Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Distance from the protype : a multidimensional scaling approach to personality assessment Broughton, Ross Harold 1986

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A1 B76.pdf [ 5.69MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097207.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097207-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097207-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097207-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097207-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097207-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097207-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097207-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097207.ris

Full Text

D i s t a n c e From the P r o t o t y p e : A M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l S c a l i n g Approach To P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment by ROSS HAROLD BROUGHTON B.A. (Hons), Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y , 1978 M.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1981 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Psychology) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA J u l y 1986 C o p y r i g h t , Ross Harold Broughton 1986 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date DE-6 f3/81) A b s t r a c t An MDS (MultiDimenaional S c a l i n g ) model of p e r s o n a l i t y assessment i s presented as an a l t e r n a t i v e method of p e r s o n a l i t y assessment designed to i n c o r p o r a t e r e c e n t l y d i s c o v e r e d c o g n i t i v e p r i n c i p l e s r e l a t i n g t o how people mentally o r g a n i z e c a t e g o r i e s (Roach, 1978), i n c l u d i n g p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t c a t e g o r i e s (Broughton, 1984). The MDS model i s shown t o g e n e r a l i z e from a t o o l f o r e v a l u a t i n g the s e l f concept and the semantics of i n t e r p e r s o n a l c a t e g o r i e s ( P a r t r i d g e , 1984) t o one t h a t taps the f u l l gamut of p e r s o n a l i t y assessment i n the i n t e r p e r s o n a l domain as d e f i n e d by Wiggins (1979). In t h i s paradigm, s u b j e c t s r a t e d the s i m i l a r i t y of t h e i r own p e r s o n a l i t y to p r o t o t y p i c a l c h a r a c t e r s d e s c r i b e d i n s h o r t s t o r i e s , or v i g n e t t e s . In asking s u b j e c t s t o compare themselves to h y p o t h e t i c a l people who d i s p l a y p r o t o t y p i c a l b e h a v i o r s (based on the a c t - f requency p r o t o t y p e analyses of Buss & C r a i k , 1980), one i s a b l e to s t a n d a r d i z e the measure a g a i n s t which s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s are made. Thus " p r o t o t y p i c a l dominance" ( i n t h i s case o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d as an e x c e l l e n t example of what i t means i n b e h a v i o r a l terms to be dominant) i s the same f o r each s u b j e c t , as i s p r o t o t y p i c a l e x t r a v e r s i o n , a g g r e s s i o n , and so on. U n l i k e t r a d i t i o n a l s e l f - r e p o r t measures, the respondent i s not r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e h i s or her own ( p o s s i b l y i d i o s y n c r a t i c ) t r a i t d e f i n i t i o n . Study 1 i n v o l v e d the development and use of the v i g n e t t e i i i m a t e r i a l s i n a paper and p e n c i l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . In t h i s study 25 undergraduate s u b j e c t s r a t e d the 28 nonredundant p a i r s of e i g h t v i g n e t t e c h a r a c t e r s f o r s i m i l a r i t y . The u s e f u l n e s s of the v i g n e t t e s as p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t i n g s t i m u l i was gauged according to s t r u c t u r a l c r i t e r i a , namely the c i r c u l a r o r d e r i n g ( c i r c u m p l e x i t y ) t o emerge from the MDS a n a l y s i s of the e i g h t v i g n e t t e s t i m u l i . Although the r e s u l t s were judged s a t i s f a c t o r y , s t e p s were taken i n Study 2 t o improve the i n t e r p e r s o n a l meaning of two of the p r o t o t y p e s t o r i e s , i n an attempt to improve the s o l u t i o n . In Study 3, a microcomputer a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n v o l v i n g 158 p a r t i c i p a n t s , s u b j e c t s compared the e i g h t s t i m u l i f o r s i m i l a r i t y as i n Study 1 but a l s o compared themselves (each s u b j e c t ' s usual and i d e a l s e l f ) t o the e i g h t v i g n e t t e c h a r a c t e r s . Derived MDS d i s t a n c e s from the p r o t o t y p i c a l c h a r a c t e r s were compared with c o n v e n t i o n a l s e l f - r e p o r t s c a l e s c o r e s from f o u r widely used p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r i e s (the P e r s o n a l i t y Research Form, PRF; A d j e c t i v e Check L i s t , ACL; C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Inventory, CPI; and the I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s , IAS). C o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s e s r e v e a l e d low t o moderate congruence between the MDS technique and these t r a d i t i o n a l p e r s o n a l i t y measures. Three m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s were performed t o t e s t how w e l l s u b j e c t s ' MDS d i s t a n c e s c o r e s c o u l d p r e d i c t standard t r a i t measures. R e s u l t s from the f i r s t a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t MDS measures were b e t t e r a t p r e d i c t i n g IAS s e l f - e s t e e m than the f o u r t r a d i t i o n a l I n v e n t o r i e s . The second a n a l y s i s showed t h a t MDS d i s t a n c e s c o r e s b e t t e r p r e d i c t e d IAS dominance than the remaining t h r e e i n v e n t o r i e s . The purpose of the t h i r d r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was to t e s t the comparative p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y of the MDS s c o r e s with a d i f f e r e n t s e l f - r e p o r t method PRF dominance. The MDS measures p l a c e d l a s t i n t h i s c ategory, but were not f a r behind the o t h e r s . V TABLE OF CONTENTS Aba-tract. i i L i s t of Tables v i i L i s t o f F i g u r e s v i i i Acknowledgments i x I . I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 I I . Why MDS? 2 The A n a l y t i c Model 5 Why M u l t i s c a l e I I ? 8 I I I . The I n t e r p e r s o n a l C i r c l e 11 Prototypes 15 IV. Present S t u d i e s 17 R e p l i c a t i n g the P a r t r i d g e F i n d i n g s 21 O b j e c t i v e s 25 V. Study 1 27 Method 27 R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n .30 VI. Study 2 32 Method 33 R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n 34 VII. Study 3 35 Method 36 R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n 45 V I I I . General D i s c u s s i o n 56 v i C o n s t r u c t V a l i d i t y of DISPRO 57 P r o t o t y e s R e v i s i t e d 59 DISPRO as P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment Technique 62 D i r e c t i o n s f o r Future Research 65 References 69 Appendices 93 v i i LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 20 moat p r o t o t y p i c a l a c t a 79 Tabl e 2. P a r t r i d g e MDS s t i m u l i SO Table 3. Mean r a t i n g s f o r v i g n e t t e s v a r y i n g i n i n t e n s i t y and d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s . 81 Table 4. Zero-order pearaon c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r d i s t a n c e s from p r o t o t y p i c a l v i g n e t t e a c t o r s and p e r s o n a l i t y s c a l e s from f o u r t r a d i t i o n a l i n v e n t o r i e s . 8 2 Table 5. M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r MDS d i s t a n c e s c o r e s and ACL, PRF, CPI, & IAS s c a l e s c o r e s on se l f - e s t e e m 84 Table 6. M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r MDS d i s t a n c e s c o r e s , CPI, and PRF s c a l e s c o r e s on IAS dominance... 85 Table 7. M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r MDS d i s t a n c e s c o r e s , ACL, and IAS s c a l e s c o r e s on PRF dominance... 86 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES F i g u r e 1. T h e o r e t i c a l IAS circuiaplex ...87 F i g u r e 2. Two dimensional p l o t of P a r t r i d g e s t i m u l i 88 F i g u r e 3. Two dimensional p l o t of i n i t i a l p r ototype v i g n e t t e s . 8 9 F i g u r e 4. E m p i r i c a l p l o t of IAS circumplex 90 F i g u r e 5. Two d i m e n s i o n a l p l o t of f i n a l prototype v i g n e t t e s . . . 91 F i g u r e 6. Two dimensional p l o t of f i n a l prototype v i g n e t t e s and average usual s e l f and i d e a l s e l f 92 Acknowledgments I t i s the nature of the d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n beast t h a t i t rep r e s e n t f a r more than the work of the s i n g l e author t h a t appears on i t s cover, yet only p a s s i n g r e f e r e n c e , such as t h i s , i s g iven t o r e c o g n i z e t h i s f a c t and l i s t those who deserve f a r more c r e d i t than they r e c e i v e . I w i l l attempt t h i s d i f f i c u l t task with the r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t i t has to f a l l s h o r t o f what perhaps should be s a i d , but never i s . I w i l l r e l y on those who know what they c o n t r i b u t e d to f o r g i v e me and take f u l l l i c e n s e to f i l l i n between the l i n e s . F i r s t , I must thank the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s and Humanities Research C o u n c i l of Canada f o r i t s f i n a n c i a l support i n the form of a d o c t o r a l f e l l o w s h i p to me (no. 452-82-5667) and through a re s e a r c h grant t o J e r r y S. Wiggins (no. 410-83-0675). I a l s o thank J e r r y Wiggins, my r e s e a r c h a d v i s e r from the beginning of my graduate education, f o r h i s f r i e n d s h i p and u n f a i l i n g good adv i c e and support. P r o f e s s o r Wiggins e x e m p l i f i e d a l l t h a t can be good i n a mentor-student r e l a t i o n -s h i p . He made me f e e l l i k e a c o l l e a g u e r a t h e r than a student from the s t a r t , and I w i l l always be g r a t e f u l f o r t h a t . Del Paulhua helped i n many ways i n t h i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t and other a s p e c t s of my career development as w e l l . I b e n e f i t e d g r e a t l y from h i s help, f o r which I am indebted, and f o r the many s a c r i f i c e s (time and otherwise) he made on my b e h a l f . My other committee member, Lawrence Ward, deserves s p e c i a l thanks f o r s t e p p i n g i n under adverse c o n d i t i o n s and f o r h i s help p r o v i d e d as my multidimensional s c a l i n g c o n s u l t a n t . I am a l s o X g r a t e f u l to many of my graduate student f r i e n d s f o r t h e i r v a r i o u s forms of help along the way. Norm P h i l l i p s , Paul T r a p n e l l , and Dave Lim a l l helped somehow to improve t h i s work. Paul's w r i t i n g " p o l i s h " came i n handy f o r my v i g n e t t e s ; I c o u l d have used more, though, i n other areas of t h i s t h e s i s . F i n a l l y I must wholeheartedly thank B e v e r l e y Fehr f o r g u i d i n g me through the peaks and v a l l e y s of graduate l i f e and showing me what the p o s s i b i l i t i e s a re. 1 I. I n t r o d u c t i o n In an o r i g i n a l and h e u r i a t i c a l l y s t i m u l a t i n g Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , P a r t r i d g e (1984) molded a t h e r e t o f o r e r a t h e r o r d i n a r y , but u s e f u l , d a t a - a n a l y t i c technique m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g (MDS) -- i n t o a novel assessment procedure with measurement p r o p e r t i e s t h a t should spark i n t e r e s t e s p e c i a l l y i n p e r s o n a l i t y psychology. In her own words, " ( t h e MDS procedure was) c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as a method f o r a c t i v a t i n g the s o c i a l self-schema" (p. i i i ) , i n a paper-and-penci1, s e l f - r e p o r t format. As a st a n d a r d i z e d assessment instrument, the P a r t r i d g e MDS t e s t appeared promising with r e s p e c t t o the t r a d i t i o n a l psychometric c r i t e r i a of r e l i a b i l i t y and concurrent v a l i d i t y . Moreover, the MDS s i m i l a r i t y - r a t i n g procedure was a b l e to r e p l i c a t e s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s found by f a c t o r a n a l y t i c techniques employed i n the a n a l y s i s of t r a d i t i o n a l L i k e r t format data, when s u b j e c t s were asked t o judge the semantic s i m i l a r i t y of i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t i m u l i . S p e c i f i c a l l y , a circumplex-1 i k e  s t r u c t u r e was obtained when the MDS technique was a p p l i e d t o the semantics (judged s i m i l a r i t y of meaning) of i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s with known s e l f - r e p o r t s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s , (Wiggins, 1979; Wiggins & Broughton, 1985). These impressive f i n d i n g s i n s p i r e d me to propose other c o n t e x t s , i n a d d i t i o n to the s e l f - c o n c e p t and the semantics of i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s , where an MDS technology might prove u s e f u l i n p e r s o n a l i t y psychology. These areas i n c l u d e d the use of c u r r e n t c o g n i t i v e p r i n c i p l e s f o r o r g a n i z i n g r e l e v a n t 2 behaviors i n t o s p e c i f i c d i s p o s i t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s , and the development of h y p o t h e t i c a l c h a r a c t e r s t o a c t out these b e h a v i o r s . The use of mult i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g techniques i n p e r s o n a l i t y psychology i s not new. What i s . r e l a t i v e l y new i s the use of MDS as a stand-alone p e r s o n a l i t y assessment instrument. Although many MDS procedures w i l l do, one s e t of procedures (used i n the present s t u d i e s ) c a l l e d M u l t i s c a l e II (Ramsey, 1977), has a number of q u a n t i t a t i v e and o b j e c t i v e f e a t u r e s that seem p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l s u i t e d t o areas of p e r s o n a l i t y assessment t h a t have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been analyzed with f a c t o r a n a l y t i c t e c h n i q u e s . Some of these f e a t u r e s w i l l be introduced i n the next s e c t i o n , where I d e s c r i b e the u s e f u l n e s s of m ultidimensional s c a l i n g techniques. I I . Why MDS? Background and Theory M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g has been employed as a data a n a l y t i c technique i n the study of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s f o r over 30 years now (Meaaick, 1956a; 1956b). In many e a r l y s t u d i e s MDS was used t o expl o r e the d i m e n s i o n a l i t y of p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s (e.g., Jackson, Messick & S o l l e y , 1957; Rosenberg, Nelson & Vivekanthan, 1968), and not s u r p r i s i n g l y i n l a t e r s t u d i e s MDS was a l s o used to confirm the s t r u c t u r e o f p e r s o n a l i t y (e.g., Jones, 1972; S t i l e s , 1980). MDS i s sometimes used i n between-subject designs ( K r u s k a l , 1964a; 1964b); or i n w i t h i n - s u b j e c t or i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s d e s i g n s ( C a r r o l l & Chang, 1970). 3 More r e c e n t l y i n p e r s o n a l i t y psychology, m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l a c a l i n g techniques have been used t o i n v e s t i g a t e the c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s t h a t are s a i d t o u n d e r l i e and mediate behavior. Jones (1982), f o r i n s t a n c e , has shown t h a t the way we encode d i f f e r e n c e s between s e l f and s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s i n memory can be a c c u r a t e l y q u a n t i f i e d and g r a p h i c a l l y presented i n MDS. Moreover, as the same author s t a t e s i n another a r t i c l e (1983, p453) "our [ i n t e r n a l ! r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f s e l f and ot h e r s i s dimensional, with d i s t a n c e s among s e l f and o t h e r s (and d i s t a n c e s among othe r s ) r e f l e c t i n g important i n f o r m a t i o n about i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s " . Thus the concept of s i m i l a r i t y i s used f o r r e p r e s e n t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n our c o g n i t i v e schemas of s e l f and o t h e r s , and MDS i s the method f o r q u a n t i f y i n g and d i s p l a y i n g these r e l a t i o n s . I n t e r p e r s o n a l " s i m i l a r i t y " i s whatever the judge c o n s i d e r s r e l e v a n t from the wide assortment of b e h a v i o r a l , demographic and other cues t h a t are a v a i l a b l e . Whatever i t i s , e x a c t l y , t h a t powers the s i m i l a r i t y judgments i n MDS, i t i s assumed t h a t the same processes are evoked t h a t occur i n a c t u a l s o c i a l comparisons i n everyday l i f e . The s i m i l a r i t y r e l a t i o n s r e v e a l e d by a judge about her or h i s s o c i a l world c o n t a i n v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n about t h a t judge's c o n a t r u a l of s e l f and o t h e r s , and the dimensions u n d e r l y i n g them. MDS techniques are used t o recover the dimensions u n d e r l y i n g such s i m i l a r i t y judgments and to r e p r e s e n t i n N-dimensional space the l o c a t i o n s of s e l f and s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s . MDS d e r i v e s a geometric s t r u c t u r e from s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s and r e p r e s e n t s s e l f and o t h e r s as p o i n t s i n 4 these N-dimenaional hyper-planes (or "spaces") with d i s t a n c e s among the p o i n t s analogous t o d i s s i m i l a r i t y . To s t a t e i t another way, the c l o s e r two p o i n t s are i n the c o n f i g u r a t i o n , the more s i m i l a r they are s a i d t o be. I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e MDS methods, which c o n s t r u c t geometric c o n f i g u r a t i o n s of s t i m u l i from i n t e r - i n d i v i d u a l comparisons, allow f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of i n d i v i d u a l c o n a t r u a l s t y l e s o f , say, a common s e t of i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t i m u l i . For a p e r s o n a l i t y p s y c h o l o g i s t t h e r e are obvious i m p l i c a t i o n s about the r e l a t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y makeup t o one's p e r c e p t i o n of s e l f and s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s . We might expect, aa I do, t h a t c o n a t r u a l s t y l e s and p e r s o n a l i t y types would be s y s t e m a t i c a l l y i n t e r t w i n e d , and t h a t theory i s needed t o help e x p l a i n these r e l a t i o n s . In p a r t i c u l a r , i n t e r p e r s o n a l t h e o r i e s o f behavior (e.g., S u l l i v a n , 1953) and symbolic i n t e r a c t i o n i s t t h e o r i e s (Mead, 1934) seem w e l l s u i t e d t o the f e a t u r e s of an MDS a n a l y s i s . For i n s t a n c e , Harry Stack S u l l i v a n (1957) viewed p e r s o n a l i t y as the product o f an 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 i n t e r a c t i o n s with o t h e r s . L a t e r , i n extending S u l l i v a n ' s i d e a s , Foa and Foa (1974) p o s t u l a t e d t h a t one's i d e n t i t y and p e r s o n a l i t y e volve from i n t e r n a l i z e d e x p e r i e n c e s i n v o l v i n g " t r a n s a c t i o n s " of lov e and s t a t u s ( e i t h e r granted or taken away) i n dyadic or group r e l a t i o n s . To t r a n s l a t e S u l l i v a n ' s i d e a s i n t o modern c o g n i t i v e terminology i t c o u l d be s a i d t h a t our s o c i a l e x p e r i e n c e s accumulate and develop over time i n t o a c o g n i t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n or schema. We encode and r e p r e s e n t our i n t e r p e r s o n a l 5 experiences f o r f u t u r e use. T h i s c o g n i t i v e " s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e " (Jonea & Young, 1972) or s o c i a l f i e l d , i s made up p r i m a r i l y of s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s with the s e l f p o s i t i o n e d with r e s p e c t t o a l l of them. As I have attempted t o show, MDS can be used t o re p r e s e n t and q u a n t i f y such c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s . The A n a l y t i c Model As a data a n a l y t i c technique, m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g performs some t a s k s very much l i k e other m u l t i v a r i a t e techniques, such as f a c t o r a n a l y s i s (FA) and c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s (CA). Yet MDS possesses f e a t u r e s t h a t s e t i t a p a r t . The important s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s can be summarized i n the f o l l o w i n g way. MDS, FA, and CA have proven u s e f u l t o r e s e a r c h e r s e s s e n t i a l l y because they can s i m p l i f y and o r g a n i z e complex r e l a t i o n s h i p s among s t i m u l i . That being the case, how e l s e does MDS o v e r l a p and stand a p a r t from these other techniques? MDS i s s i m i l a r t o the not yet widely used s e t of c l u s t e r a n a l y t i c procedures i n s o f a r as i t can be used t o i d e n t i f y " c l u s t e r s " of i n d i v i d u a l s or s t i m u l i d e f i n e d a c c o r d i n g t o known or proposed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s they are s a i d t o possess. MDS can go f u r t h e r i n t h a t i t can be used t o e i t h e r e x p l o r e or confirm whatever s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s , i n the form of l a t e n t dimensions or t r a i t s , may u n d e r l i e the data. To t h i s extent MDS o v e r l a p s with FA. One form of MDS ( M u l t i s c a l e I I , t o be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r ) goes a step f u r t h e r than other MDS programs i n t h a t i t allows f o r s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s o f d i m e n s i o n a l i t y . T h i s f e a t u r e i s 6 heralded by Ramsey (1977) as a q u a l i t a t i v e advance t h a t allows the MDS users to s i d e s t e p the f a c t o r indeterminacy problem t h a t has long plagued common f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . In another r e s p e c t , f a c t o r a n a l y t i c techniques presuppose t h a t o n l y l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t between v a r i a b l e s whereas MDS techniques can accomodate n o n l i n e a r as w e l l as l i n e a r assumptions about the data. Schiffman e t a l . (1981) p o i n t out t h a t t h i s added f l e x i b i l i t y with the MDS f a m i l y of procedures a l l o w s f o r more i n t e r p r e t a b l e s o l u t i o n s a t lower d i m e n s i o n a l i t y , as w e l l . Another important d i f f e r e n c e between these two techniques i s t h a t the MDS model uses d i s t a n c e s between p o i n t s to o r g a n i z e data w h i l e FA r e l i e s on a n g l e s between p o i n t s (which e a s i l y g i v e s r i s e t o c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s s i n c e c o r r e l a t i o n s are simply c o s i n e s of the angles between p o i n t s , or v a r i a b l e s ) . Although both models g e n e r a l l y use E u c l i d e a n space to p r o j e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s among v a r i a b l e s , i t i s g e n e r a l l y e a s i e r to i n t e r p r e t d i s t a n c e s with MDS than i t i s to i n t e r p r e t angles between v e c t o r s with FA (Shiffman, Reynolds & Young, 1981), even though the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t has been the customary standard f o r e x p r e s s i n g degree of r e l a t i o n s h i p . Moreover, because of the use of r_ (p_) FA i s l i m i t e d t o l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s , both i n data and i n i t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the s o l u t i o n s . Perhaps the g r e a t e s t v i r t u e t h a t MDS can o f f e r the r e s e a r c h design d i s c u s s e d here, has to do with with the independence with which s u b j e c t s c a r r y out the MDS task t h a t c o n f r o n t s them i n the l a b o r a t o r y . With MDS s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s , each s u b j e c t determines which q u a l i t i e s of the s t i m u l i to compare f o r