Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to use the cultural agency theory (CAT) formulated to represent a personality in
which multiple identities reside. Dynamic identity theory is used to explain the relationship between the
multiple identities, which impact on personality creating imperatives for behaviour. The mindset agency
theory (MAT), a development of CAT, is used to evaluate the personal and public identities of Theresa May,
the UK Prime Minister in 2017, to determine whether there is a psychological reason for the political
inconsistency she demonstrated prior to and during the UK general election campaign.
Design/methodology/approach – CAT connects identity and personality theories and is elaborated on
conceptually to include the dynamic identity theory, which explains how identities develop. Developing
identities result in personality adjustments through trait movements. The theory is applied to Theresa May,
the UK Prime Minister in 2017. A selection of her election narratives is taken, and summative content analysis
is applied. Her public and personal identities are examined in this way. Data results are tested for reliability,
and her public and personal identities are compared using MAT.
Findings – Theresa May’s personal and public identities, while related, have some differences, suggesting a
clinical explanation for her political inconsistencies.
Originality/value – There is no other current theory that explains the relationship between personality
and identity and can evaluate personality using a qualitative–quantitative approach, undertaking a
comparative evaluation of multiple identities to explain clinical psychological conditions.
Keywords Personalities, Content analysis, Mindset agency theory, Identities,
Cultural agency theory, Theresa May
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
On 23 June 2016, the British Government, led by David Cameron, held a referendum on
whether the UK should remain in the European Union (EU) or exit (British exit or Brexit).
His purpose was party political rather than for national interest (Parker, 2016). The
controversial outcome was that 52 per cent of voters expressed their preference to leave
the EU. David Cameron resigned, and the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, was given the
role of the prime minister.
May ideologically identifies herself as a one-nation conservative, though her one-nation
proposition appears to relate only to her views about the nation (Wadsworth et al., 2016). Her
political position has also been historically inconsistent. While serving as Home Secretary, Kybernetes
she claimed that a cohesive society required control of migration, but she was unable to © Emerald Publishing Limited
0368-492X
deliver this blaming the EU. She publicly stated her support for the UK remaining in the EU DOI 10.1108/K-08-2017-0313
K during the 2016 referendum campaign, though did not campaign as a “remainer”. Following
the referendum and her successful appointment as party leader and prime minister, May
underwent a paradigm shift: from critical support for EU membership to support for an
extreme “hard” model of Brexit. It signalled her intention to seek full withdrawal from the
EU and all its attributes, whatever that might mean. Her arbitrary dramatic position on
Brexit was that if she was unable to achieve an agreement with the EU for an exit strategy,
she would adopt what some would later call a “cliff edge” strategy that many feared would
result in economic damage to the country (Parker and Binham, 2017a, 2017b). As it was, the
outcome of the referendum and the uncertainty generated by her position resulted in a
serious drop in the value of the UK currency. This led to elevated anxieties by many,
including the business community who were concerned with May’s reckless approach and
the degrees of uncertainty and economic volatility that this was already delivering.
Wishing to shore up her power position as she moved into Brexit talks, May called a
general election on 8 June 2017. The outcome was believed to be a sure thing, with May
taking a strong majority during the election process. In the end, however, she lost her
parliamentary majority altogether. This was caused by the type of election campaign that
she ran (Parker and Khalaf, 2017a, 2017b). It centred on her identity as a leader of strength
who could be trusted to deliver stable leadership. Like her approach to Brexit, the campaign
had a flawed management process (Campbell, 2017) and suffered from her insistence on
taking personal control beyond that of party advisors, with a reluctance to delegate, and
running with a faulty manifesto (McTague et al., 2017). We can reflect on the fact that May
did not appear to recognise her failing performance until it was too late. As a result, a
delayed but significant surge for support for the opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn occurred
(Hunt and Wheeler, 2017). While this surge was insufficient to elect him as the prime
minister, it was sufficient to result in a hung parliament for Theresa May. After the election,
she managed to retain power by creating a pact with the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist
Party in exchange for extra social funding, at a time when elsewhere she still supported
austerity in her government economic policies, resulting in policy inconsistency indicating
opportunism.
Our interest here lies in understanding a personality that creates inconsistency and
delivers unnecessary uncertainties. To do this, we will apply personality theory linked to
identity theory. There is only one theory that connects the two, and this is the cybernetic
cultural agency theory (CAT) (Guo et al., 2016), and its off-spring the mindset agency theory
(MAT) (Yolles and Fink, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c). Personality is usually expressed in terms of
traits as explained in CAT, and trait types coalesce into mindset types (as explained in
MAT) that classify individuals and from which psychological analysis is possible.
The methodological approach involves content analysis of May’s election narratives. It
was previously applied to Donald Trump (Yolles and di Fatta, 2017c, 2017a; Di Fatta and
Yolles, 2017), adopting the conceptual framework of CAT and its extension into the
personality and identity theory. It will permit an exploration of multiple identities and seek
similarities/differences between them. A primary proposition here is that personality can
create a potential for certain context-related patterns of behaviour, and that a healthy
personality hinges to a significant extent on multiple identity similarity. The obverse of this
proposition is that lack of consistency in behaviour is indicative of clinical personality issues
that can arise through multiple identity distinctions. The methodological approach is
qualitative–quantitative, using content analysis of selected election narratives of May. The
specific hypothesis that will be tested is that a marked lack of consistency in May’s
behaviour is because of an analytic/modelling pathology that can be assigned to a clinical
explanation of her inconsistency. The selection of data to be analysed will be identified and
the process of content analysis explained. Results will then be presented and tested for Understanding
reliability. Indicative outcomes will then be discussed. Theresa May
2. Theoretical framework
The dynamic identity theory (DIT) explains how identities develop and change. This will be
set within a broader framework than that provided by its originator Hijmans (2003) and
explained. It will be followed by an introduction to CAT and its developments into the
personality and identity theory, explaining how personality and multiple identities are
connected. This theory will be enriched by DIT. The new framework will explain how
multiple identities can be assessed and how personalities can be evaluated.
