A COMPARISON OF POSTFORMAL OPERATIONS IN DIVERSE

ADULT POPULATIONS: CONTRASTING AFRICAN AMERICANS

AND STANDARD-AVERAGE-EUROPEAN AMERICANS

by

LYNDA ROSS McBRIDE, B.A., M.A.

A DISSERTATION

IN

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY STUDIES

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved

) December, 1998 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge those individuals who have helped through out this research project. I am especially indebted to the volunteers who so generously gave of their time to participate in this study. I would like to thank each member of my committee for sharing their unique expertise and offering continued support and guidance. Nancy Bell guided the statistical write-up and kept me on task with reporting details. Yvorme Caldera was helpful with critiques and editing the first draft. Bonita Butner offered incites from an outside discipline that was most helpful in connecting research findings to real life inference. Finally, a very special acknowledgment and appreciation goes to Gwendolyn Sorell, my chair, for her continued support and encouragement not only through the dissertation process but throughout my doctoral studies. She provided many long hours in supervising and guiding this project to completion.

Also to my children, Jacquelyn S. Donovan and Kyle A. Myers, a special thank you for their patience and understanding and their pride in my work. And, to my extended family, I thank Reuben, Andrew, and Benjamin Maes for their love and support. I have also received and welcomed continued support from my fellow graduate students in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies. These colleagues contributed relief, levity, and comradeship to a sometimes arduous process. Thank you: Sunny, Sara, Jennifer, Carolyn, Anna, Martha, and Mangala, also, Larry, Todd, and Boyd. Each contributed in their own special way to make my stay in Lubbock and Texas Tech University a memorable experience.

11 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ii ABSTRACT vi LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11 Statement of the Problem 11 Aduh Cognitive Development 15 Theoretical Framework 16 An Admixture of Theory and Empirical Research 20 Basseches 21 Conceptual Model 21 Empirical Findings 24 Labouvie-Vief 26 Conceptual Model 27 Empirical Findings 29 Sinnott 33 Conceptual Model 34 Empirical Findings 35 Kramer 36 Conceptual Model 37 Empirical Findings 38 iii Recap 39

In Critique 41 The Impact of Culture 43 Proem 48 Hypotheses 49 Significance of the Study 51 m METHOD 53 Participants 53 Procedures 56 Measures 56 Information Sheet 57 Social Paradigm Belief Inventory (SPBI) 57 Everyday Questions 59 Logical Reasoning Test 62 IV RESULTS 67 Descriptive Analysis 67 Test of Hypotheses 70 V CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION 80 Summary of Findings 80 Conclusions 86 Future Research 89 Strengths of the Study 90 Limitations of the Study 91

ENDNOTES 94 REFERENCES 96 iv APPENDIX A. INFORMATION SHEET 104 B. CONSENT FORM 106 C SOCL\L PARADIGM BELIEF INVENTORY 109 D. SINNOTT'S EVERYDAY PROBLEMS 117 E. LOGICAL REASONING TEST 122 ouaBBBa^Ri^^ia

ABSTRACT

The study of cognitive change over adulthood became important to researchers during the 1980s with the recognition and clarification of the limits of Piaget's formal operational stage and suggestions that formal operations was not the concluding or most comprehensive cognitive structure. With this recognition, researchers turned to look for a model of development that might outline systematic and positive cognitive elaboration that occurred beyond formal operations and over the adult years. Thus, the field of postformal operations was created.

Postformal theories build upon Piagetian theory with expectations that postformal stages evolve from formal operations. The new stages are outlined as cognitive levels through which the adult comes to understand the contextual and contradictory nature of social life. The aduh is expected to bring certain wisdom to the tasks of everyday life and look for a 'best' answer, not necessarily the most logically correct answer to whatever problem is at hand. Empirical findings suggest that indeed middle-aged and older adults do look for 'workable' answers while younger adults look for logical answers to a variety of posed everyday problems. Using interview methods to pose everyday problems and using a variety of new measurement techniques, researchers found detectable differences in cognitive processes of middle-aged aduhs when compared to young adults. Yet, efforts are just beginning and existing research is narrow in its focus. To date, research has centered on only White middle-class and highly educated respondents. Existing studies have not included individuals from disparate social statuses or ethnic groups. This project was designed to

VI augment existing research. This project examined postformal levels of cognition in two previously underrepresented groups, working-class Anglos and African Americans. It was theorized, as social psychologists predicted, that social milieu would have an impact on cognitive development. It was predicted that minority status would aid in and speed the development of postformal stages. To a limited extent, the prediction was upheld and differences were found on measures of postformal operations between the working-class Anglos and African Americans who participated in this study.

Vll ^•^BHHHeCH

LIST OF TABLES

3.1 Crosstabulationsoflncome by Ethnic Group 63 3.2 Crosstabulationsoflncome Level by Gender 64 3.3 Crosstabulations of Education by Ethnic Group and Age Group 65 3.4 Crosstabulations of Education by Ethnic Group 66 4.1 Number of Respondents Who Self-reference on Sinnott's Every Day Questions by Age Group 74 4.2 Number of Respondents Per LRT Levels By Ethnic Group 75 4.3 Number of Respondents Per LRT Levels By Age Group 75 4.4 Means and Standard Deviations for SPBI Dialectic Subscale Scores By Age 76 4.5 Means and Standard Deviations for SPBI Dialectic Subscale Scores By Age and Ethnic Group 76 4.6 Means and Standard Deviation for SPBI Relativistic Subscale Scores By age group 77 4.7 Means and Standard Deviations for SPBI Relativistic Subscale Scores By Age and Ethnic Group 77 4.8 Means and Standard Deviations for SPBI Mechanistic Subscale Scores 78 4.9 Means and Standard Deviations for SPBI Formistic Subscale Scores 78 4.10 Correlations of SPBI Scores With Age, Education, and Income 79

Vlll LIST OF FIGURES

El. Diagram For Question 1 130 E2. Diagram For Questions 2-3 130 E3. Diagram For Question 4 131 E4. Diagram For Question 5 131 ES. Balance Scale 132 E6. Open-Top Containers 133 E7. Shadow Screen 134 E8. Jars and Glasses 135

IX -•--LJ.I -.wtnn^^f^ammm^mmmfi^mL ZBCHBH

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Two essentially different perspectives dominate the study of cognitive change over aduhhood. One view proposes levels of cognitive development beyond formal operations that conform to an organismic stage model of development. The proposal that cognition in mature adults is qualitatively different than that in adolescents or even young adults is conceived and expressed in the tenn postformal operations. Models of postformal operations extend a Piagetian framework by adding a stage or stages that follow formal operations. A second position suggests that change in thought structures over adulthood is individualistic and dependent upon life experiences with no expectation for universal stages (Flavell, 1970). This debate is more than an academic exercise. In interpreting the work of credible authorities, an investigator will discover meaningful indications of cognitive diversity across cultures and cognitive change across adulthood. Anthropologists (Barth, 1969; Whorf, 1956, 1941) and social psychologists (John-Steiner, Panofsky & Smith, 1994; Luria, 1976; Vygotsky, 1978, 1931) suggest that peoples at various places and times conceptualize the world and social life differently than Western thinkers. Others (Gilligan, 1982) propose that women think differently than men. By far the most impelling force inspiring further study of postformal thought has been Klaus Riegel's proposals. Without exception, all postmodern theories of adult cognitive development cite Riegel's work (Basseches, 1980; Kramer, 1983; Labouvie- Vief, 1985, 1982, 1980; Sinnott, 1994). Riegel (1973) proposes that Piaget stopped short of a fiill explanation of cognitive development. According to Riegel and some may disagree, Piagetian stages adequately describe cognitive achievement during childhood; ahhough, Riegel continues that formal operations is inadequate to describe "thought and emotions of mature and creative persons" (Riegel, 1973, p. 346) Contradictions are important elements of advanced thought and mature thought must incorporate contradictions, and formal operations is noncontradictory.

By noncontradictory it is suggested that formal operations is a system of thought in which all elements are known and can be manipulated. As example in case of the balance beam problem, weights and positions on the beam are manipulated so that two weights on one side of the fulcrum can balance three weights on the opposite side if correct distances from the fulcrum are chosen. One can hypothesize how one would go about solving such a problem. Thus, this is a classic formal operational problem. The elements of the problem are known and limited. In contrast, social life is such that one cannot systematically manipulate all variables as is required in a formal operational dilemma. Formal operational thought is limited and incapable of dealing with the perplexing issues encountered during adulthood; it is best at dealing with narrow issues where all impinging variables can be known and systematically manipulated. Broughton (1984) lists 15 reasons why formal operations is not the most advanced cognitive stage and why science should look beyond formal operations, or beyond Piaget. Broughton cites the complexity of aduh life and also points out that formal operations ignores the knower. In the postmodern world the position from which one sees the world is of fundamental importance. As Sinnott (1991) and Broughton offer, even science has come to acknowledge the impact of how the scientist defines her/his subject of investigation. The knower is not a neutral observer as she/he is assumed to be in formal operations thinking.

In critique, there are sufficient examples that knowledge goes beyond mere logic to encourage further study. Yet, aduh development that features positive cognitive growth has received little attention. More recent conceptualizations reframe what is transpiring over the aduh years, although the efforts have not gone far enough. So far, researchers in the field of postformal cognition have used very narrow approaches. Existing research focuses on White middle-class and highly educated respondents. An important goal for fljture study is to include respondents from lower socioeconomic levels, comparatively lower educational levels, and ethnic minority groups. .

Recently, in the last ten years or so, a small group of researchers/theorists have begun work on postformal conceptualizations. Broughton (1984) puts the number at 40-some researchers, many of whom, in addition to research, propose theoretical frameworks. The more prominent theorists/researchers (Basseches, 1984, 1980; Commons & Richards, 1984; Kramer, 1989a; Labouvie-Vief, 1982, 1980; Pascual- Leone, 1984; Sinnott, 1989), agreeing on major points, begin with a Piagetian framework. The proposed frameworks follow along Piagetian lines with expectations for invariant stages and cognitive change that includes change in structure. It is theorized that once formal operations is fully achieved, one or two cognitive stages follow that are more advanced than formal operations. The new models incorporate a dialectical process, with cognitive growth for the aduh coming about via contradiction. The aduh first comes to understand that knowledge is relative and contradictive. Eventually the individual becomes aware of the process of knowing and the position of the knower/thinker vis-a-via the known. In my view, major contributors to the field of postformal operations are Michael Basseches, Deirdre Kramer, Gisela Labouvie-Vief, and Jan Sinnott. Each (Basseches, 1984; Kramer, 1989a; Labouvie-Vief, 1982; 1980; Sinnott, 1989) proposes a conceptual framework describing cognitive development which is believed to appear following formal operations. Terms differ from proposal to proposal. Kramer, Kahlbaugh, and Goldston (1992) note, however, that common features of postformal models are that knowledge is relative, contradiction is part of knowing, and the mature thinker is able to integrate her/his view into a dialectical whole. A brief description of four highly effective and well researched models follow.

Michael Basseches (1989, 1984, 1980) fiimishesa n elaborate set of schema which he beUeves charts progress toward the higher reaches of mature cognition Basseches' theory and empirical research focus on the process by which the aduh works toward the later stage. He proposes a set of 24 dialectical schemata. These are dialectical movements in thought; the schemata are based on Riegel's 1973 paper suggesting scientific dialectics as a form of cognitive organization. According to Basseches (1980), dialectical thinking "comprehends dynamic relations among systems" (p. 401) Thought structures progress to increasingly inclusive and integrated forms. That is, adult thinking progressively incorporates more and more of the context, first preserving movement from context to context, then next, contrasting and integrating systems of systems. While there has been criticism of Basseches' proposal (Chandler & Boutilier, 1992; Sinnott, 1989), nine of the 24 schemata appear to be used increasingly with age (Irwin, 1991). That is, these schemata emerge from data of White, middle-class, often highly educated subjects (Basseches, 1989; Commons & Richards, 1984; Kramer, 1989a, 1989b; Sinnott, 1989). Labouvie-Vief (1982, 1980) proposes a three stage, primarily systemic, model which defines a system as a whole, with integration of parts to each other part and to the whole (von Bertalanffy, 1968). By this model successive stages exhibh distinct integration from previous stages. Labouvie-Vief s model includes intrasystemic, inter systemic, and autonomous thought structures. In keeping with an organismic view, there is structural change at each level in Labouvie-Vief s model, as in all models which adhere to a neo-Piagetian framework. The system or cognitive structure evolves over aduhhood. Briefly, intrasystemic thought is the full elaboration of formal operations when the late-teenager is proficient in abstract thought. Abstract reasoning at this stage is concerned with only one system, thus intra systemic. Working as Piaget (1968) describes, the individual inverses, negates, discovers the reciprocal or correlates- Piaget's INRC group-within one system or with a distinct problem. The remainder of the worid, all other variables except for the particulars of the problem, is seen as or assumed to be stable, e.g., what is the poshion of the turtle on the board if only the turtle moves (Piaget & Inhelder, 1948)?

In the Labouvie-Vief model, during the intersystemic stage the individual understands that different and sometimes conflicting truths can be supported in various systems of thought. Within the intersystemic stage an individual is much like the preoperational child who can see that an object has height and weight but can not coordinate the two. The intersystemic person can realize truth within more than one system of thought but as yet can not contrast or coordinate the two. Later the individual can coordinate more than one reality system. Thought becomes contextualized, and more than one system can be operative at any single point in time. For example, scientific thought and religious ways of knowing are integrated and viewed as part of a whole. This ability represents an autonomous stage by Labouvie-Veif s model and is represented as the ability to integrate cognitive systems of systems. Additionally, the mature thinker re-incorporates the subjective self and this is the preeminent accomplishment of the concluding cognitive level. According to Piaget, the child centrates and must learn to decentrate; according to Labouvie-Vief (1982), the mature aduh re-centrates. Sinnott (1989) carries out a similar theme to the one Labouvie-Vief suggests in that young adults learn to separate themselves from a problem and think rationally. The older adult understands that knowing is partially a product of the knower. Sinnott suggests that it is the mature thinker's ability to 'step back into the loop' that defines the farther reaches of cognitive abihties. Sinnott's (1989) primary focus is on empirical work, perfecting interviewing techniques which reveal the most distinguished level of aduh cognition. Sinnott's (1989) term for this final state is relativistic operations. (For a thorough discussion of the term 'relativistic' and how h is used in postformal theory, see Endnote 1.) Persons capable of relativistic thought understand knowledge is dependent upon context. Sinnott proclaims that she is unconcerned with the process by which adults arrive at relativistic operations. In this, she refers to Basseches' dialectic positions as 16 or more levels between formal and relativistic operations. Sinnott's investigations focus on what she describes as the highest cognitive level. Sinnott (1989) states that "All knowledge and all logic are incomplete, knowing is partly a matter of choice" (p. 241). In addition, relativistic thought includes "conscious self-reference and the ordering of formal systems" (p. 241). Mature thought is defined as the re-introduction of self back into the system, with the added knowledge that one brings specific psychological, physiological, and ideological characteristics to the cognitive thought structure. For Sinnott, as well as for Labouvie- Vief, mature thought, the conclusive stage, must incorporate and acknowledge the position of the knower.

Another researcher trying to give form to work in adult cognitive development, Kramer (1989a, 1989b), has attempted to bridge the gap between Sinnott's relativistic operations and Basseches dialectic movements Basseches' (1984) work describes how an aduh works through various cognitive plateaus; Sinnott's (1989) work defines the end stage as augmentation to Basseches' scheme. Kramer, Kahlbaugh, and Goldston (1992) clarify and quantify Basseches dialectical movements and tie the movements to Sinnott's framework using a paper-and-pencil questionnaire that she and colleagues devised. The respondent is to record how much she/he agrees or disagrees with statements about the social world. The questionnaire reportedly reveals paradigmatic views that correspond to absolutistic, relativistic, and dialectic thinking. The absolutistic thinker believes that change is due to external forces, there is a singular correct position, and problems are solved by reduction to basic elements. Relativistic thinkers begin with the presupposition that all knowledge is influenced by context and context is continually changing. This position is comparable to Labouvie-Vief s intersystemic cognitions. An individual at this level lacks the ability to integrate across muhiple contexts. Lastly, at the dialectic level, relativism is incorporated by the dialectic thinker with the added ability to comprehend that contradictions are interrelated and part of the whole.

Two conceptualizations concerning adult cognition are important to this work. First, dialectic thought is associated with age in that dialectic explanations are more often chosen by older compared to younger respondents. Second, the idea of centering on self-in-context is found to be an important distinction of aduh cognition. Labouvie-Vief and Sinnott find in their middle-age respondents a reconnection of self to knowing. Labouvie-Vief (Labouvie-Vief, Hakim-Larson, DeVoe, & Schoeberlein, 1989) describes a re-centering. Centration is used by Piaget (Vuyk, 1981a, 1981b) to describe the egocentric position of the child who can not incorporate a view other than her/his own. Decentration is the position of the formal operational thinker who attempts to control all personal conceptions and values and focus on the formal problem. For Labouvie-Vief and Sinnott a new position incurs during middle-age that acknowledges the personal position of the thinker. Re-centration at the adult stage is a new and qualitatively different position that reincorporates the self in cognitive structures. Labouvie-Vief asserts that this is the basis of wisdom. Critiques in various forms call into question the tenability of all models of postformal operations. Chandler and Boutilier (1992) find that dynamic system reasoning develops concomitant with formal operations, appearing during the teen years for many of their participants. Dynamic system reasoning, therefore, would not qualify as a stage post formal thought. Basseches (1989) does find more frequent dialectical movement in thought in older subjects compared to younger ones. Yet his subjects were college freshmen, graduate students, and professors. Age is confounded with experience and/or education. These resuhs may support Flavell's (1970) contention that aduh cognition is dependent upon Ufe experiences rather than Basseches' suggestion of a predictable dialectic progression.

Another important critique comes from a close reading of Labouvie-Vief (1985) when she suggests that the autonomous stage is evidence of a reconnecting of cognition to self This, she contends, resolves the mind-body duality introduced by Western epistemology. The mind-body duaUty issue has been raised by others (Popper, 1994; Popper & Eccles, 1977). Logically, this suggests that Western ideologies may predispose one to certain ways of thinking. This would not be a universal effect, ahhough h may be quite extensive since Western ideas pervade the world. Thus, a stage defined as a reconnecting to self would be disqualified as an extension of a Piagetian organismic model of cognition. Still lurking is Flavell's challenge and Broughton's (1984) fifteen reasons why we should be looking not beyond formal operations, but beyond Piaget. What has been the search and hope of some 40 researchers (Broughton, 1984) working within an aduh cogniiive model is a clean, precise stage theory of progression; concrete operations, formal operations, postformal thought. As yet, theoretical models and empirical evidence supporting these models are insufficient to convince many of the accuracy of the prototypes.

I would add to this critique, that although conceptualizations of postformal thought deserve praise, current research employs a particularly narrow approach. Researchers have been content to look for participants in and around colleges or university campuses. The resulting samples are White, middle-class, and highly educated. Even the term 'highly educated' does not fully describe the restricted nature of the samples.

8 Considerable bias must result from the choice of'college people' regardless of education. Present samples exclude ethnic minorities, working class persons, the very poor, and even educated individuals outside the university community.

Despite the criticism of a stage theory of aduh cognitive development, researchers have gather considerable evidence to support a stage and/or stages beyond formal operations. Therefore, at this time, it seems prudent to continue, at least for now, assessing populations for the proposed stages. However, I do believe there is room for certain adaptations that can be made to modify existing theory. The argument here is that certain cultural patterns and/or socioeconomic membership impact the timing at which postformal stages are reached. Existing theory supports an idea of qualhatively distinct stages following formal operations. Empirical data have been collected that sustain this claun. Yet, minority populations have not been examined and I believe that the socio-economic position minority individuals are forced to assume in this country along with the bi-cuhural features of their experience will lead them to understand the relative nature of truth (Barth, 1969). I propose that minority individuals will reach the postformal stage, described as relativistic thinking, at earlier ages than individuals from the majority culture.

Further, I believe that formal education and varied cultural experiences will give advantages to middle- and upper-middle-class individuals, in areas of cognitive development, over individuals from working-class environments. I propose that White individuals from working-class environments will reach postformal stages at later ages than middle-class and highly educated Whites.

This study is designed to correct what is described as the narrow approach of previous work. This study selects a sample from two identifiable populations. White working-class and African American or Black. This study tests for the presence of postformal modes of thought paying close attention to the age at which the levels emerge. Additionally, this study will determine if participants reveal the self-referencing that Sinnott finds in data collected from older respondents. Labouvie-Vief s alludes to a similar process which she defines as re-centration.

This study is designed to begin to address the restricted approach of previous studies. A principal research issue is whether postformal ways of thinking appear in respondents other than in highly educated, middle-class, and exclusively Whhe respondents. If these modes of thought do appear in other groups, is the time-table accelerated or slowed to any great degree? Just as some believe that not everyone reaches formal operations, postformal levels of cognition may not be universally achieved. The purposes and significance of this study are to supplement existing data. Members of diverse populations, African Americans and persons from lower socio­ economic and educational statuses are used to extend the range of information and answer the proposed questions. Postformal ways of thinking are deemed important during aduhhood and techniques are being devised and initiated to encourage the use of postformal thinking in college populations (Lee, 1994; Sinnott, 1994, 1991). This study will provide information that can be helpful to such efforts.

10 •fc^ii •• i-"irTT

CHAPTER n REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Statement of the Problem The study of cognitive change over the aduh years became important to researchers during the 1980s, benefited in part by Broughton's (1984) recognition and clarification of the hmits of formal operations and suggestions that formal operations is not the concluding or most comprehensive cognitive structure. Offering 15 reasons (Broughton, 1984) why formal operations is inadequate for conceptualization in science- -modem day sciences acknowledge effects by the scientist—Broughton specifically doubts the capability of formal operations to deal with systems such as those found in psychology or the social sciences.

Formal operations is a system of logic that applies only to a closed system (von Bertalanffy, 1968) with no contradictions. The answer to the problem is always found by manipulation of the elements within the problem. The answer to how fast a pendulum swings, whether pendulum weight, length of string, height of pendulum release, or strength of the push, is answered by holding three variables constant and varying the fourth, then systematically changing the constant until the answer is found. Humans and human experiences are not closed systems, but open systems (von Bertalanffy, 1968). It therefore follows, as Broughton suggests, that human thought, specifically aduh cognition and action, carmot be reduced to the logic of formal operations. Formal operational thinking is very much akin to the scientific method. Science and the scientific method are concerned with objective inquiry, experimental manipulation of variables, and hypothesis testing. This method of reasoning is very important to the way of life established by Western philosophic enlightenment, yet there are other ways of knowing. Feminist scholars have long stressed the validhy and

11 importance of women's ways of knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986). Broughton's (1984) position would seem to support a feminist argument that logic and formal operations preclude the self. The thinker must ignore gender, her/his history, race, culture and all biographic information in order to achieve a logical truth. Feminist theory suggests that truth is constructed (Butler, 1993, 1990) via those precise variables-history, race, culture, and gender. Formal operations is not a system of knowing that can accommodate these contextual alternatives.

