A FACTOR ANALYTIC STUDY OF THREE ENNEAGRAM PERSONALITY INVENTORIES AND THE VOCATIONAL PREFERENCE INVENTORY by PHILLIP M. SHARP, B.B.A., M.S. A DISSERTATION IN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Approved Accepted May, 1994
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
A FACTOR ANALYTIC STUDY OF THREE ENNEAGRAM PERSONALITY
INVENTORIES AND THE VOCATIONAL PREFERENCE INVENTORY
by
PHILLIP M. SHARP, B.B.A., M.S.
A DISSERTATION
IN
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in
These accomplishments earned him recognition in the
American history of the Enneagram.
Naranjo. Another notable figure was the Chilean
psychiatrist Claudio Naranjo, a student of Ichazo. He
delineated the connections between the typology and modern
psychology. In addition, he proposed the major defense
mechanisms preferred by each of the nine individual types.
Naranjo was also a teacher. Many of his American
students, such as Helen Palmer, Kathleen Speeth, Bob Ochs
7 and Don Richard Riso are responsible for the upsurge in
popularity the Enneagram theory currently is enjoying.
Some of these individuals are actively researching the
typology. This dissertation presents a summary of their
research and theoretical work.
17
System
The Enneagram is a personality typology and dynamic
system, the roots of which reach back over 4,500 years
(Hurley & Dobson, 1991). The word "enneagram" comes from
the Greek words "ennea" meaning "nine," and "grammes"
meaning "points." This geometric symbol signifies the Sufi
belief that everything material has its beginnings in the
spirit world.
It . . . can be used to map the process of any event from its (spiritual) inception through all the stages of that event's progress in the material world. The Enneagram . . . is applied to mapping cosmological processes and the unfolding of human consciousness. (Palmer, 1988, p. 10)
Although the symbol has an esoteric tradition, it serves as
a graphic representation of personality dynamics for modern
students of Enneagram personality typology.
As a visual aid and model for conceptualizing the
Enneagram system, it is helpful to look at the diagram
(Figure 2), which contains a pictorial representation of
the types and the systemic relationships between them.
Looking at the circle, each point where two lines converge
and touch indicates one of the nine personality types. The
lines drawn between the various points represent the
potential for dynamic movement. Movement in one direction
represents the integration, or positive, personal growth of
the type. As a type integrates, it moves toward one of the
18
other types, and takes on many of the healthy qualities of
that other type. Movement in the opposite direction
represents disintegration, or deterioration of mental
health. When a type disintegrates, it moves toward another
type, taking on many of the negative characteristics of
that type.
The direction of integration is characterized by the
numerical sequence: 1-7-5-8-2-4-1. Type One integrates in
the direction of Type Seven. Type Seven integrates in the
direction of Type Five. In contrast, the direction of
disintegration is characterized by the sequence: 1-4-2-8-
5-7-1. Types Three, Six and Nine have their own separate
dynamic which is explained in the following paragraph. The
direction of integration for these latter types is
characterized by the sequence: 9-3-6-9. Accordingly, the
direction of disintegration is characterized by the
sequence: 9-6-3-9.
In looking at the geometric figure, notice that types
3, 6 and 9 connect by a set of lines that are separate from
the others. This separate configuration represents the
distinction of these types that are the primary personality
types (Riso, 1987). Each of the other types is a variation
on one of these major types. Thus, each primary type is
bordered by two other types. The result is three groups of
three or three triads.
19
The Three Triads
According to Riso (1987), the Enneagram is a graphic
representation of the nine types, categorized by three
triads. As Figure 3 illustrates, each triad contains three
personality types. Riso designated the triads by the
following names: the Doing Triad, the Relating Triad, and
the Feeling Triad. Each type in the triad will either
overuse, underuse or block the operation of that particular
quality. Although everyone has the ability to do, to
relate, and to feel, one property predominates most often
in the shifting balance among the three. Riso (1987)
discussed the triads as follows:
For example, in the Feeling Triad, the Two has overdeveloped its feelings, expressing only its positive emotions while repressing its negative ones. The Three is most out of touch with its feelings, projecting an image which substitutes for genuine feelings. The Four has underdeveloped the personal expression of its feelings, revealing itself indirectly through some form of art or aesthetic living.
In the Doing Triad, the Five's ability to do is underdeveloped: it substitutes thinking for doing, endlessly going around in ever more complex, yet isolated thoughts. The Six is most out of touch with its ability to act on its own without the approval of an authority figure of some sort. And the Seven has overdeveloped its ability to act, becoming hyperactive and manic until it flies out of control.
In the Relating Triad, the Eight has overdeveloped its ability to relate to the environment, seeing itself as bigger than everyone
20
The Relating Triad (8, 9, 1)
9
The Doing Triad (5, 6, 7)
The Feeling Tria^ (2, 3, 4)
Figure 3 Rise's Triads of the Ennecigram
l\\
21
else. The Nine is most out of touch with its ability to relate to the environment as an individual since it identifies with another, living through someone else rather than becoming independent. And the One has underdeveloped its ability to relate to the environment in the sense that it feels less than an ideal which it constantly strives to attain, (p. 26)
Essence
In describing what makes each type unique, the term
"essence" is often used by Enneagram theorists. A child is
born "pure essence; a natural being in an ordered cosmos,
one with all men and with God, instinctive, loving. This
is the perfect state of innocence" (Lilly & Hart 1975, p.
331). Thus, essence has to do with one's own innate
potentials (Palmer, 1988). When living in essence, there
is no conflict between thoughts, emotions or instincts.
Being integrated and at one with the environment, a person
acts appropriately and intuitively to maintain well-being.
Such action reflects a non-defensive trust in people and
the world. In developmental terms, this is most apparent
during the period in life when the child relates to the
mother and the world in a sensate and undifferentiated
fashion (Palmer, 1988). Having no boundaries, a child is
unable to differentiate between himself or herself, others
and the environment. Although an adult learns to live
22
separate from his or her essence, he or she can reunite
with that state of being.
Ego
A child develops a (false) personality, or ego, for
survival between the ages of four and six. A child's
environment molds his or her ego, with significant
influence from society and parents. In the words of Palmer
(1988, p. 19), "personality develops in order to protect
and defend essence from injury in the material world."
Therefore, when the child's implicit trust in people, the
environment, and God suffers injury, defenses develop to
protect the child from further harm. Thus, the personality
makes a defensive layer between essence and the world,
separating the self from the world (Keen, 1973).
Consequently, only consciousness of one's own ego remains,
striving for survival in a world perceived as dangerous and
incapable of satisfying one's deepest needs.
Ego Fixation (Compulsion)
Theoretically, each person should have a full range of
responses available for use, as represented by the points
of the Enneagram circle (Figure 1). A person's energy
should "flow freely from one point to another around the
circle" (Wagner, 1981, p. 26). This would represent the
state of living in essence. In contrast, most people
23
become trapped at one point; hence the term ego-fixation.
The person prefers particular patterns of affect, effect,
and cognition. Consequently, a person exercises certain
qualities more often, almost to the exclusion of others.
Repeated use leads to the automatic repetition of the
fixated patterns that are rigid methods of defending
against the natural process of life (Keen, 1973, p. 68).
Consequently, a person becomes very predictable in his or
her reactions to life situations.
Typology
The Enneagram system posits that there are nine major
types of personality (Palmer, 1988). Each person
emphasizes a particular gift or asset in his or her
personality type. Thus, each number on the Enneagram
represents a basic psychological orientation, a distinct
way of approaching life. Therefore, all human beings can
be classified as only one of the nine types.
Type Descriptions
Since time and space do not permit a thorough
discussion, a brief summary follows for each of the nine
types. Each type has an adjective name (Figure 4) that
depicts one of the more prominent and noticeable qualities
of that type (Riso, 1990). While the name is not a
complete or fully accurate characterization of the people
24
Peacemaker
Leader
7
Generalist
Loyalist
Thinker
Reformer
Helper
Performer
Artist
Figure 4 Enneagram Adjective Names
25
who have that personality type, the summary descriptions
(Table 1) are sufficient to help distinguish between the
types. Although some types are referred to using a
masculine pronoun, and other types using a feminine
pronoun, the types are not gender specific.
Type One (The Reformer). An ability to accept his own
humanity and that of others, with all of its flaws, appears
in a Type One when he is functioning at his best. As a
mature and balanced person, a Type One can accept the
subjective and less rational side of human nature as an
equally valid part of existence. His wisdom and prudence
enables him to tolerate his own and others' rights to make
mistakes and to be imperfect. Tolerance does not, however,
diminish the Reformer's ability to make rational and
objective decisions.
In keeping with his rational approach to life, the
Reformer seeks to live as a moral, law-abiding citizen.
Integrity, self-discipline and adherence to moral
principles dominates his life. Type One promotes the
pursuit of such characteristics as honesty and justice in
the lives of others by setting an example.
When not at his best, unattainable ideas of perfection
are the heart and soul of a Type One. The Reformer seeks
to live out moral codes in a rigid fashion. This
facilitates an authoritarian position of moral superiority.
Type One believes that his point of view is the right one.
Table 1 Summary of Types
26
TYPE ADJECTIVE NAME
FIXATION OTHER CHARACTERISTICS
Reformer
Helper
Performer
Artist
Thinker
Loyalist
Resentment
Flattery
Vanity
Melancholy
Stinginess
Cowardice
Wisdom, good judgment, perfection, internal critic, one right way
Self sacrifice, empathy, need to be thanked, want gratitude, manipulate
occurred for Zinkle's Type Three (.34) and Type Four (.38),
Wagner's Type Four (.39), and Palmer's Type Five (.34) and
Type Six (.33) .
This factor is similar to the third factor extracted
from the Zinkle inventory. The themes of compulsive doubt,
compulsive perfectionism, and compulsive withdrawal are
repeated for Types Six, One, and Five, respectively.
Characteristics such as alienation, anxiety, insecurity,
and inaction depict other shared gualities. Considering
the presence of Types One and Five, the moderate loading of
Type Four is not surprising. A disintegrating Type One
would be expected to endorse Type Four gualities, as would
Type Five, of which Type Four is a wing. Finally, the
minimal loading of Type Three is not unusual, considering
that it connects with Type Six, by way of the line of
movement. The endorsement of Type Three behaviors by Type
Six and vice versa, is expected.
The third factor appears to reflect primarily the
Cohen-Palmer inventory. This factor carries moderately
124
high loadings from the scales for Palmer Type Nine (.73)
and Type Six (.64). The scales for Palmer Type One (.59),
Type Two (.55), Type Five (.44), and Type Four (.39)
attained modest loadings. Minimal factor-variable
correlations resulted for Wagner Type Five (.34) and Zinkle
Type Four (.33). Due to the diversity of this factor, it
would not be appropriate to interpret it as anything other
than a factor correlated with the Palmer inventory. The
variables that loaded appeared to vaguely correlate by
virtue of the lines of movement and the concept of wings.
The fourth factor was more interpretable. It
contained more items from the Wagner inventory; however,
loadings from the other scales were sufficient to
contribute to factor definition. Moderately high loadings
came from the Palmer Type Four (.63) variable and from
Wagner Type Four (.67). The Wagner scale for Type Seven
(.59) and the Zinkle scale for Type Four (.50) provided
moderate loadings. Then, Wagner Types One (.34), Six
(.31), and Eight (.34), and Zinkle Type Five (.38) loaded
minimally.
Similarities between this factor and the fourth Palmer
factor and fifth Wagner factor suggest this likewise should
be named the Excess factor. In contrast to the previous
factors of the same name, this one more strongly represents
excessive moodiness. Nevertheless, the excessive activity
of the Wagner Type Seven is present. For this factor, the
125
wings of the Wagner Type Seven, which are Types Six and
Eight, load minimally. The Wagner Type Six, which relates
to Type Four via the lines of movement, loads minimally as
well. Finally, the wing for the Zinkle Type Four, which is
Type Five, loads minimally.
The name Positive Extroversion was assigned to the
fifth factor. Its most significant loadings came from
Wagner's Type Two (.70) and Zinkle's Type Two (.63). A
moderate loading was achieved by Zinkle's Type Seven (.45).
Small negative loadings resulted from Palmer's Type Five
(-.31) scale and Zinkle's Type Five (-.32). Each of the
positive scales shares a great propensity for social
interaction and activities oriented towards the external
world. In contrast, the Thinker is prone to social
withdrawal and marked introversion. These complementary
gualities make the factor consistent.
The sixth and final factor was named Denial, much like
the fifth Zinkle factor. It displayed moderate loadings
from Palmer, scale seven (.45), Wagner, scale nine (.57),
and Zinkle, scale seven (.48). Again, the common gualities
included denial of negative circumstances, negative
emotions and their impact.
126
Analyses of Each Enneagram Inventory
with the VPI
A separate factor analysis of each Enneagram inventory
with the VPI provided data for addressing the guestion of
what relationships exist between the VPI types and the
Enneagram types. This step seemed important, because all
scales representing the nine types from the different
Enneagram inventories did not load on the same factors.
Conseguently, this raised the issue that the VPI might
correlate differently with each of the Enneagram inventories.
Analysis of the VPI with the Cohen-Palmer Inventory
Each of the scales representing the personality types
and the clinical scales from the VPI were factor analyzed
together. Analysis of sampling adeguacy yielded an overall
value of .71. Individual Measures of Sampling Adeguacy
(Table 8) ranged from .54 for Holland's Masculinity-
Femininity scale to .83 for Palmer's Type One scale.
Conseguently, scores were judged to be satisfactory and the
factor analysis proceeded. A five factor solution
explained 45% of the total variance with individual
contributions ranging from 5% to 13%.