Generic class
Basic dimension Personality/psychological identity Contextual sociocultural identity
c Normative
Agency N rm
No r ative Personality
P rsonality
Per
I22,1
,1 I11,1
,1
Figurative Intelligence Agency
I4,1
Operative System
Operative Intelligence Structures that create
Cognitive
C
Coognititive sy
ssystem
ysttem Figurative
Fig
i urativ
t e System
Systtem
Sy operational
Identific
f ation kn
Identification kknowledge,
owledge, info
f rmation as
Figurative information Operative
O
Op erati
t ve System
Systtem
Sy performance as
Attitudes and conceptual
conceptu t al schemas (e.g. goals) that include Operative infof rmation &
information efficient and effective
info
f rmation
information aappreciative
app reciative info
f rmation,
information, stru
r ctu
t res facilitating
structures f ilitating decision an
fac aand
d directed action under
Cognitive unconscious, ethics & decision impm eratives.
imperatives. policy making behaviour. structural facilitation/
self-
f refe
f rence.
self-reference. Cognitive subconscious, Cognitive conscious, constraint.
Cognitive orientation trait self-
f regulation.
self-regulation. self-
f organisation.
self-organisation. Agency self-
Figurative orientation trait Operative orientation trait organisation
Social orientation
Operative
O perative Intelligence
ce
trait
Figurative Intelligence adj
d ustment imp
adjustment m eratives
imperatives
adj
d ustment imp
adjustment m eratives
imperatives I4,2 Figure 1.
I11,2
I3,2
,2
Cultural agency
I22,2
,2
Imperative for model with
Operative Intelligence
adjustment, with impact embedded
Impulses for cultural adjustment on personality mindset personality and
“process intelligence”
bars indicating
Notes: Intelligences Ii; j; order i = 1,4 have feedforward or feeddback j = 1 or n2 possible pathologies/
filters
Source: Adapted from Yolles and Fink (2014d)
systems. The cultural system is self-referencing, the figurative system is self-regulating and
the operative system that interacts with agency environments is self-organising (Yolles and
Fink, 2013). Each agency system also operates through formative traits.
The cognitive system presented in Figure 1 not only has identity knowledge but is also
the residence of identity. Now, if we take the proposition, as implied by Hijmans and Wester,
that multiple identities constitute an adaptable system of learning as indicated in Table I,
then they can collectively form a living system contained within the cognitive system
of the personality. So, applying a recursion of the agency living system model (with its
sociocultural components) to the cognitive system, we generate Figure 2 (Yolles and di
Fatta, 2017a), where agency can be viewed in terms of a psychological/strategic personality
system (Yolles and Fink, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c). This can explain the mechanism of identity
development as described in DIT through the feedback and feedforward intelligences, these
being constituted as networks of processes. This approach also offers a direct connection
between the personality theory and the identity theory, which would be a novel
achievement. In Figure 2, adapted from Yolles and Fink (2014d), there are five traits
presented that define an agency, three belonging to psychological personality and two
(sociocultural) as contexts for that personality. One aspect of this model is that the operative
and figurative process intelligences that connect the various systems can filter or even block
processes required to make the agency work healthily, causing analytic pathologies. These
are theoretical pathologies that are represented in the modelling process, likely associated
with clinical conditions (relating to the observation and treatment of actual patients)
associated with a personality issues. Pathologies can impact on the development of the traits
and, therefore, on the personality. The model can also explain what happens when system
K
instabilities arise and how those can be represented through analytic pathologies. While
system instability might well result in pathologies, it is not necessarily the case that
pathology will result in system instability.
Figure 1 represents the cognition/thinking dimension of the personality. However, there
is also an affect/emotion dimension (Fink and Yolles, 2015, 2017a). Cognition and affect
interact operatively in the personality, and it is through processes of internalisation that
mutual affect–cognition trait influences occur. This connection embraces Hijmans’ (2003)
affect proposition of DIT as shown in Table I.
DIT provides reflection on the distinct psychological and contextual groups of identity.
The psychological identity subsystem involves systems that provide behavioural potential
through traits, and as such they are strategic. The operative couple consists of interaction
between the strategic identity figurative system with the strategic identity operative system,
linked together by the autopoietic operative intelligence. This intelligence may be subject to
an analytic pathology when intelligence processes between personal and public identity are
in some way filtered or inhibited. The analytical pathology creates a potential, given the
right contextual and situational conditions for clinical behaviour. Other analytic pathologies
also arise, as indicated by the grey bars in Figure 2.
Yolles and di Fatta (2017a) noted that personalities can create a public identity facade.
Such situations can occur where political candidates (through their collective teams)
stand for election and wish to appeal to and persuade the audiences. It can also occur in
other situations, for instance in multiracial contexts where individuals have their own
political need to show that they “fit-in”. In either case, multiple identities may be
contradictory, perhaps suggesting psychological issues that coincide with clinical
behaviour (Alcoff, 2006).
Each of the five traits in Figure 2 can take bipolar type values as shown in Table II. Trait Understanding
types come together in a combination to form mindset types (Yolles and di Fatta, 2017a) and Theresa May
are defined in Table III (Yolles and Di Fatta, 2017c; Di Fatta and Yolles, 2017).
Figure 3 is a three-dimensional personality mindset space where personality traits are
represented, including type polar extremes. The mindsets shown in this space are given
in Table III in terms of Table II. For any personality, trait types may be balanced where
they take some of each extreme polar value. This does not mean that they maintain two
extreme values at the same time, but rather adopt values that are not either of the extreme
positions. These can be manifested as hybrid mindset types, when two or more mindset
types combine to represent a broader personality. This indicates that an identity does not
have a single extreme psychological orientation and rather adopts attributes of two (or
more) mindsets. An illustration of a hybrid mindset is shown in Figure 3, by the
intersection between HS and EI represented by HS \ EI. This is the result of the trait
types becoming balanced. Other combinations may also be possible – though not
represented – to avoid visual complexity.