In addition to the feminist's contention, other evidence of different ways of knowing comes from anthropology and cultural studies. The concept of time, the manner in which language constructs reahty, and the position of the person-via self and others—within a context impact cognition. Evidence for this perspective comes in a minor way from the reality that an Aztecian calendar is more precisely correct in its measurement of time than the Gregorian or Julian calendars, with adjustments every four years in order to include the accumulated extra day. It is fairly well established (Morgan, 1965) that Aztecs did not utilize an algebra and possessed only unsophisticated forms of accounting. The precision of their measurements came from sources other than an advanced mathematics. How they constructed their time-measurement-instrument is a mystery to us, yet their calendar is evidence of a different way of thinking. In a major way, evidence that cognition is structured by language and concepts of time comes from Whorf s (1956, 1941) work with Hopi. The Hopi language lacks an expression of Hnear time; Hopi live in the 'midst of a getting later' according to Whorf (1956). Now is only here at this place and time, dependent upon being 'here', and does not exist elsewhere. Past and present do not exist in Hopi in the same sense that they do in Western philosophic terms; Hopi has no past-tenses. Phenomena exist or are in the process of becoming. What will be, in our terms in the future, is cormected to what

12

t-.7 .;-"''L,' "T^-- r u exists. What was may cease to be, although transformed into another level of being; all phenomena, past and present, presently exist

In reading Whorf s explanation of Hopi thought and comparing this with Sinnott's (1994, 1991) explanation of advanced cognitive conceptualization, I am convinced there are similarities between postformal operations and the cognitive capabilities of all Hopi speakers. Postformal operations requires that the individual understand the ongoing transformation of Ufe events and the relative nature of interpretations of those events. Whh no expression of past-tense and a philosophy of ongoing transformations, the structures of Hopi language suggest a dialectical approach to reaUty and a highly relativistic way of thinking. For the Hopi both philosophicaUy and linguisticaUy, life is a circle; one progresses around the circle experiencing what has been experienced. Each pass around the circle is a transformation of all that has come before, plus, the new circumstances. This philosophic incUnation is similar to the dialectic process of an ongoing synthesis and antithesis. My interpretation of Whorf s work suggests that Hopi natives may think relativisticly and/or dialectically from the time they learn to speak. This form of conceptualization would thus occur prior to a time that the individual would use formal operations by Piaget's model. If in fact the Hopi language can be shown to express a relativistic and/or dialectic view of reality, this places into question where relativistic and dialectic cognitive structures lie with respect to formal operations. Is it necessary to have attained formal operations in order to achieve relativistic operations? Published research carried out with White, middle-class, highly educated volunteers reveals that the supposedly advanced cognitive structures are found only in those volunteers approaching 40 years of age and older. Formal operations was not assessed in all of the studies, leaving open the question posed about possible stages of cognition and which structure precedes or foUows which other structure in the tested populations Yet, if Hopi speaking children

13 •mm

manage dialectic thinking by learning and speaking their language, and if one is convinced of a Piagetian stage theory of cognition, with formal operations following previous stages, then, formal operations appears unnecessary for the proposed adult stages.

In addhion to language constraints, I believe there are environmental or contextual variables such as cultural and class restraints that will impact cognitive development. Cuhure, class, gender, ethnicity and/or socio-economic status may impact cognitive structures. Douglas and Wong (1977) find differences in Chinese and American children, along with gender differences, in the age at which these children achieve formal operations. This study of formal operations demonstrates a cuhural difference in favor of American subjects, and a sex difference in favor of males. Further, Youniss and Dean (1974) find class differences with Korean and Costa Rican children when rural children are compared to urban children. Youniss and Dean find that urban children out perform rural children on formal operational measures. Luria (1976) predicts such contextual influences when he suggests that practical thinking will predominate in societies that are characterized by practical manipulation of objects, and "more abstract forms of theoretical activity" (Luria, 1976, p. XIV) will predominate in technological societies and "wiU induce more abstract, theoretical thinking" (Luria, 1976, p. XIV). These ideas are more fully covered once the findings from studies focusing on aduh cognitive theories have been explained. In sum, the major deficit in existing research of postformal thought has been the restricted choice of respondents that make up present samples. To this point in time, all major studies focusing on aduh cognitive development (Arlin, 1989; Basseches, 1984; Commons et al., 1989; Kramer, 1989a; Kramer & Woodmff, 1986; Labouvie-Vief, DeVoe, & Bulka, 1989; Sinnott, 1989, 1991) have employed Whhe, middle-class, and most often, highly educated respondents, more highly educated than the general

14 HQ^HEa

population. Acknowledging this deficit, each noted researcher in the area of adult cognition (Basseches, 1989; Kramer, 1989a; Labouvie-Vief et al., 1989; Sinnott, 1991, 1994) suggests that empirical work within diverse cultures is needed. As yet, minority persons have not been included to any reliable degree in any major study. One or two African Americans and persons of Asian descent have been included in the research, although not in sufficient numbers and not systematically compared to persons of other ethnicities and cultures.

Most cultures express a notion of cognitive abiUty more advanced than mere logic, wisdom or mature judgment, which is achieved only during an individual's mature years. This is in contrast to formal operations which is believed to reach fiill culmination during the late teens or very early adulthood. It therefore seems inappropriate to conceive of cognitive development ceasing or degenerating once formal operations is achieved. Only in the last ten years has serious academic attention been given to aduh cognitive development and to the idea that there may be positive maturational change well past the point of physical maturation. Change in cognition during childhood has been weU researched, with an assumption that there is only cognitive decline during adulthood (Labouvie-Vief, 1980; Stevens-Long & Common, 1992). This new interest has led to the perceived importance of postformal thought with several new theories being proposed. Most of the proposals have a great deal in common and many have overlapping features. What foUows is a summary of the more feasible theories.

Adult Cognitive Development There is, of course, an opinion contrary to views expressed in recent theories focusmg on the development of postformal operations. Flavell (1970) contends that there are no cognitive developmental pathways for adults. He sees aduh cognitive development as individualistic and variable, representative of the life course. This view

15 suggests that adult cognition is dependent upon life experiences and life choices such as occupation, relationships, and cultural and historic circumstances. Flavell sees both quantitatively and qualitatively significant cognitive changes during childhood that are directional and irreversible. He contends, however, that this development ceases with physical maturation. Flavell argues that because there is no biological process during aduhhood that would impose intellectual change, 'developmental' cognitive changes during adulthood carmot be expected. Any cognitive change during the adult years is "more quantitative than qualhative" (Flavell, 1970, p. 249), and Flavell poshs that change does not occur in all aduhs. In a word, the configuration, organization, or form of cognitive structures do not evolve or mature by his model. Many voice support for Flavell's perspective, although there is little empirical support for this position.

More recent theorists and researchers who focus on aduh cognition take a position contrary to Flavell's view and adopt a theoretical framework that includes a stage or stages of cognition following formal operations. The new proposals continue within an organismic paradigm. Contemporary theorists/researchers extend a Piagetian framework and focus on dialectical processes—yet, dialecticalism does not fully embraced—as the method by which aduhs reach postformal levels of cognition. By opting to build upon Piaget's work, the theorist/researcher is required to include specific features and is constrained in her/his work by certain elements of a Piagetian framework. A review of these features and constraints follows.

Theoretical Framework Piagetian theory is considered an organismic theory by reviewers (Lemer, 1986). Assuming an organismic poshion impUes concepts of (1) structural change, (2) universality, (3) qualitatively different stages, (4) invariantly sequenced stages, and (5) irreversible stages. Organismic (Brent, 1984; Piaget, 1980a, 1980b, 1968,1955; von

16 Bertalanffy, 1968; Werner & Kaplan, 1956) theories imply that development entails a change in structure involving differentiation, and hierarchical integration. Structures are whole, integrated systems (Piaget, 1968; von Bertalanffy, 1968) with laws of transformation. In cognitive development, the representations of external objects or events can be changed or transformed-by assimilation and accommodation according to Piaget-retaining wholeness and integration, ahhough with specific change in integration. Differentiation implies that the new structure wiU be differently organized than previous structures. Further, a developing system or structure differentiates and is organized hierarchically (von Bertalanffy, 1968; Werner & Kaplan, 1956). The whole is separated into parts, each with different form or purpose, coming under the control of superior, governing components of the system (von, Bertalanffy, 1968).

The general direction of work in adult cognition is consistent with this organismic perspective, "development as a recursively constructed nested hierarchy" (Labouvie- Vief, 1982, p. 175). Cognitive structures are reorganized and certain structures are subsumed under certain other structures; a new and qualitatively different integration is forged. Further, an organismic model implies universality and a series of invariant, irreversible, and qualitatively different stages with a closed end point (Ford & Lemer, 1992; Lemer, 1986). The concept of universality (Lemer, 1986) suggests the proposed stages wiU be evident in all populations across time and within ah cultures. The sequence, invariant and irreversible, will unfold whh stage three following stage two without the possibility of stage four being in evidence prior to stages one, then two, then three. QuaUtatively different stages are implied with the idea of development versus change; each stage is qualitatively different due to the change in stmcture. For example, in the process of mastering conservation of liquid, the child creates a cognitive stmcture that is more elaborate and qualitatively different from the previous stmcture.

17 Labouvie-Vief (1982, 1980) and others (Basseches, 1980; Smnott, 1986) propose that the adult also transverses qualhatively, invariantly sequenced, and irreversible stages in a process of development. Aduh stage one is the ability to logically manage one epistemic system. Aduh stage one is comprehensive competence at formal operations. The next stage is to interconnect two systems. These theorists do not believe that stage two can be in evidence prior to stage one. Once stage two is accomplished, the individual may use a previous stage-as an aduh can think concretely yet also be at the formal operational level-ahhough the individual does not loose the ability to use stage two.

As asserted, most preeminent theorists in the field of aduh cognhion (Basseches, 1984, 1980; Blanchard-Fields, 1986; Commons et al., 1989; Kramer,1989a; Labouvie- Vief, 1982, 1980; Siimott, 1989) express preference for an extension of Piagetian theory as the better theoretical framework from which to examine cognitive changes over adulthood, in particular looking for stmctural changes in cognitive organization over the aduh years. In further exploration of aduh thought, foUowing Riegel's (1973) lead, a few (Kramer, 1989a; Sinnott, 1989), and particularly Basseches (1992, 1989), have incorporated dialecticism with a Piagetian perspective. Assimilation and accommodation together may be considered a dialectic process and Piaget spoke of dialecticism. Yet, Vuyk (1981a, 1981b) states that Piaget's dialecticism is not the dialecticism of Hegel and Marx. The Piagetian conflict of assimilation and accommodation only improves one's perception of the real worid.

Dialecticism—the dialecticism that Riegel suggests—brings in an idea of the argument or dialogue between components; argument here implies a contradiction; this leads to a new reality. Movement back and forth between elements achieves a synthesis and a new stmcture. This new stmcture is not merely a better perception of some concrete reality, a new reality is forged. Further, the new stmcture or reality produces

18

'l~- )4i^^^^^Hi^^^l^Baaii^^BHBE3naie^eAH conflict with a renewed necessity for synthesis. For purposes here, cognitive stmctures are continually transformed by incorporating contextual variables and eventually emotional perspectives with the existing stmcture as the individual attempts to understand self, persons, and events in the outside world. Therefore it follows, theorists and researchers working in the area of adult cognitive development have attempted to combine Piagetian theory and dialectics with no firm commitment to reversible operations (Piaget, 1968). Here we refer to operational reversibility (Vuyk, 198lb) as the ability to return or undo. In a dialectical process it is not possible to undo because what evolved was due to context, and paths would not be identical as required by Piagetian reversibility. This contradiction has not been resolved, with preeminent researchers in aduh development retaining a Piagetian adherence to stages up to and through formal operations. Addhionally, General System (von Bertalanffy, 1968) terms have been introduced as important concepts in explication of cognitive changes over adulthood. General System concepts fit weU with what has been proposed for aduh cognitive development. The ideas of wholeness and evolving stmctures resuhing in new integration are suhable to what is being put forward by theory/research in adult cognitive development. Too, this appears appropriate as Piaget (1980a, 1980b) himself began to use system language toward the end of his life. Thus, present theory/research incorporates Piagetian theory whh General System ideas and dialectic categories. Whh no overriding theory in place at this time, the practice has been to develop theory and apply h to research routines. Typically, a theorist and her/his students test the theorist's conceptual framework, with little cross validation from outside investigators. What follows is an examination of what has transpired over the last few years in actual practice.

19 An Admixture of Theory and Empirical Research A common startmg point or incipient inspiration for work in aduh cognitive development appears to be a symhesis of Riegel's (1975, 1973) proposed dialectical operations and Perry's (1981) research findmgs, both wedded to neo-Piagetian frameworks. Perry's work reveals change m thinking processes of students over the course of their college years. Interviewmg students during their four years at Harvard, Perry finds that in the early years, certain teens think in absolutistic terms with fixed ideas about tmth or untmth. Later the same subjects adopt a relativistic stance, a belief that all knowledge is subjective. Progressively the students become aware of the relative nature of'tmth'. Once individuals are aware that there are muhiple ways to interpret reaUty, by Perry's framework, young aduhs become 'committed' to particular choices. The recent cognitive frameworks are not completely m line with Perry's work, although each new conceptualization focuses on the relative nature of tmth The newer frameworks expand the definition of relative tmth (a complete explanation of this is covered below) Perry's work, it must be remembered is important for an impetus h gave, motivating further research

Riegel's work is equally pivotal to recent models of adult cognhion. He suggests that dialectical processes underiie stmctural changes in all cognitive patterns. For Riegel, awareness of a particular contradiction is the first step toward resolution which brings about the next cognitive pattern or stmcture. The dialectical mechanism hself appears to be unavailable to the subject in the beginning—the contradiction is recognized, but not the process by which the contradiction is addressed. Riegel suggests that in later stages, the aduh becomes aware of the dialectical process. Noting this inability of some subjects to be aware of the dialectical process, a relatively small group of theorists/researchers interested in aduh cognition begin with Riegel's proposals and

20 fashion theories of aduh development and suggest prototypes to describe mature

thought It has been the practice for researchers/theorists to mainly work alone, except for the help of their graduate students. However, there are commonalties between the different conceptual frameworks. Researchers/theorists have a propensity to define the later stages of adult cognition using different terms. In addhion, identical terms are used in contradictory ways. As example, Basseches and Kramer use the term 'relativistic' to describe their second aduh stage, and Sinnott uses relativistic operations as the term for her last stage. Sinnott defines relativistic operations very much in line with Basseches' and Kramer's dialectic cognition, their third stage. Labouvie-Veif s terms for three adult cognitive stages are very different from other work. Yet, her explanations and descriptions of the stages are essentially equivalent to stages proposed by other theorists. Kramer, Kahlbaugh, and Goldston (1992) note that the comparatively new frameworks have three themes in common: "(a) awareness of the relativistic nature of knowledge, (b) acceptance of contradiction, and (c) integration into the dialectical whole" (p. 180).

What follows is a brief description of major work in the field of aduh cognhion. Since major contributors have taken on the job of both theorist and researcher, then* theory will be outlined, then their empirical work will be presented.

Basseches Conceptual Model. Building heavily upon the dialectical nature of what he sees as mature cognition, Michael Basseches (1984, 1980) was one of the earlier theorists to suggest processes by which adults reach the later stages of mature thought. Basseches' conceptualization focuses on the dialectical nature of mature adult thought and is closely aUgned with Riegel's writings. He proposes a model of adult cognition that is dependent upon implementation of the dialectic which unfolds or evolves over time. The Basseches

21 (1984) model begins with an extension of a Piagetian framework and proposes two stages or styles of thought for the young adult and a third stage for the mature thinker which includes dialectic aspects. Universalistic formal thinking and relativistic thinking precede any evidence of dialectical thought. The universaUstic formal thinker (Basseches, 1984) sees fixed universal tmths and a universal order. If one has enough information, the one tme answer can be uncovered. Abstract descriptions and formal logic appeal to the universalistic thinker. Scientific inquiry is meant to discover and describe order in the universe and give answers that fit this order. Life, the universe, and material phenomena follow schemes of universal order. Imprecision, subjectivity, or relativistic thinking are too messy for the universalistic formal thinker. The relativistic thmker, who is in the second stage, according to Basseches (1984), sees knowledge as highly subjective. An individual at this level of cognition assumes that there is not one universal order. Reality is capable of being ordered or defined in a variety of ways by various groups or cultures, accordmg to the relativistic thinker. The purpose of science is to see the utility of disparate orderings and generously appreciate diversity. Lastly, the mature thinker, according to the Basseches (1984) model, is aware of transformations occurring with the generation of contradictions. This third ahemative is a middle course between absolute tmth of universalistic formal thinking and relativistic thinking. The dialectic thinker does think relativisticly and does use universalistic formal logic, but in a new way. The dialectical thinker focuses on 'WiQ process oifinding and creating order in the universe" (p. 11). All inclusive ordering is not possible, ahhough creating more powerful orderings which center on what has been ignored in present orderings is legitimate. Reflection for a dialectical thinker is the process of taking one idea, then reflecting upon hs opposhe or reflecting upon what is left out. The dialectical

22 thinker thus becomes aware of the process of inquiry. This awareness is what distinguishes the dialectical thinker from individuals at previous stages in the Basseches framework. Basseches' measurement instmment attempts to uncover the path by which an individual arrives at dialectical thinking. Basseches (1984) proposes 24 identifying patterns divided into four schemata (motion-oriented schemata, form-oriented schemata, relationship-oriented schemata, meta-formal schemata) that characterize the dialectical thinker. Motion-oriented schemata reveal that the thinker becomes aware that a thought moves from the new thought to what is left out of the idea to a synthesis of the two. It is an awareness of the process of generating alternatives, moving back and forth between an abstraction and what is left out, that distinguishes one attuned to motion-oriented schemata. As example (Basseches, 1984), ".. I think what I think about broad issides like the nature of education is a function of the practical contexts in which I have to articulate what I think, and h is very likely heavily shaped by the question that is being dealt with" (p. 97). An individual using form-oriented schemata will locate an element within the whole of which it is part. This individual assumes a contextual relativism, ahhough not identical to relativism describe at the relativistic stage. At the relativistic stage anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's. As the mature thinker begins to use form-oriented schemata, judgments will be made. One of Basseches' (1984) examples of this schema is of a professor who asserts that a "grade by hself doesn't mean anything. It only means something whhin the context of input during the course of the student's development..." (p. 108). The difference in an individual thinkmg dialectically and one using a relativistic poshion is that the dialectical thinker is willing to take a poshion. By relationship-oriented schemata Basseches (1984) implies that a dialectical thinker is aware of and conceptualizes the nature o^ relationships between ideas or

23 phenomena m the material world. Phenomena are ehher related or separate; if two things are separate Umitations derive as a result of viewing them that way. As example, "Education can't be independent of society and education can't be a separate institution which trains children in a way different from society, because it is society, and it is a part of society, and h will never be able to function independently of society" (p. 115). In sum, relationship-oriented schemata give evidence that the thinker pays attention to relationships by stating their existence or acknowledging the difficulties when ignoring relationships.

Basseches' (1984) meta-formal schemata are coordinating schemata that integrate movement-, relationship-, and form-orientated schemata. "This perspective views forms in a larger context which includes (a) relationships among forms, (b) movement from one form to another (transformation), and (c) relationships of forms to the process of form- constmction or organization" (p. 122). At the meta-formal level the individual has put the dialectical process together in an organized way. Dialectical transformations progressively evolve, are qualitatively distinct from, and stmcturally transformed from, previous cognitive stmctures. Knowledge advances, is interdependent, yet contradictive by this model. Empirical Findings. Basseches' (1984) research employs an instmment he devised which identifies the 24 patterned movements in thought. The Dialectical Schemata (DS) consists of 24 descriptions which Basseches clahns can be matched to statements made by respondents in interview data. He originally interpolated schema from writings of "mature thinkers" and later augmented the original profile with pilot interviews. Schemata 1 through 8 identify motion-oriented thought; schemata 9, 10, and 11 identify form-oriented thought; schemata 12 through 15 identify relationship-oriented thought; and schemata 16 through 24 identify meta-formal thought. The DS framework is carried out by first interviewing a subject, then coding the interview for the specific schemata.

24

«=;^r • ^iii..~i" Basseches employed the help of a first year graduate student to code the initial interviews. The focus of preliminary work (Basseches, 1984) was interviews of 27 participants from a coUege population, nine freshmen, nine seniors, and nine faculty members- selected by "random sample" (p. 156). Resuhs indicate that the mean number of dialectical schemata that were cleariy present, according to reported results (Basseches, 1980), increased from 5.22 for freshmen, and 8.78 for seniors to 12.89 for faculty. Further, the mean number of schemata that were clearly absent revealed an opposite trend from 9.56 for freshman, and 6.56 for seniors to 3.89 for faculty. Basseches concludes that the DS is senshive to differences among interviews and that post-formal operational thinking is increasingly used by older subjects.

In an unpubUshed research study, Olsen, Basseches, and Richards (Basseches, 1984) assessed subjects' preference for a dialectic argument over a non-dialectic argument on 12 pairs of arguments. The researchers recmhed 10 freshmen, 10 seniors, and 10 second year graduate students from the CoUege of Human Ecology at Cornell University. First the subject had to demonstrate, in their own words, that they understood both arguments, then make a choice between the two. Comprehension was scored on a 3 point scale, with 0 indicating incomprehension, 1 indicating partial comprehension, and 2 indicating full comprehension. Means for the dialectical arguments were 13.5 for freshmen, 15.1 for seniors, and 18.7 for the graduate students. A one way analysis of variance revealed significant differences between the three groups' comprehension of dialectical arguments (F (2,27) = 4.38, p<.02). Basseches beUeves these scores support a contention that dialectical thinkers "...would appreciate the greater equilibrium and power which a dialectical level of cognitive organization provided, and would therefore tend to view arguments containing elements of dialectical thinking as a more sophisticated arguments" (Basseches, 1984, p. 172). Older students

25

»Stf~ ~ *?!. ~u • ~- . v:..-;^-;^- . „ ii ill lllllMjl iM m^m^r^^^cv

performed at higher levels of comprehension than younger student; although, education is confounded with age. It is unpossible to assess which variable is at work. Basseches' (1989, 1984) empuical work is limited by lack of an appropriate sample and the difficuhy with which his measure is administered and coded. He interviewed undergraduate coUege students, comparing them to professors. This confounds age with education, and we are left without confirmation of a tmly age-related phenomena. The importance of Basseches' work is that later researchers, following his lead, have developed measures (Kramer, Kahlbaugh, & Goldston, 1992; Sinnott, 1989) that more easily reveal and delineate aduh stages similar to those he proposes.

