FAMILY ROLE TRANSFORMATION ONTO OCCUPATIONAL ROLES by HELEN ANNE MACGREGOR B.A. Honours, Carleton U n i v e r s i t y , 1977 M.S., George Peabody College, 1979 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Counselling Psychology) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ( c ) March 1984 Helen Anne MacGregor, 1984 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f 'COM /ise-lli** £• • ,rJ,n /nr The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Ma l l Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 i i Abstract In a s e r i e s of ten case studies, t h i s study examined the theore-t i c a l proposition that family experience serves as a metaphor f o r the world. Through a metaphoric transformation, family roles were expected to be displaced onto work r o l e s , where they serve as types f o r under-standing and r e l a t i n g within a work s e t t i n g . Ten i n d i v i d u a l s , f i v e men and f i v e women, ranging i n age from 23 to 62 were rec r u i t e d through contacts, f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the study. A l l had a minimum of at l e a s t one year's experience i n t h e i r present jobs. Participants were selected to represent a diverse range of occu-pations ranging from parking checker and hairdresser to lawyer and a r t i s t . Using 46 t r a i t s selected from Holland's (1978) theory of career development, each p a r t i c i p a n t Q-sorted roles from the domains of s e l f , family of o r i g i n , and work. For each p a r t i c i p a n t separately, role i n t e r - c o r r e l a t i o n s were subjected to f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . A p r i n c i p a l components s o l u t i o n was f i r s t obtained and then submitted to a varimax ro t a t i o n (Boldt, 1980). A visual display of role organization was pre-sented to each p a r t i c i p a n t f o r subjective v a l i d a t i o n and to stimulate a discussion of correspondences between family and work. The r e s u l t s indicated substantial i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among r o l e s . In a d d i t i o n , p a r t i c i p a n t s strongly confirmed the findings both by d i r e c t a f f i r m a t i o n , i n d i r e c t emotional responses, and t h e i r a b i l i t y to elab-orate and give meaning to the role r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Work roles appeared as variants of roles from one's family of o r i g i n . i i i Table of Contents Page CHAPTER ONE Introduction 1 CHAPTER TWO Li t e r a t u r e Review 7 The Influence of Family on Occupational Choice 10 (a) Effects of Interpersonal Relationships With Parents Upon Occupational Selection 10 (b) The Extent to Which Children Follow the Same Occupations as Their Parents 14 (c) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n With Parents 15 Role Theory: The Revelation of S e l f Through Occupational Choice 16 (a) Self-concept 16 (b) S t a b i l i t y of Self-concept 18 Role Transformation and Displacement . . . 19 (a) Single Case Studies 20 (b) Q-Technique 25 CHAPTER THREE Methodology 28 Description of Subjects 28 Q-Sorts 28 Q-Sort Items 30 Procedure 33 i v Method of Analysis 34 Vali d a t i o n Interview 35 CHAPTER FOUR Results 37 Correlations Among Roles 37 Pri n c i p a l Components 39 CHAPTER FIVE Results: Case Studies 42 I r i s 44 Carly 50 Blake . 56 I rma 61 Dave 66 Lou 71 Elizabeth 77 Kate 82 Carl 87 Frank 92 Conclusion 96 CHAPTER SIX Discussion 97 Delimitations and Limitations of the Study 98 Theoretical Implications 99 Pr a c t i c a l Implications 102 Implications f o r Future Research 104 V Concl usion 106 References 108 Reference Note 116 APPENDIX A: A Q u a l i t a t i v e Description of Role Correspondences f o r Each P a r t i c i p a n t 117 APPENDIX B: S i g n i f i c a n t Correlations Between Roles f o r Each P a r t i c i p a n t 121 APPENDIX C: Distinguishing Attributes and S i g n i f i c a n t Z Scores f o r Each Pa r t i c i p a n t 160 vi L i s t of Tables Page Table 1 T r a i t s Used i n the Q-sort of the Study 32 Table 2 Does Each Work Role Relate to Selves/Family? . . . . 117 Table 3 Does S e l f as Job Correlate With Selves/Family? . . . 120 Table 4 The Extent to Which Role Types are Mixed with S e l f Roles, Family Roles, and Work Roles A f t e r Varimax Rotation 121 Table 5 I r i s S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r each Factor or Type 44 Table 6 Carly S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r each Factor or Type 50 Table 7 Blake S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r each Factor or Type 56 Table 8 Irma S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r each Factor or Type 61 Table 9 Dave S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r each Factor or Type 66 Table 10 Lou S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r each Factor or Type 71 Table 11 Elizabeth S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r each Factor or Type 77 Table 12 Kate S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r each Factor or Type 83 v i i ' Table 13 Carl S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r each Factor or Type 87 Table 14 Frank S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r each Factor or Type 92 vi i i Acknowledgements To the s i g n i f i c a n t people i n my l i f e . To my parents, S y l v i a and A l i s t a i r MacGregor f or t h e i r love and b e l i e f i n me, also my s i s t e r A l i s o n and my grandparents Elsa and Len Hutchinson. To Larry Cochran fo r his unflagging i n t e r e s t i n the research and help and encouragement. Thanks also to the members of my research committee, Norm Amundson, Walter Boldt, B i l l Borgen and Marv Westwood. And f i n a l l y to my fr i e n d s : Dale, Rick, Barb, Colleen, Susan, Emily, Chuck, Chris, Linda and Dennis --a big hug f o r hanging i n there and being so supportive. 1 CHAPTER ONE I n t r o d u c t i o n The a i m o f t h i s s t u d y i s t o e x p l o r e a t h e o r e t i c a l p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t i n e n a c t i n g an o c c u p a t i o n a l r o l e , one i s r e - e n a c t i n g a drama f r o m o n e ' s f a m i l y o f o r i g i n . The drama t h a t one r e - e n a c t s need n o t be r e -s t r i c t e d t o an a c t u a l f a m i l y p a t t e r n , b u t may i n c l u d e dramas o f f u l -f i l l m e n t w h i c h w e r e o n l y e x p e r i e n c e d as p o t e n t i a l s p r e v i o u s l y . F o r e x -a m p l e , a p e r s o n w i t h a ' b a d ' f a t h e r m i g h t seek a ' g o o d ' f a t h e r i n an o c c u p a t i o n . I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o t e s t a p r o p o s i t i o n s u c h as t h i s d i r e c t l y . H o w e v e r , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o e x p l o r e t h e q u e s t i o n and seek s u p p o r t f o r i t i n a more i n d i r e c t manner by f o c u s i n g upon r o l e s . I f one r e - e n a c t s a drama f r o m o n e ' s f a m i l y o f o r i g i n i n w o r k i n g , t h e n t h e r e s h o u l d be some d e g r e e o f c o r r e s p o n d e n c e between p e o p l e i n o n e ' s f a m i l y and p e o p l e i n o n e ' s work s e t t i n g , and b e t w e e n s e l f as a f a m i l y member and s e l f as a w o r k e r . To be i n t h e same k i n d o f drama r e q u i r e s t h a t p e o p l e be c a s t i n s i m i l a r r o l e s and be s e e n i n s i m i l a r w a y s . Or i n t h e c a s e o f a drama t h a t i s a d i r e c t o p p o s i t i o n ( e . g . , bad t o good f a t h e r f i g u r e ) , p e o p l e a r e c a s t i n o p p o s i n g r o l e s and s e e n i n o p p o s i n g w a y s . T h i s s t u d y i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h e x p l o r i n g t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p r o p o s i t i o n i n two c o m p l e -m e n t a r y w a y s . F i r s t , t h e p r o p o s i t i o n i s e x p l o r e d t h r o u g h e x a m i n i n g t h e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s b e t w e e n r o l e s i n o n e ' s f a m i l y o f o r i g i n a n d work s e t -t i n g . S e c o n d , t h r o u g h i n t e r v i e w s , t h e r o l e s t r u c t u r e i s u s e d t o e l a b o r -a t e a drama a r i s i n g i n o n e ' s f a m i l y o f o r i g i n and a p p l i e d t o o n e ' s work s e t t i n g . 2 According to Cochran (reference note 1) family experience i s used as a metaphor f o r the world. As children engage i n recurrent i n -teractions within the family which define rules of conduct f o r varying reciprocal r o l e s , these roles and t h e i r relationships are e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y incorporated as abstract schema or constructions that serve to o r i e n t them to the world. For example, i f a c h i l d enacts the role of "helpless waif" i n r e l a t i o n to mother's role of "loving caretaker." the c h i l d learns not only the role enacted, but also roles that are re-lated to i t . When enacting "helpless waif," the c h i l d would a n t i c i p a t e another to play "loving caretaker" and vice versa. The c h i l d learns a pattern of dramatic enaction, composed of role figures that perform l i k e parts i n a play. It i s t h i s composition of role positions that can be metaphorically extended to the world as when, f o r instance, a c h i l d acts toward teacher as a "helpless waif," a n t i c i p a t i n g teacher to be-come a "loving caretaker." Within a family, some roles are more esteemed than others. C h i l d -ren not only form a conception of which roles are more i d e a l , but of which roles are possible or compatible with 'self-conception. Role-s t r i v i n g s , or attempts to enact a role (McCall and Simmons, 1966), can be seen as a compromise or d i a l e c t i c between what i s conceived to be ideal and what i s conceived to be r e a l i s t i c and comfortable f o r oneself. L i f e s i t u a t i o n s o f f e r various p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r dramatic composition and f o r d i f f e r e n t role enactments within a composition. That i s , a person might vary i n the dramatic compositions applied metaphorically to make sense of s i t u a t i o n s , and also vary i n the roles he or she enacts. What does not vary i s the enactment of dramatic compositions, or the attempt to enact them. 3 With regard to occupations, a person might s t r i v e f o r an occupa-ti o n a l r o l e that allows one to enact a more ideal family role or to seek to restructure the occupational role one obtains. Either way, i t i s expected that i n assuming an occupational role within an occupational r o l e structure, one re-enacts a dramatic composition of roles from one's family of o r i g i n . A role structure consists of roles and reciprocal r o l e s . In the case of work, the role structure would include boss, worker, colleagues and customers. This t h e o r e t i c a l r a t i o n a l e has two immediate implications f o r research. F i r s t , a person's occupational role i s expected to r e l a t e strongly to at l e a s t one role within one's family of o r i g i n , since i t i s viewed as a displaced re-enactment of a family r o l e . It i s not assumed that a person w i l l necessarily enact father's r o l e , mother's r o l e , or any one s p e c i f i c r o l e . Rather, a person i s expected to enact a r o l e from the role repetoire learned i n the family. Second, occupa-t i o n a l roles within the occupational role structure of a job are ex-pected to r e l a t e to family r o l e s , since occupational roles are viewed as a displacement of anda re-enactment of a dramatic composition of fam-i l y r o l e s . A person's boss might be viewed as s i m i l a r to father, to father at his best, to father at his worst, to mother, and so on. What s p e c i f i c a l l y a boss represents might vary, but i t i s expected that a re-l a t i o n s h i p between boss and at least one family role would be obtained. This l a t t e r hypothesis i s supported i n d i r e c t l y by research. Previous research has been more or less successful i n showing that an occupational r o l e i s construed as s i m i l a r to s e l f , or to s e l f - i d e a l , or 4 to father. However, a role has no meaning i n i s o l a t i o n . A role i s a r o l e by v i r t u e of i t s place within a context of related r o l e s . For example, McCall and Simmons (1966) define a l t e r c a s t i n g as the tendency to project an image of others that complements an expression of s e l f . When acting l i k e Romeo, a male requires a J u l i e t to complete his role i d e n t i t y . When enacting the r o l e of a leader, one requires followers to complete the r o l e . Thus i t i s expected that when one defines an occupational r o l e as s i m i l a r to father (or mother or whatever), there are also projected r o l e d e f i n i t i o n s within an occupational r o l e s t r u c -ture that w i l l complement and complete one's s e l f - d e f i n e d r o l e . This point of view i s compatible with a wide var i e t y of current approaches i n psychology. It i s most indebted to the Freudian notion that the c h i l d i s the father to the man and Adler's hypothesis that family atmosphere s i g n i f i c a n t l y influences i t s members. Freud (1966) suggested that the c h i l d becomes attached to i t s mother as i t s f i r s t caretaker.and love object. Once the c h i l d passes through the oedipal phase, there i s a strong i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the parents. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a form of attach-ment to someone else (Freud, 1966). That i s , i f a boy i d e n t i f i e s with his father, he wants to be l i k e his father. Others have an impact on the c h i l d ' s ego but only the e a r l i e s t parental images determine the superego (Freud, 1966). The superego i s also a vehicle of the ego ideal by which the ego measures i t s e l f , which i t emulates and whose demand f o r even greater p e r f e c t i o n , i t s t r i v e s to f u l f i l l (Freud, 1966). "There i s no doubt that t h i s ego 5 ideal i s the p r e c i p i t a t e of the old picture of the parents, the expression of admiration f o r the perfection which the c h i l d then a t t r i b u t e d to them" (Freud, 1966, p. 529). Adler viewed the i n d i v i d u a l as a unitary, goal directed s e l f which i n the healthy state i s i n a constructive, e t h i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p to his fellow man (Ansbacher and Ansbacher, 1979). He believed that the c h i l d i s not only a product of environment and heredity but also i s able to c r e a t i v e l y make decisions about how to behave. " I t i s neither heredity nor environment which determines his r e l a t i o n s h i p to the outside world. Heredity only endows him with c e r t a i n a b i l i t i e s . Environment only gives him c e r t a i n impressions. These a b i l i t i e s and impressions, and the manner i n which he 'experiences' them--that i s to say, the i n t e r p r e t a -t i o n of the experiences—are the bricks which he uses i n his own 'creative' way i n building up his attitu d e toward l i f e . . . i t i s his a t t i -tude toward 1 ife--which, determines his r e l a t i o n s h i p to the outside world" (Ansbacher and Ansbacher, 1979, p. 67). The dramaturgical approaches such as that of McCall and Simmons (1976) are a further influence. However, the most immediate precursor fo r t h i s research i s a study by Baas and Brown (1973) which w i l l be described more f u l l y i n the f i n a l section of the next chapter. They used a Q-sort (Stephenson, 1953) to examine the proposition that a person displaced private motives onto the p o l i t i c a l domain, where they are o b j e c t i f i e d . In the present study, a Q-sort was developed from Holland's (1973) typology of people and work s e t t i n g s , and applied i n the same fashion. 6 Q-methodology or Q-technique was devised by Stephenson (1953) and was shown to be d i s s i m i l a r to the method often used to sample large populations. This method was c a l l e d R-methodology (Stephenson, 1953). The Q-sort and p r i n c i p a l components analysis are methods included under the umbrella of Q-methodology. A Q-sort i s a sophisticated form of rating and rank ordering stimuli and i s an i p s a t i v e measurement (Brown and Brenner, 1972). It i s an e x c e l l e n t exploratory technique with a h e u r i s t i c q u a l i t y (Kerlinger, 1972). It may also point toward a l t e r n a t i v e t h e o r e t i c a l views and p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r future research (Kerlinger, 1972). Participants i n t h i s study were asked to sort 46 adjectives selected from Holland's (1973) typology using the dimensions of most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and l e a s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the s o r t was a forced quasi-normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . Participants were then pre-sented with the results of the Q-sort and were interviewed to provide further subjective v a l i d a t i o n and elaboration of the r e s u l t s . The Q-sort i s used when the emphasis i s on the measurement of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s i n g l e i n d i v i d u a l s , and i t allows one to make complex comparisons of sets of measures within the data of one i n d i v i d -ual (Brown and Brenner, 1972). Thus, the Q-sort has unique value in allowing a researcher to investigate the subjective viewpoint of people. 7 CHAPTER TWO Lit e r a t u r e Review The aim of th i s chapter i s to review l i t e r a t u r e which i s related to t h i s p o s i t i o n . F i r s t , the general way family i s viewed by vocational th e o r i s t s w i l l be described. Second, there are three general types of studies that have attempted to show how family influences occupational choice. This section w i l l review empirical evidence f o r these three types of influences. Third, r o l e theory has been very i n f l u e n t i a l i n career development theories, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r Super's (1963) approach. This section w i l l review evidence that people choose occupational roles that are compatible with s e l f - d e f i n i t i o n , e i t h e r actual or i d e a l i z e d . Fourthly, a single study concerned with role displacement w i l l be d i s -cussed i n d e t a i l since i t provides d i r e c t support f o r the po s i t i o n above, and o f f e r s a paradigm f o r research. F i n a l l y , the sing l e case study w i l l be described followed by a description of the Q-technique. Family has been defined by Goldenberg and Goldenberg (1980) as a: "Natural s o c i a l system with properties a l l i t s own, one that has evolved a set of r u l e s , r o l e s , a power structure, forms of communication, and ways of negotiation and problem solving that allows various tasks to be performed e f f e c t i v e l y " (p. 3). Osipow (1973) c r i t i c i z e s vocational t h e o r i s t s f o r f a i l i n g to account f o r the e x p l i c i t r ole of family i n career development. T r a i t f a c t o r , needs, values and behavioral personality approaches rarely i n v e s t i g a t e the ro l e of family influences. Values and needs are, how-8 ever, seen as being shaped i n some fashion by the family context (Osipow, 1973). Super (1963) stated that the family i s c r i t i c a l i n helping the formation of a person's self-concept and i n providing a place where new roles can be t r i e d out. Psychoanalytical thinkers be-l i e v e that family structure and member i n t e r a c t i o n are great influences on an i n d i v i d u a l ' s psychosexual development (Maddi, 1976). Roe (1957) stated that the family i s c r u c i a l i n determining the kinds of i n t e r -actions with people that a c h i l d w i l l learn to develop. Social systems th e o r i s t s such as Ginzberg also agree that the family plays a major role i n determining the s p e c i f i c s of the career decisions an in d i v i d u a l w i l l make. The family determines our s o c i a l c l a s s , f i n a n c i a l resources and attitudes towards work (Osipow, 1973). Osipow (1973) stated that the family influences our educational, economic, hygienic and medical resources, s o c i a l support and reinforce-ment as well as providing a context f o r work. In addition, f a m i l i a l factors are important i n i n t r a - i n d i v i d u a l variables that have a genetic component such as physical and psychological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Psychological t h e o r i s t s are seen as ignoring social-system factors such as the environment, c u l t u r a l expectations, s o c i a l c l a s s , family background, race and sex (Osipow, 1973). A psychological theory which does account f o r social-system factors i s the family systems perspective. In a recent a r t i c l e , Bratcher (1982) noted that although the systems model has usually been used with dysfunctional f a m i l i e s , i t could be used i n examining career choice. Basic assumptions are that: (1) the family i s the primary and the most powerful emotional system that people ever belong to; (2) the family shapes and continues to determine the course and outcome of i t s members l i v e s ; (3) r e l a t i o n s h i within the family tend to be r e c i p r o c a l , patterned and r e p e t i t i v e ; and (4) each member of the family affects and i s effected by the other family members. Families are seen as developing operating p r i n c i p l e s or rules that make constancy and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y possible (Bratcher, 1982). These rules tend to have been passed down from the spouses' o r i g i n a l f a m i l i e s and while they can be alte r e d by family members, usually are not i n conscious awareness (Bratcher, 1982). Family myths also a f f e c t the behavior of family members and l i k e rules prescribe behavior. How ever, unlike r u l e s , myths also predict outcome. Rules and myths help a family gain somewhat predictable r e l a t i o n s h i p s and environments. The establishment and maintenance of roles i s affected by the family's rules and myths. Roles, i n turn, provide the basis f o r the development and maintenance of family t r a d i t i o n s . Traditions help a family develop a "character" as well as providing a l i n k to past and future generations (Bratcher, 1982). "The importance placed on money, r e l i g i o n , p restige, status or service to others r e f l e c t s the way the family rules and myths have operated to define and sustain family values and t r a d i t i o n s . This w i l l be perhaps the most important variable to be considered when child r e n begin to think i n terms of a career choice" (Bratcher, 1982, p. 88). 10 The more a family system encourages independent thinking, the less d i f f i c u l t y and more f l e x i b i l i t y a member w i l l presumably experience i n s e l e c t i n g a career. An in d i v i d u a l i n a more r i g i d family may have fewer options (Bratcher, 1982). This section has put family roles and occupational roles generally i n t o a common context. The next section examines more s p e c i f i c re-search concerning family influences on occupational choice. The Influence of Family on Occupational Choice This section w i l l be divided into three parts: (a) e f f e c t s of interpersonal relationships with parents upon occupational s e l e c t i o n ; (b) the extent to which children follow the same occupations as t h e i r parents; and (c) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with parents. (a) Effects of Interpersonal Relationships With Parents Upon Occupational Selection Ann Roe (1956) was one of the f i r s t t h e o r i s t s to discuss the early determinants of occupational choice. She suggested that the dir e c t i o n s we take i n l i f e are determined by a developing pattern of need prima-cies and that t h i s pattern of psychic energies helps determine the f i e l d s we w i l l apply ourselves to. Roe (1957) described three dominant patterns i n the home: 1. Emotional concentration on the c h i l d ranging from overpro-t e c t i o n to overdemanding. 2. Avoidance of the c h i l d with the continuum ranging from emo-t i o n a l r e j e c t i o n to neglect of the c h i l d . The l a t t e r i s seen 11 as less psychologically damaging to the c h i l d . 3. Acceptance of the c h i l d ranging from casual acceptance to loving acceptance. As a r e s u l t of the dominant family atmosphere, i t was hypothesized (Roe, 1957) that the c h i l d becomes oriented e i t h e r towards persons or towards non-persons. Roe (1957) also claimed that the c h i l d ' s develop-ment of basic i n t e r e s t s , aptitudes and values within the family, w i l l be manifest i n a l l areas of his l i f e , including vocational choice. Roe (1956) categorized occupations as s e r v i c e , business contract, general c u l t u r a l organizations, arts and entertainment, techn o l o g i c a l , outdoor and science. Many people who choose s e r v i c e , business contract, general c u l t u r a l organizations, arts and entertainment w i l l tend to be oriented towards persons. Those choosing technological, outdoor and science occupations are seen as being oriented towards non-persons. Research supporting Roe's hypothesis has been equivocal. Grigg (1959) and Utton (1962) investigated whether women i n people oriented occupations and non-people oriented occupations d i f f e r e d on childhood experience rating s c a l e s . No s i g n i f i c a n t differences in perceptions of family atmosphere were found. Roe (1962) responded to the apparent lack of support f o r her theory by noting that Grigg (1959) had erred i n considering nursing as a service rather than as a s c i e n t i f i c occupation. She questioned the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the scales both studies had used and r e i t e r a t e d that the most important f a c t o r in vocational development i s the i n t e r a c t i o n between a c h i l d and i t s parents. Roe concluded that 12 her theory may apply only to men since vocational development was more complex and less understood f o r women. Other studies t e s t i n g Roe's theory were done with male college students, but again the results generally did not support the theory. Hagen (1960), Switzer, Grigg, M i l l e r and Young (1962) and Byers, Forrest and Jaccasia (1969) found no differences i n the proportion of towards-people or towards-non-people occupations i n any category of family atmos-phere. The researchers noted that careers may have been m i s c l a s s i f i e d and family atmosphere may have been inaccurately gauged. It was noted (Switzer et a l . , 1962) that the scales they used correlated .63 and that general factors such as o v e r a l l attitudes towards parents or to-wards t e s t i n g were being measured. Hagen (1960) suggested that within occupational c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , there are a wide variety of i n t e r e s t s and o r i e n t a t i o n s . This range would serve to mask the influences of family atmosphere. Studies using a younger population of j u n i o r high and senior high school students (Kinnane and Pable, 1962; Green and Parker, 1969) hypothesized that the family influences i t s members by providing r o l e models f o r work and play, and values around s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g . Results y i e l d e d low c o r r e l a t i o n s and did not substantiate Roe's theory. These researchers also suggested that the questionnaires were not s u f f i c i e n t l y r e l i a b l e or v a l i d . They also stated, following Hagen (1960) that i t might be how a job i s seen, rather than the job i t s e l f which i s im-portant, since the range of interpersonal contact i n a job i s too large to be dichotomized into towards person/towards non-person. 