Table II.
characteristics,
context classes
personality and
distinguished as
Trait types and their
DIT system Trait type Nature Keywords/values
Personality traits
Strategic identity cognitive Intellectual People seen as autonomous, bounded entities who should find meaning in Autonomy, creativity, expressivity, curiosity,
autonomy their own uniqueness and who are encouraged to express their internal broadmindedness and freedom
attributes (preferences, traits, feelings and motives). Intellectual autonomy
encourages individuals to pursue their own ideas and intellectual directions
independently
Embeddedness People are viewed as entities embedded in the plural agency. Meaning in Polite, obedient, forgiving, respect tradition, self-
life comes through social relationships, identifying with the group, discipline, moderate, social order, family security,
participating in its shared way of life and striving towards its shared goals. protect my public image, national security, honour
Such values as social order, respect for tradition, security and wisdom are elders and reciprocation of favours
especially important. Embedded cultures emphasise maintaining the status
quo and restraining actions or inclinations that might disrupt in-group
solidarity or the traditional order. Embrace responsibility and duty and
commit to shared goals. Connected with transactional scripting that
constitutes simple repetition and sameness
Strategic identity figurative Mastery Encourages active self-assertion to attain group or personal goals and to Ambition, success, daring, competence, independent,
and master, direct and change the natural and social environment. It is basically influential, social recognition, choosing own goals,
monistic in nature capable
Motive Motive refers to the seeking of egocentric or altruistic ends that respond to Exciting life, enjoyment, varied life, pleasure and self-
the meaningfulness in life, and involves purposes that are either dependent indulgence
or independent of self, generating egoistic or altruistic fulfilment
Harmony Trying to understand and appreciate rather than to direct or exploit. This Acceptance of position in life, world at peace, protect
orientation emphasizes the goals “unity with nature”, “protecting the environment, unity with nature and world of beauty
environment”, and “world at peace”. It is basically pluralistic in nature.
Strategic identity operative Hierarchy People are socialized to take the hierarchical distribution of roles for Social power, authority, humility and wealth
granted and to comply with the obligations and rules attached to their roles.
In hierarchical cultures, organizations are more likely to construct a chain
of authority in which all are assigned well-defined roles. There is an
expectation that individuals operate for the benefit of the social
organization. Sees the unequal distribution of power, roles and resources as
legitimate. This has an implicit connection with power and power processes
(continued)
DIT system Trait type Nature Keywords/values
Egalitarianism Seeks to induce people to recognize one another as moral equals who share Quality, social justice, responsibility, honesty, loyal,
basic interests as human beings. People are socialized to internalize a equality, honesty, helpful and cooperation
commitment to co-operate and to feel concern for everyone’s welfare. They
are expected to act for others’ benefit as a matter of choice. Organisations
are built on co-operative negotiation among employees and management.
This has an implicit connection with service to the agency
Agency contextual traits
Identity social Dramatism Individual relationships to others are important, constituted as sequences of Sequenciality, communication, individualism,
interpersonal events. Communication is important, as are individuals and contractual and ideocentric
their proprietary belief systems, and individual social contracts. Goal
formation should be for individual benefit. Ideocentric agencies are
important, operating through social contracts between the rational wills of
its individual members
Patternism Configurations are important in social and other forms of relationships. Configurations, relationships, symmetry, pattern,
There is persistent curiosity. The social is influenced by relationships with balance, dynamics, collectivism and allocentric
individuals. Some importance is attached to symmetry, pattern, balance,
and the dynamics of relationships. Gaol seeking should be for collective
benefit, and collective gaol formation takes precedence over personal gaol
formation. Allocentric collectives are important, where the members operate
subjectively
Identity cultural Sensate Reality is sensory and material, pragmatism is normal, there is an interest The senses, utilitarianism, materialism, becoming,
in becoming rather than being and happiness is paramount. People are process, change, flux, evolution, progress,
externally oriented and tend to be instrumental and empiricism is transformation, pragmatism and temporal
important
Ideational Reality is super-sensory, morality is unconditional, tradition is important, Super-sensory, spirituality, humanitarianism, self-
there is a tendency towards creation and examination of self deprivation, creativity of ideas and eternal
Table II.
Understanding
Theresa May
K Illustration of
influencing
contextual trait
Personality trait types types
Mindset type MAT3T type MAT5T type
five traits, three from personality and two contextual traits relating to sociocultural
contexts. MAT3T is a psychological mindset type within the agency with an ontology
represented through its potential for guiding behaviour though elaborative information and
strategic schemas. MAT5T has an ontology that reflects a system with an operative
orientation, reflected by the involvement of execution information and operative structures.
Hence, ontological consistency permits MAT5T to be applied to public identity. In Table III,
the main differences between MAT3T and MAT5T are summarised. According to Yolles
and Fink (2014a, 2014b, 2014c), the mindset types that involve intellectual autonomy are
variants on individualism, whereas those that involve embeddedness are variants of
collectivism (Oyserman et al., 2002; Yolles and Fink, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d).
3. Methodology
Having elaborated on the theoretical framework used in this study, we are now interested in
seeking data that can be analysed. Morgan and Harmon (2001) provided a review of data-
generating approaches, but only one provided is suitable here, principally because of its
ability to evaluate remotely, namely, narrative content analysis.
Content analysis of narratives can be defined as a qualitative–quantitative technique
capable of studying and capturing meaningful information from distinct kinds of documents
(Krippendorff 1980, 2012). It is qualitative because it uses sensation and feelings, but at the
same time it is also a quantitative technique because it uses inference to test the reliability
Hierarchy
1 Understanding
Theresa May
(7) HC (3) HS
Operave trait
(5) HP (1) HI
HS EI
Figure 3.
⊃
Personality mindset
Egalitarianism (8) EC (4) ES space showing eight
Cognive trait 1
0 Embeddedness Intellectual Autonomy extreme mindset
Harmony
types, and when two
become conjoint, a
Figurave trait (2) EI hybrid mindset type
(6) EP emerges indicated
1
by \
Mastery + Move
analysis (Tipaldo 2014). For Stepchenkova et al. (2009), content analysis examines textual
data for patterns and structures, identifies key features of interest, adopts/identifies
categories that can be used as constructs to create textual meaning, uses qualitative data to
capture a richer sense of concepts and can be subjected to quantitative data analysis
techniques. The qualitative analysis it adopts provides exploratory inquiry methods
involving inductive reasoning. The quantitative analysis is deductive and refers to methods
that provide statistical inferences from populations of narrative words, where selected
narrative words are classified into fewer content coding categories. The methodology
involves assigning or extracting narrative content categories, counting their occurrences in
sampled narrative blocks and analysing associations between categories using a frequency
matrix.
Broadly, there are three content analysis approaches: conventional, directed and
summative (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). In conventional content analysis, coding categories
are inferred directly from the textual data. In directed content analysis, one starts with a
theory or relevant research findings that guide the initial coding. In summative content
analysis, counting and comparisons occur, usually of keywords or content, followed by the
interpretation of the underlying context. It is qualitative as it includes latent content
analysis, which refers to the process of content interpretation.
