Citation
Cross-cultural self structure

Material Information

Title:
Cross-cultural self structure
Creator:
Isaza, Judith Los, 1932-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 50 leaves. : illus. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Cognitive psychology ( jstor )
College students ( jstor )
Content analysis ( jstor )
Cultural groups ( jstor )
Personality psychology ( jstor )
Philosophical psychology ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Self ( jstor )
Social desirability ( jstor )
Social psychology ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF ( lcsh )
Personality and culture ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Self ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis -- University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 48-49.
General Note:
Typesript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
This item is presumed in the public domain according to the terms of the Retrospective Dissertation Scanning (RDS) policy, which may be viewed at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00007596/00001. The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
022834793 ( ALEPH )
14119114 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











CROSS-CULTURAL SELF STRUCTURE


By

JUDITH LOS ISAZA










A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1974















COPYRI GHT


BY


JUDITH LOS ISAZA


1974































TO JAIME, DIANA AND RAMIRO
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My sincere thanks to Dr. Franz R. Epting who guided my flights into speculation--then showed me how to land, gently, and taught me to make sense of the whole venture; to Dr. Marvin E. Shaw for giving me a real sense of confidence as well as help and encouragement; and to Dr. James C. Dixon for hours of exploration and learning that seemed to be conversation. I would like to thank Dr. J. Milan Kolarik for helping me envision some practical applications of theory; Dr. Theron A. Nunez, Jr. who patiently helped an anthropoligically-oriented psychologist find her way; and Dr. Sidney M. Jourard who helped teach me to look reality straight in the eye--and grin back.

I would like to thank those students, both Colombian and North American, who answered so many questions. Their generously given time and effort made this project possible.

My gratitude goes to my parents for that most precious of gifts-time, when I needed it. The peace of mind and chance to relax that they made possible kept me going on many an occasion. Thanks for the

second chance.

To my daughter, Diana, and to my son, Ramiro, my thanks and

congratulations. Despite an often hectic mother-student combination they have managed to become people that I am proud to call my friends.

A very special kind of thanks to the fellow who invited me for









a cup of coffee once and has been my favorite companion ever since--Jaime, who cared enough to help me become whatever I could be. Perhaps that is what love means, after all.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..... ..................

LIST OF TABLES ...... ....................

LIST OF FIGURES ..... ....................

ABSTRACT ........ ......................

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION ..... ...............

.Personal Construct Theory ...........
*Self Structure .................
*Culture ..... ................
Rationale and Purpose of This Study . .
Hypothesis I .... .............
Hypothesis II .................
Hypothesis III ... ............

II METHOD ..... ..................

Subjects ..... ................
Materials .... ................
Trans 1 ati on ...................
Procedure ..... ................
Elicitation of Peripheral Constructs
Elicitation of Core Constructs ..
Elicitation of Specific Act Constructs Construct Disclosure ...........
SDQ Questionnaire ...............
Scoring ..... ...............
Content Analysis . . . ..........

III RESULTS ..... ..................

Construct Organization ...........
Content Analysis .... ............


IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .


Page
iv viii

ix

x


* 1

3
4 6
* 8 � 9
10

12

12 12 13 13 13
14 14 15 15
* 16 � 16

18

18
26


. . . . . . . . . . . 28









Page
APPENDICES ......... ............................

APPENDIX
A Explanatory Sheet ....... ................... 38
B Interpersonal Role Repertory Grid ... .......... ... 40
C Disclosure Score Sheet ...... ................. 41
D Modified SDQ Question Sheet ............... ..... 42
E Disclosure Scores - American Students .... ......... 44
F Disclosure Scores - Colombian Students .......... ....45
G Categories of Construct Content ... ............ ... 46
H Number of Constructs Placed by Colombian and
American Subjects in Content Analysis by Level. . .. 47

REFERENCES ........... ............................ 48

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... ....................... ... 50















LIST OF TABLES


TABLE Page

1 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DISCLOSURE SCORES. . 19

2 MEAN DISCLOSURE SCORES OF COLOMBIAN AND
AMERICAN STUDENTS ON CONSTRUCT LEVELS ACROSS
TARGETS ......... .................... 20

3 MEAN DISCLOSURE SCORES OF COLOMBIAN AND
AMERICAN STUDENTS ON TARGETS ACROSS CONSTRUCT
LEVEL ...... ..................... ... 23

4 PERCENTAGE OF CONSTRUCTS PLACED BY COLOMBIAN AND AMERICAN SUBJECTS IN CONTENT CATEGORIES.. 27


viii















LIST OF FIGURES


FIGURE


1 MEAN DISCLOSURE SCORES AT CONSTRUCT LEVELS
OF COMBINED GROUPS ACROSS TARGETS ...........

2 NATIONAL GROUP X TARGET .... .............

3 TARGET X NATIONAL GROUP ..................


Page








Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



CROSS-CULTURAL SELF STRUCTURE

By

Judith Los Isaza

March, 1974

Chairman: Franz R. Epting
Major Department: Psychology

The self structure, defined in terms of personal construct theory, was compared in 22 American and 22 Colombian university students. Each student was interviewed in his own language and cultural milieu.

Utilizing the Elicited Self-Disclosure test, 30 constructs

were elicited from each S and self-rated as to degree of being known on each construct as well as on ten selected items from Jourard and Lasakow's Self-Disclosure Questionnaire. Quantitative and qualitative aspects of the elicited constructs and questionnaire items were analyzed.

Marked similarities between the national groups were observed in

self-disclosure of constructs. Three distinct levels of self-disclosure were demonstrated adding evidence to the nomological network supporting a concept of self structure in which the manner of conceptual organization was seen as common to human thought. The two groups also demonstrated greater content similarity in their more central constructs than in their more peripheral ones. Cultural differences were observed in relationships with significant others as well as in content categories.









That part of the self structure concerned with interpersonal relationships and self-identification was seen as consisting of a set of interrelated, organized constructs across cultural lines. Implications of the realization of conceptual similarity for social interaction were suggested.














CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Many persons, when confronted with customs, values, or behavior different from their own, tend to see the bearers of such cultural differences as at least strange and inexplicable. Often such strangers are accredited with thought processes utterly different from those of the observer and so not subject to "real" understanding. Yet, when

circumstances provide encouragement for direct, personal interaction between culturally different individuals they frequently find that

basically their needs and wants are not as discrepant as they had supposed, though methods of attaining them may differ (Deutsch & Collins, 1951). In terms of personal construct theory it might be said that the formerly exotic thinking of the stranger becomes understandable and predictable. Exploration of some of the sources of this possible understanding between diverse groups was the intent of this study.
Personal Construct Theory

The theoretical bases underlying the present investigation are

largely drawn from the work of George A. Kelly (1955), particularly the assumption that every individual develops through his lifetime a unique, organized mental system by and through which he makes sense out of his varied experiences in life. Each new event to which a person is exposed is interpreted or construed in relation to his personal construct system, thus becoming part of his predictable and meaningful world. Using his constructs as guides, a person is able to anticipate events.









The basic elements of each construct system are bipolar constructs which, in their minimal form, are a way in which two experiences are seen as similar to each other and contrast with a third (Kelly, 1955). Individual constructs are related to each other in a hierarchical and ordinal manner, the generally more concrete and specific subordinate constructs being subsumed within the range of convenience of a more abstract superordinate construct. A superordinate construct is, by

definition, one which subsuns another construct. Construct elaboration is a process of ongoing elaboration and abstraction. Individual concrete constructs are abstracted from the myriad stimuli impinging upon a person, construed as to similarities and differences, and become elements of higher level constructs. These, in turn, are still further abstracted by progressively more superordinate constructs, culminating in the system-maintaining core constructs, which serve to lend continuity and stability to the entire system.

An individual tends to interpret new events in terms consistent with his existing structure so that the system controls to some degree that which is recognized and understood by the person. The more superordinate a construct is, the more an individual will favor evidence that enhances its validation and resist that which implies changing it. A stable construct system is essential for each individual in order that he may relate himself meaningfully to an otherwise chaotic world. Stability, however, does not imply a static, unchanging system since

building of the construct system is a continual process of life.

Among the many properties of construct systems formulated by Kelly

and elaborated by others (Bannister & Mair, 1968) the distinction between organizational structure and content is of importance to this study.









A personal construct system is composed of dimensions of meaning which are organized within a context of relationships (Landfield, 1971). Structure refers to the position of a construct within the organizational pattern while content refers to the actual words and meanings used to express a construct. The structural properties tend to be more enduring, unchanging over situations, and relatively similar across individuals, while content may vary markedly from person to

person (Scott, 1963). These different levels of interpretation lend understanding to a given idea within a system, so that a word, such as "family", might be highly superordinate in one system and relatively subordinate in another with quite different implications. Structure enables the importance of a construct to be known, while content facilitates comparison and communication.

Self Structure
Superordinate within each construct system are those unique core constructs which define our relationships with others (Kelly, 1955, p. 503). These personal self constructs, developed over time from the regularities obserbed in our own behavior, feelings, and the reactions of others, are seen as the essence of the self. Core constructs are basic to the maintenance of the system, highly resistant to change, and are implicated in or subsume a large number of other constructs. The self

structure, in these terms, refers to the organization and relationships among these core constructs and related subordinate constructs, especially

those containing the phenomenological self as an element. This view of the self structure in the context of personal construct theory is not identical with those theoretical formulations of the self proposed by the majority of self-theorists (Rogers, 1959). Conceptualizations of







4

the self such as Adler's "creative self" (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956), Syngg and Comb's phenomenal self (1949, p. 48), Roger's self concept (1951, p. 136), and Horney's "actual self" (English & English, 1958) are far broader and more inclusive than the self structure examined in this study. They subsume large portions of the personality and consist of patterns, tendencies, inclincations and inborn characteristics. While self-referent constructs would appear to be necessary to account for various unexplained phenomena in human behavior, many formulations of the self cover so many aspects of the personality as to impede analysis (Wylie, 1968). Noting Wylie's suggestion that investigation of more limited aspects of the global concept of self might lead to increased productivity, it is not presumed that all aspects of the self are represented or explained by the present definition. It is assumed that at least that part of the self concerned with self identification and interactions with others is composed of a set of organized, superordinate constructs.

Culture

Almost as numerous as the many definitions of the self in psychology are those of culture within the discipline of anthropology. Although it is entirely possible to encounter ten distinct definitions of culture in as many books devoted to the subject, most seem to converge on certain fundamental points: culture is shared, organized and systematic, learned, transmitted primarily by means of verbal symbolism, and is adaptive (Hole & Heizer, 1969). Setting aside the controversy as to whether or not material objects are a part of culture, Barnouw (1963) believes that a definition which would be acceptable to most anthropologists is the following:







5

A culture is the way of life of a group of people, the configuration of all the more or less stereotyped patterns of learned behavior which are handed
down from one generation to the next through the
means of language and imitation.

Implied in this definition is the concept that the many varied
"ways" shared by a group of people are interrelated and form a coherent whole, are to some degree changeable, and are the products of learning rather than instinct or genetics. That culture is particularly human is implied by the fact that it is transmitted by verbal symbolism. Culture is not simply a way of doing things divised by any temporary aggregate of humans, but rather the heritage of an ongoing, reproducing group. It has continuity over time.

Although Kelly was opposed to the view that man is the product of his culture, he did propose that a cultural group exists when many persons agree on what will validate their individual predictions. When an individual, for example, construes the most suitable manner of ingesting food, his cultural group will consistently invalidate his predictions until they are congruent with the culturally shared concept of the correct way of consuming food. To the extent that a person learns to interpret reality in the same manner as his cultural group he can be said to be construing his experience in the same way and sharing certain constructs with his social and cultural group.

Combining aspects of both the foregoing definitions, culture, for the purposes of this study, will be defined as: the interrelated, shared set of constructs common to a continuing group of people, which is learned and transmitted to succeeding generations primarily through verbal symbolism and imitation. Each cultural construct set contains some elements and configurations which distinguish it from all other cultures and constitute the unique way of life of the group.









Within this definition cultures can be seen to serve as interpretive bases for individual group members, providing them with an accepted, coherent solution to the problems of human existence. It is assumed, along the lines proposed by Linton (1945), that cultures exist to fulfill the needs of human beings, both physical and psychic. Each culture, then, is one alternative way to obtain these ends, developed over time in accordance with the interaction between the local

environment and the needs of the individuals comprising the cultural group. Each person may incorporate, to a greater or lesser degree, the shared constructs of his group into his personal construct system. Although it is probable that the majority of a cultural group do indeed share many basic constructs, belonging to a culture does not determine an individual's personality or construct system. The norms, values, customs and beliefs that form the shared constructs of a culture are but the favored alternative, open to acceptance or rejection.

Rationale and Purpose of this Study

There were four major purposes motivating this study. The first of these involved the extension of the nomological network supporting a concept of self structure in which the manner of conceptual organization was seen as common to human thought. The method of exploration proposed was to compare self structure between selected North American and South American students, each within his own cultural milieu. The second purpose, that of testing a basic structural hypothesis of selforganization, was substantially strengthened by a cross-cultural situation. The third purpose, that of illustrating the relationships between the elements of self structure, also benefited by being tested between two cultures. The fourth objective was an exploration of the content of









the construct systems investigated as opposed to the structural

characteri sti cs.