s i m i l a r i t y and not the ones imposed by the experimenter. Thus so c a l l e d "experimenter contamination" -- where the experimenter a b s t r a c t s q u a l i t i e s or t r a i t s t o be judged by the s u b j e c t s -- i s v i r t u a l l y e l i m i n a t e d . I t has a l s o been argued t h a t MDS p r o v i d e s a more parsimonious r e p r e s e n t a t i o n than FA (Guttman, 1966; S c h l e s i n g e r & Guttman, 1969; Lingoes & Borg, 1979). This argument has been b o l s t e r e d by the mathematical p r o o f s of Lingoes (1971). Guttman (1966) showed how a 5 - f a c t o r FA c o u l d be b e t t e r r e p r e s e n t e d i n a 2-dimensional nonmetric MDS a n a l y s i s . In a d d i t i o n , MDS has been suggested as a b e t t e r procedure f o r a n a l y z i n g c o r r e l a t i o n a l (metric) measures (Kruskal & Wish, 1978; Shepard, 1972). F i n a l l y , Davison (1985), i n an e x t e n s i v e s e r i e s of Monte C a r l o s t u d i e s , looked at the r e l a t i o n between c o o r d i n a t e e s t i m a t e s i n p r i n c i p a l components a n a l y s i s and MDS. He a l s o e x p l o r e d the a l g e b r a i c r e l a t i o n s between m e t r i c MDS and p r i n c i p a l components a n a l y s i s . Davison found t h a t s o l u t i o n s from the two procedures were e s s e n t i a l l y e q u i v a l e n t . But i n a n a l y z i n g c e r t a i n c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i c e s , such as a simplex or a circumplex, the s t r u c t u r e can be more pa r s i m o n i o u s l y represented by MDS than by FA . There are other advantages i n using MDS procedures over t r a d i t i o n a l ones. One b i g advantage has to do with the nature of the task t h a t c o n f r o n t s each s u b j e c t . By having s u b j e c t s r a t e the s i m i l a r i t y of s t i m u l i , a task they r e p o r t t o be i n t r i n s i c a l l y simple and uncomplicated to perform (Schiffman e t 8 a l . , 1981), they are not asked to t h i n k i n terms of q u a n t i t i e s of unusual substances or amounts of i n t a n g i b l e s they are not accustomed to d e a l i n g with, e.g., r a t i n g how a u t h o r i t a r i a n they or o t h e r s are or how much charisma they possess on a n i n e - p l a c e s c a l e . Rather, with MDS s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s , s u b j e c t s can r a t e t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y with c h a r i s m a t i c or a u t h o r i t a r i a n behaving o t h e r s without having to ask f o r d e f i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . And s u b j e c t s determine which p r o p e r t i e s are important i n the s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s , and they appear to do so c o n s i s e n t l y both w i t h i n and between s u b j e c t s . Another f e a t u r e of MDS r e p o r t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e t h a t i s v a l u a b l e i s t h a t the whole process i s s a i d to be f r e e r of the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y e f f e c t s which have long haunted and seem i n e x t r i c a b l y i n t e r t w i n e d with t r a d i t i o n a l s e l f - r a t i n g s c a l e s (Schiffman e t a l . , 1981; P a r t r i d g e , 1984). Asking s u b j e c t s f o r s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s of s t i m u l i , i n s t e a d of themselves, presumably takes the focus away from s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n and s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e a t t r i b u t i o n s . Why M u l t i a c a l e II? One of MULTISCALE I I ' s f e a t u r e s (mentioned above) t h a t s e t s i t a part from a l l other MDS programs c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e i s t h a t i t possesses f a c i l i t i e s t h a t allow the user to perform hy p o t h e s i s t e s t s . T h i s advance has been l a b e l l e d a quantum leap by experts i n the f i e l d (Schiffman e t a l . , 1981) because i t can p r o v i d e answers t o hypotheses about the d i m e n s i o n a l i t y u n d e r l y i n g data with g r e a t p r e c i s i o n . Ramsey's (1977, 1980) 9 MULTISCALE II i s ab l e t o do t h i a because i t i s based on a maximum l i k e l i h o o d a l g o r i t h m i n s t e a d of a l e a s t squares c r i t e r i o n t h a t u n d e r l i e s the o t h e r s (e.g., c u r r e n t f a v o r i t e s such as ALSCAL, INDSCAL, MINISSA, and POLYCON). Thus Ramsey's program i s able t o perform c h i - s q u a r e t e a t s t o check hypotheses about l a t e n t dimensions. T h i s e x p l o r a t o r y f e a t u r e i s of l i m i t e d value i n the present s t u d i e s , however, because MULTISCALE w i l l be used i n a c o n f i r m a t o r y r o l e t o e s t a b l i s h whether the two i n t e r p e r s o n a l dimensions t h a t are p o s i t e d t o account f o r the m a j o r i t y o f v a r i a n c e (dominance and nurturance) a c t u a l l y do. MULTI- SCALE I I , t h e r e f o r e , i s a s e t of procedures t h a t i s u s e f u l f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n a l a n a l y s e s as w e l l as e x p l o r a t o r y ones t h a t the other programs p r o v i d e . I t a l s o possesses other unique q u a n t i t a t i v e f e a t u r e s t h a t are u s e f u l i n a p e r s o n a l i t y assessment c o n t e x t . There are f o u r such f e a t u r e s of M u l t i s c a l e II t h a t r e q u i r e some e x t r a e x p l a n a t i o n here, which are d e s c r i b e d more f u l l y by P a r t r i d g e (1984, pp.131-142). These a r e : (1) the st i m u l u s c o n f i g u r a t i o n , (2) the o v e r a l l s t i m u l u s e r r o r , (3) the i n d i v i d u a l s t i m u l u s e r r o r , and (4) the exponent. The s t i m u l u s c o n f i g u r a t i o n : T h i s r e f e r s to the geometric r e l a t i o n s among v a r i a b l e s as w e l l as the d i m e n s i o n a l i t y o f the v a r i a b l e s under i n s p e c t i o n . When the d i m e n s i o n a l i t y o f a s e t of v a r i a b l e s i s low ( i . e . , <=3), the s t i m u l u s c o n f i g u r a t i o n i s e a s i l y i n t e r p r e t a b l e and g r a p h i c a l l y p o r t r a y a b l e on paper i n a manner s i m i l a r t o f a c t o r p l o t s i n f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . For i n s t a n c e , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c t u a l and i d e a l s e l f i s 10 e a s i l y viewed i n terms of the E u c l i d e a n d i s t a n c e between them i n two- (or three-) dimensional space. The o v e r a l l s t i m u l u s e r r o r : T h i s r e f l e c t s a s u b j e c t ' s c o n s i s t e n c y ( i n the form of i n t r a n s i t i v i t i e s ) i n h i s or her s i m i l a r i t y judgments of the s t i m u l i . In other words, the number of times t h a t s u b j e c t s v i o l a t e the law of t r a n s i t i v i t y i n t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s i s recorded, i . e . , i f a s u b j e c t r e p o r t s t h a t A i s s i m i l a r t o B, B i s s i m i l a r to C, and t h a t A i s d i s s i m i l a r t o C, then a t r a n s g r e s s i o n i s noted which e n t e r s i n t o the o v e r a l l s t i m u l u s e r r o r , f o r each s u b j e c t . A high o v e r a l l e s t imate of e r r o r i n d i c a t e s a confused s u b j e c t with a lack of c o g n i t i v e c l a r i t y i n t h i s task, or someone who has not taken the task s e r i o u s l y and whose data should be d i s c a r d e d . A convenient index to help gauge the d i f f i c u l t y of the ta s k , as w e l l as to cl e a n s e your data. I n d i v i d u a l s t i m u l u s e r r o r : T h i s i s a f i n e t u n i n g o f above i n t h a t one can use t h i s index to see which s t i m u l i c o n t r i b u t e to a s u b j e c t ' s c o n f u s i o n . I t i s u s e f u l f o r improvement of s t i m u l i i f r e c u r r e n t troublemakers appear. The exponent: The exponent i s used aa an estimate of the v a r i a n c e or how p o l a r i z e d a s u b j e c t ' s r a t i n g s a re. I t i s a measure of how d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the s u b j e c t i s i n d i s c r i m i n a t i n g among the s t i m u l i and may be used t o as s e s s the l e v e l of response b i a s i n the sample, and to d i s c a r d those cases deemed not to d i f f e r e n t i a t e the s t i m u l i . For a mathematical summary of the MDS model used i n t h i s study, see Appendix A. 11 I I I . The I n t e r p e r s o n a l C i r c l e Circumplex models of i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior have emerged from s p e c i a l i z e d , yet burgeoning, r e s e a r c h areas i n p e r s o n a l i t y , s o c i a l , and c l i n i c a l psychology and share a r i c h and d i v e r s e h i s t o r y . I t has been known f o r many years t h a t the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s among i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s form an en d l e s s c i r c u l a r p a t t e r n of h i g h l y p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d a djacent v a r i a b l e s (+.71), h i g h l y n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d b i p o l a r o p p o s i t e s (-1.0), and u n c o r r e l a t e d p e r p e n d i c u l a r v a r i a b l e s (.00). In f a c t , i t i s p o s s i b l e to t r a c e such a c i r c u l a r o r d e r i n g back to second century Greek medicine (Wiggins, 1981). More r e c e n t l y , however, r e s e a r c h e r s have exp l o r e d the u t i l i t y of circumplex models f o r r e p r e s e n t i n g behavior i n a v a r i e t y of s e t t i n g s ranging, f o r example, from maternal and c h i l d behavior (Schaefer, 1959, 1961), a c t i v i t i e s of c o l l e g e students ( S t e r n , 1970), p a t h o l o g i c a l behaviors (Benjamin, 1974; Freedman e t a l . , 1951; K i e a l e r , 1983; Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1982), human development (Foa & Foa, 1974), s o c i a l exchange (Carson, 1979), and, o f course, i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior (Carson, 1969; Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1979). F i g u r e 1 p r o v i d e s an example of a robust ( r e p l i c a b l e ) circumplex model (Wiggins, 1979). T h i s i s the working model f o r t h i s study which w i l l be r e f e r e d to i n l a t e r s e c t i o n s . i n s e r t F i g u r e 1 about here 12 In a d d i t i o n to i t s wide a p p l i c a t i o n i n o r g a n i z i n g d i v e r s e b e h a v i o r a l c o n s t r u c t s , a circumplex model has been employed as a s t r u c t u r a l a i d to i n t e g r a t e r e s e a r c h i n p e r s o n a l i t y and s o c i a l psychology as w e l l (Wiggins, 1981; Wiggins & Broughton, 1985a). The need f o r such a device arose p r i m a r i l y f o r h i s t o r i c a l reasons. P e r s o n a l i t y psychology has witnessed a s h i f t over the years i n the t h e o r y - t o - d a t a r a t i o t h a t can be s a i d to c h a r a c t e r i z e the f i e l d a t any g i v e n time. Approximately 50 years ago, grand t h e o r i z i n g was what occupied most of the e f f o r t s of p u b l i s h i n g p e r s o n a l i t y p s y c h o l o g i s t s , as i n the t r a d i t i o n of Henry Murray and Gordon A l l p o r t . Since then, however, s m a l l - s c a l e (sometimes c a l l e d " d o m a i n - s p e c i f i c " ) t h e o r i z i n g coupled with voluminous e m p i r i c a l support, but with l i m i t e d c r o s s - f e r t i l i z a t i o n between re s e a r c h programs has evolved i n t o the new r e s e a r c h s t a t u s quo. T h i s i s not t o suggest t h a t the reasons f o r t h i s s h i f t were n e c e s s a r i l y p o o r l y conceived ( t h a t i s a t a s k f o r the h i s t o r i a n s ) , such a p r o l i f e r a t i o n of the l a t t e r (more p r e c i s e yet t h e o r e t i c a l l y l i m i t e d ) s t u d i e s l e d the e d i t o r s of one r e c e n t book of r e a d i n g s i n p e r s o n a l i t y to impose only an a l p h a b e t i c a l s t r u c t u r e on the order of the v a r i a b l e s they pr e s e n t to the reader (London & Exner, 1978). One way to impose s t r u c t u r e other than t h a t p r o v i d e d by a circumplex methodology i s to employ a f a c t o r a n a l y t i c model, as d i d C a t t e l l (1973). But when c i r c u l a r s t r u c t u r e i s p r e s e n t i n data, f a c t o r a n a l y s i s per se i s not w e l l s u i t e d f o r d i s c o v e r i n g i t s i n c e so c a l l e d simple s t r u c t u r e ( i . e . , r o t a t i n g to 13 orthogonal c l u s t e r s of v a r i a b l e s ) i s the o p p o s i t e of c i r c u m p l e x i t y . That i s , r o t a t i o n does not improve the s o l u t i o n because v a r i a b l e s are spaced i n an e q u i d i s t a n t c i r c u l a r f a s h i o n . However, when theory i s wedded t o f a c t o r a n a l y t i c techniques (e.g., Wiggins, 1979), one p o s s i b l e outcome i s a circumplex methodology, e s p e c i a l l y when two dimensions emerge accounting f o r the l i o n ' s share of v a r i a n c e , as they do i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l s e l f - r e p o r t data. In f a c t , the p r i n c i p a l advantage of what has come to be c a l l e d the I n t e r p e r s o n a l C i r c l e ( K i e s l e r , 1983), i s t h a t i t p r o v i d e s a r a t i o n a l e f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g the d e f i n i n g dimensions of i n t e r p e r s o n a l s e l f - r e p o r t data as s t a t u s ( a l s o known as power, agency, dominance) and love ( s o l i d a r i t y , communion, nur t u r a n c e ) . The model al l o w s f o r p r e c i s e p r e d i c t i o n s of the r e l a t i o n s of any p a r t i c u l a r v a r i a b l e to the u n i v e r s e of content of i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior once they have been s c a l e d a c c o r d i n g to the two components of the love and s t a t u s circumplex. In t h i s way the c o n c e p t u a l meaning of a g i v e n measure can be e s t a b l i s h e d with r e s p e c t to the model. Furthermore, hypotheses about the r e l a t i o n s of i s o l a t e d c o n s t r u c t s are a u t o m a t i c a l l y generated once l o c a t i o n i n t h i s space has been e s t a b l i s h e d . Thus one person's " M a c h i a v e l l i a n i s m " may be another person's "high s e l f - m o n i t o r i n g " . Such a model as t h i s speaks e x p l i c i t l y t o the conceptual redundancy t h a t has c h a r a c t e r i z e d the f i e l d of p e r s o n a l i t y psychology (see Wiggins & Broughton, 1985a; 1985b, f o r more d e t a i l s ) . The primary assessment instrument to be used i n t h i s study 14 to p rovide s t r u c t u r a l and v a l i d a t i o n a l c r i t e r i a to e v a l u a t e the MDS methodology, i s the IAS ( I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s , Wiggins, 1979). The IAS has been shown to possess the c l e a r e s t circumplex s t r u c t u r e to date (Wiggins, S t e i g e r , & G a e l i c k , 1981) and has been i n c l u d e d i n numerous r e s e a r c h c o n t e x t s i n c l u d i n g a major m u l t i - method a n a l y s i s j u s t r e c e n t l y p u b l i s h e d (Wiggins & Broughton, 1985a) where the IAS formed semantic markers used to c a t a l o g other important s e l f - r e p o r t measures. The IAS s c a l e s were developed from the p i o n e e r i n g l e x i c o g r a p h i c work of A l l p o r t and Odbert (1936), Norman (1967), and Goldberg (1977), who reduced the unwieldy number of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e terms of 27,000 to 4,063. From t h i s , Wiggins (1979) i d e n t i f i e d 800 terms t h a t f i t the S u l l i v a n i a n (and Foa & Foa, 1977) d e f i n i t i o n of i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r a i t and, with two other judges, was able to d i s t r i b u t e 567 of these terms i n t o the s i x t e e n c a t e g o r i e s o r i g i n a l l y proposed by Leary (1957). Through an assortment of e m p i r i c a l , r a t i o n a l , and psychometric methods (di s c u s s e d i n Wiggins, 1979) the r e s u l t was the 128 a d j e c t i v e , 16 s c a l e ( e i g h t items each) system t h a t i s i n use today. Within each octant (16 t r a i t s c o l l a p s e d i n t o e i g h t ) of the i n t e r p e r s o n a l system, the IAS s c a l e s p r o v i d e narrow semantic markers t h a t possess a very high degree of f i d e l i t y ( r e l i a b i l i t y ) . T h i s makes them i d e a l to form a s t r u c t u r a l c r i t e r i o n such as the one r e q u i r e d f o r the proposed new MDS measure. I t i s hypothesised t h a t the MDS method w i l l p r o v i d e an a l t e r n a t i v e d e v i c e f o r t a p p i n g the i n t e r p e r s o n a l domain. 15 Prototypes S i n c e i t s i n c e p t i o n i n 1973 by the c o g n i t i v e p s y c h o l o g i s t , E l e a n o r Rosch, the concept of prototype has r e c e i v e d ample exposure i n many other r e s e a r c h c o n t e x t s i n psychology as w e l l . For example, i t has been a p p l i e d as an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n s t r u c t i n c l i n i c a l psychology i n the area of d e p r e s s i o n (Horowitz, French, and Anderson, 1982), to the area o f c a t e g o r i e s of emotion (Fehr & R u s s e l l , 1984), and to help s o r t p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t items i n t o s c a l e s (Broughton, 1984). For sake of d e f i n i t i o n , a pro t o t y p e i s a c l e a r - c a s e , best a l l - round member (or one of a s e l e c t few) of a p a r t i c u l a r c ategory. A prototype i s a judgment a c t u a l l y , about the membership s t a t u s of any p o t e n t i a l member of any given category. As such prototypes do not e x i s t i n nature, they are what Rosch has c a l l e d "convenient grammatical f i c t i o n s " , and are used t o help grade a category's membership i n terms of goodness of f i t . The r e v o l u t i o n a r y aspect of prototype theory was t h a t i t e n t a i l e d a d i f f e r e n t view of c o g n i t i v e c a t e g o r i e s than had been h e l d i n the past. Whereas t r a d i t i o n a l category membership i s d e f i n e d i n an a l l - o r - n o n e ( d i g i t a l ) f a s h i o n , Rosch (1973) proposed t h a t the n a t u r a l c a t e g o r i e s of human thought be viewed as "fuzzy s e t s " whose s p a t i a l (analog) r e p r e s e n t a t i o n possesses l o o s e l y d e f i n e d category boundaries and a membership t h a t i s p r o b a b i l i s t i c r a t h e r than d i s c r e t e . What do graded membership and g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t have t o do with p e r s o n a l i t y psychology and m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g ? The i m p l i c a t i o n s of prototype theory f o r p e r s o n a l i t y assessment 16 r e s e a r c h have been shown t o be important i n two areas: the development of b e t t e r assessment d e v i c e s , and the development of more meaningful c r i t e r i o n measures. Regarding the development of b e t t e r assessment d e v i c e s , as mentioned above, I found (1984) t h a t a prototype s t r a t e g y f o r combining p e r s o n a l i t y items i n t o s c a l e s improved upon the best c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e methods. I accomplished t h i s through the use of p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y r a t i n g s of p r o s p e c t i v e items. Research i n v o l v i n g prototype theory i n the refinement of c r i t e r i o n measures has been repo r t e d by Buss & C r a i k (1980, 1981, 1983). These authors proposed, and l a t e r demonstrated, t h a t p e r s o n a l i t y s c a l e s designed t o p r e d i c t b e h a v i o r a l a c t s i n d i c a t i v e o f s p e c i f i c d i s p o s i t i o n a l c o n s t r u c t s (e.g., dominance) should (and do) p r e d i c t some a c t s b e t t e r than o t h e r s . As i t turned out, those a c t s r a t e d h i g h e s t i n p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y were the ones t h a t were best p r e d i c t e d . Here i s how they d i d i t . From t h e i r a c t - f r e q u e n c y approach t o p e r s o n a l i t y assessment which has evolved over the l a s t s i x years, Buss and C r a i k (1980) began t h e i r r e s e a r c h by c a l i b r a t i n g the p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y of i n t e r p e r s o n a l a c t s nominated as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l c a t e g o r i e s by u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s . S u b j e c t s were asked t o : "Think of the t h r e e most (e.g., dominant) females you know. With these i n d i v i d u a l s i n mind, w r i t e down the f i v e a c t s or behaviors they have performed t h a t r e f l e c t or exemplify t h e i r (e.g., dominance)". A f t e r " c l e a n s i n g " the a c t s f o r redundancy or infrequency, the procedure generated l i s t s of 100 a c t s f o r 17 each of eight. c a t e g o r i e s of the i n t e r p e r s o n a l circumplex (Wiggins, 1979). The next step was t o r a t e the p r o t o t y p i c a l i t v of each a c t with r e s p e c t to i t s purported category of membership (e.g., dominance). Thus, f o r each i n t e r p e r s o n a l category, a continuum was developed t o rank order the a c t a from h i g h e s t to lowest p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y (Buss & C r a i k , 1981). I t was to the twenty most p r o t o t y p i c a l a c t s f o r each category t h a t much a t t e n t i o n has been p a i d , f o r they are the a c t s t h a t d e f i n e the c l e a r e s t and most d i s t i n c t samples of i n t e r p e r s o n a l c a t e g o r i e s as d e f i n e d by Wiggins (1979). Moreover these a c t s were the ones t h a t c o r r e l a t e d most h i g h l y with t r a d i t i o n a l p e r s o n a l i t y s c a l e s (e.g., the P e r s o n a l i t y Research Form and C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y ) . Present S t u d i e s The i d e a t h a t one cou l d c o n s t r u c t s t o r i e s about h y p o t h e t i c a l c h a r a c t e r s t h a t each p o r t r a y p r o t o t y p i c a l behaviors from a s i n g l e t r a i t c ategory was one t h a t emerged from the weekly meetings o f the I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s Lab a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. At the time, we were concerned with developing an instrument to assess the way o t h e r s make us f e e l . Thus we needed a s e t of s t a n d a r d i z e d t r a i t s t i m u l i t o explore the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n a l i t y types g i v e o f f d i f f e r e n t "messages" t o others and t h a t these messages may be used t o a s s e s s p e r s o n a l i t y . I t was i n the context of t h a t study t h a t I developed the f i r s t v e r s i o n i n a s e r i e s of s e t s of v i g n e t t e c h a r a c t e r s t h a t portrayed c l e a r - c u t p r o t o t y p i c a l t r a i t 18 behaviors i n a s t o r y about a t y p i c a l day i n each of t h e i r l i v e s . The way I developed the v i g n e t t e s t o r i e s was to begin with the p r o t o t y p i c a l a c t s assembled by Buss & C r a i k (1983). For each t r a i t I took the twenty most p r o t o t y p i c a l a c t s and through a s e r i e s of s u c c e s s i v e approximations (with the help of Paul T r a p n e l l ) , I asssembled them i n t o a s t o r y t h a t was t r u e to the s p i r i t of the t r a i t message -- t h a t i s , with l i t t l e i n the way of f i l l e r m a t e r i a l . Likewise f o r e i g h t c l u s t e r s of twenty most p r o t o t y p i c a l a c t s sampled e q u i d i s t a n t l y around the Wiggins circumplex, we developed homogeneous v i g n e t t e s (or n a r r a t i v e s ) about "a day i n the l i f e o f " e i g h t h y p o t h e t i c a l c h a r a c t e r s . Table 1 c o n t a i n s the twenty most p r o t o t y p i c a c t s i d e n t i f i e d by Buss and C r a i k (1980) f o r the category of dominance. Appendix B c o n t a i n s the "day i n the l i f e " i n s e r t Table 1 about here v i g n e t t e developed from ten of these p r o t o t y p i c a l l y dominant a c t a , as w e l l as the v i g n e t t e s developed from the seven other p r o t o t y p i c a l a c t l i s t s . I n t r o d u c t i o n to the S t u d i e s In the s t u d i e s to be d e s c r i b e d , the e i g h t v i g n e t t e c h a r a c t e r s were used i n an MDS s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g format i n an 19 attempt to b e t t e r assess i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n a l i t i e s by s t a n d a r d i z i n g the t a r g e t s a g a i n s t which s u b j e c t s compare themselves. U n l i k e t r a d i t i o n a l s e l f - r e p o r t measures, the respondent i n these s t u d i e s i s not r e q u i r e d to p r o v i d e h i s or her own ( p o s s i b l y i d i o s y n c r a t i c ) t r a i t d e f i n i t i o n . Nor i s the s u b j e c t r e q u i r e d t o e v a l u a t e the c h a r a c t e r s using terms or phrases s u p p l i e d by the experimenter, as d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , which may l e a d to d i s t o r t e d a t t r i b u t i o n s . Commenting on t h i s and other sources of s u b j e c t i v i t y i n p e r s o n a l i t y assessment, Donald F i s k e (197S) had the f o l l o w i n g caveat f o r p e r s o n a l i t y r e s e a r c h e r s . There i s e m p i r i c a l evidence (Kuncel, 1973; Minor & F i s k e , 1976) i n d i c a t i n g t h a t observers responding to a statement about s e l f or o t h e r s draw on t h e i r memories i n d i v e r s e ways and may make an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the statement t h a t w i l l f a c i l i t a t e t h e i r s e l e c t i o n of a response. As i n f e r r e d from observer's r e p o r t s , the processes used i n a r r i v i n g a t d e s c r i p t i o n s are f r e q u e n t l y not those which the i n v e s t i g a t o r intended the o b s e r v e r s to f o l l o w . An i n v e s t i g a t o r cannot assume t h a t her o b s e r v e r s p e r c e i v e and i n t e r p r e t behavior as she h e r s e l f does, or t h a t t h e i r meanings f o r words and c o n s t r u c t l a b e l s are the same as hers. And the g r e a t e r the d i f f e r e n c e s between the i n v e s t i g a t o r and her o b s e r v e r s , i n p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e and i n s u b c u l t u r a l or c u l t u r a l memberships, the more probable are d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s i n processes of form-ing d e s c r i p t i o n s and i n meanings f o r words and l a b e l s . ( p . 