Credit must be given to Basseches for he is one of the first researchers to systematically design a measurement instmment and test a population for cognitive stmctures beyond those of formal operations. Following Basseches' initial work, several noted researchers/theorists took up work on adult cognition. The practice has been for each to build upon a Piagetian framework, then forge their own adult model of cognition. Often their stages have a great deal in common with variations on a dialectical scheme, although terms maybe somewhat different. One of the first to quickly foUow Basseches was Gisela Labouvie-Vief (1982, 1980). The levels or stages of cognition in her conceptual framework are defined in systemic terms, although the basic concepts of Labouvie-Vief s constmction do not deviate substantially from Basseches and others working m the area of aduh cognition. However, Labouvie-Vief makes a unique contribution in her concept of a reincorporating of self

Labouvie-Vief G Labouvie-Vief (1982,1980) discovered what she believed to be a more realistic kind of thinking in her older respondents compared to her younger respondents. The mature thinker contextualizes or places material phenomena whhin the context in which

26 I ¥ 111 • ill fc • wwn

h exists. The context mcludes social reality and the emotional reality of the thinker. Where the younger person may look for the most logical solution, the mature thinker, taking context into consideration, will look for an effective solution. Mature cognition is accompUshed, by the Labouvie-Vief model, in a series of three stages. The first stage is an elaboration and culmination of formal operational thinking.

Conceptual Model. The first stage, by the Labouvie-Vief (1982, 1980) prototype, is characterized as the intrasystemic level. At an intrasystemic level the individual has mastered formal operations. At a time when formal operations become fully fianctional in late adolescence or early adulthood, tmth is considered unchanging and universal, and the intrasystemic thinker understands relationships whhin a single system. System here is a coherent set of relationships. The individual is capable of, in fact very proficient with, hypothetical thought within one system of possible systems. The expression or manifestation of this stage can be found in the young college student who sees the world in black and white terms or believes that absolute tmth exists somewhere in the world (Kuig, 1992; Kitchener, 1983; Kitchener & King, 1981). The archetype of intrasystemic thinking is the college student (Perry, 1981) who can not contextualize and must find or produce a correct answer. Perry's research revealed that when asked a question with no obviously correct answer, some students become restless and uneasy. King (1992) describes this stage as one in which a young respondent tends to look to an authority figure for the correct answer.

Labouvie-Vief s (1982, 1980) second aduh stage is intersystemic thinking. The intersystemic thinker understands that there are many intellectual perspectives in a changing reaUty (Labouvie-Vief, 1982), and that tmth is tmth only within a particular system. There is no tmth with a caphal "T" (King, 1992). Individuals at the intersystemic level will be more likely than individuals at the intrasystemic level to concede that more than one 'right' answer to a problem or situation exists. King's (1992)

27 empirical research with coUege students exemplifies this stage when they arrive at the conclusion "that knowledge is contextual and answers are contingent" (p. 8). The valid is discriminated from the mvaUd or less valid. By Labouvie-Vief s model, the mdividual is jugglmg more than one reality system, thus, mtersystemic.

At the third level, Labouvie-Vief proposes that an mdividual will become proficient at intersystemic thought and in a final step toward mature thought begin to reintroduce self, combining cognition with emotion. This is her last cognitive level, the autonomous stage. The autonomous thinker sees her/his own role in the creation of a personal reaUty and/or tmth. Tmth is seen as a product of social, historic, and personal circumstances and propensities. According to Labouvie-Vief, a new cognitive stmcture is formed at the autonomous level with the ability to integrate 'subjective criteria' or emotion with reasoning. The process is a re-centration. Re-centration is a step in opposhion to decentration when the individual learned to take a position of an outside other. The infant views the world as if she/he were the center of the universe and is thus centrated (Piaget, 1980b, 1955). Somethnelater during the period of concrete operations, the child decentrates and is able to take another person's point of view. According to Labouvie-Vief, the adult wUl re-centrate and acknowledge her/his own emotional point of view in cognitive endeavors. The mind-body 'problem' (Bunge, 1964; Popper, 1994; Popper & Eccles, 1977) or integration is solved, according to Labouvie- Vief^ with an integration of thought with emotion

At the autonomous level the individual reintroduces the self to the cognitive system. Not only does the thinker contextualize the circumstances surrounding a problem or situation, she/he acknowledges her/his own subjective role in the process. The abUity to integrate emotion with other cognitions is the role of mature adulthood and the ultimate stage in adult cognition for Labouvie-Veif. The poshion is not an 'I

28 know myself; it is rather a realization of the subjective nature of all knowledge and the knower's responsibiUty for creating elements withm any particular reality.

Empirical Findings. Labouvie-Vief and colleagues (Blanchard-Fields, 1986; Labouvie-Vief, DeVoe, & BuUca, 1989; Labouvie-Vief, Hakim-Larson, DeVoe, & Schoeberiein, 1989; Labouvie-Vief & Blanchard-Fields, 1982) use in-depth personal interviews to test her model (Labouvie-Vief, 1982, 1980). Dilemmas are presented to respondents and their answers recorded on video and audio tapes and later rated. A pregnancy dilemma is used where a young woman must decide, given her options, what she wiU do about being pregnant and unmarried. A second task involves a divided country. North and South Livia, that is at war. The North has just won a major battle and has announced victory; the South proclaims that this is a minor setback. The subject is to explain discrepancies in the two interpretations. Blanchard-Fields (1989, 1986) bases her work on Labouvie-Vief s framework. Interviewing 60 participants ranging in age from 14 to 46, she divided participants in the foUowing way: adolescents 14 to 16.5 years of age, young aduhs 20 to 25 years of age, and mature aduhs 30 to 46 years of age. She reported education levels for the three groups as foUows: M = 9.4 for the adolescents, M = 15.4 for the young aduhs, and 18.3 for the mature adults. Each group was composed of 10 males and 10 females. Blanchard-Fields uses the Livia task, the pregnancy dilemma, and for this project, added a visit-to-grandparents cow/7/c/—should the teen aged son be required to accompany the family on a visit to the grandparents' home. Interviews were scored based on the Kitchener and King (1981) "scoring schemes" (Blanchard-Fields, 1989, p. 75). (The Kitchener and King postformal reasoning levels are described in Endnote 2.) Blanchard- Fields (1989) relates the six levels of the Kitchener and King model to the Labouvie-Vief framework in the following way: Level 1 corresponds to intrasystemic thinking. Level 5 corresponds to intersystemic thinking, and Level 6 corresponds to autonomous thought.

29 i.'i- Li.A*«j-fTjrT^

On the three tasks, Blanchard-Fields found that only the middle-aged aduh group received a level 6 score, with 39 percent scoring between levels 2 to 3 and 61 percent scoring above level 3. This was in contrast to adolescents, 84 percent of whom scored between levels 1 to 3 and only 16 present scored above level 3. Sixty-one percent of the middle-aged adults scored above level 3 while only 36 percent of the young adults scored above level 3. Blanchard-Fields concludes that this reveals progressive steps toward "create(ing), recognize(ing), and coordinate(ing) independent systems in complex relations..." (Blanchard-Fields, 1989, p. 88). Assuming there is equivalency as Blanchard-Fields suggests between the Kitchener and King model and Labouvie-Viefs levels of cognition, Blanchard-Fields' research supports a claim that mature adults, in this highly educated sample, organize cognitive schema differently than younger respondents.

Further support for the Labouvie-Vief model comes from work carried out by Labouvie-Vief and colleagues. It will be remembered that Labouvie-Vief s autonomous stage centers around an integration of cognition and emotion. She describes this last stage as one in which the subject re-centers on self Labouvie-Vief (1982) uses the term re-centration. The problem for the child, by Piaget's framework, is centration or the inabUity to visualize the 'mountain' from another's point of view. Once the chUd understands that another person has a different perspective, she/he decentrates. In later stages the child leams to take her/himself out of the problem. Formal operations requires that the individual focus on a task and systematically elimmate incorrect answers; self is unimportant or considered to be held constant. Labouvie-Vief s last stage requh-es that the adult re-introduce subjective self as part of reality or actuality. Emotion and how one incorporates one's emotions as real entities in a conceptualization of reality is important to her framework. She and her students have investigated emotion and self-regulation in two separate studies.

30 Labouvie-Vief and coUeagues (Labouvie-Vief, Hakim-Larson, DeVoe, & Schoeberiein, 1989), in a preUminary project on emotion and self-regulation, test the idea that components of autonomous cognition are an awareness of one's emotions and the abilhy to temper emotional moods. This study utUized mterview data from subjects aged 11 to 67. Twenty-eight respondents were divided mto three groups: 11-18, 19-45, and 46-67. The significant findings from this study reveal that the younger group differs from the two adult groups on emotional understanding, emotional control, and overall emotion level, at least for this sample of "weU-educated and high socioeconomic individuals" (p. 288). Labouvie-Vief claims that younger participants submerge or ignore their own subjectivity and cUng to authority, dogma, or the support of others.

This particular project is preliminary, according to the authors, and I would have to criticize the age groupings and smaU sample size. At the time, Labouvie-Vief s expectation was that the change toward autonomous thought began around 45 years of age; more recent research has modified that expectation. Presently, 19-year-olds would not be grouped with 45-year-olds. In a similar but separate study, Labouvie-Vief and colleagues (Labouvie-Vief, DeVoe, & Bulka, 1989) suggest that cognitive complexity is at least in part due to increasing age. The research sample was highly educated. All respondents, with the exception of three women, were college graduates. The sample was middle-class—83% whh family income of over $40,000. Seventy-two participant, six females and six males in each group, were divided into age groups: preadolescent (10-14), adolescent (15-18), young aduh (19-29), aduh (30-45), middle-aged adult (46-59), and elderly aduh (60-77). Each participant was interviewed and asked to describe four emotional states they had experienced in the past, anger, sadness, fearfulness, and happiness. Interview data on the four emotions were coded on two dimensions, emotional understanding and emotional control. Scores were assigned, by the Labouvie-Vief model, as follows: 1 for

31 presystemic responses, 2 for intrasystemic responses, 3 for intersystemic responses, and 4 for mtegrated responses. Scores were averaged across the two themes for each participant, e.g., the score for emotional understandmg and the score for emotional control for happmess resulted m a 'happiness' score. AddhionaUy, each participant was assigned an overaU emotion level by averagmg aU of her/his scores. In addhion to the interview data, ego level was assessed using Loevinger and Wessler's 1978 Sentence Completion Test of ego development. Verbal abiUty was assessed using a subscale of the Wechsler Adult IntelUgence Scale. Coping devices were assessed usmg Lazams and Folkman's 1984 Ways of Copmg and Gleser and IhUevich's 1969 Defense Mechanism Inventory.

Resuhs mdicate that the main effect of age was significant for the four emotions, anger, p <.001, sadness, p <.001, fear, p <.001, and happiness, p <.00l. Post-hoc tests revealed that two aduh groups, those aged 30-45 and those aged 46-59, differed from adolescents; although, these two aduh groups did not differ significantly from each other. The 46-59 year old group reach higher 'overall emotion' levels, by the Labouvie-Vief scale, than aU other groups. Further, aduhs around middle-age, individuals 45-59 and 30-44, achieved the highest scores on emotional understanding for three emotions, anger, fear, and happiness. Participants in the older age group, individuals 60-77, scored more like participants in the young aduh group, individuals 19-29. In general, "those who describe emotions in a more mature manner are middle-age, have higher verbal abUity and higher ego level..." (Labouvie-Vief, DeVoe, & Bulka, 1989, p. 434). Here Labouvie-Vief is equating emotional maturity with higher scores on her scale.

By the Labouvie-Vief model at around 40 years of age, individuals are said to integrate cognitive and emotional systems in a more profound manner than younger individuals. She describes this idea as a kind of re-centration. Therefore, Labouvie-Vief

32 and her students expect to find measurable changes m the way middle-aged participants interpret their emotional experiences.

In evaluating these findmgs, h must be conceded that higher verbal ability and higher ego level, not merely age, are contributing factors when examining how individuals portray personal emotions. Resuhs indicate that verbal ability and ego level are positively correlated with higher scores on the Labouvie-Vief scale. This simply suggests further work must be done to tease out valid contributors to emotional maturation. Is h age or other abiUties such as ego strength and/or verbal ability that promote emotional maturity as h is defined m this research?

SinoDtl J. Sinnott is another important contributor to the investigation of adult thought processes. Her (Sinnott, 1989) purpose as she defines h is to extend Basseches' model and find support for a final stage of aduh cognition. Using simple everyday problems, she gives her respondents opportunities to solve dilemmas, some of which are rightly solved by the use of formal operations; other problems within the group should be contextualized. Her findings suggest that younger subjects tend to apply a formal operational approach to all problems. Mature mdividuals contextualize, produce many more solutions, and finaUy at about 40 year of age, individuals begin to self-reference and do what Sinnott refers to as 'over burdening the problem'. She means by this that 40 year olds, when compared to younger individuals, are aware of many more possibilities for describing and solving every day problems. By self-reference Sinnott is referring to something akin to what Labouvie-Vief describes as the autonomous stage; self-reference is the process of acknowledging the position of the knower in any solution.

Sinnott's (1981) model is somewhat based on ideas from relativity theory and quantum mechanics My understanding of the 'new physics' is that when attempting to

33

••n . M describe a vector m space, one must describe both position and speed or momentum. Momentum and position are relative to each other. If one concentrates on position and ignores momentum, relevant information is lost; the converse is also tme. Further, to some extent the scientist her/his-self creates both poshion and momentum in reference to matter. It is Sirmott's suggestion that only at the time when individuals are capable of putting themselves in the poshion of the scientists who understand that they themselves create the universe for themselves is the respondent actually using postformal cognition. Conceptual Model Sinnott supports Basseches' model m that h is her understandmg that developing individuals progress through formalistic levels of change in thought processes. Formal operational thought becomes increasingly formalistic by the Sirmott model. She includes significant abUhies described by the Basseches model, such as his universal formalistic and relativistic stages, in late formal operations. She adds only one postformal stage to a Piagetian framework. She calls her fifth stage relativistic operations. Sinnott's (1984) relativistic operations orders formal systems. She defines this as a "system of stmctured systems relativisticaUy appUed" (p. 307). The important term is relativisticly. This is not the relativistic stance in Perry's scheme where everyone has a poshion no better than the next. Relativistic by Sinnott's framework is rather an understanding of the contradictory nature of social life, not that every opinion has validity. As example, she maintains that persons, events, or material phenomena are "potentially embedded in several mutually contradictory systems" (p. 307). The mature person is aware of the contradictions and can make choices whhin those contradictions. Added to this, Sinnott (1989) see the mature thinker as able to put her/his self back into the loop. In formal operations one must take oneself out of the loop, step out of the situation and see things 'objectively'. Only in a later stage does an individual put her/himself back into the configuration. For Sinnott, this is the abUity to self-reference

34 and acknowledge one's own role in the creation of a reality. Smnott equates this abiUty to the scientist who reaUzes that she/he creates ideas of space, mass, and momentum. Empirical Findings. Sinnott's (1984) data are interviews based on the respondent's answer to six everyday problems and one problem that is correctly solved at the formal operational level. The problems are described in Chapter III of this work. The instmctions are to think of as many solutions to the problem as the respondent can describe. In one study she (Smnott, 1984) grouped her respondents by decade, 7 in their twenties, 10 in their thirties, 10 in their forties, 11 in their fifties, 18 in their sixties, 19 in theu- seventies, and 5 in theh" eighties. Findmgs reveal that the 40 to 69 year olds produce the most solutions. Further there was a steady, ahhough not uniform, increase in self-referential statements. That is, beginning with a 41-year-old and up to a 71-year- old, a select number of respondents, with mcreasing age, produced more and more self- referential statements, although other individuals of similar ages produced no more self- referential statements than younger participants. Sinnott reports that her data indicate that youthful respondents are best at data gathering, and learning with a narrow focus. Problems are viewed m abstract and noncontextual terms by her younger participants. The mature thinker is best at organizing information in context. Unconscious processes are important to the mature thinker with an emphasis on syntheses and monitoring decisions. In very old respondents, Sinnott picked up indications of low energy and memory deficits. The older person pays little attention to data and looks to an effective process by which to handle a problem.

Sinnott shares with Labouvie-Vief the contention that an incorporation of subjective self, referred to earlier after Labouvie-Vief as re-centration, is a step toward more elaborate, higher level, thinking. Smnott, as Labouvie-Vief does also, agrees with Basseches that important steps in higher levels of cognition come whh the abUity to

35

hfa^^m* -/< « i.zi..i3i'^m

move back and forth, m a fluid manner, between wholes, and parts, and integrations or relationships of wholes to parts. The mature thinker is also aware of negation or what is left out and hs impact on the phenomena under consideration. For Sinnott this is the abUity of relativistic operations. For Labouvie-Vief this describes the autonomous thinker. For Basseches this is fully realized dialectic thinking. The apparent similarities between Labouvie-Vief, Sinnott, and Basseches in work in postformal operations are commented on by Kramer, Kahlbaugh, and Goldston (1992).

Kiamei As Kramer and coUeagues (1992) note, there is some theoretical commonality whhin primary approaches of the more prominent frameworks. The more feasible theoretical models assume the aduh or late teenager reaches formal operations, then begins the progression into more aduh ways of thinking. First comes thorough elaborations of formal operations, then the next step into cognitive adulthood comes whh a realization of the relativistic nature of knowledge, this stage is later followed by dialectic thinking. Kramer keeps v^th this perspective and includes much of what is contained in previously cited models. Kramer has not been particulariy innovative in her conceptual framework, choosing instead to work whhin existing frameworks proposed by Basseches, Labouvie-Vief and Sinnott. Kramer's major contribution to the field of postformal operations is a questionnaire she and colleagues (Kramer, Kahlbaugh, & Goldston, 1992) developed that appears to capture postformal ways of thinking. The questionnaire is administered using paper and pencil and is an improvement over interview techniques. The Social Paradigm Belief Inventory (Kramer, Kahlbaugh, & Goldston, 1992) assesses four paradigmatic beliefs by revealing how respondents think about people, relationships, and social institutions. Kramer suggests that the beUefs are associated with mechanistic,

36

M—wpa'j^^jjee'ij. ^>^>>MI —~at>i

absolutistic, relativistic, and dialectical ways of thinking, and these beliefs have been shown to change in a systematic way across the life span. The Social Paradigm Belief Inventory (SPBI) is comprised of 56 statements about the social worid with participants respondmg on a LUcert-type scale. The 56 items are divided with 14 statements representing one of four views about the worid, formistic, mechanistic, relativistic, or dialectical. The formistic and mechanistic scales together make up the absolutistic paradigm, Kramer's first aduh cognitive level, and the relativistic and dialectic scales each represent theu^ respective paradigms. The SPBI has proven to have suhable reUabUity and validity (Kramer, Kahlbaugh, Goldston, 1992); these are described m Chapter III of this work. Resuhs on the SPBI compare favorably to interview data where the SPBI has been able to predict resuhs obtained by interview methods. This instmment appears promising but as yet has not been widely used. Conceptual Model. Kramer's (1983) conceptual model closely follows Basseches' model with slightly different terminology; plus she incorporates a considerable number of Labouvie-Vief s concepts m her framework. She cites both Basseches and Labouvie- Vief in explanation of her conceptual levels. Kramer's first stage is absolutistic thinking. For an individual at this stage, the world is permanent and invariant. Any contradiction is seen as the resuh of insufficient information. Her description includes references to Labouvie-Vief s intrasystemic level and Basseches universal formalistic stage.

Relativistic thinking is Kramer's second stage. This label is identical to Basseches' second stage and best described by Benack's concepts of multipUcity-"muhiple criteria of tmth or value; multiple "tmths" generated by different perspectives, all having partial vaUdity" (Benack, 1984, p. 348). Knowledge is based in changing circumstances and as cbcumstances change, so does one's concept of reality. At this point in a person's development by Kramer's model, contradictions are irreconcilable. Order can only be

37 imposed when the individual has reached the next step or at the level of dialectical thinking (^dontr, 1983).

The dialectic thinker, described in Kramer's third stage, sees aU phenomena as developing out of ongoing tension. Dialectic wholes-cognitive stmctures-appear momentarily and evolve by new tensions which continually emerge. The mature thinker comes to understand that all phenomena and their opposites are part of an integrated whole. What evolves is an interrelated and intact conceptualization rather than a shift in perception, according to Kramer. This is not a shiftmg back and forth between system one and system two, this is a reaUzation that systems one and two are interrelated and part of a larger whole. Elsewhere Kramer (1989a) refers to this as an integrated mode of thinking. This stage is in Une with, and is described in shnilar terms to Basseches' (1984) dialectic stage. Empirical Findings Early on, Kramer (1983, Kramer & Woodmff, 1986) used interview data and small samples, finding support for relativistic thinking in persons aged 30 to 40. Findmgs suggest that peaks in relativistic thinking emerge during an individual's 40s. Once past mid-forties, respondents show a decrease in their use of relativistic thinking and begin to increasingly adopt dialectic ways of thinking. More recently, Kramer is using the SPBI to mvestigate cognitive development of persons ranging in age from pre-adolescents to 80-year-olds. Her findings with the SPBI are reported below.

As in previous research, the sample used to validate the SPBI (Kramer, Kahlbaugh, Goldston, 1992) was White and middle-class. The sample, consisting of 200 individuals, was divided by age into the foUowing groups; adolescents (high school juniors and seniors), young aduhs (coUege students), middle-aged aduhs (ages 45 to 55), and older aduhs (ages 60 to 75). The mean educational level for each of the four groups was

38 11.49, 13.40, 15.94 and 13.51. The SPBI was administered along with the WAIS Vocabulary Test and Troldahl and PoweU's 1965 Social Dogmatism Scale. Resuhs indicate the means for age groups were in the predicted direction for relativistic and dialectical paradigms with significant effects for statement type. The relativistic trend was negative and the dialectical trend was poshive. That is, the young- adult group was highest on the relativistic paradigm, with increasing age this paradigm was used less. The middle-age group was highest on the dialectical paradigm. These results were expected in that the use of the relativistic paradigm should drop off, and the choice of a dialectical paradigm should increase with age according to proposed theories. Other important findings in this study indicate that there is no age by sex by statement- type interaction. There is no significant difference, by this study, between female and male respondents on choice of paradigm. And further, there are no correlations between statement type and verbal ability; and no correlations between statement type and results from the Social Dogmatism scale. In sum, the SPBI shows discriminant validity with respect to personality measurers and verbal intelligence. The SPBI is tapping into something different than verbal ability. The SPBI relates well, shows convergent validity, to performance on interview assessments. Results from the SPBI fit weU with proposed developmental models. Kramer suggests that the SPBI is an important tool for further study of aduh cognitive development. I tend to agree and have chosen to use the SPBI in this study.

Recap In sum, major researchers/theorists in the field of postformal operations agree that formal operations are fiillyrealized , then cognitive abilities progress from the ability to think abstractly within one system to an abUity to compare two or more systems, and finally, to an understanding of systems of systems situated contextually and subjectively.