Two previous studies undertaken in the area of self structure (Isaza, Epting & Suchman, 1970; Isaza, 1971) have provided evidence supporting the concept of that part of the self concerned with interpersonal relationships, verbally expressed, as composed of ordered constructs. In these two studies a positive relationship was determined between self structure and self-disclosure. Self structure was formulated in terms of construct organization. Self-disclosure was operationally defined as the subjective quantitative evaluation made by an individual of how well known he felt by selected significant others in his life. It was hypothesized that due to the dynamics of construct system organization as formulated, the more central a construct was within a given system the greater would be the tendency to reveal

that construct to significant others. It was found that individuals, when their personal constructs were elicited at three organizational levels and they were asked to quantify how well known they felt about

them, clearly differentiated three levels of self-disclosure. The selfdisclosure levels corresponded to the superordinate or core level, the subordinate or peripheral level, and the level of specific acts, as predicted. The subjects felt that they were best known about their innermost core constructs, which seemed to correspond to: (1) Kelly's description of core constructs, (2) Maslow's (1962) basic goals as opposed to means or instrumental goals, and (3) Fromm's (1947) description of character structure as that core of central motives and values used by a person to orient himself to the world. Since construct organization is assumed to be relatively similar in all individuals it was predicted









that the relationship between self-disclosure and self structure would remain stable across diverse individual and group differences. This prediction seemed to have been supported.

In the present study samples of self structure were analyzed in order to investigate the following hypotheses: Hypothesis I

It has been suggested that in dealing with self structure we are involved in a pan-human phenomenon and not simply a culturespecific attribute. If this is so, then it becomes difficult indeed to demonstrate such similarity since a single experiment cannot be designed to prove conclusively that all people share a given characteristic--without testing all people. Given this situation an indicated

technique would be to build a nomological network, always seeking situations in which differences would be most likely to appear and repeatedly gathering supporting bits of evidence.

In the particular case of the present formulation of self structure as hierarchically arranged, verbal, and common to human thinking processes, the two previous studies showed similarity in all subjects in their use of self-disclosure in relation to personal constructs. It appears that the stability of the relationship between self-disclosure and self structure supercedes individual differences within a group of college-age students and age differences between groups of young students and older citizens (Isaza, Epting & Suchman, 1970; Isaza, 1971).

It was proposed to determine whether the same relationship between self structure and self-disclosure obtains despite cultural differences when tested within a similar category. This research strategy represents a step in the direction paralleling PlcClelland's need for achievement









research (Birney, 1968). According to Honigman's (1954) definition, a category is an aggregate of people sharing some characteristics but who do not interact as a group, as for example, North American teenagers, housewives, mechanics, etc. Further, it is suggested that those characteristics shared by the members of a category are due to the exigencies of the larger cultural group, such as the nation, to which they belong, and should disappear when separate cultural groups are examined. In this study the two groups selected, Colombian university students and University of Florida students, belong to different national groups. It was assumed, however, that they both belong to a single supranational

category by virtue of their exposure to Western-type academic studies. It was proposed that the relationship between self structure and selfdisclosure observed in subjects of North American background would be essentially the same in their South American counterparts, lending support to the formulation of similarity of construct organization across groups. The reservation that such similarity may be due in part to their similarity of category was maintained. Hypothesis II

The second purpose was to test the structural hypothesis of

three levels of organization by clarifying an aspect of the previous two studies. While it was found that there were three levels of disclosure demonstrable, one of these was demonstrated in response to questions, the same for all subjects, from Jourard and Lasakow's (1958) Self-disclosure Questionnaire (SDQ). This finding led to some ambiguity as to whether the same things were being compared to each other.

It was proposed to remedy this doubt by adding laddered-down

examples of discrete actions so that all three levels would be responses









to personal constructs and thus comparable. The ten questions from the SDQ were retained for comparative purposes. It was hypothesized that disclosure to the specific acts so elicited would demonstrate a third discrete level of self-disclosure related to the sample of peripheral and core constructs.

Hypothesis III

The third hypothesis, directly related to the foregoing, concerned

the relationship between the SDQ questions and the specific act constructs. If the specific acts of an individual are derived from his core constructs through his peripheral constructs, then specific acts should be readily elicited from an individual's construct system. The general questions from the SDQ have possibly been less revealed in previous studies because of specific cultural prohibitions indigenous to North American norms. If the specific act constructs are consistently less revealed as well, then there would be evidence, on an intercultural level, that specific acts are less important to personality organization. No significant disclosure difference was expected between the specific acts and the SDQ questions. It is assumed that a person will make known to the important people in his life that which is of importance to him.

In addition to the formal hypotheses three other aspects were investigated. The content analysis was of an exploratory nature. While no hypothesis was formulated, it was hoped that some evidence might be forthcoming related to Maslow's suggestion that people are more alike in their basic goals than in their instrumental means. An additional aspect was explored in this study that was not touched upon in the previous ones--the possible difference between male and female subjects in






1I

structural organization and disclosure patterns. It was also hoped to gain from this data further insight into the observed phenomenon of revealing least to the closest male relative-significantly less in both previous studies.















CHAPTER II

METHOD

Subjects
Forty-four Ss were interviewed, 22 primarily Spanish-speaking Colombian nationals and 22 North American University of Florida students. All of the Ss were currently enrolled in a university. Age was excluded as a variable since a previous study had indicated that the difference between age groups was not significant. The Ss were divided equally between males and females. Since the Colombian group was not under any academic requirement to serve as Ss as were the Floridian students, they were recruited from amongst friends of student relatives of E and a small sum, about $1.50, was offered to

them to cover expenses incidental to their participation in the study. Individual interviews with each S were conducted by the same E in the S's native language.

Materials
A modified version of Kelly's Role Construct Repertory (REP) grid, a page for listing core and specific act constructs, and a scoring sheet for disclosure to Closest Female Relative, Closest Male Relative, Opposite Sex Friend and Same Sex Friend were used. A sheet containing the ten SDQ questions and an introductory sheet explaining the purpose and method of the experiment completed the materials. Copies (English and Spanish versions) of the introductory cover sheet appear in Appendix A.









Translation

The cover sheet and the SDQ questionnaire were translated into

Spanish by a primarily Spanish-speaking bilingual and then retranslated into English by a primarily English-speaking bilingual. To assure that the explanation and questions had the same meaning in both languages the retranslated version was subjected to review by bilinguals, necessary reformulations incorporated and the process repeated when indicated. This method of back-translation, utilized for all Spanish-to-English material in this study as well, follows the methodology indicated by Brislin, Lonner and Thorndike (1973).

Procedure

Each S was given a copy of the explanatory sheet to read before the actual questioning began. This was followed by a discussion of any procedural questions that arose. The interviews lasted approximately two hours each. The instrument used to obtain a sample of the constructs used by an individual to orient himself in relation to others was the Elicited Self-Disclosure (ESD) test. This test provided a list of 30 interrelated self constructs on three levels of construct organization from each S: ten peripheral constructs, ten core constructs and ten specific act constructs. The test was administered as follows:

Elicitation of Peripheral Constructs

Utilizing a modified grid form of Kelly's REP test, a ten by ten grid form was prepared by E. In this test bipolar interpersonal constructs are elicited by asking a S to think about three persons (a triad) with whom he has role relationships and define in what way two of these are similar and different from the third. The grid was modified by using the self-identification form which requires S to identify nine









people currently important in his life as role figures with "self" as the tenth figure. A copy of this grid appears in Appendix B. The S was asked how any two figures of a given triad were alike. This provided one pole of the first construct. The contrast pole

was obtained from the S's description of the different member of the triad. Ten triads were selected by E, each containing the self as one of the figures. When the ten constructs were completed the S was asked which side of each construct he would prefer to resemble. Elicitation of Core Constructs

Ten core constructs were elicited by laddering-up, a technique derived from Hinkle's (1965) construct implication theory. The process consists of the selection, by E_, of any one of the peripheral constructs generated by the REP test and asking the S why he preferred his chosen pole. His answer formed the emergent pole of the new construct. The contrast pole is obtained by asking the S for the opposite of the emergent pole. This procedure was repeated on the newly elicited construct and continued until the S indicated that no further superordinate constructs could be generated from that particular peripheral construct. If less than ten core constructs had been generated another peripheral construct was chosen at random from the set and the process repeated. The selection of peripheral constructs was not ordered since Hinkle's study demonstrated that all subordinate constructs tend to lead to the same set of superordinate constructs within a single system. Elicitation of Specific Act Constructs

By reversing the above process a new technique called ladderingdown was devised to elicit those constructs representative of actual

behavioral acts as suggested by Bannister and Mair (1968). One of the









peripheral constructs was selected and the S asked to recall a specific action, actually performed by him, which he felt to be demonstrative of this construct in his experience. The act was noted and considered

to be the emergent pole of a specific act construct. The contrast pole was not elicited for this construct, although the fact that it is possible to do so was demonstrated during the elaboration of the technique. The emergent pole alone was considered sufficient for the purposes of this study because the specific act constructs were construed as the behavioral level of the construct system and, as such,

replaced the SDQ questions seen as representing this level in the previous studies. In order to better compare the responses to the specific act constructs with those of the SDQ similarity in form was maintained. Both the core and the specific act constructs were recorded on a plain sheet of paper.

Construct Disclosure

When the 30 constructs had been obtained and recorded E asked

each S to determine, on a scale from zero to two, how well he felt known by each of the four target figures (Closest Female Relative, Closest Male Relative, Opposite Sex Friend and Same Sex Friend). Four scores were recorded on the Disclosure Score sheet (Appendix C) for each of the 30 constructs.

SDQ Questionnaire

At this point ten questions randomly selected from the 40-item

SDQ test were verbally presented to each S. The selected questions were accertained to be representative of the entire SDQ (r=.962) in an earlier study (Isaza, 1971). As each question was presented, S responded as to









how well he felt known by the same target figures and on the same scale as were used in the construct disclosure section. The ten questions used appear in Appendix D in English and Spanish versions. Scoring

By summing across all ten constructs for each target figure four scores for each of the construct levels and for the SDQ were obtained, a total of 16 scores for each S. These scores may be found in Appendices E and F.

Content Analysis

The content analysis was derived from the actual words used in the emergent poles of the peripheral and core constructs generated by the ESD, a total of 880 constructs. After translation of the Spanish portion each construct was transcribed onto a separate card which was coded on the reverse as to national group and level of construct organization. Twenty categories were decided upon after inspection of the areas referred to in the constructs and instructions developed for categorization. The category list appears in Appendix G.

Three independent judges were trained in the use of the category list using a set of 100 constructs taken from protocols of previous construct level experiments. The judges were instructed to place each construct in one and only one category, and each judge classified all 880 constructs. A construct was definitively assigned to a category when at least two of the three judges agreed that it belonged there. When the judges understood the categorization system well enough to reach 93 percent agreement they were given the constructs from this study to sort. On these materials interjudge agreement reached 91.1 percent. The constructs were subsequently decoded into national and construct level groups







17

within each category. The resultant division of constructs into categories appear in Appendix H.















CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Construct Organization
A four-factor split plot design with repeated measures on two factors analysis of variance (Kirk, 1969) provided the results surmmarized in Table 1. Significant disclosure differences (p<.O01) were found between the levels of construct organization and between target figures. Although no main effect for differences between national groups was demonstrated the interaction between nationality and target figures surpassed the .001 level of significance.

In Table 2 the mean disclosure scores on construct levels for each national group across target figures are presented, as well as those for the combined groups. The difference between the combined group means were tested using Tukey's ratio for comparison between means with results indicating three levels of self-disclosure, each different from the others at the .01 level of significance. The core constructs had the highest mean disclosure followed by the peripheral constructs while the lowest mean scores were those of the specific act constructs and the SDQ. The last two levels did not

significantly differ from each other.

A graphic representation of disclosure at different construct

levels appears in Figure 1 demonstrating the independence of construct levels and the similarity of curves.

The mean disclosure scores for each of the target figures on the









TABLE 1

Analysis of Variance of Disclosure Scores


Source df MS F Between subjects 43

National group (A) 1 1.54 0.035 Sex (C) 1 2.16 0.045 A x C 1 1.73 0.039

Subjects within group 40 44.23 Within subjects 660

Construct organizational
level (B) 3 1938.04 176.88*

A x B 3 15.82 1.44 B x C 3 1.53 0.14 A x B x C 3 18.60 1.70

B x subjects within groups 120 10.96

Targets (D) 3 229.58 9.12* A x D 3 148.84 5.92*

C x D 3 55.69 2.21 A x C x D 3 26.71 1.06

D x subjects within groups 120 25.76

B x D 9 4.31 1.34 A x B x D 9 2.94 0.92 B x C x D 9 4.96 1.55 A x B x C x D 9 1.52 0.47

BD x subjects within groups 360 3.21 Total 703
*p<.001















TABLE 2

Mean Disclosure Scores of Colombian and American Students
On Construct Levels Across Targets




Construct Levels
Core Peripheral Specific Act National Group Constructs Constructs Constructs SDQ

Colombian Male 15.52 12.68 10.04 9.23 Colombian Female 16.32 13.00 9.64 9.37 American Male 16.52 13.27 9.30 8.40 American Female 16.25 12.79 10.16 8.34 Combined Groups 16.15 12.94 9.78 8.84





















lop . * t


- ---0-.-~~
~. ~. .-.


' , 1~'
N
N -,


-------Core C.
-Periph.C
Spec. Act C
.....- SDQ

a


Target

FIGURE 1


Mean Disclosure Scores at Construct Levels of Combined Groups


Across Targets


18t


164-


14t


121


/


..% . . ,"









combined construct levels for each national group and for all 44 Ss are shown in Table 3. Tukey's ratio, when applied to these means, showed that disclosure to the Closest Male Relative was significantly (.01) different from and lower than disclosure to the other three figures. The scores on Closest Female Relative, Opposite Sex Friend

and Same Sex Friend were not different from each other across national groups.

Tests for simple effects on the nationality by target interaction clearly demonstrated a significant difference between the national groups on disclosure to Same Sex Friend as well as to Closest Male Relative (Figure 2). It was also determined that this variation in target disclosure was attributable to the American group. The Colombian group felt essentially equally well known by all target figures (Figure 3). Both of these differences between the groups were significant beyond the .001 level.