Analysis produced a first general factor that was
heavily weighted by Palmer items alone. High loadings came
127
iH O
c >
B to M D> to 0 C
c bi iH (U B
r-i to
I
c 00 0
x: 0 O
^ U to Q>
EH 4=
•o C to
>
cn • H cn
. H to c <
O •P u to
E L .
in
V4 0
j-> O Id tC4
(0 3 0 •H ^ •P
m 3 •o c
cn
u 0 -p u Id ta
H Id
•H
o 0 CO
c 0 -H (D >H 0 > <
CN
o Id
-H >
-H
o o
O CO Id ta
•H +J H CD
c 0)
CO
0)
> i EH
^ CN
f -O
H O
n CN
00 in
n vo
CN
o i n c N c n v o ^ o o i n c N O o o o v o O O O C N O H r H O O O O O O
I I
O vo CN H O O
n vo o rH O CN
rH CN vD ^ r CN CN O O H
o o in ON r CN
in vo in r» rH rn vD O
I I I I I
in vo
r~- o O 0 0 H O O O '*
H n v o r ^ ^ r n c n v o c N ^ O H ' I ' O O O O r H
H ^ in in O rH o o
I I
00 CN r^ r^ o rn vo vo ^ O
0 ' * r n ' * r > - r H i n ^ ^ r n m r ^ o o o c N
i n VD CN CN
o o o o I I
u
cto
Id ta
Id u
ene
o
u Q>
aim
04
m m CN H in o CN o O O H O H o
1
v O r H H i n o o r ^ c N ^ v O r H C N i n ^ o o o o v D L n o i n i n o o r H r H r »
OS M < — ' ^ - ^ O CO W CJ CO
|ii4-> C U H C N r n ^ i n v D r - - o o c n S C O M < 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 a 4 a 4 0 4 0 4 0 4
0) >
•H -P Id t7>
0 •H +J - H CO 4->
•H CD 0) >
+J H CO Id
•H -H Id
tn H I C H 0 > i > i
H Id U 4J 4J m c j j -H H H 0 c c c U "^ O H H c:i< j j o H c t^ Q) I 3 H Q) > *w 0 E
>i 0) 0) V4 0) O O Q) 0 U 3 > c c c 5 x : 0 H 0) (1) O EH H ti4 ti4
( D ( D I D ( D ( D ( U ( D ( D ( D ( D V J H E E E E E E E E
C 4J
X > cn c H (D H H CO CO W 2
u 0) E
j j 0 4 J C H (D 0) i d « H p n - ^ ^ ^ , - ^ ^ ^ ^ n ^ . - ^ v ^ o c o t u i d f x ^ - p c b ^ i d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d
H < CO w CJ CO z C 0 M < : 0 4 0 4 O 4 0 4 0 4 O 4 a 4 O 4 O 4
cn Q) 3
^H
10 > c cn
•H ExJ
U O
u 10
EL.
x: u to
EL]
> i X3
"O 0 C
•H
to
a X EiJ 0 U c to
•H M 10 >
in cn
cn vo
CN
CN
VD
CN
128
00
0 r H
Xi to E-t
-v 0 3 c •H 4-)
c o u
V 0 c •H (0
nH
a X Ed
0 U c to
•H iH fO >
r H
to 4-> O EH
MH
o +J c 0 u iH 0 a*
dP in
# r~
00
dP H H
( rn H
dP i n
II
•a
lain
e
(2 X
0) u c
ria
Id >
H Id 4J 0 EH
MSA
=
.71
: O
ver-
All
^"^ <
cy
(M
S
to p cr 0 T3 <
o •H i H dui
to Ui
MH
0
0 V4 3 cn to 0 S
cn ^ M 0 cn
•H to tn::
r-» r-> 04 vo
•
vo Oi Oi r^
•
i n rH 04 00
•
"^ 00 04 t ^
•
cn ^ 04 i n
•
CN rH 04 00
•
Inf
Acq
P
I .6
2
.73
.83
4-> vO CO i n
•
ta ^ S in
•
CJ ^ CO vo
•
H u vo
•
m
•
CO vo •
00
•
00 M VO
•
rn « r-•
cn r~
CO ^ 04 vo
04
VO 04
i n 04
04
m 04
CN 04
H 04
H •
00 vo
•
m •
CN **
•
H i n
•
00
m •
o in
•
cr '3' 0 00 < •
c in H
CN 0^
• 00
II
H Id +J 0 H
• • (D 0) 4-1 Id E
H V m ta > i
4J H r H
Id
c 3
0
u H Id
c H b
4J CO
b
s
u CO
U
ta
CO
<
M
DC
r* H
•
00 m
•
cn CN
•
CN 'a-
•
CN i n
•
rn i n
•
00 ^
•
^ i n
•
00 i n
cn 00 04 in
00 in 04 **
129
from Type Six (.81), Type Nine (.74), and Type One (.68).
The remaining moderate loadings resulted from Type Two
(.57), Type Five (.56), and Type Four (.54). Due to the
abundance of variables, it would be inappropriate to attach
any other significance to this factor.
A second extracted factor was virtually identical to
the first factor. Social Sensitivity, obtained from the VPI
analysis. The Artistic (.67) and Social (.67) personality
types achieved high loadings with the clinical scale of
Acguiescence (.74). Minimal loadings came from the scales
for Enterprising (.40), Investigative (.32), and Status,
(.34). Negative loadings were associated with the
Masculinity-Femininity scale (-.40) and the Infreguency
scale (-.33) .
Another Social Aversion factor was identified as the
third factor, identical to the second factor from the VPI
analysis. The Realistic (.71) and Investigative (.65)
types loaded predominately. The Acguiescence (.47) and
Masculinity-Femininity (.41) scales produced lower
loadings. Finally, the Self-Control (-.49) scale generated
a negative loading.
The Ambition factor reappeared as the fourth factor
for this analysis. Unlike the Social Ambition (number two)
factor of the Palmer analysis. Type Eight (.65) achieved a
higher loading on this factor. Type Three (.70) loaded
most predominantly, and Type Seven (.36) provided a modest
130
loading. Although Type Seven (wing for Type Eight) did not
appear on previous factors identical to this one, the great
need for new activities and experiences is consistent with
the theme of ambition.
The fifth and final factor produced by this analysis
was identical to factor three, the Industrious factor from
the VPI analysis. Two variables loaded in the moderately
high range, which were the Enterprising type (.58) and the
Conventional type (.63). No other individual variables
accounted for a significant proportion of the variance on
this factor.
Analysis of the VPI with the Wagner Inventory
Analysis of the VPI and Wagner inventories produced an
average Measure of Sampling Adeguacy of .73. Individual
values (Table 9) ranged from .51 (Masculinity-Femininity)
to .87 (Wagner Type Seven). Having obtained acceptable
values, the investigator proceeded with the factor
analysis. The eight factors accounted for 56% of the total
variance. Separate factors contributed 13%, 9%, 8%, 8%,
5%, 5%, 5%, and 3% in the order of factor extraction.
An eight-factor solution emerged as the best fit for
this analysis. A general factor, composed of Wagner
variables, emerged as the first factor. The highest
loading variables included Type Six (.77), Type Four (.76),
131
00
>1 U O
c 0 > c
B (0
to 0 c c
EL]
U 0
c to
0 0
13 to
EH
to
Cl4 >
cn •H cn
r H to c <
u o
4J u to
EL,
O H
o 4J
(D H
O 4J Id M b4 <
c o
t^ H
u Id 0 4J 4J H U CD Id 0 1X4 X
VO CD 3 O
U H
o n •P 4J U CD Id 3 Jx4 -a
c in
H m VH Id 3 O H 4J 4J O Id 0 0 4-1 (d CO CO
(X4
^ 0 4J O Id
(X4
rn
u 0 4J o Id ta
CN
V4 0 4-> 0 Id ta
H
V4 0 4J 0 Id ta
Id H
o o CO
4-> c 0) E 0) > 0)
-H x: o <
H Id
H O 0 CO
H Id ^ 0) c 0) o
c 0
H 4-> (d 4-1 c 0)
H V4
o
c 0
H CD V (U > •a:
>H 0) c 0^ Id S
tl)
> i H
^ O vo rn ^ o ^ O iH ^ o o o o
CN CN rn o
rn rH in r* H O O H H o
^ rn H CN H Tf O H H H O CN
I I I
^ ^ ^ r o> ^ r* O H CN o H o in
cn vo t^ CN vo o o in ^ o
CN m o vo in o o o o o
r CN o H
I I I I I
^ CN o o 00 cn H CN O H CN in vo o
I I I I
^ r ~ i n o v o o o r ^ c N C N r ~ i n H o o o o o r n o o o o o o o o o
I I I I
00 00 o <n o H ^ H
H cn O CN
r > - O i n i n r n r > r n c N H f ^ H m o o o o
H rn Tt H 00
r~ in cn o CN CN O O CN 00 CN o
m c N O c n v D ^ c n r ^ v o O H r n o r n o o
in O vo CN r O O o o
CN CN O t CN CN in H O O O H O H
m 00 in VO H o o o o
v o « * ^ r ^ r n i n v O C N r n r ~ C N C N O C N i n ^
I I
vD vo r* " * ** r * * r^ VO CN H H o ^
C N v o r ~ r n r n r » r H r H t r ) ^ i n ^ r n o o i n o o o o o o o o
H ^ ' ^ V O O C N r n C N i n O H H C N C N V O C N r - ' i n v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O v O r n o t ^ r ^ l ^ i n r H C N
' * * I* • * I I ^ ^
, ^ ^ ^ . . ^ _ ^ ^ ^ _ ^ U t i 4 4 - i C O < H C N r n ^ i n v o r » o o c n O : M < C O W O C O 2 C O M < S S S S S S S S 2
^ Q) > cn H H I 0) c 4->
•H c i d O > i > i S O ) ( u v ^ d ) ( D x : a j +; H C V ^ 4 J 4 - > 0 0 ( D 0 V j 3 > X > C n C
o Id m 0 4J H H c c c 3 x: 0 H H Q) -H H H C T t O H H C C C ( D t U O H H f c C ^ C O C O W Z 4J H H V4 4J 0 H H 3 0 D ] 4 - > 4 - ) H Q 4 C U H C C 0 O ^ ( D V ^ > H V 4 W I S H > H > H > H I H H C D a i d w i t D i 3 H 3 ( i ) a ) a ) ( i ) a ) a ) a ) a ) ( v a ) a ) H ( D H H a ) > i ^ o E - p i 4 H c : c c c c c c c : c Id > 4 J 0 4 J C H CD 0) idMH 3 0 > C n O > 0 > C J ^ O ^ O > 0 ^ 0 > ( U C V ^ O C O ( D i d & 4 4 - ) C O ^ ( d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d O i M i ^ C O U U C O S C O M r c C S l S S S S S I S S I S
cn 0 D
to > c 0 cn
•H EL]
U O
4-> U 10 U-,
x: u to
EL]
> i X]
V 0 c
•H to
^H a X
EL)
0 U c to
•H
(0 >
cn
vo O
cn o
in
vo
vO
00 in
CN
132
dP rn
dP in
dP in
0 .H
to
0
c • H 4-) c o u
dP in
dP 00
0 c
• H to
rH
a X Ex]
0 U c to
• H M to >
i H to 4J 0
E H
(4-4
0
4J
c 0 u M 0
dP 00
dP <n
dP rn H
dP vo in
II
•o
ain
e
H 04 X ta
0) 0
c Id H
Id >
H Id 4J 0
( ^ r*-
•
II
<
w s i H •H < 1
0 > o • •
^^^ < W S
> i
u to 3 cr 0 T3 <
C7> c •H
f H dull
to
w 14-4
0
0 u 3 cn to 0 s cn
^
M 0 cn
• H to ^
r- r-IS 00
•
vo H S 00
•
in o
•
«» * * IS CO
•
m o IS vo
CN 00 IS t^
•
H cn 5 r-
•
cr - O r-< •
<4H ^ C VO M .
4-) H CO VO
•
ta H S in
•
U vo CO vo
t
cn U in
•
vO ta r-
•
00 CO vD
•
r^ < r-
•
CN H r-
•
00 05 vO
•
o> cn IS vo
00 r-IS t -
^ H
• H H
II
H Id 4-> 0 H
• • CD 0) 4-1 Id E
H 4J (D W
> i
4-) H H Id c 3
0
o rH Id c H b
r CN IS ^
«
vo ^ IS vo
•
in ^ ^ vo
•
^ Tt IS vo
•
m vo IS in
•
CN H S •*
•
rH 00 IS in
•
cr ^ 0 00 < •
14-1 r> C rn M
4J H CO in
•
ta ^ S vO
•
u ^ CO vo
•
en O ^
•
00 ta rr
•
vo CO t--
•
o < vo
•
o M in
•
r « vo
t
cn o
00 vo 5 rn
133
Type Five (.72), and Type One (.61). Type Seven (.55) and
Type Two (.32) produced lower loadings. Although this
resembles Wagner's Social Insecurity factor, the increased
loading of Type Seven and the presence of the Type Two
loading invalidates that interpretation for the present
factor. Thus, it seems inappropriate to further interpret
this factor.
The Social Aversion factor emerged second in this
analysis. It is substantially the same as the second
factor from the VPI analysis. Type R (.76) and Type I
(.66) loaded heavily. Acguiescence (.53) loaded
moderately, and Masculinity-Femininity (.32) loaded
(-.44) minimally. Again, Self-Control achieved an inverse
loading .
A modified Achievement-Orientation factor appeared as
the third factor, similar to the like-named factor from the
Wagner inventory. Again, Type Three (.74) and Type Eight
(.56) loaded strongly. Type One (.41) achieved a lower
loading than on the previous factor, and the additional
variables. Type Two (.36) and Type Nine (.42), loaded
minimally as well. With the addition of these two
variables, the factor has a stronger flavor of emotional
repression. Type Two and Type Nine engage in repression of
negative emotions.
