Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 14, No. 5, 1985
Cognitive Mediators of Ego Functioning in Adolescence I A n i t a L a n d a u Hurtig, 2 A n n e C. Petersen, 3 Maryse H. Richards, 4 and Idy Barasch Gitelson 5 Received October 21, 1983; accepted July 3, 1985
It has often been assumed that a relationship exists between higher levels of cognitive functioning, particularly formal operations, and mature ego functioning in adolescence. This research examined the relationships between ego functioning and two domains of operational thinking: social interpersonal reasoning and physical-mathematical reasoning in 139 high school seniors. Subjects were given two measures of physical-mathematical reasoning, two measures o f interpersonal reasoning, and the Sentence Completion Test of ego functioning, as well as a measure of verbal intelligence. Results indicated significant differences between males and females in patterns of correlations as well as in patterns of relationships in a causal analysis. Ego functioning was predicted by interpersonal reasoning for females and by physical-mathematical reasoning and verbal intelligence for males.
~This research represents a portion of the doctoral dissertation completed by the senior author in 1981. The research was supported by a grant to A. Petersen from the Spencer Foundation. ZAssistant Professor of Psychology, Pediatrics Department, University of Illinois, Chicago. Received Ph.D. from University of Illinois at Chicago. Current interests are sex-related differences in adolescent ego development and psychosocial variables in adolescent chronic illness. 3Professor of Human Development and Head, Department of Individual and Family Studies, College of Human Development, Pennsylvania State University. Received Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Current interest is biopsychosocial development in adolescence, primarily early adolescence. 4Research Affiliate, Laboratory for Study of Adolescence, Michael Reese Hospital. Received Ph.D. from University of Chicago. Current interest is sex-related differences in the psychological effects of puberty. 5Research Associate, Laboratory for the Study of Adolescence, Michael Reese Hospital; Program Associate, Health Program, MacArthur Foundation. Received Ph.D. from Syracuse University. Current interest is sex-related differences in socialization.
435 0047-2891/85/10004)435504.50/0 9 1985 Plenum Publishing Corporation
436
Hurtig, Petersen, Richards, and Gitelson INTRODUCTION
This research was designed to test and clarify the generally accepted hypothesis that formal operational thinking is essential for the resolution of psychosocial issues of the adolescence stage, and for the achievement of mature personality functioning. Piaget (1967), Erikson (1959), Josselson (1980), and others have noted the causal role of "formal thought" in identity development and in "the service of the autonomous ego." The assumption of cognitive primacy in identity and ego development is complicated by the current uncertainty in cognitive research about the meaning, measurement, and generalizability of the formal operations construct. Generally, the construct is conceptualized in terms of the kind of hypotheticodeductive thinking represented by Inhelder and Piaget's (1958) tasks. The construct is usually operationalized through tasks of combinatorial reasoning, isolation of variables, and proportionality. The highly specific nature of these tasks raises some question as to how generalizable the sort of abstract reasoning measured by these tasks is to other domains of cognitive functioning, such as verbal or social-interpersonal. Keating (1980) has suggested that using the formal operations construct to "explain other behaviors, either cognitive or noncognitive, is premature and potentially counterproductive" (p. 226). Blasi and Hoeffel (1974) have noted the logical contradictions between the theoretical notions about the centrality of formal operations and the growing evidence that many adolescents and adults do not reach the level of formal operational reasoning (Elkind, 1975; Dulit, 1972). Blasi and Hoeffel dismiss the most obvious interpretation of this evidence--that if most adolescents have not reached levels of formal operational thinking, they cannot resolve ego identity issues. They offer an alternative interpretation, suggesting that the narrowness of the operationalization of this construct, limited largely to the physical-mathematical domain, may unduly limit the concept. Neimark (1975) has also suggested that the scientific domain of testing (physical-mathematical) may not accurately cover the variety of contexts in which formal operations may be manifested. She recommends that in order to determine formal operational thinking, logical reasoning should be measured across a variety of domains. In this research, in order to broaden the consideration of the causal link between formal operational thinking and ego development, the social interactional or social cognition domain has been added to the physicalmathematical domain. Research by Kohlberg (1968), Selman (1974), and Turiel (1978) has supported the theory that Piagetian logical stages can be traced in specific areas of social cognition, including moral development, empathy, and perspective taking. The impact of reflective thought and thinking about the possible--the logical hallmarks of formal operational
