Reversible Relationship between Quantitative and Qualitative Data in Self-Consciousness Research: A Normative Semiotic Model for the Phenomenological Dialogue between Data and Capta

Reversible Relationship between Quantitative

and Qualitative Data in Self-Consciousness

Research: A Normative Semiotic Model for the

Phenomenological Dialogue between Data and

Capta

MARIANE L. DE SOUZA1, WILLIAM B. GOMES1 andSHERRI MCCARTHY1Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; 2Northern Arizona University.

Abstract. The aim of this study was to explore modes of integration of quantitative andqualitative data to verify existence of psychological constructs. Data obtained with a Likert-

type rating scale and with narrative accounts of significant life-events were compared andintegrated via logical analysis to examine the psychological construct of self-consciousness.Undergraduates between 17 and 32 years of age (78 females and 23 males) participated.Psychometric analysis of the scale classified the subjects’ focus of self-consciousness (public

and private) into three levels: high, average or low. Independent judges evaluated self-con-sciousness profiles from the narrative accounts. Analysis verified the compatibility betweenself-consciousness scale measurements and self-consciousness profiles on narrative accounts.

The results illustrate possibilities for and limitations of such comparisons, and also suggestcriteria for comparing the same phenomenon in different contexts. Guidelines for choice ofinstrumentation in gathering data for research and practice are also presented.

Key words: phenomenology, quantity, quality, self-consciousness, measurement issues.

1. Background

The ongoing controversy in psychology over qualitative vs. quantitativeresearch focuses on three main points. First, researchers with a historicaltradition of quantitative analysis tend to rely on statistical formulas toanalyze data. Second, researchers with a historical tradition of qualitativeanalysis focus on the differences between quantitative and qualitative anal-ysis, arguing for the greater potential of qualitative methods (Burman, 1997).Third, a growing number of researchers avoid competition between quanti-tative and qualitative methods by developing strategies for a productivesharing of research experiences (Niaz, 1997). This new trend advances

Quality & Quantity (2005) 39: 199–215 � Springer 2005DOI 10.1007/s11135-004-2968-7

analytical procedures for integrating the two types of data in a rich stream ofcombinations where the basic aspects and contributions of each method arestressed (Nelson et al.,1995; Kuhn and Lao, 1998; Tolman and Szalacha,1999).

We used the psychological construct of self-consciousness to explore thecombined use of qualitative and quantitative data. The basic methodologicalassumption is that the combination is not only desirable but also necessary toimprove research interpretation and discussion (Newman and Benz, 1998).The focus is the problematic relation between context and choice in researchdesign (Lanigan, 1992; 1994). Context and choice serve as references to definethe main differences between data gathered on qualitative and quantitativeinstruments. From the perspective of Communication Theory (Lanigan,1992) a quantitative instrument such as a scale or a questionnaire establishesa choice in context. The respondent must make a forced choice from among aspecified number of items or respond to specific questions about a particularstate or event. A qualitative instrument such as an open interview offers abroader choice of context for responses. Constrained choice allows for moreefficient analysis; broader context may offer a truer picture of the state orevent, although interpretation and analysis of such data may be moreproblematic and time-consuming. Discussion of appropriate ways to com-bine both types of data in psychological research continues in the literature.

1.1. SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS AS A MEASURABLE CONSTRUCT

To advance this discussion, we took theoretical constructs in psychology,public and private self-consciousness (Fenigstein et al., 1975), and asked thebasic ontological question: What are public and private self-consciousness?Are they constructs derived from a Likert-type instrument or independentconstructs derived from each individual’s perspective of self? Our hypotheseswere that: (a) public and private self-consciousness are valid psychologicalconstructs; (b) the constructs would be evident both on scales designed forquantitative analysis and through qualitative analysis based on self-report ofsignificant life events, and (c) analysis of data from the two types of self-report measures would provide consistent and compatible descriptions ofindividuals’ perceptions of their levels of public and private self-conscious-ness.

1.1.1. Quantitative Analysis of Self-consciousness

In the mid-1970s, researchers (Fenigstein, 1987) began to test a group ofitems to examine Duval and Wicklund’s (l972) theory about objective self-awareness. The items were administered to several large samples of indi-viduals and factorial analysis of the data showed three factors, which were

200 MARIANE L. DE SOUZA ET AL.

named Private Self-Consciousness (PRSC), Public Self-Consciousness(PUSC) and Social Anxiety (SAN). The Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenig-stein et al. l975) resulted from this research, and the private and publicaspects measured by the scale were defined as personality traits. Privateself-consciousness refers to the tendency one has to focus on personal innerexperiences such as thoughts, memories and feelings. Public self-con-sciousness concerns characteristics that can be observed by others, such asappearance. The person demonstrating public self-consciousness is aware ofthe self as a social object. Social Anxiety, the third factor measured by thescale, is the discomfort someone feels in the presence of others. While theprivate and public aspects refer to types of self-consciousness, social anxietyrefers to an individual’s reactions to self-consciousness (Fenigstein et al.,1975).