13 Roe's theory has tended to be supported by psychoanalytic r e t r o -spective interview data. Even then, only weak support f o r Roe's theory has been found (Nachmann, 1960). This l a t t e r study had severe method-o l o g i c a l problems. The subjects were not chosen randomly and the i n t e r -viewers were f a m i l i a r with the hypotheses. It i s p l a u s i b l e that Nachmann uncovered class differences rather than differences i n family atmosphere. In summary then, Roe's predictions have not been substantiated. Many of the basic assumptions of Roe's theory seem weak. Family atmos-phere has proven d i f f i c u l t to define and measure. It also seems un-l i k e l y that there i s j u s t one family atmosphere or that i t i s the same over time. Person and non-person jobs seems overly s i m p l i s t i c since people can structure many i f not most jobs to increase or decrease contact with other people. Of p a r t i c u l a r relevance to t h i s study, the assumption that a family variable such as emotional concentration (even i f i t were stable or singular or dominant) leads to one e f f e c t , appears how to be an o v e r - s i m p l i f i c a t i o n . If a person i s viewed as an active synthesizer of family processes and an active s t r i v e r within, a family composition of r o l e s , rather than a passive r e c i p i e n t , then i t i s more l i k e l y that a family pattern would involve many possible directions of influence. For example, a neglected c h i l d might l a t e r enact neglecting others or being neglected. He or she might s t r i v e to overcome early patterns of neglect by taking an opposing r o l e p o s i t i o n of one who nurtures or i s nurtured. Or neglect might be disregarded as one enacts other family dramas. According to the present thesis there i s no simple cause-effect r e l a t i o n s h i p between a family pattern and an 14 outcome. Rather, a person acquires a repertoire of roles and dramatic compositions to be enacted, and a person w i l l s t r i v e to enact those that are perhaps more esteemed and more r e a l i s t i c and compatible with s e i f - d e f i n i t i o n . (b) The Extent to Which Children Follow the Same Occupations as Their Parents Jensen and Kirchener (1955) and Werts (1968) found that college males tend to follow t h e i r fathers' general type of occupation e s p e c i a l l y i n the medical, s o c i a l science and physical science f i e l d s . Jensen and Kirchener (1955) suggested that when th i s did not happen, sons tended to move up the occupational ladder. This f i n d i n g was supported by Hanson (1965), and Mowesian, Heath and Rothney (1966) who found that high school students who had made an occupational choice, had occupa-t i o n a l preferences which were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than e i t h e r t h e i r mothers' or t h e i r fathers' occupational l e v e l s . These data provide evidence that children tend to aspire towards occupations that are s i m i l a r to a parent's occupation i n f i e l d and l e v e l . However, since the participants were students and thus reported probable occupation, we do not know i f the parents' influence i s as great when compared to the ch i l d ' s actual occupation. In add i t i o n , the data shed no l i g h t on how or why t h i s t r a n s f e r occurs. From the present t h e s i s , these hypotheses are too strongly framed. A c h i l d might be attracted to occupations that o f f e r scope f o r a mean-ingful dramatic enactment learned i n the family, but th i s does not pre-clude occupations that diverge from a parent's occupation. The esteem 15 placed on family roles i s apt to influence level of occupational a s p i r a t i o n , but not to the exclusion of other p o s s i b i l i t i e s . There are many roles within a family repetoire of roles which a c h i l d , f o r various reasons, might s t r i v e to adopt. (c) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n With Parents Brunkan (1965) and Hollander (1972) examined whether occupational i n t e r e s t s were influenced by parents. Brunkan (1965) stated that i t appeared that males i d e n t i f y more with t h e i r fathers than with t h e i r mothers. Hollander (1972) elaborated on t h i s f i n d i n g and suggested that the maternal influence may be more s i g n i f i c a n t f o r high school students while the paternal influence may be more s i g n i f i c a n t i n college. Brunkan (1965) concluded by hypothesizing that parental attitudes may influence an i n d i v i d u a l ' s choice of occupational function more than choice of f i e l d . This might explain the more subtle influence a family has on occupational choice. This r e l a t i o n s h i p may be obscured i f we search f o r an exact matching of parents' with childrens' occupations. In three separate studies undertaken to investigate the modeling e f f e c t , Jackson (1974), Grandy and Stahmann (1974) and Basow and Howe (1979) hypothesized that: (1) psychological i d e n t i f i c a t i o n helps ch i l d r e n learn appropriate s o c i a l roles through modeling the behavior of s i g n i f i c a n t adults; and (2) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n plays an important role i n the occupational aspirations and decisions of adolescents. It was found (Jackson, 1974) that high i d e n t i f i c a t i o n adolescent males had higher l e v e l s of a s p i r a t i o n , more self-confidence and greater s a t i s -f a c t i o n with t h e i r high school experiences than did low i d e n t i f i c a t i o n 16 males. Grandy and Stahmann (1974) reported that sons' personality types resembled those of t h e i r fathers but not t h e i r mothers. For daughters, relationships existed both between mother-daughter and father-daughter. Basow and Howe (1979) agreed that parents were the most i n f l u e n t i a l model on both sexes but stated that females were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more affected by female models than were males. Since a parent's role i s apt to be high in the family esteem system, and more like f l y perhaps to be encouraged, i t seems pl a u s i b l e that children might often be influenced to s t r i v e f o r an occupational r o l e s i m i l a r to a parent's. However, th i s i s merely a normative ex-pectation rather than a serious account of how family influences occupa-t i o n a l r o l e enactment of c h i l d r e n . Role Theory: The Revelation of S e l f Through Occupational Choice This section w i l l be divided into two parts: (a) self-concept; and (b) s t a b i l i t y of self-concept. (a) Self-concept Vocational development and choice have also been explained"with the use of self-concept theory. Super (1963) stated that an i n d i v i d u a l puts into occupational terminology his idea of the kind of person he i s and i n entering an occupation seeks to implement a concept of himself. Once a person i s established in an occupation, s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n i s achi eved. 17 Support f o r Super's personality theory came from studies of men already working i n the f i e l d . Schutz and Blocher (1961) found that a male's l e v e l of occupational choice and as p i r a t i o n r e f l e c t s his evalua-t i o n of himself, his feelings about his personal worth and his s a t i s -f a c t i o n with himself. This fi n d i n g was supported by Oppenheimer (1966) and Hunt (1967) who found that men prefer occupations that are congruent with t h e i r self-concepts. Oppenheimer (1966) also found that s e l f -esteem was p o s i t i v e l y related to the degree of s i m i l a r i t y between s e l f -concepts and occupational preferences. This r e l a t i o n s h i p was not l i n e a r . Super's postulates were also supported by Morrison (1962), Healy (1968) and Z i e g l e r (1970) who studied students' incorporation scores (the degree of s i m i l a r i t y between s e l f - r a t i n g and occupational r a t i n g ) . The studies demonstrated that students i d e n t i f i e d more with t h e i r chosen occupation than with other occupations. Wheeler and Carnes (1968) extended these studies and reported that the congruency between an i n d i v i d u a l ' s self-concept and his occu-pational stereotype of his probable occupation was s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater than the congruency between the in d i v i d u a l ' s self-concept and his occu-pational stereotype of his ideal occupation. Furthermore, the ideal self-concept was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more congruent with the stereotype probable occupation than with the stereotype ideal occupation. This may be be-cause the person sees the probable occupation as a more viable means of achieving s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n . This f i n d i n g was~elaborated by Burgoyne (1979) who suggested that adolescents use the ideal s e l f as a c r i t e r i o n when deciding upon an 18 i d e a l l y preferred occupation. If a person r e a l i z e s that she/he w i l l not be able to a t t a i n the ideal job, she/he may search f o r a job which w i l l f i t what she/he expects to be l i k e . The expected s e l f then serves as a c r i t e r i o n . Burgoyne (1979) noted that Holland and Super need to account for the f a c t that i n making career choices, people have several s e l f -concepts a v a i l a b l e to them. In conclusion, i t can be seen that Super's theory has received empirical support. Career choice appears to be seen by the chooser as a way to implement his/her self-concept (Osipow, 1973). Self-conception, whether actual or i d e a l , i s a general form of ro l e conception, and can be treated i n the same manner. What i s lacking i n t h i s type of research i s the family context of roles that would enable one to place self-conception within a meaningful context of role enactment. (b) S t a b i l i t y of Self-concept O'Hara and Tiedeman (1959) and Isabelle and Dick (1969) found that self-concepts i n the areas of i n t e r e s t s , aptitudes and general values are c l a r i f i e d as a male matures. Stephenson (1961), Schuh (1966) and Lee and Doran (1973) extended t h i s f i n d i n g and found support f o r the notion of a c r y s t a l l i z e d s e l f -concept once a person had graduated from college or was ensconced i n an occupation. Fretz (1962) also supported Super's notion of a stable s e l f -concept and argued that since school hi s t o r y and adjustment were the most e f f i c i e n t predictors of career preferences, human c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 19 show remarkable s t a b i l i t y . Again, evidence f o r the s t a b i l i t y of self-conception i s valuable but l i m i t e d . From the present t h e s i s , self-conception i s stripped of the context which makes i t meaningful. I n d i r e c t l y , i t might be argued that since self-conception i s reasonably st a b l e , people rather success-f u l l y structure or define l i f e s i t u a t i o n s (others' roles f o r instance) i n ways that support a p a r t i c u l a r role enactment. If so, the basis for s t a b i l i t y i s a successful metaphoric transformation of family patterns to the world. Role Transformation and Displacement In an intensive case study of a s i n g l e woman, Mrs. A., Baas and Brown (1973) showed that p o l i t i c a l figures were a displacement of family and s e l f r o l e s . Using a 40 item Q-sort, Mrs. A. described s e l f roles (e.g., the kind of person I would l i k e to be, the kind of person my father would l i k e me to be, e t c . ) , family roles or members (mother, father, etc.) and p o l i t i c a l figures (Governor Wallace, President Nixon, e t c . ) . A p r i n c i p a l components analysis with varimax r o t a t i o n showed that the 30 objects described through Q-sorting could be reduced to j u s t four components or basic patterns of d e s c r i p t i o n , each of which contained members from the three domains of s e l f , family and p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e s . They concluded that the strong relationships among members of the three domains were consistent with the hypothesis that experiences in the family enable one to r e l a t e to the external world. That i s , the repertoire of family roles appear to be displaced or transformed to the p o l i t i c a l domain, and serve as containers or categories f o r an 20 understanding of and r e l a t i n g to that domain. This study i s important f o r the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n in two ways. F i r s t , i t provides d i r e c t empirical support f o r the displacement of family roles onto an external domain. However, i t d i f f e r s i n one minor and one major way. Of less importance, Baas and Brown study p o l i t i c a l figures rather than occupational r o l e s . Of more importance, the p o l i t i c a l domain i n t h e i r study involved Mrs. A. l i k e a spectator rather than a p a r t i c i p a n t . In an occupation, not only i s one a c t i v e l y engaged with others i n occupational r o l e s , but one enacts a role oneself. Second, the intensive design which Baas and Brown employed serves as a paradigm for the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n (to be covered i n d e t a i l l a t e r ) . This section w i l l be divided into two parts: (a) s i n g l e case studies; and (b) Q-technique. (a) Single Case Studies The s i n g l e case study i s an example of an observational stand-point that i s intensive i n nature (Baas and Brown, 1973). Lasswell (1938) distinguished between observational standpoints that are r e l a t i v e l y intensive and those which are r e l a t i v e l y extensive. An example of ex-tensive research i s the opinion p o l l where in d i v i d u a l s are interviewed b r i e f l y and are asked a v a r i e t y of questions f o r which simple responses are obtained. Contact between interviewer and respondent tends to be b r i e f and cursory (Brown, 1974). The p s y c h i a t r i c interview where a s i n g l e person (or a small number of cases) i s interviewed i n depth over the course of several sessions and where a large number of complex responses are e l i c i t e d , i s an example of the intensive approach (Baas 21 and Brown, 1973). Chassan (1979) stated that extensive designs c a l l f o r normative measurements i n which s t a t i s t i c a l norms are obtained across groups of respondents. The intensive approach uses i p s a t i v e measurement that focuses on the w i t h i n - i n d i v i d u a l pattern of scores (Chassan, 1979). Shapiro (1966) stated that since the s i t e of the process of change i s i n an i n d i v i d u a l organism, observations based on group averages and variances might be misleading. It i s suggested (Chassan, 1979) that i t i s often d i f f i c u l t to narrow down p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l variables associated with a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t i n an i n v e s t i g a t i o n based upon an extensive model. The s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t obtained may be a r e f l e c t i o n of a true e f f e c t i n a very few or even i n j u s t a s i n g l e patient (Chassan, 1979). Brown (1974) stated that the d i f f i c u l t i e s associated with inten-sive analysis have centered around problems of p r e d i c t i o n , r e l i a b i l i t y and g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y . The i n d i v i d u a l person has become associated with the notion of "case." "The reconceptualization of 'case' to r e f e r to 'the occurrence of a behavioral event' enables us to regard the i n d i v i d -ual person as a complex configuration of events, and, analogous to the laws of s t a t i s t i c a l inference across many (extensive), to inquire into the lawfulness of the manifold of events that i s the i n d i v i d u a l ( i n t e n s i v e ) " (Brown, 1974, p. 5). This study i s interested i n discovering the generating rules underlying the displacement of primary group roles onto the world of work. It i s therefore a foundational study. These rules may be applied 22 idiosyncratical ly (Baas and Brown, 1973). In contrast, Roe (1957) was interested in normative information and prediction. Some of the confusion concerning intensive designs may arise out of a misconception concerning the type of sc ient i f i c law with which we are dealing. Herbst (1970) defined a sc ient i f i c law as "a statement of a specif ic type of invariance in the conceptual representation of phenomena" (p. 3). He suggested the existence of three types of laws. 1. Type A is invariant in that functions and parameters are constants. It is possible to use sampling techniques and random samples may be taken. Following Herbst (1970), Baas and Brown (1973) cite Boyle's law as an instance (PV s T = R). The parameter R remains con-stant because of the functional relationships between temperature, volume and pressure. Since gases act homeogeneously, one may use averaging techniques. These types of laws are found in the physical sciences, but only rarely. 2. Type B laws occur when the functional form of the relat ion-ship remains constant but the parameters are specif ic (Baas and Brown, 1973) "Y=Ax" might be the relationship between heat (X) and length of Rod (Y) where (A) is the heat salient characteristic specif ic to each metal. In order to correctly analyze the phenomena, one would have to use single case analysis since averaging a l l metals together would mask the existence of Type B laws. Only those metals with the same heat sal ient characteristic (A) could be averaged together. Baas and Brown (1973) suggest that this type of law is found infrequently in the social sci ences. 23 3. In Type C laws, Baas and Brown (1973) suggest that the functional r e l a t i o n s h i p s and parameters are both s p e c i f i c but the gener-ating rules f o r demonstrating possible functional relationships are constant. Lasswell (1960) stated i n his formula f o r p o l i t i c a l man that private motives (p) become displaced (d) onto the public arena, through a transformation process {\) and are r a t i o n a l i z e d (r) i n terms of the common good. In t h i s case, averaging procedures should not be used since private motives vary, displacements are i d i o s y n c r a t i c and there may be many r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s , however p i d j r may be un i v e r s a l l y applicable i d i o s y n c r a t i c a l l y ! "...the only things which can be said to be invar i a n t from case to case are the rules according to which the lawful behavior can be demonstrated" (Baas and Brown, 1973, p. 174). In the s o c i a l sciences, laws tend to take the Type C form and as such,intensive analysis may be the preferred method. Intensive analysis " . . . i s best equipped to analyze i n t e n s i v e l y those s i n g l e cases which present themselves—to begin determining the outer l i m i t s and inter n a l workings of functional r e l a t i o n s h i p s , to f i n d out the possible symbolic meanings of various objects, and the d i f f e r e n t ways i n which objects can be used i n r e l a t i n g to 'the world outside.' Tasks such as these do not require large numbers of respondents at the outset, but properly come p r i o r to ac t u a r i a l i n q u i r i e s " (Baas and Brown, 1973, p. 183). For example, one of Roe's (1957) t h e o r e t i c a l hypotheses i s that people who are reared i n loving, protecting, and demanding homes w i l l become person oriented rather than non-person oriented. This, i f con-24 firmed, would be a Type A law. That extremely lovin g , protecting, and demanding homes lead one defensively to become non-person oriented merely changes the form of the r e l a t i o n s h i p from l i n e a r to non-linear. However, when she (Roe and Seigelman, 1964) suggests that a b i l i t i e s might determine o r i e n t a t i o n more than family climate and need f u l f i l l -ment, then she i s moving toward a Type B law. For instance, l i k e d i f f e r -ent metals, people with d i f f e r e n t a b i l i t i e s might manifest d i f f e r e n t forms of the same curve. In t h i s case, random sampling i s no longer appropriate f o r i t would camouflage the discovery of such a law. By contrast, i n t h i s study, i t i s only assumed that a pattern of family roles and r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l be displaced onto work roles and r e l a t i o n s h i p s . A dominating father might be displaced as a domineering or submissive work f i g u r e . In r e l a t i o n to t h i s r o l e , a person's r o l e might be equally domineering or submissive. If people with a domineer-ing father were averaged, as i n a random sample, t h i s Type C law would be missed. However, t h i s study i s more complicated than t h i s as families o f f e r ranges of roles and r e l a t i o n s h i p s . It i s assumed that a person w i l l displace some roles and relationships rather than others, perhaps due to p r o j e c t i o n , preference, or the nature of the work s i t u a t i o n . But families o f f e r a large number of p o s s i b i l i t i e s and i t i s only assumed that work roles and relationships w i l l be a1 re-enactment of a subset of family roles and r e l a t i o n s h i p s . As an exploratory inquiry, t h i s study i s intended not only to explore t h i s hypothesis but to provide more s p e c i f i c formulations f o r future studies. 25 (b) Q-Technique Stephenson (1953), who pioneered the use of the Q-methodology, or Q-technique, stated that the "Q-technique provides a systematic way to handle a person's retrospections, his r e f l e c t i o n s about himself and others, his i n t r o j e c t i o n s and projections, and much else of an apparent subjective nature" (p. 86). The Q-technique i s a sophisticated form of rating and rank order-ing stimuli and i s an i p s a t i v e measurement. Means and standard devia-tions are the same for a l l i n d i v i d u a l s (Brown and Brenner, 1972). It i s used when the emphasis i s on the measurement of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s i n g l e i n d i v i d u a l s . The Q-technique enables one to make complex comparisons of sets of measures within the data of one indi v i d u a l and helps point toward a l t e r n a t i v e t h e o r e t i c a l views as well as p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r further research (Brown and Brenner, 1972). The Q-sort i s one of a variety of methods included i n Q-methodology. In Q-sorting, a person, f o r example, Mr. Jones, can demonstrate his overall view of some object or person, say Miss Brown, by ranking a sample of adjectives or t r a i t s from "most l i k e Miss Brown" to "most unlike Miss Brown." The ranking usually ranges from +5 (most l i k e ) to -5 (most unlike) (Baas and Brown, 1973). The t r a i t s that are to be sorted are operational expressions of the aspects of the theory i n which the inv e s t i g a t o r i s interested (Brown and Brenner, 1972). The t r a i t s are d i s t r i b u t e d i n a quasi-normal d i s t r i b u t i o n ; those at the extremes of the d i s t r i b u t i o n are most s i g n i f i c a n t ( p o s i t i v e l y and nega-t i v e l y ) while those i n the centre are less s a l i e n t (Stephenson, 1953). 26 "Mr. Jones" can perform a Q-sort description of each of his primary-secondary objects, and the r e s u l t i n g Q-sorts, as cycle 1 trans-formations of Mr. Jones' thoughts and feelings can then be recycled (retransformed) i n terms of the rules governing the s t a t i s t i c a l opera-tions of c o r r e l a t i o n and inverted f a c t o r a n a l y s i s " (Baas and Brown, 1973, p. 178). Correlations provide a description of r e l a t i o n s which r e f l e c t subjective meaning while f a c t o r analysis reduces the data gathered to one or more containers or types. Both these s t a t i s t i c a l operations are l i k e l y to be r e l a t i v e l y stable (Hilden, 1958). The Q-technique has commonly been assumed to be a r e l i a b l e measure (Fairweather, 1981) and also has been found (Livson and Nichols, 1955; Frank, 1956; Hilden, 1958; and Fairweather, 1981) to be a r e l i a b l e method. R e l i a b i l i t y can be defined as whether a measuring instrument con s i s t e n t l y measures whatever i t i s supposed to be measuring (Fairweather, 1981). Determining r e l i a b i l i t y using alternate forms, matched items or s p l i t halves i s not possible when using the Q-technique since i n the usual Q-sort experiment, a person indicates the degree to which each item of a group describes or corresponds to the object or value being examined (Hilden, 1958). "In i t s broadest sense, r e l i a -b i l i t y i s not to be conceived of simply as the c o r r e l a t i o n between two applications of the same instrument. The concept of r e l i a b i l i t y i s embraced in a most fundamental sense when there i s consistency between unbiased samples from a c l e a r l y defined universe and between these samples and the universe" (Hilden, 1958, p. 47). 27 In summary, a variety of studies provide i n d i r e c t support f o r the hypothesis that a person's occupational role w i l l be strongly related to family roles (which include o n e s e l f ) . However, there i s presently no empirical support for the hypothesis that occupational roles within the context of a person's occupational role w i l l be r e l a t e d to family r o l e s . In general, the evidence suggests that family influences occupational r o l e , but i t i s unclear how the influence takes place. Cochran's ratio n a l e provides one testable account of how i t might be ex-plained. 