APPROACHING WORLDVIEW STRUCTURE WITH ULTIMATE MEANINGS TECHNIQUE

DMITRY A. LEONTIEV, PhD, is professor in the Department of Psychology at Moscow State University, Russia. He develops theoretical views in the field of personality and self-regulation at the intersection of cultural-historical and existential traditions. His abundant research activity is centered at the problem of personal meaning as the foundation of a distinctively human way of conduct.

Summary
A persons worldview as a system of subjective generalizations about reality is an important though nearly neglected focus of study. The ultimate meanings technique (UMT) elaborated by the author during the last decade is presented as a research and clinical instrument that makes it possible to reconstruct the system of a persons beliefs about the goals and meanings of human life. Structural and content analytical indices applicable to UMT, along with qualitative phenomenological analysis, make it a helpful research instrument. The results of different age and clinical groups (normal, mentally deficient, alcoholic, and somatically troubled adults and normal and delinquent adolescents) are discussed. Keywords: worldview; personal meaning; structure; content analysis; assessment

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL BACKGROUND: WORLDVIEW AS THE FOCUS OF STUDY AND ASSESSMENT The focus of the present study is the conception of a worldview approached from the standpoint of personal meaning systems. The
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 2, April 2007 243-266 DOI: 10.1177/0022167806293009 2007 Sage Publications

243

244

Ultimate Meanings Technique

notion of a worldview does not belong to traditional categories of psychological investigation. Although numerous authors have paid attention to it, only recently a coherent theory of worldview has appeared (Koltko-Rivera, 2004, 2006), based on the assumption that we dont see things as they are, we see things as we are (Anas Nin, cited in Koltko-Rivera, 2004, p. 3). Indeed, an integrated theory of worldview is hardly compatible with strict dichotomies of cognitive versus affective, internal versus external, mind versus behavior, and so on that have been prevailing in mainstream psychology for decades; it seems to be possible only as a phenomenologicalcognitive-social hybrid that makes allowances for psychodynamic and dispositional influences on worldviews as they affect behavior (p. 36). For instance, the cognition versus emotion dichotomy that stems from the ancient subdivision of the human psyche into reason, will, and sensation was one of the core self-evident cognitive maps for psychological science through the 20th century. However, a number of important psychological phenomena do not fit into this dichotomy and cannot be classified as either cognitive or affective or as a combination of both. An important example of this problem is the phenomenon of personal meaning. Numerous attempts to reduce personal meaning to cognitive or affective phenomena failed to catch its special nature. Another example is the notion of a personal construct (Kelly, 1955). This conception has been considered to be cognitive in nature, and Kellys (1955) theory of personal constructs has likewise been labeled cognitive because of the lack of more appropriate labels. This labeling, however, was never supported by Kelly himself, who later changed the emphasis from personal constructs to personal meanings; some authors characterize his theory as existential (Holland, 1970). What the concepts such as meaning, personal construct, experience, significance, worldview, and others have in common is that they refer neither to the reality of the surrounding world nor to the reality of individual emotional dynamics, but rather to the reality of links between the individual and the world. Human being in the world has an underlying meaning-based logic of its own. This logic, the hearts reasons (Pascal), cannot be explained by the rational logic of information processing and instrumentality, nor can it be reduced to the hedonistic logic of emotions (see D. A. Leontiev, 2005, in press). The focus of the proposed approach is the unveiling of the subjective logic of an individuals world construction and activity regulation. The original theoretical basis of the proposed approach is activity theorythe approach to human consciousness and outlook on

Dmitry A. Leontiev

245

the world, elaborated in the 1970s by Alexey N. Leontiev (1979, 2005), that differs from more conventional approaches (and, therefore, the explication of this approach deserves special attention). Departing from this approach, I have elaborated a theory of worldview as the core of the persons picture of the world. Worldview is a more or less coherent system of general understandings about how human beings, society, and the world at large exist and function. A worldview also includes ideals of the desirable or perfect human being, society, and world. Though acquired knowledge, cultural stereotypes and schemes, and group ideologies are responsible for much of the content of an individuals worldview, the latter is nevertheless a highly individuated structure. Knowledge is alloyed in it with firm beliefs, fuzzy ideas, and unconscious schemes and prejudices (D. A. Leontiev, 2000, 2004). At least four aspects may be distinguished in the worldview structure: (a) a content aspect, which deals with the content of an individuals explicit or implicit beliefs about the world, for example, All politicians are liars, All adolescents are rebels, or All devoted Muslims will enter heaven after glorious death; (b) a value aspect, which refers to the system of ideals of what the world should be or become in the course of natural evolution or controlled development and in which ideals serve as criteria to evaluate the actual state of affairs, for example, What is good for GM, is good for America or Using sexist language is strongly disapproved; (c) a structural aspect, which pertains to the peculiarities of the integration of worldview elements into a coherent whole (an individuals worldview may be either coherent, well structured, and noncontradictory or fragmented, poorly structured, and contradictory; distinguishing worldview subsystems and defining their connections and interrelations are part of the structural aspect of its analysis); and finally (d) a functional aspect, which deals with the influence of a worldview on the perception and comprehension of reality and the influence on an individuals actions. This influence may be direct or mediated, conscious or unconscious, strong or mild. Some people do not hesitate to defend or to promote their beliefs, whereas some do not express them or easily give up under even moderate pressure. In this theory, the core of an individuals worldview is construed as a system of generalizations. These elements of a worldview are beliefs that pertain to generalities rather than single objects or single subjects. For example, a belief such as This minister is a liar does not belong to a worldview concept, but Most