Factor number four is the first factor to contain
loadings from both inventories. It is named the Social
134
factor because it receives its most significant loading
from the VPI's Social type (.80). Additionally, Wagner's
Type Two (.34) achieves a modest loading alluding to the
characteristic of positive, people-orientation shared by
both types. The low loading of the Acguiescence scale
(.39) reinforces the theme of sociability. An inverse
loading for the Masculinity-Femininity scale (-.63)
supports the interpretation of this factor, in that high
scores on the MF scale indicate the endorsement of more
masculine occupations, which tend to have an unsociable
guality.
The fifth factor, named Social Status, correlated most
strongly with the VPI's Status scale (.70), indicating a
strong self-esteem and the need for upward mobility. The
Artistic scale (.40) received a lower loading in addition
to the Acguiescence scale (.35). The Acguiescence scale
shares the gualities of sociability and self-confidence
with the Status scale. In contrast, the gualities appear
to be absent for the Artistic type. The Type A description
does, however, share the characteristics of sensitivity and
expressiveness with the Status scale.
The Industrious factor reemerged as Factor Six. Once
again, the Enterprising (.58) and Conventional (.69) types
loaded predominantly. The Acguiescence (ACQ) factor (.30)
increased its loading sufficiently to allow it to help
define the factor. The dominance and range of interest
135
relate the ACQ factor to Enterprising type, and the
conventional outlook is shared in common by both Type C and
high scorers on the ACQ scale.
A new factor. Hesitation, appeared in the extraction
of the seventh factor. Moderately high loadings came from
the Self-Control (.57) and Infreguency (.57) scales. The
Acguiescence scale contributed a moderate inverse loading
of (-.42). In explicating this factor, it is useful to
recall that high scorers on the SC scale are inhibited,
constricted, passive, and preoccupied with potentially
threatening or dangerous situations. High scorers on the
Infreguency scale endorse occupations that are culturally
atypical, low-status, and unpopular. Conversely, high
scorers on the Acguiescence scale endorse many conventional
occupations, which expresses an active interest in a broad
range of occupations. Therefore, this positive attitude of
occupational acguisition contrasts sharply with the
hesitating, less ambitious attitude reflected by high
scorers on the previous scales.
Finally, an eighth factor was extracted and named
Artistic. It displayed a moderate loading of .46 for the
VPI's Artistic scale. Additionally, the Masculinity-
Femininity scale (-.32) provided a small inverse loading,
signifying an absence of traditionally masculine
characteristics. These variables together define the
factor by adjectives such as creative, imaginative.
136
sensitive, emotional, and expressive. These
characteristics have traditionally been considered more
feminine in American culture.
Analysis of VPI with the Zinkle Inventory
The scales of the VPI and the Zinkle inventory were
combined for a factor analysis. The initial Measure of
Sampling Adeguacy produced an average value of .69 for all
variables. Individual values (Table 10) proved
satisfactory and ranged from .55 for the Masculinity-
Femininity scale to .76 for the Enterprising scale. Fifty-
three percent of the total variance was extracted in the
seven-factor solution, with individual factors contributing
12%, 10%, 8%, 7%, 6%, 5%, and 5% of the variance.
The Social-Competency factor reappeared with the
extraction of the first factor in virtually the same
configuration as it was on the VPI analysis. The Artistic
(.64), Social (.71), and Acguiescence (.73) scales
correlated most significantly with the factor. Modest
loadings came from the Investigative (.33), Enterprising
(.38), and Status (.38) scales. The Masculinity-Femininity
scale (-.43) and the Infreguency scale (-.33) loaded
inversely.
A Social Insecurity factor emerged second. This
factor was different from the first Wagner factor in that
there was no loading for Type Seven, making this a more
137
c o
H 4J H
r~ O H
iH U O +J 4J O Id
CD c O
1X4 U
rn CN r~ CN CN ^ cn CN H H H H O vO
vo o CN r- CN O CN rn H H
r ^ r ^ O c n r n i n o O ' * H O r H O H O H r H
I I I I
CN cn
> i U O +J C 0 >
in
^ vo in in 00 rn o CN o o rH in vo o cn rn ^ 'if
O O O CN o o
in o cn in ^ rH O O rH
cn CN 00 o o o
I I
00 cn
B to u o^ to 0 c c u 0
f H
c O - H • H tS3
Id
0 f H Xi (0
EH
0 s: 4->
-a c to
P4 >
o cn •H cn > i
f H (0
<
M O 4J U to
E L ,
H O l4 Id H 0 H to 4J O O O Id CO ta
•P c
cn 0)
u o
4-1
u > <
E
c o Id Id u ta 4-)
(D Ix]
CN
u Id O H 4J O O O Id CO ta
> 1 4-1 H U 3 O 0) CD C
H > i o
JH H C o Id (U 4-) H 4-) O O Q) Id o a
Ct4 CO E o o
> 1
vO r^ O p ' t CN r O O O O rH O O
'a- CN 00 O rn o CN rn O H CM H in
in o O H
p- o o
I I
r vo vo vo
o rn in cn in H o o o rn o o O ' * ^ o c N r n ' * o c N ' * ^ i ' H
' * H O ' * r H O O O r H O O O O
00 CN cn in CN CN O H H H O H
o r* cn ^ CN CN O O
i n r n v o r ^ ' i t O v o v D O H v o r n o H r n v D O i n
I I I I I I
CN rn vo in H rn H o H H o o o o
o o o i r H r H O C N C N r n r n o c N r - o o o o o t ^ H C N r ^ r » v o o o i n
r m ^ H 00 vo in O rn vo r rn o O
r n o o r n r n H ' ^ O r H c n r H c n o c n ^ r n r n r ^ O r H O C N O C N O O H
^^ ^ .^ ^^ ^ ^^ {J I x i j J C O ' H C N r ' j T y i n v o r ^ o o c n P : ; M < C O C I ] U C O 2 C O M < t S ] e S ] N t S ] C S ] N t S 9 t S 9 N
0) >
H 4-)
o td H O^ 4J H IS 4-) H m H 0 Id > 0) c OS M
cn c
o H 4J H (D Id
H H o 0
o u 4-) c : 0
p u <
Id c 0
U H Cu P o U 0)
> c 0 0)
4-» H c H
0) 4J c
> 1 4-) H c
H c H E
o c
CO U U CO £
3 0 _ m 0) Id >«H Id 1X4 4J c
(D D
4J
0) 0) 0 m 0)
>H
0) c: o
0) L4 x: EH
U 3 0
tL4
0) >
H
c
> 0) Ex4 CO CO
(1) (D (1) Q) Q) Q) d)
c H
c H
c H
c H
c C C H H
c o M < ^ a ^ a N N c s ] ^ g ^ g
4-> x: 0) cn c H H
0) (1) H H
c c H H
cn 0 3
f H to > c 0 cn
•H
O 4-> U to
EL,
U
to EL] > i XI •o 0 c
•H to
.H a X
EL]
0 U c to •H
to >
CN
cn
cn in
in O
CN
o m
CN
138
in
in
dP VO
-a O 0 -H P
c 0 'H
nH 4J X3 C to O
EH U
T3 0 C
•H to
i H
a Ed
dP 00
0 u c to
•H M to >
f H to 4->
o £-*
(M
o 4-» c 0 u u 0 CL
dP o H
dP CN H
dP rn in
II
"0
ain
e
H P4
tl) 0 c
ria
Id >
tal
0 EH
0^ VD
•
II
< W S
f H f H <
1
1
u 0 > o • •
^^v
<
w s > 1
u to 3 cr 0 TJ <
&>
c: •H rH
to w I H 0
0 M 0 cn to 0 S
cn m
U 0 cn
•H to u::
r~- r>-N vo
•
vo CN
•
in o ^3 r«
•
** o •
cn o N r
CN vo M vo
•
H ^
•
tr vo o r-< •
MH i n C vo M .
4-> ^ CO VO
•
ta in X in
•
O CN CO vO
•
cn U in
•
vo
t
00 CO vo
•
00 < r-
•
^ H r*
•
H CU r>>
t
cn vo a vo
00 00 ts3 in
vo in
• o H
II
•-i Id 4-) 0 E-t
• • OQ 0) 4-> Id E
H 4-1 (D U
> i 4J H H Id c 3
0 u H Id c H ta
t^ f" N ^
•
VO ' J t j in
•
in o N vo
•
' J H N VO
•
m CN N in
•
CN 0^
•
T-t cn N in
•
cr rn 0 00 < •
M-i m C CN M
P 00 CO rn
•
ta ^ S m
•
U rn CO vo
•
CN O **
•
in w in
•
00 CO in
•
cn < x* •
a« M in
.
00 Oi in
•
cn CN tg rn
00 ^ N vo
139
distinct version of that factor. Moderately high loadings
were achieved by Type One (.70), Type Four (.73), Type Five
(.73), and Type Six (.60). Each of these experiences
tension in the social realm for various reasons which were
previously discussed.
The third extracted factor. Estrangement, displayed a
new aggregation of the Zinkle Types. This factor received
the heaviest loadings from the scales for Type Seven (.66)
and Type Two (.63). Type Nine (.50) loaded moderately, and
Types Three (.36) and Six (.30) received minimal loadings.
Although this factor may share some gualities in common
with the previously named Denial and Repression factors,
the term estrangement communicates a difference as compared
to the earlier factors. Types Seven, Two, and Nine each
has a tendency toward estrangement from their negative
emotions. Types Three, Six, and Nine, the primary types,
all are out of touch with or estranged from the central
abilities or tasks in their respective triads. Type Three
is most estranged from feelings. Type Six is most
estranged from the ability to take action. Finally, Type
Nine is most estranged from the relating function,
specifically the relationship with self (e.g., knowing the
self).
Social Aversion returned as the fourth factor. It is
essentially the same as the like-named factor from the VPI
analysis. The Realistic (.67) and Investigative (.66)
140
scales obtained the most significant loadings. The
Masculinity-Femininity (.48) and Acguiescence (.44)
variables produced modest loadings. Finally, the VPI Self-
Control scale (-.35) contributed a small inverse loading.
Factor number five was similar to the previously named
Social Ambition factor. Unlike the other factor, this one
included a small loading from the Status scale of the VPI.
Thus, Zinkle Type Eight (.77) and Type Three (.57) loaded
most prominently on the factor. The VPI Status scale (.32)
contributed a small loading. Conseguently, this factor was
named Social Ambition number two.
Another Industrious factor returned as the sixth one
on this analysis. It is almost identical to the like-named
factor from the VPI analysis. Moderately high loadings
associate with the Enterprising (.58) and Conventional
(.63) scales. No other variables contributed significantly
to the factor definition.
The seventh and final factor. Constriction, is
somewhat like the former Hesitation factor. The Self-
Control scale (.69) produced the greatest loading, and the
Infreguency scale (.32) contributed the least amount of
definition to the factor. High scorers on the Self-Control
scale tend to be passive, inhibited, and prone to worry
about potentially dangerous or threatening situations.
Individuals who endorse a high number of items on the
Infrequency scale indicate a preference for low-status jobs
141
that carry little responsibility. In summary, this factor
seems to reflect a lack of interest in occupations that are
demanding and competitive with high pressure.
Composite Analysis of the Enneagram and VPI Inventories
A factor analysis of all scale score totals was
performed, which included each of the three Enneagram
inventories and the Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI).
This analysis addressed the guestion of possible
relationships and factors shared in common by the VPI and
Enneagram inventories. For the VPI, both the personality
type scales (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social,
Enterprising, Conventional) and the clinical scales (Self-
Acquiescence) were included in the analysis. This was done
so that responses to all 160 occupational titles would be
included in the analysis, thus including the total
variance.
Kaiser's Measure of Sampling Adeguacy yielded an
average value of .82 for the entire sample of 38 variables.
Individual variables (Table 11) produce values in a range
from .59 (Conventional scale) to .92 (Palmer Type One).