3 8 ) 20 By i n t r o d u c i n g standardized and o b j e c t i v e s t i m u l i f o r s u b j e c t s t o compare themselves with, the s i m i l a r i t y judgments should a l s o be e a s i e r to make and l e s s f i l l e d with e v a l u a t i v e undertones as i n the P a r t r i d g e case where, f o r i n s t a n c e , s u b j e c t s were asked to compare t h e i r h o s t i l e s e l f with t h e i r a c t u a l and i d e a l s e l v e s . For the s u b j e c t s i n t h a t s i t u a t i o n , t h e r e was nothing concrete with which to make the s i m i l a r i t y comparisons, on l y a p e j o r a t i v e l a b e l t o judge the s a l i e n c e of the s t i m u l u s t o t h e i r own p e r s o n a l i t y . In the p e r s o n a l i t y assessment methods I d e s c r i b e i n the present s t u d i e s , the s e l f - s t i m u l u s i s p a r t i t i o n e d i n t o two components -- the a c t u a l s e l f and the i d e a l s e l f -- ao t h a t I c o u l d o b t a i n a dis c r e p a n c y measure (the d i s t a n c e between them) to use as an a l t e r n a t i v e index of s e l f - e s t e e m , a concept f i r s t suggested by Rodgers & Dymond (1954). The idea i s t h a t people higher i n s e l f - esteem have b e t t e r c o n s o l i d a t e d i d e n t i t i e s and thus l e s s of a dis c r e p a n c y between who they t h i n k they are and who they would l i k e t o become. P a r t r i d g e (1984) found a modest r e l a t i o n s h i p between self-esteem and e r r o r s c o r e s provided by MDS. The MDS technigue may provide a method f o r a s s e s s i n g the c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of a v a i l a b l e p e r s o n a l i t y s c a l e s . One might argue t h a t the v a l i d i t y of a measure corresponds to how c l o s e the s c a l e s c o r e s come to p r e d i c t i n g and c l a s s i f y i n g t h e i r namesake v i g n e t t e (assessed by r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s ) . A simp l e r 2 1 index would be the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t between s u b j e c t s ' d i s t a n c e f u n c t i o n s from MDS with s c a l e s c o r e s on the p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r i e s . As mentioned i n an e a r l i e r s e c t i o n , MULTISCALE II produces some response s t y l e terms which r e f l e c t the manner i n which the s u b j e c t c a r r i e s out the s i m i l a r i t y judgments. One of these measures, the o v e r a l l stimulus e r r o r , t a p s the c o n s i s t e n c y of the s u b j e c t ' s judgments. Because t h i s index may prove to have moderator i n f l u e n c e s on the p o s i t i o n s of the a c t u a l and i d e a l s e l v e s as w e l l as the other p e r s o n a l i t y s c o r e s and because P a r t r i d g e <1984) found some modest support f o r t h i s n o t i o n with the c o n s t r u c t of s e l f - e s t e e m , t h i s index w i l l be looked at as w e l l . I t i a p o s s i b l e that s u b j e c t s c l o s e r to the h i g h - i n - s e l f - e s t e e m prototypes (e.g., the dominant and M a c h i a v e l l i a n c h a r a c t e r s ) may have lower e r r o r s c o r e s . R e p l i c a t i n g the P a r t r i d g e F i n d i n g s In d e v e l o p i n g the p e r s o n a l i t y s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s to be s c a l e d by her s u b j e c t s . P a r t r i d g e (1984) used what might best be d e s c r i b e d as an " i t e r a t i v e " s t r a t e g y . Through a s e t of p i l o t s t u d i e s , she p r o g r e s s i v e l y o p t i m i z e d the t e s t - t a k i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and psychometric p r o p e r t i e s of a s e t of s t i m u l u s items designed t o map the composition of the s e l f - c o n c e p t . Her f i n a l v e r s i o n of s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s i s shown i n Table 2. i n s e r t Table 2 about here 22 Table 2 r e v e a l s t h a t the f i r s t f o u r s t i m u l i r e f e r e i t h e r d i r e c t l y t o the g l o b a l s e l f (your " u s u a l " and " i d e a l " s e l f ) or a subset of i t (your " s e x u a l " and "problem" s e l f ) . The remaining e i g h t s t i m u l i are proposed s e l f - r e f e r e n c e d e q u i v a l e n t s o f corresponding i n t e r p e r s o n a l dimensions of the Wiggins (1979) circumplex (e.g., "your agreeable s e l f " was adapted from Wiggins' "agreeable" t r a i t dimension). For more i n f o r m a t i o n about the meaning and s t r u c t u r e of these c a t e g o r i e s , see Wiggins & Broughton (1985a; 1985b). P a r t r i d g e makes a d i s t i n c t i o n between " s u b j e c t i v e " and " o b j e c t i v e " s t i m u l i i n Table 2. She r e f e r r e d to the f i r s t f o u r as s u b j e c t i v e and the remaining e i g h t o b j e c t i v e . C l e a r l y the f i r s t f o u r " s e l v e s " are s u b j e c t i v e ; only the s u b j e c t has knowledge about them and t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s . The reas o n i n g behind why the remaining e i g h t are l a b e l l e d o b j e c t i v e goes something l i k e t h i s . Because the s t r u c t u r e of the circumplex v a r i a b l e s i s as c l o s e t o a r e p l i c a b l e f i n d i n g as one can get i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s ( i . e . , i t has been r e p l i c a t e d many times and i s l i n k e d to many c l a s s i c s t u d i e s ) and thus can be s a i d to be o b j e c t i v e , so too should the s t r u c t u r e of the "circumplex s e l v e s " be o b j e c t i v e . In P a r t r i d g e ' s words, " o b j e c t i v e s t i m u l i are those s t i m u l i t h a t have a shared common value a c r o s s a s u b j e c t p o p u l a t i o n " (1984, p.30), and she used some of the Wiggins' c a t e g o r i e s t o form her o b j e c t i v e s t i m u l i . She argued t h a t a w e l l - d e f i n e d 23 circumplex structure would hold for s i m i l a r i t y ratings i n an MDS testing s i t u a t i o n as well. Admittedly, i n the beginning of Partridge's research the structure of the self-concept was v i r t u a l l y unknown. It was only hypothesized that a circumplex structureshould p r e v a i l . Although Partridge was r e f e r r i n g to the shared meaning of the Wiggins categories when she labeled them as objective, i t could be argued that i n d i v i d u a l differences are being suppressed by t h e i r overwhelming str u c t u r a l force, when, of course, they are not. Indeed, i t i s precisely these categories, with others, that are used to assess individual differences. The f a c t that the proposed circumplex structure of the stimuli i n Table 2 was not borne out in these data was interpreted by Partridge as having to do with the self-evaluative context of the MDS te s t . That i s , when subjects are asked to self-reference the Wiggins t r a i t categories (e.g., when "dominant" i s changed to "Your dominant s e l f " in the MDS s i m i l a r i t y rating task), the semantic structure of the circumplex i s overwhelmed by a bipolar dimension of evaluation, which accounts for most of the variance. The r e s u l t i n g pattern, see Figure 2, i s based on two general c l u s t e r s -- a good-self versus bad-self dichotomy. inse r t Figure 2 about here 24 As can be seen, the p o s i t i v e i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t i m u l i form a c l u s t e r on the l e f t of the plane, and the negative s t i m u l i are on the r i g h t . In c o n t r a s t , when the MDS task i n v o l v e d p u r e l y semantic p r o c e s s i n g of the Wiggins t r a i t c a t e g o r i e s -- r a t i n g the s i m i l a r i t y among t r a i t s t i m u l i without s e l f r e f e r e n c i n g them -- an e l l i p t i c a l p a t t e r n of o r d e r i n g was obt a i n e d . These r e s u l t s s t r o n g l y suggest t h a t s e l f - r e f e r e n c e d s t i m u l i such as those i n Table 2 e l i c i t e v a l u a t i v e responses which, with the a i d of h i n d s i g h t , seems l i k e a reasonable t h i n g f o r s u b j e c t s to do. However, when s u b j e c t s e v a l u a t e the s t i m u l i without r a t i n g t h e i r own s i m i l a r i t y to them, the circumplex s t r u c t u r e , f o r the most p a r t , i s r e t a i n e d . What needs r e p l i c a t i n g i s not the former f i n d i n g , where the s t r u c t u r e broke down, but the l a t t e r f i n d i n g , where the known s t r u c t u r e was preserved i n the MDS t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n . Thus i n the s t u d i e s to be o u t l i n e d i n what f o l l o w s , an attempt w i l l be made to t e s t the "semantic" circumplex d i s c o v e r e d i n the P a r t r i d g e data. Yet something e x t r a i s needed t o improve upon the circumplex p a t t e r n when s e l f - r a t i n g s are r e q u i r e d . In an attempt to achieve t h i s , s u b j e c t s w i l l be asked to compare themselves not to some i d i o s y n c r a t i c a b s t r a c t i o n o f t h e i r s e l f - c o n c e p t (e.g., whatever s u b j e c t s i n d i v i d u a l l y decide what a "submissive s e l f " i s t o re p r e s e n t f o r them) but to p r o t o t y p i c a l examples of the t r a i t c a t e g o r i e s . T h i s w i l l allow f o r standard measures a g a i n s t which s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s can be made. 25 Q b i e c t l v e a The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n summarizes, i n p o i n t form, the p r o p o s i t i o n s and hypotheses mentioned i n p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s which are t e s t e d i n the present s t u d i e s . (1) MDS as a p s y c h o l o g i c a l assessment d e v i c e can be improved upon by i n c o r p o r a t i n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l p r o t otypes ( p o r t r a y e d i n v i g n e t t e form) i n t o the s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s , thus s t a n d a r d i z i n g the p e r s o n a l i t y types a g a i n s t which s u b j e c t s are t o compare themselves. The degree of c i r c u m p l e x i t y of the MDS s o l u t i o n w i l l serve as an index f o r instrument refinement. That i s , the c r i t e r i o n used to measure improvement w i l l be the " g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t " of the MDS circumplex to the IAS ( f a c t o r a n a l y t i c ) circumplex. To assess t h i s f i t , dimension weights from the MDS a n a l y s i s w i l l be s t a n d a r d i z e d and p r o j e c t e d onto the IAS space with the s p e c i a l p r i n c i p a l component techniques developed by P h i l l i p s (1985). Two important i n d i c e s used to e v a l u a t e the v i g n e t t e s t i m u l i w i l l be t h e i r angle l o c a t i o n and communalities. (2) I f the MDS measures are to f i n d a p l a c e as v a l i d measures of i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r a i t s , they w i l l have to be shown to measure what e s t a b l i s h e d p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t s measure. The degree of match-up between the MDS and t r a d i t i o n a l measures w i l l be mainly eva l u a t e d i n terms of t h e i r p a t t e r n of i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s . Four popular p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r i e s w i l l be used i n these s t u d i e s as a standard of comparison. These a r e : the I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s (Wiggins, 1979); the P e r s o n a l i t y Research Form (Jackson, 1974); the A d j e c t i v e Check L i s t (Gough & H e i l b r u n , 26 1980); and the C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Inventory (Gough, 1957). (3) New s u b s t a n t i v e l i g h t can be shed on the d i f f e r e n c e between a c t u a l and i d e a l s e l f s i n c e E u c l i d e a n d i s t a n c e can now be d i r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d i n two-dimensional i n t e r p e r s o n a l space. Hypotheses p e r t a i n i n g t o the p r e d i c t i o n o f i d e a l s e l f from a c t u a l s e l f , and the d i s t a n c e between them, can now have added p s y c h o l o g i c a l meaning, i . e . , the i n t e r p e r s o n a l category c l o s e s t to the p o i n t of the i d e a l s e l f s h a l l d e f i n e i t ; the d i s t a n c e between i t and the a c t u a l s e l f may i n d i c a t e the l i k e l i h o o d of a t t a i n i n g i t . In an attempt t o e s t a b l i s h the di s c r e p a n c y between a c t u a l and i d e a l s e l f as an acc u r a t e measure, the p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r y s c a l e s and the MDS d i s t a n c e s c o r e s w i l l be regres s e d on a r a t i o n a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d s e l f - e s t e e m s c a l e from the IAS 128 a d j e c t i v e item p o o l . ( 4 ) MDS d i s t a n c e measures w i l l a l s o be eval u a t e d f o r the degree to which they p r e d i c t standard measures of dominance. perhaps the most widely s t u d i e d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t t h a t e x i s t s i n the l i t e r a t u r e (e.g., Bakan, 1972; Buss & C r a i k , 1980; Butt & F i s k e , 1969; Hogan, 1982; Leary, 1957). The comparative p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y o f the MDS d i s t a n c e s w i l l be assessed a c r o s s two methods -- IAS dominance and PRF dominance. (5) F i n a l l y , i t i s expected t h a t moderator e f f e c t s , i n the form of e r r o r term s c o r e s from MULTISCALE I I , w i l l show up i n some of the t r a i t c a t e g o r i e s , most l i k e l y i n high s e l f - e s t e e m c a t e g o r i e s such as dominance and M a c h i a v e l l i a n i s m s i n c e some support f o r 2 7 t h i s process a l r e a d y e x i s t s ( P a r t r i d g e , 1984). Study 1 T h i s study c o n s t i t u t e d a f i r s t i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the a t r u c t u r e of the e i g h t v i g n e t t e s t i m u l i t o emerge from an MDS a n a l y s i s . Given the p r o t o t y p i c a l a c t content of the v i g n e t t e s and the f a c t t h a t the a c t s were based on the IAS circumplex model of i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r a i t s , the hy p o t h e s i s f o r t h i s study was th a t a circumplex s t r u c t u r e would emerge from an MDS a n a l y s i s of the e i g h t v i g n e t t e s . Method S u b i e c t a . S u b j e c t s f o r t h i s study were 25 i n t r o d u c t o r y psychology students (11 males and 14 females) who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s study i n exchange f o r e x t r a course c r e d i t . Procedures. E i g h t v i g n e t t e s were assembled from l i s t s of 10 of the most p r o t o t y p i c a l a c t s from the an a l y s e s of Buss S. C r a i k (1983). These l i s t s of a c t s were generated and then c a l i b r a t e d f o r p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y e m p i r i c a l l y f o r e i g h t t r a i t c a t e g o r i e s sampled e q u i d i s t a n t l y around the Wiggins (1979) t r a i t model. In c o n s t r u c t i n g the v i g n e t t e s , an attempt was made to stay as c l o s e as p o s s i b l e t o the o r i g i n a l a c t s from the Buss & C r a i k l i s t s without adding much i n the way of f i l l e r matter which might d i l u t e the intended i n t e r p e r s o n a l message. Some dramatic l i c e n s e was taken, however, t o mold them a l l i n t o a r e a l i s t i c 28 s t o r y about a t y p i c a l day i n each c h a r a c t e r ' s l i f e (see Appendix A) . Before p a r t i c i p a t i n g . each s u b j e c t completed a consent form. F o l l o w i n g t h i s the v i g n e t t e s were randomly presented to each s u b j e c t i n a booklet and they were asked to take as much time as they needed to read and r e t a i n the e i g h t v i g n e t t e s t o r i e s . Females read about females and males read about males but the a c t s were the same f o r each gender. Next i n t h e i r b ooklet was a summary sheet which h i g h l i g h t e d under each c h a r a c t e r ' s name the major events t h a t t r a n s p i r e d i n each of the s t o r i e s . The names chosen f o r the c h a r a c t e r s were ones deemed s u f f i c i e n t l y androgynous (e.g., Pat and Gerry) to be the same f o r both sexes. S u b j e c t s were asked to r e f e r back to e i t h e r the summary sheet or the v i g n e t t e s i n the event they f o r g o t a name or wanted to r e f r e s h t h e i r memory about one or more of the c h a r a c t e r s . The next s e c t i o n of the b o o k l e t c o n t a i n e d the s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s . The i n s t r u c t i o n s were as f o l l o w s : «« SIMILARITY RATINGS «» I n s t r u c t i o n s : Now t h a t you have read about these 8 h y p o t h e t i c a l c h a r a c t e r s , the next s t e p i s to r a t e them f o r s i m i l a r i t y , two at a time u n t i l each one has been compared with a l l the r e s t . As you s h a l l soon see, t h i s i s a very simple t h i n g t o do. Example: One of the s i m i l a r i t y judgments t h a t you w i l l be asked t o make i s the f o l l o w i n g one: 29 VERY VERY SIMILAR DIFFERENT Cpd] Pat & Dale > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I f , a f t e r r e a d i n g about these two people (there i s a "summary sheet" to r e f r e s h your memory about them) you thought they were very s i m i l a r , then you would c i r c l e the number "1". I f you decided they were very d i f f e r e n t , then the number "9" would be a p p r o p r i a t e . But i f they seemed only moderately s i m i l a r to you then you would probably c i r c l e the number "2", or perhaps "3", and so on f o r the r e s t of the s c a l e . Remember, t h e r e are no r i g h t or wrong answers here d i f f e r e n t people w i l l judge these c h a r a c t e r s i n d i f f e r e n t ways. Refer t o the summary sheet as o f t e n as you l i k e i f you f i n d t h a t you can't remember what a p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r was l i k e . I f you p r e f e r t o r e - r e a d the o r i g i n a l s t o r i e s then p l e a s e do. One l a s t important t h i n g . Try to use the whole s c a l e throughout t h i s r a t i n g task. That i s , don't always c i r c l e the same one, two, or three numbers f o r your answers. Try to use each of the 9 c h o i c e s a t some time or another, because you may r e a l i z e a f t e r you have s t a r t e d , t h a t you w i l l need them a l l to best r e p r e s e n t a l l of your s i m i l a r i t y judgments. Think about the s i m i l a r i t i e s or d i f f e r e n c e s between each of the p a i r s and decide upon the number t h a t b e s t r e p r e s e n t s your d e c i s i o n . I f you have any q u e s t i o n s a t any time please f e e l f r e e t o ask. PLEASE BEGIN As i n the example i n the above i n t r u c t i o n s , s u b j e c t s completed s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s f o r a l l nonredundant p a i r i n g s of the e i g h t v i g n e t t e c h a r a c t e r s , f o r a t o t a l of 28 r a t i n g s . P r e d i c t i o n s f o r t h i s study were (a) t h a t s u b j e c t s c o u l d a s s i m i l a t e and r e t a i n the v i g n e t t e c h a r a c t e r s ' p e r s o n a l i t i e s f o r f u t u r e comparison; (b) t h a t they c o u l d complete the whole r a t i n g task i n 45 minutes or l e s s ; and (c) t h a t a two-dimensional circumplex s t r u c t u r e would emerge from a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l 30 s c a l i n g o£ the s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s . R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n The s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s from Study 1 were s u b j e c t e d t o a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g a n a l y s i s u s i n g the program M u l t i s c a l e II (Ramsey, 1980). A f t e r an i n i t i a l a n a l y s i s , two s u b j e c t s were dropped from the sample on the b a s i s of high e r r o r (exponent) s c o r e s . These s u b j e c t s d r a s t i c a l l y v i o l a t e d the t r i a n g u l a r i n e q u a l i t y axiom which i n d i c a t e d gross i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n t h e i r comparisons. The f i n a l MDS a n a l y s i s was performed on the remaining 23 s u b j e c t s . Two and three dimensional s o l u t i o n s were requested. The three dimensional s o l u t i o n accounted f o r 92* of the v a r i a n c e -- 44*, 38*, and 10*, r e s p e c t i v e l y . As mentioned e a r l i e r , MULTISCALE was used i n a c o n f i r m a t o r y r o l e t o e s t a b l i s h whether two dimensions accounted f o r the m a j o r i t y of a v a r i a n c e i n the data. S i n c e two dimensions d i d account f o r the l i o n ' s share of the v a r i a n c e , i t was expected t h a t they were the circumplex dimensions ( l o v e and s t a t u s ) t h a t the v i g n e t t e s were based upon. A p l o t of these dimensions confirmed these expecta-i n s e r t F i g u r e 3 about here t i o n a . c i r c u l a r With the ex c e p t i o n of two v a r i a b l e s d i s r u p t i n g a c l e a r p a t t e r n i n the upper l e f t quadrant, a circumplex 31 o r d e r i n g of the v i g n e t t e c h a r a c t e r s emerged from the data, as re v e a l e d i n F i g u r e 3. In completing t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s , s u b j e c t s d i d so i n an average of 28 minutes and r e p o r t e d no d i f f i c u l t y i n remembering the names of the c h a r a c t e r s and the behaviors they performed. They d i d r e p o r t , however, t h a t the summary sheet was necessary t o ac h i e v e t h i s , and most s u b j e c t s on one or two occ a s i o n s r e t u r n e d t o the o r i g i n a l v i g n e t t e s t o r i e s t o r e f r e s h t h e i r memories. Although a rough circumplex o r d e r i n g of v i g n e t t e c h a r a c t e r s emerged from a s e t of procedures t h a t were easy to perform and complete i n l e s s than 45 minutes, i t was a l s o c l e a r , however, t h a t two problems remained. F i r s t , two of the v i g n e t t e s i n Quadrant II were too high i n the space -- the two c h a r a c t e r s r e p r e s e n t i n g the t r a i t s of c a l c u l a t i n g and quarrelsome. Second, these two e r r a n t v i g n e t t e s were too c l o s e t o g e t h e r , s u g g e s t i n g that some c l o s e n e s s (or overla p ) i n meaning was present i n the a c t s . The r e s u l t s suggested t h a t an attempt should be made i n another study t o shore up the circumplex s t r u c t u r e of the e i g h t v i g n e t t e s by a d d r e s s i n g both of these problems. The f i r s t problem may c l e a r up by simply reducing the i n t e n s i t y of the two d e f i n i n g dimensions of love and s t a t u s i n the v i g n e t t e s tapping the t r a i t s of c a l c u l a t i n g and quarrelsome. T h i s could be accomplished by r a t i n g the a c t s f o r i n t e n s i t y on the dimensions of dominance and nurturance and then s e l e c t i n g ones l e s s extreme on the dominance dimension. As f o r the second l o c a t i o n problem. 