Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Characteristics of Canadian Prime Ministers : ratings by historians and political scientists Ballard, Elizabeth Jean 1982

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A8 B35.pdf [ 5.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095576.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095576-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095576-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095576-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095576-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095576-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095576-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095576-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095576.ris

Full Text

CHARACTERISTICS OF CANADIAN PRIME MINISTERS: RATINGS BY HISTORIANS AND POLITICAL SCIENTISTS by ELIZABETH JEAN BALLARD B.Ed., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of P s y c h o l o g y ) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g to the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1982 (7) E l i z a b e t h Jean B a l l a r d , 1982 MASTER OF ARTS in I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e head o f my department o r by h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f P s y c h o l o g y "  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V ancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date ^ W c k 25, DE-6 (2/79) i ABSTRACT Perso n a l i t y , s i t u a t i o n a l and behavioural theories of p o l i t i c a l leadership f a l l short of explaining the i n t e r a c t i o n among the leader, the followers and the environment. In contrast, the transactional approach emphasizes t h i s r e c i p r o c a l process of s o c i a l , cognitive and s i t u a t i o n a l influences. Integrative complexity theory provides a framework and a methodology for studying t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n and i t s e f f e c t on how people process information. This study focuses on the Canadian Prime Ministers as a population of p o l i t i c a l leaders worthy of i n v e s t i g a t i o n . In addition to studying t h e i r i n t e g r a t i v e complexity l e v e l , other aspects of value i n understanding great leaders were examined. Based on items found i n studies of American Presidents (Maranell, 1970; Schlesinger, 1962) the following dimensions were studied: d i f f i c u l t y , activeness, motivation, strength, effectiveness, prestige, innovativeness, f l e x i b i l i t y , honesty and overall> accomplishments. Two sets of complexity scores (on prepared and spontaneous materials) were obtained i n order to test the question: Whose complexity i s being rated i n prepared speeches — the writer's or the speaker's? Prepared speech scores came from the Response to the Speech from the Throne texts i n Hansard, while spontaneous speech scores were based on extemporaneous responses to informal questions i n the House of Commons. Two groups of experts ( h i s t o r i a n s and p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s ) on Canadian leaders were approached for t h e i r opinions about the 16 Prime Ministers along the ten dimensions mentioned. An eleventh item was included as a check on the experts' knowledge of each leader. There was no difference between the prepared and spontaneous i n t e g r a t i v e complexity scores. Except for honesty, there were no co r r e l a t i o n s between complexity and the 11 dimensions rated by experts. The experts' ratings did not d i f f e r as a function of t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e on 10 of the 11 scales. Only on the amount of information they had about each Prime Minister did the two groups d i f f e r . The d i f f i c u l t y of the p o l i t i c a l issues facing a Prime Minister had an e f f e c t on how he was rated on f i v e dimensions: activeness, strength, effectiveness, innovativeness and accomplishments. Based on the four items found to be most pre d i c t i v e of greatness i n American Presidents ( i . e . , strength, prestige, activeness and accomplishments), Canada's f i v e greatest Prime Ministers are: Macdonald, Laurier, Borden, King and Trudeau. Both primacy and recency e f f e c t s can be seen i n these choices. The d i f f i c u l t y of the issues facing a Prime Minister had an impact on 3 of the 4 components contributing to greatness. The 5 Prime Ministers selected as great tended to rate high on the items which correspond to the 3 major dimensions (evaluative, a c t i v i t y , potency) of the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l . i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Table of Contents '.. i i i L i s t of Tables Acknowledgement v l INTRODUCTION 1 Leadership 1 P o l i t i c a l Leadership 6 Integrative Complexity 15 Levels of Conceptual Complexity 19 E f f e c t s of the Environment Upon Levels of Information Processing 21 Measuring Integrative Complexity 22 Integrative Complexity 23 Evaluations of Canadian Prime M i n i s t e r s . . . . 28 METHOD : 33 Expert Opinion Questionnaire 33 Rater Se l e c t i o n 34 Integrative Complexity Scores 34 RESULTS •••• 3 7 Expert Opinion Questionnaire 37 Returns 37 The Experts 37 In t e r r a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y 39 Historians and P o l i t i c a l S c i e n t i s t s 39 Spearman Rank C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t 42 M u l t i v a r i a t e Analysis of Variance of Mean Ratings 42 Integrative Complexity 45 C o r r e l a t i o n Among Measures 51 The E f f e c t s of D i f f i c u l t y P o l i t i c a l Issues 53 DISCUSSION 57 Spontaneous versus Prepared Speech Integrative Complexity 57 Experts' Opinions 58 Integrative Complexity and the Experts' Opinions 60 Relationships Among the Rankings 62 (a) Item One 63 (b) Item Two 64 (c) Item Three 65 (d) Item Four 66 (e) Item Five 67 (f) Item Six 68 (g) Item Seven 69 (h) Item Eight 70 ( i ) Item Nine 71 (j) Item Ten. 72 (k) Item Eleven 73 Studies of P r e s i d e n t i a l Greatness 74 Canada's Five Greatest Prime M i n i s t e r s . . . 75 Conclusions 77 iv-Page REFERENCES. 79 APPENDIX A 84 Cover L e t t e r 85 Information Packet 86 Questionnaire •••• 88 APPENDIX B 101 P r i n c e t o n Scoring Manual 102 Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: LIST OF TABLES D i s t r i b u t i o n of Experts Currently Holding Academic Positions i n Canada Interrater R e l i a b i l i t i e s for the Responses of Historians and P o l i t i c a l S c i e n t i s t s Taken Together Spearman's Rank C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t f or Rank Ordering of 12 Prime Ministers M u l t i v a r i a t e Analysis of Variance of Mean Ratings on Eleven Dimensions by Historians and by P o l i t i c a l S c i e n t i s t s for 12 Prime Ministers Rank Orderings of 12 Prime Ministers on Eleven Dimensions Integrative Complexity Scores for 13 Prime Ministers C o r r e l a t i o n Matrix Among 11 Rated Dimensions and Two Complexity Scores for 13 Prime Ministers Fourfold Table Categorizing 11 Prime Mini s t e r s According to Their Integrative Complexity and the D i f f i c u l t y of the P o l i t i c a l Issues They Faced Page 39 41 44 45 47 52 53 56 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It i s often the case with major projects that many people make valuable contributions i n the form of support, e f f o r t and ideas. And so i t i s with t h i s p r o j ect. Thanks go to my many tolerant friends who never f a i l e d to encourage me whenever I slowed down. Grateful acknowledgements go to Sheryl M i t c h e l l and Janet Granger for t h e i r l i b r a r y research e f f o r t s ; to Dr. Margaret Prang, Dr. Peter Ward and Prof. Donald Blake for t h e i r constructive c r i t i c i s m and contributions to the items on the questionnaire; and to P a t r i c i a Waldron for her excellent and speedy typing. Special thanks go to Michael Perry for both his contribution of a testable hypothesis and h i s moral support at the beginning of t h i s p r o j e ct. I also give special thanks to Dr. Ralph Hakstian who p a t i e n t l y led me through the i n t r i c a c i e s of data analysis and to Dr. Robert Knox who q u i e t l y persisted i n his request for q u a l i t y work. My greatest thanks are reserved for Dr. Peter Suedfeld. His contributions were i n a l l three forms. Besides providing i n t e l l e c t u a l guidance and professional advice, he always expressed f a i t h i n my a b i l i t i e s . He not only believed I would complete t h i s project s a t i s f a c t o r i l y , but he also succeeded i n convincing me, at the darkest moments, that I could and should complete i t . 1 INTRODUCTION Leadership "How Hard i t i s to Keep From Being King When I t ' s i n You and i n The S i t u a t i o n " ( t i t l e of poem by Robert Frost, 1951) Since before the time of Plato's philosopher-king people have been fascinated with the concept of leadership and i t s attendant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . History records the e f f e c t s of i n d i v i d u a l s l i k e C h r i s t , Beethoven, Queen V i c t o r i a , Marx and H i t l e r who have had s i g n i f i c a n t impact on multitudes of people i n t h e i r own time and beyond. Leaders and t h e i r a t t r i b u t e s f i r s t attracted intensive s c i e n t i f i c attention around the turn of the twentieth century. Since that time hundreds of studies have been conducted i n attempts to describe, categorize and predict the t a n t a l i z i n g phenomenon of leadership. One major theory of leadership could be referred to as the Great Man theory. According to t h i s view leaders possess a r e l a t i v e l y small number of special q u a l i t i e s , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , or t r a i t s that set them apart from nori-leaders. These t r a i t s are considered to be stable across time and s i t u a t i o n s . Proponents of t h i s view of leadership chose to ignore the e f f e c t s of both non-leaders ( i . e . , followers) and of s i t u a t i o n a l variables upon the leader. The Great Man theory implied that the r o l e of leader was a stable one and that v a r i a t i o n s i n the leader-follower context across s i t u a t i o n s did not influence the r o l e requirements of the leader. In empirical studies, using personality assessments, observers and peer r a t i n g s , some common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s among leaders did seem to emerge with considerable r e g u l a r i t y . These included: i n t e l l i g e n c e , a high rate of energy output, alertness, knowledge, o r i g i n a l i t y , personal i n t e g r i t y , self-confidence, decisiveness and fluency of speech ( S t o g d i l l , 1974). Unfortunately, neither how much nor exactly which combination of these q u a l i t i e s were required for a successful leader has been s p e c i f i e d . Even as the Great Man or t r a i t theory was being expounded, researchers were looking elsewhere for more complete explanations of leadership. The s i t u a t i o n a l i s t s f e l t that i t was a combination of timing, placement and circumstances which gave r i s e to great leaders, not personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . As early as 1897 (Spencer) the type of leadership to develop i n a group was thought to be a function of the group's p a r t i c u l a r nature and the problems i t must solve. Thus d i f f e r e n t groups would /require d i f f e r e n t q u a l i t i e s i n t h e i r leaders. A labour union would require one type of leader while a research team would require another and a children's youth group yet another. According to Hollander and J u l i a n (1969, p. 387) the major focus of the s i t u a t i o n a l approach was "the study of leaders i n d i f f e r e n t settings defined e s p e c i a l l y i n terms of d i f f e r e n t group tasks and group structure." Lewin (1942) and his students conducted several laboratory experiments i n s i t u a t i o n a l e f f e c t s using small groups. They demonstrated that as the s i t u a t i o n changed so did the emergence or transformation of leadership. They varied the "atmosphere" i n small experimental groups from auth o r i t a r i a n through democratic to l a i s s e z - f a i r e . What they showed was that the democratic sit u a t i o n s led to the most constructive and creative type of leadership. What they did not f i n d was that under a l l circumstances democratic leadership was best. Taken to i t s extreme the s i t u a t i o n a l view would suggest that there are no absolute leaders and that just about anyone, regardless of h i s or her p a r t i c u l a r personality t r a i t s , can become a leader i f the conditions are r i g h t (Baron and Byrne, 1977). Many studies undertaken from the s i t u a t i o n a l approach to leadership tended to focus e x c l u s i v e l y on the e f f e c t s of various environments or sit u a t i o n s upon the choice of leaders. Given a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n , i n t e r e s t lay i n discovering what kind of leader would emerge, and how successful the leadership was. From t h i s perspective the impact of the followers on the leader's behaviour was ignored as was the influence of the leader on the followers' perceptions of the s i t u a t i o n . Both the personality t r a i t and the s i t u a t i o n a l approach to leadership suffered from th e i r attempt to i s o l a t e components within what i s e s s e n t i a l l y a dynamic system. Because of t h i s treatment of i n t e r a c t i n g parts as single forces, neither approach could account for c e r t a i n basic observations. T r a i t theory (Great Man theory) could not explain which c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were required for a person to become a great leader (Mann, 1959), nor why t r a i t s required of a leader varied from one s i t u a t i o n to another. The s i t u a t i o n a l theory, for i t s part, could not account for the differences i n a b i l i t y and willingness of people to r i s e to the leadership p o s i t i o n under the " r i g h t " circumstances (Beckhouse et a l . , 1975; Nydegger, 1975). Concurrent with the r i s e of the s i t u a t i o n a l view of leadership was the emergence of the behavioural approach to the issue. This view looked at those behaviours c a r r i e d out by the leader i n the process of leading.' In the 1950's, Ohio State University and the U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan together launched a series of f i e l d studies which explored the construct of leadership behaviour. They were interested i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s p e c i f i c leader behaviours and subordinate performance and s a t i s f a c t i o n . The Ohio State studies led to the development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) (Hemphill and Coons, 1957). The LBDQ was l a t e r modified successfully by Halpin and Winer (1957) who used US A i r Force bomber crews as subjects. The two major behavioural dimensions i d e n t i f i e d by the LBDQ which accounted for the largest portions of the explained variance i n leader behaviour were consideration and i n i t i a t i n g structure. Consideration was associated with i n d i c a t i o n s of mutual t r u s t , respect and warmth between the leader and subordinates. I n i t i a t i n g structure was related to the d e f i n i t i o n and organization of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the leader and h i s subordinates. The Michigan studies also examined leader behaviour. Their subjects were supervisors and employees of the Prudential L i f e Insurance Company i n New Jersey. The researchers i n i t i a l l y used nondirective interviews from which they derived two major or i e n t a t i o n dimensions (Katz, Maccoby & Morse, 1950; Katz, Maccoby, Gurrin & Floor, 1951). These were employee  orie n t a t i o n, r e l a t e d to human r e l a t i o n s and production o r i e n t a t i o n , which dealt with task performance. It would seem that these dimensions are comparable to the Ohio State studies' behaviour dimensions of consideration and i n i t i a t i n g structure r e s p e c t i v e l y , (Bowers & Seashore, 1971). Unfortunately, the behavioural approach to leadership, while defining and describing the behaviours and roles of leaders, f a i l e d to correlate the two major dimensions of leader behaviour with either performance or s a t i s f a c t i o n of subordinates. Another problem with t h i s approach was i t s f a i l u r e to consider the p o s s i b i l i t y that p a r t i c u l a r e f f e c t s of consideration and i n i t i a t i o n of structure depend upon the s p e c i f i c circumstances of the s i t u a t i o n (House and M i t c h e l l 1974; Kerr, Schreisheim, Murphy and S t o g d i l l , 1974). At t h i s point i t might be useful to note c e r t a i n features of the leader-led dyad. A leader i s part of a group i n which there i s always a leader-follower r e l a t i o n s h i p . The leader's r o l e i s central to the group i n the sense that his or her presence i n the group i s s i g n i f i c a n t and de c i s i v e , but a l l members of a group influence one another ( F i l e l l a , 1969). By combining the divergent and narrowly focused views of the t r a i t , s i t u a t i o n and behavioural approaches, theo r i s t s developed a new approach to the study of leadership. This one emphasized the i n t e r a c t i o n of personality t r a i t s and s i t u a t i o n a l demands. One exponent of t h i s new, more integrated view was F i e d l e r . His contingency theory of leadership (1967) attempted to account for the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p among the leader's motivational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , the s i t u a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and group p r o d u c t i v i t y . F i e d l e r held that i t was the leader's s t y l e of i n t e r a c t i n g with h i s group members and the favourableness of the group-task s i t u a t i o n which determined leadership effectiveness. He developed a measure of leader s t y l e c a l l e d the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale (LPC). This scale located a leader along a single dimension with ends l a b e l l e d "task oriented" and "person oriented." The LPC score was viewed as a stable personality t r a i t . Leader st y l e was related to the task structure and the s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness i n such a way as to predict the l i k e l y effectiveness of the leader. In a r e v i s i o n of h i s theory F i e d l e r (1973) said that the LPC score was an index of a hierarchy of goals. I n i t i a l l y a leader pursues his or her primary goal, which i s either personal r e l a t i o n s (for high LPC leaders) or task completion (for low LPC leaders). Once t h i s i s achieved, attention i s focused on the secondary goal. This i s task completion for the high LPC's and personal r e l a t i o n s for low LPC's In more recent years the focus has s h i f t e d from emphasizing the leader's needs, influence and q u a l i t i e s . Now such issues as the e f f e c t s of environmental pressures are being studied as they r e l a t e to the 6 leader's behaviour and effectiveness (Hunt, Osborn & Schriesheim, 1978). Osborn and Hunt (1975) proposed an Adaptive-Reactive Theory of leadership. Here, the leader's behaviour i s seen as adapting to the conditions of the organizational system i n which he or she i s operating and reacting to the needs, wants, desires and pressures of his or her subordinates. The implications of t h i s approach have yet to be tested e m p i r i c a l l y . Most recently we seem to be concentrating on the transactional view of leadership (Baron and Byrne, 1977, p. 596) whereby "leadership i s viewed as a r e c i p r o c a l process of s o c i a l influence i n which leaders both influence followers and are influenced, i n turn, by them." S i t u a t i o n a l aspects a f f e c t both parts of t h i s dynamic i n t e r a c t i o n . This approach i s i n e f f e c t only an extension of Case's (1933) perception of the emergence of leadership. He held that leadership i s produced when three factors i n t e r s e c t : (1) the personality t r a i t s of the leader, (2) the nature of the group and of i t s members, and (3) the event (change or problem) facing the group. P o l i t i c a l Leadership "Everything may depend upon the farmer, i n d u s t r i a l worker, s o l d i e r and s c i e n t i s t , but we customarily hold only p o l i t i c a l leaders responsible for a l l conditions a f f e c t i n g a g r i c u l t u r e , industry, s e c u r i t y , and culture. They stand at the center of our communal expectations." (Paige 1977, p. 3) The p o l i t i c a l leader i s indeed the f o c a l point of many desires for communal improvement. The c i t i z e n s of most nations look to t h e i r leaders not only when times are good but also i n times of economic hardship, i n d u s t r i a l unease and a g r i c u l t u r a l d i s t r e s s . Today with alarming r e g u l a r i t y headlines confront us with the t e r r i b l e news of assassination attempts upon world leaders. E d i t o r i a l s go on to explain the r i p p l e e f f e c t s that the loss of important world leaders w i l l have on the rest of us. A's Seligman (1950) points out, there i s l i t t l e doubt that i n the twentieth century we have seen a tremendous r i s e i n the emphasis on p o l i t i c s by leadership, and have also witnessed the growing importance of p o l i t i c a l leaders i n creating and maintaining democratic s o c i e t i e s . Yet i n spite of the s i g n i f i c a n c e placed upon the r o l e of p o l i t i c a l leadership we have not u n t i l recently seen an equivalent emphasis i n working towards a clearer understanding of the nature of the p o s i t i o n nor of the requirements of the r o l e . Not u n t i l 1950 did the f i r s t s i g n i f i c a n t a n a l y t i c a l study of p o l i t i c a l leadership appear. In his a r t i c l e , Seligman (1950) c a l l e d f or what psychologists l a t e r termed the transactional approach to leadership theory (Baron and Byrne, 1977). He suggested that we study, on the one hand, the s o c i a l and environmental factors a f f e c t i n g " p o l i t i c a l leadership" behaviour and on the other hand, the personality t r a i t s that i n t e r a c t with these f a c t o r s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that while Seligman suggested t h i s approach i n 1950, i t was not u n t i l the 1970's that psychologists began to respond. In looking at the h i s t o r i c a l development of the study of p o l i t i c a l leadership, we f i n d that the major contributions have occurred i n the l a s t four decades. P r i o r to that, the focus of attention r e l a t i v e to p o l i t i c a l leadership moved from Plato's philosopher-king to Machiavelli's Prince to the more modern contributions of C a r l y l e ' s (1841/1907) h i s t o r y as defined by great men's biographies, Weber's (1904-1905) idea of charismatic, t r a d i t i o n a l and r a t i o n a l - l e g a l authority and more recently Lasswell's (1950) psychoanalytic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of p o l i t i c a l motivations. Paige (1977) f e e l s that Sabine's (1937) History of P o l i t i c a l Theory was a contributing f a c t o r , as well as a prime example of, the lack of attention given to the systematic study of p o l i t i c a l leadership. He thinks that this text had a s i g n i f i c a n t influence on the outlook of generations of p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s . In t h i s book there i s only one reference to the concept of leadership. The entry referred to Fascism and National socialism. Although Sabine discussed ideas related to the notion of