Picture Identification Test Scores
Picture Identification Test Scores
New - an
essay discussing basic problems of world cultures: "The
Combative Dominance Syndrome"Now that we have an acquaintance with the three dimensions of the PIT motivation system it is time to organize them into a holistic whole. A holistic whole is an entity that has a reality independent of and greater than the sum of its parts (as you may recall from your long ago studies of Gestalt Psychology). The ideal person has a holistic whole motivation system with needs that are organized the same as the target model's three motivation dimensions. (The Motivation System Target Model). Each of the three dimensions (combative, personal, and competitive) is made up of the same 22 needs or motives.
One aspect of a complex system is that its elements or parts can be organized in different ways. This ability to change its organizational structure makes it more adaptable and versatile (this is the reason why, when you are dealing with a system, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts). Each dimension is organized to deal with a major type of situation. The point we are belaboring is that the three dimensions are not independent sets of needs but the same needs organized in three different ways to deal with three different types of situations. (The system decider determines which dimensional structure is active at any given time.) The versatile organizational structure of a complex system can produce many different scores or measures (as will be seen shortly).
A military analogy may help to: a) clarify, or b) further mystify the concept of organizational versatility of a complex system. Consider a general who has an army consisting of different specialized units (tanks, artillery, infantry, etc.). The general can organize and place the units in different ways according to how he or she perceives the military situation at a given time. (For those who are questioning the appropriateness of our gender neutrality in this case, we point out that Joan of Arc was a sort of general.) Each military unit can be active or inactive according to the military situation. Thus, the army is composed of a set of units that can be organized in different ways to handle different military situations. (At this point, we will cut our losses and escape from our attempt to explain something you probably already intuitively knew.)
It is important to note that the three dimensional model of the motivation system we have been presenting was not concocted from an armchair while sipping mint juleps. Neither was it inferred from a theory we had to study in graduate school. It was empirically derived from multidimensional scaling (MDS) operations performed on ratings of the strength of expression of Murray based needs as perceived by subjects rating photographs of facial expressions. We were actually surprised at the PIT structure we saw the first time we ran an MDS PIT analysis but after different groups of thousands of normal subjects and different sets of facial expression stimuli produced the same model over a 20 year period we have become convinced that it is quite real and reliable and meaningful.
The total three dimension PIT structure is used to compute the first score presented on the computer printout of a subject's PIT results. This score is called the motivation system general function score (or the general function score for short). The more a subject's need expression ratings are organized in accord with the target model, the greater the MDS scores. The greater the MDS scores, the larger the general function score.
A low general function score is a sign of confusion, mental disorder, misunderstanding of test instructions, or, in rare cases, deliberate sabotage of the test results. If a subject enters random numbers or an irrelevant pattern of numbers, the attempted ruse will be discovered by the general function score. On rare occasions (approximately 1 out of 300 subjects), the MDS program is unable to find a solution and this raises the possibility of confusion.
Once there was an Army officer who administered the PIT to a class he was teaching. One of the students (we'll call him Joe) had a very low general function score. This was pointed out to the officer with an explanation that Joe might have a thinking disorder. When the officer saw the name he lit up (almost literally). He knew Joe well. He did not think Joe was psychotic but he was a trouble maker who was constantly creating problems for the officer and other authority figures. Upon examining Joe's PIT ratings we discovered a rather sophisticated pattern of responses that was obviously intended to invalidate the results. The officer (whose patience had been long and sorely tried by Joe) thought this latest trick might justify a firing squad (a solution he had been considering anyway) but after consulting a military handbook he settled for extra guard duty for Joe.
The PIT subject printout provides a table for evaluating the general function score (as it does for all the scores). However, it is important to note that a subject may have a high general function score indicating generally good motivational functioning and still have some specific deviant scores that require attention.
In case the above header has raised expectations that this discussion is finally getting into something worthwhile, we must advise that it may not be what you are expecting. Actually, this section is a little out of place but it is important to present it up front rather than later.
You may recall from previous chapters that the stimulus pictures are composed of six female and six male facial photographs. If the MDS analysis is applied to only male pictures and then to only female pictures, the male and female picture results are very similar for most subjects (approximately 80%). The 20% that differ are split about equally between the 10% who have normal structures for male pictures but deviant structures for female pictures and the 10% with normal female picture results but deviant male picture results. Naturally, these findings have raised both clinical and research questions. Controlled analyses have not found that sex-of-picture (S-O-P) differences relate significantly to homosexual orientation. However, clinical observations have revealed serious interpersonal problems with the gender that has the deviant S-O-P results. For example, a male with deviant male picture results will have problems with male relationships whereas a male with deviant female picture results will have problems with female relationships. Likewise, females with deviant S-O-P scores tend to have relationship problems with whichever S-O-P gender is deviant.