32 a reexamination of the B u a a & Craik a c t l i s t s , i n the l i g h t of newly r e p o r t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the a c t s , was necessary. In a personal communication (September, 1985), Buss r e p o r t e d that when a c t s were s o r t e d f o r p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y f o r a l l of the e i g h t t r a i t c a t e g o r i e s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y ( i n s t e a d of one at a t i m e ) , i t was r e v e a l e d t h a t some h i g h l y p r o t o t y p i c a l a c t s turned up i n more than one c a t e g o r y . And t h i s was e s p e c i a l l y t r u e f o r dominant, c a l c u l a t i n g , and quarrelsome a c t s . In other words, some a p p a r e n t l y "good" a c t s c a r r i e d ambiguous messages as to where they belonged. One such example was the p r o t o t y p i c a l l y quarrelsome a c t "I c r i t i c i z e d my p a r t n e r ' s c h o i c e of c l o t h e s " which a l s o turned out to be h i g h l y dominant as w e l l . In summary, the r e s u l t s of Study 1 may be i n t e r p r e t e d as at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y the r e s u l t of the i n c l u s i o n of c o n f u s i n g and ambiguous a c t s i n the troublesome v i g n e t t e s r e p r e s e n t i n g the upper l e f t quadrant. I t c o u l d a l s o be the case t h a t the extremeness of the a c t s caused a b e r r a t i o n s i n the upper l e f t quadrant (quadrant I I ) . The l o c a t i o n of the v i g n e t t e s appearing i n the f a r upper reaches of quadrant II suggested t h a t the a c t s needed to be toned down i n terms of the dominance and h o s t i l i t y they expressed. Study 2 The purpose c a l c u l a t i n g and composition i n of t h i s study quarrelsome two ways. was to attempt a r e p a r a t i o n of the v i g n e t t e s by a d j u s t i n g t h e i r act F i r s t , on the b a s i s of a newly 33 r e p o r t e d redundancy index f o r the p r o t o t y p i c a l a c t a , an attempt was made t o reduce the ambiguity of the a c t a i n the v i g n e t t e s by i n c l u d i n g only a c t s t h a t were p r o t o t y p i c a l f o r one category. Second, by i n c o r p o r a t i n g new ac t s t h a t possess l e s s i n t e n s i t y i n terms of how much dominance and h o s t i l i t y they c o n t a i n , an attempt was made t o a l t e r t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l space. The i n t e n s i t y of the v i g n e t t e s was assessed by judges f a m i l i a r with the circumplex system. The hy p o t h e s i s f o r t h i s study was t h a t the v i g n e t t e c h a r a c t e r s from quadrant II would be seen t o vary i n dominance and quarrelsomeness depending on the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s and i n t e n s i t y of the a c t a they performed. Method Judges• The s u b j e c t s f o r t h i s study were 15 graduate stu d e n t s i n psychology e n r o l l e d at UBC who had r e c e n t l y taken a graduate course i n p e r s o n a l i t y psychology i n which circumplex models of p e r s o n a l i t y assessment had been covered. Each s u b j e c t v o l u n t e e r e d t o judge s i x v i g n e t t e s on the b a s i s of how much dominance and h o s t i l i t y were expressed i n t h e i r content. Procedure. Two t e n - p l a c e u n i p o l a r L i k e r t s c a l e s were used by the judges t o r a t e each v i g n e t t e . One was anchored by the a d j e c t i v e s "dominant", " a s s e r t i v e " , and " f o r c e f u l " , and the other dimension was anchored by " c o l d " , " i r o n - h e a r t e d " , and " u n c h a r i t a b l e " . These a d j e c t i v e s were s e l e c t e d from Wiggins I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s (1979) on the b a s i s of t h e i r high communalities on one of the two d e f i n i n g dimensions of love and s t a t u s . The judges were i n s t r u c t e d to read s i x v i g n e t t e s about 34 two hypothetical people (three per t r a i t of c a l c u l a t i n g and h o s t i l i t y ) . The instructions they read were as follows: VIGNETTE RATINGS Directions Enclosed you w i l l f i n d two sets of short vignettes (or s t o r i e s ) , each set describing one hypothetical person, either "Robert" or "Sam." There are three vignettes describing the behavior of Robert, and three vignettes describing the behavior of Sam. You w i l l also f i n d six rating forms to use to rate each vignette ( a l l of the rating forms are i d e n t i c a l ) . Read a l l three of the vignettes about the f i r s t person that appears in t h i s booklet before you s t a r t r ating, to get an understanding of how they d i f f e r from each other. Then rate each vignette separately on the two scales provided (dominance and coldness). Please write the name of the vignette you are rating in the space provided (the l a s t name i n i t i a l i s d i f f e r e n t for a l l of them, so please include i t ) . Also, put your assigned number on each of the rating forms so I can keep them a l l together. Repeat t h i s procedure for the second set. Thank you very much for your help. Your number i s : Results and Discussion The r e s u l t s of Study 2 are shown in Table 3. By varying the insert Table 3 about here acts performed by the vignette characters in terms of dominance and coldness, vignettes of varying intensity and greater d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s were produced. S i g n i f i c a n t differences were found between the scale means for the three versions of each 3 5 v i g n e t t e ( a l l t s >1.96). V i g n e t t e A r e p r e s e n t s the o r i g i n a l v i g n e t t e used i n Study 1, while v i g n e t t e s B and C f o r each of the t r a i t c a t e g o r i e s , were the newer v e r s i o n s . From t h i s a n a l y s i s i t was c l e a r t h a t v e r s i o n C f o r each category ahould be used i n any f u r t h e r MDS s t u d i e s . Note t h a t the t r u e t e s t of t h e i r " s i g n i f i c a n c e " , however, would have t o wait f o r a l a t e r MDS a n a l y s i s . I t was hoped t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r l o c a t i o n s i n MDS two-dimensional space would be commensurate with t h e i r mean d i f f e r e n c e s here. Study 3 The two preceding s t u d i e s have paved the way f o r a microcomputer a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the MDS s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g t a s k using the f i n a l s e t of v i g n e t t e s . T h i s procedure d i f f e r e d from Study 1 i n t h a t s u b j e c t s were a l s o asked t o compare themselves to the e i g h t v i g n e t t e c h a r a c t e r s . In a d d i t i o n , s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d t o pass a memory t e a t of name/behavior p a i r s t o ensure they had encoded the c h a r a c t e r s p r o p e r l y before they c o u l d proceed t o the s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s . I t was hypothesized t h a t the a d d i t i o n of the improved v i g n e t t e s from Study 2 would improve the c i r c u l a r s t r u c t u r e of the r e s u l t i n g MDS p l o t of the s t i m u l i ( t h i s was f i r s t t e s t e d with the i n i t i a l 25 s u b j e c t s ) . The MDS s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s o f s e l f and ot h e r s were seen t o be c l o s e r measures of people's c o g n i t v e s t r u c t u r e s or schemas than t r a d i t i o n a l t r a i t r a t i n g s . Thus a second h y p o t h e s i s i n t h i s study was t h a t MDS d i s t a n c e s c o r e s would measure 3 6 personality t r a i t s as well, i f not better, than t r a d i t i o n a l inventories. Another issue addressed in t h i s study had to do with the "predictive effectiveness" (Burisch, 1984) of the MDS measures. That i s , how well do a l l the MDS distance measures predict important personality dimensions as compared to t r a d i t i o n a l measures. The t h i r d hypothesis, then, was that the nine MDS distance measures, taken as a battery, would predict IAS self-esteem and dominance scores better than the t r a d i t i o n a l personality inventories used in t h i s study (CPI, PRF, ACL, and IAS) . Method Subiecta. A t o t a l of 158 subjects were s o l i c i t e d from UBC lecture h a l l s , mostly students enrolled in Introductory Psychology. An attempt was made to obtain an equal balance of males and females -- the re s u l t was 77 and 81 respectively. A l l subjects received extra course c r e d i t for t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h i s study, as well as feedback in the form of personality test r e s u l t s . Personality Measures. Subjects were administered multiscale personality inventories on two occasions; the f i r s t a s e l f -administered i n t e r a c t i v e session carried out on a microcomputer, and the second a take-home session where subjects were asked to f i l l out a package of conventional personality measures at home following the f i r s t session. Most subjects returned the take-home package within two days. The measures i n each of the 37 s e s s i o n s are d e s c r i b e d s e p a r a t e l y below. Sess i o n I. 1. MDS of the D i s t a n c e to the I n t e r p e r s o n a l  PROtotypes (DISPRO). Designed as a computerized, s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r i n g program to p l o t i n d i v i d u a l s i n " i n t e r p e r s o n a l space", DISPRO (Broughton, 1985) combines m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g techniques from MULTISCALE II (Ramsey, 1980) with the development of p r o t o t y p i c a l c h a r a c t e r s as i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t i m u l i d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r . S u b j e c t s begin DISPRO by r e a d i n g a one page, "day-in-the- l i f e " s t o r y ( v i g n e t t e ) of a h y p o t h e t i c a l c h a r a c t e r who d i s p l a y s p r o t o t y p i c a l b e h a v i o r s from one of e i g h t i n t e r p e r s o n a l c a t e g o r i e s from the Wiggins (1979) circumplex. F o l l o w i n g t h i s the s u b j e c t i s asked t o r a t e the s i m i l a r i t y of the same-sex h y p o t h e t i c a l c h a r a c t e r t o him or h e r s e l f on an e i g h t - p l a c e L i k e r t format s c a l e r a n g i n g from not a t a l l s i m i l a r to extremely s i m i l a r . T h i s process i s repeated f o r each of e i g h t p r o t o t y p i c a l c h a r a c t e r s sampled e q u i d i s t a n t l y (and randomly) around the Wiggins circumplex. To ensure t h a t the a u b j e c t remembers the behaviors performed by the e i g h t c h a r a c t e r s and t h a t the r i g h t b e h a v i o r s are a s s o c i a t e d with the r i g h t v i g n e t t e c h a r a c t e r , before the s u b j e c t proceeds t o make the next s e t of r a t i n g s , l i s t s of " a c t summaries" under each of the e i g h t v i g n e t t e c h a r a c t e r s ' names are d i s p l a y e d on the screen as an encapsuled review of what the s u b j e c t read e a r l i e r . Because only names are used i n the s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s , i t i s c r u c i a l t h a t the s u b j e c t s know which name corresponds with which s e t of b e h a v i o r s . Thus to ensure t h a t s u b j e c t s have coded the c h a r a c t e r s c o r r e c t l y , a f t e r r e q a r d i n g the v i g n e t t e s , the 38 computer administers a simple memory quiz to be completed successfully before they can continue. It i s required that four correct character-to-act associations be made before the computer allows the task to proceed. To do t h i s , the computer picks a random act from the eight vignettes; the subject has to corr e c t l y i d e n t i f y which vignette i t came from. When an incorrect choice i s made the correct choice i s displayed along with the vignette from which i t was selected. If more than two errors are made, the subject reviews a l l the act summaries and the memory tes t i s repeated. When the computer receives four consecutively correct answers, the subject proceeds to the f i n a l set of ratings. After the subject completes the memory tes t , the next section reguires that a l l possible pairs of eight vignette characters and the subject's " i d e a l s e l f " (the person he or she would most l i k e to become) be compared for s i m i l a r i t y , thus a t o t a l of 45 ratings are to be made in t h i s section. Session I I. 1. Interpersonal Adiective Scales (IAS). One of the paper-and-penci1 tests i n the subject's take-home packet was the IAS (Wiggins, 1979), composed of 16 eight-item single adjective scales. In completing the IAS, subjects rate the accuracy with which each of the t o t a l 128 adjectives describes them on an eight-place scale. A glossary accompanies the IAS since some of the adjectives (e.g., unwily) are negation terms and are l i k e l y to require d e f i n i t i o n . The IAS s e l f - r e p o r t measure was selected to assess personality in terms of interpersonal variables with known st r u c t u r a l (circumplex) 39 properties organized around the coordinates of dominance and nurturance (see pp. 13-16 of t h i s thesis for more d e t a i l s ) . When these 16 scales are combined into octants, they provide the clearest circumplex structure that has been published to date (Wiggins, Steiger, & Gaelick, 1981). More recently, however, in an unpublished a r t i c l e , Wiggins, P h i l l i p s , & Trapnell (1986) have revised the IAS scales and improved upon t h e i r circumplex properties. Because of t h i s , these newer scales (IAS-R) were used in t h i s study. As in Study 1, the IAS w i l l provide the structural markers with which to assess the v a l i d i t y of the multidimensional sc a l i n g task described next. 2. C a l i f o r n i a Personality Inventory (CPI). Perhaps the moat popular of personality tests for normal populations, the 480 true-false item CPI (Gough, 1957) i s composed of 18 scales developed to represent and measure descriptive, " f o l k " concepts of personality (e.g., "sense of well-being") that possess broad personal and s o c i a l relevance to human behavior. Emphasis was placed on tapping concepts related to the favourable and positive aspects of personality rather than the abnormal and pathological that instruments such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory were designed to measure. A l l of the scales were developed mainly with empirical techniques. Fourteen were developed soley with t h i s method and the remaining four were developed with a mixed empirical/rational strategy that involved item selection based partly on the test developer's judgment as to which items were to be included in a scale. The f i n a l judgment in a l l cases, however, was made on 40 the baais of empirical, nontest r e l a t i o n s between a given scale score and a c r i t e r i o n measure (e.g., peer r a t i n g s ) . The r e s u l t i n g scales were: dominance, capacity for status, s o c i a b i l i t y , s o c i a l presence, self-acceptance, sense of well-being, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , s o c i a l i z a t i o n , s e l f - c o n t r o l , tolerance, good impression, communality, achievement via conformance, achievement vi a independence, i n t e l l e c t u a l e f f i c i e n c y , psychological-mindedneaa, f l e x i b i l i t y , and femininity. 3. Personality Research Form (PRF). The PRF, developed by Jackson (1970), has been hailed by one reviewer as the "best example of a large-scale personality inventory ... whose development was guided e x p l i c i t l y by the substantive, s t r u c t u r a l , and external considerations of the construct point of view" (Wiggins, 1973, p.409). The construct point of view in te s t construction (Loevinger, 1957), involves the use of c a r e f u l l y explicated psychological theory wedded with psychometric considerations (scale homogeneity, etc.) and the c r i t e r i a of convergent and discriminant v a l i d i t y . Jackson chose his personality variables on the basis of Murray's (1938) theory of personality. The 300 item true/false format PRF i s composed of the following 20 Murray "need" (or t r a i t ) scales: abasement, achievement, a f f i l i a t i o n , aggression, autonomy, change, cognitive structure, defendence, dominance, endurance, exh i b i t i o n , harmavoidance, impulsivity, nurturance, order, play, sentience, s o c i a l recognition, succorance, and understanding. 4. Adiective Check L i s t (ACL). O r i g i n a l l y used as a 41 technique for observers to describe others at the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research in Berkeley in the early f i f t i e s , the ACL (Gough & Heilbrun, 1965, 1980) in i t s current form as a s e l f - r e p o r t personality instrument, has become the most widely used personality inventory f o r normal populations. A main reason for t h i s i s because of i t s ease of use and comprehensiveness. As the name informs, the ACL i s composed of (300) adjective items, e.g., "organized", "suspicious", from which a respondent indicates those that are s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e with an "X". In 1949, adjectives were selected for the ACL which were thought to be essential f o r describing personality from most of the t h e o r e t i c a l vantage points that were available at the time (e.g., Freud, Jung, Murray, e t c . ) . In 1958 Heilbrun developed 15 scales from the ACL item pool s p e c i f i c a l l y constructed to represent dispositions from Murray's (1938) need-trait system. Parti c u l a r d i s p o s i t i o n s were selected on the basis of t h e i r relevence to observable behavior in normal human functioning. The Murray scales are: dominance, nurturance, a f f i l i a t i o n , e x h i b i t i o n , aggression, succorance, deference, order, intraception, succorance, heterosexuality, achievement, change, endurance, and autonomy. The remaining f i v e were constructed according to empirical methods: number of adjectives checked, self-confidence, s e l f - c o n t r o l , l a b i l i t y , and personal adjustment. Method of Analysis Data obtained from Sessions I & II were analyzed in the f o i l -42 owing way. F i r s t , circumplexity tests for the e n t i r e sample were performed on the IAS data. These included p r i n c i p a l component analysis of the eight IAS scales corresponding to the t r a i t s of the vignette characters and a subsequent p l o t t i n g of scale loadings on the defining factors of dominance and nurturance. As has been found i n many samples s i m i l a r to the one to be used in t h i s study, a clear c i r c u l a r structure with scales plotted almost equidistant around the periphery of the c i r c l e , was expected. It i s important that a clear circumplex atructure emerges from the IAS data. If the structure was poor, i t could c a l l into question how seriously a l l of the take-home materials were viewed by the subjects. The data obtained from the s i m i l a r i t y ratings of DISPRO were analyzed i n two ways; for the entire sample and for i n d i v i d u a l s . F i r s t , the s i m i l a r i t y ratings from the e n t i r e sample were analyzed using MULTISCALE II with a two-dimensional ind i v i d u a l differences model. For each of the s t i m u l i (8 characters plus actual and ideal selves) the MDS program i s used to help construct a configuration of points in Euclidean space such that the distance r e l a t i o n s among them correspond as cl o s e l y as possible to the judged d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s in the data. This i s achieved through an i t e r a t i v e process of successive alignment where MDS algorithms (which in t h i s case was the aforementioned i n d i v i d u a l differences model from MULTISCALE II) are applied to determine a set of coordinates that maximize the "goodness-of-fit" between the data and the model. In an i n d i v i d u a l differences model, each subject's ratings are treated 43 as a r e p l i c a t i o n , the end r e s u l t producing a group solution that also retains each subject's dimension weights. Dimension weights (or dimensional saliences as they are sometimes refered to) are measures of the importance ascribed to the dimensions by each subject. While some MDS models incorporate a least squares c r i t e r i o n for f i t t i n g the model to the data (e.g., INDSCAL) and others employ a maximum like l i h o o d c r i t e r i o n which choose coordinates that are most l i k e l y to give r i s e to the observed d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s (e.g., MULTISCALE I I ) , the two c r i t e r i o n procedures more often than not lead to the same solutions (Schiffman et a l . , 1981). The output from the MDS analysis w i l l provide a two-dimensional p l o t t i n g of the eight vignette characters, the average subject ( s e l f ) i n r e l a t i o n to these characters, and the location of the average Ideal Self, for a t o t a l of ten points plotted. Likewise for individual plots, i t was possible (indeed very easy) to determine (1) which of the vignette characters that a subject's actual s e l f moat resembles, (2) which one i s most s i m i l a r to what the subject aspires to become (the ideal s e l f ) , and (3) the amount of difference between the actual and the ideal s e l f (a self-esteem estimate). In addition to t h i s , MULTISCALE provides three important indices to help interpret the way the subjects treated the task they were confronted with (these are response s t y l e measures). As discussed elsewhere in t h i s thesis (pp. 12-13), these indices -- the o v e r a l l stimulus error term, the i n d i v i d u a l stimulus error term, and the "exponent" -- when taken together e s s e n t i a l l y provide a measure 44 of subjects' consistency in making the ratings and how d i f f e r e n t i a t e d they were in making discriminations among the s t i m u l i . Thus i f a subject did not take the task very seriously, t h i s would be r e f l e c t e d i n these scores. Also, aa potential i n d i v i d u a l difference measures in t h e i r own r i g h t , these indices may receive additional i n t e r p r e t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e in terms of t h e i r r e l a t i o n to other personality variables. They may even turn out to possess moderator influences on other variables since Partridge (1984) found modest support for t h i s . There w i l l be more on t h i s in a l a t e r section. Analyses carried out on i n d i v i d u a l subjects were also performed on the sample as a whole. Next, circumplexity from the whole sample solution from MULTISCALE II were analyzed by comparing the norma and adopting the procedures provided by Wiggins, P h i l l i p s & Trapnell (1986). This was followed by (1) zero-order c o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis of the four personality inventories and dimension weights (hereafter refered to as distance scores) computed in MULTISCALE II, including actual and i d e a l - s e l f scores, (2) descriptive analysis of MDS p r o f i l e s according to angular placement on the IAS with software developed by P h i l l i p s (1985), and (3) a study of the moderator e f f e c t s of the response s t y l e indices produced by MULTISCALE II, e.g., whether the error terms provided by the program were lower fo r dominant subjects, etc. Data obtained from the take-home package of materials were also analyzed with the distance scores to assess the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of two d i s p o s i t i o n a l c r i t e r i o n measures 45 self-esteem and dominance. The self-esteem c r i t e r i o n was developed r a t i o n a l l y from the 128 adjective item pool of the IAS. The items, the f i r s t two keyed p o s i t i v e l y and l a s t three reversed, were: self-assured, self-confident, self-doubting, s e l f - e f f a c i n g , and unauthoritative. These items were combined into a self-esteem scale score for a l l of the subjects. For dominance there were two c r i t e r i o n measures -- IAS dominance and PRF dominance -- representing two methods (Likert scale adjectives and true/false propositions, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The regression analyses were performed according to the suggestion of Nunnally (1978, p. 180) that a l l scale scores be forced into the equations (to minimize the advantage that large inventories have over small ones in stepwise procedures). These regression analyses were used to determine the extent to which the four inventories could predict distance from the prototypes (vignettes), again, including the self-esteem discrepancy measure. Results and Discussion The take-home IAS data produced a remarkable circumplex structure that r i v a l e d the best that have been obtained in the Laboratory. As we have seen e a r l i e r , the r e s u l t s of a p r i n c i p a l axes factor analysis are beat revealed in a plot of the f i r s t two f a c t o r s . Although numerous UBC and other samples have taken much inser t Figure 4 about here 46 of the guess work out of these a n a l y s e s , i t was q u e s t i o n a b l e as to whether the take-home package would be completed s e r i o u s l y by the s u b j e c t s . F i g u r e 4 l a i d t o r e s t any doubts I may have had about a take-home IAS, and shored up my c o n f i d e n c e i n the r e s t of the m a t e r i a l s the s u b j e c t s completed a t home. S i n c e the IAS was chosen i n t h i s study to p r o v i d e the s t r u c t u r a l (and. v a l i d a t i o n a l ) c r i t e r i o n with which to e v a l u a t e the MDS a n a l y s e s , a shoddy circumplex would have c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n the r e s t of the data, perhaps even u n f a i r l y . The two circumplex dimensions accounted f o r 73% of the v a r i a n c e (40% and 33% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , which i s s l i g h t l y above the average i n u n i v e r s i t y samples. What was t o be more of a mystery was whether a s a t i s f a c t o r y circumplex s t r u c t u r e would p r e v a i l i n the MDS a n a l y s e s with the two new v i g n e t t e s ( c a l c u l a t i n g fi. quarrelsome) a f f e c t i n g the s t r u c t u r e . A c t u a l l y , the mystery was s o f t e n e d somewhat when I checked the s t r u c t u r e a f t e r 25 new s u b j e c t s completed the DISPRO procedures. The s t r u c t u r e was not p e r f e c t , nor was i t expected to be, but i t was a d e f i n i t e improvement over the o r i g i n a l v i g n e t t e s used i n Study 1. i n s e r t F i g u r e 5 about here F i g u r e 5 presents an MDS p l o t of the f i r s t two dimensions 4 7 baaed on 150 of the 158 subjects (eight were dropped due to high error scores). This structure was obtained without the s e l f variables (usual and ideal) in the analysis. C l e a r l y , by just looking at the solution in Figure 5, the addition of two new vignettes in the upper l e f t quadrant represents a q u a l i t a t i v e improvement over that of Figure 3 from Study 1. The true test, however, was s t i l l to come. The best way to evaluate the circumplex!ty of the MDS distance measures i s to proiect them onto the IAS two-dimensional space using the p r i n c i p a l component analysis software developed by P h i l l i p s (1985), which he c a l l s a "circumplex generator/analyzer". Although method variance plays a d i s t o r t i n g role in the estimated communalities (sums of the squared loadings on the two dimensions) that are computed i n the program, and t h i s i s es p e c i a l l y true when two methods vary widely, as in t h i s case, the program also provides angle locations and other indices which are not affected by t h i s . That i s , when high method variance e x i s t s between two instruments, then the one that i s projected onto the other w i l l not load as highly on the defining dimensions. The graphic outcome of high method variance i s that the IAS variables t y p i c a l l y overwhelm the solution and force other variables to the center region of the two-dimensional space. If any structure remains i n the non-IAS variables then t h i s i s a tr i b u t e to t h e i r d u r a b i l i t y under t r y i n g conditions. Nevertheless, angle locations are the same regardless of communality since angles are calculated from the o r i g i n of the c i r c l e . Thus with angle locations of variables one can 48 determine whether they are located in the proper octant o£ the interperaonal c i r c l e . Congruence between an ideal IAS c i r c l e (with zero degrees at the location of nurturance, and dominance at 90 degrees, etc.) and other interpersonal variables can be evaluated in terms of the degree of alignment between the two. Appendix C contains the output from t h i s analysis i n the present study. In summary, the r e s u l t s confirmed the c i r c u l a r structure of the MDS distance measures. The angle locations of these measures were a l l where one would expect them to be i f a circumplex structure prevailed. The average deviation from the ideal angle placements for the distance measures was 24 degrees, with a standard deviation of 16.2. The range of deviations was from 1 to 53 degrees. Another way to look at these findings i s to compare the angles of the DISPRO measures with the angles of the IAS variables. For example, distance from the Submissive vignette variable should appear in the dominant section of the c i r c l e (from 70 to 110 degrees) since distance from a vignette and i t s corresponding IAS score are negatively correlated. In other words, long distance (or high d i s s i m i l a r i t y ) from, say, the Submissive vignette character, should correspond in angular location with high IAS Dominance scores i f there i s interpersonal congruence between the two. This was exactly what happened. From t h i s sample, IAS Dominance was positioned at S3.2 degrees on the Interpersonal C i r c l e . Distance from the Submissive vignette appeared at 105.6 degrees. A l l of the distance measures turned up in the appropriate segment of the interpersonal c i r c l e and, on average, the difference between the 49 placement of IAS s c a l e s and the corresponding d i s t a n c e measures was only 15 degrees. Even t a k i n g i n t o account the l a r g e amount of method v a r i a n c e i n these methods, the d i s t a n c e measures s t i l l formed a quasi c i r c l e w i t h i n the IAS c i r c l e at the perimeter. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note what happens when the t a b l e s are turned and the IAS v a r i a b l e s are p r o i e c t e d onto the DISPRO  v a r i a b l e s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t the exact opposite j u x t a p o s i t i o n of the two s e t s of v a r i a b l e s o c c u r s . The DISPRO v a r i a b l e s form a near p e r f e c t c i r c l e a t the edges of the space while the IAS v a r i a b l e s form a rough c i r c l e around the o r i g i n (see Appendix C). Yet almost the same angle l o c a t i o n s are found f o r the two s e t s of v a r i a b l e s as were found i n the f i r s t a n a l y s i s . One can conclude from t h i s t h a t both s e t s of v a r i a b l e s possess c i r c u l a r p r o p e r t i e s . A s o l u t i o n i n v o l v i n g both s e t s at the same time, however, depends on which s e t i n i t i a l i z e s the space. In terms of oth e r c r i t e r i a f o r e v a l u a t i n g c i r c u m p l e x i t y i n these data, the p r o p o r t i o n of v a r i a n c e accounted f o r by the f i r s t two f a c t o r s was a very healthy 72.42* (41.8 and 30.6* r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The d i f f e r e n c e between the f i r s t two f a c t o r s was only 11.2* and the t h i r d f a c t o r accounted f o r l e s s than 8* of the t o t a l v a r i a n c e . These f i n d i n g s c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h the v i g n e t t e v a r i a b l e s i n c i r c u l a r i n t p e r s o n a l space -- the major circumplex c r i t e r i a , as o u t l i n e d by Wiggins, S t e i g e r & G a e l i c k (1981), were met. F i g u r e 6 d i s p l a y s the r e s u l t of what happened when the average usual and i d e a l s e l f were added to the s o l u t i o n . The 50 i n s e r t Figure 7 about here average usual s e l f l i e s closest to the vignette constructed to mark the gragarious-extraverted t r a i t from the Wiggins circumplex. The average ideal s e l f l i e s closest to the vignette constructed to mark the warm-agreeable t r a i t . Given the high s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y of these two t r a i t s , i t i s not surprising that the average subject aligns her or his "selves" in t h i s way. What did surprise me, however, was the distance between these selves and the circumplex solution of the vignettes. The message seems to be that the average subject chooses to distance him or herself quite far away from a l l of the vignette characters. This may r e f l e c t in part the fac t that a l l of these characters are not very desirable people, due perhaps to the clear-cut one-sidedness of t h e i r characters. I w i l l have more to say on t h i s l a t e r . The next step was to observe the congruence of the vignette assessment materials with the t r a d i t i o n a l measures. Tables 4 through 7 reveal the remaining major findings of t h i s study. The zero-order correlations contained i n Table 4 t e l l us ins e r t Table 4 about here much about the r e s u l t s of t h i s research programme v i s - a - v i s 51 t r a d i t i o n a l approaches. F i r s t and foremost, the o v e r a l l magnitude of the correlations between the two domains are lower than I had expected. This r e f l e c t s on the linkage between the DISPRO assessment paradigm in i t s current form and the t r a d i t i o n a l paper-and- pencil personality measures used in t h i s study. Although many of the c o e f f i c i e n t s that were expected to be high on t h e o r e t i c a l grounds (e.g., IAS Dominant scale scores with distances from the Submissive vignette) were moderately high, or just s i g n i f i c a n t , or at least in the right d i r e c t i o n , there were s u r p r i s i n g l y more of the l a s t than the f i r s t . The IAS scales did substantially better than the other inventories; a salutary f i n d i n g given the special circumplex nature of these scales and the vignette characters that were modelled after them. The IAS had 74* of i t s c o e f f i c i e n t s reach s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .05 l e v e l or better with a highest c o e f f i c i e n t of -.38 with the self-esteem discrepancy measure. The PRF and AC1 personality inventories were tie d for second in terms of the magnitude of the c o r r e l a t i o n s with the vignette distances. Each of these tests had a c o e f f i c i e n t in the low t h i r t i e s , in each case with the self-esteem measure. The CPI, on the other hand, came in fourth place on t h i s index with i t s highest c o e f f i c i e n t (-.25) found in both the dominant vignette and s e l f - esteem measure. But the CPI had 22* of i t s c o e f f i c i e n t s in the s i g n i f i c a n t category with the ACL and PRF placing 17* and 14* respectively. One way to interpret these a i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s i s to observe the number of "stray shots" that appear, a term used by Burisch (1984) to r e f e r to 5 2 the n o t i o n t h a t we should not look a p p r o v i n g l y at a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n i f the wrong c o n s t r u c t s match up. For i n s t a n c e i n Table 4, PRF Aggression c o r r e l a t e s v i r t u a l l y the same with v i g n e t t e dominance as PRF dominance does. B u r i s c h ' a p o i n t i s t h a t one should not count both as " h i t s " i n one's e v a l u a t i o n , only the l a t t e r one should count. From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e then, the IAS c l e a r l y s c o r e s high i n the l e a s t amount of s t r a y s h o t s . Most of the s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s with the other i n v e n t o r i e s , however, were not s t r a y shots e i t h e r . The c o e f f i c i e n t s t h a t appear u n d e r l i n e d i n Table 4 r e p r e s e n t a p p r o p r i a t e " h i t s " , i n B u r i s c h ' a (1984) terminology. The average ( F i s h e r transformed) h i t f o r the IAS was ( i n absolute value) .23; the PRF .19; and both the ACL and CPI have .18. I expected the CPI to f a r e the lowest on these measures s i n c e i t i s the l e a s t " i n t e r p e r s o n a l " of the f o u r i n v e n t o r i e s i n terms of i t s s c a l e coverage. The f a c t t h a t the highest s e t of DISPRO c o r r e l a t i o n s was found with the IAS v a r i a b l e s may a t f i r s t seem c o n t r a r y t o what one would expect given other r e l a t e d f i n d i n g s from Buss and C r a i k (1980). For i n s t a n c e , these authors found t h a t when they combined s e l f - r e p o r t e d p r o t o t y p i c a l a c t s i n t o what they termed " m u l t i p l e a c t c r i t e r i a " , the h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s with p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r i e s were found with the PRF and not the IAS. But the methods i n the present s t u d i e s were r e a l l y q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from those used i n the Buss & C r a i k s t u d i e s . S u b j e c t s i n my s t u d i e s were asked to form impressions of the v i g n e t t e c h a r a c t e r s a f t e r r e a d i n g about t h e i r t y p i c a l b e h a v i o r s . L a t e r they compared themselves to the v i g n e t t e c h a r a c t e r s on the b a s i s 53 of these impressions when they carried out the s i m i l a r i t y ratings. The present findings seem quite congruent with the notion of "spontaneous t r a i t inference" (cf. Winter & Uleman, 1984; and B a s s i l i & Smith, 1986). B r i e f l y , these authors found that people code s p e c i f i c behaviors with t r a i t labels, e.g., extraverted, and use the t r a i t labels to help r e c a l l the o r i g i n a l behaviors. Their findings seem to f i t well with what has been found here. The IAS t r a i t labels correlate higher than behavior- l i k e items in the PRF. Interestingly, most of the highest c o e f f i c i e n t s obtained from a l l of the four inventories were obtained with the self-esteem discrepancy measure. The highest c o r r e l a t i o n of them a l l came from the IAS dominance scale reported above (-.38). This may shed some new l i g h t on the meaning of self-esteem as partly explained by the amount of interpersonal distance between our actual and ideal selves. Results from the regression analyses begin with Table 5. In i n s e r t Table 5 about here the f i r s t analysis, a s p e c i a l l y constructed self-esteem scale was used as the c r i t e r i o n measure. The predictors were the distance measures and inventory scales. Since multiple Rs are known to be unstable and often c a p i t a l i z e on error variance in uncross- validated data, R squared was used here as a leas biased estimate. And as a further safeguard, the Olkin & Pratt 54 (1958) correction formula was applied as well to compensate for differences in sample aize and number of predictors to sel e c t from in each inventory. Even with a l l these precautions in place, as Nunnally (1978) points out, unless you have more than 500 subjects, even with a correction applied to R squared, the equation w i l l s t i l l tend to o v e r c a p i t a l i z e on the chance rela t i o n s present in the data. With these cautions in mind, ref e r to the second column in Table 5 which contains the adjusted R squares. The o r i g i n a l multiple Rs are beside them. Although a l l predictors were strongly related to the self-esteem c r i t e r i o n , the DISPRO distances, with the discrepancy measure given the most weight in the equation, outperformed the others. The DISPRO discrepancy measure of s e l f - esteem i s thus (at the very least) a relevant index of an IAS measure of t h i s construct. This finding also lends support to the Rodgers and Dymond notion that a measure of disp a r i t y between actual and i d e a l - s e l f i s a useful conceptualization of self-esteem. Summary tables for these and other regression analyses are contained i n Appendix D. The next analysis was a test of the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of IAS Dominance by measures that did not share the adjective format of the IAS. Thoae that did (the ACL and remaining IAS acales) were used in a regression analysis with PRF Dominance as the c r i t e r i o n measure. Taken together these two analyses were to provide an indication of the comparative pr e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y of the DISPRO measures across two methods. Table 6 contains the findings of the f i r s t analysis with IAS Dominance. oh insert Table 6 about here The uncorrected regression c o e f f i c i e n t s are v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l for the three predictor measures while the adjusted R squared column shows that a s l i g h t predictive margin e x i s t s with the DISPRO predictors. Again, the DISPRO personality assessment technique appears to f i t in very well with the t r a d i t i o n a l measures i n predicting the fundamental personality t r a i t of dominance, one of the two defining dimensions of the circumplex system. An inspection of Table 7 reveals that DISPRO measures did not insert Table 7 about here fare as well in predicting the PRF form of dominance as they did with IAS Dominance. The ACL and IAS scales placed a close f i r s t and second quite far ahead of DISPRO predictors. A few indices that were expected to show p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s but did not, in t h i s study were the moderator variables, or error terms, supplied by Multiscale II that Partridge (1984) found some modest support f o r . In t h i s study there was no r e l a t i o n between these error and consistency terms and the many personality measures employed in t h i s study. Thus the future does not bode well for these indices as moderators of 56 personality. It was true, however, that by removing the small proportion of subjects who had extreme error terms, that the circumplex structure of the distance variables was greatly enhanced. It i s also true that normal data cleansing techniques would have i d e n t i f i e d them as well. General Discussion Taken as a whole, the results of these studies are generally consistent with the l o g i c that led to t h e i r inception. In summary, the DISPRO measures were found to conform to circumplex str u c t u r a l c r i t e r i a , that i s , form a never ending c i r c l e of i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d variables in two dimensional interpersonal space. The degree of congruence between the DISPRO and t r a d i t i o n a l measures, as indicated in t h e i r pattern of i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s , showed a consistent alignment between the two domains. The MDS distance measures were able to predict IAS Self-esteem and Dominance scales better than the other three inventories. A new discrepency measure of self-esteem has shown promise as an operationalization of Rodgers & Dymond's (1958) notion of degree of congruence between ideal and usual-self. These findings have wider implications for personality psych-ology than have been discussed thus f a r i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . To move beyond what has already been covered, I have selected three major themes in personality psychology from which to consider the broader implications of t h i s l i n e of research, namely (1) the construct v a l i d i t y of DISPRO: (2) a 57 reconsideration of the value of the concept of prototype in t h i s assessment context; and <3) the unique properties of DISPRO as  personality assessment technique that may move the f i e l d of personality assessment- closer to the actual processes involved in the s o c i a l perception of others. I w i l l address each of these areas in turn in what follows. Construct v a l i d i t y of DISPRO Of primary concern in the development of new methods of personality assessment i s determining t h e i r construct v a l i d i t y (Loevinger, 1957; Wiggins, 1973). Establishing construct v a l i d i t y involves an evaluation of the accuracy with which the hypothetical concepts a test i s purported to measure, are actually measured. Loevinger (1957) has outlined three aspects of construct v a l i d i t y which correspond to the stages of development of a good personality t e s t . I w i l l discuss these i n terms of the development of the DISPRO testing procedures. F i r s t , according to Loevinger, the selection of items f o r inclusion in a new test must follow e x p l i c i t substantive (theoretical) considerations. In other words, one must sample items systematically from a s p e c i f i e d universe of content of items made s a l i e n t by t h e o r e t i c a l propositions. The DISPRO procedures are i n d i r e c t l y linked to the IAS model of personality measurement and the t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n from which i t was developed. The development and scaling of the hypothetical DISPRO characters were based on the prototypical act l i s t s 58 borrowed from Buss & Craik (1983), which in turn were selected to represent interpersonal variables from the IAS t r a i t model. In what was covered e a r l i e r , i t was shown that the development of the IAS (Wiggins, 1979) was guided intensively by substantive c r i t e r i a , p a r t i c u l a r l y by the interpersonal theory of Harry Stack Sul l i v a n (1953). Loevinger's second c r i t e r i o n for construct v a l i d a t i o n has to do with the s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s that determine the goodneaa-of-fit of the measurement model to i t s substantive domain. Structural f i d e l i t y then, i s determined in t h i s case by the match-up between the DISPRO model and the interpersonal c i r c l e i t i s purported to represent. As Wiggins (1973) states, " 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 of nontest manifestations of the t r a i t C s ] should be f a i t h f u l l y mirrored in the 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 of the scale employed to measure the t r a i t C a ] " (p.405). In the findings of these studies, the degree of match-up between the IAS circumplex model of t r a i t s and the DISPRO circumplex was very good. The pattern of correlations between the two forms of measurement was what one would expect i f there was high congruence between them. E a r l i e r I made reference to some of the studies that have shown nontest correlates of the IAS with interpersonal behavior (e.g., Chartier, 1984; Clark, 1984). Any measurement system worthy of merit must be shown to possess a high degree of such external v a l i d i t y . the t h i r d c r i t e r i o n from Loevinger's (1957) l i s t . Although prediction of behavior i s the ultimate goal of any assessment model, an equally important consideration oa the 59 establishment of convergent v a l i d i t y (Campbell 6. Fiske, 1959) with other measures that have been validated in that way. If a new measure can be shown to predict another that has known nontest relationships with important s o c i a l c r i t e r i a , then a powerful case has been made for the external v a l i d i t y of the new measure as well. Thus the magnitude of the co r r e l a t i o n of a new measure with some important outside measure, such as the IAS, i s an important index of u t i l i t y . In addition, to demonstrate f u l l construct v a l i d i t y of a measure i t i s required that i r r e l e v a n t t r a i t measures from independent sources be uncorrelated with the measures from the new method. This index, termed discriminant v a l i d i t y by Campbell & Fiske (1959), i s said to exist when one measure of, say, dominance i s shown to be uncorrelated with an independent (and t h e o r e t i c a l l y irrelevant) measure of, say, h o s t i l i t y . For the most part, the pattern of relationships between the DISPRO and other measures used in these studies was consistent with the standards of convergent and discriminant v a l i d i t y that were set by Campbell & Fiske i n 1959. And from the broader perspective of Loevinger's (1957) notion of construct v a l i d i t y , including the three important c r i t e r i a of substantive, s t r u c t u r a l , and external considerations, the DISPRO procedures have been c l e a r l y established. Prototypes r e v i s i t e d A groundswell of evidence in support of the use of the concept of prototype i n personality psychology has been building 60 for some time now, best evidenced perhaps with the Psychological  Review a r t i c l e by Buss & Craik (1984). Some of my own e a r l i e r work (Broughton, 1984) has contributed to the evidence that prototypes provide a useful organizational framework for the development of improved predictor variables in personality assessment. The contribution of the present studies, however, can reside in either of the p r e d i c t o r / c r i t e r i o n camps, although emphasis has c l e a r l y been placed on the OISPRO procedures aa v a l i d predictor variables. To e s t a b l i s h t h e i r convergent v a l i d i t y , i t was necessary to use the MDS measures as s e l f - r e p o r t predictor variables. However, as has already been shown when the MDS measure provided the structure for the IAS to be projected onto, when the emphasis i s switched from predictor to c r i t e r i o n , the prototype technology may take on added usefulness. This may be further i l l u s t r a t e d with some concluding comments on the ideas of