28 CHAPTER THREE Methodology Description of Subjects In contrast to extensive designs where a sample of people with a given c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s required, the s i n g l e case intensive design requires examples, that i s , t e s t cases, and thus d i v e r s i t y becomes an important c r i t e r i o n f o r s e l e c t i o n (Brown, 1974). Through contacts, 10 adults, 5 men and 5 women, ranging i n age from 23 to 62, were re c r u i t e d f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s study. A l l had a minimum of at l e a s t one year's experience i n t h e i r present job. Subjects were selected to repre-sent a diverse range of occupations from parking checker and hairdresser to lawyer and a r t i s t . The experimentor i s unaware of any possible factors that might suggest that the subjects were i n any way unusual or d i f f e r e n t from the general population. Q-Sorts A study involving Q-sorts requires two types of sampling. F i r s t , what w i l l be the subjects or objects of judgments, using Q-sort items? Second, what w i l l constitute the Q-sort items that are used i n judging subjects or objects? Subjects f o r Q-sorts Following Baas and Brown (1973), three domains were sampled: the s e l f domain, the primary objects domain (family of o r i g i n ) , and the secondary objects domain ( i n t h i s case, work). For the s e l f domain, 29 three subjects of judgment were selected f o r th i s study on the basis of relevance to the research question: myself, ideal s e l f , and s e l f as son or daughter. For the primary objects domain, two subjects of judgment (mother and father) were supplied and the rest were e l i c i t e d . For the secondary objects domain, two subjects of judgment were supplied (ideal work r o l e and s e l f as work role) and the rest were e l i c i t e d . While i t i s possible to rather exhaustively e l i c i t the people involved i n one's family and work, such a procedure would include many people who are rather unimportant. In accordance with the aim of th i s study, family members and work-related roles were selected on the basis of relevance and salience. In one to two interviews, subjects discussed t h e i r families and work r e l a t i o n s . These interviews were guided by one central question: who i s important to you and why? While a l l people considered important to a person were included, the experimentor also included roles that were highly relevant. For example, a hai r -dresser might place importance on co-workers to the neglect of customers. However, customers were included simply because they are such a promi-nent part of that job. In each case involving a general role such as customers, the subject would s e l e c t one p a r t i c u l a r customer to Q-sort, who seemed to best represent what a customer meant to him or her. In this way, each subject generated an i d i o s y n c r a t i c l i s t of people to Q-sort. There i s reasonable assurance that these l i s t s i n -clude people who were relevant and important ( e i t h e r p o s i t i v e l y or negatively) to the subjects. 30 Q-Sort Items The unique and most challenging task of Q-sort construction i s to define a universe of items and to s e l e c t a representative sample of items from that universe. The universe of items f o r t h i s study i s composed of a l l t r a i t s that describe people. In the largest e f f o r t to catalogue t h i s population, A l l p o r t and Odbert (1936) l i s t e d 17,963 words or phrases describing t r a i t s of people, which indicates how unwieldly t h i s universe of items r e a l l y i s . Various attempts have been made to reduce t h i s universe to manageable proportions, the most notable of which resulted i n the Sixteen Personality Factors Test ( C a t t e l l , E l s e r , and Tatsuoka, 1970). However, while i t might have proved s u i t a b l e f o r t h i s study, the relevance of items to vocational concerns i s not*en-t i r e l y c l e a r . Accordingly, a manageable universe of items was sought among theor i s t s of career development. In the psychology of career development, one of the most compre-hensive and distinguished theories i s that of John Holland (1973). While there are many distinguished, competing t h e o r i s t s , none o f f e r as complete or well-defined a universe of descriptions as Holland. Accord-ing to Holland, there are s i x major personality types: r e a l i s t i c , i n v e s t i g a t i v e , a r t i s t i c , s o c i a l , e n t e r p r i s i n g , and conventional. People can be described by varying combinations of these ideal types. In his book (1973) and his manual f o r the Vocational Preference Inventory (1978), Holland has thoroughly described each type and l i s t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c adjectives that would apply to each type. 31 In t h i s type of study, one does not randomly sample a population of people but rather samples a universe of items. From these d e s c r i p t i o n s , a comprehensive sample of 46 items were selected which characterized the s i x personality types. Some descrip-tions were alt e r e d to remove s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y bias, and some items were modified to be more broadly applicable or to be phrased i n more ordinary language that would be understood by subjects. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the f i r s t subject used a Q-sort of 48 items which included the adjectives of masculine and feminine. These two were dropped since they were confused with male and female, and consequently lacked adequate scope. That i s , men were judged masculine and women were judged feminine automatically on the basis of sex rather than personality. Last, items were selected to be p o s i t i v e or at le a s t rather neutral to avoid a halo e f f e c t and to promote more discernment. The 46 items are l i s t e d i n Table 1. It should be noted (Baas and Brown, 1973) that these adjectives are not measures of the values i n the sc a l i n g sense; they are used as rough c r i t e r i a so that the in d i v i d u a l can use them during the Q-sorting sessions. Each t r a i t i s then typed on a small card f o r use i n s o r t i n g . Instructions were as follows: (1) Take the deck of cards, read each card separately and put i t down on the table i n front of you. Spread out the cards and tr y to form a general impression of the attrib u t e s stated on the cards. 32 Table 1 T r a i t s Used i n the Q-Sort of the Study p r a c t i c a l hard headed independent r e a l i s t i c i n t e l l e c t u a l introverted conventional r a t i o n a l i n t e l l i g e n t blunt ambi tious precise responsible extroverted active p e r s i s t e n t s e i f - c o n t r o l l e d pleasure seeking sociable conforming a r t i s t i c i d e a l i s t i c orderly creative trustworthy status-oriented expressive mature f l e x i b l e emotional caring domi nant imaginative af f e c t i o n a t e enthusiastic sensi t i ve understanding appeali ng s e i f - i nsightful helpful adventurous competitive moral persuasive masculine* del i be rate spontaneous feminine* * Dropped a f t e r f i r s t p a r t i c i p a n t . 33 (2) Now pick up the cards, make a deck and s h u f f l e the cards i n the deck. (3) Now ( f o r example) sort these cards to describe your mother, as you see your mother today, ranging from those that are most l i k e your mother to those that are l e a s t l i k e your mother. (4) Place the cards into roughly three equal p i l e s as follows: most l i k e ; doubtfully l i k e ; and least l i k e . (5) Sort the cards as follows: 2 3 5 8 10 8 5 3 2. (6) (a) Start with p i l e one (those most l i k e your mother). (b) Place the two most l i k e cards to your f a r l e f t . (c) Place the three next most l i k e cards next to the l a s t . (d) Place the next f i v e most l i k e cards next to i t . (e) Place the next eight most l i k e cards next to the l a s t three. (f) Repeat with p i l e three (those most unlike your mother). (g) Place the doubtfully l i k e cards (10) i n the middle. Note: I f necessary i t i s possible to draw cards from the middle p i l e . (7) Check the sorting and make any changes you wish but r e t a i n the required number i n each category. Procedure Each p a r t i c i p a n t performed the Q-sorting i n two to three sessions l a s t i n g from one hour to two hours, depending upon the number of roles to be sorted. At the beginning of each session she/he was interviewed to discover which roles were applicable to each domain and why. The 34 pa r t i c i p a n t was then asked to rate each role on the Q-sort using the 46 t r a i t s drawn from Holland (1978). For example: "Sort these cards to describe y o u r s e l f as you see yo u r s e l f today, ranging from those that are most l i k e you to those l e a s t l i k e you." The same procedure was followed f o r each role to be sorted. Following each Q-sorting, the p a r t i c i p a n t and interviewed engaged i n a dialogue about his/her rationale f o r Q-sorting the way he/she did. Any comments were noted down. The cards were then shuf f l e d before the next Q-sort. Method of Analysis A f t e r the Q-sorting was completed, the Q-scores were assembled into patterns of so r t i n g corresponding to d i f f e r e n t roles f o r each per-son. The roles were then i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d to obtain the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n matrix of roles f o r each p a r t i c i p a n t . The c o r r e l a t i o n matrices are found i n Appendix B. Each r o l e has 46 ratings of t r a i t s and i t i s these that are correlated. A c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t indicates the degree to which two subjects of judgment correspond. The matrix of i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s was then submitted to f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . A p r i n c i p a l components axis s o l u t i o n was f i r s t obtained, and then the p r i n c i p a l components structure was submitted to varimax rota-t i o n (Boldt, 1980). On th i s bas i s , a fa c t o r or type represents a grouping of roles around a common pattern of sorting the items (Boldt, 1980). A component or f a c t o r , i n th i s sense, represents a type of person. The f a c t o r matrix structure f o r each i n d i v i d u a l i s i n Chapter Five. 35 Once the types were obtained, roles on the rotated f a c t o r matrix were examined to see i f they exceeded a-.45 c u t o f f c r i t e r i o n . In many cases, the a r b i t r a r y c r i t e r i o n of - .30 i s used by many fac t o r t h e o r i s t s . The use of-.45 exceeds t h i s minimum cutoff c r i t e r i o n ( C h i l d , 1970). The c o e f f i c i e n t s or loadings im the rotated factor solutions may be viewed as each role's c o r r e l a t i o n with each of these types (Boldt, 1980). The roles which exceeded 45 were l i s t e d under that type. In the f i n a l part of the a n a l y s i s , G r i f f i t h s ' (1974) Q-analysis program was used. This program produces arrays of t r a i t 1 scores f o r each f a c t o r ( f a c t o r arrays). The Q-sort t r a i t s can be ordered i n terms of acceptance and the program i s useful f o r describing each type or f a c t o r . For the purpose of t h i s study, the focus was on f a c t o r solu-tions rather than on the f a c t o r arrays. Interested readers may check Appendix C f o r a l i s t i n g of each p a r t i c i p a n t ' s t r a i t 2 scores. V a l i d a t i o n Interview Once the data was analyzed, the v a l i d a t i o n interview was under-taken so that the p a r t i c i p a n t s could s u b j e c t i v e l y v a l i d a t e and elaborate the meaning of the quantitative p o r t r a i t that was drawn from the data. Before the results were given, each in d i v i d u a l was asked three questions: (1) Who do you take a f t e r personally? In a job? (2) Who i n your family most resembles the people you work with? (.3) Who at work most resembled y o u r s e l f personally? In a job s e l f ? 36 These questions were asked in order to start the participants thinking about family and work relationships and to see whether in fact they were consciously aware of how they construed family and work roles. At this point, the experimentor began to offer a verbal portrait of the quantitative results, which was unique.for each participant. For example, you seem to take after mother in your work role. Through-out the verbal portrait, the experimentor paused after a comment to allow the participant to react, and through the active l istening tech-niques of reflection and empathic responses, encouraged the participant to elaborate the meaning of each correspondence of comment. The experi-mentor did not press for confirmation or dis'confirmation but instead was interested in the subjective meaning of the results for each pa r t i c i -pant. The sp i r i t of each interview was an exploration of meaning, not a testing of hypotheses. In most instances the participants directly confirmed the results by stating "yes, that's the way i t i s " or "I'm surprised at how true the results are." In some instances however, participants disagreed with certain findings. In these instances, i t was found that as the individual elaborated on their disagreement, they contradicted their direct statement of disbel ief and in fact veri f ied the result. Toward the end of each interview, deeper parallels were offered for comment such as: sel f is to brother as work sel f is to co-worker. After each para l le l , the experimentor once again paused for the participant's reaction and asked the participant to elaborate the meaning. Each interview was tape recorded for use in case studies. 37 CHAPTER FOUR Results In the enactment of occupational r o l e s , do people re-enact family roles? This question can be explored i n a variety of ways with the present data. In t h i s chapter, group results are examined from two over-lapping angles. In the next chapter the question w i l l be explored i n case studies. Correlations Among Roles For each subject, the Q-sort f o r each role was correlated with every other r o l e . A correspondence between any two roles was accepted i f there was a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between them. On the basis of t e s t i n g the hypothesis that the population c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t i s 0, using Fisher's Z transformation, i t was concluded that a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of - .30 or higher i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (Glass and Stanley, 1970). A .05 l e v e l of confidence was used to determine s i g n i f i c a n c e which i s conservative enough given the exploratory nature of the study and the r e l a t i v e l y low N. If the alpha leve l i s too small ( i . e . , .01), there i s a greater chance of making a Type II error (Ferguson, 1981) (correlations between roles are given i n Appendix B). F i r s t , do co-workers correspond to family members? For the ten subjects, 46 co-workers were e l i c i t e d . For 41 of these co-workers, there was a correspondence to at l e a s t one member of one's family (see Appendix A, Table 2). The c o r r e l a t i o n s ranged from mild to very strong, 38 i n which a co-worker was a v i r t u a l re-embodiment of a family member. It appears that the majority of co-workers can be construed as variants of a p r i o r family member. This suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y that people act toward co-workers as i f they were family members, but in a r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t context. Second, do co-workers correspond to a variant of oneself? While t h i s question i s less c r u c i a l , i t i s important i n the following sense. If people incorporate others as aspects of s e l f , then the external drama of family or work p a r a l l e l s an internal drama within s e l f . Co-workers become o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n s of s e l f . For 34 of the 46 co-workers, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n with at l e a s t one s e l f role (see Appendix A, Table 2). The majority of co-workers appear to be variant aspects of s e l f . Part of the meaning of one's r e l a t i o n s h i p to co-workers then appears to involve or to be r e f l e c t e d i n r e l a t i o n s within oneself. Third, does s e l f - a s - j o b correspond with other selves ( i . e . , s e l f , s e l f as son or daughter, ideal s e l f ) ? When enacting a work role does a person p a r t i a l l y enact other s e l f roles? Since some subjects rated themselves i n more than one work r o l e , there were 16 selves-as-job. A l l 16 work selves correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with at le a s t one other s e l f r o l e (see Appendix A, Table 3). The enactment of a work role does not appear to be an i s o l a t e d phenomena, but rather i s intimately re-lated to other enactments. Fourth, does s e l f - a s - j o b correspond to family members? In enacting a work r o l e , i s one also p a r t i a l l y enacting a role model from the family? For 15 of the 16 work selves, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t 39 c o r r e l a t i o n with at le a s t one family member (see Appendix A, Table 3). The one exception (see the case study of Lou in the next chapter) i s i n t e r e s t i n g , since he supports the major research question i n a d i f f e r e n t way than expected. As the second oldest son in a family of four c h i l d r e n , Lou decided at an early age that he would be d i f f e r e n t from his family. Once he was able to f i n d f i n a n c i a l support, he l e f t home at age 15, completed a univ e r s i t y education and started his career as an a r t i s t , a career as d i f f e r e n t from his father's longtime job of milk-man as possible. To t h i s day, Lou maintains tenuous t i e s with his family and prides himself on being d i s t i n c t from his family. In th i s sense, he i s re-enacting a drama of the family, but one that r e s u l t s i n low c o r r e l a t i o n s , low commonality with others. O v e r a l l , however, people do seem to re-enact i n work roles t h e i r role models from the family, although there i s great d i v e r s i t y i n the family members seiected as models. While co r r e l a t i o n s are l i m i t e d i n the subtlety with which they can capture the ways that work i s a re-enactment of family drama, the evidence i s supportive. There are d i r e c t correspondences between co-workers and family members, co-workers and s e l f r o l e s , s e l f - a s - j o b and s e l f r o l e s , and s e l f - a s - j o b and family members. While the domains involve quite d i f f e r e n t contexts, they appear to be strongly i n t e r r e l a t e d . P r i n c i p a l Components A p r i n c i p a l component analysis was conducted on each i n d i v i d u a l set of Q-sorts separately, i n order to reduce each set of roles to clus t e r s of roles or types of r o l e s . A standard and well recommended 40 c r i t e r i o n f o r determining the number of p r i n c i p a l components (Harman, 1967) i s that the latent roots have a value greater than one. For Q-sorts, a p r i n c i p a l components analysis clusters roles into types which share a common theme or meaning. G r i f f i t h s ' (1974) Q-analysis program can then be used to determine the adjectives which characterize each type (see Appendix C). With regard to t h i s study, the i n t e r e s t i n components or role types i s to determine whether, and the extent to which, these r o l e types are mixed with s e l f r o l e s , family members, and co-workers. While the previous section showed that diverse roles are s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t e r -r e l a t e d , i t i s s t i l l possible that family r o l e s , f o r instance, are more strongly i n t e r r e l a t e d , and would consequently form a r o l e type composed only of family r o l e s . A component i s termed pure i f i t contains roles of only one of the three domains ( s e l f , family, work). A component i s p a r t i a l l y mixed i f i t contains roles from two domains. A component i s t o t a l l y mixed i f i t contains roles from a l l three domains. A component loading of 4.5was established as c r i t e r i o n f o r the i n c l u s i o n of a role i n a component. F i r s t , the f i r s t p r i n c i p a l component (unrotated) was assessed. It i s of importance since i t i s formed i n accordance with a maximiza-t i o n of variance accounted f o r . The f i r s t component accounts f o r more variance i n a set of roles than any other l i n e a r combination. The re s u l t s i n d i c a t e that of 10 unrotated f i r s t components, a l l ten were t o t a l l y mixed, with high loadings from s e l f , family and work r o l e s . 41 C h i l d (1970) suggests that most fa c t o r analysts agree that d i r e c t factor solutions are often not s u f f i c i e n t "...adjustment to the frames of reference improves the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by reducing some of the ambiguities which often accompany the preliminary a n a l y s i s " ( C h i l d , 1970, p. 51). Therefore, the components f o r each set of Q-sorts were then sub-jected to a varimax rotation which i s intended to "p u r i f y " a c l u s t e r . That i s , a varimax ro t a t i o n i s designed to maximize the loadings of a c l u s t e r of roles while minimizing the loadings of other r o l e s . The results i n d i c a t e that 37 of the 42 rotated components were p a r t i a l l y mixed, and that 14 of the 42 were t o t a l l y mixed (see Appendix A, Table 4). Of the s i x pure types, one contained only one r o l e , which i s more purity by default than by in t e g r a t i o n . The components were mixed on the standard p r i n c i p a l components analysis and were also l a r g e l y mixed when the clusters were p u r i f i e d . It appears then that personal typologies do not separate roles i n t o separate domains involving s e l f , family and work, but rather mix them i n many d i f f e r e n t ways. The following chapter provides i n d i v i d u a l descriptions of the various ways the three domains were i n t e r r e l a t e d . 42 CHAPTER FIVE Results: Case Studies The qualitative data presented i n the previous chapter provide support f o r the notion that people re-enact the drama of t h e i r family i n t h e i r work s e t t i n g s . However, i t i s general and more s p e c i f i c p o r t r a i t s of i n d i v i d u a l s which are important to provide further support. In t h i s chapter, three further types of evidence w i l l be d i s -cussed. F i r s t , an i n d i v i d u a l p o r t r a i t can be developed using the com-ponents y i e l d e d by the p r i n c i p a l components an a l y s i s . A l l roles under each component which exceed the -.45 cutoff c r i t e r i o n are included. From this pattern, there emerges a p o r t r a i t of the drama of a person's l i f e . The central question here i s whether or not the quantitative p o r t r a i t makes sense. Is i t plausible? Second, the p o r t r a i t s may be validated by the subjective reactions of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . That i s , i s the p o r t r a i t sensible to the p a r t i c i p a n t ? This form of v a l i d a t i o n depends on both verbal agreement and commentary as well as on p a r t i c i p a n t reactions such as laughing, crying or gasping. These reactions bear on the question of whether the p o r t r a i t i s meaningful to the i n d i v i d u a l . 43 The l a s t way the research question may be further substantiated i s by a par t i c i p a n t ' s a b i l i t y to sub j e c t i v e l y elaborate the p o r t r a i t . This expands the correlations among the people i n t o a drama and gives the co r r e l a t i o n s a human context and s e n s i b i l i t y . Before proceeding to the case studies, i t i s important to mention both how the res u l t s were presented to the pa r t i c i p a n t s and the format the case studies w i l l take. As mentioned previously, each person was asked three questions before the res u l t s were presented: (1) Who do you take a f t e r personally? In a job? (2) Who i n your family most resembles the people you work with? (3) Who at work most resembles y o u r s e l f personally? In a job s e l f ? The r e s u l t s were read to the p a r t i c i p a n t s , one fin d i n g at a time. The in d i v i d u a l was then asked to comment and/or elaborate. Reactions were noted by the interviewer. Second, each case study follows the following format. The p r i n c i p a l components or types are l i s t e d and under each are placed the s i g n i f i c a n t roles and t h e i r loadings on that type. The quantative picture i s followed by some b r i e f background i n -formation about the person. The p o r t r a i t which was extracted from the quantative data i s then presented. This i s followed by the i n d i v i d u a l ' s subjective reaction and elaboration. A b r i e f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s provided to conclude each case. 44 IRIS Present Occupation: Secretary F i r s t Occupation: G i r l Friday Table 5 S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r Each Factor or Type Roles Loadings on Each Type Type 1 father ( -.78) supervisor (.68) s e l f as secretary (.65) s e l f (.46) Type 2 daughter (.84) ideal s e l f (.81) co-worker (.76) brother [-73) ideal secretary (.72) ideal g i r l Friday [-65) 2nd youngest s i s t e r (• -.58) s e l f [.54) s e l f as secretary [-46) graduate a s s i s t a n t s .46) Conti nued ... 