Mediators of Ego Functioning
437
thinking-are as likely, if not more likely, to be captured in tasks that reflect the interpersonal world of the adolescent. We have therefore considered two domains of logical thinking in adolescence. One is the traditional objectoriented, nonpersonal realm, captured by the classic tasks of Inhelder and Piaget (1958). The other is the social interactional, or social cognition, realm, represented by logical thinking in areas of personal and familial subjective experience. By expanding the perspective of causal formal thinking to include the social interactional realm, we are faced with the possibility that if formal thinking is essential for adolescent ego development, one of these realms may be more significant in its impact than the other. There is little research comparing these two domains in their relationships to personality functioning. Marcia (1980) reports that the development of moral reasoning "seems to accompany the development of identity" (p. 163), but there are contradictory data on this subject. Loevinger (1976) discusses the relationship between ego development and interpersonal awareness, but sees ego development as a more inclusive function and reports no research considering stage comparisons. Assuming that ego development in adolescence focuses on interpersonal issues, identity formation, and individuation, we hypothesize that if an essential role is played by cognitive structures, then logical thinking in social interpersonal cognition will have the strongest relationship to ego development. In developing this hypothesis that the relationship between ego functioning and formal operational thinking may be specific to one domain of operational thinking-the social interpersonal d o m a i n - w e must consider the additional factor of sex differences in cognitive functioning. Research on cognitive development in adolescence points to the emergence of sex differences in a range of areas including verbal abilities (Droege, 1967), spatial abilities (Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974), and formal operational thinking (Dulit, 1972). The possibility of sex differences in the social interpersonal domain has been noted by Gilligan (1979) in her discussion of the need for models of development which emphasize the relational aspects of behavior. Gilligan interprets the superior performance of male over female adolescents on Kohlberg's moral development scale as due to the male-oriented values embedded in the scoring, which emphasizes attributes such as assertiveness, autonomy, and isolation and considers interpersonally oriented responses as representing lower levels of moral reasoning. Marcia's (1980) work on the development of identity in adolescence points to sex differences in the social interpersonal domain, with females indicating more involvement with interpersonal tasks and males with achievement tasks. Based on these theories and the few research studies cited, our hypotheses are the following: (a) Social interpersonal reasoning is signifi-
438
Hurtig, Pelersen, Richards, and Gilelson
cantly related to ego functioning. (b) Physical-mathematical reasoning has no significant relationship to ego functioning. (c) There is a sex difference in ego functioning which is accounted for by interpersonal reasoning; that is, girls will score higher on interpersonal reasoning tasks and will score higher on ego development, with interpersonal reasoning accounting for sex differences in ego functioning.
METHOD Subjects One hundred thirty-nine seniors, ranging between 17 and 18 years of age, 67 males and 72 females, were drawn from two large suburban high schools in the Chicago area. Each school had a socioeconomic range from upper middle to lower middle class. The sample was limited to one age group of middle adolescents in order to avoid confounding ego development with age. Procedures and Materials Ego development was measured by the Sentence Completion Test (Loevinger and Wessler, 1970), which combines four components into a "master trait." The components are cognitive complexity, interpersonal interaction, impulse control, and conscious concerns. The measure presents 36 sentence stems (e.g. "I am .... " "My main p r o b l e m . . . " ) . The full list of stems was given in written form to the students, who were asked to write their responses. Comparable forms were used for males and females.6 Coders trained through the self-training program (Loevinger and Wessler, 1970) scored the items. The stages of ego development are defined as symbiotic, impulsive, self-protective conformist, conscientious conformist, conscientious, individualistic, autonomous, and integrated. In our sample, individual item scores ranged from impulsive to autonomous. Inter-rater reliability was examined on all items for a sample of 15 subjects; the scores correlated 0.78 between raters. Physical-Mathematical Reasoning Two measures were used to evaluate physical-mathematical reasoning. The Equilibrium-in-a-Balance Test (Linn and Pulos, 1983) is a paper-and-pencil 6The male form was developed to represent masculine identity by changing the nouns and pronouns of the original female form (e.g., "A boy has a right to...").
