Harvey’s belief systems in adolescents : problems of response categorization
Creators: name: Litzcke, Hans Georg
Publisher: name: University of British Columbia
Year: 2010

description: In 1961 O. J. Harvey, David E. Hunt, and Harold M. Schroder published a theory of personality structure and development. Major research based on that theory has continued under O. J. Harvey at the University of Colorado until now with the result that the theory underwent some reformations. Several aspects, especially those dealing with descriptive indexes of personality and the assumed implications of functioning seem largely confirmed through research. However, most reported measurements were done with a "free response" measure on samples from University students. Furthermore, as far as this writer was able to ascertain, no independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the instrument has been reported. For the purpose of attempting such an evaluation, Harvey's "free response measure" (with a slight modification) was coupled with a "forced choice" measure that was theoretically assumed to measure the same variables. Both parts of the instrument, presented in a booklet form, were administered to a non-systematic sample of grade 9 and 10 high school students. Subsequently, results obtained through judgemental categorizations were carefully recorded. Scoring procedures for the "forced choice" measure were based on probability considerations in such a way that the meaning of and confidence in scores would correspond as closely as seemed possible to the meaning of and confidence in judged categorizations. Surprisingly different pictures emerged from comparisons of the results. The "free response" measure, while found very demanding on the level of judgemental expertise and, hence, of questionable reliability unless in the hands of rather "finely" tuned judges, was found, nonetheless, to be an instrument of remarkable sensitivity in its ability to point up inferential positions from the theoretical structures of personality. For this reason, the results from the free response measure were used as a provisionally valid baseline from which the results of the forced choice measure were subsequently interpreted. The results from the "forced choice" measure seemed at first sight completely unrelated to the "free response" measure, but closer inspection showed a pattern which made the failings of the instrument understandable and lead to directions that would have to be taken to bring the functioning of the "forced choice" measure into closer correspondence with the functioning of the "free response" measure. With the obtained frequencies of categorizations of the "free response" measure, one "external" and several "internal" comparisons of frequencies of belief system functionings were made. In the "external" comparison of this sample to reported frequencies by Harvey, differences were found - but not all of them as expected. It was suggested that these differences might eventually disappear when the chronological age of the respondents would equal that of the respondents in Harvey's samples. Research into distribution pattern of system functioning across different cultures with different patterns of childrearing would shed light on problems of generalizability and developmental aspects of the theory. Internal comparisons showed that frequencies of personality structures (as defined by belief system functioning) were essentially independent of sex and grade level. Contrary to Harvey's indication, levels of "articulateness" were found to be much higher in certain personality structures than in others. It was also shown that "norms" of prejudice seen as varying over time at different rates for different concepts, occurred in their entire range (no prejudice - strong prejudice) only in two major types of personality functioning. It was argued that, if, as it seems, prejudice' does not occur in certain personality structures, then the whole issue of tolerance, etc. is in the entire domain of discussion between the two remaining personality types. In conclusion, the adequacy of the "free response" instrument was assessed in terms of it's possible purposes. As a research and diagnostic tool it received "high marks", but as a means to separate students into different levels and as a means to monitor their progress, it received hardly any "marks" at all. It was argued that by taking bits and pieces from the theory and, armed with a very problematic measurement instrument, one would rush headlong into yet another episode of charlatanism. Several research questions were posited, the most important ones being questions about generalizability and developmental processes of system functioning. Along this way efforts should also be continued to develop an "objective" standardizable instrument preferably as a direct rather than an indirect measure of system functioning. The theory of belief system functioning was viewed as a valuable topic in teacher education.