These values indicated that the variables in this sample
were appropriate for factor analysis. An eleven-factor
142
u Id ta
^ o o c n c n o o v o r n H H H H O H O v O H
rn r> ^ CN in rn o H
H r ^ i n c N C N r H m ^ i n i n ^ v o o r n r H ^ f H O O f - H O O O O O O O O O O O O
I I I I I I I I I I I
cn 0
•H u o +J c 0 >
B to u o to 0 c c Ed
O Id ta
cn o Id ta
00
o Id
CC4
o Id
1X4
^ c N v O i n m ^ m i n c N v O r H C N v o v o o r n c n o o O O O O O O H r H O O O H O O ^ J O O r H
O O vo vo in in r~ rH rH .H O O O H
CN CN
*» rn o o o o
I I I I I I I I I I I I
r rn CN o
r n r n O H v o ^ v D r ^ i n o o i n c N C N v o o > o o ^ r n c N v o i n c N i n o O r H r ^ r n v O v O O O O O r n o O O O O O O O O O O O O r H O O O O
r ^ r n r ^ v o i n c N O O ^ O O O O O O O H
r n ' s j - r n o v o o i n o o H H O O O O H H O O
I I
v o o o i n ^ r H ^ ^ r H c n c n r ^ O O ' J ' C N C N i n r N ^ r n c N r n
I I I I I
H O ^ H C N O r » o v o c N ^ H r n o o o H m r ^ v o o H O H m i n o o r n o O H O r H O
I I
O O i n O O C N C N ^ v O H C N r H O O O O O O O O O O O r H
I I
to 0
-H -O Xi c ta (0 EH
vo
O Id ta
C N c n r n c N c n n r ^ v o r n c N r n O O O H O O O O O O O
in r H O vo o
vo r O
CN r ^ c n o i n i n o c N C N c n r - r ^ H C N r n r H v O O r H O O r H C N
I I
PL4
> IM
O
in
O Id
1X4
in ^ ** 00 o H H o o o H o
i n r n v o i n i n o o r n ' * H O H O O O O H
t o
o CN
rH o
vo '*
r>j O
<n o
in O
CN H
r-rH
in o
'* rH
rH o
en CN
CN rH
r in
I I I I I
cn •H cn
f H to c <
u o 4J u to
ELI
O Id ta
m
O Id ta
rn H »* vo O O O rn
f H H c n c N i n o o v o r ^ r ^ r n c n r n r n r n c N r n c N O c N i n H O H O O H O H O O C N O O O O r H t ^ r s l C N r H
^ rH en cn CN O O
I I I I
O ^ c n O O v o r n r n c N t ^ ^ C N O O v o r n r H v O i n v O C N o r n t ^ i n c N O O C N ' * C N v D O O O r n o o o o
m o r- o xJ O O O rH O
^ rn H rn rH CN TH o
I I
CN
o Id
1X4
ON CN CN vD o> rn O H O H O O
in r CN CN
m O
^ v O v O C N v D v O i n c N r n O H H ^ C N O H C N t ^
'S-o
CN CN
rH o
00 CN
rn r-\
CN CN
' o
cn f-i
cn in
CN o
I I I I I I I I I
o Id ta
o c N H ^ ^ o o H O H « 5 r r ^ c N O r - » ^ o i n o ' t o o O ' » o o O H O O O H O O o r ^ v o o i n v o r ^ f H H r ^ ^ H
00 00 rn CN r 00 00 o in vo vo rn o O
— . — » * - . — « , — . ^ - . U l i 4 4 j c O H C N r n ^ i n v o t ^ o o o N H C N r n ^ i n v D r » o o c n O : M < : C O U C J C O 2 : C O M 4 : O 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 : S 3 3 3 3 : S 3 : S : S
143
0
xi to
0
c •H 4J c o u
t - l H
o Id
ElL4
o H
o Id
(X4
cn
Fac
00
o Id ta
t^
o Id ta
vo
O Id ta
in
O Id ta
^ O Id 1X4
in o
CN ' J
' J
o 1
rn H
o H
o CN
in o 1
00 H
^ o
CN H
VO O
1
rn O
1
rn o 1
CN H
CN CN
00 VO
H
o 1
00 rn
cn o
o o
CN
o 1
ON in
vo H
r* H
00
o 1
H H
^ H
1
H H
VO O
1
H
o
en o
rn H
in o
00 CN
ON o 1
vo H
CN H
rn o
vo H
r~ CN
1
r-O
rn in
r~ o
r« o
CN
o
' T H
in H
O H
in O
1
H H
in H
m o
1
o H
1
CN
o 1
in in
in ' i '
rn H
1
r-o
H O
rn o
^ o
vo H
r-o
CN
o 1
CN O
'
H H
^ o
rn O
CN O
vo O
H r
CN H
c 0
H m
averi
u p X ta
rH
ocia
CO
II
^ u 0 4J 0 Id ta
m 0
H 4-) tl)
Aesth
II
rn
ctor
Id 1X4
c 0
H 4J H
00 o dP
rn
cn
U Id ta
CN
O Id ta
o Id
ta
CN ^ c N c n c N C N C N i n r > o o r n r j - H O O H
c N ^ i n v o o o ^ H O r n C N O ' * H O H H O O O
in
H
00 O
CN ^3
o o
cn
rn vo
H in
in
H in
vo ^9
-.07
-.03
00
00
o
cn
CN
O 4J 0 Id ta
Id u 0) c 0) o V4 0) c o> Id :s II
00
u o
4-) O Id ta
c o
H H Id CD
H V^ O 0) O >
CO <
V4 O 4-) o Id ta
0) o c Id E U o
«4H u 0) 04
vo
o 4-> o Id ta
H Id u 0) c 0) o
V4 tn Id 0) c c Ed
H Id
H C tl) o
i n
c o
H 4J Id 4J H m 0) X
u o 4J 0 Id
1X4
4-> H E U O
IM c o o
u o p 0 Id ta
CD CD
c H CD 3
CQ
cn
u 0
4-> u Id ta
iH 0 p u Id ta
U 0 P 0 Id
^ 4
u
u O
4 J u to
ELI
£ U 10 bi
> i Xi
V 0 c •H to
r H a X
EL)
0 U c to •H M to >
CN
i n rn
CN i n
cn 0 P
(0 > c (1) cn
CO r *
rH
rn 00
o cn
CN rn
CN
CN VO
• CN
rn
in
dP rn
cn
dP
dC
dP i n
df> i n
TD 0 C
•H (0
i H a X bi
0 U c 10 •H to >
to 4J O
4 J c 0 u u 0
i n
<*p
r
dP
dP cn i n
Tl 0) c
H Id
r H
a ta tl) u c Id
H U Id >
Id p 0
144
0 i H XH to
EH
0 P C
•H 4J c o u
CN 00
•
II
< OT S
r H
f H <
1 1 (H 0 > o • •
^-^ < OT S
> i U to p cr 0 T3 <
o c •H
r H
a B to OT
vt-4
O
0 U P cn to 0
s cn ^ M 0 cn
•H to u;:
r-04
vo 04
i n 04
^ 04
cn 04
CN 04
rH 04
cr o <
«H
c M
P CO
b S
u CO
o
u
CO
<
H
o::
vo •
o cn
•
' t 00
•
rn 00
•
CN 00
VO 00
•
CN cn
•
i n
r •
rH VO
•
00 vo
•
H VO
•
VO vo
t
ON i n
•
^ r
t
H
•
cn r~
o r*
•
H r
•
t ^ t g
vo N
i n N
^ tS)
rn N
CN N
H ^
ON S
00 S
r S
vo 5
i n S
^ 15
rn ^
CN IS
H
2
ON 04
00 04
rn •
00 00
•
i n 00
•
r 00
•
CN 00
vo r»-
•
o ON
•
cn •
r* 00
r-00
•
H ON
•
i n 00
•
cn 00
•
CN 00
•
i n
•
ON 00
i n 00
•
ON r»
•
en rn N r -
•
00 CN ^ 00
•
H CN
CN CN
II
H Id 4-> 0
EH
• • CD 0) P Id E
H 4-1 (0 ta > i
P H H Id c 3
0 O
H Id
c H ta
f^ 04
vo 04
i n 04
^ 04
rn 04
CN 04
r-i 04
cr 0 <
I4H
c M
p CO
1X4
s
o CO
u
ta
CO
<
M
oc
If) rn
•
CN VO
•
^ in
•
i n vo
•
cn vo
•
vo •
o vo
•
CN 00
•
i n m
•
vo rn
•
r-» ^
•
H VO
•
o ^
•
'd-i n
•
00 i n
•
i n i n
•
00 i n
«
^ vo
•
r tS9
vo N
i n N
^ N
rn N
CN tg
H N
cn S
00
s
r S
vo S
i n S
'* ^
rn »
CN S
H S
ON 04
00 04
r~ in
«
cn vo
•
r vo
•
vo vo
«
VO r-
•
i n in
•
^ vo
t
r« in
•
o in
•
00
•
i n vo
•
H VO
•
r-i
r~ •
• « *
vO
•
rn vo
•
CN vo
•
rn ON r^ vo ^^ i n
• •
O 00 ON vo a vo
* .
145
solution accounted for 59% of the total variance, with
individual factor values ranging from 3% to 14%.
The iterated principal factors analysis yielded an
optimum eleven-factor solution. Most of the factors
strongly resembled those that had appeared on earlier
analyses. The first factor extracted was labeled a general
Enneagram factor and received no further interpretation.
It was defined as such by loadings from 15 separate
Enneagram scales. High loadings came from Palmer's scales
for Types One (.72), Six (.75), and Nine (.70). Moderately
high loadings resulted from Palmer's Types Two (.60) and
Five (.60), Wagner's Types Five (.63) and Six (.62), and
Zinkle's Type Four (.63). Moderate loadings appeared for
Palmer's Type Four (.54), Wagner's Types One (.48) and Four
(.58), and Zinkle's Types One (.54), Five (.51), and Six
(.51). Wagner's Type Seven (.37) contributed a small
loading.
Factor two was a reoccurrence of the previously
discovered Ambition factor. It received high loadings from
Palmer's Type Eight scale (.73) and Zinkle's Type Eight
scale (.80). Modest loadings came from the variables for
Palmer's Type Three (.42), Wagner's Type Eight (.59), and
Zinkle's Type Three (.45) scale.
The third factor. Aesthetics, although similar to the
previous Social Sensitivity factor, is somewhat different
due to a change in the composition of the contributing
146
variables. The Artistic (.70) and Acguiescence (.62)
scales provided the most significant loadings. Factor
definition received further clarification from variables
that loaded modestly. These variables included the
Investigative scale (.39), the Status scale (.47), Palmer
Type Four (.31), Zinkle Type Four (.39), and Zinkle Type
Five (.42).
This scale derives much of its name from the
characteristics of Holland's Artistic Type and the
Enneagram Type Four (the Artist). People scoring high on
these scales manifest creativity, imagination, sensitivity,
emotionality, expressiveness, introversion,
unconventionality, self-revelation, and aesthetic
appreciation. The Holland scales for Type A and
Acguiescence both share the characteristics of multiple
interests and many talents, which supplement the definition
of the factor.
The moderate loading of the Status scale reinforces
the themes of sensitivity, expressiveness, and multiple
competencies, adding a tone of adventure and enthusiasm.
Although at first glance there is an apparent conflict with
the Zinkle Type Five variable, the concept of this being a
wing of Type Four provides a theoretical rationale for
presence of the Type Five variable.
A fourth factor emerged and was labeled Social
Extroversion. Included in this factor are attributes of
147
both the former Social factor and the Positive Extroversion
factor. Two variables contributed most to this factor, and
they were Wagner Type Two (.72) and Zinkle Type Two (.68).
Additional modest loadings came from Holland's Social scale
(.36) and Zinkle's Type Seven scale (.45). Whereas the
Type Two and Type S loadings define this as a strong
people-orientation factor, the presence of Type Seven
reinforces this theme and supports the concept of
extroversion.
Once again, a Denial factor emerged, this time as the
fifth factor. Zinkle's Type Nine scale (.71) contributed
most significantly. Modest loadings resulted from Palmer's
Type Seven (.46), Wagner's Type Nine (.57), and Zinkle's
Type Seven scale (.55). This factor evolves around the
theme of the denial of problems and conflict.
A new factor surfaced as number six. Entitled
Performance, this factor is defined by a loading from each
of the Enneagram Type Three scales. Palmer Type Three
(.67), Wagner Type Three (.65), and Zinkle Type Three (.59)
loaded in the moderate high range. Conseguently, this
factor receives its definition from the description of the
Enneagram's Performer.
Social Aversion reemerged as the seventh factor. It
is identical to the same factor from the VPI analysis.
Holland's Realistic type (.71) and Investigative type (.60)
contributed the highest loadings. The
148
Masculinity-Femininity (.50) scale furnished a moderate
loading. A minimal loading came from the Acguiescence
scale (.34), and a small inverse loading was associated
with the Self-Control scale (-.37).
A general factor associated with the Wagner inventory
became factor number eight. Five variables provided modest
loadings. These included Type One (.45), Type Four (.54),
Type Six (.41), Type Seven (.33), and Type Nine (.37). No
appropriate definition could be assigned to this factor;
therefore, the investigator named it a Wagner-General
Positive Extroversion, and Denial. Five of these factors
combined loadings from the inventories and one was Palmer
specific. Second, the combined analysis of all four
inventories produced eleven factors. These were entitled
General, Ambition, Aesthetics, Social Extroversion, Denial,
Performance, Social Aversion, Wagner-General, Business,
Conformity, and Hesitation. Four factors combined scales
from the Enneagram Inventories. Three factors were Holland
specific. Two factors combined both the Enneagram and VPI.
Finally, one factor was Cohen-Palmer specific and the other
was Zinkle specific.
Several themes were prevalent throughout the analysis.
One motif concerned social proficiency and the contrasting
motif of social ineptitude appeared as well. Additionally,
the twin themes of ambition and achievement recurred
throughout accompanied by the related issues of
industriousness and aggression. Type-specific factors were
discovered which included an artistic orientation, helping
and peacemaking. Conversely, psychopathological threads
emerged in several factors concerning anxiety, repression,
compulsion, excessiveness and denial.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
The majority of efforts to explicate and validate
Enneagram theory relied upon the lengthy processes of
gualitative research. Although this form of research was
invaluable, it encountered resistance in the community of
social and behavioral scientists. Conseguently,
Enneagram investigators such as Palmer, Wagner, and
Zinkle developed personality inventories in their efforts
to guantitatively evaluate the typology. Their hopes
were to verify the validity of the Enneagram theory by
demonstrating the ability of their instruments to
effectively identify and classify individual
personalities according to Enneagram typology. These
efforts produced promising results; however, it remained
clear that more rigorous and substantial research was
necessary to achieve their ultimate objectives.
The purpose of this study was to examine the claims of
the above authors concerning the validity of their
personality inventories. Using factor analyses, the
investigator searched for evidence to support the factor
validity of the instruments and, thus, the nine personality
types of Enneagram theory. Additionally, the Enneagram
instruments were factor analyzed together with Holland's
152
153
VPI to investigate the possibility of concurrent factor
validity.
The present investigator sought to answer several
guestions through this research project. One guestion
concerned whether the Enneagram instruments measured what
their authors proposed to measure. To address this
concern, each Enneagram instrument was individually
analyzed.