45 Roles Loadings on Each Type Type 3 o f f i c e manager (.89) salesman (.78) ideal g i r l Friday (.66) Type 4 graduate assistants (.68) students (.71) 2nd oldest s i s t e r (.48) 2nd youngest s i s t e r (.46) Type 5 2nd oldest s i s t e r (.80) mother (.73) s e l f as g i r l Friday (.60) * I r i s ' s i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n matrix of roles has been f a c t o r analyzed and f i v e factors or types were obtained according to the c r i t e r i o n men-tioned previously. These factors are referred to above as types of ro l e s . Only those roles which exceed - .45 are given i n the table. These fa c t o r loadings are to be seen as i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the roles with the fa c t o r . I r i s i s a 26 year old married woman with a grade 12 education who has been working i n the c l e r i c a l f i e l d f o r seven years and s p e c i f i c a l l y as a secretary for the past f i v e . The youngest of 11 c h i l d r e n , I r i s was raised on welfare as her father was constantly sick and i n and out of sanitariums with tuberculosis. I r i s described her father, who died 46 when she was i n her early teens, as r u l i n g with an iron f i s t and s a i d "he taught me everything I didn't want to be." The r e s u l t s indicate that I r i s ' present supervisor and her s e l f as secretary are s i m i l a r while these two as well as her real s e l f are seen as being t o t a l l y opposite from her father. It appears that she i s approaching her personal ideal i n work, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n her current job. I r i s ' ideal s e l f and self-as-daughter are very s i m i l a r . While she resembles her mother somewhat (not her father) I r i s i s most l i k e her oldest brother. In her current job as secretary, she acts most l i k e her brother and extremely unlike her second youngest s i s t e r . As a g i r l Friday I r i s acted more l i k e her second oldest s i s t e r and her mother. The co-worker at that job was seen as being s i m i l a r to I r i s and her brother. The present supervisor seems l i k e the opposite of I r i s ' father, he i s more i d e a l . Students and assistants at the current job resemble somewhat I r i s ' second oldest and second youngest s i s t e r s . The p a r a l l e l s presented to I r i s were: (1) Daughter i s to ideal father as s e l f as secretary i s to supervisor. (2) G i r l Friday i s to secretary as less ideal i s to more ideal or as more c o n f l i c t f u l family i s to a more harmonious one. I r i s agreed emphatically that she and her present supervisor were s i m i l a r and t o t a l l y opposite to her father. " D e f i n i t e l y , my father was a j e r k . My father never seemed to care about his kids, only about him-s e l f and the consequences they'd make and how he'd have to handle them. I Present supervisor and I consider the other person f i r s t . He's caring, 47 a gentleman; a l l things you'd l i k e to see i n a father." I r i s was surprised that she was approaching her personal ideal at work but then confirmed the f i n d i n g , "...the contact with people i s good, as f a r as atmosphere i t ' s great, easy going, harmonious, take i t as i t comes...but there's never any v i s i b l e accomplishment. I get f r u s t r a t e d with t h i s . It f u l f i l l s me emotionally, f o r a s e c r e t a r i a l job i t ' s great." That herself-as-daughter and ideal s e l f were s i m i l a r caused I r i s to exclaim "I consider myself not a very good daughter. I don't con-s i d e r us (mother and I r i s ) close but guess she does. I ' l l do anything to please and i n that way I'm close to my i d e a l . I ' l l say anything to make someone happy. I can't be honest about Mom with Mom. I take care of people's f e e l i n g s . " I r i s agreed that she and her mother were somewhat a l i k e and said this about her brother, "yes, I've patterned myself a f t e r him and yet I hardly know him. He's such a strong f i g u r e , he could have been my father age-wise. I always wish he was, I could have gone so f a r with him as a father. I've always taken him as a father image. He's firm i n what he bel i e v e s ; he's fun, enjoyable, musical--I am too--has b e l i e f tin God and s t u f f . When he was out recently we could have opened our mouths at the same time and said the same thing; we're that a l i k e . When I was 16 he gave me a t a l k about boy f r i e n d s . It was a t a l k a father should have had. I remember everything about him when i t ' s him and I." Obviously then i t ' s not s u r p r i s i n g that I r i s believed she was l i k e her brother i n her current job and unlike her second youngest 48 s i s t e r . "Two people so d i f f e r e n t have never been seen. I ' l l do the opposite of what she does, she's the negative influence. She was quite l i k e my father although they never got along." I r i s agreed that she was more l i k e her second oldest s i s t e r and mother during the period of her f i r s t job. " I t was her ( s i s t e r ) that drove me to work every day. I was 19, she was 32. I was r i p e r f o r the influence. I was wishy washy l i k e my mother and didn't know what I was doing. Since we're (mother and I r i s ) a l i k e i t makes sense." The f a c t that her f i r s t co-worker was sorted as being s i m i l a r to I r i s and her brother did not evoke any s u r p r i s e . "She's l i k e me...we seemed to be able to t a l k . She was always tol e r a n t and never wanted to hurt others." I r i s simply s a i d that she saw her supervisor with so much more respect than her father. That students and assistants resembled her s i s t e r s caused I r i s to laugh. "Yeah--the dumb one is my second youngest s i s t e r . She's l i k e the students. The a s s i s t a n t s , on the whole, are l i k e my second oldest s i s t e r . There are some assistants who remind me of my brother." The p a r a l l e l : daughter i s to ideal father as s e i f - a s - s e c r e t a r y i s to supervisor caused I r i s to say "Yes I can see that. I pictured my boss as a father image, what I'd l i k e as a father." The second p a r a l l e l : g i r l Friday i s to secretary as less ideal i s to more ideal or as more c o n f l i c t f u l family i s to a more harmonious one drew a more lengthy response. "Yeah, family f i t s very w e l l . When I started the f i r s t job, the o f f i c e manager said 'we're a l l j u s t one 49 big happy family and then you f i n d out everybody can't stand anybody e l s e . On the surface, i t ' s f i n e . I avoid my family. That f i t s together. When my family gets together i t ' s fun but i f i t ' s f o r more than two hours, there'd be a f i g h t . You can avoid who you don't l i k e i n your family but i f you had to be together a l l the time l i k e i n a job, we'd f i g h t . Now my job i s more harmonious, everyone gets along. There's usually one black sheep but that's so i n a family. Generally we try to cooperate." There are several items of note. F i r s t , I r i s picked models of how to be and how not to be and began patterning her l i f e a f t e r them. It's i n t e r e s t i n g that although she spent very l i t t l e time with her brother and he l i v e s 2,000 miles away--she feels i n such close contact with him and orders her l i f e i n a way she sees as being consistent with the way he l i v e s . Also, the male supervisor she has, f i t s e a s i l y into the container of ideal father whereas she sees assistants and students as s i s t e r s . Interesting also i s the move from the c o n f l i c t f u l job environment to the harmonious one--as i f I r i s was seeking a more har-monious family environment, one she r e a l l y never had. F i n a l l y I r i s made a thought provoking comment at the end of the interview. "Once you've been around a job f o r a l i t t l e too long, i t gets more i d e n t i c a l to my family. You s t a r t f i n d i n g out the tr u t h s . " In conclusion then, the workplace may represent f o r I r i s the harmonious family she's been searching f o r . 50 CARLY Present Occupation: Teacher F i r s t Occupation: Teacher Table 6 S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r Each Factor or Type Roles Loadings on Each Type Type 1 grade 11 and 12 students (.77) co-worker (.68) p r i n c i p a l 1 (.64) ideal teacher 1 (.54) ideal teacher 2 (.52) Type 2 mother (.83) daughter (.74) uncle (.74) s e i f as teacher 1 (.64) s e l f (.57) Type 3 vice p r i n c i p a l (.85) s e l f as teacher 2 (.76) counsellor (.70) Continued ... 51 Roles Loadings on Each Type grade 6 student (-.66) youngest s i s t e r (.65) s e l f (.57) p r i n c i p a l 1 (.49) Type 4 cousi n (.88) p r i n c i p a l (.65) grade 6 student (.49). Type 5 ideal s e l f (.91) ideal teacher 2 (.72) ideal teacher 1 (.69) youngest s i s t e r (.59) pr i n c i p a l 2 (-.55) Carly i s a 31 year o l d s i n g l e woman who has been teaching f o r nine years. She holds a B.A. and B.Ed. She i s from a small town on the prairiies and i s the second oldest of s i x g i r l s . Her father has a histo r y of emotional disturbances and f o r most of Carly's childhood was a p r a c t i c i n g a l c o h o l i c . The results showed that personally, Carly takes a f t e r her mother more than her father (Carly i s c l o s e s t to being l i k e her mother when 52 she i s in the role of daughter). This i s so p a r t i c u l a r l y in her f i r s t job as a teacher and less so currently. She i s more he r s e l f i n her present job than i n her f i r s t , but both f a l l short of her personal and work i d e a l s . The teacher, senior students and f i r s t p r i n c i p a l come closes t to Carly's job ideal while her youngest s i s t e r approaches not only these, but her personal ideal also. The p r i n c i p a l at Carly's current job i s negative, having much i n common with her cousin and the grade 6 student. The youngest s i s t e r i s s i m i l a r to Carly personally and i n her current job (but not i n her f i r s t j o b ) . And she i s s i m i l a r to the v i c e - p r i n c i p a l , counsellor, and f i r s t p r i n c i p a l ; the opposite of the grade 6 student. Overall i n Carly's job role change, she has switched from being more l i k e her mother to more l i k e her youngest s i s t e r , and less l i k e her father. She has become more he r s e l f . Carly's uncle was more of a male influence than her father. Two p a r a l l e l s were gleaned from the data: (1) S e l f as job-j i s to s e l f as job2 as mother i s to s i s t e r . (2) S e l f i s to cousin as job s e l f i s to current p r i n c i p a l . These re s u l t s were heard with great joy by Carly, who confessed that she'd been working very hard to change from being l i k e her mother. "I am a funny combination of Mom and Dad. My i n t e r e s t s , r ecreation, education and i n t e l l e c t come from Dad, the way of dealing with the world comes from Mom but I know I deal with i t so d i f f e r e n t l y than I used to." 53 She laughed i n d e l i g h t upon hearing that she'd become more h e r s e l f i n her present job although i t f e l l short of personal and work i d e a l s . "That's wonderful! I'm planning to change my career. I've learned how my mother deals with the world, how I deal with the world and how that a l l f i t s together. It's only been the l a s t few years that I've learned t h i s . " Carly agreed that the teacher, senior students and f i r s t p r i n c i p a l were p o s i t i v e influences but focused on her youngest s i s t e r i n discussion. "I l i k e her p r a c t i c a l , real way of approaching things, I spent many years fence s i t t i n g . . . n o t being d e f i n i t e . She was always d e f i n i t e from very l i t t l e . I always admired the people i n the family who could f i g h t back but she did i t i n a d i f f e r e n t way. Those c l o s e s t to my age were lippy and mouthy. I'd decided I wasn't going to be l i k e that but my youngest s i s t e r said 'I feel l i k e t h i s , so respect me' and she got respect. Withdrawing, which I did, was l i k e my mother." The f a c t that she'd sorted her cousin as being s i m i l a r to the current p r i n c i p a l and the grade s i x student, both negative influences, was s u r p r i s i n g to Carly. But as she talked the r e l a t i o n s h i p emerged. "She (cousin) spoke up f o r what she wanted. I admired that. She was demanding but not r e s p e c t f u l , powerful to the point of being b e l i t t l i n g . The p r i n c i p a l i s too. The grade s i x student would change a l o t from nice to nasty without warning. That's the way Dad keeps power over us; nice guy, nice guy, then pow he turns mean and l a t e r feels rotten about i t . " 54 Carly agreed that her s i s t e r was very l i k e the vice p r i n c i p a l , counsellor and f i r s t p r i n c i p a l . They a l l share a steadiness, a p r a c t i -c a l i t y , and a l l deal with t h e i r emotions. The f a c t that Carly has emulated her younger s i s t e r brought a sigh of pleasure and then hearing that she'd become more hers e l f brought a wide g r i n . "This substantiates i t . It's me taking charge of my l i f e . " When presented with the find i n g that her uncle was more of a male influence than her Dad, Carly s a i d : "I can see that. I l i k e d spending time with him. Dad was the outsider, we were a family of g i r l s - - h e was the enemy almost. Uncle popped i n , he took good care of his wife and c h i l d r e n , Dad didn't. On the surface, i t a l l looked so wonderful. My Mom t o l d me that my aunt prayed every day at mass for a good husband and so when he ar r i v e d , she knew he was a good husband. I was r e a l l y small (when I was t o l d t h i s ) and awed by a l l t h i s . I might have set him up as wonderful." The p a r a l l e l : " mother i s to youngest s i s t e r as f i r s t job i s to current job evoked t o t a l agreement. "Yeah, how Mom deals with the world and how my s i s t e r deals with i t . Mom's so a f r a i d , not w i l l i n g to see things as they are, Mom t r i e d hard to make things r i g h t even when they weren't right underneath. In my f i r s t job, I did too. I l i k e d my class to look good, the q u a l i t y of teaching had to look good on the outside. Now I don't care, I know what's going on. If i t ' s rotten, I can s a y - - i t ' s a rotten day." 55 S e l f i s to cousin as self-as-teacher i s to current p r i n c i p a l caused Carly to readjust her thinking as she'd previously consciously considered her cousin to be a f a i r l y p o s i t i v e influence. "I must have painted the cousin as a negative s o r t . I understand the p r i n c i p a l but don't l i k e him dumping on me and being i n t i m i d a t i n g . Although I haven't seen her (cousin) i n years, I have the image of her being very capable. She dumped on me with her comments...I f e l t l i k e I didn't measure up." In conclusion, the interview brings home again the consistent pattern each p a r t i c i p a n t has had of construing people i n the work place as being s i m i l a r to family members. Carly provided an i n t e r e s t i n g per-spective on the choices people make of which model to f o l l o w — s h o u l d I be lippy ( l i k e other s i s t e r s ) , withdraw ( l i k e mother), or be asser-t i v e ( l i k e youngest s i s t e r ) ? Carly's case also demonstrates the pos s i -b i l i t i e s f o r change i n adulthood. But again, i t ' s f a s c i n a t i n g to note that change i s from being l i k e mother to being l i k e another family member (youngest s i s t e r ) . The other f i n d i n g of note i s the way people construct i d e a l s . Carly i s t o l d at a young age of divine intervention i n her aunt's receiving a good husband and i s almost primed to see her uncle as being close to perfect even though she consciously says "Maybe I was set up." She s t i l l f e e l s that her uncle can do no wrong. As an addendum to t h i s , seeing the uncle as her major male influence helped Carly transcend the problems she had with her own father and exposed her to a p o s i t i v e experience. The drama Carly re-enacts i s through emulation of family members; f i r s t mother and uncle, then youngest s i s t e r - - C a r l y s t r i v e s f o r self-development. 56 BLAKE Present Occupation: Photolab Technician F i r s t Occupation: Photolab Technician Table 7 S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r Each Factor or Type Roles Loadings on Each Type Type 1 son (.76) s e l f (.71) general manager (.66) assi s t a n t supervisor (-.65) salesman (-.47) Type 2 ideal photolab technician 1 (.84) ideal photolab technician 2 (.82) s e l f as photolab technician 1 (.72) s e l f as photolab technician 2 (.69) Type 3 supervisor 2 (.81) supervisor 1 (.81) co-worker (.72) brother (.61) Continued ... 57 Roles Loadings on Each Type Type 4 grandfather (.85) ideal s e l f (.81) mother (.54) Type 5 father (.87) mother (.46) Blake i s a 33 year o ld male with grade 12 and three years attend-ance at an a r t college. He l i v e s common-law and has one c h i l d . Blake has been a photolab technician f o r the past three years. The fourth oldest i n a family of 11, Blake's dad owned a service s t a t i o n and his mother was a housewife. Due to the f a c t that his father was an a l c o h o l i c and i n Blake's eyes did not l i v e up to his p o t e n t i a l , Blake sees his father as a somewhat negative f i g u r e . His father i s deceased. It seems that as a person, Blake i s neither l i k e his mother nor his father. Nor i s he l i k e them as a photolab technician although his grandfather i s close to an ideal while his mother i s less so. Blake j u s t seems rather d i s t i n c t . However, i f he were more l i k e his i d e a l , he would resemble his family more, p a r t i c u l a r l y his grandfather and mother. Blake sees himself-as-son and his present s e l f as being s i m i l a r . 58 At his f i r s t job he had l i t t l e i n common with the general manager and was opposite to the a s s i s t a n t supervisor and the salesmen. As a photolab technician, however, Blake i s d i s t i n c t , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n his present job. His two present supervisors and co-worker seem more l i k e Blake's brother and they are somewhat less than i d e a l . Blake's actual job s e l f and ideal job s e l f i n both jobs are somewhat s i m i l a r . The p a r a l l e l which was drawn from the data was: s e l f i s to brother as s e l f i s to supervisors. Blake was somewhat surprised to hear that he was quite d i s t i n c t from his parents. He believed that he took a f t e r his father p h y s i c a l l y as well as sharing the t r a i t s of stubbornness, anger and c u r i o u s i t y . However, when he elaborated f u r t h e r , i t turned out i n fa c t that he did see himself as being d i s t i n c t . "Since I'd hoped to have changed my-s e l f , I kind of l i k e that. I wasn't overly crazy about my Dad, and my mother I didn't know that w e l l . " He agreed that his grandfather was close to an ideal and s a i d , "I made him into an ideal since I never r e a l l y knew the man but I re-member I turned him into what I wanted a grandfather to be." As f o r his mother also being an i d e a l , Blake s a i d "There was a quietness about her, a s i l e n t presence i n the room. She was the centre. As f o r childhood, she was our pal and our mother. That affected me a l o t because my pals at the time didn't do that e s p e c i a l l y with t h e i r mothers. She was l i k e my grandfather because she was di s t a n t . I never r e a l l y knew her. There was never physical a f f e c t i o n or an emotional bond between us. Since there were so many of us she was spread t h i n . Like my grandfather, 59 that separation, I i d o l i z e d . " Blake agreed that he was d i s t i n c t i n his family. "I never r e a l l y f e l t part of the family, always f e l t outside i t , maybe because I was a middle c h i l d . I was d i s t i n c t from my family but also the neighbour-hood. I never enjoyed being a Maritimer or ta l k i n g with a funny accent." Blake talked about becoming more congruent when presented with the statement that s e l f and self-as-son are s i m i l a r . "I always thought I never grew any past 17 years o l d ; but change has been r e f l e c t e d i n my being more congruent as a person." Blake agreed that he was opposite to the ass i s t a n t supervisor and salesmen, "I see myself as being the opposite of everybody." The theme of d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s arose again when he was t o l d that he was d i s t i n c t at his present job. "I even t r y and work to be d i s -t i n c t ; i t makes me f e e l s p e c i a l . I don't want to be part of the crowd which you can't help but be i n a large family." Blake s a i d that the supervisors and his brother shared the t r a i t of being conformists. "I don't want to conform." He was not surprised to hear that the actual and ideal photolab technicians were sorted s i m i l a r l y . "What I do i n my job i s the way someone should do the job, somewhat detached but concerned. I keep i t separate and don't get emotional. I get emotional about other things." Blake i n i t i a l l y disagreed with the p a r a l l e l : s e l f i s to brother as s e l f i s to supervisors saying, "My brother, I avoided contact and detached myself. With supervisors, I made an attempt to make contact 60 i n order to get along with them." In the next breath, however, he con-firmed the p a r a l l e l saying "But then I had a choice with my brother. They are the same kinds of people, he's more extreme, they are going towards i t . I can break down the b a r r i e r s with them." The overwhelming theme which arises again and again i s how Blake s t r i v e s to be d i s t i n c t i n a l l areas of his l i f e . Seeing his father and brother as examples of how not to be, he set out to create his own persona. His grandfather with whom he had l i t t l e contact, he construed as an ideal and to a l e s s e r extent he did the same with his mother. Blake re-enacts his family drama at work, by being detached, doing the job and l i v i n g f o r his other a c t i v i t i e s . As was consistent with his family, he sees himself as d i s t i n c t from his co-workers. Again and again, Blake as the loner at both work and home s t r i v e s f o r d i s t i n c -tiveness i n a crowd. 61 IRMA Present Occupation: H a i r s t y l i s t Table 8 S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r Each Factor or Type Roles Loadings on Each Type Type 1 aunt (.90) daughter (.88) co-worker (.84) mother (.79) brother (.76) father (.64) supervisor (.55) ideal s e l f (.52) Type 2 ideal h a i r s t y l i s t (.92) s e l f as h a i r s t y l i s t (.89) s e l f (.64) supervisor (.62) ideal s e l f (.58) father (.50) brother (.48) Continued ... 62 Roles Loadings on Each Type Type 3 c l i e n t (.94) Irma i s a 23 year old married woman with a grade 12 vocational diploma who has been working i n her present job f o r four years. She's the oldest of three children and has a brother who i s two years younger than her and a s i s t e r who i s eight years younger. Her parents are both a l i v e and she describes her family as being warm and close, one of the few interviewees who said that. The r e s u l t s show that as a daughter, Irma i s most l i k e her aunt, mother and co-worker, but as a worker, she seems to take more a f t e r her father and her brother to some extent. But t h i s i s j u s t a matter of degree as she seems to have so much i n common with her mother, father, brother and aunt. They also seem to have a l o t i n common with both the supervisor and the co-worker. The only one that seems d i f f e r e n t i s the c l i e n t . There i s l i t t l e s p l i t between how Irma sees the ideal h a i r -s t y l i s t and how she sees h e r s e l f . She also sees h e r s e l f and her super-v i s o r as being quite s i m i l a r to her ideal s e l f . This i s also true to a l e s s e r degree f o r her father and brother. While Irma i s not quite her-s e l f i n a work r o l e , there i s considerable overlap between h e r s e l f as a person and h e r s e l f as a work r o l e . The p a r a l l e l which was found based on t h i s data was: s e l f is to family as s e l f i s to work place (excluding c l i ent). 63 Irma was very matter-of-fact about the results and did not seem surprised by them at a l l . She agreed that as a daughter she i s l i k e her aunt, mother and co-worker as well as being l i k e her father and brother as a worker. "Very good, I think that's pretty close. They're a l l people that sort of make you. I'm l i k e my father because he's very outgoing and I'm a s o c i a l person who l i k e s to be around people most of the time. I keep amused by people rather than watching T.V. In another way, I'm l i k e my mother; she's more of a responsible person that's t r y i n g to, how can I put i t , get somewhere in l i f e , whereas my dad i s n ' t . My mom and my supervisor are both go-getters, getting things accomplished." As f o r being l i k e her brother and father at work--Irma agreed wholeheartedly e s p e c i a l l y in being sociable. When asked why she was l i k e her brother she said "We're close i n age, we've been close, caring f o r one another. We're not a l o t the same but d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n a l i t i e s a t t r a c t . He's ambitious too and d e f i n i t e l y a hard worker." Irma agreed that her immediate family was very s i m i l a r but saw her other r e l a t i v e s as being very d i f f e r e n t . She was not surprised to hear that she saw h e r s e l f , her co-worker and supervisor as being s i m i l a r - - t h a t evoked a simple "That.'s what I thought." Although the supervisor i s my boss, we're f r i e n d s , she's a l o t l i k e me and i s d e f i n i t e l y independent. My co-worker i s l i k e my aunt too; caring and emotional. She would give you anything she had and i s more than w i l l i n g to help. Anything you give her, i s too much." 6 4 When asked to explain why the c l i e n t would be so d i f f e r e n t , Irma re p l i e d "Usually the c l i e n t that comes to you (because t h i s place works on r e f e r r a l s ) , tends to be attracted to your personality. This c l i e n t i n p a r t i c u l a r stood out because she's wealthy, demanding, always talks about h e r s e l f so that i t seems l i k e no-one else is important. She l i v e s i n another world but you can sort of re l a t e but she i s so d i f f e r e n t from me." Again there was no surprise over seeing how close the way she i s as a h a i r s t y l i s t and the ideal h a i r s t y l i s t were. Irma laughed and sa i d "Yeah, I'm pretty conceited. I'm doing well and i t ' s proving i t s e l f quite f a s t . " She agreed that her father and brother were close to her ideal i n some ways. "Like I s a i d , my father's outgoing, he's a fun person to go out with but he's not the type of person who worries about his future, l i k e he worries about today. That's not l i k e my ideal s e l f . " Irma nodded vigorously to the statement that she was not quite h e r s e l f i n her work r o l e but that there was considerable overlap. "When you're i n pu b l i c , you can't bring your t o t a l s e l f out because people don't want to l i s t e n to that. You sort of have to be a neutral and be able to take whatever the c l i e n t believes i n . You can't j u s t say I don't believe i n that or you probably wouldn't have very many c l i e n t s . You have to sort of push away that part of yo u r s e l f and not l e t i t get to you." When presented with the p a r a l l e l : s e l f i s to family as s e l f i s to workplace (excluding c l i e n t ) , Irma r e p l i e d unequivocally "Yes I am. 65 We are one big family. We are a very unique salon. I can compare t h i s to other places I worked i n b r i e f l y , t h i s i s r e a l l y unique. It's l i k e a big family." In conclusion, i t can be stated that Irma l e f t her other unhar-monious families (jobs) i n order to work i n a place that reminded her very much of her own family. Mother and supervisor are seen as very s i m i l a r and co-worker i s l i k e Irma as daughter. In t h i s environment, she i s able to work towards her ideals of getting ahead, working hard ( l i k e mother and supervisor), as well as f u l f i l l i n g the s o c i a b l e, out-going aspects of her personality that are l i k e father. Irma's lack of surprise and t o t a l agreement with the r e s u l t s seem to i n d i c a t e that she's found a close f i t between work and domestic family. In other words, work seems to be a reproduction of a harmonious family. 66 DAVE Present Occupation: Parking Checker F i r s t Occupation: Rental Agent Table 9 S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r Each Factor or Type Roles Loadings on Each Type Type 1 s e l f (.86) son (.83) ideal s e l f (.82) customer (-.56) mother (.51) f i e l d supervisor (.48) Type 2 s e l f as parking checker (.87) s e l f as rental agent (.79) ideal parking checker (.74) father (.62) Type 3 f i e l d supervisor (.76) co-worker (.73) ideal rental agent (.71) Continued ... 