246

Ultimate Meanings Technique

ministers are liars does belong. The belief that Music is what I love most of all does not belong, but Every educated person loves music does. Individual worldviews always claim to reflect and/or express general truth. Being of individual character and belonging to the core of a persons identity, the content of a worldview subjectively appears as knowledge of how things are. In fact, shared knowledge is intertwined in it with subjective interpretations and prejudices. This makes worldview generalizations, in a sense, highly projective in that they pertain more to what we are rather than what things are. Worldview generalizations look like purely cognitive statements; however, when we ask a person about people at large and the world at large, we can expect that in these generalizations there will be a lot of subjective meanings emerging from the deep layers of personality dynamics. Transforming ones personal meanings into worldview generalizations, a person thus presents them as objective cognitions, or general truths. However, if a person tries to persuade us that everyone would steal in certain situations, we can be fairly sure that he or she personally has no internal barriers against stealing. Explicating something in the form of a generalization may be considered a defense mechanism, having some common features with rationalization but not identical with it. If asked about himself or herself, a person uses various psychological defenses to filter the information disclosed to the interviewer. If being asked about human beings in general, he or she needs no defenses other than generalization itself. This makes worldviews not only a special object of study but also an attractive means of indirect psychological assessment of personality structures. Having introduced the category of generalizations to the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) interpretation scheme (D. A. Leontiev, 1998), I have found that general statements about people and the world at large in TAT stories belong to the most valuable pieces of data. Based on the above considerations, I have elaborated what I call the ultimate meanings technique (UMT) for the structural, qualitative, and quantitative analysis of the meaning connections in individual worldviews. The object of the present study is thus the worldview approached from the standpoint of personal meaning systems. UMT does not belong in the category of psychometric tests or traditional projective techniques. It represents the qualitative research tradition, but the exact labeling of the UMT seems neither simple nor necessary. The closest taxonomic category in which

Dmitry A. Leontiev

247

it would fit is probably assessment techniques based on personal construct theory and methodology (Kelly, 1955) aimed at reconstructing and valuing a persons subjectivity embodied in quasiobjective generalizations. On the contrary, techniques elaborated within the cognitive therapy perspective (e.g., the vertical arrow technique; Burns, 1989, pp. 122-136), despite surface similarity, have a quite different aim of straightening up a persons subjectivity, teaching him or her maximal objectivity and rationality, but paradoxically directing his or her attention toward himself or herself rather than toward the world. Unlike some assessment techniques, for example, Ways to Live by C. Morris, Value Orientations by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (see Braithwaite & Scott, 1991), the Worldview Assessment Instrument (Koltko-Rivera, 2000), and some others that aim at revealing special beliefs regarding the way the things are, UMT focuses on structural aspects of worldview. The way worldview beliefs develop and are organized seems to be more important than the content of even the most general special beliefs. The measures of meaning of life (Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1981; Reker, 2004) also neglect the structural dimension. I based UMT on the qualitative research strategy, though supplemented it with a number of easily measurable quantitative indices.

THE UMT PROCEDURE The UMT procedure requires no materials or equipment besides paper and a pencil; however, it requires up to an hour of face-toface dialogue between the psychologist and the participant, plus up to an hour for data processing and interpreting. The procedure is a structured dialogue between the psychologist and the participant. The preliminary instruction is semistructured, as follows: I will ask you questions, please answer them. You may give more than one answer to every question. Additional instructions are introduced in the course of the interview, if necessary. The main question in this dialogue is Why do people do something? The initial question usually refers to daily activities such as Why do people watch TV? but might be different. Valid answers must be given in terms of goals, reasons, meanings, and anticipated consequences but not in terms of causes. There may be several answers, for example: To have a rest, To get to know whats going on, In order not to think. Having written down all the answers, the psychologist continues asking a sequence of questions: Why do

248

Ultimate Meanings Technique

people need to have a rest? To restore strength; Why restore strength? To work effectively; Why work effectively?; and so on. The chain ends when the participant comes to the ultimate unexplainable meaning, which is detected by the psychologist either by tautological repetitions (To live in order to live) or by references to the general order or human nature. That which often emerges is a quasiultimate meaning, an impasse where the participant simply refuses to give further explanations. Experience shows that persistent questioning can overcome this inhibition and produce new levels of comprehension. After reaching a final point, the psychologist comes back to the answers he or she had to leave untraced and proceeds further with them: Why should people know whats going on? and so on. With rare exceptions, participants tend to give several answers to a single why question during the first 2 to 3 steps, but then start to give a single answer. This seems to be additional evidence of the projective character of UMT answers. It is thus not difficult to trace UMT answers to the ultimate points, the chains starting at every answer given by the participant at any step. Quite often, these chains flow into previously traced ones. If the participant gives an answer to a why question that already has been given to another why question, it is recommended to ask again about the matter. For example: Why do people eat? To restore strength; Why restore strength? If the participant again answers To work effectively, there is no need to continue asking. The chain just joined another one. He or she may, however, give another answer and the dialogue continues. If the participant builds a circle such as, Why try to stand out? So that people remember you; Why be remembered? In order not to be forgotten; Why not be forgotten? In order to be remembered, it is helpful to ask, Why be remembered and not forgotten? Usually 40 to 50 answers are enough. Sometimes the single initial question suffices to produce them. However, sometimes the first question does not provide enough material, and after tracing all the answers to the end, the procedure starts again with another initial question: Why do people play football, eat, drink, kill, lie, make love, paint, travel, compose music, etc.? The content of the initial question is usually of small importance because already in 1 to 2 steps the participant moves to general matters. Having recorded a desirable amount of information, the psychologist draws a meaning tree of the dialogue with all the answers given by the participant. To analyze the meaning tree, it is important to

