Psychological Reports: Mental & Physical Health 2015, 116, 1, 176-193. © Psychological Reports 2015

ASSESSING DIACHRONIC REASONING: EXPLORATORY MEASURES OF PERCEIVED SELF-CHANGE IN YOUNG ADULTS1 STEVEN C. HERTLER College of New Rochelle, New Rochelle, New York HERBERT KRAUSS AND ALFRED WARD Pace University, New York City Summary.—Personal persistence, the subjective perception of self-sameness through time, is implied or explicitly asserted in nearly all modern theories of self and identity. Recently, personal persistence has become the subject of inquiry and argument, most directly due to Galen Strawson, who recently described himself as experiencing a distinct series of non-defective and non-pathological selves, each phenomenologically independent of the other. Using a combination of previously published, modified, and newly constructed measures, the present study, in an attempt to provide empirical information relevant to the theoretical treatments of personal persistence, assembled an assessment battery of assumptively intercorrelated personal persistence measures, which collectively provided dichotomous, linear, quantitative, and qualitative information about the experience of self-persistence in a sample of 177 mostly female college students between the ages of 18 and 44 years.

This report provides information relevant to measuring one's sense of having a diachronic self. That is, experiencing one's self as possessing principal consistency over significant periods, if not the whole of one's life-course, a state referred to as personal persistence. Personal persistence is part of a larger debate carried on for approximately 2,000 years: a debate about whether or not a self exists, and if it exists, how it might be characterized (Martin & Barresi, 2006)? One's sense of personal persistence, however, is a meaningful and important topic in its own right. To cite one obvious example of its relevance, a psychologist might reasonably predict that those who possessed the perception of a personally persistent self might well honor their commitments more frequently and fully than those who did not (Wilkes, 1999). That personal persistence is necessary to mental health has been a tenet of many theories of personality, self, and identity (James, 1890/1950; Jung, 1954, 1959; Erikson, 1968), though there have been some phenomenological accounts that can be interpreted as contrary to this position (Locke, James, Russell, etc.). More recently, Strawson (1999a, 1999b, 2005), a philosopher focusing on cognitive science, again stimulated interest in the topic of personal persistence. He averred his experience of life's Address correspondence to Steven C. Hertler, 29 Castle Place, College of New Rochelle, New Rochelle, New York 10805 or e-mail ([email protected]). 1

DOI 10.2466/07.03.PR0.116k16w1

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 176

ISSN 0033-2941

05/02/15 8:50 AM

ASSESSING DIACHRONIC REASONING

177

trajectory was that he had passed through, and would continue to pass through, a set of phenomenologically distinct selves, each complete in itself. Each of these selves was only loosely connected to the others by an intellectual thread—the knowledge that each had been him and that he would eventually die. He likened his particular form of self-experience to a string of pearls, each pearl representing, for a time, his experience of self. “I have little interest,” he attests, “in my own past and little concern for the future.” For Strawson, memories of his past are devoid of sentimentality, grief, or pride associated with past actions. When he takes notice of past activities, they are stripped of any felt relation to his sense of his current self. There are other recently described theories of self (Lifton, 1993; Raggatt, 2000; Hermans, 2001) that, though different in many ways from Strawson and from each other, similarly reject personal persistence as a necessary element of self. As with Strawson, these other accounts are phenomenological and theoretical, rather than empirical. The research of Chandler, Lalonde, Sokol, and Hallett (2003) and of Lampinen, Odegard, and Leding (2004) are exceptions to this trend. To empirically investigate personal persistence, Chandler, et al. (2003) created the Personal Persistence Interview (detailed in the Method section), a research protocol that attempts to assess self-change and personal persistence. After asking participants, “… what are the reasons that you think of yourself as the self-same person …,” Chandler, et al. classified responses as being either narrative (responses which indicated respondents understood themselves to be protagonists within a story) or essentialist (responses suggesting respondents admitted change over time in only the peripheral features of the self). The Personal Persistence Interview yielded rich accounts of diachronic reasoning, showing the various ways respondents understood their past and present selves to be one and the same. The second research group, Lampinen, et al. (2004), rather than aiming to understand personal persistence, wanted to understand its utter absence, a state they referred to with the term diachronic disunity. To this end, Lampinen and colleagues created the Diachronicity Scale (detailed in the Method section), a graphic self-report measure, with an x-axis measuring the extent of change the respondent has experienced and a y-axis measuring personal persistence. The Diachronicity Scale, instead of providing qualitative narratives, provided two quantifiable data points. While both the Personal Persistence Interview and the Diachronicity Scale successfully fulfilled the ends of their respective developers, neither measure can be relied upon to satisfactorily measure personal persistence. The Personal Persistence Interview, being an extensive interview obtaining open-ended narrative responses, does not provide quantitative information that feasibly enables statistically analyzable comparisons to be made