The constructs measured by the scale, whether real in a phenomenologicalsense or not, were readily accepted for both psychological research and psy-chological practice. Recent studies have related self-consciousness to physicaland mental health in the fields of clinical and health psychology (Hoyer andKlein, 2000) and psychopathology (Scandell, 2001). The construct has beenrefined and there is currently discussion in these fields about the distinctionbetween self-reflectiveness, which relates to negative outcomes, and internalstate awareness, which relates to positive outcomes as two facets of privateself-consciousness (Creed and Funder, 1998; Silvia, 1999).

The Self-Consciousness Scale has been translated into several languagesand utilized for research in many countries including Mexico, Italy, Sweden,Germany, Switzerland, Holland, China and Brazil (see Heinemann, 1979;Vleeming and Engles, 1981; Nystedt and Smari, 1989; Banos et al. 1990;Comunian, 1994; Shek, 1994; Grob, 1995; Texiera and Gomes, 1995, 1996).Our study utilizes the Brazilian version of this scale (Texiera and Gomes,1995) to examine the relationship between qualitative and quantitative datagathered on the psychological construct of self-consciousness.

1.1.2. Qualitative Analysis of Self-consciousness

The qualitative analysis we utilized for comparison to quantitative dataderived from the Brazilian Self-Consciousness Scale was based on a writtennarrative of an important life event. The research about life-events has beenconcerned with the impact of life changes in the development of lifeexperience (Sarason et al., 1978), and the relation of desirability of life eventsto stress and mental disease (Vinokur and Selzer, 1975). Most recently, lifeevents have been studied to assess subjective well-being (Suh et al., 1996) andto examine the relation between diseases (e.g., cancer and depression) to apatients’ life history and significant life events (Suedfeld and Bluck, 1993;

201A NORMATIVE SEMIOTIC MODEL

Grob, 1995). Accounts of life events have a narrative structure that variesaccording to the narrator’s level of involvement with the event. The narrativemay be analyzed according to thematic choice, and through the correspon-dence between discourse style and speaker’s characteristics and environment(Bardin, 1977/1994).

In summary, the two instruments we selected for this study were a scaledesigned to measure self-consciousness quantitatively and narrative accountsof life-events to measure self-consciousness qualitatively. Let us now furtherexamine the literature regarding the relationship between qualitative andquantitative data analysis.

1.2. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE

ANALYSIS

Newman and Benz (1998) remind us the philosophical roots of qualitativeand quantitative research are in the naturalistic and the positivisticapproaches to science, respectively. As a consequence, they note, the debateamong researchers is based upon philosophical differences about what con-stitutes reality and whether or not it is measurable. Despite this discussion,they conclude, students continue to be prepared for conducting research in aneither–or dichotomous world. Students leave their universities either as well-trained statisticians, or as competent cultural anthropologists, methodolog-ically weak in quantitative research. The authors argue that the twoapproaches coexist in the research world and are part of an interactivecontinuum. Contemporary scientific methodology should be inductive as wellas deductive and objective as well as subjective. The use of this interactivecontinuum requires a definition of science that utilizes methods of traditionallogicians, of empiricists and of naturalists. The fundamental assumption isthat each research question dictates the scientific methodology to be utilized,what data to collect and what to do with that data once it is collected. Theinteractive continuum model defines qualitative methods and quantitativemethods separately according to the form of logic inherent within each –inductive and deductive, respectively. Each approach (inductive-qualitativeor deductive-quantitative) adds something to knowledge by building on theinformation derived from the other approach. Qualitative research, with aninductive perspective, is theory building and, therefore, the end is with the-ory. Quantitative research, with a deductive perspective, is theory testing and,therefore, begins with theory. Thus, in the interactive continuum model, thetheory is neither the end nor the beginning of a scientific investigation, butrather part of a dynamic cycle that combines both quantitative and quali-tative research procedures to gather information.

A similar discussion appears in Lanigan (1994). Research is defined as asymbolic activity in which evidence is mediated by a shaping experience

202 MARIANE L. DE SOUZA ET AL.

(observation) into consciousness and measured via humanistic or naturalisticmeans. Lanigan (1994) asserts that the use of the term naturalistic to definequalitative research is unfortunate, since the positivistic view of science that isalso based on ‘‘nature’’. The terms cultural studies and interpretative studiesare becoming standard synonyms for qualitative research. In fact, Guba andLincoln (1994, p. 105) changed the term naturalistic to constructivist, as theysaid: ‘‘We acknowledge at once our own commitment to constructivismwhich we earlier called ‘naturalistic inquiry... ’’