39 Adult thinking becomes more elaborate, abstract, and complex. Not only can the adult manage several cognitive systems, the mature adult begins to interrelate systems. Basseches, Labouvie-Vief and Kramer propose three postformal stages. Sinnott, on the other hand, describes one stage that foUows formal operations. Sinnott does not deny that cognitive change is occurring for the young aduh, although by her model, these are merely expansions on formal operations. Basseches, Kramer and Labouvie-Vief describe these changes and posit that the changes consthute two intermediate stages. Three commonalties are notable in postformal theories (Kramer, Kahlbaugh, Goldston, 1992). Fu-st, knowledge is relative. Second, the mature thinker accepts contradictions. This is described as an acceptance of ambiguity, according to the Iherature (Stevens-Long & Common, 1992). Third, there is some sort of integration of the knowledge base mto the dialectical whole. The person will take the responsibiUty of a position. By expUcit definition or in description of a process, a dialectical mechanism underlies each of the models of postformal thought. Contradiction is intrinsic to all knowledge processes, and mature adults are capable of foUowing movement in thought through thesis to antithesis and elaborated and integrated synthesis. Respondents, that is older respondents, are capable of following this process and appear to be aware of doing so. Basseches and Kramer specifically designate the preeminent stage as dialectic thought. Labouvie-Vief s autonomous level is the ability to manage 'systems of systems', and she describes movement back and forth between systems, as Basseches suggests, in dialectic terms. Sinnott (1989) speaks of "...some sort of resolution of contradiction and some coordmation of perspectives..." (p. 241). Further, by the promising models of postformal cognition, knowledge is not a fixed entity; there are no fixed tmths. Knowledge is relative to history, culture, social class, language and the whole host of contingencies that encroach upon knowing. The relative

40 nature of phenomena is part of the conceptual view but without the chaos of the previous poshion where any view has the same value as any other view. Basseches' and Kramer's older respondents place events, phenomena, in cuhural and shuational context. Sinnott and Labouvie-Vief add to these descriptions the recapturing of the subjective self at the last stage. In this they somewhat differ from Kramer and Basseches in describing the full nature of the last postformal stage. Sinnott and Labouvie-Vief would add the knower as a contributing major contingency. The mature thinker is aware of her/his own role in the creation of reaUty by their models. Sinnott defines this as stepping back into the loop. Labouvie-Vief describes this as re-centration. As part of the relative nature of knowledge, the nature of the individual or subjective self certainly contributes to the final product and older respondents acknowledge or are aware of this contribution. In Critique. As always when one prepares to put together a research project, one looks for the flaws in previous research. In agreement, I do believe that empirical work in postformal investigations has uncovered differences, along age categories, in cognitive processes as described, that is researchers find differences by age group in White middle- class, and highly educated respondents. This is also a major flaw in all previous work. Investigations have not included respondents from all socioeconomic levels and from a variety of minority/ethnic groups. Beginning with Basseches' inclusion of college students and their professors, researchers have employed respondents from college populations and others living on and around college campuses. When high school students were included as a comparison group, they were college-bound or 'gifted' students (Arlin, 1989).

Therefore it follows, there is a lack of empirical support for postformal operations from findings with persons from a variety of statuses. This research project is meant to remedy deficits by employing respondents from a lower socioeconomic group and by including persons of Afiican American heritage. Presently h is unknown how persons

41 from economicaUy poorer Ufe circumstances wiU compare on postformal operational measures to more affluent and highly educated persons. If postformal stages are positively correlated with educational level, h may be that persons from lower income statuses and lower educational levels will not perform as well as the more highly educated on measures of postformal thinking. There is also the possibility that the less well educated may perform better than the highly educated. If Broughton is correct in his contention that formal operations is merely in reality the scientific method, then a lower educational level may predispose an individual to reach the postformal levels at eariier ages than the highly educated. It may be that for the highly educated person, formal operations may not be a precursor but an alternate route to relativistic and dialectic cognitions. Further, if in fact postformal stages are closely related to educational level, conceptual frameworks must be reworked. If educational level is positively related to postformal levels of cognition, then theoretical frameworks calling for a stage theory of development must be abandoned. Tme stage theories are built around an idea of universality and invariant progress. Kramer's work revealed no association between verbal ability and postformal paradigms, although her sample was highly educated and economically weU-off; therefore the comparison reveals little or does not answer the question. Comparisons cannot be made at this point in time whhout further research, specifically research that makes an effort to include persons with a variety of educational levels. Issues of the age at which postformal stages appear are not altogether clear by existing research. If it is found that very young respondents from diverse cuhures or statuses show evidence of postformal cognition, this stmcture of thought may not form a stage progression whh respect to formal operations. It is yet to be determined if postformal cognition, as proposed by the present theories, is more elaborate or superior

42 M^uk r—L-.i^-» TaasssaMmmmBomtaamm^mmK^^^^mmma^iarmm

to formal operations or sunply a different cognitive stmcture. Theorists are defining postformal operations as more complex, intricate and perfected than formal operations. Formal operations can only interpret one closed system; postformal stmctures balance systems of systems. The questions of superiority of one cognitive stmcture over another is discussed in several theoretical debates. Jerry Fodor (1980) states that more elaborate thought cannot be produced out of less elaborate thought (see Endnote 3). All thought is equally elaborate as Fodor states and one carmot puU oneself up by the intellectual bootstraps. Conversely, Broughton (1984) suggests that formal operations is not a very elaborate or profound cognitive capability. At the time that Piaget offered his theory of cognitive development, intellectual communities were in the midst of a poshivist revolution. The social sciences were attempting to imitate the physical sciences in the rigor of their methods and aims. Science was going to solve all human problems and the scientific method of investigation was believed to be superior to all other methods. It was inevhable that a similar cognitive practice would be considered superior. Broughton relates the scientific method and formal operations as akin and not very profound processes or ways to think. AU variables and contingencies must be known and capable of being manipulated. According to Broughton, many of Ufe's situations and dilemmas are not solvable from a formal operational procedure. Therefore, I would suggest that it might be found that formal operations is a by-product of scientific-like societies and not necessary to postformal stages as the postformal stages are described by existing theory. Luria has indicated such an association between society or culture and cognitive abilities.

The Impact of Culture Luria (1976) warns that one must not mistake social development for individual human development. Luria believes that individuals from advanced technological

43 societies wiU think more scientifically than individuals from societies in which technology is seldom employed. Formal operations may be a matter of training and exposure to the scientific method. In a similar manner, Labouvie-Vief suggests language stmcture may promote or curtail various cognitive configurations. She, along with others, suggests that Western thought fosters thinking that involves a mind-body duality (Popper, 1994; Popper & Eccles, 1977). Disparate ways of thinkmg may not predispose such a spUt. What these examples imply is that it is the responsibUity of researchers to discover or at least be mindful of the contribution of culture, race, ethnicity, gender and other important contextual variables that contribute to human development, here specifically, cognitive development.

I have suggested that a close reading of Whorf s work with the Hopi language suggests that Hopi natives may think dialectically and/or relativisticly in the course of learning their language. An interpretation of Whorf s (1941) writings suggest that Hopis always thmk relativisticly. Only when they are acculturated into Euro-American society do they begin to think Unearly. There is no such thing as linear time for a Hopi; Hopi exists in the midst of a 'getting later' (Whorf, 1941). I also think that other cultural experiences wUl predispose persons to think in relativistic ways. Features of relativistic thought are that one can cognitively manipulate, compare, and coordinate more than one cognitive system. One is aware that more than one 'tmth' exists and life is inherently conflictual or ambiguous. My suggestion is that minority individuals are put in a poshion that they must deal whh more than one system of tmth. Barth (1969) suggests that minority individuals have three strategies for dealing with minority status. The minority individual may accept second-class chizenship. The minority individual may attempt to 'pass' as a majority citizen. Or, the minority individual may become bi-cultural, embracing native ways and accommodating to the majority culture. On close examination of any of the three poshions, the minority person

44

mmVMJAUJtMMM must acknowledge two cultures, her/his native culture and the majority culture. Often times the two cultures have diametrically opposed tmths. It is the custom for Standard- Average-Europeans to attempt to control nature. Other cultures attempt to cooperate v^th nature. Native American and some Hispanic cultures value "being'; Anglos value 'doing'.

David Sue (Sue & Sue, 1990) writes that minority status does have an impact on world view. And certainly the poshion of second-class citizenship which certain mmorities are forced to assume (Barth, 1969) may impact cognitive level in a particular manner. Bi-cultural individuals accept majority culture norms and attempt to accommodate to these norms, yet, at certain times these individuals wiU embrace native ways, often times embracing thinking that is antithetical to majority cuhural ideals. Barth writes that bi-cultural individuals Uve in two worlds and become proficient at both ways of being. Whether any one individual becomes bi-cultural or simply experiences minority status, it appears possible that such experiences could quickly encourage one to see the relative nature of'tmth'. 'I alone am responsible for my fate.' Torces larger than myself are responsible for my fate.' The majority culture values individuaUty and personal effort. Many minority cultures, with some concrete evidence, contend that one's fate is in the hands of others or a larger force. Accordmg to Barth and others (Helms, 1989; Ponterroto,1987; Sue & Sue, 1990), minority individuals accommodate well to the various demands of two or more cultural outlooks. Anzaldua (1987) succinctly expresses this notion when she writes that mestizas cope by "developing a tolerance for contradictions, a tolerance of ambiguity" (p. 79). It seems probable to me that ethnic minority individuals, by occupying two worlds, would quickly perceive the contextual nature of'tmth'.

45 Further, oppression by the majority group directed toward a minority culture may impose practices that minority individuals see as wrong or hollow, certainly emphasizing the relative nature of what is tme. The minority person, due to oppression and/or the bi- cultural nature of their existence, would appear to be forced into a poshion where she/he would by necesshy acknowledge the relative nature of knowing and acceptance of contradictions—those commonalties of postformal operations (Kramer, Kahlbaugh, Goldston, 1992).

The impact of minority status on postformal ways of thinking has not been assessed. Will it be found that minority status somehow blocks attainment of postformal stages? Or, will mmority status speed one's pathway toward earlier achievement of postformal cognitive levels? As yet, h has not been determined if ehher position has merit. From these critiques come points that can be debated and tested empirically. Individuals from minority cultures in the United States are enculturated by Standard- Average-European norms and additionally these individuals may embrace their specific ethnic norms (Barth, 1969; Ponterotto, 1987; Sue & Sue, 1990). Resuhingly, h is suspected that bi-cultural individuals, those individuals enculturated into two cultures (e.g., Mexican Americans, Native Americans, African Americans), any person from a minority cuhure whhin the United States, may be forced to think in a relative manner at earlier ages than persons from the majority cuhure due to the social pressures placed upon them in managing two cuhures. In order to investigate this suggestion a minority group will be assessed. In an aside, Standard-Average-European (SAE) will be used synonymous with Anglo, White, and persons from the majority culture. It is a term coined by Whorf and h carries whh h the implications of a Western, poshivist's, and Anglo philosophic outlook. It is a term that aptly describes the opposhe of Earth's ideas of'native ways'.

46 To continue, given the empirical support for stages beyond formal operations, I propose that at this time, we have no empirical reason, but do have theoretical or conjectural reasons, to doubt a stage theory of cognitive development with postformal stage and/or stages. Existing theory and research propose and explore levels of cognition beyond Piaget's stages of cognitive development. This paper suggests defichs in existing postformal theories as they are proposed and fissures in existing research. Therefore, I would propose that all possibilities have not been considered. I side with Luria and Broughton. With Luria, I would suggest that the entwined nature of individual development and cultural and or social development has not been disentangled. Like Broughton, I believe that formal operations is not so formal or formidable. Yet, formal operations is an important consideration to this work in that we have long been led to believe that formal operations is the preeminent cognitive stmcture. An important component for further research wiU be determining if formal operations is or is not found in individuals whh diverse cultural and cognitive experiences who also exhibh postformal operations. If formal operations is not found in persons who think postformally, formal operations may not prove central to a stage theory of cognitive development. I propose that research employing individuals who have bi-cultural and ethnic experiences will help provide clues directed at Luria's concern. Does culture or experience play a critical or significant role in the development of cognitive capabilhies described by theories of postformal operations? A Black acquaintance commented that, "we think, not feel, before we talk when we are in the presence of Whites." She was not speaking of necessarily prejudiced groups. She was referring to common place meetings where she feh the need to 'monitor' her 'tmth'. She demonstrates the relative nature of tmth by her caution. I propose that this is the experience of many minority individuals, and that they reach postformal levels of cognhion at earlier ages, when compared to Standard-Average-Europeans, because of such experiences.

47 uwXOHBOHI^a^BBanB^BBH^HBHBDHBMa^HaiHHB

Emem Empirical data, as seen in the Iherature review, supported concepts of predictable cognitive change over aduhhood. Further, researchers detected a re-centering of self- seen in individuals past 40 years of age-within the context of everyday problems. Yet, the Uterature review revealed that existmg research strategies were weak in that only White, middle-class, and highly educated respondents had been assessed. Individuals from lower income statuses and persons from ethnic minority groups had been excluded. This research project sought to begin to address this weaknesses. At this point there is no information as to how working-class Whites or minority persons would perform on measures of postformal cognition. Existing theory suggests, and empirical data supports, an organismic theory of aduh cognitive development. That is, continuing from a Piagetian framework, stages of cognitive development follow formal operations in an invariant sequence. However, within such a sequence it is possible, staying whhin an organismic paradigm, to see variations in ages at which the stages are accomplished. This research proposed to pursue the possibility that cuhural factors would affect timing through the proffered stages. White, middle-class, and highly educated mdividuals enjoy privileged poshions in contemporary society compared with working-class Whites and minority persons, especially African Americans. This research proposed that these differing cultural and social positions would impact the pace at which individuals reached postformal stages. This project examined postformal ways of thinking using a paper and pencil questioimaire. The Social Paradigm Belief Inventory (Kramer, Kahlbaugh, & Goldston, 1992) (SPBI) assesses choices aduhs make concerning ideas about the social world. Sub-scale scores on the SPBI served as the dependent variables. The sample for this study was working-class in contrast to the more highly educated respondents in previous

48 i^rm-inUfciijaM—^^i^^M^^B^MB—i——m^—^^11 >ii II I

studies. Age and ethnicity were the independent variables. Afiican Americans were compared to working-class Standard-Average-European Americans. Additionally, the presence of self-referents (Sinnott, 1991) were determined using questions designed to eUch such responses. Further, this research project included an assessment of formal operations using the Logical Reasoning Test.

Hypotheses Inasmuch as previous research employs highly educated respondents, there was a need for research that looked at a broad spectmm of the population when assessing postformal operations. Luria predicted that environment impacts cognitive processes. Vygotsky's (1931) general law predicted that any function in development appeared twice, first on the social plane then on a cognitive plane. Therefore, h was expected that a variety of variables would impact cognitive development including ethnicity, social and economic class, and of course age. This expectation coupled with the Uterature review prompted the following hypotheses to be made. Hypothesis 1 predicted that SPBI dialectic subscale scores would increase whh age. This prediction was in Une with theory; ahhough, I predicted that African American respondents would choose the dialectic paradigm significantly more than SAE respondents. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 predicted that there would be a significant effect for ethnicity on SPBI dialectic subscale scores. It was suggested that the bi-cultural experience would enhance the minority person's understanding of self and others and the cultural views held by disparate groups. By Earth's (1969) theory, the minority person lacks the luxury of believing that her/his cuhure conveys absolute tmth. The minority person must deal with the tmth of the majority view of the world even though it may be in opposition to her/his native beUef system. It was predicted that an awareness of the

49 constmcted nature of reality by the mmority person would be revealed by the choice of the dialectic paradigm.

In line with previous research, a curvilinear effect was expected on the choice of SPBI relativistic subscale scores. Choice of the relativistic paradigm increased to middle-age, then declined. Hypothesis 3 predicted a negative effect for age on SPBI relativistic subscale scores. Young aduhs did not distinguish between relativistic and dialectic statements on the SPBI (Kahlbaugh & Kramer, 1995), although, middle-aged and older aduhs did distinguish between the two subscales. Older and middle-aged adults in the Kahlbaugh and Kramer study scored the SPBI relativistic subscale significantly lower than younger aduhs scored that subscale. Labouvie-Vief and Shmott proposed a psychological inward move for middle-aged persons that affects cognitive abihties Labouvie-Vief identified this move as a re- centration. Decentration was initiated by the Western philosophical tradition and thus necesshated re-centration at mid-Ufe, according to Labouvie-Vief Sinnott found a similar move at mid-life which she identified by using every-day-problem questions. This study employed three of Sinnott's every day problems and examined participants responses for self-referencing. Thus, Hypothesis 4 predicted that self-referencing would increase whh age. Further, it was predicted by Hypothesis 5 that African Americans would self-reference to a greater extent than SAEs. It was suggested that this is again due to the poshion of minority status experienced by African Americans. I suggested that an awareness of cultural and ethnic differences promoted an examination of self that appeared to be the basis for self-referencing.

As Luria and Vygotsky theorized, technical societies encourage technical-type thinking. Broughton tied formal operations to the scientific method which was a learned skill taught in highly technological society's educational system. Therefore, Hypothesis 6 predicted that formal operations would increase whh higher levels of education. Further,

50 -., - ... --B'^|,|- i^lp; )~..|

if theory was correct suggesting a stage model of adult cognitive development then formal operations should correlate poshively with SPBI dialectic subscale scores. Hypothesis 7 predicted a significant and poshive correlation between formal operations and SPBI dialectic subscale scores.

In line with the theories of postformal operations that have been presented, all participants m the present study, who achieved postformal levels, should score at the formal operations level. Theorists proposed a stage theory of cognitive development which called for a stage and/or stages to foUow formal operations. If postformal levels were reached without evidence of formal operations, these theories may require revisions. If we are to depend upon the proposed postformal theories, formal operations should precede relativistic and dialectic cognitive abihties and formal operations should precede self-referencing. This has not been put to the test. Therefore, Hypothesis 8 predicted a poshive and significant relationship between formal operations and self- referencing.

Significance of the Study The purpose of this research is fourfold. Previous research (Arlin, 1989; Basseches, 1989; Kramer, 1986; Labouvie-Vief, 1985; Sinnott, 1989) in the area of aduh cognition has focused exclusively on White, middle-class, mostly highly educated populations. It follows that a remedy for major deficits in adult cognitive research, or more positively work to be done, is to assess members of diverse populations. First, this work will focuses on individuals from lower income groups and a minority population.

The second purpose is to determine if in fact groups other than highly educated individuals, as found in previous research projects, do reach postformal stages, and if the pattern is similar. That is, relativistic thought follows absolutistic thought and precedes dialectic thought.

51 rriT'Tr>7!—^l^—l^——M^IM^—^ll^^l—BB——^MBM

if theory was correct suggesting a stage model of adult cognitive development then formal operations should correlate poshively with SPBI dialectic subscale scores. Hypothesis 7 predicted a significant and poshive correlation between formal operations and SPBI dialectic subscale scores. In line with the theories of postformal operations that have been presented, all participants m the present study, who achieved postformal levels, should score at the formal operations level. Theorists proposed a stage theory of cognitive development which called for a stage and/or stages to foUow formal operations. If postformal levels were reached without evidence of formal operations, these theories may require revisions. If we are to depend upon the proposed postformal theories, formal operations should precede relativistic and dialectic cognitive abihties and formal operations should precede self-referencing. This has not been put to the test. Therefore, Hypothesis 8 predicted a poshive and significant relationship between formal operations and self- referencing.

Significance of the Study The purpose of this research is fourfold. Previous research (Arlin, 1989; Basseches, 1989; Kramer, 1986; Labouvie-Vief, 1985; Sinnott, 1989) in the area of aduh cognition has focused exclusively on Whhe, middle-class, mostly highly educated populations. It follows that a remedy for major defichs in adult cognitive research, or more positively work to be done, is to assess members of diverse populations. First, this work will focuses on individuals from lower income groups and a minority population.

The second purpose is to determine if in fact groups other than highly educated individuals, as found in previous research projects, do reach postformal stages, and if the pattern is shnilar. That is, relativistic thought follows absolutistic thought and precedes dialectic thought.

51 if theory was correct suggesting a stage model of adult cognitive development then formal operations should correlate poshively with SPBI dialectic subscale scores. Hypothesis 7 predicted a significant and poshive correlation between formal operations and SPBI dialectic subscale scores.

In line with the theories of postformal operations that have been presented, all participants in the present study, who achieved postformal levels, should score at the formal operations level. Theorists proposed a stage theory of cognitive development which called for a stage and/or stages to foUow formal operations. If postformal levels were reached without evidence of formal operations, these theories may require revisions. If we are to depend upon the proposed postformal theories, formal operations should precede relativistic and dialectic cognitive abilities and formal operations should precede self-referencing. This has not been put to the test. Therefore, Hypothesis 8 predicted a positive and significant relationship between formal operations and self- referencing.

Significance of the Study The purpose of this research is fourfold. Previous research (Arlin, 1989; Basseches, 1989; Kramer, 1986; Labouvie-Vief, 1985; Sinnott, 1989) in the area of aduh cognition has focused exclusively on White, middle-class, mostly highly educated populations. It follows that a remedy for major defichs in aduh cognitive research, or more positively work to be done, is to assess members of diverse populations. First, this work will focuses on individuals from lower income groups and a minority population.

The second purpose is to determine if in fact groups other than highly educated individuals, as found in previous research projects, do reach postformal stages, and if the pattern is shnilar. That is, relativistic thought follows absolutistic thought and precedes dialectic thought.

51 ii

if theory was correct suggesting a stage model of adult cognitive development then formal operations should correlate positively with SPBI dialectic subscale scores. Hypothesis 7 predicted a significant and poshive correlation between formal operations and SPBI dialectic subscale scores. In line with the theories of postformal operations that have been presented, all participants in the present study, who achieved postformal levels, should score at the formal operations level. Theorists proposed a stage theory of cognitive development which called for a stage and/or stages to foUow formal operations. If postformal levels were reached without evidence of formal operations, these theories may require revisions. If we are to depend upon the proposed postformal theories, formal operations should precede relativistic and dialectic cognitive abihties and formal operations should precede self-referencing. This has not been put to the test. Therefore, Hypothesis 8 predicted a positive and significant relationship between formal operations and self- referencing.

Significance of the Study The purpose of this research is fourfold. Previous research (Arlin, 1989; Basseches, 1989; Kramer, 1986; Labouvie-Vief, 1985; Sinnott, 1989) in the area of aduh cognition has focused exclusively on White, middle-class, mostly highly educated populations. It follows that a remedy for major defichs in aduh cognitive research, or more positively work to be done, is to assess members of diverse populations. First, this work will focuses on individuals from lower income groups and a minority population.

The second purpose is to determine if in fact groups other than highly educated individuals, as found in previous research projects, do reach postformal stages, and if the pattern is shnilar That is, relativistic thought follows absolutistic thought and precedes dialectic thought.

51 if theory was correct suggesting a stage model of adult cognitive development then formal operations should correlate positively with SPBI dialectic subscale scores. Hypothesis 7 predicted a significant and poshive correlation between formal operations and SPBI dialectic subscale scores.