Hsieh and Shannon (2005) noted that conventional content analysis is generally used
with a study design, the aim of which is to describe a phenomenon. This approach is
normally appropriate when existing theory or research literature on a phenomenon is
limited. Here, preconceived coding categories are avoided, allowing categories and
names for categories to arise from the data. This essentially results in an empirically
driven model, where insights and categories emerge from the data. An issue for this
approach is the possible failure in developing a complete understanding of the context,
thus failing to identify key coding categories. This may derive results not accurately
representing the data, which can have an impact on credibility, trustworthiness and
internal validity (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). In directed content analysis, there is existing
theory about a phenomenon that requires pragmatic investigation, resulting in a
description that can explain events. This constitutes a deductive use of theory, in due
K course delivering research questions. It can provide predictions about the variables or
their relationships, thereby determining the initial coding scheme or relationships
between the codes. In this case, content analysis is guided by a more structured process
than in a conventional approach. This is because of the theory pointing to key concepts
or variables as initial coding categories. Following this, operational definitions for each
category are determined. In summative content analysis, one identifies and quantifies
certain words or content in text to understanding the contextual use being made to
explore usage. In addition to creating word counts, latent content analysis is involved,
which refers to the process of interpretation of content (Holsti, 1969), and where a focus
occurs on discovering the underlying meanings of the words or the content (Morse and
Field, 1995). This can provide basic insights into the way in which words are used and
hence, contributes to sematic attributes. However, results may be constrained by the
lack of attention to be given to the broader meanings present in the data. Again, this
approach centres on trustworthiness and credibility.
Qualitative researches can be devoid of objectivity because, by definition, they are
characterized by the subjective perspective of an inquirer in the content analysis, where
critical to it are the evaluations of the coders during the coding process. For Ratner (2002),
objectivity can be enhanced in the face of subjectivity by moderating objectivity limitations
using appropriate inference techniques, such as Krippendorff’s Alpha (K.Alpha) to measure
reliability.
ere, we adopt a summative inquiry to content analysis centring on the political
rhetoric of Theresa May. Direction is provided by agency theory using keywords from
Table II. Once a word count and latent analysis are determined, percentage frequencies
found for each variable being explored can be taken as a measure of influence for that
variable in the identity being explored. Data reliability (Lombard et al., 2002;
Krippendorff, 2004) then occurs, especially because of the latent analysis.
For the UK analysis of Theresa May, seven coders were selected. These include a UK
journalist and six PhD students: two in economics, two in political sciences and two in
communication. They were asked to analyse the selected research units and to classify the
corresponding trait types, as shown in Table IV.
For each of these trait types, keyword identification was made in accordance with Table
II, and narrative texts were examined to determine whether they were either present or
absent. The term present refers to the semantic themes identifiable explicitly by the
meanings of the data (in this way, the inquirer simply identifies what is expressed as part of
a narrative). Here, summative analysis involves a word count and an interpretation of key
word equivalences that together deliver frequency values. The term absent meant those
semantic thematic interests not found to be present in the research units.
As part of the analysis, two sets of frequency results are generated, as shown in Table IV.
One is indicative of public identity and uses MAT5T mindset types that involve both
psychological and contextual attributes. The other is a subset of the data that allows
personal identity to emerge and uses MAT3T involving only psychological attributes. If it
happens that MAT3T and MAT5T types are the same, then the personality is free of
analytic pathologies and one would not expect to see any clinical issues arising. However,
where they have differences, analytic pathologies exist. The nature of the analytical
pathology should indicate the clinical issues that are possible for the personality given the
right contexts and circumstances.
1 K:Alpha 0:8 ¼ strongly reliable; 0:8 > K:Alpha 0:7 ¼ acceptable (1)
We shall here adopt the proposition that under reliability, a variable is significant with
respect to its influence in a mindscape when it is either strongly reliable or acceptable. K.
Alpha is a statistical measure of agreement that works on the value of variables and is
usually applied in psychological testing where alternative tests of the same material
need to be compared. It generalises various statistics to create “inter-rater” or “between-
coder” reliability. It is also applicable to small samples. Under conditions of such
reliability, determined from an SPSS macro available from Hayes and Krippendorff
(2007), we can use frequencies as an indicator of variable influence in mindset types.
This is particularly significant when dealing with a conjoint set, when scaling becomes
essential to deliver relative meaning.
The most used Lp is the averaging Euclidean norm for p = 2, used (for instance) in calculating
means and standard deviations during statistical analysis. However, the most appropriate for a
linear conjoint influence on intersection mindset types is the L1 norm[5] because in this case,
more of one bipolar trait type means less of the other:
X
kxk1 ¼n i¼1
jxi j (3)
where |xi| is the value of the bipolar trait type xi, and i = 1, 2. We now define the conjoint
trait type cxi as the scaled representation of xi, where:
X
c
xi 5jxi j=kxk1 5jxi j=n i¼1 jxi j (4)
Now, the frequencies of the variables concerned are all positive, so this reduces to:
X
c
xi ¼ xi =n i¼1 xi (5)
and where:
X X X
K n i¼1
c
xi ¼ n x=
i¼1 i n
x
i¼1 i
¼1 (6)
Recalling that we are dealing with two bipolar conjoint types for i = 1, 2, and that more of
one bipolar trait type means less influence of the other on intersecting mindset types, scaling
by the L1 norm equation (6) gives:
c
x1 þ c x2 ¼ 1 (7)
Once K.Alpha shows which variables are acceptable, one can examine their scaled narrative
frequencies to estimate the level of importance/significance.
Percentage Frequencies
Sensate Ideational Intellectual Autonomy Embeddedness Mastery + Motive
Percentage frequencies
Intellectual autonomy Mastery and Motive Hierarchy Egalitarianism Harmony Embeddedness Table V.