Dmitry A. Leontiev

249

define several terms: Meaning category refers to any participants valid answer to a why question; chain refers to a straight succession of categories explaining one another; ultimate category or ultimate meaning is the end category of any chain that cannot be further explained in terms of why questions; nodular category or nodular meaning is a category explaining more than one subordinate category, a point where two or more chains merge; initial category is an answer to an initial question, the starting point of any chain. A meaning tree may look like a real treean integrated system with one or more common ultimate meaningsor like a number of disconnected chains with independent ultimate meanings.

DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS There are three ways of analyzing the meaning tree: structural analysis, content analysis, and phenomenological analysis. Structural analysis deals with the structure of the meaning tree. The quantitative indices of the meaning tree structure are:
1. Absolute number of ultimate categories N(U). 2. Absolute number of nodular categories N(N). 3. Coherence index (Co) = N(N)/N(U). Its maximal value corresponds to a tree structure with many branches and a single ultimate meaning and minimal value in case of several disconnected straight chains. 4. Absolute number of all the meaning categories N(M). 5. Productivity index (Pr) = N(M) divided into the number of initial questions N(I). 6. Average chain length (Ln) = arithmetic mean of the number of steps in all the possible ways from each initial category to the ultimate one.

All the values of structural indices appear as a result of simply counting the numbers of these or those categories in the individuals scheme of the meaning tree. No subjective expert evaluation is needed, only the application of an unambiguous algorithm and elementary arithmetic operations. Structural indices are interpreted in terms of worldview maturity. Characteristic of more developed, mature, and differentiated worldviews would be more nodular categories, higher coherence, higher productivity, and higher than average chain length. This developmental finding follows, in particular, from some theoretical presuppositions: Allport (1937), for example, listed having an

250

Ultimate Meanings Technique

elaborate philosophy of life as one of the central criteria of mature personality, and Jahoda (1958) included a coherent worldview in her definition of mental health. Content analysis is the comparative analysis of frequency of special types of categories in different groups and individuals. We use three content indices; it is possible to introduce other ones for different research purposes.
1. Decentration index (Dc) is defined as the frequency of categories where the agent in the explanation is not the participant himself or herself but other people, social groups, or people in general: So that others appreciate them, So that their children live better off than themselves, So that humanity should not cease its development. Decentration is interpreted as feeling ones connectedness with other people and society at large as opposed to feeling isolated and self-sufficient. 2. Introspection index (In) is defined as the frequency of categories where the meaning is described in terms of subjective reality (perceiving, knowing, feeling, believing, remembering, etc.) rather than objective events: To feel secure, So that others appreciate them, To know that life would not cease after their death. Only the categories where the content of these mental processes is defined fit into this index, not the meanings such as to know more than others. Introspection was initially interpreted in terms of the development of ones inner world, ones awareness of ones mental functioning. Experimental data made us revise this interpretation. This index now seems to reflect the preoccupation with ones inner world at the expense of goal-directed activity. 3. Negativity index (Ng) is defined as the frequency of categories including direct negation: In order not to be afraid of the future, To know that life would not cease after ones death, In order not to be alone. We do not include categories where the negative meaning is expressed without grammatical negation, To avoid troubles, To minimize activity, because in this case a subjective expert evaluation of whether they should be categorized as negative, rather than simple content analysis, would be necessary. Negativity is interpreted as revealing self-restriction, a defensive or homeostatic attitude.

All three content indices, like the structural ones, do not require an application of an expert evaluation procedure. They register the objective content of UMT answers that can simply be countedthe changes of the grammatical subject, the words depicting mental processes and contents, and the negations. There were no initial theoretical assumptions underlying these indices; they have been introduced in search of any objective content indices. However, many years after having elaborated and widely used these indices,

Dmitry A. Leontiev

251

I found a publication of Elisabeth Lukas, Viktor Frankls first doctoral student and the current leader of the logotherapy school, where she describes three phenomena that very often are met together in mental distortions: egocentrism, negativism, and hyperreflection. They make together a devils triad (Lukas, 1983, p. 39). Lukas (1983) understands egocentrism as seeing only oneself, overconcern with oneself as a figure on the background of the rest of the world; negativism as overconcern with the negative aspects of life at the expense of the positive; and hyperreflection as overemphasis on the details. All three notably limit, each in its way, the persons spiritual perception, focusing one either upon oneself, . . . or upon all the negative, . . . or upon separate details of his/her life (p. 40). The correspondence of this devils triad to the three UMT empirical content indices is remarkable and contributes much to their theoretical interpretation. Phenomenological analysis needs no special instructions. The meaning tree presents an important fragment of what the person takes for granted, natural or lawful. It is well known and thoroughly investigated that what a person says about his or her experiences and intentions has a highly ambiguous connection to the way the person does or will in fact behave. There are no reasons to state for sure that what a person says about the world is a better predictor, but this alterative assumption seems worth studying. I have not tried to elaborate any unifying procedure of revealing the persons core values and attitudes through the phenomenological analysis of UMT trees; nevertheless, it probably can be done someday.