Lanigan (1994) specifies the relation between quantitative and qualitativecriteria in the opposition between method and evidence, data (quod eratdemonstradum; which was to be demonstrated), and capta (quod erat inveni-endum; which was to be found out), and information (probability differen-tiation) and communication (possibility differentiation). In the humanistic,comprehensive or interpretative condition, capta is taken as evidence andcharacterizes the methodology of discovery. The benefit of this research isthat the qualitative judgment makes possible exact and abstract descriptions(representations). On the other hand, in the empirical or positivist scientificmodels, Lanigan notes on p. 111 (1994): ‘‘the symbology of research can be‘evidence’ that is mediated by converting consciousness (measurement) intoexperience (observation)’’. The result is data, that which is given as evidenceand characterizes the methodology of invention. The benefit of research withthis methodology is the fact that a quantitative judgment allows precisionand generalization in attribution (prediction). The positivistic researchmethod, a quantitative approach, requires an information theory formulatedas a context of given choice (data). A humanistic approach to researchrequires a communication theory formulated as a choice of context (capta).This proposition moves away from reductionism, because the differencesbetween these two approaches are considered.

1.3. THE IMPORTANCE OF REASONING IN SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

Regardless of the approach, logical reasoning must still govern scientificinquiry. The present study advances the continuing discussion on qualitativeand quantitative criteria through a conjunction of four principles of infer-ential reasoning based on Peirce’s (1931–1958) normative semiotic models.These principles are: (1) abduction (Rule + Result = Case [particular, aposteriori], (2) induction (Case + Result = Rule), (3) deduction (Rule +Case = Result) and (4) adduction (Result + Rule = Case [universal, apriori]). Induction and deduction are two well-known logical concepts. Thefirst refers to a logic that affirms the consequent and indicates probability.The second refers to a logic that affirms the antecedent and guarantees theconclusion. Abduction is a concept that appears first in Aristotle and wasused by Pierce to name a process of forming an original explanatory

203A NORMATIVE SEMIOTIC MODEL

hypothesis or, simply, to introduce a new idea. It is akin to creative thought.Adduction is a reasoning that moves by addition rather than deduction.Several results are combined, or added together and considered evidence fora universal ‘‘case’’. Studies in psychology employing many methods andrelying on replication to confirm results are an example of scientific reasoningthat relies primarily on adductive logic.

1.4. RESEARCH, REASONING AND REALITY

Just as we assume both quantitative and qualitative data are necessary toconfirm a particular psychological construct, we also assume that all fourtypes of logical reasoning noted above should converge at the same con-clusion if, indeed, that conclusion is a valid representation of ‘‘reality’’. Thisshould be the true goal of all research touted as ‘‘multi-trait/multi-method’’.

In the present study, our first step was to take self-consciousness as acontext (rule) where an internal comparison (result) identified two phenom-ena (case): the expression of public and private self-consciousness. Weaccomplished this by asking participants to complete a scale designed tomeasure self-consciousness and to describe, in writing, a significant life event.Notice that in this first step, the context is an imagined experiential possi-bility. The second step used a self-report scale (inductive logic) to verify theexpected occurrence of two phenomena – the expression of private and publicconsciousness (case), through an internal and independent comparison – i.e.,statistical treatment and qualitative analysis (result), each one with its owncriteria (rule). The third step was to utilize both quantitative and qualitativeanalysis (deductive logic), as a respective context (rule) to verify the self-consciousness style in a given population (case), by internal comparison(result). Most research finishes at this point or suggests new studies and isbased on only one type of analysis, qualitative or quantitative. In contrast,our final step utilized reasoning rules worked out in an external context toeach other. So, in two different contexts – scale and narrative (rule) – anexternal comparison (quantitative and qualitative criteria) was performed(result) to establish the identity between two phenomena: findings from astandardized instrument and descriptions from self-reports about private andpublic consciousness. The convergence of several forms of reasoning and twotypes of data to establish the same psychological construct – hat of self-consciousness – is presented as an illustration of the use of scientificmethodology and reasoning as a ‘‘philosopher’s stone’’ to establish phe-nomenological reality. It is also presented, since the two types of analysisagreed, as support for using ‘‘Occum’s Razor’’ in selecting appropriate re-search methodology once a particular construct is established as valid, con-sidering cost, benefit and context as guiding criteria for determining the typeof data to be collected.

204 MARIANE L. DE SOUZA ET AL.

2. Method

2.1. PARTICIPANTS, INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURE

One hundred one undergraduates completed the Brazilian version of the Self-Consciousness Scale (Teixeira and Gomes, 1995) and wrote a significant life-event during two of their regular classes at a federal university in southernBrazil. The sample was comprised of students from three courses of study(majors): Psychology (34.6%); Education (25.8%) and Health Sciences(39.6%). Participants included 78 women and 23 men between 17 and 32years of age (mean age: 22.3 years; SD = 5.6).

