.  But the annoying problem r e a l l y i s that  even the most p r e c i s e l y computed numerical indexes of interjudgemental agreements are never r e a l l y comparable and in.some extreme cases even t o t a l l y misleading.  The truth of this statement can be seen by conceptual-  i z i n g two teams of judges "hired" to judge the same kind of phenomenon. team receives a very high agreement index, the other team a low one.  One  It  could well be that the high agreement index of the f i r s t team results from a shared misconception, a hidden constant error; and the low agreement of the second team may r e s u l t from greater cognizance of c o n f l i c t i n g variables in the observation.  I t i s , of course, a reasonable assumption that having  a greater number of judges w i l l reduce the l i k e l i h o o d of extreme misjudgements.  Unfortunately, this road often i s not available especially when one  needs a specialized l e v e l of expertise. Although i t i s completely outside the scope of t h i s paper to evaluate c r i t i c a l l y the theory of conceptual systems, i t must be noted that weaknesses of the measurement instrument are r e f l e c t i o n s of weaknesses i n the theory.  In p r a c t i c a l " i n s t i t u t i o n a l " applications one would be  immediately confronted with these.  One of these weaknesses seems the  insistence that differences i n system functioning are primarily generated by differences i n t r a i n i n g , another one i s the as yet unsolved problem of " g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y " mentioned previously.  For example, how does one  account f o r incongruities of j o i n t functioning of at least two t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t levels such as may be seen i n the conceptual functioning of a p h y s i s i s t on the fore-front of h i s f i e l d who w i l l i n s i s t at a d i f f e r e n t l e v e l with utmost conviction that "mother love i s the only love".  66  W i l l one trust the average " i n s t i t u t i o n " (in most instances, a school) to use t h i s very problematic instrument to generate "reforms" and observe "changes" within the framework of a highly complex but also problematic theory?  Surprisingly, these are p r e c i s e l y the stated aims of the authors of 2  the " b e l i e f systems".  This writer would argue that on technical grounds  alone the risks of engaging i n professional charlatanism are simply too high at the present stage of confidence i n measuring and interpretation of conceptual systems. The f i r s t problem i s to f i n d a measurement instrument which i s standardizable, unproblematic to administer, and easy to score.  Preferably,  t h i s measure should r e t a i n some d i r e c t relationship to the TIB rather than an i n d i r e c t relationship such as the CST.  The reasons are that (a) adjust-  ments to c u l t u r a l differences can be made more e a s i l y and d i r e c t l y and (b) the "meaning" of the t e s t i s more e a s i l y communicable. problematic to explain to a parent:  (It seems rather  your son was placed i n conceptual  l e v e l III because he had less than, say, 4.23 on the "divine fate control" factor and more than, say, 5.2 on the "general pessimism" (etc.) factor.) This w r i t e r contends that continued research for establishing such a measure is a worthwhile  challenge.  There certainly are more creative approaches  than the one taken to generate the present form.  But perhaps the writer's  analysis of the " f a i l i n g s " w i l l be perceived as correct and, i n turn, help to generate an approach to correctly locate system 1 and 2 functionings.  The interested reader i s e s p e c i a l l y advised to consult Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder, Conceptual Systems and Personality Organization, chap. 10; also David E. Hunt and Edmund V. S u l l i v a n , Between Psychology and Education, (Hinsdale, 111.: The Dryden Press, 1974), chaps. 11 and 12. In the l a s t work c i t e d the authors have taken a somewhat s i m p l i f i e d t h e o r e t i c a l approach - possibly with the idea that teachers either cannot understand the f u l l complexity of the o r i g i n a l formulations or cannot apply these concepts i n p r a c t i c a l situations.  67  Even i n i t s present form the instrument may not be as "disastrous" as i t appears on f i r s t sight.  In the discussion of the "forced choice" instrument  i t was argued that the items could be improved by looking at extemes i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses f o r indicators of directions for improvement of items through content analysis.  