Our clinical findings are based on the experiences of some two dozen mental health professionals who have used the PIT with hundreds of clients. Our general experiences are that S-O-P problems usually center around very close and long standing relationships. Parents are the most likely suspects as well as mates and (to a lesser extent) siblings. In cases where there is a significant S-O-P deviation a red flag should go up with a message that this problem needs to be worked on first. The problem may be very general or it may be focussed on certain needs as indicated by need and cluster S-O-P scores. The client and counselor can collaboratively explore the client's relationships with important people of the sex indicated. Since the motivation structure is usually normal for the non problem gender, clearing up unrealistic beliefs and attitudes regarding the problem gender often resolves the client's problems.
Clients with significant S-O-P deviations are often unaware of conflicts with the indicated gender but when this possibility is explored they frequently have an "a-ha" experience and a feeling that they have discovered a clue to problems that have long puzzled them. For example, a female college student with good male S-O-P results but very deviant female S-O-P results had experienced recurring problems with female relationships, especially with roommates. She got along quite well with men. She became aware that she had deep seated problems with her mother. She was generalizing her beliefs about her mother to all females and thus reacted to all women with hostility and suspicion. She was helped by suggestions to think of women the same way she thought of men (excepting sexual and romantic interactions, of course).
There are three major scores for each of the three dimensions. The first score is called the dimension correlation score. A dimension correlation score is computed by correlating the subject's MDS scores with the target model MDS scores for the corresponding dimension. (The Motivation System Target Model). The higher a correlation score for a dimension, the greater the similarity to the target model and the better the subject is expected to handle situations involving the dimension. The dimension correlation scores are helpful in locating which dimensions the subject is handling well and which dimensions they may not be dealing with effectively.
A second dimension score is called the dimension weight score. The amount of space the subject's total dimensional structure occupies is computed by adding all the absolute MDS scores of the 22 needs for all three dimensions. To get the dimension weight percentage (score) for a particular dimension the dimension sum is divided by the total of the MDS scores. If all of the three dimensions were equal, each would have a weight of 33%. This is seldom the case, however. The combative dimension weight is generally larger than the personal-social and competitive dimension weights. Since all the PIT scores are standardized and presented in graphic tables in the printout, you can tell by its location in the dimension weights table when a measure is outside the normal range.
The dimension weight scores are indicators of the relative emphasis the subject places on each dimension. Too much deviation above or below the optimum indicates imbalance in the motivation system that can create psychological instability. An over weighted dimension suggests that the subject is prone to perceive or construe situations in terms of that dimension. An under weighted dimension indicates the opposite tendency.
A very high or very low weight for a dimension should grab your attention. In extreme cases, a person may have what approaches a one dimensional structure. To say that a person is "one dimensional" is very pejorative (mucho bad mouth) among PIT users. One dimensional people are unbalanced in their approach to life. A one dimensional combative person, for example, construes almost all situations as combative. Such a person may be good at using force and power but they miss the satisfactions and stabilizing support of the personal-social and competitive dimensions. They will also be wrong in their perception of situations much of the time. Our metaphor for the dimension weight distribution is: a one legged stool is unstable; two legs are better; three legs provide good stability.
There are two parts to the PIT. In the preceding chapters we have been talking about results of Part II ratings. Part II asks the subject to rate the faces for how strongly they express each of the 22 needs. (See Need Defintions). Now we come to the contribution of the Part I ratings. Part I is where the subject rates each of the 12 (photo) faces for how strongly the subject feels each face expresses or reveals positive or negative qualities. Part I is thus an indicator of attitudes or value beliefs. Without going into much detail, the Part I ratings of perceived positive or negative qualities are combined with the Part II ratings of need expressions to compute an attitude score for each need. A positive attitude for a facial expression (Part I) combined with a strong need rating for the same expression (Part II) produces a positive attitude score for the need. A negative quality rating for a facial expression combined with a strong expression of a particular need for the same facial expression produces a negative attitude score for the need. The detailed procedures for computing need attitude scores can be found in the PIT manual.
Positive or negative attitudes toward needs promote or inhibit expression of the needs but the attitudes do not indicate the strength of the needs in the motivation system. For example, a person may have a very strong need to express aggression but may also hold a very negative attitude toward expressing aggression.
By correlating the need attitude scores with the need locations in a dimension, a dimension attitude score is computed. A positive dimension attitude score means that the subject generally has positive attitudes for the needs in the top part of the dimension and negative attitudes toward needs in the bottom area. Interpretation of a positive dimension attitude score for the combative dimension (an infrequent occurrence) would be that the subject likes to be combative more than he or she likes to be noncombative. The motivation attitude scores have not been as powerful for predicting adjustment levels as have the association (MDS) based scores. However, the attitude scores may be useful for predicting behavioral choices of subjects. For example, a person with a very positive attitude score for the competitive dimension is more likely to accept competitive challenges than one with a very negative competitive dimension attitude score.