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY The issues of UMT validity and reliability cannot be solved in terms of simple correlations. However, various nonparametrical statistical criteria we used make it possible to speak of the significant differences and connections with respect to the quantitative indices described above even in small samples. In fact, we can reasonably speak of reliability and validity of separate indices rather than of the technique as a whole. No total standardization of the procedure is required, in line with the postmodern dialogical qualitative methodology aimed at revealing the phenomenological content of the persons lifeworld (e.g., Kvale, 1996). A truly important question is the question of cross-cultural validity of the technique; however, this dimension, to date, has not been investigated.

252

Ultimate Meanings Technique

Retest Reliability A special study was conducted to check the reliability of UMT over short (2-3 weeks) and long (1 year) retesting intervals, using two nonparametrical methods: Wilcoxon criterion and the sign test (D. A. Leontiev & Filatova, 1999). In the short-retest study with 25 participants of different ages, gender, and education levels, average chain length, productivity, introspection, and negativity proved stable by both criteria; number of nodular categories, coherence, and decentration revealed no significant changes as indicated by the sign test, but the Wilcoxon criterion did register changes. The number of ultimate categories significantly changed during the course of both tests. In the long-retest study with 30 other participants of different ages, gender, and education levels, productivity and negativity proved stable by both criteria, introspection proved unstable by both criteria, and the other indices yielded inconsistent data. The data show that, in general, we may speak of the stability of an individuals worldview structure assessed by UMT. However, this is a dynamic stability of a living organism rather than a static stability of a stone. It is the awareness of meanings and their links that may change in a year rather than the meanings and their links themselves. Qualitative comparison of meaning trees in a long-retest study allows us to see that there is both a rather stable nucleus and interchangeable periphery in individual meaning trees. However, I cannot propose a clear operational criterion to distinguish between these two parts. Validity UMT data collected on different samples (see below) allow us to speak of the construct validity of the indices mentioned above. In particular, the construct validation of UMT indices was part of the study by D. A. Leontiev and Filatova (1999). The study included 27 participants of different ages and gender. Besides UMT, two other assessment techniques were used. First, the Life Meaning Orientations Test (LMOT) by D. A. Leontiev (1992), a 20-item modification of the Purpose-in-Life test by J. Crumbaugh and L. Maholick (1981), was administered. This test provides not only the general ratio of life meaningfulness but also (unlike the original Crumbaugh and Maholick version) 5 differential indicesgoal-directedness of life, emotional richness of the present, satisfaction with self-realization,

Dmitry A. Leontiev

253

mastering ones life, and controllability of life in general. This inventory was used in numerous studies with Russian samples and has very good psychometric properties. Second, the Motivational Induction Method (MIM) by J. Nuttin (1985) was administered. This test is a special version of the sentence-completion technique aimed at revealing a persons goals and fears. The answers are content analyzed along with two sets of categories: content of motivation and future time perspective. Spearman rank correlation was used to prove the association of UMT indices with life meaningfulness, motivation, and time perspective. Structural UMT indices revealed few significant correlations. The number of nodular categories and the coherence are both positively linked to the preoccupation with the future (future-centeredness) index of MIM (p < .05); productivity also positively correlates with epistemological (exploratory) motivation by MIM. Much more significant correlations link the content indices of UMT to MIM and LMOT variables. Decentration is positively linked to motivation of social contacts by MIM (p < .01), especially to the subcategory of motives articulated for the other person (p < .001). Decentration positively correlates also to mastering ones life and controllability of life scales of LMOT (p < .05). The negativity index is negatively correlated with general activity (achievement) motivation, present-centeredness, and future-centeredness by MIM (p < .05) and positively correlated with the indefinite (lifewide) temporal localization of goals by MIM (p < .05). The introspection index reveals only significant negative correlationsto the present-centeredness category in the MIM (p < .05) and to goal-directedness and mastering ones life in the LMOT (p < .05). Generally, the construct validation data supported our intuitive interpretation of UMT indices (for a more detailed discussion, see D. A. Leontiev & Filatova, 1999), except for the introspection index. It follows from these data that this index, quite in line with E. Lukass (1983) theory quoted above, corresponds to preoccupation with ones inner world at the expense of goal-directed activity rather than to the development of mental regulation of activity, as previously considered. INDIVIDUAL CASE EXAMPLES To illustrate the individual work with UMT, especially in its qualitative aspects, four cases were selected.

254

Ultimate Meanings Technique

Figure 1 exemplifies a rather typical case of a weakly coherent normal meaning tree. Moderate productivity and chain length, three ultimate meanings, one of them also nodular, and three disconnected chains indicate a rather simple, though definite worldview. No reflexive categories, a single negative one, and three decentered categories refer to the world and life at large and coincide with the ultimate meaning dimensions. Phenomenologically, Emmas value system can be said to be centered around the meaning of harmonyboth inner and outerwith others and with the world at large. Altruism is mostly declarativemuch is supposed to be done for the others, but others are not present in the meaning system as independent agents. All ultimate meanings reflect the belief in an objective world order. Highly abstract righteous formulations are based on external criteria of the right and combined with blindness to individual others, despite the professed support of their well-being. Alexander, PhD, is a highly creative intellectual, as evident in his meaning tree (incompletely depicted; see Figure 2)both very complicated and coherent by structure and nontrivial by content. Worth noting here is a very high share of reflexive categories, close to 50% (versus the typical 10%), albeit the share of negative and decentered categories does not decline from the average. The phenomenological analysis reveals that essentially all of Alexanders meanings are articulated in terms of sensual experiences, even those referring to ultimate relations to the universe at large. Despite his intellectual sophistication, his philosophy is strongly rooted in bodily sensations, unlike Emmas. Others also play important roles in Alexanders worldview, and, unlike the previous case, they enter his meaning tree as independent agents. Alexander evidently enjoys his inner life and communication with others much more than acting. Anatolys tree resembles Emmas (see Figure 3); the differences are in somewhat shorter chains and very primitive categories, including ultimate meanings. Others are present in this worldview as a condition, or background. Low introspection and low negativity are typical of mental retardation (see below). Yurys tree is as poor as Anatolys (see Figure 4). However, if Anatolys meanings are rooted in the basic givens of his life, Yurys meanings are somewhat more special. In his meaning tree, we find a high negativity, typical of alcoholics; the three negations reveal what seems to be his basic problem: alienation and rumination on self-generated ideas.