The Self-consciousness Scale comprises three subscales: Private Self-con-sciousness, Public Self-consciousness and Social Anxiety. Only the first twosubscales were used. The Private Self-consciousness subscale has nine itemsfocusing on personal inner experiences, as exemplified by the items ‘‘I amgenerally attentive to my inner feelings’’, and ‘‘I am constantly examining mymotives’’. In contrast, the Public Self-consciousness subscale has seven itemsfocusing on characteristics which can be observed by other people, asexemplified by the items ‘‘I usually worry about making a good impression’’,and ‘‘I am usually aware of my appearance’’. The rating scale ranges from 0(‘‘I totally disagree’’) to 4 (‘‘I totally agree’’). The Brazilian version has anacceptable reliability: 0.73 (coefficient alpha) and 0.89 (test–retest).

Data was collected during two separate class periods. During the firstclass, 41 students answered the scale and 61 students wrote a significant life-event account. During the second class, one week later, the 61 students whohad previously written a life-event narrative completed the scale while theother 41 students wrote significant life-event accounts.

2.2. DATA ANALYSIS

Mean, standard deviation, frequency and reliability coefficients (Cronbach’salpha) were computed for scores from the Self-Consciousness Scale. In orderto assess differences in response based on gender, male and female scoreswere also compared via t-tests. Narratives were assessed via content analysis,evaluation by independent judges and correspondence analysis.

Content analysis. Qualitative content analysis, based on criteria suggestedby Patton (1980), was used to identify both thematic amplitude and possiblemeanings of a significant life event. Frequency and intensity of words relatedto particular, self-identified themes within each narrative account were noted.

Evaluation by independent judges. The narrative accounts were then sub-mitted to four independent judges for evaluation of self-consciousness profilesbased on a protocol formulated from the scale items. The protocol for eval-uation of self-consciousness profiles defined private self-consciousnessdescriptors as descriptions of: (1) affective states; (2) cognitive states; (3)

205A NORMATIVE SEMIOTIC MODEL

daydreams, and (4) bodily states (e.g., pain, hunger, stomachache, etc.). Publicself-consciousness descriptors were defined as descriptions of: (1) personalappearance (body attributes, clothes); (2) personal style (posture, coordinationof movement, voice tone, manners), and (3) ‘‘what people think about me’’.

Statistical correspondence analysis. Statistical correspondence analysis, amethod for representing data in a Euclidian space so that the results can bevisually examined for structure (examples can be found in Weller andRomney, 1990), was used to verify the compatibility between data and capta.

3. Results

3.1. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS: SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS SCALE

The reliability coefficient for the Self-Consciousness Scale (Cronbach’s Alpha)was 0.71. Table I presents mean and standard deviation of scores for privateand public subscales. t-tests were performed to examine possible significant sexdifferences on the scores for each subscale. No significant differences werefound between women and men for either private self-consciousness (t ¼ 0.48;p ¼ 0.62) or public self-consciousness (t ¼ 1.22; p ¼ 0.22).

3.2. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: SIGNIFICANT LIFE-EVENT NARRATIVES

Few constraints were given to subjects regarding the significant event theydescribed, in order to allow for as broad a context as possible. The significantevent could be an episode either recently occurring (last week, month or year)or remotely occurring (early years of narrator’s life). The significant eventcould be positive (accomplishment, joy or transcendence) or negative (frus-tration, lost or sadness). The importance of the event was related to theemotional intensity experienced by the narrator. Many resulting narrativesrelated to ordinary events such as problems and accomplishments in career,

Table I. Means and standard deviations for each subscale of the translated self-consciousnessscale for men, women and total sample

Mena Womenb Totalc

Subscale M SD M SD M SD

Private Self-Consciousnessd 24.6 3.9 25.5 4.1 25.0 4.0

Public Self-Consciousnesse 19.7 4.2 20.8 3.6 20.5 3.7

a n = 23.b n = 78.c N = 101.d The range was from 15 to 36.e The range was from 8 to 28.

206 MARIANE L. DE SOUZA ET AL.

education or family life. Other narratives related to affective or cognitiveevents such as changes in spiritual orientation or religious life. The changescited by participants included changing professions, economic status, spousesand schedules. Psychological changes such as growing up, changing self-image, or adopting new perspectives about specific issues or people were alsodescribed. In fact, the narratives obtained in this study were close in contentto the original findings of Sarason et al. (1978) in their research on significantlife-event narratives. Narratives were read and rated for intensity and forindications of public and private self-consciousness.