A person with an extremely negative combative dimension attitude score is apt to have ego problems that should be explored. Such a score indicates an extreme negative attitude toward almost all forms of ego assertion (the six ego needs are: aggression, rejection, defendance, dominance, sex, and autonomy - all of which are in the combative area of the combative dimension). (The Motivation System Target Model). These clients feel that self assertion is so bad they even have difficulty defending their justifiable rights. Their aggression is apt to be expressed through unconscious hidden channels or in rare explosive outburst. We once knew a man who seemed to never express aggression. He would apologize to people who spilled coffee on him explaining that he shouldn't have been in their way. However, his wife once revealed at a party that at home he occasionally would go into a rage over very trivial matters. He thanked his wife for revealing these matters to the party (we don't know what happened when they went home). This man should have had a very negative combative dimension attitude score but unfortunately we have to speculate about this as he never took the PIT.
The three target model dimensions are fairly independent. Correlation coefficients between the target model dimension coordinates range from .05 to -.23. This is not always the case for individual subjects, however. Some subjects have a dimension that is a mixture of two dimensions. This mixing of dimensions by a subject is called dimension confusion. Dimension confusion can occur between any two dimensions. It may be helpful to think of the confusion in terms of the penetration of one dimension by another. For example, the combative dimension can penetrate the personal dimension. When this happens, the personal dimension will be confused and have a low dimension correlation score. However, if the combative dimension is not penetrated by the personal-social or competitive dimensions, it can have a normal dimension correlation score. It is also possible for the penetration to go both ways so that the combative and personal-social dimensions are mixed with each other so that both have low dimension correlation scores.
Six Types of Dimension Confusion
Personal-social dimension penetration of the combative dimension suggests that the subject may enter into combative conflicts with the expectation that he or she will be given special personal consideration. This is often an unrealistic belief in that combative conflicts are usually resolved by the use of power.
Combative dimension penetration of the personal-social dimension suggests that the subject may be too combative in relationships with friends and loved ones.
Competitive dimension penetration of the personal-social dimension suggests that the subject may be too status oriented and too prone to indulge in one-upmanship in personal/social interactions. This competitive approach to personal relationships tends to alienate these who wish to enjoy the company of others and be mutually caring in their intimate and social interactions.
Personal-social dimension penetration of the competitive dimension suggests that the subject may tend to seek social satisfactions at the expense of achievement and accomplishing competitive goals.
Competitive dimension penetration of the combative dimension suggests that the subject may try to work, plan, and analyze combative situations which can only be resolved by force and power.
Combative dimension penetration of the competitive dimension suggests that the subject is prone to use force and aggression to try to attain goal that are only achieved by work, analysis, planning, and cooperation (e.g., learning).
A complex motivation system can produce many measures. This is because the system has many paths to to many motivational goals. Over the years we have devised and tested many motivational measures. Those that did not make useful discriminations statistically or clinically, between well differentiated groups were discarded. A number of useful proven measures remain but we will present only a few of these tested measures in this presentation.
In Part II of the Picture Identification Test, the subject rates each of the 12 pictures to indicate how strongly each face expresses each of the 22 needs. Part II ratings of the target group were averaged to provide a mean rating for each need for each of the 12 facial photos. When the averaged Part II ratings of other normal groups are correlated with the target group mean ratings, the correlation coefficients are consistently in the .80s and .90s. These results indicate that normal people share common experiences that form the basis for consensual "reading" of motives from facial expressions. (This paragraph is a short review of a discussion in the introductory chapter.)
As expected, the ratings of individuals vary around the group averages. For each need, the PIT computer scoring program computes a Pearson correlation between the subject's 12 ratings of the need and the 12 averaged ratings of the need by the target group. The need judgment correlation coefficients for all 22 needs generally fall in the .50s range. Since the need judgment scores are measures of perceptual accuracy (by consensus), they are interpreted as indicators of how accurately the subject perceives situation factors related to needs. A number of controlled studies have shown that the judgment scores significantly predict adjustment levels. The more a subject reads facial expressions of needs as others do, the better the adjustment of the subject.
Of the three types of PIT scores (attitude, perceptual judgment, and inter need association), the judgment score is the only one that is primarily dependent on the test stimuli. Attitudes and associations are more dependent on cognitive functions, experiences, and memories. Thus, if you change the PIT stimuli by using a different set of facial pictures, the judgment norms must be computed specifically for the new pictures whereas the attitude and association score norms remain relatively constant.
