A Life Position Scale Fredrick A. Boholst Abstract This article describes the construction of a Life Position Scale developed by the author. Initial items representing four convictions articulated by Berne (1972)-I'm OK (1+), I'm not-OK (1-),You're OK (U+), and You're not-OK (U-)-were administered to 95 participants. The top five items for each conviction, with item-total correlations that reached an alpha level of p < .05, were retained for a subsequent factor analysis. An exploratory type of factor analysis constraining the process to two factors yielded a factor neatly containing all "I" items and another factor containing "You" items, with the OK items taking on opposite loadings to the not-OK items. Underlying factors seem to be I and You factors, not factors representing OK and not-OK. The final items are presented with suggestions for future research and a question for future theory development. Readers are free to administer the scale in their clinical and research practice but are encouraged to establish norms based on their culture and locale. In an effort to measure life positions for my doctoral dissertation, I constructed a Life Position Scale (LPS). A life position is a psychological stance that a child takes about the self and the rest of the world. It derives from a basic conviction that individuals develop when they are young. Convictions are firm decisions about the OKness or not-OKness of the self (I) and others in general (V). Convictions are presumably influenced by early script programming (referred to in transactional analysis as the "protocol") during the nursing period and within the context ofa two-handed transaction, usually between mother and child (Berne, 1972). In developing these convictions, and depending on what they were constantly made to believe about themselves, people may conclude about themselves: I'm smart, I'm stupid, I'm 28 nice, I'm nasty, I'm as good as anybody else, I'm inadequate, and so on (James & Jongeward, 1971/1978). When deciding about others, people may conclude: People can't be trusted, People are wonderful, It's a dog-eatdog world, or Everybody's on to something. These convictions can be summarized as: I'm OK, I'm not-OK, You're OK, or You're notOK. Using the symbols (+) for OK and (-) for not-OK, the convictions can be represented as 1+ or 1- and V+ or V-. Convictions form the basis for the life position the person takes in relation to the self and others. Positions can be any of the following: 1. 1+V+. "I'm OK, You're OK" is a healthy position. People taking this position solve problems in a constructive and realistic manner and have a generally positive outlook on life. This is the position a transactional analysis therapist should take in a therapeutic relationship; in fact, it is the basis of transactional analysis as a contractual therapy (Blackstone, 1993). 2.1+ V-. "I'm OK, You're not-OK" is a projective or "get-rid-of' position. People taking this position are described as arrogant and antisocial. At worst, they can be killers who justify eradication ofthe minority; at best, they may be meddlers who go out of their way in a "holierthan-thou" attitude to convince others to change. Clinically, this is the position of the paranoid (Berne, 1966) or the narcissist (MeFarren, 1998). 3. 1- V+. "I'm not-OK, You're OK" is the depressive position. Colloquially, these are the people who live on "If onlys," and "I should haves" (Berne, 1972) and tend to denigrate themselves (Hunt-Cohn, 1994). The "I'm notOK, You're OK" position is the existential basis for the feeling of shame (Erskine, 1994). Individuals in this position experience melancholia and in severe clinical cases may resort to suicide (Berne, 1972). 4.1- U-. "I'm not-OK, You're not-OK," also known as the futility position, is taken by those Transactional Analysis Journal A LIFE POSITION SCALE who lose interest in living. Clinically, they exhibit schizoid or schizophrenic behavior. If those taking the third position feel that "Life isn't worth living," those taking the fourth feel "Life isn't worth anything at all" (Berne, 1972). Migdow (1994), in her conceptual analysis of abuse, suggested that this position also seems to be the one taken by child abuse perpetrators, whose own traumatic experiences led them to "conclude that life is not precious" (p. 180). For the Life Position Scale I developed, ten items were constructed for each of the four convictions discussed by Berne (1972): I'm OK (1+), I'm not-OK (1-), You're OK (U+), and You're not-OK (U-). To these the test takers were to answer "All of the time," "Most of the time," "Half of the time," "Sometimes," or "Never." The initial scale was administered to 