Analysis of Individual Inventories
The factor analysis of the Cohen-Palmer inventory
produced four factors (Table 12), a number less than the
total number of types that the instrument attempts to
measure. One factor, entitled Fear and Repression,
strongly correlated with Enneagram Type One and Type Two.
It also included loadings from Types Nine, Six, and Four.
A second factor. Social Ambition, correlated only with
Types Three and Eight. The third factor. Anxiety, was
predominantly defined by Type Six and Type Five. Small
loadings were achieved by Types Nine and One. Finally, the
fourth factor extracted. Excess, received its definition
from Type Four, Type Seven, and Type Eight.
Results of the Cohen-Palmer analysis provides support
for some of the characteristics associated with different
types, specifically those correlated with the factor names.
Table 12 Summary of Results
154
VPI
Social Aversion
Social Sensitivity
Inciustrious
COHEN-PALMER
Fear and Repression
Anxiety
Excess
WAGNER
Social Insecurity
Social Ambition Helper
Achievement Orientation
Excess
ZINKLE
Withdrawal
Social Agression
Compulsion
Positive Extroversion
Peacemaker Denial
ALL ENNEAGRAM INSTRUMENTS
Ambition
Anxious Compulsion
Cohen-Palmer General
*Excess
•Positive Extroversion
*Denial
* A like-named factor with similar loadings of the defining variables was discovered in an earlier analysis.
155 Table 12 Continued
COHEN-PALMER & VPI WAGNER & VPI
General Palmer General Wagner
*Social Sensitivity +Social
*Ambition
•Industrious
•Social Aversion
Social Status
•Industrious
•Social Aversion
•Achievement Orientation
Hesitation
Artistic
ZINKLE & VPI
Estrangement
Social Competency
•Social Ambition
•Industrious
•Social Aversion
•Social Insecurity
Constriction
COMPOSITE ANALYSIS OF ALL INVENTORIES
General Enneagram
+Social Extroversion
•Ambition
Business
•Social Aversion
Performance
•Hesitation
+Aesthetic
•Denial
Wagner General
Conformity
The factor contained loadings from both the Holland and an Enneagram instrument. A like-ncimed factor with similar loadings of the defining variaibles was discovered in an earlier analysis.
156
These results are encouraging, but they do not provide
conclusive proof that the Palmer instrument measures what
is claimed. The scale factor analysis may not provide
sufficient data to support the validity of individual
instruments.
A five-factor solution was most appropriate for the
factor analysis of the Wagner inventory (Table 12). A
Social Insecurity factor was the first to be extracted.
Types Four, Five, Six, and One correlated most
significantly with this factor. An Achievement Orientation
factor appeared, which displayed loadings from Type Three,
Type One, and Type Eight. Two factors were associated with
only one type each. The Peacemaker factor was
significantly correlated with Type Nine. The Helper factor
was associated with Type Two. Finally, a fifth factor
appeared. Excess, which was seen on the Palmer analysis as
well. Types Four, Seven, and Eight loaded on this latter
factor.
Results of the Wagner analysis suggested that this
inventory measured some of the same characteristics as the
Palmer inventory. Specifically, the two inventories each
contained a factor entitled Excess. Additionally, the
Wagner Achievement Orientation factor resembled the Social
Ambition factor of the Palmer inventory. Partial support
for the existence of individual types emerged with the
157
Peacemaker and Helper factors and support for factors
defined by type characteristics increased.
The factor analysis of the Zinkle inventory produced
five interpretable factors (Table 12). The Withdrawal
factor correlated most with Type Four. Modest loadings,
however, came from Types Five and One. Both Type Eight and
Type Three defined a Social Aggression factor, and Type
Six, Type Five, and Type Three loaded on the Compulsion
factor. A Positive Extroversion factor resulted from the
relationship between Type Two and Type Seven. A fifth and
final factor. Denial, received its definition from Type
Seven and Type Nine.
Factors drawn from the Zinkle inventory received their
definition from different assortments of the type variables
in comparison to the other Enneagram inventories. Social
aggression was the single factor most like any previously
produced Enneagram factors. Attempting to account for this
anomaly, it is important to recognize that Zinkle's
instrument provided more guestions per type, taking a
larger sample of behaviors. Conseguently, the different
composition of the factors is not surprising.
In all, thirteen different factors emerged from the
separate analyses of the three Enneagram inventories. The
factor Excess was the only one that was substantially the
same on two different inventories. Although no factor was
consistent across all three inventories, each inventory
158
possessed a factor, defined by Types Three and Eight, that
was similar to a corresponding factor on another inventory.
These factors were Social Ambition, Achievement
Orientation, and Social Aggression. They varied due to the
different loadings between the two major types, as well as
the inclusion of Type One on the Achievement factor.
While the data does not provide proof for the
existence of either nine factors or types, similarities
between some of the factors suggests the measurement of
matching constructs. The results imply that the
instruments may partially measure what they propose to
measure. Notably, the instruments varied in length and
guestion content, thereby sampling the types differently.
Therefore, it is not surprising that like-named type scales
among the instruments do not correlate perfectly or always
to a great degree.
Another guestion regarded what relationships might
exist among the three Enneagram inventories and whether
identically-named scales measured the same constructs. A
corollary issue concerned whether the same personality
types, as measured by each inventory, loaded similarly on
the same factors. These issues were addressed by the
following analysis.
159
Analysis of the Three Enneagram Inventories Combined
The issues mentioned above were addressed specifically
by the factor analysis performed on the scales of all three
inventories combined. Although the factors were not
clearly loaded by the same scale variables from each
inventory, the data (Table 12) was promising. Perhaps the
clearest point of commonality between the Enneagram
inventories emerged in the Ambition factor, which received
loadings from the Type Three and Type Eight scales from
each of the inventories. These types share many
similarities and are often confused with each other. The
presence of these scales suggests that each of the
Enneagram inventories measured the same or similar
constructs with these scales.
The second common factor. Anxious Compulsion,
contained loadings of Type One, Type Six, and Type Five
from each of the inventories, albeit in somewhat different
proportions. Palmer's Type Five and Six loaded minimally
in comparison to the loadings of similar types for other
inventories. The factor was not clean in that Zinkle's
Type Three and Type Four and Wagner's Type Four achieved
minimal loadings. Nonetheless, this factor supports the
notion that the scales were measuring similar constructs,
although not to the same degree.
160
A factor named Excess appeared in the analysis of
Enneagram inventories. In spite of its varied composition,
the factor possessed moderately high loadings from each of
the Type Four scales. This offers support for the notion
that each of the Type Four scales are measuring similar
constructs; however, the mixed nature of the factor
suggests that each of the like-named scales measures
distinctly different constructs as well.
Two final factors supported the notion that the
inventories were measuring similar constructs. One factor.
Positive Extroversion, contained moderately high loadings
from the scales for Wagner's Type Two and Zinkle's Type
Two. Additionally, Palmer's Type Five scale and Zinkle's
Type Five both achieved small inverse loadings, which
correlates logically with the concept represented by the
factor. The absence of Palmer's Type Two scale and
Wagner's Type Five scale raises the guestion of whether
these two scales were measuring the same concepts to the
same degree as the like-named scales.
The other supportive factor. Denial, displayed modest
loadings from Palmer's scale seven and Zinkle's scale
seven. Whereas this supports the idea that these two
scales are measuring this concept, the absence of Wagner's
scale seven raises the issue of whether his scale measures
this characteristic. Another possible explanation for this
inconsistency is that individuals did not consistently
161
endorse the same items or types of items when taking each
containing each of the like-named types, and in some cases
only two of the like-named types, supported the notion that
the instruments were measuring several of the same or
similar constructs. On occasion, one of the like-named
scales was omitted from the common factor, suggesting that
it did not substantially measure the same or a similar
concept. This may be explained in part by the inclusion of
different items among the like-named scales. Another
explanation would be that subjects responded inconsistently
between inventories.
Data analysis has partially supported the notion that
the three Enneagram instruments are measuring the same or
similar constructs, but only in terms of common
characteristics, and not in terms of type. Support for
this was apparent in that each of the personality type
scales loaded on the same factor as at least one other
like-named scale. At times, however, they either loaded in
different proportions or not at all. Conseguently, there
were not nine separate factors, yielding a one-to-one
association with each of the individual personality types.
162
Analyses of Enneagram Inventories with the VPI
An evaluation of the relationship between Holland's
VPI and the Enneagram instruments was addressed by several
analyses. First, the researcher conducted a factor
analysis of only the VPI to establish the factor structure
of that instrument for the current subject population.
Each of Holland's six personality types loaded
significantly on only one of three factors.
The VPI analysis produced a Social Sensitivity factor
(Table 12) primarily loaded by the Artist and Social type
scales. This factor strongly resembled the "People" factor
found in previous factor analyses of the VPI. A second
factor. Social Aversion, appeared which resembled the
"Things" factor identified by past research. This factor
obtained its strongest loadings from the Realistic and
Investigative personality types. Finally, the Industrious
factor was identified, which matched the formerly
discovered "Data" factor. The Conventional and
Enterprising types loaded most heavily on this factor.
A second set of analyses addressed the issue of
relationships between all of the instruments. This aspect
of the research was conducted in two parts. Part One
consisted of a separate factor analysis for each Enneagram
inventory with the VPI. Part Two was an analysis of all
163
four inventories combined. The findings (Table 12) and
conclusions are summarized below.
The factor analysis of the VPI and the Cohen-Palmer
inventory yielded five factors. A general factor appeared
first with loadings from Enneagram Types One, Two, Four,
Five, Six, and Nine. A second factor. Social Competency,
was defined by Holland's Artistic and Social types. Next,
a Social Aversion factor emerged, which was delimited by
Holland's Realistic and Investigative types. An Ambition
factor emerged with loadings from Enneagram types Three,
Seven and Eight. Finally, a recurring Industrious factor
was characterized by Holland's Enterprising and
Conventional types. This analysis failed to produce any
factor which contained significant loadings of both Holland
and Enneagram types.
Analysis of the VPI and Wagner inventories produced
eight factors. The first factor was general and was
composed of loadings from Enneagram types Six, Four, Five,
One, Seven, and Two. Social Aversion emerged second and
was defined by Holland's Realistic and Investigative types.
A modified Achievement Orientation factor appeared next.
It was defined by Type Three and Type Eight, with minor
loadings from Types One, Two and Nine. Factor number four,
the Social factor, included Holland's Social type and the
Enneagram Type Two. The fifth factor. Social Status,
correlated strongly with Holland's Status scale and his
164
Artistic type. Reemerging as number six, the Industrious
factor correlated most with Holland's Enterprising and
Conventional types. A new factor. Hesitation, was the
seventh. It consisted of positive loadings from Holland's
Self-Control and Infreguency scales and a negative loading
from his Acguiescence scale. Finally, factor number eight
correlated with Holland's Artistic type, and thus the
factor was named. This was the first analysis where a
factor defined by both a Holland and an Enneagram type
emerged, the Social factor.
Zinkle's inventory was factor analyzed with the VPI,
and it provided seven factors. The Social Competency
factor appeared first and received its definition from
Holland's Artistic and Social scales. Social Insecurity
emerged second, and it correlated with Types One, Four,
Five, and Six. A third factor. Estrangement, associated
most with types Seven, Two, and Nine. Social Aversion
returned as the fourth factor, defined by the Realistic and
Investigative types. Factor number five. Social Ambition,
correlated with Type Eight and Type Three. Next, the
Industrious factor surfaced as number six, obtaining its
definition from the Enterprising and Conventional scales.
A new factor, Constriction was formed in the seventh
extraction, which associated most with the Self-Control
scale and minimally with the Infreguency scale.
165
Across the three previous analyses, 16 distinct
factors were identified. Two were general Enneagram
factors and the remaining 14 were interpretable. The
Social factor, discovered in the VPI and Wagner analysis,
was the only common factor that included significant
loadings from instruments representing both theoretical
systems. Although this part of the analysis did not offer
great support for the linking of the two theories, it
helped to broaden the factorial definition of the VPI.
Part two of the study's final phase involved the
factor analysis of the VPI with all three of the Enneagram
inventories. This analysis provided an eleven-factor
solution. The first factor was general, and it included
Palmer Types One, Two, Four, Five, Six, and Nine. Wagner
Types One, Four, Five, Six, and Seven all loaded on the
factor, as did Zinkle Types One, Four, Five, and Six.
The remaining ten factors were each amenable to
interpretation. The second factor. Ambition, correlated
with Type Eight from each inventory and Type Three from
Palmer and Zinkle. Aesthetics, the third factor,
correlated with Holland's Artistic, Acguiescence,
Investigative, and Status scales. Additionally, Palmer's
and Zinkle's Type Four and Zinkle's Type Five loaded on
this factor. Factor number four. Social Extroversion,
included loadings from Wagner's and Zinkle's Type Two,
Zinkle's Type Seven and Holland's Social type. These
166
latter two were the sole factors to include loadings from
scales representative of both theoretical systems.
Factor five. Denial, reemerged with loadings from
Zinkle's and Wagner's Type Nine, and from their Type Sevens
as well. A unigue factor appeared sixth and was labeled
Performance because it correlated only with Type Three from
each inventory. Once again, a Social Aversion factor
coalesced with loadings from Holland's Realistic and
Investigative types. A Wagner general factor followed,
which included significant loadings from Types One, Four,
Six, Seven, and Nine. The ninth factor. Business,
correlated with Holland's Social, Enterprising, and
Conventional types. A tenth factor, entitled Conformity,
followed and included Zinkle Types One, Three, and Six with
an inverse loading from Palmer's Type Four. Hesitation was
the eleventh and final factor. It included positive
loadings from Holland's Self-Control and Infreguency scales
with a negative loading from the Acguiescence scale.