Class-evaluation for
Present 80.9 71.4 80.9 71.4 23.8 23.8
Absent 19.1 28.6 19.1 28.6 76.2 76.2
personal identity of
K.apha 0.88 0.73 0.88 0.73 0.85 0.73 Theresa May across
eight mindset types
Note: Italic values indicate changes in % frequency value during Delphi iterations for MAT3T
Intellectual People seen as autonomous, bounded entities who should find meaning in their own
autonomy uniqueness and who are encouraged to express their internal attributes (preferences,
traits, feelings and motives). Intellectual autonomy encourages individuals to pursue
their own ideas and intellectual directions independently
Mastery and Encourages active self-assertion to attain group or personal goals and to master, direct
motive and change the natural and social environment. It is basically monistic in nature. Motive
refers to the seeking of egocentric or altruistic ends that respond to the meaningfulness in
life, and involve purposes that are either dependent or independent of self, generating
egoistic or altruistic fulfilment. Fulfilment occurs through self-interest
Hierarchy People are socialized to take the hierarchical distribution of roles for granted and to
comply with the obligations and rules attached to their roles. In hierarchical cultures,
organizations are more likely to construct a chain of authority in which all are assigned
well-defined roles. There is an expectation that individuals operate for the benefit of the
social organization. Sees the unequal distribution of power, roles and resources as
legitimate. This has an implicit connection with power and power processes
Sensate Sensory, pragmatic and instrumental. reality is sensory and material, pragmatism is
normal, there is an interest in becoming rather than being and happiness is paramount.
People are externally oriented and tend to be instrumental and empiricism is important
Dramatist Relationalist, sequential, communication, contracts, individualist and ideocentric.
Individual relationships to others are important, constituted as sequences of
interpersonal events. Communication is important, as are individuals and their Table X.
proprietary belief systems, and individual social contracts. Goal formation should be for The Public identity
individual benefit. Ideocentric collectives are important, operating through social HI (CIR) for Theresa
contracts between the rational wills of its individual members May
Intellectual People seen as autonomous, bounded entities who should find meaning in their own
autonomy uniqueness and who are encouraged to express their internal attributes (preferences,
traits, feelings and motives). Intellectual autonomy encourages individuals to pursue their
own ideas and intellectual directions independently
Mastery and Encourages active self-assertion to attain group or personal goals and to master, direct
motive and change the natural and social environment. It is basically monistic in nature. Motive
refers to the seeking of egocentric or altruistic ends that respond to the meaningfulness in
life, and involve purposes that are either dependent or independent of self, generating
egoistic or altruistic fulfilment. Fulfilment through self-interest
Hierarchy People are socialized to take the hierarchical distribution of roles for granted and to
comply with the obligations and rules attached to their roles. In hierarchical cultures,
organizations are more likely to construct a chain of authority in which all are assigned
well-defined roles. There is an expectation that individuals operate for the benefit of the
social organization. Sees the unequal distribution of power, roles and resources as
legitimate. This has an implicit connection with power and power processes
Egalitarianism individualism (EI)
Intellectual People seen as autonomous, bounded entities who should find meaning in their own
autonomy uniqueness and who are encouraged to express their internal attributes (preferences,
traits, feelings and motives). Intellectual autonomy encourages individuals to pursue their
own ideas and intellectual directions independently
Mastery and Encourages active self-assertion to attain group or personal goals and to master, direct
motive and change the natural and social environment. It is basically monistic in nature. Motive
refers to the seeking of egocentric or altruistic ends that respond to the meaningfulness in
Table XII. life, and involves purposes that are either dependent or independent of self, generating
egoistic or altruistic fulfilment. Fulfilment through self-interest
Trait types indicated
Egalitarianism Seeks to induce people to recognize one another as moral equals who share basic interests
for Theresa May’s as human beings. People are socialized to internalize a commitment to co-operate and feel
balanced personal concerned for everyone’s welfare. They are expected to act for others’ benefit as a matter
identity (hybrid of choice. Organisations are built on co-operative negotiation among employees and
mindsets HI \ EI) management. This has an implicit connection with service to the agency
from social identity. Confused identities indicate unstable states and are referred to as
state pathologies (Pavey, 2014). They can result in situations where, for instance, an
individual’s personal and public identities (Figure 3) operate together as an
instrumental system and “feed-off” each other in a way that is affected more by social
influences that by internal processes. One of the consequences of state pathologies is
explained by Gal (2002), through a broad semiotic analysis that initially explores the
boundaries of what it is that constitutes identity. She indicates that when instabilities
arise in (say) private identity, identity relationships become confused. The
consequences of this can, for instance, be found in issues that arise in multiracial or
gender contexts (Rockquemore, Brunsma and Delgado, 2009; Davis, 2006; McClain-
DaCosta, 2003).Thus, according to the theory, Theresa May has a lack of personality
stability because her personal and public identities are different (which might imply a
private identity instability). Thus, identity relationships become confused as are
contexts, this delivering the potential for inherent contradictions leading to the
possibility of inconsistency in behaviour. If such a situation arises for Theresa May,
then this would validate the original hypothesis which indicates that an analytic
pathology can clinically explain her behavioural inconsistency.
This research has shown that cognitively, Theresa May has an analytic pathology Understanding
between her public identity (HI) and her personal identity (HI\EI)(CIR)). Her political Theresa May
positioning occurs through her public identity, intended to demonstrate her
suitability as the prime minister during Brexit negotiations with the EU. The
dominating trait type that emerges is hierarchy, which depicts a connection with
power and process, where May wishes to show that she can sit at the top of a chain of
authority. Her public identity also involves dramatism, and this involves an
ideocentric orientation that denotes a self-centred interest related to doing things in
her own way, rather than placing reliance upon others or through their ways.
Publicly, May has submerged her personal identity egalitarian streak. As part of her
personal identity, she supports the status quo. Egalitarianism plus support for status
quo might be consistent with an inner self that does not adhere to Brexit because
differentiation between Europeans and British is not a prominent perspective, and if
this is the case, it could create inner conflict as she pursues an extreme form of it
publicly. However, such conjectures would need to be better assessed through more
extended analysis.
From the analysis conducted here, Theresa May has shown a balanced and
integrated individual personality: this is explained by her hybrid mindset – showing an
ability to straddle extreme cognitive positions. She also has an analytical pathology
that arises because her public self is partly at divergence with her personal self,
possibly through private identity instability. One might deduce that this is a part of the
explanation that lies at the basis of her failure to present herself suitably during the
election process. Referring to the study by Yolles and di Fatta (2017a), a system
instability can result in an analytical pathology or an analytic pathology can result in
an increase in system uncertainties that provides a basis for a move towards identity
instability. In a normal coherent individual, a stable private identity influences the
personal and public identities, and one might, therefore, find that each psychological
identity will have the same mindset type. When this does not happen, one might then be
interested in examining the stability of the private identity. However, this may not be
susceptible to remote analysis.