95 college students, and a corrected item-total correlation was performed. A corrected item-total correlation is the Pearson r between the total score for each conviction and each item, with the particular item score deducted from the total score. This is also known as item-whole or item-remainder coefficient (Spector, 1994) and is done to avoid inflation of the correlation coefficient due to the presence ofthe particular item. The top five items for each conviction had item-total correlations ranging from .39 to .57, with a probability level of p < .05. This indicated that the chances are less than five in a hundred that these correlations were spurious. The items were then retained for a subsequent factor analysis. A Short Note on Factor Analysis Factor analysis is a mathematical technique used to summarize a large set of data by reducing it into fewer dimensions or factors. Basically, it reduces the data or clusters them based on their intercorrelations. The grouped data can then be named and can even be presumed to be a function of"some underlying, latent, and hypothetical set of factors" (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995, p. 367). For example, a researcher may have 20 sets oftest scores from 100 students. Obviously, it would be cumbersome to process and analyze these individual test scores, so the researcher Vol. 32. No. I. January 2002 runs a factor analytic procedure and extracts two factors: one containing students' scores in math and another containing verbal test scores. It so happens that these two sets of tests cluster together because the data within each dimension or factor are interrelated. Students' scores can then be thought ofas functions ofthese two underlying dimensions, which the researcher may call verbal and mathematical intelligences. The factor analytic procedure includes rotating the axes on which the data are plotted to maximize the variance in the data set that each factor accounts for or "captures." This, however, is quite involved and beyond the scope of this article. Those who wish more information may look up Hair et al.'s (1995) Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings for a conceptual discussion offactor analysis or Tabachnick and Fidell's (1989) Using Multivariate Statistics (2nd ed.) for a more mathematically oriented discussion. Factor Analysis of the Life Position Scale An initial unconstrained (in terms of the number offactors) exploratory factor analysis was performed on the items that were retained after the item-whole correlation analysis. However, this yielded 12 factors, which I found to be unwieldy and difficult to interpret in light of the theory. The next step was to rerun the analysis, but this time constrain the extraction to two factors. This was done based on the hypothesis that there should be two underlying factors the items represented. However, I was not sure whether the two hypothesized factors would represent two polarities of OKness and not-OKness or two factors that would represent I and U. Results To my surprise and delight, the results of a VARIMAX-rotated factor analytic procedure extracted one factor that neatly contained all the I items, with the 1+ and 1- having opposite loadings, and another factor of U items, with U+ and U- having opposite loadings (see Table 1 for the factor loadings and communalities). The results may shed some light on a plausible assumption ofIlU factors and not underlying OKness and not-OKness. The rotated 29 FREDRICK A. BOHOLST Table 1 Factor Analysis of the Life Position Scale (VARIMAX Rotation) Item I like myself. I don't feel good about myself. I am proud of who I am. I feel helpless. I feel confident about myself. I am aware of my positive traits. I wish I hadn't been born into this world. I feel I won't reach my dreams. I think others dislike me. I believe I am basically good. I wish some people were dead. I find it easy to appreciate others. Others are basically OK. Item I get irritated with other people. I distrust people. I feel suspicious of other people's intentions. I am impatient with other people's mistakes. Most people can be trusted. People can do a good job. I look forward to meeting other people. solution shows the I factor with an eigenvalue of 4.79, explaining only 24% of the item variance. The second factor, the V factor, has an eigenvalue of3.65, which explains 13.3% of the item variance. Although only 37.3% ofthe total variance has been accounted for, which prompted me to add more factors, the theoretical interpretability of the two-factor solution was deemed enough to stop the factor extraction. Table 2 presents the retained items for the LPS. This will be administered