Mediators of Ego Functioning
439
modification of the Inhelder and Piaget fulcrum task often used in formal operations research as a measure of the proportionality component of formal operations. Linn (1980) reports that this measure correlates 0.66 with task presentation. The test involves 13 items of increasing difficulty, measuring the ability to correctly place a weight in order to balance a fulcrum. Test scores (number correct) for the sample ranged from 2 to 13. The second measure is the License Plates test (Linn and Pulos, 1983), a measure of combinatorial thinking derived from Inhelder and Piaget (1958) tasks. The respondent is given a sheet of paper with the numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, and asked to use as many combinations as possible to make new license plates, using no number twice on the same plate. There was no time limit. The total possible number of combinations is 24; the test scores in this sample ranged from 16 to 24. Social-Interpersonal Reasoning
Two measures were used for this cognitive area. The Interpersonal Awareness Scale (Selman, 1974) assesses interpersonal reasoning through the presentation of social dilemmas. Following the reading of each dilemma to the student, questions are asked which are designed to determine the degree to which the student understands the interaction in complex, self-other differentiating, and self-involving ways. Social awareness scores represent a range across four levels from Level 1 (subjective), representing the most undifferentiated, limited perspective awareness, to Level 4 (complex selfsystem), representing a high degree of differentiation and multifaceted social perception. The interpersonal awareness interviews were taped and transcribed. Scoring was based on the Selman manual (1974). The test was scored blindly by two raters. The issue concepts were scored individually and a weighted composite score, or total Interpersonal Awareness Score, was derived. Scores could range from 1 to 4, in this sample, scores ranged from 2.00 to 3.75. Inter-rater reliability was examined for all responses of 12 subjects; the scores correlated 0.86 between raters. A second measure of interpersonal reasoning, the Interpersonal Perception Scale, was derived from an extensive interview with each respondent. Based on selected questions from the interview, three components of interpersonal perception were identified: differentiation, cue sensitivity, and complexity. Differentiation represents the degree of awareness of different points of view within the family on issues such as working, separation for college, and interests. Cue sensitivity represents the level of the respondent's awareness of parent's past experience, as well as parent's feelings about subject's social and academic life and the (likely) impending separation because of graduation. Complexity represents the range of feeling and attitudes in
440
Hurtig, Petersen, Richards, and Gitr
the family about which the respondent is sensitive, on subjects such as work, interests, goals, and values. 7 Each of these three areas is scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 3, with the latter representing the highest level of interpersonal perception. A total score is derived by averaging scores for the three areas. Nine questions were included. Cronbach's alpha coefficient of internal consistency was 0.55. Scoring was done blindly by five interviewers based on a manual developed by the first author. Inter-rater reliability was 0.80. Verbal Intelligence
In addition to ego functioning and cognitive functioning, the Quick Test of Verbal Intelligence (Ammons and A m m o n s , 1962) was administered to consider the contribution of intelligence as a general factor to both ego and cognitive functioning.
RESULTS Table I shows the means and standard deviations for all measures. There were no significant mean score sex differences on the measures of physicalmathematical or social interpersonal cognitive functioning or on verbal IQ. Mean score differences on ego functioning were significant. Therefore, on only one measure were there sex differences in level of functioning: ego development. Both correlational and causal analyses were used to study the relationships among the measures. There were significant sex differences in the correlations among ego functioning, social interpersonal reasoning, and physical-mathematical reasoning (see Table II). While two of the three measures of interpersonal perception (differentiation and cue sensitivity) correlate with ego functioning for females, none of these measures is significantly correlated with ego functioning for males. The difference between the correlations for male and female subjects is significant at the 0.05 level using a one-tailed Z test. In contrast, while both measures of physical-mathematical reasoning correlate with ego functioning for males, neither do for females. The difference between correlations for males and females is significant at the 0.05 level for the combinatorial thinking task. The only correlation with
7A copy of the questions used to develop the three interpersonal perception scales is available from the first author, Department of Pediatrics, University of Illinois Hospital, 840 Wood Street, Chicago, Illinois 60612.