The difference that arises between May’s public and personal identity, while not
gross, might occur because the former indicates her ability to “command and control”.
If this is correct, then perhaps her underlying stand against Brexit that she
demonstrated while she was the Home Secretary in the UK Government was now being
compromised, and her underlying personal identity mastery trait allowed her to
dismiss the huge level of uncertainty and its immense potential for socioeconomic
harm. However, her personal identity, while centring on hierarchy, also embraces
attributes of collectivism. As such the command and control attribute is challenged,
leading to internal conflicts that must be reflected in some way through her behaviour.
There is a possibility that these contradictions might in the longer term stimulate each
other. To understand this, we refer to Sorokin’s (1964) idea of idealistic society that
constitutes an “ideal” balance between the sensate and ideational bipolar types
reflective of Zhang’s (2011) notion of balancing contradictions. In the same way, the
individualism–collectivism of May’s personality is the result of a hybrid intersection
between two mindset types that embrace both individualism (because of the lead
intellectual autonomy trait) and collectivism (because of the lead embeddedness trait).
A strong tendency towards one of these would enable her to exclude options that may
be essential for the constructive development of a society. Thus, hybrid mindset
positions are socially desirable.
K 6. Conclusion
CAT has been used to posit the relationship between personality and multiple
identities. We have advanced the modelling of multiple identity types through agency
to examine situations involving trait type balances and hence hybrid mindsets. By
comparing public and personal identities in the personality, pathologies can be
identified and related to clinical behaviours.
Interest lay in seeking to determine whether a hypothesis about Theresa May could
be validated, and it was found that she has in an indicative personality condition that
has a clinical explanation. Summative content analysis was used, and keywords
frequencies and latent analysis (under reliability tests) generated a set of results that
indicated her personality type.
To do the study, three narratives delivered by Theresa May were examined by a
group of coders using summative content analysis to identify variables relevant to
the model used. Because they were studied through a group of coders, it was also
necessary to test whether the group was coherent in its identification of variables,
and to do this K.Alpha was used to measure the reliability of the variables. Where
the Alpha values that resulted were less than 0.7, a Delphi iterative technique was
adopted so that the narratives were scanned again to look for the variables that were
unreliable. In this study, three iterations were required to achieve reliable
outcomes[6]. The theoretical approach applied to Theresa May used Occam’s razor
filtering, and indicative results show a dominant personal hybrid mindset straddling
the extreme types HI and EI (as HI\E). In other words, hierarchical individualism
(HI) and egalitarian individualism (EI) mindsets are the major contributors in
determining Theresa May’s identity. With respect to the other mindsets, it is also
important to note that they have a minor role to play in the personal identity
composition determining the secondary (but relevant) aspect of her identity. Her
public dominant identity is HI, but there is sufficient difference to indicate an
analytic pathology, suggesting a clinical condition that might explain to her the
inability to maintain consistency under given conditions. While we refer to these
personal and public identities as being dominant, it should be recalled that there are
also indications of subsidiary influences from the other mindsets created from a
combination of the set of variables. These vary from personal to public identity. The
way in which these contribute to her personality and what this may imply has not
been considered here. Models that are deemed to be a representation of reality are
usually constrained by their own propositions, thus creating some level of
“simplification”. However, the propositions of CAT are quite broad, evident by
enabling hybrid mindset types deriving from trait type balances. The complexity
introduced into the model has been necessary, as attempts to explain multifaceted
attributes of personality and identity occur.
Being able to distinguish between multiple identities and take qualitative–
quantitative measures is not the whole story. In this paper, we have considered only the
cognitive attributes of Theresa May’s personality. There will also be affect attributes
from which her emotions are manifested. This is consistent with the dynamic identity
theory in which affect has a recognised role. There is theory connecting the cognition
and affect mindsets (Fink and Yolles, 2017a, 2017b), which will underscore the
uncertainties that May has been passing through as she deals with the differences in
her personal and public identities. However, it must be left to another paper to evaluate
the impact of affect.
Notes Understanding
1. www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/25/exclusive-leaked-recording-shows-what-theresa-may- Theresa May
really-thinks-about-brexit
2. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/18/theresa-mays-early-general-election-speech-full/
3. http://time.com/4759090/uk-election-2017-date-polls-theresa-may/
4. Reliability is defined as the degree to which some people concur on the readings, interpretations
and responses to converse, texts or data (Krippendorff, 2012).
5. Lecture notes by Mark Cowlishaw, Nathanael Fillmore on Linear Algebra, available at: http://
pages.cs.wisc.edu/amos/412/lecture-notes/lecture14.pdf
6. Reflecting on the results obtained after the Delphi method, one might suspect that anomalies
have occurred. For instance, the value for egalitarianism presented in Table V is 71.4 per cent
(exactly the same as for “mastery + motive”). This figure can also be found in Tables VI and
VII. Thus in Tables VI and VII, there is no distinction between MAT5T and MAT3T, while
there is a turnaround of 47.1 points from Table IV (MAT5T) to Table V (MAT3T). So, almost
50 per cent of the coders changed their mind, giving a higher score for egalitarianism.
Questions could now be posed such as what made the coders change their mind. Also, in
Table IX an even higher score of 80.9 arises for egalitarianism, a value that has not previously
appeared, and is exactly equivalent to the score for hierarchy (80.9) – consistent throughout the
paper. The response to such apparent anomalies is that there are no guarantee that re-
evaluation of frequencies will produce smooth changes in outcomes, noting that individual
coders may make errors or have subjective alignments that may change across the Delphi
method, especially where some time has passed before re-evalaution has occurred. Such a
situation can be resolved by more coders so that the issue from individual coders becomes less
insignificant.
References
Alcoff, L.M. (2006), Visible Identities: Race, Gender, and the Self, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Baba, Y. (1989), “The dynamics of continuous innovation in scale-intensive industries”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 89-100.
Brown, B.A., Reveles, J.M. and Kelly, G.J. (2005), “Scientific literacy and discursive identity: a
theoretical framework for understanding science learning”, Science Education, Vol. 89
No. 5, pp. 779-802.
Campbell, A. (2017), “Theresa may’s election campaign was incompetent and she’s very wrong to
blame her advisors”, The Mirror, 10th June, available at: www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/
theresa-mays-election-campaign-incompetent-10602427 (accessed August 2017).