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 177

05/02/15 8:50 AM

178

S. C. HERTLER, ET AL.

across large samples. While the Diachronicity Scale makes it easy to statistically examine differences within and between groups, it does not supplement its simple data point with supporting information, narrative or otherwise. Though it might identify a data point for a respondent, the Diachronicity Scale does not provide any insight into the subjective state of someone like Strawson who has no enduring sense of personal persistence. If diachronically disunified subjectivity is to be more fully and systematically understood, an approach that combines the best aspects of Lampinen, et al. (2004) and Chandler, et al. (2003) will have to be used. Measurement protocols will have to begin by explicitly determining if someone is personally persistent, as does Lampinen, et al., and thereafter ask participants to explain themselves, as does Chandler, et al. Furthermore, such a measurement protocol should be (1) qualitative, allowing for ideographic analysis, (2) quantitative, allowing for nomothetic analysis and statistical treatment, (3) procured by multiple measures with various formats, (4) specifically designed to both allow and ask about diachronically disunified subjectivity, and (5) capable of assessing the personal sense of self-diachronicity in large samples. The present report describes an effort to develop and validate a measurement protocol with these five characteristics. To this end, the present study employs three measures: Lampinen, et al.'s Diachronicity Scale; the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview, a modified version of Chandler, et al.'s Personal Persistence Interview created by the present researchers; and the Likert Diachronicity Scale, a wholly new measure created by the present researchers. Together, these three instruments provide a global linear estimate of change and personal persistence, quantifiable estimates of change and personal persistence across various categories, a global dichotomous estimate of personal persistence and narrative descriptions (these narratives are not described or analyzed in the present study) of both personal persistence and its absence. In addition to describing and introducing these measures, the present study uses correlational analyses to establish that these tests are all measuring personal persistence, despite the different formats they employ and different forms of data they obtain. Hypothesis 1. The Diachronicity Scale's y-axis (assessing diachronicity) will have a significant positive correlation with the Likert Diachronicity Scale's even questions. Hypothesis 2. The Likert Diachronicity Scale's odd items (assessing change) will be positively and significantly correlated with the Diachronicity Scale's x-axis. Hypothesis 3. The Diachronicity Scale's y-axis (assessing diachronicity) will have a significant positive association with the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview.

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 178

05/02/15 8:50 AM

ASSESSING DIACHRONIC REASONING

179

Hypothesis 4. The Likert Diachronicity Scale's even items (assessing diachronicity) will have a positive and significant correlation with the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview. Collectively, as specified by the four hypotheses above-described, these three measures will assess the same construct and so be intercorrelated. Specifically, Hypothesis 2 predicts that measures of change will be intercorrelated; while Hypotheses 1, 3, and 4 predict that measures of diachronicity will be intercorrelated. METHOD Sample Ethical oversight of this study was provided by Pace University's Institutional Review Board. This study's convenience sample of 177 college students drawn from two New York City area universities ranged in age from 18 to 44 yr. (M = 21.5). Fully 92% of participants were 25 yr. old or younger. Corresponding with the demographics of the two campuses, this sample was largely women (73.4%). Two participants neglected to report their sex. The largest proportion of the sample self-identified as Caucasian (46.9%), followed by Asian (15.8%), Other (12.4%), Latino (11.3%), African American (10.7%), and Pacific Islander (1.1%). Three students (1.7%) did not indicate ethnicity. Fully 86.5% were undergraduates, 11.8% were graduate students, and 1.7% did not record their educational standing. Measures Diachronicity Scale.—Lampinen, et al.'s (2004) Diachronicity Scale is a graphic self-report measure that allows for the linear assessment of diachronicity and change. As seen in Appendix A, the Diachronicity Scale has two axes, one which indicates the extent of perceived change one has experienced and one which indicates personal persistence status. The top of the y-axis states, “I am the same person” and the anchor at the bottom states, “I’m not the same person.” The left side of the x-axis states, “Haven't changed at all” and the right side is anchored by the term, “Have changed a great deal.” Using these two axes, participants plot a single point, concurrently indicating their level of felt change and extent of personal persistence; both are reported in a linear and continuous manner. With the use of two axes, Lampinen, et al.'s (2004) intent was to distinguish between a general subjective sense of change as a function of time or circumstance (xaxis), and the perception of personal persistence (y-axis). This distinction is highly relevant because diachronic disunity and change do not always correlate. For example, an immutable moral creed might establish personal persistence amidst great change across other variables (Lampinen, et al., 2004).