It may,  of course, prove to be impossible  to write a "true Harvey item", but with s u f f i c i e n t l y large numbers some form of weighted p r o b a b i l i t i e s could possibly be used to p u l l the " f a l s e " l ' s and 2's out of the 3's and 4's categorizations. I t must be noted at t h i s time that the observed discrepancies of outcomes between the "free response" and "forced choice" measures permit i n t e r pretations quite d i f f e r e n t from the one advanced i n this paper.  For example,  had t h i s study included measures of behavioral observations, one could, conceivably, have found these to correspond closer to the "forced choice" section than to the "free response" measure.  This p o s s i b i l i t y poses an  interpretive dilemma that could only be resolved by observational studies of greater scope which would have to include behavioral measures for c r i t e r i a of v a l i d i t y .  It i s suggested, however, that within the resources of the  present study the given interpretations are reasonable because they are based on the e x p l i c i t understanding that the greater status accorded to Harvey's "free response" measure derives from reported and,  presumably  v e r i f i a b l e connections between the "free response" measure and behavior. Other problems that must be solved are inconsistencies or inadequacies i n the theory.  The solution i s most certainly not a rejection but  a r e f i n i n g process which probably w i l l take generations of painstaking work.  Closely aligned with the above problems i s the necessity to generate  a perception l e v e l i n people, an awareness, that these b e l i e f system differences r e a l l y operate and that i t t r u l y may be desirable to opt for a change into "higher" conceptual l e v e l s .  68  This l a s t problem leads headlong into a discussion of value problems from which t h i s writer intends to r e f r a i n .  Nevertheless, since everyone i s  functioning within a c u l t u r a l setting, a few concluding remarks on this t o p i c seem to be i n order.  Milton Yinger has observed that i t i s d i f f i c u l t 3  to maintain that "personality" i s an abstraction.  This paper, i n common  with a l l consulted sources, contains i n one place or another a r e i f i c a t i o n of concepts, i . e . , the concept becomes the person; for example, system 1 functioning becomes "a system 1 person". aided by language r e s t r i c t i o n .  This "temptation"  i s probably  I t i s interesting to observe how such r e -  i f i c a t i o n w i l l open d i f f e r e n t traps for d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l perceptions. One c u l t u r a l norm may be to "accept" everything that exists as i t e x i s t s , another may be to "understand" everything that exists, a t h i r d to "modify", and a fourth to "improve".  The l a s t mode i s most i d e n t i f i a b l e with the  North American syndrome that Piaget reportedly has c a l l e d the "American f a l l a c y " but might less p o l i t e l y have called the "American maleficence", i f he meant the extreme case of c u l t u r a l doctrine that "everything that exists must be made better, faster."  I f t h i s c u l t u r a l doctrine exerts too strong  an influence on us, the complexity of the concepts of the b e l i e f systems may well assume s i m p l i s t i c r e i f i c a t i o n s which w i l l not help but hinder any perceptible improvements i n educational p r a c t i c e .  The reader i s asked to  at least look at the proposals for "conceptual l e v e l matching" to "foster" system 4 functioning from t h i s vantage point of value impositions. In no way should the c r i t i c i s m above be allowed to d i s t r a c t from a t h i r d , possibly very v a l i d , use of the "free response" measure.  In the  J. Milton Yinger, "Research Implications of the F i e l d View of Personality", American Journal of Sociology 69 (1963): 580. Reprinted in The Sociology of Personality, ed. Stephen P. Spitzer (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1969) pp. 168-188.  69  hands of experts t h i s measure should serve extremely well for a n a l y t i c a l purposes, such as i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s of c e r t a i n forms of psychopathology.  But  such a use demands t r a i n i n g and a l e v e l of expertise well beyond that of t y p i c a l teachers or school counsellors. Implications  from Group Comparisons  Interpretations are r e s t r i c t e d by sample and  (b) confidence  (a) non-randomness of the  levels i n correctness of categorizations.  present This  writer believes that i n the comparison of the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s of this sample to frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s found i n "1000"s" of l i b e r a l arts students, i t was  " f a i r " to treat Harvey's data v i r t u a l l y as a parameter of  that defined population.  (Technically t h i s i s , of course, completely true  only i f he had measured a l l l i b e r a l art students i n the defined  population.)  Having made t h i s allowance, the writer hypothesized i n the i n t r o duction certain expected differences that the present sample would show to the "Harvey population".  These differences were perceived as r e s u l t i n g from  interactions of supposedly (a) lower levels of "articulateness" i n adolescents, (b) greater flux i n adolescents  functioning, and  (c) lower stages  of conceptual developments than those that are expected at the age of Harvey's populations.  Because i t was  level  shown (Table 18, p. 60) that judge-  ments seemed neither p a r t i c u l a r l y hindered nor helped by levels of " a r t i c u lateness", i t i s suggested to accept these differences as genuine. The question now  i s whether one wants to view these differences  e n t i r e l y as p e c u l i a r i t i e s of the non-randomness of the sample. believes that these differences may  This writer  well represent differences of high  school students i n general, but also believes that these differences w i l l tend to disappear as students get older.  In fact, one may  hypothesize that  the differences can be explained e n t i r e l y by the high number of admixtures.  70  These could be viewed as o s c i l l a t i n g or unstable stages of which a certain number w i l l s e t t l e i n time into systems 2 and mainly 3, and i n rare instances into stage 4 functioning.  Why not into stage 1? Because concept d i f f e r e n -  t i a t i o n s are seen as already too advanced i n admixtures for a "regression" to stage 1. Further investigations of d i s t r i b u t i o n patterns of true random samples would be the means by which one could investigate the t h e o r e t i c a l development aspects o f the theory. samples i n d i f f e r e n t populations  Suppose, one draws many d i f f e r e n t random  and cultures for which d i f f e r e n t patterns of  childrearing are concurrently investigated.  Suppose further that one  measures system functioning with a standardized  instrument that has the  f l e x i b i l i t y t o sort our " c u l t u r a l norms" from i n d i v i d u a l differences. I f one would f i n d that the d i s t r i b u t i o n patterns of system functioning remains e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r across a l l cultures and a l l patterns o f c h i l d r e a r i n g , one would have to come to the conclusion that d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f system functioning i s " f i x e d " , i . e . , independent o f c h i l d r e a r i n g .  This, or  contrary findings, would have enormously important implications for the t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions that higher conceptual  functioning can be "induced".  Admittedly, one can only hope for a gradual c l a r i f i c a t i o n of t h i s problem because the research task i s also enormous.  I t i s suggested that this  question alone would be worthy of many research One  efforts.  i n t e r n a l comparison that showed a d e f i n i t e contradiction to  what one would expect from Harvey's reported, validations, i s the finding that levels o f "articulateness" are much higher for system 3 and 4 functionings than for system 1 and 2 functioning, not only i n respect to each other but also i n respect to the expectations  that levels of "articulateness"  would be d i s t r i b u t e d "normally" within each of the systems.  This form of  71  comparison allows the q u a l i f i c a t i o n that while the d i s t r i b u t i o n of levels of articulateness of system 1 and 2 functioning i s not markedly d i f f e r e n t from what one would expect, system 3 and 4 functioning does not even seem to occur i n "low"  levels of "articulateness".  One possible explanation  i s that Harvey's finding was more  "impressionistic", and that a more "methodic" rating would show s i m i l a r differences.  I f these differences were upheld they might prove to be  co-  defining variables of b e l i e f system functioning i n the same sense that " i n t e l l i g e n c e " i s seen as a co-defining variable of " c r e a t i v i t y " .  I t has  often been said i n studies of c r e a t i v i t y that a certain l e v e l of  "intelli-  gence" i s a necessary but not s u f f i c i e n t prerequisite for creative functioning.  Possibly a certain l e v e l of "symbolic wealth" may  which system 3 and 4 functionings cannot occur.  