to 150 participants for my proposed dissertation entitled "The Influence of Scripts and Life Positions on Psychopathology and Positive Mental Health: A Structural Equation Modeling." Extracting the Life Position Pretesting the LPS among "normal" participants, the Life Position Scale used a 5-point Likert scale (5 = All of the time, 4 = Most of the time, 3 = Half of the time, 2 = Sometimes, and 1 = Never). To extract an individual's life position (i.e., 1+V+, I-V+, 1+V-, or I-V-), the 1scores were reversed and the total score was added to the 1+ scores, creating a global score 30 Communalities Factor I Factor U .71 -.68 .67 -.63 .62 .58 -.58 -.57 -.52 .33 .02 .05 -.00 .33 .02 .06 .26 .17 .21 -.29 .513 .447 .197 .347 .384 .334 .360 .450 .409 .463 .73 -.64 -.62 .277 .391 .408 Factors I Factors U Communalities .04 -.12 -.02 -.02 .17 .18 .26 .62 .63 .55 .51 -.49 -.48 -.44 .283 .272 .388 .549 .399 .262 .310 -.14 .04 -.05 for 1.Presumably, the higher the score the more OK the person feels about himself or herself. The median was then computed and used as the cut-off point between the OK and the not-OK convictions. This placed the upper 50% in the 1+ and the lower 50% in the 1-. The same procedure was applied to the V conviction. The V- scores were reversed and added to the V+ scores, creating a global score for V. The median was computed with the upper 50% placed as V+ and the lower 50% as U-. Such a strategy was deemed best since the study data were gathered from a nonclinical sample of college students, which statistically "forced" them to take on a life position. Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of the I and V global scores, N = 95. (Note: Initial exploration of the data did not show reliable differences among sex, age, and the courses majored in while attending college.) Discussion The objective of this article is to present the Life Position Scale I developed in the hope that readers might find it useful in research and Transactional Analysis Journal A LIFE POSITION SCALE Table 2 Life Position Scale Items 1+ I like myself. I am proud of who I am. I feel confident about myself. I am aware of my positive traits. I believe I am basically good. U+ I find it easy to appreciate others. Others are basically OK. Most people can be trusted. People can do a good job. I look forward to meeting other people. clinical settings. In light of this, there are three issues that need to be addressed. The first relates to the assignment of a life position. The data in Table 3 come from the 95 pretest students who participated in the LPS construction. I have used the LPS subsequently in workshops as an indicator of participants' life positions, and the results seem to have been validated by workshop participants' phenomenological reports. The median can be used as a cut-off point to categorize the test-taker's life position. For example, if a person scores I 37 and U 37, then he or she would be categorized as 1-U+ or ''I'm not-OK, You're OK" because the median score for I is 38 and the median score for U is 36. This might not pose a problem if this were a research situation because the researcher could proceed to plot the scores and compute mathematical means in a nomothetic research. However, in the clinical field, the person's opinion and reflection about his or her life position should be taken into account and discussed in a safe and therapeutic environment. Moreover, the mean and the standard deviation have also been useful in providing insight into the test-taker's degree of OKness or not-OKness based on how far he or she is from the mean. In the clinical setting, this seems to be a better approach to exploring a person's life position than the previous categorical assignment on the basis ofthe median. This is because varying degrees of OKness and not-OKness can be explored in an idiographic and phenomenological light. Vol. 32, No. I, January 2002 II don't feel good about myself. I feel helpless. I wish I hadn't been born into this world. I feel I won't reach my dreams. I think others dislike me. UI wish some people were dead. I get irritated with other people. I distrust people. I feel suspicious of other people's intentions. I am impatient with other people's mistakes. The second point relates to the use of this scale in research. Researchers who wish to use the scale are encouraged to establish their own norms and cut-off points based on their own population and cultural peculiarities. Once this is done, the life positions may then be placed under investigation as independent variables influencing dependent variables or as dependent variables being affected by antecedent independent variables that, to the researcher, may