p o l i t i c a l leadership, the ideas were scattered throughout the text and l e f t as unrelated concepts (Paige, 1977). In spite of Sabine's impact the l a s t f o r t y years have seen a growing i n t e r e s t i n the s c i e n t i f i c analysis of p o l i t i c a l leadership among p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s and others. The issues confronted i n the study of p o l i t i c a l leadership are not much d i f f e r e n t from those encountered i n the analysis of leadership i n general. C a r l y l e " s (1841/1907) theory that the h i s t o r y of the world i s but the biography of great men seems to be r e f l e c t e d i n the works of modern researchers such as Wolfenstein (1967) i n h i s psychoanalytic study of revolutionary leaders and Barber (1965, 1966, 1972) i n h i s attempt to predict leader performance on the basis of the active-passive (propensity for a c t i v i t y ) and the positive-negative ( a f f e c t ) dimensions. Each of these researchers sought to understand the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of leaders. They assume that d i s p o s i t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have a great deal to do with the emergence of great leaders. However, i n concentrating on the leader's personality t r a i t s these researchers and others l i k e them f a i l e d to take into account that the leader's personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and values must s u i t the needs and expectations of h i s followers (Katz, 1973). Great leaders have l o s t t h e i r p o s i t i o n s , not because they have changed but because the needs and wants of the followers have changed. The Shah of Iran, for example, had 9 a devoted following who supported his Western-oriented p o l i c i e s . But when a r e l i g i o u s leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, challenged h i s deviations from t r a d i t i o n a l Islamic f a i t h , the Shah's influence began to crumble with tragic r e s u l t s for the country. S t i l l there i s a need to study the personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p o l i t i c a l leaders. At times, such t r a i t s may even be the c r i t i c a l factor i n i n f l u e n c i n g followers and engendering i n them attitudes of devotion, as i n the case of charismatic leaders such as Napoleon, President Kennedy, and Ghandi. The thing to remember when studying personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s to r e l a t e the t r a i t s to the s o c i a l f i e l d i n which they are operating. Leadership i s a dynamic process involving the leader, the led and the environmental circumstances of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . As i n the general leadership l i t e r a t u r e , so we fin d i n the f i e l d of p o l i t i c a l leadership, a controversy over which end of the s i t u a t i o n - d i s p o s i t i o n continuum to focus on. Opposing the Great Man theory of leadership i s the s i t u a t i o n a l view which i s preoccupied with the c u l t u r a l determinants of p o l i t i c a l leadership. The c u l t u r a l i s t s (or s i t u a t i o n a l i s t s ) assume that s o c i a l conditions are so firmly structured that the leader cannot manoeuver within them, and that there are a number of people who because of the circumstances could assume leadership positions (Katz, 1973). Katz (1973) sees leadership as a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the leader and the followers and the ways i n which they communicate and i n t e r a c t within a s o c i a l context. He l i s t s four major dimensions of the s o c i a l settings i n which leadership takes place. The f i r s t i s the degree of formal r o l e structure. For example, i n the m i l i t a r y a great deal of role-determined behaviour e x i s t s whereas i n a public meeting only a l i t t l e structure would be imposed on behaviour. The second dimension i s that of primary versus secondary r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Is the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the followers to the leader d i r e c t , as i n a club meeting, or secondary, as i n a p o l i t i c a l r a l l y ? The t h i r d dimension i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the "leader-followers unit to other systems. Is i t an independent or dependent sort of r e l a t i o n s h i p with other organizations or groups? The l a s t dimension Kat discusses i s the mixture of types of i n s t i t u t i o n s within the system. Here he seems to be speaking of a r e l a t i v e l y large group of followers. The types of i n s t i t u t i o n s vary from p r i m a r i l y democratic to dominantly a u t h o r i t a r i a n . On h i s t o r i c a l grounds, i t can be argued that the assumption of the immutable impact of the s i t u a t i o n appears to be based on shaky ground. Hook (1943), i n defending the personality view of p o l i t i c a l leadership, hypothesized not only that the s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s of p a r t i c u l a r events can be ascribed to a s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l , but also that no other i n d i v i d u a l could have behaved i n a sim i l a r manner. Therefore one might argue that even with the general s o c i a l unrest i n 1939 Europe, without H i t l e r the p a r t i c u l a r a t r o c i t i e s of World War II would never have come t pass. In his review of research on p o l i t i c a l leadership, Seligman (1950) analyzed f i v e approaches to the study of that body of work. The f i r s t emphasized the s o c i a l status or po s i t i o n of the leader; focusing on the leader's demographic background. According to Seligman i t s major contribution i s a " s t a t i s t i c a l tabulation of c o l l e c t i v i t i e s of leaders" (p. 908). He concluded that t h i s approach has produced l i t t l e of s i g n i f i c a n c e , and would be much improved i f i t looked at s o c i a l class impediments faced by po t e n t i a l leaders and the extent to which these might i n t e r f e r e with the free recruitment of leadership. A second approach to examining leadership focuses on the type of s o c i a l structures e x i s t i n g i n the p o l i t i c a l m i l i e u . While work i n the area of s o c i a l atmospheres (Lewin, 1942) was done i n small group laboratory experiments, Seligman f e l t that the r e s u l t s could apply to p o l i t i c a l l i f e i n such ways as "understanding the inner workings of large p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s " and "the study of chief executives i n t h e i r inner c i r c l e s " (p. 909). This approach awaits further applications and research. A t h i r d approach to studying leadership i s to look at i t i n the context of formal i n d u s t r i a l organizations. After pointing out a s e r i e s of seemingly c r u c i a l l i m i t a t i o n s to the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of this approach Seligman conceded that factors other than p o l i t i c a l ones could be examined for t h e i r contribution to the understanding of leadership behaviour. A fourth method i s one we should now be f a m i l i a r with, the study of personality types. The problems inherent i n t h i s approach have been discussed i n the previous section. Seligman wisely points out that "a good f u l l - l e n g t h treatment of p a r t i c u l a r p o l i t i c a l leaders that w i l l attempt-to cast psychological factors i n t h e i r s o c i a l contextual mold i s needed" (p. 911). A f i f t h approach to leadership analysis i s the p o l i t i c a l biography. This was the approach taken by C a r l y l e (1841/1907) and centuries before him by the well-known Greek, Plutarch (ca. A.D. 40-120), who wrote at least f i f t y biographies of Greek and Roman leaders ( c i t e d i n Paige 1977, p. 16). Seligman holds out hope for this approach. Although, he says i t lacks " c r i t e r i a and conceptualization" i t abounds i n r i c h i n s i g h t s which he thinks are to be gained through the a p p l i c a t i o n of the t h e o r e t i c a l perspective of s o c i a l science (p. 912). Looking at the analysis of p o l i t i c a l leadership from the point of view of a p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t , Paige (1977) reviewed six current approaches to the topic. In each he noted t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to p o l i t i c a l leadership. The f i r s t approach i s through the notion of power. Paige ref e r s to Dahl's (1963) Modern P o l i t i c a l Analysis as a good summary of an approach to p o l i t i c a l analysis i n terms of the notions of influence and power. He says that although Dahl does not l i n k these s concepts to leadership himself, he defines influence as "a r e l a t i o n among actors i n which one actor induces others to act i n some way they would otherwise not act." This coincides with McFarland's (1969, p. 155) d e f i n i t i o n of the leader as "the one who makes things happen that would not happen otherwise." Dahl's measurement of leader's influence places emphasis on the behaviour of the followers. The f i v e measures he suggests are: "(1) the amount of change i n the actor influenced, (2) the subjective psychological costs of compliance, (3) the amount of difference i n the p r o b a b i l i t y of compliance, (4) differences i n the scope of the responses, and (5) the number of persons who respond" ( c i t e d i n Paige, 1977, p. 17). The second approach to p o l i t i c a l analysis that Paige discusses focuses on the study of decision-making. Snyder (1958) stressed the processes of organizational decision-making by o f f i c i a l s i n a " d e c i s i o n a l u n i t . " Out of a series of a l t e r n a t i v e s , he suggested, one project would be selected through the i n t e r a c t i o n of three " v a r i a b l e c l u s t e r s " ("spheres of competence", "communication and information," and "motivation") to achieve the outcome desired by the decision-makers. Like Dahl (1963) Snyder did not l i n k his theory of decision-making to p o l i t i c a l leadership. That connnection i s made by Paige (1977). A t h i r d approach to p o l i t i c a l analysis comes through Deutsch's (1963) discussion of cybernetics. Paige (1977) int e r p r e t s this approach as viewing "leadership as the behaviour of a steersman-communicator who decides, controls, a l l o c a t e s , learns and innovates" (Paige, p. 21). Deutsch sees government less i n terms of power and more i n terms of steering. Easton's The P o l i t i c a l System (1953) i s representative of the fourth approach Paige discusses. In attempting to s h i f t the d i s c i p l i n e ' s emphasis away from the concept of power, Easton said " p o l i t i c a l science i s the study of the a u t h o r i t a t i v e a l l o c a t i o n of values as i t i s influenced by the d i s t r i b u t i o n and use of power" (1953, p. 146). Paige suggests that Easton sees leadership as a "need" that i s "imposed" by requirements of the general p o l i t i c a l system. Therefore, l i k e power, i t is not a central concern of government. In h i s l a t e r work Easton (1965) focused on the behaviours of p o l i t i c a l leaders. As Paige points out, he introduced the notion of leadership as "gatekeeping", and the function of the leader as a " s t r u c t u r a l mechanism" for c o n t r o l l i n g the conversion of wants in t o demands and demands into s o c i a l p o l i c y . The f i f t h approach to p o l i t i c a l analysis that Paige discusses i s s t r u c t u r a l functionalism. Paige treats Almond's (1960) paper as a s i g n i f i c a n t introduction to t h i s approach. In i t no e x p l i c i t mention i s made of the functions of leadership within the p o l i t i c a l system . Instead, r e l a t e d behaviours such as " i n i t i a t i o n , modification and vetoing" are mentioned. The s i x t h and l a s t approach to p o l i t i c a l analysis dealt with by Paige i s the one he terms "the new p o l i t i c a l economy." Its major proponents, Ilchman and Uphoff (1969) do not deal d i r e c t l y with the concept of leadership but rather with the job of the "statesman." However, Paige suggests that leadership behaviour w i l l be highly v i s i b l e i n t h i s approach to p o l i t i c a l science because i t deals with the decisions made concerning the a l l o c a t i o n of scarce resources. The i n t e r e s t of the " p o l i t i c a l economists" (a new kind of p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t ) i s i n improving the choices made by the "statesman" and by other "resource a l l o c a t o r s " (Paige, 1977, pp. 30-31). While only one of these s i x approaches examines p o l i t i c a l leadership e x p l i c i t l y they a l l deal with the concept to some degree. Paige a t t r i b u t e s this general lack of focus to the "European i n t e l l e c t u a l influences" upon p o l i t i c a l science i n the West. The combined impact of three kinds of determinism—evolutionary, psychological, and economic—served to create an atmosphere i n which no i n d i v i d u a l p o l i t i c a l leader was thought capable of a l t e r i n g the course of events. ( I f t h i s were true one would expect the Great Man theory of leadership within p o l i t i c a l science to have gained very l i t t l e favour). Despite t h i s r e s t r i c t i v e influence, Paige believes that "wherever r e l a t i v e l y free s o c i a l science inquiry i s possible, i t i s l i k e l y that the s c i e n t i f i c study of p o l i t i c a l leadership w i l l a r i s e " (p. 40). Twenty-seven years a f t e r Seligman 1s p i v o t a l paper, Hermann (1977) published a book which focused e x c l u s i v e l y on the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p o l i t i c a l leaders. Her d e f i n i t i o n of personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s says that they are comprised of factors on a continuum. At one end are " t r a i t s , " which are those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s remaining stable across a wide v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s . On the other end of the continuum are " s t a t e s , " those personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which are related to s p e c i f i c kinds of s i t u a t i o n s . Although i t i s true that t h i s approach s t i l l places the major emphasis on the leader rather than on the led or t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n with each other, her d e f i n i t i o n of "states" makes i t obvious that she understands the impact of s i t u a t i o n a l l y defined conditions. Meas uxing the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p o l i t i c a l leaders can be a wearisome task. Securing access to a leader, gaining h i s or her cooperation and f i n a l l y t r y i n g to prevent the interference of image maintenance behaviour a l l enter into the job and complicate the data c o l l e c t i o n . There are a v a r i e t y of techniques being used to assess the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p o l i t i c a l leaders. Hermann (1977) has enumerated six of them and has pointed out which problems are avoided through t h e i r use. The f i r s t i s the questionnaire, which i s the most d i f f i c u l t technique to use with p o l i t i c a l leaders. These people are often i n a c c e s s i b l e , unwilling to p a r t i c i p a t e and have a vested i n t e r e s t i n maintaining a p a r t i c u l a r image. The second method i s the interview. There are two kinds. The f i r s t , the research interview, which i s conducted s p e c i f i c a l l y for research purposes; the second, the acquired or p o l i t i c a l business interview which may be conducted for reasons other than research. Obviously the f i r s t type of interview gives the researcher more control over the topics discussed. The acquired interview however does not require the permission of the p o l i t i c a l leader i n question to use the information for research. Because of t h e i r frequent public exposure observation i s useful i n assessing p o l i t i c a l leaders. One type of observation i s self-observation where the leader writes about himself. Another type uses informants such as colleagues to o u t l i n e the leader's personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and t h e i r e f f e c t s . A t h i r d type i s p a r t i c i p a n t observation i n which an observer p a r t i c i p a t e s i n the process he i s observing. F i e l d observation i s a fourth type where the p o l i t i c a l leader i s observed i n h i s natural p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n by an observer who describes what i s happening. This l a s t method of observation obviates the need for cooperation by the leader but does not control for image management. Hermann discusses biographical s t a t i s t i c s as a fourth way of assessing a p o l i t i c a l leader's personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . This method i s s i m i l a r to Seligman's s o c i a l status approach. None of the assessment problems found among the other techniques i s found i n t h i s method. Another technique Hermann discusses i s simulation. The d e f i n i t i o n she uses for simulation i s : "a f l e x i b l e i m i t a t i o n of processes and outcomes for the purposes of c l a r i f y i n g or explaining the underlying mechanisms involved" (Abelson, 1968b, p. 275). The advantage of t h i s approach, whether i t be computerized, all-person or person-machine simulations i s the a v a i l a b i l i t y and a c c e s s i b i l i t y of the "simulated" leaders and lack of image maintenance problems. The major question about the use of t h i s method concerns i t s v a l i d i t y . A f i n a l technique i n the analysis of p o l i t i c a l leaders i s content analysis. According to Hermann th i s method involves the coding of spoken or written work in t o meaningful categories. Some decisions to be made i n categorizing content revolve around the issues of q u a l i t y versus quantity and structure versus content. The advantages of t h i s technique are i t s a v a i l a b i l i t y and a c c e s s i b i l i t y . Only the problem of image maintenance r must be considered. Integrative Complexity In contrast to Hermann's (1977) content analysis of verbal material i s the s t r u c t u r a l notion of conceptual complexity (Harvey, Hunt and Schroder, 1961, and Schroder, Driver & S t r e u f e r t , 1967). This theory analyzes the structure of information processing ( i . e . the way a person combines information from both external and i n t e r n a l sources for adaptive purposes) and i s only minimally interested i n the measurement of content variables such as at t i t u d e s , b e l i e f s and needs. H i s t o r i c a l l y , the theory of conceptual complexity grew out of the developmental personality theory proposed by Harvey, Hunt & Schroder (1961). This theory viewed conceptual complexity as a personality t r a i t with four major stages of development that range along a concreteness-abstractness continuum. These four stages were l a b e l l e d Stage I - dependent, Stage II - counterdependent, Stage I I I - other directed, and Stage IV - independent. Dependence, counterdependence other-directedness and independence a l l r e f e r to the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between an i n d i v i d u a l and authority. It i s assumed that development occurs as a progression from a concrete and r i g i d method of concept formation and organization to a more abstract and f l e x i b l e perception and int e g r a t i o n of schema and rules for adapting to the environment. Which one of the four stages an i n d i v i d u a l reaches i s said to depend on childhood t r a i n i n g conditions. Development could be arrested at any of the stages i f conditions for progress were not met. Harvey, Hunt & Schroder outlined four t r a i n i n g conditions that they c a l l e d (1) r e l i a b l e u n i l a t e r a l t r a i n i n g , (2) u n r e l i a b l e u n i l a t e r a l t r a i n i n g , (3) protective interdependent t r a i n i n g and (4) informational interdependent t r a i n i n g . These four conditions lead to the development of Stages I to IV r e s p e c t i v e l y . According to the Harvey, Hunt & Schroder theory a t r a i n i n g environment that provides a l l the rules for behaviour and also r e l i a b l y administers rewards and punishments would cause a person to develop only to a Stage I, or dependent l e v e l of conceptual complexity. At the other extreme of the t r a i n i n g dimension i s the informational interdependent environment. This environment i s assumed to be so structured that the trainee has a l l the components necessary for independently generating e f f e c t i v e rules of behaviour. Under t h i s condition the trainee i s allowed to experience the consequences of behaviour and to evolve his own i n t e r n a l l y generated r u l e s , concepts, and connecting l i n k s . While t r a i n i n g conditions are said to determine a person's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l e v e l of conceptual complexity over the long term, the environment i s assumed to have short-term e f f e c t s on the l e v e l of conceptual complexity expressed. For example, i n novel and ambiguous situat i o n s i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l tend to revert to a Stage I l e v e l of information processing. Gradually, as information i s f i l t e r e d , organized and i n t e r r e l a t e d , the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l e v e l of functioning w i l l be resumed. The theory of information processing outlined by Schroder, Driver & Streufert (1967) concerns i t s e l f with how people integrate, combine, organize, and connect t h e i r rules for perceiving and d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g informational inputs. Their theory seeks to correct what they f e l t were shortcomings i n the Harvey, Hunt & Schroder (1961) version. This e a r l i e r version while claiming to be content free, a c t u a l l y depended heavily on one domain of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s (reaction to authority) to define the stages of development. In a t r u l y content free theory the information processing mechanism should apply equally to the entire range of possible domains. In addition, Schroder, Driver & Streufert (1967) noted that there i s a lack of empirical evidence supporting the contention that the process i s developmental i n nature. In the second version of the theory; Schroder, Driver & S t r e u f e r t (1967) focus on a personality v a r i a b l e that i s s t r u c t u r a l i n nature: a person's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l e v e l of complexity i n processing information under changing decision-making conditions. They consider l e v e l s of complexity to vary as a function of p a r t i c u l a r elements i n the environment. These w i l l be discussed below. The Schroder, Driver & Streufert theory of information processing complexity i s largely concerned with how a person perceives d i f f e r e n t kinds of information and how these perceptions are then organized for adaptive purposes. Perception i s measured i n terms of the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n or placement of a given set of stimuli along unique dimensions. Organization i s seen i n terms of the nature of the linkages among the various aspects of the stimuli which were placed along those unique dimensions. The number of connections among these aspects and the character of t h e i r interrelatedness determines the l e v e l of complexity. B a s i c a l l y the theory deals with "the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a person and the objects of h i s world" (Schroder et a l . , 1967, p. 9). The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l e v e l of information processing develops over time. It "evolves through the development of new and c o n f l i c t i n g d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s " ( i . e . new interpretations of the same event) "and the use of new and more complex rules to i n t e r r e l a t e and unify these d i f f e r e n t i a t e d components" (Schroder et a l . , 1967, p. 45). The l e v e l reached i s a consequence of learning and learning i s limited only by an i n d i v i d u a l ' s "neurological p o t e n t i a l . " According to Schroder, Driver & Streufert (1967), the kind of t r a i n i n g environment an i n d i v i d u a l experiences a f f e c t s both the p a r t i c u l a r responses or rules for r e l a t i n g to environmental s t i m u l i and the nature of the coping strategies used with p a r t i c u l a r classes of s t i m u l i (p. 12). They describe two basic kinds of t r a i n i n g environments, the u n i l a t e r a l or deductive environment where rules for behaviour are externally generated and the interdependent or inductive environment i n which rules for behaviour are i n t e r n a l l y generated. In the u n i l a t e r a l deductive t r a i n i n g environment the t r a i n i n g agent (parent, teacher, guide) structures the environment by providing a l l the necessary rules f o r "correct behavior". The trainee's responses are c o n t r o l l e d through the a p p l i c a t i o n of rewards and punishments. Under these conditions the trainee learns the basic responses required to s a t i s f y the t r a i n e r . And he or she also learns to adapt to changing environmental conditions by looking to external rules as guidelines for " c o r r e c t " responding. The consequences of the o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of a u n i l a t e r a l t r a i n i n g environment i s to i n h i b i t the emergence of a l t e r n a t i v e perceptions of the same s t i m u l i and to i n t e r f e r e with the p o t e n t i a l development of abstract s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (Schroder, et a l . , 1967, p. 48). These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have some behavioral s i m i l a r i t i e s to the Stage I and II functioning i n d i v i d u a l s under Harvey, Hunt & Schroder's (1961) theory. Within the interdependent or inductive t r a i n i n g environment the t r a i n i n g agent structures the environment so that a l l the components necessary for generating adaptive schema or rules for behaviour are present. This kind of learning environment encourages exploration and questioning, while at the same time allowing the trainee to experience the consequences of his or her i n t e r a c t i o n with the environment. Through the exploration of h i s or her environment the trainee learns to generate new and d i f f e r e n t perceptions of objects and events and to integrate these i n more complex ways. The interdependent or inductive t r a i n i n g condition allows the trainee to learn to apply self-generated rules and schema when adapting to a changing environment. On the other hand, the u n i l a t e r a l or deductive t r a i n i n g condition teaches adaptation i n terms of the a p p l i c a t i o n of f i x e d , e x t e r n a l l y given rules (Schroder et a l . , 1967, p. 49). 