This final factor analysis provided two factors that
linked Holland's personality theory with Enneagram
personality theory. Based on this study, it is not
possible to suggest a tremendous commonality between the
theories. The existing evidence, however, is encouraging
and warrants further investigation before authoritative
statements are made concerning the relationship of one
theory to the other.
167
Summary of Findings
Considering the first four research guestions, the
following conclusions were evident. First, the three
Enneagram inventories do not measure nine discrete types as
reflected by factor analysis. The Wagner inventory,
however, furnished two type-specific factors; one defined
by Type Two and one defined by Type Nine. Additionally,
the factor which was defined by each of the Enneagram Type
Three scales suggested that this is a valid type-construct.
Second, the aggregation of Enneagram instrument scales
into common factors made them amenable to interpretation in
light of the Enneagram theory. Had separate factors
representing each scale appeared, each personality type
would have had strong support for its individual existence.
Nevertheless, the existing data was consistent with
Enneagram theory. The freguent occurrence of type wings on
factors supported the notion that neighboring personality
types share more attributes in common than those that are
systemically unrelated. Additionally, the concept of the
lines of integration and disintegration received some
support when factors connected by such lines partially
loaded on the same factors.
Third, the occurrence of a factor with Types Three and
Eight is not consistent with systemic explanations of
Enneagram theory. Nevertheless, the relationship of the
two types is accounted for by current psychological
168
concepts. Each of these types possess characteristics,
such as ambition and achievement-orientation, which are
easily conceived of as correlated gualities. While their
other motivations may differ, both Type Three and Type
Eight possess gualities, that while different, are egually
culturally desirable.
Fourth, findings from both the analysis of all
Enneagram instruments combined, and the analysis of all the
instruments together were egually encouraging. The loading
of like-named scales from various instruments on the same
common factors reinforced the assertion that Enneagram
instruments did, in part, measure the same psychological
constructs. These like-named scales did not always carry
the same weight on each factor, implying that they measured
similar and correlated constructs that were not always
identical. Another possibility was that they measured both
similar and unigue constructs. The similar constructs were
possibly sampled in different proportions, thereby
accounting for the different weights of like-named scales
on common factors. The additional appearance of these same
scales on more than one factor supports this idea as well.
The notion that the Enneagram instruments measured the
same constructs in different proportions, and that each
inventory measured unigue constructs was supported by the
appearance of two factors on the final factor analysis.
One factor was the Wagner-General factor (number eight).
169
and the other factor. Conformity (number ten) was primarily
a Zinkle factor. It is reasonable to believe that each of
these Enneagram inventories measured sufficiently unigue,
highly correlated, constructs compared to the others.
Therefore, each inventory defined an instrument-specific
factor. Nevertheless, the Enneagram inventories correlated
greatly, and the conseguence was the appearance of the
General Enneagram factor.
A fifth conclusion is that, although this study
supplies data supporting the construct validity of the
Enneagram instruments, little evidence supports the
concurrent validation of the Enneagram instruments. The
minor relationships between the Holland and Enneagram
instruments may be partially explained by the different
design of the instruments. The VPI is composed entirely of
occupational titles. In contrast, the Enneagram
instruments are composed of complete statements. The
difference in construct-sampling methods may facilitate
different response styles or sample different constructs.
Another explanation is that college students experience
greater difficulty in endorsing occupational titles, and
they may be ignorant of the full scope and definition of
many professions. Finally, it is important to realize that
the ability of the VPI to measure personality types was
questionable to begin with.
170
Limits of the Study
The sample population for this study may limit the
generalization of the results in two ways. First, the
majority of subjects (75%) were either college freshmen or
sophomores. Conseguently, it is important not to
generalize the results too readily to the public.
Nontraditional subjects, who were either graduate students
or employed college graduates, composed 21% of the sample.
Second, the sample was predominately composed of females
(61%). This may have skewed the resultant data and
influenced the subsequent interpretation of the factors.
Third, the interpretation of the data relied in part upon
the assumption that the inventory items chosen and scales
composed to differentiate the types were effectively doing
so. To the degree that this assumption is inaccurate, the
interpretation should be treated with caution.
An uncontrolled variable that potentially influenced
the results was the order of instrument administration.
The order of administration was varied but not completely
randomized. Therefore, one might argue that the results
reflected some effect of this procedure, although the study
design was not experimental.
Recommendations
Data produced by this study partially supports the
validity of the Enneagram instruments. Nevertheless,
171
further research using the factor analytic procedure would
be invaluable. Subsequent researchers would do well to
increase both the sample size and heterogeneity of their
subject pool. Data produced from more mature populations
may well yield a different outcome, because, presumably,
they would have more definite knowledge of personal
characteristics.
Additionally, future investigators may consider
randomizing the order of test administration. Because the
instructions vary somewhat from test to test, randomization
of the questions was not considered an option for this
dissertation. It may be appropriate to use a single set of
instructions for all three Enneagram instruments in later
investigations.
Further valuable information may be gained by using an
Enneagram adjective check-list, comparing it with the VPI.
Such a comparison might enable the researcher to identify a
stronger relationship between the two theories. In
contrast, Holland's Self Directed Search may provide a more
comparable measure of Holland's personality types, when
used with current Enneagram inventories.
Finally, factor analyses of the inventory items would
yield evidence either for or against the item composition
of the scales. Such analyses would provide data and clues
regarding what characteristics or gualities the scales
actually measure. The results might lead to the
172
construction of a more effective inventory for identifying
Enneagram personality types, and provide a clearer picture
of the degree of relationships between the VPI and
Enneagram inventories.
REFERENCES
Athanasou, J. A., O'Gorman, J., & Meyer, E. (1981). Factorial validity of the vocational interest scales of the Holland vocational preference inventory for australian high school students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(2), 523-527.
Bennett, J. G. (1973). Gurdjieff; making a new world. London: Turnstone Books.
Bennett, J. G. (1983). Enneagram studies. York Beach, MA: Samuel Weiser, Inc.
Benninger, W. B., & Walsh, W. B. (1980). Holland's theory and non-college-degreed working men and women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17, 81-88.
Capretta, P. J. (1967). A history of psychology in outline. New York, NY: Dell Publishing Co., Inc.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire. Champaign, IL.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Cerny, B. A., & Kaiser, H. F. (1977). A study of a measure of sampling adeguacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12, 43-47.
Chaplin, J. P. (1975). Dictionary of psychology. New York, NY: Dell Publishing Co., Inc.
Crabtree, P. D., & Hales, L. W. (1974). Holland's hexagonal model applied to rural youth. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 22, 218-223.
DiScipio, W. J. (1974). A factor analytic validation of Holland's vocational preference inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 4(3), 389-402.
173
174
Florence, J. w. (1973). A further investigation of Holland's theory of vocational psychology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Tulsa.
Gamard, W. S. (1986). Interrater reliability and validity of judgments of enneagram personality types (Doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Integral Studies, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 3152.
Gaston, L., & Marmar, C. R. (1989). Quantitative and qualitative analyses for psychotherapy research: integration through time-series designs. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 26(2), 169-176.
Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1978). Theories of personality. (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6, 35-45.
Holland, J. L. (1973). The psychology of vocational choice. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell Publishing Company.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices; a theory of vocational personalities and work environments. (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Holland, J. L. (1985). The vocational preference inventory; professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Hurley, K. V., & Dobson, T. E. (1991). What's my type? San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco.
Johnson, J. A. (1987). Influence of adolescent social crowds on the development of vocational identity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(2), 182-199.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
175
Keen, S. (1973, July). A conversation about ego destruction with Oscar Ichazo. Psychology Today, pp. 64-72.
Lilly, J. C , & Hart, J. E. (1975). The arica training. In C. T. Tart (Ed.), Transpersonal Psychologies (pp. 329-351). New York: Harper and Row, Publishers. Myers, I., & Briggs, K. (1976). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Palmer, H. (1988). The enneagram: understanding yourself and others in your life. San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers.
Ranaghan, D. G. (1989). A closer look at the enneagram. South Bend, IN: Greenlawn Press.
Randall, S. (1979). The development of an inventory to assess enneagram personality type (Doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Asian Studies, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 4466B.
Riordan, K. R. (1975). Gurdjieff. In C. T. Tart (Ed.), Transpersonal Psychologies (pp. 281-328). New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Riso, D. R. (1987). Personality types. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Riso, D. R. (1990). Understanding the enneagram: a practical guide to personality types. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Rohr, R., & Ebert, A. (1990). Discovering the enneagram (P. Heinegg, Trans.). New York: Crossroad Publishing Co. (Original work published 1989)
Rounds, J. B. (1985). Review of the vocational preference inventory. In Mitchell, J. V. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1683-1684). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.
176
Shepard, J. w. (1989). Review of the vocational preference inventory. in Conoley, J. C , & Kramer, J. J. (Eds.), The tenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 882-883). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.
Speeth, K. R. (1989). The Gurdjieff Work. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.
Tinsley, H. E., & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34 (4), 414-424.
Wagner, J. P. (1981). A descriptive, reliability, and validity study of the enneagram personality typology. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 11-A, 4664. (University Microfilms No. 81-09,973).
Wagner, J. P., & Walker, R. E. (1983). Reliability and validity study of a sufi personality typology: the enneagram. Journal of Clinical Psychology, ^ ( 5 ) , 712-717.
Wakefield, J. A., & Doughtie, E. D. (1973). The geometric relationship between Holland's personality typology and the vocational preference inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2^(6), 513-518.
Ward, G. R., Cunningham, C. H., & Wakefield, J. A. Jr. (1976). Relationships between Holland's VPI and Cattell's 16PF. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 8, 307-312.
Webb, J. (1980). The harmonious circle. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.
Zinkle, T. E. (1974). A pilot study toward the validation of the sufi personality typology (Doctoral dissertation. United States International University, 1974/1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 2418B.
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT DATA
177
178
Table 13 Summary of Subject Data
Males Females White Black Other Unknown
129 206 267 29 6 33
EDUCATION
Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Student
184 35 19 14 7
College Graduate Unknown High School Elementary School
65 14 5 2
AGE
11-16 17-21 22-29 30-39 40-49 50-67 Unknown
3 216 27 42 19 6 22
N = 335
179
Table 13 Continued
DEGREES REPORTED
AA BA/BS MA/MS PhD/EdD
16 8
DEGREE MAJORS OCCUPATIONS
Agriculture Business Counseling 2 Criminal Justice Education 3 English Engineering Marine Technology Math Education Medical Technology Nursing Philosophy Political Science Psychology 5 Recreational Counseling Social Science Social Work Sociology Student Personnel 2 Special Education 2
Abstractor Attorney Bank Representative Counselor 5 Engineer Graduate Students: in Counseling 3 in Psychology Mediator Psychologist School Counselor Speech Therapist Teacher Therapist
APPENDIX B
ENNEAGRAM INVENTORIES
180
181
The Cohen-Palmer Enneagram Inventory
SCALE: 0= NOT LIKE ME; 1= LIKE ME
0[] 1 (9
0[] 1 (8
0[] 1 (5
0[] 1 (4
0[] 1 (4
0[] 1 (7
0[] 1 (1
0[] 1 (2
0[] 1 (4
0[] 1 (4
0[] 1 (6
0[] 1 (2
0(] 1 (9
1 1 1
1 2
] 3
I may look and act busy, but inside I'm spaced out on details of the room, old memories, or unfinished business.
In a confrontation I want the other person to oppose me strongly.
I avoid putting time and money into extravagance. I prefer to reduce my needs to a few simple objects.
] 4. People have accused me of being overly dramatic, but they really don't understand my intensity.
] 5. I feel that sadness and pain are the wellspring from which come great art and love.
] 6. I have multiple projects and interests. I'm not after a big success. I don't want to miss out on an experience.
] 7. I procrastinate in decisions because I'm afraid of making mistakes.
] 8. I'm sensing other people's needs so that I can help them and get their affection.
] 9. I resonate with the "tragic clown" figure, smiling through the tragedy.
] 10. I have a special attraction to the mood of melancholy.
] 11. I have a longstanding fear of the dark. Unseen threats might harm me.
] 12. I get confused about how to act when friends from different parts of my life are together in the Scune room.
] 13. I appear to go along with what people want because it's so hard to say no. That doesn't mean that I necessarily agree.
182
0[1 1 (8
0[] 1 (3
0[1 1 (3
0[] 1 (5
0[1 1 (8
0[] 1 (5
0[] 1 (8
0[] 1 (2
0[] 1 (3
0[] 1 (4
0[] 1 (6
0[] 1
(1
0[] 1 (5
0[] 1
(1
0[] 1 (6
] 14. I'm an aggressive, self-assertive person; and I can handle anger directed at me. I'm not afraid to confront other people, and I've done it.
] 15. Hanging around with friends is a waste of my time.
] 16. Being able to organize, set priorities, and make deadlines comes naturally to me.
] 17. I conserve my time, money and self. I really hate it when I don't get my money's worth.
] 18. I fight with people to see their strengths; if they are strong, I can trust them.
] 19. I experience most people as intrusive; they do not respect my space.
] 20. I sense others' weak points quickly, and I will push them there if I am provoked.
] 21. I feel I deserve to be first in someone's life because of all the help I've given them.
] 22. I get so caught up with my worker role that I forget who I am. When I recall my past, I tend to remember what I did well and right.
] 23. I'm eaten by regret for past relationships that can never be regained.
] 24. I get frightened in successful situations (or when I am doing well); I doubt my successes.
] 25. My mind constantly judges how I stand in comparison to others.
] 26. I control myself and feel that expression of strong emotions is self-indulgent.
] 27. People give me feedback that I'm angry though I don't think I am.