Fiske (1971) mentioned ear1ier. Recall for a moment Fiske's plea to researchers in personality psychology to deal with the inherent s u b j e c t i v i t y of meaning in the tests and s t i m u l i they present to t h e i r subjects (discussed on pp. 26-27 of t h i s t h e s i s ) . Fiske proposed that researchers focus on more precise behaviors and physiological measures (e.g., bodily movements and heartrate) rather than words and phrases that give r i s e to i d i o s y n c r a t i c interpretations by subjects. One workable answer seems to l i e in the standardization of t r a i t concepts that i s accomplished by adopting a prototype approach. Creating r e l i a b l e s t i m u l i by combining prototypical acta into a day in the l i f e of a set of hypothetical characters and then asking subjects to compare themselves in an MDS s i m i l a r i t y rating task seems to be a big step in t h i s d i r e c t i o n . Results of the present studies lead me to suggest that i t i s now possible to build assessment devices that meet Fiske's c r i t e r i a . Moreover, the processes invoked by subjects to code the prototype stimuli may c l o s e l y approximate the cognitive processes which mediate actual s o c i a l perception in everyday l i f e . This point has to do with the notion of schema and how the concept of similarity-to-the-prototype might mirror the organizational processes that are used to structure mental representations of s i g n i f i c a n t others in our l i v e s . As Jones (1983) has stated, MDS s i m i l a r i t y judgments, involving s e l f and others are e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r to the processes t y p i c a l l y evoked i n actual s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s involving two or more group members. The current popularity of topics of schema and prototype in personality psychology r e f l e c t the cognitive revolution that has characterized psychology in general. The concept of person schemas or person prototypes was f i r s t employed in the understanding of d i s p o s i t i o n a l constructs by Cantor and Mischel (1979). Not only did these authors f i n d evidence that people code others in systematic and s i m i l a r ways (e.g., subjects had s i m i l a r "extraverted person schemas") but that these person categories, as with natural Roschian categories, were organized l i k e fuzzy sets with exemplars or prototypical cases defining the core of each d i s p o s i t i o n . More agreement among subjects was 62 found for person types that represented cl e a r case examples of a d i s p o s i t i o n a l category. In a related study, Mischel & Peake (1982) found that subjects coded others personality i n t r a i t terms on the basis of prototypical behaviors they performed. Their subjects generalized the t r a i t s they had coded for others to d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s even i f there were't warranted in doing so, that i s , when the evidence was otherwise. These findings are in l i n e with studies showing evidence f o r "spontaneous t r a i t inference" (Winter fi. Uleman, 1984), mentioned e a r l i e r in t h i s thesis. People seem to code the behaviors of others in terms of the best t r a i t descriptors that are a v a i l a b l e and use them for later r e c a l l . Perhaps the upshot of these l a s t two studies i s that the more prototypical the behaviors are, the faster and easier t h i s encoding process occurs. An empirical test of t h i s hypothesis would add to our understanding of thse important processes. In many instances the concept of prototype has been well-received i n personality psychology. The present studies serve to strongly reinforce t h e i r usefulness as well. By s p e l l i n g out the behavioral components of what i s meant by a t r a i t category in a short story about one central character, there i s no ambiguity as to how one respondent's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i l l compare with another's -- they both have the aame information to go on. The r e s u l t i s a clear and standardized metric for self-comparison. DISPRO aa personality assessment technique Although many of the features of DISPRO as a personality 63 assessment device have been mentioned at some point or another in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , i t w i l l be useful to summarize these here and make some concluding remarks about i t a s i g n i f i c a n c e aa an assessment device in i t s own ri g h t . There are three aspects of MDS that I would l i k e to cover here. F i r s t , the ease of use for the test-taker can not be overemphasized. This, of course, does not have as much to do with the computational aspect of MDS as i t does with the subject's perception of the task she or he i s confronted with. The task i s viewed as simple and non-threatening. And very l i t t l e i n s t r u c t i o n i s necessary for subjects to carry out the s i m i l a r i t y ratings. It came as a surprise to me, for instance, when I discovered i t was not necessary to explain to subjects what the c r i t e r i a were for them to go about making these s i m i l a r i t y ratings. As Schiffman, Reynolds, and Young (1981) have reported in t h e i r many experiences with subjects using s i m i l a r i t y ratings, experimenters need not worry about such things. Subjects have no d i f f i c u l t y deciding on what basis to decide on the s i m i l a r i t y present in s t i m u l i , and that i f the s t i m u l i are nonambiguoua to begin with, they do so with very high agreement. The point that I have repeatedly made and w i l l make one l a s t time, i s that in MDS the experimenter does not "contaminate" the subjects with a set of predetermined responses for them to choose from. The whole t e s t i n g process i s thus more c l o s e l y determined by the properties present or not present in the s t i m u l i , which i s , of course, the reason for testing in the f i r s t place -- to learn something about the interaction of st i m u l i and subject(s). 64 The second aspect. of MDS worth mentioning here has to do with a related point made in the previous section on the usefulness of prototypes i n personality assessment. The point i s that the psychological concept of s i m i l a r i t y f i t s well with one's individual appraisal of s e l f and others. Thus to ask someone to compare themselves to another person i s to ask them to do something that they do on a regular basis. Again, the subject decides on what basis the judgment should be made. On the other hand, f i l l i n g out standard paper-and-pencil personality tests, where individuals are asked to judge how much of a foreign substance (e.g., "spinelessness") they possess, i s a very unnatural thing to do. It i s something people seldom do outside of psychology experiments and courses. The l a s t aspect of the MDS testing process that i s worth added emphasis i s the b u i l t - i n error detection features that are a part of the MDS procedure. These error terms, e.g., the exponent, are not affected by the properties of the st i m u l i or methods of the t e s t as are standard measures in t r a d i t i o n a l personality t e s t s . In other words, i n t r a n s i t i v i t i e s in meaning, or the triangular inequality law that applies to distances, i s a fundamental part of the MDS computational process. If a l l subjects did not adhere to t h i s and other rules, the solution would never converge and the program would terminate unsuccessfully. And t h i s happens i r r e s p e c t i v e of the format of the stimulus. In t r a d i t i o n a l measures, however, i t i s the p e c u l i a r i t i e s of say adjectives that one must deal with in cleansing the data. A scoring program for a standard adjective 65 format personality test must be s p e c i f i c a l l y written for transgressions of meaning, for example, that self-reported "dominant" and "submissive" should not appear in the same protocol. There i s a b u i l t - i n l o g i c of s i m i l a r i t y in a l l multidimensional scaling techniques that i s not dependent on the p e c u l i a r i t i e s of the stimulus configuration. This feature also serves to bring the whole testing process closer to the data and further from the hands-on contamination of the experimenter. Directions for Future Research The r e s u l t s suggest several new directions t h i s research program might take. F i r s t , given that most subjects chose to distance themselves widely from the vignette characters, i t may be the case that with the addition of subtler, say, less intense acts with more <interpersonally neutral) f i l l e r material to widen out the contexts covered in the s t o r i e s , that people would align themselves closer to the characters. They may even spread themselves out more broadly around the c i r c l e . A problem with the characters used in the studies described above i s that they were closer to caricatures than r e a l l i f e people. With less intensity and more context with which to p u l l the behaviors and make them more believable, perhaps the assessments would improve. Now that we know that the structure of the prototypes can possess circumplex properties, and given that some improvements may be made to the current vignettes in future studies, no longer do subjects have to rate the s i m i l a r i t y of each vignette 66 with a l l the other vignettes. Rather, subjects need only compare themselves to the characters with just 16 (8 i f only the usual s e l f i s used) aa opposed to 45 ratings in the studies described here. Given the new graphics and animation c a p a b i l i t i e s of recently available supercomputers, a desirable strategy for future research would be to employ such technologies in the development of prototype characters that actual behave. Thus subjects would not have to read about the acta that actors perform, instead they could observe them str a i g h t away! This would obviate any reading prerequisites that might disadvantage some subjects who know English only as a second language (cf. Paunonen & Jackson, 1979). This would also open up a world of c h i l d assessment that has hitherto been unknown. Another application for these techniques may reside in the business world. Specialized prototypes acting in s p e c i f i c work environments may make i t easier for employers to match up s p e c i f i c personality types with s p e c i f i c job requirements. Job candidates could be assessed in a matter of minutes at a microcomputer. Given the prevalence and cost of personal computers today, such asssessments would be extremely f e a s i b l e and cost e f f e c t i v e . Concluding Remarks The present s e r i e s of studies suggest a new and simpler (for the test-taker) approach to personality assessment that employs multidimensional s c a l i n g techniques on a microcomputer in the 67 place of t r a d i t i o n a l paper-and-pencil measures. The newer DISPRO techniques boast the use of s i m i l a r i t y ratings that allow the subject to control the dimensions that are relevent to the task at hand rather than those selected by the experimenter. These techniques may prove very useful and e f f e c t i v e in the long run. But the usual end-of-dissertation-caveat applies here aa well -- i t i s s t i l l too early to t e l l . Even though one way to view the r e s u l t s of the zero-order c o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis i s to simply note the frequency of s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s in the r i g h t places and t h e i r magnitude, another way to interpret the o v e r a l l findings i s in l i n e with the philosophy that sees "the glass aa half f u l l " instead of half empty. That i s to say, one could focus at the very least on the number of s i g n i f i c a n t values that were found to e x i s t between these d i f f e r i n g methodologies and that they were as t h e o r e t i c a l l y interpretable as they were! One thing that i s c e r t a i n i s that the two domains are demonstrably linked both t h e o r e t i c a l l y and empirically and that a v a l i d new technology e x i s t s for personality assessment. But not unlike any new technology, t h i s one comes with some room fo r improvement. Partridge (1984) was unable to obtain a c i r c u l a r stucture from the interpersonal stimuli she used and interpreted a unidimensional finding to be the r e s u l t of an evaluative context which overwhelmed the solution. An attempt has been made in the present studies to shore up the bi-dimensionality of the DISPRO interpersonal prototype rating task by standardizing the stimuli 68 against. which the subject i s to compare him or herself. This evidently served to remove the enormously evaluative component of s e l f - a p p r a i s a l inherent in her procedure. The task of the subject in the l a s t study was simply to i d e n t i f y which out of eight hypothetical people s/he i s most l i k e (not which aspect of the s e l f , e.g., the cold s e l f , i s the most s a l i e n t ) . Results from the descriptive analyses in t h i s study showed that although people are w i l l i n g to a l i g n themselves with any of the possible eight characters they read about on the micro screen, that the most popular vignettes to a l l i g n oneself with were the extraverted and nurturant categories, the two behavioral modes our culture rewards the most. 69 References A l l p o r t , G.W. & Odbert, H.S. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt. Bakan, D. (1966) The duality of human existence: Isolation and  Communion in Western Man. Boston: Beacon Press. B a s i l i , J.N. & Smith, M.C. (1986). On the spontaneity of t r a i t a t t r i b u t i o n : Converging evidence for the role of cognitive strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50, 239-245. Benjamin, L.S. (1974). Structural analysis of s o c i a l behavior. Psychological Review. 81, 392-425. Broughton, R. (1984). A prototype strategy for construction of personality scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 47. 6, 1334-1346. Broughton, R. (1985). Documentation for DISPRO. Unpublished manuscript. University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personaolity inventory construction. American Psychologist. 39. 214-227. Buss, D.M., & Craik, K.H. (1980). The frequency concept of d i s p o s i t i o n : Dominance and pr o t o t y p i c a l l y dominant acts. Journal of Research in Personality, 43. 379-392. Buss, D.M., & Craik, K.H. (1981). The act frequency analysis of personal d i s p o s i t i o n s : Aloofness, gregariouaness, dominance, and submlssiveness. Journal of Research i n Personality, 49. 174-192. Buss, D.M., & Craik, K.H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review. 90, 105-126. Butt, D.S., & Fiske, D.W. (1969). D i f f e r e n t i a l correlates of dominance scales. Journal of Personality. 37, 415-428. Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1957). Convergent and discriminant v a l i d a t i o n by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological B u l l e t i n . 56, 81-105. C a r r o l l , J.D. & Chang, J.J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional sc a l i n g via an N-way generalization of "Eckart-Young" decomposition. Paychometrica. 35, 283-319. Carson, R.C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine. Carson, R.C. (1979). Personality and exchange in developing re l a t i o n s h i p s . In R.L. Burgess & T.L. Houston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing rel a t i o n s h i p s (pp. 247-269). New York: Academic Press. C a t t e l l , R.B. (1973). Personality and mood by questionnaire. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Chartier, B. (1984). The meaning and measurement of interpersonal f l e x i b i 1 i t y . Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. C h r i s t i e , R., & Geis, F.L. (1970). Studies in machiavel1ianism. New York: Academic Press. Clark T.C. (1984). A comparison of cooperative and competitive  interpersonal s t y l e s . Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . University of South F l o r i d a . Davison, (1985). Multidimensional s c a l i n g versus components analysis of teat i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n a . Psychological B u l l e t i n . 97. 94-105. Fehr, B., & Russell, J.A. (1984). The concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 113. 464-486. Fiske, D.W. (1978). Strategies for personality research: The observation versus the interpretation of behavior. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Foa, U.G., & Foa, E.B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind• S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas. Freedman, M.B., Leary, T.F., Oasorio, A.G. & Coffey, H.S. (1951) The interpersonal dimension of personality. Journal of Personality. 20. 143-161. Goldberg, L.R. (1977). Language and personality: Developing a taxonomy of t r a i t - d e s c r i p t i v e terms. Invited address to the D i v i s i o n of Evaluation and Measurement at the 86th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco. Gough, H.G. (1957). C a l i f o r n i a Psychological Inventory manual. Palo Alto, Ca: Consulting Psychologists Press. Gough, H.G., & Heilbrun, A.B. (1965, 1980). The Adiective Check L i s t manual. Palo Alto, Ca: Consulting Psychologists Press. Guttman, L. (1966). Order analysis of c o r r e l a t i o n matrices. In R.B. C a t t e l l (Ed.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. (pp. 439-458). Chicago: Rand McNally. Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. Page (Ed), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 55-89. Horowitz, L.M., French, R.D., & Weckler, D.A. (1982). Symptoms and interpersonal problems: The prototype as an integrating concept. In J.C. Anchin & D.J. Ki e s l e r , (Eds.), Handbook of  interpersonal psychotherapy (pp. 150-168). New York: Pergamon Press. Jackson, D.N., Wessick, S.J., & Solley, G.M. (1957). A multidimensional scaling approach to the perception of personality. Journal of Paycholoqy. 44, 311-318. Jackson, D.N. (1970). A sequential system for personality scale development. In CD. Spielberger (Ed.), Current t o p i c s in c l i n i c a l and community paycholoqy. Vol. 2, New York: Academic Press, pp61-96. Jackson, D.N. (1974). Personality Research Form manual. New York: Research Psychologist Press. Jones, L.E. (1982). Construal of s o c i a l environments: Multi-dimensional models of interpersonal perception and at t r a c t i o n . In N. Hirschberg & L.G. Humphreys (Eds.), Multivariate applications in the s o c i a l sciences. H i l l s d a l e NJ: Erlbaum. Jones, L.E. (1983). Multidimensional models of s o c i a l perception, cognition, and behavior. Applied Psychological  Measurement. 7, 451-472. Jones, L.E. & Young, F.w". (1972). Structure of a s o c i a l environment: Longitudinal individual differences s c a l i n g of an intact group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 24. 108-121. K i e s l e r , D.J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal c i r c l e : A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review. 90. 185-214. Kruskal, J.B. (1964a). Nonmetric multidimensional s c a l i n g : I. Paychometrica. 29. 1-27. Kruskal, J.B. (1964b). Nonmetric multidimensional s c a l i n g : I I . Paychometrica. 29. 115-129. Kruskal, J.B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional s c a l i n g . Beverley H i l l s : Sage Press. Kuncel, R.B. Response processes and r r e l a t i v e location of subject and item. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 33. 545-563. Lazerson, J.S. (1985). Psychological androgyny and perceptions of s e l f in a group of psychiatric out-patients. International Journal of Women's Studies. 8, 520-528. Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald. Lingoes, J.C. (1971). Some boundary conditions for a monotone analysis of symmetric matrices. Psychometrica. 36, 195-203. Lingoes, J . C , & Borg, I. (1979). Identifying s p a t i a l manifolds for i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In J.C. Lingoes & E.E. Roskam (Eds.), Geometric representations of r e l a t i o n a l data. Ann Arbor, MI: Mathesis Press. Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3_, pp. 635-694, Monograph No. 9. London, H., & Exner, J.E., J r . (Eds.) (1978). Dimensions of 74 personality. New York: Wiley. Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, 3 e l f . and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Messick, S.J. (1956a). An empirical evaluation of multidimensional successive i n t e r v a l s . Psychometrica, 21, 367-375. Messick, S.J. (1956b). Some recent t h e o r e t i c a l developments in multidimensional sc a l i n g . Educational and Psychological Measurement. 16., 82-100. Minor, M.J. & Fiske, D.W. (1976). Response processes during the description of others. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 36. 829-833. flischel, W. & Peake, P.K. (1982). Beyond de.ja vu in the search for c r o s s - s i t u a t i o n a l consistency. Psychological Review. 89. 730-755. Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Norman, W.T. (1967). 2800 personality t r a i t descriptors: Normative operating c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s for a university population. Unpublished manuscript. University of Michigan. Olkin, I. & Pratt, J.W. (1958). Unbiased estimation of certain correlation c o e f f i c i e n t s . Annala of Mathematical S t a t i s t i c s , 29. 201-211. Partridge, K.A. (1984). The development of multidimensional scaling as a standardized assessment instrument. Doctoral disser t a t i o n , Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. P h i l l i p s , N. (1985). Circumplex Generator/Analyzer manual. 75 Unpublished manuscript, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Paunonen, 5.V. & Jackson, D.N. (1981). Nonverbal t r a i t inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37, 1645-1659. Ramsey, J.O. (1977). Maximum l i k e l i h o o d estimation in multidimensional sc a l i n g . Psychometrlea. 42, 241-266. Ramsey, J.O. (1980). MULTISCALE I I : Programs for multidimensional scaling by the method of maximum  1ikelihood. Chicago: National Educational Resources, Inc. Ramsey, J.O. (1983). MULTISCALE II manual. Montreal: McGill University. Rogers, C.R. & Dymond, R.F. (1954) (Eds.). Psychotherapy and personal i t y change : Coord inated studies i n the client-centered approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rosch, E.H. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T.E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquis i t i o n of language. New York: Academic Press. Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C. 6. Vi vekananthan, P.S. A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 9, 283-294. Schaefer, E.S. (1959). A circumplex model for maternal behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 59. 226-235. Schaefer, E.S. (1961). Converging conceptual models for maternal behavior and c h i l d behavior. In J.C. Glidewell (Ed.), Parental attitudes and c h i l d behavior. S p r i n g f i e l d , 111: Thomas. Schiffman, S.S., Reynolds, M.L., & Young, F.W. (1981). Introduction to multidimensional s c a l i n g : Theory, methods. and applications. New York: Academic Press. Schlesinger, I.M., & Guttman, L. (1969). Smaleat space analysis of i n t e l l i g e n c e and achievement teats. Psychological B u l l e t i n . 71. 95-100. Shepard, R.N., (1972). Introduction to Volume I. In R.N. Shepard, A.K. Romney, & S.B. Nerlove (Eds.), Multidimensional s c a l i n g : Theory and applications i n the behavioral sciences. (Vol. 1, pp. 1-20). New York: Seminar Press. Stern, G.G. (1970). People in context: Measuring person-environment congruence in education and industry. New York: Wiley. Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 30, 526-537. S t i l e s , W.B. (1980). Comparison of dimensions derived from rating versus coding of dialogue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 38, 359-374. Su l l i v a n , H.S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Wiggins, J.S. (1973). Personality and prediction: P r i n c i p l e s of personality assessment. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Wiggins, J.S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of t r a i t descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology. 37, 395-412. Wiggins, J.S. (1980). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and s o c i a l psychology (pp.265-294). Vol. 1. Beverley H i l l s : Sage. Wiggins, J.S. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in c l i n i c a l psychology. In P.C. Kendall & J.N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in c l i n i c a l  psychology (pp. 183- 221). New York: Wiley Interscience. Wiggins, J.S. & Broughton, R. (1985a). The interpersonal c i r c l e : A structural model for the integration of personality research. In R. Hogan, & W.H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in  personality: A research annual. Vol. 1, Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press. Wiggins, J.S. & Broughton, R. (1985b, October). A geometric  taxonomy of personality scales. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Society of Multivariate Experimental Psychology i n Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a . Wiggins, J.S., P h i l l i p s , N., & Trapnell, P. (1986) A revised  set of interpersonal adiective scales. Unpublished manuscript. University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Wiggins, J.S., Steiger, J.H., & Gaelick, L. (1981). Evaluating circumplexity in personality data. Multivariate Beahavioral  Research. 16, 263-289. 78 Winter, L. & Uleman, J.S. (1984). When are s o c i a l judgments made? Evidence for the spontaneousness of t r a i t inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 237-252. 7 9 T a b l e 1 2 0 H o s t P r o t o t y p i c a l D o m i n a n t A c t s 1 . I d e m a n d e d t h a t h e r u n a n e r r a n d . 2 . I i n t e r r u p t e d a c o n v e r s a t i o n . 3 . I a r g u e d v i g o r o u s l y o n b e h a l f o f my p e r s o n a l b e l i e f s . 4 . I m a d e a b o l d s e x u a l a d v a n c e . 5 . I c h o s e t o s i t a t t h e h e a d o f t h e t a b l e . 6 . I y e l l e d i n o r d e r t o g e t my w a y . 7. I s e t g o a l s f o r t h e g r o u p . 8 . I d e c i d e d w h i c h p r o g r a m s we w o u l d w a t c h o n T V . 9 . I g a v e a d v i s e , a l t h o u g h n o n e w a s r e q u e s t e d . 1 0 . I t o l d h i m w h i c h i t e m h e s h o u l d p u r c h a s e . 1 1 . I p e r s u a d e d h i m t o d o s o m e t h i n g h e d i d n ' t w a n t t o d o . 1 2 . I t o o k t h e i n i t i a t i v e i n a s e x u a l e n c o u n t e r . 1 3 . I t o o k t h e l e a d i n l i v e n i n g u p a d u l l p a r t y . 1 4 . I t o o k c h a r g e o f t h i n g s a t t h e c o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g . 1 5 . I t o o k a s t a n d o n t h e i s s u e w i t h o u t w a i t i n g t o f i n d o u t w h a t o t h e r s t h o u g h t . 1 6 . I s e t t l e d t h e d i s p u t e among o t h e r m e m b e r s o f t h e g r o u p . 1 7 . I p e r s u a d e d o t h e r s t o a c c e p t my o p p i n i o n o n t h e i s s u e . 1 8 . I m a n a g e d t o c o n t r o l t h e o u t c o m e o f t h e m e e t i n g w i t h o u t t h e o t h e r s b e i n g a w a r e o f i t . 1 9 . I t o o k t h e l e a d i n o r g a n i z i n g a p r o j e c t . 2 0 . I c h a l l e n g e d s o m e o n e t o d i s c u s s h i s / h e r p o s i t i o n . N o t e . N u m b e r b e s i d e e a c h a c t d e n o t e s i t s p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y r a n k i n g . 80 Table 2 Partridge MDS Stimuli 1. Your usual s o c i a l s e l f 2. Your ideal s e l f 3. Your problem s e l f 4. Your sexual s e l f 5. Your warm s e l f 6 . Your cold s e l f 7. Your agreeable s e l f 8. Your dominant s e l f 9. Your quarrelsome s e l f 10. Your submissive s e l f 11. Your ambitious s e l f 12. Your lazy s e l f 81 T a b l e 3 M e a n R a t i n g * f o r V i g n e t t e s V a r y i n g i n I n t e n s i t y a n d D i s t i n c t i v e n e s s V i g n e t t e V e r s i o n T r a i t A El C C a l c u l a t i n g 7.8 6 . 7 5.4 Q u a r r e l s o m e 6.4 7 . 2 6 . 1 N o t e . . V i g n e t t e v e r s i o n C l a t h e l e a s t i n t e n s e a n d m o s t d i s t i n c t i v e . E a c h v i g n e t t e w a s r a t e d o n t w o 1 0 - p l a c e s c a l e s , d o m i n a n c e a n d h o s t i l i t y . T h e s e m e a n s r e p r e s e n t a v e r a g e s a c r o s s b o t h s e t s o f s c a l e s f o r e a c h v i g n e t t e . p_ < . 0 5 f o r a l l p a l r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s a c r o s s r o w s . 82 T a b ! * 4 Z * r o - O r d * r P « « r i o n C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t * f o r D i s t a n c e * f r o m P r o t o t y p i c a l V i g n e t t e A c t o r a a n d P e r a o n a l i t y S c a l e * f r o a F o u r T r a d i t i o n a l I n v e n t o r i e s T r a i t o f P r o t o t y p i c a l A c t o r I n v S e a l * DOH C A L C L D INT SUB ING AGR E X T E3TEEH I A S D o m i n a n t , 32» • -.23* -.26* .11 .10 .10 .11 -.22* -.38*» I A S C a l c u l a t i n g .31---•3Z" -.28- . 12 .10 .23- .12 -.20- - .01 I A S Q u a r r e l a o a e . 35---.27- -.38" -.07 .12 .20- .24- .22* .12 I A S I n t r o v e r t e d .25- .02 -.12 -.26- -.15* .01 .10 .22- .31-. I A S S u b m i s s i v e . 12 . 15- - .05 -.17. -•12.. - .09 -.13 .17- .32-. I A S I n g e n u o u s .25- . 38» • .33-. -.11 -.06 -•25- -.26- -.09 .09-I A S A g r e e a b l e .13 .27- .37---.10 .10 -.19- -.36*. -.20- -.07 I A S E x t r a v e r t e d .23- .17- . 16- .28-. .16- .15 - .24- -.32-- -.34--P R F A b a s e m e n t . 18* .07 -.05 -.12 -.12 -.06 -.04 .02 .15* P R F A c h i e v e m e n t .17- - .09 - .05 .07 • U L " .07 -.01 - .06 -•13." P R F A f f i l i a t i o n . 15- - .07 • 13." .20- .15.- -.06 -.10 -•2i- -. 21 -P R F A g g r e s s i o n .20- - .20- -.16- .08 .20.- .02 '13.' .OO - .02 P R F A u t o n o m y .17. -.16- .00 -.12 - .05 .02 .02 .03 .00 P R F C h a n g e .00 .01 .01 .02 .OO .08 -.02 -.02 - .03 P R F C o g S t r u c t u r e .02 .02 -.02 .00 -.02 -.02 .OO .01 .02 P R F D e f e n d e n c * .05 .03 -.02 -.07 -.11 . 10 .04 .02 .01 P R F D o m i n a n c e •2_1» -.11 -.13 .06 .22.- . 11 -.06 - .08 -.30»» P R F E n d u r a n c e .12 -.11 .04 -.03 .13 - . 10 -.02 .02 -.05 P R F E x h i b i t i o n .08 -.03 .05 .09 .08 .03 - .02 -.22» - . 15-P R F K a r m a v o l d a n c e .02 .02 -.06 -.10 -.12 -.02 .00 .00 .04 P R F I m p u l s i v i t y .01 .03 .00 -.01 - .06 - .01 .03 -.02 .00 P R F N u r t u r a n c e .04 -.03 •12" - .09 - .04 -.14 " • I i " -.12 .03 P R F O r d e r . 12 -.05 -.10 .01 .07 -.02 . 12 .02 .00 P R F P l a y .03 -.02 .02 .01 -.03 -.02 - .03 -.08 .02 P R F S e n t i e n c e .02 -.01 - .01 - .06 .00 .03 -.03 . O O .01 P R F S o c R e c o g n i t .06 .00 -.02 .00 .07 .06 .02 . O O -.03 P R F S u c c o r a n c e •16* .02 .04 -.11 -.05 - .06 -.05 .01 -.02 P R F U n d e r s t a n d i n g - . 12 -.05 .05 - . 10 - .02 .00 .OO .02 .00 A C L S e l f - C o n f i d e n c - .22» .06 .04 - .09 • 13* .06 -.10 -.03 -.15* A C L S e l f - C o n t r o l .06 -.02 .01 .02 .03 -.13 -.07 .03 .04 A C L L a b i l i t y .02 .00 -.02 -.10 -.05 -.04 .03 -.04 .03 A C L P e r * A d j u a t m e n .06 .03 .16- .05 .05 .03 -.12 -.02 -.09 A C L A c h i e v e m e n t . 20- -.10 -.02 .12 •13." - .05 - .03 -.02 -.10 A C L D o m i n a n c e .26- -.11 - .03 .04 • 12" -.07 .03 - .04 -.31--A C L E n d u r a n c e .15.- .06 -.01 .06 .02 -.03 -.04 -.01 -.01 A C L O r d e r .06 - .02 .01 .05 .04 -.03 .02 .02 -.02 A C L I n t r a c e p t i o n .02 .00 .00 .02 .03 - .04 - .03 .00 .03 A C L N u r t u r a n c e .08 .09 .15- -.02 -.06 -.15- -.20. - .03 -.03 A C L A f f i l i a t i o n . 15 » -.12 .16- .06 . 10 -.12 -.16- -.21* - .04 A C L H e t a r o s e x .04 - .01 .00 . 14 .OO -.02 .00 -.12 .04 A C L E x h i b i t i o n .11 .03 .03 . 13 .04 .04 -.03 -. 2.1 - - .16-A C L A u t o n o m y . 12 -.13 -.15- - .20- .03 .09 .03 . O O -.01 A C L A g g r e s s i o n .09 - .09 -.17- -.02 -.05 .14 .18- -.01 .03 A C L C h a n g e .03 .00 .05 .03 - .01 .03 -.04 . o o .00 C o n t i n u e d T a b l e 4 c o n t ' d . 83 I n v S c a l e DOB C A L C L D INT SUB ING AGR E X T E S T E E M A C L S u c c o r a n c e , 1 5 « . 0 2 . 0 2 A C L A b a s e m e n t . - 1 5 " . 1 3 . 0 2 A C L D e f e r e n c e . 16» . 1 2 . 0 0 A C L C o u n a R e a d ! . 10 . 0 8 - . 0 3 C P I D o m i n a n c e - . 2 5 - - . 19 • - . 0 2 C P I C a p f o r S t a - . 1 8 * - . 16 • - . 0 3 C P I S o c i a b i l i t y - . 1 0 - . 0 8 . 0 0 C P I S o c P r e s e n c e - . 18» - . 1 9 » - . 1 2 C P I S e l f A c c e p t - . 1 4 - . 1 5 « - . 0 8 C P I W e l l - b e i n g - . 15 • - . 1 3 . 0 8 C P I R e a p o n s i b i l - . 1 2 - . 1 2 - . 0 2 C P I S o c i a l i z a t i o n - . 0 9 . 0 3 . 1 2 C P I S e l f - c o n t r o l - . 1 2 - . 1 4 . 1 5 » C P I T o l e r a n c e - . 0 7 . 0 1 . 1 0 C P I G o o d i m p r e s s - . 13 - . 1 6 » . ia» C P I C o m m u n a l i t y - . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 9 C P I A c h i e v e m e n t - C - . 2 4 » - . 1 2 . 0 2 C P I A c h i e v e m e n t - I - . 19_» - . 16» - . 1 2 C P I I n t e l l e c e f f - . 1 7 » - . 1 2 . 0 3 C P I P s y c h - m i n d e d - . 1 3 - . 1 9 - - . 1 3 C P I F l e x i b i l i t y - . 1 3 - . 1_5» . 0 2 C P I F e m i n i n i t y - . 0 3 - . 0 6 . 1 2 - . 0 4 - . 1 2 . 0 4 - . 0 1 . 0 3 . 0 1 - . 0 6 - . 1 5 * - . 0 3 . 0 0 . O O . 0 4 . 0 3 - . 1 2 - . 0 2 - . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 4 - . 11 - . 0 6 - . 0 5 - . 0 4 . 0 2 . 2 0 -. 1 2 . 1 8 . 0 9 . 1 3 - . 1 2 - . 2 0 » . 0 9 . 1 2 - . 0 4 - . 0 5 - . 1 5 • - , 1 5 » . 0 8 . 0 9 - . 0 1 - . 1 0 - . 2 4 » - . 1 7 -. 0 9 . 1 5 « . 1 5 * - . 0 2 - . 2 1 , « - . 0 8 . 0 2 . 0 5 - . 0 8 - . 0 8 - . 2 0 * - . 15.* - . 0 1 - . 0 6 - . 1 0 - . 1 1 - . 2 2 » - . 2 0 -- . 1 0 . 10 - . 1 4 - . 0 4 - . 1 2 - . 0 9 - . 1 1 . 1 1 - . 1 4 - . 1 2 - . 1 3 - . 0 4 -•15.* - . 0 3 - . 1 6 » . 0 0 - . 0 9 - . 0 2 - . 0 4 - . 1 0 - .ia« - . 1 5 * - . 0 9 - . 0 3 . 0 5 . 14 - . 0 5 - . 0 6 - . 1 2 - . 0 7 . 10 . 1 4 - . 0 8 - . 1 0 - . 0 4 . 0 2 . 0 7 . 0 9 - . 1 2 - . 0 6 - . 1 4 - . 2 0 » - . 0 9 - . 0 4 - . 0 8 - . 0 4 - . 0 7 . 0 2 - . 0 8 - . 0 4 - . 1 0 . 0 4 - . 0 3 . 0 0 . 0 3 - . 1 1 . 1 5 » . 0 8 . 1 1 - • i 5 » . 1 0 . 0 3 - . 0 7 . 0 2 - . 1 3 . 0 2 . 0 8 . 0 9 - . 0 5 - . 0 3 - . 1 0 - . 0 1 N o t e . U n d e r l i n e d c o e f f i c i e n t s i n I A S s e c t i o n a r e e x p e c t e d t o b e t h e h i g h e s t . E s t e e m = d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n u s u a l a n d i d e a l s e l v e s ; I N V = i n v e n t o r y ; DOM » d o m i n a n c e ; C A L • c a l c u l a t i n g ; C L D = c o l d ; I N T = i n t r o v e r s i o n : SUB = s u b m i s s i o n ; ING » i n g e n u o u s ; AGR * a g r e e a b l e ; EXT= e x t r a v e r s i o n ; I A S = I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s ; P R F = P e r s o n a l i t y R e s e a r c h F o r m ; A C L • A d j e c t i v e C h e c k L i s t ; C P I = C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y ; A s s u r e d Pom * A s s u r e d - D o m i n a n t ; A r r o g a n t - C a l = A r r o g a n t - C a l c u l a t i n g : C o l d - Q u a r r e l • C o l d -Q u a r r e l s o m e ; A l o o f - I n t r o => A l o o f - I n t r o v e r t e d ; U n a s s u r e d - S u b = U n a s s u r e d - S u b m i s s i v e ; W a r m - A g r e e a b = W a r m - A g r e e a b l e ; G r e g a r - E x t r a = G r e g a r i o u s - E x t r a v e r t e d ; C o g S t r u c t u r e » C o g n i t i v e S t r u c t u r e ; S o c  R e c o g n i t = S o c i a l R e c o g n i t i o n : P e r t A d m s m e n = p e r s o n a l a d j u s t m e n t ; H e t e r o a e x = H e t e r o s e x u a l i t y ; C o u n s R e a d i = C o u n s e l l i n g R e a d i n e s s ; C a p  f o r S t a t = C a p a c i t y f o r S t a t u s ; R e a o o n a l b l l = R e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; G o o d  i m p r e s s = G o o d I m p r e s s i o n ; A c h i e v e m e n t C = A c h i e v e m e n t v i a C o n f o r m a n c e : A c h i e v e m e n t - I = A c h i e v e m e n t v i a I n d e p e n d e n c e ; I n t e l l e c  e f f = I n t e l l e c t u a l e f f i c i e n c y ; P s y c h - m i n d e d = P s y c h o l o g i c a l -m i n d e d n e s s . • p_ < «05 • • p_ < . 0 1 84 T a b l e 5 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r MOS D i s t a n c e S c o r e s a n d A C L , P R F , C P I . & I A S S c a l e S c o r e s o n S e l f - E s t e e m • P r e d i c t o r R S q u a r e ( a d m s t e d ) M u l t i p l e R V a r i a b l e s MDS D i s t a n c e s . 5 9 A C L S c a l e s . 5 4 P R F S c a l e s . 4 4 C P I S c a l e s . 4 2 I A S S c a l e s . 5 1 . 7 7 . 7 9 . 7 6 . 7 4 , 7 5 8 2 0 2 0 1 8 8 1 4 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10.7* 7 . 2 » 4 . 3 » 4 . 4 * 1 2 . 4 » M o t e . S e l f - e s t e e m i t e m s w e r e d e l e t e d f r o a I A S p r e d i c t o r s c a l e s . M u l t i p l e R a w e r e a d j u s t e d f o r M a n d n u m b e r o f s c a l e s i n e q u a t i o n . I A S = I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s ; P R F = P e r s o n a l i t y R e s e a r c h F o r m ; A C L = A d j e c t i v e C h e c k L i s t ; C P I = C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y . »p_ < . 0 0 0 0 1 85 Table 6 M u l t i p l e Regression C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r MDS Distance Scores, CPI and PRF Scale Scores on IRS Dominance  Predictor R Square M u l t i p l e R Var i a b l e s N F (ad.lusted )  MDS Distances .60 .79 8 140 25.7* PRF Scales .56 .81 £0 88 6.3* CPI Scales .54 .80 18 88 6.6* Note. R Squares were adjusted f o r N and number of v a r i a b l e s i n equation. IflS = Interpersonal Adjective Scales; PRF = Perso n a l i t y Research Form; CPI = C a l i f o r n i a Psychological Inventory, •p. < .00001 ) T a b l e 7 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r MDS D i s t a n c e S c o r e s , A C L a n d I B S S c a l e S c o r e s o n P R F D o m i n a n c e  P r e d i c t o r R S q u a r e M u l t i p l e R V a r i a b l e s N F ( a d l u s t e d )  MDS D i s t a n c e s . £ 0 . 5 0 9 8 8 A . 8 * I A S S c a l e s . 4 5 . 7 1 8 8 8 9 . 8 * A C L S c a l e s . 5 7 . 8 £ 2 0 8 8 6 . 7 * N o t e . R S q u a r e s w e r e a d j u s t e d f o r N a n d n u m b e r o f v a r i a b l e s i n e q u a t i o n . I R S = I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s ; P R F = P e r s o n a l i t y R e s e a r c h F o r m ; C P I = C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y . *p_ < . 0 0 0 0 1 Figure 1 DOMINANT 80 CALCULATING 40 QUARRELSOME at I I I I I I I L -80 -40 -40 INTROVERTED EXTRAVERTED AGREEABLE J » I I I I I L 4 0 8 0 INGENUOUS - 8 0 £ SUBMISSIVE F i g u r e 2 Two Dimensional P l o t of P a r t r i d g e S t i m u l i • Ambitioua S e l f aual S o c i a l S e l f « • • Warm S e l f I d e a l Sexual S e l f » S e l f • Agreeable S e l f • Submissive S e l f « Lazy S e l f Problem • S e l f Quarrelsome S e l f Dominant » S e l f C old S e l f Figure 3 M T C M 11 laADLCT BALC CDNJUUH 80 •oi i 40 -I 1 1 — I I t i l l •w. ocivu I I I I 1 I I -80 -40 40 8 0 JXRKT DfUDSOM -40 rtAJKISt GKAJUN •80 i i L u m i i n n 90 F i g u r e 4 Empirical Plot of IAS Circumplex D o m i n a n t A C a l c u l a t i n g C Q u a r r e l s o m e E x t r o v e r t e d A g r e e a b l e M K I n g e n u o u s I n t r o v e r t e d S u b m i s s i v e 91 Figure 5 PAT ARMSTRONG HILLARY IRWIN 9 2 Figure 6 M T 80 Usual S«lf onus IUUHXT 40 DA LI tOHJUtOS J I I I I I I I L -80 -40 -40 fRAMCISt GRAHAM ItSLIt N A f t T I I f J I I I I I I I I*. 40 80 JCMT HUDSON I d e a l Self -80 • ILLAJIT imia 93 A p p e n d i x A M a t h e m a t i c a l S u m m a r y o f t h e M u l t i s c a l e I I MDS M o d e l T h i a a u m m a r y i a a d a p t e d f r o m t h e M U L T I S C A L E I I u a e r a m a n u a l ( R a m s e y , 1 9 8 3 , p p . 4 2 - 4 3 ) . L e t I i n d i c a t e t h e n u m b e r o f s t i m u l i a n d R i n d i c a t e t h e n u m b e r o f s u b j e c t s . F o r s t i m u l u s p a i r ( i , j ) a n d s u b j e c t r t h e d i s s i m i l a r i t y j u d g m e n t o r i n d e x w i l l b e d e n o t e d b y d i j T a n d t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g d i s t a n c e b y d i ; ) r " - J t w i l 1 b e a s s u m e d t h a t a l l d i s s i m i l a r i t y o b s e r v a t i o n s a r e p o s i t i v e . T h e M U L T I S C A L E m o d e l u s e d i n t h i s t h e s i s w a s a g e n e r a l i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s d i s t a n c e m o d e l ( s i m i l a r t o t h e o n e u s e d i n I N D S C A L ( C a r r o l l & C h a n g , 1 9 7 0 ) . T h e m o d e l i s . 4 MM ZZ (.Xj mn ' jm ^  w r m n < x i n x j n > " w h e r e t h e n u m b e r o f d i m e n s i o n s i s i n d i c a t e d b y M . F o r e a c h s u b j e c t r t h e w e i g h t s w r j » n f o r m a n M b y M s y m m e t r i c p o s i t i v e d e f i n i t e m a t r i x W r t e r m e d t h e m e t r i c m a t r i x . I f t h e W r ' s a r e o t h e r w i s e u n r e s t r i c -t e d , t h i s d i s t a n c e m o d e l i s t e r m e d t h e f u l l m e t r i c m o d e l . M U L T I S C A L E c o m p u t e s d i s t a n c e s ^ i j r s o a s t o p r o v i d e o p t i m a l f i t o f e i t h e r ( a ) l o g d ^ j r * t o l o g d i j r ° ^ < b ) ^ i j r * ^ ° ^ i j r ' T h e f i r s t c a s e i s t h e d e f a u l t o n e . 94 D i s t a n c e F r o m T h e P r o t o t y p e A p p e n d i x B V i g n e t t e S t i m u l i A d a y i n t h e l i f e o f P a t A r m s t r o n g T h a t m o r n i n g , b e f o r e l e a v i n g o n v a c a t i o n , P a t t o l d t h e o t h e r s a t w o r k t o d o t h e m e n i a l t a s k s i n s t e a d o f d o i n g i t h i m s e l f . He s i n g l e d o u t G e o r g e i n p a r t i c u l a r , t o l d h i m w h i c h o f t h e j o b s h e s h o u l d t a k e a n d f o r b a d e h i m t o l e a v e t h e r o o m u n t i l h e w a s f i n i s h e d . A m o m e n t l a t e r , i n t h e h a l l w a y , P a t i n t e r r u p t e d H a r o l d ' s c o n v e r s a t i o n a n d d e m a n d e d h e r u n a n e r r a n d . W a l k i n g a h e a d o f e v e r y o n e e l s e , P a t t u r n e d b a c k t o H a r o l d a n d t o l d h i m e x a c t l y w h i c h i t e m h e s h o u l d p u r c h a s e . L a t e r t h a t d a y , d u r i n g t h e d r i v e t o t h e l a k e , P a t d e c i d e d w h i c h d i r e c t i o n s t o t a k e w h e n t h e y g o t l o s t . W h e n , i n t h e p r o c e s s , t h e y h a p p e n e d u p o n a b a d a c c i d e n t , P a t p u l l e d o v e r a n d t o o k c o m m a n d o f t h e s i t u a t i o n , d i r e c t i n g t r a f f i c a n d s e n d i n g s o m e o n e f o r h e l p . When t h e y f i n a l l y g o t i n t o t h e i r m o t e l r o o m f o r t h e n i g h t a n d m e t u p w i t h t h e i r f r i e n d s , P a t p u t o n t h e TV a n d s e l e c t e d o n e o f t h e m o v i e c h a n n e l s t o w a t c h . A f t e r t h e m o v i e , w h e n t h e y w e r e s e l e c t i n g a l a t e n i g h t r e s t a u r a n t , P a t ' s c h o i c e w o n o u t . 95 D i s t a n c e F r o u T h e P r o t o t y p e A d a y i n t h e l i f e o f C h r i s B r a d d e l y W h i l e w a i t i n g f o r t h e e l e v a t o r t o t a k e h i m t o t h e b o a r d m e e t i n g , C h r i s c h e c k e d t h e p a y p h o n e f o r l e f t o v e r c h a n g e . On t h e way u p t o t h e f o r t i e t h f l o o r , h e c h a t t e d w i t h S u e , h i a b o s s ' s s e c r e t a r y , whom h e h a d b e f r i e n d e d t o g e t s t r a t e g i c i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m s o o n a f t e r s h e h a d s t a r t e d h e r j o b . T h i s t i m e h e m a n a g e d t o f i n d o u t w h a t i n v o l v e d h i m o n t h e " s e c r e t " a g e n d a . He p l a y e d i n n o c e n t d u r i n g t h e m e e t i n g w h e n t h e b o s s w o n d e r e d how h e s e e m e d t o b e a b l e t o a n t i c i p a t e e v e r t h i n g - -h e c o u l d l i e w i t h o u t b a t t i n g a n e y e . C h r i s n e v e r i g n o r e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f a s i t u a t i o n t o g e t w h a t h e w a n t e d . I f h e w a s p l a n n i n g t o s k i p w o r k o n e d a y , h e w o u l d f a k e a s o r e b a c k a t w o r k t h e d a y b e f o r e a n d t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f h i s " i n j u r y " t o e x t r a c t s m a l l f a v o u r s f r o m c o - w o r k e r s b e f o r e h e l e f t f o r t h e d a y . B u t t o d a y h e l e f t o n t i m e , h i t c h i n g a r i d e w i t h S u e , t h e n b o r r o w i n g h e r c a r t o r u n s o m e e r r a n d s s i n c e h i s c a r w a s i n t h e s h o p . T h a t e v e n i n g , w h e n d i n i n g o u t w i t h f r i e n d s , C h r i s c l a i m e d t o b e b r o k e w h e n h e w a s n ' t , m a n a g i n g o n c e a g a i n t o g e t s o m e o n e e l s e t o p a y t h e b i l l . A t t h e b a r a f t e r w a r d s , t h e y d i s c u s s e d t h e s a l e s f o r l a s t m o n t h a n d C h r i s t h o u g h t a b o u t how much m o n e y h e w o u l d m a k e . He i g n o r e d h i s b e s t f r i e n d s ' f a m i l y , who h a d j o i n e d t h e i r t a b l e , b e c a u s e t h e y d i d n ' t h a v e a n y t h i n g h e w a n t e d . 96 D i s t a n c e F r o m T h e P r o t o t y p e A d a y i n t h e l i f e o f D a l e E d w a r d s D a l e e n d e d t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h h i s p a r t n e r , J a n , b y s t a l k i n g o u t o f t h e r o o m , s l a m m i n g t h e d o o r b e h i n d h i m . D a l e b e g a n t h e a r g u m e n t o v e r w h o s e t u r n i t w a s t o d r i v e home f r o m t h e p a r t y t h e y w e r e g o i n g t o t h a t n i g h t . I t w a s a s e n s e l e s s a r g u m e n t , b u t h e d r e w h e r i n t o i t a n y w a y a n d e v e n c o m p l a i n e d a b o u t t h e f a v o u r s h e d i d f o r h e r t h a t w e e k . A a u s u a l . D a l e t o o k t h e o p p o s i t e p o i n t o f v i e w j u s t t o b e c o n t r a r y , a n d c o n t i n u e d t o a r g u e p o i n t s e v e n a f t e r c o n c e d i n g t h e m . J u s t f o r s p i t e , h e r e f u s e d t o d r e s s f o r t h e o c c a s i o n a n d c u r s e d , a n d b e l l y - a c h e d b e c a u s e i t w a s r a i n i n g . A t t h e p a r t y , J a n n o t i c e d t h a t D a l e ' s b r o t h e r c a l l e d h i m o n t h e t e l e p h o n e . J a n a l s o n o t i c e d t h a t D a l e r e p l a c e d t h e r e c e i v e r w i t h o u t s a y i n g g o o d b y e . 97 D i s t a n c e F r o m T h e P r o t o t y p e A d a y i n t h e l i f e o f F r a n c i s G r a h a m F r a n c i s e s t a y e d home . a l l d a y a l o n e w i t h o u t s p e a k i n g t o a n y o n e . I n t h e m o r n i n g h e k e p t h i s s h a d e s d o w n a n d s a t i n t h e d a r k l i s t e n i n g t o t h e m u s i c . H e r e a d h i s l a t e s t n o v e l a l l a f t e r n o o n a n d t h a t e v e n i n g w e n t f o r a l o n g w a l k a l o n g t h e s e a - w a l l . S a t u r d a y , F r a n c i s e a t e l u n c h i n t h e c o r n e r o f t h e c a f e t e r i a w h i l e r e a d i n g h i s b o o k . He h a d r e l u c t a n t l y a g r e e d t o g o t o a p a r t y t h a t n i g h t w i t h h i s f r i e n d C i n d y , a n d s o h e d i d . He w a l k e d i n t o t h e r o o m f u l l o f p e o p l e w i t h o u t t a l k i n g m u c h t o a n y o n e , s t a y i n g c l o s e t o C i n d y a n d n o t t r y i n g t o m e e t a n y o n e . He m a n g e d t o e s c a p e f o r a w h i l e t o r e a d h i s b o o k i n t h e o t h e r r o o m . 98 D i s t a n c e F r o m T h e P r o t o t y p e A d a y i n t h e l i f e o f H i l l a r y I r w i n H i l l a r y w a s l a t e f o r w o r k a n d a c c e p t e d t h e r e s u l t i n g v e r b a l a b u s e o f h i s f r i e n d , P h i l , w i t h o u t d e f e n d i n g h i m s e l f o r t a l k i n g b a c k w h e n h e w a s s c o l d e d . H e c o n t i n u e d t o a p o l o g i z e t o P h i l a b o u t i t a l l m o r n i n g . A t d i n n e r h e l i s t e n e d q u i e t l y w h e n h i s p a r e n t s s a i d h i s h a i r w a s u g l y . He w a s a l o n e w i t h h i s p a r e n t s a t t h i s m e a l s i n c e t h e y h a d c o n v i n c e d h i m t o b r e a k o f f w i t h h i s l o v e r a w e e k a g o . He m i s s e d h e r a l o t , b u t k e p t i t t o h i m s e l f . A f t e r w a r d s , w h e n P h i l a n d a c o u p l e o f f r i e n d s w h o h a d d r o p p e d b y t o p i c k h i m u p m a d e f u n o f h i s c l o t h e s , h e c h a n g e d i n t o t h e j a c k e t t h a t P h i l h a d c o n v i n c e d h i m t o b u y b e f o r e t h e y l e f t . On t h e w a y t o t h e p a r t y h e p o n d e r e d t h e t r u t h i n w h a t h i s p a r e n t s h a d t o l d h i m , t h a t h i s g r a d e s h a d d e c l i n e d d u e t o p e e r p r e s s u r e t o p a r t y a l l t h e t i m e . J u s t t h e n t h e y h a p p e n e d t o d r i v e b y t h e c i t y ' s c a m p a i g n i n g m a y o r a n d H i l l a r y f o u n d h i m s e l f j o i n i n g i n o n t h e v e r b a l c r i t i c i s m o f t h i s p e r s o n m a i n l y b e c a u s e e v e r y o n e e l s e d i d . L i k e w i s e , h e s m o k e d t h e m a r i j u a n a t h a t w a s p a s s e d t o h i m e v e n t h o u g h h e d i d n ' t p a r t i c u l a r l y w a n t t o . 