21 Levels of Conceptual Complexity The two s t r u c t u r a l variables that determine the l e v e l of information processing complexity are d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and i n t e g r a t i o n . As mentioned e a r l i e r , d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n refers to the number of d i f f e r e n t a t t r i b u t e s or components a person sees i n a set of s t i m u l i within a s i t u a t i o n , and i n t e g r a t i o n r e f e r s to the extent to which complex i n t e r r e l a t i o n s develop among these d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s . Low l e v e l s of i n t e g r a t i o n r e f l e c t a compartmentalized view of the d i f f e r e n t i a t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Increasing amounts of i n t e r a c t i o n s among the components i s a sign of increasing s t r u c t u r a l complexity. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a low l e v e l of complexity have been outlined by Schroder, Driver & Streufert (1967). D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n at t h i s l e v e l tends to be r i g i d , with objects, events and issues being perceived as either belonging or not belonging to a p a r t i c u l a r category. No f i n e gradations are made along any perceived dimensions. Integration among d i f f e r e n t i a t e d categories tend to be h i e r a r c h i c a l . Seeking fast closure when solving problems r e f l e c t s the avoidance of uncertainty and c o n f l i c t that i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h i s l e v e l of complexity. Behavior at t h i s l e v e l tends to depend on external cues. The low complexity i n d i v i d u a l tends to over-generalize responses to a range of s t i m u l i . Subtle changes i n the s i t u a t i o n w i l l go undetected u n t i l f i n a l l y the threshold for category i n c l u s i o n i s passed; at that point, dramatic changes i n behaviour occur. At high l e v e l s of conceptual complexity Schroder et a l . (1967) characterize functioning as being less determined by the environment and more a product of i n t e r n a l l y generated schema. More d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s are made and more complex i n t e r r e l a t i o n s occur. Complex rules for comparing and contrasting a l t e r n a t i v e interpretations are used and multiple points of view can be considered simultaneously. Perception of changing environmental conditions occurs r a p i d l y and behaviour can be r e a d i l y adapted to meet new s i t u a t i o n s . Individuals at this end of the dimension tend to search for novelty and for more information. <• E f f e c t s of the Environment Upon Levels of Information Processing  Complexity While t r a i n i n g conditions have a long-term impact upon the development of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l e v e l s of information processing, there are several environmental conditions that a f f e c t information processing i n the short run. They are environmental complexity, noxity and eucity. Environmental complexity varies as a function of informational input load. The input complexity varies across two f e a t u r e s — t h e number of dimensions of information presented during a set time and the d i v e r s i t y of information, including the number of alt e r n a t i v e s added by each piece of information (Schroder et a l . , 1967, p. 55). Schroder, Driver & Streufert (1967) hypothesize that increasing environmental complexity and load appear i n i t i a l l y to increase information processing complexity (as measured by the degree of f l e x i b l e i n t e g r a t i o n used i n decision-making) to a peak, then cause the l e v e l to decrease under conditions of "information overload" (Schroder et a l . , 1967, p. 61). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between environmental complexity and l e v e l of i n t e g r a t i v e complexity seems best to be described by an inverted U curve. Environmental noxity r e f e r s to "the amount of threat, pain or f r u s t r a t i o n i n the environment" while eucity refers to "the amount of promise, pleasure, and reward" (Schroder et a l . , 1967, p. 67). Schroder, Driver & Streufert (1967) report that when environmental complexity and i n t e r e s t are held constant at a high l e v e l , increasing noxity decreases the l e v e l of conceptual complexity (p. 81). On the other hand increasing eucity increases the l e v e l of complexity when the environmental input load i s held constant (p. 81). Schroder, Driver & Streufert suggest that there i s some evidence (Driver, 1962, c i t e d i n Schroder et a l . , 1967), that when eucity and noxity become superoptimal the information processing structure may diminish to a less complex l e v e l of function (pp. 83-84). \ • The e f f e c t s of varying degrees of ambiguity or uncertainty i n a s i t u a t i o n depend upon the l e v e l of complexity of the i n d i v i d u a l i n the s i t u a t i o n . In general i n an ambiguous s i t u a t i o n the abstract i n d i v i d u a l w i l l spend more time processing information about the s i t u a t i o n than w i l l the concrete i n d i v i d u a l . As uncertainty i n the s i t u a t i o n increases the abstract person w i l l increase his or her amount of information searching and processing more than w i l l the conceptually concrete person. The conceptually simple person's peak searching and processing times occur at lower l e v e l s of environmental uncertainty and demand than do a complex person's peaks. The complex person's conceptual complexity should increase r a p i d l y as a function of increasing information input load. With more information more connections can be generated. In turn more information i s required to evaluate the p l a u s i b i l i t y of the a d d i t i o n a l i n t e g r a t i o n s . The concrete person on the other hand w i l l tend to structure the information so as to reduce the number of a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . Thus lower complexity i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l tend to spend less time searching f o r , or processing information. Upon reaching a decision abstract people are more l i k e l y to q u a l i f y the outcome by r e t a i n i n g a sense of uncertainty and hesitancy about i t than are concrete people (Schroder et a l . , 1967, p. 114). 24 Measuring Integrative Complexity According to Schroder, Driver & Streufert's (1967) theory, complexity can be measured i n verbal material. They use the semi-projective Paragraph Completion Test (PCT) to generate the scoring material. The PCT consists of sentence stems which tap a vari e t y of interpersonal domains. For example, r e l a t i o n s h i p s with authority are sampled by stems such as "Rules" and "Parents", while responses to interpersonal uncertainty are e l i c i t e d by stems such as "When my f r i e n d acts d i f f e r e n t l y towards me," or "When I am c r i t i c i z e d . " The completions that i n d i v i d u a l s are instructed to write i n response to these stems are scored on a 7-point scale (See Appendix B). The guidelines i n s t r u c t the rater to score the material for d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n rules and for the nature and degree of linkages among the rules expressed i n the responses. (For a detai l e d scoring manual see Schroder et a l . , 1967, Appendix B). Integrative Complexity In the t h i r d generation of the s t r u c t u r a l complexity theory of information processing, Suedfeld (1976) analyzes a d i f f e r e n t aspect of the notion. He suggests that rather than focusing on a r e l a t i v e l y stable personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c he would consider complexity to be a purely cognitive aspect of information processing that i n t e r a c t s with the environment. In t h i s respect complexity i s a state s p e c i f i c v a r i a b l e that can vary across s i t u a t i o n s , whereas Schroder, Driver & Streufert's (1967) primary i n t e r e s t i s i n complexity as a r e l a t i v e l y stable, d i s p o s i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e . In Suedfeld's (1976) version the issue of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l e v e l of complexity i s not addressed. Instead he e x p l i c i t l y looks at the environmental conditions that a f f e c t the manifest l e v e l of information processing. Under increasing degrees of environmental stress, for example, i n t e g r a t i v e complexity would r i s e to . . . ./ an optimal peak and then diminish as stress continues to increase. Schroder, Driver and Streufert (1967) claimed to have l e f t behind the evaluative component of s t r u c t u r a l complexity that was implied i n the o r i g i n a l version of Harvey, Hunt & Schroder (1961). However, the f e e l i n g that to be more complex was "better" than being simple s t i l l emerged. For example, i n Streufert & Schroder's (1965) study of changes i n l e v e l s of information processing as a function of increasing input complexity, the authors suggest that concrete i n d i v i d u a l s tend to be " t i e d to" t h e i r environment. As a r e s u l t they react " i n a d i r e c t ( r e t a l i a t o r y ) way" to each and every input, whereas more abstract i n d i v i d u a l s avoid reacting to every input. Streufert & Schroder (1965) i n f e r that there i s an inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p between q u a l i t y and quantity of decisions. In the Suedfeld (1976) i t e r a t i o n with the focus on the i n t e r a c t i o n between s i t u a t i o n a l components and processing structure, the non-evaluative nature of the theory can more e a s i l y be seen. For example, situ a t i o n s spring r e a d i l y to mind where a simple, concrete l e v e l of information processing would be far more adaptive than a more abstract, hypothesis t e s t i n g approach. Responding quickly and exactly to a fireman's i n s t r u c t i o n s during the evacuation of a burning b u i l d i n g i s just one case where a simple l e v e l of processing and responding would be most adaptive. Suedfeld and Rank's (1976) version of the inte g r a t i v e complexity theory d i f f e r s from the e a r l i e r ones i n two other ways, inv o l v i n g the methodology and the context of hypothesis t e s t i n g . The methodology uses verbal material found i n various public documents: l e t t e r s , speeches, t r a n s c r i p t s of interviews, e d i t o r i a l s , etc. Material relevant to a p a r t i c u l a r issue (or h i s t o r i c a l period, major c r i s i s or i n d i v i d u a l ) i s selected and randomly sampled. The scoring units or paragraphs are rated by trained judges following a revised (Suedfeld, 1978) version of the scoring manual (Schroder et a l . , ,(1967) developed for r a t i n g the Paragraph Completion Test responses. With t h i s change i n methodology, from scoring sentence completions to r a t i n g a r c h i v a l material, comes the opportunity to broaden the context of hypothesis t e s t i n g . We can go back i n t o h i s t o r y and score the complexity of well-known h i s t o r i c a l figures whose written work has survived. We can now ask questions about world events, h i s t o r i a l issues and about' i n d i v i d u a l s from the past. Easy access to such r i c h material has tremendously expanded the usefulness of t h i s technique. The following studies have used t h i s approach to examine questions concerning the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the environment and information processing i n a v a r i e t y of h i s t o r i c a l l y e x c i t i n g periods. Suedfeld and Rank (1976) tested the hypothesis that d i f f e r i n g p o l i t i c a l environments would require d r a s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t types of leadership. They examined the integrative complexity of revolutionary leaders during t h e i r period of eminence p r i o r to a successful attempt to overthrow the e x i s t i n g government. During t h i s period e f f e c t i v e leadership c a l l s for a single-minded, dogmatic approach. However, continued success i n a government i n control would require a more f l e x i b l e , compromising and pragmatic stance i n i t s leader. Therefore, i n d i v i d u a l s who were successful during the revolution and who maintained t h e i r p o s i t i o n of leadership i n v i c t o r y should show a pattern of low i n t e g r a t i v e complexity p r i o r to the takeover of power and increased complexity afterwards. Written material for nineteen leaders chosen from f i v e successful revolutionary movements during the 17th, 18th, and 20th centuries were scored for i n t e g r a t i v e complexity. The r e s u l t s show that indeed successful leaders were those who exhibited an increase i n complexity from a pre-revolutionary takeover low to a post-victory high. In another study Suedfeld, Tetlock & Ramirez (1977) scored the i n t e g r a t i v e complexity of speeches by representatives of I s r a e l , Egypt and Syria, the USA and the USSR. Given i n the United Nations General Assembly, the speeches were concerned with Middle East c o n f l i c t s . Samples were taken from a twenty year period between 1947 and 1976. The researchers were interested i n whether changes i n i n t e g r a t i v e complexity i n the speeches were related i n a systematic way to the recurrent outbreak of armed h o s t i l i t i e s i n the Middle East. The r e s u l t s indicated that i n the months p r i o r to each Middle East war (1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973) the complexity of information processing decreased s i g n i f i c a n t l y from i t s peacetime l e v e l i n a l l speeches except the Russians. Further, the I s r a e l i l e v e l dropped to the lowest score each time. Interpreting these r e s u l t s Suedfeld et a l . (1977) suggest that the prewar drop i n complexity i s r e l a t e d to the seriousness of the possible negative consequences for the p a r t i c u l a r country. They go on to suggest that to the Russian government the nearness of war i n the Middle East may represent the p o s s i b i l i t y of p o s i t i v e outcomes for the USSR and therefore does not lead to a decrease i n complexity. Another study by Suedfeld & Tetlock (1977) applied the i n t e g r a t i v e complexity techniques to the analysis of communications among high l e v e l decision-makers during c r i s e s i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s . In two studies they examined f i v e c r i s e s , two r e s u l t i n g i n war (WW I and the Korean War) and three being resolved peacefully (the Agadir incident of 1911, the B e r l i n Blockade i n 1948 and the Cuban M i s s i l e c r i s i s of 1962). When the a r c h i v a l material was scored i t appeared that peacefully resolved c o n f l i c t s are characterized by higher l e v e l s of communicative (communicative both among members of one party to the c o n f l i c t , as well as between parties) complexity, and c r i s e s ending i n war, with lower l e v e l s . Levi & Tetlock (1980) analyzed records from both private and public statements made by Japanese p o l i c y makers i n the period leading to the Japanese decision to go to war with the United States i n 1941. The authors were te s t i n g the "d i s r u p t i v e s t r e s s " hypothesis (Hermann & Brady, 1972) that suggests crisis-produced stress has detrimental e f f e c t s on i n d i v i d u a l policymakers' cognitive coping responses. Their r e s u l t s , however, showed no evidence, of decreasing complexity as the decision to go to war drew near. Only one central leader (the Chief of Staff of the Imperial Navy) showed the expected change. I t was suggested that perhaps he perceived that greater losses would occur within his department than elsewhere should Japan go to war with United States. These r e s u l t s tend to weaken the argument for the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the disruptive stress hypothesis for explaining how c r i s e s q u a l i t a t i v e l y influence decision making. However, the r e s u l t s may also be interpreted to mean that the disruptive stress hypothesis does not apply to an extended period of fr u s t r a t e d negotiations but might s t i l l explain decision-making behaviour i n the case of r a p i d l y i n t e n s i f y i n g b e l l i g e r e n t acts following an i n i t i a l dramatic event (Suedfeld 1980). An i n t e r e s t i n g trend emerged from these data. Integrative complexity scores were co n s i s t e n t l y lower i n the L i a i s o n Conferences where p o l i c i e s were being formulated than i n Imperial Conferences where these p o l i c i e s were being presented to the Emperor and his advisors for t h e i r approval. Levi and Tetlock suggest that when i n t e r p r e t i n g measures of cognitive structure, researchers should consider the s o c i a l context i n which the statements are made. -> To investigate the degree of influence that psychological variables have on h i g h - l e v e l p o l i t i c a l decisions, Tetlock (1981) examined the foreign p o l i c y preferences of United States senators. He focused h i s analysis on senators who varied i n t h e i r commitment to American i s o l a t i o n i s m . In choosing t h i s variables he intended to test McClosky's (1967) hypotheses concerning the psychological superstructure of i s o l a t i o n i s m . McClosky argued that i s o l a t i o n i s t s (those who oppose giving aid or commitments to other nations) vary from n o n i s o l a t i o n i s t s on a v a r i e t y of dimensions, including tolerance of ambiguity and cognitive inconsistency, c a t e g o r i c a l versus f l e x i b l e thinking, and emotional responses to i n - and out-groups (Tetlock, 1981, p. 738). Tetlock scored the i n t e g r a t i v e complexity of s e n a t o r i a l speeches i n the 82nd Congress that were relevant to foreign p o l i c y . He also performed an evaluative assertive assessment that measured i n t e n s i t y of speakers' attitudes towards a p a r t i c u l a r group or issue on the same material (Osgood, Saporta and Nunnelly, 1956). The r e s u l t s supported McClosky's (1967) hypotheses as applied to i s o l a t i o n i s t senators i n the 82nd Congress. These people were s i g n i f i c a n t l y less i n t e g r a t i v e l y complex than n o n i s o l a t i o n i s t s , made fewer complex p o l i c y statements, held more extreme and polarized a t t i t u d e s , and evaluated out-groups more negatively and in-groups more p o s i t i v e l y . Porter & Suedfeld (1981) investigated the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the i n t e g r a t i v e complexity of f i v e eminent 19th and 20th century n o v e l i s t s and various personal and s o c i a l stresses i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l ' environments. This i s the f i r s t study to focus on the e f f e c t s of environmental stress on the information processing of n o n - p o l i t i c a l i n d i v i d u a l s . The r e s u l t s indicated that events i n a person's l i f e can r e s u l t i n changes i n i n t e g r a t i v e complexity. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , complexity tended to increase with age. Decreased l e v e l s of complexity were associated with i l l n e s s and one's terminal years (that i s , the l a s t few years prior to death). Integrative complexity varied as a function of the arena of c o n f l i c t . International h o s t i l i t i e s were correlated with r e l a t i v e l y low l e v e l s of complexity while c i v i l unrest was correlated with higher complexity l e v e l s . This d i f f e r e n t i a l response to c o n f l i c t , depending on whether i t i s c i v i l or i n t e r n a t i o n a l , may be a r e f l e c t i o n of the varying l e v e l s of threat perceived under the two conditions. In the case of i n t e r n a l disruptions, information, concerning the various sides of the issue i s r e l a t i v e l y easy to obtain. This a v a i l a b i l i t y i n t e r a c t s with the l i k e l i h o o d of frequent public debates over possible solutions to the problem to produce an environment where more f l e x i b l e and open-ended information processing can occur. This kind of processing may tend to d i f f u s e some of the threat posed by the s i t u a t i o n ; Evaluations of Canadian Prime Ministers Continuing i n t e r e s t i n p o l i t i c a l leadership i s r e f l e c t e d i n both the popular (Gwyn, 1980) and the professional l i t e r a t u r e (Hermann, 1977; Paige, 1977). What makes our leaders successful, e f f e c t i v e , under what motives do they operate, what are t h e i r common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ? A l l of these questions are frequently asked. An abundance of research concerning American leaders i s a v a i l a b l e showing the heroic e f f o r t of researchers to answer just such questions. The success or f a i l u r e of the United States Presidents as leaders have been ranked (Schlesinger, 1948, 1962), t h e i r motives have been categorized (Lasswell, 1930, 1960), both t h e i r performance and t h e i r greatness as president have been analyzed (Maranell, 1970; Simonton, 1980) and the development of t h e i r p r e s i d e n t i a l s t y l e i n terms of active-passive energy and positive-negative a f f e c t has been outlined (Barber, 1972). We can f i n d studies about American presidents from just about every aspect of leadership previously mentioned: personality t r a i t s , s i t u a t i o n a l determinants, behavioural aspects and environmental-d i s p o s i t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n . What we cannot f i n d i s an equivalently broad s e l e c t i o n of research l i t e r a t u r e related to our national Canadian leaders. There are d e s c r i p t i v e books dealing chapter by chapter with each Prime M i n i s t e r ' s " term i n o f f i c e . Authors such as Donaldson (1969), Hutchison (1967) and Ondaatje and Catherwood (1967) have outlined the major p o l i t i c a l issues facing each Prime M i n i s t e r , given some biographical h i s t o r y of each man and discussed t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . And now almost a l l of our sixteen Prime Ministers have had i n d i v i d u a l biographies written about them. However, to date, there has been no systematic ranking, r a t i n g or comparison of our Prime M i n i s t e r s . Nor has there been any quantitative examination of t h e i r effectiveness i n o f f i c e . When looking at our sixteen national leaders i s i t reasonable to assume that each one has an "absolute" value on such dimensions as honesty i n dealing with the public, strength of r o l e , amount of current prestige, etc.? Further, could experts i n the f i e l d of Canadian h i s t o r y and Canadian p o l i t i c a l science both recognize such a value, should i t exist? Are professionals whose perspective i s perhaps broader and more long-term ( i . e . the h i s t o r i a n s ) better equipped to evaluate a leader's p o s i t i o n along a p a r t i c u l a r continuum than professionals with a more current and perhaps narrower focus ( i . e . , the p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s ) ? One purpose of th i s study i s to ask the experts t h e i r opinions of the Prime Ministers on a v a r i e t y of dimensions. These ratings w i l l then be examined for t h e i r i n t e r n a l consistency among members on each dimension. Next they w i l l be analyzed for differences between professions. A long-standing problem i n the analysis of the integ r a t i v e complexity of speeches given by p o l i t i c a l , representatives of one kind or another has been the issue of whose complexity we are a c t u a l l y scoring. Is i t the complexity of the speaker? Or i s i t that of the speech writer? Whenever t h i s question i s posed the assumption has been that the two are not the same; that i s , that the speaker has had the speech written by a "ghost" w r i t e r . In the past, the response to th i s question has been that even when a ghost writer i s involved the compa t i b i l i t y of complexity l e v e l s can be assumed. I t i s u n l i k e l y that a very concrete speaker w i l l comfortably d e l i v e r , time and again, speeches of abstract complexity. Furthermore, i t i s assumed that speakers have some control over the st r u c t u r a l aspects, i f not always the content, of t h e i r own speeches. William Lyon Mackenzie King for example, was known to h a b i t u a l l y a l t e r his prepared speeches. In some instances he even deleted "purple passages" (Courtney, 1976, p. 90). In t h i s study the issue of whose complexity i s being scored w i l l be addressed_indirectly. Samples of the prepared speeches, i n the form of Responses to the Speech from the Throne, w i l l be scored for t h e i r i n t e g r a t i v e complexity. It i s i r r e l e v a n t to the issue whether these speeches were prepared s o l e l y by the Prime M i n i s t e r or by a speech writer or perhaps j o i n t l y by both. The only requirement i s that they have been prepared i n advance of d e l i v e r y . Then samples of extemporaneous speeches, c o l l e c t e d from the Prime M i n i s t e r s ' spontaneous responses to unexpected questions w i l l be scored for i n t e g r a t i v e complexity. Since these responses w i l l be sampled from debates occurring outside the formal question period (where some responses may have been prepared) i t i s assumed that they w i l l represent the i n t e g r a t i v e complexity of the Prime Minister alone. These two samples of complexity w i l l then be compared to.see i f there r e a l l y i s a difference between prepared speech complexity and spontaneous speech complexity. I f no difference i s found we w i l l continue to assume that speech writers match the int e g r a t i v e complexity of the speeches they write to that of the intended speaker. Once the Prime Ministers have been rated and ranked on the ten d i f f e r e n t dimensions ( d i f f i c u l t y of p o l i t i c a l issues, activeness, motives, strength of r o l e , effectiveness, prestige, innovativeness, f l e x i b i l i t y , honesty, and accomplishments) i t w i l l be of i n t e r e s t to see what systematic r e l a t i o n s h i p s may exi s t among and between the dimensions, and also between the dimensions and the Prime M i n i s t e r s ' l e v e l of complexity. For example, i t would appear l i k e l y that increased l e v e l s of complexity would be p o s i t i v e l y associated with f l e x i b i l i t y of approaches to implementing programmes and with innovativeness i n problem-solving. This study w i l l examine the cor r e l a t i o n s among the dimensions rated by the experts and between the dimensions and the in t e g r a t i v e complexity scores of the Prime M i n i s t e r s . The purpose of t h i s study i s to examine experts' opinions about our Prime M i n i s t e r s , on cer t a i n dimensions, to analyze the i n t e g r a t i v e complexity of both prepared and spontaneous speeches of the Prime M i n i s t e r s , to determine whether any systematic r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between expert's ratings of the Prime Ministers and the leaders' i n t e g r a t i v e complexity and f i n a l l y what re l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t among the dimensions scored by the experts. METHOD Expert Opinions Questionnaire S t a r t i n g with Schlesinger 1s' (1962) opinion p o l l items and Maranell's (1970) extension of those questions a revised set of items r e l a t i n g to various a t t r i b u t e s of the Canadian Prime Ministers and the nature of the times i n which they were i n power was developed. The i n i t i a l items were modified, r e f i n e d or replaced after consultation with two h i s t o r i a n s and one p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t . A p i l o t test using the revised items was run on f i v e h i s t o r i a n s and one p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t . The r e s u l t s indicated that the items were understandable and could be rated without an experimenter present to explain the format. The responses showed that experts could d i f f e r e n t i a t e among Prime Ministers on each of the items. The f i n a l set of questions consisted of ten items dealing with evaluations of the Prime Ministers and t h e i r s i t u a t i o n . An eleventh item served as a check on the amount of information the rater had about each Prime Minis t e r (see Appendix A). For each of the f i r s t ten items the rater was asked to score every Prime Minister on a scale from 1 to 7. The points were l a b e l l e d and a glossary was provided explaining, where necessary, the meaning of the labels i n t h i s context. In order to examine the p o s s i b i l i t y of systematic bias the following personal information was asked of each expert: age, sex, professional s p e c i a l t y within h i s or her f i e l d , academic rank, highest degree held and the i n s t i t u t i o n from which the highest degree was received. 35 Rater Selection L i s t s of 96 h i s t o r i a n s and of 139 p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s , s p e c i a l i z i n g i n Canadian studies, were compiled from u n i v e r s i t y calendars. These experts were facul t y members of u n i v e r s i t i e s across Canada. Packages of material were sent to the h i s t o r i a n s and p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s (see Appendix A). Each package contained a cover l e t t e r explaining the nature of the study and the request being made; a two-page information packet describing i n t e g r a t i v e complexity and giving a b r i e f ; referenced account of research that had used i n t e g r a t i v e complexity as a measure; a 13-page r a t i n g booklet; and a stamped self-addressed envelope for returning the questionnaire. An o f f e r was made i n the cover l e t t e r to send the r e s u l t s to the respondent should he or she so request. A space was l e f t on the personal information sheet to i n d i c a t e i n t e r e s t i n r e c e i v i n g the r e s u l t s of the survey. The anchor points were randomly set so that a low score did not always represent a "poor" score or one which might be considered p o l i t i c a l l y undesirable. Except for the eleventh item an option of not scorable (NS) was provided. This a l t e r n a t i v e was included i n response to the comments of the p i l o t study p a r t i c i p a n t s , who f e l t that some Prime Ministers had been i n o f f i c e for too short a period to be f a i r l y rated on ce r t a i n dimensions. Integrative Complexity Scores Two sets of complexity scores were obtained. The f i r s t was calculated from prepared speeches and the second from spontaneous speeches. The Response to the Speech from the Throne was used as the prepared speech. These speeches were found i n Hansard, which i s a book that reports verbatim the debates i n the House of Commons. Hansard i s ava i l a b l e from 1875 onward. For the 1867 and 1873 speeches, the Scrapbook Debates were used as source material. These books contained major speeches from the House but not i n f i r s t - p e r s o n form; rather, they are i n third-person verbatim form. I t was not d i f f i c u l t to return the speeches to the f i r s t person for scoring purposes. The Responses to the Speech from the Throne for thirteen of the sixteen Prime Ministers were photocopied. Because appropriate material could not be located for Abbott (1891), Bowell (1894) and Tupper (1896), these Prime Ministers were omitted from the rest of the analyses. Only the speech i n the f i r s t session of parliament following an e l e c t i o n was used. For Prime Ministers Macdonald and King, who were re-elected to o f f i c e a f t e r having been voted out of o f f i c e , the Response Speech for each newly returned term was sampled. In the cases of Meighen and Trudeau, only the Response Speech from the f i r s t e l e c t i o n was used, but for d i f f e r e n t reasons. Hansard does not record a Response to the Speech from the Throne for Meighen's second, b r i e f term i n o f f i c e i n 1926. In Trudeau's case, i t has only been just over a year since he was returned to o f f i c e a f t e r a b r i e f period i n Opposition. Because of t h i s , only the Response Speech from h i s i n i t i a l e l e c t i o n to o f f i c e i n 1968 was sampled. Sampling from spontaneous speeches was a more complicated matter. Spontaneous speeches were ones that seemed to occur as the r e s u l t of an unexpected question from the f l o o r of the House of Commons. Because many questions asked during Question Period and during the Inquiries of the M i n i s t r i e s were submitted for consideration i n advance of th e i r o f f i c i a l presentation i n the House, i t cannot be assumed that the responses were e n t i r e l y unprepared. For that reason only responses to questions occurring outside these formal periods were used as samples of extemporaneous speech. Except for Mackenzie (1873-1878), for whom Session Two was sampled, a l l responses to informal questions were chosen from the f i r s t session of Parliament following the Prime Minister's taking o f f i c e . Again, appropriate material could not be found f or Abbott, Bowell and Tupper. Each speech was divided into scorable u n i t s . (In a r c h i v a l work, Suedfeld (1978) has defined a scorable unit as a section of material, usually several sentences long, that focuses on one topi c . In some cases a paragraph i n the o r i g i n a l material may be broken up into two or more scorable units, each i n turn being c a l l e d a paragraph). The paragraphs were numbered se q u e n t i a l l y . Using a random number table, ten paragraphs were a r b i t r a r i l y selected from every speech, y i e l d i n g a t o t a l of 260 samples. For Prime Ministers Macdonald, and King, who had multiple terms to sample, the paragraphs were selected from the f i r s t session i n each of t h e i r terms. The number of paragraphs selected from any one term corresponded to the proportion of t o t a l - t i m e - i n - o f f i c e that that term represented. RESULTS Expert Opinion Questionnaire  Returns Of the 96 h i s t o r i a n s approached, 37 returned completed questionnaires; 15 others sent back the materials, d e c l i n i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. The reasons for r e f u s a l ranged from discountings of expertise i n the required area to attacks on the study's v a l i d i t y . A v a r i e t y of constructive remarks accompanied a portion of the completed returns. These w i l l be discussed i n the next chapter. A t o t a l of 60 p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s returned completed booklets, while 11 sent l e t t e r s of r e f u s a l . Again there was a similar range i n the tone of the l e t t e r s . The h e l p f u l comments which came from both par t i c i p a n t s and nonparticipants w i l l be discussed l a t e r . The Experts Twelve of the 37 h i s t o r i a n s who completed the questionnaire chose to do so anonymously. Of the 25 i d e n t i f y i n g themselves, 14 requested copies of the r e s u l t s of the study. Only 10 of the 60 p o l i t i c a l science p a r t i c i p a n t s omitted t h e i r names. Thirty-three of the remaining 50 indicated a desire to receive copies of the r e s u l t s . Ninety-four of the 97 respondents indicated the i n s t i t u t i o n where they currently teach as well as the u n i v e r s i t y from which they had received t h e i r highest degree. A l l ten provinces were represented (See Table 1 for d e t a i l s ) . Their t r a i n i n g was not l i m i t e d to Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s , although by far the largest number of the experts were educated i n Canada. Fifty-two respondents were graduates of Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s , 28 of American u n i v e r s i t i e s , 13 graduated from B r i t i s h 39 T a b l e 1 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Experts Currently Holding Academic Positions i n Canada Province Number of Raters B r i t i s h Columbia 18 Alberta 11 Saskatchewan 2 Manitoba 5 Ontario 51 Quebec 2 Prince Edward Island 1 New Brunswick 1 Nova Scotia 1 Newfoundland 2 Total 94 i n s t i t u t i o n s and one from the Un i v e r s i t y of P a r i s . I nterrater R e l i a b i l i t y To f i n d out the i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of the ratings, Cronbach's c o e f f i c i e n t alpha was calculated for each of the eleven scales. The sum of the ratings was treated as the value on which r e l i a b i l i t y was assessed. The f i r s t analysis was made for the 37 h i s t o r i a n s and 60 p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s separately. Since the r e s u l t i n g i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s were a l l s a t i s f a c t o r i l y high, (.94 to .99) across both the 37 and 60 respondents, the scores from the two groups of raters were pooled and i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s were determined for the ratings across t h i s combined sample of 97 respondents. In Table 2, the i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s are given — over the 97 respondents — for each of the 11 scales. The alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s for the 11 measures were .977 or higher, i n d i c a t i n g that the raters were not only measuring the same q u a l i t y within each dimension, but also that they had good agreement on the rank ordering of the Prime Min i s t e r s within each scale. The Prime Ministers During the years 1891 to 1896 Canada had four Conservative Prime Ministers who were v i r t u a l "caretakers." When Macdonald died i n 1891 the two l i k e l i e s t successors, Thompson, aged 47 and Tupper, aged 70, both declared t h e i r lack of i n t e r e s t i n the p o s i t i o n . Thompson demurred because he was too young and a converted Catholic from Nova Scotia, at t r i b u t e s guaranteed to lose him votes i n Ontario. Tupper declined because he was comfortably r e t i r e d i n London. Consequently, 70 year old Si r John Abbott was chosen. In his own words he was selected because he was "not p a r t i c u l a r l y obnoxious to anybody." 41 Table 2 Interrater R e l i a b i l i t i e s for the Responses of Historians and P o l i t i c a l S c i e n t i s t s Taken Together (97 raters) Interrater Dimension R e l i a b i l i t y 1. D i f f i c u l t y of the p o l i t i c a l issues .982 2. Active versus passive approach to governing .988 3. Motivating consideration - i d e a l i s t i c vs. p r a c t i c a l .977 4. Strength of r o l e .994 5. Effectiveness as party leader .988 6. Current prestige .996 7. Approach to solving national problems - t r a d i t i o n a l vs. innovative .985 8. F l e x i b i l i t y i n implementing p o l i c i e s or programmes .992 9. Honesty i n dealing with the public .983 10. S i g n i f i c a n c e of o v e r a l l accomplishments .996 11. Amount of information rater has about each Prime Minister .992 Abbott, i n e f f e c t , governed from the Senate while Thompson provided the leadership i n the Commons. Faced with economic depression and charges of serious governmental scandal, Abbott resigned i n poor health, a year and f i v e months af t e r taking o f f i c e . S i r John Thompson replaced Abbott. His unselfishness and high standards had earned him the respect and love of h i s countrymen but within two years the Conservatives l o s t t h e i r best leader for that era. v Thompson was dead at the age of 50. The t h i r d replacement, S i r Mackenzie Bowell, 61, was perhaps the worst leader the Conservatives could have selected. He has been described as "stupid, bigoted, conceited and a s l i g h t l y paranoic l i t t l e man" (Donaldson, 1969, p. 52). He i s the only Prime Minister to have had a f u l l scale cabinet r e v o l t . A f t e r seven of h i s Cabinet ministers resigned and warned o f f p o t e n t i a l replacements, Bowell was forced to resign. He held o f f i c e for one year and four months. The f i n a l successor to Macdonald was S i r Charles Tupper. Almost 75, Tupper f i n a l l y claimed the r o l e to which he had an undeniable r i g h t . Unfortunately when he went to the electorate to secure h i s p o s i t i o n , the unresolved issue of the Manitoba Catholic schools proved too great an obstacle. Tupper l o s t . His was the shortest term of any Canadian Prime M i n i s t e r — t h r e e months. Many of the experts f e l t that these four men were i n o f f i c e for too b r i e f a period to be r e l i a b l y scored. Consequently they have been dropped from a l l further analyses. Because Clark was a contemporary Prime Minister and information concerning h i s performance i n o f f i c e i s r e a d i l y , a v a i l a b l e , most experts rated him. Clark, therefore, was included i n most of the analyses. Unless s p e c i f i c a l l y stated otherwise, the twelve Prime Ministers who became the focus of attention i n subsequent analyses are: Macdonald^ Mackenzie, Laurier, Borden, Meighen, King, Bennett, St. Laurent, Diefenbaker, Pearson, Trudeau and Clark. Spearman Rank C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t To compare the rankings of the twelve major Prime Ministers by the h i s t o r i a n s with those by the p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s , a Spearman rank c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was determined for each leader according to h i s mean score for each scale i n the questionnaire. The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s are reported i n Table 3. As could be expected from the high i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s given e a r l i e r , the agreement between the rankings by the two groups of experts was very high, with the c o e f f i c i e n t for only one scale lower than .90. M u l t i a r i a t e Analysis of Variance of Mean Ratings To test the o v e r a l l n u l l hypothesis that h i s t o r i a n s and p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s do not d i f f e r i n t h e i r mean ratings of any of the twelve major Prime M i n i s t e r s , eleven separate multivariate analyses of variance were performed, one on each dependent v a r i a b l e ( i . e . the eleven dimensions seen i n the questionnaire i n Appendix A). Means were not substituted for missing data i n order to avoid a r t i f i c i a l l y reducing the variance. As a r e s u l t the number of raters involved i n judging the Prime Min i s t e r s varies across dimensions. Table 4 shows the means, F r a t i o s , s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s and numbers of raters for each dimension. Only on the eleventh item, which deals with the amount of information each rater had about the various Prime M i n i s t e r s , did the two groups of experts d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y [F(35,58) = 6.1154, £<.0001] i n t h e i r Table 3 Spearman's Rank C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t for Rank Ordering of 12 Prime Ministers Dimension Spearman's r_ 1. D i f f i c u l t y of the p o l i t i c a l issues .94 2. Active versus passive approach to governing .90 3. Motivating consideration - i d e a l i s t i c vs. p r a c t i c a l .78 4. Strength of r o l e .91 5. Effectiveness as party leader .97 6. Current prestige .94 7. Approach to solving national problems - t r a d i t i o n a l vs. innovative • - .91 8. F l e x i b i l i t y i n implementing p o l i c i e s or programmes .98 9. Honesty i n dealing with the public .90 10. Significance of o v e r a l l accomplishments .97 Table 4 Mu l t i v a r i a t e Analysis of Variance of Mean Ratings on Eleven Dimensions by Historians and by P o l i t i c a l S c i e n t i s t s for 12 Prime Ministers Dimension 1. D i f f i c u l t y of the p o l i t i c a l issues H = 31 PS = 47 (1 = easy, 7 = d i f f i c u l t ) 2. Approach to governing H = 30 PS = 43 (1 = passive, 7 = active) 3. P o l i t i c a l motivation H = 26 PS = 38 (1 = i d e a l i s t i c , 7 = p r a c t i c a l ) 4. Strength of r o l e H = 30 PS = 42 (1 = weak, 7 = strong) 5. Party leadership H = 30 PS = 44 1 = e f f e c t i v e , 7 = i n e f f e c t i v e ) 6. Current prestige H = 31 PS = 48 (1 = low, 7 = high) 7. Approach to solving national problems H = 27 PS = 37 (1 = innovative, 7 = t r a d i t i o n a l ) 8. Implementation f l e x i b i l i t y H = 30 PS = 38 (1 = i n f l e x i b l e , 7 = f l e x i b l e ) 9. Honesty i n dealing with the public H = 27 PS = 36 (1 = honest, 7 = dishonest) 10. Accomplishments H = 31 PS = 46 (1 = l i t t l e , 7 = great) 1.1. Amount of information rater has about each leader H = 36 PS = 59 (1 = very l i t t l e , 7 = great deal) Means  (standard deviation) Historians P o l . S c i . 