67 Roles Loadings on Each Type mother (.59) ideal parking checker (.47) Type 4 s i s t e r (.92) Dave i s a 28 year old male with a grade 12 education who has worked at a va r i e t y of jobs since he graduated from high school. He has been at his present job f o r one year. He has one older brother and a younger s i s t e r . His father works as a salesman and his mother i s a housewife. Dave tal k s of his upbringing and mother warmly but fee l s he has l i t t l e i n common with his father. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that personally, Dave takes a f t e r his mother. P r o f e s s i o n a l l y , as a parking checker he seems to take a f t e r his father. Customers seem to be everything that he and his mother are not. Dave seems to see the co-worker from his f i r s t job, and his present f i e l d supervisor as being more l i k e his mother, and to some extent l i k e his personal s e l f . It appears as i f there i s l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the way Dave i s as a person and the way he i s i n a work r o l e . However he does see himself, his self-as-son and his ideal s e l f as being extremely s i m i l a r . The p a r a l l e l which emerged from the data was: father i s to mother as s e l f i s to co-workers. When presented with these r e s u l t s , Dave appeared to be pleased and commented several times that i t was g r a t i f y i n g to work towards 68 being a c e r t a i n way and then f i n d out that you have i n f a c t accom-plished that. Dave stated that he was very fond of his mother and saw himself as being very s i m i l a r emotionally to her. He also saw many of her physical mannerisms i n himself and was delighted that the results showed them sharing the att r i b u t e s of s e n s i t i v i t y , trustworthiness and caring. The f i e l d supervisor (who has the same f i r s t name as Dave's mother) reminds Dave of both his mother and himself i n being easy-going, p r a c t i c a l and approachable. "The f i e l d supervisor i s l i k e me, a very don't make waves person. You're here, you put i n your eight hours, you can cuss and swear behind backs a l l you want but while you're here, you j u s t put up with i t . You need a job—we both understand that. She gives o f f neat vibes. My mom would do that too." Dave was very surprised to hear that he took a f t e r his father i n his work r o l e since he'd "Never even considered doing anything l i k e my father as f a r as work goes. The jobs I ' l l do I can see my mother doing and I can't see anyone else i n my family doing them except maybe my brother who i s very much l i k e my mother too i n a l o t of ways." Dave prides himself on being very d i f f e r e n t than his father whom he sees as a sports f a n a t i c with whom he has l i t t l e i n common. However, on further r e f l e c t i o n , Dave said that both he and his father share the attr i b u t e s of being responsible and mature on the job. Both are easy-going and both d i s l i k e making waves. Again i t ' s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that on furth e r elaboration, the r e s u l t i s confirmed by the p a r t i c i p a n t . 69 Dave was not surprised that his work s e l f was separate from his actual s e l f since he d i s l i k e s working and would prefer to do other things. This would p a r a l l e l what his mother does, that i s , remaining ac t i v e but not working. On the job, Dave v o l u n t a r i l y suppresses parts of himself since he does not want most of his co-workers to know him. "The pleasant right-on, nothing fazes me kind of person emerges at work, whereas my personal s e l f i s j u s t where I happen to be at the time. On the job there are only a few people with whom I can be my real s e l f . " On the present job the f i e l d supervisor would be one of the few who gets to know Dave personally. Dave was not surprised to hear that he had sorted customers as being opposite to himself and his mother. "They were a l l pushy, you're there to serve them and they don't care about you. You're j u s t a person that's going to provide them with a service that they're en-t i t l e d to and that's the arrogance they give o f f . And I'm not l i k e that at a l l . " The p a r a l l e l : father i s to mother as s e l f i s to co-workers, was i n i t i a l l y rejected by Dave who said that he was unlike his father. Once he thought about i t , however, Dave said that the pleasant tempera-ment both he and his father use when dealing with people, had been an example he'd always s t r i v e n to emulate. "My Dad has to do the same with Mom because she could drive you crazy a f t e r l i v i n g with her f o r 35 years. The calming e f f e c t he has over people i s one I also use with my co-workers." 70 In summary then, i t can be seen that the results did not surprise Dave at a l l . He immediately understood why he'd l i k e d his supervisor and co-worker so well since they reminded him of his mother. The importance of early r o l e models--in Dave's case, how his father handled his mother--reappear f o r Dave i n his dealing with co-workers. Once again what we learn from our families seems to be re-enacted i n the work world. For Dave we see that his family environment and the work environment appear to be reproductions of one another. Dave confides i n his mother and f i e l d supervisor but allows others l i k e father and unimportant co-workers no access to his real s e l f . 71 LOU Present Occupation: A r t i s t F i r s t Occupation: Restaurant Worker Table 10 S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r Each Factor or Type Roles Loadings on Each Type Type 1 s e l f as a r t i s t (.85) ideal a r t i s t (.85) s e l f (.82) contemporary a r t i s t (.74) ideal s e l f (.65) Type 2 ideal restaurant worker (.85) s e l f as restaurant worker (.82) brother (-.59) dealer (.58) son (-.48) customer (-.47) Type 3 manager (.93) executive (.88) s i s t e r (.53) Continued ... 72 Roles Loadings on Each Type Type 4 father (.84) customer (.71) son (.60) ideal s e l f (-.50) Type 5 mother (.77) oldest brother (. 70) dealer (.52) Lou i s a 32 year o l d married male with one c h i l d who has been working as an a r t i s t f o r the past 10 years. Lou has a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree and i s the second oldest i n a family of four; 3 males and one female. His s i s t e r i s the youngest s i b l i n g . Lou's father worked as a milkman f o r 20 years and has spent the l a s t f i v e as a j a n i t o r . His mother was a clerk f o r many years but now works as a bartender. Lou's Q-sorts i n the job domain did not corr e l a t e with any members from his family domain. A l l the other p a r t i c i p a n t s ' job domains corr e l a t e d with the family domain. However, Lou has strive.d since he was 15, to be separate from his family and states that he chose an occupation and l i f e s t y l e that were opposite to that of any s i g n i f i c a n t family member, the lack of c o r r e l a t i o n i s not s u r p r i s i n g . 73 From the goupings, i t seems that personally, Lou i s not l i k e his mother or father. He sees his s e i f - a s - a r t i s t and the ideal a r t i s t as being i d e n t i c a l while his real s e l f i s seen as very s i m i l a r to them both. In his present job as a r t i s t , Lou i s able to be more himself. Currently he has much i n common with the contemporary a r t i s t who i n turn shares many t r a i t s with Lou's ideal s e l f . Lou sees the dealer as opposite to his youngest brother, himself-as-son and the customer. The customer i s viewed as being s i m i l a r to his father. This i s rather negative. The dealer i s somewhat s i m i l a r to Lou as a restaurant worker and also somewhat l i k e his mother and oldest brother. As a restaurant worker, Lou acted a l i t t l e b i t l i k e his father and unlike his mother and his ideal s e l f . The manager and executive are very s i m i l a r and Lou's s i s t e r shares much in common with them. The s t r i k i n g p a r a l l e l s were: (1) son i s to father as self-as-restaurant-worker i s to customer; and (2) restaurant worker i s to a r t i s t as dealer i s to contemporary a r t i s t and more p o s i t i v e son i s to mother and oldest brother. In the interview Lou stated that he was s i m i l a r to his father, i n that they shared s i m i l a r bad habits. He painted his father as a r i g i d , i n t o l e r a n t but charming d i s c i p l i n a r i a n who was neither r a t i o n a l nor reasonable. But he also stated that he had no real job model a l -though his mother was somewhat a r t i s t i c a l l y i n c l i n e d . He laughed at the f a c t that he saw the ideal a r t i s t and himself as a r t i s t as being i d e n t i c a l and his real s e l f as being s i m i l a r . "That is a weakness, we a l l want to be where we should be. I'm nowhere near the ideal a r t i s t but the differences may be more subtle than Q-sorting 74 can f i g u r e out. I work at my work and I approach i t l i k e an a r t i s t because I am one. Nobody does t h i s unless they're prepared to s a c r i -f i c e . . . i t ' s not having a job, there's a f u l f i l l m e n t in i t , you're always i n i t . You are i t . There's no separation between man and job." Lou agreed that he shared much i n common with the contemporary artis t - - o n e of his best friends and that the a r t i s t was close to his ideal i n some t r a i t s . "I'm j u s t a repressed romantic and he's not. Repression comes from having to be p a r t i a l l y responsible." Lou stated that he was a l o t l i k e his youngest brother, a f e l o n , when he was i n the r o l e of son whereas the dealer i s the symbol of Lou's d i f f e r e n t l i f e s t y l e and i n t e r e s t s . He agreed that the customer and his father shared many t r a i t s i n common. "My father i s n ' t a well educated man and education means a l o t to me. I lack respect f o r my father and most p e o p l e — e s p e c i a l l y when you're i n a job where you meet them a l l the time. They're mostly assholes so I'd lump them i n the same category." Lou saw the dealer and himself as being s i m i l a r as restaurant workers since both worked f o r the same restaurant chain f o r about the same amount of time and both qui t i n disgust. The f a c t that the dealer was somewhat l i k e his mother and eldest brother did not s i t well with Lou at a l l . This again i s not s u r p r i s i n g since Lou has s t r i v e n to widen the distance between his family and himself since the time he l e f t home at age 15. However, he did say "My brother i s s o l i d l y normal and mother's on the f r i n g e s . He (brother) used to be on the f r i n g e s , way out there, but now he's i n the centre. The dealer i s l i k e James 75 Joyce--an e x i l e f i g u r e , never quite a part of what he's doing even though he's meticulous, he never believes i n i t . " Lou agreed that he did act at a remove from his ideal s e l f and was more l i k e his father i n his job at the restaurant. "I needed the d o l l a r s , my ideal s e l f would have t o l d 30% of the customers to piss o f f but I couldn't do it...my father f o r years has worked dull jobs, mostly because he had four children to support...he was forced to do i t , he hasn't had much free choice i n his l i f e and when he's had i t , he's blown i t . When you work f o r somebody, that's what happens. My mother's a drop-out, a t r a n s i e n t , rarely stays in one place f o r more than s i x months, i s always out drinking and dancing. B a s i c a l l y she ups and moves when things bother her which i s unlike my father who's never been able to do that and unlike me when I fe e l responsible." There was no surprise that the manager and executive were seen as being s i m i l a r . "They're both jocks." When his s i s t e r was i n -cluded i n the equation Lou stated "They're a l l manipulative. The two restaurant fellows were s e m i - i n t e l l i g e n t , my s i s t e r ' s not too bright but they a l l know how to manipulate f o r d i f f e r e n t purposes." When presented with the f i r s t p a r a l l e l : son i s to father as seif-as-restaurant worker i s to customer; Lou immediately said "No that's not true. I always sounded o f f against my father but didn't with the customer." When more probing was done, Lou s a i d "There were rules set down i n both cases that I had to follow to a c e r t a i n extent, more so as an employee than as a son. A further p a r a l l e l would be that when I couldn't take the job anymore, I got out of i t . When I was 15 76 and found a way to get some money, I got out of the house. I f l e e from unpleasant things." It can be seen that f a r from disagreeing with t h i s p a r a l l e l , Lou i n f a c t v e r i f i e s i t . Lou did not l i k e the next analogy: job 1 i s to job 2 as dealer i s to contemporary a r t i s t and more p o s i t i v e son is to mother and oldest brother. However, on further r e f l e c t i o n he said "Yeah, that's sound. On one side you've got a restrained approach and the other side i s wide open. As an a r t i s t I can go and do what I f e e l . A dealer has more r e s t r i c t i o n s than a contemporary a r t i s t . My mother i s l i k e the a r t i s t , my oldest brother i s coming back to centre but he was l i k e my mother. The p o s i t i v e son has r e s t r i c t i o n s too, so i t f i t s . " In conclusion then, i t can be stated that from age 15 at the l a t e s t , Lou consciously set out to be d i s t i n c t i v e from his family and has rejected many of t h e i r a t t r i b u t e s . The family provided a model fo r what he didn't want to be. In p a r t i c u l a r his father whom Lou sees as being trapped provided Lou with a model f o r obtaining a job that did not c u r t a i l one's freedom. The s o - c a l l e d bohemian l i f e s t y l e of his mother has also had an influence on Lou and while he acknowledges her "conventional" a r t i s t i c sense, he rejects the excesses of her transient l i f e s t y l e by being a homeowner, paying b i l l s , and perhaps being the middle class person he thinks his mother wants to be i n her heart of hearts. It seems i n many ways as i f the contemporary a r t i s t and the dealer have become Lou's new p o s i t i v e , harmonious family. 77 ELIZABETH Present Occupation: University Professor Table 11 S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r Each Factor or Type Roles Loadings on Each Type Type 1 ideal s e l f (.88) s e l f as professor (.87) s e l f (.84) ideal professor (.82) Dean (-.80) student (.78) aunt (.52) Type 2 father (.82) aunt (.73) cousi n (.72) colleague (.63) Type 3 mother (.83) daughter (.80) 78 Roles Loadings on Each Type Type 4 brother (.78) colleague (.52) Elizabeth i s a 45 year old married woman with a Ph.d. who has been a professor f o r 15 years. She i s the oldest of two children and hast one brother. Both her parents worked when she was growing up; her father as a r a i l r o a d executive and her mother as a public health nurse. They are r e t i r e d at present. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that Elizabeth does not r e a l l y take a f t e r her mother or her father but her aunt to some extent. Both Elizabeth and her aunt seem to be j u s t the opposite of the Dean. While i t appears as i f she has some commonality with students, her colleague seems more l i k e her aunt and cousin and to some extent, l i k e her father. The colleague also has some features i n common with her brother. .Elizabeth seems to have most i n common with her mother when she i s acting as a daughter, but when she acts t h i s way, she i s acting quite a ways from her i d e a l . It seems as i f she i s r e a l l y being h e r s e l f i n her work role and that there i s l i t t l e s p l i t between her ideal and real s e l f . The p a r a l l e l which emerged was: s e l f i s to father as s e l f i s to colleague. When interviewed, Elizabeth appeared to be somewhat moved by some of the r e s u l t s , had tears spring to her eyes and repeatedly mentioned how g r a t i f y i n g i t was to hear that what one was t r y i n g to do 79 i n l i f e and be i n l i f e was i n f a c t r e f l e c t e d i n the Q-sort. She said that i t was good f o r her to hear that she was more l i k e her aunt than her mother and stated that the aunt was extremely caring and fun. "She was a very good 'mother-hen,1 gave fun parties f o r us a l l as c h i l d r e n and was c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y p o s i t i v e . I'm l i k e my aunt i n that i n my job I l i k e to keep things moving as smoothly as possible. I l i k e to see people working with me go as f a r as they can and some-times that's i n c o n f l i c t with what I'm t o l d I have to do. My aunt was l o t s of fun and making sure that people who go through a l l t h i s have some fun. I think that's important." The f a c t that both she and her aunt were opposite of the Dean brought a laugh and a comment "That's neat. He tends to focus on things that go awry." He i s seen as providing l i t t l e support, tends to operate on assumption and seemingly does not take the time to check out factual data with the person i t d i r e c t l y concerns. This i s i n d i r e c t c o n f l i c t with what both Elizabeth and her aunt do. The f a c t that her father, as well as her colleague, were seen as being s i m i l a r to her aunt and cousin evoked some emotion and Elizabeth's eyes welled up with tears and she cleared her throat. Elizabeth said "I l i k e hearing that. I f that's true I'd r e a l l y be pleased because i t means fairness and fun and helping people to the place they want to be." Colleague and brother were seen as sharing the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of " l i t t l e boy i m p u l s i v i t y . The colleague would d i f f e r i n having the maturity as well as the impulsiveness. He provides me with honestly c r i t i c a l support." Her brother, i n contrast, was described i n terms 80 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a c h i l d . His d i s t i n c t i v e mood i s seen as cranky and b e l l i g e r e n t while other s a l i e n t t r a i t s include tantrums, i n a b i l i t y to f i n i s h things, low self-concept and dependency on Elizabeth i n p a r t i c u -l a r . Elizabeth agreed that she was s i m i l a r to her mother when i n the daughter r o l e . " I t means the things I say I know are often hurtful and I know i f I had to repeat them the next day I would bury them--they j u s t f l y out. That's only t y p i c a l of me i n my daughter r o l e with whomever would be bringing that out. Yes, I'm acting quite a way from my ideal then." Elizabeth stated that she feels that r e f l e c t s some of the t r a i t s she doesn't l i k e i n her mother most p a r t i c u l a r l y when she's upset. She described her mother as being extremely independent and sai d that she encouraged her daughter to be that way--however, when Elizabeth followed that pattern her mother was not pleased. This i n -congruity s t i l l causes Elizabeth some pain. Since her mother's d i s -t i n c t i v e mood was cranky and occasionally whimsical, Elizabeth became even more attracted to her aunt's pleasant motherliness as a model. The f a c t that real and ideal s e l f were s i m i l a r and that Elizabeth's work and real s e l f have l i t t l e s p l i t brought a fervent "God I hope so. Your timing i s wonderful." The p a r a l l e l which emerged between family and work roles ( s e l f i s to father as s e l f i s to colleague) caused Elizabeth to remark, "That would f i t . I guess i n terms of sorting I would hope that would f i t i n fun, f a i r , honesty and helping people do what they want to do." Her father i s seen as being always steady and h e l p f u l . "Everyone trusts him and no one d i s l i k e s him. He i s , however, weak about taking a 81 stand." The colleague with his helpfulness, fairness and pleasant-ness i s reminiscent of Elizabeth's father. In conclusion then, i t can be seen that the res u l t s f i t the per-son's conception of t h e i r world. E l i z a b e t h , d i s l i k i n g aspects of her mother, found another r o l e model i n her aunt and shaped her l i f e a f t e r her i n many ways. Mother and brother became models of how not to be and these models are used when others act i n ways that remind Elizabeth of maternal or f r a t e r n a l stances. Father became an important role model for work and those i n d i v i d u a l s who are seen as resembling aunt, cousin or father became important at the work s i t e . Thus Elizabeth's main theme i s becoming as caring, funloving and mother-henning at work as her aunt was in the family, and associating with those colleagues and students who remind her of the p o s i t i v e aspects of her father and brother. 82 KATE Present Occupation: Lawyer Table 12 S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r Each Factor or Type Roles Loadings on Each Type Type 1 partner (.88) judge (.84) s e l f as lawyer (.77) ideal lawyer (.72) colleague (.53) Type 2 ideal s e l f (.86) brother (.78) c l i e n t (.52) colleague (.46) ideal lawyer (.46) Type 3 father (.91) s i s t e r (.87) Type 4 mother (.82) 83 Roles Loadings on Each Type daughter (.78) oldest brother (.78) s e l f (.70) c l i e n t (.53) Kate i s a 30 year old married lawyer who has been i n her profession f o r four years and holds a B.A. and LLB. She i s the youngest of four c h i l d r e n , the c l o s e s t in age being a s i s t e r who i s eight years older. Her other two s i b l i n g s are brothers. Her father, who i s deceased, was a lumber inspector and m i l l worker. Kate's father, second oldest brother and s i s t e r were a l l a l c o h o l i c s , although her s i b l i n g s are now recovered. In addition, her second oldest brother has a history of mental i n s t a -b i l i t y . Her oldest brother i s a born again C h r i s t i a n . The r e s u l t s are as follows: both personally and as a lawyer, Kate seems to take a f t e r her mother and not her father. It seems that she resembles her oldest brother most of a l l . Her ideal lawyer seems rather d i f f e r e n t than her personal i d e a l . However, as a personal i d e a l , her brother i s c l o s e s t , as to some extent are c l i e n t and colleague. Her father and s i s t e r seem s i m i l a r , yet d i s t i n c t from the others. As prof e s s i o n a l s , Kate, the partner, her colleague and the judge a l l seem s i m i l a r and c l o s e r to her professional i d e a l . The two p a r a l l e l s which were drawn from the data are: (1) s e l f i s to mother and oldest brother as s e l f as lawyer i s to partner and judge; and (2) s e l f i s to brother as s e l f i s to ideal s e l f . 84 Kate agreed that she took a f t e r her mother i n terms of tempera-ment,, i n p a r t i c u l a r being stable and steady rather than unreliable and unsteady l i k e her father. She also said that she and her mother both co n t r o l l e d t h e i r emotions. The fa c t that she was l i k e her oldest brother did not surprise Kate at a l l . "He was a surrogate father to me when I was l i t t l e . We both were not able to e a s i l y express emotions, we've both progressed but we're not l i k e my other brother and sister--where everything i s r i g h t out i n the open, they're always having some c r i s i s . We always were more calm, and held things i n - - l i k e my mother. He was very good to me." The f a c t that her personal ideal and her ideal lawyer d i f f e r e d f i t well f o r Kate. She smiled and said "Sometimes I think I'm i n the wrong profession. There i s that constant struggle with law i n that the q u a l i t i e s i t wants from a person are d i f f e r e n t than the q u a l i t i e s I admire: ideal things l i k e being r e a l l y c r e a t i v e , flamboyant and emotional, that't not me...some of the q u a l i t i e s of lawyers are more close to me. It's the i n t e l l e c t u a l , rational that has been developed. The one part of being a lawyer that i s n ' t l i k e me i s the steadiness, you can't be super emotional yet sometimes I go over the edge and get too emotional which I admire. So there's a tension there. The other tension i s around competency and confidence whereas l o t s of times I don't f e e l l i k e that...but that would be my ideal too." Kate was surprised to hear that her second brother was close to her i d e a l . "He's a r t i s t i c and c r e a t i v e , b a s i c a l l y kind, s e n s i t i v e and 85 quiet. There's a whole side to him that I c e r t a i n l y want to be l i k e . However, the emotional i n s t a b i l i t y that he has, has allowed him to get a l o t of attention, along with my s i s t e r , so there's a love/hate thing there because of that." She was pleased that the c l i e n t showed t r a i t s of her ideal since "I l i k e d her idealism, her p o l i t i c s and her dedication to that." The colleague i s ideal i n the sense that he's "warm, f r i e n d l y and gregar-ious, down to earth, n a t u r a l , easy to get along with and gets along well with people." Kate expressed surprise that her s i s t e r wasn't more l i k e her i d e a l . She agreed that her father and s i s t e r were s i m i l a r i n being f a i r l y self-centered and having emotional mood swings. "Both my father and s i s t e r are i n t e l l i g e n t people although not t e r r i b l y well d i s -c i p l i n e d . My dad, second oldest brother and s i s t e r are a l l a l c o h o l i c s so they a l l : have some s i m i l a r q u a l i t i e s . That's always been recognized i n the family." Kate seemed pleased that the work roles she'd sorted on appeared i n one type with her ideal lawyer and self-as-lawyer. "We a l l s t r i v e f o r an ideal i f you're going to be a good lawyer. I've been r e a l l y working on that. Now I f e e l l i k e I'm getting there." When given the analogy: s e l f i s to mother and oldest brother as self-as-lawyer i s to partner and judge, Kate said that that was true f o r her. "The q u a l i t i e s my mother and brother have are s i m i l a r to what the judge and lawyer have. Both groups of people have the r a t i o n a l a b i l i t y to think things through, s t a b i l i t y and also the sense of what 86 the ethical responsible thing to do i s . I'd l ike to be less l ike my mother and oldest brother and want to emulate the partner and judge." The second analogy: se l f is to brother as sel f is to ideal , caused Kate to remark that "Only the positive qualities he has are close to my ideal. That also says I feel a lot warmer to him than I'd real ized." In conclusion, i t appears that there is a sp l i t in Kate's family between rational/unstable and controlled/out of control. Kate, her mother and oldest brother took on the rational roles while her father: s i s ter and brother were able to take on the unstable roles. It is interesting to note that both sides are equally divided in terms of the children's gender. It would appear then that Kate continues to play out the rational role in her choice of profession and in her choice of whom she admires at work but s t i l l idealizes the emotional and flamboyant as represented by her brother on the other side of her family. The theme of Kate's drama is reproducing at work the rational part of her family while continuing to attempt personally her ideal of creative, flamboyant emotionalism. 