Mediators of Ego Functioning
441
I'~1 r
f',l
bl E, v
._~
v
~
u.,
~5 0 0
O t-tf~
eoO ~ II
g
~1 N e4 c,i
t.
r
0 0 9, ~ r~"O
uo~
~ 3: 0
442
Hurtig, Petersen, Richards, and Gitelson
o ~ o
o
I
E
0
oo
c~o I
.o
I
I
0
~J ID. ~1
I
I
.o r, 0
I
I I I I
0
0
r) --~o------
0
.... I
II
o
~
o
II
.~.~ -
~
~ 2 o ~ = o ~
vvv
Mediators of Ego Functioning
443
ego functioning for both males and females is for interpersonal awareness. Another statistically significant sex difference (p < 0.05) in the pattern of correlations is with verbal intelligence, which correlates with interpersonal awareness for females, but not for males. The absence of correlation between interpersonal awareness and interpersonal perception for males and females questions whether we have tapped a single domain of social interpersonal reasoning with these measures. As noted, interpersonal perception relates to ego functioning for females, but not for males. For males, interpersonal perception has no significant correlates.
Structural Analysis In addition to the correlational analysis, a causal model or structural analysis was also conducted. While the hypotheses do not assume causation, the underlying theory of formal operational responsibility for the development of higher levels of ego functioning implies a causal relationship. The structural equation (Bentler, 1980) has the advantage of allowing for "latent" or unobserved variables. Latent variables are "contained" in or indicated by the measured variables. In this study, physical-mathematical reasoning and social interpersonal perception are the latent variables. Physical-mathematical reasoning is measured by the proportionality and combinatorial thinking tasks. Social interpersonal perception is measured by the three measures of differentiation, cue sensitivity, and complexity. Because of the different patterns of relationship for males and females found in the correlations, separate causal equations were developed for males and females with identical causal assumptions. Figure 1 describes the hypothesized paths among the ego, cognitive, and IQ variables. Solid lines represent hypothesized causal relationships between both measures of social interpersonal reasoning and ego functioning. The absence of lines between physical-mathematical reasoning and verbal intelligence represents the hypothesis of no significant causal relationship between physical-mathematical reasoning and ego functioning. No hypotheses regarding verbal intelligence have been offered. Variables in circles are latent variables and those in squares are measured variables. The LISREL program (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1978) was used to estimate the relationship among the unknown parameters (i.e., those to be estimated) using the observed data. (For further description of the LISREL program, see Bentler's 1980 review of models of causal analysis.) The analysis yields a chi-square value to assess the goodness of fit of the model to the sample data. The chi-square test compares the proposed model to the alternative of an arbitrary correlation among the measured variables. A large chi square compared to degrees of freedom indicates that the model does not reflect the causal process that generated the data. A small chi square com-
444
Hurtig, Petersen, Richards, and Gitelson
e ~ 1,6.,o.".
SenslhvlI~
Plo;>ot I r O n h~y
ComplexiI~,
Combir~Iorlal Thinking
Fig. I. Prediction equation for five-variable causal model of ego functioning. pared to degrees of freedom indicates a likely model for the causal process. The program also yields standard errors to indicate the importance of each parameter to the model as a whole. I f the critical ratio of the estimated value relative to its standard error is large, the parameter is essential to the model; if small, the parameter is probably unnecessary. Results of the structural analysis are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The significant causal paths for the model with males are between verbal intelligence and ego functioning and between physical-mathematical
Mediators of Ego Functioning
445
error
error
..,,/
error
.-4
D*ller-
Cue
erl ll,'~llO/~
Comple ill'/
SE'nsLIIV i I V
I
.120
1
"""
I
]
error
[]
.3~10 Ptooot:,oo,
Cu"~t>,. . . . ~L~ ....
......
9 ;~ < . 0 5
tJ~.025
o ,o0.
n,~Qu,~,~ I~9 O. t: 20.60 ;.890 error
f
.773
error
Fig. 2. Causal model of ego functioning with path coefficients estimated for male sample. Numbers on lines with one-way arrows represent path regression coefficients.
reasoning and ego functioning. In Figures 2 and 3, the numbers which are s h o w n on each path marked on a one-way arrow are path regression coefficients. Variation in standard error for each measured variable contributes to significance level, and the figures cannot be interpreted as standard correlation coefficients.