Dmitry A. Leontiev

255

Life were meaningful

Harmonious world existed

To world existed

To live in harmony with life, environment, and conscience To live good life and to do good There were inner harmony

To fulfill the tasks preset by God

No to do wrong deeds

To do good

To fulfill a purpose in life

To have better orientation in life

For the others good

To exist

To get information

To save a person

To recharge energy

Figure 1

Meaning Tree by Emma, 60, Control Sample

This analysis provides an illustration of how different aspects of UMT analysis may be combined together and how the meaning trees reflect both group and individual peculiarities of worldview.

REVIEW OF UMT RESEARCH Study 1: Comparison of Worldview in Adults and Adolescents Participants in a 1985 study by D. A. Leontiev and Kononov (1985) comprised adult males and females whose ages ranged from 20 to 40 years (n = 15), and adolescents whose ages ranged from 14 to 16 (n = 19). The samples were compared by Wilcoxon criterion (rank sums). Results. The meaning trees of adolescent participants seem not to differ from the trees of adults. There were no significant differences in structural indices, except for the smaller number of ultimate meanings N(U) (p < .05) and number of nodes N(N) (p < .01). As far as content analysis is concerned, adolescents revealed lower introspection indices (p < .05); other differences were nonsignificant. Discussion. As we expected, there were many more commonalties than differences in both samples. Indeed, by the age range of 14 to

256
Not to get lost at the Universe To feel merged The others merge with the Universe To experience pleasure from what was lived through To others become better To let others to experience pleasure To be useful for others To feel stronger The will to live wouldnt disappear Not to die prematurely To feel needed by someone To experience the life once more Grandchildren pulled the beard There were something to tell grandchildren There were something to recollect The heart wouldnt bleed

To merge with the universe

To live

To get pleasure

To feel that the life is not vain

Not to get depressed

To do something

To have the potential for inspiration

To make the world predictable and safe

To relax

To make the pictue of the world clearer

Figure 2

Meaning Tree by Alexander, 32, Control Sample

Dmitry A. Leontiev

257

To live

To know more To know whats going on in the world

Others subjugate

The life were merrier

To eat

To be rich

To get acquainted with others

To earn money To get power To work better There were friends

To have power

To communicate

Figure 3

Meaning Tree by Anatoly, 18, Light Debility

To live easier To communicate

To live

To develop

Not to suggest something to oneself

To get spiritual food

Not to be withdrawn

Not to sit with ones thoughts

To get pleasure

Figure 4

Meaning Tree by Yury, 48, Third Stage of Alcoholism

16, a worldview is typically developed and integrated. Later changes are not so apparent. Nevertheless, the preoccupation with the conscious inner world in adolescents was still less than in adults. Study 2: Peculiarities of Worldviews in Alcoholic and Mentally Deficient Patients A study performed in 1986 by D. A. Leontiev and Buzin (1992) compared males aged 20 to 35 with high or partially high education (n = 9), male patients with chronic alcoholism of the 2nd and

258

Ultimate Meanings Technique

3rd degree (n = 14), and male patients with a low degree of mental deficiency (n = 11). The samples were compared by Wilcoxon criterion (rank sums). Results. The meaning trees in both clinical groups looked alike and drastically differed from the trees of control participants. In the clinical groups, the chains were very short and poor; an ultimate meaning was reached in 2 to 3 steps. The chains were isolated, nodes were rare. All the structural indices, except for the number of ultimate meanings N(U), were significantly lower in both clinical groups as compared to the normal control sample. Differences both between alcoholic patients and mentally deficient participants on the one hand, and the control sample, on the other hand, in the number of nodes N(N), coherence Co, productivity Pr, and average length Ln were significant (p < .01). Alcoholic patients, in turn, revealed a higher N(N) and Co than mentally deficient participants (p < .05); other structural indices revealed no significant differences between the clinical groups. Content indices, however, provided quite a differentiated picture. Alcoholic patients revealed lower decentration as compared with both healthy (p < .01) and mentally deficient (p < .01) participants and higher negativity (p < .01 in both cases). Healthy and mentally deficient participants did not differ in decentration, and negativity was significantly higher in the healthy participants (p < .01). Finally, the introspection index was significantly higher in the control sample than in both clinical groups (p < .01); and the latter, alcoholic and mentally deficient groups, revealed no differences. Discussion. In alcoholic patients, we meet a simplified and reduced worldview structure. Their meanings are always linked to themselves, to the satisfaction of urgent needs. Actual needs determine overt actions in a direct way; life episodes of such a person are weakly linked with each other. The underlying dynamic attitude is a defensive one of avoiding discomfort by conforming to social stereotypes. Typical meanings in their trees were: Not to be stupid, Not to do harm, Not to break the law, and so on. Mentally deficient participants also expressed simplified and reduced worldview structures. However, if in alcoholic patients it is the tyranny of the present-moment egocentric needs that is reflected in the primitive structure of the inner world, in mentally deficient participants it is the original poverty of the inner world that makes it impossible to construe complicated and

