1. Three Studies Testing a Model of Self-Reflexion
ABSTRACT
Three Studies Testing a Model of Self-Reflexion
Brenda L. McDaniel & James W. Grice
Oklahoma State University
Three studies were conducted to assess Lefebvre’s (1998) algebraic model of self-reflexion. In a replication study, participants rated themselves and eighteen others on fifteen bipolar adjectives (e.g., excitable-calm). Half of the eighteen individuals were positive (e.g., “close friend”) and half were negative (e.g., “disliked person”). The experimenters determined which adjective in each pair was positive, and the following proportions were predicted from Lefebvre’s model: (a) positive judgments of self, .719; (b) positive judgments of others, .628; (c) self-similar judgments, The observed proportions were .757, .606, and .615, respectively. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals indicated that only the like-self proportion (.615 vs. .619) was not significantly different from the hypothesized value. In the second study, two additional sets of bipolar adjectives were administered to different groups of participants: Big Five personality descriptors (e.g., “quiet-talkative”) and unique personal constructs. Participants were also asked to first judge which adjective in each pair they considered as more desirable before rating themselves and the eighteen others. The following proportions were predicted: (a) positive self-judgments, .844; (b) positive other judgments, .613; (c) self-similar judgments, The observed proportions across groups were, .851, .614, and .589, respectively. Ninety-five percent CI’s indicated that the positive self (.851 vs. .844) and positive other judgments (.614 vs. .613) were not significantly different from the hypothesized values. The same methods were used in the third study, except participants rated themselves first before rating the other individuals. The predicted proportions were (a) positive self-judgments, .844; (b) positive other judgments, .646; (c) like-self judgments, The observed proportions were .857, .621, and .602, respectively. Ninety-five percent CI’s indicated that all were significantly different from the predicted proportions. The results from the three studies were hence mixed, but encouraging. Further experimentation and development of Lefebvre’s model is recommended and will be discussed in this presentation.
Study 2
Discussion
 Again, participants rated themselves and 18 other individuals, in random order, on 15 bipolar semantic adjectives.
Participants also rated themselves and 18 other individuals, in random order, on big five descriptors (e.g., quiet-talkative; punctual-late; calm-worrying) and unique personal constructs that each participant designed for themselves.
Participants also judged which adjective in each pair was more desirable.
 Mathematical modeling improvements from Study 1 to Study 2 seem to have made predictions more accurate.
In addition, it seems that it is important for the individual participant to choose which polar end of each adjective pair is more desirable or positive. This would be in line with George Kelly’s theory of personal constructs and how constructs must be personally relevant.
Furthermore, it would seem that rating the self first had an effect on overall proportions. Perhaps thinking of the self first on all dimensions affect subsequent ratings and comparisons of others.
However, interpretations of the present studies warrants caution.
REFLEXIVE STRUCTURE OF HUMAN COGNITION
RESULTS: Study 2
(Results were collapsed across groups)
b4=image of the other from other’s point of view
a4= image of the self from other’s point of view
b3=image of the other from self’s point of view
a3= image of the self from self’s point of view
b2= image of other
a2= image of the self
a1=The person “in the moment” a3 b3 a4 b4 a2 b2 a1
Future Directions a4 a3 b3 b4
 A true manipulation of the model is needed to come to more definitive conclusions.
We are currently designing a study to manipulate social desirability, which is one of the tiers within the mathematical model.
After this manipulation, more will be known about the model’s predictive power and the changes in structure that were implemented in an attempt for more accurate modeling of human cognition.
The results presented are encouraging, not only to be able to make point predictions about how we structure our inner world, but for psychology as a science. a2 b2 a1
Study 1
An attempt to replicate findings of Lefebvre, Lefebvre, & Adams-Webber (1986).
Participants rated themselves and 18 other individuals, in random order, on 15 bipolar semantic adjectives (the positive adjective in each set was determined by the experimenter).
Examples for others include: A person in high school or middle school whom you did not like; A person in high school or middle school whom you liked; A current or past romantic partner whom you still love (or a person of the opposite sex whom you like).
Examples for the bipolar adjectives include: Generous-stingy; strong-weak; active-passive; etc.
Note. Asterisks indicate proportions that are significantly different from their respective, predicted proportions (p < .05, two-tailed).
Study 3
 Study 3 was the same as Study 2 except participants rated themselves first, prior to rating the 18 other individuals.
RESULTS: Study 1
RESULTS: Study 3
(Results were collapsed across groups)
Contact Information
 A manuscript encompassing the present three studies is currently in progress. More details about the calculations and mathematical modeling will be presented. Furthermore, more details of the method will be given.
Please send requests for further information about our research and questions/comments to:
Brenda McDaniel
Dr. James Grice
Thank you for your interest in our research!
Note. Asterisks indicate proportions that are significantly different from their respective, predicted proportions (p < .05, two-tailed).
Note. Asterisks indicate proportions that are significantly different from their respective, predicted proportions (p < .05, two-tailed).