In order to further explore the relationship between the

national groups a Pearson product-moment correlation was calculated comparing the groups on mean disclosure scores for each construct level. The correlation was found to equal .983 (p<.O01). When construct level scores of male and female Ss were also examined across national groups a correlation of .986 at the same level of significance was found.
Since the ten questions from the SDQ were based upon American

cultural norms and might be responded to quite differently by another

cultural group, a Pearson product-moment correlation was calculated for the mean scores on each of the ten SDQ items comparing the Colombian and American responses. The correlation between the individual scores















TABLE 3
Mean Disclosure Scores of Colombian and American Students
On Targets Across Construct Levels




Targets
Closest Closest Opposite Same
Female Male Sex Sex National Group Relative Relative Friend Friend

Colombian 12.53 11.38 12.28 11.33 American 12.43 9.07 12.98 13.32 Combined Groups 12.48 10.22 12.63 12.33

















14



13


12 \ " " %%
12-
0 "- -' ..
0 --- - N .



lOf



10

American 9 Colombian



8,



0
FR MR OS SS Target Figure

FIGURE 2 National Group X Target
























- . .


Male Relative Female Relative Opp. Sex Fr. Same Sex Fr.


.. i


National Group

FIGURE 3


Target X National Group


14+


131t


114


l0+


9 t









tested, significant at the .001 level, was .877.

Content Analysis

Table 4 shows the percentage of constructs placed in each category by Colombian and American students and the results of the Chi-square analysis used to evaluate the significance of difference between the frequencies. American students are more likely than Colombian students to mention Self-Identity (.01), Communication (.01), Security (.025), Tranquillity (.025), and Emotion (.05) in their construct systems. Colombian students seem to be more concerned with Relationships with Others (.001), External Values (.001), Fun in Life (.025), and Maturity (.025) than are their American counterparts. Despite the difference in frequency of choice Relationships with Others was the most

often mentioned category by both Colombians and Americans.

An evaluation of the degree of congruence between peripheral and core constructs was obtained using Edward's (1946) Common

Elements formula. Comparing the frequency of category choice by each group on peripheral constructs and again on core constructs it was found that the national groups were more congruent on core constructs (.825, p<.01) than they were on peripheral constructs (.556, p<.0l). Colombian and American students appeared to have more content in common in their core constructs than in their peripheral ones.









TABLE 4
Percentage of Constructs Placed by Colombian and American
Subjects In Content Categories


I .

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.


Categories


Self-Identity Security Personal Values Accomplishment Relationships with Others Maturity Fun in Life Activity Tranquillity

External Values Physical Body

Understanding Change

Intellectual Pursuits Emotions

Time

Independence Communication Humor

Sex


Col ombi an
N 399

4.51 5.01

4.76 7.27

19.30 5.51 8.27

2.01 3.51

9.02

1.25

4.26

3.51 7.77

2.76 2.76

3.51 3.76

1.0 .25


*p<.05
**p<.025
***p<.Ol
****p<.O01


American N = 403

9.43*** 8.68**

4.46 6.20

10.17****

2.24**

3.37***

1.49
8. 19***

3.97****

2.97 3.24 3.98

7.69

5.21*

3.47 3.23

8.42***

1.99 1.24















CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The clear differentiation by both groups of three distinct levels of self-disclosure related to construct organization lent considerable support to the hypothesis of organizational similarity between the two cultural groups. The relationship between selfdisclosure and self structure remained stable despite cultural differences. As in previous studies of intracultural groups, the core constructs were felt to be the best known, followed by the peripheral constructs, with the specific act constructs the least known of the three significantly different levels. Since there were four sets of constructs or questions to differentiate among the finding that only three levels of disclosure were defined is notable.

Further evidence in favor of construct organization similarity between the national groups was forthcoming from the correlational data which suggested a strong positive relationship between American and Colombian students in all-over disclosure scores. The fact that no main effect for difference due to national group could be demonstrated would also suggest similarity, bearing in mind that a negative finding cannot be used to imply identity.

Since evidence of differences in construct organization would be more likely to appear under conditions of cultural and linguistic diversity, the present observations were considered to add another segment to the nomological network supporting the concept of the









similarity of human thought processes. The experimental evidence

suggesting that construct organization tends to be the same regardless of age or individual differences was augmented to include an instance

of cultural difference.

Any definitive statement as to whether or not self structure is similar must be tempered by due consideration of other factors possibly influencing the evidence supporting the proposed similarity of structure. In this study educational level is one such factor since all the participants were university students. Though a related investigation (Isaza, 1971) has shown that simply being engaged in a formal educational process does not seem to influence self structure, exposure to Western academics may do so. It is conceivable that being in contact with the Western educational tradition, at any age, fosters the development of the type of hierarchial, verbal expression of construct systems evidenced in these studies.

Another variable possibly affecting disclosure level is social desirability, which may or may not increase as constructs become increasingly superordinate within an individual system. According to numerous studies cited by Edwards (1957) there is a direct correlation between the social desirability scale value of any personality statement and its probability of endorsement by an individual. Since elicited constructs are direct endorsements of self formulated by the subject it may be expected that constructs will be generally higher in social desirability than statements unrelated to a person's construct system. While the all-over level of social desirability may be generally high there is little reason to suppose that constructs differ in social desirability at different levels of









organization. If this is so then the finding of greater disclosure to significant others of progressively more superordinate constructs cannot be attributed to the greater communicability of socially desirable statements.

Although preliminary examination of the material indicates that all three levels of construct organization are equal in social desirability any decision in this regard would depend upon further investigation. A representative sample of constructs at all three levels might be selected and each designated a scale value in social desirability by independent judges. Comparison of the resultant values between levels of construct organization would determine any possible differences in the social desirability of the statements at each level.

The doubt, expressed in the second hypothesis, concerning whether the three levels of self-disclosure related to construct levels observed were of the same nature was resolved. In the present study the third level, specific acts, was successfully derived from the other two construct levels. Support was evidenced that they are an integral part of the construct system. It had been suspected that previous scores on the third level were consistently lower because the SDQ was not a part of the construct system. When the specific act constructs were presently found to be consistently least revealed of the three levels this question seemed to be settled. The specific act constructs are functionally equal to the items of the SDQ in terms of selfdisclosure. Since the action constructs refer to specific events and the cultural items of the SDQ were treated in the same manner it may be concluded that SDQ items are perceived as isolated events. Such









perception, on an intercultural level, was further suggested by the correlational data indicating that the ten SDQ items were treated alike by both groups. One explanation might be that the SDQ was

not less revealed simply because of prohibitions peculiar to North American culture but rather because they are seen as specific behavioral events. The specific act constructs were slightly more revealed, though not significantly so, as hypothesized. It was felt that this was due to the specific act construct's greater average meaningfulness. As demonstrated by Landfield(1971) a person's own constructs are more meaningful to him than those of another individual. Since the SDQ items were provided they may or may not have been directly pertinent to an individual's construct system. Further investigation of this interpretation is indicated.

Given the assumption that a person will tend to reveal to significant others more extensively that which is of greater importance to him, further support was provided for the third hypothesis that publicly observable behaviors are of less importance in personality organization than the more abstracted constructs. Events, whether represented by specific act constructs or SDQ items, were significantly less revealed than the more superordinate constructs.

Consistent with the present interpretation of the organization of self structure, at least that part which is verbal, conscious, and related to interpersonal interactions can be conceptualized as being composed of three distinct, interrelated levels. The core constructs, which form the basis of an individual's interpersonal relationships, subsume the peripheral constructs--those constructs which are used to identify and categorize oneself and others. The peripheral constructs









form the guidelines for specific behaviors so that these may be congruent within the system. Following the implications of personal construct theory the core constructs are more important to the maintenance of the entire construct system. It is suggested that this fact would lead an individual to seek validation of these constructs. He would try to be known, understood and implicitly accepted by others, especially significant others. The more important a construct is within the system the greater is the necessity for consensual validation. This could account for the higher self-report of being known on core constructs, less on peripheral constructs and least

on specific act constructs.

Although the combined national groups seemed to feel least

known by the Closest Male Relative further examination revealed that virtually all the difference was due to the American group. While the Colombian students felt essentially equally known by all four target figures the American students felt less known by the Closest Male Relative and more known than the Colombians by the Same Sex Friend. These findings indicate a true cultural difference since the American responses replicate, in part, earlier observations on three North American groups where less disclosure to male relatives

was demonstrated. Research on cross-cultural self-disclosure reported by Jourard (1971) indicate no demonstrative difference between national groups on target figures or a tendency of females to disclose more fully to female targets. Americans were found to be significantly more self-disclosing than the other groups studied. It is possible that the different results found in the personal construct studies are due

to the nature of the material being disclosed even though the method









of evaluating disclosure is similar.

As a tentative explanation of the peculiar American pattern of feeling known (disclosure patterns) it is suggested that this may be related to the American preference for communication as a peripheral construct as observed in the content analysis. If communication is heavily relied upon for friendly relationships with others, the paucity of contact, as well as relative physical absence, of male relatives in our society accounts for the feeling of being less known by them.

In order to compensate, and because peers are more frequently together than relatives, more communication and feeling of being known would accrue to friends of the same sex. A speculative interpretation suggests that in Colombia the family interacts considerably more, with relatives tending to be classed as friends.

This, plus the Colombian preference for values connected with the family as demonstrated in the content of their construct systems, would help to explain the observed similarity of disclosure to significant others found in Colombian students.

It was not possible to demonstrate any difference between male

and female patterns of being known about the portions of their personal construct systems explored. On the contrary, a decided similarity was shown in the way they differentiated the levels of construct organization. This correlation would seem to indicate that the propensity to organize constructs in a hierarchial manner overrides male-female culturally defined difference, although further investigation is necessary.
Exploration of the qualitative aspects of the self structure









samples provided material for interesting speculation. Since cultures are generally accepted as having differences from each other, the lack of such demonstrable variability was somewhat disturbing. The differences appeared in the content of the samples. Seemingly the two groups were distinct in what they were being known about rather than to what degree. The variations in content would appear to be logically coherent for each group to those who know both cultures. American concentration on self-identity, communication, security, tranquillity and emotion would seem to reflect needs in a more individualistic, socially mobile and hectic society in which each individual must find his social place and security on his own. Interpersonal relationships are more transient and friendship quickly established through expressed emotion and communication. The Colombian preferences for relationships with others, external values, fun in life, and maturity would be understandable in a more fixed society in which position and friendship depend to a large degree on ascribed status. In such a society long term relationships must be cultivated and security can be found in adjusting to the established societal norms. One must know his society rather than just himself for adjustment.

Most of the osberved differences were found to be on the peripheral level of construct organization. The two national groups were more likely to be concerned with the same areas on their core constructs than on their peripheral ones, as demonstrated by greater congruence in core constructs. Maslow (1970) has suggested that basic human needs may be essentially alike while the means of attaining them differ. The present findings would seem to add support to that formulation. It is proposed that core constructs represent basic needs and peripheral









constructs are instrumental in fulfilling them. Viewed in this manner, for example, the common basic need expressed as security might, in

American culture be seen as best attainable through self-knowledge while in Colombian society the same end could be more acceptable gained by striving to be perceived as mature.

While basic needs may be the same, there are several degrees of fulfillment possible. Those needs already relatively satisfied will not be of primary importance in the system (Maslow, 1967). Once again the fact that all the persons studied were students must be considered. It is possible that individuals successful enough to enter university training have had the same types of needs fulfilled and thus evidence similarity in the content of their core constructs, since these would be those needs of present importance. Also, despite national differences, it is quite possible that persons whose basic needs have been met to a fairly high degree are more autonomous

and less dependent on the shared cultural constructs of their society. If this is so then such people should evidence fewer dissimilarities due to cultural affiliation. Individuals with a lower level of need fulfillment, such as those dominated by physical needs, might have core constructs very different from those of the students interviewed both within and between cultures. The matter is open to further investigation.
It is not implied that cultural groups do not differ. Rather it is proposed that the persons interviewed in this study seem to share some constructs. As such they might be said to belong to a supranational cultural group, probably by virtue of their Western type education.









The perception of human similarity in thought processes and the understanding of construct organization can help facilitate social interaction. Even in those cases where content is very disparate, realization of the position of constructs important to another and their relation to behavior enhances the probability of cooperation. When content as well can be perceived as somewhat similar between two individuals a real basis for sociality exists, enabling a person to subsume at least some part of the other's point of view. To put this in another way, to understand what another is about in one's own terms helps to make his actions understandable. Possibly this is precisely what occurs when culturally distinct persons interact on a personal basis and find that their stereotypes of each other simply do not fit the individuals that they have come to know. Realization of commonality in construct organization or content does not necessarily imply amicable relationships, since understanding does not equal approval. But when the stranger is perceived as a construing being like oneself he is at least seen as human and knowable.

































APPENDICES










APPENDIX A

Explanatory Sheet

As a graduate student at the University of Florida it has become increasingly obvious to me that a very great portion of the current research in Psychology, and particularly in personality, is based upon the responses of North American university students. While this is a fine group of young people, it would seem logical, if we are studying the Psychology of Man, to broaden our base of judgment to include people of other nations and cultures. For this reason, I have asked a group of Colombian students and an equal group of North American students to add their personal views to this exploration.

Essentially I will ask you to think of nine persons currently

important in your life. It is not necessary to reveal the identities of these persons--some initials will do in order that you may remember whom you have selected. After we collect ten concepts we will explore

why you feel that one side of your construct is preferable to the other. Following this I shall ask you to think of specific instances in which you expressed a construct in actual life. At this point we will take the entire list of 30 constructs and I shall ask you how well you feel

that others know your thinking or preferences on each of them and on ten general areas of everyday life.

I hope that you may discover some interesting aspects of your own thinking as we explore your values and preferences and remember that this is all quite confidential--I will not even need to record your name. Please feel free to ask me any questions you might have about

the study.