In Une with the theories of postformal operations that have been presented, all participants in the present study, who achieved postformal levels, should score at the formal operations level. Theorists proposed a stage theory of cognitive development which called for a stage and/or stages to foUow formal operations. If postformal levels were reached without evidence of formal operations, these theories may require revisions. If we are to depend upon the proposed postformal theories, formal operations should precede relativistic and dialectic cognitive abihties and formal operations should precede self-referencing. This has not been put to the test. Therefore, Hypothesis 8 predicted a positive and significant relationship between formal operations and self- referencing.

Significance of the Study The purpose of this research is fourfold. Previous research (Arlin, 1989; Basseches, 1989; Kramer, 1986; Labouvie-Vief, 1985; Sinnott, 1989) in the area of aduh cognition has focused exclusively on Whhe, middle-class, mostly highly educated populations. It follows that a remedy for major deficits in aduh cognitive research, or more positively work to be done, is to assess members of diverse populations. First, this work will focuses on individuals from lower income groups and a minority population.

The second purpose is to determine if in fact groups other than highly educated individuals, as found in previous research projects, do reach postformal stages, and if the pattern is similar. That is, relativistic thought follows absolutistic thought and precedes dialectic thought.

51 A third purpose of the research is to establish whether a select group of individuals from a minority culture Uving withm the United States reach postformal levels at earlier ages than individuals from the majority culture. Do African Americans think relativisticly and/or dialectically at an earher age than members from majority groups? I have speculated that minority mdividuals might think relativisticly at earlier ages due to their mmority or oppressed status m the United States. If this is so, then minority persons will think relativisticly and at earher ages than Whites from previous studies.

A fourth purpose is to check diverse populations for the ability to self-reference as described by Smnott. This is similar to Labouvie-Vief s belief that older individuals began to re-centrate. The abUity to conceptualize that knowledge is built by and for the knower appears to be an important component of wisdom. This study will serve to expand previous findings on postformal cognitive stages. It wiU remedy a gap in the literature by assessing postformal operations and socioeconomic status. It will further begin to bring ethnicity into the debate on postformal levels of cognition and self-referents. The present work is seen as an important addition to this field of inquiry in that h remedies the culturally narrow approach of previous research by including an ethnic minority population. Minority status is an hnportant mediating variable when examinmg cognitive performance. The design of the present research also includes socioeconomic status and educational levels as possible variables which impact cognitive performance.

52 :-5»v.jjf:H

CHAPTER UI METHOD

Participants

An analysis of SPBI data (Kramer et al, 1992) determined that 40 participants per group was necessary to detect significant differences if such differences exist when using this instmment. The design for this study required sk groups; as such, the entire sample consists of 240 respondents ranging in age from 19 to 84, including two ethnic groups and three age categories.

The sample was comprised of 120 African Americans and 120 SAEs. These two main groups were further divided into three age groups with 20 females and 20 males in each group. The age breakdown was as foUows: young African Americans ranging in age from 19 to 23 (M = 21.75, SD.= 119), middle-aged African American aduhs aged 38 to 43 (M = 40.3, SD. = 2.03), older African American aduhs aged 60 to 83 (M = 65.68, SD. = 4.28), young SAEs ranging in age from 19 to 23 (M = 21.48, SD = 1.22), middle-aged SAEs aged 38 to 43 (M = 39.83, SD. = 1.96), and older SAEs aged 60 to 84(M = 66.0,Sn = 6.16). African Americans were self-identified, that is, if they called themselves African American or Black or any other designation denoting such heritage, they are considered to be African American for this project. One African American identified himself as bi- racial, African American and Native American SAEs were identified as such if they designated their heritage as White or Anglo. Typically SAEs identified themselves as White, Anglo or some combmation such as Irish American, Swedish American, or Polish American. All such combinations were counted as SAE in this study.

This project specifically sought working-class participants with personal, not household, incomes of $35,000 or less. The Report on the American Workforce (1997)

53 reports a median income of $35,000 for workers with 'some college' and/or an associate degree. Participants reported personal mcome on a scale of: (1) $0 to $10,000, (2) $10,001 to $19,999, (3) $20,000 to $35,000, (4) $ 35,001 to $45,999, (5) $46,000 to $59,999, (6) $60,000 to $75,000, and (7) $75,001 and above. Data from participants reporting more than $35,000 were not used for this project. The breakdown of income is as foUows: 113 respondents reported income of $10,000 or less, 73 respondents reported income between $10,001 and $19,999, and 51 respondents reported income between $20,000 and $35,000. Three respondents did not report income; one was a tree pmner with a high school education, one was a beautician with a technical degree, and one was a lawn care worker with less than a high school education. It was judged that these individuals fell within the criteria for this project and their data were included for this project. Income by ethnic group is shown in Table 3.1. Crosstabulations of income category by ethnic group revealed that there were no significant income differences

o between African Americans and SAEs, X^ (2, 230) = .20, ns. Also of interest, income differences by gender were found with women earning less income than men (see Table 3.2). Findings for participants in this study might be considered typical of outcomes in contemporary society. Crosstabulations revealed that almost 60% of the females and about 39% of the males earned $10,000 a year or less. This reflects the fact that a few of the respondents were part-time workers (n=33), unemployed (n=49), or homemakers (n=27). Further, only 9.4% of the females in this project earned between $20,000 and $35,000 while 32.8% of the males reported incomes in this category. The Pearson chi-square test for income category by gender was significant, X^ (2, 230) = 19.9, p< .001. This project sought participants who had no more than a technical degree or no more than two years of coUege. Education was broken down into categories as follows: (1) less than a high school degree, (2) a high school degree or GED, (3) some college 54 (up to two years), (4) technical or associates degree or two years of college, (5) more than two years of college—no degree, (6) a coUege degree, (7) a masters degree, (8) a Ph.D., M.D., or J.D. Data from participants reporting more than two years of college were not used for this project. The breakdown of education was as follows: 40 individuals reported that they had less than a high school degree, 84 reported that they had a high school degree, 69 reported that they had some college, and 44 reported that they had a technical or associate degree or had attended college for up to two years. Educational levels differed significantly by age group X^ (6, 225) = 89.59, p <.001 (see Table 3.3). There were more elderly African Americans with less than a high school degree than any other age or ethnic group, ahhough they were closely matched by elderly SAEs whh less than a high school education. When education level was broken- down by ethnic group (see Table 3.4), the groups were very similar X'^ (3, 229) = 1.76, ns. There were no significant differences in educational level by gender for this sample x2(3, 229) = 2.11, n&. The sample for this research was a convenience sample and was obtained by a snowball technique. Individuals were soliched from the Lubbock, Texas, area including smaUer communities in the vicinity. Working-class individuals were sought by contacting employees of beauty shops, fiUing stations, convenience stores, and fast-food restaurants. Family and friends of the chief investigator were asked for names of individuals they employed on a part-time basis, such as tree pmners, handy-persons, or carpet layers. Respondents were asked to suggest names of friends and family that might also participate in this project. Many of the African American respondents were sohched through church related contacts.

55 ±'»mm;sm^mimumm^a^K^^^^^^mi^^^^mmmm^^mama

Procedures

Data were collected over an eight month period from the fall of 1997 through the summer of 1998. Respondents were contacted by the chief investigator or undergraduate students, enroUed m the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Texas Tech University, who were working with the primary investigator. Respondents were contacted, given an explanation that the project involved leammg about how aduhs think about people, social events, and the world, and then the individuals was asked to participate. The respondents were assured that information about them would be held confidential. Participants signed a consent form and were given a packet containing the information sheet, questiormaires, and answer sheets. The packet was left with the respondent, and materials were completed at her/his convenience. Students retrieved the completed packets and then recorded demographic information and SPBI answers on scantron sheets. Each respondent was assigned a identification number which was recorded on each page of the packet. The Logical Reasoning Test was individually scored and was entered on the scantron sheet. The rating for self-referencing was entered on the participant's scantron sheet once the ratings were completed. The scantron sheets were read by computing services at Texas Tech University and recorded as a data file that was used in computations for this project.

Measures Each respondent in this study answered demographic questions concerning age, ethnicity, gender, occupation, and income, and signed a consent form (Appendices A & B). In addition, each respondent completed the following instmments: the Social Paradigm BeUef Inventory (SPBI), a logical reasoning assessment, and three daUy- problem questions-matching six letters by pairs, mixing a cake recipe, and planning a

56 camping trip with six chUdren. These three questions are based on Sinnott's everyday questions that reveal self-referencing.

Information Sheet Each participant answered demographic data on an information sheet (Appendbc A). They recorded the highest education level they had attained. The respondent recorded their approximate personal, not household, income. They answered if they were male or female and Usted their job thle. They were asked their age as one of the first questions and their date of birth lower on the sheet. The participant was asked to identify the number of generations of their family that had been bom in the United States and what they called themselves—with which ethnicity or culture they identified.

Social Paradigm Belief Inventory (SPBI)

The SPBI (Kramer et al., 1992) is a paper-and-pencil self-assessment scored on a LUcert-type scale. The SPBI (Appendix C) is a measure of paradigm beliefs about the social world, beliefs that are expected to develop over the life span. Participants score 56 statements on a six-point scale by indicating: (1) 'strongly disagree', (2) 'moderately disagree', (3) 'slightly disagree', (4) 'slightly agree', (5) 'moderately agree', or (6) 'strongly agree'. Scores are divided into four sub-scales suggesting four social paradigms, formistic, mechanistic, relativistic, and dialectic. Examples for each paradigm are: (1) dialectic—'There can never be a perfect society. This is because every feature of a society carries with it advantages and disadvantages, so that no society has only good points.', (2) relativistic—'There is no one right person for anyone. This is because relationships form on the basis of who's there at the time, whether these people want a relationship, and can make h work.', (3) mechanistic-'Personality is molded in childhood. This is because it's influenced by one's parents, peers, teachers, etc., and once

57 h's formed in this way, h's set.', (4) formistic—'There is a right person for everyone This is because some people just belong together smce they have the same type of personality and as a resuh are perfectly compatible.'

Kramer et al. (1992) reports Cronbach's alpha coefficients of internal consistency to be .60, .78, .83, and .84, respectively, on the formistic, mechanistic, relativistic, and dialectic sub-scales. Test-retest correlations after a 2-week period ranged from .78 to .83.

The SPBI has been predictive of performance (Kramer et al., 1992) when compared with in-depth face to face interview questions posed the researchers. Validhy was assessed (Kramer et al., 1992) by comparing the SPBI sub-scales to answers to 13 interview questions assessing change and reciprocity. "Do you think that the situation will change over time without his/her/their doing anything?" "Is h ever possible to say that one person or event is the cause of what happens in the future?" Examples of the answers to the interview questions are: (1) absolute, "No, because one person doesn't really change. You're really basically what your genes and chromosomes dictate you to be.', (2) relativistic, 'The mere fact that we exist involves change—constant change, every minute.', (3) dialectic, 'Change comes from growth...you can start out whh a set idea...something can happen and how you deal with the thing or how you're affected by it, you might see things differently afterward.' The answers were coded 1 to 6: (I) nonreflective, (2) absolute, (3) transition between absolute and relativistic, (4) relativistic, (5) transhion between relativistic and dialectic, and (6) dialectic. Mean rating scores from this interview process from 160 transcripts were correlated with SPBI total scores. The resuhing correlation of .42 (p < .0001) indicates, according to Kramer, that the questionnaire is a valid indicator of how individuals would go about solving interpersonal problems as assessed by interviews used to indicate postformal levels of thought.

58 ra. ,r rt v^,»^UiS:am

Kramer and colleagues (Kramer et al., 1992) find no significant cortelations between relativistic and dialectical scores on the SPBI and vocabulary scores measured on the WAIS. These researchers measured personality traits using the Social Dogmatism Scale and the Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale, findingn o cortelations between these measures and relativistic and dialectical scores for participants. The researchers conclude that dialectic and relativistic scores on the SPBI are cognitive dunensions and not personality dunensions.

Cronbach's alpha coefficients of internal consistency for this project were .68, .60, .54, and .59 for the formistic, mechanistic, relativistic, and dialectic subscales, respectively. In order to understand the low alphas, several strategies were employed. First, questions from each subscale with the highest cortelations to other questions from that subscale were retained and reliabUities were computed. In a series of three steps in which a reliability coefficient was computed after dropping scores for one question in each subscale to eventually include three questions for each subscale, reliabilities ranged: from .59 to .63 for the dialectic subscale, from .54 to .56 for the relativistic subscale, from .60 to .71 for the mechanistic subscale, and from .68 to .73 for the formistic subscale. This strategy did not result in a noteworthy improvement. Reliabilhies were computed for each ethnic group with no improvement on reliability. Reliabilities were computed for females and males with no improvement on reliabiUty. Reliabilhies were computed for the separate age categories with no improvement on reliability. Therefore, all questions for each subscale were retained for analyses in this project. The issue of reliabiUty on the SPBI for this particular sample is discussed further in Chapter V.

Everyday (>jestions AddhionaUy, respondents were assessed on an instmment devised by Sinnott (1989) to detect self-referents. Sinnott and Labouvie-Vief (1980) assert that the

59 preeminent stage of cognitive development in the adult includes the abUity to reintroduce the self within the dialect process. Sinnott uses simple ordmary scenarios, some of which should be solved by a formal operations procedure and others which are more appropriately solved by including subjective criteria and the introduction of self-identified personal preferences. Shmott refers to this process as self-referencing. Labouvie-Vief identifies this process as a re-centration.

Examples of self-reference coming from Sinnott's work include statements about 'gut-level-reaction' and finding a solution that is self-satisfying. Self-referencing aduhs check process, assumptions, and personal reactions. This is not a poshion where the individual says 'I know myself, it is rather calculating the effect of self knowledge along with other criteria. Shmott interviews participants posing six every day problems. The first problem is a request for the respondent to combine the first six letters of the alphabet by pairs and report the number of pairs; the respondent may use paper and pencil and a cortect answer is scored, if cortect, as the participant being able to solve a formal operational problem. The other five problems are situational problems that one might confront in everyday life, preparing a cake recipe, a work problem involved with assigning duties, planning a camping trip with children, and assigning sleeping artangements with limited beds. Five of the problems are coded for the presence of self-referencing. The respondent's score is the number of questions that show evidence of self-referents. Intertater agreement is reported by Sinnott to range from 85% to 90%.

Self-referents were assessed in this project using three of Sinnott's scenarios (Appendix D). The questions were typed one to each page with space provided to the respondent to write out her/his answer. The respondent was asked to: (I) form pairs of the first six letters of the alphabet, (2) cortect a cake recipe when you realize you have added twice the needed amount of sugar, and (3) decided how many trips it would

60 requh-e to take six children camping if you took only two at a time. Space was left on the paper for the respondent to answer the question In the middle of the page the respondent then was asked to comment on the mental process that allowed them to know they were cortect in their answer.

Self-referents were scored as being 'present or 'no evidence of self-referents'. I chose two female middle-aged acquaintances to score the scenarios with me. These were women who first answered the questions used m this project. On the camping question, one women laughed and replied h was ludicrous, 'most adults could handle more than two chUdren at a time, any way I could... or if you just want a mathematical answer, it is Uke the alphabet question'. She gave a gut reaction, she contextualized the question, and she also mdicated that she could solve the problem mathematically. The second woman 'would throw out the half finishedcak e recipe and start over... flouran d sugar are not that expensive.' On the camping question, the second woman 'would take aU the children to the beach, I don't like camping, or if I must take them camping, I would get my husband to help'. Again, the questions were personalized and contextualized. This woman did, as did the first woman, solve the alphabet problem showing that she could manage a combination problem cortectly. From these answers I determined that both women did self-reference

The two coders were trained by meeting with me after they had read and understood passages of Sinnott's research that I thought were instmctive. The three of us discussed what we each thought Sinnott was conveying and we shared examples of what we thought were important elements of self-referencing. We then scored three sample sets of questions. We negotiated agreement on the three sets; then we separately scored 10 identical sets. After agreement on the 10 sets, I feh confident that we agreed on the criteria for self-referencing. For the final analysis, I scored all 240 sets of questions. The first assistant scored 104 sets and the second assistant scored the

61 remaining 136. Each respondent's set of questions resuhed in one score, 'no self- referencmg' or 'evidence of self-referencing'. Agreement between the first assistant and the chief mvestigator was 87.5%. The second assistant and the chief mvestigator agreed on 92% of the responses. If conclusive agreement could not be reached by two coders, the third coder was consuhed which resulted in 100% agreement. This method of testing the reliability of a coded measure was used by Kramer and Woodmff (1986) and Kramer and Kahlbaugh (1994) and Sinnott (1984).

Logical Reasoning Test

Formal operations was assessed for each respondent using the Logical Reasoning Test (LRT) (Bumey, 1974) (Appendix E). This is a 21-question test which includes questions based on Piaget's balance beam problem, syUogisms, analogies, and conservation problems. The LRT is a multiple-choice test with 15 questions requiring a single answer, two questions requiring two-part answers, and three questions requiring three-part answers. On the two- and three-part questions, the respondent must answer all parts cortectly to receive a cortect score on the questions. The test is scored: 0-7 concrete operations or below, 8-13 transhional, and 14-21 formal operations. The tests were scored by hand and entered on the respondents scantron sheet as: (1) 'concrete operations', (2) 'transhional', and (3) 'formal operational'.

62 Table 3.1 Crosstabulations of income by ethnic group (N=23 6).

Income $10kor< $10k-$20k $20k-$35k Ethnicity Total AA 55 38 25 118 SAE 58 35 25 118

Total 113 73 50 236 (%) (47.9) (30.9) (21.2) (100)

63 ^-^MsMaMMlaaMiBnu 111 .^--..-

Table 3.2 Crosstabulations of mcome level by gender (N=236).

Income $10kor< $10k-$20k $20k-$35k Gender Total Female 67 39 11 117 (%) (57.3) (33.3) (9.4) Male 46 34 39 119 (%) (38.7) (28.6) (32.8)

64 Table 3.3 Crosstabulations of education level by ethnic and age group (N=237).

Education NHS HS SC AA Ethnicity Total

YAA 1 15 15 8 39 MAA 17 12 11 40 OAA 21 12 3 3 39 YSAE 1 7 27 5 40 MSAE 3 19 11 7 40 OSAE 14 14 1 10 39

Total 40 84 69 44 237 (%) (16.9) (35.4) (29.1) (18.6) (100)

Variable labels are: NHS (Less than high school education), HS (High school education or GED), SC (Some college), AA (Associate or technical degree or two full years of college). YAA (Young v^frican Americans), MAA (Middle-aged African Americans), OAA (Older Afiican Americans), YSAE (Young Standard-Average-Americans), MSAE (Middle-aged Standard-Average-Americans), OSAE (Older Standard-Average- Americans).

65 Table 3.4 Crosstabulations of education level by ethnic group (N=237).

Education NHS HS SC AA Ethnicity lotaL AA 22 44 30 22 118 SAE 18 40 39 22 119

Total 40 84 69 44 237 (%) (16.9) (35.4) (29.1) (18.6) (100)

Variable column labels are: NHS (Less than high school education), HS (High school education or GED), SC (Some college), AA (Associate or technical degree or two fiill years of college). Row labels are: AA (Afiican Americans), SAE (Standard-Average- Americans).

66 TTTTTTTI—n > I I

CHAPTER IV RESULTS

Descriptive Analysis

PreUminary crosstabulations and chi-square statistics were computed to determine the association between demographic variables for persons in the study. The primary independent variables included gender, ethnichy, and age group. Other variables of interest were education, income, and employment. Further, formal operations and self- referencmg were recorded as categorical data and were first examined by crosstabulations with the demographic variables. The total sample size was 240 respondents, whh 40 in each age-ethnic group. Ns less than 240 represent missing data on one of the demographic variables. There were no missing data on the SPBI formistic subscale. There was one missing answer on each of the remaining SPBI subscales: question 35 on the dialectic subscale, question 50 on the relativistic subscale, and question 39 on the mechanistic subscale. These were omhted by respondents number 172, 127, and 124, respectively. The respondent's mean value for the particular subscale replaced the missing value.

Crosstabulations were computed for age groups and self-referencmg which were coded on three of Sinnott's everyday questions (see Table 4.1). The calculations revealed that 2 or .8% from the younger group, 20 or 8.4% from the middle-aged group, and 23 or 9.7% from the older group self-referenced. A number of respondents revealed no evidence for self-referencing, 77, 60, and 55 in the young, middle-aged, and older groups, respectively. Only 18.9% of the entire sample self-referenced. Further, crosstabulations were computed for gender and self-referencing (19 males versus 26 females), X^ (1, N = 237) 1.05, n&. In this study females did not differ on self- referencing from males.

67 Crosstabulations were computed for the two ethnic groups on scores from the LRT (see Table 4.2) [X^ (2, N = 236) 1.19, n&]. About equal number of Afiican Americans and SAEs scored at the concrete operations level, 11 and 6 respectively. This was also tme of the number who scored at the transhional level, 64 and 66 for Afiican Americans and SAEs, respectively. Forty-two African Americans and 47 SAEs scored at the formal operational level. Crosstabulations for the three age groups revealed that 33 respondents from the younger group, 36 from the middle-age group, and 20 from the older group scored at the formal operational level (see Table 4.3) [X^ (4, N = 236) 10.40, p < .05]. About 38% of the total sample reached the formal operational level.

Means and standard deviations for SPBI dialectic subscale scores by age groups and ethnicity were computed (see Tables 4.4 & 4.5). Richardson (1995) indicated that individuals must score 60 or over on the SPBI dialectic subscale to be considered dialectic thinkers. Kahlbaugh and Kramer (1995) found that the mean SPBI dialectic subscale score of young coUege students aged 17 to 23 was 58.4 (N = 40). In this study younger (M = 58.2) and middle-aged (M = 59.4) African Americans approached the 60 point level and only the older (M = 63.4) African Americans as a group averaged over 60 points. The maximum scores indicated that at least one individual in each ethnic and age group scored above the 60 point requirement on the dialectic subscale. Hypotheses were made concerning SPBI dialectic subscale scores and the discussion continues in the primary analysis section.

Means and standard deviations for SPBI relativistic subscale scores by age groups and ethnicity were computed (Tables 4.6 & 4.7). The participants in this study appear to differ Uttle on SPBI relativistic subscale scores. The mean for the entire sample was 52.8 with the age groups scoring 52.7, 53.1, and 52.7 for the young, middle-aged, and older groups, respectively. A further discussion of the relativistic subscale appears in the primary analysis section.

68 The SPBI mechanistic and formistic subscales receive little attention in aduh development literature. These two subscales were proposed as pre-postformal ways to view the worid. Means and standard deviations for SPBI mechanistic subscale scores by age groups and ethnicity were computed (see Table 4.8). The overall group mean on the SPBI mechanistic subscale was 54.1. Means and standard deviations for SPBI formistic subscale scores by age groups and ethnicity were computed (Table 4.9). The group mean on the SPBI formistic subscale was 46.6. Two 2 by 3 by 2 (age by ethnicity by gender) analyses of variance of SPBI mechanistic and formistic subscales scores were computed. The overaU effect on the mechanistic subscale was not significant, E (4, 227) = 2.19, ns. There was no significant overall effect on the formistic subscale, E (4, 227) = .69, ns. Hypotheses were not made in this study concerning the SPBI mechanistic and formistic subscale scores. Therefore, with no significant overall effects, no further analyses were made.