5.57 (.63) 4.97 (.64) 4.45 (.76) 4.53 (1.05) 3.44 (1.29) 4.39 (1.41) 4.14 (.67) 4.29 (1.19) 3.27 (.76) 4.08 (1.49) 5.52 (.66) 5.37 (.83) 4.81 (.68) 4.27 (.71) 4.41 (1.06) 3.57 (1.07) 4.42 (1.47) 3.78 (.89) 4.36 (1.27) 3.19 (1.00) 4.15 (1.55) 5.42 (.80) 1.08 .39 1.50 1.79 .88 .77 1.55 .84 ,15 .08 .90 .56 .58 .68 ,14 .61 1.83 .07 .69 .76 6.12 .01 r a t i n g s . The h i s t o r i a n s rated themselves as having more information about the i n d i v i d u a l leaders than did the p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s . This i s not unexpected since p o l i t i c a l science, as a d i s c i p l i n e , focuses more on p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s than on p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e s , while h i s t o r y , by d e f i n i t i o n , deals with people and events throughout time. On the other ten dimensions there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the means of the Prime M i n i s t e r s ' ratings by the two groups of experts. Because the two groups did not d i f f e r i n t h e i r ratings of the Prime Ministers the scores from each group of experts were pooled and a mean score for each Prime Minis t e r on every scale (except the eleventh) was determined. On the basis of these mean ratings, the Prime Ministers were rank ordered within each dimension. Two orderings are shown for the information scale, where the experts d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r r a t i n g s . The rank orderings are given i n Table 5. Integrative Complexity Two sets of int e g r a t i v e complexity scores were obtained for the 13 Prime Ministers whose material was a v a i l a b l e . In addition to the twelve major leaders, Thompson was included i n t h i s analysis. The Response to the Speech from the Throne was representative of a "prepared" speech. That i s , one which could have been written by someone other than the speaker, because i t was written i n advance of i t s d e l i v e r y i n the House of Commons. Responses to unexpected questions from the f l o o r of the House represented a "spontaneous" speech. Mean scores for prepared and for spontaneous inte g r a t i v e complexity were subjected to a _t-test for correlated samples to determine whether the two types of complexity d i f f e r e d . The mean differences between the two sets of complexity scores was Table.5 Rank Orderings of 12 Prime Ministers on Eleven Dimensions 1. D i f f i c u l t y of Issues - most d i f f i c u l t to easiest 1. Bennett 2. Macdonald 3. Borden 4. King 5. Trudeau 6.5 Laurier 6.5 Clark 8. Pearson 9. Meighen 10. Mackenzie 11. Diefenbaker 12. St. Laurent 2. Approach to Governing - most active to most passive 1. Macdonald 2. Trudeau 3. Borden 4. Laurier 5. King 6. Bennett 7. Diefenbaker 8. Meighen 9. Pearson 10. Clark 11. St. Laurent 12. Mackenzie 3. P o l i t i c a l Motivation - most p r a c t i c a l to most i d e a l i s t i c 1. King 2. Macdonald 3. St. Laurent 4. Borden 5. Clark 6. Bennett 7. Laurier 8. Mackenzie 9. Pearson 10. Trudeau 11. Diefenbaker 12. Meighen 4 8 Table 5 (continued) 4. Strength of Role - strongest to weakest 1. MacdonaId 2. Trudeau 3. King 4. Laurier 5. Borden 6. Bennett 7. Meighen 8. Diefenbaker 9. Pearson 10. St. Laurent 11. Mackenzie 12. Clark 5. E f f e c t i v e Leader - most e f f e c t i v e to most i n e f f e c t i v e 1. MacdonaId 2. King 3. Laurier 4. Trudeau 5. Borden 6. St. Laurent 7. Pearson 8. Bennett 9. Diefenbaker 10. Mackenzie 11. Meighen 12. Clark 6. Current Prestige - most prestigious to least prestigious 1. Macdonald 2. Laurier 3. King 4. Trudeau 5. Borden 6. Pearson 7. St. Laurent 8. Diefenbaker 9. Meighen 10. Mackenzie 11. Bennett 12. Clark 49 Table 5 (continued) 7. Approach to Problem Solving - most innovative to most t r a d i t i o n a l 1. Macdonald 1. Trudeau 3. Laurier 4. Pearson 5. Borden 6. Diefenbaker 7. Bennett 8. King 9. Clark 10. Meighen 11. St. Laurent 12. Mackenzie 8. Implementation F l e x i b i l i t y - most f l e x i b l e to most i n f l e x i b l e 1. King 2. Macdonald / 3. Laurier 4. Pearson 5. St. Laurent 6. Borden 7. Trudeau 8. Clark 9. Bennett 10. Diefenbaker 11. Mackenzie 12. Meighen 9. Honesty i n Dealing with the Public - most honest to most dishonest 1. Mackenzie 2. Meighen 3. Borden 4. St. Laurent 5. Clark 6. Laurier 7. Pearson 8. Bennett 9. Diefenbaker 10. Trudeau 11. Macdonald 12. King 50 Table 5 (continued) 10.Significance of Overall Achievements - most s i g n i f i c a n t to least s i g n i f i c a n t 1. Macdonald 2. Laurier 3. King 4. Pearson 5. Trudeau 6. Borden 7. St. Laurent 8. Diefenbaker 9. Bennett 10. Mackenzie 11. Meighen 11- Amount of information rater has about each Prime Minister - most to least 12. Clark HISTORIANS 1.5 Macdonald I. 5 King 3. Laurier 4. Borden 5. Meighen 6.5 Diefenbaker 6.5 Trudeau 8. Mackenzie 9. Pearson 10. Bennett I I . St. Laurent 12. Clark POLITICAL SCIENTISTS 1. Trudeau 2. King 3. Diefenbaker 4. Pearson 5. Macdonald 6. Clark 7. Laurier 8. St. Laurent 9. Borden 10. Bennett 11. Meighen 12. Mackenzie only 0.15 and ,the r e s u l t i n g _t nonsignificant [^(12) = .94], Table 6 shows the i n d i v i d u a l means and the averaged means for the thirteen Prime M i n i s t e r s . The d i r e c t i o n of the differences was not the same for a l l Prime M i n i s t e r s . For example, Meighen's spontaneous complexity mean was considerably higher than h i s prepared mean. On the other hand, both Trudeau and King showed large differences i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n . Correlations Among Measures The means for both types of integrative complexity scores were correlated with each of the mean ratings on the twelve Prime Ministers across the eleven dimensions i n the experts' questionnaire. - The c o r r e l a t i o n matrix i s shown i n Table 7. The only s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n involving complexity was between spontaneous complexity and perceived honesty. The higher a Prime Minist e r ' s spontaneous complexity, the more l i k e l y he was to be rated as honest i n his dealings with the public (r = -.56, jp_C05). As can be seen i n Table 7, many of the items i n the questionnaire tended to be i n t e r r e l a t e d . Some s i g n i f i c a n t c orrelations are i d e n t i f i e d below. As the d i f f i c u l t y of the p o l i t i c a l issues facing the Prime Minister increased, he was more l i k e l y to be seen as taking an active approach to governing (r = .70, _gC01), playing a strong r o l e i n shaping events and d i r e c t i n g government (r = .60, _p_C05) , and being innovative i n his approach to solving national problems (r = -.62, j><.05). ' The stronger the r o l e the Prime Minister was rated as playing, the more l i k e l y he was to be perceived as active i n governing (r = .89, j>< .01), currently prestigious (r = .88, _£<.01), an e f f e c t i v e party leader (r = -.85, £<.01), and having achieved a great deal while i n o f f i c e (r = .88, p^.01). The experts were also l i k e l y to have more information about Table 6 ' Integrative Complexity Scores for 13 Prime Min i s t e r s Rank Order Prepared Spontaneous Mean of Mean Prime Speech Speech Speech Complexity Minister Complexity Complexity Complexity 1. Clark 2.60 2.50 2.55 2. >St. Laurent 2.45 2.35 2.40 3. Borden 2.40 2.00 2.20 4. Trudeau 2.80 1.55 2.18 5. Meighen 1.40 2.55 1.98 6. Thompson 1.90 1.95 1.93 7.5 Macdonald 2.10 1.70 1.90 7.5 Pearson 1.85 1.95 1.90 9. Bennett 1.95 1.45 1.70 10. King 2.00 1.25 1.63 11. Laurier 1.45 1.50 1.48 12. Diefenbaker 1.40 1.35 1.38 13. Mackenzie 1.25 1.50 1.37 Table 7 l a t i o n Matrix on 11 Rated dimensions and Two Complexity Scores for 13 Prime Minister Dimensions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. D i f f i c u l t y (l=easyi 7 = d i f f i c u l t ) 1.00 2. Approach to Governing (l=passive,.7=active) .70** 1.00 3. P o l i t i c a l Motivation ( l = i d e a l i s t i c , 7=practical) .26 -.09 • 1.00 4. Strength of Role (l=weak,-'7=strong) .60* .89** .18 1.00 5. Party Leadership (l = e f f e c t i v e , 7=ineffective) -.42 -.60* -.52 -.85** 1.00 6. Prestige (l=low, 7=high) .34 .69** .27 .88** -.95** 1.00 7. Problem Solving (l=innovative, 7=traditional) -.62* -.87** .06 -.78** .64* -.75** 1.00 8. Implementation ( l = i n f l e x i b l e , 7=flexible) .27 .32 .67* .53 -.84** .76** -.49 1.00 9. Public Honesty (l=honest, 7=dishonest) .50 .58* .47 .68** -.70** .62* -.63* .59* 1.00 10. Accomplishments ( l = l i t t l e , 7=great) .45 .70** .32 .88** -.94** .98** -.77** .78** .62* 1.00 11. Information (l=very l i t t l e , 7=great deal) .38 .75** .01 .70** -.61* .69** -.72** .46 .64* .70** 1.00 12. "Prepared" Complexity (l=simple, 7=very complex) .27 .22 .28 .17 -.23 .12 -.27 .22 .31 .10 .17 1.00 13. "Spontaneous" Complexity (l=simple, 7=very complex) -.41 -.28 -.15 -.42 .41 -.40 .44 -.23 -.56* -.47 -.28 .28 1.00 *p < .05 **p K .01 cn CO him (r = .70, jK.01). Su r p r i s i n g l y , such a Prime Minister was rated as less honest i n his dealings with the public (r = .68, _g<.01). Prime Ministers who were rated as f l e x i b l e i n implementing t h e i r p o l i c i e s or programmes - were l i k e l y to be seen as motivated by p r a c t i c a l rather than i d e a l i s t i c considerations (r = .67, jK.05), as dishonest (r = .59, £<.05), as currently having high prestige (r = .76, jg .01), being e f f e c t i v e party leaders (r = -.84, j><.01) and having accomplished a great deal (r = .78, _g<.01). An i n t r i g u i n g set of i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s appeared with the honesty dimension. The stronger (r = .68, p<.01), more active (r = .58, p_<.05), and more e f f e c t i v e (r = -.70, _p_<.01) a Prime Minister was rated, the more l i k e l y he was to be seen as less honest. The dishonest leader was viewed as innovative i n his approach to solving national problems (r = -.63, j>< .05) and as f l e x i b l e i n his approach to implementing p o l i c i e s and programmes (r = .59, j>C05). He was also l i k e l y to be rated as currently having high prestige (r = .62, j><.05). In order for a Prime Minis t e r to be rated as having achieved s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l accomplishments, he had to be perceived as a strong, active, and e f f e c t i v e leader who was innovative, f l e x i b l e and s l i g h t l y dishonest. Such a man i s l i k e l y to be considered highly prestigious today (r = .98, £<.01)! The E f f e c t of D i f f i c u l t P o l i t i c a l Issues To assess the impact of both complexity l e v e l and of the r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y of issues facing the Prime Minister upon the other nine dimensions, a two-way analysis of variance was performed using the following data. A mean complexity score was obtained for each Prime Minist e r by averaging the prepared and the spontaneous complexity scores. Two l e v e l s of complexity were s p e c i f i e d . The s i x most complex men (St. Laurent, Borden, Trudeau, Pearson, Macdonald and Meighen) formed one l e v e l and the f i v e least complex men (Mackenzie, Laurier, King, Bennett and Diefenbaker) formed the second l e v e l . Clark was omitted from th i s analysis because of h i s r e l a t i v e l y b r i e f tenure i n o f f i c e . According to the rank ordering on the d i f f i c u l t y - o f - i s s u e s scale (see Table 4) these eleven Prime Ministers were grouped into " d i f f i c u l t " and "easy" categories. The r e s u l t i n g 2 x 2 experimental design can be seen i n Table 8. Two-way analyses of variance were then run on the following nine dimensions: approach to governing, motivating considerations, strength of r o l e , party leadership effectiveness, prestige, approach to solving national problems, f l e x i b i l i t y i n implementing p o l i c i e s , honesty i n public a f f a i r s and s i g n i f i c a n c e of o v e r a l l accomplishments^ There were no main e f f e c t s for complexity and no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s . However, the r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y of the issues facing a Prime Minis t e r had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on how he was rated along f i v e d i f f e r e n t dimensions: h i s approach to governing [F(l,7) = 10.34 £<'.015] , strength of r o l e [F(l,7) = 20.08, £<.003], effectiveness as party leader [F(l,7) = 7.68, £<.028], approach to problem solving [F(l,7) = 5.56, £ < .05] and the s i g n i f i c a n c e of h i s o v e r a l l accomplishments [F(l,7) = 5.65, £<.049] . It appears that environmental pressure i s an i n f l u e n t i a l factor i n determining the h i s t o r i c a l stature of Canadian Prime M i n i s t e r s . 56 Table 8 Fourfold Table Categorizing 11 Prime Ministers According to Their Integrative Complexity and the D i f f i c u l t y of the P o l i t i c a l Issues They Faced P o l i t i c a l Issues Easy D i f f i c u l t 1. Mackenzie 1. King j Simple 2. Diefenbaker 2. Bennett 3. Laurier Integrative Complexity 1. St. Laurent 1. Borden Complex 2. Pearson 2. Trudeau 3. Meighen 3. Macdonald DISCUSSION Four major questions were posed i n t h i s study: Was there a d i f f e r e n c e between the integrative complexity of the Prime Min i s t e r s ' prepared speeches and t h e i r spontaneous speeches? How were the Canadian Prime Ministers viewed by experts i n the f i e l d s of Canadian p o l i t i c a l science and Canadian history? What c o r r e l a t i o n was there between the experts' opinions of the Prime Ministers and the leaders' i n t e g r a t i v e complexity? And f i n a l l y , what re l a t i o n s h i p s existed among the rankings of the various Prime Ministers by the experts? The discussion w i l l begin with an examination of the r e s u l t s r e l a t i n g to the question of prepared and spontaneous in t e g r a t i v e complexity. Spontaneous versus Prepared Speech Integrative Complexity Arch i v a l researchers measuring i n t e g r a t i v e complexity i n the speeches of prominent p o l i t i c a l figures have long maintained that any public speech given by a p a r t i c u l a r person was a f a i r r e f l e c t i o n of h i s or her l e v e l of information processing a b i l i t y . U n t i l t h i s study was completed, the argument was that a l l speeches, even speeches prepared by someone other than the speaker were i n d i c a t i v e of the true complexity l e v e l of that speaker. However,- one could maintain that some speeches were merely memorized and delivered, as i f by an actor, and that the complexity l e v e l measured was a c t u a l l y that of the speech wr i t e r . I would l i k e to suggest that such an argument could not apply to a l l speeches given by p o l i t i c a l leaders. In f a c t , i t seems u n l i k e l y that such prominent figures as Prime Ministers or Presidents would merely read a speech written by a subordinate at major public functions. What seems more l i k e l y — a n d what has been reported (Courtney, 1976) i s that competent writers d r a f t speeches for p a r t i c u l a r occasions (The Today Magazine, Jan. 2, 1982) and these may then be edited by the Prime M i n i s t e r . As mentioned i n the introduction, King i s known to have repeatedly deleted "purple passages" from the texts of one of h i s speechwriters because the public was too l i k e l y to remember these parts (Courtney, 1976, p. 90). The r e s u l t s of this study serve to support the hypothesis that the speaker's complexity i s accurately r e f l e c t e d i n the text of public speeches, regardless of the authorship of such m a t e r i a l . There was no difference i n mean complexity between speeches prepared for a s p e c i f i c occasion ( i n t h i s case, the Response to the Speech from the Throne) and speeches known to originate s o l e l y with the Prime Minis t e r ( i . e . , spontaneous responses to questions during debates i n the Commons). Accordingly, a r c h i v a l researchers may continue to sample public speeches with the assumption that regardless of authorship, the integ r a t i v e complexity expressed w i l l be a f a i r r e f l e c t i o n of the speaker's l e v e l of information processing. Experts' Opinions The second question asked i n t h i s study may be subdivided into three rel a t e d issues. One, how did h i s t o r i a n s and p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s rate the sixteen Canadian Prime Ministers on eleven d i f f e r e n t scales or dimensions: another, whether the two d i s c i p l i n e s viewed the leaders d i f f e r e n t l y ; and s t i l l another, how the ratings of the Prime Ministers were r e l a t e d . I t was hypothesized that the two d i s c i p l i n e s which deal with the behaviour of Canadian p o l i t i c a l figures and the consequences of that behaviour should evaluate these according to d i f f e r e n t terms of reference. His t o r i a n s , by d e f i n i t i o n , "record and explain events" and study the s i g n i f i c a n c e of p a r t i c u l a r occurrences. They synthesize the f a c t u a l material at t h e i r disposal i n order to produce s c h o l a r l y reports of p a r t i c u l a r periods (Webster's Third International Dictionary, 1966). In t h i s study the h i s t o r i a n s were mainly interested i n Canadian events occurring since 1867. P o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s , on the other hand, are more l i k e l y to be int e r e s t e d i n the " d e s c r i p t i o n of p o l i t i c a l and governmental i n s t i t u t i o n s and processes" (Webster's Third International Dictionary, 1966, p. 1755). They might use material from other s o c i a l sciences such as psychology, h i s t o r y and economics to a s s i s t them i n t h e i r analyses of d i f f e r e n t phenomena, such as power, within various s o c i e t i e s . The p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s i n t h i s study were chosen because of t h e i r focus on Canadian content. Because of this difference i n perspective, i t was hypothesized that the two groups of experts would evaluate the Canadian Prime Ministers according to d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a . This would lead to differences i n the values assigned to the various leaders as well as inconsistencies i n the o v e r a l l rankings within each dimension. The r e s u l t s did not support t h i s hypothesis. Not only was there no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the ratings assigned to the leaders, but there was also high agreement on the rank order of each Prime M i n i s t e r within ten of the eleven scales. This f i n d i n g was unexpected but pleasing. If experts with divergent frames of reference can agree upon the r e l a t i v e amounts of p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s within various leaders, then i t may be that a predictable pattern of a t t r i b u t e s can be found i n our Prime M i n i s t e r s . This lends support to the Great Man theory of leadership, which states that leaders possess a r e l a t i v e l y small number of special q u a l i t i e s which d i f f e r e n t i a t e s them from non-leaders. In support of t h i s view, i t i s worth noting that the alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s of the pooled ratings approached unity. Thus we may i n f e r that regardless of the d e f i n i t i o n of the p a r t i c u l a r q u a l i t y that the h i s t o r i a n s and p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s were evaluating within each of the scales, they agreed upon the amount of i t present i n each Prime M i n i s t e r . There was only one scale which d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between the two d i s c i p l i n e s : the amount of information that each rater had about the i n d i v i d u a l leaders. As was pointed out i n the previous chapter, h i s t o r i a n s rated themselves as having more o v e r a l l information about the Prime M i n i s t e r s . From an examination of Table 5 i t i s clear that the h i s t o r i a n s f e e l that they know more about the e a r l i e r Prime Ministers than about some of the l a t e r ones, while the p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s appear to be more f a m i l i a r with the l a s t four leaders, as well as with two of the leaders who are of continuing h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r e s t , Macdonald and King. This d i s p a r i t y seems consistent with the author's i n t u i t i v e sense of the two d i s c i p l i n e s . One naively expects h i s t o r i a n s to have more information about events and people i n the past. P o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s , on the other hand, are expected to know more about current events and i n s t i t u t i o n s . One might also expect them to have more than a nodding acquaintance with the major Canadian Prime M i n i s t e r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y ones whose impact on governmental i n s t i t u t i o n s was large. Integrative Complexity and the Experts' Opinions This section deals with the c o r r e l a t i o n between a Prime M i n i s t e r ' s i n t e g r a t i v e complexity and h i s ratings by experts. Except for the dimension of honesty, there was no c o r r e l a t i o n between the i n t e g r a t i v e complexity of the twelve scorable Prime Ministers and the eleven dimensions they were rated on by the h i s t o r i a n s and p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s . There i s a small but s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n (r_ = .56, p_<^ .05) between the spontaneous complexity l e v e l of the twelve Prime Ministers and t h e i r degree of honesty i n dealing with the public. Thus i t seems that the more abstract a Prime Minister was the more l i k e l y he was to be rated as honest i n h i s public a f f a i r s . When complexity was compared with the d i f f i c u l t y of the issues facing the Prime M i n i s t e r , the e f f e c t of environmental pressure far outweighed the complexity f a c t o r . S i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s for the d i f f i c u l t y - o f - p o l i t i c a l - i s s u e s factor were found on f i v e dimensions: activeness, strength, effectiveness as party leader, innovativeness and accomplishments. More w i l l be said about t h i s l a t e r . While the low impact of the i n t e g r a t i v e complexity factor was disappointing, i t should not have been altogether s u r p r i s i n g . The l i t e r a t u r e s u p p l i e s evidence suggesting that a change i n l e v e l of inte g r a t i v e complexity i s associated with p a r t i c u l a r and s p e c i f i c f l u ctuations i n external pressures or demands (Porter & Suedfeld, 1981; Suedfeld & Rank, 1976) but there i s no evidence to suggest that complexity, as scored during the f i r s t session of Parliament following an e l e c t i o n , w i l l c o r r e l a t e with the Prime Minis t e r ' s perceived behaviour throughout h i s entire term, nor with his current l e v e l of prestige. One approach to e s t a b l i s h i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between complexity and environmental conditions would be to i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c important issues that arose within the l i f e t i m e of each Prime Minis t e r ' s government, have these rated by experts for t h e i r r e l a t i v e degree of d i f f i c u l t y and then sample speeches before, during and a f t e r each issue was dealt with. One might then expect