446
Hurtig, Petersen, Richards, and Gitelson error
er~/r
error
~1 .87,
~,~ .499
Dif~Or-
~rlrJ,~ttl~n
1 ;
Cue Sensltlv
.671 COmOleXlly
ity
.......lili., /
C O,T~DI, ' -
, t r o t , iI
[
Th,~,k,r,q
9 . . ;~
Cognitive Mediators of Ego Functioning in Adolescence I A n i t a L a n d a u Hurtig, 2 A n n e C. Petersen, 3 Maryse H. Richards, 4 and Idy Barasch Gitelson 5 Received October 21, 1983; accepted July 3, 1985
It has often been assumed that a relationship exists between higher levels of cognitive functioning, particularly formal operations, and mature ego functioning in adolescence. This research examined the relationships between ego functioning and two domains of operational thinking: social interpersonal reasoning and physical-mathematical reasoning in 139 high school seniors. Subjects were given two measures of physical-mathematical reasoning, two measures o f interpersonal reasoning, and the Sentence Completion Test of ego functioning, as well as a measure of verbal intelligence. Results indicated significant differences between males and females in patterns of correlations as well as in patterns of relationships in a causal analysis. Ego functioning was predicted by interpersonal reasoning for females and by physical-mathematical reasoning and verbal intelligence for males.
~This research represents a portion of the doctoral dissertation completed by the senior author in 1981. The research was supported by a grant to A. Petersen from the Spencer Foundation. ZAssistant Professor of Psychology, Pediatrics Department, University of Illinois, Chicago. Received Ph.D. from University of Illinois at Chicago. Current interests are sex-related differences in adolescent ego development and psychosocial variables in adolescent chronic illness. 3Professor of Human Development and Head, Department of Individual and Family Studies, College of Human Development, Pennsylvania State University. Received Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Current interest is biopsychosocial development in adolescence, primarily early adolescence. 4Research Affiliate, Laboratory for Study of Adolescence, Michael Reese Hospital. Received Ph.D. from University of Chicago. Current interest is sex-related differences in the psychological effects of puberty. 5Research Associate, Laboratory for the Study of Adolescence, Michael Reese Hospital; Program Associate, Health Program, MacArthur Foundation. Received Ph.D. from Syracuse University. Current interest is sex-related differences in socialization.
435 0047-2891/85/10004)435504.50/0 9 1985 Plenum Publishing Corporation
436
Hurtig, Petersen, Richards, and Gitelson INTRODUCTION
This research was designed to test and clarify the generally accepted hypothesis that formal operational thinking is essential for the resolution of psychosocial issues of the adolescence stage, and for the achievement of mature personality functioning. Piaget (1967), Erikson (1959), Josselson (1980), and others have noted the causal role of "formal thought" in identity development and in "the service of the autonomous ego." The assumption of cognitive primacy in identity and ego development is complicated by the current uncertainty in cognitive research about the meaning, measurement, and generalizability of the formal operations construct. Generally, the construct is conceptualized in terms of the kind of hypotheticodeductive thinking represented by Inhelder and Piaget's (1958) tasks. The construct is usually operationalized through tasks of combinatorial reasoning, isolation of variables, and proportionality. The highly specific nature of these tasks raises some question as to how generalizable the sort of abstract reasoning measured by these tasks is to other domains of cognitive functioning, such as verbal or social-interpersonal. Keating (1980) has suggested that using the formal operations construct to "explain other behaviors, either cognitive or noncognitive, is premature and potentially counterproductive" (p. 226). Blasi and Hoeffel (1974) have noted the logical contradictions between the theoretical notions about the centrality of formal operations and the growing evidence that many adolescents and adults do not reach the level of formal operational reasoning (Elkind, 1975; Dulit, 1972). Blasi and Hoeffel dismiss the most obvious interpretation of this evidence--that if most adolescents have not reached levels of formal operational thinking, they cannot resolve ego identity issues. They offer an alternative interpretation, suggesting that the narrowness of the operationalization of this construct, limited largely to the physical-mathematical domain, may unduly limit the concept. Neimark (1975) has also suggested that the scientific domain of testing (physical-mathematical) may not accurately cover the variety of contexts in which formal operations may be manifested. She recommends that in order to determine formal operational thinking, logical reasoning should be measured across a variety of domains. In this research, in order to broaden the consideration of the causal link between formal operational thinking and ego development, the social interactional or social cognition domain has been added to the physicalmathematical domain. Research by Kohlberg (1968), Selman (1974), and Turiel (1978) has supported the theory that Piagetian logical stages can be traced in specific areas of social cognition, including moral development, empathy, and perspective taking. The impact of reflective thought and thinking about the possible--the logical hallmarks of formal operational