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 179

05/02/15 8:50 AM

180

S. C. HERTLER, ET AL.

Adapted Personal Persistence Interview.—Chandler, et al.'s (2003) Personal Persistence Interview was altered and renamed the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview (reproduced in Appendix B). This was done because Chandler, et al.'s research goals differed subtly from that of the present researchers. Where Chandler, et al. wanted to understand personal persistence, the present researchers wanted to understand its absence; where Chandler, et al. primarily wanted to elicit cogent defenses of personal persistence in the face of change, the present researchers primarily wanted to allow for intimate descriptions of diachronic disunity in reaction to change. The Personal Persistence Interview asks participants, “What makes you the same person?” rather than first asking, “Are you the same person?” This distinction is important. Chandler, et al.'s method of inquiry assumes an answer and asks for an explanation. In contrast to the Personal Persistence Interview, the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview explicitly asks participants whether or not they feel themselves to be the same persons as they were 5 yr. ago. The instrument was also modified so that it would generate a dichotomous data point, grossly separating the diachronically unified from the diachronically disunified. Finally, the Adapted version of the Personal Persistence Interview is no longer an interview, but an open-ended selfreport measure. This format increases the ease, efficiency, and uniformity of administration, making it possible to administer the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview as part of a coherent assessment battery that can be dispensed to large groups. The Adapted Personal Persistence Interview is segmented into a series of numbered questions and statements. Specifically, the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview is presented as a bound packet such that each question/statement is separately presented on a 5 ½ by 8 ½-in. piece of paper, which is followed by blank lines on which participants recorded their responses. The first section asks for a retrospective account of the self. The second section asks for a description of the present self. The third section asks the participant to describe the important changes between the self as presently conceived and retrospectively reconstructed. After answering question three, participants read a routing statement that directs them to complete the fourth or fifth question depending on their subjective experience. The diachronically unified participants, in question four, explain why they feel diachronically unified. The diachronically disunified participants, in question five, explain why they feel diachronically disunified. Likert Diachronicity Scale.—The items composing the Likert Diachronicity Scale were informed by a broad examination of identity research. In constructing this scale, the work of Cassidy and Trew (2001), Young-Eisendrath and Hall (1987), and Chandler, et al. (2003) were most specifically relied

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 180

05/02/15 8:50 AM

ASSESSING DIACHRONIC REASONING

181

upon. These authors cited physical nature, relationships, moral values, and religious beliefs and convictions as typically referenced, core sources of self. Alternatively, Lampinen, et al. (2004), which also overtly influenced the construction of this scale, cited exposure to stress and changes in context as important determinants of identity, which can influence personal persistence. At the conclusion of this literature review, the following nine categories were chosen: (1) Religious/spiritual convictions, (2) Moral/value system, (3) Family relationships, (4) Romantic relationship status, (5) Societal roles, (6) Self-conceptualization or thought about the self, (7) Change in context/place, (8) Amount of stress experienced, and (9) Major physical changes. The format and exact wording of the Likert Diachronicity Scale is reproduced in Appendix C. Each of the nine categories is rated on two separate Likert questions; all Likert questions use a 4-point scale that was chosen to avoid neutral responses. The first question in each category (all odd items) assessed the participant's level of perceived change within the category: 1: Little or no change, 2: Moderate change, 3: Significant change, and 4: Drastic change. The second question in each item set (all even items) examined the participant's perception of the extent that change within this category caused the participant to feel diachronically disunified: 1: I am another person, 2: I am largely a different person, 3: I am basically the same person, and 4: I am the same person. By using these paired questions, the Likert Diachronicity Scale determines how respondents have experienced change in nine key areas and to what degree this has influenced their personal persistence. Study Design and Procedure A convenience sample of 177 participants was recruited from two urban universities; 168 completed all measures. Arrangements were made with class instructors to allow all consenting students above the age of 18 yr. to complete the protocol during class time. Students were assured that participation was voluntary and confidentiality was guaranteed (confidentiality was secured by assigning numerical codes for identification purposes). Besides completing the primary questionnaires, participants provided their age, sex, ethnicity, major, grade point average, and relationship status. Subsequently, participants completed Lampinen, et al.'s (2004) Diachronicity Scale, followed by the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview and the Likert Diachronicity Scale. Participants were directed to complete the questionnaires in the order that they received them. Incentives, such as gift cards not exceeding 15 dollars, were raffled off at the end of assessments. Analyses All participant data were analyzed with IBM's SPSS Version 19.0. Descriptive statistics indicated means, standard deviations, or percentages