to see v a r i a t i o n s i n the l e v e l of complexity as a function of time r e l a t i v e to the emergence, processing and r e s o l u t i o n of the issue (Suedfeld & Tetlock, 1977; Suedfeld, Tetlock & Ramirez, 1977). Complexity should also be expected to vary with the degree of d i f f i c u l t y inherent i n the problem. Another factor which may be rela t e d to var i a t i o n s i n complexity i s the q u a l i t y of the eventual r e s o l u t i o n to the issue. For example, was the solution successful, was i t democratically a r r i v e d at, and was i t s a t i s f a c t o r y to a l l parties involved? In future studies i t would be wise to narrow the focus of i n t e r e s t i n order to pinpoint l i k e l y c o r r e l a t i o n s among environmental factors, behavioural responses and in t e g r a t i v e complexity, c o r r e l a t i o n s which might have been l o s t i n this study through the i n c l u s i o n of i r r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l . Relationships Among the Rankings Canada has had sixteen d i f f e r e n t Prime Ministers from 1867 to the present. Several of those men held the o f f i c e more than once. This discussion of the r e l a t i v e positions of these men, however, w i l l be r e s t r i c t e d to the twelve leaders whom the experts f e l t most confident about evaluating. By way of a disclaimer, the author would l i k e to caution the reader concerning the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these rankings. While i t i s true that there was an exceptionally high degree of agreement among the raters as to the amount of any p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c or q u a l i t y ascribed to each Prime Minist e r within the f i r s t ten items, there was some question concerning the exact nature of the q u a l i t y measured. While the glossary provided with the questionnaire gave d e f i n i t i o n s of the end points of each scale, some experts found i t necessary to q u a l i f y t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of some scales. Below i s a summary of some comments made by i n d i v i d u a l experts concerning each of the dimensions rated. ( A l l quotations used w i l l remain unattributed to preserve the anonymity of the rater.) A b r i e f discussion of the rankings follows each summary. (a) Item One: How would you rate the d i f f i c u l t y of the p o l i t i c a l issues facing the Prime Minister? Judged on the basis of absolute number of comments generated, t h i s item proved to be the most contentious of the set. The p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s who commented tended to q u a l i f y t h e i r ratings with explanatory notations, such as i n the case of Mackenzie who had been scored as 4 because of h i s "housekeeping functions, [and because he had] no organized party," or Diefenbaker's score of 5—which "could be higher, but often he made them d i f f i c u l t . " One rater indicated that the length of term i n o f f i c e affected the score given. The h i s t o r i a n s , besides q u a l i f y i n g t h e i r scores, also questioned the appropriate i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the item. One wanted to know i f t h i s question included the economic conditions of the time as t h i s i s a very important factor i n mediating the impact of other, more obviously p o l i t i c a l , issues. This p a r t i c u l a r respondent suggested that i t was i almost an axiom "that when times are bad economically, Canadians generally f a l l to squabbling with one another (the federal versus the p r o v i n c i a l governments, region versus region, French Canadians versus English Canadians etc.) and that as a consequence p o l i t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s are enormously increased. Conversely, i n boom times, with an expanding economy, people are less obsessed with t h e i r grievances ( r e a l or imagined), and i t i s much easier for a prime minister to accommodate or placate the various elements that make up t h i s vast country." Another h i s t o r i a n c l a r i f i e d his responses by assuming that the d i f f i c u l t i e s evaluated were "not s e l f created or autogenic." One f i n a l comment worth mentioning about t h i s item came from a nonparticipant. He f e l t that "one must ask ' d i f f i c u l t y for whom?' D i f f i c u l t y for the man himself, d i f f i c u l t y i n understanding the issues at a l l , d i f f i c u l t y i n f i n d i n g a solution which w i l l ensure h i s r e - e l e c t i o n ? " The assumption the author made when including t h i s item was that the p o l i t i c a l issues themselves contained a degree of d i f f i c u l t y which when viewed r e l a t i v e to other issues could be located along a continuum. The exceptionally high degree of i n t e r n a l consistency and the remarkable agreement i n ranking among the raters would seem to support t h i s hypothesis. As seen i n the previous chapter, t h i s dimension figures prominently i n the perception of the Prime Ministers on f i v e d i f f e r e n t dimensions. Four of the f i v e men who faced the most d i f f i c u l t p o l i t i c a l issues. (Macdonald, Borden, King and Trudeau) are also ranked as among the f i v e most active, e f f e c t i v e and strong Prime M i n i s t e r s . Macdonald, Trudeau and Borden are also among the f i v e most innovative Canadian leaders. At the other end of the continuum we f i n d Meighen, Mackenzie, Diefenbaker and St. Laurent. These men were rated as having r e l a t i v e l y easier p o l i t i c a l issues to face. Meighen, St. Laurent and Mackenzie were also ranked among the f i v e most passive and t r a d i t i o n a l Prime Ministers while Diefenbaker, St. Laurent and Mackenzie placed among the f i v e weakest and most i n e f f e c t i v e Canadian leaders. (b) Item Two: To what extent did the Prime Minis t e r take an active approach to governing? Most of the comments on th i s item tended to be q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of the p a r t i c u l a r r a t i n g given. For example, Mackenzie's 7 (where 7 means active and 1 means passive) was for a man "too act i v e " i n h i s approach, while Diefenbaker 1s 2 was a r e f l e c t i o n of a man who was " a c t i v e , but not i n administration." Two comments, both from h i s t o r i a n s , challenged the pr e c i s i o n of the item's phrasing. One found i t a "meaningless question unless [the] context of [the] times i s taken into account", which he said he did. The other said"'active approach' i s too imprecise." For example, "King was very active to maintain L i b e r a l i n t e r e s t s and himself i n power but not to promote change." Wendt and Light (1976) suggested that a c t i v i t y was one of four factors involved i n the concept of p r e s i d e n t i a l greatness. Their study analyzed the data i n M a r a n e l l ' s (1970) i n v e s t i g a t i o n and found, i n addition to activeness, strength, prestige and accomplishments to be i n d i c a t i v e of the rated greatness of American Presidents. The r e l a t i v e placement of the Canadian Prime Ministers on these dimensions w i l l be discussed i n turn. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , Canada's f i r s t Prime M i n i s t e r , S i r John A. Macdonald, was unanimously ranked as the most active leader. The other four highly active Prime Ministers were Trudeau, Borden, Laurier and King. The f i v e most passive leaders were: Meighen, Pearson, Clark, St. Laurent and Mackenzie. I t i s possibly Canada's good fortune that three of i t s f i v e most passive leaders did not have d i f f i c u l t p o l i t i c a l issues to deal with during t h e i r time i n o f f i c e . (c) Item Three: To what extent was the Prime M i n i s t e r motivated by i d e a l i s t i c versus p r a c t i c a l considerations? It appears that t h i s item might have been better stated i n some other form than as an i d e a l i s t i c - p r a c t i c a l dichotomy. Three comments pointed out the apparent inadequacy of these poles. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the notion of realism was omitted. "Trudeau i s a r e a l i s t , but very impractical i n a number of areas" said one h i s t o r i a n . A p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t agreed, s t a t i n g the r u l e that "a r e a l i s t i s not n e c e s s a r i l y p r a c t i c a l . " King's motivations were a b i t more d i f f i c u l t to judge for one rater because "he would stress idealism but i n f a c t was p r a c t i c a l . " The weaker nature of t h i s item i s r e f l e c t e d i n the Spearman c o e f f i c i e n t of .78. This indicates that the rank ordering of the Prime Mini s t e r s by the two groups of experts d i f f e r e d somewhat more on t h i s scale than on the others. In spite of the lesser degree of agreement between groups, the rankings were similar enough to be averaged. The f i v e i d e a l i s t s were Mackenzie, Pearson, Trudeau, Diefenbaker and Meighen. Given the currently popular appraisal of Trudeau as a r e a l i s t , i t could be that some of the other Prime Ministers at t h i s end of the dimension may have f i t better into the r e a l i s t category too. The most p r a c t i c a l leaders were Clark, Borden, St. Laurent, Macdonald and King. (d) Item Four: What was the strength of the r o l e the Prime Minister played i n shaping events and d i r e c t i n g government? ( i . e . , Was he the master or the servant of events?) In the American p r e s i d e n t i a l studies one of the major factors i n f l u e n c i n g the degree of greatness ascribed to a President was h i s r e l a t i v e amount of strength (Maranell, 1970; Rossiter, 1956; Sokolsky, 1964). Given i t s importance i n those studies, i t i s reassuring to note the high degree of r e l i a b i l i t y with which the experts have rated the element of strength within the Canadian Prime Ministers (see Table 2). Notwithstanding the demonstrated s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of r e l i a b l e measurement, one p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t remarked that strength was " v i r t u a l l y impossible to score, [as i t was] too dependent on i d e o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n . " An h i s t o r i a n f e l t that any evaluations on t h i s scale had to be very tentative as the implication was that a leader's strength remained constant, even over a very long career. The only other comment served to i l l u s t r a t e the ease with which a seemingly precise question could become open to a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . The respondent simply stated that he "answered for r e s u l t s , not attempts." The author agreed with t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and assumed, however wrongly, that the other 71 raters who answered t h i s question agreed too. Strength was another v a r i a b l e i n the four-element factor i d e n t i f i e d as i n d i c a t i v e of p r e s i d e n t i a l greatness (Wendt and Light, 1976). The f i v e Prime Ministers who played the strongest roles i n shaping and d i r e c t i n g governmental events were Macdonald, Trudeau, King, Laurier and Borden. These same f i v e were also the most active i n t h e i r approach to governing, which was mentioned e a r l i e r as an element i n the greatness f a c t o r . ' . Who were the weakest leaders? They were Diefenbaker, Pearson, St. Laurent, Mackenzie and Clark, the same f i v e who were rated as most passive.Oddly enough,- except for Clark, these men were also ranked as the most i d e a l i s t i c . From t h i s we, might assume that Canadian i d e a l i s t s tend to be weak and passive leaders. (e) Item Five: To what extent was the Prime Minister e f f e c t i v e as a party leader? The nature of the Canadian system of party p o l i t i c s enters into the comments on t h i s item. The evaluations depend on "how we define the r o l e of party l e a d e r — o r g a n i z a t i o n a l , e l e c t o r a l , etc." because "the nature of 'party' organization, and of styles of, and opportunities f o r . . . leadership have...changed greatly" over the years since 1867. I t is true that the concept of a formal p o l i t i c a l party has evolved r e l a t i v e l y recently and that p r i o r to the 1920's the i d e o l o g i c a l boundaries between the major parties were even f u z z i e r than they are today. The author assumed that a leader-follower r e l a t i o n s h i p existed between the Prime Minister and the elected members of h i s party. I t i s t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p that l i k e l y served as a basis for evaluating the leadership effectiveness of those Prime Ministers serving p r i o r to the advent of formal party p o l i c i e s . -v That assumption may be true because three of the f i v e most e f f e c t i v e leaders were i n o f f i c e p r i o r to 1920. They were Macdonald, King, Laurier, Trudeau and Borden. Borden, Macdonald and King were also among the most p r a c t i c a l of leaders, while both Trudeau and Laurier joined them i n being ranked as the f i v e most active Prime M i n i s t e r s . Bennett, Diefenbaker, Mackenzie, Meighen and Clark were the f i v e least e f f e c t i v e party leaders. The story c i r c u l a t e d about Bennett, who while alone at his club was seen muttering to himself. "What's he doing?" asked a member. "He's holding a Cabinet meeting," was the reply (Donaldson, 1969, p. 134). Small wonder he was ranked as an i n e f f e c t i v e party leader. Mackenzie, Meighen and Diefenbaker were also seen as among the most i d e a l i s t i c Prime M i n i s t e r s . To the q u a l i t i e s of weakness and p a s s i v i t y found i n our i d e a l i s t i c Prime Min i s t e r s i t seems we can add one more unfortunate c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s . (f) Item Six: What i s the current prestige assigned to the Prime Minister? This item caused something of a dilemma for a number of i n d i v i d u a l s . By far the most common comment was "By whom?" The author's answer was, "By the experts." With a touch of comic irony one p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t captured the ever present undercurrent of regional bias when he rated Trudeau as "West 0, east more" and Diefenbaker as "West 6, east 2." (A score of 1 means low prestige and of 7, high). In h i s 1970 study Maranell attempted to expand the understanding of what i s involved i n the r a t i n g of p r e s i d e n t i a l prestige. He found i t to be linked to strength and to accomplishments. If that linkage holds, the most prestigious Prime Ministers should also be the strongest and have made the most s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l contributions. Macdonald, Laurier, King, Trudeau and Borden are the Prime Min i s t e r s who currently enjoy the most prestige according to the experts. The f i v e with the lowest prestige are Diefenbaker, Meighen, Mackenzie, Bennett and Clark. As can be seen from Table 5, Maranell's pattern matches exactly i n terms of the f i v e strongest and most prestigious Prime Ministers and almost p e r f e c t l y with respect to great accomplishments. Pearson joined the top f i v e Prime Ministers with the most s i g n i f i c a n t accomplishments, pushing Borden into s i x t h p o s i t i o n . The leaders with the lowest prestige were also those who had the least s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l accomplishments. (g) Item Seven: To what extent did the Prime Minister exhibit a t r a d i t i o n a l versus an innovative approach to solving national problems? The two h i s t o r i a n s who commented on t h i s item f e l t that i t was d i f f i c u l t to answer for d i f f e r e n t reasons: one, because "the generation down to 1911 was r e a l l y the f i r s t and hence formative generation" ( i . e . , the one s e t t i n g the " t r a d i t i o n a l " standards); the other, because "given s u f f i c i e n t time almost any major problem w i l l be resolved. And those leaders who have been i n o f f i c e for enough time can always be seen to be 'innovative'." The second assessment of the e f f e c t of time i s p a r t i a l l y supported by the data. Macdonald, Trudeau and Laurier are ranked as the three most innovative Prime M i n i s t e r s . A l l three held o f f i c e for a minimum of twelve years. King, who was i n o f f i c e for a t o t a l of twenty-three years, does not f i t this pattern. He i s ranked as more t r a d i t i o n a l i n h i s approach to problem solving than any of the above three. Of the twelve major Prime M i n i s t e r s , only two held o f f i c e for less than two years. Although those two (Meighen and Clark) rank as tending toward the t r a d i t i o n a l approach, they are not the most t r a d i t i o n a l , as would be expected i f time had the hypothesized e f f e c t . (h) Item Eight: How f l e x i b l e was the Prime Minister i n h i s approach to implementing programmes or p o l i c i e s ? The experts had very l i t t l e to say about t h i s item. Although a p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t pointed out that being f l e x i b l e "can be seen as a 'good' thing and a 'bad' thing," he did not explain how. Looking at Table 7, one might see a possible explanation. F l e x i b i l i t y i n programme or p o l i c y implementation correlates p o s i t i v e l y with effectiveness as a party leader, high prestige, a p r a c t i c a l motivation and high o v e r a l l accomplishments, a l l evaluations which could be seen as good. However, f l e x i b i l i t y i s also p o s i t i v e l y correlated with dishonesty i n dealing with the public, a questionable a t t r i b u t e at best. Given these r e l a t i o n s h i p s one can see how the three most e f f e c t i v e party leaders, Macdonald, King and Laurier, can also be rated as the three most f l e x i b l e men when putting t h e i r polices into e f f e c t . I t i s possible that i n order to accomplish t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l p o l i t i c a l goals ( i . e . , Macdonald's National Dream, King's national unity and Laurier's national independence) i t became necessary to take alternate routes when obstacles emerged. Perhaps they had to resort to subterfuge when' explaining the p o l i t i c a l manipulations required to a t t a i n t h e i r goals. It i s c e r t a i n l y the case that Macdonald, King and Laurier are perceived as men whose o v e r a l l accomplishments were great. Is i t possible that these men f e l t that the ends j u s t i f i e d the means? Of the three most i n f l e x i b l e leaders, Meighen, Mackenzie and Diefenbaker, the f i r s t two are also rated as among the most i n e f f e c t i v e party leaders and ones whose o v e r a l l accomplishments are seen as few. The same two, however, were ranked as the most honest Prime M i n i s t e r s , a deplorable c o r r e l a t i o n . ( i ) Item Nine: By the standards of h i s time, how honest was the Prime Mi n i s t e r i n h i s dealings with the public? This item generated the most s u r p r i s i n g and perplexing data of the questionnaire. While the experts had l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y i n completing t h i s item, one did excuse himself by noting that "before Arthur Meighen's time or perhaps Borden's, the public generally knew very l i t t l e about national p o l i c i e s or p o l i t i c a l behaviour." The s u r p r i s i n g element was the fact that there was such high agreement on the r e l a t i v e honesty of the Prime M i n i s t e r s . The author had f e l t that a judgment about someone's honesty was more open to personal bias than many of the other items rated. For that reason, less of a consensus was a n t i c i p a t e d . The perplexing note arose from the r e l a t i o n s h i p s discovered among the degree of public honesty and p a s s i v i t y i n governing, weakness i n shaping and d i r e c t i n g events i n governmental terms, ineffectiveness i n leading a party, c u r r e n t l y low public prestige, and being rated as having accomplished very l i t t l e o v e r a l l . The greater the degree of honesty, the more extreme was the r a t i n g of each of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or q u a l i t i e s i n a leader. To be considered an honest Prime M i n i s t e r seems almost an i n s u l t . The men doomed to the r a t i n g of most honest are Mackenzie, Meighen and Borden. They are perhaps the three least well remembered leaders outside of the "Forgotten Four" of 1891 to 1896. Even the experts rated themselves as knowing less about the honest Prime Ministers than about the dishonest ones. In a more neutral vein, the honest Prime Ministers tended to be rated as more f l e x i b l e and t r a d i t i o n a l i n t h e i r approach to solving national problems. Who were the three most dishonest leaders? They were the same men who rated among the top four i n degree of current prestige and among the top f i v e i n having achieved s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l accomplishments: King, Macdonald and Trudeau. It appears that one factor (and one whose i n d i v i d u a l contribution has not yet been established) i n the equation summing to a "great" Prime Minist e r i s the element of dishonesty. ( j ) Item Ten: What i s your subjective evaluation of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the Prime Minister's o v e r a l l accomplishments? Comments on t h i s item were s p e c i f i c a l l y c l a r i f i c a t i o n s of i n d i v i d u a l responses. Two experts agreed that the four men of the period 1891 to 1896 were i n o f f i c e for too b r i e f a period to be rated. Another expert offered these summations with his ratings: King (6) "divided us l e a s t " ; Pearson (5) "divided us most but accomplished a l o t " ; and Trudeau (6) pushed through important l e g i s l a t i o n . " (A score of 1 means l i t t l e ; a score of 7 means great). According to the Wendt and Light (1976) study, the fourth element i n the p r e s i d e n t i a l greatness factor was that of o v e r a l l accomplishments. This i s the f i n a l element of that factor, the other three being strength, a c t i v i t y , and prestige. Since t h i s study was an extension of Maranell's (1970) i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i t i s expected that the four greatness variables that Wendt and Light found i n Maranell's data would also c l u s t e r together i n t h i s study. They do: accomplishments are p o s i t i v e l y correlated with strength, a c t i v i t y and prestige. In addition to these, the item i s also p o s i t i v e l y correlated with e f f e c t i v e party leadership, innovative problem solving, f l e x i b l e implementation of p o l i c i e s , and being well known to the experts. One wonders which comes f i r s t i n t h i s f i n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . To become a well-known leader must the Prime M i n i s t e r possess a l l these q u a l i t i e s ? Or having become a leader, do experts search more d i l i g e n t l y for evidence of these q u a l i t i e s i n the men? (k) Item Eleven: How much information do you have about the Prime Minister? This item was included as a check on the experts. To be able to evaluate a Prime Minister one needs to have a c e r t a i n amount of information about him. Because of both the comments and the scores given on t h i s item, the four Prime Ministers holding o f f i c e from 1891 to 1896 had to be eliminated from the analyses. Only 7 of the experts rated themselves as knowing a great deal about these four. There were exceptions, though. One p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t , while r a t i n g himself as having a great deal of information about S i r Charles Tupper, admitted that "none [of i t was] u s e f u l . " One h i s t o r i a n f e l t that he knew as much as could be known about the four. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , Clark, who also had a b r i e f term i n power, did not generate nearly so many "Not Scorable" responses as the others. When one looks at h i s r a t i n g on the amount of knowledge the raters f e l t they had about him, the explanation becomes c l e a r . The p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s rated themselves as knowing a f a i r amount about Clark, while the h i s t o r i a n s , who knew the least of a l l about Clark, rated themselves as having s l i g h t l y more than a moderate amount of knowledge about him. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of information outweighed the b r e v i t y of o f f i c e i n the evaluation of Clark. i I t was on this dimension that the experts from the two d i s c i p l i n e s d i f f e r e d . Of the twelve major Prime M i n i s t e r s , the h i s t o r i a n s knew most about Macdonald, King, Laurier and Borden and less about Bennett, St. Laurent and Clark. In comparison, the p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s knew most about Trudeau, King and Diefenbaker and considerably less about Bennett, Meighen and Mackenzie. Before discussing the leaders who may be considered Canada's greatest Prime M i n i s t e r s , a b r i e f summary of relevant studies which deal with the elements of greatness i n American Presidents w i l l be given. Studies of P r e s i d e n t i a l Greatness It appears that the major determinant of perceived greatness i s the President's strength. Rossiter (1956), who was i n t e r e s t e d i n the growth of prestige and power i n the o f f i c e of President, examined the men who had held that o f f i c e . He evaluated 31 Presidents on the basis of eight c r i t e r i a , the f i r s t of which was concerned with the nature of the times i n which the President served. Rossiter concluded that growth only occurred as a function of the strength of the man i n o f f i c e . Although he claims not to equate strength with goodness or greatness, h i s s e l e c t i o n of the eight "great" Presidents was comprised s o l e l y of strong leaders: Washington, L i n c o l n , F.D. Roosevelt, Jackson, Wilson, T. Roosevelt, Jefferson and Truman. Sokolsky (1964) used d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a from Rossiter's for evaluating the Presidents. He looked at such a t t r i b u t e s as courage, i n t e g r i t y , i d e a l s , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and unselfishness. After examining the leaders, he concluded that the greatest Presidents were the strongest. Hamilton (1958) agreed with Schlesinger's 1948 l i s t i n g of great Presidents. He concluded that i t was the strong Presidents that win l a s t i n g admiration from the American public. In h i s 1962 a r t i c l e on the "great" and not so great Presidents, Schlesinger suggested that there were f i v e f a c t o r s , various subsets of which were common to the men defined as great Presidents i n his p o l l of h i s t o r i a n s . These factors included being a leader at a c r i t i c a l time i n American h i s t o r y , taking timely action which produced timely r e s u l t s , championing l i b e r a l i s m and the general welfare of the c i t i z e n s , ambitiously seeking the ro l e of President, and being a strong executive. Maranell (1970) found that ratings of p r e s i d e n t i a l prestige correlated highly with accomplishment ratings. Strength, he concluded, was not the same thing as general prestige, although i t was c l o s e l y correlated with both prestige and accomplishments. In t h e i r factor analysis of Maranell's (1970) data, Wendt and Light (1976) found a greatness factor with strength emerging as one of the four major loadings. Strength alone, however, was not s u f f i c i e n t for a President to have attained greatness. He must also have been a c t i v e , have made s i g n i f i c a n t accomplishments while i n o f f i c e and currently have a great deal of prestige. In t h e i r discussion of the " c u l t of the a c t i v i s t Presidency" Wendt and Light hold that there i s a " d e f i n i t e a p p r e c i a t i o n — i f not outright admiration—of apparently f o r c e f u l and m i l i t a n t behavior as c o r o l l a r i e s of 'greatness' i n the statesman" (p. 108). Summarizing these studies, i t seems that the q u a l i t y of greatness i n a President i s l a r g e l y determined by his strength. Subsidiary factors i n the determination appear to be his current prestige, h i s activeness and the s i g n i f i c a n c e of his o v e r a l l accomplishments while i n o f f i c e . Canada's Five Greatest Prime Ministers Based on the findings of the American studies of p r e s i d e n t i a l greatness, the elements common to great American leaders are strength, prestige, activeness and accomplishments. The major emphasis, though, i s on the President's strength. I f we take the strength dimension as the primary i n d i c a t o r of "greatness" i n Canadian Prime M i n i s t e r s , then our greatest leaders are S i r John A. Macdonald, Pierre E l l i o t Trudeau, William Lyon Mackenzie King, S i r Wilfred Laurier and S i r Robert Borden. Any doubt about the v a l i d i t y of this s e l e c t i o n because of the single predictor used may be d i s p e l l e d by an examination of the top f i v e choices on each of the other three factors contributing to "greatness." Macdonald, Trudeau, Borden, Laurier and King are the f i v e most active and most prestigious Prime M i n i s t e r s . Only on the l a s t dimension, the one r a t i n g the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the leader's o v e r a l l accomplishments, do we have a change i n the choices. Borden drops to sixth p o s i t i o n while Pearson joins the top f i v e . In spite of t h i s s l i g h t change i t seems the consensus i s that Macdonald, Laurier, Borden, King and Trudeau are Canada's greatest Prime M i n i s t e r s . Both primacy and recency e f f e c t s are found i n the s e l e c t i o n of great Prime M i n i s t e r s , as both our f i r s t and our current Prime Ministers are among the top choices on a l l measures related to greatness. The impact of having had d i f f i c u l t issues to face while i n o f f i c e can also be seen i n the s e l e c t i o n of the f i v e greatest Prime M i n i s t e r s . They were a l l rated as having r e l a t i v e l y d i f f i c u l t p o l i t i c a l issues to face. Although Bennett was rated as the Prime M i n i s t e r faci n g the most d i f f i c u l t issues ( i . e . , those related to the Depression), he did not handle them we l l , as can be demonstrated by h i s low r a t i n g on the accomplishment scale. Thus, to be considered great, i t i s not s u f f i c i e n t to merely be faced with d i f f i c u l t issues. One must also do something about them. (Clark also suffered from t h i s predicament of being faced with d i f f i c u l t issues but not acting to a l l e v i a t e them). Another i n t e r e s t i n g observation concerning our f i v e greatest Prime Ministers i s t h e i r r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n along the dimensions that correspond to the three factors of the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l . Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957) maintain that the connotative meaning of any concept can be described by i t s placement on three d i f f e r e n t continua: evaluative (e.g., good-bad), potency (e.g., strong-weak) and a c t v i t y (e.g., active-passive). They further propose that the d i r e c t i o n of a judge's attitude towards a concept ( i . e . , p o s i t i v e or negative) i s indicated by scores on the evaluative f a c t o r . In the present study the scales that most c l o s e l y corresponded to the evaluative, potency and a c t i v i t y factors are, i n order, s i g n i f i c a n c e of accomplishments, strength of r o l e and approach to governing. The f i v e greatest Prime Ministers are, i n f a c t , the f i v e strongest and most acti v e ; and with the exception of Borden (who i s ranked sixth) they have also accrued the most s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l accomplishments. The author did not undertake t h i s research with the i n t e n t i o n of using the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l as a measure of greatness of Canadian Prime M i n i s t e r s . However, the important dimensions that emerged i n the study do correspond c l o s e l y to these three f a c t o r s . Perhaps the connotative meaning of great leadership can be defined i n terms of r e l a t i v e placement along the evaluative, potency and activeness scales. Conclusions On the basis of the r e s u l t s of this study, a r c h i v a l researchers may continue sampling public speeches when measuring the i n t e g r a t i v e complexity of prominent f i g u r e s . Because i t was demonstrated that no differ e n c e i n complexity l e v e l e x i s t s between speeches that were prepared i n advance of d e l i v e r y (either by the speaker or by speech writers) and 7 8 speeches which -were composed e n t i r e l y by the speaker, they can f e e l confident that they are measuring the speaker's i n t e g r a t i v e complexity. Further conclusions to be drawn from t h i s study are (1) that the perception of Canadian Prime Ministers i s not l i k e l y to vary between Canadian h i s t o r i a n s and Canadian p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s ; (2) that the r e l a t i v e degree of d i f f i c u l t y posed by the p o l i t i c a l issues facing a Prime Minis t e r influences the evaluation he receives concerning h i s activeness, strength, effectiveness as a party leader, innoyativeness and accomplishments; and l a s t l y , (3) that Canada's f i v e greatest Prime Ministers are: S i r John A. Macdonald, S i r Wilfred Laurier, S i r Robert Borden, William Lyon Mackenzie King and P i e r r e E l l i o t Trudeau. 79 REFERENCES Abelson, R.P. Simulation of s o c i a l behavior. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of S o c i a l Psychology, (Rev. ed.), (Vol. 2). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968(b). Almond, G.A. A functional approach to the study of comparative p o l i t i c s . In G.A. Almond and J.S. Coleman (Eds.), The P o l i t i c s of Developing Areas. Princeton: Princeton U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1960. Barker, J.D. The lawmakers: Recruitment and adaptation to l e g i s l a t i v e l i f e . New Haven, Conn.: Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1965. Barber, J.D. Power i n committees: An experiment i n the governmental process. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Barber, J.D. The p r e s i d e n t i a l character: P r e d i c t i n g performance i n the White  House. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1972. Baron, R.A., & Byrne, D. Social psychology: Understanding human i n t e r a c t i o n . (2nd ed.). Toronto: A l l y n and Bacon, Inc. 1977. Beckhouse, L., Tanus, J., Weiler, J., & Weinstein, E. And some men have leadership thrust upon them. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1975, 31, 557-566. Bowers, D.G., & Seashore, S.E. P r e d i c t i n g organizational effectiveness with a four factor theory of leadership. In B.L. Hinton (Ed.), Groups and  Organizations. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1971. Case, CM. Leadership and conjuncture. Sociology and Social Research, 1933, 17, 510-533. C a r l y l e , T. Heroes and hero worship. Boston: Adams, 1907 ( o r i g i n a l 1841). Courtney, J.C. Prime m i n i s t e r i a l character: An examination of Mackenzie King's p o l i t i c a l leadership. Canadian Journal of P o l i t i c a l Science, 1976, 9_, 77-100. Dahl, Robert A. Modern p o l i t i c a l a n a l y sis. Englewood C l i f f s : Prentice H a l l , 1963. Deutsch, K.W. The nerves of government: Models of p o l i t i c a l communication and  co n t r o l . New York: Free Press, 1963. Donaldson, G. F i f t e e n men: Canada's prime ministers from Macdonald to Trudeau. Toronto: Doubleday Canada Limited, 1969. Easton, D.A. The p o l i t i c a l system. New York: Knopf, 1953. Easton, D.A. A framework for p o l i t i c a l a n a l y sis. Englewood C l i f f s . Prentice-H a l l , 1965. F i e d l e r , F.E. A theory of leadership effectiveness . New York: McGraw H i l l , 1967. 80 F i e d l e r , F.E. Personality and s i t u a t i o n a l determinants of leader behaviour. In E.A. Fleishman & J.G. Hunt (Eds.), Current developments i n the study of  leadership. Carbondale, 111.: Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1973. F i l e l l a , J . The psychology of leadership. In J.W. Airan, (Ed.), The Nature of Leadership. Bombay: Lalvani Pub. House, 1969. Hamilton, H. White House images and r e a l i t i e s . G a i n e s v i l l e , F l o r i d a : U n i v e r s i t y of F l o r i d a Press, 1958. Halpin, A.W.& Winer, B.J. A f a c t o r i a l study of the leader behavior d e s c r i p t i o n . In R.M. S t o g d i l l & A.E. Coons (Eds.), Leader Behavior: Its  d e s c r i p t i o n and measurement. Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1957. Harvey, O.J., Hunt, D.E., & Schroder, H.M. Conceptual systems and  personality organization. New York: Wiley, 1961. Hemphill, J.K., & Coons, A.E. Development of the leader behavior d e s c r i p t i o n questionnaire. In R.M. S t o g d i l l & A.E. Coons (Eds.), Leader Behavior:  I t ' s d e s c r i p t i o n and measurement. Columbus: The Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , 1957 . Hermann, C.F., & Brady, L.P. A l t e r n a t i v e models of i n t e r n a t i o n a l c r i s i s behavior. In C.F. Hermann (Ed.), International c r i s e s : Insights from  behavioral research. New York: The Free Press, 1972. Hermann, M.G. (Ed.), A psychological examination of p o l i t i c a l leaders. New York: The Free Press, 1977. Hollander, E.P., & J u l i a n , J.W. Contemporary trends i n the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1969, 7_1, 387-397. Hook, Sydney. The hero i n h i s t o r y . Boston: Beacon, 1943. House, R.J., & M i t c h e l l , T.R. Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of  Contemporary Business, 1974, 5_, 81-97. Hunt, J.G., Osborn, R.N., & Schreisheim, C A . Some neglected aspects of leadership research. In C.N. Greene and P.H. Birnbaum (Eds.), Proceeding  of the 21st Annual Midwest Academy of Management Conference, Ohio Un i v e r s i t y , 1978. Hutchison, B. Mr. prime minister: 1867-1964. Don M i l l s , Ontario: The Hunter Rose Co. Limited, 1964. Ilchman, W.F., & Uphoff, N.T. The p o l i t i c a l economy of change. Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1969. Katz, D. Patterns of leadership. In J.N. Knutson (Ed.), Handbook of p o l i t i c a l  psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1973. Katz, D., Maccoby, N., Gurin, G., & Floor, L. P r o d u c t i v i t y supervision, and  morale among r a i l r o a d workers. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, 1951. Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, W. Prod u c t i v i t y , supervision and morale i n an  o f f i c e s i t u a t i o n . Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Survey Research Center, 1950. 81 Kerr, S., Schreisheim, CA., Murphy, C.J., & S t o g d i l l , R.M. Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and i n i t i a t i n g structure l i t e r a t u r e . Organizational Behavior and Human  Performance, 1974, 12, 62-82. Knutson, J.N. Handbook of p o l i t i c a l psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1973. Lasswell, H.D. Psychopathology and p o l i t i c s . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930. L e v i , A., & Tetlock, P.E. A cognitive analysis of Japan's 1941 decision for wars. Journal of C o n f l i c t Resolution, 1980, 24, 195-211. Lewin, K. Training i n democratic leadership. Journal of Abnormal and Social  Psychology, 1942, 37, 115-119. Mann, R.D. A review of the re l a t i o n s h i p s between personality and performance i n small groups. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1959, 56_, 241-270. Maranell, CM. The evaluation of presidents: An extension of the Schlesinger p o l l s . Journal of American History, 1970, 57_, 104-113. McClosky, H. Personality and attitude correlates of foreign p o l i c y o r i e n t a t i o n In J.N. Rosenau (Ed.), Domestic sources of foreign p o l i c y . New York: Free Press, 1967. McFarland, A.S. Power and leadership i n p l u r a l i s t systems. Stanford, C a l i f . : Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1969. Nydegger, R.V. Information processing complexity and leadership status. Journal of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1975, JA, 317-328. Ondaatje, C , & Catherwood, R. The prime ministers of Canada 1867-1967. Toronto: Canyon Press, 1967. Osborn, R.N., & Hunt, J . C An adaptive-reactive theory of leadership: The rol e of macrovariables i n leadership research. In J . C Hunt and L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership F r o n t i e r s . Kent: Kent State U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. Osgood, C E . , Saporta, S., & Nunnally, J.C. Evaluative assertion analysis. L i t e r a , 1956, 3, 47-102. Osgood, C E . , Suci, G.J., & Tannenbaum, P.H. The measurement of meaning. Urbana: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1957. Paige, C D . The s c i e n t i f i c study of p o l i t i c a l leadership. New York: Free Press, 1977. Porter, CA., & Suedfeld, P. Integrative complexity i n the correspondence of l i t e r a r y figures: E f f e c t of personal and s o c i e t a l s t ress. Journal of  Perso n a l i t y and Soc i a l Psychology, 1981, 40, 321-330. Rossiter, C The American presidency. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1956. 82 Sabine, G.H. A h i s t o r y of p o l i t i c a l theory. New York: Holt, 1937. Schlesinger, A.M. Our presidents: A r a t i n g by 75 Historians i n The New York  Times Magazine, July 29, 1962, pp. 12-13, 40-43. Schlesinger, A.M. Paths to the present. New York: Macmillan Co., 1949. Schroder, H.M., Driver, M.J., & Streufert, S. Human information processing: Individuals and groups functioning i n complex s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967. Schroder, H.M., & Suedfeld, P. (Eds.), Personality theory and information  processing. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1971. Seligman, L.G. The study of p o l i t i c a l leadership. American P o l i t i c a l  Sciences Review, 1950, 44, 904-915. Simonton, D.K. P r e s i d s e n t i a l greatness, dogmatism and performance. Journal  of Personality, 1981, 49, 307-323. Snyder, R.C. A decision-making approach to the study of p o l i t i c a l phenomena In Roland Young (Ed.), Approaches to the study of p o l i t i c s . Evanston: Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1958. Sokolsky, E. Our seven greatest presidents. New York: Exposition Press, 1964. Spencer, H. The study of sociology. (13th ed.). London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1887. S t o g d i l l , R.M. Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press, 1974. Str e u f e r t , S., & Schroder, H.M. Conceptual structure, environmental complexity and task performance. Journal of Experimental Research and  Personality. 1965, 1, 132-137. Suedfeld, P. [Measuring int e g r a t i v e complexity i n a r c h i v a l m a t e r i a l s ] . In H. Mandl & G.L. Huber (Eds.), Kognitive Komplexitat, Gottingen, West Germany: Hogrefe, 1978. Suedfeld, P. Indices of world tension i n the B u l l e t i n of the Atomic S c i e n t i s t s . P o l i t i c a l Psychology, 1980, Fall/Winter, 114-123. Suedfeld, P., & Rank, A.D. Revolutionary leaders: Long-term success as a function of changes i n conceptual complexity. Journal of Personality and  S o c i a l Psychology, 1976, 34, 169-178. Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P.E., & Ramirez, C. War, Peace, and i n t e g r a t i v e complexity: UN speeches on the Middle East problem, 1947-1976. Journal of  C o n f l i c t Resolution, 1977, 21, 427-442. Tetlock, P.E. Personality and i s o l a t i o n i s m : Content analysis of senatorial speeches. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1981, 41, 737-743. 83 Tetlock, P.E. Pre- to Postelection s h i f t s i n p r e s i d e n t i a l r h e t o r i c : Impression management or cognitive adjustment? Journal of Personality and  So c i a l Psychology, 1981, 41, 207-212. Weber, M. The protestant ethic and the s p i r i t of capitalism. New York: Scribner's, 1958. O r i g i n a l l y published 1904-1905. Wendt, H.W., & Light, P.C. Measuring greatness i n American presidents: Model case for i n t e r n a t i o n a l research on p o l i t i c a l leadership. European  Journal of S o c i a l Psychology, 1976, 6^, 105-109. Wolfenstein, E.V. The revolutionary personality: Lenin, Trotsky and Gandhi. Princeton: Princeton U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1967. 84 APPENDIX A THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA D E P A R T M E N T O F P S Y C H O L O G Y # 1 5 4 • 2 0 5 3 M A I N M A L L VANCOUVER B.C. CANADA V6T 1Y7 March, 1981 I am a gr a d u a t e s t u d e n t w o r k i n g on my Ma s t e r ' s t h e s i s a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C olumbia. My t h e s i s d e a l s w i t h the p o s s i b i l i t y o f a s y s t e m a t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t i n g between t h e i n t e g r a t i v e c o m p l e x i t y l e v e l ( s e e n e x t page) o f Canadian P r i m e M i n i s t e r s and how each Prime M i n i s t e r i s r a t e d on d i f f e r e n t d i m e n s i o n s by e x p e r t s i n C anadian h i s t o r y and p o l i t i c a l s t u d i e s . To o b t a i n v a l i d c o r r e l a t i o n s I need the o p i n i o n s o f s p e c i a l i s t s i n t h e s e f i e l d s . Would you be k i n d enough to a s s i s t me i n t h i s p r o j e c t by r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e q u e s t i o n s i n t h e e n c l o s e d b o o k l e t ? The whole e x e r c i s e t a k e s l e s s than 30 m i n u t e s . I would be p l e a s e d to send you a copy o f the e x p e r t s ' a v e r a g e d r a t i n g s , and the c o r r e l a t i o n s between the r a t i n g s and t h e c o m p l e x i t y s c o r e s o f the P r i m e M i n i s t e r s , i f you would l i k e them. E n c l o s e d i s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f i n t e g r a t i v e c o m p l e x i t y and o f s e v e r a l s t u d i e s i n which t h i s t o o l has been used to supplement h i s t o r i c a l i n s i g h t s . Yours t r u l y , E B :pw E n d s . E l i z a b e t h B a l l a r d 86 What i s Integrative Complexity? Integrative complexity, also known as conceptual complexity, i s the way in which an individual expresses his responses to problems, uncertainty, threat, opposition, conflict and other environmental variables. It can be measured from speeches and other published material such as interviews, articles and letters. The scores represent the complexity with which a particular idea was being processed. Conceptual complexity ranges from a rig i d , all-or-nothing, closed-ended, unclearly differentiated style characteristic of simple processing to a flexible, combinatorial, clearly discriminated and integrated, information-oriented, open-ended style indicative of complex functioning. While this description of the range of integrative functioning sounds value-laden, the notion of integrative complexity is non-evaluative. There are, for example, situations in which simple levels of processing are more defirable and more l i k e l y to lead to success than are complex levels. Some Studies Using Integrative Complexity In 1976 Suedfeld and Rank published an ar t i c l e which compared the complexity scores of revolutionary leaders before and after successful revolutions. As was predicted, low complexity scores were most common among the leaders prior to the overthrow of the existing government. However, those pre-revolutionary leaders who increased in complexity after victory were more successful in maintaining a position of importance in the post-revolutionary government than those leaders whose complexity did not show such an increase. In another study, Suedfeld, Tetlock and Ramirez (1977) found that there was a significant correlation between the drop i n complexity levels of the speeches of UN delegates from Israel and the United Arab Republic and the subsequent outbreaks of armed conflict in the Middle East between 1948 and 1976. Based on their results, the authors suggest that public statements of spokesmen from mutually hostile countries reflect the perception of the leadership as to the near future of their relationship with each other and further, that reduced levels of complexity precede the outbreak of major armed conflict. 