A cortelation matrix was computed between scores on the four SPBI subscales and education, income, and age (see Table 4.10) A significant and poshive cortelation was found between education and income (i = .32, p < .01). A significant cortelation was not found between level of education and any of the four SPBI subscales. Correlations between the four subscale scores on the SPBI were poshive and significant. The dialectic subscale scores correlated with the relativistic and mechanistic subscale scores, i= .43, p< .01 and t= .28, p< .01, respectively (see Table4.10). Additionally, the relativistic subscale scores were cortelated with the mechanistic (t = .29, p < .01) and formistic (i = . 18, p < .01) subscale scores. Also, there was a positive and significant cortelation between the mechanistic and formistic subscale scores (t = .57,p<.01).

69 Test of Hypotheses

A 2 by 3 by 2 (ethnicity by age by gender) analysis of variance was computed of SPBI dialectic subscale scores. Education was used as a control variable with no significant effect. Partial omega squared (H^), an estimate of treatment magnitude (Keppel, 1991), was computed for aU significant effects. There was a main effect for ethnicity, E (1, 227) = 66.39, p <.001, M^ = . 12, and a main effect for age, E (2, 227) = 7.84, p <.001, M^ = .03. There was no significant main effect for gender, E (1, 227) = .00,ns.

In line with theory and previous empirical work. Hypothesis I predicted that scores on the SPBI dialectic subscale would reveal a main effect for age. Hypothesis I was supported, whh older participants scoring higher on the SPBI dialectic subscale than younger participants. Mean scores were 55.6, 56.1 and 59.3 for young, middle-aged, and older groups, respectively (see Table 4.4). The scores of the older group were significantly higher than those of the two other groups. The scores of the younger and middle-aged respondents were not significantly different from each other, based upon a Scheffe test, p<. 005. Hypothesis 2 predicted that scores on the SPBI dialectic subscale would reveal a main effect for ethnicity, with African Americans scoring higher than SAEs. African Americans scored higher (M = 60.33) than SAEs (M = 53.6) (see Table 4.5). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported. All interactions were non-significant: ethnicity by age, E (2, 227) = 1.31, ns, ethnicity by gender, E (1, 227) = .07, ns, and age by gender, E (2, 227) = .50, ns. There was no significant 3-way interaction, E (2, 227) = 1.32, ns. A 2 by 3 by 2 (ethnicity by age by gender) analysis of variance was computed of SPBI relativistic subscale scores. There were no main effects for ethnicity [E (I, 227) =

70 2.84, ns], or gender [E (1, 227) = .00, ns]. Means and standard deviations are shown in Tables 4.6 and 4.7.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that scores on the SPBI relativistic subscale would reveal a negative effect for age. There was no main effect for age [E (2, 227) = .08, ns], on SPBI relativistic subscale scores; therefore. Hypothesis 3 was not supported. All interactions were non-significant: ethnicity by age [E (2, 227) = .86, ns], ethnicity by gender [E (1, 227) = .46, ns], and age by gender [E (2, 227) = 42, ns]. The 3-way mteraction of ethnicity by age by gender was not significant, E (2, 227) = 1.54, ns Hypothesis 4 predicted that self-referencmg, measured by Smnott's every day questions, would increase whh age (see Table 4.1). Hypothesis 4 was supported. Pearson chi-square statistics were significant for self-referencing and age, X^ (2, N = 237) 21.38, p < .00. Two individuals from the younger age group self-referenced, and 20 and 23 individuals from the middle-aged and older groups, respectively, self- referenced. Almost 81% of the sample did not self-reference, based on the procedures used in this study. Hypothesis 5 predicted that African Americans would self-reference on Sinnott's every day questions significantly more than SAEs. Hypothesis 5 was not supported. No o significant relationship was found between self-referencing and ethnicity, X"^ (1, M = 237) 1.42, ns. Twenty-six African Americans, compared to 19 SAEs, were self- referencing. Formal operations was assessed in this project by the Logical Reasoning Test (Bumey, 1974) (LRT). Scores on the LRT resulted in participant ranking of (I) concrete operations or less, (2) transitional, and (3) formal operations. Hypothesis 6 predicted that formal operations would increase with higher levels of education. Formal operations was coded as 'yes' or 'no' by combining the concrete operations and transhional levels. Education level was combined into two categories, respondents with 71 a high school degree or less versus respondents with any amount of college. Crosstabulations and chi-square statistics were computed. Hypothesis 6 was not supported, X^ (1, N = 236) 2.40, ns. Thhty-eight percent of the sample reached the formal operational level with 41 participants with a high school education or less and 48 participants whh some coUege scoring at that level.

Postformal theories of adult cognitive development tie postformal stages to Piagetian stages of cognitive development. For the postformal theories to prove viable, the proposed postformal stages must follow, not precede formal operations. Further, any individual that appears to use postformal reasoning should be able to perform formal operational problems. Hypothesis 7 predicted that an analysis of variance of SPBI dialectic subscale scores as the dependent variable and the three levels of reasoning from the LRT as the independent variables would reveal a poshive and significant effect for formal operations. Hypothesis 7 was supported, E(2, 233) = 3.72, p<.05, M^ = .04. A Scheffe range test revealed that respondents at the concrete operational level (M = 53.41) were significantly different from respondents at the formal operational level (M = 58.20). Transhional level respondents (M = 56.45) were not significantly different from the other two groups. This suggests that formal thinkers also score higher on the SPBI dialectic subscale which is important to postformal theories of cognitive development. Yet, 65 individuals reached formal operations, but did not reach the 60-point level on the dialectic subscale that signals dialectic thinking.

Accordmg to the theories proposed by Labouvie-Vief and Sinnott formal operations should precede self-referents. Therefore, Hypothesis 8 predicted a significant relationship between self-referencing and formal operations. Hypothesis 8 was not supported, X^ (1, N = 236) = 2.96, ns. Only 10% of the participants (22) in this study reached formal operations and also self-referenced. Ten-percent of the participants (23) self-referenced but did not reach formal operations. Fifty-two percent of the sample

72 (124) did not reach formal operations and did not self-reference, and 28% (67) reached formal operations but did not self-reference.

73 Table 4.1 Number of respondents who self-reference on Sinnott's Every Day Questions by age group (N=237).

Self-Referencing 19-23 38-43 60+

Total Yes 2 20 23 45 .8% 8.4% 9.7% 18.9% No 77 60 55 192

74 Table 4.2 Number of respondents who scored on three levels of the LRT by ethnic group (N=236)

Formal Operations

CON TRAN FOROP

Ethnicitv Total

AA 11 64 42 117

SAE 6 66 47 119

Total 17 130 89 236

% 72 550 37.7 100

Variable labels are: CON (Concrete operations), TRAN (Transitional), FOROP (Formal operations). AA (African American), SAE (Standard-Average-American).

Table 4.3 Number of respondents who scored on three levels of the LRT by age group (N=236)

Formal Operations

CON TRAN FOROP

Age Total

19-23 8 37 33 78

38-43 5 39 36 80

60+ 4 54 20 78

Total 17 130 89 236

% 7.2 55 37.7 100

Variable labels are: CON (Concrete operations), TRAN (Transhional), FOROP (Formal operations). AA (Afiican American), SAE (Standard-Average-American).

75 Table 4.4 Means and Standard Deviations for SPBI dialectic subscale scores by age group (n = 80).

Statistics

Standard Range Age Mean Deviation Min Max

19-23 55.6 6.24 40 70

38-43 56.1 6.26 43 78

60 + 59.3 8.70 40 77

Table 4.5 Means and Standard Deviations for SPBI dialectic subscale scores by age and ethnic group (n = 40).

Statistics

Standard Range Age & Ethnicity Mean Deviation Min Max

AA (19-23) 58.2 4.70 43 67

AA (38-43) 59.4 5.89 51 78

AA (60 +) 63.4 7.50 48 77

SAE (19-23) 53.1 6.62 40 70

SAE (38-43) 52.6 4.58 43 62

SAE (60 +) 55.1 7.87 40 72

76 Table 4.6 Means and Standard Deviations for SPBI relativistic subscale scores by age group (n =80).

Statistics

Standard Range Age Mean Deviation Min Max 19-23 52.7 6.24 39 68 38-43 53.1 8.07 24 73 60 + 52.7 7.79 35 70

Table 4.7 Means and Standard Deviations for SPBI relativistic subscale scores by age and ethnic group (n = 40).

Statistics

Standard Range Age & Ethnichy Mean Deviation Min Max AA (19-23) 53.2 5.73 41 68 AA (38-43) 54.8 7.55 38 73 AA (60 +) 52.9 6.48 37 65 SAE (19-23) 52.2 6.77 39 67 SAE (38-43) 51.4 8.30 24 65 SAE (60 +) 52.4 8.98 35 70

77

a Table 4.8 Means and Standard Deviations for SPBI mechanistic subscale scores by age (n =80).

Stati.stics

Standard Range Age Mean Deviation Min Max

19-23 54.7 5.56 39 66

38-43 52.9 7.98 29 76

60 + 54.7 9.13 26 73

Table 4.9 Means and Standard Deviations for SPBI formistic subscale scores by age (n= 80).

Statistics

Standard Range Age Mean Deviation Min Max

19-23 46.5 7.11 26 61

38-43 46.0 9.31 15 67

60 + 47.3 10.14 26 69

78

^m-- r Table 4.10 Cortelations between SPBI subscale scores and age, education, and income.

1. Education

2. Age -.37** — (237)

3. Dialectic .07 19** „ (236) (239) 4. Relativistic .005 .001 .43** (236) (239) (238) 5. Mechanistic .001 .023 .28** .29** - (236) (239) (238) (238) 6. Fonnistic .103 .036 .122 .18** .57** - (237) (240) (239) (239) (239) 7. Income .32** -.11 .11 .003 .012 .056 (237) (237) (236) (236) (236) (237)

*p<.05. **p<.01.

79

^ CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

This study assessed postformal cognitive development using SPBI subscales, a test of formal operations, and three every-day-problem questions. A key purpose of this study was to include working-class respondents and respondents from a minority population in order to extend and refine knowledge about this relatively new area of cognitive research. Questions to be considered were: Does cultural setting or socio­ economic status affect the acquishion of postformal cognition? Do postformal stages appear in responses given by the less well educated? Can being a member of a minority ethnic group speed the initiation of postformal cognitive capabUities'^ It was asserted that postformal levels were not exclusively the resuh of higher education and that older individuals with at least a high school education would show evidence of postformal thinking. Further, h was asserted, ching Whorf s work with the Hopi, that something about the thought processes of non-Western peoples was suggestive of the proposed postformal levels. It was suspected that a native speaking Hopi would think dialectically due to the stmcture of her/his language and the way life was conceived to be in Hopi cuhure, and also that something of the non-western way of thinking would be evident in other minority populations (Helms, 1989; John-Steiner et al., 1994; Sue & Sue, 1990; Vontress, 1971). Adding Earth's (1969) and Anzaldua's (1987) conjectures—minorities have few available coping strategies—h was surmised that minority status would encourage the implementation of postformal cognhion.

Summary of Findings Scores on the SPBI dialectic subscale did increase whh age, as was predicted by Hypothesis 1, for respondents in this study. This was consistent with Kramer's findings

80

s^rm (Kramer et al., 1992; Kahlbaugh & Kramer, 1995; Kramer & Kahlbaugh, 1994). However in comparison, the group mean for respondents m the present study was 56.9 on the SPBI dialectic subscale, whereas the mean for young college students (17-23) in a study by Kahlbaugh and Kramer (1995) was 58.4 on the same subscale. Further, the young aduhs (19-23) in this study (M = 55.6) scored lower than the college students in the Kahlbaugh and Kramer study.

The difference in mean scores on the SPBI dialectic subscale between respondents in this sample, with somewhat less education, and young coUege students in the Kahlbaugh and Kramer study suggests that education has an impact on SPBI dialectic subscale scores. Also, there may have been an economic factor effecting differences in scores between the two studies. The present sample was from the working-poor. Further, scores on the SPBI dialectic subscale for SAEs (M = 53.6) and African Americans (M =60.3) suggests a cultural effect. Hypothesis 2 was supported with a main effect for ethnichy. I have proposed that this kind of effect would be due to minority status. This would suggest that the lower education level and/or lower economic level of respondents in this study compared to more highly educated respondents in other studies had a greater effect on SAEs than African Americans. Or, being African American may have had an ameliorating effect on SPBI dialectic subscale scores. Theory proposes that dialectic thinking is an integrated mode of thinking that transcends hs separate elements. I have suggested that this is the very thing that minority persons accomplish in living by more than one cultural mandate. 'Present' versus 'future', 'being' versus 'doing', are typical modes of cultural expression embraced by minority versus majority cultures. I have suggested that h is the integration of and/or 'living above' two opposite ideological poshions that would contribute to a swifter adoption of the dialectic world view that is said to be measured by the SPBI dialectic

81

m:-rm subscale. By living above, it is implied that the individual perceives the integration of both systems.

It has been noted that there were respondents in every age and ethnic category that scored at the 60-point level that researchers believe indicates dialectic thinking. Yet on average, only older Afiican Americans were dialectic thmkers. However, an important finding whh respect to the Afiican American participants was that as a group, and regardless of education, African Americans scored close to the 60-point mark and significantly higher than the SAE counterpart. This findingjustifie s further investigation with minority populations and ideas presented in this work.

Self-referencing as measured by Sinnott's every day questions did differ by age group, as predicted by Hypothesis 4. Middle-aged and older adults were more likely than young aduhs to self-reference. Furthermore, self-referencing and scores on the SPBI dialectic subscale were positively related. This may be considered as limited support for the argument that both are related to postformal ways of viewing social situations and people. However, these statistically significant findings should be treated with caution, in view of the actual distribution of respondents m the age by self- referencing categories. Less than 19% of the entire group of respondents showed evidence of self-referencing. In addition, the pattern of findingsregardin g the relationship between self- referencing and LRT scores raises questions about whether self-referencing is a component of postformal thinking. Most theorists argue that formal operations must precede postformal operations. Congment whh this argument, 22 respondents who were self-referencmg were also formal operational. However, 23 respondents who self- referenced were either at the concrete operational level or the transhional level. This may have been due to the inability of the LRT to detect formal operations or the inability of the coders to accurately determine the presence or absence of self-referencing.

82 However, the findings, if valid, suggest that formal operations is not necessary for self- referencing. The question then becomes, is self-referencing an element of postformal cognition? Or, is formal operations necessary for postformal thought? These findings raise the question of whether the whole idea of a stage theory of aduh cognitive development is viable, because stage theories define stages which are sequential and invariant. Due to the Umitation concerning the technique used in this study to assess self-referencing, any conclusions about the relationship between formal operations and self-referencing would not be appropriate and can not be made at this time. Formal operations was significantly Imked with scores on the SPBI dialectic subscale, as predicted by Hypothesis 7. This is limited support for the conjecture that one must think formally in order to think dialectically. Yet, only 34 of the 89 persons achieving formal operations scored above the 60-point level that researcher suggest indicates dialectic thinking as measured by the SPBI dialectic subscale Kramer and Kahlbaugh (1994) found that SPBI relativistic subscales scores were lower for older aduhs when compared to young aduhs. This study failed to repUcate the Kramer and Kahlbaugh findings. In this study, there were no significant main effects for age and ethnicity on SPBI relativistic subscale scores. The mean for the present study's entire sample on the SPBI relativistic subscale was 52.8 with the separate age groups scoring similarly. These scores were considerably lower than the average of 56.9 on the SPBI relativistic subscale found by Kahlbaugh and Kramer (1995) in their study of young college students (17-23). For the relativistic thinker, events and people are continually changing and prediction is impracticable. Kramer (1989a) argues that for the relativistic thinker knowledge is continually undergoing reorganization. A limited conclusion can be drawn that the present sample of respondents endorsed the concepts measured by the SPBI relativistic subscale to a lesser degree than some young college students. However, respondents in this study averaged higher scores on

83 « «• ^^^'i

the mechanistic (M = 54.1 vs. M = 51.4) and formistic (M = 46.6 vs. M = 40.7) subscale than the Kahlbaugh and Kramer sample of young college students. The formistic and mechanistic subscales represent a more absolutistic interpretation of the social world. Smce participants m this study did not fully embrace a dialectic worid view, present respondents, compared to the college students, appeared to eschew a relativistic universe. Again, this finding may implicate education and/or economic status as important variables when assessing the relativistic subscale.

African Americans did not self-reference to a significantly greater degree than SAEs. With the restraints outlined above regarding the technique used to determine self- referencmg, a limited conclusion can be drawn that minority status did not influence self- referencing for respondents in this study. Formal operational thought was not positively related to education or age in this study. Due to respondents' ages, it would be expected that formal operations had been achieved prior to participation in this study since formal operations begins to appear sometime after 11 years of age. Neo-Piagetians have suggested that formal operations is a skill that may only be evident in an individual's area of expertise, such as her/his work or m an artistic endeavor. Since multiple areas of expertise were not examined in this study, it can not be asserted that formal operational skills were completely made known. All respondents should be at an age when one would be capable of formal operations; age should not be a factor for this sample when formal operations is measured. Further, formal operations should not be related to education in that formal operations, according to Piaget, should be achieved via the child's active cognitive constmction with impetus coming from within the child. Education was not cortelated whh any of the four SPBI subscales. In contrast to previous research using the SPBI, this study focused on an educationally nartow segment of the population. Previous studies focused on the more highly educated, this

84 study centered on the less well educated. For this restricted sample education was not associated with dialectic, relativistic, mechanistic, or formistic cognitive patterns as measured by SPBI subscale scores. A tme picture of the impact of education on postformal education can be better assessed with respondents from a wider range of educational experiences. However, with the lower mean scores on the two postformal subscales of the SPBI for participants in this study, compared to scores for participants in other studies, h appears that education plays a part in the adoption of postformal ways of thinking unless h can be determined that other factors are involved.

No doubt, h can be argued that education stmctures cognitive processes, although, other factors may also be mcluded. David Feldman (1994, 1980) suggests that certain stmctures exist outside the mind of the child. He contends that cultural variables- education, discipline-based experiences, pohtical and economic systems—organize cognitive processes. Like development, these experiences, are stmctured, are presented in sequential order, and are hierarchical. In order to learn a trade or mathematics, one begins with the basics and progresses in a systematic marmer to more complex levels of accompUshment and understanding. Due to sequential and hierarchical organization, cultural variables, contextual scaffolding, and cognitive development mimic one another. Feldman concludes that cultural variables contribute to the developmental phenomena. His point is well made and this appears to be Vygotsky in practical application. Feldman provides a method by which to apply Vygotsky's first law—phenomena appear twice, first on the social level then on the psychological level.

For Feldman (1980), stages—defined as levels of achievement within a domain or specific field—canb e taken out of the mind of the child and represented as existing within a body of knowledge. There is evidence in this study of the contribution of education, or lack of education, to postformal cognitive levels of development. Also, Feldman's proposal can be applied to any and all cultural systems, and there is evidence in this study

85 that ethnic minority membership impacts cognitive level also. Teasing out the exact contribution of the disparate variables that may stmcture cognitive development is a future step toward understanding postformal cognitive development.

The SPBI mechanistic and formistic subscales have received Uttle attention in work with aduh populations. The mechanistic and formistic paradigms (Pepper, 1942) represent a more absolute interpretation of people and the social world and are not considered to be postformal modes of thought by researchers working in the postformal operations field. There were no main effects for either subscale by ethnic group, age, or gender. Whh no hypothesis, further investigation was dropped.

Conclusions Conclusions are made with the assumption that findings are interesting but not definitive. Data indicate at least that further work is warranted. The most striking finding is the seemingly lower mean scores of respondents in this study on the SPBI relativistic subscale compared to respondents from previous studies. The participants in the present study did not endorse a relativistic world as compared to participants in other studies. Yet, many of the Afiican Americans scored close to or above a proposed dialectical level. This findingplace s in doubt the conjecture that the relativistic stage, as it is being measured here, is a component of a stage theory of cognitive development. If findingsca n be supported, the adoption of a relativistic world view may not be necessary and/or a necessary step toward the adoption of dialectic thinking which has been proposed as the height of postformal cognition. The younger respondents in the present study obtained one of the lower group averages on the SPBI relativistic subscale compared to other groups in the study. This is the opposhe finding to the Kramer and Kahlbaugh findings where young adults scored higher on this paradigm than other groups.

86 Further, cortelations of the SPBI subscale scores suggest that the proposed levels are not separate but related ways to think about people and social events. Kramer contends that the mechanistic and formistic subscales taken together form an absolutistic world view. This accounts for the cortelation of these two subscales. Yet, h does not answer the question as to why the relativistic subscale is cortelated with these two subscales and why the relativistic and dialectic subscales are cortelated. The question is: if you agree with dialectic statements on the SPBI, why would you also highly endorse the relativistic statements? Previous researchers have not reported cortelations or lack of cortelations of the various subscales. And I would caU for such disclosures.

In further critique of a stage model of postformal operations, if one uses a definition of formal operations as being the abiUty to perform the operations of the INRC group as Piaget proposes then operations that involve INRC group skills would remain in the formal operations domain. That is, dialectic thinkmg is defined as the ability to integrate multiple systems. This implies a larger system that is integrated, but a system. It has further been proposed that if one is manipulating within one system one is performing a formal operations. Then, no matter how large and imposing the system the large integrated system remains a single system. Thus, we are back at formal operations. Further, the very terms used to define dialectic cognition are INRC group terms. The INRC groups includes such operations as 'p and not p', 'the inverse of p', combinations and reciprocals. The questions at the dialectic level are: what is or should be included, what should be excluded, reciprocity, and change. These are all formal operations procedures. Kramer writes about dialectic thinking as the abUity to understand change and reciprocity of on going events, knowledge, etc. This may be an elaborate form of combinations and reciprocals, although, the procedures can be defined as very much the same process.

87 I 11 iiaiiiiiiii—• tr^^l^^M^^l^lMW^—l^^^l^^—BnmTiTWiir~—

I argue on two fronts that persons from minority groups wiU out perform SAEs on postformal assessments. One assertion is that they carry with them remnants of non- Western thinking. Second, they occupy a place with respect to majority culture persons that aUows them to understand the contradictory character of reality within a plural society.

The main, overriding, and essential focus of this study was that ethnic minority status would spur progress toward postformal cognitive capability as h is defined by theorists. I have speculated that the reasons for significant differences on SPBI subscale scores would be due to the social position of minority Americans. I offered a synthesis of Earth's theories on minority strategies, coupled with social exposition by such writers as Anzaldua and Whorf For me, these writings suggest that minority persons do understand the relative, contradictive, and contextual nature of social life. Barth (1969) spelled out the possibUhies inherent in a minority position in any society. The minority person must take a position with respect to the majority culture. If the individual accepts minority status, attempts to pass, or attempts to live bi- culturally, the minority individual has confronted the disparities between the separate culture's values. If the individual is forced to accept minority status, the person of lesser status knows the person of greater status better than the person of greater status has knowledge of ehher person. In addhion, Anzaldua (1987) gives direct indication that mestizas cope with minority status by accepting 'contradictions' and 'ambiguity'. These terms are very much like the terms used to outline relativistic and dialectic cognitive paradigms described in postformal literature. Counseling psychology (Sue & Sue, 1990) leads me to believe that other minority persons use a similar strategy to the mestiza.