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 181

05/02/15 8:50 AM

182

S. C. HERTLER, ET AL.

of responses. Total scale scores, subscales, and, in a few cases, item scale scores were compared using Spearman correlational coefficients. Itemtotal intercorrelations demonstrated reliability of researcher-constructed subscales. Significance was established using an α level of .05, which was consistently applied throughout. RESULTS Distributional Properties The frequency distribution of the Diachronicity Scale's y-axis (assessing diachronicity) demonstrated a full range (–4 to 4) of scores, with a mean of 0.47 and a standard deviation of 2.30. However, in the present case, the mean might be misleading when viewed in isolation. As seen in Fig. 1, the data fell into an interesting pattern that resembles two separate normal distributions, or a bimodal distribution. Scores on the Likert Diachronicity Scale ranged from the lower limit of 9 to the upper limit of 36 with a mean of 24.59 and a standard deviation of 5.68. As seen in Fig. 2, unlike the distribution of scores on the Diachronicity Scale, the Likert Diachronicity Scale items yielded data that were concentrated around the middle of the range in a roughly normal distribution. The nine even questions (assessing diachronicity) were all intercorrelated, as can be seen in Table 1. Consequently, it seems that personal persistence does indeed have an overarching structure, which can also be seen to some extent by viewing the mean values of each category presented in Table 2. Finally, the dichotomous forced choice variable generated by the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview revealed a higher frequency of diachronically disunified participants. Of the 168 participants who properly completed the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview (nine participants failed to complete all sections of the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview protocol, and so these participants' responses could not be scored or included), 106 or 63% reported diachronic disunity. Scale Convergence Table 3 summarizes intercorrelations among measures of diachronicity. As predicted, all scales were positively intercorrelated, suggesting that these scales are indeed measuring the same underlying construct. In support of Hypothesis 1, The Diachronicity Scale's y-axis (assessing diachronicity) evidenced a significant positive correlation with the Likert Diachronicity Scale's even questions (assessing diachronicity; r = .43, p < .01, 95%CI = .30, .54). Partially supporting Hypothesis 2, the Likert Diachronicity Scale's odd items (assessing change) were positively and significantly, though weakly correlated with the Diachronicity Scale's x-axis (r = .27, p < .01, 95%CI = .13, .40). Supporting Hypothesis 3, the Diachronicity Scale's y-axis

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 182

05/02/15 8:50 AM

ASSESSING DIACHRONIC REASONING

183

FIG. 1. The distribution of scores for the Diachronicity Scale's y-axis (assessing diachronicity): scores on this scale range from −4 on the extreme left side indicating that “I’m not the same person” and ending at 4 on the extreme right side indicating that “I am the same person.” The frequency data are derived from 174 of the 177 participants who properly completed the Diachronicity Scale.

(assessing diachronicity) exhibited a significant positive association with the dichotomous variable produced by the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview (r = .49, p < .01, 95%CI = .37, .59). Finally, in support of Hypothesis 4, the Likert Diachronicity Scale's even items (assessing diachronicity)

FIG. 2. The bar graph displays the distribution of scores for the Likert Diachronicity Scale. Scores on this scale range from 9 to 36. The frequency data are derived from 172 of the 177 participants.