be a threshold below  C l a r i f i c a t i o n of these  questions would seem to o f f e r many i n t e r e s t i n g research problems. Not' discussed i n the preceding section was  an i n t e r n a l difference  of response patterns i n r e l a t i o n to s h i f t i n g patterns of "norms" of prejudice.  This writer does not r e a l l y know how  is related conceptually to "public opinion". without a clear quantitative index.  to define this "norm" but i t One  i s aware of these s h i f t s  For example, one i s aware of what seems  to be a much lower l e v e l of public tolerance towards immigrants i n Canada than, say, 20 years ago. are now  S i m i l a r l y , one i s aware of the fact that women  accepted much more r e a d i l y as equal to men  stereotype  fashion) than even f i v e years ago.  (at l e a s t i n a kind of  This awareness i s , for example,  n i c e l y expressed i n the response to " g i r l s " i n the t r a n s c r i p t i o n (M: this  paper). G i r l s : "A l i t t l e while ago t h i s would not be considered proper. But I am a l l for i t , personally I can't see myself, but i f that's what some g i r l s want to do that i s t h e i r business."  p...35  72  These differences are c l e a r l y r e f l e c t e d i n the o v e r a l l response differences to "immigrants" and " g i r l s " .  One can see from the data i n Table  8, p. 37, that only eight times were " g i r l s " completely rejected (always by boys), but 47 times were "immigrants" completely rejected (15 times with strong r a c i a l overtones).  I t can be seen that not a single 3 or 4 categoriza-  tion i s associated with rejection of " g i r l s " and only two with rejections of "immigrants".  This may mean that system 3 or 4 functioning i s dependent  neither on "norms" of prejudice nor on "changes" i n these norms. one must ask, i s i t true that the entire range o f prejudice i s the domain o f system l ' s and 2's functionings.  Conversely,  (public opinion)  These questions  are posed  here because they are i n need of much clearer formulation, and they do have a bearing on the theory o f b e l i e f systems as well as on problems of measurement of the systems. What could be the most relevant immediate contribution to education from the theory and findings of research with b e l i e f system functioning? This writer would simply propose to introduce these concepts i n teacher training.  I f a l l a s p i r i n g teachers  could be made aware that they enter a  rather complez "business", we may i n time progress from our depressingly s i m p l i s t i c and polarized c y c l i c "reforms" or "solutions" to educational problems. education  The analysis of the " f a u l t s " of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d aims of seem to t h i s writer most aptly expressed i n the concluding  chapter  on p. 342 or the authors of the b e l i e f systems: "Current educational practices reward stage 1 or 3 functionings by t h e i r emphasis e i t h e r upon memorization and i n f l e x i b l e accretion of facts or upon successful interpersonal relationships ..." But c e r t a i n l y the teacher who i s caught between his own l i m i t a t i o n s and h i s concerns f o r h i s day to day s u r v i v a l i n an i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g , should not be expected to carry the banner of educational reforms with tools that are, at t h i s moment, not p r e c i s e l y formulated  and understood - l e t  73  alone communicable to the public. understanding  What must emerge f i r s t i s a c r y s t a l i z e d  of relationships and causations of system functionings and a  standardized way of measuring these.  " I f " i t can be shown that system  functioning i s t r u l y changeable then the public could be presented  with  c l e a r l y communicable choices - a f t e r a l l , the public must make this ultimate choice, not educational researchers.  74  WORKS CITED Cohen, J . , "Weighted Kappa: Nominal Scale Agreement with Provisions for Scaled Disagreement or P a r t i a l Credit." Psychological B u l l e t i n , 70 (1968): 213-220. Cohen, J. , "A C o e f f i c i e n t of Agreement f o r Nominal Scales." and Psychological Measurement, 20 (1960) : 37-46.  Educational  Harvey, 0. J . , "Beliefs and Behavior: Some Implications for Education." The Science Teacher, 37 (December 1970): 10. Harvey, O. J . ; Hunt, David E., and Schroder, Harold M. Conceptual Systems and Personality Organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1961. Harvey, 0. J . , "Belief Systems and Education: Some Implications for Change", in The Affective Domain, pp. 67-96. Edited by Jack Crawford. Wash., D. C. : Communication Service Corporation, 1970. Harvey, O. J . , "Conceptual Systems and Attitude Change", i n Attitude, EgoInvolvement and Change, pp. 201-226. Edited by Carolyn W. Sherif and Muzafer Sherif. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967. Harvey, 0. J . , and Felknor, Catherine, "Parent - Child Relations as an Antecedent to Conceptual Functioning", i n Early Experience and the Processes of S o c i a l i z a t i o n , pp. 167-203. Edited by G. A. Milton, R. A. Hoppe, and E. C. Simmel. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Harvey, O. J . , 'Scoring the "This I Believe" (TIB) Test', manuscript on f i l e , O. J . Harvey, University of Colorado, 1965. Harvey, O. J . , This I Believe Test (Form TIB-74), Copyright 1974, O. J . Harvey. Harvey, O. J . , "System Structure, F l e x i b i l i t y and C r e a t i v i t y " , i n Experience, Structure and Adaptability, pp. 39-65. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1966. Harvey, O. J . , and Hoffmeister, James K., Conceptual Systems Test Form CST-71, Copyright 1971, O. J . Harvey and K. Hoffmeister. Hunt, David E., and S u l l i v a n , Edmund V. Between Psychology Hinsdale, I l l i n o i s : The Dryden Press, 1974.  and Education.  Light, Richard J . , "Measures o f Response Agreement for Q u a l i t a t i v e Data: Some Generalizations and Alternatives." Psychological B u l l e t i n , 76 (1971): 365-377.  75  M i l l e r , Alma Grabow, and Harvey, 0. J . , "Effects of Concreteness - Abstractness and Anxiety on I n t e l l e c t u a l and Motor Performance". Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 40 (1973) : 444-451. Yinger, Milton J . , "Research Implications of a F i e l d View of Personality". American Journal of Sociology, 68 (1963) : 580-592. Reprinted i n The Sociology of Personality. Edited by Stephan P. Spitzer. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1969, pp. 168-188.  APPENDIX A Judgemental Strategy and Rationale for Strategy, Display, of Two Agreement Indexes and Summary of Agreement Indexes in Percentage Forms Mathematical models measuring agreement indexes i n nominal scales assume a completely independent functioning of judges."*" This study did not have the resources to c a l l on experts to categorize the responses from the sample.  Hence, a " t r a i n i n g " process was incorporated with the aim to pro-  duce the best possible judgemental categorizations under the given circumstances.  The strategy adopted was as follows:  both judges read the  scoring booklet of Harvey, made independent categorizations from part of the  sample, discussed and defended t h e i r respective categorizations, and  then allowed the matter to rest.  After two months both judges re-read  Harvey's scoring booklet, discussed the key, and agreed on a s l i g h t modification of the key.  Thereafter,'both judges categorized a l l responses  independently of each other, then had a "panel" discussion i n order to categorize disagreements.  Between s i x and ten days l a t e r both judges once  """Jacob Cohen, "A C o e f f i c i e n t of Agreement for Nominal Scales", Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20 (1960): p. 38. The following assumptions are s p e c i f i e d . 1. 2. 3.  The units (test protocols) are independent. The categories of the nominal scale are independent, mutually exclusive, and exhaustive. The judges operate independently.  Assumption 2 probably i s the most d i f f i c u l t to f u l f i l l i n p r a c t i c e , especially when many p a r t i a l l y overlapping variables (as i n the present study) define a category.  77  again categorized a l l responses ( t r i a l 2) and, f i n a l l y , categorized d i s agreements.  Each categorized response was  of e i t h e r "high", "med.", or "low" Table 23.  score"  i n accordance with the key explained i n scores" can most r e a d i l y be  The key for reading t h i s table i s the same  as the key for Table 11 i n the text:  For convenience i t i s reproduced here.  F u l l agreements are shown i n the narrow zigzag band running from top  l e f t to bottom r i g h t . 1-2  assigned a "confidence  But the meaning of these "confidence  assessed by looking at Table 21.  (1)  now  and 1-4)  (2)  " F i r s t term" agreements (such as 1-2  are shown i n the double-lined wider zigzag band.  ment between "second and f i r s t terms" (such as 1-2 f a l l within the narrow bands of crosses.  (4)  and 2; or 1-2  (3) and  Agree2-4)  Complete "reversed term"  agreements f a l l into the i n t e r s e c t i o n of the crosses. "second term" alone have been c i r c l e d .  and 1; or  (5)  Agreements on  Also, wherever a score f a l l s into  any !'first term" or "second term" X p o s i t i o n at least a minimal part agreement e x i s t s . Table 22 shows the agreements on categorizations between the  two  3 "panel" discussions.  