Structural rigidity in relation to learning theory and clinical psychology.

Cattell, Raymond B.; Winder, Alvin E.

doi:10.1037/h0055420

Cited by 19 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As will be noted, the obtained values tend to be considerably larger than the expected, the medians being -.54 and -.30. Not shown in the table, but even more pertinent from the standpoint of statistical significance, is the fact that for each of the 37 variables, 3 the obtained value was larger than the expected. It appears, therefore, that we are confronted with a general phenomenon which might be called "maturational regression," a tendency for the retest scores of extreme scoring subjects to regress toward the mean of the group.…”

Section: Intra-individual Consistency Of Personality Variables Over L...mentioning

confidence: 79%

Consistency of the adult personality.

Kelly¹

1955

American Psychologist

216

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Intra-individual Consistency Of Personality Variables Over L...mentioning

confidence: 79%

Consistency of the adult personality.

Kelly¹

1955

American Psychologist

216

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In personality studies, rigidity is closely linked to traits pertaining to stubbornness and resistance to change, such as dogmatism (Rokeach, 1960) and authoritarianism (Webster, Sanford, & Freedman, 1955). Cattell and Winder (1952) examined the factorial nature of rigidity and found it to comprise two factors: (a) resistance to switch to a new adaptive response and (b) failure to retain a newly learned adaptive response. Applying these notions to the context of coping, coping flexibility may be represented by less adherence to a particular type of coping strategy (i.e., low rigidity).…”

Section: Conceptualization and Measurement Of Coping Flexibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Coping flexibility and psychological adjustment to stressful life changes: A meta-analytic review.

Cheng¹,

Lau

Chan

2014

Psychological Bulletin

492

420

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compared with the large body of literature on coping, coping flexibility has received relatively scant research attention, although more such studies have begun to emerge recently. Researchers have conceptualized coping flexibility in diverse ways: as a broad coping repertoire, a well-balanced coping profile, cross-situational variability in strategy deployment, a good strategy-situation fit, or the perceived ability to cope with environmental changes. This meta-analysis is the first to provide a summary estimate of the overall effect size and investigate cross-study sources of variation in the beneficial role of coping flexibility. The analysis covers all available studies conducted between 1978 and 2013 that empirically tested the relationship between coping flexibility and psychological adjustment. The results of a random-effects model revealed a small to moderate overall mean effect size (r = .23, 95% CI [.19, .28], 80% CRI [-.02, .49], k = 329, N = 58,946). More important, the magnitude of the positive link between coping flexibility and psychological adjustment varied with the conceptualization of such flexibility. Studies adopting the perceived ability or strategy-situation fit conceptualization yielded moderate effect sizes, whereas those adopting the broad repertoire, balanced profile, or cross-situational variability conceptualization yielded small effect sizes. In addition, the positive link between coping flexibility and psychological adjustment was stronger in samples from countries lower (vs. higher) in individualism and samples with higher (vs. lower) average ages. Individualism and age explained 10% and 13% of the variance, respectively. We discuss the conceptual problems and implications and propose a synthesized conceptualization of coping flexibility.

show abstract

“…All of the listed alternative explanations represented legitimate perspectives or interpretations. In keeping with the commonly held assumption that responses must be appropriate to be flexible (Cattell & Winder, 1952;Chown, 1972;Scott, 1966), all of the alternative explanations put forth were appropriate insofar as they were not non sequiturs.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 81%

Ascribing meaning to single, molecular measures: A question of methodological adequacy.

Uba¹

1981

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined the validity of the assumption that meaning can be ascribed to behavior based on a single molecular measure of that behavior. The implicit adoption of this assumption in the flexibility-rigidity literature is discussed as a case in point. An impression formation task was completed by 287 students of introductory psychology classes. The results indicated that (a) there were low correlations among measures of individual aspects of flexibility that are conceptually akin to those measures frequently employed in the literature, (b) similar responses on a single dimension of behavior characterized distinct response configurations, and (c) single, elemental responses, which would be subject to conflicting interpretations when considered alone, characterized the same constellation of responses. It was concluded that it is tenuous and potentially obscurant to infer cognitive processing from responses that are examined independently of their structural context.It has been common in psychology to ascribe meaning to behavior based on the measurement of a single dimension of that behavior as though this aspect were so isomorphic with the whole behavior that the meaning of the behavior could be inferred independently of the cognitive mediational context in which that aspect is embedded. However, there is reason to suspect the adequacy of this molecular assumption. Organismic theory and research (Asch, 1946;Goldstein, 1939;Weiss, 1939Weiss, , 1969Werner, 1948), for example, suggest that a single behavior could reflect different cognitive gestalts or structural configurations and thereby carry vastly different meanings. Thus, as Campbell and Fiske (1959) admonished, any single measure is an equivocal representation of a concept and subject to a number of interpretations. Given such contrasting orientations, the present study examines the adequacy of additive assumptions and molecular levels of analysis.Two pieces of evidence address the validity of the assumption that meaning may be ascribed to behavior based on a single, molecular measure of that behavior. If the meaning of a behavior and its underlying Requests for reprints should be sent to

show abstract

Structural rigidity in relation to learning theory and clinical psychology.

Cited by 19 publications

References 29 publications

Consistency of the adult personality.

Consistency of the adult personality.

Coping flexibility and psychological adjustment to stressful life changes: A meta-analytic review.

Ascribing meaning to single, molecular measures: A question of methodological adequacy.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About