Comparing self-consciousness with life-event accounts. The comparisonbetween quantitative and qualitative data required some adjustments. It wasnecessary to establish cut-off points on scale scores to create three groups –low, average and high – for both private and public self-consciousness. Forprivate self-consciousness, low scores ranged from 15 to 22; average, scoresfrom 23 to 29; high, scores from 30 to 36. For public self-consciousness,low was from 8 to 16; average, from 17 to 22; high, from 23 to 28. Next,participants were classified into nine groups to match the combined resultsof private and public self-consciousness, ranging from low to high on bothsubscales. The nine possible groups into which subjects could be placedaccording to their scores included: (1) Low Private Self-Consciousness(PRS) and low Public Self-Consciousness (PUS); (2) Low PRS and averagePUS; (3) Low PRS and high PUS; (4) Average PRS and low PUS; 5)Average PRS and average PUS; 6) Average PRS and high PUS; (7) HighPRS and low PUS; (8) High PRS and average PUS; and (9) High PRS andhigh PUS. No subjects fell in group number 7 (High PRS and Low PUS).See Figure 1.

Four independent judges, trained graduate psychology students, read andrated self-consciousness profiles from the narrative accounts, placing themsubjectively into the possible categories depicted above. All four judges’evaluations agreed on 87% of the narrative accounts from the total sample.Narrative accounts with unequal judges’ evaluations point out the difficultyof subjective evaluation inherent in qualitative interpretation of data. Forpurposes of our subsequent analysis, we resolved the problem by with-drawing these cases but, by doing so, a bias was introduced and potentiallyvaluable data was lost. Similar types of loss occur in quantitative analysiswhen problems of dealing with outlying scores or cases are dealt with.

Similarly, in order to compare data from the scale and capta from theaccounts, the participants who scored Average+Average, Low+Averageand Average+Low in both private and public self-consciousness wereexcluded. These self-consciousness profiles were not ‘‘pure cases’’, from atheoretical point of view. In order to establish constructs of public and pri-vate self-consciousness, it seemed more useful to compare the extreme casesand exclude the average, or middle scores. Therefore, 40 cases remained for

207A NORMATIVE SEMIOTIC MODEL

this final comparison: (1) Low PRS with Low PUS (n ¼ 5); (2) Low PRS withHigh PUS (n ¼ 1); (3) AveragePRS with High PUS (n ¼ 22) (4) High PRSwith Average PUS (n ¼ 5) and (4) High PRS with High PUS (n ¼ 7).Table II compares the self-consciousness profile indicated on Self-Con-sciousness Scale and self-consciousness profile identified by independentjudges in the significant life-event account for these cases.

Correspondence analysis (see Figure 2) confirms a tendency of associationbetween data (from scale) and capta (from life-event account). There is amoderate association tendency between the profile High PRS + High PUS(from scale) and SPR descriptor identified on the life event account, as well asan association between the profile Low PRS + Low PUS with the PRSdescriptor. There is also a strong association between the profile Low PRSwith High PUS (from scale) and the PRS and PUS descriptors (from lifeevent account). However, this must be interpreted cautiously since there isjust one Low PRS + High PUS (from scale) in the sample.

4. Discussion

The correspondence between scale scores and qualitative ratings can beinterpreted to mean that public and private self-consciousness are validconstructs rather than an artifact of a scale designed to display thesestates by the manner in which choices are constrained within context. Theconsistency may also be interpreted to show that both qualitative andquantitative methods result in similar conclusions about the constructswithin individuals. Thus, in future studies of the construct, employing

Figure 1. Classification of combined profiles of private and public self-consciousness.

208 MARIANE L. DE SOUZA ET AL.

both methods simultaneously would be redundant and the decision as towhich type of data to collect should be based on criteria such asavailability, efficiency and purpose. In counseling practice, narrative ac-counts may be sufficient for therapists to use in forming judgments aboutthe levels of these constructs within clients. In studies with large samples,which employ self-consciousness as a variable, scale scores, which can bemore readily obtained and more efficiently analyzed, are sufficient.

Table II. Self-consciousness profiles from scale and self-consciousness descriptors from life-events accounts in the reduced sample (27 cases)

Case Profile (scale) PRS + PUS Account descriptors

010 A+H PRS

013 A+H PRS

016 A+H PRS and PUS

018 L+L PRS and PUS

022 A+H PRS

026 H+H PRS

027 A+H PRS

034 L+L PRS

046 H+H PRS and PUS

048 A+H PRS

052 A+H PRS and PUS

062 H+A PRS

067 A+H PRS and PUS

069 H+A PRS and PUS

072 L+L PRS

074 H+H PRS

075 H+H PRS

079 A+H PRS and PUS

080 H+A PRS

081 L+H PRS and PUS

082 A+H PRS and PUS

084 A+H PRS

088 L+L PRS

089 A+H PRS

091 H+H PRS

099 A+H PRS

100 A+H PRS

Total H+H = 05 L+H = 01 PRS and PUS = 09

L+L = 04 A+H = 14 PRS = 18

H+A = 03

209A NORMATIVE SEMIOTIC MODEL

The results also suggest additional questions: (1) How is the predominantoccurrence of private self-consciousness descriptors and the non-isolatedoccurrence of public self-consciousness descriptors in the accounts bestexplained? Does this indicate a tendency of those who select careers in psy-chology, education and health sciences to demonstrate particular levels ofthese constructs? (2) Why, if both qualitative and quantitative means areequally effect means of measuring the constructs, was the correlation betweendata sets as depicted in Figure 2 not perfectly linear? and (3) How can therelation between these two indicators best be captured as an evidence ofreversibility of quantitative and qualitative data in capturing an establishedpsychological phenomenon?