Chapra, S.C. (2012), Applied Numerical Methods with MATLAB for Engineers and Scientists, 3rd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
CG (2017), available at: www.celebrities-galore.com/celebrities/theresa-may/home/
DW (2017), available at: http://malaysiandigest.com/world/676970-dw-correspondent-freed-in-
burundi.html
De Anca, C. (2012), Beyond Tribalism: Managing Identities in a Diverse World, Springer, Berlin.
Di Fatta, D. and Yolles, M. (2017), “Modelling multiples identity types through agency: Part 3 –
mindsets and the trump election”, Kybernetes, Vol. 46 No. 6.
Davis, L.J. (2006), “The end of identity politics: on disability as an unstable category”, in Davis, L.
J. (Ed.), The Disability Studies Reader, Routledge (Taylor and Francis), New York and
London, pp. 231-242.
K Duncan, L.E. and Stewart, A.J. (2007), “Personal political salience: the role of personality in collective
identity and action”, Political Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 143-164.
Fink, G. and Yolles, M. (2015), “Collective emotion regulation in an organisation – a plural agency
with cognition and affect”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 28 No. 5,
pp. 832 -871.
Fink, G. and Yolles, M. (2017a), “Collective emotional climate within social systems”, Kybernetes,
Fink, G. and Yolles, M. (2017b), “Political meaning of mindset types created with Sagiv-Schwartz
values”, European Journal Cross-Cultural Competence and Management, Vol. 4 No. 2.
Gal, S. (2002), “A semiotics of the public/private distinction”, Differences: a Journal of Feminist Cultural
Studies, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 77-95.
Girodo, M., Deck, T. and Morrison, M. (2002), “Dissociative-type identity disturbances in undercover
agents: socio-cognitive factors behind false-identity appearances and reenactments”, Social
Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 631-643.
Gobe, M. (2001), “Emotional branding”, The New Paradigm of Connecting Brands to People, Allworth
Press, New York, NY.
Goodfield (2016), Britain’s New Prime Minister Theresa May, A Psychological Profile – What can We
Expect?, available at: http://goodfieldinstitute.com/pdfs/Profile%20of%20prime%20minister%
20Theresa%20May.pdf
Guo, K., Yolles, M., Fink, G. and Iles, P. (2016), The Changing Organization: Agency Theory in a Cross-
Cultural Context, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 466, ISBN-13: 978-1107146808
(Hardback).
Hayes, A.F. and Krippendorff, K. (2007), “Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for
coding data”, Communication Methods and Measures, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 77-89.
Hijmans, E.J.S. (2003), “Het dynamisch identiteitsmodel: Een synthese van benaderingen”, in Hak, T.
and Wester, F. (Eds), Kwalitatief Onderzoek: De Praktijk, Kwalon, SISWO, Amsterdam, Vol. 23,
pp. 114-126.
Hijmans, E.J.S. and Wester, F.P.J. (2009), “Between idealisation and stigmatisation: analytical
dimensions of the media image”, in Konig, R.P., Nelissen, P.W.M. and Huysmans, F.J.M. (Ed.),
Meaningful Media: Communication Research on the Social Construction of Reality, Ubbergen,
Tandem Felix, pp. 256-272.
Hodder, I. (1994), “The interpretation of documents and material culture”, Sage Biographical Research,
Vol. 1 No. 9, pp. 171-188.
Holsti, O.R. (1969), Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA.
Hsieh, H.F. and Shannon, S.E. (2005), “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis”, Qualitative
Health Research, Vol. 15 No. 9, pp. 1277-1288.
Hunt, A. and Wheeler, B. (2017), “Theresa may: 10 reasons why the PM blew her majority”, BBC News,
14 June, available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40237833
Huffer, E. (2006), “Regionalism and cultural identity: putting the pacific back into the plan”, in Firth, S.
(Ed.), Globalisation and Governance in the Pacific Islands, ANU Press, State, Society and
Governance in Melanesia.
Krippendorff, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills, California (USA).
Krippendorff, K. (2004), “Reliability in content analysis”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 411-433.
Krippendorff, K. (2011a), “Agreement and information in the reliability of coding”, Communication
Methods and Measures, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 93-112.
Krippendorff, K. (2011b), Computing Krippendorff’s Alpha Reliability, Departmental papers Understanding
(ASC), 43.
Theresa May
Krippendorff, K. (2012), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 3rd ed., Sage, New York,
NY.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Linstone, H.A. and Turoff, M. (Eds) (1975), The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 29.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J. and Bracken, C.C. (2002), “Content analysis in mass communication:
assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 28
No. 4, pp. 587-604.
Luhmann, N. (1995), Social Systems, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
McTague, T., Cooper, C. and Dickson, A. (2017), “How Theresa May lost it”, Politico, 7th July,
available at: www.politico.eu/article/how-theresa-may-lost-it-uk-election-brexit-jeremy-
corbyn-jim-messina-lynton-crosby-uk-sarah-palin-campaign/ (accessed August 2017).
Mabkhout, S.A. (2012), “The infinite distance horizon and the hyperbolic inflation in the hyperbolic
universe”, Phys. Essays, Vol. 25 No. 1, p. 112.
McClain-DaCosta, K. (2003), “Multiracial identity: new faces in a changing America: multiracial identity
in the 21st century: from personal problem to public Issue”, in Winters, L.I. and DeBose, H.L.
(Eds), New Faces in a Changing America: Multiracial Identity in the 21st Century, Sage
Publications, London and California, pp. 68-84
Margalit, A. and Halbertal, M. (2004), “Liberalism and the right to culture”, Social Research,
Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 529-548.
Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. (1980), Autopoiesis and Cognition, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.
Miller, G.R. (1978), Living Systems: The Basic Concepts, McGrawHill, New York, NY.
Harmon, R.J. and Morgan, G.A. (2001), “Data collection techniques”, Journal of the American Academy
of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 973-976.
Morse, J.M. and Field, P.A. (1995), Qualitative Research Methods for Health Professionals, 2nd ed., Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M. and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002), “Rethinking individualism and collectivism:
evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1,
pp. 3-72.
Parker, G. (2016), “How David Cameron lost his battle for Britain”, Financial Times, December
18th.
Parker, G. and Binham, C. (2017a), “Theresa may pledges no Brexit ‘cliff edge’ for companies”, Financial
Times, July 20.