87 Articles That Have Used Complexity Scores Suedfeld, P., & Rank, A.D. Revolutionary leaders: Long-term success as a function of changes i n conceptual complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 3_4, 169-178. Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. Integrative complexity of communications in international crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1977, 21^ 169-184. Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P.E., & Ramirez, C. War, peace, and integrative complexity: UN speeches on the Middle East problem, 1947-1976. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1977, 21, 427-442. Tetlock, P.E. Identifying victims of groupthink from public statements of decision-makers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, .37, 1314-1324. Tetlock, P.E., & Levi, A. A multi-method study of the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Quebec City, June 14, 1979. 88 GLOSSARY ; active: causing or promoting action or change difficult: hard to accomplish or deal with; demanding effort or great care directing: managing, controlling or administering; supervising and organizing easy: requiring l i t t l e work or effort; offering few difficulties effective; producing or adapting to produce the proper result flexible: able to adjust or adapt honest: not characterized by falsehood or intent to mislead idealistic: one who formulates or attempts to live in accordance with ideals innovative: to introduce or bring in new ideas or methods passive: not acting, working or operating; submitting or yielding without resistance or opposition; receptive to external force practical: pertaining to or governed by actual use and experience or action prestige: authority or importance based on past achievements, reputation or power shaping: to give direction or character to events traditional: relating or adhering to tradition; a custom so long continued that i t has almost the force of a law 89 How would you rate the d i f f i c u l t y of the p o l i t i c a l issues facing the Prime Minister? Please c i r c l e the number which corresponds to your rating of each Prime Minister on this dimension. Circle NS i f the Prime Minister cannot be scored. easy d i f f i c u l t 1. Sir John A. Macdonald 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 2. Alexander Mackenzie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 3. Sir John Abbott 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 4. Sir John Thompson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 5. Sir Mackenzie Bowell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 6. Sir Charles Tupper 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 7. Sir Wilfrid Laurier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 8. Sir Robert Borden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 9. Arthur Meighen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 10. W.L. Mackenzie King 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 11. R.B. Bennett 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 12. Louis St. Laurent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 13. John Diefenbaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 14. Lester B. Pearson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 15. Pierre E l l i o t t Trudeau 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 16. Joseph Clark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 90 To what extent did the Prime Minister take an active approach to governing? Please c i r c l e the number which corresponds to your rating of each Prime Minister on this dimension. Circle NS i f the Prime Minister cannot be scored. passive active 1. Sir John A. Macdonald . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 2. Alexander Mackenzie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 3. Sir John Abbott 1 2 3 4, 5 6 7 NS 4. Sir John Thompson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 5. Sir Mackenzie Bowell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 6. Sir Charles Tupper 1 2 3 4 \ 5 6 7 NS 7. Sir Wilfrid Laurier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 8. Sir Robert Borden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ' NS 9. Arthur Meighen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 10. W.L. Mackenzie King 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 11. R.B. Bennett 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 12. Louis St. Laurent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS; 13. John Diefenbaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 14. Lester B. Pearson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 15. Pierre E l l i o t t Trudeau 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS; 16. Joseph Clark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 91 3 To what extent was the Prime Minister motivated by i d e a l i s t i c versus practical considerations? Please c i r c l e the number which corresponds to your rating of each Prime Minister on this dimension. Circle NS i f the Prime Minister cannot be scored. ide a l i s t i c + practical T 1. Sir John A. Macdonald 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 2. Alexander Mackenzie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 3. Sir John Abbott 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 4. Sir John Thompson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 5. Sir Mackenzie Bowell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 6. Sir Charles Tupper 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 7. Sir Wilfrid Laurier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 8. Sir Robert Borden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 9. Arthur Meighen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 10. W.L. Mackenzie King 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 11. R.B. Bennett 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 12. Louis St. Laurent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 13. John Diefenbaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 14. Lester B. Pearson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 15. Pierre E l l i o t t Trudeau 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 16. Joseph Clark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 92 4 What was the strength of the role the Prime Minister played in shaping events and directing government? (i.e. Was he the master or the servant of events?) Please c i r c l e the number which corresponds to your rating of each Prime Minister on this dimension. Circle NS i f the Prime Minister cannot be scored. weak (servant) + strong (master) + 1. Sir John A. Macdonald 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 2. Alexander Mackenzie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 3. Sir John Abbott 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 4. Sir John Thompson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 5. Sir Mackenzie Bowell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 6. Sir Charles Tupper 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 7. Sir Wilfrid Laurier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 8. Sir Robert Borden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 9. Arthur Meighen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 10. W.L. Mackenzie King 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 11. R.B. Bennett 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 12. Louis St. Laurent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 13. John Diefenbaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 HS 14. Lester B. Pearson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 15. Pierre E l l i o t t Trudeau 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 16. Joseph Clark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 93 To what extent was the Prime Minister effective as a party leader? Please c i r c l e the number which corresponds to your rating of each Prime Minister on this dimension. Circle NS i f the Prime Minister cannot be scored. • f f a c t i v e ineffective T + 1. Sir John A. Macdonald 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 2. Alexander Mackenzie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 3. Sir John Abbott 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 4. Sir John Thompson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 5. Sir Mackenzie Bowell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 6. Sir Charles Tupper 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 7. Sir Wilfrid Laurier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 8. Sir Robert Borden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 9. Arthur Meighen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 10. W.L. Mackenzie King 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 11. R. B. Bennett 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 12. Louis St. Laurent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 13. John Diefenbaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 14. Lester B. Pearson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ki 15. Pierre E l l i o t t Trudeau 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 16. Joseph Clark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 94 6 What is the current prestige assigned to the Prime Minister? Please c i r c l e the number which corresponds to your rating of each Prime Minister on this dimension. Circle NS i f the Prime Minister cannot be scored. low + high 1. Sir John A. Macdonald 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 2. Alexander Mackenzie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 3. Sir John Abbott 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 4. Sir John Thompson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 5. Sir Mackenzie Bowell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 6. Sir Charles Tupper 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 7. Sir Wilfrid Laurier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 8. Sir Robert Borden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 9. Arthur Meighen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 10. W.L. Mackenzie King 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 11. R. B. Bennett 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 12. Louis St. Laurent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 13. John Diefenbaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 14. Lester B. Pearson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 15. Pierre E l l i o t t Trudeau 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 16. Joseph Clark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 95 To what extent did the Prime Minister exhibit a traditional versus an innovative approach to solving national problems? Please c i r c l e the number which corresponds to your rating of each Prime Minister on this dimension. Circle NS i f the Prime Minister cannot be scored. innovative T traditional 1. Sir John A. Macdonald 2. Alexander Mackenzie 3. Sir John Abbott 4. Sir John Thompson 5. Sir Mackenzie Bowell 6. Sir Charles Tupper 7. Sir Wilfrid Laurier 8. Sir Robert Borden 9. Arthur Meighen 10. W. L. Mackenzie King 11. R. B. Bennett 12. Louis St. Laurent 13. John Diefenbaker 14. Lester B. Pearson 15. Pierre E l l i o t t Trudeau 16. Joseph Clark 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 96 8 How flexible was the Prime Minister in his approach to implementing programmes or policies? Please c i r c l e the number which corresponds to your rating of each Prime Minister on this dimension. Circle NS i f the Prime Minister cannot be scored. inflexible flexible 1. Sir John A. Macdonald 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 2. Alexander Mackenzie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 3. Sir John Abbott 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 T NS 4. Sir John Thompson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 5. Sir Mackenzie Bowell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 6. Sir Charles Tupper 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 7. Sir Wilfrid Laurier i 2 3 4 5 6 . 7 NS 8. Sir Robert Borden I 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 9. Arthur Meighen l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 10. W. L. Mackenzie King l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 11. R. B. Bennett l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 12. Louis St. Laurent l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 13. John Diefenbaker l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 14. Lester B. Pearson l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 15. Pierre E l l i o t t Trudeau l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 16. Joseph Clark l 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 97 By the standards of his time, how honest was the Prime Minister i n his dealings with the public? Please c i r c l e the number which corresponds to your rating of each Prime Minister on this dimension. Circle NS i f the Prime Minister cannot be scored. honest dishonest t T 1. Sir John A. Macdonald 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 2. Alexander Mackenzie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 3. Sir John Abbott 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 4. Sir John Thompson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 5. Sir Mackenzie Bowell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 6. Sir Charles Tupper 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 7. Sir Wilfrid Laurier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 8. Sir Robert Borden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 9. Arthur Meighen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 10. W. L. Mackenzie King 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 11. R.-B. Bennett 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 12. Louis St. Laurent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 13. John Diefenbaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 14. Lester B. Pearson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 15. Pierre E l l i o t t Trudeau 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 16. Joseph Clark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 98 10 What is your subjective evaluation of the significance of the Prime Minister's overall accomplishments? Please c i r c l e the number which corresponds to your rating of each Prime Minister on this dimension. Circle NS i f the Prime Minister cannot be scored. \ l i t t l e + great + 1. Sir John A. Macdonald 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 2. "Alexander Mackenzie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 3. Sir John Abbott 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 4. Sir John Thompson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 5. Sir Mackenzie Bowell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 6. Sir Charles Tupper 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 7. Sir Wilfrid Laurier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 8. Sir Robert Borden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 9. Arthur Meighen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 10. W. L. Mackenzie King 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 11. R. B. Bennett 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 12. Louis St. Laurent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 13. John Diefenbaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 14. Lester B. Pearson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 15. Pierre E l l i o t Trudeau 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 16. Joseph Clark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS 99 11 How much information do you have about this Prime Minister? Please c i r c l e the number which corresponds to your rating of each Prime Minister on this dimension . very l i t t l e a great deal f ' T 1. Sir John A. Macdonald 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Alexander Mackenzie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Sir John Abbott 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Sir John Thompson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Sir Mackenzie Bowell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Sir Charles Tupper 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Sir Wilfrid Laurier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Sir Robert Borden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Arthur Meighen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. W. L. Mackenzie King 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. R. B. Bennett 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Louis St. Laurent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. John Diefenbaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Lester B. Pearson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Pierre E l l i o t t Trudeau 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Joseph Clark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 100. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET 1. Age Sex 2. Professional specialty within history 3. Academic rank ___ 4. Highest degree held 5. Institution from which my highest degree was received Please check this i f you wish to have a copy of the results mailed to you. Name: ' • •  Date: - . ._ . 101 APPENDIX B 102 Princeton Manual Guidelines Score 1; Response could be generated by, single fixed r u l e ; no a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s were considered; subtle conditional changes would produce no changes i n the response. Responses which f i t the event into a category ( i n c l u s i o n v exclusion) with a high degree of c e r t a i n t y , which unambiguously reduce c o n f l i c t and avoid the use of gradations (shades of gray and continua) are t y p i c a l l y generated by simple structure. a. Viewing c o n f l i c t , uncertainty or ambiguity as unpleasant or as a flaw or weakness i n people or functioning. b. Seeking f a s t and unambiguous closure or resolution, and reacting i n such a way as to engage i n t e r n a l l y consistent processes which reduce incongruity or dissonance. c. Offering a s p e c i f i c guide or r u l e for reducing c o n f l i c t . d. Implying that an absolute so l u t i o n can be found. e. Stating that e f f e c t s are compartmentalized, are a l l one way or a l l another way. f . Presenting only one side of a problem ignoring differences and s i m i l a r i t i e s with other views. Score 2: When the response s i g n i f i e s a q u a l i f i c a t i o n of an absolute rule but i s not c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d as an a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Score 3; Clear representation of a v a i l a b i l i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e rule structures for perceiving the event. The response must indicate the simultaneous generation of alternate and d i f f e r e n t perceptions of the same information. It also includes a conditional r u l e for specifying when each i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s used. a. L i s t i n g s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences between view, without considering r e l a t i o n s h i p s . b. S p e c i f i c a t i o n of at least two d i f f e r e n t interpretations of the event i n the stem. c. Presence of " e i t h e r - o r " type responses expressing a possible conditional r u l e about two ways of categorizing. d. P r o b a b i l i t y statements about the occurrence of d i f f e r e n t views or outcomes. e. Reactions against absolutism i n general (implying more than one view i s not necessarily being " a n t i " p a r t i c u l a r view which could i n d i c a t e a low l e v e l fixed r u l e s t r u c t u r e ) . f. The avoidance of dependency on external imposition, i . e . , c l e a r l y implying the a v a i l a b i l i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e s . 103. Score 4 : When confident that the response implies alternate i n t e r p r e t a -tions and also implies that both can i n t e r a c t , but the i n t e r a c t i o n i s expressed as q u a l i f i c a t i o n rather than as the emergence of comparison r u l e s . Score 5: Response must give evidence not only of a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a -tions but of the use of comparison rules for considering the j o i n t as opposed to the conditional outcome of these d i f f e r e n t perceptions. At t h i s l e v e l differences can be held i n focus simultaneously and viewed as having i n t e r a c t i v e effects...expresses the j o i n t operation d i r e c t l y and the other processes must be i n f e r r e d . a. The i n t e g r a t i o n of two c o n f l i c t i n g or d i f f e r e n t interpretations so as to preserve and not "ward o f f " the c o n f l i c t . b. The generation of various meanings of alternate perceptions, e.g., various meanings of the perception of c o n f l i c t i n g views about a person. c. Evidence that the completion implies the a b i l i t y to take another person's intentions (or perceptions) into account and to r e l a t e d i f f e r e n t perceptions of d i f f e r e n t people. d. Implication that one's behavior i s affected by the way another behaves as i n a give-and-take strategy game. e. A view of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p anchored i n mutual r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (as opposed to fixed b e l i e f s or rules) i n which each person can "place himself i n the other person's shoes" ( r e l a t e alternate schema). Score 6; Indication of the simultaneous operation of a l t e r n a t i v e s and some evidence of the consideration of functional r e l a t i o n s between them. Score 7; Not only states or implies that a l t e r n a t i v e perceptions occurred and were simultaneously held i n focus and compared but also indicates that the outcomes of various comparisons can be considered i n producing causal statements about the functional r e l a t i o n s between "ways of viewing the world."... a. C o n f l i c t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s which we viewed as leading to new organizations and information. b. The u t i l i z a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e s through exploratory action i n order to obtain new information. c. Generation of functional r e l a t i o n s between a l t e r n a t i v e s . d. Consideration of r e l a t i o n s h i p s among s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences between the sides of a problem or question and the development of r e l a t i o n s h i p s between alternate reasons as to why these differences and s i m i l a r i t i e s e x i s t . The production of more "connectedness" between al t e r n a t i v e s by theorizing as to why these reasons e x i s t . 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095576/manifest

Comment

Related Items