] 28. When its time to follow through or take action on my good ideas, I doubt them.
183
0[1 1[1 29. I often criticize myself for not doing better. ^1) Critical voices chatter in my head.
0[1 1[] 30. The worst feeling I have is being criticized by (1) other people.
'm 0[1 ![] 31. Old memories keep surfacing not because I'l.. ( ) nostalgic but because I haven't finished with
them yet.
0[] 1[] 32. I get the feeling that others set me up to (8) fight their battles for them.
0[] 1[] 33. I get so overwhelmed with sidetracks that life (9) seems like a great effort to me.
0[] 1[] 34. I like to have several things to do in the same (7) time slot, so that I can go with the one that
draws me at the time.
0[] 1[] 35. I don't remember my successes. Each time that (6) I have to act, it's like I haven't done it
before.
0[] 1[] 36. I like the theater and dramatic people; I often (4) feel like I'm playing the part of an actor in
my own life.
0[] 1[] 37. When something painful comes up I can put it on (7) a mental "back burner" where it doesn't bother
me.
0[] 1[] 38. I can intuit and meet everybody's needs, but (2) very few people meet mine.
0[] 1[] 39. In working on a project or job I'm concerned (1) that every step of every procedure must be
correct. I can't work at a job that compromises my integrity.
0[] 1[] 40. I often space out or feel sleepy when I'm not (9) really tired.
0[] 1[] 41. My idea of leisure time is strategizing for the (3) next job to be done. I don't like to face a
Sunday with nothing to do but hang out.
0[] 1[] 42. I'm good at standing up and fighting for what I (8) want. I find it easy to express my
dissatisfaction with things.
184
0[] ![] 43. I experience intimacy and strong feelings for ^^) others most when I'm alone; when I'm with them
I seek intimacy but withdraw.
0[] 1[) 44. I can relate to everyone else's position, but (9) I'm unclear about my own.
0[] 1[] 45. I'm like a chameleon in my job; I can present (3) myself differently as the job requires to get
it done.
0[] 1[] 46. Privacy and time alone are essential to me. (5) When I am alone I often wish to share myself
with others.
0[] ![] 47. I'm fearful when I'm exposed as successful in (6) the eyes of others.
0[] 1[] 48. When I give to others I'm keeping score about (2) what I hope to get back.
0[] 1[] 49. There are many fascinating things to do. I (7) avoid getting dragged down by life.
0[11[]50. Icun proud to be recognized as a giver; the (2) recognition is essential to me.
0[] 1[] 51. I'm aware of how I come across to people and (3) will change my presentation to do a more
effective job.
0[] 1[] 52. I want my activities to make life an adventure; (7) if they don't I adapt to backup possibilities.
0[] 1[] 53. I tend to move from one interest to another (7) rather than go into depth in anything.
0[] 1[] 54. I instinctively look for what is threatening in (6) any situation.
0[] 1[] 55. Once I get used to something I don't want to (9) "rock the boat" by changing it.
0[] 1[] 56. Most people don't know it, but they create (8) their own problems.
0[] 1[1 57. I like to place myself on the outskirts of the (5) crowd and watch other people interact.
185
0[] 1[] 58. The arts and artistic expression are very ^^) important for me as a means of channeling my
emotions.
0[] 1[] 59. When I'm in misery and pain I don't want people ( ) to "fix it" and make me happy. There's a
special richness in the quality of sadness.
0[] 1[] 60. It's important to experience a lot of things a (7) little bit, so you really have a taste of
everything in life.
0[] 1[] 61. I find my mind flooded with critical judging (1) thoughts.
0[] 1[] 62. I often feel that my friends don't know the (2) real me. Really, I've fooled them, because
I've shown them only the aspects of myself that they like.
0[] 1[] 63. I use antiquity, elegance and unique (4) surrounding to raise my sense of myself.
0[] 1[] 64. I'm attracted to what is authentic in other (4) people because it makes me feel real myself.
0[1 1[) 65. Even when I know a project will work my mind (6) says "I can't" and "it won't work."
0[] 1[] 66. I feel inspired when merging with powerful, (2) important people.
0[1 1[] 67. I find myself merging into all sides of a (9) conversation. I think that my opinion is all
of the conversation.
0[] 1[] 68. I enjoy the exercise of power. My worst fear (8) is to be controlled by incompetents.
0[] 1[] 69. I identify myself by the job that I do. I (3) compete well and especially enjoy winning.
0[] 1[] 70. I like high-energy, high-status positions. I (3) keep emotions from getting in the way.
0[] 1[] 71. When people want things from me I often wish to (5) withdraw from them.
0[] 1[] 72. I think that most therapy and tests like this (8) are for weak people who can't get it together.
186
0[] 1[] 73. Self-controlled people can shut down their (5) feelings.
0[1 1[] 74. If I get a little of something I want, I won't (8) stop until I'm over-satisfied.
0[] 1[1 75. When I sense someone withdrawing from me I (2) alter myself to become more desirable to them.
0[] ![] 76. I tend to be an assertive, go-getter kind of (3) person. I would do very well in the
promotional aspect of a project.
0[1 1[] 77. I have intense mood swings, I live higher and (4) lower than other people.
0[] 1[] 78. I present myself badly to test out which people (6) will like me and which people won't accept me.
0[] 1[] 79. I am preoccupied with other people's character (1) and the moral systems they live by. I feel
compelled to keep trying to better myself and other people.
0[] 1[] 80. People who show their anger appear out of (5) control to me.
0[] 1[] 81. I am annoyed by the awareness of how perfect (1) any situation could be at the Scurie time I
notice what's wrong with it.
0[] 1[] 82. If someone doesn't like me I'm afraid of them. (6)
0[] 1[] 83. I feel almost compelled to be honest. I (1) sometimes sense a Puritanical streak in
myself.
0[] 1[] 84. I'm often irritated because things aren't the (1) way they should be.
0[] 1[] 85. I have to motivate myself to keep going, (9) because if I come to a halt, I know that I
can't start up again.
0[] 1[] 86. It makes me angry when people that I think are (8) strong fall apart emotionally.
187
0[] 1[] 87. I lose track of the priorities in my life by <^) getting lost in details and irrelevancies. I
space out on activities like inessential projects, shopping, T.V., and collecting things that interest me.
0[] 1[] 88. Making a commitment to a single course is hard (7) for me. It limits other pKDssibilities. I
like to keep my options open.
0[]1[]89. I'm so busy scanning faces for hidden meanings (6) that I often forget people's names.
0[] 1[] 90. I have a sense of longing for what is missing (4) in my life. The present holds the hope that
the future will bring me love.
0[] 1[] 91. I have many interests. I can pursue my (7) interests endlessly. If someone wants to join
me that's fine, but I won't change my interests for them.
0[] 1[] 92. I often feel unappreciated for what I've done (2) for others.
0[] 1[] 93. I have a sharp eye for details that are out of (1) order. Often the least flaw can ruin the
whole thing for me.
0[] ![] 94. If someone makes me do something, I get (9) stubborn inside. I will agree. I think about
it over and over again. I intend to do it, but it doesn't get done.
0[) 1[1 95. I drive myself in order to win. People who (3) don't push themselves are ineffective.
0[] 1[] 96. If someone is holding out I'll push them so we (8) get to the truth of the matter.
0[] 1[] 97. I can withdraw my presence so that I feel that (5) I'm not seen by others.
0[] 1[] 98. My attention gets diverted in conversations. I (9) wake up in the middle and realize that I'm
thinking about details in the environment, old memories, or unfinished projects.
188
0[] 1[] 99. I lead because it's so important to me to get (3) the job done efficiently.
0[1 1[] 100. Detachment feels natural to me, and I prefer it (5) to heavy involvement in relationships.
0[] 1[] 101. When I want something, I'm afraid that someone (6) stronger than me will prevent me from getting
it. So I don't act.
0[) 1[1 102. Many different people think I'm their best (2) friend, but they are not mine.
0[1 ![] 103. I avoid getting into heavy issues. (7)
0[] 1[] 104. Each of my close friends causes me to alter so (2) as to make them feel comfortable.
0[1 11] 105. I like relationships based on activity; I get (3) uncomfortable when relationships get to
emotional.
0[] 1[] 106. I make plans about how much better my present (7) activities will be in the future.
0[] 1[] 107. I really don't like to work unless it feels (7) like an adventure.
0[] 1[) 108. I'm afraid of people when I have more than they (6) do.
189
Wagner Enneagram Inventory
Some of these characteristics and attitudes may not be as true of you now as they were at an earlier time in your life. So, consider these statements in the context of your whole life. Are these statements true of you now OR was there a time in your life when they fit you pretty well.
There are no right or wrong answers to this inventory. So, simply circle each answer how you are or how you have been rather than how you think you should be or how you would like to be.
1.(2) I usually think of myself last.
2.(5) I often feel outside of what's going on, and I don't know how to get in the game, even though I'd like to.
3.(8) I have a sense of immediacy and urgency. It's got to be now. I like to intensify the now.
4.(3) I identify with professionalism.
5.(1) I feel a need to be accountable for most of my time.
6.(6) I seem to sense danger and threat more than others do.
7.(4) My environmental surroundings are very important for me.
8.(7) I'm better at planning things than really doing them.
9.(9) My instinct is not to trust or like conflict.
10.(1) Often the least flaw can ruin the whole thing for me.
11.(3) Being able to get things organized and accomplished just seems to come naturally to me.
12.(9) I can be a dispassionate arbiter because there are good values on both sides.
13.(6) I think of myself as a "God-fearing" person.
14.(2) I frequently feel drawn toward surrendering myself or toward giving myself for others.
15.(8) Justice and injustice are key issues for me.
190
16.(7) I often opt for quantity over quality. For example, I'll read ten books rather than digest one thoroughly.
17.(4) I think of my past with nostalgia and a sense of loss.
18.(5) I have trouble reaching out or asking for what I want.
19.(9) I take pride in being a stable person.
20.(4) I find myself swinging back and forth between highs and lows. Either I'm very up or very down. I don't feel very alive when I'm in the middle.
21.(2) A lot of people feel close to me.
22.(1) If something isn't fair, it really bothers me.
23.(3) I can get so identified with my work or role that I forget who I am.
24.(6; 'Caution" is a very important virtue for me.
25.(8) I have trouble accepting and expressing my tender, gentle, softer, "feminine" side.
26.(5) I often quietly enter or leave a room so others won't notice me.
27.(7) I like to consider the cosmic ramifications of events, the universal importance of everything that happens.
28.(3) People say I'd make a good salesperson.
29.(8) I am a self-assertive person.
30.(2) I like to be asked to do things so I can feel
important and get attention for the warmth and love I give.
31.(1) I resent sometimes that I didn't get the breaks some others did.
32.(6) I tend to take sides and be concerned about whose side people are on.
191
33.(5) I often feel helpless and ineffectual in situations and end up doing nothing.
34.(9) Generally, I don't let myself get too enthusiastic about things.
35.(4) I like to do things properly, with class and good taste.
36.(7) I like to rank people into hierarchies: e.g., who is more enlightened, less enlightened, etc.
37.(9) It's important for me to feel relaxed.
38.(2) I take more pride in my service of others than in anything else.
39.(5) When I feel out of a group or discussion, I sometimes feel contemptuous of their small talk or superficial conversation.
40.(3) I like to have clear goals set and to know where I stand on the way toward those goals.
41.(1) Honesty is very important to me.
42.(8) I find it easy to express my dissatisfaction with things.
43.(4) I sometimes pick up the feelings of another person or of a group to such a depth that it is overwhelming.
44.(7) I like to think of myself as a childlike, playful person.
45.(6) Whether people are for or against my principles is an important issue for me.
46.(1) I put a lot of effort into correcting my faults.
47.(5) I hate to look foolish or to be taken in.
48.(4) I like to think of myself as special.
49.(9) I'm an extremely easy-going person.
50.(8) I like to think of myself as a non-conformist or as a counter-culturalist.
51.(3) I like to keep myself on the go.
192
52.(2) I'm almost compelled to help other people, whether I feel like it or not.
53.(6) I have many fears.
54.(7) Dreams, visions, prophets, mystics appeal to me.
55.(3) I believe that appearances are important.
56.(5) I seem to be more silent than most others. People often have to ask me what I'm thinking.
57.(1) I feel almost compulsively guilty much of the time.
58.(7) I like to tell stories very much.
59.(6) I often end up defending the traditional position.
60.(9) I have an inner sense when things jell and are harmonious.
61.(8) I have a sense for where the power resides in a group.
62.(4) I can dwell on the tragedies of life — suffering, loss, and death — for long periods of time.
63.(2) I feel I deserve to be first in someone's life because of all the care I've shown them.
64.(3) I think of myself as a very competent person.
65.(7) I like to cheer people up and take them away from their suffering.
66.(4) I would like to do something "original" during my lifetime.
67.(9) I generally have little trouble sleeping.
68.(5) When I don't feel a part of what's happening, I withdraw rather quickly.
69.(6) "Doing what my father wants" is important for me.
70.(8) I sense others' weak points quickly.
71.(2) I like to rescue people when I see they're in trouble or are in an embarrassing situation.
193
7 2 .
7 3 .
7 4 .
7 5 .
7 6 .
7 7 .
7 8 .
7 9 .
8 0 .
8 1 .
8 2 .
8 3 . {
8 4 . 1
8 5 . 1
8 6 . (
8 7 . (
8 8 . (
8 9 . (
9 0 . (
( 1 )
( 7 )
( 1 )
( 6 )
( 9 )
( 2 )
( 3 )
( 5 )
( 4 )
( 8 )
(6 )
[7)
[1)
8 )
4 )
9 )
3 )
5 )
2 )
I have trouble relaxing and being playful.