Parker, G. and Khalaf, R. (2017b), “Theresa may limps towards the election finishing line”, The
Financial Times, June 2nd, available at: www.ft.com/content/3c07ba14-4777-11e7-8d27-
59b4dd6296b8 (accessed August 2017).
Pavey, A.J. (2014), “I’m there right now. Call me’: unstable identities and irregular distances from
Raymond Chandler to David Lynch”, Tropos, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 50-60.
Piaget, J. (1950), The Psychology of Intelligence, Harcourt and Brace, Republished in 1972 by Littlefield
Adams, Totowa, NJ, New York, NY.
Ratner, C. (2002), “Subjectivity and objectivity in qualitative methodology”, Vol. 3 No. 3, 16 –
September, available at: www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/829/1800
(accessed March 2017).
Reger, J., Myers, D.J. and Einwohner, R.L. (Eds) (2008), Identity Work in Social Movements, U of
Minnesota Press, Vol. 30.
K Rockquemore, K.A., Brunsma, D.L. and Delgado, D.J. (2009), “Racing to theory or retheorizing race?
Understanding the struggle to build a multiracial identity theory”, Journal of Social Issues,
Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 13-34.
Schlauch, C.R. (2016), “Readings of Winnicott II”, Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 395-426.
Schwarz, E. 1994. “A trandisciplinary model for the emergence, self-organisation and evolution of
viable systems”, presented at the International Information, Systems Architecture and
Technology, Technical University of Wroclaw, Szklaska Poreba.
Seidl, D. (2004), Luhmann’s Theory of Autopoietic Social Systems, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität
München-Munich School of Management, available at: www.zfog.bwl.uni-muenchen.de/files/
mitarbeiter/paper2004_2.pdf (accessed January 2014), Also, reformulated as: Seidl, D.,
Schoeneborn, D. (2010), Niklas Luhmann’s Autopoietic Theory of Organisations: Contributions,
Limitations, and Future Prospects, Institute of Organisation and Administrative Science
working paper no. 5, University of Zurich.
Sonin, A.A. (2001), The Physical Basis of Dimensional Analysis, Department of Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, available at: www.mit.edu/DA_unified.pdf (accessed
August 2017).
Sorokin, P. (1964), The Basic Trends of Our Times, College & University Press, New Haven.
Stepchenkova, S., Kirilenko, A.P. and Morrison, A.M. (2009), “Research facilitating content analysis”,
Journal of Travel in Tourism Research, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 454-469.
The Guardian (2017), UK General Election 2017: Trump Offers ‘warm support’ to Theresa May – as it
Happened, available at: www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/jun/09/election-2017-theresa-may-
speaks-outside-downing-street-after-shock-result-hunh-parliament-live (accessed June 2017).
Tipaldo, G. (2014), L’analisi Del Contenuto e i Mass Media, Bologna, Italy, IL Mulino.
Wadsworth, J., Dhingra, S., Ottaviano, G. and Van Reenen, J. (2016), Brexit and the Impact of
Immigration on the UK, London School of Economics (LSE), London.
Winnicott, D.W. (1954), “Mind and its relation to the psyche-soma”, The British Journal of Medical
Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 201-209.
Yolles, M. and Di Fatta, D. (2017a), “Modelling identity types through agency: part 2 connecting
personality and identity through agency theory”, Kybernetes, Vol. 46 No. 6.
Yolles, M. and Di Fatta, D. (2017b), “Antecedents of cultural agency theory: in the footsteps of schwarz
living systems”, Kybernetes, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 210-222, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/K-11-
2016-0316
Yolles, M. and Di Fatta, D. (2017c), “Modelling identity types through agency: part 1 defragmenting
identity theory”, Kybernetes, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1068-1084.
Yolles, M. and Fink, G. (2013), An Introduction to Mindset Theory, available at: SSRN 2348622.
Yolles, M. and Fink, G. (2014a), “Personality, pathology and mindsets: part 1–agency, personality and
mindscapes”, Kybernetes, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 92-112.
Yolles, M. and Fink, G. (2014b), “Personality, pathology and mindsets: part 2–cultural traits and types”,
Kybernetes, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 113-134.
Yolles, M. and Fink, G. (2014c), “Personality, pathology and mindsets: part 3–pathologies and
corruption”, Kybernetes, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 135-143.
Yolles, M. and Fink, G. (2014d), “Modelling mindsets of an agency”, Journal of Organisational
Transformation & Social Change, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 69-88.
Zhang, W.R. (2011), “YinYang bipolar relativity: a unifying theory of nature, agents and causality
with applications in quantum computing”, Cognitive Informatics and Life Sciences, IGI
Global, PA.
Further reading Understanding
Andrews, K. (2016), “Four Brexit fibs: Lies, damn lies, and the EU referendum campaign”, The Courier, Theresa May
June 27, available at: www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/talking-politics/214051/four-brexit-fibs-
lies-damn-lies-and-the-eu-referendum-campaign/
Burkitt, I. (2011), “Identity construction in sociohistorical context”, in Schwartz, S.J., Luyckx, K. and
Vignoles, V.L. (Eds), Handbook of Identity Theory and Research, Volume 1: Structures and
Processes, Springer, New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London, pp. 267-284.
Hosie, R. (2017), “Malignant narcisissm’: Donald Trump displays classic traits of mental illness,
claim psychologists”, The Independent, Monday 30 January, available at: www.
independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/donald-trump-mental-illness-narcisissm-
us-president-psychologists-inauguration-crowd-size-paranoia-a7552661.html (accessed 1
August 2017).
Joshi, S. and Gosavi, M. (2011), “Mean value theorem”, Bulletin of the Marathwada Mathematical
Society, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 55-64.
Kaufmann, E. (2016), “It’s NOT the economy, stupid: Brexit as a story of personal values”, British
Politics and Policy at LSE, London School of Economics (LSE), London.
Krippendorff, K. and Bock, M.A. (2009), The Content Analysis Reader, Sage, Los Angeles.
PA (2016), “Brexit vote not surprising after years of lies about EU, says Jean-Claude Juncker”, The
Guardian, available at: www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/15/brexit-vote-years-of-lies-eu-
jean-claude-juncker (accessed August 2017).
Young, D.M. (1973), “A survey of modern numerical analysis”, SIAM Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, Part 2),
Anniversary Supplement, pp. 503-523.