Mediators of Ego Functioning
437
thinking-are as likely, if not more likely, to be captured in tasks that reflect the interpersonal world of the adolescent. We have therefore considered two domains of logical thinking in adolescence. One is the traditional objectoriented, nonpersonal realm, captured by the classic tasks of Inhelder and Piaget (1958). The other is the social interactional, or social cognition, realm, represented by logical thinking in areas of personal and familial subjective experience. By expanding the perspective of causal formal thinking to include the social interactional realm, we are faced with the possibility that if formal thinking is essential for adolescent ego development, one of these realms may be more significant in its impact than the other. There is little research comparing these two domains in their relationships to personality functioning. Marcia (1980) reports that the development of moral reasoning "seems to accompany the development of identity" (p. 163), but there are contradictory data on this subject. Loevinger (1976) discusses the relationship between ego development and interpersonal awareness, but sees ego development as a more inclusive function and reports no research considering stage comparisons. Assuming that ego development in adolescence focuses on interpersonal issues, identity formation, and individuation, we hypothesize that if an essential role is played by cognitive structures, then logical thinking in social interpersonal cognition will have the strongest relationship to ego development. In developing this hypothesis that the relationship between ego functioning and formal operational thinking may be specific to one domain of operational thinking-the social interpersonal d o m a i n - w e must consider the additional factor of sex differences in cognitive functioning. Research on cognitive development in adolescence points to the emergence of sex differences in a range of areas including verbal abilities (Droege, 1967), spatial abilities (Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974), and formal operational thinking (Dulit, 1972). The possibility of sex differences in the social interpersonal domain has been noted by Gilligan (1979) in her discussion of the need for models of development which emphasize the relational aspects of behavior. Gilligan interprets the superior performance of male over female adolescents on Kohlberg's moral development scale as due to the male-oriented values embedded in the scoring, which emphasizes attributes such as assertiveness, autonomy, and isolation and considers interpersonally oriented responses as representing lower levels of moral reasoning. Marcia's (1980) work on the development of identity in adolescence points to sex differences in the social interpersonal domain, with females indicating more involvement with interpersonal tasks and males with achievement tasks. Based on these theories and the few research studies cited, our hypotheses are the following: (a) Social interpersonal reasoning is signifi-
438
Hurtig, Pelersen, Richards, and Gilelson
cantly related to ego functioning. (b) Physical-mathematical reasoning has no significant relationship to ego functioning. (c) There is a sex difference in ego functioning which is accounted for by interpersonal reasoning; that is, girls will score higher on interpersonal reasoning tasks and will score higher on ego development, with interpersonal reasoning accounting for sex differences in ego functioning.
METHOD Subjects One hundred thirty-nine seniors, ranging between 17 and 18 years of age, 67 males and 72 females, were drawn from two large suburban high schools in the Chicago area. Each school had a socioeconomic range from upper middle to lower middle class. The sample was limited to one age group of middle adolescents in order to avoid confounding ego development with age. Procedures and Materials Ego development was measured by the Sentence Completion Test (Loevinger and Wessler, 1970), which combines four components into a "master trait." The components are cognitive complexity, interpersonal interaction, impulse control, and conscious concerns. The measure presents 36 sentence stems (e.g. "I am .... " "My main p r o b l e m . . . " ) . The full list of stems was given in written form to the students, who were asked to write their responses. Comparable forms were used for males and females.6 Coders trained through the self-training program (Loevinger and Wessler, 1970) scored the items. The stages of ego development are defined as symbiotic, impulsive, self-protective conformist, conscientious conformist, conscientious, individualistic, autonomous, and integrated. In our sample, individual item scores ranged from impulsive to autonomous. Inter-rater reliability was examined on all items for a sample of 15 subjects; the scores correlated 0.78 between raters. Physical-Mathematical Reasoning Two measures were used to evaluate physical-mathematical reasoning. The Equilibrium-in-a-Balance Test (Linn and Pulos, 1983) is a paper-and-pencil 6The male form was developed to represent masculine identity by changing the nouns and pronouns of the original female form (e.g., "A boy has a right to...").