be theoretically sound. This will enhance the scale's validity as well as the validity oflife position as a construct. For example, the scale's validity could be strengthened by using known groups that can theoretically be argued to fit certain life positions. As mentioned earlier, depressives for instance, would presumably be categorized as I-U+, while antisocial, paranoid (Berne, 1972), and narcissistic individuals (McFarren, 1998) might take the I+U- position. Schizoid individuals, schizophrenics (Berne, 1972), and perhaps child abuse perpetrators (Migdow, 1994), on the other hand, are argued to be taking the I-U- position. The third issue seems serendipitous. If the reader recalls, the results of the factor analysis came up with two factors, one containing all the I items and the other all the U items. Note that the factors extracted were IJU factors and not underlying factors of OK and not-OK. This highlights questions that I do not have answers to and that readers might want to theorize on: Why are there two underlying factors bearing the "I" and the "U" and not those regarding a 31 FREDRICK A. BOHOLST Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for the I and U Global Scores Statistics I U Mean 37.30 34.96 Standard Deviation 5.50 5.39 Median 38.00 36.00 Lowest Score 12.00 11.00 Highest Score 50.00 43.00 sense of OKness and not-OKness? Of what theoretical importance might this finding have? Answers to these questions might shed light on the developmental aspects of transactional analysis theory, particularly as it relates to differentiation or the infant's development of a sense of "I" as a separate entity from "¥ou." Fredrick Boholst, an ITAA Associate Member, has a master's degree in psychology with a major in industrial/organizational psychology. He is a doctoral candidate in clinicalpsychology at Ateneo de Manila University and a faculty member in the Department ofPsychology at the University of San Carlos. Please send reprint requests to him at the Department ofPsychology, University ofSan Carlos, P. del Rosario St., Cebu City 6000, Philippines; email: montoya37@hotmail.com REFERENCES Berne, E. (1966). Principles of group treatment. New York: Grove Press. Berne, E. (1972). What do you say after you say hello?: The psychology ofhuman destiny. New York: Grove Press. Blackstone, P. (1993). The dynamic child: Integration of second-order structure, object relations, and self psychology. Transactional Analysis Journal; 23, 216-234. Erskine, R. G. (1994). Shame and self-righteousness: Transactional analysis perspectives and clinical interventions. Transactional Analysis Journal, 24, 86-102. Hair, 1. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Upper SadIe River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hunt-Cohn, M. (1994). Loneliness and the four life positions. Transactional Analysis Journal, 24, 293-294. James, M., & Jongeward, D. (1978). Born to win: Transactional analysis with gestalt experiments. New York: Penguin Books USA. (Original work published 1971) McFarren, C. (1998). Narcissism: "I'm OK, you're not!" Transactional Analysis Journal, 28. 244-250. Migdow, J. (1994). Silencing the child. Transactional Analysis Journal, 24, 178-184. Spector, P. (1994). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. In M. S. Lewis- Beck, (Ed.), Basic measurement (pp. 229-300). London: Sage Publications. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel!, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCol!ins. ITAA Website: www.itaa-net.org The ITAA website provides comprehensive information about every aspect of the ITAA. Recent additions to the web site include links to upcoming international, national, and regional activities and membership information. If you would like your website to be linked from the ITAA site, please forward the site address (URL) to elaine@itaa-net.org . Also forward any suggestions/feedback/information for upcoming events, and share the website address with nonmembers. 32 Transactional Analysis Journal Life Positions and Attachment Styles: A Canonical Correlation Analysis Boholst, Fredrick A;Boholst, Giselle B;Mende, Michael Mark B Transactional Analysis Journal; Jan 2005; 35, 1; ProQuest Central pg. 62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 (2012) 284 – 291 CY-ICER 2012 Life positions scale language equivalence, reliability and validity analysis Isa Yucel Isgor a *, Canani Kaygusuz b, ** Ahmet Ragip Ozpolat c a b ncan 2400, Turkey c Abstract Life positions scale developed by Boholst in 2002 consists of four sub-dimensions and 24 items. The language adaptation of the found significant at the level of p
Purchase answer to see full attachment