Dmitry A. Leontiev

259

branched meaning systems. From the viewpoint of their content, the meanings produced by mentally deficient participants had much more in common with meanings produced by healthy participants than with meanings produced by alcoholic patients. Study 3: Comparison of UMT With Other Personality Assessment Techniques A study was conducted in 1990 by M. Kalashnikov (1990) of males and females with high or partially high education in human sciences, ages 21 to 32 (n = 24). Besides UMT, some other assessment methods were used: (a) Level of Subjective Control inventory (LSC; Bazhin, Golynkina, & Etkind, 1993), a 44-item version of Locus of Control scale, providing 6 differential locus of control (LC) indices besides the general one (i.e., LC for successes, LC for failures, LC in professional activity, LC in family life, LC in interpersonal relations, and LC with respect to health/illness issue); (b) LMOT (see above); and (c) a Russian 128-item version of Personal Orientation Inventory (POI) by E. Shostrom (Gozman & Kroz, 1987), including 2 basic scales (i.e., self-support versus external support and time competence) and 12 additional scales dealing with different aspects of self-actualization. There were almost no correlations of UMT indices with personality inventories. This may be because of the fact that the psychological reality assessed by UMT is located at another level of personality organization than personality traits. M. Kalashnikov, however, tried to classify his participants ultimate meanings according to the taxonomy of personal meanings proposed by Boris Bratus (1985), who distinguished situational meanings, egocentric meanings (personal profit), group-related meanings (reflecting the interests of the small referent group), and prosocial meanings (reflecting all-human values). Of the participants, 87% fell into one of two following groups according to the character of their ultimate meanings: (a) egocentric ultimate meanings or (b) egocentric and prosocial ultimate meanings. These two groups were compared with respect to scores on the above-mentioned personality inventories. General scores and most of the special indices of both LMOT and LSC, as well as age, turned out to be significantly higher in Group A than in Group B; POI scales provided no significant intergroup differences. It seems that referring to prosocial (highly abstract social) meanings in UMT is a sign of a lower self-sufficiency and self-responsibility. These seemingly paradoxical data are in line

260

Ultimate Meanings Technique

with what has been discovered in another study (Study 7); the explanation is proposed in the discussion of Study 7. Study 4: Worldviews in Somatic Patients With Near-Death Experiences A study by A. Popogrebski (1998) compared patients (males and females) aged 40 to 50 in a cardiological hospital during rehabilitation after infarction (n = 12) with patients of the same age and gender distribution in a general therapy hospital during a regular check-up (n = 12). Some other assessment techniques were also used without trying to establish their correlations with UMT. Structural indices, and general outlook of meaning trees, revealed no significant differences between the two groups. There were, however, highly significant differences in decentration (p < .001) and introspection (p < .02); both indices were higher in infarction patients. It seems that, first, near-death experiences stimulate the activity of the inner world, the processes of thinking, bringing into awareness, and reflecting on meanings and, second, that characteristic of these patients is a broader context of life comprehension, that is, they are more inclined to consider others as important elements and contexts of their own lives. Study 5: Worldviews in Delinquent and Normal Adolescents A study by J. Vassilyeva (1997) compared adolescents of 16 to 17 years, males and females, under legal prosecution (not imprisoned) because of conflicts with the law (n = 30) with adolescents of the same age and gender distribution, academically oriented and having no conflicts with the law (n = 30). Delinquent participants showed lower productivity (p < .01) and introspection (p < .01); other differences were nonsignificant. These differences suggest that there is less focus on the inner world in delinquent adolescents. Other assessment techniques used in the study also revealed poor worldviews and lack of meaning and value in life in delinquent participants as compared to the control sample. Study 6: Gender and Age Differences in Worldview In the study by D. A. Leontiev and Filatova (1999), gender and age differences by UMT was also the object of investigation. The participants were 10 males aged 21 to 26, 10 females aged 22 to

Dmitry A. Leontiev

261

27, 10 males aged 50 to 62, and 10 females aged 50 to 60. We compared the data of males versus females and younger versus older participants. Both by sign test and Wilcoxon criterion, females significantly outscored males in numbers of ultimate and nodular categories, productivity, and decentration. No significant gender differences were found in chain length, introspection, and negativity. By a coherence index, the Wilcoxon criterion revealed the advantage of females, and the sign test found no differences. Hence, these females worldviews tended to be more coherent than those of the males, and the females seemed to be relatively more successful in finding ultimate reasons for their actions. They were also more apt than the males to perceive their lives in a broad, rather than egocentric, context. Significant age differences were found in the number of ultimate meanings and decentration index (higher in older participants), number of nodular categories, and average chain length (higher in younger participants). No differences were found in introspection or negativity. Coherence and productivity seemed to be significantly higher in younger participants according to the Wilcoxon criterion but not according to the sign test. Generally, older participants find more ultimate reasons, whereas younger ones find more intermediate links that make the whole structure more coherent. Study 7: Worldview and the Meaning of Life In the same study (D. A. Leontiev & Filatova, 1999), we tried to establish the links between UMT indices and categories of selfrated life meanings received according to the procedure based on the direct question: What is the central meaning of your life at present? (Ebersole & DeVogler, 1981). P. Ebersole, the author of this approach and of numerous empirical studies, has elaborated a list of classification categories that we had to modify for the Russian population. Our list contained 9 categories, and only 3 of them (growth and self-realization, contribution, and family) were found in our sample of 40 participants often enough to make statistical comparison possible. Hence, we compared pairwise all the UMT indices in the three groups that defined their meaning of life in different ways: that is, as growth (G), contribution (C), and family (F). Group G outscored Group C in decentration, chain length, number of nodes, and coherence. No significant differences between these groups were found in introspection, negativity, number of ultimate categories and productivity. Groups G and F differed in coherence,