87 CARL Present Occupation: School Counsellor F i r s t Occupation: Teacher Table 13 S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r Each Factor or Type Roles Loadings on Each Type Type 1 uncle 2 (.88) pr i n c i p a l 1 (-82) mother (.66) father (.58) ideal s e l f (.57) co-worker 1 (.47) Type 2 s e l f (.83) ideal counsellor (.79) s e l f as counsellor (.74) s e l f as teacher (.70) son (.66) ideal teacher (.58) ideal s e l f (.54) student (-.47) 88 Roles Loadings on Each Type Type 3 grandmother (.75) pr i n c i p a l 2 (.74) parent (.72) student (.51) Type 4 co-worker 2 (.81) uncle 3 (.74) c l i ent (.68) father (.52) co-worker 1 (.49) Type 5 uncle 1 (.82) s i s t e r (.61) Carl i s a 37 year old married male with two c h i l d r e n . He has a B.A., M.Ed, and has been working as a counsellor f o r the past eight years. Carl had one twin s i s t e r who was schizophrenic and i s now de-ceased. His father i s a sales person and his mother was an occupational health nurse f o r many y e a r s — s h e i s now also a sales person. One of the most memorable events i n his childhood was his parents' separation when Carl was 13. At that time, he and his s i s t e r stayed with his 89 bachelor uncle and grandmother and also l ived with another uncle who lived two doors down the street. The results show that Carl is pretty much himself in his work roles, particularly in the current one as counsellor, which is somewhat similar to mother, father and other relatives. However, as a person, Carl is rather dist inct although his personal ideal somewhat resembles his mother and father. Carl 's second uncle in particular, and mother and father somewhat resemble the f i r s t principal Carl worked for. His grandmother resembles his current principal and parent, and just s l ight ly the student. More aptly, the student is opposite to Carl , and other relatives such as his f i r s t uncle. Client and present co-worker are similar to the third uncle. Carl 's father and co-worker in his f i r s t job are somewhat similar. The f i r s t uncle and Carl 's s ister share some attributes in common. The paral lels which emerged are: (1) grandson is to grandmother as se l f is to current principal and parent; and (2) nephew is to uncle as se l f is to present co-worker and c l ient and son is to father. In the interview Carl agreed that in some ways he was l ike his parents at work, " . . . i n terms of interpersonal reaction with people. Both of them, that's the kind of thing they always did, always people connected and I'm doing the same thing in a different area. One was a nurse and my father's a salesman and they're both good at i t . " 90 Carl agreed that he was a d i s t i n c t person and mentioned his father's drive to improve things, his s o c i a b i l i t y and his energy, as p o s i t i v e i d e a l s . The f a c t that his second uncle and his parents somewhat resembled his f i r s t p r i n c i p a l , i n t r i g u e d C a r l . "It's probably because of t h e i r outgoing nature, they're f a i r l y flamboyant, and enjoy a good party, a good time." In a d d i t i o n , second uncle and p r i n c i p a l share the a t t r i -bute of dependability. I n i t i a l l y Carl s a i d that his grandmother did not p a r t i c u l a r l y resemble his current p r i n c i p a l and the parent. But a f t e r further thought he s a i d they "...resemble one another i n that both tend to say things without giving thought to how i t would a f f e c t the other person and they may r e a l i z e i t a f t e r , what they d i d . " That the student i s the opposite of himself and his r e l a t i v e s evoked a quick "Yes, okay, the i n s e n s i t i v i t y , lack of consideration made her the opposite to us." Carl s a i d that c l i e n t and present co-worker were s i m i l a r to the t h i r d uncle i n "Some mannerisms i n terms of f a c i a l , body mannerisms come to mind. Also they were a l l energetic, a c t i v e , hyper, go do things. That's consistent. Also, a l l were nice people." He was not able to see any s i m i l a r i t i e s between his s i s t e r and f i r s t uncle. The f i r s t p a r a l l e l : grandson i s to grandmother as s e l f i s to current p r i n c i p a l and parent caused Carl to comment "I don't remember. It's d i f f e r e n t contexts." He did say "the p r i n c i p a l i s s i m i l a r to my 91 father so I learned to deal with him as I do my father, i . e . , what do I do when my father reacts t h i s way." Carl s a i d that the p a r a l l e l : nephew i s to uncle as s e l f i s to co-worker and c l i e n t and son i s to father made sense "because the t r a i t s they have are s i m i l a r so I r e l a t e to them i n a s i m i l a r way. The energy and the humorousness." It seems that once again family roles are displaced onto the world of work. Carl followed a family l i n e i n being a teacher, l i k e his uncles and grandmother and then branched out but into a s i m i l a r area. He seems to act at work with co-workers and others as he does with his family. 92 FRANK Present Occupation: D i v i s i o n a l Manager (Business Executive) ' Table 14 S i g n i f i c a n t Roles and Factor Loadings f o r Each Factor or Type Loadings on Each Type Type 1 mother (.88) son (.86) s e l f (.81) father (.78) ideal s e l f (.72) s e l f as d i v i s i o n a l manager (.72) trader (.61) ideal d i v i s i o n a l manager (.53) Type 2 executive vice president (.85) brother (-.69) ideal d i v i s i o n a l manager (.67) trader (.47) vice president (.46) ideal s e l f (.45) Frank i s a 62 year o l d divorced male with a grown family who has been working at his current job f o r the past 17 years. The oldest of 93 two boys, his brother died many years ago, an alcoholic on skid row. His father was a lawyer and later became a provincial judge. His mother was a housewife. His father is s t i l l a l ive. Frank is a chartered public accountant and has one year university. The results indicated that roles f e l l into one of two types during Frank's sorting. It appears that Frank takes after both his mother and father, both personally, and in a work role. The trader seems more l ike Frank as a job sel f than Frank's real sel f moreso than the vice president or the executive vice president. The executive vice president seems almost the opposite of his brother, and to a lesser degree, so are the vice president and the trader. The trader and vice president share some common traits with Frank's ideal self. In addition, Frank sees himself, his self-as-son, his job sel f and his ideal se l f as being similar. The data based parallel i s : family (including self) is to an ideal brother (opposite of actual) as self is to executive vice presi -dent. In the interview Frank agreed that he was a blend of both parents. He saw himself as being l ike his mother in being concerned or at least conscious of other people's opinions of him whereas his father was less concerned about other's opinions. However, Frank noted that while he has the calm exterior of his father, he also has the more emotional inter ior of his mother. He found the fact that he was more similar to the trader than the vice president or the executive vice president very interesting. 94 "Although I c e r t a i n l y don't i d e n t i f y with the trader, we have a couple of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n common but he's more extreme than I am. He has a very tough e x t e r i o r much more than mine, but he's a marshmallow i n -side when i t comes to someone with a problem, he's much more of a marsh-mallow than I am. He's a person I have a s o f t spot f o r . " Frank agreed r e a d i l y with the statement that his brother was almost the opposite of his co-workers but cleared his throat and had misty eyes when t h i s statement was read. "I can't see that there's even any emotional resemblance. These fellows, whether or not they have internal d i f f i c u l t y s o c i a l i z i n g , can do i t at le a s t s u p e r f i c i a l l y without s t r e s s , however they r a t i o n a l i z e i t . My brother was c e r t a i n l y unable to do that. It was very s t r e s s f u l f o r him. One of the reasons he took to alcohol was because i t eased the problem f o r him." The fa c t that the trader and vice president share some t r a i t s i n common with his ideal s e l f caused Frank to demur i n i t i a l l y . "I don't see the trader and the vice president as having almost anything i n common." On further r e f l e c t i o n however, he said "Certainly the vice president i s precise and is as tough as I fee l I should be and the trader i s as precise as I'd l i k e to be. He's very well organized which I never fe e l I am, regrettably." Thus the fi n d i n g was validated. When faced with the s i m i l a r i t y among s e l f roles Frank appeared pleased but was surprised that he saw himself as son as being s i m i l a r to his other selves since "I viewed my role as a son as being t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t and apart from the world I l i v e i n today." 95 The p a r a l l e l : family (including s e l f ) i s to an ideal brother (opposite of actual) as s e l f i s to executive vice president, caused Frank to pause and then to say "I guess almost as much as anybody. Certainly not the other two (co-workers) whom I l i k e and respect. Executive vice president...yeah. I hadn't thought about i t , I guess I'm surprised you came up with i t . " The executive vice president i s l i k e an ideal brother i n taking "an i n t e r e s t , concerned i n t e r e s t , with-out overdoing i t . He has compassion but also the a b i l i t y i n the event of any disagreement to bring i t out f r o n t , without animosity. He's a per-son that you could count on but who wouldn't necessarily expect that that was a favour that had to be returned, who could be demanding with-out i t being threatening (choked voice) i n spite of day-to-day needs of having to deal with each other f i r m l y , he could also be a f r i e n d . " It appears then that Frank has i n t e r n a l i z e d the role models of both mother and father and while r e j e c t i n g c e r t a i n aspects of t h e i r p e r sonality, f e e l s very warmly towards both of them. Although his brother was i n t e l l e c t u a l l y b r i l l i a n t , he did not r e a l i z e his potential and ended his l i f e t r a g i c a l l y . Although Frank v i s i t e d with his brother r e g u l a r l y , his parents were unable to accept his condition and attempted to ignore i t . Frank s t i l l f e e l s g r i e f over the demise of his brother and perhaps sees i n his executive vice president the brother he wished he had. In summary then, Frank became much l i k e his parents and found in the workplace, the ideal brother he may have wished he had. 96 Conclusion It would appear then that although each drama and how i t i s enacted, i s i d i o s y n c r a t i c , the f i n d i n g that people re-enact family roles i n the enactment of occupational roles proves to be a possible Type C law (Herbst, 1970). The p a r t i c i p a n t s provided subjective v a l i d a t i o n of the quantative data by t h e i r almost t o t a l agreement with the r e s u l t s as well as by t h e i r reactions of laughter and tears. In a d d i t i o n , a l l elaborated on each f i n d i n g and thus further fleshed out the c o r r e l a -tions . The l a s t chapter discusses the p r a c t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l implica-tions of these f i n d i n g s . 97 CHAPTER SIX Discussion The results indicate substantial i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among members of the s e l f , family and work domains. Further, subjects strongly confirmed these i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s both by d i r e c t affirmation and by i n d i r e c t emotional response. Also, they were able to elaborate relationships i n a meaningful way, elevating them, at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y , into a drama of l i v i n g f i r s t learned i n the family and l a t e r enacted at work. These findings are consistent with the general t h e o r e t i c a l proposition that family experience serves as a metaphor f o r the world. Family roles appear to be displaced onto the work arena, through some unknown process of transformation, where they serve as types or con-tainers f o r understanding and r e l a t i n g within that domain. In this way, the study r e p l i c a t e s and extends the i n i t i a l work of Baas and Brown (1973) and provides a unique and o r i g i n a l framework f o r concep-t u a l i z i n g how the family influences the occupational domain. There was l i t t l e consistency i n the displacement of r o l e s . For example, father might be a s a l i e n t type i n work or not s a l i e n t at a l l . Father might be a s e l f model at work or a negative model to avoid. Through other workers, one might enact a r e l a t i o n with a substitute father or create a more ideal father one never r e a l l y had. What exactly i s displaced and made a s a l i e n t part of one's work drama appears to be i d i o s y n c r a t i c . This pattern of evidence i s not consis-tent with e i t h e r a Type A or Type B law. It i s consistent with a Type C 98 law (Herbst, 1970). That i s , relationships and parameters appear to be s p e c i f i c rather than general, but the generating rules are constant. A c t u a l l y , the generating rule phrased at the level of role correspond-ence i s not constant (e.g., the case of Lou). However, phrased gener-a l l y as a metaphoric transformation of one's family drama onto the work domain, the rule appears to be constant i n these data. What i s con-stant from case to case i s that in working, a person re-enacts a drama from one's family of o r i g i n . Delimitations and Limitations of the Study Correlations are l i m i t e d i n both t h e i r subtlety in capturing the ways work i s a re-enactment of the family drama and in t h e i r a b i l i t y to uncover complex causes (Glass and Stanley, 1970). However, since family exists p r i o r to work, a d i r e c t i o n of influence i s at least suggested. This study does not assert that family roles cause work roles or relations and does not show how the transformation occurs; i t simply indicates that a Type C r e g u l a r i t y exists (Herbst, 1970). A second de l i m i t a t i o n i s that in exploring the general proposi-t i o n that people re-enact family roles at work, the subject has been reduced to correspondences between r o l e s . The two propositions are not the same although role correspondences are a reasonable way to explore dramas. However, correspondences are also a l i m i t e d form of explora-t i o n , as was made apparent i n the case of Lou. The strategy of t h i s research was to explore a t h e o r e t i c a l pro-position through diverse individual studies. It i s not possible to generalize from s i n g l e cases to a population. However, following 99 Chassan (1979), who discusses t h i s issue thoroughly, what i s found true f o r one person i s apt to hold true f o r some others. There i s l i t t l e i n the present research to discourage the notion that many others are apt to show t h i s pattern since the participants can be said not to diverge s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the general population. Theoretical Implications The present research provides support f o r the hypothesis that occupational roles within the context of a person's occupational role w i l l be r e l a t e d to family r o l e s . Several t h e o r e t i c a l implications follow.. Influence of family--on occupational choice. Roe (1957) and other psychoanalytical thinkers believe that family structure and member i n -t e r a c t i o n help determine the kinds of interactions that the c h i l d w i l l learn to develop. This study tends to support t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l hypo-t h e s i s , but extends i t by i l l u s t r a t i n g the i d i o s y n c r a t i c fashion i n which i n d i v i d u a l s choose r o l e models from both the nuclear and extended family. The drama one re-enacts need not be r e s t r i c t e d to an actual family pattern, but may also include dramas of f u l f i l l m e n t which were only experienced as potentials previously. As a r e s u l t , Adler's notion of the c h i l d as a creative decision-maker seems to be c l o s e r to de-s c r i b i n g what a c t u a l l y happens (Ansbacher and Ansbacher, 1979). Thus, contrary to Roe's (1957) theory of family atmosphere where ch i l d r e n are seen as passive spectators affected i n a one-way fashion by t h e i r parents, people seem to be active synthesizers of experience. The p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the present study provided support f o r the notion TOO that people choose r o l e models both while they are young and then l a t e r on i n l i f e . They then seem to make decisions to be l i k e that model, sometimes i r r e s p e c t i v e of the length of time they have spent with the s i g n i f i c a n t person. Therefore i t would seem that a person acquires a repertoire of roles and dramatic compositions to be enacted, and a person s t r i v e s to enact those that are more esteemed, more r e a l i s t i c or more compatible with s e l f - d e f i n i t i o n . However, i t must be stressed that the ways roles and dramas are selected i s currently unknown. In conclusion then, the present study supports the hypothesis that the family shapes and continues to determine the course and out-come of i t s members' l i v e s (Bratcher, 1982). Although vocational th e o r i s t s agree that the family i s an im-portant determinant of occupational choice, they have seemed to be un-able to account f o r the family's more s p e c i f i c influences (Osipow, 1973). The present research shows how the family influences i t s members by providing r o l e models. It i s important to note that people are also able to enact dramas which were not a v a i l a b l e to them i n t h e i r family. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of children with parents. Although i t was suggested previously that i t seemed pla u s i b l e that c h i l d r e n might often be influenced to s t r i v e f o r an occupational r o l e s i m i l a r to a parent's since a parent's r o l e tends to be high in the family esteem system, such was not the case i n t h i s study. Eight of the ten part i c i p a n t s exceeded t h e i r parents' educational l e v e l , one received less education and one received the same. None of the part i c i p a n t s were in the same or s i m i l a r occupations as t h e i r parents. Four participants had s i m i l a r 101 status jobs as t h e i r parents, f i v e exceeded t h e i r parents' status and one has a lower status job than his parents. Thus the normative ex-pectation does not account f o r how a family influences the occupational r o l e enactment of c h i l d r e n . However, what did emerge from the study i s the i d i o s y n c r a t i c way participants i d e n t i f i e d with t h e i r parents in enacting a drama. Six people exceeded t h e i r parents' socioeconomic status and became more educated. I r i s exceeded her parents' status by working f u l l - t i m e and marrying an accountant. Garl followed a family pattern set by his grandmother and uncles of being a teacher before he became a school counsellor. Irma incorporated her mother's strong ambitions and chose a job where she could work f o r h e r s e l f , make an excellent s a l a r y , and r e a l i z e ambitions quickly. Dave followed his mother's pattern of not being interested in working but since i t i s economically necessary f o r him to work i s employed i n a job that he can see his mother doing. Frank did not achieve the educational level of his father, a judge, but as an accountant and d i v i s i o n a l manager i n a large corporation has attained a s i m i l a r level of success and socio-economic status. Seif-concept. This research did not investigate self-conception d i r e c t l y , but rather stressed a perspective i n which a s e l f r o l e (or conception) i s meaningfully placed within the context of family members. Self-concept research i n r e l a t i o n to careers might be conducted too narrowly in focusing so exclusively upon how a person construes s e l f . For example, the s t a b i l i t y of self-concept might involve a successful metaphoric transformation of family to the world, since people structure 102 l i f e s ituations (other r o l e s , f o r instance) in ways that support a p a r t i c u l a r r o l e enactment. As another example, the meaning of a p a r t i c u l a r self-concept i s not apparent u n t i l i t i s linked with s i g n i f i -cant family members, and p o t e n t i a l l y j u s t s i g n i f i c a n t figures i n one's l i f e . This study showed how i n t e r r e l a t e d the various s e l f roles were and how they are placed i n the context of a family drama. A s e l f con-cept does not appear to be an i s o l a t e d thing i n i t s e l f , but rather to be an adoption or combination of roles from a wider r e p e r t o i r e . P r a c t i c a l Implications The findings have d i r e c t relevance to counselling practice in at l e a s t three ways. Seif-awareness. In therapy, a therapist may interview the c l i e n t to discover which roles are s i g n i f i c a n t to him/her and why they are s i g n i f i c a n t . This may help the i n d i v i d u a l to understand him/her-s e l f more f u l l y by providing some i n s i g h t into core b e l i e f s and operat-ing p r i n c i p l e s . For example, Carly learned that she had modeled the way she l i v e d very c l o s e l y to the way she perceived her mother and uncle l i v e d . When she r e a l i z e d t h i s several years ago, she decided on some level that there were drawbacks to t h e i r approach to the world. This, r e a l i z a t i o n enabled Carly to gradually switch to a more assertive stance, that of her youngest s i s t e r . The r e s u l t s of the Q-sort brought into awareness and underscored the changes she has undergone, provided her with p o s i t i v e reinforcement and made her conscious of her personal power. 103 It can be seen, therefore, that i n s i g h t into how s i g n i f i c a n t others are and how they a f f e c t us, may provide an opportunity f o r an in d i v i d u a l to decide whether or not to a l t e r some behavior. Many of the part i c i p a n t s i n the present study found t h i s learning to be a powerful, almost c a t h a r t i c experience. F i l i a l l y , the use of the Q-sort provides the the r a p i s t with valuable information about how people structure t h e i r world. This i n -formation can be useful i n devising therapeutic interventions. Career counselling. T r a d i t i o n a l l y i n the general t r a i t - f a c t o r model (e.g., Tolbert, 1980), the immediate aim i s one of matching a person to a s u i t a b l e job. In contrast, but not i n d i r e c t opposition, the developmental model i n i t i a t e d l a r g e l y by the work of Super (1957) aims to promote development. Within t h i s context, the present study is not concerned with matching as t r a d i t i o n a l l y conceived. Rather, i t i s concerned with a re-enactment of a drama from one's family of o r i g i n that i s apt to take place i n work. Whether one matches well or i l l , a drama, i t i s assumed, w i l l s t i l l unfold. A counsellor's concern would be to heighten awareness of which drama i s being staged f o r enactment, and whether i t i s r e a l l y a worthwhile one to perform. In t h i s sense, t h i s work contributes to the developmental model of career counselling. However, since s e t t i n g i s important f o r staging, matching would be an important aspect as we l l . Work adjustment. Once a person has learned how he/she operates i n the world and exactly which work figures remind him or her of s i g n i f i c a n t others, she/he can learn new strategies f o r coping with 104 problematic bosses or co-workers. This self-awareness may also be an aid i n discovering when one has found a compatible work atmosphere. One can then choose to enact d i f f e r e n t and more f u l f i l l i n g dramas than before. As a r e s u l t , job and s e l f s a t i s f a c t i o n may increase. Mini-mally, the topic of t h i s study would appear to be a r i c h area of ex-ploration i n helping a person to make work more f u l f i l l i n g . Implications f o r Future Research (1) One of the most challenging problems concerns s e l e c t i o n from a repertoire. Presumably, a person has a variety of dramas that might be enacted and a variety of types to adopt for oneself or to a l t e r c a s t to others. Very probably, s e l e c t i o n ( i f i t may be c a l l e d that) takes place la r g e l y beyond awareness, but how? Are there p r i n c i p l e s of order which influence s e l e c t i o n such as s e l f -esteem? (2) How does the actual transformation process work? Surely, there are d i f f i c u l t i e s in making a metaphorical transformation into an a c t u a l i t y . For example, other people w i l l not necessarily cooper-ate. What s k i l l s , steps, or conditions are involved? (3) How do settings l i m i t dramatic enactments? For example, a person entering a job might be situated with three people. While pro-j e c t i o n i s undoubtedly powerful, there are l i m i t s . Among other things, they are s t i l l three d i f f e r e n t persons and not j u s t variants of family members. Do d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s cue d i f f e r e n t dramas? 105 Since co-workers tend to correspond to variants of oneself as well as family members, the external drama p a r a l l e l s an internal drama within oneself. What i s involved i n t h i s internal drama? What outcomes are sought? What i s i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e ? This research hinges upon the notion of a drama. From interviews, i t was c l e a r that people re-enact dramas i n d i f f e r e n t ways. Most seem to portray co-workers as family members, leading to the inference that they act toward them as i f they were substitute family members. However, Lou enacted a drama of d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s . To be s p e c i a l , one must stand out as d i f f e r e n t . How many other ways are there? As w e l l , are there a l i m i t e d number of dramatic types or plots? Career change, p a r t i c u l a r l y in m i d - l i f e , i s an important topic of research at the present time. When people change, do they break away from a family drama or t r y to more f a i t h f u l l y recreate one? What i s the s i g n i f i c a n c e of a career change from the perspective of one's family of origin? Beneath the many p r a c t i c a l considera-tions might be a deeper symbolic meaning. It appears that some people adopt d i f f e r e n t role models from the family at d i f f e r e n t periods. For example, Carly began work enact-ing her mother's position and l a t e r switched toward an emulation of her s i s t e r . What i s the nature of the q u a l i t i e s that draw one to a role model? How does t h i s change? How do others become s i g n i f i c a n t to us i n l i v i n g our own l i v e s ? Are people most open to t h i s influence at certain times? 