2 Jacob Cohen, "Weighted Kappa: Nominal Scale of Agreement with Provisions for Scaled Disagreement or P a r t i a l Credit", Psychological B u l l e t i n , 70 (1968): 213-220. In this a r t i c l e Jacob Cohen modifies and expands his e a r l i e r ideas on agreement measures. He gives several formulas for agreement indexes that are chance corrected and allow " p a r t i a l c r e d i t " for " p a r t i a l agreements". For a further in-depth study of these problems the reader i s referred to Richard J. Light, "Measures of Response Agreement for Qualitative Data: Some Generalizations and Alternatives", Psychological B u l l e t i n , 76 (1971): 365-377. In the absence of some "rule of thumb" figures of what constitutes s a t i s f a c t o r y levels of agreement these indexes may be quite d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t . 3 "Agreements" i n t h i s discussion are i n Cohen's terminology only "associations". Thus for example, i n Table 21 the 31 "associations" of judgemental positions would have to be devaluated by chance associations before one could properly speak of "agreements". In this example there are 31 system l ' s , but 52 x 48 = 20.6 of the 31 would have to be considered "chance associations".. orl  78  TABLE 21  NUMBER AND EXTENT OF AGREEMENTS ON CATEGORIZATIONS OF "FREE RESPONSES" BETWEEN JUDGE I AND JUDGE II TOTAL SAMPLE N=122  JUDGE I (RUN 2) Dominant lsts 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 31  rH  -P g  CO  H  <N  Ul  C -P •g W rH O Q  00  4  1  4  1  X  4  CM  rH  6 CN ,o  CN  CO  '  CN  C  Q  X  CN  C Cu  C  •H  6 0  n  H  U rn  (M  w t3  00  ^  co  X  C  CO  c g 0  rH  w  ,C  1  2  o o 3  1  -H +J  ^  CN  Q  ^  co  2  o o 0  0  1  1  x  1  1 3  o 0  o 0  1  o o  6  9  6  1  1  48  1  o  o o © 0 o o o o o 0 o o o o o o 3  1  o  3 13  1  1  1  5  1  !  5  1 . 7 8 4 2 1 3 7 6  1  1  5  7  1  8  10 1 j 6  1  1  1 52  X! N  (  3  2  X  4 X  1  1  o  3 X  Dominant 4ths 4 4 4 4 1 2 3  1  3  1  O  1  1  (  1  2 X  Dominant 3rds 3 3 3 3 1 2 4 1  5  2 -P  1  1  1  CO  Q  1  1  2  ro •p  4  2  CN  w  4  2  rH rH  -p C rd C •H  3  1 X  Dominant 2nds 2 2 2 2 1 3 4  10  1  1  2  2  1 2 1 1 121  NOTE: The reduction to 121 observations was caused by one respondent f a i l i n g to f i l l i n the "free response" section.  79  TABLE 22 NUMBER AND EXTENT OF AGREEMENTS ON CATEGORIZATIONS FROM "FREE RESPONSES" BETWEEN 1ST PANEL ADJUSTMENTS AND 2ND PANEL ADJUSTMENTS. TOTAL SAMPLE N=122 1ST PANEL ADJUSTMENTS Systems 1 & Dominant 1's 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 X r—1 CO  <z rH  39  3  2  2  rH t N  rH +J  4J  H  >i  1  7  CN CO  ca -  CN CN  CO  co D  § w 2 *C CN  >i  o  CO  Q  CN  ro  • *CN  ro  o 1  X  2  o  1 1  oS ro ro ro •P  rH  gg <D  ro  +J - H CO  c  ro ^  1  D  (  o 0  >i 0 co Q ro X  CO 03 <J <J  •P  1 § •* CN  +J - H  co B >i 0  CO  Q  1  H  O  ro  o  ^ X  2_  50  7  4  4  o o  1. 1  0o o o 3  X  1  1  o  1  2  4  5  8  2  1  o  2  9  1  8 6  1  5 9 5  o  1 1  o  3 5 4 1  1  7 3  1  1  1  0  c  o o  N 50  1  5  1 3 11  o o o o o o o o  1  1  X  Systems 4 s Dominant 4 's 4 4 4 4 1 2 3 X  1  1  1  1  o  CN  C  2  o  CO  rH  Q 2  +J  +1 - H ! N CO £5  E-t  2  '—1  gg  E-i 2  P4  CN  1  1  o o  1  4  H X  Systems 3 & Dominant 3 s 3 3 3 3 1 2 4 X  2  4  H  o  Q  2  1  2  1  co 6 CO  2  Systems 2 & Dominant 2's 2 2 2 2 1 3 4 X  1  1  2 9  1  1  3  4  8 121  NOTE: The reduction to 121 observations was caused by one respondent f a i l i n g to f i l l i n the "free response" section.  80 The rationale for the strategy of alternating between independent and interdependent judgemental procedures can be explained by conceptualizing the "perfect judge". , A perfect judge would not make any variable errors or constant errors.  A l l categorizations by a perfect judge would be indisput-  able and, hence, a l l responses that he could not categorize would be due to lack of response information or to t r u l y c o n f l i c t i n g response  informations.  The point i s that some of the judgemental inconsistencies i n this study must be explained with other than variable error and constant error.  The human  judge w i l l tend to reach beyond the l i m i t a t i o n s of the perfect judge; s t i l l giving a "reading" when the perfect judge would simply say, "not enough information".  As one can see i n Table 22, even between the two panel  discussions there are very few agreements on admixtures.  In other words, the  "free response measure" i s probably t r u l y incapable of y i e l d i n g s u f f i c i e n t l y clear information  for categorizing admixtures i n a much more stable manner  than i n t h i s study. It was thought,. however, that the constant errors would be reduceable through the interaction strategy just described.  