262

Ultimate Meanings Technique

chain length, number of nodes and ultimate meanings, productivity (all higher in Group G), and negativity (higher in Group F). Group C as compared to Group F revealed higher number of nodular and ultimate meanings and lower introspection. If we compare all three groups, we see that all the structural indices, and decentration, are definitely higher in Group G than in both other groups. It looks as if orientation at growth and selfdevelopment were most favorable, not only from the individualistic but also from a more broad, decentered perspective. Participants classified in this group had the most coherent worldview, the most active and prosocial position. Characteristic of those who declared family as the central meaning of life is a homeostatic strategy of behavior, fear of changes, preoccupation with the inner world, limited list of ultimate and nodular meanings, and a poorly coherent worldview. Those who declared useful contribution to others as the meaning of their lives were most practically disposed; however, in contrast to their prosocial declarations, UMT discovered their egocentric position. This finding is reminiscent of the results of Study 3, where declared prosociality also seemed to be an unfavorable predictor. Though these data may seem paradoxical, they confirm the belief that in mature, growing persons, the dichotomy of altruism versus egoism is transcended; the emphasis on selfdevelopment presupposes, rather than contradicts, accepting the interests of others and acting from the perspective of the common good (see Maslow, 1970). Persons who do really contribute much to others lives pursue the goals that are significant for them personally and take personal responsibility for them; those who explicitly declare social interests, on the contrary, try to find an extrinsic justification for their actions. A declared concern of others well-being at the expense of ones own interests can hardly be authentic and reflects an immature split of the individual and the social. Study 8: Worldview in the Retired: The Role of Activity The study of E. Vlasenkova (2005) compared three groups of retired participants (n = 180) aged 45 to 60 by a number of personality assessment techniques, including UMT. Group A consisted of individuals who deliberately continued working after retirement age without vital necessity (i.e., they were intrinsically motivated), Group B comprised individuals who continued working because of economic necessity (they were extrinsically motivated), and Group C consisted of individuals who ceased working after retirement age.

Dmitry A. Leontiev

263

Based on the Wilcoxon criterion, both Group A and Group B had a significantly higher number of nodes and coherence than did Group C (p < .05); they also had higher decentration (p < .05), lower negativity (p < .01), and higher introspection (p < .05). Differences between Groups A and B were mostly nonsignificant. The results by other methods showed a similar picture of highly unfavorable outcomes of unemployment in early postretirement age. One should consider that the economic situation in Russia does not provide opportunities to afford much after retirement.

GROWTH-FACILITATING EFFECTS OF UMT Researchers working with UMT both for research purposes and for counseling often reported that the process of working with UMT induced some positive changes in the participants. Psychotherapist V. Losseva (personal communication, 1985) reported that working on UMT with a severe neurotic patient prompted a sudden insight: You see, Ive never in my life asked myself, why am I doing this or that, just why events happen to me! M. Kalashnikov (1990) reported on the phenomenon he called meaning catharsis. After an impasse in answering why questions, at some level the participants revealed a breakthrough, preceded by 15 to 20 minutes of deep thinking, and found a new meaning of a quasiultimate category. In doing this, they felt a kind of enlightenment in world comprehension, accompanied by positive emotions. J. Vassilyeva (1997) reported similar breakthroughs of meaning barriers after some persistent engagement of participants by a psychologist; she reported also that although normal adolescents are able to overcome these barriers, delinquent ones often get stuck in their old ones and cannot proceed further. UMT thus can be used not only as an assessment technique but also as a form of positive intervention, as a technique to improve awareness of ones own core worldview orientations. Discussing with the participant the meaning connections revealed by UMT makes it possible to lay bare the profound mechanisms of his or her explanation of reality.

CONCLUSION It is just recently that the importance of personal meanings has been rediscovered by mainstream academic psychologists

264

Ultimate Meanings Technique

(e.g., Emmons, 1999; Seligman, 2002), in addition to psychotherapists and a few scholars. Though the level of meaningfulness of life as a measurable variable turned out to be very important in many contexts, it seems that the study of meanings requires a qualitative approach, over and above one that is quantitative (see D. A. Leontiev, 2006). The proposed approach is a contribution to the elaboration of this new type of psychological variable. The UMT described here seems to reveal some substantial aspects of the individuals worldview not covered by other assessment techniques. It combines phenomenological analysis with the possibility of using some easily calculable quantitative indices, based on unambiguous algorithms, rather than using expert judgments and implying nonparametric statistical evaluation. The reviewed research data seem to prove the validity of the quantitative indices; however, what UMT provides far exceeds the quantitative data. Though not so practical for mass studies, it seems to be quite a helpful instrument for clinical assessment of a persons picture of the world, especially taking into consideration its projective aspect and growth effects. It is also good for establishing contact with a client in counseling, psychotherapy, and coaching.