106 (8) In single case generalization, one generalizes to those who are s i m i l a r to a case i n which a c e r t a i n pattern i s evident. For example, I r i s p a r t i a l l y enacted a more ideal r e l a t i o n s h i p to a more ideal father i n work. To predict who else would follow t h i s pattern requires c r i t e r i a . One c r i t e r i o n would be a negatively viewed father, but other c r i t e r i a are not apparent. To be able to predict, much work i s required to determine the s i m i l a r i t y of people manifesting a pattern. (9) Last, i n t u i t i v e l y i t would seem that some dramas are c e n t r a l ; they involve core meanings of a l i f e . Ohter dramas are more peripheral, involving a diminished sense of meaning. What determines or i n -fluences the enactment of central rather than peripheral dramas? This question i s extremely important both t h e o r e t i c a l l y and p r a c t i c a l l y . A related question involves how dramas from one's family of o r i g i n f a c i l i t a t e and hinder l i v i n g a meaningful, s a t i s -f y i n g , and productive l i f e ? Conclusion The present study examined the t h e o r e t i c a l proposition that family experience serves as a metaphor for the world. It found that family roles through a process of transformation appear to be displaced onto the work arena where they serve as containers f o r understanding and r e l a t i n g within that domain. Ten i n d i v i d u a l s , f i v e men and f i v e women, ranging i n age from 23 to 62 were recruited through contacts, f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the study. A l l had a minimum of at least one year's experience i n t h e i r present job. 107 Participants were selected to represent a diverse range of occupations ranging from parking checker and hairdresser to lawyer and a r t i s t . The s i n g l e case design was used and each subject was asked to Q-sort roles from s e l f , family of o r i g i n and work domains using 46 t r a i t s selected from Holland's (1978) Vocational Preference Inventory which characterizes s i x personality types. Each participant's results were i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d i n order to obtain a c o r r e l a t i o n matrix of r o l e s . The matrix of i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s was then submitted to fa c t o r a n a l y s i s . A p r i n c i p a l components sol u t i o n was f i r s t obtained and was then submitted to a varimax rotation (Boldt, 1980). Participants were given the results and were interviewed i n order to provide subjective v a l i d a t i o n of the findings. The results indicated substantial i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among r o l e s . In addition, participants strongly confirmed the findings both by d i r e c t affirmation, i n d i r e c t emotional responses, and t h e i r a b i l i t y to elaborate and give meaning to the role r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 108 References A l l p o r t , G.W. and Oldbert, H.S. Trait-names, a psycholexical study. Psychological Monographs, 1936, 47 (1, whole No. 211). Adler, A. S u p e r i o r i t y and s o c i a l i n t e r e s t . Edited by Ansbacher, H.L. and Ansbacher, R.R. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1979. Baas, L.R. and Brown, S.R. Generating rules f o r intensive a n a l y s i s : The study of transformations. Psychiatry, 1973, 36_, 172-183. Basow, S.A. and Howe, K.G. Model influence on career choices of college students. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1979, 37_, 239-243. Bern, D.J. and Funder, D.C. Predicting more of the people more of the time: Assessing the personality of s i t u a t i o n s . Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 485-501. Bion, W.R. Transformations. New York: Basic Books, 1965. Boldt, W.B. Q-methodology i n education. Presentation i n Ed 571 on the a p p l i c a t i o n of a Q-methodology to problems of practice i n educa-t i o n , November, 1980. Bratcher, W.E. The influence of the family on career s e l e c t i o n : A family perspective. American Personnel and Guidance Journal, October, 1982, 87-91. Brown, S.R. Intensive analysis i n p o l i t i c a l research. P o l i t i c a l Methodology, 1974, Winter, 1-25. Brown, S.R. and Brenner, O.J. (eds.) Science, Psychology and Communi- cation. New York: Teachers College Press, 1972. 109 Brunkan, R.J. and Cortes, J.O. An inventory to measure the parental attitudes variables i n Roe's theory of occupational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1964, ]_]_, 3-11. Brunkan, R.J. Perceived parental attitudes and parental i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to problems i n vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1965, 12, 39-47. Burgoyne, P.H. Concepts of present s e l f , expected s e l f and ideal s e l f i n vocational preferences and expectations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1979, 1_4, 134-144. Byers, A.P., Forrest, G.G. and Jaccasia, J.S. Recalled early parent-c h i l d r e l a t i o n s , adult needs and occupational choice: A t e s t of Roe's theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, j_5, 324-328. C a t t e l l , R.B., E l s e r , H.W. and Tatsuoka, M.M. Handbook f o r the Sixteen Personality Questionnaire. I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r personality and a b i l i t y t e s t i n g , 1970. Chassan, J.B. Research Design i n C l i n i c a l Psychology and Psychiatry. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1979. Child'- D. The Essentials of Factor Analysis. London: Holt, Rine-hart and Winston, Ltd., 1970. Cochran, L. -Construct systems and the d e f i n i t i o n of s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36_, 733-740. Fairweather, J.R. R e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d a t i o n of Q-method r e s u l t s : some empirical evidence. Operant S u b j e c t i v i t y , 1981, 5_, 2-16. 110 Ferguson, G.A. S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis i n Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1981. Frank, G.H. Note on the r e l i a b i l i t y of Q-sort data. v Psychological Reports, 1956, 2, 182. Fretz, B.R. Predicting career preference from preadolescent development. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1972, 19_, 286-291. Freud, S. The Complete Introductory liectures i n Psychoanalysis. Edited by Strachey, J . New York: W.W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1966. Glass, G.V. and Stanley, J.C. S t a t i s t i c a l Methods i n Education and Psychology. New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1970. Goldenberg, I. and Goldenberg, H. Family Therapy: An Overview. Monterey, C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks/Cole, 1980. Grandy, T.G. and Stahmann, R.F. Types produce types: An examination of personality development using Holland's theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1974, 5_, 231-239. Green, L.B. and Parker, H.J. Parental influences upon adolescents' occupational choice: A t e s t of an aspect of Roe's theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1965, j_2, 379-383. G r i f f i t h s , S.J. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the goals of the laboratory pro-gramme i n secondary school chemistry courses i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Unpublished Master's Thesis, 1974. Grigg, A.E. Childhood experience with parental a t t i t u d e : A t e s t of Roe's hypothesis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1959, 6_, 153-156. I l l Hagen, D. Careers and family atmosphere: A t e s t of Roe's theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1960, 7_, 251-256. Hanson, J.T. Ninth grade g i r l s ' vocational choices and t h e i r parents occupational l e v e l . Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1965, 13, 261-264. Harman, H.H. Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. Healy, C C . Relation of occupational choice to the s i m i l a r i t y between s e l f - r a t i n g s and occupational r a t i n g s . Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, J_5, 317-323. Herbst, P.G. Behavioral Worlds: The Study of Single Cases. London: Tavistock, 1970. Hilden, A.H. Q-sort c o r r e l a t i o n : S t a b i l i t y and random choice of statements.' Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1958, 22, 45-53. Holland, J.L. Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1973. Holland, J.L. Vocational Preference Inventory. Palo A l t o , C a l i f o r n i a : Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 1978. Hollander, J . D i f f e r e n t i a l parental influences on vocational i n -te r e s t development in adolescent males. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1972, 2, 67-76. Hunt, R.A. S e l f and other semantic concepts i n r e l a t i o n to choice of vocation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 5J[, 242-246. Is a b e l l e , L.A. and Dick, W. C l a r i t y of self-concepts i n the vocational development of male l i b e r a l arts students. The Canadian Psycholo- g i s t , 1969, 10, 20-31. 112 Jackson, R.M. Father i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , achievement, and occupational be-havior of rural youth: One year follow-up. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1974, e, 349-356. Jensen, P.G. and Kirchener, W.K. A national answer to the question, do sons follow t h e i r father's occupations? Journal of Applied Psychology, 1955, 39, 419-421. Kinnane, J.F. and Pable, M.W. Family background and work value o r i e n t a t i o n . Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 9_, 320-325. Lasswell, H.D. Intensive and extensive methods of observing the person a l i t y - c u l t u r e manifold. Yenching Journal of Social Studies, 1938, 1, 72-86. Lasswell, H.D. Psychopathology and P o l i t i c s . New York: Viking Press, 1960. Lee, G.L. and Dovan, W.J. Vocational persistence: An exploration of self-concept and dissonance theories. Journal of Vocational Be- havior, 1973, 3, 129-136. Livson, N.H. and Nichols, T.F. Discrimination and r e l i a b i l i t y i n Q-sort personality d e s c r i p t i o n s . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 52, 159-165. Maddi, S.R. PersonaliJby_T;he.on,es. I l l i n o i s : The Dorsey Press, 1976. McCall, G.J. and Simmons, J.L. Id e n t i t i e s and Interactions. New York: The Free Press, 1978. Medvene, A.M. Occupational choice of graduate students i n psychology as a function of early parent-child i n t e r a c t i o n s . Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1969, 16, 385-389. 113 Morrison, R.L. Self-concept implementation i n occupational choices. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 9_, 255-260. Mowesian, R., Heath, B.R.G. and Rothney, J.W.M. Superior students' occupational preferences and t h e i r fathers' occupations. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 45, 238-242. Nachmann, B. Childhood experience and vocational choice i n lav/, dentistry and s o c i a l work. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1960, 7_, 243-250. O'Hara, R.P. and Tiedeman, D.V. Vocational s e l f concept i n adolescence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 9_, 255-260. Oppenheimer, E.A. The re l a t i o n s h i p between c e r t a i n s e l f constructs and occupational preferences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, T_3, 191-197. Osipow, S.H. Theories of Career Development. New York: Appleton-Century C r o f t s , 1973. Roe, A. Early determinants of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1957, 4, 216. Roe, A. The Psychology of Occupations. New York: Wiley, 1956. Roe, A. and Siegelman, M. Origin of Interest. APGA Inquiry Studies -No. 1. Washington, D.C: American Personnel and Guidance Association, 1964. Schuh, A.J. Use of the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l i n a tes t of Super's vocational adjustment theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, 516-522. Schutz, B.A. and Blocher, D.H. S e l f - s a t i s f a c t i o n and level of occupa-tio n a l choice. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1961, 39, 595-598. 114 Shapiro, M.B. The s i n g l e case i n c l i n i c a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l research. Journal of General Psychology, 1966, 74, 3-23. Stephenson, R.R. Occupational choice as a c r y s t a l l i z e d self-concept. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1961, 8, 211-216. Stephenson, William The Study of Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Super, D.E. The Psychology of Careers. New York: Harper and Row, 1957. Super, D.E. Career development: Self-Concept Theory. New York: CEEB Research Monograph No. 4, 1963. Switzer, D.K., Grigg, A.E., M i l l e r , J.S. and Young, R.K. Early ex-periences and occupational choices: A t e s t of Roe's hypothesis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 9_, 45-48. Tolbert, E.L. Counseling f o r Career Development. Boston: Houghton-M i f f l i n , 1980. Utton, A.C. Recalled parent-child relations as determinants of voca-tio n a l choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 9_, 49-53. Werts, C.E. Parental influence on career choice. Journal of Counsel- ing Psychology, 1968, 15_, 48-52. Wheeler, C.L. and Carnes, E.F. Relationships among self-concepts, ideal self-concepts and stereotypes of probable and ideal vocational choices. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, 1J5, 530-535. Z e i g l e r , D.J. Self-concept, occupational member concept and occupa-t i o n a l i n t e r e s t area relationships i n male college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1970, 17_, 133-136. 115 Z i e g l e r , D.J. D i s t i n c t i v e s e l f and occupational member concepts i n d i f f e r e n t occupational groups. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1973, 3, 53-60. 116 Reference Note 1. Cochran, L. Position and Personhood. Book i n preparation, 1983. 116a APPENDIX A A Q u a l i t a t i v e Description of Role Correspondences f o r Each Pa r t i c i p a n t -JIT7 Table 2 Does Each Work Role Relate to Selves/Family? Selves Family Business Executive Frank: trader yes yes vice president yes yes executive yes yes Teacher Carly: vice president (present job) yes yes p r i n c i p a l (present job) yes yes counsellor (present job) yes yes (teacher) p r i n c i p a l ( f i r s t job) yes yes grade 6 student ( f i r s t job) yes yes grade 12 student ( f i r s t job) yes yes Lawyer Kate: partner yes yes judge yes yes colleague yes yes c l i e n t yes yes Hairdresser Irma: supervisor yes yes co-worker yes yes c l i e n t no no .118 Selves Family Parking Checker Dave: f i e l d supervisor (present job) yes yes (rental agent) co-worker ( f i r s t job) no yes c l i e n t ( f i r s t job) yes no Professor Elizabeth: student yes yes colleague yes yes Dean yes yes Photolab Technician Blake: supervisor (present job) no yes as s i s t a n t supervisor (present job) yes no co-worker (present job) no yes (photolab manager ( f i r s t job) yes yes technician) supervisor ( f i r s t job) no yes salesman ( f i r s t job) yes yes A r t i s t Lou: dealer (present job) yes yes a r t i s t (present job) yes yes (restaurant manager ( f i r s t job) no yes as s i s t a n t manager) executive ( f i r s t job) yes yes customer ( f i r s t job) yes yes Secretary I r i s : supervisor (present job) yes yes graduate assistants (present job) yes yes 1 1 9 Selves Family students (present job) no yes o f f i c e manager (fir?st job) no no co-worker ( f i r s t job) yes yes salesman ( f i r s t job) no no Counsellor Carl c l i e n t (present job) yes yes parent (present job) no yes co-worker (present job) yes yes p r i n c i p a l (present job) no yes p r i n c i p a l ( f i r s t job) yes yes co-worker ( f i r s t job) yes yes student ( f i r s t job) yes yes 120 Table 3 Does S e l f as Job Correlate With Selves/Family? Selves Family Frank Carly Kate Irma Dave yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Elizabeth Blake yes yes yes yes r o yes yes Lou yes yes yes no I r i s yes yes yes yes Carl yes yes yes yes yes yes 1 2 0 a APPENDIX B S i g n i f i c a n t Correlations Between Roles f o r Each Pa r t i c i p a n t 121 Table 4 The Extent to Which Role Types are Mixed With S e l f Roles, Family Roles and Work Roles A f t e r Varimax Rotation Varimax F i r s t Component Frank"' 2 of 2 mi xed mixed 2 of2 t o t a l l y mixed Carly 5 of 5 mixed mixed 3 of 5 t o t a l l y mixed Kate : 3 of 4 mixed mixed 0 of 4 t o t a l l y mixed Irma 2 of 3 mi xed mixed 2 of 3 t o t a l l y mixed Dave 3 of 4 mi xed mi xed 1 of 4 t o t a l l y mixed Elizabeth 4 of 4 mixed mixed 1 of 4 t o t a l l y mixed Blake 4 of 5 mixed mixed 0 of 5 t o t a l l y mixed Lou 5 of 5 mixed mixed 2 of 5 t o t a l l y mixed I r i s 5 of 5 mixed mi xed 2 of 5 t o t a l l y mixed Carl 4 of 5 mixed mi xed 1 of 5 t o t a l l y mixed IRIS 122 F i r s t Occupation: G i r l Friday Present Occupation: Secretary Roles E l i c i t e d From the P a r t i c i p a n t f o r Each Domain S e l f Family s e l f mother ideal s e l f father s e l f as daughter second oldest s i s t e r brother second youngest s i s t e r Job 1 Job 2 ideal g i r l Friday ideal secretary s e l f as g i r l Friday s e l f as secretary o f f i c e manager supervi sor co-worker graduate assistants' salesmen students Correlation Roles Roles C o e f f i c i e n t s e l f : ideal s e l f .70 s e l f : daughter .57 s e l f : mother .35 s e l f : second oldest s i s t e r .45 s e l f : brother .61 s e l f : ideal g i r l Friday 1 .32 s e l f : s e l f as g i r l Friday 1 .54 s e l f : s e l f : s e l f : s e l f : s e l f : s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: 123 co-worker 1 .56 ideal secretary 2 .52 s e l f as secretary 2 .75 supervisor 2 .75 graduate assistants:2 .65 students 2 .37 s e l f as daughter .70 mother .47 second oldest s i s t e r .40 brother .68 ideal g i r l Friday 1 .47 s e l f as g i r l Friday 1 .35 co-worker 1 .78 ideal secretary 2 .60 s e l f as secretary 2 .65 supervisor 2 .60 graduate assistants 2 .63 mother .41 brother .54 second youngest s i s t e r -.57 ideal g i r l Friday 1 .53 s e l f as g i r l Friday 1 .34 co-worker 1 .65 ideal secretary 2 .55 124 s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: mother: mother: mother: mother: mother: mother: mother: father: father: father: second oldest s i s t e r : second oldest s i s t e r : second oldest s i s t e r : second oldest s i s t e r : second oldest s i s t e r : second oldest s i s t e r : brother: brother: brother: brother: s e l f as secretary 2 .49 supervisor 2 .33 graduate assistants 2 .32 second oldest s i s t e r .56 brother second youngest s i s t e r -.36 s e l f as g i r l Friday 1 .36 co-worker 1 .50 ideal secretary 2 .38 s e l f as secretary 2 .39 co-worker 1 -.31 supervisor 2 -.33 graduate assistants 2 -.36 brother .49 s e l f as g i r l Friday 1 .36 s e l f as secretary 2 .33 supervisor 2 .44 graduate assistants 2 .37 students 2 .39 second youngest s i s t e r -.41 ideal g i r l Friday 1 .52 s e l f as g i r l Friday 1 .47 co-worker 1 .63 125 brother: brother: brother: brother: second youngest s i s t e r : second youngest s i s t e r : ideal g i r l Friday: ideal g i r l Friday: ideal g i r l Friday: ideal g i r l Friday: ideal g i r l Friday: ideal g i r l Friday: s e l f as g i r l Friday: s e l f as g i r l Friday: s e l f as g i r l Friday: s e l f as g i r l Friday: o f f i c e manager 1: co-worker 1: co-worker 1: co-worker 1: co-worker 1: co-worker 1: ideal secretary 2 .64 s e l f as secretary 2 .49 supervisor 2 .54 graduate assistants 2 .50 s e l f as g i r l Friday 1 -.35 ideal secretary 2 -.33 o f f i c e manager 1 .58 co-worker 1 .56 salesman 1 .52 ideal secretary 2 .75 s e l f as secretary 2 .32 graduate assistants 2 .40 co-worker 1 .40 ideal secretary 2 .49 s e l f as secretary 2 .54 supervisor 2 .49 salesman 1 .53 salesman 1 .33 ideal secretary 2 .67 s e l f as secretary 2 .62 supervisor 2 .54 graduate assistants 2 .50 126 salesman 1: salesman 1: salesman 1: ideal secretary: ideal secretary: ideal secretary: s e l f as secretary: s e l f as secretary: supervisor 2: graduate assistants 2: ideal secretary 2 .35 s e l f as secretary 2 .38 graduate assistants 2 .39 s e l f as secretary 2 .56 supervisor 2 .40 graduate assistants 2 .37 supervisor 2 .65 graduate assistants 2 .42 graduate assistants 2 .39 students 2 .55 CARLY 127 F i r s t Occupation: Teacher Present Occupation: Teacher Roles E l i c i t e d From the P a r t i c i p a n t f o r Each Domain S e l f Family s e l f mother ideal s e l f father s e l f as daughter cousi n uncle youngest s i s t e r Job 1 Job 2 ideal teacher ideal teacher s e l f as teacher s e l f as teacher p r i n c i p a l vice p r i n c i p a l grade 6 student p r i n c i p a l grade 11 and 12 students counsellor co-worker Correlation Roles Roles C o e f f i c i e n t s e l f : ideal s e l f .40 s e l f : s e l f as daughter .57 s e l f : mother .41 s e l f : uncle .54 s e l f : youngest s i s t e r .60 s e l f : ideal teacher .42 128' s e l f : s e l f : s e l f : s e l f : s e l f : s e l f : S e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as teacher 1 .39 p r i n c i p a l 1 .53 grade 6 student 1 -.34 ideal teacher 2 .39 s e l f as teacher 2 .59 vice p r i n c i p a l 2 .56 counsellor 2 .60 father -.30 uncle .35 youngest s i s t e r .46 ideal teacher 1 .71 p r i n c i p a l 1 .37 grade 11 and 12 students 1 .32 co-worker 1 .46 ideal teacher 2 .71 p r i n c i p a l 2 -.44 counsellor 2 .36 mother .64 uncle .53 ideal teacher 1 .33 s e l f as teacher 1 .46 p r i n c i p a l 1 .47 grade 6 student 1 -.34 grade 11 and 12 students 1 .41 .129 s e l f as daughter: s e l f as teacher 2 .43 s e l f as daughter: vice p r i n c i p a l 2 .56 s e l f as daughter: counsellor 2 .40 mother: uncle .56 mother: s e l f as teacher 1 .52 mother: p r i n c i p a l 1 .45 mother: grade 11 and 12 student 1 .34 mother: vice p r i n c i p a l 2 .33 mother: counsellor 2 .30 father: youngest s i s t e r -.47 father: ideal teacher 0 -.53 father: p r i n c i p a l 1 -.40 father: co-worker l ! -.34 father: ideal teacher 2 -.38 father: s e l f as teacher 2 -.33 father: p r i n c i p a l 2 .39 uncle: youngest s i s t e r .30 uncle: ideal teacher 1 .34 uncle: s e l f as teacher 1 .36 uncle: p r i n c i p a l 1 .38 uncle: ideal teacher 2 .30 uncle: s e l f as teacher 2 .33 uncle: counsellor 2 .36 130 youngest si ste r : youngest si s t e r : youngest s i s t e r : youngest si s t e r : youngest s i ste r : youngest s i s t e r : youngest s i s t e r : youngest s i s t e r : youngest s i s t e r : ideal teacher 1: ideal teacher 1: ideal teacher 1: i deal teacher 1: ideal teacher 1: ideal teacher 1: ideal teacher 1: i deal teacher 1: ideal teacher 1: s e l f as teacher 1 s e l f as teacher 1 s e l f as teacher 1 s e l f as teacher 1 s e l f as teacher 1 ideal teacher 1 .52 p r i n c i p a l 1 .54 grade 6 student 1 -.32 co-worker 1 .42 ideal teacher 2 .45 s e l f as teacher 2 .63 vice p r i n c i p a l 2 .42 p r i n c i p a l 2 -.38 counsellor 2 .57 s e l f as teacher 1 .32 p r i n c i p a l 1 .69 grade 11 and 12 students 1 .59 co-worker 1 .61 ideal teacher 2 .88 s e l f as teacher 2 .43 vice p r i n c i p a l 2 .34 p r i n c i p a l 2 -.45 counsellor 2 .57 p r i n c i p a l 1 .55 grade 11 and 12 students 1 .38 co-worker 1 .34 s e l f as teacher 2 .46 counsellor 2* .35 131 p r i n c i pal 1 p r i n c i pal 1 pri nci pal 1 pri nci pal 1 p r i n c i pal 1 p r i n c i pal ' grade 6 student 1: grade 6 student 1: grade 6 student 1: grade 6 student 1: grade 11 and 12 students 1 grade 11 and 12 students 1 grade 11 and 12 students 1 grade 11 and 12 students 1 grade 11 and 12 students 1 co-worker 1: co-worker 1: co-worker 1: ideal teacher 2: ideal teacher 2: ideal teacher 2: s e l f as teacher 2: s e l f as teacher 2: grade 11 and 12 students 1 .68 co-worker 1 .56 ideal teacher 2 .65 s e l f as teacher 2 .65 vice p r i n c i p a l 2 .65 vice p r i n c i p a l 2 .77 s e l f as teacher 2 -.40 vice p r i n c i p a l 2 -.60 p r i n c i p a l 2 .32 counsellor 2 -.44 co-worker 1 .49 ideal teacher 2 .54 s e l f as teacher 2 .38 vice p r i n c i p a l 2 .36 counsellor 2 .36 ideal teacher 2 .58 s e l f as teacher 2 .50 counsellor 2 .45 s e l f as teacher 2 .41 p r i n c i p a l 2 -.46 counsellor 2 .64 vice p r i n c i p a l 2 .64 counsellor 2 .66 vice p r i n c i p a l 2: p r i n c i p a l 2: counsellor 2 counsellor 2 133 BLAKE F i r s t Occupation: Photolab Technician Present Occupation: Photolab Technician Roles E l i c i t e d From the Pa r t i c i p a n t f o r Each Domain S e l f Family s e l f mother ideal s e l f father s e l f as son brother grandfather Job 1 Job 2 ideal photolab technician s e l f as photolab technician s e l f as photolab technician ideal photolab technician general manager supervisor supervisor a s s i s t a n t supervisor salesman co-worker Correlation Roles Roles C o e f f i c i e n t s e l f : s e l f as son .48 s e l f : s e l f as photolab technician 1 .36 s e l f : general manager -.38 ideal s e l f : mother .33 ideal s e l f : brother -.46 ideal s e l f : grandfather .69 ideal s e l f : s e l f as photolab technician 1 .40 134 ideal s e l f : general manager 1 -.40 ideal s e l f : salesman 1 -.42 ideal s e l f : s e l f as photolab technician V .34 ideal s e l f : ideal photolab technician 1 .34 ideal s e l f : a s s i s t a n t supervisor T -.30 son: s e l f as photolab technician 1 .45 son: salesman 1 -.37 son: s e l f as photolab technician 2 ' .34 son: a s s i s t a n t supervisor 2 -.33 mother: grandfather .32 mother: salesman 1 -.30 mother: s e l f as photolab technician 1 ' .36 brother: supervisor If . .46 brother: salesman 1 .31 brother: supervisor 2. .: .40 brother: co-worker 2 .33 grandfather: s e l f as photolab technician 1 , .32 grandfather: s e l f as photolab technician 2' .32 ideal photolab technician: s e l f as photolab technician 1; .39 ideal photolab technician: s e l f as photolab technician 2- t .42 ide a l photolab technician: ideal photolab technician 2- ; .64 s e l f as photolab technician 1: salesman 1 -.30 135 s e l f as photolab technician 1: s e l f as photolab technician 2; .65 s e l f as photolab technician 1: ideal photolab technician 2 .44 general manager 1: salesman .63 general manager 1: as s i s t a n t supervisor .63 general manager 1: co-worker 2; .48 supervisor 