Do you remember the six ego needs. In case one or two have slipped your mind at this moment, they are: autonomy, dominance, and sex (ego goal needs), and aggression, rejection, and defendance (ego implementing needs). (See Need Defintions).
The ego need deviation score is computed to indicate which of the ego needs have the proper target model distance from the other ego needs. If one of the ego needs is too distantly located (in the MDS dimensional structure), that need will not have the support it needs to function properly. Also, the other ego needs will miss the contribution of the alien need. For example, if a client's autonomy need is too distantly associated from the other ego needs, the client will have a hard time asserting independence because to be autonomous one often needs to be able to defend one's actions, reject criticism, seek a position of dominance, and assert one's sexual independence.
The ego need scores tell you which, if any, of the ego needs are out of the loop. At the other extreme ego need scores tell you which ego needs are too closely associated with the other ego needs (thus losing their individual contributions). Scores for the non ego needs (the other 16 needs) are computed to indicate non ego needs that are too close to the ego needs. Non ego needs that are not sufficiently differentiated from the ego needs create conflicts or maladaptive fusions.
The organizing principle concept is central to systems thinking. Every living system has to have one. It promotes the ultimate purpose and function of the system. It unifies the development and functioning of the system so that it doesn't self-destruct from internal conflicts or lack of direction. An explicit understanding of the organizing principle of social organizations is very helpful for meeting the goals and needs of the organization. The same applies to a person's motivation system. Accordingly, a good bit of thought and experimentation has gone into developing the concept and measurement of an organizing principle for the PIT motivation system.
How do needs vary in the way they contribute to the organizing principle of the motivation system? The organizing principle can be thought of as a subsystem of the motivation system (just as the decider is a subsystem). Needs vary in the frequency with which we perceive them in ourselves and others, the value we place on them, and the centrality of their location in our motivation system. To define the organizing principle of the motivation system we decided that needs that we perceive most frequently, value most positively, and that are most centrally located in the total system may be considered as forming the principal organizing forces in our motivation system. Needs that are perceived most infrequently, are most negatively valued, and are most peripherally located in the total dimensional structure are considered to be negative organizing forces.
Measures of frequency, centrality, and value are combined to compute the contribution of each need to the motivation system organizing principle score (you may see the grim details of this computation in the PIT manual). It is interesting that people tend to agree on the order of the contribution of the needs to the organizing principle array. Among college students, the top four positive contributors are: counteraction, exhibition, achievement, and understanding. The four most negative contributors are: aggression, rejection, blame avoidance, and dominance. Correlation coefficients with this normative order are around .80 for students.
The organizing principle score has been used mostly with college students, although there is no indication that non student adults differ significantly from our normative student based structure. Admittedly, we may not have devised the best way to identify the organizing principle of the motivation system. However, in counseling and clinical work we have found that clients are quite receptive to their individual organizing principle results and generally feel that the findings and interpretations are valid and meaningful. It is often a good place to start in discussing PIT results with clients.
The
Picture Identification Test (PIT) is a psychological
instrument based on the Murray need system. The PIT uses multidimensional scaling
to provide an analysis of needs (motives). It indicates needs that are being
met or expressed ineffectively. The PIT can be administered to subjects ages
twelve and older.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
For further information about
the Picture Identification Test contact
Jay L. Chambers, PhD: ibis@kalexres.kendal.org
160 Kendal Drive Apartment #205
Lexington, Virginia 24450
Phone: 540.462.3874
The Motivation Analysis web site has three sections:
Motivation Analysis: General
Systems Point of View | Combative Dimension
| Personal Social Dimension |
Competitve Dimension | PIT
Scores | PIT Publications |
PIT Dissertations | Motivation
System Target Model | Target Model
Reliability | GPA Predications | Need
& Cluster Definitions | Links
Essays: Combative
Dominance Syndrome (new) | Political
Motivation | Mental Sets |
Symbolic Thinking, Values, Motivation & Religion |
Needs, Values, Philosophy & Religion
Needs (Motives): Abasement
| Achievement |
Affiliation | Aggression | Autonomy
| Blame Avoidance | Counteraction
| Defendance | Deference
| Dominance | Exhibition
| Gratitude | Harm
Avoidance | Inferiority Avoidance
| Nurturance | Order
| Play | Rejection
| Sentience | Sex
| Succorance | Understanding
URL: http://www.overbooked.org/motivation/ma/pitscores.html
Hosted by Overbooked (Book Links)
on Central Virginia's Community Online.
Overbooked is a volunteer project undertaken by Ann Chambers Theis,
Collection Management Administrator, Chesterfield County (VA) Public Library
P.O. Box 297, Chesterfield, VA, 23832. Phone: 804.748.1760.