REFERENCES
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt. Bazhin, Y. F., Golynkina, Y. A., & Etkind, A. M. (1993). Oprosnik urovnya subyektivnogo kontrolya [Level of subjective control inventory]. Moscow: Smysl. Braithwaite, V. A., & Scott, W. A. (1991). Values. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychology attitudes (pp. 661-753). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bratus, B. S. (1985). Nravstvennoye soznaniye lichnosti [Moral consciousness of personality]. Moscow: Znaniye. Burns, D. D. (1989). The feeling good handbook: Using the new mood therapy in everyday life. New York: William Morrow. Crumbaugh, J. S., & Maholick, L. T. (1981). Manual of instructions for the Purpose in Life Test. Munster, IN: Psychometric Affiliates. Ebersole, P., & DeVogler, K. L. (1981). Meaning in life: Category selfratings. The Journal of Psychology, 107, 289-293. Emmons, R. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns. New York: Guilford. Gozman, L. Y., & Kroz, M. Y. (1987). Izmerenie urovnya samoaktualizatsii lichnosti [Assessment of self-actualization level]. In Y. E. Aleshina,

Dmitry A. Leontiev

265

L. Y. Gozman, & Y. M. Dubovskaya (Eds.), Sotsialno-psikhologicheskie metody issledovaniya supruzheskikh otnoshenii (pp. 91-114). Moscow: Moscow University Press. Holland, R. (1970). George Kelly: Constructive innocent and reluctant existentialist. In D. Bannister (Ed.), Perspectives in personal construct theory (pp. 111-133). London: Academic Press. Jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health. New York: Basic Books. Kalashnikov, M. (1990). Mirovozzrenie i smysl zhizni lichnosti [Personal world view and meaning of life]. Unpublished masters thesis, Moscow State University, Moscow. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton. Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2000). The Worldview Assessment Instrument (WAI): The development and preliminary validation of an instrument to assess world view components relevant to counseling and psychotherapy (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 2266B. Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8, 3-58 Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2006). Worldviews, families and grand theories: Strategies for unification in psychology. The General Psychologist, 41, 11-14. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Leontiev, A. N. (1979). Psikhologiya obraza [The psychology of an image]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Ser. 14. Psikhologiya, 2, 3-13. Leontiev, A. N. (2005). Lecture 14. The structure of consciousness. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43(5), 14-24. Leontiev, D. A. (1992). Test smyslozhiznennykh orientatsii [Life meaning orientations test]. Moscow: Smysl. Leontiev, D. A. (1998). Tematicheskii appertseptivnyi test [Thematic apperception test]. Moscow: Smysl. Leontiev, D. A. (2000). Mirovozzrenie [Worldview]. In I. T. Frolov (Ed.), Chelovek: Filosofsko-entsiklopedicheskii slovar (pp. 193-194). Moscow: Nauka. Leontiev, D. A. (2004). Mirovozzrenie kak mif I mirovozzrenie kak deyatelnost [Worldview as a myth and worldview as an activity]. In V. I. Kabrin & O. I. Muravieva (Eds.), Mentalitet I kommunikativnaya sreda v tranzitivnom obschestve (pp. 11-29). Tomsk, Russia: Tomsk State University Press. Leontiev, D. A. (2005). Three facets of meaning. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43(6), 45-72. Leontiev, D. A. (2006). Meaningful living and the worlds of art. In A. Delle Fave (Ed.), Dimensions of well-being. Research and intervention (pp. 529-537). Milan: Franco Angeli. Leontiev, D. A. (in press). The phenomenon of meaning: How psychology can make sense of it? In P. T. P. Wong, M. J. McDonald, & D. K. Klaassen (Eds.), Advances in positive psychology of meaning and spirituality. Vancouver, Canada: INPM Press, Trafford.

266

Ultimate Meanings Technique

Leontiev, D. A., & Buzin, V. N. (1992). Osobennosti smyslovoi struktury mirovozzreniya pri khronicheskom alkogolizme [Peculiarities of meaning structure of worldview in chronic alcoholism]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Ser. 14. Psikhologiya, 3, 22-29. Leontiev, D. A., & Filatova, M. A. (1999). Psikhodiagnosticheskie vozmozhnosti metodiki predelnykh smyslov [Assessment capacities of ultimate meanings technique]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Ser. 14. Psikhologiya, 2, 53-68. Leontiev, D., & Kononov, A. (1985). Smysly u podrostkov [Meanings in adolescents]. Unpublished manuscript, Moscow State University, Moscow. Lukas, E. (1983). Hoehenpsychologie [Height psychology]. Freiburg, Germany: Herder. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. Nuttin, J. (1985). Future time perspective and motivation. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press. Popogrebski, A. P. (1998). Vliyanie infarkta miorarda na smyslovuyu sferu cheloveka [The influence of infarction at the sphere of meanings]. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 19(5), 113-118. Reker, G. T. (2000). Theoretical perspective, dimensions, and measurement of existential meaning. In G. T. Reker & K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Exploring existential meaning (pp. 39-55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Seligman, M. P. H. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press. Vassilyeva, J. V. (1997). Osobennosti smyslovoi sfery lichnosti pri narusheniyakh sotcialnoi regulatsii povedeniya [Peculiarities of the sphere of meanings in the disturbances of social behavior regulation]. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 18(2), 58-78. Vlasenkova, E. G. (2005). Osobennosti smyslovoi sfery zreloi lichnosti s raznym urovnem samorealizatsii [Peculiarities of the sphere of meanings of mature persons with different levels of self-realization]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Khabarovsk, Russia.