According to Buss (1980, p. 17) ‘‘Private self-awareness can be inducedin several different ways’’. Small mirrors, which reflect just our own faces,direct attention related to private self-awareness to aspects such as bodilyprocesses, emotions, fantasies and self-evaluation. In the same way, writinga diary can direct the attention to private aspects of oneself. In this case,however, if the individual writes a recital of the events of the day – themeals eaten, the people met, the classes attended – the attention is obvi-ously directed toward his or her public self. Writing a significant life-event

PRS+PUS

Dimension 1

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

,5

0,0

-,5

-1,0

Scale

Event

High+AverAver+High

Low+High

Low+Low

High+High

PRS&PUS

PRS

Figure 2. Correspondence analysis between data (self-consciousness scale) and capta(life-events accounts).

210 MARIANE L. DE SOUZA ET AL.

in one’s life history as well as writing a diary can be private self-awarenessinducers. Predominance of private self-consciousness descriptors and theabsence of exclusively public self-consciousness descriptors in the accountsmay be an artifact of this direction of attention inward. Buss (1980) sug-gests, however, that individuals with high private self-consciousness are soself-reflective that inducers would not elevate their private self-awareness.On the other hand, individuals with high or low scores in public self-consciousness show differences just in the presence of public self-awarenessinducers.

That different susceptibility to inducers may explain both the presence ofprivate self-consciousness descriptors and the exclusive presence of publicself-consciousness descriptors even in accounts of individuals who scoredhigh in public self-consciousness. Also, this explains the presence of publicself-consciousness descriptors even in accounts of those low in public self-consciousness. These differential responses to a task which focuses attentionon public and private arenas, rather than traits peculiar to those who selectparticular occupations, could explain the findings referred to in the firstquestion above and also explain why the correlation referred to in the secondquestion is not perfect. A study comparing individuals from several differentmajors or careers on levels of public and private self-consciousness, utilizingscale scores, would help to answer the first question. Addressing the second issomewhat more problematic.

As far as the third question is concerned, the connection among dynamicstyle, and the private and public self-consciousness descriptors utilized by theonly individual in the study with a Low + High score on the scale confirms,in a qualitative, case study format, the relation between self-consciousnessprofiles from narrative accounts and self-consciousness profiles from scalescore. The other narratives also tended, generally, to match scores, even incases of lows in both private and public self-consciousness. The connectionamong descriptive style, private self-consciousness descriptor, High + Highprofiles and Low + Low profiles confirmed the tendency of the inducersnoted by Buss (1980). Thus, the moderate association tendency between Highprivate self-consciousness + High public and private self-consciousnessprofile descriptors identified in the account, as well as the association betweenLow private + Low public and private descriptors in accounts indicated inthe correspondence analysis supports the reversibility of quantitative andqualitative data.

5. Conclusion

In this study, the first step of the comparison met an apparent limitation ofinstrumental order: while the scale we used evaluated level of self-con-sciousness, the significant life-event account provided a self-awareness

211A NORMATIVE SEMIOTIC MODEL

profile. This difficulty was overcome by using the scale score as a fixedparameter and the account of self-awareness as an induced profile. Theprivate and public self-consciousness profiles on the Self-Consciousness Scaleare defined as personality traits instead of personality states. In that sense,the scale ascribes a context to a participant that may not be the same contextin which the participant chooses to answer the questions. However, we arguethat such contrast is not only desirable, but also necessary. The theoreticalassumption behind any scale is rooted in information theory, which reducesuncertainty by exclusion – that is, probability differentiation. Simply for-mulated, a scale is a context of constrained choice; strictly formulated, a scaleis ‘‘the context of a choice by correlation which entails a context by relation’’(Lanigan, 1992, p. 211). The life-event account, on the other hand, ascribes tothe participant the possibility to choose the context in which he or she de-scribes an experience. The theoretical assumption behind the life-event ac-count is rooted in communication theory, which asserts certainty bycombination – that is, possibility differentiation. Simply formulated, theaccount functions as a choice of context; strictly formulated, the account is‘‘the choice of a context by relation which entails a choice by correlation’’.(Lanigan, 1992, p. 210). Note that the terms relation, correlation and func-tion are used in Hjelmslev’s (1943/1961) conception of the underlying logic oflanguage. Thus, relation means ‘‘Both/And function’’; correlation means‘‘Either/Or function’’; and ‘‘function is the dependence that fulfills the con-ditions for an analysis’’ (Lanigan, 1992, p. 229). In turn, analysis ‘‘isdescription of an object by uniform dependencies of other objects on it andon each other’’ (Lanigan, 1992, p. 229).