1: s e l f as photolab technician 2 = .38 s u p e r v i s o r ! : supervisor 2: .53 supervisor 1: as s i s t a n t supervisor 2 .31 supervisor 1: co-worker 2. .44 salesman 1: supervisor 2; .36 salesman 1: as s i s t a n t supervisor 2.. .52 s e l f as photolab technician 2: ideal photolab technician 2\ .52 s e l f as photolab technician 2: co-worker ;2\ ~ .37 supervisor 2;: co-worker 2. .48 as s i s t a n t supervisor 2 co-worker 2 \ .36 136 IRMA Present Occupation: H a i r s t y l i s t Roles E l i c i t e d From the P a r t i c i p a n t f o r Each Domain S e l f Family s e l f mother ideal s e l f father s e l f as daughter brother aunt Job ideal h a i r s t y l i s t s e l f as h a i r s t y l i s t c l i e n t supervisor co-worker Cor r e l a t i o n Roles Roles C o e f f i c i e n t s e l f : ideal s e l f .56 s e l f : s e l f as daughter .38 s e l f : mother .44 s e l f : father .60 s e l f : brother .40 s e l f : aunt .32 s e l f : ideal h a i r s t y l i s t .56 s e l f : s e l f as h a i r s t y l i s t .46 137 s e l f : supervisor .53 s e l f : co-worker .42 ideal s e l f : s e l f as daughter .61 ideal s e l f : mother .63 ideal s e l f : father .61 ideal s e l f : aunt .56 ideal s e l f : ideal h a i r s t y l i s t .61 ideal s e l f : s e l f as h a i r s t y l i s t .49 ideal s e l f : supervisor .68 ideal s e l f : co-worker .46 s e l f as daughter: mother .77 s e l f as daughter: father .62 s e l f as daughter: brother .80 s e l f as daughter: aunt .79 s e l f as daughter: ideal h a i r s t y l i s t .50 s e l f as daughter: s e l f as h a i r s t y l i s t .46 s e l f as daughter: supervisor .65 s e l f as daughter: co-worker .75 mother: father .67 mother: brother .80 mother: aunt .73 mother: ideal h a i r s t y l i s t .50 mother: s e l f as h a i r s t y l i s t .53 .138 mother: supervisor .67 mother: co-worker .65 father: brother .76 father: aunt .64 father: ideal h a i r s t y l i s t .50 father: s e l f as h a i r s t y l i s t .53 father: supervisor .67 father: co-worker .65 brother: aunt .71 brother: ideal h a i r s t y l i s t .58 brother: s e l f as h a i r s t y l i s t .64 brother: supervisor .63 brother: co-worker .61 aunt: ideal h a i r s t y l i s t .33 aunt: s e l f as h a i r s t y l i s t .33 aunt: supervisor .59 aunt: co-worker .70 ideal h a i r s t y l i s t : s e l f as h a i r s t y l i s t .86 ideal h a i r s t y l i s t : supervisor .68 ideal h a i r s t y l i s t : co-worker .34 s e l f as h a i r s t y l i s t : supervisor .60 supervisor: co-worker .56 DAVE 139 F i r s t Occupation: Rental Agent Present Occupation: Parking Checker Roles E l i c i t e d From the P a r t i c i p a n t f o r Each Domain S e l f Family s e l f father ideal s e l f mother s e l f as son s i s t e r Job 1 Job 2 ideal rental agent ideal parking checker s e l f as rental agent s e l f as parking check co-worker f i e l d supervisor customer Correlation Roles Roles C o e f f i c i e n t s e l f : ideal s e l f .65 s e l f : s e l f as son .78 s e l f : mother .53 s e l f : customer 1 -.31 s e l f : f i e l d supervisor 2 .51 ideal s e l f : s e l f as son .60 ideal s e l f : mother .44 ideal s e l f : s e l f as rental agent 1 .31 ideal s e l f : f i e l d supervisor 2 .51 140 s e l f as son: s e l f as son: s e l f as son: s e l f as son: s e l f as son: mother: mother: mother: father: father: ideal rental agent 1: ideal rental agent 1: ideal rental agent 1: ideal, rental agent 1: ideal rental agent 1: s e l f as rental agent 1 s e l f as rental agent 1 s e l f as rental agent 1 s e l f as rental agent 1 co-worker 1: customer 1: mother .50 s i s t e r .34 s e l f as rental agent 1 .34 customer 1 -.40 f i e l d supervisor 2 .31 ideal rental agent 1 .36 co-worker 1 .31 f i e l d supervisor 2 .72 s e l f as rental agent 1 .31 s e l f as parking checker 2 .36 s e l f as rental agent 1 .64 co-worker 1 .34 ideal parking checker 2 .59 s e l f as parking checker 2 .40 f i e l d supervisor 2 .66 co-worker 1 .30 ideal parking checker 2 .60 s e l f as parking checker 2 .66 f i e l d supervisor 2> .37 f i e l d supervisor 2 .38 f i e l d supervisor 2' -.33 141 ideal parking checker 2: s e l f as parking checker 2 .55 ideal parking checker 2: f i e l d supervisor 2 .31 142 LOU F i r s t Occupation: Restaurant Worker Present Occupation: A r t i s t Roles E l i c i t e d From the P a r t i c i p a n t f o r Each Domain S e l f Family s e l f mother ideal s e l f father s e l f as son oldest brother s i s t e r brother Job 2 • Job 1 s e l f as a r t i s t s e l f as restaurant worker ideal a r t i s t customer dealer manager contemporary a r t i s t executive Correlation Roles Roles C o e f f i c i e n t s e l f s e l f s e l f s e l f s e l f ideal s e l f .50 executive -.33 s e l f as a r t i s t .60 ideal a r t i s t .59 contemporary a r t i s t .55 ideal s e l f : father -.46 ideal s e l f : s i s t e r -.42 .143 ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : son: son: son: son: son: son: son: son: mother: mother: mother: mother: mother: mother: father: father: father: oldest brother: oldest brother: customer 1 -.56 ideal a r t i s t 2 .66 dealer 2 .56 contemporary a r t i s t 2 .46 mother .46 father .33 s i s t e r .36 brother .41 s e l f as restaurant worker 1 .41 ideal restaurant worker 1 -.45 customer 1 .55 contemporary a r t i s t 2 .32 oldest brother .32 s i s t e r .47 brother .30 s e l f as restaurant worker 1 -.34 customer 1 .32 contemporary a r t i s t 2 .38 customer 1 v .45 ideal a r t i s t -.33 contemporary a r t i s t 2 -.31 manager 1 .42 executive 1 .33 144 oldest brother: oldest brother: s i s t e r : s i s t e r : s i s t e r : brother: brother: s e l f as restaurant worker 1 s e l f as restaurant worker 1 ideal restaurant worker 1 ideal restaurant worker 1 manager 1: executive 1: customer 1: s e l f as a r t i s t 2: s e l f as a r t i s t 2: ideal a r t i s t 2: ideal a r t i s t 2: dealer 2 .32 contemporary a r t i s t 2 .34 manager 1 .58 executive 1 .41 customer 1 .45 ideal restaurant worker 1 -.32 dealer 2 -.32 i ideal restaurant worker 1 .72 contemporary a r t i s t 2 -.44 customer 1 -.41 dealer 2 .39 executive 1 .74 s e l f as a r t i s t 2 -.38 dealer 2 -.45 ideal a r t i s t 2 .67 contemporary a r t i s t 2 .48 dealer 2 .40 a r t i s t 2 .76 145 ELIZABETH Present Occupation: Professor Roles E l i c i t e d From the Pa r t i c i p a n t f o r Each Domain S e l f Family s e l f mother ideal s e l f father s e l f as daughter brother cousin aunt Job s e l f as professor ideal professor student colleague Dean Correlation Roles Roles C o e f f i c i e n t s e l f : ideal s e l f .71 s e l f : s e l f as daughter .51 s e l f : aunt .50 s e l f : s e l f as professor .83 s e l f : ideal professor .56 s e l f : student .55 s e l f : colleague .41 s e l f : Dean -.69 146 ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: father: father: father: brother: brother: cousi n: aunt: aunt: aunt: aunt: aunt: s e l f as professor: s e l f as professor: brother -.36 aunt .60 s e l f as professor .76 ideal professor .82 student .74 Dean -.60 mother .45 s e l f as professor .59 student .32 cousin .44 aunt .52 colleague .40 ideal professor -.32 student -.33 aunt .39 s e l f as professor .53 ideal professor .43 student - .36 colleague .54 Dean -.44 ideal professor .69 student .62 147 se l f as professor: Dean -.65 ideal professor: student .82 ideal professor: Dean -.45 student: Dean -.44 148 KATE Present Occupation: Lawyer Roles E l i c i t e d From the P a r t i c i p a n t f o r Each Domain S e l f Family s e l f mother ideal s e l f father s e l f as daughter s i s t e r oldest brother brother Job s e l f as lawyer ideal lawyer law partner of firm col league judge c l i e n t Correlation Roles Roles C o e f f i c i e n t s e l f : ideal s e l f .46 s e l f : s e l f as daughter .75 s e l f : mother .50 s e l f : s i s t e r .40 s e l f : oldest brother .69 s e l f : s e l f as lawyer .75 s e l f : ideal lawyer .48 149 s e l f : sei f: s e l f : s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: s e l f as daughter: mother: mother: mother: mother: mother: partner .39 colleague .60 judge .40 c l i e n t .60 s e l f as daughter .44 mother .36 brother .49 s e l f as lawyer .36 ideal lawyer .54 colleague .49 c l i e n t .55 mother .61 oldest brother .63 s e l f as lawyer .63 ideal lawyer .45 partner .32 colleague .50 judge .38 c l i e n t .60 oldest brother .52 s e l f as lawyer .33 ideal lawyer .31 colleague .46 c l i e n t .52 150 father: s i s t e r : s i s t e r : oldest brother: oldest brother: oldest brother: oldest brother: oldest brother: oldest brother: brother: brother: s e l f as lawyer: s e l f as lawyer: s e l f as lawyer: s e l f as lawyer: s e l f as lawyer: ideal lawyer: ideal lawyer: ideal lawyer: ideal lawyer: partner: partner: partner: s i s t e r .66 s e l f as lawyer .33 colleague .40 s e l f as lawyer .63 ideal lawyer .34 partner .53 colleague .47 judge .53 c l i e n t .53 judge -.32 c l i e n t .35 ideal lawyer .66 partner .75 colleague .65 judge .59 c l i e n t .59 partner .46 colleague .54 judge .56 c l i e n t .59 colleague .55 judge .72 c l i e n t .37 col league: colleague: judge: judge cl ient c l ient 152 CARL F i r s t Occupation: Teacher Present Occupation: Elementary School Counsellor Roles E l i c i t e d From the Pa r t i c i p a n t f o r Each Domain S e l f Family s e l f mother ideal s e l f father s e l f as son uncle 1 uncle 2 uncle 3 s i s t e r grandmother Job 1 Job 2 s e l f as teacher s e l f as counsellor ideal teacher ideal counsellor p r i n c i p a l c l i e n t co-worker parent student co-worker pri ncipal Correlation Roles Roles C o e f f i c i e n t s e l f : ideal s e l f .50 s e l f : s e l f as son .50 s e l f : uncle 1 .37 s e l f : s i s t e r .34 1.53" s e l f : grandmother .33 s e l f : s e l f as teacher 1 .44 s e l f : student 1 .40 s e l f : s e l f as counsellor 2 .60 s e l f : ideal counsellor 2 .68 ideal s e l f : mother .42 ideal s e l f : father .44 ideal s e l f : uncle 1 .32 ideal s e l f : uncle 2 .50 ideal s e l f : uncle 3 .40 ideal s e l f : s e l f as teacher 1 .53 ideal s e l f : ideal teacher 1 .60 ideal s e l f : p r i n c i p a l 1 .37 ideal s e l f : co-worker 1 .38 ideal s e l f : s e l f as counsellor 2 .60 ideal s e l f : ideal counsellor 2 .73 ideal s e l f : co-worker 2 .45 s e l f as son: uncle 1 .46 s e l f as son: s i s t e r .53 s e l f as son: s e l f as teacher 1 .38 s e l f as son: student 1 -.39 s e l f as son: s e l f as counsellor 2 .42 s e l f as son: ideal counsellor 2 .50 154 mother: father .59 mother: uncle 1 .38 mother: uncle 2 .64 mother: grandmother .34 mother: ideal teacher 1 .48 mother: p r i n c i p a l 1 .47 mother: co-worker 1 .36 mother: s e l f as counsellor 2 .46 mother: ideal counsellor 2 .36 mother: parent 2 .37 father: uncle 2 .66 father: uncle 3 .60 father: ideal teacher 1 .50 father: p r i n c i p a l 1 .46 father: s e l f as counsellor 2 .32 father: ideal counsellor 2 .32 father: c l i e n t 2 .40 father: parent 2 .32 father: co-worker 2 .54 uncle 1: s i s t e r .42 uncle 1: student 1 -.49 uncle 1: s e l f as counsellor 2 .37 uncle 1: ideal counsellor 2 .45 155 uncle 2: uncle 2: uncle 2: uncle 2: uncle 2: uncle 2: uncle 2: s i s t e r : s i s t e r : s i s t e r : uncle 3: uncle 3: uncle 3: uncle 3: uncle 3: grandmother: grandmother: grandmother: s e l f as teacher 1 s e l f as teacher 1 s e l f as teacher 1 s e l f as teacher 1 s e l f as teacher 1 uncle 3 .49 ideal teacher I .56 p r i n c i p a l 1 .71 co-worker 1 .48 s e l f as counsellor 2 .41 ideal counsellor 2 .39 co-worker 2 .31 s e l f as teacher 1 .33 student 1 -.33 ideal counsellor ?. .38 s e l f as teacher 1 .36 ideal teacher 1 .46 co-worker 1 .42 c l i e n t 2 .31 co-worker 2 .63 s e l f as counsellor 2 .42 parent 2 .43 p r i n c i p a l 2 .32 ideal teacher 1 .62 p r i n c i p a l 1 .37 co-worker 1 .35 student 1 -.32 s e l f as counsellor 2 .49 .156 s e i f as teacher 1: ideal teacher 1: ideal teacher. 1: ideal teacher.1: ideal teacher, .1: ideal teacher 1: ideal teacher ,1: ideal teacher 1: p r i n c i p a l 1: p r i n c i p a l 1: p r i n c i p a l 1: co-worker 1: co-worker 1: student 1: student 1: s e l f as counsellor 2: s e l f as counsellor 2: c l i e n t 2: parent 2: parent 2: ideal counsellor 2. .66 p r i n c i p a l 1 .54 co-worker 1 .49 student 1 -.33 s e l f as counsellor 2 .66 ideal counsellor 2 .69 c l i e n t 2 .33 co-worker 2 .43 co-worker 1 .49 s e l f as counsellor 2 .34 ideal counsellor 2 .44 c l i e n t 2 .33 co-worker 2 .38 ideal counsellor 2 -.48 p r i n c i p a l 2 .52 ideal counsellor 2 .73 parent 2 .34 co-worker 2 .37 co-worker 2 .30 p r i n c i p a l 2 .38 157 FRANK Present Occupation: Business Executive Roles E l i c i t e d From the Pa r t i c i p a n t f o r Each Domain S e l f s e l f ideal s e l f s e l f as son Job s e l f as d i v i s i o n a l manager ideal d i v i s i o n a l manager trader vice president executive vice president Family mother father brother Roles s e l f s e l f s e l f s e l f s e l f s e l f s e l f ideal s e l f : ideal s e l f : Roles ideal s e l f s e l f as son mother father s e l f as d i v i s i o n a l manager ideal d i v i s i o n a l manager trader s e l f as son mother Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t .53 .64 .64 .53 .54 .34 .49 ,67 .57 158 ideal s e l f : father .60 ideal s e l f : s e l f as d i v i s i o n a l manager .54 ideal s e l f : ideal d i v i s i o n a l manager .80 ideal s e l f : trader .53 ideal s e l f : executive vice president .31 s e l f as son: mother .75 s e l f as son: father .65 s e l f as son: s e l f as d i v i s i o n a l manager .59 s e l f as son: ideal d i v i s i o n a l manager .51 s e l f as son: trader .57 mother: father .73 mother: s e l f as d i v i s i o n a l manager .51 mother: ideal d i v i s i o n a l manager .40 mother: trader .42 mother: vice president .30 father: s e l f as d i v i s i o n a l manager .46 father: ideal d i v i s i o n a l manager .44 father: trader .49 father: vice president .32 brother: executive vice president -.42 s e l f as d i v i s i o n a l manager: ideal d i v i s i o n a l manager .48 s e l f as d i v i s i o n a l manager: trader .47 159 ideal d i v i s i o n a l manager: ideal d i v i s i o n a l manager: ideal d i v i s i o n a l manager: trader: trader: vice president: trader .56 vice president .43 executive vice president .48 vice president .43 executive vice president .40 executive vice president .33 APPENDIX C Distinguishing Attributes IRIS S ign i f icant Roles for Each Factor or Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 father daughter o f f i ce manager students 2nd oldest s i s t e r supervisor ideal se l f salesmen graduate ass istants mother s e l f as secretary co-worker ideal g i r l Friday 2nd oldest s i s t e r s e l f as g i r l Friday s e l f brother ideal secretary ideal g i r l Friday 2nd youngest s i s t e r se l f s e l f as secretary graduate assistants 2nd youngest s i s t e r Top Five and Bottom Five Distinguishing Attributes and S ign i f icant Z*Scores f o r Each Factor or Type Type 1 H Score Type 2 Z Score Type 3 Z Score Type 4 I Score Type 5 I Score sociable 2.03 mature 2.19 competitive 2.01 i n t e l l i g e n t 2.28 caring 2.04 se l f - con t ro l l ed 1.72 in te l l i gent 1.86 status oriented 1.69 ambitious 2.28 helpful 1.95 appealing 1.63 r e a l i s t i c 1.29 ambitious 1.60 appeali ng 1.54 se l f - i n s i gh t fu l 1.68 conventional 1.47 responsible 1.27 orderly 1.38 expressive 1.31 understanding 1.60 independent 1.31 se l f - ins icjhtfu l 1.20 pract ica l 1.19 creat ive 1.31 sens i t ive 1.11 a r t i s t i c -1.35 competitive -1.47 f l ex ib l e -1.19 precise -1.37 adventurous -1.35 introverted -1.44 emotional -1.53 spontaneous -1.73 introverted -1.49 blunt -1.60 i n te l l e c tua l -1.66 blunt -1.55 emotional -1.79 af fect ionate -1.54 precise -1.62 sens i t ive -1.75 i d e a l i s t i c -2.09 affect ionate -2.14 orderly -1.76 i n te l l e c tua l -1.86 precise -1.78 hard headed -2.28 introverted -2.40 se l f - con t ro l l ed -1.94 hard-headed -2.11 * 1 scores exceeding - 1.00 were s i gn i f i cant . CARLY S ign i f icant Roles fo r Each Factor or Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 grade 11 and 12 students mother vice pr inc ipa l cousin ideal s e l f co-worker daughter se l f as teacher 2 pr inc ipa l 2 ideal teacher 2 pr inc ipal 1 uncle counsellor grade 6 student ideal teacher 1 ideal teacher 1 s e l f as teacher 1 grade 6 student youngest s i s t e r ideal teacher 2 s e l f youngest s i s t e r pr inc ipa l 2 s e l f pr inc ipa l 1 Top Five and Bottom Five Distinguishing Attr ibutes and S igni f icant Z Scores fo r Each Factor or Type Type 1 H Score Type 2 Z Score Type 3 Z Score Type 4 Z Score Type 5 I Score trustworthy 2.14 responsible 2.16 r e a l i s t i c 2.31 caring 2.11 enthusiast ic 1.85 sociable 2.08 helpful 1.80 understanding 2.04 sens i t ive 1.92 creat ive 1.64 appealing 1.56 i d e a l i s t i c 1.74 trustworthy 1.74 pract ica l 1.73 s e l f - i n s i g h t f u l 1.55 unders tanding 1.51 caring 1.50 responsible 1.45 i n te l l e c tua l 1.58 spontaneous 1.46 helpful 1.45 emotional 1.44 helpful 1.44 i d e a l i s t i c 1.43 sens i t ive 1.37 competi t i ve -1.45 se l f - i n s i gh t fu l -1.31 status-oriented -1.32 a r t i s t i c -1.36 dominant -1.30 precise -1.50 r e a l i s t i c -1.32 imaginative -1.36 f l e x i b l e -1.36 conventional -1.57 independent -1.59 expressive -1.32 adventurous -1.38 extroverted -1.43 conforming -1.83 ambitious -1.69 pleasure seeking -1.63 dominant -1.76 independent -2.11 hard-headed -1.85 status-oriented -1.72 independent -2.28 a r t i s t i c -1.88 r e a l i s t i c -2.41 competitive -2.11 BLAKE S ign i f icant Roles fo r Each Factor or Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 son s e l f general manager ass istant supervisor salesman ideal photolab technician 1 supervisor 2 ideal photolab technician 2 supervisor 1 s e l f as photolab technician 1 co-worker s e l f as photolab technician 2 brother grandfather ideal s e l f mother father mother Top Five and Bottom Five Distinguishing Attr ibutes and S ign i f icant i Scores for Each Factor or Type Type 1 i Score Type 2 1 Score Type 3 1 Score Type 4 I Score Type 5 I Scofe independent 2.18 i n te l l i gen t 2.21 emotional 2.20 mature 2.04 appealing 2.06 competiti ve 1.95 orderly 2.13 sens i t ive 2.10 understanding 1.93 i n t e l l i g e n t 2.06 emotional 1.51 independent 2.12 conforming 1.68 cari ng 1.56 extroverted 1.54 ambitious 1.46 creat ive 1.62 se l f - i n s i gh t fu l 1.61 a f fect ionate 1.46 hard-headed 1.54 persistent 1.28 se l f - con t ro l l ed 1.26 hard-headed 1.49 sens i t i ve 1.36 r e a l i s t i c 1.03 adventurous -1.45 ambitious -1.18 r e a l i s t i c -1.23 introverted -1.55 spontaneous -1.54 in te l l ec tua l -1.65 in te l l ec tua l -1.23 dominant -1.36 pleasure seeking -1.64 persuasive -1.54 a r t i s t i c -1.72 dominant -1.30 a r t i s t i c -1.63 hard-headed -1.67 understanding -1.54 r e a l i s t i c -1.78 emotional -1.33 mature -1.70 ambi tious -1.70 a r t i s t i c -2.06 persuasive -1.97 i d e a l i s t i c -1.59 i n te l l ec tua l -2.36 competitive -2.04 af fect ionate -2.06 IRMA Signi f icant Roles for Each Factor or Type Type 1 Type 2 . Type 3 aunt ideal h a i r s t y l i s t c l i en t daughter se l f as h a i r s t y l i s t co-worker s e l f mother supervisor brother ideal s e l f father father supervisor brother ideal se l f Top Five and Bottom Five Distinguishing Attributes and S ign i f icant I Scores for Each Factor or Type Type 1 i Score Type 2 I Score Type 3 H Score trustworthy 1.90 i n te l l i gen t 2.08 se l f - i n s i gh t fu l 2.06 affectionate 1.74 independent 1.97 pleasure seeking 2.06 cari ng 1.70 a r t i s t i c 1.62 dominant 1.54 sensit ive 1.42 sociable 1.48 sociable 1.54 understanding 1.29 se l f - cont ro l l ed 1.54 pers is tent 1.54 i ntroverted -1.44 domi nant -1.24 imaginative -1.54 deliberate -1.55 del iberate -1.77 adventurous -1.54 domi nant -1.57 blunt -1.91 pract ica l -1.54 hard headed -2.01 hard headed -1.92 act ive -2.06 blunt -2.21 introverted -2.30 introverted -2.06 DAVE S ign i f icant Roles for Each Factor or Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 s e l f son ideal se l f customer mother f i e l d supervisor s e l f as parking checker s e l f as rental agent ideal parking checker father f i e l d supervisor co-worker ideal rental agent mother ideal parking checker s i s t e r Top Five and Bottom Five Distinguishing Attributes and S ign i f icant Z Scores fo r Each Factor or Type Type 1 Z Score Type 2 Z Score Type 3 Z Score Type 4 Z Score sensit ive emotional trustworthy caring responsible status oriented competitive introverted dominant feminine 1.94 1.93 1.78 1.58 1.58 -1.52 -1.55 -1.60 -1.64 -2.16 re spons ib l e mature trustworthy masculine se l f - cont ro l l ed emotional competitive feminine sens i t ive affect ionate 1.92 1.89 1.67 1.44 1.40 -1.54 -1.60 -1.83 -1.93 -2.14 helpful sociable femi ni ne understanding appealing competitive deliberate masculine dominant i ntroverted 1.98 1.65 1.60 1.52 1.37 -1.41 -1.57 -1.79 -1.98 -2.29 sens i t ive independent hard headed emotional adventurous domi nant status or iented expressive order ly masculine 1.86 1.86 1.86 1.39 1.39 -1.39 -1.39 -1.86 -1.86 -1.86 S ign i f icant Roles for Each Factor or Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 s e l f as a r t i s t ideal restaurant worker manager father mother ideal a r t i s t s e l f as restaurant worker executi ve customer oldest brother se l f brother s i s t e r son dealer contemporary a r t i s t dealer ideal s e l f ideal s e l f son customer Top Five and Bottom Five Distinguishing Attr ibutes and S ign i f i cant i Scores fo r Each Factor or Type Type 1 I Score Type 2 1 Score Type 3 i Score Type 4 I Score Type 5 I Score i n te l l i gen t 1.95 helpful 2.04 persuasive 2.06 hard headed 2.53 adventurous 2.52 creative 1.86 orderly 1.67 sociable 1.87 blunt 2.01 sociable 2.25 imaginative 1.51 ca r i ng 1.62 competitive 1.54 dominant 1.79 extroverted 1.89 independent 1.38 se l f - con t ro l l ed 1.51 enthusiast ic 1.46 pers is tent 1.72 pleasure seeking 1.62 expressive 1.24 i n te l l i gen t 1.45 pers istent 1.46 moral 1.38 status oriented 1.62 sociable -1.12 emotional -1.45 responsible -1.27 s e l f - i n s i g h t f u l -1.44 conventional -1.19 competitive -1.35 independent -1.56 mature -1.34 sens i t ive -1.44 conforming -1.36 dominant -1.38 i d e a l i s t i c -1.70 trustworthy -1.45 af fect ionate -1.49 r e a l i s t i c -1.36 conforming -1.78 blunt -1.73 i d e a l i s t i c -1.73 understanding -2.18 af fect ionate -1.42 status oriented -2.39 se l f - i n s i gh t fu l -1.84 moral -2.07 f l e x i b l e -2.24 rat ional ->. 46 KATE S igni f icant Roles for Each Factor or Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 partner ideal se l f father mother judge brother s i s te r daughter se l f as lawyer c l i en t oldest brother ideal lawyer colleague s e l f colleague ideal lawyer c l i e n t Top Five and Bottom Five Distinguishing Attributes and S ign i f icant I Scores fo r Each Factor or Type Type 1 I Score Type 2 Z Score Type 3 Z Score Type 4 Z Score responsible 2.43 creative 2.36 sociable 2.02 responsible 2.38 trustworthy 2.07 sens i t ive 1.77 enthusiast ic 1.68 caring 2.19 pract ical 1.49 in te l l i gen t 1.69 emotional 1.57 helpful 1.71 in te l l i gent 1.37 cari ng 1.40 extroverted 1.56 pract ica l 1.67 r e a l i s t i c 1.36 expressive 1.32 expressive 1.46 trustworthy 1.55 pleasure seeking -1.16 domi nant -1.40 f l ex ib le -1.46 i n te l l e c tua l -1.35 adventurous -1.70 conformi ng -1.47 a r t i s t i c -1.60 a r t i s t i c -1.36 introverted -1.95 del iberate -1.55 i ntroverted -1.68 adventurous -1.55 affectionate -2.10 status oriented -1.91 se l f - cont ro l l ed -1.79 competitive -1.72 a r t i s t i c -2.31 conventional -1.99 in te l l ec tua l -1.80 status oriented -1.81 h-1 -CM ELIZABETH Signi f icant Roles for Each Factor or Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 ideal s e l f father mother brother se l f as professor aunt daughter colleague se l f cousin ideal professor colleague Dean student aunt Top Five and Bottom Five Distinguishing Attr ibutes and S ign i f icant Z Scores for Each Factor or Type Type 1 Z Score Type 2 I Score Type 3 Z Score Type 4 Z Score in te l l i gent 2.16 trustworthy 1.95 emotional 2.41 i d e a l i s t i c 2.06 moral 2.12 helpful 1.85 active 1.80 hard headed 2.06 rational 1.78 caring 1.75 hard headed 1.75 sens i t ive 1.54 trustworthy 1.78 moral 1.64 social 1.53 emotional 1.54 inte l lectua l 1.50 responsible 1.52 responsible 1.53 status oriented 1.54 i ntroverted -1.31 r e a l i s t i c -1.20 orderly -1.54 ambitious -1.46 blunt -1.64 se l f - i n s i gh t fu l -1.26 mature -1.54 conventional -1.70 competitive -1.67 conventional -1.75 rat ional -1.54 conforming -1.82 domi nant -1.95 introverted -2.08 responsible -2.06 status oriented -2.00 a r t i s t i c -2.09* se l f - contro l led -2.13 independent -2.06 * Only four attr ibutes were s i gn i f i cant below the Z score -1.00. CARL S ign i f icant Roles for Each Factor or Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 uncle 2 s e l f grandmother co-worker 2 uncle 1 pr inc ipa l 1 ideal counsellor pr inc ipa l 2 uncle 3 s i s t e r mother s e l f as counsellor parent c l i e n t father s e l f as teacher student father ideal s e l f ideal s e l f co-worker 1 co-worker 1 student Top Five and Bottom Five Distinguishing Attr ibutes and S ign i f icant Z Scores fo r Each Factor or Type Type 1 Z Score Type 2 Z Score Type 3 Z Score Type 4 Z Score Type 5 I Score extroverted 2.11 understanding 2.09 caring 2.08 expressive 1.88 introverted 2.35 sociable 1.95 caring 1.83 i n t e l l i g e n t 2.00 extroverted 1.84 i n t e l l i g e n t 1.76 caring 1.48 f l e x i b l e 1.75 responsible 1.51 emotional 1.65 i n te l l e c tua l 1.53 enthusiast ic 1.39 sens i t ive 1.40 pract ica l 1.46 sens i t ive 1.43 trustworthy 1.43 pleasure seeking^ 1.31 imaginative 1.39 domi nant 1.38 enthusiast ic 1.42 independent 1.34 in te l l ec tua l -1.44 moral -1.55 f l e x i b l e -1.76 conforming -1.44 sociable -1.43 dominant -1.73 blunt -1.68 i d e a l i s t i c -1.84 creat ive -1.48 extroverted -1.50 introverted -2.10 status oriented -1.72 introverted -1.93 moral -1.59 hard headed -1.69 blunt -2.10 domi nant -1.73 pleasure seeking -2.04 status or iented -1.65 blunt -1.76 hard headed -2.10 hard headed -2.06 spontaneous -2.38 i ntroverted -1.89 dominant -2.18 FRANK S ign i f icant Roles for Each Factor or Type Type 1 Type 2 mother son se l f father ideal s e l f se l f as d iv i s ional manager trader •ideal d iv is ional manager executive vice president brother ideal d iv i s ional manager trader vice president ideal s e l f Top Five and Bottom Five Distinguishing Attributes and S ign i f icant 1 Scores for Each Factor or Type Type 1 1 Score Type 2 i Score caring 2.26 enthusiastic 2.23 mature 1.92 persuasive 1.90 responsible 1.66 hard headed 1.54 persistent 1.52 mature 1.34 trustworthy 1.33 r e a l i s t i c 1.34 dominant -1.36 i d e a l i s t i c -1.67 moral -1.38 adventurous -1.77 precise -1.39 se l f - i n s i gh t fu l -1.86 hard headed -1.97 pleasure seeking -1.90 blunt -2.20 a r t i s t i c -2.23