Explanatory Sheet - Spanish Version

Como estudiante graduado de la Universidad de la Florida se me ha hecho cada vez mas obvio que una gran parte de la investigacion actual en Psicologia, especialmente en el ramo de la Personalidad, se basa en las respeustas de estudiantes Norteamericanos. Hientras este es un grupo admirable de jovenes, parece logico, si estudiamos la Psicologia del Hombre, ampliar nuestra base de juicio para incluir gentes de otras naciones y culturas. Por esta razon he pedido a un grupo de estudiantes Colombianos y a un grupo igual de estudiantes

Norteamericanos que contribuyan con sus opinones personales en este estudio.

Esencialmente le preguntare a Ud. que piense en nueve personas

de importancia actual en su vida. No es necesario revelar su identidad-las iniciales bastan para que Ud. mismo pueda recordar las que ha escogido. Despues de obtener diez conceptos, exploraremos por que Ud. siente que un aspecto de sus percepciones es preferible al otro. Enseguida le preguntare que piense en casos especificos en los cuales Ud. ha expresado una de sus percepciones en su vida actual. En este momento tomaremos la lista completa de 30 percepciones y le preguntarequetanto cree Ud. que otros conocen su manera de pensar o preferencias en cada una de ellos y en diez areas diferentes de su vida diaria.

Espero que Ud. descubra algunos aspectos interesantes de su propio

modo de pensar mientras exploraremos sus valores personales y preferencias y recuerde que todo esto es confidencial--pues no necesito de anotar su nombre. Por favor tenga confianza en hacer cualquier pregunta que quiera acerca de este estudio.













APPENDIX B


Interpersonal Role Construct Repertory Grid


0 0o

0 0.







o 0






o 0 0_ _00



0 O0 o 0 0 -o100
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o

-o- oooo-o-


,D 00 r r


Lo(J 3 -


(A
S0 0 c-


C-)
0
=5


C-I













C-)
0



(I
pi







on
..













SijhnrrIinit~ Fnnc~1-


APPENDIX C

Disclosure Score Sheet


FR MR OS ss FR MR OS SS
1


2
- a-- = . ..iI
3

4

5

6
= i

7

8

9

10

S.A. SDQ

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10










APPENDIX D

Modified SDQ Question Sheet
1. The things about your appearance that you like most, or are proudest of.
2. Your favorite spare-time hobbies or interests.

3. The chief pressures and strains in your daily work.

4. The kind of behavior in others that most annoys you, or makes
you furious.
5. The characteristics of your father that you do not like, or did not like.
6. Your most frequent day-dream--what you day-dream about most.

7. The feelings you have the most trouble controlling, e.g., worry, depression, anger, jealousy, etc.

8. Your favorite jokes--the kind of jokes you like to hear.

9. Whether or not you have savings; if so, the amount. 10. Your favorite comics.









Modified SDQ Question Sheet - Spanish Version
1. Los aspectos de su apariencia personal que mas le agradan o de los cuales se siente orgulloso.
2. Sus pasatiempos o intereses favoritos.
3. Las principales preocupaciones y problemas de su traba jo diario.
4. Las clase de conducta en otros que mas le desagrada o enfurece.

5. Caracteristicos en su padre que no le agradan o que no le
agradaron.
6. Sus ilusiones mas frecuentes.

7. Sus sentimientos mas dificiles de controlar, por ejemplo:
miedo, depresion, enojo, celos, etc.

8. Sus chistes favoritos, la clase de chistes que le gusta oir.

9. Si tiene o no ahorros; en caso afirmativo, su cantidad. 10. Sus historietas comicas favoritas.









APPENDIX E

Disclosure Scores - American Students


Core C. Periph. C. Spec. Act C. SDQ
Subject FR MR OS SS FR MR OS SS FR MR OS SS FR MR OS SS

Male

1 18 7 16 18 14 8 14 15 13 4 14 11 9 5 13 11 2 12 5 19 19 12 8 19 18 7 2 19 12 7 2 12 13 3 9 13 14 17 10 14 17 18 9 12 11 16 13 16 15 14 4 16 8 8 14 14 5 14 13 12 4 17 18 7 1 16 11 5 20 15 20 16 14 11 16 14 14 10 15 11 14 10 12 10 6 17 13 18 17 15 12 14 16 9 7 9 10 8 6 8 8 7 20 20 17 20 14 7 8 10 5 4 5 6 4 4 7 8 8 19 14 16 19 13 9 10 13 8 6 5 5 7 4 6 6 9 18 15 19 19 13 11 17 18 10 14 17 14 12 12 16 13
10 15 10 11 11 12 8 7 9 10 8 5 8 8 5 6 6 11 18 15 19 19 13 8 19 14 11 9 18 13 6 5 17 13

Female

1 20 16 17 20 15 11 12 14 14 10 7 11 13 11 8 12 2 19 9 17 20 10 6 15 17 7 2 10 13 14 3 9 17 3 18 15 20 20 14 9 14 12 13 6 12 16 12 5 14 14 4 16 16 18 18 16 15 16 15 9 8 6 6 7 6 8 13 5 16 13 11 15 13 7 13 14 8 6 7 10 10 7 7 7 6 16 12 19 19 15 8 18 19 12 8 19 14 12 7 18 11 7 18 17 20 20 13 6 17 16 10 2 16 8 6 7 12 10 8 14 16 9 14 16 15 14 13 9 9 5 15 7 10 5 8 9 16 14 17 11 14 11 15 15 13 11 5 8 11 7 10 12
10 20 19 18 20 14 9 12 12 13 8 11 14 9 7 8 9 11 14 9 16 16 11 8 10 13 10 5 9 9 8 6 8 8









APPENDIX F

Disclosure Scores - Colombian Students


Core C. Periph. C. Spec., Act C. SDQ
Subject

Male
1 16 15 18 16 10 9 12 12 6 6 10 10 6 5 4 5 2 17 19 18 19 16 18 16 11 12 13 13 15 12 12 12 12 3 16 13 15 12 14 11 15 15 11 8 11 7 11 9 6 4 4 16 14 17 16 13 14 15 14 3 4 8 13 4 10 9 14 5 16 15 19 19 15 14 14 18 12 11 11 15 8 6 12 14 6 18 16 15 10 14 5 18 9 8 2 12 9 7 2 10 7 7 18 17 20 18 13 8 12 14 12 10 8 9 10 8 10 12 8 20 19 18 13 12 13 17 16 5 5 18 11 10 11 14 6 9 18 15 20 20 13 12 12 14 12 8 8 7 9 6 4 8 10 17 16 16 13 12 11 15 12 5 4 13 4 5 4 13 5 11 19 15 10 20 14 13 8 15 12 8 6 14 11 6 5 12

Female
1 16 14 14 12 15 16 16 13 13 9 10 8 11 10 5 5 2 19 18 20 14 12 11 19 12 12 10 19 10 12 8 15 14 3 17 18 18 15 13 14 15 12 12 12 15 10 11 7 9 12 4 18 15 14 13 10 11 10 9 8 8 8 5 6 4 3 3 5 19 20 17 12 15 16 14 12 15 15 13 8 12 11 11 12 6 16 13 1411 11 8 12 9 10 8 7 10 10 7 8 4 7 18 17 15 17 12 11 9 10 10 9 7 7 7 6 5 5 8 17 17 14 14 13 14 11 9 12 13 6 8 7 6 5 5 9 18 15 13 13 15 13 12 14 13 9 8 8 7 7 6 8 10 17 17 18 20 15 17 15 11 13 16 14 9 12 11 13 6 11 19 20 19 20 14 16 15 12 11 12 4 3 12 12 9 8









APPENDIX G

Categories of Construct Content

1. Self-Identity: Self-concept, inner self, understanding of self, true to self, to be balanced, self-confidence.

2. Security: Avoidance, trouble, worry, carefulness, problems,
anxiety, safety.

3. Personal Values: Creativity, pride, faith, honesty, Art, truth, loyalty, excellence, dedication.

4. Accomplishment: Do well in life, get ahead, meaning and purpose in life, ambition, general laziness, work.

5. Relationships with Others: Love, friendship, trust of others,
sensitivity, being accepted, sociability, timidity.
6. Maturity: Growth, maturity, responsibility, fulfillment, discipline,
seriousness, order, stability.

7. Fun in Life: Fun, joy, gayety, enjoyment of life, play, good time.

8. Activity: Energy, effectivity, control, passiveness.

9. Tranquillity: Easygoing, calm, peace, relaxation, pleasure, comfort. 10. External Values: Money, morals, home and family, Religion, society
in general.

11. Physical Body: Health, nutrition, sports, exercise. 12. Understanding: Understanding people, life, reality, world. 13. Change: Not limited, newness, openness, flexibility, narrowness,
closed.

14. Intellectual Pursuits: Learning, experience, logic, science,
intelligence, interest, study, school, thinking.

15. Emotions: Feels good, anger, jealousy, feeling, coldness, warmth. 16. Time: Future, past, old-fashioned, liberal, conservative, modern,
up-to-date.

17. Independence: Freedom, able to cope, take care of oneself. 18. Communication: Talking, getting to know, extroversion, introversion,
optimisn, pessimism, inhibition, conversationalist. 19. Humor: Jokes, laughter, humorous. 20. Sex: Sexuality, sex-roles.









APPENDIX H

Number of Constructs placed by Colombian and American
Subjects in Content Categories by Level


Peripheral Constructs Core Constructs

Categories American Colombian American Colombian

1. Self-Identity 14 2 24 16 2. Security 15 3 20 17 3. Personal Values 11 14 7 5 4. Accomplishment 6 9 19 20 5. Relationships with Others 14 43 27 34 6. Maturity 2 9 7 13 7. Fun in Life 4 9 11 24 8. Activity 2 6 4 2 9. Tranquillity 24 7 9 7 10. External Values 7 26 9 10 11. Physical Body 7 2 5 3 12. Understanding 6 8 7 9 13. Change 11 8 5 6 14. Intellectual Pursuits 17 22 14 9 15. Emotions 12 6 9 5 16. Time 10 6 4 5 17. Independence 7 6 6 8 18. Communication 26 10 8 5 19. Humor 7 3 1 1 20. Sex 4 1 1 0















RE FEREfICES


Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.) The individual
psychology of Alfred Adler. New York: basic Books, 1956.

Bannister, D., & Mair, J. M. The evaluation of personal constructs.
London & New York: Academic Press, 1968.

Barnouw, V. Culture and Personality. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey
Press, 1963.

Birney, R. C. Research on the achievement motive. In E. F. Borgatta
& W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and
research. Chicago: Rand McAally, 1968, 857-889.

Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorridike, R. M. Cross-cultural
research methods. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1973.

Deutsch, M. & Collins, M. E. Interracial housing and a psychological
evaluation of a social experiment. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 1951.

Edwards, A. L. Statistical Analysis. New York: Rinehart, 1946.

Edwards, A. L. The social desirability variable in personality
assessment and research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
1957.

English, H. B., & English, A. C. A comprehensive dictionary of
psychological and psychoanalytical terms. New York: Longmans,
Green, 1958.

Fromm, E. Man for Himself. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1947.

Hinkle, D. N. The change of personal constructs from the viewpoint
of a theory of construct implications. Doctoral dissertation,
Ohio State University, 1965.

Hole, F. R., & Heizer, R. F. An introduction to prehistoric archeology.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969.

Honigman, J. J. Culture and personality. New York: Harper, 1954.

Isaza, J. L., Suchman, D. I., & Epting, F. R. Elicited and provided
self-disclosures. Paper presented at the Southeastern Psychological
Association, Louisville, Kentucky, April, 1970.









Isaza, J. L. A study of self structure across generations. Paper
presented at the Southeastern Psychological Association,
Miami, Florida, April, 1971.
Jourard, S. M., and Lasakow, P. Some factors in self-disclosure.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 56, 91-98.

Jourard, S. M. Self-disclosure: an experimental analysis of the
transparent self. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1971.

Kelly, G. A. The psychology of personal constructs. New York:
Norton, 1955.
Kirk, R. E. Experimental desiqn: Procedures for the behavioral
sciences. Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1969.

Landfield, A. W. Personal construct systems in psychotherapy.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1971.

Linton, R. The cultural background of personality. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1945.

Maslow, A. H. Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand,
1962.

Maslow, A. H. A theory of metamotivation: The biological rootings
of the value-life. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1967,
7, 93-127.
Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personality. (2nd ed.). New York:
Harper & Row, 1970.

Rogers, C. R. Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1951.
Rogers, C. R. A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal
relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework.
In S. Kock (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science, Vol. 3.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959, 184-256.

Scott, W. A. Conceptualizing and measuring structural properties
of cognition. In 0. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and Social
Interaction. New York: Ronald Press, 1963, 266-288.

Syngg, D., & Cons, A. W. Individual behavior: a new frame of
reference for psychology. New York: Harper, 1949.

Wylie, R. C. The present status of self theory. In E. F. Borgatta
and W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and
research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968, 728-787.














BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Judith Los Isaza was born in Montreal, Canada, on July 21, 1932, grew up in New York City, and graduated from Newtown High School, Elmhurst, Long Island, in June, 1949. Since 1953, she has resided both in the United States and in Cali, Colombia, South America, where she entered the Universidad del Valle in September, 1964. In January, 1967, she transferred to the University of Florida, from which she received the degree of Bachelor of Arts with honors in psychology in June, 1969. She was aided in her undergraduate studies by the University of Florida Honor Scholarships, was awarded a Radio Corporation of America Science Scholarship, a Ford Foundation Fellowship, and Honorable Mention in the 1969 Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Competi ti on.

Entering the University of Florida Graduate School in September of 1969, she received her master's degree in Psychology in December, 1970. Since then she has been studying towards the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology. Her graduate studies were pursued under a Traineeship from the National Science Foundation and she is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and Phi Kappa Phi.