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 183

05/02/15 8:50 AM

184

S. C. HERTLER, ET AL. TABLE 1 CORRELATIONS AND 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS AMONG THE LIKERT DIACHRONICITY SCALE'S EVEN ITEMS, MEASURING DIACHRONICITY Item

1

1. Religious/spiritual convictions

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

.50

.37

.33

.32

.36

.27

.29

.15*

.49

.36

.33

.49

.35

.46

.34

.40

.51

.38

.53

.45

.28

.37

.40

.39

.44

.35

2. Moral/value system 3. Family relationship 4. Romantic relationship status 5. Societal roles

.49

6. Self-conceptualization

.52

.41

.25

.58

.59

.39

.52

.31

7. Change in context/place 8. Amount of stress experienced

.35

Note.—9. is Major physical changes. All correlations are significant at p < .01, except as marked. *p < .05.

revealed a positive and significant correlation with the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview (r = .54, p < .01, 95%CI = .43, .64). DISCUSSION Consistent with earlier findings (Lampinen, et al., 2004), diachronic disunity was quite prevalent. When the forced choice format imposed by the newly constructed Adapted Personal Persistence Interview is used, it TABLE 2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS, MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ACROSS THE LIKERT DIACHRONICITY SCALE'S EVEN ITEMS (MEASURING DIACHRONICITY): 1) RELIGIOUS/ SPIRITUAL CONVICTIONS, 2) MORAL/VALUE SYSTEM, 3) FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS, 4) ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP STATUS, 5) SOCIETAL ROLES, 6) SELF-CONCEPTUALIZATION OR THOUGHT ABOUT THE SELF, 7) CHANGE IN CONTEXT/PLACE, 8) AMOUNT OF STRESS EXPERIENCED, AND 9) MAJOR PHYSICAL CHANGES Item

Min.

Max.

M

SD

1

4

3.09

0.82

1.

Religious/spiritual convictions

2.

Morals/value system

1

4

2.80

0.89

3.

Family relationship

1

4

2.80

0.94

4.

Romantic relationship status

1

4

2.53

0.96

5.

Societal roles

1

4

2.94

0.90

6.

Self-conceptualization

1

4

2.48

0.86

7.

Change in context/place

1

4

2.49

0.86

8.

Amount of stress experienced

1

4

2.57

0.92

9.

Major physical changes

1

4

3.09

0.89

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 184

05/02/15 8:50 AM

185

ASSESSING DIACHRONIC REASONING TABLE 3 CORRELATIONS AMONG THE THREE MEASURES OF DIACHRONICITY Measure 1.

APPI

2.

LDS even items (diachronicity)

3.

DS y-axis (diachronicity)

4.

LDS odd items (change)

1

2

3

4

5

.54

.49

−.46

−.33

.43

−.61

−.30

−.45

−.19* .27

Note.— 5. is DS x-axis (change). Adapted Personal Persistence Interview (APPI), Likert Diachronicity Scale's (LDS) Even Items (Assessing Diachronicity), and the Diachronicity Scale's (DS) y-axis (Assessing Diachronicity). The present table also included the two quantitative measures of change: Likert Diachronicity Scale's odd items (assessing change) and the Diachronicity Scale's x-axis (assessing change). All correlations are significant at p < .01, except as marked. *p < .05.

is the majority position. This distribution of responses disconfirms the assumption of personal persistence made by classical identity theories, at least as they are applied to modern, largely female samples. With approximately half of the sample appreciably lacking in personal persistence, it would be difficult to maintain that Strawsonian phenomenology, and more generally diachronic disunity, is clinically pathological. Expectedly, the Diachronicity Scale was correlated with the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview, which was in turn correlated with the Likert Diachronicity Scale. In short, every possible combination of scales proved to be significantly intercorrelated, suggesting that all three scales are measuring the same construct, despite their various approaches. At the same time, the logic for developing and using these measures together is supported by the different forms of information each generated. The Diachronicity Scale is a measure that quickly generates a global, quantifiable, and linear measure of personal persistence. However, because its data point is global and not accompanied by supporting explanation, the Diachronicity Scale cannot explain why participants responded as they did, nor shed light upon the phenomenology of any particular participant. The Likert Diachronicity Scale, on the other hand, uniquely contributes data across nine categories of identity. As a group, study participants endorsed self-conceptualization and change in context somewhat less strongly than physical or religious/spiritual changes. The tight relationships and relatively evenly distributed use of the nine categories support Lampinen, et al.'s construction and use of a global measure of personal persistence. However, the Likert Diachronicity Scale's strength, and the justification for its continued use, is firmly rooted in its ability to categorically identify groups of individual participants sharing similar sources of