There are several  p a r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t h i s judgemental task which can e a s i l y produce constant errors.  For example, "expressed h o s t i l i t y " can very e a s i l y be  mistaken for system 2 instead for system 1 functioning i f t h i s expressed h o s t i l i t y i s not c a r e f u l l y viewed within other aspects of the response patterns.  These errors would only be recognized  through discussions of  any disagreements.and renewed r e f l e c t i o n s on the s p e c i f i e d variables. Unfortunately,  there also comes a point when judges begin to share  biases and "learning" becomes counter-productive.  I t i s not easy to  estimate when t h i s point i s reached. Variable errors caused by fatigue or momentary confusions are probably not much reduceable through learning.  Judges can only make certain  81  to take as much care as possible and to allow themselves s u f f i c i e n t  time.  The judges for t h i s study f e l t that they could do not many more than about 30 categorizations i n one day - before experiencing extreme signs of fatigue. These errors show up i n some rather gross discrepancies that probably unf a i r l y reduce the agreement index, because "better" judges would not l i k e l y make those mistakes.  In Table 21, for example, there are three disagree-  ments about system 1 or system 4 functioning. e x i s t i n the two panel discussions.  These disagreements  do not  This writer judges the figures i n  Table 21 as probably underestimating, and the figures i n Table 22 as probably overestimating, the possible agreements of two "good" judges functioning independently.  Table 23, for comparative purposes, summarizes  agreement indexes o f simple percentage counts that were attained i n this study. TABLE 23  INDEXES OF JUDGEMENTAL AGREEMENTS  U  ^EH  U  ^H  JI to JI JII to J I I  Low Med. High INTRAJUDGEMENTAL 49 95 79 83  66  35  (Trial JI to (Trial JI to  Panel (1) toPanel (2) JI JII JI JII  ( T r i a l 2) to Panel (1) ( T r i a l 2) to Panel (1) ( T r i a l 2) to Panel (2) ( T r i a l 2) to Panel (2)  1) JII 2) JII  Med. High Low INTERJUDGEMENTAL 82 46 88 92  89  39  100  81  54  98  79  55  94  71  43  100  85  66  97  81  55  NOTE: J I means Judge I and JII means Judge I I . "Low" means here p a r t i a l agreement which can range from second term with f i r s t term agreements (such as 4 and 1-4) to the lowest possible agreements, through use of designations (such as 4and 1). "Med." means f i r s t term or reversed agreement (as 1 and 1-2; and 1-2 and .2-1) , and "High" means f u l l agreements.  82  APPENDIX B A Complete Quotation of "System Response Patterns" From 0. J . Harvey's 'Scoring the "This I Believe" (TIB) Test', pp. 9-12. System Response Patterns: System 1; Characterized, according to t h e o r e t i c a l notions, by a strong need for structure, r i g i d adherence to r u l e s , authorities and values which provide structure; and rejection of environmental inputs which are dissonant with the individual's organized modes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . TIB responses tend to be stated i n a d e f i n i t e , hard-and-fast manner, showing l i t t l e doubt i n the subject's mind about how he f e e l s . The content shows adherence to norms and practices approved by society or prestige authorities; a negative reaction to rule-breaking; polarized evaluations. The reliance on authority i s demonstrated by highly favorable attitudes toward r e l i g i o n , law, parents, friends. Other people must meet r i g i d standards of a c c e p t a b i l i t y , operating i n terms of the general behavioral p r i n c i p l e s of the subject. Religion i s a highly consistent concern, serving as a base for the b e l i e f system i n a l l aspects of l i f e i n many cases. This referent tends to e l i c i t the most clear-cut System 1 responses of a l l the referents. System l ' s often demonstrate strong ingroup-outgroup feelings expressed i n intense h o s t i l i t y and negative feelings on some referents. In order to avoid confusion with System 2 responses that are s i m i l a r because of t h e i r negativity i t i s necessary to evaluate such responses i n the t o t a l context of . a l l the responses. The o v e r a l l impression of System l ' s i s that of a person who has definite stands on every t o p i c , states them evaluatively and unequivocally, and rejects things i f they do not meet h i s high standards of ideals of perfection. The reader may f e e l that this subject i s rather h o s t i l e toward his environment and other people, but there i s an underlying sense of stable acceptance of things as they should (ought, must, etc.) be by h i s standards. The words, "everything," " a l l , " "completely," "best," "worst," etc., are a l l words that indicate the extreme, clear-cut, d e f i n i t e aspects of existence as this person sees i t . Uncertainty i s anathema to a System 1 and both content and structure i n h i s responses demonstrate h i s drive to r e j e c t i t and f i n d and maintain certainty i n h i s environment. System 2: Characterized by terms highly s i m i l a r to those of System 1 except for a reversal of certain central aspects of content. The structura l aspects are s i m i l a r and the responses indicate r i g i d i t y , s i m p l i c i t y , consistency and e x c l u s i v i t y .  