Judith Los Isaza is married to Dr. Jaime Isaza and is the mother

of two children.









I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



Ass ista� Prof sr of Psych6/logy


I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.




MarVin E. Shaw
Professor of Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



Sidney M. Jdurard Ji
Professor of Psyq~zogy

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



dame . Dixon
RrPfessor of Psychology

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion
it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.




J/Milan Kolarik
Associate Professor of Psychology










I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



T ero% A. Nunhey f/z, "Jr.L/A
Associate Professor of l -~ropology


This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Psychology in the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

February, 1974


Dean, Graduate School




Full Text

PAGE 1

CROSS-CULTURAL SELF STRUCTURE By JUDITH LOS ISAZA A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

PAGE 2

COPYRIGHT BY JUDITH LOS ISAZA 1974

PAGE 3

TO JAIME, DIANA AND RAMIRO

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My sincere thanks to Dr. Franz R. Epting who guided my flights into specul ation--then showed me how to land, gently, and taught me to make sense of the whole venture; to Dr. Marvin E. Shaw for giving me a real sense of confidence as well as help and encouragement; and to Dr. James C. Dixon for hours of exploration and learning that seemed to be conversation. I would like to thank Dr. J. Milan Kolarik for helping me envision some practical applications of theory; Dr. Theron A. Nunez, Jr. who patiently helped an anthropol i gically-oriented psychologist find her way; and Dr. Sidney M. Jourard who helped teach me to look reality straight in the eye--and grin back. I would like to thank those students, both Colombian and North American, who answered so many questions. Their generously given time and effort made this project possible. My gratitude goes to my parents for that most precious of gifts-time, when I needed it. The peace of mind and chance to relax that they made possible kept me going on many an occasion. Thanks for the second chance. To my daughter, Diana, and to my son, Ramiro, my thanks and congratul ations . Despite an often hectic mother-student combination they have managed to become people that I am proud to call my friends. A very special kind of thanks to the fellow who invited me for

PAGE 5

a cup of coffee once and has been my favorite companion ever since--Jaime, who cared enough to help me become whatever I could be. Perhaps that is what love means, after all. v

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES ix ABSTRACT x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Personal Construct Theory 1 Sel f Structure 3 •Culture 4 Rationale and Purpose of This Study 6 Hypothesis I 8 Hypothesis II 9 Hypothesis III 10 II METHOD 12 Subjects 12 Materials 12 Translation 13 Procedure 13 Elicitation of Peripheral Constructs 13 Elicitation of Core Constructs 14 Elicitation of Specific Act Constructs .... 14 Construct Disclosure 15 SDQ Questionnaire 15 Scoring 16 Content Analysis . 16 III RESULTS 18 Construct Organization 18 Content Analysis 26 IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 28 vi

PAGE 7

APPENDICES Page APPENDIX A Explanatory Sheet 38 B Interpersonal Role Repertory Grid 40 C Disclosure Score Sheet 41 D Modified SDQ Question Sheet 42 E Disclosure Scores American Students 44 F Disclosure Scores Colombian Students 45 G Categories of Construct Content 46 H Number of Constructs Placed by Colombian and American Subjects in Content Analysis by Level. ... 47 REFERENCES 48 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 50 vi i

PAGE 8

TABLE LIST OF TABLES Page 1 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DISCLOSURE SCORES. . . 19 2 MEAN DISCLOSURE SCORES OF COLOMBIAN AND AMERICAN STUDENTS ON CONSTRUCT LEVELS ACROSS TARGETS 20 3 MEAN DISCLOSURE SCORES OF COLOMBIAN AND AMERICAN STUDENTS ON TARGETS ACROSS CONSTRUCT LEVEL 23 4 PERCENTAGE OF CONSTRUCTS PLACED BY COLOMBIAN AND AMERICAN SUBJECTS IN CONTENT CATEGORIES. . 27 vii i

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1 MEAN DISCLOSURE SCORES AT CONSTRUCT LEVELS OF COMBINED GROUPS ACROSS TARGETS 21 2 NATIONAL GROUP X TARGET 24 3 TARGET X NATIONAL GROUP 25 ix

PAGE 10

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy CROSS-CULTURAL SELF STRUCTURE By Judith Los Isaza March, 1974 Chairman: Franz R. Epting Major Department: Psychology The self structure, defined in terms of personal construct theory, was compared in 22 American and 22 Colombian university students. Each student was interviewed in his own language and cultural milieu. Utilizing the Elicited Self-Disclosure test, 30 constructs were elicited from each S^ and self-rated as to degree of being known on each construct as well as on ten selected items from Jourard and Lasakow's Self-Disclosure Questionnaire. Quantitative and qualitative aspects of the elicited constructs and questionnaire items were analyzed . Marked similarities between the national groups were observed in self-disclosure of constructs. Three distinct levels of self-disclosure were demonstrated adding evidence to the nomological network supporting a concept of self structure in which the manner of conceptual organization was seen as common to human thought. The two groups also demonstrated greater content similarity in their more central constructs than in their more peripheral ones. Cultural differences were observed in relationships with significant others as well as in content categories. x

PAGE 11

That part of the self structure concerned with interpersonal relationships and self-identification was seen as consisting of a set of interrelated, organized constructs across cultural lines. Implications of the realization of conceptual similarity for social interaction were suggested . xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Many persons, when confronted with customs, values, or behavior different from their own, tend to see the bearers of such cultural differences as at least strange and inexplicable. Often such strangers are accredited with thought processes utterly different from those of the observer and so not subject to "real" understanding. Yet, when circumstances provide encouragement for direct, personal interaction between culturally different individuals they frequently find that basically their needs and wants are not as discrepant as they had supposed, though methods of attaining them may differ (Deutsch & Collins, 1951). In terms of personal construct theory it might be said that the formerly exotic thinking of the stranger becomes understandable and predictable. Exploration of some of the sources of this possible understanding between diverse groups was the intent of this study. Personal Construct Theory The theoretical bases underlying the present investigation are largely drawn from the work of George A. Kelly (1955), particularly the assumption that every individual develops through his lifetime a unique, organized mental system by and through which he makes sense out of his varied experiences in life. Each new event to which a person is exposed is interpreted or construed in relation to his personal construct system, thus becoming part of his predictable and meaningful world. Using his constructs as guides, a person is able to anticipate events. 1

PAGE 13

2 The basic elements of each construct system are bipolar constructs which, in their minimal form, are a way in which two experiences are seen as similar to each other and contrast with a third (Kelly, 1955). Individual constructs are related to each other in a hierarchical and ordinal manner, the generally more concrete and specific subordinate constructs being subsumed within the range of convenience of a more abstract superordinate construct. A superordinate construct is, by definition, one which subsumes another construct. Construct elaboration is a process of ongoing elaboration and abstraction. Individual concrete constructs are abstracted from the myriad stimuli impinging upon a person, construed as to similarities and differences, and become elements of higher level constructs. These, in turn, are still further abstracted by progressi vely more superordinate constructs, culminating in the system-maintaining core constructs, which serve to lend continuity and stability to the entire system. An individual tends to interpret new events in terms consistent with his existing structure so that the system controls to some degree that which is recognized and understood by the person. The more superordinate a construct is, the more an individual will favor evidence that enhances its validation and resist that which implies changing it. A stable construct system is essential for each individual in order that he may relate himself meaningfully to an otherwise chaotic world. Stability, however, does not imply a static, unchanging system since building of the construct system is a continual process of life. Among the many properties of construct systems formulated by Kelly and elaborated by others (Bannister & Mair, 1968) the distinction between organizational structure and content is of importance to this study.

PAGE 14

3 A personal construct system is composed of dimensions of meaning which are organized within a context of relationships (Landfield, 1971). Structure refers to the position of a construct within the organizational pattern while content refers to the actual words and meanings used to express a construct. The structural properties tend to be more enduring, unchanging over situations, and relatively similar across individuals, while content may vary markedly from person to person (Scott, 1963). These different levels of interpretation lend understanding to a given idea within a system, so that a word, such as "family", might be highly superordinate in one system and relatively subordinate in another with quite different implications. Structure enables the importance of a construct to be known, while content facilitates comparison and communication. Self Structure Superordinate within each construct system are those unique core constructs which define our relationships with others (Kelly, 1955, p. 503). These personal self constructs, developed over time from the regularities obserbed in our own behavior, feelings, and the reactions of others, are seen as the essence of the self. Core constructs are basic to the maintenance of the system, highly resistant to change, and are implicated in or subsume a large number of other constructs. The self structure, in these terms, refers to the organization and relationships among these core constructs and related subordinate constructs, especially those containing the phenomenological self as an element. This view of the self structure in the context of personal construct theory is not identical with those theoretical formulations of the self proposed by the majority of self-theorists (Rogers, 1959). Conceptualizations of

PAGE 15

4 the self such as Adler's "creative self" (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956), Syngg and Comb's phenomenal self (1949, p. 48), Roger's self concept (1951, p. 136), and Horney's "actual self" (English & English, 1958) are far broader and more inclusive than the self structure examined in this study. They subsume large portions of the personality and consist of patterns, tendencies, indications and inborn characteristics. While sel freferent constructs would appear to be necessary to account for various unexplained phenomena in human behavior, many formulations of the self cover so many aspects of the personality as to impede analysis (Wylie, 1968). Noting Wylie's suggestion that investigation of more limited aspects of the global concept of self might lead to increased productivity, it is not presumed that all aspects of the self are represented or explained by the present definition. It is assumed that at least that part of the self concerned with self identification and interactions with others is composed of a set of organized, superordinate constructs. Culture Almost as numerous as the many definitions of the self in psychology are those of culture within the discipline of anthropology. Although it is entirely possible to encounter ten distinct definitions of culture in as many books devoted to the subject, most seem to converge on certain fundamental points: culture is shared, organized and systematic, learned, transmitted primarily by means of verbal symbolism, and is adaptive (Hole & Heizer, 1969). Setting aside the controversy as to whether or not material objects are a part of culture, Barnouw (1963) believes that a definition which would be acceptable to most anthropologists is the fol lowi ng:

PAGE 16

5 A culture is the way of life of a group of people, the configuration of all the more or less stereotyped patterns of learned behavior which are handed down from one generation to the next through the means of language and imitation. Implied in this definition is the concept that the many varied "ways" shared by a group of people are interrelated and form a coherent whole, are to some degree changeable, and are the products of learning rather than instinct or genetics. That culture is particularly human is implied by the fact that it is transmitted by verbal symbolism. Culture is not simply a way of doing things divised by any temporary aggregate of humans, but rather the heritage of an ongoing, reproducing group. It has continuity over time. Although Kelly was opposed to the view that man is the product of his culture, he did propose that a cultural group exists when many persons agree on what will validate their individual predictions. When an individual, for example, construes the most suitable manner of ingesting food, his cultural group will consistently invalidate his predictions until they are congruent with the culturally shared concept of the correct way of consuming food. To the extent that a person learns to interpret reality in the same manner as his cultural group he can be said to be construing his experience in the same way and sharing certain constructs with his social and cultural group. Combining aspects of both the foregoing definitions, culture, for the purposes of this study, will be defined as: the interrelated, shared set of constructs common to a continuing group of people, which is learned and transmitted to succeeding generations primarily through verbal symbolism and imitation. Each cultural construct set contains some elements and configurations which distinguish it from all other cultures and constitute the unique way of life of the group.

PAGE 17

6 Within this definition cultures can be seen to serve as interpretive bases for individual group meirtoers, providing them with an accepted, coherent solution to the problems of human existence. It is assumed, along the lines proposed by Linton (1945), that cultures exist to fulfill the needs of human beings, both physical and psychic. Each culture, then, is one alternative way to obtain these ends, developed over time in accordance with the interaction between the local environment and the needs of the individuals comprising the cultural group. Each person may incorporate, to a greater or lesser degree, the shared constructs of his group into his personal construct system. Although it is probable that the majority of a cultural group do indeed share many basic constructs, belonging to a culture does not determine an individual's personality or construct system. The norms, values, customs and beliefs that form the shared constructs of a culture are but the favored alternative, open to acceptance or rejection. Rationale and Purpose of this Study There were four major purposes motivating this study. The first of these involved the extension of the nomological network supporting a concept of self structure in which the manner of conceptual organization was seen as common to human thought. The method of exploration proposed was to compare self structure between selected North American and South American students, each within his own cultural milieu. The second purpose, that of testing a basic structural hypothesis of selforganization, was substantially strengthened by a cross-cultural situation. The third purpose, that of illustrating the relationships between the elements of self structure, also benefited by being tested between two cultures. The fourth objective was an exploration of the content of

PAGE 18

7 the construct systems investigated as opposed to the structural characteristics. Two previous studies undertaken in the area of self structure (Isaza, Epting & Suchman, 1970; Isaza, 1971) have provided evidence supporting the concept of that part of the self concerned with interpersonal relationships, verbally expressed, as composed of ordered constructs. In these two studies a positive relationship was determined between self structure and self-disclosure. Self structure was formulated in terms of construct organization. Self-disclosure was operationally defined as the subjective quantitative evaluation made by an individual of how well known he felt by selected significant others in his life. It was hypothesized that due to the dynamics of construct system organization as formulated, the more central a construct was within a given system the greater would be the tendency to reveal that construct to significant others. It was found that individuals, when their personal constructs were elicited at three organizational levels and they were asked to quantify how well known they felt about them, clearly differentiated three levels of self-disclosure. The selfdisclosure levels corresponded to the superordinate or core level, the subordinate or peripheral level, and the level of specific acts, as predicted. The subjects felt that they were best known about their innermost core constructs, which seemed to correspond to: (1) Kelly's description of core constructs, (2) Maslow's (1962) basic goals as opposed to means or instrumental goals, and (3) Fromm's (1947) description of character structure as that core of central motives and values used by a person to orient himself to the world. Since construct organization is assumed to be relatively similar in all individuals it was predicted