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 185

05/02/15 8:50 AM

186

S. C. HERTLER, ET AL.

diachronic disunity. Rarely, but assuredly, there were participants whose personal persistence, or lack thereof, hinged upon only one of the nine categories measured by the Likert Diachronicity Scale. In these instances, global reports of diachronic disunity on the Diachronicity Scale obscured information that the Likert Diachronicity Scale was able to uncover. For instance, one participant reported diachronic disunity, not across all nine categories evenly, but almost exclusively in relation to the family relationships category. A narrative, obtained by the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview, significant for the death of one parent followed by the drug addiction of the other, provided context to what the Likert Diachronicity Scale was only able to quantify. In this way, diachronicity measurement is similar to intelligence measurement. Intelligence tests report a global score that is generally indicative of domain scores. But there are cases in which particular domain scores are aberrantly high or low. For both diachronicity and intelligence alike, the atypical examinee is best understood through domain-specific measurement. Finally, the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview proved to be, for a small subset of the less conscientious participants, long and tedious. Though they are not herein analyzed or described, the great majority of participants provided conscientiously crafted narrative statements not attainable via the other two measures. When answering the forced choice question, some participants used their narrative statement to qualify their response, making it less categorical. Nevertheless, most participants felt comfortable coming down firmly on one side or the other. So the binary data produced by the Adapted Personal Persistence Interview allow for gross classification and group formation, but cannot replace linear assessment. It is clear that both Lampinen, et al. (2004) and Chandler, et al. (2003) understood the need for more information. Lampinen, et al. (2004), whose research measure obtained quantitative information, questioned a subset of their sample as they tried to understand individual participants. Chandler, et al. (2003), whose research measure obtained qualitative information, used a classification scheme to find patterns across their many narratives. It therefore seems that in measuring a construct like personal persistence, one has to balance the need for ideographic and nomothetic data, eliciting everything from narratives that are descriptive of one person, to data sets that are descriptive of whole cohorts. Thus, the more an individual measure fulfills one function, the less it fulfills the other. The strength of the Diachronicity Scale, e.g., is also its weakness: its global quantifiable score elucidates patterns, but only by obscuring particulars. Using these measures in concert as a cooperative measurement strategy allows the strength of each to compensate for the weaknesses of the other two.

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 186

05/02/15 8:50 AM

ASSESSING DIACHRONIC REASONING

187

In future studies, as this assessment battery or another is applied toward understanding the diachronically disunified subjectivity so often described by Strawson and so much integrated into modern self-theories, researchers must think critically about how questions of personal persistence are perceived by participants. Descriptions, directions, and operational definitions were provided by Lampinen, et al. (2004), Chandler, et al. (2003), and the present researchers in an effort to impose some uniformity on participants, so that when they answer, they answer the same question. Though the administration of a battery of tests in lieu of any individual test is a mitigating factor, this continues to be a problem. Misperceptions are probably generated, not only through poor comprehension of instructions, but from varying perceptions about what is being asked, e.g., some may be considering their own self-concept, others may be considering their identity as judged by others, and so on. The descriptions, instructions, and operational definitions accompanying measures of personal persistence are likely to be less than fully effective in bringing about the uniformity they attempt to impose. Consequently, as they respond to personal persistence protocols, participants have slightly different notions of what personal persistence is, which makes it hard to understand individuals and compare them to one another. Further still, this issue limits the impact empirical data can have on scholarly debate. So while future research might attempt to study persons of different ages, cultures, and cohorts, in the immediate future, personal persistence research will most profitably investigate measurement itself. In other words, before going further and concerning oneself with the determinants of personal persistence or its developmental nuances or some other topic of interest, priority dictates that future research continue in the path of the present article, further studying measurement. REFERENCES

CASSIDY, C., & TREW, K. (2001) Assessing identity change: a longitudinal study of the transition from school to college. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 49-60. CHANDLER, M. J., LALONDE, C. E., SOKOL, B. W., & HALLETT, D. (2003) Personal persistence, identity development, and suicide. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 68, 1-128. ERIKSON, E. H. (1968) Identity: youth and crisis. New York: Norton. HERMANS, H. J. M. (2001) Conceptions of self and identity: toward a dialogical view. International Journal of Education and Religion II, 1, 43-62. JAMES, W. (1890/1950) The principles of psychology. New York: Dover. JUNG, C. G. (1954) The development of personality: papers on child psychology, education, and related subjects. New York: Princeton Univer. Press. JUNG, C. G. (1959) The basic writings of C. G. Jung. New York: Random House. LAMPINEN, J. M., ODEGARD, T. N., & LEDING, J. K. (2004) Diachronic disunity. In D. Beike, J. M. Lampinen, & D. A. Behrend (Eds.), The self and memory. New York: Psychology Press. Pp. 227-253.