Quantitative or qualitative data alone are incomplete to verify a conceptor to establish reversible relations between each other. The need to establish acomplementary relationship and to verify a construct is a necessary first stepin psychological research. Establishing this relationship is a function of theadductive analysis of semiotics, which in different contexts (scale andaccounts; Rule), through an external comparison (quantitative or qualitative;Result) establishes the identity of two phenomena (self-consciousness clas-sifying and profile; Case).

Even so, difficulties in design and interpretation remain. For example,the manner in which comparison between quantitative and qualitative dataoccurred in our study illustrates an interesting point. The quantitativeinstrument was taken as a context for the qualitative instrument. Thequalitative interpretations utilized were constrained by the definitionsoperationalized by the quantitative instrument. Thus, the scale provided theparameters for the analysis of the accounts. The research procedure’scentral focus was qualifying the profiles through the quantitative opera-tionalization. That procedure mirrored a common situation in present-daypsychological research: A mixed research design combines quantitative and

212 MARIANE L. DE SOUZA ET AL.

qualitative methods in order to either use data to ensure the validity ofcapta or use capta to ensure the validity of data. In either case, the latter isdefined and constrained by the former, potentially damaging one of theinstruments. The quantitative instrument in such a combination may loseits predictive validity and, consequently, its major contribution to psycho-logical research is lost. The qualitative instrument, if used as a pilot pro-cedure in a quantitative research design, does not ensure an accurateunderstanding and description in a quantitative sense of the object underinvestigation.

In our present study, we assumed (abductive logic) that quantitative andqualitative methods could serve as contexts for each other, and there is noinfallible way to assess the validity of this assumption. Such logic, by its verynature, is circular. It may not be possible to overcome this basic flaw of logic,save through Neitzschian metaphysics. Regardless, the starting point ofsound psychological research should be to clarify the epistemologicalassumptions inherent in the design. In utilizing the Self-Consciousness Scale,our major assumption was the observable similarity between a number ob-tained through a scale measuring level of a particular trait and the actualexistence of a specific amount of that trait in ‘‘reality’’. In utilizing writtennarratives, our major assumption was the comprehensive similarity betweenthe narrative description and the actual ‘‘reality’’ of each subject. We soughtto maintain the integrity of each research method by emphasizing essentialdifferences and logically deriving a suitable means of comparing the twodifferent types of data.

We assert the presence of self-consciousness descriptors in the narrativeaccounts compatible with scale scores, considering the caveats noted above,is evidence of the reversibility between qualitative and quantitative datameasuring the constructs of private and public self-consciousness, and alsothat these constructs are indeed ‘‘real’’. Comparing instruments of differentorders (qualitative and quantitative) may be interpreted as a weakness ofresearch design if a correspondence between results from the two has al-ready been empirically demonstrated. On the other hand, if a hypotheticalpsychological construct has not yet been confirmed and a correspondencebetween qualitative and quantitative measures has not been demonstrated,comparing instruments of a different order is warranted. When makingsuch comparisons, however, well-reasoned procedures, derived from anongoing phenomenological dialogue between data and capta should bedefined. We may, in the final critique of pure reason, always be required asmortals to simply take ‘‘our best guess’’ but we hope the semiotic modelwe described here will assist students of research methods – and evenresearcher-practitioners in psychology – to avoid thoughtless use ofmethodologies and to refine their guesses and make them better in thefuture.

213A NORMATIVE SEMIOTIC MODEL

References

Banos, R. M., Belloch, A. & Perpina, C. (1990). Self-consciousness Scale: A study of Spanishhousewives. Psychyological Reports 66: 771–774.

Bardin, L. (1977). L’analyse of contenu [Content Analysis]. Paris: Presses Universitaires deFrance.

Burman, E. (1997). Minding the gap: Positivism, psychology, and the politics of qualitative

methods. Journal of Social Issues 53: 785–801.Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and Social Anxiety. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and

Company.

Comunian, A. L. (1994). Self-consciousness scale dimensions: An Italian adaptation. Psy-chological Reports 74: 483–489.

Creed, A. T. & Funder, D. C. (1999). Shining the light on private self-consciousness: Aresponse to Silvia (1999). European Journal of Personality 13: 539–542.

Duval, S. & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A Theory of Objective Self-awareness. New York:Academic Press.