83  This subject has the same drive for certainty as the System 1, but seems unable to rely on h i s world to f i n d i t . Hence, he seems to obtain certainty by r e j e c t i n g h i s world; as though negating i t provides his only source of certainty. The reader w i l l f i n d a r e j e c t i o n of or h o s t i l e attitude toward authority referents, i d e a l i s t i c notions, most American standards and values, and most other people. Not a l l people are rejected, since this subject makes p o s i t i v e statements about the underdog, the loner, minority groups and i n d i v i d u a l i t y . Conversely, he makes negative statements about elements that might do harm to these people. There i s a strong rejection of r e l i g i o n , people, friendship (because of i t s u n r e l i a b i l i t y ) , government, and, more subtly, t i e s and obligations and other freedom-retraining devices. This subject reacts negatively to these ideas, yet cannot ignore them. He tends to be factual and hard-nosed rather than i d e a l i s t i c about the world, requiring a s i m i l a r need for structure observed i n the System 1 person. Overall, the System 2 person appears extremely h o s t i l e and r e j e c t i n g , concrete minded, non-analytic toward h i s environment, and a categorical acceptor or rejector i n terms of pre-established negativity. System 3: The chief locus of s a t i s f a c t i o n for a System 3 tends to be his r e l a t i o n with other people. His responses r e f l e c t the central importance of people and he accepts and voices the values of the people with whom he i s in contact at the moment rather than i n i t i a t i n g behaviors or expressing b e l i e f s that are contrary to the present group. TIB responses generally lack any expression of negative feelings. There-is a strong tendency to deal with the world through rather s u p e r f i c i a l aspects of i t , expressed i n the use of cliches rather than d i r e c t l y . Relationships with people are e l i c i t e d even when TIB referents do not necessarily c a l l for them. Generally, the only negative reaction w i l l be to a referent indicating harm or injury to other people. The responses of these subjects are more complex, varied and abstract than Systems 1 and 2. These people are t y p i c a l l y rather sophisticated i n dealing with t h e i r world and do not demonstrate a hard-and-fast r i g i d i t y i n responses to the referents. Though the repeated emphasis on interpersonal relations may at f i r s t appear to be a r i g i d response tendency, analysis shows a great deal of f l e x i b i l i t y and openness i n the responses. Thus, i t i s necessary to analyze the s t r u c t u r a l aspects of a System 3's responses, while remaining sensitive to the evidence of person-oriented content. The o v e r a l l impression generated by the responses of System 3 persons i s one of a p o s i t i v e attitude toward situations and ideals which are b e n e f i c i a l f o r people. System 4: Characterized by r e l a t i v e independence from the environment, greater r e l i a b i l i t y on internally-derived stimulation, greater f l e x i b i l i t y and openness, i n t e r e s t i n (even seeking for) novelty, a r e l a t i v e lack of extreme evaluativeness or extreme acceptance-rejection behavior, the tendency to be aware of and to respond to referents i n terms of multiple alternatives or interpretations.  84  TIB responses show a juxtaposition of diverse, often contrasting elements. There i s a lack of one-way evaluativeness; certainty and d e f i n i t e ness i n commitment.to a single way of perceiving a s i t u a t i o n are t y p i c a l l y not evident i n these subjects. The o v e r a l l impression of a System 4 person i s one of Complexity of thought and f e e l i n g . Depth of connotative implications rather than superf i c i a l i t y i n statements i s most t y p i c a l of these S's.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094471/manifest

Comment

Related Items