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 187

05/02/15 8:50 AM

188

S. C. HERTLER, ET AL.

LIFTON, R. J. (1993) The protean self: human resilience in an age of renewal. New York: Basic Books. MARTIN, R., & BARRESI, J. (2006) The rise and fall of soul and self: an intellectual history of personal identity. New York: Columbia Univer. Press. RAGGATT, P. F. (2000) Mapping the dialogical self: towards a rationale and method of assessment. European Journal of Personality, 14, 65-90. STRAWSON, G. (1999a) The self. In S. Gallagher & J. Shear (Eds.), Models of the self. Charlottesville, VA: Imprint Academic. Pp. 1-24. STRAWSON, G. (1999b) The self and the SESMET. In S. Gallagher & J. Shear (Eds.), Models of the self. Charlottesville, VA: Imprint Academic. Pp. 483-519. STRAWSON, G. (2005) The self? Malden, MA: Blackwell. WILKES, K. (1999) Know thyself. In S. Gallagher & J. Shear (Eds.), Models of the self. Thorverton, UK: Imprint Academic. Pp. 24-37. YOUNG-EISENDRATH, P., & HALL, J. (1987) The book of the self: person, pretext and process. New York: New York Univer. Press. Accepted December 24, 2014.

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 188

05/02/15 8:50 AM

189

ASSESSING DIACHRONIC REASONING APPENDIX A DIACHRONICITY SCALE

Directions: Some people have the sense that they have changed a lot over the last 5 yr. and other people feel that they have not changed much at all. That dimension, “Have you changed or haven't you changed?” is represented on the horizontal axis below. Some people think of themselves as being a different person than they were 5 yr. ago. That dimension, “Do you think of yourself as the same person you were 5 yr. ago?” is represented on the vertical axis below. Keep in mind that these are slightly different questions. For instance, you can believe you have changed a lot but still see yourself as basically the same person. Or you could think of yourself as actually being a different person than you were 5 yr. ago. Below is a graph showing those two dimensions. Place an X in the location on the graph that best indicates both how much you believe you have changed in the past 5 yr. and the extent to which you see yourself as the same or a different person than you were 5 yr. ago. Fig. 11.1 Diachronicity scale measuring extent of change and degree to which participant is the same person they were N years ago. Reprinted with permission from Lampinen, J. M., Odegard, T. N., & Leding, J. K. (2004) Diachronic disunity. In D. R. Beike, J. M. Lampinen, and D. A. Behrend (Eds.), Studies in self and identity series: the self and memory. New York: Psychology Press. P. 235. I'm the same person 4 H a v e n , a t t c a h l l a n g e d

3 2

-4

-3

-2

-1

1

2

-4 -2 -3

3

4

H a a v g e r e c a h t a n d g e e a d l

-4

I'm not the same person

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 189

05/02/15 8:50 AM

190

S. C. HERTLER, ET AL. APPENDIX B

The Adapted Personal Persistence Interview, which is the modified version of the Personal Persistence Interview, is presented below. Each of the following numbered sections was presented in isolation. Specifically, the statements appeared on separate pieces of paper in a bound packet so that the order of presentation inherent in Chandler, et al.'s interview was preserved. 1. First, I would like you to describe what sort of person you were 5 years ago. If someone didn't know you, what could you say to help him or her understand the sort of person you were then? 2. Next, I would like you to describe the sort of person you see yourself as being right now. 3. Has the sort of person you are currently changed from the sort of person you were 5 years ago? If you believe that you have changed in some important way over the last 5 years, describe these changes. If you believe that you are the same person that you were 5 years earlier, despite any changes that you recorded, answer question number four and skip question number five. If you believe you have become a wholly different person over the last 5 years, skip question number four and explain your reasons under question number five. 4. Explain your reasons for feeling like you are the same person that you were 5 years ago. What makes you the same person—just explain your reasons? 5. If you feel that you have become a different person over the last 5 years, how would you explain how all the changes that have taken place in your life have affected you? How might you explain to someone else that one and the same person could act in all of the different ways that you have described? How is it that you have become the person you are right now? APPENDIX C LIKERT RATINGS OF DIACHRONICITY Participant Identification Number The following is a series of questions asking about specific areas of your life and about who you are. Simply read the question and respond by circling one of the numbers below, from one to four. Beneath each number is a statement that corresponds with it. Reading these statements will help determine which number best matches your thoughts and feelings. Please answer all the items as best you can. 1. Has there been a major change in your religious or spiritual convictions in the last 5 years? 1