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. & Buss, A. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assess-

ment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 43: 522–527.Fenigstein, A. (1987). On the nature of public and private self-consciousness. Journal of

Personality 55: 543–554.

Grob, A. (1995). Subjective well-being and significant life-events across the life span. SwissJournal of Psychology 54: 3–18.

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, California: Sage, pp.

105–117.Heinemann, W. (1979). The assessment of private and public self-consciousness: A German

replication. European Journal of Social Psychology 9: 331–337.

Hjelmslev, L. (1961). Prolegomena to a theory of language (F. J. Whitfield, Trans.). Madison:University of Wisconsin Press (original work published in Danish 1943).

Hoyer, J. & Klein, A. (2000) Self reflection and well-being: Is there a healthy amount of

introspection? Psychological Reports, 86: 135–141.Kuhn, D. & Lao, J. (1998). Contemplation and conceptual change: Integrating perspectives

from social and cognitive psychology. Developmental Review 18: 125–154.

Lanigan, R. (1992). The Human Science of Communicology. Pittsburgh: Duquesne UniversityPress.

Lanigan, R. (1994). Capta versus data: Method and evidence in communicology. HumanStudies 17: 109–130.

Lincoln, V. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Nelson, G., Wiltshire, C., Hall, G. B., Peirson, L. & Walsh-Bowers, R. (1995). Psychiatric

consumer/survivors’ quality of life: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Journal of

Community Psychology 23: 216–233.Newman, I. & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative–Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring

the Interactive Continuum. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Niaz, M. (1997). Can we integrate qualitative and quantitative research in science education?Science and Education 6: 291–300.

Nystedt, L. & Smari, J. (1989). Assessment of the Fenigstein, Scheier and Buss Self-con-

sciousness Scale: A Swedish translation. Journal of Personality Assessment 53: 342–352.Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Peirce, C. S. (1931-1958). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Pierce, 8 vols. In C. Hart-

shorne and P. Weiss (eds.), Vols. 1–6, and A. W. Burks (ed.), Vols. 7–8 (See Vol. 5

paragraphs 127; 145; 171; 188). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

214 MARIANE L. DE SOUZA ET AL.

Rime, B. & Le Bon, C. (1984). Le concept de conscience de soi et ses operationnalisations.

L’annee Psychologique 84: 535–553.Sarason, I. G., Johnson, J. H. & Siegel, J. M. (1978). Assessing the impact of life changes:

Development of the life experiences survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

46: 932–946.Scandell, D. J. (2001). Is self-reflectiveness an unhealthy aspect of private self-consciousness?

Journal of Psychology, 135: 451–461.

Scheier, M. F. & Carver, C. S. (1985). The self-consciousness scale: A revised version for usewith general populations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 15: 687–699.

Shek, D. T. L. (1994). Assessment of private and public self-consciousness: A Chinese repli-

cation. Journal of Clinical Psychology 50: 341–348.Silvia, P. J. (1999). Explaining personality or explaining variance? A comment on Creed and

Funder (1998). European Journal of Personality 13: 533–538.Suedfeld, P. & Bluck, S. (1993). Changes in integrative complexity accompanying signifi-

cant life events: Historical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64:124–130.

Suh, E., Diener, E. & Fujita, F. (1996). Events and subjective well-being: Only recent events

matter. Journal of personality and social psychology 70: 1091–1102.Teixeira, M. A. P. & Gomes, W. B. (1995). Self-consciousness Scale: A Brazilian version.

Psychological Reports 77: 423–427.

Teixeira, M. A. P. & Gomes, W. B. (1996). Escala de autoconsciencia revisada (EAC-R):Caracterısticas psicometricas numa amostra de adolescentes brasileiros. [Revised self-consciousness to Brazilian adolescents]. Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicologia 48: 78–92.

Tolman, D. L. & Szalacha, L. A. (1999). Dimensions of desire: Bridging qualitative andquantitative methods in a study of female adolescent sexuality. Psychology of WomenQuarterly 23: 7–39.

Vinokur, A. & Selzer, M. L. (1975). Desirable versus undesirable life events: Their relationship

to stress and mental distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32: 329–337.Vleeming, R. G. & Engelse, J. A. (1981). Assessment of private and public self-consciousness:

A Dutch replication. Journal of Personality Assessment 45: 385–389.

Weller, S.C. & Romney, A.K. (1990) Metric Scaling: Correspondence Analysis, Sage Uni-versity Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 07-075. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Mariane Lima de Souza is a doctoral student in Developmental Psychology at Federal University of Rio

Grande do Sul. William Barbosa Gomes is a professor of history of psychology in the graduate psychology

program at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Sherri McCarthy is an associate professor of

educational psychology in the graduate counseling and human relations program at Northern Arizona

University-Yuma. Their research interests include, theory, practice and history of psychology.

215A NORMATIVE SEMIOTIC MODEL