I have made predictions linking minority status to postformal ways of thinking. By limited conclusion, the minority persons in this study did score significantly higher on

88 fiSBSSSXSS»i<*S9EE=^^

SPBI dialectic subscale than SAEs. Yet, I have not established a link between the two ch-cumstances. That is, I can offer no proof that African Americans m this study out performed the SAEs because the African Americans were from a minority population. It can be said that education level, income, gender, and age did not differ between the two groups. It must be left to future research to first support, then determine the nature of differences in similar groups of respondents. By Feldman's (1994, 1980) reckoning education, cultural group, polhical and economic systems extend cognitive stmctures by which individuals may develop.

Future Research First, the question—prompted by the relatively low reliabilities obtained on the SPBI subscale scores in this project, when compared to previous work whh this measure—of whether the SPBI is appropriate for certain groups. Was the problem reading level or comprehension level? Or, since I asked a relatively unschooled sample of respondents to answer a school-like questionnaire, the participants may have been uncertain or confused. Unschooled participants may need closer supervision than was given to respondents in this project. An effective solution to this question may be answered by a series of focus groups with targeted respondents. Valuable clues may be revealed by simply asking about reactions to the SPBI. In line with this, researchers should be especially attuned to any mention of a Western bias.

The reading level required to understand the SPBI must be established if this instmment is to have a wide range of use. The instmment is attractive m that large numbers of respondents can be assessed when compared to the necessarily lower number of respondents that can be rated by face-to-face interview methods.

Second, I would caU for further work to be carried out with minority populations. A number of hypotheses were supported in the manner predicted for African Americans.

89

J. Therefore, findmgs from this study are mteresting and provocative enough that they wartant further research along shnUar Unes.

A number of hypotheses were not supported. SPBI relativistic subscale scores did not decrease at mid-Ufe for respondents in the present work as predicted. Respondents who were not formal operational did self-reference in this study. Only a few respondents m the entire sample could be judged to be dialectic thinkers as measured by the SPBI subscale scores. Questions posed by this study remain unanswered. Is h ethnic minority experiences that account for differences m SPBI dialectic subscale scores between African Americans and SAEs, or are there other explanations for the dissimUarity? Why were SPBI relativistic subscale scores of middle-aged respondents in this study not significantly lower than scores of younger aduhs as was the case in other studies?

Strengths of the Study The major strengths of this study are that it brings race, ethnicity, and socio­ economic status into the discussion of cognitive development. And, this research attempts to bring these issues mto the debate in a poshive light. It was the focus of this work to look for wisdom—advanced cognitive styles—in diverse social settings with the confidence that postformal characteristic would be found whhin a minority population. More than 60 years ago Luria and Vygotsky counseled that social milieu had influence on cognitive stmctures Often in the style of TheBeU Curve (Hermstein & Murtay, 1994), social class enters the discussion on cognitive capabilhies in a negative way. The focus here was meant to be a poshive one, whh I think enticing resuhs It is acknowledged that resuhs from this study must be considered with caution due to the limitations mentioned in a previous section; however, the results are interesting even if further work must be carried out to support these findings.

90 •ayi

Limitations of the Study

A convenience sample secured by a snowball technique restricts the generalizability of any findmgs to a larger population. Yet, the purpose of this study was not an expectation of bemg able to generalize, but rather, the purpose was exploration. Ideas that formed this study were pieced together from several disciplines and synthesized in a manner that seemed feasible to the chief investigator. The idea that race, culture, social position, and educational experiences would impact cognitive development was proposed by Luria and Vygotsky; however, this idea had not been explored by researchers in the postformal development field. This work is a beginning effort to include those cuhural variables. Only further work with more representative samples will clarify the relationship of race, social poshion, and education on postformal cognitive development.

The sample obtained for this research was further hampered by the particular time and place in which h was gathered. If cultural experiences impact cognitive development and especially later adult development, the variables of living in Lubbock, Texas, m the Southwestern area of the United States, in a mral setting, in a particular economic time, and in a particular polhical culture, would be expected to be related to cognitive development in this sample. Therefore, it is acknowledged that findings from this study only represent information about this particular group of individuals. There was a lack of suitable and robust reliability or consistent results on the SPBI subscale scores with this particular sample of respondents. ReliabiUty coefficients relate item to item and suggest to the researcher that the items, taken together, represent a particular domain. The SPBI, especially the relativistic and dialectic subscales, has had acceptable reliability when used with more highly educated and White respondents. A major question here was why the subscales lacked suitable reliability with respondents in this study. Crocker and Algina (1986) suggested that guessing in response to hems on a

91 a^sl

questionnah-e or test can affect reUabUity. It is not suggested that there are right or wrong answers on the SPBI; 'guessing' in this mstance would be a more or less random selection of response. Random choice m reply might come about due to lack of understanding of the concepts represented by the separate subscales or a lack of firm commitment to the ideas proposed by the subscales. Also, if the reading level of the respondent was lower than required by the SPBI, the respondent may have answered in an inconsistent manner.

The issue of reUabUity on SPBI subscale scores for this sample has not been resolved. Reading level is presently being assessed by reading specialists at Texas Tech University. The questionnaire could be rewritten if reading level turns out to be a problem. In addhion to a reliability issue, a fiirther Umitation of this research involved design. Formal operations was assessed in this study and certain respondents scored in the formal operational category. Yet, h was not known if other respondents not scoring in that category were ever formal operational. In order to determine that postformal levels foUow Piagetian stages, h would be necessary to establish that all persons who were postformal thinkers had reached formal operations at some time, either they were formal operational presently or had been in the past. A longitudinally designed study would add clarity to this concern. This study was a one time assessment, not longitudinal. Another limitation concerns the method used to assess self-referent. Sinnott looked for evidence of self-referents using her every day questions in face-to-face interviews. This study used the identical questions in a written format. Sample sizes for the work that Sinnott carried out were quite small, fewer than 20 respondents, compared to the 240 respondents needed for this study. Time constraints made h impossible to interview 240 respondents and complete this project as scheduled. Therefore, the attempt was made to assess self-referents using a paper and pencil schedule based on

92 Shmott's questions and verbal prompts. Problems with the paper and pencU format were evident in that a few individuals did not answer the prompts. Consequently, it is most surely the case that a greater number of respondents would have shown the propensity to self-reference during a face-to-face interview. Since the SPBI requires 40 participants per ceU to detect differences, it is diflficuh to use the SPBI and Sinnott's every day questions in the same study. Using the SPBI on a large sample and interviewing only a select number of participants by Sinnott's interview schedule would be a possible improvement over the pencU and paper technique. This would give the advantage of a better understanding of the extent of self-referencing in each age category, and the relationship between self-referencing and the two postformal levels revealed by the SPBI—the relativistic and dialectic subscale scores-could be better examined.

Finally, a major limitation of this study was an inability to obtain reliability and validity data for the LRT. The Logical Reasoning Test is the work of Gilbert M. Bumey (1974) which was completed for his dissertation-The Constmction and Validation of an Objective Formal Reasoning Instmment—at the University of Northern Colorado. In written form, the LRT attempts to duplicate Piaget's balance beam task, a fluids level task, and a task involving the shadows of different sized rings which were projected on a screen. In this way the LRT has some face-validity.

93 •KHHiHaaiaa

ENDNOTES

A remaining and perplexing problem in postformal operation research, as Leadbeater (1986) pomts out, is that tenns have not been consistentlv defined by various researchers, and although stages or levels across the various models share certain commonalties, the field of postformal cognition lacks one overriding theoretical base One term that is particularly problematic is relativistic. Relativistic thought is contrarily conceived by distinct groups of theorists. Discrepancies between developmental theorists can better be understood by focusing on distinct forms of relativistic thought (Leadbeater, 1986). Mandelbaum (1982) proposes three configurations, subjective, objective, and conceptual relativism. Persons using subjective relativism contend that tmth is relative to characteristics of the person making the assertion; 'tme (or false) for him or for her'. Subjective relativism is characteristic of teens. This is the relativism that Perry (1970) finds m very young aduhs. An objective relativist contends that tmth is dependent upon some particular poshion or point of view, relative to the nature of the context. Historic and cultural perspective along with purpose are taken into consideration. Lastly, concepmal relativism also interprets tmth with reference to context; and m addition, the intellectual and conceptual background the mdividual brings to the problem becomes relevant. It is this last poshion when an individual can acknowledge their own poshion within the worid that Labouvie-Vief and Sinnott consider the preeminent stage of aduh reasoning. The suggestion here is that only in middle-aged persons and older individuals will conceptual relativism, as Mandelbaum (1982) defines h, be found. Conceptual relativism by this definition is Sinnott's self- referencing and Labouvie-Vief s conception of reconnection or recentering to self

o Kitchener and King (1981) outline what they believe are specific shifts in epistemic assumptions over the course of adulthood. These are changes in the adult's assumptions about knowledge. These changes better equip the aduh to deal with logic, ethical choice, and reality. The Kitchener and King postformal levels of reasoning are as foUows: Level 1 represents the individual who has an absolutistic conception of reality. Subjective and psychological factors are ignored. Level 2 reasoning remains dualistic, and while subjectivity is acknowledged, h is ignored with no attempt made to deal with subjectivity. At Level 3 dualistic reasoning recedes; although, absolute tmth is perceived as external to the individual. At Level 4 there is an attempt to integrate dualism by proposmg a neutral account of a situation. The dualism between objective and subjective accounts remain. At Level 5 dualism is relinquished. There is a differentiation between events and interpretation; although subjectivity is subordinated to objectivity. At Level 6 the mdividual acknowledges multiple perspectives coming from different interpretive frameworks. The individual sees the need to weigh disparate material to reach a 'best' solution. ^ While not tied directly to the discussion of aduh cognition, consideration must be given to the very theoretical foundation upon which the proposed postformal models are 94 based. A major critique of postformal operations is a critique that questions the entire Piagetian concept of cognition. Jerry Fodor (1980) argues that higher thought forms cannot evolve from lesser thought forms. For Fodor, all thought is equally elaborate. Fodor's idea challenges the very notion of a stage theory of cognition. This Une of conjecture would propose a very different model of cognition for both child and aduh. As yet, no one has pursued this trajectory for the aduh thinker, ahhough, conceptually well based research in adult cognitive development must deal with Fodor's challenge. PossibUhies for a very different cognitive theories may be found in Broughton (1984, 1978) and Chomsky (1980).

95 rmiMMWW

REFERENCES

Anzaldua, G. (1987). Borderiands/La Frontpra The new mesti/a San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt Lute Books.

Arlm, P. K. (1989). Problem solving and problem finding in young artists and young scientists. InM. L. Commons, J. D. Smnott, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon(Eds), Aduh development: Compari.sons and applications of developmental models (pp. 197-216). New York: Praeger.

Earth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and honndaries Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

Basseches, M. A. (1989). Dialectical thinkmg as an organized whole: Comments on Irwin and Kramer. In M. L. Commons, J. D. Sinnott, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds), Adult development: Comparisons and applications of developmental models (pp. 160-178). New York: Praeger.

Basseches, M. (1984). Dialectical thinking and aduh development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Basseches, M. (1980). Dialectical schemata: A framework for the empirical study of the development of dialectical thinking. Human Development, 21^ 400-421.

Benack, S. (1984). Post formal epistemologies and the growth of empathy. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.) Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and aduh cognitive development (pp. 340-356). New York: Praeger.

Blanchard-Fields, F (1989). Age differences in the relation between controllabilhy and coping. Journal of Gerontology. 42. 497-501

Blanchard-Fields, F. (1986). Reasoning on social dilemmas varying in emotional saliency An aduh developmental perspective. Psychology and Aging. 4^ 325-333

Belenky, J. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tamle, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing The development of self voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Brent, SB. (1984). Psychological and social stmctures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

96 Broughton, J. M. (1984). Not beyond fomial operations but beyond Piaget. In M. L Commons FA. Richards, & C. Amion (Eds.) Bevond formal .p.r.t;.ne- T ... adolescent and adult cofmiTiVf fifvHopmm (pp. 395-411). New York: Praeger.

Broughton, J. M. (1978). Developmem of concepts of self, mind, reality and knowledge: New directions. ChikLDfiyebprnenLL 75-100.

Eunge, M. (Ed.) (1964). The critical approach to s^pprf- and philosophy In honor of Karl R. Popper London: The Free Press ofGlencoeColUer-MacMillan Limited.

Bumey, G. M. (1974). The constmction and vaUdation of an objective fortnal reasoning mstmment. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Northern Colorado. In R. B. Sund, Piaget for educators: A multimedia pmgrflm Cninmhn^ n^ Charles E. Menill Publishing Company.

Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter On the di.scursive limhes of "sex" New York: Routledge.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the suhver.sion of identity New York: Routledge.

Chandler, M. J. & BoutUier, R. G. (1992). The development of dynamic system reasoning. Human Development, 35, 121-137

Chomsky, N. (1980). The Imguistic approach. In M. Piatelli-Palmarini (ed.) Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (pp. 107-130). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Commons, M. L., Armon, C, Richards, F. A., Schrader, D. E., Fartell, E. W., Tappan, M. B., & Bauer, N. F. (1989). A multidomain study of aduh development. In M. L Commons, J. D. Sinnott, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.) Adull development: Compari.sons and applications of developmental models (Vol 1) (pp. 33-56). New York: Praeger.

Commons, M. L., & Richards, F. A. (1984). Applying the general stage model. In M. L Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.) Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive development (pp. 141-157). New York: Praeger.

Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1QX6) Introduction to classical and modem test theory. New York; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College PubUshers.

Douglas, J. D., & Wong, A. C. (1977). Formal operations: Age and sex differences in Chinese and American Children. Child Development. 4S. 689-692.

97 Feldman, D. H. (1994). ChangJnP the worid- A fram.,v.,i, f^, ,he sti^Hv of rr^ativitv Westport, CT: Praeger.

Feldman, D. H. (1980). Bevond universals in cn^iu^. dfYfbrmfnt Norwood, NJ: Ablex PubUshing Corporation.

Fiati, T. A. (1991). Cross-cultural variation m the stmcttire of chUdren's thought. In R. Case (Ed), The mind's staircase Exploring the mnrpptual underpinnings of children's thought and knowle^lge HUlsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.

FlaveU, J. H. (1970). Cognitive changes in aduhhood. In L. R. Goulet & P E. Ealtes (Eds.), Life-span developmental psvchology Research and theory (pp. 247-253). New York: Academic Press.

Fodor, J. (1980). On the impossibility of acquhing "more powerful" stmctures. In M. PiatteUi-Palmarini (Ed), Language and learning The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Ford, D. H. & Lemer, R. M. (1992). Developmental .systems theory: An integrative approach Newbury Park: Sage.

GUUgan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Helms, J. E., (1989). Considering some methodological issues in racial identity counseling research. The Counseling Psychologi.st, 17, 227-52

Hermstein, R. J., & Murtay, C. (1994). The bell curve. San Francisco: The Free Press.

Irwin, R. R. (1991). Reconceptualizing the nature of dialectical postformal operational thmking: The effects of affectively mediated social experiences In J. D. Smnott & J. C. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Bridging paradigms: Poshive development in aduhhood and cognhive aging, (pp. 43-57). New York: Praeger.

John-Steiner, V., Panofsky, C. P., & Smith, L. W. (1994) Sociocultural approaches to language and literacy An interactionist perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kahlbaugh, P. E. & Kramer, D. A. (1995). Brief report: Relativism and identity crisis in young adulthood. Tonmal of Adult Development. 2. 63-70.

Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice HaU.

King, P M. (1992). How do we know? Why do we believe? Learning to make reflective judgments. Liberal Education. IS* 2-9. 98 II III Ml lliWIU'l IIIMIIII

Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: A three- level model of cognitive processing. Human Devplopm^nt 2^ 222-232.

Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification and their relationship to age and education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2.89-116.

Koplowitz, H. (1984). A projection beyond Piaget's formal-operations stage: A general system stage and a unitary stage. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.) Bevond formal operations Late adolescent and adult cognitive development (pp.. 272-295). New York: Praeger.

Kramer, D. A. (1989a). Development of an awareness of contradiction across the life span and the question of postformal operations. In M. L. Commons, J. D. Sinnott, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds), Adult development Comparisons and appUcations of developmental models (pp 133-159). New York: Praeger.

Kramer, D. A. (1989b). Change and stability in marital interaction patterns: A developmental model. In D. A. Kramer & M. J. Bopp (Eds), Transformation in clmical and developmental psychology (pp 210-233). New York: Springer- Verlag.

Kramer, D. A. (1983). Postformal operations? A need for further conceptualization. Human Development. 26.91-105.

Kramer, D. A, & Kahlbaugh, P. E. (1994). Memory for a dialectical and a nondialectical prose passage in young and older aduhs. Journal of Aduh Development, 1, 13-26.

Kramer, D. A., Kahlbaugh, P. E., & Goldston, R. B. (1992). A measure of paradigm beliefs about the social worid. Journal of Gerontology: Psychologyical Sciences. 4L 180-189.

Kramer, D. A., & Woodmff, D. S. (1986). Relativistic and dialectical thought in three aduh age-groups. Human Development. 2^ 280-290.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1985). Intelligence and cognition. In J. E. Eirten, & K. W. Schaie (Fds ) Hanflhook of the psychology of aging (pp. 500-530). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1982). Dynamic development and mature autonomy: A theoretical prologue. Human Development. 25. 161-191.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1980). Beyond Fonnal Operations: Uses and limhs of pure logic in life-span development. Human Development. 21.141 -161. 99 Labouvie-Vief, G., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (1982). Cognitive ageing and psychological growth. Aging and Sori<»ty ?, i«^-?nQ

Labouvie-Vief, G., DeVoe, M., & Bulka, D. (1989). Speaking about feelings: Conceptions of emotion across the life span. Psvchology and Aging, 4, 425-437.

Labouvie-Vief, G., Hakim-Larson, J., DeVoe, M., & Schoeberiein, S. (1989). Emotions and self-regulation: A Ufe span view. Human Development 3? 779-?,99

Leadbeater, E. (1986). The resolution of relativism in aduh thinking: Subjective, objective, or conceptual? Human Development 7Q 9Ql-^nn

Lee, M. L. (1994). Becoming an expert: Reconsidering the place of wisdom in teaching aduhs. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.), Interdisciplinary handbook of aduh lifespan learning (pp. 234-248). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Lee, M. L. (1991). Relativistic operations: A framework for conceptualizing teachers' everyday problem solving. In J. D. Sinnott & J. C. Cavanaugh (Eds), Bridging paradigms: Poshive development in aduhhood and cognitive aging (pp. 73-86). New York: Praeger.

Lemer, R. M. (1986). Concepts and theories of human development (2nd ed). New York: Random House.

Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cuhural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univershy Press.

Mandelbaum, M. (1982). Subjective, objective, and concepttial relativisms. In J. W. Meiland & M. Krausz (Eds.) Relativism: Cognitive and moral. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Morgan, L. H. (1965). Houses and house life of the American aborigines. Contributions to North Amerir-an ethnology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pascual-Leone, J. (1984). Attentional, dialectic, and mental effort: Toward an organismic theory of life stages. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Ptpyond formal operations Late adolescent and adult cognhive development (pp. 182-215). New York: Praeger.

Pepper, S. C. (1942). W^rH hypotheses A stndv in evidence. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Peny W G (1981) Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A Chickering (Ed), The modeni American coUegS (PP- 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 100 Peny, W. G. (1970). Forms of imellectual and Pthj^al developmpnt m the college years: A scheme. NY; Rinehart & Winston.

Piaget, J (1980a). The psychogenesis of knowledge and hs epistemological significance In M. PiatteUi-Palmarini (Ed), Language and learning THP debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (pp. 23-54). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Piaget, J. (1980b). Schemes of action and language learning. In M. PiatteUi-Palmarini (Ed), Language and learning The dehatp between lean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (pp. 164-167). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Piaget, J. (1968). Structuralism C Maschler (Trans. & Ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Piaget, J. (1955). The language and thought of the child New York: New York American Library.

Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1948). The child's conception of .space, (F J. Langdor & J. L. Lunzer, trans). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1956.

Popper, K. R. (1994). Knowledge and the body-mind problem: In defense of interaction. M. A. Nottumo (Ed). New York: Routledge.

Popper, K. R. & Eccles, J. C. (1977). The self and hs brain. New York: Springer- Verlag.

Ponterotto, J. G. (1987). Counseling Mexican American: A multimodal approach. Journal of Counseling & Development. 65. 308-312.

Richardson, (1995). Working memory and human cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Riegel, K.F (1975). Toward a dialectical theory of development. Human Development. 18^ 50-64.

Riegel, K. F. (1973). An epitaph for a paradigm: Introduction for a symposium. Human Development. 16.1-7.

Sinnott, J. D. (1994). The relationship of postformal thought, aduh learning, and Ufespan development. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed), Interdisciplinary handbook of adult lifespan learning (pp. 105-119). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

101 Sinnott, J. D. (1991). Limits to problem solvmg: Emotion, intention, goal clarity, heahh, and other factors in postfortnal thought. In J. D. Sinnott & J. C. Cavanaugh (Eds), Bridging paradigms Poshive development in adulthood and cognitive aging, (pp. 169-201). New York: Praeger.

Sinnott, J. D. (1989). Life-span relativistic postformal thought: Methodology and data from every day problem-solvmg studies. In M. L. Commons, J. D. Sinnott, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds), Adult development Comparisons and applications of developmental models (pp. 239-269). New York: Praeger.

Smnott, J. D. (1984). The development of logic in aduhhood. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.) Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and aduh cognitive development New York: Praeger.

Sinnott, J. D. (1981). Thetheory of relativity: A metatheory for development"J* Human Development, 24, 293-311

Stevens-Long, J., & Commons, M. L. (1992). Adult life: Developmental Processes. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

United States Department of Labor. (1997). Report on the American Workforce. Washington, DC: U. S. Goverrmient printing Office. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development. applications. New York: George Eraziller.

Vontress, C. E. (1971). Racial differences: Impediments to rapport. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 18. 7-13.

Vuyk, R. (1981a). Overview and critique of Piaget's genetic epistemology 1965-1980: Volume I New York: Academic Press.

Vuyk, R. (198 lb). Overview and critique of Piaget's genetic eoistemologv 1965-1980: Volume II. New York: Academic Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1931). Development of higher mental fianctions. In Psychological Research in the USSR. Moscow: Progressive PubUshers, 1966.

102 Werner, H, & Kaplan, B( 1956). The developmental approach to cognition: Its relevance to the psychological interpretation of anthropological and ethnolinguistic data. American Anthropologist, 58, 866-880

Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin lee Whorf J. B. CartoU (Ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Whorf, B. L. (1941). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In L. Spier (Ed), Language, culture and personality. Menasha, WI: Sapir Memorial Publication. Youniss, J. & Dean, A. (1974). Judgment and imaging aspects of operations: A Piagetian study with Korean and Costa Rican children. Child Development. 45.1020-1031.