PAGE 19

8 that the relationship between self-disclosure and self structure would remain stable across diverse individual and group differences. This prediction seemed to have been supported. In the present study samples of self structure were analyzed in order to investigate the following hypotheses: Hypothesis I It has been suggested that in dealing with self structure we are involved in a pan-human phenomenon and not simply a culturespecific attribute. If this is so, then it becomes difficult indeed to demonstrate such similarity since a single experiment cannot be designed to prove conclusively that all people share a given characteristic--without testing all people. Given this situation an indicated technique would be to build a nomological network, always seeking situations in which differences would be most likely to appear and repeatedly gathering supporting bits of evidence. In the particular case of the present formulation of self structure as hierarchically arranged, verbal, and common to human thinking processes, the two previous studies showed similarity in all subjects in their use of self-disclosure in relation to personal constructs. It appears that the stability of the relationship between self-disclosure and self structure supercedes individual differences within a group of college-age students and age differences between groups of young students and older citizens (Isaza, Epting & Suchman, 1970; Isaza, 1971). It was proposed to determine whether the same relationship between self structure and self-disclosure obtains despite cultural differences when tested within a similar category. This research strategy represents a step in the direction paralleling McClelland's need for achievement

PAGE 20

9 research (Birney, 1968). According to Honigman's (1954) definition, a category is an aggregate of people sharing some characteristics but who do not interact as a group, as for example, North American teenagers, housewives, mechanics, etc. Further, it is suggested that those characteristics shared by the members of a category are due to the exigencies of the larger cultural group, such as the nation, to which they belong, and should disappear when separate cultural groups are examined. In this study the two groups selected, Colombian university students and University of Florida students, belong to different national groups. It was assumed, however, that they both belong to a single supranational category by virtue of their exposure to Western-type academic studies. It was proposed that the relationship between self structure and selfdisclosure observed in subjects of North American background would be essentially the same in their South American counterparts, lending support to the formulation of similarity of construct organization across groups. The reservation that such similarity may be due in part to their similarity of category was maintained. Hypothesis II The second purpose was to test the structural hypothesis of three levels of organization by clarifying an aspect of the previous two studies. While it was found that there were three levels of disclosure demonstrable, one of these was demonstrated in response to questions, the same for all subjects, from Jourard and Lasakow's (1958) Self-disclosure Questionnaire (SDQ). This finding led to some ambiguity as to whether the same things were being compared to each other. It was proposed to remedy this doubt by adding laddered-down examples of discrete actions so that all three levels would be responses

PAGE 21

10 to personal constructs and thus comparable. The ten questions from the SDQ were retained for comparative purposes. It was hypothesized that disclosure to the specific acts so elicited would demonstrate a third discrete level of self-disclosure related to the sample of peripheral and core constructs. Hypothesis III The third hypothesis, directly related to the foregoing, concerned the relationship between the SDQ questions and the specific act constructs If the specific acts of an individual are derived from his core constructs through his peripheral constructs, then specific acts should be readily elicited from an individual's construct system. The general questions from the SDQ have possibly been less revealed in previous studies because of specific cultural prohibitions indigenous to North American norms. If the specific act constructs are consistently less revealed as well, then there would be evidence, on an intercultural level, that specific acts are less important to personality organization. No significant disclosure difference was expected between the specific acts and the SDQ questions. It is assumed that a person will make known to the important people in his life that which is of importance to him. In addition to the formal hypotheses three other aspects were investi gated. The content analysis was of an exploratory nature. While no hypothesis was formulated, it was hoped that some evidence might be forthcoming related to Maslow's suggestion that people are more alike in their basic goals than in their instrumental means. An additional aspect was explored in this study that was not touched upon in the previous ones--the possible difference between male and female subjects in

PAGE 22

structural organization and disclosure patterns. It was also hoped to gain from this data further insight into the observed phenomenon of revealing least to the closest male relative-significantly less in both previous studies.

PAGE 23

CHAPTER II METHOD Subjects Forty-four Ss were interviewed, 22 primarily Spanish-speaking Colombian nationals and 22 North American University of Florida students. All of the Ss were currently enrolled in a university. Age was excluded as a variable since a previous study had indicated that the difference between age groups was not significant. The Ss were divided equally between males and females. Since the Colombian group was not under any academic requirement to serve as Ss as were the Floridian students, they were recruited from amongst friends of student relatives of £ and a small sum, about $1.50, was offered to them to cover expenses incidental to their participation in the study. Individual interviews with each £ were conducted by the same £ in the £'s native language. Materi als A modified version of Kelly's Role Construct Repertory (REP) grid, a page for listing core and specific act constructs, and a scoring sheet for disclosure to Closest Female Relative, Closest Male Relative, Opposite Sex Friend and Same Sex Friend were used. A sheet containing the ten SDQ questions and an introductory sheet explaining the purpose and method of the experiment completed the materials. Copies (English and Spanish versions) of the introductory cover sheet appear in Appendix A. 12

PAGE 24

13 Translation The cover sheet and the SDQ questionnaire were translated into Spanish by a primarily Spanish-speaking bilingual and then retranslated into English by a primarily English-speaking bilingual. To assure that the explanation and questions had the same meaning in both languages the retranslated version was subjected to review by bilinguals, necessary reformulations incorporated and the process repeated when indicated. This method of back-translation, utilized for all Spanish-to-Engl ish material in this study as well, follows the methodology indicated by Brislin, Lonner and Thorndike (1973). Procedure Each was given a copy of the explanatory sheet to read before the actual questioning began. This was followed by a discussion of any procedural questions that arose. The interviews lasted approximately two hours each. The instrument used to obtain a sample of the constructs used by an individual to orient himself in relation to others was the Elicited Self-Disclosure (ESD) test. This test provided a list of 30 interrelated self constructs on three levels of construct organization from each S_: ten peripheral constructs, ten core constructs and ten specific act constructs. The test was administered as follows: Elicitation of Peripheral Constructs Utilizing a modified grid form of Kelly's REP test, a ten by ten grid form was prepared by £. In this test bipolar interpersonal constructs are elicited by asking a S to think about three persons (a triad) with whom he has role relationships and define in what way two of these are similar and different from the third. The grid was modified by using the self-identification form which requires S_ to identify nine

PAGE 25

14 people currently important in his life as role figures with "self" as the tenth figure. A copy of this grid appears in Appendix B. The S_ was asked how any two figures of a given triad were alike. This provided one pole of the first construct. The contrast pole was obtained from the S/s description of the different member of the triad. Ten triads were selected by E_, each containing the self as one of the figures. When the ten constructs were completed the S_ was asked which side of each construct he would prefer to resemble. Elicitation of Core Constructs Ten core constructs were elicited by laddering-up, a technique derived from Hinkle's (1965) construct implication theory. The process consists of the selection, by E_, of any one of the peripheral constructs generated by the REP test and asking the why he preferred his chosen pole. His answer formed the emergent pole of the new construct. The contrast pole is obtained by asking the S_ for the opposite of the emergent pole. This procedure was repeated on the newly elicited construct and continued until the S_ indicated that no further superordinate constructs could be generated from that particular peripheral construct. If less than ten core constructs had been generated another peripheral construct was chosen at random from the set and the process repeated. The selection of peripheral constructs was not ordered since Hinkle's study demonstrated that all subordinate constructs tend to lead to the same set of superordinate constructs within a single system. Elicitation of Specific Act Constructs By reversing the above process a new technique called ladderingdown was devised to elicit those constructs representative of actual behavioral acts as suggested by Bannister and Mair (1968). One of the

PAGE 26

15 peripheral constructs was selected and the asked to recall a specific action, actually performed by him, which he felt to be demonstrative of this construct in his experience. The act was noted and considered to be the emergent pole of a specific act construct. The contrast pole was not elicited for this construct, although the fact that it is possible to do so was demonstrated during the elaboration of the technique. The emergent pole alone was considered sufficient for the purposes of this study because the specific act constructs were construed as the behavioral level of the construct system and, as such, replaced the SDQ questions seen as representing this level in the previous studies. In order to better compare the responses to the specific act constructs with those of the SDQ similarity in form was maintained. Both the core and the specific act constructs were recorded on a plain sheet of paper. Construct Disclosure When the 30 constructs had been obtained and recorded £ asked each to determine, on a scale from zero to two, how well he felt known by each of the four target figures (Closest Female Relative, Closest Male Relative, Opposite Sex Friend and Same Sex Friend). Four scores were recorded on the Disclosure Score sheet (Appendix C) for each of the 30 constructs. SDQ Questionnaire At this point ten questions randomly selected from the 40-item SDQ test were verbally presented to each S_. The selected questions were accertained to be representative of the entire SDQ (r=.962) in an earlier study (Isaza, 1971). As each question was presented, S_ responded as to

PAGE 27

16 how well he felt known by the same target figures and on the same scale as were used in the construct disclosure section. The ten questions used appear in Appendix D in English and Spanish versions. Scoring By summing across all ten constructs for each target figure four scores for each of the construct levels and for the SDQ were obtained, a total of 16 scores for each S^. These scores may be found in Appendices E and F. Content Analysis The content analysis was derived from the actual words used in the emergent poles of the peripheral and core constructs generated by the ESD, a total of 880 constructs. After translation of the Spanish portion each construct was transcribed onto a separate card which was coded on the reverse as to national group and level of construct organization. Twenty categories were decided upon after inspection of the areas referred to in the constructs and instructions developed for categorization. The category list appears in Appendix G. Three independent judges were trained in the use of the category list using a set of 100 constructs taken from protocols of previous construct level experiments. The judges were instructed to place each construct in one and only one category, and each judge classified all 880 constructs. A construct was definitively assigned to a category when at least two of the three judges agreed that it belonged there. When the judges understood the categorization system well enough to reach 93 percent agreement they were given the constructs from this study to sort. On these materials interjudge agreement reached 91.1 percent. The constructs were subsequently decoded into national and construct level groups

PAGE 28

within each category. The resultant division of constructs into categories appear in Appendix H.

PAGE 29

CHAPTER III RESULTS Construct Organization A four-factor split plot design with repeated measures on two factors analysis of variance (Kirk, 1969) provided the results summarized in Table 1. Significant disclosure differences (p<.001) were found between the levels of construct organization and between target figures. Although no main effect for differences between national groups was demonstrated the interaction between nationality and target figures surpassed the .001 level of significance. In Table 2 the mean disclosure scores on construct levels for each national group across target figures are presented, as well as those for the combined groups. The difference between the combined group means were tested using Tukey's ratio for comparison between means with results indicating three levels of self-disclosure, each different from the others at the .01 level of significance. The core constructs had the highest mean disclosure followed by the peripheral constructs while the lowest mean scores were those of the specific act constructs and the SDQ. The last two levels did not significantly differ from each other. A graphic representation of disclosure at different construct levels appears in Figure 1 demonstrating the independence of construct levels and the similarity of curves. The mean disclosure scores for each of the target figures on the 18

PAGE 30

19 TABLE 1 Analysis of Variance of Disclosure Scores Source df MS F Between subjects 43 National group (A) 1 1 .54 0.035 Sex (C) 1 2.16 0.045 A x C 1 1.73 0.039 Subjects within group 40 44.23 Within subjects 660 Construct organizational level (B) 3 1938.04 176.88* A x B 3 15.82 1 .44 B x C 3 1.53 0.14 A x B x C 3 18.60 1.70 B x subjects within groups 120 10.96 Targets (D) 3 229.58 9.12* A x D 3 148.84 5.92* C x D 3 55.69 2.21 A x C x D 3 26.71 1.06 D x subjects within groups 120 25.76 B x D 9 4.31 1.34 A x B x D 9 2.94 0.92 B x C x D 9 4.96 1.55 A x B x C x D 9 1.52 0.47 BD x subjects within groups 360 3.21 Total 703 *p<.001

PAGE 31

20 TABLE 2 Mean Disclosure Scores of Colombian and American Students On Construct Levels Across Targets Core National Group Constructs Colombian Male 15.52 Colombian Female 16.32 American Male 16.52 American Female 16.25 Combined Groups Construct Levels Peripheral Constructs Specific Act Constructs SDQ 12.68 10.04 9.23 13.00 9.64 9.37 13.27 9.30 8.40 12.79 10.16 8.34 16.15 12.94 9.78 8.84

PAGE 32

Mean Target Score 21 Target FIGURE 1 Mean Disclosure Scores at Construct Levels of Combined Groups Across Targets

PAGE 33

22 combined construct levels for each national group and for all 44 Ss are shown in Table 3. Tukey's ratio, when applied to these means, showed that disclosure to the Closest Male Relative was significantly (.01) different from and lower than disclosure to the other three figures. The scores on Closest Female Relative, Opposite Sex Friend and Same Sex Friend were not different from each other across national groups . Tests for simple effects on the nationality by target interaction clearly demonstrated a significant difference between the national groups on disclosure to Same Sex Friend as well as to Closest Male Relative (Figure 2). It was also determined that this variation in target disclosure was attributable to the American group. The Colombian group felt essentially equally well known by all target figures (Figure 3). Both of these differences between the groups were significant beyond the .001 level. In order to further explore the relationship between the national groups a Pearson product-moment correlation was calculated comparing the groups on mean disclosure scores for each construct level. The correlation was found to equal .983 ( p< . 001 ) . When construct level scores of male and female S_s were also examined across national groups a correlation of .986 at the same level of significance was found. Since the ten questions from the SDQ were based upon American cultural norms and might be responded to quite differently by another cultural group, a Pearson product -moment correlation was calculated for the mean scores on each of the ten SDQ items comparing the Colombian and American responses. The correlation between the individual scores

PAGE 34

23 TABLE 3 Mean Disclosure Scores of Colombian and American Students On Targets Across Construct Levels National Group Closest Femal e Rel ati ve Tarqets Closest Male Rel ati ve Opposite Sex Friend Same Sex Friend Colombian 12.53 11.38 12.28 11.33 Ameri can 12.43 9.07 12.98 13.32 Combined Groups 12.48 10.22 12.63 12.33

PAGE 35

Mean Target Score 24 National Group X Target

PAGE 36

Mean Target Score 25 National Group FIGURE 3 Target X National Group

PAGE 37

26 tested, significant at the .001 level, was .877. Content Analysis Table 4 shows the percentage of constructs placed in each category by Colombian and American students and the results of the Chi-square analysis used to evaluate the significance of difference between the frequencies. American students are more likely than Colombian students to mention Self-Identity (.01), Communication (.01), Security (.025), Tranquillity (.025), and Emotion (.05) in their construct systems. Colombian students seem to be more concerned with Relationships with Others (.001), External Values (.001), Fun in Life (.025), and Maturity (.025) than are their American counterparts. Despite the difference in frequency of choice Relationships with Others was the most often mentioned category by both Colombians and Americans. An evaluation of the degree of congruence between peripheral and core constructs was obtained using Edward's (1946) Conmon Elements formula. Comparing the frequency of category choice by each group on peripheral constructs and again on core constructs it was found that the national groups were more congruent on core constructs (.825, p<. 00 1 ) than they were on peripheral constructs (.556, p<.01). Colombian and American students appeared to have more content in common in their core constructs than in their peripheral ones.