Mediators of Ego Functioning
439
modification of the Inhelder and Piaget fulcrum task often used in formal operations research as a measure of the proportionality component of formal operations. Linn (1980) reports that this measure correlates 0.66 with task presentation. The test involves 13 items of increasing difficulty, measuring the ability to correctly place a weight in order to balance a fulcrum. Test scores (number correct) for the sample ranged from 2 to 13. The second measure is the License Plates test (Linn and Pulos, 1983), a measure of combinatorial thinking derived from Inhelder and Piaget (1958) tasks. The respondent is given a sheet of paper with the numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, and asked to use as many combinations as possible to make new license plates, using no number twice on the same plate. There was no time limit. The total possible number of combinations is 24; the test scores in this sample ranged from 16 to 24. Social-Interpersonal Reasoning
Two measures were used for this cognitive area. The Interpersonal Awareness Scale (Selman, 1974) assesses interpersonal reasoning through the presentation of social dilemmas. Following the reading of each dilemma to the student, questions are asked which are designed to determine the degree to which the student understands the interaction in complex, self-other differentiating, and self-involving ways. Social awareness scores represent a range across four levels from Level 1 (subjective), representing the most undifferentiated, limited perspective awareness, to Level 4 (complex selfsystem), representing a high degree of differentiation and multifaceted social perception. The interpersonal awareness interviews were taped and transcribed. Scoring was based on the Selman manual (1974). The test was scored blindly by two raters. The issue concepts were scored individually and a weighted composite score, or total Interpersonal Awareness Score, was derived. Scores could range from 1 to 4, in this sample, scores ranged from 2.00 to 3.75. Inter-rater reliability was examined for all responses of 12 subjects; the scores correlated 0.86 between raters. A second measure of interpersonal reasoning, the Interpersonal Perception Scale, was derived from an extensive interview with each respondent. Based on selected questions from the interview, three components of interpersonal perception were identified: differentiation, cue sensitivity, and complexity. Differentiation represents the degree of awareness of different points of view within the family on issues such as working, separation for college, and interests. Cue sensitivity represents the level of the respondent's awareness of parent's past experience, as well as parent's feelings about subject's social and academic life and the (likely) impending separation because of graduation. Complexity represents the range of feeling and attitudes in
440
Hurtig, Petersen, Richards, and Gitr
the family about which the respondent is sensitive, on subjects such as work, interests, goals, and values. 7 Each of these three areas is scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 3, with the latter representing the highest level of interpersonal perception. A total score is derived by averaging scores for the three areas. Nine questions were included. Cronbach's alpha coefficient of internal consistency was 0.55. Scoring was done blindly by five interviewers based on a manual developed by the first author. Inter-rater reliability was 0.80. Verbal Intelligence
In addition to ego functioning and cognitive functioning, the Quick Test of Verbal Intelligence (Ammons and A m m o n s , 1962) was administered to consider the contribution of intelligence as a general factor to both ego and cognitive functioning.
RESULTS Table I shows the means and standard deviations for all measures. There were no significant mean score sex differences on the measures of physicalmathematical or social interpersonal cognitive functioning or on verbal IQ. Mean score differences on ego functioning were significant. Therefore, on only one measure were there sex differences in level of functioning: ego development. Both correlational and causal analyses were used to study the relationships among the measures. There were significant sex differences in the correlations among ego functioning, social interpersonal reasoning, and physical-mathematical reasoning (see Table II). While two of the three measures of interpersonal perception (differentiation and cue sensitivity) correlate with ego functioning for females, none of these measures is significantly correlated with ego functioning for males. The difference between the correlations for male and female subjects is significant at the 0.05 level using a one-tailed Z test. In contrast, while both measures of physical-mathematical reasoning correlate with ego functioning for males, neither do for females. The difference between correlations for males and females is significant at the 0.05 level for the combinatorial thinking task. The only correlation with
7A copy of the questions used to develop the three interpersonal perception scales is available from the first author, Department of Pediatrics, University of Illinois Hospital, 840 Wood Street, Chicago, Illinois 60612.