103 APPENDIX A INFORMATION SHEET

104 '---.•J;;..:.Wg: III iliWhi \ nil III

Information Sheet I^"^ a. male, orb. female. lam years old. Highest education level I have attained

1. did not finish high school 2. high school or GED

3. some college (up to two years) 4. technical or associate degree or 2 years of college 5. more than two years of coUege, no degree 6. a college degree 7. a master's degree 8. a professional degree (M.D., Law, PhD) Myjob title is: My personal, not family, yearly income is approximately: 1. $10,000 or less 2. $10,001 to $19,999 3. $20,000 to $35,000 4. $35,001 to $45,999 5. $46,000 to $59,999 6. $60,000 to $75,000

7. $75,001 and above Date of Birth County of Residence _ I am the (1st, 2nd,... 6th) generation of my family bom in the U. S. What do you call yourself (examples) a. Afiican-American b. Mexican-American c. Anglo or White d. Native-American e. Hispanic

105 ...t^ii^^malmii-':

APPENDIX B CONSENT FORM

106 iM Consent Form I hereby give my consem for my participation in the project emhied: A Comparison of Postfonnal Operations in Diverse Aduh Populations. I understand that the person responsible for this project is Lynda McEride a Doctoral Candidate at Texas Tech University. Ms. McEride is supervised by Dr. Gwendolyn T. Sorell, Associate Professor, who may be reached at 742-3000. Ms. McEride has explained that these studies are part of a project that has the following objectives: 1) examine how adults think about people, relationships, and social insthutions, 2) compare three age groups on problem-solving styles, a. 20 to 25 year olds, b. 38 to 42 year olds, and c. 60 to 75 year olds, and 3) to compare persons from diverse social groups on problem-solving styles. Ms. McEride explained that I will be asked to fill out a 56-statement questionnaire, recording if I, 1 'fliUy disagree' to 6 'fuUy agree' whh the statement. I may record a 2 through a 5 to signify variations between fliU agreement and fiill disagreement. Additionally I will be asked to answer 21 questions that assess reasoning abilities and I wUl be asked to answer, in writing, three common every day problems—one question conceming cooking, one concerning children, one concerning the alphabet. Further, I will be asked to give my date of birth, my gender, my ethnichy, my approximate yeariy income, and myjob thle. I have been assured that this information will be held in strictest confidence. If I so choose, I may give my name and address on a separate sheet so that I may be contacted, some time at a fliture date, for a follow-up study. I have been told that my name and address wiU be connected to my answers on the questionnaires by an identifying number known only to Lynda McEride and Dr. Sorell.

It has been explained to me that I will not be paid for my time and that h will take an hour to an hour and a half to complete the project. I may stop participation in this project at any time during the process with no penalty to me. 107 Ms. McBride and Dr. SoreU have agreed to answer any mquhies I may have concerting the procedures and have infonned me that I may comact the Texas Tech University Instrtutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects by writing them in care of the Office of Research Services, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, or by calUng 742-3884.

If this research project causes any physical injury to participants in this project, treatment is not necessarily available at Texas Tech University or the Student Health Center, nor is there necessarily any insurance carried by the University or hs personnel applicable to cover any such injury. Financial compensation for any such injury must be provided through the participant's own insurance program. Further information about these matters may be obtained from Dr. Robert M. Sweazy, Vice Provost for Research 742-3884, Room 203 Holden Hall, Texas Tech Univershy, Lubbock, Texas 79409-1035. I understand that I may not derive therapeutic treatment from participation in this study. I understand that I may refuse to answer any question or questions. I understand that I may discontinue this study at any time I choose without penalty. * Signature of Participant Date: * Signature of Principal Investigator Date: Signature of Witness to Oral Presentation Date:

* ALL BLANKS MUST BE COMPLETED

108 •-Ws^p#ft«#«--^,

l'^^^-

APPENDIX C SOCIAL PARADIGM BELIEF INVENTORY

109 Social Paradigm Belief Inventory This questionnaire is about how people think about people, relationships, and social institutions. There are no right or wrong answers-we are just imerested in the ideas you have about human nature.

Read each item and, on the separate scantron sheet, indicate the number of the response that indicates the extent of your agreement or disagreement with the statement. Use the following scale to gage your answers.

1 = Strongly Disagree 4 = Slightly Agree 2 = Moderately Disagree 5 = Moderately Agree 3 = Slightly Disagree 6 = Strongly Agree Note: If you agree whh one part of the statement, but not the other part, base your answer on the second part (the part that states ''this is because..."). 1. There is no one right person for anyone. This is because characteristics you find attractive will also seem unattractive in some ways. 2. PersonaUty may or may not be molded in childhood This is because h is continuaUy influenced by the environment, but also influences h, so we can't say for sure where personality comes from. 3. Our country can try to do what's right. This is because when principles and reality conflict, we can redefine them in exploring solutions which take both into account, but are not perfect.

4. Men and women may find change difficult. This is because they were socialized into certain roles as children, and it takes a lot of push from the outside to overcome them.

5. Experiences tells you whether you can work whh someone. This is because over time you'll discover whether your work experiences with that person are rewarding or not.

110 6. Personality detennines whether you can work whh someone This is because there are certain types of personalities which are innately compatible and you know immediately whether you can work with such a person.

7. When someone is not doing a good job, this can be changed. This is because he or she probably has a related strength which is not being utilized.

8. It is possible to predict whether a marriage wUl last. This is because marriage involves finding the right person, and when two people who are right for each other get married, h should be a success.

9. The most powerful countries have the right to use their power. This is because the worid operates by survival of the fittest and if the strong do not mamtain their power their existence is threatened.

10. Our country sometimes does not do what's right. This is because questionable actions are somethnes necessary to bring about needed resuhs. 11. Dissension is a dangerous thing. This is because surtendering to dissenters places you at the mercy of anyone who wants to impose his or her ideas on society. 12. Our country generally does what is right. This is because h has learned from past experience what is best, and we use this experience to solve world problems. 13. Our country generally does what's right. This is because we have moral imperative on our side when we make polhical and economic decisions.

14. There is a right person for everyone. This is because some people just belong together since they have the same type of personalhy and as a resuh are perfectly compatible. 15. There may someday be a perfect society. This is because with development of technology and the social sciences we should be able to rid the worid of hs medical, psychological, and economic problems.

Ill 16. The most powerfiil countries do not have the right to use their power. This is because we're all intertelated and wUl sink or swim together, so countries have got to be understanding and cooperative.

17. There is no one right person for anyone. This is because relationships form on the basis of who's there at the time, whether these people want a relationship, and can make it work.

18. Personality is molded m childhood. This is because it's influenced by one's parents, peers, teachers, etc., and once h's formed m this way , h's set. 19. The most powerful countries do not have the right to use their power. This is because what one country views as right and just, another may see as unfair and unjust. 20. There can never be a perfect society. This is because every feature of a society carries with it advantages and disadvantages, so that no society has only good points. 21. When someone is not doing a good job, he or she can be made to change. This is because with the right feedback and encouragement from the boss he or she can leam to do a better job.

22. There can never be a perfect society. This is because everyone has a different conception of what such a society would be like, and there can never be enough consensus on what to work toward.

23 A person's behavior is basically inconsistent. This is because each person is a unique, random mix of behaviors, so that he or she can be generous one moment and stingy the next. 24. Dissension is a healthy sign. This is because if you oppress others unnecessarily you might destroy yourself in the process and become inhuman. 25. Dissension is a dangerous thing. This is because dissemers threaten the stability and moral fabric of a cuhure, endangering its ftiture success.

112 26. PersonaUty is not molded in chUdhood. This is because h continually changes to fit the immediate envh-omnent, m order to adapt and obtain what's needed to get along in Ufe.

27. There can be a perfect society. This is because there is a right order to things; however, h is our task to discover what this order is and put h into action.

28. A person's behavior is essentially consistent. This is because a person is socialized to behave according to the expectations of his or her culture, and can do so whh little problem.

29. Problem solvmg is a question of developing new perspectives. This is because a good decision maker is able to see many sides of a problem and encourage a dialogue in which everyone will be heard and contribute to each other's thinking. 30. People are essentially contradictory. This is because people are simply fiill of contradictions in how they act, and we cannot hope to understand these contradictions, no matter how hard we try. 31. Dissension is not necessarily dangerous. This is because you can never say for sure that giving in to dissenters wUl cause problems later because Ufe is unpredictable. 32. It is difficuh to predict whether a marriage will last. This is because marriage depends on the active commitment of the partners, and if the commitment is there, existing differences can be appreciated and worked out.

33. Frame of mind sets the stage for whether you can work whh someone. This is because if you like someone and expect to work well with him or her you probably will, but if you have a bad attitude you may not.

34. When someone is not doing a good job h's unlikely that he or she will change.

This is because people stay essentially the same and ehher have the ability to do the job or lack h.

113 35. A person's behavior is generally consistent. This is because each person works to make sense of him or herself and act in a manner consistent whh this image; inconsistencies that arise are used to develop this sense of self further.

36. People are essentially contradictory. This is because people are always changing and becoming someone new, which contradicts the old self 37. It is possible to predict whether a marriage wiU last. This is because having enough information about the person you're going to marry allows you to predict how he or she will react to different shuations, and to prepare accordingly. 38. The most powerful countries have the right to use their power. This is because they got to be powerfiil by following important ideals, and strive to do what's best for the world. 39. People are not essentially contradictory. This is because, generally speaking, people leam how to behave in ways that are consistent with the actions and expectations of others in the society. 40. Solving problems requires quickly coming up with the best solution. This is because there is a cortect way of doing things, and a good decision maker, recognizing this, decisively wastes no time putting h into action. 41. People are not essentially contradictory. This is because you see contradictions m another's actions only if you are thinking in a faulty manner, or in other words, if you are making an ertor. 42. It's difficuh to tell what influences whether you can work with someone. This is because feeling uncomfortable with a new person can generate a vicious cycle of feelings between you, with neither knowing how these came about.

43. Solving problems requires a thorough consideration of all the information.

This is because a good decision maker needs to be knowledgeable about the basic facts in order to make a sound judgment.

114 44. People should be discouraged from acting deviantly. This is because people operate according to their own self-imerest, and h is society's job to keep this self- interest within reasonable bounds.

45. Men and women are not Ukely to change. This is because h is in the nature of things that people are content with the way things are, so men wUl continue to perform some roles, and women others.

46. A person's behavior is basically consistent. This is because certain types of behaviors are always together, so that a person wouldn't be generous one moment and stmgy the next.

47. Men and women constantly change. This is because people are always changing and trying out whatever new roles happen to be facing them at the time, and there is no real order to this process. 48. People should be allowed to act deviantly under some circumstances. This is because you can't judge another's actions unless you know about his or her home life, education, philosophy, etc., and how he or she saw the situation at the time. 49. People should be allowed to act deviantly under some circumstances. This is because mles are useful guides, but only when used flexibly; you have to consider the specifics of the situation and try to fit the mle to h. 50. It is not possible to predict whether a marriage will last. This is because the selection of a spouse and the success of a marriage has a lot to do whh factors beyond your control. 51. People should never be allowed to act deviantly. This is because norms of behavior are good for society and must be respected if we are to have order.

52. Men and women periodicaUy change. This is because people seek change and growth and express more parts of themselves as they get older.

115 53. When somebody is not doing a good job, he or she can change. This is because all that's needed to do a good job is to put your heart into h and then you can do just about anything.

54. Personality is not molded m childhood. This is because a person is bom whh certam temperaments which, because they are present at birth, persist despite environmental influences.

55. There is a right person for everyone This is because through experiences datmg and the process of trial and ertor, you can discover who best satisfies your needs. 56. Solvmg problems requires reaUzing that there is no right solution. This is because there are many different sides of a problem and depending on what side you look at, a good decision maker needs to recognize that there are different solutions.

116 APPENDIX D SINNOTT'S EVERYDAY PROBLEMS

117 ^Hl«**r«>*^"CKS™*

Everyday Problems Instmctions Please read the three following scenarios then list and describe solutions to the problems. You wUl probably be able to suggest several solutions. Describe each solution so that anyone reading your answer would be able to solve the problem by following your examples.

Once you have listed and described your solutions, rate each solution starting with '1' for the solution that is the best or the one you would most Ukely use, then '2' for the next best solution and so on.

Next, attempt to answer the question about what mental process you go through that lets you know that you have arrived at an answer that satisfies you that you are cortect. Thank you for participating in this project. I believe h is worthwhile and that participants wiU be able to shed Ught on the way aduhs thmk about problems, people and the world in general.

118 Question 1 ABC Six letters of the 26 letters of the alphabet appear below. Imagine that you are making pairs of letters, writing down all the possible ways of puttmg two different letters together. How many pairs will you have when you make all possible pairs of the six letters? (Remember, although any letter will appear several times in different pairs, the same letter should not appear twice in the same pair: BE is wrong; EC, ED are cortect.) Use the letters: A, B, C, D, E, F.

What mental process do you go through that lets you know you are cortecf'

(Explain). Are you satisfied that you have the cortect answer?

119 Question 2

Cake A friend is having a birthday, and you are making a cake for the party. The cake recipe caUs for 2 cups of flour, 1 cup of milk, and 1 cup of sugar, among other things. You have measured all the flourint o a bowl and have added the sugar when the doorbell rings. You leave to answer h. When you return to the kitchen, you forget that the sugar is in the bowl and add 1 more cup of sugar, plus the milk. Suddenly you realize your mistake; your cake wiU be too sweet. What can you do to solve this problem?

What mental process do you go through that lets you know you are cortect?

(Explain). Are you satisfied that you have the cortect answer?

120 Question 3 Camp You have sk chUdren who love to go campmg. You have patience enough to take two children, but no more, with you on each trip. Each chUd wants a chance to camp with each of the other brothers and sisters during the summer. How many trips would be necessary to give each child a chance to camp with every brother and sister? How do you know?

What mental process do you go through that lets you know you are correct''

(Explain). Are you satisfied that you have the cortect answer?

121 APPENDIX E LOGICAL REASONING TEST

122 An answer sheet is provided for this test and you will only need to record the letter cortesponding to the answer that you beUeve to be cortect on the sheet provided. For some questions, you wUl be asked to give two or three answers. Instmctions for answering these questions wiU be given when they appear in the test.

Several questions refer to diagrams and you should examine these diagrams closely before answering these questions.

If you have to change an answer, erase h completely and mark the new choice. Try to answer all questions; if you are not sure of an answer, then choose the one that you think is most apt to be right. Think carefully before you answer each question.

1. In the diagram foUowing, the Une XYZ represents a wall. A baU is thrown at the wall so that h always hits at point Y (see Figure 1.) If a baU bounces from point Y to pomt E h must have been thrown from:

(a) A (b) E (c) C (d) D (e) E See Figure 2. and study h carefully and use h to answer questions 2 and 3.

2. If a ball is thrown from point E to pomt Y on the waU, h will bounce to:

(a) A (b) E (c) C (d) F (e) G 3. If a ball bounces from point Y on the wall to point A h must have been thrown

from: (a) A (b) E (c) C (d) F (e) G 4. A ball is thrown from point A to point Y on the wall (see Figure 3). The angle

the return path of the ball makes whh CY is: (a) 50^ (b) 75° (c) 65° (d) 40° (e) 25° 5. A baU is thrown from somewhere in the section marked Right Side (see Figure

4). The ball hits the wall at point Y and bounces to point C. The size of the angle

123 from YZ, the pomt from which the ball must be thrown is: (a) 25° (b) 40° (c) 65° (d) 60^ (e) 50^

Suppose you have a balance scale shnilar to the one in Figure 5. Study the figure carefully and use h to answer questions 6 and 7.

6. A five pound weight is hung at poim D. How can you balance the ann'' (a) Hang a one pound weight at A.

(b) Hang a ten pound weight at J.

(c) Hang a five pound weight at H.

(d) Hang a ten pound weight at E. (e) Hang a five pound weight at K (f) It is unpossible.

7 A five pound weight is hung at point E and a ten pound weight at point C. How can you balance the arm"'

(a) Hang a five pound weight at G and a ten pound weight at J. (b) Hang a ten pound weight at H and a one pound weight at K. (c) Hang a fifteen pound weight at I and a one pound weight at H. (d) Hang a ten pound weight at I and a five pound weight at G

(e) It is impossible (f) Hang a five pound weight at I and a ten pound weight at G. Questions 8-10 are caUed syllogisms. Each syllogism consists of two premises and a conclusion. You are to determine whether each conclusion is valid or not.

Example: PI: No one-year-old babies can walk. P2: Paul is a one-year-old baby.

C: Paul cannot walk. This is a valid conclusion.

8 PI Not aU R's are T's.

P2: All T's are M's.

124 C: Some R's may not be M's. (a) Tme (b) False

9. PI: All coal is white.

P2: AU white coal produces red smoke when burning. C: Therefore, when coal bums, the smoke is grey, (a) Tme (b) False

10. PI: When John get angry at Mary he hits her. P2: John is not angry at Mary.

C: Therefore John wUl not hit Mary. (a) Tme (b) False The diagram in Figure 6 represents two open-top containers with water in them. There is a length of hose connecting them that wUl allow water to pass from one container to the other. Contamer B has a larger diameter than container A. Use the diagram to answer questions 11 and 12.

11. Container A and container B are moved down an equal distance. What will the water levels in the containers do?

(a) stay at the original height above the table.

(b) change so that the level in A is above the original height and the level in E is

below the original height. (c) change so that the level in B is above the original height and the level in A is

below the original height. (d) change so that the levels m A and E are the same distance above the original

height. (e) change so that the levels in A and E are the same distance below the original

12. Container A and container E are moved up an equal distance. What will the

water levels in the containers do?

125 (a) stay at the original height above the table.

(b) change so that the levels in A and E are the same distance below the original height.

(c) change so that the level in A is above the original height and the level in B is below the original height.

(d) change so that the levels in A and E are the same distance above the original height.

(e) change so that the level in E is above the original height and the level in A is below the original height.

The apparatus in Figure 7 can be used to throw shadows onto a screen. The rings pictured can be placed at points D, E, F or anywhere along line through each of the three pomts between the light and screen. The shadows that are referted to in the questions are the circular shadows of the rings only, not the ring stands. The distances of points D, E, and F from the screen are indicated above and the distances of points D, E, and F from the light are indicated below the apparatus. Study the diagram carefully and use it to answer questions 13 and 14.

13. Ring A is placed at point D and when hs shadow falls onto the screen the size

ofits shadow is measured. Ring A is removed and ring E is placed at D. The size

of B's shadow is measured. The two shadows formed:

(a) wUl be of equal size. (b) will be of unequal size, the shadow of A being larger than the shadow of B.

(c) wUl be of unequal size, the shadow of E being larger than the shadow of A. (d) will be of unequal size, the shadow of A being smaller than the shadow of E.

14. Ring E is placed at point D and when hs shadow faUs onto the screen the size ofits shadow is measured. Ring E is removed and ring C is placed at D. The size

126 •hAlW"'--'-! '" •

of C's shadow on the screen is measured. The two shadows fonned: (a) wiU be of equal size.

(b) wUl be of unequal size, the shadow of B being larger than the shadow of C. (c) will be of unequal size, the shadow of C bemg larger than the shadow of E. (d) wiU be of unequal size, the shadow of E being smaller than the shadow of C. The diagram in Figure 8 represems two glasses (a small one and a large one) and two jars (a small one and a large one). Use this diagram for question 15.

15. It takes six large glasses of water or nine smaU glasses of water to fillth e small jar, and it takes eight large glasses of water to fill the large jar, then how many small glasses of water does h take to fill the large jar?

(a) 10 (b) 15 (c) 11 (d) 16 (e) 12

Questions 16-21 are called verbal analogies. Verbal analogies consist of two pairs of words, each pair having the same relationship. For example, in is to out as up is to down. The common relationship between in-out and up-down is that they are opposites. Order of the pair of words is also important. Although pee/ is to banana diS paint is to house is cortect, peel is to banana as house is to paint is incortect. In the following questions you are to choose two or three words that will best complete each analogy. Some questions require two answers and some require three.

Example: (a) tire (e) anchor

(b) motor (f) deck is to car is to ship

(c) highway (g) captain

(d) map (h) ocean

127 In this example, the best choices to complete the analogy are highway and ocean

esuhing in the analogy: Highway is to car as ocean is to ship. In this case operates on

• .ug common relationship; a car operate on a highway and a ship operates on the ocean.

15 (a) attempt (e) problem

(b) completion (f) chemical

task is to as is to solution (c) work (g) man (d) question (h) answer

17 (a) swhch (e) engine (i) boat

(b) wu-e (f) canoe (j) engine

Ught bulb is to as is to (c) socket (g) motor (k) tractor (d) electrichy (h) steam (1) paddle

(e) roU 18. (a) walk (f) machine (b) toe is to body as wheel is to (g) bicycle (c) knee (h) spokes (d) foot

(e) soldier (i) bee 19. (a) cow (f) swarm (j) pig (b) horse is to is \o flock as (k) regiment (g) pack (c) sheep (1) wolf (h) litter (d) foot 128 20. (a) brain (e) spring (i) bedpost (b) eye (f) blanket (j) ticking is to head as is to

(c) hat (g) caster (k) bed

(d) ear (h) piUow (I) summer

21. (a) music (e) chair (b) house (f) leg is to piano as is to table

(c) bench (g) eat (d) tuner (h) furniture

129 =wrar:jageigSijj:|g.efc''y."^r-,

DIAGRAM FOR QUESTION 1

Figure E. 1 A Ime XYZ Representing a Wall.

DIAGRAM FOR QUESTIONS 2-3

Figure E. 2 A line .YTZ Representing a Wall.

130 , • ,. i ^ • •— • M.^M^^ I.Am., .-V. ^IAVV. -.. .*

DIAGRAM FOR QUESTIONS 4

Figure E.3 A Une XY7 Representing a Wall.

DIAGRAM FOR QUESTIONS 5

Ri^ht Side

Figure E. 4 A line A7Z Representing a Wall.

131 itrt'ii't'- •' ' ' '•'^'•"••'••'•'''••'''•-•-w^yyt.'''-;^--'-'^--''''^ I \1 fti I IM

BALANCE SCALE

Center of Arm

Weights which can be used £ C lib

lib

Figure E. 5 Balance Beam and Weights

132 •'-•ispg

OPEN-TOP CONTAINERS

Original Height Water Levels Above Table

I (The same in both containers) Container A Container B

Figure E. 6 Water Levels in Containers A and B

133 ^^^^^wm^mammm niff^i—BfWff^ "I'lMiwi'i rr^^"^

SHADOW SCREEN

Ught

B c Ring Diameter 3' r 1"

Figure E. 7 Light and Rings

134 M\}mm ifuuvammmtmsmmB^msmmmm^mmm

JARS AND GLASSES

Small 6 Class Large Jar Urge SmaU Jar QClass

Figure E. 8 SmaU and Large Glasses with Small and Large Jars

135