99 D i s t a n c e F r o m T h e P r o t o t y p e A d a y i n t h e l i f e o f H i l l a r y I r w i n H i l l a r y w a s l a t e f o r w o r k a n d a c c e p t e d t h e r e s u l t i n g v e r b a l a b u s e o f h i s f r i e n d , P h i l , w i t h o u t d e f e n d i n g h i m s e l f o r t a l k i n g b a c k w h e n h e w a s s c o l d e d . H e c o n t i n u e d t o a p o l o g i z e t o P h i l a b o u t i t a l l m o r n i n g . A t d i n n e r h e l i s t e n e d q u i e t l y w h e n h i s p a r e n t s s a i d h i s h a i r w a s u g l y . He w a s a l o n e w i t h h i a p a r e n t s a t t h i s m e a l s i n c e t h e y h a d c o n v i n c e d h i m t o b r e a k o f f w i t h h i s l o v e r a w e e k a g o . He m i s s e d h e r a l o t , b u t k e p t i t t o h i m s e l f . A f t e r w a r d s , w h e n P h i l a n d a c o u p l e o f f r i e n d s who h a d d r o p p e d b y t o p i c k h i m u p made f u n o f h i s c l o t h e s , h e c h a n g e d i n t o t h e j a c k e t t h a t P h i l h a d c o n v i n c e d h i m t o b u y b e f o r e t h e y l e f t . On t h e w a y t o t h e p a r t y h e p o n d e r e d t h e t r u t h i n w h a t h i s p a r e n t s h a d t o l d h i m , t h a t h i s g r a d e s h a d d e c l i n e d d u e t o p e e r p r e s s u r e t o p a r t y a l l t h e t i m e . J u s t t h e n t h e y h a p p e n e d t o d r i v e b y t h e c i t y ' s c a m p a i g n i n g m a y o r a n d H i l l a r y f o u n d h i m s e l f j o i n i n g i n o n t h e v e r b a l c r i t i c i s m o f t h i s p e r s o n m a i n l y b e c a u s e e v e r y o n e e l s e d i d . L i k e w i s e , h e s m o k e d t h e m a r i j u a n a t h a t w a s p a s s e d t o h i m e v e n t h o u g h h e d i d n ' t p a r t i c u l a r l y w a n t t o . 100 D i s t a n c e F r o m T h e P r o t o t y p e A d a y i n t h e l i f e o f J e r r y K n u d s o n T h i s w a s t h e d a y t h a t J e r r y h a d a g r e e d t o l e t h i s g i r l f r i e n d , S a l l y , c u t h i s h a i r , a l t h o u g h s h e w a s i n e x p e r i e n c e d a t i t . When i t w a s t i m e t o g o t o S a l l y ' s , h e l e f t , n o t b o t h e r i n g t o l o c k t h e f r o n t d o o r , w h i c h h e h a d l e f t u n l o c k e d o v e r n i g h t . B e f o r e h e l e f t , t h e r e w a s a k n o c k a t t h e d o o r h e o p e n e d i t w i t h o u t a s k i n g who w a s t h e r e . I t w a s j u s t t h e p a p e r - b o y . On t h e w a y t o S a l l y ' s , h e s t o p p e d i n a t t h e s h o p p i n g c e n t r e . L e a v i n g h i s c a r u n l o c k e d w i t h t h e k e y i n t h e i g n i t i o n , h e p i c k e d u p s o m e s h a m p o o , a new b r a n d t h a t t h e t e l e v i s i o n a d s p r o m i s e d w o u l d m a k e h a i r m o r e s h i n y . J e r r y o f t e n b e l i e v e d a d s l i k e t h a t . D r i v i n g t o S a l l y ' s h e s t o p p e d o n c e m o r e , t h i s t i m e t o p i c k u p h i s b e l o n g i n g s s t t h e l i b r a r y t h a t h e h a d l e f t t h e r e t h e d a y b e f o r e . D u r i n g h i s h a i r c u t h e t o l d S a l l y t h e n e w s t h a t h e w o u l d b e o u t o f t o w n f o r a c o u p l e o f w e e k s i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e . He t o l d h e r t o e n j o y h e r s e l f w h e n h e w a s g o n e , " D o w h a t e v e r y o u l i k e w i t h whom y o u l i k e " , a n d a d d e d t h a t h e k n e w s h e w o u l d b e f a i t h f u l t o h i m d u r i n g h i s a b s e n c e . 101 D i s t a n c e F r o m T h e P r o t o t y p e A d a y i n t h e l i f e o f L e s l i e M a r t i n T h a t m o r n i n g L e s l i e d e c i d e d t o s k i p c l a s s t o s t a y w i t h a f r i e n d who n e e d e d h i m . H e p r o m i s e d h i s f r i e n d ( J a c k ) h e w o u l d b e o v e r a s s o o n a s p o s s i b l e a n d y e s h e w o u l d h e l p h i m w i t h h i s d i f f i c u l t a s s i g n m e n t . B e f o r e h e l e f t t h o u g h , h e c l e a n e d t h e b a t h r o o m b e c a u s e h i s r o o m m a t e d i d i t t h e p r e v i o u s t i m e . On t h e way o v e r h e w e n t o u t o f h i s way t o d r o p S a m , a n o t h e r f r i e n d , a t s c h o o l . I n t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n b e f o r e h e j u m p e d o u t , Sam g o t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n h e n e e d e d t o n u r s e h i s s i c k c a r b a c k t o h e a l t h . A s t h e y t r a d e d g o o d b y e s , t h e y a l s o a g r e e d t o m e e t l a t e r t h a t e v e n i n g a t L e s l i e ' s d a t e ' s h o u s e a n d m a y b e v i s i t a w h i l e w i t h h e r p a r e n t s , who h e g o t a l o n g w e l l w i t h , b e f o r e h e a d i n g o u t t o t h e p a r t y . A s i t t u r n e d o u t , t h e y n e v e r d i d m a k e i t t o t h e p a r t y a s L e s l i e ' s c a r a l s o d i e d t h a t n i g h t . T h e n e x t m o r n i n g L e s l i e c a l l e d h i s f r i e n d a n d o f f e r e d t o h e l p h i m m o v e i n t o t h e new a p a r t m e n t t h a t d a y . He h o p p e d o n a b u s , g i v i n g u p h i s s e a t t o a n o l d e r p e r s o n . He r e f r a i n e d f r o m i n s u l t i n g t h e o b n o x i o u s p e r s o n who h a d r e f u s e d h i s s e a t t o t h e s a m e o l d l a d y . 102 D i s t a n c e F r o m T h e P r o t o t y p e A d a y i n t h e l i f e o f N e l O l i v e r S a t u r d a y a f t e r n o o n , N e l w o r e b i z a r r e c l o t h i n g t o t h e s u p e r m a r k e t t o g e t s u p p l i e s f o r t o n i g h t ' s p a r t y . He c h o s e t h e p l a c e f o r e v e r y o n e t o m e e t t h e s a m e b a r h e w e n t t o t h e n i g h t b e f o r e , t o s o c i a l i z e . He d e c i d e d a g a i n s t h i s f a v o u r i t e d i s c o o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t i t w o u l d b e t o o l o u d t o t a l k , e v e n t h a t e a r l y i n t h e e v e n i n g . N e l g o t t o t h e b a r a l i t t l e e a r l y t o g e t t h e r e b e f o r e t h e o f f i c e p e o p l e . H e j o k e d w i t h t h e w a i t r e s s a n d e n g a g e d h e r i n c o n v e r s a t i o n . When t h e r e s t o f t h e m a r r i v e d a t t h e b a r , N e l s t a r t e d o f f t h e e v e n i n g b y s i n g i n g t h e o f f i c e S o f t b a l l t e a m t h e m e s o n g i n f r o n t o f t h e w h o l e g r o u p . L a t e r t h a t n i g h t , N e l t a l k e d t o a l m o s t e v e r y o n e a t t h e p a r t y . H i s f r i e n d J a n e w a n t e d t o know why s h e c o u l d n ' t g e t t h r o u g h o n h i s p h o n e l i n e t h e o t h e r n i g h t . He r e p l i e d t h a t h e w a s o n t h e p h o n e h i m s e l f , a l l n i g h t l o n g . N e l l d a n c e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e e v e n i n g i n f r o n t o f t h e c r o w d . L a t e r , w h e n N e l l a n d s o m e f r i e n d s w a l k e d down t o t h e r e s t a u r a n t n e a r b y , N e l s a n g l o u d l y i n t h e s t r e e t a l l t h e way t h e r e . APPENDIX C Circuaplex Analyses and Projections 104 A CIRCUMPLEX GENERATOR/ANALYZER TITLE: IASd6ths) S. DISPRO SCORES (the latter on the former) NUMBER OF ITEMS IN POOL =• 17 NUMBER OF ITERATIONS =• 0 NUMBER OF CASES * 140 MATRIX FACTORED * CORRELATION ROTATED SCALES FACTORED ON FIRST ITERATION REQUESTED COMPONENTS ARE 1 AND 2 INITIALIZING AND/OR MARKER SCALES: SCALE ITEM ANGLE 1 IASDOM 90.0 2 IASCAL 135.0 3 IASQUA 180.0 4 IASINT 225.0 5 riASSUB 270.0 6 IASING 315.0 7 ISAAGR 0.0 8 IASEXT 45.0 EIGENVALUES CORRESPONDING TO REQUESTED COMPONENTS: INITIALIZING SCALES 3.21 2.40 0.95 CUMULATIVE PROPORTION OF VARIANCE ACCOUNTED FOR: 40.11 70.12 82.04 FACTOR SCORE COEFFICIENTS: 0.028 -0.235 -0.323 -0.156 -0.015 0.249 0.333 0.237 0.268 0.200 -0.021 -0.212 -0.272 -0.201 -0.055 0.199 COMMUNALITY AND ANGLE OF EACH ITEM IN POOL: SCALE ITEM COMMUN ANGLE 1 ISAAGR 0.656 350.6 DISCAL 0.298 330.3 DISQUA 0.204 326.2 IASING 0.706 313.5 DISDOM 0.164 295.8 IASSUB 0.763 265.4 DlSEXT 0.080 240.7 IASINT 0.648 239.8 DISCREPANCY 0. 1 7 9 2 2 9 . .0 IASQDA 0. 626 1 8 7 . .8 DlSAGR 0. 125 143. .0 DISING 0. 175 134. , 1 IASCAL 0. 664 131 . 8 DISSUB 0. 070 105. .6 DISINT 0. 067 97. .7 IASDOM 0. 745 83. .2 IASEXT 0. 801 48. ,0 106 FACTOR PLOT FOR REQUESTED COMPONENTS: RESULTING SCALES * 1 * : 2 . * * 14 * 13* 15 * * * 3 16 * * 11 10 17 * 9 * * * : 4 * 5 * * 10 7 LISTING OF ITEM LABELS: ITEM# ITEM 1 IASDOM 2 IASCAL 3 IASQUA 4 IASINT 5 IASSUB 6 IASING 7 ISAAGR 8 IASEXT 9 DISDOM 10 DlSCAL 1 1 DlSQUA 12 DISINT 1 3 DlSSUB 14 DISING 15 DlSAGR 16 DlSEXT 1 7 DlSCREPANCY ************ END OF OUTPUT************ r 108 A CIRCUMPLEX GENERATOR/ANALYZER TITLE: IAS(l6ths) S. DISPRO SCORES NUMBER OP ITEMS IN POOL » 17 NUMBER OF ITERATIONS - 0 NUMBER OF CASES » 140 MATRIX FACTORED =» CORRELATION ROTATED SCALES FACTORED ON FIRST ITERATION REQUESTED COMPONENTS ARE 1 AND 2 INITIALIZING AND/OR MARKER SCALES: SCALE ITEM ANGLE 1 DISDOM 90.0 2 DISCAL 135.0 3 DISQUA 180.0 4 DISINT 225.0 5 'DISSUB 270.0 6 DISING 315.0 7 DISAGR 0.0 8 DISEXT 45.0 EIGENVALUES CORRESPONDING TO REQUESTED COMPONENTS: INITIALIZING SCALES 3.25 2.34 0.80 CUMULATIVE PROPORTION OF VARIANCE ACCOUNTED FOR: 40.66 69.86 79.91 FACTOR SCORE COEFFICIENTS: -0.054 -0.222 -0.341 -0.215 -0.030 0.174 0.330 0.262 0.256 0.162 0.025 -0.230 -0.272 -0.215 0.012 0.215 COMMUNALITY AND ANGLE OF EACH ITEM IN POOL: SCALE ITEM COMMUN ANGLE 1 DISAGR 0.610 358.6 IASQUA 0.164 324.5 IASCAL 0.176 307.7 DISING 0.721 301 .9 IASDOM 0.143 291 .7 DISSUB 0.759 268.3 DlSCREPANCY 0.201 260.6 IASEXT 0.073 236.5 DISINT 0. .719 236. .3 DISQUA 0. .678 170. .4 ISAAGR 0. .161 1 5 5 . .8 IASING 0. .242 140. . 1 DISCAL 0. ,618 134. ,7 DISDOM 0. ,724 101 . ,7 IASSUB 0. ,069 100. ,7 IASINT 0. ,043 89. ,6 DISEXT 0. ,761 48. ,0 FACTOR PLOT FOR REQUESTED COMPONENTS: RESULT ING S C A L E S 110 9 ' 10 11 * * * 5* 4 * * * 16 * . * * * * * * * * * * * * t t * * * i , i , i , i , * i t 1 t t 1 l 1 t i t i t 1 t 1 l 1 t 1 l i t 1 t * * 8 * 3 * 2 * 1 17* * 12 * * 13 * * * 1 ! 14 A P P E N D I X D M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n S u m m a r y T a b l e s 111 10 AUG 86 SPSS-X RELEASE 2 . 1 FOR IBM VM/MTS 17:46 :21 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia * * * * M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I O N L i s t w i s e Deletion of Missing Data Equation Number 1 Dependent V a r i a b l e . . IASSES Beginning Block Number 1. Method: Enter V a r i a b l e ( s ) Entered on Step Number 1.. DISCREP 2. ., DISING 3. . DISAGR 4. . DISEXT 5. . DISQUA 6. . DISDOM 7. . DISCAL 8. . DISINT 9. . DISSUB M u l t i p l e R .76723 R Square .58864 Adjusted R Square .56016 Standard E r r o r .75251 A n a l y s i s of Variance DF Regression 9 Res i d u a l 130 Sum of Squares 105.34189 73.61610 Mean Square 11.70465 .56628 F = 20.66946 S i g n i f F .0000 V a r i a b l e s in the Equation V a r i a b l e C o r r e l Part Cor P a r t i a l DISCREP -.427733 -.593025 -.678891 DISING .020207 -.087657 -.135412 DISAGR .065750 .121625 .186311 DISEXT -.300646 -.205385 -.304972 DISQUA -.138671 .131259 .200497 DISDOM -.258121 -.275584 -.394778 DISCAL -.192995 -.226115 -.332491 DISINT .02501 1 -.104402 -.160664 DISSUB .193743 -.045518 -.070791 End Block Number 1 A l l requested v a r i a b l e s entered. 10 AUG 86 SPSS-X RELEASE 2.1 FOR IBM VM/MTS 17:41:23 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I O N L i s t w i s e Deletion of Missing Data Equation Number 1 Dependent Var i a b l e . . IASDCM Beginning Block Number 1. Method: Enter V a r i a b l e ( s ) Entered on Step Number 1.. DISCREP 2. . DISQUA 3.. DISING 4. . DISEXT 5.. DISDOM 6. . DISCAL 7. . DISAGR 8.. DISINT 9. . DISSUB M u l t i p l e R .78926 R Square .62293 Adjusted R Square .59869 Standard Error .65053 A n a l y s i s of Variance DF Sum of Squares Mean Square Regression 9 97.87736 10.87526 Residual 140 59.24626 .42319 F = 25.69845 S i g n i f F = .0000 Va r i a b l e s i n the Equation V a r i a b l e C o r r e l Part Cor P a r t i a l DISCREP -.375111 -.579502 -.686347 DlSQUA -.256211 .152232 .240628 DISING .104506 -.047846 -.077683 DISEXT -.218179 -.327430 -.470512 DlSDOM -.279130 -.296522 -.434845 DISCAL -.252353 -.276062 -.410038 DISAGR .113992 .271313 .404145 DISINT .109843 -.077590 -.125360 DISSUB .101710 -.149408 -.236416 End Block Number 1 A l l requested v a r i a b l e s entered. 10 AUG 86 S P S S - X R E L E A S E 2.1 FOR I B M V M / M T S 17:23:48 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 114 * * * * M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I O N L i s t w i s e D e l e t i o n of Missing Data Equation Number 1 Dependent V a r i a b l e . . IASDCM Beginning Block Number 1. Method: Enter V a r i a b l e ( s ) Entered on Step Number 1.. PRFUND 2. . PRFAFF 3.. PRFABA 4.. PRFORD 5. . PRFSOC 6.. PRFHAR 7. . PRFSEN 8. . PRFACH 9.. PRFSUC 10.. PRFCHA 11.. PRFCOG 12. . ' PRFAGG 13.. PRFNUR 14.. PRFDEF 15.. PRFPLA 16.. PRFEND 17.. PRFIMP 18.. PRFDOM 19.. PRFEXH 20. . PRFAUT M u l t i p l e R .81284 R Square .66070 Adjusted R Square .55631 Standard E r r o r 5.83852 A n a l y s i s of Variance Regression Residual DF 20 65 Sum of Squares 4314.68747 2215.74276 Mean Square 215.73437 34.08835 F = 6.32868 S i g n i f F = .0000 10 AUG 86 SPSS-X RELEASE 2.1 FOR IBM VM/MTS 17:23:48 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 115 * * * * M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I O N Equation Number 1 Dependent V a r i a b l e . . IASDOM Va r i a b l e s in the Equation V a r i a b l e C o r r e l Part Cor P a r t i a l PRFUND .247691 .095747 .162199 PRFAFF -.257714 -.049783 -.085156 PRFABA -.360952 -.177165 -.290990 PRFORD .162569 .009617 .016508 PRFSOC -.099845 -.208237 -.336629 PRFHAR -.192870 .172924 .284594 PRFSEN .141426 -.133904 -.224038 PRFACH .285286 .017689 .030354 PRFSUC -.245410 -.120924 -.203264 PRFCHA .183365 .028248 .048439 PRFCOG .092516 .094052 .159400 PRFAGG .25771 1 .105846 .178785 PRFNUR .095914 .078322 .133261 PRFDEF ' .151351 -.037422 -.064112 PRFPLA .125173 -.028741 -.049281 PRFEND .43691 1 .170350 .280694 PRFIMP .088649 .110973 .187149 PRFDOM .658282 .221933 .356039 PRFEXH .403814 .122741 .206190 PRFAUT .238817 .031804 .054518 End Block Number 1 A l l requested v a r i a b l e s entered. 10 AUG 36 SPSS-X RELEASE 2.1 FOR IBM VM/MTS 17:23:48 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia * * * * M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I O N L i s t w i s e D e l e t i o n of Missing Data Equation Number 1 Dependent V a r i a b l e . . PRFDOM Beginning Block Number 1. Method: Enter V a r i a b l e ( s ) Entered on Step Number 1.. ACLCOU 2. . ACLSCN 3. . ACLLAB 4. . ACLSUC 5. . ACLORD 6. . ACLAHA 7. . ACLHET 8. . ACLAUT 9. . ACLINT 10. . ACLAFF 11.. ACLPER 12. . ' ACLEXH 13. . ACLACH 14. . ACLNUR 15. . ALCABA 16. . ACLEND 17. . ACLSCO 18. . ACLDEF 19. . ACLAGG 20. . ACLDOM M u l t i p l e R .81985 R Square .67216 Adjusted R Square .57129 Standard E r r o r 2.91031 A n a l y s i s of Variance Regression Residual DF Sum of Squares 20 1128.75979 65 550.54254 Mean Square 56.43799 8.46989 F = 6.66337 S i g n i f F = .0000 10 AUG 86 SPSS-X RELEASE 2.1 FOR IBM VM/MTS 17:23:48 University of British Columbia 117 * * * * M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I O N Equation Number 1 Dependent Variable.. PRFDOM Variables in the Equation Variable Correl Part Cor Partial ACLCOU -.476099 .201792 .332391 ACLSCN -.132008 .099740 .171612 ACLLAB .158468 .112840 .193357 ACLSUC -.307868 .10651 1 .182884 ACLORD .339629 -.131932 -.224536 ACLAHA .302167 .158727 .267142 ACLHET .308647 -.021636 -.037761 ACLAUT .400125 .026557 .046332 ACLINT .136150 .064015 . 1 1 1 109 ACLAFF .152476 -.209035 -.342941 ACLPER .148377 .088050 .151993 ACLEXH .482929 .094280 .162473 ACLACH .601910 -.016655 -.029076 ACLNUR r -.126941 -.225021 -.365768 ALCABA -.561839 -.075429 -.130608 ACLEND .419726 .063709 .110586 ACLSCO .591001 .050956 .088645 ACLDEF -.465929 .121141 .206991 ACLAGG .352798 -.133810 -.227568 ACLDOM .684980 .296803 .460211 End Block Number 1 All requested variables entered. 10 AUG 86 SPSS-X RELEASE 2.1 FOR IBM VM/MTS 17:23:48 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia * * * * M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I O N L i s t w i s e Deletion of Missing Data Equation Number 1 Dependent V a r i a b l e . . IASDOM Beginning Block Number 1. Method: Enter V a r i a b l e ( s ) Entered on Step Number 1.. CPIFEM 2. . CPITOL 3. . CPIFLE 4. . CPISAC 5.. CPICOM 6. . CPIPSY 7. . CPIGOO 8.. CPIRES 9. . CPISCL 10. . CPIASI 11.. CPIDOM 12. . ' CPIWEL 13. . CPIACC 14. . CPICAP 15. . CPIINT 16.. CPISPR 17.. CPISOC 18. . CPISCO M u l t i p l e R .79960 R Square .63936 Adjusted R Square .54247 Standard Error 5.92887 A n a l y s i s of Variance Regression Residual DF 18 67 Sum of Squares 4175.27637 2355.15386 Mean Square 231.95980 35.15155 F = 6.59885 S i g n i f F = .0000 10 AUG 86 SPSS-X RELEASE 2.1 FOR IBM VM/MTS 119 17:23:48 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia * * * * M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I O N * * * * Equation Number 1 Dependent V a r i a b l e . . IASDOM V a r i a b l e s i n the Equation V a r i a b l e C o r r e l Part Cor P a r t i a l CPIFEM -.163869 -.080028 -.132094 CPITOL .207262 .022063 .036714 CPIFLE -.190390 -.184823 -.294148 CPISAC .608272 .127060 .206996 CPICOM .129901 .005036 .008386 CPIPSY .398934 .096922 .159330 CPIGOO .098834 -.023886 -.039743 CPIRES .067851 -.094146 -.154878 CPISCL .069712 .084513 .139357 CPIASI .073335 -.046887 -.077838 CPIDOM .686657 .1901 1 1 .301807 CPIWEL .274204 -.032407 -.053884 CPIACC .300081 -.053352 -.088493 CPICAP r .515210 .006591 .010974 CPIINT .331073 .034406 .057198 CPISPR .520935 .010260 .017082 CPISOC .643021 .073513 .121506 CPISCO -.116550 .037704 .062660 End Block Number 1 A l l requested v a r i a b l e s entered. 10 AUG 86 SPSS-X RELEASE 2.1 FOR IBM VM/MTS 17:23:48 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia * * * * M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I O N L i s t w i s e D e l e t i o n of M i s s i n g Data E q u a t i o n Number 1 Dependent V a r i a b l e . . PRFDOM Be g i n n i n g Block Number 1. Method: Enter V a r i a b l e ( s ) Entered on Step Number 1.. IASEXT 2. . IASING 3. . IASQUA 4. . IASSUB 5. . IASAGR 6. . IASCAL 7. . IASDOM 8. . IASINT M u l t i p l e r R .71039 R Square .50465 A d j u s t e d R Square .45319 Standard E r r o r 3.28681 A n a l y s i s of Variance R e g r e s s i o n R e s i d u a l DF 8 77 Sum of Squares 847.46144 831.84088 Mean Square 105.93268 10.80313 F = 9.80574 S i g n i f F = .0000 V a r i a b l e s i n the Equation V a r i a b l e C o r r e l Part Cor P a r t i a l IASEXT .282283 -.123471 -.172793 IASING -.508641 -.061475 -.087014 IASQUA .079081 -.022424 -.031845 IASSUB -.597383 -.108374 -.152188 IASAGR -.056605 .044199 .062676 IASCAL .382328 .055440 .078527 IASDOM .658282 .282958 .373019 IASINT -.338058 -.063332 -.089622 End B l o c k Number 1 A l l requested v a r i a b l e s entered. 10 AUG 86 SPSS-X RELEASE 2.1 FOR IBM VM/MTS 17:23:49 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 121 * * * * M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I O N L i s t w i s e Deletion of Missing Data Equation Number 1 Dependent V a r i a b l e . . IASSES Beginning Block Number 1. Method: Enter V a r i a b l e ( s ) Entered on Step Number 1.. PRFUND 2. . PRFAFF 3. . PRFABA 4. . PRFORD 5.. PRFSOC 6. . PRFHAR 7. . PRFSEN 8. . PRFACH 9. . PRFSUC 10. . PRFCHA 11.. PRFCOG 12. . r PRFAGG 13. . PRFNUR 14. . PRFDEF 15. . PRFPLA 16. . PRFEND 17. . PRFIMP 18. . PRFDOM 19. . PRFEXH 20. . PRFAUT M u l t i p l e R .75510 R Square .57017 Adjusted R Square .43792 Standard E r r o r 4.45344 A n a l y s i s of Variance DF Regression 20 Resi d u a l 65 Sum of Squares Mean Square 1710.06970 85.50349 1289.15123 19.83310 F » 4.31115 S i g n i f F = .0000 10 AUG 86 SPSS-X RELEASE 2.1 FOR IBM VM/MTS 17:23:49 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 122 * * * * M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I O N Equation Number 1 Dependent V a r i a b l e . . IASSES V a r i a b l e s i n the Equation V a r i a b l e C o r r e l Part Cor P a r t i a l PRFUND .232212 .123481 .185090 PRFAFF -.263928 -.014222 -.021688 PRFABA -.288635 -.164555 -.243443 PRFORD . 166054 .054168 .082341 PRFSOC -.242729 -.346438 -.467202 PRFHAR -.127459 .213617 .309798 PRFSEN .121595 -.146530 -.218120 PRFACH .173533 -.016410 -.025022 PRFSUC -.202243 -.179463 -.264020 PRFCHA .189854 .084158 .127321 PRFCOG .046773 .137962 .205923 PRFAGG .089697 .044059 .067051 PRFNUR .085298 .045130 .068674 PRFDEF ' .072180 -.050979 -.077524 PRFPLA .159836 .011883 .018121 PRFEND .338097 .144998 .215946 PRFIMP .083788 .202967 .295735 PRFDOM .519957 .177547 .261395 PRFEXH .377166 .137181 .204806 PRFAUT .119662 -.092101 -.139115 End Block Number 1 A l l requested v a r i a b l e s entered. 10 AUG 86 SPSS-X RELEASE 2.1 FOR IBM VM/MTS 17:23:49 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia * * * * M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I O N L i s t w i s e Deletion of Missing Data Equation Number 1 Dependent V a r i a b l e . . IASSES Beginning Block Number 1. Method: Enter V a r i a b l e ( s ) Entered on Step Number 1.. ACLCOU 2. . ACLSCN 3. . ACLLAB 4. . ACLSUC 5. . ACLORD 6. . ACLAHA 7. . ACLHET 8.. ACLAUT 9. . ACLINT 10. . ACLAFF 11.. ACLPER 12. . r ACLEXH 13.. ACLACH 14. . ACLNUR 15. . ALCABA 16. . ACLEND 17. . ACLSCO 18. . ACLDEF 19. . ACLAGG 20. . ACLDOM M u l t i p l e R .81315 R Square .66121 Adjusted R Square .55697 Standard E r r o r 3.95377 A n a l y s i s of Variance Regression R e s i d u a l DF 20 65 Sum of Squares 1983.12291 1016.09802 Mean Square 99.15615 15.63228 F = 6.34304 S i g n i f F = ,0000 10 AUG 86 SPSS-X RELEASE 2.1 FOR I3M VM/MTS 17:23:49 University of British Columbia * * * * M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I Equation Number 1 Dependent Variable.. IASSES Variables in the Equation Variable Correl Part Cor Partial ACLCOU -.664394 -.065523 -. 1 1 1865 ACLSCN -.090675 .066771 . 1 1 3968 ACLLAB .183018 -.039139 -.067091 ACLSUC -.532930 -.033238 -.057011 ACLORD .218619 -.092046 -.156199 ACLAHA .284680 -.003641 -.006256 ACLHET .369364 -.053614 -.091723 ACLAUT .403428 .000461 .000792 ACLINT .082788 -.086702 -.147333 ACLAFF .310415 .037670 .064584 ACLPER .245541 .156064 .258978 ACLEXH .497654 .032690 .056074 ACLACH .606074 .090145 .153049 ACLNUR r -.066232 -.185458 -.303588 ALCABA -.680960 -.034058 -.058413 ACLEND .374084 -.045787 -.078423 ACLSCO .619623 -.064316 -.109830 ACLDEF -.477603 .004942 .008491 ACLAGG .283968 -.080016 -.136191 ACLDOM .697199 .125254 .210377 End Block Number 1 A l l requested variables entered. 10 AUG 86 SPSS-X RELEASE 2.1 FOR IBM VM/MTS 17:23:49 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia * * * * M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I O N L i s t w i s e D e l e t i o n of Missing Data Equation Number 1 Dependent V a r i a b l e . . IASSES Beginning Block Number 1. Method: Enter V a r i a b l e ( s ) Entered on Step Number 1.. CPIFEM 2 . . CPITOL 3. . CPIFLE 4. . CPISAC 5. . CPICOM 6. . CPIPSY 7. . CPIGOO 8 . . CPIRES 9. . CPISCL 1 0 . . CPIASI 1 1 . . CPIDOM 1 2 . . ' CPIWEL 13. . CPIACC 14. . CPICAP 15.. CPIINT 16. . CPISPR 17. . CPISOC 1 8 . . CPISCO M u l t i p l e R .73599 R Square .54168 Adjusted R Square .41855 Standard E r r o r 4.52950 A n a l y s i s of Variance Regression Residual DF 18 67 Sum of Squares 1624.62475 1374.59618 Mean Square 90.25693 20.51636 4.39927 S i g n i f F = ,0000 10 AUG 86 SPSS-X RELEASE 2.1 F O R IBM VM/'MTS 17:23:49 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 126 * * * * M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I O N Equation Number 1 Dependent V a r i a b l e . . IASSES V a r i a b l e s in the Equation V a r i a b l e C o r r e l Part Cor P a r t i a l CPIFEM -.110725 -.020688 -.030544 CPITOL .265571 -.001585 -.002342 CPIFLE -.094901 -.155900 -.22441 1 CPISAC .527323 .003986 .005887 CPICOM -.007367 -.067352 -.098998 CPIPSY .362091 .027301 .040295 CPIGOO .216941 .021839 .032242 CPIRES .059347 -.058540 -.086150 CPISCL .03321 1 -.030109 -.044431 CPIASI .106825 -.132462 -.192021 CPIDOM .564050 .108732 .158579 CPIWEL .284655 -.052212 -.076895 CPIACC .353731 .117937 .171623 CPICAP ' .504823 -.016267 -.024022 CPIINT .362377 .092956 .136032 CPISPR .555160 .220018 .309081 CPISOC .584968 .017252 .025475 CPISCO .000122 .065150 .095793 End Block Number 1 A l l requested v a r i a b l e s entered. 10 AUG 86 SPSS-X RELEASE 2.1 FOR IBM VM/MTS 17:25:48 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia * * * * M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I O N L i s t v i s e Deletion of Missing Data Equation Number 1 Dependent V a r i a b l e . . IASSEST Beginning Block Number 1. Method: Enter V a r i a b l e ( s ) Entered on Step Number 1.. IASEXT 2. . IASING 3. . IASQUA 4. . IASDOM 5. . IASSUB 6. . IASAGR 7. . IASCAL 8.. IASINT Mult i p l e , R .74637 R Square .55707 Adjusted R Square .51221 Standard Er r o r 4.09929 A n a l y s i s of Variance Regression Residual DF 8 79 Sum of Squares 1669.59355 1327.53145 Mean Square 208.69919 16.80420 12.41947 S i g n i f F = .0000 V a r i a b l e s in the Equation V a r i a b l e C o r r e l Part Cor P a r t i a l IASEXT .442749 . 1 1 3777 . 168511 IASING -.300516 -.141037 -.207311 IASQUA -.282470 -.213317 -.305225 IASDOM .669539 .392923 .508396 IASSUB -.485130 .029507 .044293 IASAGR .081140 -. 1 1 1 109 -.164668 IASCAL .247207 -.081225 -.121145 IASINT -.413145 -.001766 -.002653 End Block Number 1 A l l requested v a r i a b l e s entered. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097207/manifest

Comment

Related Items