Mediators of Ego Functioning
441
I'~1 r
f',l
bl E, v
._~
v
~
u.,
~5 0 0
O t-tf~
eoO ~ II
g
~1 N e4 c,i
t.
r
0 0 9, ~ r~"O
uo~
~ 3: 0
442
Hurtig, Petersen, Richards, and Gitelson
o ~ o
o
I
E
0
oo
c~o I
.o
I
I
0
~J ID. ~1
I
I
.o r, 0
I
I I I I
0
0
r) --~o------
0
.... I
II
o
~
o
II
.~.~ -
~
~ 2 o ~ = o ~
vvv
Mediators of Ego Functioning
443
ego functioning for both males and females is for interpersonal awareness. Another statistically significant sex difference (p < 0.05) in the pattern of correlations is with verbal intelligence, which correlates with interpersonal awareness for females, but not for males. The absence of correlation between interpersonal awareness and interpersonal perception for males and females questions whether we have tapped a single domain of social interpersonal reasoning with these measures. As noted, interpersonal perception relates to ego functioning for females, but not for males. For males, interpersonal perception has no significant correlates.
Structural Analysis In addition to the correlational analysis, a causal model or structural analysis was also conducted. While the hypotheses do not assume causation, the underlying theory of formal operational responsibility for the development of higher levels of ego functioning implies a causal relationship. The structural equation (Bentler, 1980) has the advantage of allowing for "latent" or unobserved variables. Latent variables are "contained" in or indicated by the measured variables. In this study, physical-mathematical reasoning and social interpersonal perception are the latent variables. Physical-mathematical reasoning is measured by the proportionality and combinatorial thinking tasks. Social interpersonal perception is measured by the three measures of differentiation, cue sensitivity, and complexity. Because of the different patterns of relationship for males and females found in the correlations, separate causal equations were developed for males and females with identical causal assumptions. Figure 1 describes the hypothesized paths among the ego, cognitive, and IQ variables. Solid lines represent hypothesized causal relationships between both measures of social interpersonal reasoning and ego functioning. The absence of lines between physical-mathematical reasoning and verbal intelligence represents the hypothesis of no significant causal relationship between physical-mathematical reasoning and ego functioning. No hypotheses regarding verbal intelligence have been offered. Variables in circles are latent variables and those in squares are measured variables. The LISREL program (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1978) was used to estimate the relationship among the unknown parameters (i.e., those to be estimated) using the observed data. (For further description of the LISREL program, see Bentler's 1980 review of models of causal analysis.) The analysis yields a chi-square value to assess the goodness of fit of the model to the sample data. The chi-square test compares the proposed model to the alternative of an arbitrary correlation among the measured variables. A large chi square compared to degrees of freedom indicates that the model does not reflect the causal process that generated the data. A small chi square com-
444
Hurtig, Petersen, Richards, and Gitelson
e ~ 1,6.,o.".
SenslhvlI~
Plo;>ot I r O n h~y
ComplexiI~,
Combir~Iorlal Thinking
Fig. I. Prediction equation for five-variable causal model of ego functioning. pared to degrees of freedom indicates a likely model for the causal process. The program also yields standard errors to indicate the importance of each parameter to the model as a whole. I f the critical ratio of the estimated value relative to its standard error is large, the parameter is essential to the model; if small, the parameter is probably unnecessary. Results of the structural analysis are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The significant causal paths for the model with males are between verbal intelligence and ego functioning and between physical-mathematical
Mediators of Ego Functioning
445
error
error
..,,/
error
.-4
D*ller-
Cue
erl ll,'~llO/~
Comple ill'/
SE'nsLIIV i I V
I
.120
1
"""
I
]
error
[]
.3~10 Ptooot:,oo,
Cu"~t>,. . . . ~L~ ....
......
9 ;~ < . 0 5
tJ~.025
o ,o0.
n,~Qu,~,~ I~9 O. t: 20.60 ;.890 error
f
.773
error
Fig. 2. Causal model of ego functioning with path coefficients estimated for male sample. Numbers on lines with one-way arrows represent path regression coefficients.
reasoning and ego functioning. In Figures 2 and 3, the numbers which are s h o w n on each path marked on a one-way arrow are path regression coefficients. Variation in standard error for each measured variable contributes to significance level, and the figures cannot be interpreted as standard correlation coefficients.
446
Hurtig, Petersen, Richards, and Gitelson error
er~/r
error
~1 .87,
~,~ .499
Dif~Or-
~rlrJ,~ttl~n
1 ;
Cue Sensltlv
.671 COmOleXlly
ity
.......lili., /
C O,T~DI, ' -
, t r o t , iI
[
Th,~,k,r,q
9 . . ;~