PAGE 38

27 TABLE 4 Percentage of Constructs Placed by Colombian and American Subjects In Content Categories Categories Col ombian American N 399 N = 403 1 . Sel f-Identi ty 4.51 943 *** 2 . Securi ty 5.01 8 . 68 ** 3. Personal Values 4.76 4.46 4. Accompl ishment 7.27 6.20 5. Relationships with Others 19.30 10.17**** 6 . Maturi ty 5.51 2.24** 7. Fun in Life 8.27 3.37*** 8 . Activity 2.01 1 .49 9. Tranquillity 3.51 8.19*** 10 . External Values 9.02 3.97**** n. Physical Body 1 .25 2.97 12 . Understanding 4.26 3.24 13. Change 3.51 3.98 14. Intellectual Pursuits 7.77 7.69 15. Emotions 2.76 5.21* 16. Time 2.76 3.47 17. Independence 3.51 3.23 18. Communi cation 3.76 g _ 42 *** 19. Humor 1.0 1.99 20 . Sex .25 1 .24 *p<. 05 **p<. 025 ***p <.01 ****p <.001

PAGE 39

CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The clear differentiation by both groups of three distinct levels of self-disclosure related to construct organization lent considerable support to the hypothesis of organizational similarity between the two cultural groups. The relationship between selfdisclosure and self structure remained stable despite cultural differences. As in previous studies of intracultural groups, the core constructs were felt to be the best known, followed by the peripheral constructs, with the specific act constructs the least known of the three significantly different levels. Since there were four sets of constructs or questions to differentiate among the finding that only three levels of disclosure were defined is notable. Further evidence in favor of construct organization similarity between the national groups was forthcoming from the correlational data which suggested a strong positive relationship between American and Colombian students in all-over disclosure scores. The fact that no main effect for difference due to national group could be demonstrated would also suggest similarity, bearing in mind that a negative finding cannot be used to imply identity. Since evidence of differences in construct organization would be more likely to appear under conditions of cultural and linguistic diversity, the present observations were considered to add another segment to the nomological network supporting the concept of the 28

PAGE 40

29 similarity of human thought processes. The experimental evidence suggesting that construct organization tends to be the same regardless of age or individual differences was augmented to include an instance of cultural difference. Any definitive statement as to whether or not self structure is similar must be tempered by due consideration of other factors possibly influencing the evidence supporting the proposed similarity of structure. In this study educational level is one such factor since all the participants were university students. Though a related investigation (Isaza, 1971) has shown that simply being engaged in a formal educational process does not seem to influence self structure, exposure to Western academics may do so. It is conceivable that being in contact with the Western educational tradition, at any age, fosters the development of the type of hierarchial, verbal expression of construct systems evidenced in these studies. Another variable possibly affecting disclosure level is social desirability, which may or may not increase as constructs become increasingly superordinate within an individual system. According to numerous studies cited by Edwards (1957) there is a direct correlation between the social desirability scale value of any personality statement and its probability of endorsement by an individual. Since elicited constructs are direct endorsements of self formulated by the subject it may be expected that constructs will be generally higher in social desirability than statements unrelated to a person's construct system. While the all-over level of social desirability may be generally high there is little reason to suppose that constructs differ in social desirability at different levels of

PAGE 41

30 organization. If this is so then the finding of greater disclosure to significant others of progressi vely more superordinate constructs cannot be attributed to the greater communicability of socially desirable statements . Although preliminary examination of the material indicates that all three levels of construct organization are equal in social desirability any decision in this regard would depend upon further investigation. A representative sample of constructs at all three levels might be selected and each designated a scale value in social desirability by independent judges. Comparison of the resultant values between levels of construct organization would determine any possible differences in the social desirability of the statements at each level . The doubt, expressed in the second hypothesis, concerning whether the three levels of self-disclosure related to construct levels observed were of the same nature was resolved. In the present study the third level, specific acts, was successfully derived from the other two construct levels. Support was evidenced that they are an integral part of the construct system. It had been suspected that previous scores on the third level were consistently lower because the SDQ was not a part of the construct system. When the specific act constructs were presently found to be consistently least revealed of the three levels this question seemed to be settled. The specific act constructs are functionally equal to the items of the SDQ in terms of selfdisclosure. Since the action constructs refer to specific events and the cultural items of the SDQ were treated in the same manner it may be concluded that SDQ items are perceived as isolated events. Such

PAGE 42

31 perception, on an intercul tural level, was further suggested by the correlational data indicating that the ten SDQ items were treated alike by both groups. One explanation might be that the SDQ was not less revealed simply because of prohibitions peculiar to North American culture but rather because they are seen as specific behavioral events. The specific act constructs were slightly more revealed, though not significantly so, as hypothesized. It was felt that this was due to the specific act construct's greater average meaningful ness. As demonstrated by Landfield (1971 ) a person's own constructs are more meaningful to him than those of another individual. Since the SDQ items were provided they may or may not have been directly pertinent to an individual's construct system. Further investigation of this interpretation is indicated. Given the assumption that a person will tend to reveal to significant others more extensively that which is of greater importance to him, further support was provided for the third hypothesis that publicly observable behaviors are of less importance in personality organization than the more abstracted constructs. Events, whether represented by specific act constructs or SDQ items, were significantly less revealed than the more superordinate constructs. Consistent with the present interpretation of the organization of self structure, at least that part which is verbal, conscious, and related to interpersonal interactions can be conceptualized as being composed of three distinct, interrelated levels. The core constructs, which form the basis of an individual's interpersonal relationships, subsume the peripheral constructs--those constructs which are used to identify and categorize oneself and others. The peripheral constructs

PAGE 43

32 form the guidelines for specific behaviors so that these may be congruent within the system. Following the implications of personal construct theory the core constructs are more important to the maintenance of the entire construct system. It is suggested that this fact would lead an individual to seek validation of these constructs. He would try to be known, understood and implicitly accepted by others, especially significant others. The more important a construct is within the system the greater is the necessity for consensual validation. This could account for the higher self-report of being known on core constructs, less on peripheral constructs and least on specific act constructs. Although the combined national groups seemed to feel least known by the Closest Male Relative further examination revealed that virtually all the difference was due to the American group. While the Colombian students felt essentially equally known by all four target figures the American students felt less known by the Closest Male Relative and more known than the Colombians by the Same Sex Friend. These findings indicate a true cultural difference since the American responses replicate, in part, earlier observations on three North American groups where less disclosure to male relatives was demonstrated. Research on cross-cultural self-disclosure reported by Jourard (1971) indicate no demonstrative difference between national groups on target figures or a tendency of females to disclose more fully to female targets. Americans were found to be significantly more self-disclosing than the other groups studied. It is possible that the different results found in the personal construct studies are due to the nature of the material being disclosed even though the method

PAGE 44

33 of evaluating disclosure is similar. As a tentative explanation of the peculiar American pattern of feeling known (disclosure patterns) it is suggested that this may be related to the American preference for communication as a peripheral construct as observed in the content analysis. If communi cation is heavily relied upon for friendly relationships with others, the paucity of contact, as well as relative physical absence, of male relatives in our society accounts for the feeling of being less known by them. In order to compensate, and because peers are more frequently together than relatives, more communication and feeling of being known would accrue to friends of the same sex. A speculative interpretation suggests that in Colombia the family interacts considerably more, with relatives tending to be classed as friends. This, plus the Colombian preference for values connected with the family as demonstrated in the content of their construct systems, would help to explain the observed similarity of disclosure to significant others found in Colombian students. It was not possible to demonstrate any difference between male and female patterns of being known about the portions of their personal construct systems explored. On the contrary, a decided similarity was shown in the way they differentiated the levels of construct organization. This correlation would seem to indicate that the propensity to organize constructs in a hierarchial manner overrides male-female culturally defined difference, although further investigation is necessary. Exploration of the qualitative aspects of the self structure

PAGE 45

34 samples provided material for interesting speculation. Since cultures are generally accepted as having differences from each other, the lack of such demonstrable variability was somewhat disturbing. The differences appeared in the content of the samples. Seemingly the two groups were distinct in what they were being known about rather than to what degree. The variations in content would appear to be logically coherent for each group to those who know both cultures. American concentration on self-identity, communication, security, tranquillity and emotion would seem to reflect needs in a more individualistic, socially mobile and hectic society in which each individual must find his social place and security on his own. Interpersonal relationships are more transient and friendship quickly established through expressed emotion and communication. The Colombian preferences for relationships with others, external values, fun in life, and maturity would be understandable in a more fixed society in which position and friendship depend to a large degree on ascribed status. In such a society long term relationships must be cultivated and security can be found in adjusting to the established societal norms. One must know his society rather than just himself for adjustment. Most of the osberved differences were found to be on the peripheral level of construct organization. The two national groups were more likely to be concerned with the same areas on their core constructs than on their peripheral ones, as demonstrated by greater congruence in core constructs. Maslow (1970) has suggested that basic human needs may be essentially alike while the means of attaining them differ. The present findings would seem to add support to that formulation. It is proposed that core constructs represent basic needs and peripheral

PAGE 46

35 constructs are instrumental in fulfilling them. Viewed in this manner, for example, the common basic need expressed as security might, in American culture be seen as best attainable through self-knowledge while in Colombian society the same end could be more acceptable gained by striving to be perceived as mature. While basic needs may be the same, there are several degrees of fulfillment possible. Those needs already relatively satisfied will not be of primary importance in the system (Maslow, 1967). Once again the fact that all the persons studied were students must be considered. It is possible that individuals successful enough to enter university training have had the same types of needs fulfilled and thus evidence similarity in the content of their core constructs, since these would be those needs of present importance. Also, despite national differences, it is quite possible that persons whose basic needs have been met to a fairly high degree are more autonomous and less dependent on the shared cultural constructs of their society. If this is so then such people should evidence fewer dissimilarities due to cultural affiliation. Individuals with a lower level of need fulfillment, such as those dominated by physical needs, might have core constructs very different from those of the students interviewed both within and between cultures. The matter is open to further investigation. It is not implied that cultural groups do not differ. Rather it is proposed that the persons interviewed in this study seem to share some constructs. As such they might be said to belong to a supranational cultural group, probably by virtue of their Western type education.

PAGE 47

36 The perception of human similarity in thought processes and the understanding of construct organization can help facilitate social interaction. Even in those cases where content is very disparate, realization of the position of constructs important to another and their relation to behavior enhances the probability of cooperation. When content as well can be perceived as somewhat similar between two individuals a real basis for sociality exists, enabling a person to subsume at least some part of the other's point of view. To put this in another way, to understand what another is about in one's own terms helps to make his actions understandable. Possibly this is precisely what occurs when culturally distinct persons interact on a personal basis and find that their stereotypes of each other simply do not fit the individuals that they have come to know. Realization of conmonal ity in construct organization or content does not necessarily imply amicable relationships, since understanding does not equal approval. But when the stranger is perceived as a construing being like oneself he is at least seen as human and knowable.