I tend to spiritualize, intellectualize, generalize my experience.
I find myself being impatient much of the time.
People are always getting away with things and that bothers me.
I'm almost always peaceful and calm.
Many times I feel overburdened by others' dependence on me.
When I recall my past, I tend to remember what I did well and right rather than what I did poorly or wrong.
I need a lot of private space.
When I feel lonely, I often feel abandoned by others.
I feel compelled to stand up for my rights and others' rights.
My own fears are my greatest enemy.
I often don't carry out plans because I'm too busy making new ones.
I hate to waste time.
I am not afraid to confront other people and I do confront them.
The arts and artistic expression are very important for me as a means of channeling my emotions.
I generally feel one with other people.
I'm envied a lot by other people for how much I get done.
I frequently feel underhanded in the way I get what I want. I'm something of a sneak.
People often come to me for comfort and advice.
194
91.(4) Patterns or rituals help me to do what I really want to do in my life.
92.(2) I naturally compliment other people. I often compliment others before I'm even aware I'm doing it.
93.(8) I am very much opposed to having others lay their trip on me.
94.(9) I hate to waste my energy on anything. I look for energy-saving approaches to things.
95.(7) It usually takes me time to warm up to strangers.
96.(6) I don't like to speak on my own authority.
97.(3) Accommodation, compromise, taking calculated risks are my approaches to things.
98.(5) I don't know how to engage in small talk very well.
99.(1) As long as I try hard, people can't criticize me.
100.(7) I get into head trips a lot without really carrying out my fantasies and plans.
101.(3) Making decisions is usually not a problem for me.
102.(6) I wonder if I'm brave enough to do what must be done.
103.(1) I often blame myself for not doing better.
104.(5) I go blank when I'm embarrassed or when someone asks how I feel right now.
105.(4) Others often can't understand how deeply I feel about something.
106.(8) I get very irritated when I know I'm being lied to. I can sense deceit and shcun very readily.
107.(2) I sometimes feel that others really don't appreciate me for what I've done for them.
108.(9) I tend to play things down to help other people get settled down.
109.(5) I often sit back and observe other people rather than get involved.
195
110.(2) Most people don't listen to others as well as I do.
111.(1) Being right is important for me.
112.(8) For my taste, there is too much bullshit in this world.
113.(9) Most things are no big deal, so why get excited and carried away? "Much ado about nothing" says it well.
114.(3) I'm a very efficient person.
115.(4) I make an effort to look casual and natural.
116.(6) I tend to be aware of and sensitive to contradictions a lot.
117.(7) I'm a happy, fun-loving person.
118.(7) I tend to throw myself into things enthusiastically and then throw myself into something else enthusiastically. I like to really immerse myself in whatever I'm interested in.
119.(8) I would rather give orders than take orders.
120.(9) I like to put things on "automatic pilot" so I no longer have to worry about them.
121.(4) I often long to have something I don't or to be someone that I'm not.
122.(3) I like to project a youthful, enthusiastic, vigorous, energetic image.
123.(1) Somehow I'm never satisfied; I can never get things good enough.
124.(2) I like to feel close to people.
125.(6) I have trouble with decisions and so am always seeking affirmations and cun constantly getting prepared.
126.(5) I'm very sensitive to any kind of invasion by others, any uninvited intrusions, or any sense of being pushed.
127. (7 I need to get in touch with sobriety and moderation.
196
128.(6) Loyalty is very important for me.
129.(4) People often don't see how sad and weary I cun.
130.(1) I feel almost compelled to keep trying to make myself and what I aun doing better.
131.(3) It's important for me to get things done, to feel I've accomplished something — even though it may be minor.
132.(8) I don't like to leave things, feelings, etc. hanging. I need to have it out.
133.(5) I don't pay that much attention to my feelings. When people ask me how I feel, I frecjuently don't know.
134.(2) I feel at my best when I'm helping someone.
135.(9) I really hate to be unsettled.
197
ZINKLE ENNEAGRAM INVENTORY
PLEASE MAKE A CLEAR MARK BY EACH STATEMENT THAT YOU IDENTIFY AS BEING LIKE YOU OR SOMETHING LIKE YOU
(Two)2
My goal in life is to help others. A lot of people depend on my help and generosity. I take more pride in my service of others than in anything else. Other people don't seem to think of giving, sharing, or helping as much as I do. Most people in life are far to selfish. I sometimes wear myself out helping others. Other people often take advantage of my generosity. My whole life is oriented toward others. My greatest satisfaction comes from making others feel good. A lot of people aren't as grateful as they should be when you help them. I like taking care of others. A lot of people feel close to me. I spend quite a bit of energy trying to satisfy my own needs. I usually think of myself before I think of other people. I regularly go out of my way to compliment other people. I usually get close to teachers, leaders, and such people. Human suffering bothers me more than it bothers most people. I'm very important in the lives of a lot of other people. I usually think of myself last. I'm an exceptionally warm, loving person. I feel good each day if I can help just one person. I am totally generous. I'm almost compelled to help other people. Everything would be okay in this world if there were just more love and kindness. It is my goal in life to offer advice and comfort to those in need.
198
(Three) I am a very goal oriented person. I'm constantly on the go. I'm often puzzled by the inability of others to get things done.
I enjoy working with people who are hard driving. I identify with precision and professionalism. By presenting things just the right way, I often convince others by a good sales pitch. I'm a very forceful, outgoing person. Being able to accomplish, just seems to come natural to me. I'm an excellent, hard driving competitor. I'm better at getting things done than most people. I probably could have made a good salesman. I'm an extremely competent person. Success is more important to me than it seems to be to most people. I'm a very orderly, systematic person. I get more done than the average person. My main sense of identity comes from what I get done. I like constantly having some specific, well-defined goal or standard to work toward. You only get ahead with consistent hard work. I like progress charts, grades, and other indications of how I am doing. I often lose interest in things before they are finished. Getting ahead is extremely important to me. I'm envied a lot by other people for how much I get done. I'm an extremely efficient person. I seem to have more energy than most people. I sometimes have a hard time getting myself up for things psychologically.
(Four) Most people don't appreciate the real beauty of life. My past is very special to me. I have a real sensitivity for art, music and poetry. I sometimes fear that, despite all my efforts, others are somehow more natural than myself. I long to break free to simple spontaneity. I sometimes have prolonged periods of sadness and mourning. I can identify with Thoreau living by himself in the woods.
199
I often imagine and rehearse scenes in my own mind. Other people often lack the capacity to understand how I feel. I like ritual and ceremony. Most people don't appreciate the drama of life like I do. Sometimes I feel isolated in my suffering. I fit in well with almost everyone I meet. I very much like the theater, and fantasize myself being on stage. I like doing things with class and flair. Manners, good taste, and high style are important to me. I strongly dislike thinking of myself as ordinary. I sometimes get caught up in my self-pity and depression. I have an elaborate fantasy life. I sometimes get preoccupied with suffering and loss. Sometimes art seems almost as real as actual life. I long for the natural and spontaneous but never seem to attain it. I am a very happy person. People often don't see how sad and weary I really am. I sometimes feel deprived and left out. (End of Page)^
(Five) I cherish my privacy very much and need a great deal of it. I only talk when I am sure I have something to say. I sometimes feel contempt for the shallowness of others. I am keenly observant. I am more interested in knowledge for its own sake than in how it can be used. In some ways, I live more in thought than in the real world. I often avoid other people. I enjoy using my intellect to organize things into categories. I am a very sensuous person. I need a good deal of time for myself. I am an unusually perceptive person. I take more pride in what I know than anything else. I would like to get more involved with others, but for some reason I can't break out. I'm a rather withdrawing person. I strongly like intellectual systems.
200
I rarely identify with or feel a part of a group effort. Others consider me quiet, cool and aloof. Almost any intellectual topic fascinates me. Most people lack depth. I have an insatiable quest for knowledge. I often sit back and observe other people rather than get involved. Deep, deep down sometimes I feel very empty. I am a very philosophical person. I sometimes bother people because I don't say much. At parties I often end up discussing intellectual things.
(Six) I'm basically a conservative person. Loyalty to some group is very important. I like to proceed slowly, to be careful. I sometimes enjoy going against authority. I almost always do what I am told. I'm usually prepared for all possibilities. It generally takes me a long time to make up my mind. I'm a hesitant, cautious person. I often wonder if I am brave enough to do what must be done. I'm plagued a lot by doubt. I like to be very sure before acting. I often end up defending the traditional position. Everyone needs to look to authority figures for guidance. Without strict laws, it's hard to tell what people might do. Fear and doubt often interfere with my doing. Prudence is more important than enthusiasm. I'm a very dutiful and obedient person. It's important to have a very definite, well-defined code to live by. I sometimes go against recognized authority. It's very important to me to be approved of by authority. I always like to know who my enemies are. Other people admire me for all that I get done. I like to foresee all outcomes before acting. I dislike having limits in which I have to work. It's very important to have some heroes to look up to.
201
(Seven) I like to keep things light and humorous. I enjoy entertainment, stories, and humor more than most people seem to. I'm better at planning things than really doing them. I'm almost totally without suspicion of people and their motives. I seem to enjoy life more than most people do. There are very few things in life which I don't enjoy. I have had very little pain or unhappiness in my life. Other people consider me an unusually friendly person to be around. I had a very enjoyable, happy childhood. Most of my life has been made up of neat, fun, happy times. Things always work out for the best. I enjoy making elaborate plans for the future. I can foresee some hard times ahead. I often don't carry out plans because I'm to busy making new ones. It usually takes me time to warm up to strangers. I'm an unusually optimistic person. I wish other people were more light-hearted about things. Everything in life can be fun. I like other people to see me as an extremely happy person. There is very little reason in life for people to be unhappy. I have very little tolerance for pain and suffering. I have a lot of warm, close friendships. I usually don't see the negative side of life. I converse more easily than the average person. I like almost everyone I meet. (End of Page)
(Eight) Manners and etiquette are important to me. I would rather get my way and be disliked than be liked but not get my way. I enjoy positions of authority. I see others' weak points quickly. I like being in a position of leading others. I'm very good at standing up and fighting for what I want. I find it easy to express my dissatisfaction with things.
202
I often don't go along with what those in positions of authority recommend. I'm not afraid to confront other people. I tend, at least initially, to oppose and reject things. I am pretty readily taken in by "sob stories." I enjoy power. I have very little tolerance for other people telling me what to do. I usually gravitate to where the power is. Most people let themselves get pushed around to much. Many people are too weak, gullible, and wishy washy. Having power is very important to me. I would rather give orders than take orders. In some ways, I'm a fairly weak person. I often use vulgarity. I am very good at most everything I do. I'm almost never embarrassed or put down. I'm not a very bold, daring person. I take pride in being powerful. I'm an aggressive, self-assertive person.
(Nine) I sometimes need outside sources of excitement to get going. I use very few gestures when I talk. I very seldom get anxious. I like getting in a routine. I often play down the importance of things with humor. Most people get too worked up over things. I take pride in being calm and settled. I almost never lose my temper. Most things in life aren't that important. I am almost never upset by inner turmoil. I put a lot of forethought and energy into almost everything I do. Nothing is so sacred that it can't be joked about. I am a very complacent person. I am almost always very peaceful and calm. I like a lot of time to just do nothing. I'm an extremely easy going person. I sometimes offend people by being too pushy.
203
Very few conflicts are so big that they won't go away themselves. Almost nothing in life is that urgent. I see myself, as a very casual, carefree person. I am extremely stable and settled. I can't remember the last time I had trouble sleeping. Comfort and ease are important goals for me. There has been relatively little conflict and turmoil in my life. While there are some differences, most people are pretty much the same.
(One) I keep things neat and in their place. I spend considerable time in the way I groom and dress. I put a lot of effort into correcting my faults. I'm often bothered because things just aren't the way they should be. I am slow but methodical. I often worry about how I am doing. I seem almost compelled to set things right. I am often on edge. I often get impatient with myself. I find myself never satisfied with the way things are. I often resent people making demands on my time. I'm very particular. I am often restless and fidgety. I very much dislike being hurried. I often blame myself for not doing better. I worry about things a great deal. I'm very hard to please. I especially hate to waste time. I often get quite upset with the way other people do things. I am often late. I take more pride in doing something right than most people seem to. I often wonder if the way I'm doing something is really the best way. I feel compelled to fight sloppiness, to clean things up, to impose order. I'm a perfectionist.
204
Somehow, I'm never satisfied; I can never get things good enough. (End of Page)
205
Notes
^The number in parentheses indicates the type scale that this item represents. These numbers did not appear on the test inventories administered to the subjects.
^The scales were not identified on the test inventories given to the subjects.
3Items were grouped by type and three types were included per page.
APPENDIX C
ORDER OF TEST ADMINISTRATION FOR WORKSHOPS
206
207
Table 14 Order of Test Administration for Workshops
Workshop 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Order^ PVWZ
PVWZ
PVWZ
PZVW
PZVW
PVWZ
PVWZ
VZPW
PVWZ
WVPZ
PZVW
PVWZ
PVWZ
Nb
16
13
21
22
24
21
17
18
15
10
14
24
50
Males 9
3
8
8
9
16
6
13
6
4
6
6
12
Females 7
10
13
14
15
5
11
5
9
6
8
18
38
White 14
13
20
20
23
18
12
17
12
7
13
14
48
Black 2
0
1
2
0
2
5
1
3
3
1
7
2
Other 0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
14 VPZW 28 10 18 17
15 PVWZ
16 PVWZ 50 18 32 40 10
^rder in which the inventories were administered. Cohen-Palmer Inventory (P), Vocational Preference Inventory (V), Wagner Inventory (W), and Zinkle Inventory (Z).