2

3

4

Little or no change

Moderate change

Significant change

Drastic change

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 190

05/02/15 8:50 AM

191

ASSESSING DIACHRONIC REASONING

2. As a result of any change in religious or spiritual convictions, to what extent do you feel that you have become another person compared to who you were 5 years earlier? 1

2

I am another person

I am largely a different person

3 I am basically the same person

4 I am the same person

3. Has there been a major change in your morals or values system over the last 5 years? 1

2

3

4

Little or no change

Moderate change

Significant change

Drastic change

4. As a result of any change in morals or values, to what extent do you feel that you have become another person compared to who you were 5 years earlier? 1

2

3

4

I am another person

I am largely a different person

I am basically the same person

I am the same person

5. Has there been a major change in your family relationships over the last 5 years? 1

2

3

4

Little or no change

Moderate change

Significant change

Drastic change

6. As a result of any change in family relationships, to what extent do you feel that you have become another person compared to who you were 5 years earlier? 1

2

3

4

I am another person

I am largely a different person

I am basically the same person

I am the same person

7. Has there been a major change in your romantic relationship status over the last 5 years? 1

2

3

4

Little or no change

Moderate change

Significant change

Drastic change

8. As a result of any change in your romantic relationship status, do you feel that you have become another person compared with who you were 5 years earlier? 1

2

3

4

I am another person

I am largely a different person

I am basically the same person

I am the same person

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 191

05/02/15 8:50 AM

192

S. C. HERTLER, ET AL.

9. Has there been a major change in the role that you assume in society, such as vocation, over the last 5 years? 1

2

3

4

Little or no change

Moderate change

Significant change

Drastic change

10. As a result of any change in your role, do you feel that you have become another person compared to who you were 5 years earlier? 1

2

3

4

I am another person

I am largely a different person

I am basically the same person

I am the same person

11. Over the last 5 years, has there been a major change in how you conceptualize or think about yourself? 1

2

3

4

Little or no change

Moderate change

Significant change

Drastic change

12. As a result of any change in how you think about yourself, do you feel that you have become another person compared to who you were 5 years earlier? 1

2

3

4

I am another person

I am largely a different person

I am basically the same person

I am the same person

13. Over the last 5 years, has there been a major change in your context or place in which you spend most of your time? 1

2

3

4

Little or no change

Moderate change

Significant change

Drastic change

14. As a result of any change in context, do you feel that you have become a different person compared to who you were 5 years earlier? 1

2

3

4

I am another person

I am largely a different person

I am basically the same person

I am the same person

15. Over the last 5 years, has there been a major change in the amount of stress that you experience either routinely or during a specific event? 1

2

3

4

Little or no change

Moderate change

Significant change

Drastic change

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 192

05/02/15 8:50 AM

193

ASSESSING DIACHRONIC REASONING

16. As a result of any change in life stress, do you feel that you have become a different person compared to who you were 5 years earlier? 1

2

3

4

I am another person

I am largely a different person

I am basically the same person

I am the same person

17. Over the last 5 years, have you undergone any major physical changes? 1

2

3

4

Little or no change

Moderate change

Significant change

Drastic change

18. As a result of any physical changes, do you feel that you have become a different person compared to who you were 5 years earlier? 1

2

3

4

I am another person

I am largely a different person

I am basically the same person

I am the same person

13_PR_Hertler_140155.indd 193

05/02/15 8:50 AM

Copyright of Psychological Reports is the property of Ammons Scientific, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Assessing diachronic reasoning: exploratory measures of perceived self-change in young adults.

Personal persistence, the subjective perception of self-sameness through time, is implied or explicitly asserted in nearly all modern theories of self...
334KB Sizes 11 Downloads 3 Views