PAGE 48

APPENDICES

PAGE 49

APPENDIX A Explanatory Sheet As a graduate student at the University of Florida it has become increasingly obvious to me that a very great portion of the current research in Psychology, and particularly in personality, is based upon the responses of North American university students. While this is a fine group of young people, it would seem logical, if we are studying the Psychology of Man, to broaden our base of judgment to include people of other nations and cultures. For this reason, I have asked a group of Colombian students and an equal group of North American students to add their personal views to this exploration. Essentially I will ask you to think of nine persons currently important in your life. It is not necessary to reveal the identities of these persons — some initials will do in order that you may remember whom you have selected. After we collect ten concepts we will explore why you feel that one side of your construct is preferable to the other. Following this I shall ask you to think of specific instances in which you expressed a construct in actual life. At this point we will take the entire list of 30 constructs and I shall ask you how well you feel that others know your thinking or preferences on each of them and on ten general areas of everyday life. I hope that you may discover some interesting aspects of your own thinking as we explore your values and preferences and remember that this is all quite confidential — I will not even need to record your name. Please feel free to ask me any questions you might have about the study. 38

PAGE 50

39 Explanatory Sheet Spanish Version Como estudiante graduado de la Universidad de la Florida se me ha hecho cada vez mas obvio que una gran parte de la investigacion actual en Psicologia, especialmente en el ramo de la Personalidad, se basa en las respeustas de estudi antes Norteameri canos . Mientras este es un grupo admirable de jovenes, parece logico, si estudiamos la Psicologia del Hombre, ampliar nuestra base de juicio para incluir gentes de otras naciones y culturas. Por esta razon he pedido a un grupo de estudi antes Colombianos y a un grupo igual de estudi antes Norteameri canos que contribuyan con sus opinones personales en este estudio. Esenci al mente le preguntare a Ud. que piense en nueve personas de importancia actual en su vida. No es necesario revelar su identidad — las ini dales bastan para que Ud. mismo pueda recordar las que ha escogido. Despues de obtener diez conceptos, exploraremos por que Ud. siente que un aspecto de sus percepciones es preferible al otro. Enseguida le preguntare que piense en casos especificos en los cuales Ud. ha expresado una de sus percepciones en su vida actual. En este momento tomaremos la lista completa de 30 percepciones y le preguntare que tanto cree Ud. que otros conocen su manera de pensar o preferencias en cada una de ell os y en diez areas diferentes de su vida diaria. Espero que Ud. descubra algunos aspectos interesantes de su propio modo de pensar mientras exploraremos sus valores personales y preferencias y recuerde que todo esto es confidencial — pues no necesito de anotar su nombre. Por favor tenga confianza en hacer cualquier pregunta que quiera acerca de este estudio.

PAGE 51

40 APPENDIX B Interpersonal Role Construct Repertory Grid o o r o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CO o o ~s • c4* o CO cn co ro — « o o =3 CO c+ "S c : o

PAGE 52

41 APPENDIX C Disclosure Score Sheet Subordinate Const. Superordinate Const. FR MR OS SS FR MR OS SS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 S. A. SDQ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PAGE 53

42 APPENDIX D Modified SDQ Question Sheet 1. The things about your appearance that you like most, or are proudest of. 2. Your favorite spare-time hobbies or interests. 3. The chief pressures and strains in your daily work. 4. The kind of behavior in others that most annoys you, or makes you furious. 5. The characteristics of your father that you do not like, or did not like. 6. Your most frequent day-dream--what you day-dream about most. 7. The feelings you have the most trouble controlling, e.g., worry, depression, anger, jealousy, etc. 8. Your favorite jokes--the kind of jokes you like to hear. 9. Whether or not you have savings; if so, the amount. 10. Your favorite comics.

PAGE 54

43 Modified SDQ Question Sheet Spanish Version 1. Los aspectos de su apariencia personal que mas le agradan o de los cuales se siente orgulloso. 2. Sus pasatiempos o intereses favoritos. 3. Las princi pales preocupaciones y problemas de su traba jo diario. 4. Las clase de conducta en otros que mas le desagrada o enfurece. 5. Caracteristicos en su padre que no le agradan o que no le agradaron. 6. Sus ilusiones mas frecuentes. 7. Sus sentimientos mas dificiles de controlar, por ejemplo: miedo, depresion, enojo, celos, etc. 8. Sus chistes favoritos, la clase de chistes que le gusta oir. 9. Si tiene o no ahorros; en caso afirmativo, su cantidad. 10. Sus historietas comicas favoritas.

PAGE 55

44 APPENDIX E Disclosure Scores American Students Core C Periph. C. Spec. Act C. SDQ Subject FR MR OS SS FR MR OS SS FR MR OS SS FR MR OS SS Male 1 18 7 16 18 14 8 14 15 13 4 14 11 9 5 13 11 2 12 5 19 19 12 8 19 18 7 2 19 12 7 2 12 13 3 9 13 14 17 10 14 17 18 9 12 11 16 13 16 15 14 4 16 8 8 14 14 5 14 13 12 4 17 18 7 1 16 11 5 20 15 20 16 14 11 16 14 14 10 15 11 14 10 12 10 6 17 13 18 17 15 12 14 16 9 7 9 10 8 6 8 8 7 20 20 17 20 14 7 8 10 5 4 5 6 4 4 7 8 8 19 14 16 19 13 9 10 13 8 6 5 5 7 4 6 6 9 18 15 19 19 13 11 17 18 10 14 17 14 12 12 16 13 10 15 10 11 11 12 8 7 9 10 8 5 8 8 5 6 6 11 18 15 19 19 13 8 19 14 11 9 18 13 6 5 17 13 Female 1 20 16 17 20 15 11 12 14 14 10 7 11 13 11 8 12 2 19 9 17 20 10 6 15 17 7 2 10 13 14 3 9 17 3 18 15 20 20 14 9 14 12 13 6 12 16 12 5 14 14 4 16 16 18 18 16 15 16 15 9 8 6 6 7 6 8 13 5 16 13 11 15 13 7 13 14 8 6 7 10 10 7 7 7 6 16 12 19 19 15 8 18 19 12 8 19 14 12 7 18 11 7 18 17 20 20 13 6 17 16 10 2 16 8 6 7 12 10 8 14 16 9 14 16 15 14 13 9 9 5 15 7 10 5 8 9 16 14 17 11 14 11 15 15 13 11 5 8 11 7 10 12 10 20 19 18 20 14 9 12 12 13 8 11 14 9 7 8 9 11 14 9 16 16 11 8 10 13 10 5 9 9 8 6 8 8

PAGE 56

45 APPENDIX F Disclosure Scores Colombian Students Core C. Periph. C. Spec. Act C. SDQ Subject Male 1 16 15 18 16 10 9 12 12 6 6 10 10 6 5 4 5 2 17 19 18 19 16 18 16 11 12 13 13 15 12 12 12 12 3 16 13 15 12 14 11 15 15 11 8 11 7 11 9 6 4 4 16 14 17 16 13 14 15 14 3 4 8 13 4 10 9 14 5 16 15 19 19 15 14 14 18 12 11 11 15 8 6 12 14 6 18 16 15 10 14 5 18 9 8 2 12 9 7 2 10 7 7 18 17 20 18 13 8 12 14 12 10 8 9 10 8 10 12 8 20 19 18 13 12 13 17 16 5 5 18 11 10 11 14 6 9 18 15 20 20 13 12 12 14 12 8 8 7 9 6 4 8 10 17 16 16 13 12 11 15 12 5 4 13 4 5 4 13 5 11 19 15 10 20 14 13 8 15 12 8 6 14 11 6 5 12 Female 1 16 14 14 12 15 16 16 13 13 9 10 8 11 10 5 5 2 19 18 20 14 12 11 19 12 12 10 19 10 12 8 15 14 3 17 18 18 15 13 14 15 12 12 12 15 10 11 7 9 12 4 18 15 14 13 10 11 10 9 8 8 8 5 6 4 3 3 5 19 20 17 12 15 16 14 12 15 15 13 8 12 11 11 12 6 16 13 14 11 11 8 12 9 10 8 7 10 10 7 8 4 7 18 17 15 17 12 11 9 10 10 9 7 7 7 6 5 5 8 17 17 14 14 13 14 11 9 12 13 6 8 7 6 5 5 9 18 15 13 13 15 13 12 14 13 9 8 8 7 7 6 8 10 17 17 18 20 15 17 15 11 13 16 14 9 12 11 13 6 11 19 20 19 20 14 16 15 12 11 12 4 3 12 12 9 8

PAGE 57

46 APPENDIX G Categories of Construct Content 1. Self-Identity: Self-concept, inner self, understanding of self, true to self, to be balanced, self-confidence. 2. Security: Avoidance, trouble, worry, carefulness, problems, anxiety, safety. 3. Personal Values: Creativity, pride, faith, honesty, Art, truth, loyalty, excellence, dedication. 4. Accomplishment: Do well in life, get ahead, meaning and purpose in life, ambition, general laziness, work. 5. Relationships with Others: Love, friendship, trust of others, sensitivity, being accepted, sociability, timidity. 6. Maturity: Growth, maturity, responsibi 1 ity, fulfillment, discipline, seriousness, order, stability. 7. Fun in Life: Fun, joy, gayety, enjoyment of life, play, good time. 8. Activity: Energy, effectivity, control, passiveness. 9. Tranquillity: Easygoing, calm, peace, relaxation, pleasure, comfort. 10. External Values: Money, morals, home and family. Religion, society in general. 11. Physical Body: Health, nutrition, sports, exercise. 12. Understanding: Understanding people, life, reality, world. 13. Change: Not limited, newness, openness, flexibility, narrowness, closed. 14. Intellectual Pursuits: Learning, experience, logic, science, intelligence, interest, study, school, thinking. 15. Emotions: Feels good, anger, jealousy, feeling, coldness, warmth. 16. Time: Future, past, old-fashioned, liberal, conservative, modern, up-to-date. 17. Independence: Freedom, able to cope, take care of oneself. 18. Communication: Talking, getting to know, extroversion, introversion, optimisn, pessimism, inhibition, conversationalist. 19. Humor: Jokes, laughter, humorous. 20. Sex: Sexuality, sex-roles.

PAGE 58

47 APPENDIX H Number of Constructs placed by Colombian and American Subjects in Content Categories by Level Categories Peri pheral Constructs Core Constructs Ameri can Colombi an American Colombian 1 . Self-Identity 14 2 24 16 2. Security 15 3 20 17 3. Personal Values 11 14 7 5 4. Accomplishment 6 9 19 20 5. Relationships with Others 14 43 27 34 6. Maturity 2 9 7 13 7. Fun in Life 4 9 11 24 8. Acti vi ty 2 6 4 2 9. Tranqui 11 ity 24 7 9 7 10. External Values 7 26 9 10 11. Physical Body 7 2 5 3 12. Understanding 6 8 7 9 13. Change 11 8 5 6 14. Intellectual Pursuits 17 22 14 9 15. Emotions 12 6 9 5 16. Time 10 6 4 5 17. Independence 7 6 6 8 18. Communication 26 10 8 5 19. Humor 7 3 1 1 20. Sex 4 1 1 0

PAGE 59

REFERENCES Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.) The individual psychology of Alfred Adler . New York: Basic Books, 1956. Bannister, D., & Mair, J. M. The evaluation of personal constructs . London & New York: Academic Press, 1968. Barnouw, V. Culture and Personality . Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1963. Birney, R. C. Research on the achievement motive. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research . Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968, 857-889. Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. Cross-cultural research methods . New York: Wiley & Sons, 1973. Deutsch, M. & Collins, M. E. Interracial housing and a psychological evaluation of a social experiment . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1951. Edwards, A. L. Statistical Analysis . New York: Rinehart, 1946. Edwards, A. L. The social desirability variable in personality a sse ssment and research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1957. English, H. 6., & English, A. C. A comprehensive dictionary of psychological and psychoanalytical terms . New York: Longmans, Green, 1958. Fromm, E. Man for Himself . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1947. Hinkle, D. N. The change of personal constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of construct implications. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1965. Hole, F. R. , & Heizer, R. F. An introduct ion to prehistoric archeology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969. Honigman, J. J. Culture and personality . New York: Harper, 1954. Isaza, J. L., Suchman, D. I., & Epting, F. R. Elicited and provided self-disclosures. Paper presented at the Southeastern Psychological Association, Louisville, Kentucky, April, 1970. 48

PAGE 60

49 Isaza, J. L. A study of self structure across generations. Paper presented at the Southeastern Psychological Association, Miami, Florida, April, 1971. Jourard, S. M. , and Lasakow, P. Some factors in self-disclosure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1958, 5£, 91-98. Jourard, S. M. Self-disclosure : an experimental analysis of the transparent self . New York: Wiley & Sons, 1971. Kelly, G. A. The psychology of personal constructs . New York: Norton, 1955. Ki rk , R . E . Experimental design : Procedures for the behavioral sciences . Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1969. Landfield, A. W. Personal construct systems in psychotherapy . Chicago: Rand McNally, 1971. Linton, R. The cultural background of personality . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts , 1945. Maslow, A. H. Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand, 1962. Maslow, A. H. A theory of metamotivation: The biological rootings of the value-life. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1967, 7, 93-127. Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personality . (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row, 1970. Rogers, C. R. Client centered therapy . Boston: Houghton Mifflin, Rogers, C. R. A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Kock (Ed.), Psychology : A study of a science , Vol. 3. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959, 184-256. Scott, W. A. Conceptualizing and measuring structural properties of cognition. In 0. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and Social Interaction . New York: Ronald Press, 1963, 266-288. Syngg, D. , & Combs, A. W. Individual behavior : a new frame of reference for psychology . New York: Harper, 1949. Wylie, R. C. The present status of self theory. In E. F. Borgatta and W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research . Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968, 728-787.

PAGE 61

50 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Judith Los Isaza was born in Montreal, Canada, on July 21, 1932, grew up in New York City, and graduated from Newtown High School, Elmhurst, Long Island, in June, 1949. Since 1953, she has resided both in the United States and in Cali, Colombia, South America, where she entered the Universidad del Valle in September, 1964. In January, 1967, she transferred to the University of Florida, from which she received the degree of Bachelor of Arts with honors in psychology in June, 1969. She was aided in her undergraduate studies by the University of Florida Honor Scholarships, was awarded a Radio Corporation of America Science Scholarship, a Ford Foundation Fellowship, and Honorable Mention in the 1969 Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Competition. Entering the University of Florida Graduate School in September of 1969, she received her master's degree in Psychology in December, 1970. Since then she has been studying towards the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology. Her graduate studies were pursued under a Traineeship from the National Science Foundation and she is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and Phi Kappa Phi. Judith Los Isaza is married to Dr. Jaime Isaza and is the mother of two children.

PAGE 62

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Marvin E. Shaw Professor of Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Sidney M. Jaurard Professor of Psy ogy I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. xon ssor of Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. . N N > y/ 'Js l uJ. cc^ / Milan Kolarik .ssociate Professor of Psychology

PAGE 63

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Psychology in the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. February, 1974 Dean, Graduate School